HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-04-05 Agenda and Support Documentation Town Council Work Session VAIL TOWN COUNCIL
WORK SESSION AGENDA
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS TOWN OF VAIL")
75 S. Frontage Road W.
Vail, CO 81657
11:30 A.M., APRIL 5, 2011
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: Public Officials training for Town Council from the Town's
insurer, Colorado Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency ( "CIRSA "). The
presentation will include: a preview of loss control issues; a public officials
liability presentation; and a presentation regarding practical quasi - judicial
suggestions. Tami Tanoue from CIRSA will be making the presentation
and answering questions. (30 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Tami Tanoue and Matt Mire
2. ITEM /TOPIC: Council Lunch Break (30 min.)
3. ITEM /TOPIC: DRB /PEC Update (15 min)
PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell
4. ITEM /TOPIC: CSE/VLMDAC Strategic Alignment Discussion: Update and
proposal on further collaboration between the two organizations. (30 min.)
PRESENTER(S): CSE Member, Jen Bruno and VLMDAC Member, Mia Vlaar
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: CSE and VLMDAC members request
feedback and direction from Town Council on the collaboration proposal
presented.
BACKGROUND: Town Council directed a discussion between the VLMDAC and
CSE facilitated by Town Manager Stan Zemler with the outcome of increasing
efficiency and effectiveness of the two groups working in closer alignment. This
joint meeting took place Thursday, January 20, 2011. Working Premise: Increase
the effectiveness of marketing and special event expenditures from the Town of
Vail's tax dollars in order to better drive destination business to support events that
enhance the Vail brand internationally, nationally, regionally and locally. Steps
Taken: January 20, 2011 meeting between CSE and VLMDAC facilitated by Town
Manager Stan Zemler; Follow up meeting with Beth Slifer on January 20, 2011;
Discussion at CSE meeting on March 2, 2011; CSE special meeting on March 16,
2011 to develop proposal forjoint meeting with VLMDAC on March 17, 2011;
CSE / VLMDAC joint meeting on March 17, 2011 to develop proposal for further
4/5/2011
strategic alliance to present to Town Council; and Proposal to Town Council at
April 5, 2011 work session attached.
5. ITEM /TOPIC: Gore Creek 2010 Flood Assessment (30 min)
PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel and Jason Carey
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review report and listen to report overview
BACKGROUND: This past June the Town of Vail experienced an unusually high
run -off along Gore Creek equaling that of a 100 year event. The Town hired River
Restoration to complete an assemessment of Gore Creek and its tributaries. River
Restoration completed the assessment this past fall and has reported their findings
in a final report to the Town dated January, 27th, 2011. The report is available for
review on the Town website at
http: / /www.vailgov.com /docs /dl _forms /FloodAssessmentReport_FI NAL. pdf
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The intent of this Council worksession is to provide
an overview of the River Restoration report and answer any questions you may
have of the report or the flood damage in general.
6. ITEM /TOPIC: Local Preference Policy Discussion (45 minutes)
PRESENTER(S): Judy Camp and Matt Mire
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Discuss material provided on local
purchasing preferences.
BACKGROUND: Council has asked staff to research a policy of providing
preference to local vendors when awarding town contracts and /or making other
purchases. The attached memorandum summarizes that research and provides
sample policy statements for Council's consideration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: See attached memo.
7. ITEM /TOPIC: Information Update and Attachments:
1) Vail Memorial Park Annual Report 2010 - Diana Donovan; and
2) Dispatch Center Console Upgrades and Motorola Contract - Joe Ribeiro
(15 min.)
8. ITEM /TOPIC: Matters from Mayor and Council (15 min.)
9. ITEM /TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C. R. S. §24- 6- 402(4)(b) -
to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; Regarding: Conference
Center Funds; 2) 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, Regarding: Lionshead Parking Structure
improvements; 3) C.R.S. §24- 6- 402(4)(b)(e) - to receive legal advice on
specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and
instruct negotiators, Regarding: CenturyTel WiFi; 4) C.R.S. §24- 6- 402(4)(b)
(e) - to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine
positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, Regarding: update on
4/5/2011
pending litigation Town of Vail v. WENK et al. Case number 08CV467; 5)
C.R.S. §24- 6- 402(4)(b)(e) - to receive legal advice on specific legal
questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct
negotiators, Regarding: Town of Vail revenue and finance. (75 min.)
PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire
10. ITEM /TOPIC: Adjournment (4:00 p.m.)
NOTE: UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW
(ALL ARE APPROXIMATE DATES AND TIMES AND SUBJECT TO
CHANGE)
--------------- - - - - --
THE NEXT REGULAR VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK
SESSION WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 12:30 P.M. (or TBD),
TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2011 IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Other Dates TBD:
Ord. No. 5, 2011; Solar Panels - Rachel D /Kristen B. - 30 min. - ES
Quizno's Pro Challenge Update - Ceil Folz /Adam Lueck of VVF - 30 min. -
ES - 4/19/11
Facilities Energy Audit - Greg H. - 30 min. - ES - 4/19/11
Comcast Easement and West Vail Fire Station - 15 min. - George - ES -
4/19/11
Res. No. 8, 2011; Fee In Lieu - Nina - 15 min. - ES - 4/19/11
Capital Projects Plan Review - Greg H. - 04/19/11 30 min. - ES
Strategic Parking Plan Discussion & Parking Inventory Update - 04/19/11
30 min. - WS
Newspaper Boxes - Rachel Dimond - 4/19/11 - 30 min. - WS
Operating Agreement for West Vail Community Gardens - Kristen B - 15
min. - May 3 -ES
EHU Exchange Program - George /Nina - 05/03/11 - 60 min.
Chamonix Commons - George /Nina - 05/03/11 - 30 min.
Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning Fee -in -Lieu Adoption - Nina -
5 min - ES - 04/19/11
WTH - Ord 15, 2010 - - Bill Gibson - 30 min. - ES - 5/3/11
WTH Res. 23, 2010 - Bill Gibson - 5 min - ES - 5/3/11
Parking Signs - George - 20 min. - ES - 05/03/11
Benefits Review - J.P. - 30 min. - to be discussed in budget process
Update current Council Goals /2011 Strategic Plan - Stan - WS - 30 min. -
4/19/11
Energy Audit Update - Kristin B /Greg H - 30 min. - ES
Use of Loading Bays by Service Vehicles - 30 min. - WS
Red Sandstone Playground Update - Greg - 15 min. - WS - 5/3/11
Joint Meeting with Avon Council - Stan - Lunch - 05/3/11
Electronic Signs Policy Discussion - George - TBD - ES
Resolution on Parking - TOV summer/VRI winter -TBD - Greg - 30 min -
WS /ES
Historic /Landmark Preservation Discussion - July 2011/TBD - George - 30
min - WS
Recognition of Nancy Ricci /Eagle County - Stan - TBD
Joint meeting w /County Commissioners - Dinner - Stan - TBD
4/5/2011
4/5/2011
TOWN OF SAIL"
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2011
ITEM /TOPIC: Public Officials training for Town Council from the Town's insurer, Colorado
Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency ( "CIRSA "). The presentation will include: a preview of
loss control issues; a public officials liability presentation; and a presentation regarding
practical quasi - judicial suggestions. Tami Tanoue from CIRSA will be making the presentation
and answering questions.
PRESENTER(S): Tami Tanoue and Matt Mire
ATTACHMENTS:
CIRSA Council Training Power Point
4/5/2011
Five Suggestions for
Avoidin g the Risk of
Personal Liability
Tami A. Tanoue (CIRSA
April 5, 2011
800.228.7136 LF www.cirsa.org
4 , 5 201 1
1 -I -I
Speaker Bio
Tami Tanoue
Tami Tanoue has been the in -house General Counsel /Claims
Manager for CIRSA since July, 2002. She was previously in
private practice with the firm of Griffiths, Tanoue, Light,
Harrington & Dawes, where she served CIRSA as its contract
General Counsel for 12 years, and was City or Town Attorney
for several Colorado municipalities. Prior to that, she was Staff
Attorney for the Colorado Municipal League, where she
represented the collective interests of Colorado municipalities.
Tami is a regular speaker on local government liability topics,
and has written several publications on liability issues.
4/5/2011
1 -1 -2
1. Recognize the change in
roles
When you became a member of an elected or
appointed body, your role and relationship to the
Town changed dramatically:
Citizen - official
Outsider - insider
Critic - representative
Single -issue proponent -all issues decision -maker
4/5/2011
1 -1 -3
Recognize the change in roles
You may have sought public office because you were
dissatisfied with the status quo
However, hanging on to an "outsider" perspective can be
destructive — when you were elected /appointed, you became the
ultimate insider!
Misunderstanding your role can increase the risk of liability for
the City /Town and for yourself.
It can also greatly reduce your own effectiveness: being part of a
collective decision - making body requires collaboration and
consensus - building.
4/5/2011
1 -1 -4
Recognize the chan e in roles
g
When you took office, you took an oath to uphold constitution,
laws, and ordinances
In so doing you committed to:
Follow constitutional procedural due process requirements in
quasi - judicial matters
Apply the ordinances of the Town to the evidence that you
hear at the hearing as the methodology for making a quasi -
judicial decision
This means that you committed not to act on the basis of
popular will or personal preferences and beliefs where quasi -
judicial matters are concerned
These commitments can be considered essential aspects of the
board /commission members' job descriptions
Failure to live up to that commitment will expose you to liability
4/5/2011
1 -1 -5
2. Avoid "outside the scope" and
"willful and wanton" conduct
You have personal protection from liability under the
Governmental Immunity Act (GIA) if you are "within
the scope of employment" and not acting "willfully
and wantonly."
Concept of "scope of employment" applies to ALL
persons covered by the GIA— including elected and
appointed officials, employees, and authorized
volunteers
Means everyone needs to know and abide by their
"job description"
Conduct that is outside the "scope of employment"
(SOE) or willful and wanton will result in a loss of
governmental immunity.
4/5/201 1
1 -1 -6
Avoid "outside the scope" and
"willful and wanton" conduct
Can also result in loss of coverage under liability
insurance policies
We have to look at allegations of lawsuit. If
allegations are of "outside SOE conduct, we can't
defend /indemnify
Can also result in personal liability, including punitive
damages
Nightmare scenarios have become reality in
Colorado
You may become responsible for defending yourself
and paying any settlement /judgment against you
4/5/2011
1 -1 -7
Avoid "outside the scope" and
"willful and wanton" conduct
Understand your "job description" and stay within it.
Before acting, look for a law, charter provision,
ordinance, resolution, or motion that authorizes you
to act.
Keep in mind you may need to reconcile
conflicting and superseding authorities
If you can't trace your action to a source of
authorization, you may be outside your SOP
4/5/2011
1 -1 -8
Avoid "outside the scope" and
"willful and wanton" conduct
Board /commission members act as part of a BODY.
You exercise your responsibilities mainly by VOTING
as part of the BODY in a PUBLIC MEETING.
When you find yourself doing anything other than
that ... make sure you are properly authorized!
4/5/2011
1 -1 -9
Avoid "outside the scope" and
"willful and wanton" conduct
"We" ... not 661171
If you find yourself thinking in terms of "I" rather
than "we" ...that's a red flag.
Be particularly cautious once you've voted on a
matter.
Get behind the decision, don't undermine.
If you feel there is a need to change it, use proper
channels only.
Recognize that some decisions CANNOT be
undone without liability.
4/5/2011
1 -1 -10
Avoid "outside the scope" and
"willful and wanton" conduct
Avoid acting out of personal motives
Acting on the basis of personal motives is likely to be outside
your SOE❑ remember your oath of office!
May also be willful and wanton
Don't be "goaded" into outside - the -SOE conduct by political or
citizen pressure
"We want you to vote `no' on
What if the law and evidence point to "yes "?
Are those citizens going to defend you if you're sued?
4/5/2011
1 -1 -11
3. Run a ood meeting!
!
g g
Understand the difference between legislative
and quasi - judicial matters, and observe the
different requirements applicable to each
In a quasi - judicial hearing, an array of special
procedural requirements apply.
Violation of those requirements is a violation
of due process — a constitutional /civil rights
violation!
4/5/2011
1 -1 -12
A Legislative Decision
Reflects public policy relating to matters of a
permanent or general character
Not normally restricted to particular individual or
entity
Affects the legal rights of specific individuals only
in the abstract
Prospective in nature
Not subject to appeal under C.R.C.P. Rule
106(x)(4)
Think: "State Legislator -- State Capitol "!
4/5/2011
1 -1 -13
Remedies for disagreement with a
legislative decision:
Limited legal remedies — e.g. a
challenge to constitutionality, or to your
authority to adopt
Persuade you to undo it, or seek direct
legislation (initiative, referendum)
Throw you out of office
4/5/2011
1 -1 -14
A Quasi - Judicial Action
Determines rights, duties or obligations of a
specific individual or entity
Based on facts developed at a hearing to resolve
the particular interests in question
Applies presently existing legal standards (like
ordinances) to the facts
Usually subject to appeal under C.R.C.P.
106(a)(4)
Think: "Judge -- Courtroom "!
4/5/2011
1 -1 -15
Remedies for disagreement with a quasi -
judicial decision:
CRCP Rule 106(x)(4): rule established by
Colorado Supreme Court for appealing quasi -
judicial decisions
Your decision is reviewed by the district court
District court relies on the evidence that was
produced at your hearing
If you did not "abuse your discretion" or "exceed
your jurisdiction," your decision will be upheld.
4/5/2011
1 -1 -16
Remedies for disagreement with a quasi -
judicial decision:
F hearing has been carried out
properly, and decision has been issued
based on facts in the record and
application of proper legal criteria:
Decision will be upheld; and
Other recourse (such as a claim of a
constitutional violation) will likely be
unavailable or unsuccessful
4/5/2011
1 - I - 17
Other Legal IssuesL]
The normal remedy in a Rule 106 action
in a quasi - judicial matter is to reverse
your decision and remand the matter
back to you for a new hearing
BUT, for litigants who want more than
that, there are other remedies, such as
4/5/2011
1 -1 -IS
Other Legal Issues — Section 1983
42 USC Section 1983:
Every person who, under color of any statute,
ordinance, custom, or usage, of any State or
Territory, subjects or causes to be subjected, any
citizen of the United States L to the deprivation
of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by
the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the
party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or
other proceeding for redress.
4/5/2011
1 -1 -19
Other Legal Issues — Section 1983
Does not itself establish or create any
substantive rights. It is a remedy in damages for
violations of constitutional or other federally
protected rights.
Liability is premised upon (1) an action under
color of law and (2) a violation of a constitutional
or other federally protected right.
Actions of government entities and public officials
in the course of their responsibilities will be
considered actions "under color of law."
4/5/2011
1 -1 -20
Other Legal Issues — Section 1983
In the quasi - judicial context, the underlying constitutional
rights frequently alleged to have been violated include:
First Amendment Interference with expression, religious
freedom
Fifth Amendment requires a property interest protected by
the Constitution.
Procedural due process the right to notice and a fair
hearing before taking government action
Substantive due process the right to be free from irrational
and unreasonable conduct.
Equal protection the right to have legislation and actions
applied evenhandedly to all persons similarly situated in a
designated class.
4/5/2011
1 -1 -21
Other Legal Issues — Section 1983
For liability under Section 1983, there is NO MONETARY LIMIT
on the damages a plaintiff can win
Additionally, a plaintiff who "substantially prevails" in a Section
1983 claim will be entitled to an award of attorney's fees
Attorney's fees can far exceed any damages award
Nominal damages can support hundreds of thousands
of dollars in attorney's fees
This is why procedural fairness in quasi-judicial hearings is
so critical: it's a constitutional right that can be enforced by
Section 1983 and all of the remedies available thereunder
Case in point — Sclavenitis v. City of Cherry Hills Village
4/5/2011
1 -1 -22
Because of the Property Interests Involved, There is a Heightened
Standard of Review for Quasi - Judicial Actions as to Process: From a
judicial review point of view, what you decide is not as important as
how you arrive at your decision
Process /How you decide: Substance /What you decide:
Unsupported and legally The basis or "logic" of a
reversible decisions are almost Town's decision is afforded
always based on a lack of due great deference under
process or procedural Colorado law, where the
irregularities with an applicant standard of review, generally
or opponent. speaking is whether there was
Example: The failure to any competent evidence in the
provide an applicant an record to support your
opportunity to comment or to decision.
offer a rebuttal or reopening a
public hearing to receive
comment from just one party
and not others is inherently
problematic.
Rule: Watch your
decisionmaking process!
4/5/2011
1 -I -3I
Avoid Ex Parte Contacts
From the Latin, "on one side only_ "
Definition: Off the record comments between a member of a quasi - judicial
decisionmaking entity and representatives of the applicant, members of the
public or other members of the board or commission.
Ex pane contacts are strictly forbidden when the contacts concern a
specific land use application that is subject to a quasi - judicial hearing or
meeting process
Specific examples:
Telephone call from Town citizen on a specific quasi - judicial
application;
Cocktail party /social engagement and conversation switches to a
pending quasi - judicial application;
Sidebar conversations among Town Councilmembers either during the
hearing or a break;
Passing a note between two councilmembers;
Cell phones/computers— during a meeting, receiving a text /email or
other communication on the merits of the public hearing.
4/5/2011
1 -1 -24
What's the problem with ex parte
contacts, anyway?
If you have ex parte contacts and do not cure them you risk your
ability to participate in the process and ultimate decision
The contact is impermissible whether with the applicant,
citizens, or staff
The courts will accord you a presumption of integrity, honesty,
and impartiality as a decision -maker but...
You can lose that presumption by actions that are unfair, or
even appear unfair
Ex parte contacts are among those actions
Here's one of the real cases we have in mind when we
advise you about ex parte contacts[]
4/5/2011
1 -1 -25
What's the problem with ex parte
contacts, anyway?
Lunch conversation situation - Wells v.
Del Norte School District case
Hearing officer in personnel hearing — lunch break
Only one restaurant in town, and nowhere else to sit
Hearing officer sat with school board's attorney during lunch
Back on record, he explained there was nowhere else to sit,
and that he hadn't talked about the hearing during lunch — no
contrary evidence
Court held: lust the appearance of impropriety fatally
compromised him — new hearing needed!
4/5/2011
1 -1 -26
During the Public Hearing
Dos and Don'ts
Watch out for inappropriate confrontations or inquisitions!
Temper will never serve you_ take the high road!
If a complicated decision, consider making a preliminary or tentative
decision and direct the Town Attorney prepare a draft resolution, with
conclusions of law and factual findings, for consideration at your next
meeting.
Remind speakers that hearing is for making comments to the
Council /board - not for cross - examining Council /board or other
speakers:
That is a good question, Mr. Citizen, but this is your opportunity to
make comments and provide information. I think several of us
have made a note of your question, and that one of us may pose
that question to the developer during the Council questions."
4/5/2011
1 - I - '7
Dos and Don'ts
Keep in mind the "power of waiver"
Irregularities during the course of a hearing can
sometimes be "cleansed" by the participants waiving
their opportunity to object
"Mr. Proponent, Ms. Opponent, do you have any
problem if ?"
Most participants desire to be courteous and respectful
to the decision - makers: "No problem, Your Honor."
Let your Town Attorney assist you in situations where
the "power of waiver" may come into play
4/5/2011
1 -1 -28
Dos and Don'ts
Don't sign any "pro" or "con" petitions!
Common in liquor licenses
Don't make up your mind before the hearing (bias)
Do ask for legal advice (executive session if necessary) on legal
criteria, or on application of facts to criteria
Do consider asking for a legal criteria worksheet when the
criteria you must apply are complex or lengthy
Do disclose unavoidable "ex parte" contacts
Participation despite contact is OK as long as you can still be
unbiased
"Power of waiver" may work here, too ❑ you disclosed, no
one objected
x-
4/5/2011
1 -1 -29
Dos and Don'ts
Don't make your decision on the basis of
irrelevant criteria
Don't make your decision based on things you
"know" but did not "learn" at the hearing
Don't participate if you weren't there for the
whole hearing ( or at least listened to the tape of
any portion you missed
Don't participate if you know you can't be fair and
unbiased
4/5/2011
1 -1 -30
Dos and Don'ts
A local elected official member doesn't wear a robe, is easily
recognized on the street, and is expected by citizens and
others to be "accessible" at all times,
but ...
A judge reviewing your quasi - judicial decision in an appeal
proceeding will judge your conduct against the way he /she
would behave as a judge in his own courtroom — so keep
the "judge — courtroom" scenario in mind when deciding on
your own conduct in quasi - judicial matters
So "think like a judge" in your personal conduct ...
4/5/2011
1 -1 -31
Dos and Don'ts
Would a judge seek out citizens and invite or ask them to come
and testify as witnesses in a pending case before him /her?
Would a judge allow himself /herself to be "lobbied" on a
pending matter at home or at the local supermarket?
Would a judge compromise the appearance (and possibly
reality) of fairness by singling out one side or another to be
overly friendly with?
Would a judge make a decision in a matter in which he /she had
a financial interest, or in which he /she had already made his
mind up?
Would a judge make a public statement that could come back
to haunt him /her later on in terms of displaying a possible bias?
Would a judge decide to ignore the law and /or the facts in
rendering a decision, and make his /her decision on the basis of
factors that he /she knows are not relevant?
4/5/2011
1 -1 -32
4. Reduce your involvement in
administrative matters
Understand and observe the difference between
legislative and administrative matters!
A municipality evolves from "hands on" elected
official involvement in administrative issues to a
City /Town administrator /manager form of government
as the municipality's operations become more
sophisticated and complex.
City /Town Manager /Administrator format: The gold
standard of municipal government!
Establish "corporate" values and mission, set overall
goals and priorities, and give broad direction, leaving
details of execution to staff.
4/5/2011
1 -I-
Reduce your involvement in
administrative matters
Inappropriate involvement in
administrative matters by elected
officials, collectively or individually, can:
Undermine the chosen form of government
Waste the resources you've committed to
the form of government
Be a backwards step in municipal
government evolution
Increase the risk of liability for yourself
4/5/2011
1 -I -34
Reduce your involvement in
administrative matters
The legislative- administrative distinction is particularly
important in personnel matters.
Council /Board has an appropriate role — the "big
picture" issues:
Personnel rules, including selection procedures
performance evaluations, disciplinary actions
City /Town -wide pay plan
Selection of your "direct reports"
Budget
Overall City /Town -wide and departmental goals
and priorities
4/5/2011
1 -1 -35
Reduce your involvement in
administrative matters
Make sure your involvement in these "big picture" issues doesn't
devolve into the details:
Selection, evaluation, or disciplinary matters involving a
specific individual who's not a direct report
Salary of specific individuals who aren't direct reports
Details of a specific individual's duties or job performance
Other than your "direct reports," if you are looking at issues
involving a single employee rather than the group as a whole,
that is likely an administrative issue that should be entrusted to
staff
Don't be pressured to bypass the chain of command to deal with
a specific employee — if you do it with one employee, how can
you ever return to the proper chain of command?
x-
4/5/2011
1 -I -36
Reduce your involvement in
administrative matters
Your BEST immunities as elected
officials are in the legislative and quasi -
judicial arena.
Courts recognize legislative and quasi -
judicial immunities
Venture into administration, and you're
venturing into outside the SOE"
territory!
4/5/2011
1 -1 -37
5. Use your power wisely and
humanely
Whether you know if or not, you set the tone for the whole
City /Town in terms of the treatment of employees.
If the tone you set is negative, demeaning, distrustful,
discriminatory, etc., you are setting yourself and the
City /Town up for liability.... And guess what rolls downhill?
Understand that you are perceived as holding the most
powerful positions in the City /Town
Use courtesy, tact, and diplomacy in interactions, especially
in public settings
Your staff members are professionals, but they are humans
too.
Avoid acting explosively or with the intent to demean or
embarrass
Think before speaking off the cuff, especially in a public
setting
4/5/2011
1 -1 -38
Use your power wisely and
humanely
Do not allow Council /Board meetings to be
used as an opportunity to berate your staff
members
Citizens have every right to raise
concerns and to be critical about the way
City /Town government conducts
business
Use the meeting as an opportunity to
RECEIVE citizen feedback for appropriate
follow -up
Do not join in the staff - bashing, if it's
happening!
4/5/2011
1 -I -119
Conclusion
Always keep in mind that you are the
stewards of the City /Town's best interests
and assets
Stay within your "scope of employment"!
Act as "we," not as 66 1 "
Observe best practices in meetings
Delegate administrative matters
Use your powers wisely and humanely
4/5/2011
1 -1 -40
QUESTIONS?
�r
4/5/2011
1 -1 -41
TOE OF RILL'
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2011
ITEM /TOPIC: Council Lunch Break
4/5/2011
TOE OF RILL'
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2011
ITEM /TOPIC: DRB /PEC Update
PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell
ATTACHMENTS:
March 16, 2011 DRB Meeting Results
March 28, 2011 PEC Meeting Results
4/5/2011
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA
PUBLIC MEETING
OY�Al' March 16, 2011
tfwlSlkT Council Chambers
!�f'f 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
PROJECT ORIENTATION 2:OOpm
MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
Tom DuBois Pete Dunning
Brian Gillette Libby Plante
Rollie Kjesbo
SITE VISITS
1. Prince Victoria Residence — 616 Forest Road
2. Moore Residence — 1916 West gore Creek Drive
3. Sterling Resource II, LLC Residence — 2568 Arosa Drive
PUBLIC HEARING — TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3:OOpm
1. Duffy DG DRB100634 / 15 minutes Rachel
Final review of minor exterior alteration (deck)
3944 Bighorn Road, West Unit /Lot 7, Gore Creek Park
Applicant: Duffy DG, represented by Laura Christman
ACTION: Tabled to April 6, 2011
MOTION: Gillette SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 3 -0 -0
2. Prince Victoria LLLP Residence DRB1 10039 / 15 minutes Warren
Final review of new construction (primary /secondary)
616 Forest Road /Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6
Applicant: Prince Victoria LLLP, represented by Scott Turnipseed
ACTION: Approved with condition(s)
MOTION: Gillette SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 3-0-0
CONDITION(S):
1. The applicant shall revise the roof plan in conjunction with the Building Permit submittal to
ensure all portions of the roof on the western unit comply with the maximum building height of
33 feet as defined by the Town Zoning Code.
2. The applicant shall revise the site plan in conjunction with the Building Permit submittal to
depict a separate heat zone for the portion of the heated driveway within the right -of -way.
3. The applicant shall submit cut sheets of the exterior light fixtures in conjunction with the
Building Permit to confirm they comply with Section 14 -10 -7, Outdoor Lighting, Vail Town
Code.
4. The applicant shall utilize gutters and downspouts which are bronze to match the color of the
roof material.
5. The applicant shall install three pipe snow guards which are bronze to match the roof color.
6. The applicant shall revise the plans to alter the configuration of the retaining wall along the
eastern property line by pulling it towards the stairs to preserve the greatest number of
evergreen trees. This shall be depicted on the plans submitted in conjunction with the
Building Permit.
7. The applicant shall replace all evergreens removed along the eastern property line on a foot -
for -foot basis, with a minimum replacement tree height of ten feet. Replacement trees shall be
planted along the eastern property line and /or in the northwest corner of the site.
4/5/2011 Page 1
3 -I -I
3. Sterling Resources II, LLC DRB110044 / 15 minutes Rachel
Final review of a separation request (garage)
2568 Arosa Drive /Lot 4, Block C, Vail Das Schone Filing 1
Applicant: Sterling Resources II, LLC, represented by Michael McAtee
ACTION: Denied
MOTION: Gillette SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 3 -0 -0
Finding: The Design Review Board found that the presence of significant site constraints did not
exist on the property which would permit a physical separation of the proposed garage from the
existing residential structure, pursuant to Section 14 -10 -6, Residnetial Development, Vail Town
Code.
4. Moore Residence DRB1 10048 / 15 minutes Warren
Conceptual review of an addition (addition, remodel)
1916 West Gore Creek Drive /Lot 47, Vail Village West Filing 2
Applicant: Tim & Meridith Moore, represented by Russell Gies
ACTION: Conceptual, no action
STAFF APPROVALS
Ellis Residence DRB110031 Rachel
Final review of an addition (window & door bays)
392 Hanson Ranch Road, Unit 301 (Mill Creek Court) /Lot I, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 5
Applicant: Gail Ellis, represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects
Kelton Residence DRB110032 Rachel
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (windows)
1034 Homestake Circle /Lot 5, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 7
Applicant: Art and Elaine Kelton, represented by Piper Architecture, LTD
Sep -Haven LLC DRB110036 Rachel
Final review of an addition (crawlspace )
1290 Westhaven Circle /Lot 26, Glen Lyon Subdivision
Applicant: Sep -Haven LLC, represented by Patrick Hoeft
Gerstenberger Residence DR13110040 Rachel
Final review of a minor exterior alteration (windows)
1320 Greenhill Court /Lot 16, Glen Lyon Subdivision
Applicant: Allen Gerstenberger
International Milling Limited Residence DRB110041 Warren
Final review of changes to approved plans (walls)
994 Ptarmigan Road /Lot 3, Block 4, Vail Village Filing 7
Applicant: International Milling Limited, represented by Hans Berglund
The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office
hours in the project planner's office, located at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75
South Frontage Road. Please call 479 -2138 for information.
Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24 hour notification. Please call 479 -2356,
Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information.
4/5/2011 Page 2
3 -I -2
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION
March 28, 2011
1:OOpm
TOA'NOFVAIi, '
TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME
75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657
The March 28, 2011 PEC meeting was cancelled as there were no items ready to be heard.
Pagqe 1
4/5/201 l
3 -2 -1
TOWN OF SAIL"
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2011
ITEM /TOPIC: CSE /VLMDAC Strategic Alignment Discussion: Update and proposal on further
collaboration between the two organizations.
PRESENTER(S): CSE Member, Jen Bruno and VLMDAC Member, Mia Vlaar
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: CSE and VLMDAC members request feedback and
direction from Town Council on the collaboration proposal presented.
BACKGROUND: Town Council directed a discussion between the VLMDAC and CSE
facilitated by Town Manager Stan Zemler with the outcome of increasing efficiency and
effectiveness of the two groups working in closer alignment. This joint meeting took place
Thursday, January 20, 2011. Working Premise: Increase the effectiveness of marketing and
special event expenditures from the Town of Vail's tax dollars in order to better drive
destination business to support events that enhance the Vail brand internationally, nationally,
regionally and locally. Steps Taken: January 20, 2011 meeting between CSE and VLMDAC
facilitated by Town Manager Stan Zemler; Follow up meeting with Beth Slifer on January 20,
2011; Discussion at CSE meeting on March 2, 2011; CSE special meeting on March 16, 2011
to develop proposal forjoint meeting with VLMDAC on March 17, 2011; CSE /VLMDAC joint
meeting on March 17, 2011 to develop proposal for further strategic alliance to present to
Town Council; and Proposal to Town Council at April 5, 2011 work session attached.
ATTACHMENTS:
CSE VLMDAC Memorandum
4/5/2011
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
TO: Town Council
FROM: Commission on Special Events (CSE) and Vail Local Marketing
District Advisory Council (VLMDAC) members
DATE: April 5, 2011
SUBJECT: Update and proposal on further collaboration between the two
organizations
Background:
Town Council members directed a discussion between the VLMDAC and CSE
facilitated by Town Manager Stan Zemler with the outcome of increasing
efficiency and effectiveness of the two groups working in closer alignment. This
joint meeting took place Thursday, January 20, 2011. Notes from this meeting
are included at the end of this memorandum.
Working Premise:
Increase the effectiveness of marketing and special event expenditures from the
Town of Vail's tax dollars in order to better drive destination business to support
events that enhance the Vail brand internationally, nationally, regionally and
locally.
Steps Taken
• January 20, 2011 meeting between CSE and VLMDAC facilitated by Town
Manager Stan Zemler
• Follow up meeting with Beth Slifer on January 20, 2011
• Discussion at CSE meeting on March 2, 2011
• CSE special meeting on March 16, 2011 to develop proposal for joint
meeting with VLMDAC on March 17, 2011
• CSE /VLMDAC joint meeting on March 17, 2011 to develop proposal for
further strategic alliance to present to Town Council
• Proposal to Town Council at April 5, 2011 Work Session attached
75 S. Frontage Road, Vail, CO 81657 p. (866) 650 -9020 (970) 479 -2100
www.vailgov.com
4/5/2011
VLMDAC /CSE Collaboration Proposal
Approved by consensus of both entities at the March 17, 2011 VLMDAC
meeting
• The VLMDAC and the CSE will hold joint work sessions, twice a year, as
described below:
➢ JUNE: VLMDAC @ the CSE Meeting:
o Discussion: What is vision for next 5 - 10 years for special events?
o Review and provide input on the strategy for the CSE's fall
allocation process, including criteria for funding evaluations based
on strategic direction. Define specific time frames and types of
events that the RFP's should be designed to attract, and "pilot
events" for 2012 -2013.
o Event recaps from late winter events.
➢ OCTOBER: CSE @ VLMDAC Meeting, and prior to the CSE's funding
allocations which will be determined in November:
• Review proposed VLMD strategy and campaign for 2012
• Review results of the Summer Event Intercept Surveys
• Event recaps of late summer events.
➢ Additionally, prior to presenting to the Town Council for final approval, the
CSE will present the proposed list of Special Event Funding Allocations for
the upcoming year to the VLMDAC for review at their November meeting,
and request written feedback from both the VLMDAC and Vail Mountain
Marketing identifying strengths, weaknesses and opportunities in the
proposed calendar of events.
• Vail Economic Development Manager, Kelli McDonald, will attend all CSE
meetings and report on VLMDAC discussions and decisions relative to
Special Events.
• Town of Vail Special Events Coordinator, Sybill Navas, will attend all
VLMDAC meetings and report to the members on the actions of the CSE.
• Members of both organizations are welcome to attend each other's meetings,
if they desire to do so.
• CSE and VLMDAC Agendas and Meeting Minutes will be distributed to the
members of both boards.
75 S. Frontage Road, Vail, CO 81657 p. (866) 650 -9020 (970) 479 -2100
www.vailgov.com
4/5/2011
• The CSE has requested written feedback from both the VLMDAC and Vail
Mountain Marketing identifying the strengths, weaknesses and opportunities
in the current event calendar.
• Collaboration and communication between the CSE and the recruitment
entities contracted by the VLMDAC. (Presently Reach Advisors, I Openers
and the Vail Valley Partnership)
The VLMDAC will provide brief updates to the CSE on events that have been
recruited, and conversely, the CSE will provide brief updates to the VLMDAC
on the events that are receiving public funding.
• Direct all event producers receiving funding from the CSE to meet with
representatives of the VLMDAC in order be able to take full advantage of PR
and marketing opportunities that are available to them.
Longer Term Issues
• Continue efforts to get objective data that will provide more accurate
measurement of the economic return to the community from special
events
• Sponsorship dollars for funding mechanism for special events
• Consideration of a Sales tax increase as permanent funding mechanism
for special events
• TOV costs need to be incorporated in costs /budget for special events
• Develop 3 -5 iconic "signature" events
Recommendation: CSE and VLMDAC members request feedback and direction
from Town Council on the collaboration proposal presented.
75 S. Frontage Road, Vail, CO 81657 p. (866) 650 -9020 (970) 479 -2100
www.vailgov.com
4/5/2011
Notes from January 20, 2011 joint meeting between CSE and VLMDAC
facilitated by Town Manager Stan Zemler:
Mission Statements:
Vail Local Marketing District
The mission of the Vail Local Marketing District (VLMD) is to market and promote
Vail to attract overnight guests primarily during the May — October time frame,
creating economic vitality by increasing both the visitor base and sales tax
revenues.
Commission on Special Events
The mission of the Commission on Special Events (CSE) is to support and
assess a diverse collection of special events, both large and small, which
promote Vail's economic vitality, sense of community and increase the quality of
the experience for guests and residents year- round.
Current Structure:
THE VLMDAC and CSE organizations function independently. Members of both
are appointed by the Town Council and serve 2 -year terms. VLMDAC has 9
members and CSE has 7 members. Information and feedback is shared between
the two groups at the monthly meetings including research, marketing and
strategic plans, event calendars and economic reports for lodging occupancy and
sales tax. TOV staff members in the Economic Development Office attend
monthly meetings of both groups. In addition, the two groups have joint meetings
twice yearly in an effort to synchronize special event funding with the marketing
and branding strategies.
Concerns Raised by Town Council Members
• Integration of the two groups is not adequate under the current structure
• Destination events do not currently receive an adequate percentage of the
funding
• Events need to be reviewed and graded in the context of the ability of the
event to drive the economy as well as alignment with marketing and
branding strategies
• Funded events need to have the potential to grow into long term signature
events
• Mission statements and philosophies of the two groups differ
• Structure a model that mirrors other organizations with proven success in
using events to drive economic prosperity including the Beaver Creek
Resort Association, Vail Resorts and the US Ski and Snowboard
Association
75 S. Frontage Road, Vail, CO 81657 p. (866) 650 -9020 (970) 479 -2100
www.vailgov.com
4/5/2011
Discussion Items
Who participated?
• CSE
• VLMDAC
• VEAC
• Community Members
• Town Staff
What do we want to accomplish?
• Functionality
• Collective collaboration
• Teamwork & collaboration
• Together but separate
• Working together
• Raise bar working together but remaining separate
• Efficient working among both groups
• Alignment
• Bring more large events and streamline the process
• Have the Vail economy flourish as a result of the combined efforts
What's working?
• Funding is intact for events and marketing currently
• Aligning events with the brand and target demographics
• Refined marketing strategy: fitness & wellness /outdoor recreation /culture
• Community is flexible /nimble
• CSE changed rating criteria to give more importance to destination events
• Integration with Vail Mountain
• Iconic events are well integrated into the marketing plan
• Vail brand is integrated year -round
• Summer calendar is full, except for Memorial Day Weekend
• Communication about events has improved through marketing and
information efforts
• Data supports that current efforts are working
• CSE requests exceed available funding
• VLMDAC now solicits events and programs
75 S. Frontage Road, Vail, CO 81657 p. (866) 650 -9020 (970) 479 -2100
www.vailgov.com
4/5/2011
What could be better?
• Integration not adequate
• Destination events not adequately funded
• No permanent funding source for CSE
• Events need to drive economy
• Events need to have the potential to grow
• Missions of CSE and VLMDAC differ
• Need to follow successful event models
• Summer calendar is full — but with best events? Memorial Day Weekend?
• VLMDAC /CSE /ERC /VEAC need to be in closer alignment
• Communications could be better
• Need dedicated funding mechanism for events
• Funding decisions not final until November — difficult for early season
events
• Align events better with brand and demographics
• Marketing strategy should become the focus of the criteria for event
funding
• More nimbleness between VLMDAC and CSE
• Consolidation opportunity through further alignment of strategy and
execution
• Look at Vail Mountain events structure as a model
• Use an RFP process to solicit events
• Consolidate the $1.3 million in spending on events via strategic evaluation
• CSE does not solicit events
• Need more iconic events and fewer ambient events
• Need events with more sponsorship dollars
• CSE and VLMDAC need joint strategic vision
Possible Scenarios:
1. VLMDAC partners with CSE
• Strategy and implementation
• Monthly interaction
• VLMDAC provides guidance for investment of event funding allocation
• Formalized alignment
Pros
• System works for current VLMD partners and vendors
• Sybill as interface
• Formalized structure to ensure flexibility /nimbleness
75 S. Frontage Road, Vail, CO 81657 p. (866) 650 -9020 (970) 479 -2100
www.vailgov.com
4/5/2011
Cons
• Bureaucracy increases
• No direct Council reporting for CSE
• Still a passive review process
2. Single person /entity responsible for recruiting events, strategic alliances and
sponsors through a contract or as a TOV FTE and the CSE is disbanded.
Pros
• Focused effort
• Works in other resort communities
• Proactive vs. reactive
Cons
• Hasn't worked in recent history in Vail
75 S. Frontage Road, Vail, CO 81657 p. (866) 650 -9020 (970) 479 -2100
www.vailgov.com
4/5/2011
TOE OF RILL'
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2011
ITEM /TOPIC: Gore Creek 2010 Flood Assessment
PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel and Jason Carey
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review report and listen to report overview
BACKGROUND: This past June the Town of Vail experienced an unusually high run -off along
Gore Creek equaling that of a 100 year event. The Town hired River Restoration to complete
an assemessment of Gore Creek and its tributaries. River Restoration completed the
assessment this past fall and has reported their findings in a final report to the Town dated
January, 27th, 2011. The report is available for review on the Town website at
http: / /www.vailgov.com /docs /dl_ forms/ FloodAssessmentReport_FINAL.pdf
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The intent of this Council worksession is to provide an
overview of the River Restoration report and answer any questions you may have of the report
or the flood damage in general.
ATTACHMENTS:
Report
Memo
4/5/2011
W112010 Flood Assessment
January 27, 2011
Prepared By:
IVER
POB 2123
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Prepared For:
Town of Vail
Department of Public Works
1309 Elkhorn Drive
Vail, CO 81632
4/5/2011
5 -1 -1
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment January 27, 2011
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment
January 27, 2010
Table of Contents
Introduction................................................................................................................................ ..............................1
GoreCreek Assessment .............................................................................................................. ..............................1
TributaryAssessment ................................................................................................................. ..............................3
1. Heathers at Vail, Black Gore Drive Flood Mitigation ...................................................... ..............................6
2. Bighorn Creek culvert under Spruce Way and Columbine Dr. stabilization ................... ..............................7
3. Bighorn Park bank stabilization, spillway, inlet, and Christopher Sewell Bridge ........... ..............................9
4. Booth Creek upstream of 1- 70 .................................................................................... ............................... 11
5. Middle Creek upstream of 1- 70 ................................................................................... ............................... 13
6. 100 -yr floodplain Channel Conveyance ...................................................................... ............................... 15
Summary................................................................................................................................. ............................... 17
APPENDIXA ............................................................................................................................ ............................... 18
APPENDIXB ............................................................................................................................ ............................... 62
APPENDIXC ............................................................................................................................ ............................... 64
Table of Figures
Figure 1. 1994 vs 2010 survey upstream of Aspen Court showing over 3 feet of aggradation ................ 2
Figure 2. 1994 vs 2010 survey upstream of Aspen Court showing 43 feet of left bank erosion .............. 3
Figure 3. Typical channel aggradation in East Vail .................................................... ............................... 4
Figure 4. Project Location Map ............................................................................... ............................... 19
4/5/2011
5 -1 -2
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment January 27, 2011
Introduction
A significant flood event occurred within the Town of Vail in June of 2010. Flows on Gore Creek
above Red Sandstone were determined to be 2,260 cfs which is just shy of the 100 year return event of
2,310 cfs. However, the upper basin likely experienced flows greater than the 100 year event. The
USGS is currently finalizing data for the upper Gore Creek basin; provisional data for Booth Creek
shows that flows reached 472 cfs, which is greater than the 500 -year return flows at Booth (460 cfs),
Pitkin (380 cfs) and Bighorn (340 cfs) Creeks. All of the southern aspect tributaries upstream of Booth
Creek are anticipated to have had approximately 500 -year flood events. Gore Creek likely experienced
greater than I00 -year return flows upstream of Middle Creek.
The most significant flood impacts occurred on Booth Creek, Pitkin Creek and Bighorn Creek. These
three tributaries experienced significant channel widening (erosion of both banks) and scour and
deposition of the channel bed. These three tributaries have headwaters along the Gore Range Divide
with elevations greater than 13,000 feet. Bighorn Creek has reaches that scoured to bedrock through
over 4 feet of alluvium. Other south aspect tributaries upstream of Black Gore Creek likely
experienced similar events, but were not investigated. Middle Creek also experienced flooding, but
not as significant channel scouring, likely due to the slightly lower elevations of the upper basin.
Tributaries with northern aspects or lower basin elevation elevations had large runoff events, but did
not experience significant channel alterations. Black Gore Creek only experienced 225 cfs discharge
which is less than a 10 year return flood.
The Water Year 2010 snowpack was below average. Significant flooding on southern aspect tributaries
with high elevation upper basins may be indicative of a cold spell in late spring followed by extreme
solar gain and rapid snow melting. 1986 was a similar water year condition with below average snow
pack by the beginning of May, followed by a quick, high magnitude runoff. Pitkin Creek exceeded its
500 year return flow of 380 cfs in 2003 (408 cfs) and exceeded its 50 year flow of 260 in 1985 (265
cfs). This many anomalies out of 25 years may simply be outliers. However, shifts towards earlier
runoff peaks and higher magnitudes, especially occurring with below average snowpack, may be
indicative of larger scale climate variability. As outliers, the appropriate response to these discrete
events may be to simply repair damage. If these "outliers" occur more regularly, planning and
preventative maintenance may be a more necessary response.
Gore Creek Assessment
Extensive aggradation (reach wide deposition) occurred in Gore Creek from increased supplies of
sediment; evidenced by 4 feet deep deposits on gravel bars within the main channel of Gore Creek.
Similar aggradation occurred in the lower Booth, Pitkin and Bighorn tributaries. The confluences of
these tributaries with Gore Creek occur on steep alluvial fans. Alluvial fans form where the canyon
mouths open and the sediment transport capacity of the canyon creeks rapidly reduces. Alluvial fans
are natural, ongoing depositional areas; in Vail, the alluvial fans are also prime development land. The
natural process of an alluvial fan is to deposit and perch (raise above adjacent land elevation) a channel,
and then, during a significant flow event, the creek will avulse (significant migration by cutting a new
channel in low land) and repeat the process of deposition and perching. Bighorn Creek is significantly
perched at the apex of the alluvial fan; the creek is at the top of the hill. Pitkin and Booth Creek are
also perched, but on more of a slope with low ground generally to the West. Middle Creek runs along
the toe of the alluvial fan; however, the fan is steep with numerous overflow channels. The
development encroachment on these fans has created a scenario where the channels are prevented
1
4/5/2011
5 -1 -3
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment January 27, 2011
(through maintenance such as clearing log jambs) from the natural avulsion (significant migration)
process necessary to absorb the sediment supply from the upstream canyon. The encroaching
development further perches the creek channels on the alluvial fans and delivers more significant
sediment loads to the main channel of Gore Creek.
The main channel of Gore Creek is in an alluvial floodplain that tends to aggrade the sediment supply
by the point bar and cut bank meandering of a single channel. In some areas where Gore Creek is
overwhelmed by sediment supply, some channel braiding and island forming may be evident.
Although more subtle than avulsions on an alluvial fan, meandering requires migration of the river
channel. The alluvial floodplain of Gore Creek has also been significantly encroached by development
reducing the available migration corridor. A natural channel response to encroachment and limited
migration is aggradation and widening of the main channel. Extensive aggradation also reduces the
channel flood capacity and increases overbank flooding.
Unfortunately, significant aggradation has occurred throughout the main channel of Gore Creek and
may impact channel conveyance and base flood elevations as determined by FEMA. A very detailed
flood study of Gore Creek was performed in 1994 - 1996 including survey of the channel bottom. A
2010 resurvey of these locations has shown up to 4 feet of channel aggradation (Figure 1). Preliminary
flood modeling of the existing channel conditions shows increases in the predicted base flood
elevations of up to 2 feet.
Figure 1. 1994 vs 2010 survey upstream of Aspen Court showing over 3 feet of aggradation.
p ct Pia_ ,),00vrzass z�meire���ea sos
muwg�o �,
Legend
WS 100 Year- Post 2010 Flood
WS 100 Year -Pre Flood
Ground - Pre 2010 Flood
Bank Sta - Pre 2010 Flood
Ground - Post 2010 Flood
Bank Sta - Post 2010 Flood
,om nm seam 'It' ,9m Wm
The necessary and natural processes of channel aggradation and subsequent channel migration are
beginning to conflict with adjacent development. Loss of channel capacity is the first indication, and
significant loss of land would be the unabated long term result of this conflict. The south bank
upstream of Aspen Court has eroded over 43 feet since 1994 and the channel has filled up to 4 feet
(Figure 2). In areas where increasing flood elevations or potential channel migration threatens
structures, channel maintenance may be a necessary course of action. Channel maintenance may come
in the form of stabilizing banks, removing sediments, or offsetting structures and creating openspaces
where the channel can migrate.
2
4/5/2011
5 -1 -4
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment January 27, 2011
Fortunately, existing building offsets, intact riparian fringes, and open spaces have allowed for some
migration of the main channel of Gore Creek. A long undeveloped segment of valley floor is intact
downstream of East Vail to approximately Booth Creek. This openspace ( Katsos) is very critical in
absorbing the large sediment loads generated from Bighorn and Pitkin Creeks. The opportunity for
sediments to aggrade in the Katsos reach reduces the amount that is transported downstream into the
more developed areas of Vail. Similarly, another moderate sized riparian zone exists in the middle of
the Racket Club condominiums, Upstream of Bighorn Creek. This area deposits sediments coming
from upper Gore Creek and Black Gore Creek before the large sediment inputs of Bighorn and Pitkin
Creeks. Booth Creek deposits largely occur along the Vail Golf Course channel.
Figure 2. 1994 vs 2010 survey upstream of Aspen Court showing 43 feet of left bank erosion.
,,,III 1s� o Fl
1 z,me,re��=ed 50636PM
mgs,6,
Legend
WS 100 Year- 100YRASS
WS 100 Year- mbjrevised
Ground - mbjrevised
Bank Sta mbjrevised
Ground - 100YRASS
Bank Sta - 100YRASS
,om „m ,zm sm
�mR
Tributary Assessment
The migration process of tributaries is more erratic and less predictable. Tributaries are becoming
more and more perched as berming and flood wall building have responded to channel aggradation and
overbank flooding. In an attempt to keep the tributaries in their current alignments (between property
lines and road crossings) future maintenance of the tributaries may need to be performed. Maintenance
may include periodic removal of sediments and repair of channel banks. Bighorn, Pitkin and Booth
Creeks have required removal of sediments at culverts this year. Bighorn is the most significantly
perched channel and overbank flooding in 2010 was significant. Landowners have built floodwalls
(during summer 20 10) at the top of bank along Bighorn Creek. Bighorn Creek will likely require
removal of large boulder deposits upstream of Bighorn Road to reduce potential for avulsion and /or
overbank flooding. Pitkin Creek is significantly perched upstream of I -70 and has eroded to a very thin
berm along the top of bank. This berm would likely require stabilization to prevent a future avulsion.
Booth Creek has experienced significant channel widening and bed aggradation and will likely require
removal of sediments to reduce overbank flooding potential. Maintenance of channels is a long -term
commitment that Vail must consider in order to mitigate the natural channel response to development
3
4/5/2011
5 -1 -5
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment January 27, 2011
encroachment and confinement of the creek channels.
Improved management of the riparian corridor may also lead to fewer long -term problems. Local areas
where the native riparian understory has been replaced by shallow rooting turf grass consistently
showed accelerated loss of river bank. Best management practices to improve the riparian zone would
greatly reduce flooding, the loss of land due to flooding, and non -point source pollution due to
sediment loading. Mature trees and turf grasses do not have the root depth and density to hold bank
material. As well, areas with too narrow a band of riparian shrubs do not have the density to hold the
bank together; the channel pulls the bank materials out from behind this narrow band and the willows
collapse into the bank. A robust riparian corridor is critical to reducing land loss and facilitating
sediment transport during flood flow events.
RiverRestoration staff rapidly assessed damage resulting from the 2010 flood at over 58 assessment
sites throughout Vail, Colorado (Appendix A). The 2010 flood event had relatively insignificant
structural damage; however, multiple instabilities have resulted from the flood. If the flood had
persisted for just a couple more days, it is our opinion that the structural damage would have been a
magnitude (10 times) greater. Aspen Court was the only bridge completely lost to the flood; however,
8 additional crossings have been compromised and likely could not sustain another flood event. Most
of the tributaries are perched above adjacent roads, development and infrastructure; overbank flooding
and channel cutting occurred on these tributaries, laying the path for future floods to be more
damaging. Massive sediment deposits have occurred in Gore Creek and tributaries, changing erosion
patterns and reducing flood capacity. A number of channel instabilities should be repaired before the
next flood event (see Appendix B for a detailed list of priorities). More detailed assessment is required
to determine the specific repair method and the cost thereof.
Figure 3. Typical channel aggradation in East Vail
w
4
4/5/2011
5 -1 -6
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment January 27, 2011
Deposition in the main channel of Gore Creek has likely been exacerbated by adjacent landuse. The
encroachments on the Bighorn Creek, Pitkin Creek and Booth Creek tributaries and development on
the alluvial fans has prevented channel migration and deposition on those fans. Material may be more
readily transported into Gore Creek that would otherwise deposit on the alluvial fans. Similarly, the
land use encroachments of Gore Creek have reduced the main channel's ability to absorb new
sediments by migrating and eventually aggrading the valley floor.
A map of all 141 assessment points is included in Appendix A along with descriptions of the 58
assessment sites. A shapefile of all assessment points is included with this report. Within the 58
assessment areas a total of 61 specific projects were identified (Appendix B). Out of the 61 projects six
priority sites were evaluated for conceptual designs. The following sections contain descriptions of the
work to be completed at each site with opinions of cost. Detailed conceptual plans and opinions of cost
are presented in Appendix C.
5
4/5/2011
5 -1 -7
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment January 27, 2011
1. Heathers at Vail Black Gore Drive Flood Mitigation
Downstream of the Interstate 70 Bridge over Gore Creek is a broad alluvial fan with bifurcating
channels. The fan is less steep than other local tributaries and multiple perennial flow paths exist.
Dense residential property has been developed on the fan island between the two main channels. Prior
to 2010, the right (north) channel conveyed more significant flow and the left (south) channel had
lesser conveyance. A number of bifurcating flow paths connects the right and left channels across the
fan. The fan is anticipated to be a significant deposition zone and significant morphology and changes
in channels are expected after significant flood events.
During the 2010 flood, a pre- existing debris bridge over the right (north) channel reduced conveyance
and created a large sediment plug. Subsequently, the left (south) channel widened, cut and eroded with
the increased discharge. The left channel is likely perched at a higher elevation and more overbanking
of flood flows likely occurred from this south channel. The right channel was deprived of sediment at
the debris plug and widened and eroded the toe of the channel at a sharp right turn. Bank collapse
occurred due to toe erosion behind Heatherwood Condo Building. Sand bagging on the bank may
have been in response to super- elevation flows at the corner, bank collapse or a combination.
Overall, the channels functioned ideally in 2010 to minimize flood damage to the structures. The
debris bridge and sediment plug formation routed more water in the left (south) channel and prevented
more significant damage that may have occurred without the increased left channel capacity. Both the
right and left channels will likely have increased flood capacity after removal of the sediment plug.
A detailed cost analysis is presented in Appendix C with the sketch plan. Recommendations actions and
opinion of costs are:
• Remove Sediment Plug at head of Right (north) channel
• Excavate cobbles at left channel of left (south) channel island and place in right channel of
island.
• Biostabilize right bank of left channel
• Reduce grade control at downstream end of left channel (check for utility crossing).
• Stabilize toe of right channel behind Heatherwood
• Mimic or replace debris bridge for plug re- formation during future flood events.
• Cost Opinion: $47,000
6
4/5/2011
5 -1 -8
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment January 27, 2011
2. Bighorn Creek culvert under Spruce Way and Columbine Dr. stabilization
The Spruce Way and Columbine Way crossings over Bighorn Creek are in critical condition, meaning
that they may significantly fail with the repeat of a flood event similar to the 2010 event. Bighorn
Creek experienced a significant flood event in 2010 that is evidenced by: 4 feet of aggraded deposits at
the confluence with Gore Creek; significant channel cutting and widening downstream of Bighorn
Road; deposit of boulder sized material and significant overbank flooding upstream of Bighorn Road;
scour to bedrock and channel degradation of over 4 feet upstream of Interstate 70 to Columbine Way;
significant deposition upstream of Columbine Way.
Previously, on June 1, 2003, the Bighorn Creek culverts under Interstate 70 failed and caused
significant flooding. Much of the flooding was likely due to infiltration and piping of ground water
around the culvert that built a reservoir of mud and debris. The massive size and quantity of rock
material that moves through the Bighorn Creek culverts can compromise the metal culverts and create
rips where groundwater can infiltrate. The I -70 CMP culvert was replaced with a 72 in. CMP with 6
inches of concrete floor to protect the metal of the culvert from being ripped by rock material
transporting through the culvert.
The Columbine Way culvert has been highly compromised by rock transporting through. The rips in
the culvert are likely creating paths for groundwater to pipe and infiltrate beneath the culvert. The
channel cutting downstream of the culvert outlet has destabilized the channel; however, a natural grade
control of boulders remains downstream of the outlet which helps keep a pool at the outlet and reduces
the groundwater gradient across the culvert. This grade control is very unstable and loss of the grade
control (simply by a boulder shifting) may significantly increase the hydraulic gradient of ground water
across the Columbine Way culvert, increasing infiltration and piping and may eventually compromise
the integrity of the road.
The Spruce Way metal culvert has not been significantly ripped; however significant erosion at the
head and the outlet has caused pooling of water around the culvert ends. This pooling may eventually
lead to ground water infiltration and piping around the culvert and collapse similar to the 2003 I -70
culvert. Similar to Columbine Way, a natural boulder grade control pools water at the outlet and helps
reduce the groundwater gradient across the culvert. The solution to limiting ground water outside of
the culvert at Spruce Way is to install head walls; however, the culvert floor should also be bedded with
6 inches of concrete to prevent the eventual ripping of the culvert, and to ensure culvert longevity
similar to the expected life of the head walls.
Headwalls at Spruce Way are an immediate solution, but in our opinion not a long term solution to the
broader problems in Bighorn Creek. Furthermore, installation of headwalls on the existing pipe will
likely require road closure and repair. It is our opinion that the cost and complications of in -situ head
walls, coupled with in -situ concrete flooring of the culvert, will be similar to costs for completely
replacing the culvert, wherein a superior product may be achieved.
Detailed cost estimates and sketch plans are included in Appendix C. Recommended actions, and cost
opinions, for Columbine Way and Spruce Way over Bighorn Creek, in approximate order of priority,
are:
1) Temporary stabilize grade control outlet at Columbine Way with rock and grout:
$8,000
7
4/5/2011
5 -1 -9
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment January 27, 2011
2) Temporary stabilize grade control outlet at Spruce Way with rock and grout: $8,000
3) Replace culvert at Spruce Way with a concrete box structure (4'x 6')with concrete
wing /head walls and permanent grade control: $129,000
4) Replace culvert at Columbine Way with a concrete box structure (4'x 6') with
boulder wing walls and permanent grade control: $104,000
8
4/5/2011
5 -1 -10
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment January 27, 2011
3. Bighorn Park bank stabilization, spillway, inlet, and Christopher Sewell
Bridge
The design rational for the bank stabilization, inlet repair, and low flow spillway replacement at
Bighorn Pond (pond) is intended to protect the pond from capture during future flood events less than a
100 -year event. Construction of approximately 120 feet of crib walls along the south bank downstream
of the Christopher Sewell Bridge (pedestrian bridge) restores the bank line prior to the flooding events
of 2010 while increasing the bank elevation to reduce future over -bank flooding. Construction of
approximately 50 feet of boulder retaining wall upstream of the pedestrian bridge would restore the
bank line to a pre -2009 position and reduce the advancing channel migration. Replacing the existing
spillway weir is designed to improve outflow capacity of the pond to be sized with inlet capacity.
The design of crib walls for bank stabilization, rather than riprap or boulder bank stabilization, offers a
location to waste some sediment which has aggraded the channel over 2 feet since 1994. The crib
structures are designed with a boulder toe to reduce channel migration into the pond bank. These crib
structures require dense vegetation installation as part of the stabilization and long term function of the
bank. Design of a boulder retaining wall upstream of the Christopher Sewell Bridge is meant to
reconstruct a pre -2010 bank location while providing toe stability and reduce the migration of the
channel into the south abutment.
The existing inlet culvert immediately downstream of the pedestrian bridge, which was damaged
during the 2010 flood, will be replaced. The inlet culvert configuration dimensions and elevations will
not be modified, other than the addition of a gate. The gate will allow for some inlet control during
flood events and maintenance periods.
Re- sizing of the low flow spillway has been performed to offer increased conveyance capacity during
high stream flow events while maintaining the existing low flow pond surface elevations. The current
capacity of the existing weir coupled with the vertical standpipe is insufficient (less than 5 cfs) to
convey the combined stream flow obtained from the two inlet culverts (approximately 10 cfs) at
Bighorn Pond. Furthermore, the existing weir was compromised during flooding in 2010 and has
significant leakage around its end. A compound radial spillway was designed for increased conveyance,
groundwater cutoff, and improved aesthetics.
9
4/5/2011
5 -1 -11
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment January 27, 2011
Damage from the 2010 flood event on Christopher Sewell Bridge was extensive. The south abutment
was almost completely undermined and is supported by only a few small boulders without adequate
subgrade. It is RiverRestoration's opinion that the abutment was not originally designed to adequate
scour depth. The top of the abutment footer is at elevation 8516.5 feet and poured unevenly on native
subgrade ground consisting of sand, gravel and cobble. The abutments may have been away from the
main channel at the time of installation; however, the thalweg of the channel is now at the south
abutment. Scour resulting from the 2010 flood went below elevation 8513.0 feet at the south abutment.
The poorly consolidated subgrade material has eroded from under the entire abutment, extending up to
six feet behind the face of the abutment.
After dewatered inspection, our recommended alternative is to rebuild the bridge and design new
alignments, abutments, and spans to function with a mobile channel bed. However, we understand that
Owners may seek a lower cost alternative, and furthermore, the perilous existing condition may result
in collapse of the bridge after spring runoff 2011. Therefore, it is reasonable to attempt to stabilize the
south abutment in place. We have provided a design to inhibit scour around the abutment, train the
flow along the channel banks and resist the ongoing migration of the channel. In addition, concrete fill
would be placed in the voids beneath the abutment. This alternative does not permanently rectify the
fundamental design flaw of the original abutment and therefore should be considered a temporary fix.
The longevity of the temporary fix is unknown and should be monitored. Detailed cost estimates and
sketch plans are included in Appendix C. Cost Opinion: $53,000.
r t�
South abutment Christopher Sewell Bridge inspected December 6, 2010, Vail, CO
10
4/5/2011
5 -1 -12
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment January 27, 2011
4. Booth Creek upstream of I -70
While the data is still being reviewed, preliminary information indicates that Booth Creek experienced
an approximate 500 -year flood event in June of 2010 when compared to the flows outlined in the Flood
Insurance Study for Eagle County, Colorado and Incorporated Areas (FEMA, 2007). As previously
indicated there have been a number of large flood events on Gore Creek Tributaries over the last 25
years. Many factors can impact a basin's hydrology including changes in forest health or composition,
wildfires, urbanization, and climate variability. It is difficult to know if these recent large events are
indicative of large scale changes as described above, if they are simply outliers, or if the hydrology
presented in the FEMA report is inaccurate. The mapped 100 -year floodplain for Booth Creek may not
represent the actual flood hazard in this area. This mapping should be reviewed by the floodplain
administrator and any necessary adjustments to floodplain management should be made.
Given these uncertainties the Town of Vail must weigh the costs of designing and constructing facilities
capable of handling these larger events versus the cost incurred from cleaning and repairing the
existing facilities after these events. Gore Creek and its tributaries are a dynamic system that is
constantly changing in response to the basin's climate, hydrology, geology, ecology and human
impacts. As a result future events of this magnitude should be expected, although challenging to
predict. The design presented below is intended to accommodate events similar to the 2010 runoff.
During this most recent event, significant channel widening and down cutting and associated erosion
and periodic deposition occurred in Booth Creek. Significant loss of land occurred most significantly
in areas where the riparian zone was thinned and replaced with grasses. Significant overbank flooding
and deposits and other damage were sustained at the tennis courts, in the playground, on the bike path
culvert and along the frontage road.
Booth Creek flows through a large, moderate gradient, alluvial fan with intermittently perched channel.
Overbank flooding occurred throughout the channel but flows mostly returned to the main channel.
Approximately 200 feet upstream of the bike path culvert (originally installed for U.S. Highway 6),
overbank flooding did not return to the main channel and damaged the tennis courts and frontage road
with deposits and erosion. Ground water upwelling or offsite flows are suspect for flooding west of
tennis courts and damage to the playground area.
The scoured channel may actually have greater flow capacity post flood and should be studied in
detailed for existing hydraulic conveyance. The oversized culvert has opportunity for modifications
that may improve capacity and maintenance access. The localized overbanking may be mitigated with
offset berms and defined flow channels routing through the playground, around the park and along the
frontage road, and possibly back to the main channel.
Significant erosion of the Frontage Road drainage swales occurred as a result of overbank flows from
Booth Creek. These flows likely overwhelmed the culverts under Bald Mountain Rd., flowed across the
Frontage Rd. causing significant erosion at the edge of the pavement. These roadside swales were
designed to drain a relatively small area along the side of the Frontage Road. The channel
improvements to Booth Creek will reduce the likelihood that the roadside swales will have to handle
these types of floods but will not completely eliminate them. The Town must weigh the costs of
improving these roadside swales versus restoring them to their original condition and maintaining them
after future flood events. Similar decisions must be made regarding the drainage facilities near the
tennis court. The sketch plans presented below should be sufficient to handle flows similar to those in
11
4/5/2011
5 -1 -13
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment January 27, 2011
2010 while limiting damage. The Town may choose to implement all or just a portion of these plans.
Detailed costs and sketch plans are included in Appendix C. Recommended measures include:
• Reduce boulder grade control at I -70 inlet (WP46; photo221; coordinate with USGS gage
rating).
• Clear bike path culvert debris (performed 2010).
• Modify bike path culvert with maintenance access and possible trash racks.
• Remove cobble deposits from bike path culvert to upstream approx 200 feet (between WP44
and WP47; photo218).
• Create right offset levee (between WP48 and WP 49 and WP 50).
• Channel overflow ditch to North Frontage Road and berm along tennis courts.
• Create groundwater drainage at west end of tennis courts. Evaluate flood capacity, floodplain
limits and floor elevations for existing channel upstream of tennis courts.
• Modify channel capacity as needed.
• Bio- stabilize as needed and widen riparian zone where possible.
• Improve frontage road drainage swales underneath I -70.
• Cost Opinion: $331,000
12
4/5/2011
5 -1 -14
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment January 27, 2011
5. Middle Creek upstream of I -70
Middle Creek's peak flow during the 2010 runoff was 71 cfs; less than the 10 -year event. Middle
Creek's steeper alluvial fan is subject to debris flow events in addition to flood events. When
unconstrained, alluvial fans such as this will frequently modify their flow paths to accommodate large
quantities of sediment and debris. As the functioning channel becomes clogged new flow paths develop
in new directions. Development on the Middle Creek alluvial fan has significantly restricted its natural
function. Debris flows typically are assumed to have two to three times larger discharge volumes than
the 100 -year flood event, which for Middle Creek would be 280 to 420 cfs. While mitigation efforts for
these events may be warranted, they require significant engineering and construction. The sketch plan
presented below is intended to address issues related to flood damage and flood conveyance and is not
intended to protect against debris flows.
Middle Creek experienced overbank flooding and isolated bank erosion in June of 2010. Middle
Creek flows in the longest possible planform as it traverses a very steep alluvial fan. The channel is
perched and overbank channels have numerous high gradient overbank paths. Debris jambs could lead
to avulsion which is exacerbated by the perched condition. The Bell Tower was apparently
constructed with designed drainage, flood and mud and debris mitigation and controls; however,
Building "C" of the condos appears to block or modify one of the Bell Tower mitigation drainages and
does not appear to have designed flood mitigation specific to the condos. It is also suspect that Middle
Creek was realigned to its current perched position during construction of the Bell Tower. Erosion of
the road fill slope at the switchback did not appear significant; the boulder toe appeared to be in place.
However this area should be bio- stabilized. Additionally, erosion should be monitored and the as -built
designs of the retaining walls should be evaluated for designed scour depth.
Upstream of the Bell Tower there is a boulder grade control structure and the stream is somewhat super
elevated. This configuration could force flows over the left bank. Reduction of the grade control and
regarding of the channel through this reach would reduce the risk of overbank flows. Construction of
small vegetated berms at strategic locations along the left bank will further reduce flooding. The
overflow channels to the northeast of the Bell Tower should be evaluated for their hydraulic capacity
and modified as necessary.
Similar to Booth Creek the mitigation plans outlined for Middle Creek are designed to handle a flood
event similar to 2010. The mapped I00 -year floodplain for Middle Creek may not represent the actual
flood hazard in this area. This mapping should be reviewed by the floodplain administrator and any
necessary adjustments to floodplain management should be made. Additionally the Town should review
the flood and debris flow mitigation plans for the properties located on the alluvial fan to ensure that
the development of these properties meets land use code. This process may identify other changes that
need to be made such as modifying the land use code to restrict development on active alluvial fans.
Once these reviews are made the Town and adjacent property owners must weigh the costs of
implementing the mitigation design versus the cost of cleanup and repair after a large event.
Detailed costs and sketch plans are presented in Appendix C. Recommended measures include:
• Bio- stabilize road embankment fill across from gage station.
• Reduce boulder grade control at peak of alluvial fan.
• Construct small vegetated berms as necessary.
• Review permitted flood mitigation for building construction, especially for the Bell Tower.
13
4/5/2011
5 -1 -15
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment January 27, 2011
• Evaluate alternative paths for overflow channel.
• Construct drainage collection and return channel at edge of parking lot (WP16).
• Cost Opinion: $212,000.
14
4/5/2011
5 -1 -16
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment January 27, 2011
6. Gore Creek East Vail Channel Maintenance
Significant deposition and channel changes have occurred in the main branch of Gore Creek. In early
September 2010, Martin & Martin surveyed the Aspen Court area in preparation of rebuilding the
bridge and provided us with cross - section information at the same locations as the cross- sections in the
effective FEMA model for Gore Creek as surveyed between 1994 and 1996.
As part of the Aspen Court Bridge Replacement, RiverRestoration used the survey provided by Martin
& Martin to run a revised 100 -year event on Gore Creek with channel geometry representing existing
conditions. Cross - sections 187, 186.5, and 185 were modified to reflect this existing channel geometry.
The cross - sections associated with the Aspen Court bridge were left unchanged (effective) in the model
to exemplify that any change in water surface elevation would be due to the existing conditions of the
channel deposition.
Comparing the pre- and post -event channel geometry at XS 187 shows a large amount of channel
aggradation, up to 4 feet in some locations. The loss of channel conveyance area caused a rise in the
predicted base flood elevation of 1.55 feet. XS 186.5 has also morphed since the effective model
survey in 1995; showing channel aggradation with 40 feet of left bank erosion. Viewing XS 185 in
cross - section shows the formation of a large gravel bar in the center of the channel caused by
deposition of materials. The water surface elevation was raised 0.63 feet at XS 185. Approximately
3,500 cubic yards of material has been deposited between 600' above to 300' below the bridge
alignment.
There are likely other areas, concentrated in East Vail, that have effective base flood elevations
impacted by the significant aggradation. We recommend that survey and subsequent hydraulic analysis
be repeated at: XS 187 - XS 189, XS 198 - XS 200, XS 201.5 - XS 204.7, and XS 214.5 — XS 215.
Repeated survey will be the basis for evaluating existing conditions and recommending channel
modification measures.
Restoration measures are expected to be concentrated around exporting deposits from the channel.
Deposition in the main channel of Gore Creek has likely been exacerbated by adjacent landuse. The
encroachment on the Bighorn Creek, Pitkin Creek and Booth Creek tributaries and development on the
alluvial fans has prevented channel migration and deposition on those fans. Material may be
transported into Gore Creek that would otherwise deposit on the alluvial fans. Similarly, the land use
encroachments of Gore Creek have reduced the main channel's ability to absorb new sediments,
migrate and eventually aggrade the valley. Therefore, mechanical maintenance of the channel may be
the most cost effective alternative for maintaining base flood elevations.
We estimate the magnitude of sediments impacting base flood elevations to be 10,000 cubic yards.
Attached is a budget cost opinion for surveying, designing, permitting and removing sediments from
the channel. More specific opinions of costs, and the rationale for project locations would come from
detailed study modeling.
Detailed costs and sketch plans are presented in Appendix C. Recommended measures include:
• Survey cross - sections.
• Hydraulic Analysis of Gore Creek
• Develop Modification/Restoration plan.
15
4/5/2011
5 -1 -17
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment January 27, 2011
• Channel Modification/Excavation and Restoration.
• Cost Opinion: $619,000.
16
4/5/2011
5 -1 -18
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment January 27, 2011
Summary
In June of 2010 the Town of Vail experienced significant flooding due to rapid snowmelt. Flows on
Gore Creek through the Town of Vail are estimated to be close to the 100 year return flood event and
isolated tributary flows were in excess of the 500 year return flood determined by FEMA. This event
caused significant deposition and channel changes to the main branch of Gore Creek, and washed out
the bridge crossing at Aspen Court. In response to this event the Town of Vail requested that
RiverRestoration provide an evaluation of the resulting systemic instabilities beyond the obvious
damage identified by the Town of Vail.
This report identifies 58 locations that were compromised by the flooding. A geomorphic assessment
was performed at each project location. The resulting flood damage was evaluated and potential
impacts to habitat and any destabilized structures were also identified. General restoration measures
and associated cost opinions were developed for each of the 58 sites for planning purposes. Appendix A
provides a summary of each evaluation location. Six priority projects were identified for sketch plan
development and detailed cost opinions. Four of these projects are located on tributary streams (Booth
Creek, Middle Creek, Bighorn Creek) and two are located on Gore Creek (Heathers & Gore Creek
Channel Conveyance). The sketch plans and detailed costs are presented in Appendix C.
As these flood mitigation projects are implemented we urge the Town of Vail to consider all other
functions of the stream beyond flood conveyance. Colorado's water resources are increasing in value
and it is prudent for the Town of Vail to maximize the values associated with Gore Creek and its
tributaries. In addition to flood conveyance, rivers and streams provide critical riparian and aquatic
habitat as well as recreational opportunities (both passive and active). One way of ensuring that
development in the Town of Vail is compatible with the natural functions and benefits of the streams
flowing though it is to develop a Stream Management Plan. This document would guide land use
decisions and project implementation for the greatest benefit to the streams as well as the community.
The document could provide guidelines for riparian setbacks, recreational opportunities, stormwater
management, riparian habitat conservation and enhancement, and aquatic habitat restoration.
Currently the Town's Development Standards have limited detailed regarding Best Management
Practices (BMPs) or the use of Low Impact Design (LID), which are directly related to river function.
The Stream Management Plan could provide detailed guidance on which BMPs or LID approaches are
appropriate for Gore Creek's unique environment and character. The Stream Management Plan would
ideally balance Stormwater, Riparian Habitat, Land Use, Construction BMPs, Recreation, Aquatic
Habitat, and Flood Plain Management to maximize the sustainability and vitality of Gore Creek and its
tributaries.
17
4/5/2011
5 -1 -19
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment January 27, 2011
APPENDIX A
1s
4/5/2011
5 -1 -20
f
1 Q
�.._.._.._. p E
L u
N
1
1 .1�
1
1 i
1 yt� 1
1 1
1 rn
1
1�
1 1 •+
j �; • ti
j � 1
1 1
1"
1 Yl r i
1 co
co
4 V, 20 I i..
!•-.._ _�.._ file.\ ��.
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment
Appendix A
January 12, 2011
Prepared By:
N I
.- MOMMMMEM
IVEB
POB 2123
Glenwood Springs, CO 81602
Prepared For:
Town of Vail
Department of Public Works
1309 Elkhorn Drive
Vail, CO 81632
4/5/2011
5 -1 -22
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment
Appendix A
January 12, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
WestVail Gore Trail ......................................................................................... ............................... 23
KinnickinnickBridges ..................................................................................... ............................... 23
StephensPark ................................................................................................... ............................... 24
Gore Creek Downstream of Elliot Bridge ........................................................ ............................... 25
West Vail Roundabout Bridge Downstream .................................................... ............................... 26
South Frontage Road Fillslope Erosion ........................................................... ............................... 26
Downstream Gore Creek Drive at Condos ...................................................... ............................... 27
West Gore Creek Drive Bridge ........................................................................ ............................... 27
MatterhornCircle Bridge ................................................................................. ............................... 28
Donovan Park Tennis Courts ........................................................................... ............................... 29
WestHaven Circle Bridge ................................................................................ ............................... 29
CascadeSkier Bridge ....................................................................................... ............................... 30
Channelized Reach between WWTP and Cascade Village .............................. ............................... 30
WWTPBridges ................................................................................................ ............................... 31
ForestRoad Bridge .......................................................................................... ............................... 32
Lionshead Deposition Reach ........................................................................... ............................... 32
Lionshead Wetland Pedestrian Bridge ............................................................. ............................... 33
Gore Trail Park Area Upstream of Lionshead .................................................. ............................... 33
MainVail Bridge .............................................................................................. ............................... 34
Gore Creek International Bridge to Covered Bridge ....................................... ............................... 34
VailWhitewater Park ....................................................................................... ............................... 35
Gore Creek Upstream of Covered Bridge ........................................................ ............................... 35
Gore Creek Near of Vail Valley Blvd Bridge ................................................... ............................... 36
Gore Creek Downstream of Vail Manor Bridge .............................................. ............................... 37
BettyFord Alpine Gardens .............................................................................. ............................... 37
NatureCenter ................................................................................................... ............................... 38
Golf Course Downstream Path ........................................................................ ............................... 39
Golf Course Channelized Reach ...................................................................... ............................... 39
VailValley Blvd Bridge ................................................................................... ............................... 40
Golf Course Diversion Structure ...................................................................... ............................... 41
Golf Course Bridge Upstream of Bathrooms ................................................... ............................... 41
Golf Course Bike Path Bridge ......................................................................... ............................... 42
Golf Course Bridge 3 rd Downstream ............................................................... ............................... 42
Golf Course Bridge 5 th Downstream ................................................................ ............................... 43
Aspen Court Bike Path Bridge ......................................................................... ............................... 43
Gore Trail Upstream of Aspen Court ............................................................... ............................... 44
Gore Creek Trail Bridge near East Vail Exit (Katsos) ..................................... ............................... 44
Gore Creek Braided Channel Reach ( Katsos) .................................................. ............................... 45
BridgeRoad Bridge ......................................................................................... ............................... 46
Glen Falls Bridge Utilities ............................................................................... ............................... 46
Christopher Sewell Pedestrian Bridge in East - Vail .......................................... ............................... 47
BighornPond and Spillway ............................................................................. ............................... 47
4/5/2011
5 -1 -23
Heathersat Vail ................................................................................................ ............................... 48
Buffehr Creek Upstream of 1 -70 ...................................................................... ............................... 50
RedSandstone Creek ....................................................................................... ............................... 51
MillCreek Tributary ........................................................................................ ............................... 52
Middle Creek Downstream of I -70 .................................................................. ............................... 52
Middle Creek Upstream of I -70 ....................................................................... ............................... 53
SpraddleCreek ................................................................................................. ............................... 54
Booth Creek 1 -70 to Gore Creek ...................................................................... ............................... 54
Booth Creek Upstream of I- 70 ......................................................................... ............................... 55
Pitkin Creek I -70 Outlet Structure ................................................................... ............................... 56
Pitkin Creek I -70 to Gore Creek ...................................................................... ............................... 56
Pitkin Creek Trail Head Pedestrian Bridge ...................................................... ............................... 57
Pitkin Creek 1 -70 to Trail Head ........................................................................ ............................... 57
Bighorn Creek Bighorn Road to Gore Creek ................................................... ............................... 58
Bighorn Creek I -70 to Bighorn Road ............................................................... ............................... 59
Bighorn Creek at Columbine Dr ...................................................................... ............................... 60
Gore Creek East Vail Channel Maintenance .................................................... ............................... 61
4/5/2011
5 -1 -24
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Flood Assessment Point:
West Vail Gore Trail
GPS Coordinates: lat= "39.6157" lon = "- 106.4377"
Direction to Assessment South Frontage road to head west to dead end at Gore Trail.
Point: Walk approximately 500 feet downstream
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Erosion of channel toes, both banks. Collapse of bike path
sub grade.
Structures: Gore Trail Bike Path
Geomorphic Description: This reach is significantly channelized between the fill
slopes of the bike path and Bellflower drive as well as fill
from residential developments. Construction of the boulder
wall fill slopes apparently was not keyed into the bed of the
channel and lacks footer rock at scour depth. Instead the
toes appear to be backfilled grouted cobble and riprap. The
grouted toes have failed in many locations exposing the
footer rocks. Footer rocks have shifted and the upper banks
have collapsed as a result. The channel is likely responding
to over - encroached banks.
Habitat Considerations: Lack of riparian zone. NPS from native sediments and
traction sand.
Measures: Bench Left Bank and clear toe for channel capacity.
Reinforce right channel toe. Plant riparian shrubs to
increase the bank mass along Gore Trail and Bellflower
Drive. Encourage landowners to plant robust riparian
buffers. Install barriers to capture sediments from snow
stockpiles at dead end of South Frontage Road.
Cost Range Opinion: $60K -$100K
Photographs: . Aug 18` #52,53,54,55,56,57
Flood Assessment Point:
Kinnickinnick Bridges
GPS Coordinates: RR.orgIGPS 59 -60
591at= "39.617991205304861" lon = "- 106.43276408314705"
601at= "39.620284494012594" lon = "- 106.42809863202274"
Direction to Assessment South Frontage road head west to dead end at Gore Trail.
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: East Kinnickinnick Bridge abutment armor is adequate. The
West Bridge has some failed grouted boulders at the left
abutment.
23
4/5/2011
5 -1 -25
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Structures: Kinnickinnick Bridge West and East
Geomorphic Description: This reach is characterized by a steep boulder channel that is
confined between South Frontage road and residential
develo ments.
Habitat Considerations:
Measures: Monitor toe stability at the Bridges.
Cost Range Opinion: $OK -$IK
Photographs: . Aug 18 #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
Flood Assessment Point:
Stephens Park
GPS Coordinates: lat= "39.621640685945749" lon = "- 106.42569093033671"
Direction to Assessment Adjacent to West Vail Frontage road. Town of Vail dog park.
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: There are four areas with significant flood damage. 1.) The
beach access area on river right. This area is planned for
improvements to be constructed fall 2010. 2.) The upper
bank fill material on river left is eroding for approximately
30 feet. This erosion is localized to the outside of the river
bend and will compromise the paved pathway at the top of
the bank. 3.) Upstream of the pedestrian bridge on river left
the bank is eroding for approximately 50 feet. Two large
pine trees will likely fall into the river in the near future. No
structures are compromised. 4.) Downstream of the
pedestrian bridge on river right the upper fill material has
eroded. No structures are compromised at this area.
In addition to these four sites there was erosion of the soft
athwa on the interior flood lain bench on river right.
Structures: Pedestrian bridge and pathways.
Geomorphic Description: Upstream of Stephens Park the channel is constricted
between the frontage road and a bedrock outcrop. After the
outcrop, the channel opens and an Island formed on left and
Stephens park is likely fill of remnant islands and channel
braiding. Around the park area the channel makes a shallow
radius left to right bend. Erosion of the upper bank fill
material has occurred on the outside of theses bends. The toe
of the banks appear stable with large boulder material or
fractured bedrock. The right point bar is native material.
Loss of under story vegetation has likely exacerbated
erosion. The channel may tend to braid in this section
without fill and stabilization.
Habitat Considerations: Loss of the under story vegetation has resulted to decreased
bank stability and root mass.
Measures: Implement the Stephens Park Bank Stabilization Pro
24
4/5/2011
5 -1 -26
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Monitor erosion on the outside of the bends. Continued
erosion on the cut banks of the bends may require a
biodegradable coir fabrics with staking of
willows /dogwoods. Facilitate bank access and detour
random trampling with thorny shrub plantings. Monitor
interior cut channels on point bar.
Cost Range Opinion: $1K -$5K
Photographs: • River left bank erosion
• river left erosion, large trees
• river right erosion
Flood Assessment Point:
Gore Creek Downstream of Elliot Bridge
GPS Coordinates:
Direction to Assessment From South Frontage Road drive south on Elliot Road.
Point: Deposits are located downstream of the Elliot Road Bridge
in front of the Oldest Cabin in Vail.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Significant channel deposition and change in channel
morpholo
Structures: South frontage road at top of bank on river right.
Geomorphic Description: Significant cobbles have deposited forming a lateral bar on
river left. Downstream of the deposits the channel is
constricted between the South Frontage road fill slope and a
bedrock outcrop. The backwater effect from this
constriction decreased the transport capacity and significant
bedload deposits of cobble material dropped out forming a
lateral bar on river left. This deposition may decrease
channel flood capacity.
Habitat Considerations: The lateral bar has pushed the thalweg to the right side of the
channel. This may exacerbate erosion of the right bank fill
slope. Large boulders are in place at the toe, however the fill
material may erode and eventually compromise the stability
of the fillslope of the south frontage road. Refreshed
ravel /cobble bars provide good spawning habitat.
Measures: Monitor lateral bar growth, thalweg, and erosion of the river
right bank. Monitoring may recommend the future need for
erosion control fabrics and plantings to protect the fill slope.
In- channel excavation of the cobble deposits may be
necessary if erosion increases or deposition causes upstream
flood issues. .
Cost Range O inion: $OK -$1K
Photographs: • Cobble deposits
• Au 11 012
25
4/5/2011
5 -1 -27
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Flood Assessment Point:
West Vail Roundabout Bridge Downstream
GPS Coordinates:
Direction to Assessment From the West Vail exit roundabout drive south to Bridge
Point: and look downstream.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Erosion of the fill material on river right for approximately
50 feet. Toe of channel is stabilized with large boulders.
Structures: Possible buried utilities
Geomorphic Description: The river is confined by a steep fillslopes on left and a
retaining wall on right for South Frontage road. The fill
slope is reportedly for utility coverage. There are no
vegetation or fabrics to hold the left fill slope. The fine bank
materials are eroding, potentially reducing cover on utilities.
Habitat Considerations: NPS sediments from bank erosion.
Measures: Monitor erosion of fillslope. Monitoring of the fillslope may
recommend willow /dogwood pole planting augmentation, or
possible placement of riprap and boulders at toe of fill slope.
Cost Range Opinion: $1 OK -$20K
Photographs: • Bank erosion at the abutment
• Downstream river left bank erosion
Flood Assessment Point:
South Frontage Road Fillslope Erosion
GPS Coordinates: RR.orglpt2
lat= "39.628552235662937" lon = "- 106.41873680055141
Direction to Assessment From the West Vail exit roundabout drive east on South
Point: Frontage road for approximately 100 feet.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Erosion of the fill material on river right for approximately
150 feet. Toe of channel is stabilized with large boulders.
Structures: South Frontage Road
Geomorphic Description: The river right is confined by a steep fillslope from South
Frontage road. There are no vegetation or fabrics to hold the
slope. The fine bank materials are eroding.
Habitat Considerations: NPS sediments from bank erosion.
Measures: Monitor erosion of right fillslope. Monitoring of the
fillslope may recommend willow /dogwood pole planting
augmentation, or possible placement of riprap.
Cost Range Opinion: $OK -$1K
Photographs: . Fill slope erosion
26
4/5/2011
5 -1 -28
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Flood Assessment Point:
Downstream Gore Creek Drive at Condos
GPS Coordinates: RR.orglpt3
tat= "39.628682406619191" lon = "- 106.41736778430641"
Direction to Assessment From West Wail exit roundabout drive east on South
Point: Frontage road, drive south for approximately 0.25miles.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Erosion of bank on river left and a large tree fallen across
the channel.
Structures: none
Geomorphic Description: Bank erosion of cobble and fine materials on the river left
bank has exposed the rootmass of several large trees. One
large tree has fallen across the channel. The channel is
widening with river left bank failure. Local hydraulics are
partial split flow from a cobble island where the thalweg is
located on river left. There is some trampling of the bank on
river right from residents.
Habitat Degradations: NPS sediments from bank erosion. Loss of mature
ve etation.
Measures: Cut and remove large tree fallen across the channel.
Monitor for future fallen trees across the channel. Install
boulders toe stability to protect tree root erosion on river left.
Thorny vegetate informal bank access areas and densely
vegetate understory native shrubs for root mass and bank
stability in the riparian area.
Cost Range Opinion: $2K -$4K
Photographs: • large fallen tree across the channel
• left bank erosion
• left bank erosion
• left bank erosion and fill slope
Flood Assessment Point:
West Gore Creek Drive Bridge
GPS Coordinates:
Direction to Assessment From South Frontage road, drive south on West Gore Creek
Point: Drive.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Erosion of fine bank materials downstream of the bridge
may cause collapse of a large pine tree on river left. Small
mammals digging into the bank exacerbate the erosion.
Structures: Gore Creek Drive Bridge and in- channel utility crossing
appear stable.
Geomorphic Description: Small mammal wildlife making homes in the bank have
likely reduced the vegetation cover exacerbating erosion
caused during the flood.
27
4/5/2011
5 -1 -29
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Habitat Considerations: NPS sediments from bank erosion.
Measures: Monitor stability or cut large tree to prevent damage to the
road. Leave stump in place for root mass bank protection
and augment with boulders. Monitor small mammals
digging into the bank near the bridge abutments. May need
to au meat mammal holes with boulders.
Cost Range Opinion: $2K -$4K
Photographs: • Left bank erosion and small mammal home
Flood Assessment Point:
Matterhorn Circle Bridge
GPS Coordinates:
Direction to Assessment From South Frontage road turn south onto Matterhorn
Point: Circle.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Erosion of both left and right bank fill material and the toe
of the right bridge abutment. Fine materials have washed
out from behind the grouted boulders on the river right
abutment protection. The toe of the river right abutment has
eroded under the spread footer. Erosion of fine bank
materials has occurred upstream of the bridge on river right,
and downstream of the bridge on river left. Some erosion
has occurred on the upstream and downstream edge of the
left abutment. Significant bank fill has compromised trees
and riparian vegetation. Downstream bank erosion on river
left may cause two large pine trees to fall into the river.
The pedestrian bridge upstream appears to have stable
channel p rotection.
Structures: Bridge, pipe crossing, and buried utilities
Geomorphic Description: The river takes a left turn, the bridge is located just
downstream of the apex in the bend where maximum scour
will occur on river right.
The loss of under story vegetation coupled with the steep
bank from the road encroaching the channel has likely
exacerbated erosion of the left bank.
Habitat Considerations: NPS sediments from bank erosion. Loss of vegetation.
Measures: Remove the two large trees. Reduce the slope of the left
bank opening up an interior floodplain. Install erosion
control blankets and plantings on river left.
Protect the abutments by routin cobble and boulders.
Cost Range Opinion: $20K -$40K
Photographs: . River right abutment scour
• Upstream river right bank erosion
• Downstream right abutment erosion
28
4/5/2011
5 -1 -30
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
• Upstream left abutment erosion
• Downstream left abutment erosion
• Downstream river left bank erosion, two trees
Flood Assessment Point:
Donovan Park Tennis Courts
GPS Coordinates: RR.orglpt 5 -8
5lat = "39.633822022005916" Ion = "- 106.40819672495127"
61at= "39.636298371478915" Ion = "- 106.4064942765981"
71at= "39.636624343693256" Ion = "- 106.40594450756907"
81at= "39.636624259874225" Ion = "- 106.40594677068293"
Direction to Assessment From the Matterhorn Circle bridge head east on the Gore
Point: Creek Trail bike path.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Pedestrian and fishing recreation has trampled the bank in
local areas exacerbating erosion. The narrow riparian buffer
and steep slope from the bike path increases the potential for
bank erosion.
Structures: Bike Path
Geomorphic Description: The channel is encroached by the bike path resulting to loss
of riparian vegetation and reduced bank stability. The
channel has been channelized from development
encroachments.
Habitat Considerations: NPS sediments from bank erosion. Loss of vegetation.
Develop ment encroachment.
Measures: Monitor erosion. Monitoring may recommend augmenting
the bank willow /dogwood pole plantings and possible
placement of riprap. Landscape measures may be necessary
to designate bank access.
Cost Range Opinion: $4K -$8K
Photographs: . Bank access
• Pedestrians and bank access
• Looking at path and fill slope
• Looking at slope and channel
Flood Assessment Point:
West Haven Circle Bridge
GPS Coordinates:
Direction to Assessment From Cascade village drive to West Haven Bridge.
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Some winnowing of fine materials behind boulder
29
4/5/2011
5 -1 -31
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
stabilization at the abutments. Large boulders in the channel
appear stable. No scour noticeable at the mid - channel pier.
Structures: Bridge
Geomorphic Description: The Bridge is located at the cross over between a left to right
bend in the river. Large boulders naturally deposit in this
area to form a riffle. The construction of the bridge moved
these boulders. The pier of the bridge splits flow, the
thalweg is located on river right of the pier.
Habitat Considerations: Good in- stream habitat with pocket pools.
Measures: Monitor for future scour of bridge abutments and pier.
Cost Range Opinion: $OK -$1K
Photographs:
Flood Assessment Point:
Cascade Skier Bridge
GPS Coordinates:
Direction to Assessment Gore Creek trail bike path upstream of Cascade village.
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Debris jam creates navigation hazard for watercraft
recreation.
Structures: Bridge
Geomorphic Description: Upstream of the bridge the reach has been channelized and
is confined between South Frontage road on river right, and
the bike path cutslo e on river left.
Habitat Considerations: Downstream of the bridge an island splits flow allowing for
reater flood flow conveyance and a wider riparian corridor.
Measures: Post in- stream navigation hazard warning signs upstream of
the bridge. Periodically check debris for cross channel
strainers, or altering the flow conveyance under the bridge.
Cost Range Opinion: $2K -$4K
Photographs: . Looking at debris jam downstream of bridge
Flood Assessment Point:
Channelized Reach between WWTP and
Cascade Village
GPS Coordinates: RR. orgIpt9, RR. orgIpt10
91at= "39.640001831576228" Ion = "- 106.39953654259443"
10lat= "39.640768943354487" Ion = "- 106.39678543433547"
Direction to Assessment Downstream of the Wastewater Treatment Plant
Point:
30
4/5/2011
5 -1 -32
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Upper bank fill material erosion.
Structures: Parking lot, and bike path.
Geomorphic Description: This reach has been channelized and is confined between a
steep fillslope for the South Frontage Road and fill for a
parking lot. The lack of under story vegetation and bank
root mass may exacerbate the failure of mature pine trees.
The channel trend is to migrate north and restore the natural
bend.
Habitat Considerations: Continued erosion of fillslope materials will lead to bank
failure and loss of the riparian vegetation. Continued loss of
riparian vegetation will compromise the stability of the fill
slope.
Measures: Install biodegradable erosion control fabrics and plant native
shrubs to increase the bank rootmass. Monitor future erosion
of the fillslope. Future fallen mature trees are likely and will
need to be removed from the channel.
Cost Range Opinion: $1K -$4K
Photographs: • Looking at mature tree about to fall into river
• Looking at eroding fill slope
Flood Assessment Point:
WWTP Bridges
GPS Coordinates:
Direction to Assessment At the Wastewater Treatment Plant there are two bridges. A
Point: newly constructed road bridge, and the bike path/pedestrian
bridge.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: No significant flood damage. Some of the riprap under the
right abutment of the road bridge have mobilized.
Structures: Bridges
Geomorphic Description: This reach has been channelized and is confined between a
steep fillslope and the bikepath. The channel has grade
control structures, and the toe of the banks are stable with
boulders and large cobbles.
Habitat Considerations: Buffer discharge from storm water culvert on river left bank.
Measures: Monitor bridge abutments for future scour.
Cost Range Opinion: $OK -$1K
Photographs: • Aug 11 #61, looking at right abutment
• Aug 11 #62 looking at culvert
31
4/5/2011
5 -1 -33
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Flood Assessment Point:
Forest Road Bridge
GPS Coordinates:
Direction to Assessment Upstream of the Wastewater Treatment Plant
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Erosion of cobble and bank materials. River right repaired,
however hydroseed not spouting at time of assessment.
Failed silt fence.
Structures: Bridge
Geomorphic Description: Downstream of the bridge the reach has been channelized
and there are several grade control structures. Upstream of
the bridge large cobble deposits form a mid - channel bar.
Habitat Considerations:
Measures: Augment riprap under the bridge at the abutments. Monitor
scour at the abutments and migration of cobble bar.
Monitoring may recommend fabrics under the riprap to hold
fine bank materials. Install willow stakes between riprap.
Cost Range Opinion: $1K -$4K
Photographs: • Aug 11 #63, repaired abutment
• Aug 11 #64, looking downstream at deposits
Flood Assessment Point:
Lionshead Deposition Reach
GPS Coordinates: RRorg1GPS #11, GPS #12
lllat= "39.641890609636903" lon= "- 106.39089949429035"
121at= "39.641872001811862" lon= "- 106.39087183400989"
Direction to Assessment Between Lionshead skier bridge and Forest Road Bridge.
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Cobble deposits and channel aggradation are forming lateral
bars that ut pressure on the bank.
Structures: Bike Path
Geomorphic Description: This reach is characterized by lateral bars. Bedrock outcrops
protect the banks, however there are sections where robust
riparian vegetation is critical for bank stability.
Habitat Considerations: There are several natural features that provide good in-
stream habitat. Bedrock outcrops form deep pools and
undercuts that provide good fish cover. Cobble bars form
spawning habitat and diversity of niche habitat for
macroinvertebrates.
32
4/5/2011
5 -1 -34
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Several locations are denuded from fishing /pedestrian traffic
random trampling the bank.
Measures: Monitor bank stability and robust riparian vegetation.
Designate bank access areas. Future monitoring of the
riparian vegetation will be necessary to ensure the bank root
mass is sufficient to hold the channel in its current
alignment. Shifting of cobble bars and loss of understory
shrubs could result to erosion of the banks and compromise
the bike p ath.
Cost Range Opinion: $5K -$lOK
Photographs: • Bedrock outcrop
• Bedrock and undercut bank
• Cobble bars and robust riparian vegetation
• Random trampling of bank
• Random trampling of bank
Flood Assessment Point:
Lionshead Wetland Pedestrian Bridge
GPS Coordinates:
Direction to Assessment
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Groundwater piping is eroding materials behind the left
bridge abutment.
Structures: Pedestrian Bridge
Geomorphic Description: Groundwater draining from the wetland is piping fine bank
material from behind the left abutment of the pedestrian
bridge. The toe of the abutment is stable.
Habitat Considerations: NPS from bank erosion.
Measures: Monitor piping of structural fill material under the abutment,
and bank stability. Future monitoring may recommend the
installation of drainpipes around the abutment.
Cost Range O inion: $OK -$lK
Photographs: • Looking at left abutment and groundwater ni ning.
Flood Assessment Point:
Gore Trail Park Area Upstream of Lionshead
GPS Coordinates: RRorg1GPS #13
lat= "39.643221236765385" lon = "- 106.38500173576176"
Direction to Assessment Adjacent to bike path upstream of Lionshead village
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
33
4/5/2011
5 -1 -35
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Description of Damage: Erosion of right bank, loss of picnic area.
Structures: No structures, however park area with picnic tables.
Geomorphic Description: Local hydraulics against the outside of the bend are eroding
the right cut bank. Coupled with pedestrian traffic and loss
of vegetation the bank has eroded to steep bare soil.
Habitat Considerations: Non -point source pollution from bank erosion. Loss of
riparian habitat.
Measures: Install boulder steps to a boulder platform at the right toe to
facilitate pedestrian traffic and stabilize the bank. The steep
bank limits potential for terraced seating. Install shrubs and
herbaceous plantings at upper bank. Potential for an
overlook wall and patio area to enhance the picnic area.
Cost Range Opinion: $20K -$40K
Photographs: . Aug 11 photo #81, 82, 83
Flood Assessment Point:
Main Vail Bridge
GPS Coordinates: RR.org1GPS #16
lat= "39.640782941132784" lon = "- 106.37797376140952"
Direction to Assessment Main Vail exit drive south around roundabout to Gore Creek.
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Erosion of left bank fill material may cause collapse of
mature pine trees.
Structures: No structural damage.
Geomorphic Description: The toe is stable with boulders, however erosion of the fine
materials on the bank have exposed roots of mature pine
trees.
Habitat Considerations: Non -point source pollution from bank erosion. Loss of
mature pine trees. Discharge from a small stormpipe
saturates the bank upstream of the left abutment and is
causing bank failure.
Measures: Build the left bank with toe boulders to stablize mature trees.
Backfill with cobbles and native soil encapsulated in a coir
erosion control fabrics. Plant with willows. Install buffer
area for stormwater return.
Cost Range Opinion: $lOK -$20K
Photographs: . Aug 11 photo #87, 88, 89
Flood Assessment Point:
Gore Creek International Bridge to Covered
Bridge
34
4/5/2011
5 -1 -36
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
GPS Coordinates:
Direction to Assessment
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Localized areas of the bank are eroding from random
trampling of the bank coupled with narrow to none existent
native rip arian shrubs.
Structures: Pedestrian bridge and commercial developments.
Geomorphic Description: Channelized section confined between developments. There
are several grade control structures and hard access points.
Habitat Considerations: Local random trampling of the bank at the Bridges.
Measures: Encourage land owners to plant a robust riparian corridor to
protect the bank. Prune brush or remove deposits at culverts
as needed.
Cost Range Opinion: $IK -$4K
Photographs: • Aug 18` #42, 43, 44
Flood Assessment Point:
Vail Whitewater Park
GPS Coordinates:
Direction to Assessment International Bridge Vail Village
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Loss of veneer rock on Pedestrian and International Bridge
Structures: Bridge.
Geomorphic Description: Hardened channel confined by boulder toes and bridge
abutments
Habitat Considerations: Impediment of channel processes.
Measures: Monitor toe erosion. Replace veneer pieces. Monitor
inflatable bladders for function and remove debris.
Cost Range Opinion: $OK -$I K
Photographs: • 111_0729 / I MGP2179.tpg ; IMGP2I80.ipg ;
IMGP2181.JM IMGP2182.ipg IMGP2183.ipg
IMGP2184.i
Flood Assessment Point:
Gore Creek Upstream of Covered Bridge
GPS Coordinates: Deposit = 39 °38'27.87 "N; 106 °22'21.45 "W
Tree= 39'38'27.41"N; 106'22'20.71"W
35
4/5/2011
5 -1 -37
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Direction to Assessment Exit 1 -70 Main Vail; head 0.4 miles east on South Frontage
Point: Road; head south on Vail Valley Blvd turn west on
Promenade 0.1 mile to Mill Creek confluence.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Localized erosion throughout banks
Structures: Left bank of channel property; bridge
Geomorphic Description: Deposits in the channel upstream of Mill Creek confluence
and the Covered Bridge put pressure on left bank toe.
Thalweg at toe of left bank may eventually cause erosion.
Insi nificant scour at bridge abutments.
Habitat Considerations: Non-point source pollution from bank erosion.
Measures: Monitor erosion of the left bank and increasing center bar
deposits. Install shrubs and herbaceous plantings to increase
bank root mass. Designate bank access to reduce random
trampling. Install replacement conifers.
Cost Range Opinion: $1K -$4K
Photographs: . 115_0804 / IMGP2347.ipg ; IMGP2348.ipg
IMGP2349.' ; IMGP2350.' ; IMGP2351.'
Flood Assessment Point:
Gore Creek Near of Vail Valley Blvd Bridge
GPS Coordinates: Tree= 39 °38'28.28 "N; 106 °22'17.84 "W
Tree =39 °38'29.26 "N; 106 °22'15.12 "W
Direction to Assessment Exit 1 -70 Main Vail; head 0.4 miles east on South Frontage
Point: Road; head south on Vail Valley Blvd to Gore Creek, walk
trail on north side of river upstream and downstream.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Localized erosion throughout banks
Structures: Bridge. No minor scour around abutments of road bridge.
Some loss of riprap at right abutment.
Retaining wall: loss of tree may undermine gabion basket
retaining wall upstream of bridge.
Path downstream of Bridge: repaired after flood.
Geomorphic Description: The channel flows around the Mill Creek alluvial fan.
Upstream of the bridge the channel is pushed to the north at
the toe of a steep terrace. Downstream of the bridge there is
a broad interior floodplain. The right bank is the alluvial fan
with 2 major tributary channels and a number of smaller
springs and flow paths.
Habitat Considerations: Non -point source pollution from bank erosion. Potential
loss of mature pine trees.
Measures: Monitor erosion of the banks and cantilevered trees. Install
shrubs and herbaceous plantings to increase bank root mass,
es at ark.
Designate bank access at park and along trail.
36
4/5/2011
5 -1 -38
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Plant new generation of conifer trees. At upstream of
bridge, some channel work may realign boulders to reduce
erosion at tree.
Cost Range Opinion: $4K -$ l OK
Photographs: • 115_0804 / IMGP2352.ipg ; IMGP2353.ipg
lMGP2354.ip9 IMGP2355.ipg IMGP2356.ipg
IMGP2357.ip ; IMGP2358.ipg IMGP2359.ipg
IMGP2360.ipg
Flood Assessment Point:
Gore Creek Downstream of Vail Manor Bridge
GPS Coordinates: Deposit =39 °38'23.57 "N; 106 °22'1.99 "W
Direction to Assessment Exit 1 -70 Main Vail; head 0.9 miles east on South Frontage
Point: Road; Park at Ford Park parking lot, walk trail on north side
of river downstream 0.4 miles.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Center channel deposits creating toe scour on both banks
downstream of bridge
Structures: Bridge. No significant scour around abutments of pedestrian
bridge. Some loss of riprap at right abutment.
Geomorphic Description: Cobble /gravel deposits downstream of the bridge split flow
and push the thalweg on river right and river left bank. Fine
bank materials are eroding causing several mature pine trees
to cantilever and eventually collapse into the channel.
Random trampling of the right bank exacerbates erosion.
Habitat Considerations: Non -point source pollution from bank erosion. Potential
loss of five mature pine trees.
Measures: Monitor erosion of the banks and cantilevered trees (2 right,
1 left). Install shrubs and herbaceous plantings to increase
bank root mass. Designate bank access. Plant new
g eneration of conifer trees. Improve storm water rundowns.
Cost Range Opinion: $4K -$ l OK
Photographs: • 115_0804 / IMGP2361.= ; IMGP2362.ipg
IMGP2363.' ; IMGP2364.' ;IMGP2365.'
Flood Assessment Point:
Betty Ford Alpine Gardens
GPS Coordinates: RR.org1GPS #17
lat= "39.638815876096487" Ion = "- 106.36610733345151"
Direction to Assessment There are trails that access the river bank throughout the
Point: area. The bike path/pedestrian bridge connect north and
south trails.
37
4/5/2011
5 -1 -39
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Random trampling of right bank. Cobble deposits in main
channel may increase overbank flooding.
Structures: No structural damage to pedestrian bridge.
Geomorphic Description: Boulder grade control structure located at the pedestrian
bridge appears stable. Cobble /gravel deposits downstream
of the bridge split flow and push the thalweg on river right
bank. Fine bank materials are eroding causing several
mature pine trees to cantilever and eventually collapse into
the channel. Random trampling of the right bank
exacerbates erosion.
Habitat Considerations: Non -point source pollution from bank erosion. Potential
loss of five mature pine trees.
Measures: Monitor erosion of the banks and fallen trees across the
river. Install shrubs and herbaceous plantings to increase
bank root mass. Designate bank access. Plant new
g eneration of pine trees.
Cost Range Opinion: $4K -$10
Photographs: . Aug 11 photo #96, 97, 98, 99, 102
Flood Assessment Point:
Nature Center
GPS Coordinates: RR.org1GPS 18 -21
lat= "39.639660604298115" lon = "- 106.36311608366668"
lat= "39.639919940382242" lon = "- 106.36139184236526"
lat= "39.640437522903085" lon = "- 106.36008569039404"
lat= "39.640348590910435" lon = "- 106.35904314927757"
Direction to Assessment There are trails that access the left river bank throughout the
Point: Nature Center area. The paved path can be accessed from
Vail Valley Drive (Vail Golf Course), just upstream of the
Nature Center.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Erosion of left bank causing collapse of paved path and
mature pine trees.
Structures: Paved path
Geomorphic Description: Local hydraulics on the outside of the bend at the apex point
are eroding cobble and finer material. The bank has eroded
and is undermining the paved path. Sand bags are staked to
p rotect the bank.
Habitat Considerations: Non -point source pollution from bank erosion. Random
trampling of the bank throughout the nature center causes
loss of shrubs and herbaceous cover.
Measures: Install boulders with pole plantings to stabilize the outside of
the bend. Patch and repair paved path. Plant thorny shrubs
to detour random trampling the banks throughout the Nature
38
4/5/2011
5 -1 -40
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Center area.
Cost Range Opinion: $14K -$30K
Photographs: • Aug 11 #113; 114 115 116 117
Flood Assessment Point:
Golf Course Downstream Path
GPS Coordinates:
Direction to Assessment Below the #14? Tee Box along cart path
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Left bank erosion at apex of point bar. Temporarily
stabilized with dumped boulders
Structures: Cart Path; tree
Geomorphic Description: Advancing pointbar downstream of channelized reach
erodes left cut bank into terrace material. Cart path cut into
terrace at top of bank. Large conifer trees help hold bank.
Habitat Considerations: Non -point source pollution from bank erosion and loss of
the riparian vegetation have degraded stream health
functions.
Measures: Monitor erosion, monitor tree root stability. Evaluate point
bar for other channels. Install willow /dogwood pole
plantings between the riprap boulders on river left to
increase the bank mass. A repaired structure may redefine
the thalweg and stabilize the toe of the bank.
Cost Range Opinion: $21K -$44K
Photographs: • Aug31 / IMG_0270.ipg ; IMG 0271.ipg
IMG 0272.' ; IMG 0273.'
Flood Assessment Point:
Golf Course Channelized Reach
GPS Coordinates: RR.org1GPS 22, 24 -25
221at= "39.641814166679978" lon = "- 106.3532461412251"
241at= "39.642828125506639" Ion="- 106.34814290329814"
25lat= "39.643014539033175" lon = "- 106.34701101109385"
Direction to Assessment Reach along South Frontage Road between Ford Park and
Point: the bend in the river at the Golf Course.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Several local areas where erosion of the left bank has caused
loss of riparian vegetation and is eroding the maintained
areas of the Golf Course. A few areas are eroding the upper
bank fill material on river right.
Structures:1 South Frontage Road; Golf Course
39
4/5/2011
5 -1 -41
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Geomorphic Description: Gore Creek has been channelized in this reach between
South Frontage Road and the Golf Course. Several grade
control structures are installed and appear stable. There is
one grade control structure that has failed and repair of left
bank erosion is evident; the river is braiding and widening in
this area. Both the left and right bank have a very narrow
band of riparian vegetation. There are a few local areas
where erosion of fill material on river right may compromise
the road if the slope is not stabilized.
Habitat Considerations: Non -point source pollution from bank erosion and loss of
the riparian vegetation have degraded stream health
functions.
Measures: Install willow /dogwood pole plantings between the riprap
boulders on river right to increase the bank mass. Install
biodegradable coir fabrics with shrub plantings and mature
trees to restore a minimum 15' wide riparian band on river
left. Alternatives should be evaluated at the failed grade
control structure; the channel wants to naturally braid
however may continue to erode land on the Golf Course; a
repaired structure may redefine the thalweg and stabilize the
toe of the bank.
Cost Range Opinion: $4K -$ I OK
Photographs: . Aug 11 #125; 126; 127; photo 125 is braiding area
and failed grade control structure.
Flood Assessment Point:
Vail Valley Blvd Bridge
GPS Coordinates: RR.orgIGPS #23
lat= "39.642157824710011" lon = "- 106.3521493691951"
Direction to Assessment From South Frontage Road drive there is a snow storage
Point: site/pull-out area upstream of Vail Valley Drive Bridge.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Some riprap boulders have rolled exposing the fabric at the
abutments under the Bridge.
Structures: Bridge
Geomorphic Description: Hydraulics under the bridge have eroded fine materials.
Habitat Considerations: Non -point source pollution from erosion and traction sand
sediments. Loss of riparian vegetation.
Measures: Monitor for scour under the bridge and stability of riprap
placed at the abutments. Future conditions may recommend
augmentation of riprap at the abutments.
Cost Range Opinion: $OK -$IK
Photographs: • Aug 11 # 123 left abutment
• Aug 11 #124 traction sand and eroding bank.
40
4/5/2011
5 -1 -42
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Flood Assessment Point:
Golf Course Diversion Structure
GPS Coordinates: RR.org1GPS 52 -55
521at= "39.642947567626834" lon = "- 106.33767901919782"
53lat= "39.64329575188458" lon = "- 106.33815988898277"
551at= "39.643433969467878" lon = "- 106.33861351758242"
Direction to Assessment Vail Golf Course
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Grade Control Structure for water diversion.
Structures: Grouted boulder diversion headding structure
Geomorphic Description: This reach has been channelized with a series of grade
control structures. Boulders have moved at cross vane
structures, some causing localized bank erosion.
The headding structure for the water diversion has
experienced significant scour that has lead to failure. Footer
boulders have rolled creating an undercut of grouted
boulders are bridged. The bridge is forming a sieve that may
be extremely hazardous to in- stream navigation.
Habitat Considerations:
Measures: Coordinate with owner of the diversion structure and
repair /replace the structure. Post warning signs
for in- stream recreation.
Cost Range Opinion: $40K -$60K
Photographs: • Aug 16 #47;48;49
• Aug 18 #15; 16; 17; 18
Flood Assessment Point:
Golf Course Bridge Upstream of Bathrooms
GPS Coordinates: RR.org1GPS 30
lat= "39.64541444554925" lon = "- 106.33020655252039"
Direction to Assessment Vail Golf Course
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Significant scour on river right exposing the spread footer of
the abutment. Deep scour hole beneath bridge
approximately 4 feet lower than bottom of footer elevation
Erosion of fine bank materials around the river left
abutment.
Structures: Pedestrian/cart bridge
Geomorphic Description: Bridge is located at cross over location between two
meander bends. Heavy bank armor at upstream right
appears to have been placed in emergency fashion (previous
to 2010). Boulders from the upstream right armor have
41
4/5/2011
5 -1 -43
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
created scour at the right abutment and center channel.
Habitat Considerations: NPS pollution of sediments from bank erosion.
Measures: Place riprap around footer of right abutment. Reshape
upstream right armor to reduce adverse hydraulics on right
abutment.
Cost Range Opinion: $25K -$50K
Photographs: . Aug 11 #136; 137; 138; 139
• Aug 16 #37
Flood Assessment Point:
Golf Course Bike Path Bridge
GPS Coordinates: RR.org1GPS 28
lat= "39.64525661431253" lon = "- 106.33198569528759"
Direction to Assessment South of Golf Course Bathrooms.
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: River left bank is eroding for approximately 10', left wing
wall is exposed. Sewer line crossing scoured to concrete
cas sing broken and pipe is exposed.
Structures: Pedestrian/cart bridge
Geomorphic Description: Massive deposition upstream of bridge. Significant channel
stabilization efforts impact channel realignment
Habitat Considerations: Non -point source pollution from bank erosion and loss of
the riparian vegetation.
Measures: Repair bank erosion to protect golf path. Repair /replace
sewer line and armor. Monitor.
Photographs: . Aug l lth #128;L29 130
Flood Assessment Point:
Golf Course Bridge 3 rd Downstream
GPS Coordinates: RR.org1GPS 27
lat= "39.644486820325255" lon = "- 106.33324231021106"
Direction to Assessment Vail Golf Course
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: River right approach/abutment fill has been eroded with
sandbags protecting the upper fill. Spread footer appears
buried.
Structures: Pedestrian/cart bridge
Geomorphic Description: Area is in a straight section between two meander bends.
Habitat Considerations:
Measures: Flow fill behind abutment at upper loss of right approach
backfill. Monitor loss of material from behind right
42
4/5/2011
5 -1 -44
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
abutment. Low land adjacent to right approach may allow
for a boardwalk approach with restored wetland areas.
Cost Range Opinion: $1K -$4K
Photographs: . Aug 11` #131; 132; 133
• Aug 16` #38;39
Flood Assessment Point:
Golf Course Bridge 5 th Downstream
GPS Coordinates:
Direction to Assessment First pedestrian bridge north of channelized reach on the Vail
Point: Golf Course.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: River left bank is eroding for approximately 20', left
win wall is exposed.
Structures: Pedestrian/cart bridge
Geomorphic Description: There are several grade control structure in this reach. The
channel takes a left to right bend just downstream of the
pedestrian bridge. Local hydraulics on the left bank are
eroding the bank.
Habitat Considerations: Non -point source pollution from bank erosion and loss of
the ri arian vegetation.
Measures: Install biodegradable coir mats with shrub plantings to
increase the bank root mass.
Photographs:
Flood Assessment Point:
Aspen Court Bike Path Bridge
GPS Coordinates: RR.org1GPS 42 -43
421at= "39.645150415599346" lon = "- 106.32521722465754"
431at= "39.645473454147577" lon = "- 106.32577755488455"
Direction to Assessment South Frontage road drive south onto Aspen Drive.
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Bridge collapse. Over 40 feet of bank erosion on river left.
Structures: Aspen Court pedestrian Bridge. Private land on river right
(flooding and erosion).
Geomorphic Description: Significant deposition upstream of to Aspen Court Bridge
alignment. The bridge constriction likely caused a major
backwater effect and significant reduction in sediment
transport. Increased supply of sediment sourced from the
Booth Creek tributary and the Katsos reach deposited in the
main channel upstream of the bridge and increasing
erosional forces on the south bank..
43
4/5/2011
5 -1 -45
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Habitat Considerations: Bank erosion and loss of riparian zone. Overwide braided
channel.
Measures: Replacement of the bridge and restoration of the south bank
is being implemented. Possible need to remove sediment
deposits from the main channel to reduce overbank flooding.
Neighborhood should be encouraged to increase riparian
zone width and plantings.
Cost Range Opinion: $150K -$350K
Photographs: • Aug 16 #30; 31; 32; 33; 34; 35
Flood Assessment Point:
Gore Trail Upstream of Aspen Court
GPS Coordinates: RR.org1GPS 48
lat= "39.644568292424083" lon = "- 106.33332185447216"
Direction to Assessment South Frontage road drive south onto Aspen Drive.
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Erosion of left bank threatens bike path and alignment.
Structures: Gore Trail Bike Path
Geomorphic Description: Channelized reach in a naturally braiding system. The
channel is intermittently restricted from south migration by
the Bike Path and armoring at the toe; and to the north by the
Golf Course maintenance and armoring.
Habitat Considerations: Bank erosion and loss of riparian zone.
Measures: Realign bike path south and widen the riparian corridor.
Cost Range Opinion: $lOK -$40K
Photographs: • Aug 16 #43; 44; 45; 46
Flood Assessment Point:
Gore Creek Trail Bridge near East Vail Exit
(Katsos)
GPS Coordinates: RR.org1GPS 32 -34
321at= "39.643504712730646" lon = "- 106.30875055678189"
331at= "39.644553791731596" lon = "- 106.30963241681457"
341at= "39.645130634307861" lon= "- 106.31097528152168"
80 lat= "39.645155696198344" lon = "- 106.31108265370131"
Direction to Assessment From East Vail Exit head west on Gore Creek Trail
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Significant cobble deposits downstream of the pedestrian
bridge may be widening the channel. Local areas of the
bank are eroding causing loss of riparian vegetation. Several
trees (cottonwoods on river left) may fall into the river near
44
4/5/2011
5 -1 -46
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
the bridge. The top of footer of the left abutment is exposed.
Cobble deposits under the bridge and downstream of the
bridge likely reduce the floodflow conveyance and increase
scour pot ential at the left footer.
Structures: Pedestrian/bike path bridge
Geomorphic Description: Downstream of the bridge the channel has been realigned
causing an adverse bend in the river. This reach is
characterized by cobble deposits and braiding. The channel
may be responding to the realignment by cutting into the
right bank to balance the radius of curvature of the bend.
The channel may also be cutting an interior channel forming
a mid - channel bar. The upstream cross vane structure was
stable and functioning. Upstream of the cross vane there are
a few bedrock outcrops forming deep pools and good fish
habitat.
Habitat Considerations: Loss of mature trees on the river left bank, and erosion of the
river right bank on the outside of the bend.
Measures: Monitor left abutment for increased scour. Monitor channel
conveyance. Monitor channel alignment changes with
res ect to
bridge hydraulics.
Cost Range Opinion: $I K-$4
Photographs: . Aug 16 #5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13
• Aug31 / IMG_0283.ipR ; IMG_0284.ipg
IMG 0285.
Flood Assessment Point:
Gore Creek Braided Channel Reach (Katsos)
GPS Coordinates: RR.org1GPS 35 -41
351at= "39.645807975903153" lon = "- 106.31260489113629"
361at= 11 39.646197399124503" lon = "- 106.31334995850921"
371at= "39.646336371079087" lon = "- 106.315659256652"
38 N/A
391at= "39.645829014480114" lon = "- 106.31627591326833"
40lat= "39.646683717146516" lon = "- 106.31806335411966"
411at= "39.646382471546531" lon = "- 106.31925232708454"
Direction to Assessment Gore Creek Channel Reach between East Vail exit Gore
Point: Trail Bridge and Aspen Court Bridge.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: GPS 36- failed cross vane structure and mature pine tree to
fall into channel.
GPS 37- mature pine tree fallen across channel.
GPS 38- eroding left bank
GPS 41- river right bank erosion with sandbags in place to
rotect
property at top of bank.
Structures: Retaining wall for South Frontage road is stable; GPS 40.
Geomorphic Description: Significant aggradation throughout the reach. Many cobble
45
4/5/2011
5 -1 -47
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
deposit elevations approximate adjacent top of bank
elevations. Channel conveyance is greatly reduced and
significant lateral migration and braiding is anticipated.
This reach is braiding and shifting across the valley floor.
The Katsos open space allows room for the channel to shift
to the south, however the Interstate -70 prevents migration to
the north. The Interstate -70 fill slope is stabilized with
riprap; this likely increases transport of materials to
upstream of Aspen Court where deposits are significant.
Lateral migration is also limited by the stabilization along
the nei hborhood development at Booth Creek Drive.
Habitat Considerations: Loss of the riparian zone.
Measures: Monitor channel migration. Preserve a wide migration
corridor. Augment riparian vegetation. The large flood
deposits likely will cause a shift in lateral stability of the
channel. Coordinate with homeowners to bio- stabilize the
bank at the neighborhood with a minimum of 15' width
dense native shrubs and dogwood/willow cuttings.
Cost Range Opinion: $20K -$40K
Photographs: . Aug 16 #19;20;21;22;23;24;25;26;27;28;29
Flood Assessment Point:
Bridge Road Bridge
GPS Coordinates:
Direction to Assessment
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Three culverts under the bridge are filling with sediments
and decrease the flood flow capacity.
Structures: Road Bridge.
Geomorphic Description: The channel needs to be able to convey a high load of
cobbles and gravels. The three culverts decrease the
transport capacity.
Habitat Considerations: Impediment of channel processes.
Measures: Periodically clean out the culverts.
Photographs: . Aug 18 #45;46;47;48
Flood Assessment Point:
Glen Falls Bridge Utilities
GPS Coordinates:
Direction to Assessment
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
46
4/5/2011
5 -1 -48
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Description of Damage: Utilities hanging from the bridge have compromised mounts.
Structures: Utilities
Geomorphic Description: Bridge crossing with hung utilities
Habitat Considerations: N/A
Measures: Secure utilities
Cost Range Opinion: $2K -$4K
Photographs: • 111_0729/ IMGP2254J12g
• 111 0729/IMGP2255.'
Flood Assessment Point:
Christopher Sewell Pedestrian Bridge in East-
Vail
GPS Coordinates: RR.or 1GPS 66
Direction to Assessment Exit I -70 East Vail. Drive east on Bighorn Rd. At Main
Point: Gore Drive head south, turn west onto Jupiter lane. Park at
p ublic park area.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Pedestrian bridge has scoured undermining the footer of the
left abutment. Footer has settled more that 0.5 feet. Footer
subgrade extremely unstable. Significant erosion
downstream of the bridge on river left.
Structures: Bridge, gas utilit
Geomorphic Description: An advancing and aggrading pointbar increases pressure on
bridge aligned at apex of bend. Bridge is located on a right
bend where maximum scour occurs at the left abutment.
Left abutment was not designed for adequate scour depths.
Habitat Considerations: NPS pollution from sediments and loss of riparian
vegetation.
Measures: Stabilize left abutment sub - grade. Armor abutment and
scour hole. Stabilize approach bank. Improve sediment
transport through reach.
Cost Range Opinion: $30K -$60K
Photographs: . 111 0729/IMGP2185. - IMGP2186.'
Flood Assessment Point:
Bighorn Pond and Spillway
GPS Coordinates:
Direction to Assessment Exit 1 -70 East Vail. Drive east on Bighorn Rd. At Main
Point: Gore Drive head south, turn west onto Jupiter lane. Park at
p ublic park area.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Left bank of Gore Creek at flow through inlets has eroded 12
47
4/5/2011
5 -1 -49
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
feet laterally and 1 foot vertically creating greater flood
connection with Bighorn Pond. The outlet works of Bighorn
Pond are overwhelmed by flood flows and the pond levee
breached.
Structures: Pond
Geomorphic Description: The pond represents the highest gradient path for Gore
Creek and may have historically been a secondary or main
channel. Point bar advancement and aggradation at the inlet
increase flood connection. Flood overflows at the upstream
end of the pond threaten to capture the main channel of Gore
Creek by headward erosion of a channel through the pond.
Habitat Considerations: NPS pollution from sediments and loss of riparian
ve etation.
Measures: Stabilize left bank and inlet control to limit flood
overtopping. Install outlet spillway to handle maximum
flows through inlet pipes. Evaluate need for breakaway
emergency spillway for flood flows that would overtop inlet.
Improve sediment transport at inlet to reduce pointbar
a radations and advancement.
Cost Range Opinion: $40K -$80K
Photographs: • 111_ 0729/ IMGP2187.ipg ; IMGP2188.ipg ;
IMGP2189.ip ; IMGP2190.ipg ; IMGP2191.ipg ;
IMGP2192.ipg ; IMGP2193.ipg ; IMGP2194.ipg
IMGP2195.ipg IMGP2196.ipg IMGP2197.ipg
IMGP2198.ipg IMGP2199.ipg IMGP2200.ipg
IMGP2201.ip ; IMGP2202.ipg IMGP2203.ipg
IMGP2204.ipg IMGP2205.ipg IMGP2206.ipg
IMGP2207.ip ; IMGP2208.ipg IMGP2209.ipg
IMGP2210.' ; IMGP2211.'
Flood Assessment Point:
Heathers at Vail
GPS Coordinates: rr.org2 WP32 -39
321at= "39.625383289530873" lon = "- 106.27955781295896"
331at= "39.625485213473439" lon = "- 106.2791913561523"
341at= "39.625627622008324" lon = "- 106.27887586131692"
351at= "39.625767515972257" lon = "- 106.2786694150418"
361at= "39.625917971134186" lon= "- 106.27830530516803"
371at= "39.626127853989601" lon = "- 106.27878609113395"
381at= "39.625902883708477" lon = "- 106.27937173470855"
391at= "39.625631310045719" lon = "- 106.28030019812286"
Direction to Assessment Confluence of Gore Creek and Black Gore Creek
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
48
4/5/2011
5 -1 -50
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Description of Damage: Overbank flooding of developed condo areas. Localized
bank erosion from return waters, toe scour, and channel
deposition. Channel widening, plugging and new channel
cutting.
33 -head of split channel
34- overbank flooding
35 -scour hole overbank
36- sediment plug photo 193
37- debris jamb photo 197
38- secondary debris jamb
39 -toe scour, hungry water
Structures: Condos, parking lots, utilities.
Geomorphic Description: Downstream of the Interstate 70 Bridge over Gore Creek is a
broad alluvial fan with bifurcating channels. The fan is less
steep than other local tributaries and multiple perennial flow
paths exist. Dense residential properly has been developed
on the fan island between the two main channels. Prior to
2010, the right (north) channel conveyed 70 percent of the
flow and the left (south) channel had lesser conveyance. A
number of bifurcating flow paths connects the right and left
channels across the fan. The fan is anticipated to be a
significant deposition zone and significant morphology and
changes in channels are expected after significant flood
events.
During the 2010 flood, a pre- existing debris bridge over the
right (north) channel reduced conveyance and created a large
sediment plug. Subsequently, the left (north) channel
widened, cut and eroded with the increased discharge. The
left channel is likely perched at a higher elevation and more
overbanking of flood flows likely occurred. The right
channel was deprived of sediment at the debris plug and
widened and eroded the toe of the channel at a sharp right
turn. Bank collapse occurred due to toe erosion at WP39
behind Heatherwood Condo Building. Sand bagging WP39
may have been in response to super - elevation flows at
corner, or bank collapse.
Overall, the channels functioned perfectly to minimize flood
damage to the structures. The debris bridge and sediment
plug formation routed more water in the left (south) channel
and prevented more significant damage that may have
occurred without the left channel capacity. Both the right
and left channels will likely have increased flood capacity
after removal of the sediment plug.
Habitat Considerations: Loss of the under story vegetation has resulted in decreased
bank stability and root mass along the right bank of the left
channel. This is where overbank flows returned and cut
49
4/5/2011
5 -1 -51
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
additional channels through the lawn. Increased native
shrubs and understory would help reduce bank erosion rates.
Measures: • Remove Sediment Plug at head of Right (north)
channel
• Excavate cobbles at left channel of left (south)
channel island and place in right channel of island.
• Biostabilize right bank of left channel
• Reduce grade control at downstream end of left
channel (check for utility crossing).
• Stabilize toe of right channel behind Heatherwood
• Mimic or replace debris bridge for plug re- formation
in future flood events.
Cost Range Opinion: $30K -$60K
Photographs: • Looking downstream right channel sediment plug
• Looking downstream left channel at split
• Looking upstream right channel at debris bridge
• Looking downstream right channel at Heatherwood
toe scour
• Aug 18 #193 Sediment plug
• Aug 18 #197 Debris jamb bridge
• Aug 18 #198 toe erosion and sand bagging
• Aug 18 #199 1 foot channel downcuttin
Flood Assessment Point:
Buffehr Creek Upstream of 1 -70
GPS Coordinates: RRorg2
5lat = "39.633822022005916" Ion = "- 106.40819672495127"
61at= "39.636298371478915" Ion = "- 106.4064942765981"
71at= "39.636624343693256" Ion = "- 106.40594450756907"
81at= "39.636624259874225" Ion = "- 106.40594677068293"
91at= "39.640001831576228" Ion = "- 106.39953654259443"
10lat= "39.640768943354487" Ion = "- 106.39678543433547"
lllat= "39.641890609636903" Ion = "- 106.39089949429035"
Direction to Assessment I -70 Exit West Vail north to North Frontage Road. Travel
Point: east 0.6 miles to Buffehr Cr. Road
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Localized erosion, exposed shallow utilities
WP5- service utilities exposed in left bank erosion
WP6- perched channel with left overbank channel cutting
WP7- compromised grade control and head cut in channel
WP8 -sand bagging for flood control or repair
WP9 -NPS road gravel from uncontrolled drainage
WP10- Drainage off switchback may exacerbate thalweg at
toe of embankment, increasing erosion.
Minor erosion noted at culvert inlets and outlets. Pedestrian
50
4/5/2011
5 -1 -52
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
bridge abutments appear stable.
Structures: Homes, Roads
Geomorphic Description: Buffehr Creek is steep, encroached, perched and channelized
for about 0.1 miles north of North Frontage Road at the
Circle Drive crossing. Upstream of Circle Drive the
gradient is much flatter and a densely vegetated floodplain
meadow exists for approximately 0. 1. Upstream of the
floodplain meadow, a pedestrian bridge crosses and the
creek becomes more encroached by the road and canyon
topography. The densely vegetated floodplain meadow may
help to attenuate flood flows, coming out of the canyon,
before they flow into the steep and encroached reach.
Flows at the mouth of the canyon have been purposely
diverted into the meadow (WP 11 ).
Habitat Considerations: Densely vegetated meadow upstream of residential
develo meat. NPS from road and stormwater erosion.
Measures: Evaluate and stabilize service utilities downstream of
Chamonix. Monitor right overbank flooding and channel
cutting 50 feet upstream of Chamonix. Offset berm right
overbank as necessary. Monitor channel cutting upstream
of Circle Dr. and associated left bank failure. Stabilize
channel grade if necessary. Repair left bank berm 50 feet
upstream of Chamonix to prevent flooding of Buffehr Cr.
Rd.
Cost Range Opinion: $4K -$ l OK
Photographs: . Aug 11- 2010 / IMG_0022.ipg ; IMG_0023 JP-9 ;
IMG 0024.ipg ; IMG 0025.ipg ; IMG 0026.ipg ;
IMG 0027.ipg ; IMG 0028.ipg ; IMG 0029.ipg ;
IMG 0030.ipg ; IMG_0031.ipg ; IMG 0032.ipg ;
IMG 0033.' ; IMG 0034.' ;IMG 0035.' pg
Flood Assessment Point:
Red Sandstone Creek
GPS Coordinates: RR.org1GPS 61 -62
lat= "39.643216961994767" lon = "- 106.3964403513819"
lat= "39.646024229004979" lon = "- 106.39604397118092"
Direction to Assessment Access points are from South Frontage Road, North
Point: Frontage Road, and Red Sandstone Road;
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: South Frontage Road bridge has slight decay of the concrete,
however the toe appears stable. North Frontage Bridge is
stable with clean culverts and dense riparian vegetation. The
Red Sandstone Apartments has moderate -low bank erosion
exposing the left abutment. The Red Sandstone Road twin
culverts are clean of sediments.
Structures: Bridges
51
4/5/2011
5 -1 -53
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Geomorphic Description: A steep and densely vegetated tributary that runs south into
Gore Creek.
Habitat Considerations:
Measures: Monitor for scour at bridges. Monitor for vegetation growth
and sediments deposition at the culverts to ensure flood flow
capacity. Prune brush or remove deposits at culverts as
needed.
Cost Range Opinion: $OK -$1K
Photographs: . Aug 18 #7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14
Flood Assessment Point:
Mill Creek Tributary
GPS Coordinates: RR.org1GPS 69
Lat= "39.639809466898441" lon = "- 106.37283992953598"
Direction to Assessment From Main Gore Drive turn west onto Jupiter lane. Park at
Point: public park area.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage:
Structures: Pedestrian bridge and neighborhood homes.
Geomorphic Description: The Mill Creek tributary flows north to confluence with
Gore Creek upstream of the Covered Bridge. The tributary
has a high sediment load and braided upstream of the
confluence. Vegetation has encroached the channel and may
reduce the flood flow conveyance.
Habitat Considerations: Local random trampling of the bank at the Bridges.
Measures: Encourage land owners to plant a robust riparian corridor to
protect the bank. Prune brush or remove deposits at culverts
as needed.
Cost Range Opinion: $OK -$1K
Photographs: . Aug 18 #39; 40; 41
Flood Assessment Point:
Middle Creek Downstream of 1 -70
GPS Coordinates: RRorg2
53 lat= "39.643172202631831" lon = "- 106.38408157043159"
Direction to Assessment Exit I -70 Main Vail and head south to South Frontage Road.
Point: Drive west 0.3 miles to creek.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Localized bank erosion, clogged culverts, trampled
understo . Tree (WP53
Structures: Buildings, road, parking lot, paths
Geomorphic Description: Moderate gradient tributary creek flowing through alluvial
fan. Not erched. Encroached by development.
Habitat Considerations: Trampled understory vegetation, narrow riparian zone.
52
4/5/2011
5 -1 -54
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Measures: Clear I -70 outlet, approximately 12 @ 2' boulders. Cut and
remove log jamb debris from bike path culvert inlet.
Remove debris jamb form left outlet. Cut and stabilize
downstream headwall of double box culvert bike path
crossing. Bio stabilize upper bank fill erosion. Discourage
random trampling with thorny vegetation. Stabilize service
utilities.
Cost Range Opinion: $4K -$20K
Photographs: . Aug 18- 2010 / IMG 0205.ipg ; IMG 0206J29
IMG 0207.ipg ; IMG_0208.ipg ; IMG _0209J29 ;
IMG 0210.ip ; IMG 0211.ipg ; IMG 0212.ipg ;
IMG 0213.ipg ; IMG 0214.ipg ; IMG 0215 JDZ ;
IMG 0216.ipg ; IMG 0217.ipg ; IMG 0218.ipg ;
IMG 0219.ipg ; IMG_0220.ipg ; IMG 0221.ip9 ;
IMG 0222.ipg ; IMG 0223.ipg ; IMG 0224.ipg ;
IMG 0225.ipg ; IMG 0226.ipg ; IMG 0227.ipg ;
IMG 0228.ipg ; IMG 0229.ipg ; IMG 0230.ipg ;
IMG 0231.ip. ; IMG 0232.ipg ; IMG 0233.ipg ;
IMG 0234.ipg ; IMG 0235.ipg ; IMG 0236.ipR ;
IMG 0237J11g ; IMG 0238.in ; IMG 0239.
Flood Assessment Point:
Middle Creek Upstream of 1 -70
GPS Coordinates: RRorg2
12 lat= "39.646214749664068" lon = "- 106.38184351846576"
131at= "39.646238470450044" lon = "- 106.38167437165976"
141at= "39.646537452936172" lon = "- 106.38088370673358"
15lat= "39.646686734631658" lon = "- 106.3805459998548"
Direction to Assessment Exit I -70 Main Vail and head north to North Frontage Road.
Point: Drive west 0.2 miles to Ma Bell Road.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Localized bank erosion, overbank flooding, potential
avulsion channel cutting.
WP12 -Right bank erosion threatens 2 mature 24 inch
cottonwoods which could greatly alter main chnnel flow
path if fallen.
WP 13 — overbank flood flow from debris jamb and
superelevation
WP 14- overbank flows and riling from debris jamb
WP 15- overbank flood flow from superelevation
Structures: Buildings, road, parking lot
Geomorphic Description: Middle Creek flows in the longest possible planform
traversing a very steep alluvial fan. The channel is perched
and overbank channels have numerous high gradient
overbank paths. Debris jambs could lead to avulsion. Bell
tower apparently constructed with designed drainage
53
4/5/2011
5 -1 -55
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
mitigation and controls; however, Building "C" appears to
block or modify one of the main mitigation drainages.
Habitat Considerations: Dense riparian and understo
Measures: Bio- stabilize road embankment fill across from gage station.
Reduce boulder grade control at peak of alluvial fan.
Review permitted flood mitigation for building construction,
esp for the Bell Tower. Construct drainage collection and
return channel at edge of parking lot (WP 16 ).
Cost Range Opinion: $50K -$100K
Photographs: . Aug 11- 2010 / IMG_0036.ipg ; IMG_0037JP -9 ;
IMG 0038.ipg ; IMG 0039.ipg ; IMG 0040.ipg ;
IMG _0041.ip9 ; IMG_0042.ipg ; IMG 0043.ipg ;
IMG 0044.ipg ; IMG 0045.ipg ; IMG 0046.ipg ;
IMG 0047.ip9 ; IMG 0048.ipg ; IMG 0049.ipg ;
IMG 0050.j
Flood Assessment Point:
Spraddle Creek
GPS Coordinates:
Direction to Assessment
Point:
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Minor riprap collapse at parking lot culvert.
Structures: Road
Geomorphic Description: Perched channel on alluvial fan with road cut below main
channel.
Habitat Considerations: Dense riparian vegetation and understo
Measures: Maintain roadway ditch to serve as flood overflow
conveyance. Clear deadfall and obstructing brush for 50 feet
upstream of culverts where main channel is perched.
Monitor g roundwater seepage behind concrete lined channel.
Cost Range Opinion: $OK -$1K
Photographs: . Aug 18- 2010 /IMG 0227,
Flood Assessment Point:
Booth Creek 1 -70 to Gore Creek
GPS Coordinates: RRorg2
511at= "39.646715819835663" lon = "- 106.32287775166333"
521at= "39.645968489348888" lon = "- 106.32267700508237"
Direction to Assessment Exit I -70 East Vail. Drive west on North Frontage Road to
Point: Aspen Lane. Drive east on Booth Creek Dr.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Deposits in culvert. Downed (WP51) and exposed shallow
utilities (WP52).
Structures: Road
54
4/5/2011
5 -1 -56
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Geomorphic Description: Moderate gradient tributary creek flowing through alluvial
fan. Not erched.
Habitat Considerations: Dense riparian vegetation.
Measures: Clear culvert, stabilize utilities
Cost Range Opinion: $2K -$ l OK
Photographs: . Aug 18- 2010 / IMG_0222.ipg ; IMG_0223.ipg ;
IMG 0224.' ;IMG 0225.' ; IMG 0226.'
Flood Assessment Point:
Booth Creek Upstream of 1 -70
GPS Coordinates: RRorg2
26 lat= "39.648931659758091" lon = "- 106.32239428348839"
27 lat= "39.64915000833571" lon = "- 106.32238539867103"
28 lat= "39.649203233420849" lon = "- 106.32221759296954"
44 lat= "39.648139318451285" lon= "- 106.32247474975884"
45 lat= "39.647662723436952" lon = "- 106.32255563512444"
46 lat= "39.64766213670373" lon= "- 106.32255747914314"
47 lat= "39.648444838821888" lon= "- 106.32247600704432"
48 lat= "39.648525305092335" lon = "- 106.32261950522661"
49 lat= "39.648408377543092" lon = "- 106.32265848107636"
50 lat= "39.648084081709385" lon = "- 106.32302351295948"
Direction to Assessment Exit I -70 East Vail. Drive west on North Frontage Road to
Point: Booth Falls rd.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Significant channel widening and down cutting and
associated erosion and deposition. Significant loss of land.
Si nificant overbank flooding and deposits in park area.
Structures: Park, playground, bike path, tennis courts, road, homes,
y ards.
Geomorphic Description: Large, moderate gradient, alluvial fan with intermittently
perched channel. The channel experienced a significant
flood and channel forming event in 2010. High ground
water is suspect for flooding west of tennis courts.
Habitat Considerations: Dense, well vegetated riparian zone.
Measures: Reduce boulder grade control at I -70 inlet (WP46; photo221;
coordinate with USGS gage rating). Clear bike path culvert
debris (performed 2010). Modify bike path culvert with
maintenance access and possible trash racks. Remove cobble
deposits from bike path culvert to upstream approx 200 feet
(between WP44 and WP47; photo218). Create right offset
levee (between WP48 and WP 49 and WP 50). Channel
overflow ditch to North Frontage Road and berm along
tennis courts. Create groundwater drainage at west end of
tennis courts. Evaluate flood capacity, floodplain limits and
floor elevations for existing channel upstream of tennis
courts. Modify channel capacity as needed. Bio- stabilize as
needed and widen riparian zone where possible.
55
4/5/2011
5 -1 -57
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Cost Range Opinion: $50K -$LOOK
Photographs: • 115_0804 / IMGP2371.iM ; IMGP2372.ipg ;
IMGP2373.ip9 ; IMGP2374.ipg ; IMGP2375.ipg ;
IMGP2376.ipg ; IMGP2377.ipg ; IMGP2378.ipg ;
IMGP2379.ipg ; IMGP2380.ipg ; IMGP2381.ipg ;
IMGP2382.ip ; IMGP2383.ip ; IMGP2384.ipg ;
IMGP2385.ip ; IMGP2386.ipg ; IMGP2387.ipg ;
IMGP2388.ip ; IMGP2389.ipg ; IMGP2390.ipg ;
IMGP2391.ipg ; IMGP2392.ipa
• Aug 18- 2010 / IMG 0216.ipg IMG 0217.ipg ;
IMG 0218.Jp9 ; IMG 0219.ipg ; IMG 0220.ip1a
IMG 0221.j
Flood Assessment Point:
Pitkin Creek 1 -70 Outlet Structure
GPS Coordinates:
Direction to Assessment Exit 1 -70 East Vail. Drive east on Bighorn Rd to Pitkin
Point: Creek.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: The channel experienced a significant flood and channel
forming event in 2010. At the I -70 outlet significant scour
and channel down cutting occurred. Footers of the 1 -70
outlet structure may be undermined. Channel material was
borrowed for bank stabilization (summer 2010), further
compromising channel grade stability. There is potential for
downcutting and collapse of 1 -70 culvert similar to Bighorn
Creek 2003.
Structures: I -70
Geomorphic Description: Excessive channel scour and loss of channel grade control
Habitat Considerations: Increased NPS on encroached alluvial fan channel.
Measures: Rebuild Pitkin Creek Culvert and head works. Augment
grade control downstream of I -70. Stabilize scour pool at I-
70 outlet.
Cost Range Opinion: $ I OOK -$200K
Photographs: . Aug 18- 2010 / IMG 0205.1pg - IMG 0206 J12
Flood Assessment Point:
Pitkin Creek 1 -70 to Gore Creek
GPS Coordinates: 421at= "39.642558982595801" lon = "- 106.30456262268126"
Direction to Assessment Exit I -70 East Vail. Drive east on Bighorn Rd to Pitkin
Point: Creek.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: The channel experienced a significant flood and channel
56
4/5/2011
5 -1 -58
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
forming event in 2010. Channel downcut extends Bighorn
Road to I -70. Large spruce (WP42) are undermined and
bank failure evident. Channel aggradation at Bighorn Rd
outlet to Gore Creek.
Structures: Yards, Condos, Bighorn Road, Bridge Road.
Geomorphic Description: Perched channel of alluvial fan is encroached properties and
road crossings. Exacerbated erosion and deposition
processes. Significant channel migration potential for un-
maintained channel.
Habitat Considerations: Increased NPS on encroached alluvial fan channel.
Measures: Install channel grade controls. Evaluate and monitor large
tree stability and potential for channel obstruction. Clear
culverts and evaluate downstream deposits for flooding of
Bridge Street and potential channel avulsion around Bridge
Street. Clear confluence deposits as necessary top maintain
channel capacity.
Cost Range Opinion: $30K -$60K
Photographs: . Aug 18- 2010 / IMG_0205.ipg ; IMG _0206JP -9 ;
IMG 0207.ipg ; IMG 0208.ipg ; IMG 0209J29 ;
IMG 0210.ip ; IMG 0211.ipg ; IMG 0212.ipg ;
IMG 0213.ipg IMG 0214.i12g
Flood Assessment Point:
Pitkin Creek Trail Head Pedestrian Bridge
GPS Coordinates:
Direction to Assessment Exit I -70 East Vail to north. Drive east on Fall Line Drive to
Point: Pitkin Creek trail head parking. Walk upstream 100 feet.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Pedestrian bridge collapse.
Structures: Pedestrian Bridge/
Geomorphic Description: The channel experienced a significant flood and channel
forming event in 2010. Significant channel downcutting and
widening compromised a small pedestrian bridge structure,
completely eroding abutments. A concrete grade control
exists in the channel immediately downstream of the bridge
with an un- identified purpose. The grade control was
compromised and undercut.
Habitat Considerations: Concrete in river channel.
Measures: Modify and stabilize grade control. Install bridge abutments
and reset bridge.
Cost Range Opinion: $20K -$40K
Photographs: . Aug 11- 2010 /IMG 0054.'
Flood Assessment Point:
Pitkin Creek I -70 to Trail Head
57
4/5/2011
5 -1 -59
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
GPS Coordinates: 171at= "39.643607223406434" lon = "- 106.303137447685"
Direction to Assessment Exit I -70 East Vail to north. Drive east on Fall Line Drive to
Point: Pitkin Creek trail head parking. Walk upstream 100 feet.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Channel erosion, increased potential for overbank flooding.
Structures: Condos
Geomorphic Description: The channel experienced a significant flood and channel
forming event in 2010. Significant channel downcutting and
widening compromised a narrow embankment that protects
condos from the perched channel of Pitkin Creek from
flooding and channel capture. Fall Line Road culvert had
deposits that should be removed to improve flood capacity.
I -70 inlet channel showed signs of erosion but not
significant instabilities at structures.
Habitat Considerations: Overwide channel, NPS for bank erosion.
Measures: Stabilize right bank at condos. Evaluate capacity of post
flood channel. Monitor left bank erosion at I -70 inlet.
Cost Range Opinion: $7K -$18K
Photographs: . Aug 11- 2010 / IMG 0055.ipg IMG 0056.ipg ;
IMG _0057.ip9 ; IMG_0058.ipg ; IMG 0059J29
IMG 0060ipg ; IMG 0061.ipg ; IMG 0062.ipg ;
IMG 0063.ipg ; IMG 0064.ipg
Flood Assessment Point:
Bighorn Creek Bighorn Road to Gore Creek
GPS Coordinates: RRorg2
181at= "39.636243050917983" lon = "- 106.29768569022417"
191at= "39.635965693742037" lon = "- 106.29793765023351"
Direction to Assessment Exit 1 -70 East Vail to south. Drive east on Rd to east 0.7
Point: miles.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Channel down cutting and widening and localized bank
erosion. Some mature trees have been compromised and
may threaten structures.
Structures: Culvert, Road, Homes, Utilities
Geomorphic Description: This is the deposition zone of a moderate steep alluvial fan.
The main channel is not significantly perched and overbank
flooding was not reported or evident. The channel may be
significantly migrating, assisted by collapse of mature trees.
Habitat Considerations: Deposition and riparian area well offset from development.
Protect.
Measures: Monitor stability of trees (WP 18 & WP 19). Evaluate
capacity of sewer line crossing Gore Creek. Monitor scour
and exposure of the concrete outlet pan a Bighorn Rd.
Biostabilize localized bank erosion.
Cost Range Opinion: $6K -$14K
58
4/5/2011
5 -1 -60
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Photographs: . Aug 11- 2010 / IMG 0065.ipg IMG _0066.ipg ;
IMG _0067.ip9 ; IMG_0068.ipg ; IMG 0069J29
IMG 0070.ipg ; IMG 0071.ipg ; IMG 0072.ipg ;
IMG 0073.ipg ; IMG 0074.ipg ; IMG 0075.i
Flood Assessment Point:
Bighorn Creek 1 -70 to Bighorn Road
GPS Coordinates: RRorg2
21lat= "39.637133460491896" lon = "- 106.29692268557847"
221at= "39.637010497972369" lon = "- 106.29724664613605"
231at= "39.636853169649839" lon = "- 106.29714857786894"
24lat= "39.63728123344481" lon = "- 106.29684875719249"
Direction to Assessment Exit I -70 East Vail to south. Drive east on Bighorn Rd to
Point: east 0.7 miles.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Spruce way experienced erosion around the culvert inlet and
outlet, which were constructed with minimal extension and
no slope retaining structures. Large material transporting
through the culvert may eventually damaged the integrity of
the culvert and create seepage infiltration. Bank erosion
upstream of Spruce Way resulted in the emergency removal
of mature conifer trees. Downstream of Spruce Way
significant overbank flooding occurred (WP21), evidenced
by gravel and cobble deposits. Overbank flooding
originated at a location where massive boulders and debris
have deposited in the main channel. Return channel may
compromise utility junction (WP23). Significant right bank
collapse (WP22/ photo 94). Deposition also occurred at the
Bi horn Rd inlet.
Structures: Culvert, Road, Homes, Condos
Geomorphic Description: This is the head of a very steep alluvial fan. The main
channel is perched at the crown of the fan with significant
low land for long distances on either side of the channel.
Development has encroached the alluvial fan and the
perched channel may be aggrading (WP23). Interestingly
left overbank remnant channel did not significantly connect
(WP24/ photo 96), but significant overbank flooding
occurred 100 feet downstream.
Habitat Considerations:
Measures: Stabilize grade control at outlet of Spruce Way. Biostabilize
right bank. Replace Spruce Way culvert with concrete
reinforced floor for transport of boulder material. Install
cutoff and head walls as needed. Replace felled trees.
Evaluate flood capacity of the channel. Reduce boulder
debris jamb in main channel. Stabilize toe of right erosing
bank. Remove deposits from Bighorn Road inlet. A left
59
4/5/2011
5 -1 -61
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
bank flood wall wan installed fall of 2010, monitor for
performance. Monitor right bank fir trees (3 @15 inch) for
stability,
Cost Range Opinion: $70K -$150K
Photographs: . Aug 11- 2010 / IMG 0076.ipg IMG 0077J29
IMG 0078.ipg ; IMG 0079.ipg ; IMG 0080.ipg ;
IMG 0081.ipg ; IMG 0082.ipg ; IMG 0083.ipg ;
IMG 0084.ipg ; IMG 0085.ipg ; IMG 0086J29
IMG 0087.ipg ; IMG 0088.ipg ; IMG 0089.ipg ;
IMG 0090.Jp9 ; IMG _0091.ipg ; IMG 0092.ip9 ;
IMG 0093.ipg ; IMG 0094.ipg ; IMG 0095.ipg ;
IMG 0096.ipg ; IMG 0097.ipg ; IMG 0098.ipg ;
IMG 0099.ipg ; IMG 0100.ipg ; IMG 0101.ipg ;
IMG 0102 jo 1 g ; IMG 0103.ipg
Flood Assessment Point:
Bighorn Creek at Columbine Dr.
GPS Coordinates: RRorg2
291at= "39.639340247958899" lon = "- 106.29472738131881"
Direction to Assessment Exit I -70 East Vail to south. Drive east on Bighorn Rd to
Point: east 0.7 miles. Turn north of Columbine Way and travel
under 1 -70 to trailhead parking lot.
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: A head cut may be destabilizing Coulmbine Way by eroding
the toe of the fill slope and increasing groundwater
gradients. Large material transporting through the culvert
has damaged the integrity of the culvert and created seepage
oints.
her localized erosion upstream of Coulmbine Way.
Structures: Culvert
Geomorphic Description: This is the mouth of a canyon and the apex of a very steep
alluvial fan. The channel experienced a significant flood and
channel forming event in 2010. Downstream of Columbine
Way the channel scoured through bedrock with indicator
cobbles perched over 5 feet vertically. The channel is
slightly perched with the I -70 underpass to the trail head
parking lot being lower ground. Upstream of the parking lot
there appears to be remnant channel training devices such as
sheet piling and concrete walls (WP29). The purpose of the
devices was not clear.
Habitat Considerations: Fish passage or managed migration barrier. Coordinate with
CDOW on cutthroat populations.
Measures: Stabilize grade control at outlet of Columbine Way.
Biostabilize fill slope at outlet. Replace Columbine Way
culvert with concrete reinforced floor for transport of
boulder material.
Cost Range Opinion: I $50K -$100K
60
4/5/2011
5 -1 -62
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment Appendix A January 12, 2011
Photographs: . Aug 18- 2010 / IMG_0183.ipg ; IMG _0184.ipg ;
IMG 0185.ip9 ; lMG_0186.ipg ; IMG 0187J29
IMG 0188.ipg ; IMG 0189.ipg ; IMG 0190.ipg ;
IMG 0191.4m IMG 0192 jag
Flood Assessment Point:
Gore Creek East Vail Channel Maintenance
GPS Coordinates: Downstream Lat= "39.645" Lon + " - 106.324"
U stream Lat= "39.628" Lon = " - 106.286"
Direction to Assessment Gore Creek from Confluence with Bighorn Creek to Aspen
Point: Court Bridge
Project Priority: High Moderate Low
X
Description of Damage: Significant deposition, washed out bridge, flooding
Structures: Homes
Geomorphic Description: Significant deposition and channel changes have occurred as
a result of large tributary sediment supply. Aggradation up
to 4 feet. Loss of conveyance has cause rise in base flood
elevations. Significant bank erosion at FEMA XS 186.5.
3500 cubic yards deposited 600' above to 300' below the
bridge. Channel conveyance is greatly reduced and
significant lateral migration is anticipated. Total 10,000
cubic yards.
Habitat Considerations: NPS from bank erosion.
Measures: Resurvey cross - sections perform hydraulic analysis of Gore
Creek. Develop modification/restoration plan. Channel
modification/extraction and restoration.
Cost Range Opinion: $300K -$600K
Photographs: Aug 31, 2010: IMG 0281
61
4/5/2011
5 -1 -63
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment January 27, 2011
APPENDIX B
62
4/5/2011
5 -1 -64
Aspen Court Bike Path Bridge 5 Path /Utilities 150 350
West Haven Circle Bridge 1 Channel 0 1
West Gore Creek Drive Bridge 2 Bridge 2 4
WWTP Bridges 1 Bridge 0 1
Forest Road Bridge 2 Bridge 1 4
Main Vail Bridge 3 Bridge 10 20
Vail Valley Blvd Bridge 1 Bridge 0 1
Golf Course Bike Path Bridge 3 Bridge 15 30
Golf Course Bridge 3rd Downstream 3 Bridge 1 4
Golf Course Bridge 5th Downstream 0 Bridge N/A
Gore Creek Trail Bridge near East Vail Exit (Kastos) 1 Bridge /Channel 1 4
Kinnickinnick Bridges 1 Bridge 0 1
Kazard
Heathers at Vail 5 Condos 40 80
Bighorn Creek 1 -70 to Bighorn Road 4 Homes /Roads 20 50
Pitkin Creek 1 -70 to Trailhead 3 Condos /Road 7 18
Booth Creek Upstream of 1 -70 4 Homes /Recreation 250 350
Middle Creek Upstream of 1 -70 4 Buildings /Roads 150 250
Gore Creek East Vail Channel Maintenance 4 Homes 300 600
Booth Creek 1 -70 to Gore Creek 3 Road /Utilities 2 10
Bridge Road Bridge 0 Bridge N/A
Bighorn Creek at Bighorn Road 2 Road 1 4
Red Sandstone Creek 1 Road 0 1
Buffehr Creek Upstream of 1 -70 1 Homes /Roads 4 10
Mill Creek Tributary 1 Buildings 0 1
Spraddle Creek 1 Road /Parking 0 1
tion Hazards
Glen Falls Bridge Utilities 5 Utilities 2 4
Golf Course Diversion Structure 5 Diversion 40 60
Downstream Gore Creek Drive at Condos 2 Channel 2 4
Cascade Skier Bridge 2 Channel 2 4
n Problems
Bighorn Pond and Spillway 5 Pond 40 80
Pitkin Creek 1 -70 to Gore Creek 4 Channel 30 60
Bighorn Creek Bighorn Rd to Gore Creek 3 Channel 5 10
West Vail Roundabout Bridge Downstream 4 Utilities 10 20
Golf Course Channelized Reach 2 Channel 4 10
Gore Trail Park Area Upstream of Lionshead 3 Path 20 40
Gore Creek Braided Channel Reach (Katsos) 3 Channel 20 40
West Vail Gore Trail 4 Path 60 100
Golf Course Downstream Path 4 Path /Tree 21 44
Gore Creek Downstream of Vail Manor Bridge 2 Channel 4 10
Middle Creek Downstream of 1 -70 3 Buildings /Roads 4 20
Gore Creek Upstream of Covered Bridge 2 Channel 1 4
Gore Creek International Bridge to Covered Bridge 1 Channel 1 4
Gore Creek Downstream of Elliot Bridge 1 Channel 0 1
Stephens Park 2 Tree /Channel 1 5
Gore Creek Near Vail Valley Blvd Bridge 1 Path /Retaining Wall 4 10
inelized Reach between WWTP and Cascade Village 2 Channel 1 4
South Frontage Road Fillslope Erosion 1 Channel 0 1
Vail Whitewater Park 1 Channel 0 1
Donovan Park Tennis Courts 1 Channel 4 8
Lionshead Deposition Reach 2 Channel 5 10
Lionshead Wetland Pedestrian Bridge 1 C 0 1
Betty Ford Alpine Gardens 2 Channel 4 10
Nature Center 3 ChAnrW 14 30
C;nra Trail I Inctraam of Acnan C�niA 9 C.hannal in an
Vail 2010 Flood Assessment January 27, 2011
APPENDIX C
64
4/5/2011
5 -1 -66
I , \ I 1 111 _
00 00 Lo
Qc
�s
I 00 �_— - - - 03 A
LLI
U
i g 610 <
CL Lj
f r 1-4 O�'' J
F-
� o W
� Q 3�
�. W W 03 >
CL A W
U A
pq
-
D
/ 8600 ': J
l' -j �, J
Q z \ Q a
W p I
W 4 I \ .}
U
LO
Ld
i
M LL
• AR pq ` c
LO
W
N F 550 ter,
J W
c �
F— Y
85
cD
v '
p it �� �'�+' I► / it v 1
• 1 i / \�
v k — 2011
rl
* `
Heathers At Vail Flood Channel Stabilization Opinion of Costs Sketch Design
DgIULpfign QmAn M Uni Unit Cost Total Cost SubTotal
Site Setup
Best Management practices
Silt Fence 800 LF $2 $1,600
Access Repair 1 LS $1,500 $1,500
Plant Native Grasses 0.25 AC $2,500 $625
$3,725
Biostabilize Bank
BioStabilization 200 SY $8 $1,600
Topsoil 4 CY $40 $160
Toe Boulders 15 CY $90 $1,350
Shrubs 60 ea $40 $2,400
care of water 1 LS $1,200 $1,200
$6,710
Channel Gradin
Excavation Alluvium 400 CY $20 $8,000
Excavation Hauloff 250 CY $30 $7,500
Excavation Backfill 150 CY $10 $1,500
Care of Water 1 LS $1,500 $1,500
$18,500
PROJECT SUBTOTAL $28,935 $28,935
25% CONTENGENCY $7,234
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $36,169
Lands Survey LS $2,000
Topographic Survey $2,500
Wetland Delineation $500
Lands and Easements N/A
Lands and Easements Processing N/A
Construction Bonding/ins 3% $1,085
Mob and Demob 2% $723
Engineering Design $5,425
Permitting 404, 401 $2,400
Permitting VAIL DRB PEC $1,200
Permit CDOT $1,200
Permitting Flood lain $800
Plans and Specifications for bid $1,085
Construction Stakeout $362
Construction Monitoring $723
Vegetation Replacement YR 2 $454
TOTAL PROJECT COST OPINION $56.626
4/5/2011
5 -1 -68
LLI
I 1 u
x
0
u
ry Q
` 1 CD
z �
Q
Q W -"
00 i
0 n wool WON
U >_>
p °n
i
0
zzz
0 -
-f r
� W W
> z W \ / /
° z 'Rk _
0 0 \
1� mz
I � 1
°
�0
I z u 00
z
O zoi�
w n-
Bighorn Creek at Spruce Way Flood Channel Stabilization Opinion of Costs Sketch
Des i n
Descri tion Quanti Unit Unit Cost Total Cost SubTotal
Site Setu
Best Management practices
Silt Fence 500 LF $2 $1,000
Access Repair 1 LS $1,500 $1,500
Plant Native Grasses 0.25 AC $2,500 $625
$3,125
Biostabilize Right Bank
BioStabilization 250 SY $8 $2,000
Topsoil 20 CY $40 $800
Toe Boulders 34 CY $90 $3,060
Trees 3 ea $400 $1,200
Shrubs 100 ea $40 $4,000
Care of Water 1 LS $1,500 $1,500
$12 0
Culvert
Installation of Culvert 30 LF $452 $13,560
4x6 Box Culvert delivered 30 LF $260 $9,000
Headwalls/Win Walls 35 CY $600 $21000
Care of Water 1 LS $1,500 $1,500
Asphalt Cutting/ Patch/ Lining 1 LS $4,500 $4,500
Traffic Control 1 LS $2,800 $2,800
$52 0
Grade Control Enhancement
Excavation Alluvium 100 CY $20 $2,000
Excavation Hauloff 50 CY $30 $1,500
Excavation Backfill 50 CY $20 $1,000
Care of Water 1 LS $1,500 $1,500
$6 0
PROJECT SUBTOTAL $74,045 $74,045
25% CONTENGENCY $18,511
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $92
Lands Survey LS $2,000
Topographic Survey $2,500
Wetland Delineation $500
Lands and Easements N/A
Lands and Easements Processing N/A
Construction Bonding/ins 3% $2,777
Mob and Demob 2% $1,851
Engineering Design $13,883
Permitting 404 401 $2,400
Permitting VAIL DRB PEC $1,200
Permit CDOT $1,200
Permitting Flood lain $800
Plans and Specifications for bid $2,777
Construction Stakeout $926
Construction Monitoring $1,851
Vegetation Replacement YR 2 $874
TOTAL PROJECT COST OPINION 1 $128,095
4/5/2011
5 -1 -70
A
4?
0 F- J
L r
NN J III
L.f J < �
O D 0
Z
LL. U Z
wX Y
�O �� Z
— F- F
W
of C) \ \
W \�
J O
o U N �\
w Qo
v w =)
�
U)�
w
\ � F-
\ iJ O
- -- IX
siao \ z H
�\ \ s- -71 %. \ Q p
Bighorn Creek at Columbine Rd Flood Channel Stabilization Opinion of Costs Sketch
Design
Descri tion Quanti Unit Unit Cost Total Cost SubTotal
Site Setu
Best Management practices
Silt Fence 500 LF $2 $1,000
Access Repair 1 LS $1,500 $1,500
Plant Native Grasses 0.25 AC $2,500 $625
$3,125
Biostabilize Downstream Right Bank
BioStabilization 250 SY $8 $2,000
Topsoil 20 CY $40 $800
Toe Boulders 10 CY $90 $900
Trees 0 ea $400 $0
Shrubs 100 ea $40 $4,000
care of water 1 LS $1,200 $1,200
$8,900
Culvert
Installation of Culvert 35 LF $452 $15,820
Boulder Wing Walls 50 CY $125 $6,250
4x6 Box Culvert Delivered 35 LF $260 $10,300
Care of Water 1 LS $1,500 $1,500
Asphalt Cutting/ Patch/ Lining 1 LS $4,500 $4,500
Traffic Control 1 LS $2,800 $2,800
$41,170
Grade Control Enhancement
Excavation Alluvium 100 CY $20 $2,000
Excavation Hauloff 0 CY $30 $0
Excavation Backfill 100 CY $20 $2,000
Care of Water 1 LS $1,500 $1,500
$5,500
PROJECT SUBTOTAL $58,695 $58,695
25% CONTENGENCY $14,674
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $73,369
Lands Survey LS $2,000
Topographic Survey $2,500
Wetland Delineation $500
Lands and Easements N/A
Lands and Easements Processing N/A
Construction Bonding/ins 3% $2,201
Mob and Demob 2 %0 $1,467
Engineering Design $11,005
Permitting 404, 401 $2,400
Permitting VAIL DRB PEC $1,200
Permit CDOT $1,200
Permitting Flood lain $800
Plans and Specifications for bid $2,201
Construction Stakeout $734
Construction Monitoring $1,467
Vegetation Replacement YR 2 $694
TOTAL PROJECT COST OPINION $103,738
4/5/2011
5 -1 -72
/ I
/ 1-
I l 1
f j 0
F
7 j FTI
D
FTI O
x C::: O
-F] F-
i z
O i i
N z F
�C7 0 i
/ /* �
j i D
z 65 z n F
,.
,.
F- F- .'
� F
m /
\ ; m / m
p G / r
/ m
�co
,. p U
/ / N <t O
m ;
r /
yy
� l �
l� S
S� m r
m 9 W G /O G
m z< �cn
F G m
m m co " r a
Frl m G � cn N � <
G 0 m O
O� ��
�0 U7 N
� IIr
J p I
O
O
MO'j -10 NOIlO���Q I
C -
v o
F),) o \
� o
O
4/5/201P X
5 -1 -73
Bighorn Pond Stabilization O inion of Costs Sketch Design
Description Quanti Unit Unit Cost Total Cost SubTotal
Site Setu
Best Management practices
Silt Fence 800 LF $2 $1,600
Other BMPs 1 LS $1,500 $1,500
Plant Native Grasses 0.25 AC $2,500 $625
$3,725
Inline Water Level Control Structure
Inline Water Lever Control Structure (5'x 12" 1 ea $899 $899
12' Bar Guard 1 ea $48 $48
Rat Guard 1 ea $17 $17
Tx 3' Anti Seep Collar 2 ea $61 $122
HDPE Culvert 20 LF $42 $840
Bedding Material 1 CY $25 $25
$1,951
Crib Wall Bank
Logs Installed for Cribbing 700 BF $5 $3,500
Erosion Control Blanket 150 SY $4 $630
Topsoil 20 CY $40 $800
Toe Boulders 40 CY $90 $3,600
Transition Boulders 5 CY $90 $450
Shrubs 90 ea $30 $2,700
Filter Fabric 150 SY $4 $630
Welded Wire 75 SY $4 $300
Excavation Alluvium 100 CY $20 $2,000
Backfill Alluvium 130 CY $10 $1,300
care of water 1 LS $1,200 $1,200
$17,110
Diversion Plan Crib Wall
Excavation Alluvium 30 CY $20 $600
Reinforced Vis ueen 5 ea $50 $250
Jersey Barriers 30 LF $5 $150
Access 2 ea $500 $1,000
Turbidity Curtain 100 LF $4 $400
Oil Booms 100 LF $1 $100
$2,500
Low -flow Spillway Replacement
Concrete Installed 8 CY $500 $4,000
Bridge Stabilization 1 LS $1,200 $1,200
Care of Water 1 LS $2,000 $2,000
Unclassified Excavation 42 CY $30 $1,260
Unclassified Haul -Off 32 CY $30 $960
Toe Rock 5 CY $90 $450
Compacted Structural Backfill 19 CY $45 $855
$10,725
Diversion Plan (Spillway Replacement
Sheet Piling 34 LF $40 $1,360
Excavation Lake bed 88 CY $20 $1,760
Backfill Lake Bed 88 CY $20 $1,760
Jersey Barriers 10 LF $5 $50
Access 1 ea $500 $500
$5,430
PROJECT SUBTOTAL $41,441 $41,441
10% CONTINGENCY $4,144
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $45,585
Lands Survey LS $800
Construction Bonding/ins 3% $1,368
Mob and Demob 2 %0 $2,500
Construction Stakeout $900
Construction Monitoring $2,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST OPINION IMI 152
4/5/2011
5 -1 -74
J J
Q z �1
W Z Z
W Q
Z =
z - U
2 W
L
o Q 2i U \
LU
Q W N
d J H Z J \
U Z � < < \
IX U ED
QOUa- O �U C) Z U
> J J Q Z O p d Q O Q
W LL LL U Q (� d
Z w O U w Q U `
O U
U Y
J Z Q J m L
Q g QQ 0 0
() Q . LU z W 2 W� mJ NJ
ED O� J� LU
0 o Q
w z 0 D� Z z
9
Cif �Yre�
a
LU
ry
IL
ry
IL
AA.. .
LL O \
P
O LL Q� f r� l
U Of
LU
U) >
LU I I w
F- z
� a r
F- U f y
I t .
0 W
O W oz
F- J O 0Z O,
Q
W _
ED W LL W
W Q \ 'J
LL Z Z
W Q Lu U 4/5/2011 Lu IX LL
O 0 Q LU LU
a o L LL L 5 \ \\ \ \ `_ I t,1
Booth Creek Flood Channel Stabilization Opinion of Costs Sketch Desi n
L13jt Unit Cost Total Cost SubTotal
Site Setu
Best Management practices
Silt Fence 1000 LF $2 $2
Access Repair 1 LS $3,000 $3,000
Plant Native Grasses 3 AC $2 $7,500
$12,500
Bio- stabilize Bank
BioStabilization 250 SY $8 $2
Topsoil 4 CY $40 $160
Toe Boulders 15 CY $90 $1
Trees Installed and Protected 10 ea $400 $4,000
Shrubs Installed 200 ea $40 $8
Soil Sacks Hand Placed 40 CY $100 $4,000
Hand Shovel 40 CY $100 $4
$23,510
Channel Gradin
Excavation Alluvium 750 CY $20 $15
Excavation Hauloff 500 CY $30 $15,000
Excavation Backfill 250 CY $10 $2,500
Care of Water 1 LS $2,500 $2,500
$35,000
Vegetated Berms
Soil Sacks Hand Placed 60 CY $100 $6
Shrubs 150 ea $40 $6,000
Hand Shovel 60 CY $100 $6
$18,000
Drainage Return Channels
Excavation 400 CY $20 $8
Excavation Hauloff 300 CY $30 $9,000
Boulder Retaining/ Grade Control 150 CY $90 $13
BioStabilization 200 SY $8 $1,600
Shrubs 100 ea $40 $4,000
18" HDPE Culvert 200 LF $60 $12,000
Sidewalk Repair 200 SF $12 $2
Asphalt Cutting/ Patch/ Lining 1 LS $15,000 $15,000
$65,500
Right Offset Levee
Excavation Backfill and Compaction 200 CY $20 $4,000
Topsoil 33 CY $40 $1
Shrubs 100 ea $40 $4,000
$9
Modify US6 Box Culvert
Concrete Cutting/ DEMO 200 LF $50 $10,000
Trash Rack 1 LS $12 $12
Concrete Forming 2 CY $800 $1,600
$23,600
PROJECT SUBTOTAL $187,430 $187,430
25% CONTENGENCY $46858
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $234,288
Lands Survey LS $3,500
Topographic Survey $3 500
Wetland Delineation $2,500
Lands and Easements $3 500
Lands and Easements Processing $3,000
Construction Bonding/ins 3% $7029
Mob and Demob 2% $4,686
En ineerin Desi n $35143
H draulic Modelin $7,500
Permittin 404, 401 $4 686
Permittin VAIL DRB PEC $2,343
Permit CDOT $0
Permittin Flood lain $800
Plans and S ecifications for bid $7 029
Construction Stakeout $2,343
Construction Monitorin $4 686
Ve etation Re lacement YR 2 $4,125
TOTAL PROJECT COST OPINION $330 656
4/5/2011
5 -1 -76
U)
I
¥
E I
R
\
±
<
\ \
/
L
2 w2
\ � \
2 OL
/ / \\
E e <L
<_e
/ \ƒ\
\ /\/
S
2
L
±
\
) 2u <
� 4w
-
U) / \��» � ® / I
ƒR � \f
EDƒ < i/
EQmm 11 e±
< - o o \/
w ƒLL± • Q±
i //L .
\C /C
L
2
\ \\ ly
• /
2% $
g
�ED $
Z \ \
\ / ' / 3
�r)
�< 2$
$¥ 0 L
/\ < i
<¥
hE \L �
d\ $\
i L \ O Cm!
±2 �e
L ƒ 2 5 -1 -2
rn
Middle Creek Flood Channel Stabilization Opinion of Costs Sketch Desi n
UpA Unit Cost Total Cost SubTotal
Site Setu
Best Management practices
Silt Fence 1000 LF $2 $2,000
Access Repair 1 LS $3,000 $3,000
Plant Native Grasses 1 AC $2 $2,500
$7,500
Biostabilize Bank
BioStabilization 200 SY $8 $1,600
Topsoil 4 CY $40 $160
Toe Boulders 15 CY $90 $1,350
Trees 0 ea $400 $0
Shrubs 100 ea $40 $4,000
care of water 1 LS $1,200 $1,200
$8,310
Channel Gradin
Excavation Alluvium 150 CY $20 $3,000
Excavation Hauloff 150 CY $30 $4,500
Excavation Backfill 50 CY $10 $500
Care of Water 1 LS $1 $1,500
$9,500
Drainage Return Channel
Excavation 150 CY $20 $3,000
Excavation Hauloff 150 CY $30 $4,500
Boulder Retaining Wall 90 CY $90 $8,100
BioStabilization 200 SY $8 $1,600
Shrubs 100 ea $40 $4,000
Asphalt Cutting/ Patch/ Lining 1 LS $4,500 $4,500
$25,700
Vegetated Berms
Soil Sacks Hand Placed 40 CY $100 $4,000
Shrubs 100 ea $40 $4,000
Hand Shovel 40 CY $100 $4,000
$12,000
Flood Mitigation Channel Improvements
Excavation 500 CY $20 $10,000
Excavation Hauloff 150 CY $30 $4,500
Excavation Backfill and Com ation 350 CY $20 $7,000
Boulder Retaining Wall 300 CY $90 $27,000
BioStabilization 200 SY $8 $1,600
$50,100
PROJECT SUBTOTAL $113,110 $113,110
25% CONTENGENCY $28,278
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $141,388
Lands Survey LS $3,500
Topographic Survey $3,500
Wetland Delineation $1,000
Lands and Easements $3,500
Lands and Easements Processing $3,000
Construction Bonding/ins 3% $4,242
Mob and Demob 2% $2,828
Engineering Design $21,208
Hydraulic Modeling $12,000
Permitting 404, 401 $2,828
Permitting VAIL DRB PEC $1,414
Permit CDOT $0
Permitting Flood lain $800
Plans and Specifications for bid $4,242
Construction Stakeout $1,414
Construction Monitoring $2,828
Vegetation Replacement YR 2 $2,175
TOTAL PROJECT COST OPINION $211.865
4/5/2011
5 -1 -78
hle
l
� r
ra
F f/
N H,r
,
O �J , ' s ✓
/
� r
/ I to
0)
,
O 4/5/2011
5 -1 -79
Channel Conveyance Project 5 sites Opinion of Costs Sketch Desi n
D ri i n n i ni Unit Cost Total Cost SubTotal
Channel Gradin
Excavation Alluvium 10000 CY $10 $100,000
Excavation Hauloff 8000 CY $30 $240,000
Excavation Backfill 2000 CY $10 $20,000
Care of Water 5 LS $1,500 $7,500
Best Management practices 5 LS $3,800 $19,000
Channel Access and Restoration 5 EA $5,500 $27,500
$414,000
PROJECT SUBTOTAL $414,000 $414,000
25% CONTENGENCY $103,500
CONSTRUCTION SUBTOTAL $517,500
Lands Survey LS $2,000
Topographic Survey $12,000
Wetland Delineation $500
Lands and Easements N/A
Lands and Easements Processing N/A
Construction Bonding/ins 3% $15,525
Mob and Demob 2% $10,350
Hydraulic Modeling $6,000
Engineering Design $16,000
Permitting 404, 401 $5,000
Permitting VAIL DRB PEC $1,200
Permit CDOT $0
Permitting Flood lain $2,000
Plans and Specifications for bid $15,525
Construction Stakeout $5,175
Construction Monitoring $10,350
TOTAL PROJECT COST OPINION 619 125
4/5/2011
5 -1 -80
MEMORANDUM
TO: Town Council
FROM: Tom Kassmel, Public Works Department
DATE: April 5 2011
SUBJECT: Gore Creek Flood Assessment
I. Summary
This past June the Town of Vail experienced an unusually high run -off along Gore Creek
equaling that of a 100 year event. Immediately after the flood Town staff provided the Council
with a preliminary assessment of the known damage to public infrastructure, and estimated that
damage to be in the range of $500,000 to $1.2 million. Since that time the Town has put out
an RFP for a Gore Creek assessment, and hired River Restoration (RR) in August to complete
the assessment. RR completed the assessment this past fall and has reported their findings in
a final report to the Town dated January, 27 2011. The report is available for review on the
Town website at http: / /www.vailgov.com /docs /dl forms /FloodAssessmentReport FINAL.pdf
The report provided by RR indicates numerous additional issues along Gore Creek due to the
flood and the natural evolution of the creek. The estimates provided by RR, which are in rough
orders of magnitude, indicate a potential need for improvements ranging from $1.5 million to $3
million (See attached estimate). These identified projects include a range of improvements,
including; critical Town infrastructure projects, VRD/ Golf Course mitigation projects, private
property projects, utility /CDOT /USFS projects, and small projects that should be monitored over
time.
The intent of this Council worksession is to provide an overview of RR report and answer any
questions you may have of the report or the flood damage in general.
II. Current Status of Town Mitigation
To date the Town has mitigated most of the critical issues that directly damaged Town
infrastructure, including;
a. The ERWSD Waste Water Treatment plant bridge abutment repair (reimbursed by
insurance)
b. Booth Creek & Bridge Rd Culverts debris removal
c. Bighorn Pond intake in conjunction with the Christopher Sewell bridge abutment
repair (bridge repair privately funded)
d. Dowd Junction bike path repair
4/5/2011
5 -2 -1
e. Katsos Ranch, East Vail bike path repair
f. Vail Village streamwalk repair
g. Aspen Court Bridge removal and temporary streambank improvements
h. Temporary repair of the Bighorn Pond spillway
i. General clean up flooded areas
The cost of this clean up work in 2010 was approximately $270,000, with $96,900 reimbursed
by insurance. It is anticipated that the Aspen Court Bridge will be replaced this year at a total
cost of $420,000, which will be fully reimbursed by insurance.
The remaining potential improvements, which are described in the RR report, have been
categorized by need and priority, general completion timeframe, and by ownership. The
attached spreadsheet provides this type of information in the following way;
1. The projects in the site description have been highlighted yellow if staff believes the
project is critical and impacts Town owned infrastructure and should be completed
within the next year, prior to run -off in 2012. Those that are in bold may be
considered critical, but effect private property and may or may not be within private
property.
2. The Need & Priority column, is a rating from RR with regard to priority with an
applicable key at the bottom.
3. The table to the right of this summary sheet provides an approximate cost, based on
the total high range cost estimate of each project, categorized by potential owner
responsibility, and whether the project should be completed prior to the 2012 run -off
or could wait and be completed at a later date. Those projects currently shown to be
completed within 2012 could be reviewed further to determine if they are truly critical
or could be delayed or monitored.
III. Next Steps
It is staffs intent to re- request supplemental funding this June to complete the critical projects
that are owned by the Town and which may impact Town infrastructure. Staff will provide
additional details on these critical projects at that time.
In addition staff will also be making the following notifications;
1. Staff will be notifying FEMA with regards to a potential request to remap the Gore
Creek floodplain. A re- mapping will allow the Town to better implement and enforce
a more accurate floodplain. If this request is determined beneficial it may have cost
implications and will take a significant amount of time.
2. Staff will be notifying CDOT, USFS, VRD and Utility companies of potential
improvement projects that are part of their facilities.
3. Staff will be notifying the Vail residents, via press release, of the impending 2011
run -off season and of the completed Gore Creek Flood Assessment that is available
on the Town web site.
4/5/2011
5 -2 -2
Vail 2010 FI,,d Assessment Summary Projects Table
I eul & Priority
$1 ,boo $1,000
tC.lumbine Gr. $ o $ $ 100 00
$ o $ $
$ 20 00 $ $
$ o $ $
$ 2500 $ 50. $
20 00 $ 4000 $
$ 30 00 $
$ 15000 $ 35000
$ $ 1 ob $
$ 2 00 $ 4 00 $
$ $ 0 1 $
$ 1 bo $ 4 bO $
F.r Mai n Bnc e $ o $ $ 20 Ob
$ $ 1 00 $ 1 00
$ 15 00 $ 3000 $
$ o $ $ 4 00
$ 1 ob $ 4 00 $ 4 00
$ $ 1 00 $ 1 00
$ o $ $
mesR.atls $ o $ 15000 $
$ o $ $
$ 250 Ob $ 350. 700 0�
$ 50 Ob $ 10000 $
$ 300 00 $ 60000
$ 2 00 $ 10 bo loo $ 5 00
1 ob $ 4 00 4 00
$ $ 1tto $ 1 00
ff
..h, cre 1. f17o 1 $ 4 00 $ 10 bo $ 5 bO $ 5 00
$ $ 1 ob $
$ $ 1 00 1 00
Bid .ueoe.s 2 bO $ 4 DO $ 4 00
c.Irc.�s��mGtma sn,tls s 40 Ob $ 6000
condos 2 Ch.dd.1 200 $ 4 bO $ 4 00
2 00 $ 4 00 $ 4 00
e —i— P.mae..a
ei h.m P.ntl a1 S I'd $ o $ $ 70 30 00 $ 6000 $
6 bo $ 14 00 $
$ o $ $ $ 1500
mf c. b.�n B,aa... Reen $ $ $
$ o $ $
$ o $ $ 4b 00
$ 6000 $ 100 ob
P.hl,.. 21 00 $ 4400 $
Bdd 2 Ch.dd.1 400 $ 10 00 1 $
LMLI�Rlldl $ o $ $
$ $ 4 bO $ 4 00
$ 1 bO $ 4 bb $ 4 00
$ $
$ 1 00 $ $
e.k N ... -1 V.II.�B 1 $ o $ 10 00 $
each between VNMP a,d Cascatle Villa e $ o $ $ 4 00
dth $ $ 1 ob $ 1 00
$ $ $ 1 00
$ $ $
Lonsh..d G ReacM1 $ 5 00 $ 10 bb $
$ $ $ 1 00
ett For.i Gartlens $ o $ $
$ o $ 0066 $
a1a st nn.1 $ o $ $
TOTAL $ 0 $ $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $ 62]00 $ $ 0 $ $
$ o $
R.pairetl or M.tlifi.tl Aker Assessment is breakdown .f fundsis prelimin W TM1.s.prej.ctsall.cat.tl as REfT have been done so as th, rela[et.- h..Ith .fth. creek and Flo.dplain. It y d- ,,nin.d some of ih.s. projec[
.are
1 be funtletl by a Capital prej.ct.
4/5/1011
g g D.s,gd ntl p .n y... 5 , 3
TOE OF AIL'
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2011
ITEM /TOPIC: Local Preference Policy Discussion
PRESENTER(S): Judy Camp and Matt Mire
ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Discuss material provided on local purchasing
preferences.
BACKGROUND: Council has asked staff to research a policy of providing preference to local
vendors when awarding town contracts and /or making other purchases. The attached
memorandum summarizes that research and provides sample policy statements for Council's
consideration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: See attached memo.
ATTACHMENTS:
Memo with Q &A
4/5/2011
MEMORANDUM
To: Town Council
From: Judy Camp, Finance Director
Date: March 31, 2010
Subject: Local Purchasing Preference Policy
Background
Council has asked staff to research a policy of providing preference to local vendors when
awarding town contracts and /or making other purchases. Mayor Cleveland and I attended a
session on this topic at the 2010 Colorado Municipal League conference presented by Danielle
Hinz, Purchasing and Contracts Manager for the City of Longmont. Much of the information in
this memo and the attached "Questions and Answers" (Q &A) came from that presentation and
subsequent conversations with Ms. Hinz as well as Town of Vail staff.
Establishing a policy on whether and when to provide a preference to local businesses will
complement the town's purchasing processes. It is always good business practice to have a
policy in place before a decision is needed. A policy on local preference sets parameters
concerning local businesses and makes the purchasing process more objective and transparent
by providing specific guidelines. Whether to give preference or not and to whom is less
important, however, than having a clearly stated policy consistently applied.
The decision of whether to implement a local purchasing preference is clearly Town Council's.
Council's decision should be codified through a duly adopted ordinance clearly communicated
to the public and reiterated to potential suppliers and contractors any time a bid request is
issued.
Benefits of a Local Preference Policy
One of the most commonly cited benefits, and the one that is the most applicable to the Town of
Vail, is that a local preference policy represents a commitment to local businesses and may
improve relationships with them.
The Town of Vail currently shows its commitment to in -town businesses in many important ways
including financial and in -kind support to town -wide marketing and special events as well as
providing public infrastructure, parking, bus service and much more to bring guests into town
and help them have a good experience while they are here. Although the town does not have a
formal written policy giving a financial preference to local vendors, directors and other staff who
make purchasing decisions not requiring a competitive bid generally "buy locally." For example,
Vail caterers and /or facilities are used for town meetings and events. Employee service and
recognition awards are given as gift certificates to Vail businesses. The public works
department uses the Vail Valley Ace Hardware as a vendor of choice whenever possible not
only to keep the business local, but because Ace will work with us on price by either giving the
town a discount or matching an advertised price from another vendor. At least $1.2 million of
contribution, marketing, and special events dollars are distributed to Eagle County organizations
each year.
A local purchasing preference may encourage businesses to stay "local" or to relocate to a
community, possibly creating jobs, putting dollars into local economy, and increasing tax
dollars. For the Town of Vail, this may be less of a benefit considering the types of businesses
best suited for an in -town location — lodging, restaurants, and retail and the type of large
purchases we make -- construction, utilities, professional services, etc.
1
4/5/2011
6 -1 -1
Downsides of a Local Preference Policy
The overriding downside of a local preference policy is that it conflicts with public purchasing
principles of equity, impartiality, open competition, and best values. Providing an
incentive to any class of suppliers, including locals, drives up costs and decreases competition.
In some cases, the best qualified bidders may refrain from responding to an RFP because they
expect the award to go to the local. Some communities have seen reciprocal action by other
communities, where a community without a preference policy will pay more to attract a
contractor from a community with one, resulting in increased costs for all. Increased risk of
challenges to the procurement process is also cited as a downside since providing preference
conflicts with good purchasing practices. The National Institute of Governmental Purchasing
( "NIGP ") specifically opposes local preferences and practices as they are seen as an
impediment to cost - effective procurement of goods, services, and construction in a free
enterprise system. Federal procurement rules also prohibit "geographical preferences" from
contracts awarded under federal grant programs.
With existing guidelines and practices the town strives to get the best value through competitive
bidding for large projects and comparison shopping for smaller items. In many cases, local
vendors are the best value and are the chosen supplier for that reason. Providing a financial
preference will increase costs and reduce the competitive pricing we are striving to achieve
through our current processes.
Finally, even cities such as Longmont, who have large departments staffed with purchasing
professionals, cite increased administration and related costs as a downside. For the Town
of Vail, administration of any but the simplest policy would be a challenge given our de-
centralized purchasing practices.
Sample Policies
A more complete sample of policies implemented by other Colorado governments is included in
the Q & A's. The following have been reworded as samples that might be appropriate for the
Town of Vail depending on Council direction. Many governments provide a local preference
only on purchases less than $25,000 (or a lower amount) which are not subject to competitive
bidding.
Commitment to Local Business with No Monetary Preference
Based on the Town of Parker; definition of local to be added
The Town of Vail is committed to doing business locally whenever possible. Whenever products
and services subject to competition are available from local sources, it is the policy of the town
to ensure that those sources are provided with notice of the town's requirements, that they are
given every opportunity to compete on a fair and level playing field, and that they are awarded
the contract if all factors, including price, quality, terms, and delivery, are determined to be
equal. Whenever products and services not subject to competition are available from local
sources and these factors are comparable to outside suppliers', it is desired that purchases are
made from local sources. To maximize value for all taxpayers, no provision is made in these
policies for a monetary incentive to local businesses.
Local Preference in Case of a Tie Bid
Based on State of Colorado; definition of local to be added
2
4/5/2011
6 -1 -2
The Town of Vail employs preference for local bidders when there is a low, tie bid situation. This
procedure is suspended if it is inconsistent with a federal law and would result in denial of
federal funds.
Monetary Preference with a Cap
Based on City of Brighton; definition of local to be added
In those circumstances where a bid from a local business is as acceptable to the town as a bid
of other vendors, special consideration may be given to awarding the contract to the local
business; the consideration will be in the form of an incentive in the total bid amount up to 5%
above the lowest bid submitted, or a maximum of five thousand dollars ($5,000) per total bid.
Definition of Local
For any local preference policy, the definition of local is critical. A sample based on the
Snowmass Village follows:
Local business is defined as a business within the Town of Vail that has an unrevoked town
business license, a physical location with at least one employee operating legally within the
town limits and is not delinquent in any tax or other payment or filing obligation to the
town. Secondary preference may be given to businesses within a 60 mile radius of the town
that are also current on any payments or filing obligations they may have with the town.
Next Steps
Following Tuesday's discussion and Council direction, staff will return with additional
information, if needed, or an ordinance for your first reading. To draft an ordinance, staff will
need direction regarding the type of policy you would like to implement and the definition of
local.
3
4/5/2011
6 -1 -3
LOCAL PURCHASING PREFERENCE POLICIES
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
What is a local purchasing preference policy?
A local purchasing preference policy provides a defined level of "preference" to local businesses
when awarding contracts and /or making purchases. The preference is generally applied during
the vendor selection or request for proposal (RFP) process and is usually administered by the
Purchasing Department. (It should be noted the Town of Vail does not have a purchasing
department.)
When establishing a local purchasing preference, it is essential to clearly define each of the
following components:
• Definition of local
• Selection methods to which preference applies
• Type and amount of preference
• Cap on preference
• Exceptions
The O & A's later in this document address each of these items.
Has the Town of Vail adopted a policy to provide a local purchasing preference?
No, the town has not adopted such a policy. However, the town supports local businesses
through is current purchasing practices. Directors and other staff who make purchasing
decisions not requiring a competitive bid generally "buy locally ". For example, Vail caterers
and /or facilities are used for town events such as the annual community meeting and previous
holiday parties. Employee service awards and recognition awards are given as gift certificates
to Vail businesses. The public works uses Vail Valley Ace Hardware as a vendor of choice
whenever possible not only to keep the business local, but because Ace will work with us on
price by either giving the town a discount or matching an advertised price from another vendor.
At least $1.2 million of contribution, marketing, and special events dollars are distributed to
Eagle County organizations each year.
Where competitive bids are sought, the process is more rigorous and staff has less discretion to
award bids that are not based on the best value. Frequently, however, a local bidder will be
successful based on criteria set out in a request for proposals (RFP). For example, Viele
Construction, a Vail builder, was awarded the contract for the Arosa Drive duplex, our first
LEEDs designated employee housing unit. Viele was the successful bidder through an RFP
and completed the project on time and under budget using primarily local subcontractors.
Another example is a recent request for proposal (RFP) the town issued for a single source
printer for business cards, letterhead, envelopes, bookmarks and other miscellaneous supplies
containing the town's logo. Eight bids were received including four from Eagle County bidders,
although none were Vail -based businesses. An Eagle county business, The Old Gypsum
Printer was named as our sole source printer for logo supplies in 2011 based on low price,
quality, and delivery capabilities. In roadway construction projects, companies within a 45 -mile
radius of Vail are most competitive due to access to raw materials, mobilization and staging o
equipment, supplies, and tools. Similarly, local contractors do not pay worker per diems, which
also help them submit a lower bid.
4
4/5/2011
6 -1 -4
If the town adopted a local purchasing preference, how much more of the town's spending could
be placed with local vendors? Are there some categories to which it would not apply?
It is not possible to estimate how much more of the town's spending might go to local suppliers
because of a local preference policy. There are clearly some categories of spending that do not
lend themselves to local purchasing.
For example, projects receiving federal grant funding, such as the LionsHead Transit Center
and bus replacements, must follow competitive bidding processes and are prohibited from
giving preferences for any reason.
Employee salaries and most benefit costs are not categories which lend themselves to a
process with a local preference. Debt service payments also fall into this category.
In some cases of professional services, such as bond financing, economic planning and market
research, there are not likely to be local candidates with the skills, experience, and infrastructure
to provide the level of service we need. Information systems and software maintenance cannot
generally be purchased locally.
We currently apply a "buy local" philosophy to purchasing decisions not requiring a competitive
bid. For example, Vail caterers and /or facilities are used for town events such as the annual
community meeting and previously to holiday parties. Employee service awards and
recognition awards are given as gift certificates to Vail businesses. Public Works uses Vail
Valley Ace Hardware as a vendor of choice whenever possible not only to keep the business
local, but because Ace will work with us on price by either giving the town a discount or
matching an advertised price from another vendor.
Most contract services, including Donovan Pavilion and the visitor information centers, are
Eagle County based. Our janitorial service is based in Summit County with a Vail sales
representative and clearly the work is performed in Vail. The workers could live in Vail or Eagle
County. Whether this service is considered local would be subject to the definition used for
"local" discussed next.
Who is local?
"Local" is defined in terms of geographic scope as well as ownership. Examples of geographic
scope are: Vail; Eagle County; State of Colorado; within 60 miles of Vail; etc. For the town of
Vail, a geographic area defined in terms of distance may be more appropriate than one defined
in terms of municipal or county boundaries.
Ownership could be defined as the owners of the business live in geographic area; corporate
headquarters is located within the geographic area; a sales or other office is in the area, a
majority of employees live in the area, etc. For construction contracts, a consideration is
whether the general contractor, the subcontractors, or both must be local to receive a
preference?
Once the geographic scope and ownership are identified, the method of verifying local
qualification needs to be determined, i.e., what documentation is needed to verify vendor is
local? For example, is a local post office address sufficient? Does rented space qualify? Must
the business location be permanent or can a contractor agree to establish a temporary office if
awarded the bid? If a majority of employees living in the area constitute local, how do you
document their addresses? Simple definitions tied to specific criteria are easiest to administer.
5
4/5/2011
6 -1 -5
What types of preferences do governments use?
If a financial preference is given, the most commonly used preference is a percentage
preference with a cap. This is one variation of a percentage preference as described below:
• Percentage preference (no cap) — this means the contract will be awarded to the local
vendor even though his bid is higher than the lowest bidder by a specified percentage. For
example, if a government has a 5% preference and the low bid is from a non -local at
$500,000, a local vendor bidding $525,000 wins.
• Percentage with a cap — the percentage described above is capped at a specified amount of
the bid.
For example, if a government has a 5% preference with a $100,000 cap; the local vendor
bids $525,000 and the non -local vendor bids $500,000; the award goes to non -local vendor.
The local vendor meets the 5% preference, but exceeds the cap of $100,000 x 5% or
$5,000. If the local vendor had bid $505,000, he would have won.
• Percentage preference with ability to match low bid - a local vendor bidding a specified
percentage over the lowest bid is given the opportunity to match the low bid and is awarded
the contract if he does so.
For example, a government has a 5% preference with the ability to match the low bid; the
local vendor bids $525,000; the non -local vendor bids $500,000; the local
vendor is given the option to reduce his price to $500,000 and is awarded the contract if he
does.
Note: Providing a vendor the opportunity to match a low bid is not recommended by
purchasing organizations and other professionals.
The simplest preferences are the tie bid and the absolute preference.
• Tie bid — if two bids are identical in all other respects, the local bidder is awarded the
contract. Note: The State of Colorado and Eagle County use this preference
• Absolute preference - awards bid to the local vendor regardless of cost. Not recommended;
does not allow town to control costs or evaluate other criteria such as quality and delivery;
may not be qualified bidders who are local
Some governments apply local preference only for lower value purchases which are not bid out.
Other types of preferences sometimes used include:
• Reciprocal preference - a town without a local preference honors another town's percentage
preference to residents of that town. For example, Vail, without a preference, would pay a
premium to a Frisco bidder since the Town of Frisco has a preference. This type of
preference would be used if there was a shortage of contractors and is not recommended.
• In additional to local, preference is sometimes given to small or disadvantaged businesses;
women or minority -owned businesses; "green" or sustainable businesses; or socially
responsible businesses
What other communities provide a local preference policy?
The following policy statements were obtained from our nearby and /or peer communities:
• Aspen /Pitkin County — No policy
• Avon — No policy
• Breckenridge — No policy
• Eagle County — when there is no material difference between bids /quotations, local
vendors shall be given preference
6
4/5/2011
6 -1 -6
• Frisco - § 9 -7. Local Preference. At the Town Manager's discretion, based upon the vendor
criteria set forth in Section 9 -2, bids solicited from local bidders pursuant to this Chapter may
receive preference. In order for a local bidder to be awarded a contract pursuant to this
section 9 -7, the bid, if received from a Frisco -based bidder, shall not be more than ten
percent (10 9 1 o) higher than that of the lowest qualified bidder, and if received from a
Summit County, Silverthorne, Dillon or Breckenridge -based bidder, shall not be more
than five percent (5 %) higher than that of the lowest qualified bidder. For purposes of this
Chapter 9, "local bidder" is defined as any person, partnership, limited liability company,
corporation or association who has been a bona fide resident of Frisco, Summit County,
Silverthorne, Dillon or Breckenridge for one (1) year or more Immediately prior to submitting
a bid.
• Silverthorne
a. Local Preference - When all other factors are the same, the Town encourages staff
to purchase locally provided the cost is within 10% of other bids on items up to
$25,000. Factors may include quality of product, quality of service, delivery,
maintenance, and other issues that may be relevant.
b. Recycle - The Town encourages recycling and environmental concerns. When all
other factors are the same, the Town encourages staff to purchase recycled products
provided the cost is within 10% of other bids on items up to $25,000.
• Snowmass Village - The Town of Snowmass Village encourages staff to purchase locally
whenever possible without adding significant additional cost to the taxpayers or ratepayers
providing all other factors are the same. Other factors may include quality of product,
quality of service, delivery, maintenance, ability to perform the job, deadlines and other
issues that may be relevant.
Local business is defined as a business within Snowmass Village that has an unrevoked
Town business /sales tax license, a physical location with at least one employee operating
legally within the Town of Snowmass Village city limits and is not delinquent in any payment
or filing obligation to the Town. Secondary preference may be given to businesses within
the Roaring Fork Valley.
In order for a local bidder to receive the contract or the bid for services or products, the bid
shall not be more than ten percent (10 %) higher than that of the lowest qualified bidder on
items up to $25,000.
Staff is encouraged to negotiate with local businesses to meet the lower price (last look) in
order to try to keep the purchases within the Town of Snowmass Village.
• State of Colorado - The State of Colorado employs preference for in -state bidders when
there is a low, tie bid situation pursuant to C.R.S. 24- 103 - 202.5. The statute also provides
that this procedure will be suspended if it were inconsistent with a federal law and would
result in denial of federal funds.
• Steamboat Springs — No policy
Sample policies from other Colorado towns and counties include:
• City of Brighton -In those circumstances where a bid from a business located within the
corporate limits of the City of Brighton is as acceptable to the City as a bid of other vendors,
7
4/5/2011
6 -1 -7
special consideration may be given to awarding the contract to the Brighton business; the
consideration will be in the form of a five - percent (5%) reduction in the total bid amount
when compared with other bids submitted, or a maximum of five thousand dollars ($5,000)
per total bid, whichever is less. A business located within the corporate limits of the City of
Brighton must operate a business inside the City limits that is on the City property tax rolls or
must lease or rent a property for their business which is on the property tax rolls of the City,
and which has a current city business license and is collecting and remitting sales tax for the
City, if applicable.
• Larimer County
a. Local Preference for Purchases Under $25,000.00: When the Larimer County Vendor
is within 5% of the low bid, departments may use their discretion in deciding if the
written quote should be awarded locally.
b. Local Preference for Purchases Over $25,000.00: If a department feels it is not in
the County's best interest to award a purchase for over $25,000 to the low bidder, a
complete statement of their reasons must be incorporated in their recommendation to
the Purchasing Department. That recommendation will then be forwarded by the
Purchasing Department to the County Manager for written approval before a Purchase
Order will be issued. If, in the sole judgment of the Board of County Commissioners, the
bids or proposals for purchases over $25,000.00 are substantially equal, the Board may
grant the award to the companies located in Larimer County (all approvals, in these
instances, must be obtained through the County Manager, in writing). The Larimer
County award vendor must be within 5% of the low bidder.
• City of Westminster - In 1989, the existing informal policy that all departments should "Buy
Westminster" whenever feasible, was formalized as an Administrative Memorandum. This
policy is important to Westminster because of the amount of purchasing the City does and
the many positive impacts that "Buying Westminster" has on the local business community.
The City's policy is to purchase commodities and capital outlay items locally within the
following parameters: Items which cost $1,000 or more will be purchased from the lowest
qualified bidder, taking into consideration both direct and indirect costs to the City. Every
effort should be made to assure that all quality Westminster vendors are provided an
opportunity to bid on capital outlay and commodity items. Items which cost less than
$1,000 will be purchased through Westminster vendors unless it is not cost effective
to do so. Every effort should be made to locate available Westminster vendors who can sell
and deliver commodities which meet City specifications. Setting an automatic "Buy
Westminster" policy for the purchase of contractual services is more difficult. Numerous
intangible factors such as the knowledge, skills, and experience of the provider should be
considered in addition to the overall effectiveness of local vendors. A concerted effort shall
be made to contract for services from Westminster providers without comprising the quality,
depth or timeliness of the requested services. The increasing diversity of businesses located
in Westminster offers numerous opportunities for the City organization to purchase locally.
The benefits to the City of the "Buy Westminster" philosophy are considerable. We, as
employees, have an opportunity to boost the City's economy through a proactive approach
to "Buy Westminster." And, by boosting the City's economy, we in turn boost the financial
stability of the City government.
• Town of Parker - The Town of Parker is committed to doing business locally whenever
possible. Whenever products and services subject to competition are available from local
sources, it is the policy of the Town to ensure that those sources are provided with notice of
the Town's requirements, that they are given every opportunity to compete on a fair and
level playing field, and that they are awarded the contract if all factors, including price,
quality, terms, and delivery, are determined to be equal. Whenever products and services
8
4/5/2011
6 -1 -8
not subject to competition are available from local sources and these factors are comparable
to outside suppliers', it is desired that purchases are made from local sources. To maximize
value for all taxpayers, no provision is made in these policies for dollar percentage.
• City of Grand Junction - In an effort to maximize value for all taxpayers the City of Grand
Junction does not subscribe to or apply any preferential for local vendors. All bidders
are treated equally, based on the conditions of the unique solicitation. Preference will not
be given to bidders within Grand Junction, Mesa County or the State of Colorado over
bidders outside the local community or State.
• City of Englewood - Whenever a product not subject to competitive bidding is available
by specification, quantity and quality within the City, and the price is comparable with
outside suppliers, the purchase shall be made from local sources.
9
4/5/2011
6 -1 -9
TOE OF RILL'
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2011
ITEM /TOPIC: Information Update and Attachments:
1) Vail Memorial Park Annual Report 2010 - Diana Donovan; and
2) Dispatch Center Console Upgrades and Motorola Contract - Joe Ribeiro
ATTACHMENTS:
Vail Memorial Park Annual Report 2010
Dispatch Center Console Upgrades and Motorola Contract
4/5/2011
{
a
Vail Memorial Park Annual Report 2010
Farnham St John became the Park Administrator as of May 2010. He replaced Chip
Domke who has served since the creation of the park.
We had excessive spring run off this season that resulted in some damage to the trails
throughout the park. The peat gravel that makes up the pathway was recaptured and the
path was repaired. No additional pathways were created for 2010.
With the help of Tom Talbot and the Vail Fire department a number of dead aspen trees
were removed from the hillside above the Memorial Park. Some of these trees were in s.
danger of falling into the park and across the pathways.
We removed some forest debris from one of the wetland swales as requested. That
material is currently in bum piles in the Katsos Ranch Open Space. Pete Miller with
ERWSD and a crew cleared other swales of sand and added an additional culvert near the
entrance to the park.
Some additional stone was added to the park as part of stage II development. Gallegoes a
was the provider of the materials.
Memorials to the following families were added for 2010
Christopherson- Bench a
Maher- Bench
Yohan Park - boulder
Joyce Brenner - boulder
Chuck Schmid - boulder
Gary Post - boulder
Chuck and Mary Siebert- boulder'
Norwood - boulder
William Whiteford- boulder
1
McIntyre - boulder
Dolan- boulder
Bob and Patricia Kidder- boulder
Croteau- wall memorial E
Appel- wall memorial
Behrendt- wall memorial
Meyer- wall memorial
Merlins- wall memorial
Rausa- flagstone memorial
4/5/2011
7 -1 -1
12:55 PM Vail Memorial Park
02/28/11 Balance Sheet
Accrual Beals; As of December 31, 2010
Dec 31, 10
ASSETS
Currant Assets
ChackinglSavirrgs
WIIernMem Perpetual Care CD 100,044.07
mum Perpetual Savings 243,572.33
lot Bank - Checking 91,595.84
Total ChsckkWSmvl gs 435,212.24
Accounts Receivable
1200 - Accounts Receivable
Pledges Outastandirg 5,000.00
1200 . Accounts Receivable - OL.. 4,900.00
Total 1200 • Accounts Receivable 9,900.00
Total Accounts Receivable 9.900.00
f
Total Current Assets 445,112.24
Fixed Assets t
"cwnetW Inproven wft 196,783.08
Egctprrent 21,253.08
Ac;Ck l be I Depreciat M - 11,662.00
8
Total Fixed Assets 206,374.16
f
i
TOTAL ASSETS 651 ✓ 480.40
6
E
LIABILITIES & EQUITY
Equity
i
Perpetnrd Care Fund 167,830.30 s
1110 - Retained Earnings 424,884.27
Not Income 58,771.83
b
Total Equity 651,486.40 F
TOTAL LIABILITIES & EQUITY 651.485.40
C
E
I
c
4
a
t
i
p.
e-
z
1
5
1
1
r
k
E
S
t
4/5/2011 Page 1 t
7 -1 -2
t
P1 S P o j, j ,
CHIEF
TOWN OF VA I L ' ���9RTNtti��
Memorandum
To: Vail Town Council
From: Joe Ribeiro, Communications Center Director
Date: March 30, 2011
Subject: Radio Console Contract
As a part of the 2011 budgeting process, the Vail Public Safety Communication Center
included a Capital Request in order to upgrade our Communications Center's Radio
Consoles. The upgrade of the Consoles is the next major milestone in our transition to the
Statewide Digital Trunked Radio System (DTRS) that will serve our area's thirteen public
safety agencies and provide interoperability.
Center staff with our provider, Motorola, to generate a purchase agreement needed for this
acquisition. Appropriate "due diligence" in the process was reached through the Western
States Contracting Alliance (WSCA), Contract # 02702.
The final contracted price of the project is $800,535 and is within the Dispatch Center's 2011
Budget.
The Town Manager will execute this agreement on behalf of the Communications Center and
the Town of Vail.
4/5/2011
7 -2 -1
TOE OF RILL'
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2011
ITEM /TOPIC: Matters from Mayor and Council
4/5/2011
TOWN OF VAIL'
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2011
ITEM /TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24- 6- 402(4)(b) - to receive legal
advice on specific legal questions; Regarding: Conference Center Funds; 2) 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, Regarding: Lionshead Parking Structure improvements; 3)
C.R.S. §24- 6- 402(4)(b)(e) - to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to
determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, Regarding: CenturyTel WiFi;
4) C.R.S. §24- 6- 402(4)(b)(e) - to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to
determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, Regarding: update on
pending litigation Town of Vail v. WENK et al. Case number 08CV467; 5) C.R.S. §24 -6- 402(4)
(b)(e) - to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop
a strategy and instruct negotiators, Regarding: Town of Vail revenue and finance.
PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire
4/5/2011
TOE OF RILL'
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2011
ITEM /TOPIC: Adjournment (4:00 p.m.)
NOTE: UPCOMING MEETING START TIMES BELOW
(ALL ARE APPROXIMATE DATES AND TIMES AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE)
--------------- - - - - --
THE NEXT REGULAR VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR WORK SESSION WILL BEGIN AT
APPROXIMATELY 12:30 P.M. (or TBD),
TUESDAY, APRIL 19, 2011 IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
Other Dates TBD:
Ord. No. 5, 2011; Solar Panels - Rachel D /Kristen B. - 30 min. - ES
Quizno's Pro Challenge Update - Ceil Folz /Adam Lueck of VVF - 30 min. - ES - 4/19/11
Facilities Energy Audit - Greg H. - 30 min. - ES - 4/19/11
Comcast Easement and West Vail Fire Station - 15 min. - George - ES - 4/19/11
Res. No. 8, 2011; Fee In Lieu - Nina - 15 min. - ES - 4/19/11
Capital Projects Plan Review - Greg H. - 04/19/11 30 min. - ES
Strategic Parking Plan Discussion & Parking Inventory Update - 04/19/11 30 min. - WS
Newspaper Boxes - Rachel Dimond - 4/19/11 - 30 min. - WS
Operating Agreement for West Vail Community Gardens - Kristen B - 15 min. - May 3 - ES
EHU Exchange Program - George /Nina - 05/03/11 - 60 min.
Chamonix Commons - George /Nina - 05/03/11 - 30 min.
Commercial Linkage and Inclusionary Zoning Fee -in -Lieu Adoption - Nina - 5 min - ES -
04/19/11
VVTH - Ord 15, 2010 - - Bill Gibson - 30 min. - ES - 5/3/11
VVTH Res. 23, 2010 - Bill Gibson - 5 min - ES - 5/3/11
Parking Signs - George - 20 min. - ES - 05/03/11
Benefits Review - J.P. - 30 min. - to be discussed in budget process
Update current Council Goals /2011 Strategic Plan - Stan - WS - 30 min. - 4/19/11
Energy Audit Update - Kristin B /Greg H - 30 min. - ES
Use of Loading Bays by Service Vehicles - 30 min. - WS
Red Sandstone Playground Update - Greg - 15 min. - WS - 5/3/11
Joint Meeting with Avon Council - Stan - Lunch - 05/3/11
Electronic Signs Policy Discussion - George - TBD - ES
Resolution on Parking - TOV summer /VRI winter -TBD - Greg - 30 min - WS /ES
Historic /Landmark Preservation Discussion - July 2011 /TBD - George - 30 min - WS
Recognition of Nancy Ricci /Eagle County - Stan - TBD
Joint meeting w /County Commissioners - Dinner - Stan - TBD
4/5/2011