HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-08-04 Agenda and Support Documentation Town Council Work Session
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION AGENDA
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS '
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, CO 81657
1:00 P.M., AUGUST 4, 2009
NOTE: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied
upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item.
Public comments on work session item may be solicited by the Town
Council.
1. ITEM/TOPIC: PEC/DRB Update. (15 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell
2. ITEM/TOPIC: Lionshead Transit Center Update (45 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review the Lionshead Transit Station
Phase I Feasibility Analysis Report provided, listen to the design team's
presentation, provide discussion, and ask questions with regard to the presentation
and the report.
BACKGROUND: The Town of Vail and the Vail Reinvestment Authority, is in the
process of studying the feasibility of constructing a Lionshead Transit Center in
response to past planning efforts including the Lionshead Master Plan. The VRA
has contracted with the 4240 Architecture Team to complete this design study.
Since the project kick-off with the public and stakeholder groups on May 20th, the
design team has:
-Established the givens, goals and measurable criteria of the project (6/2/09)
-Outlined the current conditions, defined study areas, and tested "carrying
capacity" of various study areas to accommodate program components. (6/16/09)
-Completed a transit analysis determining what transit elements need to be
accommodated now and in the future. (7/7/09)
The purpose of this worksession is to review and discuss these efforts and provide
the baseline information that the design team used to narrow down the project's
focus to the ten conceptual scenarios that will be presented at the evening Council
session.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review the Lionshead Transit Station Phase I
Feasibility Analysis Report provided, listen to the design team's presentation,
provide discussion, and ask questions with regard to the presentation and the
report.
8/4/2009
3. ITEM/TOPIC: Introduction to Pay-As-You-Throw in the Town of Vail.
The Town of Vail has received a grant from the Northwest Colorado Council
of Governments (NWCCOG) to conduct a feasibility study for Pay-As-You-
Throw (PAYT) (variable rate) waste diversion and recycling programs in
mountain communities. Working with the consultant team, Skumatz
Economic Research Associates (SERA Inc.), the nation's experts on PAYT,
town staff has identified challenges and opportunities, performed a gap
analysis, community online and set-out survey and developed program
options for Pay-As-You-Throw applicability in the Town of Vail. Results
have been compiled into a draft final feasibility report. Town staff will
provide an overview of the feasibility study results, value and success of
similar programs in other Colorado communities and highlight the
opportunities facing the Vail community in waste diversion and variable rate
curbside recycling and trash pickup for residential units not on dumpster
service. (30 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Kristen Bertuglia
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff requests the Vail Town Council
participate in the presentation and discussion by providing policy direction by
answering the following question: Is Pay-As-You-Throw an appropriate approach
to achieving the town's adopted goal of diverting 10% of its waste to the landfill
within five years (2015) and 25% within ten years (2020)?
BACKGROUND: According to the Town of Vail Environmental Sustainability
Strategic Plan Goal #1 the Town shall achieve a landfill diversion rate of 10%
within 5 years and 25% within ten years. Action items associated with Goal #1
identified within the Plan include implementing a PAYT program in the Town of
Vail. Staff will present the current status, challenges and opportunities for the
Town of Vail related to waste diversion and recycling. Staff will present an
overview of the following items:
. Why is increased waste diversion important to the Town of Vail?
. Town of Vail waste diversion goals.
. What is PAYT?
. Feasibility Study.
*Progress to date.
*Mountain community waste diversion challenges.
*Current waste diversion practices in Vail.
*Community survey results.
*Experience of other communities.
. Next steps.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that given the statistical information
available and the data gathered during the feasibility process in the Town of Vail
that a variable rate PAYT program is the most effective way to achieve the town's
waste diversion goals. Staff recommends the Vail Town Council instruct staff to
move forward on identifying implementation options for a PAYT program for
residential units not on dumpster service, making it mandatory that haulers
operating in the Town of Vail offer recycling to all customers at no charge
(recycling fees included as part of the trash service) and trash at a variable rate
through the draft hybrid bag program.
8/4/2009
NEXT STEPS: If the Town Council chooses to move forward with implementing a
PAYT program, staff will return to the Town Council on August 18, 2009, with a list
of implementation strategies, including pros and cons of each, for the Town
Council's consideration. Staff will provide the feasibility study and design
guidelines to the NWCCOG in December to complete the grant requirement. If the
Town Council chooses to move forward with implementation, staff has agreed to
track the PAYT implementation for 1 year following, and report to the NWCCOG on
the success of the program in waste diversion, reduced carbon emissions, and
customer satisfaction.
4. ITEM/TOPIC: Fees for Businesses Delivering Into Town (30 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Judy Camp / Sally Lorton/ Matt Mire
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review and discuss information provided
by staff concerning fees for businesses delivering into town.
BACKGROUND: During the July 7 meeting, Council asked staff to research this
issue. Currently, the Town of Vail requires businesses with a physical location
within the town to obtain a business license and pay a fee. No comparable fee is
required of businesses who deliver into town but do not have a physical presence.
Council members expressed their concern that such businesses are undercutting
local merchants.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to gather more information, to proceed
with one of the options identified by staff, or to take no further action.
5. ITEM/TOPIC: Information Update. (15 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Pam Brandmeyer
6. ITEM/TOPIC: Matters from Mayor & Council. (15 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Town Council
7. ITEM/TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(a)(b)
(e) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property
interests; to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to
determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, Re: Draft
agreement amending the Development Agreement with Open Hospitality
Partners ("OHP") pertaining to the proposed redevelopment of the
Lionshead Parking Structure. (20 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire
8.
ITEM/TOPIC: Adjournment. (3:50 p.m.)
NOTE UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW:
(ALL TIMES ARE APPROXIMATE AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
THE NEXT VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL
8/4/2009
BEGIN AT TBD, TUESDAY, AUGUST 18, IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
CHAMBERS.
8/4/2009
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 4, 2009
ITEM/TOPIC: PEC/DRB Update.
PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell
ATTACH M E NTS:
July 27, 2009 PEC Meeting Results
DRB Meeting Results
8/4/2009
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
July 27, 2009
1:OOpm
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Bill Pierce Sarah Robinson-Paladino
Michael Kurz Susie Tjossem
Rollie Kjsebo
Scott Lindall
David Viele
Site Visits: There were no site visits
30 minutes
1. A request for a work session to discuss a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3,
Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of public buildings and grounds
(fire station), located at 2399 North Frontage Road/Parcel A, Resub of Tract D, Vail Das Schone
Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090019)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION: Tabled to August 10, 2009
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 5-0-0
Don Watkins, Belford Watkins Group Architects, made a presentation updating the Commission
on the most recent site plan concept for the proposed Vail Fire Station that included two
driveway curb cuts.
There was no public comment.
Commissioner Pierce asked if the issues with CDOT have been worked out. Watkins responded
that the applicant has submitted an application to CDOT for two curb cuts and is waiting for their
response.
2. Sustainable Building Initiative Presentation - Introduction 60 minutes
Kristen Bertuglia
Kristen Bertuglia made a presentation per the Staff inemorandum and a power point.
Commissioner Kjesbo referenced an article in the Denver Post which spoke to the advantages of
going green. The article focused on what elements gave more benefit verse the cost of
implementing the green aspect. He added that windows tend to be high cost and longer return.
He further spoke to the fact that compact fluorescents do not currently work well for private
residences. Snow melt is his biggest concern. He added that the Town has a great deal of
snow melt.
Commissioner Pierce stated that there is an increasing demand for air conditioning. The need
for air conditioning is often generated by the lighting utilized in a space. Retail has larger
windows and display lighting which can really heat a space. Snow melt is a balance between the
cost of removing and piling the snow. If snow melt is eliminated or restricted will driveway
grades will need to be more limited. Heating of the Villages is a larger public benefit. Larger
Pa e 1
8/4/20~9
1-1-1
driveways on homes should be examined. He suggested that new buildings may need to have
different standard than additions and remodels.
Commissioner Lindall suggested that the system for regulating the SBI needs to be scrutinized to
see how it works. He added that many of the vacant lots are vacant for a reason. They are the
tough lots and a system like SBI may make the properties less desirable. We need to be aware
that we have fewer flat lots and more sloped lots.
Commissioner Pierce mentioned com-check the current regulation that builders and designers
are utilizing. He believes increasing the standards for roof and wall insulation is important. Need
to regulate re-roof projects to include insulation as many older projects do not have any
insulation.
Commissioner Viele believes this is a noble endeavor, but feels uncomfortable enacting
regulations requiring compliance. He believes that there needs to be some minimal level of
standards, however, he believes that there needs to be some level of option still available to a
property owner. He suggested that maybe there should be a system where a homeowner can
pay an impact fee to offset something they may desire to have in their home. He suggested that
there should be a public vote on any program of this nature.
Commissioner Kurz liked that staff's approach was to become "practical" green. He suggested
that emerging technologies will pose a problem as they evolve fairly quickly. He further
suggested that staff should be prepared for a variance option will be needed. He concluded by
stating that he attended a Pulte Homes building seminar and you can seal a building too much,
as air does need to move and circulate through the structure.
Commissioner Pierce suggested that a few more areas that need to be addressed are make up
air for laundry rooms, range hoods, these end up wasting energy as more openings are required.
Fire places need to have damper systems that close when they are not operational.
Commissioner Kjesbo spoke to the need to understand geo-thermal to greater degree. His
experience is that geo-thermal is not that dependable and costly to install. He does not believe a
blower fan test is best as it occurs at the completion of a project. What happens if you fail? He
suggested having a greater level of insulation inspection during construction. He further added
that separating trash would be difficult as you would need multiple containers on some of the
small lots.
Commissioner Viele pointed out the difficulties of having multiple dumpsters on site. He believes
the program needs to be judicious.
George Ruther, Director of Community Development, asked if there were any other areas staff
should be examining?
Commissioner Viele stated that Summit County has not been charging for building permits. He
suggested that a carrot should be examined. Maybe reduced permit fees for complying with
elements of the environmental program. There are a great deal of costs that come with some of
the systems. If it is a goal of the Town to institute these programs the Town should be willing to
participate by providing incentives.
Kristen Betuglia asked about plan check fees being an incentive and moving a permit up in line
for review.
Pa e 2
8/4/20~9
1-1-2
Commissioner Lindall believes that this is a good direction to be going. He suggested that
maybe an incentive could be additional GRFA if a project is going green and meeting certain
standards.
Several of the Commissioners stated that they believed an off-set program above a certain
threshold may be appropriate.
Several conversations ensued regarding heated driveways, heat tape, building design which
could all reduce energy consumption.
There was no public comment.
60 minutes
3. A request for a work session to discuss prescribed regulations amendments, pursuant to Section
12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to Title 12, Zoning Regulations, Vail Town Code, and
setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC090017)
Applicant: Town of Vail
Planner: Rachel Friede
ACTION: Tabled to August 10, 2009
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 5-0-0
Rachel Friede discussed the first policy question, which was whether it would be appropriate to
allow private parking to be used for short-term (hourly/daily) rental during off-peak hours.
Commissioner Kurz suggested that this type of program could be used for larger parking lots,
and not in residential properties. He noted concerns about the impacts on cost and
management.
Commissioner Kjesbo reminded the group that the Vail Mountain School withdrew their last
application due to neighbor concerns. He stressed a need for traffic control during short-term
parking.
Commissioner Viele stated that so long as it did not apply to residential districts, he was in favor
of such a program.
Commissioner Lindall suggested that using under-utilized parking lots would be beneficial to the
community.
Rachel Friede suggested that Staff believed a conditional use permit process which had clear
regulations may be the correct process for such a program. Furthermore, a conditional use
permit application would allow for a public process that included public input.
Commissioner Viele spoke to the need to introduce some level of competition with other potential
parking providers.
Rachel Friede then discussed the second policy question, which asked how to proceed with
vegetation encroachment into legally established view corridors.
Commissioner Kurz was passionately opposed to vegetation removal because of view corridor
encroachment.
Pa e 3
8/4/20~9
1-1-3
Commissioner Viele stated that his concern was that if vegetation was impacting a view corridor
and was not to be removed, then people may argue for increased building encroachment as you
wouldn't see the building encroachment through the landscaping..
The Commissioners stated that they believed the vegetation should be allowed to remain and
language should be added speaking to the encroachment of vegetation over time within view
corridors. Newer view corridors should take into account the species and location of trees to be
planted.
Rachel Friede then discussed the policy question of whether commercial floor area should
continue to be limited within certain zone districts.
The Commissioners generally agreed that 15% commercial should be a permitted use in PA and
PA-2 Districts, and anything above 15% could be a conditional use permit.
Rachel Friede discussed the final question posed to the Commission, which was whether to
allow legally nonconforming properties (excess units/acre) to utilize allowable GRFA.
Commissioner Lindall suggested this was appropriate due to the limitations placed on legally
nonconforming properties.
Commissioner Viele agreed that this was a positive change, because it would result in legally
nonconforming properties to upgrade and utilize their allowable GRFA.
Commissioner Kjesbo stated that this would become a huge benefit for affected properties, and
would be a very positive change.
5 Minutes
4. A request for a final review of a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12-7H-7, Exterior
Alterations or Modifications; and requests for conditional use permits, pursuant to Section 12-7H-
2, Permitted and Conditional Uses, Basement or Garden Level; Section 12-7H-3, Permitted and
Conditional Uses, First Floor or Street Level; 12-7H-4, Permitted and Conditional Uses; Second
Floor and Above, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the Evergreen Lodge, with
dwelling units, accommodation units, and conference facilities and meeting rooms on the
basement or garden level, multi-family dwelling units, accommodation units and conference
facilities and meetings rooms on the first floor or street level, and a fractional fee club on the
second floor and above, located at 250 South Frontage Road West/Lot 2, Block 1, Vail
Lionshead Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC080033, PEC080072)
Applicant: HCT Development, represented by TJ Brink
Planner: Rachel Friede
ACTION: Table to August 24, 2009
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Kurz VOTE: 5-0-0
5 minutes
5. A request for a work session to discuss the adoption of the Frontage Road Lighting Master Plan,
an element of the Vail Transportation Master Plan, and setting forth details in regard thereto.
(PEC090014)
Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Tom Kassmel
Planner: Bill Gibson
ACTION: Table to August 10, 2009
MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Lindall VOTE: 5-0-0
Pa e 4
8/4/20~9
1-1-4
6. Approval of July 13, 2009 minutes
MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 4-0-1 (Viele abstained)
7. Information Update
8. Adjournment
MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Viele VOTE: 5-0-0
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular
office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The
public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the
Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479-2138 for additional
information.
Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24-hour notification. Please call (970)
479-2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
Community Development Department
Published July 24, 2009, in the Vail Daily.
Pa e 5
8/4/20~9
1-1-5
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA
PUBLIC MEETING
Council Chambers
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
There is no current DRB information to attach for Town Council. All DRB results have
been previously submitted. The next regularly scheduled meeting is August 5, 2009.
8/4/2009
1-2-1
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 4, 2009
ITEM/TOPIC: Lionshead Transit Center Update
PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review the Lionshead Transit Station Phase I
Feasibility Analysis Report provided, listen to the design team's presentation, provide
discussion, and ask questions with regard to the presentation and the report.
BACKGROUND: The Town of Vail and the Vail Reinvestment Authority, is in the process of
studying the feasibility of constructing a Lionshead Transit Center in response to past planning
efforts including the Lionshead Master Plan. The VRA has contracted with the 4240
Architecture Team to complete this design study. Since the project kick-off with the public and
stakeholder groups on May 20th, the design team has:
-Established the givens, goals and measurable criteria of the project (6/2/09)
-Outlined the current conditions, defined study areas, and tested "carrying capacity" of various
study areas to accommodate program components. (6/16/09)
-Completed a transit analysis determining what transit elements need to be accommodated
now and in the future. (7/7/09)
The purpose of this worksession is to review and discuss these efforts and provide the
baseline information that the design team used to narrow down the project's focus to the ten
conceptual scenarios that will be presented at the evening Council session.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Review the Lionshead Transit Station Phase I Feasibility
Analysis Report provided, listen to the design team's presentation, provide discussion, and ask
questions with regard to the presentation and the report.
ATTACH M E NTS:
Lionshead Transit Station Phase I Feasibility Analysis Report
Lioshead Transit Center Memo
8/4/2009
~ i1~- 'a~ i ~ r , : - •
- ' ~'ti
r
ti- p
~
L~
5 !O1+]
t. ~ a } ti:"o
y i II IILI ~
iL
•
e
~ ~
~
~z
' • 1~ 11•
• • ' - •
~ . ' • ~ .
8/4/2009
2_ 1 - , ~~nuN bL 4W
8/4/2009
~ 2 1 2
Contents
Part 01: Why Are We Here Today / Project Goals and Givens / Existing Transit
Conditionswithin Lionshead
Part 02: Review of Phase I- Feasibility Analysis / Planning Process /
Update of Town Council Direction From 7/07/09 Work Session
Part 03: Update on Lionshead Transit Center Potential Transit Program Needs
(Revised LSC Transit Needs Report)
Part 04: Assembling the Various Analysis into "Functional Transit Scenarios"
(Review of Scenario Development Process)
Part 05: Scenario Overviews (10 total)
Part 06: Scenario Recommendations for Advancement
Part 07: Next Steps
8/4/2009
3 ~l:aae ~/'~ea2i~iiQitcd ~rr<efif2~2 ,GeJzozt - ~//ark,C4'oK2lread 7aaaQit Statiora
2-1-3
8/4/2009
4 2_1_4
Part 01
Why Are We Here Today?
o Discuss Project Progress / Update
o Present Alternative Transit Scenarios
o Discuss Staff / Design Team Recommendations
o SeekTown Council Direction
8/4/2009
ej ~l:aae ~/'~ea2i~iiQitcd ~rr<efif2~2 ,GeJzozt - ~//ark,C4'oK2lread 7aaaQit Statiora
2-1-5
Part 01
Review of Project Goals
o Provide World Class Comprehensive Transit Operations:
Create Facilities within Lionshead To Improve Transit Efficiencies To
Serve Current & Future Needs.
o Encourage Ridership & Promote Transit Oriented Development:
o Create Safer, More Inviting, Flexible & More Functional Portals to
Lionshead: Improve East Lionshead Circle & Concert Hall Plaza Bus Stop
Areas.
o Left Turn onto South Frontage Road From East Lionshead Circle "Chute":
Improve Conditions of the East Lionshead Circle "Chute" & East
Lionshead Circle / Frontage Road Intersection to Enhance Traffic Flow &
Safety Considerations & Accommodate Future Redevelopment.
o Implement Applicable Goals of the Lionshead Master Plan: Intended to
Enhance the East Lionshead Circle & Concert Hall Plaza Portals into
Lionshead by Creating Aesthetically Pleasing, Active & Inviting Public
Spaces.
8/4/2009
6 2 1 6
Part 01
Review of Project Givens
o Council shall act as both the Vail Reinvestment Authority (Client) and the
Town Council (Property Owner / Review Agent) has final decision
making authority.
o Lionshead Master Plan Amendments will be required based on current
conditions, however conformance to qualitative aspects and applicable
community goals will be required.
o The final approved Transit Center will meet the following criteria:
- Provide a safe environment
- Provide a World Class guest Lionshead Portal(s) and transit
experience
- Complywith ADA
- Provide a functionally efficient transit solution
- Comply with Town Code.
o Public Art will be incorporated into the Transit Center.
o Federal Grant money is available for 2010
8/4/2009
7 ~l:aae ~/'~ea2i~iiQitcd ~rr<efif2~2 ,GeJzozt - ~//ark,C4'oK2lread 7aaaQit Statiora
2-1-7
Part 01
Existing Transit Condition within Lionshead
o East Lionshead Circle: Currently Accommodates 4 buses
for In-town (Fully used at peak times)
o Concert Hall Plaza: Currently Accommodates 4 to 5 buses
for In-Town, Red & Green, & 5 ECO EB bus routes (fully used
at peak times)
o Red Sandstone School: Currently Accommodates 2 buses
for Red, Green, Lions Ridge, & Sandstone loops, and 5 ECO
WB bus routes. Functions as a transfer point to LH mall
using pedestrian overpass
o Summary of Existing Transit Uses: Between ELC and CHP
we have useable 8-9 bus bays, though not ideally spaced or
functioning.
o CHP Currently Operates Equivalently to the VTRC in
Lionshead as the Inter-modal Transit Hub. This is not an
Ideal Location.
8/4/2009
8 2 1 8
8/4/2009
9 ~l:aae ~/'~ea2i~iiQitcd ~rr<efif2~2 ,GeJzozt - ~//ark,C4'oK2lread 7aaaQit Statiora
2-1-9
8/4/2009
10 2 1 10
Part 02
Review of Phase I Planning Process
Methods of Analysis to Determine Site / Program / Transit Needs:
o Test What Fits By Sub-Area:
(See Town Council Packet presented on 6/18/09) - completed
o Investigate What Transit Functions Are Needed (Today / 7-10 yrs / 20 yrs):
(presented to Town Council on 7/7/09) See Chapter 3- LSC Revised Report
Lionshead Transit Center Potential Transit Needs - completed
o Arrange Alternatives Into Functional "Scenarios" - Literally Hundreds of
Possible Combinations / Develop Complimentary Elements That Can Work
Together and Be Built Upon to Function as "Complete Systems"
o Investigate The Relative Costs:
(See Chapter 5 for Individual Scenario Range Estimates of Probable Costs)
o Develop Pros / Cons Criteria & Analysis for Scenarios:
(See Chapter 5 for Individual Scenario Pros & Cons)
o Provide Recommendations for 2-3 Scenarios to be Further Refined:
(See Chapter 6 for Scenario Recommendations)
8/4/2009
1 1 a 1 11 ~laee ~'~ea¢i~iiQitcd ~Kafcfd~¢ ~e~razt -`Ucue.L~cbKdlread 7zas¢it sratiors
Part 02
Recap of What We Heard on 7/07 Town Council Work Session
Town Council Comments:
o Investigate low cost solutions:
o Investigate solutions that may be implemented in the short term:
(2009-2010 calendar)
o Investigate solutions that satisfy transit needs for the next 7-10 years:
(2009-2019 calendar)
o Investigate long term, phased solutions up to the Ultimate Transit Station:
(2029 horizon)
8/4/2009
12 2-1-12
8/4/2009
1 3 a 1 13 ~laee ~57ea¢i&4 4Ka~ ~e~razt -`UcueZcbKdlread 7za.¢it sratiors
8/4/2009
14 a-1 -1a
Part 03
Lionshead Transit Center Potential Transit Program Needs
LSC Memo Presented to Town Council on July 07, 2009
(Revised July 12, 2009)
8/4/2009
15 a 1]s ~laee ~57ea¢i&4 4Ka~ -eAazt - `UcueZcbKdlread 7za.¢it sratiors
LIONSHEAD TRANSIT CENTER POTENTIAL TRANSIT Skier Drop-off
PROGRAM NEEDS The need for skier drop-off activity could potentially grow to any reasonable
LSC Transportation Consultants, Int. number that could be provided. The North Day Lot is expected to remain
July 12, 2009 available, but is also less convenient to some drivers who can be expected to
continue to attempt to drop off or pick up passengers on East Lionshead
This memo focuses on the program needs for transit vehides and other Cirde. Some level of management of drop-off adivity is therefore expected to
transportation functions in the Lionshead area, further focusing on the East remain to ensure that East Lionshead Circle is not overly impacted by skier
Lionshead area. Note that some of these uses may not ultimately be drop-off/ pick up activity. The remmmended strategy with regards to facility
accommodated in the East Lionshead area, depending on the overall study
fndings design, therefore, is to provide a facility that allows management Flexibility.
.
Rather than evaluate the number of spaces that could potentially be used, the
One of the goals of the Lionshead Transit Center is to help address the bus pertinent question is the number of spaces that provides Town staff with some
congestion at the Vail Transportation Center (VTRC) in the Vail Village. While it ability to accommodate the persistent skier drop-off driver, in a manner that
is widely seen as one of the most successful resort transit centers in the nation, minimizes confrontation and traffic congestion.
transit operations at the VTRC is impacted by use levels that exceed the
efficient capacity of the facility. The facility currently has a total of 6 double Our recommendation is that the North Day Lot remains the key skier drop-off
bus bays (each providing space for two buses nose-to-tail) for a total capacity
of 12 buses at one time on top of the facility, as well as the 3 bus bays for the location, which is the only Lionshead location advertised. For locals and
In-town route down below. However, at peak times there are currently 15 others "in the know" that insist on attempting to drop off or pick up at East
buses using or waiting to use this facility, which creates bus route delays that Lionshead, approximately 12 skier drop-off spaces should be provided in the
ripple through the Vail Transit and ECO Transit systems. In addition, shuttle,
taxi and Greyhound vehides also use this facility, adding to the congestion East Lionshead area as skier drop-off/short term spaces, to provide Town staff
.
with an ability to accommodate skier drop-off drivers without conflicting with
It should be noted that this memo defines the number of bays/spaces that other uses.
would be required for a single centralized transit center in Lionshead, not the
total number of bays/spaces that would be required in Lionshead as a whole. Another policy option would be to prohibit any access to East Lionshead Circle
The Lionshead area is 0.48 miles in length as the crow flies (measured from the for skier drop-off or any other unapproved use, such as through provision of a
east end of East Lionshead Circle to the west end of West Lionshead Circle).
While it is appropriate that Lionshead be served by only one ECO Transit stop card activated gate on West Lionshead Circlejust south of the Frontage Road.
,
a standard "rule of thumb" in planning transit services for busy urbanized Considering the many drivers with a need to access the various commercial,
areas is to provide transit stops for local services roughly every 1/6 to 1/8 of a lodging and residential uses along West Lionshead Cirde, however, this would
mile. Given the configuration of Lionshead and the density of development, at be difficult to implement and enforce, and could well create more congestion
a minimum at least two local stops is needed to avoid undue reduction in the than it solves.
attractiveness of transit service as an alternative to auto use, due to long walk
distances. (This is true even if the EverVail project is implemented, given that a
transit stop at EverVail will be at least 0.2 miles from Concert Hall Plaza). This
indicates that, even if a transit center is provided on one side of Lionshead that Lodging Shuttle Vans
serves all routes, bus bays will still be necessary on the other side of Lionshead
to serve the local routes such as In-Town, West Vail Red, and West Vail Green Town staff reports that three to four lodging shuttle vans are often on-site in
.
As a result, it is not appropriate to add the total number of bays provided in the East Lionshead Circle area at any one time during the peak periods of busy
both West and East Lionshead and compare this total against the ski days, and approximately 7 or 8 can be observed at absolute peak times.
recommendations presented below regarding the program for a single transit Given the number of new lodging properties currently planned or in
center. development, there is a significant potential for additional shuttle vans. Rather
than provide additional capacity for new shuttle vans, it is recommended that
the Town work with developers of new projects to provide ongoing operating
funding to enhancethe already-extensive public transit to serve new
developments. Over the long term, a better overall transportation system that
reduces traffic and parking needs can be provided by generating developer
support of the mmprehensive public transit program rather than to
splintering the potential funding resources into additional private shuttle
services.
8/4/2009
16 2_1 _16
Space for up to 8 shuttle vans at one time is recommended as a goal that The working assumption for the Lionshead Transit Center project is that the
could accommodate current demand without the need for any management existing charter bus parking near the east end of the parking structure will be
of this use. If final plans indicate that fewer spaces (on the order of 5 or 6) can maintained, so long as this space is not needed for other program elements. If
be provided, adequate conditions could still be provided if the Town were to so, the assumption will be that this use will be shifted to EverVail.
undertake adive management of the shuttle vans, such as through a permit
system that limits use or imposes a fee for use ofthe transit center, or by
stationing personnel to minimize the time necessary for each van to be at the Vail Transit
transit center. Before considering the individual routes, it is important to note that Vail Transit
as well as ECO Transit currently employ "shadow° buses on many routes in order
to provide adequate passenger capacity at peak load times. Also known as
Charter Buses "piggyback" or "tripper" buses, these additional buses are added as a second
At present, up to 5 charter buses are currently on-site in Lionshead at peak bus on a single scheduled run. The use of shadow buses is a common
times. There are several factors that can be expected to increase the demand occurrence in the peak winter season on the West Vail Red, West Vail Green and
for charter bus service to Vail over the coming years: East Vail Routes on the Vail Transit system as well as on the ECO Route 6 and
Gypsum/Eagle routes, provided largely inbound to Lionshead and the Village in
• Population growth, particularly along the Front Range, will increase the the AM peak period as well as outbound in the PM peak period. Drivers in the
number of persons within a convenient drive distance of Vail. Most AM peak period that notice their bus is reaching capacity will call the
recent State estimates indicate that the metro Denver area will grow by dispatcher, who will arrange for a shadow bus to be added at the next major
70 percent, or 1.6 million people, by 2035. stop and to serve the route into the VRTG In the outbound direction, shadow
buses are dispatched from the VRTC and serve the route until all passengers are
• While gasoline prices have abated somewhat from last year's highs, dropped off. While this is an appropriate way to provide a high quality of transit
future prices in general are expected to be substantially higher than service during periods of particularly high demand, it does increase the need for
over past decades, increasing the attractiveness of intercity bus bus bays at transit centers serving the key activity areas.
transportation as a cost-saving alternative to the private automobile.
Vail's in-town transit service provides the following routes that presently serve
• The "graying" of the population as the Baby Boom generation ages will Lionshead, or potentially could serve Lionshead:
substantially increase the proportion of the population (even the skiing
population) that may find quality intercity bus transportation to be • West Vail Green Route (Clockwise) and West Vail Red Route
preferable to driving. (Counterclockwise) - Currently 2 runs per hour are operated in each
direction, frequently with shadow buses. Substantial expansion is
• There is an increasing acceptance across the nation of use of high- expected in ridership on the West Vail route, which will increase demand
quality intercity bus service, expanding its potential "markeY" beyond to up to 4 runs per hour in each direction. At that level of service, either
the traditional rider groups. shadow buses will be provided, or the Green and Red route schedules can
Based upon these factors, a reasonable planning assumption would be to be expected to result in 2 buses onsite at any one time.
expect a doubling of charter bus use over coming years.
• In-Town Route - This service does not operate on a set schedule, but
Current plans are for the EverVail project to serve as the charter bus portal in rather buses are dispatched to provide consistent, short headways that
the Lionshead area. If the capacity of this projed to accommodate charter vary with passenger demand. At the busiest times, buses can "bunch" due
buses is reached, there are several strategies that can be employed to reduce to loading delays, resulting in two buses in the same direction at times. At
the number of charter buses on site at any one time. First, the provision of an present, this route continues westbound through the East Lionshead area
attractive charter bus passenger waiting lounge can provide passengers with to West Lionshead before returning back through East Lionshead
gathering point, reducing the time needed for an individual charter bus to be eastbound. This can result in two In-Town buses at East Lionshead at a
on-site during the afternoon loading period (when the peak charter bus time. If this route were instead to terminate at East Lionshead, one bus
demand occurs). Secondly, charter buses can be parked off-site during the bay could serve the route rather than two.
day, such as at parking for a summer recreational facility or school, and
scheduled to minimize overlapping times at the portal. 8/4/2009
17 2 1 17 ~~aae 9~ea2i~ii2itcd ~4K<efc62~¢ ,Ge{zozt -`l/ark,C4'oK2lead 7aaaait Statio~a
At present, there is reluctance among West Lionshead property owners Future Vail Transit Needs
to be cut off of the In-Town Route. One dedicated bus bay should be
provided for each direction. A second bus on-site in one direction can Demand for Vail Transit is expected to grow over the coming 20 years, though at a
share use of the second Green/Red bus bay. relatively low rate. While development will increase population and employment,
housing affordability issues will limit the impact on commuting by bus completely
• Sandstone - This route currently does not serve Lionshead, but rather within Vail. In addition, the development of expanded services at new mountain
provides service between the Sandstone area just north of Lionshead and portals appears to have reduced the demand for internal visitor transit use over
the VTRC To reduce over capacity problems at VTRC, this route could be recent years. Over the last several years, annual ridership has grown by a rough
realigned to instead serve a Lionshead Transit Center, particularly once average of 1.2 percent per year. The high forecast level of future development in
the Simba Run undercrossing is in place. As Lionshead grows in the Lionshead area (an 82 percent increase in the numberof lodging/residential
importance as a destination, the need to provide convenient service from units and a 57 percent increase in commercial Floor area) indicates that the
the Sandstone area to Lionshead can be expected to grow. demand for transit service to/from Lionshead will grow at a higher rate. A 2.5
annual rate of ridership growth, corresponding to roughly a 65 percent increase in
• Lionsridge - This route also does not currently serve Lionshead, but can ridership over a 20-year period, is assumed for this analysis.
be expected to do so in the future. As this route is "interlined" with the
Ford Park route, this would not reduce the number of buses serving With growth in demand, and after completion of the Simba Run undercrossing, the
VTRC, but laying over at Lionshead rather than at VTRC between runs service between the Village, Lionshead and West Vail could be reconfigured into a
could reduce overall capacity needs at VTRG "Line Haul" route that provides express transit service at key stops along the
corridor. This would effectively increase the required number of bus bays by one,
Table A presents a summary of peak period service times in Lionshead, for assuming that this bay is accessible by Line Haul buses operating in both
both existing routes as well as the routes that could potentially serve directions. Assuming that this Line Haul Route is implemented in the mid-term (7-
Lionshead. This table exdudes the In-Town Shuttle, as this route is served on 10 years), it would provide adequate increased capacity to accommodate ridership
an as-needed basis and specific service times at Lionshead vary. growth to this level.
At present, an optimal program for a single transit center in Lionshead would In total, an optimal level of bus bays to serve Vail Transit needs in 7 to 10 years
provide the following bus bays: would be six (including an additional bay for the Sandstone/Lionsridge and for the
Line Haul routes). In 20 years, thetotal number of bays in Lionshead would
• One bay dedicated for West Vail Green Route (which could also be used optimally be eight. Both of these figures could be reduced by one if
for shadow buses on the West Vail Red Route). Sandstone/Lionsridge stays at VTRC.
• One bay dedicated for West Vail Red (which similarly could also be used
for a shadow bus on the West Vail Green Route). ECO Transit
Lionshead is a key stop on the ECO Transit route system. At present, it is served by
• Two bays dedicated for In-town Shuttle Route. the following routes:
Optimally, two bays would also be provided to serve the Sandstone and • Highway 6 route up to 4 runs per hour
Lionsridge Routes. This would allowthe individual bays to be signed for • Vail/BeaverCreek route- up to 3 runs per hour
specific routes. However, considering that the service times in Lionshead do • Gypsum/Eagle route - up to 3 runs per hour
not coincide, given the site constraints it is recommended that a single bus • Minturn - up to 1 run per hour
bay be designated for both of these routes. Overall, 4 bays are recommended • Leadville - up to 1 run per hour
to accommodate current conditions, with 5 bays required if Sandstone and/or
Lionsridge routes were to be relocated to Lionshead. These figures could be
reduced by 1 bay if the In-town Route were terminated at East Lionshead.
8/4/2009
18 2-1-18
As shown in Tables B and C, during the peak hour-long portion of the key AM As discussed above for the Vail Transit expansion, much of the resulting
commute period up to 10 individual service times are scheduled at Lionshead, increase in the need for bus bays will take the form of increased service
with up to 11 service times in the PM commute peak hour. At several times frequency that will not result in a corresponding increase in the number of
(such as around 7:37 AM, 8:42 AM, and 4:15 PM), three ECO Transit routes serve ECO Transit buses onsite in Lionshead at any one time. However, ECO Transit
Lionshead within only a few minutes. Given the variation in actual route times, ridership is more focused on employment trips, which are more
at these times it is not uncommon for buses from three routes to be at concentrated in the periods around employment start/stop times. Reviewing
Lionshead at the same time. Including a shadow bus on one of these routes, the existing schedule in light of this increased demand, a total of one
up to four ECO Transit buses are on-site in Lionshead at a peak time. additional bays would be optimal for ECO Transit in 7 to 10 years (a total of
five) and a second additional bay in 20 years (a total of six), though one less
Current ECO Transit routes follow the South Frontage Road in the eastbound would probably be adequate if space limits do not allow six.
direction through Lionshead to the VTRC, and then depart Vail westbound via
the North Frontage Road. From the operational perspective of ECO Transit, the
optimal plan would be for all routes to use I-70 to serve only one regional stop Roaring Fork Service
in Vail (such as at VTRC). Given the importance of the need to provide It can be expeded that public transit service connecting the Roaring Fork
convenient service to the various other employment centers in Vail beyond Valley (at Glenwood Springs) and the Eagle Valley will ultimately be
the Village, and the negative impacts of requiring transfers between ECO provided. Growth in Garfield County is expected to be the highest in the
Transit and the Vail Transit routes, serving Vail with only one stop is probably region, with a population increase of 234 percent between 2000 and 2035, to
not a feasible option. a 2035 population of roughly 146,000. It can be expected, however, that
conneding service will be incorporated into the ECO Transit schedule, so the
ECO Transit ridership patterns indicate that a majority of routes need to serve number of bus bays needed at Lionshead will not be impacted.
the VTRC. There are, however, two routes - Minturn and Vail/Beaver Creek -
that could potentially lay over at a Lionshead Transit Center, rather than the
VTRC. This would reduce overcrowding at the VTRC, and ridership on these Summit County Service
two routes is low enough that passenger needing to transfer to Vail buses (like Summit County's population is forecast to rise to an estimated 54,000 by
the In-Town Route) would not significantly impact load levels on these other 2035 (from a 2000 level of 23,548), and this 129 percent population growth
local routes. can be expected to warranttransit service connecting Vail with Summit
County. Summit County service can be expected to terminate at the VTRC, as
It may be possible- and beneficial for ECO Transit running time - to change serving this closer center will provide good access to the ski area as well as
ECO Transit service to Vail to only serve Lionshead and the VTRC. Prior to connections to the local transit service.
EverVail, all ECO Transit buses would probably exit at the Main Vail
interchange and serve both Lionshead and VTRC (with the order that they are
served dependent on where the specific route lays over). With EverVail, ECO Intercity Bus Service
Transit would probably exit at West Vail and serve stops in the eastbound Interciry service, such as Greyhound, can be expected to continue to serve
direction at EverVail, Lionshead and VTRC. the VTRC, rather than Lionshead. It is also prudent to assume that scheduled
Front Range interciry bus service will be provided along the I-70 corridor.
Growth of ECO Transit ridership in the future is expected to be extensive. The This could increase the need for bus bays at VTRC reserved for intercity
ECOTransitEmploymentLinkage5tudy prepared by LSC Transportation service, which in turn increases the need to shift other bus services (such as
Consultants in 2009 indicates a growth in peakwinter daily ridership of Sandstoneor Lionsridge) to Lionshead.
roughly 45 percent between 2008 and 2013 (only a five year period).
Projecting this further to a 20-year planning horizon is more difficult. One
consideration is growth in population in the service area. State forecasts
indicate that Eagle County will grow by 135 percent between 2000 and 2035,
adding an additional 55,000 potential riders. Lake County, also served by ECO
Transit, is forecast to grow by 166 percent (or 13,000 people). For purposes of
this study a 20-year doubling of transit demand is assumed.
8/4/2009
19 a 1 19 ~laee ~'~ea¢i~iiQitcd ~Kafcfd~¢ ~e~razt -`Ucue.L~cbKdlread 7za~s¢it sratiors
Summary of Transit Facility Program Needs
Given the discussion above, Table D presents a summary of the number of
vehides that are recommended to be accommodated on site at peak times.
As shown, the total number of public transit bays (Vail Transit plus ECO Transit)
is calculated as follows:
• For current Lionshead services, 8 bus bays would be needed.
• If the Sandstone and/or Lionsridge Routes were relocated from VTRC to
Lionshead, this total would increase to 9 bus bays.
• To accommodate growth over the coming 7 to 10 years, the total
number of public transit bays would optimally be 11 (6 for Vail Transit
and 5 for ECO Transit). At a minimum, 9 bays would be required (5 for
Vail Transit excluding Sandstone and/or Lionsridge and 4 for ECO Transit)
• To accommodate growth over the coming 20 years, the total number of
public transit bays would optimally be 14 (8 for Vail Transit and 6 for ECO
Transit). At a minimum, 12 bays would be required to accommodate all
uses (7 for Vail Transit excluding Sandstone and/or Lionsridge and 5 for
ECO Transit).
This program is slightly higher than previous evaluations of bus bay needs in
Lionshead. For instance, a 2008 evaluation identified the need for up to 6 Vail
Transit buses plus 4 ECO buses, for a total of 10. These figures did not indude
shifting the Sandstone and Lionsridge buses from the VTRC to Lionshead, or
the full level of planned increase in the need for ECO Transit service. We
believe these program needs are realistic, particularly given the planned
growth in the Lionshead and the region as a whole, as well as recent trends in
gasoline costs and transit use across the nation.
It is important to note that site design constraints could increase the total
required number of bays. For instance, if some bays are only effectively
accessible by buses operating in the eastbound direction (such as on the north
side of the parking structure), the opportunity for shadow buses in both
directions to share bays is lost and additional bays may be needed elsewhere.
The specific physical space needs associated with these bays will also depend
on site design considerations. One potential option that could reduce space
needs would be to provide double bays (as is currently provided at VTRC). This
is particularly applicable for routes (such as West Vail Green and West Vail Red)
that need a second bus bay for shadow buses, as two buses operating in
tandem will not result in delays to the second bus in the double bay.
8/4/2009
20 2 1 20
TABLEA: VailTransffPeakPeriodServicefoiionshead - - ~ n
Ercluwnom-roK„swerm
. snaeaw suses co,r,mo.,ty usoe ~ - . .
Sandatane (POtential Lionsntlge (POtenHal ~
West Vail Green' ~Wes[ Vail Red' Fu[ure) Future) 5.-05 /fM t0 8-15 6'00AM [o8:30 8:00 AR}-- 1U,00 AM¢
Peak PeMatl PM RM 3:00 PM to 5:00 PM 6:I5 AM [ti A:`I5PM - -
Ntlnulex.RazTTM1aHOUr YS1!! `
0 ■
2
3. ~
q
5
s -
e ~ , _ .
~a •
12
13
74 y~
I b
16 -
17
-
76
19
20 ■
21 m
22 ~
23 I
24
25
26
27
28 ~
29
30 .
31
32 a
33
34
35 0 - -
36
37
38 ■
39 . . ,
40 ■ ~
4'I
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51 ~
52 i~
63
54 ~
56
56
57
58 ~
59
Saurce:Veil Trenail2008-69 WinterSdiedule
8/4/2009
21 ~l:aae ~/'~ea2i~iiQitcd ~rr<efif2~2 ,GeJzozt - ~//ark,C4'oK2lread 7aaaQit Statiora
2-1-21
~ ~ - ~ ~
~
.
~
~
~ - - .
~
~
8/4/2009
22 2-1-22
8/4/2009
23 ~l:aae 2-1-23 ~/57ea2i&4 4"~ ,GeJzozt - Tark ,C4'oK2lread 7aaaQit Statiora
8/4/2009
24 2 1 21
Pa rt 04
Assembling the Various Analysis into "Functional Transit Scenarios"
Scenario Development Process:
o Eliminate Ideas / Concepts From Further Consideration:
(Based on further analysis, eliminate preliminary ideas that don't work)
o Develop Working Assumptions:
(Based on further analysis, What "Ah-Ha" Moments Can Be Defined)
o Develop Incremental Ranges of Transit Related Improvements into
"SCenaPlos": (From Low Cost / Easily Implemented up to High Cost / Ultimate Transit Solution)
o Analyze Transit Operations of Each Scenario:
o Impact to Pedestrian WalkTimes to Gondola
o Impact on Pedestrian Walk Times to Other Transit Mode Transfers
o Impact to Transit Route Travel Times
o Impact on Bus Bay Delays
o Investigate Scope/ Cost of Improvements Required for Each Scenario:
8/4/2009
25 ~l:aae ~/'~ea2i~iiQitcd ~rr<efif2~2 ,GeJzozt - ~//ark,C4'oK2lread 7aaaQit 2- 1 -25 Statiora
Pa rt 04
Ideas / Concepts Eliminated from Consideration
Preliminary Ideas / Concepts That Don't Work:
o Pizza Pan: / uncomfortable transit environment / eliminated uses do not
justify perceived value / eliminating conflicts by eliminating uses
o Pedestrian Tunnel: Similar / perceived safety / difficult to channel pedestrians
/ does not serve parking structure patrons well
o East Chute: Grades to steep 14% /significant impacts on LHPG entry / exit / SFR
o Overcrowding East Mall: Eliminate options with more than 8 buses at East
Mall due to spatial / qualitative limitations
o Overcrowding West Lionshead: eliminate options with more than 6 buses @
West Lionshead due to spatial / qualitative limitations
8/4/2009
26 2 1 26
Part 04
Working Assumptions / "Ah-Ha" Moments
Working Assumptions:
o Local transit service SHOULD be served at both East Mall & West Lionshead (in-town / red / green/ line
haul) - As Lionshead is roughly 1/2 mile across, serving only one local stop requires many potential
passengers to walk long distances to access Red/Green, reducing the attractiveness of the local transit
program. Rule of thumb is to provide local transit stops on 1/8 to 1/6 mile spacing, indicating that
stops in both East Lionshead and West Lionshead (roughly 1/4 mile spacing) is a bare minimum to
serve this key activity center
o At some point ECO will outgrow West Lionshead and Need to Move! In the long tem, relying on West
Lionshead to serve ECO does not allow for projected transit needs.
o At some point in time, West Lionshead will not function as a inter-modal transit hub due to limited
area - will need to move to East Lionhead - think about VRTC transit hub relative to CHP
o ECO needs / prefers one base stop within Lionshead - ideally close to frontage road to minimize route
travel times
o ECO can be located independently from Red / Green - Transfers between Vail Transit and ECO can
occur @ VRTC
o In order to provide a true inter-modal transit center, at some point in the future, the Town will have to
spend real to consolidate what is currently a disjointed transit system.
o There is very little operational transit benefit that can be gained by minor striping or other cosmetic
improvements
o Due to its location, we question the viability of North Day Lot for Skier Drop-off. A strategy will be
needed to address drivers coming to the East Mall for this purpose.
8/4/2009
27 ~l:aae 2-1-27 ~/57ea2i&4 '4"~ ,GeJzozt - Tark,C4'oK2lread 7aaaQit Statiora
Modest Improvements:
(No Transit Service Increase) Hardscape / Move Hotel Shuttles,
Landscape Move Skier Drop-off
Improvements to into LHPG / Add Left
2~ 1 2011 $ East Mall & CHP Turn Lane @ West
Chute
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Increase Transit Capacity:
(Add up to 4 Buses)
Add 2 Bus Bays @ Add 4 ECO Bus Bays
West Lionshead to North Side of
2011 - 2019 LHPG
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Further Increase Transit Capacity:
(Add up to 8 Additional Buses)
ECO Moves to North ECO Stays @ CHP /
Side of LHPG / Add Add Red & Green
2011 - 2029 Red & Green Lines @ Lines @ East Mall
East Mall
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ultimate Transit Solution - Within LHPG:
(Consolidate 8-12 Buses) Consolidate 10-12 Consolidate 10-12 Consolidate 8-10
Buses on Top Deck of Buses on Top Deck of Buses Within Lower
LHPG /(Surface LHPG /(Structured Deck of LHPG /(Lost
Parking @ Charter Parking @ Charter Parking @ Charter
2011 - 2029 Bus Lot) Bus Lot) Bus Lot)
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Ultimate Surface Transit Solution - Surface:
(Consolidate 8 Buses Along South Side of Consolidate 12 Buses
LHPG and Additional 4 Buses at East Mall) Along South Side of
Incremental Ranges of Improvements
LHPG &East Mall /
Expand Bus
2011 - 2029 ai4i2oo TurnaDobsonround @
2-1 -
Impact on Pedestnan
b'dalk Time ta Cther
Impact on Pedestnan Lionshead Trip Impact on Transit Rourte Impact on Bus 6ay
4`ValkTime to Gondola Generators Travel Time ~ela s r1 Impact on
ECO ECQ ECO Village TRC Viabilily
5cenaria Vail T~ansit Transit Vail Transk ETransit Vail Transit Transit Vail Transd Transit Overcioyvdina of Years)
1{1 Touch Lightly O Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
iB Modest Shuttle, Trafhc and Pedestfian O 0 Q Q 0 0 0 0
Im ovemerrts
Add Transit Capac~fy at West Lfonsheatl 0 4 0 0 0 2-3
zA Cirde 6ba stotal
2B Atld ECQ Transit to Nodh Side of LHPG 0 Q 0 Q 7-10
3A ECO Transit to North Side of LHPG; Add D 0
f~ed antl Green Lfnes to East hAall
3B ECQ Transit Remain5 at CHP, Red and 0 Q 0 0 0 0
Green Lfnes Mave ta East Mall
4A Full Transit Cerrter on Top of LHPG. Q 0 Q 20
4B Full Transit Cerrter fn Bottam Level o( O ~ ~ 2 . 0
LHPG
5 Cansolitlate Transit at East tilall and Lonp 0 4 0 Q
5outh Side of LHPG
Wt; 1, Reflects np pofential for buses to be del~yed n eiterin.c. or e:titinq Che bus bavs due la the pr=5ence of buses in adlacent bays liat bloch; movem=nt,
SUoig RElativeAitfanlagE
PJloderate ~elalive Advantage
4 iwRelaiiv=Pdvaniage
PJloderale ~alalive Disadvantage
SUoig Relaiive ai.advanlage
Comparison of Scenario Transit Operations
8/4/2009
29 ~l:aae ~/'~ea2i~iiQitcd ~rr<efif2~2 ,GeJzozt - ~//ark,C4'oK2lread 7aaaQit Statiora
2-1-29
Scenario
1A 76 2A 2B 3A 38. 4.A.1 4:0.2 48 5
TouchLighllyi ModestShuttle; AddTransit AddECOlaNOrth AddRed&Green ECD-St2ys~+i Consolidale10-12 Consolidal€10-12 Consnlidale8-70 Consolidale
ProjectComponents rmPiement in zaae Treffic& Capacity@ SidcofLHPG LinesroEaslMall CHPlRed&Grcen 8usesanTopof 6usesanTop'oF 6useswithln iransit5crvixsa
i2010 Petl¢slrian Marriotl Movelo_EasiMall 4HPGfSUrfaee LHPG.[Structur¢tlLHPGLOw¢rL¢V¢I EaStMalfantl
Improucments/ Pky [ Chqrtcr Pkg [d ChaKcr South Garpgp Along Soulh 31dc
Implementin2010 BusLat) BusLM) (IOSlpk9movesLooFLHPG/Improve
'i2011 CharterBUSLOti ELC
Provide Modest Improvemeots to Q p O O Q O Q O O O
East Mall 8 Conoevt Hall Plaza Relocate Day Skier Deop-offwithin Q 0 O O 0 O Q 0 O
Middle Deck of LHPG -
Relocate HotelShuftle Skiev Drop-oN Q- p O O 0 ~
@ Tree Tops - -
Ecpand West Chute foe New Left ~ ~ ~ ~ Q
Tum Lane
Add Four Bus Bays.(lwo each side) .0
to CHP
Add Bus Bays along Norih Side of
LHPG for ECQTransit 0 ~
Add Ped.estrian Oyerpass at East p 0 O O
Mall
Add Roundabout at West CMute Q O O O
Replace Lost Parking at Gharter Bus
Cot (surface or structured) 0 0
Provide 10-12 Buses @ LHPG Top Q ~
Oeck
Provide 8-10Buses a. LHPG Lower ~
Lavel
ProvideNewTransit7lnformation b O O O O O O
Siructure- 2500sf
Curbside Bus DropoffAlong South
Side of LHPG ~
Expand Bus Tumardund at Dobson O
- 0 -
~.d ......8/4/2009
30 "Klt Of Pdrt52-ApprOdCh - Scope of Improvements Required By Each Scenario
8/4/2009
31 ~laee 2-1-31 ~57ea¢i&4 4K.a~ ~e~razt - `UcueZcbKdlread 7za.¢it sratiors
8/4/2009
32 2- 1 - 32
Part 05
Scenario Overviews
Scenarios:
o Modest Improvements:
(Scenarios 1 A & 1 B)
o Increase Transit Capacity - Short Term (Add up to 4 Buses):
(Scenarios 2A & 2B)
o Further Increase Transit Capacity - Mid Term (Add 4 more Buses (8 new):
(Scenarios 3A & 3B)
o Provide for Ultimate Transit Solution - Long Term (Co-locate 12 Buses):
(Scenarios 4A.1 / 4A.2 / 4B / 5)
8/4/2009
33 ~laee 2-1-33 ~57ea¢i&4 4K.a~ ~e~razt - `UcueZcbKdlread 7za+cdit sratiors
8/4/2009
34 a _ 1 - 3a
Scope
• Modest Hardscape / Landscape Improvements
to East Mall & CHP
• All Existing Uses & Transit Routes Remain / No
Increase to Transit Capacity
• Provide "Ambassadors" to Manage / Enforce
Congestion at East Mall
8,4,2009 Scenario 1A
35 21 35 Modest Improvements to Hardscape / Landscape at East Mall & CHP
~
'll
8/4/2009 Samado 1
2 1 36 nv..tg KKAYMP ~ LwRbrAM ~ FA
8/4/2009 eio 1
87 2 1 37 MWO . KKAF;WQ ~ LwRbrAM ig
West Lionshead East Mall
Impact on Transit Function:
None. Bus routes still impacted by congestion at both Master Plan Implications:
CHP and ELC. Eastern Lionshead still served only by Vail Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan contemplates
In-Town, resulting in transfers or long walks to access potential for Town land to be used for private
other Town routes. Would not reduce current transit development at CHP and Lionshead Centre. This
overcrowding at VRTC. alternative could affect, but not preclude this from
happening.
How Long Scenario is Viable:
Current transit condition already results in reductions in Urban Design Implications:
transit effectiveness. Growth in next few years is Provides minimal qualitative improvements to Lionshead
expected to result in additional shadow buses that can entry portals. Scope primarily includes an improved grade
substantially increase bus congestion in the CHP area. level separation of vehicles and pedestrians through
planters and raised pedestrian walkways. Extent of
improvements to provide a clearly defined and long-term
pedestrian plaza as all existing uses remain within East
Mall and CHP.
8,4,2009 Scenario 1A
38 21 38 Modest Improvements to Hardscape / Landscape at East Mall & CHP
Phasing Opportunities: Pros:
o Easily Allows for Next Increment of improvements. o Low Cost "Improvements" to existing areas
o Readily Leads to Scenario 1 B o Easily Implemented in Short Time
Impacts on Redevelopment: Cons:
o No Impact on Future Redevelopment of LHPG. o Requires 4-5 traffic enforcement officers
o Would not preclude the redevelopment of CHP o Does not improve transit capacity, connectivity
and Lionshead Centre between routes, or delays to bus movements
o Limited Lost If CHP Redevelops o Does not allow project to access Fed $
o Does not solve traffic delays for ELC traffic entering
SFR
o Does not "significantly" improve qualitative entry
into Lionshead
o Does not address original set goals or many of the
criteria of project - not significant enough to justify
recommendation.
Range Estimate of Probable Construction Costs:
$1.4-$1.8m
8,4,2009 Scenario 1A
39 21 3y Modest Improvements to Hardscape / Landscape at East Mall & CHP
Imwn on 11wffi
AM E1.€
0**em 144i11
kHbmn u
POdMCr&■1 Mi
~
CRMI'1a
8/4/2009 dio 1
2 1 40 MWM . KKAYMP ~ LwRbOR ig
8/4/2009
41 a-1 -a1
8/4/2009
42 a- 1 - aa
Scope
• Includes All Scenario 1A Improvements
• Elimination of Day Skier Drop-off within East
Mall: (replaced within middle deck of LHPG)
• Elimination of L&D within East Mall: (Small
vehicles redirected to middle deck of LHPG /
Large Vehicles into Arrabelle / Courier Vans
Remain)
• Hotel Shuttles relocated to Town Land
Adjacent to Treetops
• Provide Left Turn Lane at intersection of ELC
and SFR
8,4,2009 Scenario 1 B
43 2, 19tel Shuttle, Traffic & Pedestrian Improvements, Left Turn at ELC / SFR Intersection
8/4/2009 Scena do iI
44 2 _1 _ ' & IT"ft S MPWWftlMd& 1 MoW;AM
8/4/2009 Scena do iI
45 2 _1 _ ' & IT"ft S M 1 . 1 MoW;AM
West Lionshead East Mall
Impact on Transit Function: Master Plan Implications:
Modest benefits. Eliminating Day Skier drop-off area Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan contemplates
from ELC and provision of additional ELC/Frontage Road potential for Town land to be used for private
travel lanes would reduce delays to Vail In-Town. development at CHP and Lionshead Centre. This
Allowing hotel shuttle passenger access to Lionshead alternative could affect, but not preclude this from
core without crossing ELC would also result in modest happening.
running time benefits. Other bus routes would still be
impacted by congestion at CHP. Eastern Lionshead still Urban Design Implications•
served only by Vail In-Town, resulting in transfers or long Further relieving pedestrian / vehicular congestion at the
walks to access otherTown routes. Would not reduce East Mall allows for more meaningful qualitative
current transit overcrowding at VRTC. improvements to Lionshead entry portals. Relocating
Hotel Shuttles to Treetops Area Allows for more direct
How Long Scenario is Viable: pathways to Ski Hill and further reduces congestion at East
Growth in next fewyears is expected to result in Mall. Relocating Skier Drop-off within LHPG provides a
additional shadow buses that can substantially increase clearly defined, long-term solution.
bus congestion in the CHP area.
Scenario 1 B
ai4i2oo9Hotel Shuttle, Traffic & Pedestrian Improvements, Left Turn at ELC / SFR Intersection
46 a- 1- a6
Pros:
Phasing Opportunities: o Improves current conflicts between Hotel Shuttles
o Easily Allows for All Next Levels of Incremental Guests & Vehicles - Safer
improvements. o Eliminates Hotel Shuttle traffic along ELC = More
o Relocation of Skier Drop-off Is recommended to Pedestrian.
provide a permanent Long-term solution. o Reduces pedestrian/ vehicular conflicts
o Reduces traffic delays for NBR traffic at ELC/SFR
Impacts on Redevelopment: o Aids in managing day skier drop-off at ELC
o Minimal Impacts on Future Redevelopment of o Allows for future redevelopment of LHPG
LHPG - Relocated Skier Drop-off.
o Limited Lost If LHPG Redevelops Cons:
o Greater investment than 1 A, but still would not o Eliminates green space in front of Treetops
preclude redevelopment of Lionshead Centre or o Does not improve conflicts between day skiers in
CHP. LHPG/vehicular conflicts
o Does not improve transit capacity- no additional
buses
o Does not trigger Fed $
Range Estimate of Probable Construction Costs:
$3.2 - 3.7m *
* Estimate includes all Scenario lA improvements
8,4,2009 Scenario 1 B
47 2, ~ptel Shuttle, Traffic & Pedestrian Improvements, Left Turn at ELC / SFR Intersection
AJi
~
~
~
SWVJiM ~
tO SDuth
cifEw Md
on" MWK%ATM -M
8/4/2009 ~~o I
40 2 _1 _ ' & 'Tmft a mpmmrffmt& I omwrmw
8/4/2009
49 a- 1 - a9
8/4/2009
50 2-1-50
Scope
• Includes All Scenario 1A + 1 B Improvements
• Add 2 More Bus Bays at West Lionshead and
Reconfigure & Assign Bus Bays at Concert Hall
Plaza - Total 6 Bays at West Lionshead
8,4,2009 Scenario 2A
51 a- 1 -51 Add Transit Capacity at West Lionshead
8/4/2009 ~ ~ rto ~g
2-1-52 T . I ft~a~ . M k.
8/4/2009 ~g
2-1-53 T . I ft~a~ . M k.
West Lionshead East Mall
(This drscussion assumes that a practical maximum of 6 bays is found to Master Plan Implications:
be feasible in CHP and/or Marriott area) Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan contem plates potential
for Town land to be used for private development at CHP. While
Impact on Transit Function the dollar investment is not huge, Scenario 2A contemplates
Modest benefits. Eliminating Day Skier drop-off area from ELC and increased transit operation in this area, making it more critical to
provision of additional ELC/Frontage Road travel lanes would reduce the Town's overall transit operations and less likely that Town
delays to Vail In-Town. Allowing hotel shuttle passenger access to land could be made available for private development at CHP.
gondola without crossing ELC would also result in modest running
time benefits. Two additional bus bays in West Lionshead would Urban Design Implications:
reduce bus delays today and in the near-term future. Eastern All Scenario 1 A& 1 B urban design elements are incorporated at
Lionshead still served only by Vail In-Town, resulting in transfers or East Mall to allow for more meaningful qualitative
long walks to access other Town routes. Would not reduce transit improvements. Adding additional buses at West Lionshead only
needs at VRTC. further congests a small area and does not allow for
redevelopment of CHP into a West Portal. Moving additional
How Long Scenario is Viable buses to north side of WLC minimizes congestion at CHP and
Within 2-3 years, the expected increase in the number of buses in allows for greater urban design / redevelopment possibilities.
West Lionshead would result in delays and congestion that equals or
exceeds today's levels. Also would not be viable if CHP is
redeveloped, or if the Line Haul Route is implemented.
8,4,2009 Scenario 2A
54 2-1-54 Add Transit Capacity at West Lionshead
Phasing Opportunities: Pros:
o Easily allows for All Next Levels of Incremental o Increases Transit Capacity
improvements. o Keeps ECO and Vail Transit together
Impacts on Redevelopment: Cons:
o Adding buses to West Lionshead Potentially o Adds congestion to CHP and Marriott
inhibits the redevelopment of CHP. o Adds additional pedestrian conflict crossing along
o Limited Lost If CHP Redevelops W LH Circle
o Greater investment than 1 A, but still would not o Worsens pedestrian connection to Lionshead from
preclude redevelopment of Lionshead Centre or W LH and Ever Vail by adding bus traffic
CHP.
o No impact on potential redevelopment of LHPG
Range Estimate of Probable Construction Costs:
$3.5 - 4.Om *
* Estimate includes all Scenario 1 A& 1 B improvements
8,4,2009 Scenario 2A
55 2_1_ 55 Add Transit Capacity at West Lionshead
8/4/2009
56 a-1 -s6
Scope
• Includes All Scenario 1 A, 1 B& 2A Improvements
• Move ECO from CHP to North Side of LHPG
• Provide New Pedestrian Circulation from North
Side of LHPG to East Mall
• Construct new Transit / Info. Center Structure @
ELC Bus Stop. (ie. restrooms, vending, warming
hut, offices, info. ctr.)
• Recommended to Add New Pedestrian Overpass
from Middle Deck of LHPG
• Provide Mechanical and Life Safety Upgrades to
Existing LHPG
8,4,2009 Scenario 26
57 2- 1 -57 Add ECO to North Side of LHPG
8/4/2009 ~ ej~
2-1-58 tQ K
8/4/2009 Scenado2B
2-1-59 = tP
i
I
I
~
i
West Lionshead East Mall
Impact on Transit Function How Long Scenario is Viable
Relocation of ECO buses from CHP to north side of LHPS would Would accommodate ECO Transit for the foreseeable
reduce ECO Transit running time as well as delays to ECO buses future. However, after 7-10 years, growth in number of
due to congestion at the CHP bus bays. Elimination of ECO buses Vail Transit buses in West Lionshead would exceed the
from CHP would also reduce congestion to Vail Transit buses in existing 4 bays. Also would not be viable if CHP is
CHP. Would increase passenger walk distance to/from West redeveloped, or if the Line Haul Route is implemented.
Lionshead, but reduce it to/from East Lionshead. Would increase
passenger walk distance between ECO stop and Lionshead Master Plan Implications:
Gondola by roughly 200 feet. Eliminating Day Skier drop-off area There are no direct implications to the LHMP resulting
from ELC and provision of additional ELC/Frontage Road travel from Scenario 2B
lanes would reduce delays to Vail In-Town. Allowing hotel shuttle
passenger access to gondola without crossing ELC would also
result in modest running time benefits. Eastern Lionshead still
served only by Vail In-Town, resulting in transfers or long walks to
access otherTown routes. Would not reduce transit needs at
VRTC.
8,4,2009 Scenario 26
60 2160 Add ECO to North Side of LHPG
Urban Design Implications: Pros•
All Scenario 1 A& 1 B urban design elements are o. Improves transit capacity
incorporated at East Mall to allow for more meaningful o Reduces ECO Transit running times / costs
qualitative improvements. Adding additional buses at o Improves pedestrian / vehicular conflicts @ CHP by
West Lionshead only further congests a small area and eliminating ECO uses
would hinder redevelopment of CHP into a West Portal. o Vertical transportation improves access to/ from
Moving additional buses to north side of WLC minimizes LHPG
congestion at CHP and allows for greater design o Ped. / Vehicle conflicts at East Mall reduced due to
possibilities. Ped. Bridge
Phasing Opportunities: Cons:
o Easily allows for All Next Levels of Incremental o Decouples ECO from Red & Green Lines, (though
improvements. direct transfers still available at VTRC)
o Longer walking distances for ECO riders
Impacts on Redevelopment: o Vertical Circulation System & ECO bays - Lost
o Adding buses to West Lionshead Potentially if LHPG Redevelops
inhibits the redevelopment of CHP. o Removes mature vegetation North side of LHPG
o Limited Lost If CHP Redevelops o Requires code upgrades to LHPG
o May impact redevelopment of LHPG due to
significant spent for code upgrades to existing
LHPG & adding 4 bus bays along north side of Range Estimate of Probable Construction Costs:
LHPG.
$12.0 - 14.Om ~
* Estimate includes all Scenario 1A, 1 B& 2A
improvements
(Note: Approximately $2.25m of total cost attributed to
code upgrades to existing LHPG)
8,4,2009 Scenario 26
61 2-1-61 Add ECO to North Side of LHPG
■ ■ ■ ■ ■
Detailed Sketch of ECO improvements North Side of LHPG
l _ - ~ - - I - - -
one way Frontage Road Widening to Be Later Phase Improvements
- saw tooth
public ECO bus bike 2 eastbound drive 16 2 westbound snow
LHPG sidewalk drop off green lanes median drive lanes storage I-70 ROW I-70 EB
Detailed Sketch of ECO improvements North Side of LHPG
8,4,2009 Scenario 26
62 2-1-62 Add ECO to North Side of LHPG
8/4/2009
63 2-1 -63
8/4/2009
64 2_1 _64
Scope
• Includes All Scenario 1 A, 1 B& 2A Improvements Except:
(a) Replace left turn lane at ELC/SFR intersection with Full Roundabout
• Add 4 Additional Bus Bays for Red & Green Lines at East Mall -(total 8 bays)
• Add Roundabout at ELC/SFR Intersection Due to Increased Transit Service at
East Mall
• Required to Add Pedestrian Overpass from Middle Deck of LHPG
• Demolish Auxiliary Building to Free Up Space for Additional Transit Uses
• Provide Additional Hardscape / Landscape Improvements at East Mall For
Expanded Transit Uses
• Provide Structural and Code Upgrades to Existing LHPG
• Assumes ECO Has moved to North Side of LHPG
8,4,2009 Scenario 3A
65 21 -65 Move ECO to North Side of LHPG / Add Red & Green Lines to East Mall
i
8/4/2009
2 1 66 gf uim i AsW Riii araflm Lrm sp mt &W I
PAMW
8/4/2009
67 2 1 67 gf uim i AsW Riii araflm Lrm sp mt &W I
West Lionshead East Mall i
Impact on Transit Function How Long Scenario is Viable
Relocation of ECO buses from CHP to north side of LHPG would Would accommodate both Vail Transit and ECO Transit for
reduce ECO Transit running time as well as delays to ECO buses the foreseeable future - 20 yr. solution.
due to congestion at the bus bays. Elimination of ECO buses from
CHP would also reduce congestion to Vail Transit buses in CHP. Master Plan Implications:
Would increase passenger walk distance to/from West Lionshead, Extensive transit improvements at the East Mall would
but reduce it to/from East Lionshead. Would increase passenger preclude potential use ofTown land in the redevelopment
walk distance between ECO stop and Lionshead Gondola by of Lionshead Centre.
roughly 200 feet. Adding Red and Green Vail Transit stop in East
Lionshead Circle would significantly improve transit access to this
overall area, as well as reduce passenger walk distance between
the Red/Green stop and Lionshead Gondola by roughly 300 feet.
Eliminating Day Skier drop-off area from ELC and provision of
additional ELC/Frontage Road travel lanes would reduce delays to
Vail In-Town. Allowing hotel shuttle passenger access to gondola
without crossing ELC would also result in modest running time
benefits. Could reduce transit needs at VRTC by allowing
Sandstone and/or Lionsridge route to shift to Lionshead. Vail
Transit buses could be dispatched from East Lionshead to avoid
exceedingthe4-baycapacityofCHP(assumin04%t afutureLine Scenario 3A
Haul Route serves ELC but not CHP). 2-1-68 Move ECO to North Side of LHPG / Add Red & Green Lines to East Mall
Urban Design Implications: Pros:
o Many Scenario 1 A& 1 B urban design elements are o ECO / Red & Green closer together improves overall transit
lost and given over to expanded transit uses at East system functionality
Mall to allow forfunctional vehicle movements. o Pedestrian Overpass improves pedestrian / vehicular conflicts
This equates to a very dense, urban, bus-stop o Allows for future redevelopment of LHPG
rather than a pedestrian focused walking village o Potentially reduces transit uses @ CHP:
character. o Roundabout significantly improves traffic congestion
o Even with providing a pedestrian bridge,
introducing additional buses at East Mall only Cons:
further congests a limited area and inhibits the o Adds 3 bus service lines to East Mall Pedestrian Environment
°entry experience" into East Lionshead. o Qualitative °Gateway" Environment Compromised
o Day Skiers parking at the lowest level of LHPG will o Keeps Hotel Shuttle traffic on ELC causing additional
exit at grade and conflict with additional buses. pedestrian traffic
o Existing Auxiliary Building uses to be relocated
Phasing Opportunities:
o This Scenario is a long term solution that does not
warrant additional phases. Coupled with ECO
moving to North side of LHPG, this scenario Range Estimate of Probable Construction Costs:
satisfies the 20-yr. projected transit demands.
$15.6- 19.Om *
Impacts on Redevelopment:
o Allows for CHP to Redevelop * Estimate includes all Scenario 1 A/ 1 B/ 2A & 2B improvements
o Adding buses East Mall Likely precludes the except:
redevelopment of Lionshead Centre. • Replace left turn lane @ ELC/SFR with full roundabout
o Lost If LHPG Redevelops- (LHPG upgrades)
o Pedestrian Bridge and Roundabout would Need to
Interfacewith LHPG Redevelopment
8,4,2009 Scenario 3A
69 21-69 Move ECO to North Side of LHPG / Add Red & Green Lines to East Mall
NWVW"
~4p
BdM Skks of
Pod d fte
RW FU1~~
Tummmd
SO-1 I Fi~
wELE
Km
ConOrMomft
SUdi2n
8/4/2009
2-1-70 m gf uim i AsW Riii araflm Lam sp mt &W I
8/4/2009
71 2_1 _71
8/4/2009
72 2-1-72
Scope
• Includes all Scenario 1A, 1 B, 2A & 2B Improvements Except:
(a) Replace left turn lane at ELC/SFR intersection with Full Roundabout
(b) Eliminate all ECO Improvements Along North Side of LHPG
• Add 4 Additional Bus Bays for Red & Green Lines at East Mall -(total 8 bays)
• Add Roundabout Due to Increased Transit Service at East Mall
• Required To Add Pedestrian Overpass from Middle Deck of LHPG
• Demolish Auxiliary Building to Free Up Space for Additional Transit Uses
• Provide Additional Hardscape / Landscape Improvements at East Mall For
Expanded Transit Uses
• Assumes ECO stays at CHP
8,4,2009 Scenario 36
73 2- 1 -73 ECO Stays at CHP / Red & Green Move to East Mall
i
8/4/2009 epo 3B
74 2_1_74 ~ ~ . ~ ft
Scemr"PO
8/4/2009
2 1 75 ~ ~ . ~ ft
II
I
I
West Lionshead East Mall
Impact on Transit Function Master Plan Implications:
Adding Red and Green Vail Transit stop in East Lionshead Circle Extensive transit improvements at the East Mall would
would significantly improve transit access to this overall area, as preclude potential use ofTown land in the redevelopment
well as reduce passenger walk distance between the Red/Green of Lionshead Centre. Keeping ECO at CHP would then
stop and Lionshead Gondola by roughly 300 feet. Existing preclude the potential use of Town land in the
congestion in CHP would remain. Eliminating Day Skier drop-off redevelopment of CHP.
area from ELC and provision of additional ELC/Frontage Road
travel lanes would reduce delays to Vail In-Town. Allowing hotel
shuttle passenger access to Lionshead Core without crossing ELC
would also result in modest running time benefits. Could reduce
transit needs at VRTC by allowing Sandstone and/or Lionsridge
route to shift to Lionshead.
How Long Scenario is Viable
Growth in next few years is expected to result in additional
shadow buses that can substantially increase bus congestion in
the CHP area. If CHP is redeveloped for additional transit uses,
then CHP private redevelopment is unlikely.
8,4,2009 Scenario 36
76 2-1-76 ECO Stays at CHP / Red & Green Move to East Mall
Urban Design Implications: Pros•
o Many Scenario 1 A& 1 B urban design elements are lost and o. Increases Transit Bus Bays
given over to expanded transit uses at East Mall to allow o Pedestrian Overpass improves pedestrian /
for functional vehicle movements. This equates to a very vehicular conflicts
dense, urban, bus-stop rather than a pedestrian focused o Allows for future redevelopment of LHPG
walking village character. o Roundabout significantly improves traffic
o Even with providing a pedestrian bridge, introducing congestion
additional buses at East Mall only further congests a o Eliminates need / cost for vertical circ. To SFR
limited area and inhibits the "entry experience" into East o Underutilized auxiliary building gone
Lionshead.
o Day Skiers parking at the lowest level of LHPG will exit at Cons:
grade and conflict with additional buses. o Decouples ECO / Red & Green (although transfers
o Ultimate expansion of ECO will outgrow available area at can occur @ VRTC)
West Lionshead / CHP, inhibiting transit function and o Significant Transit Increases @ East Mall Inhibit
urban design quality. Qualitative Experience & Further Congest Area
o Transit uses must remain @ CHP / does not allow
Phasing Opportunities: for redevelopment
o This Scenario is a mid term solution that does not warrant
additional phases within the East Mall. If ECO moves to
North side of LHPG, coupled with red/green moving to Range Estimate of Probable Construction Costs:
East Mall, the combination satisfies the 20-yr. projected
transit demands. $12.9- 15.8m #
Impacts on Redevelopment: * Estimate includes all Scenario 1 A/ 1 B/ 2A & 2B
o Adding buses to West Lionshead and East Mall Likely improvements except:
precludes the redevelopment of CHP and Lionshead • Replace left turn lane @ ELC/SFR with full
Centre. roundabout
o Limited Lost If CHP Redevelops • Eliminate all ECO Improvements Along
North Side of LHPG @ $2.67m
8,4,2009 Scenario 36
77 2-1-77 ECO Stays at CHP / Red & Green Move to East Mall
8/4/2009
78 2- 1 - 78
Scope
• Includes all Scenario 1A, 1 B, 2A & 2B Improvements Except:
(a) Eliminate all ECO Improvements Along North Side of LHPG
• Provide for 10-12 buses on Top Deck of North Parking Garage Structure
• 4 In-Town buses Stay at East Mall (similar to circulation @ VTC)
• Provide Improved Pedestrian Access (Vertical Transportation) From Top
Deck to Pedestrian Mall
• Provide Structural and Code Upgrades to Existing LHPG
• Provide Replacement Parking at Charter Bus Lot (surface - 4A.1 or
structured - 4A.2)
• Recommended to Add Pedestrian Overpass from Middle Deck of LHPG
• Move Hotel Shuttles to Top Deck of LHPG
8,4,2009 Scenario 4A
79 a- 1 -79 Consolidate 10-12 Buses on Top of LHPG
WOI LbR
8/4/2009 na" '
2- 1 - 80 ftia°~~ Qf Uim
8/4/2009 n " '
l 2_ 1 _ 81 Qmwmft i U"~~ Qf uim
Concert Hall Plau East Mall
Impact on Transit Function How Long Scenario is Viable
Relocation of ECO buses from CHP to LHPG would reduce ECO Would accommodate both Vail Transit and ECO Transit
Transit running time as well as delays to ECO buses due to for the foreseeable future (20 yrs.). If CHP is redeveloped,
congestion at the bus bays. Elimination of ECO buses from CHP two additional bays would be required elsewhere along
would also reduce congestion to Vail Transit buses in CHP. West Lionshead Circle.
Would increase passenger walk distance to/from West Lionshead,
but reduce it to/from East Lionshead. Would increase passenger Master Plan Implications:
walk distance between ECO stop and Lionshead Gondola by Scenario creates a direct conflict with "no net loss of
roughly 50 feet. Adding Red and Green Vail Transit stop in East parking" provision of LHMP. This scenario maintains the
Lionshead would significantly improve transit access to this potential for Town land to be used in redevelopment of
overall area. Eliminating Day Skier drop-off area from ELC and Lionshead Centre and to a degree some potential for use
provision of additional ELC/Frontage Road travel lanes would ofTown land in redevelopment of CHP.
reduce delays to Vail In-Town. Allowing hotel shuttle passenger
access to gondola without crossing ELC would also result in
modest running time benefits. Could reduce transit needs at
VRTC by allowing Sandstone and/or Lionsridge route to shift to
Lionshead. Vail Transit buses could be dispatched from East
Lionshead to avoid exceeding the 4-bay capacity of CHP
(assuming that a future Line Haul Route serves ELC but not CHP).
8,4,2009 Scenario 4A
82 2-1-82 Consolidate 10-12 Buses on Top of LHPG
Urban Design Implications: Pros:
o The Majority of Scenario 1 A& 1 B urban design o Functions as a True Transit Center- Consolidates Uses
improvements at East Mall and CHP are preserved. o Mimics the successful VTRC - Easy In / Easy Out
o Elimination of Hotel shuttles from East Mall reinforces o Frees up Space for Urban Design improvements @ East
pedestrian nature of space. Mall & CHP
o Day Skiers existing from LHPG will face very few o LHPG Entry Reconfiguration May Improve Skier Access
vehicular conflicts (will function similar to VRTC). in & Out
o East Mall has the ability to function as a'Town o Minimizes impacts of transit functions on nearby
Square" for special events. residential and lodging areas by focusing activity on
Frontage Road
Phasing Opportunities:
o This Scenario is a long term solution that does not Cons:
warrant additional phases. This scenario satisfies the o Triggers significant enhancements to LHPG to
20-yr. projected transit demands. accommodate transit uses (structural/ADANertical
Circulation/Life Safety)
Impacts on Redevelopment• o May preclude future redevelopment of LHPG
o This Scenario represents a long term transit solution o Eliminates parking stalls - Costs to Replace Lost Parking
with significant spent. Therefore, it seems unlikely o Bus Riders are Dropped off further from Ski hill
that LHPG would redevelop.
Range Estimate of Probable Construction Costs:
$16.0 - 20.Om
* Estimate includes all Scenario 1 A/ 1 B/ 2A & 2B
improvements except:
• Eliminate all ECO Improvements Along North
Side of LHPG @ $2.67m
Estimate has wider low - high range due to extent of
required modifications for LHPG structural upgrades
costs include surface parking at charter lot only.
Structured parking @ Charter Lot is additional $4-5m.
8,4,2009 Scenario 4A
83 21-83 Consolidate 10-12 Buses on Top of LHPG
0 Flkpel u Nll swo m■ &wcntm wwEmwo Ea
f ~ ~e Lan~n~
.
8/4/2009 n " '
04 2 1 84 ~ ~ Qf Uim
8/4/2009
85 2-1-85
8/4/2009
86 2-1-86
Scope
• Includes all Scenario 1 A, 1 B, 2A & 2B Improvements Except:
(a) Eliminate all ECO Improvements Along North Side of LHPG
• Provide 8-10 Buses at Lowest Level of South Parking Garage Structure
• 4 In-Town buses Stay at East Mall (similar to circulation @ VTC)
• Add Roundabout
• Demolish Auxiliary Building to allow for increased transit program and movements
• Provide Structural and Code Upgrades to Existing LHPG
• Provide Replacement Parking at Charter Bus Lot (surface - 4A.1 or structured - 4A.2)
• Move Hotel Shuttles in Front of Treetops
• Does Not Trigger Pedestrian Overpass: (All new transit users to exit @ ELC grade)
8,4,2009 Scenario 4B
87 2- 1 -87 Consolidate 8-12 Buses Within South Garage
LbR_
8/4/2009 ufjo
2-1- 88
8/4/2009 fjo
2-1-89
Concert Hall Plaza East Mall
Impact on Transit Function How Long Scenario is Viable
Relocation of ECO buses from CHP to LHPG would reduce ECO Would accommodate both Vail Transit and ECO Transit
Transit running time as well as delays to ECO buses due to for the foreseeable future (20 yrs.). If CHP is
congestion at the bus bays. Elimination of ECO buses from CHP redeveloped, two additional bays would be required
would also reduce congestion to Vail Transit buses in CHP. elsewhere along West Lionshead Circle.
Would increase passenger walk distance to/from West Lionshead,
but reduce it to/from East Lionshead. Would result in no Master Plan Implications:
significant change in passenger walk distance between ECO/Red Scenario creates a direct conflict with "no net loss of
& Green stop and Lionshead Gondola. Adding Red and Green Vail parking" provision of LHMP. This scenario maintains the
Transit stop in East Lionshead would significantly improve transit potential for Town land to be used in redevelopment of
access to this overall area. Eliminating Day Skier drop-off area Lionshead Centre and to a degree some potential for
from ELC and provision of additional ELC/Frontage Road travel use of Town land in redevelopment of CHP.
lanes would reduce delays to Vail In-Town. Allowing hotel shuttle
passenger access to gondola without crossing ELC would also
result in modest running time benefits. Could reduce transit
needs at VRTC by allowing Sandstone and/or Lionsridge route to
shift to Lionshead. Vail Transit buses could be dispatched from
East Lionshead to avoid exceeding the 4-bay capacity of CHP
(assuming that a future Line Haul Route serves ELC but not CHP).
8,4,2009 Scenario 4B
90 21 y0 Consolidate 8-12 Buses Within South Garage
Pros:
Urban Design Implications: . Functions as a True Transit Center - Consolidates Uses
o The Majority of Scenario 1 A& 1 B urban design . Frees up Space for Urban Design improvements at both
improvements at East Mall and CHP are preserved. East Mall & CHP
o Hotel shuttles would stay at East Mall (in front of • All Transit Functions closer to ski hill
Treetops) potentially impeding pedestrian nature • All Transit Functions Hidden - Out of Sight / Out of Mind
of space. • CHP complies with Lionshead Masterplan goals
o Day Skiers existing from LHPG will face very few
vehicular conflicts (will function similar to VRTC). Cons:
o East Mall has the limited ability to function as a • Triggers significant enhancements to LHPG to
"Town Square" for special events by restricting accommodate transit uses (structural/ADA/Vertical
Hotel Shuttles. Circulation/Life Safety)
o Would not require a Pedestrian Overpass due to • May preclude future redevelopment of LHPG
majority of bus riders exiting at lowest grade. • Eliminates parking stalls - Costs to Replace Lost Parking
Gateway / Landmark / Entry Portal elements to be • Costs to excavate lowest level of garage to allow for
created with surface level improvements - increased head room within structure
fountains / landscape / etc. . Coordination of existing structure with bus maneuvering
requirements = may result in inefficient space utilization
Phasing Opportunities: . Increases traffic on ELC Chute
o This Scenario is a long term solution that does not
warrant additional phases. This scenario satisfies
the 20-yr. projected transit demands. Range Estimate of Probable Construction Costs:
Impacts on Redevelopment: $19.0- 23.0 m
o This Scenario represents a long term transit
solution with significant spent. Therefore, it * Estimate includes all Scenario 1A / 1 B/ 2A & 2B
seems unlikely that LHPG would redevelop. improvements except:
• Eliminate all ECO Improvements Along North Side
of LHPG @ $2.67m
Estimate has wider low - high range due to extent of
required modifications for LHPG structural upgrades
costs include surface parking at charter lot only.
Structured parking @ Charter Lot is additional $4-5m.
8,4,2009 Scenario 4B
91 2-1-91 Consolidate 8-12 Buses Within South Garage
8/4/2009
92 2-1-92
Scope
• Includes all Scenario 1 A, 1 B, 2A & 2B Improvements Except:
(a) Eliminate all ECO Improvements Along North Side of LHPG
(b) Replace left turn lane @ ELC/SFR with full roundabout
• Add 8 Buses Along South Face of LHPG
• Add 4 Additional Buses to East Mall
• Add Roundabout
• Add Pedestrian Overpass / Underpass
• Demolish Auxiliary Building
• Relocate Hotel Shuttles to Treetops
• Provide Full Size Bus Turnaround at Dobson
8,4,2009 Scenario 5
93 21 93 Consolidate Transit Services at East Mall and Along South Side of LHPG
I
I
8/4/2009 ~iari 5
04 2-1-94 QMMWM ~ ~ ~ ~ t kH
8/4/2009 ~ ari
2-1-95 QMMWM ~ ~ ~ ~ t kH
Concert Hall Plaza East Mall
Impact on Transit Function How Long Scenario is Viable
Relocation of ECO buses from CHP to LHPG would reduce ECO Would accommodate both Vail Transit and ECO Transit for
Transit running time as well as delays to ECO buses due to the foreseeable future (20 yrs.). If CHP is redeveloped, two
congestion at the bus bays. Elimination of ECO buses from CHP additional bays would be required elsewhere along West
would also reduce congestion to Vail Transit buses in CHP. Lionshead Circle.
Would increase passenger walk distance to/from West Lionshead,
but reduce it to/from East Lionshead. Would result in roughly 100 Master Plan Implications:
feet increase in passenger walk distance between ECO/Red & Extensive transit improvements at the East Mall would
Green stop and Lionshead Gondola. Adding Red and Green Vail preclude potential use ofTown land in the redevelopment
Transit stop in East Lionshead would significantly improve transit of Lionshead Centre. Keeping ECO at CHP would then
access to this overall area. Eliminating Day Skier drop-off area preclude the potential use of Town land in the
from ELC and provision of additional ELC/Frontage Road travel redevelopment of CHP.
lanes would reduce delays to Vail In-Town. Allowing hotel shuttle
passenger access to gondola without crossing ELC would also
result in modest running time benefits. Could reduce transit
needs at VRTC by allowing Sandstone and/or Lionsridge route to
shift to Lionshead. Vail Transit buses could be dispatched from
East Lionshead to avoid exceeding the 4-bay capacity of CHP
(assuming that a future Line Haul Route serves ELC but not CHP).
8,4,2009 Scenario 5
96 21 y6 Consolidate Transit Services at East Mall and Along South Side of LHPG
Urban Design Implications: Pros:
o Many Scenario 1 A& 1 B urban design elements are o Provides pedestrians close to ski hill
lost and given over to expanded transit uses at o Consolidates all transit functions
East Mall to allow for functional vehicle o Does not impact / preclude LHPG future
movements. redevelopment, could be interim solution until
o Providing additional buses at East Mall only further LHPG does redevelop
congests a limited area and inhibits the "entry
experience" into East Lionshead.
o Adding significant bus volume along East Cons:
lionshead Circle will dramatically alterthe o Introduces sianificant additional traffic on ELC and
pedestrian nature of the area and transform the East Mall
environment into an urban, vehicular focused, o Eliminates Landscaping along South Face of LHPG
environment. o Visual/Noise/Air/Qualitativelmpactsto
o Day Skiers parking at the lowest level of LHPG will Neighbors
exit at grade and conflict with additional buses. o Requires pedestrians to cross (at grade) with buses
or triggers pedestrian over/underpass- conflicts
Phasing Opportunities: remain
o This Scenario is a long term solution that does not o Increases transit times due to additional travel
warrant additional phases. This scenario satisfies distances and pedestrian conflicts
the 20-yr. projected transit demands.
Range Estimate of Probable Construction Costs:
Impacts on Redevelopment:
o Adding buses to West Lionshead and East Mall $15.0 -18.Om
Likely precludes the redevelopment of CHP and
Lionshead Centre. * Estimate includes all Scenario 1 A/ 1 B/ 2A & 2B
o LHPG could redevelop and transit uses be improvements except:
relocated within redeveloped project. Could be
phased to maintain transit operations within • Replace left turn lane @ ELC/SFR with full
Lionshead. roundabout
• Eliminate all ECO Improvements Along North
Side of LHPG @ $2.67m
8,4,2009 Scenario 5
97 2-1-97 Consolidate Transit Services at East Mall and Along South Side of LHPG
8/4/2009
98 2- 1 - 98
Part 06
Scenario Recommendations for Advancement
Scenarios Were Analyzed Based on IVumerous Criteria to
Develop Recommendations, Including:
o Resolution of Project Goals & Givens
o Improvement to Overall Transit Service
o Cost
o Abilityto be Implemented in ShortTerm
o Ability for LHPG, CHP and Lionshead Centre to Redevelop
o Ability to be Incrementally Phased
o Impact to Neighbors and Community
o Throw away Improvements Upon Next Increment of
Growth
o Masster Plan Implications
o Urban Design -Qualitative Improvements
Town Staff / Design Team Recommendations:
o Short term: Scenario 1 B
o Mid Term: Scenario 1 B+ Scenario 2B
o Long Term: Scenario 1 B+ Scenario 4A
8/4/2009
99 a-1 -99
scenario recommended rejected
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Scenario 1 A: Hardscape / Landscape No transit increase / Insufficient qualitative
Improvements to East Mall & CHP : improvements
Scenario 1 B: Move Hotel Viable Short-Term Improvements / Modest Cost /
Shuttles, Move Skier Drop-off Improves Qualitative Experience / Reduces
into LHPG / Add Left Turn Congestion @ East Mall / Improves Left Turn @
Lane @ West Chute ELC/SFR Intersection / Addresses Skier Drop-off
1•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• • •
AddingTransitCapacitylncreasesCongestion/••••••••
Scenario 2A: Add 2 Bus Bays Cannot Grow Into a Long Term Solution Due To
@ West Lionshead Limited Area / Negatively impacts Pedestrian Gateway
into Lionshead
Scenario 2113: Add 4 ECO Viable Mid-Term improvements / Increases Transit Capacity / Improves
Bus Bays to North Side of ECO Operations / Relieves Pressure from CHP / Grows Transit Along
LHPG SFR / Triggers Necessary Improvements to LHPG //Reduces congestion
@ East Mall / Reduces ECO Transit route travel times
1 • • • • • • • •Scenario 3A: • ECO Moves to • • • • Add ing Transit Capacity Increases Congestion / • • • • • • • • •
North Side of LHPG / Add Red & Inhibits Pedestrian Gateway into Lionshead /
Green Lines @ East Mall Significant Costs
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Adding Transit Capacity @ East Mall Increases
Scenario 3113: ECO Stays @
CHP / Add Red & Green Congestion / Inhibits Pedestrian Gateway into
Lines ~a East Mall Lionshead / Significant Costs / ECO Needs Will
Outgrow CHP Area
ViableLong-Terminter-modalTransitFacility/ SignificantlylmprovesTransit
'••••••••Scenario4A.1/4A.2:Full •
Transit Center at Top Deck of Operations / Relieves Pressure from CHP / Functions Similarly to VRTC -
LHPG /(Surface or Structured Provides all Transit Functions Along SFR / Adds Second Lionshead Stop on
Parking @ ChaYter Bus Lot) Red/Green for Increased Transit Accessibility / Good Arrival Experience for
Transit Passengers /(4A.1 - Min. Costs to Add Back Portion of Lost Stalls)
Scenario 4B: Full Tr'ansit CenteY at: More Expensive Solution within LHPG / More
Bottom Level of LHPG (Surface or : Congestion @ West Chute / Bus Bay Environment
Structd Parking @ Charter Bus Lot) ; Constrained Due Parking Above
~
Scenario 5: Consolidate 12 Creates Significant Congestion Along ELC & West
Buses Along South Side of Chute / Inhibits Pedestrian Environment of Sub-Area /
LHPG & East Mall / Expand Bus Presents Significant Neighborhood Impacts//
Turnaround Dobson Increases transit route running times
artt.. .>2oo9
100 2-1-100 Justification for Scenario Recommendations
Part 07
Next Steps
o Phase I- Feasibility Analysis: - Complete
o Phase II - Schematic Design:
Develop 3"Schematic Design Level" Concepts /
Select Preferred Design
o Phase III - Design Development:
Requires Town Approvals Under Separate Agreement /
Refine Selected Design Concept - Obtain Detailed Pricing /
Obtain Entitlements Approvals
8/4/2009
101
a- 1 - 101
8/4/2009
102
a-1 -1oa
74 E%vld
8/4/2009
103
2-1-]03
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Tom Kassmel, Public Works Department
DATE: August 4th, 2009
SUBJECT: A worksession to review the status of the Lionshead Transit Center
Feasibility Design Study
1. SUMMARY
The Town of Vail and the Vail Reinvestment Authority, is in the process of
studying the feasibility of constructing a Lionshead Transit Center in response to
past planning efforts including the Lionshead Master Plan (1998), A Report on
the Recommendation of a Preferred Site for the Town of Vail Transit Center
(2005), Vail 20/20 (2007), the Lionshead Transit Center White Paper (2008), and
the Vail Transportation Master Plan (2009). The VRA has contracted with the
4240 Architecture Team to complete this design study.
Since the kick-off with public and stakeholder group charettes on May 20th, the
design team has completed the following:
• Established the givens, goals and measurable criteria of the project
(6/2/09)
• Outlined the current conditions, defined study areas, and tested "carrying
capacity" of various study areas to accommodate program components.
(6/16/09)
• Transit analysis determining what transit elements need to fit now and in
the future (7/7/09)
Worksession
The purpose of this worksession is to review and discuss these efforts and
provide the baseline information that the design team used to narrow down the
project's focus to the 10 conceptual scenarios that will be presented at the
evening Council session.
Staff will also present an update of the federal funds currently available to the
town.
Eveninq Session
The purpose of the evening session is to present the 10 conceptual scenarios
that have been developed and evaluated by the design team to Council; and
have Council provide staff and the design team with direction to bring the
recommended scenario(s) forward to Schematic Design, and to authorize the
completion of Phase II-Schematic Design of the study.
8/4/2009
2-2-1
A summary document, the Lionshead Transit Station Phase I Feasibility Analysis
Report has been provided to Council for use in both the afternoon and evening
Council sessions.
Progress of the project has been tracked on the Town of Vail website at
II. BACKGROUND AND NEEDS REVIEW
The most recent past planning efforts specific to the Lionshead Transit Center as
mentioned above are available for review on-line on the Town of Vail website at
In general the reports discuss the future redevelopment of Lionshead and the
need for a Lionshead Transit Center to facilitate transit needs to the Lionshead
area that is continuously expanding with residential, commercial, and employee
uses. The need for this improvement is justified by the following:
• The need and desire to provide & promote a World Class level of transit
service & use for our residence and guests
• The need to provide a high level of transit service to a dense area of activity
within Vail, which is expected to grow in unit density by -230%
• The need to enhance the existing transit facilities which are inadequate with
respect to size, location, and amenities (i.e. shelter, restrooms, etc...)
• The need to better accommodate Regional Transit Needs in Lionshead
• The need for an enhanced Skier Drop-off (Vehicle&Shuttle)
• The need to relieve the VTRC of transit related demands (Bus capacity,
driver break areas)
• The need to promote Transit & Transit Oriented Dev. (TOD) as a key to the
success of Vail
• A Transit Center will provide the opportunity for Bus Route efficiencies
• A Transit Center will provide the opportunity to create World Class entrance
portal(s) to Lionshead
Project Timing
After more than a decade of planning and recognition of the need for a
Lionshead Transit Center, the time for the completion of this project has come.
Vail is internationally recognized as a leader amongst resort towns: in its level of
guest experience, in its use of free public transportation and in its walkability.
This high level of guest experience may be in jeopardy if current transit
conditions are not thoroughly assessed and addressed. The momentum created
from growing ridership may soon exceed the capacity of the current transit
system affecting the guest experience in a negative manner. This momentum is
created both internally, through multiple developments that will soon come on
line or are in various stages of design, and externally, through ECO transit, which
is trending higher ridership volumes. The full impact of the first phase of "Vail's
Billion Dollar Redevelopment" may be seen by the end of 2010 with 3 of the
largest developments coming back on line, not only re-instating existing uses but
also significantly increasing density (Four Seasons, Solaris, & the Ritz Carlton).
8/4/2009
2-2-2
The proposed Lionshead Transit Center will alleviate some issues of capacity by
providing a better functioning and more efficient point of transition within
Lionshead, while also alleviating pressure on the over-capacity Vail
Transportation Center (VTRC).
Secondly, federal money is currently available that has been designated towards
enhancing the Lionshead transit facilities. The terms for this money are "use it or
lose it". Other areas have some potential for redevelopment but Lionshead offers
the most concentrated value available for the money being spent. Here, multiple
issues, already identified in the master plan, can be resolved at a well defined,
strategic area of influence.
Thirdly, smart growth initiatives and projects such as Ever Vail and recently
adopted town policies related to sustainable practice are refining Vail's
sustainable mantra which continues to grow in influence. This project will be a
milestone in the town's continued commitment to sustainable growth, by
facilitating Transit Oriented Development (TOD), a key element of Vail's overall
success, and will only enhance its portfolio of sustainable initiatives.
III. ESTABLISHED GIVENS, GOALS AND MEASURABLE CRITERIA
As the project moved forward and various concept solutions were evaluated, the
context of the process, commitment to address issues, and measures of success
of various alternatives, were performed using the set of established project
Givens, Goals, and Measurable Criteria.
Givens: Non-negotiable process and outcomes for the project
• Council acting as both the Vail Reinvestment Authority (Client) and the Town
Council (Property Owner/Review Agent) has final decision making authority.
• Lionshead Master Plan Amendments will be required based on current
conditions; however conformance to qualitative aspects and applicable
community goals will be required.
• Provide a safe environment for all users & maintain emergency access
• Use of Federal Transit dollars and the required local match will be used.
• Additional funds if needed will be allocated by the VRA from TIF sources.
• Transit use in Vail will increase.
• The project process will be transparent
o All comments will be documented
o All issues will be responded to
• All issues may not be resolved to everyone's satisfaction; there may have to
be compromises.
• The existing baseline conditions/operating standards of each problem, need,
and conflict will not worsen or be compromised.
• The final approved design will comply with ADA standards and comply with
Town Code.
• Public Art will be incorporated in to the design.
8/4/2009
2-2-3
Goa/s: Project aims
• Create facilities necessary to provide world class comprehensive transit
operations within the Lionshead area that will improve transit efficiencies and
serve the current and future needs of the Town of Vail and Eagle County.
• Enhance transit facilities to encourage transit ridership and promote transit
oriented development.
• Improve East Lionshead Circle and Concert Hall Plaza bus stop areas to
create safer, more inviting, and more functional portals to the Lionshead
Area, that are flexible to adapt to current and future needs.
• Improve conditions of the East Lionshead Circle "chute" and East Lionshead
Circle/Frontage Rd. intersection to enhance traffic flow and safety
considerations, with the ability to accommodate future redevelopment.
• Implement applicable goals of the Lionshead Master Plan intended to
enhance the East Lionshead Circle and Concert Hall Plaza portals into
Lionshead by creating aesthetically pleasing, active and inviting public
spaces.
Measurable Criteria: Specific project evaluation criteria
• Comply with the Town Code and applicable Lionshead Master plan goals
• Provide a distinguishable World Class intermodal transit facility and entrance
portal to Lionshead
• Meet bus, shuttle, skier-drop off capacity needs (2008 needs, revised as
necessary if conditions have changed)
• Establish a transit station with restrooms, enclosed & outdoor waiting area,
information dissemination services, and other amenities
• Mitigate pedestrian access/egress conflict to/from Lionshead Parking
Structure from/to Lionshead mall
• Allow for potential future expansion and/or redevelopment of Lionshead
Parking structure, allowing for a successful portal with or without
development
• Provide adequate space for vehicular circulation and maneuvering
• Mitigate existing circulation issues on the Frontage Rd. as well as any new
traffic impacts.
• Provide convenient access from the Frontage Rd. for Town and ECO bus
routes
• Provide ease of rider transfer between Town, ECO, & In-Town buses
• Provide a maintainable and sustainable facility
• Accommodate Loading & Delivery for Lionshead (may or may not be within
facility)
• Enhance the entry of the LH parking structure
IV. TRANSIT ANALYSIS
A transit operations analysis was completed by the design team to determine
current and future transit needs. The following table summarizes the results of
the July 12th study, included in the Feasibility Report attached.
8/4/2009
2-2-4
V. CONCEPTUAL SCENERIOS
The design team has narrowed the project scope to 10 conceptual scenarios that
are based on the established givens, goals, measurable criteria, transit
operations, program component needs, the Lionshead Masterplan and other past
Lionshead Transit Center related study efforts, and public, stakeholders and
Council's input. The 10 scenarios are categorized in incremental improvement
ranges that address the short, mid, and long range transit needs. They include;
8/4/2009
2-2-5
• Modest Improvements - Scenarios 1A and 1 B, providing minimal short
term transit improvements, focusing on aesthetic "streetscape"
improvements. These scenarios may not qualify for the Federal Transit
funding dollars.
• Increased Transit Capacity - Scenarios 2A and 213, providing short to
mid term increased transit capacity and qualitative "streetscape"
improvements
• Further Increased Transit Capacity - Scenario 3A and 313, providing
mid term transit improvements and qualitative "streetscape"
improvements
• Ultimate Transit Solution - Scenarios 4A, 4B and 5, providing a long
term transit solution and qualitative "streetscape" improvements
The complete analysis of each scenario is provided within the Feasibility Report
attached.
VI. RECOMMENDED SCENARIOS
The design team and staff have created recommendations revolving around the
short, mid, and long term solutions, along with probable costs, as follows;
• Short Term: Scenario 1 B $3.2 -$3.7 Million*
• Mid Term: Scenario 1 B+ Scenario 2B $12 -$14 Million
• Long Term: Scenario 1 B+ 4A $16 -$20 Million
*May not qualify for the Federal Transit funding dollars.
VII. NEXT STEPS
A big picture overview of the next steps for this project along with an anticipated
timeframe (assumes best-case), for the LHTC Design Study are as follows;
(these are subject to change based on Town approvals)
• Direction from Council to proceed with a recommended
conceptual scenario. (Aug 4tn)
• Vail Reinvestment Authority capital budget allocations and funding
options for improvements. (Aug. 18tn)
• Design Team proceeds with schematic design of up to three
alternatives of the preferred conceptual scenario. (Aug-Sept)
• A preferred schematic design alternative is recommended and
direction is given to proceed with the preferred alternative thru the
Design Development and Entitlement phase. (Oct. 6tn)
• Approval by the Town for Design Development & Entitlements.
(Oct-Nov)
• Construction Documents prepared. (Dec-April)
• Construction begins. (April-Nov)
VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
Review the Lionshead Transit Station Phase I Feasibility Analysis Report
provided, listen to the design team's presentation, provide discussion, and ask
8/4/2009
2-2-6
questions with regard to the presentation and the report. Provide staff and the
design team with direction to bring the recommended scenario(s) forward to
Schematic Design, and authorize the completion of Phase II-Schematic Design
of the study.
8/4/2009
2-2-7
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 4, 2009
ITEM/TOPIC: Introduction to Pay-As-You-Throw in the Town of Vail.
The Town of Vail has received a grant from the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments
(NWCCOG) to conduct a feasibility study for Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) (variable rate) waste
diversion and recycling programs in mountain communities. Working with the consultant team,
Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA Inc.), the nation's experts on PAYT, town
staff has identified challenges and opportunities, performed a gap analysis, community online
and set-out survey and developed program options for Pay-As-You-Throw applicability in the
Town of Vail. Results have been compiled into a draft final feasibility report. Town staff will
provide an overview of the feasibility study results, value and success of similar programs in
other Colorado communities and highlight the opportunities facing the Vail community in waste
diversion and variable rate curbside recycling and trash pickup for residential units not on
dumpster service.
PRESENTER(S): Kristen Bertuglia
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff requests the Vail Town Council participate in the
presentation and discussion by providing policy direction by answering the following question:
Is Pay-As-You-Throw an appropriate approach to achieving the town's adopted goal of
diverting 10% of its waste to the landfill within five years (2015) and 25% within ten years
(2020)?
BACKGROUND: According to the Town of Vail Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan
Goal #1 the Town shall achieve a landfill diversion rate of 10% within 5 years and 25%
within ten years. Action items associated with Goal #1 identified within the Plan include
implementing a PAYT program in the Town of Vail. Staff will present the current status,
challenges and opportunities for the Town of Vail related to waste diversion and recycling.
Staff will present an overview of the following items:
. Why is increased waste diversion important to the Town of Vail?
. Town of Vail waste diversion goals.
. What is PAYT?
. Feasibility Study.
*Progress to date.
*Mountain community waste diversion challenges.
*Current waste diversion practices in Vail.
*Community survey results.
*Experience of other communities.
. Next steps.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes that given the statistical information available
and the data gathered during the feasibility process in the Town of Vail that a variable rate
8/4/2009
PAYT program is the most effective way to achieve the town's waste diversion goals. Staff
recommends the Vail Town Council instruct staff to move forward on identifying
implementation options for a PAYT program for residential units not on dumpster service,
making it mandatory that haulers operating in the Town of Vail offer recycling to all customers
at no charge (recycling fees included as part of the trash service) and trash at a variable rate
through the draft hybrid bag program.
NEXT STEPS: If the Town Council chooses to move forward with implementing a PAYT
program, staff will return to the Town Council on August 18, 2009, with a list of implementation
strategies, including pros and cons of each, for the Town Council's consideration. Staff will
provide the feasibility study and design guidelines to the NWCCOG in December to complete
the grant requirement. If the Town Council chooses to move forward with implementation, staff
has agreed to track the PAYT implementation for 1 year following, and report to the NWCCOG
on the success of the program in waste diversion, reduced carbon emissions, and customer
satisfaction.
ATTACH M E NTS:
PAYT presentation memo
PAYT 2 pg summary
Vail PAYT Powerpoint presentation
PAYT GHG Emissions Memo
PAYT Feasibility Draft Final Report
8/4/2009
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 4, 2009
SUBJECT: A presentation introducing the concept of a Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT) waste
diversion and recycling program, feasibility and opportunities for the Town of Vail
1. SUMMARY
The Town of Vail has received a grant from the Northwest Colorado Council of
Governments (NWCCOG) to conduct a feasibility study for Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT)
(variable rate) waste diversion and recycling programs in mountain communities.
Working with the consultant team, Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA
Inc.), the nation's experts on PAYT, Town staff has identified challenges and
opportunities, performed a gap analysis, community online and set-out survey and
developed program options for Pay-As-You-Throw applicability in the Town of Vail.
Results have been compiled into a draft final feasibility report. Town staff will provide an
overview of the feasibility study results, value and success of similar programs in other
Colorado communities, and highlight the opportunities facing the Vail community in
waste diversion and variable rate curbside recycling and trash pickup for residential units
not on dumpster service.
II. DISCUSSION ITEMS
According to the Town of Vail Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan Goal #1, the
Town shall achieve a landfill diversion rate of 10% within 5 years and 25% within 10
years. Action items associated with Goal #1 identified within the Plan include
implementing a PAYT program in the Town of Vail.
Staff will present the current status, challenges and opportunities for the Town of Vail
related to waste diversion and recycling.
Staff will present an overview of the following items:
• Why is increased waste diversion important to the Town of Vail?
• Town of Vail waste diversion goals
• What is PAYT?
• Feasibility Study
o Progress to date
o Mountain community waste diversion challenges
o Current waste diversion practices in Vail
o Community survey results
o Experience of other communities similar to Vail that have implemented
PAYT
• Next steps
1
8/4/2009
3-1-1
III. ACTION REQUESTED
Staff requests the Vail Town Council participates in the presentation and discussion by
providing policy direction by answering the following question:
1) Is Pay-As-You-Throw an appropriate approach to achieving the Town's adopted goal
of diverting 10% of its waste to the landfill within 5 years (2015) and 25% within 10 years
(2020)?
IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff believes that given the statistical information available and the data gathered during
the feasibility process in the Town of Vail that a variable rate PAYT program is the most
effective way to achieve the Town's waste diversion goals. Staff recommends the Vail
Town Council instructs staff to move forward on identifying implementation options for
a PAYT program for residential units not on dumpster service, making it mandatory that
haulers operating in the Town of Vail offer recycling to all customers at no charge
(recycling fees included as part of the trash service) and trash at a variable rate through
the draft hybrid bag program.
V. NEXT STEPS
If the Town Council chooses to move forward with implementing a PAYT program, Staff
will return to the Town Council on August 18, 2009 with a list of implementation
strategies, including pros and cons of each, for the Town Council's consideration. Staff
will provide the feasibility study and design guidelines to the NWCCOG in December to
complete the grant requirement. If the Town Council chooses to move forward with
implementation, Staff has agreed to track the PAYT implementation for 1 year following,
and report to the NWCCOG on the success of the program in waste diversion, reduced
carbon emissions, and customer satisfaction.
2
8/4/2009
3-1-2
incrense recycling by 50 % to double the current nmount, nnd incrense
pnrticipation in recycling to 75% or more.
Why PAYT:
Unlike mnterinl disposnl bnns,
Town of ajt ay_ s_You_~ ~ow Progra government regulntions, or
other more drnstic options
that communities (nnd in
Pay-As-You-Throw (PAYT): some cnses, entire Stntes)
PAYT (nlso cnlled vnrinble rates, volume-bnsed rntes, nnd other nnmes) hnve tnken, PAYT does not
provides n different wny to bill for gnrbnge service. Instend of paying n force residentinl behnviors
fixed bill for unlimited collection of trnsh, PAYT uses economic signnls to or pnrticipation. It uses
encournge recycling, composting, and economic incentives to
source reduction. encournge recycling nnd the residents choose how much trnsh they wnnt to
recycle nnd divert (nnd ns n consequence how much money they want to snve).
PAYT does notmnndate that PAYT mnintnins competition nmong trnsh hnulers, is the most equitnble wny to
households recycle, instend, it provides pny for trnsh service, is ensy to implement, it lets residents choose which
nn economic incentive to do so. Just ns hnuler they wnnt to use, nnd works within Vnil's existing trnsh system.
residentinl electric or water bills
encournge conservntion through billing, Overwhelmin~, l/ailresidents want the option to recyc%more:
PAYT chnrges higher rntes for more A recent survey of Vnil residents uncovered thnt 86 % would like to see more
trnsh disposnl nnd lower rntes for less disposnl. recycling for Vnil households.
4 The analysis shows that a PAYT system is a very feasible option for l/ail. The current program is not working: The snme survey found thnt less thnn
The existing bear-resistant containers willstillbe used, but the trash bags 10% of Vnil residents nre "verysatisfied"with the current curbside recycling
that are put in the cans are specially co%red, pre-paid bags. If the progrnm. A study of
household recyc%s less and puts out more trash, they pay a fee for additional The major points on PAYT are: ' Vni I trnsh nnd
"bfficial" trash bags - a PAYT incentive. This design works for full- and part- 1t is in place in 7100 commumties, large and small tourist recycling set-outs
time residents. This system works in other states, andpiggybacks on l/ails 'and resort includmg 30'of the largest 100 cities'm the US found that the Town
existing col%ction and can system. PAYT is equitable, consistent with the PAYT decreases residential material ta landfdl by about of Vni I residentinl
Town's recently-passed resolution andgoals, fast to implement, and is very 17% ' recycling
popular among residents after the system is put in place - routinely 'Recycling increases 6y!50%to doubling, and participation porticipation is only
preferred by 90% of residents. increases tii 75% and more nround 40 % nnd the
'Afler the fact all sun+eys show 89 95°fo of the households overnl I recycling rate
Vail 6oals and PAYT: ; prefer PAYT it to the old system ' is in the single
The Town of Vnil hns estnblished n gonl of reducing the wnste going to the •'PAYT is the single mosteffective thing you can'do to ' digits! This is well
Inndfill by 10% within 5 yenrs (2015) nnd 25% within 10 yenrs. In the Mnrch 'increase recychng ' below the CDPHE
2009 State of the Town Report the Town Counci I listed reducing the rnte of `PAYT not only leads to more recycling but also composting estimnted statewide
residentinl, commercinl, nnd construction wnste through progrnms centered Ilyard waste diversion and source reduction (careful buying; ' nvernge of nround
on reducing, reusing, nnd recycling wnste ns n priority in 2009. The Town 'donations to chariiy, etc ) as well - a tnple impact 17%. When
Counci I nlso stnted thnt nn immediate gonl for 2009 wns to "incrense Does not require more trucks down>Y~Yhe road ' compnred to high
recycling pnrticipntion nnd reduce per cnpitn landfill wnste through nn Costs sta thesameoc'tlecrease in'2/3 ofcommunifies nchieving
ordinnnce requiring residentinl nnd commercinl recycling". PAYT hns been
stntisticnlly shown to reduce the residentinl wnste strenm between 16-17%,
8/4/2009
3-2-1
communities in the Stnte such ns Loveland, (n 54 % diversion rate) it becomes Ordinance- By Colorndo stntute locnl governments may pnss nn ordinnnce
clenr thnt Vnil is Ingging in its recycling progrnms. requiring nll hnulers to follow certnin guidelines including setting PAYT rate
structures (this is how Fort Collins, Boulder County, nnd the City of Boulder
So.._ the question retYaains, is Pa4Y°f° feasible for Vail and if implemented PAYT)
so, how would it work?
Contracting- Colorndo statute nllows locnl governments to contrnct for
Town of Vnil stnff hns spent the Inst six residentinl trnsh service for nll units up to nnd including 7 units per building
months working with trnsh nnd recycling (this is how Mountnin Vilinge, Louisville, nnd Lnfayette implemented PAYT)
stnkeholders nnd with Skumatz Economic
Resenrch Associntes Inc. (n nntionnlly Next Steps:
recognized firm with expertise in solid wnste In nddition to the PAYT residentinl progrnm, SERA nnd Town of Vnil stnff
nnd recycling options) to nnswer just that hnve developed n list of recommended next steps the Town should tnke in
question. order to nchieve their gonls. These include:
After n detniled study of Vnil's situation, SERA nnd Town of Vnil stnff • Space for Recycling- Town should pnss nn ordinnnce requiring equnl
concluded thnt YES, PAYT is certninly fensible in Vnil. PAYT is strongly spnce for recycling (snme ns trnsh) in nll new nnd remodeled
recommended ns n key progrnm in nchieving the gonls set by the Town Council.
commercinl nnd multi-fnmily buildings - inside nnd outside - to nvoid
Vail's Program: recycling spnce constrnint problems into the future.
In the proposed PAYT progrnm households continue to use the benr-proof • Multi-family - 1) Require thnt trnsh service fees include the cost of
contniners they nlrendy purchnsed, but the trnsh must be in specinlly logoed n pnrnllel convenience nnd level of recycling service; to nssure
nnd colored bngs thnt nre purchnsed from the hnuler nnd convenience stores. nccess to recycling for tennnts, nnd 2) n pi lot test of n PAYT
The cost of these bngs includes the cost of trnsh nnd recycling collection. vnrintion designed for multi-fnmily buildings. The gonl is to provide
The less trnsh n household generates (nnd the more recycling they do), the
fewer bngs they need to buy, nnd the less they pay. Low trnsh generntors recycling incentives nnd nccess ns similnr to single fnmily ns
pay lower bills. Residents purchnse the bngs from the hnulers or convenience ossible.
stores (ench hnuler's bng would be n different color for clenr identificntion).
The hnulers collect trnsh in much the
snme wny ns they do currently. This
system is perceived ns much more fnir
by residentsz in every community in . Commercial sector recycling: Three nlternntives for commercinl
which PAYT hns been implemented,
nnd it drmmaticnlly increnses recommendntions hnve been developed for Vnil's considerntion: 1)
recycling 3 the most nggressive option of mnndntory embedded recycling rntes,
2) n"tnrgeted" option focusing on bnrs, business recycling plnns, nnd
There nre two options for shnred recycling service, and 3) n lenst nggressive option requiring
implementntion for Vnil: recycling plnns nnd recycling clnuses in lenses.
Overnll, PAYT is n fensible nnd n highly recommended progrnm for the Town
of Vnil to consider. If the Town of Vnil implements PAYT it will greatly
Z Total diversion includes both recycling and composting in Loveland incrense residentinl wnste diversion, improve equity in trnsh bills, nnd be n
In fact, every survey shows it is perceived as more fair - and favored above the old system - by 89%-95 %
of residents after the system has been in operation. significnnt step forwnrd in Vnil's mission to "serve ns n nntionnlly recognized
3 Recycling often doubles or more and given the low participation in Vail, SERA Inc. reports ihat they expect lender in sustninnbi lity".
very large increases. 8/4/2009
3-2-2
o • - i •
. • • -
~
• • Program Feasibility D •
Vail • e g 11•
• • • • • ' rate
1 • PAYT customers • • - •
they •
NWCCOG • study 'A mountain •
Feasibility Stud - constraints
Cbmmunity • tourist .
o•. - . . homeoWners
RespOnses: 64 resid' business o Lack o
infrastructure
4% • pbp • o education/aWareness
_ orts generate o _ trash p_
i Set •
.p .g-
' blic resistance to additional
• ~ ~
. of b. ' d. .
D . R'p•
• o .g' public b
si4iaoo9 1
3-3-1
CAWP~r
• -s recycling • s• •
• mahdatory . e cbmmercial
recycling - -
• • • every •
• 9e
containers e dumpsters
Installation
Recycling Bins Out? Yard Waste in Trash
' ' e '
. . . -
'
~ ~ . 36 f
. - - - . -
_ xxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxx
. . . - - • • ° " ~
xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxx x
- . - . ~it
F,e
xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxx ❑
. . . • e _ Nos YeS
x
. ~ • . . - . . . - - - _ ° xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ~ No
- 11H.
Recyclable Material in Tresh Construction Waste in Trash
~ Yes F. Yes
$5!'' ~ No ~~831 ONo
si4iaoo9 2
3-3-2
soi
ao i Tovun of Vail Community Survey ' • County I a • s • . acres - •p-• (10-12 m ' ry a
rn soi
• customers • ' more, more~
~ ao i C~m~ • reduce • • • PA
a aoi
20~ 00 0' • • • 0• 0
• •
oi
~ o P ~ ~ E m m ' A • • . • ' • . •
o m ~ m m - ~ ~ m '
3 3 -°~a u; ° 3 ~ d o mE average, 0% • communities~
~ m P m o N~
U m Y a 2~° d~~ w~° a cn m v> environmentally • • 0 •
U ~
• s. • • s
Items left in Trash by Residents after Recycling
•
• ' •
Priorities
p
• • '.b'
• • • . Protects wildlife
Program ,Do' • 'quire significant
•
• • • .
residents •
.p• •
restaurants d •dg'
• .
q~
• Council ' • •
• . .e• •
. •
• . s• • • • COuncil
Draft • •
, D- •
• prbgram/community •
*Additional • . • • - • • - ~
• •
e d multi-family PAYT p ee .
development
bsid' composti . e waste e p
si4iaoo9 3
3-3-3
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, lnc.
Boulder Office: 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
Phone: 3031494-1178 FAX 3031494-1177
email: skumatz @serainc.com; web: serainc.com; payt.org
DATE: July 13th 2009
TO: Kristen Bertuglia, Town of Vail
FROM: Lisa Skumatz, Juri Freeman, SERA
SUBJECT: Green House Gas Impacts of Residential PAYT
Using in-house data, set out survey estimates, and previous statistical studies the impact
of a PAYT ordinance on the Town of Vail residential waste stream was computed. It was
assumed that the ordinance would cover households up to and including 4 units per
building. The table below shows the range of computed impacts for both high and low
household occupancy assumptions. Impacts on GHG emissions were computed using
EPA WaRM Model Version 9 factors and EPA estimates of annual per car emissions.
Overall, the residential PAYT program is estimated to divert from 140 to 420 tons of
recyclables from the landfill and reduce 113 to 339 tons of inetric tons of carbon
equivalents (MTCE) per year. This is the equivalent of taking between 61 and 182 cars
off the road per year in Vail. If the TOV decides to address other sectors such as multi-
family units, yard or green waste, commercial generators, or construction and demolition
waste, the amount of materials diverted, the GHG emissions and the number of cars off
the road may increase significantly.
Estimated Impacts of Residential PAYT Program in Vail
Tans diverted ' MTCEMTC02 Number cars off'the road
High occupied estimate' High 209.5 170 498 91
Low 419.1 339 996 182
Low occupied estimate2 High 139.7 113 332 61
Low 279.4 226 664 122
~ High estimates were developed using US Census data for the number of residencies with 1-4 units and the
assumption that 50% of the HHs are occupied 100% of the year and 50% of the HHs are occupied 50% of the year.
2 Low estimates were developed using US Census data for the number of residencies with 1-4 units and the
assumption that 50% of the HHs are occupied 75% of the year and 50% of the HHs are occupied 25% of the year.
8/4/2009
3-4-1
. . .
■ Consulting to Government & Utilities
Boulder Office: 762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, C080027
Voice303/494-1178 FAX303/494-1177
email: skumatz @ serainc.com
el Website: www. serainc.com; payt.org
TOWN OF VAIL: PA Y-A S- YOU- THRO W
FEASIBILITY STUDY
DRAFT Report
Submitted to:
Kristen Bertuglia, Town of Vail
Prepared by:
Juri Freeman and Lisa A. Skumatz, Ph.D.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. (SERA)
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
Phone:303/494-1178 skumatz@serainc.com
July 10, 2009
8/4/2009
3 -5-1
[Page Intentionally Left Blank]
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study ii
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-2
ORGAN/ZATION OF THE REPORT
SECTION 0: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................1
0.1: Gap Analysis 4
0.2: Web Survey ..........................................................................................................5
0.3: Set-Out Survey 6
0.4: Program Design ....................................................................................................7
0.5: Ordinance versus Contract 9
0.6: Mandatory Commercial Recycling and Multi-Family Sector 10
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND "GAP" ANALYSIS 13
1.1: Introduction 13
1.2: Existing System 13
SECTION 2: WEB SURVEY 18
2.1: Residential Survey Implications 18
Trash Service 18
Recycling Service 18
Materials 19
Programs 19
P ay-As-Yo u -T h row . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Willi ngness-to-pay 20
2.2: Residential Survey Findings 21
Introduction 21
Trash and Recycling Services 22
Green waste and targeted streams 25
Satisfaction and Preferences 26
Pay-As-You-Throw and Willingness to Pay 28
Demographics and Contact 29
SECTION 3: SET OUT SURVEY ..................................................................................32
3.1: Trash and Recycling Set-Outs ............................................................................32
3.2: Diversion Rate 34
3.3: Implications 34
SECTION 4: PAYT PROGRAM DESCRIPTION 36
4.1: Program Details ..................................................................................................36
4.2: Potential barriers 38
4.3: Contracting versus Ordinances 42
SECTION 5: MANDATORY COMMERCIAL RECYCLING AND MULTI-FAMILY UNITS
45
5.1: Best Practices .....................................................................................................47
5.1.1 Commercial Recommendations 49
5.2 Multi-Family Recycling .........................................................................................49
5.2.1 Multi-Family Recommendations 51
APPENDICES 53
Appendix 1: Bag in a Can Case Study: Middletown, Rhode Island 53
Appendix 2: Additional Ordinances and Measures for Town of Vail 54
Appendix 3: Comparison of PAYT Rates Before and After Implementation 58
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-3
Appendix 4: PAYT Diversion, GHG, and Cost Impact Estimates 59
Appendix 5: Open-ended Survey Responses 61
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study iv
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-4
SECTION 0: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Skumatz Economic Research Associates Inc. (SERA) was contracted by the Town of Vail to
examine the waste management system, uncover the barriers and opportunities for Pay-As-
You-Throw (PAYT) in the single family, and if possible, multifamily or commercial situations, and
identify the pros and cons of potentially-viable PAYT options
PAYT uses economic incentives to provide a signal to trash generators to increase recycling,
source reduction, and composting. Statistical studies reveal that PAYT programs generally
reduce the amount of residential MSW going to the landfill by 16-17%1. To complete the
feasibility study SERA undertook the following efforts:
• Gap analysis- a detailed review of current waste services, opportunities and "gaps" in
Vail.
• Web survey- a survey that gathered information on residential behaviors, preferences,
and willingness to pay.
• Set-out survey- data collection by Vail staff that observed, recorded and analyzed the
trash and recycling disposal patterns in Vail.
• Stakeholder meetings- multiple meetings with relevant stakeholders in Town of Vail
including waste haulers, town staff, and Eagle County representatives to discuss and
assess current and potential recycling / diversion options.
• National research- a review of similar tourist/resort town programs in the US, identify
potential program options for Vail.
• PAYT program development- development of a PAYT program using the data
collected, stakeholder input, and results of the analysis conducted throughout the
project.
• Mandatory commercial and multi-family programs- At the request of the Planning
and Environmental Commission (PEC) commercial recycling and multi-family recycling
were examined.
Major Results and Recommendations:
Feasibility:
• After a detailed review of the current situation in Vail, in-depth meetings with
stakeholders, national interviews with similar towns, and residential survey input, SERA
concludes that a residential PAYT program is not only feasible for the Town of Vail but
recommended as a means of achieving the Town's waste reduction goals. The PAYT
program described in this report works within the existing system in Vail, using the same
carts, collection mechanisms, and haulers, and has the potential to significantly increase
landfill diversion.
Situation:
• Recycling in Vail - in participation2, tonnage, and percentage terms - lags behind the
Statewide average. Only about 30% of households are recycling, and Vail's residential
diversion rate is estimated to be 9% (just over half the statewide average estimate of
~ Skumatr and Freeman, Pay-As-You-Throw in the US: Update and Analysis, December 2006. Conducted for US EPA
z Participation figures of 70-90%are routine in PAYT communities in Colorado and elsewhere.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 1
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-5
17%). The recycling options for single-family households are relatively inconveniene
(drop-offs) or a cost add-on to trash service.
• Three-quarters of households receive more trash service than they need, filling their cans
75% or less full on average.
• Vail has shown leadership in hazardous waste and electronics disposal options / events,
and provides services comparable to other (mountain and other) communities.
• There is strong resident support for more recycling, and there are new recycling
opportunities presented by the County's MRF. Residents report they are willing to pay $4-
$7 per month more for additional recycling opportunities.
Challenges:
• The community has a mix of single family / multi-family, full-time and part-year residents,
and management companies, HOAs, and owners; however, the pattern is not dis-similar
to other mountain and tourist communities.
• Residents recently purchased bear-resistant containers, limiting flexibility in system
changes.
• The current recession makes dramatic or expensive changes for the commercial sector a
challenge.
Opportunities and Recommendations:
The Town's short term recycling goal could be met through several main initiatives:
• Residential Pay As You Throw (PAYT): After reviewing multiple options for PAYT, we
have identified a program that is highly feasible, works with Vail's container situation, and
will increase residential recycling and diversion. This rate incentive program can step up
recycling in the Town and provide greater equity for residents, and under the new system
those putting out less thrash pay less and those setting out more trash pay a premium. In
the proposed program households continue to use the bear-proof containers they already
purchased, but the trash must be in specially logo-ed and colored bags that are
purchased from the hauler and convenience stores. The cost of these bags includes the
cost of trash4 collection, so the less trash a household generates (and the more recycling
they do), the fewer bags they need to buy, and the less they pay. Low trash generators
pay lower bills.s The haulers collect trash in much the same way as they do currently.s
3 Drop-offs may be conveniently placed, but research indicates that unless recycling service is parallel in convenience to trash
service (e.g. if trash is at the curb, recycling also needs to be), people will just throw the material into the trash and recycling
rates will be significantly lower.
4 And curbside recycling. The new system gives households both trash and recycling service; the cost of the expanded recycling
system is recovered through the trash rates. The new rates would have two parts, a"customer charge" (that covers a portion of
the recycling program and the cost of driving a truck by the house) and a"per bag fee" which covers the remainder of the cost of
the recycling program and getting the truck to the house, and the cost of collection and disposal. Note that a customer charge
that covers all the cost of the recycling and drive-by fees is not an effective design; the per-bag fee must be large enough to
provide an incentive to reduce trash.
5 This is very much favored by households on fixed income as well; they now have a way they can save on trash bills if they
recycle more.
6 The haulers currently use a"semi-automated" lift on the truck to assist in dumping trash, opening the bear-proof latches at each
home. They would continue this system, but would need to look within the can. If the household isn't using the special brightly-
colored bags, the trash is not dumped, or the house receives a warning. The operational change for the hauler is fairly minimal.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 2
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-6
This system is perceived as much more fair by residents' in every community in which it
has been implemented, and it dramatically increases recycling.$
o The PAYT rate structure (but not rate levels) can be specified via ordinance.9
o We recommend that the Town consider implementing the PAYT program via
ordinance, requiring all haulers collecting trash from residences in Town must
use PAYT rate structure.10 If this is deemed impractical, or the haulers are not
cooperative, the Town should issue a request for proposals (RFP) for single-
hauler residential collection.,,
• Ordinances: Several ordinances should be passed. Of course a PAYT and recycling
ordinance are needed to implement the first recommendation. In addition, the Town
should pass an ordinance requiring equal space for recycling (same as trash) in all new
and remodeled commercial and multi-family buildings - inside and outside.
• Multi-family: Two additional recommendations are provided. 1) Require that trash
service fees include the cost of a parallel convenience and level of recycling service; to
assure access to recycling for tenants, and 2) Town staff should begin work in the next
sector - the multi-family - by running a pilot test of a potentially-suitable PAYT variation
that has been identified as soon as possible.12 The goal is to provide recycling incentives
and access as similar to single family as possible.
• Commercial sector recycling: Three alternatives for commercial recommendations
have been developed, depending on the aggressiveness the Town prefers.
o Most aggressive commercial option: Require haulers to offer recycling equal
to at least'/z the monthly trash volume13 per month as part of trash service.
There is to be no separate fee for recycling, and the cost is recovered through
new / revised trash rates.
o"Targeted" option: This is a three-part recommendation. 1) Implement an
"ABC" or "All bottles & cans, or all beverage containers" law. This requires all
businesses that serve beverages to recycle beverage containers or their liquor
license is not renewed. This is in place statewide in NC, and in communities
elsewhere around the nation. 2) Pass two ordinances. One would require all
businesses to fill out recycling plans, using simple check list forms available on
the Town's web site. The plan makes businesses think about recycling, and
encourages some businesses to implement programs. The second ordinance
would require all businesses to incorporate clauses into commercial (and
7 In fact, every survey shows it is perceived as more fair - and favored above the old system - by 890/6-95%of residents after the
system has been in operation.
$ Recycling often doubles or more. Given the low participation in Vail, we would expect very large increases.
9 Self-haul options should also pay by the bag. If, at a later date, it is determined that too many households have opted to avoid
service and it becomes a problem, the Town may consider an ordinance requiring trash service.
10 The ordinance should cover the following elements: a bag option no larger than 35 gallons; a customer charge no greater than
the cost of one (or 1.5 bags); reporting of tonnages to the Town quarterly or iwice a year; and a recycling program that collects
materials at least every other week, and collects at least the basic materials accepted by the new County MRF.
11 Similar to those recently issued in Lafayette and Louisville, C0. The contracting option gives the Town more control, and
potentially lower residential rates (because of improved economies of scale), but has more political fallout and citizens often
react to the taking of their choice in haulers. There are also slightly higher burdens on Town staff.
12 In addition, it would be useful to conduct focus groups and meetings with properiy owners / managers to discuss systems,
recycling, and challenges / opportunities.
13 Recycling may be collected less frequently, so container size and frequency may differ from trash.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 3
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-7
potentially multi-family) leases saying tenants were expected to recycle. 3) The
Town may consider acting as an intermediary to help design / organize some
high paper or high cardboard routes with the haulers and businesses.
o Least aggressive option: Pass an ordinance implementing the recycling plans
and recycling lease option described above.
Longer-Term Goals:
To achieve the longer-term goals, the Town Staff should focus on the two main waste streams
remaining - organics and construction / demolition. Although beyond the scope of this study,
the following two elements would represent priority activities toward reaching higher diversion:
• Work with the County MRF as it develops composting options, and test options for
seasonal every-other-week yard waste14 collection and/or a system of yard-waste drop-off
options. This is a significant waste stream. The Town might also consider a targeted food
waste program for grocery stores and other large commercial food generators.
• Examine a variant of the construction and demolition (C&D) deposit programs15 in place in
San Jose and other communities. C&D is a significant waste stream, especially in Vail.
• Consider other elements that may be identified in a zero waste plan.
The remainder of this report further explores these findings and recommendations.
0.1: Gap Analysis
The gap analysis shows that although the waste haulers in the Town of Vail offer recycling for
non-dumpster service customer accounts, there are still many opportunities to increase
diversion for the Town. The figure below highlights both the strengths and opportunities of the
current trash and recycling system in the Town of Vail.
Table 0.1: Stren ths and O ortunities (Ga s) of the Town of Vail
Stren ths 0 orkunities'
• Curbside recycling offered for non-dumpster service • PAYT programs to create/increase diversion and reduction
trash customers incentives for SF residents and a possible PAYT bag
• Convenient recycling drop-off location at municipal program
building • There is the opportunity for a iwo tier program in the MF
• There are both HHW and electronic waste disposal sector: 1 St)increase access for recycling for multi-family
options residents and 2nd) work with these properties to establish
• The Couniy is planning a new MRF and a possible incentives to recycle
composting faciliiy • There is a large opportunity to increase
• Strong support for sustainabiliiy and recycling outreach/education programs
among residents and Town leaders • Commercial recycling programs-both increased education
for commercial customers to raise diversion/source
reduction and the possibiliiy to use innovative commercial
programs available in other municipalities to address this
sector.
• Additional signage at the drop-off area
14 Or yard waste / food waste collection. Although food waste can be more complicated in areas with bears, a number of
communities have moved successfully in Uhis direction. However, until the larger waste streams have been addressed, it may
not be worth the extra hassle for the smaller food waste stream in Vail.
15 The deposit system may not be as effective in an affluent building communiiy like Vail; however, speed of approval and other
incentives may be developed and be more effective in Vail.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 4
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-8
0.2: Web Survey
The web survey was open to all Vail residents16. Overall, 185 total responses were received
(nearly 4% of the total 4,800 TOV residents). The survey gave respondents the option to report
as either a resident or a business. Of the 185 total responses, 164 were residential responses
and 21 were business responses.
SERA was able to develop the following results and implications through an analysis of the
Town of Vail Trash and recycling Survey:
Trash Service
• Programs should be designed to address both individual trash service customers and
dumpster service customers- There is a mix between individual can service and
dumpster service for Vail residents. It is important that both sectors are addressed to
increase diversion in the Vail valley.
• Residents are oversubscribed to trash service- For respondents with individual trash
service, nearly three-quarters (73%) reported that they filled their cans only 75% full or
less on average. A pay-as-you-throw program would help address these
oversubscriptions and allow residents to only pay for the services they require, as well
as providing an incentive for additional reductions.
Recycling Service
• Residents are not recycling at the curb as expected- Only 42% of respondents with
individual trash service in Vail reported that they were using curbside recycling.
• TOV should continue its successful drop-off site, with possible improvements in the
future-The TOV recycling center is a popular option with nearly 90% of respondents
reporting that they visit the drop-off.
• Additional or larger bins/carts may increase diversion- Of the respondents receiving
curbside service; nearly 80% reported that their bins are full or overflowing on average.
Materials
• Residents are doing a good job recycling containers but some materials need more
education/outreach
• Compost/green waste might be a program for the TOV to look a in the future- Of the
materials remaining in the trash, food was reported to be number one followed by paper
towels/tissues, both of which are compostable streams.
Programs
• Additional outreach/education regarding existing diversion programs could be needed-
Residents reported that they were unaware of many of the programs in Vail. Most
importantly, nearly half of all residents reported that they were unaware of the curbside
recycling option. Education/outreach programs could help raise awareness of existing
16 The survey was administered broadly, and not restricted to a random and statistical population. Thus, it is an opinion survey
and the findings are not statistically valid due to the survey administration method. The survey results due however provide a
viable representation of the opinions of the TOV residents. The findings are similar to the feedback that would be seen at a public
outreach/town hall meeting. This type of survey administration is prone to collect data from residents with strong opinions either
for or against the survey subject.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 5
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-9
programs while assuring residents about the importance and usefulness of collecting
recyclables.
• Residents are generally satisfied with their trash services and dissatisfied with recycling
options- Nearly half of the respondents reported that they were very satisfied with their
trash service while only 9% were very satisfied with curbside recycling.
• Residents would like to see more recycling in Vail- Two-thirds or more of the
respondents strongly agreed with such statements as "I would like to see more recycling
for households" and "I would like to see more recycling for businesses".
• The programs with the highest level of support were-
o More recycling in TOV public areas
o More recycling for TOV businesses
o Additional education/outreach about recycling
o Adding more materials to the current recycle stream
Pay-As-You-Throw
• There is support for pay-as-you-throw among Vail residents- Nearly 60% of respondents
either somewhat or strongly supported pay-as-you-throw as an option.
• Many residents may see little change or a decrease in their trash bills under a pay-as-
you-throw program- The majority of residents responding reported that they would be on
the minimum service level if a PAYT program was implemented. Generally, if residents
are on the low levels of PAYT trash service they do not see an increase in their trash
bills when compared to unlimited collection and in many municipalities, the residents on
the lowest service level see reductions in their trash bill.
Willingness-to-pay
• Overall, the respondents reported that they would be willing to pay for additional
services- Only 8% strongly agreed with the statement "I am interested in the lowest cost
basic trash service" and half of the respondents either somewhat or strongly agreed with
the statement "I would be willing to pay more to get more recycling services."
• The average willingness to pay is between $4.00 and $700 additional per month- There
was a portion of respondents who reported that they would be unwilling to pay any
additional trash/recycling costs per month. However, on average, the respondents
reported they would pay up to $7.32 a month.
0.3: Set-Out Survey
To determine the residential trash and recycling behaviors of Vail resident's Town of Vail staff "
conducted a set-out survey. Vail staff were able to survey 1011$ households (HH) over two days
of collection, or approximately 4.6% of the occupied housing units in Vail19. Data collected
included:
• Number of trash carts set-out
• Size of trash carts
• Percent full for trash carts
' Materials in the trash including recycling, yard waste, and C&D
17 With direction on sampling and data collection from SERA researchers.
1$ These were randomly selected households receiving individual trash service, not dumpster service. The data sample size
allows us to predict results with a 90%+/- 8% level of confidence.
19 US Census data reports that there are 2,165 occupied housing units in Vail.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 6
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-10
• Recycling set-outs
• Number of recycling containers
• Percent full for recycling containers
• And other observational data
The following implications (many of which support the findings of the web-based survey) were
uncovered in the analysis of the set-out survey data:
• There is a large amount of recyclables that are being disposed of in Vail residential
trash. Nearly 90% of the HHs surveyed had a significant amount of recyclables in their
trash. A PAYT program combined with larger bins/more convenient service has the
potential to get the recyclables out of the MSW stream.
• Vail residents are somewhat oversubscribing for trash service. On average, the trash
carts of surveyed HHs were 72% full. It is possible that many of these households could
use a smaller 64 gallon trash cart, or in the proposed PAYT bag program, would be able
to realize economic savings in their trash bills and have economic incentives to remove
more materials from the trash stream.
• Compost/green waste could be a stream for Vail to address in the future. Just over one-
fifth of the surveyed HHs had a significant amount of yard waste in their trash carts. A
yard waste drop-off program, at home composting programs, or education may help
remove much of this material from the residential waste stream.
Recycling
• The overall diversion rate and participation rate are very low. The computed residential
diversion rate for Vail is 9%20, far below the Colorado CDPHE overall statewide estimate
of 17%. The overall participation rate for the TOV was only 36%. Nationally,
communities with PAYT rates for trash and embedded recycling see participation rates
in the upper 80s to low 90 percentage levels21. There is a large potential for the TOV to
increase its residential recycling rate and participation. A PAYT program can provide the
needed incentive for residents to both participate in a curbside program as well as
remove more recyclables from the MSW stream. Additional education, outreach, and
awareness of currently available programs may also help to increase participation and
diversion.
• Larger recycling containers (or more containers) may be needed. Many of the recycling
bins that were set out were 100% full to overflowing. Larger recycling carts or more bins
will increase the amount of recyclables being collected as well as assist in removing
additional recyclables from the MSW stream.
0.4: Program Design
After a review of the current solid waste management system in the Town of Vail, the input of
stakeholders and residents, and an extensive review of SERA in-house data, a bag in a can
PAYT system was developed. This system, in use in a limited number of communities in the US,
is basically a hybrid bag system including pre-purchased trash bags with a base fee. The
20 Computed by SERA based on participation and set out data from the Town's set out survey, combined with data on weights
and volumes by material.
21 Skumatz and Freeman, Pay-As-You-Throw in the US: Update and Analysis, December 2006. Conducted for US EPA
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 7
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-11
proposed program for Vail includes a base fee and pre-paid bag elements that are seen in other
communities and combines them with the bear-resistant semi-automated collection program
already in use in Vail. The bag in a can program requires that the pre-paid bags be placed in the
bear-resistant containers as required by the existing ordinances. It relies on the fact that
collection is semi-automated and the trash haulers must get out of their trucks and open the
cans, thus allowing for cursory visual inspection. Details of the program are described below.
Table 0.2: PAYT Pro ram Desi n
Element Plan
The current bear-resistant carts would continue to be used under the proposed system. The high cost of
new carts poses a significant barrier to a variable cart size program. The bag in a can program uses the
Carts existing bear-resistant carts to overcome the initial cost barrier.
Under the new program, all residents in 4 or under units will be required to place all trash in a brightly
colored, pre-purchased bag. Each hauler will have a different bag. The bags must be available at multiple
Ba s outlets throu hout the Town of Vail includin town hall, convenience stores, roce stores, mini-marts.
The Town of Vail has iwo options for the adoption of the proposed PAYT, an ordinance or contracting for
Adoptian service.
The haulers set the bag fees. The haulers may charge a base rate to all of their customers to help cover
the fixed costs of getting the truck to the door. The Town will establish the fee structure, not the actual
rates, to ensure that the cost of an additional bag of trash is not trivial. A significant financial incentive is
Rates integral in a successful PAYT program.
In addition to establishing rate structures, the ordinance will require that residential curbside recycling is
Recycling embedded in the trash fee. The haulers will be able to set their base rates and per bag fees to cover
Rates these costs as long as the rates follow the established rate structure.
Two possibilities are proposed 1)Base number of bags: customer base fee includes X number of bags
per year. In addition to this baseline, customers will be able to purchase bags from a number of outlets
throughout the Town. 2) Purchased bags only: No bags will be included with the baseline service fee. All
Distribution of bags must be purchased by customers from outlets located throughout the town. Under either program
Bags convenience of purchase is paramount.
Trash There will be little change to trash collection. Haulers will not be required to change days, routes, or
Collection containers.
The role of enforcement will fall on boUh the haulers and the Town. The haulers are the front lines in the
enforcement battle. Haulers will visually inspect the trash as it is being dumped in the hopper and the
Town is responsible for contacting violators. This enforcement mechanism has been used successfully in
Enforcement other towns.
Multi-Family Units (MFUs):
The PAYT program will initially focus on single family and units up to 4. MFU have a number of
inherent issues that make them more difficult to address including high turnover, lack of
economic signals between trash disposal and residents, large dumpsters, and lack of
awareness. It is recommended that Vail deal with the MFUs and the PAYT program in stages.
These include:
1) Establish SF PAYT throughout the town and require that haulers embed recycling in the
trash rates for MFUs
2) Conduct a PAYT pilot study in a Vail MFU to determine the feasibility of a bag program
in the MFUs
3) Evaluate the pilot and make necessary adjustments
4) Add MFUs to the PAYT program
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 8
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-12
Resort Community/Population Flux:
The Town of Vail has a relatively small population of full time residents with a large influx of day
trippers, overnight visitors, and seasonal residents. PAYT has successfully been implemented in
other resort communities with similar demographics. Most recently, the Town of Mountain
Village (near Telluride, CO) implemented PAYT ordinance with PAYT collection to begin in
October of 2009. Research identified 9 tourist and seasonal communities with large changes in
seasonal populations and PAYT programs. Many of the communities are geographically
isolated and face high transportation costs for both MSW and recycling.
0.5: Ordinance versus Contract
There are three main ways to implement PAYT programs:
• Municipal collection- A town can choose to take over trash collection themselves,
purchasing a collection fleet, hiring FTEs, and all of the associated administration and
O&M. This is not a recommended option (or frankly, an option that is on the table) for
Vail.
• Ordinance- By Colorado statute local governments may pass an ordinance requiring all
haulers to follow certain guideline including setting PAYT rate structures.
• Contacting- Colorado statute allows local governments to contract for residential
service for all units up to and including 7 units per building. Multi-family buildings with
over 7 units are considered commercial and local government may not contract for
commercial accounts.
Both ordinances and contracts are viable means of implementing PAYT. What route a town
chooses depends greatly upon local preferences and politics. The pros and cons of both
ordinances and contracts are displayed in the table 0.3.
Table 0.3: Ordinance versus Contractin Pros and Cons
Ordinance Contract
' Pros ' Cons Pros ' Cans '
• Maintains competition in • Less control over • Town has greater • Limits competition in the
the market place services control over rates and market
• Allows customers to • Political support is service options • May be politically
choose their service needed • Allows for routing unattractive
provider • May not be the most efficiencies for selected • Limits customer choice
• Easier to implement efficient (more trucks hauler • Requires lengthier
• Retains a"level playing on the roads, more • Simplified reporting of implementation process
field" for all haulers GHG emissions, etc.) tonnages collected (RFPs, Bids, selection,
operating under the • Potentially lower rates etc)
same rules for customers • Higher resistance from
• Less resistance from • Reduced wear and tear haulers
haulers on streets
• Less administrative • Can set faciliiy
demand for Vail designation for
materials
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 9
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-13
0.6: Mandatory Commercial Recycling and Multi-Family Sector
Mandatory Commercial
The commercial sector makes up between 35-45% of the total waste stream in the US22. In
general, recycling programs are implemented and refined in the residential sector and then
expanded to cover the commercial waste stream2324. There is significant potential to increase
diversion in the commercial sector in Vail. However, there are a number of barriers that must be
considered when discussing the commercial sector. These include:
• Waste stream- unlike the residential waste stream, commercial waste is not
homogenous, each business type, size, and location may generate vastly different types
of waste.
• Space- space for recycling is often cited as a major concern in commercial programs
• Lack of control over bills- many commercial entities do not have control over their bills.
The trash and recycling is often contracted through a property management company.
• Cost- Larger businesses may be able to reduce their trash service levels (and costs)
through recycling. However, smaller businesses may already be on the lowest level of
trash service and are not able to reduce their trash subscription level to save money
through recycling.
• One program does not fit all- In the residential sector it is feasible to use a blanket
program that covers all households. Each business in the commercial sector faces its
own barriers (space, materials, customer type, janitorial staff, property managers, etc.)
and a battery of program types might be necessary to address the entire sector.
• Lack of infrastructure- It is necessary that the proper infrastructure is in place before
any mandatory commercial program is implemented.
The table below displays both the strengths and potential weaknesses related to mandatory
commercial recycling programs. The table was developed through SERA research of mandatory
commercial recycling programs across the US.
Table 0.4: Stren ths of Mandator Commercial Rec clin Pro rams
'Pro ram Element Description of Stren ths '
Increased diversion- All of the programs reported that the commercial diversion has increased due to
mandatory recycling
Increased access/opportunity- Programs increase access and the opportuniiy for all business to participate, divert
materials, and in some cases realize monetary savings in trash costs
Increased revenues- Haulers and recyclers reported that the program can increase revenues available
to support diversion initiatives
Increased customers- Potential to increase customer accounts for haulers and recyclers
zz Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 2007 Facts and Figures. US EPA Office of Solid Waste, EPA530R-08-010,
November 2008.
23 Skumatz, Lisa and Freeman, Juri. Increasing Recycling in the Commercial Sector: Assessment ofMandatory Commercial
Recycling Programs and Exclusive Hauler Arrangements. 2009, Prepared for Alameda $topwaste.org
Z' Skumatr Lisa and Freeman, Juri. Recycling Study Targeting SmallBusinesses in Mecklenburg County, NC. 2008. Prepared
for Mecklenburg County Solid Waste Deparfinent
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 10
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-14
'Program Element Description of Strengths '
Market development- May help bring processors, or end-users into the area
Market development (haulers)- May increase opportunities for haulers and bring in new haulers/competition
Efficient Design- Some target specific sectors with large amounts of waste, or exempt small
generators to reduce administrative hassle with minimal impact on waste diversion
Addresses all sectors- Instead of placing the burden of diversion only on the residential sector, the entire
community is responsible, no sector is exempt
Flexibility- The program can offer flexible options for diversion for each business iype
Goals- Programs can be designed with communiiy goals in mind and can be crafted to
address certain materials or diversion aims
Reporting- Programs can require reporting and tracking of diversion and disposal in the sector
which might not have been done previously
Economies of scale- Increased efficiencies in collector routing and processing by requiring all
businesses to participate
Table 0.5: Weaknesses of Mandator Commercial Rec clin Pro rams
'Pro ram Element Description of Weaknesses
Increased costs- May increase the costs for haulers and generators
Need for infrastructure- Without proper infrastructure to handle the additional recycling stream the program
may not be successful
Politics- May require market intervention by Ciiy/County, possible negative political reaction
by some actors
May drive out small haulers- Depending on the hauler's ability to adapt, some haulers report that the programs
may push them out of the market and favor larger haulers
Reporting- Added burden to City staff, haulers, and generators to complete necessary
reporting
Incentives- Depending on program design there may not be incentives for the generator or
haulers to increase participation above minimum requirements
Enforcement (generators)- Can build resentment and resistance to the program among generators
Enforcement (haulers, City)- May add time and cost to enforce the program to Ciiy staff and/or haulers
May not increase Although the opportuniiy is offered for all businesses to divert materials, without
participation- proper planning the program may not increase participation
Not the best way to meet If the goal is increased diversion tonnage, forcing 100%participation may not be
goals- the most effective or equitable way to achieve it. Focusing on the largest
generators and those that can reduce trash bills through recycling may work better
and ma be less ex ensive from a social oint of view.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 11
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-15
Multi-Family
There is a significant opportunity to address the MFU sector but it may take more time than the
single-family units Overall the MF sector remains a slightly more difficult sector to address than
the SF sector. Single-family units already have service available, do not face space barriers,
see direct economic signals from the proposed PAYT programs, and have individual trash carts.
Before additional steps can be taken to address the multi-family sector it is important to address
the following barriers:
Barrier 1. Lack of Proqrams: Many of the MFUs in Vail do not have recycling programs.
Solution: Require that haulers embed the cost of recycling in their trash service. By
embedding the costs of recycling in trash service, all MFUs will be required to pay for
recycling service whether or not they recycle. The requirement should ensure that recycling
service is at least equal to the level of trash service to give residents an opportunity to
recycle materials.
Barrier 2: Lack of space: The lack of space for recycling bins next to trash carts is a common
barrier. Older units may not have been designed to include space for recycling and there may
not be adequate space next to the trash bins. If either the trash or recycling bins are significantly
more convenient than the other, contamination may be a serious issue to contend with.
Solution: Require that all new and significant remodels include equal and convenient access
to both trash and recycling containers. The town codes division could be required to check
all MF building plans to ensure that this requirement is met before granting permits. For
existing MFUs, it may be necessary for town staff to work with property managers to develop
plans and identify areas in which recycle carts may be conveniently located.
Once there is an opportunity for all MFU to recycle, other measures may be taken to increase
the level of diversion in the sector, including a pilot PAYT bag program.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 12
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-16
SECTION 1: BACKGROUND AND "GAP" ANALYSIS
1.1: Introduction
The town of Vail is located in Eagle County in the heart of Colorado's central mountains. In
addition to its reputation as a world class leader in skiing and recreation, the Town has recently
made it a goal to become one of the nation's leaders in environmental sustainability by the year
2020. The Town of Vail has signed an agreement to offset 100% of the energy they use by
purchasing wind energy credits, has been replacing their fleet with new hybrids, invested in
public transportation, and the Town has joined a climate action group among other steps toward
achieving the 2020 goal. As part of their overall sustainability strategy Vail has undertaken this
project to examine both traditional and innovative programs to increase recycling and diversion
for Town residents, specifically focusing on the feasibility of Pay-As-You-Throw.
Although Vail does not have an accurate baseline measurement for diversion, the County
diversion is somewhere in the low single digits25.This is below the state average of between
5.5%26 and 16.6%27 and well below some of the high performing Cities in the State such as
Loveland (52%), Fort Collins, (28%), Boulder (46%), and Lafayette (33%). The Town of Vail
contracted with Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA) to examine the waste
management and disposal system in Vail. The project was completed to understand the system,
barriers, and opportunities for PAYT in the single family, and if possible, multifamily situations.
SERA identified both the pros and cons of potentially-viable options relative to conditions,
involved actors / roles, costs / economics, and other factors existing in the Town and developed
a list of recommendations for the Town to increase recycling in a cost effective manner.
1.2: Existing System
Vail is in the minority of towns in Colorado in that they not only have curbside recycling available
to all single family and duplex residents, but that curbside recycling is a mandatory pay
program. All residents must pay for the curbside service regardless of weather or not they
recycle. The mandatory pay program is not the result of any Town ordinances but instead
evolved naturally through the hard work and desire to divert materials from the landfill by the two
haulers in Vail, Honey Wagon and Waste Management. The Town has several unique attributes
and potential barriers that make this project outstanding. These include; the high number of
multi-family residents, relatively expensive mandatory bear proof containers, seasonal and short
term visitors/residents, and a lack of ordinances regulating trash and recycling in the Town. The
figure below displays a brief gap analysis of the trash and recycling programs available to the
residents and businesses in the Town of Vail.
25 As reported by Ran Rasnic, Eagle Couniy Solid Waste Manager
zs BioCycle December 2008 Vol 49, No. 12 16th Nationwide Survey ofMSW Management in the US The State of Garbage in
America Ljupka Arsova, Rob van Haaren, Nora Goldstein, Scott M. Kaufman, Nickolas J. Themelis. The year before Simmons,
Goldstein, Kaufrnan, Themelis, Thompson, The State of Garbage in America, BioCycle, April 2006 report that Colorado has a
12.5% diversion rate.
27 Kray, Wolf, Colorado Deparfinent of Health and Environment
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 13
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-17
Table 1.1: Brief Ga Anal sis
Facilit or'Pro ram Presence Descri tion 7Barriers and'[ncentives ' Op artunities '
Large opportuniiy
exists for the Town
to increase
PAYT provides and economic diversion through
incentive to recycle, reduce the adoption of a
The Town has trash, and compost. Barriers PAYT program. A
unlimited trash include new, expensive bear bag PAYT program
disposal and resistant trash cans, seasonal may be especially
Pay-As- collection for visitors, and multi-family apt for the Town of
You-Throw ' Program No residential accounts. populations. Vail.
The haulers have taken the
Trash service is progressive step of requiring
open subscription. curbside recycling service and
Two private haulers are providing customers with a
operate in the Town value added service. Town
of Vail. Both haulers has no ordinances related to
require curbside garbage hauling and no Large opportunities
recycling service. permitting system. There is no exist to work with
Both haulers collect reporting of tonnages haulers to increase
using semi- collected and diverted. Trash diversion while
Waste ' automated may only be put out on retaining hauler
haulin' ' Pro ram Yes collection. Monda s from 7am-7 m. accounts.
There is a limited
There is a limited opportuniiy to
recycling drop-off develop the existing
located behind the drop-off further due
Town Municipal to size constraints.
Building. Materials However, additional
are hauled through There is no fee for using the signage may help
contract. There are 5 drop-off. The drop-off is reduce
other drop-offs unmanned with little signage contamination.
Recycling ' located throughout and contamination may be an Other drop-offs may
dro -offs ' Facility Yes the Coun . issue. be explored.
Barriers include lack of
Recycling is incentives to recycle, limited
collected every-other education, a purchase price
week, at the curb, in for recycling bins, and small Recycling can be
two streams (fibers bin size. There may also be an increased through
Singleand commingled issue with bears. OCC is not PAYT and many
Family' containers). The collected at the curb but is a other opportunities
Curbside program is required commodity with relatively high exist including
recycling ' Program Yes for all SF residents. value and generation. larger bins.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 14
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-18
Eacilit or'Pro ram Presence Descri tion Barriers and'Incentives ' FO artunities '
Potential barriers include
space, education and There is an
outreach for multi-family opportuniiy to
residents, a high number of increase access to
visitors, and a lack of recycling for multi-
incentives to recycle, and family units, an
Multi ' Some multi-family language barriers. Property ordinance to require
Family' units have recycling management companies and space for recycling,
Curbside programs, it is not HOAs may play a large role in and additional
recycling Program Yes required this sector. education.
Commercial
recycling programs
are an option
including shared
dumpsters,
combined routes,
allowing small
There is little incentive to businesses to be on
participate in the program, residential routes,
Optional curbside recycling may cost more for small in-vessel
Commerci ' recycling is available some customers than trash composter, etc.
al for commercial disposal. Space may also be These may be
Recycling Program Yes customers an issue for many generators. explored further.
There is a large
opportuniiy to
increase diversion
through
education/outreach,
especially if another
programmatic
change occurs,
education/outreach
Little to no official Lack of awareness of programs could be
Education/ ' outreach and programs and possibly high combined with other
outreach ' Program Yes education programs levels of contamination materials.
The Eagle County The Town could
landfill recently increase residential
added a HHW drop awareness of the
Hausehold ' for residents and The landfill is about 25 miles new program and
Hazardous ' small quantiiy from Vail and it is a new could consider a
Waste Facility Yes generators. program. special event.
Yard waste iypically
No faciliiy available. Yard makes up 12-18%
waste may be a smaller of the waste stream
There is the proportion of the residential and
arganics possibiliiy of an waste stream than the national diversion/compostin
material organics faciliiy average due to shorter g of the stream can
compostin ' being constructed in growing seasons and less greatly reduce the
facilit ' Facili No the Coun . ards. waste stream.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 15
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-19
Eacilit or'Pro ram Presence Descri tion Barriers and'Incentives ' FO artunities '
The LF is hard at
work increasing the
Eagle Couniy has a opportunities for
state of the art The Couniy plans to use diversion in the
landfill with HHW, incentives at the landfill to County in including
metal drop-off and require all haulers to offer the new MRF,
variable rates for recycling. If a hauler does not possible compost
material streams. offer recycling to customers area, waste
Eagle ' The Landfill has they will pay an extra 10%tip characterization
County decades left in its fee at the LF. Current tipping study, and possible
Landfill Facili Yes lifes an. fees are relativel low. material bans.
The MRF will presumably
have little need for incentives
to attract materials due to its
proximiiy to the mountain
communities. It will require The MRF will
The Eagle County that haulers continue to use decrease hauling
three stream MRF is manual collection due to the costs to recycling
planned to be open number of stream the MRF will collectors in the
MRF Facili Yes on OCT 31 2009 acce t. Town of Vail.
There is an
opportuniiy to work
with the County and
haulers to establish
an e-waste ban if
The Town of Vail alternatives for
hosts special e- There is little incentive to disposal are
E-waste ' Pro ram/Facili Yes waste events artici ate develo ed
There are differential rates for This is a waste
C&D at the landfill but no stream that may
Constructi ' C&D may potentially ordinances requiring recycling need to be
on and' make up 50%of the of the materials or special addressed in-depth
Demolition ' Pro ram/Facili No total waste stream. C&D facilities. in the future.
Yard waste iypically
No program available at this makes up 12-18%
time. Yard waste may be a of the waste stream
smaller proportion of the and
residential waste stream than diversion/compostin
Food/Yard ' the national average due to g of the stream can
Waste ? shorter growing seasons and greatly reduce the
Collection ' Program No NA less yards. waste stream.
There are multiple
opportunities for
ordinances and/or
material disposal
There is little to no regulation bans including
of trash and recycling hauling. PAYT, space for
Ordinanee ' The only ordinance is recycling, e-waste,
s/hans'' ' Pro ram/Facili No None re ardin the bear roof carts. leaves, etc.
The gap analysis shows that although the waste haulers in the Town of Vail offer recycling for
non-dumpster service customer accounts, there are still many opportunities to increase
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 16
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-20
diversion for the Town. The figure below highlights both the strengths and opportunities of the
current trash and recycling system in the Town of Vail.
Table 1.2: Strengths and Opportunities (gaps) of the Town of Vail
Stren ths IQ ortunities
• Curbside recycling offered for non-dumpster service • PAYT programs to create/increase diversion and
trash customers reduction incentives for SF residents and a possible
• Convenient recycling drop-off location at municipal PAYT bag program
building • There is the opportunity for a iwo tier program in the
• There are both HHW and electronic waste disposal MF sector: 1 St)increase access for recycling for multi-
options family residents and 2°d) work with these properties
• The Couniy is planning a new MRF and a possible to establish incentives to recycle
composting faciliiy • There is a large opportunity to increase
• Strong support for sustainabiliiy and recycling outreach/education programs
among residents and Town leaders • Commercial recycling programs-both increased
education for commercial customers to raise
diversion/source reduction and the possibiliiy to use
innovative commercial programs available in other
municipalities to address this sector.
• Additional signage at the drop-off area
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 17
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-21
SECTION 2: WEB SURVEY
2.1: Residential Survey Implications
The survey instrument was designed by SERA staff with input from the Town of Vail and Eagle
County Landfill staff. The Survey was administered through an on-line format and was
advertised by TOV staff through announcements, postcards, and e-mail lists.
The survey was open to all Vail residents and was not limited to a randomly selected population
sample28. Overall, nearly 4% of the 4,800 TOV residents responded to the survey. The survey
gave respondents the option to report as either a resident or a business. There were 185 total
responses with 164 residential responses and 21 business responses.
SERA was able to develop the following results and implications through an analysis of the
Town of Vail Trash and recycling Survey:
Trash Service
• Programs should be designed to address both individual trash service customers and
dumpster service customers- There is a mix between individual can service and
dumpster service for Vail residents. Most residents reported that they have individual
can service (45%) and that they contract with Honeywagon for their trash service.
However, a large portion of the respondents, between 30 and 40%, reported that they
had dumpster service. It is important that both sectors are addressed to increase
diversion in the Vail valley.
• Residents are oversubscribed to trash service- For respondents with individual trash
service, nearly three-quarters (73%) reported that they filled their cans only 75% full or
less on average. Over 40% reported that they filled their trash cans less than half full on
average. When asked what they currently generate, nearly 60% of residents reported
that they generated one or less bags of trash per week. Less than one-fifth of residents
reported that they generated over 3 bags of trash per week. A pay-as-you-throw
program would help address these oversubscriptions and allow residents to only pay for
the services they require.
Recycling Service
• Residents are not recycling at the curb as expected- Although it was reported that all
residents on individual trash service in Vail must pay for and receive curbside
recycling29, only 42% of respondents with individual trash service in Vail reported that
they were receiving curbside recycling. Additionally, over 40% of the respondents
reported they were unaware of any curbside recycling program. More research may be
28 The survey is an opinion survey and the findings are not statistically valid due to the survey administration method. The survey
results due however provide a viable representation of the opinions of the TOV residents. The findings are similar to the
feedback that would be seen at a public outreach/town hall meeting. This iype of survey administration is prone to collect data
from residents with strong opinions either for or against the survey subject.
29 Reported by TOV staff during project kick-off ineeting.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 18
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-22
needed to uncover why residents are not aware of or participating in the curbside
recycling program.
• TOV should continue its successful drop-off site, with possible improvements in the
future-The TOV recycling center is a popular option with nearly 90% of respondents
reporting that they visit the drop-off. Half of the respondents use the drop-off at least
every other week. Some possible improvements that could be made to address
comments about the site include additional signage, added efforts to keep the site tidy,
and steps to make it easier to drop materials off.
• Additional or larger bins/carts may increase diversion- Of the respondents receiving
curbside service, nearly 80% reported that their bins are full or overflowing on average.
Previous studies have found that once the recycling bins are full, residents tend to throw
their recyclables in the trash rather than bringing them to a drop-off or saving them for
the next collection. More bins, larger carts, or more frequent collection are all possible
solutions to this issue.
Materials
• Residents are doing a good job recycling containers but some materials need more
education/outreach- Nearly 90% of respondents reported that they recycle the following
materials: glass, plastic, aluminum. Materials that could be addresses more in the future
include: electronics (only 16% recycle) yard waste/green waste (only 10%
compost/recycle), and HHWs (less than 10% recycle).
• Compost/green waste might be a program for the TOV to look a in the future- Of the
materials remaining in the trash, food was reported to be number one followed by paper
towels/tissues, both of which are compostable streams. Green waste/food waste
nationally makes up around 12-18% of the total waste stream and may be a good
stream to focus on in the future. Home composting programs (bin sales, workshops,
outreach, etc) may also be helpful in reducing this stream.
• Glass is an important item to keep in the recycle stream- Nearly half of the respondents
reported that it is extremely important that they are able to recycle glass at the curb and
over three-quarters reported that they would be willing to sort glass into a separate bin if
needed.
Programs
• Additional outreach/education regarding existing diversion programs could be needed-
Residents reported that they were unaware of many of the programs in Vail. Most
importantly, nearly half of all residents reported that they were unaware of the curbside
recycling option. The following programs were those that over a third of respondents
were unaware of:
o Electronics waste collection/program (45% unaware)
o Curbside recycling service (42% unaware)
o Bulky item collection (41 % unaware)
o HHW programs (33% unaware)
o Recycling education programs (33% unaware)
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 19
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-23
In addition to being unaware of programs available, many of the respondents reported
that they were not sure about recycling in general. Over one-third of the residents
reported that they were "not sure" that collected materials were really recycled.
Education/outreach programs could help raise awareness of existing programs while
assuring residents about the importance and usefulness of collecting recyclables.
• Residents are generally satisfied with their trash services and dissatisfied with recycling
options- Nearly half of the respondents reported that they were very satisfied with their
trash service while only 9% were very satisfied with curbside recycling. Only 11 % of
respondents were very satisfied with their overall recycling options. Additional recycling
programs could help improve residential satisfaction.
• Residents would like to see more recycling in Vail- Two-thirds or more of the
respondents strongly agreed with such statements as "I would like to see more recycling
for households" and "I would like to see more recycling for businesses". Conversely, less
than one fifth of respondents strongly agreed with the statement "The current trash
service in Vail fits all of my service needs".
• The programs with the highest level of support were-
o More recycling in TOV public areas
o More recycling for TOV businesses
o Additional education/outreach about recycling
o Adding more materials to the current recycle stream
Pay-As-You-Throw
• There is support for pay-as-you-throw among Vail residents-Although it was not the
program with the highest level of support, nearly 60% of respondents either somewhat or
strongly supported pay-as-you-throw as an option.
• Many residents may see little change to a decrease in their trash bills under a pay-as-
you-throw program- The majority of residents responding reported that they would be on
the minimum service level if a PAYT program was implemented. Combined, 2/3 of the
respondents reported that they would generate one 32-gallon bag of trash or less per
week with a variable rate program. Generally, if residents are on the low levels of PAYT
trash service they do not see an increase in their trash bills when compared to unlimited
collection and in many municipalities, the residents on the lowest service level see
reductions in their trash bill.
Willingness-to-pay
• Overall, the respondents reported that they would be willing to pay for additional
services- Only 8% strongly agreed with the statement "I am interested in the lowest cost
basic trash service" and half of the respondents either somewhat or strongly agreed with
the statement "I would be willing to pay more to get more recycling services."
• The average willingness to pay is between $4.00 and $700 additional per month- There
was a portion of respondents who reported that they would be unwilling to pay any
additional trash/recycling costs per month. However, on average, the respondents
reported they would pay up to $7.32 a month. Over half of the respondent reported they
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 20
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-24
would be likely or very likelyto sign-up for additional services if they cost $4.00 more a
month.
2.2: Residential Survey Findings
The following figures present the findings of the residential survey.
Introduction
Q1: Where do you live?
0
7..,- 0 0
Tc~wn af Vail ' 114 '
Ea le 9
Avon .10
Edwards 14.7% 25
Basalt 0.0% 0
Minturn 0.6% 1
Red Cliff 1.2% 2
G sum 5.3% 9
Other lease specify) 13
ss-g e
Q2: Which of the following types best describes your home?
' 9 0
Sin Ie famil or du lex 52.3°la 79 'Townhouse/condominium 43.0% 65
A artment with more than 5 units 4.6% 7
Mobile home 0.0% 0
Q3: Are you a..
B 8 8 9
' 6 B
Year round resident 92.2°10 118 '
Seasonal resident 7.8% 10
Q4: If you are a residenf of Vail, how many weeks a year do you typically
spend in Vail?
~ 9 8
52 weeks- I live here ffull time 89.9% 107 '
26 weeks- I s end about half m time in Vail 0.8% 1
13-24 weeks- I s end around 4 to 6 months a ear 5.0% 6
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 21
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-25
in Vail
8-12 weeks- I spend about two to three months a 2.5% 3
ear in Vail
Onl 3 or 4 weeks a ear 0.8% 1
Fewer than 3 weeks a ear 0.8% 1
Q5; Do you rent or own?
' 6 B
Rent 19.9% 30
(}wn ' 80.1% 121 '
Trash and Recycling Services
Q6: How is your trash collected in Vail?
' 6 B
In a shared dum ster 39.0% 57
In individual cans/carts 45.2% 66 '
Dro it off 4.1% 6
Take it with me when I leave Vail 0.0% 0
Not sure 0.0% 0
I don't live in Vail 13.0% 19
Q7: Who provides your trash service?
B B
u8 0
Waste Mana ement 25.9% 36
Hc~neywagan ' 58.3% ' ' 81 '
Don't know 16.5% 23
Q8: On average, about how many large 32-gallon trash bags(like the black
GLAD trash bags) does your household generate PER WEEK?
u8 0
Less than 1 26.3% 40
1 ba 32.9% 50 '
2 ba s 23.0% 35
3 ba s 11.2% 17
4 ba s 3.3% 5
5 bags 2.6% 4
More than 5 ba s 2.0% 3
Q9: Does your household recycle in any of these ways?
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 22
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-26
B B
No Yes : a
Re ular collection service b trash/rec clin hauler 55.8°!0 44,2% 113
Rec clin dro -off center 1(}'.2% ' 89.8°l0' 137
Do not re cle 79.5% ' 20.5°l0' ' 44
Q10: If you use the Town of Vaif drop-off recycling, how often do you bring
materials there?
' 8 0
Once a week 23.9% 32
Eve other week 26.1°fo 35 '
Once a month 23.1% 31
A few times a ear 9.7% 13
Once a ear 1.5% 2
Never 16.4% 22
Q11: On average, about how full is your trash can each week?
0 0 B 9
` 9 8
None- I don't have trash service 3.4% 5
I have' dum ster service, not'trash cans 36.6°l0 ' 53
Less than 25% full 7.6% 11
26% to 50% full 17.2% 25
51% to 75% full 20.0% 29
76% to 100% full 15.2% 22
Overflowin 1.4% 2
QiZ: On average, about how full are your recycling bins every
other week?
T 0 0
e
None- I don't rec cle 9
Em - I use dro -off re clin onl ' 61 '
Less than half 3.1% 4
More than half 6.9% 9
Full 23.1% 30
Overflowin 13.1% 17
Q13: Which of the following materials do you recycle fairly regularly?
(Select all that apply)
T4.9 Gldss bottles 127 RlaStiG bottles130 Aluminum cans 124 '
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 23
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-27
Tin/steel cans 66.4% 97
News a er 80.1% 117
Cardboard 76.7% 112
Cereal boxes 44.5% 65
Other a er 52.7% 77
Yard/ reen waste 9.6% 14
Household hazardous waste 6.8% 10
Electronics 15.8% 23
None, don't re cle 6.2% 9
Q14: Which materials still remain in your trash after any
rec clin efforts that ou do check alf that a I?
Glass bottles Plastic bottles Plastic tubs (yogurt, margarine, 36.4% 51
71!!l
sour cream
Plastic clamshell containers 44.3% 62
ve ies, some take out food
Restaurant to- o containers 51.4% 72
Aluminum cans 5.0% 7
Tin/steel cans 13.6% 19
Milk cartons 44.3% 62
Cardboard 12.9% 18
Cerealboxes 47.9% 67
Yard/ reen waste 27.1% 38
Pet waste/kitty litter 30.0% 42
Wood waste 12.1% 17
Pizza boxes 25.0% 35
Remodelin materials 13.6% 19
To s, etc. 15.0% 21
Electronics 14.3% 20
News a er 7.1% 10
Other a er 26.4% 37
Faod waste ' 77.1°l0 108
Clothing / fabric 34.3% 48
Paint cans 8.6% 12
Diapers 9.3% 13
Plastic ba s/ other acka in 37.1% 52
Pa er tawelsJtissues ' 71'_4°fo '100
S rUfoam 60'.(}°lo ' 84
Rubber/leather 27.1% 38
Bulk items 17.9% 25
Scra metal a liances 10.7% 15
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 24
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-28
Green waste and targeted streams
Q15: Which of the following do you have at your house?
~ 9 8
Lawn Zfl.i°fo 101 '
Mature trees 68.8% 99
Garden flowers or edibles 59.0% 85
Shrubs 59.7% 86
Xerisca in 11.8% 17
No lawn or ard 18.8% 27
Q16: Does your household generate any green waste? If so, what do you do with it?
Property Gornpo ; e a
Don't Landscaper rnanagerlHOA'Put'in st on '
have an Leave on lawn collects handles it arba e site l7ther ' a
Grdss 29.1°a 22.0% 17.0% 16.3% 4.3% 7.1% 4.3% 141
Tree
trimmings 24.6% 0.7% 16.7% 18.8% 23.9% 8.0% 7.2% 138
/ runin s
Plant
wdste/pru 21J% 0.0% 11.6% 13.2% 32,6% ' 14J% 6.2% 129
nin s
Q17; What do you do with most of your food waste?
B B
0
Put in arba e dis osal ' 69 '
PUt in tCash 69
Home com ost bin 6
Feed to the do / et 0.0% 0
Q18; How important is it to you that you are able to recycle glass bottles
at #he curb?
' 9 0
Extremel im ortant ' 47.1% 64 '
Somewhat im ortant 20.6% 28
Neutral 17.6% 24
Not ve im ortant 8.8% 12
Not im ortant at all 6.6% 9
I don't re cle 0.7% 1
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 25
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-29
Q19; Would you be willing to sort glass into a separate bag/bin if
it might decrease contamination at the re+cycling facility and
im rove the value of the other rec clable materials?
' 8 B
Yes definitel 75.9% 107
Most likel 14.9% 21
Not sure 6.4% 9
No, it is alread too much work to rec cle 2.1% 3
I don't re cle 1.4% 2
Q20; How effective do you feel the b40 s have been in
reducing wildlife encounter in your n?
Ve effectiue 64
Somewhat effective 39
No chan e .20
The have not hel ed at all 2.4% 3
It is worse now than it was before 0.8% 1
Satisfaction and Preferences
Q21c How satisfied are you with the following?
m cn ' o a C
-e M a n a v► a
_r 3 co 3
rt ~ ~
0 ~ i~D 0 iD
g. rt a rt o'
Current curbside aI'ba e service 48.9°Jo ' 22.2% 14.1% 2.2% 0.0% 12.6% 135
Current curbside rec clin service 8.9% 16.1% 16.1% 7.3% 9.7% '41.9°l0124
R2C Gllll C? ti4t7S In Vdil 11.1% 33.3% 22.2% 17.0% 11.1% 5.2% 135
GaI'bage I'ateS f valUe Of service ' 13.8% 13.8% 40.8°/a ' 11.5% 5.4% 14.6% 130
Responsiueness 4f garbage service to ' 18.9% 19J% 35.6°la 7.6% 2.3% 15.9% 132
issues/ roblem
vail re clin dr0 -Off ' 15.2% 37.9°la ' 20.5% 15.2% 5.3% 6.1% 132
Hazardous materials 'ro ram / service ' 6.8% 13.5% 26.3% 15.0% 5.3% '33.1°fo133
ReC CIIII edUCdtl011 'I'O I'dms ' 2.3% 10J% 27.5% 16.8% 9.2% '33.6°l0131
BUlky Item eOlleCtlan 3.8% 6.8% 30.8% 12.0% 5.3% '41.4%133
S rirl Clean-u ' 15.4% 20.0% 26.2% 4.6% 3.8% ' 30.0°fo 130
EleCtrOniGS wdste COIIeCti0r1 6.0% 12.0% 18.8% 9.8% 8.3% 45.1°l0133
Chl'istmas t1'ee COIIeCtiOn 42.0% 17.6% 20.6% 2.3% 1.5% 16.0% 131
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 26
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-30
Q22; What do you see as primary barriers to doing more recycling? (check
all that apply)
...aa B 8 w 8 9
~ 9 8
Don't know of any drop-off sites 2.2% 3
Too hard to take materials to dro -off 21.6% 29
Not enou h materials acce ted 32.1% 43
Don't know what can / can't be re cled 23.9% 32
I alread re cfe a fot - no barriers 42.5% 57 'Bus / not interested 2.2% 3
Ex ensive to si n u for service 9.7% 13
What I do doesn't make a difference 1.5% 2
Not sure it reall ets rec cled an wa 35.1% 47
Recycling is too expensive. It is more cost effective 2.2% 3
to landfill eve thin .
Q23: How would you respond to the following statements?
o o cn
~ R
; ~a~
-1ro , , o~ ,'g0,
a
rt rt
The current trash service in Vail fits all my , 18.5% 29.2% 33.8°fo 15.4% 3.1% 130
service needs'
I would like to see more rec clin for h0usehvld5 68.6°l0 ' 17.5% 12.4% OJ% OJ% 137
I would like to see more recycling in public areas 65.4% 16.9% 15.4% OJ% 1.5% 136
/ arks
I wcauld like ta see more rec clin for busifleSSes 73.9°!a 13.4% 12J% 0.0% 0.0% 134
I arn interested in only low cost basic trash 8.0% 12.0% 33.6% 20.0% 26.4% 125
service
i w0uld be willing to pay more to get added 19.3% 31.9% 20J% 11.9% 16.3% 135
re clin serviees
Q24s Qo you agree or disagree with the following statements?
cn o ~ a~ acn
°'3 m 3 o
aa
~
rp
*C o~i °1 t~da ~ ~ yC
rt rt:
It is im ortant far the town of Uail tc~ be " reerl" 69.5°a 22J% 7.1% 0.0% OJ% 141
The eOSt fal' trash bags 01' tl'ash SeIVICe ShOUId be ' 44.5% 26.3% 18.2% 5.8% 5.8% 137
r'tced to couer rec clin too
Cost for trash service must be as low as ossible 34.3°l0 24.6% 26.9% 9.7% 4.5% 134
R2CyCl111g IS dn ed5y 1Ndy fOC Ud'II I'eS'td811t5 t0 "d0 68,1°lo 21.7% 8.0% OJ% 1.4% 138
good"'for the enviranment '1/d'll ShOUId I'BcyCl2 ORIy $172 07dt21Id15 WPth SCCOIIg 2.9% 11J% 24.8% 29.9% 30.7°lo 137
market demand and hi h commodi ' rices '
Uail should reGycle as muCh as we Can regardless of 46.8% 30.9% 14.4% 2.9% 6.5% 139
market prices
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 27
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-31
Q25; Which of the following program and operational changes for the Town'strash management
would ou su ort?
U! ~ Gl O Z 0 C p rt O
~ - 3 iD -0
0 M . c . a
O = d ~ rt 0 ~v 0 3 m
rt~ rt ~ ~ ~y ~ I q O N
e* i rt
Ray-As-You Throw rates for trash (the 37,5°fo 18.0% 22J% 9.4% 10.9% 1.6% 128
less ou throw awa 'the less ou a
Additl011d1 I`e yCllll dl'0 -OfF aCeds 54,2°la ; 20.6% 19.8% 3.1% 2.3% 0.0% 131
EX andlCl eX'tSti11 I'2 CIIII dl'0 -OffS 62,2°l0 : 18.1% 15J% 1.6% 1.6% 0.8% 127
Zero waste events in and around town 51.2% 13.6% 20.8% 2.4% 4.0% 8.0% 125
Additional outreachJeducation about 643°l0 ' 17.8% 14J% 2.3% 0.0% 0.8% 129
re clkn
Adding more materials to curbside 62.0% ; 22.5% 9.3% 2.3% 1.6% 2.3% 129
re cli;n ro ram
A CurbSid2 ardwaste/com USt r0 rdtri 52.7°10 19.4% 21J% 3.1% 0.8% 2.3% 129
More recycling in Town of Uail public 70.5ofa ; 15.5% 8.5% 2.3% 2.3% 0.8% 129
areas
More recycling at Town of Vail 72.4% ' 14.2% 11.0% 0.8% 0.0% 1.6% 127
businesses
Curbside cardboard re Clln 5 9.8°l0 ; 16.50/o 16.5% 3.1% 2.4% 1.6% 127
Pay-As-You-Throw and Willingness to Pay
Q26: If the Town decided to offer Pay-As-You-Throw or
variable rates fortrash (where rates are based onthe number
of trash bags you dispose of each week) with no additional
wst #or curbside recycling collection, how many LARGE 32-
GALLON (Like the large black GLAD trash bags) bags of trash
mi ht ou dis ose of er week?
Less than 1 ba 42 '
F3 P-%/.42
1 ba '
2 ba s 25.2% 3
2
3 ba s 8.7% 11
4 ba s 2.4% 3
5 ba s 0.0% 0
More than 5 ba s 1.6% 2
Q27c If the town instituted a per-bag cost for household trash collection (with no charge for
rec clin , how would the followin rices for ba s affect our dis osal behavior?
We should be ;
I aaould able tQ throau ;
It 1 wrauld think deflnitely try to 'I would work 'away as mueh
would about throwing save [r~oney ' hard to'reeycle ' trash as we have away arrd throw mnre and cut want for na na Iesslrecycling away less trash dawn a LOT af Not additional
effect more ba s trash ba s sure costs IN
$2 2r 31!7% 15.1% 11.9% 19.8% 7.10/o 15.10/o 126
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 28
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-32
bag
$3 per ' 19.5% 13.6% 18.6% 24.6°l0 6.8% 17.8% 118
ba
$4 per ' 17.6% 9.2% 18.5% 31.1% 8.4% 19.3% 119
bd
Q28; If the Town chose to implement some of the
above programs but it cost a little more, how much
would you be willing to pay, per month, for the
ex anded service s ?
Avera e Median Minimum Maximum30 $35.00
7$0700
Q29; How likely would you be to use the expanded services under the following conditions?
If your costs went up......
More
likety I Not Won'C Don`t need
Uery Ukel~r than not ICkel~r use servic~e likely (75- (51- (10- (0- regardless Dc~n't 94°0 75°0 50°l0 14°lo t~f ri+ce know in
'
$1frT14rlth '70.9°la' 3.1% 3.9% 2.4% 2.4% 4.7% 13.4% 127
2Jm0r1th 58.3°l0 17.3% 0.8% 3.9% 3.1% 5.5% 12.6% 127
$4/DlOllth 39.4°10 14.2% 12.6% 7.9% 7.1% 5.5% 13.4% 127
$6Jmonth '29.0°la17J% 11.3% 14.5% 9.7% 5.6% 12.1% 124
Demographics and Contact
Q30c Whaf is the best way to keep you informed about the
trash and recycling services in Yail/Eagle County? (Check all
that aPPlY)
` 9 B
Town Website (www.vailgov.com) 47.4°l0 64
Town Newsletter 40.7% 55
Posting places throughout the City 20.7% 28
Mailin s 32.6% 44
Local lV station 22.2% 30
News a er 60.7% 82
Radio 30.4% 41
Public meetin s 20.0% 27
30 One outlier, $75.00 per month, was dropped in the calculations.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 29
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-33
Q31; How long have you/your family fived in.....
Average 14 16 years, 4 months
Median 12 ' 13 '
Maximum 47 ' 60 '
Minimum 4 months ' 4 months
Q32;HoHrold isthe headof your household?B
' 8 0
Under 25 1.5% 2
25-34'' 20.1°fo 27
35-44 17.9% 24
45-54 19.4% 26
55-59 11.9% 16
60-64 16.4% 22
65-79 11.9% 16
80 and above 0.0% 0
Don't know/refused 0.7% 1
Q33; Including yourself, how many people normally live in your household
(exclude any children away at college or in military; include all members
of your household whether they are related to you or not)
Number
More ; ~ a a
0 1 Z 3 4 than 4: 18 Or Ulder 5.3% 21.4% 58.8°l0 8.4% 3.8% 2.3% 131
A e 6-17 66.2°la 14J% 16.2% 2.9% 0.0% 0.0% 68
5 or under $Q.Q%o 16J% 1.7% 1.7% 0.0% 0.0% 60
Q34c What is the highest level of education for your head of
household?
B B B B
` 8 B
Some hi h school 0.0% 0
Hi h school raduate 3.0% 4
Some colle e 11.9% 16
Com leted 2 ear de ree 5.2% 7
Com leted 4 ear de ree 26.7% 36
Some raduate/advanced de ree work 15.6% 21
Completed graduate/advanced degree 37,8% 51
work '
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 30
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-34
Q35; What is the primary language spoken in
your home?
-a a
En I ish 99.310 134 '
S anish OJ% 1
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 31
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-35
SECTION 3: SET OUT SURVEY
To determine the residential trash and recycling behaviors of Vail resident's Town of Vail staff
with direction from SERA researchers conducted a set-out survey. Vail staff were able to survey
10131 households (HH) over two days of collection, or approximately 4.6% of the occupied
housing units in Vail32. Data collected included:
• Number of trash carts set-out
• Size of trash carts
• Percent full for trash carts
' Materials in the trash including recycling, yard waste, and C&D
• Recycling set-outs
• Number of recycling containers
• Percent full for recycling containers
• And other observational data
3.1: Trash and Recycling Set-Outs
Trash Set-Outs
The vast majority of households (71%) set-out only one trash container. Just over one-fifth of
HHs set out two trash containers while 7% had more than two containers at the curb. The data
suggests that residents were oversubscribing to their trash carts. On average, the trash carts
were 72% full. Although it is currently possible for residents to reduce their service level, less
than 2% of residents had a smaller than 96-gallons of service. There is no incentive for
residents to reduce their service levels at this time.
Materials in the Trash
Only 12% of the surveyed HHs did not have any recycling in their trash33, the vast majority, 88%
had recyclables readily observable in their trash carts. Additionally, slightly over one-fifth of all
HHs (22%) had significant amounts of yard waste in their trash. About 17% of surveyed HHs
had significant amounts of C&D materials in their trash. Figure 3.1 displays the distribution of
HHs with various divertible materials present in their trash carts.
31 These were randomly selected households receiving individual trash service, not dumpster service. The data sample size
allows us to predict results with a 90%+/- 8% level of confidence.
32 US Census data reports that there are 2,165 occupied housing units in Vail.
33 This was a subjective measurement. However, a few bottles or cans in the trash did not qualify as having recycling in the
trash. Only HHs with significant amounts of recyclable items in their trash carts that were easily visible were considered as
having recyclables in the trash. Researchers did not sort the trash, they only opened the lid of the cart and looked what was
inside. The same method was used to evaluate yard waste in the trash and C&D materials in the trash.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 32
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-36
Figure 3.1: Materials in the Trash
90%
80%
70%
u, 60%
= 50%
~
0 40%
0
° 30%
20%
10%
0%
Recyclables Yardwaste C&D
Material
Recycling Set-Outs
Only 36% of the surveyed households had recycling set-out at the curb. Over 60% of the
surveyed households were not recycling at the curb. Compared to other Colorado communities
with diversion goals and more aggressive programs, this is a relatively low participation rate.
The participating HHS are filling their recycling containers to full or in some cases overflowing.
On average, the fiber stream containers were 79% full and the commingled container bins were
91%full.
Figure 3.2: Recycling Set-Outs
, 36%
❑ Recycling Out
n No Recycling Out
64%
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 33
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-37
3.2: Diversion Rate
The set-out survey recorded the volume of materials but did not record the weight. In order to
determine a residential diversion rate, US EPA, Solid Waste Association of North America
(SWANA), and Waste Age published weight and volumes were used. Using the national
averages for the weight per cubic yard of un-compacted residential MSW , un-compacted
recyclables, and local waste and recycling characterizations, SERA researchers were able to
estimate trash and recycling weights as well as a residential diversion rate for the surveyed
households.
The average computed weight for surveyed residential trash was 100 Ibs/HH, the average
computed weight for the fiber recycling was 9 Ibs/HH, the average computed weight for the
commingled recyclables was 7 Ibs/HH, and the average combined weight for recycling was 10
Ibs/HH. The average computed diversion rate for all surveyed households was only 9%. Table
3.1 shows the computed weights and diversion rates for the surveyed households.
Table 3.1: Com uted Wei hts and Diversion Rates
MaterialCalculated Avera e Wei ht er HH
Trash 1001bs
Fiber rec clin 9 Ibs
Container recycling 7 Ibs
Combined rec clin 10 Ibs
Total generation 1101bs
' Calcula€ed Diversion Rate 9°l0 '
3.3: Implications
Trash
• There is a large amount of recyclables that are being disposed of in Vail residential
trash. Nearly 90% of the HHs surveyed had a significant amount of recyclables in their
trash. A PAYT program combined with larger bins/more convenient service has the
potential to get the recyclables out of the MSW stream. Additional education about the
existing curbside program, larger recycle bins, and more outreach about the existing Vail
drop-off may also help to remove these materials from the waste stream.
• Vail residents are somewhat oversubscribing for trash service. On average, the trash
carts of surveyed HHs were 72% full. It is possible that many of these households could
use a smaller 64 gallon trash cart, or in the proposed PAYT bag program, would be able
to realize economic savings in their trash bills and have economic incentives to remove
more materials from the trash stream.
• Compost/green waste could be a stream for Vail to address in the future. Just over one-
fifth of the surveyed HHs had a significant amount of yard waste in their trash carts. A
yard waste drop-off program, at home composting programs, or education may help
remove much of this material from the residential waste stream.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 34
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-38
Recycling
• The overall diversion rate and participation rate are very low. The Colorado CDPHE
estimates that the overall statewide diversion rate is close to 17%, much higher than the
estimated Vail rate of only 9%. The US EPA reports that in 2007 the overall recovery
rate in the US was 33.4%34, significantly higher than the estimated Vail residential
recovery rate. Communities with PAYT rate for trash and embedded recycling may often
see participation rates in the upper 80s to low 90%s35, around 2.5x higher than the
current observed participation rate of 36% in Vail. There is a large potential for the TOV
to increase its residential recycling rate and participation. A PAYT program can provide
the needed incentive for residents to both participate in a curbside program as well as
remove more recyclable from the MSW stream. Additional education, outreach, and
awareness of currently available programs may also help to increase participation and
diversion.
• Larger recycling containers (or more containers) may be needed. Many of the recycling
bins that were set out were 100% full to overflowing. On average the fiber stream bins
were 79% full while the container bins were 91% full. Larger recycling carts or more bins
will increase the amount of recyclables being collected as well as assist in removing
additional recyclables from the MSW stream.
34 US EPA Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 2007 Facts and Figures. US EPA Office of Solid Waste, EPA530-R-08-
010, November 2008
31 35 Skumatz and Freeman, Pay-As-You-Throw in the US: Update and Analysis, December 2006. Conducted for US EPA
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 35
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-39
SECTION 4: PAYT PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
After a review of the current solid waste management system in the Town of Vail, the input of
stakeholders and residents, and an extensive review of SERA in-house data the following
collection program has been developed. A number of important factors have led to the
development of the proposed "bag in a can" version of Pay-As-You-Throw including:
• Multiple haulers operating in the town
• Recycling rates/participation are relatively low (only 42% of SF survey respondents
reported receiving recycling collection)
• Residents are required to own a bear-resistant container
• Town ordinance requires that all trash be placed in a bear-resistant container
• Trash haulers use semi-automated collection due to the bear-resistant containers
• There is a large population of part-time residents in Vail
Combined, the above factors have led to the design of the bag in a can PAYT system. This
system, in use in a limited number of communities in the US, is basically a hybrid bag system
including pre-purchased trash bags with a base fee. A hybrid bag program, where residents pay
a base fee for service and then are required to place all trash in pre-paid, official bags, is a
common PAYT program, especially in the north east portion of the US. The proposed program
for Vail includes the base fee and pre-paid bag elements of these programs and combines them
with the bear-resistant semi-automated collection program already in use in Vail. The bag in a
can program requires that the pre-paid bags be placed in the bear-resistant containers as
required by the existing ordinances. It relies on the fact that collection is semi-automated and
the trash haulers must get out of their trucks and open the cans, thus allowing for cursory visual
inspection. Details of the program are described below.
4.1: Program Details
Carts:
The current bear-resistant carts would continue to be used under the proposed system. The
high cost of the carts poses a significant barrier to a variable cart size program. Colorado Front
Range communities including Louisville, Lafayette, Boulder, and Loveland use variable sized
cabs for their PAYT program, however the high cost of the bear-resistant carts (about $130-
$150 per cart) make this an unattractive option for Vail. The bag in a can program uses the
existing bear-resistant carts to overcome the initial cost barrier.
Bags:
Under the new program, all residents in 4 or under units will be required to place all trash in a
brightly colored, pre-purchased bag. Each hauler will have a different bag (for example- bright
yellow for Honeywagon and bright green for Waste Management). The bags must be available
at multiple outlets throughout the Town of Vail including town hall, convenience stores, grocery
stores, mini-marts.
Adoption:
The Town of Vail has two options for the adoption of the proposed PAYT, an ordinance or
contracting for service. An ordinance is the recommended option. Details regarding ordinances
and contracts can be seen in section 4.3.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 36
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-40
Billing:
The haulers set the bag fees. The haulers may charge a base rate to all of their customers to
help cover the fixed costs of getting the truck to the door. The Town will establish the fee
structure in the ordinance to ensure that the cost of an additional bag of trash is not trivial36. A
significant financial incentive is integral in a successful PAYT program. The ordinance will not
set the rates, this rate setting is at the discretion of the haulers.
In addition to establishing rate structures, the ordinance will require that residential curbside
recycling is embedded in the trash fee. The haulers will be able to set their base rates and per
bag fees to cover these costs as long as the rates follow the established rate structure.
Distribution of Bags:
Two possibilities are proposed for the distribution of the bags to the customers:
1) Base number of bags: Under this program the customer base fee includes X number of
bags per year. When the customer contracts for service they are provided with a
baseline number of bags that will cover minimal trash collection. In addition to this
baseline, customers will be able to purchase bags from a number of outlets throughout
the Town.
2) Purchased bags only: No bags will be included with the baseline service fee. All bags
must be purchased by customers from outlets located throughout the town.
Bag programs around the country use a variety of techniques to sell their PAYT bags including:
the hauler could sell the bags directly, the bags can be sold by convenience stores, groceries
etc. and the stores must buy the bags from the haulers, or the bags can be sold at town hall
type outlets. Convenience of purchase is paramount.
Collection:
There will be little change to trash collection. Haulers will not be required to change days,
routes, or containers. They will be responsible for notifying the Town of Vail of residential bag
violations. Haulers will continue to utilize the semi-automated collection strategy and will use
visual inspections to ensure that customers are not disposing of loose trash or trash in un-
marked bags.
Enforcement:
The role of enforcement will fall on both the haulers and the Town. The haulers are the front
lines in the enforcement battle. Haulers will visually inspect the trash as it is being dumped in
the hopper. We propose using an enforcement system based on the Middletown, RI case study.
Under this system, if a customer is observed disposing of loose or non-officially bagged trash
the address is recorded. At the end of each collection day, the violators are reported to the
Town of Vail. This method does not require the collector to remove any bags from the hopper
and place them bag into the residential cart.
The Town of Vail is responsible for contacting the offending households and informing them of
their violation, either through mail or phone. If, on the following week the same household is
determined to be in violation, their trash is not collected and the hauler places a notice of
violation on their trash can. After 3 NOVs (as established in the ordinance) the household may
be subjected to a fine. Under this program the hauler is responsible for being the "eyes" of the
36 This assumes that the Town of Vail chooses to use an ordinance, not contracting, to adopt the program. If the Town decides to
contract for service the rate structure, base fees, bag costs, etc. can be written into the contract agreement.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 37
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-41
enforcement while the Town is responsible for issuing NOVs and contacting the offending
households.
Recycling:
The costs of recycling will be embedded (not line itemed) in the residential trash fees. Haulers
must offer residential recycling. It may be necessary to examine the possibility of requiring more
bins, larger carts or more frequent collection to ensure that residents have the ability to reduce
trash disposal and increase recycling.
4.2: Potential barriers:
The following are the potential barriers that the new program will be specifically designed to
overcome. Some of the barriers are typical to all PAYT programs while others are unique to
Vail. In general, the PAYT barriers are more often perceived than actual. Pre and post studies
by SERA have shown that the majority of perceived issues related to PAYT do not come to
fruition once the program is implemented.
Rate setting:
In order for the program to be successful it is integral that the haulers are able to maintain their
current accounts, have the potential to increase customer accounts, and be able to continue to
create revenue of at least current levels. Allowing for a base fee to help cover the fixed costs
and ensuring that bag prices are properly set is very important. SERA has decades of
experience completing rate studies for communities throughout the country and can help the
Town of Vail establish rate structures that will meet the requirements.
Inconvenience of Bags:
Other hybrid bag programs have reported that a key to success is making bag purchases
convenient. This program will overcome the potential inconvenience barrier by having multiple
outlets for pre-paid bags throughout town.
Lack of recycling bins:
For PAYT to be successful resident must be able to reduce their trash disposal and increase
their recycling. Currently, Vail residents have open topped 18 gallon bins for recycling. It may be
necessary to increase the number of bins each resident has, allow residents to use their own
containers, the Town may consider distributing additional bins to residents (potentially high cost)
or working with the haulers to add larger containers for recycling.
Bulky items and illegal dumping:
Bulky items will not be able to fit into the pre-paid bags. To discourage illegal dumping and allow
for the disposal of bulky items at the curb a number of options are available:
1) Include X number of bulky item tags in the customer base rate. Haulers distribute the
bulky item tags to their customers and the tags must be placed on their items to allow for
curbside collection.
2) Pre-paid bulky item tags- Haulers can set prices for bulky item collection and allow
residents to purchase pre-paid tags.
3) Set bulky item collection days- Have 1 or 2 days a year that residents are allowed to set
out bulky items for collection.
Multi-Family Units (MFUs):
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 38
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-42
The PAYT program will initially focus on single family and units up to 4. MFU have a number of
inherent issues that make them more difficult to address including high turnover, lack of
economic signals between trash disposal and residents, large dumpsters, and lack of
awareness. It is recommended that Vail deal with the MFUs and the PAYT program in stages.
These include:
5) Establish SF PAYT throughout the town and require that haulers embed recycling in the
trash rates for MFUs
6) Conduct a PAYT pilot study in a Vail MFU to determine the feasibility of a bag program
in the MFUs
7) Evaluate the pilot and make necessary adjustments
8) Add MFUs to the PAYT program
Public Acceptance:
A detailed residential survey was conducted as a part of this project to determine the public
sentiments toward recycling and PAYT. The survey uncovered that nearly 70% of residents
strongly agreed with the statement that recycling is an easy way for the TOV to be green and
the majority of respondents reported that they would support a PAYT program. A SERA study of
100s of communities nationwide that have implemented PAYT found that after the program was
implemented 85-90% of residents actually preferred the new program and would not like to go
back the old trash system.
Wildlife:
The PAYT program will continue to use the bear-resistant containers for trash.
Home Owners Associations (HOA):
There are a number of home owner associations in the Town of Vail. HOAs must be addressed
slightly differently in PAYT programs due to the fact that the HOA management general creates
a group account with a waste hauler to cover trash service for all homes in the HOA area37. The
contracts are entered into privately and HOA members do not have a choice of which hauler
they contract with. PAYT does work in HOA systems. Multiple PAYT towns in Colorado have
HOAS and have successful PAYT programs. When implementing a PAYT ordinance (or
contracting for service) there are a number of tactics to take to cover the HOA areas including:
• Ensure that the ordinance specifically addresses HOAs and states that they are subject
to all measures in the ordinance
• Include a statement that allows HOA contracts starting from a certain date38 to run until
completion. At the expiration date the new contract must include PAYT rate structures.
• If the TOV decides to be more aggressive it is possible to force the HOAs and haulers to
renegotiate their contracts prior to expiration. This is the route that the city of Fort Collins
has chosen to take. More common however, is to wait for the expiration of current
contracts.
With the proposed bag program, once the HOAs are covered by the PAYT program there will be
little difference between the HOAs and the non-HOA areas in Vail. The HOA management
companies may choose to include x amount of bags for each HHs with their annual dues and all
additional bags are the homeowners responsibility, the HOA may choose to buy bags in bulk
from the hauler and distribute them themselves to HHs, or any number of other programs may
work to address this specialized sector.
37 This is assuming the TOV chooses to include HOAs in the PAYT program.
38 It is important that the contract date is chosen at the start of talk about the ordinance. It is not unheard of for haulers and HOAs
to quickly enter into long-term contracts when they hear of PAYT ordinances coming up to avoid being included in the ordinance.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 39
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-43
Resort Community/Population Flux:
The Town of Vail has a relatively small population of full time residents with a large influx of day
trippers, overnight visitors, and seasonal residents. PAYT has successfully been implemented in
other resort communities with similar demographics. Most recently, the Town of Mountain
Village (near Telluride, CO) implemented PAYT ordinance with PAYT collection to begin in
October of 2009. The table below contains 9 tourist and seasonal communities with PAYT. All of
the communities in the table see large influxes of tourists and visitors and have relatively small
year round populations (with the exception of Wilmington, NC). Many of the communities are
geographically isolated and face high transportation costs for both MSW and recycling.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 40
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-44
Table XX: Resort Communities with PAYT
' Fulltime' Peak' ' When ' Who
Cit ' State ' T e of Town ' Po ulation SeasonNisitors ' T e of Proram ' Im Iemented Coilects Notes
All waste and recycling is
shipped via boat to the
Located on the island mainland. Strong
Tisbu MA 'r of Martha's Vine ard 3,800 About 15,000 Sticker roram Late 90s Munici ali residential su ort
Drop-off recycling only. All
Located on the island trash and recycling is
Oak Bluffs MA of Martha's Vineyard 3,700 21,500 Sticker program Late 90s Municipality shipped via boat.
Island community Bag program for both
located in the Outer Around 4,000 or residential and
Ocracoke Island' NC Banks 769 more Bag program Jan-08 Municipality commercial
200K-300K visitors
Wilmin ton NC Coastal ci 100,000 durin hi h season Variable can Munici ali Lar e ci
Adopted May
Up to 10,000 2009- goes PAYT is part of the town
' Ski town in between Telluride into effect in goal of zero waste by
Mountain Villa e CO southwest Co. 978 and Mtn. Village Variable can October 2009 Contract 2025
Town has a zero waste
goal. In addition to
Can see over residential PAYT the town
70,000 visitors for Ordinance has MFU PAYT,
such events as the with multiple commercial PAYT, and a
Aspen GO Wealthy ski town 5800 Winter X Games Variable can 2005 haulers YW ban
Between 5,000 and Very successful program
Tourist town located 7,000 visitors Hybrid bag with strong support and in
Eureka S rin sAR in the Ozarks 2,000 during high season roram Feb-93 Contract use for over 15 years
Wealthy seaside No issues with seasonal
communityjust 1 1/2 visitors, mainly SF
Kennebunk ME ' hrs N of Boston 3,700 Unknown Bag program 2000 Contract residencies only
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibility Study 41
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
seral c aoir; (303)494-1178 8/4/2009
3-5-45
4.3: Contracting versus Ordinances
There are three main ways to implement PAYT programs:
• Municipal collection- A town can choose to take over trash collection themselves,
purchasing a collection fleet, hiring FTEs, and all of the associated administration and
O&M. This is not a recommended option (or frankly, an option that is on the table) for
Vail.
• Ordinance- By Colorado statute local governments may pass an ordinance requiring all
haulers to follow certain guideline including setting PAYT rate structures.
• Contacting- Colorado statute allows local governments to contract for residential
service for all units up to and including 7 units per building. Multi-family buildings with
over 7 units are considered commercial and local government may not contract for
commercial accounts.
Both ordinances and contracts are viable means of implementing PAYT. What route a town
chooses depends greatly upon local preferences and politics. The pros and cons of both
ordinances and contracts are discussed below:
The advantages of an ordinance include:
• It is quicker to implement: Unlike contracting in which an RFP process is required (at
least 6 months notice for eligible haulers to bid, choosing the winning bid, and
completing contract negotiations) an ordinance can be passed in quite literally, one town
council meeting.
• Market competition: An ordinance does not favor one hauler over another. It creates a
level playing field for all haulers operating in the TOV and does not inherently give an
advantage or favorability to one. It also allows haulers to retain their current accounts as
long as they meet the ordinance requirements.
• Residential choice: Contracting limits residential choice of haulers to the one contracted
hauler. Under an ordinance the residents are still able to contract with whichever hauler
they choose.
• Administrative burden: Once the TOV passes the ordinance, their level of administrative
involvement may be limited. Depending upon the pre-determined enforcement
mechanisms, reporting, outreach/education requirements, and other aspects of the
ordinance, there could potentially be very little administrative burden for the TOV.
The disadvantages of enacting an ordinance for PAYT include:
• Less control over services/rates: Unlike contracting in which the TOV can set rates,
Colorado state statute limits local governments control over rate setting. Local
governments may set rate structures, such as requiring that a base unit costs x, twice
the amount of service costs 2x, and three times costs 3x, but cannot set what the base
amount of x is.
• May not be the most efficient: While ordinances maintain more hauler competition, they
do not increase collection efficiencies. Under an ordinance there may be multiple haulers
serving households on the same street with multiple trucks driving down the same street
at different times of the day.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 42
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-46
Whereas there are pros and cons associated with ordinances, there are also are also a number
of distinct advantages (and disadvantages) to contracting for trash service. Some of the
advantages to contracting include:
• Fewer trucks on the streets/environmental impact: Under ordinances and open
subscription trash service, three houses on the same block may have three different
haulers with three different trash trucks driving down the street. With one contracted
hauler all HHs have the same trash day with the same trash truck limiting the number of
trucks on the road, the GHG emissions from the trucks, wear and tear on roadways, and
other impacts.
• Lower costs for households: Under contracting households may see a reduction in
monthly/yearly costs. The RFP process requires haulers to compete to provide the
lowest cost service. Haulers are able to collect all the households on a block, not just
some of the HHs, and thus are able to realize collection and routing efficiencies. This
often results in potentially lower bids and rates for HHs. To see an example of these cost
savings refer to appendix three.
• More control over rates/services/options for Town- Contracting allows the TOV to include
a number of stipulations in the contract including rates, reporting, enforcement and
others. For example, in Lafayette CO's hauler contract the town decides where the
hauler delivers the recyclable materials as well as retaining ownership of the recyclables
and any associated profits from the material.
• Simplified reporting/problem solving: Under as single hauler contract it is easier to collect
tonnage reports of MSW and recyclable materials. Additionally, if problems arise there is
no question in finding the responsible hauler to contact to solve the problem.
A few of the disadvantages of contracting for service include:
• Haulers and citizen push back: Haulers generally prefer ordinances to contracting.
Under contracting only one hauler has the potential to win all of the accounts. Additional,
households may resent having their service provider dictated to them by local
government. There may be a political battle to implement a single hauler contract.
However, in many of the Colorado communities with single hauler contracts, the
communities report that despite initial public and hauler pushback the programs are now
well accepted and actually preferred by the residents3s
• More difficult to implement: Completing the RFP process requires a substantial
investment in time by the Town and takes longer to implement than an ordinance.
Colorado statute requires a six month notification period and requires that the Town
contact all of the haulers that may potentially bid on a contract before the bid is due. IN
addition, there may be a lengthy contract negotiation period.
Despite the strong points of both the ordinance and contract methods, it is important for the
Town of Vail to consider all of the factors contributing to the decision making process. While a
contract may be best in some communities, for others there may be a strong citizen desire to
maintain hauler choice. On the other hand, a contract may result in the lowest rates possible for
citizens and the RFP process is open market competition, allowing all haulers to submit a bid
and the lowest cost/best service provider wins.
39 The Ciiy of Lafayette reports that for the first 60 days of their contracted PAYT program there was significant feedback, calls,
and questions from the citizens. After the first two months the calls dropped off precipitously and now residents prefer the PAYT
contracted program.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 43
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-47
Locally, communities in Colorado use contracts, municipal collection, and ordinances to provide
PAYT service. The table below lists a number of Colorado towns and the primary method40 in
which they implement PAYT:
Table 4.1: Colorado Communities with PAYT
Ordinance ' Cantract Munici al Gollection '
Fort Collins Lafayette Loveland
Aspen Louisville Longmont
Boulder (Ciiy) Original Town Superior Grand Junction41
Boulder Couniy Mountain Village (Fall 2009) Edgewater (planned)
Larimer Coun
Both the pros and cons of an ordinance and contract are displayed in the table below:
Table 4.2: Pros and Cons of Contracts and Ordinances
Ordinance Contract
' Pros ? Cons Pros ? Cons ?
• Maintains competition in • Less control over • Town has greater • Limits competition in the
the market place services control over rates and market
• Allows customers to • Political support is service options • May be politically
choose their service needed • Allows for routing unattractive
provider • May not be the most efficiencies for selected • Limits customer choice
• Easier to implement efficient (more trucks hauler • Requires lengthier
• Retains a"level playing on the roads, more • Simplified reporting of implementation process
field" for all haulers GHG emissions, etc.) tonnages collected (RFPs, Bids, selection,
operating under the • Potentially lower rates etc)
same rules for customers • Higher resistance from
• Less resistance from • Reduced wear and tear haulers
haulers on streets
• Less administrative • Can set faciliiy
demand for Vail designation for
materials
40 Towns that contract or have municipal collection often still pass an ordinance for PAYT. CO State Statute bars towns and
counties from stopping a citizen from contracting with any hauler they want. For example, although Loveland has municipal
collection of PAYT which every resident must pay for, they still have an ordinance and if a Loveland resident wanted to contract
with a private hauler and pay for trash iwice, the a may.
41 Although Grand Junction does have a municipally collected variable rate program it is not recommended as a model program
due to its lack of ineaningful economic incentives.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 44
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-48
SECTION 5: MANDATORY COMMERCIAL RECYCLING AND
MULTI-FAMILY UNITS
Commercial recycling programs are becoming more widespread throughout the country as
program managers are trying to meet higher and higher diversion goals. In the majority of
mandatory commercial recycling programs, the residential sector has already been addressed
and significant residential recycling/diversion rates have been achieved.
The commercial sector makes up between 35-45% of the total waste stream in the US42. In
general, recycling programs are implemented and refined in the residential sector and then
expanded to cover the commercial waste stream4344 There is significant potential to increase
diversion in the commercial sector in Vail. However, there are a number of barriers that must be
considered when discussing the commercial sector. These include:
• Waste stream- unlike the residential waste stream, commercial waste is not
homogenous, each business type, size, and location may generate vastly different types
of waste.
• Space- space for recycling is often cited as a major concern in commercial programs
• Lack of control over bills- many commercial entities do not have control over their bills.
The trash and recycling is often contracted through a property management company.
• Cost- Larger businesses may be able to reduce their trash service levels (and costs)
through recycling. However, smaller businesses may already be on the lowest level of
trash service and are not able to reduce their trash subscription level to save money
through recycling.
• One program does not fit all- In the residential sector it is feasible to use a blanket
program that covers all households. Each business in the commercial sector faces its
own barriers (space, materials, customer type, janitorial staff, property managers, etc.)
and a battery of program types might be necessary to address the entire sector.
• Lack of infrastructure- It is necessary that the proper infrastructure is in place before
any mandatory commercial program is implemented.
The table below displays both the strengths and potential weaknesses related to mandatory
commercial recycling programs. The table was developed through SERA research of mandatory
commercial recycling programs across the US.
Table 5.1: Stren ths of Mandator Commercial Rec clin Pro rams
'Pro ram Element Description of Stren ths '
Increased diversion- All of the programs reported that the commercial diversion has increased due to
mandatory recycling
Increased access/opportunity- Programs increase access and the opportuniiy for all business to participate, divert
materials, and in some cases realize monetary savings in trash costs
42 Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 2007 Facts and Figures. US EPA Office of Solid Waste, EPA530R-08-010,
November 2008.
43 Skumatz, Lisa and Freeman, Juri. Increasing Recycling in the Commercial Sector: Assessment ofMandatory Commercial
Recycling Programs and Exclusive Hauler Arrangements. 2009, Prepared for Alameda $topwaste.org
aa Skumatr Lisa and Freeman, Juri. Recycling Study Targeting SmallBusinesses in Mecklenburg County, NC. 2008. Prepared
for Mecklenburg County Solid Waste Deparfinent
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 45
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-49
Increased revenues- Haulers and recyclers reported that the program can increase revenues available
to support diversion initiatives
Increased customers- Potential to increase customer accounts for haulers and recyclers
Market development- May help bring processors, or end-users into the area
Market development (haulers)- May increase opportunities for haulers and bring in new haulers/competition
Efficient Design- Some target specific sectors with large amounts of waste, or exempt small
generators to reduce administrative hassle with minimal impact on waste diversion
Addresses all sectors- Instead of placing the burden of diversion only on the residential sector, the entire
community is responsible, no sector is exempt
Flexibility- The program can offer flexible options for diversion for each business iype
Goals- Programs can be designed with communiiy goals in mind and can be crafted to
address certain materials or diversion aims
Reporting- Programs can require reporting and tracking of diversion and disposal in the sector
which might not have been done previously
Economies of scale- Increased efficiencies in collector routing and processing by requiring all
businesses to participate
Table 5.2: Weaknesses of Mandator Commercial Rec clin Pro rams
'Pro ram E[ement aescription of Weaknesses
Increased costs- May increase the costs for haulers and generators
Need for infrastructure- Without proper infrastructure to handle the additional recycling stream the program
may not be successful
Politics- May require market intervention by Ciiy/County, possible negative political reaction
by some actors
May drive out small haulers- Depending on the hauler's ability to adapt, some haulers report that the programs
may push them out of the market and favor larger haulers
Reporting- Added burden to City staff, haulers, and generators to complete necessary
reporting
Incentives- Depending on program design there may not be incentives for the generator or
haulers to increase participation above minimum requirements
Enforcement (generators)- Can build resentment and resistance to the program among generators
Enforcement (haulers, City)- May add time and cost to enforce the program to Ciiy staff and/or haulers
May not increase Although the opportuniiy is offered for all businesses to divert materials, without
participation- proper planning the program may not increase participation
Not the best way to meet If the goal is increased diversion tonnage, forcing 100%participation may not be
oals- the most effective or e uitable wa to achieve it. Focusin on the lar est
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 46
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-50
'Program Element Description of Weaknesses
generators and those that can reduce trash bills through recycling may work better
and may be less expensive from a social point of view.
5.1: Best Practices
The following is a listing of the strong points and lessons learned from national research:
• Development/planning: It is important to involve a number of relevant stakeholders in
the ordinance/program development. In communities where a stakeholder committee
was not used in the development, there is at best a noted resentment among haulers
and generators, and at worst, the program does not work optimally. The stakeholders
have the advantage of being on the ground, knowing what materials are easiest to
address, and can help spread the word of the impending ordinance among the affected
sectors. Suggested stakeholders include:
• City staff
• trash haulers
• recycling haulers
• trade organizations (i.e. restaurant organization, school organizations, etc)
• property management companies
• janitorial staff
• others
• Inventory: Know what facilities are and are not available for the collection and
processing of the materials that will be affected by the ordinance. If haulers are not
already collecting recycling from a large proportion of the commercial sector, it may be
difficult for them to start doing so with out ample lead time. Haulers reported that they
often need significant time to order carts, trucks, etc. and without the proper equipment
they would be unable to serve the sector. Also, be aware of processing issues, is there
single stream, C&D, composting, etc. that will be able to handle the additional recycling
streams. If a certain material(s) is targeted through the program it is important to ensure
that there is an accessible alternative for disposal. Programs were reported to help
bolster already existing markets but all of the interviewed staff, haulers, and recyclers
reported that it was important that the targeted material can be readily collected and
processed.
• Space for Recycling: A number of City/County interviews reported that space for
recycling was an issue for certain businesses. This was especially true if single stream
collection is not available and multiple collection containers are necessary. Planning for
this issue ahead of time, working together with generators/haulers, and adopting "space
for recycling" ordinances can help alleviate the barrier. Additionally, it is important that
any recycling enclosure requirement meshes with the mandatory recycling program
specifications. If there is a strict recycling enclosure ordinance it could make it difficult for
businesses to comply with the mandatory recycling requirements.
• Menu of Options: Flexibility of program design is important in the commercial sector.
Unlike the residential sector that has a rather homogeneous waste stream, the
commercial waste stream can vary greatly from business to business. Set a menu of
possible mandatory recycled materials that the generator must choose from to help
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 47
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-51
address the large variations of material generation in the commercial sector. These
options can be lumped into larger groups and the generator can choose a group that
they are going to recycle. The selected menu group must be the materials that are most
generated at each site.
• Rate setting versus open market: Both types of hauler arrangements were studied and
both have advantages/drawbacks. It is important to be aware of the planned
arrangement and develop the program accordingly. Rate setting, franchise areas, and
competition will all be important in the overall success of the program.
• Efficiency in Design: Targeting specific sectors or exempting small generators can
allow a community to retain the bulk of the diversion impact but reduce administrative or
enforcement burdens. It might not be necessary to increase participation to 100% to
increase the overall diversion by a significant amount. Through targeted programs
diversion and cost effectiveness can be maximized.
• Enforcement: Enforcement is necessary for a successful program. Most of the
ordinances give a grace period prior to strict enforcement, but all report that without
enforcement the programs will not be successful. Enforcement can be handled by any of
a number of entities depending on the program design. Haulers can also shoulder part of
the responsibility through material bans (at the curb or landfill, T/S) or through auditing
and reporting. Enforcement can include simple participation in the program to mandated
diversion rates. If diversion rates are used, include source reduction in the computations
(for example, a business could greatly reduce its use of paper (duplex copying, etc) but
not see a corresponding rise in their diversion rate).
• Reporting: Reporting by haulers to the City/County, the City to the County/state, or the
generators to the City, County, or State, is integral to success. Reporting also ties in to
enforcement. Clear and concise language included in any mandatory program may help
to alleviate issues related to reporting for haulers, generators, and the City.
• Recycling Plans: Short, succinct, recycling plans filed by the generator with either the
hauler or municipality/County is important. These plans allow for easy tracking and can
help the generator plan efficient collection of materials.
• Education/Outreach: As with any new recycling or diversion program, education and
outreach are integral. All effected stakeholders must be aware of the program including
haulers, recyclers, and generators and by involving the groups early on in the process it
may help spread information. A lead time of 3 to 6 months was reported to be sufficient
to allow for the necessary actors to learn about the program. Signs for tenants, bilingual
information, and site visits by the responsible entity were all listed as effective means of
education and outreach. Another effective outreach tool uncovered in the research was
multi-resource audits. By combining a waste audit with energy and water efficiency
audits it may help to increase the leverage available to the City/County and reduce the
costs associated with the audit.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 48
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-52
5.1.1 Commercial Recommendations
Vail has an opportunity to significantly increase diversion by implementing commercial recycling
programs and policies. If Vail is willing to move in this direction, we recommend the Town adopt
one of following three sets of recommendations.
Most aggressive option
• Require haulers to offer recycling equal to at least'/z the monthly trash volume45 per
month as part of trash service. There is to be no separate fee for recycling, and the cost
is recovered through new / revised trash rates. This removes the cost barrier to recycling,
provides parallel convenience for recycling for businesses, and puts businesses on a
system similar to the residential sector. Recycling will increase dramatically for the 40%
of Town trash generated by businesses.
"Targeted" option
• Implement an "ABC" or "All bottles & cans, or all beverage containers" law. This requires
all businesses that serve beverages to recycle beverage containers or their liquor license
is not renewed. This is in place statewide in NC, and in communities elsewhere around
the nation. It targets a waste stream that is separately generated, and gathers one of the
largest streams of non-paper recyclables in the commercial sector.
• Pass two ordinances. One would require all businesses to fill out recycling plans, using
check list forms available on the Town's web site. This requires all businesses to think
about the major waste streams and recyclables they generate, consider options for
removal, and examine whether recycling might make sense. The forms are simple (about
2 pages), and could be filed with Town or with the haulers.46 The second ordinance would
require all businesses to incorporate clauses into leases saying tenants were expected to
recycle. The ordinance should cover business (and potentially multi-family) tenants.
• The Town may consider acting as an intermediary to help design / organize some high
paper or high cardboard routes with the haulers and businesses.
Least aggressive option:
• Pass an ordinance implementing the recycling plans and recycling lease option described
above.
5.2 Multi-Family Recycling
The multi-family sector is traditionally one of the most difficult sectors to address47. Typically,
recycling and diversion programs will be designed to adequately address the single-family
sector and additional programs will then be developed to address the multi-family sector48. The
top five barriers to MFU recycling and their possible solutions are discussed below:
45 Recycling may be collected less frequently, so container size and frequency may differ from trash.
46 In most communities, enforcement is not rigorous.
" Skumatr, Lisa Reaching for Recycling in Multi-Family Housing. Resource Recycling, October 1999
48 Skumatz, Lisa and Green, John. Moving on Up- Strategies for Increasing Multifamily Recycling. SERA Research Report 9989,
1999
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 49
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-53
Barrier 1. Lack of Proqrams: Many of the MFUs in Vail do not have recycling programs.
Solution: Require that haulers embed the cost of recycling in their trash service. By
embedding the costs of recycling in trash service, all MFUs will be required to pay for
recycling service whether or not they recycle. The requirement should ensure that recycling
service is at least equal to the level of trash service to give residents an opportunity to
recycle materials.
Barrier 2: Lack of space: The lack of space for recycling bins next to trash carts is a common
barrier. Older units may not have been designed to include space for recycling and there may
not be adequate space next to the trash bins. If either the trash or recycling bins are significantly
more convenient than the other, contamination may be a serious issue to contend with. When
disposing of materials studies have found that if the recycle cart is right next to the entrance/exit
and the trash cart is located at the other end of the parking lot, residents may tend to throw both
trash and recycling in the recycling cart49. The opposite is also true.
Solution: Require that all new and significant remodels include equal and convenient access
to both trash and recycling containers. The town codes division could be required to check
all MF building plans to ensure that this requirement is met before granting permits. For
existing MFUs, it may be necessary for town staff to work with property managers to develop
plans and identify areas in which recycle carts may be conveniently located.
Barrier 3: Hiqh turnover, lack of awareness, and lanquaqe barriers: Residents in MFUs tend to
move more often, report that they are unaware of the recycling practices in their building, and
the materials that are recycled, the process to recycle them, and where and when to do so often
varies from building to building. Property mangers also report that there may be a significant
language barrier that must be overcome.
Solutions: A sound outreach and education campaign is the key to overcoming these
barriers. The following options may assist in this effort:
• Require move-in packets- Work with property managers to ensure that all new tenants
receive a move-in packet that details how, when, and what to recycle. The information
should be given to new tenants at the time of move-in as well as all existing tenants at
least once a year.
• Require recyclinq clauses in lease: Communities on the west coast have drafted
ordinances requiring landlords to include a"recycling clause" on all tenant leases. The
clause requires that tenants recycle the materials that they generate.
• Multi-linpual education- All education and outreach materials should be created in both
English and Spanish.
• Repuire that all MFUs recvcle the same materials- Requiring a standard set of accepted
recycled materials between all units will allow residents that move between units to
always know what materials can and cannot be recycled.
• Town of Vail outreach effort- The TOV can undertake an outreach effort to address the
MFUs. This outreach effort may include such measures as; a property manager
"summit" in which town staff ineets with property managers to get them on-board with
any recycling programs; MFU `picnics" where TOV hosts a meeting at each of the
largest MFUs in town, invites all the residents to the recycling `picnic'; and uses the
event as a forum to teach residents about how to recycle; bin give-always- although an
49 Skumatr, Lisa and Green, John. Moving on Up- Strategies for Increasing Multifamily Recycling. SERA Research Report 9989,
1999
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 50
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-54
expensive program, many communities have gone as far as to provide each unit with a
small handheld recycling bin that can fit next to residential trash cans and provides a
way for MFY residents to bring recycling to the trash area (another slightly less
expensive option is to provide recycling bags to residents). In addition to these
measures traditional outreach using mass media, bill inserts, mailers, door hangers, and
door-to-door visits are effective at reaching the MFU sector.
Barrier 4: Anonvmitv- With a MFU dumpster trash and recycling disposal is anonymous. It is
difficult to identify which unit is disposing of what material and which unit is or is not recycling.
Solution- Work with the property managers and tenants through the education and outreach
campaign to establish a`green" ethos in the MFUs. Competitions among various MFUs to
see who can recycle the most, positive feedback letting residents know how much they have
and have not diverted, and recognition for high achievers may help address this issue.
Barrier 5: Lack of Economic Incentives: Unlike the single family residential sector where each
HH sees a trash bill and PAYT gives HHs an economic incentive to recycle, MFU do not see
their trash bills and have little economic incentive to recycle.
Solution: SERA suggests running a pilot bag-in-the-can PAYT program with a prominent
MFU in Vail. By working closely with the property manger and tenants the pilot program will
determine the most efficient way to link trash and recycling behaviors with economic
incentives for tenants.
There is a significant opportunity to address the MFU sector but it may take more time than the
single-family units Overall the MF sector remains a slightly more difficult sector to address than
the SF sector. Single-family units already have service available, do not face space barriers,
see direct economic signals from the proposed PAYT programs, and have less turn-over.
Before additional steps can be taken to address the multi-family sector it is important to address
the first to barriers listed above (lack of program availability and lack of space) through
ordinances or regulations. Once there is an opportunity for all MFU to recycle other measures
may be taken to increase the level of diversion in the sector.
5.2.1 Multi-Family Recommendations
We provide a three-part recommendation for the multi-family sector.
• The Town should include multi-family buildings as it passes an ordinance requiring that
any new construction or significant remodels should incorporate space for recycling equal
to that required for trash, and the space considerations should cover space both inside
and outside the building.
• The Town should require that haulers embed the cost of recycling in their trash service.
By embedding the costs of recycling in trash service, all MFUs will be required to pay for
recycling service whether or not they recycle. The requirement should ensure that
recycling service is at least equal to the level of trash service to give residents an
opportunity to recycle materials.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 51
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-55
• Town staff should begin work on the more complex multi-family sector by running a pilot
test of a potentially-suitable PAYT variation at a few selected locations as soon as
possible. The goal is to provide recycling incentives and access as similar to single family
as possible. The residents in the selected building(s) or complex(es) will be asked to put
their trash in the same types of special logo-ed, colored bags as single family residents.
The bags are placed in the dumpsters at the multi-family complex. The recycling
containers are to be placed adjacent to or similarly convenient to the trash containers.
This system should be tested and evaluated over a 6 month time frame.
Because it may be that the multi-family sector in Vail may not be a"one size fits all"
options, it would also be useful to conduct focus groups and meetings with property
owners / managers to discuss systems, recycling, and challenges / opportunities to
develop additional suitable options for testing and implementation. The test should run at
least 6 months and be evaluated. Multiple complexes may be tested, with additional
variations like having bags purchased from the building managers, having managers
purchase bags and supply them to residents, and other variations that may help balance
responsibility, cleanliness, and other practical considerations.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 52
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-56
APPENDICES
Appendix 1: Bag in a Can Case Study: Middletown, Rhode Island
Middletown is located in the sound of Rhode Island and has a population of just over 17
thousand. In November of 2007 the town passed a PAYT ordinance which includes a bag in a
can program. The town is serviced by a contracted waste hauler (Waste Management)
however, residents may contract individually with other haulers if they choose to. The majority of
the town, about 70%, chooses to go with WM.
Residents are required to pay a$50.00 annual user fee and for this fee they are given stickers
to place on the outside of their trash and recycling carts. The fee serves two purposes, it helps
to cover the fixed costs of providing service and alerts the contracted hauler to which
households are participating in the program. In addition to the annual fee, resident must place
their trash in pre-paid yellow trash bag. The bags come in two sizes and the prices are shown in
the fi ure below:
Size 'Price '
15 allon ba $1.75
33 gallon bag $2.00
Recycling is unlimited and collected in two streams. The cost of recycling is embedded in the
user fee and the per bag rates. The program is for all single family units up to 4 units per
building.
Collection of trash is fully automated and residents are provided with 64 gallon carts for both
trash and recycling. There is also a yard waste collection program during the summer that is
manually collected. WM and the town work in unison to enforce the program and enforcement is
written into the hauler contract. The haulers use video cameras in the truck hoppers to watch
the trash as it is being dumped. If the haulers observe a household disposing of trash not in a
pre-paid bag they notate the offender on their daily manifest. At the end of the day, as per the
town-hauler contract, the hauler notifies the town of any offending households. The town either
calls on the household or sends them a notice informing them of the violation. The following
week the hauler must get out of the truck when they arrive at the offending household and
visually inspect the can. If they see trash not in a pre-paid bag the hauler does not collect the
trash, places an orange sticker on the can, and informs the town staff of the offense. It is then at
the town's discretion whether they want to continue to try and educate the household or levy a
fine. Typically, the town chooses the route of education and outreach over fining.
On average, participating households dispose of 1.5 bags/week. The program had a significant
impact on the town's overall recycling rate. Prior to the program the town reports that they were
diverting about 18% of the residential trash and now they are up to 42%, the highest diversion
rate in the state. Not all of the increase in diversion can be attributed solely to the PAYT
program as a number of other changes occurred at the same time. An important lesson learned
by Middletown was to have the pre-paid bags available at multiple outlets. The town is
responsible for the sale of the bags and stocks them everywhere from grocery stores and mini-
marts to liquor stores and town hall. Despite some opposition in the town at the time of
implementation there is wide spread acceptance of the program and the majority of the town's
residents now embrace the program.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 53
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-57
Appendix 2: Additional Ordinances and Measures for Town of Vail
The following list of ordinances and measures goes beyond just PAYT and residential trash.
This list was developed through national research of communities with high diversion and
through an examination of SERA's in-house data base. All of the
ordinances/regulations/measures on the list have been implemented successfully in
communities around the country. Some of the measures have been adopted by large numbers
of communities while others are more "cutting edge" and have only been used by a handful of
communities in the US.
Table 1: Strategies beyond PAYT for the Town of Vail
Sector Strategy! ID DesGrip#ion $ Gity $ User Diversion
' CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION
' C&D Deposit Incentive When obtaining building permits, M- cost of L- when H
builders / developers pay a deposit staff to spreading costs
incentive, assessed based on the iype develop, of program
of building (commercial, MF, etc.), type implement admin across all
of work (new construction vs. remodel), and maintain ratepayers; M-
and square footage affected. The program for developers
deposit is refunded if the builder who have
demonstrates they brought materials dollars tied up
generated to a"certified" C&D sorting
MRF, or demonstrate they recycled at
1 ' least 50%of materials.
' Developer Incentives Provide developers with incentives for M- cost of L- when VH
recycling by allowing extra building staff to spreading costs
height, space, or other tangible benefits develop, of program
if they :1) Recycle at high levels during implement admin across all
construction, 2) Require recycling of and maintain ratepayers; VL -
tenants and provide space and parallel / program for developers
convenient access, 3) Use high levels based on low
of recycled content materials in cost of enfiy and
construction, 4) Use "green" building higher R01 for
techniques, or other desirable practices. properties with
these
2 ' investments
' Require space for recycling Require space for garbage AND L VL M- L
recycling in building codes in
association with all new construction or
(non-trivial) remodeling for commercial
3 ' and multi-family buildings.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 54
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-58
Sector Strategy / ID DQSCriptian $ Gity $ User Diversion
' Permit fees for C&D work Revenues from C&D permit fees can be L- if VL - for all M
used to help fund programs to divert or revenues ratepayers; M-
manage C&D waste. are in H for fee payers
excess of
currentfees
and
expenditures
but H - if
portion of
current
revenues
diverted for
this use
4'
Provide lower permit fees for Allow discounted permit fees (or other L- H, L- H, H-
' C&D companies or jobs if use fees) for firms that adopt green building depending depending on
certain practices practices or aggressive recycling of how how discounts
materials as part of specific jobs or as discounts are funded
overall practices. are
subsidized,
or not
' Provide contract incentives or For ciiy projects, bidders that propose L L M
preferences for C&D jobs using to recycle more materials or use green
preferable practices building practices, etc. could be
awarded extra "points" or cost
adjustrnents and be given preferences
6' on Ciiy construction projects.
' Require contacting Prior to demolition, require contractors L L L- M
' deconstructions and dismantlers to contact all known dismantling and
deconstruction companies in the area to
give them 1 st right of refusal to salvage
valuable materials and fixtures from
7' buildin s before demolished.
Require on-site sale of C&D In association with all demolition jobs, L L L- M
' from demolitions set schedule to require 2-3 days for an
on-site sale of salvaged materials for
purchase prior to removal of materials
(for disposal or sale/recycling
8 ' elsewhere?).
Mandates- SSO or Mandated Mandated diversion rates for all L M-H H
' Diversion permitted work sites. Receipts must be
presented showing recycled materials
or penalties, fines, no C0, etc. are
9 ' enforced
' Feebate If builder does not recycle to a threshold L M L-H Depends on
level they pay a fee, if they meet the threshold level
level, no fee, if they exceed the level
10 they see a rebate
' COMMERCIAC AND MULTI-FAMILY
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 55
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-59
Sector Strategy / ID DQSCriptian $ Gity $ User Diversion
' Rate Incentives for Recycling Require that garbage plus recycling L L H
can't be more expensive than garbage
service alone - perhaps by embedding
recycling costs in the garbage fee for
areas where services are offered by the
1same firms.
Require building/ business Require all businesses and buildings to M M M
recycling plans prepare recycling plans. These can be
filed with haulers, city, or other entities.
Some cities use checklists, others use
more complex forms. Most require only
forms, but SERA found one city
requiring implementation within several
2 ' months of filing.
Require leases with recycling Encourage or require buildings to L L M
clauses incorporate recycling requirements for
tenant businesses or units into leases.
This is a particularly good tool for public
3ro. ects.
' Material Disposal Bans Can ban broad lists or certain targeted L M H- VH, highly
materials. (This policy also suggested dependent on
under faciliiy and residential sections.) affordable and
convenient
alternatives to
disposal in place,
and possible costs
for supporting those
4 ' alternatives
ABC Rule Based on NC law. All businesses with L M-H M-H
permits to consume alcoholic
beverages on site must recycle all
beverage containers. If they do not
recycle the containers they cannot
5 renew their permits
Mandatory Menu of Choices Mandate that businesses must recycle L M-H M
iwo or three of the items on a menu of
recyclables. Menu choices could
include glass, containers, paper,
cardboard, scrap metal, concrete, etc..
6Pro ram would include rec clin forms.
Commercial & MF PAYT Require PAYT rates for commercial and L M-H M-H
MF units with recycling embedded. Ciiy
7of Aspen CO has this program
Business landscapers Landscapers for businesses must L M M
source separate their yardwaste
8' materials and compost them.
'HAULER CIRDINANICES ' PAYT / Variable Rates All haulers must charge for residential L M H
' Ordinance materials by a base unit (32 gallons)
and embed costs of recycling in trash
rates. It sets an even playing field for all
1' haulers and does not limit com etition.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 56
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-60
Sector Strategy / ID DQSCriptian $ Gity $ User Diversion
' Require haulers to meet Require haulers to meet recycling or L L M
' recycling / diversion goals (H8) diversion goals as condition of
operating permit or non-exclusive
2 ' franchise.
'GOVERNINENT MEASURES
' Set New Diversion Goal Look at current goal and set a new goal L L L
I ; and year
Ban/Tax on Single Use Bags Either ban or tax single use bags at L L L
2 stores over a threshold size
Mulch Require that all landscaping at L L L
' Mowing/Composting/Xeriscaping County/Town facilities is mulch mowed
Couniy/Town facilities and composted and encourage natural
prariehceriscpaing for landscaping
3;
Zero waste events All town events must be zero waste. L L L(totally dependent
Program helps reach goals, raise on the programs and
consciousness, broaden recycling strategies put in
4 infrastructure lace
' Environmentally preferable Create a EPP guideline for all L L L-M
purchasing town/County purchasing and RFPs
5;
Compost Use Requirements Require Couniy/Town landscaping to L L L
6 be done using local, certified compost
Take-out container ban Ban use of polysiyrene take-out L L L
7 containers.
Transportation Re-Use Require recycled aggregate make up L L L
$ requirements X%of road materials
Material Disposal Bans Banning recyclables or yard waste from L M H- VH, highly
disposal can provide a significant boost dependent on
to separation and diversion. Can ban affordable and
broad lists or certain targeted materials. convenient
(This policy also listed under generators alternatives to
and facilities sections.) disposal in place,
and possible costs
for supporting those
9 alternatives
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 57
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-61
Appendix 3: Comparison of PAYT Rates Before and After
Implementation
SERA conducted a brief survey of communities to compare residential trash rates before and
after the implementation of a PAYT program. Residential trash rates tended to drop somewhat
to considerably for households that choose to recycle under the new PAYT rate structures. For
HHs that choose not to recycle, the costs of service tend to not change or go up slightly.
Communities that use multiple haulers prior to implementation (or after implementation) have
differing rates for the same services depending on which hauler is contracted and the rates
below represent the averages of the multiple haulers. All rates are shown per month.
Cit Cost before PAYT Costs Naw
Louisville competitively bid to a single contracted
hauler and costs are now $7.95 to $20.65 for 32-96
gallon carts. Recycling free, added a new
Louisuille, $17 for 64 gallon. Additional for compostable collection service. Price of compostable
CQ recycling plus fuel surcharges. cart ranges from $2.75 for a 32 to $8.25 for a 96.
Lafayette competitively bid to a single contracted
hauler. 32g $6.36, 64g $12.79, 96g $19.09 includes
' 2008 $10.50 with fuel surcharge and free recycling. For the 20%still using 96g, rates
' Non-HOA residents paid 1.5 to 2 times increased, for the other 80%rates went down or
Lafa ette those rates. sta ed the same.
Superior, Various haulers, on averages rates Superior switched to a single contracted hauler it is
CO ' were $24 now up to 96g $8.95, includes recycling
Salt Lake ' 40g $8.25, 60g $9.25, 90g $11.25. Also, yard waste
Cit , UT ? Onl o tion, 90 for $11.25 o tion added, 90 for $3.50
Couldn't change size of container due to haulers.
Began offering weekly and every other week (EOW)
trash collection with 90g containers $27.70 weekly,
Port ' $19.75 every other with free 96g recycling. Over half
Angeles, of the population is on EOW and is paying less now
WA ' Only option was 90ga1 for $27.70 than before.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 58
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-62
Appendix 4: PAYT Diversion, GHG, and Cost Impact Estimates
Using in-house data, set out survey estimates, and previous statistical studies, the impact of a
PAYT ordinance on the Town of Vail residential waste stream was computed. It was assumed
that the ordinance would cover households up to and including 4 units per building. The table
below shows the range of computed impacts. Impacts on GHG emissions were computed using
EPA WaRM Model Version 9 factors and EPA estimates of annual per car emissions.
Overall, the residential PAYT program is estimated to divert from 200 to 400 tons of recyclables
from the landfill and reduce 113 to 339 tons of inetric tons of carbon equivalents (MTCE) per
year. This is the equivalent of taking between 90 and 175 cars off the road per year in Vail. If the
TOV decides to address other sectors such as multi-family units, yard or green waste,
commercial generators, or construction and demolition waste, the amount of materials diverted,
the GHG emissions, and the number of cars off the road is expected increase significantly.
Estimated Impacts of Residential PAYT Program in Vailso
'Tonsdiverted 1NTCE ' NfTC02' Numbercarsafftheroad
Low 200 162 324 90
High 400 324 950 175
Change in Costs for Vail
The following estimates were made assuming that the Town of Vail uses an ordinance to
implement PAYT. However, as the examples in Appendix 3 show, using competitive bidding to
contract for a single hauler, although requiring greater town administration during the RFP, often
results in cost savings for residents due to economies of scale and routing efficiencies for the
hauler.
Assuming that the current rates already include the costs of recycling embedded in the trash
ratess' the PAYT program may cost at the most an average of $2 more per HH per month and
in fact, it is possible that the average HH bill would not rise at all. This is a conservative cost
increase calculation.
Haulers have reported that they already embed the costs of recycling in their rates. The main
changes for hauler costs will be more recycling stops, greater recycling tonnages, and the likely
expansion of recycling routes. However, these increased costs will be embedded in the rates
and may be covered by a combination of landfill savings and customer bills (which are not
estimated to change dramatically on average). Depending on assumptions made (that is what
percent is customer charge versus bag fee) we envision scenarios in which one bag per week
customers may pay $18-20 per month (compared to current rates of around $29-35/month) two
bag customers could potentially pay $29-$33 per month and three bag customers could pay
from $41-47 per month52.
so Occupancy estimates were developed using US Census data for the number of residencies with 1-4 units and the assumption
that 50%of the HHs are occupied 100%of the year and 50%of the HHs are occupied 50%of the year. If lower occupancy
assumptions are used the overall impacts would decrease.
51 As reported by the waste haulers in the stakeholder meetings
52 The majoriiy of HHs would be on a iwo bag or less service level as indicated in the set-out and web-based surveys. These are
however, very rough cost estimates.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 59
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-63
The costs for the Town of Vail would include the effort needed to conduct a residential outreach
campaign and the FTEs to monitor the new program/enforcement. It is estimated that the costs
to the TOV would be on the order of $15-$20K dollars for the first year of the program.
Depending on the success of the program, these costs may decrease in subsequent years as
less education/outreach is needed.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates, Inc. Town of Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy Study 60
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
trmm,I.serainc.~om (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-64
Appendix 5: Open-ended Survey Responses
3 we live in a small place and don't have room to
Q1: Where do you live? save our recycling - I sometimes stop to just drop
1 UT tenant Edwards&E-V, All area resort guest, one milk jug in the bin, but this wouldn't be
Eagle/Gypsum stopovers possible if I wasn't already driving right by.
2 Primary Location-Temporarily Homeless Thanks for keeping one in "main" Vail.
pending SSA Disabiliiy/Medicaid Benefits Decisions 4 Normally use Edwards or Eagle Centers
3 Scottsbluff 5 Normally use Edwards or Eagle location
4 Eagle-Vail 6 Disgustingly dirty and people drop-off things not
5 Silverthorne recyclable
6 Cordillera 7 Use the Avon drop-off about every other week
7 Eagle Vail 8 Drop off in Gypsum
8 Summit Cty 9 Greatly improved!
9 Glenwood springs 10 the drop off is terribly inconvenient!
10 Eagle-Vail 11 looks good now
11 Leadville 12 pretiy convenient but I would prefer curb side
12 Town of Vail- (2 houses into Eagle County) pick up
13 Dillon 13 It is so difficult to keep the area clean but
Honeywagon is doing a better job than previous.
Q6: How is your trash collected in Vail? Thanks
1 Taken from resorts or biz I frequent 14 utilize Edwards and Avon's drops offs as well
2 Throwing trash in open receptacles or biz trash 15 Plastic/glass bin is typically extremely full, and
cans hard to access (hoisting materials into it) for
3 Recyclables taken to recycling center by smaller people.
Community Development 16 bring back the free box and ski box!
4 TOG picks up once a week 17 I use the Eagle site
5 In Avon - shared dumpster 18 Very difficult to reach the container from the
6 In Eagle landing
7 regular garbage in shared dumpster, I drop off 19 Recycling center is at Leadville dump site
recycling 20 I ordinarily combine recycling drop off in
8 (4) UNIT TOWNHOUSE COMPLEX SHARES Edwards/Avon w/regular weekend
ONE LARGE CAN errands/activities.
9 In Edwards, an individual can - I also recycle in 21 This is the messiest drop-off. There needs to be
both Edwards and Avon at the recycling sites. an attendant on duiy so that people learn how to
recycle properly!!!
Q9: Does your household recycle in any of these 22 trash is often overflowing in the dumpsters
ways? Other (please specify)
1 recycle plastic bags as dog pooper scoopers Q12: On average, about how full are your recycling
2 Recycle if available at worklbiz locations bins every other week? Other (please specify)
3 take plastics 3-8, egg cartons, milk boxes, etc to 1 Shared bottle/can recycle bin at our complex is
Denver always over-full; newspaper bin never full.
4 compost all kitchen waste (minus meat) 2 No recycling bins available at our condo
complex/through HoneyWagon
Q10: If you use the Town of Vail drop-off recycling, 3 use drop off and pickup
how often do you bring materials there? 4 Large garbage bag
Comments about the drop-off? 5 most residents recycle
1 needs a helper/supervisor 6 3 bins full takes a month, dump once a month
2 I use TOV drop-off for office paper & corrugated 7 only put once a month or every other month
boxes. Newspaper, glass, plastic & cans are
picked up at our complex's dumpster by trash Q13: Which of the following materials do you recycle
hauler. fairly regularly? (Select all that apply) Other (please
specify)
Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA) Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy 61
DRAFT
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
veus,i.sW=ra irx;(x)rri (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-65
1 I compost everything possible but no "fat/meaY" 8 Vail drop has improved since cardboard
so no bears compactor
2 Yard/green waste removed by landscaper 9 need to implement curbside recycling
3 hazardous waste & electronics taken to 10 Improvements can always be made
appropriate sites 11 I think we should have open space for communiiy
4 Don't know if other items are taken in Eagle composting...a few in each neighborhood, and a company
5 Would recycle other items on this list if facilities to overlook the process.
existed here. Also would recycle PET bottles that are 12 recycling guidelines need to be made more clear
beyond 1 and 2 if facilities existed - what do we do with No. 3,4,5,6..... etc. plastics?
6 magazines, and compose kitchen waste, What about shiny cardboard boxes?
clothing, household goods to thrifty store Magazines?
7 Dummy me. ..I just learned recently tin/steel 13 I need more recycling in Vail
cans are recyclable! Yikes! 14 More recycling at commercial lodging facilities
and make visitors aware of the recycling center
Q16: Does your household generate any green waste? 15 satisfied with service, but we would recycle more
If so, what do you do with it? If other, please if we had more bins, plus it would be great if
specify Honeywagon picked up boxes for recycling - we
1 Just minimal houseplant stuff often have many boxes that need recycling.
2 compost large stuff on our ranch, compost small 16 we have an artificial Christrnas tree
on site 17 TOV cinders on roads a hazard to gardens and
3 Landscape maintenance company does all Creek!
mowing & maintenance; not sure what they do with the 18 Would like to see more than the one recycling
waste. center, maybe one out in East Vail somewhere
4 Vegetarian Food "excess" or spoiling extra 19 you mention milk and cereal cartons, but don't
5 Toss in pleniy/grassy open space you not take them??
6 take to the eagle couniy dump 20 landfill is to far away, to dispose of paints and
7 Some of the grass and plant waste is composted other items , we need a faciliiy at town mtce site
on site some is put in the garbage depending on the size of 21 what happened to the W.Vail Wendy's recycling?
our compost pile and comments by the neighbors. 22 Please note that I live in Eagle-Vail
8 would compost if facilities existed that were bear 23 As a condo resident with dumpster, many don't
secure apply
9 I own a chipper to reduce garden waste 24 An extra site, or more bin space at the current
10 dumpster location would be nice. Also a recycling
11 Town of Eagle compost site dumpster at my condo complex would be
12 Recycle at other site amazing.
13 Toss down the hill 25 need a communiiy garden, shrub, tree recycling
center with free compose available from it
Q21: How satisfied are you with the following? 26 What Items you CAN recycle need to be posted
Comments? more often for people know
1 Having to cart your recycling off-site leads to 27 Use Leadville's services
much less recycling than the free, curb-side program 28 have more opportunities for Spring Clean up,
offered around most of the country bulky items and electronics waste collection.
2 I will not pay for curbside recycling Collect more stuff at the recycling center, i.e.
3 when is Christrnas this year paperboard and mail, allow for curbside recycling
4 current curbside pickup is fine..because I have so at multi unit residences, not just single homes
much I take it to Vail recycle drop-off. My system fits my
needs Q20: How effective do you feel the bear proof cans
5 my neighbors put our recycling and it ends up in have been in reducing wildlife encounter in your
the garbage truck each week. neighborhood? Other (please specify)
6 need curbside magazine&cardboard recycling 1 TOV needs to get dumber bears.
added 2 should have applied the existing laws rather then
7 I wish the curbside recycling service picked up make it difficult for those who were wise with their
cardboard and paper trash.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA) Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy 62
DRAFT
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
veus,i.sW=ra irx;(x)rri (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-66
3 need more consistent enforcement to maintain 6 I would recycle if we had bins for it, I recycle at
effect home.
4 we've had bears rip apart the doors to our 7 a reality check on governmenYs part...l have
dumpster enclosure... covered my suggestions in a letter to council
5 NB-No basis of comparison/not my biz 8 none
6 depends on following rules 9 Education
7 I am delighted with how much bear problems 10 Besides the recycling drop off I'm unaware of any
decreased. other programs for recycling. I am willing and do
8 except for Weekenders who own one can but drop off my recycling, but I know people who will
dispose of three cans worth of trash not recycle if it is in any way inconvenient. I find
9 Not an issue in my area this frustrating, but I think it is a reality and that if
10 Don't have these in Eagle. Just put trash in possible curbside recycling would be amazing!
garage! So I don't find the lack of a curbside program a
11 don't know problem for me, but I know more people would
12 Our so called bear proof container had the lid recycle if it was easier. Again, I don't agree with
ripped off, when I called honeywagon to get it this, but I know this is true.
fixed or replaced they said it was wildlife 11 Include more recyclables in curbside pickup.
deterrent, not bear proof and they charged me 12 curbside pick up of cardboard, catalogs, yard
another $250!!! waste pick up
13 I saw no bears this past fall 13 above
14 single family curbside still a problem 14 more recycling drop-off locations
15 the bear cans have been great and the 15 more recycling categories picked up curbside
enforcement is what makes the cans work. 16 Information, Education
16 at the very least, they have served as a good 17 include trash and recycling collection as part of
reminder to people that their activities directly the taxes we pay, like most cities do.
impact the activities of our ursine population 18 Curbside trash and recycling variable rate system
17 very hard for the average person to lift 19 offer curbside recycling
18 No change in Edwards where I live. 20 More locations; more frequent hazardous mtl.
19 Lids are so heavy that people frequently prop days/ locations
them open which defeats the purpose. I am 21 continue to educate citizens
referring to dumpsters I do not have a trash 22 kind of stuck with whichever agency the HOA
can for curbside pickup. hires - and I don't think HoneyWagon has
20 I still see bears, but not as many. recycling bins to serve HOAs. There are so many
21 Too much of a financial burden and hassle on of us that pay indirectly for these services (via
residents HOA dues) that it doesn't feel like individually you
22 Humans must remember that we actually live in can save $ or create a difference
the bear's environment 23 Weekly recycle pickup instead of every other
23 See answer to above question. We still have week.
people on our street who do not have bearproof 24 Money Redemption of recyclables containers
containers. The town should fine the offenders 25 Local pick up of Recycled stuff for Apartment
after 2 years of requiring bearproof containers. I Complex
have called the Town on numerous occasions, 26 mandatory curbside and commercial recycling is
but a warning is all they have ever received. needed, with pickup on same day and as often
as trash
Q21: Are there any changes that could be made to 27 I think we need more recycling and more info
improve your satisfaction with trash and recycling about it to aid people in their own homes...l also
services in Vail? Response Text believe we should charge per plastic bag used at
1 Free curb-side recycling the grocery, as well as how much waste each
2 More reliable emptying at Vail recycling drop-off, household accumulates each week.
information about electronics waste collection 28 Vail recycling should accept ALL plastics,
3 Need vail drop off for hazardous materials and cardboards/boxes, magazines and such and
electronics perhaps combine efforts with another entiiy(Vail
4 none Resorts) to recycle everything possible. TOV
5 composting opportunities?
Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA) Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy 63
DRAFT
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
veus,i.sW=ra irx;g)rri (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-67
should also consider outlawing plastic bags at 52 I think it would be better to have more accessible
grocery stores. dumpsters for recyclable items at the recycle
29 MAKE ALL MANDATORY center. Sometimes they are hard to access.
30 more pick-up times at drop-off centers...the bins 53 need recycling for e-waste - drop-off is fine
are always overflowing 54 I miss the free ski exchange box at the recycling
31 Make recycling available to complexes center.
32 To be able to leave cardboard, catalogs and 55 add battery collection spot
office paper and other household containers at 56 More promotion & availability so visitors can
the curb instead of having to haul them easily recycle
33 Year Round Electronics Recycling 57 Bring back the W.Vail drop-off
34 Recycle Cardboard Cartons 58 Lower cost, ours is nearly $400/year with high
35 Add curbside & I would recycle everything. I did taxes and we came from a ciiy where the taxes,
in Seattle. much lower than here, covered curbside trash
36 More education on the options- possibly through and recycling.
articles in newspaper 59 The program should be expanded beyond what
37 I work at the hospital in Vail and we recycle. It has been offered for the past 20 years. Drop off
would be nice ifwe could have #3-7 plastic accepted in points, particularly for businesses, should be
Eagle Couniy. I know Vail Resorts hauls their recyclable more convenient and thus encourage higher use.
#3-7 plastic to Denver themselves. It should be possible to either compost yard and
38 Expanding plastics kitchen waste or separate it in order to send it to
39 I would love curb side service included with our a biomass faciliiy and turn it into electricity.
trash pick up in Gypsum. Beiween the restaurant kitchens and the various
40 but we would recycle more if we had more bins, non-recyclable flammable construction waste,
plus it would be great if Honeywagon picked up there's a lot of energy going down the tubes out
boxes for recycling - we often have many boxes at the landfill.
that need recycling. 60 Recycling at our condo complex - Sunriver -
41 if you make it more convenient, more people may Please!!!
do it 61 Curb side recycle
42 Would like to see a fall mulching service offered 62 Recycling: frequency of collection at TOV
by Trash companies of TOV to dispose of leaves, building, recycling of 3-6 (which Vail Resorts now
and other garden waste in a'green' fashion does on mountain)
43 Knowledge of what is able to be recycled 63 NO
curbside and at the drop off sites 64 Curb side recycling pickup.
44 recycle more plastic and paperboard 65 If I was in charge, I would make it recycling
45 Power raking of TOV right of ways by main roads mandatory at the Town of Vail. Without recycling
to get cinders. mandates in Policy, eco-violators will not
46 not sure of all my recycling options bin Edwards improve.
47 Require curbside recycling to force my HOA to 66 see #20 comments.
do recycling. They will not pay otherwise! 67 I would like curbside recycling and a total overall
48 Weekly pickup of recyclables, would reduce trips lower cost. It is 3 times more then where I used
to recycling center and there would be no reason to live.
for additional recycling centers 68 Add a yard waste collection site
49 The problem is people don't know what they can 69 Eagle is starting curb side pickup for recycle but
and cannot recycle, combined with the limited items.
mislabeling of the bins all over the couniy, 70 curbside in eagle is nice, but every iwo weeks is
including where I live. For example, we have a not enough. The bin sizes are too small.
bin for newspaper, yet all paper is now 71 more recycling pick up days, more items taken
recyclable. Most people don't know that more for recycling (paper, cardboard)
things are recyclable than before. You need to 72 I would like to see cost of trash services based
get the bins relabeled and then advise on amount of trash generated as I pay the same
households what is and isn't recyclable. with 1-2 bags of trash a week as someone who
50 Would love to recycle paperboard and Plastic 3-7 overflows their cans plus.
51 offer curbside recycling pick up to all
Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA) Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy 64
DRAFT
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
veus,i.sW=ra irx;g)rri (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-68
73 Better looking trash enclosures and more 5 need more specific info concerning recyclable
attention to the location of trash enclosures. A materials
better location and lay-out for drop-off recycling. 6 For example, I have been trying to find out where
74 Collect cardboard curbside. Don't encourage to recycle a computer for days... no information in
recycling of items that just end up in a landfill Eagle Couniy available.
anyway, i.e., green glass. 7 recycling center is filthy and not well-maintained
75 Provide for more opportuniiy 8 Must collect and drop off recycling at center-not
76 Easier cardboard recycling/More various plastic convenient
77 everyone should have to recycle, and it should 9 See above comment re: multi-plex dwellers being
be picked up once a week disconnected from the actual service/cost/effects
78 could be easier to get rid of tires, appliances, 10 Bottlers material choices/Cost/benefit of recovery
electronics. 11 Where does this stuff go?
79 recycle #k5 plastics would be great--I save and 12 Needs to be made as easy as possible
take mine to Boulder's EcoCycle 13 Varieiy of materials accepted at different
80 yes locations makes it more difficult
81 cheaper rates 14 recycling bins are always overflowing - end up
82 More electronics recycling throwing things in garbage sometimes when his
83 Have more recycling centers happens. If the recycle bins were that same size
84 N/A as the garbage cans, that would be great!
85 Just keep up the "education" piece - people 15 Wish garden cuttings could be re-cycled by TOV.
WANT to do the right thing but don't always have 16 The current containers are too small so we use a
the background and/or information they need. 30 gal trash can for all cans, plastics and glass.
86 Again, there needs to be better education on how 17 It is puzzling why more people don't recycle or
to recycle. I see "contaminated" things going into the don't try to reduce their waste. (i.e., paper coffee
recycling all the time. IYs disgusting. It doesn't take very cups, etc.)
long to educate people on how to recycle properly. 18 I am very concerned about putting out recycling
87 recycle pasteboard (cereal boxes) or composting that would attract wildlife.
88 keep it cleaned up 19 The rich second home owners can't be bothered
89 see above to recycle - need to get them some incentive to
90 start a composting program- educate community do so.
about recycling- and more about how to use less 20 bins are often too full
recyclables! 21 I use drop off service due to cost of curbside
91 Convenience of recycling is the determining service.
factor to participation, up front costs can steer 22 Would like to see a comprehensive audit of
many away but long term impacts are valuable. where everything goes that is recycled and the
92 recycling by the dumpster cost to get it to the user of the recycled waste.
93 Pass ciiy ordinances penalizing plastic bags 23 IYs discouraging to recycle, but see so many
94 recycling should be mandatory recyclable materials thrown away by the
95 As eco friendly as we like to say we are why is hospitaliiy indusfiy / restaurants.
there not free curbside recycling? A green state 24 No room for recycle containers
should do everything to get people to recycle 25 Even if you do curbside recycling, there should
still be a drop off center for recyclables. As a
Q22: What do you see as primary barriers to doing part time resident, I wouldn't want to pay for
more recycling? (check all that apply) Other (please weekly pick up service!!!
specify)
1 The instructions on the recycle site bins are Q24: Do you agree or disagree with the following
unclear, sometimes contradictory or just wrong statements? Comments?
2 I don't generate much in the way of recyclables 1 recycling should be a personal choice and not a
3 see number 21 & 23 & the real costs to the mandate
hauler. It may make some sense on some 2 Being green for the right reasons, and not just for
recyclables to mine them later (dig them out of a PR stunt. Our first step should be reduction of
landfills) the town use of energy and products.
4 People abuse recycle containers, using them for 3 recycling should be mandatory
garbage.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA) Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy 65
DRAFT
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
veus,i.sW=ra irx;(x)rri (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-69
4 In this economy, it is hard to say that I can pay no additional cost for curbside recycling collection,
more to recycle... how many LARGE 32-GALLON (Like the large black
5 the emphasis should be on materials with strong GLAD trash bags) bags of trash might you dispose of
market demand, etc., but if iYs possible to recycle per week? Other (please specify)
"as much as we can" without killing the budget, 1 responsible owners will suffer due to ignorance of
then we should others in condo complex situations
6 Efforts s/b concentrated on maintaining integriiy 2 this question shows a lack of understanding of
of drinking water supply and recycling of or realities
recovery of most valuable product components 3 base the fee on per bearproof container which is
7 Trash service should be required - no freeloaders mandatory
8 I'm not familiar with market prices and how this 4 I would fear that people would use dumpsters,
works etc. that I pay for through my HOA (which already
9 We can not put out trash bags due to the wildlife happens) since they would have to pay per bag.
issues. 5 The only fair way to assess the amount of trash
10 Recycling tends to be a feel-good operation. is by weight, not volume. My trash can is often
Only recycle things that get used. The cost to only half full.
transport and sort stuff that has no market 6 I would be motivated to reduce trash volume
exceeds the value of recycling not to mention the 7 because my HOA has a dumpster for the
carbon emissions associated with moving it complex, I am not sure how this would apply to
around. me; however, I like this idea.
11 transportation costs / carbon offset of 8 I would stay with Honeywagon though as they
transportation should be considered. are a longtime business I like to support
12 Again, I'm speaking for Vail but live in Edwards. 9 This wont work are you going to audit my bear
proof trash can? The extra large, 90 gal one I
Q25: Which of the following program and operational only fill 25% full except for Christmas and
changes for the Town's trash management would you holidays when my house is full of guests.
support?Other programs you would like to see? 10 It would depend on compost availabiliiy
1 electronics recycling 11 Trash collection is done by private companies.
2 have town government set a better example and Town of Vail should not get involved unless the
educate more..Pay as you throw penalizes those Town wants to start a municipal trash service run
who actually already act responsibly and really by the town
will not get more recycling in the system 12 Hard to say what the total would be for all 4 units
3 I would like to say that usually the public but our unit personally has approximately one
recycling at events is great. bag each week
4 offer compost/sludge to the public to offset cost 13 I want to keep our HOA dumpster - no curbside!
of recycling yard waste 14 don't know
5 mandatory recycling 15 I already use less then 1 bag
6 Better Household hazardous waste drop off 16 Live in Edwards
system 17 I don't believe we'd be able to generate much
7 Bottle/container Refund-eligible for credit to less waste - however, options for disposing it
individuals/biz/unidentified excess to TOV should be more environmentally progressive
8 definitely the cardboard curbside recycling 18 This question and others apply to Vail residents
9 I do not support more drop off. we need required only.
curbside! 19 if this does not include yard waste in the
10 Educate people. summers.
11 construction site recycling/ or waste monitoring 20 I'm a renter in a condo, with a shared dumpster,
by TOV so I would wonder how you would charge me per
12 I would support all of these; however, recycling bag?
outside the TOV at recycling sites is not difficult 21 Already have a 90 gallon bear-proof can
or an imposition in any way. 22 Two if it includes recycling
Q26: If the Town decided to offer Pay-As-You-Throw or Q28: If the Town chose to implement some of the
variable rates fortrash (where rates are based on the above programs but it cost a little more, how much
number of trash bags you dispose of each week) with
Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA) Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy 66
DRAFT
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
veus,i.sW=ra irx;(x)rri (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-70
would you be willing to pay, per month, for the 38 Unless it affected the town of Avon, does not
expanded service(s)? Response Text apply
1 unsure 39 The money you make from the recycled items
2 It would depend on what additional services should pay for the picking them up. I don't think it
3 zero. trash service is too expensive now should cost any more.
4 2 40 $10 to $15 per month
5 tough to answer...not enough to break the bank, 41 5
but you should pay for the services you receive 42 Not willing to pay any more than Honeywagon
6 zero,we'ew already overtaxed at every turn currently charges
7 absolutely zero..stay the hell out of my trash!!!! 43 $5-10
8 3%more 44 Honeywagon rates in E. Vail already high.
9 The Town does not service our HOA. I would 45 0
like to see them do that. At any reasonable cost. 46 hard to say maybe $25.00 more a month
10 This is a tough yes or no question, but with the 47 30
amount of waste I see my neighbors throw out, I 48 10
would happily pay more if it meant that they 49 10
threw out less. And I am a renter and do not 50 Don't know
make a lot of money. 51 $10-$20
11 don't really know 52 Yes
12 increase of 25% to current rates 53 Depends on shat you are going to implement and
13 A small amount. who would pay for it!
14 tov should not compete with private business 54 ?
15 depends on program 55 0.02
16 already pay for curbside recycling and trash- 56 yes
would depend on services offered 57 yes
17 10 58 5
18 Very little. Though I would have been willing to 59 ?
pay more when I was making more. 60 $10 -$20
19 0 61 less then $5, it is already too expensive
20 7 62 I currently rent, and do not know how much the
21 10 cost is for my landlord.
22 Too unclear to know. 63 Low amount for recycling; High amount for trash
23 nothing already to expensive to live here that containers recycle items in it.
24 $5 -10 64 Three bucks
25 $5-10 65 35
26 ? 66 If the cost is in addition to the current trash
27 75 services, it would be hard to pay for additional
28 None services as they are already high. Would prefer
29 15 to see the cost based on amount of trash
30 Depends on the service, but in general I believe generated.
waste reduction practices should be covered by 67 20
fees for waste services. i.e., compost/recycling 68 20
free, trash=expense. 69 don't know
31 10-15 $ per month 70 15
32 I think the TOV wastes an inordinate amount of 71 depends on service, cost should go to large trash
money, for example the fountain debacle with the generators
lights at the top of Bridge Street. I would prefer 72 10
that we use our money more wisely and try to 73 $5-10
make a difference. 74 none
33 20 75 0.5
34 nothing right now. Were barely getting by as it is 76 does not apply I have dumpster service
35 don't know 77 $5 to $10
36 $1/month 78 do not live in vail
37 I already pay for trash service with the TOG. 79 Nothing!!!!
Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA) Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy 67
DRAFT
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
veus,i.sW=ra irx;g)rri (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-71
80 n/a on the season, holiday, property ownership, etc.
81 not very interested Improvements at recycling centers and an on site
82 $10 month supervisor/helper would do the most for
83 do not know recycling. More laws are resented and the
84 $24 a month more carrying out of those laws would be a burden on
85 0 the trash companies with additional costs along
86 5 the way that are not figured in. It is not just about
87 5 the cost to the resident. Curbside recycling
88 our association pays for all trash pickup in our should be left alone. If it makes financial sense,
neighborhood. We have many seasonal trash companies will jump on the opportuniiy
residents and there is already a problem with faster than government can respond. Right now
them leaving the trash cans out outside of the trash companies have to pay markets to take
dawn to dusk rules. Having more services would most product so it is questionable whether the
only complicate the problem. The association town should get involved at all at the curb.
would probably not be in favor of more services. Hazardous waste and electronics recycling
should be addressed by government and
Q28: Do you have any other comments? available weekly.
Response Text 7 Trash and recycling should be a Town function.
1 Kristen Bertugilia is awesome!!! Definitely an Our HOA is currently required to use a
asset for the town commercial service. We don't offer recycling
2 At the Vail Town Council meeting where the because of the cost/abuse.
Wildlife Protection Ordinance was passed it was 8 Thank you for your efforts. I am excited to see
made very clear that recyclable cans and bottles any improvements.
were wildlife "attractants" and would not be 9 Used to recycle magazines /catalog, paper and
allowed at curbside outside of bearproof cardboard but I hurt my arm lugging the heavy
containers. That aspect of the ordinance has things there and then hoisting into dumpsters
been ignored. We only recycle newspapers at (plus I am in good shape ..what about older
curbside because we think that part of the people?) plus the Vail recycling spot was always
ordinance is as it should be everything else a mess and not big enough for 2 cars at once
goes to the recycling site. Also, are all kinds of 10 The Town of Vail should contract with the trash
cardboard welcome at the recycling site? It used haulers and provide this service as part of the
to say corrugated only. taxes we pay. Current trash service prices are
3 The TOV recycling drop off is good and I use it. I ridiculously high, and a blanket contract would
will not pay extra for curbside recycling although I reduce this cost.
would use it if available at no extra cost. I 11 TOV needs to do a better job promoting and
believe in recycling and wish it was easier to offering recycling services that reduce landfill
dispose of electronics, batteries, etc. If there is a waste. Curbside recycling is the most effective
local hazardous waste drop off, I am not aware of and convenient system known in the USA.
it- last year l did drive down to the Wolcott dump 12 the town really needs to implement curbside
to drop off haz mat stuff but it was a pain to do recycling. if not, the drop ofPs need to be cleaned
so. up and maintained better. recycling can be more
4 I'm OK with paying for elevated services (eg. of a hassle than its worth.
curbside collection, increased material 13 Since trash hauling is provided by private
acceptance) since I recognize it as an enterprise, I question how involved the TOV
importance service. My fear is that since I live in should be other then running the
a condo complex with some ignorant neighbors, I recycling program. Have you talked to the
will end up paying for their ignorance and apathy trash companies about this. PAYT would directly
for such programs (such as pay-as-you-throw). impact them cost wise. Would the TOV
5 No comments!!! compensate them?
6 I know that a pay as you throw program is 14 Delighted the town is making this a prioriiy.
available already in Vail and that it is seldom 15 I suspect many items destined for landfill can be
taken advantage of because it does not work converted to energy reduction materials for
because the amounts of trash each week vary housing particularly low-income older homes
wildly depending not on the amount recycled but 16 we need more trash and recycling pickup in Vail.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA) Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy 68
DRAFT
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
veus,i.sW=ra irx;g)rri (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-72
17 Drop off centers are appreciated but only 29 I think recycling is important for the future of our
somewhat effective-they do not reach everyone valley and country. I think we should all do what
in the communiiy. Recycling should be ever we can to help out. I also think there are
mandatory for everyone including commercial many companies that pay to get these recycled
and multi-family. Trash fees should be set based items, and that in itself could at least help offset
on what you throw away. Vail should also the cost of collecting it. We should also expand
facilitate a commercial or curbside compost what we can recycle. There are many other
program. Construction waste recycling on towns across the counfiy that have a good
development/remodel sites should be required by program that should be looked at. Since we live
the Town. We should also have an ongoing in a beautiful valley where we all want to be
hazardous materials collection. healthy, we should especially be aware of how to
18 Move location away from the helipad. Bad idea keep our land healthy.
with a very bad accident just waiting to happen. 30 I think the recycle efforts are good today, but I do
19 Overall - we would like to see more leadership in think we could do so much more - I really like the
being "green". In Orange Couniy, CA, all trash is idea of increasing trash costs and decreasing
co-mingled and separated for recycling purposes recycle costs.
at the dump as it was more economical NOT to 31 Let the private companies continue to handle
separate. trash collection and recycling. Town of Vail
20 WE NEED TO DO BETTER-IF NEW YORK should not be involved since they do not offer a
STATE CAN,WE CAN - municipal trash service.
LETO, 32 This survey is extremely long. you should have a
21 Need more recycling shorter version as well so others don't quit.
22 How do you get curbside recycling in Vail? We 33 I have tried to contact WM and Honeywagon
would love to have it, but did not even know that about getting recycling pick up at my apt complex
was an option. We would recycle a lot more if we and my calls and concerns were never
did not have to drive recycling to the village. addressed.
23 Please do more that makes residents recycle. 34 TOV should encourage more HOAs and
Europe does a greatjob, take some ideas from neighborhood associations to build bearproof
them. dumpster enclosures. I see lots of overflowing
24 It is unrealistic to charge by the size of our bear curbside carts (not bearproof then). Short-term
proof can since it is hardly ever filled to capacity. rentals are a problem; need to make it easy for
We sized our can for peak load capacity and best them to do the right thing.
utilization of our garage floor space. Currently our 35 "From what I've seen with visiting clients in their
recyclables represent about 1/3 to 1/2 of the hotel rooms it is sad that there is no, NO
trash volume or our household. If there is one recycling being done...and they are visiting from
item in my trash that would reduce the volume in states that do much more of it.
the trash can it would be cardboard containers To take care of'EARTH' we all need to be doing
from small boxes to corrugated boxes. more1"
25 Curbside recycling, not at a cost - just increase 36 You need to remind people that, if they drive out
the cost to throw waste in the trash. In a town of their way to recycle, they have largely
where we have such a substantial population defeated the advantage of recycling.
relying on bus service, why would you require 37 W. Vail recycling center please
people to haul their recycling to a central 38 "Vail's program was excellent 10 years ago.
location? I would like to see us on the level of Boulder as
26 "How about getting the Honor Society students far as being able to recycle, compost or turn into
involved in making it imperative the lodges for biomass just about everything we might
tourists recycle. otherwise throw in the landfill."
What recycling is done on the matins?" 39 Efforts to increase awareness on responsible
27 I would like to see the TOV work with businesses living are commendable! Thank you!
to recycle more. I coordinate recycling at WMC 40 We have real problems with trash disposal by
and we would love to be able to recycle #3-7 short-term renters- who put out overflowing cans
plastic. and multiple loosely tied plastic bags- often times
28 keep on going to save the earth. days in advance of the pick-up.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA) Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy 69
DRAFT
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
veus,i.sW=ra irx;g)rri (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-73
41 Be transparent about the effectiveness of items Reduce, Reuse, Recycle really needs to be a
being recycled. Let the public know where mantra!
everything goes and the cost to recycle and 50 Good survey. Too lengthy though. I myself did
the carbon impacts of recycling each item (i.e., not have time to finish it but I feel strongly for
brown glass vs. green glass). recycling as much as we can and making it
42 We should be lobbying for a bottle container easier for the community to do so. Coming from a
redemption law, then no bottles or cans would be "green" ciiy of Fort Collins I feel that the town of
thrown away. There should be a central Vail has a lot of work to do. Convenience is the
recycling place in Vail Village that restaurants key to success. Most people will not go out of
would use. We recycle as much as can be their way to recycle, provide incentives to do so.
recycled at home and at work (Sitrmark Lodge). A green communiiy is a healthy communiiy.
There used to be information at the recycling 51 The recycling center in Vail is often overflowing
sites about what was and was not acceptable, and it is difficult to reach the dumpsters if it is icy
and that is missing. Info about where the and trash has been left on the ground or the
recycling is going and what happens to it would wooden platform. Can the dumpsters be
increase the interest and create more connection replaced with empty ones more often
to the waste stream. Breaking down boxes is
annoying, it would be nicer to throw larger sizes
and let the crusher do iYs job.
43 more public recycling would be great, more
education about what is/isn't recyclable would be
helpful, and recycling more (like #k5 plastics)
would be great
44 Need better access to the dumpsters
45 Leave as is, no changes are necessary, as
recycling is available to everyone now. Do not
mandate and raise costs anymore than what we
bear now
46 Good survey! Comprehensive and clear.
47 I'm confused as to whether you're talking about
the TOV taking over trash collection from the
private companies or what. At this point,
because of so many part time residents, I think
that private collection works well. In our cluster
development many of the Denver people take
their trash back to Denver as it is a constant
problem for part time owners to resolve the issue
of trash cans be out for the entire week,
hindering snow removal and in the summer,
against the law!
48 If curbside pickup is not an option, make
additional drop off points available. For example
include in any final plans for the West Vail
development site (VVendy's and surrounding
land) to include recycling drop off and find a
place in East Vail. Figure out a way for
restaurants and other businesses to recycle. The
amount of materials that could be recycled is
enormous. Start accepting other
items(paperboard, mail, etc.) so even less waste
occurs. Allow for multi unit dwellings to recycle.
49 Please look at the compost programs in other
cities/towns- we could do it- and reduce so much.
Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA) Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy 70
DRAFT
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
veus,i.sW=ra irx;g)rri (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-74
Skumatz Economic Research Associates (SERA) Vail PAYT Feasibiliiy 71
DRAFT
762 Eldorado Drive, Superior, CO 80027
veus,i.sW=ra irx;g)rri (303)494-1178
8/4/2009
3-5-75
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 4, 2009
ITEM/TOPIC: Fees for Businesses Delivering Into Town
PRESENTER(S): Judy Camp / Sally Lorton/ Matt Mire
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review and discuss information provided by staff
concerning fees for businesses delivering into town.
BACKGROUND: During the July 7 meeting, Council asked staff to research this issue.
Currently, the Town of Vail requires businesses with a physical location within the town to
obtain a business license and pay a fee. No comparable fee is required of businesses who
deliver into town but do not have a physical presence. Council members expressed their
concern that such businesses are undercutting local merchants.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to gather more information, to proceed with one of
the options identified by staff, or to take no further action.
ATTACH M E NTS:
Memo
Business License Fees
Business License Fees
8/4/2009
MEMORANDUM
To: Town Council
From: Matt Mire
Judy Camp
Sally Lorton
Date: July 30, 2009
Subject: Fees for Businesses Delivering into Town
BACKGROUND
During the July 7 meeting, Council asked staff to research this issue. Currently, the
Town of Vail requires businesses with a physical location within the town to obtain a
business license and pay a fee. Businesses required to collect sales tax are also
required to have a sales tax license, regardless of the physical location of their business.
There is no fee charged for a sales tax license. Businesses who deliver into the town,
therefore, pay no fee for the privilege of doing business in town and do not contribute to
the cost of administering and enforcing the sales tax code. Nor do they contribute to the
marketing fund which supports special events through the Commission on Special
Events (CSE). Council expressed their concern that businesses delivering into town,
such as Applejack Liquors, are undercutting our local merchants and asked staff to
research fees for businesses delivering into town.
Presented below are three options identified by staff for charging businesses delivering
into town: a sales tax license fee; a business license fee; and a marketing and promotion
tax.
Leqal Basis for Charqinq a Fee or Tax
A municipality may charge a fee to recover the costs of the government services needed
to support a program such as licensing businesses and collecting sales taxes. Unlike a
tax, a special fee is not designed to raise revenues to defray the general expenses of
government, but rather is a charge imposed upon persons or property for the purpose of
defraying the costs of a particular governmental service. For a fee to be valid it must be
reasonably related to the overall cost of the service.
A special fee, however, might be subject to invalidation as a tax when the principal
purpose of the fee is to raise revenues for general municipal purposes rather than to
offset the expense of the particular service for which the fee is imposed. A tax and
would require a vote under TABOR.
Vail Sales Tax Licenses
The Town of Vail currently requires a sales tax license for every business responsible for
collecting sales tax from its customers. There is currently no fee for a sales tax license
with the exception of transient vendors at special events who pay a$75 fee. The "no-
fee" philosophy was implemented to make compliance with the tax law as easy as
possible.
Vail Business Licenses
-1-
8/4/2009
4-1-1
Currently, businesses are charged an annual license fee for each physical location
operating in Vail. Fees are based on the type, location, and size of the business as
outlined in the attached schedule. The lowest fee is $112.50 for a home occupation
business in the non-core area. Rates are significantly higher for retailers ($2,000 for a
10,000 square foot store in Vail Village or LionsHead) and lodges ($325 plus $17 per
lodging unit in Vail Village or LionsHead). The average fee for all licenses is $526. Per
Town Code Title 4, Chapter 1, funds collected from the business license fee are
restricted to "marketing and promotion of the Town's principal industry, tourism, and for
the payment of expenses related to such marketing and promotion, and to promote and
market activities and events beneficial to the economic health and vitality of the
community". Five percent (5%) of the fee is paid to the town's general fund for
administration. Approximately 570 business licenses are issued each year generating
around $300,000. Revenue from business licenses is used to fund special events
through the Commission on Special Events (CSE). The Vail business license fee was
established before TABOR legislation went into effect and amending it now to extend it
to businesses without a physical location in Vail is not an advisable option under current
legislation.
Comparison to Other Municipalities
Staff contacted eight similar towns (Avon, Aspen, Breckenridge, Crested Butte, Frisco,
Silverthorne, Snowmass, and Steamboat) to ask about fees charged to businesses
delivering into town or otherwise doing business in town without a physical location.
Specific responses from these communities are shown in the attached chart. Five
communities required a business license for entities doing business in their town, but not
having a physical location within town. Aspen does not charge for the required business
license, but has an occupation tax that must be paid before the business can obtain a
free business license. For the four towns charging directly for a business license
(Breckenridge, Crested Butte, Frisco, and Silverthorne) annual rates were $75 or $100.
Of the three towns who do not require a business license for non-resident businesses,
one (Snowmass) charges a similar fee of $85 for their sales tax license. All of the towns
with fees for non-resident business reported resistance from licensees and difficulty in
gaining compliance.
OPTIONS FOR COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Sales Tax License Fee
The sales tax license fee model used by Snowmass, with an exemption for local
businesses that pay a business license fee, seems to correspond most closely to the
objective of Council to require a fee for businesses delivering into town. The sales tax
code already provides a definition of which businesses need to be licensed and the
existing data base of sales tax license holders provides a starting point for those who
would need to pay an annual fee. The town code requires a sales tax license, but does
not specify a fee. Council could impose a sales tax license fee for non-resident
businesses by adopting specific legislation. The Town attorney is presently looking into
whether this should be done by resolution or by ordinance..
Council should be aware that there are three categories of business subject to fees
charged by other towns which would not be subject to a sales tax license fee -
contractors, wholesalers, and most service providers. If Council wanted to include any
of those categories, it could be accomplished through the second option, a business
license, as discussed below. Staff believes a fee that excludes contractors, wholesalers,
-2-
8/4/2009
4-1-2
and most service providers is preferred over a fee that includes them for the following
reasons:
Approximately 1,200 contractors currently pay a fee to obtain their contractors'
licenses. Contractors have recently been affected by the construction use tax
implemented in 2008 and may feel a further effect from fire impact fees and
traffic impact fees currently under consideration. Therefore, staff recommends
excluding contractors from additional fees.
Staff also supports excluding wholesalers. The comparator towns were equally
divided on licensing and charging wholesalers, although none offered a
compelling argument for why they do or do not. Since wholesalers do not pay
sales tax, additional procedures would need to be developed to determine what
wholesalers are coming into Vail. This is a category other towns acknowledge
having difficulty identifying and gaining compliance. Wholesale product is, by
definition, incorporated into product eventually distributed at retail by a business
license holder who currently pays a fee. Examples include everything from
clothing and sporting goods sold in retail shops to meats and produce made into
meals by local restaurants. Imposing a license fee on wholesalers could
increase the cost to our local businesses to the extent the wholesalers would
pass through the cost. At a minimum, the licensing requirement could create ill
will with both the wholesalers and our local businesses.
Service providers could fit into the broad definitions such as "all businesses"
and "any person conducting business" used by some comparator towns requiring
a business license. That broad a definition could include landscapers, property
managers, snow plow operators, realtors, financial planners, brokers, business
consultants, lawyers, doctors, etc. Identifying this category of business and
gaining compliance would be difficult and it is not feasible to estimate the
numbers involved at this time. It is likely that additional staff would be required to
implement licensing for services where there is no physical location in-town and
the cost/benefit of doing so is unknown. Although this is a category where local
businesses are required to have a business license and pay a fee in support of
marketing and special events, it does not appear Council was directing your
request toward this type of business.
While a sales tax license fee for out-of-town businesses provides a method of assessing
a charge on businesses delivering into town, there are several considerations which
make it less than ideal.
The fee for a sales tax license is likely to be in the $100 range - significantly less
than our local businesses pay for their business license fee. This may not
satisfy Council's objective of leveling the playing field.
There will be start-up costs as well as on-going costs to administer and enforce
this license. These costs could more than offset the net revenue from the fee.
Charging for a sales tax license is a departure from the current no fee policy,
which has been viewed as a way to make the process of collecting tax on the
town's behalf as easy as possible. Some of the most difficult businesses to gain
compliance from include the small remitters, internet rentals, and businesses
-3-
8/4/2009
4-1-3
delivering in. The Sales Tax Division has put a great deal of effort into
collections from these groups and has been quite successful in gaining
compliance as a result. As an example, $33,600 has been collected from
internet renters in 2009. However, it is likely that some remitters will decide not
to comply if they are required to pay a fee and we will lose their sales tax
dollars.
Similarly, gaining compliance for payment of the sales tax license fee will be
difficult. All of the comparator towns expressed this concern for their own fees
and several admitted the cost of compliance for a$75 to $100 fee exceeded the
benefit.
The town currently has 945 active sales tax license holders on file. An estimated 570
are in-town businesses who would be exempt from the sales tax license fee because
they already pay for a business license. It can be expected that many of the remaining
375 sales tax license holders would resist the fee and/or take their chances on doing
business without a sales tax license, particularly those whose businesses are small
and/or difficult to identify. As an example, if 200 of the out-of-town remitters paid a$100
fee, gross revenue generated would be $20,000. If the remaining 175 failed to pay a
license fee and to remit sales tax, a minimum of $7,000 of sales tax revenue would be
lost, assuming the 175 who failed to remit were those who were the lowest remitters in
2008. The $13,000 net revenue would be further reduced by incremental costs of
administering the new license.
Business License Fee
A business license fee would be similar to a sales tax license fee, but could include more
categories of business such as contractors, wholesalers, and service providers. All of
the issues identified for sales tax licenses would still apply - lower fees than local
businesses pay, costs to set up and administer, difficulty gaining compliance, and
potential loss of sales tax revenue from non-compliers. The only reason to do a
business license fee rather than a sales tax license fee is if the Council wants to include
contractors, wholesalers, or service providers.
Marketinq and Promotion Tax
Since fees are limited to the amount necessary to recover costs of administration and
enforcement, the only method by which the town could charge an amount comparable to
the amount local businesses pay for a business license would be to impose a tax on
non-resident businesses. Such a tax would require a TABOR election in November
2010 at the earliest. This method is not recommended by staff.
-4-
8/4/2009
4-1-4
Town of Vail Business License Fees
Zone 1 Zone 2
Retail 0-1500 square feet 325.00 244.00
1501-2500 sq feet 650.00 488.00
2501-3500 975.00 732.00
3501-10,000 1,500.00 1,125.00
10,001 + 2,200.00 1,650.00
Lodging & Property Management Zone 1 325.00 Plus $17.00 per unit
Zone 2 243.75 Plus $12.75 per unit
Restaurant with liquor Zone 1 325.00 Plus 8.00 per seat
Zone 2 243.75 Plus 6.00 per seat
Restaurant without liquor Zone 1 325.00 Plus 4.00 per seat
Zone 2 243.75 Plus 3.00 per seat
Tavern Zone 1 325.00 Plus 4.00 per seat
Zone 2 243.75 Plus 3.00 per seat
Real Estate Sales, Management Zone 1 325.00 Plus 50.00 per licensed person
and/or Development Zone 2 243.75 Plus 37.50 per licensed person
Construction 325.00 243.75
Athletic Club 600.00 450.00
Service 325.00 243.75
Home Occupation 150.00 112.50
Professional Zone 1 325.00 Plus 50.00 per professional
Zone 2 243.75 Plus 37.50 per professional
Financial Zone 1 325.00 Plus .10 per square foot
Zone 2 243.75 Plus .075 per square foot
8/4/2009
4-2-1
Business Licenses requirements for other entities when business is not physically located in the Town/City Limits
BL required without Fee or Tax without Fee or Tax with
Entity Purpose
Physical location Physical location Physical location
Avon No $75.00
< 6 employees $150.00 < 6 employees $150.00
> 5, but < 16 employees $200.00 > 5, but < 16 employees $200.00
>15, < 51 employees $400.00 >15, < 51 employees $400.00
Aspen Yes > 50 employees $750.00 > 50 employees $750.00 General Fund
Yes, Regular is in excess of 4 months a Regular $100.00
Breckenridge year $200 +$10 per employee Marketing
Seasonal 14 days to 4 months Seasonal $50.00
Crested Butte Yes $100.00 $100.00 $75 to Chamber, $25 to GF
Frisco Yes $75.00 $75.00 General Fund
Silverthorne Yes $75.00 $75.00 General Fund
Snowmass Not a BL, Sales Tax $85.00 $85.00 $85.00 Cover cost of Town Clerks
Office
Steamboat No BL at all, Stax only
8/4/2009
4-3-1
Business Licenses requirements for other entities when business is not physically located in the Town/City Limits
Entity Who are you charging? Contractors Delivery Wholesalers
Avon
Aspen Any person or business conducting business activites in Aspen excluding merely Yes No Do not charge wholesalers
delivering
Breckenridge Any business that enters town except wholesalers Yes Yes Do not charge wholesalers
Crested Butte Any business conducting business in the Town Yes Yes Do charge wholesalers, Council
decision
Frisco Any person conducting any business within the Town Yes Yes Do charge wholesalers
Silverthorne All except electrical contractors exempt via State Statute and peddlers or Yes Yes Do charge wholesalers
solcitors, Silverthorne has another permit for them, same fee
Snowmass All except wholesale Yes Yes Do not charge wholesalers
Steamboat
8/4/2009
4-3-2
Business Licenses requirements for other entities when business is not physically located in the Town/City Limits
Entity Resistance How do you gain compliance? Additional Comments
Avon
No fee for a business license; instead require every business pay
Review all newspapers daily; A/P is required to verify the appropriate Business Occupation Tax; rates stated are for
Aspen Yes however cooperation when they all businesses the city is doing businss with has a BL Business Occupation Tax; includes examples like attorneys;
see code if not the dept. that hired the business is required to construction required to obtain a contractors license and BL; any
contact the business and get them to obtain a BL services; any retail sales; no parking permit unless they have a
BL, so many voluntarily get BL to be eligible for parking pass
Sales tax collection tips them off, Building permit Service Industry very hard, Businesses/Citizen tip them off,
Breckenridge Enforcement is very difficult system requires a BL # drive/walk town, would be great if the PD would help with
compliance however they do not
Oh Yes, a terrible time enforcing, Voted in business and occupation license tax, Capped at $100.00
Crested Butte subcontractors the worst, delivery BL Calls, Letters and then the PD pays a visit currently, Fees were as high as $1500.00, $75.00 to Chamber for
required - get whow they can; however
many unlicensed Visitor Center
Frisco Some, typically from large corporations Comm. Dev. Checks for BL when business comes in If Stax receives tax and the business does not have a BL they will
for Sign, Banner, Contractors Lic and Bldg Permit contact business and typically Stax has gained compliance for BL
Yes with Contractors and those Contractor License system requires a BL and Comm.
Silverthorne delivering Dev. has access to BL system to verify, if no BL no
Contractor License is issued
Snowmass charges $85.00 for a business license and/or a sales
Snowmass No tax license. Those like Applejack get a sales tax license and pay
$85.00
Steamboat
Discrepancies in Town Codes and information given by Town/City, Much confusion, Had to check with other employees to verify who they charge
Common that Town/Cities get the business they can to license however when businesses object no enforcement action is taken
8/4/2009
4-3-3
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 4, 2009
ITEM/TOPIC: Information Update.
PRESENTER(S): Pam Brandmeyer
ATTACH M E NTS:
Building Codes Update
Investments
Forest Health
Biomass
8/4/2009
MEMORANDUM
TO: Vail Town Council
FROM: Community Development Department
DATE: August 4, 2009
SUBJECT: Update on the development of the 2009 International Building Codes
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide Town Council with a brief written update
on the progress of adopting the 2009 International Building Codes.
The proposed 2009 codes for adoption, with amendments include the following:
International Building Code
International Residential Code
International Mechanical code
International Fire Code
International Energy Conservation Code
International Performance Code
International Fuel Gas Code
International Plumbing Code (as required by the State of Colorado)
Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings 97 Edition (latest
edition)
Amendments to the National Electrical
The Town of Vail Community Development Department has solicited from the
construction community technical expertise in the review and recommendations to the
model building codes that would reflect the geographical and construction practices
relative to the Town of Vail. These committees made up of contractors, architects,
engineers, and code officials provide technical recommendations for code amendments
to the Board of Appeals, who will make the final recommendation to the Town Council.
The committees are broken up into specific discipline areas to utilize the expertise in
each discipline. An example of this is the structural technical advisory committee made
up of an architect, structural engineers, and a geotechnical engineer. Each committee is
chaired by a member of the Board of Appeals with town staff providing administrative
support. Members of these committees have dedicated numerous hours to supporting
the Town of Vail in this endeavor.
Currently the adoption process is 70% complete. The Building and Fire Board of Appeals
shall be considering the proposed amendments in there entirety at the August 13tn
meeting of the board in order to be on the Town Council agenda for the September 1St
meeting .
8/4/2009
5-1-1
TOWN OF VAIL MEMORANDUM
TO: Stan Zemler
Council Members
FROM: Kathleen Halloran
DATE: 2nd Qtr 2009
RE: Investment Report
Enclosed is the investment report with balances as of June 30, 2009.
The estimated average yield for the pooled cash fund is .75%. As of
6/30/09, the Treasury yield curves for 3 months, 6 months, and 1 year are .18%, .31%,
and .51% respectively. TOV investments performed above these yields.
Our investment mix follows the policy objectives of safety, liquidity, and yield in that order.
2009 Investment Mix
$6.7M
$3.8M Gov't
Cash, 5% Securities, 9%
$1.9M
CD's, 3%
$58.5M
Colorado
Investment
Pool, 83%
Other than transfer of funds for operating uses, the Town did not change banking institutions
or investment products during the 2nd quarter of 2009.
Please call me if you have any questions.
8/4/2009
5-2-1
Town of Vail, Colorado
Investment Report
Summary of Accounts and Investments
As of 6/30/09
2009
Balances Percentage
Cash 06/30/09 of Total
Commercial Banks $3,603,006 5.08%
Money Market Funds $233,837 0.33%
Total Cash $3,836,843 5.41%
U.S. Government Securities (see page 5)
Government Agency Seurities -Piper Jaffray $4,583,989 6.46%
FNMA'S, GNMA'S, FHLMC'S & SBA'S - Dana $2,071,220 2.92%
Total Government Securities $6,655,209 9.38%
Certificates of Deposit $1,898,802 2.68°/a
Colorado Investment Pools $58,543,586 82.53°/a
Total Portfolio $70,934,440 100.0°/a
Maturing Within 12 Months $66,350,451 93.54%
Maturing Within 24 Months $1,319,380 1.86%
Maturing After 24 Months $3,264,609 4.60%
$70,934,440 100.0%
Investments 6302009 2
8/4/2009
5-2-2
Performance Summary
as of 6/30/09
Institution Average Balances
Type of Accounts Return 06/30/09
"CASH" ACCOUNTS
Commercial Bank Accounts:
First Bank of Vail - Operating
Interest 0.800% $3,603,006
Money Market Accounts:
Schwab Institutional Money Market Fund - Dana Investments
Interest and Balance 0.070% $67,960
Vail Super Now Public Funds Account - Piper Jaffray
Interest and Balance 0.000% $165,877
Total Money Market Funds $233,837
Total "Cash" Accounts $3,836,843
GOVERNMENT SECURITIES (see pg 5)
Government Agency Seurities -Piper Jaffray 3.46% $ 4,583,989
FNMA'S, GNMA'S, FHLMC'S & SBA'S - Dana 4.22% $ 2,071,220
$ 6,655,209
Total Government Securities $ 6,655,209
CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT
U.S. Bank, Vail Colorado Matures Sept 10, 2009 3.350% 625,334
Alpine Bank, Vail Colorado (#19750) Matures Sept 7, 2012 4.400% 598,742
Alpine Bank, Vail Colorado (#19751) Matures Sept 7, 2010 4.100% 674,726
1,898,802
Total Certificates of Deposit $ 1,898,802
LOCAL GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT POOLS
Colotrust General Fund
Interest 0.330% $58,543,586
Total Local Government Investment Pools Accounts $58,543,586
Total All Accounts $70,934,440
Investments 6302009 3
8/4/2009
5-2-3
Government Securities
as of 6/30/09
Days/Years
Int Rate Purchase Maturity to Maturity Market
Agency Broker Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Value
***Federal Agency Discount Notes & Bonds***
FHLB 3133XR-QN-3 Piper Jaffray 3.450% 3.490% 10/24/2008 1/25/2010 1.3 $305,250
FFCB 31 S-TD-5 Piper Jaffray 4.440% 4.510% 7/22/1905 4/5/1910 4.7 $257,890
FHLB 3133XTED4 Piper Jaffray 0.750% 0.750% 4/6/2009 4/6/2011 2.0 $500,470
FHLMC 3128X7PE8 Piper Jaffray 3.160% 3.180% 4/29/2008 5/12/2010 2.0 $255,770
FHLB3133XR-NN-6 PiperJaffray 4.320% 4.400% 11/5/2008 7/1/2011 2.7 $400,000
FHLB 3133XM-B59 Piper Jaffray 5.000% 4.960% 6/2/2009 9/14/2011 2.3 $146,314
FHLB 31331GGQ6 Piper Jaffray 2.980% 2.980% 1/13/2009 12/15/2011 2.9 $503,905
FHLB 3128X8YF3 Piper Jaffray 3.375% 1.370% 4/16/2009 5/7/2012 3.1 $501,970
FHLB 3133XM4R9 Piper Jaffray 5.050% 4.820% 6/2/2009 8/27/2012 3.2 $151,932
FHLB 3133XMEF4 Piper Jaffray 4.860% 4.940% 6/19/2008 10/1/2012 4.3 $505,625
FHLB 3133XMEG2 Piper Jaffray 5.050% 4.990% 6/2/2009 10/1/2012 3.3 $106,181
FHLB 3133XP3C6 Piper Jaffray 3.920% 3.920% 12/12/2008 1/29/2013 4.1 $183,656
FHLB 3133XKDM4 Piper Jaffray 4.900% 4.920% 2/26/2009 4/5/2013 4.1 $517,500
FNMA 31398ARC8 Piper Jaffray 4.050% 4.080% 2/5/2009 5/6/2013 4.2 $247,526
Average Yield 3.46% $4,583,989
Days/Years
Interest Rate Purchase Maturity to Maturity Market
Agency Broker Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Value
***FNMA'S, ARM'S & SBA'S***
SBA 500463V-Q Pooled - Dana 7.625% 3.2% 1-Aug-88 25-Jan-13 24.5 $2,021
SBA 502647V-Q Pooled - Dana 8.475% 4.0% 1-Ju1-94 25-Jun-19 25.0 $9,349
SBA 504417V-Q Pooled - Dana 8.000% 3.5% 1-Feb-99 25-Feb-24 25.1 $2,787
SBA 505536V-M Pooled - Dana 7.875% 3.0% 1-Aug-01 25-Jun-26 24.9 $25,409
GNMA 8417 Pooled - Dana 5.125% 4.0% 1-Oct-88 20-Oct-18 30.1 $3,923
GNMA 8703 Pooled - Dana 4.750% 4.5% 1-Sep-95 20-Sep-25 30.1 $1,243
GNMA 8720 Pooled - Dana 5.125% 4.1 % 30-Sep-95 20-Oct-25 30.1 $1,231
GNMA 8788 Pooled - Dana 5.375% 4.3% 1-Jan-96 20-Jan-26 30.1 $1,029
GNMA 80426 Pooled - Dana 4.500% 4.5% 21-Ju1-00 20-Ju1-30 30.0 $11,223
GNMA 80593 Pooled - Dana 5.375% 5.2% 1-Apr-02 20-Apr-32 30.1 $6,106
GNMA 80710 Pooled - Dana 5.625% 4.5% 1-Ju1-03 20-Ju1-33 30.1 $11,346
FNMA462382 Pooled - Dana 6.141% 5.8% 1-Sep-07 1-Oct-16 9.1 $77,230
FNMA 555921 Pooled - Dana 4.483% 3.5% 1-Oct-03 1-Sep-35 31.9 $45,529
FNMA 850125 Pooled - Dana 5.146% 5.0% 1-May-09 1-Sep-35 26.4 $102,063
FNMA 422251 Pooled - Dana 5.589% 4.3% 1-Dec-95 1-Jan-21 25.1 $58,060
FNMA 334439 Pooled - Dana 6.200% 5.1 % 1-Dec-95 1-Apr-24 28.4 $5,906
FNMA 520790 Pooled - Dana 6.077% 5.1 % 1-Jun-00 1-Apr-28 27.9 $8,681
FNMA 546468 Pooled - Dana 5.563% 4.2% 24-May-00 1-Jun-28 28.0 $5,068
FNMA 535326 Pooled - Dana 5.263% 3.9% 26-Jun-00 1-Jun-28 28.0 $6,177
FNMA 323798 Pooled - Dana 5.749% 3.8% 1-Dec-99 1-May-29 29.4 $2,225
FNMA 576517 Pooled - Dana 6.165% 4.8% 1-Mar-01 1-Feb-30 28.9 $1,301
FNMA 567875 Pooled - Dana 6.336% 5.3% 1-Dec-00 1-Sep-30 29.8 $5,292
FNMA 593941 Pooled - Dana 6.010% 5.6% 1-Dec-01 1-Dec-30 29.0 $18,143
FNMA 545057 Pooled - Dana 5.487% 4.1 % 1-May-01 1-May-31 30.0 $1,222
FNMA 650970 Pooled - Dana 5.118% 3.6% 1-Aug-01 1-Ju1-32 30.9 $8,260
FNMA 555378 Pooled - Dana 5.120% 4.5% 14-May-08 1-Apr-33 24.9 $100,252
FNMA 709092 Pooled - Dana 5.085% 4.3% 1-Jun-03 1-Jun-33 30.0 $13,475
FNMA 723661 Pooled - Dana 5.025% 3.8% 1-Ju1-03 1-Ju1-33 30.0 $4,026
FNMA 761737 Pooled - Dana 6.488% 4.4% 16-May-05 1-Dec-33 28.6 $17,411
FNMA 725462 Pooled - Dana 5.688% 4.7% 1-Apr-04 1-Jan-34 29.8 $13,808
FNMA 745160 Pooled - Dana 5.763% 4.3% 1-Dec-05 1-Mar-34 28.3 $38,730
FNMA 791573 Pooled - Dana 5.057% 5.0% 1-Ju1-04 1-Aug-34 30.1 $7,896
FNMA 888321 Pooled - Dana 5.737% 3.8% 1-Mar-07 1-Aug-34 27.3 $65,054
FNMA 849207 Pooled - Dana 6.340% 4.3% 1-Jan-06 1-Jan-36 30.0 $54,261
FNMA 888710 Pooled - Dana 5.374% 3.9% 1-Sep-07 1-Ju1-36 28.9 $61,215
8/4/2009
Investments 6302009 5_ 2 44
Government Securities
as of 6/30/09
Days/Years
Int Rate Purchase Maturity to Maturity Market
Agency Broker Coupon Yield Date Date at Purchase Value
FNMA 893933 Pooled - Dana 5.209% 3.7% 1-Sep-06 1-Oct-36 30.1 $68,235
FNMA 555624 Pooled - Dana 5.366% 3.9% 1-Jun-03 1-Mar-38 34.8 $9,334
FNMA 735967 Pooled - Dana 6.107% 4.3% 1-Sep-05 1-Mar-38 32.5 $15,137
FNMA 888386 Pooled - Dana 5.623% 3.9% 1-Apr-07 1-Mar-38 30.9 $110,009
FNMA 888618 Pooled - Dana 5.799% 4.1 % 1-Ju1-07 1-Mar-38 30.7 $40,165
FNMA 995451 Pooled - Dana 4.581 % 4.4% 12-Feb-09 1-May-38 29.2 $130,388
FNMA 557073 Pooled - Dana 4.255% 2.9% 1-Sep-00 1-Jun-40 39.8 $7,862
FNMA 110540 Pooled - Dana 5.150% 5.0% 1-Nov-90 1-May-20 29.5 $8,035
FNMA 327446 Pooled - Dana 5.747% 4.6% 1-Oct-95 1-Aug-22 26.9 $4,911
FNMA 868877 Pooled - Dana 5.191% 3.8% 1-Apr-06 1-Apr-36 30.0 $55,809
FNMA 701045 Pooled - Dana 4.830% 3.8% 1-Apr-03 1-Apr-33 30.0 $104,800
FNMA 848390 Pooled - Dana 3.755% 3.4% 12-Feb-09 1-Dec-35 26.8 $142,634
FHLMC 775572 Pooled - Dana 5.594% 4.6% 1-Sep-94 1-Jun-24 29.8 $29,076
FHLMC 865469 Pooled - Dana 6.440% 5.8% 1-Dec-95 1-Aug-25 29.7 $1,357
FHLMC 755344 Pooled - Dana 5.160% 3.2% 1-May-00 1-Mar-28 27.9 $3,880
FHLMC 645235 Pooled - Dana 6.340% 5.2% 1-Ju1-00 1-Mar-29 28.7 $2,726
FHLMC 846784 Pooled - Dana 5.576% 4.1 % 1-Ju1-00 1-May-29 28.9 $3,336
FHLMC 786867 Pooled - Dana 5.970% 4.1 % 1-Nov-99 1-Aug-29 29.8 $3,465
FHLMC 846956 Pooled - Dana 6.446% 4.6% 1-Nov-01 1-Nov-31 30.0 $2,680
FHLMC 847166 Pooled - Dana 5.092% 4.2% 1-Ju1-03 1-Aug-33 30.1 $7,372
FHLMC 847359 Pooled - Dana 6.072% 4.1 % 1-Dec-04 1-Dec-34 30.0 $9,477
FHLMC 782526 Pooled - Dana 4.509% 2.8% 1-Apr-05 1-Apr-35 30.0 $119,881
FHLMC 848000 Pooled - Dana 4.665% 4.5% 1-Sep-08 1-Feb-36 27.4 $120,378
FHLMC 847629 Pooled - Dana 6.092% 4.4% 1-Oct-06 1-Sep-36 29.9 $32,535
FHLMC 865006 Pooled - Dana 6.935% 4.8% 1-Feb-89 1-Aug-18 29.5 $1,357
FHLMC 865127 Pooled - Dana 5.449% 4.5% 1-Aug-89 1-Mar-19 29.6 $2,349
FHLMC 865476 Pooled - Dana 6.082% 6.0% 1-Apr-96 1-Feb-36 39.9 $1,845
FHLMC 865663 Pooled - Dana 6.040% 5.9% 1-Nov-00 1-Feb-30 29.3 $3,417
FHLMC 765114 Pooled - Dana 6.963% 6.8% 1-Mar-99 1-Jan-18 18.9 $4,420
FHLMC 847427 Pooled - Dana 5.264% 4.8% 1-Ju1-05 1-Sep-34 29.2 $9,343
FHLMC 1G1840 Pooled - Dana 5.315% 4.8% 1-Feb-06 1-Nov-35 29.8 $53,078
FHLMC 1B3063 Pooled - Dana 5.553% 5.5% 1-Aug-06 1-Aug-36 30.0 $97,695
FHLMC 847058 Pooled - Dana 5.181% 4.4% 1-Aug-02 1-Aug-32 30.0 $37,550
FHLMC 611384 Pooled - Dana 6.953% 4.9% 11-Feb-05 1-Dec-32 27.8 $10,707
Accrued Interest 4.220% $9,067
Income Receivable $9,955
Average Yield 4.22% 2,071,220
Total $6,655,209
8/4/2009
Investments 6302009 5 _ 2
1 1 ,
EMERGENCY
SERVICES
Meiiiio
To: Town of Vail, Town Council
From:Mark Miller, Fire Chief
CC: Stan Zemler, Town Manager
Date: July 30, 2009
Re: Update on Forest Health/Wildland Mitigation
2009 FOREST HEALTH/WILDLAND MITIGATION PROGRAM UPDATE
■ Over 800 piles burned in first and second quarter of 2009
■ Five (5) Wildland Mitigation crew members hired in May 2009 (down from six
that were budgeted) to cut trees on TOV land.
■ Approximately 160 beetle killed trees have been cut on TOV land (to date) by
Wildland Mitigation crews.
■ Approximately 350 - 400 trees remaining to be cut on TOV land through
October 31 St
■ In 2008, approximately 55 properties (out of 419 that were contacted) were
identified as having multiple dead trees. Notices were given to all properties to
remove trees or provide a plan for mitigation. Crews are in process of issuing
"Notices of Violation" to properties that have not provided a plan within 30
days. A summons will be issued to home owners that do not comply.
■ 43 mitigation plans have been filed with TOV as of 7-29-09
■ Wildland mitigation crews have a goal to review all private properties by the
end of October for compliance.
■ Grants are available for private property owners to mitigate their trees through
the Colorado State Forest Service. (This information is being made available
to land owners).
1
8/4/2009
5-3-1
Mountain Community Vertically integrated Biomass CHP Demonstration Project
Project Summary/Abstract
The principal project directors are Andrew King, Managing Director, Hayden Cary &King Co. and John
Matthew, Finance and Engineering, Creekrow Partners. Roland Fjallstrom Phd, Engineering EnvioEnergi
and Gary Callihan, Sourcing, EnvioEnergi. Other contributors are listed in appendix 1.
It is the objective of the applicant, Hayden Cary King of Darien CT, to develop and demonstrate a 28
MW woody biomass based CHP facility that will utilize advanced boiler design features and a high
efficiency flue gas condenser to achieve a minimum thermal efficiency of 82%. The energy plant will
demonstrate that the use of advanced SCR technology on a woody biomass boiler will achieve CAS
emission requirements while achieving almost complete displacement of fossil fuel carbon emissions
compared with an equivalent natural gas facility. Another key element of the project will be the
operational demonstration of highly automated systems for harvesting, including an advanced slash
bundling system which will enable the delivery of fuel to the roadside at a cost of less than $20/ton.
While each of the component technologies are either fully developed or at a relatively late stage of
technical development, the integration and demonstration of these technologies, in a facility that will
produce approximately 6 MW net electrical output, will greatly accelerate widespread commercial
adoption. An economically attractive, biomass based CHP system in this size range will be reproducible
at thousands of light manufacturing and district heating sites throughout the US. Taken together, facilities
of this general design, broadly implemented over a period of twenty years or so, could be capable of
displacing up to a 100 Billion cubic feet of natural gas on an equivalent Btu basis. At this level, the use
of a biomass fuel will result in the elimination of approximately 500,000,000 tons of fossil fuel derived
C02. (Source EPA emissions calculator)
This demonstration project will be located within the town of Vail Colorado, close to several resort
facilities and will demonstrate the relative ease of citing facilities of this type and will serve as a very
suitable location for demonstration to potential users. The project has garnered the very enthusiastic
preliminary approval of the town of Vail, the Vail Development Corporation, Holy Cross Energy, Denver
Water Board Commissioners and numerous local, state and federal officials.
The technology partners in this project will include John Deere, Inc who will provide the harvesting
technology and systems, EnvioEnergy and KMW Engineering who will provide the technology and
equipment for the entire energy plant as well as the EPC contract.
Holy Cross Energy, the local electricity supplier who has participated in the early development of this
project, has expressed an intention to enter into negotiations for the purchase of the plant electrical output.
The Town of Vail, Vail Valley Medical Center and Vail Resort Development Co. have expressed interest
and intention to negotiate the site agreements and enter into negotiations for the thermal outputs.
If the applicant is successful in securing suitable grant funding, the project development activities
comprising Phase I will be completed by February of 2010. Phase II of the proj ect will include
construction, start-up and three months of continuous operation. Operational testing will be completed by
May 2011, and the final technical report and formal presentation of results will be completed by August
2011.
8/4/2009
5-4-1
Commercialization Plan
Upon award of grant funding American Biomass Energy (ABE), a company solely
owned and managed by the proj ect directors of the Mountain Biomass CHP Proj ect
(MBP), will initiate recruitment and hiring of additional business development staff for
the purpose of identifying and prioritizing potential future sites. With the completion of
Phase I of the MBP proj ect, the applicant will initiate development activities at several of
the most probable sites identified. A 30-36 month cycle time is anticipated for the initial
development of these proj ects and ABE expects to have a second plant ready for
construction by the end of the initial demonstration period at the MBP proj ect. Within
two years of the start-up of the MBP proj ect, a second site is expected to begin
operations. An estimated schedule indicating the total number of ABE plants in
operation over the next two decades is shown below.
Cumulative Plants in Operation
Year* 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 20
Operating Plants 1 2 5 9 15 27 45 63 81 105 129 153 177 210 240 390
* Years since MBP project start-up
As indicated above, ABE expects to own and operate more than 100 biomass based CHP
facilities within 10 years of the MBP project start-up. This would represent a very small
fraction of the total potential sites. Based on segmentation along NAICS codes, and
census data on facility size and energy consumption, there are well over 10,000 potential
candidates sites for CHP plants of this type. ABE intends to own and operate these
facilities in nearly all regions of the country where woody biomass or agricultural
residues are available within economic fuel transport distances, and where grid tie-in
potential and a 10-40 MW thermal demand co-exist.
While ABE will eventually market to a broad range of district heating and industrial
markets, initial focus will be directed to district heating requirements for resort
communities like Vail, and to selected segments of the food and beverage manufacturing
industry. While there are several sub sectors of the Food Industry (NAICS Code 311),
the Dairy Products Meat Processing categories are particularly promising. For example,
examining just one very narrow segment can provide useful perspective regarding the
potential for biomass CHP facilities. In the state of Wisconsin alone, there are more than
500 establishments engaged in cheese manufacturing (NAICS Code 311513). Of these, it
is estimated that about 40 facilities, each with more than 200 employees, experience
collective revenues of about $10 Billion and utilize approximately 98MWh of electricity
and 669 Million BTUs per hour of thermal energy. Wisconsin has a well -e stabli shed
forest industry and supporting infrastructure, with excellent capacity for sustainable
biomass supply, many times greater than that required for the 10-15 CHP facilities that
might be sited at cheese manufacturing facilities.
8/4/2009
5-4-2
22 U.S. Dairy Sites from a total of 1830 have CHP (165.2 MWe) for market saturation of 1.20% (Energy and
Environmental Analysis)
Geographic Location
30-.SiCet'
A.
rt9SitON':
~ 5~~ .Site~f
SF~'SSSource Oak Ridge National Laboratory DOE Dairy Product Manufacturing NAICS-311513
There are of course, practical constraints on the co-existence of the necessary factors to
support ABE plants. In particular, it is highly unlikely that sustainable quantities of
forest derived biomass coupled with sustainable agricultural residues would be sufficient
to support 10,000 such plants within the foreseeable future. On the other hand, it is quite
certain that biomass fuel availability will support at least 1000 plants of the type being
demonstrated in the MBP project. This would represent more than 5,000 MW of
electrical output, 85 Trillion BTU/hr of thermal energy, and a reduction of 425 Million
Metric Tons of fossil fuel GHG emissions each year.
There are several unique regional factors that favor rapid approval and implementation of
the Mountain Biomass project (detailed in the narrative section of this application).
Foremost among them is the need for an economic means to deal with millions of acres
of trees that have been killed as a result of bark beetle infestation. While it may be
possible to site additional facilities within the affected region(s), this unusual market
advantage will not be applicable in other regions of the country. However, once the MBP
plant is in operation, and the thermal performance and emission levels have been
confirmed, financial analysis of biomass based CHP plants can be easily gauged. So long
as the biomass based net equivalent fuel cost remains substantially below the cost of
natural gas, the viability of such plants will be assured.
There are several competitive advantages of biomass based plants compared with those
using natural gas (or LPG, or LNG) as a fuel. Firstly, there are several financial
incentives, which act to reduce the net delivered cost of biomass fuel at the plant, and to
reduce the cost of capital required to build such plants (investment tax credits, guaranteed
loans, grant funding etc.). It appears increasingly likely that policy driven incentives for
8/4/2009
5-4-3
displacing fossil fuels with renewable fuels will continue to support the necessary
delivered cost differentials between biomass and fossil fuels. And, as renewable energy
portfolio requirements continue to grow, the differential increase in electricity revenue
for the biomass CHP facility compared with the fossil fuel plant will be adequate to offset
the additional capital and operating costs associated with in-plant fuel handling and
emission control. Finally, the increasing public awareness of GHG contributions to
global warming will predispose businesses to choose biomass based CHP facilities to
provide their thermal energy requirements. The "green" aspect of these plants is
expected to contribute greatly to the community acceptance of these facilities in places
where a fossil fuel fired plant would have considerable difficulty. The response
demonstrated by an internationally renowned, environmentally responsible, upscale resort
community like Vail provides strong evidence for this potentially powerful competitive
advantage.
8/4/2009
5-4-4
*VINIL
TO Town Manager
75 South Frontage Rd.
Vail, Colorado 81657
Fax 970-479-2452
Subject: National Energy Technology Laboratory (NETL)
Combined Heat and Power Systems Technology Development and Demonstration
Funding Opportunity Number: DE-FOA-0000016
Dear Department of Energy Representative:
On behalf of the Town of Vail I would lilce to express our strong interest in the
development of a Combined Heat and Power System in the Town of Vail, through the
Mountain Community Combined Heat and Power Biomass Facility project.
The Town of Vaii is committed to providing a modei of environmental sustainability for
other resort communities through a cornmitment to community partnerships and
balanced stewardship of human, financiai and environmental resources in policy and
daily operations. As a community, we have also adopted the goal of reducing our
overall energy use and carbon emissions by 20% below 2006 levels by 2020, despite
rapid development. Therefore, in addition to the staff time, research and information
aiready provided for this project, the Town has approximately three acres of land that
could be a good site for the facility, the ability to enter into a power-purchase agreement
related to the output from the facility, and would provide additional staff time to the
project.
Vail's resort environment and geography lends itself to a being a resource and energy
intensive comrnunity. However, its linear layout and European-style villages provide for
an ideal setting for a combined heat and power facility. The Town of Vail recognizes
that not only is timing critical to address global climate change by improving efficiency
and investing in renewable energy technology to offset our carbon emissions, but also to
address the pine beetle infestation that has killed over 1.5 million acres of lodgepole
pine forests, and is expected to infest millions more in Colorado alone. The Town has
invested over $600,000 in tree removal to establish defensible space against wildfire
around oux community, but there is currently no sustainable market for the waste wood,
causing significant barriers to removal.
75 South Frontage Road • Uail, Colorado 81657 • 970-479-2106 / FAX 970-479-2157 - www. vailgov. com
8/4/409
iqr ~ RTsCYCL&D PAPL•R
5-4-5
A combined heat and power facility addresses many of the Town's critical needs and
adopted goals. For example, the facility and its development wouid provide:
o A reduction in carbon emissions of over 17,000 tons/year.
• Job growth - By worlcing with the Colorado Mountain College Forestry
Program, this project will result in training programs and the creation of at least
50 permanent jobs for local residents.
s Tourism and education economic growth - This project will allow Vail to
provide an educational experience for visitors and grow the tourist economy in
Town which is currently based primarily on the ski industry. This project is a modei for efficiency and sustainabie energy use that will inform other
communities' sustainability efforts.
On behalf of the Town of Vail, please consider funding this innovative project. The
Town looks forward to working with our regional partners; Holy Cross Energy, the U.S.
Forest Service, Vaii Resorts, John Deere Co., the Department of Energy a.nd others to
drive renewable energy and resource efficiency in the U.S.
Sincerely,
*an ler
T own Manager
Cc: Mark Gordon, Vail Town Council
'
~
i
8/4/2009
5-4-6
i
S
I
~
i~
~
~
I ~
~
~
~
~
~
~
8/4/2009
II 5-4-7
i
x
~
i
~ .
~
~I .
~
~
i
i
i
~I
I
ua
~
n
8/4/2009
5-4-8
. . ~ • C •
1 ~
Si I
~
l iS
87
F MMUM
4i
au u
~
~
.
3
~
ljgjljj~
~ H
~Y
A! ■
~
Y ~
3S
~
ffi
~ 4Y
q3
u ~ sa
~
~
~
ii
71 IX
~
~
~ 8/4/2009
5-4-9
Y
VON
y n
~
~
h
~ ~ . . . e
PAmmbmunnlmiftRIL
' ..~~i. ' . ~
ra
~ .
~
fl~ ~
BwmMOAKftUAPdvW&
PMU"
i
8/4/2009
5-4-]0
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 4, 2009
ITEM/TOPIC: Matters from Mayor & Council.
PRESENTER(S): Town Council
8/4/2009
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: August 4, 2009
ITEM/TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(a)(b)(e) - to discuss the
purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests; to receive legal advice on
specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct
negotiators, Re: Draft agreement amending the Development Agreement with Open
Hospitality Partners ("OHP") pertaining to the proposed redevelopment of the Lionshead
Parking Structure.
PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire
8/4/2009