Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2015-01-20 Agenda ans Supporting Documentation Town Council Regular SessionNOTE: 2 3 4 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL EVENING SESSION AGENDA VAIL TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS 75 S. Frontage Road W. Vail, CO 81657 6:00 P.M., JANUARY 20, 2015 ruwx OF va' ii> Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time Council will consider an item. ITEMITOPIC: Citizen Participation (10 min. ) ITEM/TOPIC: Town Manager's Report 1) March 31, 2015 Community Meeting; 2) Discuss February 3, 2015 Town Council agenda schedule (5 min. ) ITEM/TOPIC: A presentation of strategies and policy options to reduce single use disposable bag waste in Vail. (30 min.) PRESENTER(S): Kristen Bertuglia, Environmental Sustainability Manager ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff requests the Vail Town Council provide policy direction in response to the staff recommendation. BACKGROUND: At the October 21St Council session staff presented a draft ordinance and recommendation for a disposable bag waste reduction policy that included a combination program with a ban on plastic bags and a $0.10 fee for paper bags at grocery stores over 3,500 square feet. Several members of the community were present and comments were largely supportive, with a few members voicing their concern that either the proposed fee was not high enough to spur action, or did not apply to all retail stores and would have a lesser impact, and should be phased in. One member of the public spoke to the non - sustainable nature of some reusable bags (i.e. they are made in China and of polyethylene), and the concern that reusable bags could be less sanitary than plastic. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that a disposable bag ordinance in Vail contain the following elements: 1. Combination ban on plastic /fee on paper 2. $0.10 fee on paper bags 3. Applicable to grocery stores only (over 3,500 sq ft) in year one (carryout bags only), with an optional phase -in of all retail stores in year two. 4. Fee collected is designated to environmental education and waste reduction, a portion of which is retained by grocery stores for administration for a limited time 5. A reasonable timeline for implementation 6. Implemented in combination with a robust education and messaging program ITEMITOPIC: First reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series 2015, an Ordinance amending Sections 4 -1 -4, 442W2904-3-2 of the Vail Town Code to clarify the Business License Fees for Short -Term Rentals within the Town and Requiring that Persons Offering Apartment Hotel, Lodging House, Guest House or Guest Ranch Lodging Services within the Town Must Post Their Sales Tax Account Number in all Advertisements. (30 min.) PRESENTER(S): Kathleen Halloran, Finance Director and Matt Mire, Town Attorney ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, amend or deny first reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series 2015. BACKGROUND: The Town Code currently requires bed and breakfast and short -term rental establishments to pay different business license fees that are calculated based upon the location of the business' management office. Certain bed and breakfast and short -term rental establishments are currently exempt from the Town's business license fees because such businesses maintain a management office outside the Town. The Town Council desires to amend the Town Code to require the payment of business license fees for all bed and breakfast and short -term rental establishments, regardless of where a business' management office is located. The Town Council further desires that effective July 1, 2015, all persons engaged in advertising of apartment hotel, lodging house, guesthouse, and guest ranch lodging services include a Town of Vail sales tax account number in all such advertisements (see attached memo). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve, amend or deny first reading of Ordinance No, 1 Series 2015 5. ITEMITOPIC: Commission on Special Events Appointment (10 min.) PRESENTER(S): Patty McKenny, Town Clerk ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Council will appoint one person to CSE to fill vacancy due to resignation of one member. BACKGROUND: Council will consider the candidates from the December selection process for CSE to fill one vacancy left by Nicole Whitaker's resignation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council is asked to appoint one member to the CSE for one year term, expiring December 2015 to fill seat left by Nicole Whitaker's resignation. 6. ITEM/TOPIC: The purpose of this discussion is to update the Town Council on the Ford Park Lower Bench, Restroom, Playground and Betty Ford Way project and request the Town Council to award the construction contract to RA Nelson LLC in an amount not to exceed $1,258,500. (10 min) PRESENTER(S): Greg Hall, Public Works Director ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff requests the Town Council approve the revised project budget of $1.41 M and direct the Town Manager to enter into a construction contract with RA Nelson LLC in an amount not to exceed $1,258,500. BACKGROUND: The Ford Park Lower Bench discussion with Town Council identified a projected budgefIfAQW04rious projects of $1.34M. Project cost received from the contractor were over the estimates by $68,380. These costs are broken down as follows: Building, $40K; Playground and Site Work, $30K. These cost increases were incurred despite staff eliminating the vegetated roof as well as the stone planter on West Betty Ford Way. Since receiving the contractor pricing an additional $19K was removed from the contract price by renegotiating general conditions and re- pricing counter tops and railings. The market continues to show extreme variability in pricing as observed in individual items forconcrete, framing, windows, doors and electrical costs. Staff recommends funding the additional $70K for the savings achieved on the upper Ford park projects which were approximately $350,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Town Council approve the revised project budget of $1.41 M and direct the Town Manager to enter into a construction contract with RA Nelson LLC in an amount not to exceed $1,258,500. 7. ITEM/TOPIC: 1 -70 Vail Underpass Project — Noise Wall Preference Survey Decision - making Process (30 min. ) PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel, Public Works Engineer ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council decides on the decision making process for the noise wall preference survey BACKGROUND: The Town of Vail, as land owner of the new Lions Ridge Apartments (Timber Ridge) and representing the future tenants, has been identified as the majority Benefiting Receptor. This will represent 34% of the final decision. At the January 6 Council meeting, the Council agreed to participate in the noise wall preference survey. The purpose of this discussion is to determine the process of completing the surveys. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council provide a decision on how the town will complete the noise wall surveys 8. ITEM/TOPIC: 1 -70 Vail Underpass Project — Noise Wall Preference Survey Decision (30 min.) PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel, Public Works Engineer ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council come to a final decision about supporting or not supporting the noise wall through the survey. BACKGROUND: The Town of Vail, as land owner of the new Lions Ridge Apartments (Timber Ridge) and representing the future tenants, has been identified as the majority Benefiting Receptor. This will represent 34% of the final decision. At the January 6 Council meeting, the Council agreed to participate in the noise wall preference survey. The purpose of this discussion is to come to a final decision about supporting or not supporting the noise wall through the survey. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council makes a motion specifically stating the Council's survey response for all 69 allocated survey. 9. ITEM /TOPIC: Adjournmenfl(ROIRW&I 8:40 pm) 1/20/2015 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 20, 2015 ITEM /TOPIC: Citizen Participation 1/20/2015 TOWN OF VAI N TOWN OF VAI N VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 20, 2015 ITEM /TOPIC: Town Manager's Report 1) March 31, 2015 Community Meeting; 2) Discuss February 3, 2015 Town Council agenda schedule 1/20/2015 Towx of vn' 1[1 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 20, 2015 ITEM /TOPIC: A presentation of strategies and policy options to reduce single use disposable bag waste in Vail. PRESENTER(S): Kristen Bertuglia, Environmental Sustainability Manager ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff requests the Vail Town Council provide policy direction in response to the staff recommendation. BACKGROUND: At the October 21St Council session staff presented a draft ordinance and recommendation for a disposable bag waste reduction policy that included a combination program with a ban on plastic bags and a $0.10 fee for paper bags at grocery stores over 3,500 square feet. Several members of the community were present and comments were largely supportive, with a few members voicing their concern that either the proposed fee was not high enough to spur action, or did not apply to all retail stores and would have a lesser impact, and should be phased in. One member of the public spoke to the non - sustainable nature of some reusable bags (i.e. they are made in China and of polyethylene), and the concern that reusable bags could be less sanitary than plastic. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that a disposable bag ordinance in Vail contain the following elements: 1. Combination ban on plastic /fee on paper 2. $0.10 fee on paper bags 3. Applicable to grocery stores only (over 3,500 sq ft) in year one (carryout bags only), with an optional phase -in of all retail stores in year two. 4. Fee collected is designated to environmental education and waste reduction, a portion of which is retained by grocery stores for administration for a limited time 5. A reasonable timeline for implementation 6. Implemented in combination with a robust education and messaging program ATTACHMENTS: Kick the Bag Habit - Presentation Kick the Bag Habit - Memo 1/20/2015 Kick the Bag Habit `FNIMMIN Town of Vail I Community Development 1 1/20/15 Community Feedback 2013 Q? Duo you think Vail as a community should reduce the use of plastic begs? Answered: 378 Skipper FIC, i��7�r +stir 4. F- 0% 4% AM 80% 100% Bag the Bag Pr )JJ _r;( Que: ;�JDIJS Does the Vail Town Council want to pass an ordinance that reduces single -use disposable bags in Vail? If yes, does the Vail Town Council support the staff recommendation? Town of Vail I Community Development 1 1/20/15 3 What Have Plastic Bag Bans Achieved in Comparable Locations? The charts below summarize pre- and post -ban data based on surveys conducted by the Cities of San Jose and Santa Monica, as well as the County of Los Angeles. Pre -PBB + Fees SUPB Paper r Reusable No Bag Post -PBB + Fee 34% 1 45% In these jurisdictions, plastic bag bans increased reusable bag usage by 40 percent. However, the 1/20/2015 elimination of plastic bags also led to an increase in paper bag usage [3© /o to 1+6%). http: / /www.equinoxcenter.org/ assets / files/ Plastic %20Bag %20Ban %2OWeb %2OVersion %2010- 22- 13 %20CK.pdf Figure 3. Change in environrnentai impacts of Pre- and,Post -Barr Bag -+I se Profiles needed to fuijiii c�r?e year of baggage deeds for City o .Saa D ego.60 GHG emissions Per Year 0.014 0.012 0.01 0.008 v 0.006 0.004 0.0[2 250 200 150 .` 100 r� Pre -Ban Post -Ban Total Energy Per Year Pre -Bann Past -Ban 1/20/2015 2.4 2.3 Z,�.., 2.2 v 2.1 2 1.9 http: / /www.equinoxcenter.org/ assets /files /Plastic %20Bag %20Ban %2OWeb %2OVersion %2010- 22- 13 %20CK.pdf Solid ''caste Per Year Pre -Ban Post -Ban Fresh water Consumption Per Year 0 40 0 a 20 0 Pre -Ban Past -Ban Chart 1: 2007 -2008 Streams Trash Composition 50 45 40 35 30 L 25 ❑ ° /C} a. 20 15 10 5 0 r ------- I Source: Anacostia Watershed Society 2008 1/20/2015 -1 w w ww• IL 1 r R # " w r- _n r� l y X7 CITY OF AUSTIN PLASTIC BAG COST ESTIMATES Activity Annual Amount to Manage Plastic Bag Waste COA Curbside Plastic Bag Recycling Collection Costs3 $1,81 6,000 Cost to the community at large $850,000 ■ Garbage Collection and Disposal $540,000 ■ Litter Cleanup and Street Sweeping $ ]30,000 ■ Landfill utter Cleanup $4,000 ecycling Contamination, Machinery Costs and Revenue $176,Oon- Retailers costs for collectlon, transporting and recycling Cost Unknown Unmitigated environmental impact Cost Unknown Total Cast $2,666,OO4 Per Bag Cost based on 263 million bags used in Austin annually4 $0.01 Additional cost to businesses for pr' roperty litter control $0.01 Total Estimated Cost Per Bag $. htto: / /www.austintexas.cov/ sites /default /files /files /Trash and Recvcline /plastic baes /Memo - Plastic Bae Summary - 01- 12- 11- BG.odf Bag Program Spectrum Vail's Draft Program: 1. Ban on plastic, 10 cent fee on paper. 2. Applies to: grocery stores only (over 3,500 sq ft) • Optional Phase In for all retail in year 2 3. Applies to: carryout bags only (not produce bags) 4. Fees collected: 25% to stores, 75% to fund for waste reduction /education 5. Summer 2015 target e ective date Policy Questions 1. Does the Vail Town Council support moving forward with a combination ban on plastic /fee on paper program? 2. Does the Vail Town Council support a $0.10fee on paper? 3. Should the program apply to grocery stores only or grocery + retail? 1. If grocery +retail, should the program be phased in over 2 years? 4. If a fee is collected, does the Vail Town Council support the use of those funds for environmental education and outreach? 5. Does the Vail Town CounleAsupport an implementation timeframe of Summer 2015? What's Next? • Council feedback • Ordinance revisions • 1St reading Feb- March 2015 • Community outreach • Implementation Summer 2015 k-, TOWN OF 0) VAIL A Memorandum TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Community Development Department DATE: January 20, 2015 SUBJECT: Kick the Bag Habit— Reducing disposable bag waste in Vail I. PURPOSE Addressing single use plastic shopping bags as an environmental concern is one way many communities across the world have attempted to fulfill waste diversion goals similar to those adopted by the Town of Vail. The purpose of this memorandum is to respond to questions posed by the Vail Town Council at the October 21, 2014 session and select a policy option for strategies to reduce disposable bag waste in Vail. Staff is seeking answers to the following questions: Does the Vail Town Council want to adopt a bag policy and proceed with an ordinance? If so, does the Vail Town Council support the staff recommendation? II. BAG POLICY - COUNCIL AND COMMUNITY FEEDBACK At the October 21 sc Council session staff presented a draft ordinance and recommendation for a disposable bag waste reduction policy that included a combination program with a ban on plastic bags and a $0.10 fee for paper bags at grocery stores over 3,500 square feet. Several members of the community were present and comments were largely supportive, with a few members voicing their concern that either the proposed fee was not high enough to spur action, or did not apply to all retail stores and would have a lesser impact, and should be phased in. One member of the public spoke to the non - sustainable nature of some reusable bags (i.e. they are made in China and of polyethylene), and the concern that reusable bags could be less sanitary than plastic. On November 241" staff presented the proposed policy to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC). All commissioners present provided their support for the program as proposed with the following comments /questions: • Reasoning for any portion of the fee being returned to the grocery store • What is the actual level of support from the business community? • How Breckenridge dealt with visitors who were unprepared for not being able to use plastic bags • Encourage the Town to include other retailers besides grocery stores and or incentivize additional businesses to participate. • Obligations of the Vail Farmers Market and other similar events to address Two members of the public spoke at the PEC session; one whom had recently become a Vail resident from Portland, OR and encouraged the Town to take a leadership role in reducing 1/20/2015 plastic bags, and one whom expressed concern over the lack of handles on the current paper bags at the grocery stores. Town Council Feedback Questions and answers posed by the Vail Town Council follow. Should the Town choose to impose a fee on disposable bags, what is an appropriate fee to achieve a significant reduction? Several communities, including Breckenridge have referred to the 2012 City of Boulder Nexus study which provides an analysis of fee vs. results. As shown by Figures 5 and 7 below, charging any fee can provide results above 50 %, where $0.10 is the usual starting point and the greatest increase in results occur at $0.20 with diminishing returns thereafter, until, as evidenced by the Ireland Experience shown in Figure 7, $0.50 achieves over 93% reduction in bag use. Research clearly demonstrates that in the absence of a fee, a bag reduction program is largely ineffective. Figure 6. Exatttple of Assumed Reductions in Bag Use Fee /Store Charge Level % Reduction in Bag Use $.10 63% $,15 71% S.2a 83% $.25 85'% $.30 87% Source: Herrera E—rro —to! Consultants, "City of Seen lose Single -Use Carryout Bag Fee Fiscal Analysis, "July 2010 Figure 7. Price Elasticity of Demand of Bag Tax Increase: Scenarios based on the Ireland Experience % increase in Levy from 22 cent (Eura) % Decrease in Quantity Demanded 10% (24.2 cents) 7.18% 15% (25.3 cents) 10.76% 20% (26.4 cents) 1435% 30% (2 8.6 cents) 21.53% 50% (33 cents) 27.35% 70°%0 (37.4 cents) 50.22% 130% (50.6 cents) 93.28% Source: AP EnvEcan Limited, 2008, Table 5.8. Boulder Nexus Study': Breckenridge has implemented $0.10 fee to apply to all bags, while Telluride and Aspen have banned plastic and implemented a $0.10 and $0.20 fee on paper bags, respectively. Staff has recommended a $0.10 fee on paper due to the goal of developing a program that is implementable and mid -way on the spectrum of stringency, however, wishes to point out that the difference between the decrease in bags with a $0.10 fee vs. a $0.20 fee is significant at 20 %. How would a bag fee be collected and how would it be used? Bag fees would be collected at the checkout by the grocery (or retail) stores. In many cases a portion of the fee up to a certain dollar amount would be retained by the store to help offset operations up to a certain amount, for a limited number of years. The remainder of the fee would be collected by the Town and designated for waste diversion and environmental education only, or a specific environmental program the Town Council sets forth upon adoption of an ordinance. 1 TischlerBise (September 10, 2012). Disposable Bag Nexus Study, City of Boulder. https:/ /www- static.bouldercolorado.gov /dots /disposable - bag -fee- nexus- study -1- 201305061239. pdf Town of Vail 1/20/2015 Page 2 How many times would a reusable bag have to be used before it's considered more environmentally friendly than a plastic bag? The amount of times a reusable bag needs to be used to offset the environmental impact of producing it varies widely and depends on where it was produced and the material used. For example, a bag produced from scrap fabric from GarCo Sewing Works through Aspen's program need only be used once to offset several plastic or paper bags, while a heavy gauge plastic bags, polyester bags, and virgin non - organic cotton bags need to be used between 3, 4 and over 100 times, respectively, according to the UK's Environment Agency Report2: Note that this report simply takes into account the life cycle analysis of producing each material, and one bag to one bag basis, rather than the avoided cost of using plastic bags for a family for the duration of their shopping careers. In addition, the report does not apply the environmental impact of plastic bags persistence in the environment, their effect on wildlife, groundwater, or amount of time to decompose in a landfill or the natural environment. According to the City of Los Angeles Environmental Impact Report; Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance, The UK study concludes that reusable bags of any type initially require more "upstream" material and energy resources as they are designed to be more durable than single -use carryout bags, but since the reusable bags' higher production impacts are distributed over multiple uses, they have a lower overall impact over time on climate change. Another study, prepared by the Australia Department of Environment and Heritage, 2002, shows that over the course of a year, virtually any type of reusable bag is environmentally superior to single -use plastic carryout bags with respect to GHG emissions, material consumption, litter, and primary energy use.3 What are the costs that contribute to managing /handling plastic bags at the Eagle County Materials Recover Facility? Eagle County staff was able to provide anecdotal evidence that plastic bags present issues in operations: labor to separate, tying up machinery, lack of efficiency and increased contamination that can lead to a decrease in value of outgoing product. In addition, at many recycling facilities with large volumes, any materials in plastic bags are landfilled. The City of Austin provided their City Council an analysis of costs associated with management of plastic bags, concluding that $176,000 per year could be attributed to recycling contamination, machinery costs and revenue alone4. Don't plastic bags comprise a small amount of the overall waste stream? By weight, plastic bags make up a smaller portion of the waste stream but are one of the most common items and most easily transferred by wind. Staff suggests that all aspects of waste stream should be addressed by the Town where possible (skis, boots, corks, wrappers, furniture, e- waste, etc.). One of the most ubiquitous and long- lasting changes to the environment caused by modern anthropogenic forces is the accumulation and fragmentation of plastics 2 Environment Agency. Evidence, (2006). Life Cycle Assessment of Supermarket Carrier Bags, a Review of the Bags Available in 2006. https: / /www.gov.uk /government/uploads /system /uploads /attachment data / file /291023 /scho0711buan- e -e.pdf 3 City of Los Angeles Bureau of Sanitation, (May 2013). Environmental Impact Report; Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance. http:// www .lacitysan.org /pdf /2013/CF -11 -1531 FEIR.pdf Gedert, B. (January 12, 2011) Memorandum to Mayor and Council. Plastic Bag Cost Findings and Clarifications. http: / /www.austintexas.gov/ sites / default / files /files/Trash_and_Recycling /plastic bags/ Memo_ -_Plastic_Bag_Summary_- 01- 12- 11- BG.pdf Town of Vail 1/2012015 Page 3 throughout terrestrial and aquatic environments. Designed only for single -use, plastic single -use carryout bags have a high propensity to become litter with a number of adverse effects. Plastic films, including plastic bags, account for 7% to 30% of all litter in the Los Angeles area. Typical single -use plastic carryout bags weigh approximately 5 to 9 grams and are made of thin (less than 2.25 mm thick) high density polyethylene (HDPE). While a customer may reuse a single -use plastic carryout bag at home for lining waste baskets or picking up pet waste, eventually the bags are disposed in the landfill or recycling facility or are discarded as litter. Although some recycling facilities handle plastic bags, most reject them because they can get caught in the machinery and cause malfunctions, or are contaminated after use. It is estimated that only about 5% of the plastic bags in California and nationwide are currently recycled. Single -use plastic carryout bags and Styrofoam food containers are a significant portion of the trash in urban surface water runoff, and in 2007 plastic bag litter comprised up to 25% of the litter stream entering the Los Angeles River Watershed via storm drains.5 In addition to landfill waste composition, plastics make up a large portion of trash found in oceans, but also in streams and rivers. Chart 1 displays the percentage of trash items found by number in the District of Columbia tributaries of the Anacostia River. Chart 2 displays the percentage of trash items found in the mainstream of the Anacostia River. In comparison with its tributaries, plastic bags represented a smaller percentage of trash items in the mainstream, due to the large number of plastic bags retained in the tributaries and the greater tendency for plastic bags to sink in the main rivers. 10 45 40 35 E 30 25 m 20 15 10 5 0 Chart 1: 2007 -2008 Streams Trash Composition F Sousoe: Anacostia WMnhad Secaty 2008 a% Chart 2: 2007 -2008 Anacostia River Trash Composition 30 25 20 15 D Rerc6nl 10 5 — 0 40 e 41 e• Source: Anacostia Watershed Society 2008 What could the Town do to ensure that Vail's guests have a positive experience by participating in a bag program? After speaking to representatives from Breckenridge, Aspen, and Telluride, each with successful bag programs, they assured staff that customer service and guest experience is of the utmost priority for their communities. Each felt that it was the government's responsibility to both address plastic bag waste and set an example for other communities, but also be sure to make the transition was as positive as possible. Complimentary programs Vail could implement: • Bag Banks (take one, leave one bins at the grocery stores) • Bag distribution — Airport and Welcome Centers, Town Hall 5 City of Los Angeles, Bureau of Sanitation. (May 2013). Environmental Impact Report; Single Use Carryout Bag Ordinance http:// www .lacitysan.org /pdf /2013/CF -11 -1531 FEIR.pdf 6 Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, ( November 5, 2012). Plastic Bag Report, 2012 Update, http: / /www.mwcog.org /uploads /pub- documents /o15dW 1820121105113857.odf Town of Vail 1/20/2015 Page 4 Lodging community partnership — bags available upon check -in Messaging — Video outreach, print ads, website and social media Can plastic bags be recycled? Yes, plastic bags can technically be recycled, but in reality, few are due to the costs associated. According to the City of Los Angeles Enviromental Impact Report, "It is estimated that only about 5% of the plastic bags in California and nationwide are currently recycled" (a high estimate based on a review of current research). In addition, plastic bags are often shipped oversees for recycling. The Trex Company based in Winchester, Virginia is one of the largest recyclers of plastic bags in the northeast region, utilizing them to make plastic decking. To put it into measurable terms, a 2 inch by 6 inch composite decking board that is16 ft. long contains approximately 2,250 recycled plastic bags. Retail plastic bags comprise about 15 -20% of the recycled plastic mix used by the company. For further perspective: In a four year period (2003- 2007), the U.S. consumed roughly 400 billion single -use plastic carryout bags. Of those, only 13 billion are collected for recycling and Trex reclaimed 6.5 billion bags to manufacture plastic decking. In perspective, California alone used approximately 20 billion single -use plastic bags in one year alone (equating to roughly 80 billion over four years).' This illustrates the low recycling rate of plastic bags. For additional frequently asked questions and answers, common misconceptions, Californians Against Waste provides a fact sheet. http://www.cawrecycles.org/files/CAWBagFactsSept1 72014.pdf ' Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, ( November 5, 2012). Plastic Bag Report, 2012 Update, htti): / /www.mwcoci.org /uploads /pub- documents /p15dW I820121105113857.pdf Town of Vail 1/20/2015 Page 5 III. BAG PROGRAM OPTIONS The following options were requested by Council. Pros and Cons are discussed. lidl!Fftl Ila Grocery Stores Only Ban on Plastic, No plastic carryout bags Similar to Whole Foods Market Paper can have a larger environmental No Fee on allowed. Paper is available Model. impact (life cycle analysis - water, etc.) Paper and free to customers Convenient for guests Trades one resource for another Does not require educational Does not send a message of environmental program sustainability (reuse) Eliminates plastic as a concern Does not result in behavior change Paper is easily recyclable and Store impact - Paper bags are more reusable, and biodegradable expensive, operational difference in bagging Paper bags fit more items than Current model does not have handles plastic Paper bags are not as persistent and Whole Foods model does not necessarily do not contain toxins that negatively translate to all grocery (i.e. culture of affect the environment sustainability in shoppers) Communicates a community value of environmental stewardship, demonstrated leadership. Ban on Plastic, Ban on plastic carryout Achieves the goal of disposable bag Only achieves an estimated 63% reduction Fee on Paper bags, $0.10 fee on paper waste reduction through use of a in bag use carryout bags combination ban /disincentive Communicates a community value of Requires a Town investment in environmental stewardship, education /outreach demonstrated leadership. Positively impacts culture and leads to more sustainable behavior Results in funding mechanism to Store impact - Paper bags are more further waste diversion goals expensive, staff training needed A "middle of the road" fee may be Perceived impact on guests and low- income more implementable than a higher residents fee + Phase In of All Retail Ban on plastic No plastic carryout or Consistency throughout all stores Paper bags can be more costly depending no fee on shopping bags allowed. on gauge of plastic, coloring, etc. paper Paper is available and free to customers Program would be phased in Significant reduction in plastic bags In inclement weather conditions, some in year 2 customers may prefer plastic to ensure apparel does not get wet Consistent environmental message Most customers are not accustomed to bringing a reusable bag to retail stores Additional education and outreach needed Ban on plastic, No plastic carryout or Most effective reduction of Paper bags can be more costly fee on paper shopping bags allowed. disposable bag waste of the options $0.10 fee on paper carryout proposed or shopping bags Consistent environmental message In inclement weather conditions, some customers may prefer plastic to ensure apparel does not get wet Opportunity to brand a Vail bag Most customers are not accustomed to similar to the Breck Bag in bringing a reusable bag to retail stores Breckenridge Highest level of education and outreach needed Town of Vail 1/20/2015 Page 6 IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that a disposable bag ordinance in Vail contain the following elements: 1. Combination ban on plastic /fee on paper 2. $0.10 fee on paper bags 3. Applicable to grocery stores only (over 3,500 sq ft) in year one (carryout bags only), with a phase -in of all retail stores in year 2. 4. Fee collected is designated to environmental education and waste reduction, a portion of which is retained by grocery stores for administration for a limited time 5. A reasonable timeline for implementation 6. Implemented in combination with a robust education and messaging program Town of Vail 1/20/2015 Page 7 Towx of vn' 1[1 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 20, 2015 ITEM /TOPIC: First reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series 2015, an Ordinance amending Sections 4 -1 -4, 4 -3 -1 -2 and 4 -3 -2 of the Vail Town Code to clarify the Business License Fees for Short -Term Rentals within the Town and Requiring that Persons Offering Apartment Hotel, Lodging House, Guest House or Guest Ranch Lodging Services within the Town Must Post Their Sales Tax Account Number in all Advertisements. PRESENTER(S): Kathleen Halloran, Finance Director and Matt Mire, Town Attorney ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Approve, amend or deny first reading of Ordinance No. 1, Series 2015. BACKGROUND: The Town Code currently requires bed and breakfast and short -term rental establishments to pay different business license fees that are calculated based upon the location of the business' management office. Certain bed and breakfast and short -term rental establishments are currently exempt from the Town's business license fees because such businesses maintain a management office outside the Town. The Town Council desires to amend the Town Code to require the payment of business license fees for all bed and breakfast and short -term rental establishments, regardless of where a business' management office is located. The Town Council further desires that effective July 1, 2015, all persons engaged in advertising of apartment hotel, lodging house, guesthouse, and guest ranch lodging services include a Town of Vail sales tax account number in all such advertisements (see attached memo). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve, amend or deny first reading of Ordinance No, 1 Series 2015 ATTACHMENTS: ' # • 4 1/20/2015 TOWN OF 0 VAIL�l Memorandum TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT Vail Town Council Finance Department January 6, 2015 Business Licenses for Rental by Owner BACKGROUND During the December 2nd work session, Council reviewed staff's research and draft ordinance on a proposed business license requirement for "RBO's ", or Rental by Owner properties with the objective of improving compliance with the town's sales tax code and requiring this type of activity to contribute to the cost of marketing and special events the same way all Vail businesses do. Raising a concern that adding more regulation may deter sales tax code compliance, staff proposed an alternative solution aiming to encourage compliance by RBOs: Posting the sales tax account number on all advertising (paper or online). Council directed staff to bring back a revised ordinance to include the posting of sales tax account numbers on all lodging advertisements (see attached draft ordinance). Council also directed staff to outline fee structure options to adjust the existing business license fee requirements to include management companies or other businesses that rent properties in Vail but do not have an office in Vail (currently exempted from paying a business license fee). Staff recommends creating a "Zone 3" category for these businesses. Currently, Zone 1 encompasses everything from the Cascade Village to Manor Vail on the south side of 1 -70. Zone 2 is everything else (West Vail, Sandstone, East Vail, etc.). Regarding the base business license fee and per unit fee, Zone 1 and 2 pay different rates. This is based on a 25% reduction for Zone 2 businesses. Below is a chart of the current rate structure for hotels and management companies: 1/20/2015 Zone 1 Zone 2 Base fee $325.00 $243.75 (25% less) Per unit fee $17.00 $12.75 (25% less) 1/20/2015 Staff recommends council consider the following three options to establish a flat base rate for Zone 3: Zone 3 A B C Same as Same as 25% less Zone 1 Zone 2 than Zone 2 Base fee $325.00 $243.75 $182.81 The per -unit rate will follow Zone 1 and 2, depending on the location(s) of the units being rented. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL Please provide feedback on the draft ordinance and on the rate structure for a new "Zone 3" category of business license. Town of Vail Page 2 1/20/2015 ORDINANCE NO. 1 SERIES 2015 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTIONS 4 -1 -4, 4 -3 -1 -2 AND 4 -3 -2 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE TO CLARIFY THE BUSINESS LICENSE FEES FOR SHORT -TERM RENTALS WITHIN THE TOWN AND REQUIRING THAT PERSONS OFFERING APARTMENT HOTEL, LODGING HOUSE, GUESTHOUSE OR GUEST RANCH LODGING SERVICES WITHIN THE TOWN MUST POST THEIR SALES TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER IN ALL ADVERTISEMENTS WHEREAS, the Town Code currently requires bed and breakfast and short -term rental establishments to pay different business license fees that are calculated based upon the location of business's management office; WHEREAS, the Town Council is aware of certain bed and breakfast and short - term rental establishments that are currently exempt from the Town's business license fees because such businesses maintain a management office outside of the Town; WHEREAS, in an effort to standardize the Town's business license fees, the Town Council desires to amend the Town Code to require the payment of business license fees for all bed and breakfast and short -term rental establishments, regardless of where a business's management office is located; WHEREAS, the Town Council is also aware that the sale of lodging services within the Town are being advertised and coordinated via the internet, and is concerned that all sales taxes may not be being paid on apartment hotel, lodging house, guesthouse and guest ranch lodging services; and WHEREAS, the Town Council further desires that effective July 1, 2015, all persons engaged in internet advertising of apartment hotel, lodging house, guesthouse, and guest ranch lodging services, include a Town of Vail sales tax account number in all such advertisements. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Subpart (B) of Section 4 -1 -4 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 4 -1 -4: Fees: B. Schedule: An annual business license fee shall be paid by every person doing business within the Town in accordance with the following schedule: Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2015 1/20/2015 1. Bed And Breakfast Short -Term Rentals: Short -term rentals and bed and breakfast operations. Any person who engages in the short term rental of either accommodation units or dwelling units to one who uses, possesses, or has the right to use or possess such accommodation unit or dwelling unit, and any person who engages in a "bed and breakfast operation" as that term is defined in Section 12 -14 -18 of this Code shall pay a fee as follows: a. If the management office is located in Zone 1, a flat fee of three hundred twenty five dollars ($325.00) a-Rd R additi91� plus a fee of seventeen dollars ($17.00) per unit for each unit located in Zone 1 and an additional fee of twelve dollars seventy five cents ($12.75) per unit for each unit located in Zone 2. b. If the management office is located in Zone 2, a flat fee of two hundred forty three dollars seventy five cents ($243.75) plus a fee of seventeen dollars ($17.00) per unit for each unit located in Zone 1, and an additional fee of twelve dollars seventy five cents ($12.75) per unit for each unit located in Zone 2. C. If the management office is located outside of the Town, a flat fee of ($ ) plus a fee of seventeen dollars ($17.00) per unit for each unit located in Zone 1, and an additional fee of twelve dollars seventy five cents ($12.75) per unit for each unit located in Zone 2. de. Persons who short term rent no more than two (2) units and people who have a bed and breakfast operation which rents no more than two (2) bedrooms shall be exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. Section 2. Section 4 -3 -1 -2 of the Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of the following definitions, which shall be inserted alphabetically to read as follows: 4- 3 -1 -2: Definitions: As used in this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall have the following meanings: APARTMENT HOTEL: A building containing apartments that may be rented to paying guests. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2015 1/2/2015 LODGING HOUSE: A private single - family home, townhome or condominium with individual rooms that may be rented to paying guests. GUESTHOUSE: A private single- family home, townhome or condominium that may be rented in its entirety to paying guests. GUEST RANCH: A resort patterned after a western ranch, where overnight accommodations are offered to paying guests. Section 3. Subsection (C) of Section 4 -3 -2 of the Town Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 4 -3 -2: Licensing Requirements: C. Contents; Posting: Each license shall be numbered with a Town of Vail sales tax account number and shall show the name of the licensee and the place of business of the licensee and shall be posted in a conspicuous place at the place of business for which it is issued. If the licensee does not have a place of business, then the license shall show the mailing address of such licensee. Effective July 1, 2015, any licensee that advertises apartment hotels, lodging houses, guesthouses or guest ranch lodging services shall include the licensee's Town of Vail sales tax account number in all such advertisements. Section 4. If any part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid, such decision shall not effect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance; and the Town Council hereby declares it would have passed this ordinance, and each part, section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, regardless of the fact that any one or more parts, sections, subsections, sentences, clauses or phrases be declared invalid. Section 5. The Town Council hereby finds, determines and declares that this ordinance is necessary and proper for the health, safety and welfare of the Town of Vail and the inhabitants thereof. Section 6. The amendment of any provision of the Town Code as provided in this ordinance shall not affect any right which has accrued, any duty imposed, any violation that occurred prior to the effective date hereof, any prosecution commenced, nor any other action or proceeding as commenced under or by virtue of the provision amended. The amendment of any provision hereby shall not revive any provision or any ordinance previously repealed or superseded unless expressly stated herein. Section 7. All bylaws, orders, resolutions and ordinances, or parts thereof, inconsistent herewith are repealed to the extent only of such inconsistency. This repealer shall not be construed to revise any bylaw, order, resolution or ordinance, or part thereof, theretofore repealed. Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2015 1/2 /2015 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this 6th day of January, 2015 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the 20th day of January, 2015, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. Andrew P. Daly, Mayor ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk READ AND APPROVED ON SECOND READING AND ORDERED PUBLISHED this day of 2015. Andrew P. Daly, Mayor ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk Ordinance No. 1, Series of 2015 1/240/2015 TOWN OF VAI N VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 20, 2015 ITEM /TOPIC: Commission on Special Events Appointment PRESENTER(S): Patty McKenny, Town Clerk ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Council will appoint one person to CSE to fill vacancy due to resignation of one member. BACKGROUND: Council will consider the candidates from the December selection process for CSE to fill one vacancy left by Nicole Whitaker's resignation. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Council is asked to appoint one member to the CSE for one year term, expiring December 2015 to fill seat left by Nicole Whitaker's resignation. 1/20/2015 TOWN OF VAI N VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 20, 2015 ITEM /TOPIC: The purpose of this discussion is to update the Town Council on the Ford Park Lower Bench, Restroom, Playground and Betty Ford Way project and request the Town Council to award the construction contract to RA Nelson LLC in an amount not to exceed $1,258,500. PRESENTER(S): Greg Hall, Public Works Director ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff requests the Town Council approve the revised project budget of $1.41 M and direct the Town Manager to enter into a construction contract with RA Nelson LLC in an amount not to exceed $1,258,500. BACKGROUND: The Ford Park Lower Bench discussion with Town Council identified a projected budget for the various projects of $1.34M. Project cost received from the contractor were over the estimates by $68,380. These costs are broken down as follows: Building, $40K; Playground and Site Work, $30K. These cost increases were incurred despite staff eliminating the vegetated roof as well as the stone planter on West Betty Ford Way. Since receiving the contractor pricing an additional $19K was removed from the contract price by renegotiating general conditions and re- pricing counter tops and railings. The market continues to show extreme variability in pricing as observed in individual items forconcrete, framing, windows, doors and electrical costs. Staff recommends funding the additional $70K for the savings achieved on the upper Ford park projects which were approximately $350,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Town Council approve the revised project budget of $1.41 M and direct the Town Manager to enter into a construction contract with RA Nelson LLC in an amount not to exceed $1,258,500. ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum 1/20/2015 rowN of vAiL Memorandum To: Vail Town Council From: Department of Public Works Date: January 20, 2015 Subject: Ford Park Lower Bench, Restroom, Playground and Betty Ford Way Improvements — Update and Request to Award Construction Contract Introduction: The purpose of this discussion is to update the Town Council on the Ford Park Lower Bench, Restroom, Playground and Betty Ford Way project and request the Town Council to award the construction contract to RA Nelson LLC in an amount not to exceed $1,258,500. The work includes the following items as discussed on October 7, 2014. • Restroom /Picnic shelter • Playground Modifications • Completion of the Lower Bench Water Line Loop /Paver Enhancements • Accessible parking expansion With the award of the construction contract by the Town Council, RA Nelson will begin construction the first week in February and complete the work by June 30, 2015. RA Nelson is currently constructing the Betty Ford Alpine Gardens Education Center Building adjacent to the town's project. Project Description: The specific details regarding the 4 elements of the lower bench of Ford Park are as follows: 1. Replacement of Lower Bench Restroom Replacement of the lower bench restroom, including 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 including additional swings, replacement of the basketball court, landscaping, irrigation, and accessibility improvements. 3. Lower Bench Water Line Loop /Paver Enhancements Extension of the existing water main to complete the loop through Ford Park and to make the final connection near the Amphitheater. Existing asphalt pavement will be replaced with concrete unit pavers bituminous set on a concrete subslab. The concrete unit pavers extend form the current location west of the Old School House to the just past the Manor Vail Bridge walk. 4. Accessible Parking Expansion of the existing accessible parking near the Nature Center Bridge to bring the total number of spaces to 3 car and 1 van space. Budget and Funding Implications: 1/20/2015 The Ford Park Lower Bench discussion with Town Council identified a projected budget for the various projects of $1.34M. Project cost received from the contractor were over the estimates by $68,380. These costs are broken down as follows: Building $40K Playground and Site Work $30K These cost increases were incurred despite of staff eliminating the vegetated roof as well as the stone planter on West Betty Ford Way. Since receiving the contractor pricing an additional $19K was removed from the contract price by renegotiating general conditions and re- pricing counter tops and railings. The market continues to show extreme variability in pricing as observed in individual items for concrete, framing, windows, doors and electrical costs. Staff recommends funding the additional $70K for the savings achieved o the upper Ford Park projects which were approximately $350,000. Town Council Request and Recommendation: Staff is completing minor contract modifications with the contractor at this time. In order to avoid an additional 2 week delay in the start of the project, staff requests and recommends the Town Council approve the revised project budget of $1.41 M and direct the Town Manager to enter into a construction contract with RA Nelson LLC in an amount not to exceed $1,258,500. Town of Vail 1/20/2015 Page 2 Towx of vn' 1[1 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 20, 2015 ITEM /TOPIC: 1 -70 Vail Underpass Project — Noise Wall Preference Survey Decision - making Process PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel, Public Works Engineer ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council decides on the decision making process for the noise wall preference survey BACKGROUND: The Town of Vail, as land owner of the new Lions Ridge Apartments (Timber Ridge) and representing the future tenants, has been identified as the majority Benefiting Receptor. This will represent 34% of the final decision. At the January 6 Council meeting, the Council agreed to participate in the noise wall preference survey. The purpose of this discussion is to determine the process of completing the surveys. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council provide a decision on how the town will complete the noise wall surveys ATTACHMENTS: Memo Noise Wall Survey Packet Receptor Map Receptor Noise Level Comparison Table Lions Ridge Views Presentation 1/20/2015 IN ► ► 1 qVA1 Memorandum To: From: Date: Subject Town Council Public Works Department 1 -20 -15 1 -70 Vail Underpass Noise Wall Town Council Survey Preference Process SUMMARY The 1 -70 Vail Underpass is a proposed new multimodal pedestrian and vehicular connection that is midway between Main Vail and West Vail exits, passing under 1 -70. This underpass has been identified in the Vail Transportation Master Plan (VTMP) and the CDOT 1 -70 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PETS) as a critical link between the North and South Frontage Roads. The Town and CDOT have entered into a Letter of Commitment and an Inter - Governmental Agreement (IGA) to jointly fund the design and construction of this project with an expected completion date of December of 2017. CDOT, the Town of Vail, and the selected design consultant, Felsburg, Holt & Ullevig (FHU), have completed the preliminary design process based on the endorsed preferred location of the underpass. Also, as a result of the project's noise abatement report, a noise wall has been determined to be reasonable and feasible if supported by the majority of the Benefiting Receptors. A preference survey of the Benefiting Receptors was mailed out on January 9 by certified mail in order to determine if a noise wall will be part of this project. For reference, each of the past Town Council presentations and Council meeting video links along with additional project information is available at the project website at www.vailgov.com /underpass The Town of Vail, as land owner of the new Lions Ridge Apartments (Timber Ridge) and representing the future tenants, has been identified as the majority Benefiting Receptor. This will represent 34% of the final decision. At the January 6 Council meeting, the Council agreed to participate in the noise wall preference survey. The purpose of the discussion on January 20th is to determine the process of completing the surveys and to come to a final decision about supporting or not supporting the noise wall through the survey. NOISE WALL DECISION MAKING PROCESS In order to determine whether or not the project will include a noise wall, adding $4.9 M to $5.7 M in cost to the project, the state and federal guidelines require a preference survey be submitted by the Benefiting Receptors. If more than 50% of responding Benefiting Receptors are in support of the noise wall, then the noise wall will become 1/20/2015 part of the project. If the noise wall is not supported by the responding Benefiting Receptors, then the project will move forward without the noise wall. The Town of Vail is the owner of the land that is currently being developed as the Lions Ridge Apartments, formerly known as the east half of Timber Ridge, as well as the owner of the North Recreational Trail Bike Path that runs along the North Frontage Road. CDOT and the FHWA have determined, based on current project status of the Lions Ridge Apartments (early construction phase) and its lease documents, the Town of Vail is the appropriate party responsible for the Lions Ridge Apartment's Benefiting Receptors. Specifically as owner of these two facilities the Town's share in this process is 34% which accounts for 69 of 203 survey forms. Each of these survey forms will be counted twice, once as the Owner and once as the Occupant (See table below). Condo Complex Benefiting Receptors Surveys Total Survey Count percent of Total Breakaway West 29 58 14.3 Savoy Villas 22 44 10.8 Simba Run 52 104 25.6 Snow Fox 10 20 4.9 Telemark Townhouse 10 20 4.9 Lions Ridge (Timber Ridge) 68 136 33.5 Town of Vail Bike Path 1 2 0.5 Vail Run 11 22 5.4 TOTAL 203 406 The 69 Town of Vail surveys will represent the interests of the owner /occupants /users of these two facilities. In this case there are no current occupants of the Lions Ridge Apartments, so the completion of all of the surveys defaults to the Town as owner of the land. In order to win the majority, if all surveys are returned, a total of 102 surveys (counted as 204) will need to be completed for or against the noise wall. Considering Council has 69 surveys, the Council has the opportunity to significantly influence this preference survey. During previous discussions regarding the town's decision - making role, the Town Council has made it a priority to provide an open and transparent process for decision making with regard to casting their preferences on the survey. Therefore the Council will have the opportunity to discuss how they will proceed with decision making. It is recommended that Council complete their surveys on behalf of the Lions Ridge Apartment future tenants and the recreational path users. Other competing interests that may ultimately weigh in on the Council's decision include; • Community wide preference on noise walls. Town of Vail 1/20/2015 Page 2 • Other Benefiting Receptors' preference on noise walls. • Council goal of pursuing a noise wall demonstration project; using this opportunity as a demonstration project. • Fiscal responsibility to the Town. III. NOISE WALL IMPACTS ON TOWN FACILITIES In order to provide the Council with some insight on the impacts that the noise wall will have on the Lions Ridge Apartments and the North Recreational Trail Bike Path, staff has extracted the following from the completed Noise Study, available on the project website. The impacted Lions Ridge Apartments and Bike Path can be divided into five general locations (see attached map): • Mit- B49 -51, Mit- B54 -56; those units along the east property line that face east and west, not directly towards the interstate. • Mit -1352 & 53; those units along the east property line that face and are closest to the interstate • Mit- 1357 -60; those units that face the interstate but are set back within the property. • Mit- B61 -71; those units that face the interstate and are closest to the interstate. For comparison these above locations have the following existing and future noise levels with and without a noise wall: Receptor Point Existing Noise Level (dba) Future Year 2040 Noise Level dba No Wall With Wall Reduction (dba) Mit- 1349 -51 63.5 -65 66 -70 56 -63.5 6.5 -8.5 Mit- 1354 -56 63.5 -65 67 -70 57 -64 6.5 -9.5 Mit- B52 -53 69 -71 70.5 -73 63 -67 6 -8.3 M it- B57 -60 67 -69 71 -72 61 -65 6.7 -9.4 Mit- B61 -71 70.5 -72 73.5 -75 66 -70 5 -8 Bike Path 68 -72 75.5 67.6 7.9 To better understand what these noise levels and noise level reductions mean, the project team has developed a sound clip that simulates the relative difference of a traffic noise reduction of 5 and 7 decibels. This sound clip is available on the project website. In addition, Council may recall last summer's site visits to Savoy Villas, Simba Run, and the private residence on the south side of the interstate. At these site visits we were able to hear the noise levels on exterior decks, the driveways, and the North Recreational Trail Bike Path. Based on the existing noise levels documented in the Town of Vail 1/20/2015 Page 3 noise report, the noise levels we heard on the Savoy Villas private unit deck and on the bike path was approximately 68 decibels. The noise level we heard on the private residence driveway on the south side of the interstate was approximately 58 decibels. In general, if a noise wall is installed, more than half of the Benefiting Receptor's units of the Lions Ridge Apartments are anticipated to still be above 65 decibels, and all but 3 units would be above 58 decibels. Project wide, more than half of the Benefiting Receptors are anticipated to be above 63 decibels, and more than 85% will still be above 58 decibels. Please see the attached Receptors Noise Level Tables for a more detailed look at existing versus projected noise levels with and without a noise wall. Also, with regard to the impact the noise wall will have along the bike path and at Lions Ridge Apartments to the views, the project team has developed a 3D model to better understand the portion of the views that will be blocked as a result of the noise wall. Screen shots showing various view sheds are attached to this memo. IV. COUNCIL SURVEY MOTION At the January 6 Council meeting, the Council agreed to participate in the noise wall preference survey. The Council has 69 surveys to complete, which will each count twice. As discussed at the last Council session, the Council has two survey response options; in both options the Council is legally required to act as one body: • Majority Rule: the Council may choose to respond with all 69 survey responses either for or against the noise wall. This would be consistent with a typical Council action. The Council would act on the survey with a majority rule motion and vote to respond either for or against the noise wall. • Split Rule: the Council may choose to respond with a split of the 69 survey responses. This would not be consistent with a typical Council action, but it is permitted. The Council would act on the survey with a motion that would specifically state the number of survey responses that will be for and the number of survey responses that will be against the noise wall. If the Council chooses to split the surveys it will be important to split the surveys in a manner that will allow each survey to be properly completed. The 68 Lions Ridge Apartment surveys could be split in a manner outlined below; while the one bike path survey should be filled out by majority rule since there is only one. Town of Vail 1/20/2015 Page 4 Total Number of Surveys for Lions Ridge Apartments: 68 Number of Surveys per Council Member if split equally: 9.714 Council Split Survey Split (Rounded) Yes No Yes No 1 6 10 58 2 5 19 49 3 4 29 39 4 3 39 29 5 2 49 19 6 1 58 10 7 0 68 0 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Town Council determine their preference on whether the Council will make the survey decision based on a simple majority or as a split decision. VI. ATTACHMENTS Noise survey packet TNM Mitigation Model Receptors map Receptor Noise Level Table Views from Lions Ridge Apartments Town of Vail 1/20/2015 Page 5 COLORADO _ department of Transportation TOWN OF January 9, 2015 Town of Vail 75 S Frontage Rd W Vail, CO 81657 -4003 01 VA Subject: I -70 Vail Underpass Project Noise Wall Survey; Response Required by 5:00 PM (MST) on 1/30/2015 To Town of Vail: The Town of Vail (TOV) and Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) have completed a noise study for the 1 -70 Vail Underpass Project near the Simba Run Condominiums. Following CDOT's analysis process, traffic noise abatement is being considered for the project in the form of a noise wall along the north side of 1 -70 (Figure 1). The wall dimensions would be approximately 3,400 feet long by about 14 feet tall, with some small variations in wall height depending on location. The final step in determining whether the noise wall will be included with the 1 -70 Vail Underpass Project involves a survey of property owners and tenants who would benefit from the wall, which is the purpose of this letter. You received this letter because you were identified as owning and /or occupying a residence or business near the proposed project site that would benefit from the potential noise wall. The noise wall will be constructed only if the wall is supported by more than 50 percent of the survey respondents. If the wall is supported, the wall material will be selected at a later date following a public input process and ultimately through a Vail Town Council decision. Final design considerations for the wall would include TOV design standards, CDOT Crest of the Rockies context sensitivity, cost, durability, maintenance and public input. Detailed information about the project is available on the Town of Vail website, at www.vailgov.com /underpass . In addition, enclosed with this letter is supplemental information (Exhibit A) and the survey (Exhibit B) for you to use to provide your preference to include or not include a noise wall as part of the underpass project. Note that for each affected property unit, two votes can be recorded: one for the owner and one for the occupant or tenant. To the best of our knowledge, you are both the owner and occupant of the property in Vail. Therefore, your single survey will count for both votes available for this property. The TOV and CDOT request your participation in the Noise Wall Survey for the 1 -70 Vail Underpass Project. There are two ways for you to participate. Please complete one of the following: Complete the enclosed Noise Wall Survey form (Exhibit B) and mail it to the Town of Vail: (pre- addressed, stamped envelope enclosed) Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 Attn: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk or, 1/20/2015 Page 1 of 7 — ICOLORADO Department of 46Y I Tran portafio TOWN OF 01 VA Complete the enclosed Noise Wall Survey form (Exhibit B), scan it as a .pdf document and e-mail it to the Town of Vail's Town Clerk at pmckennv @vailgov.com . An e- mailed survey will receive a return e -mail confirmation to ensure it is received. Please note the following; • Your response to the survey is required to be at the Town of Vail Town Clerk's office no later than 5:00 PM (MST) on January 30, 2015. • You are required to sign the bottom of the survey, or the survey will not be counted. • Your "Yes" or "No" response will be the only binding response; please do not write any additional comments on the survey; they will not be recorded as a part of the survey. • If you are the Owner and the Occupant, and you do not have a resident tenant, your survey will count twice. • If you are the Owner and have a resident tenant your survey will count once. Your tenant's vote will also count once. • If you are the resident tenant your survey will count once. • Each survey has a control number at the bottom right hand corner to ensure that only one survey per benefitting receptor is returned; no survey may be photocopied and returned in duplicates. If a survey is photocopied and returned in duplicates the survey(s) with the duplicated control number will not count. If this number is tampered with or removed in any manner your survey will not count. Your participation and prompt attention with this important decision for the Town of Vail is needed and sincerely appreciated. Please direct any questions you have regarding the project itself to Tom Kassmel at tkassmel @vailgov.com. Any questions regarding this survey can be addressed to Patty McKenny at pmckennv @vailgov.com . You may confirm that the Town Clerk's office has received your survey by calling Patty McKenny at 970 - 479 -2136. Thank you, The Town of Vail and the Colorado Department of Transportation 1/20/2015 Page 2 of 7 — COLORADO Department of Transportation TOWN OF 01 VAIL Figure 1. Potential noise wall location and extent 1/20/2015 Page 3 of 7 COLORADO _ department of Transportation TOWN OF Exhibit - Additional Information 01 VA Project Background Since the early 1980s, local, state, and federal planning efforts have considered developing an additional 1 -70 underpass to enhance community connectivity and improve traffic flow between Main Vail and West Vail. This project, known as the 1 -70 Vail Underpass, recently received joint funding for design and construction from TOV through the Vail Reinvestment Authority and from CDOT through RAMP funds. The effort includes evaluating existing and future use of existing interchanges, verifying underpass location, obtaining National Environmental Policy Act clearances, and completing underpass final design. Construction is planned for April 2016 through December 2017. Additional project information is available on TOV's website (www.vailgov.com) under the "Current Issues and Projects" banner or at: http: / /www.vailgov.com /underpass. Traffic Noise Impact and Abatement Assessment Summary The Town of Vail and CDOT have completed a noise study for the proposed underpass of 1 -70 near the Simba Run Condominiums. The following information addresses some general questions about the noise study, summarizes findings of the noise study, and outlines the process the project team will follow to determine whether a noise wall will be included in the project. Please note, the complete assessment is available on TOV's website: http: / /www.vailgov.com /docs /dl forms /1 -70 Vail Underpass Traffic Noise Analysis.pdf. CDOT Noise Analvsis and Abatement Guidelines CDOT Noise Guidelines, based on Federal Regulations, require this project to assess noise impacts and evaluate noise abatement because this project includes major road modifications and noise receptors are present that may be impacted. Q: What are noise receptors? A: CDOT identifies a noise receptor as one of a number of activities or land uses. CDOT has noise abatement criteria that define when an impact occurs (see below) for these categories of activities or land uses. Those that apply to this project include: - Residences (Category B) - Active sport areas, trails, and picnic areas (Category C) - Hotels, time -share resorts, and restaurants (Category E) Q: How are these receptors considered? A: The evaluation location for these receptors is an exterior space that people frequently use and would include yards, decks, balconies, and outdoor recreation or communal areas. Q: What receptors have been identified for this project? A: Residential, recreational and commercial receptors have been identified in the project area on both the north and south side of 1 -70. Q: How does CDOT define a noise impact? A: A noise impact exists if one or both of the following would result from the project: - Noise level equals or exceeds the noise abatement criteria for the receptor type. The noise abatement criteria are 66 decibels (dBA) for Category B and C and 71 dBA for Category E 1/20/2015 Page 4 of 7 — ICOLORADO Department of 46Y I Tra— portafi- TOWN OF - A substantial increase in noise level occurs (defined as 10 dBA or greater) Q: How does CDOT decide to provide noise abatement? A: Abatement will be provided if it is feasible and reasonable. Feasible means that the abatement: 01 VA - Must achieve at least a 5 dBA reduction in projected noise levels for one or more impacted receptors - Must be constructible within normal engineering standards - Walls cannot exceed 20 feet in height - Must meet maintenance and safety considerations and not cause unacceptable environmental impacts Reasonable means that the abatement: - Achieves 7 dBA design goal reduction in projected noise levels for one or more benefiting receptors - Meets cost benefit requirements based on the level of noise reduction per receptor - Is supported by more than 50% of the benefitting receptors —a benefitting receptor is anv noise sensitive receptor that receives 5 dBA or more noise reduction from the abatement measure. Q: What other considerations go into the decision and design of the noise abatement? A: CDOT will follow the required process to determine feasibility and reasonableness. If it is determined that the project will include noise abatement, design considerations will include the Town of Vail design standards; CSS Crest of the Rockies design guidelines; the cost, durability and maintainability of barrier materials; available space in the project area; stakeholder input; and other design opportunities and constraints. Summary of Analysis Findings A project noise analysis has been performed in accordance with FHWA and CDOT guidelines, using FHWA's Traffic Noise Model. Noise impacts were identified at properties north of 1 -70. No impacts were identified for properties south of 1 -70. Because noise impacts were identified in the study area, corresponding noise abatement measures were evaluated. An abatement measure was found to be feasible and reasonable and is being considered for the project. The abatement is a barrier (noise wall) along the outside shoulder of westbound 1 -70 to address noise impacts north of 1 -70. The barrier's dimensions are approximately 3,400 feet long by 14 feet tall. The final step in determining whether the barrier will be included in the project will be a preference survey of the property owners and residents who would benefit from the barrier (i.e. the benefitting receptors). That survey is planned for January 2015. If a wall is supported, the wall material will be determined at a later date following a public process and ultimately through a Town Council decision. Timeline for Evaluating and Designing Noise Abatement The following timeline outlines the process the Town of Vail and CDOT will follow to provide information to the public, benefitting receptors, and other interested parties about the decision process and potential design for a noise wall on this project. At this time, the project team has determined the general location for a proposed noise wall, including wall height and length, and the project area where 1/20/2015 Page 5 of 7 - ICOLORADO Department of 46Y I Tran portafio TOWN OF 01 VA there are potential benefitting receptors. Additional information on wall design, materials, landscaping and other features will be provided as it is developed through the design process. The team will work with benefitting property owners and residents to determine their preferences regarding the proposed wall. The following timeline shows the anticipated dates for community outreach, decisions regarding the inclusion of a noise wall in the project, and design - related decisions. Additional information will be made available on the Town of Vail website as it becomes available. November 2014 Meet with condominium complexes with benefitting noise receptors Develop optimized noise wall height and identify /evaluate material /aesthetic options Compile list of benefitting receptors (owners and non -owner residents) December 2014 Project Open House 12/18 — project update open house to include noise wall concept and process Complete sufficient noise wall design details to support the Noise Wall Survey Prepare information package and Survey materials for benefitting receptors January 2015 Conduct Noise Wall Survey of benefitted receptors — mail survey to property owners and non -owner residents with 3 -week response time Receive completed Noise Wall Survey and tabulate results February 2015 Final noise wall decision from results of Noise Wall Survey Spring 2015 CDOT and Town of Vail complete final design, with or without noise wall depending on Survey results 1/20/2015 Page 6 of 7 — COLORADO Department of Transportation Exhibit B - Noise Wall Preference Survev 4111 OF VAIL For the 1 -70 Vail Underpass Project, do you want a noise wall constructed along westbound 1 -70? A 14 foot tall and 3,400 foot long noise wall is being considered . _. construction on the north side of 1 -70 between the Vail and West Vail interchanges. This wall would be designed to reduce traffic noise associated with 1 -70. Note that if a wall is supported, the wall material will be determined at a later date following a public input process and ultimately through a Town Council decision. You were identified to own or lease a location that will receive at least 5 YES,, I want decibels of noise reduction if the potential noise wall is constructed. For each dwelling unit that would benefit from 5 decibels of noise reduction, a noise one owner and one tenant are eligible to vote on whether a noise wall, as described above, should be built at this location. wall. This survey of your preference will help decide whether a noise barrier is built or not built based on a simple majority of votes that CDOT and the Town of Vail receive by January 30, 2015. Please identify your preference on this survey form and return the form in the self- addressed, stamped envelope or scan and e-mail to pmckenny @vailgov.com. Thank you for your attention in completing this survey. I A� V O, I do not Name: Town of Vail Address: , Unit Town Complex and Unit: Bike W, Unit Town You have been identified as the Owner and Occupant; therefore your vote will count twice. Please only return one survey, DO NOT photocopy Survey must be signed in order to be counted: PLEASE SIGN HERE: 1/20/2015 Page 7 of 7 want a noise wall. ID Number: 4950 J 101 Refer to cover letter for survey process. TNM Mitigation Model Receptors 0 Cl w L .r►� `Y tIY G � Qi w r ro-L 0 k f Li 0 D b09'N tin CD tV 00] L3 IM ()7..' :I 3 W N ?p ()Sig . � (}£ 3 4!u�! �cE NC) 09,10 -N 4 -� r 0 �t.�;N r o 0! 1z -v C)ra r l9 N 0 LIC =' V " t J7,9 -Nor: 0 m r k. ! QCfl -!t Q � t(1��-- ^- h..�.: _ .. 6 k N 0 948 1!4'J 0,90 1 s "J 0 JIF m _ 1/20/2015 Page B -1 Receptors Noise Level Comparison "Benefiting Receptors are highlighted in Green Condo Complex Condo Unit Number Existing Noise (dBA) Year 2040 Noise Without Wall (dBA) Year 2040 Noise With Wall (dBA) Reduction From Wall (dBA) BIKE PATH TOWN 72.3 75.5 67.6 7.9 BREAKAWAY WEST 111 58.8 56.7 53.7 3 BREAKAWAY WEST 112 58.8 56.7 53.7 3 BREAKAWAY WEST 121 62.4 60.8 55.5 5.3 BREAKAWAY WEST 122 62.4 60.8 55.5 5.3 BREAKAWAY WEST 131 62.4 61.8 56.4 5.4 BREAKAWAY WEST 132 62.4 61.8 56.4 5.4 BREAKAWAY WEST 211 53.5 62.2 58.3 3.9 BREAKAWAY WEST 212 53.5 62.2 58.3 3.9 BREAKAWAY WEST 221 57.9 65.5 60 5.5 BREAKAWAY WEST 222 57.9 65.5 60 5.5 BREAKAWAY WEST 231 57.9 66.1 60.4 5.7 BREAKAWAY WEST 232 57.9 66.1 60.4 5.7 BREAKAWAY WEST 312 47.1 49.3 47.4 1.9 BREAKAWAY WEST 314 62.6 68.9 64.4 4.5 BREAKAWAY WEST 315 62.6 68.9 64.4 4.5 BREAKAWAY WEST 321 48.1 50.6 47.7 2.9 BREAKAWAY WEST 322 48.1 50.6 47.7 2.9 BREAKAWAY WEST 324 66.9 71 65.2 5.8 BREAKAWAY WEST 325 66.9 71 65.2 5.8 BREAKAWAY WEST 331 49.9 52.3 50.1 2.2 BREAKAWAY WEST 332 49.9 52.3 50.1 2.2 BREAKAWAY WEST 333 49.9 52.3 50.1 2.2 BREAKAWAY WEST 335 68.2 71.7 66.2 5.5 BREAKAWAY WEST 342 49.9 53.1 50.9 2.2 BREAKAWAY WEST 343 49.9 53.1 50.9 2.2 BREAKAWAY WEST 345 68.4 71.8 67.7 4.1 BREAKAWAY WEST 352 49.9 54.9 53.2 1.7 BREAKAWAY WEST 353 49.9 54.9 53.2 1.7 BREAKAWAY WEST 412 58.4 61.7 58.4 3.3 BREAKAWAY WEST 413 63 69.4 63 6.4 BREAKAWAY WEST 421 61.7 65.1 58.4 6.7 BREAKAWAY WEST 422 63.5 66.3 59.9 6.4 BREAKAWAY WEST 423 66.9 70.4 63.7 6.7 BREAKAWAY WEST 431 62.3 65.6 59.2 6.4 BREAKAWAY WEST 432 64.1 67.3 60.4 6.9 BREAKAWAY WEST 433 67.4 70.7 65.1 5.6 BREAKAWAY WEST 441 62.5 65.7 60.3 5.4 BREAKAWAY WEST 442 64.2 67.4 61.6 5.8 BREAKAWAY WEST 452 64.2 67.6 64.5 3.1 BREAKAWAY WEST 501 58.8 56.7 53.7 3 BREAKAWAY WEST 502 62.4 62.2 58.3 3.9 BREAKAWAY WEST 503 62.4 62.2 58.3 3.9 BREAKAWAY WEST 513 68.6 72 65.2 6.8 BREAKAWAY WEST 514 68.6 72 65.2 6.8 BREAKAWAY WEST 515 69.9 73.1 66.7 6.4 BREAKAWAY WEST 523 69.9 73.1 66.7 6.4 BREAKAWAY WEST 524 69.9 73.1 66.7 6.4 BREAKAWAY WEST 525 70.2 73.4 68 5.4 BREAKAWAY WEST 533 70.2 73.4 68 5.4 BREAKAWAY WEST 534 70.2 73.4 68 5.4 BREAKAWAY WEST 535 57.6 73.1 66.7 6.4 BREAKAWAY WEST CONDO POOL 57.6 60.9 57.4 3.5 SAVOY VILLAS 1A 66.8 69.9 63.8 6.1 SAVOY VILLAS 1B 66.8 70.4 64 6.4 SAVOY VILLAS 1C 63.9 67.1 57.7 9.4 SAVOY VILLAS 1 D 63.9 68.4 58.3 10.1 SAVOY VILLAS 2A 66.5 70.4 63.9 6.6 SAVOY VILLAS 2B 66.5 69.9 63.7 6.2 SAVOY VILLAS 2C 60.9 66.6 57.7 8.8 SAVOY VILLAS 2D 60.9 65.4 57.2 8.2 SAVOY VILLAS 3A 67.7 70.7 63.7 7.1 SAVOY VILLAS 3B 67.7 70.9 63.6 7.4 SAVOY VILLAS 3C 64.9 69.2 59.7 9.5 SAVOY VILLAS 3D 64.9 69.2 59.1 10.1 SAVOY VILLAS 4A 1 015 69.4 62.1 7.3 SAVOY VILLAS 4B 66.31 70.1 63 7.2 SAVOY VILLAS 4C 62.91 67 58.3 8.7 Page 1 of 4 Receptors Noise Level Comparison "Benefiting Receptors are highlighted in Green Condo Complex Condo Unit Number Existing Noise (dBA) Year 2040 Noise Without Wall (dBA) Year 2040 Noise With Wall (dBA) Reduction From Wall (dBA) SAVOY VILLAS 4D 62.9 68.6 59.1 9.4 SAVOY VILLAS 5A 61.2 64.2 58.7 5.5 SAVOY VILLAS 5B 61.2 62.4 56.2 6.2 SAVOY VILLAS 5D 61.2 61.6 54 7.6 SAVOY VILLAS 6A 66.2 71.2 62.7 8.6 SAVOY VILLAS 6B 66.2 70.5 61.9 8.5 SAVOY VILLAS 6C 66.2 70 60.8 9.2 SIMBA RUN 1102 68.1 72.7 64 8.7 SIMBA RUN 1104 68.1 71.9 62.5 9.4 SIMBA RUN 1106 68.1 71.1 60.9 10.2 SIMBA RUN 1200 70.5 74.2 66.6 7.6 SIMBA RUN 1202 69 72.4 64.2 8.3 SIMBA RUN 1204 69 71.8 63.3 8.5 SIMBA RUN 1207 67.1 70.4 63.2 7.2 SIMBA RUN 1300 71.1 74.5 68.9 5.7 SIMBA RUN 1401 69.8 73.7 67.6 6.1 SIMBA RUN 1403 69.8 73.6 67.5 6.2 SIMBA RUN 1405 69.8 73.1 66.7 6.4 SIMBA RUN 1407 69.8 72.9 66.5 6.5 SIMBA RUN 1409 68.4 72.5 65.7 6.8 SIMBA RUN 1411 68.4 72.4 65.6 6.8 SIMBA RUN 1413 68.4 71.8 64.9 7 SIMBA RUN 1415 68.4 71.8 64.8 7 SIMBA RUN 1417 67.1 71.3 64.1 7.2 SIMBA RUN 1419 67.1 71 64 7.1 SIMBA RUN 1421 67.1 70.5 63.4 7.2 SIMBA RUN 1423 65.5 69.1 61.4 7.7 SIMBA RUN 1425 65.5 69.3 61.3 8 SIMBA RUN 1427 65.5 68.8 60.7 8.1 SIMBA RUN 1429 65.5 68.8 60.6 8.2 SIMBA RUN 1501 69 72.7 70 2.7 SIMBA RUN 1503 69 72.6 69.8 2.9 SIMBA RUN 1505 69 72.2 69.2 3 SIMBA RUN 1507 69 72.2 69.3 3 SIMBA RUN 1509 68.2 71.8 68.3 3.5 SIMBA RUN 1511 68.2 71.7 68.1 3.7 SIMBA RUN 1513 68.2 71.4 67 4.4 SIMBA RUN 1515 68.2 71.3 66.6 4.8 SIMBA RUN 1517 67 70.2 64.7 5.5 SIMBA RUN 1519 67 70.4 64.7 5.7 SIMBA RUN 1521 67 70 64.1 5.9 SIMBA RUN 1523 67 70.1 64.1 6 SIMBA RUN 1525 67 69.6 63.6 6 SIMBA RUN 1527 67 69.6 63.4 6.2 SIMBA RUN 2201 66.1 70.8 61.1 9.9 SIMBA RUN 2203 66.1 70.3 60.3 10.1 SIMBA RUN 2206 63.7 68.6 59.1 9.4 SIMBA RUN 2301 66.3 71.3 64.9 6.5 SIMBA RUN 2303 66.3 70.6 63.8 6.9 SIMBA RUN 2305 66.3 69.5 62.2 7.3 SIMBA RUN 2307 66.3 69.1 61.8 7.3 SIMBA RUN 2309 63 68.3 61 7.4 SIMBA RUN 2311 63 67.8 60.3 7.6 SIMBA RUN 2313 63 67.2 59.8 7.5 SIMBA RUN 2315 63 66.6 59 7.6 SIMBA RUN 2317 63 66.6 59 7.6 SIMBA RUN 2401 66.3 70.2 63.4 6.9 SIMBA RUN 2501 64.7 68.9 63.3 5.7 SIMBA RUN 2503 64.7 68.6 62.8 5.9 SIMBA RUN 2505 64.7 67.8 61.7 6.2 SIMBA RUN 2507 64.7 67.4 61.4 6.1 SIMBA RUN 2509 64.7 66.7 60.4 6.4 SIMBA RUN 2511 64.7 66.2 59.9 6.4 SIMBA RUN CONDO POOL 57.8 61.8 54.6 7.2 SIMBA RUN TENNIS COURTS 1 61.7 65.3 59.2 6.1 SNOW FOX 101 rj 63.6 59.4 4.2 SNOW FOX 102 601 63.6 59.4 4.2 Page 2 of 4 Receptors Noise Level Comparison "Benefiting Receptors are highlighted in Green Condo Complex Condo Unit Number Existing Noise (dBA) Year 2040 Noise Without Wall (dBA) Year 2040 Noise With Wall (dBA) Reduction From Wall (dBA) SNOW FOX 103 58.8 62.5 58.3 4 SNOW FOX 104 58.8 62.5 58.3 4 SNOW FOX 202 62.8 66 61 5 SNOW FOX 203 62.3 65.4 60.2 5.2 SNOW FOX 204 62.3 65.4 60.2 5.2 SNOW FOX 205 62 65.3 60 5.3 SNOW FOX 206 62 65.3 60 5.3 SNOW FOX 301 63.3 66.4 61.4 5 SNOW FOX 302 63.3 66.4 61.4 5 SNOW FOX 303 62.8 65.9 60.5 5.4 SNOW FOX 304 62.8 65.9 60.5 5.4 SNOW FOX 305 62 65.8 60.3 5.5 TELEMARK TOWNHOUSE 1 56.4 60 55.8 4.2 TELEMARK TOWNHOUSE 10 62.4 65.8 60.2 5.5 TELEMARK TOWNHOUSE 11 62.4 65.8 60.2 5.5 TELEMARK TOWNHOUSE 12 62.4 65.8 60.2 5.5 TELEMARK TOWNHOUSE 13 62.4 65.8 60.2 5.5 TELEMARK TOWNHOUSE 14 62.4 65.8 60.2 5.5 TELEMARK TOWNHOUSE 15 62.4 65.6 60 5.6 TELEMARK TOWNHOUSE 16 62.4 65.6 60 5.6 TELEMARK TOWNHOUSE 17 62.4 65.6 60 5.7 TELEMARK TOWNHOUSE 18 62.4 65.6 60 5.7 TELEMARK TOWNHOUSE 2 56.4 60 55.8 4.2 TELEMARK TOWNHOUSE 3 56.4 60 55.8 4.2 TELEMARK TOWNHOUSE 4 56.4 60 55.8 4.2 TELEMARK TOWNHOUSE 5 56.4 60 55.8 4.2 TELEMARK TOWNHOUSE 6 56.4 60 55.8 4.2 TELEMARK TOWNHOUSE 7 56.4 60 55.8 4.2 TELEMARK TOWNHOUSE 8 56.4 60 55.8 4.2 TELEMARK TOWNHOUSE 9 62.4 65.8 60.2 5.5 TELEMARK TOWNHOUSE CONDO POOL 58.7 62.4 58 4.4 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A101 69.1 72 63.7 8.3 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A102 69.1 70.4 62.9 7.5 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A103 69.1 69.7 60.3 9.4 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A104 69.1 68.1 59.5 8.6 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A105 63.4 68.2 58.6 9.6 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A106 63.4 66.9 57.9 9.1 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A107 63.4 66.7 57.3 9.4 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A108 63.4 65.8 56 10 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A201 69.9 72.5 65 7.5 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A202 69.9 71.8 64.3 7.6 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A203 69.9 70.2 62.1 8.1 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A204 69.9 69.8 61.8 8 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A205 64.5 68.7 61.3 7.4 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A206 64.5 68 60.5 7.5 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A207 64.5 67.6 60.1 7.5 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A208 64.5 66.7 58.8 7.9 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A301 70.7 73.1 67 6.1 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A302 70.7 72.4 66.2 6.2 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A303 70.7 70.6 64.2 6.4 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A304 70.7 70.1 63.5 6.6 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A305 65 69.1 62.7 6.4 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A306 65 68.6 62.2 6.4 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A307 65 68.1 61.3 6.8 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE A308 65 67.4 60.7 6.7 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE B101 67.2 70 60.9 9.1 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE B103 67.2 70.4 61.3 9.1 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE B105 67.2 70.8 61.4 9.4 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE B107 67.2 70.8 61.4 9.4 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE B201 68 70.8 63.7 7.1 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE B203 68 71.2 64 7.2 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE B205 68 71.4 64.2 7.3 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE B207 68 71.4 64.2 7.2 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE B301 68.7 71.5 64.7 6.8 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE B303 68.7 71.9 65.2 6.7 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE B305 rj 72.1 65.4 6.7 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE B307 68.7 72.1 65.4 6.7 Page 3 of 4 Receptors Noise Level Comparison "Benefiting Receptors are highlighted in Green Condo Complex Condo Unit Number Existing Noise (dBA) Year 2040 Noise Without Wall (dBA) Year 2040 Noise With Wall (dBA) Reduction From Wall (dBA) LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE C102 70.6 73.6 65.7 7.9 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE C104 70.6 73.7 65.8 7.9 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE C106 70.6 73.7 65.9 7.8 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE C108 70.6 73.5 65.7 7.8 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE C110 70.6 73.7 66 7.7 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE C202 71.6 74.5 67.7 6.8 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE C204 71.6 74.6 67.7 6.9 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE C206 71.6 74.7 67.7 7 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE C208 71.6 74.5 67.3 7.2 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE C210 71.6 74.7 67.5 7.2 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE C302 71.7 75 69.2 5.8 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE C304 71.7 75 69.5 5.6 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE C306 71.7 75.1 69.6 5.5 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE C308 71.7 75 69.3 5.7 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE C310 71.7 75.1 69.6 5.5 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE D102 70.9 73.8 66.2 7.6 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE D104 70.9 73.9 66.3 7.6 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE D106 70.9 73.9 66.3 7.6 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE D108 70.9 73.9 66.7 7.2 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE D110 70.9 73.8 66.3 7.5 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE D112 70.9 73.9 66.5 7.4 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE D202 71.7 74.8 68.1 6.7 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE D204 71.7 74.9 68.4 6.5 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE D206 71.7 74.8 68.2 6.7 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE D208 71.7 74.9 68.4 6.5 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE D210 71.7 74.8 68 6.8 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE D212 71.7 74.8 68.3 6.5 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE D302 71.8 75 69.8 5.2 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE D304 71.8 75.1 70.1 5 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE D306 71.8 75.1 70 5.1 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE D308 71.8 75.1 70.2 4.9 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE D310 71.8 75.1 70 5.1 LIONS RIDGE TIMBER RIDGE D312 71.8 75.1 70.1 5 VAIL RUN 205 68.8 70.1 63.7 6.4 VAIL RUN 221 71.2 74.6 68.2 6.4 VAIL RUN 222 71.2 74.6 68.2 6.4 VAIL RUN 3011 71.4 74.8 69.8 5 VAIL RUN 311 71.4 74.3 68.8 5.5 VAIL RUN 312 71.4 74.8 69.8 5 VAIL RUN 321 71.4 74.8 69.8 5 VAIL RUN 322 71.4 74.8 69.8 5 VAIL RUN 405 71.4 74.7 71.9 2.8 VAIL RUN 415 71.4 74.7 71.9 2.8 VAIL RUN 422 71.4 74.3 71.2 3.1 VAIL RUN 423 71.4 74.7 71.9 2.8 VAIL RUN 424 71.4 74.7 71.9 2.8 VAIL RUN 431 71.4 74.7 71.9 2.8 VAIL RUN 541 71.3 74.5 72.8 1.7 VAIL RUN 542 71.3 74.5 72.8 1.7 VAIL RUN 543 71.3 74.6 72.8 1.8 VAIL RUN CONDO PATIO 68.8 72.3 63.9 8.4 VAIL RUN ICONDO POOL 1 63.81 67.5 60.8 6.7 VAIL RUN I PIZZA PATIO 1 65.11 68.8 61.3 7.5 1/20/2015 Page 4 of 4 Lions Ridge Apartments- Ground Floor Looking Southeast (The purpose of this rendering is to show the views that may be blocked if a noise wall is installed as a part of this project. The aesthetics of the noise wall have not yet been determined, the example shown here is acrylic, the noise wall may also be a solid concrete wall.) 1/20/2015 V Vail M90006 L —' i - ICI Vail, Colorado Eye height: 6.27' 50 mph Flxinq Main= Lions Ridge Apartments- Ground Floor Looking Southwest (The purpose of this rendering is to show the views that may be blocked if a noise wall is installed as a part of this project. The aesthetics of the noise wall have not yet been determined, the example shown here is acrylic, the noise wall may also be a solid concrete wall.) 1/20/2015 Y Vail Lions Ridge Apartments- Third Floor Looking Southeast (The purpose of this rendering is to show the views that may be blocked if a noise wall is installed as a part of this project. The aesthetics of the noise wall have not yet been determined, the example shown here is acrylic, the noise wall may also be a solid concrete wall.) 1/20/2015 Lions Ridge Apartments- Third Floor Looking Southwest (The purpose of this rendering is to show the views that may be blocked if a noise wall is installed as a part of this project. The aesthetics of the noise wall have not yet been determined, the example shown here is acrylic, the noise wall may also be a solid concrete wall.) 1/20/2015 1 -70 Vail Underpass 92 .AM VAIL•DEAVER CREEK L'w 1 V HPOYPONIN TOWN OF VAIL 1-70 Vail U Public Works Department Tom Kassmel Town Engineer Office: 1.9 70.4 79.2235 tkassmel@vailgov.com Town of Vail I Public Works l 01/20/15 1/20/2015 1 -70 Vail Underpass Noise Wall Survey • 69 Town of Vail surveys represent the interests of the owner /occupants /users of Lions Ridge Apartments & Bike Path Vail Run TOTAL ad 29 22 52 10 10 68 1 11 203 58 44 104 20 20 136 2 22 406 14.3 10.8 25.6 4.9 4.9 33.5 0.5 5.4 • If all 203 project wide surveys are returned, 102 surveys wins Majority Town of Vail I Public Works l 01/20/15 3 1/20/2015 Breakaway West Savoy Villas Simba Run Vail Run TOTAL ad 29 22 52 10 10 68 1 11 203 58 44 104 20 20 136 2 22 406 14.3 10.8 25.6 4.9 4.9 33.5 0.5 5.4 • If all 203 project wide surveys are returned, 102 surveys wins Majority Town of Vail I Public Works l 01/20/15 3 1/20/2015 C. tt'671 0 7 IF 0 IN.r,,,4,2,7- .. 't 2 � 0 M -1344 Mit B22 N, 0 CD 0(� - Nll- z it-'B-61 0 00 f- (D t2 - NIZ. �n7n C) C? 7 Ak z N'B 1,1 N-E 198 0() 0 0 -u z LLJ z 63.5-65 66-70 56-63.5 6.5-8.5 63.5-65 67-70 57-64 6.5-9.5 69-71 70.5-73 63-67 6-8.3 67-69 71-72 61-65 6.7-9.4 70.5-72 73.5-75 66-70 5-8 68-72 75.5 67.6 7.9 Y Vail F ail, Colorado 11qq EyHelghL 6.2T R`[ ■��� /'pi'���__�� 50 mph fine J (The purpose of this rendering is to show the views that may be blocked if a noise wall is installed as a part of this project. The aesthetics of the noise wall have not yet been determined, the example shown here is acrylic, the noise wall may also be a solid concrete wall.) filNi7f BIN (The purpose of this rendering is to show the views that may be blocked if a noise wall is installed as a part of this project. The aesthetics of the noise wall have not yet been determined, the example shown here is acrylic, the noise wall may also be a solid concrete wall.) `INi7f BIN 1 -70 Vail Underpass • Majority Rule; all 69 survey responses either for or against as one motion • 68 Survey responses for Lions Ridge Apartments • 1 Survey response for the Bike Path • Split Rule; a split of the 69 survey responses, acting with one motion • Recommend maintaining Majority Rule for the 1 Bike Path survey • A split rule on the 68 Lions Ridge Apartment Surveys may look like; Council Split t Town of Vail I Public Works l 01/20/15 `IN1MON Yes No 19 49 29 39 39 29 49 19 58 10 68 0 7 -t 't ol C VAIL- BEAVER CREEK 1/20/2015 TOWN OF VAlt u TOWN OF VAI N VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 20, 2015 ITEM /TOPIC: 1 -70 Vail Underpass Project — Noise Wall Preference Survey Decision PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel, Public Works Engineer ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council come to a final decision about supporting or not supporting the noise wall through the survey. BACKGROUND: The Town of Vail, as landowner of the new Lions Ridge Apartments (Timber Ridge) and representing the future tenants, has been identified as the majority Benefiting Receptor. This will represent 34% of the final decision. At the January 6 Council meeting, the Council agreed to participate in the noise wall preference survey. The purpose of this discussion is to come to a final decision about supporting or not supporting the noise wall through the survey. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends Council makes a motion specifically stating the Council's survey response for all 69 allocated survey. 1/20/2015 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO MEETING DATE: January 20, 2015 ITEM /TOPIC: Adjournment (estimated 8:40 pm) 1/20/2015 TOWN OF VAI N