Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-10-07 Agenda and Support Documentation Town Council Work SessionNOTE E 3. VAIL TOWN COUNCIL WORK SESSION AGENDA VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 2:00 P.M., OCTOBER 7, 2014 TOWN OF VAI0 7 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: DRB /PEC Update (10 min. ) PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell, Planner ITEM /TOPIC: Introduction of New Wildland Program Administrator Paul Cada (5 min.) PRESENTER(S): Mark Miller, Vail Fire Chief ITEM /TOPIC: Library Bike Path Alignment Update Presentation of a proposed realignment for the Gore Valley Trail between Lionshead and West Meadow Drive designed to move portions of the path onto town -owned stream tract while protecting high -value existing trees. (20 min.) PRESENTER(S): Gregg Barrie, Public Works ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff is asking Council to either endorse the proposed alignment or to provide direction towards an acceptable solution. BACKGROUND: The Gore Valley Trail behind the Vail Public Library connects Lionshead with West Meadow Drive. It is one of the more scenic and popular sections of trail in Vail. However, there are several projects required along the corridor including renovation of the trail, replacement of the Middle Creek culverts and stream bank and lighting improvements. In 2007, it was determined that a portion of the path crossed private property of the Lodge at Lionshead Phase III (LAL III), who have informally requested that the path be relocated to town -owned property. Fully relocating the trail to town -owned property would require the removal of more than a dozen spruce and lodgepole pine trees. The Town Manager and staff have met with representatives of LAL III twice to work towards an agreeable solution that would protect most trees while still relocating the trail towards the south. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council approve the proposed alignment pending the Lodge at Lionshead Phase III Board's acceptance. Staff does not recommend fully relocating the trail to town -owned stream tract since doing so would eliminate four additional large, healthy spruce trees. If Council endorses the 466Pfiftnded alignment, it will then be presented to the Lodge at Lionshead Board in the coming weeks along with a request for a formal Recreation Path Easement. 4. ITEM /TOPIC: Alternative Fuels Analysis Project Update. (30 min.) PRESENTER(S): Greg Hall, Public Works and Dan Richardson, SGM Representative ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Town Council to listen to presentation and provide staff with direction. BACKGROUND: The Town Council requested the town investigate the feasibility of converting the town's fleet to use CNG as an alternative fuel, specifically the bus fleet in anticipation of the purchase of 15 transit coaches budgeted in 2016 and 2018. The town requested a proposal from the engineering firm of (SGM) out of Glenwood Springs to analyze the implications of converting the fleet to the use of alternative fuels. SGM analyzed the costs and implications of utilizing diesel, diesel electric (hybrid), electric, and natural gas fuels. 5. ITEM /TOPIC: Ford Park Lower Bench Update The purpose of this discussion is to update the Town Council on the Restroom /Picnic shelter and Playground Modifications projects and the accessibility issues on the Ford Park lower bench. This is a follow up discussion from the September 16 Council session. (30 min.) PRESENTER(S): Todd Oppenheimer, Public Works, Martin Haeberle, Community Development ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff requests direction from Council in regards to moving forward on the restroom and playground project and the construction of additional accessible parking on the lower bench of Ford Park and including those aspects of the Ford Park lower bench project in the Town Council review of the 2105 Capital /RETT Budget. BACKGROUND: This discussion includes 3 remaining elements associated with the lower bench of Ford Park, the restroom /picnic shelter, playground modifications and additional accessible parking per the attached memorandum. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Council provide direction on the specific components of the lower Ford Park improvement project. 6. ITEM /TOPIC: Information Update: 1) Community Wide Recycling Eucation and Outreach Campaign Update 2) Commission on Special Events October 1, 2014 DRAFT meeting minutes 3) 2014 Statewide General Election Update 4) August 2014 Sales Tax Memorandum 5) September 2014 Revenue Highlights (5 min.) 7. ITEM /TOPIC: Matters from the Mayor, Council and Committee Reports. (15 min.) 8. ITEM /TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24- 6- 402(4)(a)(b) (e) - to discuss the purchasdPOM04sition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests; to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, Regarding: Lot 10, Vail Village Filing 2, Vail Valley Medical Center Parking Lot (15 min. ) PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire, Town Attorney 9. ITEM /TOPIC: Adjournment (estimated 4:15 p.m.) NOTE: UPCOMING MEETING TOPICS AND ESTIMATED TIMEFRAMES BELOW (ALL ARE APPROXIMATE DATES AND TIMES AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) --------------- - - - -- THE NEXT REGULAR VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING WORK SESSION WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 12:30 P.M. (or TBD), TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2014 IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Ongoing agenda items DRB /PEC updates WS - 15 min.; Information Updates Attachments: WS - 15 min.; Executive Session items: 30 min.; Consent Agenda: 5 min.; Town Manager Report: 5 min. Other proposed agenda items: Vacation Rental Discussion - WS - 10/21 Review Council's Action Plan - WS - 10/21 Discussion on Town Manager's Budget (Final Draft) - WS - 10/21 Plastic bags - WS - 10/21 2015 FIS Alpine World Ski Championship Update - WS - 10/21 Open Time Capsule from 1989 FIS Alpine World Ski Championships - 10/21 Quarterly Status Report on Capital Projects & Programs (Info Update) - WS -10/21 VLMD 2015 Budget Resolution - ES - 10/21 First Reading of Ordinance for 2015 Budget Adoption - ES - 11/4 VLMD Summer Intercept NPS Analysis - WS - 30 min. - 11/18 Second Reading of Ordinance for 2015 Budget Adoption - ES - 11/18 Follow up Discussion on Competitiveness Plan - WS - 12/1 Mountain Travel Update from DestiMetrics (Vail Economic Advisory Council) - 12/16 CSE and VLMDAC Board Vacancy Interviews Proposed Future Agenda Items Council Action Plan Items: * *Defining Balanced Community - TBD * *Parking & Transportation - TBD * *Technology - TBD * *Half Day Retreat w/ VLHA - TBD Site visit of Vail Children's Garden of Learning preschool - TBD Ford Park: Managed Parking Program - TBD Ford Park Parking Reservation System - TBD Meet with Avon Town Council - TBD Investment Policy Update ES - TBD 1 -70 Vail Underpass Updates - ES - TBD Clean Up Title 12 Land Use Regs / Ordinance - TBD Housing Strategic Plan - GetWgQ0 -1TBD 10/7/2014 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 7, 2014 ITEM /TOPIC: DRB /PEC Update PRESENTER(S): Warren Campbell, Planner ATTACHMENTS: September 17, 2014 DRB Meeting Results October 1, 2014 DRB Meeting Results September 22, 2014 PEC Meeting Results 10/7/2014 rowH Of vn' 111 TOWN OF VAI1' DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA PUBLIC MEETING September 17, 2014 Council Chambers 75 South Frontage Road West - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT Tom DuBois Andy Forstl Brian Gillette Rollie Kjesbo Bill Pierce PROJECT ORIENTATION SITE VISITS 1. Black Gore LLC — 5166 #B Black Gore Drive 2. Charlie's T- Shirts - 304 Bridge Street (Red Lion Building) 3. Domenge Residence - 141 W. Meadow Dr. #1 4. Smartwool - 675 Lionshead Place Unit C -2 (Arrabelle) 5. Geroca S.C. -68 East Meadow Drive MAIN AGENDA 1. Mill Creek Property LLC DRB140245 Final review of changes to approved plans (pool facade, gate) 305 Mill Creek Circle /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Mill Creek Property LLC, represented by K.H. Webb Architects ACTION: Tabled to October 1, 2014 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 5 -0 -0 2. Geroca S.0 DRB140187 Final review of an addition (decks, patio) 68 East Meadow Drive /Lot O, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Geroca S.C., represented by Eggers Architecture ACTION: Approve with Condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 5 -0 -0 CONDITION(S): 1:00pm 3:00pm Warren Jonathan 1. In conjunction with the building permit, the applicant shall identify that all new stone work will match the existing. 3. Novick Residence DRB140021 Joe Final review of new construction (single family) 1740 Sierra Trail /Lot 22, Vail Village West Filing 1 Applicant: Keith Novick, represented by David Irwin ACTION: Approve with Condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND:Gillette VOTE: 5-0-0 CONDITION(S): 1. Prior to submitting a building permit application, the applicant shall provide a revised grading plan bearing the stamp of a Colorado professional engineer, per 14 -6 -1, Grading Standards, Vail Town Code. 10 /7 /2Pje 1 2. Prior to submitting a building permit application, the applicant shall provide a revised landscape plan that demonstrates a greater degree of plant diversity. 3. Prior to submitting a building permit application, the applicant shall provide a revised site plan that clearly demonstrates the location of the garage to be within the front setback, allowing for wall heights up to six feet; or, revise wall heights to be three feet or less, per Section 14- 10 -9E, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code. 4. Prior to submitting a building permit application, the applicant shall provide documentation of the materials palette. 4. Cross /Graham Residence DRB140364 Joe Final review of a Change to Approved Plans (deck, garage door, railings, windows) 126 Forest Road /Lot 5, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: David William Cross & Maureen Graham, represented by KH Webb Architects, Debra Monroe ACTION: Approve with Condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 5 -0 -0 CONDITION(S): 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit amendment, the co- applicant shall submit a Design Review Board application indicating all railings will match on both duplex units. 2. Approval of this Design Review Board application does not include the applicant's proposed garage door, as it would be to dissimilar from the existing garage door at the other duplex unit. 5. Black Gore LLC DRB140369 Jonathan Final review of a minor exterior alteration (deck) 5166 #B Black Gore Drive /Lot 4, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivision Applicant: Black Gore LLC, represented by WLM Building, William Mead ACTION: Approve with Condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Pierce VOTE: 5 -0 -0 CONDITION(S): 1. This approval shall not be valid for any changes to the vertical deck design (posts /pickets) 6. Charlie's T- Shirts DRB140371 Jonathan Final review of a minor exterior alteration (window /door) 304 Bridge Street (Red Lion Building) /Lots E -H, Block 5A, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Charlie's T- Shirts, represented by Linda Malaby ACTION: Approve with Condition(s) MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Gillette VOTE: 4 -0 -1 CONDITION(S): 1. The new door and sidelight shall be dark bronze and match in general style the Eye Pieces door with a 12" kick plate on both door and side light. 7. Vail Golf Course Custom Homes DRB140372 Joe Final review of new construction (single family) 1183 Cabin Circle /Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Valley Filing 1 Applicant: Vail Golf Course Custom Homes LLC, represented by Scott Turnipseed Architects ACTION: Approve with Conditions MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Forstl VOTE: 5 -0 -0 CONDITION(S): 1. Approval of this Design Review Board application does not include the applicant's proposed privacy wall in the front setback, as it does not comply with Section 14 -10 -9, Design Review Standards and Guidelines, Vail Town Code. 10 /7 /2Pje 2 8. Domenge Residence DRB140382 Final review of a addition (deck, living area) 141 W. Meadow Dr. #1 /Lot D2,Vail Village Filing 2 Applicant: Mauricio Girault Domenge, represented by Hilda Solorzano ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Forst) VOTE: 5 -0 -0 9. Smartwool DRB140385 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (door) 675 Lionshead Place Unit C -2 (Arrabelle) /Lots 1 & 2, Lionshead Filing 6 Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Julie Wilson ACTION: Approved MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Forst) VOTE: 5 -0 -0 STAFF APPROVALS Beaver Dam LLC OTC14 -0046 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (roof) 443 Beaver Dam Road /Lot 4, Block 4, Vail Village Filing 3 Applicant: D.E.L. Enterprises, represented by Derek Lau Nelson Residence OTC14 -0047 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (roof) 3826 Lupine Drive /Lot 9, Bighorn 2nd Addition Applicant: Jim Nelson, represented by A to Z Roofing, Corey Largen Olson Residence OTC14 -0050 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (roof) 1785 Sunburst Drive /Area A & B, Sunburst At Val Applicant: Olson Family 2012 Trust represented by Plath Construction Frattali Residence OTC14 -0051 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (window) 4610 Meadow Drive Bulidng 7, Unit 3 (Vail Racquet Club) /Unplatted Applicant: Deanne Frattali, represented by BZ Construction Flowers Residence DRB140334 Final review of an addition (kitchen) 1220 Westhaven Circle /Lot 42 Glen Lyon Applicant: David and Izabel Flowers, represented by K.H. Webb Architects PC Nelson Residence DRB140342 Final review of an addition (carport, deck, stairs) 3826 Lupine Drive /Lot 9, Bighorn Subdivision 2nd Addition Applicant: James Nelson, represented by Pierce Architects Ronning Residence DRB140351 Final review of an Addition (bedroom /deck) 5074 Main Gore Drive #B /Lot 5, Vail Meadows Filing 1 Applicant: Wes Ronning, represented by Piper Architecture Ltd, Duane Piper Grace Residence DRB140362 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (deck) 1905 West Gore Creek Drive /Lot 27, Vail Village West Filing 2 Applicant: Gene & Mary Jo Grace represented by Jason Morris 10 /7 /2Pje 3 Jonathan Jonathan JR Martin Martin Martin Warren Joe Joe Joe Taylor Residence DRB140370 Final review of an addition (deck) 4770 Bighorn Road Unit 4M (Vail Racquet Club) /Unplatted Applicant: Mary & Brian Taylor, represented by Martin Manley Architects Ski & Snowboard Club Vail DRB140376 Final review of a sign application (free- standing) 458 Vail Valley Drive /Tract F, Vail Village Filing 5 Applicant: Ski & Snowboard Club Vail, represented by Euginnia Manseau Simon Residence DRB140377 Final review of changes to approved plans (spa, materials) 2943 Bellflower Drive /Lot 4, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Applicant: Alexandra & Jed Simon, represented by Walter Luke III Harvey Residence DRB140378 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (trash enclosure) 1418 Vail Valley Drive East /Lot 19, Block 3, Vail Valley Filing 1 Applicant: Jay Nobrega, represented by Beth Levine Architects Riedel Residence DRB140379 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (patio, landscaping) 600 Vail Valley Drive Unit B8 (Northwoods) /Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7 Applicant: Joerg Riedel, represented by Jamie McCluskie Wolfe Residence DRB140381 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (chimney) 1738 Golf Lane #64 /Area A, Sunburst at Vail Applicant: Fred Wolfe, represented by Burke Harrington Construction Inga's Place LLC DRB140383 Final review of an addition (living space) 1975 Placid Drive Unit 17 (Ptarmigan Townhomes) /Lots 29 -42, Vail Village West Filing 2 Applicant: Inga's Place LLC, represented by Tom McCord Vail International DRB140384 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (sliding doors, windows) 300 East Lionshead Circle /Lot 4, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 2 Applicant: Vail International HOA, represented by Viele Construction Smartwool DRB140386 Final review of a sign (business identification) 675 Lionshead Place Unit C -2 (Arrabelle) /Lots 1 & 2, Lionshead Filing 6 Applicant: Vail Resorts, represented by Julie Wilson Appel Residence DRB140388 Final review of changes to approved plans (skylights) 9 Vail Road, Unit 41 /Lot B, Vail Village Filing 2 Applicant: Joel Appel, represented by Rocky Mountain Construction Group Halle Residence DRB140389 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (windows) 114 Willow Road /Lot 7, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Ellen Halle represented by Nedbo Construction, Warren Krok 10/7/2PWge 4 Joe Jonathan Jonathan Joe Joe Warren Joe Warren Jonathan Warren Jonathan Booth Creek Management Corp. DRB140390 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (paint) 950 Red Sandstone Road /Potato Patch Condominiums Applicant: Booth Creek Management Corp. represented by Dan McNeill Cornide Residence DRB140391 Final review of changes to approved plans (garage doors) 327 Rockledge Road /Lot B, Rockledge Subvision Applicant: Jose Cornide, represented by Pavan Krueger O'Keefe Residence DRB140392 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (door, vent) 4680 Vail Racquet Club Drive /Vail Racquet Club Condominiums Applicant: Kevin & Patricia O'Keefe represented by Jeff Borek Hoyt /Young Residence DRB140393 Final review of changes to approved plans (fagade materials, dormer) 2764 South Frontage Road West /Lot A, Stephens Subdivision Applicant: Brian Hoyt & Louise Young, represented by Martin Manley Architects Foster Residence DRB140395 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping) 2195 Chamonix Lane /Lot 2, Vail Heights Filing 1 Applicant: Doug Foster Montaneros HOA DRB140396 Final review of a sign (building identification) 284 W. Lionshead Circle /Lot 8, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3 Applicant: Montaneros HOA represented by Carrie Henderson Meadow Vail Place DRB140397 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping) 44 West Meadow Drive /Lot I, Vail Village Filing 2 Applicant: Meadow Vail Place, represented by Karen Lee Mas Residence DRB140398 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (deck) 736 Forest Road /Lot 11, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 6 Applicant: Jose and Patricia Mas represented by AW Interiors, Chris Brook Fleischer Residence DRB140400 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (doors) 62 E. Meadow Drive #103 /Lot K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Marilyn Fleischer represented by Steve Lee Construction Nugget Properties LLC DRB140402 Final review of a sign (construction) 4288 Nugget Lane /Lot 2, Bighorn Estates Applicant: Nugget Properties LLC represented by Bryan Desmond Flores Residence DRB140410 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (veneer, stucco) 1249 Westhaven Circle /Lot 35, Glen Lyon Subdivision Applicant: Regina Flores, represented by Casabonne Enterprises 10 /7 /2Pje 5 Joe Joe Jonathan Joe Paul Jonathan Paul Jonathan Jonathan Joe Warren Northside Grab & Go DRB140416 Jonathan Final review of a sign (business identification) 2271 North Frontage Road West /Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 1 Applicant: Northside Grab & Go, represented by Mauriello Planning Group 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. 10 /7 /2Pje 6 TOWN OF VAI1' DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA PUBLIC MEETING October 1, 2014 Council Chambers 75 South Frontage Road West - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT PROJECT ORIENTATION SITE VISITS MAIN AGENDA Public Meeting Cancelled — No items to be heard before the board STAFF APPROVALS Mesch Residence OTC14 -0052 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (roof) 5045 Main Gore Drive S. #B /Lot 34, Vail Meadows Filing 1 Applicant: Gregory Mesch represented by A.G Roofing Company 2:30pm 3:00pm Martin Vail 21 DRB140261 Jonathan Final review of changes to approved plans (landscaping) 521 East Lionshead Circle /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1 Applicant: Vail 21 HOA, represented by G.E. Johnson Construction Langmaid Residence DRB140260 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping) 2953 Bellflower Drive /Lot 5, Block 6, Vail Intermountain Applicant: Kim Langmaid Joe Vail Mountain School DRB140318 Joe Final review of a minor exterior alteration (parking lot) 3000 Booth Falls Road /Lot 1, Vail Mountain School Subdivision Applicant: Vail Mountain School represented by Brian Counselman Ptarmigan Vail LLC DRB140380 Warren Final review of a minor exterior alteration (chimney) 996 Ptarmigan Lane /Lot 2, Block 4, Vail Village Filing 7 Applicant: Ptarmigan Vail LLC, represented by Michael Suman Architects Acuff Residence DRB140394 Warren Final review of an addition (entry, bedroom) 1390 Westhaven Drive /Lot 1, Cascades on Gore Creek Applicant: Joann & Henry Acuff, represented by Miramonte Architect Resnick Residence DRB140399 Joe Final review of changes to approved plans (railings) 1027 Ptarmigan Road /Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 7 Applicant: Erick & Sara Resnick, represented by Triumph Development 10 /7 /2Pje 1 Hilliard Residence DRB140401 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping) 2049 Sunburst Drive /Lot 1, Vail Valley Filing 4 Applicant: Landon Hilliard represented by Ceres Land Design Calano Residence DRB140403 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping) 784 Potato Patch /Lot 15, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Applicant: James Calano, represented by Steven Carter Olson Residence DRB140405 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (stairs) 1785 Sunburst Drive /Area A & B, Sunburst at Vail Applicant: Olson Family Trust represented by Mike Tennant Northwoods Condominiums Association DRB140406 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping) 600 Vail Valley Drive /Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7 Applicant: Northwoods Condo Association represented by Ceres Landcare, Mike Earl Arrabelle DRB140407 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (lights) 675 Lionshead Place /Lots 1 & 2, Lionshead Filing 6 Applicant: Arrabelle, represented by Brandt Marott Mill Creek Court Condominiums DRB140409 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (vent) 302 Gore Creek Drive /Lot 7, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Mill Creek Court Condominium Association, represented by Pete Peterson Glenn Residence DRB140411 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (stairs) 5116 Main Gore Drive N. /Lot 1, Block 2, Bighorn 5t" Addition Applicant: Jimme Krr Glenn represented by Intention Architecture, Seth Bossung Resnick Residence DRB140412 Final review of changes to approved plans (landscaping) 1027 Ptarmigan Road /Lot 2, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 7 Applicant: Eric & Sara Resnick, represented by Triumph Development Gerald R Ford Amphitheater DRB140413 Final review of a sign (wall) 841 Vail Valley Drive /Unplatted Applicant: Vail Valley Foundation, represented by Zehren and Associates Northwoods Conodminiums DRB140414 Final review of a changes to approved plans (stucco color) 600 Vail Valley Drive /Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7 Applicant: Northwoods Condominium Association represented by Patrick Pinnell Sherrill Residence DRB140415 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping) 1846 Glacier Court Unit B /Lot 25, Block 2, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 3 Applicant: Mary Sherrill 10 /7 /2Pje 2 Warren Jonathan Warren Joe Jonathan Jonathan Joe Joe Warren Joe Jonathan Solantro's DRB140417 Final review of a sign (business ID) 298 Hanson Ranch Road /Lot C, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Solantro's Restaurant, represented by Mauriello Planning Group Brigden Residence DRB140418 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (deck) 1738 Golf Lane Unit 62 /Area A, Sunburst Subdivision Applicant: Julian Brigden, represented by Crossroads Realty Gerstenberger Residence DRB140420 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (railing) 1320 Greenhill Ct #B /Lot 16, Glen Lyon Subdivision Applicant: Allen Gerstenberger Megeve LLC DRB140421 Final review of an Addition (Entry) 2468 Garmisch Drive /Lot 1, Block G, Vail Das Schone Filing 2 Applicant: Megeve LLC, represented by Ted Steers Kruszewski Residence DRB140422 Final review of a changes to approved plans (bathroom) 1575 Aspen Ridge Road /Lot 4, block 4, Lions Ridge Filing 3 Applicant: Ron Kruszweski represented by Contract One Jonathan Jonathan Jonathan Joe Warren Lion's Ridge Apartments DRB140423 Warren Final review of a changes to approved plans (landscaping) 1280 N. Frontage Road /Lot 1, Timber Ridge Subdivision Applicant: Lions Ridge Apartment Homes LLC, represented by Dennis Anderson Landscape Architect Sonnenalp Hotel DRB140425 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping) 20 Vail Road /Lot 1, Sonnenalp Subdivision Applicant: Sonnenalp Resort, represented by Johannes Faessler Tiner Residence DRB140427 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (driveway) 1045 Homestake Circle /Lot 3, Block 1, Vail Village Filing 8 Applicant: Michael Tiner Talisman Home Owners Association DRB140429 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (landscaping) 62 Meadow Drive /Lot K & L, Block 5E, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Talisman Home Owners Association represented by Ceres Landcare, Mike Earl Gorsuch LTD DRB140430 Final review of a minor exterior alteration (balcony) 263 E. Gore Creek Dr. /Lot C -E, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Gorsuch LTD, represented by Pierce & Frye Architects, Tom Frye Silverfelf Inc. DRB140431 Final review of change to approved plans (window) 600 Vail Valley Drive #B- 313 /Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7 Applicant: Silverfelf Inc., represented by Nedbo Construction, Warren Krok 10 /7 /2Pje 3 Warren Jonathan Jonathan Jonathan Warren Glenn /Murphy Residence DRB140438 Joe Final review of changes to approved plans (roof) 5116 Main Gore Drive North /Lot 1, Block 2, Bighorn 51h Addition Applicant: Jimme Kerr Glenn and Sharon Murphy, represented by Intention Architecture Vail East Lodging HOA DRB140439 Jonathan Final review of a minor exterior alteration (roof) 4093 Spruce Way /Lot 4, Block 9, Bighorn 3rd Addition Applicant: Vail East Lodging HOA, represented by Interstate Restoration Rick Budzynski Meadow Vail Place DRB140443 Jonathan Final review of a change to approved plans (repaint) 44 West Meadow Drive /Lot I, Vail Village Filing 2 Applicant: Meadow Vail Place Condo Association, represented by Karen Aldretti Lee 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. 10 /7 /2Pje 4 TOWN OF VAIL' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION September 22, 2014 at 1:00pm TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS / PUBLIC WELCOME 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT Henry Pratt Michael Kurz Luke Cartin Pam Hopkins Webb Martin John Rediker Dick Cleveland Site Visit: None MEMBERS ABSENT 75 minutes A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on the adoption of the Vail Valley Medical Center Master Plan, to establish a comprehensive redevelopment plan for the Vail Valley Medical Center, Lot 10 (Town of Vail parking lot), and US Bank Building, located at 181 and 281 West Meadow Drive and 108 South Frontage Road West/ Lots E, F, and 10 Vail Village Filing 2, and Lot D -2, A Resubdivision of Lot D Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140011) Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center, represented by Braun and Associates Planner: Warren Campbell ACTION: Continued to October 13, 2014 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cartin VOTE: 6 -0 -1 (Cleveland recused) Community Development Director George Ruther discussed the structure of the review process and a proposed schedule. He outlined how different components of the proposal would be reviewed at different times in an orderly fashion. He discussed a definitive time frame for the review with an established end date. In conclusion he reiterated the PEC role in the process as a recommending body. Outlined the purpose of the master plan and its eventual incorporation into the TOV comprehensive plan. Warren Campbell provided an outline of the goals of the meeting and anticipated format. Campbell quickly walked through what was included in the staff memorandum with special attention to loading /delivery and a background of previous public hearings. Doris Kirchner, President and CEO of VVMC, provided an introduction to the project and how it relates to healthcare in the community. Tom Braun, planning consultant for the VVMC, discussed the proposed outline. Discussed the expectations of the master plan and what is appropriate at the master plan level vs. the CUP process. Braun discussed the proposed loading and delivery and Meadow Drive. Braun provided an overview of the use of Meadow drive by all users. Discussed previous planning efforts involving Meadow Drive and the current conditions. Challenges presented by lack of a back -of- house for dedicated deliveries. Compared loading and delivery conditions at VVMC to other existing conditions in Vail Village. 1 P /J6W 14 Mark Bunnell, traffic engineer for Turnkey Consulting, outlined his traffic analysis of West Meadow Drive. He walked through traffic count numbers for the various types of users. Tom Braun discussed the challenges with moving the loading and delivery to the frontage road. He spoke to the various users of the access off of the Frontage Road including ambulances, patient drop -off, parking access for quests and employees. He further spoke to the challenges of getting a loading and delivery vehicle through the anticipated parkgin structure and moving materials throughout the hospital. He contrasted the situation at VVMC with other properties such as the Sebastian and Solaris. Discussed the length of the various frontages adjacent to the Frontage Road. Spoke of the design challenges. Russ Sedmak, architect for the VVMC, spoke of a sense of entry and other requirements of a medical center front door. Elements included design, wayfinding, signage and the need for the design to be intuitive and not complicated. Showed examples of other medical centers (Steamboat, Boulder and Summit) and how loading, emergency and front door accesses are separated. Russ contrasted these facilities with the Vail situation. Russ walked through the proposed vehicle site access. The separation of public versus service corridors was presented and its necessity for a functional situation. Russ spoke to the need for loading and delivery to occur off of West Meadow Drive for varied reasons. Russ outlined how the service entry along Meadow drive would function. Alternatives that were explored were shown. Tom Braun spoke to the possibilities of shared facilities and the challenges with scheduling and unknowns with other users. Coordination challenges were presented. Braun wrapped up what the VVMC is proposing and why. Commissioner Cartin asked what would happen to loading and delivery trip counts at build out. Tom Braun answered that it was anticipated that there would be no more trips but each delivery may include a greater amount of material. Commissioner Cartin asked about service vehicles that need additional time. Tom Braun provided greater detail on expected deliveries and delivery types. Commissioner Pratt asked for additional numbers related to ambulances and other vehicles accessing the site. Tom Braun spoke to the various user and their frequency. Commissioner Martin asked about access to the west parking lot. Commissioner Rediker asked about traffic control tot eh west parking lot. Tom Braun spoke to the access control measure to the west parking lot for looding and delivery of larger trucks only. Commissioner Kurz mentioned the dynamics of West Meadow and how it functions as a link between Vail Village and Lionshead. Commissioner Pratt asked about full size semis. 1 P /J60 24 Tom Braun and Russ Sedmak spoke to the occasional deliver of mattresses using a full sized semi truck. He mentioned that a plan would be developed to use the west parking lot similar to what was described for the oxygen semi delivery. Commissioner Cartin spoke to screening of activities in the surface parking lot. Tom Braun again mentioned the division between master plan and CUP levels of detail. Commissioner Pratt opened the public hearing to public comment. Peter Knobel spoke to the needed for cooperation between the Evergreen and the VVMC. Jim Lamont provided a collection of photos showing existing loading and delivery practices. Spoke to expectation and the challenges to master planning dynamic situations. Jim spoke to challenges with existing loading and delivery functions with the Vail Front Door project and the village as a whole. The provided photos demonstrated loading and delivery challenges and the multitude of users on West Meadow Drive. The photos depicted several instances of large delivery vehicles providing service to the site block the pedestrian sidewalk and the street. Construction traffic and staging was broached. Jim wrapped up by explaining his previous comments about moonlighting, sunshine and the need for public monies to assist with this challenge, particularly for the use of a loading and delivery facility. Mery Lapin, resident of 232 W. Meadow, spoke to the steps the hospital has made with the master plan. Spoke to the management challenges of changing people's habits. Spoke to the Towns role in policing future problems and what the steps should be if the hospital does not do what it says. Mery also spoke to the ability of the hospital to restrict access to certain vehicles and forbid certain size trucks. Mery compared the situation to the helicopter flight path and the success of communication. Discussed Lot 10 and its use and his desire that the town not sell but rather lease. Spoke of the short sightedness of putting town owned properties at risk. Questioned the periodic arrival of the generator truck and its use in the future. Spoke to the use of the US Bank frontage and that is should be studied and included in the master planning process. Warren Campbell stated that the question that needs to be answered is: "Should loading and delivery be prohibited from West Meadow Drive entirely or is there a circumstance or conditions whereby loading and delivery could be permissible on West meadow Drive ?" Commissioner Martin inquired if the hospital had a receiving coordinator. Tom Braun stated that there was not currently a laoding and delivery manager and the challenges without an existing formalized dock. Commissioner Martin observed that the proposed dock may be undersized and questioned the sequencing of construction activities. Tom Braun provided the proposed sequencing and anticipated further discussion. Commissioner Rediker asked about the inconsistencies between the provided loading and delivery traffic studies and the photos presented by Jim Lamont showing larger trucks. Mark Bunnell stated that the photos did exhibit trucks larger than had been communicated to him as providing deliveries. The team would need to go back and examine the provided data. 1F))gW�4 Commissioner Kurz spoke to the challenges of the site and the neighborhood and if an offsite warehouse may be an option. Spoke to town responsibilities related to traffic and pedestrian flow and its lack of effective management. Commissioner Hopkins spoke to perhaps the hospital is creating their own constrictions by not fully including the US Bank property and the west parking. Spoke to limiting services to limit impacts. Commissioner Cartin spoke to the use of the west parking lot for over sized vehicle use and that only accommodating certain vehicles indoors is short sighted. Spoke to using streetscape improvements to limit non permitted loading and delivery. Spoke to triggers in the plan that would require reevaluation of certain components including loading and deliveries. Commissioner Pratt spoke to the PEC not being confined to the status quo. Spoke to ideas that have not been presented. Planned loading facility is undersized. Spoke to issues that are not being fully addressed concerning loading and timing. Pratt encouraged an alternative approach be examined to take the loading access from the internal courtyard to internalize the operation and not have extraneous impacts along the public way. Proposed a ramping solution which would provide one -way access of the Frontage Road and exiting via Meadow Drive. 30 minutes 2. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major amendment to Special Development District No. 8, Fallridge, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for the conversion of three commercial units to three residential dwelling units, located at 1650 Fallridge Road, Units C1, C2, C3 ( Fallridge Condominiums) /Lot 2, Sunburst Filing 3, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140033) Applicant: FRC3 LLC, William Pierce, and Mery Lapin, represented by Matthew King Planner: Joe Batcheller ACTION: Recommendation of approval MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Hopkins VOTE: 7 -0 -0 CONDITION(S): 1. The applicants shall each mitigate the employee generation impact created by the addition of 5,132 square feet of GRFA (C -1, 2,661 sq. ft.; C -2, 954 sq. ft.; C -3, 1,517 sq. ft.) in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 12 -24, Inclusionary Zoning, Vail Town Code. Each applicant shall mitigate their specific unit's impact according to the methods and timing prescribed in Section 12 -24 -6, Methods of Mitigation, Vail Town Code. 2. Prior to requesting a Final Planning Inspection, the applicants shall amend the plat and governing documents regarding the change in use for units C -1, C -2, and C -3. Joe Batcheller gave a presentation pursuant to the memorandum. He spoke to the history of the project and the original intent of the SDD to be a commercial mixed use area. Commissioner Pratt inquired as to basis for the reduced parking demand. Commissioner Kurz clarified the statement in Staff's memo as to the potential for on site EHU mitigation. Commissioner Martin inquired as to the use of the large deck area and the ability to provide outdoor space to each commercial unit. Batcheller responded that it is possible that the owners of the condos may wish to replace windows with doors that connect directly to the common deck. 1IDIJW 44 Matthew King, spoke to the general common element nature of the deck and the future plan to capture some outdoor deck space for each unit if it became residential. He spoke to the challenges of surrounding residential land uses and lack of visibility, and difficulty finding the location. These are smaller spaces and the trend is to work from home. There isn't interest and there is space closer in to the villages that are more desirable. This would be a reduction in commercial that isn't really successful or in demand. There have been extended periods of time where the space has been vacant. Spoke to parking as not being a concern at any point in the year. There was no public comment. Commissioners Hopkins and Cartin expressed support for the application. Commissioner Cleveland spoke to the request making sense for the SDD. Commissioners Kurz, Rediker, and Martin expressed support. Commisioenr Pratt spoke to the need to preserve office space, but the location was challenging and not successful for commercial. He supported the amendment. 3. A request for the review of a development plan, pursuant to Section 12 -8E -6, Development Plan, Vail Town Code and a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -8E -3, Conditional Use, Vail Town Code, to allow for the redevelopment of the Ski and Snowboard Vail Club Vail site with a new private and public club and multi - family residential dwelling units, located at 598 Vail Valley Drive /Part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140020, PEC140023) Applicant: Ski and Snowboard Club Vail, represented by Braun and Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: Tabled to October 13, 2014 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 7 -0 -0 4. A request for the review of a final plat, pursuant to Chapter 13 -4, Minor Subdivision, Vail Town Code, to allow for the re- subdivision of Parcel 1 of the Golden Peak Ski Base And Recreation District Parcel and Part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7, in order to establish Parcel 3, Golden Peak Ski Base And Recreation District Parcel, the redevelopment site for Ski and Snowboard Club Vail, located at 460 and 598 Vail Valley Drive /Parcel 1, Golden Peak Ski Base and Recreation District Parcel, and Part of Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140021) Applicant: Ski and Snowboard Club Vail and Vail Corporation, represented by Braun and Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: Tabled to October 13, 2014 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 7 -0 -0 5. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major amendment to Special Development District No. 4, Cascade Village, pursuant to Section 12- 9A -10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow a revision to the approved development plan for the Cornerstone site to facilitate the construction of a tensioned membrane structure, located at 1300 Westhaven Drive /Unplatted, (Lifts ide /Cornerstone) and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140019) Applicant: Charter Sports, represented by Braun & Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: Tabled to October 13, 2014 1 pa6w 5 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 7 -0 -0 6. A request for the review of amendments to a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12 -9C- 3, Conditional Uses, to allow for improvements to a public park and active outdoor recreation area, facility, and use (restroom and picnic pavilion) on the Lower Bench of Ford Park, located at 530 South Frontage Road East /Unplatted(Ford Park), and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC140024) Applicant: Town of Vail, represented by Greg Hall Planner: Jonathan Spence ACTION: Tabled to October 13, 2014 MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 7 -0 -0 7. Approval of September 8, 2014 minutes MOTION: Cartin SECOND: Cleveland VOTE: 5 -0 -2 (Martin, Kurz recused) 8. Information Update 9. Adjournment MOTION: Kurz SECOND: Cleveland 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. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Planning and Environmental Commission will consider an item. Please call (970) 479 -2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 24 -hour notification. Please call (970) 479 -2356, Telephone for the Hearing Impaired, for information. Community Development Department Published September 19, 2014 in the Vail Daily. 1 F))gW 64 rnwH of vn' �Ii> VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 7, 2014 ITEM /TOPIC: Introduction of New Wildland Program Administrator Paul Cada PRESENTER(S): Mark Miller, Vail Fire Chief 10/7/2014 rnwH of vn' �Ii> VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 7, 2014 ITEM /TOPIC: Library Bike Path Alignment Update Presentation of a proposed realignment for the Gore Valley Trail between Lionshead and West Meadow Drive designed to move portions of the path onto town -owned stream tract while protecting high -value existing trees. PRESENTER(S): Gregg Barrie, Public Works ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff is asking Council to either endorse the proposed alignment or to provide direction towards an acceptable solution. BACKGROUND: The Gore Valley Trail behind the Vail Public Library connects Lionshead with West Meadow Drive. It is one of the more scenic and popular sections of trail in Vail. However, there are several projects required along the corridor including renovation of the trail, replacement of the Middle Creek culverts and stream bank and lighting improvements. In 2007, it was determined that a portion of the path crossed private property of the Lodge at Lionshead Phase III (LAL III), who have informally requested that the path be relocated to town -owned property. Fully relocating the trail to town -owned property would require the removal of more than a dozen spruce and Iodgepole pine trees. The Town Manager and staff have met with representatives of LAL III twice to work towards an agreeable solution that would protect most trees while still relocating the trail towards the south. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council approve the proposed alignment pending the Lodge at Lionshead Phase III Board's acceptance. Staff does not recommend fully relocating the trail to town -owned stream tract since doing so would eliminate four additional large, healthy spruce trees. If Council endorses the recommended alignment, it will then be presented to the Lodge at Lionshead Board in the coming weeks along with a request for a formal Recreation Path Easement. ATTACHMENTS: Town Council Memorandum 10/7/2014 TOWN OF K VAIL � Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject Vail Town Council Department of Public Works October 7, 2014 Update on Library Trail and Associated Projects INTRODUCTION The Gore Valley Trail behind the Vail Public Library connects Lionshead with West Meadow Drive. It is one of the more scenic and popular sections of trail in Vail. However, there are several projects required along the corridor including renovation of the trail, replacement of the Middle Creek culverts and stream bank and lighting improvements. In 2007, it was determined that a portion of the path crossed private property of the Lodge at Lionshead Phase III (LAL III), who have informally requested that the path be relocated to town -owned property. BACKGROUND In September 2013, staff led a Town Council site visit to area to discuss the proposed projects. Staff was directed to develop several alternative alignments that included partial and full relocation. Fully relocating the trail to town -owned property would require the removal of more than a dozen spruce and lodgepole pine trees. The Town Manager and staff have met with representatives of LAL III twice to work towards an agreeable solution that would protect most trees while still relocating the trail to the south. The following proposal has been discussed with representatives of the Homeowner's Association, but not with the full Association Board. Staff is asking for Town Council's direction and endorsement of the plan prior to submitting it to their Board. a ZIQ ael•94IZ_1IMi!IJi1=11!111 Please reference the attached drawings for the following description: From Lionshead to the Lodge at Lionshead Phase III property, the renovated Gore Valley Trail will follow its existing alignment T. Across the LAL III property, the proposed alignment is a compromise that generally leaves the western side near its existing 10/7/2014 location 02 thereby protecting trees, and moves the eastern end predominantly onto town -owned property OO . The trail will generally fall within the town's utility easement along the south property line. The proposed alignment requires the construction of a bridge over a wetland area ®, and realigns the trail behind the library along the south edge of the library lawn OO . The walkway to the south entrance of the library will be extended to the new trail alignment ©. This configuration also allows realignment of the Middle Creek culverts which reduces the tight curve east of the creek OO , a significant safety improvement on the popular trail. A certified arborist evaluated the trees in the corridor. While most of the trees are relatively healthy, it was determined that a spruce with four trunks ® on the western side of the LAL III property (on town -owned land) is declining, with concerns about structural integrity. The arborist's recommendation is they are not worth working around since construction impacts will likely "finish them off." Removal of these trees will facilitate construction of the bridge, reduce the impacts of the blind curve and protect the larger and healthier trees on each side. In addition to the spruce, the proposed alignment requires removal of three lodgepole pine trees OO , and three spruce for the construction of the bridge. In all, realigning the path will require removal of two spruce clumps and three lodgepole pines. IV. ESTIMATED COSTS A. Rebuild the trail in existing location: $ 250,000 B. Proposed alignment: $ 400,000 C. Relocate trail south of LALIII property line: $ 435,000 * these estimates do not include the cost of lighting, culverts or stream bank work V. EVALUATION Advantages 1. Protects the largest and healthiest trees in the corridor 2. Opens up nearly 900 sf of area for Lodge at Lionshead Phase III after relocation of the fence 3. Moves trail to the south edge of the library lawn area, providing an opportunity for a future outdoor library space such as a reading area, sitting area or programmable space. 4. Results in a Recreation Path Easement Agreement, protecting LAL III as well as allowing for future maintenance of the popular trail by the town. 5. Eliminates some of the blind curves and widens the trail to the town's standard width of 10' Disadvantages 1. Additional expense of approximately $150,000 to town for construction of a bridge 2. Removal of nine trees, although some are in poor condition Town of Vail 10/7/2014 Page 2 VI. OTHER PROJECTS As mentioned previously, there are additional projects that should be completed as part of the work. A brief description of each follows. As the alignment is finalized, staff will determine the extent of these projects and provide additional information to the Council. A. Renovated Lighting ($ 145,000) The existing lighting is inadequate and outdated and should be replaced during the path renovation project. B. Middle Creek Culverts Replacement ($ 150,000 currently budgeted) The existing culverts carrying Middle Creek suffered erosion on both the upstream and downstream sides during the 2011 flooding. The culverts were intended to be replaced with a concrete box culvert during the fall of 2013 using the Flood Mitigation funding, however the project was put on hold pending the trail renovation work. C. Stream Bank Erosion & Safety ($ 150,000 currently budgeted) A fifty -foot section of stream bank is significantly eroded behind LAL III with a drop -off of approximately 4 -8' down to Gore Creek. This area also appears to provide access to Gore Creek as it shows significant wear /compaction. This project was recommended for repair under the Flood Mitigation Report. Additionally, the repair of eroded stream banks is an important piece of the Gore Creek Water Quality Improvement Plan. It would make sense to repair this bank prior to rebuilding the recreation trail through this area. VII. ACTION REQUESTED BY COUNCIL Staff is asking the Council to either endorse the proposed alignment or to provide direction towards an acceptable solution. VIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Council approve the proposed alignment pending the Lodge at Lionshead Phase III Board's acceptance. Staff does not recommend fully relocating the trail to town -owned stream tract since doing so would eliminate four additional large, healthy spruce trees. If Council endorses the recommended alignment, it will then be presented to the Lodge at Lionshead Board in the coming weeks along with a request for a formal Recreation Path Easement. Town of Vail 10/7/2014 Page 3 i LEGEND: 4' PROTECTIVE ZONE ® PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL I LODGE AT LIONSHEAD PHASE iii I LODGE AT LIONSHEAD _ — PROPERTY LINE PHASE III — - — WETLAND BOUNDARY I I I SEE ENLARGED AREA SHEET 2 � I � — — LODGE AT LIONSHEAD r I O UTILITY EASEMENT BOUNDARY Z Q 3 o� ` 8 PROPOSED FENCE I VAIL PUBLIC LIBRARY lm i EXISTING FENCE EXISTING TRAIL 6 \ O 1 N co H W Cn Li / O Q y ♦ 5 ro a_ J '—�` 0001' •i , CL w L, �X Gr 9 - jv A GORE CREEK - _ „• „_ o � �a � / KEY: 1. WEST END OF TRAIL FOLLOWS EXISTING ALIGNMENT " A �� �� / / T _GB KGB 2. WEST SIDE OF LAL III PROPERTY IS NEAR EXISTING ALIGNMENT _ - - ; / GB —K-1 3. EAST SIDE OF LAL III PROPERTY IS MOSTLY SOUTH OF PROPERTY LINE 4. NEW BRIDGE _ �\ J _ \ ALIGNMENTS 5. PROPOSED ALIGNMENT ALONG SOUTH OF LIBRARY LAWN ` - � � A \ ti,N,tiE 10/7/14 T. 6. 7. 8. EXTEND WALKWAY TO LIBRARY ENTRANCE FLATTEN TIGHT RADIUS BY REALIGNING MIDDLE CREEK CROSSING REMOVAL OF SPRUCE CLUMP DETERMINED TO BE IN POOR CONDITION �� OO �� r %I \ A �� A RMT009 �� �� 1 " =35' 9. REMOVAL OF THREE LODGEPOLE PINES �p 1 OF 2 i / . 1 nil Proposed Alignment Tree Removals: (3) 12" Lodgepole, a clump of spruce for path and a clump of spruce for bridge Existing Path /Fence: LAL III PL to existing north edge of path: 1184 SF LAL III PL to existing fence: 1784 SF Proposed Path /Fence LAL III PL to proposed north shoulder: 335 SF LAL III PL to proposed fence: 893 SF TOV Utility Easement area: 1508 SF LAL III gains: 891 SF to fence LEGEND: 4' PROTECTIVE ZONE ® PROPOSED TREE REMOVAL LODGE AT LIONSHEAD PHASE iii PROPERTY LINE ■ i■ ■ i■i ■ ■ WETLAND BOUNDARY UTILITY EASEMENT BOUNDARY EXISTING TRAIL EXISTING FENCE PROPOSEDFENCE dab C _ �}� v X// / / I 4o " / o t00% �\ �_♦ �� \ �\ /� a �10 ii■ ■u���' ILA 100_yR F 1 11 si 0 li i� ■u■I n■li ■� r �� l �� ♦.� Air ,, � /Kil /���1L L�II■i! t �iiii,w ■ii■n n ♦ — �� i I GORE CREEK Z W W J z� W O < Q —' W a I fn 0 CO Z F- 411 w O a 0� w U 0 J Q m J �Q O am J O~ H � W -J Z —j CWC > G Z N Q o Q iL O 0. O cc I a GB MW GB ALIGNMENTS 10/7/14 RMT009 1 " =20' 20F2 Above: Heavy summer use Below: Wear and tear on pavement, and outdated /insufficient lighting Town of Vail 10/7/2014 Page 4 Arrows indicate trees proposed for removal. Above: spruce clump Below left: Three lodgepole pines; Below right: Three leaning spruce trees Town of Vail 10/7/2014 Page 5 Above: Middle Creek culverts/railings, worn out paving, lighting Below: Heavily eroded stream bank r ` - - � .fir► �.: � � .�_ �.t.. V- 'low 4b Town of Vail 10/7/2014 Page 6 rnwH of vn' �Ii> VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 7, 2014 ITEM /TOPIC: Alternative Fuels Analysis Project Update. PRESENTER(S): Greg Hall, Public Works and Dan Richardson, SGM Representative ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Town Council to listen to presentation and provide staff with direction. BACKGROUND: The Town Council requested the town investigate the feasibility of converting the town's fleet to use CNG as an alternative fuel, specifically the bus fleet in anticipation of the purchase of 15 transit coaches budgeted in 2016 and 2018. The town requested a proposal from the engineering firm of (SGM) out of Glenwood Springs to analyze the implications of converting the fleet to the use of alternative fuels. SGM analyzed the costs and implications of utilizing diesel, diesel electric (hybrid), electric, and natural gas fuels. ATTACHMENTS: Town Council Memorandum 100714 Alternative Fuels Report Alternative Fuels Report PowerPoint 10/7/2014 rowN of vain Memorandum To: Vail Town Council From: Community Development and Public Works Departments Date: October 7, 2014 Subject: Alternative Fuels Analysis Project I. PURPOSE Review the report from SGM regarding the Town of Vail utilizing alternative fuels in its fleet operations, more specifically in the buses. The Town Council requested the staff investigate the conversion of the town's fleet to Compressed Natural Gas (CNG). II. BACKGROUND The Town Council requested the town investigate the feasibility of converting the town's fleet to use CNG as an alternative fuel, specifically the bus fleet in anticipation of the purchase of 15 transit coaches budgeted in 2016 and 2018. The town requested a proposal from the engineering firm of (SGM) out of Glenwood Springs to analyze the implications of converting the fleet to the use of alternative fuels. SGM analyzed the costs and implications of utilizing diesel, diesel electric (hybrid), electric, and natural gas fuels. II. PROJECT SGM has provided analysis for using various fuels to operate the transit fleet and potentially other fleet vehicles in the future. SGM has provided detailed costs for various fuels, including initial capital infrastructure costs for a fueling facility and shop modifications to meet building code requirements, primarily for utilizing natural gas vehicles. SGM was involved from the start with the Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RAFTA) when they made the decision to convert to natural gas buses, and assisted RFTA in the design and build of the fueling facility and shop modifications, as well as operations since the implementation. The decision to utilize alternative fuels will have a significant impact on all aspects of the PW/Transportation department. The report from SGM addresses the capital and operational costs associated with the various types of fuel and looks at historical costs and forecasts costs and volatility of the various fuel sources in the future. Energy, Environmental Impact and Cost Savings The conversion of the Town's fleet would likely have little impact on the reduction of the town's greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions as current literature provides little to no reduction in emissions, except if the Town chose to use electric buses. 10/7/2014 ILYA V. VI. The potential savings would be in operating costs over time. The analysis performed calculates the anticipated operating costs verses the capital investment to realize the savings. Process The next steps would be for the Vail Town Council to review the SGM report on using alternative fueled buses. This would include operating and capital costs, specific training and operational protocol, use assumptions, and payback analysis. PROJECT FUNDING 2015 Capital Projects STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Vail Town Council review the SGM report and provide guidance as to which fuel source the transit buses should utilize in the future. NEXT STEPS If acceptable adjust future budgets Order buses Retrofit Shop Facilities and Construct fueling Take delivery of alternative fueled buses VII. ATTACHMENTS A. SGM Report dated July 28, 2014 Town of Vail 10/7/2014 October 2014 2015 2015 2016 Page 2 TOWN OF Town of Vail Alternative Fuel Analysis July 28, 2014 Photo courtesy of the Hibner Family Dan Richardson, CEM E> SGM 10/7/2014 SSGM Table of Contents Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail PROJECTTEAM: .................................................................................................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ ..............................2 Summary of TOV and Alternative Fuels ...................................................................................... ..............................2 Summaryof Analysis ................................................................................................................... ..............................3 Summaryof Key Findings ........................................................................................................... ..............................3 Summaryof Alternatives ............................................................................................................. ..............................4 Summary of Alternative Fuel Lifecycle Model ............................................................................. ..............................4 Summaryof Recommendations .................................................................................................. ..............................6 PROJECTBACKGROUND ........................................................................................ ..............................7 Town of Vail Background Information ......................................................................................... ..............................8 ALTERNATIVE FUELS / PROPULSION TECHNOLOGIES SUMMARY ................... ..............................9 Literature Review Sources .......................................................................................................... ..............................9 Comparable Transit Agencies ..................................................................................................... ..............................9 Electrificationof Accessories ..................................................................................................... .............................10 Diesel.......................................................................................................................................... .............................10 Diesel/ Electric Hybrid ............................................................................................................... .............................12 CompressedNatural Gas (CNG) ............................................................................................... .............................14 Battery - Electric ........................................................................................................................... .............................19 PROJECTED ENERGY PRICE ANALYSIS .............................................................. .............................23 Analyzingthe Forecasts ............................................................................................................. .............................24 Diesel.......................................................................................................................................... .............................25 Electricity.................................................................................................................................... .............................29 CompressedNatural Gas (CNG) ............................................................................................... .............................32 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................. .............................36 ANALYSIS................................................................................................................ .............................37 BusPerformance ........................................................................................................................ .............................37 LifecycleCost Analysis ............................................................................................................... .............................39 PrimaryDecision Drivers ............................................................................................................ .............................43 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................... .............................48 Summaryof Key Findings .......................................................................................................... .............................48 Summaryof Alternatives ............................................................................................................ .............................49 Summary of Recommendations ................................................................................................. .............................49 IMPLEMENTATION.................................................................................................. .............................50 ENDNOTES............................................................................................................. ............................... 52 APPENDIX 1. MW Constructors CNG Cost Estimate 10/7/2014 !BSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Project Team: Project Manager: Dan Richardson, CEM SGM 118 W. 6t" Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.384.9065 (direct line) danr @sgm- inc.com Consultants: Mike Ogburn CLEER 520 South Third Street, Suite 17 Carbondale, CO 81623 970.704.9200 mogburn @cleanenergyeconomy.net Our team wishes to thank Kristen Bertuglia (Sustainability Coordinator), Todd Scholl (Fleet Manager), Jeff Darnall (Lead Mechanic), Mike Rose (Transit Manager), John King (Facility Manager) and Greg Hall (Public Works Director) for sharing pertinent information and for providing critical feedback on our work. We also wish to thank the TOV staff for assisting us with this project. IfliqMV111 s0[5EN ww [ Vi J � Tea Pw xEUaW Vail — -a. ••a, ' , Yf k IP Gall Gwr:r �sP, Mountain MAP NOT -AWN TO 5[AlE ids P [A5 'At 'M �N ACNUSE[N, St MEGyA( NfOS. '� StA :� 4 F C EOYTE Y.EiAi 0 5. 10/�/2D!14 ; MAP NOT D—N TO 5tA[E Wnl Vail Red° - - t�i Y YYbtIL IRR'� —. = Ma.lfb U� I..innsGred�M tf � �� � it j j0 r"� Gdi Coursr L UM Ved Well VrtY Grenr� • � �,�,.ea�E f � fr U �- W SSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Executive Summary As defined by the Town of Vail (TOV), the intent of this project is to perform an analysis and feasibility study of alternate clean fuel systems and options for transit vehicles. Specifically this project will assess clean fuel transit systems in a mountain environment and research, evaluate, analyze and present findings regarding the cost, performance, greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle and infrastructure implementation needs, noise and feasibility for implementing various clean fuel alternatives in the Town of Vail. In addition, this report also includes an analysis of projected long -term energy prices. Summary of TOV and Alternative Fuels TOV provides local and regional service with a fleet of 32 buses in a rural resort community with a cold climate, high altitude (8,150') and varying terrain. It currently runs 10 diesel /electric buses and uses a 2% biodiesel blend in all of its buses. The Town of Vail continues to support alternative fuels, particularly if they reduce greenhouse gas emissions and noise pollution. According to the American Public Transit Association (APTA), the percentage of public transit buses in service in the U.S. powered by alternative fuels increased from 2% in 1992 to 36% in 2011, which is at least 10 times as many alternatively fueled buses as alternatively fueled cars. The breakdown by fuel source is as follows: APTA Alternative Fuel Buses Town of Vail Bus Fuels Figure 1: APTA Alternatives Fuel Buses Figure 2: TOV Alternative Fuel Buses 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 2 of 53 Biodiesel 22% Hybrid CNG & 31% — - - LNG 2% blend 53% Biodiesel Hybrid 69% 25% Figure 1: APTA Alternatives Fuel Buses Figure 2: TOV Alternative Fuel Buses 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 2 of 53 SSGM Summary of Analysis Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail The alternative fuel technologies considered in this study include diesel, diesel - electric hybrid, compressed natural gas (CNG), and battery - electric. Diesel is considered the baseline to which the other technologies were compared. Because TOV has extensive experience with diesel and several years' experience with hybrids, research centered around reviewing historical TOV data on diesel and hybrids, and researching other transit - specific information for CNG and battery - electric buses. While there are certainly other alternative technologies available, no others were considered viable for TOV and therefore worthy of inclusion of this analysis. The methodology of this analysis was as follows: 1. TOV Data Review: Review bus performance data for TOV fleet. 2. Literature Review: Perform a review of recently published or otherwise relevant information regarding the performance of CNG and battery - electric buses. 3. Transit Agency Representative Interviews: Inquire about bus performance and lifecycle costs. 4. Vendor Interviews: Inquire about bus performance and lifecycle costs. 5. Web research: Research applicable case studies, vehicle performance information or other pertinent information. 6. Energy Price Analysis: Research historical trend data for diesel, electricity and natural gas prices via the Energy Information Administration (EIA) website and from TOV- specific data and utility information; research projected price information via industry trade websites and for TOV- specific natural gas and electricity suppliers. 7. Lifecycle Cost Modeling: Develop a custom excel -based model to analyze the different variables associated with the baseline alternative fuel technologies included in this analysis. Summary of Key Findings • TOV has funds budgeted to replace 8 buses in 2016 and 7 in 2018. If a decision is made to switch to an alternative technology, 15 buses could be replaced in 2016. • Because of the high volatility of diesel, the business as usual approach is highly susceptible to large price swings. Diversifying fuel sources will provide more stability in overall fuel costs. • The Town currently uses drivers to fuel buses but is exploring the costs and benefits of having dedicated fuelers. Because of the maintenance required during CNG fueling, dedicated fuelers would likely be required for CNG. • Many of the existing service bays lack fresh -air ventilation resulting in higher upgrade costs for CNG. • Also because of the maintenance required during CNG fueling, Town staff would prefer to have an enclosed fueling bay, or a bay as enclosed and conditioned as possible. • TOV has not explored the viability of Proterra battery - electric buses prior to this analysis; however it would appear that the Town's routes are conducive to Proterra's rapid- charge approach. According to transit agency representatives interviewed, these buses are operating well. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 3 of 53 SSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail • The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority's (RFTA) experience with CNG has been very positive to date and because of the very similar climate and operating conditions, demonstrates that CNG is a viable alternative for TOV from a vehicle performance standpoint. • While the data show that the MPG of TOV's hybrid buses is approximately 4% worse than diesel, this analysis projects that new hybrid buses would perform 15% better than new diesel buses running on comparable routes. Perhaps the most significant variables in determining lifecycle costs will be: 1) the future cost of energy; 2) the availability of grants or other funds to offset the cost premium of buses and /or infrastructure; 3) the number of alternative fuel buses purchased; and the Town's willingness to incorporate new technology into its fleet. Summary of Alternatives Alternative Advantages Disadvantages Lowest cost bus; lowest lifecycle cost Susceptible to volatile and increasing Diesel (under current conditions); familiarity cost of diesel; air pollution associated with the technology with diesel; noisiest alternative Reduced noise; more fuel efficient Higher cost of buses; susceptible to Hybrid - electric than diesel; familiarity with the volatile and increasing cost of diesel; technology more maintenance than diesel; potential battery replacement needs Second lowest annual fuel costs; Highest capital expenses - constructing a Compressed lower projected price volatility; lower fueling station and upgrading the Natural Gas lifecycle costs when majority of fleet maintenance facility; higher cost of (CNG) can be replaced buses; higher maintenance; unfamiliarity with the technology By far lowest annual fuel costs; lowest projected price volatility; By far highest bus cost; route scheduling Battery - electric lowest maintenance cost, lower parameters due to recharging; lifecycle cost than diesel when unfamiliarity with the technology, limited capital costs can be reduced by 25- track record of bus manufacturers 35 %. Table 1: Summary of Alternative Fuels Analyzed in this Report Summary of Alternative Fuel Lifecycle Model The lifecycle cost analysis for this project includes all projected costs associated with each alternative throughout a bus's expected life, except bus disposal cost /salvage value. In order to account for many different variables in the analysis, a model was created so that several different scenarios can be evaluated. The model includes the variables described and shown in the model screenshot in Table 2. The model is intended to accurately compare lifecycle costs for different technologies for the TOV. It should be noted that due to widely varying cost accounting by different municipalities and transit agencies, the model should not be used to compare TOV costs with other organizations. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 4 of 53 SSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail TOV Alt. Fuel Lifecycle Cost Length Model Diesel 40 Diesel w/ fuelers 40 Hybrid 40 CNG 40 Electric 40 MPGe 5.28 5.28 6.07 5.49 21 Unit price of fuel (2013) $ 3.42 $ 3.42 $ 3.42 $ 1.81 $ 0.99 Fuel inflation rate (% /yr) 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 3.2% 2.2% Lifetime average unit fuel price $ 4.96 $ 4.96 $ 4.96 $ 2.23 $ 0.1060 Gross bus acquisition cost $ 380,000 $ 380,000 $ 580,000 $ 430,000 $ 900,000 Grant funding ( %) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Net bus acquisition cost $ 380,000 $ 380,000 $ 580,000 $ 430,000 $ 900,000 Financing Rate: 0.0% Term: 12 Bus cost with cost of financing $ 380,000 $ 380,000 $ 580,000 $ 430,000 $ 900,000 Annual bus debt service $31,667 $31,667 $48,333 $35,833 $75,000 Bus acquisition cost /mile $ 1.40 $ 1.40 $ 2.13 $ 1.58 $ 3.30 fueling /charging station cost N/A N/A N/A $ 2,627,000 $ 1,600,000 maintenance facility upgrade cost N/A N/A N/A $ 2,559,373 $ - Gross infrastructure cost $ - $ - $ 5,186,373 $ 1,600,000 Grant funding ( %) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Net infrastructure cost $ - $ - $ - $ 5,186,373 $ 1,600,000 Financing terms Rate: Rate: 0.0% Term: 12 Infra. cost w/ cost of financing $ - $ - $ - $ 5,186,373 $ 1,600,000 Annual infrastructure debt service N/A N/A N/A $ 259,319 $ 133,000 Infrastructure cost /mile N/A N/A N/A $ 1.27 $ 0.39 2013 fuel cost /mile $ 0.65 $ 0.65 $ 0.56 $ 0.33 $ 0.047 Lifetime fuel costs $ 255,774 $ 255,774 $ 222,635 $ 110,663 $ 14,701 Lifetime average fuel cost /m $ 0.94 $ 0.94 $ 0.82 $ 0.41 $ 0.054 2013 bus maintenance cost /mile $ 1.14 $ 1.32 $ 1.45 $ 1.45 $ 0.91 Labor inflation rate (% /yr) 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Lifetime maintenance costs $ 376,643 $ 436,113 $ 479,064 $ 479,064 $ 301,314 L' $ 1.38 $ 1.60 $ 1.76 $ 1.76 $ 1.11 2013 Total cost /mile $ 3.18 $ 3.36 $ 4.14 $ 4.63 $ 4.65 Total Lifetime cost /mile $ 3.72 $ 3.93 $ 4.71 $ 5.01 $ 4.86 Lifetime cost (1 bus) $ 1,012,417 $ 1,071,887 $1,281,698 $ 1,365,484 $ 1,322,682 Lifetime cost /mile (w /out infra. $) $ 3.72 $ 3.93 $ 4.71 $ 3.74 $ 4.46 Lifetime cost (1 bus w /out infra. $) $1,012,417 $ 1,071,887 $1,281,698 $ 1,019,726 $ 1,216,015 Lifetime cost x # of buses + infra. $ $15,186,253 $16,078,302 $19,225,477 $20,482,266 $19,840,230 Lifetime cost + bldg. maint. average annual miles $15,186,253 22,700 $16,078,302 $19,225,477 $20,918,903 $19,985,775 average years in service 12 lifetime miles 272,400 number of buses purchased 15 lifetime miles x number of buses 4,086,000 Table 2: TOV Alternative Fuel Lifecycle Cost Model Screenshot 10/7/2014 2013 - 359,001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 5 of 53 SSGM Summary of Recommendations Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Successfully managing a public transit operation is both technically and financially challenging. It's a continuous balancing act of providing reliable service at a reasonable cost with significant variables, not least of which is the cost of fuel. While the primary drivers for evaluating alternative fuels may be environmental stewardship, fuel diversity and /or sourcing local fuels, it is imperative that the entire fleet operate reliably, on schedule and within budget. For this reason several factors were considered with respect to performance, capital costs and operating costs. The Lifecycle Cost Model was created so that the different costs and the variables affecting these costs could be compared over the life of the bus. It is important to point out that as these variables change, so do Iifecycle costs. All this is to say that the alternative with the lowest Iifecycle cost and best score may and likely will change as conditions change. For this reason, there isn't one `winner', but rather specific recommendations on how to pursue each alternative depending on conditions, including present conditions. These recommendations are based on TOV's stated priorities as well as SGM's research and analysis. Until conditions warrant re- evaluation of SGM recommends the following: 1. Actively participate in Proterra's summer bus tour and `test drive' in Colorado. 2. See recommendations in the `Implementation' section of this report for TOV's applicable choice. 3. Regularly re- evaluate potential funding sources to offset the bus premiums and infrastructure costs for battery - electric, hybrid and CNG, including HCE's Community Enhancement Fund. 4. Continue to assess potential partnership with other fleet owners and /or fueling station owners about the possibility of a CNG fueling partnership. 5. Monitor the `Lifecycle Cost Model Variables' discussed in the `Lifecycle Cost Analysis' section and re -run scenarios as appropriate in order to determine whether conditions have changed enough to alter the present course of action. 6. Evaluate electrification of accessories during refurbishment of existing buses or for new bus purchases. Regardless of which alternative fuel TOV wishes to pursue, the following next steps are recommended before any investment is made because they are likely to change over time: 1. Confirm the assumptions for the scenario for which you wish to plan. 2. Confirm Iifecycle cost estimates for the scenario. 3. Confirm the priority and weighting factor for each of the primary decision drivers. 4. Achieve consensus within TOV as to which technology you wish to purse and how aggressively you would like to pursue it. Pursue technology- specific next steps as outlined in conclusion of this report. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 6 of 53 SSGM Project Background Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail The intent of this project is to perform an analysis and feasibility study of alternate clean fuel systems and options for transit vehicles for the Town of Vail (TOV), Colorado. Specifically this project will assess clean fuel transit systems in a mountain environment and research, evaluate, analyze and present findings regarding the cost, performance, greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle and infrastructure implementation needs, and feasibility for implementing various clean fuel alternatives. In addition, this report also includes an analysis of projected long -term energy prices. The alternative fuels considered in this study include: • Clean diesel • Diesel /Electric hybrid • Compressed natural gas (CNG) • Battery- electric 80,000 110,000 40,000 — 20,OGO — U.S. Transit Buses by Fuel Type 0 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2003 2006 2007- 2008 2009 2010 E Diesel CNG, LNG & Blends Electric & Hybrid Gasoline Bodiesel" I■ Other Source: American Public Transportation Association Fact Book Derived from Table 16 and 27 in Appendix A of Edition 2012. Notes: * Data not continuous between 2006 and 2007 due to new data sources and improved accuracy. ** Biodiesel was counted in the 'other" category until 2008. Current numbers do not indicate methodology for defining what blend qualifies a bus as biodiesel and discretion is advised in the use of these numbers beyond basic trend analyses. Figure 3: This chart shows the number of transit buses in use in the United States, broken down by fuel type, from 1996 to 2010. In all years shown, diesel buses represent the largest portion of total buses, with natural gas buses a distant second. The share of alternative fuel buses has risen from 8% of the buses in 2000 to 34% in 2010. Over the same decade, natural gas buses have risen from 7% to 19% of all buses. This increase is largely due to the favorable economics and clean air benefits of natural gas in transit bus applications. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 7 of 53 SSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Town of Vail Background Information This report is based on Town of Vail data provided by staff through personal and phone interviews. The summary of findings from The Town's data and interview information is summarized as follows: • The Town provides free local service in a rural resort community with a cold climate and high altitude (8,150'). The service territory is approximately 4.5 square miles with mild inclines. Bus service operates 365 days a year, roughly 20 hours per day and carried over three million riders in 2013. Summer service is approximately twice that of off - season service and winter service is approximately twice that of summer service. The Town has operated the service since 1973 and has an experienced staff with considerable longevity among management staff. • All local routes use the Vail Transportation Center as a central hub. Regional bus service is also provided daily by ECO Transit with service to Vail, Leadville, Minturn, Eagle -Vail, Avon, Edwards, Eagle and Gypsum. • It appears that the Vail community generally prefers `clean fuel' technology and definitely prefers quieter buses. The vast majority of riders are considered to be `choice riders' in that they have a choice whether they ride or not. • The Town Council has been supportive of the bus service and wants to demonstrate leadership in alternative fuels. • Currently a 2% biodiesel blend is used in all buses and staff is considering the merits of increasing this to 5 %. • Staff wants to make sure any new technology performs equally well or better compared to existing technology and would not over burden building and vehicle maintenance budgets. • The Town's existing fleet consists of 22 diesel buses and 10 diesel /electric hybrid buses. The Town is planning to replace eight (8) 2003 diesel buses in 2016 and seven (7) 2006 diesel buses in 2018. Currently its spare capacity for buses is approximately 10 %. The Town may expand its bus service and /or fleet if the 'Simba' project develops. • The Public Works /Bus Maintenance Building is the only maintenance and fueling facility for Town of Vail vehicles including its buses. It was built in 1978 and has had three remodels and /or additions, the most recent one occurring in 2002. There is an expansion included in the masterplan that would add space to the west. Recent upgrades include a lighting retrofit and boiler replacement. The facility is large enough to store all buses overnight and currently all fueling takes place outdoors. Currently the building is heated by a combination of in -floor radiant, radiant tube heaters and make -up air units (MAU). In general the building functions well but it has minimal fresh air ventilation. • Cost per gallon of diesel has increased 4.6% per year on average since 2008 but annual diesel costs have increased 12% per year on average. Maintenance costs have increased 9% per year on average since 2008. • Currently bus drivers are responsible for fueling all buses, typically done at the end of their shifts. Staff is considering changing this procedure so that dedicated fuelers fuel and perform minor maintenance on buses. • There is no dedicated funding for bus service and all funds are appropriated annually from the General Fund. There is a healthy fleet replacement budget. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 8 of 53 E5SGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Alternative Fuels / Propulsion Technologies Summary Literature Review Sources Town of Vail Please refer to the Appendix for a complete list of reviewed literature. The following is a summarized list of studies and /or reports referenced for this report: • RTD: Comparative Study of Diesel, CNG, and Hybrid Technologies — April 2011 • NREL: Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Transit Bus Experience Survey - April 2010 http://www.afdc.enerqV.qov/pdfs/48814.pd • RMI: Examining the Case for Natural Gas in Transportation Part 1; Fleets and Natural Gas: A Good Match? Part 2 — July 2012 http: / /blog.rmi.org /blog Examininq +the +Case +for +Natural +Gas • CEO: Experience with Compressed Natural Gas in Colorado Vehicle Fleets - Case Study Analysis — 8/12 http: / /www.colorado.gov /cs /Satellite ?c = Document C& childpagename= GovEnergyOffice %2FDocument C %2FCBONAddLinkView &cid= 1251629763829 &pagename= CBONWrapper • TTI: Cap Metro CNG Implementation Study — November 2011 http: / /d2dt15nnlpfrOr.cloudfront. net /tti.tamu.edu /documents /TTI- 2011 -7. pdf • MJB &A: Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel and Diesel Hybrid - Electric Transit Buses: Efficiency & Environmental Performance — November 2013; authored by MJB &A http: / /mmbradleV.com/ sites / default/ files / CNG% 20Diesel% 20Hybrid% 20Comparison %20FINAL %2005nov13. pdf Comparable Transit Agencies Please refer to the Appendix for a complete list of notes, contacts and contact information. Transit Agency Utah Transit Authority Nickname UTA Location Salt Lake City, UT D Y DH CNG Y Elec Steamboat Springs Transit SST Steamboat Springs, CO Y Y Roaring Fork Transportation Authority RFTA Glenwood — Aspen, CO Y Y Y Regional Transportation District RTD Metro Denver, CO Y Y Y Transfort n/a Ft. Collins, CO Y Y Denver International Airport DIA Denver, CO Y Central New York Regional Transit Authority Centro Syracuse NY, CO Y Y Capital Metro Metro Austin, TX Y Y Western Reserve Transit Authority WRTA Youngstown, OH Y Y Greater Cleveland Regional Transit RTA Greater Cleveland, OH Y Y Metro Regional Transit Authority Metro Akron, OH Y Y Blue Water Area Transit BWAT Port Huron, MI Y Y Golden Empire Transit District GET bus Bakersfield, CA Y Y Star Metro StarMetro Tallahassee, FL Y Y Clemson Area Transit CAT Clemson, SC Y Y Foothill Transit Foothill Pasadena, CA Y Y Y Legend: D = diesel; DH = diesel hybrid; CNG = compressed natural gas; Elec = Battery electric Table 3: Comparable Transit Agencies Referenced in Report 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 9 of 53 SSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Electrification of Accessories Because electrification has the potential to be added to any bus (diesel, hybrid, CNG, battery - electric, etc.), it is included for informational purposes but not included in any analysis. Electrification of Accessories All buses can increase fuel efficiency beyond the specific propulsion technology through electrification of accessories. These accessories can be directly driven by electrical power, enabling them to be decoupled from operation of the prime mover (e.g., the diesel engine, turbine, fuel cell, or electric propulsion motor). Benefits could include the ability to shut down the prime mover when not required for propulsion ( "no- idle" or "engine -off" capability), while continuing to operate accessories, such as air conditioning or power steering. Such technology will also enable bus accessories to be better matched to their actual average and instantaneous power demands rather than being sized for extreme conditions thus increasing fuel efficiency by as much as 25 %. These technologies may include, but are not limited to direct -drive (beltless) electrically - powered accessories; integrated starter /alternators; DC /DC converters; auxiliary power units; electric power steering; electric air compressors; electric power brakes; and electric air conditioners, heaters, and defrosters. Diesel The term `clean diesel' refers to ultra -low sulfur diesel (ULSD) which as the name implies has substantially less sulfur and therefore is less polluting than conventional diesel. As of 2006, almost all of the petroleum -based diesel fuel available in North America is of a ULSD type. The downside is that ULSD requires more refining and therefore costs more than conventional diesel. The upside is that ULSD opened the door for advancements in new diesel engine control systems and the significant reduction of emissions. Note that diesel is the baseline for comparison for all other fuels in this analysis. TOV's fleet currently has 22 diesel buses. Engines Advanced new technologies such as electronic controls, common rail fuel injection, variable injection timing, improved combustion chamber configuration and turbocharging have made diesel engines cleaner, quieter and more powerful than past vehicles. Exhaust emissions control systems are increasingly used to meet new emissions standards. Those systems include or combine processes such as exhaust gas recirculation, diesel oxidation catalysts, diesel particulate filters, and selective catalytic 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 10 of 53 GSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail reduction to reduce emissions but these new engine components have increased maintenance requirements. The Fuel $Ymecn CQnrroper L UKra Nish Bras! uUfv Fuel Purap A r� afilals4 die The Engine The Emissions Control .System acul Ev9vua7 4 *Suoko 'R` CY44 C!!f+?CI V1k4CIrAr'i 9D% Pa rfic u law Rcducl on 40 26-M NO x R"uvicin txMai,st Va1ros 1[.. 41, Turbo Charger Figure 4: Clean diesel diagram from http : / /images.huffingtonpost.com/ 2008- 08 -13 -C lean Diesel Systemchart.jpg Fuelin Because diesel is the baseline, there is no difference in fueling procedures or fueling infrastructure. TOV also blends 2% biodiesel into all of its diesel vehicles. As the name implies, there is far less sulfur in the fuel now and therefore the biodiesel blends helps compensate for the lost lubricity. Specialty Equipment Because diesel is the baseline, there is no specialty equipment. The technology that differentiates diesel from other bus technologies is included in the `Engines' section above. Available Vehicle Types Diesel vehicles are widely available in buses, pick -up trucks and some passenger vehicles. Alternative Advantages Disadvantages Lowest cost bus; lowest lifecycle cost Susceptible to volatile and increasing Diesel (under current conditions); familiarity cost of diesel; air pollution associated with the technology with diesel; noisiest alternative Table 4: Advantages and Disadvantages of Diesel 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 11 of 53 SSGM Diesel / Electric Hybrid Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Hybrid - electric bus technology is similar to that used in hybrid cars and trucks except buses are typically fueled by diesel instead of gasoline. The fuel efficiency of hybrid vehicles is achieved by absorbing energy in a battery during braking and by allowing the engine to operate more often at its peak efficiency. There are options for both parallel and series drive train designs and most employ similar technology including regenerative braking, electric motors, and battery storage. In order to reap the full fuel efficiency benefits from these buses requires optimizing the hybrid system for the specific transit bus routes, taking into consideration the terrain Battery Convene Emotor the bus travels or whether the bus frequently travels at freeway speeds or While many different studies report different emissions reductions of hybrid buses, for this report we reference the NREL study: King County Metro Transit Hybrid Articulated Buses: Final Evaluation Report; National Renewable Energy Laboratory; Chandler and Walkowicz 2006; NREL /TP- 540 -40585 which reported the following results: Figure 5: Parallel drive diagram Summary of Cycle NREL percentage decreases for hybrid CO NO. HC versus diesel buses PM CO2 Manhattan NS -38.7 NS -92.6 -43.8 OCTA -32 -28.6 NS -50.8 -34.5 CBD -48 -26.6 -75.2 -97.1 34.8 KCM -59.5 -17.8 -56.3 not statistically significant -24.1 Table 5: NREL Emissions Summary Engines Typical diesel electric hybrids are powered by both a diesel ICE (internal combustion engine) and an electric motor although the ICE is typically smaller than on conventional diesel buses. The diesel engine powers the vehicle and generates electricity for the electric motor. The electric motor derives its power from an alternator or generator that is coupled with an energy storage device, such as a set of batteries or ultracapacitors. Currently TOV has ten hybrid buses with Allison EP40 transmissions. Fueling Diesel hybrid buses are fueled with the same blend of ULSD and 2% biodiesel as its diesel -only buses. Specialty Equipment Hybrid buses do not require any additional fueling or maintenance infrastructure. Hybrids do have additional batteries which are recommended for replacement approximately every 5 -7 years at a cost of approximately $30,000 - $55,000 each. It should be noted however that to our knowledge battery replacement is not required until failure and to date it is the exception rather than the rule that batteries fail. TOV has operated hybrid buses since 2008 and has not needed to replace a battery yet. For lifecycle costing purposes, replacement is assumed. They also require laptops to troubleshoot software glitches but this is becoming commonplace for all bus types. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 12 of 53 E5SGM Available Vehicle Types There are several hybrid - electric vehicle types available; including other transit buses. However because there is no infrastructure needed for hybrid vehicles, there would not be any economies of scale to adding other types of hybrid - electric vehicles to TOV's fleet. Currently TOV has ten hybrid buses with Allison EP40 transmissions. The majority of hybrid transit buses are currently being manufactured by two companies; General Motors (GM) Allison transmission and British Aerospace Engineering Systems (BAE). To review a list of other hybrid - electric vehicles available, visit the DOE's Alternative Fuels Data Center website. Vehicle types include: • sedans /wagons • sport utility vehicles • vans • pick -up trucks Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Batter%, rz°ir ESS � l 4 III y _ s 4 + Nom} • Figure 6: Gillig Hybrid Diagram H••r F: rill .,,r`,,, c. I �..un.irr I:mr7 ';.:III:gi4F3 (,a )Ie$ Alternative Advantages Disadvantages Higher cost of buses; susceptible to Reduced noise; more fuel efficient volatile and increasing cost of Hybrid - electric than diesel; familiarity with the diesel; more maintenance than technology diesel; potential battery replacement needs Table 6: Advantages and Disadvantages of Diesel Hybrid 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 13 of 53 SSGM Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Natural gas is a common alternative to diesel in the Transit market and is domestically produced. Today there are many transit agencies and other sectors that are using CNG in part or in full to fuel their fleet. The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA), which is comparable to TOV in terms of market, climate, altitude, fleet size, ridership, etc., recently converted 20% of its fleet (22 buses) to CNG. For this reason this case study will be widely referenced for this analysis. Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Use of natural gas (compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, or blends) in transit bus fleets went from 2.8% of buses in 1996 to 18.6% in 2011. According to APTA, more than 40 North American transit agencies now use CNG buses and they accounted for about one -third of the new buses on order by transit agencies. Engines Natural gas engine technology has improved significantly in recent years, particularly as it relates to operating at altitude. The Cummins - Westport C- Gas -Plus was released in 2001 and thousands of engines are deployed across the US and in Colorado and operating reliably. In 2007, the ISL G replaced the C- Gas -Plus versus as the leading bus engine in the natural gas engine market. This engine meets EPA 2010 emissions with a simple automotive -style 3 -way catalyst, is turbocharged and spark ignited, and matches equivalent diesel performance ratings of 320 hp and 1,000 lb-ft. RFTA purchased and is currently operating the Cummins ISL -G natural gas engine with 280 hp @ 2,000 rpm and 900 lb-ft of torque @ 1,300 rpm. The most recent engine is the Cummins Westport ISX12 -G. Natural Gas engines also tend to be quieter at 75 dBa than diesel Figure 7: RFTA CNG tanks on roof engines that operate at 83 dBa or above. Maintenance costs of CNG buses are regarded by RFTA to be slightly higher than the diesel models equipped with increasingly complex emissions controls. It should be noted that RFTA uses fuelers or `hostlers' to fuel rather than drivers, unlike the Town of Vail which uses drivers to fuel buses. For RFTA outfitting a bus in 2012 for CNG engine, tanks and fuel system resulted in a $54,000 + /- price premium per bus (roughly 13% extra). Fueling CNG involves compressors that store natural gas in vehicle storage tanks that are pressurized to 3,600psi. CNG fuel takes up more space on a vehicle than diesel fuel, so tanks are typically located on the roof of a low -floor transit bus. Compressed gas in the tanks is regulated to a lower pressure and delivered to the natural gas engine. Figure 8: RFTA Compressor Station building Costs to install fueling facilities for natural gas are somewhat related to the number of buses that must be fueled each day but mostly determined by the type of fueling. Fast -fill stations can fuel a bus in about the same time as diesel fueling, but they can be more expensive to construct. Time -fill stations can be less 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 14 of 53 SSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail expensive to build and operate, but are designed to take several hours to fill a bus. They work well for fleets that can sit parked all night and only require one fueling per day. A time -fill fueling station for 10 - 20 buses at TOV may cost $1.2 — $2 million. A fast -fill fueling station capable of fueling 4 buses per hour at TOV Public Works Facility may cost $2.4 — $2.8 million. It's important to note that ambient air temperature affects the quantity of CNG that can be dispersed. Because of pressure limitations, it may not be possible to reach a maximized temperature compensated fill on a warm day and thus a bus would receive a lesser fill. It is difficult to get a complete full fill when fast filling because the heat of recompression does not allow for this. For this reason time -fill stations typically result in a fuller fill because the rate of fueling is slower and therefore creates less heat. Utility Storage Gas Meter 06494 Gas Line Dryer Filter Fast -Fill Station Sequencing and Temperature Compensation Card Dispenser Or CND Figure 9: Example of a fast -fill compressed natural gas (CNG) station configuration courtesy DOE. Gas D rye FIN Utility Gas Meter Time -Fill Station Temperature Compensation Figure 10: Example of a time -fill compressed natural gas (CNG) station configuration courtesy DOE. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm- inc.com Page 15 of 53 SSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Specialty Equipment In addition to needing a natural gas compressor station and dedicated CNG dispensers, TOV would need to upfit its maintenance facility in order to legally and safely service CNG buses. Town staff has also indicated a desire to fuel CNG buses in a semi - enclosed space. This upfit would likely include the following facility upgrades: • Install a methane detection and alarm system throughout the facility. • Upgrade the ventilation system in the storage bays and service bays for more continuous and event -based ventilation, including the sequenced operation of overhead doors as part of the ventilation strategy. • Retrofit the exterior bay in front of the wash bay with: o Option 1 — open facility with fuel dispenser, methane alarm, Class 1 Div 2 ventilation, fluid reels and other miscellaneous upgrades. o Option 2 - closed facility with fuel dispenser, methane alarm, Class 1 Div 2 ventilation and dedicated heating system, fluid reels, overhead door and enclosures, and other miscellaneous Figure 11: RFTA Fueling Bay upgrades. Retrofit all bays that could service CNG buses with Class 1, Division 2 explosion proof motors, lighting, fans, heaters and electrical components where within 18" of the ceiling. Pressurize the break room area to resist fugitive methane entry. Interlock gas appliances to the methane detection system to terminate gas flow during an event. The following is an estimate provided by MW Golden Constructors for up- fitting the TOV Public Works Facility to be `CNG ready. • Public Works Facility Upgrade - Upgrade all applicable service areas and add CNG dispensing capability to the outdoor fueling bay. $2.6 million o Indoor Fueling Option — Convert the outdoor fueling bay into an enclosed fueling bay. $1.4 million Estimated Fueling and Specialty Equipment Cost Summary Fast -fill Fueling Station: Public Works Facility Upgrade: Indoor Fueling Option: $2.4 - $2.8 million $2.6 million $1.4 million Total: $6.4 — 6.8 million Additionally, the facility upgrade is projected to require an additional $10,000 - $30,000 per year in building maintenance costs. This additional maintenance would include maintaining new HVAC equipment and training and operating of new control /methane detection systems. It may also include the maintaining of other specialty equipment if the indoor fueling option is selected. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 16 of 53 SSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Available Vehicle Types There are several CNG vehicle types available including different bus manufacturers. Because CNG has gained such a significant presence in the transit industry, most if not all major bus manufacturers sell natural gas transit buses, including Gillig, Foton America Bus Co., North American Bus Industries, Orion, New Flyer, and El Dorado National. They typically are powered by a Cummins Westport engine. Smaller shuttles and other vehicles are also available from smaller manufacturers who retrofit new or existing fleets to run on natural gas. To review a list of other CNG vehicles available, visit the DOE's Alternative Fuels Data Center website. Vehicle types include: • sedans /wagons • sport utility vehicles • vans with and without cutaway chassis • pick -up trucks* * It should be noted that the AFDC website does not list any available CNG pick -up trucks. Currently both Ford and Ram sell OEM CNG pick -up trucks. Unlike hybrid - electric and battery - electric vehicles, CNG fueling does require dedicated fueling infrastructure and therefore there are significant economies of scale in purchasing other CNG vehicles. In fact the lifecycle cost of purchasing CNG vehicles once CNG fueling infrastructure is in place is likely much lower than other types of vehicles. SGM research conducted on behalf of another Western Slope local government, normalized for what TOV is currently paying for diesel and what is estimated it would pay for CNG per DGE after the fueling infrastructure was installed, indicates that a CNG pick -up truck has about a 23% lower lifecycle cost when considering vehicle and fuel costs. Similar results would be expected for sedans and vans as well. Alternative Advantages Disadvantages Highest capital expenses - Compressed Second lowest annual fuel costs; lower constructing a fueling station and Natural Gas projected price volatility; lower lifecycle upgrading the maintenance facility; (CNG) costs when majority of fleet can be higher cost of buses; higher replaced maintenance; unfamiliarity with the technology Table 7: Advantages and Disadvantages of CNG 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 17 of 53 !B S M Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail RFTA CNG Case Study RFTA 2011 Information: • 4.14 million passengers • 3.68 million miles of service • 250 employees during peak winter season • 101 large transit vehicles, including 22 CNG, 13 diesel hybrids, 66 diesel • $31.8 million budget • Operating on a 70 -mile corridor �Rine 51[f New Castle r T. GIeA J­ GARFIFLD COUNTY B RFTA CNG Information: RFTA Service area • As art of its BRT bus rapid X IN p ( p � RFTAMember" TY transit) project RFTA replaced 0 Non member' 22 diesel buses with 22 CNG served by RFTA SnowmaVillage spen buses, representing approx. 'includinS unincorporated areas of each County 20% of its fleet. • The buses are Gillig Low Floor 40' CNG - BRTPIus powered by the Cummins ISL -G natural gas engine with 280 hp @ 2,000 rpm and 900 lb-ft of torque @ 1,300 rpm. • To fuel, RFTA had designed and constructed a fueling station at RFTA's Glenwood Maintenance Facility (GMF). • In order to be allowed to service CNG buses, RFTA also made safety upgrades to the GMF. • RFTA also chose to incorporate fast -fill fueling in its indoor fueling bay which significantly increased its capital costs for both the fueling station and facility upgrades. • With approximately 1 year of service from buses and fueling equipment, all running smoothly with only minor issues. RFTA CNG performance to -date: • CNG bus operation began in February of 2013. • Mileage range is higher than diesel at up to 700 miles. • Fueling time is comparable to diesel but is contingent upon ambient temperature and how full the tanks are. • Fuel efficiency is 5.49 MPG, approximately 5% better than diesel, contrary to other agencies. • Maintenance is more than diesel due to shorter periods between PM's (every 1,500 miles) • Cost per diesel gallon equivalent (DGE) is $2.89 (all -in), approximately 17% less than its conventional 5% biodiesel blend.' 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm- inc.com Page 18 of 53 Glenwood Springs EAGLE COUNTY Carbondale B RFTA CNG Information: RFTA Service area • As art of its BRT bus rapid X IN p ( p � RFTAMember" TY transit) project RFTA replaced 0 Non member' 22 diesel buses with 22 CNG served by RFTA SnowmaVillage spen buses, representing approx. 'includinS unincorporated areas of each County 20% of its fleet. • The buses are Gillig Low Floor 40' CNG - BRTPIus powered by the Cummins ISL -G natural gas engine with 280 hp @ 2,000 rpm and 900 lb-ft of torque @ 1,300 rpm. • To fuel, RFTA had designed and constructed a fueling station at RFTA's Glenwood Maintenance Facility (GMF). • In order to be allowed to service CNG buses, RFTA also made safety upgrades to the GMF. • RFTA also chose to incorporate fast -fill fueling in its indoor fueling bay which significantly increased its capital costs for both the fueling station and facility upgrades. • With approximately 1 year of service from buses and fueling equipment, all running smoothly with only minor issues. RFTA CNG performance to -date: • CNG bus operation began in February of 2013. • Mileage range is higher than diesel at up to 700 miles. • Fueling time is comparable to diesel but is contingent upon ambient temperature and how full the tanks are. • Fuel efficiency is 5.49 MPG, approximately 5% better than diesel, contrary to other agencies. • Maintenance is more than diesel due to shorter periods between PM's (every 1,500 miles) • Cost per diesel gallon equivalent (DGE) is $2.89 (all -in), approximately 17% less than its conventional 5% biodiesel blend.' 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm- inc.com Page 18 of 53 SSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Battery - Electric An all- electric bus is often referred to as a battery - electric bus — not to be confused with electric buses powered by overhead wiring. Battery - electric buses use a battery pack to power an electric motor as its sole source of propulsion. Typically batteries are lead acid, nickel metal hydride, or lithium ion. Rechargeable batteries offer a number of benefits, including reduced noise from the lack of an internal combustion engine (ICE), no gear changes, and fewer moving parts. At less than 60 dB, electric buses are extremely quiet. The vehicles themselves generate no NOx, SOx, PM, CO2, or CO emissions; however there are emissions attributable to the vehicle if the electricity used to power the bus was generated from a fossil fuel power plant. Electricity prices have remained remarkably stable over the decades, especially compared to the volatility of petroleum -based fuels. Electricity is made more attractive by the fact that it is an efficient way to propel a motor vehicle. Modern traction motors are over 90% efficient compared to an average of 25% efficiency common in internal combustion engines. Electric drivetrains also offer regenerative braking which recovers energy during braking that would otherwise be wasted while also wearing out brake pads. With the advent of batteries and chargers capable of "fast charging" battery- electric buses have become increasingly more feasible. Battery technology has improved greatly in recent years with several different competing lithium ion technologies offering long life and high performance during operation and charging. While there are a handful of viable battery- electric bus manufacturers, none offer the fast - charging capability that Proterra offers and therefore this analysis uses Proterra data and information. Engines Proterra's EcoRideTm BE35 is propelled by a 220 kW (peak) permanent magnet drive motor with a two -speed EV transmission. Published results Fuel cost' Fuel efficiency $1.05 3.86 4.5 3.27 24 Sac 70< a a 6 111N.7`111 Figure 12: Proterra promotional graph from Proterra's visit to the Altoona Bus Research and Testing Center show that the EcoRideTm BE35 achieves between 17.5 and 29 miles per gallon (diesel equivalent range). Fueling Proterra's FastFillTM charge system is comprised of the software and hardware to rapidly charge the TerraVoltTm Energy Storage System from 0% to 95% with >92% energy charge efficiency in as little as 6 minutes. Proterra claims that its proprietary architecture allows for lower cost and lower impact grid connections while maintaining high charge rates but a comparison with other manufacturers was not performed as part of this study. There are also slower charging options for use at the Public Works facility and a skid - mounted charger for flatbed pick -up trucks. Phone interviews with current Proterra users confirmed that O &M costs were lower, but no users had needed to replace a battery as of yet. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 19 of 53 SSIGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail ROOF MOUNTECALL•ELECTM HVAC SYSTEM FOROaSiAKU NUU- MOLWE,D RADIATOR FAST FILL'" ALIGNMENT FAST F: AGE BLADE - 37 SEATS Q 31 $TArO[r,Ic PASSENGERS T ADVANCED COMPi?SITE BODY T£9 RAV LT " IEFL{#Y STb# W3E SYSTEM ISWS.,— MOUNTED IN FLOOR CAVITY REMOVABLE PROMVE'INICLLIOES: TRA,r. IQNLKffQR MOT -DR CONTRQ"eR TRANSmsim AIROONPRESSOR AIR DWER DG11X CONYERTFR *OWWQ MANIFOLDS Figure 13: Proterra EcoRide diagram Transit Agencies Running Proterra Buses as of March 2014 Transit Agency Location Capital Metro Transit Austin, TX Burbank Bus Burbank, CA CMRTA Columbia, SC Pierce Transit Fort Lewis, WA Foothill Transit Pomona, CA VIA Transit San Antonio, TX City of Seneca & Clemson Area Transit Seneca, SC San Joaquin RTD Stockton, CA StarMetro Tallahassee, FL RTC of Washoe County Reno, NV Metropolitan Transit Authority Nashville, TN Worcester Regional Transit Authority Worcester, MA Table 8: Current Proterra Users Specialty Equipment As the name implies, battery - electric buses do have additional batteries which are recommended for replacement approximately every 6 years at a cost of approximately $95,000 each according to Proterra. However their new pricing structure includes an option for a 12 year battery warranty. Proterra lowered the cost of the bus to accommodate the warranty so that the effective price is the same. They also require laptops to troubleshoot software glitches but this is becoming commonplace for all bus types. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 20 of 53 SSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Available Vehicle Types There are several battery- electric vehicle types available; however no other vehicles that would use the same charging infrastructure. Therefore there would not be any economies of scale to adding other types of battery - electric vehicles to the City's fleet. It should also be noted that the two leaders in battery - electric transit buses, Proterra and BYD both use proprietary charging infrastructure and therefore it's to TOV's financial advantage to purchase the same make if additional buses are purchased in the future so that charging infrastructure doesn't need to be added and /or replaced. To review a list of other battery - electric vehicles available, visit the DOE's Alternative Fuels Data Center website. Vehicle types include: • sedans /wagons • sport utility vehicles Alternative Advantages Disadvantages By far lowest annual fuel costs; lowest By far highest bus cost; route projected price volatility; lowest scheduling parameters due to Battery - electric maintenance cost, lower lifecycle cost recharging; unfamiliarity with the than diesel when capital costs can be technology; limited track record of bus reduced by 25 -35 %. manufacturers Table 9: Advantages and Disadvantages of Battery- electric 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 21 of 53 SSGM Foothill Transit Case Study Foothill Trannit Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Foothill Transit 2013 Information: • Serves the San Gabriel and Pomona Valleys • 13 million passengers boardings • 34 fixed -route bus lines • Fleet consists of 288 CNG, 17 diesel and 15 Foothill Transit Battery - Electric Bus Information: • Replaced 3 buses on its Line 291 route in 2( EcoRides • Currently replacing an additional 12 buses or • Line 291 is a 16 mile loop with each bus traveling 14umi /day • Route has (2) 500kW rapid charging stations with mid -route charging for both north and southbound • Maintenance facility also has slow charging station • Buses are Proterra EcoRides with Eaton transmissions with a range of 30 miles • 3 original buses and 2 charging stations were paid for by $6.5M in ARRA funding • 12 new buses are funded from $10.2M TIGER II grant Foothill Transit Battery- Electric Bus performance to -date: • Foothill Transit reports 90% reduction in fuel costs and noticeably less maintenance costs when compared to diesel buses • Buses typically arrive at bus stop with charging station at 60 %- where gets recharged to 99% in 10 minutes, but this route only requires 3 -4 minutes worth of charge • Foothill Transit reports great toque and power regardless of rider capacity and is pleased with Proterra buses and Eaton transmissions • Drivers reportedly love driving the EcoRide CNG Diesel Diesel Hybrid Foothill Transit Ecoliner 0 5 10 15 20 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm- inc.com Page 22 of 53 !BSG M Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Projected Energy Price Analysis Evaluating alternative fuel systems requires projections of future fuel costs from which to build lifecycle cost analysis. The purpose of this section is to provide those projections as well as some context on the sources on which they are based. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) is the U.S. government's agency for projecting and reporting energy supply, consumption and price and therefore its data serve as the basis of this analysis. The EIA data that follows is largely from its July 2013 Annual Energy Outlook (AEO)". This data is also supplemented with EIA historical trend data and other industry perspectives and TOV's average annual diesel price since 2010. It should be noted that due to the inherent unpredictability of energy markets, this analysis and the resulting recommendations give more weight to historical data than industry projections. su u 4 u a ri J v 2 1 Average Retail Fuel Prices in the U.S. a : : w 0 M o o a o 0 0 0 CD CD 0 Q O 0 N 1. M W C N Date of Report + Gasoline — E85 i- CNG t Propane Diesel -41 B20 + 62/65 # B99/a100 -Ar- Electricity'° Source: Clean Cities Alternative Fuel Price Reports Notes: Fuel volumes are measured in gasoline - gallon equivalents (GGEs), representing a quantity of fuel with the same amount of energy contained in a gallon of gasoline. *Electric prices are reduced by a factor of 3.4 because electric motors are 3.4 times more efficient than internal combustion engines. Figure 14: This chart shows average monthly retail fuel prices in the United States from 2000 to 2013. The price of petroleum fuels (gasoline and diesel fuel) is the primary driver of overall fuel prices. For as petroleum prices rise, so does demand for alternative fuels, thereby pushing their prices upward as well. Additionally, alternative fuels are partially tied to petroleum prices since petroleum is often used during the process of producing and delivering those alternatives. However, natural gas and electricity prices have been buffered from this driver because transportation only constitutes a tiny portion of their markets. These two fuels are tied to each other, though, because over a quarter of all electricity is produced from natural gas. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm- inc.com Page 23 of 53 SSGM Analyzing the Forecasts Like any forecast, the historic margin of error should be clearly understood. While the EIA is the best resource available for comprehensive energy forecasting, its forecasts have not been overly reliable. It has a reputation for overestimating production and therefore underestimating price. To be sure, the energy industry is inherently volatile which makes forecasting extremely difficult. And to its credit, the EIA publishes an annual retrospective that compares its past forecasts with actual data. Additionally, it should be noted that a number of private, propriety sources have at best spotty records on energy price forecasting; and the farther back one goes, the more the flaws in all the forecasting records become evident. The EIA's `AEO Retrospective Review: Evaluation of 2012 and Prior Reference Case Projections' indicates the following: When projecting the cost of crude oil since 1994, the EIA has underestimated the price over 80% of the time by 30% or more on average. When projecting the cost of natural gas since 1994, the EIA has underestimated the price over 70% of the time by 30% on average. When projecting the cost of electricity since 1994, the EIA has underestimated the price over 60% of the time by 10% or more on average. Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail The energy industry is as politicized as it is technically complex. Strong forces are at play in the world of energy production and forecasting and therefore it's important to gain multiple perspectives and plot your confidence level within those perspectives before making vehicle purchases or other fuel source decisions. This is particularly important in light of recent reports of abundant domestic oil and natural gas discoveries. Often the reports state that there is ample energy supply for the foreseeable future, implying little need for concern about energy resources. Additionally, there is disagreement about the length of the time frame implied by the phrase "the foreseeable future." But often missing from the report is any reference to the myriad of forces that affect that which is typically the biggest decision factor — which is energy price. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 24 of 53 SSGM Diesel Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail The price of diesel fuel has been fairly stable over the last few years, but fairly volatile over the last decade. Note that this analysis uses EIA data for `Rocky Mountain No 2 Diesel Retail Prices' which includes Ultra Low Sulfur Diesel (ULSD) which became the standard diesel fuel in 2007. While the price of diesel has typically been very volatile, there are several factors that could contribute to greater volatility in the future. These factors include: • the commodity cost of crude oil as impacted by many factors including the cost of refining, extraction and transporting; geopolitical developments; violence and wars in and between oil producing nations; • global or national demand reduction; • increased demand internationally for diesel fuel, and the impact that has on international trading and pricing of both gasoline and diesel; • steeper than projected production declines in existing wells, especially in newer shale oil (aka "tight oil" plays; • political factors within the U.S. as well as oil exporting countries; and • potential pollution mitigation costs associated with carbon - intensive fuels. Figure 15: above indicates relatively stable oil prices over the last 2 years but the possibility for huge price swings ( +55% to -33 %) in the future. Because the commodity cost of oil is such a strong driver for the delivered cost of diesel and shown in Figure 23, analyzing projected commodity costs is very useful in projecting diesel costs. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 25 of 53 SSGM U.S. Diesel Fuel and Crude Oil Prices dollars per gallon 4.50 Price difference 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail c11 Forecast Jan 2009 Jan 2010 Jan 2011 Jan 2012 Jan 2013 Jan 2014 Crude oil price is composite refiner acquisition cost. Retail prices include state and federal taxes. Source: Short -Term Energy Outlook, July 2013 Figure 16: This graph indicates the volatility in crude oil and diesel fuel prices over the last four and a half years but assumes stable prices through this year. In contrast to the EIA's projections, the following commentary from the July 15, 2013 Peak Oil Review (POR), a weekly report from the Association of the Study of Peak Oil and Gas USA offers a different perspective. "In its monthly report the IEA (International Energy Agency) grapples with the uncertainties of global oil supply and demand in 2014. The Agency has increased its forecast for the growth in global demand next year to 1.2 million b /d, but has not yet factored in recent IMF (International Monetary Fund) projections of lower economic growth in the months ahead. Unusually large growth in non - OPEC oil production of 1.3 million b/d underpinned by growth of 530,000 b/d in US oil production is forecast for next year. ""' "All this says that while the next 18 months looks good for increases in US and non -OPEC production, there are geopolitical factors in several OPEC states which could easily offset the increase and drive oil prices higher." This commentary suggests that despite widespread reports of abundant oil supplies, the chances for a significant decline in the global commodity price of oil, not to mention the refined price of its products (gasoline and diesel for example), remains problematic. The current boom in oil supplies from tight - oil /shale oil fields appear very likely to crest during the 2015 -2020 time frame as shown in Figure 17. These variables that lead to volatility in the oil market are not necessarily new and are supported by EIA's historical data (Figure 18) showing the price of diesel increasing 13% per year on average over the last decade and 9% per year since 1996.' Unfortunately this does not support EIA's projection (Figure 16) for the price of diesel to increase 1.44% per year on average for the next 3 decades. Therefore this analysis projects diesel to be the most volatile fuel source and more volatile than the EIA projects. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 26 of 53 SSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Bakken and Eagle Ford Oil Production — Declining Drilling Rate Risked at 80% for locations, 2005 -2035 2500 N 2000 a> L m C 1500 0 H a 1000 0 0 0 500 IL A' 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Year C Hughes GSR Inc, 2013 (data from DriAinginfo, October, 2013) Rocky Mountain No 2 Diesel Retail Prices ($ /gallon) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Figure 17: The graph to the left shows the projected trends by one analyst of two primary oil fields in the U.S. Note that by the end of the planning horizon for this report (12 years) production will nearly be exhausted. annual change ( %) 0�O OA O`b o0 0o O`� , O`b o1` OI O`O OA O`b Oc' No �N N`L NO Ntk NIb NO NA N� NO NC 0O 4O ,O O �O �O Io If" Io IP If, If, Io I-P If, IO If, 1�1 � Price change (right axis) Price (left axis) - - - Price forecast (left axis) Source: Short -Term Energy Outlook, July 2013 Figure 18: The graph above shows the historical trend of diesel prices and the annual change in price. 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 -10 -15 -20 -25 -30 -35 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 27 of 53 SSGM Town of Vail: Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail The six years of fuel cost data provided by TOV is relatively consistent with national EIA data. There is no apparent reason why future costs at the local level would vary from national trends. TOV Fuel Year Cost Data $ /gallon % annual increase % cumulative increase 2013 3.42 -1.2% 4.3% 2012 3.46 3.9% 5.5% 2011 3.33 32% 1.5% 2010 2.52 28% -23% 2009 1.97 -40% -40% 2008 3.28 N/A N/A Table 10: TOV Fuel Cost Data Analysis Assumptions: Diesel prices have increased 9% per year on average for the past 17 years. Most analysts agree that this trend of sustained annual increase is inevitable for the foreseeable future. Market indicators suggest that future annual increases, including the associated volatility, should be similar to historic trends. However; many analysts believe and very recent analysis would suggest that the U.S. and perhaps the global economy has reached a breaking point with respect to fuel prices. As of the writing of this report, "oil prices have essentially remained unchanged over the last two years. At the same time, exploration and production costs have been rising at an 11 percent pace. Thus, costs have been rising faster than revenues, which is why many of the oil majors are getting hammered." (Peak Oil Review, November 2013). This increase in costs would typically indicate that the price of diesel would increase accordingly - but it hasn't for the last two years. If historic trends continued, the present price of diesel would double before the end of this report's planning horizon of 12 years. This seems unlikely because it's economically unsustainable. How the market will adapt to this phenomenon is unknown, but we project that diesel prices will continue to increase on an annual basis, but not at the 9% per year historical average. Based on the analysis above, this analysis assumes: • The 2013 price of diesel ($ /gallon) will increase 5.5% per year, but TOV should expect historic volatility to continue, if not increase. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 28 of 53 SSGM Electricity Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Historically in Colorado and around the country, electricity has been largely generated by coal -fired power plants. In the past coal was typically purchased by utilities with 20 year contracts thus resulting in very stable electricity prices as depicted in Figure 19. .Refuel LCollorado Fleets Electricity has impressive price stability Dollars per Gallon (equivalent) .1.50 4'00 h,xr Ir r wa SIMS ` 3.5+0 3.DO li 2JW p Monthly Moto r G aso I i ne Retail Price v. Monthly Electricity Price in $1gal Equivalent* '52 PCecessinn sl vis katrian Re wohrMon. 1919 Ehitgr Ohis 1 J50 I .a0 0.60 clade Oil Pri�a G•oHaps• F"ecest Hmricwpe I F�lypelan. lCahirw' =, I.11�y.,nr('tix es Hnnic.xre RR f Wx4 invades . ltuwrat. tv" �+ Oil shock IIti yrll .Irr+adW Iraq f � ? H +f�fledf�ak ? 0 ? Won Finjorcl.A Il s b CrMtIE r L y 3 U�rat.v j 11 W fin,reclal C,10, et.xb Recwiiiun 0.00 1 + . - . - . Jan 1976 Jore lO i Jw 121M Jan 1988 Janl992 Jan IM J&n2000 Jan 2004 Jan2OM Jan 2012 Edison Electric Insl.ilute — Eixteiday Rsai wYepce F.+E 2011 i Garr$Ila• Real NIc* Fob 2011 3 http; ?/switchboard.? =dc.oFgib ogslrnbaumhefnere' Djwk- a- gaIIon_gas_fo- _life.html Figure 19: Fuel costs have been much more volatile than electricity costs, partly due to several external factors as noted in this graph. While electricity rates will likely remain more stable than diesel or natural gas, there are several factors that could contribute to greater volatility in the future. These factors include: • utility rate structure changes that could increase overall costs; • recent legislative requirements to incorporate more renewable resources in electricity generation which could stabilize rates even further over the long term, but increase them in the short term; • a strong incentive for new power plants to be fueled by natural gas instead of coal which is projected to be more volatile than coal; • potential pollution mitigation costs associated with carbon - intensive electricity; 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm- inc.com Page 29 of 53 SSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail • increasing global demand and therefore increasing commodity costs of coal; and • potential investments into upgrading antiquated distribution and transmission lines. U.S. Residential Electricity Price cents per kilowatthour 14 12 10 8 6 4 _ 3.2% 2.6% 10.3% 5.4% — 5.7% eta 24% „► �. 20% 16% 12% 8% 2.4% 2.2% 0.3% 1.6% 1.4% 1.1% 1.6% 4% 2 0% 0 -1.6% -4% 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Annual growth (right axis) Residential electricity price - - - Price forecast Source: Short -Term Energy Outlook, July 2013 Figure 20: Figure 4 above indicates the relatively stable but increasing cost of electricity over the last decade. Electricity is by no means immune to the volatility widely predicted for the oil & gas industry; however the source mix of electricity is ever changing and therefore it is becoming increasingly difficult to project its price. Coal has increasingly become a global commodity which means Americans are less buffered by larger U.S. coal reserves than we used to be. Natural gas continues to be the fuel of choice for new power plants which also increases volatility compared to coal -based electricity. Additionally, some amount of natural gas may be exported overseas within two or three years, where prices are two to four times higher than the US market price. New developments in grid -scale renewable energy, both in terms of technology and policy are also beginning to affect price. Finally the electricity distribution system (aka `the grid') is becoming increasingly antiquated and in need of significant capital investment, and therefore carries with it a long term financial risk. The other important consideration, similar to the wellhead price of natural gas, is that the price of fuel used to generate electricity is a much lower percentage of the overall lifecycle cost of supplying electricity to power a bus than crude oil's percentage within the cost per gallon of diesel, as depicted in Figure 23. It also appears that electric utilities have greater control over the cost of electricity than fuel suppliers have of diesel or natural gas and therefore electricity is assumed to be the most stable fuel source of the three included in this analysis. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 30 of 53 SSGM Tnv nntn. Holy Cross Energy Rate 63 Information: General Services: Tariff Code 10 Customer Charge per Month: Energy Charge per kWh: Demand charge per kW: PCA' Der kWh: April 2014 gross $ /kWh for reference: ' Power Cost Adjustment 2011 2014 $26 $28 $0.04442 $0.0585 $6.54 $6.83 varies monthlv $0.085 Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail HCE's energy charge has increased 10.8% per year on average since 2011. Its demand charge has increased 1.5% per year on average. However HCE is projecting a 2.7% annual average increase in its blended rate for the next 5 years. They are projecting a 1.8% annual average increase thereafter. Analysis Assumptions: Based on the analysis above, this analysis assumes: • The 2013 blended unit price of electricity ($ /kWh) will increase 2.2% per year based on HCE projections. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 31 of 53 GSGM Compressed Natural Gas (CNG) Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Like diesel, natural gas has also been relatively stable over the last few years but volatile over the last decade. The Town of Vail has also experienced upward volatility over the last winter that significantly impacted facilities budgets. The unit price or $ /DGE (diesel gallon equivalent) for CNG is comprised of several factors which is explained in more detail below. In addition to the price of natural gas, the CNG unit price also consists of the electricity cost to compress the natural gas and the maintenance cost to maintain the compressor station. This section however focuses on the commodity of natural gas because electricity is covered in a separate section. While the price of natural gas is projected to be less volatile than diesel, it is still subject to the factors inherent in the extractive industry as listed elsewhere in this report. As mentioned, some amount of natural gas may be exported overseas within two or three years, where prices are two to four times higher than the US market price. The larger the amount exported, the greater the likelihood that US prices will also increase, though there are considerable unknowns here. Price of NG Sold to Comercial Customers (CO) CO ) dollars per thousand cubic feet el 14 50% 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 co 0� 00 O^ 00 & O� 00 '�N N O NO �O �O �O �O If �O �O �O If, Annual growth (right axis) Commercial natural gas price Source: Short -Term Energy Outlook, July 2013 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% Figure 21: This graph indicates the volatility in the natural gas market particularly since 2000. History has proven that wellhead price for natural gas can be as volatile if not more so than crude oil; however there appears to be general agreement among analysts that natural gas wellhead prices will remain relatively stable over the next few years. Beyond that is difficult to project. The other important consideration is that the delivered price of natural gas is a much lower percentage of the overall lifecycle cost per DGE of compressed natural gas than oil's percentage within the cost per gallon of diesel, as depicted in Figure 23. For this reason, the pump price of compressed natural gas fueling is less vulnerable to a volatile natural gas market than the pump price of diesel fueling is to the volatility in the crude oil market. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 32 of 53 !BSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Henry Hub Natural Gas Price dollars per million btu 8 Historical spot price 7 STEO forecast price NYMEX futures price 6 95% NYMEX futures upper confidence interval 5 95% NYMEX futures lower confidence interval 4 3 2 1 e1 •' ~' * 0 000 • •-W • • ♦-• 0 *-* 0 1 . , . . . 1 . . . . ,Ti . . . � i . I . I . j . . . . . i . . Jan 2012 Jul 2012 Jan 2013 Jul 2013 Jan 2014 Jul 2014 Note: Confidence interval derived from options market information for the 5 trading days ending July 3, 2013. Intervals not calculated for months with sparse trading in near - the -money options contracts. Source: Short -Term Energy Outlook, July 2013 Figure 22: This graph indicates the relatively moderate increase in natural gas wellhead prices over the last year and a half but the possibility for huge price swings ( +75% to - 60 %) in the future. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 33 of 53 !BSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail d Refuel TColorado "Pump price" of certain alternative fuels are Fleets less subject to changes in market prices for energy $4.00 $3.00 $2.00 $1.00 BI ME 11 "If the price goes up for oil, natural gas, coal, wind, solar, etc. Diesel Gasoline how much will that affect "pump" price ?" Retail price $3.87 /GGE Retail price $3.59 /GGE (July 2013) (July 2013) Taxes 12% Distribution and Marketina INFOM CNG Retail price $2.10IGGE (2013) Electricity Taxes a Retail price $1.141eGallon tricity 6% Sources: US DoE EIA http:l /www.eia.gov /petroleum /gasdiesel /, http: / /energy.gov /maps /egallon NGVA US DoE EERE Figure 23: Percentage of Fuel Price is Affected by Commodity Price Taxes Transmission and Delivery y Power Plant /i9� Ow Fuel costs M ( TOV: Natural gas is provided by Source Gas with 3rd party transport by Xcel Energy. Energy Rate Information: Total volumetric rate: 2011 2014 $0.6696 $0.5779 Johnson Control's 2011 Technical Energy Audit states that the Town's average unit cost for delivered (fees, taxes, etc.) natural gas averaged from 2008 -2010 was $0.6696 /therm. The most recent rate provided is $0.5779 /therm from April of 2014. The delivered commodity cost of natural gas represents approximately 90% of TOV's gross unit cost. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 34 of 53 SSGM Analysis Assumptions: Based on the analysis above, this analysis assumes: Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail • The 2013 estimated $ /DGE (diesel gallon equivalent) cost of CNG including natural gas, electricity and compressor station maintenance is $1.81, based on RFTA information. It is assumed that of this $1.81, $1.08 is for delivered natural gas; $0.12 is for compression electricity; and $0.61 is for compressor station maintenance. • The 2014 delivered price of natural gas will increase 4.5% per year based on industry projections. • The 2014 cost to compress the natural gas will increase 2.2% per year as discussed in the Electricity section. • The 2013 cost to maintain the compressor station will increase 3.0% per year based on historical labor rate trends in similar areas. There is no `maintenance' rate therefore the rate used is an average of construction, manufacturing, mining and utilities. • Based on the assumptions stated above, the 2013 estimated $ /DGE cost of CNG will increase 3.23% per year. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 35 of 53 SSGM Conclusion Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Based on analysis of historical data and likely industry trends, SGM's Alternative Fuel Systems Analysis assumes that the delivered price of fuel averaged annually over the next 12 years will be as follows: Suffice it to say that forecasting energy prices is more of an art form displayed in Las Vegas than it is a science practiced at MIT. To quote the late Randy Udall discussing energy price forecasting: "Let's be humble about the future." To be humble means to accept the fact that we have much less control over the cost of fuels than we used to and therefore must adapt to greater volatility in energy markets. Therefore fuel diversity may prove to be an energy user's best friend in the coming decades. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 36 of 53 E5SGM Analysis Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail The purpose of this analysis is to compare lifecycle costs and other attributes of the following alternative technologies: • Diesel (baseline) • Electric hybrid • Compressed natural gas (CNG) • Battery- electric Certainly other fuel sources are available at this time; however SGM suggested and TOV agreed that this analysis should only focus on technologies that are readily viable for TOV. As such this analysis also focused on the primary evaluation categories that are important to TOV including: • Vehicle maintenance / reliability; • Training, tools and equipment; • Building maintenance • Lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions; • Lifecycle financial analysis; • Price volatility; • Noise; and • Implementation feasibility. Because TOV has several years of experience with both diesel and diesel - electric hybrids, less emphasis was put to assessing and reporting pros and cons of each. Bus Performance Bus performance is paramount for successful implementation of any alternative fuel technology. Therefore in order to compare bus performance of the various alternatives, a list of performance categories was developed to include in this analysis. The following table summarizes the findings. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 37 of 53 SSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Alternative Fuel Systems Analysis - Vehicle Performance CNG3 Battery electric Decision Driver Diesel Diesel Hybrid 5.28 MPG' 6.07 MPG 5.49 MPGE4 22.5 MPGE5 Fuel efficiency Most suited for 15% better 3.4% better, more more suited for in -town regional routes suited for regional routes routes - -1,000 miles6 --600 miles for up to 700 miles for 26 -30 miles on 1 Distance range Allison; —1,302 RFTA 7, depending charge$ miles6 on fueling variables Noise Noisiest option at Noticeably quieter Somewhat quieter Quietest option at 57 83 dBa9 at 70 dBa9 at 75 dBa9 dBa9 No issues No issues Requires coolant No issues reported; Temperature pre- heaters' if however some parked outdoors batteries are affected by temperature10 Altitude No issues No issues No issues' No issues Typical power loss Typical power loss 0 torque loss to No reported issues Load factor at altitude at altitude 12,000'; 0 HP loss to 8,700' (3% loss per 1000' above) Performs Performs better RFTA mgmt. 1 user reported power adequately than diesel reports no issues, loss on incline, Road incline some drivers report reportedly resolved power loss, could with software fix be resolved with software fix N/A N/A Construction of Construction of fueling station and charging station(s) facility upgrades could delay Schedule could delay implementation, re- implementation charge time could impact route scheduling Table 11 Notes: 1. Based on TOV data, average of all diesel transit buses from January 1 — October 14, 2013 2. Projected based on historical TOV staff analysis and SST data on comparable routes. TOV recent data suggests fuel efficiency is worse, but this is likely due to running different routes. 3. Assumes Gillig with Cummins ISL -G, 300 HP 4. Based on RFTA data, average of (4) 40' Gillig BRT buses from January 2013 — July 2013 5. Based on fleet -wide average MPGE from Proterra 6. Based on TOV information provided. 7. Based on RFTA information provided. 8. Based on information provided by Proterra and supported by Proterra users. 9. Based on research of industry standards of buses traveling at average speeds. 10. While no Proterra buses have been consistently tested at altitudes similar to Vail, no issues are anticipated. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 38 of 53 SSGM Lifecycle Cost Analysis Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail The lifecycle cost analysis includes all projected costs associated with each alternative throughout a bus's expected life, except bus disposal cost / salvage value. In order to account for many different variables in the analysis, a model was created so that several different scenarios can be evaluated. The model includes the variables described and shown in the model screenshot in Table 12. The baseline costs / first -year for each alternative are also summarized below in Table 11. Note that this table is for quick comparison purposes only. The model is intended to accurately compare lifecycle costs for different technologies for the TOV. It should be noted that due to widely varying cost accounting for different organizations, the model should not be used to compare TOV costs with other organizations. Alternative Fuel Systems Analysis - Costs Decision Driver Diesel Diesel Hybrid CNG Battery electric Bus acquisition $380,000 bus cost $580,000 bus cost; $430,000 bus cost; $900,000 bus cost; $200,000 (3 53 %) $50,000 ( -413 %) $520,000 (5 137 %) capital baseline more / bus more / bus more / bus $25,878 / yr $27,694 / yr @ $27,694 / yr @ $20,702 / yr @ Vehicle baseline @ $1.45 /mile; $1,816 $1.45 /mile; $1,816 $0.91 /mile; $5,176 maintenance $1.14/mi & $1.32/mi ( -7 %) more / bus / ( -7 %) more / bus / ( -20 %) less / bus / w/ fuelers6 year? year$ year9 $14,755 / yr $12,712 / yr @ $7,491 / yr @ $1,158 / yr @ Fuel (first year)' baseline @ $3.42/gal ; $2,043 $1.81 /DGE; $7,264 $0.09223/kWh; $3.42/gal" ( -14 %) less / bus / ( -49 %) less/ bus/ "; $13,597 ( -92 %) year10 year less / bus / year12 $5,186,373 one- $1,600,000 one- Facility capital $0 $0 time cost for fueling time cost for (2) station and maint. fast charging Facility upgrades 13 stations14 Facility $10,000 - $30,000 / $2,000 - $10,000 / maintenance $0 $0 year depending on year on training, options 15 misc. maint.16 Table 12: Alternative Fuel Systems Analysis - Costs 1. Note that this table only lists first year costs for simple comparison. The model takes into account true lifecycle costs that are affected by annual inflation such as the cost of energy, financing costs and labor rate increases. 2. Based on non - binding quote from Joe Saldana ( Gillig). 3. Based on comparing most recent TOV hybrid bus procurement with Gillig quote for diesel bus. 4. Based on non - binding quote from Joe Saldana ( Gillig). 5. Based on Proterra's /Total Cost of Ownership Comparison' provided to SGM on 4/10/2014. This includes $825,000 bus cost and $75,000 12 year bus warranty. 6. Based on diesel bus maintenance cost data provided by Todd Scholl (TOV) on 2/18/2014. 7. Based on hybrid bus maintenance cost data provided by Todd Scholl (TOV) on 2/18/2014. 8. Based on RFTA's estimate of CNG bus maintenance being very similar to hybrid bus maintenance. 9. Based on adjusting information provided by Proterra and supported by some Proterra users. 10. Based on TOV's 2013 cost for diesel and MPG stated in Table 9. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 39 of 53 SSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail 11. Based on RFTA's cost per DGE including cost of natural gas, compressor station maintenance and electricity used to compress natural gas; and MPGE stated in Table 10. 12. Based on TOV 2013 cost of electricity and MPGE stated in Table 10. 13. Based on cost estimate provided by MW Golden Constructors (RFTA's CNG general contractor) to upgrade TOV's Public Works Facility; and a general cost estimate from Trillium CNG for a time - fill station. 14. Based on information provided by Proterra for installation of two (2) fast charging stations and one fixed charging station at the Public Works Facility. 15. Based on estimated increase in staff training and maintenance for more complex systems. 16. Based on estimated increase in staff training and minimal maintenance. Lifecycle Cost Model Variables A lifecycle cost model was also constructed to quickly and accurately evaluate the costs of the different propulsion technologies under different scenarios. For this model, the following variables can be easily changed to evaluate different scenarios: • Fuel efficiency of the vehicle: New technology may increase fuel efficiency over time or new data may prove that old assumptions are incorrect. • Unit cost of fuel: This price represents baseline costs so this shouldn't change for diesel, hybrid or electricity, but new data could change the calculated cost of CNG per DGE. • Energy inflation factor: The baseline assumptions for these factors are listed in the `Energy Price Analysis' section and represent perhaps the biggest unknown in this analysis. Changes in this factor will have a significant effect on model projections. • Gross bus acquisition cost per bus: These numbers should be updated when firm bids or more accurate cost estimates are received. • Grant funding available as a percentage of gross bus acquisition cost: These numbers should be updated when grants are identified and /or awarded. • Financing rate and term for bus acquisition costs: These numbers should be updated as financing strategies are identified. • Gross infrastructure costs for fueling and /or charging stations, maintenance facility upgrades, etc.: These numbers should be updated when firm bids or more accurate cost estimates are received. • Grant funding available as a percentage of gross infrastructure cost: These numbers should be updated when grants are identified and /or awarded. • Financing rate for infrastructure costs: These numbers should be updated as financing strategies are identified. • Bus maintenance cost per mile: New technology may change maintenance costs over time or new data may prove that old assumptions are incorrect. • Labor inflation rate per year for mechanics: New data may prove that old assumptions are incorrect. • Average miles traveled per bus per year: This number should change if routes change or more accurate route mileage projections become available. • Average lifespan of buses: This number should change if new data proves that old assumptions are incorrect, or if lifecycles wanted to be evaluated for a different timespan. • Number of buses purchased: This number has a significant effect on lifecycle cost and should account for whether buses are replaced through attrition or whether a larger quantities of buses can be purchased in order to justify infrastructure costs. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 40 of 53 SSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail TOV Alt. Fuel Lifecycle Cost Length Model Diesel 40 Diesel w/ fuelers 40 Hybrid 40 CNG 40 Electric 40 MPGe 5.28 5.28 6.07 5.49 21 Unit price of fuel (2013) $ 3.42 $ 3.42 $ 3.42 $ 1.81 $ 0.99 Fuel inflation rate (% /yr) 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 3.2% 2.2% Lifetime average unit fuel price $ 4.96 $ 4.96 $ 4.96 $ 2.23 $ 0.1060 Gross bus acquisition cost $ 380,000 $ 380,000 $ 580,000 $ 430,000 $ 900,000 Grant funding ( %) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Net bus acquisition cost $ 380,000 $ 380,000 $ 580,000 $ 430,000 $ 900,000 Financing Rate: 0.0% Term: 12 Bus cost with cost of financing $ 380,000 $ 380,000 $ 580,000 $ 430,000 $ 900,000 Annual bus debt service $31,667 $31,667 $48,333 $35,833 $75,000 Bus acquisition cost /mile $ 1.40 $ 1.40 $ 2.13 $ 1.58 $ 3.30 fueling /charging station cost N/A N/A N/A $ 2,627,000 $ 1,600,000 maintenance facility upgrade cost N/A N/A N/A $ 2,559,373 $ - Gross infrastructure cost $ - $ - $ 5,186,373 $ 1,600,000 Grant funding ( %) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Net infrastructure cost $ - $ - $ - $ 5,186,373 $ 1,600,000 Financing terms Rate: Rate: 0.0% Term: 12 Infra. cost w/ cost of financing $ - $ - $ - $ 5,186,373 $ 1,600,000 Annual infrastructure debt service N/A N/A N/A $ 259,319 $ 133,000 Infrastructure cost /mile N/A N/A N/A $ 1.27 $ 0.39 2013 fuel cost /mile $ 0.65 $ 0.65 $ 0.56 $ 0.33 $ 0.047 Lifetime fuel costs $ 255,774 $ 255,774 $ 222,635 $ 110,663 $ 14,701 $ 0.94 $ 0.94 $ 0.82 $ 0.41 $ 0.054 2013 bus maintenance cost /mile $ 1.14 $ 1.32 $ 1.45 $ 1.45 $ 0.91 Labor inflation rate (% /yr) 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% 3.0% Lifetime maintenance costs $ 376,643 $ 436,113 $ 479,064 $ 479,064 $ 301,314 $ 1.38 $ 1.60 $ 1.76 $ 1.76 $ 1.11 2013 Total cost /mile $ 3.18 $ 3.36 $ 4.14 $ 4.63 $ 4.65 Total Lifetime cost /mile $ 3.72 $ 3.93 $ 4.71 $ 5.01 $ 4.86 Lifetime cost (1 bus) $ 1,012,417 $ 1,071,887 $1,281,698 $ 1,365,484 $ 1,322,682 Lifetime cost /mile (w /out infra. $) $ 3.72 $ 3.93 $ 4.71 $ 3.74 $ 4.46 Lifetime cost (1 bus w /out infra. $) $1,012,417 $ 1,071,887 $1,281,698 $ 1,019,726 $ 1,216,015 Lifetime cost x # of buses + infra. $ $15,186,253 $16,078,302 $19,225,477 $20,482,266 $19,840,230 a time cost + bldg. maint. average annual miles $15,186,253 22,700 $16,078,302 $19,225,477 $20,918,903 $19,985,775 average years in service 12 lifetime miles 272,400 number of buses purchased 15 lifetime miles x number of buses 4,086,000 Table 13: TOV Alternative Fuel Lifecycle Cost Model Screenshot 10/7/2014 2013 - 359,001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 41 of 53 SSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Preliminary scenario modeling results It is important to note that for TOV, lifecycle cost is but one category used in evaluating the best alternative. For this reason, rather than simply using the model to determine which alternative has the lowest cost given the baseline assumptions, optimal scenarios for each alternative were created based on other possible assumptions. For example, if grant funding for one alternative suddenly became available making its lifecycle costs lower than under the baseline assumptions, it could change the outcome and possibly the recommendation. This model is intended to be a tool for TOV to continue to evaluate alternatives as conditions or assumptions change. Baseline Assumptions SGM's fuel inflation rates. No fi nanc ing costs for buses or infrastructure. No grant funding for buses or infrastructure. Base cost for CNG facility upgrades - no indoor fueling option. Fifteen 15 buses purchased. Labor rates increase 3% per year. Lifec cle cost ratings low to high): Diesel, Electric, Hybrid, then CNG. New buses will be 40' buses, replacing 35' buses. Battery electric bus purchase would include 12 year battery warranty option. Diesel Optimal Base case assumptions; air and noise pollution, price volatility is acceptable or mitigated. Hybrid Optimal Base case assumptions except Hybrid net bus acquisition cost is <_ $307,400 each. (47 %) Electric Optimal Base case assumptions except battery-electric bus acquisition cost is <_ $579,600 each. -36% Base case assumptions except diesel price increases ? 15.3% per year. CNG v. Diesel w/ Fuelers Optimal Base case assumptions except diesel price increases ? 14 %/ ear and >_ 20 buses are purchased. Equivalent of 108 buses worth of fuel-consuming vehicles are purchased. Net infrastructure costs don't exceed $830,000 -84% and >_ 25 buses are purchased. Table 14: Lifecycle Cost Model Assumptions 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 42 of 53 SSGM Primary Decision Drivers Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail In addition to bus performance and lifecycle cost, a comprehensive list of evaluation categories were developed to guide the decision - making process. In the table below, a summary for each alternative within each category is listed. Based on how each alternative measured up to TOV's criteria for performance, a score was assigned for each alternative. The highest possible score is 10. In addition, each category was weighted by TOV based on the importance the category has in the decision - making process. Then the score for each alternative in each category was multiplied by the weighting factor of each category to come up with a weighted score for each category and a total weighted score. Alternative Fuel Systems Analysis - Summary Decision Driver Diesel Diesel Hybrid CNG Battery electric Requires particulate Battery Requires periodic Reportedly requires filter changes and maintenance and tank inspection, `significantly' less Vehicle exhaust fluid replacement req'd; spark plug changes, maintenance than maintenance/ maintenance TOV experiences valve adjustments, diesel or CNG; reliability approximately 27% and fuel filter composite body more maintenance draining; resists mag chloride approximately 27% better and warms Weighting: 10 more maintenance up faster but may projected be more time - consuming to repair Score 6 4.5 3 7 Weighted Score 60 45 30 70 Training, Tools N/A N/A Calibration tools for Potential minor & equipment methane detectors maintenance of Weighting: 8 charging station Score 9 7 4 5 Weighted Score 72 56 32 40 Building N/A N/A Requires CNG Requires high maintenance vehicle, fueling and voltage training for facility training for staff for charging Weighting: 10 staff stations Score 6 7 2 5 Weighted Score 60 70 20 50 Lifecycle cost $ 15,186,253 $ 19,225,477 $ 20,918,903 $ 19,985,775 for 15 buses $ 16,078,302 Weighting: 7 w/ fuelers Score 9 4 2 3 Weighted Score 63 28 14 21 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 43 of 53 SSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Decision Driver Diesel Diesel Hybrid CNG Battery electric Highest risk Slightly less risk Less volatile than The most stable of Price volatility exposure of all due to fuel costs diesel, more volatile all alternatives; fuel alternatives per mile being than electricity; fuel is smallest % of Weighting: 8 —15% less is smaller % of $ /gal $ /gal cost cost Score 1 3 5 8 Weighted Score 8 24 40 64 GHG 0 15 — 20% less3 0 - 10% more3 25 — 55% less4 emissions' '2 (baseline) Slightly less due to Dependent upon Dependent on the fuel use being --6% GHG calculation carbon - intensity of less methodology the electricity Weighting: 6 Score 2 2.5 1.5 5 Weighted Score 12 15 9 30 N/A Place next bus Most difficult: would More difficult: would replacement order require new fueling require route for hybrid buses station, upgraded planning with Implementation PWF, staff and first charging station, responder training; construction of new at least 1 year from charging station(s), Weighting: 8 decision staff and first responder training, vetting of relatively `young' vendors Score 8 8 1 3 Weighted Score 64 64 8 24 Noise Noisiest option at Noticeably quieter Somewhat quieter Quietest option at Weighting: 8 83 dBa5 at 70 dBa5 at 75 dBa5 57 dBa5 Score 2 5 4 8 Weighted Score 16 40 32 64 Total Score 43 41 22.5 44 Total Weighted 355 342 185 363 Score Table 15: Alternative Fuel Systems Analysis - Summary 1. Because there are several variables influencing the greenhouse gas emissions of TOV's fleet, rather than state a specific `Ibs of CO2 /mile' for each technology, each technology is compared to diesel. 2. While tailpipe emissions were not a primary decision driver included in the original scope of this report, this topic is discussed in greater detail on the following page. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 44 of 53 GSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail 3. For diesel, hybrid and CNG, this analysis cites greenhouse gas emissions analysis from the WBJ &A report listed on page 10 of this report. The emissions from the two different types of buses listed in that report were averaged and the `short -term' and `long -term' global warming potential (GWP) was addressed in the ranges stated in the table. 4. For electricity, a carbon factor was used to calculate greenhouse gas emissions. The carbon factor used is (1.7 lb/kWh) and is based on the HCE's projected source mix. 5. Based on research of industry standards of buses traveling at average speeds. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 45 of 53 SSGM Additional Decision Driver: Emissions Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail On the following page is an excerpt from the Executive Summary of the report Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel and Diesel Hybrid- Electric Transit Buses: Efficiency & Environmental Performance, by M.J. Bradley & Associates. This report was released in November of 2013 and summarizes the research and analysis on efficiency, air quality and climate change impacts of transit buses, based on data collected by the Altoona Bus Research & Testing Center under the Federal Transit Administration's new model bus testing program. This excerpt is included in this report because it includes relevant findings, but also because it highlights the complexities of comparing emissions of different propulsion technologies. An example of this is comparing the `Carbon Footprint' of each propulsion technology. As stated in the `Climate Impacts' section of the Executive Summary excerpt below, the "upstream impact of methane emissions" is higher than has previously been estimated, largely due to recent analysis of fugitive methane emissions or `leaks' from gas distribution pipelines. It is still highly likely that this analysis may continue to change as further research is conducted and methane collection practices evolve. Suffice it to say the MJB &A report represents the most recent and thorough analysis on the topic and therefore its conclusions are adopted as part of the TOV report. Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel and Diesel Hybrid- Electric Transit Buses: Efficiency & Environmental Performance Mj A Co!�raRD,IL4 - %1AswNT TO:V,DC •. 47,l1; )RD,fMAnII742'T?1zIV�i Cor;(amn, MAO1742 978- 4c,1275 yyurmbradlev.carn 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm- inc.com Page 46 of 53 !BG M Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Comparison of Modern CNG, Diesel and Diesel Hybrid- ) B A Electric Transit Buses: Efficiency & Environmental Performance, bV M.J. Bradley & Associates Excerpt from the Executive Summary. EFFICIENCY & FUEL CONSUMPTION CNG and diesel buses have similar over -all drivetrain efficiency. Of 14 direct comparisons (diesel and CNG versions on the same bus platform) the diesel bus had higher fuel economy over ten different tests, while the CNG bus had higher fuel economy on one test and the diesel and CNG versions had virtually identical fuel economy on three tests. Hybrid buses consistently have higher average fuel economy than the diesel and CNG versions of the same bus platform on slow- and medium -speed test cycles (< 18 MPH); on these cycles average fuel economy of the hybrid buses was between 7% and 44% higher than the average fuel economy of the diesel version of the same bus. On higher -speed test cycles the hybrid buses generally have the same or lower average fuel economy than the diesel version of the same bus. On slow- and medium -speed duty cycles the annual fuel savings from operating new hybrid buses instead of new diesel buses could be as high as 3,100 gallons per bus. According to data reported to the National Transit Database, approximately 75% of U.S. transit agencies, and 90% of U.S. transit buses on average operate in slow- and medium -speed duty cycles ( <16 MPH). AIR QUALITY • CNG buses consistently have lower NOx emissions and higher CO emissions than diesel and hybrid buses across all duty cycles. Annual reductions in NOx emissions from operating new CNG buses instead of new diesel buses could be as high as 82 pounds per bus. Annual increases in CO emissions from operating new CNG buses instead of new diesel buses could be as high as 1,000 pounds per bus. • Hybrid buses generally have slightly lower NOx emissions than diesel buses, but on several tests hybrid NOx emissions were higher than from the diesel version of the same bus. • Diesel and hybrid buses both have very low PM emissions, equivalent to only about one third or less of the allowable EPA standard. PM was not measured for the CNG buses. • All three technologies have very low NMHC emissions, equivalent to only about one fourth or less of the allowable EPA standard. CLIMATE IMPACTS Diesel and CNG buses emit very similar levels of CO2 from their tailpipes (g /mi); while natural gas has lower carbon content than diesel fuel this advantage is eroded by generally higher fuel economy for diesels. This result is different than reported results for other heavy -duty vehicles (for example long -haul trucks) due to differences in engine technology and duty cycle. Hybrid buses generally emit lower CO2 (g /mi) than diesel or CNG buses due to their higher fuel economy. Total wells -to- wheels GHG emissions (g CO2 -e /mi) are generally slightly higher from CNG buses than from diesel buses, due primarily to the "upstream" impact of methane emissions from natural gas production and processing. The increase in total annual GHG emissions from operating new CNG buses instead of new diesel buses could be as high as 13.3 tons CO2 -e per bus. Total wells -to- wheels GHG emissions are generally lower from hybrid buses than from diesel or CNG buses due to their higher fuel economy. The reduction in total annual GHG emissions from operating new hybrid buses instead of new CNG buses could be as high as 54.5 tons CO2 -e per bus. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 47 of 53 6SGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Conclusions and Recommendations Successfully managing a public transit operation is both technically and financially challenging. It's a continuous balancing act of providing reliable service at a reasonable cost with significant variables, not least of which is the cost of fuel. While the primary driver for evaluating alternative fuels may be environmental stewardship, it is imperative that the entire fleet operate reliably, on schedule and within budget. For this reason several factors were considered with respect to performance, capital costs and operating costs. The Lifecycle Cost Model was created so that the different costs and the variables affecting these costs could be compared over the life of the bus. It is important to point out that as these variables change, so do lifecycle costs. All this is to say that the alternative with the lowest lifecycle cost and /or best score may and likely will change as conditions change. For this reason, there isn't one `winner', but rather specific recommendations on how to pursue each alternative depending on conditions, including present conditions. These recommendations are based on TOV's stated priorities as well as SGM's research and analysis. The following is a summary of key findings that have guided these recommendations. Summary of Key Findings • TOV has funds budgeted to replace 8 buses in 2016 and 7 in 2018. If a decision is made to switch to an alternative technology, 15 buses could be replaced in 2016. • Because of the high volatility of diesel, the business as usual approach is highly susceptible to large price swings. Diversifying fuel sources will provide more stability in overall fuel costs. • The Town currently uses drivers to fuel buses but is exploring the costs and benefits of having dedicated fuelers. Because of the maintenance required during CNG fueling, dedicated fuelers would likely be required for CNG. • Many of the existing service bays lack fresh -air ventilation resulting in higher upgrade costs for CNG. The design of the facility also makes it more expensive to retrofit. • Also because of the maintenance required during CNG fueling, Town staff would prefer to have an enclosed fueling bay, or a bay as enclosed and conditioned as possible. • TOV has not explored the viability of Proterra battery- electric buses prior to this analysis; however it would appear that the Town's routes are conducive to Proterra's rapid- charge approach. According to transit agency representatives interviewed, these buses are operating well. • The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority's (RFTA) experience with CNG has been very positive to date and because of the very similar climate and operating conditions, demonstrates that CNG is a viable alternative for TOV from a vehicle performance standpoint. • While the data show that the MPG of TOV's hybrid buses is approximately 4% worse than diesel, this analysis projects that new hybrid buses would perform 15% better than new diesel buses running on comparable routes. • Perhaps the most significant variables in determining lifecycle costs will be: 1) the future cost of energy; 2) the availability of grants or other funds to offset the cost premium of buses and /or infrastructure; 3) the number of alternative fuel buses purchased; and the Town's willingness to incorporate new technology into its fleet. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 48 of 53 SSGM Summary of Alternatives Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Alternative Advantages Disadvantages Lowest cost bus; lowest lifecycle cost Susceptible to volatile and increasing Diesel (under current conditions); familiarity cost of diesel; air pollution associated with the technology with diesel; noisiest alternative Higher cost of buses; susceptible to Hybrid - electric Reduced noise; more fuel efficient than volatile and increasing cost of diesel; diesel; familiarity with the technology more maintenance than diesel; potential battery replacement needs Highest capital expenses - Compressed Second lowest annual fuel costs; lower constructing a fueling station and Natural Gas projected price volatility; lower lifecycle upgrading the maintenance facility; (CNG) costs when majority of fleet can be higher cost of buses; higher replaced maintenance; unfamiliarity with the technology By far lowest annual fuel costs; lowest By far highest bus cost; route projected price volatility; lowest scheduling parameters due to Battery- electric maintenance cost, lower lifecycle cost recharging; unfamiliarity with the than diesel when capital costs can be technology, limited track record of bus reduced by 25 -35 %. manufacturers Table 16: Summary of Alternatives Summary of Recommendations 1. Actively participate in Proterra's summer bus tour and `test drive' in Colorado. 2. See recommendations in the `Implementation' section of this report for TOV's applicable choice. 3. Regularly re- evaluate potential funding sources to offset the bus premiums and infrastructure costs for battery - electric, hybrid and CNG, including HCE's Community Enhancement Fund. 4. Continue to assess potential partnership with other fleet owners and /or fueling station owners about the possibility of a CNG fueling partnership. 5. Monitor the `Lifecycle Cost Model Variables' discussed in the `Lifecycle Cost Analysis' section and re -run scenarios as appropriate in order to determine whether conditions have changed enough to alter the present course of action. 6. Evaluate electrification of accessories during refurbishment of existing buses or for new bus purchases. Regardless of which alternative fuel TOV wishes to pursue, the following next steps are recommended before any investment is made because they are likely to change over time: 1. Confirm the assumptions for the scenario for which you wish to plan. 2. Confirm lifecycle cost estimates for the scenario. 3. Confirm the priority and weighting factor for each of the primary decision drivers. 4. Achieve consensus within TOV as to which technology you wish to purse and how aggressively you would like to pursue it. 5. Pursue technology- specific next steps as outlined in conclusion of this report. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 49 of 53 SSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Implementation If diesel is the choice: • Make upcoming bus purchase diesel. Begin budgeting higher than anticipated for fuel expenses. Reserve any surplus funds in a `fuel volatility fund' to better prepare for large price swings in the future. • Prepare public outreach campaign to combat likely pollution and noise complaints. If battery- electric is the choice: • Actively participate in Proterra's summer bus tour and `test drive' in Colorado. • Carefully evaluate route(s) to confirm that on -route charging will work within schedule parameters. Perform preliminary planning and budgeting of charging station. • Confirm that timeframe to take delivery of buses and completing charging station project is acceptable. • Meet with Holy Cross Energy to confirm rate structure for charging station. • Consider next replacement purchase with battery - electric buses. Get firm bids from vendors on battery - electric buses and charging station. • Evaluate funding sources for bus premiums and infrastructure costs. • Update the lifecycle cost model with current pricing for buses and charging station. • Confirm choice to pursue battery - electric. • Complete planning and design of charging station. • Draft RFP for the construction of the charging station. • Select contractors /vendors and begin the project. • Develop staff training and either develop or integrate battery - electric buses into existing Emergency Response Protocol. If hybrid is the choice: • Make upcoming bus purchase hybrid. Begin budgeting higher than anticipated for fuel expenses. Reserve any surplus funds in a `fuel volatility fund' to better prepare for large price swings in the future. If CNG is the choice: Consider larger replacement purchase with CNG buses. Get firm bids from vendors on CNG buses. • Confirm that timeframe to take delivery of buses and completing fueling station and facility upgrade project is acceptable. • Assess potential partnership with other fleet owners and /or fueling station owners about the possibility of a CNG fueling partnership. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 50 of 53 SSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail • Release RFI to interested vendors for the design, construction, operation and maintenance of a CNG station. This will help solidify what options for a fueling station are really possible and what the cost would be. • Evaluate funding sources for bus premiums and infrastructure costs. Note this recently posted grant opportunity: Colorado announces Federal Highway Administration's Congestion, Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) program • Work with a contractor to further refine the cost to upgrade the Public Works Facility. • Update the lifecycle cost model with current pricing for buses, fueling station and facility upgrades. • Confirm choice to pursue CNG. • Plan the design and implementation of fueling station and facility upgrades. Decide on the structure of the fueling station RFP and contract (ie separate design, build, operate and maintain or create a combination the four components). • Draft separate RFPs for 1) the design and /or construction of the fueling station; and 2) Public Works Facility upgrades. • Select contractors /vendors and begin the project. • Develop staff training and either develop or integrate CNG into existing Emergency Response Protocol. 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 51 of 53 SSGM Alternative Fuel Analysis Town of Vail ENDNOTES RFTA's `all -in' cost per DGE includes the cost of natural gas and the electricity to compress it; O &M costs which include Trillium CNG providing contract O &M services; and amortized debt service over 20 years. Note that the amortized debt cost includes the full cost of all buses; the full cost to design, construct and manage all facility improvements including a new fueling station, back -up generator and maintenance facility upgrades; the cost of bond issuance; minus grant revenues which covered approximately 60% of total project costs. http: / /www.eia.gov/ forecasts /aeo /pdf /0383(2013).pdf http:/ /peak- oil.org /wp- content /files /porl307l5.pdf (Accessed July 15, 2013) '" http: / /www.eia.gov /dnav /pet /pet pri qnd dcus nus w.htm (Accessed July 12, 2013) http: / /www.eia.gov /forecasts /aeo /tables ref.cfm (Accessed July 12, 2013) 10/7/2014 2013 - 359.001 www.sgm - inc.com Page 52 of 53 did I MW GOLDEN QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE April 5, 2014 SGM 118 W. Sixth St., Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601 Attention: Dan Richardson Reference: Vail CNG Subject: CNG Analysis Dear Dan, MW GOLDEN CONSTRUCTORS has developed a preliminary cost model for analysis by SGM and the Town of Vail. The following is a list of inclusions for the facility upgrades, indoor fueling and fueling station: 1. Architectural Design 2. Structural Engineering 3. Mechanical Engineering 4. Electrical Engineering 5. CNG Subconsultant 6. Permit Fees 7. Preconstruction Services a. Cost Control b. Design Assist 8. Material Testing 9. Private Locates 10. Site Survey H. Demolition 12. Concrete Forming 13. Concrete & Masonry Reinforcement 14. Concrete Finishing 15. Unit Masonry 16. Structural Steel Reinforcing 17. Miscellaneous Rough Carpentry 18. Dampproofing 19. Metal Wall Panels 20. Roofing Repairs 21. Joint Sealants 22. Blast Proof Man Doors Mailing: P.O. Box 338, Castle Rock, Colorado 80104 -0338 (303) 688 -9848 Fax (303) 688 -8269 Physical: 1700 N. Park Street, Grand Canyon Suite, Castle Rock, CO 80109 -3009 CASTLE ROCK ■ COLORADO - GRAND LAKE wwVRi BMlden.com Vail CNG April 24, 2014 Page: 2 23. Overhead Door Operators 24. Overhead Coiling Door 25. Rubber Overhead Coiling Door 26. Fabric Overhead Coiling Door 27. Blast Door 28. Deflagration Vents 29. Miscellaneous Drywall Repairs 30. Miscellaneous Flooring Repairs 31. Painting 32. Required Signage 33. Fire Extinguishers 34. Fire Protection System 35. Mechanical System Upgrades 36. Methane Detection System 37. Electrical Upgrades 38. Earthwork 39. Micro Piers The following is a list of specific exclusions: 1. Utility Company fees 2. Temporary Power 3. Asbestos, Lead or Mold Abatement 4. Tap and Development Fees The following is detailed cost breakdown for the facility upgrades: 010000 General Conditions $132,993 014126 Permits $37,058 011000 Preconstruction Services $26,000 013100 CNG Sub - consultant $19,008 013101 Architectural Design $5,440 013102 Structural Design $6,000 013104 Mechanical Design $55,294 013105 Electrical Design $30,769 024100 Demolition $10,067 051200 Structural Steel Framing $6,800 061000 Rough Carpentry $4,000 075000 Roofing $16,889 079000 Joint Sealants $5,000 083323 Overhead Door Operator $39,542 092900 Gypsum Board $10,200 099100 Painting $3,500 101400 Signage $2,226 104400 Fire Protection Specialties $760 230000 Mechanical $1,319,735 260000 Electrical $359,760 340000 Payroll Taxes /Subcontractor Insurance $36,940 350000 Contingency $212,798 360000 Margin $187,262 Mailing: P.O. Box 338, Castle Rock, Colorado 80104 -0338 (303) 688 -9848 Fax (303) 688 -8269 Physical: 1700 N. Park Street, Grand Canyon Suite, Castle Rock, CO 80109 -3009 CASTLE ROCK ■ COLORADO ■ GRAND LAKE ww%VhW6b4lden.com Vail CNG April 24, 2014 Page: 3 370000 Builders Risk $9,434 380000 Payment & Performance Bond $21,899 390000 Grand Total $2,559,373 The following is detailed cost breakdown for the Indoor Fueling Option: 014126 Permits $9,265 011000 Preconstruction Services $6,000 013100 CNG Sub - consultant $4,752 013101 Architectural Design $21,760 013102 Structural Design $54,000 013104 Mechanical Design $13,823 013105 Electrical Design $7,692 014523 Material Testing $9,200 017100 Locates $13,000 022100 Site Surveys $3,500 024100 Demolition $40,268 031100 Concrete Forming $45,671 032100 Reinforcing Steel $4,508 033500 Concrete Finishing $21,138 036200 Non - Shrink Grouting $3,466 042000 Unit Masonry $48,561 051200 Structural Steel Framing $179,055 061000 Rough Carpentry $600 071100 Dampproofing $1,380 074200 Metal Wall Panels $39,087 075000 Membrane Roofing $5,800 079000 Joint Sealants $5,000 081000 Doors and Frames $32,525 083913 Fabric /Rubber Overhead Coiling Doors $99,477 083953 Blast Door $107,069 089500 Deflagration Vents $75,312 099100 Painting $20,588 101400 Signage $350 210000 Fire Protection $42,500 230000 Mechanical $146,637 260000 Electrical $39,973 310000 Earthwork $20,352 316333 Micro Piers $23,940 340000 Payroll Taxes /Subcontractor Insurance $36,940 350000 Contingency $118,319 360000 Margin $104,121 370000 Builders Risk $9,434 380000 Payment & Performance Bond $12,233 390000 Grand Total $1,427,297 Compressor Station Cost: Total Investment: $2,627,000 $6,613,670 Mailing: P.O. Box 338, Castle Rock, Colorado 80104 -0338 (303) 688 -9848 Fax (303) 688 -8269 Physical: 1700 N. Park Street, Grand Canyon Suite, Castle Rock, CO 80109 -3009 CASTLE ROCK ■ COLORADO - GRAND LAKE ww%V4iWBbllden.com Vail CNG April 24, 2014 Page: 4 MW GOLDEN CONSTRUCTORS looks forward to working with you on this project. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact the undersigned. Sincerely, MW GOLDEN CONSTRUCTORS i Jason Golden Vice President /Pre - Construction Services Mailing: P.O. Box 338, Castle Rock, Colorado 80104 -0338 (303) 688 -9848 Fax (303) 688 -8269 Physical: 1700 N. Park Street, Grand Canyon Suite, Castle Rock, CO 80109 -3009 CASTLE ROCK ■ COLORADO ■ GRAND LAKE wwW fiiQ9Wen.com E5 SGM 118 W. 6t", Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 www.sRm- inc.com glenwood springs I aspen I gunnison I meeker I grand junction 10/7/2014 0 0 _ EmMew �N P E. inp TOWN OF VAIL.0 SEE�SONFI �lMf A� OP IOYEE �IAEIONS 1 L'J" 11, N.P NOl OE4wN 10 SC51E 5SGM e Fuel Analysis Town of Vail Alternative October 7, 2014 Project Background "As defined by the Town of Vail (TOV), the intent of this project is to perform an analysis and feasibility study of alternate clean fuel systems and options for transit vehicles. Specifically this project will assess clean fuel transit systems in a mountain environment and research, evaluate, analyze and present findings regarding the cost, performance, greenhouse gas emissions, vehicle and infrastructure implementation needs, noise and feasibility for implementing various clean fuel alternatives in the Town of Vail. In addition, this report also includes an analysis of projected long -term energy prices." Project Approach ToV Data Review Literature Review Transit Agency Representative Interviews Vendor Interviews Web research Energy Price Analysis Lifecycle Cost Modeling • Peer Review Project Findings • Because of the high volatility of diesel, the business as usual approach is highly susceptible to large price swings. Diversifying fuel sources will provide more stability in overall fuel costs. • TOV has not explored the viability of Proterra battery - electric buses prior to this analysis; however it would appear that the Town's routes are conducive to Proterra's rapid- charge approach. According to transit agency representatives interviewed, these buses are operating well. The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority's (RFTA) experience with CNG has been mostly positive to date and because of the very similar climate and operating conditions, demonstrates that CNG is a viable alternative for TOV from a vehicle performance standpoint. • While the data show that the MPG of TOV's hybrid buses is approximately 4% worse than diesel, this analysis projects that new hybrid buses would perform 15% better than new diesel buses running on comparable routes. • Perhaps the most significant variables in determining lifecycle costs will be: 1) the future cost of energy; 2) the availability of grants or other funds to offset the cost premium of buses and /or infrastructure; 3) the number of alternative fuel buses purchased; and the Town's willingness to incorporate new technology into its fleet. Lowest cost bus; lowest lifecycle cost (under current conditions); familiarity with the technology Reduced noise; more fuel efficient than diesel; familiarity with the technology Second lowest annual fuel costs; lower projected price volatility; lower lifecycle costs when majority of fleet can be replaced By far lowest annual fuel costs; lowest projected price volatility; lowest maintenance cost, lower lifecycle cost than diesel when capital costs can be reduced by 25 -35 %. E5" S G M Susceptible to volatile and increasing cost of diesel; air pollution associated with diesel; noisiest alternative Higher cost of buses; susceptible to volatile and increasing cost of diesel; more maintenance than diesel; potential battery replacement needs Highest capital expenses - constructing a fueling station and upgrading the maintenance facility; higher cost of buses; higher maintenance; unfamiliarity with the technology By far highest bus cost; route scheduling parameters due to recharging; unfamiliarity with the technology, limited track record of bus manufacturers: Town of Vail Alternative Fuel Analysis October 7, 2014 Conclusion • Diesel technology is mature and reliable; however air quality regulations, volatile fuel pricing and noise compromise long -term viability. • Hybrid technology is mature and reliable; however it appears that lifecycle costs are higher than diesel and it is still susceptible to volatile fuel pricing. Imam�_ Conclusion CNG .e,�,fWTA • CNG technology has matured and would likely work well in Vail; however very high initial infrastructure costs would likely require grants, 100% fleet conversion and /or a partner in funding the fueling infrastructure. Conclusion • Battery electric technology has matured and is very well - suited for Vail; however initial infrastructure cost and very high bus costs would likely require significant grant funding. • SGM's assessment is that battery - electric technology is the best alternative to achieve the Town of Vail's goals. s LL3 l3 44 v m C' 3 o � o © 2 1 Average Retail Fuel Prices in the U.S. 0 Ln N a O p Q O O O 0) N O N O lq N O O I N N CD O N Date of Deport f Gasoline E85 # CNG f Propane -#- Diesel f B20 -4-- B2/B5 # 699/6100 f Electricity* G SGM Town of Vail Alternative Fuel Analysis October 7, 2014 b Refuel TColorado "Pump price" of certain alternative fuels are Fleets (► less subject to changes in market prices for energy "If the price goes up for oil, natural gas, coal, wind, solar, etc. Diesel Gasoline how much will that affect "pump" price ?" Retail price $3.87iGGE Retail price $3.591GGE (July 2013) (July 2013) $4.00 Taxes 2% Distribution and Mark.inn CNG Retail price $2.10IGGE (2013) Electricity Taxes 18% Retail price $1.141eGailon Electricity 6% Pipelinei� Operations Maintenance Taxes ®° Amortization Transmission �0— I and Delivery 1 ' Power Plant (Natural Gas � 1 f Fuel Costs Sources: Us DoE EIA http:Ilwww.eia.gov /petroleum /gasdiesel /, http: / /energy.gov /maps /egallon NGVA U5 DoE EERE IB SG M Town of Vail Alternative Fuel Analysis October 7, 2014 Taxes 13 °/p Distribution $3 00 and Marketing Refining 14WE ����0 $2.00 — Crude Oil $1.00 $0.00 Taxes 2% Distribution and Mark.inn CNG Retail price $2.10IGGE (2013) Electricity Taxes 18% Retail price $1.141eGailon Electricity 6% Pipelinei� Operations Maintenance Taxes ®° Amortization Transmission �0— I and Delivery 1 ' Power Plant (Natural Gas � 1 f Fuel Costs Sources: Us DoE EIA http:Ilwww.eia.gov /petroleum /gasdiesel /, http: / /energy.gov /maps /egallon NGVA U5 DoE EERE IB SG M Town of Vail Alternative Fuel Analysis October 7, 2014 Summary of Fuel Price Projections Diesel: 5.5% increase per year on average Electricity: 2.2% increase per year on average Natural Gas: 4.5% increase per year on average CNG: 3.23% increase per year on average Baseline Assumptions SGM's fuel inflation rates. No financing costs for buses or infrastructure. No grant funding for buses or infrastructure. Base cost for CNG facility upgrades - no indoor fueling option. Fifteen (15) buses purchased. Labor rates increase 3% per year. Lifecycle cost ratings (low to high): Diesel, Electric, Hybrid, then CNG. New buses will be 40' buses, replacing 35' buses. Battery electric bus purchase would include 12 year battery warranty option. Diesel Optimal Base case assumptions; air and noise pollution, price volatility is acceptable or mitigated. Hybrid Optimal Base case assumptions except Hybrid net bus acquisition cost is <_ $307,400 each. (47 %) Electric Optimal A Base case assumptions except battery- electric bus acquisition cost is <_ $579,600 each. ( -36 %) Base case assumptions except diesel price increases >_ 15.3% per year. CNG v. Diesel w/ Fuelers Optimal IIF MW_ Base case assumptions except diesel price increases >_ 14% /year and >_ 20 buses are purchased. Equivalent of 108 buses worth of fuel- consuming vehicles are purchased. Net infrastructure costs don't exceed $830,000 ( -84 %) and ? 25 buses are purchased. Base case assumptions except diesel price increases >_ 14% /year and >_ 20 buses are purchased. S � � � Town of Vail Alternative Fuel Analysis October 7, 2014 Recommendations • Actively participate in Proterra's bus demo and `test drive' in Colorado. • See recommendations in the `Implementation' section of this report for TOV's applicable choice. • Regularly re- evaluate potential funding sources to offset the bus premiums and infrastructure costs for battery - electric, hybrid and CNG, including HCE's Community Enhancement Fund. • Continue to assess potential partnership with other fleet owners and /or fueling station owners about the possibility of a CNG fueling partnership. • Monitor the `Lifecycle Cost Model Variables' discussed in the `Lifecycle Cost Analysis' section and re -run scenarios as appropriate in order to determine whether conditions have changed enough to alter the present course of action. • Evaluate electrification of accessories during refurbishment of existing buses or for new bus purchases. v Battery Electric Automated Charging Charger Equipment: Can be indoor or outdoor Bus and Charger enter Identification & Communication Stage Speed Limiting & Positioning Ji t1_ (operator steers) I ii I Charger Coupling & Charging KEEP CHARGING' S � � � Town of Vail Alternative Fuel Analysis October 7, 2014 rowH Of vn' 111 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 7, 2014 ITEM /TOPIC: Ford Park Lower Bench Update The purpose of this discussion is to update the Town Council on the Restroom /Picnic shelter and Playground Modifications projects and the accessibility issues on the Ford Park lower bench. This is a follow up discussion from the September 16 Council session. PRESENTER(S): Todd Oppenheimer, Public Works, Martin Haeberle, Community Development ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff requests direction from Council in regards to moving forward on the restroom and playground project and the construction of additional accessible parking on the lower bench of Ford Park and including those aspects of the Ford Park lower bench project in the Town Council review of the 2105 Capital /RETT Budget. BACKGROUND: This discussion includes 3 remaining elements associated with the lower bench of Ford Park, the restroom /picnic shelter, playground modifications and additional accessible parking per the attached memorandum. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Council provide direction on the specific components of the lower Ford Park improvement project. ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum to Town Council Memorandum Re: ADA requirements Walking Distances Map Power Point Presentation 10/7/2014 rowN OF VAIL') Memorandum To: Vail Town Council From: Department of Public Works Date: October 7, 2014 Subject: Town Council Update — Ford Park Lower Bench Restroom and Playground Improvements Introduction: The purpose of this discussion is to update the Town Council on the Restroom /Picnic shelter and Playground Modifications projects and the accessibility issues on the Ford Park lower bench. This is a follow up discussion from the September 16 Council session which included the following items. • Restroom /Picnic shelter • Playground Modifications • Accessible route between Upper and Lower Benches • Completion of the Lower Bench Water Line Loop /Paver Enhancements At that time Council directed staff to proceed with the water line lop and paver enhancements. The Council also directed staff to further investigate the American's with Disabilities Act requirements and evaluate options of how those requirements can be satisfied within Ford Park. Martin Haeberle, Town of Vail Chief Building Official, has addressed the accessibility questions in a separate memorandum which is attached. Project Description: This discussion includes 3 remaining elements associated with the lower bench of Ford Park, the Restroom /Picnic shelter, Playground Modifications and additional accessible parking per the attached memorandum. The restroom and playground are designed as one project because of the overlap and repositioning of the specific components. The additional parking spaces would be next to the 2 existing spaces near the Nature Center Bridge. This project does require an approval from the PEC to proceed. There is an active PEC application for a change to the existing conditional use permit for Ford Park. A project can be tabled after the application has been made without issue. The specific details regarding the 3 elements of the lower bench of Ford Park are as follows: Replacement of Lower Bench Restroom Replacement of the lower bench restroom, as anticipated in the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan, will increase the size of the facility to accommodate the current high level of demand and improve the quality of the facility. The proposed building design includes a roof extension to provide a covered area for 2 picnic tables and a minimal amount of weather protection for playground users. 2. Playground Modifications Playground modifications to accommodate the placement and construction of a new lower bench restroom are anticipated by the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan. The existing swings, 10/7/2014 dislocated by the new location of the restroom will be replaced, with additional swings, in the location of the current restroom. Landscaping, irrigation, and accessibility improvements are included in this portion of the project. There are additional playground improvements that are appropriate to consider while the restroom and other playground work is underway to avoid additional work within the playground for the next 10 to 15 years. These improvements include replacement of the existing basketball court, addressing an issue with root damage from the existing cottonwood trees, and correcting minor ADA issues. 3. Accessible Parking There are currently 2 existing accessible parking spaces near the Nature Center Bridge. There is currently no van accessible space even though the spaces are signed as such. These spaces are paved in concrete unit pavers with a concrete base and edge. The proposed additional spaces will maximize the available area and bring the total number of spaces to 3 car and 1 van space. Budget and Funding Implications: The current restroom modifications were included in the adopted 2014 Town of Vail RETT budget. The current balance in that project fund is $333,000. The original estimates for the restroom were completed in 2013 prior to the level of design needed for the PEC application. Construction costs have risen dramatically in the past year as well due to a recent increase in construction activity statewide. Contractor pricing, combined with soft costs and contingencies, for the lower bench restroom is $510,000. The playground modifications were included in the adopted 2014 Town of Vail RETT budget in the amount of $304,000 and were intended to fund capital maintenance and minor accessibility improvements within the playground area. These improvements have been incorporated into the overall restroom /playground improvements. Contractor pricing, combined with soft costs and contingencies, for the playground modifications and capital improvements is $450,000. The construction of the additional accessible spaces includes removal of the existing concrete edge, a portion of the existing pavers, additional concrete base and pavers along with landscape and irrigation modifications. The work is not budgeted an is projected to cost $30K. The table below is provided to summarize the current budgeted funds and updated contractor provided pricing: Project 2014 Budget Contractor Variance Pricin Replacement of the lower bench restroom $333K $510K $177K Playground improvements to accommodate the new restroom $304K $450K $146K Construction of 2 additional accessible parking spaces 0 $30K $30K Totals $637K $990K $353K Town Council Request: Staff request direction from the Council in regards to moving forward on the Restroom and Playground project and the construction of additional accessible parking on the lower bench of Ford Park and regarding including those aspects of the Ford Park lower bench project in the Town Council review of the 2105 Capital /RETT Budget. The necessary budget adjustments will be required to continue to coordinate the various construction projects included in this discussion. Final construction contract awards would be approved by the Vail Town Council following final project entitlement approvals, completing the construction design documents and obtaining the final contractor pricing. STAFF RECOMENDATION Town of Vail 10/7/2014 Page 2 Staff recommends the Council provide direction on the specific components of the lower Ford Park improvement project, listed below, in order to coordinate the Town of Vail projects with the BFAG EC construction project. ATTACHMENTS 1. Memorandum from Martin Haeberle regarding ADA requirements 2. Walking Route Map 3. Power Point Presentation Town of Vail 10/7/2014 Page 3 Project Contractor Additional Pricin Budget Replacement of the lower bench restroom $51 OK $177K Playground improvements to accommodate the new restroom $450K $146K Construction of 2 additional accessible parking spaces $30K $30K Totals $990K $353K ATTACHMENTS 1. Memorandum from Martin Haeberle regarding ADA requirements 2. Walking Route Map 3. Power Point Presentation Town of Vail 10/7/2014 Page 3 0 rowN of vain Memorandum To: Stan Zemler, Town Manager George Ruther, Community Development Director From: Martin Haeberle, Chief Building Official Date: September 19, 2014 Subject: Accessibility within the Ford Park Complex I. PURPOSE The purpose of this memorandum is to identify the criteria for establishing accessible routes to the Betty Fords Alpine Garden Education Center, the park playground, and the lower bench restroom area of Ford Park. II. BACKGROUND The Town of Vail actively enhances existing facilities and programs, as well as new ones, to provide accessibility to our guest and citizens with disabilities. The Town of Vail utilizes the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards to achieve this goal. These standards contain scoping and technical requirements for accessibility to sites, facilities, buildings, and elements for individuals with disabilities. These standards have been used in the design of the Ford Park Complex. III. Accessible Route Analysis for the Lower Bench The Ford Park Complex is divided into two distinctive topographical benches. By having the arrival points at the upper bench and the proposed structure and playground at the lower bench, the Ford Complex becomes one site and therefore requires an accessible route interconnecting the two benches. An accessible route is required between site arrival points (parking lots, bus stops, etc...) to the building or facility entrance. Also the ADA Standards requires connection of facilities and programs within a site by an accessible route. In order to resolve this issue, the Ford Amphitheater provides limited accessible parking at the amphitheater and, when events take place, people shuttles are provided from the upper bench parking area to the amphitheater. This allowed for site arrival points on each bench by providing two means of transportation to the amphitheater. With the addition of the new BFAG Education Center, providing an accessible route from the newly constructed parking lot to the new facility and gardens would meet the criteria for accessibility as defined within the ADA Standards. 10/7/2014 There is inherent problem with the proposed route. The proposed route from the sports complex to the lower bench is not conducive to persons with disabilities who will not be able to travel long distances as path lengths are in excess of a quarter mile. IV. RECOMMENDATION The critical issue for the design team is to look into possible alternatives in regards to site arrival points and other means of transporting persons with disabilities to the new BFAG Education Center and park playgrounds. This would allow the upper and lower benches to be treated as separate sites thereby complying with the ADA. With more than one accessibility access solution, the proposed path from the upper bench to the lower bench can find relief from the ADA Standards. V. ATTACHMENTS A. Ford Park walking distances map Town of Vail 10/7/2014 Page 2 WEST ENTRANCE CORE CREEK 3 z a N J Q J O W O U Q } N Z M 5 d � N w a N d g I < Y Q � Q N d � O M � o I N � N O = i a = a >, z a O a � U 0 w � a Z o z 0 3 o < a o /rHTFRS K E 0 /rUTeRSrgr� FgONT GF R( WEST RESTROOMS / STORAGE TURF BALL FIELDS (GRADING BY CIVIL, 1�\ DRAINAGE BY OTHERS) N GORE CREEK ..o GORE CREEK 1 POSSIBLE CENTRAL BETTY FORD WAY IMPROVEMENTS GORE CREEK FIELDS SPECTATOR PLAZA WALK TURF BALL FIELDS (GRADING BY CIVIL, DRAINAGE BY OTHERS) WALK i Z I POSSIBLE FUTURE F B�ETTY FORD ALPINE GARDENS � � U -� EDUCATION CENTER — GORE CREEK BEING WAY STOP LAN CENTRAL PARKING POSSIBLE FUTURE SHUTTLE STOP SHELTER TENNIS TENNIS COURTS COURTS '� AL RECREATION DISTRICT OFFICES AND TENNIS CENTER / CORE CREEK / 7 / GORE CREEK INTERSTATE 70 n,r pv rniTp nnvr JAtTERSTAUE 70 SOUTH EAST PARKING LOT CORE CREEK EAST ENTRANCE/ PARKING TRASH ENCLOSURE CORE CREEK ON- STREET PARALLEL PARKING GORE CREEK / o Q i z F BUS STOP ❑ - ❑ N m m SHELTER --� t TENNIS Q \ COURTS z W o o 0 SPORTS Z Z � CENTRAL ❑ �.l BUILDING Z ❑ ❑ Q f N N 0 a 0 W N m m 0 0 X 01 4 — N TENNIS Q J COURTS — CENTRAL PARKING POSSIBLE FUTURE SHUTTLE STOP SHELTER TENNIS TENNIS COURTS COURTS '� AL RECREATION DISTRICT OFFICES AND TENNIS CENTER / CORE CREEK / 7 / GORE CREEK INTERSTATE 70 n,r pv rniTp nnvr JAtTERSTAUE 70 SOUTH EAST PARKING LOT CORE CREEK EAST ENTRANCE/ PARKING TRASH ENCLOSURE CORE CREEK ON- STREET PARALLEL PARKING GORE CREEK / o Q i z F In � w ❑ - ❑ N m m N�BW z t m Q \ L z J In z W o o 0 m 0 ❑ Z Z � F N ❑ O 0 O N N N F Q c L Z ❑ ❑ Q f N N 0 a 0 W N m m 0 0 X 01 4 — N N N 80 40 0 80 160 SCALE: 'I " =80' ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE U.S. SURVEY FEET what's below. CALL 8 1 1 2- BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE OR EXCAVATE FOR MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES MARTIN /MARTIN ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS. THE UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING HAVE BEEN PLOTTED FROM THE BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION. IT IS, HO`+VE' ✓EF. THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO FIELD VERIFY THE S'�LE, MATERIAL, HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION. �2 z �2 z z z w w E E 0 o 0 0 0 0 N z z > o a s � \ z G z z � o a 3 U U (n O N N O) 10111101 N�BW W Q�xp 3 w — N N Q J J J J U Ud5W Z J J J J L Lj U O 0 J J Z Z Z Z 0 0 LL LU D cn W LU > z O m Q J II^_ w F- Q J Y < LU > Q O I r) 0 LL 0 } Z � g M M ✓ 0 N N ry h 0 O O N 80 40 0 80 160 SCALE: 'I " =80' ALL DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE U.S. SURVEY FEET what's below. CALL 8 1 1 2- BUSINESS DAYS IN ADVANCE BEFORE YOU DIG, GRADE OR EXCAVATE FOR MARKING OF UNDERGROUND MEMBER UTILITIES MARTIN /MARTIN ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR UTILITY LOCATIONS. THE UTILITIES SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING HAVE BEEN PLOTTED FROM THE BEST AVAILABLE INFORMATION. IT IS, HO`+VE' ✓EF. THE CONTRACTORS RESPONSIBILITY TO FIELD VERIFY THE S'�LE, MATERIAL, HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATION OF ALL UTILITIES PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION. �2 z �2 z z z w w E E 0 o 0 0 0 0 N z z > o a s � \ z G z z � o a 3 U U (n O N N O) 10111101 CD K ❑_' O ~Ow oQE O w � m ED �a�& jo Q' 3 sj wOO�s 0 p Z�Fp 0 U pro d paVz d Iz-Kp y- Sheet Number C10 N�BW ZrOG_ Q�xp 3 OQwN — N N Q J J J J U Ud5W Z J J J J L Lj U Uzz 0 J J Z Z Z Z 0 0 Sheet Number C10 Ford Park Lower Bench Discussion P JE U -� 1111 D lt�'Jl S � 92 AQ�01 r VFIIL- BEAVER GREEK g 1W 1 %m 10/7/2014 TOWN OF VAIL Ford Park Lower Bench �J Fl�P J� -D J �J ��J The purpose of discussion... To update the Town Council on the following projects on the Ford Park lower bench. ❖ Restroom /Picnic shelter ❖Playground Modifications ❖Accessible Parking 10/7/2014 Town of Vail I Public Works l 10/7/14 2 Ford Park Lower Bench �J Fl�P J� -D J �J ��J Staff requesting to Council... Staff request direction from the Council in regards to moving forward on the Restroom and Playground project and the construction of additional accessible parking on the lower bench of Ford Park and regarding including those aspects of the Ford Park lower bench 10/7/2014 Town of Vail I Public Works l 10/7/14 3 Ford Park Lower Bench 3 elements to the lower bench of Ford Park... 1) Replacement of Lower Bench Restroom 2) Playground modifications 3) Accessible Parking Restroom, Playground are included in current PEC Application. 10/7/2014 Town of Vail I Public Works j 10/7/14 4 Ford Park Lower Bench -P _r- �j �'D!)E D 11 -r ' -P _/— �aJ Town of Vail I Public Worksl 10/7/14 5 Ford Park Lower Bench �'l- DJ ' —r -D _E' �')' �1�I -P —rI � j a ID 1. Replacement of Lower Bench Restroom •:� Anticipated in the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan •'� Increased size to accommodate demand •'� Improve quality •'� Includes picnic area 10/7/2014 Town of Vail I Public Works j 10/7/14 6 Ford Park Lower Bench sJ���1 • Currently budgeted for replacement and relocation - $333,000 • Existing is undersized for lower bench area Facility is more than 25 years old, finishes are dated, \A • Hides playground • Part of Ford Park Master 1 Town of Vail I Public Works j 10/7/14 7 Ford Park Lower Bench P, _E� �) J_F� 1"Ji • Relocates to the west side of play area —opens playground view, relocates swings • Includes four (4) WC's on each side • Picnic shelter on north side 0 0 0 0 0 Te.), 0 T T ..3. F M� Town of Vail I Public Worksl 10/7/14 8 Ford Park Lower Bench Town of Vail I Public Worksl 10/7/14 Ford Park Lower Bench • Finishes to be consistent with new upper bench facility • Cost Estimate : $510,000 T: 10/7/2014 • Goal of constructing building in conjunction w/ BF Education Tn IAM n r l ►A 11 4 Town of Vail I Public Works l 10/7/14 10 Ford Park Lower Bench 2. Playground Modifications ❖ Accommodate the restroom ❖ Anticipated by the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan •'• Replace existing swings ❖ Additional playground improvements for the next 10 to 15 years. ❖ replacement of the existing basketball court ❖ addressing root damage from the existing cottonwood trees ❖ correction of minor ADA issues. 10/7/2014 Town of Vail I Public Works j 10/7/14 11 Ford Park Lower Bench J-D Ja')] r Deb -'J'1a 1� • Existing budget - $304,000 • Cost Estimate - $450,000 • Includes ADA accessibility improvements for playground and restroom only • Damage due to large cottonwoods • Basketball court 10/7/2014 I UVViu Ur VAIL/ Town of Vail I Public Works j 10/7/14 12 Ford Park Lower Bench • Ford Park is accessible by the use of a car between the upper and lower bench • Adds 2 additional spaces • Not currently budgeted • Estimated cost - $30,000 10/7/2014 TOWN OF VAIL' Town of Vail I Public Works j 10/7/14 13 Project Replacement of the lower bench restroom Playground improvements to accommodate the new restroom Construction of 2 additional accessible parking spaces Totals 2014 Budget I Contractor I Variance Pricing Ford Park Lower Bench i, ( -)jjII J'DJa'J�;J! (--)D�� i Staff request the Town Council to provide direction on... ❖ moving forward on the Restroom and Playground project ❖ construction of additional accessible parking on the lower bench of Ford Park and ❖ including those aspects of the Ford Park lower bench project in the Town Council review of the 2105 Capital /RETT Budget 10/7/2014 Town of Vail I Public Works l 10/7/14 15 Ford Park Lower Bench i, ( -) fJjI r,DUi'J-(-;J! (--)J -'tea STAFF RECOMENDATION Staff recommends the Council provide direction on the specific components of the lower Ford Park improvement project, listed below, in order to coordinate the Town of Vail projects with the BFAG EC construction project. 1 0/7/2014 Town of Vail I Public Works l 10/7/14 16 vmaiL• eeAveFt CREEK 10/7/2014 TOWN OF 11 rowH Of vn' 111 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 7, 2014 ITEM /TOPIC: Information Update: 1) Community Wide Recycling Eucation and Outreach Campaign Update 2) Commission on Special Events October 1, 2014 DRAFT meeting minutes 3) 2014 Statewide General Election Update 4) August 2014 Sales Tax Memorandum 5) September 2014 Revenue Highlights ATTACHMENTS: Community Wide Recycling Education & Outreach Campaign - Update CSE Draft Minutes Election Update Memorandum 2014 August Sales Tax Memorandum 2014 September Revenue Highlights 10/7/2014 0) rowN of vain Memorandum TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: October 7, 2014 SUBJECT: Community Wide Recycling Education and Outreach Campaign — Post Implementation Update I. SUMMARY On July 1, 2014, Ordinance No. 6, Series 2014 enacting Title 5, Chapter 12, Vail Town Code, "Recycling Requirements" went into effect. To assist the town with a strategic marketing, education and outreach campaign, the town hired Vermilion, a Boulder Interactive and Design firm, to build a message and begin to create a culture around not only recycling, but environmental sustainability in Vail. II. PHASE 1 — CAMPAIGN DEVELOPMENT Research and Stakeholder Engagement As a foundation for developing the public awareness of environmental sustainability initiatives and the how -to's of recycling, Vermilion conducted a number of discussion groups with key community representatives and stakeholders regarding the perception and impact of the town's recycling ordinance. Held over several days, the discussions were conducted in an informal setting with the intention of gaining qualitative insights that would link the diverse audiences to be targeted by the campaign. Campaign Strategy In general, Vermilion found that interviewed stakeholders understood how the recycling ordinance fit with and strengthens the Vail brand. They did not always agree on implementation strategies, but felt that for Vail to be a leader in all areas, particularly environmental sustainability, was important. They also did not necessarily agree that "green for the sake of being green" or any level of "greenwashing" (over -hype without substance) was acceptable. They did however all agree that they love living here, enjoying the outdoors, the lifestyle, and the community. Vermilion determined that authenticity was key to Vail residents and guests, campaign message that most resonated with those involved was, recycle here." 10/7/2014 and quite simply, the "If you love it here, III. PHASE 2 — CAMPAIGN IMPLEMENTATION July 4t" Weekend Kickoff Once a campaign message was developed the most important outreach event took place over the July 4t" weekend to maximize exposure. Communication included several full -page Vail Daily ads, a postcard mailing to residents and HOAs directing recipients to the town's website, recycling flags along the 4t" of July parade route, and a digital media display board at the Welcome Centers. Mid - Implementation Campaign Once the kickoff was complete and questions began rolling into town offices from residents and businesses, staff worked with Vermilion to meet specific needs: Recycling Toolkit: • Downloadable posters • Recycling Guide — how -to list, yes /no materials list • Downloadable rebate forms • Downloadable exemption request Vail Daily Aces and i awn Talk kecognitior Full and half page how -to guides have been placed since July, along with photo thank - you messages to businesses from the Town of Vail in Town Talk. Bus Boards A simple, straightforward bus board with seasonal design plays on the Love Vail logo will be displayed for the next several months. Town Trash Containers Vermilion also created a town trash /recycle container labeling design to better communicate the message in the villages and at bus stops, parks, etc. On- the - ground Outreact In order to fully meet the needs of the community, the Vermilion and staff team felt that an in- person component of the campaign was necessary. Therefore, the town partnered with Walking Mountains Science Center's Sustainability and Stewardship arm to provide an additional locally focused, on- the - ground relationship building and recycling education in the community. To date, Nikki Maline of Walking Mountains has talked to and visited just over 90 businesses, and 60 Homeowners' Associations. Town staff has fielded about 100 phone calls and conducted site visits on dozens of properties. This work will continue through November when the Walking Mountains contract will be completed and needs reevaluated. Door Hanger /Trash Can Notice To wrap up the season's notification, during the first weeks of October the town will be attaching a 2 -sided door hanger on trash containers without paired recycling containers as a friendly reminder about the recycling ordinance, how -to's on one side and the recycling guide on the other. Town of Vail 10/7/2014 Page 2 Additional Programs To further meet the needs of the community, the Community Development Department added several special programs to accommodate specific concerns. The town's website, vailgov.com /recycling, now reflects the following programs: Difficulty Recycling? Low - Income Assistance for recycling containers - If you are currently participating in low- income assistance program such as the Salvation Army, Energy Outreach Colorado, or similar, you may qualify for a full container rebate. Call 970 - 477 -3455 for details. Container Size Waiver - If you require a recycling bin smaller than 64 gal (trouble lifting, stairs, etc.), you may purchase a smaller container from your hauler. Building Permit Waiver - Until October 1st, the Town of Vail will waive building permit fees associated with expansion of sheds /enclosures on Vail properties to accommodate recycling. Exemption - If you find that recycling at your business or HOA is too challenging to comply with the law at this time, and you meet established criteria (i.e. cost, operational, physical or legal constraints), there is an exemption process established that you may apply for through the Planning and Environmental Commission that if approved, grants the applicant a 24 month extension. If you apply by October 1 st, the Town will discount the application fee by 50 %. IV. REBATE PROGRAM and EXEMPTION REQUESTS To date, roughly 70 residential $100 container rebates have been applied for and issued, and 7 business rebates at an average of $750 have been applied for and issued, totaling $11,000. As of yet, no exemption requests have gone to the Planning and Environmental Commission, but two businesses are in the process of applying. V. PHASE 3 — NEXT STEPS Staff is in the process of finalizing the contract with Vermilion for Phase 3 of the project, which will include the following: Environmental sustainability- specific micro - website development Environmental graphics, signage, and print collateral Media plan VI. ATTACHMENTS A. Community Stakeholder Research Findings B. Sample Campaign Design Elements Town of Vail 10/7/2014 Page 3 10/7/2014 vermilion design + interactive Town of Vai Recycling Ordinance Local Stakeholder Discussions O O O VERMILION.COM TOWN OF VAIL I RECYCLING ORDINANCE, COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER FINDINGS REPORT Getting right to the heart of the Vail community. As a foundation for developing the public awareness brand for the Town of Vail's sustainability initiatives, Vermilion conducted a number of discussion groups with key community representatives and stakeholders regarding the perception and impact of the Town's recycling ordinance. Held over two days, the discussions were conducted in an M, informal setting with the intention of gaining qualitative insights that would link the diverse audiences to be target by the campaign. STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSIONS, JUNE 11, 2014 Waste Management ................. ..........................Kevin Richards, District Manager Tiffiany Moehring, Communications Manager MRI ................. ............................... ............................Don Van Devander, General Manager Greg Shellabarger Vail Economic Council ............................... ....... Rayla Kundolf, Director, Masters Gallery Bob Boselli, Owner, Obos Enterprises Walking Mountains ..................................... ....... John-Ryan Lockman, Energy Programs Manager STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSIONS, JUNE 13, 2014 i Vail Town Council ........................ .......................Margaret Rogers, Councilwoman STAKEHOLDER DISCUSSIONS, JUNE 1q, 2014 Vail Town Council .................... ...........................Greg Moffett, Councilman, Tiga Advertising, Inc. Vail Resorts . ............................... ..........................Brian Rodine, Environmental Manager 1 Vail Honeywagon .................... ...........................Matt Donovan, Owner Shawn Bruckman, Sustainability Coordinator 1 Vail Chamber & Business Association .......Alison Wadey, Executive Director 1 Vail Marriott . ............................... .........................Robert Velasquez, Director of Engineering Discussion were guided by a question flow included in the attached appendix. 10/7/2014 0 0 0 VERMILION.COM TOWN OF VAIL I RECYCLING ORDINANCE, COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER FINDINGS REPORT p 3 What We Heard Overarching Insight Vail is a special, meaningful place for the people who call it their home —or second home, or getaway. If there's one thing that links the Vail community— residents and guests —it's that no one is here accidentally. People come to Vail because of the mountain and their love for the life and activities that it provides. It's a commonality that's present and appreciated across audiences, transcending economic standing and environmental sensibilities. Vail has an authenticity and credibility that resonates with those who love Vail. While it may not have the historical context of other mountain communities, Vail has always been true to itself. This clarity of identity is a core quality that aligns with the community that calls Vail their own. Key Findings Participants understand how the recycling ordinance fits with and strengthens the Vail brand. Individuals are proud of their association with Vail and the ethos of exceptionalism at its heart. With that, they understand how taking dramatic steps to lead in environmental sustainability— particularly being that Vail is such a majestic natural location —is relevant and important to the community's brand and position. For those more resistant to the recycling ordinance it's a grumbling acknowledgement, but even they recognize that to maintain the position of "like no place on Earth" is a challenge that requires always pushing forward. 10/7/2014 0 0 0 VERMILION.COM TOWN OF VAIL I RECYCLING ORDINANCE, COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER FINDINGS REPORT p 4 Overall participants felt there was a lack of communication for the Town regarding the new recycling ordinance. Across audience groups (Haulers, Businesses, and Residents) there is a perception the Town under - communicated the effects and requirements of the recycling ordinance once it had been passed into law. Because the recycling ordinance by its very nature requires action from the audience groups, there is a shared desire among them for the Town to have a strong and clearly communicated perspective on how the ordinance will be implemented as well as the resources to support the audiences with implementation. The perceived gap in communication created space for questioning and confusion and ultimately relinquished some control of the conversation to other voices. For instance, the haulers' dubiousness regarding the requirement for wildlife- resistant bins may have been amplified as they had greater share of voice. There is a shared perception that Town leadership had not fully considered the impact, implications, and requirements of the ordinance before passing it into law. Across the local population —for this ordinance the key segments being Haulers, Businesses, and Residents —the perceived lack of specific details and required actions following the passage of the ordinance created a sense that the impact, implications. and requirements for successful implementation of the ordinance were not fully understood by Town leadership. While audience stakeholders are prepared to work with the Town to implement and comply with the new law, the degree to which they are (or feel they are) educating leadership about the impacts of implementation underscore this perception of insufficient understanding. It should be noted that some responses from Town leadership reinforced this perception rather than establishing a context of comprehensive preplanning and understanding. Ensuring that communications from Town Leadership use the same considerate -and- committed tone to frame and discuss the ordinance is critical to creating the desired perception with key audiences. 10/7/2014 0 0 0 VERMILION.COM TOWN OF VAIL I RECYCLING ORDINANCE, COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER FINDINGS REPORT p 5 Recycling, how to do it correctly isn't well understood —and three haulers with differing guidelines make the situation more complicated. Across non - Hauler audiences there was a general lack of awareness as to how one correctly recycles (excluding individuals specifically involved in sustainability and recycling efforts). The differences between single stream and dual stream systems and difference from hauler to hauler further complicate the generally low confidence that individual have in their working knowledge of what can be recycled. Anecdotally this seemed to be the case for guests and the general population as well, given the large amount of non - recyclable or incorrectly deposited materials in a small survey of various public recycling containers. There are key distinctions between the primary audience groups: HAULERS Given the inherent complications of recycling in more remote mountain communities, there is a skepticism from Haulers regarding the actual'sustainability' of mandated recycling. While to some degree this is used as a palatable framing to express operational frustrations, it's a legitimate concern to note as a "watch out" as the ordinance works to grow support and momentum since it could be paint the ordinance as 'greenwashing.' Haulers express concern regarding the operational impact of the ordinance, citing increased workload and trips to support the requirement to provide recycling service with the same frequency as trash pickup. In the end this may have a positive impact on their revenue by increasing services per account, but until their operations infrastructure is adapted it will be perceived as a burden. Additionally, there is a strong current of resistance from Haulers to the required wildlife- resistant containers. Because other communities —like Aspen —don't have similar container requirements for recycling, Town of Vail will need to maintain a firm perspective on the preventative value of this requirement in the ordinance. This is another 'watch out' 10/7/2014 0 0 0 VERMILION.COM TOWN OF VAIL I RECYCLING ORDINANCE, COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER FINDINGS REPORT p b as it's unclear how Haulers are describing this requirement in their communications with customers. Negative or dubious descriptions in this context may amplify or create concerns on the part of customers. Haulers share a key concern with their customers: where will the new required containers be located given the limitation of available space and it's high cost? This concern is particularly related to Business customers who have a higher volume of waste and recyclable production and often have very limited options for expanding their waste storage areas. BUSINESSES Businesses have a high level of motivation to sort out and implement the ordinance's new requirements so they can make any needed changes and minimize impact on their operations and finances. As such they are keenly interested in gaining a clear understanding of what's required for their individual operation, particularly because locating new recycling containers may be a challenge for many. Of note, in an informal conversation with a food - service employee concern was shared regarding the impact of glass handling by staff on business insurance costs. While it's likely that internal processes and standards could minimize this impact, it was instructive that assistance and guidance recognizing the unique high - volume recyclables for each business would be useful. For instance, how to most efficiently dispose of cardboard for galleries and retail stores as opposed to glass bottles for restaurants and bars. RESIDENTS Confusion regarding how to comply with the ordinance Concern that the wildlife- resistant containers may be unnecessary 10/7/2014 0 0 0 VERMILION.COM TOWN OF VAIL I RECYCLING ORDINANCE, COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER FINDINGS REPORT p 7 Appendix I Discussion Guide I. INTRODUCTION AND WARM UP ( -10 MINUTES) Role of moderator, description of objectives, etc. Introductions: • Tell us briefly about yourself - what keeps you busy, who is in your household? Feelings About Vail • What is it you love about Vail? What brought you here? • How would you describe the character of your community here? What is it that makes Vail unique? • How do you think the Town of Vail is perceived outside of the valley? II. ATTITUDES TOWARD SUSTAINABILITY + RECYCLING (-15-20 MINUTES) What comes to mind when I say sustainability? Thoughts? Images? Feelings? • What does sustainability mean in the context of the Vail community? What's your philosophy when it comes to sustainability and recycling? • What are you already doing? • Is there anything you aspire to do differently? more of? less of? How do you think the Town of Vail compares to other communities when it comes to sustainability and recycling? III. ATTITUDES TOWARD TOWN RECYCLING ORDINANCE ( -15 -20 MINUTES) What role do you think a town should play in encouraging sustainability? How do you describe the Town's Recycling Ordinance? • Why do you think it was created? • How did you learn about it? • What involvement,if any, have you had during its creation? 10/7/2014 0 0 0 VERMILION.COM TOWN OF VAIL I RECYCLING ORDINANCE, COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER FINDINGS REPORT p 8 • Is there anything about the ordinance that would be important for you to know more about? What do you feel the sustainability plan and ordinance say about the Town of Vail? What impact do you think the new ordinance is going to have? • For you or your business? for the town? What would make following the ordinance easy? >� Success can be challenging to see. What would you think of as success when it comes to the ordinance and sustainability in Vail? • What will help to achieve this success? IV. FINAL THOUGHTS ( -10 MINUTES) What do you think draws your town together? Is there an example that comes to mind? • If you were going to rally a movement in your community, what approach would you take? What role do you think Vail has in leading sustainability efforts? 10/7/2014 0 0 0 VERMILION.COM TOWN OF VAIL I RECYCLING ORDINANCE, COMMUNITY STAKEHOLDER FINDINGS REPORT p 9 Audience Specific Questions HAULERS How is the new ordinance impacting your delivery of services? • Reporting? Scheduling? Staffing? • What individual challenges will your staff have in implementing this ordinance? How are you educating your customers about the delivery of mandated recycling services and the requirement? Will your team be available to support implementation of / implement new messages around compliance with the Town of Vail or Vermilion teams? What will make your implementation of the new mandate easier? What are the opportunities you see to increase compliance among your customers? • What are the challenges or barriers? ECONOMIC COUNCIL The industry around guests is a key economic driver for Vail. What are their expectation around sustainability and recycling and how does Vail serve them? What are the economic development opportunities driving the pursuit of sustainability leadership? • Is there a certification that gives a sustainability endorsement? 1 What are the concerns or fears from the Vail business community around compliance with this ordinance? About increased regulation? In what ways can the ordinance increase economic vibrance? How would you describe the Vail business culture? • How does the ordinance mesh /clash with the Vail business culture? ECO COLLABORATORS In your experience, what motivates the Vail community around sustainability? In general? What is the legacy of the lodge burning? Has it come up as part of the community discussion? >� How eco- conscious is the Vail community? 1 Is there a network in the community that more aware or activated that could play a role as advocates for the ordinance? 10/7/2014 0 0 0 VERMILION.COM I I; YtIl I A 91 10/7/2014 elements of the recycling toolkit at vailgo v. com /recycling Nu d -. ails for Community -Wide Rec•cli ng Regulations as of JuF 1 2014. 6., yes. res a law. But fiery; it's something we should all be doing anyit�nv, sg think of it as lust a smart move and smal I t oken of y 9 you are currentfv recehAng trash service, youvrill be required to also take pact In recycling seiviees starting July 1, 2014 §While we hap.;— '11 pitch nr nght —y. you have until Januaiv 1, 2015 to fully adopt . your ha ular for their recycl in guidelines poi visit vailgov conv4ecycling for general guidelines. tPS foryn ur recycling, which can be purchased through v o u i waste hauler With proof cif purchase: aou'11 be eligible for a S100 rebate. Busi aesses and HOAs ara eligible far up to 5750 toarard a new rec:rling program The rebate has time hmrt Don't wait! ♦_':RECYCLE LANDFILL ok WRAPPERS & PACKING MATERIAL E.W01TARJO DE PLkST[CO STYROFOAM E 5 ?U?AAD-&lQ"l%TlRkH PLASTIC RAGS NON-COMPOSTABLE CHIP 'A CUPS DO LSA D E to "VAIL O LLS r Tr W W N LLI J W tn CL W J CL El T W 2 2 H N a 2 tJ} W Z 0 W 0 2 W/ \ v Z Z F3 O_ 0 Z J U j� V W yr N m M p V x H M CL o a a R N 4 N E 7 G -J in -y .5 M V_ M O M a V V N 2 Y a y Q Q ea N y., N a O y' a� a Z V f6 un x Z yr 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z Z Z Z Z U Z Z Z ,Z N p O O F C nm N v Ol fL6 m p a0 Z U °= U 4r M m n M p Ip 0 U M ax aa+ ❑ V M fJ ro -, � C 'O Ijl a "a F Qi O Y LL C 'a y 7 Q a a a C 0 a o o f m 5 c a 3 m c_ a a a o °� a m a m 4 a 3 N a c ay c o 0 a 0 s r"o ° E° a s 3 x a Y Z V- O�a`?maaa4�nLu0 a.❑a�m��t� L o 0 v- 0 a a .w L L rA 7 L L C a, o a a rp U C M Q t L M u CL y U 7 M L • a m ar o E CD -0 N V = a d � N N - A ro 10/7/2014 o -a u m m O m CL a E zi? C r. m a c Q � � P T C i c O a CD r- _ V O ID e - $ +L m 1 A O = N E � U 0 c O '� n po o Q E ` A � C p C ED o a 9 A & E�� u E w H M V w co, N C r C � O O m w a E C q� •� LL N m c l c® r H m lv��A qr I'll L. yJ 0.- Y W LL LL 4 ti a 0 x a TOWN OF VAIL Commission on Special Events DRAFT MINUTES COMMISSION ON SPECIAL EVENTS MEETING Vail Town Council Chambers Wednesday, October 1, 2014 @ 8:30 a.m. CSE Members Present: CSE Member Absent: Barry Davis Bobby Bank Amy Cassidy Mark Gordon Rayla Kundolf Nicole Whitaker Jeff Andrews Town of Vail Staff Present: Sybill Navas, CSE Coordinator Kelli McDonald, Economic Development Manager Others Present: Laura Waniuk, Event Liaison Margaret Rogers, Vail Town Council Missy Johnson, Highline Cabal Yarne, VCBA /Lionshead Merchants Laney Odom, Love Hope Strength Foundation Liz Campbell, Betty Ford Alpine Gardens Ariel Rosemberg, Lakeside Stride Robin Litt, Vail Jazz Foundation Owen Hutchinson, Vail Jazz Foundation Jeanne Reid White, Bravo! Vail James Palermo, Bravo! Vail Sabrina Green, Bravo! Vail Jen Mason, Vail Valley Foundation Martha Brassel, Vail Valley Foundation Brian Hall, Blue Creek Productions Dave Chapin, Vail Town Council Terri Hanley Reichart, Arrabelle Mark Sassi, TV8 CSE Minutes Regl -fld WLeting: October 1 Page 1 of 6 AGENDA: Meeting materials can be accessed at: http://www.vailgov.com/WebLink8/0/fol/313784/Rowl.aspx CSE Chair, Barry Davis, called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. Administrative Items • Approval of the Minutes of the CSE Regular Meeting of September 3, 2014 Motion to approve the minutes of the CSE meeting of September 3, 2014, as presented. M /S /P: Kundolf /Gordon /Unanimous The motion passed 6 -0. Upcoming Meeting Schedule: • Wednesday, Nov. 5: RFP Presentations - Antlers, 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. • Wednesday, Nov. 12: Funding Allocations - West Vail Fire Station, 8:30 a.m. -3:00 p.m. • Thursday, Nov. 20: Present Funding Allocation Decisions to VLMDAC — Antlers, 8:30 a.m. • Tuesday, Dec. 2: Present 2015 Event Allocations to Town Council • Navas explained that interviews for CSE applicants at Town Council Work Session on Tuesday, December 16. Terms expiring at the end of the year are those of Barry Davis, Amy Cassidy and Mark Gordon. Bank will be term limited at the end of June, 2015. • Review Financial Status: Navas referred the CSE to the spreadsheet provided in the packet materials and noted that recap statistics have been added for all events that have presented to date. Event Recaps: Please see all recap documents for further details. Vail Summer Blue Grass Series: Ariel Rosemberg, Lakeside Stride Rosemberg would like to keep the 2015 event in Lionshead because he's created good relationships, and that the event would benefit from having weekly concerts as opposed to the lengthier and more random schedule of this last summer. Kundolf asked if a seated area is necessary, Rosemberg said no, but it's what people are accustomed to in Lionshead. Rosemberg said his event survey cost was $2500. Bank asked who the profit from the bar went to; Rosemberg stated it went to the venue ( Arrabelle). Bank then asked Rosenberg to explore a profit sharing scenario with Arrabelle. Bravo! Vail: Jim Palermo, President and Executive Director Great results in the second year of new branding. Palermo stated it was the "best year ever" for the festival that defines itself by the commitment to deliver world class CSE Minutes Regl -fld ' Leting: October 1 Page 2 of 6 musicians in a beautiful setting in a vital social environment. Bravo! Vail received NPR recognition as a "Top 10 in the US" music festival and was named "one of 5 festivals worth the drive" by 5180 magazine. He noted that although there were 5 out of 6 sold out concerts featuring the New York Philharmonic, there were also 3 out of 6 sold out concerts with the Dallas Symphony Orchestra and that attendance numbers appear to be down on account of a change in the methodology used to calculate the total. Retention is the key to success of their program. Excellent marketing ROI was gained on new digital initiatives. Community outreach programs continue, such as "Bravo! After Dark." Whitaker mentioned that the customized email marketing was successful because of the "you might also like" section. Palermo said that reminder emails were sent to ticket holders before events, which increased attendance. Gordon stated that the funding is a very important part of the program as the ticket sales aren't a huge revenue driver. Kundolf mentioned that it would be good to try to attract younger demographic such as millennials. Palermo stated that their demographic tends to age up based on life stages but added that there is research that says that it is a better strategy to chase the demographic of 5 -7 year olds to create that appreciation early. Vail Jazz Festival: Robin Litt and Owen Hutchinson, Vail Jazz Foundation It was a huge year in both reputation and in number of performances. Nearly every event was sold out. They had a float in the 4th of July parade. The concert on Friday afternoon of Labor Day weekend was a great hit. Kundolf stated that the ongoing concert series was great in that it lasted the whole summer. Vail International Dance Festival: Martha Brassel, Vail Valley Foundation Brassel, stating that "We have arrived!" also described a "best ever" year in this, its 26th season. A new PR agency was engaged this year. The dance critic at the New York Times "loves this festival." Ticket prices were higher, but so were ticket sales. They do intend to keep the $2015 concert on the schedule. Lodging growth was up this year and referrals from the dance website are up too. Farmers' Market program was well received, but they hope to be able to activate again in Lionshead next year. Kundolf stated that the ambassadorship of Martha to other regions has been a part of the success. Rehearsal space is a challenge to find. Bank remarked on the "budget loss," to which Brassel replied it was due to small items such as specific lighting requirements requested by choreographers and because there are significant costs for royalties. Hot Summer Nights: Jen Mason, Vail Valley Foundation Attendance is based on the weather, only one rain this summer. Citing a "fabulous line- up this year," bands were scheduled to begin a little later, which seemed to work well this year. Parking and cost of concessions were weaknesses. They remain committed to a schedule from the 2nd week in June through late August. Whitaker stated that the bigger name bands really help with the revenue generation and filling the town and those big names bring guests in the bars and Vail Village. Mason closed by stating that they like to start and finish the season with a big name, so as to set the stage, and that they have notice a lot of out of town guests in attendance. CSE Minutes Regtfl9VW eting: October 1 Page 3 of 6 Vail Rocks: Laney Odom, Love Hope Strength Foundation Dealt with transition of the executive director, despite this, they had a successful event. Checkpoint Charlie was a good location for the concert. Merchandise sales were strong. There wasn't as much of a PR hit from the band, Devotchka, as expected. There was good attendance the night of the concert. Area for improvement to increase local attendance, Most of the hikers were from outside of town. Evergreen Lodge provided free rooms to some survivors. Whitaker mentioned the weekend was really busy across Vail Valley; there were a lot of events going on. Drink orders were as used to determine attendance at the concert. Navas stated that hike was inspirational and the on mountain concerts were great. Vail America Days: Missy Johnson, Highline The estimated attendance was 25,000. Golden Peak traditional fireworks show was well received. Highline moved to an online float registration application which helped close down registration a little earlier. This year there were 10 fewer floats, in an effort to keep the parade to a two hour window. Some of the floats or groups may have lagged and created gaps during the parade. A few more marching bands were requested for next year. Identifying the theme earlier next year would make things more efficient. Davis asked how the Solaris event impacted the parade. Johnson said that it would be an improvement to set up for the event venues earlier, for example liquor boundaries. For 2015 there may be a need to activate Solaris if it's available. Cassidy mentioned that there are a lot of sponsorship opportunities. Johnson stated that Solaris was already in use this year and that was normally a location that could work for sponsors. Highline needs a longer lead -time to sell partnerships. Gourmet on Gore: Missy Johnson, Highline Described as an "Awesome weekend!," the Friday night tasting tour event was a great kick off and profits go to Habitat to Humanity. Worked on overall guest experience from last year. Every location met the mark for a unique guest experience. Need to enhance the communication to vendors. The Slifer, Smith & Frampton home tour was a good way to diversify the event. Whitaker stated that it would be better if they start marketing efforts earlier. She also asked about the Rotary rubber ducky race and if it had an impact on the event. Johnson said that she didn't notice an impact. Navas mentioned that although getting sponsors for events is important, we need to remember that our mission is to promote a positive environment for local businesses and that we need to be sensitive to recruiting sponsors that compete directly with Town of Vail businesses located within the same venue. Johnson stated that there will be another look at the strategy of duplication of sale of retail items next year. Vail Kids Adventure Club in Lionshead: Brian Hall, Blue Creek Productions The event draws families and kids to Lionshead and changing the start time to earlier in the day increased traffic to the event. Partnerships with concierges and hotels are a key communication strategy. Hall contracted an intercept survey to get an understanding of who attended the event, finding that there were more out of town attendees than expected. Hall is thinking about holding fewer, larger events. This was a challenging year because of the late coming support from the LH Merchants Association. Hall stated CSE Minutes Regl_fld ' Leting: October 1 Page 4 of 6 that for 2015, he needs to commit to the event regardless of sponsorship by the LH Merchants. Survey cost $1200 -$1600 for this series of events. Hall is trying to get more sponsors for 2015. Cassidy described the event as a good example of an event that improves the guest experience. On August 16, Survivor auditions were held for the second year and fully funded by CBS. CBS wants to come back in 2015. Hall would like to try to create an event around it for both adults and kids. Motion to approve the recaps for all events (a -i) and release the final funding disbursement to each promoter. M /S /P: Kundolf /Bank /Unanimous The motion passed 6 -0 a. Vail Summer Blue Grass Series: Ariel Rosemberg, Lakeside Stride b. Vail International Dance Festival: Martha Brassel, Vail Valley Foundation c. Hot Summer Nights: Jen Mason, Vail Valley Foundation d. Bravo! Vail: Jim Palermo, President and Executive Director e. Vail Jazz Festival: Robin Litt and Owen Hutchinson, Vail Jazz Foundation f. Vail Rocks: Laney Odom, Love Hope Strength Foundation g. Vail America Days: Missy Johnson, Highline h. Gourmet on Gore: Missy Johnson, Highline i. Vail Kids Adventure Club in Lionshead: Brian Hall, Blue Creek Productions Review 2015 CSE Budget proposal /Event Liaison Contract Navas reviewed the budget supplied in the packet, and requested approval. CSE members questioned the survey line item under admin items. Navas then stated that McDonald met with the Town Manager, Stan Zemler, on September 30 regarding the Memo sent by the CSE to the Town Manager and the Finance Director in May requesting additional budget support in 2015. McDonald stated that the request for fireworks at America Days and New Years Eve has traction with the town. The one time new event funding request for $50,000 was considered a premature request because the CSE has not even received any requests yet, and does not know what will be forthcoming in this year's RFP process. The final decision was to amend the memo to focus solely on fireworks. There was lengthy discussion regarding how the survey funding should be accounted for, given the CSE's commitment in the RFP to cover those costs for all Tier 2 events. The members determined that how the survey funding would be allocated would be decided during the allocation process. They agreed that the request for survey funds and for new event continuation funding are to be struck from the Memo. Motion to approve the administrative budget at $23,036. M /S /P: Cassidy /Bank /Unanimous The motion passed 6 -0. Motion to amend the Memo to strike the requests for $50,000 for surveys and $50,000 for new event continuation /opportunity funding. MIS/P: Kundolf /Bank/ The motion passed 5 -1, with Bank voting in opposition. CSE Minutes Regl -fld ' Leting: October 1 Page 5 of 6 Motion to move $50,000 for the intercept /attendance survey funding out of the admin budget and into the Special Event Funds category. M /S /P: Kundolf/Whitaker /Unanimous The motion passed 6 -0. Evaluation and Discussion of 2014 Events and Looking Ahead • Evaluate 2014 calendar with respect to Brand fit • Areas for Improvement • Determine strategy for funding decision making Navas stated that the way to approach the allocation strategy is to keep in mind the ROI to the Town. The CSE has the Destimetrics report to understand occupancy and ADR trends when considering potential events. This is just one data point, there are many others. Whitaker mentioned that CSE should consider other town events in the Vail Valley and their timing when looking at 2015 RFP's. The Town of Vail staff will commit to trying to collect as much information about the other town events as they can. Davis mentioned to focus on having a fresh perspective and to be more creative and innovative in events and event selection. New Business and Community Input Chapin stated, "Everyone is chasing us because we set the standard" for special events and that we need to continue to set the standard moving forward. Cabal from the LH Merchants said that Vail's Top Shelf Harvest event was successful. His shop, Arriesgado clothing had very good traffic from the event. Memorial Day is also a great opportunity for an event in Lionshead. He also thanked the CSE for continued funding for the Event Liaison position, which has ➢ Motion to adjourn @ 11:27 a.m. M /S /P: Kundolf/Whitaker /Unanimous- The motion passed 6 -0 Upcoming Meetings: CSE Annual RFP Review Meeting. Wednesday, November 5 @ 8:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m. Antlers at Vail CSE Minutes Regl -fld ' Leting: October 1 Page 6 of 6 TOWN OF VAIt Memorandum To: Town Council From: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk Date: October 7, 2014 Subject: 2014 Statewide General Election Update 1. The 2014 Statewide General Election will be held Tuesday, November 4, 2014. The election will be administered by the Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's Office as a mail ballot election. The Clerk's Office has setup three Voter Service and Polling Center locations in Eagle, Avon and El Jebel, to assist the community with voter registration, disabled access voting, in- person voting, ballot drop boxes and replacement ballots. The ballot contains federal and state office selections in additional to constitutional and statutory questions. There are no candidates or issues on the ballot specific to the Town of Vail for this election. The next election for Vail is a candidate election on November 1, 2015. Please see below some election date highlights and details about voter registration information. Key Election Dates October 16: Ballots will be mailed automatically by Eagle County Clerk's Office to registered voters to their current address on file between Thursday, October 16 and Saturday, October 18. October 27: The deadline for voters to register online or by mail is Monday, October 27 in order to receive a ballot by mail. Voters can register up to and including on Election Day, but after October 27 will need to pick up their ballot in person at any Clerk and Recorder's location. November 1st, 3rd, 4th: The Town of Vail Municipal Building will serve as a ballot drop box location on these dates and times. • Saturday, Nov. 1 - 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. • Monday, Nov. 3 - 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. • Tuesday, Nov. 4 - 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Note: Replacement ballots can only be obtained at the voter service and polling center locations in Eagle, Avon and El Jebel. For questions, call 970 - 328 -8715 or email elections @eaglecounty.us. 10/7/2014 November 4th: Election Day, ballots must be received by Eagle County Clerk's Office not later than 7 p.m. on Election Day in order to be counted. Voter Registration Information To register to vote or update voter information access the Colorado Secretary of State's website address sos.state.co.us. To register in person, visit the Eagle County Clerk and Recorder's office located in Eagle or Avon. You will need your Colorado State driver's license or ID card issued by the Department of Revenue to register to vote. For a sample ballot which includes all ballot races and issues, visit Eagle County Clerk & Recorder's website address at eaglecounty.us /Clerk.. Please note the Voter Service and Polling Center Locations will be open some Saturday's; date and hours are also listed on the Eagle County website. Town of Vail 10/7/2014 Page 2 MEMORANDUM September 29, 2014 To: Vail Town Council Stan Zemler Pam Brandmeyer Judy Camp From: Sally Lorton Re: August Sales Tax estimate Vail will collect another $75,000 in August sales tax to bring collections to $1,663,749. If so, August will be up 14.2% or $206,487 from budget and up 10.4% or $156,701 from August 2013. Year to date increases 8.5% or $1,356,920 from 2013 and 7.6% or $1,216,871 from budget. The summer so far (May — August) will be up 9.8% or $465,347. 10/7/2014 Month 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Town of Vail Sales Tax Worksheet 9/29/2014 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Budget 2014 Collections Budget Variance % Change from 2013 % Change from Budget January 1,997,091 2,225,841 2,275,967 2,597,985 2,783,306 2,976,655 2,619,673 2,564,383 2,795,688 2,855,524 3,145,620 3,222,713 3,482,239 259,526 10.70% 8.05% February 2,111,163 2,362,825 2,429,377 2,527,130 2,718,643 3,071,615 2,588,889 2,577,360 2,803,136 2,994,580 3,267,351 3,268,542 3,476,412 207,870 6.40% 6.36% March 2,372,942 2,344,178 2,785,101 2,852,954 2,986,446 3,327,304 2,504,567 2,685,004 3,143,418 3,185,859 3,650,157 3,507,081 3,785,833 278,752 3.72% 7.95% April 871,468 992,157 915,554 1,280,324 1,330,740 1,098,918 1,235,941 1,156,934 1,191,690 1,183,087 1,069,186 1,349,514 1,279,403 (70,111) 19.66% -5.20% May 428,919 411,595 458,770 449,283 545,874 622,103 516,150 421,925 473,292 487,739 563,602 592,713 606,441 13,728 7.60% 2.32% June 742,755 732,113 834,913 805,362 953,017 918,061 717,233 873,765 895,951 963,143 1,023,801 1,035,823 1,151,680 115,857 12.49% 11.19% July 1,075,532 1,128,514 1,166,183 1,255,243 1,265,781 1,397,842 1,121,860 1,228,767 1,481,329 1,573,499 1,654,161 1,587,328 1,792,089 204,761 8.34% 12.90% August 1,029,446 994,445 993,985 1,055,614 1,162,746 1,349,795 1,068,391 1,147,352 1,310,471 1,380,710 1,507,048 1,457,262 1,588,749 131,487 5.42% 9.02% Total 10,629,316 11,191,668 11,859,850 12,823,895 13,746,553 14,762,293 12,372,704 12,655,490 14,094,975 14,624,141 15,880,926 16,020,975 17,162,846 1,141,871 8.07% 7.13% September 679,208 757,033 795,807 832,549 908,318 834,569 753,754 761,425 889,945 978,037 994,135 999,126 October 508,092 532,537 566,173 614,396 688,519 662,767 581,033 594,362 623,420 644,577 755,133 742,761 November 591,269 623,646 713,117 799,582 747,877 719,109 651,873 701,075 788,430 825,873 947,627 878,595 December 2,171,098 2,362,095 2,549,032 2,771,258 2,821,871 2,652,628 2,553,974 2,963,763 3,184,645 2,973,826 3,422,178 3,358,544 Total 14,578,983 15,466,979 16,483,979 17,841,680 18,913,138 19,631,366 16,913,338 17,676,115 19,581,415 20,046,454 21,999,999 22,000,000 10/7/2014 TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE HIGHLIGHTS October 1, 2014 Sales Tax Upon receipt of all sales tax returns, August collections are estimated to be $1,663,749 up 10.4% from last year and up 14.2% compared to the original budget. Year to date collections of $17,237,846 are up 8.5% from the prior year and up 7.6% from the original budget. The annual budget was recently increased to $23.1 million, a 5% increase over the prior year. Inflation as measured by the consumer price index was up 1.7% for August and up 1.7% for the first half of the year. Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) RETT collections through September 29 total $4,450,902 up 40.9% ($1.3M) from this time last year. The significant increase is mainly due to the purchase of residential properties. So far this year there have been 5 properties sold for over $10 million, 15 properties sold between $5 and $10 million and 27 properties sold between $2.5 and $5 million. These properties account for $2.8 million, or 62% of the total collections year to date. The amended annual RETT budget currently totals $4.9 million. Construction Use Tax Use Tax collections total $1,465,659 year -to -date compared to an amended annual budget of $1.5 million. Construction Use Tax is up 53.2% ($509,629) from collections this time last year. Summary Across all funds, year -to -date total revenue of $44.6 million is up 8.9% from the amended budget and up 14.8 %, or $5.8 million from prior year, mainly due to increases in Sales Tax, Construction Use Tax and RETT collections. 10/7/2014 rnwH of vn' �Ii> VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 7, 2014 ITEM /TOPIC: Matters from the Mayor, Council and Committee Reports. 10/7/2014 rowH Of vn' 111 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 7, 2014 ITEM /TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24- 6- 402(4)(a)(b)(e) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests; to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, Regarding: Lot 10, Vail Village Filing 2, Vail Valley Medical Center Parking Lot PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire, Town Attorney 10/7/2014 rnwH of vn' �Ii> VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: October 7, 2014 ITEM /TOPIC: Adjournment (estimated 4:15 p.m.) NOTE: UPCOMING MEETING TOPICS AND ESTIMATED TIMEFRAMES BELOW (ALL ARE APPROXIMATE DATES AND TIMES AND SUBJECT TO CHANGE) THE NEXT REGULAR VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING WORK SESSION WILL BEGIN AT APPROXIMATELY 12:30 P.M. (or TBD), TUESDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2014 IN THE VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS Ongoing agenda items DRB /PEC updates WS - 15 min.; Information Updates Attachments: WS - 15 min.; Executive Session items: 30 min.; Consent Agenda: 5 min.; Town Manager Report: 5 min. Other proposed agenda items: Vacation Rental Discussion - WS - 10/21 Review Council's Action Plan - WS - 10/21 Discussion on Town Manager's Budget (Final Draft) - WS - 10/21 Plastic bags - WS - 10/21 2015 FIS Alpine World Ski Championship Update - WS - 10/21 Open Time Capsule from 1989 FIS Alpine World Ski Championships - 10/21 Quarterly Status Report on Capital Projects & Programs (Info Update) - WS - VLMD 2015 Budget Resolution - ES - 10/21 First Reading of Ordinance for 2015 Budget Adoption - ES - 11/4 VLMD Summer Intercept NPS Analysis - WS - 30 min. - 11/18 Second Reading of Ordinance for 2015 Budget Adoption - ES - 11/18 Follow up Discussion on Competitiveness Plan - WS - 12/1 Mountain Travel Update from DestiMetrics (Vail Economic Advisory Council) - CSE and VLMDAC Board Vacancy Interviews Proposed Future Agenda Items Council Action Plan Items: * *Defining Balanced Community - TBD * *Parking & Transportation - TBD * *Technology - TBD * *Half Day Retreat w/ VLHA - TBD Site visit of Vail Children's Garden of Learning preschool - TBD Ford Park: Managed Parking Program - TBD Ford Park Parking Reservation System - TBD Meet with Avon Town Council - TBD Investment Policy Update ES - TBD 1 -70 Vail Underpass Updates - ES - TBD Clean Up Title 12 Land Use Regs / Ordinance - TBD Housing Strategic Plan - George - TBD 10/7/2014 10/21 12/16