Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2017-09-05 Agenda and Supporting Documentation Town Council Afternoon Agenda
VAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Agenda Town Council Chambers 1:00 PM, September 5, 2017 TOM Of UAJt Notes: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine what time Council will consider an item. Public comment on any agenda item may be solicited by the Town Council. 1. Site Visits 1.1. La Cantina - Site Visit for Call Up of Planning & Environmental 30 min. Commission Approval 1:00 PM - Depart from the Vail Municipal Building, 75 S. Frontage Road. Transportation will be provided by the Community Development Department. The Town Council will be met at the Vail Transportation Center by Richard Wheelock, applicant/owner of La Cantina Restaurant. Presenter(s): Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager Action Requested of Council: The Town Council is asked to attend the site visit, and review the existing conditions, including vegetation, on the south side of the Vail Transportation Center, in the location of the proposed La Cantina outdoor dining patio. The matter will be considered during the evening meeting. 2. DRB / PEC Update 2.1. DRB / PEC Update Presenter(s): Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager 3. Presentations / Discussion 10 min. 3.1. Slifer Square Project Update 15 min. Presenter(s): Chad Salli, Project Engineer Action Requested of Council: Review update and provide feedback Background: In March of 2017, staff received 2 bids for the Slifer Square Repair with both bids over 50% higher than the estimated construction costs of $3 million, as presented in February 2017 to Town Council. Staff has been working with the design consultant on ways to reduce cost of the project. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends bidding out the project at the end of this year with the Value Engineering item incorporated into the design and bidding out the 3 scope reduction options as bid alternatives. Town Council would then have the option to award the project as a whole or choose not to include one or all of the bid alternatives. Construction would be planned for the spring and fall 2018 Vail Village construction seasons. 3.2. Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Discussion 20 min. September 5, 2017 - Page 1 of ' Presenter(s): Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer Action Requested of Council: Discuss Transportation Impact Fee Schedule in anticipation of adopting a fee schedule by resolution on September 19, 2017. Background: On July 11, 2017 the Town of Vail adopted an amendment to Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to add a new Chapter 26, Transportation Impact Fee. The proposed transportation impact fee applies to new developments, including creation of any new residential dwelling units, or any new commercial floor area. In order to implement Title 12-26, Transportation Impact Fee, the Town Council will need to adopt by Resolution a Transportation Impact Fee Schedule. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends approving by resolution, at the September 19th Town Council meeting, the recommended fee schedule as referenced in the Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study. 3.3. Review of State Legislation Senate Bill -152 Concerning Local Government 15 min. Competition in the Provision of Specified Communication Services and Proposed Ballot Question Presenter(s): Ron Braden, Information Technology Director Action Requested of Council: Obtain feedback and direction on the review of the county -wide effort to place ballot question to voters about authority to provide broadband services, specifically submitting a ballot question to the voters about the matter. Resolution No. 26, Series of 2017 provides the ballot question for the November 7, 2017 election which will be considered during the evening meeting. Background: Eagle County, Gypsum, Eagle, Avon, and Minturn all plan to run a county -wide coordinated election question opting out of the provisions of SB -152. The town of Red Cliff voted to opt out of the law in 2014. Ninety-eight communities across the state of Colorado have voted to reclaim local telecommunications authority via the ballot box. In 2005, the state legislature passed SB 152, which discourages public investment in Internet network infrastructure. Even if local communities want to work with private sector partners, they need to present the question or risk going against the state law. As an increasing number of towns and counties realize that high-quality connectivity will not come from national providers, they are choosing to present the question to the voters. Whether they have immediate plans or simply consider the matter a question of local authority, all have chosen to free themselves from the confines of SB 152. 3.4. Stream Tract Forest Management Plan Implementation 10 min. Presenter(s): Gregg Barrie, Landscape Architect Paul Cada, Wildfire Program Administrator Action Requested of Council: Staff requests that the council provide feedback on the proposed fall 2017 tree work and pre -approve up to $100,000 for the project, to be formally approved during the December budget supplemental process. Staff can provide the bid costs upon request prior to starting work in October. Background: The proposed Stream Tract Forest Management Plan was implemented last spring and there is a call for action this upcoming fall 2017 to help manage the dead and dying spruce population along the town - owned stream tract. This is work that was started in the spring of this year and follows the Stream Tract Forest Management Plan Implementation, developed at the direction of the Council over the past year. September 5, 2017 - Page 2 of ' Staff Recommendation: Removal of existing dead and dying trees is in the best interest of forest health as well as the safety of people and property. Staff recommends moving forward with the removal of approximately 60-100 hazard and brood trees between Vail Road and Cascade Village (Talisa). 3.5. Budget 2018 Proposals Presenter(s): Kelli McDonald, Economic Development Manager; Ron Braden, Information Technology Director; Kathleen Halloran, Finance Director Action Requested of Council: Provide feedback to staff on the various proposals. Background: The attached three proposals for 2018 funding of the Vail App, a visit to Japan for the exploration of a sisterhood relationship and an update on the process for Council Contributions will be proposed as part of the 2018 budget process. This is an opportunity for staff to provide additional information to Town Council based on feedback received during the budget retreat held on August 15. Staff Recommendation: Provide feedback to staff on the various proposals. 4. Information Update 4.1. VLHA Meeting Results 4.2. Town of Vail Community Picnic Responses 4.3. Proposed Future Meeting Agenda Topics 4.4. July 2017 Sales Tax Report 4.5. June 2017 Vail Business Review 4.6. August Revenue Update 5. Matters from Mayor, Council and Committee Reports 5.1. Parking & Transportation Task Force Update Presenter(s): Dave Chapin, Mayor 6. Executive Session 45 min. 10 min. 6.1. Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(a)(e) - to discuss 30 min. the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators Regarding: possible real property acquisition, La Cantina Lease; 2) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b) - to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, Regarding: Senate Bill SB -152; 3)) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b)(e) - to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, Regarding: update on pending litigation. Presenter(s): Matt Mire, Town Attorney 7. Recess September 5, 2017 - Page 3 of ' 7.1. Recess at 4:15 p.m. Meeting agendas and materials can be accessed prior to meeting day on the Town of Vail website www.vailgov.com. All town council meetings will be streamed live by High Five Access Media and available for public viewing as the meeting is happening. The meeting videos are also posted to High Five Access Media website the week following meeting day, wwwhighfivemedia.org. Please call 970-479-2136 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 48 hour notification dial 711. September 5, 2017 - Page 4 of ' TOWN Of9 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: La Cantina - Site Visit for Call Up of Planning & Environmental Commission Approval 1:00 PM - Depart from the Vail Municipal Building, 75 S. Frontage Road. Transportation will be provided by the Community Development Department. The Town Council will be met at the Vail Transportation Center by Richard Wheelock, applicant/owner of La Cantina Restaurant. PRESENTER(S): Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: The Town Council is asked to attend the site visit, and review the existing conditions, including vegetation, on the south side of the Vail Transportation Center, in the location of the proposed La Cantina outdoor dining patio. The matter will be considered during the evening meeting. September 5, 2017 - Page 5 of ' VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: DRB / PEC Update PRESENTER(S): Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager ATTACHMENTS: Description August 16, 2017 DRB Meeting Results August 28, 2017 PEC Meeting Results TIMM OF9 September 5, 2017 - Page 6 of ' TOWN OFD MEMBERS PRESENT Doug Cahill Rollie Kjesbo Bill Pierce Peter Cope DESIGN REVIEW BOARD AGENDA PUBLIC MEETING August 16, 2017 Council Chambers 75 South Frontage Road West - Vail, Colorado, 81657 MEMBERS ABSENT Andy Forstl PROJECT ORIENTATION 2:OOpm SITE VISITS 1. Mad Jack Trust Residence — 1119 Ptarmigan Road 2. Ski & Snowboard Club Vail — 598 Vail Valley Drive 3. Clifftop LLC Residence — 1450 Buffehr Creek Road MAIN AGENDA 3:OOpm 1. Sands Residence DRB17-0273 Matt Final review of an exterior alteration (reroof/driveway) 2369 Chamonix Lane/Lot 14, Block A, Vail Das Schone Filing 1 Applicant: Paul Sands ACTION: Table to September 6, 2017 MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cahill VOTE: 4-0-0 2. Ski & Snowboard Club Vail DRB17-0309 Final review of new construction 598 Vail Valley Drive/Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7 Applicant: Ski & Snowboard Club Vail, represented by KH Webb Architects ACTION: Approve MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cahill VOTE: 4-0-0 Jonathan 3. Breakaway West Condominium DRB17-0317 Jonathan Final review of a change to approved plans (windows, doors, retaining wall veneer) 963 Lions Ridge Loop/Lot B3, Block B, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 1 Applicant: Breakaway West Condominiums, represented by Pierce Architects ACTION: Approve, with Condition MOTION: Cahill SECOND: Cope VOTE: 2-0-2 (Pierce, Kjesbo recused) CONDITION(S): The design of the windows shall be modified to be a 90 degree bump -out with square corners with one shed style roof, with no 30 degree corners or 30 degree windows. 4. Clifftop LLC Residence DRB17-0323 Jonathan Final review of new construction 1450 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot G-7 & G-8, Lion's Ridge Filing 2 Applicant: Clifftop LLC, represented by Suman Architects ACTION: Approve, with Condition MOTION: Kjesbo SECOND: Cahill VOTE: 4-0-0 CONDITION(S): Prior to submittal of a building permit application, the applicant shall revise the plans to show a minimum of ten (10) serviceberry shrubs, 5 -gallon container size, and three (3) aspen trees, 2 -inch caliper, on the south and southeast side of the proposed home. Page 1 September 5, 2017 - Page 7 of ' 5. Town of Vail (Fire Station #3) DRB17-0327 Chris Final review of an exterior alteration (railing caps) 2399 North Frontage Road West/Parcel A, Vail Das Schone Filing 1 Applicant: Town of Vail ACTION: Approve, with Condition MOTION: Cahill SECOND: Cope VOTE: 3-0-1 (Pierce recused) CONDITION(S): The existing stone caps shall be replaced on top of the new flashing. The new flashing shall be a dark color, similar to the color of the existing stone (dark bronze). 6. Red Sandstone Elementary School DRB17-0345 Conceptual review of an addition/remodel/parking garage 551 North Frontage Road West/Lot 8, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1 Applicant: Eagle County School District & Town of Vail, represented by TAB Associates ACTION: Conceptual 7. Mad Jack Trust Residence DRB17-0349 Conceptual review of a stone wall/fence/landscaping 1119 Ptarmigan Road/Lot 4, Block 5, Vail Village Seventh/Vail Village Tenth Applicant: Mad Jack Trust Singer Burke & Co. LLP, represented by Ceres+ ACTION: Conceptual STAFF APPROVALS Doubletree Hotel DRB16-0529 Final review of changes to approved plans (roof/valet stand) 2211 North Frontage Road West/Lot 1, Vail Das Schone Filing 3 Applicant: TNREF III Bravo Vail LLC Widewaters Group Inc., represented by Ed Shagen Wiest Residence DRB17-0291 Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping) 122 West Meadow Drive/Lot 2, Vail Village Filing 2 Applicant: Otto Wiest, represented by Earth -Wise Horticulture King Residence DRB17-0303 Final review of an exterior alteration (deck) 4840 Meadow Lane Unit 2/Lot 2, Block 6, Bighorn Subdivision 5th Addition Applicant: Jarrod King Reid & Woods Residences DRB17-0305 Final review of an exterior alteration (driveway) 5037 Ute Lane/Lot 32, Vail Meadows Filing 1 Applicant: Mike Reid Valley Condominiums DRB17-0311 Final review of a change to approved plans (pedestrian rail) 1516 Buffehr Creek Road/Parcel A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 2 Applicant: Valley Condominium Association West Vail Associates LTD (Shell Station) DRB17-0313 Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping) 2313 North Frontage Road West/Tract B, Vail Das Schone Filing 1 Applicant: West Vail Associates LTD Page 2 Matt Matt Chris Jonathan Chris Jonathan Chris George September 5, 2017 - Page 8 of ' Mellgren Residence DRB17-0315 Final review of an exterior alteration (windows/door) 4112 Spruce Way/Lot 1, Block 8, Bighorn Subdivision 3rd Addition Applicant: Anders Folke & Anna Maria Mellgren, represented by Gold Dust Interiors Landmark Vail Condominiums DRB17-0316 Final review of an exterior alteration (pool) 610 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 3 Applicant: Destination Resorts, represented by Espy Architecture Eagle River Water & Sanitation District DRB17-0318 Final review of an exterior alteration (solar) 590 Vail Valley Drive/Unplatted Applicant: Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Ritz Carlton Residences DRB17-0319 Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping) 728 West Lionshead Circle/Lot 2, West Day Subdivision Applicant: Ritz Carlton Residences, represented by Ceres Landcare Jane M. Brodziak Revocable Trust DRB17-0321 Final review of an exterior alteration (deck) 4406 Columbine Drive/Lot 12, Block 4, Bighorn 3rd Addition Applicant: Jane Brodziak Brandt Residence DRB17-0322 Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping) 4410 Columbine Drive/Lot 1, White River Estates Applicant: Gail Brandt Vucich Residence DRB17-0324 Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping) 4957 Juniper Lane/Lot 3, Block 4, Bighorn Subdivision 5th Addition Applicant: Karen A. Vucich Revocable Trust, represented by Old Growth Tree Service Phillips Residence DRB17-0325 Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping) 2696 Davos Trail/Lot 6, Block C, Vail Ridge Subdivision Applicant: Michael & Carol Phillips, represented by Old Growth Tree Service King Residence DRB17-0326 Final review of an exterior alteration (reroof) 4840 Meadow Lane Unit 2/Lot 2, Block 6, Bighorn Subdivision 5th Addition Applicant: Jarrod King, represented by G&G Roofing Inc. McKenna L. Berlanti Trust Residence DRB17-0328 Final review of a change to approved plans (windows) 5075 Ute Lane/Lot 29, Vail Meadows Filing 1 Applicant: McKenna L. Berlanti Trust, represented by Sipes Architects Broe Residence DRB17-0330 Final review of an exterior alteration (deck waterproofing) 1290 Westhaven Circle/Lots 26 & 27, Glen Lyon Subdivision Applicant: 1290 Westhaven LLC Broe Real Estate Services, represented by RA Nelson Page 3 Jonathan Chris Jonathan Matt Matt Matt Chris Chris Chris Chris Matt September 5, 2017 - Page 9 of ' Wheaton Residence DRB17-0331 Final review of a change to approved plans (exterior/dormer) 1798 Alpine Drive/Lot 13, Vail Village West Filing 1 Applicant: Philip Wheaton, represented by Michael Sanner, Architect Sun Vail DRB17-0335 Final review of an exterior alteration (siding) 605 North Frontage Road West/Lot 9, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1 Applicant: Sun Vail HOA, represented by Excel Exteriors Harman Residence DRB17-0336 Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping) 4290 Columbine Drive/Parcel D, Bighorn Subdivision Applicant: Jeremy Harman Schacht Residence DRB17-0340 Final review of an exterior alteration (deck railing) 1800 Sierra Trail/Lot 25, Vail Village West Filing 1 Applicant: Robert & Selina Schacht Family Trust, represented by LMS Construction LTD Hintz Residence DRB17-0343 Final review of a change to approved plans (windows/railing) 777 Potato Patch Drive Unit A/Lot 20, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1 Applicant: Jurgen Hintz, represented by LKSM Design Mat Rockledge LLC DRB17-0344 Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping) 97 Rockledge Road/Lot 3, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1/Raether Minor Subdivision Replat Applicant: Mat Rockledge LLC, represented by Ceres+ 5166A Black Gore LLC DRB17-0351 Final review of an exterior alteration (window) 5166 Black Gore Drive/Lot 4, Block 1, Gore Creek Subdivision Applicant: 5166A Black Gore LLC, represented by MPP Design Shop, Inc. Jonathan Matt Chris Jonathan Jonathan Jonathan Jonathan 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 Town Council Chambers. Times and order of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine at what time the Design Review Board will consider an item. Please call 970-479-2138 for additional information. Sign language interpretation available upon request with 24-hour notification, dial 711. Page 4 September 5, 2017 - Page 10 of TOWN Of UAJt 1 Call to Order PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION August 28, 2017, 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers 75S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 Present: Brian Gillette, Pam Hopkins, Ludwig Kurz, John -Ryan Lockman, Karen Perez, John Rediker, and Brian Stockmar 2. A report to the Planning and Environmental Commission on the Administrator's approval of an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-16-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a steel -frame tensile fabric shelter at the softball fields spectator plaza area, located at 580 South Frontage Road East (Ford Park)/Unplatted, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17- 0032) Applicant: Town of Vail Planner Jonathan Spence Motion: Table to September 25, 2017 First: Kurz Second: Perez Vote: 7-0-0 Staff requests that the report to the Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) be tabled to September 25, 2017 in order to address design considerations. 3. A request for a final recommendation to the Vail Town Council on a major amendment to Special Development District No. 36, Four Seasons, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for reconfiguration of existing accommodation units, fractional fee units and dwelling units, located at 1 Vail Road/Lots A -C, Vail Village Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0038) Applicant: Braun Associates, Inc. Planner: Matt Panfil Motion: Table to September 11, 2017 First: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 7-0-0 In the short time period since the application for a major amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 36, Four Seasons, was submitted on July 31, 2017, there has been a clarification of the Town's notification policy for property owners within a subject SDD. The clarification requires the notification of all property owners within an SDD, including fractional fee owners, whereas previously notification was provided only to a representative homeownership association or property management company. Staff asks that the item be tabled until the next Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) meeting on September 11, 2017 in order to provide all property owners with proper notification of the requested major amendment to SDD No. 36, Four Seasons. September 5, 2017 - Page 11 of 4. A request for final review of an amendment to a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12, Chapter 16, Vail Town Code, for an existing healthcare facility, amending the development plan to allow for the reconstruction of the east wing, including healthcare facilities, ambulance district facilities, heliport building and associated structured parking located at 180 South Frontage Road West (Vail Valley Medical Center)/Lots E, F and 2E, Vail Village Second Filing, and Lot 2E-1, Block 1, Vail Lionshead Filing 1. (PEC17-0022). Applicant: Vail Valley Medical Center Planner: Jonathan Spence Motion: Continue to September 11, 2017 First: Stockmar Second: Kurz Vote: 7-0-0 Spence stated that this meeting is intended as a fourth and final work session. The applicant anticipates a fifth and final meeting on September 11, 2017. Topics to be addressed during this work session include: traffic and circulation, heliport EIR, South Frontage Road improvements, employee housing units, and other revisions that have occurred since the last meeting. Tom Braun, Braun Associates, Inc., made a PowerPoint presentation to the PEC. Braun summarized the topics discussed at the previous meetings. Braun then discussed the commercial linkage requirements for the proposed project. The projected amount of commercial linkage in the development agreement made in 2015 is being reviewed for any necessary changes. The necessity of an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) for the proposed heliport was discussed. The applicant believes a full EIR is not necessary primarily because there are limited occurrences (approximately 70 visits a year), helicopters stay for a limited period of time, and emergency vehicle noise is not regulated by the Vail Town Code. Stockmar — Asked about an assumption that flights to the heliport will decrease in frequency. Braun discussed the proposed vehicular, pedestrian, and ADA movements and circulation throughout the site, including the proposed improvements for South Frontage Road. The applicant is working with Public Works to coordinate the improvements. Skip Hudson, Turnkey Consulting, provided a detailed summary of the traffic study. It is estimated that the proposed changes will result in a reduction of approximately 1,400 vehicles per day on West Meadow Drive. Traffic conditions were evaluated for the years 2020-2025 and 2040. Stockmar — Asked about traffic conditions during construction of the east wing. Hudson stated that this has been analyzed and they do not anticipate much of a change in traffic on West Meadow Drive or the intersection of Vail Road and West Meadow Drive. Hudson continued by summarizing the anticipated traffic conditions during 2020-2025. If necessary, they can restrict outbound or inbound left turns at the access points. The 2040 predictions are based on the construction of an anticipated roundabout near the Evergreen Lodge, VVMC, and Town Hall. September 5, 2017 - Page 12 of Braun reviewed previous PEC comments made regarding the site design, building aesthetics, and landscaping. Nate Savage with Davis Partnership described the design changes in more detail. Planters have been added near the loading dock doors, aspen trees have been added along the middle of the south building fagade, and planters have been added to the upper level patio. The amount of glass was reduced on the tower feature. Rediker — Stated that there needs to be more landscaping in the loading dock area. Nate Savage responded that they can look at options, but the required turning movements for the loading docks limits the available area for landscaping. Braun stated that they have performed exhaustive research on this issue. Braun suggested more vertical planting in the three (3) proposed landscape planters along the loading dock columns. Perez — Asked about any changes that have been made to the upper level patio. The suitability of open style railings versus the proposed closed style railings was discussed. Braun summarized how deliveries, patient/guest parking, and employee parking will operate during the construction process. Stockmar — Asked about the frequency and timing of deliveries. Braun stated that the biggest challenge will be accommodating the larger trucks, not the smaller, more frequent small trucks. Rediker — Asked how the larger trucks will get to the site. Braun responded trucks will use West Meadow Drive. Braun stated that during the construction process there will be approximately 20 on-site parking spaces for employees. 150 spaces are leased in a parking lot in Edwards, which are serviced by a shuttle. VVMC also purchases ECO bus tickets for employees. Other employees park in the Lionshead structure. Lockman — Asked where construction workers will park. Chris Knight of ProjectOne stated that construction workers will park all over the Town of Vail. ProjectOne does not dictate where construction employees park, but reimburses them for the cost. Rediker — Asked how many construction workers will be on the project. Knight stated that up to 250 to 300 workers may be on the project. Rediker stated that the amount of construction workers that will impact parking in the Town is a problem. Lockman concurred. Braun concluded by stating the next step for the project is to prepare a "final" plan package and to resolve the commercial linkage mitigation rate. Lockman — Asked for clarification on how bicyclists can move north to south on the hospital campus. Spence stated that due to the 25'+ grade change there is no good way to ride a bicycle from the north to south part of the site and a bicyclist would have to follow the same path as a motorized vehicle. Lockman asked if staff sees any conflicts with the loading docks. Spence stated that the proposed loading docks will allow for increased safety. September 5, 2017 - Page 13 of Kurz — Asked if the west wing construction will have more, less, or similar impact as the east wing. Braun stated that the impact will be similar to the construction of the Arrabelle project in Lionshead and will last approximately two (2) years. Rediker — Suggested an alternative route for construction -related trucks leaving the site. Braun stated that they will examine this possibility. Hopkins — Asked staff to have the Design Review Board (DRB) take a closer look at the landscape plan and upper level patio. Gillette concurred and added that he still feels there is too much glass associated with the project. Gwen Scalpello, 9 Vail Road, expressed her concern about the traffic impact on West Meadow Drive and the main Vail roundabout. Asked that more information be provided to the community regarding the impact of construction on the neighborhood. Also expressed concern about the "light deliveries" at the loading docks. Stockmar — Expressed concern about the level of traffic at the main Vail roundabout. Finds on balance that the applicant has provided a good plan and has responded to his concerns and comments. Gillette — Stated that there is always ongoing construction in Vail and is less concerned about the construction worker parking. Suggested a permit parking system on the South Frontage Road for construction workers. Kurz — Encouraged the applicant to review the construction management plan to ensure the construction worker parking is addressed. Also suggested more landscaping along West Meadow Drive. Stated that he feels the applicant has addressed most of his concerns. Perez — Also feels most of the questions and concerns have been addressed. Is also concerned with the impact of construction worker parking. Requested more information on how the new underpass roundabout will impact traffic. Hopkins — Concurred with Commissioner Kurz. Would also like to see more landscaping along West Meadow Drive. Lockman — Feels that the circulation issues have been fairly well addressed. Also expressed concern about the construction management plan and the need to accommodate construction workers. Stated that the new underpass is a good example of a communication plan between CDOT and the community. Rediker — Stated that he feels signage is needed for the north -south pedestrian path. Is also concerned about the lack of landscaping along West Meadow Drive. Asked the applicant to provide more information about the operation of construction deliveries. Braun stated that large deliveries will be broken down off-site into smaller deliveries using smaller vehicles, primarily in the evening. Understands Commissioner Gillette's comment that there is always construction going on, but still believes that a better management plan can be created for this project, as well as other future projects. Rediker concluded by stating his interest in the final commercial linkage determination. September 5, 2017 - Page 14 of Tom Kassmel, Public Works Engineer, discussed the impacts of construction projects on parking demand. There are incentives to use a company van for carpooling. The new roundabout underpass should reduce overall frontage road traffic by 10%. Expressed a willingness to work with the applicant on their construction management plan. Rediker — Asked if Kassmel had concerns about the left turns during the construction process. Kassmel responded that it will be similar, if not slightly better, than existing conditions. Rediker asked about left turns once the nearby roundabout is completed. Kassmel stated that it will be more difficult to make a left turn onto the South Frontage Road at that time. There was a conversation about the timing of the roundabout and potential redevelopment of Evergreen Lodge. 5. A request for the review of an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses; Public and private schools, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Section 12-16-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for a renovation and addition to the existing Red Sandstone Elementary School, a conditional use permit, pursuant to Section 12-9C-3, Conditional Uses, Public parking structure, in accordance with Title 12, Chapter 16, Conditional Use Permits, Vail Town Code, to allow for the construction of a public parking structure, and a request for the review of a variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code, in accordance with the provisions of Title 12, Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town, to allow for the construction of a retaining wall with an exposed face height greater than six feet (6'), located at 551 North Frontage Road West/Lots 8, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0031) Applicant: TAB Associates Planner: Matt Panfil Motion for an Amendment to an Existing Conditional Use Permit: Approve conditional use permit for RSES, with the three (3) conditions and the findings on page 21 of staff memo dated August 28, 2017, plus an additional condition: 1. The conditional use permit approval is contingent upon the applicant obtaining Town of Vail approval of an associated design review application; 2. The applicant shall revise the submitted plans to depict a minimum twenty foot (20') wide drive aisle, instead of the currently depicted twelve foot (12') wide drive aisle, along the southwest part of the access drive and in the general direction of the southwestern crosswalk and the access point for the second level of the public parking structure; 3. The applicant shall reconfigure the proposed landscape island, located south of the proposed entrance to RSES and in the Pre -K Parking Area, to allow for a complete turn by Fire Department equipment; and September 5, 2017 - Page 15 of 4. The applicant shall provided additional safety measures at the southernmost east -west crosswalk and nearest to the main entrance to the site. First: Kurz Second: Gillette Vote: 7-0 Motion for a Conditional Use Permit for a Public Parking Structure Motion: Continue to the September 11, 2017 meeting. First: Gillette Second: Lockman Vote: 6-1 (Rediker opposed) The applicant was directed to provide a parking plan for Level 3, prohibited and permitted entrance and exit times, with a focus on morning congestion. The applicant is also to provide details on how disabled persons will have required access to ADA parking spaces on Level 1 during times when access to Level 1 is restricted to the general public. Motional for a Variance from Section 14-6-7, Retaining Walls, Vail Town Code Motion: (Variance) Continue to the September 11, 2017 meeting First: Stockmar Second: Perez Vote: 6-1 Panfil gave an update on some of the changes that were requested at the last meeting, and plan revisions since the last meeting. PEC concerns at the last meeting included student and pedestrian safety, bike circulation, and access to and from Level 3 of the parking structure. The Town plans to prohibit access to Level 3 of the parking structure during times that students are arriving at the school. Aesthetics of the parking structure were raised as a concern by the PEC. Applicant has provided more details on the connection to the overpass and bus stop. The drive aisle to the west of the parking structure will be 20 feet wide for fire truck access, but the lane widths can be striped for only one vehicle. Signage will be used along the Frontage Road to indicate if the parking structure has parking vacancies. Signage will indicate which levels of the parking structure have space available. Gillette — Suggested the use of gates to ensure that vehicles first fill Level 3 of the structure first, then other levels of the structure, with gate control access at the intersection. Panfil — We will pass along your suggestions. Panfil then reviewed the landscaping plan. Two additional trees are proposed on the south side of the parking structure. Photovoltaic (PV) solar panels are now proposed only on the top level of the structure. Roof forms over the entrances to the garage have also been modified. Staff wants to ensure that the PEC is comfortable with the safety features of this plan. A fence or other barrier will also be needed at the top of the retaining wall. Perez — Are there elevators in the structure. Panfil replied in the negative. Perez asked if staff has ADA concerns with this design? Panfil described the location of the ADA parking spaces. September 5, 2017 - Page 16 of Perez — Concerned how people requiring access to ADA parking spaces would gain access if the parking or ADA spaces were on a level that was closed or full. Stockmar — Could the roof designs at the garage entrances be modified to gain more solar PV space? Hopkins — How will you provide safety protection from the upper level of the back of the structure, near the retaining wall? Greg Macik — TAB Associates — The development team likes to use signage to direct parkers to the correct parking level, rather than gates. He reviewed the traffic circulation patterns for vehicles accessing the parking structure. He also discussed data on volume of cars using the Ford Park parking lots. He reviewed the student drop-off area. About 30 cars enter Ford Park soccer field early in the morning. Similar volumes are expected at this structure. Only a few students arrive from the east and would need to cross at the lower crosswalk. Rediker — Are we doing anything at the crosswalk, even though there are only a few kids arriving from the east? If not, it's a bad idea. Marcelle Laidman, Principal at RSES — We have only two middle school students coming from the east. Rediker — Only 2 kids now, but we don't know what will happen in five years. Not concerned about parents, because they are more careful around the kids, but concerned about others heading to the mountain. Maybe use flashing lights at the crosswalks. Something to give some measure of safety for children on foot. Macik — Reviewed the mid-day traffic patterns. Perez — Asked if there is a stop sign in a certain location. Panfil responded that there is not a stop sign. Gillette — Asked about the main entrance, preschool drop-off location, turning radius. Hopkins — Who uses Level 4, is that staff? Could you give passes only for certain levels? It's parking for people who know the system, after a few days. Macik — The Town could assign parking levels based on the parking pass. He described how the signs on the frontage road could work Chad Salli, Public Works— Pass sales would exceed the number of spaces. Advanced signage would let people know in advance if spaces are available. Macik — We will have space inside the structure to allow turning around. Stockmar — Drawings show the possibility of a level 5 and 6. Will that change the access and circulation patterns? Macik- Yes, it could. He showed some of the locations of the PV solar panels. Roofs are September 5, 2017 - Page 17 of designed to avoid snow shed onto cars below. Shed roofs are not oriented properly to be effective for solar panels. Hopkins — Will kids walk up the east stair? There is no crosswalk there. Macik — They could, but they are not supposed to. Back side of the structure will be very narrow, and will be capped to prevent access or falls. Rediker — Will parking passes be for all three levels? Salli — Yes Rediker — Will you inform pass holders that you may be restricting parking during certain levels? Salli — Yes, we will inform pass holders. They will need to confirm that they know these restrictions. There are condensed timeframes when most school activity (arrival and departure) happens. Lockman — Where is snow storage? Salli — On the west a gate on the top level. Also a gate along the west road. Snow removal should not be any more difficult than existing parking structures. Public Comment — None Final Commissioner Comment Lockman — A lot of the issues have been addressed. Seems to be a pretty good plan. Agree to place the shed roofs east -west to prevent snow shedding on cars or pedestrians. Seems like the criteria have been met. Town has done a good job communicating the limits of parking passes. Crosswalk signage should be addressed now. Plan has come a long way. Happy to see where it is at now. Hopkins — Is this parking structure so low, to accommodate housing in the future? Salli — It is designed to accommodate housing, school use, possible parking. We do not know yet. Hopkins — Ask the DRB to eliminate as many lighted signs as possible Perez — Staff has done a great job. Still want info on ADA spaces on Level 1. Want to make sure stop signs are properly included in the renderings and/or civil site plan. Kurz — Applicant has done a good job responding to commission concerns. Applicant is as concerned with student safety as the PEC. Believe that the pass for parking adds a certain amount of order. Overall he is comfortable with the direction this application is taking. Gillette — Gates at the intersection would be better than just lights. Like idea of flashing lights at crosswalks. Does not mind making it perfectly clear that the lot is full before September 5, 2017 - Page 18 of people pull in. Stockmar — Has been concerned about elementary kids mixing with parking, but believes the applicant has addressed that issue well. They have resolved many of the issues. On level 5 and 6, it will be very interested to see if they can make that work. Otherwise I support application. Rediker — Staff and applicant have been responsive. We need some type of blinking signs at the cross walks. Understands commissioner Hopkins concerns on having too many electronic signs in town, but believes it is better to let people know the lot is full. Concerned that people will arrive at the sign time that kids are arriving at school. Need to make it very clear to pass holders when access to parking will be allowed, or allowed to leave the garage. Not in favor of the project. The Town has a huge parking problem, but will vote against for environmental reasons. He cited Condition/criterion #2 and believes there is a negative impact with exhaust and health of children at the school. I have seen articles on asthma, cancer, and other health risks to children. Studies from National Institutes of Health were mentioned. Not a good idea to have a parking garage next to an area where children will be playing. 6. A request for a recommendation to the Vail Town Council for a Prescribed Regulations Amendment, pursuant to Section 12-3-7, Amendment, Vail Town Code, to amend Section 12-23-2 Employee Generation and Mitigation Rates, Vail Town Code, to reflect the recommendations of the 2016 Vail Employer Survey Summary of Results, February 2017 (Nexus Study) and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC17-0033) Applicant: Lynne Campbell, Housing Coordinator, Town of Vail Planner: Chris Neubecker Motion: Recommend Approval with a recommendation for the TC to review the 11 year old program. First: Kurz Second: Hopkins Vote: 4-3-0 (Rediker, Gillette and Perez opposed) Neubecker provided the commission with a recap of the proposal and the previous meeting. Neubecker indicated there are no changes to the proposal resulting from the previous meeting. Neubecker summarized the reasons for the proposal and how what is proposed is not a change in policy but rather necessary to keep the regulations current. Neubecker spoke to the Commission's previous concerns with the nexus study that the proposal is based on. Support from the VLHA (Vail Local Housing Authority) was mentioned as well as a staff's analysis of similar communities. Stockmar asked about lodging properties. Gillette followed up regarding the Commission's concerns with the study and how other methods, perhaps utilizing town business license procedures. Neubecker spoke to requesting email addresses with a business license application/renewal. Gillette spoke to using the business license process as a way of getting better survey September 5, 2017 - Page 19 of results. Campbell spoke to the response rate of the survey, the merge data and the generation rates. Campbell also spoke to the question before the Commission and the need for a recommendation. Stockmar asked for more information on Breckenridge's approach. Neubecker spoke to this incentive based approach. Gillette expressed his concern that changes to the survey process will not occur if not forced by the commission. Rediker spoke to the challenges of getting accurate information on employment, i.e. contract employees etc. Gillette spoke to the need for better information. Perez spoke of AirBnB and the survey results. Spoke to a lack of confidence in the results based on the level of response. Stockmar spoke to the survey results and that good results can come from a small response. Gillette attempted to encapsulate the Commission's concerns about good data. Lockman asked if concerns were across the board or more about a particular use (restaurant). Rediker spoke to the problem with interfering with the business of commerce through legislation with poor response rates. Rediker asked for public comment. There was no public comment. Stockmar feels these are generally tweaks. Tends to be comfortable with the proposal as long as the numbers are looked at again in the future. Gillette, no additional comments. Kurz recommends that the board approve the request and feels the data is reliable. Perez does not support moving forward because of a flawed study. Might support the measure if a different means of acquiring data was implemented. Hopkins supports Kurz's position and feels the numbers are reliable enough. Lockman points to the code that allows an applicant to provide alternative data. He points to the commission using the best information to make the best possible decision. Supports the proposal. Rediker does not feel the survey is adequate. Feels that changes based on incomplete September 5, 2017 - Page 20 of results is unfair. 7 Approval of Minutes August 14, 2017 PEC Results Motion: Approve First: Kurz Second: Perez Vote: 5-0-2 (Hopkins and Lockman Abstained) 8. Informational Update Commercial Ski Storage Update Neubecker provided the Commission with an update on the project and efforts made to date including meetings of the task force. An update to the Town Council will be provided on September 5, 2017. This item may return to the PEC in late September. Rediker — Asked what items the task force was examining. Neubecker responded they are looking at ski concierge services, on -mountain ski racks, outdoor display, and enforcement. Stockmar — Asked if the end goal is to have less visible ski storage. Neubecker stated that there are different opinions on the matter. Perez — Have to evaluate impacts on ski storage businesses. 9. Adjournment Motion: Adjourn First: Stockmar Second: Kurz 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. Please call 711 for sign language interpretation 48 hours prior to meeting time. September 5, 2017 - Page 21 of TOWN Of9 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Slifer Square Project Update PRESENTER(S): Chad Salli, Project Engineer ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Review update and provide feedback BACKGROUND: In March of 2017, staff received 2 bids for the Slifer Square Repair with both bids over 50% higher than the estimated construction costs of $3 million, as presented in February 2017 to Town Council. Staff has been working with the design consultant on ways to reduce cost of the project. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends bidding out the project at the end of this year with the Value Engineering item incorporated into the design and bidding out the 3 scope reduction options as bid alternatives. Town Council would then have the option to award the project as a whole or choose not to include one or all of the bid alternatives. Construction would be planned for the spring and fall 2018 Vail Village construction seasons. ATTACHMENTS: Description Slifer memo September 5, 2017 - Page 22 of TOWN OF VAIL. Memorandum To: Vail Town Council From: Department of Public Works Date: September 5, 2017 Subject: Slifer Square Repair Project I. ITEM/TOPIC Slifer Square Repair Project Update II. BACKGROUND In March of 2017, staff received 2 bids for the Slifer Square Repair with both bids over 50% higher than the estimated construction costs of $3 million, as presented in February 2017 to Town Council. Slifer Square has 4 significant maintenance issues. These include the following. 1. Damaged storm sewer 2. Storm water being discharged into Gore Creek without treatment, 3. Water leaking from the fountain, and 4. Corroded steel snowmelt mains. Staff has been working with the design consultant on ways to reduce cost of the project. Project savings have been identified by reconfiguring the storm sewer alignment by utilizing a water quality vault that is designed to function with the elevation change in the existing storm sewer. This reduces the amount of storm sewer needed to be installed and would not require excavating under the existing fountain. Other significant cost savings identified were either reduction or elimination of scope within the existing project plans. Both VE and scope reduction options are summarized below. The more detailed analysis is attached. VE Options: 1. Change in primary water quality treatment unit/storm sewer alignment Estimated cost savings: $200,000 - $400,000 Scope Reduction Cost Options 1. Reduce the overall area of pavement removal/replacement (Retain concrete pavement on Meadow Dr) Estimated cost savings: $370,000 — $470,000 September 5, 2017 - Page 23 of 2. Retain existing water feature Estimated cost savings: $700,000 - $1,000,000 3. Eliminate water quality filtration unit (secondary treatment) Estimated cost savings: $120,000 - $220,000 Pending approval of the 2018 budget of an additional $3 million, the total project budget will be $5.1 million for desin, bidding, construction, material testing and construction management. This total budget assumes no scope reduction and similar bids to the ones we received earlier this year. III. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends bidding out the project at the end of this year with the VE item incorporated into the design and bidding out the 3 scope reduction options as bid alternatives. Town Council would then have the option to award the project as a whole or choose not to include one or all of the bid alternatives. Construction would be planned for the spring and fall 2018 Vail Village construction seasons. Town of Vail Page 2 September 5, 2017 - Page 24 of TOWN Of9 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Transportation Impact Fee Schedule Discussion PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Discuss Transportation Impact Fee Schedule in anticipation of adopting a fee schedule by resolution on September 19, 2017. BACKGROUND: On July 11, 2017 the Town of Vail adopted an amendment to Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to add a new Chapter 26, Transportation Impact Fee. The proposed transportation impact fee applies to new developments, including creation of any new residential dwelling units, or any new commercial floor area. In order to implement Title 12-26, Transportation Impact Fee, the Town Council will need to adopt by Resolution a Transportation Impact Fee Schedule. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving by resolution, at the September 19th Town Council meeting, the recommended fee schedule as referenced in the Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study. ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo Attachment A Attachment B Attachment C - Presentation September 5, 2017 - Page 25 of TOWN OF VAIL. Memorandum To: Vail Town Council From: Community Development Department Date: September 5, 2017 Subject: Transportation Impact Fee Schedule I. SUMMARY On July 11, 2017 the Town of Vail adopted an amendment to Title 12 of the Vail Town Code to add a new Chapter 26, Transportation Impact Fee. The proposed transportation impact fee applies to new developments, including creation of any new residential dwelling units, or any new commercial floor area. The fee does not apply to residential remodels where no additional units are added, or to commercial remodels that do not increase square footage or change use. This new fee will be paid by the owner or developer, and will be collected by the Community Development Department at the time of issuance of a building permit. Revenues from this fee will be used by the Town of Vail for new transportation related infrastructure projects that are necessary due to the increased traffic from the incremental new development. 11. BACKGROUND A transportation impact fee is a development fee assessed to offset costs that a jurisdiction will incur to improve transportation infrastructure as a result of increased traffic from new developments. The Town of Vail has collected transportation fees for certain development zone districts, including Public Accommodation(PA), Public Accommodation-2(PA-2), Lionshead Mixed Use-1(LMU-1), and Lionshead Mixed Use- 2(LMU-2), and Special Development Districts (SDD)since 1999. In 2016, the Town of Vail hired the consulting firm TischlerBise to develop an updated transportation impact fee. The adopted impact fee codified the previous traffic mitigation fee to help fund future transportation related projects identified in the Vail Transportation Master Plan. The proposed fee will be applied in all zone districts, and will require developers to pay their proportional share for the necessary transportation infrastructure improvements that are directly related to the impacts created by the new development. Over the past year there have been multiple public discussions regarding the codification of a transportation impact fee. These public discussions were as follows: September 5, 2017 - Page 26 of January 2016: Town Council: Staff confirmed direction from Council to move forward with an updated Transportation Impact Fee nexus study so that a Transportation Impact Fee could be codified. A Review of the current traffic mitigation fee and the previous effort to codify a traffic impact fee in 2009, along with discussion around the proposed 2009 fees and that it was anticipated that 2017 fees would be much higher. June 2016: Town Council: Discussion with consultant, TischlerBise, regarding: • What is a traffic impact fee? • Why implement a traffic impact fee? • What's wrong with our current mitigation fees? • Can the Town waive fees for certain types of developments? Nov. 2016: Town Council: Review and confirmation of each of the Transportation Master Plan listed capital projects and to what extent (percentage) a transportation impact fee can fund these projects. January 2017: Town Council: Presentation by TischlerBise of the draft schedule of transportation impact fees based on the completed Nexus Study. February 2017: Town Council: Two meetings to have a more detailed review and discussion of the impact fee and the individual capital projects that would be funded and to what extent. Council provided direction to move forward through the process to codify the presented Transportation Impact Fees a the second February meeting. March 2017: Public Open House: Review and discuss the proposed transportation impact fees with attendees. April 2017: PEC: Review and discussion of the impact fee and the capital projects list. May 2017: PEC: Review of an application for a prescribed regulations amendment to Title 12, the Transportation Impact Fee Study, and the proposed ordinance. The recommendation of the PEC to the Town Council was for approval of the transportation impact fee and ordinance as presented by staff (Vote 4-3). June 2017: Town Council: Approved on First Reading Ordinance No. 4 Series 2017, for the amendment to Title 12. (Vote 7-0) July 2017: Town Council: Approved on Second Reading Ordinance No. 4 Series 2017, for the amendment of Title 12. (Vote 4-2) Council delayed fee schedule resolution until Septemeber. The public comments that were heard during the Town Council adoption of the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance are summarized below along with staff's responses; • The growth assumed in the Nexus Study and the Vail Transportation Master Plan is unrealistic. The Town should defer these impact fees until an updated Vail Master Plan can be completed to understand where and how the Town will develop in the future. o The growth assumptions are based on future development projects that have already been through the entitlement process and/or have had some Town of Vail Page 2 September 5, 2017 - Page 27 of level of master plan effort; the growth projections also recognize that most remaining large surface parking lots in the Vail and Lionshead village areas and the west vail commercial area will likely redevelop in the future. The majority of the development, 1813 of the projected 1982 units, and 495,000 of the projected 521,000 SF of commercial are based on the following specific projects; • Ever Vail (573 units / 56,000 SF Comm.) Entitlements approved. • ERWSD Area (26 units / 24,000 SF Comm.) Considered relocation and becoming `part' of Ever Vail at one time, not entitled at this time • LH Parking Structure redevelopment/Lodge at Lionshead/Lionshead Center (203 units / 59,000 SF Comm.) Plans developed at one time, however did not complete entitlement process. • Vail Transportation Center / Evergreen Lodge (95 units / 64,000 SF Comm.) Plans developed at one time, however did complete entitlement process. • Vail Valley Medical Center (140,000 SF Comm.) Currently in entitlement process for 110,000 SF of expansion. Have the potential to increase square footage in the future at both the Hospital site and the US Bank building site. • West Vail Commercial Area (474 units /152,000 SF Comm.) Planning exercise completed in order to understand what a live work commercial area concept could look like within the West Vail Commercial Area. • Timber Ridge (50 units) Assumed density increase at Timber Ridge based on past development efforts. • Marriott Residence Inn (210 units) Entitlements approved. • Chamonix Housing (32 units) Approve. • Other Employee Housing Units (150 units) Assumed additional new construction employee housing units based on the goal of having 1,000 additional EHU's in Vail. o Also to keep in mind; based on the 2010 US census data the number of units in Vail increased by 1841 units in ten years from 2000 to 2010. The current projection is a similar amount of development over a much more extended period of time of 25+ years. o If Vail changes direction, and begins to limit development, the Ordinance and fee schedule will still be applicable; the net result would be collection of less impact fees, and therefore funding less transportation improvement projects. The fee schedule can be and should be updated at least every other year to keep pace with any changing development master plans and change in construction costs. • In lieu of an impact fee which adds to the burden of development the Town Council should propose an increase in sales tax to spread the burden to all users. o Council gave staff direction to adopt an impact fee to codify the existing traffic mitigation fees, not to propose an increase in sales tax. The impact fee could generate up to -22% of the anticipated cost of the identified future transportation improvements. The remaining 78% would need to be Town of Vail Page 3 September 5, 2017 - Page 28 of generated by other means and thus is already spread out amongst all users (i.e. existing sales tax, VRA TIF funding, project level improvements, etc...). However for comparison, an equivalent sales tax increase to offset the recommended impact fees would be approximately 0.13%. • The proposed capital projects from the Vail Transportation Master Plan are not necessary, and based on inflated traffic projections, and will lead Vail to having 4-9 lane Frontage Roads. o The traffic projections are based on the development projections as described above. The resulting transportation projects have been reviewed in detail with both PEC and Council. None of the projects were perceived as being unnecessary. The effect of the road improvements are; • to continue the 4 lane frontage road median section that exists in front of the Vail Village and extend it west through the future Ever Vail site, • to add a roundabout as a single point main access for a future West Vail commercial redevelopment, • to add left turn lanes along the frontage roads where necessary to access residential roads (i.e. Buffehr Creek Rd., Red Sandstone Rd., etc...), • to increase capacity at the Vail Town Center and West Vail roundabouts as necessary. • An adopted fee schedule needs to include a start date and an exemption for those projects already in the process. o Staff recommends enacting the fees by January 1, 2018; exempting all projects that are approved or in the process prior to that date. Prior to that date existing regulations and/or developer agreements will still apply. (i.e. PA, LMU & SDD's) • The Medical Facilities category is targeted to the Vail Valley Medical Center, and when based on square footage is not appropriate because the VVMC is mainly decompressinq_existinq space not adding space or services. o Staff recognizes the intent of the VVMC redevelopment is to decompress existing square footage, which is why a more in depth traffic study was completed and approved. The traffic study is based on site specific traffic studies, existing and projected employees, and existing and proposed parking space numbers. The traffic study includes an additional reduction in vehicular trips as a result of the robust employee shuttle program, which also provides the reduction in parking space requirements from 707 spaces to 604 spaces. This site specific traffic study projects 118 new net new PM peak hour vehicular trips, 22 more than what is accounted for in the existing developer improvement agreement from 2015. As stated in the existing developer improvement agreement, the traffic mitigation fee shall be based on the final net new PM peak hour trips or the new codified Transportation Impact Fee rate, for comparison; • A fee based on Net New PM Peak Hour Trips at the recommended rate of $11,200, yields $1,321,600. Less the original payment of $624, 000, netting a balance of $697, 600. Town of Vail Page 4 September 5, 2017 - Page 29 of ■ A fee based on the recommended Square Foot Impact Fee @ $9.93/SF, yields $1,092,534 less the original payment of $624,000, netting a balance of $470,534 o Staff's assumption is that the recommended Transportation Impact Fee by square foot is more desirable for the VVMC. III. FEE SCHEDULE The recommended fee schedule was initially presented to Council this past January, approved with modifications by the Planning and Environmental Commission in May, and identified within the nexus study that is referenced within the recent adoption of Title 12-26. The recommended fee schedule is based on the allowable fees as determined by the nexus study completed by TischlerBise. The fee schedule can be implemented as presented or reduced by some percentage as long as the reduction is equally applied over all uses. However by reducing the fee, Council recognizes that the shortfall of revenue projection will have to be made up by the Town of Vail. In general, for every 5% reduction in fees, the Town of Vail will need to subsidize an additional $900,000. The recommended fee schedule is as follows along with example reductions; Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees Recommended 5%I 10% 15% 20% Residentail Dwellings (per Unit) Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (In the Core Area) $ 5,960.00 $ 5,662.00 $ 5,364.00 $ 5,066.00 $ 4,768.00 Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (Outside the Core Area) $ 7,450.00 $ 7,077.50 $ 6,705.00 $ 6,332.50 $ 5,960.00 Dwelling, Single Family $ 9,686.00 $ 9,201.70 $ 8,717.40 $ 8,233.10 $ 7,748.80 Employee Housing Unit $0 $ - $ - $ - $ - Accommodation Unit (per Unit) Accommodation Unit (In Core Area) $ 5,960.00 $ 5,662.00 $ 5,364.00 $ 5,066.00 $ 4,768.00 Accommodation Unit (Outside Core Area) $ 7,450.00 $ 7,077.50 $ 6,705.00 $ 6,332.50 $ 5,960.00 Commercial (per square foot of floor area) Restaurant & Retail Establishments $ 13.90 $ 13.21 $ 12.51 $ 11.82 $ 11.12 Facilities Health Care $ 9.93 $ 9.43 $ 8.94 $ 8.44 $ 7.94 Office & Other Services $ 6.20 $ 5.89 , $ 5.58 $ 5.27 $ 4.96 ITotal Projected Revenue $ 18,244,320.00 $ 17,332,104.00 $ 16,419,888.00 $ 15,507,672.00 $ 14,595,456.00 Total Additional Amount Subsidized by Town $ 2,553,860.00 $ 3,466,076.00 $ 4,378,292.00 $ 5,290,508.00 $ 6,202,724.00 The concerns members of Council expressed previously were with regards to perception that the fees are too high and that the fees might deter desired developments within the Town. The Town's policies have leaned towards incentivizing the development of Commercial uses and Accommodation Units. Some of these incentives were adopted as a result of the Lionshead Master Plan process -20 years ago. That process significantly increased allowable Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA), increased unit density, permitted Accommodation Units to not count towards density, and encouraged first floor retail expansions. However, it also adopted language within the PA and LMU zone districts to require pedestrian and vehicular traffic impact mitigation. The mitigation requirement recognized that incentivizing Town of Vail Page 5 September 5, 2017 - Page 30 of redevelopment and increasing GRFA/Density would result in additional vehicular and pedestrian traffic which would need to be mitigated in some capacity. The intent of the language was to have the developer pay for the cost of the mitigation. Staff recommends that this consideration continues, where Commercial uses and Accommodation Units can still be incentivized, with the requirement that in exchange for development incentives the developer should pay for the transportation related impacts caused by the development. This policy, which has been in effect for the past 20 years, has not deterred development as exemplified by Vail's Two Billion Dollar Redevelopment phase between 2004 and 2010. During that time the town assessed a total of $3.4 Million in negotiated traffic mitigation fees for Multiple Family, Commercial, and Accommodation Unit developments. The fee assessed during that time beginning in 2005 was $6500 per net PM peak hour traffic trip generated. An equivalent 2016 fee, adjusted for local construction escalation, would be approximately $13,000 to $16,705 per net PM peak hour traffic trip generated. The recommended fee schedule presented above reflects an equivalent amount of only $11,200 per PM peak hour traffic trip generated. Therefore, taking into account local construction cost inflation, the recommended fee schedule is actually 14% to 33% less then the relative cost of traffic mitigation in 2005. In addition, showing that the recommended impact fee is not likely to deter development, this past August, Town Council adopted on first reading a traffic mitigation fee of $11,200 per PM peak hour trip (with an exemption for EHU's) for phase II of the Mountain View SDD development. This past January the Marriott Residence Inn SDD, was approved on first reading to have an impact fee of $11,200 per PM peak hour trip, and it is in the final Developer Improvement Agreement process to further solidify this amount. These two recent approvals are equivalent to the recommended transportation impact fee schedule, and do not include a reduction. IV. ACTION REQUESTED OF THE TOWN COUNCIL In order to implement Title 12-26, Transportation Impact Fee, the Town Council will need to adopt by Resolution a Transportation Impact Fee Schedule. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approving by resolution, at the September 19th Town Council meeting, the recommended fee schedule as noted above which is referenced in the Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Study. VI. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A — Ordinance No. 4, Series 2017 Attachment B — Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study, March 10, 2017 Attachment C — Presentation Town of Vail Page 6 September 5, 2017 - Page 31 of Town of Vail Page 7 September 5, 2017 - Page 32 of ORDINANCE NO. 4 SERIES 2017 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 12 OF THE VAIL TOWN CODE BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER 26, ENTITLED "TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES" WHEREAS, to ensure the provision of adequate public transportation services and facilities in the Town, the Town Council wishes to condition certain land use approvals on payment of a transportation impact fee; WHEREAS, it is widely recognized that municipalities may impose exactions (impact fees) on the granting of land use approvals, provided that there is an essential nexus between the exaction and a legitimate local government interest, and provided that the exaction is roughly proportional, both in nature and extent, to the impact of the proposed use or development, pursuant to Nollan v. California Coastal Comm'n, 483 U.S. 825 (1987), Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U.S. 374 (1994); C.R.S. § 29-20-203 and related case law; WHEREAS, the Town has conducted and adopted a study to provide the basis for the imposition of the transportation impact fee and to determine the appropriate amount of the transportation impact fee, which study was prepared by TischlerBise on March 10, 2017; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds and determines that the public health, safety, and welfare will be served by adopting regulations delineating the Town's procedure for imposing a transportation impact fee. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF VAIL, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Title 12 of the Vail Town Code is hereby amended by the addition of a new Chapter 26, which shall read as follows: CHAPTER 26 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES 12-26-1: FINDINGS AND PURPOSE: A. Findings. The Town Council finds and determines as follows: 1. A legitimate, identifiable public purpose is served by requiring a transportation impact fee for new development and redevelopment projects in the Town; 2. There is an essential nexus between the transportation impact fee imposed in this Chapter and the Town's interest in providing transportation infrastructure, facilities and services; 1 8/30/2017 September 5, 2017 - Page 33 of 3. The Town is acting within its power to provide transportation infrastructure, facilities and services; 4. But for new development and redevelopment projects, the Town would not be considering either the provision or expansion of transportation infrastructure, services or facilities; 5. New development and redevelopment projects are contributing causes to the need for new or expanded transportation infrastructure, facilities and services; 6. The Town would be legally justified in denying applications for new development or redevelopment projects unless the transportation impact fee is imposed, because of the burden the new development or redevelopment projects would place on the Town's transportation infrastructure, facilities and services; and 7. The Town has conducted a study to determine the amount of the transportation impact fee, and the study demonstrates that the transportation impact fee will be roughly proportional, both in nature and extent, to the impacts of new development and redevelopment projects. B. Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to impose a transportation impact fee on new development and redevelopment projects in the Town, as set forth herein. 12-26-2: APPLICABILITY: A. The transportation impact fee shall be imposed on the following construction, development or redevelopment in the Town: 1. For commercial development (except accommodation units), on any net new square footage to be constructed. 2. For residential development, on each new residential unit to be constructed. 3. For accommodation units, on each new accommodation unit to be constructed. B. The transportation impact fee shall not be imposed on the construction, development or redevelopment of any Employee Housing Unit. 12-26-3: FEE: The transportation impact fee shall be in the amount set by resolution of the Town Council. The fee shall be imposed by the Community 2 8/30/2017 September 5, 2017 - Page 34 of Development Department, Design Review Board, Planning and Environmental Commission or Town Council, as part of the last land use approval for the project. The fee shall be payable prior to issuance of the building permit for the project. 12-26-4: CREDIT: A. An applicant may apply for a credit as set forth in this Section, which credit shall be applied to offset the transportation impact fee that would otherwise be imposed for the project. B. Credit shall be provided for any dedication or conveyance of land from the applicant to the Town. The amount of the credit shall be the present, fair market value of the land being dedicated or conveyed, as determined by the Town in its reasonable discretion. C. Credit shall be provided for any construction of Town -approved System Level transportation infrastructure or facilities as identified in the Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study, undertaken by the applicant at the applicant's cost that offset the transportation impacts of the project. The transportation infrastructure or facilities may be constructed as part of the project, or in other areas of the Town, as determined by the Town and the applicant. The value of the credit shall be determined by the Town, in its reasonable discretion, considering the total cost of construction and other relevant factors. D. Credit shall be provided for any transportation services provided by the applicant at the applicant's cost,that offset the transportation impacts of the project, as approved by the Town. The value of the credit shall be determined by the Town, in its reasonable discretion, considering actual costs to provide the services and other relevant factors. 12-26-5: REVIEW: A. An applicant aggrieved by the application of this Chapter by the Community Development Department, the Planning and Environmental Commission or Design Review Board may apply for review by the Town Council, by filing a written request for review within 10 days of the decision at issue. B. Within 30 days of receipt of the written request, the Town Council shall hold a public hearing. At such hearing, the burden of proof shall be on the applicant to establish that the imposition of the transportation impact fee as assessed would result in an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation. C. If the Town Council determines that the application of this Chapter would result in an unconstitutional taking of private property without just compensation, the Town Council may decrease the transportation impact 3 8/30/2017 September 5, 2017 - Page 35 of fee (or increase any credit) to ensure that there is no unconstitutional taking. The decision of the Town Council shall be final, subject only to judicial review pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). D. An applicant aggrieved by the application of this Chapter by the Town Council may seek judicial review pursuant to C.R.C.P. 106(a)(4). Section 2. 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 3. 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 4. 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 5. 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. 4 8/30/2017 September 5, 2017 - Page 36 of INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, APPROVED, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED ONCE IN FULL ON FIRST READING this day of , 2017 and a public hearing for second reading of this Ordinance set for the day of 2017, in the Council Chambers of the Vail Municipal Building, Vail, Colorado. ATTEST: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk 5 Dave Chapin, Mayor 8/30/2017 September 5, 2017 - Page 37 of TOWN OF VAIL March 10, 2017 Prepared By TischlerBise FISCAL I ECONOMIC I PLANNING www.tischlerbise.com September 5, 2017 - Page 38 of Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 2 COLORADO IMPACT FEE ENABLING LEGISLATION 2 ADDITIONAL LEGAL GUIDELINES 2 DEVELOPMENT PATTERN IN THE TOWN OF VAIL 4 Figure 1 — Map of Town Boundary and Vail Core Area 5 LOWER FEES IN CORE AREA 5 Lower Residential Trip Generation Rates in Urban Areas 5 Less Auto Dependency in Urban Areas 6 Shorter Trip Lengths in Urban Areas 6 CURRENT AND PROPOSED TRANSPORTATION FEES 7 Figure 2 — Transportation Impact Fee Comparison 8 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES 9 Figure 3 — Conceptual Impact Fee Formula 9 TRIP GENERATION 10 Vehicle Trips to Development in the Town of Vail 10 Figure 4 — Summary of Projected Travel Demand 11 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 11 Figure 5 — Summary of Transportation Improvements and Growth Share 12 CREDIT FOR OTHER REVENUES 13 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FORMULA AND INPUT VARIABLES 13 Figure 6 — Transportation Impact Fee Input Variables 14 MAXIMUM SUPPORTABLE TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES 15 Figure 7 — Transportation Impact Fee Schedule 15 FUNDING STRATEGY FOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS 16 Figure 8 — Impact Fee Revenue Projection 16 APPENDIX A — DEMOGRAPHIC DATA 17 TRIP GENERATION BY TYPE AND SIZE OF HOUSING 17 Figure Al — PM Peak Hour Vehicle Attraction Trips by Size of Detached House 18 TRIP GENERATION BY FLOOR AREA OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING 19 Figure A2 — PM Peak Hour Inbound Trips by Square Feet 20 APPENDIX B: IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION 21 CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS 21 TOWN -WIDE SERVICE AREA 21 DEVELOPMENT CATEGORIES 22 Residential Development 22 Commercial Development 22 APPENDIX C: REFERENCES 24 September 5, 2017 - Page 39 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 INTRODUCTION Although Colorado is a "home -rule" state and home -rule municipalities were already collecting "impact fees" under their home -rule authority granted in the Colorado Constitution, the Colorado Legislature passed enabling legislation in 2001, as discussed further below. Colorado Impact Fee Enabling Legislation For local governments, the first step in evaluating funding options for transportation improvements is to determine basic options and requirements established by state law. Some states have more conservative legal parameters that basically restrict local government to specifically authorized actions. In contrast, "home -rule" states grant local governments broader powers that may or may not be precluded or preempted by state statutes depending on the circumstances and on the state's particular laws. Impact fees are one-time payments imposed on new development that must be used solely to fund growth -related capital projects, typically called "system improvements". An impact fee represents new growth's proportionate share of capital facility needs. In contrast to project - level improvements, impact fees fund infrastructure that will benefit multiple development projects, or even the entire service area, as long as there is a reasonable relationship between the new development and the need for the growth -related infrastructure. Project -level improvements, typically specified in a development agreement, are usually limited to transportation improvements near a proposed development, such as ingress/egress lanes. According to Colorado Revised Statute Section 29-20-104.5, impact fees must be legislatively adopted at a level no greater than necessary to defray impacts generally applicable to a broad class of property. The purpose of impact fees is to defray capital costs directly related to proposed development. The statutes of other states allow impact fee schedules to include administrative costs related to impact fees and the preparation of capital improvement plans, but this is not specifically authorized in Colorado's statute. Impact fees do have limitations, and should not be regarded as the total solution for infrastructure funding. Rather, they are one component of a comprehensive portfolio to ensure adequate provision of public facilities. Because system improvements are larger and more costly, they may require bond financing and/or funding from other revenue sources. To be funded by impact fees, Section 29-20-104.5 requires that the capital improvements must have a useful life of at least five years. By law, impact fees can only be used for capital improvements, not operating or maintenance costs. Also, development impact fees cannot be used to repair or correct existing deficiencies in existing infrastructure. Additional Legal Guidelines Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against regulatory takings. Land use regulations, development exactions, and impact fees are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without 2 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 40 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 just compensation. To comply with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be shown to substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest. In the case of impact fees, that interest is the protection of public health, safety, and welfare, by ensuring development is not detrimental to the quality of essential public services. The means to this end are also important, requiring both procedural and substantive due process. The process followed to receive community input (i.e. stakeholder meetings, work sessions, and public hearings) provides opportunities for comments and refinements to the impact fees. There is little federal case law specifically dealing with impact fees, although other rulings on other types of exactions (e.g., land dedication requirements) are relevant. In one of the most important exaction cases, the U. S. Supreme Court found that a government agency imposing exactions on development must demonstrate an "essential nexus" between the exaction and the interest being protected (see NoIlan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987). In a more recent case (Dolan v. City of Tigard, OR, 1994), the Court ruled that an exaction also must be "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development. There are three reasonable relationship requirements for development impact fees that are closely related to "rational nexus" or "reasonable relationship" requirements enunciated by a number of state courts. Although the term "dual rational nexus" is often used to characterize the standard by which courts evaluate the validity of development impact fees under the U.S. Constitution, TischlerBise prefers a more rigorous formulation that recognizes three elements: "need," "benefit," and "proportionality." The dual rational nexus test explicitly addresses only the first two, although proportionality is reasonably implied, and was specifically mentioned by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case. Individual elements of the nexus standard are discussed further in the following paragraphs. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some, or all, public facilities provided by local government. If the capacity of facilities is not increased to satisfy that additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Development impact fees may be used to cover the cost of development - related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is a consequence of development that is subject to the fees. The NoIlan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments upon which they are imposed. That principle likely applies to impact fees. In this study, the impact of development on infrastructure needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for specific facilities, based on applicable level -of -service standards. The requirement that exactions be proportional to the impacts of development was clearly stated by the U.S. Supreme Court in the Dolan case and is logically necessary to establish a proper nexus. Proportionality is established through the procedures used to identify development -related facility costs, and in the methods used to calculate impact fees for various types of facilities and categories of development. The demand for facilities is measured in 3 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 41 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 terms of relevant and measurable attributes of development (e.g. a typical housing unit's vehicular trip generation rate). A sufficient benefit relationship requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended only on the facilities for which the fees were charged. The calculation of impact fees should also assume that they will be expended in a timely manner and the facilities funded by the fees must serve the development paying the fees. However, nothing in the U.S. Constitution or the state enabling legislation requires that facilities funded with fee revenues be available exclusively to development paying the fees. In other words, benefit may extend to a general area including multiple real estate developments. Procedures for the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are discussed near the end of this study. All of these procedural as well as substantive issues are intended to ensure that new development benefits from the impact fees they are required to pay. The authority and procedures to implement impact fees is separate from and complementary to the authority to require improvements as part of subdivision or zoning review. Impact fees must increase the carrying capacity of the transportation system. Capacity projects include, but are not limited to the addition of travel lanes, intersection improvements (i.e., turning lanes, signalization or roundabouts) and "complete street" improvements to provide multimodal infrastructure (e.g. bus stops, bike lanes and sidewalks). Whenever improvements are made to existing roads, non -impact fee funding is typically required to help pay a portion of the cost. Development Pattern in the Town of Vail Vail is a resort community of approximately 5,000 year-round residents that surges to approximately 40,000-45,000 persons during peak tourism season when employees and visitors are present. The occupied bed base of the community swells from 5,000 to 35,000 during these peak periods. Figure 1 delineates the core area of Vail. Actual boundaries of the Town extend six miles to the east and four miles to the west of the core area (see map inset). Given its location in a mountain valley, the Town has a compact development pattern and a multi -modal transportation system that relies on pedestrian, bicycle, transit and vehicular travel. Consistent with this setting, the proposed impact fees will fund multi -modal transportation improvements necessary to accommodate projected development within the Town of Vail. 4 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 42 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 1— Map of Town Boundary and Vail Core Area Vail Core Area 14'1�ii��`����/,�e��o��ri��s�s����'�®���'!�}� `�,���,�c1C`� A-LIfi:A Vail Village 17V 1 � \, J Lionshead Village 1 00 1,000 1 Feet z 000 Lower Fees in Core Area Development of attached housing units and hotels in the core area will facilitate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit use, thus requiring less vehicular travel. In recognition of lower vehicular travel demand in the core area, proposed transportation impact fees are lower in the core area. This policy recommendation is consistent with the literature summarized in the three subsections below and a recent analysis of mixed-use developments in six regions of the United States. This study found an average 29% reduction in trip generation as a function of "D" variables, including: density, diversity, design, destination accessibility, distance to transit, demographics, and development scale (see Ewing, Greenwald, Zhang, Walters, Feldman, Cervero, Frank, and Thomas 2011). Lower Residential Trip Generation Rates in Urban Areas Single-family housing is generally located in low-density suburbs where there are few alternatives for travel except by private motor vehicle. On average, urban housing has fewer 5 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 43 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 persons and vehicles available, thus lowering vehicular trip generation rates per unit when compared to housing in the suburban unincorporated area. Currans and Clifton (2015) developed and tested methods for adjusting ITE trip generation rates for urban settings. They recommend mode -share adjustments based on the number of residents and jobs per acre, which serves as a proxy for urban form. Less Auto Dependency in Urban Areas Urban areas have distinct demographic profiles and physical traits that reduce vehicle trips, such as higher internal capture, design characteristics that promote walking and biking, and superior transit service. Urban areas with grid streets and small blocks offer a variety of routes that encourage walking and biking. Interesting streetscapes with human -scale design features encourage people to walk and bike farther in urban areas, while lowering our perception of distance (Jacobs 2001). Urban areas also have more diverse travel options including public transportation and muscle -powered mobility. A study titled "Trip Generation Rates for Urban Infill Land Uses in California" documented auto trips for infill development averaged approximately 50% of the modal share, compared to 90% or higher auto dependency in most metropolitan areas (Daisa and Parker, 2009). Lower dependency on private vehicles reduces the need for street capacity and supports an impact fee reduction for new development within the core area of Vail. Shorter Trip Lengths in Urban Areas Mixed land use and better job -housing balance reduces average trip length. By balancing the number of jobs with nearby housing units, urban areas have the potential for reducing journey - to -work travel. The magnitude of effect is dependent on matching job and housing locations of individual workers, which can be aided by offering a variety of housing styles and price ranges. Inclusionary policies, such as requiring at least 10% affordable housing units within each development, can foster a better jobs -housing balance and reduce the need for street capacity (Nelson, Dawkins and Sanchez 2007). Mixed-use areas like the center of Vail exhibit lower vehicular trip rates because of "internal capture" (i.e., many daily destinations do not require travel outside the area). For example, a study titled "Internalizing Travel by Mixing Land Uses" examined 20 mixed use communities in South Florida, documenting internal capture rates up to 57 percent with an average of 25 percent. In addition to a percent reduction for the jobs -housing balance, credit can be given for local -serving retail. Urban, transit -oriented development offers coffee shops, restaurants, general retail stores and services that reduce the need for vehicular trips outside the area (Ewing, Dumbaugh and Brown 2003). The report "Driving and the Built Environment" (TRB 2009) found a strong link between development patterns and vehicle miles of travel, encouraging mixing of land uses to reduce vehicle trip rates and reduce trip lengths. Reductions up to 24% for transit service and pedestrian/bicycle friendliness are recommended for nonresidential development in a 2005 6 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 44 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 study titled "Crediting Low -Traffic Developments" (Nelson/Nygaard Consulting Associates 2005). Current and Proposed Transportation Fees Figure 2 provides a comparison of current and proposed transportation fees for new development in the Town of Vail. Current amounts are shown with dark shading and white numbers. Current fees in Vail are based on the net increase in PM Peak Hour vehicle trip ends generated by the entire development, with mitigation limited to certain areas and reductions given for multi -modal travel. The Town currently assesses transportation -related mitigation fees (see Vail code section in the footnote'). This requirement is specific to certain zone districts and does not provide a codified fee schedule. The current fees are determined and agreed upon by the Town and developers during the development entitlement process. Proposed fees are shown with light shading and black numbers in the table below. For consistency with a national impact fee survey, the fee amount for a detached house assumes construction of an average size unit, which in Vail and Pitkin County is approximately 4,000 square feet (i.e. twice the national average). Fee amounts for commercial development are expressed per thousand square feet of floor area. 1 12-7A,H,I,J: MITIGATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACTS: Property owners/developers shall also be responsible for mitigating direct impacts of their development on public infrastructure and in all cases mitigation shall bear a reasonable relation to the development impacts. Impacts may be determined based on reports prepared by qualified consultants. The extent of mitigation and public amenity improvements shall be balanced with the goals of redevelopment and will be determined by the planning and environmental commission in review of development projects and conditional use permits. Substantial off site impacts may include, but are not limited to, the following: deed restricted employee housing, roadway improvements, pedestrian walkway improvements, streetscape improvements, stream tract/bank restoration, loading/delivery, public art improvements, and similar improvements. The intent of this section is to only require mitigation for large scale redevelopment/development projects which produce substantial off site impacts. (Ord. 29(2005) § 24: Ord. 23(1999) § 1) 7 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 45 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 2 - Transportation Impact Fee Comparison 8 Per Housing Unit Single Family Multifamily Per 1,000 Sq Ft Retail Office National Average (1) $3,228 $2,202 $5,685 $3,430 Durango (1) Ft. Collins 2016 Draft (2) Vail current* Incorporated Areas in Colorado $0 _ $2,366 $10,569 $9,685 Proposed in Core Area of Vail (2) Proposed Outside Core Area (2) not applicable $9,686 $5,960 $13,900 $6,200 $7,450 $13,900 $6,200 Counties in Colorado Eagle Co. (1) Jefferson Co. (1) Larimer Co. (2) Pitkin Co. (2) Weld Co. (2) $4,378 $3,034 $9,026 $5,164 $3,276 $2,725 $7,120 $4,790 $3,418 $8,812 $4,726 $9,339 $5,115 $10,910 $5,130 $2,377 $3,296 $2,174 Sources: (1) National Impact Fee Survey by Duncan Associations (2012). Single Family assumes 2,000 square feet. Nonresidential fees per thousand square feet assume a building with 100,000 square feet of floor area. (2) TischlerBise. Single Family in Vail and Pitkin County assumes 4,000 square feet. * Current fees in Vail are based on the net increase in PM Peak Hour vehicle trip ends generated by the entire development, with mitigation limited to certain areas and TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 46 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Basic steps in a conceptual impact fee formula are illustrated below (see Figure 3). The first step (see the left part of the equation) is to determine an appropriate demand indicator, for a particular type of infrastructure. The demand indicator measures the number of demand units for each unit of development. For example, an appropriate indicator of the demand for roads is vehicle trips. The second step in the conceptual impact fee formula is shown in the middle section of the equation. Infrastructure units per demand unit are typically called Level -Of - Service (LOS) or infrastructure standards. Road impact fee studies for suburban communities often establish a relationship between lane miles and vehicle miles of travel (note: a lane mile is a rectangular area of pavement one lane wide and one mile long). Because the Town of Vail has a more compact, urban development pattern, multi -modal transportation improvements were identified in a recently approved Transportation Master Plan. In essence, the Town of Vail has combined the second and third step in the conceptual impact fee formula (see the right side of the equation below). The cost of growth -related transportation improvements was allocated to the expected increase in vehicle trips. Figure 3 — Conceptual Impact Fee Formula Demand Units Infrastructure Units Dollars per X per X per Development Demand Infrastructure Unit Unit Unit When applied to specific types of infrastructure, the conceptual impact -fee formula is customized using three common impact fee methods that focus on different timeframes. The first method is the cost recovery method. To the extent that new growth and development is served by previously constructed improvements, local government may seek reimbursement for the previously incurred public facility costs. This method is used for facilities that have adequate capacity to accommodate new development, at least for the next five years. The rationale for the cost recovery approach is that new development is paying for its share of the useful life or remaining capacity of an existing facility that was constructed in anticipation of additional development. The second basic approach used to calculate impact fees is the incremental expansion cost method. This method documents the current infrastructure standard for each type of public facility in both quantitative and qualitative measures. The local government uses impact fee revenue to incrementally expand infrastructure as needed to accommodate new development. A third impact fee approach is the plan -based method. This method is best suited for public facilities that have commonly accepted engineering/planning standards or specific capital improvement plans. Proposed transportation impact fees for the 9 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 47 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Town of Vail are derived using a plan -based method, with one cost recovery item for the recently completed 1-70 underpass. Trip Generation Transportation models and traffic studies for individual development projects typically use average weekday or afternoon (PM), peak -hour trips. The need for transportation improvements in Vail was determined through the Transportation Master Plan process using an extensive engineering analysis. In contrast to the engineering analysis, the impact fee methodology is essentially an accounting exercise whereby the cost of growth -related system improvements is allocated to new development within the Town of Vail. For the purpose of impact fees, trip generation is based on attraction (inbound) trips to development located in the Town of Vail. This approach eliminates the need for adjustments to account for pass- through trips (i.e. external -external travel) and trips to destinations outside Vail (i.e. internal- external travel). One of the major trip destinations in Vail is the base of the ski mountain. In addition to people working in Town and those staying over night, the ski mountain draws thousands of 'day skiers' that typically leave their vehicles in a parking garage while in Town. Because parking structures are ancillary uses, impact fees are typically not imposed on the floor area of a garage, but the floor area of nearby development that actually attracts people to the area. Given this practice, future growth of 'day skiers' will not be directly accounted for in the development projections shown in Figure 4. However, the Town and Vail Resorts have agreed the maximum skiers at one time that can be handled by the Town's infrastructure is 19,900, as specified in the agreement titled "Town of Vail & Vail Associates, Inc. Program to Manage Peak Periods." Therefore, if the maximum -skiers agreement or lift capacity is increased without a significant increase in nonresidential buildings, a traffic impact fee for additional day skiers should be contemplated. Vehicle Trips to Development in the Town of Vail The relationship between the amount of new development anticipated within Vail and the projected increase in vehicle trips is shown in Figure 4. Expected development in Vail is based on trends within the Town, Eagle County, and the state of Colorado. The projected increase in development and afternoon, peak -hour trips are consistent with Appendix E in Vail's Transportation Master Plan (FHU 2009) and the development stats database, updated by Town staff. Although the specific year is not important to the analysis, the net increase in development is expected to occur by the year 2040. A faster pace of development would accelerate the collection of impact fees and the construction of planned improvements. Conversely, slower development would reduce fee revenue and delay the construction of capital improvements. As shown in the bottom right corner of the table below, planned development in Vail is expected to generate an additional 838 PM -Peak inbound vehicle trips. 10 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 48 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 4— Summary of Projected Travel Demand Development Type Additional Development Units (2) Inbound Trip Rate per Development Unit (3) Additional PM -Peak Inbound Trips Two Family or Multiple Family Units in Core Area 705 0.24 169 Two Family or Multiple Family Units Outside Core 554 0.30 166 Employee Housing Units in Core Area 41 0.24 10 Employee Housing Units Outside Core 310 0.30 93 Single Family Units 120 0.39 47 Accommodation Units in Core Area 270 0.24 65 Accommodation Units Outside Core 102 0.30 31 Restaurant & Retail KSF (1) 320 0.56 179 Facilities Health Care KSF (1) 140 0.40 56 Office & Other Services KSF (1) 88 0.25 22 TOTAL => 838 (1) KSF = square feet of floor area in thousands. (2) Appendix E, Vail Transportation Master Plan (FHU 2009) and Town staff (12/06/16). (3) Trip generation rates are from Appendix E, Vail Transportation Master Plan, except Transportation Impact Fee System Improvements Transportation system improvements to be funded by impact fees are shown in Figure 5. Specific projects were identified in the Transportation Master Plan for the Town of Vail and updated by Town staff. Road sections listed below will be constructed as "complete streets" with bus, bicycle, and pedestrian improvements. Town staff prepared the planning -level cost estimates and identified the growth share of projects that will be funded with impact fees, based on the expected increase in vehicular trips. The total cost of transportation improvements needed to accommodate new development through 2040 is estimated to be approximately $95 million in current dollars (not inflated over time). Impact fees will fund approximately $20.8 million, which is 28% of systems improvements. Funding from non -impact fee sources, such as the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT), and the Town of Vail General Fund will cover the remaining cost of system improvements. As shown in the bottom right corner of the table below, the capacity cost of $24,836 per additional trip is equal to the growth share of transportation improvements divided by the increase in PM -Peak inbound vehicle trips. 11 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 49 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 5 - Summary of Transportation Improvements and Growth Share 12 Transportation Improvements Town of Vail, Colorado Estimated Cost (Millions) Project- Level Cost System -Level Improvements Percent Funded By Impact Fee Percent Other Revenue Cost by Impact Fee Cost by Other Revenue ID PROJECT DESCRIPTION A West Vail Commercial Roundabout & Medians $ 6.70 $ 6.70 0% 0% $ $ B Buffehr Creek Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ - 52% 48% $ 0.62 $ 0.58 C Buffehr Creek NRT connection to Marriott Roost $ 0.50 $ 0.50 0% 0% $ $ D Marriott Roost Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ 1.20 0% 0% $ - $ - E Timber Ridge Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ 1.20 0% 0% $ - $ - F Lions Ridge Loop Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ - 35% 65% $ 0.41 $ 0.79 G Red Sandstone Drive Turn lanes $ 1.20 $ - 35% 65% $ 0.41 $ 0.79 H Main Vail North Roundabout Expansion to Two Lanes $ 5.60 $ 35% 65% $ 1.98 $ 3.62 Main Vail Underpass Revesible Lane $ 2.00 $ - 35% 65% $ 0.71 $ 1.29 J Gore Creek Drive Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ - 14% 86% $ 0.17 $ 1.03 K Underpass (Cost Recovery) $ 9.10 $ - 22% 78% $ 1.96 $ 7.14 L Underpass to Forest Road Imrpovements (5 Lane/Walk) $ 7.00 $ 7.00 0% 0% $ $ - M Vail Spa to ELHC Improvements (5 Lane/Walk) $ 4.50 $ - 46% 54% $ 2.05 $ 2.45 N ELHC to LH Parking Structure Entrance Medians $ 0.75 $ 46% 54% $ 0.34 $ 0.41 O LH Parking Structure Entrance to Municipal Bldg (5 Lane & Rdabt) $ 9.00 $ 2.25 39% 36% $ 3.55 $ 3.20 P Village Ctr Road to Vail Valley Drive (Medians, TC Device, Compact Rdabt) $ 6.50 $ - 29% 71% $ 1.92 $ 4.58 Q PW/WD Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ - 27% 73% $ 0.33 $ 0.87 R Booth Creek Turn Lanes $ 1.20 $ - 27% 73% $ 0.33 $ 0.87 S GVT Dowd Junction to WV Rdabt $ 8.50 $ - 22% 78% $ 1.83 $ 6.67 T Donovan to Westhaven Drive Walk $ 1.50 $ 22% 78% $ 0.32 $ 1.18 U WLHC walk (Vail Spa to S. Frtge) $ 0.75 $ 0.75 0% 0% $ - $ - V WD Path imrpovements $ 1.20 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.26 $ 0.94 W Vail Rd (Willow Way to Forest Rd) Walk $ 0.50 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.11 $ 0.39 X ELHC (LHWC to Dobson) Walk $ 1.00 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.22 $ 0.78 Y West Vail Pedestrian Overpass $ 6.00 $ - 22% 78% $ 1.29 $ 4.71 Z VMS to Bighorn Path $ 1.50 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.32 $ 1.18 AA ELHC (Vantage Point to S. Frontage Road) Walk $ 0.20 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.04 $ 0.16 BB Chamonix (Arosa to Chamonix) $ 1.00 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.22 $ 0.78 CC Chamonix (Chamonix to Buffehr Creek Rd) $ 1.00 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.22 $ 0.78 DD Line Haul Transit Stop Improvement Projects $ 1.60 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.34 $ 1.26 EE Vail Bus Stops (10 Shelters) $ 1.50 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.32 $ 1.18 FF Arosa Transit Parking $ 2.50 $ - 22% 78% $ 0.54 $ 1.96 GG Frontage Road Lighting Improvements $ 5.00 $ - 0% 100% $ - $ 5.00 HH Structured Parking Expansion & Buses $ $ 0% 100% $ $ Grand Totals $ 95.00 $19.60 28% 72% $ 20.81 $ 54.59 Net New PM Peak Inbound Trips => 838 Capacity Cost per Additional PM Peak Inbound Trip => $ 24,836 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 50 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Credit for Other Revenues A general requirement that is common to impact fee methodologies is the evaluation of credits. A revenue credit may be necessary to avoid potential double payment situations arising from the one-time payment of an impact fee plus other revenue payments that may also fund growth -related capital improvements. The determination of credits is dependent upon the impact fee methodology used in the cost analysis. Vail's transportation impact fees are derived primarily using a plan -based method, with a minor cost recovery component for the recently completed 1-70 underpass. This method is based on future capital improvements needed to accommodate new development. Given the plan -based approach, the credit evaluation focuses on the need for future bonds and revenues that will fund planned capital improvements. Because the Town does not expect to bond finance transportation projects, a revenue credit for future principal payments is not applicable. Some impact fee studies include a credit for gas taxes and/or General Fund revenue. A credit for future revenue generated by new development is only necessary if there is potential double payment for system improvements. In the Town of Vail, transportation impact fees are derived from the growth cost of system improvements, not the total cost of capital improvements. Impact fee revenue will be used exclusively for the growth share of improvements listed in Figure 5. Other, non -impact fee funds, such as the General Fund and gas tax revenue, will be used for maintenance of existing facilities, correcting existing deficiencies and for making improvements not listed in the transportation CIP. Based on expected development in Vail (see Figure 8), future impact fee revenue approximates the growth cost of planned system improvements (approximately $21 million). If elected officials in Vail make a legislative policy decision to fully fund the growth share of system improvements from impact fees, a credit for other revenue sources is unnecessary. Transportation Impact Fee Formula and Input Variables Input variables for the transportation impact fee are shown in Figure 6. Inbound trips by type of development are multiplied by the net capital cost per trip to yield the transportation impact fees. For example, the transportation impact fee formula for a two family or multiple family unit in the core area is 0.24 x $24,836 = $5,960 (truncated) per housing unit. Because the core area of Vail has a walkable, urban development pattern, impact fees for two family or multiple family housing and accommodation units are lower in the core area, as supported by the engineering analysis in the adopted Transportation Master Plan (FHU 2009). Trip generation rates are from the Transportation Master Plan, except for single family dwellings, which are only expected outside the core area. Inbound trip rates per detached dwelling are documented in Appendix A. 13 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 51 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure 6 — Transportation Impact Fee Input Variables 14 Residentail Dwellings (per Unit) PM -Peak Inbound Vehicle Trips Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (In Core Area) 0.24 Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (Outside Core Area) 0.30 Dwelling, Single Family 0.39 Accommodation Unit (per Unit) Accommodation Unit (In Core Area) 0.24 Accommodation Unit (Outside Core Area) 0.30 Commercial (per 1,000 Sq Ft of floor area) Restaurant & Retail Establishments 0.56 Facilities Health Care 0.40 Office & Other Services 0.25 Infrastructure Standards Cost per Trip => $24,836 Revenue Credit Per Trip => $0 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 52 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees The input variables discussed above yield the maximum supportable impact fees shown in Figure 7. Fees for most types of commercial development are listed per square foot of floor area. The impact fee for accommodation is based on the number of units. Figure 7 — Transportation Impact Fee Schedule 15 Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees Residentail Dwellings (per Unit) Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (In the Core Area) $5,960 Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (Outside the Core Area) $7,450 Dwelling, Single Family $9,686 Employee Housing Unit $0 Accommodation Unit (per Unit) Accommodation Unit (In Core Area) $5,960 Accommodation Unit (Outside Core Area) $7,450 Commercial (per square foot of floor area) Restaurant & Retail Establishments $13.90 Facilities Health Care $9.93 Office & Other Services $6.20 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 53 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Funding Strategy for Transportation System Improvements Revenue projections shown below assume implementation of the maximum supportable transportation impact fee. Projected revenues essentially match the growth share of the capital improvements plan for transportation (i.e. $20.8 million). Impact fee revenue can be accumulated over several years to construct major projects, but annually completing at least one capital project will ensure benefit to fee payers. The percentage of total impact fee revenue expected from each development type is shown below in the right column. New housing units in Vail will generate approximately 58% of the transportation impact fee revenue. New accommodation will generate approximately 11%, while other types of commercial development will yield approximately 31% of projected revenue. Figure 8 — Impact Fee Revenue Projection Development Type Additional Development Units Fee per Development Unit $5,960 $7,450 $5,960 $7,450 $9,686 $5,960 $7,450 $13,900 $9,930 $6,200 Projected Revenue $4,202,000 $4,127,000 $244,000 $2,310,000 $1,162,000 $1,609,000 $760,000 $4,448,000 $1,390,000 $546,000 Percent of Impact Fees 20% 20% 1% 11% 6% 8% 4% 21% 7% 3% Two Family or Multiple Family Units in Core Area 705 Two Family or Multiple Family Units Outside Core 554 Employee Housing Units in Core Area 41 Employee Housing Units Outside Core 310 Single Family Units 120 Accommodation Units in Core Area 270 Accommodation Units Outside Core 102 Restaurant & Retail KSF 320 Facilities Health Care KSF 140 Office & Other Services KSF 88 16 Total => $20,798,000 100% TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 54 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 APPENDIX A - DEMOGRAPHIC DATA In this Appendix, TischlerBise documents the demographic data used to derive trip rates by size of single family housing. In the Town of Vail, the fiscal year begins on January 1st. Impact fees are calibrated using 2016 as the base year and 2017 as the first projection year. Trip Generation by Type and Size of Housing Although the Town of Vail only expects a few single family (detached) housing units to be constructed each year, TischlerBise recommends a fee schedule whereby larger units pay higher transportation impact fees. Benefits of the proposed methodology include: 1) proportionate assessment of infrastructure demand using local demographic data, 2) progressive fee structure (i.e. smaller units pay less and larger units pay more), and 3) more affordable fees for workforce housing. Custom tabulations of demographic data by bedroom range can be created from individual survey responses provided by the American Community Survey (ACS) published by the U.S. Census Bureau, in files known as Public Use Microdata Samples (PUMS). Because PUMS files are available for areas of roughly 100,000 persons, the Town of Vail is included in Public Use Microdata Area (PUMA) 400 that includes Pitkin, Eagle, Summit, Grand and Jackson Counties. At the top of Figure Al, cells with yellow shading indicate the survey results, which yield the unadjusted number of persons and vehicles available per dwelling. These multipliers are adjusted to match the control totals for Vail. According to ACS table B25033 (five-year estimates) Vail had 5,277 year-round residents in 2014 and table B25032 indicates Vail had 2,451 households in 2014, or an average of 2.15 persons per household. TischlerBise used ACS tables B25046 and B25032 to derive the average number of vehicles available per household. In 2014, there were 3,738 aggregate vehicles available and 2,451 households, or an average of 1.53 vehicles available per household. The middle section of Figure Al provides nation-wide data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). VTE is the acronym for Vehicle Trip Ends, which measures vehicles coming and going from a development. Dividing trip ends per household by trip ends per person yields an average of 2.17 persons per occupied condominium/townhouse and 3.78 persons per occupied single dwelling, based on ITE's national survey. Applying Vail's current housing mix of 77.7% condominium/townhouses and 22.3% single-family dwellings yields a weighted average of 2.53 persons per household. In comparison to the national data, Vail only has an average of 2.15 persons per household. Dividing trip ends per household by trip ends per vehicle available yields an average of 1.68 vehicles available per occupied condo/townhouse and 1.52 vehicles available per occupied single dwelling, based on ITE's national survey. Applying Vail's current housing mix yields a nation-wide weighted average of 1.64 vehicles available per household. In comparison to the national data, Vail has fewer vehicles available, with an average of 1.53 per housing unit. 17 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 55 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Rather than rely on one methodology, the recommended trip generation rates shown in the bottom section of Figure Al (see Vail PM -Peak VTE per Household), are an average of trip rates based on persons and vehicles available, for single family housing units by bedroom range. In the Town of Vail, each household in a single family unit is expected to generate an average of 0.57 PM -Peak Vehicle Trip Ends, compared to the national average of 0.63 trip ends per household. Figure Al - PM Peak Hour Vehicle Attraction Trips by Size of Detached House Calibrated to Demographic Control Totals for Vail, Colorado ACS 2013 5 -Year PUMS Data for PUMA 400 (Pitkin, Eagle, Summit, Grand and Jackson Counties) Bedroom Range Persons (1) Vehicles Available (1) Households (1) PUMA 400 Hshld Mix Unadjusted Persons/Hshld Adj Persons per Hshld (2) Unadjusted VehAvl/Hshld Adj Veh Avl per Hshld (2) 0-2 134 156 75 19.7% 1.79 1.62 2.08 1.38 3 409 376 165 43.4% 2.48 2.24 2.28 1.52 4 248 229 97 25.5% 2.56 2.31 2.36 1.57 5+ 114 112 43 11.3% 2.65 2.39 2.60 1.73 Total 905 National Averages According to ITE 873 380 ITE Code PM -Peak VTE per Person PM -Peak VTE per Vehicle Available PM -Peak VTE per Household Vail Hshld Mix 230 Condo / Townhouse 0.24 0.31 0.52 77.7% 210 SFD 0.27 0.67 1.02 22.3% Wgtd Avg 0.25 0.39 Recommended Trip Rate by Bedroom Range 0.63 Bedroom Range PM -Peak VTE per Hshld Based on Persons (3) PM -Peak VTE per Hshld Based on Veh Available (4) Vail PM -Peak VTE per Hshld (5) 0-2 0.41 0.54 0.48 3 0.56 0.59 0.58 4 0.58 0.61 0.60 5+ 0.60 0.67 0.64 Total 18 0.54 0.60 0.57 2.38 2.15 Persons per Household 2.17 3.78 2.53 2.30 1.53 Veh Avl per Household 1.68 1.52 1.64 (1) American Community Survey, Public Use Microdata Sample for CO PUMA 400 (2013 Five -Year unweighted data). (2) Adjusted multipliers are scaled to make the average PUMS values match control totals for Vail (ACS 2014 Five -Year data). (3) Adjusted persons per household multiplied by national weighted average trip rate per person. (4) Adjusted vehicles available per household multiplied by national weighted average trip rate per vehicle available. (5) Average of trip rates based on persons and vehicles available per housing unit. Does not show adjustment to inbound trips (64% entering). TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 56 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Trip Generation by Floor Area of Single Family Housing To derive afternoon peak hour inbound trips by square feet of single family housing, TischlerBise combined demographic data from the Census Bureau (discussed above) and single family house size data from the County Assessor's parcel database. The number of bedrooms per housing unit is the common connection between the two databases. In Vail, the average size single family housing unit with two or less bedrooms has 1,594 square feet of heated space. The average three-bedroom unit has 2,667 square feet of floor area. The average size of a four-bedroom unit is 3,698 square feet of floor area. Single family housing units with five or more bedrooms average 5,706 square feet of floor area. Average floor area and number of inbound trips by bedroom range are plotted in Figure A2, with a logarithmic trend line derived from the four actual averages in the Town of Vail. TischlerBise used the trend line formula to derive estimated average PM -Peak, inbound trips by size of single family housing unit, in 300 square feet intervals. Square feet measures heated floor area (excluding porches, garages, unfinished basements, etc.). Based on the size of single family housing units in Vail, TischlerBise recommends limiting transportation impact fees for single family housing to the floor area range shown below. In other words, a single family house with 2,099 or less square feet would pay a transportation impact fee based on 0.33 inbound vehicle trips. Likewise, single family units with 6,300 or more square feet of heated space would pay a maximum transportation impact fee based on 0.42 inbound vehicle trips. 19 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 57 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Figure A2 — PM Peak Hour Inbound Trips by Square Feet Average dwelling size by bedroom range is from County Assessor parcel database. PM -Peak vehicle trip ends are derived using ACS PUMS data and calibrated to Town of Vail demographics. Inbound trips are 64% of trip ends (ITE Actual Averages per Hsg Unit Fitted -Curve Values Bedrooms Square Feet Inbound Trips Square Feet Inbound Trips 0-2 1,594 0.31 2099 or less 0.33 3 2,667 0.37 2100 to 2599 0.34 4 3,698 0.38 2600 to 3099 0.35 5+ 5,706 0.41 LU1L). 0.45 0.40 0.35 0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 PM -Peak Inbound Vehicle Trips per Detached Dwelling by Size within Vail, CO y = 0.0761n(x) - 0.2431 R2= 0.9513 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 Square Feet of Heated Area 20 3100 to 3599 0.37 3600 to 4099 0.38 4100 to 4599 0.39 4600 to 5099 0.40 5100 to 5599 0.41 5600 to 6099 0.41 6100 or more 0.42 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 58 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 APPENDIX B: IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION Development impact fees should be periodically evaluated and updated to reflect recent data. One approach is to adjust for inflation using an index, such as the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index published by McGraw-Hill Companies. This index could be applied to the adopted impact fee schedule. If cost estimates or demand indicators change significantly, the Town should redo the fee calculations. Colorado's enabling legislation allows local governments to "waive an impact fee or other similar development charge on the development of low or moderate income housing, or affordable employee housing, as defined by the local government." However, projected impact fee revenue from employee housing accounts for approximately 12% of the growth cost to be funded by impact fees. Given this magnitude, waiving impact fees for workforce housing will create a significant funding gap. Credits and Reimbursements Specific policies and procedures related to site-specific credits or developer reimbursements will be addressed in the ordinance that establishes the transportation impact fees. Project - level improvements, normally required as part of the development approval process, are not eligible for credits against impact fees. If a developer constructs a system improvement (see the impact fee funded improvements listed in Figure 5), it will be necessary to either reimburse the developer or provide a site-specific credit. The latter option is more difficult to administer because it creates unique fees for specific geographic areas. TischlerBise recommends establishing reimbursement agreements with the developers that construct a system improvement. The reimbursement agreement should be limited to a payback period of no more than ten years and the Town should not pay interest on the outstanding balance. The developer must provide sufficient documentation of the actual cost incurred for the system improvement. The Town should only agree to pay the lesser of the actual construction cost or the estimated cost used in the impact fee analysis. If the Town pays more than the cost used in the fee analysis, there will be insufficient impact fee revenue. Reimbursement agreements should only obligate the Town to reimburse developers annually according to actual fee collections from the service area. If the Town collects impact fees for other types of infrastructure, site specific credits or developer reimbursements for one type of system improvement does not negate payment of impact fees for other types of infrastructure. Town -wide Service Area The transportation impact fee service area is defined as the entire incorporated area within the Town of Vail. Even though Colorado's enabling legislation uses the phrase "direct benefit" Vail is a relatively small geographic area with a strong core area. Transportation improvements along the 1-70 corridor will benefit new development throughout the entire Town. 21 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 59 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Development Categories Proposed transportation fees are assessed based on general land use categories. The categories within the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule are further defined within Title 12-2-2 of the Town of Vail Code. Any uses or development types not specifically defined below or within Title 12-2-2 shall be interpreted by the Administrator in accordance with the Vail Transportation Impact Fee Study. Residential Development Residential development categories represent general groups of land uses that share similar characteristics. 1. Single Family includes: • Dwelling, Single -Family 2. Two Family or Multiple Family includes: • Dwelling, Multiple -Family • Dwelling, Two -Family • Fractional Fee Club Unit 3. Accommodation includes: • Accommodation Unit • Accommodation Unit, Attached • Lodge Dwelling Unit • Lodge, Limited Service • Timeshare Unit Commercial Development Commercial development categories represent general groups of land uses that share similar characteristics. 1. Facilities Health Care includes: • Healthcare Facilities 2. Office & Other Services includes: • Professional Offices, Business Offices, and Studios • Banks and Financial Institutions • Personal Services and Repair Shops • Child Daycare Center • Health Clubs / Spas • Commercial Ski Storage / Ski Clubs • Religious Institutions 3. Restaurant & Retail includes: • Eating and Drinking Establishments • Retail Stores and Establishments • Theaters 22 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 60 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Even though churches are a common type of development, they do not have a specific impact fee category due to a lack of sufficient data. For churches and any other atypical development, staff must establish a consistent administrative process to reasonably treat similar developments in a similar way. When presented with a development type that does not match one of the development categories in the published fee schedule, the first option is to look in the ITE trip generation book to see if there is land use category with valid trip rates that match the proposed development. The second option is to determine the published category that is most like the proposed development. Churches without daycare or schools are basically an office area (used throughout the week) with a large auditorium and class space (used periodically during the week). Some jurisdictions make a policy decision to impose impact fees on churches based on the fee schedule for warehousing. The rationale for this policy is the finding that churches are large buildings that generate little weekday traffic and only have a few full time employees. A third option is to impose impact fees on churches by breaking down the building floor area into its primary use. For example, a church with 25,000 square feet of floor area may have 2,000 square feet of office space used by employees throughout the week. At a minimum, impact fees could be imposed on the office floor area. An additional impact fee amount could be imposed for the remainder of the building based on the rate for a warehouse. An applicant may submit an independent study to document unique demand indicators for a particular development. The independent study must be prepared by a professional engineer or certified planner and use the same type of input variables as those in the transportation impact fee methodology. The independent fee study will be reviewed by Town staff and can be accepted as the basis for a unique fee calculation. If staff determines the independent fee study is not reasonable, the applicant may appeal the administrative decision to elected officials for their consideration. 23 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 61 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 APPENDIX C: REFERENCES Been, Vicki. 2005. "Impact Fees and Housing Affordability", Cityscape: Journal of Policy Development and Research, Vol. 8, No. 1, 139-185. Blanton, Whit. 2000. "Integrating Land Use and Transportation" Planning Commissioners Journal, Number 40: 9-13. Bochner, Brian, Kevin Hooper, and Benjamin Sperry. 2010. "Improving Estimation of Internal Trip Capture for Mixed -Use Development" ITE Journal 80(8): 24-28, 33. Cherry, Nathan and Kurt Nagle. 2009. Grid /Street/Place: Essential Elements of Sustainable Urban Districts. American Planning Association Planners Press. Currans, Kristina and Kelly Clifton. 2015. "Using Household Travel Surveys to Adjust ITE Trip Generation Rates" Journal of Transport and Land Use, Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 85-119. Daisa, James and Terry Parker. 2009. "Trip Generation Rates for Urban Infill Land Uses in California" ITE Journal. Daisa, James, M. Schmitt, P. Reinhofer, K. Hooper, B. Bochner and L. Schwartz. 2013. "Trip Generation Rates for Transportation Impact Analyses of Infill Developments" Transportation Research Board NCHRP Report 758. Downs, Anthony. 1992. Stuck in Traffic: Coping with Peak Hour Traffic Congestion. Washington, D.C.: Brooking Institute. Dumbaugh, Eric, and Robert Rae. 2009. "Safe Urban Form: Revisiting the Relationship Between Community Design and Traffic Safety." Journal of the American Planning Association 75(3): 309-329. Ewing, Reid, Eric Dumbaugh and Mike Brown. 2003. "Internalizing Travel by Mixing Land Uses" Transportation Research Record 1780. Ewing, Reid and Robert Cervero. 2010. "Travel and the Built Environment" Journal of the American Planning Association, 76:3, 265-294. Frank, Lawrence and Gary Pivo. 1992. "Impacts of Mixed Use and Density on Utilization of Three Modes of Travel: Single -Occupant Vehicle, Transit, and Walking" Transportation Research Record 1466. Frank, Lawrence. 1994. Analysis of Relationships Between Urban Form and Travel Behavior. PhD Dissertation, University of Washington. Frank, Lawrence. 2000. "Land Use and Transportation Interaction: Implications on Public Health and Quality of Life" Journal of Planning Education and Research 20, 6-22. 24 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 62 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Giuliano, Genevieve. 1989. "New Directions for Understanding Transportation and Land Use" Environment and Planning A, Volume 21: 145-159. Hanson, Susan, and Genevieve Giuliano, eds. 2004. Geography of Urban Transportation. Guilford Press. Holian, Matthew and Matthew Kahn. 2012. Impact of Center City Economic and Cultural Vibrancy on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Transportation. Mineta Transportation Institute, Report 11-13. Jacobs, Allan. 2001. Great Streets (sixth edition). Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press. Jones, David. 1985. Urban Transit Policy: An Economic and Political History. Prentice -Hall. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Layton, Colleen, Tawny Pruitt and Kim Cekola (editors). 2011. Economics of Place: The Value of Building Communities Around People. Michigan Municipal League. Leinberger, Christopher. 2009. The Option of Urbanism: Investing in a New American Dream. Island Press. Litman, Todd. 2015. Analysis of Public Policies that Unintentionally Encourage and Subsidize Urban Sprawl. Victoria Transportation Policy Institute. Mathur, Shishir and Adam Smith. 2012. Decision -Support Framework for Using Value Capture to Fund Public Transit: Lessons from Project -Specific Analyses. Mineta Transportation Institute, College of Business, San Jose State University. Moore, Terry, and Paul Thorsnes. 1994. The Transportation/Land Use Connection. Planning Advisory Service Report no. 448/449. Chicago: American Planning Association. Moore, Terry, Paul Thorsnes and Bruce Appleyard. 2007. The Transportation/Land Use Connection (new edition). PAS Report 546-47. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Myers, Dowell (editor). 1990. Housing Demography: Linking Demographic Structure and Housing Markets. Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press. Nelson, Arthur, ed. 1988. Development Impact Fees. Chicago: Planners Press. Nelson, Arthur, Casey Dawkins and Thomas Sanchez. 2007. Social Impacts of Urban Containment. Ashgate Publishing Limited. Nelson, Arthur, Liza Bowles, Julian Juergensmeyer, and James Nicholas. 2008. A Guide to Impact Fees and Housing Affordability. Island Press. 25 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 63 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Nelson, Arthur. 2013. Reshaping Metropolitan America: Development Trends and Opportunities to 2030. Island Press. Nelson / Nygaard Consulting Associates. 2005. Crediting Low -Traffic Developments. Nicholas, James, Arthur Nelson, and Julian Juergensmeyer. 1991. A Practitioner's Guide to Development Impact Fees. Chicago: Planners Press. Pucher, John and Lefevre, Christian. 1996. The Urban Transportation Crisis. London: MacMillan Press. Reconnecting America. 2008. Capturing the Value of Transit. Federal Transit Administration. Reid Ewing, Michael Greenwald, Ming Zhang, Jerry Walters, Mark Feldman, Robert Cervero, Lawrence Frank, and John Thomas. 2011. "Traffic Generated by Mixed -Use Developments: Six - Region Study Using Consistent Built Environmental Measures" Journal of Urban Planning and Development 137(3): 248-61. Resource Systems Group, Fehr & Peers, Robert Cervero, Kara Kockelman, and Renaissance Planning Group. 2012. Effect of Smart Growth Policies on Travel Demand. Strategic Highway Research Program 2 Report S2 -C16 -RR -1. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. Ross, Catherine and Anne Dunning. 1997. Land Use Transportation Interaction: An Examination of the 1995 NPTS Data. Georgia Institute of Technology. Schiller, P., E. Bruun, and J. Kenworthy. 2010. Introduction to Sustainable Transportation: Policy, Planning, and Implementation. Earthscan. Schneider, Robert, Susan Handy and Kevan Shafizadeh. 2014. "Trip Generation for Smart Growth Projects" Access 45, University of California Transportation Center. Seggerman, Karen, Kristine Williams, Pei -Sung Lin, and Aldo Fabregas. 2009. Evaluation of the Mobility Fee Concept. Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida. Shoup, Donald. 2011. High Cost of Free Parking. American Planning Association. Speck, Jeff. 2012. Walkable City: How Downtown Can Save America, One Step at a Time. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Steiner, Ruth, and Siva Srinivasan. 2010. VMT-Based Traffic Impact Assessment: Development of a Trip Length Model. Center for Multimodal Solutions at the University of Florida. Transportation Research Board. 1994. Curbing Gridlock: Peak -Period Fees to Relieve Traffic Congestion. Washington, DC: National Academy Press Special Report 242. 26 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 64 of Vail Transportation Impact Fees 1/9/17 Transportation Research Board. 2001. Making Transit Work. National Academy Press Special Report 257. Transportation Research Board. 2009. Driving and the Built Environment. National Academy Press Special Report 298. Urban Land Institute and National Multi Housing Council. 2008. Getting Density Right: Tools for Creating Vibrant Compact Development. Vuchic, Vukan. 2000. Transportation for Livable Cities. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Center for Urban Policy Research. 27 TischlerBise FISCAL 1 ECONOMIC 1 PLANNING September 5, 2017 - Page 65 of --AMP Vail Transportation Impact Fee Eim September 5, 2017 September 5, 2017 - Page 66 of 162 .11,1111 Overview Adopted Transportation Impact Fee on July 11, 2017 Applies to new construction only, which adds; New Units or Commercial square footage. EHU's exempt Implementation requires adoption of Fee Schedule by Resolution September 5, 2017 - Page 67 of 162 Comments & Concerns Growth Projections unrealistic; defer fees until updated Town wide Master Plan can be completed No Impact Fees, Increase Sales Tax instead Vail Transportation Master Plan Capital Projects are unnecessary Timing of Implementation Medical Center category is not appropriate because of "decompression" Fees are too high and will deter development September 5, 2017 - Page 68 of 162 Growth Projections Based on Vail Transportation Master Plan projections completed by the Town of Vail 2006-2008 Assumes a new "Build -Out" scenario 25+ years out 1982 new units 521, 000 SF commercial Comparison growth; 2000 US Census units: 5389 2010 US Census units: 723o Net new in 10 years: 1841 September 5, 2017 - Page 69 of 162 "ftiorft, Vail Long Term Development Projections (25+ Years) i I. Development Ever Vail ERWSD LH Parking Structure Lodge at Lionshead Lionshead Center Net Newl Net New Units (Commercial 573 26 11 1 -Imo _,a 7E' Vail Transportation Center Evergreen Lodge Vail Valley Medical Center West Vail Commercial Area Timber Ridge Marriott Residence Inn Chamonix Housing Other Employee Housing Other Total 0 474 56,000 24,000 30000 19000 10000 44000 20000 140000 152000 Comment Entitlements Approved 7 Considered relocation and becoming part of Ever Vail at one time not entitled at this time Plan developed at one time, currently not entitled Plan developed at one time, currently not entitled Plan developed at one time, currently not entitled Plan developed at one time, currently not entitled Plan developed at one time, currently not entitled Currently in entitlement process for 110,000 SF IN __AM ml= I= i'M Planning exercise completed in 2005 for Live Work Develop 50 o Assumed increase density based on past development efforts - [ Entitlements Approved 32 1 0 Under Construction 150 0 169 26,000 1982 521,000 ,IN ml Assumed additional new construction EHU's based on 1,000 EHI goal Smaller increases contemplated throughout town. 1 1 September 5, 2017 - Page 70 of 162 Spread the burden with Sales Tax Council direction was to codify existing traffic mitigation fees that have been applied to PA, LMU, and SDD zone districts since 1999. Proposed Impact Fee could generate 22% of future transportation improvement project costs. Remaining 78% would be spread out amongst all users via; Existing sales tax revenue VRA TIF funding Project level improvements Equivalent sales tax increase would be o.13% September 5, 2017 - Page 71 of 162 VTMP Projects Unnecessary Goal of VTMP Road projects; • Continue 4 lane median section from Municipal building west through Ever Vail/Underpass location when necessary • Add single point main access roundabout at the West Vail Commercial Area • Add left turn lanes at residential street intersections; • Buffehr Creek Rd • Lions Ridge Loop • Red Sandstone Rd. • Increase capacity at Vail Town Center and West Vail roundabouts as necessary September 5, 2017 - Page 72 of 162 Timing of Implementation Staff recommends fee begins January 1, 2018. Exempt all projects approved or in approval process prior to that date In the interim existing regulations and/or developer agreements will still apply September 5, 2017 - Page 73 of 162 Medical Center "decompression" Site specific traffic study completed and approved Nets iib new PM peak hour trips Reduction included for employee shuttle program Reduced parking requirement from 707 to 603 spaces DIA requires mitigation at new codified fee Net PM trip based 2005 fee: $6,500 x iib = $767,000 Net PM trip based 2017 fee: $11,200 x iib = $1,321,600 Net new SF based fee: 110,225 SF x $9.93 = $1,09z,534 Recommend the SF based fee. September 5, 2017 - Page 74 of 162 yes too high & Tf dere development Recent SDD approvals include the recommended Net PM Peak Hour fee of $ii,zoo/trip; this is equivalent to the recommended fee as shown above. A Net PM peak hour fee rate; aoo5:$6500 Cost escalation through 2016: ioo%-157% 2016 fee with escalation: $13,000 - $16,7o5 Recommended fee: $11,200 i4%-33% less than the fee in 2005 when construction escalation is taken into account. September 5, 2017 - Page 75 of 162 ommedTfFe c Thiiie & Reduction Options Maximum Supportable Transportation Impact Fees Recommended 5%I 10%I 15% 20% Residentail Dwellings (per Unit) Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (In the Core Area) $ 5,960.00 $ 5,662.00 $ 5,364.00 $ 5,066.00 $ 4,76&00 Dwelling, Two Family or Multiple Family (Outside the Core Area) $ 7,450.00 $ 7,077.50 $ 6,705.00 $ 6,332.50 $ 5,960.00 Dwelling, Single Family $ 9,686.00 $ 9,201.70 $ 8,717.40 $ 8,233.10 $ 7,748.80 Employee Housing Unit $0 $ - $ - $ - $ - Accommodation Unit (per Unit) Accommodation Unit (In Core Area) $ 5,960.00 $ 5,662.00 $ 5,364.00 $ 5,066.00 $ 4,768.00 Accommodation Unit (Outside Core Area) $ 7,450.00 $ 7,077.50 $ 6,705.00 $ 6,332.50 $ 5,960.00 Commercial (per square foot of floor area) Restaurant & Retail Establishments $ 13.90 $ 13.21 $ 12.51 $ 11.82 $ 11.12 Facilities Health Care $ 9.93 $ 9.43 $ 8.94 $ 8.44 5 7.94 Office & Other Services $ 6.20 $ 5.89 , $ 5.58 $ 5.27 S 4.96 Total Projected Revenue $ 18,244,320.00 $ 17,332,104.00 $ 16,419,:'::.00 $ 15,507,672.00 $ 14,595,456.00 Total Additional Amount Subsidized by Town $ 2,553,860.00 $ 3,466,076.00 , $ 4,378,292.00 $ 5,290,508.00 $ 6,202,724.00 September 5, 2017 - Page 76 of 162 TOWN IfO VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Review of State Legislation Senate Bill -152 Concerning Local Government Competition in the Provision of Specified Communication Services and Proposed Ballot Question PRESENTER(S): Ron Braden, Information Technology Director ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Obtain feedback and direction on the review of the county -wide effort to place ballot question to voters about authority to provide broadband services, specifically submitting a ballot question to the voters about the matter. Resolution No. 26, Series of 2017 provides the ballot question for the November 7, 2017 election which will be considered during the evening meeting. BACKGROUND: Eagle County, Gypsum, Eagle, Avon, and Minturn all plan to run a county -wide coordinated election question opting out of the provisions of SB -152. The town of Red Cliff voted to opt out of the law in 2014. Ninety-eight communities across the state of Colorado have voted to reclaim local telecommunications authority via the ballot box. In 2005, the state legislature passed SB 152, which discourages public investment in Internet network infrastructure. Even if local communities want to work with private sector partners, they need to present the question or risk going against the state law. As an increasing number of towns and counties realize that high-quality connectivity will not come from national providers, they are choosing to present the question to the voters. Whether they have immediate plans or simply consider the matter a question of local authority, all have chosen to free themselves from the confines of SB 152. ATTACHMENTS: Description Town Council Memorandum Senate Bill 152 September 5, 2017 - Page 77 of TOWN OF VAIIL. Memorandum To: Mayor and Town Council From: Ron Braden, Information Technology Director Date: August 29, 2017 Subject: Senate Bill SB -152 Background: Eagle County, Gypsum, Eagle, Avon, and Minturn all plan to run a county -wide coordinated election question opting out of the provisions of SB -152 (Red Cliff is not participating because they opted out back in 2014). Senate Bill 152 was passed in 2005 and prohibits government entities from allocating funding and entering into the retail Cable TV, Telecommunications, and Internet broadband business. It was primarily a bill driven by the lobbyists for the incumbents (Qwest, Comcast) to keep government entities from using tax dollars to compete with private business. This is a legitimate argument which holds water even today. The problem is that the incumbents are not putting the investment back into the unserved and underserved markets as they should and need to be, thus forcing local government entities to enter into the retail markets, or using monies to fund such initiatives. Staff Recommendation: Vail has positioned itself well over the past decade with public / private agreements* in order to avoid being put in this position, and we have no plans or desire to be in the retail cable / telecommunications / broadband business, but opting out of SB -152 not only gives us additional tools in the tool box for the future, but also shows a sign of support and solidarity with our partners in Eagle County. It should be noted that a vast majority of government entities in Colorado have already proposed and passed ballot initiatives to opt out of SB -152, including our neighboring counties. The State legislature has proposed many drafts to eliminate or change SB -152, but all have been introduced and failed on the floor due to lobbying efforts by the incumbents. Therefore, it is staffs recommendation that you direct counsel to draft ballot language for us to opt out of SB -152 along with the rest of Eagle County. Sincerely, Ron Braden, IT Director *2006 CenturyTel Agreement, 2008 CDOT Fiber IGA, 2014 Crown Castle Agreement, 2017 Aspen Wireless Agreement. September 5, 2017 - Page 78 of TOWN IfO VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Stream Tract Forest Management Plan Implementation PRESENTER(S): Gregg Barrie, Landscape Architect Paul Cada, Wildfire Program Administrator ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Staff requests that the council provide feedback on the proposed fall 2017 tree work and pre - approve up to $100,000 for the project, to be formally approved during the December budget supplemental process. Staff can provide the bid costs upon request prior to starting work in October. BACKGROUND: The proposed Stream Tract Forest Management Plan was implemented last spring and there is a call for action this upcoming fall 2017 to help manage the dead and dying spruce population along the town -owned stream tract. This is work that was started in the spring of this year and follows the Stream Tract Forest Management Plan Implementation, developed at the direction of the Council over the past year. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Removal of existing dead and dying trees is in the best interest of forest health as well as the safety of people and property. Staff recommends moving forward with the removal of approximately 60-100 hazard and brood trees between Vail Road and Cascade Village (Talisa). ATTACHMENTS: Description Memorandum September 5, 2017 - Page 79 of TOWN OF VAIL. Memorandum To: Vail Town Council From: Gregg Barrie, Senior Landscape Architect Paul Cada, Wildfire Program Administrator Date: September 5, 2017 Subject: Stream Tract Tree Management Plan Update I. PURPOSE The purpose of this item is to update the Town Council on the proposed Fall 2017 plans for managing the dead and dying spruce population along the town -owned stream tract. This is work that was started in the spring of this year and follows the Stream Tract Forest Management Plan, developed at the direction of the Council over the past year. 11. BACKGROUND Many of the native trees along Gore Creek are in decline due to infestations of two native insects — pine needle scale and spruce beetle. This has resulted in the death of over 500 trees over the past decade. Fortunately, the pine needle scale infestation seems to be improving. However, it has left many trees in a stressed state, making them more susceptible to attack by spruce beetle, which eventually kills the tree. Currently there are approximately 200 dead and dying trees in the town -owned stream tract along Gore Creek. Last spring, staff developed the Stream Tract Forest Management Plan (the Plan) in an effort to address the safety and forest management challenges associated with dying trees with a goal of working towards a resilient forested parcel that can withstand the periodic attack from native forest pests. The Plan recommended five actions including tree removals, preventative tree maintenance, revegetation, education and monitoring. For a detailed explanation of the recommended actions and additional background information, please refer to the Plan as well as the April 4, 2017 memorandum to the Town Council, both of which are attached. 111. TREE REMOVALS Much of the land along Gore Creek has been developed with trails, parks, buildings and homes. In many areas, the substantial number of dead trees creates hazards to both people and property. This was the case in the Ford Park area where trees were removed this past spring. However, it is known that dead and dying trees serve an September 5, 2017 - Page 80 of ecological role in a natural ecosystem. With this in mind, staff is looking at opportunities to leave dead trees where possible. The project this fall is focused on the area between Cascade Village (Talisa) and the Chapel Bridge in Vail Village. In that area, there are approximately 200 dead/dying trees, but many are in areas where they do not pose a hazard to people or property. Therefore, it is anticipated that around 60 for those dead trees should be removed. See the attached map. It is likely that additional "brood trees" will be identified while establishing the project and these should also be removed as a way to manage the spruce beetle infestation. These are trees that have already been infested, and will likely die in the next year. The Town of Vail advocates the use of Integrated Pest Management (IPM) as a way to manage a range of pests from noxious weeds to tree insects. IPM recommends four management methods — cultural, mechanical, biological and chemical. Whether hand pulling weeds, seeding native grasses to reduce bare soil or removing beetle -infested trees before the beetles can invade new territory, IPM seeks to reduce or eliminate the need for chemical controls when feasible. Of the five actions the stream tract Plan recommends, tree removal is likely the most important, both for safety and as a non -chemical control for spruce beetle. Tree removals are considered both a cultural and mechanical IPM control method by eliminating host trees (already dead) and removing the next generation of beetles. IV. PROJECT TIMING AND ESTIMATED COST During the spring, the tree cutting was timed to avoid migratory birds that inhabit trees along Gore Creek. October and November are an ideal time to continue cutting as nesting birds have moved through the area by then. In addition, it is a relatively quiet time around Vail, therefore impacts to residents and guests will be reduced. To continue the removal of dead and infested trees as recommended in the stream tract Plan, the project will be put out to bid and work will begin in early to mid-October. The cost of tree removals for the spring work averaged around $1,000 per tree. However, some trees for the fall project are in difficult locations and could cost more to remove. Staff would estimate the cost of the fall 2017 project at around $100,000. The work would require a supplemental budget appropriation, which would be requested during the December supplemental. It appears that the work being proposed for this fall will take care of the majority of the necessary cuts. In subsequent years, it should be more of a maintenance project in the town -owned stream tract. V. OTHER PLAN COMPONENTS • Staff is working with the Colorado State Forest Service to grow lodgepole pine and blue spruce seedlings from cones collected along Gore Creek. Seeds will be collected in the next few weeks. Viable seedlings should be available in approximately 18 months for a revegetation project in 2019. Town of Vail Page 2 September 5, 2017 - Page 81 of • The town installed 1,000 MCH pheromone packets during the spring to help protect vulnerable spruce trees from spruce beetle. The packets have shown to be only marginally effective against spruce beetle in other locations, however it is a biological method that will likely protect some trees. This component of the Plan will be continued next spring. • Look for opportunities during the removal process to leave sections of tree trunks as habitat for beneficial insects. • A letter was mailed to commercial pesticide applicators and arborists known to work in Vail. In addition, information will be sent to homeowners regarding tree pests, pesticide use and tree removals in the coming month. VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Removal of existing dead and dying trees is in the best interest of forest health as well as the safety of people and property. Staff recommends moving forward with the removal of approximately 60-100 hazard and brood trees between Vail Road and Cascade Village (Talisa) with a budget supplemental to be requested during December. VII. ACTION REQUESTED BY COUNCIL Staff requests that the council provide feedback on the proposed fall 2017 tree work and pre -approve up to $100,000 for the project, to be formally approved during the December budget supplemental process. Staff can provide the bid costs upon request prior to starting work in October. Attachments: 1) Map showing fall 2017 work areas 2) Stream Tract Forest Health Plan 3) Town Council memo — April 4, 2017 Town of Vail Page 3 September 5, 2017 - Page 82 of OZ 9 kr) Proposed Fall 2017 Stream Tract Treatment Area Lionshead Area High Priority Treatment Area V [- 90+ dead trees of various sizes leave for wildlife habitat AY!: - _Aly RO E FOREST RD __OC`KLEDGE Rp ----- BEAVER pqM k. F-1 High Priority Treatment Area Legend Stream Tract Trees Status Evaluated Mitigated TOV Stream Tract 0.025 0.05 Miles 0.1 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, Mapmylndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, TOV Wildfire September 5, 2017 - Page 83 of 162 Proposed Fall 2017 Stream Tract Treatment Area Cascade Area High Priority Treatment Area 30+ dead trees of various sizes leave for wildlife habitat Legend Stream Tract Trees Status Evaluated Mitigated TOV Stream Tract 0.025 0.05 Miles 0.1 Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, Mapmylndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community, TOV Wildfire September 5, 2017 - Page 84 of 162 TOWN OF VAIIL. Memorandum To: Vail Town Council From: Gregg Barrie, Senior Landscape Architect Paul Cada, Wildfire Program Administrator Date: April 4, 2017 Subject: Stream Tract Tree Management Plan Update I. PURPOSE The purpose of this item is to finalize recommendations for the Stream Tract Tree Management Plan based on previous Town Council and Planning and Environmental Commission comments. This is a follow-up discussion to council presentations on October 4, 2016 and March 7, 2017. 11. BACKGROUND As previously presented, the native trees in the Gore Creek are in decline due to infestations of two native insects — pine needle scale and spruce beetle. These infestations have resulted in the death of over 500 trees over the past decade. Many have been removed, with approximately 300 standing dead trees remaining on town - owned land between Ford Park and Donovan Park. At the direction of the Council, staff has developed a Stream Tract Forest Management Plan that recommends five actions for addressing safety and forest management challenges with a goal of working towards a resilient forested parcel that can withstand the periodic attack from native forest pests. 111. TREE REMOVAL Dead and dying trees serve an ecological role in a natural ecosystem. They are habitat for numerous species, they return nutrients to soil as they decay and their shade helps keep water temperatures suitable for native aquatic species. However, the lands along Gore Creek have been developed with trails, parks, buildings and homes. The substantial number of dead trees creates hazards to both people and property. Of the five strategies the Plan recommends, tree removal is likely the most important, both for safety and as a cultural control method to slow the beetle infestation through the elimination of "brood trees." September 5, 2017 - Page 85 of IV. BEETLES, BIRDS AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS In most of Colorado, the spruce beetle goes through a 2 -year cycle in the same tree. First, the female bores through the bark and creates a "gallery" for laying eggs in the "phloem" of the tree. This interrupts nutrient flow and eventually kills the tree. The larvae hatch and spend the winter in the tree. The following summer, they emerge as pupae and then reenter the same tree at the base to overwinter, protected from the cold by snow cover. They emerge the following spring, mate, and the female bores into a new tree to start the process over. Interrupting this process by removal of trees that are already dying will help slow the spread of this insect and is recommended by the Colorado State Forest Service. They also recommend creating "bait trees". The idea is to cut down highly stressed trees and leave them in place on the ground. Once they are infested, they can be removed and chipped to destroy the larvae inside. This can help protect other healthy trees. There are a number of bird species who use the Gore Creek habitat for nesting and breeding. Activity begins in late April and continues through the summer into September. This leaves a small window in April and a larger window from October into the winter for tree removals that won't affect breeding activities. The loss of mature trees has potential long-term impacts that include the loss of habitat and a reduction in shade that keeps the water cool. Making an effort to remove brood trees, trees that will be dead in the next year, can slow the spread of spruce beetle and perhaps protect many healthy trees. Not doing anything will result in more dead trees that present a safety hazard and will need to be dealt with in the future. V. TIMING AND ESTIMATED COST At the previous council presentation, it was recommended that the work should be performed over three seasons. After further discussion and study, and based on the beetle's reproductive cycle, bird nesting concerns and sensitivity for our residents and guest experiences, staff proposes the following accelerated schedule for addressing the spruce beetle infestation: • Perform a targeted removal project between April 10-21 on trees from Ford Park to Vail Valley Drive. This will eliminate 23 hazard trees and 23 brood trees along the north bank and XX trees along the south bank. The work is timed to be completed prior to the arrival of native hummingbirds for breeding season. Five (5) standing dead, identified as non -hazard trees, will be left in place as habitat. Staff has requested proposals from tree removal contractors to determine the cost. It is likely that several contractors will be hired to complete the work in this narrow window. • Perform a large removal project in the fall, starting after October 1st. This project will target new brood trees (those attacked during the summer) as well as hazard trees. While the full scope and required budget is not yet known, a 2 to 3 month window would allow for significant progress if the Council is willing to fund it. Staff would report back to Council after the April removal project to discuss funding. Town of Vail Page 2 September 5, 2017 - Page 86 of • April 2018 — hazard tree removal • Fall 2018 — work to complete the remainder of the dead trees as well as new brood trees. Continue monitoring of areas already cut to ensure elimination of brood trees. • Revegetation work will be implemented as part of the Gore Creek Riparian Buffer Restoration work. • Installation of MCH pheromone packets will occur each spring. These packets deter new infestations acting as a "no vacancy" sign on healthy trees. Based on recent tree removal costs, staff is estimating removal costs at around $750 per tree, with a project cost of approximately $225,000. These numbers can be adjusted once the April removal project is bid. April Removal Work 2017 Tree Maintenance budget Less annual maintenance work 2016 Rollforward April Supplemental Potential 2017 removal budget $ 65,000 <$ 30,000> (pruning, fertilizing, spraying) $ 19,000 $ 20,000 $ 74,000 This will allow for a productive spring removal, but does not fund the autumn removal work. A. Three -season removal (recommended) Completing the work over three seasons would require a 2017 Supplemental Budget Appropriation of $20,000 and a budget increase of approximately $40,000 in 2018/2019. B. Two -season removal Attempting to complete this work over two seasons could create logistical issues and closures during busy the summer season. It would require a 2017 Supplemental Budget Appropriation of $60,000 plus a budget increase of approximately $80,000 in 2018, subject to adjustment after this season's work. A Staff recommends that an effort should be made to perform the work over three seasons starting in 2017 using multiple contractors working in different zones. This will be the most effective way to reduce the spread of the existing spruce beetle infestation. VI. OTHER PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS A. Preventative Tree Maintenance Last season, the town reduced spraying activities by approximately 75%. This was accomplished by using an independent arborist to evaluate trees prior to spraying. Preventative spraying has shown to be effective in protecting the trees but once the pests are gone, spraying can be reduced. Continued evaluations will help staff determine spraying needs. Town of Vail Page 3 September 5, 2017 - Page 87 of The plan also recommends the use of pheromone non -aggregation packs to deter pests from invading trees. This would be considered a biological method of IPM. B. Revegetation As dead trees are removed, staff will look for opportunities to plant new native plants as a way to reestablish shade and habitat. Much of this type of work is ongoing with the riparian buffer enhancements for the Restore the Gore work C. Education Staff is working on a letter to commercial pesticide applicators and arborists known to work in Vail. In addition, information will be sent to homeowners regarding tree pests, pesticide use and tree removals in the coming month. D. Monitoring Town staff will continue to monitor the situation to ensure that the steps being implemented are effective. E. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Removal of existing dead and dying trees is in the best interest of forest health as well as the safety of people and property. Staff recommends the following: 1. Review the Stream Tract Forest Management Plan, and provide staff with suggestions and comments as needed. 2. Consider the timelines for completion of tree removals and approve funds in 2017 as suggested under Section V. Staff recommends a three -season approach. 3. The Plan will be presented to the Planning and Environmental Commission for additional comment and approval. The final plan will be provided to Council after PEC approval. If Council has no further comment, the plan will become policy, subject to adjustment as needed. F. ACTION REQUESTED BY COUNCIL Staff requests that the council provide feedback on the recommendations as well as the management goals of the proposed management plan. Town of Vail Page 4 September 5, 2017 - Page 88 of Town of Vail Stream Tract Forest Management Plan Executive Summary The forests in and around Vail have undergone significant change over the past two decades. Since the late 1990's, insects, diseases and weather patterns have affected nearly every tree species in the valley. Over this time period the Town of Vail has worked to manage this change in an environmentally sustainable and fiscally responsible way. The town has implemented projects that have addressed declining aspen health, mountain pine beetle, pine needle scale and most recently spruce beetle. In 2014 town staff positively identified the presence of spruce beetle in a small pocket of dead trees along Gore Creek in Ford Park. Since then, a large number of additional trees have been identified within the town -owned stream tract. Following a tour of a section of stream tract in late summer of 2016 Vail Town Council directed staff to form an interdisciplinary team to identify the scope of the current spruce beetle activity and develop a plan to mitigate its impacts. The team consists of representatives from public works, community development and fire. The plan that follows is a result of the initial work that the team completed in the fall and winter of 2016. The plan that is represented below provides specific guidance to management of the forested parts of the town -owned stream tract parcels. The plan recommends using an adaptive management approach to address the current spruce beetle infestation. The plan recommendations include a 5 -part system that includes tree removal, preventative tree maintenance, revegetation, education and monitoring. The desired end state for the stream tract is to have a forested parcel with vigorous trees that can withstand the periodic attack from native forest pests with little to no negative affects. Forest Management Objectives The Town of Vail strives to manage its lands in a way that balances environmental sustainability with community needs. The Town has established the following objectives to meet the stated goal. These objectives are ranked in terms of priority. 1. Safety 2. Management of insect and disease activity 3. Retention of ecological benefits Area Description This plan focuses on forest management on the town -owned parcel commonly referred to as the "stream tract". The stream tract can generally be defined as the Gore Creek stream corridor from Ford Park to Donovan Park. The stream tract consists of 21 contiguous parcels totaling 64.6 acres. The area is approximately 3.2 miles long and 400 feet wide at is widest part. The Gore Creek stream channel takes up a majority of the parcel with the balance consisting of primarily riparian zones. Appendix A shows a visual representation of the property boundaries. September 5, 2017 - Page 89 of The stream tract has many uses including open space, developed recreational trails and designated parks. Many residents and guests of the town enjoy walking or riding along the developed recreation trail. The stream tract also provides exceptional ecological benefit to the Gore Creek ecosystem. The forested area along the stream banks provides habitat for wildlife and nutrient input to the creek, filters runoff before it enters the stream and helps regulate water temperature by shading large parts of the creek. Stand Description For the purposes of this plan it was determined that a quantitative survey of the property was not necessary. Below is a qualitative summary of the forested area of the stream tract: The forested parts of the stream tract can be described as a mature wet mixed conifer stand consisting of lodgepole pine, Douglas -fir, sub -alpine fir, Engleman spruce and blue spruce. The understory of the stand consists of many riparian species including willow species, bog birch, rocky mountain maple and various forbs and grasses. Understory regeneration is present in some portions of property, but is not very prevalent. Random sampling of trees throughout the stream tract shows an average age of about 150 years with some trees as old as 250+ years. Due to the proximity to year round water the trees in the stream tract grow at a faster rate then those found on the hillsides near them. Insect and Disease Concerns Insect and disease activity within the property has been high for at least the last decade. The property and area in general have seen epidemic outbreaks of mountain pine beetle and pine needle scale. In 2014 active pockets of spruce beetle were identified on the far eastern edge of the property in Ford Park. Since then, these pockets of spruce beetle have grown in size and a number of new pockets have been identified. Pockets of spruce beetle activity are present along other river corridors within Eagle County and throughout Colorado. In addition to the insect activity on the property, development has made a significant impact on overall tree vigor. A large number of trees show signs of damage from nearby construction and development. Physical scarring and soil compaction in the rooting zones have left a number of the trees susceptible to fungus and overall decreased vigor. Over the past 10 years the town has tried a number of preventative treatment methods to manage insect and disease populations on the stream tract. These treatments include everything from stem injections and root drenches to anti -aggregate pheromone packets. The town's major focus in the stream tract has been the control of pine needle scale population. The large populations of insects and diseases combined with other abiotic factors have resulted in a high level of mortality within the stream tract property. Over the past decade town staff and contracted labor have removed trees every year, totally nearly 500 dead or diseased trees over the past 10 years. In 2016 an inventory of dead and dying trees on the stream tract was completed. The inventory showed a total of 266 dead or diseased trees within the stream tract. A map showing the 2016 inventory is included below in Appendix B. September 5, 2017 - Page 90 of Forest Management Actions As a result of the recently completed dead and dying tree inventory, the Town of Vail formed an internal working group to develop an action plan for addressing the large number of standing dead trees and overall forest health on the stream tract property. The group used the stated objectives of this plan to develop the forest management actions that are presented below. The actions follow the guidelines of Integrated Pest Management, or IPM, which recommends the use of multiple methods — mechanical, cultural, biological and chemical to manage pests. This plan focuses on mechanical and cultural methods, with chemical methods in support. Appendix C outlines a proposed work plan and map for addressing the issue. Action Item 1- Tree Removal It is desirable to leave dead trees along the stream corridor where possible. Dead trees provide a number of ecological benefits including; stream bank stabilization, shading of the stream corridor, wildlife habitat and nutrient input into the ecosystem. At the same time, the stream corridor through Vail is full of human activity and encroachments and standing dead trees present a safety concern. While some trees can be left in place, each tree should be evaluated to determine a) is the tree a "hazard" and b) is it a "brood tree". Hazard Tree The International Society of Arboriculture defines a "hazard tree" as "a tree or tree part that has a high likelihood of failure and causing damage or injury." It is recommended that all dead or dying trees that present a threat to life and property be removed as soon as practical. Not all trees present a threat to life or property, with a "threat" defined as a tree that has a target to hit. The group has defined that a tree is a threat if it is within 1 '/2 times its height from a building, street or developed pedestrian way or as otherwise defined by qualified town staff. Brood Tree For this project, a "brood tree" is one that is or could be a host to spruce beetle larvae. A brood tree is a host tree that may be diseased or damaged that allows the spruce beetle to reproduce and mature into the next generation of beetles. Removal of brood trees is a cultural method of pest control to slow the spread of spruce beetle in Vail. The removal of brood trees could help to reduce the ability of the spruce beetle to reproduce and help with population control. There are multiple constraints that will be considered when scheduling tree removals. They include winter and summer tourism, native bird nesting/breeding times, spring runoff and brood tree timing. Tree removals will be scheduled to minimize impacts to each of these concerns and prioritized based on a tree's hazard level. High hazard trees may require removal at any time and, conversely, low hazard trees may be left in place as habitat. Indications of imminent threat include a heavy lean, washed out root systems, ground around the root zone lifting or cracking, large amount of fungus fruiting bodies on the truck or in rooting zone and/or visible decay of the trunk. It is anticipated that in the course of mitigating the dead tree hazards some healthy live trees will be damaged. Residual trees that are damaged during target tree removal or those that will be compromised because of tree removal should be removed. September 5, 2017 - Page 91 of Action Item 2- Preventive Treatment The town should continue to develop and implement preventative treatment programs to address spruce beetle and pine needle scale on the property. There is no one solution that will solve the insect and disease issues but a combination of techniques may slow infestations. The town's pine needle scale preventative treatment program has shown signs of effectiveness on some portions of the property and little to no effectiveness on others. This program should be continued with an adaptive management approach to change practices as necessary to maximize effectiveness while reducing the overall use of insecticides in the stream tract. Spruce beetle preventive treatment should be focused on decreasing the live beetle populations and deterring beetles from surrounding areas from infesting trees on the stream tract. Chemical options are limited due to the close proximity of open water, however, this plan recommends two control methods: The first part is removing actively infested and potential host trees. Actively infested trees (brood trees) should be identified and removed on an annual basis. The trunks of the trees should be treated in a way to decrease the potential to spread beetle populations to other areas. Potential host trees are those that are substantially weakened such as green trees blown over or those heavily infested with pine needle scale. Potential host trees should be removed as soon as practical and treated as though they may be infested. The second part of the preventive treatment is to use anti -aggregate pheromones to deter outside populations of spruce beetles from infesting trees on the property. The MCH pheromones specifically target spruce beetle and will not affect non -target insects or the wildlife that feeds upon them. Action Item 3- Revegetation Areas affected by forest management activities should be evaluated for need of revegetation. All revegetation planning should be coordinated within the framework of the Restore the Gore strategic action plan and be supervised by the town staff that oversees that program. The general goals of a revegetation program will be to enhance natural regeneration where needed, to add shade to keep water temperatures down and to add riparian vegetative buffers between developed areas and the creek. The town will work with the Colorado State Forest Service in an effort to replant similar ecotypes for spruce, fir and pine species and potentially for willow and alder species. This may be accomplished by cone, seed and stem collection along the stream tract. Action Item 4- Public Education Public education is an important part of all forest management actions. The public should be informed of the actions that are implemented by the town. The goal of the public education is to convey the objectives of this plan as well as foster understanding of the town's belief in environmental sustainability and ecological impacts of the activities that we implement. September 5, 2017 - Page 92 of The town should use all practical communication methods to keep the community informed of actions of this plan. Additionally, consideration should be given to include information about sustainable forest management into the Restore the Gore strategic action plan. Action Item 5 - Monitoring and Maintenance Monitoring and maintenance of the stream tract property will be critical to maintaining a safe and healthy forest stand. The Town has always conducted informal monitoring of the stream tract property for forest health. In 2015 a quick survey of the property was conducted. In 2016 this survey was expanded and enhanced to help track insect population growth. In addition, tree evaluations prior to spraying helped reduce overall insecticide applications by nearly 75% in 2016. One of the enhancements was the use of a GIS based inventory. It is recommended that the Town continue to use a GIS based inventory system to tract the infestation, removal and revegetation on the stream tract. Annual monitoring will help to determine effectiveness of treatment plans and inform future year's budgets and work plans. The forested stands of the stream tract will always require some maintenance work to maintain forest health. The Town should continue to use town staff and contracted labor to monitor and maintain the stands. Once the majority of the standing dead trees are removed focus should turn to ensuring the remaining trees are healthy and vigorous. Conclusion The loss of mature spruce trees along the stream corridor is unfortunate, especially at a time when improving water quality in Gore Creek is a community priority. The ongoing spread of spruce beetle will continue to exacerbate the problem. Acting now to remove brood trees, deter new infestations through pheromones and developing an effective revegetation program will help reduce the impacts due to loss of shade, loss of bank stabilizing root systems and will help reduce the numbers of future dead and dying trees. Managing the forest of the Gore Creek stream corridor within the Plan objectives of safety, management of insect and disease activity and retention of ecological benefits will help balance environmental sustainability with community needs and will protect the important resources along Gore Creek. September 5, 2017 - Page 93 of TOWN Of9 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Budget 2018 Proposals PRESENTER(S): Kelli McDonald, Economic Development Manager; Ron Braden, Information Technology Director; Kathleen Halloran, Finance Director ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide feedback to staff on the various proposals. BACKGROUND: The attached three proposals for 2018 funding of the Vail App, a visit to Japan for the exploration of a sisterhood relationship and an update on the process for Council Contributions will be proposed as part of the 2018 budget process. This is an opportunity for staff to provide additional information to Town Council based on feedback received during the budget retreat held on August 15. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Provide feedback to staff on the various proposals. ATTACHMENTS: Description Counci Contribution update Vail App Update Town Council Memorandum Vail App Presentation Memo Packet Japan Invitation Proposal 090517 September 5, 2017 - Page 94 of TOWN OF VAIL' Memorandum TO: Vail Town Council FROM: Finance Department, Economic Development Department DATE: September 5, 2017 SUBJECT: Council Contribution Policy and Process SUMMARY The purpose of this memo is to update Council on the current process for Council Contributions, special event funding and tracking of contributed in-kind services. Staff is also requesting that Council consider a revised process for Signature Events funded outside of the Commission on Special Events (CSE) budget. The goal of a revised process is to expedite and facilitate event production in a manner consistent with current practices of CSE and staff. II. DISCUSSION As a part of the 2014 budget process, Council approved a revised contributions policy to simplify the process and establish parameters around the protection of certain events. Council contribution funding applications are accepted once per year, so that Council can review the requests in conjunction with the annual operating budget. The CSE is funded annually as a part of the General Fund operating budget and Business License Fee collections, then seeks proposals from event producers and has an extensive review process to determine funding allocations. In addition, several large events have been funded by General Fund reserves (2015 Alpine World Ski Championships, US Pro Challenge and previously the Burton US Open) because the funding commitment is outside of annual operating budget parameters. The creation of categories was intended to better define the process for applicants and a more streamlined budget expectation. The following definitions have been used since 2014: Vail Signature Events: The definition of "Vail Signature Events": Events and programs which have been built by solid organizations over a period of time and enjoy national and international recognition for excellence. These events represent the Vail brand at the highest level and the loss of any one of them would have a negative effect. The customer base includes a significant portion of destination guests and economic impact to the town is profound. Example of these events and programs would include Bravo! Vail, GoPro Mountain Games, Vail Dance Festival and Vail Jazz Festival. Funding of this category is allocated outside of the CSE annual budget; however the results are reported to the Commission on Special Events as part of the standard recap process. September 5, 2017 - Page 95 of Destination Overnight Events: This category represents events and programs that provide the town an opportunity for new or one- time events such as the US Pro Challenge and the 2015 Alpine World Ski Championships. Funding of this category is allocated outside of the CSE annual budget due to the size of funding request and potential for one-year only type of events; however the results are reported to the Commission on Special Events as part of the standard recap process and could also be presented to Town Council. The funding for this category is not automatic each year, but major events and/or programs with the potential to build the Vail brand even further and have a significant impact on the town's economy would be considered on an individual basis. Vail Signature events are also able to apply for funding from this category with a new opportunity that fits the criteria. The funding for Destination Overnight Events is in addition to the CSE budget and typically funded from reserves. Staff is recommending that both of these types of signature events follow the same process as CSE - funded events regarding the application process, documentation of in-kind support and re -cap reporting. Currently these events submit a Council Contribution application to the Finance staff every two years. Staff is recommending that instead of this process, that the signature event promoters submit a CSE application each year. The CSE application is more in-depth regarding event details, logistics and town support needs such as police and public works services. The funding would continue to be sponsored by the Town Council outside of the normal CSE budget allocation. *Since the applications for 2018 have already been submitted, staff recommends the application requirement begin with the 2019 funding requests. Re -cap reporting to the CSE would be required for 2018 events. Does Council support this shift in process? Services/Expertise: This category funds an aspect of services/expertise that the town does not already provide, supports the TOV physical plant and is appropriate for governmental support. Examples of this category currently include support of High Five Access TV, Colorado Snowsports Museum and Hall of Fame, Betty Ford Alpine Gardens and the Eagle Valley Childcare. The town no longer requires an annual application to be filled out for ongoing operating support (unless additional requests are made), which is included in the annual budget at a set level each year. This process is intended to cover operating expenses only. Rent forgiveness is shown as an in-kind contribution, however staff recommends updating the values as a part of the 2018 budget cycle. Education & Enrichment Events: This category is proposed for life-long learning type of events or programs and has now been incorporated into the annual CSE process, with a dedicated funding level of $150,000 per year. Examples of this category include Vail Centre, Vail Veterans Programming, Vail Symposium and Betty Ford Alpine Gardens Programming, in addition to new events that meet the criteria. In-kind Funding: Staff -level approval of annual in-kind funding to non-profit organizations for services such as ice time at Dobson Arena, use of Donovan Pavilion/Grand View and public works or police department services are documented in the annual budget process along with Council Contributions. In addition, in-kind requests as a part of special event funding are tracked internally via the CSE application process. It is the responsibility of staff to ensure that event sponsorship levels for the Town of Vail reflect the level of funding including cash and in-kind. -2 September 5, 2017 - Page 96 of III. ACTION FROM COUNCIL Does Town Council support staff's request for changes to the event governance process? -3 September 5, 2017 - Page 97 of TOWN OF VAIIL. Memorandum To: Mayor and Town Council From: Ron Braden, Information Technology Director Date: August 29, 2017 Subject: Vail App Update Mr. Mayor and Town Council Members, As part of the budget process, we wanted to give council an update on the deployment of the Vail App ...development, usage, and funding moving forward. Development. We finished development on the Vail App over the summer and pushed the last update to the App store in July. All of our Phase II development initiatives are now complete and the App is fully functional. With Apple iOS accounting for nearly 80% of our 24,000 users (which also falls in line with the public Wi-Fi system), we have been focusing our development and bug fixes on the Apple platform first. We still have a few lingering performance issues that we need to address in both the iOS and Android platforms, but since we have exhausted all of the allocated development funding for this year, we wanted to hold off on any remaining items until we get direction from council on the funding aspect. Usage. As you will see from the included PowerPoint slides, the App has been extremely successful. As expected, the most highly used clicks are Parking and Bus Information, followed closely by local business information. The way finding map is the most highly used module in the App and we are currently working to put this map into a usable format for our web site(s) and publications. Funding. Based on the usage statistics and feedback that we have received from the public, we recommend that council continue to fund this project. We have plans to add more features to the App this fall (Live Chat integration for the Welcome Centers) and will evaluate the usage statistics annually to see how it's performing and the cost / benefit analysis. Joe Cleary from Resort App will be here for the presentation, and to answer any questions council may have about the revenue side. Sincerely, Ron Braden, IT Director September 5, 2017 - Page 98 of VAIL App � 1 VAIL � J Available on the App Store GET IT ON oo le play 2017 September 5, 2010- Wg0199irtit F62VAIL App Marketplace Statistics • The number of Android and iOS apps have grown from fewer than 500,000 in 2008 to over 5 million in 2017, with revenues exceeding 30 billion. • A new Gartner study released this year shows that 70% of applications will run on mobile devices in the form of Apps by 2022. loba App Down oa • s o = ass 00 Bi hon is ear Estimated mobile app downloads worldwide (in billions) 300 250 Free • Paid 200 C/tei 179.66 150 -:::::::::0 138,8b 102.1b 100 64.06 50 - 2012 2013 2014 2015 224.8b 2016 268.7b 2017 statists. Mashable e: Gartner September 5, 2017 - Page 100 of 162 2 VAIL App Analytics • New Users — 24,503 • iPhone - 17,335 • Android — 7,168 • Total VAIL App Users — 50,840 • Average Daily Users — 128 • Average Sessions Per Day — 280.9 • Median Session Length — 30 seconds • Average Sessions Per Day — 3 • Average Clicks Per Session — 6 • Demographic Breakdown • Average Age : 35-54 • Gender split : 54% Female 46% Male • Average HH Income: 81% Over 150k • Education: 72% College or better September 5, 2017 - Page 101 of 162 3 VAIL App User Engagement (November 14, 2016—April 23, 2017) lank Business Click Through 1 Town of Vail Bus Routes 2 Vail Parking Structures 3 Vendetta's 4 Vail Ticket Office 5 Almresi 6 The Red Lion 7 Vintage 8 Big Bear Bistro 9 Eagle County Bus System 10 Pepi's Bar & Restaurant 11 The Remedy Bar 12 Larkspur Restaurant & Bar 13 Los Amigos 14 Russell's 15 Vail Ski Base 16 Bart & Yeti's 17 Vail Vitality Center 18 Bistro Fourteen 19 Avalanche Pub 20 Haagen-Dazs 21 4 Eagle Ranch 22 Shakedown 23 The Wagon 24 Donovan Park 25 Ice Rink - Solaris 1076 647 595 497 489 480 463 450 375 371 362 354 331 324 314 305 283 279 260 241 229 217 197 194 181 ✓ Four of the top ten visited businesses are TOV/Guest Experience assets ✓ This validates that the app is working the way we hoped it would ✓ 19 out of the 25 businesses listed here are using the enhanced listing of the app to maximize their exposure ✓ This validates that the app works as an advertising model as well as a Guest Experience asset September 5, 2017 - Page 102 of 162 4 Consumer Adoption • Capitalizes on existing consumer behavior: "there's an app for that" • Entry point for app download through Welcome Centers • Free! • Easy and simple user interface • Adds social interaction, offers in -app connection to family or friend groups • Largest gain in users during 2017 Burton US Open September 5, 2017 - Page 103 of 162 5 VAIL App Offers Valuable Guest -Centric Features • Parking (real time parking availability) • Push Notifications for Events, Deals and Town Information • Lodging (with ability to add pricing) • Complete List of Businesses • Bus Schedules • 1-70 Road Conditions • Interactive Map > Digital and Physical versions > Wayfinding • Calendar of Events • Hiking Guide • Bus to Hike Guide September 5, 2017 - Page 104 of 162 6 VAIL App New Features Lodging Platform The VAIL App Lodging Platform allows our lodging partners to list room rates on the Vail App in real-time. Our Lodging platform will point directly to the lodging partner website for direct bookings that will not incur any additional charges for each booking. This provides the opportunity for the Vail App to have the lowest rates available since the lodging partner will keep 100% of the booking rate. There will be no additional charges or commissions on any of the bookings. • • 5:24 PM U 26%15 The Lodge at Vail e Lodge at Vail East Gore Creek Ddve Vail. CO 81657 Call 970-429-5044 IMF.W Tnm 11..nn Se cr ram�aw....amw Fulh September 5, 2017 - Page 105 of 162 7 VAIL App New Features Interactive Map The new interactive map is now available in multiple formats for print, online and mobile. It can be direct linked to any TOV Business and will be supported and maintained by ResortApp. TOV now has an updated digital map that can be manipulated by in house staff. • -102 AT&T ^0 5:343 PM O 25M CI Map Areas September 5, 2017 - Page 106 of 162 8 VAIL App New Features New Research Capabilities The VAIL App database is being used to survey guests through RRC research. This database can now be utilized in multiple research platforms at any time during the year. September 5, 2017 - Page 107 of 162 9 Funding Breakdown Annual Maintenance $15,000.00 Administration $65,000.00 Marketing $20,000.00 Total $100,000.00 (VLMDAC has budgeted $35,000) Annual Maintenance — This provides for continual development necessary on the back end of the app to be sure it keeps up with the changes and updates in the operating device software. This will also allow us to keep up to date and implement innovative technologies as they become available. Administration — This fee represents the day to day operation of the app including all updates to the calendar of events, deals, new businesses and database management. Also covered are all Vail App social media accounts and their respective advertising campaigns. All services provided under the current contract with the Town of Vail will also be supported under this fee. Marketing — This covers an annual marketing campaign designed and implemented by the VLMDAC working in conjunction with ResortApp. September 5, 2017 - Page 108 of 162 10 TOWN OF9 Memorandum To: Mayor and Town Council From: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk, Kelli McDonald, Economic Development Manager Date: September 5, 2017 Subject: Sisterhood Exploration Visit 2018: Invitation to visit Japan, Yamanouchi Town and Nagano Prefecture SUMMARY Please find attached two letters, one from the Mayor of Yamanouchi Town and the other from Governor of Nagano Prefecture. The letters invite the Vail Town Council to visit Japan in both locations next January as a part of the continued exploration of a sisterhood arrangement. Both communities have supported the objective outlined below. OBJECTIVE Both of our towns enjoy the spirit and the natural beauty of I'ving in the mountains, the Town of Yamanouchi seeks a Sisterhood with the Town of Vail. Our hope is to encourage bilateral efforts to cu tivate further development of our economies, our soc'et es and a mutual cross cultural understanding through interactions in a wide range of areas including but not limited to, promot on of tourism, sustainable environment development, and educational exchanges. Souichi Nakamura, the representative appointed by Governor Shuichi Abe, Governor of Nagano and Mayor Takefushi, Yamanouchi-machi, Japan, has been working with town staff on travel arrangements for a Vail delegation to engage in an exploration visit for a sisterhood relationship. Mr. Nakamura will join the Vail delegation on this visit, serving as the guide and translator. It should be noted some of the itinerary items and meetings may be subject to change depending on final dates and schedules of Japan officials. The discussions have included a proposal by their officials to fund the Japan specific expenses, accommodations and meals; this business point will need to be finalized in the near future. The memo outlines some proposed travel dates, travel itinerary, and a budget request for 2018 expenses related to the Japan visit as well as exchange programming associated with the Sisterhood Agreements. Proposed 2018 Dates Please see three date options below presented by the Japan delegation: 1. Jan 17 — 23 (Wed. through Tuesday) 2. Jan 19 — 25 (Friday through Thursday) 3. Jan 20 — 26 (Saturday through Friday) Please note several meetings around this January timeframe: • the second council meeting is January 16 • CAST meets on Jan 18 and 19 • there are five Tuesdays in January which helps create a longer window between council meetings September 5, 2017 - Page 109 c Previous Vail delegations for sisterhood exploration visits have included town council members, staff, and community members and/or board members. The "objectives" of the sisterhood relationship may help in determining "who" might become part of the delegation. Visiting delegates may be those people who are able to provide dialogue on the focus areas; Japan exchange programming focus areas are proposed to include mountain tourism and environmental sustainability. Proposed Day 1 &2 Day 3 Day 4 Travel Itinerary (schedule is subject to change) Travel 1. Vail to Denver Days 2. Denver to Tokyo Touring Activities Touring Activities And Business Meeting 1. Imperial Palace — Chiyoda, Tokyo 2. Matsumoto Castle — Matsumoto City 3. Travel to Yamonouchi 1. Jigokudani Snow Monkey Park 2. Shiga Kogen Ski Area 3. Business Meeting with Municipal Japanese Officials — Municipal Building (Governor will attend) 4. "Unveiling of Monument" in recognition of Sisterhood relationship in Peaceful Garden 5. Welcome Dinner Day 5 Ski Day 1. Option to ski at Shiga Kogen 2. Travel to Nagano City Day 6 Business Meeting 1. Business meeting with Nagano Prefecture Governor and government officials 2. Travel to Tokyo Day 7 Travel 1. Tokyo to Denver Day 2. Denver to Vail Request direction from Town Council on the following questions: Does the Town Council want to fund an exploration visit to Japan in January Which dates might work best? Does the proposed itinerary seem appropriate for an exploration of the town Proposed estimated budget for 2018 visit to Japan: proposed 2018 Japan Expenses 6 people airline tickets $2000 each Shiga Kogen skiing per diem ($100/day) contingency Town of Vail 12, 000.00 1,200.00 3,600.00 3,200.00 20,000.00 Spend night in Tokyo Spend night in Yamanouchi Spend night in Yamanouchi Spend night in Nagano City Spending night in Tokyo 2018? and the region? Page 2 September 5, 2017 - Page 110 c Does the Town Council want to include funding for another exchange program with San Miguel de Allende, if programming is deemed appropriate? This potential programming would be reviewed with Town Council prior to implementation. At this time there has not been any discussion with SMA officials about planning an exchange in 2018. However, staff proposes budgeting $15,000 for exchange programming next year in an effort to keep the relationship aligned with Vail. The 2018 proposed total budget for exploration and implementation of Sisterhood Agreements is $35,000. 2017 Sisterhood Relationship Expenditures: • San Miguel Literary Conference: $10,000 for attendance by two CSE members and one community member (local educator and poet); goal was to attend a literary conference to better understand if this type of event would be successful in Vail; report was provided to CSE • Japan delegation exploration visit to Vail $18,000 for twelve Japan delegates to understand if a sisterhood relationship would be beneficial with Vail The Town Council Action Plan (2015-2017) has continued to program both "peer resort visits" and explore "sisterhood arrangements" these past few years. These efforts have been important in helping us better understand our competitors and provide an opportunity to pursue broader sisterhood exchange platforms that speak to our vision for being the "premier international mountain resort community". Attachments: ✓ Japan's Invitation Letters (2) Town of Vail Page 3 September 5, 2017 - Page 111 c Letter of Invitation Mr. Dave Chapin Mayor of the Town of Vail July 18, 2017 Dear Mr. Chapin, I hope this letter finds you well, and that you are enjoying the summer. Thank you so much for inviting me to the Town of Vail. It came home to me that a big step was taken toward a friendly exchange relationship between Vail and Yamanouchi. I sincerely hope that further development will take place, and mutual understanding and partnership will be deepened through interactions in various areas including tourism, environment and education. Looking towards the near future, I would like to invite you to Yamanouchi Town in February 2018, when our town will bustle with many tourists. Yamanouchi Town is Japan's leading all -season resort visited by 4.6 million guests each year regardless of the season, from inside and outside of Japan. It is home to Shiga Highlands, one of the venues for 1998 Nagano Winter Olympics and the core area of a UNESCO Biosphere Reserve. Yudanaka-Shibu Hot Spring Village is blessed with large amount of hot spring water, and nostalgic village streets and Snow Monkeys attract many visitors. Northern Shiga Highlands is a winter sports mecca with pastoral landscapes remaining in the area. We are also blessed with great climate and geography, which yield tasty "Shiga Highlands" brand fruits, including apples, grapes and peaches. They are fed by clear streams originating in the Shiga Highlands 2,000m above sea level, as the product slogan says, "Fed by Clear Streams — Reason for the Good Taste." Again, I would be honored to have you in our town during the peak tourist season. I am looking forward to seeing you then. I wish you and every citizen of Vail good health and continued success. Sincerely, Yoshitaka Takefushi Mayor of Yamanouchi Town September 5, 2017 - Page 112 c Nagano Prefectural Government 692-2 Habashita, Minami Nagano Nagano City 380-8570 JAPAN July 2017 Mr. Dave Chapin Mayor of the Town of Vail Vail, Colorado Dear Mr. Chapin, Thank you so much for kindly accepting a visit by Mr. Yoshitaka Takefushi, Mayor of Yamanouchi Town. When I visited your town last August, I was very much moved by the sight of magnificent mountains and beautiful town streets lined with attractive hotels. I remember that the sight also reminded me of the landscapes of Nagano Prefecture, which gave me a vision of friendly relationship agreements with our municipalities. After I came home, we suggested Yamanouchi Town, Japan's leading mountain resort, for your friendly relationship agreement, and now Yamanouchi Town is visiting the Town of Vail. I understand that you have given special consideration for their visit, and I greatly appreciate it. I heartily hope that both towns will have meaningful time during the visit, and a great step forward will be made toward a friendly relationship. I am confident that advancement of a friendly exchange relationship between Vail, the finest snow resort in the North America, and Yamanouchi, the best snow resort in Japan, will surely lead to further development of both towns. Also, Mr. Takefushi is eager to invite the members of the Town of Vail to Yamanouchi next February. I am also very much looking forward to seeing you and other delegates in Nagano. wish you good health and happiness. I also wish the Town of Vail continued prosperity. Sincerely, Shuichi Abe Governor of Nagano Prefecture JAPAN September 5, 2017 - Page 113 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: VLHA Meeting Results ATTACHMENTS: Description VLHAAugust 8, 2017 Meeting Results VLHAAugust 15, 2017 Special Meeting Results TOWN Of9 September 5, 2017 - Page 114 c Vail Local Housing Authority TOWN OF VAIt Meeting Results MEMBERS PRESENT Steve Lindstrom Mary McDougall James Wilkins Francisco Meza Staff George Ruther Lynne Campbell Tuesday, August 8, 2017 3:00 PM — 5:00 PM Community Development Large Conference Room 75 South Frontage Road West, Vail, Colorado 81657 MEMBERS ABSENT Molly Murphy A quorum being present Lindstrom called the meeting to order at 3:OOPM. James Wilkins motioned to enter an Executive Session pursuant to C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(a)(e) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, regarding the redevelopment of the Solar Vail property. Motion: Wilkins Second: McDougall Vote: 3-0 Discussion will continue at a special meeting to be held at 4:00pm, August 15, 2017 in the Community Development Large Conference Room. Open Lands Plan Recommended Housing Policy Statement Moved to August 22, 2017 meeting. Vail InDEED Website Update Moved to August 22, 2017 meeting. Review and Approve July 25, 2017 Meeting Results The Board reviewed and approved the July 25, 2017 meeting results. Motion: Wilkins Second: Meza Vote: 3-0 (McDougall departed at 5:00 pm) Adjournment at 5:15 PM Motion: Wilkins Second: Meza Next Regular Meeting - August 22, 2017 Page 1 Vote: 3-0 (McDougall departed at 5:00 pm) September 5, 2017 - Page 115 c Future Agenda Items: • Revision 1999 Employee Housing Guidelines, Lottery Process Page 2 September 5, 2017 - Page 116 c TOWN OFD Vail Local Housing Authority Special Meeting Results Tuesday, August 15, 2017 4:00 PM — 5:00 PM Community Development Large Conference Room 75 South Frontage Road West, Vail, Colorado 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT Steve Lindstrom Mary McDougall James Wilkins Staff: George Ruther Lynne Campbell MEMBERS ABSENT Francisco Meza Molly Murphy Attendees: Johannes Faessler Jerry Flynn Greg Finch John Mills A quorum being present Lindstrom called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM. Wilkins moved to enter an Executive Session pursuant to C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(a)(e) — to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, regarding the redevelopment of the Solar Vail property. Motion: Wilkins Second McDougall Vote: 3-0 Meeting reconvened at 5:15 PM. Adjournment at 5:15 PM Motion: Wilkins Second: McDougall Vote: 3-0 Next Meeting — August 22, 2017 Future Agenda Items: • Revision 1999 Employee Housing Guidelines, Lottery Process Please call 970-479-2136 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 48 hour notification dial 711. Page 1 September 5, 2017 - Page 117 c VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Town of Vail Community Picnic Responses ATTACHMENTS: Description Town of Vail Community Picnic Responses TIMM OF9 September 5, 2017 - Page 118 c TOWN OF MAIL: Memorandum To: Town Council From: Patty McKenny, Acting Town Manager Date: September 5, 2017 Subject: Community Picnic Comments and Suggestions I. BACKGROUND The Vail Town Council and staff hosted neighborhood picnics on July 25 at Bighorn Park and on Aug. 15 at Donovan Park. The picnics are used as a community outreach measure to connect with residents and guests. Comments and suggestions from the two gatherings are presented below along with staff updates. Comments have been sorted into the categories of neighborhoods, short-term rentals, enforcement, public safety, environment, events, parking, major construction projects and compliments. II. COMMUNITY PICNIC SUGGESTONS AND RESPONSES Q/C = Question/Comment TOV = Town of Vail Update BIGHORN PARK - July 25 Neighborhoods Q/C: Thanks for 30 min. bus Q/C: Ditto — Pam Q/C: Ditto — Barb Q/C: Love the 30 minute summer bus schedule. Please keep it!! TOV: The 30 minute bus service was approved for a trial period — will be re-evaluated with Council during upcoming 2018 budget discussions. Q/C: The water run-off dips to several of the streets of the frontage road are unnecessarily too deep!! Why not make them more reasonable! TOV The dips help keep water from pooling onto the Frontage Roads which can create dangerous road conditions. Some dips may be deeper than others due to road grade differences. Enforcement Q/C: More speed (or slow down) signs on Meadow Drive TOV: Town policy is to post speed limit signs at the start of a road that takes off from a September 5, 2017 - Page 119 c major artery such as the Frontage Roads and Bighorn Road. Once it is posted at the start, it is not the policy to repeat the same speed limit sign as the road continues unless the speed limit changes, which does happen on a few of the residential roads within Vail. Q/C: Thanks — Better speed enforcement on Bighorn Road TOV: The Police Department has done additional speed enforcement in this area and informal speed surveys show that a majority of vehicles are at or below the speed limit. Very few crashes occur on this roadway. Q/C: Consider "dismount" zone for bikes in Vail Village — too crowded and dangerous riders TOV: The current Traffic Code used by the Town does not allow for a Village wide dismount zone and there are no current Town Codes to prohibit riding of bikes in the Village. Council may consider this in the future. Events Q/C: Limit dogs at Farmers' Market TOV: The Town Council is aware of the request and will be discuss. Compliments Q/C: Thank you TOV & VRD! Great & friendly staff! Q/C: Awesome — Thank you Town of Vail — You all have been wonderful!! Q/C: Awesome staff! Loved the water station. Great water! Q/C: Thanks! Great! Q/C: Always looking forward for this event! Q/C: Great annual event! Great people!! Thank you! Q/C: Great job on Booth Creek Park!! Thanks for listening to the neighbors in and around that area! DONOVAN PAVILION — August 15 Neighborhoods Q/C: Spruce Creek bus enclosure — big safety issue! TOV: Drivers rarely pick anyone up at this stop in West Vail, which could be one reason there is not a shelter at this stop - post only. Most people utilize the Ptarmigan bus stop. There could also be a space/private property issue with building a shelter at this location. Q/C: Glad Vail is a dog friendly town TOV: We're proud to support our off -leash areas at Bighorn and Stephens parks and ask that owners take responsibility to pick up after their pets and keep safety in mind when supervising pets outdoors. Q/C: VR shouldn't build on their East Vail parcel TOV: A public hearing process will be held by the Town of Vail Planning & Environmental Commission and the Vail Town Council to review and make a Town of Vail Page 2 September 5, 2017 - Page 120 c final determination on the proposed rezoning application. The public is encouraged to attend these hearings and share their thoughts. Q/C: How do I learn more about the East Vail Parcel (Vail Resorts Employee Housing) and how many units will be built there? TOV: Information regarding the proposed East Vail Parcel rezoning is available at the Town of Vail Community Development Department or on the town's website at www.vailgov.com. The current application is to rezone the property. The exact number of homes to be built there has not yet been determined. Q/C: Concerned about Chamonix Vail construction impacts (noise/dust/air pollution) TOV: The construction activity at Chamonix Vail is occurring consistent with the town's adopted rules and regulations for construction in Vail. In response to concerns shared, the Town of Vail contacted the State of Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment. It was determined by the State that no violations are occurring with regard to air pollution standards. Q/C: Town should designate the Middle Bench of Donovan Park as Designated Open Space TOV: The Town Charter outlines a process for open space designations which ultimately requires approval by the Town Council. Short -Term Rentals Q/C: Permanent residents living here 6 months out of the year can (be able) to rent short-term Q/C: Think about STR users and public drinking and drug use. Have had STR renters publicly smoking pot outside on other's property. Q/C: Get rid of short-term rentals Q/C: Hello, as an STR owner we are in support of cooperating with the community. We are hard working residents too! Q/C: STR — require trash service and education for owners and guests. (poor dead bears) Q/C: Noise ordinance education Q/C: Parking education for residential area Q/C: Tough to enforce unless HOA is pro -active in educating owners of what is/not allowed. Q/C: If you make a profit, be a business with license, pay taxes Q/C: More strict enforcement of licenses for STRs with some teeth. Q/C: Regarding STR: I have never considered doing so, with my own rental, as it is a labor intensive endeavor and we literally have no worker's anymore, do we? Furthermore, STR has compounded the impactful on the long-term housing market. TOV. The town is considering additional policies regarding short term rentals which might include better enforcement of current regulations, fines or penalties for non-compliance, increased education programs on life safety, recycling and parking, and may require a property contact for each rental. Town Council will Town of Vail Page 3 September 5, 2017 - Page 121 c continue discussions and public input during the Sept. 5 meeting and beyond. General Enforcement Q/C: Please limit speeds on frontage roads to 35 mph. TOV: The speed limits on the Frontage Roads are set by CDOT as they have ownership of the roadways. The speed limits are enforced by the police department. Public Safety Q/C: Please make our Frontage Roads safe from the traffic on 1-70. The trucks and cars that leave the highway inadvertently (though an accident, or driver error) need to be kept on 1-70 corridor by permanent barriers. TOV: As both 1-70 and the frontage roads are governed and maintained by the CDOT, they would have authority on this matter. It is highly unlikely that there is statistical data that supports the need to install guardrail and it would be unlikely from a cost standpoint as guardrail is expensive to install and maintain. Q/C: When will the next community meeting be held to discuss neighborhood evacuations, re: wildfire? TOV: We do not have a specific evacuation meeting scheduled. We will provide information on this topic at the Fire Department Open House on Oct. 7 at the West Vail Fire Station. Environment Q/C: Please protect and preserve habitat for animals, birds, trees, bugs, water, air, sounds, smells....and it will also be good for humans. TOV: We agree that preservation of our natural world is critical. Goal #3 in the adopted Environmental Sustainability Strategic Plan, Ecosystem Health, states, "Ensure that the natural environment, specifically air and water quality, water quantity, land use and habitat are maintained to current or improved levels of biological health", and preserving our natural environment is a part of the town's mission statement. We intend to continue to improve upon habitat restoration and education to protect our flora and fauna. Q/C: Looking forward to launch of Project Re -Wild, when can we see more details/application? TOV: More detailed information is available at the Town of Vail Community Development Department or on the town's sustainability programs website, lovevail.org. You may also contact Peter Wadden, Water Quality Education Coordinator, by telephone at 970-479-2144 or by email at pwadden@vailgov.com. Q/C: Re: Recycling - what is recyclable? People still doing it incorrectly, why isn't the town cracking down? TOV: Recycling Guidelines and reference materials may be found at lovevail.org. For questions, please contact Mark Hoblitzell, environmental sustainability coordinator at 970-479-2333 or mhoblitzell@vailgov.com. The town has taken a Town of Vail Page 4 September 5, 2017 - Page 122 c general approach of education and assistance with non-compliant residents and businesses for first offenses for the past three years. However, do keep in mind that recycling is the law in Vail and appropriate fines do apply. Events Q/C: Too many events, too crowded in the summer TOV: The Vail Commission on Special Events will be reviewing applications for 2018 event funding this fall and will manage the event calendar with a goal to balance economic vitality with enjoying the town year-round. Parking Q/C: Will there be paid summer parking next year in the structures? TOV: The Vail Parking & Transportation Task Force will be forwarding a recommendation to Town Council later in the year regarding 2018 summer parking operations at which time there will be opportunities for public comment before the Town Council determines if changes in the summer parking operations are needed. Major Construction Projects Q/C: When will Hotel Talisa open? TOV: The developer has indicated an intention to be open for business prior to the start of the 2017/2018 winter ski season. Q/C: When will DoubleTree open? TOV: The developer has indicated an intention to be open for business prior to the start of the 2017/2018 winter ski season. Q/C: When will Marriott Residence Inn start construction? TOV: An exact start date on construction of the new Marriott Residence Inn has not been determined. Other Q/C: Flags flown in Vail should follow "standards of respect" associated with flag etiquette. This is considered a highly regarded patriotic representation. Please adhere to these standards across town. TOV: Thank you for alerting us about monitoring flag etiquette across town and at construction sites, in particular. Compliments Q/C: Great turnout, thanks to the town for hosting picnics III. ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL Direct staff regarding any additional follow-up as needed. Town of Vail Page 5 September 5, 2017 - Page 123 c VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Proposed Future Meeting Agenda Topics ATTACHMENTS: Description Memo Future Meeting Topics TOWN Of9 September 5, 2017 - Page 124 c TOWN OF VAIL. Memorandum To: Mayor and Town Council From: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk Date: September 5, 2017 Subject: Proposed agenda topics for future meeting agendas 1. SUMMARY The listing below reflects proposed topics to b scheduled at future Town Council meetings and is informational only. Dates and topics are subject to change. Vail Town Council Meetings Topics for Future Meeting Agendas Regular Meeting Proposed Date Subject to Change Present draft 2018 Budget VLMD Meeting : Present Proposed 2018 VLMD Budget 2017-18 Winter Parking Program Proposal and Recommendation from Event Review Committee for Concert Venue Locations Resolution Setting forth Transportation Impact Fees Regular Meeting Joint Meeting w/ CSE East Vail Parcel Rezoning 2018 Budget Ordinance, First Reading VRA Meeting : 2018 Budget Resolution Proclamation for National Friends of Libraries Week Mountain View Development Agreement Regular Meeting 2018 Budget Ordinance, Second Reading VLMD Meeting : Resolution for 2018 VLMD Budget TOV Resolution for 2018 VLMD Budget East Vail Parcel Rezoning 1-70 Underpass Project Completion Celebration Election Day & Regular Meeting CSE Funding Proposals Mill Levy Certification Ordinance, First Reading Regular Meeting Mill Levy Certification Ordinance, First Reading Regular Meeting Mill Levy Certification Ordinance, Second Reading Third Supplemental Budget Ordinance, First Reading VLMDAC Interviews & Appointments Regular Meeting Third Supplemental Budget Ordinance, Second Reading CSE Interviews & Appointments 19 -Sep 19 -Sep 19 -Sep 19 -Sep 19 -Sep 3 -Oct 3 -Oct 3 -Oct 3 -Oct 3 -Oct 3 -Oct 17 -Oct 17 -Oct 17 -Oct 17 -Oct 17 -Oct 7 -Nov 7 -Nov 21 -Nov 5 -Dec 5 -Dec 5 -Dec 19 -Dec 19 -Dec September 5, 2017 - Page 125 c VAIL TOWN COUNCILAGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: July 2017 Sales Tax Report ATTACHMENTS: Description July 2017 Sales Tax Report TOWN Of 9 September 5, 2017 - Page 126 c MEMORANDUM August 30, 2017 To: Vail Town Council Kathleen Halloran From: Johannah Richards Re: July 2017 Sales Tax Vail will collect an estimated $15,730 in additional July sales tax to bring collections up to $2,128,151. July will be up 3.6% or $74,378 from July 2016 and up 1.1% or $22,793 from budget. Current year to date sales tax collections are down 1.4% or $229,163 from 2016 and up 1.1% or $173,823 from budget. September 5, 2017 - Page 127 c Month 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Town of Vail Sales Tax Worksheet Estimate 7/31/2017 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Budget 2017 C0llections Budget Variance % Change from 2016 % Change from Budget January 2,597,985 2,783,306 2,976,655 2,619,673 2,564,383 2,795,688 2,855,524 3,145,620 3,483,245 3,696,798 3,738,824 3,711,004 3,722,160 11,156 -0.45% 0.30% February 2,527,130 2,718,643 3,071,615 2,588,889 2,577,360 2,803,136 2,994,580 3,267,351 3,477,419 3,593,947 3,746,055 3,677,917 3,690,236 12,319 -1.49% 0.33% March 2,852,954 2,986,446 3,327,304 2,504,567 2,685,004 3,143,418 3,185,859 3,650,157 3,788,185 4,053,961 4,225,921 3,619,002 3,637,746 18,744 -13.92% 0.52% April 1,280,324 1,330,740 1,098,918 1,235,941 1,156,934 1,191,690 1,183,087 1,069,186 1,280,641 1,370,929 1,089,749 1,288,533 1,384,655 96,122 27.06% 7.46% May 449,283 545,874 622,103 516,150 421,925 473,292 487,739 563,602 607,729 584,454 654,462 670,927 652,542 (18,385) -0.29% -2.74% June 805,362 953,017 918,061 717,233 873,765 895,951 963,143 1,023,801 1,153,247 1,242,400 1,318,092 1,351,149 1,382,223 31,074 4.87% 2.30% July 1,255,243 1,265,781 1,397,842 1,121,860 1,228,767 1,481,329 1,573,499 1,654,161 1,829,102 1,937,989 2,053,773 2,105,358 2,128,151 22,793 3.62% 1.08% Total 11,768,281 12,583,807 13,412,498 11,304,313 11,508,138 12,784,504 13,243,431 14,373,878 15,619,568 16,480,478 16,826,876 16,423,890 16,597,713 173,823 -1.36% 1.06% August 1,055,614 1,162,746 1,349,795 1,068,391 1,147,352 1,310,471 1,380,710 1,507,048 1,674,813 1,702,579 1,849,815 1,896,301 September 832,549 908,318 834,569 753,754 761,425 889,945 978,037 994,135 1,054,015 1,240,277 1,349,929 1,383,919 October 614,396 688,519 662,767 581,033 594,362 623,420 644,577 755,133 752,295 835,649 906,385 931,126 November 799,582 747,877 719,109 651,873 701,075 788,430 825,873 947,627 962,344 997,100 989,320 996,463 December 2,771,258 2,821,871 2,652,628 2,553,974 2,963,763 3,184,645 2,973,826 3,422,178 3,818,096 3,885,849 3,840,919 3,903,301 Total 17,841,680 18,913,138 19,631,366 16,913,338 17,676,115 19,581,415 20,046,454 21,999,999 23,881,131 25,141,932 25,763,244 25,535,000 September 5, 2017 - Page 128 of 162 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: June 2017 Vail Business Review ATTACHMENTS: Description June 2017 Vail Business Review TOWN Of9 September 5, 2017 - Page 129 c TOWN OFD 75 South Frontage Road West Vail, Colorado 81657 vailgov.com Vail Business Review June 2017 August 30, 2017 Finance Department 970.479.2100 970.479.2248 fax The Vail Business Review breaks down the four percent sales tax collected for the month of June and year to date through the second quarter of 2017. Overall June sales tax increased 4.9% with retail increasing 9.1%, lodging increased 19.9%, food and beverage decreased 7.7%, and utilities/other decreased by 10.2%. Excluding the out of town category; sales tax for the month of June was up 5.0%. Year to date through the second quarter of 2017 resulted in a 2.1% decrease overall with retail increasing 1.6%, lodging decreased 3.0%, food and beverage decreased 2.9%, and utilities/other decreased by 9.2%. Excluding the out of town category; sales tax year to date is down 1.8%. Electronic filing and payment of Vail sales tax is now an option. Please visit www.vailoov.com/epaV Town of Vail sales tax forms, the Vail Business Review and sales tax worksheets are available on the internet at www.vailgov.com. You can subscribe to have the Vail Business Review and the sales tax worksheet e-mailed to you automatically from www.vailgov.com. Please remember when reading the Vail Business Review that it is produced from sales tax collections, as opposed to actual gross sales. If you have any questions or comments please feel free to call me at (970) 479-2125 or Kathleen Halloran at (970) 479-2116. Sincerely, Johannah Richards Sales Tax Administrator September 5, 2017 - Page 130 c June TOWN OF VAIL BUSINESS REVIEW TOWN OF Alt Sales Tax Newsletter June 2017 Sales Tax June 2016 Collections June 2017 Collections June 0/O Change VAIL VILLAGE Retail 148,210 171,259 15.55 % Lodging 189,386 252,339 33.24 % F & B 275,362 258,223 -6.22 % Other 11,656 7,223 -38.03 % Total 624,614 689,044 10.32 % LIONSHEAD Retail 36,117 39,545 9.49 % Lodging 111,807 125,066 11.86 % F & B 76,690 64,210 -16.27 % Other 5,748 6,346 10.41 Total 230,361 235,167 2.09 % CASCADE VILLAGE/EAST VAIL/SANDSTONE/WEST VAIL Retail 136,835 130,034 -4.97 % Lodging 35,464 27,852 -21.47 % F & B 42,055 42,436 0.91 Other 9,302 8,280 -10.98 % Total 223,655 208,602 -6.73 % OUT OF TOWN Retail 117,239 137,405 17.20 % Lodging 7,094 7,048 -0.64 % F & B 1,862 793 -57.44 % Utilities & Other 113,522 104,144 -8.26 % Total 239,716 249,390 4.04 % 8/30/2017 10:47:00 AM RmGovPower Page 1 of 2 September 5, 2017 - Page 131 June TOWN OF VAIL BUSINESS REVIEW TOWN OF(VAIL Sales Tax Newsletter June 2017 Sales Tax TOTAL June 2016 Collections June 2017 Collections June °/U Change Retail 478,244 9.09 Lodging And Property Mgmt 343,751 412,305 19.94 Food and Beverage 395,968 365,662 -7.65 % Other 140,228 125,994 -10.15 % Total 1,318,347 1,382,204 4.85 % RETAIL SUMMARY June June June 2016 2017 % Collections Collections Change RETAIL -FOOD 110,218 108,130 -1.89 RETAIL -LIQUOR 34,847 37,768 8.38 % RETAIL -APPAREL 81,399 90,512 11.20 % RETAIL -SPORT 58,470 61,738 5.59 % RETAIL -JEWELRY 13,315 12,486 -6.22 % RETAIL -GIFT 4,039 3,502 -13.32 % RETAIL -GALLERY 2,105 2,111 0.28 % RETAIL -OTHER 133,978 161,962 20.89 % RETAIL -HOME OCCUPATION 28 34 20.71 % Total 438,400 478,244 9.09 % 8/30/2017 10:47:00 AM emGovPower Page 2 of 2 September 5, 2017 - Page 132 c TOTAL June 2016 Collections June 2017 Collections June °/U Change Retail 478,244 9.09 Lodging And Property Mgmt 343,751 412,305 19.94 Food and Beverage 395,968 365,662 -7.65 % Other 140,228 125,994 -10.15 % Total 1,318,347 1,382,204 4.85 % RETAIL SUMMARY June June June 2016 2017 % Collections Collections Change RETAIL -FOOD 110,218 108,130 -1.89 RETAIL -LIQUOR 34,847 37,768 8.38 % RETAIL -APPAREL 81,399 90,512 11.20 % RETAIL -SPORT 58,470 61,738 5.59 % RETAIL -JEWELRY 13,315 12,486 -6.22 % RETAIL -GIFT 4,039 3,502 -13.32 % RETAIL -GALLERY 2,105 2,111 0.28 % RETAIL -OTHER 133,978 161,962 20.89 % RETAIL -HOME OCCUPATION 28 34 20.71 % Total 438,400 478,244 9.09 % 8/30/2017 10:47:00 AM emGovPower Page 2 of 2 September 5, 2017 - Page 132 c TOW I OF VAIL June YTD TOWN OF VAIL BUSINESS REVIEW Sales Tax Newsletter June YTD 2017 Sales Tax June YTD 2016 Collections June YTD 2017 Collections June YTD Change VAIL VILLAGE Retail 1,985,637 2,082,693 4.89 Lodging 2,819,857 3,014,403 6.90 F & B 2,352,828 2,401,167 2.05 % Other 107,708 70,332 -34.70 % Total 7,266,030 7,568,594 4.16 % LIONSHEAD Retail 815,503 832,979 2.14 % Lodging 1,891,329 1,945,050 2.84 % F & B 627,337 618,225 -1.45 % Other 37,072 38,649 4.25 Total 3,371,241 3,434,903 1.89 % CASCADE VILLAGE/EAST VAIL/SANDSTONE/WEST VAIL Retail 1,023,188 957,201 -6.45 % Lodging 897,937 491,332 -45.28 % F & B 370,776 236,532 -36.21 % Other 36,883 48,733 32.13 Total 2,328,783 1,733,798 -25.55 % OUT OF TOWN Retail 647,188 668,142 3.24 % Lodging 204,688 188,164 -8.07 % F&B 9,261 8,154 -11.96% Utilities & Other 947,121 867,749 -8.38 % Total 1,808,258 1,732,209 -4.21 % 8/30/2017 10:58:34 AM emGovPower Page 1 of 2 September 5, 2017 - Page 133 June YTD TOWN OFTOWN OF VAIL BUSINESS REVIEW VAIL Sales Tax Newsletter June YTD 2017 Sales Tax TOTAL June YTD 2016 Collections June YTD 2017 Collections June YTD % Change Retail 4,471,516 Lodging And Property Mgmt 5,813,811 Food and Beverage 3,360,202 Other 1,128,783 Total 14,774,312 4,541,014 5,638,948 3,264,077 1,025,464 14,469,504 RETAIL SUMMARY 1.55 % - 3.01 % - 2.86 % - 9.15 % -2.06 June YTD June YTD 2016 2017 Collections Collections June YTD % Change RETAIL -FOOD 769,426 773,128 0.48 RETAIL -LIQUOR 275,354 288,255 4.69 RETAIL -APPAREL 745,762 748,214 0.33 RETAIL -SPORT 1,744,767 1,704,816 -2.29 % RETAIL -JEWELRY 93,012 90,121 -3.11 RETAIL -GIFT 23,292 26,988 15.87 RETAIL -GALLERY 16,776 16,170 -3.61 RETAIL -OTHER 802,875 893,047 11.23 RETAIL -HOME OCCUPATION 252 274 9.02 Total 4,471,516 4,541,014 1.55 % 8/30/2017 10:58:35 AM emGovPowe r Page 2 of 2 September 5, 2017 - Page 134 c VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: August Revenue Update ATTACHMENTS: Description August Revenue Update TOWN Of9 September 5, 2017 - Page 135 c TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE UPDATE September 5, 2017 Sales Tax Upon receipt of all sales tax returns, July collections are estimated to be $2,128,151 up 3.6% from last year and up 1.1% compared to budget. Year to date collections of $16,597,713 are down 1.4% from prior year and up 1.1% from budget. Inflation as measured by the consumer price index was up 1.7% for July. Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) RETT collections through Aug 29 total $4,394,263 up 43.8% from this time last year. The annual 2017 RETT budget totals $5.85 million. Construction Use Tax Use Tax collections through August 29 total $1,128,212 down 20% compared to collections of $1,413,580 from this time last year. The annual budget totals $1,545,000. Summary Across all funds, year-to-date total revenue of $41.6 million is up 2.4% from the amended budget and down 1.4% from prior year. Variances from prior year are the result of decreases in sales tax and construction fees. September 5, 2017 - Page 136 c TOWN Of9 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Parking & Transportation Task Force Update PRESENTER(S): Dave Chapin, Mayor ATTACHMENTS: Description Parking and Transportation Task Force Meeting Agenda and Supporting Documentation September 5, 2017 - Page 137 c Agenda Parking and Transportation Task Force August 22, 2017 9:00 AM — 10:30 AM Vail Town Council Chambers Call to Order Review of Parking Policies, Objectives and goals Review of Winter 2016-2017 statistics Winter 2016-2017 Winter Parking Surveys Parking spaces (Winter Parking Map) Town of Vail Rate Structure Town of Vail Pass Prices Known Issues for 2017-2018 • Ski Club Vail drop off and pickup • Spring back to Vail • Hospital Construction start late spring • No Lion Construction early season What worked well last winter What if we were to improve what would it be Winter 2016 Comparison Rate Structure Ski Areas Ski Pass/Ski Ticket Price History 2017-2018 Rate Modifications 2017-2018 Pass Modifications Mayor Dave Chapin Greg Hall Greg Hall Greg Hall Greg Hall Greg Hall Greg Hall Greg Hall PATTF PATTF Greg Hall Greg Hall PATTF PATTF September 5, 2017 - Page 138 c Public Comment Mayor Dave Chapin Information Update • Town Council report out Mayor Dave Chapin Red Sandstone Parking Structure Update Next Meeting Mayor Dave Chapin Adjournment Mayor Dave Chapin September 5, 2017 - Page 139 c 110th day 621 424 513 205 323 404 226 417 361 431 98 189 382 312 1 Attachment A Parking Stats 2015-2016 Village Structure Filled Frontage Road Parking 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004* 2004-2005* 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008** 2008-2009 # 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2014-2015 2016-2017 November 3 0 6 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 November 3 0 4 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 December 15 11 15 9 5 12 8 5 11 2 1 0 5 4 3 10 9 December 10 12 6 2 3 4 3 4 5 2 1 0 1 0 1 5 5 January 17 11 5 12 11 13 13 19 14 10 5 2 2 9 4 11 8 January 11 10 9 5 7 8 5 14 9 6 2 2 0 4 2 9 5 Febuary 14 10 15 12 12 15 15 18 9 12 7 3 7 5 8 10 9 Feburary 9 8 7 5 7 6 8 10 5 6 3 3 6 1 4 6 4 March 23 23 16 9 13 19 20 25 13 10 2 3 6 7 5 9 6 March 12 10 8 1 7 8 8 15 4 3 1 3 2 1 3 7 6 April 2 0 3 1 4 3 2 6 3 4 1 0 2 1 1 2 0 April 0 0 1 0 3 1 1 5 1 4 0 0 1 0 0 2 0 Total 74 55 60 43 45 66 58 73 50 38 16 8 22 26 21 42 32 Total 45 40 35 13 27 31 25 48 24 21 7 8 10 6 10 29 20 Passes 2001-02 2002-03 2002-03 2003-04 2004-2005 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 South Frontage Road Car Counts (highest to lowest) Gold 196 181 205 175 178 172 173 243 184 191 125 115 118 120 42 49 42 2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003 2003-2004* 2004-2005* 2005-2006 2006-2007 Silver 56 54 50 43 27 22 24 27 30 30 1208 910 1420 829 1207 891 1001 Blue 359 188 309 175 181 199 270 233 283 224 237 211 203 208 227 342 329 957 800 1073 485 950 596 576 Green 169 195 107 134 146 220 445 107 144 133 143 81 84 158 203 158 921 781 893 462 717 590 525 Pink 492 585 415 547 585 690 704 408 480 515 583 481 558 562 629 587 787 738 871 459 510 581 442 Value 1700 1935 2348 3660 Meter Meter Meter 928 1030 1533 1840 2089 1030 1378 2211 1497 786 641 768 381 461 580 358 Eagle County Meter Meter Meter 0 222 653 860 983 694 936 1379 1016 709 609 681 369 459 493 331 New 676 707 583 661 320 417 462 295 Const/placard 41 159 20 0 118 60 0 19 705 520 565 300 386 447 282 Total 2255 2965 3642 872 4700 1143 1512 1701 1964 2459 3299 3779 631 472 564 210 325 418 257 Pases w/o value 555 1030 1294 872 1040 1143 1512 1701 1036 1207 1113 1079 Total 2007-2008** 2008-2009 # 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 1070 715 702 393 401 933 1070 812 688 567 308 392 892 622 751 603 543 274 376 492 498 749 528 534 196 323 456 268 675 501 517 192 179 382 264 673 495 515 183 172 380 92 549 414 481 129 125 372 479 405 467 106 285 451 363 437 111 891 767 673 346 326 318 317 215 214 969 702 583 511 491 438 430 403 402 685 480 479 427 421 402 396 329 317 615 421 512 181 315 396 214 608 406 490 173 287 391 193 571 390 410 102 264 349 169 558 385 407 69 240 335 168 15th day 541 367 381 214 303 132 521 364 351 209 299 96 500 351 330 200 287 91 480 342 321 195 235 82 421 308 288 187 235 82 418 304 287 169 222 76 387 288 275 168 205 70 382 280 251 163 184 374 277 235 156 183 349 259 203 115 183 339 249 189 104 164 321 246 184 158 304 229 180 139 287 221 168 95 282 204 138 54 30th Day 274 174 70 267 165 254 134 204 114 200 113 188 98 110 50 95 416 410 398 368 365 324 324 310 309 294 287 283 281 260 246 243 238 214 213 202 191 177 173 171 168 167 163 161 120 120 118 95 92 69 68 8 342 332 327 290 284 275 274 249 245 229 208 146 136 108 390 389 378 320 289 237 221 180 163 108 106 348 342 337 308 304 288 270 247 242 236 214 206 198 196 192 168 162 157 152 312 303 239 222 217 211 190 187 154 150 17882 13217 13679 4545 8741 9879 5666 14672 8518 7975 1675 1949 4401 2814 4256 9678 6433 Avg #cars on the road 483 367 456 325 350 341 270 319 355 380 239 278 550 469 473 341 322 *West Day Lot in Use ** Wendys Lot NFR in Use # Wendys, Donovan and NFR in use September 5, 2017 - Page 140 of 162 Winter Statistics 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 Number of Days in the Season 144 145 150 157 148 151 150 150 150 150 Village transactions 286240 288,924 324,974 343,396 319,223 337851 344978 395308 381780 368993 Lionshead transactions 184619 180,328 187045 179971 167682 175877 175467 215528 232046 225744 Total transactions 470859 470,252 512,024 523,367 486,905 513728 520445 610836 613826 594737 Total transactions Town Managed Lots 658491 638211 Average Number of Transactions/day 3270 3233 3418 3334 3290 3402 3470 4072 4092 3965 Village Structure Filled Days 73 50 38 16 7 22 26 21 21 32 South Frontage Road Days 48 24 21 7 7 10 7 10 29 20 Vail Village Revenue 2119748 2760013 2469316 2235562 1514497 1930580 2039995 2029856 2476926 2357334 Lionshead Revenue 1581374 1888881 1757173 1602069 1178017 1317510 1245295 1473792 1702556 1617779 Transaction Revenue 3701122 4648894 4226489 3837631 2692514 3248090 3285290 3503648 4179482 3975113 Total number of S Frontage Road Cars 14672 8518 7875 1675 1949 4401 2614 4256 9878 6433 Average Number of S Frontage Road Cars* 319 355 380 239 278 550 469 473 341 322 Maximum Number of S Frontage Road Cars 1070 715 702 393 401 933 1070 891 969 685 Number Cars in other Public Parking, Wendy's, Donavan, W Front Rd, Trails, 30988 38741 37934 36382 40319 41405 39483 41551 35634 15th busiest S Frontage Road Day 365 284 289 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 384 217 15th busiest All Unmanaged Day 610 734 352 314 369 383 361 768 512 Skier Visits 1.622 M 1.599M 1.746M VRI Maze Score Ease of Parking 3.51 3.42 3.53 3.71 4.46 4.05 4.28 4.21 6.59 6.49 September 5, 2017 - Page 141 of 162 Town of Vail Parking Surveys Winter 2017 Final Results TOWN of va June 2017 Prepared for: Town of Vail Prepared by: .. tes LLC ne Road, Ste. 360 80303 ASSOCIATES www.rrcassociates.com September 5, 2017 - Page 142 c TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS WINTER 2017 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 1 Parking Counts 2 INTERCEPT SURVEY RESULTS 4 Visitor Mix 4 Geographic Origin 5 Private Vehicle versus Rental Car Use 5 Persons per Vehicle 6 Types of Lift Tickets Used 8 First Lift 9 Purpose of Trip 10 Ratings of the Parking/Access Experience 11 RRC Associates Contents September 5, 2017 - Page 143 c TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS WINTER 2017 INTRODUCTION During the 2017 season the Town of Vail (TOV) commissioned RRC Associates to conduct surveys in selected Vail parking lots. The purpose of the research project was to develop a demographic profile of parking lot users, in addition to information on ratings of experience, and various aspects of behavior and preferences. This survey was similar to past studies conducted by the Town dating back to 2002. The most recent comparable study was conducted in 2016, and results from past studies can be provided upon request. It should be noted that this survey was intended to focus on parking information during the relatively more crowded period of the season, with surveys obtained primarily on weekends starting with the MLK Holiday weekend. As a result, the findings from the 2017 research should not be generalized to the entire season or to all days of the week; by design, the survey focused on a narrow sampling of days. Also, while the survey was designed to measure some of the impacts that occur when parking spills onto the Vail Frontage Road, it was challenging to predict in advance Frontage Road parking on a consistent basis. As a result, the 2017 surveys are limited in fully profiling the demographics and opinions of those parking on the Frontage Road. This full report summarizes selected findings from the research. In addition, the surveys provide a database that can be explored in greater detail as parking issues or policy discussions arise. Copies of the survey that was administered in Vail is attached. The following discussion highlights some of the key findings from the research and identifies selected key measures from the responses (such as people per car or first lift used) that provide metrics that can be used for planning purposes. Although this study focuses primarily on survey data collected during the January through March period, information concerning the use of parking over the entire season was provided by the Town. These data were analyzed in various ways and is summarized in graphs included in the report. RRC Associates September 5, 2017 - Page 144 c TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS WINTER 2017 Parking Counts The graph below portrays total vehicles counted in parking lots and structures during the winter 2016/17 season as compared to the 2015/16 season. As shown, parking patterns are extremely similar year -over -year, with a consistent spike in usage occurring on weekend days throughout the winter. The primary difference in parking numbers this year occurred in late March and April, influenced by a very late Easter this year. Number of Vehicles 6,000 5.000 4.000 3.000 2.000 1.000 Figure 1 Usage of Parking Lots and Structures by Season ■ 2016/17 ■ 2015/16 •:4 02 24 03/06 03/16 03/26 04/05 04/15 oate Source: Town of Vail Parking Reports; RRC Associates RRC Associates 2 September 5, 2017 - Page 145 TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS WINTER 2017 The estimates of Frontage Road parking were analyzed separate from the figures illustrated above. Frontage Road parking is estimated through counts that occur on days when the parking structures fill and parking is permitted on the Frontage Road. The analysis shows that the frequency of cars parking on the Frontage Road was down this year compared to 2015/16, with 20 days on the Frontage Road in winter 2016/17 (vs. 29 days in 2015/16). The orange lines in the graph below shows when Frontage Road parking occurred in 2016/17. The peak number of vehicles were counted on March 4, 2017, which was the Saturday of the Burton US Open; 685 vehicles were counted on that date. This peak is lower than what was recorded during winter 2015/16, when 969 vehicles were counted on the Sunday of MLK weekend. The same date in 2016/17 (January 15, 2017) brought 312 vehicles to the Frontage Road. On average, 322 cars were counted on the Frontage Road across the 20 days that parking occurred there during winter 2016/17. Key Finding: Year -over -year parking patterns are very consistent. However, 2016/17 did have fewer days of Frontage Road overflow parking. Figure 2 Usage of Vail Parking Structures and Areas: November 2016 — April 2017 Gridlinrs Represent 5aturccys 7.000 6.500 6.000 5,500 5.000 4,500 16, 4,000 $ ▪ 3,500 3,000 2,500 2030 1 500 1,000 500 0 ! 1 1 ■ Frontage Rd. • Lionshead ■ Vail Village Nov 19. 16 Dec 3. 16 Dec 17, 16 Dec 3 , 16 Jan 14, 17 Jan 26, 17 Fe 11. 17 Fob 25. 17 Mar 11, 17 Source: Town of Vail Parking Reports; RRC Associates RRC Associates 3 September 5, 2017 - Page 146 c TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS WINTER 2017 INTERCEPT SURVEY RESULTS Visitor Mix Surveys were conducted in and around the parking structures on a sampling of days this season. Note that the Village and Lionshead structures represent the bulk of Vail's parking (1,050 and 1,150 spaces respectively) and both have similar capacity. Overall, surveys indicate that day visitors comprised half of all visitors in the structures, while overnight visitors staying in the Vail Valley accounted for 44 percent and local residents 6 percent. This year overnight visitors were asked if they were staying in the Town of Vail specifically. Results show that most overnight visitors stayed outside of the Town of Vail, in another part of the Valley (72 percent). Key Finding: As compared to last year, there was a greater share of overnight visitors represented in the parking survey. Nearly three-quarters of all overnight visitors surveyed stayed outside of the Town of Vail. In Vali just for the day An overnight visitor staying in the Vail Valley A local resident By Year Figure 3 Visitor Type by Location of Survey 8y Location of Survey (2017) 50% 66% 44% 23% 31% ■ 2017 ■ 2016 19% 34% 59% 57% • Vail Village Parking Structure • Lionshead Parking Structure 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 6% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Percent Responding Percent Responding RRC Associates 4 September 5, 2017 - Page 147 TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS WINTER 2017 Geographic Origin Overall, about 26 percent of respondents reported that they are from out of state. This is consistent with 2016 (27 percent) and 2009 (30 percent). The top out of -state markets include Illinois and Texas (3 percent each), Florida and Michigan (2 percent each). Looking at just Colorado respondents (74 percent of respondents), the top counties of origin include Denver (31 percent), Eagle (14 percent), Jefferson (13 percent), Boulder and Arapahoe (9 percent) Counties. Key Finding: Lots are used heavily by both day and overnight visitors from Colorado, and out-of-state guests are not concentrated in any particular region. Private Vehicle versus Rental Car Use Four in five respondents were using a private vehicle with the remaining one in five using a rental vehicle. These results are nearly identical to 2016. When broken out by visitor type, results show that just over one-third of overnight visitors were using a rental vehicle (36 percent). Meanwhile nearly all day visitors (93 percent) and local residents (97 percent) were using private vehicles. When assessed by parking structure, those parked in Lionshead were slightly more likely to be using a rental vehicle (22 percent) than those parked in the Vail Village Parking Structure (17 percent). Key Finding: The fact that one-third of overnight visitors are using rental vehicles presents communication opportunities for reaching guests with pertinent travel and parking information. RRC Associates 5 September 5, 2017 - Page 148 c 1 TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS WINTER 2017 Private vehicle Rental vehicle Figure 4 Vehicle Type by Visitor Type and Location of Survey 8y Year 8y Visitor Type By Survey Location 80% 1 20% 17% 83% 93% 97% 1 8% 36% 64% 17% 22% 83% 78% 0% 20% 40% 69% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Percent Responding • 2017 • 2016 Persons per Vehicle Percent Responding Percent Responding • Day visitor • Local resident • Overnight visitor • Vail Village Parking Structure ■ Lionshead Parking Structure Again this year, the survey tracked persons per vehicle. This year the overall average persons per vehicle was 2.7 persons, compared to 2.5 recorded in 2016. Results showed a range of average persons per vehicle, from 1.9 among local residents to 3.0 among overnight visitors. Looking at Colorado residents only, the average persons per vehicle was 1.9 for local residents, 2.4 for day visitors, and 2.8 for overnight visitors. There were no meaningful differences in average persons per vehicle by parking structure location. Measured in a different way, the percentage of one-person vehicles was 19 percent overall, consistent with 2016. Local residents are much more likely to be traveling alone (53 percent) than either day visitors (22 percent) or overnight visitors (12 percent). Key Finding: Clearly, one important consideration in parking management is to discourage one person vehicle usage and to increase vehicle occupancy in order to get maximum efficiency from available parking supply. RRC Associates 6 September 5, 2017 - Page 149 TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS WINTER 2017 1 (traveling alone 2 3 4 5 Figure 5 Today, how many people are in your vehicle on this trip to Vail? — by Visitor Type and Location of Survey By Visitor Type 22% By Year 20% 20% 39% 7% 4e1a , 4% 6 or more ' 2% 0% 41% • 2017 53% 12% 26% 20% _9% 14% 12% 6% 4% �6% "Mg% 0°k 9 •■ 2016 0% 0% 10% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 18% 41% 38% • Day visitor • Local resident • Overnight visitor Percent Responding Percent Responding By Location of Survey 20% 19% 37% 39% O% • Vail Village Parking Structure • Lionshead Parking Structure 50% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percent Responding Average Number of People in Travel Party 2017 2016 gay visitor local resident Overnight visitor 2.7 2.5 2.5 1.9 3.0 Vail Village Parking Lionshead Parking Structure Structure 2.7 2.7 RRC Associates 7 September 5, 2017 - Page 150 TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS WINTER 2017 Types of Lift Tickets Used Surveys tracked the type of lift ticket used by the respondent as well as others in the vehicle. Eighty-three percent of respondents were using a pass (48 percent Epic Pass and 35 percent Epic Local pass), down from 92 percent in 2016. Given an increased share of overnight visitors represented in the parking structures this year, results show an increased usage of multi -day tickets (7 percent, up from 3 percent in 2016). Interestingly, Vail Village Parking Structure is a more popular choice among Epic Pass Users than is the Lionshead Structure (57 vs. 38 percent, respectively). Epic Pass Epic Local Pass Daily ticket Multi -day ticket Other Other Pass 8y Year Figure 6 Ticket Type by Visitor Type and Location of Survey 4$°n 24% 35t 64% 1% 12% 0% 12% Employee 12% Pass Merchants Pass 0% 0% ■ 2017 ■ 2016 By Visitor Type By Survey Location 45% -17% .7% flow 139'0 -14010 0% 13% 1% 0% 0% 1% I2% -17% 1% 0°% ' 39'0 0% 49% 42% 29% 60% • Day visitor • Local resident • Overnight visitor 36% 57% 30% 40% 6% 0% 1% 1% 0% • Vail Village Parking Structure • Lionshead Parking Structure 10% 20% 30%40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 0% 281 40% 60% 80% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Percent Responding Percent Responding Percent Responding RRC Associates 8 September 5, 2017 - Page 151 TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS WINTER 2017 First Lift The survey also probed expected first lift. Not surprisingly, there is a strong relationship between Lionshead lifts from the LH Structure, and Vail Village lifts from the Village. Lift choice is relatively similar among the different visitor types. However, local residents are more likely to use the Born Free Express Lift (20 percent) than day or overnight visitors (6-7 percent). This year, the share of respondents who answered "don't know" declined to 7 from 17 percent. Key Finding: The decline in the share of "don't know" responses suggests that communication around portals to access the mountain may have been enhanced since 2016. Figure 7 What was or will be your first lift today? — by Visitor Type and Location of Survey Gondola One/ Lift 1 (Village) Eagle Bahn Gondola (Lionshead) Born Free Express Lift (Lionshead) Riva Bahn Express Lift (Gold Peak) By Year 35% 38% 39% 28% 1 8% ' 6% .11% ' 8% Cascade Village 0% Lift (Cascade Village) I3°% 0°Io Lift 12 (Gopher Hill) 0% Don't know What was or will be your first lift today? 8y Visitor Type - 37% - 4046 X31% 39% 27% 41% 16% 20% 7°% 9% - 13% 0°/0 0% 0% 0°I° 0% 0% By Survey Location I2% st 0°Io 0°% 0°Io 0% 73% 71% • 2017 • Day vdsitor • Vail VLIlage Parking Structure 17% • 2016 .8% ■ Local resident 11% • Lionshead Parking Structure 1 3% ■ Overnight visitor ■17% .7°/0 ■14% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% 2896 40% 60% 80% 108% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 78% 80% 90% Percent Responding Percent Responding Percent Responding RRC Associates 9 September 5, 2017 - Page 152 TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS WINTER 2017 Purpose of Trip The survey tracked the purpose of the trip among survey respondents. Virtually all respondents reported that the primary purpose of their trip was skiing/snowboarding (98 percent). All overnight visitors were visiting to ski/snowboard and 9 percent of overnight visitors were also intending to dine/drink in town. Ski Dining) drinks Shop Work/ business Other Figure 8 Trip Purpose by Visitor Type and Location of Survey By Year 98% I3% I 1% 12% I3% 8y Visitor Type 98% 91% 100% 5% 1 6% 9% 2% 12% ■ 2017 cI% ■ 2016 12% ■ Day visitor ■ Local resident ■ Overnight visitor By Survey Location 99% 97% 0% 0% 13% ■ Vail Village Parking Structure ■ Lionshead Parking Structure 0% 20% 46% 60% 80% 100% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Percent Responding Percent Responding Percent Responding RRC Associates 10 September 5, 2017 - Page 153 TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS WINTER 2017 Ratings of the Parking/Access Experience As has been the case in prior years of the survey, respondents rated their satisfaction with several aspects of the parking experience. As shown below, ratings were generally quite high with 72 percent or more of all respondents saying they are "satisfied" (4 or 5 on the scale) in all categories evaluated. The most negatively rated aspect of the experience is the "overall" rating, which received an average rating of 4.1; this rating sometimes came after unsolicited complaints about the price of parking in Vail. However, overall, even this rating is still quite high overall, with only 7 percent of respondents indicating they were "dissatisfied" (by providing of 1 or 2 on the scale). Key Finding: Nearly three-quarters of all respondents were satisfied with each aspect of the parking experience (e.g., safety, ease, convenience, and overall parking experience). Safety of access to skiing/shopping from parking Ease of finding parking today Convenience of access from parking to where you are going The overall parking experience Figure 9 Satisfaction with Parking Experience • Z . Extremely Dissatisfied ■ 2 3 4 • 5 - Extremely Satisfied 55% Fit°o 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 4% 3 80% 90% 100% 1 2 3 4 5 Percent Responding Average There were some differences observed in satisfaction levels by parking location. As shown in the following graph, respondents who parked in the Lionshead Parking Structure provided higher average ratings for each aspect of the experience than respondents who parked in the Vail Village Parking Structure. Results highlight that a particular pain point among those who park in the Vail Village Parking Structure is the ease of finding parking, with 24 percent of respondents providing a rating of 1 or 2 on the scale. Also, while not shown in the graph to follow, the survey did gather input from 18 respondents who parked along the Frontage Road. These respondents provided particularly low ratings for the "safety of access to skiing/shopping" (average rating of 3.7). RRC Associates 11 September 5, 2017 - Page 154 c TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS WINTER 2017 Given the small sample, findings should be interpreted with some caution. However, safety ratings have been consistently lower among respondents who park along the Frontage Road throughout multiple years of the survey program, highlighting that this is an issue worth probing further. If satisfaction ratings from those parking on the Frontage Road is desired we believe that new survey techniques will be required. Samplings from this group of Vail visitors is difficult to obtain. Key Finding: Guests who parked in the Lionshead Parking Structure provided consistently higher average satisfaction ratings than those who parked in the Vail Village Parking Structure or along the Frontage Road. Figure 10 Satisfaction with Parking Experience by Location of Survey ■ 1 - Extremely Dissatisfied J f - Extremely Satinet -1 ■ Vaif Village Parking Structure ■ 2 4 A Lionshead Parking Structure . Frontage Road' Safety of access to skiinglshopping from parking Vail Village Parking Structure Lionshead Parking Structure Response 51% 7696 21% 25% 111 17% _7%i Average Rating Ease of finding parking today Vail Village Parking Structure Lionshead Parking Structure 49% 18% 1O% 20% 819E 14% A Convenience of access from parking to where you are going Vail Village Parking Structure Lionshead Parking Structure 32% 27% 32% 68% 1% 9°% ste 4.2 The overall parking experience Vail Village Parking Structure Lionshead Parking Structure 2745 23% — 67% 41% 19% 8% II 0% 10% 20% 30% 3I1% 50% 60% 10% 80% 90% 100% Percent Responding 'interpret Frontage Road average ratog tEsOls Wrlh caul+on due to low samples sues 0. 113) RRC Associates • • 4.2 1 2 3 4 5 Average 12 September 5, 2017 - Page 155 c TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS WINTER 2017 There has also been some variation in ratings by survey year. Results show a slight dip in satisfaction with the safety, ease, and convenience of the parking experience since 2016. However, the overall parking experience is somewhat improved, with a higher share of respondents noting they were extremely satisfied (52 percent) than in 2016 (46 percent). Key Finding: Even though satisfaction may have been slightly reduced when it came to specific aspects of the experience, guests are slightly more satisfied with the overall parking experience than in prior years. Figure 11 Satisfaction with Parking Experience by Year Safety of access to skiinglshopping from parking 2017 2016 2010 2009 Response 66% 18% 89% 50% 28% 66% 21% 11% 10% NI 13% 4%30% ler 4% Average Rating Ease of finding parking today 2017 2016 2010 2009 68% 16% 81% 57% 17% 65% 9°% 18% 6% 3% 6% 8% Il 6% 4%%4% Convenience of access from parking to where you are going 2017 2016 2010 2009 5595 23% 18% 5% 10% 75% 29% 31% 42% 28% fi°/o 26% MIO 19% 7% 4% The overall parking experience 2017 2016 2010 2009 52% 46% 21% 24% 23% 20% 25% 21% 21% 18% 4% 3% 6% 5% 18% 15% 19% 0% 10% 20% 30% 405 50% 60% 70% • 1 - Extremely Dissatisfied ■ 2 3 4 i■ 5 - Extremely Satisfied Percent Responding 12% 13% 80% 90% 100% 1 2 3 4 5 Average RRC Associates 13 September 5, 2017 - Page 156 TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS WINTER 2017 When assessed by visitor type, results show that overnight visitors are similarly or slightly more satisfied with the parking experience than day visitors and are notably more satisfied with the parking experience than local residents. Overnight visitors were particularly likely to report being satisfied with the ease of finding parking (average rating of 4.6). Figure 12 Satisfaction with Parking Experience by Visitor Type Safety of access to skiing/shopping from parking Day visitor Local resident Overnight visitor Ease of finding parking today Day visitor Local resident Overnight visitor Response 69% 50% 26% 66% 17% 12% 24% 19°Je 13% 2, Average Rctin^ 4.5 4.3 4.5 67% 47% 24% 13% 6% 21% 18°% 4% 72% 10% 4% 6% 6% 4.3 4.1 4.6 Convenience of access from parking to where you are going Day visitor Local resident Overnight visitor The overall parking experience Day visitor 5596 41% 23% 17% 18% 35% 56% 6°% 23% 15% gm 4.3 3.8 4.3 Local resident Overnight visitor 53% 26% 54°% 14% 26% 32% 25% 13% 5% 4% Pr 4.1 • 0% 19% 20% 30% 49% 50% 60% 70% 80% 50% 100% 1 ■ 1 - Extremely Dissatisfied • 2 173 • 4 • 5 - Extremely Satisfied Percent Responding 2 3 4 5 Average RRC Associates 14 September 5, 2017 - Page 157 TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS WINTER 2017 In a new set of questions this year, respondents indicated whether certain aspects of the experience have gotten worse, better, or stayed the same. When it comes to 1-70 travel to and from Vail, equal shares of respondents noted the experience has gotten worse or stayed the same (44 percent, respectively). Those parking in the Vail Village Parking Structure were particularly likely to note the 1-70 experience has gotten worse (54 percent). With regards to parking, most respondents noted that the experience has stayed the same (67 percent). Again, those parking in Vail Village were more likely to indicate the experience has gotten worse (33 percent) than those parking in Lionshead. When asked about the overall Vail experience, 97 percent of respondents note the experience has stayed the same (68 percent) or gotten better (29 percent). Meanwhile, no local resident reported the experience has gotten worse. Ultimately, this speaks to a high level of satisfaction with the Vail experience among all guests. Key Finding: Respondents who parked in the Lionshead Parking Structure are generally more positive in their perceptions of the 1-70 travel experience to/from Vail, as well as the parking experience. All guests are positive when it comes to the overall Vail experience, noting that the experience has either stayed the same or gotten better. RRC Associates 15 September 5, 2017 - Page 158 c TOWN OF VAIL PARKING SURVEYS WINTER 2017 ■ Gotten worse ■ Stayed the same ■ Gotten better Figure 13 Satisfaction with Parking Experience by Visitor Type 1-70 travei(tolfrorn) Vail Overall 11% Vail Village Parking Structure' Lionshead Parking Structure Day visitor Local resident Overnight visitor 44% 16% 10% 6% 44% 45% 41% 82% 13% 45% Parking Overall 1 O% 67 Vail Village Parking Structure I 66% Lionshead Parking Structure Day visitor Local resident Overnight visitor 13% 68 8% 12% The overall Vail experience Overall 29% 68% 31 Vail Village Parking Structure 9% 88% 31 Lionshead Parking Structure 38% 59% 31 Day visitor 29% 58% 31 Local resident 71== 78% Overnight visitor 112. 66% 4911 o% 10% 20% 30% ,s0% 30% 60% 70% 60% 93. Percent Responding RRC Associates 16 September 5, 2017 - Page 159 r Goals to provide and manage public parking to meet the goals of 15 days of overflow parking on the S Frontage Road for each season, winter and summer ➢ Parking Plan Policy Objectives Service Core Markets Skiers, shoppers, employees Manage the Yield Simplify the Product Design Products so it is Revenue Neutral Increase Safety In addition the Parking and Transportation Task Force works with the following guidelines o Strongly encourage the use of transit o Recover transit enhancement costs through parking o Parking cost increases will be borne by parking o Encourage turnover of shopper parking spaces o Have the rate of the shopper parking track closer to rates in the structure o Raise the top rate to offset continued increased cost of operation o Encourage carpooling/vanpool o Pass prices reflect a relative value received based on the daily rate (i.e. season cost is based on 21 weeks at 5 times per week at daily rate) o Strictly enforce parking violations September 5, 2017 - Page 160 c TOWN Of UAJL VAILTOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(a)(e) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer, or sale of property interests; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators Regarding: possible real property acquisition, La Cantina Lease; 2) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b) - to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, Regarding: Senate Bill SB -152; 3)) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b)(e) - to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, Regarding: update on pending litigation. PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire, Town Attorney September 5, 2017 - Page 161 c VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Recess at 4:15 p.m. TOWN Of9 September 5, 2017 - Page 162 c