The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2012-01-17 Agenda and Support Documentation Town Council Work SessionVAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA T06V?J OF VAQ VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 9:45 A.M., JANUARY 17, 2012 NOTE 2 3 4 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. ITEM /TOPIC: Council Retreat - Continued - SEPARATE MEETING to be held in the Community Development Large Conference Room from 9:45 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. (Lunch to be served during retreat) (225 min.) PRESENTER(S): Rick Smith - Facilitator ITEM /TOPIC: Council Break - REGULAR WORK SESSION to begin at 3:00 p.m. (60 min.) ITEM /TOPIC: DRB /PEC Update (15 min.) PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell ITEM /TOPIC: Library Housing Replacement (10 min) PRESENTER(S): Greg Hall ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide direction to staff regarding placing deed restrictions on current housing stock to meet the Library Housing replacement. BACKGROUND: To comply with relocating an employee housing unit, the town is required to provide new deed restricted employee housing. This would require up to a 3:1 ratio due to the location of the Library housing. The employee housing space comprised 1720 SF. To meet the employee housing guidelines requirements, staff is currently researching deed restrictions on all its town -owned employee housing properties to secure up to a 3 to 1 exchange for loss of this housing. The deed restriction will also have to comply with zoning regulations which are also being reviewed. This could result in deed restricting an additional 5160 SF to fulfill the town's exchange requirement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff will further research all the properties and come back with a final recommendation; however, to provide a housing relocation plan for the Library project review by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their January meeting, staff would want permission to commit to deed restricting up to 5160 SF of town owned employee housing. 1/17/2012 5. ITEM /TOPIC: Information Update and Attachments: 1) Fire Department New Year's Eve Occupancy Checks - Mark Miller 2) VEAC Meeting Minutes of January 10, 2012 - Kelli McDonald 3) Ford Park Planning Charette Update - Greg Hall 4) Eagle -Vail Master Plan Update - Councilman Greg Moffet 5) Sundial Plaza /Lionshead Park Memorandum - Greg Hall 6) 2012 Community Survey Timetable - Suzanne Silverthorn (15 min PRESENTER(S): Various 6. ITEM /TOPIC: Matters from Mayor and Council (15 min.) 7. ITEM /TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) 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: Lionshead Parking Structure Welcome Center and other pending and or threatened litigation. (40 min.) PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire 8. ITEM /TOPIC: Adjournment (4:35 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, FEBRUARY 7, 2012 IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: Muni Site Open House /Tour - George - 60 min. LMU1 Amendment - Rachel - 60 min. Ever Vail - George - 60 min. - 2/7 - ES ERWSD Gore Creek/Water Quality Status Update - 30 min. - 2/7 - WS - District rep Guest Enhancement Wayfinding - Greg Hall - 2/7 - WS - 30 min Golf Course Clubhouse Architect Award - Greg Hall - 2/7 - ES - 15 min. Ord. No. 1, 2012 - Rezoning of Ski and Snowboard Club Vail - Rachel - 2/.1 - ES - 45 min. Info Update: Cell tower update - R. Braden; VLHA update - Nina - 2/7 Library Gen Contractor - Greg Hall - 2/7/12 - ES - 15 min. EHU Exchange Approvals - Nina T - 2/7/12 - ES - 15 min Strategic Parking Plan - Greg Hall - 60 min. - TBD Comcast Discussion - Ron Braden /Matt Mire 60 min. - TBD GID Resolution and Discussion - Stan /Matt - TBD (Separate Meeting) Red Sandstone Elementary Playground request to proceed through process - Bill G - 30 min. - TBD K. Logan Thank you - TBD 1/17/2012 K � TOWN OF'VA10 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 17, 2012 ITEM /TOPIC: Council Retreat - Continued - SEPARATE MEETING to be held in the Community Development Large Conference Room from 9:45 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. (Lunch to be served during retreat) PRESENTER(S): Rick Smith - Facilitator 1/17/2012 K � TOWN OF'VA10 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 17, 2012 ITEM /TOPIC: Council Break - REGULAR WORK SESSION to begin at 3:00 p.m. 1/17/2012 K � TOWN OF VAI!% VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 17, 2012 ITEM /TOPIC: DRB /PEC Update PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell ATTACHMENTS: January 4, 2012 DRB Meeting Results January 9, 2012 PEC Meeting Results 1/17/2012 rnwN of va MEMBERS PRESENT Tom DuBois Pete Dunning Brian Gillette Rollie Kjesbo Libby Maio PROJECT ORIENTATION MEMBERS ABSENT SITE VISITS 1. Vail Public Library — 292 West Meadow Drive MAIN AGENDA Under Armour DRB110583 / 10 minutes Final review of a sign (business identification) 227 Bridge Street, Unit F (Covered Bridge Building) /Lot C, Applicant: Under Armour, represented by Patrick Stringer ACTION: Approved MOTION: DuBois SECOND: Kjesbo Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1 VOTE: 5 -0 -0 2. Vail Public Library DRB110593 / 15 minutes Conceptual review of an addition (stairs, elevator, meeting room) 292 West Meadow Drive /Part of Lot 5, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 2 Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Snowdon and Hopkins Architects ACTION: Conceptual, no vote 3. Town of Vail DRB110592 / 15 minutes Final review of changes to the approved plans (streetscape) West Lionshead Circle Street Right -of -Way adjacent to Concert Hall Plaza Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Todd Oppenheimer ACTION: Tabled to January 18, 2012 MOTION: DuBois SECOND: Kjesbo VOTE: 5 -0 -0 STAFF APPROVALS Norris Residence DRB110534 Final review of an addition (living room) 486 Forest Road /Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6 Applicant: Charles Norris, represented by KH Webb Sebastian DRB110585 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (heaters) 16 Vail Road /Lots O & M, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Sebastian Hotel, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Page 1 1/17/2012 DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA PUBLIC MEETING January 4, 2012 Council Chambers 75 South Frontage Road West - Vail, Colorado, 81657 2:00pm 3:00pm Rachel nlll M AH 3 -I -I Town of Vail DRB110590 Rachel Final review of a minor exterior alteration (lighting) 1289 Elkhorn Drive /Unplatted Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Johnson Controls Four Seasons Resort Vail DRB110587 Rachel Final review of a sign (menu boxes) 1 Vail Road /Lots 9A, 9C Vail Village Filing 2 Applicant: Vail Hotel 09, LLC 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. Page 2 1/17/2012 3 -1 -2 rawN of va PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION January 9, 2012 1:OOpm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Bill Pierce Henry Pratt Luke Cartin Pam Hopkins Tyler Schneidman John Rediker Michael Kurz 45 minutes A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a prescribed regulations amendment, pursuant to 12 -3 -7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12 -7H -3, Permitted and Conditional Uses; First Floor or Street Level, Vail Town Code, to allow professional offices, business offices and studios as a conditional use on the first floor or street level, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110062) Applicant: 450 Buffalo Properties, LLC, represented by the Mauriello Planning Group Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: Recommendation of denial MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Rediker VOTE: 6 -0 -1 (Pierce recused) Commissioner Pierce recused himself from the application as he has had an ongoing relationship with the Treetops Homeowners Association and felt that he would not be able to remain unbiased. Rachel Dimond made a presentation per the staff memorandum. Commissioner Pratt inquired as to the temporary business office process and the ability of the Town to assess a specific location for viability for office verses commercial uses. Rachel Dimond spoke to several locations which have had offices on the first floor in the commercial cores. Commissioner Kurz stated that Solaris received approval for a sales office in One Willow Bridge for a period of one year. Rachel Dimond stated that One Willow Bridge is zoned Public Accommodation, which allows for offices on the first floor as a conditional use. Jeff Brown, property manager at the Treetops, spoke to the use of the mezzanine level of the Treetops Building as a showroom for the Arrabelle. Dominic Mauriello, representing the applicant, gave a power point presentation highlighting the uses which are permitted and conditional uses on each floor level in LMU -1. Pa gge 1 1/17/212 3 -2 -1 Jeff Brown, property manager of the Treetops Condominiums for 23 years, stated that retail has not been a viable option for the first floor at Treetops. Michael Hecht, owner of 450 Buffalo Properties, spoke to the purchase of the Treetops property and its vacancy for two years prior to its purchase. He added that he would love to rent the space to a retail establishment as he would see an increase in revenue per square foot of approximately 30 -40 %. When he purchased the location, he did not know that Vail Resorts would be the tenant that would fill the space. He spoke about the viability of the Treetops commercial space. He compared the need to have offices to the need for Red Sandstone elementary school in the community. He concluded by asking that he and others be given the opportunity to ask the question of whether or not a space is acceptable for office in the LMU -1 District. Dominic Mauriello concluded the presentation by stating that the Town could say no to a request for a conditional use permit for office if it was not appropriate. Commissioner Rediker inquired as to the number of office spaces in the Treetops. Michael Hecht stated that all the office space is occupied by Vail Resorts. Over the decades there have been as many as 8 commercial spaces in the building. He explained that the Vail Resorts lease was up in July, but they need to give notice of their intent to stay in January. Commissioner Cartin stated that he works for Vail Resorts; however, as the request is for an amendment to the entire zone district, he did not need to recuse himself. Commissioner Pratt stated that the memorandum did not include any discussion of the Treetops Rachel Dimond explained that the memo did not include any discussion regarding Treetops because there is no specific application related to Treetops and office uses. Commissioner Pratt asked if any time, money, or effort was put towards resolving Treetops challenges during the new design of the Lionshead entry plaza. George Ruther stated that the Town has spent time, money, and effort as he feels that unsuccessful commercial spaces are the Town's concern as well. Commissioner Pratt asked that the conversation be refocused on the policy as a whole Commissioner Kurz stated that he is sympathetic to the applicant's concerns, but the Town's revenue is up and vacancies are down. He stated he does not see a need to go back and rework what has been successful for years. He believes that changing horizontal zoning would be detrimental to the Town's success. There was no public comment. Commissioner Rediker stated that this is a difficult decision. He said he sees the concerns of the property owner and believes that there are other properties which struggle to be successful, but the request is in conflict with the Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan. Commissioner Schneidman stated he does not believe the criteria are met in any way. He supported Staff's comments and stated he could not vote in favor of the application. Pa gge 2 1/17/212 3 -2 -2 Commissioner Hopkins spoke to her office's displacement 10 years ago and the need for office in the cores. Her concern is that residential units on the second floor should not be allowed. She believes that there are retail tenants which could be successful in the space as she recalled several successful retailers being previously located in the space. Commissioner Cartin stated that the horizontal zoning policy has been working and gave examples of Moe's Barbecue and the Little Diner being successful in the Concert Hall Plaza Building when the spaces have struggled in the past. He did not believe horizontal zoning should be changed. Commissioner Pratt stated that the land area included in LMU -1 is large and diverse. There are properties which are not viable for commercial and maybe the zoning should be different. He agrees that office space is needed. He believes that horizontal zoning has been successful and as a district wide proposal, there is not enough justification for making this change. He added that the Town is a victim of its own success as property rental rates have been increasing as other values have increased. Michael Hecht asked if it would be more appropriate to request an extension of the office use. Commissioner Pratt stated that the PEC is making a recommendation and the Town Council may be able to review other information. 5 minutes 2. A request for the review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -12, Exemption Plat Review Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the re- subdivision of Lots 2 and 3, Bighorn Subdivision 4 th Addition, located at 4316 and 4336 Streamside Circle West, and setting details in regards thereto. (PEC110063) Applicant: Diamond Assets, represented by Triumph Development Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to January 23, 2012 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 7 -0 -0 5 minutes 3. A request for the review of a variance from Section 12 -6D -6, Setbacks, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for new construction within the front setback, located at 1895 West Gore Creek Drive /Lot 26, Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110061) Applicant: Alejandro Diazayas, represented by Shepherd Resources, Inc. Planner: Bill Gibson ACTION: Tabled to January 23, 2012 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 7 -0 -0 5 minutes 4. A request for findings of fact and a determination of accuracy and completeness, pursuant to Chapter 12 -3, Administration and Enforcement, Vail Town Code, and Article 12 -713, Commercial Core 1 District, Vail Town Code, for applications for a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12 -713-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for the addition of GRFA (Rucksack Building), located at 288 Bridge Street, Unit R -2/ Part of Lots C & D, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110045); and a major exterior alteration, pursuant to Section 12 -713-7, Major Exterior Alterations or Modifications, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions of enclosed floor area; a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, from Section 12- 14 -17, Setback from Watercourse, Vail Town Code, to allow for encroachments into the Mill Creek setback and a variance, pursuant to Chapter 12 -17, Variances, Vail Town Code, from Section 12- 713-15, Site Coverage, Vail Town Code, to allow for additions of enclosed floor area in excess of allowable site coverage, located Pa gge 3 1/17/212 3 -2 -3 at 288 Bridge Street, Unit R -1 (Rucksack Building)/ Part of Lots C & D, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC110046, PEC110050) Appellant: Bridge Street Building, LLC Planner: Rachel Dimond ACTION: Tabled to January 23, 2012 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 7 -0 -0 5. Approval of December 26, 2011 minutes MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Schneidman VOTE: 7 -0 -0 6. Information Update 7. Adjournment MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Rediker VOTE: 7 -0 -0 The applications and information about the proposals are available for public inspection during regular office hours at the Town of Vail Community Development Department, 75 South Frontage Road. The public is invited to attend the project orientation and the site visits that precede the public hearing in the Town of Vail Community Development Department. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published January 6, 2012 in the Vail Daily. Pa gge 4 1/17/212 3 -2 -4 K � TOWN OF VAI!% VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 17, 2012 ITEM /TOPIC: Library Housing Replacement PRESENTER(S): Greg Hall ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide direction to staff regarding placing deed restrictions on current housing stock to meet the Library Housing replacement. BACKGROUND: To comply with relocating an employee housing unit, the town is required to provide new deed restricted employee housing. This would require up to a 3:1 ratio due to the location of the Library housing. The employee housing space comprised 1720 SF. To meet the employee housing guidelines requirements, staff is currently researching deed restrictions on all its town -owned employee housing properties to secure up to a 3 to 1 exchange for loss of this housing. The deed restriction will also have to comply with zoning regulations which are also being reviewed. This could result in deed restricting an additional 5160 SF to fulfill the town's exchange requirement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff will further research all the properties and come back with a final recommendation; however, to provide a housing relocation plan for the Library project review by the Planning and Zoning Commission at their January meeting, staff would want permission to commit to deed restricting up to 5160 SF of town owned employee housing. 1/17/2012 K � TOWN OF VAI!% VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 17, 2012 ITEM /TOPIC: Information Update and Attachments: 1) Fire Department New Year's Eve Occupancy Checks - Mark Miller 2) VEAC Meeting Minutes of January 10, 2012 - Kelli McDonald 3) Ford Park Planning Charette Update - Greg Hall 4) Eagle -Vail Master Plan Update - Councilman Greg Moffet 5) Sundial Plaza /Lionshead Park Memorandum - Greg Hall 6) 2012 Community Survey Timetable - Suzanne Silverthorn PRESENTER(S): Various ATTACHMENTS: Fire Dept Memo re: New Year's Eve 011012 VEAC Minutes Ford Park Planning Process Eagle Vail Master Plan Update Sundial - Lionshead Memo 011712 Community Survey Results 1/17/2012 0 TOWN OF VAIL � Memorandum To: Stan Zemler, Town Manager From: Mark A. Miller, Fire Chief Date: 1/11/2012 Re: Council question - New Years Eve Occupancy checks Regarding the recent concern/question from the TOV Council relative to "why" the fire department was doing occupancy checks on New Years Eve, please consider following response. For the past 11 years, Vail Fire has conducted random occupancy checks at various times throughout the year in applicable establishments throughout Vail. These random checks are conducted to verify a number of life /safety requirements, including; occupancy load, exits (open, not locked or blocked), code violations, proper permits in place for pyrotechnics shows, etc. We typically focus our efforts on the busier times of the year, including Fourth of July and New Years Eve. It has been our experience that the busier holidays are when we have the greatest problems associated with life /safety issues. Additionally, the Vail Police department has requested our assistance during these hectic times due to the increase in overcrowding, large numbers of intoxicated patrons, etc. Over the past few decades, fires that have caused the largest number of fatalities around the country have been in bars and nightclubs and typically associated with overcrowding, blocked or locked exits, and /or illegal pyrotechnics /code violations. As Vail's Fire Chief, it is my responsibility to ensure we limit our liability in areas that we are especially vulnerable due to the potential for multiple fatalities in the event patrons are unable to exit the establishment expeditiously. As you may know, Vail has several bars /nightclubs that have poor egress due to basement locations, limited exits and a history of overcrowding. Other than the concern raised by Council, we received no negative feedback this New Years Eve. To the contrary, all of the contacts we had were positive, and at least one business feels the occupancy requirements /checks have actually caused them to be more efficient and customer friendly in serving the patrons. We were out the two nights prior to NYE to remind establishments of code requirements and that we would be conducting random checks. Additionally, we have received many calls over the years from patrons who requested us to inspect certain establishments due to overcrowding or blocked exits; feeling their safety was in jeopardy. It is also important to note, that in the last couple years, we have made it a point to be reasonable and solution oriented with all establishments. Again, I have not had any formal complaints from owners, managers or patrons. I firmly believe it is in the best interest of the guests and citizens of Vail that we continue in our efforts to identify code violations during the busiest (therefore the most vulnerable) times to the year. I hope this addresses the expressed concerns /questions. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to address this important life /safety issue. 1/17/2012 5 -1 -1 Vail Economic Advisory Council (VEAC) January 10, 2012 MEETING NOTES • VEAC Members Present: Rayla Kundolf; Rob LeVine; Pam Stenmark; Brian Nolan; Greg Moffet; Laurie Mullen; Matt Morgan; Mia Vlaar; Joe McHugh; Andy Daly • Others Present: Doug Smith; Adam Sutner; Sonny Kerstiens; Jenn Bruno • TOV Staff Present: Town Manager Stan Zemler; Finance Director Judy Camp; Community Development Director George Ruther; Commission on Special Events Coordinator Sybill Navas; Executive Assistant Tammy Nagel • Financial Reports: The revenue highlights from December 2011 and the November Vail Business Review were provided in the committees' packets. Judy Camp presented a PowerPoint to the committee outlining 2011 summer sales tax collections. The 2011's year- over -year growth of 11.4% exceeded inflation of 3.7% but, 2011 collections lag 2008's record by $200K or 2.7 %. The presentation compared summer vs. winter sales tax collection which showed an increase of 11.4% for the 2011 summer collection which is a slightly higher than Winter 2010/2011 of 11.2 %. Summer collections continue to hover around 29% of annual collections with Summer 2011 up just slightly at 29.3% compared with 29.2% the prior year. Camp listed the major redevelopment properties throughout Vail showing the redeveloped properties contributed 62% of the total increase in Vail Village. Base businesses in Vail Village increased 11.4% with increases in retail, lodging and food & beverage categories while redeveloped properties contributed all of the increase in LionsHead. Total summer sales tax increased $574K with $349K or 61 % generated at redeveloped properties. Base businesses (excluding redeveloped properties) rose 5.0% overall, base retail rose 5.5 %, base lodging rose 4.7% and base food and beverage rose 8.2 %. • CSE Update on 2012 Event Funding: Jenn Bruno, CSE member, updated the committee on the events that will be in town in 2012. Bruno stated CSE has been working with the VLMDAC focusing on events that represent the Vail brand and that provide the best return on investment. There are three new events coming to Vail this year; Teva Winter Games (February), Mojo Man (Memorial Day Weekend) and the Grand Fondo (September). The CSE will be reviewing RFP's to revamp the 4 th of July "American Days" event during their February 1 St meeting. The RFP requested event producers to add to the current event by more emphasis on parade participation, food vendors and concerts. Bruno went on to say that some events from the past years have not lived up to the Vail brand and those events did not receive any funding from the CSE. There are events the VLMDAC is assisting with additional funding such as Mojo Man and the Sol Music Festival. Town of Vail Council is also assisting with some additional funding for the Grand Fondo and they are also funding the Vail Symposium Health and Wellness event 100 %. Sybill Navas, Commission on Special Events Coordinator, stated the construction scheduled in Lionshead beginning in April could cause scheduling issues for that area. Andy Daly asked the committee for their comments concerning the event Vail Restaurant Month. Matt Morgan said the event is a good idea, but it is tough to do for 30 days. Morgan suggested "anchoring" another event to the Vail Restaurant Month event; for example the Vail Symposium Health and Wellness. Brian Nolan felt the Vail Restaurant Month should only be a week long and not 30 days. 1/17/2012 5 -2 -1 Greg Moffet would like to see if we can find a set of metrics that values an event for the true return on the investment. Bruno said it was tough to quantify because there could be an event that may not have an impact the day of the event but could be an incentive for people to return to the town at a later date. Daly complemented the incredible strides made by the CSE and the VLMDAC and expressed his appreciation of the efforts that have gone into making the events more effective on return of investment. Town of Vail Municipal Site Redevelopment: George Ruther, Community Development Director, presented an overview of the proposed Vail Valley Medical Center /Town of Vail Municipal site redevelopment to the committee. Under the proposal, the westernmost 2 /3rds of the TOV municipal site would be redeveloped into two separate buildings; the TOV building will be approximately 18,000 square feet and the medical office building will be approximately 55,000 square feet. An underground mixed -use parking facility of approximately 200 spaces would also be developed on the site. The helipad would be temporarily relocated to the east end of the Ford Park parking lot. This proposed redevelopment provides an opportunity for growth at the new site and approximately 35,000 square feet of current space at the Vail Valley Medical Center will also be redeveloped. Under the proposed timeline, construction will begin April 2013 and finish by January 2015. Ruther stated the redevelopment partnership will ensure Vail Valley Medical Center and Steadman Center will remain in Vail which will promote a more diversified year -round economy. • Town Manager Report: None. • Lodging Occupancy Reports: The Lodging Occupancy reports were provided in the committees' packets. • Citizen Input: None • Other Business: None • Next Meeting: The next meeting is scheduled for Tuesday, February 14, 2012 at The Antlers. 1/17/2012 5 -2 -2 ININ V K ) AIL " To: From: Date: Subject Vail Town Council Public Works Department January 17, 2012 Ford Park Planning Process SUMMARY Memorandum The purpose of this memo is to update the Council on the Ford Park Planning Process and request any Council input. BACKGROUND A significant advancement has been made in the planning effort for Ford Park relative to the Conference Center fund ballot question projects. On January 9 and 10, the Ford Park stakeholders entities and design team members participated in a two -day work shop to further define the long range goals of each group with respect to the program and design of Phase 1 elements. The goal of the work shop was to collaboratively define a vision for improvements to Ford Park that all stakeholders can enthusiastically endorse, and that advance the design of Phase 1 improvements. The work involved reviewing long range visions to ensure that the proposed Phase 1 improvements are considerate of potential future enhancements or renovations in the park. The work shop participants included: • Vail Valley Foundation (VVF): Ceil Folz, Jen Mason, Harry Frampton • Vail Recreation District (VRD): Mike Ortiz, Scott O'Connell • Betty Ford Alpine Garden (BFAG): Nicola Ripley, Nick Courtens, Sandy Gregorak, Margaret Rogers (Vail Town Council and AIPP) • Town of Vail: Stan Zemler, Pam Brandmeyer, Todd Oppenheimer, Greg Hall • Art in Public Places (AIPP): Molly Eppard • Vail Village Homeowners Association: Jim Lamont • AECOM: Jana McKenzie, Kurt Friesen, Joe McGrane • Zehren & Associates: Jack Zehren, Tim Losa, Pedro Campos • Morter Architects: Jim Morter • Hunn Consulting: Jack Hunn • Braun Associates, Inc.: Tom Braun 1/17/2012 5 -3 -i III. FORD PARK PLANNING ELEMENTS The effort was highly collaborative and resulted in agreement on all of the major elements proposed to be implemented in Ford Park. The consensus will allow the various design teams to move forward with schematic design on an aggressive schedule in order to fulfill the intent of the Conference Center Fund ballot question. A summary of the key design directions is as follows: Key Directions 1. Create an improved and unified Ford Park image, which includes enhancing key areas of the existing landscape with alpine- appropriate, native flowers, perennials, shrubs and trees to complement, and extend the character of Betty Ford Garden. Develop a consistent approach to design of the entrances /portals to the park. Upgrade the visual character of the park along the Frontage Road, and reduce the amount of asphalt paving at the main entrance (Park Center area). 2. Continue to provide and improve transit service to the park, and use existing available parking garages to accommodate parking demand beyond that which is located on, or adjacent to, Ford Park. Consider a transit stop location that is convenient to the Park Center and is directly linked to paths through the park. 3. Enhance the pedestrian experience of Betty Ford Way through upgraded materials which are more appropriate for pedestrian traffic, the introduction of additional lighting and site furnishings, as well as the addition of sculpture along the route. Place emphasis on enhancements between the Manor Vail Bridge and the Nature Center Bridge. 4. Enhance the existing AIPP temporary art program and permanent public art collection by integrating sculpture throughout Ford Park and by repurposing the existing building located on the lower bench of Ford Park for the AIPP Artist in Residence Program when that program is initiated. 5. Facilitate intuitive way finding through the park by identifying primary park entrances, officially naming them, providing focal elements, establishing a hierarchy of paths, and providing visual cues through enhanced site amenities and landscape elements. Clearly identify accessible routes, and provide directional signage where needed to reinforce way finding. 6. Improve pedestrian circulation between the upper and lower benches of the park through the addition of new paths and through the enhancement of existing paths. 7. Limit service access to the amphitheater to the eastern portion of Betty Ford Way (east parking lot to amphitheater loading dock) in order to reduce conflicts that occur between trucks, passenger vehicles and park users. The eastern path will be widened and re- graded to allow for truck deliveries. Two -way traffic is anticipated on the east side, replacing the current route from the west. This Town of Vail Page 2 l/17/2012 5 -3 -2 improved eastern route would facilitate easier cart movements during performances at the amphitheater and would be enhanced with special paving and amenities to create a more pleasant pedestrian experience as well. 8. Consider means to eliminate private vehicles from the lower bench of Ford Park reducing the conflicts between vehicles and pedestrians. 9. Consider implementing a park shuttle service or other system to ferry people to various park destinations, including from ADA parking spaces on the upper bench to lower bench attractions. This shuttle service is envisioned to operate during spring, summer and fall, and be jointly operated by the Ford Park stakeholder entities. 10. Enhance the main entry to the amphitheater on the south side to provide a common guest arrival experience. Create a new social courtyard (plaza) immediately south of the main entrance to the Amphitheater for pre and post - function activities, which could include sculpture and access to concessions and restrooms. The Amphitheater entry and social courtyard (plaza) will be available for public use when not needed for amphitheater functions. Convert the existing east entrance of the amphitheater to an exit -only portal and provide restrooms for amphitheater patrons in this vicinity. 11. Maintain the integrity of the Lower Commons (turf area). Avoid the introduction of any new features that would compromise its current form and function as an open turf play area and flexible events space. 12.A small, open -air pavilion, or covered terrace area, along Gore Creek that is simple, transparent appropriately sized for its location. This can become an added asset for the park and community -at -large and is not intended to replicate the town's other venues. It can provide a weather protected location for a variety of community activities and to support and supplement the programs of the existing Ford Park user groups (e.g. BFAG Chefs in the Garden, small musical ensembles, yoga classes, tai -chi, workshops and youth art events). 13. Upgrade the Lower Bench restrooms near the playground. 14. Designate a place for a future, year -round BFAG welcome center on the Upper Bench, and locate the Alpine Garden entry so that it is more easily visible and accessible. Extend the garden's character through landscaping in the Park Center area. 15. The Park Center, formerly "Welcome Center ", will include relocated restrooms, relocated concessions, event promoter information window, a center for information to be posted, and a weather shelter / public gathering area adjacent to the proposed transit drop -off, between the east end of the fields and the tennis center. 16. Reconfigure and improve the upper bench fields as portrayed on the existing Phase 1 Development Plan. This reconfiguration requires the removal of the existing restroom /concession facility in the middle of the fields. Town of Vail Page 3 iil7izoiz 5 -3 -3 17. Provide a restroom facility at the west end of the upper bench fields to provide more convenient access for users of the upper bench athletic fields. 18. Provide a minimum -sized storage facility in conjunction with the west restrooms to accommodate VRD, park and BFAG storage. Minimize the facility's visual impact by building it into the existing berm. 19. Move the majority of park maintenance equipment and supplies to the area adjacent to an expanded restrooms /concessions building at the Athletic Fields, south of Vail Valley Drive. 20. Develop an inter - agency joint maintenance and operations program for all non- athletic associated landscape and amenities, (e.g. signage, landscape, amenities, etc.). 21. Modify the configuration and grading associated with the lawn seating in the Amphitheater. Current conditions are thought to be too steep. There will be no net loss of seating capacity. 22. Locate an iconic tribute to the Ford Family at the intersection of Betty Ford Way and Manor Vail Bridge. It is intended that the story of the Ford Family's positive influence and many contributions to the Vail Valley be shared at this location. 23. Consider opportunities to improve the pedestrian routes along Gore Creek through the addition of new routes as well as improvements to the existing Stream Walk. As the planning and approval process continues; these elements will be further defined and will be prioritized into Phase 1 and Phase 2 development plans. Phase 1 elements are considered to be those elements included in the Conference Center ballot question description. Ground rules The following Ground Rules, previously acknowledged by the Town Council, were presented to the group and were retained and respected throughout the design work shop: • The Vail Town Council, as elected stewards of public property, retains final approval responsibility. • All stakeholder (lessee and user group) questions and issues will be considered. Best use of available land and costs will determine what elements are included in the plan. • No individual stakeholder group will be allowed to dominate the park or the planning process. • Public opinion and sentiment will be sought and considered in the Development Plan approval process. • The elements and budget presented to the voters are the basis of the development plan. Town of Vail Page 4 l/17/2012 5 -3 -4 • There will be no net loss of recreation opportunities on a town -wide basis resulting from modifications to the park. • There will be no net decrease in the number of available parking spaces at Ford Park and Athletic Field unless mitigated by an approved, viable transit solution. • Structured parking, highly formalized (significant retaining walls) Frontage Road parking, Tennis Center relocation, and artificial turf are specifically excluded from the planning process. • There is an expectation of projects leveraging funding from other sources. Schedule Town Council Planning Process Update Stakeholder Design Workshop Town Council Workshop Update Town Council Plan Review Public Open House Planning Commission Work Session Design Review Board Work Session Town Council Development Plan Submittal Review Planning Commission Development Plan Review IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION January 3 January 9 - 10 January 17 February 7 February 7 February 13 February 15 March 6 April 9 The Public Works Department requests the Vail Town Council provide any input at this time if desired. The staff will keep the council updated with regard to the progress of the planning process. Town of Vail Page 5 l/17/2012 5 -3 -5 �f J � • x fi r I ♦ /1 ° - a - �� r °= CU Cu - cu LU 1- F - _ .i m 4D 4D 4D i ,r O ri m Ln 4 T73 :� 41 x s o Ln 1a t 1� W LA J) pr �1� LO Ln Ln Ln Ln | \ \ %. ��\ . °. ` � \ ��\ I Jk 4 it ~��_ \�� - w\ �� . . ��\ Z� � \�� 4 Cid 14! Fa �L Ln 0 Ln 4w, J L.L ,:�� I . • . . . . . . . . . Al Ln Ln • 4 0 i WTI Ln 41 fu fa LU C: 4-J _0 U U fa fa 0L U-) M 4-J o =) 0 m o 4� O Ca i 0 t . a 4- O O = , Yl ,O .w Y/ m V m %IWO _ 2r O — ~ m 4W _ 4W a� O V Q L cri t m _� 4W = V i m LM d1 W W m = CL p G� V m �• o _ CL M E m .� = E C = d i a� o o = _ � }+ L O L. r. O 0 J = O .- Vf O O m 0. a LM = ° �°; _ ,� v, ca p V .= O O 0 00 ~ C Z C V O L. L � M 4W W l a w_ H H a t . a 0 . Cf) 0 r `rV CZ �.,< ra IZ V O OZI W 1 cz n \ M v O � O O C Z n3 QQ1 C13 t . 4D hula homw 4 r h rl �7 Nod ns CI 0 rr A, /51 Art A 1�. 1 MEN 4�1'1 4D 4 a 4 OC �rq O �v I o I s D G) L, f I� 6 +r r� a f r� I �r � 4 �. �► ow !1, r AM MA IL 1 � ,a '=a d a e r dIF 4w � I a► V r r � r to a t . sr —4- i r t. r fw do— .0 i r x I at.M CC L Y Q z � .. � f S w 4 b S r �.. ^'� �� 1 .. -- �� .. R O 0,00 '1 S1. OEM--- Alm oom .00 ININ V K ) AIL " To: From: Date: Subject Vail Town Council Department of Public Works January 17, 2012 Lionshead /Sundial Plaza Park and Playground 1►f ": OTI ZOWSHI Memorandum This memorandum focuses on the renovation of Sundial Plaza, which is the green space and plaza area located in the heart of Lionshead near Billy's Island Grill and Vail Ski Tech. The renovation is a part of a larger discussion of a Lionshead Neighborhood Park and the provision of recreational facilities for the Lionshead area. The following outlines the recent efforts to construct a public park in the Lionshead area, highlights the opportunities that exist to add to or improve existing recreational amenities and then focuses on the design process for the Sundial Plaza renovation, which is funded in the 2012 budget. BACKGROUND In 2007, Town Council directed staff to locate a site in the Lionshead area for the construction of a public park. Staff evaluated several locations, preferring a site that could accommodate the features typically found in Vail's neighborhood parks such as open turf grass, play areas and walking paths. In the 2009 budget sessions, staff recommended that, due to wetland conflicts, restrictive property covenants that prohibit structures, and a lack of available property, Lionshead did not have a site suitable for a typical public park. The Lionshead Park funding was removed from the 2009 budget. PROVIDING PARK AMENITIES The Town's adopted 2007 Vail Parks and Recreation Master Plan (Greenplay) and 2011 Updated Lionshead Redevelopment Master Plan each recommend various recreational amenities for Lionshead. And, while an "all- inclusive" park site is not available in the immediate Lionshead area, many of the amenities of a park can already be found within walking distance. Additionally, there are opportunities to improve existing facilities as well as to add new ones. 1/17/2012 5 -s -i IV. OBJECTIVES FOR A PARK The development of a park in Lionshead would have two primary Objectives: Objective 1: Provide recreational and park amenities for the residents and guests of the Lionshead neighborhood A neighborhood park in Vail generally consists of areas for both active and passive recreation. Amenities typically include an open turf area, a children's play area, walking /hiking paths, picnic area(s), a restroom and "unprogrammed" areas for relaxing or simply enjoying the view. Objective 2: Provide activities in Lionshead for day visitors and destination guests The Children's Fountain and Pirateship Park are cost -free activities that regularly attract families to Vail Village. And, while there are children's play areas at Red Sandstone Elementary and Red Sandstone Park, (walking distance from Lionshead), they do not generate day visits to the Lionshead commercial core. The existing recreation opportunities (shown below) are important, but the addition of a year- round, cost -free activity would be a valuable amenity to attract and retain visitors in Lionshead. V. EXISTING RECREATION OPPORTUNITIES IN THE LIONSHEAD AREA • Skateboard Park at the Lionshead parking structure • Nature trails south of Gore Creek and on Vail Mountain • Vail Resort's mini -golf near the Eagle Bahn gondola • The Gore Valley Trail along Gore Creek through Lionshead • Open turf area adjacent to the gondola • Trips up the gondola and associated mountain top activities • Arrabelle ice rink in the winter • The athletic field and play area at Red Sandstone Elementary School VI. IMPROVEMENT OPPORTUNITIES There are several notable opportunities for improving or adding recreational facilities that promote both objectives listed above. A. Sundial Plaza Renovation Sundial Plaza is located in the heart of Lionshead Village. Constructed in the early 1990's by the Lionshead Merchant Association, the plaza includes a small, terraced green space with benches and a simple fountain. The area has hosted various art pieces over the years but is otherwise under - utilized and somewhat aged considering its central location. Redevelopment of the site would provide an ideal location for a cost -free, family- oriented amenity and could generate year -round activity in the heart of Lionshead. Town of Vail Page 2 l/17/2012 5 -5 -2 This site has the potential to provide amenities similar in nature to the Children's Fountain, Pirateship Park and Founder's Plaza. Park components could include a small to mid -sized children's play area for year -round use, a unique and playful water feature, landscaping /green space and artistic elements. The stairs and walkways along the western edge connect to the pedestrian overpass and First Chair and are slated to be reconstructed with snowmelt prior to the 2015 World Alpine Ski Championships. This provides an opportunity to realign the steps to create additional park and green space. B. Improvements to Open Space south of Gore Creek The Town owns two parcels along the south bank of Gore Creek, upstream of the Lionshead skier bridge. The first parcel, Tract X is 1.6 acres and is designated by Restrictive Covenants as "Low- Impact Recreation Property ". The second parcel is 6.3 acres and is Designated Open Space. These were the initial properties evaluated for a Lionshead Park however wetland areas and restrictive covenants prohibit most typical park amenities. The associated legal documents have been reviewed by the Town Attorney and are available upon request. Both parcels are undeveloped, and currently consist of wooded and wetland areas. Numerous social trails and unmaintained raised wetland trails connect to Lionshead across a Vail Resorts -owned pedestrian bridge as well as the skier bridge. The significant size of these combined parcels (almost 8 acres) presents a unique opportunity to provide improved nature trails that protect and enhance wetland areas, improve fishing access and add interpretive signage and picnic areas, all within a few hundred feet of the Lionshead commercial core. C. North end of the Pedestrian Overpass The construction of a new play area at Red Sandstone Elementary School vacated a portion of the original play area at the north end of the Pedestrian Overpass. The area is nearly 10,000 square feet in size, relatively flat, and currently consists of a pea gravel area where the swings had been located and a small turf area. The site is large enough for a full -court basketball court, volleyball court or potentially a permanent skateboard park location. VII. DESIGN PROCESS Items B and C above are part of the larger recreation discussion and can be explored in more detail at a later time. As noted in the introduction, the primary focus at this time is the renovation of Sundial Plaza. The following process will allow staff to gather input from the community and to develop a unique concept that will provide a necessary amenity in Lionshead. • Lionshead Merchant Association (LMA), lodging managers, neighbors, Vail Resorts Staff will attend a LMA meeting, and contact lodging managers, neighbors and Vail Resorts representatives to discuss the project and gather input and ideas. Town of Vail Page 3 l/17/2012 5 -5 -3 Art in Public Places In each of the recently renovated play areas, art has been included in the design in the form of site features, play elements, or full scale play structures. In each case, the Art in Public Places Board (AIPP) has selected an appropriate artist who becomes part of the design team. • Town of Vail Design Review Process As with all projects, staff will proceed through the design review process including DRB, PEC and the building permit process as appropriate. • Town Council Presentations and memos will be provided to the Town Council as needed and requested. Town Council will have the final approval on the process and the project. VIII. PROJECT SCHEDULE February Meet with AIPP Board to discuss project and begin artist selection; and meet with LMA, lodging managers and neighbors Mar -Apr Begin site analysis and design for reconstruction of stairway March Town Council Work Session to discuss the project to date May Present stairway work and park /play area concepts to Town Council June Design work and Construction Documents for stairway July Stairway Reconstruction out to bid Sept -Oct Stairway construction work; present park /play area design to Council; begin Design Review Process Spring 2013 Park construction work IX. PROJECT BUDGET The 2012 RETT Budget currently includes $ 850,000 for the stairs and park work. X. STAFF RECOMMENDATION There are recreational opportunities within walking distance of Lionshead. In general, they provide many of the amenities that would be included in a public park. The significant missing element is an easy, cost -free activity similar in value to the Children's Fountain, Founder's Plaza or Pirateship Park. The renovation of Sundial Plaza can provide that element to neighbors and guests. Staff recommends proceeding through the design process to develop a unique and lasting concept for this important location. XI. ACTION REQUESTED BY COUNCIL Provide input on the Process, Project Components, Schedule, and /or other aspects of the project. Staff will plan a Work Session presentation in late March to update the Council and receive feedback on the project and conceptual design. Town of Vail Page 4 l/17/2012 5 -5 -4 5 -5 -5 7O a- O m U) (f) . LD CL c: cl) 0 IL > I r— c a l ) , 4LI 0 00 O)o ( ry rL �5 0 2 x _IX w cun) (n b) Z3 - 0 O A 0 0 (1) �. �?, ,ry in in c: a 02 0 0 0 0 0 0 N Z cl� N Z N Z �' c °' y� a, N O Ln E X LU �j LU E lwI IA cn LU .2 w ti� � a°i I -: �« t 3 ail - m a X LU iv, 4- I A - '� TOWN OF K IL ` To: From: Date: Subject DFfl0C IM1 4ro11PiT�ll Suzanne Silverthorn, Community Information January 17, 2012 2012 Community Survey Timetable Memorandum BACKGROUND The Town of Vail community survey is used to probe public policy issues and solicit feedback on other topics of community interest. It is also used to measure the town's operational performance as compared with previous years. The most recent surveys were conducted in 2003, 2005 and 2010. A 2012 survey has been budgeted to coincide with the new Town Council term and to benchmark municipal service levels. The cost of the project is capped at $22,000. METHODOLOGY The proposed methodology for the 2012 survey as recommended by the town's research contractor, RRC Associates, would use two techniques: 1) an initial postcard mailing to households, business owners and part -time residents inviting recipients to enter a password to complete the survey on -line; and 2) promotion of an open invitation to complete the survey on- line without a password restriction. The two formats would be used to enhance participation, especially among subgroups of residents (such as the youth segment). The initial postcard invitation mailing would be based on a list of Vail households to be purchased from a third - party provider. In addition, paper copies of the survey would be available for distribution in Town of Vail buildings as a mail -back option. These methods were used in 2010 and resulted in 528 completed responses with a margin of error of about 5 percent. The proposed method would ensure comparability to past research and would represent an inclusive outreach to citizens with several different invitations to participate. The results provide an effective tool for understanding community sentiment. See results attached. TIMELINE The proposed timeline for the 2012 survey project is as follows: Feb. 7 Work Session Review of draft survey and discussion of community issues /topics by Town Council Feb. 21 Info Update Review of refinements by Town Council Week of March 5 Finalization of survey Week of March 26 Mailing to Vail households to invite participation (includes a sampling of second homeowners and business representatives) 1/17/2012 5 -6 -1 April 2 -13 Promotion of survey to enlist participation by all interested parties April 2 -13 Distribution of paper copies in municipal facilities for mail -back April 16 Last day for survey participation June Presentation of report IV. ATTACHMENT 2010 Survey Results Town of Vail Page 2 iil7i2oi2 5 -6 -2 Community Town of Vail Survey Results June 2010 Town of Vail Community Survey Results June 2010 Prepared for: The Town of Vail 010 Prepared by: RRCAssociates, Inc. 4940 Pearl East Circle, Ste 103 Boulder, CO 80301 303/449 -6558 www.rrcassoc.com TABLE OF CONTENTS AN OVERVIEW OF RESULTS ............................................................................................ ..............................1 THE 2010 SURVEY: BROAD COMMUNITY QUESTIONS .................................................... ..............................6 A Profile of Survey Respondents ............................................................................... ..............................7 GeneralState of Vail ................................................................................................. .............................10 CommunityPriorities ................................................................................................ .............................16 The Guest Experience in Vail ..................................................................................... .............................22 The Conference Center Funds ................................................................................... .............................23 Taxesand Fees ........................................................................................................... .............................25 Environmental Issues .............................................................................................. ............................... 27 ParkingIssues ............................................................................................................ .............................29 RATINGS OF SATISFACTION— DEPARTMENTS .............................................................. .............................32 CommunityDevelopment ......................................................................................... .............................32 PublicWorks .............................................................................................................. .............................35 BusService ................................................................................................................. .............................38 FireServices ............................................................................................................... .............................42 PoliceServices ........................................................................................................... .............................44 Library........................................................................................................................ .............................47 Sources of Local Information .................................................................................... .............................50 SURVEY FORM/SUMMARY OF RESULTS OPEN -ENDED COMMENTS 1/17/2012 5 -c -5 I_1 ki [GIV1 4MATAIAh►IIIIIIIIa Oki *3111116'� This short summary provides an overview of selected survey results as well as an identification of some of the major themes and findings that emerged from the 2010 Community Survey program. As such, it is intended to provide an introduction to the study and a framework for considering the information obtained this year, and particularly the extensive comments that resulted from a number of new questions asked for the first time. This year's survey was designed to use the Internet to gather not only comparable statistical information to past surveys, but also to obtain detailed verbatim comments on topics of interest. All survey comments were aggregated and have been posted online. Note that these responses are presented as they were received including grammatical and spelling errors. In 2010 the surveys were fielded using two techniques. The primary method of distribution was through a postcard mailed to all identified postal addresses, including both boxes and home delivery, as well as to a sampling of part -time residents and business owners. The postcard contained an invitation to complete the survey on -line. This method resulted in responses from 368 individuals. In addition, an "Open Link Survey" was advertised starting 10 days after the initial postcard mailing. Through various ads, the public was invited to complete the survey on -line but without a password. This effort resulted in 160 responses. Together, the 528 completed responses from the two methods represent a strong response and an effective tool for understanding current community sentiment. The 2010 Community Survey is one of a number of public outreach efforts conducted by the Town. The survey results are considered a tool for gathering input rather than a vote or a referendum on the many civic issues that are explored. The survey results have been dissected in various ways to identify dominant themes and messages and these findings are explored in the full report that follows. The presentation in the final report is organized into two major areas of discussion. First, survey demographics are presented and issues and topic of broad community importance are explored. Then, ratings of Town departments and services are presented. Findings concerning topics of policy and broad community interest include: • Respondents identified "parking" as the highest priority to be addressed by the Town Council and staff in a variety of ways. This issue transcends others expressed by residents this year when measured in terms of both the statistical evaluation and also the open -ended comments that were solicited in various ways. • It is notable that several open -ended questions were asked early in the survey before specific lists of issues or ratings questions were presented. As such, the fact that parking RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 5 -6 -6 was cited so frequently clearly conveys the dominance of this issue at this time. Parking comments address issues of cost and the desire to see more free parking available, confusion about the overall system and a lack of predictability concerning parking operations and availability. The Safeway and Ford Park areas are called out frequently, and many aspects of the guest experience are felt to be diminished by the parking situation including the current system of parking on the Frontage Road. Respondents were asked to prioritize from a list of 11 community issues that had been identified as priorities of the Town Council this year by choosing their single top priority. Following parking, other topics identified as top priorities by 80 percent or more of the respondents included "Economic Vitality," "Budget and Capital Management," and "Guest Relations and Customer Service." Respondents were also asked to evaluate the 11 priorities based on a scale of 1 to 5 with 1 "not a priority" and 5 a "high priority." These results are summarized below. The topic of "workforce housing," which had been identified as the top issue when the survey was last fielded in 2007, was listed as a high priority by 55 percent of the respondents this year, finishing eighth in the list of 11 issues. o Parking, 4.46 • Economic Vitality, 4.41 • Budget & Capital Management, 4.36 • Guest Relations and Customer Service, 4.27 • Transportation Needs, 4.11 • Master Planning, 4.1 • Well- rounded Community, 3.99 • Workforce Housing, 3.61 • Environmental Sustainability, 3.51 • Use of Conference Center Funds, 3.41 • Planning for West Vail Commercial Redevelopment, 3.09 • Nearly twice as many people who were surveyed said the town is going in the "right direction" than those who said the town has "gotten off on the wrong track." This result is virtually identical to the feedback measured in 2007 and 2003. Those that said the Town was headed in the "right direction" and on the "wrong track" were probed in various ways. When asked to explain their responses concerning the priorities, several themes emerged. Among those that expressed the town is headed in the "right direction," multiple respondents identified the following: o Supportive of the upgrades that have occurred in the Village and Lionshead and generally in favor of changes that address the town's economic challenges. They mentioned the facelifts and new buildings, renewal of dated structures and "success in spite of the recession." o In related comments, some feel the town has been more pro - development and pro- economy, which has helped to weather economic conditions. They RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 5 -6 -7 feel that the town has encouraged and allowed development and that is it turning out well. o There are compliments for strong leadership at the town level including both the staff and Town Council. In particular, respondents cite the financial forecasting by the town, efficient operations and "living within the budget." • Comments differ among those that said the town is on the "wrong track:" • They frequently cited parking as an issue, saying there is not enough parking and that this shortage negatively impacts the experience of guests and locals alike. Further, the cost of parking was often cited. • The size, scale and character of the new buildings were criticized. In contrast to those that feel the town is on the right track because of new buildings and progress, others said the town is headed in the wrong direction and identify the results of redevelopment as the problem. • There were some concerns expressed about a strained relationship between the town leadership and Vail Resorts. Some faulted the town, some faulted Vail Resorts and several asked that these relationships be improved. Opinions about town services were also probed in response to the town's $2.9 million budget cuts last year associated with the economic downturn and the goal to provide no noticeable impact on services. A large majority, 76 percent, identified "no change" in service levels versus prior years, while 18 percent identified a "slight decline." Three percent identified a "slight improvement," and 1 percent identified a "large improvement." In a related question, the relationship between taxes and town services found a majority of respondents, 56 percent, indicating satisfaction with the current level of taxes and services provided by the town, while 18 percent said they pay too much for the services. Six percent said they would be willing to pay more taxes to get more services, while 10 percent said they would be willing to accept service reductions if it means lower taxes. When asked to review a list of possible sources for increased revenues by the town, a tax on liquor and cigarettes received the highest support (43 percent from respondents), from a list of 11 choices, with increases to parking fees receiving the lowest support. • Support by 82 percent to take time to study and evaluate the choices to determine a ballot issue for use of $9.3 million collected for a town -owned conference center that was never built, or to move at an even slower pace, with most, 53 percent, saying the money should be used to "build something." • Lack of support to charge a parking fee during the summer with 72 percent opposing such a fee. There is general satisfaction (about 55 percent) with the amount of emphasis placed on environmental issues related to the overall attention to forest health, enforcement of RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 5 -6 -8 the dead tree removal ordinance and addressing environmental quality in the town. More people said there's "too little emphasis," 30 -35 percent, than "too much," 10 -15 percent. • Most, 54 percent, indicated Vail's "sense of community" stayed the same over the past two years with only 9 percent indicating improvement and 26 percent said it had gotten worse. An Evaluation of Town of Vail Departments and Services The survey contained a number of questions designed to evaluate services provided by the Town. In most cases the wording of these questions is identical to past surveys, permitting comparisons over time. Taken together, these ratings serve as a form of community report card. In general, the ratings of the Town services were positive this year. They were unchanged or up slightly in a number of categories. As in past years, ratings were examined by year -round and part -time resident responses. Overall, the groups are similar in their ratings, but part -time residents rate most categories slightly higher. Consistent with the themes that are described above, most categories of parking ratings and some categories of bus service were down. The lowest satisfaction ratings were given to "overall parking fees" and "parking availability during the winter" with scores of 2.5 each. It is notable that these two services work in tandem; some of the complaints about buses are the direct result of free parking in outlying areas and the need to transport those skiers to the mountain. In rating their satisfaction with a variety of municipal services with 5 being "very satisfied," the highest scores were given to the following categories: • Courtesy and helpfulness of firefighters and fire prevention staff, 4.5 • Cleanliness of the pedestrian villages, 4.4 • Response times to basic medical emergencies, 4.4 • Friendliness /courtesy of library staff, 4.4 • Overall park maintenance, 4.3 • Snow removal on roads, 4.3 • Overall feeling of safety and security, 4.3 • Library story hour, 4.3 • Dependability of bus service, 4.3 • Frequency of town shuttle, 4.2 • Library materials /databases /summer reading program, 4.2 • Friendliness and courteous of Public Works employees, 4.1 • Bus driver courtesy, 4.1 • Cleanliness of buses, 4.1 RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 4 5 -6 -9 • Library website, 4.1 • Road and street maintenance, 4.0 • Cleanliness of public restrooms, 4.0 • Fire safety, awareness and education programs provided, 4.0 The ratings of Town departments and services also resulted in a large number of open -ended comments. These results are provided in the Appendix. Selected Takeaways from the 2010 Community Survey Based on a review of the 2010 survey results the RRC team has several general observations. These include: • Parking demands attention. The community wants to see more options, better communicated information (signage and advisory systems) and a review of prices. • Bus service, while always a strength, needs to be refined to better serve and complement the parking program. Further, night service and regional service deserves continued attention and refinement. • The Council- identified priorities are generally the right priorities. While there were large numbers of comments and suggestions, it was not apparent that there are glaring issues or community values that are not being addressed in the overall list of priorities that the Council and staff are pursuing. The survey provides reinforcement of the general direction concerning what is most important and it also measures these priorities in quantitative terms. • The need for improved Guest Services seems to resonate with survey respondents. They have many suggestions that warrant attention. While parking is the dominant topic for attention and improvement, other suggestions include signage, drop -offs, more activities and retail for families, etc. Further, the idea of trying to find ways to get visitors closer to the lifts and mountain also comes up. While challenging, this idea is also worthy of attention as Vail seeks to address visitor and resident demands. The community seems generally appreciative of the Town's management practices, especially during the economic challenges of the past 18 months. The cuts in services were not viewed as a major negative and most respondents believe they are paying about the right amount for the services they receive. • There is an opportunity to move at a moderate or slow pace to deal with the Conference Center funds. A strong majority support moving at a moderate or slow pace. • The survey questions that evaluate the ratings of Town services (the overall "report card ") represent generally positive evaluations. Further, the mood and overall community disposition as reflected in the comments is mostly positive and constructive. Where changes in ratings from past surveys are evident, for the most part they show improvement. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 5 -6 -10 THE 2010 SURVEY: BROAD COMMUNITY QUESTIONS During the spring of 2010 the Town of Vail conducted a community survey similar to efforts conducted in the past. It consisted of questionnaires completed by full- and part -time Town residents, property owners and business owners to evaluate opinions on a variety of issues. Using survey techniques that permit comparisons to past research, the Town employed a combination of Web and mail -based surveys to gather opinions from the community. The purpose of the surveys was to evaluate respondents' level of satisfaction with respect to a full range of services and to gather opinions on selected issues currently facing the Town. Similar questions have been posed to Vail part -time and year -round residents on a periodic basis since 1987. The 2010 survey was designed to permit comparisons to past results, as well as to provide new insights on a variety of topics of current interest. Unlike the methods used in 2007, 2005, 2003, and 2002, the Vail Community Survey was conducted primarily by Internet (Web) this year. Copies of the survey were also made available at Town Hall to those who preferred to respond in a traditional paper survey format. The Web -based survey was identical to the mail survey and responses from these two survey formats have been merged for analysis purposes. A copy of the survey instrument containing a summary of responses is presented as an attachment to this report. The surveys were fielded using two techniques. The primary method of distribution was through a postcard mailed to all identified postal addresses, including both boxes and home delivery, as well as to a sampling of part -time residents and business owners. The postcard contained an invitation to complete the survey on -line using one of two passwords that were printed on the card. This format was designed to provide the opportunity for up to two household members to respond. A total of 5,804 postcards were mailed, 3,804 to residents /business owners and 2,000 to part -time residents. About 707 surveys were returned as undeliverable resulting in responses from 368 individuals, a response rate of about 7 percent. In this report this survey was termed the "Invitation Survey." In addition, an "Open Link Survey" was advertised starting 10 days after the initial postcard mailing. Through various ads, the public was invited to complete the survey on -line but without a password. This permitted interested individuals that may have not received the postcard (or discarded it) to respond to the identical survey that was provided by invitation. This effort resulted in 160 responses. Together, the two survey methods resulted in 528 completed responses, a strong response and an effective tool for understanding current community sentiment. This sample represents considerably more participation than was received in surveys that relied almost exclusively on telephone surveying to reach respondents. For the sample size of 528 margin of en or is +/- 4.4 percent calculated for questions at 50 ° response (if the response for a particular question is 50% the standard way to generalize margin of error is to state the largerr margin_ which occurs for responses at 50 %). Note that the margin of eriar is different for every single question response on the survey depending on the resultant sample sizes. proportion of responses. and numberof answer categories for each question. Comparison of differences in the data between N arious segments, therefore, should take into consideration these factors. As a general comment.. it is sometimes more appropriate to focus attention on the general trends and patterns in the data rather than on the individual percentages. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 5 -6- 11 The results from the Invitation, Open Link and Mail surveys have been tabulated and analyzed by RRC Associates, Inc., the firm that assisted the Town on this project. In the report that follows, the quantitative data (i.e., the statistical results) from the Invitation and Open surveys are merged. Also, in many instances, they are presented independently in order to ensure that the Open Link sample may be considered separately because these self - selected participants could influence the validity of the randomly generated Invitation respondents. Open -ended comments from all respondents are included in the reported results. This report addresses responses from all participants, but in much of the discussion the focus is on the Invitation Survey responses because they were obtained from the controlled group (using passwords) and are felt to be most comparable to the phone survey results obtained in past surveys. In considering the results of the surveys it is important to remember that this is not a referendum but rather a tool for encouraging and gathering citizen opinions and feedback. While results are often presented in terms of percentages, we encourage readers to consider the overall ideas and direction that is suggested by constituents rather than just the statistics. This survey -based feedback is not intended to take the place of other forms of discourse such as meetings, board input, Council deliberations and other types of input. Rather, as with past surveys, it is designed to provide another source of input that permits comparisons of results over time and measures thinking on topics of current interest. The shift this year to a Web - based approach had two purposes — to deal with the proliferation of cell phones but also to encourage respondents to communicate fully and "in their own words" ratings, priorities and suggestions. The result is over 100 pages of commentary. This feedback should be reviewed along with the percentage responses in order to truly "listen" to the Vail community. A Profile of Survey Respondents The survey contains a series of questions that ask respondents to describe themselves in a variety of ways. These include a number of topics such as: where the respondent lives in Vail, how long they have been here, whether they own or rent, their age, marital status, etc. In addition, registered voters have been tracked. These questions are useful in describing the makeup of residents of the Town and comparing demographics and other household descriptors over time, but they also provide a means of breaking down (or "crosstabulating ") responses to other survey questions. These crosstabulations are an important part of the analysis of results that has been conducted as a part of the evaluation of the 2010 results and a number of these breakdowns have been provided to the Town under separate cover. A summary of the respondent profile results is presented in the tables below. Note that in the following tables only the respondents to the Invitation Web /Mail Survey (approximately 371 responses) are profiled. The additional responses that came via the Open Link portion of the survey (approximately 162 respondents) have been tabulated but are not included in the results presented below to permit appropriate comparisons to past survey results. Additional demographic data, comparing results this year to past years, is presented in the Survey Fill -out, presented in the Appendix. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 5 -6 -12 1. Where is your residence within the Town of Vail located? (n =288) 25% East Vail 3 Booth Falls and Bald Mountain Road areas - Booth Creek/Aspen Lane 3 Golf Course 8 Vail Village 4 Lionshead 12 Potato Patch, Sandstone 8 Buffehr Creek, Lionsridge, the Valley 4 Vail Commons /Safeway area 17 West Vail (north of 1 -70) 4 Matterhorn, Glen Lyon 9 Intermountain Located just outside Town of Vail 4 Other 2. Do you own or rent your residence? (n =370) 86% Own 13 Rent 1 Other 3. How long have you lived within the Town of Vail (or owned property if a non - resident)? (n =342) 2% Less than 1 year 15 1 -5 years 34 6 -15 years 49 More than 15 years 4. Which of the following best describes you? (n =371) 4% Non- resident owner of business /commercial property 63 Year -round resident (12 months /year) 27 Part -time resident 6 Employed in town /get mail there RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 8 5 -6 -13 5. (IF RESIDENT) Do you own or operate a business within the Town of Vail? (n =366) 15% Yes 85 No 6. Are you a registered voter in Vail? (n =365) 53% Yes 47 No Which of these categories best describes your marital status? (n =369) 25% Single, no children 26 Couple, no children 23 Household with children 27 Empty- nester, children no longer at home 8. Gender Of Respondent (n =362) 54% Male 46 Female 9. Employment Status (n =366) 53% Work 8 months or more a year in the local area (Vail Valley, Summit County, etc.) 4 Work 7 or fewer months a year in the local area 19 Currently employed outside of the local area (work on Front Range, out of state, etc.) 15 Not employed: retired 2 Not employed: unemployed /looking for work 3 Not employed: homemaker 4 Other A new question asked for the first time this year was designed to track employment and also the segment of residents that is retired. The survey results indicate that 11 percent of year - round residents are retired and 28 percent of part time residents are retired. Based on a past survey conducted in 2008 with part -time residents, we estimate that a significant segment of part time residents not yet retired (about 16 percent) indicate they will "retire to Vail and use their residence part time" and an additional 6 percent expect to move to Vail full time. The retired segment can be tracked in future surveys to better understand their behavior and size of local population over time. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 5 -6 -14 General State of Vail Vail's "Sense of Direction Respondents were asked whether they felt the Town of Vail was going in the "right direction" or heading on the "wrong track." This is a question that has been asked at the outset of the survey in each of the past years that surveys were conducted since 2003. This year, the results are very comparable to those obtained in 2007 and 2003. It provides a consistent measurement of opinion that has been used over time, and in addition, it presents a means of "segmenting" or crosstabbing the results on other questions in the survey, including open -ended comments. Using the results to this question we are able to isolate the opinions of those that are positive and negative about the overall direction of the Town and thereby probe deeper into what is motivating these opinions. As shown below, 58 percent of Invitation Survey respondents this year felt that the Town of Vail is "going in the right direction," the same as in 2007. The Open Link segment of responses was slightly lower at 51 percent. About 28 percent of Invitation Survey respondents felt Vail was "on the wrong track," compared to 30 percent in 2007 and 19 percent in 2005. When the results from this question are compared over a period of years it now appears that the 2005 results were something of an aberration in terms of the positive sentiment expressed, rather than that things have really declined below where they have been rated in the past. Interestingly, the segment reporting they "don't know" is about 14 percent, consistent with past studies where it has wavered between 10 and 15 percent of responses. Table 1 Would you say that things in the town of Vail are going in the right direction, or have they pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track? A Note on How to Read These Tables: Tables like the one below are used throughout this report. They present a summary of survey results from two groups of respondents: By version of the survey that was used, and by whether they are year- round, part time, residents, etc. For this question, results are broken out by those that feel things are going in the "right direction," on "the wrong track" or they "don't know." The first column summarizes responses from all participants summed together. Then, each subsequent column represents responses from a particular segment or subgroup of participants. Each column sums to 100 percent. Throughout much of this report the discussion focuses on the Invitation Web /Paper Survey responses because this group represents the "random" sample, most comparable to the phone surveys conducted in the recent past. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 10 5 -6- 15 SURVEY VERSION WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOU Non - resident Yearround owner of resident (11+ Employed in the Get mall in the businessf Invitation months per Patt -time Town of Vail but Town of Vail but commercial OVERALL WeblPaper Open Link Web year) resident don't live thare don't live there property 56% 58% 51% 53% 61% 53% 83% 67% WOULD YU U SAY THAT Right direction THINGS IN THE TOWN OF VAIL ARE GOING IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION, OR Wrong track 29% 28% 33% 33% 23% 30% 17% 19% HAVE THEY PRETTY 15% 14% 16% 15% 17% 17°% 14% SERIOUSLY GOTTEN OFF ON THE WRONG TRACK Don t know 106% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100°% TOTAL n = 521 361 j 160 289 175 j 30 6 21 RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 10 5 -6- 15 Note that the likelihood of saying "wrong track" is significantly higher among year -round residents (33 percent) than part -time residents (23 percent). Just as we found in past years, on many of the questions in the survey year -round residents are slightly more negative than part - time owners. Similarly, the results show significant variation by the length of time that respondents have lived in the Town. These findings are summarized in the following graph, which shows the percent saying "wrong track" increasing from 8 percent among residents living or owning property in Vail for less than a year, versus 35 percent of those in Vail for 15 or more years. Note that residents that have been in Town 6 to 15 years are particularly likely to feel things are headed in the right direction. This will be a recurring theme throughout this report; length of time in Vail is often associated with responses on a number of questions, and those living in Town the longest are somewhat more likely to be negative. Figure 1 Would you say that things in the town of Vail are going in the right direction, or have they pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track? By Length of Time Lived in Vail (All Respondents) Rightdirecton Wrong track Don't know 54% 49% 67 ° Jo 53% 8% 35% ■ Less than 1 year ❑ 1 - 5 years 37 ° / Q E] 6 -15 years W23% s 12% C] More than 15 years 12% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Percent Responding A follow -up question to Right Direction / Wrong Track asks, "In a few words, why do you feel that way ?" This input is extremely telling in several respects. First, respondents have provided comments that explain their current thinking about a number of aspects of the Town. Further, because this question is positioned at the start of the survey, before respondents have had the opportunity to see other questions that will be asked later in the survey, it offers a "top of mind" picture of attitudes and concerns. In the attachment to this report the responses on this question are presented verbatim. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 5 -6 -16 Based on a review of the entire set of comments, several themes emerge. Among those that express that the Town is headed in the "Right Direction" multiple respondents identify the following: • Supportive of the upgrades that have occurred in the Village and Lionshead and generally in favor of changes that address the Town's economic challenges. They mention facelifts and new buildings, renewal of dated structures and "success in spite of the recession." • In related comments, some feel that the Town has been more pro - development and pro- economy, which has helped to weather economic conditions. They feel that the town has encouraged and allowed development and that it is turning out well. • There are compliments for strong leadership at the Town level including both the staff and Council. In particular, respondents cite the financial forecasting by the town, efficient operations and "living within the budget." Among those that feel the Town is headed on the "Wrong Track" or they "don't know," the comments are different. • Frequently they cite "parking" as an issue. These comments take several forms. First, many respondents feel that there is not enough parking and that this shortage negatively impacts the experience of guests and locals alike. Further, the cost of parking is often cited (although somewhat less often than the lack of parking). Many respondents explain that the parking costs impact their ability or desire to come back into the Village / Lionshead when they aren't working or going there for skiing. Also, down - valley residents that get their mail in Town are especially likely to complain about the cost of parking. The results suggest that parking costs are a concern for residents and part -time residents. • The size, scale and character of the new buildings were the subject of criticism. Several of the projects are mentioned by name including Solaris, Arrabelle, Ritz, Four Seasons and Vail Plaza. Ever Vail is also mentioned specifically as a concern by some. In contrast to those that feel the Town is on the right track because of new buildings and progress, many that say the Town is headed in the wrong direction identify the results of redevelopment as the problem. • Some of the responses on this and other questions suggest that the Town should take measured steps. For example, typical of this point of view, one respondent said, " Fix the problems you have now before you spend all your time on growth and expansion of Vail. The town wasn't busy enough to have ever needed the expansion this year. So, fix your current problems and see how the town does. After that, you can think about expanding." There are complaints about construction and some suggest that the town should allow real estate to be absorbed and new development integrated before moving too quickly to new development. • There are concerns expressed for TOV and Vail Resorts relations. Some fault the Town, some fault VRI and several ask that these relationships be improved. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 12 5 -6 -17 • The sense of community was mentioned as a concern in a number of different places in the survey. It is measured in statistical terms in a question described below, but it was a recurring comment by those that mention that the Town is becoming a community of "haves" and "have nots" and that guest services and overall quality of life are impacted by the relationships between workers and guests. Things in the Town of Vail are going in the right direction, or have gotten off on the wrong track ( Readers Please Note, in reporting the sample of verbatim responses shown below and in the Appendix, no effort has been made to edit the grammar or spelling of respondents.) RIGHT DIRECTION • The town and chamber as well as several other organizations have hosted events that are fun for visitors but bring out the locals — case in point the wonderful summer activities to show Vail is a year round town. • Glad to see upgrades to Vail Village & Lionshead. Much needed new hotels under construction. Now the world class skiing will match the town. Excluding a discussion about real estate & parking (I will get to that later), I feel that the City has provided very clean and safe environment for residents and visitors alike. • The Town is looking attractive and will be better as soon as Solaris, 4 Seasons and Ritz is completed. • I feel we have responsible people in charge. • I think that increased density will help Vail. • I think the TOV does a great job in managing the town's finances by using them towards bike paths, bus systems, and overall community resources. • In favor of re- development and updating. • It remains a great place to live. TOV Council works hard and government services are of high quality. Fiscal responsibility. Though if EverVail gets approved to quickly or easily they that would imply being on the 'Wrong Track'. • Continual improvements make Vail the premier destination for skiers from around the world. • I believe the town is proactively managing the economic downturn and the unique challenges it presents to the luxury tourism and real estate market. • One of the most important issues is parking on the busiest ski days; the town seems to be thinking of solutions. I think the Ever Vail project is worth supporting as it means another portal to the ski area and additional parking. It's a long range plan and now is the time to start planning for 10+ years down the line. Remember the town only exists with the resort's success. • It's too bad that we couldn't have kept "Happy Valley" to ourselves, but the growth was inevitable, once the world discovered us. • Lots of new hotel space; decision not to build expensive convention center that might never have been used; continued exploration of additional community space at ice rink; good decision not to replace plantings at parking structure with more commercial space; going after foreign tourists. WRONG TRACK • Giant hotels under constant construction, local vibe being replaced with focus on "destination guest." Loyal employees being pushed out, living further downvalley. • I don't see the town of Vail moving towards keeping a reasonable amount of middle class families in it's town. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 13 5 -6 -18 • I fear that too much large scale building development will "kill the goose that laid the golden egg ". Residents and tourists alike are here for the beauty of the place and the sense of rejuvenation that recreation brings them. Don't increase our society's disconnect from nature, strive to cultivate and nurture it. People will stay here and come back again and again, and pay the high prices we've come to depend on as long as they feel a sense of personal improvement and vitality. We don't need more huge buildings to do this. • I feel that all of the large and tall developments are making the town feel more like a downtown, obscuring a lot of the panoramic view that made the town unique. • I think that Vail needs to focus more on their full time residents, the environment, and less on major developments. With the Ritz, Solaris, 4 Seasons, and EverVail on the horizon, Vail's natural beauty is being overshadowed by cranes, plastic covered buildings and construction equipment for over a decade. • Parking is horrible • The whole character of the TOV has changed with the approval of the massive development projects in Vail Village and Lionshead. The mountains are overcrowded and dangerous. The day skier parking is way out of control. too much construction; parking continues to be a problem; bus schedule reduced and we still have to get to work; too many police • Too much traffic and poor parking. • Town not thinking of tourists, more interested in people in town, Real estate taxes, hotel taxes. Parking impossible no incentives for people to buy things in town or stay after skiing. • Vail has cheapened its brand by the epic pass and Vail on sale etc- we no longer cater to the higher demographic of guest who spends money in town DON'T KNOW • I like some of the things that the town has done, but I think that there is a major parking problem and still a need for low income housing that may ease up with some of the changes. I like the top of the parking structure for value pass, but it is underutilized and I fear the change will not benefit residents /property owners. I like the bus, but realize it is a huge cost, but without it the parking would be worse. • The reality of so much development is overwhelming. While we welcome steps to enhance economic vitality, we wonder how all of the new real estate product can be absorbed. • I think it is good that you are allowing more residential developments. However, you might have overdone it. With Solaris, Arrabelle, Ritz, 4 Seasons, and other additions, it seems you are flooding the market with high end condos, causing price erosion due to over - supply. Wrong direction regarding parking. People who live down valley are not encouraged to come to Vail due to high cost of parking. Who wants to jam a meal down their throats in 2 1/2 hours and then race back to the structure to make sure you are out by 3 hours. $150 to park at Ford Park now is no longer affordable and paying $50 to park on the street is no bargain either. In regards to housing your trying, but I feel that VR and the Town of Vail are holding each other hostage regarding LH parking structure redevelopment and the passing of Ever Vail. Which, by the way, is going to cause more problems regarding parking and housing issues. The Town Manager and Finance Department have shown that they can meet the challenges of a difficult economy through the budget and management processes. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 14 5 -6 -19 Sense of Community Respondents were asked whether they feel the sense of community in the Town of Vail has improved, gotten worse or stayed the same over the past two years. This question has been asked over many years and, as shown below, there is a decline in the percentage of responses saying Vail has "gotten worse" over the past two years compared to 2007. However, if we go back to results from earlier periods, for example 1996, respondents were saying that things were worse (43 percent) with less (29 percent) calling things the same and slightly more saying things had improved (15 percent). The sense of community has been a recurring concern for town residents over the years and will likely remain an issue as growth and change continues. Most of the shift was the result of more respondents saying things have "stayed the same," but with a relatively modest 9 percent saying things had "improved." When this question is examined by year -round residence, part -time or those employed in the town, there are some differences. Part -time residents are least likely to say things have gotten worse. Not surprisingly, part -time residents are especially likely to report they have "no opinion" (24 percent); this indicates that a significant segment of the community remains unengaged with the notion of "sense of community." Measured by age of respondent there is no clear pattern — in other words, the younger and older residents are saying roughly the same things regarding sense of community. However, there is some variation by length of time in Vail with the longest term residents (15+ years) especially likely to say sense of community has gotten worse (29 percent). Table 2 Over the past two years, has the sense of community in the town improved. aotten worse, or staved the same? A follow -up question further probed the responses on "sense of community" by allowing respondents to elaborate. Again, these responses have been provided in the Appendix but a sampling of the extensive comments is presented below. Over the past two years has the sense of community improved, gotten worse or stayed the same? IMPROVED • Given the seasonality of the community, it appears they try to stay on track with providing the feel of community with the town meetings, etc. • Don't stop striving to be the best. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 15 5 -6 -20 SItIftT'Y VERSION WICH BEST NSCMES YOU Iloniesklent Year round trrner of f"ident (11+ Employed In the GM mill in the 6usine" Inriletkn months per Part-time Town o1 Yell ant Town of Aran but commercial OVERALL WeN Paper [Ipso Llnk'Web year) resident don't 1h'e there dolt live ftre Property OVER THE PAST Two Improxed 11% 9% 14% 11% 9% 17 1456 YEARS HAS THE SENSE OF COR1Pit.iNITY WITHIN Oamn worse 27% 29% 30% 30% 20% 3096 17% 24% THE TOWN IMPROVED t3oTTEN WWSE OR Stayed the earns 51% 54% 45 54% 46% 4756 93% 33% Dam knowfm apinlun 11% 1 t% 10% 5% 24% 796 24% STAYED THE SANE 140% 100% 100 104% 190% 10096 100% 10056 TOTAL n= 5M 397 1b1 291 177 11 1 21 A follow -up question further probed the responses on "sense of community" by allowing respondents to elaborate. Again, these responses have been provided in the Appendix but a sampling of the extensive comments is presented below. Over the past two years has the sense of community improved, gotten worse or stayed the same? IMPROVED • Given the seasonality of the community, it appears they try to stay on track with providing the feel of community with the town meetings, etc. • Don't stop striving to be the best. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 15 5 -6 -20 • I feel like the sense of community has improved a little due to the fact that people are starting to care more about the environment through recycling programs and more green initiatives. • Hard economic times help bring the community together and focus on priorities. • Events such as the Teva games have been an asset • The recession brought the tentative economic reality of resort towns into focus. The entire community seems to understand this better and there is a consensus that we need to do everything we can to remain a competitive resort. • I think with the new developments, it caused some people to stay away due to the construction. However, it is an investment which is a good thing. I just question the number of new developments all at one time. * Zoning fights have passed, we are all working together to try to get "boats to rise" GOTTEN WORSE * As the town grows the controversy of the new buildings etc. becomes more and more divisive. • As the village grows it loses the personality it once had!! There seems to be less full time residents in Vail. There is always talk of moving the hospital and the elementary school. There are no movie theaters or many other community services and little reasonably priced housing. • Community in Vail? I don't want to stay for a another year in Vail because there isn't a community. When this town starts to take care of the people who live in the 81657, than maybe it could get better. As a local, where do I park? What is there to do at night? Where can I afford to eat? What pool and gym is made for me? Oh, Avon and Edwards has that stuff...... Got it! Thanks! • Entertaining the thought of closing the elementary school and moving the hospital down valley is destroying our community feel • Families continue to migrate out of Vail and the skier experience becomes more problematic unless you are staying in a local resort or accommodation • I do think there is too much building which is going to result in a feel of living in a resort rather than a town. • I feel more people are living and socializing down valley in the last few years. • Locals are staying away from the villages because of cost and drunks. • Petty skirmishes between VA and town • The true Vail local, year round -for years and years, gets zero respect and no breaks Community Priorities The survey included a set of questions designed to probe priorities. It was based on topics that the Town Council and staff had identified in advance of fielding the survey and it generally covered areas that had been identified for action and attention in the coming months. Overall, the survey results suggest that the priorities identified do represent important topics to the community. The survey provides a general ranking but perhaps more importantly, it shows that all of these topics merit attention in the opinion of most respondents. These questions, which are summarized in the graph below, show a clear prioritization by community members. When asked using a "1" to "5" scale where "5" is a high priority, the evaluation resulted in economic vitality, budget and capital management and parking at the top of the list. While parking has the highest average rating on the five -point scale (4.46) it has slightly fewer respondents calling it a "5." Workforce Housing, which was identified as a dominant issue in past surveys, is ranked in the lower group of priorities at this time. Nevertheless, it shows over 55 percent of all RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 16 5 -6 -21 respondents calling housing a priority. By these measures, planning for West Vail commercial redevelopment and use of the conference center funds were rated relatively lower. However, even in these instances a large segment of respondents call these topics a priority (38 to 48 percent); they are just rated lower than the highest priorities. Figure 2 The Town Council and staff have recently identified a number of topics to be addressed. For each area listed below, indicate the level of priority you believe is appropriate. (Invitation Web /Paper Respondents Only) Community Issues - Rank Ordered by Average Rating Parking (4.46) Economic vitality (4.41) Budget and capital management (4.36) Guest relations and customer service (4.27) Transportation needs (bus service -local and regional) (4.11) Master planning (includes efforts to address development and redevelopment throughout the Town) (4.1) Actions to improve Vail's appeal as a well- rounded community (a great place to live, work and play) (3.99) Workforce housing (e.g., redevelopment of Timber Ridge) (3.61) Environmental sustainability (waste and energy conservation programs, environmental education, etc.) (3.51) Use of the conference center funds ($9.3 million) that the Town has available (3.41) Planning for West Vail redevelopment opportunities (3.09) 8q% ° 87% 86% 80% ° 75>/° 75% b 76 71% ° i 55% ° 51% 4 8 % ° 1 I ■ High Priority (4 and 5) 3 ❑ 8% ° Not at a Priority (1 and 2) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Responding "4" or "5" RRC Associates, Inc. 17 1/17/2012 5 -6 -22 In a follow -up question, respondents were asked about whether they had "Any comments on these issues or the general direction of the Town ?" As summarized below, the open ended responses help to provide additional perspective on some of the specific topics and also offer some specific suggestions and guidance that is worthy of attention. These findings are presented in the order of the priorities as listed on the survey. GUEST RELATIONS • Guest relations and customer service is ground zero nothing else matters if you do not have happy guests. • Parking is a hot issue with many people. The Town should take charge of the assets it has that can positively impact parking, i.e. Ford Park. A sensible plan at Ford Park can do a great deal to solve parking problems and can enhance the sports focused direction adopted by VVP and the VLMDAC. *The foundation of the town is the ski experience. Realize that Vail is falling behind in guests' views. Vail may slip to #4 or #5 -- which will result in reduced revenue and further economic deterioration. Regaining #1 should be priority #1. ECONOMIC VITALITY Again, for everyone 1 -70 traffic issue • I would like to see the Town of Vail cooperate better with other municipalities and county in order to provide better service to the public. • In any "mature" location, infrastructure and payrolls start to fray around the edges because of overuse, deferred maintenance and top -heavy benefit laden benefits, with a smaller percentage of lower level employees and visitors to pay for the mature payrolls. • One issue that I have never seen discussed is the lack of the ability of a person who works and owns a business in town having the opportunity to vote. I think the demographics of who votes is lopsided. It does not always represent the business owner. The town needs to focus on basic services and less on sugar coating, like ever more unused parks and playgrounds. The town needs to get back to basics. Customer service throughout town is questionable. The town also needs to look at more ways to keep great locals able to afford to live in town and possibly buy a place. Vail has a real opportunity during this period of economic challenge to redefine and refine the direction and focus of this community -- the long term economic vitality is paramount - in addition to a quality experience for our guests, our full time residents and workers also need and want a quality place to live and often raise families. We have a great and giving community, but need to work and engage the residents in the future ... for as we have seen, we are significantly impacted, albeit a lagging impact, by the overall economy. Perhaps a destination with a focus on health and wellness is appropriate -- these are two things almost every local believes in and practices. BUDGET MANAGEMENT Maintaining the existing structures is what is important. Not knocking them down and building new ones. Operating what exists profitably. Adding more commercial space does not increase profits for all. More local shops owned by locals. Too much owned by Vail Resorts. The Epic pass has made parking a mess. It should be Vail Resorts problem to fix. We must be economic conservatives during the crisis. +Town has mostly done a good job in being responsible with it's budget. Need less wasted money on Siebert circle, great piece of art, less gas waste. Stop subsiding housing market. Great job on street plowing and landscaping. MASTER PLANNING I like the small- neighborhood feel of West Vail. That commercial area should not be revitalized to the point that small businesses can't afford the rent. Be careful! RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 18 5 -6 -23 They are often dependent on each other. Too much development leads to congestion, parking and worker issues. TRANSPORTATION NEEDS • Bus service is critical and we need to work to IMPROVE service and enhance hours and number of times an hour service on routes where this is minimal (i.e. Lions Rldge). We have worked hard to get residents to NOT DRIVE and park in town and to ride the bus. But the service on some routes is very limited. Even consider a low cost annual bus pass or a low cost weekly pass to raise funds to ENHANCE service. Residents and guests would be happy to pay a small amount for GREAT bus transportation. • Free county bus, just like summit stage. The bus system and parking have become outrageous. Anyone staying in west Vail has a difficult time getting on the bus. The parking on the frontage road at Safeway has become unbearable and is dangerous with people running across the frontage road. the bus in overcrowded and many times owners /guests are left standing. the freeloaders are the ones benefiting from the bus system at the expense of us taxpayers that rely on the bus system and support it. The taxpayers and guest staying at our residents cannot get on the bus due to the dangerous and free parking in front of Safeway. this should be the last resort of availability of parking - not the first. PARKING All of these really tie together. If the guest experience suffers due to parking so does our economic vitality. I think parking can touch on nearly every area in the aforementioned list. • Deal with the parking issue instead of talking about the parking issue. If you need to build a bigger structure then do it. • I work in Vail, and have my own parking spot with my job, but that's just Monday through Friday. I will never casually come into Vail on weekends during the winter because of the parking situation. *Vail certainly isn't a well- rounded community - -it's a resort. I live in Vail, yet find myself going to Edwards for most of my needs other than the hospital and skiing. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY • Environmental sustainability is key. Also, West Vail planning is important, and there needs to be realistic goals for this area. Pro formas should not come first. Good design should be number one priority. • Plan for the LONG term sustainability of the Gore Valley in its entirety - -not just for unending economic growth. Economic growth has long been in the lead in terms of priorities here. Give the natural environment and social well -being a chance to catch up with economic growth and then focus on all three together with every decision you make. Know the physical and psychological carrying capacities inherent in this place. CONFERENCE CENTER FUNDS Allow the Rec District to continue to develop areas to play. The Business community should build the work and live environment. ; Move forward with the conf. center funds to help the economic vitality. • I think the Town should continue it's environmental awareness but suspect it is viewed with skepticism by most guests (due to the heated roads /sidewalks)and residents (due to the recycling center that's mostly town employee parking) • Slow down on growth and let the existing projects sell and mature for a year or two. I think the banks may be needing time to sell all the existing units that the developers could not sell themselves. IMPROVE VAIL'S APPEAL AS A WELL- ROUNDED COMMUNITY • Get a handle on what is important for the people, not what someone with a financial interest sees as "right ". Several hotels have conference facilities, already, where you stay right in the hotel. Try another idea as a money maker. Consider that some skiers cannot walk a mile or take a bus back and forth because of their age; or only ski part of a day because we get tired. Some people appreciate the "old" stuff there because it was there 42 years ago. (Your reconstruction of Pirate Ship Park is not nearly as good as the original ship was.) New is not better all the time. Could someone in the office realize that TOV is not "right" all the time? And can be very disruptive to lots of people lots of the time, even in trying to upgrade their properties? RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 19 5 -6 -24 The issues seem to be heavy on the guest experience and light on the community presence. We need to decide who we are but without a stable population who have a long term commitment to a community we will always be chasing the latest trend rather than cutting out own trail. Today's announcement in the paper as a year round wellness center is a terrific concept for YEAR ROUND marketing, employee retention and expands our current role as PLAYGROUND with the addition of wellness! We already have incredible underused resources in terms of personnel and the mountain experience to enhance in the direction of wellness! This question was then followed with a question that asked, "What one area is your highest priority ?" As shown below, results provide further statistical measurement concerning importance placed on the various topics that could receive attention. Parking is identified most often, followed by economic vitality and "actions to improve Vail as a well rounded community." Master planning, guest relations and customer service, and budget and capital management also receive relatively frequent mention as top priorities. Figure 3 What one area is your highest priority? (Invitation Web /Paper Respondents Only) Parking Economic vitality Actions to improve Vail's appeal as a well- rounded community Master planning (includes development and redevelopment) Budget and capital management Guest relations and customer service Environmental sustainability (environmental education, etc.) Transportation needs (bus service -local and regional) Use of the conference center funds the town has available Planning for West Vail redevelopmentopportunities Workforce housing (e.g., redevelopment of Timber Ridge) Percent Responding Comparing these results by the Invitation Web /Mail respondents and the Open Link segment shows few differences. However, when year -round residents are compared to part time residents greater differences are evident. Year -round residents were especially likely to call parking their top priority (28 percent) compared to part -time residents (20 percent). Similarly, down - valley respondents (get mail in town or don't live there) are very likely to see parking as the very top priority (30 percent or more calling it most important). While the issue is clearly of high priority to all segments it is especially important to residents. Among part -time residents "Master Planning" was mentioned as a top priority 21 percent of the time compared to 7 percent from residents. Most other response categories were quite similar among the two groups of respondents. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 20 5 -6 -25 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Table 3 What one area is your highest priority? These results are further illustrated by Figure 4. While parking is a relatively larger issue among those that feel Vail is on the "wrong track" and economic vitality is more identified by those that think things are headed in the right direction, the overall message is that both groups tend to share the same priorities. The rank ordering of the highest priorities is also generally the same among all respondents. Figure 4 What one area is your highest priority? by Right Direction /Wrong Track (All Respondents) Parking Economic vitality Actions to improve Vail's appeal as a well - rounded community Master planning (includes development and redevelopment) Guest relations and customer service Budgetand capital management Environmental sustainability (environmental education, etc.) Transportation needs (bus service-local and regional) Use of the conference center funds the town has available Planning for West Vail redevelopmentopporhlnities Workforce housing (e.g., redevelopment of Timber Ridge) 23 %i 28% 20% e 9 4 /° 13% 10% 11% 11% 10% 17 % I 4 % On 47° 4d/° e 1 3% ■ Right direction /° ❑ Wrong track 2% 3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Percent Responding RRC Associates, Inc. 21 1/17/2012 5 -6 -26 SURLEY VERSION WHICH BETr DESCRIBES YOU gonreshenk Year round osrrrr of rrsiderol Il la Fmpklrsd In'ihe Del mail it the hwlnesed Invllamrn —n6es per Pah•Ilme Torn eF ValbA Town c4V.11 ksrl martial RATE NE PR101R1 TY rXr NE.FCtLk^MOS Ci7i'LfNlINI) ISSUES OVERALL WeWPapee Open Lhi Web Y-0 resklenk dolt Prue U.- dvdk lire lherc pe°PeAY Parlang 6% 25% 2B% 29% X% 3i'% 33%1 % Ecv lc.UW 16% 17% 21% 18% 1$X 2N 17% 10% Acrhns Lo- knpmve Ya7s appeal as a well—ded ea roily 12% 12% 11% 12% 12% 11% 1594 1bsLer planninrg{Includes development and redeveinpmeno 10% 1G% 11% T% 21% N 17% 10% WHAT LYE GuesLmialhns and cushier service 9% 9% 10% 9% 10% SIT 33% 1574 ARUIs Budget and capkal mrsa3emend 9% 10% E% 10% 7% 5% YOUR HIGIEST PR @RFIY FsrdrnwernaI 54is4ara611 lly Ienwlro run enlal edwalon. ei41 5% 5% 4% 9% 1% TranWurWlon rreedh kb wvimlocal a rd reglun{1 4% 4% A 3% 5% 3% 574 &M- Mecunkr— edvrfunds Hnelvenlraarallably 3% 8% 4% 3% 2% 7% 5% PIl hribglerWeskVill lrerlenlopmei#spporknillee 3% 8% 1% 3% 196 15% Wotklate hmrslrg deg -., mdrr 4opm ne drTkmkt Rlr pj 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 3.4 TOTAL 100% iLG% 10FP& 100% 10(1% 100% 10EY% 16]96 n+ 516 0A 157 299 174 30 6 2] These results are further illustrated by Figure 4. While parking is a relatively larger issue among those that feel Vail is on the "wrong track" and economic vitality is more identified by those that think things are headed in the right direction, the overall message is that both groups tend to share the same priorities. The rank ordering of the highest priorities is also generally the same among all respondents. Figure 4 What one area is your highest priority? by Right Direction /Wrong Track (All Respondents) Parking Economic vitality Actions to improve Vail's appeal as a well - rounded community Master planning (includes development and redevelopment) Guest relations and customer service Budgetand capital management Environmental sustainability (environmental education, etc.) Transportation needs (bus service-local and regional) Use of the conference center funds the town has available Planning for West Vail redevelopmentopporhlnities Workforce housing (e.g., redevelopment of Timber Ridge) 23 %i 28% 20% e 9 4 /° 13% 10% 11% 11% 10% 17 % I 4 % On 47° 4d/° e 1 3% ■ Right direction /° ❑ Wrong track 2% 3% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Percent Responding RRC Associates, Inc. 21 1/17/2012 5 -6 -26 The Guest Experience in Vail The survey asked for input on improving the guest experience in Vail. Based on the previously discussed questions it is clear that guest experience and customer service is a topic that is identified as important by many; it is one of the higher areas of priority (described in the paragraphs above) and it is especially important to the business community. This question was asked in an open -ended format and it garnered over 450 written responses, many with quite elaborate descriptions of some of the types of improvements that could be pursued. It is clear that the question of guest service resonates with residents, both year -round and part -time, and that respondents are citing their own experiences as well as what they hear around town and from visitors. Responses have been sorted by year round and part -time residents and the results are generally similar, although some year round residents note that they should be given attention along with the guests. In general, parking was once again the most identified area of concern. The words parking and park were used over 380 times, often with specific complaints or suggestions. Bus crowding and improved routes were also mentioned frequently, along with the cost of lodging and dining, signage and employee service. Some also mentioned the need to preserve the quality of the ski experience and noted concerns of crowding on the mountain. What are one or two things the Town of Vail could do to improve the guest experience in Vail? * Better signage; Better way finding signage for parking; Better retail offerings. Better skier drop -off option, free parking option (like Beaver Creek). *Cleaning and maintenance of public restrooms could be much improved; better parking situation • Don't give parking tickets to guest when the signs are so confusing • Employee training on good customer service. • Improve Lionshead parking structure and bus stop area. More lower priced eating options in village and Lionshead. • More ski lockers. Figure out an easier way from the transportation center to the Vista Bahn without walking. • More information and tips available to visitors, more "free entertainment" especially for families, and perhaps, a few lower cost options. * Parking capacity in safe lots vs. frontage roads. *You must do something about parking & parking tickets. • Make construction employees commute to work on ECO. • More activities in Vail and Lionshead. Offer more free parking and run shuttle busses directly to and from the free parking. Why not allow free parking all week along the N. Frontage Rd. across from Safeway instead of just weekends. This is the number 1 complaint I hear about Vail parking. Improve the ski locker and boot room facilities cost and availability. Offering a reduced rate for multiple day storage or affordable storage facilities for residents. I think that we need to worry more about improving the local experience. If your locals are happy your guests will be also. I think that there isn't enough focus about trying to keep the people that actually live here and love Vail happy. It's like no one cares that without locals nothing else would even be possible. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 22 5 -6 -27 The Conference Center Funds A series of questions considers the $9.3m conference center funds that the Town has been holding. This topic was identified as one of the areas of priority that were evaluated (see discussion above) and the overall importance placed on these funds was at the lower end of the list of potential priorities. This finding is further confirmed by the results illustrated below. The largest segment supports moving at a "moderate pace" (about half), with about 18 percent saying "move as quickly as possible to a ballot issue," and a larger group saying "move at a slow pace, there is no hurry" (32 percent). In other words, community sentiment is generally in favor of moving at a relatively slower or deliberate pace. However, this is one of the questions where the Invitation web results differ from the Open Link results. Invitation web survey respondents (the random sample) are especially likely to support moving slowly. The Open Link group is relatively more likely to want to move quickly to a ballot issue. Figure 5 As you may be aware, $9.3million was originally set aside for a town -owned conference center that was never built. The original objective of the conference center was to increase economic vitality and expand visitation to Vail. A ballot issue is required to determine use of these funds. The Vail Town Council has expressed a sense of urgency about determining the use of the available money. Which choice below best describes your suggestion for dealing with the opportunity these funds represent? (Invitation Web /Paper Respondents Only) Move as quickly as possible -a ballot issue is overdue Move at a moderate pace, taking time to study /eval. choices Move at a slow pace -there is no hurry Percent Responding As illustrated below, the respondents that feel things are going in the right direction are especially likely to want to resolve the Conference Center issue at a moderate pace (54 percent). In contrast, those that think things are on the wrong track want to move at a slow pace. As noted above based on open -ended comments, and on this result as well, those that feel things are going wrong are especially likely to have concerns about the new development and the overall pace of change. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 23 5 -6 -28 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Figure 6 Which choice below best describes your suggestion for dealing with the opportunity these funds represent? By Right Direction /Wrong Track (All Respondents) Move as quickly as passible -a ballot issue is overdue Move at a moderate pace, taking time to study /eval. choices Move ata slow pace-there is no hurry 21 °/6 0 Right direction 24 ° / 6 ❑ Wrong track 54% 38 9 /6 26% 3M 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Percent Responding Looking at the data in another way, we focus on the opinions of voters and non - registered voter respondents. As summarized in the graph below, these two segments show no difference in their responses to this question. Figure 7 Which choice below best describes your suggestion for dealing with the opportunity these funds represent? By Voter Status (All Respondents) Move as quickly as possible -a ballot issue is overdue Move at a moderate pace, taking time to study /eval. choices Move ata slow pace-there is no hurry 23% ■ Registered voter 21% ® Not registered to vote 49% 50% 28 29% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Percent Responding In a follow -up question respondents were asked about how the conference center money should be spent. Most Invitation Web responses wanted to "build something' (53 percent) or "save the money for undetermined needs" (29 percent). Only 4 percent suggest spending the money for marketing. Once again on this question, registered voters are responding the same as those that are not registered. In other words, there is broad agreement that either building something or saving the money is the priority. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 5 -6 -29 24 Table 4 The Council has identified a range of choices for how the conference center fund money could be spent. Which choice best describes your preference? (Invitation Web /Mail Respondents Only) Use the money to build something (facilities, parking, etc. ) 53% Use the money for marketing /enhance our economic condition 4% Save the money for yet- undetermined needs 29% Other 14% Taxes and Fees The survey asked about satisfaction with taxes and fees in relation to the level of services that are provided by the Town. Most respondents (56 percent on the Invitation and 54 percent on the Open Link) are satisfied with the current level of taxes and services. Between 15 and 18 percent feel they are paying too much for the services received, and 6 to 12 percent would be willing to pay more to get more services. Table 5 Which statement below best describes your opinion about the relationship between taxes /fees and the services that are provided by the Town of Vail? The survey also asked about service levels now versus prior years, "after the Town cut $2.9m in operating expenditures." About three in four report "no change" in perceived services, with about 20 percent reporting a "slight decline" and only 1 percent saying "large decline." These results are further borne out in some of the open -ended comments that give credit to the Town (both Council and staff) for sound management during difficult times. Clearly, the public perception of the efforts of the town to address costs without major erosion in service levels has been well received. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 25 5 -6 -30 SURVEY VERSION WHICH BM DESCRIBES YOU Nonresident Year rind — of reildent Olt Employed in the OR mad in the hcai —d Invifsficn reorrhe Per Per_ Town a Veil but Town of Veil but c awciel OVERALL Wehf Paper Open Link Weh year) redderd don't lire there dent live there. property I sm astided with the current level W ttem and services 55% 58% 64% W% 58% 4T% 50% 57% YMICH BEST DESCRIBES I— willitg to pay more taxes to get—a riioee 8% 1 B% 12%4 1 10% 3% 1P9d 5% YOUROPINIONAHOUT I ihetl peytco —h for theesricee l recjve 17% 169% 15% 15% 24% 13% 24% THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TA%ESI FEES AND THE SERVICES THAT I — rrilliig to acceptr.im redec➢rarefo, lower t. es 9% 10% 7% 10%e 7% 3% 17% 14% ARE PR(PADED BY THE Other 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% TOV I heve no opinion 8% B% HI% 9% 5% 2T% 33% 100% 10D% 1011% 190% 109% 1W% 1p]% 104% TOTAL n = 520 385 181 2111 178 1 30 8 71 The survey also asked about service levels now versus prior years, "after the Town cut $2.9m in operating expenditures." About three in four report "no change" in perceived services, with about 20 percent reporting a "slight decline" and only 1 percent saying "large decline." These results are further borne out in some of the open -ended comments that give credit to the Town (both Council and staff) for sound management during difficult times. Clearly, the public perception of the efforts of the town to address costs without major erosion in service levels has been well received. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 25 5 -6 -30 Table 6 In 2009, the Town of Vail cut $2.9 million in operating expenditures to include 12 fewer full -time equivalent positions. A stated goal was that there would be no noticeable impact on services. In reality, how do you compare current service levels versus prior years? As illustrated below, the survey explored revenue sources that might be most palatable to residents. About one in five (20 — 21 percent) said they favored none of the choices. However, the results provide a clear prioritization of some of the potential choices available to the Town with liquor /cigarette taxes at the top of the list, followed by different methods of targeting construction. Lodging, lift ticket taxes and real estate transfer taxes were rated in the middle, with sales, property and parking oriented programs rated the lowest in terms of priorities for revenues. The results concerning parking as a potential source of funds, either in summer or winter, are of little interest to any segments of the community. It appears that all groups of respondents are disinclined to add to parking costs, in summer or through higher fees. In general, residents were most likely to support revenue sources that do not impact themselves directly (construction and lodging taxes as opposed to sales and use taxes). RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 26 5 -6 -31 SURVEY VERSION WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOU Non - resident Year round owner of resident (I ,. Employed in the Get mail In the businessi Invitallon months per Part -tine Town of Vall but Town of Vail but commercial OVERALL WON Paper Open Link Web year) resident don't live there don't live there properly No change 74% 76% 69% 73% 83% 54% 83% 70% HOW LSO YOU COMPARE Slight Improvement 5% 3% 8% 6% 3% 4% 10% CURRENT SERVICES LEVELS VERSUS PRIOR YEARS AFTER THE TOV Large W provement 1% 1% 1% f% 1% CUT $2.9 MILLION IN Slightdecllne 19% 16% 21% 2G% 12% 39% 17% 20% OPERATING EXPENDITURES Large decline 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% 4% TOTAL 1013% 100% 1013% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1013% n 506 348 15B 2M 157 28 6 20 As illustrated below, the survey explored revenue sources that might be most palatable to residents. About one in five (20 — 21 percent) said they favored none of the choices. However, the results provide a clear prioritization of some of the potential choices available to the Town with liquor /cigarette taxes at the top of the list, followed by different methods of targeting construction. Lodging, lift ticket taxes and real estate transfer taxes were rated in the middle, with sales, property and parking oriented programs rated the lowest in terms of priorities for revenues. The results concerning parking as a potential source of funds, either in summer or winter, are of little interest to any segments of the community. It appears that all groups of respondents are disinclined to add to parking costs, in summer or through higher fees. In general, residents were most likely to support revenue sources that do not impact themselves directly (construction and lodging taxes as opposed to sales and use taxes). RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 26 5 -6 -31 Table 7 From the list below, are there specific revenue sources you would prioritize as potential sources of increased revenues? As shown above, business owners have different opinions on this question than residents. In general, they are less likely to favor any of the potential revenue sources (29 percent said "none of the above "). They were much less likely to support the construction - oriented revenues, and the idea of lodging taxes also had particularly low support from business owners. Environmental Issues The survey contained several questions that addressed issues related to the environment. As summarized below, respondents were asked about the amount of emphasis that is being placed on several topics. In general, respondents feel that the right amount of emphasis is being placed on each of the areas (about 55 percent), with more saying "too little emphasis" (30 to 35 percent) than too much (10 to 15 percent). Notable is the finding that part -time residents are significantly more likely to feel that the attention to beetle killed trees and the enforcement of their removal are not receiving enough emphasis (47 to 51 percent). RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 27 5 -6 -32 DO YOU OWN OR OPERATE A BUSINESS ARE YOU A REGISTERED WITHIN THE TOWN OF VOTER IN PAIL PAIL OVERALL Yes No Yes No Uquorlclgaretba tax 42% 43% 42% 37% 43% Construction pern itand rlexelopment rovIew taxes 34% 32% 35% 19% 37% Construction use tax 30% 29% 31% 19r% 32% FROM THE LIST BELOW, ARE Lodging tax 25 1 % 26% 24% 13% 28% THERE SPECIFIC None of ft above 21% 1:8% 24% 29% 19% REVENUE SOURCESYOU Uft ticket tax 20% 26% 13% 21% 2(96 WOULD PROIRITIZE AS Real estate transfer tax 19% 16% 22% 18% 19% ,Sales lax 14% 15% 13% 16% 14% POTENTIAL SOURCESOF Property tax 13% 14% 12% 14% 13 INCREASED REVENUES Parking - season passes 8% 8% 6% 8% 7% Parking - dally fees 7% 7% 5% 596 7% Less free parking (In summer, "Free after 3.00," etc:M 7% 8% 4% 5% 7% 236% 243% 230% 235%, 244% TOTAL n m 424 201 218 62 3% As shown above, business owners have different opinions on this question than residents. In general, they are less likely to favor any of the potential revenue sources (29 percent said "none of the above "). They were much less likely to support the construction - oriented revenues, and the idea of lodging taxes also had particularly low support from business owners. Environmental Issues The survey contained several questions that addressed issues related to the environment. As summarized below, respondents were asked about the amount of emphasis that is being placed on several topics. In general, respondents feel that the right amount of emphasis is being placed on each of the areas (about 55 percent), with more saying "too little emphasis" (30 to 35 percent) than too much (10 to 15 percent). Notable is the finding that part -time residents are significantly more likely to feel that the attention to beetle killed trees and the enforcement of their removal are not receiving enough emphasis (47 to 51 percent). RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 27 5 -6 -32 However, when evaluating addressing environmental quality in the Town, the part -time resident respondents more closely resemble those from year -round residents. It is the segment that is under 35 years that is especially likely to feel that too little is being done about addressing environmental quality. Conversely, those that have been in the Town for longer periods of time are most likely to feel that the emphasis on the environment is "about right" (60+ percent) with about equal percentages saying there should be more or less emphasis. Relative newcomers are especially likely to feel that more emphasis should be placed on environmental issues (about 40 percent saying so), with only about 50 percent saying things are "about right." Figure 8 Rate the emphasis being placed on the following in Vail By Resident Type (All Respondents) OVERALL ATTENTION TO THE THREAT OF WILDFIRE FROM BEETLE - KILLED TREES 1 - Much Too 3 - About R 5 - Far Too M ENFORCEMENT OF THE BEETLE INFESTATION 1 - Much Too 3 - About R 5 - Far Too M ADDRESSING ENVIRON 1 - Much Too 3 - About R 5 - Far Too M Liflle 7 %, 1 1 1 21% 2 21% 26 %' 63% figh 48% i 7 %i % uc DE REMOVAL ORDINANCE TO ADDRESS THE 8 ° Littl 20% i i i 2 23% 31 fight 61% 45 4 6 �° ■ Year round resident (11+ months per year) uch 0 2% El Part-time resident WEI TAL QUALITY//V THE TOWN OFVAIL (AIR,'WATER, ETC.) Little 7 %' 6% 2 23% 16% i fight ° 63 /° 12% 4 10% 4% uch 4 % 0% 10°% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Percent Responding RRC Associates, Inc. 28 1/17/2012 5 -6 -33 Parking Issues Parking Pass /Value Card Ratings About 26 percent of respondents this year indicated that they own a Parking Pass or Value Card. Of those that have passes the most identified is the Value Card, held by 60 percent, and the Blue Pass ( 20 percent). These results are very similar to those measured in 2007 and 2005. Respondents were asked to rate their level of satisfaction with their Parking Pass or Value Card on a scale of "1 -Not at all Satisfied" to "5 -Very Satisfied." The mean rating this year was 3.4, up from 3.3 in 2007 and 3.0 in 2005. However, as in the past, the responses varied significantly by type of pass owned. Results indicate the following average ratings for the different passes in rank order of satisfaction: Based on these results it may be worth further exploring the passes, particularly the Value Pass. About 40 percent of respondents indicated some level of dissatisfaction with that pass. Passholders were profiled using the survey data. Not surprisingly, the demographics of passholders vary by type of pass. In general, Value Pass owners include both year -round (57 percent) and part -time residents. Other passes are almost exclusively owned by year -round residents (86 percent or more). A full set of this profile information was provided under separate cover. Preferred Parking Locations The survey asked respondents where they prefer to park and why? About half of all respondents favor the Village Structure (49 percent), followed by Lionshead (24 percent), Other (16 percent) and Cascade (6 percent). As shown below, the reasons given for these preferences vary by location. The Village is particularly favored because it allows respondents to get to preferred skiing. In contrast, Lionshead and Cascade are identified with a shorter walk. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 29 5 -6 -34 Average Rating Gold Pass 4.7 Blue Pass 4.1 Green Pass 3.7 Pink Pass 3.6 Value Pass 2.9 Based on these results it may be worth further exploring the passes, particularly the Value Pass. About 40 percent of respondents indicated some level of dissatisfaction with that pass. Passholders were profiled using the survey data. Not surprisingly, the demographics of passholders vary by type of pass. In general, Value Pass owners include both year -round (57 percent) and part -time residents. Other passes are almost exclusively owned by year -round residents (86 percent or more). A full set of this profile information was provided under separate cover. Preferred Parking Locations The survey asked respondents where they prefer to park and why? About half of all respondents favor the Village Structure (49 percent), followed by Lionshead (24 percent), Other (16 percent) and Cascade (6 percent). As shown below, the reasons given for these preferences vary by location. The Village is particularly favored because it allows respondents to get to preferred skiing. In contrast, Lionshead and Cascade are identified with a shorter walk. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 29 5 -6 -34 Table 8 Why do you prefer that location to park for skiing? Ratings of Parking Parking issues are one of the major themes in this year's survey. Parking is mentioned in numerous open -ended comments and receives relatively low ratings of performance. Similar to previous years, ratings for parking vary significantly by category rated, from an average rating of 4.2 for "availability of parking in summer" to a low of 2.5 for the "availability of parking in winter." The ratings of parking in winter remain a major concern — results are similar to 2007 (average 2.4) and are the lowest rated area of satisfaction in the entire survey. Parking fees /pricing structure also were down to 2.5 this year on average, compared to 2.8 in 2007 and 3.0 in 2005. Clearly, the increases in parking rates have gradually eroded ratings in this category. It is notable that year -round and part -time residents rate parking in similar terms. Their average ratings of both fees and availability in winter are similar (about 2.5 on the 5 -point scale) and the respondents saying they are dissatisfied is over 40 percent on both questions. Booth attendant courtesy has also showed some declines over the past several years. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 30 5 -6 -35 WHEN YOU VISIT VAIL VILLAGEI LIONSHEAD, WHAT IS YOUR FIRST CHOICE FOR PARKING FOR SKIING North Frontage Lionshead Vail Village Road in West Parking Parking Vail (Safeway OVERALL Structure Structure Cascade Area area) Donovan Park other Gets to parts of the mountain I preferto ski 25% 21% 38°% 17% 11% 15% Shorter walking distance 25% 45°% 12°% 71% 29% 11% 28% WHY DO YOU PREFER Other 20°% 13°% 8% 4% 71°% 67% 45% THAT LOCATION Overall experience 14% 14% 19% 4% 11% 5°% FOR SKIING Ski lockers 11 ° % 7% 18% 4% 7% Variety of shops and restaurants 4% 1% 5% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100 100°% TOTAL n = 446 92 186 24 7 9 60 Ratings of Parking Parking issues are one of the major themes in this year's survey. Parking is mentioned in numerous open -ended comments and receives relatively low ratings of performance. Similar to previous years, ratings for parking vary significantly by category rated, from an average rating of 4.2 for "availability of parking in summer" to a low of 2.5 for the "availability of parking in winter." The ratings of parking in winter remain a major concern — results are similar to 2007 (average 2.4) and are the lowest rated area of satisfaction in the entire survey. Parking fees /pricing structure also were down to 2.5 this year on average, compared to 2.8 in 2007 and 3.0 in 2005. Clearly, the increases in parking rates have gradually eroded ratings in this category. It is notable that year -round and part -time residents rate parking in similar terms. Their average ratings of both fees and availability in winter are similar (about 2.5 on the 5 -point scale) and the respondents saying they are dissatisfied is over 40 percent on both questions. Booth attendant courtesy has also showed some declines over the past several years. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 30 5 -6 -35 Figure 9 Please rate vour satisfaction with public narking services in Vail Summer parking availability Booth ate ndantcourtesy Parking structure cleanliness Parking availability during Ford Park events Winter parking availability Parking fees / pricing structure 73% 9% 90% % 62% 72% 7�% 81% 46°(° 48% 54% 58% 32% = 23% % ■ 2010 ❑ 2007 I ❑ 2005 31% ❑ 2003 34% ° 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Responding "4" or "5" The survey contained a question that asked specifically about summer parking fees. As summarized below, there is relatively little support for summer fees. This question was evaluated by different groups of respondents with few differences, year -round and part -time residents offer almost identical responses (15 percent support). Business owners are slightly more supportive (24 percent) as are those employed in the town and don't live there (23 percent) Table 9 Would you support charging a fee for parking in public lots in Vail during the summer months for the purpose of providing more parking opportunities. Yes 15% No 72% Uncertain 13% RRC Associates, Inc. 31 1/17/2012 5 -6 -36 RATINGS OF SATISFACTION- DEPARTMENTS Community Development The Community Development Department was used by 23 percent of respondents, down slightly from the 26 percent reported in 2007. As summarized in the graphs below, the ratings of Community Development have shown some gains over the past three years, with particular improvement in courtesy and attitude and overall service and efficiency. While building permit review and inspection remains an area of relative weakness, it too is rated higher this year. Figure 10 Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of the Community Development Department Knowledge /ability to answer questions Courtesy & attitude Availability of information Overall service & efficiency Building permit review & inspections 41% 46 %' 47% 47 31% 40% F 67% 66% 55% 63% 3% 57°x° 55% ■ 2010 2007 ❑ 2005 i 2003 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Percent Responding "4" or "T' RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 5 -6 -37 32 Table 10 Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of the Community Development Department RATESATISFACDON WTTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OVERALL SURVEY VERSION W H ICH BEST DESCRIBES YOU Non - resident Year rou nd owner of resident 111+ Employed in the Get mail in the hoe dnaeaP months per Part -6nre Town of Vail but Town of Vail but eoaanan:6et yee rl raeidatd don't live there don't live there PhVd ty 1% 3916 5% 15% 9% Invilation Wahl Paper Open Link Web AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION {E.i;.. PUBLIC 1- Not AtAdiSalisfied 2% 1% 3% 3 6% 7% 5% 3 31% 36% 21% 30% 29% 36% 10D4% 20% RECORDS} 4 33% 32% 34% 34% 41% 9% 20% 5 -Vary Satisfied 29% 23% 37% 30% 1296 35% 60% TOTAL loft 100% 100% 100 100% 100% 100% IDD% Ayaraga 3.9 3.7 4.0 3.9 3.4 3.5 3.0 4.4 Median 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.o 4.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 n = 180 122 59 129 34 11 1 5 OVERALL SERVICE AND 1 -Not At All Satisfied 4% 3% 6% 4% 69b 20% 3 13% 15% 9% 14% 17% 9% 3 24% 26% 20% 23% 29% Sts% EFFICIENCY 4 32% 35'% 20% 33% 42% a% 10f% 2f% 5 - Vary'Satisliad 26% 21% 36% 27% B% 45% N% TOTAL 100% l % 100% 100% 100% 1DO% IOD% 100% Average 3.6 3.5 3.6 36 13 3.9 4.0 4.0 Median 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 3.5 4.0 4.0 5.0 n = 195 122 63 132 36 11 1 5 BUILDING PERMIT REVIEW ANO 1 -Not At All Satisfied 9% 9% 9% 10% 10% 18% 19% 16% 14% 29% 25% 100% 2.5% 9 23% 25% 21% 23% 19% 50% INSPEC7I0115 4 33% 33% 32% 34% 35% 13% 25°% 5- VerySatlofiad 17% 14% 22% 16% 6% 13% 99% TOTAL 1011% 11]0% 100% 100% 100916 100% 10f% 1011% Avereiga 13 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.0 3.1 2.0 4.0 Median 3.0 3.0 4.0 to 10 3.0 20 4.5 n = 143 94 49 % 31 6 1 4 RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 33 5 -6 -38 Table 10— Community Development Department (continued) RATE SA rr'SFACT70N WITH COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT OVERALL SURVEY VERSION WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOU Imrbdon WeW Paper Open Link Web Year round resident (11+ months per year) Part-time resident Employed in the Town of Vail but don't live there Get mail in the Town of Vail but don "t live there N4ri- resident owner of business! commercial property COURTESY AND ATTITUDE 1- No[At All Sallsfled 4% 2% 7% 4% 5% 2 11% 1 12% 8% 1f% 11% 8% 50% 3 19% 21% 15% 16% 23% 33% 24% HELPFULNESS 4 29% 34% 21% 34% 18% 17% 20% 5- Vary Sdsftd 37% 32%. 48% 36% 37% 42% 50% 3 TOTAL IW% 100% 1010% 1080% 104% 1014% 100% 100% Avengs 39 31 3.9 39 33 3.9 3.5 4A Median 4.4 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 40 35 5.0 n • 188 125 63 131 3B 12 2 5 KNOWLEDGE? ABILITYTO ANSWER QUESTIONS 1- Not At All Sadsfled 4% 4% 3% 4% 3% 8% 2 8% 9% 6% 7% 14% 8% 3 21% 19% 22% 22% 22% 8% 20% 4 37% 41% 29% 36% 44% 25% 111% 40% 5- Vary Setlafied 31% 26% 40% 31% 17% 50% 50% 4(}% TOTAL 100% SOD% 104% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Average 3.8 Wi 4.0 3.8 3.6 4.0 4.5 4.2 Median 4.D 4.4 4.0 4.0 4.0 45 4.5 4.0 n 189 124 65 134 36 12 2 5 RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 34 5 -6 -39 Public Works Ratings for Public Works remained high this year, ranging from 4.4 for cleanliness of the pedestrian villages to 4.3 for "overall park maintenance" and "snow removal." At least 71 percent of respondents rated each Public Works service a "4" or "5 — Very Satisfied," up from 63 percent in 2007. The lowest -rated aspects of Public Works included "appearance of Town - owned buildings;" this was the lowest rated category in 2007, as well. The continued high ratings of public works - managed services over time is notable. Figure 11 Rate your satisfaction with Public Works services in the Town of Vail Cleanliness of pedestrian villages Park maintenance Snow removal on roads Friendliness& courtesy of public works emps T.O.V. road /st. maintenance Cleanliness of public restrooms Appearance & condition of Town- owned bldgs 90% 84% 84% 80% ME" 87% 86 °/ 90% 8% 86% 8' % 91% 7i8% it 80% 81% i 80% 75 % 65 %' 73% 73% 74% 66% 73% 62% 2010 E] 2007 71% ❑ 2005 63% ❑ 2003 69% i 67% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Responding "4" or "5" RRC Associates, Inc. 35 1/17/2012 5 -6 -40 Table 11 Rate your satisfaction with Public Works services in the Town of Vail RATE SATJSFACTJON 44:',h' POOLIC WORKS SERVICES OVERALL SURVEY VERSION WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOU Nun- msldem Year round owner of resident (I It Employed In the Get mail In the hesinessf months par Part -time Town el Vail but Town of Vail but comet rclal yoarl residiml dolt livc them don't live there pmpesty I% 1% InvIlatlon Wabl Paper Open Link Vde6 SNOW REMOVAL ON ROADS S- NotALAIISatlslled 1% 1% t% 2 2% 2% 3% 3% 2% 3% 3 10% 119E 8% 12% 7% 7% 15% 4 36% 38% 37% 36% 42% 47% 33% 35% 5- Very Satlsled 48% 4e% 51% 49% 46% 43% 67% 50% TOTAL IN% 160% 100% 10096 100% 11)0% 100% IN% Average 43 4.3 4.4 C3 4.4 4.3 4.7 4.4 Medlan 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.5 n = 524 366 158 290 178 30 6 20 ROAD AND STREET MAINTENANCE BY THE 1- Na4A1AIISatlsfIed 0% 0% 1% 1% 2 596 e% 5% 796 3% 7% TiO (PO (POTHOLES, SWIEEPILIG - II NAGE, ETC.) 3 19% 19% 20% 21% 16% 17'% 2D% 4 43% 44% 38% 40% 5096 31% 67% 46% 5- VwVSatlsSid 32% 30% 36% 31% 30% 45% 33% 35% TOTAL 100% 1o0% 100% 100% 100% 10G% 100% IN% Average 4.0 4.0 4.0 39 4.1 4.1 4.3 4.2 McNan 40 4.0 4.0 4L0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 n 518 351 157 2F6 174 29 6 20 2 1% 1% 1% 1% 1% OVERALL PARK MAINTENANCE 3 la% 12% 14% 14% 9% 14% 16% 4 44% 46% 39% 40% 50% 46% 67% 41% 5- Vary Satlslhld 43% 41% 46% 44% 40% 31�% 33% 41% TOTAL t00% 100% 100% ION 100% lob% 100% IN% Average 43 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.2 Medlan 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.6 4.0 4.0 4.0 e = 501 353 148 284 166 1 28 6 17 RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 36 5 -6 -41 Table 11- Public Works (continued) RATE SAMFACT*N WITH P081 JC WORKS $ERl1JLES OVERALL S6F14£YVERSION MICH 13EST DESCRIBES YOU Ircritation WeW Paper Open Link WDb Yearreaad reaidantIll+ morAhaper year} Partaime resident Enployealinto Town of Vail but don't live there Gal mail in the Town olVai bo1 don't livelhere Noo-resident cwnerot businesai comnrverxial property APPEARANCE AND I -Nat Al A6Satistied 2% 2% 3 2% 3% 6% 2 6% 4% 10% B% 3% 21% 6% CONDITION OF TOWN -OWNED EMILOINGS 3 2A% 24% 26% 29% 18% 24% 6% 4 45% 47% 41% 43% 53% 28% 67% 53% 5- Very Satiefted 23% 24% 22%i 211% 26% 24% 33% 32% TOTAL 1n4% 19095 100% 190% Ion% 10696 1110% f69% Average 38 3.9 37 3.7 4A 35 4.3 4:0 Median 4-0 4.0 40 4.0 4A 40 4-0 4.0 n= 451 313 138 284 113 29 6 18 FRENOLINESSAND COURTEOUS ATTITUDE OF 1- NrltAt All Satisfied o% 1% 1% 2 2% 1% 4% 2% 3% 4% 3 19% X% 17% 1996 18% 16% 25% PUBLIC WORKS EMPLOYEES 4 39% 37% 43% 39% 42% 32% an 31% 5 -Vary Satisfied 39% 41% 35 39% 37% 46% 40% 44% TOTAL 106% 190% 1000A 19096 100% 100% 1013% 160% Average 4.1 4.2 41 4.1 4.1 42 4.4 41 Median 4A 4.0 4.0 4.0 4A 4.0 4.0 4.0 n = 408 270 134 292 97 28 5 18 CLEANLINESS Of PEDESTRIAN VILLAGES 2 1% 1% 1% 1% 3 14% 8% 11% 12% 5% 10% 10% 4 41% 42% 4096 +13% 48% 40% 51736 24% 5- VerySatiefied 48% 47% 48% 47% 46% 50% 50% 67% TOTAL 100% 140% 10096 1013% 100% 100% 1110% 140% Average 4A 4.4 4 -4 4.3 4A 4 i 4.5 4.6 Median 4A 4.0 4A 4.0 4l6 4-5 AS 5.0 n = 436 324 143 280 118 30 6 21 1 -Not At All SAsted 1% t% 1 1% 4% 2 2% 2% 395 2% 5% 4% CLEANLINESS OF PUBLIC RESTRiOOMS 3 22% 23% 21°.4 24% 21% 15% 17% 22% 4 42% 41% 44 42% 40% 42% 50% 33% 5- VerySatiefied 33% 33% 3294; 31% 34% 26% 33°.4 44% TOTAL IW% 190% 1009'€ 190% 100% 100% 1410% 149% Average 4-0 4,0 4A 4.0 4.0 4.0 42 4.2 Median 4A 4.0 4A 4.0 4.0 4 -0 4D 4.0 n= 398 282; lie 262 96 26 6 10 RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 37 5 -6 -42 Bus Service Respondents remain largely satisfied with Town of Vail bus service, with over 80 percent of respondents rating dependability of bus service, frequency of in -Town shuttle, driver courtesy and cleanliness of buses a "4" or "5 — Very Satisfied." The frequency of outlying service received an average rating of 3.8 this year, unchanged from average ratings in 2007 and 2005. However, this area of ratings, as well as crowding on buses, has shown some decline in the percent of respondents saying they are satisfied (4 or 5 on the scale). Crowding on buses is a relative area of weakness with 47 percent saying they are "very /somewhat satisfied," down from 59 percent in 2005. Also, the late night bus service of the Town is rated better than the ECO Regional Transit (51 percent satisfied compared to 29 percent), but these are both areas of relative weakness. Figure 12 Please rate your satisfaction with bus service Dependability of bus service Frequency of in -town shuttle Cleanliness of buses Bus driver courtesy Frequency of outlying service Late night bus service - T.O.V Crowding on buses Late night bus service - ECO Regional Transit 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Responding "4" or "5" s7Pi° 89% 91% 9% 83% 86 0 !1 87% % t)'0 1 83% 83 0 86 -A 85% 63% 65 %' 6' 51% 73% 47% ■ 2010 50% ❑ 2007 59% ❑ 2005 9% ❑ 2003 The neighborhood location of the survey respondent within Vail is closely associated with the ratings of local buses. As illustrated below, there is a wide spread in average ratings by neighborhood (that is, the distance between the highest and lowest points on the vertical axis). RRC Associates, Inc. 38 1/17/2012 5 -6 -43 For example, the ratings of crowding on the buses, a relative problem, are most positive (highest) from respondents that live in the Booth Creek area and lowest from Intermountain residents and there are significant differences of opinion indicated by the wide range of responses. In contrast, the Frequency of In Town Shuttles is rated high by all respondents and there is relative agreement (a narrow spread) on this question. In general, late night bus service (both ECO Regional and within the Town) are the sources of greatest differences, along with frequency of buses and level of crowding. As indicated in these ratings, and as further confirmed in some of the open -ended comments, crowding on the buses as a result of the parking in the Safeway area is felt by residents of the Intermountain, Vail Commons /Safeway, West Vail and Buffehr Creek /Lionsridge /Valley areas. In addition, other areas including East Vail and the Golf Course also received relatively lower ratings on crowding. Figure 13 Please rate your satisfaction with bus service By Neighborhood (All Respondents) 4.2 aM c a> 3.2 Q 2.2 ; - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -------------- Overall East Vail ♦ Booth Falls and Bald Mountain Road areas Booth Creek/Aspen lane ♦ Golf Course ♦ Vail Village ♦ Lionshead ♦ Potato Patch, Sandstone Buffehr Creek, Lionsridge, the Valley • Vail Commons /Safeway area West Vail (north of 1 -70) Matterhorn, Glen Lyon Intermountain DEPENDABILITY FREQUENCY OF BUS DRIVER CLEANLINESS FREQUENCY OF LATE NIGHT LEVEL OF OF BUS TOWN SHUTTLE COURTESY OF BUSES OUTLYING BUS SERVICE- CROWDING ON SERVICE SERVICE TOWN OF VAIL BUSES RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 39 5 -6 -44 Table 12 Please rate your satisfaction with bus service RATE SATSFACTM VOT5f OM S RWOE OVERALL SURVEY VERSION WHICH Year round nm. dent (11+ months per Part-Itirne year) muidenf BEST DESCRIBES YOU &allayed in the Get mai I in the Team o1 Vail bul Torun o1 Vail but don't live Iflere don't live there kwiFslien YlleW"W Open Link Web Nan-reeiderrt owner o1 4usinessl oemnrercial properly FREQUENCY OFTOWH 1- Not At AllSattsfisd 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% 2 4% 3% 5% 4% 7% 3 14% 12% 17% 13% 12% 2196 20% SHUTTLE 4 37% 39% 32% 36% 41% 29% 50% 25% 3- Very Setiermd 45% 44% 45Y, *% 3ft 44% M% 55% TOTAL 1011% 100% 106% 10% IM% 100% 100% 15f1% Average 4.2 42 4.1 4.2 4.1 4.2 46 4.4 Median 4.0 4.0 4.0 4:0 4.0 4.0 41 510 in = 482 937 149 236 163 25 6 20 FREQUENCY OFOUTLYING 1- Not A3 AllSWftfid 3% 4% 3% 3% 6% 2 11% t2% 0% 11% 11% 6% 2 0% 13% 9 23% 2'1% 27% 24% 24% 28% SERVICE it 33% 38% 28% 3295 30% 50% 411% 50% 5- VerySetisfied 29% 29% 33% 30% 29% 17% 40% 38% TOTAL 100% 100% loft 106% lm0% 100% IDA 100% Averegre 3.7 3.7 .3..6 3.8 3.8 38 4..0 4.1 Median 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 Co 4.0 F1 = 373 262 lit 226 114 18 5 8 BUS DRIVER COURTESY I -Not Al All Satisfied 2% 2% 1% 2% 1% 2 4% 3% 6% 4% 3% 12% S 15% 14% 16% 15% 15% 16% 11% 4 39% 41% 365i 35% 42% 5B% 50% 42% 5- Very Satisrwd 41% 40% 41% 42% 46% 16% 59% 47% TOTAL 100% 100% loft t06% 100% 100% 1[396 100% Average 4.1 41 4.1 4.1 4,2 18 4:5 4.41 Median 4,0 40 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 4.0 in = 487 339 149 272 185 25 6 19 RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 40 5 -6 -45 Table 12 -Bus Service (continued) RATE SATSFACTlC]FJH71 H BUS S €RVJCE OVERALL SURVEY VERSION WHICH BEST 0EECRIBESYOU Immatim WaIdPalpir Open Link Web Year round resident 111+ months For year) Pert -time resident Employed in the Town arveil but dae't Iva Bwn Get mai l in the lawn of Vail but drrnitlivathare Mon- reeidord owner of husineord wmmerdal P -Perly IDEPEN6A8I11-11 OFBUS 1 -Nat Al. A] Satisfied 1% 0% 2% 1% 1 2 1% 2 2% 1% 3 12 11% 15% 13% 13% 9% 14 SERVICE 4 399b 40% %9% 3B% 36% 63% 50% 48% 5-Vol Satisfied 46% 47% 45% 49% 51% 29% 5D% 46% TOTAL 1100% 1404h 100% 1w% 1019% 100% 10496 100% Average 43 4,3 42 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.5 4.4 Nedien 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 4.5 4.4 M= 478 335 143 264 164 24 5 20 CLEANLINESS OFBUSES 1- Not Arlin Satisfied 0% 0% D% 2 39b 3% 3% 2% 4% 4% 3 189b 15 18% 17% 16% 15% 10% 4 45% 46% 44% 46% 334: 48% 50% 44% 5- VarySafiefied 35% 35% 35% 32% 41% 32% 50% 5496 TOTAL 11149b 1009h tb6% t00% 10096. 1409b 1DD% loft Average 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.1 4.5 4.4 Nedien 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.5 45 n = 464 3314 146 269 184 25 6 20 LEVEL 0'F CROWDING ON 1- Nat Al. All Satisfied 9% 9% 9Y. 11% 8% 546 2 17913 16% 17% 1696 20% 20% 11% 3 279b 27 26% 27% 2B% 28% 33% 16% BUSES 4 31% 32% 30% 31% 29% 389116 50% 37% 6- VelySatiaTwd 18916 15 17% 15% 16% 16% 17°6 32% TOTAL 100% 100% 1010% 100% 1004. 140% 103% 10406 Average 3.3 3.3 33 3.2 3.2 15 3.9 36 Nadian 10 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 4.o n = 474 329 1 142 1 294 186 1 25 1 6 19 RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 41 5 -6 -46 Fire Services Similar to past years, fire services were rated relatively high compared to most other departments and services. In 2007 there were slight declines from the high ratings of fire services received in 2005, but the overall ratings have rebounded and remain very positive. About 13 percent of respondents indicated that they had used fire services within the past 12 months, down from the 22 percent reported in 2007. Figure 14 Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of Fire Services in the Town of Vail Courtesy & helpfulness of firefighters Response time to basic medical emergencies & fires Timely plan -check & fire inspection systems Fire safety, awareness & eduction programs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Responding "4" or "5" RRC Associates, Inc. 42 1/17/2012 5 -6 -47 92% 818% 93% 88% 86 % 85 % 90% 89% 6'8% 71% 1618% 1 2010 62% ❑ 2007 64% i 64% I ❑ 2005 66% ❑ 2003 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Responding "4" or "5" RRC Associates, Inc. 42 1/17/2012 5 -6 -47 Table 13 Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of Fire Services in the Town of Vail RATE SATISFA .CTJ©NW OVERALL SURVEY VERSION WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOU Nan - resident Year round owner of resident (1I 1+ Employed In the Gel mail In the businessi months per Part -time Town of Vail but Town of Vail but comerclal m years resident don't live there doWt live there property Invitation WabfPaper Open Link Web HAVE YOU UTILIZED VAIL FIRE FOR ANY SERVICE. INSPECTION OR 911 EMERGENCY WITH THE PAST 12 MONTHS Yea 17% 1386 24% % B96 31% No 83% 87% 76% 80% 92% 741% 100% 1100% TOTAL 100% 100% 140% 100% 100% 100% 109% 10D% n • 523 363 160 289 177 30 6 21 RESPONSE TIMES To BASIC MEDICAL EMERGENCIES 2 3% 2% 7% 4% 4% 3 12% 12% 14% 14% 4% 13% 4 30% 33% 24% 29% 29% 31% 67% 5 -Very Sadlsfled 54% 54% 56% 53% 64% 56% 33% TOTAL 11)0% 100% 100%. 100% 1111% 110% 140% Average 4.4 4 -4 43 4.3 1 4 -5 4.4 4.3 Madlan 5.0 5-0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.0 n • 151 104 47 104 28 16 0 3 1- Nat At AllSatlefied 1% 3% 1% 5% COURTESY AND HELPFULNESS OF FIREFIGHTERS AND FIRE PREVENTION STAFF 2 1% 1% 3% 2% 3 8% 7% 9% 9% 2% 9% 33% 4 28% 28% 23% 27% 30% 18% 33% 5. VerySadisfled 63% 64% 62% 62% 67% fib% 1D0% 33% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% IUD% 100% 100% 100% Aveaaga 4.5 4 -5 4.4 4.5 4 -7 4.5 54 4.0 Medlan 5.0 5 -0 5.0 5.0 5'D 5.0 5 -0 4A n• 221 143 7S 152 43 22 1 3 TIMELY PLAN-CHECK AND FIRE INSPECTION SYSTEMS ON REMODELED OR NEW CONSTRUCTION 1 -Nat At All Satistled 5% 1% 12% 3% 4% 10% 33% 2 12% 10% 15% 11% 12% 20% 3 21% 21% 22% 26% 12% 4 2B% 32% 22% 28% 31% 300% 33% 3 -Very Satisfied 33% 101% 36% 100% 28% 100% 31% 10D% 42% 100% 40% 100% 33% 101% TOTAL Average 3.7 3.9 3.4 3.7 4.0 3.7 3 -3 Median 4.0 4.0 3 -8 4.0 4 -0 4.0 4.1 n = 127 % 41 86 26 10 0 3 AW ARE NREN AWARENESS AND E AW$$ EDUCATION PROGRAM$ PROVIDED 2 5% 4% 6% 6% 7% 3 27% 31% 18% 28% 17% 36% 33% 4 31% 29% 34% 34% 34% 21% 100% 33% S -Very Satisfied 37% 35% 42% 37% 41% 4310 33% TOTAL 110% 100% 100% 100% 100% 1O0% 1W% 101% Average 4.0 3.9 4.1 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.0 Median 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4 -0 4.0 41 4.0 n = 157 105 52 109 29 14 2 3 RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 43 5 -6 -48 Police Services Police service ratings were mostly up from 2007, and that year showed gains from 2005. Ratings were similar to or slightly below 2003. In the categories of "feeling of safety and security" (with 87 percent "very /somewhat satisfied ") and quality of service (78 percent), the strong majority of Vail residents are satisfied with the police services they are receiving. Three new questions were added this year to further explore policing services. They are relatively lower rated than the categories asked in the past. As illustrated on the graph below, "managing parking and traffic control issues" is a source of relative dissatisfaction with only 58 percent satisfied and roughly 20 percent in the dissatisfied category. Appropriate presence of police on foot /vehicle patrol and crime prevention also received less than 71 percent satisfaction ratings, relatively low by TOV standards. Open -ended comments, which are listed in full in the Appendix, provide some additional insight into the police ratings. Figure 15 Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of Police Services in the Town of Vail Feeling of safety & security Quality of service Friendliness & approachability of Vail police dept emps Visibility of police patrol Crime prevention Appropriate presence of police on fooVvehicle patrol Managing parking and traffic control issues 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Responding "4" or "5" 87% %I 80% 09% i 78% ' /a 73% ' y9% 74% 81% 71% 762 0 % 67/0 71% 618% ■ 2010 ❑ 2007 ❑ 2005 518% ❑ 2003 RRC Associates, Inc. 44 1/17/2012 5 -6 -49 Table 14 Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of Police Services in the Town of Vail RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 45 5 -6 -50 SURVEYVERSION WHICH BEST D ESCRIBES YOU Non- raeiderd Year round owner of r®biderrt 111+ Employed in the Get mail in the bviine Se.l RA ri FACTTGN NTH � E InastetiDn months per Part-time Town of Vail bull. Town of Vail huh commercial SER'�'1;L.s~ OVERALL Awbl' Psper open Link Web year) resident don't live there don't We there 1% 1% Properly 1- Mot All AllSatisfiad 1% 1% 2% OVERALL 2 3% 2% 4% 4% 1% FEEUNGOF 3 14% 11% 1M 1D% IM 1t% SAFETYAND SECURITY 4 42% 41% 419% 42% 40% 41% 83% 28% 5 -Very Satisfied 44% 45% 42% 423% 48% 46% 11% 01% TOTAL 1009% 1010% 444% 1043% IM% 104% Ilk% 140% Average 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.2 4.3 4.3 4.2 4.5 Median 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 +t.0 4.0 4.4 5.0 n= 467 339 146 270 156 29 6 18 1- Not Al All Satisfied 4% 3% 4% 5% 1% 2 5% 3% 8% 5% 5% 7% VISIBILITY OF POLICE FOOD 3 22% 22% 20% 2D% 2M 33% 19% VEHICLE PATROL 4 42% 4591, M% 42% 47% 22% J3396 41% 5 - Va ry S idar"d 289% 269h 322% 29% 21% 37% 1796 1 41% TOTAL 1070% 1009b IN% 10D% 100% 100913 1o0 % 100% Average 3.4 3.9 3.0 3.6 3.8 31 4.2 42 Madan 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.4 4.0 n= 457 312 145 259 140 27 6 17 1- Mot AL All Satisfied 3% 3% 396 4% 1% APPROPRIATE 2 096 5% 1fl96 B% 5% 3% PRESENCE OF POLICE ON 3 24% 2496 2 22% 279 38% 33# 10% FOOTI VEHICLE 4 40% 42% M% 37% 47% 31% 5096 47% PATROL 5 -Very Satisfied 26% 27% 28% 2B% 2I 209b 17% 26% TOTAL 01% ice% tm% 100% 10D% 100% 10096 IM% Average 38 3.0 3.7 3.6 3.6 18 3.6 42 Mellen 1 4.0 4.0 1 4.0 4.0 4,0 1 4.0 4.0 4.0 n= 477 329 148 271 151 1 29 1 5 17 RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 45 5 -6 -50 Table 14— Police (continued) RA T€ SATISFACTION MTN POLICE SERVICES OVERALL SURVEY VERSION WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOU Invitation Webd Paper Open Link Web Year round resident (11+ months per year' Part -time resident Employed in the Town of Vail but don't live there "mail in the Town of Vail but don't live there Non-resident owner at businessl commercial property GRIME PREVENTION 1 -Nat At All Satisfied 3% 3% 4% SSG 1% 2 4% 4% 4% 5% 4% 5% 3 21% 22% 19% 20% 20% 36% 20% 23% d 44% 43% 44% 43% 52% 27% 60% 23% 5 -Vary Satisfied 213% 27% 29% 27% 23% 32% 30% 547E TOTAL 100% 14075 100% 1U0% 100% 100% 100°! 100% Average 19 5.9 39 18 39 19 4.0 4.3 Madian 4.0 40 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4:0 50 n a 371 266 102 222 109 22 5 13 MANAG114G PARKLNG AND TRAFFIC CONTROL ISSUES 1- Not At. All &tisfiecl 596 7% a% 7% 3% 4% 17% 7% 2 13%, 11% 16% 14% 12% 14% 3 24% 24% 25% 23% 24 43% 17% 20%, 4 39% 39% 28% 34% 41% 25% 67% AD% 5 -Vary Satisfiad 21% 19175 26% 22% 20% 14% 33% TOTAL 100%s 140RG 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Average 3.5 35 as 15 16 3.3 3.3 3.9 hledian 4.0 40 4.4 4.0 4.0 3.0 4.0 4.0 n = 484 325 139 269 146 28 6 15 RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 46 5 -6 -51 Library Library ratings were generally positive and comparable to past years. About 62 percent of respondents report holding a library card and three out of four respondents (72 percent) say they visit the library more than once a month. Average visitation is about 2.4 times per month overall. The collection, friendliness of staff, and databases (a new question this year) were all rated 80 percent or higher satisfied, with very few expressing any dissatisfaction. In new categories rated for the first time, the library website and the newsletter were rated relatively lower than some of the other categories that were evaluated. Also in a new question, respondents were given an opportunity to identify what they like best about the library. Most identified the quiet, pleasant atmosphere /setting and the friendly helpful staff. Figure 16 Please rate vour satisfaction with the following at the library Friendliness /courtesy of library staff Databases Library Story Hour Library collector (mags, books, audio & visual media) Summer Reading Program Library website Library newsletter 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Responding "4" or "5" 85% 7B% 76 °y,° 81% 80% 64% 85 % 82% 84% 77% 75 % ', ', ', ', ', ', ', ', ■ 2010 ❑ 2007 67% ❑ 2005 RRC Associates, Inc. 47 1/17/2012 5 -6 -52 Table 15 Please rate your satisfaction with the following at the library RATE SATfSFACT601V 64+ N TPF 61862AP7Y OVERALL SURVEY VERSION WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOU Non•rasldent Year r011 nd awmr of resident 4I I+ Emplaycd in ft Get mail In the 11I months per Party Town of Vail but Town of Vail but ccmmerclal year) asidsrrt don't live them dan't live theirs property Invltatlon MW Paper Open Llnk Wab uBRARY CDLLECTIDN 2 2% 296 2% 2% 196 (INCLUDING P4AGAZINES, BOOK& AUDIO AND VISUAL MEDIA) 3 18% 18% 1795 17% 19% 2196 25% tD% 4 36I9f 42% 32% 40% 42% 26% 50% 30% 5- YerySatlslled 41% 38% 49% 41% 3896 53% 25% 6D% TOTAL t00% 100% 100% ioD% 10096 10)% 100% 100% Average 4.2 42 4.3 4.2 41 4.3 4.0 4.5 Median 4.0 4.4 4.0 4.0 4.0 5.0 4.0 5.0 n= 3D8 216 92 190 85 19 4 10 LIBRARY STORY HOUR 1 - Not At All SatlsUed 1% 1% 1% a 1% 2% 3% 3 19% 18% 23% 17 1 % 29% 17% 20% 4 29% 30% 28% 28% 35% 17% 50%, 20% 5- Veryslostled 50% 50% 50% 54% 32% 67% 50% W% TOTAL tw% 100% 144% 1041% 1610% 100% 100% 104% Average 4.3 4.3 4.3 43 4.0 4.5 4.5 4.4 Median 41 4.7 4.7 50 4.0 &D 4.5 5.0 n • 117 80 37 71 31 6 4 5 SUMMER READIM PROLLIMIN 3 26% 23% 32% 22% 44% 33% 4 30% 29% 31% 33% 33% 5- YerySad0]ed 4596 48% 37% 46% 22% 100% 100%. 67% TOTAL tCC% iD0% 140% 1011% 100% 10096 ID0% 100% Average 4.2 4.3 41 4.2 3.8 5.0 5.0 4,3 Median 4.0 4.0 40 4.0 4.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 M = 70 48 22 48 18 2 1 3 RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 48 5 -6 -53 Table 15- Library (continued) RATE SATISFA('MN WOO THE L1SITAI7Y OVERALL SURV�1rVERSION WHICH BEST DESCRIBES YOU rwiiilion W9BW Paper Open link Web Year round resident ill+ mwntha per year] Part -time resident Employed in the Town at Vail but dortt live there Get mail irk tile Town of Vail but don'l lira there Non- re¢adeod awaer of bueinewf rau ormpCia4 prnPerty I -Not At All Satisfied 1%. 3% 1% 3 2D% 19% 21% 17% 25% 40%. 25% DATABASES 4 42% 43% 39!% 4296 45% 20% 100% 25% 5- Very SatiaNd 37% 37% 37% 40% 29% 40% 50% TOTAL 100'% 100% 140%. 100% 100% 100% 100% tw% Average 4.2 4-2 4.1 42 46 43 4.0 4.3 Median 43 4.0 43 4.0 40 40 4.0 4- n = 135 99 36 99 2S 5 3 4 FRIENDLINESSf COURTESY OF L93RARY STAFF 1- Not At All Satisfied 2% 3% 1% 2% 11% 20% 3 10% 9% 12%. 10% &% 1d%. 11% 4 25% 27% 21% 23% 29% 37% 20% 33% S- VerySatielied 62% B9% 61% 61% 63% 32% 50% 56% TOTAL 140%. 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% i00% Average 4A 4.4 4.4 4A 41E 31 4.0 4a Median 53 5.0 53 5.0 510 4-0 5.0 5ja n= 296 199 S7 195 59 10 5 9 1 Not At All Satisfied 2% 2% 4% 2% 13% Y E4Y5L NWSLETTER E F 4% 4% 6% 5% 4% 3 25%. 27% 10% 24% 27% 39% 33% 4 31% 29% 35%. 3056 31% 38% 57% S - VerySatiefed an 30% 36% 39% 39% 13% 33% 67% TOTAL 100%. 100% 100% 106% 100% lam 100% 100% Average 4.0 40 3.0 4.0 4i0 3A 4.3 41 Median 43 4.0 43 4.0 4A 35 4.0 5A n= 170 125 45 124 32 9 3 3 1- Not At All Satisfied COA 1% 2% 2 4% 6% 5% 2% L13RARY WESSITE 3 20% 19% 24% 29% 21% 209E 25% 4 34% 35% 32% 32% 35% 90% 67% 25% 5• Very Satiafed 41% 4a% 45% 43% 40% 20% 33% 50% TOTAL 1009E 100% 100% 109% 100% 10% 10095 100% Average 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.1 41 40 4.3 4.3 Median 4.0 4.0 43 4.0 4A 43 4.0 4,5 n= 141 103 36 100 29 5 3 4 RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 49 5 -6 -54 Sources of Local Information Respondents were asked a new question this year about how they receive information about the Town. Newspapers were highest rated with 65 percent citing this source. Specific newspapers were also measured and both the Daily (62 percent) and the Mountaineer (32 percent) are read frequently. Behind newspapers, TV 8 (37 percent) was next most identified, followed by the Town website (34 percent), local radio (32 percent) and TV (27 percent). About 13 percent of respondents say they subscribe to the broadcast email system from the Town. Table 16 How do you typically receive information about the Town of Vail that may be of interest to you? Newspaper 65% Vail Daily 62% TV 8 37% Town of Vail website 34% Vail Mountaineer 32% Local radio 32% Local TV 27% Town broadcast email 13% Channel 5 15% Plum TV 15% Other 5% Other newspaper 2% Other local TV 1 % Similar questions have been asked periodically over the past 15 years and the results are of interest, particularly because of the widely identified changes in the use of print media nationally. Print media has declined substantially in many markets, and Vail is no exception. The Vail Trail, the Daily Trail and Vail Valley Times are no longer publishing. The Vail Daily has remained the dominant news source over the years and readership is still strong, but its use is down from about 98 percent reported in 1995, and 88 percent in 1993, on a question about "What sources do you use to keep informed about local issues ?" Now, the comparable figure is closer to about 62 percent although the question was asked in a slightly different way, about "information about the Town." Clearly, the use of the Internet and the Town sources of both the website and the broadcast email system have become very important over time. Not only do residents use the Town website (34 percent), but they also subscribe to the email system from the Town. Further, one of the goals of this year's Community Survey was to build interest and participation in the Town's on -line communications. About 54 percent of all survey respondents indicated that they would like to receive information /promotions from the Town of Vail, resulting in a large "opted in" email list for future communications. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 50 5 -6 -55 In another new question, respondents were asked if they use "social media" on a regular basis. A little over 40 percent of respondents report they are using social media with Facebook (85 percent) far ahead of Linkedln (25 percent) and YouTube (20 percent), the next most mentioned sources. Another question concerning communications shows the rapid expansion of reliance on cell phones, especially among the younger segment of residents. About 32 percent of all Invitation residents reported that they only have a cell phone, up from about 2 percent in 2007. The results indicate that 85 percent under the age of 34 have only a cell phone compared to only 7 percent over the age of 65. In another remarkable finding, only 2 percent of respondents indicated they do not have a cell phone. Clearly, these are further indications of the rapid change in communications that technology has brought to communities like Vail in the short span of a few years. RRC Associates, Inc. 1/17/2012 51 5 -6 -56 T0WN0FVK = Convnitnity Survey 2010 SUMMARY OF RESULTS First, a few questions about the general state of Vail... Would you say that things in the Town of Vail are going in the right direction, or have they pretty seriously gotten off on the wrong track? 2007 2005 2003 2010 2007 2005 2003 (n =) (n =397) (n =404) (n =400) 58% 58% 70% 57% Right direction 28 30 19 28 Wrong track 14 12 10 15 Don't know In a few words, why do you feel that way? (Please attach an additional sheet of paper with your comments if needed on any survey question.) 2. Over the past two years has the sense of community within the Town improved, gotten worse or stayed the same? 2010 2007 2005 2003 (n =369) (n =400) (n =404) (n =395) 9% 14% 17% 16% Improved 26 36 21 31 Gotten worse 54 45 53 46 Stayed the same 11 5 8 8 Don't know /no opinion Do you have any comments or suggestions on your response? GUEST EXPERIENCE 3. What are one or two things the Town of Vail could do to improve the guest experience in Vail? 1/17/2012 5 -6 -57 COMMUNITY ISSUES 4. The Vail Town Council and staff have recently identified a number of topics to be addressed. For each area listed below, indicate the level of priority you believe is appropriate. (I =Not a Priority, 3= Somewhat, 5 =High Priority) Community Issues 87% Economic vitality (4.41) 2% 86% Budget and capital management (4.36) 1% Parking (4.46) 8q 7% 80% Guest relations and customer service (4.27) 4% Master planning (includes efforts to address development and 75% redevelopment throughout the Town) (4.1) 61� 75 Transportation needs (bus service -local and regional) (4.11) 6 0$ Actions to improve Vail's appeal as a well- rounded community (a great 71% place to live, work and play) (3.99) 12 %', 55Q/o Workforce housing (e.g., redevelopment ofbmber ridge) (3.61) 15b/o Environmental sustainability (waste and energy conservation programs, 51% environmental education, etc.) (3.51) 18% Use of the conference center funds ($9.3 million) that the Town has F D Not at a Priority (1 and 2) 8% available (3.41) 21% High Priority (4 and 5) Planning for West Vail redevelopment opportunities (3.09) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Responding "4" or "5" Do you have any comments on these issues or the general direction of the Town? 1/17/2012 2 5 -6 -58 What one area is your highest priority? Parking Economic vitality Actions to improve Vail's appeal as a well- rounded community Master planning (includes development and redevelopment) Budgetand capital management Guest relations and customer service Environmental sustainability (environmental education, etc.) Transportation needs (bus service -local and regional) Use of the conference center funds the town has available Planning for West Vail redevelopment opportunities Workforce housing (e.g., redevelopment of Timber Ridge) Percent Responding CONFERENCE CENTER FUNDS 5. As you may be aware, $9.3 million was originally set aside for a town -owned conference center that was never built. The original objective of the conference center was to increase economic vitality and expand visitation to Vail. A ballot issue is required to determine use of these funds. The Vail Town Council has expressed a sense of urgency about determining the use of the available money. Which choice below best describes your suggestion for dealing with the opportunity these funds represent? n =364 18% Move as quickly as possible —a ballot issue on this topic is overdue 50 Move at a moderate pace, taking time to study and evaluate the choices 32 Move at a slow place —there is no hurry; having the money in hand preserves opportunities Do you have further comments on your response? 6. The Council has identified a range of choices for how the conference center fund money could be spent. Which choice best describes your preference? n =352 53% Use the money to build something (such as multipurpose facilities, expanded parking, etc.) 4 Use the money for marketing or to support programs to enhance our economic condition 29 Save the money for yet- undetermined needs 14 Other: Do you have further comments on your response? 1/17/2012 5 -6 -59 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% FEES AND TAXES 7. Which statement below best describes your opinion about the relationship between taxes /fees and the services that are provided by the Town of Vail? n =365 56% 1 am satisfied with the current level of taxes and services 6 1 am willing to pay more taxes to get more services 18 1 feel that I pay too much for the services I receive 10 1 am willing to accept service reductions if it means lower taxes 2 Other: 8 1 have no opinion 8. From the list below, are there specific revenue sources you would prioritize as potential sources of increased revenues? (Check all that apply) n =295 37 Construction permit and development review fees 7 Parking - daily fees 32 Construction use tax 8 Parking — season passes 6 Less free parking (in summer, "free after 3:00," etc.) 12 Property tax 19 Lift ticket tax 18 Real estate transfer tax 43 Liquor /cigarette tax 14 Sales tax 26 Lodging tax 20 None of the above Do you have further comments on your response? 9. In 2009, the Town of Vail cut $2.9 million in operating expenditures to include 12 fewer full -time equivalent positions. A stated goal was that there would be no noticeable impact on services. In reality, how do you compare current service levels versus prior years? n =348 76% No change 3 Slight improvement 1 Large improvement 18 Slight decline 1 Large decline Do you have further comments on your response? PARKING 10. When you visit Vail Village /Lionshead, what is your first choice for parking for the following purposes? 11. Why do you prefer that location for skiing n =305 5% Variety of shops and restaurants 13 Overall experience 10 Ski lockers 23 Shorter walking distance 28 Gets to parts of the mountain I prefer to ski 21 Other: 12. Would you support charging a fee for parking in public lots in Vail during the summer months for the purpose of providing more parking opportunities? n =367 15% Yes 72 No 13 Uncertain 1/17/2012 4 5 -6 -60 Shopping n =279 Skiing n =391 Work n =115 Lionshead Parking Structure 18% 21 19 Vail Village Parking Structure 64 48 44 Cascade Area 1 7 6 North Frontage Road in West Vail (Safeway area) 8 3 2 Donovan Park -- 2 2 Other: 9 19 27 11. Why do you prefer that location for skiing n =305 5% Variety of shops and restaurants 13 Overall experience 10 Ski lockers 23 Shorter walking distance 28 Gets to parts of the mountain I prefer to ski 21 Other: 12. Would you support charging a fee for parking in public lots in Vail during the summer months for the purpose of providing more parking opportunities? n =367 15% Yes 72 No 13 Uncertain 1/17/2012 4 5 -6 -60 13. Do you own a parking pass or value card this season? 2010 2007 2005 2003 (n =367) (n =399) (n =404) 74% 73% 72% 71% No 26 27 28 29 Yes (IF YES) Which one? 2010 2007 2005 (n =91) (n =101) (n =128) 10% 11% 6% 17 17 12 4 3 4 2003 1% 3 2 7 7 3 2 62 62 70 18 -- 5 -- Gold pass Blue pass Green pass Pink pass Value card Don't know 14. How satisfied are you with the benefits of your pass this year? NOT AT ALL VERY SATISFIED SATISFIED mean n= 9% 16 24 21 30 3.5 Any comments on your response? 1/17/2012 5 5 -6 -61 15. Please rate your satisfaction with public parking services in Vail. Public Parking Services Summer Pkg Availability Booth Attendant Courtesy Pkg Structure Cleanliness Parking availability during Ford Park events Winter Pkg Availability Pkg Fees/ Pricing Structure The Community Development Department provides planning, design review, environmental programs, and building and restaurant inspection services. 16. Have you used the services of the Community Development Department within the past 12 months? 2010 2007 2005 2003 (n =369) (n =388) (n =404) (n =401) 23% 26% 26 22 Yes 77% 74 73 77 No 17. (IF YES) How did you access their services? (Check all that apply) n =70 25% Website 45 Telephone 72 Walk in to office 19 Attend a meeting 9 Other: 1/17/2012 6 5 -6 -(2 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Responding "4" or "5" 18. Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of the Community Development Department. Community Development Dept. Knowledge /ability to answer questions Courtesy & Attitude Availability of information Overall Service & Efficiency Building Permit Review & Inspections 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Percent Responding "4" or "5" 19. Please rate the amount of emphasis that is being placed on the following in Vail. Use a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means "Much Too Little Emphasis" and 5 means "Far Too Much Emphasis." MUCHT00 ABOUT FART00 LITTLE RIGHT MUCH mean n= Overall attention to the threat of wildfire from beetle - killed trees through forest management such as cutting and removing trees, and forest regeneration 10% 23 58 Enforcement of the dead tree removal ordinance to address the beetle infestation 12% 24 56 Addressing environmental quality in the Town of Vail (air, water, etc.) 6% 23 55 1/17/2012 5 -6 -63 6 2 67% 329 6 66% 2.6 55% 12 4 2.9 63% 63% 57% 55% 46% 2010 47% 02007 47p/° 02005 2 % 02003 31% 40% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Percent Responding "4" or "5" 19. Please rate the amount of emphasis that is being placed on the following in Vail. Use a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 means "Much Too Little Emphasis" and 5 means "Far Too Much Emphasis." MUCHT00 ABOUT FART00 LITTLE RIGHT MUCH mean n= Overall attention to the threat of wildfire from beetle - killed trees through forest management such as cutting and removing trees, and forest regeneration 10% 23 58 Enforcement of the dead tree removal ordinance to address the beetle infestation 12% 24 56 Addressing environmental quality in the Town of Vail (air, water, etc.) 6% 23 55 1/17/2012 5 -6 -63 6 2 2.7 329 6 2 2.6 305 12 4 2.9 327 7 The Public Works Department provides maintenance of public areas including parks, buildings, roads and village areas. 20. Rate your satisfaction with Public Works services in the Town of Vail: Public Works Dept. Cleanliness Of Ped. Villages Park Maintenance Snow Removal On Roads Friendliness & Courtesy Of Public Works Emps T.O.V. Road /St. Maintenance Cleanliness Of Public Restrooms Appearance & Condition Of Town -Owned Bldgs 7 90% °I 84 %', /° 8�% 86¢/° 90% 86¢/° 0% 88% 91% " 2010 80% 2005 81% (n =363) 0% 75% (n =401) 73% 22% 73% 13 Yes 74 %', 78 81 85 No 73% ° 2010 02007 02005 ° 02003 09% 6 7% 1/17/2012 8 5 -6 -64 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Responding "4" or "5" 21. Have you utilized Vail Fire for any service, inspection or 9 -1 -1 emergency within the past 12 months? 2010 2007 2005 2003 (n =363) (n =395) (n =404) (n =401) 13% 22% 18 13 Yes 87 78 81 85 No 1/17/2012 8 5 -6 -64 22. Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of Fire Services in the Town of Vail. Fire Services Courtesy & Helpfulness Of Firefighters Response Time to Basic Medical Emergencies & Fires Timely Plan -Check & Fire Inspection Systems Fire Safety, Awareness & Eduction Programs 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Responding "4" or "5" 1/17/2012 9 s -6 -6s 92% 88% 93% $8% 86% 85 90% $9% I 71% 618% 62% 2010 C] 2007 64% a 2005 64% a 2003 66% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Responding "4" or "5" 1/17/2012 9 s -6 -6s 23. Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of Police Services in the Town of Vail. Police Services Feeling Of Safety & Security Quality Of Service Friendliness & Approachability Of Vail Police Dept Emps Visibility Of Police Patrol Crime prevention Appropriate presence of police on foot/vehicle patrol Managing parking and traffic control issues 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Responding "4" or "5" 7 /o 87,% $9% 7 o 173% 79% 75 °f° % 74 % 81% 71% ° 1 67% 71% 9,8% M 2010 p 2007 58% p 2005 p 2003 I I I I I I I I Any comments on your responses? 24. How many times per month do you use TOV bus service? 14.9 times per month in winter 7.4 in summer n =341 n =315 Are there any specific concerns or considerations that reduce your use of bus services? 1/17/2012 10 s -6 -66 25. Please rate your satisfaction with bus service. Bus Service Dependability Of Bus Service Freq. Of In -Town Shuttle Cleanliness Of Buses Bus Driver Courtesy Freq. Of Outlying Service Late Night Bus Service - TOV Crowding On Buses Late Night Bus Service - ECO Reg Trans 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Responding "4" or "5" The Vail Public Library offers access to information resources of many types to serve the needs of Vail's guests, residents, businesses and schools. 26. Do you hold a library card in the Town of Vail? 2010 2007 2005 2003 (n =367) (n =398) (n =404) (n =401) 62% 63% 65% 60% Yes 38 37 35 39 No 27. What typically brings you to the library? (check the two most important categories) n =206 89% Materials (books, magazines, audio CDs, DVDs) 14 Computers 12 Wireless access 18 Children's story hours /programs 15 Programs for adults /families 28. How frequently do you use the library? 2.4 times per month. n =291 (28% say "none ") 1/17/2012 11 5 -6 -67 87% 89% 91% 83% 86% 81, 0% 83% 2% 81% 83% 86% 85% 656 11 1 1 1 ° 51% 73% 47% 50% 2010 69% M 2007 29% 2005 p 2003 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Responding "4" or "5" The Vail Public Library offers access to information resources of many types to serve the needs of Vail's guests, residents, businesses and schools. 26. Do you hold a library card in the Town of Vail? 2010 2007 2005 2003 (n =367) (n =398) (n =404) (n =401) 62% 63% 65% 60% Yes 38 37 35 39 No 27. What typically brings you to the library? (check the two most important categories) n =206 89% Materials (books, magazines, audio CDs, DVDs) 14 Computers 12 Wireless access 18 Children's story hours /programs 15 Programs for adults /families 28. How frequently do you use the library? 2.4 times per month. n =291 (28% say "none ") 1/17/2012 11 5 -6 -67 29. What do you like best about your experiences at the library? 30. Please rate your satisfaction with the following: Friendliness/ Courtesy Of Library Staff Databases Library Story Hour Library Collection (Mags, Books, Audio & Visual Media) Summer Reading Program Library website Library newsletter Library 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percent Responding "4" or "5" 85 M"T776% 81 % 80% 85% 2 0 /6 1 717% I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 75% 2010 67% 2007 2005 SOURCES OF LOCAL INFORMATION 31. How do you receive information about the Town of Vail that may be of interest to you? (Check all that apply) n =302 65% Newspaper 95 Vail Daily 49 Vail Mountaineer 2 Other 32 Local radio 27 Local television 15 Channe15 37 TV 8 15 Plum 1 Other 13 1 subscribe to the broadcast email system from the Town of Vail 34 Town of Vail Website www.vailgov.com 5 Other 1/17/2012 12 5 -6 -68 32. Do you use any social media on a regular basis? (check all that apply) n =130 85% Facebook 27 Linkedln 6 Twitter 1 MySpace 16 YouTube 1 Flickr 6 Other Please provide the following demographic information. Please remember that all responses remain strictly confidential and are reported only in group format. 33. What is the ZIP code of your primary residence? 34. Which of the following best describes you? 2010 2007 2005 2003 (n =394) (n =404) (n =401) 4% 4% 5% 5% 63 58 63 57 27 38 31 37 6 -- -- -- Non - resident owner of business /commercial property Year -round resident (12 months /year) Part -time resident Employed in town /get mail there 35. Which of the following best describes your employment status? n =366 53% Work 8 months or more a year in the local area (Vail Valley, Summit County, etc.) 4 Work 7 or fewer months a year in the local area (Vail Valley, Summit County, etc.) 19 Currently employed outside of the local area (work on Front Range, out of state, etc.) 15 Not employed: retired 2 Not employed: unemployed and /or looking for work 3 Not employed: homemaker 4 Other: 36. Is your residence (either year -round or part -time) within the Town of Vail? 78% Yes 22% No If yes, where? 2010 2007 2005 2003 (n =288) (n =396) (n =404) (n =401) 25% 27% 27% 30% East Vail 3 2 2 1 Booth Falls and Bald Mountain Road areas - 1 1 1 Booth Creek/Aspen Lane 3 3 3 4 Golf Course 8 9 8 8 Vail Village 4 8 7 8 Lionshead 12 10 11 9 Potato Patch, Sandstone 8 2 4 2 Buffehr Creek, Lionsridge, the Valley 4 2 1 1 Vail Commons /Safeway area 17 24 23 23 West Vail (north of 1 -70) 4 3 2 4 Matterhorn, Glen Lyon 9 3 5 3 Intermountain 1 -- 1 Located just outside Town of Vail 4 6 3 4 Other 1/17/2012 13 5 -6 -69 37. Do you own or rent your residence? 2010 2007 2005 2003 (n =370) (n =395) (n =404) (n =401) 86% 93% 84% 78% Own 13 7 14 20 Rent 1 1 1 'V1 Other (specify) 38. In an effort to help us understand local phone usage, which best describes your access to telephone services at your residence 23 21 2010 2007 26 (n =370) (n =394) 6 -15 years 32% 2% 1 have only a cell phone 3 8 1 have only a land line 66 89 1 have both a cell phone and a land line 39. How long have you lived within the Town of Vail (or owned property if a non - resident)? 2010 2007 2005 2003 (n =366) (n =342) (n =398) (n =404) (n =401) 21% 2% 3% 4% 6% Less than 1 year 15 14 23 21 1 -5 years 34 26 30 33 6 -15 years 49 56 42 39 More than 15 years 40. (IF RESIDENT) Do you own or operate a business within the Town of Vail? 2010 2007 2005 2003 (n =366) (n =380) (n =377) (n =377) 15% 21% 20% 19% Yes 85 79 80 81 No 41. Are you a registered voter in Vail? 2010 2007 2005 2003 (n =365) (n =393) (n =404) (n =401) 53% 55% 57% 51 Yes 47 45 41 48 No 42. Which of these categories best describes your household status? 2010 2007 2005 2003 (n =369) (n =393) (n =404) (n =401) 25% 24% 25% 31% Single, no children 26 17 20 16 Couple, no children 23 23 22 20 Household with children 27 37 32 31 Empty- nester, children no longer at home 43. Are you: 2010 2007 2005 (n =362) (n =400) (n =404) 54% 67% 52% Male 46 43 48 Female 44. What year were you born? average age =52.7, n =359 THANK YOU FOR YOUR PARTICIPATION IN OUR CONTINUING EVALUATION PROGRAM. 1/17/2012 14 5 -6 -70 K � TOWN OF VAI!% VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 17, 2012 ITEM /TOPIC: Matters from Mayor and Council 1/17/2012 K � TOWN OF'VA105 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 17, 2012 ITEM /TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) 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: Lionshead Parking Structure Welcome Center and other pending and or threatened litigation. PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire 1/17/2012