The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2005-11-01 Support Documentation Town Council Evening Session TOWN COUNCIL EVENING SESSION AGENDA 6 P.M. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2005 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. 1. ITEM/TOPIC: Citizen Input (10 min.) 2. ITEM/TOPIC: Consent Agenda. Approval of 10.04.05, 10.11.05, and 10.18.05 Evening Session Minutes. (5 min.) 3. Greg Hall ITEM/TOPIC: I-70 Noise Mitigation Study Update- Hankard Environmental Inc. (45 min) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen to the presentation and direct staff regarding the recommended next steps. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Since April 2004, Hankard Environmental Inc. has been under contract with the Town of Vail to provide consulting services as part of a comprehensive effort to reduce the impact of traffic noise on I-70. Hankard Environmental will present the final report on the study and associated findings, specifically the results of modeling different barrier types (jersey barrier, berms, concrete walls) along the I-70 corridor, which generally showed that your typical concrete sound walls are not effective/recommended in all areas. Included in the report are recommendations for quiet asphalt, continued traffic enforcement, noise barriers and mitigation education for affected properties. In addition, staff has begun preliminary looks at the tunneling of I-70, met with Senator Allard to discuss possible discretionary funding for a pilot project using "quiet" asphalt, coordinated with Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) on future sand storage berm locations, and worked with private property owners to expand the sand storage berms at the Bald Mountain location. CDOT is beginning an extensive noise study to follow up on the work they have already done. CDOT has also committed to a Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA) mix design for the future I-70 overlay through Vail. Research and testing conducted by CDOT and others have shown the SMA mix to provide a 1 to 4 dBA reduction when compared to the standard superpave mix. CDOT is also beginning an Environmental Assessment (EA) for Vail Pass. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: - Listen to the presentation and provide staff guidance on the future steps and direction regarding overall I-70 noise mitigation strategies. 4. Matt Mire ITEMROPIC: An Intergovernmental Agreement between the Vail Park and Recreation District (the "District') and the Town of Vail (the `Town") for financing of ADA remediation for buildings owned by the Town and operated the District. (5 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Authorize the Town Manager to sign the Agreement on behalf of the Town. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: Asa result of Agreements between the 1) the Recreation District and the U.S. Justice Department; and 2) the Town of Vail and U.S. Justice Department, related to ADA compliance at Town owned and District .leased facilities, the Town and the District have agreed to jointly finance the ADA remediation. This Agreement memorializes the previous understanding between the District and the Town to share equally in the total remediation cost. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Town Manager to execute the Joint Construction Financing Agreement. 5. Leslie Fordham ITEM/TOPIC: Art in Public Places Trash Cans. (10 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Recommend the Public Works department purchase twenty trash cans for Vail. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: The Art in Public Places Board has developed a unique, high quality, can for Vail. The prototype can is made from 12 gauge steel, with two oversized pine cones plasma cut into the metal side panels. It is finished with a baked on powder coat and a protective clear coat of paint. The new trash receptacle is approximately the same size as the can currently made in the TOV carpenter's shop. An internal cigarette butt receptacle can be added. The Public Works department believes that a metal trashcan will not require as much maintenance as wood, which currently costs the town approximately $150 per year to repair and refinish. AIPP recommends that the Public Works department places an initial order for twenty trash cans for Vail village. 6. Matt Mire Second reading of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, an ordinance George Ruther deleting Title 4, Chapter 4, Articles A and B; Vail Town Code as they relate to time share disclosure and registration requirements; amending Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Section 12-2-2, Definitions, Section 12-6H-3, Conditional Uses, High Density Multiple-family Zone District; Section 12-7H-4, Permitted and Conditional Uses, Second Floor and Above, LionsHead Mixed Use 1 Zone District; Section 12- 10-10, Parking Requirements Schedules; Section 12-16-7(A)(8) Use Specific Criteria and Standards; Title 13, Subdivision Regulations, Section 13-2-2 Definitions, for proposed amendments, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (30 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005 on second reading. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On September 12, 2005, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendments. Upon review of the amendments, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted 7-0-0 to forward a recommendation of approval of the request to the Vail Town Council. On October 18, 2005, the Vail Town Council approved Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, on first reading. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town Council approves Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005. 7. Russ Forrest ITEM/TOPIC: Resolution 20, Series of 2005: Town Council Resolution Supporting Question 1 in the Vail Municipal Election on November 8, 2005. (60 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, modify, or deny Resolution 20, Series of 2005. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: At the September 20, 2005 Town Council meeting, the Vail Town Council directed staff to prepare a resolution endorsing the approval of Question 1 in the Vail Municipal Election set for November 8, 2005 related to the Vail Conference Center. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution 20, Series of 2005. 8. Warren Campbell ITEM/TOPIC: Resolution No. 21, Series of 2005, a resolution amending the Vail Village Urban Desian Guide Plan to allow for changes to the Architectural/Landscaping considerations for colors, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (20 min.) ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, approve with modifications, or deny Resolution No. 21, Series of 2005. BACKGROUND RATIONALE: On October 19, 2005, the Design Review Board voted 4-0-1 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council and Planning and Environmental '... Commission to amend the Vail Village Urban Desian. Guide Plan to allow for changes to the Architectural/Landscaping considerations for colors. 9. Stan Zemler On October 24, 2005, the Planning and Environmental Commission voted 7-0-0 to forward a recommendation of approval to the Town Council to amend the Vail Villa a Urban Desi n Guide Plan to allow for changes to the Architectural/Landscaping considerations for colors. Resolution No. 21 addresses the Commissions recommendation with revisions shown in ciriL~ih r~~ ~ and bold. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The Community Development Department recommends that the Vail Town Council approves Resolution No. 21, Series of 2005, as presented. ITEM/TOPIC: Town Manager's Report. (10 min.) - Vail Valley Athlete Commission Attached please find funding approvals jointly approved by the Vail Valley Athlete Commission partners: Beaver Creek Resort Company, Town of Vail, Vail Resorts, and. the Vail Valley Foundation. Recipients are as follows: Nathan Asoian $ 2,500 Clair Bidez $ 1,500 Dylan Bidez ~ $ 1,500 Kevin Hochtl $ 750 Stacia Hookom $ 2,500 Julia Littman $ 3,000 Rachel Nelson $ 1,500 Eden Serina $ 2,500 Josh Sherman $ 1,500 Jonathan Stevens $ 750 If you would like further information, please let staff know. - Dobson Schedule and Operating Costs Attached please find the Dobson regular schedule and operating costs as supplied by the Vail Recreation District. Please advise staff if you would like further information. In regard to special event programming for the arena, in '05 the following four performances are scheduled: December 10 and 11 311 December 27 and 28 String .Cheese Incident Four dates in March '06 have been placed "on hold" for special events/concerts; however, the acts have not currently been .1' booked. VRD staff has a commitment w/Resort Entertainment to book 7 special events at the arena in '06. - Proposed Council Retreat To provide preparation time prior to the town-wide community meeting scheduled for Thursday, January 12, 2006, staff would like Council feedback on setting Friday, December 16th, for the Council retreat. Given the timing of the election, the subsequent "swearing in" of the newly elected Council members on November 15th, allowing for the holidays, and after having gathered input from the focus groups, staff believes this will still provide an opportunity to assemble materials and an agenda based on Council input for the upcoming community meeting. Further, a follow up for the retreat outcomes will be scheduled for Council's regular work session on Tuesday, January 3rd. 10. ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment. (9:15 p.m.) NOTE UPCOMING MEETING ART TIMES BELOW: (ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR EVENING MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 6 P.M. TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 15, 2005, IN 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. Evaluation of Highway Noise Mitigation Alternatives For Vail Colorado 'repared for n1WN OF VAII, Vail, Colorado Prepared by H~~ Ei NVIRONMENTAL --- - - JI000S71C5 AND V18 GA tl Ofa CONSUIT~FI Cr Fort Collins, Colorado wNruRn ~ EI NVI.RONMF-~\iTAL 1.0 Introduction i 1UWNOF9A~, ` This report describes the options available to reduce noise from Interstate 70 through Vail Colorado. This study was commissioned by the Town of Vail, which has been investigating the noise issue for many years. There are a number of complexities involved with the implementation of highway noise mitigation measures, including the length of the study area (8 miles), the extreme topography and weather in Vail, Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) regulations, safety and maintenance concerns, aesthetics, and cost. Understanding of the issue is aided by dividing the list of available mitigation measures into three categories: "source', "path", and "receiver'. As illustrated in Figure 1-1, the source is traffic traveling on the highway and frontage roads. The path is the land between the highway and adjacent residences and parks. The residences and parks are the receivers. Table 1-1 lists the available highway noise mitigations measures using this categorization. As described in Section 2, Source Controls reduce the amount of noise that is generated in the first place. As a result, they benefit almost everyone, regardless of location. For example, reducing speeds and/or putting down quiet pavement reduces noise at ALL homes and businesses in Town, versus a wall that benefits only those located directly behind it or thicker windows that only benefit an individual property. The cons of source controls are that each only provides only a few dB of reduction, they are costly, and they require continued cooperation from the public and/or government agencies. As described in Section 3, Path Controls benefit a given area, such as a neighborhood. For walls and berms, the extent of the benefited area depends on their height and length and on topography. Barriers typically range in height from 3 to 25 feet, and can be hundreds to thousands of feet long. A 15-foot tall wall typically provides 5 to 10 dBA of noise reduction, depending on topography and distance. The cons of building barriers, particularly walls, are aesthetics, cost, and the rigors of CDOT coordination. The most effective path control is a tunnel, which would virtually eliminate highway noise along adjacent stretches. However, ventilation and portal noise would need to be addressed. Building a tunnel is, obviously, a major undertaking with a host of issues associated with it. Receiver Controls are described in Section 4. For developed properties, these include the construction of solid fences on private property, the rearrangement of outdoor use areas such as patios, and the installation of better windows. Such measures are effective, but only benefit individual properties and are the responsibility of the property owner. For new (re)developments, recommendations are provided regarding how noise can be considered early in the planning and design process as to minimize conflicts in the first place. A summary of recommended noise mitigation measures is provided in Section 5. In order to effectively mitigate noise in Vail, a number of measures will need to be pursued simultaneously, including speed reduction, pavement changes, barriers, and improvements to the planning processing for proposed (re)developments. HIGHWAY NOISE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR VAIL COLORADO FINAL REPORT -OCTOBER 2005 j.~AnxARn ~~ii~y NVIRUNMENTAL ~`.. Figure 1-1 Breakdown of Available Highway Noise Mitigation Measures Table 1-1 Available Highway Noise Mitigation Measures i~ ~o~vAn, Source Control Measures '%' • • • Reduce speeds Install low-noise pavement Modify tires, reduce engine/exhaust noise Path • Construct barriers (berms/wall) along Control highway/frontage roads Measures ••• Construct tunnel • Construct barriers (walls, berms) on affected property •'• Re-arrange existing site use Receiver Control • '•' Acoustically insulate structures Measures d• Consider noise in the layout of (re)developments • Consider noise early in the design of buildings within (re)developments HIGHWAY NOISE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR VAIL COLORADO FINAL REPORT -OCTOBER 2005 HANICARD ENVIRONMENTAL 2.0 Source Noise Controls 7tiWNOFV~Q. It is almost always best from anoise-reduction standpoint to mitigate noise at the source, i.e. before it ever gets into the environment. For cars traveling at highway speeds, almost all of the noise generated is the result of interaction between tires and the roadway surface. For trucks traveling at highways speeds, noise is generated from a combination of the tire-roadway interaction, the engine, and the exhaust. Therefore, available noise reduction measures include: Speed reduction Changes to pavement type Changes tire tread design Truck engine and exhaust modifications Recommendations for the implementation of each of these controls in Vail are provided below. Note that source controls benefit almost all of the receptors in Town. Therefore, they are particularly important to those areas where path and receiver controls are not possible (e.g. for residences located above the highway). Reduce Speeds on I-70/Frontage Roads The speed/noise measurements conducted as part of this study indicate that the current speed reduction program has produced a slight reduction in noise levels (~1 dBA). However, it must be noted that the measured data is rather inconclusive due to the complexities involved. Nonetheless, based on known acoustic principals it can be assumed that a 5 mph decrease in speed would result in a noise reduction 0.5 to 1 dBA, and a 10 mph reduction in speed would result in a noise reduction of approximately 1.5 dBA. This assumes that ALL vehicles reduce their speed at ALL times on both I-70 AND the frontage road. We conducted research in an attempt to locate reports from other states and communities who have implemented speed reduction programs. Most of the information we found related to traffic calming techniques, such as speed bumps. Some of the more relevant data we found was in regard to the effectiveness of photo radar systems. See Attachment B for a summary from the journal US Roads. One thing that is apparent from the literature is that more and more communities are relying on photo radar for speed enforcement, and some reports claim that it is the only way to obtain true, long-lasting speed reduction. HIGHWAY NOISE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR VAIL COLORADO FINAL REPORT -OCTOBER 2005 HANICARD EI NVIRONMENTAL . ~ ~`. 9C~YNOFVw, Anecdotally speaking, we believe that in order to produce a continuous, long-term reduction in speed on I-70 of at least 5 mph, a concerted effort of police patrols, signage, and education would need to be implemented. Local and visiting drivers need to know that one doesri t speed through Vail, much as East-coasters know not to speed on I-95 through Connecticut and Coloradoans know not to speed through Empire. One possible scenario would be one full-time police officer providing 20 hours per week of patrols, "your speed" and other signs at approximately 5 locations (two coming into each end of Town and one somewhere in between), and the existing level of public outreach continued year to year. Responsibility for this lies with the Town of Vail. CDOT coordination would be required for signs, but this is expected to be fairly straightforward. The estimated cost of this is $25k for the signs, $65k per year for the officer, and $5k per year for the education/outreach program. Note that the officer and outreach costs are recurring. Change Pavement Type on I-70 Research and testing of "low noise' or "quiet" pavements is ongoing in Europe, at the Federal level in the U.S., and within CDOT. The research is aimed at determining if certain concrete and asphalt pavements produce less noise than others, whether or not the reduction lasts over time, and if the "quiet" pavements are as safe and durable as the pavements in use today. Results from across the U.S. indicate that certain pavements could provide a noise reduction of 2 to 4 dBA versus CDOT's typical Superpave mix, at least initially. There pavements include Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA), open-graded friction course (OGFC), rubberized, and others such as NovaChip. CDOT's pavement selection process is based primarily on safety concerns and on the results of a life-cycle cost analysis. In order to be considered, a low noise pavement would need to be shown to be safe, durable, and provide a long lasting noise reduction. A test section of OGFC recently failed on I-70 near the Chief Hosa exit due to safety issues, and is likely out of contention for near-term use in the High Country. However, there was no change in the accident rate at an adjacent SMA test section, which is the most promising mix for Vail. CDOT seems to have a good degree of confidence in SMA, based on the presentation CDOT gave at the pavement noise meeting in Eagle in June. Based on research and testing conducted by CDOT and others, the lowest noise levels are achieved when using a small aggregate size in the mix (3/8" or 1/z', versus 3/4"). We recommend that the Town of Vail continue to work with CDOT to ensure that a small aggregate SMA or Superpave is considered/used for the I-70 overlay that is schedule for Vail in 2007. HIGHWAY NOISE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR VAIL COLORADO FINAL REPORT -OCTOBER 2005 HANIiARI) E( NVIRONMENTAL Modify Tires, Truck Engines, and Truck Exhausts These three control measures are discussed together because all are, for the most part, outside the control of the Town of Vail. The Federal Government currently regulates the amount of noise that new cars and trucks emit. The limits were set in concert with feasible mitigation practices. That is, they were specified as not to place undue hardship on vehicle manufacturers. Currently there are no regulations in the U.S. that control tire noise. Europe recently introduced such legislation. Thus Vail's only recourse would be lobbying- type efforts. i' ~C)N?~i~FYd1L Modify Tires As discussed above for pavement type, it is the interaction of the tires and roadway that generates almost all automobile noise and some of truck noise. Research is ongoing in Europe and the United States to determine the properties of tires that influence noise, and how these properties can be modified. As of this writing, FHWA recently initiated two research efforts aimed at better understanding truck tire/ roadway noise, and truck noise in general. In other efforts, acoast-by method for the measurement of tine sound emission has been adopted by several organizations as the standard for measurement of tire sound emissions, including ISO 13325:2003 and UNECE -Transport Division - World Forum for Harmonization of Vehicle Regulations. Regulation No. 51 (Informal Document 4, 35~ GRB). Two test methods are being employed; one using vehicles alone and one using a test trailer. The trailer test is thought to give a result that is more specific to tire noise, while the vehicle test is known to be influenced by vehicle propulsion noise as well. There are provisions in the standard for both passenger cars and trucks. Measurement results are currently being collected by agencies around the world and assembled into a database. It will establish current conditions of tire/road noise emissions. From this standards can be determined. The United States is part of this effort through the Society of Automotive Engineers. The last meeting of the group was in December of 2004. Given that research is just getting underway, it is safe to assume that there are no tire-tread noise regulations on the immediate horizon for the U.S. HIGHWAY NOISE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR VAIL COLORADO FINAL REPORT -OCTOBER 2005 ANKARA EI NVIRONMENTAL Modify Truck Engines and Exhausts In 2000, the State of Colorado enacted a law requiring all commercial vehicles equipped with an engine brake to have an adequate muffler in constant operation and properly maintained, or face a $500 fine. Inspections are conducted as part of routine safety checks. The Colorado Motor Carriers Association conducted a test in Vail where two identical trucks were driven at highway speeds through Town and' applied their engine brake. One truck had a standard muffler, and there was no audible braking noise ~' ~CNPNOF vAII. disconnected and a very loud, noticeable braking sound was heard along the highway. The CMCA makes the point that all new trucks have engine brakes, that the brakes are an integral part of the truck and its safety, and that the most prudent course of action is to ensure that proper mufflers are installed and maintained. We agree. HIGHWAY NOISE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR VAIL COLORADO FINAL REPORT -OCTOBER 2005 . The other's muffler was HANKARD ENVIR<)NMENTAL ,._.~.. 3.0 Path Controls ~~yAQ. ` Once noise is produced by the source, i.e. traffic, it begins to propagate outward. When the propagating sound waves encounter a barrier, some of the sound energy'is absorbed by the barrier, some is reflected backward, and some is diffracted over the top of the barrier. Atypical 15 foot tall highway noise wall achieves 5 to 10 dBA of reduction at receivers within 300 feet of the wall. Less reduction is obtained at receivers located further than 300 feet or those elevated above the highway. Barriers in use today range in height from 3 feet (i.e. a CDOT Type 7 safety barrier) to 20 feet tall (20 to 30 foot tall walls are uncommon, but do exist). Barriers can be vertical concrete walls, earthen berms, or some combination thereof. A tunnel can be thought of as "the ultimate noise barrier', as it blocks all of the noise (except at portals as discussed below). The amount of noise reduction that a barrier will achieve G+~sn+erekat~orrse is the result of the relationship between the height of the barrier with respect to the surrounding topography, the ~ ~-~_ relative location of all roads and receivers, ground type, _°"--1-~`•~;` and traffic conditions. This situation is very complex in -`b~~~~•~-''~-~. Vail due to the variation in terrain along the length of the Str+vta>~e'" -~ study area (8 miles). To analyze barrier effectiveness in - ' Vail, three thorough surveys of the Town and ~''~? x~,s~ ~'~~ ~""~ surrounding land use and topography were conducted. Twenty-one areas were identified for analysis, and an aerial view of each is provided in Attachment C. 'The software model STAMINA, which is relatively accurate and is used by most state and federal agencies, was used to predict the effectiveness of various barrier scenarios for each area. The analysis took into account topography, traffic on the Frontage Roads, receiver elevation, etc. A summary of each barrier type and the areas where each is recommended for consideration is provided below. This is followed by a summary of the recommendations at each area. Detailed noise prediction results are provided in Attachment D. "Sand Storage Berms" Over the past few years, the Town of Vail has worked cooperatively with CDOT to construct sand storage berms at a number of locations along I-70. This is a win-win situation, as Vail is desirous of noise mitigation, and CDOT needs a place to dispose of sand. Berms require slopes on each side ranging from 2:1 to 3:1. Therefore, a 15-foot tall berm needs a footprint of 60 to 90 feet. This amount of land area is generally only available in the East Vail area. Sand storage berms are recommended for consideration in Areas G-1, G-4, K-1, L, N, O-1, O-4, and O-5, as shown in the figures in Attachment C. HIGHWAY NOISE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR VAIL COLORADO FINAL REPORT -OCTOBER 2005 HANKAItD EI NVIRONMENTAL t 'NWNOF YAQ, Solid Safety Barriers Much of the noise from vehicle traffic comes from the interaction of the tine and the pavement. Therefore, in certain areas where residences are below the elevation of the highway, even a relatively short (height-wise) barrier will provide some noise Y` reduction. CDOT's 3-foot tall Type 7 Solid Safety Rail, which the Department uses regularly on its roadways, would be a logical choice as it meets current safety standards. For those areas where open guardrail currently exists, the Town could consider petitioning CDOT to replace it with solid rail when it is due for major maintenance, and perhaps only pay the cost differential. Alternatively, the Town could petition CDOT to replace existing open rail with solid rail immediately, or install solid rail where none exists currently. In this case it is anticipated that the Town would need to pay the entire cost. Type 7 barrier costs approximately $50 per foot (installed). Sites will require anywhere from 500 to 2,000 linear feet, at a resulting cost of $25k to $100k per site. Aesthetics should also be considered, as Type 7 rail does tend to become chipped and marred over time. Type 7 barriers are recommended for consideration in Areas A, D, and O-2, as shown in the figures in Attachment C. unreirMaced Berm Medrar»ca/y Stebrdzetl Earth Berm ~. -~ _. ~ %_ ~__ ~ carve aon.w.r.aen. 11rrMihiosld 9goee: 7. r nr~4nran w~ gwer r r? save If~plw Orp/ttlsM m Am b®OrM+ ibMYa ~~. diYerll MWEiIy 6 COM ~.~ AkQ~racalfy SaDNized EarBr Cohurrr _~ _~ ~__, __- Mecherucally StabNized EaM rerraoe ~~ Steepened Slope Berms There may be some areas where a 3 to 10 foot tall barrier is needed to provide any significant noise reduction, yet there is not enough room for a berm with the standard slopes of 3:1 or even 2:1, and a concrete wall would be too obtrusive or otherwise infeasible. In these areas, asoil-reinforced steepened earth berm combined with a Type 7 barrier shape on the traffic-side (where necessary) provides a possible solution. Steepened slope berms are recommended for consideration in Areas O-1 and O-2. Noise Walls Vertical walls require very little footprint and they provide between 5 and 15 dB of noise reduction. In this sense they are a feasible mitigation option in Vail. The detractions are cost and aesthetics. Depending on the design, a 2,000-foot long, l5-foot tall concrete wall costs approximately $1,000,000. The aesthetics of walls have improved greatly in the past view years. A few sample pictures of walls from Europe, the United States, and Asia are provided in Attachment E. .„ HIGHWAY NOISE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR VAIL COLORADO FINAL REPORT -OCTOBER 2005 unNxnxn =~iiEl NVIRONMEIITAL i' ~nwxo~vnQ. Based on a number of tours we conducted of the Town, we believe that Areas D and G-1 are the most suitable sites to consider noise walls. As discussed below, the most prudent location for a barrier for each of these areas is within CDOT's right of way. As a result, each wall will need to comply with CDOT's Policy Directive 1900. A synopsis of this and how it applies to Vail is provided below. This is followed by analysis results for each wall. CDOT Policy Directive 1900 To be constructed within CDOT's right of way, locally sponsored walls need to meet the requirements of CDOT's Policy Directive 1900.0 (effective 12/18/03). This policy states that wall requests are considered appropriate transportation projects provided: • The wall and all associated costs are locally funded o We assumed that Vail would fund the wall or seek non-CDOT funding • The request is submitted by a local jurisdiction o Of which Vail is one • The request has the support of the area Transportation Planning Region or MPO o Vail is within the Intermountain Transportation Planning Region • There is no other feasible location for the wall off of CDOT's right of way o This is true for Areas D and G-1, as described below • The wall meets the applicable sections of CDOT Noise Analysis and Abatement Guidelines (December 2002) o This is true for Areas D and G-1, as described below • The wall must not impact future transportation alternatives o To our knowledge, the'I-70 Mountain Corridor PEIS that CDOT is currently conducting does not include any major widening of I-70 in Vail with the exception of Area A Area D Noise Wall Considerations Area D consists of relatively densely spaced residences that are located, for the most part, below the elevation of the highway. In this case, the only reasonable location for the wall is on the shoulder of the highway (refer to the line labeled "futMIT D-11" in the Area D figure in Attachment C). The south side of the frontage road is not feasible due to local access and topography. The wall was analyzed for compliance with CDOT's noise guidelines. First, future loudest hour noise levels at front-row residences must equal or exceed 66 dBA. This is true for existing conditions, and levels will be a few dB higher in the future. Second, the wall must achieve at least 5 dB of noise reduction at front row (closest) receptors, and preferably 10 dB (this is difficult and not commonly achieved). STAMINA 2.0 was used to predict the noise reduction at each of the receptors shown in the figure. The model included frontage road traffic, which will not be mitigated by the wall. The model predicts that a 15-foot tall wall would achieve 5 to 6 dB of reduction at front row receptors, and a 20-foot tall wall would achieve 6 to 7 dB of reduction. This meets CDOT guidelines. HIGHWAY NOISE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR VAIL COLORADO FINAL REPORT -OCTOBER 2005 ~nNxn~in Ei NVQtoNMEN'fAL At oue?~ee .ne V~s~A+~en f. on et.r.+na i ~~~~~ . CDOT's noise guidelines also require that the wall be predicted to have acost-benefit index of less than $4,000 per dB of reduction per benefited receptor. A benefited receptor is one where the wall is predicted to achieve at least 3 dB of reduction. CDOT calculates cost by multiplying the area of the wall by a wall construction cost index, which is currently $30 per square foot. Table 3-1 shows the calculations of cost-benefit for both a 15 ft. and 20 ft. tall wall. For the most part both walls meet the criterion. The exact number of benefited receptors may be higher or lower than that used in the analysis, and would need to be refined if this wall is to be pursued. Table 3-1 Cost-Benefit Calculations For Noise Wall at Area D 15 Foot Tall Wall 20 Foot Tall Wall Length 4,100 ft 4,100 ft Area 61,500 sgft 82,000 sgft Cost ($30/sgft) $1,845,000 $2,460,000 Number of Benefited Receptors 100 100 Average Noise Reduction 4.5 6.5 Cost/dB of Reduction/Receptor $4,100 $3,780 Area G-1 Noise Wall Considerations Area G-1 consists of relatively densely spaced residences that are elevated slightly above the highway, as shown in the figures in Attachment C. From a pure noise reduction standpoint, the wall (or berm) should be located on the north side of the frontage road. However, there are four access points into the apartments along there, which precludes a barrier. There is an existing berm on the west side of these residences that could be augmented to provide greater noise reduction. Also, we understand that this entire area may be redeveloped. If so, we strongly advocate that noise be considered during planning. One entrance would be preferable, and a berm or wall-berm combination could be built. Refer to Section 5 for more information on noise issues during planning. This leaves the south side of the frontage road as the only feasible location for the wall, as shown as the line labeled "futMIT C-12" in the Area G-1 figure in Attachment C. The wall was analyzed for compliance with CDOT's noise guidelines. First, future loudest hour noise levels at front-row residences must equal or exceed 66 dBA. This is true for existing conditions, and levels will be a few dB higher in the future. Second, the wall must achieve at least 5 dB of noise reduction at front row (closest) receptors, and preferably 10 dB (this is difficult and not commonly achieved). STAMINA 2.0 was used to predict the noise reduction at each of the receptors shown in the figure. The model included frontage road HIGHWAY NOISE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR VAIL COLORADO 10 FINAL REPORT - OC70BER 2005 uwNx ~~ ~ E1 NVIRON~lENTAL ~ ~ Cc V .s~.~En CO~ ~:e~ i ~wxo~vi~ traffic, which will not be mitigated by the wall. The model predicts that a 15-foot tall wall would achieve 4 to 5 dB of reduction at front row receptors, and a 20-foot tall wall would achieve 6 to 8 dB. Therefore, the wall would need to be at least approximately 18 feet tall to meet the 5 dB reduction criterion at all front row receptors. CDOT's noise guidelines also require that the wall be predicted to have acost-benefit of less than $4,000 per dB of reduction per benefited receptor. A benefited receptor is one where the wall is predicted to achieve at least 3 dB of reduction. CDOT calculates cost by multiplying the area of the wall by a wall construction cost index, which is currently $30 per square foot. Table 3-2 shows the calculations of cost-benefit for both a 15 ft. and 20 ft. tall wall. For the most part both walls meet the criterion. The exact number of benefited receptors may be higher or lower than that used in the analysis, and would need to be refined if this wall is to be pursued. Table 3-2 Cost-Benefit Calculations For Noise Wall at Area G-2 15 Foot Tall Wall 20 Foot Tall Wall Length 2,500 ft 2,500. ft Area 37,500 sgft 50,000 sgft Cost ($30/sgft) $562,500 $1,500,000 Number of Benefited Receptors 40 50 Average Noise Reduction 5 7 Cost/dB of Reduction/Receptor $2,800 $4,300 HIGHWAY NOISE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR VAII COLORADO ~ ~ FINAL REPORT -OCTOBER 2005 ~ANNARD ENVIRONMENTAL Tunnel A tunnel is an extremely effective noise barrier. Highway noise would be completely eliminated along both sides of the highway for the length of the tunnel. Noise levels would increase within a few hundred feet of the portals, however this could be treated effectively or the portals could be located in non noise sensitive areas. Noise from ventilation systems would need to be treated, but this too can be accomplished effectively. i' ~~y~ There are, of course, many major ramifications to constructing a tunnel, such as CDOT/ FHWA approval, funding, maintenance requirements, safety, public opinion, and many others. At the January 5, 2005 Town Council meeting attendees discussed that prior to conducting any sort of in-depth engineering feasibility study, the following issues need to be addressed: public opinion regarding the impact of development over the highway, maximum length of tunnel before staff and facilities are needed, and the ownership of air rights. The recent popularity of public-private partnerships was noted. Path Mitigation Recommendations By Area The Town was toured a number of times to determine what form of path treatments, i.e. barriers, might be effective and where. A software model of each area was constructed using STAMINA 2.0. The noise reduction that would be achieved by each of the following barriers was predicted at each site: a 3-foot tall Type 7 rail, 8 and 10-foot tall steepened slope barrier, and 15 and 20 foot tall noise walls. Figures showing the location of each Area under study and the location of the barriers modeled are included in Attachment C. Prediction results are listed in Attachment D. Table 3-3, below, summarizes the analysis results and mitigation recommendations for each area. HIGHWAY NOISE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR VAIL COLORADO 12 FINAL REPORT -OCTOBER 2005 ~aNxnw~ EI NVIRONMENTAL AG~~~~a Vr~OtvrOn f.o ~ a Table 3-3 -Path Treatment Analysis Results ^. 1n>~~un¢ r Area Analysis Results and Mitigation Recommendations A Type 7 along I-70 predicted to provide 2 d6 of reduction at closest residences A 12' tall wall alon I-70 is redicted to rovide 5 to 8 dB of reduction B Not analyzed C Berm on private property modeled (C11) and shown to NOT provide significant reduction Barrier alon Fronta a Road modeled C12 and shown to NOT rovide si nificant reduction D Type 7 along I-70 predicted to provide <1 dB of reduction at closest residences A 15' tall wall along I-70 is predicted to provide 6 dB of reduction (wall site candidate) Short section of T e 7 alon Fronta a Road D12 redicted to rovide 4 d6 of reduction E Barriers predicted to NOT provide significant reduction F Not analyzed -Good example of proper site planning G-1 Berm on private property predicted to provide 6 d6 of reduction at closest residences A 15' tall wall alon I-70 is redicted to rovide 6 of reduction wall site candidate G-2 Not analyzed -limited outdoor use G-3 A 15' tall wall is predicted to provide 5 d6 of reduction, but only to a few residences For Sandstone Park, consider a wall alon north side of Fronta a Road G-4 Not analyzed -Enhance berms on private property G-5 Not analyzed -Construct fence along playground if desired G-6 Not analyzed I-1 Not analyzed -commercial land use I-2 Not analyzed -high rise buildings would not benefit from barriers I-3 Type 7 analyzed, but predicted to achieve only 1 dB of reduction -not recommended I-4 Type 7 analyzed, but predicted to achieve only 1 d6 of reduction -not recommended I-5 Not analyzed -commercial land use J-1 Downtown area shielded from I-70 and orientated away - no barriers recommended J-2 Barriers predicted to NOT provide significant reduction K-1 Barrier along I-70 NOT recommended Consider small berms and barriers nears ecific use areas such as the am hitheater K-2 Barrier along I-70 NOT recommended due to limited benefit K-3 Residences shielded by existing berm K-4 Barrier along I-70 NOT recommended due to limited benefit and high cost L Consider additional sand storage berming M-1 Berm constructed at Vail Mountain School (good site planning) M-2 Low barriers NOT effective at residences N Consider additional sand storage berming 0-1 Consider additional berming Consider stee ened slo a berm 0-2 Consider Type 7 barrier 0-3 Barrier along I-70 NOT recommended due to limited benefit 0-4 Consider berming 0-5 Consider berming HIGHWAY NOISE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR VAII COLORADO FINAL REPORT -OCTOBER 2005 ~ANKARI~ ENVIROxMENTAL 4.0 Receiver Controls i' ~{~~yAQ. Noise reduction can be achieved by making changes at receiver locations (i.e. residences). For outdoor activities, such as the use of a patio, some sort of a barrier can be erected that blocks the line of sight from the location of the outdoor activity to the highway and/or frontage roads. For indoor activities such as sleeping, mass can be added to walls and better windows installed. For new developments and redevelopments, noise should be considered early in the planning of the layout of a site, and structures should be designed so that interior noise levels are acceptable. The following information is provided for use by residents, planners, builders, etc. Protecting Outdoor Use Areas With A Barrier The amount of noise reduction that a barrier will provide is dependent on how well it blocks the line of sight between the source (i.e. the highway and frontage roads) and a receiver (e.g. a residence or park). The following steps should be taken when considering the construction of a barrier to reduce highway noise: Determine the area on the property where outdoor use regularly occurs, such as a patio, deck, or lawn. Consider if it might be more feasible to move the use area behind an existing structure where it will be shielded from the highway. It is understood that there may be overriding concerns such as view or sun. The appropriate height for a barrier is dependent on the relative locations of the outdoor use area in question, the ground where the wall will be placed, and I-70 (and frontage road if applicable). A good way to determine the necessary height is to place poles (e.g. PVC pipe) along the desired/most feasible barrier location. String a line between the poles and raise the line until it just breaks line of sight to the roadways of interest. A wall built to this height will achieve approximately 3 to 5 dB of reduction. This is generally considered the minimum desired reduction. Raise the line so that it is five feet above the minimum height. This will provide approximately 10 dB of noise reduction, which is generally considered very good. Wood walls in particular need to be sealed well. Atypical one-sided privacy fence consisting of 1" (nominal) thick slats tacked to horizontal rails is NOT a sufficient noise wall. Placing 1" thick slats on both sides of the rails is better, but still not completely adequate due to the gaps between the slats. Abetter method is to place 1" thick slats on the highway side of the rails, and line the inside (rail side) of these with 3/4' plywood. After installation, listen with one's ear placed close to the wall and caulk any seams where roadway noise is particularly audible. Place additional 1" thick slats on the inside of the rails for finish if desired. HIGHWAY NOISE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR VAII COLORADO 14 FINAL REPORT -OCTOBER 2005 ~ANKARD EI NVIRONMENTAL Earthen berms are effective noise barriers. The height considerations are the same as those described for walls. Berms require 2:1 slopes at a minimum. Therefore they require more room. Also, they need to be landscaped per Vail's guidelines, and drainage and utilities must also be considered. Walls can be made from poured concrete and masonry (brick or block). A minimum thickness of 4" in necessary. See pictures of representative walls in Attachment E. Recent advances in noise wall materials have led to a new breed of clear walls. These walls are made from high durability plastics, and are available from a number of sources. This is of particular importance in order to preserve the view. ~~V~ ' Reducing Interior Noise Levels At Existing Residences Reducing highway noise inside a residence should be approached on a "weakest link in the chain' basis. Typically, the weakest link is windows, doors, and other wall penetrations such as stove vents, followed by walls. Single pane windows are not effective at reducing noise transmission. Double pane windows should be used at a minimum. The greater the thickness of the glass and the width of the space between the panes the greater the noise reduction. Widows must be well sealed also. Doors should be solid-core, well sealed/gasketed. Widows in the doors should be thick and well sealed, or double paned. Proper sealing of the edge can be difficult, and it is imperative that the door closes tight and uniformly. If noise is coming through solid walls mass needs to be added, and the easiest way to do this is typically to add layers of drywall. Installing Sound Masking Systems One way of reducing the annoyance of roadway noise is to install a sound masking system either inside or outside the home. A sound masking system can consist of commercially available sound generators, water features, or "white noise" being played over a home "stereo". HIGHWAY NOISE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR VAIL COLORADO 15 FINAL REPORT -OCTOBER 2005 unNt~caRn iiEi NVIRONMFr1iTAL i 1CIWNQFVAd Reducing Exterior Noise Impacts In (Re)Developments Many outdoor use areas such as patios and decks are less than enjoyable when traffic noise makes conversation difficult. It is understood that there are many constraints on the decision of where to put outdoor use areas within a development, such as the availability of land and the desire for a certain view. However, where possible, the following noise considerations should be weighed during the planning of new developments along I-70: Increase the distance between the use areas and the highway as much as possible; locate non noise-sensitive uses such as parking lots closer to the highway Place buildings between the highway and outdoor use areas, provided that buildings where people will live are properly designed to reduce interior noise (see below) Orient buildings such that patios and balconies face away from the highway Reducing Interior Noise Impacts In (Re)Developments As always, the best way to minimize noise impacts is to prevent them from occurring the first place. The following is a list of ideas that should be considered early in the design of new structures: Place non noise-sensitive areas such as bathrooms, closets, and hallways on the side of the building facing the highway Minimize the number of operable doors and windows on the highway side of the building Avoid peneixations in the exterior walls facing the highway, such as those needed for vents and plumbing The Town of Vail has adopted the 2003 International Building Code, which requires exterior walls to exhibit a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 50. An analysis was conducted where noise levels inside a typical building were calculated using maximum measured highway noise levels and an exterior wall STC of 50. The resulting interior noise levels were less than the Noise Criterion (NC) 30 curve, which defines adequate sleeping and resting noise levels. Therefore, the STC 50 requirement is adequate in Vail. A second analysis was conducted where interior noise levels were calculated using the sound transmission loss of a typical double-glazed window. Windows are typically the "weakest link in the chain' in terms of how well a wall blocks noise. Again, the resulting interior noise levels were less than the Noise Criterion (NC) 30 curve. Therefore, an exterior wall with a STC 50 rating containing double-glazed windows will adequately reduce noise from I-70. This, of course, assumes that all doors and windows are closed and are well gasketed, which is the case with most modern components. Care should be taken to ensure a good seal at the bottom of doors using a sweep. HIGHWAY NOISE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR VAIL COLORADO 16 FINAL REPORT -OCTOBER 2005 ~nN~xu ENVOtoNMENTAi. n<ausr c..,o Vuvnuen l'. ox aaa+ha 5.0 Summary of Noise Mitigation Recommendations i 7YJ{PNOFYI~ Consider implementing a long term speed reduction campaign consisting of "slow down" signs, additional police patrols, and public education/outreach Work with CDOT to ensure that some form of low-noise pavement is used for the 2007 overlay of I-70 (perhaps a small aggregate SMA) Support the efforts of the State in enforcing truck muffler requirements Continue to work with CDOT to construct more sand storage berms, specifically in Areas G-1, G-4, K-1, L, N, O-1, O-4, and O-5, as shown in the figures in Attachment C Consider working with CDOT to have Type 7 barriers installed in Areas A, D, O-2, as shown in the figures in Attachment C Further analyze the costs and other issues associated with constructing steepened slope berms in Areas O-1 and O-2, as shown in the figures in Attachment C If funding for a noise wall is pursued, consider Areas D and G-1 Continue to consider a tunnel, at least a short one in a critical area, with development above it to offset the cost Make "Receiver [Noise] Controls" information contained in this report available to residents, planners, developers, etc. HIGHWAY NOISE MITIGATION ALTERNATIVES FOR VAIL COLORADO 17 FINAL REPORT -OCTOBER 2005 ATTACHMENT A RELEVANT NOISE TERMINOLOGY VAIL NOISE MITIGATION REPORT ATTACHMENTS HANKARD ENVIRONMENTAL INC. REPORT N0 77-1-1 A-Weighted Sound (dBA) - A-weighting network was developed and is applied to either measured or predicted noise levels to mimic the ear's varying sensitivity to frequency. Resulting noise levels are expressed in dBA. Table Al shows the A-weighted noise levels of some common noise sources. TABLE i41 apical Noise Levels Noise Source Noise Level (dBA) Amplified rock band 115 - 120 Commercial jet takeoff at 200 feet 105 - 115 Community warning siren at 100 feet 95 - 105 Busy urban street 85 - 95 Construction equipment at 50 feet 75 - 85 Freeway traffic at 50 feet 65 - 75 Normal conversation at 6 feet 55 - 65 Typical office interior 45 - 55 Soft radio music 35 - 45 Typical residential interior 25 - 35 Typical whisper at 6 feet 15 - 25 Human breathing 5 -15 Threshold of hearing 0 - 5 Decibel (dB) - A decibel is one-tenth of a Bel. For sound pressure levels, it is a measure on a logarithmic scale, which indicates the squared ratio of sound pressure to a reference sound pressure. Equivalent Sound Level (Leq) -The equivalent steady state sound level which in a stated period of time would contain the same acoustical energy as the time-varying sound level during the same period. The time period used for highway noise analysis is one hour. All noise levels described in this report are hourly, A-weighted Leq's. Frequency (f) -The number of oscillations per second of a periodic wave sound expressed in units of Hertz (Hz). The value is the reciprocal (1/x) of the period of oscillations in seconds. The human ear is, in general, capable of detecting frequencies between 20 to 20,000 Hertz. The human ear is more sensitive to high frequency sounds than to low frequency sounds. Noise -Unwanted sound, usually loud or unexpected. Noise Receptors -Areas in which people are typically located, which include places such as residences, hotels, commercial buildings, parks, etc. Usually, one noise receptor location is used to analyze an area unless the area is quite large and covers various distances from the roadway. The noise receptor is typically located on the facade of a structure that faces the noise source or roadway. Pascal (Pa) - A unit of pressure (in acoustics, normally RMS sound pressure) equal to one Newton per square meter (N/m2). A reference pressure for a sound pressure level of 0 dB is 20 j.tPa (20 micro Pascal). Sound -Caused by pressure fluctuations in the air. The range of sound pressures, which the human ear is capable of detecting, is very large (0.00002 to 200 Pascals). To facilitate easier discussion, sound pressures are described on a decibel (dB) scale. VAIL NOISE MITIGATION REPORT ATTACHMENTS HANKARD ENVIRONMENTAL INC. REPORT N0 77-1.1 Sound Absorption -This typically occurs when sound is converted to heat or another form of energy. A common sound absorptive material is fiberglass insulation. Sound Pressure Level (SPL) -Sound pressure level in dB is equal to 10Log~o(p2/po) where p is the instantaneous sound pressure and po is the reference sound pressure of 0.00002 Pa. This results in a scale of 0 dB (threshold of audibility) to 120 dB (threshold of pain). Sound Reflection -The reflection of sound occurs when an object is able to significantly increase the impedance when compared to the surrounding air. This would require an object to be non-porous and to have enough density, stiffness and thickness. Sound Transmission Loss (STL or TL) -The conversion of sound energy to another form of energy (usually heat) from one side of a barrier to the other. VAIL NOISE MITIGATION REPORT ATTACHMENTS HANKARD ENVIRONMENTAL INC. REPORT NO 77-1-1 ATTACHMENT B SUMMARY OF PHOTO RADAR STUDIES VAIL NOISE MITIGATION REPORT ATTACHMENTS HANKARD ENVIRONMENTAL INC. REPORT NO 77-1-1 [From Auto and Road User Journal, March 17, 1997] A 1988 Victoria, B.C. study concluded that photo radar cameras reduced speeds at study sites. Two years of data from Victoria, Australia showed that speed reduction at camera sites was greater when media publicity and signs announced the presence of photo radar. In Vancouver, B.C. research from ashort-term 1994 study indicated that fewer vehicles traveled over the speed limit when photo radar was in place. An Arlington, Texas report concluded that the presence of photo radar cameras reduced speeding--the greater the concentration of cameras, the greater the reduction in speeders. During a 1990-to-1992 Swedish research project, data showed fewer injury-producing crashes both on test roadway sections monitored by cameras and on control sections of roadways not monitored by cameras. The reductions were greater, however, where there were cameras. German statistics compared collisions on the Autobahn in 1977, without photo radar, and in 1978, after the installation of photo radar. Researchers reported increased compliance with speed limits. Moreover, there were only 9 crashes, 7 injuries, and no deaths in 1978 compared with 300 crashes, 80 injuries, and 7 deaths the year before. Similarly, Australian statistics from 1992 and 1993 showed photo radar reduced injury- producing collisions on some roadways by as much as 20 percent. United States research substantiated the relationship between reduced speed and injury-producing collisions. In 1974, the U.S. instituted national 55-mile-per-hour speed limits. The Transportation Research Board estimated that during 1983 the reduced speed limit saved between 2,000 and 4,000 lives. Interstate highways where states increased the speed limit from 55 to 65 miles per hour experienced a 27.1 percent increase in fatal crashes in 1987, while sections of the interstate where the speed limit remained at 55 miles per hour showed increases of only 0.6 percent. During the same time, the number of motorists driving more than 65 miles per hour increased by 48.2 percent on interstates where the speed limit was 65 miles per hour; interstates where the speed limit was still 55 miles per hour showed an increase of only 9.1 percent. Michigan statistics compared fatalities, serious injuries, and moderate injuries on sections of interstate before and after the change from a 55-mile-per-hour speed limit to 65 miles per hour. Although no significant increase in the number of vehicles involved in crashes resulted, significant increases occurred in the number of fatalities and injuries--showing a relationship between higher speed and severity of crashes. In an eleven-month pilot study, the Province of Ontario is using four portable photo radar units on selected sections of roadway. The MTO created three site pairings to compare data for test sections using photo radar equipment and control sections not using the equipment. Loops embedded in the roadways collected data 24 hours a day and seven days a week on vehicle speeds and sizes. Photo radar vehicles containing radar units, cameras, and Ontario Provincial Police patrolled the test roadways. Baseline data collection took place the end of July 1994. VAIL NOISE MITIGATION REPORT ATTACHMENTS HANKARD ENVIRONMENTAL INC. REPORT NO 77-1-1 From August 1 through August 14, 1994, signs reading SPEED ENFORCED BY PHOTO RADAR confronted motorists on the test sections; however, enforcement did not begin until August 15. With 18 million vehicles monitored on test roadways and 13 million on control roadways, results showed speed reductions on all roadways. However, the average speed reduction was greater at all test sites when compared with control sites. Data led researchers to several conclusions: While the proportion of speeding vehicles decreased at all sites during the test period, decreases were greater at test sites. The greatest decreases in the proportion of speeding vehicles at all sites were for vehicles traveling at the highest rates of speed. Again, the largest decreases were at test sites. Substantial speed reductions at all sites suggested that media coverage of the use of photo radar at some sites affected the behavior of all drivers. In addition, other ongoing safety initiatives were probably causing speed reductions. The greatest speed reductions occurred on the six-lane test section. While daily radio announcements advertised the use of photo radar at the six-lane site, the use of radar at other sites attracted less media attention. These preliminary data seem to support the hypothesis that specific speed enforcement in conjunction with public media campaigns can lower average speeds and the proportion of speeders on provincial highways. At least for a short time, the mere presence of signing announcing photo radar reduced speeding--even when cameras were not present. When the MTO increased enforcement presence and fully deployed the photo radar units (on December 1, 1994), decreases in speeding on the test roadways became even more significant. The report suggested that drivers were more likely to reduce their speed as they talked to more people who had seen the photo radar units or as they saw units themselves. Baseline data showed 62 percent of motorists drove over the speed limit before photo radar enforcement. During the fourth month of enforcement, this figure had dropped to 47 percent at some sites. Over half the total drivers, however, continued to exceed the speed limit--even at the end of the preliminary study period. VAIL NOISE MITIGATION REPORT ATTACHMENTS HANKARD ENVIRONMENTAL INC. REPORT N0 77-1-1 ATTACHMENT C AERIALS VIEWS OF STUDY AREAS VAIL NOISE MITIGATION REPORT ATTACHMENTS HANKARD ENVIRONMENTAL INC. REPORT N0 77-1-1 _< Z~ ~Z 0 v to m z~ <~ o ~' z~ m~ zz nm r ~ Z O n ~ m~ ~n ~~ zm 0 V ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ; by ~ x ~f~ ~. r ~,< ~' ~~• ~~ yrv rW ~ ~~ .. ~ .~ y~ . w, w V ~°' '" :~°.~° . ~r dk dT S G D D_ Z r O ~ ~ m z~ <~ o~ Z D ~ O m D m r ~ Z ~ n ~ ~ D m~ O D n ~ ~ zm O Z V ~ r N --,;R....,.~...~J' III, ~ ~ ~ fide ~'~ r ~ ~ ~~, :~ ~~~. x r ,~ e~ ~~' ~ / ~` My ~ ~ ~ 9 _< D D_ Z r O O fn m <~ O~ z~ m~ Z Z Dm r ~ ZO n ~ ~ D m~ O D C7 ~ ~ zm oz ~~ ~~r" '" ~~ ~~ 4 rv ~~ , 2 G D r Z ~ O O ~ mm z~ <_~ o~ D Z ~ O zz ~~ ~~ zo ~~ A D m o> ~~ zm O Z N 2 < D D Z r ~` Z ~ O o cn mm <~ O~ 2 ~ m ~ Z Z Dr ~ v Z ~ n~ ~ D m~ vD o~ ~_ z~ oZ ~~ 2 < D - 2 r ~` Z ~ O ~ ~ m ^' ~~ o~ z~ m0 zz D m r ~ Z ~ (") ~ ~ D m~ ~ D O n ~ _ Z ~ O Z v ~ ;. e ~~~~~~ ~~ { ~ ~~ w r ,~'~ ' ~P ~,,w~"' ~ . r :.."' ~~" .~+- ~• `• ,,,,, . ~ ^, ^ ~~ t ,u; f ~_~ 2 < D D r ~` Z A O O cn m r^ ~~ O~ z~ m~ z D m Z ~ C7 ~ ~ D m~ o> n ~_ z~ oZ V ~ V ~ y_< Z - r ~O ~~ o~ mm <~_ O ~ Z _~ m~ zz am r ~ Z ~ n ~ ~~ m O n ~ ~ zm 0 ~? ~N _< DD zP ~o ~_ o~ m m O ~ z~ m~ zz D m r ~ Z O n~ ~ D m p D A ~ ~ z m O Z V ~ 2 < A D Z ~ ~` Z ~ O v cn m m O ~ Z _~ m ~ Z D m r ~ z O ('~ ~ m O> n ~~ zm O Z ~ r w rp~ "~. rc ~ ~ ~. i s~' m.. a ~ Nm x ~ ~_ _< Z~ ~_ ~o o~ m m ~~ O ~ Z ~ m~ zZ D m r ~ z~ ~~ ~ D m O n A ~ O m V V ~ 2 < D D Z ~ Z A O v~ mm z~ <_~ o~ z~ m ~ zz D m r ~ ZO n~ ~D m ~ n 1 ~ O m V ~ r ~ 2 < D D r Z ~ O v~ mm Z ~ < ~ O~ z~ m~ zz D m r ~ Z ~ n ~ ~ D m ~n ~~ zm O Z V ~ _< a_a r ~_ Q ~ m <~ O~ z~ m~ zZ D m r ~ 2 O c") ~ ~ D m~ O a C7 ~ ~ zm O Z ~ ~ ~ N k _< D D Z ~ ~` Z ~ O O Cn m r^ z~ <~_ o~ z~ m ~ zz am r ~ Z O n ~ m~ ~ D O (7 ~m z ~~ 2 < Z ~ Z ~ O O ~ mm <~ O~ z~ m ~ zZ D m r ~ Z O n ~ z7 D m O D ~ (7 ~ ~ zm O Z nn z r- ~o ~_ o cn m r^ <~ O~ zD m ~ 2 Z am r ~ Z ~ n y ~ D m O D C'7 ~ ~ zm oz ~~ ~~ ,,,, .,g. ~r: ~ ,~, ATTACHMENT D PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS AT EACH STUDY AREA VAIL NOISE MITIGATION REPORT ATTACHMENTS HANKARD ENVIRONMENTAL INC. REPORT N0 77-1-1 Mit A-11 Predicted Noise Levels (dBA) Al 64 63 60 59 58 58 A2 59 59 57 54 53 52 A3 55 55 55 54 53 52 A4 64 63 59 56 55 53 A5 59 58 56 53 51 49 A6 63 62 59 56 55 53 A7 58 57 56 53 52 51 A8 54 54 52 51 49 47 A9 62 62 60 58 57 57 A10 60 60 59 57 56 56 Predicted Noise Level Reductions 2 4 6 6 6 1 3 5 6 7 0 0 1 2 3 2 5 8 10 11 1 2 5 7 10 1 4 7 9 10 1 2 5 6 8 0 2 3 5 7 1 3 5 5 6 1 2 3 4 4 Mit C-11 Predicted Noise Levels (dBA) C1 67 67 67 67 67 67 C2 62 62 62 62 62 62 C3 61 61 61 61 61 61 C4 65 65 65 65 65 64 C5 61 61 60 60 60 60 C6 57 57 57 57 57 57 C7 65 65 65 65 65 65 C8 64 64 64 64 64 64 C9 63 63 63 63 63 63 C10 60 60 60 60 60 60 C11 57 57 57 57 57 57 Predicted Noise Level Reductions (dBA) aft barrier 8ft barrier 12ft barrier 15ft b~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mit C-12 Predicted Noise Levels (dBA) C1 67 67 66 64 63 60 C2 62 62 62 62 62 .61 C3 61 61 61 61 61 60 C4 65 65 65 63 62 60 .C5 61 60 60 58 57 55 C6 57 57 57 56 55 53 C7 65 65 65 65 65 65 C8 64 64 64 63 63 63 C9 63 63 63 63 63 62 C10 60 60 60 59 59 58 C11 57 57 57 57 57 56 Predicted Noise Level Reductions 0 1 3 5 7 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 3 5 0 1 2 4 6 0 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 Mit D-11 Predicted Noise Levels (dBA) D1 64 64 63 62 61 61 D2 65 64 63 61 60 59 D3 56 56 56 55 55 54 D4 67 66 64 62 61 60 D5 66 65 63 61 60 59 D6 57 56 56 55 54 53 D7 66 65 64 62 61 59 D8 65 64 64 62 61 59 D9 67 67 66 64 62 60 D10 64 63 63 61 60 58 D11 67 66 65 63 62 60 D12 65 65 64 62 61 59 D13 58 58 57 56 56 55 D14 62 62 61 61 60 59 D15 56 56 55 55 55 54 D16 65 65 64 63 62 61 Predicted Noise Level Reductions 2 4 1 5 5 2 4 3 4 2 4 3 2 1 2 Mit D-12 Mit E-11 Predicted Noise Levels (dBA) Predicted Noise Level Reductions E1 69 69 67 65 62 59 0 2 4 7 10 E2 68 67 66 65 65 64 0 2 3 3 3 E3 65 65 65 65 65 65 0 0 0 0 0 E4 67 67 67 67 67 67 0 0 0 0 0 E5 67 67 67 67 67 67 0 0 0 0 0 E6 61 61 61 61 61 61 0 0 0 0 0 E7 67 67 67 67 67 67 0 0 0 0 0 Mit E-12 Predicted Noise Levels (dBA) Predicted Noise Level Reductions (dBA) aft barrier 8ft barrier 12ft barrier 15ft b~ E1 69 68 68 66 65 63 0 1 3 4 6 E2 68 67 66 64 63 61 0 2 3 5 6 E3 65 65 64 62 61 58 0 1 3 4 6 E4 67 67 66 64 62 60 0 2 3 5 7 E5 67 67 65 63 62 60 1 2 4 5 7 E6 61 61 59 58 56 54 0 1 3 5 6 E7 67 67 65 63 62 61 1 2 4 5 7 Mit G-11 Predicted Noise Levels (dBA) Predicted Noise Level Reductions dBA G1 65 65 62 60 58 57 1 3 6 G2 68 68 68 68 68 68 0 0 0 G3 68 68 68 68 68 68 0 0 0 G4 67 67 67 _ 67 67 67 0 0 ~ 0 G5 65 65 65 65 65 65 0 0 0 G6 66 66 66 66 66 66 0 0 0 Mit G-12 Predicted Noise Levels (dBA) Predicted Noise Level Reductions (dBA) aft barrier 8ft barrier 12ft barrier 15ft b~ G1 65 65 65 65 65 65 0 0 0 1 G2 68 68 67 65 64 62 0 1 3 4 G3 68 68 67 65 63 61 0 1 3 5 G4 67 67 65 63 62 60 1 2 4 6 G5 65 65 64 62 61 58 0 1 3 5 G6 66 66 65 63 62 60 0 1 3 4 Mit G-13 Mit I-11 Mit I-12 Mit J-11 Predicted Noise Levels (dBA) Predicted Noise Level Reductions (dBA) J1 62 62 61 61 60 60 0 1 2 2 J2 63 63 62 60 59 59 1 2 3 4 J3 ~ 64 64 63 61 61 60 1 2 3 4 J4 65 64 63 61 61 60 1 2 3 4 Mit J-12 Predicted Noise Levels (dBA) J5 62 62 62 62 62 62 J6 63 63 63 63 63 63 J7 65 65 65 65 65 65 J8 65 65 65 65 65 65 Predicted Noise Level Reductions (dBA) Mit K-11 Predicted Noise Levels (d8A) Predicted Noise Level Reductions K1 66 65 63 61 60 59 1 3 5 6 K2 66 65 64 62 61 59 1 2 3 5 K3 60 60 59 57 56 54 1 2 4 5 K4 62 62 61 59 58 56 0 1 3 4 KS 54 54 53 51 50 49 0 1 3 4 Mit K-12 Predicted Noise Levels (dBA) Predicted Noise Level Reductions (dBA) aft barrier 8ft barrier 12ft barrier 15ft b~ K6 62 62 61 60 59 58 0 1 2 3 4 K7 62 62 61 60 59 57 0 1 2 3 5 K8 62 61 61 60 59 57 0 1 2 3 4 K9 62 61 61 60 59 57 0 1 2 3 5 K10 65 64 62 60 59 57 1 3 5 6 7 Mit 0-11 Predicted Noise Levels (dBA) Predicted Noise Level Reductions (dBA) aft barrier 8ft barrier 12ft 6arriar 15ft b~ 01 66 66 .66 66 66 66 0 02 66 66 66 66 66 ~ 65 0 03 66 66 63 61 61 60 1 04 67 66 63 62 61 61 1 Mit 0-12 Predicted Noise Levels (dBA) Predicted Noise Level Reductions OS 66 66 66 65 65 65 0 1 1 1 06 64 63 62 61 61 60 1 3 3 4 O7 65 64 60 58 57 57 2 5 7 8 08 65 63 60 58 57 56 2 5 7 8 09 64 62 59 57 56 56 2 5 7 7 010 61 60 57 56 56 56 2 4 5 5 Mit 0-13 Mit 0-14 Predicted Noise Levels (dBA) 15ft Predicted Noise Level Reductions 013 62 62 62 61 61 61 0 0 1 1 1 014 69 68 68 67 67 67 1 1 2 2 2 015 70 69 66 63 62 60 1 4 6 8 9 016 63 63 63 62 61. 61 0 1 .1 2 3 017 63 63 63 62 62 61 0 1 1 2 2 018 63 63 62 62 62 62 0 0 0 1 1 019 .63 63 63 63 63 63 0 0 0 0 0 020 65 65 65 65 64 64 0 0 0 0 0 Mit 0-15 Predicted Noise Levels (dBA) Predicted Noise Level Reductions 013 62 62 62 62 62 62 0 0 0 0 0 014 69 69 69 69 69 69 0 0 0 0 0 015 70 70 69 69 69 69 0 0 0 0 0 016 63 63 63 63 63 62 0 0 1 1 1 017 63 63 62 61 61 60 1 1 2 3 3 018 63 62 61 59 59 58 1 2 3 4 5 019 63 62 61 59 59 58 1 2 4 4 5 020 65 64 63 63 63 63 1 1 2 2 2 ATTACHMENT E NOISE WALL EXAMPLES VAIL NOISE MITIGATION REPORT ATTACHMENTS HANKARD ENVIRONMENTAL INC. REPORT NO 77-1-1 ,z ~, y. ,~... y ,, 5 - ,. ." "~' HAN - •~ e ~~ ~-y~--`, ,,' . _~ _ ~ ....s ~~: ~, ;~~ ,; .:„» __ I w ~ ~ z r ~~~ ~ - _r. '~ , ~.'YN~w " ~} ~ ~ ~ S Y ~_ ~ .. ~ ~ ` xx t ': ... - ~ _ i VAIL NOISE MITIGATION REPORT ATTACHMENTS HANKARD ENVIRONMENTAL INC. REPORT N0 77-1-1 VAIL NOISE MITIGATION REPORT ATTACHMENTS HANKARD ENVIRONMENTAL INC. REPORT N0 77-1-1 J' ~ ` ;7K ~t,t ., , l ~r~. i~~.: . ~ v ~. , r .. e i`',~. _r ,~,~ ~.. j sr:y. ~y ~r-Ory'P .,,. `~. ~r-l~ . "OY ~ '~'w ~~/ F•'. f ,~It~- ~~ j..~ ~ r: '"~ ' ~, i I-"~ VAIL NOISE MITIGATION REPORT ATTACHMENTS HANKARD ENVIRONMENTAL INC. REPORT N0 77-1-1 ~` ~~L ~ 2 TO: Town Council FROM: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Greg Hall, Public Works Director Chad Salli, Project Engineer Dwight Henninger, Police Chief DATE: 10-24-05 SUBJECT: I-70 Noise Mitigation Study Update 1. BACKGROUND Since April 2004, Hankard Environmental has been under contract with the Town of Vail to provide consulting services as part of a comprehensive effort to reduce the impact of traffic noise on I-70. Mike Hankard, representing the consultant team, has prepared a presentation outlining a series of mitigation actions in the categories of "source," "path" and "receiver" controls. Their observations and recommendations, along with proposed next steps by Town of Vail staff, are presented below. 2. OVERVIEW BY HANKARD ENVIRONMENTAL This overview summarizes noise mitigation recommendations based on the work, to date, by Hankard Environmental. Recommendations are broken down into source, receiver, and path controls. A brief description of the key differences in these types of controls is provided first, followed by a description of each recommended noise mitigation measure. Source controls benefit everyone. For example, reducing speeds and/or putting down quiet pavement reduces noise at ALL homes and businesses in town, versus a wall that benefits only those directly behind it or thicker windows that affect only an individual property. Therefore, the number of people that benefit. from source measures is large. The cons of source controls are that each measure is costly, speed reduction requires cooperation from almost the entire motoring public, pavement changes require significant CDOT coordination, and covering the roadway has complex engineering, logistical, and political hurdles. 2. Path controls, i.e. barriers, benefit a given area such as a neighborhood. The extent of the benefited area depends on the height and length of the barriers and on topography. Barriers can consist of earthen berms, vertical walls, or some combination thereof. Barriers are typically 15 feet tall, can be hundreds to thousands of feet long, and provide 5 to 10 dB of noise reduction to those located within 300 feet of the barrier. Barriers are not very effective for receptors that are elevated above the roadway, such as houses on a hillside or the upper floors of a high-rise building. The cons of barriers, particularly walls, are aesthetics, cost, and the rigors of CDOT coordination. 3. Receiver controls, such as the construction of solid fences on individual properties and the installation of better windows are effective, but only benefit individual properties. Such measures are the responsibility of the property owner/developer. There are no significant cons to receiver controls, other than moderate cost. Hankard recommends the Town of Vail consider each of the noise mitigation measures described below. None are simple and straightforward. This is not surprising, as the problem of I-70 noise has slowly evolved over the past three decades. Traffic volumes and speeds have increased slowly but steadily, and property development has continued in relatively close proximity to the highway. Back in the 1970's, we estimate that daytime loudest hour highway noise levels were in the 55 dBA range. Generally speaking, this is a tolerable level to most people. Levels are now in the 65 to 70 dBA range, which are levels that begin to annoy people. Therefore, reversing the problem will take time, effort, money, and will come about only through the application of a variety of mitigation measures. 3. RECOMMENDATIONS BY HANKARD ENVIRONMENTAL Source Controls A. Quiet Pavements Research and testing of "quiet pavements" is ongoing in Europe, at the Federal level in the U.S., and within CDOT. The research is aimed at determining if certain asphalt pavements produce less noise than others, if the reduction lasts over time, and if the pavements are as durable as those currently in use. Results to date indicate that certain pavements .(Stone Mastic Asphalt (SMA), open-graded friction course (OGFC), rubberized, and others such as NovaChip) could provide a noise reduction of 2 to 4 dBA versus CDOT's typical Superpave mix, at least initially. However, the issues of the longevity of this reduction, and of durability are not as completely understood. Based on research and testing conducted by CDOT and others, the lowest noise levels are achieved when a small aggregate size is used in the asphalt mix design. CDOT has currently committed to using a SMA mix for use on the next scheduled I- 70 overlay project through Vail. It is also recommended that Vail continue to work with CDOT, our congressional delegation and the private sector on innovative pavement types as a solution to I-70 noise. Path Controls A. Path Mitigation by Area The major emphasis of the final report was the identification, modeling and results of proposed path mitigation along the I-70 corridor through Vail. The results of this work will be presented at the next council meeting. The results however, show that barriers do not provide as much protection as originally envisioned. Hankard Environmental has analyzed the following barriers, 3-foot tall Type 7 rail, 8 and 10-foot tall steepened slope barrier, and 15 and 20-foot tall noise walls to predict the amount of noise reduction from each type of barrier for areas along I-70. The amount of noise reduction that a barrier will achieve is the result of the relationship between the height of the barrier with respect to the surrounding topography, relative location of all roads and receivers, ground type, and traffic conditions. B. Continue to Exhaust Berming Opportunities Berms require a footprint of 40 to 90 feet to accommodate a 10-foot tall berm. Review of I-70 through Vail indicates that there are still areas where earthen/sand storage berming can be built and would provide some noise reduction. These areas are generally located east of the golf course. C. Cover I-70 According to Hankard this alternative should always be considered, because it offers the best noise reduction of any recommended measure. Placing I-70 in a cut-and-cover tunnel through all or part of Town would certainly be a significant, complex, expensive project. It should be noted that tunnels require full-time staff and equipment, thus have a high recurring cost. If the proposed I-70 Dowd Canyon tunnel comes to fruition, the challenge of providing full time staff and equipment may be eased by the proximity of that tunnel facility to one in Vail. Lacking a Dowd Canyon tunnel, Hankard recommends consideration of shorter, multiple tunnels that may not require fully staffed tunnel facilities. This could be accomplished by placing developments over the highway consisting of one or more buildings along with some extended plaza-like space. These could be placed in critical noise areas. This would also ,provide anorth-south connection for pedestrians. Care would need to be taken regarding noise from the portals. A second alternative to the cut/cover concept of I-70 in its current location is the possibility of relocatirig I-70 via tunnel to another location. Initial looks at this concept has produced favorable results. A full tunnel feasibility study evaluating short versus long tunnels, safety, and life cycle cost issues would be the next step if Vail wants to pursue covering I-70. Receiver Controls A. Advise Residents on Do-It-Yourself Noise Control Solution Individual property owners can reduce noise at their homes and businesses by constructing small barriers (berms and/or walls), placing outdoor use areas such as patios in more quiet parts of their property, installing acoustic windows in select locations, and otherwise sealing the highway side of their homes. We recommend that Hankard Environmental develop a brief how-to document that can be made available to townspeople (i.e. distributed, placed on website, etc.) B. Strengthen Design Review Process Hankard recommends Vail require new developments and re-developments along I-70 to consider noise at the very earliest stages of design. Outside recreation areas should be somehow shielded from the highway. Inside areas should be specified with adequate windows. Exposed decks facing the highway should be avoided. Hankard has drafted some guidelines for the Town's consideration. This is critical to the potential redevelopment of Timber Ridge, Roost Lodge and the West Vail Master Plan area. 4. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS The list of recommendations from Hankard Environmental are comprehensive and, in some cases, will require additional research and review. However, staff recommends taking immediate action on the following next steps: • Continue to direct staff to work with CDOT to facilitate use of "quiet" asphalt in all future asphalt work in Vail. • Continue use of sand storage berms along I-70 in Vail and work to obtain. approvals from .private property owners to expand the sand storage berm project onto private properties, where feasible. • Continue speed reduction campaign. • Continue to address noise mitigation as a major focus of the I-70 PEIS, and the proposed Vail Pass Environmental Assessment. (EA). • Continue to have the Town of Vail heavily involved with the I-70 corridor coalition. • Work with interested parties to further test the waters on the ultimate long term solution of either cut/cover I-70 or relocate I-70. 5. ATTACHMENTS Evaluation of Highway Noise Mitigation Alternatives for Vail Colorado, Hankard Environmental Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 4, 2005 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers Council Members Present: Rod Slifer, Mayor Dick Cleveland, Mayor Pro-Tem Diana Donovan Kim Ruotolo Farrow Hitt Greg Moffet Not Present: Kent Logan Staff Members Present: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney The first item on the agenda was Citizen Input. Merv Lapin expressed concern regarding Council's failure to express their positions on the conference center. Siifer asked for Council consensus to discuss the conference center for the benefit of the public at its next evening meeting. Paul Rondeau expressed concern the voters had received "precious little information," regarding the conference center. Rondeau asked what accommodations had been made to utilize the center as a performing arts center when it was not being used for conferences. "What costs were associated with those additional design features? I think we should know the .market value of the property we are using for this project." Town Manager Stan Zemler invited Rondeau to call either himself or Community Development Director Russ Forrest for answers to his questions. Rob Levine, who chairs a campaign in support of the conference center ballot question, stated all of the information produced in the past two years regarding the conference center, including a ,feasibility study,. is publicly available. "Do we have to force feed this stuff to people?" He also stated he believed the Vail populous made an informed decision on the conference center vote in 2002. The second item on the agenda was a request to authorize a Timber Ridge Redevelopment Proposal. Zemler reported the Timber Ridge Review Committee recommended the town move forward with Corum Real Estate Group and request a full proposal from Corum for the redevelopment of Timber Ridge Village. A Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued to solicit developers for the Timber Ridge site. "We publicly advertised the RFP's on a national level and received- one proposal from Corum," said Zemler. The RFP was broken into two steps. The first step was a request for qualifications. Corum Real Estate Group submitted a complete response to the qualifications request. The Proposal Review Committee met with a representative from Corum. Based on Corum's submittal and presentation, the Review Committee recommends Council invite Corum Real Estate Group to take the next step and submit a full proposal. Representing Corum, Jamie Fitzpatrick provided an overview of his team's qualifications for redeveloping Timber Ridge. Their conceptual design contemplates a three building complex;- providing 204 seasonal housing opportunities, along with 176 units of conventional /long term rental. For sale condominiums will also be included in the project. The buildings would be "stick built" four-story structures. The project will require rezoning as the project assumes 56 units per acre density. Fitzpatrick also reported the inclusion of $2 million in the project budget for a pedestrian bridge over Interstate-70. Project construction will require a period of 22 months of no housing on the site. Notably, the proposed development exceeds the existing bed base. Donovan asked, `NVho owns the land at the end of the day? Are we locked in to work with you?" Fitzpatrick answered it depended on the land volume consumed by condominium ownership. `The ownership component has not been formalized." Zemler stated the development would be a partnership. Moffet spoke in support of continuing forward with Corum. Moffet then moved to ask for a full proposal. The motion was seconded by Ruotolo. Fitzpatrick verified at the moment the relationship would be based on' a handshake, but stated he would eventually need a contractual agreement. Housing Coordinator Nina Timm verified the.town has current leases on existing units through 2006-07. However, the town has the right to terminate a lease with 60 days notice. Fitzpatrick stated spring of 2007 would be a realistic project start time. Slifer asked that a conceptual timetable be delivered to Council. Representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association, Jim Lamont said, "In order to expedite the process, the town should undertake a master planning process so that public input can be received on the front end as opposed to the back end. We would all like to avoid the difficulties that occurred in another of the larger projects:' The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The third item on the agenda was. the 2005 Election Judge Appointments for the November 8, 2005, Regular Municipal Election. By Colorado State Statute, each polling place must have a minimum of three judges to assist with municipal elections. The Town Clerk, therefore, recommends the appointments of Vi Brown, Karen Morter, Mary Jo Allen, Holly Cole and Summer Holm to assist with the at-the-polls Regular Municipal Election for the Town of Vail on Nov. 8. Moffet moved to appoint the judges, with Cleveland seconding. The motion passed 6-0. The fourth item on the agenda was the Consent Agenda Re: 09.06.05 and 09.20.05 Meeting Minutes Approval. Moffet moved with Donovan seconding an amended motion. Hitt clarified. The motion passed 6-0. The fifth item on the agenda was a West LionsHead Planning Process Overview. Vail Resorts Development Company has submitted plans for aRitz-Carlton condominium project on the West Day Lot. The applicant intends to comply with the LionsHead Mixed Use I zoning on the property. In addition, Vail Resorts is pursuing approval from the U.S. Forest Service through its National Environmental Policy Act Process. The Forest Service will require the.preparation of an Environmental Assessment which will consider the environmental impacts of a new lift on the West side. of LionsHead. The proposed location of the West LionsHead lift would be ,directly adjacent and to the west of the proposed Ritz-Carlton. condominium project. Staff- and Vail, Resorts Development Company agree a planning process must.now 6e init'iated in the Town of Vail to evaluate the implications and land use issues associated with a new lift. in this location. As such, staff requested approval from the Town Couricil' on a process for developing a plan that would consider a new lift and ski portal on the west side. of LionsHead.. Furthermore, 2 staff requested the Town Council appoint two of its members to join a planning team for creating an acceptable concept for West LionsHead. This planning process would also consider additional public parking and potentially transit improvements, along with other public improvements associated- with the creation of a new lift. This may result in an amendment to the LionsHead Master Redevelopment Plan. Zemler reported the process would take three to four months to complete. Moffet suggested Council have a discussion regarding what is and what is not acceptable, "broad strokes policy." Hitt and Cleveland were appointed by the Mayor to represent the Council on the planning team. Donovan requested the impact to Vail and LionsHead Villages be investigated. Donovan stated a mistrust of the traffic impact numbers provided by Felsburg, Hotz, and Ullvig. Public Works Director Greg Hall stated the numbers provided by the traffic engineers were resort oriented. Slifer requested Cleveland be made chair of the planning team. Donovan questioned making a Town Council member the chair of the planning team because it made the process seem skewed. The sixth item on the agenda was the Second reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2004, an ordinance amending Special Development District #4, Cascade Village, to allow for the creation of Development Area E, located at Tract K, Glen Lyon Subdivision On July 12, 2004, the Town of Vail PEC voted 4-2 to forward a recommendation of approval, with conditions, for the proposed amendments to Special Development District #4, Cascade Village. On August 3, 2004, by a vote of 7-0 the Town Council approved the first reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2004, with a condition that the applicant, Vail Resorts, resolve any issues related to the Protective Covenants of Glen Lyon Subdivision, prior to the second reading of this ordinance. On August 17 and October 5, 2004; January 4, May 3, June 21, August 4, and September 6, 2005, the Town Council tabled the second reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2004, to allow the applicant additional time to resolve issues related to the protective covenants. The outstanding protective covenant issues have not yet been resolved; therefore, Vail Resorts requested the second reading of Ordinance No. 17, Series of 2004, again be tabled to a future Town Council meeting. Moffet moved to table the ordinance to November 15, with Ruotolo seconding. Representing Vail Resorts, Jay Peterson stated the covenant resolution process continued and positive results still remained probable. Hitt attempted to clarify whether Vail Resorts would potentially close the Cascade Lift. Peterson was unable to respond. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The seventh item on the agenda was the First reading of the 2006 Budget Ordinance No. 22, Series 2005. Finance Director Judy Camp verified approval of the ordinance would require asuper-majority vote. Moffet noted the $20,000 requested by the Vail Chamber & Business Association for the production of the Vail Guide be moved to the town's public information budget. Moffet then emphasized he did not want to set precedent by making a cash donation to the Battle Mountain Hockey Team, and questioned the possibility of donating "ice time". Brandmeyer responded the town had the ability to donate Dobson Ice Arena "ice time" for possible fund raisers. Hitt commended Moffet for his suggestion. Hitt then recommended examining the hard costs for renting the arena, so the town could possibly purchase days for the hockey team to utilize. Louise Funk, concerned parent, and Brent Young, Battle Mountain High School Booster Cub Vice-President, noted Battle Mountain Hockey was no longer a part of Vail Junior Hockey. Hitt suggested Battle ,Mountain Hockey become better fund raisers. Zemler noted the Florida. Panthers professional hockey team had recently visited the Vail Valley, and asked if there might be fund raising possibilities with the organization. Funk and Young. stated the Panthers practiced with the Eagle Valley Hockey team. Hitt clarified the Western Eagle County Metropolitan Recreation District had been more amicable facilitating the Battle Mountain Hockey team than the Vail Recreation District (VRD). Funk and Young stated Battle Mountain wished to keep Dobson Ice -Arena as their home arena:- Donovan recommended Council discuss the matter with the VRD. While discussing other matters, Hitt questioned not supporting the VCBA's Premier Impressions program as it supported Vail's "frontline" (shop employee) workers. "I think we .were short-sited. by not giving the program any. money." Donovan echoed Hitt's comments. VCBA Executive Director Kaye Ferry stated analysis revealed Vail's front line employees don't feel valued in the community. Ferry noted in a recent poll, Vail's customer service rankings had moved from No. 9 to No. 6. Moffet stated the town, and government in general, should not fund an incentive program for private sector employees. He then encouraged the VCBA to solicit contributions for the program and the town could possibly provide matching funds. Council then agreed to match up to $12,500 for the program. Ferry stated in the past VCBA members contributed significantly to the program. Ferry then asked that additional funding for the Vail Guide be provided in the public information budget. Donovan stated the Vail Guide was critical for the guest. Hitt reminded Council a recent Longwood's International recommendation supported providing the Vail Guide in the Vail Local Marketing District's annual mailing pieces. Bill Jewitt stated he believed it was important to have a place for all local businesses to be listed, especially as it benefited small business. Ruotolo questioned the $14,000 for the Bird's of Prey contribution. Brandmeyer stated it was a real cost to the Town of Vail. Cleveland asked Human Resources Director John Power to explain the proposed employee budget. Moffet emphasized the importance of maintaining quality employees. Zemler clarified this was not a four percent increase. Cleveland recognized the town provides an exemplary benefit package. Donovan mentioned health insurance. Moffet moved to approve with amendments as discussed, with Ruotolo seconding. The motion passed 6-0. The eighth item on the agenda was the First Reading of Ordinance No. 23, Series 2005, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Title 6, Chapter 3, Article I of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail relating to restraining order violations. Town Attorney Matt Mire announced since the town's adoption and codification of its restraining order legislation in 2004, several of the Colorado Revised Statutes referenced and cited in the Town Code relating to restraining orders had been repealed by the Colorado General Assembly. As such, the restraining order prohibition as set forth in the Vail Town Code prohibition has been re-written to delete the repealed statutes. Moffet moved, with Cleveland seconding a motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0. The ninth item on the agenda was the First Reading of Ordinance No. 24, Series 2005, an ordinance deleting Title 4, Chapter 4, Articles A and B, Vail Town Code as they relate to time-share disclosure and registration requirements; amending Title 12, "Zoning Regulation," for proposed housekeeping amendments relating to the definition time- share units. Table the first reading of Ordinance No. #24, Series 2005, to the regular meeting of Council on October 18, 2005. On September 12, 2005, the PEC considered text amendments to certain .sections of Title 12,. Vait Town Code, to define the. term "time-share unit' and to replace the terms "timeshare estate unit," "fractional fee unit," and "timeshare. license unit" with the term "time-share unit." .The sole purpose, of the proposed amendments to Title' 12 is -to remove conflicting; provisions; from the- Town Code and to better describe similar land uses. The- proposed' amendments were not intended to alter any existing land use or development policies:.. Based` upon- the proposed amendments to Title.l2, specifically. fhe definition. of "#ime-share unit," staff 4 also recommended deleting outdated sections of the Vail Town Code relating to disclosure and registration requirements of time-share projects. On September 12, 2005, the PEC unanimously recommended approval of the amendments to Title 12. However, the staff- needed additional time complete Ordinance No: 24, Series 2005, which would implement the above-referenced changes. Mire recommended Council table the first reading of Ordinance No. 24, Series 2005, to the regular Council meeting on October 18, 2005. Moffet moved with Ruotolo seconding a motion to approve. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. The tenth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. There was nothing reported. The eleventh item on the agenda was Adjournment. Moffet moved with Ruotolo seconding a motion to adjourn at approximately 8:15 p.m. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Respectfully Submitted, Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Minutes provided by Corey Swisher. 5 Vail Town Council Special Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 11, 2005 5:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers Council Members Present: Rod Slifer, Mayor Dick Cleveland, Mayor Pro-Tem Diana Donovan Kim Ruotolo Farrow Hitt Greg Moffet Kent Logan Staff Members Present: Stan Zemler, Town Manager Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney The Vail Town Council held a Public Hearing pursuant to Section 4.2 of the Town Charter, a special meeting of the Town Council, for the purpose of meeting with the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) to discuss the following: 1) Review roles of Council and PEC 2) Review what has worked and not worked in the development review process 3) Discuss Special Development District process 4) Identify ways to improve communication between the Council and PEC Mayor Slifer called the meeting to order at approximately 5:05 p.m. Community Development Director Russ Forrest began the discussion by stating many other municipalities were envious of Vail's progress in terms of successful redevelopment. Slifer emphasized the group's discussion should focus on, "What has worked and what hasn't." Council emphasized the need for joint conceptual reviews on large projects. PEC members requested clearer guidelines as related to Council's desire for project approval. Some members of Council stressed to the PEC that because the zoning may be outdated in some instances, it does not mean underlying zoning should be ignored while reviewing an SDD. PEC encouraged the continued use of digital imagery to assist in determining the size and mass of projects. Public benefit and precedent were also discussed. In comments from the audience, an observation was made that the town has a tired vision of the future and the review process needs to be updated to include impact fees. In addition, there was a comment from the audience that it is important to apply precedent to redevelopment applications during the review process. Slifer concluded the meeting by thanking the PEC for their hard work and dedication. Town Manager Stan Zemler summarized the meeting outcome as follows: --Communication between the two boards needs to improve. 1. Joint meetings will be held twice a year. 2. PEC should ask Council for specific direction when large project design standards are in question. Council should send clear direction to PEC when possible. 3. Projects that might have a significant impact in the community could involve a joint PEC/Town Council discussion. Staff will research how this can be accomplished while honoring the legal parameters. 4. Staff will follow-up with Council after the election concerning the formation of an Environmental Board as set forth in the Charter. Moffet moved to adjourn, with Cleveland seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0 at approximately 6:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Minutes provided by Corey Swisher. Vail Town Council Evening Meeting Minutes Tuesday, October 18, 2005 6:00 P.M. Vail Town Council Chambers Council Members Present: Rod Slifer, Mayor* Dick Cleveland, Mayor Pro-Tem Diana Donovan Kim Ruotolo* Farrow Hitt . Greg Moffet"' Kent Logan Staff Members Present:. Stan Zemler, Town Manager . Pam Brandmeyer, Asst. Town Manager Matt Mire, Town Attorney . *Ruotolo arrived at approximately, 6:15 p.m. Moffet arrived at approximately, 6:34 p.m. Slifer arrived at approximately, 6:35 p.m. Mayor Pro-Tem Dick Cleveland called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. The first item on the agenda was Citizen Input. Kaye Ferry, Executive Director of the Vail Chamber & Business Association (VCBA) announced a Vail Town Council candidates forum would be held at 6 p.m., 10.19.2005 at Donovan Pavilion. Merv Lapin, Conference Center Oversight Committee member, stated he was not willing to support the conference center. He outlined four primary concerns: 1. Price inflation of the project. 2. Architect/construction contractor ability to meet budget. 3. Little confidence with projections related to income and revenue. 4. Difficulty with the architecture of the project. Lapin went on to say, "VNe are building a very expensive project at the wrong time...) think the. project will have monetary shortfalls from day one...Without rooms (public accommodation units) it controls, the conference center will look less attractive to event planners...85% of potential conferences. are covered by existing facilities...Do we really want to have conferences consisting of 2,000 to 3;000 people...) don't find the present architecture of the project attractive, and honestly find it to be an eyesore." Representing Citizens.foi• Choice., in Government, Peter Runyon provided an information presentation regarding Eagle County election measure 1A. Runyon suggested a county home rule type of government provided many advantages over the current three commissioner form of government. Runyon reported three significant impacts: 1. Expand to five county commissioners. 2. Non-partisan elections. 3. Better geographic representation. He then outlined the four steps to Home Rule implementation: 1. Vote yes to authorize a home rule charter committee. 2. Vote for candidates to serve on the committee. 3. Elected committee then meets during a 240 day period to draft a charter. 4. Charter is voted on by all electors in Eagle County. Zemler clarified the commission was not locked into expanding the commission to five (any number deemed appropriate by the voters could be decided). See Resolution No. 18. The second item on the agenda was a review and recommendation of the Parking Task Force for 2005-2006 season. Public Works Director Greg Hall reviewed parking recommendations of the Parking Task Force and asked Council to approve parking policies for 2005-06. Council established the Parking Task Force to provide direction regarding parking operation policies for each year. The three areas in which the Task Force believed attention was warranted included the need to adjust the inequities of the shopper parking with the rates within the structure, address the price of the value passes to reflect the price increases from years past, and to address the increased demand of . the construction workforce this season. The Parking Task Force recommended the following changes to the parking policies for the 2005-2006 season. All rates would remain consistent with the 2004-05 winter season with the exception of the following: 1. Provide two options for the shopper spaces - 0-2 hours for the $3 rate; or - 0-3 hours for $5 rate 2. Raise the price of the value pass which has remained constant for the last five years Vail Status from $5 to $6 non peak and from $10 to $12 peak - Eagle County Status from $6 to $7 non peak and from $12 to $14 peak In recognition of increased demand during the week due to the construction workforce, it was recommended the town provide a construction company pass option. This pass would be allowed in LionsHead only, Monday to Thursday, when LionsHead typically has 300-400 available spaces. The pass would be restricted during the peak period of the holidays, Dec: 26 to Jan. 5. Sales of the pass would be limited to construction companies to be. used by employees and subcontractors. Task Force member Cleveland stated the construction pass was. a way to better utilize town facilities and maximize parking structure revenue. The construction pass would be $400 for the season. R.A. Nelson construction was reported to be currently preparing. to operate shuttle buses for its employees from a lot in Minturn with Vail Resorts Development Company considering a similar option. Ruotolo expressed concern. construction workers were receiving preferential treatment with the $400 parking pass. Representing the VCBA, Kaye Ferry supported the recommendations. Moffet moved with Ruotolo seconding a motion to approve. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Slifer thanked Cleveland and Hitt for spending-their time on the-Task Force. -. The third item on the agenda was the first reading of Ordinance No. 24, Series of 2005, an ordinance. deleting Title 4, Chapter 4, Articles A and B, Vail Town Code as they relate to time share disclosure and registration requirements; amending Title 12, Zoning Regulations, to clarify the time share regulations. On September 12, 2005, the Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) held a public hearing on the proposed amendments. Upon review of the amendments, the PEC voted 7-0-0 to forward a recommendation of approval of the request to the Vail Town Council. Moffet moved with Cleveland seconding a motion to approve. Mire answered a question brought forth by Donovan regarding the ordinance stating what fractional ownership is not. Mire clarified by attempting to state in town code, "what something is not would require listing `everything' fractional ownership is not." Hitt verified, "When you buy into a fractional fee club, you are buying into a club, not a titled property." Fractional fee clubs and fractional ownership are different uses. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The fourth item on the agenda was the second reading of Ordinance No. 22, Series 2005, an ordinance to adopt the 2006 Budget. Finance. Director Judy Camp reported the budget proposal is the result of discussions throughout the summer and reflects the guidelines and philosophies developed by this council and previous councils. Revenue is budgeted conservatively. The Fund Balance in the General Fund remains above 35% of revenue during the time of redevelopment (47% in 2006). This proposal allocates 60% of the town's 4% general sales tax revenue to the General Fund and 40% to the Capital Projects Fund. Any allocation of less than 50% to the Capital Projects Fund requires a super majority vote. Moffet commended the Finance Department and the Town Manager for their hard work on the budget. Commenting on an item in the Capital Projects Budget for $965,000 for East Meadow Drive streetscape,~he stated heating East Meadow Drive was a substantial increase in operating costs, which were previously estimated at $30,000 to $40,000 and would now be higher. He also stated concern about greenhouse gas effect because of snowmelt. Due to those concerns, Moffet said he would vote against the budget. Hitt asked to include funding for a coupon offering free parking on Wednesdays in the Vail Loves You Coupon book. He explained the books had not been mailed out last year limiting adequate and appropriate distribution. Vail Chamber and Business Association (VCBA) Executive Director Kaye Ferry explained the book would be mailed out by the- book publisher -this year: In 2004,- $37,000 -worth- of parking coupons included in the Vail Coupon books was redeemed. Brandmeyer clarified there were to be five black out dates and the coupon would include an expiration date this year. Moffet questioned why the employee housing buy-down program funding was not included in the 2006 Capital Projects Budget. Zemler stated the program has not been used in prior years and the amount budgeted for 2006 would be rolled over. Since $10,000 had been spent for the Eagle County Down Payment Assistance Program in 2005; the amount to be rolled over was $:1.90,000, which included $100,000 rolled from the' 2004 budget and $90,000 from 2005. Moffet and. Ruotolo stated:. the purpose of rolling the. funds over in addition to new' funding. each year. is to accumulate funds to pur'cfase different types of housing inventory.. Hitt~asked if there was any tax benefit for free markef owners to self their house into a buy down program. Forrest stated only open space. land contributions offered.- tax benefits to a seller. ~ Council directed staff to include $100,000: in the. 2006 Capital Projects.. Budget for. the Buy-Down Program. Brandmeyer added parking had been requested from Battle Mountain High School Hockey for two days. Council would not support the request if it occurred on the Martin Luther King Holiday. In response to a question concerning use of the business license fee, Camp clarified the fees- go into the Vail Marketing Fund and; per ordinance, are used for marketing only. In 2005 and 2006, funds available from business license fees would be disbursed through the Commission on Special Events (CSE). In previous years, other organizations were given funds from business license fees to provide marketing and special events. Council requested the Vail Marketing Fund be renamed to avoid confusion and Mire clarified there was no statutory obligation regarding the name, only the use of the fund. Moffet stated he wanted to eliminate a sense of entitlement to program recipients of the business license fees. Ruotolo moved for adoption of the budgef with Logan seconding. The motion passed 6-1, with Moffet opposed because of the East Meadow Drive streetscape discussed above. Zemler publicly commended Finance Director Judy Camp and Budget Analyst Gina Davis for their exhaustive and meticulous work on the budget. He also thanked Brandmeyer for her efforts with the budget. The fifth item on the agenda was the second Reading of Ordinance No. 23, Series 2005, an ordinance repealing and reenacting Title 6, Chapter 3, Article I of the Municipal Code of the Town of Vail relating to restraining order violations. Since the Town of Vail's adoption and codification of its restraining order legislation in 2004, several of the Colorado Revised Statutes referenced and cited in the Town Code relating to restraining orders have been repealed by the Colorado General Assembly. As such, the restraining order prohibition as set forth in the Vail Town Code prohibition has been re-written to delete the repealed statutes. Cleveland moved with Moffet seconding a motion to approve. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. The sixth item on the agenda was Resolution No. 11, Series 2005, a resolution supporting Referenda C and D, The Colorado Economic Recovery Plan. The Council is authorized, pursuant to C.R.S. § 1-45-117(1)(b)(III)(A) to pass a resolution taking a position of advocacy on a referred measure. Resolution No. 11 was such a resolution for consideration. Zemler stated revenues from Referendum D would allow bonding to occur for a significant amount of transportation projects. On I-70 near Vail Pass there would be an eastbound climbing lane project valued at $7,000,000 and I-70 at Dowd Junction would possibly realize $13,000,000 in renovations. He qualified it was difficult to immediately assess specific benefits potentially brought about by Referendum C. Representing the Vail Village Homeowners Association, Jim Lamont, asked why Council would not pass a resolution whether supporting/or not supporting the proposed Vail Conference Center. He then stated East Vail residents were concerned about the possible expansion (climbing lanes) of I-70 near Vail Pass. Moffet stated without C or D there would be no future transportation dollars available for mitigating anything (noise) on I-70. Bill Jewitt reiterated Lamont's comments regarding taking a stance on support for the conference center. Paul Rondeau stated he believed the operation of the conference center was within control of the town and Council should take a stance on it. Moffet moved to approve the resolution with Slifer seconding. Donovan then asked Council to take a stance on the conference center. Ruotolo; Logan and Donovan stated they did not believe it was appropriate for the Council to take a position on Referendums G and D. The resolution failed 2-5, with Slifer and Moffet voting in the affirmative. The seventh- item. on the agenda was Resolution No. 18, Support for Referendum 1 a, the Home Rule Charter Commission. The Council is authorized, pursuant to C.R.S. § 1- 4 45-117(1)(b)(III)(A) to pass a resolution taking a position of advocacy on a referred measure. Logan moved to approved with Donovan seconding. The motion passed unanimously, 6-0. Slifer was not present for the vote. The eighth item on the agenda was Resolution #19, Series 2005, authorizes the Town Manager to enter another five year contract with the Colorado Department of Transportation at a renegotiated amount. Public Works Director Greg. Hall reported the town entered into a contract with the Colorado Department of Transportation on October 24, 2000, and took over maintenance services on the Frontage Roads between MM 172.2 to MM 180.3. The contract was a five year contract and was to expire on October 24, 2005. Moffet. moved with Ruotolo seconding a motion to approve. Slifer clarified it was the renewal of a five-year contract. Cleveland verified the contract made. "economic sense" and allowed the town to provide enhanced levels of service. Hitt stated the level of service provided by the town is exemplary as compared to the snow removal provided by the state. The motion passed unanimously; 7-0. Donovan made a motion to direct staff to draft a resolution opposing the conference center referendum. Hitt seconded the motion. The motion failed 3-4 with Donovan, Cleveland, Hitt voting in the affirmative. Moffet moved to direct staff to draft a resolution in support of the conference center referendum. Logan seconded the motion. The motion passed 4-3 with Donovan, Cleveland and Hitt opposed. The ninth item on the agenda was the Town Manager's Report. There was nothing to report. The tenth item on the agenda was Adjournment. Ruotolo moved with Moffet seconding a motion to adjourn at approximately 7:58 p.m. The motion passed unanimously, 7-0. Rodney E. Slifer, Mayor ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk Minutes provided by Corey Swisher. 5 JOINT CONSTRUCTION FINANCING AGREEMENT This Joint Construction Financing Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into this day of , 2005, between the Town of Vail, Colorado ("Town") and the Vail Park & Recreation District ("District") (jointly referred to as "Parties" or singularly as arty PREAMBLES WHEREAS, the Town is a political subdivision and home rule municipal corporation of the State of Colorado; and WHEREAS, the District is a political subdivision and quasi-governmental entity of the State of Colorado providing park and recreation services within the Town of Vail, Colorado; and WHEREAS, the Town has commenced construction and reconstruction activities in and upon facilities owned by the Town and occupied and lease by the District as a result of that certain Settlement Agreement between the District and the Department of Justice dated August 5, 2004, related to ADA compliance at Town owned and District leased facilities (the "Joint Facilities"); and WHEREAS, subject to the terms of any lease or other agreement in effect between the Parties related to the District's use of the Joint Facilities, the Parties desire to set forth their agreement regarding shared financing of any and all construction and reconstruction activities currently budgeted for and commenced by the Town related to the Joint Facilities; and WHEREAS, the Town Council and the District Board of Directors find that joint financing of the construction and reconstruction activities related to the Joint Facilities will create certain budgetary economies and efficiencies and is in the best public interest; and WHEREAS, Article XIV, Section 18(2)(a) of the Colorado Constitution and Part 2, Article 1, Title 29, CRS, encourage and authorize governments to cooperate and contract with one another to provide any function, service, or facility lawfully authorized to each. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises contained herein, the adequacy and receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows. C:\Documents and Settings\mortiz\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK24Voint Construction Financing Agreement.doc ~: AGREEMENT 1. Construction and Reconstruction in and upon Joint Facilities. The Town is and shall be primarily responsible for designing necessary repairs to the Joint Facilities, obtaining any and all bids and awarding contracts to contractors to complete those elements of construction and reconstruction of the Joint Facilities deemed necessary by the Town; provided, however, that the Town shall at all times consult with the District regarding proposed construction plans and contracts related to the Joint Facilities and shall at least monthly provide a report to the District Board of Directors regarding progress toward completion of the construction and reconstruction activities at the Joint Facilities. Construction and reconstruction activities at the Joint Facilities shall include all of those areas of necessary reconstruction and remediation identified and required by the ADA settlement agreement between the Department of Justice and the District dated August 5, 2004 (the "DOJ Settlement") and not completed as a result of settlement negotiations and agreement between the District, O'Dell Architects ("O'Dell") and R.A. Nelson & Associates ("R.A. Nelson") effective on or about March 8, 2005 (the "March Remediation Agreement"). The March Remediation Agreement specifically allocated certain requirements of the DOJ Settlement to O'Dell and/or R.A. Nelson in and upon areas located on the East End of the Dobson Ice Arena. The Town shall comply with all requirements of Colorado law applicable to construction of a public building. Construction shall be completed as expeditiously as possible, but in no event shall extend past the required completion date in the DOJ Settlement of August 5, 20008. 2. Construction Costs. The current estimate for total construction costs for the DOJ Settlement remediations at the Joint Facilities is $300,000.00. The Town has commenced construction activities related to the DOJ Settlement. In addition, the District has funded and incurred legal fees to reach agreement with O'Dell and R.A. Nelson to provide services at no charge to the Parties to partially remediate some of the items required by the DOJ Settlement. The Town Council and the District Board have both previously agreed in concept to fund and share in the full amount of the estimated construction costs equally. The Parties agree that the District and the Town shall equally split and be credited a portion of the estimated $300,000 reconstruction cost for obtaining services in kind from O'Dell and R.A. Nelson as a result of the March Remediation Agreement. Such credit shall be equally applied to both parties' funding requirements and shall be in the amount of $10,000 each. The remaining District portion of the construction costs ($140,000) shall be due and payable by the District to the Town as follows: Payment Two: $70,000.00 due and payable on August 5, 2006 Payment Three: $70,000 due and payable on August 5, 2007 2 r i' Upon completion of construction at the Joint Facilities, the Town shall calculate the total of all construction costs related to the DOJ Settlement, including cost-overruns and items under-budget, and the Parties shall conduct a final reconciliation so that the final cost of construction of the Joint Facilities shall be shared equally by the Parties. 3. Cooperation. The Parties agree to assist and cooperate in completing this Agreement in a timely manner, it being recognized by the Parties that time is of the essence. 4. Enforcement. This Agreement maybe enforced by a decree of specific performance, in addition to any other remedy that maybe available. 5. Severability. Should any provision of this Agreement be adjudged to be unenforceable or void, it shall be severed from the remaining portions of the Agreement, which shall remain in full force and effect. 6. Term. This Agreement shall remain in effect until terminated by written agreement of the Parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement on the date first written above. TOWN OF VAIL By: Title: VAIL PA RECREATI ~ IS CT By: ---- Title: ~ X' ~ ` ~ ~ c (~ ~ c <--~ iZ- 3 i~ fl/ fir-.. ~S ~' _~ 1 Y~,1 ,fit ,'' p~ y Y~` ) ~~ ~ ~ .-.~' ~ ~, ~~ "apt' ~ ~. , .~, ~ , ~ 5 '~ ~ ~ °J, i ~... , h p ~ ~ r h ;~ i Y u ~~ ~ l t,. ~£r ~ x. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~{ ~i ~~ 1~~~ ~ ~~N ~a~ ~~ d~ z _ '~~~$ ,~ ~~ ~~1 ~'A' V ., ~, r ~ ~ ~~ ~ d@~-..._.. ~ __ __. ..rc + dpi' p Ci ~. ~ ! ) ~ ~ ; ' v~ ~~ ~~ ~- r 1 f~~ ~~ ~, i ~ },. }~ aE+ r ~ ~ /~I ~ i" ~., . ~' ;~ _ .. _.. _~ ~, `j i. .... ~ _. f `' ~ "' q ~ ~ _ _- r- ' ~;~ _ _ __ a _ _ 7:7 r - _- _~ __ _. P e ~~ ,~_ 9 _ '- ~, '~ ~~'', ~. ~; t~ .lc ~~~ l"~'' '~~ ~ ~a ~' TOWN OF VAIL ~% 1309 Elkhorn Drive Art in Public Places Vail, Colorado 81657 970-479-2344 Fax: 970-479-2166 Trash Can Pricing Trash can with pinecone sides, three swing doors, brackets inside door to hold cigarette butt container, four adjustable feet. Painted body and panels, with zinc undercoat and protective clear coat: 20 trash cans: $1285 each 50 trash cans: $1223 each ~~~ RECYCLED PAPER RESOLUTION N0.20 SERIES 2005 A RESOLUTION SUPPORTING QUESTION 1 AND THE VAIL CONFERENCE CENTER AT THE VAIL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2005 WHEREAS, in November of 2002, Vail voters approved a ballot measure creating a dedicated sales and lodging tax to fund the construction and operation of a conference center; and WHEREAS, the Vail Conference Center, based on the HVS International study dated March 18, 2005, will generate approximately 69,000 additional room nights, $34 million in additional spending in Vail and approximately $1.4 million in additional tax revenue in the fifth year of operation; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council on May 17, 2005, after reviewing the operational and capital implications of a conference center, directed staff to pursue a ballot initiative to pay for additional capital and operational costs associated with the conference center; and WHEREAS, the Vail Town Council by resolution adopted on September 6, 2005, expressed its intention to maintain a $5 million fund balance (derived from the lodging tax being submitted to the voters at the November 8, 2005 election and the lodging tax and sales tax levied pursuant to Question 2B (approved at the 2002 election)) to fund operations and maintenance costs of the Conference Center and if that balance is reduced below $5 million, the Town reserves the right to collect an additional incremental lodging tax to pay for any higher than anticipated operational deficit pursuant to Resolution 17, Series of 2005; and WHEREAS, the Vail Conference Center will help improve the economic vitality and sustainability of the Vail Community;~and WHEREAS, the Vail Conference Center will provide a valuable community amenity for special events with a 30,000 square foot event space; and WHEREAS, the Council is of the opinion that the Town should seek voter approval to increase taxes and increase debt for the purpose provided in this resolution; and WHEREAS, on September 6, 2006, the Council found that it is in the public interest to finance the construction of a conference center in the Town and that it is necessary to increase taxes and issue bonds for such purpose. NOW, THEREFORE, BE TT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO: Section 1. The Vail Town Council endorses the passage of Question 1 in the Town of Vail municipal election set for November 8, 2005 .which would authorize the collection of additional lodging tax (up to 1.5%) and an increase in Town debt to pay for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the conference center. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this November 1, 2005. Rod Slifer, Mayor (SEAL) ATTEST: Lorelei Donaldson, Town Clerk 2 MONDAY- TUESDAY- W D- THURSDAY- FRIDAY- SATURDAY- SUNDAY- s•45 ~S(~I PM2O T 5:45 I 5:45 5:45 I 5:45 I 6:30 I 6:00 8:30 I 6:30 I 6:30 6:30 I 6:30 7:00 7:00 7:00.7:30 Z+4w- 7:00.7:30 SGT 7:00- ~ 7:00- ~~~ 7:00- 7:15- 7:15- 7:15-8:00 W 7:15-8:00 7:15.8:00 7:15-8:00 i 7:15.8:00 7:30-8:00 7:30.8:00 8:00-8:15 8:00-8:15 ~rRp f$ 8:00-8:15 8;00-8:15 v~p F5 8:00.8:15 8:00.8:15 I 8:00-8:15 8:15-8:30 fTYC~ 8:15-8:30 8:15-8:30 8:15-8:30 8:15.8:30 8:15-8:30 6:15.8:30 8:30.8:45 8:30.8:45 8:30.8:45 8:30-8:45 8:30-8:45 8:30-8:45 8:30-8:45 8:45.9:00 8:45-9:00 8:45-9:00 8:45-9:00 8:45-9:00 8:45-9:00 8:45.9:00 ' 9:00-9:15 9:00-9:15 I v>ep 9:00-9:15 9:00-9:15 9:00-9:15 9:00-9:15 ~ 9:00.9:15 9:15-9:30 9:15-9:30 9:15-9:30 9:15-9:30 9:15-9:30 9:15-9:30 9:15-9:30 9:30-9:45 9:30-9:45 9:30-9:45 9:30-9:45 9:30-9:45 9:30-9:45 9:30-9:45 9:45-10:00 9:45-10:00 ,.... # 9:45-10:00 9:45-10:00 9:45-10:00 9:45-10:00 9:45.1 :00 10:00.10:15 I 10:00.10:15 1 570 P-.. 10:00-10:15 I 10:00-10:15 10:00-10:15 10:00.10:15 ~ 10:00-10:15 10:15.10:30 / 10:15-10:30 10:15-10:30 I 10:15-10:30 10:15-10:30 10:15-10:30 10:15-10:30 10:30.10:45 10:30.10:45 10:30-10:45 10:30-10:45 10:30-10:45 10:30.10:45 10:30-10:45 10:45.11:00 10:45.11:00 10:45-11:00 10:45-11:00 10:45-11:00 10:45-11:00 10:45-11:00 11:00.11:15 11:00.11:15 11:00-11:15 ' F:° ~" 11:00-11:15 11:00-11:15 11:00.11:15 ~ 11:00-11:15 11:15.11:30 11.15.11:30 11:15-11:30 ~ 11:15-11:30 11:15-11:30 11:15.11:30 11>15-11:30 11:30-11:45 11:30-11:45 11:30-11:45 11:30.11:45 11:30-11:45 11:30-11:45 11:30-11:45 V,~t}1~ 11:45.12:00 11:45.12:00 ~ 11:45-12:00 11:45-12:00 11:45-12:00 11:45-12:00 11:45-12:00 12:00.12:15 kj1,tG 12:00-12:15 Pu l(r 12:00-12:15 I St7GC+ PuGK 12:00-12:15 .. E4IG 12:00-12:15 ~µAl,lL 12:00.12:15 ~ 12:00-12:15 12:15-12:30 12:15.12:30 12:15-12:30 12:15.12:30 12:15-12:30 12:15-12:30 12:15-12:30 12:30.12:45 12:30.12:45 12:30-12:45 12:30-12:45 12:30-12:45 12:30.12:45 12:30.12:45 12:45-1:00 12:45-1:00 12:45-1:00 12:45-1:00 12:45-1:00 12:45.1:00 12:45-1:00 1:00-1:15 I 1:00-1:15 1:00-1:15 1:00-1:15 I 1:00-1:15 fi:00.1:15 1:00-1:15 I 1:15-1:30 I 1:15-1:30 1:15-1:30 1:15-1:30 I 1:15-1:30 I 1:15-1:30 1:15-1:30 1:30-1:30 t~4N~- 1:30-1:30 Z+4y~ 1:30-1:30 L+4w~ 1:30-1:30 ZAr~ 1:30-1:30 t,*.,, 1:30.1:30 1:30.1:30 1:45-2:00 1:45-2:00 I 1:45-2:00 1:45-2:00 1:45-2:00 1:45-2:00 1:45.2:00 2:00-2:15 2:00-2:15 2:00-2:15 2:00-2:15 2:00-2:15 ~ 2:00-2:15 2:00-2:15 2:15-2:30 2:15-2:30 2:15-2:30 2:15-2:30 2:15-2:30 2:15-2:30 I 2:15-2:30 2:30-2:45 2:30-2:45 2:30-2:45 2:30-2:45 2:30-2:45 2:30-2:45 2:30-2:45 2:45-3:00 2:45-3:00 2:45-3:00 2:45-3:00 2:45-3:00 2:45-3:00 2:45-3:00 3:00-3:15 3:00-3:15 3:00-3:15 3:00-3:15 3:00-3:15 ~ 3:00-3:15 3:00.3:15 3:15-3:30 ~/lep f$ 3:15-3:30 3:15-3:30 3:15-3:30 3:15-3:30 ~~ 3:15-3:30 3:15-3:30 3:30-3:45 3:30-3:45 3:30-3:45 LAN to dKA1 3:30-3:45 3:30-3:45 , .-- 3:30-3:45 3:30-3:45 3:45-4:00 3:45-4:00 3:45-4:00 3:45-4:00 I 3:45-4:00 ~ 3:45-4:00 3:45.4:00 4:00-4:15 4:00-4:15 4:00-4:15 4:00-4:15 I 4:00-4:15 4:00.4:15 4:00-4:15 ~+ MINI 4:15-4:30 VF2p F(Gwtf L(~c, 4:15-4:30 1+KNS 4:15-4:30 i L7$ 4:15-4:30 Q~NS 4:15-4:30 $CU 4:15-4:30 y 4:15-4:30 4:30-4:45 4:30-4:45 4:30-4:45 4:30-4:45 4:30-4:45 4:30-4:45 G~ 4:30.4:45 4:45.5:00 4:45-5:00 4:45-5:00 4:45-5:00 4:45-5:00 4:45-5:00 I 4:45-5:00 5:00-5:15 V~ µ+q 5:00-5:15- 5:00-5:15 1 5 CV 5:00.5:15 I 5:00-5:15 5:00-5:15 ~ 5:00-5:15 5:15.5:30 5 30 5 45 5:15-5:3d ~~^^ 5:15-5:30 5:15.5:30 5:15-5:30 I 5:15-5:30 5:15.5:30 : - : 5:30-5:45 Z 5:30.5:45 5:30.5:45 I ZfFw~ 5:30-5:45 5:30-5:45 5:30.5:45 5:45-6:00 5:45-6:00 ~ 5 5:45.6:00 5:45.6:00 + S 5:45-6:00 /I-w• 5:45-6:00 5:45.6:00 zi1w.. 6:00.6:15 6;00.6:15 6:00.6:15 I 6:00.6:15 6:00-6:15 'fw+N S 6:00-6:15 tA++^• 6:00-6:15 I RENK~9~,,,4~+5 6:15-6:30 6:15-6:30 6:15-6:30 6:15.6:30 6:15.6:30 6:15-6:30 6:15.6:30 6:30-6:45 6:30.6:45 6:30-6:45 ~ 7A +i^ 6:30-6:45 6:30.6:45 6:30-6:45 6:30.6:45 6:45-7:00 6:45-7:00 6:45-7:00 i 6:45.7:00 V 6:45.7:00 6:45-7:00 6:45-7:00 7:00-7:15 ~ 7:00.7:15 ~ 7:00-7:15 7:00.7:15 I 7:00.7:15 7:00-7:15 7:00-7:15 7:15-7:30 7:15.7:30 zA~m 7:15.7:30 7:15-7:30 I 7:15.7:30 7:15-7:30 7;15-7:30 I 7:30-7:45 7:30-7:45 VJ W~! 7:30-7:45 7:30-7:45 7:30-7:45 zMV- 7:30.7:45 Z Awe 7:30.7:45 7;45-6:00 7:45.8:00 7:45-8:00 7:45.8:00 7:45-8:00 7:45-8:00 7:45-8:00 I 8:00-8:15 8:00-8:15 8:00-8:15 8:00-8:15 I 8:00-8:15 ~ 8:00.8:15 I 8:00-8:15 8:15-8:30 8:15.8:30 8:15-8:30 8:15.8:30 8:15-8:30 8:15.8:30 8:15-8:30 8:30-8:45 8:30.8:45 8:30-8:45 8:30.8:45 I 8:30-8:45 8:30.8:45 8:30-8:45 8:45-9:00 8:45.9:00 8:45.9:00 8:45.9:00 6:45-9:00 8:45.9:00 8:45-9:00 9:00-9:15 9:00.9:15 '' 9:00-9:15 ~ 9:00.9:15 I 9:00-9:15 9:00.9:15 9:00-9:15 ' ` ' 9:15-9:30 y:15.9:30 ~ 9:15.9:30 9:15.9:30 9:15-9:30 I 9:15-9:30 ~ 9:15.9:30 T C6 VKD AOu1 9:30-9:50 9:30-9:45 9:30.9:45 ~ ZA~w~ 9: -9:50 14N• 9:30-9:45 9:30-9:45 9:30-9:4;r I . 9:50-10:00 9:45.10:00 Z 9:45-10:00 C 9: 10:00 9:45-10:00 9:45-10:00 9:45-10:00 10:00-10:15 ~~p luLf L6,, 10:00-10:15 I vy pvsf LC. 10:00.10:15 10:00-10:15 I 10:00-10:15 I 10:00-10:15 10:00-10:15 10:15.10:30 10:15.10:30 10:15-10:30 10:15-10:30 10:15-10:30 -10:15.10:30 10:15-10:30 10:30.10:45 10:30.10:45 10:30.10:45 10:30.10:45 10:30.10:45 ..10:30-10:45 10:30-10:45 t~ 10:45.11:00 10:45-11:00 10:45-11:00 10:45.11:00 10:45-11:00 10:45-11:00 10:45-11:00 , L& 11:00.11:15 I 11:00-11:15 11:00-11:15 11:00.11:15 2 11:00-11:15 11:00.11;15 11:00.11:15 I 11:15.11:30 t ,d-•_ am 11:15.11:30 ~ 11:15.11:30 Z'4"" 11:15.11:30 11:15-11:30 11:15-11:30 11:15-11:30 11:30.11:45 I 11:30.11:45 11:30-11:45 11:30.11:45 11:30-11:45 11:30-11:45 11:30-11:45 11:45.12:00 11:45-12:00 11:45-12:00 11:45-12:00 11:45-12:00 11:45.12:00 11:45-12:00 MON AV- TUESDAY- WED- THURSDA • FRIDAY- SATURDAY- SUNDAY- 5:45 ~ 5:45 I 5:45 I 5:45 ~ 5:45 6:30 6:00 ? 6:30 6:30 I 6:30 + 6:30 I I 6:30 7:00 7:00 7:00.7:30 SC,~/ 7:00-7:30 SLR/ 7:00• ~ 7:00• ~ S W 7:00- 7:15- 7:15- 7:15-8:00 7:15-8:00 7:15.8:00 7:15.8:00 7:15.8:00 7:30.8:00 7:30.8:00 8:00-8:15 1,~ ~,, 8:00-8:15 ~ ~~ 6:00.8:15 8:00.8:15 T 8:00.8:15 8:00.8:15 I 8:00.8:15 8:15.8:30 i ~ 8:15.8:30 P-' 8:15-8:30 8:15.8:30 ~,~,, 8:15.8:30 8:15-8:30 8:15-8:30 1 8:30.8:45 8:30.8:45 8:30-8:45 8:30.8:45 8:30.8:45 8:30.8:45 1 8:30-8:45 8:45-9:00 8:45-9:00 8:45.9:00 8:45.9:00 8:45.9:00 8:45.9:00 8:45-9:00 9:00-9:15 9:00-9:15 9:00.9:15 9:00.9:15 II 9:00.9:15 9:00.9:15 ~ 9:00.9:15 9:15.9:30 z.tly~, 9:15-9:30 >` S 9:15.9:30 . 9:15.9:30 {~.r~+^^ 9:15.9:30 9:15.9:30 I 9:15.9:30 9:30.9:45 9:30-9:45 9:30.9:45 9:30.9:45 II 9:30.9:45 9:30.9:45 9:30-9:45 9:45.10:00 9:45.10:00 9:45-10:00 9:45.10:00 9:45-10:00 9:45-10:00 9:45.10:00 10:00.10:15 I 10:00.10:15 i ~,Vr`gP~ 7i;v~# ~ 10:00-10:15 I 10:00.10:15 10:00.10:15 I 10:00.10:15 ~ 10:00.10:15 10:15.10:30 10:15-10:30 10:15.10:30 I 10:15-10:30 10:15.10:30 10:15.10:30 10:15.10:30 10:30.10:45 10:30-10:45 10:30-10:45 10:30.10:45 10:30.10:45 10:30-10:45 10:30-10:45 10:45-11:00 10:45.11:00 10:45.11:00 10:45-11:00 10:45.11:00 10:45.11:00 10:45-11:00 11:00.11:15 11:00-11:15 11:00-11:15 11:00-11:15 11:00-11:15 11:00-11:15 ~ 11:00-11:15 11:15.11:30 11:15.11:30 11:15.11:30 11:15.11:30 11:15.11:30 11:15.11:30 11:15.11:30 11:30-11:45 11:30-11:45 11:30-11:45 11:30-11:45 I 11:30.11:45 11:30-11:45 11:30.11:45 11:45.12:00 11:45-12:00 , .~? 11:45.12:00 11:45-12:00 11:45-12:00 11:45.12:00 11:45-12:00 12:00.12:15 ~ Ll~. ~ 12:00-12:15 ~' ~fk ~ (~ 12:00-12:15 I < CK { 7d J~1 ~ 12:00.12:15 Ol; l.~C 12:00.12:15 lL ~~c~ 12:00.12:15 I 12:00-12:15 12:15.12:30 12:15.12:30 12:15.12:30 12:15-12:30 12:15.12:30 12:15.12:30 12:15-12:30 12:30.12:45 12:30.12:45 12:30.12:45 12:30-12:45 12:30-12:45 12:30.12:45 12:30-12:45 12:45-1:00 12:45-1:00 12:45-1:00 12:45.1:00 12:45-1:00 12:45.1:00 12:45-1;00 1:00-1:15 1:00.1:15 1:00-1:15 100.1:15 1.00.1:15 1:00-1:15 ~ 1:00.1:15 I 1:15.1:30 } 1:15-1:30 } : 1:15-1:30 115.1:30 1:15-1:30 1:15-1:30 1:15-1:30 1:30-1.30 ~~~ 1'30-1:30 ?,a-~~, 1:30-1:30 1 +~~u,° 1 30-1:30 ~ ~"^ 1:30.1 ~30 *'~ t"` 1:30-1:30 1 30-1:30 1:45.2:00 1:45.2:00 1:45-2:00 1:45.2:00 1:45.2:00 1:45-2:00 1:45-2:00 2:00.2:15 2:00-2:15 2:00-2:15 2:00.2:15 2:00.2:15 ~ 2:00.2:15 2:00-2:15 2:15.2:30 2:30-2:45 2:15-2:30 2:30-2:45 2:15.2:30 2:30-2:45 2:15-2:30 2:30.2:45 2:15.2:30 2:30-2:45 2:15.2:30 2:30-2:45 ~/ ~ ~~ 2:15.2:30 2:30-2:45 ~',~ ~ i 2:45.3:00 2:45.3:00 2:45-3:00 2:45-3:00 2:45-3:00 2:45.3:00 c./~' 2:45-3:00 3:00.3:15 3 00-3:15 3:00-3:15 3:00.3:15 3:00.3.15 ~ 3:00-3:15 3:00-3:15 , ` 3:15.3:30 f ' 3:15-3:30 3:15-3:30 ~ 3:15-3:30 3.15.3:30 ~-~ 3:15.3:30 ,' 1 3:15-3:30 ~ ~+ 3:30.3:45 3:30-3:45 3:30.3:45 tTS 3:30-3:45 3:30-3:45 3:30.3:45 ' N 3.30.3:45 ~,- 3:45.4:00 3:45-4:00 3:45-4:00 3:45.4:00 I 3:45.4:00 3:45-4:00 3:45-4:00 4:00-4:15 4:00-4:15 4:00-4:15 4:00-4:15 I 4:00.4:15 4:00.4:15 4:00-4:15 4:15.4:30 CI.Y?~~ 4:15-4:30 4:15-4:30 I 1-`'~ 4:15-4:30 4:15-4:30 ;c.~•~ 4:15-4:30 4:15-4:30 4:30-4:45 4:30-4:45 4:30.4:45 4:30-4:45 4:30-4:45 4:30-4:45 4:30.4:45 4:45-5:00 ,~r,,,,, 4:45.5:00 4:45-5:00 4:45-5:00 4:45-5:00 4:45.5:00 4:45.5:00 5:00.5:15 5:00-5:15 5:00.5:15 I ~;~~.; 5:00.5:15 I 5:00.5:15 5:00-5:15 5:00-5:15 5:15-5:30 5:15.5:30 5:15-5:30 5:15.5.30 5:15.5:30 5:15-5:30 5:15.5:30 5:30.5:45 5:30-5:45 5:30-5:45 5:30-5:45 I 5:30-5:45 5:30.5:45 5:30-5:45 5:45.6:00 5:45-6:00 5:45.6:00 5:45.6:00 5:45-6:00 5:45-6:00 5:45-6:00 6:00.6:15 ~}Q~ ~ 1 ` 6:00.6:15 /A"QUt j ~!, 6:00-6:15 6:00-6:15 ~~ld f ry lc~ 6:00-6:15 •(Wrw pE~c 6:00-6:15 6:00-6:15 I ~~Q(,,u4YS 6:15.6:30 ' 615-6:30 6:15-6:30 6:15.6:30 ~ 6:15-6:30 6:15.6:30 6:15-6:30 6:30-6:45 6:30-6:45 6:30-6:45 I ~ ~+ ~ 6:30-6:45 6:30.6:45 6:30-6:45 6:30.6:45 6:45-7:00 6:45.7:00 6:45-7:00 I ~ I~ 6:45-7:00 6:45-7:00 6:45-7:00 6:45.7:00 7:00.7:15 ~ 7:00-7:15 7:00.7:15 7:00.7:15 I 7:00-7:15 7:00.7:15 7:00-7:15 7:15-7:30 7:15.7:30 7:15-7:30 7:15-7:30 7:15.7:30 7:15.7:30 7:15-7:30 7:30-7:45 7:30.7:45 7:30-7:45 7:30-7:45 7:30-7:45 ZPo^" 7:30-7:45 7:30.7:45 2.4~,. 7:45-8:00 7:45-8:00 7:45.8:00 7:45-8:00 7:45.8:00 7:45-8:00 7:45.8:00 8:00.8:15 8:00.8:15 8:00-8:15 8:00-8:15 I 8:00-8:15 8:00-8:15 I 8:00-8:15 °_~~,: v-;-, .'" 8:15.8:30 815-8:30 8:15.8:30 8.15-8:30 815-8:30 ~ 8:15.8:30 8:15.8:30 8:30-8:45 830.8:45 8:30-8:45 8 30-8:45 I 8 30.8:45 8:30.8:45 8:30-8:45 8:45.9:00 8.45-9:00 8:45-9:00 8:45-9:00 8:45-9:00 8:45-9:00 8:45-9:00 9:00-9:15 ~. ~ ; jr,r~s. 9.00.9:15 ~-1 E+ ~ 9:00-9:15 ~ ~ ~~ 9.00-9:15 ~ ~,?+• 9:00.9:15 9:00.9:15 ~ 9'00.9:15 ~ ' 9:15.9:30 9:15-9:30 9:15.9:30 ' ('k K'~LE- `~ 9:15.9:30 9:15-9:30 9:15.9:30 9:15-9:30 9:30.9:50 9:30.9:45 9:30-9:45 ~ 9:30-9:50 9:30.9:45 9:30.9:45 9:30.9:45 I 9:50-10:00 9:45.10:00 9:45.10:00 9:50.10:00 9:45.10:00 9:45.10:00 9:45-10:00 10:00.10:15 10 15 10 30 10:00-10:15 ~ 10:00-10:15 10:00-10:15 I I ~l% 10:00.10:15 I 5 10 30 10:00.10:15 10 15 10 30 10:00-10:15 : . : 10:30.10:45 7.~-v~-L 10:15.10:30 10:30.10:45 ' A j~J 10:15-10:30 10:30.10:45 10:15-10:30 10:30.10:45 ~`` ~~~' - : 10:1 10:30.10:45 : - : 10:30.10:45 10:15-10:30 10:30-10:45 10:45.11:00 10:45.11:00 I 10:45.11:00 10:45-11:00 10:45-11:00 10:45-11:00 10:45.11:00 i 1:00.11:15 11:00.11:15 11:00.11:15 11:00-11:15 11:00.11:15 11:00-11:15 11:00-11:15 I 11:15.11:30 11:15-11:30 11:15.11:30 11:15.11:30 11:15.11:30 11:15-11:30 11:15.11:30 11:30.11:45 11:30-11:45 11:30.11:45 11:30.11:45 11:30-11:45 11:30-11:45 11:30-11:45 11:45.12:00 11:45-12:00 11:45-12:00 11:45.12:00 11:45-12:00 11:45-12:00 11:45-12:00 - 1r,cr~1~ - ~~~ ~iosr MONDAY - TUESDAY- WED- THURSDAY- FRIDAY - SATURDAY- SUNDAY- ,5:45 ~ 5:45 I 5:45 5:45 ~ 5:45 6:30 6:00 6:30 7 00-7 30 6:30 I 6:30 I 6:30 I 6:30 7:00 ~ 7:00 : : M ~ ~? 7:00.7:30 7:00• ~ 7:00• ~ 7:00- 7:15• 7:15- 7:15.8:00 A'f 7:15-8:00 7:15-8:00 7:15-8:00 7:15-8:00 7:30.6:00 7:30.8:00 8:00.8:15 .yt,~ ~ 8:00-6:15 8:00-8:15 8:00.8:15 8:00.8:15 8:00.8:15 I 8:0 15 8:15.8:30 8:15.8:30 8:15.8:30 8:15-8:30 8:15.8:30 8:15.8:30 30 8:30-8:45 8:30-8:45 8:30-8:45 8:30-8:45 8:30.8:45 8:30.8:45 ~ :45 8:45-9:00 8:45.9:00 8:45.9:00 8:45-9:00 8:45.9:00 8:45.9:00 r ~ V`~ :45.9:00 9:00.9:15 9:15-9:30 9:00-9:15 9:00.9:15 9;00.9:15 9:00-9:15 9:00.9:15 ~ 9:00.9:15 9:15-9:30 9:15.9:30 9:15.9:30 9:15.9:30 9:15.9:30 I ~ 9:15-9:30 9:30.9:45 9:30.9:45 9:30-9:45 9:30.9:45 9:30.9:45 9:30.9:45 ~ ~ 9:30.9:45 9:45.10:00 9:45.10:00 9:45.10:00 9:45.10:00 9:45.10:00 9:45-10:00 9:45.10:00 1 10:00.10:15 I 10:00-10:15 I 10:00-10:15 I 10:00-10:15 10:00-10:15 I 10:00.10:15 ~ 10:00.10:15 10:15.10:30 10:15.10:30 10:15.10:30 I 10:15.10:30 10:15.10:30 10:15.10:30 10:15.10:30 10:30.10:45 10:30.10:45 10:30-10:45 10:30.10:45 10:30.10:45 10:30.10:45 10:30-10:45 10:45.11:00 10:45.11:00 10:45.11:00 10:45.11:00 10:45-11:00 10:45-11:00 10:45-11:00 11:00.11:15 11:00-11:15 11:00-11:15 11:00-11:15 11:00.11:15 11:00.11:15 ~ 11:00-11:15 11:15-11:30 11:15.11:30 11:15.11:30 11:15-11:30 11:15-11:30 11:15.11:30 11:15.11:30 11:30-11:45 11:30.11:45 11:30-11:45 11:30.11:45 11:30.11:45 11:30-11:45 ~ 11:30.11:45 11:45-12:00 11:45-12:00 11:45.12:00 11:45-12:00 11:45-12:00 11:45.12:00 11:45-12:00 12:00.12:15 12:00-12:15 12:00-12:15 I 12:00-12:15 12:00-12:15 12:00-12:15 ~ 12:00-12:15 12:15-12:30 12:15-12:30 12:15-12:30 12:15.12:30 12:15-12:30 12:15-12:30 %" 12:15.12:30 12:30.12:45 12:30-12:45 12:30.12:45 12:30.12:45 12:30.12:45 12:30-12:45 ~ 12:30.12:45 12:45.1:00 12:45.1:00 12:45-1:00 12:45-1:00 12:45.1:00 12:45-1:00 ~ ! 12:45.1:00 1:00-1:15 ~ 1:00-1:15 1:00.1:15 1:00.1:15 1:00-1:15 1:00-1:15 1:00-1:15 I 1:15-1:30 P~~gl IL 1:15-1:30 ~ 1:15.1:30 ~ 1:15.1:30 ~ 115-1:30 1:15.1:30 ~ j 1:15.1:30 1:30.1:30 Sr~tl1~6 1:30.1:30 1:30-1:30 1:30.1:30 1:30-1:30 1:30.1:30 1:30-1:30 1:45-2:00 1:45-2:00 1:45-2:00 1:45-2:00 1:45-2:00 1:45-2:00 1:45-2:00 w '' G ~ 1 a 1 2:00-2:15 2:15-2 30 2:00-2:15 2:00-2:15 2:00-2:15 2:00.2:15 ~ 2:00-2:15 2:00.2:15 ( ~ pJ : 2:15-2:30 2:15-2:30 2:15-2;30 2:15-2:30 2:15.2:30 2:15-2:30 ~ ~ I -% 2:30.2:45 2:30-2:45 2:30-2:45 2:30.2:45 2:30.2:45 2:30-2:45 2:30.2:45 2:45-3:00 2:45-3:00 2:45-3:00 2:45.3:00 2:45.3:00 2:45-3:00 2:45-3:00 3:00.3:15 3:15.3:30 3:00-3:15 3:15-3:30 3:00-3:15 3:15-3:30 3:00-3:15 3:15.3:30 ~ 3:00-3:15 ~ 3:15.3:30 3:00.3:15 3:15-3:30 3:00-3:15 ~ 3:15.3:30 (`~ U.-,(~ (, ((~ 3:30.3:45 3:30-3:45 3:~0.3~1`5 3:30-3:45 3:30-3:45 3:30.3:45 3:30-3:45 3:45-4:00 3:45.4:00 .45-4.00 3:45.4:00 I .• 3:45.4:00 3:45-4:00 3:45-4:00 4:00.4:15 4:15-4:30 i ~ 4:OQ-4:15 ~5~4 30 4:00 4:15 ~ 4 4 30 I 4:00-4:15 If ! :004:15 ~ _ r~ ~ 4:00.4:15 4:00.4:15 4 30 4 45 ' = : ~ ~ :~- : ~ A:15-4:30 ~ ~ ~ 4:15.4:30 ~ , r 4:15-4:30 4:15.4:30 : . : ~ ~- 4: -4:45 430-4:45 V 4:30-4:4 I 4:3Q -4:45 ~' ' 4:30.4:45 4:30-4:45 4:45-5:00 4' 5-5:00 y~45- ' 4:45- 0 4:45-5:0 l 4:4 5 5 00 4:45.5:00 f q- 5:00.5:15 ~ 00-5:15 / 5: -1.15 I „ \ 5:OJJ'S35 I 5:00• .15 `~---r '- 5:00-5:15 5:00-5:15 5:15.5:30 5:15-5:30 / .15-5:30 ' '(V ~:'C5-5:30 5:15.5:30 5:15-5:30 5:15.5:30 5:30.5:45 5:3Q-5:45 f 5:30-5:45 f I J5:30-5:45 I 5:30-5:45 5:30-5:45 i 5:30-5:45 5:45-6:00 5:45-6:00 5:45-6:00 5:45-6:00 5:45-6:00 5:45.6:00 r 5:45.6:00 6:00-6:15 6:15.6:30 }i{t41 ~` ~. 6, 6:00.6:15 - 6:00.6:15 6:00-6:15 6:00-6:15 ~-w r,~ 6:00-6:15 6:00.6:15 1 7 ~- ~ 6:30-6:45 6:15-6:30 6:30-6:45 6:15-6:30 6:30-6:45 I 6:15-6:30 6:30-6:45 6:15-6:30 6:30-6:45 ~,,d1~`i r~ ~ 6:15-6:30 6:30.6:45 t~ ! 6:15-6:30 6:30.6:45 ~~ ~'~' ~ `~ ty 6:45.7:00 6:45-7:00 6:45-7:00 I 6:45-7:00 6:45-7:00 6:45-7:00 ~ 6:45.7:00 7:00-7:15 7:15.7:30 7:00-7:15 ~ ?:15-7:30 F j ~, 7:00-7:15 7:15.7:30 ~ 7:00.7:15 I 7:15-7:30 ,r` ~ ~ 7:00-7:15 7:15-7:30 7:00.7:15 7:15-7:30 % 7:00-7:15 7 15 7 3 ~ 6 ll` ~ ~ , ~ ~ : . : 0 ~ 1 ° I 7:45.8:00 7:4 -8:00 7:45.8:00 ' 7:45-8:00 ' 7:46-8:00 7:45 8:00 7:46-8:00 I ~ 8:00.8:15 8:15.8:30 8:00.8:15 , i" '~ 8:00-8:15 t L ' 8:00.8:15 ~ ~ 8:00.8:15 8:00-8:15 I 8:00.8:15 8:30.8:45 ~' 8:15-8:30 ' ~ 8:15.8:30 ." 8:15.8:30 I ~ ~ 8:15-8:30 8:15.8:30 8:15.8:30 8:45-9:00 I ~ 8:30.8:45 8:30-8:45 8:30-8:45 I 8:30.8:45 8:30.8:45 8:30-8:45 + • 8:45-9:00 8:45.9:00 8:45.9:00 8:45-9:00 8:45-9:00 6:45.9:00 9:00-9:15 9:00.9:15 9:00-9:15 -*t • f'. ~ F' 9:00.9:15 9:00.9:15 9:00.9:15 9:00-9:15 9:15-9:30 9:15-9:30 9:15.9:30 ~ ~ ~ 9:15.9:30 9:15-9:30 I 9:15-9:30 9:15.9:30 9:30.9:50 9:50-10:00 ` ~ ~ 9:30-9:45 9:30-9:45 ~ ` '~ 9:30-9:50 9:30-9:45 9:30.9:45 9:30-9:45 I 9:45-10:00 9:45-10:00 9:50.10:00 9:45.10:00 9:45-10:00 9:45.10:00 10:00.10:15 10:15-10:30 ~ r ,, ~,a ~ '{~ 10:00-10:15 10:00.10:15 10:00-10:15 I 10:00-10:15 I 10:00-10:15 10:00.10:15 ~ 10:15-10:30 10:15-10:30 10:15.10:30 10:15.10:30 ~ 10:15.10:30 10:15-10:30 10:30-10:45 10:30.10:45 10:30.10:45 10:30-10:45 10:30-10:45 10:30-10:45 10:30.10:45 10:45-11:00 10:45-11:00 10:45-11:00 10:45-11:00 10:45.11:00 10:45.11:00 10:45-11:00 11:00.11:15 11:00.11:15 11:00-11:15 11:00-11:15 11:00-11:15 11:00-11:15 11:00.11:15 I 11:15-11:30 11:15.11:30 11:15-11:30 11:15.11:30 11:15.11:30 11:15.11:30 11:15.11:30 11:30-11:45 11:30.11:45 11:30-11:45 11:30-11:45 11:30-11:45 11:30.11:45 11:30-11:45 11:45.12:00 11:45.12:00 11:45.12:00 11:45.12:00 11:45.12:00 11:45-12:00 11:45.12:00 REVISED HARD COST Floor Fee $800 Utility Fee $350 Staff/hour $50 Ski Swap *Needs special event floor Floor Fee $800 Thursday 15 hours $ Friday 17 hours $ Saturday 16 hours $ Sunday 6 hours $ Skate Club of Vail Staff hourly rate Misc. Utilities Total 750.00 $ 400.00 $ 350.00 $1,500.00 850.00 $ 350.00 $1,200.00 800.00 $ 350.00 $1,150.00 300.00 $ 400.00 $ 350.00 $1,050.00 $ 4,900.00 Invitational **Needs glass removal and stage set-up. Set-up 100 Tear down 100 Wednesday 13 hours $ Thursday 14 hours $ Friday 14 hours $ Saturday 13.5 hours $ Sunday 9 hours $ Total hourly rate Misc. utilities total 650.00 $ 100.00 $ 350.00 $ 1,100.00 700.00 $ 350.00 $1,050.00 700.00 $ 350.00 $1,050.00 675.00 $ 350.00 $1,025.00 450.00 $ 100.00 $ 350.00 $ 900.00 $ 5,125.00 Holiday Show **Needs Glass removal and decoration set-up Day 1 12.5 hours $ 625.00 $ 100.00 $ 350.00 $1,075.00 Day 2 9 hours $ 450.00 $ 100.00 $ 350.00 $ 900.00 $1,975.00 Vail Junior Hockey Association Sportsmanship Tournament Total hourly rate Friday 8 hours $ 400.00 Saturday 16 hours _ $ 800.00 Sunday 11.5 hours $ 575.00 Misc. utilities total $ 350.00 $ 750.00 $ 350.00 $1,150.00 $ 350.00 $ 925.00 $ 2, 825.00 F MEMORANDUM October 25, 2005 To: Vail Town Council Stan Zemler Pam Brandmeyer Judy Camp From: Sally Lorton Re: September Sales Tax On the reverse side, please find the latest sales tax worksheet. I estimate I'll collect another $73,000.00 in September sales tax to bring September collections to $793,871.00. If so, we will be up 10.18% or $73,350.00 from budget and up 4.87% or $36,838.00 from September 2004. Attached please fmd two worksheets that report on the conference center tax collection. i . Month ssa 995 996 997 998 999 Town of Vail Sales Tax Worksheet 10/25!2005 2000 2001 2002 ~ ~ 2003 004 ' udget 005 ColtacUons udget Vadance Change /rom 2004 Change from Budget January 1.,805,707 ?;,1,894;597 1,935,782 2,052,569 2,115,359 2,066,459 2,034,529 2,210,547 2,073,481 1,997,091 2,225,841 2,118,488 2,272,914 154,426 2.11% 7.29% February 1',814,495 ,,,:1;816,]07.., .1,993,389 2,089,673 2,153,121 2,021,486 2,223,670 2,366,321 2,281,833 2,111,163 2,362,825 2,248,865. 2,428,863 179,998 2.79% 8.00% March 2;250,656. 2,1.39,298 .2,240,865 2,580,992 2,368,077 2,415,202 2,545,573 2,568,871 2,699,664 2,372,942 2,344,178 2,231,117 2,782,296 551,179 18.69% 24.70°k April ~ 794,668 797,092 966,993 874,427 1,107,334 952,843 926,771 1,043,431 870,875 871,468 992,157 844,305 913,824 69,61;9 -7.89% 8.25% May , ~ ,287,375 324,681 .318,920 329,783 382,718 370,864 388,121 448,234 414,248 428,919 411,595 391,744 457,493 65,749 11.15% 16.78% June ~ 548,820 590;685 594,907 630,366 633,400 692,811 721,774 751,439 657,707 742,755 732,113 696,803 833,560 136,75,7 13.86% 19.63% July i 892,830 893,483 963,717 1,043,637 1,107,882 1,130,883 1,235,470 1,157,867 1,044,966 1,075,532 1,128,514 1,074,085 1,162,810 88,725 3.04% 8.26°k August j a 891,566 867,125 990,650 1,073,430 1,183,926 .1,050,004 1,038,516 1,124,275 1,084,318 1,029,446 994,445 946,482 982,692 36,210 -1.18% 3.83% September 725,205 645,902 630,453 637,831 735,608 806,600 817,313 747,766 713,574 679,208 757,033 720,521 720,871 350 -4.78% 0.05% Total 10,011;262 9,962,970 10,635,676 11,312,708 11,787,425 11.507.15" t 1,~~31 737 1 ,,1 ~~.7~~1 11 'd-1 -~5 1 t _C~., t 1,5~;fi,701 11. X72.410 1~.~ ~~,~ 1 x013 - 11 .,.-,% October 408,405 461,791 413,573 472,836 515,531 536,204 547,201 486,570 484,425. 508,092 532,537 506,853 November r ,594;491 611,147 601,208 707,166 656,596 582,260 691,445 571,783 642,293 591,269 623,646 593,b67 December 1,992,Er° 1,994,540 2,068,851 2,254,709 2,070,834 1,883,805 2,062,205 1,933,940 2,139,417 2,171,098 2,362,095 2,248,170 Total 13,007;013 13,030, 446 13, 719, 308 14, 747,419 15, 030, 386 14,509,421 15, 232, 588 15,41 1,044 15,106, 801 14, 578, 983 15,466, 979 14, 621,000 12, 555,42 3 1, 283, 013 ~ r, vr` .~ onth Town of Vail Coriference Center Lodging Tax (1.5%)Worksheet 10/25/2005 2005 Budget 2003 2004 Budget Col%ctions Variance hange from 2004 Change from Budget a ;1~ January 258,035 304,140 276,303 308,828 32,525 1.54% 11.77% February 314,645 354,159 321,744 365,332 43,588 3.15% 13.55% March 342,984 333,006 302,527 411,599 109,072 23.60% 36.05% April 64,246 87,147 79,171 70,281 (8,890) -19.35% -11.23% May 15,964 18,027 16,377 21,370 4,993 18.54% 30.49% June 54,153 56,662 51,476 67,648 16,172 19.39% 31.42% July 84,422 94,611 85,951 95,624 9,673 1.07% 11.25% August 81,820 82,900 75,312 75,379 67 -9.07% 0.09% September 42,569 48,706 44,248 52,390 8,142 7.56% 18.40% ... ~; *, Total 1,258,838 1,379,358 1,253,109 1,468,451 215,342 6.46% 17.18^/0 October 25,131 28,707 26,080 November 29,089 33,037 30,013 December 260,232 289,276 262,798 ~~ ~ Y• C s .~ ~ Total 1, 573,290 1,730,378 1,572,000 1,468,451 215,342 onth Town of Vail Conference Center Retail Tax (.5%) Worksheet 10/25/2005 2005 Budget 2003 2004 Budget Co/%ct/ons Valiance hange from 2004 Change from Budget January 233,274 267,013 245,637 271,630 25,993 1.73% 10.58% February 250,236 283,480 260,830 291,227 30,397 2.73% 11.65% March 283,013 284,547 258,952 334,072 75,120 17.40% 29.01 April 99,694 115,624 109,419 106,883 (2,536) -7.56% -2.32% May 46,376 46,172 45,406 51,452 6,046 11.44% 13.32% June 83,981 83,918 80,741 96,966 16,225 15.55% 20.10% July 122,562 130,300 124,611 135,321 10,710 3.85% 8.59% August 119,843 115,092 109,760 113,575 3,815 -1.32% 3.48% September 78,107 87,126 83,472 84,473 1,001 -3.05% 1.20% "fot&I 1,317,086 1,413,272 1,318,828 1,}55,599 166,771 5.12°~ 12.65"'/0 October 57,330 60,325 58,721 November 67,602 71,641 68,792 December 253,449 276,725 260,659 Total 1,695,467 1,821,963 1,707,000 1,485,599 166,771 r ~~-' k Vail Valley Foundation Athlete Commission Financial Report - ~ Winter 2005-2006 Funds : Name of Partner _ .. _ . Amount Given ~ 2004:-2005 Amount Committed. . ~ - 2005-2006. Rollover Funds from Summer 2005 $228.25 Beaver Creek Resort Com an $4,000 $4,000.00 Town of Vail $4,750 $4,750.00 Vail Resorts $5,000 $5,000.00 Vail Valle Foundation $5,000 $5,000.00 TOTALS $18,750 $18,978.25 -_ ~- „Expenses :~` , ; . y_. Amount ,. ., _: ~ Balance.. _ Summer'05 Meetin $15.00 $18,963.25 Vail Dail Ad 04/30/05 $553.00 $18,410.25 Name of Athlefe ~ Amount Given - Balance Winter Funds ~ 2004-2005 -. $18,410.25 Nathan Asoian ~' $1;250 ? ~ 800 Rob Bak ~ ~_ ~_ , ,,~ , ;gip ~ ~ ~ i Clair Bidez ~-~:::.~_~-, ~ : ~ ~~;'_~$"1,000 ~ 150b D Ian Bidez : _$1,OQ0 SOo Kevin Hochtl _ - ~~'~~~$500~~' h5b Stacia Hookom / ~ $2;500'' ~,~ Julia Littman / ~. .,:;,~., $2,750; 000 Rachel Nelson ~,,~ . $0~= (500 Eden Serina ~ $0' J.SDO Josh Sherman $0: ! 500 Jonathan Stevens ~ '~" ~$09 1,,~9~' 75b TOTALS ~~. ~~~~~~ ~._, TOTAL REMAING BALANCE $0.00 k 6u.~- ;.. ~VVD v~ **Does Not Qualify VAIL VALLEY ATHLETE COMMISSION REPORT Winter 2005/ 2006 Nathan Asoian A e 20 Alpine Ski Racing $2,500 2005 Best NorAm result in career Le Massif CAN 2005 Im roved GS rankin b 100 eo le 2003. Member of 2003 U.S. World Junior Team 2004 2005 Overall rankin in NorAm standin s - DH #32' SG #25 2002 1~ Overall in DH & GS at Che Trucks Roc Central ]r. OI m ics Last year's international results 18 .and 20 place SL, Oberjock, GER 18~' lace SL St. Lambrecht GER Competitions planned for 2006 Kaprun, AUT; Jan. 10-11, 2 GS Zell am See, AUT; Jan. 17-18, 2 SL Cortina ITA• Jan. 31 - Feb. 2 2 DH SG Rob Bak A e 28 Snowboarding $21,400 2000 4 lace Slo es le Breckenrid a CO 2001 1~ lace Red Bull Lo Jam Vail CO 2001 2" lace Summer Half i e T rol Basin WI 2001 2" lace Ford Freeride Challen a Co er Mtn. CO 2003 1~ lace Transworld Team Challen a Northstar@Tahoe CA Competitions planned for 2006 The Session, Vail, CO ~ Vans Tahoe Cup, Lake Tahoe, CA ~,~ US O en Stratton VT Clair Bidez Snowboarding -Half Pipe $3,000 A e i8 2005 1~ lace USASA Nationals Co er Mtn. CO 2005 4 lace Burton's Abominable Snow Jam Mt. Hood OR 2005 8 lace Grand Prix Mtn. Creek NJ 2005 7 lace Grand Prix Mt. Bachelor OR 2005 8 lace Grand Prix Breckenrid a CO Last year's 2" place, Jr. World Championships, Zermatt, SUI international results 10~' lace World Cu Bardonecchia ITA Competitions planned World Cup, Chile Sept. 14 and 15 for 2005/2006 World Cup, Saas Fee; Oct, 21 Grand Prix, Breckenridge, Mt. Bachelor, Mtn. Creek X=Games, Aspen, US 0 en Stratton ~ VT .. 10/20/05 1 ri= VAIL VALLEY ATHLETE COMMISSION REPORT Winter 2005/2006 Dylan Bidez Snowboarding -Half Pipe & $1,000 A e 15 Slo es le & Boardercross 2004 6 lace HP 2" lace BX Trofeo To olino Fol arida ITA 2005 5 place HP, 2" place BX, 6 place SS, USASA Nationals, Copper Mtn. CO 2004 1st place Big Air, 1st place Slalom, 1st place HP, #1 Overall, Sports Illustrated Next X Snow Ke stone CO 2004 2" lace BX USASA Nationals An el Fire NM Last year's 1st place HP, 3~ place BX, Trofeo Topolino, Folgarida, ITA international results Competitions planned Grand Prix, Breckenridge, Mt. Bachelor, Mtn. Creek for 2006 USSA Evolution Tour, Killington, Sugarbowl Trofeo Topolino-Forgarida, ITA T in for Jr. Worlds Kevin Hochtl A e: 25 Nordic Skiing $1,000 2005 1st lace Birkebeiner S rint Ha and WI 2005 1st lace NorAm S rint Minnea olis MN 2004 2" lace 100 meter S rint World Record attem t UT 2004 4 lace NorAm Prolo ue S rint West Yellowstone MT 2003 20 lace Euro a Cu S rint Cam ra SUI Last year's international results 1st place Sprint, 30 place 52K, American Birkebeiner Competitions Planned for 2005/2006 NorAm Alaska, Fairbanks and Ancorage, Nov. 2005 US Nationals, Soldier Hollow, UT, Jan. 2006 Euro a Cu s AUT and SUI Feb. 28 thru Mar. 2006 10/20/05 2 v Stacia Hookom Snowboarding $5,000 A e: 30 2003, 2001, 1997, 8 place, FIS World Championships 1996 Six National Cham ionshi Titles 2002 2" lace World Cu ~ Soelden AUT 4 Grand Prix Wins 1993 2" Overall ISF Jr. Worlds Ro la Slovenia Last year's 8 place, World Cup, Maliomanai, JAP international results 21~ and 22"d place, World Championships (FIS), Whistler, CAN 17~' lace World Cu Soelden AUT Competitions Planned FIS World Cup, Europe, Japan, N. America for 2005/2006 2006 Olympic~Games, Torino, ITA National Cham ionshi s TBD ]ulia Littman A e: 21 Alpine Ski Racing $4,000-$15,000 2004 2" lace combined US Nationals Alaska 2005 To 10 GS and DH US Nationals Mammoth CA 2004 5 lace DH NorAm Lake Louise CAN 2004-2005 Ski Club Vail Athlete of the Year Award To 10 in GS Grindelwald SUI Last year's international results 6 place, Lake Louise, CAN; 8 place, Leukerbad, SUI; 4t place, Megeue, FRA; 6"' place Le Massif, CAN; 7~' place, Mt. Saint Anne, CAN Competitions Planned for 2005/2006 Europa Cup, Megeue, FRA NorAm, Lake Louise, CAN Euro a Cu Grindelwald SUI Rachel Nelson A e: 23 Snowboarding $9,000 1~ lace World Pro Snowboard Tour Snowmass CO .6 ' lace FIS Jr. Worlds German 2"- ~ lace lJnVailed' Vail°°' CO 12 lace Goodwill Game Lake Placid NY 4 lace The Session Vail CO Competitions Planned for 2005/_2006. The Session,. Vail, CO,, Vans Cup, Location TBA Gravi Games Location TBA 10/20/05 3 i/AIL VALLEY ATHLETE COMMISSION REPORT Winter 2005/2006 i~ VAIL VALLEY ATHLETE COMMISSION REPORT Winter 2005/2006 Eden Serina A e: 30 Snowboard Racing $4,000 2005 3~ lace SL 4 lace GS Finland Nat'I. Cham .• Saariselka FIN 2005. 2" lace GS 3 lace SL USASA Nat'I. Cham . • Co er Mtn. 2005 .46 lace GS 52" lace SL World Cham .• Whistler CP-N 2005 26 lace SL World Cu • Sun woo KOR 2005 28 lace SL Snowboard World Cu • Sierra Nevada SPAIN Last year's international results Did not receive Athletic Commission funding last year Competitions Planned for 2005/2006 Winter Olympic Games; Torino, ITA World Cup Olympic Qualifier; Solden, AUT World Cu OI m is ualifier• Olan ITA josh Sherman A e: 20 Snowboard Racing $15,000 3~ lace Vans Tri le Crown Rail Jam• Mammoth CA 1~ lace 20 Anniversa Rail ]am• Breckenrid a CO 3~ lace Oakle 's Bi Ni ht Out• Co er Mtn. CO 4 lace Slo es le Nationals• Mammoth CA 2004 2005 Transworld Snowboardin full a e hotos in first 3 issues Last year's international results Did not receive Athletic Commission funding last year Competitions Planned for 2005/2006 U.S. Open; Vermont, March 14-19, 2006 Nippeon Open; ALTS Bandai, ]AP, Feb. 22-26, 2006 Euro can 0 en• Laax SWI Jan. 14-21 2006 7onathan Stevens A e: 15 .Mountain Running $2,000 1~ lace in a e rou 2" overall Teva Games 5K• Vail CO 1~ lace in a e rou 3~ overall Teva 8K Trail Race• Vail CO 2" lace in a e rou Teva Vail Dail Hill Climb• Vail CO 1~ place in age group/6 overall, Miles 4 Miracles'4 Mile; Hi hlands Ranch CO 4 lace Harrison Hi h School XC Meet Last year's international results. Did not receive Athletic Commission funding last year Competitions Planned for 2005/2006 World Trophy Mtn Trail Race; Wellington, NZ, US Junior Team Nike Summit Trail Race Series;. Breckenridge, CO Twili ht Trail Race Series• Denver CO 10!20/05 4 f ~nnw~oevnn. October 20, 2005 AUGUST 2005 VAIL BUSINESS REVIEW Overall August sales tax decreased 2.1% with Retail increasing 1.0%, Lodging decreased 9.7%, Food and Beverage decreased 9.0°Io and Utilities/Other (which is mainly utilities but also includes taxable services and rentals) increased 17.2%. Town of Vail sales tax forms, the Vail Business Review and the sales tax worksheet are available on the Internet at www.vailgov.com. You can subscribe to have the Vail Business Review and the sales tax worksheet e-mailed to you automatically from www.vail ov.com. Please remember when reading the Vail Business Review that it is produced from sales tax collections, as opposed to actual gross sales. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to call me at (970) 479-2125. Sincerely, ~ n `~~ t~.J~C.~ Sally Lorton Sales Tax Administrator August 2005 SALES TAX VA/L VILLAGE August August August 2004 2005 Retail Lodging Food & Beverage Other Total ~.vnva.uv~ as ~.c~ncc~iuns ~.nange 172,097 170,369 -1.0% 84,987 81,196 -4.5% 173,392 170,405 -1.7% 9,042 6,059 -33.0% 439,518 428,029 -2.6% ~, LIONSHEAD August August August 2004 2005 Collections Collections Change Retail 43,036 35,461 -17.6% Lodging 82,597 51,090 -38.1 Food & Beverage 42,667 30,116 -29.4% Other 4,567 4,534 -0.7% Total 172,867 121,201 -29.9% .~ . l August 2005 SALES TAX CASCADE VILLAGE/EAST VAIUSANDSTONE/WEST VAIL August August August 2004 2005 Retail Lodging Food & Beverage Other Total ~.uiiC~uu~~~ ~.uii~cuuns ~.nange 129,503 132,377 - 2:2°1° 50,903 65,407 ~ 28:5-% 61,714...... 50,941 -17.5% 3,777 5,577 47.7% 245,897• 254,302 3:4% OUT OF TOWN August 2004 Collections Retail Lodging Food & Beverage lJtilities & Other Total 25,783 1,994 August August 2005 Collections Change 36,057 39.8% 1,364 -31.6% 1, 048 2,167 106.8% 107,883 130,684 21.1 136,708 170,272 24.6% August 2005 SALES TAX ~ . TOTAL August August August 2004 2005 Collections Collections Chan e .Retail 370,419 374,264 1.0% Lodging 220,481 199,057 -9.7% Food & Beverage 278,821 253,629 -9.0% I Utilities & ; 125,269 146,854 17.2% Other ~ Total ~ 994,990 973,804 -2.1 r r RETAIL SUMMARY FOOD LIQUOR APPAREL SPORT JEWELRY GIFT GALLERY OTHER HOME OCCUPATION TOTAL August 2004 Collections 102,308 19,076 60,802 80,695 25,292 10,409 5,545 65,149 1,143 August 2005 Collections 101,793 20,949 52,808 87,385 21,567 9,321 8,974 70,089 1,378 August % -.5% 9.8% -13.1% 8.3% -14.7% -10.5% 61.8% 7.6% 20.6% 370,419 374,264 1.0% TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE HIGHLIGHTS October 27, 2005 Sales and Related Tazes Sales tax for the month of September is expected to be up 4.9% from September 2004 and favorable to budget by 10%. Year-to-date through September collections estimated at $12.6 million will be the highest collections in the town's history exceeding last year by 5.7% and budget by 12.0%. The next highest year-to-date occurred in 2001 with January through September collections of $12.4 million. Conference center sales and lodging taxes for September of $136,863 are up 9.5% from budget and up 0.8% from last year. For the year-to-date, total conference_center taxes of $2,954,050 are up 14.9% from budget and up 5.8% from last year. Construction Permit Fee Revenue Construction permit fees have reached record levels as a result of major redevelopment projects with fees of $1,319,338 collected through October 27, 2005. Six major projects, Arrabelle, Forest . Place, Gore Creek Place, One Willow Bridge Road, Sonnenalp Resort (20 Vail Road), and Vail Plaza. Hotel account for $764,469 of the revenue to date. The full year amended budget for construction permit fees is $1.8 million including $1.3 million for major redevelopment projects. The ability to meet the budget for major projects is dependent upon the timing of the initial building permit for Four Seasons, Front Door, Roost Lodge and the completion of projects including Forest Place, Gore Creek Residences, Vail Plaza Hotel, and Westhaven Condominiums. Fees will be tracked closely and it is likely an amendment to the 2005 construction permit fee revenue budget will be submitted with the third supplemental appropriation in December. Revenue from residential and smaller projects is tracking above budget and prior years. Construction permit fees include building, electrical, mechanical, plumbing, and sprinkler permits. Recreational Amenities Fees The recreational amenities fee is a separate fee charged on all new residential square footage at the time a building permit is issued. This fee is recorded in the Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) Fund. Redevelopment projects are also having a major impact on this revenue. $368,051 has been remitted during the first ten months of 2005 compared with $63,152 for the same time period last year. Five major projects (Arrabelle, Forest Place, Gore Creek Place, Sonnenalp Resort, and Westhaven Condos) generated $319,313 of the year-to-date revenue and we have exceeded the full-year 2005 amended budget of $360,000. Real Estate Transfer Taz (RETT) RETT collections through the end of October are $5.4 million compared with $3.9 million through the end of October last year. Over $1.1 million was collected from real estate ~ sales related to major transactions (over $10 million selling price) including: sale of the Chateau to the Four Seasons developer; continued sales of Crossroads units to the developer; sales to the public of Vail Mountain Lodge timeshares; sales to the public at Founders' Park Garage; sale of the Vail Marriott; and sale of Casdace Crossing and the Vail Professional Building. We are on track to meet our amended 2005 budget of $6.0 million. 051101 Revenue Highlights - 1 - Van ~ Fur Pet Grooming Salon Tel: 720.9745064 • Fax 303-826-0850 5075 Leetsdale Dr. Unit H • Denver, Co. 8p246 • • • :.~~~ ~:~..~ _ _ ~~~' ~ e~