The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2004-10-05 Support Documentation Town Council Work Session~n~ F v~i~ ®~~ SESSI®~ A~E~®,~ 8:00 A.IiA., ®CT®BER 5, 200 !TAIL T®InIN C®UNCIL CI"I/®1IYIBERS 75 S. Frontage Road 1A/. Nail, C® 8'865 ~®TE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council wil0 consider an item. Transportation will leave IVlunicipal wilding Parking Lot promptly at 8:00 A.IN 1 • ITEl~1/T®PIC: Site Visits. (1 hr.) Marks DRB Appeal. Vail Mountain Lodge DRB Appeal. Lionshead Core Hotel Site. ~ light breakfast will be served 2• ITE~iI/T®PIC: Joint Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) /Design Review Board (DRB) /Conference Center Oversight Committee. Site Planning Update. (1 1/2 hrs.) 3• ITEIYi/T®PIC: Joint TOV /DRB Meeting. Re: Roles & Responsibilities. (30 min.) 4. George Ruther 8T(~B~I/T®PIC: PEC/DRB Update. (30 min.) 5. Russ Forrest ITE~/T®PIC: Request to discuss options foraddressing employee housing options on 1325 Westhaven Drive (the "Ruins") which is included in Special~Development District #4. (45 min.) ACTT®R8 REt~UESTE® OF C®UBVCIL: The applicant is requesting clarification of the Town's employee generation policy and for specific input on the appropriate number of employee housing unit beds that should now be required for a development project on the "Ruins" site and whether a pay in lieu option is acceptable to address a housing requirement. BACb~GR®vN® RATI®BVALE: The applicant is requesting clarification of the Town's employee generation policy and for specific input on the appropriate number of employee housing unit beds that should now be required for a development project on the "R"uins" site. This property is part of SDD # 4 which includes the entire Glen Lyon Subdivision. As part of the approval for the Glen Lyon subdivision in 1979, an employee housing requirement was placed on the subdivision which originally included 32 Employee Housing units (for the entire SDD) at a total of 27,200 sq. ft. Staff has summarized the various iterations over time of amendments to SDD #4 and how that has changed the employee housing requirement on 1325 Westhaven. In 1982, construction commenced and then stopped resulting in the present condition of the "ruins site." The Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) discussed both of the issues identified in Section VI of this memorandum on September 13, 2004. Their recommendation is provided in the staff memorandum. Working Lunch (10 min.) 6. Stan Zemler ITEM/TOPIC: Council Contributions. Staff will have Pam Brandmeyer prepared a master matrix in time for Tuesday afternoon's Judy Camp discussion on Council Contributions for'05. Please drop off your working papers first thing Tuesday morning, unless you have already done so, so Penny has time to compile them. (1 hr.) 7. Judy Camp ITEIVI/TOPIC; Discussion: - Capital Project Fund Five Year Projection. (15 min.) - Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) Fund Five Year Projection. (15 min.) 8. Pam Brandmeyer ITEM/TOPIC: Employee Anniversaries. (30 min.) Matthew Lindvall: 25 years Donald Gallegos: 25 years Mike Rose: 25 years Charlie Davis: 25 years Alan Bosworth: 20 years Tito Montoya: 20 years Leo Vasquez: 20 years Charlene Erickson: 15 years Ron Braden: 10 years David Rhoades: 10 years Eli Cisneros: 10 years Mike Knox: 10 years Susan Douglas: 10 years Mary Anne Odell 5 years Jennifer Butler: 5 years J Fred Pena: 5 years George Mascarenas: 5 years Kevin Bridges: 5 years 9. Judy Camp ITEi'~/TOPIC: Discussion: ~ Review of First Draft of General Fund Budget. (30 min) 10. I~'Eflfl/T®PIC: Information Update (10 min.) 11. ITEI~/T®fPIC: Matters from Mayor & Council (10 min.) 12. Matt Mire ITE~fl/T®PIC: Executive Session. (1 hr.) ~ Litigation Update C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b). ~ Conference w/ attorney and negotiations Re: Gore Creek Place and Lionshead Development Improvement Agreement. Pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402(4)(b)(e) 13. IT(E~fl/T®PIC: Adjournment (4:15 P.M.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START-TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BEGIN AT 12 A.M. TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2004 IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call 479-2106 voice or 479-2356 TDD for information. NiENIORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Conference Center Advisory Committee DATE:- October 5, 2004 SUBJECT: Update on the Vail Conference Center Planner: Russell Forrest PURPOSE The purpose of this worksession is to provide an update on the following items: o On August 7th, the input received from the public, Conference Center Advisory Committee, Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission, and the Town Council indicated a strong preference for alternative number 3. The Conference Center Advisory Committee met on September 22"d and is recommending alternative number 3 (alternative that involved locating parking under the conference center). The design team would like to update the Council on progress to further refine alternative number 3. o Members of the Town Council questioned the parking need for the conference center on September 21St. Staff would like to review the rational behind the projected parking demand. o Finally staff would like to review proposed -next steps. 2. B~-CKGROUi~D The Vail Town Council on April 20, 2004, authorized a series of next steps which included interviewing owner's representative firms for the Conference Center. On April 29, 2004, the Committee met to interview five owner's representative firms. On May 18, 2004, the Vail Town Council authorized the Town Manager to execute a contract with ARC to be the Town's owner's representative and funding for the first phase of this contract or $8,510. The Vail Town Council also authorized the Committee to negotiate with both Piper Jaffray and Kirtpatrick Pettis to be the Town's investment banker on this project. On June 1, 2004, the Vail Town Council voted to approve the following requests from the Committee: Authorization to engage Piper Jaffray as the Town's investment banker for the Conference Center. o Authorization to issue an RFQ for design team assistance on the Conference Center. o Request to move forward with a negotiated guaranteed maximum price (GMP) ~ process for engaging a design team and a general contractor (as opposed to a ~~ design build process). This essentially means that both the architect and general contractor will work for the Town of Vail. • Request for the Vail Town Council to approve the next phase of an owner's representative contract. The preconstruction phase of the contract would cost up to $155,774. However, the Committee is only requesting $93,212 (includes fees and reimbursables) to fund this function until a decision is made by the Vail Town Council to issue bonds which is anticipated in the November/December 2004 time frame. On June 15, 2004, the Vail Town Council reviewed and approved the following next steps: • Approval of the proposed process for engaging the public in the design team selection process. • Selectiori criteria for request for proposals. • Consideration of proposed process givens. • Review of updated project budget and interrelated parking costs, and • Consideration and review of the major points of the proposed scope of service request for proposals for design services (to be given to the top 3-4 teams selected in the qualification competition). On July 6th; the Vail Town Council reviewed and approved the following next steps: • Review the recommendation from the Committee on short-listing the design team candidates and to issue the Request for Proposals (RFP) to. the six recommended design teams. • Review and approve suggested changes to the design team selection process from the Committee. • Request permission to issue a RFP for a surveyor to survey the Lionshead parking structure site and surrounding area. On July 20, 2004 the Vail Town Council unanimously approved the following: • A contract for design services with Fentress Bradburn. • Approval of next steps for master planning the Lionshead Parking Structure/conference center site. On September 21, 2004 the Town Council, Conference Center Advisory Committee, Design Review Board, and Planning and Environmental Commission reviewed 5 alternatives site plans. In addition, the public reviewed the same alternatives on September 22"d. The near unanimous opinion from the various groups that reviewed the site plans was that alternative 3 is the preferred choice. Staff is now adjusting what the Design Team will be working on over the next two week to further refine alternative three and test this alternative versus developing other alternatives further. 2 3. DESCRIPTION OF REQUESTS A. Comments from Scoping Meetings Staff would request that the Town Council review the input received on the alternative concepts from September 22"d and 23~d B. Review Parking Assumptions FHU consulting has provided input to the Town of Vail on parking operations and circulation. They were also asked by staff to evaluate the conference center operation and determine how much additional parking would be needed for a conference center if located beside the existing Lionshead parking structure. FHU Consulting will review the parking assumptions behind the Conference Center. This will be presented at the Town Council Worksession on October Stn. The parking demand was based on the availability of parking in the Lionshead Parking structure when compared to project use of the conference center. It was assumed that 80% of conference attendees will park at their hotel and use shuttles, public buses, or walk to conference sessions. FHU was also told that the conference center must provide adequate parking so that additional parking days on the Frontage Road do not occur as the result of the conference center. C. Receive an update on Fentress Bradburn on work to date refining alternative 3 since September 21. Finally, Fentress Bradburn has begun further testing alternative 3. They are working with parking and circulations professionals on parking operations, transit alternatives, and circulation. Staff would propose that these Master Planning components be reviewed in detail on October 19tH Fentress Bradburn would like to review further refinements to the site plan as it relates to phasing, opportunities for civic and private development to pay for parking, and refined floor plans for Alternative 3 on October 5th. Based on the direction already received from the Town Council and if there are no significant concerns raised on October Stn after the update, staff would like to direct Fentress Bradburn to begin developing alternative architectural images for the facility based on Alternative 3. D. Next Steps o October 5, 2004 -Conference Center update. DRB and the PEC will be invited to attend. c\ o October 18tH: Conference Center Committee Meeting -Finalize recommendation on governance • October 19, 2004 -Town Council Meeting to review Master Plan and alternative architectural concepts. In addition, the Committee will make a recommendation on a governance structure for the conference center. • October 21: Public meeting on Architectural Character Attachment A: Public Input on Alternative Concepts Attachment B Refined plans for alternative 3 F:\Users\cdev\COUNCIL\MEMOS\04\conference center090704.doc attach ent ° 0 ~~II~ I~ ut ~ Iternaiv ®~epts General Master Plan Comments Town of Va91 Conference Center Stakeholder Meeting Comments 21 SEP 04 Brought Up By Question /Comment ~v ~ o U m ~ ~ °' ~ _~ L ._ U ~ W a. ~ o `" ~ a E Q c ~ °' a U o U 1 Parking can be dealt with more cost effectively elsewhere X 2 Need to focus on the conference center for this scope of work X 3 How was -the conference center parking requirement determined? Is X parking needed? 4 What are the differences in the floor plans for the different options X (different SF / multi vs. single level) , 5 Building the center at the E. end of the site isolates the facility. X Consider building at the W. end 6 This site is not the right location for a transit center X Development of the center on the E. side of the site is best due to the X X 7 ability to link to Dobson Ice Arena 8 Need. to develop estimated costs of proposed options further X 9 Are future funding sources possible? X What is the approximate remaining useful life of the parking structure X 10 (25 years or less, but has current operational challenges) 11 The conference center should be the focus of the master plan X 12 Minimize overloading the frontage road with the transit function X 13 Need a positive image from I-70 X 14 Keep transit functions separated from the frontage road ~ X TEAMWORK DIVIDES THE EFFORT AND MULTIPLIES THE EFFECT... Page ~ Of 1 ©2004 All Rights Reserved By p:lcurrent projects\...\DRB PEC TC Comment 21 SEP 04.x1s Architectural Resource Consultants, Inc. Options ~ & 2 T'o~-rt of !fail 21 SEP 04 Conference Center Stakeholder Meeting Comments Brought Up By Question /Comment U o ~ m ~ o ~_' ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ a ~ Q ~ ti ~ o U 1 Options 1 & 2: Lousy location for a transit center X 2 Options 1 & 2: The cost to revise/update-the parking structure seems X prohibitive 3 Eliminate Options 1, 2, & 4 and develop options 3 & 5 X X With finances fluctuating with interest rates there is no money to 4 touch the existing structure at this time, eliminating options 1, 2, 4, & X X 5 TEAMWORK DIVIDES THE EFFORT AND MULTIPLIES THE EFFECT... Page ~ Of ~ ©2004 All Righ(s Reserved By p:\current projects\...\DRB PEC TC Comment 21 SEP 04.xIs ._ Architectural Resource Consultants, Inc. Option 3 ~ Town of Vail 27 SEP 04 Conference Center Stakeholder Meeting Comments Brought Up By Question /Comment U o ~ L ~' ~ ~ . U ~ w m ~ `~ E Q _ ._ c ~ o U 1 Option 3: Not sure the proposed modifications create the desired X connection between the villages 2 Option 3: Positive effect on vehicular and pedestrian access X 3 Option 3: Good to account for future flexibility ~ X 4 Eliminate Options 1, 2, & 4,and develop options 3 & 5 X X 5 In option 3, is access beneath the conference center necessary and X cost effective? 6 Clarify access points in option 3 throughout all proposed phases With finances fluctuating with interest rates there is no money to 7 touch the existing structure at this time, eliminating options 1, 2, 4, & X X 5 $ Prefer option 3 due to the preservation of future development X X possibilities 9 Option 3 should be priced with and without parking included below X X the conference center 10 Consider utilizing VR funding in option 3 to develop additional parking X Consider utilizing funding from possible development in option 3 to 11 offset costs of proposed demolition / re-construction of parking X . garage 12 Option 3 seems the most flexible in terms of future possibilities X 13 Option 3 (with parking included) is preferable X 14 Option 3 phase 1 is preferable. X X 15 Don't allow development of future phases of Option 3 to distract from X X the focus of Option 3 phase 1 16 Prefer option 3 -identify and save space for what Vail is missing X (evening activities) TEAMWORK DIVIDES THE EFFORT AND MULTIPLIES THE EFFECT... Page 1 Of ~ ©2004 All Rights Reserved By p:\curreni projects\...\DRB PEC TC Comment 21 SEP 04.x1s Architectural Resource Consultants, Inc. Option 4 'own o$ !fail 21 SEP 04 Conference Center Stakeholder i~ieeting Comments Brought Up By Question /Comment ~U o ~ o ~' U c o ~ w d m ~ d ~' E ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ a ~ U 1 Eliminate Options 1, 2, & 4 and develop options 3 & 5 X X With finances fluctuating with interest rates there is no money to 2 touch the existing structure at this time, eliminating options 1, 2, 4, & X X 5 3 Option 4: Don't like how the conference center is blocked from view on three sides X TEAMWORK DIVIDES THE EFFORT AND MULTIPLIES THE EFFECT... P2ge 1, Of 1 p 2004 All Rights Reserved By p:lcurrent projects\...\DRB PEC TC Comment 21 SEP 04.x1s Architectural Resource Consultants, Inc. Option 5 Town of Vaul 21 SEP 04 Conference Center Stakeholder Meeting Comments Brought Up By Question /Comment ~U o ~ m ~ o .~' ° .~ U ~ w a D' ~ E a ~ ¢ a~ ~ d ~ o H U 1 Eliminate Options 1, 2, & 4'and develop options 3 & 5 X X 2 With finances fluctuating there is no money to touch the existing X X structure at this time, eliminating options 1, 2, 4, & 5 TEAMWORK DIVIDES THE EFFORT AND MULTIPLIES THE EFFECT-.. P39e ~ Of ~ ©2004 All Rights Reserved By p:\current projeclsl...1DRB PEC TC Comment 21 SEP 04.x15 Architectural Resource Consultants. Inc. General il~aster Plan Comments ~'®wn ®f Vai@ ' Conference Center ®evelopment Team Review Comments Question /Comment 1 How will the options affect fire access specifically on South side of LH structure? 2 How do you stop increased traffice on East Lionshead Circle with the addition of a 2nd exit to the LH structure? 3 Will there be an acel lane added on the frontage road east of East Lionshead circle? ~ 4 Dual access points for Vail International would be preferred. 5 Passing under a structure to gain access to Vail International is a concern. 6 Does the design team have consultants on board to review current code compliance of the parking structure? ~ 7 Verify the location of the property lines ~ 8 Construction in the public right of way is not recommended 9 Any connenction to Dobson would trigger code compliance upgrades ~~ at Dobson 10 Constructing the CC next to the parking structure may create some challenges wigh separation walls depending on building type 11 Any change to the LH parking structure would require bringing the structure to 2004 code. This would include changing the entry point. 12 The project should try to discourage pedestrian access on South side of CC and encourage access on North side of CC. 13 Stacking of cars on Frontage Road may be an issue Delivery entrance needs to be designed in a way so drivers on 14 frontage road don't become confused about access to parking structure and CC parking. Involve the police department in design of 600SF transit center 15 building 22 SEP 04 Brought Up By ~ (Q ~ a~ U ~ ~ +_ ~ o ~ H X X X X X X X i X X X X X X X X X Z:\projects109 - ToV Conf Ctr Page 1 of 3 ©2004 All Rights Reserved By 1Stakeholder meetings\ToV Development Review Team Comments 22 SEP 04 - Architectural Resource Consultants, Inc. J. General Master Plan Comments Town of Vail 22 SEP 04 Conference Center Development Team Review Comments Question /Comment 16 The transit center at this locaiton would centralize flow at the LH parking structure 17 Need to work on the pedestrian moving plan 18 Where does parking unload Review the Velar center to understand how they handled pedestrian 19 bus and vehicular movement West portal parking garages generally don't exist in Vail due to facie 20 the windward side of a storm 21 Review the City Market parking structure 22 Have environmental issues been defined? 23 Will this project help with traffic on heavy ski days, or make the problem worse? 24 There can be up to 1100 cars on the frontage road after the structures fill on heavy ski days 25 Don't design the conference center for off peak events only 26 Eliminate the day skier parking on the frontage road at the LH parking garage area 27 Encourage mass transit to assist with parking challenges 28 This is the right location for transit due to proximity to LH core redevelopment 29 Involve ECO now as the 2nd transit portal may cause challenges with ECO programming 30 A roundabout at East Lionshead Circle and the Frontage road would be nice Z:\projects109 - ToV Conf Ctr Page 2 of 3 \Stakeholder meetings\ToV Development Review Team Comments 22 SEP 04 Brought Up By ~ ~0 N a~ U ~ ~ ~ _ ~ > X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X © 2004 All Rights Reserved By Architectural Resource Consultants, Inc. General I~iaster Plan Comments ~Q'p~yrp of Vail Conference Center ®evelopment Team Reviews Comments 22 SEP 04 Brought Up By Question /Comment ~ ~' ~- ~ o ~- > ~~ > 31 How does this project affect adjacent potential projects? X 32 Adjacents may sell some of their parking spaces X 33 Adjacent developments will increase parking at Lionshead. Should X this be accomodated with this project? 34 Challenges with the LH parking structure (code, etc.) shouldn't be a X deal killer for any of the options 35 Design the CC structure to allow for future growth X 36 Will there be any streetscape of snowmelt included? X Z:\projects\09 - ToV Conf Ct~ Page 3 of 3 _ ©2004 All Rights Reserved By \Stakeholder meetingslToV Development Review Team Comments 22 SEP 04 ~ Architectural Resource Consultants, Inc. Attaehrr~ent B: Refined Plans for Alternative 3 6 ~~ __ __.- ~WI I~ -~ J~ ~ T f t ~' t ,1~~ ~~ i ~ > s ~' t- ~. cu-= ~--___ _.-------~ ~-------.. ~ _ _.~s.-,~~ -~. j. ..._.._..~... r -~ ~ ~ i ~ ~~ i. ~~ ~" ~ , - __ ---- ---_ _._. ~ ~ ~~ ~_~; ~ ~ ~ ~___.. ~-~-'r_` t ~j ,_..........._.~.._ f ~ \ r j?t r t ~ , r r ~ -- _ r ~ ~_--_-1 ~,~ %~ r t ~ 4CQi~ ''"t_""' -~._ "..--.__ __ __~ti;i` .._,__ ~ ~~M ` `~--`" ~r` f^ ti~ ~~ v «w -------•s-AA-ti- ~ ~.,,-~C ~ 1 ` { G.O. d ~ ~ ~*a ~. a2Zt3~i ~~ c~ ~'`~ 1M~~ K-t~o~u5 F~ ~ 3 ;;~ r~ }Z~ _"' `his' ~~ if r I,o~~ ~,' ~~~ s d ~ ~ti,w v l ~~ ;Lln 'R-~+o~ '~G,~,vaa4 ~ ~. l ~~~ a G~~,..~, ~j~s;t~.L4 s ~/vcc~~ , P~15 t,~a~ iM `^ Y~ ca ~ ~~ ~ -`~+~~ (Loo+~•s e ` II _ ~ V~c~a. PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION ~~_ ~;~j~ ~g PUBLIC MEETING j. ~ September 27, 2004 PROJECT ORIENTATION -Community Development Dept. PUBLIC WELCOME 12:00 pm MEMBERS PRESENT Doug Cahill David Viele Chas Bernhardt George Lamb Bill Dewitt Ann Gunion Site Visits MEMBERS ABSENT Rollie Kjesbo 1. Lionshead Core Site Hotel 675 Lionshead Place Driver: NOTE: If the PEC hearing extends until 6:00 p.m., the Commission may break for dinner from 6:00 - 6:30 p.m. Public Flearing -Town Council Chambers 2:00 pm A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration or modification, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Vail Town Code, and a request for a final review of a conditional use permit, pursuant to Chapter 12-16, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of the Lionshead Core Site Hotel and the operation on a new private skier club, new lodge dwelling units and conference facilities and meeting rooms on the first floor or street level floor of a structure, located at 675 Lionshead Place (a complete legal description is available for inspection at the Town of Vail Community Development Department upon request). Applicant: Vail Corporation Planner: George Ruther George Ruther made a presentation to the Commission per the staff memorandum, dated September 27, 2004. The applicant made a presentation on their development applications to the Commission. Upon completion of their presentation, the applicant questioned the wording of Condition #5 on page 2 of the Amended Conditions of Approval, September 27, 2004. Staff and the Commission agreed to strike the last sentence in Condition #5 in its entirety. The applicant then provided the Commission with a summary of the Rental Program Proposal for the 70 condominiums and 49 lock-off units in the Lionshead Core Site Hotel. The Commissioner opened the public hearing to public. Geoff Wright, Rob Levine, Bob Lazier, Bill Anderson, and Keith Odza all spoke in favor of the applications and urged the Commission to approve the applications as submitted. The Commissioner closed public comment. The Commissioners each spoke in favor of the applications. In voicing their support for the project, the Commissioners expressed their thanks to the applicant for listening to the numerous concerns stated over the course of the review process and amending the plans accordingly. Commissioners Dewitt, Viele, Lamb, and Gunion each indicated their insistence that the details and architecture of the project not be lost in the continued design development stages of the application. The Commissioners agreed unanimously that a significant amount of attention should be paid to the details by the DRB and that any reduction in final detail may require that the applicant re-appear before the Commission for consideration of an amended application. The Commissioners further expressed their desire to see that the Vail Town Council and the applicant resolve any differences with regard to the Developer Improvement Agreement and ensure that the major components of the agreement as stated in the staff memorandum not be removed from the final DIA. With the exception of the three minor revisions made to the staff's recommended conditions of approval, the Commissioners were in favor of the staff's recommendations, findings, and proposed conditions of approval. The Commission did acknowledge that while several of the conditions appeared to be resolvable at this point in time, they understood that in the sequence of project development and approval that certain conditions were appropriate and necessary. The Commissioners agreed with staff's recommendation to table the final review of the preliminary to a later date. Major Subdivision ACTION:. Tabled to October 11, 2004 MOTION: Viele SECOND: Jewitt VOTE: 6-0 Major Exterior Alteration/Conditional Use Permits ACTION: Approved with Conditions MOTION: Viele SECOND: Jewitt VOTE:6-0 CONDITIONS: The Developer shall address the following conditions of approval prior to final review of the development applications by the Town of Vail Design Review Board: 1) That the Developer identifies a new location for publicly accessible restrooms on or near the development site: The new location shall be identified on a revised set of floor plans which shall be submitted by the applicant to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval. 2) That the Developer submits a complete Design Review Board application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department. The Developer shall address the following conditions of approval prior to applying for a building permit for the improvements from the Town of Vail Community Development Department: (Note: a grading plan shall constitute a building permit.) 1) That the. Developer addresses the red-lined corrections on the proposed grading and drainage plans and submits a revised final grading and drainage plan for final review and approval by the Town of Vail Public Works Department. 2) That the Developer submits a complete set of civil engineered drawings of the Approved Development Plans including .the required off site improvements, to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval of the drawings. It shall be noted that the review of the civil engineered drawing may take up to six months to review .and approve. 3) That the Developer submits written letters of ~se~ditie~a~l approval from all adjacent and/or affected property owners whose property is being physically impacted or altered (ie, Montauk, Lionshead Arcade, Antler's, Lions Square Lodge, Landmark, etc:) as a result of the construction of the Lionshead Core Site Hotel, as depicted on the Approved Development Plan, to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review,and approval. 4) That the Developer receives final approval from the Vail Town Council for the conveyance of Town-owned land to the Developer as generally depicted on the application for a major subdivision accompanying the Lionshead Core Site Hotel development applications. 2 5) That the Developer receives final approval from the Vail Town Council for the conveyance of the public right of way existing beneath Lionshead Place. Should the Developer be unable to secure a final approval for the conveyance of the public right of way, the Developer may submit a revised major exterior alteration application to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval by the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. 6) That the Developer submits revised plans to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for final review and approval of the Town of Vail Public Works Department addressing each of the comments summarized in the letter from Greg Hall, Public Works Director, to George Ruther, Chief of Planning, dated September 23, 2004. A copy of the letter has been attached for reference (Attachment E). The Developer shall address the following conditions of approval prior to the issuance of a building permit by the Town of Vail Community Development Department: (Note: a grading permit shall constitute a building permit.) 1) That the Developer finalizes the Rental Program Proposal and then enters into a written agreement with the Town of Vail that is recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office, which requires that the Rental Program Proposal is implemented and fully adhered to by the applicant and its assigned successors for a period of not less then 20 years from the date of the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy. The final Rental Program Proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the Vail Town Council following a recommendation on the proposal from the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. 2) That the Developer submits a Construction Staging Plan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for the review and approval of the proposed staging plan by the Town of Vail Public Works Department. 3) That the Developer prepares a Lionshead Core Site HotelArt in Public Places Plan. for review and comment by the Town of Vail Art in Public Places Board. Said Plan shall include the funding for a minimum of $1,000,000 in public art improvements to be developed in conjunction with Lionshead Core Site Hotel. The implementation of the Plan shall be completed within two years of the date of the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy for the Lionshead Core Site Hotel improvements. 4) That the Developer shall be assessed a transportation impact fee in the amount of $5,000 per increased vehicle trip in the peak hour generated (4-1- 61 trips), or $~98A $305,000, as a result of the Lionshead Core Site Hotel improvements. The fee shall be paid by the Developer. At the sole discretion of the Town of Vail Public Works Director, said fee may be waived in full, or part, based upon the completion of certain off-site improvements. 5) That the Developer prepares a Developer Improvement Agreement for Off-Site Improvements, as depicted on the Approved Development Plan, for review and approval by the Vail Town Council. Upon approval of the Agreement, the Developer and the Town of Vail shall legally execute the Agreement. ;,~po^ cx°n, ~+inn of tho Anrnnmont +hn I'ln~inlnnnr r•hnll r.nn+ ti rl 0 The Developer shall address the following conditions of approval prior to the issuance of a temporary certificate of occupancy (TCO) for any of the Lionshead Core Site Hotel improvements: 1) That the Developer provides deed-restricted employee housing that complies with the Town of Vail Employee Housing requirements (Chapter 12-13) for a minimum of 35 employees, and that said restrictions shall be made~available for occupancy. In addition, the deed-restrictions shall be legally executed by the Developer and duly recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office. 2) That the Developer submits an application for the establishment of View Corridors #4 and #5 as contemplated by the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan to the Town of Vail Community Development Department for review and approval by the Vail Town Council. 3 The Developer shall address the following conditions of approval prior to the issuance of a final certificate of occupancy (CO) for any of the Lionshead Core Site Hotel improvements; 1) That the Developer prepares easement agreements for the review and approval of the Town of Vail for all necessary easements (ie, utilities, pedestrian access, ingress/egress, drainage, maintenance, emergency vehicle access, fire lane, signage, etc.) in and around the development site as generally depicted on the Approved Development Plans and major subdivision plat. The easement agreements shall be legally executed by the Developer and duly recorded with the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office. 2) That the Developer executes a Memorandum of Understanding for the Operation, Maintenance, and Management of the Lionshead Core Loading and Delivery Facility, to be located on the development site beneath the Lionshead Core Site Hotel. The Memorandum shall be reviewed and approved by the Vail Town Council following a recommendation on the proposal from the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission. 3) That the Developer agrees to design and construct all required streetscape improvements within the defined area of work, as generally depicted on the Off-Site Improvements Plan. The Developer acknowledges that the final design of the improvements has not yet been approved by the Town of Vail Design Review Board and that the proposed plan may be subject to change. The following condition of approval shall be placed upon the operation of the Private Skier Club in the Lionshead Core Site Hotel: 1) That the maximum number of Private Skier Club members shall not exceed 100 full members and 16 partial members and the maximum number of private parking spaces dedicated to the full members use shall not exceed 100 spaces. A full member shall be defined as a ski club member entitled to full parking, spa, and members club services. A partial member shall be defined as a ski club member entitled to full spa and members club services with no rights to on-site parking. The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970) 479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published, September 24, 2004 in the Vail Daily. 4 ~9ease ~®tea ~~ere were n® ®R~ meetings since the. east ~®a.encil 6Vieeting, ~eptembea° 2~ o IVIEIl~ORANDUM TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 5, 2004 SUBJECT: A request for a work session to discuss a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Vail Town Code, to allow an amended approved development plan, located at 1325 Westhaven Drive/Development Area A, Cascade Village,, and setting forth details in regard thereto. Applicant: Wright & Company/PJA Land Planning Plahner: Russ Forrest I. SUIVIIViARY The applicant (Wright & Company) is proposing a 14 unit condominium project at 1325 Westhaven Drive, commonly referred to as the "Ruins." This site is located directly west of the "Aria Club (Cascade Club) The applicant is proposing a two step development review process which includes: 1) First determine how the housing requirement for Special Development District # 4 should be addressed on 1325 Westhaven Drive. 2) After the disposition of the housing requirement is determined for the property, the applicant will move forward with a request to approve a development plan and a major amendment to SDD #4. 1325 Westhaven Drive has had an employee housing requirement placed on the property since the approval of SDD # 4 in 1976. Since that time various developers have proposed different quantities of employee housing on the site. In 1982, the Town of Vail issued a building permit allowing for construction on the then undeveloped site. This proposal included 20 Employee Housing Units at a total of 26,680 square feet. No free market units were proposed at the time. Construction continued through the partial completion of the foundation and lower level parking garage. The uncompleted parking garage currently on the site is now considered an eyesore and a nuisance. The applicant is now attempting to determine whether the Town will allow the housing requirement on the site to be fulfilled through a payment in lieu for the required. housing or located off the site. In addition, the applicant is requesting that the Town determine the appropriate number of employee housing beds that would be required to either be created or compensated for through a pay in lieu option. {, On September 13, 2004 the applicant met with the Planning and Environmental Commission to discuss the issue of affordable housing required for this project and whether a pay in-lieu alternative would be acceptable to providing any required housing. 11. DESCRIPTION OF THE REQUEST The applicant is requesting clarification of the Town's employee generation policy. Specifically the applicant is requesting that the Town determine the appropriate number of employee housing unit beds that should now be required for a development project on the "Ruins" site and whether a pay in lieu option is acceptable to address a housing requirement. This property is part of SDD # 4 which includes the entire Glen Lyon Subdivision. As part of the approval for the Glen Lyon subdivision in 1979, an employee housing requirement was placed on the subdivision which originally included 32 Employee Housing units (for_the entire SDD) at'a total of 27,200 sq. ft. Staff has summarized the various iterations over time of amendments to SDD #4 and how that has changed the employee housing requirement on 1325 Westhaven. In 1982, construction commenced and then stopped resulting in the present condition of the "ruins site:" III. BACKGROUND A. Development History On March 2, 19.76, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance #5, Series of 1976 establishing Special Development District #4, Cascade Village. Special Development District #4,, Cascade Village, is made up of four development areas (A,B,C & D). Area A is made up of the Cascade Hotel, Cascade Club, CMC, Millrace Phases I through IV, Westhaven Condominiums, LiftsideM/aterford, and Cornerstone. Area B is the Coldstream Condominiums. Area C is made up of the Glen Lyon residential duplex lots. Area D is the Glen Lyon Office Building. There were approximately 32 employee housing units proposed within SDD # 4 in 1979. According to the original ordinance, development statistics are prescribed for each development area. As a result, the site coverage stipulated for Area A, which is 35%, applies to approximately 18 acres. Rather than require the applicant to provide a site coverage analysis of approximately 18 acres, in the past, staff has applied the development statistics to each lot individually. This has been the practice since approximately 1990. The projects that have been reviewed under this method include Cornerstone, Waterford, Millrace Phase III and Millrace Phase IV. The advantage to this method is that it allows a calculation of the development statistics on the land that is .being reviewed and does not require off-site analysis. In the previous examples, the proposals complied with the development statistics when calculated for the individual lots and the proposed drawings clearly conformed to the maximum development allowances provided for in the SDD. Staff continues to believe that it is most reasonable and appropriate to evaluate each parcel within each development area individually. From a record keeping point of view, staff believes that the development standards for each parcel should be calculated based on the area of the land under the proposed development site. This has been the method used historically. ~ In 1982, the Town of Vail issued a building permit allowing for construction on the then undeveloped site.. This proposal included 20 Employee Housing Units at a total of 26,680 square feet. No free market units were proposed at the time. Construction 2 continued through the partial completion of the foundation and lower level parking garage. No new construction has occurred since. In 1985, Ordinance 8 was approved with a total of 10 Employee Housing Units for Areas A and D within SDD #4 with a total of 6,400 square feet. Ordinance, No. 1, Series of 1993 clarified how many employee housing units should be located within Area A. In section 18.46.220 it states "The developer(s) of Area A shall build a minimum of 8 employee dwelling units within Area A Weshaven Condominium .building." On April 19, 1995, the Vail Town Council approved a major amendment to Special Development District #4. This amendment approval granted the applicant the ability to construct fourteen free-market condominiums and seventeen employee housing units at a total of 7,707 square feet. In 1999, Ordinance 11 was approved which required a minimum of 21 employee housing units with a total 11,528 sq. ft. of floor area. The development statistics for the last development are summarized in Section IV of this memorandum. B. Input firom the Planning and Environmental Commission on September '13, 2004 The Planning and Environmental Commision (PEC) discussed both of the issues identified in Section VI of this- memorandum on September 13, 2004. The PEC recommended that this project should only provide housing for the employees generated by the project given that other employers in Area A of SDD 4 have not yet provided housing for their employees. Based on the above mentioned methodology for calculating employee housing the development plan proposed by the applicant would generate 2 deed restricted beds (This number could change based on the final approved development plans). Area A has a requirement of 8 affordable units/beds. The PEC felt it was important that future redevelopment on the Cascade property be made to address the historical housing requirement. The PEC felt comfortable with allowing pay in lieu as an option for addressing a housing requirement. However, the PEC did have several additional recommendations regarding a pay in lieu policy. All pay-in-lieu funds should be placed in a dedicated fund for housing. o The Housing Authority should manage and utilize this fund to either build or buy- down housing. The PEC had a preference for building new housing versus deed restricting "buy-down" units since that will have a more significant impact on affordable housing and is less prone to conflicts with condomium associations. Funds should be focused on providing housing for middle management and/or families. It was felt that there could be a trade off of creating a better dwelling unit for a family versus providing the requisite number of beds o Housing should be created in the Town of Vail IV. DEVELOPMENT STATISTICS FOR PREVIOUS APPROVAL It should be noted that all previous approvals have lapsed at this time: Lot Area: 0.85 acres or 37,026 sq. ft. Zoning: SDD #4 (Cascade Village) - No underlying zoning Development Standard 1995 Approval August 24, 1998 Proposal January 11, 1999 Proposal Height: 55' S5' S5' GRFA: Free Market: 25,644 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. Accommodation: 0 sq. ft. 9,550 sq. ft. 11,071 sq. ft. Factional Fee: 0 sq. ft. 13,860 sq. ft. 16,090 sq. ft. EHUs: 8,296 sg. ft. 10,731 sg. ft: 11,528 sg. ft. Total: 33,940 sq. ft. (92%) ~ 34,141 sq. ft. (92%) 38,689 sq. ft. (104%) Common Area: 3,417 sq. ft. (10.1 %) 7,054 sq. ft. (21 %) 8,769 sq. ft. (23%) Density: Free Market: Accommodation Fractional Fee: EHUs: Setbacks: Site Coverage: Landscaping: Retaining Walls: Parking: Loading/Delivery: Employee Housing: 14 du's 0 du's 0 au's 15 au's 0 ffu's 11 ffu's 17 EHU=s 21 EHU's 31 total units 47 total units (16.71 du's/ac) (21.25 du's/ac) 24' 24' 36.7% (13,598 sq. ft.) 38.3% (14,173 sq. ft.) 47.9% (17,767 sq. ft.) 47.9% (17,767 sq. ft.) none proposed 82% shall be enclosed 45 total spaces one required 17 EHU', similar to Type III restrictions none proposed 78% shall be enclosed 46 total spaces one provided 21 EHU', similar to Type III restrictions 4 0 du's 17 au's 11 ffu's 21 EHU's 49 total units (22.52 du's/ac) 36.6% (13,538 sq. ft.) 47.9% (17,767 sq. ft.) none proposed 71 % shall be enclosed 52 total spaces one provided 21 EHU's similar to Type III restrictions V. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND ZONING Land Use Zoning North: I-70 ROW Not applicable South: Condominiums SDD # 4/No underlying zoning East: Aria Spa (Cascade Club) _SDD # 4 West: Open Space/Tennis Courts SDD # 4 VI. APPLICABLE iUTASTER PLANS AND REFERENCED IIV THE TOWN CODE A. References in the Comprehensive Plan for the Town of Vail regarding Housing The Town's Comprehensive Master_Plan Addresses employee generation in the following way's. The Town of Vail Land Use Plan has the following goal related to housing: Goal 5.3 Affordable employee housing should be made available through private efforts, assisted by limited incentives, provided by the Town of Vail with appropriate restrictions. In the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan, section 4.9.1 addresses housing with the following statement: "Ground rule number five of the master plan states that there shall not be . a net loss of .employee housing in Lionshead.as redevelopment occurs." The Vail Village Master Plan also addresses affordable housing in the following references: 2.6 Objective: Encourage the development of affordable housing units through the efforts of the private sector. 2.6.1 Policy: Employee housing may be required as part of any new or redevelopment project requesting density over the allowed by existing zoning. B. Reference in the Vail Iltlunicipal Code to Affordable Housing Section 12-13 provides incentives and requirements for specific employee housing unit (EHU) types. The purpose statement of this section is: 12-13-1: PURPOSE: The Town's economy is largely tourist based and the health of this economy is premised on exemplary service for Vail's guests. Vail's ability to provide such service is dependent upon a strong, high quality and 5 consistently available work force. To achieve such a work force, the community must work to provide quality living and working conditions. " Availability and affordability of housing plays a critical role in creating quality living and working conditions for the community's work force. The Town recognizes a permanent, year-round population plays an important role in sustaining a healthy, viable community. Further, the Town recognizes its role in conjunction with the private sector in ensuring housing is available. The Town Council may pursue additional incentives administratively to encourage the development of employee housing units. These incentives may include, but are not limited to, cash vouchers, fee waivers, tax abatement and in-kind services to owners and creators of employee housing units. The Town or the Town's designee may maintain a registry and create lists of all deed restricted housing units created in the Town to assist employers and those seeking housing. (Ord. 6(2000) § 1) The Public Accommodation Zone District and the Lionshead Mixed Use Districts have specific language for mitigating development impacts (including addressing housing) which state: Pubic Accommodation Zone District: 12-7A-14: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Substantial off site impacts may include, but are not limited to, the following: deed- restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank restoration, loading/delivery, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts. (Ord. 23(1999) § 1) Lionshead Mixed Use Zone District: 12-7H-18: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified . consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Mitigation of impacts may include, but is not limited to, the following: roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank improvements, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The 6 intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopmeht/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts. (Ord. 3(1999) § 1). The Special Development District section of the Code also provides guidance for evaluating impacts and public benefits in the following section: 12-9A-9: DE!/ELOPIViEiVT STANDARDS: Development standards including lot area, site dimensions, setbacks, height, density control, site coverages, landscaping and parking shall be determined by the Town Council as part of the approved development plan with consideration of the recommendations of the Planning and Environmental Commission. Before the Town Council approves development standards that deviate from the underlying zone district, it should be determined that such deviation provides benefits to the Town that outweigh the adverse effects of such deviation. This determination is to be made based on evaluation of the proposed special development district's compliance with the design criteria outlined in Section 1.2-9A-8 of this Article. (Ord. 21(1988) § 1) C. Other Applicable Documents Related The Town of Vail does not have a specific codified employee generation requirement for commercial or residential uses. It does have a policy regarding employee generation related to commercial employee generation. This policy is based on a report from RRC dated December 1991 (Attachment 2). Staff has consistently applied the methodology used in the RRC report. This methodology involves the following steps: 1. Identify the uses (restaurant, spa, hotel rooms) and square footage of each use in a development project. 2. Utilize the RRC report (Exhibit A) and obtain a coefficient for each use identified in the project (employee per 1000 sq. feet) 3. Multipy the square feet of each use by the coefficient to determine the number of new employees. 4. Then determine how many units should be required for the project with the following methodology: For development projects that comply with density: Number of new employees x .15= # of beds required For development projects that exceed allowed density: Number of new employees x .30= # of beds required 5. Determine where the required beds .should be located. The following ~ have been the preferences for how a developer should provide that \ housing: 1St preference: Provide deed restricted housing on-site 7 2~d preference: Provide deed restricted housing off-site but in the Town of Vail 3~d preference: Pay the Town of Vail the value of the required housing ("pay in lieu"). With regard to the final step in determining employee generation, a developer for a project has not yet proposed a "pay in lieu" scenario. The applicant is requesting to pay the Town for a reasonable value for the required housing. A fair and equitable process is needed for this method of employee generation if this is still an appropriate option for employee generation. VI. DISCUSSION ISSUES The applicant is looking for clarification and direction .regarding the employee housing requirement that will be required for SDD # 4 on the Westhaven Condominiums. The applicant is proposing a pay in lieu scenario for satisfying an employee generation requirement. This has been the third option for satisfying an employee housing requirement after locating the housing on site and then locating the required housing off site but in the Town of Vail. A pay in lieu option has not been proposed to date in the Town of Vail. Therefore, if a pay in lieu approach is found acceptable, it needs to be fair, equitable, and implementable. Staff is requesting that the Planning and Environmental Commission provide a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a pay-in-lieu methodology that can be used consistently for other development applications. In addition, the developer is requesting feedback on how many deed restricted beds should be provided by the proposed development given its historical requirements and its current condition. Attached is a proposal from the applicant that identifies several alternative proposals for accommodating the employee housing requirements for the Glen Lyon Subdivision. Staff feels that at this time, the site is a nuisance and an eye sore. In addition, staff believes that it is not likely that the "Ruins Site" will be built if the previous employee housing . proposal continues to be imposed on the property. Furthermore, the site is carrying the . employee housing burden for a larger area in SDD # 4. At the same time a reasonable solution needs to be reached to address the housing requirement that was placed on Area A in Special Development District #4. Staff would propose the following two discussion items. A. Number of EHUs required for SDD # 4 Ordinance, No. 1, Series of 1993 clarified how many employee housing units should be located within Area A. In section 18.46.220 it states "The developer(s) of Area A shall build a minimum of 8 employee dwelling units within Area A Weshaven Condominium building." The property was last approved to include 21 employee housing units or 11,528. Both the number and square footage of employee housing units have been proposed and approved at different levels over time. References to units in the previously approved amendments to SDD #4 typically referenced 1 bedroom studio units. The applicant is proposing to pay-in-lieu the equivalent of 10,000 sq. feet of employee housing units. Staff believes that simply redeveloping the site and removing the unfinished foundation on the site has a significant public benefit. However, a reasonable proposal must be made to satisfy the employee housing 8 requirement placed on SDD #4. Staff believes that based on the history of the site and considering the current condition of the site that approximately 8 employee housing unit beds be considered the employee housing requirement for the site. This is consistent with the 1993 amendment for SDD # 4. Staff recommends that the applicant first determine if units can be provided on site and if that is not possible to provide an equivalent number of beds in an alternative location off-site. A reasonable time-frame could be established to provide those units. The Town of Vail could also consider spay-in-lieu option consistent with the pay in lieu option raised above if that option is found to be acceptable. Potentially some mix of new deed restricted units provided by the developer and pray in lieu units could be provided. Staff would recommend that real deed restricted units be pursued first before a pay in lieu option is considered. B. Town of Vail Housing Policy/Off Site Location ofi a Housing Requirement: The second discussion item is to determine the Town's policy regarding allowing a pay in lieu option to satisfy an employee housing unit requirement. imposed on a development. Attached is a memorandum from the Vail Housing Authority on this issue. In reviewing this issue, staff evaluated the value of an employee housing unit bed based on current market conditions and the actual constructions costs of creating a rental bed room. The current value of construction of an employee housing bed is approximately $75,000. Staff also evaluated how much is needed in the Vail market to effectively "buy down" an existing condominium unit. The Town of Vail has had a buy down program where it will purchase a condominium and then make improvements to the condominium and then also reduce the cost of the unit after placing a deed restrict on that "for sale" unit. The Vail Housing Coordinator believes that approximately $75,000 is needed per bed to effectively buy-down a unit in the Vail market place. The buy down program requires being opportunistic when units become available in appropriate condominium and Townhome projects. Land for larger projects is now very limited in Vail. The Vail Housing Authority is extremely interested in developing a source of revenue which could be used to bond for smaller for sale projects. 'The revenue from apay-in-lieu program can also be used for opportunistically creating deed restricted housing units in Vail. Specific questions for the Planning and Environmental include: Should a developer have the option for pay in lieu? Should there be specific criteria to allow for pay in lieu i.e. mitigating circumstances, inability to locate on the site, etc? Should a developer pay the market cost of a EHU bed or more than that value? Attachment 1: Proposal from Applicant regarding housing Attachment 2: 1991 RRC Employee Generation Rates Attachment 3: Letter from Vail Housing Authority 9 F:\Users\cdev\PEC\M EMOS\04\Ruins091304final.doc 10 A$tachrnent 1: proposa9 from Applicant regarding housing 10 MEMORANDUM TO: Russell Forest and Nina Timm FROM: Wright and Company/PJA Land Planning DATE: September 9, 2004 RE: Westhaven Condominiums Thank you for taking the time to meet with Jen Wright and I yesterday to discuss the Westhaven Condominiuims site and our previously submitted August 8 memorandum (attached) regarding potential housing alternatives for the project. We had a very productive discussion about affordable housing issues as they relate to both the Westhaven site and the Town of Vail in general. The outline that we looked at the August 8 memo was just one of many potential ways of trying to find a rational approach to determining a fair and equitable housing requirement for the Westhaven site. We remain open to discussing different potential scenarios with the town. During our discussion the figure of $75,000 per bed was raised as perhaps an appropriate figure for apay-in-lieu standard within the Town. This may or may not be a number that is applicable to all potential housing scenarios that may occur in town. In the case of the Westhaven site this per bed figure is a concept that we would consider based upon the number of affordable beds that. would be required for our 14 unit concept. I believe that we are working towards a rational approach that will provide a viable. solution for both the Town and the applicant and look forward to continuing the discussion. M~+ ~®~L~~~~l~ TO: Community Development Staff, PEC and Vail Town Council FROM: Wright and Company/PJA Land Planning DATE: June 30, 2004 RE: Westhaven Condominiums >[ntent of Meeting Wright and Company has an agreement with the owners of the Westhaven/Cascade LLC to develop the Westhaven Condominium site in Cascade Village. Prior to initiating a formal SDD Amendment process Wright and Company is seeking input from the Town of Vail in order to develop an appropriate affordable housing component for the Westhaven property. - - - - -- - . Site )H[istorv The Westhaven Condominiums site, sometimes referred to as "The Ruins", is located within Special Development District #4, Cascade Village. The site is located adjacent to and directly west of The Aria Club & Spa (Cascade Club) and parking structure on Westhaven Drive. The property currently sits in a partially constructed state, with a partial building foundation and exposed concrete walls and pillars. The property has existed this way since construction on the initial building ceased in 1982. Through the 1990's the site has a history of gaining zoning approvals that have failed to move forward into construction and development. The following table is an excerpt of information taken from a January 11, 1999 Community Development staff memo to the Planning and Environmental Commission. The purpose of this table is to provide a brief history of the approved but un-built zoning actions regarding the Westhaven site. Development Standard 1995 Approval 1998 Approval 1999 Approval Use GI2FA: Free Market Accommodation Fractional fee EHU's Common Area Totals Density: Free Market Accommodation Fractional Fee EHU's Average EHU Size Residential 25,644 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. 8,296 sq. ft. 3,417 sq. ft. 37,357 sq. ft. 14 du 0 au 0 ffu 17 EHiJ 31 total units (16.71 du/acre) 488 sq. ft. Accommodation & Fractional Fee 0 sq. ft. 9,550 sq. ft. 13,860 sq. ft. 10,731 sq. ft. 7,054 sa. ft. 41,195 sq. ft. 0 du 15 au 11 ffu 21 EHU 47 total units (21.25 du/acre) 511 sq. ft. Accommodation & Fractional Fee 0 sq. ft. 11,071 sq. ft. 16,090 sq. ft. 11,528 sq. ft. 8,769 soft. 47,458 sq. ft. 0 du 17 au 11 ffu 21 EHU 49 total units (22.52 du/acre) 450-500 sq. ft. To summarize the table, the three previous approvals included a range of 17-21 EHU's within a range of 8,296 to 11,528 square feet, with a size range of 450-500 sq. ft. per EHU. Westhaven EHU Issues Over the last 22 years a major contributing factor to the failure of this property is the inclusion of the EHU's onto the site. The previous designs that attempted to incorporate affordable housing, free market units or accommodation units and fractional fee units under one roof have created very difficult project economics and dynamics.. 2 The following issues .have contributed to the current status of the site: ° The site is very small (0.85 acre) and is further constrained by existing utility corridors ° The number of EHU's creates a very difficult parking demand and creates a further site development constraint ° The building area allocated to EHU's is disproportionate to the area of free market space and creates a very difficult financial burden on the free market units ° The monthly common expense and maintenance assessments for this type of mixed use building are too high for affordability on the EHU's. This places a disproportionate burden on the free market units ° A 450 square foot EHU does not allow for a family living environment ° The use pattern and characteristics of a 450 square foot EHU is not compatible in such close proximity to the free market units and creates a very difficult market for each product lE]E~U Program As we understand it, the Town of Vail preference for providing EHU's is based on the following hierarchy: 1. Provide on site 2. Provide within Town of Vail 3. Cash in lieu contribution 4. Provide down valley Current Proposal Wright and Company is considering a 14 unit free market condominium building that would be of a similar size, bulk and mass of the design of previous approvals. The building architecture and site planning would be of a high quality that is consistent with the design and character of the neighborhood. The parking demand for 14 units is more appropriate to the size and scale of the building. Wright and Company has drafted an affordable housing proposal to address housing issues. The number of employee housing units in the previous applications was inflated by designing very small units. Amore appropriate housing target is the amount of GRFA devoted to the housing units in the previous approvals. This GRFA figure ranged from 8,296 sq. ft. to 11,528 sq. ft. We have assumed a target figure of 10,000 sq. ft. Rather than build EHU's on the Westhaven site, we are proposing a cash in lieu contribution that would allow the ;Town or Housing Authority the flexibility to employ any number of programs to create additional family appropriate housing within the Town. The rationale for the following financial evaluations is to arrive at a cash in lieu figure that bears some relationship to the past history of the project, provides a fair contribution and will allow the opportunity to provide some realistic family oriented housing that meets the overall goals of the Town. There are several viable programs which combine a cash in lieu contribution with the goal of providing additional EHU's within the Town of Vail. Those programs include: Programs Unit buy down ° Free market units are purchased, deed restrictions are placed on the unit and, the unit is re-sold at a discount to the free market price. 2. Down payment assistance ° A down payment assistance fund provides down payment loans/contributions to qualified buyers. A deed restriction is then placed on the unit. 3. New construction ° Cash in lieu funds may be used to provide financial leverage towards new construction projects We have arrived at a cash in lieu figure by evaluating a number of different programs that could be used to create additional housing opportunities. Each of these evaluations is based upon a target housing GRFA of 10,000 sq. ft. Financial Evaluations 1. Unit buy downs Assumptions: ° A buy down of $20,000-$25,000 is necessary to reach the desired discount ° Each unit would require approximately $20,000 investment for renovation and clean-up ° Range of unit size in target market is 800-1200 sq. ft. in size so assume 10 units required to buy down 10,000 square feet Conclusion: To buy down 10,000 square feet of housing stock would require an investment of approximately $40,000 to $45,000 per unit times ten units for a total of $400,000-$450,000. 4 2. Down payment assistance ° Free market unit cost in desired housing range is $225,000-$250,000 ° Typica120% down payment would be $45,000-$50,000 ° Range of unit size in target market is 800-1200 sq. ft. in size so assume 10 units would become equivalent to 10,000 square feet Conclusion: To provide a down payment assistance Loan program to 10,000 sq. ft. of housing stock would require a fund of approximately $450,000-$500,000. 3. New Construction In an employee housing development the cost of the land is generally contributed in order to reach the subsidy or discount required to create affordability. Residential land costs generally represent 15%-20% of the total unit cost. Therefore a typical land cost fora $250,000 unit would be $37,500-$50,000. A land contribution for 10 units would be equivalent to $375,000-$500,000. Conclusion If Wright and Company is to proceed with an amendment to SDD#4, Cascade Village, we would propose a cash in lieu housing contribution of $450,000-$500,000. This contribution would be utilized to provide additional housing opportunities within the Town of Vail. This would allow the existing site to be developed in a manner consistent with the level of quality of the existing neighborhood and to more appropriately meet the Town of Vail goals to provide additional family oriented housing opportunities throughout the community. We believe that this approach will allow the Westhaven site to be developed into an attractive and compatible neighbor while addressing a realistic solution to providing real housing opportunities. We appreciate your time and would like to receive input from the staff, PEC and Town Council regarding this approach prior to initiating a formal application process. ,4ttachment 2: 1991 RRC Employee Generation Rates 11 ~ Rackgr®r~nd ~nalys~s Rased ora -Sr~rve~ Research ,Jura e 1991 Revased December 1991 ROSALL REn~tEN CARES r EMPLOYMENT GENERATION RATES INTRODUCTION This report summarizes the results of survey research conducted in several ski/tourism communities. It reviews the results from questionnaires addressed to employers that, among other topics, explored the relationship between the number of square feet (s.f.) in the commercial establishment and the number of employees working in the particular business. These surveys were conducted in Eagle (136 interviews), Routt (174), Summit (242), Pitkin (169), and Blaine (Sun Valley/Ketchum-162 interviews) Counties and Estes Park.(224). The sample includes 1,107 commercial and governmental establishments ranging in size from the smallest to largest in the various counties. This information is presented to the Town of Vail to assist in discussions concerning the appropriate. standards for adoption into proposed Code amendments, with particular application to the SDD process. A number of different "cuts" at the data are presented that allow overall total measures to be developed, along with some figures describing the situation in Eagle County, and specifically. within the Town of Vail. In addition to the various commercial/employment figures, several other attachments have been provided. These include: • Excerpts from a report that provides an overview of "linkage" programs and describing the status of such programs in a variety of communities. Linkage is a term that is used to describe codes or requirements that tie new development to requirements ,for providing funds or mitigation to meet the identifiable impacts associated with the new development. Such programs are in various stages of evolution, and are relatively uncommon in the mountain towns. Nevertheless, there are proven examples that merit attention. • A summary of the current Aspen and Pitkin County Affordable Housing Guidelines for determining "Generation of Employee Units" by various land use categories. • An excerpt from a field survey of establishments conducted by the Director of Community Development in the Town of Breckenridge. It is showing employment levels that are similar to those being obtained through the RRC study. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS As shown in the Appendix tables and in the graphs on the following pages, there is wide variation in the number of employees generated by the various types of commercial activity. For example, the.Figures portray the average number of employees per 1,000 square feet by business type, and they also show the average number of square feet per employee (both calculations combine tvo different measures~of commercial activity). The average number o.f employees in retail businesses in the ski/tourist towns surveyed is 11.3 but the number of reported employees ranges from 1 to 155 per establishment. Obviously, it is difficult to generate a single measure that will perfectly describe the situation within the- wide range of retail establishments that exist. Similarly, the average number of employees per 1,000 s.f. was found to be 4.36, but it also showed wide variation. ROSALL REh~LT4EN CARES ver.F i EMPLOYMENT GENERATION RATES The figures portray results based on the aggregate of all the resort communities. Although there was discussion of developing standards based on just Eagle County or Town of Vail employment patterns, the wide variation in businesses makes it difficult to develop a measure based only on local data. Given the fact that there truly exists considerable variation on a case-by-case basis, the regulations that were adopted in Aspen reflect those variations in employment levels by establishing ranges rather than single fixed measures for several of the employment categories. On the other hand, some communities have chosen a single standard that they apply to all categories of business. Based on the local data which we collected, it is our opinion that the Town of Vail may want to consider an approach that uses a range much like the Aspen or Snowmass model. The results summarized in Figure 1 show. that .bar/restaurants, real estate, and construction all have relatively large numbers of employees per building, when measured in square footage. In general, the employment numbers from the resorts are somewhat higher than some traditional measures that are used in other types of communities. We attribute the higher figures to the ski economy in general, and to the fact that these surveys were conducted during the peak winter months. The retail economies in the ski towns have been strong over the past several years resulting in relatively high employment levels per establishment; especially for those businesses that are centrally located. While the employment estimates are valid for the winter season, it should be noted that reductions occur during the summer and spring/fall months, especially with respect-t~~"seasonal" jobs. To a certain extent, employment fluctuations are becoming less pronounced as Vail moves toward ayear- round tourist economy. Nevertheless, a more conservative standard of required guarantee of housing for employees, for example, in the range of 20 percent on whatever is reasonable and recognizes the inherent seasonal fluctuations which occur during the course of the yeai. In addition, it should be remembered that we are measuring the total number of employees at a point in time. Many of these individuals may be working multiple jobs (we found an average of about 1.35 jobs per person) so there is some double counting that is taking place when the entire set of businesses is considered. We suggest that the tables that are adopted in Vail should reduce employment levels to address multiple job holding in the formula itself. This calculation has been done in the table which follows. ROSALL RET~MEN CARES PAGE 2 EMPLAYMENT GENERATION RATES FIGURE 1 EMPLOYEES PER GROSS 1,000 SQUARE FEET 10 9 8 7 N CJ T C 6 O E~ 5 W O 3 2 1 0 ~ ~ ~ - .~ ° O ~ y V ' m ~ _ 9.93 FIGURE 2 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL SPACE PER EMPLOYEE 298 !~ 253 101 Y s ~ d d ~ ~ - 1 ROSALL RFMI.4EN CARES rac:F ~ ~ 3 = .Y _ c 'w~{ ~ O ~- a ~ O Y ~ a ° _ a V ~ \ n ._ '° u° Eh4PLOYMENT GENERATION RATES In addition to compiling figures on square footages, RRC tabulated data describing the employment pattern within the County and the Town of Vail. These results are based on data provided by the State describing all businesses in the County that maintain unemployment insurance. These results show that within the County, the retail sector represents about 33 percent of all businesses, and about 27 percent of all jobs. In the Town of Vail the retail sector represents about 40 percent of businesses and about 30 percent of jobs. These results are useful and important in that they indicate in which sectors most of the future development activity will occur. They are the retail/services, lodging, and to a lesser extent, construction and medica(/health sectors. FIGURE 3 TOWN OF VAIL/EAGLE COUNTY EMPLOYMENT BY MAJOR COMMERCIAL CLASSIFICATION COMPARED ao% 35% 30% 25% 20.% 15% 10% 5% 0% ^ Counry X of tiucinecooe ~ Town of Vol X of Buoineceee ®Counry X of Jobo ® Town of Veil X of Jobo County % Town of Vail % County % Town of Vail % Apric/forestry of Businesses of Businesses of Jobs of Jobs ConstrucVmining 2% 1 ~% 1 % 2% 0% Manufacturing 2% 9% 15% 7% Manufacturing 096 1% 1% 1% Transportation 5 % 0% 1 % 0 % RetaiUwholesale 32% 4 % a % 3 % Real estate/finlnsur 11% 40% 27% 31 % Hotel, LodpinQ, Other Retail 17% 14% 9% 13% Medical, Health, Other 12% 18% 25% 31 % Government 296 14% 10% 9% 1% 5% 4% The measurements for lodging should probably be based on rooms -rather than square footages. Again,•the data indicate wide variations with several facilities having, about one employee per 10 rooms, while others are at more than one employee per room. Vail properties are especially likely to have higher employment ratios. As shown in the. attachments, .the Breckenridge research showed .8 employees per room. Overall, the RRC database showed 1.09 employees per room. However, if just the permanent full-time employees are considered, the ratio drops sharply to .26 employees per room, or close to the one employee per three rooms figure that has been used by some professionals in past estimates. ROSALL REMh4EN CARES PAGE 4 u z ~ ~S EMPLOYMENT GENERATION RATES Regarding implementation of the standards, regardless of the specific level of requirement which is adopted, we believe that a certain level. of flexibility regarding: the: location of the employee housing should be maintained. For example, it may not be appropriate from a land use or "employee" perspective to always house the employees on the same site as the commercial development. It may well represent a better solution for the applicant to find a suitable alternate site from the commercial development which would house the workers. Preference should be given for locations within the Town of Vail, although under unusual circumstances the Town might wish to provide opportunities for the developer/applicant to seek approval for sites which meet all other operational criteria, to be located outside the Town boundaries. We do not believe such variances should be commonly granted, but special situations might arise whereby the Town believes such alternatives adequately serve the objectives of this requirement and might be worthy of approval. A second issue or concern involves the question of what happens over time when specific tenants or occupancy of a project change, yet the housing was approved for a different mix. It is our opinion that most shifts of tenancies that do not require a new or amended SDD or special application, will occur within the general framework of the approved housing plan. For those which do require an amended or new application, specific modifications in the required housing based upon the new plans (expansion, change of use, renovation, etc.) can be identified and reviewed at that time. It might be necessary to require additional housing to be built in some situations, kept at the same level in some, or might conceivably be reduced in others. Reductions could occur either by releasing deed restrictions on designated units, or by transferring/selling those units to another developer/applicant,._._. who might need them to meet their own requirement. Finally, a standard ratio.of employees to housing type should be established which iS consistent with the then current Town of Vail codes. Currently there exists four unit types: Type I Occupancy per code - 2 persons per bedroom plus 2 additional Type II 300-900 s.f. maximum, not to exceed 2 persons per unit Type III 450-900 s.f. maximum; not to exceed 2 persons per bedroom Type IV 300 s.f. maximum, not to exceed 1 person per unit n nc~r r nc~Rr.Atw7 ~nncc PA(;F S EMPLOYMENT GENERATION RATES EXIIIBI'I' ~i SUGGESTED EMPLOYn-PENT CATEGORIES AND RANGES FOR VAIL EXPRESSED AS EMPLOYEES PER 1000 SQUARE FEET RRC RESEARCH OVERALL AVERAGES SUGGESTED RANGE Bar/Restaurant 5.7/1000 s.f. 5-8/1000 s.f, Retail and Service Commercial 5.9/1000 5-8/1000 Retail: Grocery/Liquor/Convenience 1.8/1000 1.5-3/1000 Office: Real Estate 7.6/1000 6-9/1000 Office: Financial 3.1./1000 2.5-4/1000 Office: Professional/Other 6.6/1000 5-8/1000 Conference Center _ NA 1/1000 Health Club ~ NA 1-1.5/1000 Lodging* 1.3/room ,25-1.25/room Local Government 6.5/1000 5-8/1000 Construction (Offices, Interior Storage, etc.) 10.6/1000 9-13/1000 Multi-Family N/A 0.4/unit Single Family N/A 0.2/unit Other: To be determined through the SDD process, upon submission of adequate documentation and a review of the application materials. bodging/accommodations has particularly large variation of employees per room, depending upon factors such as size of facility and Level of service/support facilities and amenities provided. The standards present a wide range of employment, but it is anticipated that a definitive report will be submitted by each lodging property requesting an expansion, which would then be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. ROSALL REMMEN CARES PAGE 6 EMPLOYMENT GENERATION RATES EXHIBIT B ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY.CALCULATIONS OF EMPLOI'EE GENERATION UNITS Land Use Category Residential Employees Generated See Occupancy Standards Tourist Accommodation/ Lodge 0.2 to 0.4 employees per room Commercial Professional/Office Retail/Wholesale/Services Warehouse Manufacture Restaurant/Bar Utilities/Quasi Governmental Other 3.9 employees/1000 s.f. or 1/256 s.f. 3.S employees/1000 s.f. or 1/285 s.f_ 0.4 employees/1000 s.f. or 1/2S0 s.f. 1.5 to 4.0 employees/1000 s.f S.0 to 10.0 employees/1000 s.f. 1.S to 2.S employees/1000 s.f. Based on review of APCHA CLARIFICATIONS FOR CITY/COUNTY GENERATION: ----- a. The above Employee Generation calculation figures are intended to be consistent with Section 8-109, Affordable Housing, of the City Code and Section 5-510 of the County Code. b. Employee generation for commercial uses shall be based on net leasable square. footage (see Definitions) and shall be verified by review of the APCHA. c. Affordable housing may be provided on the same site or on an alternate site from the proposed development, provided that credit shall only be given for dwelling units located '~~ within -the City of Aspen or the Aspen Metro Area, as this area is currently defined by the Aspen/Pitkin County Growth Management Policy Plan. Applicants proposing to provide affordable housing on an alternative site shall be required to demonstrate .its feasibility through demonstrating that they have an interest in the property or dwelling units, and be specifying the size and type of units to be provided and any physical upgrades to be accomplished. d. The Aspen City Code Growth Management- Section 8-106G(4)(d) refers to the Provision of Affordable Housing. This section allows for the advice of the City Council's housing designee to be used in the determination of .tlie number of employees the proposed development is expected to generate. The standards for employee generation represent the various levels of service which reflect the types of lodge operations in existence or proposed for the City of Aspen. This section allows that the applicant be given the opportunity.:. EMPLOYMENT GENERATION RATES EXHIBIT C THE HOUSING/EMPLOYMENT FIGURES FROIVI SNOWIVIASS VILLAGE Job generation rates and therefore, the number of employees generated as a result of development varies by the type of land uses which comprise the development. In order to adequately determine the number of jobs which will result from a project, the following job generation rates shall be applied to each type of use in the development that creates a winter time impact on the community. Type of Use Number of Jobs Generated Commercial Office Multiple Family Single Family -Hotel/Lodge Room Ski Area Restaurants Ski Area Miscellaneous 5.57 jobs/1000 interior s.f. 3.78 jobs/1000 interior s.f. 0.50 jobs/unit 0.30 jobs/lot 0.44 jobs/room 4.58 jobs/1.000 interior s.f. 82.6 jobs/1000 sires at one time ----- Conference Center 0.97 jobs/1000 interior s.f. Health Club 1.47 jobs/1000 interior s.f.~ Others To be determined through subdivision or Planned Unit Development Process. a. The number of jobs generated by all types of uses, as determined in Section A, shall be divided by 1.3, the average number of jobs per employee, which will determine the number of new employees which will be generated by the development. b. .The Town Council has determined that it is desirable to house 60 % of these new employees in Snowmass Village. c ROSALL REASMEN CARFS PAGE 8 EMPLOYMENT GENERATION RATES EXHIBIT D WORK SHEET EMPLOYEES REQUIREID FOR VARIOUS USE TYPES (From Breckenridge; not adopted, use for discussion purposes only) Restaurants 6 examples Retail General (2 ex.) Ski shops (6 ex.) TOTAL RETAIL 8 examples Offices 6 examples 22,858 s.f. 126 employees = 1 employee/181.41 s.f. 1.310 s.f. 10 employees = 1 employee/131 s.f. 26,982 s.f. 79 employees = 1 employee/341.54 s.f. 28.292 s.f. _`__89 employees = 1 employee/317.88 s.f. 13.928 s.f. 77 employees = 1 employee/180 s.f. 5 examples 9,606 s.f. 44 employees = 1 employee/218 s. f. TOTAL RETAIL AND OFFICES 14 examples 42;220 s.f. 166 employees = 1 employee/254 s.f. TOTAL COMMERCIAL (RESTAURANT/RETAIL/OFFICE) 65.078 s.f. 292 employees = 1 employee/222 s.f. Hotels 3 examples 733 rooms 592 employees = 0.8 employees/room nncnt t ocan~,rtt.i reDFC o~r-_c n EhHIBIT' E IIVTERIIYi REPORT: THE HOUSING LINKAGE STUDY Frank Schnidman Principal Investigator Project Staff 'Teresa R. Herrero, Thomas D. Filson, Research Associates Christine lYYi, $arcia, Ann 1VI, Farwell, Jeffrey H. Hendry, Ann T. Reagan and Lynn BVheelan, Research Assistants FLORIDA ATI,AIVTIC TJIiTI~TERSIT%/FI,OR.IDA II~TERIVATIOIVAL ~7OII~T CENTER FOR E~IDO~'IEftiTAL ~D U~ERSITY L PROBLEPVIS SEP'T'EMBER 30,1959 Page 10 HOUSING LINKAGE STUDY CONTENTS FORWARD BY DR. JOHN M. DEGROVE (FORTHCOMING) PREFACE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (FORTHCOMING) CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION I CHAPTER 2. EXISTING LINKAGE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED 4 STATES • 2.1 ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS 4 2.2 ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS FOR A WORKABLE LINKAGE 12 PROGRAM 2.3 -RF~IONAL DEVELOPMENI'DISTRIBUTION AND PLANNING 17 IMPLICATIONS OF LOCAL LINKAGE PROGRAMS • 2.4 DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAMS 20 CHAPTER 3. SELECTED INCLUSIUNARY PROGRAMS IN THE SO UNITED STATES - . 3.1 ANALYSIS OF PROGRAMS 50 3.2 DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAMS 56 CHAPTER 4. LEGAL ISSUES AND CONSIDERATIONS 76 e 4.1 FLORIDA LOCAL GOVERNMENT AUTHORITY TO ENACT 77 LINKAGE PROGRAMS 4.2 CONSITI'UTIONAL ISSCIES 78 4.3 LEGAL CHECKLIST FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS IN 80 FLORIDA p~.,o ~ i CHAPTER 5. COn'IPARATIVE ANALYSES OF LINKAGE PROGRAMS gl AND OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING APPROACHES. 5.1 REVIEW OF OTHER AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS gl 5.2 INCORPORATION OF.LINKAGE PROGRAMS INTO g~ COMPREHENSNE AFFORDABLE. HOUSING STRATEGIES 5.3 GUIDELINES FOR INCORPORATING LINKAGE PROGRAMS gq W i'O A COMPREHENSIVE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ' STRATEGY CHAPTER 6. HOUSING LINKAGE PROGRAMS AND THE CAPITALIZATION OF HOUSING TRUST FUNDS 91 '6.1 DESCRIPTION OF HOUSING LINKAGE PROGRAMS' 92 CAPITALIZATION OF LOCAL HOUSING TRUST FUNDS 6.2 FIIdANCING.AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUNDS 94 CAPITALIZED THROUGH LINKAGE PROGRAMS 6.3 OTHER POTENTIAL SOURCES OF REVENUE FOR LOCAL ' 97 HOUSING TRUST FUNDS CHAPTER 7. GUIDELINES AND MODEL APPROACHES FOR LOCAL ' GOVERNMENTS IN FLORIDA TO DEVELOP A HOUSING LINKAGE PROGRAM (FORTHCOMING) 7.1 ISSUES WHICH MUST BE ADDRESSED 7.2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT MODELS CHAPTER 8. COl APPENDICES. I. II. III. TV. 7.3 WORKABLE HOUSING LINKAGE PROGRAM DESIGN AND fIvIPLEMENTATION OPTIONS 7.4 .LINKAGE GUIDELINES AND MODEL APPROACHES ~ICLUDING COMMENTS (FORTHCOMING) BIBLIOGRAPHY RESOURCE PERSONS SELECTED ORDINANCES AND GUIDELINES CITATION SELECTED ORDINANCE AND GUIDELINES TEXTS (BOUND SEPARATELY) (FORTHCOMING) Page 12 TABLE 1.1 HOUSING LINKAGE PROGRAMS CITY DATE PROGRAM TYPE Boston, h~seachusetts 1983 Quasi-Mandatory program for new and substantially rehabilitated development over 100,000 sq. ft requiring variances Cambridge, Massachusetts 1988 Quasi-h'Iandatory linkage for development over 30,000 sq. ft needing special permits in three districts or in PUDs Cheny Hill, New Jersey 1988 Mandatory housing impact fee for all developers Hanford, Connecticut 198b Optional density bonus for downtown commercial development Jersey City, New Jersey 1985 Voluntary linkage for office and commercial development Miami, Florida 1983, 1984 Optional density bonus in two zoning districts Menlo Park, California 1988 Mandatory linkage for commercial and industrial development over 10,000 sq.ft. Palo Alto, California 1984 Mandatary linkage for new and expanded commercial and industrial development over 20,000 square feet Princeton, New Jersey _. 1984 Mandatory linkage for non- t~sidential development Sacramento, California 1988 Mandatory linkage for non-residential development San Francisco, California 1980 Mandatory linkage for new or substantially rehabilitated downtown commercial development over 50,000 square feet Santa Monica, California 1986 Mandatory linkage fot all office development over 15,000 square feet or additions over 10,000 square feet Seattle, Washington 1984 Optional density bonus for commercial development in three downtown zones Tampa, Florida 1988 Optional density bonus program CITIES PRESENTLY CONSIDERING PROGRAMS Washington, D.C. Los Angeles, California Madison, Wisconsin (on hold) FAILED TO PASS Stamford, Connecticut Chicago, Illinois .PROGRAMS CHALLENGED IIV COURT Sacramento, California (upheld) ~ Chester Township, South Brunswick, and. Middletown, New Jersey (mandatory fee ordinances for all new . development, including commercial, to rehabilitate substandard housing, were declared to constiwte illegal taxes) Princeton, and Cherry Hill, New Jersey, (likely to be affected.by above ruling) TABLE 1.2 SELECTED INC.LUSIONARY ZONING PROGRA144S CITY DATE PROGRAIVI Alpert, Colorado 1988 Growth Management Quota System Boulder, Colorado 1978 Moderate Income Housing Ordinance Fairfax County, Virginia 1977 Low and Moderate Income Housing Provision Lee County, Florida 1986 Density bonus inclusionary program Lewisboro, New York N/A Density bonus Multi-Family Residence District program Menlo Park, California 1988 ,Below Market Rate Housing. Program for Residential Development Montgomery County, Maryland 1974 Moderately Priced Housing Law Newton, Massachusetts 1984 Revised 20go Inclusionary Zoning.Ordinance Norwalk, Connecticut 1988 Moderate Income Housing Regula[ion Orange County, California , 1979 Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance 1986 .Housing Opportunities Program Peabody Massachu~ett~ 1978. Proposed Inclusionary Zoning Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance '. Stamford, Connecticut 1988 Inclusionary Zoning Provision in Planned Development District .South Brunswick,.New Jersey 1987 Affordable Housing District Ordinance DISCONTINUED Cupertino, California 1976 Below Market Rate Program F Page 14 TABLE 2.1 LINKAGE PROGRAt~'I DESCRIPTIONS ~1U~ICIPAL- DATE AND APPLICABLE AREA RECD- DESCRIP- OPTIONS lTY 7YPE DEVELOP- VINC CONTR[ T10NS MST BUTTONS Boston, 1983 Office, rctai I, Downtown : SSJsq ft over Cash; Maszachusctu Mandatory instil buildings 10% in neigh- 100,000 sq (t Construction, over 100,000 sq. borhood. Out- .. ft. needing ton- side: 20% in ing changes, neighborhood. Cambridge, Massachuscns TERMS OF RESULTS PAYMENT ' In Downtown: 546,852,225 ' paid over 7 yrs ' c o m m i t t e d after bldg. per- whicla has as- mit; Outside: sistcd in the over 12 yrs ~af- construction of to CO. Con- .2,480 uniu, strvct. oC units: bcfotc CO. 1988 Bldgs. needing None identi- SZ/sq ft over Cash; Con- Bcforc CO, Two projects Mandatory .special pctmits ficd, 30,000 sq ft struction; land approved but in 3.dutricts or donation. appro~~ ~_ in PUD's, ]cngcd. Cherry Hill, 1988 All non-rtsickn- None identi- SI/sq ft of Cash, 20% before 5225,000 (no NcwJcrxy Mandatory tial (and resi- Pied. bldg. arts for bldg permit, ~u)- dcntial) Bevel- non-residcadal 20% at CO; rest .;:-. opaz, or 3% of con- in 3 annual SQUCt, cOSt InStallrI]CnLS. Hartford, 1986 Downtown Units must be Density bonus: Cash; Before C17, No funds cunt Conncticut ~" Optional c o m m e rc i a 1 on-site. 515/bonus sq ft Construction. or uniu built; bldgs, on-site (mat. FAR (scv, projects units, incrrzsc:4), at proposal stagc~ JcrscY CttY- 1985. Ncw retail and Priority given One unitR.595. Cash; Con- 25% .before Around 311 Ncw lcrscy Voluntary c o m m e re i a 1 ro inner-city sq ft shover struction at -bldg pcrrnit; uniu, more cz- projects _ over sites, 100,000 sq ft 2090 of in lieu 25% at C.O; pected_ Total 100,000 sq ft. Negotiated for (ccs; Financ- remainder pro- coat through (negot contrib. bldgs under ing at 80% of rated according financing could • forsmallaproj- 100,000 sq ft. fee. to leasing. not be esti- ' mss)' mated 1.lcnlo Park, 1988 Commatial or None identi- 51.39 sq. ft. Cash or Before first 57$ 431 California Mandatory industrial build- ficd, over 10,000 sq. construction. grading or , r c c e i v e d ; r Togs ova 10,000 ~ ft or (or lower building permit. 5238,500 s4• ft intensity .uses; cotnmited, 55.31 sq, ft Miami, Florida 1983 Optional Non-residcntial Within district Density bonus: Cash; Cash received 5248,300 • buildings in two or in 54 to 56.67/ Construction, ~ construction collected and spedal distticu. designated bonus sq. ft or of uniu begun 5 (.8 million project aria. .15 sq, ft of` ~ before bldg. tnorc czpxted. built tzs., space) permit for bo- bOnUS Sq, ft. nU5 aILE. Palo Alto, 1979' All buildings Nonc identi- 52.80/sq. ft. Donation to SO% within 10 52.2 million; Califtxnia Mandatory ova 20,000 sq. ficd. ova 20,000 sq. housing fund days of first 200 new or ft new two-ro- ` fL ~ Sing pc~fi tttiab, inns ~ ~- construction. SO% prior to assessed. sions ovct ~ 20,000, 1 TABLE 2.1 LINKAGE PROGRAhq DESCRIPTIONS (CONTINUED) ~1l'KICIPAL- UATE AND • t'fY TYPE Princeton, 1984 Ncw Jersey. AQandatory Sacramento, 1988 California Mandatory San Francisco, 1980 California Mandatory Santa Monica; 1986 California ~ APPLICAB(_>; AREA Rk;CEl - DESCRIP- OPTIONS TERMS (?Y RESULTS DEVELOP- ~ZNC COft- TIONS PAYMFSfT MENI' TRiDlIr70K3 Ncw and t-ddi- Nonc 53.39 sq. ft. Cash 2SSb at site plan 550 000 lions to non- identified (542.700 per aPP~'~: 259'o , ie_ ccived; 52 8 r e s i d c n t i a l unit). at cortsuuction; . mil, czpcctcd buildings. S0% at CO. frvrn proj. not yet tauilt_ Non-residential A f f o rd a b 1 e Fccs: from ..Cash; con- Fee must be . .51,800 received new or rehab. bildings units must be .5.25 (wart-., , struction: paid before 5121,000 eom- . within 7,milcs house) to 5.95 20~, of. fcc :bldg. permit. milled-under of develop- . (offiee~sq ft. .plus numbs. Uniu .built 2. legal challenge. mcnL of units do- year after big, pending on pcrTnir bcforc; type of dcv. CO. Downtown new .None idcnti- .55.69 sq. .ft. Cash; con- Fccs• bcforc 528'1 'nil., as- or additions to ~cd, ovcr50,000 ~' struction; of Units: ~ sistcd iri the office dcvcb Ct. One unit: .combination- • stared within 1 const. of 5,110 trrcnt of 50,000 514,737,70 year oC CD units(3,387 af- s4• h• or ~- . for~ablc). Add. 580 czpcctcd. Ncw office Nonc idcnti- 52.2.5/sq. fL for Cash; Lctta of tscdit; S3 million building over ficd. first 13,000; $S construction. ~`b ~~ Ca _ _ 'contnbutcd. 15,000 sq. fL or for rcmaindc- Iunaindcr in 3 ~ No funds cx- addition• over .Oae unit pa equal annual pcndcd 10.000 s~{, ft. 534,596. payments.' . Scanlc, 1984 ~~ D o w n t o w a Washington D o w n e o w n Dauity bonus; Cash; Fee: bcforc 274 units e o m m ere i s 1 ' roje t i arcs SIS.30 or $10/ Construction, excavation and assisted. p c s n 3 downtown bogus sq.. ft. shoring. Units: mss letter of credit ' rctaiacd until . completion Tampa, ~~~ 1988 ~~ Non-rtsidcntisl None idcnti- .Sl low to Cash; NegO°~ tip 5300 devclopt~cat in speanl disaacu feed. ta:od crate; .61 Construction- to pmnit stages, ,000 re- ,. ceivcd another , markee race; 570,2150 37,026 per ezpatcd point l Page 1.6 Attachax~e~t 3e d..etter from !fail ~6ousing Authority 12' MEMORANDUM To: Planning and Environmental Commission From: Vail Local Housing Authority -Date: September X1.3, 2004 Subject: An amendment to Special Development District # 4 - Westhaven Condominiums ("The Ruins") The Vail Local Housing Authority is aware that there is a housing requirement that needs to be met within the Cascade Special Development District. That requirement needs to be met on the only .site remaining to be developed in the SDD -The Ruins. Recognizing that development on that site has been hindered, at least in part, by the ability to finance the project while meeting the employee housing requirement the Housing Authority would like to recommend apay-in-lieu option for the developer. We recommend that the money paid would be directed to the Housing Authority to facilitate in the creation of new employee units within the Town, maintaining current stock as affordable, or taking advantage of a housing opportunity that may present itself in the future. The cost of the buy-out should be sufficient to allow the Housing Authority to be able to do something meaningful toward the housing needs of local employees. . • J ` ~. .. l~eni®a~andaana To: Town Council From: Stan Zemler Judy Camp Date: September 30, 2004 Subject: 2005 Budget Discussion The following documents are attached for Tuesday's 2005 budget discussion: o Budget Calendar o Capital Projects Fund Five-Year Projection (C-1 through C-2) o Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) Fund Five-Year Projection (R-1 through R-2) o Memo and map re: Open Lands Plan o General Fund 2005 Proposed Budget -First Draft (G-1) o Summary of Changes in Personnel for 2005 Budget Proposal (FTE-1) o Employee Benefits Summary for 2005 Budget Proposal (EB-1) o Health Insurance Fund 2005 Proposed Budget (HIF-1) o Heavy Equipment Fund 2005 Proposed Budget (HEF-1) o Dispatch Services Fund 2005 Proposed Budget (DSF-1) o Vail Marketing Fund 2005 Proposed Budget (VMF-1) l0aadEet ~alendaa~ . The budget calendar has been updated to reflect items that have been completed. ~aa~ital Pa•®iects wand ll+ive-Yeaa~ Plan As directed at your last meeting, we have included the West Vail Fire Station and heat for the streetscape on East Meadow Drive. For the fire station, we have included design costs in 2005 and estimated construction costs in 2006 for the new station. In 2007, we have included renovation costs for Main Vail including a reallocation of the cost of a new roof from the General Facility Improvements line. We are currently evaluating whether there is a need for any additional equipment with the West Vail station and, therefore, have not included anything at this time. We are also evaluating operational costs which will impact the General Fund, but not unti12006 at the earliest. For funding of the West Vail station and the Main Vail renovations, we have included the $1 million that has been requested from Eagle County as part of their annual budget process and also assumed we would use Certificates of Participation (GOP's) to fully fund the remainder of the costs. With the inclusion of these items, the Capital Projects Fund shows a negative balance beginning in 2006. ll~eal Estate 'I'ransffer 'd'ax lEaand Also as directed at your last meeting, we have revised the revenue projections for this fund. We have already collected $3.2 million in RETT this year and are projecting another million by year end for a total of $4,225,000. The RETT revenue shown on the -1- ' attached projection reflects an inflationary increase on sales of less than $10 million plus specific estimates for major redevelopment projects - P3 Parking, Gore Creek Place, Swiss Haus, Lionshead Core Site; and Crossroads. The Recreational Amenities Fee revenue has also been adjusted. This fee is based on increases in residential square footage and historically has averaged around $10,000. Including redevelopment projects and other increased activity, we have already collected $60,000 in 2004. Projections for 2005 through 2009 include an inflationary increase plus specific estimates for Gore Creek Place, Lionshead Core Site, and Crossroads in 2005. In all cases, we have used conservative estimates and assumed the developer will provide sufficient amenities to allow them the maximum 50% credit against the fee: As directed, we have looked at the remaining opportunities for open space acquisition and included $500,000 in 2005 for the purchase of all remaining parcels. (See attached memo and map from Russ Forrest.) Expenditures have also been adjusted to include certain operating expenses that were overlooked in the first draft of the RETT Fund projection, including streetscape operations and maintenance and the AIPP Coordinator's costs to support artwork in parks and public spaces. (The portion of her time spent coordinating the manhole cover fund-raising program is included in the General Fund.) Overall, the Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund balance grows from an estimated $5.6 million at the end of 2004 to $8.4 million in 2009. ~enee~al IF"aand 200511Da~®¢~®sed Baad~et - l~'irst Draft The attached schedule shows the first draft of the 2005 General Fund proposed budget compared with the 2004 Amended Budget and with the previous projection for 2005 which was included in the 2004 Budget Book. For 2005, we have included the impact (both positive and negative) of major redevelopment projects based on our best estimates of timing and dollars at this point in time. Proposed revenue totals $23.5 million and proposed expenditures total $22.7 million resulting in an increase in fund balance of $763,612, primarily as a result of projected construction permit fees offset by reductions in sales tax revenue and increases in personnel working on redevelopment projects: Revenue Revenue is generally based on trends with specific adjustments for the impact of redevelopment projects including Village Streetscape, Tivoli, .Gore Creek Place, Swiss Haus, Lionshead Core Site, Vail Plaza Hotel (formerly Vail Village Inn), Manor Vail, and Crossroads. Sales tax revenue is also adjusted downward for the impact of an early Easter. This proposal assumes sales tax is allocated 60% to the General Fund and 40% to the Capital Projects Fund. A super majority vote will be required to adopt the budget ordinance with this allocation.. Expenditures Expenditures in 2005 also include additional resources to support redevelopment activity. -The attached Summary of Changes in Personnel includes 9.3 full-time equivalent positions in the General Fund of which 7.75 are for redevelopment projects. Salary and -2- benefits costs for the redevelopment positions total $416,906. These redevelopment positions will terminate when the projects are complete. Merit increases are budgeted at 4% per discussion at your last meeting (compared with 2.5% in the 2004 Budget Book Projection). An additional amount is included in "All Other Operating Expenses" to allow fora 1% adjustment pool to be used at the Town Manager's discretion. Employee benefits total 36.6% of salaries overall - 39.3% for full-time regular employees and 12.6% for seasonal and part-time employees. (Schedule attached.) The total and full-time rates are unchanged from 2004. The seasonal rate reflects an increase from 12.5% to 12.6% due to increased participation in the wellness program. Increases in health care costs have been partially offset by changes in plan design which include increases in employee co-payments and co-premiums. A high deductible plan, which will result in lower costs to the town, is proposed as a'replacement for the existing 70130 plan. We have also been successful in reducing the cost of our survivors' life insurance plan through plan design changes for new employees and dropping the coverage for employees who have no eligible beneficiaries under the policy. Contributions, Marketing and Special Events Contributions will be discussed more fully in the evening meeting. The amounts included in the attached General Fund are based on the Town Manager's recommendations plus an allowance for 2.5% inflationary increases for contributions where the recommendation was to remain flat with last year. This line item shows a favorable variance to 2004 and to the previous 2005 projections of $357,809. This variance includes reductions of funding for the VCBA and the WCTB as a result of shifting from general support to support only for specific projects presented by these groups and the elimination of funding for the 2009 Championships. From the savings in this line, $100,000 has been used to fund a line item in the Town Manager's budget for economic development and $50,000 has been used to fund construction communications in the Community Information Office. All Other Operating Expenses This line includes all costs other than compensation incurred in operating and maintaining the town government and its facilities. Examples include utilities, contract labor, general liability insurance, hardware and software maintenance, office supplies, employee development, etc. A negative variance is shown for this line primarily because $75,000 for the 1 % salary adjustment pool, $100,000 for economic development, and $50,000 for construction communications are all included in this line. Without those adjustments, operating departments have decreased overall spending by 2.3% from the 2004 amended budget and 2.4% from the 2005 projection. Heave Equipment Char~Ls Heavy Equipment Operating Charges include a 32% increase in the cost of motor fuel, which drives the negative variance. Heavy Equipment Replacement Charges are an -3- ongoing charge based on the eventual replacement of vehicles currently in service. This item increased in 2005 due to the purchase of police, fire, and Town Attorney's vehicles which were previously leased and not included in the replacement pool and the purchase of expansion vehicles per the Capital Projects budget. Dispatch Services The General Fund is charged with its proportionate share of the costs of the Communication Center based on call volume, which has increased from 39.5% for the 2004 allocation to 40.5%. In addition, the Communications Center lost some of its 911 Authority Board funding and experienced an increase in expenses discussed more fully below. lEllealgl~ I[nsaarance 1Faancl The Health Insurance Fund is an internal services fund because it provides services to the town's other funds. Revenue is provided from charges to those funds as well as from employee contributions or co-premiums. For 2005, we are planning an increase in employee contributions of $58,000 or approximately 25%. Since the Town of Vail is self-insured, the largest expenditure from the fund is claims paid. Based upon actuarial calculations and advice from our health care consultants, we are expecting an increase in claims of $214,000 or 15%, which is partially offset by a $73,000 reduction in our negotiated premium with our stop-loss carrier. Heavy Equipment >F'aaard The Heavy Equipment Fund is also an internal services fund providing and maintaining vehicles and equipment used throughout the town's operations. The fund charges other departments for the operating expenses related to the equipment used by each department and also charges the departments for a replacement fund. In 2005, we are budgeting for an increase in the fund balance for future purchases in accordance with along-term replacement schedule. fl-ist~ateh Sei-vlces 1Fun~fl The Dispatch Services Fund is an enterprise fund because more than half of its revenue is provided from sources other than the Town of Vail. In this case, the revenue is provided by user agencies throughout Eagle County and by the E-911 Authority Board. The board manages the funds provided from a 911 surcharge collected from telecommunications carriers. In 2003, the board agreed to start funding six dispatch positions, a 911 Systems Administrator position, and certain software and equipment costs. Based on these assumptions, the board would have contributed $459,652 to the Communication Center's 2005 operating costs. However, in late August, the Board reduced their commitment by $113,992 to fund only the six dispatch positions or $345,660 as a result of its increased costs for 911 circuits in the county and other budget overruns. All of the user agencies, including the Town of Vail, are negatively impacted by this reduction in funding from the 911 Authority Board. Paul Smith, Communications Center Manager, has begun the process to submit a request to the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) for an increase in the surcharge to take effect in -4- 2006. The County Commissioners, whose approval is required, and the County Administrator have all indicated their support for a surcharge increase. Expenditures also increased by approximately $63,000, primarily due to increased software maintenance costs for the new computer-aided dispatch system. Vai- Ii~aa~-~etin~ lFuna- Business license fee revenue is the sole source of funding for the Vail Marketing Fund. Expenditures are restricted to marketing the Town of Vail. Based upon 2003 actual collections and 2004 year-to-date collections, which are short of the budgeted amount, we have reduced the revenue and expenditures budgets in 2005. All of the Marketing Expenses in both 2004 and 2005 are earmarked for the Commission on Special Events, with the remainder of the CSE's funding to come from the General Fund. In 2005, the General Fund will contribute an additional $20,000 because of the reduction in collections. -5- Version 6 Changes Highlighted Town of Vail Proposed 2005 Budget Timetable Contributions Council criteria discussion 05/18/04 Deadline for return of packets 07/30/04 Commission on Special Events presentation to Council 08/17/04 WCTB presentation to Council 08117!04 VCBA presentation to Council 08/17/04 Council evaluation of requests and direction for 2005 budget 10/05/04 Budget Guidelines Council discussion of budget timetable 05/18/04 Council discussion of budget philosopies 06/15!04 Budget Discussion w/ Department Heads 06/22/04 Guidelines distributed to department heads 07/01/04 Presentation of 2003 audit report to Council 08/03/04 Compensation and benefits presentation 09/21/04 Parking Task Force Meeting 09/03/04 2004/2005 parking program recommendation 09/21/04 Budget Preparation Capital budget request for county funds submitted 06/11/04 Staff prepares departmental budgets 07!19/04 to Council discussion of major revenue items 08/03/04 Council review of first draft of 5-year capital projection ~ 09/21/04 Council review of first draft of 5-year RETT projection 09/21/04 Council review of AIPP master plan/2 year plan 09/21/04 Donovan Pavilion Mgmt Co budget presentation to council 09/21/04 Council review of second draft of 5-year capital projection 10!05/04 Council review of second draft of 5-year RETT projection 10/05/04 Town Manager reviews departmental budgets 08/18/04 to Town Manager's budget complete 09/24/04 Council review of first draft proposal 10/05/04 Council review of second draft proposal 10/19/04 Budget ®ocumentation and Reporting First reading of 2004 Supplemental Number Two 08/17/04 Second reading of 2004 Supplemental Number Two 09/07/04 First reading of 2005 budget ordinance 11/02/04 Second reading of 2005 budget ordinance 11/16/04 First reading of mil levy certification ordinance 11/16/04 First reading of 2004 Supplemental Number Three 11/16/04 Second reading of mil levy certification ordinance 12/07/04 Second reading of 2004 Supplemental Number Three 12/07/04 Mil levy certification deadline to Eagle County 12/15/04 Budget book submission 12/31/04 Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete 08/13/04 Complete Complete Complete Complete Complete.'. 09/03/04 Complete Complete Complete TObURI OF !/AIL 200 BUDGET SUMMARY OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUAID BALANCE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Revenue Allocation of Sales Tax to CPF Transfer to GF for I-70 Noise mitigation Sales Tax Federal Grant Revenue Lease Revenue CDOT Reimbursement Transfer from General Fund Transfer from Dispatch Services Fund Project Reimbursement Eagle County Grant Revenue Interest Income 8 Other Total Revenue Expenditures Equipment Purchases Document Imaging Software 8 Hardware Upgrades Web Page DevelopmenVEcommerce Eagle County CAD / RMS Project Police Copier Police Vehicles Hardware Laptop Video Security for Jail Patrol Car Video Cameras Fire Truck Quick Response Vehicle -Fire Dept Fire Department Breathing Apparatus RepowerBuses Replace Buses GPS for Buses Police Vehicles Vehicle Expansion Subtotal Equipment Purchases Capital Maintenance Bus Shelter Replacement Bear Proof Trash Containers Capital Street Maintenance Parking Structure Improvements General Facility Improvements ADA Compliance improvementsNRD Subtotal Capltai Maintenance Buildings 8 Improvements Town Manager's Residence Town Manager's Office Fire infrastructure improvements Fiber Optics in Buildings Dobson Ice Arena Way Finding Improvements 2004 Amended 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 5,890,320 5,848,400 6,066,800 6,651,600 7,218,400 7,574,400 (46,000) $ 5,844,320 $ 5,848,400 $ 6,066,800 $ 6,651,600 $ 7,218,400 $ 7,574,400 2,807,929 692,000 811,800 3,780,000 1,120,000 510,000 150, 000 150, 000 15 0, 000 150, 000 150, 000 150, 000 40,322 500,000 110,000 969,290 _ 27,OQ0 27,000 366,000 ~_.. _ _ 1_;000,600: 50,000 25,000 19,000 16,000 11,000 17,000 10,837,861 7,742,400 7,074,600 10,597,600 8,499,400 8,251,400 Project Information \:ersion 2 Changes Highlighted ' 40% of total sales tax allocated to Capital Projects Bus replacements & Intermodal site in 2007 Lease revenue from City Market & employee housing Reimbursement for Bighorn flood remediation To fund Multi-Purpose Recreation Facility Computer-Aided Dispatch/Records Management System Multi-Purpose Recreation Facility'04/ VRI Agreement '05 8'06 04 Co,~ntywrde Gom afar AWgd~D~spatch !'05'-W ~Va1on _ 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 OCE maintenance, software upgrades, contract position 172,000 42,000 133,000 72,000 43,000 52,000 Desktop OS upgrades, replacement PC's, server upgrades, AS400 12,000 50,000 12,000 20,000 12,000 12,000 Intemst security 8 application interfaces 676,600 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 County wide Computer Aided Dispatch/Records Mgmt System 10,310 Purchase of new copier for records 68,485 11,500 Comprehensive system to record all cameras; reduces liability 22,500 22,500 Grant funding to be pursued before purchase - 735,000 Replace pumper; refurbish Aerial Pumper 107,370 Quick Response Vehicle 25,000 25,000 30,000 Replacement of cylinders/compressor; grant funding to be pursued - 126,000 Replace Vansmissions and engines to extend useful life 3,739,490 1,039,674 3,834,000 4 buses ordered in '04 cxl to '05 ($1,361,526) +'05 budget 150,000 150,000 375,000 279,200 40,300 5,304,145 1,469,784 766,000 917,000 3,979,000 154,000 30,250 30,000 10,000 30,000 10,000 30,000 840,000 890,000 932,000 1,032,000 950,000 980,000 520,000 420,000 525,000 440,000 460,000 495,000 571,286 331,500 405,000 "~_ ,. 270,000,,E 540,000 580,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 1,961,536 1,696,500 1,897,000 1,797,000 1,960,000 2,085,000 50,000 7,343 177,367 ~ 16„t~ 0~ _ __ 2,5(10,000 _ 725,~(w~ 85,000 20,000 15,000 15,000 16,250 85,573 End dump truck, mower and generator for Special Operations Group In the Village Preventive maintenance, patching, overlays and seal coats Various Parking Structure Improvements Various Facility Capital Improvements; '09 Dobson roof replacement Shared costs with VRD Masterpfan Costs(Design/tN' Vail Fire Station cpntingent on the ability,to, fun,,,d pperations:" Rem_wadel;pf Main Vail Station _ ____i,_ _ ~_M 15,000 15,000 Cabling /Network Infrastructure Vail Recreation District -Design fees to expand capacity Reivise TOV map w/ a electronic directory, directory for merchants 040930 C-t 9/30/04 TOlMRI OF !/AIL 2004 BUDGET SUMMARY OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES, AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND Version 2 Changes Highlighted aooa Donovan Park Pavilion Amended 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Project information Multi-Purpose Recreation Facility 33,465 1 612 290 42,000 Additional blinds Subtotal Bldgs /Improvements , , 2,067,288 162,000 2,515,000 740,000 15,000 15 000 Red Sandstone facility; revenue from partners included above Streetscape Projects West 8 East Meadow Drive 204,617 900,000 950,000 1,320,000 Construct streetscape, drainage, lighting. public art, landscaping -adds East Meadow Drive-Streetscape Heat 365 Q{i0 i 05 000 ~ maintenance from Library to Fire Station u Village Streetscape 2,267 425 2 095 190 , 1 535 3nG , , Per co_, nc~s requagt on 9/2)/04 Residential Reconstruct , , , , , 04 Start includes engineer salary; also funded by RETT 1 600 000 Overhaul residential streets Subtotal Streetscape Projects 2,472,042 2,095,190 3,400,300 1,975,000 1,320,000 1,600 000 Housing Program Buy-Down Program Timber Ridge Debt Service Guarantee Subtotal Housing Program Lionshead Redevelopment Lionshead Improvements 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Net cost of deed restricted units for resale 925,000 1,025,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 404,616 Intermodal Site 3,750,000 Subtotal Lionshead Redevelopment 404,616 3,750,000 - _ Other Improvements Revise TOV Master Plans 100,000 Street Light Improvement Program 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50 000 Drainage Improvements 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 , 75 000 Vail Today _ , I-70 Noise Subtotal Other Improvements 363,303 48 250,000 250,000 250 000 250 000 250 000 8,303 475,000 375,000 375,000 375,000 375,000 Total before Financing ~W:;Vait'Station $onds~ Mein Vail R~povations Transfer for Debt Service Total Expenditures Revenue Over (Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance 13,722,930 5,998,474 9,053,300 9,854,000 7,749,000 4 329 000 Design costs to implement Town improvements: Construction costs for Lionshead Redevelopment will be funded from developer contributions, TIF & othersources Federal funding included in revenue Including Village, Lionshead and West Vail Add new street lights and refurbish residential lighting program Continue implementation of drainage master plan 0,500,000) 3,,755 125;420 124,21<1 Certficates of Participation~(COP's)25 yearterm (725,000) 43,415 66,230 (COPS) 15 year term 2,337,897 2,422,154 2,236,200 2,322,497 1,321,825 2,320,363 To fund debt service on all Town bonds 16,060,827 8,420,628 9,789,500 11,337,252 10,239,689 6,839,807 (5,222,966) (678,228) (2,714,900) 8, 022, 731 3,186, 081 2, 507, 853 (739,652) (1,740,269) 1,411,593 (207,047) (946,699) (2,686,968) S 2,799,765 $ 2,507,853 $ (207,047) $ (946,699) $ (2,686,968) $ (1,275,375) No adjustment to sales tax revenue in 2004; favorable collections through April offset by potential shortfalls during redevelopment Sales tax revenue 2005 through 2008 adjusted for potential shortfall caused by reconstruction Expenditures adjusted for multi-purpose recreational center and public bathrooms in Village 040930 C-2 9/30/04 REVENUE Real Estate Transfer Tax Golf Course Lease Lottery Revenue Project Reimbursements Interest Income & Other Recreation Amenity Fees Total Revenue EXPENDITURES Annual Maintenance RETT Collection Costs Rec. Path Capital Maintenance Alpine Garden Support Tree Maintenance Street Furniture Replacement Black Gore Creek Sand Mitigation Park Capital Maintenance Bear Proof Containers Park, Path & Landscape Maintenance Subtotal Maintenance Recreation Pathffrail Development Katsos Ranch Cascade Bike Path Trailhead Development N. Frontage Rd. (School to Roundabout) Village Streetscape Design & Implement Meadow Drive Frontage Road Bike Trail Subtotal Pathways Capital Maintenance Raw Water Project Playground Safety Improvements Pirate Ship Park -Per Safety Plan Big Hom Park -Per Safety Plan Red Sandstone Park -Per Safety Plan Public Art Subtotal Capital Maintenance Park Development Donovan Park - White Water Park Gore Creek Promenade Bridge Lionshead Park Booth Creek Park Redevelopment TObUN OF BAIL 2004 BUDGET Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund Five-Year Summary of Revenue and Expenditures Version 2 Changes Highlighted 2004 Projected 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Projectlnformation ~ _ 4225,000 $ : ', 4,623,000 $ 4,828,000 $ 8.525,000 5 4620,U'1D S 4,850,p00- 112,579 115,956 119,435 123,018 126,709 130,510 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 50,000 50,000 51,000 56.000 57,000 65,000 75,000 63,000 194,600 X6,900 17,700 18;600' 19,500' 4,520,579 5,004,558 5,040,335 8,742,718 4,850,309 5,095,010 211,250 ' 231,150 241,400 426,250 231,000 242,500 135,200 140,608 146,232 152,082 158,165 164,491 75,000 52,000 54,080 56,243 58,493 60,833 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 150,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 114,500 95,000 100,000 105,000 110,000 9,500 10,000 857281 1,097;991 1,129;58 1';174,Of1° 1.164,586 1,268,400.' 1,523,231 1,831,249 1,851,293 2,093,664 1,902,244 2,031,284 500,000 500,000 150,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 650,000 1,750,000 3,000,000 1,250,000 1,025,000 800,000 1,080,000 Adjusted to trend 2005 adjusted due to redevelopment; outer years due to trend Collection fee remitted to the General Fund Capital maintenance of the town's rec. path system 04 only, one time $25K to pay off debt 8 daily operations Provide additional trees to Vail's public areas Additions and replacement of street furniture New in '05 to maintain playgournds, restrooms, etc. In TOV parks Ongoing path, park and open space maintenance Resurface rec path from Sunburst to E. Vail Widen recreation path from W. Haven to tennis courts 20,000 Improve trailheads Fund Path from Red Sandstone Pedestiran Brdg to Roundabout 1,050,000 Construct widened 6' shoulders along all frontage roads; first priority is Blue Cow Chute to East Vail 2,420,000 3,170,000 2,795,000 2,370,000 1,100,000 20,000 229,097 - - - 32,605 299,765 225,000 - 200,000 109,213 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 895,680 75,000 275,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 53,000 149,683 10,37 100,000 25,000 - 100,000 690,000 - 250,000 Convert parks from treated water to raw water Will move to 2005 Fwi~s 3rd hole at Wtilterater ?ark,;„,. W+ii move'04 to,'0 Will move '04 to '06 Reconstruct park 040830 Ij.i 9/30/04 Public Restrooms Skate Park Ford Park Master Plan-Improvements Subtotal Park Development Open Lands Open Space Acquisition Subtotal Open Lands Project Management Parks and Landscaping AIPP Subtotal Project Management Total Expenditures Revenue Over (Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance TOUVPi OF BAIL 2004 BUDGET Real Estate Transfer Tax Fund Five-Year Summary of Revenue and Expenditures 2004 ojected 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Information Version 2 Changes Highlighted 420,000;; W. Meadow Drive & Vail Road 400,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 Revisit Ford Park Management Plan adopted in April of '97 302,683 10,317 375,000 2,510,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 500;000"' - - - - - 500,000 - - - - 78,827 ;' 81,735 84,187 _ 86,713' 89;314 '` 91;993 Landscape architect ~ 27,435 56;891 _ 58;598 60,366: fi2,166 ~_ °64,031 ` f' PPsala operati ez nses relatedito.RETr- ~' 'r~ BALM ~~ n9' ~~ __.,. _ ._. ~ 106,262 138,626 142,785 147,068 151,480 156,025 5,247,856 5,725,192 5,439,078 7,195,732 4,228,724 3,282,309 (727,277) (720,636) (398,743) 1,546,986 621,584 1,812,701 6,286,775 5,559,498 4,836,862 4,440,119 5,987,105 6,608,690 $ 5,559,498 $ 4,838,862 $ 4,440,119 $ 5,987,105 $ 6,608,690 $ 8,421,391 040830 R-2 6130104 f~IENIORA~®UI~ TO: Judy Camp FROM: Russ Forrest DATE: October 5, 2004 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Open Lands Plan Implementation The 1994 Comprehensive Open Lands Plan identified 51 action items. The actions included purchasing land, trail easements, conducting land exchanges~with the U.S. Forest Service and building trails. The Town actively pursued the implementation of this plan by completing a land exchange with the U.S. Forest Service, purchasing numerous parcels, tax sale acquisitions, and building the recommended trail system to the extend allowed by the U.S. Forest Service. Today the Town owns over 1200 acres of open space or 1/3 of the total land area within the Town of Vail. Only 4 major actions remain from the 1994 Open Lands Plan that have not been resolved. The following is a summary of those 4 actions. The location of these parcels and Town owned opens space is summarized on the attached map. Open Lands Acreage/Zoning Owner Estimated Price Status Plan Ref i"B oar iiiia 6 13/Primary- Eagle River $200,000 Eagle River Secondary Water and Interested in Sanitation developing on 1 District acre and selling remaining 12 acres to Town for o ens ace. 2 7/ Eagle County- L Ladner $150,000- Owner interested Ag Zoning $250,000 in selling - setting sales rice 26 32/Agriculture Vail Resorts Unknown Vail Resorts Open Space willing to exchange with Town 44 48/Agriculture Cara Beutel Covenants Wendal Open Space precluded Porterfield developmentNalue representing based on open owners-has space indicated interest in sellin ~DR~F°F TOWN OF BAIL 2005 BUDGET PROPOSAL SUMMARY OF REVENUE, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE GENERAL FUND Revenue Local Taxes: Sales Tax Property and Ownership Ski Lift Tax Franchise Fees, Penalties, and Other Taxes Licenses & Permits Intergovernmental Revenue Transportation Centers Charges for Services Fines & Forfeitures Earnings on Investments Rental Revenue Miscellaneous and Project Reimbursements Total Revenue Expenditures 2004 04 Budget 2005 2003 2004 Amended Book Proposed Actuals Budge4 Budget 2005 Budget Projection $ 8,840,731 $ 8,835,480 8,881,480 8,923,835 $ 8,772,600 2,822,742 2,646,855 2,646,945 2,667,563 2,632,920 2,273,055 2,420,500 2,420,500 2,493,115 2,438,000 620,511 643,500 668,700 659,588 688,500 1,095,698 986,320 1,209,935 1,010,978 2,620,450 1,518,855 1,316,775 1,355,688 1,324,046 1,324,597 2,993,378 2,928,500 2,945,700 2,992,150 2,955,000 567,672 607,485 681,035 649,915 688,337 201,458 189,250 189,250 193,981 202,900 113,270 109,000 109,000 112,270 120,000 616,411 707,142 707,142 728,000 748,865 236,729 36,950 166,012 51,155 283,950 21,900,510 21,427,757 21,981,387 21,806,596 23,476,119 Salaries 9,591,749 9,843,911 10,066,963 10,090,009 10,657,330 Benefits 3,193,732 3,400,576 3,456,996 3,570,605 3,691,997 Subtotal Compensation and Benefits 12,785,481 13,244,487 13,523,959 13,660,614 14,349,327 Contributions and Special Events 1,184,765 1,167,346 1,167,346 1,167,346 809,537 All Other Operating Expenses 4,147,852 4,575,345 4,688,046 4,689,729 4,803,581 Heavy Equipment Operating Charges .1,341,469 1,463,158 1,469,908 1,515,161 1,609,506 Heavy Equipment Replacement Charges 397,712 405,467 437,977 424,125 581,522 Dispatch Services 450,531 463,813 463,813 471,134 559,034 Total Expenditures 20,307,810 21,319,616 21,751,049 21,928,109 22,712,507 Revenue Over (Under) Expenditures 1,592,700 108,141 230,338 (121,513) 763,612 Transfer to Capital Projects Fund (500,000) - - Beginning Fund Balance 8,784,044 9,016,571 10,376,744 9,124,711 10,107,082 Ending Fund Balance $ 10,376,744 $ 9,124,712 $ 10,107,082 $ 9,003,198 $ 10,870,694 Version 1 Fav (Unfav) Fav (Unfav) vs 2004 vs Amended 5-Yr Projection (108,880) (151,235) (14,025) (34,643) 17,500 (55,115) 19,800 28,912 1,410,515 1,609,472 (31,091) 551 9,300 (37,150) 7,302 38,422 13,650 8,919 11,000 7,730 41,723 20,865 117,938 232,795 1,494, 732 1,669,523 (590,367) (567,321) (235,001) (121,392) (825,368) (688,713) 357,809 357,809 (115,535) (113,852) (139,598) (94,345) (143,545) (157,397) (95,221) (87,900) (961,458) (784,398) 533,274 885,125 2005 Proposal G-1 9/30/04 Town of Vail Summary of Changes in Personnel Requested From 2004 Original Budget to 2005 Proposed Budget To Support Redevelopment Community Development Plans Examiner Planning Tech Building Inspector Community Development Administrative Support Electrical Inspector Subtotal Community Development Fire Fire Inspector Police Code Enforcement Officer Code Enforcement Officer Subtotal Police Public Works Engineer -Capital Projects Construction Inspector Summer Office Help Streetscape Inspector -Summer only Subtotal Public Works Total to Support Redevelopment Other Police Department Officer for I-70 education/enforcement Finance Parking Auditor. Town Clerk's Office Administrative Support Fire Fire Students Transportation Bus Drivers -Full-time converted from seasonal Bus Drivers -positions converted to full-time Subtotal Transportation Total Other -General Fund Public Works Buidling Maintenance Specialist - RETT Fund Landscapers - RETT Fund Subtotal Public Works Total Other Total Comments Partial funding from Lionshead agreement Partial funding from Lionshead agreement Partial funding from Lionshead agreement Partial funding from Lionshead agreement Eliminated -new Building Inspector will conduct electrical inspections Partial funding from Lionshead agreement Full funding from P3 development agreement -traffic control during ski season Feb. 05 until Lionshead is complete; 2005 budget far 11 months Partial funding from Lionshead agreement Partial funding from Lionshead agreement Partial funding from Lionshead agreement No developer funding -all TOV One-year pilot program from mid-2004 to mid-2005 Reinstate position and transfer to Finance to address audit issues 10 hours/month for increased activity; hours not reduced with CSE as planned 4 students paid when covering shifts or called in Unable to fill summer seasonal positions Unable to fill summer seasonal positions For rest rooms, art shack, shelters, and other ancillary park buildings Retum to October end of season Capital General Projects RETT Fund Fund Fund Total 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 (0.48) (0.48) 4.00 - - 4.00 1.00 1.00 0.48 0.48 1.00 1.00 1.48 - - 1.48 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.25 0.25 0.50 0.50 0.50 1.75 1.25 - 3.00 7.75. 1.25 - 9.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.06 0.06 0.11 0.11 3.00 3.00 (2.61) (2.61) 0.39 - - 0.39 1.56 - - 1.56 1.00 1.00 1.08 1.08 - - 2.08 2.08 1.56 - 2.08 3.64 9.31 1.25 2.08 12.64 F:\Users\FINANCE\BUDGET\Budget05\Comp 8 Benefits\headcount FTE - 1 9/30/04 Version 1 ' Tows ®f Vai@ Er~p9oyee benefits 2005 ~~adget Proposal lFuIV=Tia~oe Regular ~o~pVoyees Fee Based Health Insurance Group Term Life and Accidental Death Insurance Long-term Disability Insurance Survivor's Life Insurance Short-term Disability Insurance Wellness Benefit FPPA Contribution Subtotal Fee Based 1,652,000 73, 000 49,400 60,400 25, 000 92,000 34,000 1, 985, 800 Salary 15.7% 0.7% 0.5% 0.6% 0.2% 0.9% 0.3% Payroll Based Pension Contribution Medicare Workers' Compensation Insurance Unemployment Compensation Insurance Subtotal Payroll Based Total Fa~ll~Tisa~e fBe~efits Part=T'irne and Seasonal I~enployees Fee Based Wellness Payroll Based Pension contriburion Medicare Workers' Compensation Insurance Unemployment Compensation Insurance Subtotal Payroll Based Total Part~Tinae andl Seasonal Benefits Total Benefits ~ All ~ovaployees 1,682,282 152,694 294,857 26, 327 2,156,160 4,141, 960 80,400 18,328 17,717 34,211 3,055 18.9% 16.0% 1.5% 2.8% 0.3% 20.5% 39.3% 6.6% 1.5% 1.5% 2.8% „ ,,,,, 73, 310 6.0% 153,710 12.6% 4,295,670 36.6% Benefits 05 EB-1 9/30/04 Version 1 , T~!!MN OF BAIL 2005 BU®GET PR®POSAL BiEALT6~ INSUFdANCE FUN® SUfyiiyiAf2V OF REVENUE, EXPEN®ITURES AN® C6~ANGES iN FUN® BALANCE 2004 2005 2003 2004 Amended Proposed Actuals Budget Budget Budget Revenue Town of Vail Interagency Charge -Premiums Employee Contributions Insurer Proceeds Earnings on Investments _ Total Revenue Expenditures Health Inusrance Premiums Claims Paid Short-term Disability Pay Professional Fees Total Expenditures Revenue ®ver (Under) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund Balance 1,534,519 1, 596,000 1,596,000 1,677,000 208,979 207,000 207,000 265,000 37, 506 9,775 8,000 8,000 10,000 1, 790, 779 1,811,000 1,811,000 1,952,000 268, 737 309, 000 309, 000 236, 000 1,418,022 1,450,000 1,450,000 1,664,000 15,755 25,000 25,000 25,000 29,968 27,000 27,000 27,000 1,732,482 1,811,000 1,811,000 1,952,000 58,297 - - _ 757,075 757,075 815,372 815,372 $ 815,372 $ 757,075 $ 815,372 $ 815,372 Early Drafts HIF-1 9/30/04 Version 1 ~®~~ ®~ ~~il_ aoos ~~®~~T ~~®~®s~~. H~~~ ~~~1~~1=1vT tFUly® sa~r~l~~-~v ®1= ~E~E~uE, Ex~~iv®ITtDRES ~~®CI~~~G~s I~ ~~N®~~~~-~cE aoo~ aoo~ 2003 2004 Arroenclec0 I~o~oposec@ ~-ctuals Bu~9gea ~ucCget budget Revenue Town of Vail Interagency Charge Insurance Reimbursements & Other Earnings on Investments Equipment Sales and Trade-ins Total Revenue Expend'tures 1,739,181 1,923,795 1,956,305 2,256,246 23,825 37,900 37,900 37,900 5,649 3,400 3,400 5,300 119,150 47,400 47,400 101,860 1,887,805 2,012,495 2,045,005 2,401,306 Salaries & Benefits 790,706 817,109 817,109 841,508 Operating, Maintenance ~ Contracts 699,225 700,704 700,704 801,842 Capital Outlay 195,109 567,200 567,200 519,920 Total Expenditures 1,685,040 2,085,013 2,085,013 2,.163,270 Revenue ®ver (Undea~) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund balance 202,765 (72,518) (40,008) 238,036 287,132 436,768 489,897 449,889 $ 489,897 $ 364,250 $ 449,889 $ 687,925 Early Drafts HEF-1 9/30/04 Version 1 ~'®~VE~ ®F @l~~f~ X005 ~~®G~~' p~2®~®SA~ ®9SPATC~9 SE~VBCE ~UN® S~M~VA9~V ®~ G2~V~~9~E, ~XPEN®I~~JRES ANA CHANGES ~N F~9~1® ~A~NCE 2004 2005 2003 2004 Amended proposed Actuals Budget Budget Budget i2evenue E911 Board Revenue 362,970 391,648 391,648 345,660 Interagency Charges 674,253 711,875 711,875 814,058 Town of Vail Interagency Charge 450,531 463,815 463,815 559,054 Earnings on Investments 5,335 - _ _ E911 BOARD Capital Grant 279,517 - _ _ Total Revenue 1,772,606 1,567,338 1,567,338 1,718,772 (expenditures Salaries & Benefits 1,289,062 1,276,096 1,276,096 1 326 856 Operating, Maintenance & Contracts 112,619 220,785 220,785 , , 354 085 Capital Outlay 160,445 13,750 132,822 , 11 750 Total Expenditures 1,562,126 1,510,631 1,629,703 , 1,692,691 6tevenue Over (Under) Expenditures 210,480 56,707 (62,365) 26,081 Transfer to Capital projects Fund (90,000) - (110,000) - Beginning Fund Balance 266,212 254,775 386,692 386,692 Ending Fund Balance $ 386,692 $ 311,482 $ 214,327 $ 412,773 Early Drafts DSF-1 9/30/04 Version 1 , T®Rf!!~I ®i= NAVL 2005 IBB®CE~' PR®P®SAi_ Vs49f` i~e4RKE~'iNt~ FUR9® SU1R~i~iARV ®E REVEf~It9E, E1tPEl~®B~'URES ~a~® C~Ab'~GES aht9 Ft9Vl1® {gA~V~CIE 2004 2005 2003 2004 ~-enended l~u~oposed ~ctuais 16udgeg budget lBudget Revenue Business Licenses Earnings on Investments Total Revenue Ett~enditures Marketing Expenses Collection Fee -General Fund Total Expenditures Revenue ®veP (t9nder~) Expenditures Beginning Fund Balance Ending Fund ~aiance $ 314,867 $ 316,000 $ 316,000 $ 308,000 2,412 - - - 317,279 316,000 316,000 308,000 297,000 300,000 311,000 280,000 15, 743 15,800 15,800 15,400 312,743 315,800 326,800 295,400 4,536 200 (10,800) 12,600 32,166 29,446 $ 36,702 $ 25,902 $ 36,702 $ 29,646 $ 25,902 $ 38,502 Early Drafts VMF-1 9/30/04