The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2018-04-17 Agenda and Supporting Documentation Town Council Afternoon Meeting AgendaVAIL TOWN COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING Agenda Town Council Chambers 2:00 PM, April 17, 2018 TOWN Of 4IAJt 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. Presentation / Discussion 1.1. Presentation of the findings of the Eagle River Valley Housing Needs and 45 min. Solution 2018 Report Presenter(s): George Ruther, Town of Vail Housing Director and Kim Williams, Eagle County Housing Director Action Requested of Council: No action is required. Following the presentation, the Town Council is encouraged to engage in a question & answer discussion with staff. Background: Eagle County Government contracted with Rees Consulting Inc and Williford, LLC. to complete the Eagle River Valley Housing and Needs 2018 Report. The purpose of the Report was three -fold: 1) Provide current context on people, jobs, and housing markets in the Eagle River Valley; 2) Update the housing demand calculations and projections that have been used consistently over the past 11 years; and 3) Inform housing policy and implementation by providing up to date information on what local households and employers need: their housing goals and intentions, the tradeoffs they are willing to make, and solutions that are likely to be the most well received. A copy of the Eagle River Valley Needs and Solutions Housing 2018 Report has been attached for reference. 1.2. EPIC Discovery Update Presenter(s): Phil Metz, Vail Resorts Senior Director Marketing, Action Requested of Council: Listen to presentation and provide feedback. Background: Town Council requested an update on Epic Discovery. Vail Resorts will present high level results to date as well as plans for the upcoming season. 1.3. Traffic Calming Update Presenter(s): Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer Action Requested of Council: Provide staff with direction with regards to trial traffic calming installations Background: Council has requested staff to look at traffic calming options for residential roads. This is a follow up to the presentation made in October. 15 min. 20 min. April 17, 2018 - Page 1 of 141 Staff Recommendation: Provide staff with direction with regards to trial traffic calming installations. 1.4. Vail Nature Center Update Presenter(s): Todd Oppenheimer, Landscape Architect Project Manager Action Requested of Council: Given that the apparent outcome of the mitigation/remediation efforts will result in an incomplete remediation of the environmental and structural issues, Staff is requesting the Town Council provide direction to begin the process of vacating the existing VNC building, procuring and installing a yurt as a temporary facility and initiating a process which will engage the community in the design of a new, permanent facility to ensure the long-term success of the Vail Nature Center. Background: The purpose of this discussion is to provide an update to the Town Council on the continued on-going work on the Vail Nature Center short-term actions intended to allow continuation of the VNC programming by the Walking Mountains Science Center. Staff is continuing to pursue two distinct approaches to resolving the facility needs of the VNC. These approaches are to 1) mitigate and/or remediate the environmental and structural issues and 2) to construct a yurt as a temporary structure to house the VNC programs. The attached memorandum outlines progress that has been made on the multiple issues effecting the Vail Nature Center. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the Town Council consider the above stated request and provide direction in regards to the short-term actions and long-term future of the Vail Nature Center. 1.5. Proposal for Recognizing Boards & Commissions Presenter(s): Patty McKenny, Town Clerk Action Requested of Council: Town Council input, feedback and direction on suggestions for recognizing boards and commissions. Background: The Town Council appoints local community members to serve on ten boards and commissions; there are over 70 volunteers who give their time to these boards. The memo in the packet presents suggestions for recognizing and thanking the volunteers. 2. DRB / PEC Update 2.1. DRB / PEC Update Presenter(s): Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager 3. Information Update 3.1. VLHA Meeting Results 3.2. Al PP Meeting Minutes for March 5, 2018 3.3. CSE Draft Meeting Minutes from April 4, 2018 4. Matters from Mayor, Council and Committee Reports 5. Executive Session 15 min. 15 min. 10 min. 5.1. Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b)(e) - to receive 15 min. legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, Regarding: General Improvement District April 17, 2018 - Page 2 of 141 Presenter(s): Matt Mire, Town Attorney 6. Recess 6.1. Recess at 4:30 p.m. 7. Meeting with Vail Delegation and Mr. Souichi Nakamura 7.1. Preview Japan Exploration Visit Presentation 30 min. 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, www.highfivemedia.org. Please call 970-479-2136 for additional information. Sign language interpretation is available upon request with 48 hour notification dial 711. April 17, 2018 - Page 3 of 141 TOWN OF 1 X41 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Presentation of the findings of the Eagle River Valley Housing Needs and Solution 2018 Report PRESENTER(S): George Ruther, Town of Vail Housing Director and Kim Williams, Eagle County Housing Director ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: No action is required. Following the presentation, the Town Council is encouraged to engage in a question & answer discussion with staff. BACKGROUND: Eagle County Government contracted with Rees Consulting Inc and Williford, LLC. to complete the Eagle River Valley Housing and Needs 2018 Report. The purpose of the Report was three -fold: 1) Provide current context on people, jobs, and housing markets in the Eagle River Valley; 2) Update the housing demand calculations and projections that have been used consistently over the past 11 years; and 3) Inform housing policy and implementation by providing up to date information on what local households and employers need: their housing goals and intentions, the tradeoffs they are willing to make, and solutions that are likely to be the most well received. A copy of the Eagle River Valley Needs and Solutions Housing 2018 Report has been attached for reference. ATTACHMENTS: Description 2018 Eagle Valley Housing Needs and Solutions April 17, 2018 - Page 4 of 141 April 17, 2018 - Page 5 of 12 \V 1 LI .A FO I{.I . LL( 1.1+12 L•51. 11 hausir5g Ross Consultiplig, Irrc, EAGLE RIVER VALLEY HOUSING NEEDS AND SOLUTIONS 2018 http://www.eaglecounty.us/housing/ PREPARED BY WI L 1, 1 FO RD.. C land o & affarc'.able I't using+ Willa Williford 303-818-0096 willa@willifordhousing.com IN TEAM WITH CONSULTING URBANTuT3I 11 Rees Consulting, Inc. NRC frontier foRevard Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 6 of 141 • rp i•.i a • J `` J 1 k rr !fes**it' 1 1 11 r •SLI +k 1 01. INTRODUCTION Purpose The Eagle River Valley Defined What is Affordable? What is the Difference Between Housing Need and Market Size? Key Findings & Policy Considerations PART I - CURRENT CONDITIONS, TRENDS, AND HOUSING NEEDS UPDATE Current Conditions Who We Are and Where We Live Trends in Housing and Job Markets Housing Demand Update What is Behind the Numbers? PART II - HOUSING SOLUTIONS Ownership Housing - Design & Development Rental Housing Development & Design Housing Tools APPENDICES Appendix A - Acknowledgements & Contributions Appendix B - Area Median Family Income & Purchase Prices Appendix C - Home Sales by Zip Code Appendix D - Methodology & Sources Appendix E - Survey Definitions of Tools Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC 2 3 4 5 10 13 17 25 28 33 46 54 62 63 64 66 72 III April 17, 2018 - Page 7 of 141 INTRODUCTION Purpose The goal of this report is three -fold: 1) Provide current context on people, jobs, and housing markets in the Eagle River Valley; 2) Update the housing demand calculations and projections that have been used consistently over the past 11 years; and 3) Inform housing policy and implementation by providing up to date information on what local house- holds and employers need: their housing goals and intentions, the tradeoffs they are willing to make, and solutions that are likely to be the most well received. This report is organized in two parts: PARTI PART ONE is the Housing Needs Update, which begins with current data on the valley's population, jobs, and the housing market. It measures the problem of workforce housing in terms of perceptions and impacts on households and provides the metrics that are the foundation for the need update. Part I concludes with the demand update calculations. PART II PART TWO provides guidance on moving forward with housing solutions: key considerations policy makers need to know, where to build housing, how to design it, appropriate price ranges, and what tools should be prioritized. Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC INTRODUCTION III April 17, 2018 - Page 8 of 141 INTRODUCTION Eagle River Valley Defined The study area is the Eagle River Valley, from Vail to Dotsero. While the entire valley is socially, economically, and geographically connected, there are three distinct market areas, which are defined as: • Up Valley, which includes the towns of Vail, Minturn, and Red Cliff. • Mid Valley, which includes Eagle Vail, Avon, and Edwards. • Down Valley, which includes Wolcott, Eagle, Gypsum, and Dotsero. Burns, Bond, and McCoy are not included. Basalt and El Jebel are covered by a separate study for the Roaring Fork Valley. INTRODUCTION IMI Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 9 of 141 AMI% 60% 100% 140% 200% Household Income - 3 persons Max Affordable Purchase price Max Affordable Rent $48,360 $190,000 $1,210 Cni irro• CI -IPA rnncn taint taam n ra ri atirtric aro nrnvirinrd in ninon iv INTRODUCTION I WHAT IS AFFORDABLE HOUSING IN THE EAGLE RIVER VALLEY? This report centers on an understanding of "what is affordable?" Housing affordability is a function both of the cost of housing and household income. Housing is generally considered to be affordable when the monthly payment (rent or mortgage) is equal to no more than 30% of a household's gross income. Although there is some variation, this standard is commonly applied by federal and state housing programs, local housing initiatives, mortgage lenders and rental leasing agents. Incomes are typically expressed as a percentage of the median, which is abbreviated in this report as AMI (Area Median Income). The following table provides the incomes for each AMI category with the corresponding affordable price for housing, each representing the maximums for each range. Interest rates have a profound impact on housing affordability. These price points assume an interest rate of 5%. Interest rates are likely to rise going forward and a one point increase in the rate lowers the affordable purchase price for a 100% AMI household by $30,000 to $35,000. MAXIMUM AFFORDABLE RENTS AND PURCHASE PRICES BY AMI EAGLE VALLEY - 2017 $80,600 $316,000 $ 2,420 $112,840 $443,000 $2,820 $161,200 $632,000 $4,030 Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC 3 April 17, 2018 - Page 10 of 141 WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HOUSING NEED AND MARKET SIZE? Housing Need Part I of this report calculates the need for additional housing based on a method pioneered by Rees Consulting, Inc and RRC Associates in the 1990's to address the question: "How many additional housing units are needed to address housing problems and provide a sufficient labor force to sustain the economy?" This measurement is a key component of Housing Needs Assessments. It quantifies needs in two categories: "CATCH-UP" Additional housing units needed now to address existing problems "KEEP -UP" Additional units needed in the future to fill jobs Need is used for many purposes including setting of goals and objectives for housing, strategic and land use planning, allocation of resources, establishing funding sources and developing tools to comprehensively address needs. Market Size Part II provides a traditional method for analyzing housing markets used primarily by developers (private, non-profit and public), lenders and investors for specific ownership and rental housing developments. This measurement is a standard part of project -specific market studies. It represents the market from which a proposed housing development will draw its owners or renters. It is used to determine if projects are feasible and to gauge risk. Market size addresses the question: "Is there a sufficient market for the proposed units to be sold or rented?" After quantifying the total number of households that comprise the market, Part II of this report segment that market by income, household type and size, and housing and location preferences to inform decisions about location, unit type, bedroom mix, pricing and amenities. While some lenders may allow market analysts to consider in migration and population growth in estimates, a more straightforward and conservative method, like used by CHFA, considers only existing households. It is assumed that, with growth, demographics and preferences will remain much the same. In market analysis it is not necessary to consider households that might move in unless major events, like a large tech company moving into a resort community, are planned. INTRODUCTION Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 11 of 141 KEY FINDINGS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Since the end of the recession, around 2011, jobs and population have been growing much more rapidly than housing inventory, and with that has created many challenges: • frustration for employees seeking housing, • employers facing unfilled positions, high turnover, higher training costs, and lost productivity, • precipitously increase in home prices, well beyond the means of most local residents, and • extremely low vacancy rates, resulting in limited choices and rising costs for renters. If forecasts prove accurate, these tensions are poised to increase, with about 7,150 newjobs coming to the Eagle River Valley by 2025. Mid valley is anticipated to have the most newjobs, but up valley is not far behind. If the economy remains strong and and no new housing is created, these growth pressures will translate into higher numbers of unfilled jobs and continued rapid escalation of housing prices. Another approach is to create new housing for the additional employees and their families who fill these jobs. According to Office of State Demography projections, these new households are anticipated to live more often in mid valley and down valley markets, adding to the eastbound morning commute pattern. These assumptions align with recent growth patterns and future opportunities, and policymakers are poised to make decisions that can influence the course of future housing growth. lllllllllllllll� 7,125 Jobi by 2025 5,900 HotraIng Unite Needed by 2025 Housing Need Responding to the demand demonstrated in this re- port is a matter of local public policy, which should be driven by local goals and objectives. Creating new housing happens through a complex set of drivers and constraints including available land, land use policy, developer interest and capacity, financial fea- sibility, and local subsidies and requirements. The high cost of taking no action on workforce housing has consequences for individuals and families, the economy, civic engagement, and overall community character and sense of genuine place. When setting policy goals and direction for housing locals, communities rarely target achieving 100% of the catch-up and keep -up demand estimates, nor are resources likely available to achieve 100% of the gap. Rather, it is incumbent upon policymakers to use the data in this report to set goals that are an appropri- ate blend of aspirational, attainable, and respon- sive to community values and vision. Making any progress, or just staying even, in producing housing affordable for the local workforce in a market with gaps as large as those found in the Eagle River Valley requires a consistent, incremental, multi -pronged approach. The communities of the Eagle River Valley have many significant accomplishments in the realm of workforce housing, and renewed commitment and continued work are essential moving forward. The communities that make up the Eagle River Val- ley are well-positioned to work on housing goals and strategies that are tailored specifically to individual communities, as well as to collaborate on region- al solutions. Both local and regional approaches are warranted and necessary to create diverse and long-lasting housing solutions for the local work- force. Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC INTRODUCTION 5 April 17, 2018 - Page 12 of 141 KEY FINDINGS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Ownership Housing Based on the conclusions drawn from the resident survey, policy makers should keep the following pri- orities and considerations in mind when shaping pol- icy strategies around home ownership housing: • Ownership housing in proximity to work has many tangible and intangible benefits associat- ed with creating a sense of place and community, stability for school children and employers, year- round contributions to the economy, decreased commute times and increased volunteerism. • Local households, both owners and renters, have an overwhelming desire to remain or become homeowners, regardless of income. • A diversity of attached and detached housing product is needed, with a range of price points, upgrade options and amenities. • Affordability is the key obstacle for locals seeking to buy in the Eagle River Valley. Numerous tools will be needed to overcome the affordability gap for most locations and product types. • Affordability and location are the highest priori- ties for buyers. If homes are located in desirable communities and priced affordably, buyers will make tradeoffs on unit type and size. Regardless of where in the valley buyers are seeking to live, community character is the most important lo- cation attribute local households consider - un- derscoring the need to integrate housing efforts in comprehensive community planning and that preserves and enhances sense of place, locals or family -orientation, social opportunities, and proximity to services and entertainment. Given the significant gap between the market and what locals can afford, deed restrictions are a necessity for most unit types and price points. Fortunately, deed restrictions are widely accept- ed by consumers. • One third of current homeowners would like to move within the valley in the next five years. If an owner buys a new/different residence and their current free market home is purchased by second home owner or inventor for short term rentals, there is no net improvement in the rela- tionship between supply and demand for local residents. • Moving owners into new homes could be a component of a housing strategy that would support mixed income developments and fo- cus on building neighborhoods. • Preserving the homes that will be sold as pri- mary residences when providing new home op- portunities could be considered, including buy downs or other incentives to place deed restric- tions on homes being sold. • Also, owners of deed restricted units could be given priority for new ownership opportunities, which would create movement in the deed -re- stricted inventory. • Availability of funds for down payment is key to making sure that renters with the desire to pur- chase a home and stay in the Eagle River Valley are able to do so when a home affordable to them becomes available. For this reason, local communities should continue to support the Ea- gle County down payment assistance program, which has a strong track record in assisting local households. 6 "A key to addressing the housing challenge is political will." -2018 Survey Respondent INTRODUCTION Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC 1 April 17, 2018 - Page 13 of 141 KEY FINDINGS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS Rental Housing While most renters in the Eagle Valley would prefer to own, rental housing is an important component of a healthy housing ecosystem. Most renters will not be able to afford ownership in the near term, and rental housing is needed for new employees recruited into the community. Building additional rental housing should continue to be part of local housing policy goals, especially in consideration of the current ex- treme low vacancy, escalating rental rates, and high levels of cost burden among renters. • Up valley and mid valley should be the priori- tized for new rental development, as 82% of cur- rent renters prefer those locations. • Renters, especially those with low wages are price sensitive, and proximity to work is their most important locational attribute. Jobs within the market area and what rental price points are appropriate for households making those wag- es should be considered when siting new rental housing. Housing Tools Both local and regional approaches are warranted and necessary to create diverse and long-lasting housing solutions for the local workforce. The communities that make up the Eagle River Valley are well positioned to work on housing goals and strategies that are tailored specifically to individual communities, as well as to collaborate on regional solutions. Part I reported on the nearly unanimous agreement among employers and residents that workforce housing is a problem in the Eagle Valley, and those sentiments carry forward in employers and resident's overall enthusiasm for tools that contribute to workforce housing solutions in Part II. When considering local and regional tools and how they could be formulated into housing strategies, policymakers would be well-advised to begin with the tools that received the most support from employers and residents: 1. Providing town/county land for workforce and local residents' housing. 2. Providing public financing through the towns, County, or housing authority. 3. Fast track processing of land use proposals that include workforce housing. 4. Towns or County taking the lead in building housing, which could be as developer or as lead on public/private partnerships. 5. Inclusionary housing, which requires new residential development to contribute to the workforce housing inventory. 6. Commercial linkage, which requires new commercial development to contribute towards workforce housing based on the need for housing for the employees of the new jobs generated. "We need the County - Commissioners and Staff - to take a leadership role in addressing this 'perfect storm, with innovative approaches, and with commitment to seeking partnerships and solutions that will, year -by - year, bridge the gap in attainable, sustainable housing. This 'housing' must meet the needs of year-round employees and entrepreneurs in our valley - not just seasonal workers:' -2018 Survey Respondent Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC INTRODUCTION 7 April 17, 2018 - Page 14 of 141 KEY FINDINGS AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS These tools represent a balanced mix of funding, partnerships, incentives, and regulations. They are some of the more aggressive tools in the affordable housing toolkit, which reflects the urgency of the is- sue and a good level of knowledge and acceptance of these tools by residents and employers. Of particu- lar note is the desire for local municipalities and the County to lead housing efforts. Local government is a key player in all six of the most frequently supported strategies. Perhaps because they experience the day to day challenges of hiring and retaining employees in the current jobs/housing environment, employers rated more strategies highly, including: • Fee waivers for water, sewer, and other impact fees. Excise tax on short term rentals. • Density bonuses for inclusion of workforce hous- ing. While considered slightly lower priority by residents, these tools may be appropriate components of the housing strategies for some communities. It is clear that local communities would be wise to create some momentum and build upon success- es before seeking any dedicated funding streams through a new tax (with the possible exception of short term rental excise tax). Property tax exemp- tion, sales tax, and property tax make up three of the five least supported strategies. The tools chapter also provides data on where among the three market areas the tools received more and less support, which should be helpful as communities consider local and valley wide housing strategies. Several themes point toward the relevan- cy of a valley -wide housing strategy: • Several tools including providing town/Coun- ty land and inclusionary zoning received strong support valley -wide. • Support for housing tools was strong across households of all incomes ranges. • Learning best practices from each other, devel- oping regional approaches, and strengthening cooperation were consistently expressed in the open-ended questions. • Partnerships with employers offer promising op- portunities. Both small and large employers ex- press interest in investing in workforce housing and expanding the housing opportunities they currently offer. Communities within the valley have a long history of successful workforce housing initiatives and many have used different housing tools at different times, including public private partnerships, land trades, annexation agreements, inclusionary housing, com- mercial linkage fees, and leverage of local funds to match outside investments in housing. There is op- portunity to build upon these successes (as well as incorporate lessons learned) to create a more consis- tent, unified approach going forward. r INTRODUCTION Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 15 of 141 PART Current Conditions, Trends, and Housing Needs Update Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC PART I 9 April 17, 2018 - Page 16 of 141 CURRENT CONDITIONS What Housing Problem? We asked survey respondents about their perceptions of housing as a problem, by asking: "Do you feel that the availability of housing that is affordable for the workforce in the Eagle River Valley is..." Their response was emphatic: it's a big problem. • A remarkable 91% of household survey respondents felt that the lack of availability of housing that is affordable to the workforce in the Eagle River Valley is one of the most serious problems or the most critical problem in the region. • And, 85% of employers felt that the lack of availability of housing that is affordable to the workforce in the Eagle River Valley is one of the most serious problems or the most critical problem in the region. • No employers responded that it is"not a problem"or"a lesser problem." Perception housing problem - employers and households sehelds The rnot critical problem in. tyle regiOri t]ne of the more serious problems A moderate problem ORP a}f th+? JFgid] n's IPSwr pal r}hl a rah. Mot a problem. Source: 2018 employer survey, 2018 household survey. o% 10% ! A 5 OM j"YD SCA 90% 113:1% ■Fmp lgyvrs • ru FIi Id'1 There is strong consensus valley -wide that housing affordability is a serious or critical problem. A full 99% of renters feel that this is one of the more serious or the most critical problem in the region, and 84% of owners feel the same way. 10 PART I Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 17 of 141 4 314 1 CURRENT CONDITIONS Perception housing problem - by tenure the malt cIticilprahltm nihe reticn Orrrof the more se'lbus problems Arnor:rrahe ]rvblern One 4f aro r:+lelvn% Itrair problurni NO a prahiern 34 13% 0% 2 Er Rare Own Source: 2018 household survey elErki scx 50% 6 "The most common concern you hear from regular blue collar hard working adults like myself is, how bad the housing is here. It's time to make a change." -2018 Survey Respondent Mid valley respondents where slightly more likely to perceive the problem as"more serious"or"most critical" than their up valley and down valley neighbors; 94% compared to 89% for up valley and 88% for down valley. 100% lel% 6 SEM 4r 30% 2. LEI'Y Serious or Critical - three market ares Grp valley Source: 2018 household survey. Mid Ya Ilei+ More serious ■ Most critical Down va Ilei Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC PART I 11 April 17, 2018 - Page 18 of 141 1 CURRENT CONDITIONS Perceptions of severity have some variation by income: combined responses for "serious" and "most critical" range from between 82% and 97%, with lower income households tending to have higher severity ratings. Interestingly, 92% of households over 200% AMI also felt it was "serious" and "most critical." 1 954 c1 E59. 75% 95% Serious or Critical Problem by AMI 97% 929+ 61:R or less AMI &D.1 Ea 103 AM! 100.1 kc. 140 AMI 140.1 to 700 AMI Over 200 AMI ource: ouse old survey i s 9.1 _ZAZ Jai -' .r- 4r 4 F - NE:n 61;1.4 + ..r.* r 1t- �` err .-- "Frustration with housing continues to grow and moved in a negative direction from 2015-16. Negative opinions about housing are higher than ever found in the history of conducting the survey. Almost three out of four businesses feel that the housing situation negatively impacts their ability to hire and retain employees and this issue was mentioned frequently when asked about additional resources that are needed." -Vail Valley Partnership: 2017 Workforce Survey Report PART I Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 19 of 141 WHO WE ARE AND WHERE WE LIVE Household Characteristics DOWN VALLEY of the Valley's Year -Round Households are Located Here Homes Occupied Year -Round I DE Gy num EAGLE 1.:1 CP 1. up•r L./..; r 1 1- V MID VALLEY of the Valley's Year -Round Households are Located Here 61% Homes Occupied Year -Round EDWARDS AVON• UP VALLEY of the Valley's Year -Round Households are Located Here 41% Homes Occupied Year -Round VARA -411 .11.114110 *� i -mon;+x RED CLIFF u p Household Types - three market areas Ourwn lis hid 'IA l up VIII!.y 1 ■ -1 ■ 09s 2B9. 4C6.1 i x: 80% l • adult Rrlr. adarru CGupl ira dfrlidl rend CCrrlol with €fhrdIrtn1 • Single parent with child! rens • Urlr 1ited roxrn milers Extendwitilrriulti-generse.ion family ■ Faralhy and rao-mrrreltisF Source: 2018 household survey Househo1c1 Size - three market areas 35% 1595 10% S% III 111 III III I I i 1 2 1 5 or more Nuoldarev Will V311e+2 Ili arum Vali y ..1 Source: 2018 household survey Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC 13 April 17, 2018 - Page 20 of 141 WHO WE ARE AND WHERE WE LIVE Looking at the demographics of the Eagle River Valley, some of the distinctions and similarities between the three market areas begin to emerge, as well as the reasons the workforce housing shortage is being felt so acutely at this time. Across the valley, the average household size is 2.9 people. Each household has an average of 1.8 employed persons, and each employed person has an average of 1.24jobs.These metrics are used throughout the demand calculations. Mid valley is home to the most year-round residents, however, down valley has been adding year- round households more rapidly since 2010.The demand for second homes and the percentage of homes occupied by full time residents is one of the defining distinctions between the three markets. The three market areas have a number of distinctions with regard to household composition and age of residents. • Mid and down valley are home to a higher percentage of households with children and adults in the prime working years of 30-64. Looking at the presence of children in the household provides a striking contrast: only 17% of households up valley have children present, while almost half (48%) of down valley households include children. aM • Down valley has larger households, especially those with four or more individuals. • Up valley is home to proportionally more adults living alone, roommates, millennials, individuals over 65 and extended/multigenerational households. • All three market areas have similar 22-26% of couples without children. Source: 2018 household survey "And it doesn't matter if you are up or down valley anymore -- we would be paying the same mortgage in Eagle or Gypsum that we are currently paying in Eagle -Vail but would also be commuting our children and ourselves daily, adding to 1-70 traffic and our monthly expenses." I dislike the terms "employee housing" and "workforce housing;" we are the people who choose to live here year- round and make the valley have viable communities. We are more than employees -- we are parents, teachers, business owners, service providers; we are raising families. -2018 Survey Respondent PART I Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 21 of 141 WHO WE ARE AND WHERE WE LIVE Incomes and Tenure Mid and down valley have similar distribution of incomes, while up valley is home to a higher proportion of households with incomes below 60% AMI and above 200% AMI. i income Distribution - three rrarket areas wIur ■tION Ind a.rdax Source: 2018 household survey. rid valley Dawn VII iie•y • 60.1 -1 CC% ■ 1.1 L A4 L 1 .L 2v Granter then . W The majority of renters (58%) have incomes below the median income. As incomes increase, households become more likely to own. About 23% of renters have incomes at or above 140% AMI. These households may have formerly been considered "renters by choice," but may be priced out of homeownership in the current market. +156 3zsi 254 2014. 15%% i0% 5% Lib Income Distribution - awn/Rent 6U% and brio* 60.1.100% 100,1-11R31. 1- 1-200% Groot& than 3 6 —Own • —Ren! Source: 2018 household survey. Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC PART I 15 April 17, 2018 - Page 22 of 141 Down Valley Mid Valley 30% Hispanic 34% Hispanic 70% Non - Hispanic DOTS E GYPSUM Source: 2018 household survey. WHO WE ARE AND WHERE WE LIVE Down Valley Mid Valley 146% Rent Up Valley 62% Rent 38% Own OVERALL 45% Rent Own Source: 2018 household survey. Ethnicity Hispanic households make up about a third of year-round residents in mid and down valley, while the percentage of Hispanic households in up valley is much smaller at only 13%. faL EAGLE • EP 00 1.. Tr 66% Non - Hispanic Up Valley 13% Hispanic 87% J EDWARDSAVON • . P I NTURN1 vdvi VAIL Non - Hispanic lEeZ RED CLIFF • r. L:f ti' C PART I Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 23 of 141 TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS Housing Shortage and the Economy The housing shortage negatively impacts employers in terms of employee retention, business development and growth. In 2017, unemployment in Eagle County was 2.2%, the lowest level since 2000. This situation leaves very few employees living in the valley to fill positions. High housing costs and a predominance of low wage, tourism industry jobs exacerbate the challenge because employers have difficulty attracting and retaining employees from beyond the Valley. • An estimated 1,600 jobs remained unfilled, heading into the peak winter season of 2017/2018. • Jobs are remaining unfilled for longer periods of time. Last year 43% of jobs remained open for more than a month, compared to 18% of jobs five years ago, according to the Vail Valley Partnership - 2017 Workforce Survey Report. • As is common in resort areas, the largest employment sectors are accommodations, food, and retail. Eagle River Valley employees have a weekly wage $220 lower than employees in Colorado overall. The fastest growing occupations will continue to be in the accommodations, food service, and retail sectors, including waiters and waitresses, retail sales clerks, food preparation, and housekeeping. These jobs typically pay wages below $31,000/year, or about 50% AMI for a single person. MEI "Those of us keeping this valley operating working in retail, hospitality, and ski resort operations do not make a huge income. Yet, without us, the valley wouldn't survive. Keep us here.” -2018 Survey Respondent "I came here for adven- ture, opportunity, and in hopes of making Vail Valley my home. In four years, I've been hit with the harsh reality that a single adult has no chance to truly make a home here. I have no children and work tireless hours to simply pay rent." -2018 Survey Respondent lobs and Wages by industry Sector - Eagle Valley 2016 l•.era�pe gnnudtiYapo 2Y% 211156 I • I „if / // / k 0,L Source: QCEW 2016 J 4 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I 17 April 17, 2018 - Page 24 of 141 TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS An estimated 1,200 employees in the Eagle River Valley intend to retire in the next five years, and most of these retirees will stay in the valley. New employees needed to fill those jobs will struggle to find housing they can afford. Additional homes will be needed to house new employees recruited to fill these jobs as they become available. For Sale Housing Market The last full Housing Needs Assessment was completed in 2007. Since that time, median household income has increased 6%, while home prices increased 20%. Change in sale pri ee and median income - 2X0 -2O18 sa2].CP3g 55 N. NO $e $'[,Z 700 933, DEE $$ SAW .2 X•D moo 201a - Ir:.,_i•i•S• :-. •Sy :IP1-h+Rdirn 5dkFnit L IuniRs) Source: 2007 Housing Needs Assessment, MLS Second homeowners and short-term rental investment buyers currently compete with year-round residents for homes at all price points affordable to locals. With continued scarcity of housing throughout the valley, all three markets are likely to see continued price increases and decline in homes occupied year-round. It is very difficult to buy a home in Eagle County with an income derived in the Eagle River Valley. Based on survey data, about 5,000 local households with income below 140% AMI ($113,000 or less for a three-person household) would like to purchase a home within the Eagle River Valley. But only 64 homes were listed for sale at prices they can afford in January of this year. The majority of these listings were condos, likely to be purchased by second home or investor buyers. There is an inventory surplus in of homes for sale over $600,000, which serves households over 200% AMI. Buyers of these homes will predominately be from out of the area. 18 PART I 1 Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 25 of 141 TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS CURRENT MLS LISTINGS AND LOCAL HOUSEHOLDS WHO WANTTO PURCHASE AMI Range Max Affordable Purchase Price # of Current MLS Listings Up Valley Mid Valley Down Valley Total Listings House- holds Want to Buy 60% or less 60-100% AMI 100-140% AMI 140-200% AMI Greater than 200% AMI Total ,+00 $316,000 $443,000 $632,000 Source: MLS, hog rvey, consultant team y 0 1 7 12 0 4 13 22 218 1 7 31 43 68 12 51 77 485 1,440 2,110 2,120 1,550 1,070 A local household would need an income of about $152,000 (or 236% of Area Median Income) to afford the median priced home that sold in 2017. 0'100.130:1 5.,ro 5400,000 5300.00(1 00,000 Q.0QQ sow $ S - Median income and Median Rale Price - 2017 Sa41600 Metfian Inccri 5621,000 AMor.:atle Pnre M2A et Pr ice S.152,001:1 Fncome needed 1 Source: MLS, CHFA, consultant team Last year, median sales prices exceeded what is affordable to a household with median income for all areas and home types except condos in the down valley. Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC PART April 17, 2018 - Page 26 of 141 ■ TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS 52.CMIECI S1,S .Q4Q 5LA00 5.1,2C0):101:1 5l,C AC0 $005 5600,000 $4/.14M LI $200,U00 Median Sale Prices • three market are - 2017 $1raa$,ICa S/177.50111 1 Up. Vali • 57.55. 5542,U 1 $a9M,',1 Jn •. Mio 1.1Irk Down %a rn+ Condo plr, fTl,wuhanr Single Family -Arlo cable. MITA AM 41 id beruw Source: MLS, consultant team Scarcity is a significant factor in the high cost of housing. Of the 1,300 homes sold last year, only 10% sold at prices that would be affordable to a household with income of $80,600 or lower (100% AMI). Up valley, only nine condos in Vail and four single family homes in Red Cliff were affordable for incomes of 100% AMI. Mid valley, all homes sold that would be affordable to 100% AMI or lower were condos, and single-family homes were distinctly unaffordable with a median price approaching $2 million. Down valley there was a more balanced mix of condos, duplexes, townhomes, and single -family -homes, however, only 21% of all homes sold down valley were affordable to 100% AMI households. Number of Homes Sold - 2017 Hid Val* {ensile 311 1� p Vi Ley DdritrArni 195 Condo 167 Singe FamF' 1411 NMx{1H Be MI al10494RMI 43 5ingie Failrik Alf + 10R odvii Source: MLS 20 PART! Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 27 of 141 TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS For Rent Housing Market It is similarly difficult to rent a home. Over the past five years, vacancy rates have been dropping, and rent levels rising. With vacancy levels now approaching zero, the rental market is no longer functioning effectively. Employees who are new to the area, or people needing to move based on changes in their housing needs have great difficulty finding a home to rent. Landlords experience low turnover and have little incentive to make repairs and improvements. Such scarcity has driven prices more rapidly than wage increases. In 2007, average rent for all unit types was $1,150. Currently, average rent is $1,700, an increase of 48%. (Both figures exclude utilities, which also impact affordability.) Incomes have only increased 6% over that time period. This dynamic is driving up cost burden, especially among the lowest income renters. 1 AVERAGE RENT FOR ALL UNIT TYPE S VMS $11,150. CURRENTLY, AVERAGE RENT IS $1,700, AN INCREASE OF Cox Most the rental housing reported on this trend graph has deed restrictions that place a cap on rents. As the economy has improved, vacancy rates have plunged, but rents have only increased modestly, due to the deed restrictions. In free market rentals, low vacancy rates are pushing rapid price increases. 51.690 51.404 $1,2oo 51.440 5.311)3 ROD 5400 SZO so Remand Vacancy Trend - Deed Restricted Properties 2010 2011 3412 7013 2414 3015 2016 2417 Amore Rang Vacancy Source: Polar Star Market Reports 2010 to 2017 With rental inventory limited, renters of all incomes are competing for the same units, and the lowest income renters are only paying about 19% less than the highest income renters. Employees in a household need to work about 120 hours a week, or three full time jobs, at minimum wage for the average rent and utility payment to be considered "affordable." Mid valley has the highest average free market rent, likely due to a higher number of households renting larger single-family homes. Overall, the gap between free market and deed restricted in the region is about 20% or approximately $330/month. Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART I 21 1 April 17, 2018 - Page 28 of 141 TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS S1,sGn $1430 Average Rents - three market areas SLS sI,'1 M I 51370 Up Valley 141111 Why Down Valley °recoil ! Prim Markel -Average Rend ■ Irked Nestrkted- era pe Rant Source: 2018 household survey, December 2017 Polar Star Market Report The gap between market and deed restricted is about $350/month for two- and three-bedroom homes. Average Rent - Number of Bedrooms $ly SL,18I LOlkiro torn $1,11_00) $1,540 1 B*Arro cn. 19idrI�ITY b Deed New c d AVerdgeRerd -.F h rIkas • MOMS Ran Source: 2018 household survey, December 2017 Polar Star Market Report Pr - "The cost of rent is absurd. People are paying $1000+ a month in some units to rent an air mattress on a floor in a closet with no windows, no parking, utilities not included, you get the picture." -2018 Survey Respondent PART I Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 29 of 141 TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS Commuting The mismatch between where local workers live and where jobs are located requires much of the workforce to commute. • About 9% of the workforce commutes from outside of the valley; • Vail has a jobs/housing balance of approximately 6,000 jobs, requiring at least that number of employ- ees to commute into Vail from other parts of the valley; • Mid valley has a more balanced housing/jobs mix, with only about 600 more employees than jobs; • Down valley plays a significant"bedroom community" role, housing more workers than there are jobs. Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC PART I 23 April 17, 2018 - Page 30 of 141 TRENDS IN HOUSING AND JOBS MARKETS Housing Shortage and Cost Burden The tension between high housing costs and low wages is hurting individuals and families in the community. As households stretch to find and retain housing in a tight market, the proportion of their income spent on housing increases, leaving less for food, healthcare, childcare, transportation, and retirement savings. When a household spends more than 30% of income on housing, they are considered "cost burdened."The term "severely cost burdened" is used when more than 50% of household income is devoted to housing costs. • Approximately 3,800 households (22% of all households) in the Eagle Valley currently live under the duress of cost burden. • The percentage of households experiencing cost burden has decreased since 2007. • When asked about their housing plans, 13% of survey respondents reported that they intend to leave the Eagle River Valley in the next five years, which may be an indicator of the trend observed by realtors and property managers that residents who are ready to own a home, start a family, or "step up" in their career may choose to leave the community. Not surprisingly, cost burden disproportionately impacts renters and lower income households. About 64% of all households under 60% 25Y. AMI are cost burdened; a third are severely cost burdened. As incomes 211h. increase, the likelihood of cost burden decreases. :oar Of renters, 38% are cost burdened, compared to 10% of owners. Renters are also more frequently severely cost burdened; 10% compared to 3% of owner households. The problem of cost burden exists valley wide. It is most prevalent in mid valley where about 2,000 households (about a quarter) are cost burdened. About 21% of down valley households are cost burdened and 19% of up valley households. COL 1 iiXto Percent of Households Cost Burdened 20% 401 Source: • . ' ousing ees ssessmen , E rrirrtly tau bkid4nid C aae 'mimic nod MI TO SfllS Mf s n t7 bade n rd Ver ouse o . urvey Cost Burden byl nur* IT& l0% LT', • J2 - 6214 601 - WE LUX 1.174 U05 474 51131 &RS ?Ilk s o% 9E LOD Source: 2018 Household Survey t p •Own 1 24 r PART I 1 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 31 of 141 HOUSING DEMAND UPDATE Eagle County has been consistently using the "catch up/keep up" method of calculating housing demand over the past decade. In this report, the approach is refined to provide demand calculations and market gaps for the three market areas within the Eagle River Valley, as well as the valley in total. Estimates are provided for the number of housing units that are needed to support job growth, sustain employers and employees, and stabilize housing prices. "CATCH-UP" NEEDS the number of housing units needed to address current deficiencies in housing calculated by considering overcrowding, unfilled jobs and in - commuting employees who want to live in Eagle County "KEEP -UP" NEEDS the number of units needed to keep up with future demand for housing based on projected employment and population growth and the requirement to replace retiring employees. Keep up demands are projected for 2020, 2025, and 2030. The further out these projections look, the more prone they are to change due to unforeseen conditions. T is eman up ate provi es • ata .y region, AMI, tenure, anor t e va ey as a w o e. T is summary tae below includes homes that the free market will provide, and homes for which subsidies, incentives, and/or regulations will be required. • • • • ESTIMATED HOUSING DEMAND - EAGLE RIVER VALLEY - 2018 THROUGH 2030 2018 2020 2025 2030 Catch-up (Existing Needs) Unfilled Jobs Rental Market In -Commuters Overcrowding Total Catch-up Keep Up (Existing Needs) New jobs Retiring employees Total Keep -up Total Housing Units Needed 1,100 310 560 800 2,780 2,780 2,780 1,030 200 1,250 4,030 2,780 2,350 770 3,120 5,900 2,78 3,870 1,320 5.190 Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC PART I 25 April 17, 2018 - Page 32 of 141 HOUSING DEMAND UPDATE Own/Rent Mix Both ownership and rental housing that is affordable for the local workforce and other residents is needed. The gap estimates below use a mix of 55% ownership and 45% rental, generally reflecting the current own/rent composition in the community. For homes that will be built to address local needs, the ownership/rental mix is not exact, but in practice largely a function of the community's desired direction, housing goals, opportunities and private market performance. While the rental market rebounded more quickly post -recession than the ownership market, both have now sufficiently recovered to warrant additional development. Location The total number of housing units needed are allocated by area based on owners and renters first choice for where they want to live in the Valley. This approach: • Is most responsive to market demand and the preferences of residents; • Recognizes the extensive cross commuting that exists - although jobs location is closely aligned with where residents most want to live (see the Housing Solutions section); and • Improves the housing/jobs balance among new jobs and workers coming into the Valley. While the location of jobs is one factor that influences where employees want to live, others like schools, shopping, and community and neighborhood character are key determinants of location preferences. One weakness to this approach is that it doesn't incorporate land constraints, development opportunities, or the level of subsidies required in different market areas. Policy makers working regionally could decide to re- allocate workforce housing production goals with these considerations in mind. Gap The market will address a portion of both ownership and rental housing. The income levels that the market now serves vary within the Eagle River Valley as shown on the following table. By 2020, the total housing projected is 4,030 homes. We anticipate a portion of those homes will be supplied by the free market. The gap not served by the market will total around 2,450 units- about 1,220 for sale and 1,230 rental units, very close to a 50/50 split of for sale and for rent. Monitoring market conditions and making changes, if needed, to the forecasting model in the income levels served by the market would generate changes in the owner/renter mix and overall workforce housing gap moving forward. "Housing for year round working families is so expensive, that when we retire within the next 5 years, we cannot afford to stay in the area where we have lived for the past 28 years and raised our family, who have grown and moved away due to cost of living." --2018 Survey Respondent 26 PART I Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 33 of 141 HOUSING DEMAND UPDATE For Sale Housing Gap by Region and Income — 2020 Owner Units by AMI Where Owners Want to Live Max Affordable Up Valley Price 26% Mid Valley 39% Down Valley 35% Total 100% <60% $253,000 48 72 66 186 60.1% to 100% $316,000 122 180 164 466 100.1 to 140% $443,000 173 256 234 663 140.1 to 200% $632,000 135 200 183 518 Over 200% >$632,000 90 134 122 346 Gap - # for sale units 480 510 230 1,220 Rental Gap by Region and Income - 2020 Rental Units by AMI Max Affordable Rent Up Valley 42% Mid Valley 40% Down Valley 18% Total 100% Where Renters want to live <60% $1,200 212 202 91 505 60.1% to 100% $2,020 228 217 98 543 100.1 to 140% $2,820 143 136 62 341 140.1 to 200% $4,030 95 91 41 227 Over 200% >$4030 73 69 31 174 Gap - # of rental units 580 560 90 1,230 Total Gap 1,060 1,070 320 2,450 *Totals are rounded to the nearest 10. Key Gap - Market does not provide 100 Blend Market partially providesH 100 Market provides 100 Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 34 of 141 WHAT IS BEHIND THE NUMBERS? The estimates for housing demand are composed of a variety of assumptions, some quite conservative, others more aggressive. When considered in aggregate, they represent a balanced picture. However, the reality of these projections can change rapidly, as market conditions fluctuate. For that reason, the consultant team has provided Eagle County Housing and Development Authority with a spreadsheet to do annual updates that reflect actual job growth. Variations in the economy will most certainly occur between now and 2030, and the projections for that timeframe should be refreshed frequently. The full census in 2020 will also provide a good opportunity to update these assumptions and projections. This section provides a brief explanation of each assumption used in the demand update. The full description of sources and methods can be found in Attachment D. Unfilled Jobs About 1,050 homes are needed to fill the estimated 2,470 jobs that remained unfilled during the peak winter hiring season this year. Unfilled Jobs Assumptions & Units Needed Unfilled jobs (Dec/Jan 2018) 2,470 Jobs per worker 1.24 Employees per household 1.8 Housing Units Needed 1,100 Functional Rental Market Availability of rental housing is so low that the market does not function properly: • renters have difficulty moving from one unit to another as their circumstances change, • rents have been increasing at rates much faster than incomes, and • vacancy rates are less than 1 %. The lack of a functional rental market makes it very difficult for new employees to find housing when hired to support an expanding economy. A vacancy rate of 5% is generally considered a balanced market in mountain communities. At this vacancy level, it tends to be financially feasible to own and operate rental units, and unit availability is typically adequate to provide choice for renters and stabilize rental rates.To increase the vacancy rate to 5%, approximately 310 additional rental units are needed. Rental Market Assumptions & Units Needed Number of existing rental units - 2017 7,660 Number with 5% vacancy rate 7,970 Housing Units Needed 310 28 PART I Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 35 of 141 WHAT IS BEHIND THE NUMBERS? In -Commuters About 9% (2,600) of all employees are now commuting into the Eagle Valley for work. Based on employer estimates, about 39% (1,010) of employees would move to the valley if affordable housing options were available. This generates demand for an additional 560 units to accommodate employees who already work in the region. Assumptions & In -commuters Units Needed Number of in -commuters 2,600 Employees who would move 1,010 Employees/household 1.8 Housing Units Needed 560 Overcrowding An estimated 2,670 households in the Eagle River Valley are living in overcrowded conditions. Typically, an increase in the supply of workforce housing equal to about 30 percent of the number of overcrowded units will largely address overcrowding to the extent practical, given consumer choices and cultural preferences. Overcrowded Assumptions & Units Needed Overcrowded units 2,670 % need to reduce overcrowding 30% Housing Units Needed 800 New Jobs The single largest driver of local workforce housing demand is new homes to keep up with estimated job growth. The following table includes numerous assumptions and estimates to identify the number of housing units needed over the next two, seven, and twelve years. As stated above, these can be kept up to date by the Eagle County Housing and Development Authority using the consultant team spreadsheet. New Jobs Assumptions & Units Needed 2020 2025 2030 Increase in Jobs over 2017 2,304 5,250 8,643 Jobs per Employee 1.24 1.24 1.24 New Employees 1,858 4,234 6,970 Employees/household 1.8 1.8 1.8 Housing Units Needed 1,030 2,350 3,870 Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC PART I 29 1 April 17, 2018 - Page 36 of 141 WHAT IS BEHIND THE NUMBERS? Retiring Employees About 110 homes are needed each year to provide housing for employees who will fill the jobs vacated by approxi- mately 240 employees anticipated to retire each year in the Eagle River Valley. Most retiring employees intend to stay in the community post retirement. For those who intend to move, it is unlikely their homes will be affordable to the employees needed to replace them. Retiring Employees Assumptions & Units Needed # of employees to retiring annually 240 Jobs/employee 1.24 Employees/household 1.8 Housing Units Needed Annually 110 ■ PART 1 Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 37 of 141 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II April 17, 2018 - Page 38 of 141 Part II provides information for use in the planning, design and development of housing in the Eagle Valley. It exam- ines the type, size and price of home residents prefer as well as location preferences and neighborhood considerations to support the selection and planning of sites for housing development. It consists of three sections: Ownership Housing Design and Development Rental Housing Design and Development Housing Tools These sections answer the questions: 1. Where should housing for locals be built? 2. How should it be designed? 3. What pricing is appropriate? 4. What tools are most likely to be successful? April 17, 2018 - Page 39 of 141 33 OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Market Size The current potential market for homeownership in the Eagle Valley consists of approximately 8,290 households. These estimates are based on residents who indicated they want to move within the Eagle River Valley within the next five years. They represent the market from which ownership projects must draw buyers, and are distinct from the esti- mates of housing need presented in Part I. • About two-thirds are renters who want to move into ownership; and • Roughly one-third are owners who want to buy a different home. Potential Homeownership Market by Own/Rent Own Rent Overall Total # of Households, 2017 9,350 7,650 17,000 % want to move into a different home within the Eagle River Valley in 5 years # want to move into a different home within the Eagle River Valley in 5 years 3,180 5,810 9,010 % want to own 99% 89% 92% # want to own 3,150 5,170 8,290 34% 75% 53% Source: 2018 household survey "My partner and I are both year-round public service employees. [...] Eagle County is not a place that facilitates young couples looking to build a future with its current housing issues. Unless this changes, we might have to search for employment elsewhere:" -2018 Survey Respondent Three-fourths of renters want to move within the valley in the next five years and, of these, nearly 90% want to own. The percentage who want to move into ownership is high compared to the 65% of households that owned homes in 2007, and much higher than is realistic given affordability and down payment availability, which are examined later in this section. The extremely limited availability of rental housing and escalating rents in recent years likely contributed to the increased desire for ownership. Most owners (66%) want to stay in their current residence although about one-third want to buy a different home. If more homeownership opportunities are provided, more choices and movement within the ownership market would be an overall positive. However, there is a challenge for the year-round resident housing supply, because homes cur- rently occupied by local residents are likely to be sold to second homeowners, see Policy Considerations. Decisions about the provision of homeownership opportunities — number of units, location, unit type, amenities and pricing, will depend on policy and developer decisions as to which segments of the potential market for homeowner- ship should be the focus. Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC PART II April 17, 2018 - Page 40 of 141 OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Tradeoffs in Location/Price/Size/Type Potential homebuyers were asked to rank the importance of four considerations when purchasing a home — price, lo- cation, type and size, in light of the need for trade-offs due to expensive land, limited sites and high construction costs. Location - a home in the community where you most want to live Price - a home that is the most affordable option for the minimum size you need; the best value Size - space is key; you would choose a larger home that might require you to share walls, like a town home, rather than a smaller single-family home. Type -Type is an important consideration if you would choose to live other than where you prefer to buy a single-family house rather than a condominium or townhome A key finding is that type of home and size of home is relatively unimportant for potential buyers compared to location and price. This suggests that there is flexibility in terms of the type of units to be developed in response to demand. If priced appropriately and located where desired, condominiums and townhomes may be acceptable to many who prefer to buy a single-family house. If housing cannot be developed where potential buyers want to live or prices are not considered to be a good value, it will be more important to provide the type of units that buyers most want. Importance by Own/Rent 1=most important; 4=least important Source: 2018 household survey 34 PART II Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 41 of 141 Own Rent Location 1.84 1.94 Price 2.04 1.63 Size 2.95 3.08 Type 3.17 3.35 Source: 2018 household survey 34 PART II Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 41 of 141 OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Location - Where Owners Now Live and Want to Live DOWN VALLEY 41% 35% of the Valley's Owners Live Here of the Valley's Owners Want to Live Here GYPSUM EA? LI ■ 45% 39% 11-2 } IN PO 1f�r 11•V MID VALLEY of the Valley's Owners Live Here of the Valley's Owners Want to Live Here 14% 26% UP VALLEY of the Valley's Owners Live Here of the Valley's Owners Want to Live Here MI NT i, . A, # 5 II r V C ! F •r Source: 2018 Household Survey Most owners live in the area of the valley that is their first choice. This is especially true up valley where over 90% of owners are living where they most want to live. Nearly 10%, however, would prefer mid valley. Of mid valley residents who would rather live elsewhere, most prefer up valley. In contrast, more down valley owners would like to live in mid valley than up valley. Where Owners Want to Live by Where They Now Live Shading denote residents who live where they most want to live. Source: 2018 household survey Individual communities show: • Proportionately more owners want to live in Vail and Minturn; • Slightly fewer want to live in Edwards; • In Eagle, preferences are in line with the current condition with about one-fourth of owners wanting to and now living there. Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II April 17, 2018 - Page 42 of 141 Live Now Want to live (first choice) Up Valley Mid Valley Down Valley Up Valley 91% 24% 7% Mid Valley 9% 70% 16% Down Valley 0.0 6% 77% Total 100% 100% 100% Source: 2018 household survey Individual communities show: • Proportionately more owners want to live in Vail and Minturn; • Slightly fewer want to live in Edwards; • In Eagle, preferences are in line with the current condition with about one-fourth of owners wanting to and now living there. Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II April 17, 2018 - Page 42 of 141 OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Location - Where Owners Now Live and Want to Live (cont'd) • In neighboring Gypsum, however, proportionately more owners reside there than desire. These findings suggest location preferences are based largely on community rather than area, at least with regards to down valley. Where Live and Want to Live by Town Where do you now live in or near Now Live 1st Choice Difference Vail 9% Minturn 3% Eagle Vail 8% Avon 9% Edwards 27% Eagle 23% 19% 6% at At 8% 7% 23% 24% Gypsum 13% 8% Source: 2018 household survey. Note: Redcliff, Wolcott, and Dotsero excluded due to small sample size. 4. Location Characteristics Up valley appeals most to households without children - about 60% are singles living alone, couples without kids and roommate households. Mid valley appeals to a broad mix of households. Down valley is home to relatively more families - over 60% of owner households living there include at least one child. 36 PART II Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 43 of 141 OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Location Attributes Homeowners in the Eagle Valley rate community character, defined as "locals or family-oriented, social opportunities, entertainment, restaurants, etc." as their top consideration when choosing where to live, higher than proximity to work, which is at the top of the list among renters. • Proximity to work is the second highest consideration for homeowners; • Community amenities - schools, parks, libraries, etc., amenities rate high in importance among homeowners. • The abilityto have pets is also a top consideration with two-thirds of owners rating pets as very or extremely important. Carnw,rn p, r tiprimer gra irilre m work Ci mmwnitp iomenItles P41 r allowed Pro -Ain't). Itci 'kiln/rev...Wm Qumlk,1rfll idra5ls *w11164 hp nr bus servo! OunilbbIHtr aR d+M 4srt Character gi Proximity 4.1:11 4.5 1.4 1.5 z.O 2 A 9.4 3! WW1: loot IrT rut . 5Win1riiortift Source: 2018 household survey Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 44 of 141 OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT In addition: • Owners who live alone generally place less importance on character and proximity attributes but rank availability of bus service and proximity to skiing/recreation higher than other types of households. • Couples with children generally rank location attributes higher than other households, especially availability of day care and quality of schools. They place lower than average importance on bus service and proximity to skiing/recreation. • The importance ratings by other types of households tend to fall in between the preferences of people living alone and couples with children. • Mid valley resident rate most location attributes slightly higher than other owners while down valley owners generally place lower importance on location attributes. A few specific distinctions • Mid valley residents place greater importance on proximity to work and community character. • Quality of schools and availability of day care is higher for mid and down valley owners. • Up valley owners place greater importance on availability of bus service. Amenities Households ranked amenities as follows: • In -unit washers and dryers top the list of amenities, rated either very or extremely important by 85% owners. • Decks or patios rate equally with energy efficient heat - 70% of owners rank both very/extremely important. • Playgrounds or parks on site are also important to owners, especially households with children, and considerably more important to owners than renters. • Fitness centers on site are generally not important, as is typically the case in mountain communities where recreation opportunities are abundant. Fewer than 9% of owners consider on-site fitness centers important. As with location attributes, mid valley owners generally rate the importance of amenities higher than elsewhere in the valley. There are few differences in the rank order of amenities by area of the valley though down valley owners rate energy efficient appliances and heat, and exterior storage lockers noticeably lower than other owners, presumably due to its milder climate and because many down valley homes have garages. 38 1,054:huriaryor1nunit Daktfrr pito fnwrre.rfkhn, Ii Ener} eitrjen[ rppiNn[es PiayrrrA dMark anObborrior EVt•rWr slow, hx.airr Vd14clucled Perim a m r art finportvice of Amenities EMS EkS 70 iS 70 t.5 5a 5.5 4.0 ,.5 55 Moan_ 741n! Impa sant; S�eeneIrrpanan- Source: 2018 household survey PART II Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 45 of 141 OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Unit Type Residents who want to buy within the next five years were asked to rate four housing options on a scale where 1 = not at all interested and 5 = very interested. The hypothetical home types were created to test demand and tradeoffs. The prices are based on price points affordable to local employees and recent history of deed restricted home sales. Condominium 1 Bed/1 Bath 800 Sq Ft $200,000 •....0 .. F 1 ■ Townhome 2 Bed/1.5 Bath 1000 Sq Ft $320,000 Duplex/Triplex 2 Bed/2 Bath 1250 Sq Ft $375,00 Single Family Home 3 Bed/2 Bath 1500 Sq Ft $475,00 Renters who want to buy are flexible with regards to unit type, with single family homes, duplex/triplex units and townhomes receiving similar ratings despite large price differences. Owners who want to buy a different home have strong preferences for a single-family home. Income levels and type of units that residents are interested in buying are correlated. • Lower income households are more interested in attached units, with townhomes rating higher than condominiums or duplexes/triplexes. • Higher income residents have little interest in condominiums and a strong preference for single family homes, with duplexes and triplexes preferred over townhomes. LMnit'Type 'Desired by Own/Rent Sinn, 111.1111111111111111111111111111 rwn,ew� ouplirr`rrpla �l i�.wil�rx Condemln 1.1 RN 0.5 ] :.5 2 2.5 3 3,5 4 is Iranrii^i Onlahliti Source: 2018 household survey Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 46 of 141 OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Unit Type Type of Home Desired by AMI This distribution is based on very interested (ratings of 5) responses. 60% or less AMI 60.1 to 100 AMI 100.1 to 140 AMI 140.1 to 200 AMI Over 200 AMI Source: 2018 household survey Upgrades kidt El 56% 30% 15% 6% 24% 24% 28% 29% 17% 29% 30% 26% 3% 8% 16% 24% 0% 8% 11% 14% Survey respondents had the opportunity to rate upgrades they would seek to and believe they can afford regards to a hypothetical home. When given an array of add on features or upgrades to choose from, fewer than 10% indicated they would prefer the base models. A private yard for $10,000 was the top choice for both renters and owners who want to buy. There are notable differences, however, between owners who want to move into a different residence and renters who want to move into ownership. • Owners more often selected multiple upgrades with a two car -garage, additional full bathroom, two additional bedrooms and extra storage measuring 8' by 8: • Renters desire fewer upgrades but rated one additional bedroom, a one -car garage, an extra half bath, and a storage locker higher than owners. Examination by unit type reveals most potential buyers: • Would like an additional bedroom except for those who are very interested in a 3 -bedroom single family home. • Want and think they could afford a garage. • Want and think they could afford a garage. 40 PART II Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC 4.1 April 17, 2018 - Page 47 of 141 OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Upgrades (continued) Priwt.Y.rdt 2 te kl xage_ MC0 fi; iirsdwebiL 5415.0)3 rdllIrIKex dd # I..nr G510,1:1C0 INeeiddirritt 2 :550.04}4 egtivwcrEL MIX) S7or tc 1w $11:1C4 Pow ryonr8isle CM eh 1 Source: 2018 household survey �r} 40 Sn PFlrifonew Sera m Cram Examination by unit type reveals most potential buyers: • Would like an additional bedroom except for those who are very interested in a 3 -bedroom single family home. • Want and think they could afford a garage. • Also want/could afford a private yard unless they are very interested in buying a condominium. Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC PART II April 17, 2018 - Page 48 of 141 OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Upgrades (continued) Upgrades by Unit Type Shading denotes features desired by more than 50% per unit type. Bedroom: 1 additional: $25,000 Bedrooms: 2 additional: $50,000 ' Bathroom: $15,000 Full Bathroom: $30,000 Storage Locker: $2,000 Exterior storage — 8'x8': $5,000 57% 71% 61% 45% 22% 21% 35% 32% 23% 51% 31% 29% 36% 44% 47% 45% 32% 22% 25% 17% 29% 20% 22% 26% 1 -car Garage: $20,000 57% 57% 52% 42% 2 -car Garage: $30,000 9% 34% 43% 64% Private Yard: $10,000 38% 50% 54% 76% Other (fill in feature & price) 9% 12% 9% 11% None of the them 0% 1% 3% 3% Source: 2018 household survey Potential buyers who are very interested in purchasing the single-family home option also want to purchase the most upgrades, including a two -car garage. On the other end of the spectrum, residents interested in purchasing a condo- minium want fewer upgrades. PART II Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC e April 17, 2018 - Page 49 of 141 OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT Financial Considerations PRICING The average prices that owners and renters who want to buy feel they can afford - given base prices and de- sired upgrades - range from $263,500 for a condominium to $553, 250 for a single-family home. Home Prices by Unit Type Price of Homes with Options Base Price $200,000 $200,001 to $250,000 $250,001 to $300,000 $300,001 to $350,000 $350,001 to $400,000 $400,001 to $450,000 $450,001 to $500,000 $500,001 to $550,000 $550,001 to $600,000 $600,001 to $650,000 $650,001 or more Total Mean Median Source: 2018 Housing Survey A $200,000 4.0% 37.8% 37.1% 14.8% 6.3% tolti $325,000 $375,000 100.0% $263,149 $255,000 15.4% 46.2% 26.5% 7.6% 4.3% P $475,000 ' 14.0% 46.6% 25.0% 12.8% 10.9% 40.4% 3.5% 33.5% i 9.8% 3.5% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% $397,692 $449,159 $553,255 - $395,000 $445,000 $547,000 Affordability is a constraint impacting the ability of renters to move into ownership and, to a lesser degree, owners who want to buy a different home. Overall, 18% of residents who want to buy a home within the next five years have incomes of 60% or less. These households are candidates for Habitat for Humanity and similar homeownership efforts that serve very low income households. Over half, however, have incomes above 100% AMI, which indicates that homeownership pricing could vary widely. AMI Distribution of Households that Want to Buy Now Own Now Rent Overall 60% or less AMI 1% 27% 18% 60.1 to 100 AMI 27% 30% 28% 100.1 to 140 AMI 30% 20% 24% 140.1 to 200 AMI 29% 14% 19% Over 200 AMI 13% 9% 10% Source: 2018 Housing Survey Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II 43 April 17, 2018 - Page 50 of 141 OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT DOWN PAYMENT AVAILABILITY The availability of funds for down payments will be a factor in pricing and determine how many residents who want to own will qualify. Although there are some mortgage programs with little or no down pay- ment required, it is appropriate to assume that down payments of 5% will be needed. With a base price of $200,000 the minimum down payment would be $10,000. Most owners who want to buy a different home would have ample down payments given home equi- ty - about $121,500 on average. Roughly 6%, however, indicated they would have less than $10,000 to put down. Renters generally have far less available for down payments; they have approximately $30,000 on average available. About 15% of renters have no funds available for a down payment, 12% have some funds but less than $10,000 and another 20% have between $10,000 and $15,000. This leaves just over half who should have sufficient funds for down payments if homes are affordably priced given their incomes. Residents who want to buy a home in the next five years were asked about their knowledge of mortgage requirements to determine if qualifying is likely to be an impediment to ownership. Results indicate home- ownership counseling is needed, especially for renters who want to buy. 70 60 50 fl � dD w 30 2D 10 KrlowI.ed gable about Mortgage Requirements 1 1 1 Vent knowledgeable 5Drnewliat knowkd jenble Nat Weryr trrowledgmble Own ■ Fterr[ Source: 2018 Household Survey PART II Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 51 of 141 OWNERSHIP HOUSING - DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT DEED RESTRICTIONS Deed restrictions have become the norm for workforce housing in Eagle Valley. The survey confirmed what realtors indicated — most residents will accept a deed restriction that limits price appreciation and occupancy in order to own a home. Overall, deed restrictions would be acceptable to 70% of residents who are interested in buying a home in the Eagle Valley within the next 5 years. "How would a deed restriction that limits resale price appreciation to 3% per year and requires that homes be sold to households with at least one person who works in Eagle County impact your purchase decision?" Own The deed restriction would be acceptable to me at below-market prices, OR I would pay more for a market unit that is not deed restricted -- how much more? Rent Overall 61% 76% 70% 39% 24% 30% Source: 2018 household survey Some residents who want to buy would pay more for a market home, free of price/occupancy restrictions. The most often cited figure was $50,000 more. Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC PART II 45 April 17, 2018 - Page 52 of 141 RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN The information presented in this section can help inform policy direction and development decisions about new rental housing. Market Size The potential market for rental housing in the Eagle Valley consists of approximately 7,650 households, the total number residing in the Eagle River Valley. They represent the market from which rental projects must draw residents. Market size is distinct from the estimates of rental need by AMI presented in Part I. Decisions on the number of new units to build should consider need. Design/location/rent decisions should be based upon the characteristics and preferences of renters currently living in the valley who will likely lease most of the new units. Employees moving into the valley will also be a component of renter demand, but they will constitute a small proportion of the target market of new rental product, and they are likely to have similar characteristics to existing renters. A subset are the 5,780 renter households that want to move within the Eagle River Valley within the next 5 years. As described in the Ownership section, the large majority of renters want to move into ownership; just under 11% want to continue to rent. The number who will be able to buy, however, depends upon the devel- opment and pricing of ownership opportunities. Many will likely remain renters. Very few owners want to move into rental housing and are not a quantifiable rental market segment. Potential Rental Market Renters Total # of Renter Households, 2017 7,650 % want to move into a different home in the Eagle River Valley in 5 years 76% # want to move into a different home in the Eagle River Valley in 5 years 5,780 want to rent 11% # want to rent 635 Source: 2018 household survey 46 PART II Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 53 of 141 RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN Location Far more renters now live mid or down valley than they desire. Of renters who want to remain in the Eagle River Valley, over 40% want to live ur val IPX/ hi it IPcc than 1(10/r, nnw tin DOWN VALLEY MID VALLEY UP VALLEY of the Valley's Renters Live Here of the Valley's Renters Live Here of the Valley's Renters Live Here of the Valley's Renters Want to Live Here of the Valley's Renters Want to Live Here of the Valley's Renters Want to Live Here b. 0 X17 .01 Source: 2018 household survey While many renters would prefer to live up valley, most renters now live in the area of the valley that is their first choice. The desire to live elsewhere is highest among down -valley renters who would rather live up val- ley - nearly 60% would prefer to live mid or up valley. Where Now Live Compared to Where Want to Live Shading indicates residents living where they most want to live. Want to live (first choice) Where Live Now Up Valley Mid Valley Down Valley Up Valley 94 28 9 Mid Valley 5 66 30 Down Valley 1 5 61 100% 100% 100% ource: 2018 household survey Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II 47 April 17, 2018 - Page 54 of 141 RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN Location Preference Characteristics Up valley appeals more to renters who live alone, couples without children and roommate households. Few- er than 20% have children in the household. Mid valley is the first choice for a diverse mix of renter households - singles liv- ing alone, roommates, couples with and without children, and particularly single parents with children. Down valley is more attractive to families with children although about half of the renters who indicated it is their first choice are households without children. There are variations in 1St choice location by income. Desire to live up valley is high- est among the lowest and highest income renters. Renters in the moderate and mid- dle-income ranges are more likely to prefer mid valley. ist Choice Where Want ie Live by Income a YG Za 30 ih is Po ■ pvfw V•Ire ■ P. d Y• ■ L}p VI Ire Source: 2018 household survey Location Preferences by Town Examination by individual community shows proportionately more renters want to live in Vail, Minturn and Edwards than now live there. Although the sample is very small, it appears that renters who commute in from other counties want to continue to live in their current communities. Where do you now live in or near Renter Location Preferences Now Live 1st Choice Difference Vail 18% 26% Minturn 8% 13% Eagle Vail 8% 5% Avon 22% 16% Edwards 16% 18% Eagle 15% 12% Gypsum 9% 5% Source: 2018 household survey. Note: Redcliff, Wolcott, and Dotsero excluded due to small sample size. At At 4 4 4 At 4 48 PART II Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 55 of 141 RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN Location/Neighborhood Attributes In general: Renters feel proximity to work is their most important consideration when searching for housing. Community character, defined as "locals or family-oriented, social opportunities, entertainment, restaurants, etc." is very or extremely important for over 60% of renters in the valley. Pets allowed is third in importance; for many renters in the Eagle Valley and other mountain towns, having dogs is a priority. The availability of day care ranked lowest on the list overall, yet daycare and the quality of schools is very or extremely important to most families with children. PrINimitl tv work Communky character Pei s.Ilawed Community amenit les Proximity to skiind rer. re3tion Atiallabillte of bus service Qualityrof schools Aiwa 11.361111y of day ear Location Character & Proximity ▪ 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 1 4.5 1=not important; 5=rery important ource: zu i i nousenola survey Differences within the valley: • Availability of bus service is more important to renters who live up valley than mid- or down -valley renters, which suggests that getting around Vail may be more valued than using transit to travel up and down the valley. • Proximity to skiing is more important to up -valley renters of slight importance to mid valley renters but only moderately important to down valley renters. Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II 49 1 April 17, 2018 - Page 56 of 141 RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN Amenities Renters in the Eagle Valley generally place high importance on amenities: In -unit washers and dryers are extremely important to most renters (57%) and have become standard in new apartment properties. Most renters feel energy efficient heat is very or extremely important. While many renters indicate their util- ities are included in their rent payment, utilities average $223 per month year- round. Several large apartmen complexes bill flat fees for utilities rather than requiring residents to place accounts in their names and pay deposits. Exterior storage lockers are of mid-range importance to renters; however, property managers report storage is of upmost importance. Fitness centers on site are typically of little importance to renters in mountain communities where recreation opportunities are abundant and easily accessed, and this holds true in the Eagle Valley. There is little variation in importance ratings by household type. Exceptions are on-site playgrounds/parks, which are more important to families with children, and WI -FI included, which is more important to adult -only households. Also, while mid -valley renters rated most amenities slightly higher than renters on average through the valley, there are no significant variations in the importance of specific amenities by where they now live or most want to live. Wrs1rufdry rrnunit Errrr wirti.rl but EneirbiaNlcle-rt+aplF acro. 33eck ur pillo aterle.r 5s rrrtt kicker 1.0.1141 arclubd.d Playirpurtypark an iY{r 4rnsorby Firmacerecof 8n LIf Source: 2018 Household Survey Importance of Amenities 0.0 0.5 1.0 1,5 2.0 25 ak d5 #0 4.5 5.0 l4not Irnparkuil; 5wni Ikrsp-arla•nt 50 PART II Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 57 of 141 RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN Unit Type Most renters live in housing units that were designed/developed for ownership - primarily single-family homes, duplexes, townhomes and condominiums. Fewer than 40% of renters now reside in apartments. Bedroom Mix Taw- hum ac tor }} 5, 4J1krr a crY7 Rental Units by Typo 11rf nig Will Irlen4101toriel sa irk lam. tgharne F There are relatively too few small rental units and too many large units. Renters living in three-bedroom units outnumber renter households with one bedroom, which is not typical. While the two -bedrooms are in relative balance with need, more one -bedroom units and fewer three-bedroom rentals are needed. Nearly 60% of renters live alone or with one other person, which is why most want one- or two-bedroom units. The percentage living alone is slightly lower than the portion of one -bedrooms needed, likely due to the ability/desire of couples to rent one -bedroom units. Renter Household Size People in Household % Renter Households 1 2 3 4 5+ Source: 2018 household survey 27% 30% 18% 16% 9% 15 35 ,a 25 15 Apartn'.! nr O. pis +.0r 1 riplaa� 1'. Bedrooms= Current Home end Need Compered I anima er ham lyen noirrr'r, Source: 2018 House - 1 Throw Naliverni Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC PART II 51 1 April 17, 2018 - Page 58 of 141 RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN Rents The average market rent in the Eagle Valley is $1,700 per month. Utilities average an additional $223 per month. Rents are lowest up valley, which may seem counter intuitive, but appears to be due to variation in the type of units occu- pied by area. Relatively more renters live in older, smaller, multi -family units up valley as compared to larger, newer, and more single-family homes mid and down valley. Average Market Rents by Area Free Market - Average Rent Up Valley $ 1,560 Mid Valley $ 1,840 Down Valley $ 1,550 Overall $ 1,700 Source: 2018 household survey, CHFA Nearly one-third of renters pay between $1,500 and $2,000 per month, the largest category. Average rents are generally affordable for households with incomes over 60% AMI. This does not mean that, however, that all renters within each AMI category have affordable housing. There is a mismatch between incomes and rents paid, which is common when rental availability is tight and there is little opportunity for moving from one unit to another, as documented in the Cost Burden section. Rents paid in the 100% to 140% AMI range are not proportionately higher than in the 60% to 100% category. Higher income renters out compete others. AMI 60% or less AMI 60.1 to 100 AMI 100.1 to 140 AMI 140.1 to 200 AMI a4 tS C M Sly} -1.499 Su • sa..vs9 nxiDo • s go moo p Market Rents 1 u . u old survey Rent Paid Compared to Affordable Rent by AMI % Renter House- holds 28% 31% 19% Average Rent Paid Affordable Rent $ 1,200 $ 1,510 $ 1,650 13% $ 1,970 Source: 2018 household survey, CHFA $ 1,210 $ 2,420 $ 2,820 $ 4,030 Note: Over 200% AMI excluded due to small sample; includes deed restricted and employer-provided units. 52 PART 11 1 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 59 of 141 RENTAL HOUSING DEVELOPMENT & DESIGN Tradeoffs Since there are insufficient opportunities to provide housing up valley where half of all renters want to live (about 3,900 renter households) their second choice for where to live should be considered. Second choice responses show far higher preferences for mid valley and, to a lesser extent, down valley communities. Generally, renters who most want to live in Vail would rather live nearby in Eagle Vail than further away. The big drop in Vail between 1st and 2nd choice indicates that most renters who want to live mid or down valley would choose other nearby communities rath- er than seek housing up valley in Vail. 30 25 20 15 SO 5 1st and 2nd Choice Locations Compared 1 1,IIIIn,, VIP efferturn Vale &' i Edwards Engle G 1p.urn • 1 t Choke 2ndChoioe Source: Resident survey Residents who want to rent were asked: "How much more would you be willing and able to pay for rent where you most want to live (1st choice) compared to your second choice?" About one-fourth are not willing to pay any additional rent to live where they most want to live, and an almost equal percentage are only willing to pay $100 per month. Results above that amount are widespread with some renters indi- cating large amounts (>$1,000/month) that they could not likely afford. Impact of Restrictions Residents who want to rent were asked: "How might employment and income restrictions impactyour willing to lease an apartment, if at all?" Results show: • A very large majority (over 90%) would provide employment verifications. Roughly half would like some form of pricing restriction for rents with low yearly rent increases. Over three-fourths would sign one-year leases. Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC PART II 53 April 17, 2018 - Page 60 of 141 HOUSING TOOLS Overview Many approaches have been used to address housing needs in the Eagle Valley for more than three decades. Towns, Eagle County, private and non-profit developers, and employers have combined a variety of tools to produce over 3,000 affordable homes for residents to date. Despite these widespread efforts and their achievements, developing affordable housing has become more challenging over time, with few opportunities and rising gaps between affordable prices and market realities. To address the housing needs quantified in Part I of this report, new tools will be required to supplement and expand the strategies used in the past. Residents and employers were surveyed to determine which tools would have the greatest support in the EagleValley.The following question was posed in both surveys: 11 Conceptually, how do you feel about the following strategies for increasing workforce housing in the Eagle River Valley and its communities? ,, The surveys tested 15 tools in these four categories: INCENTIVES Density Bonuses Fee Waivers Reduced Parking Fast -Track Processing Ire PARTNERSHIPS & PUBLIC INITIATIVES Providing Town/County Land Town or County Builds Housing Town/County/Housing Authority Financing Property Tax Exemption DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Commercial Linkage Residential Linkage Inclusionary Housing $ FUNDING Excise Tax on Short -Term Rentals Property Tax Sales Tax General Fund Revenues PART II Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 61 of 141 J HOUSING TOOLS TOP RATED TOOLS PROVIDING TOWN/COUNTY LAND Providing County or Town land that is vacant or under-utilized EMPLOYERS RESIDENTS 4444t 4444 TOWN/COUNTY/HOUSING AUTHORITY FINANCING Town, County, or Housing Authority provides financing. t EMPLOYERS RESIDENTS 141414146 4##}1 FAST-TRACK PROCESSING Workforce housing projects go to the front of the line for review. • EMPLOYERS RESIDENTS 61414146 TOWN OR COUNTY BUILDS HOUSING Town or County builds housing (like Miller Ranch or Chamonix) • EMPLOYERS RESIDENTS 4444t 414144}5 INCLUSIONARY HOUSING A percentage of new units in subdivsions are restricted for workforce housing ee EMPLOYERS RESIDENTS 4444 COMMERCIAL LINKAGE Requiring new commercial development to provide housing • EMPLOYERS RESIDENTS 444 } 14146}1 OTHER TOOLS FEE WAIVERS Water/sewer tap fees, permit fees waived for workforce housing s EMPLOYERS RESIDENTS di di 16 EXCISE TAX ON SHORT-TERM RENTALS Tax on short-term rentals, for example 3-5% -(vote required) GENERAL FUND REVENUES Revenues from general fund (appropriation by elected officials required) • EMPLOYERS RESIDENTS r;`r �7 4' EMPLOYERS RESIDENTS 444} #144} PROPERTY TAX EXEMPTION Exempt from property tax paid by property owners (vote required) • EMPLOYERS RESIDENTS 444 k} 44146}}1 DENSITY BONUSES Density bonuses when workforce housing is built so EMPLOYERS RESIDENTS 444# RESIDENTIAL LINKAGE A type of impact fee on new construction t EMPLOYERS RESIDENTS 44#t 414166 SALES TAX Sales tax paid by consumers (vote required) 1111 EMPLOYERS 444 RESIDENTS 4 4 4 rvey REDUCED PARKING Reduced parking requirements for workforce housing EMPLOYERS RESIDENTS • dia PROPERTY TAX Property tax paid by property owners (vote required) EMPLOYERS RESIDENTS 44 41: Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC PART II April 17, 2018 - Page 62 of 141 HOUSING TOOLS There is more support than opposition for all tools, ex- cept property tax and, among residents, reduced park- ing both of which received ratings of less than three. The top six tools include at least one from incentives, partnerships/public initiatives, and development regu- Iations.This indicates residents and employers recog- nize a combination of efforts will be needed and no one "silver bullet" is going to address workforce/affordable housing needs in the Eagle River Valley. Overall, employers more strongly support housing tools than residents, although there are many similarities in the rank order. Property tax is a notable exception with lower support among employers than residents, proba- bly due to the much higher tax rate paid on commercial property than residential property. Employers ranked commercial linkage 7th among the 15 options, just slightly lower than the average rating given by residents, which is notable since the tool may be viewed as unfavorable to businesses. "I think transportation needs to be a major topic of discussion. Better bus service to help get workers up -valley to help with efficiency, less cars on the roads and a lower carbon footprint:" -2018 Survey Respondent "We need a county wide, holistic housing solution with a dedicated funding source:" -2018 Survey Respondent In-depth examination of the survey ratings by category reveal variation in opposition/support that should be helpful when designing and obtaining approvals for individual strategies. Results are presented for resi- dents; employer responses generally mirror those of residents. 56 PART II Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC 1 April 17, 2018 - Page 63 of 141 HOUSING TOOLS Incentives Generally, there is strong support and relatively little opposition to incentives yet it is not consistent across the board for the four tools in this category: • Support for fast track processing is strong with very little opposi- tion. • Opposition is also low for fee waivers and density bonuses with a relatively high percentage who are neutral about these incentives. • Residents are very divided about reductions in parking require ments with the highest"strongly oppose" percentage among the 15 tools tested. • More residents are uncertain about density bonuses than any of the other tools tested; 17% responded "don't know." 50 45 40 �3s c 30 e 25 ill 20 1s. 10 5 0 1 Denskv bonuses Incentives "Make development requirements/parking and tap fees more attainable for builders to make sense of building affordable housing. Parking requirements are too much Town of Eagle. Need downtown infill mixed use development." -2018 Survey Respondent ..II 1Ii kill Fedi brs Rodocod paridag fest trod( p a+a slii . 1 = strongly appose ri 2 = oppose ■ S rlignARII 111111111111.11111111. ■47-Moppurt ■$7.• SLippOrt Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC PART II 57 April 17, 2018 - Page 64 of 141 HOUSING TOOLS Partnerships and Public Initiatives Support is generally strong for partnerships/initiatives though residents are divided: Providing Town or County -owned land rated high est overall with minimal opposition; only about 10% opposed. • Construction and financing of housing by the towns, Eagle County or the housing authority also received strong support with little opposition. Residents are divided about property tax exemp- tions. While support is higher than opposition, over 15% of residents strongly oppose. 6,0 50 40 10 0 ource: "[There should be] low interest loan opportunities for commercial properties or operations to build, add, create, employee housing units:" -2018 Survey Respondent Partnerships & Public initiatives ■SII ■o'I Providing Countyf' rrr Town or County builds land holds lug ME 11 Town/County/Housing Prup plyr taxaxemption Authorlt rfinancing ■ 1= strongly oppose S 2 = oppose it 3 = neutral ■ 4 _ si.rpport ouse o . survey 5 = strongly support 58 PART II Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 65 of 141 HOUSING TOOLS Development Regulations Three tools were tested that impose requirements on new development for the provision of workforce housing. Support outweighs opposition for all three. • Support for both inclusionary housing and commercial linkage is strong - about 65% support or strongly support these development regulations while only about 10% oppose. Residential linkage received far lower support, a rela- tively high level of neutral responses, and opposition from over 20% of residents. Residential linkage also had relatively high uncertainty (11% of responses). Residents are divided about property tax exemptions. While support is higher than opposition, over 15% of residents strongly oppose. 40 35 25 f ti ▪ 15 2a 5 . ■ 1 "Zoning changes to increase density. Plus, a better transportation plan to eliminate parking regulations/problems. We need more people, not cars." -2018 Survey Respondent "We can only afford to live here now because of deed -restricted employer provided housing." -2018 Survey Respondent Development Regulations 11 i noanniwthl Resldtnliel ILnkage. 1. = strongly op poleM 2=oppos. •3 = neutral 1 4= support Source: 2018 household survey i Inelullonarw Rousing = strongly duppert Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC PART II • 59 April 17, 2018 - Page 66 of 141 HOUSING TOOLS 411111 Funding Funding alternatives garnered relatively more neutral responses than did strategies in the other three cate- gories, but with great variation among the four funding tools in terms of support and opposition. Providing Town or County -owned land rated high est overall with minimal opposition; only about 10% opposed. • Construction and financing of housing by the towns, Eagle County or the housing authority also received strong support with little opposition. Residents are divided about property tax exemp- tions. While support is higher than opposition, over 15% of residents strongly oppose. 35 20 15 Funding "Additional fees and/or taxes on houses exceeding a certain size (to be determined/ voted on). Change the fundamentals of the market, restrict short term rentals. If short term rental was not an option to offset the cost of owning a vacation home, there would be more housing stock available for primary homeowners at lower cost." -2018 Survey Respondent .iIi 111h lull 111111 Oictoolox on ACCIE-terra tbretaks ■ 1 c itro l' oppose F 2 = oppose Property tix Source: 2018 household survey 5alss kax 11114111trillf ringlinUell • 3 = nekral ■ 4 = support 5 = sonilyr support 60 PART II Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 67 of 141 HOUSING TOOLS Differences within the valley Support/opposition are similar throughout the Eagle River Valley, which indicates the potential for a valley -wide stra- tegic housing plan with shared implementation of housing programs. A few notable differences: Mid -valley residences expressed slightly higher support overall for the majority of the tools. Mid -valley residents were more likely to support the Towns, County or Housing Authority building housing, perhaps due to the success of Miller Ranch in Edwards, and to support the provision of financing by the Towns, County or Housing Authority. Support is essentially equal among up -valley and mid -valley residents for four tools — commercial linkage, excise tax on short-term rentals, desity bonuses and general fund revenues. The only tool for which support was higher down -valley than in the other two areas was reduced parking, probably since parking shortages are primarily an up- and mid -valley problem. Av erag R atir.g 5.1 4.5 4,11 3.5 �.o 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 a_5 CLO lb 11 Support for Strategies by Area IL 41/42.% A'S1/4 _Ge ,e-- ." .4e 4, ii.- .,,6,%"%. "'I.°, F. F. vga e .3. {jr e•'' 4Z - +s' -� 11'1 of s Al, 11 F. 154 ` Source: 2018 household survey ■upvellay ■MFdvai' Down Valley iimimil Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC PART II 61 April 17, 2018 - Page 68 of 141 HOUSING TOOLS Characterizing Support These trends are observed related to support for the housing tools: • The more strongly that residents believe the availability of affordable housing for the workforce in Eagle Valley is a problem, the more likely they are to support housing tools. • Renters expressed higher support than homeowners for all housing tools tested. • There is, however, support for housing tools across all income categories. The average rating among lower income residents (<_60% AMI) was 3.7 compared to 3.6 among upper-income residents (>200% AMI). Although the overall rating was lowest among households in the 160% to 200% AMI category, support for housing tools still outweighed opposition. • Residents who currently occupy housing that is deed restricted or provided by employers are more likely to support these housing tools than occupants of free market housing. • Residents who want to move into a different home in the Eagle Valley, or want to leave the Eagle Val ley, showed higher support for tools than residents who want to stay in their homes for at least the next five years. • Support varied somewhat by type of household. Persons living with roommates and "other" house holds (extended families, roommates and family members, etc.) indicated the highest support for housing tools, while couples with no children were the least supportive. In order from highest sup- port to lowest: • Workforce households showed greater support than households with no employees. • Support is similar among all age groups other than senior households (at least one member age 65+). Support is lower among seniors than the overall population for most tools, especially parking and property tax reductions. Support among seniors, however, is slightly stronger for the three devel opment regulations - inclusionary zoning, commercial linkage and residential linkage. • There appeared to be very little correlation between support for housing tools and ethnicity/race. • Workforce households showed greater support than households with no employees • Support is similar among all age groups other than senior households (at least one member age 65+). Support is lower among seniors than the overall population for most tools, especially parking and property tax reductions. Support among seniors, however, is slightly stronger for the three devel- opment regulations - inclusionary zoning, commercial linkage and residential linkage. • There appeared to be very little correlation between support for housing tools and ethnicity/race. 62 PART II 1 Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 69 of 141 HOUSING TOOLS Other Solutions Nearly 200 residents offered additional suggestions about what could be done to provide affordable work- force housing in the Eagle River valley. Many took the time to offer multiple suggestions and specific exam- ples. One brief comment about what should be done summed it up: "Anything and everything" • Comments generally fell into the following categories: Impose higher taxes/fees on second homes, large homes and short-term rentals. • Allow/build smaller units - accessory dwellings, tiny homes, lock offs, basic apartments, dorms and yurts. Build and restrict housing for specific types of employees, like teachers. • Get employers more involved in providing employee housing. Look to other communities - Vancouver, Martha's Vineyard, Steamboat Springs. Improve transit, a point emphasized by realtors and property managers. Housing more employees down valley, especially renters, is generating the need for significant improvements in the transit system. Reduce land development and building regulations and decrease development fees to make it more affordable for the private sector to produce housing. Develop regional approaches and cooperation. Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC PART II 63 1 April 17, 2018 - Page 70 of 141 "Strong emphasis needs to be placed on business and employers to provide workforce housing or pay for these initiatives:' -2018 Survey Respondent Housing Assistance Provided by Employers Purchase price buy downs Land on which housing could be built Master leasing units to rent to your employees Rent or first month/deposit subsidy for your em- ployees Employer -owned rental units Down payment/mortgage assistance Assistance with housing search Temporary/relocation housing Hiring bonus / salary stipend / higher wages Provide Now 6% 9% 24% Would Consider 18% 20% 45% 29% 49% 41% 41% 47% 53% 59% 63% 33% 61% 43% 57% Source: 2018 Employer Survey. Note: Multi -Response question; totals exceed 100%. HOUSING TOOLS Employer Assisted Housing Employers have long contributed to housing in the Eagle River Valley. Many residents suggested employers should take greater responsibility for workforce housing in the future and employers seem to agree. When asked about the types of assistance they now provide or would consid- er providing in the future, results showed there is sig- nificant potential for increasing employer -owned rental units, housing search assistance, rent deposits, master leasing and, to a lesser degree, providing land for housing and purchase price buy downs. 64 PART II Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 71 of 141 APPENDIX A - ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Acknowledgements Thank you to the many agencies and individuals who made this study possible: • Eagle County and Eagle County Housing and Development Authority who made the resources available and as- sisted with survey outreach. • Subject matter experts who contributed their time and expertise —Tori Franks, Kim Bell Williams, George Ruther, Virginia Egger, Morgan Landers, Michelle Metteer, Jeremy Rietmann, Colton Berke, Jill Klosterman, Janet Hawkin- son, Chris Romer, Commissioner Kathy Chandler -Henry, Commissioner Jeanne McQueeney, Commissioner, Jill Ryan, Brenda Camunez, Priscilla Coffin, Kyle Denton, Brooke Franke Gagon, Betsy Laughlin, Corey Lamothe. • All the local residents and employers who took a few minutes to complete the survey in December 2017 and Janu- ary 2018. Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC APPENDICES 65 1 April 17, 2018 - Page 72 of 141 APPENDIX B - AREA MEDIAN FAMILY INCOME AND PURCHASE PRICES Area Median Income for Eagle County, 2017 Household Size 1 2 3 4 5 6 AMI Classifications $48,360 $80,600 $112,840 $161,200 Extremely Low (30% AMI) $18,810 $21,480 $24,180 26,850 $29,010 $31,170 Very Low (50% AMI) $31,350 $35,800 $40,300 $44,750 $48,350 $51,950 60% AMI (LIHTC max) $37,620 $42,960 $48,360 $53,700 $58,020 $62,340 Low (80% AMI) $50,160 $57,280 $64,480 $71,600 $77,360 $83,120 Median (100%AMI) $62,700 $71,600 $80,600 $89,500 $96,700 $103,900 Moderate/Middle (140% AMI) $87,780 $100,240 $112,840 $125,300 $135,380 $145,460 Upper (200% AMI) $125,400 $143,200 $161,200 $179,000 $193,400 $207,800 Source: CHFA Affordable Home Price Calculation by AMI, 2017 AMI% 30% 60% 100% 140% 200% Household Income - 3 persons $24,180 $48,360 $80,600 $112,840 $161,200 Affordable Purchase price Affordable monthly payment (30%) $605 $1,209 $2,418 $2,821 $4,030 Principal & interest (80% of pmt) $484 $967 $1,934 $2,257 $3,224 HOA, taxes, insurance (20% of pmt) $121 $242 $403 $564 $806 Mortgage Interest rate 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Max mortgage $90,086 $180,172 $300,343 $420,400 $600,572 Max Affordable Price -5% down $95,000 $190,000 $316,000 $443,000 $632,000 Affordable Rent + utilities $605 $1,209 $2,418 $2,821 $4,030 Affordable purchase prices were calculated assuming that a household would have 5% for a down pay- ment, and would qualify for a loan that 30% of their monthly income. HOA, property taxes and insurance of 20% where included. The max mortgage assumes an interest rate of 5.0%, which is about half point higher than prevailing rates for 30 -year fixed rate mortgages. Interest rates are rising, however, and will have a profound impact on housing affordability. A one point increase in the rate, as occurred in 2013, would drop the affordable purchase price for a median income household by $30,000 to $35,000. APPENDICES Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 73 of 141 APPENDIX C - HOME SALES BY ZIP CODE, 2017 Vail - 81657 Zip Code # of Sales Median Average Affordable Price - 100/o Affordability Gap p Single Family 25 $ 2,200,000 $ 3,333,000 $ 316,000 $ 1,884,000 Townhouse/Du- plex 75 $ 1,425,000 $ 2,178,000 $ 316,000 $ 1,109,000 Condo 160 $ 743,750 $ 1,629,000 $ 316,000 $ 427,750 Red Cliff - 81649 Zip Code # of Sales Median Average Affordable Price - 100% Affordability Gap p Single Family 6 $ 242,000 $ 340,000 $ 316,000 $ (74,000) Townhouse/Du- plex 1 $ 342,000 $ 342,000 $ 316,000 $ 26,000 Condo - $ - $ - $ 316,000 $ - Minturn - 81645 Zip Code # of Sales Median Average Affordable Price - 100/o Affordability Gap p Single Family 9 $ 521,000 $ 719,000 $ 316,000 $ 205,000 Townhouse/Du-4 plex $ 713,250 $ 741,000 $ 316,000 $ 397,250 Condo 1 $ 570,000 $ 570,000 $ 316,000 $ 254,000 Avon/Beaver Creek/Eagle Vail - 81620 Zip Code # of Sales Median Average Affordable Price - 100/o Affordability Gap p Single Family 41 $ 3,325,000 $ 4,386,299 $ 316,000 $ 3,009,000 Townhouse/Du-99 plex $ 770,000 $ 1,138,007 $ 316,000 $ 454,000 Condo 225 $ 490,000 $ 877,865 $ 316,000 $ 174,000 Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC APPENDICE 67 April 17, 2018 - Page 74 of 141 APPENDIX C - HOME SALES BY ZIP CODE, 2017 Edwards - 81632 Zip Code # of Sales Median Average Affordable Price - 100/o Affordability Gap p Single Family 106 $ 1,700,000 $ 1,843,958 $ 316,000 $ 1,384,000 Townhouse/Du- plex 49 $ 1,060,000 $ 1,285,429 $ 316,000 $ 744,000 Condo 12 $ 818,125 $ 894,771 $ 316,000 $ 502,125 Wolcott - 81655 Zip Code # of Sales Median Average Affordable Price - 100% AMI Affordability Ga p Single Family 9 $ 950,000 $ 1,332,056 $ 316,000 $ 634,000 Townhouse/Du- plex - $ - $ - $ 316,000 $ - Condo - $ - $ - $ 316,000 $ - Eagle - 81631 Zip Code # of Sales Median Average Affordable Price - 100/o Affordability Gap p Single Family 92 $ 615,500 $ 670,334 $ 316,000 $ 299,500 Townhouse/Du-49 plex $ 423,500 $ 424,038 $ 316,000 $ 107,500 Condo 10 $ 312,500 $ 320,000 $ 316,000 $ (3,500) Dotsero/Gypsum - 81637 Zip Code # of Sales Median Average Affordable Price - 100/o Affordability Gap p Single Family 155 $ 400,000 $ 460,768 $ 316,000 $ 84,000 Townhouse/Du-38 plex $ 376,500 $ 368,561 $ 316,000 $ 60,500 Condo 12 $ 194,800 $ 201,967 $ 316,000 $ (121,200) 68 APPENDICES MP Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 75 of 141 APPENDIX D - METHODOLOGY & SOURCES Primary research was conducted to generate information beyond that available from existing public sources.This appendix provides the methods and sources used, such that the research contained in this report could be replicated or updated as needed. Study Area Definitions The three market areas were defined by Census Tract and Zip code, as follows: Household Survey An online survey was conducted from late November 2017 through mid-January 2018 to collect information on the current housing situation of local residents and employees.The survey explored household characteristics, housing perceptions and preferences, tradeoffs, and preferred housing solutions.The link to the survey was widely distributed through various media, employers and multiple other outreach efforts (see below). In total, responses were received from 705 residents in the Eagle River Valley: 147 from up valley, 347 mid valley, and 211 down valley. The margin of error for survey tabulations is within about 2.5% at the 95% confidence interval, meaning that for any tabulation the percent reported is within plus or minus 2.5% from what is actually the case. For data representing less than the full population of responses (e.g., home owners only), the margin of error is higher. Employer Survey Concurrent with the household survey, a short online survey was also conducted to reach employers in the Eagle River Valley.The employer survey inquired about the number of year- round and seasonal workers (summer and winter) employed, where workers live (commute patterns), employee retention and recruitment issues, to what extent em- ployee housing is perceived to be a problem, and employers preferred housing solutions.The link to the survey was distributed by the Vail Valley Partnership, through in-person visits to many restaurants and retailers, direct phone and/ or email invitations to the valley's 50 largest employers with follow-up phone calls. Responses were received from 84 employers representing 9,700 jobs, approximately 27% of all jobs in the Eagle River Valley. Survey Outreach Outreach for the online employer and household surveys was conducted as follows: Two press releases to all local news outlets. Editorial coverage from the Vail Daily News on (11/30/2017). Public service announcements on local radio stations: La Nueva Mix, KSKE, The Lift FM. Radio interviews on Mid Day Mile and on the Zephr. Email distribution to Eagle County Government E -News Subscription. Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES 69 April 17, 2018 - Page 76 of 141 Census Tracts Zip codes Up Valley 6, 7.01, 7.02, 7.03 81645, 81649, 81657, 81658, Mid Valley 4.01, 4.02, 5.01, 5.02, 81620, 81632 5.03 Down Valley 2, 4.03 81631, 81637, 81655, Household Survey An online survey was conducted from late November 2017 through mid-January 2018 to collect information on the current housing situation of local residents and employees.The survey explored household characteristics, housing perceptions and preferences, tradeoffs, and preferred housing solutions.The link to the survey was widely distributed through various media, employers and multiple other outreach efforts (see below). In total, responses were received from 705 residents in the Eagle River Valley: 147 from up valley, 347 mid valley, and 211 down valley. The margin of error for survey tabulations is within about 2.5% at the 95% confidence interval, meaning that for any tabulation the percent reported is within plus or minus 2.5% from what is actually the case. For data representing less than the full population of responses (e.g., home owners only), the margin of error is higher. Employer Survey Concurrent with the household survey, a short online survey was also conducted to reach employers in the Eagle River Valley.The employer survey inquired about the number of year- round and seasonal workers (summer and winter) employed, where workers live (commute patterns), employee retention and recruitment issues, to what extent em- ployee housing is perceived to be a problem, and employers preferred housing solutions.The link to the survey was distributed by the Vail Valley Partnership, through in-person visits to many restaurants and retailers, direct phone and/ or email invitations to the valley's 50 largest employers with follow-up phone calls. Responses were received from 84 employers representing 9,700 jobs, approximately 27% of all jobs in the Eagle River Valley. Survey Outreach Outreach for the online employer and household surveys was conducted as follows: Two press releases to all local news outlets. Editorial coverage from the Vail Daily News on (11/30/2017). Public service announcements on local radio stations: La Nueva Mix, KSKE, The Lift FM. Radio interviews on Mid Day Mile and on the Zephr. Email distribution to Eagle County Government E -News Subscription. Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES 69 April 17, 2018 - Page 76 of 141 APPENDIX D - METHODOLOGY & SOURCES • Newsletter outreach to members of the Vail Valley Partnership, Vail Chamber and Business Association, Gyp- sum Chamber, and Eagle Chamber. • Direct phone calls and/or email invitations to the 50 largest employers. • Email outreach to all current participants and applicants for Valley Home Store and ECHDA properties and programs. • Spanish language outreach at ECHDA owned and managed properties, and on La Nueva Mix. • Email links on the websites of Eagle County Government, Eagle County Housing, and The Valley Home Store. • Social media messages on Eagle County Government Facebook page, Eagle County Housing Facebook page, Eagle County Classifieds Facebook page, Vail Moms Facebook page, Vail Moms classifieds Facebook page. Property Manager and Realtor Focus Group A focus group of property managers and realtors was conducted on October 12, 2017 to obtain information, insights, and assist with survey design. This focus group provided qualitative information on trends, challenges, housing prefer- ences and shifts in demand. Secondary Data A variety of sources of published information were used in the preparation of this report, including: • 2010 Census data from the U.S. Census Bureau and population and household projections from the State Demog- raphy Office in the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (DOLA); • Employment information from the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW), Colorado Department of Labor and Employment; ESRI; • 2016 Area Median Income from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; • 2017 and 2018 Multiple Listing Service (MLS) listings; • Existing reports, and of particular note the Housing Needs Assessments from 2007, 2012, and 2016, Vail Valley Partnership Workforce Survey Report 2017, Land Title, and Polar Star Market Reports. Demand Calculations • The following components make up the Catch-up/Keep-up demand estimates.The following baseline data points are used throughout the demand calculations: • Total jobs in the Eagle River Valley of 35,810, per ESRI December 2017. • Total occupied housing units in the Eagle River Valley of 17,030, per 2010 Census, brought up to date with DOLA State Demographer data. • Jobs/household per the 2018 household survey is 1.9. However, given that this change is not large compared with the 1.8 jobs/household previously measured and used for other calculations for housing policies in the valley.To remain consistent, 1.8 jobs/household is used in this report. If a larger change is measured in future years, these calculations should be revisited. • Jobs/employee of 1.24, per the 2018 household survey. Unique assumptions are described below. Final demand numbers are rounded to the nearest 10. 70 APPENDICES Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 77 of 141 APPENDIX D - METHODOLOGY & SOURCES Unfilled Jobs In the 2018 Employer Survey, employers reported that 7% of jobs remained unfilled in the peak winter hiring season. This percentage was applied to the total jobs in the Eagle Valley. Unfilled jobs were then translated to units needed by calculating the jobs held/person (1.24) and the employees per household (1.8). Unemployment is currently so low that very few jobs can be filled by employees who already live in the Eagle River Valley, so no discount was given for local hiring. Total Jobs Assumptions & Units Needed 35,810 unfilled Jobs (Dec/Jan 2018) 7% # unfilled jobs 2,470 Jobs per employee 1.24 Employees needed 1,992 Employees/Household 1.8 Housing Need 1,110 Functional Rental Market The number of existing rental units was derived using DOLA and Census figures, which estimate a total 17,030 oc- cupied homes in the Eagle River Valley. Since tenure estimates have shifted considerably towards renters since the 2010 Census, a combination of DOLA and survey response data was used to estimate that 45% of all homes are renter occupied. The research team estimated that 1% or fewer of these units are vacant, based on Polar Star reports and the property manager/realtor focus group. An additional 4% is a conservative estimate of what is needed to achieve a 5% vacancy rate. Functional Rental Market 2017 Total Units per Census + DOLA Assumptions & Units Needed 17,030 rentals, per survey + DOLA 45% Rental Units 7,660 Goal of 5% vacancy - assume 1% already 4% Housing Units Needed 310 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES April 17, 2018 - Page 78 of 141 APPENDIX D - METHODOLOGY & SOURCES In -commuters The percentage of in -commuters and the extent to which they desire to move to the Eagle River Valley were estab- lished through the 2018 employer survey. In- commuters Total Jobs Assumptions & Units Needed 35,810 Jobs per employee 1.24 Total employees 28,879 % Commuting from outside 9% Number of in -commuters 2,599 Desire to move 39% # Who would move 1,014 Employees/household 1.8 Housing Need 560 Overcrowding The 2018 household survey established that 16% of all households are currently overcrowded. Consistent with previ- ous studies in Eagle County, the definition of 1.5 persons per bedroom was used to define"overcrowded."The metric of 30% reduction has also been used consistently over time as a practical measure to relieve, but not eliminate, the problem. Overcrowded Assumptions & Units Needed Total survey respondents over crowded: 16% Total Housing Units 17,030 Overcrowded units 2,670 needed to reduce overcrowding 30% Housing Units Needed 800 New Jobs New jobs for 2020, 2025, and 2030 were projected using the baseline of ESRI jobs in the valley, and applying the antici- pated growth rates as published by the State Demography Office on the DOLA website December 2017. New Jobs Assumptions & Units Needed 2020 2025 2030 Increase in Jobs over 2017 2,304 5,250 8,643 Jobs per Employee 1.24 1.24 1.24 New Employees 1,858 4,234 6,970 Employees/household 1.8 1.8 1.8 Housing Units Needed 1,030 2,350 3,870 72 APPENDICES 1 Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 79 of 141 APPENDIX D - METHODOLOGY & SOURCES Retiring Employees Employers responding to the 2018 employer survey provided the data that 4% of the workforce intends to retire in the next five years.This data was annualized and applied to total jobs in the valley, using the consistent assumptions about jobs/employee and employees/household. Gap, Location, and Tenure The gap calculation begins with the total housing need estimated for 2020: 3,870 units. This number is then discount- ed with the assumption that 9% of jobs will continue to be filled by in -commuters, to establish a demand for 3,800 units within the Valley. The color -coded chart identifying where gaps exist by region and tenure is estimated using the market and AMI data compiled in Chapter 1. Quantification of these gaps is highly sensitive to changes in the market and should be re- viewed regularly. The location for new housing was established by household survey respondent's stated preferences regarding where they want to live. Percentages used are as follows: Retiring in 5 years Retiring annu- ally total jobs with employee planning to retire 4.2% 0 0.8/0 Total Jobs 28,879 28,879 # Jobs held by retiring employees 1,202 240 Jobs/employee 1.24 1.24 Employees/household 1.8 1.8 Housing Units needed 540 110 Gap, Location, and Tenure The gap calculation begins with the total housing need estimated for 2020: 3,870 units. This number is then discount- ed with the assumption that 9% of jobs will continue to be filled by in -commuters, to establish a demand for 3,800 units within the Valley. The color -coded chart identifying where gaps exist by region and tenure is estimated using the market and AMI data compiled in Chapter 1. Quantification of these gaps is highly sensitive to changes in the market and should be re- viewed regularly. The location for new housing was established by household survey respondent's stated preferences regarding where they want to live. Percentages used are as follows: The tenure mix of 55% owners and 45% renters matches that of the survey weighting, which was derived by finding a middle ground between the 2010 Census tenure mix and that of the 2018 household survey, which seemed to indicate that the mix of owners and renters has shifted in favor of renters since the recession. Comparison of 2007 and Current Demand While the general method used to estimate demand has remained the same, most of the assumptions have changed significantly over the past 10 years. While both the rental and for sale housing markets are now greatly exceeding 2007 price points, many other elements of the current economy are more fragile, and overall demand projections and hous- ing gaps are lower than in 2007. Catch-up In 2007, the construction industry was extremely strong, and unfilled jobs were at a record high. This year, unfilled jobs present a significant challenge to employers, but do not match 2007 levels. With very low snowfall, this winter looks to Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES 73 April 17, 2018 - Page 80 of 141 Up Valley Mid Valley Down Valley Own 26% 39% 35% Remt 42% 40% 18% The tenure mix of 55% owners and 45% renters matches that of the survey weighting, which was derived by finding a middle ground between the 2010 Census tenure mix and that of the 2018 household survey, which seemed to indicate that the mix of owners and renters has shifted in favor of renters since the recession. Comparison of 2007 and Current Demand While the general method used to estimate demand has remained the same, most of the assumptions have changed significantly over the past 10 years. While both the rental and for sale housing markets are now greatly exceeding 2007 price points, many other elements of the current economy are more fragile, and overall demand projections and hous- ing gaps are lower than in 2007. Catch-up In 2007, the construction industry was extremely strong, and unfilled jobs were at a record high. This year, unfilled jobs present a significant challenge to employers, but do not match 2007 levels. With very low snowfall, this winter looks to Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC APPENDICES 73 April 17, 2018 - Page 80 of 141 fall short of the past few years' economic activity as measured by sales tax receipts. This could mark the beginning of an economic slow -down for the Eagle River Valley, or the economy may rebound quickly with a strong summer visitor season and plentiful snow in 2018/2019. Functional rental market is a new metric added in 2018 to address the extremely low vacancy rates, rapidly rising rents, and lack of consumer choice in the rental market. In -commuters are always a challenging demographic to measure. However, 2018 employer survey responses align closely with State Demographer estimates, both of which show a significant decrease in in -commuters since 2007.This may be related to housing scarcity and competition for employees in neighboring communi ties. Given relatively flat wages and significantly higher home prices and rental rates, the increase in the overcrowd ing in 2018 comes as no surprise. When all of these factors are combined, there is an estimated 1,670 fewer units needed to meet current de mand than in 2007. Keep -up • In 2007, keep -up demand and the housing gap were projected out 12 years, through 2015. This year, twelve- year projections are also provided, but greater emphasis is placed on the nearer term forecasts of 2020 and 2025. This approach, combined with State Demographer estimates, has resulted in significantly lower job growth projections. • The rate at which employees are retiring has slowed quite a bit. In 2007, an estimated 275 new units were needed each year to fill housing gaps left by retiring employees, compared to only 110 units per year given cur rent conditions. Post -recession, many employees have pushed back their retirement dates, or made plans to scale back their work commitments without retiring. While the overall estimates for housing units needed were much higher in 2007, so were the assumptions about what the market would provide. In 2018, the gap represents 61% of the total housing need, compared to only 27% in 2007. Comparison of Housing Demand Summary — 2007 and 2018 Catch-up 2007 2018 Change Demand for unfilled jobs 1,420 1,110 (310) Rental Market - 310 310 In -commuters 2,469 560 (1,909) Overcrowding 557 800 243 Total Catch-up 4,446 2,780 (1,666) Keep -up - Projected to Year 2015 2020 12 yrs/2 yrs Job Growth 4,776 1,030 (3,746) Retirees 3,284 220 (3,064) Total Keep -up 8,060 1,250 (6,810) Total need Gap 12,506 3,398 4,030 2,450 (8,476) (948) 74 APPENDICES 1 Rees Consulting, Inc. / Willliford, LLC April 17, 2018 - Page 81 of 141 APPENDIX E - SURVEY DEFINITIONS OF TOOLS Definitions of housing tools by category presented in the survey. Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC APPENDICES April 17, 2018 - Page 82 of 141 Incentives Density bonuses when workforce housing is built Fee waivers -- water/sewer tap fees or permits for workforce housing Reduced parking requirements for workforce housing Fast track processing -- workforce housing projects go to the front of the line for review Property tax exemption Development Requirements Commercial linkage: requiring new commercial development to provide housing Residential linkage: a type of impact fee on new residential construction Inclusionary Housing: a percentage of units in new subdivisions restricted for workforce housing Taxes Excise tax on short-term rentals, for example 3% - 5% - vote required Property tax (paid for by property owners) - vote required Sales tax (paid for by consumers) - vote required Public Initiatives Providing County or Town land that is vacant or under-utilized Town or County builds housing (like Miller Ranch and Chamonix) Town, County, or Housing Authority provide financing General fund revenues - appropriation by elected officials required Other Solutions - Employer assistance for housing -- rent or mortgage subsi- dies, etc. Rees Consulting, Inc. /Willliford, LLC APPENDICES April 17, 2018 - Page 82 of 141 Eagle River Valley Housing Needs and Solutions 2018 0 Rees Consulting, Inc. April 17, 2018 WWTILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing Sponsor: Acknowledgements EAGLE COUNTY In collaboration with: WSW CONSULTING r 14,10 Rees Consulting, Inc. Key Participants: • Eagle County Housing and Development Authority • Vail Valley Partnership • Employer Survey Respondents • Resident Survey Respondents • Focus group participants • Subject matter experts URBANrural NRC frontier forward National Research Center Inc \kTILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing Study Area re Rees Consulting, Inc. WWTILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing 0 Method Build on what we know Focus group/interviews Past studies Gather the most current data Resident survey — over 700 responses Employer survey — 84 employers (27% of jobs) Secondary data Rees Consulting, Inc. WWTILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing Part 1 - Key Findings • Housing costs continue to increase more rapidly than incomes • Extremely low vacancy and rising rents • Decrease in homeownership • Labor shortage and housing shortage are linked, hurting local employers 0143 Rees Consulting, Inc. WWTILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing Consensus on a Problem "Do you feel that the availability of housing that is affordable for the workforce in the Eagle River Valley is:" 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% "One of the more serious" + "The most critical" 85% 91% Employers Households 0 Rees Consulting, Inc. «TILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing Jobs and Wages • Since 2007, incomes have increased 6% • Average employed person has 1.24 jobs • About 1,600 jobs were unfilled for peak winter season • Average weekly wage about $220 lower than Statewide 0 Rees Consulting, Inc. «TILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing Home Ownership Up Mid Down Valley Valley Valley Median 2017 Sale Price $1,100,000 $769,000 $429,000 AMI to Afford Median Price 334% 234% 130% % Listed Affordable to <100% AMI 4% 7% 26% Area Median Income (3 persons) = $80,600 Affordable Home Price = $316,000 0 Rees Consulting, Inc. «TILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing Rental Housing IN 2007, AVERAGE RENT FOR ALL UNIT TYPES WAS $1,150. CURRENTLY, AVERAGE RENT IS $1,700, AN INCREASE OF 48%. 0 Rees Consulting, Inc. WWTILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing Down Valley Housing and Jobs Mid Valley Up Valley Current Residents Who Residents Want to Live Here Current Residents Want Residents to Live Here Current Residents Want Residents to Live Here 31% 27% 48% 38% 42% 21% 32% 36% DOTSE GYPSUM DOWN W L1 L 7 re Rees Consulting, Inc. WWTILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing 0 Total Housing Need Catch -Up — The Existing Need Housing Gap Homes Needed Overcrowding 800 Rental market 310 In — commuters 560 Unfilled jobs 1,011 Total Catch -Up 2,780 Rees Consulting, Inc. WWTILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing 0 Total Housing Need Keep -up - Future Needs Housing Gap 2020 2025 Retiring Employees 220 770 New Jobs 1,030 2,350 Total Keep -Up 1,250 3,120 Total — Housing Units Needed 4,030 5,900 Rees Consulting, Inc. WWTILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing How Gap is measured Housing Gap 2020 Total Housing Units Needed 4,030 Supplied by the Free Market 1,580 Total Gap 2,450 Ownership gap, estimated 1,220 Rental gap, estimated 1,230 0 Rees Consulting, Inc. «TILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing Ownership Gap — 2020 preference by buyers Owner Units by AMI Max Affordable Price Up Valley Mid Valley Down Valley Total Where Owners Want to Live i 26% 39% 35% 100% <60% 1 $253,000 48 72 66 186 100% $316,000 122 180 164 466 140% $443,000 173 256 234 663 200% $632,000 135 200 183 518 Over 200% >$632,000 90 A 134 122 346 Gap - # for sale units 480 510 230 1,220 0 Rees Consulting, Inc. green = market purple = gap blue = blend Based on MLS data in January 2018 WWTILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing Rental Gap — 2020 preference by renters Rental Units by AMI Max Affordable Rent Up Valley Where Renters want to live <60% $1,200 100% $2,020 140% $2,820 200% Over 200% Gap - # of rental units $4,030 >$4030 42% Mid Valley 40% Down Valley 18% Total 100% 212 228 143 95 202 91 505 217 136 227 174 91 73 69 98 62 543 341 41 31 580 560 90 1,230 green = market purple = gap blue = blend Based on MLS data in January 2018 0 Rees Consulting, Inc. WILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing 0 Part 11 - Solutions Rees Consulting, Inc. WWTILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing Ownership Considerations 95% of survey respondents want to own Testing Four Tradeoffs — • Current owners rank: location, price, size, type of home • Renters wanting to buy rank: price, location, size, type Deed restrictions widely understood and accepted 0 Rees Consulting, Inc. «TILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing Ownership Considerations Community Character is most important location attribute "locals or family-oriented, social opportunities, entertainment, restaurants, etc." Proximity to work also highly important 0 Rees Consulting, Inc. «TILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing Renter Considerations Proximity to work is the most important location attribute Also, Community Character and Allow Pets Rees Consulting, Inc. Diversity of price points More studios and 1BRs Energy efficiency Deed restrictions WWTILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing Tools "Conceptually, how do you feel about the following strategies for increasing workforce housing in the Eagle River Valley and its communities?" 1 Incentives Partnerships and Public Initiatives Development Regulations Density bonuses Fee Waivers Reduced Parking Fast Track Processing Town/County Land Commercial Linkage Town/County build housing Residential Linkage Public Finance Inclusionary Housing Property tax exemption Funding Excise tax - STR Property tax Sales tax General Fund revenue 0 Rees Consulting, Inc. «TILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing Strong Support for Tools TOP RATED TOOLS PROVIDING TOWN/COUNTY LAND Providing County or Town land that is vacant or under-utilized EMPLOYERS' 4, A• RESIDENTS 44. 4 6 TOWN/COUNTY/HOUSING AUTHORITY FINANCING Town, County, or Housing Authority provides financing. re EMPLOYERS 4664 RESIDENTS 444.6 FAST-TRACK PROCESSING Workforce housing projects go to the front of the line for review. EMPLOYERS RESIDENTS 444* #41#4} TOWN OR COUNTY BUILDS HOUSING Town or County builds housing (like Miller Ranch or Chamonix) EMPLOYERS RESIDENTS ifr lip INCLUSIONARY HOUSING A percentage of new units in subdivsions are restricted for workforce housing EMPLOYERS RESIDENTS COMMERCIAL LINKAGE Requiring new commercial development to provide housing EMPLOYERS RESIDENTS oftpritrigtrit::!,. Rees Consulting, Inc. WWTILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing Big numbers; solutions on hand • The time is likely not right for a single, dedicated, valley wide funding source; Numerous smaller sources are still powerful; • Take incremental steps and create partnerships; • Forge ahead and attract funding to projects and partnerships. 0 Rees consulting, Inc. «TILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing Policy Considerations Demand calculations are just one factor in setting policy direction. Time is ripe for regional coordination and shared goals; no single community can solve this alone. Shape housing tools into strategies - Local policies and investment priorities drive housing outcomes. Set goals and objectives — • Build a spectrum of housing choices • Blend aspirational, attainable, and responsive to community values and vision • Balance "where want to live" and land opportunities • Community character is key! 0 Rees Consulting, Inc. «TILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing Questions for Decision Makers What do you see as the next steps going forward? What actions can we take to foster regional coordination, collaboration, and learning from one another? 0 Rees Consulting, Inc. «TILLIFORD, LLC land use & affordable housing Questions for us? - Thank you - Full report is available at www.eaglecounty.us/housing Tori Franks Tori.franks@eaglecounty.us 970-328-8775 EAGLE COUNTY Willa Williford Willa@willifordhousing.com 303-818-0096 Kim Bell Williams Kim.williams@eaglecounty.us 970-328-8773 0 Rees consulting, Inc. «TILI�IFURD, LLC land use & affordable housing TOWN Of 9 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: EPIC Discovery Update PRESENTER(S): Phil Metz, Vail Resorts Senior Director Marketing, ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Listen to presentation and provide feedback. BACKGROUND: Town Council requested an update on Epic Discovery. Vail Resorts will present high level results to date as well as plans for the upcoming season. ATTACHMENTS: Description Epic Discovery Update VR Powerpoint April 17, 2018 - Page 83 of 141 Epic Discovery Summer 2018 Business Overview 3416/2018 Q/17IGDISCOVERY April 17, 2018 - Page 84 of 141 OPERATING DATES & HOURS June 1 - June 3 (11AM - 5PM) • Gondola One • Scenic Gondola Rides, Hiking • Food & Beverage at Mid -Vail June 8 - September 3 (10AM - 6PM) • Gondola One and Lionshead Gondola • Scenic Rides, Hiking, and Activities (all activities planned for June 15) • Food & Beverage at Bistro 14, Mid -Vail and Game Creek Restaurant September 7 - 30 (Friday to Sunday) (11AM -BPM) • Gondola One and Lionshead Gondola • Scenic Rides, Hiking, and Activities (all activities planned for June 15) • Food & Beverage at Bistro 14, Mid -Vail and Game Creek Restaurant Q/17IGDISCOVERY April 17, 2018 - Page 85 of 141 PRODUCT, PROMOTION & PRICING COMPARISON 0 Pass Products ,$ Non -Family Experiences A La Carte Kids Ride Free Summer '18 • Adv. Pass (54" & Over / Under 54") • Family Adv. Pack (Buy 3, Get 1 Free) • Scout Sample Pass (3-4 year olds) • Activity + Food & Beverage Packages • 7 Activities, available all day • 1 Child w/ Paying Adult Q/17IGDISCOVERY April 17, 2018 - Page 86 of 141 Summer '17 • Ultimate Adv. Pass • Little Explorer Pass • None • 7 Activities, available all day • 1 Child w/ Paying Adult Thank Wu Q/17IGDISCOVERY April 17, 2018 - Page 87 of 141 ilk TOWN Of 9 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Traffic Calming Update PRESENTER(S): Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Provide staff with direction with regards to trial traffic calming installations BACKGROUND: Council has requested staff to look at traffic calming options for residential roads. This is a follow up to the presentation made in October. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Provide staff with direction with regards to trial traffic calming installations. ATTACHMENTS: Description Traffic Calming Update Memorandum Traffic Calming Update Presentation April 17, 2018 - Page 88 of 141 TOWN OF VAIL. Memorandum To: Vail Town Council From: Public Works Department Date: April 17, 2017 Subject: Traffic Calming Discussion Update I. BACKGROUND The streets in Vail that have generally been discussed for traffic calming are residential roads. The most recent speed study data on these roads show an 85th percentile speed of 24-29 mph. These results indicate that drivers are generally not going as fast as some residents perceive, but are going higher than the posted limits of 15mph and 25mph. Based on accident history, it was also found that the Town's residential streets do not have a sufficient number of crashes to identify a discernible pattern or area of concern. Despite the above, discussions have continued to revolve around reducing vehicle speeds to 15-20mph. This type of reduction will require significant traffic calming measures, as most traffic calming measures are implemented to slow traffic that is exceeding 30mph down to 25mph. This past October staff provided a presentation to Council identifying various Traffic Calming Measures, various implementations that have occurred in similar Colorado Towns, and various Traffic Calming policies of other entities. As a result of the discussion staff was directed to return to Council with trial basis suggestions for implementing this spring. If desired by Council, staff suggests implementing shoulder striping on West Gore Creek Drive and/or on Chamonix lane; and/or two speed humps on Chamonix Lane at a specified location, see below for recommendations. II. TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES Effective traffic calming measures can be divided into four general categories, as shown below; April 17, 2018 - Page 89 of 141 Non -Physical Measures Physical Measures Vertical Measures Horizontal Measures Diversions Speed Enforcement Textured Pavements Traffic Circles Street Closures Radar Trailers Speed Humps Roundabouts Diagonal Diverters Lane Striping Speed Lumps Curb Extensions Semi-diverters Signage Speed Tables Chicanes Pavement Markings Raised Crosswalks Lateral Shifts High Visibility Crosswalks Raised Intersections Neckdowns On -Street Parking Realigned Intersections Raised Pavement Markers Bulbouts Streetscaping Two -Lane Chokers Multi -Way Stops One -Lane Chokers Turn & Other Restrictions Center Island Narrowing Gateways / Entryways Medians Colored Pavements Illustrations, Pros and Cons of each of the above are provided in Attachment A. The Town of Vail residential streets generally have narrow road widths of 20-24' with speed limits of 15 or 25mph, and have limited Right of Way to implement many of the more significant Horizontal Measures. Due to these restrictions the traffic calming measures that may be applicable in Vail are highlighted in yellow. However careful consideration must be applied when implementing any traffic calming measures. Physical Measures of traffic calming can significantly impact emergency service vehicles, transit, snow removal equipment, and have an undesirable effect to some residents and neighborhoods. Impacts such as; • Emergency vehicle response times are impacted negatively by forcing emergency vehicles to slow down or to use a less desirable route. • Transit vehicles are impacted particularly by vertical measures; even at very low speeds, vertical measures can cause significant discomfort for bus passengers; and the long wheelbases of buses can make it difficult for them to navigate through some horizontal measures. • Snow removal equipment can also be impacted by many of the physical measures. The physical measures make it more difficult to clear snow from the roads and can be difficult to see under a blanket of snow; and if a plow does hit a blunt object used for traffic calming it can cause severe damage to the equipment, the driver, and the traffic calming measure itself. • Noise generated by deceleration and acceleration of vehicles, and from vehicles going over vertical measures. III. TRAFFIC CALMING IMPLEMENTATIONS & POLICIES IN COLORADO Staff has received input from several Colorado communities regarding Traffic Calming. April 17, 2018 - Page 90 of 141 Aspen has recently installed a median along Mill Street which reduced the 85th percentile speed from 27 to 23mph They also installed a speed table on Neale Ave which reduced the 85th percentile speed from 29 to 24mph. Avon has recently changed the striping on West Beaver Creek Blvd. to aide in Traffic Calming and provide bike lanes. West Beaver Creek Blvd., where it is adjacent to 1-70 EB, has been restriped to remove the double yellow and add new shoulder lane striping that accommodates 10' vehicular lanes and 4' bike lanes. This effort has reduced traffic speeds to where 80% of traffic is going below 27 mph. Durango has implemented a policy on Traffic Calming that requires Traffic Calming on all local residential streets that meet the following criteria; • Carry 100 or more vehicles per peak hour, • Have a relatively straight alignment for a distance of 500' or more • And on streets that are configured in a way to be desirable to be used as a short cut to avoid congestion. Durango has also provided approved methods of Traffic Calming including many of the measures listed above. See attachment B for the full policy and list of traffic calming measures. April 17, 2018 - Page 91 of 141 Lakewood has implemented a Traffic Calming policy which allows Speed Humps, Permanent Speed Display Signs, and Temporary Speed Display Signs, upon request of residents. Speed Humps requests must be submitted by a resident living on that particular street, and: • The residents of that street must submit a petition signed by 95% of residents living on that block • At least 80% must be in favor of the speed hump. • The cost must be split 50/50 between the city and the residents. Similarly the Permanent Speed Displays must be petitioned and 80% approved and the cost split is 90/10, with the city paying 90%. Lakewood specifically will not install "Children at Play Signs", change speed limits at resident requests, nor install stop signs for speed control. http://lakewood.org/TrafficCalminq/ IV. TRAFFIC CALMING IN VAIL Most excessive speed complaints occur in the spring, summer, fall, when the roads are dry, and in areas where streets have long straight sections (i.e. West Gore Creek Drive, Chamonix, Main Gore Drive, Lions Ridge Loop, Buffehr Creek Road). Based on the most recent Town of Vail speed studies, the residential streets listed above plus a few others, have an 85th percentile speed of 24-29 mph, in areas where the regulation speed limits are 15mph or 25mph. Relative to most traffic calming studies and implementations the Town of Vail speeds are relatively low. Most traffic calming implementations are intended to slow vehicles that are going 30-40 mph down to 25-30 mph. As shown in the figure below, these typical installations require traffic calming measures every 400'- 650'. However, in order to reduce vehicle speeds from 24-29 down to the suggested speed limit of 20 mph along an entire length of a street, it is likely that multiple traffic calming measures would need to be implemented every 225'±. A commonly referred to speed study shown below, shows the expected speeds based on traffic calming measure spacing. 85th Percentile Speed at Midpoint (mph) 40- 30- 20- 10- O O DANISH A AUSTRALIAN ❑ BRITISH 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 Spacing of Slow Points (feet) Figure 3.45. Midpoint Speed versus Distance Between Slow Points. April 17, 2018 - Page 92 of 141 The Institute of Traffic Engineers compiled the most comprehensive data on effectiveness of traffic calming measures on approximately 350 sites throughout the country. The summary results are shown below: ITE TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES — SUMMARY PAGE Device Sample Size 85th Percentile Before Speed (mph) 85th Percentile After Speed (mph) Average Change in Speed (mph) Average Percent Change 12 -foot Humps 179 35 27.4 -7.6 - 22% 14 -foot Humps 15 33.3 25.6 -7.7 - 23% 22 -foot Tables 58 36.7 30.1 -6.6 - 18% Longer Tables 10 34.8 31.6 -3.2 - 9% Raised Intersections 3 34.6 34.3 -0.3 - 1% Circles 45 34.2 30.3 -3.9 - 11% Narrowings 7 34.9 32.3 -2.6 - 4% One -Lane Slow Points 5 33.4 28.6 -4.8 - 14% Diagonal Diverters 7 29.3 27.9 -1.4 - 4% Source: FHWA/ITE: Traffic Calming: State of Practice, pg 104 In most cases summarized above, the speeds prior to installation of traffic calming measures were 30-40mph. This is consistent with additional research, where excessive speeding in residential areas is generally considered an 85th percentile of over 30mph. The Town's speed study data shows our 85th percentile speed study data at 24-29mph. V. TRAFFIC CALMING RECOMMENDATIONS Staff has reviewed several traffic calming options for Vail based on the information provided above, and if traffic calming is desired by Council, staff suggests moving forward with one or both of the options below: Shoulder Striping Install shoulder striping along West Gore Creek Drive and/or Chamonix lane at an estimated cost of $3,000-$5,000 each; This would minimize the impact to transit, emergency and snowplow operations, and impacts to the neighborhood (noise & inconvenience). This type of installation has been recently implemented in Eagle -Vail and Avon. This would narrow the road width down to 18'-20' and provide 2-3' striped bike lanes, still allowing vehicles to cross the striping to pass oncoming vehicles. This measure is a perceived constraint and may not discourage all drivers from speeding, April 17, 2018 - Page 93 of 141 especially as striping fades and residents become accustomed to the configuration. We would expect a reduction in speed of 2-3 mph initially. Speed Humps Install speed humps along Chamonix Lane; • Spot Speed Reduction: Install one or two speed humps (225' apart) at a specified location in order to reduce speed at that specific location (Estimated Cost $10,000) These may significantly impact the Town's bus route, emergency response, snow removal operations, and the neighborhood (noise & inconvenience). This option would require vetting with the neighborhood and could be implemented on a test basis at any of the historically noted roads that have requested traffic calming, i.e. West Gore Creek Drive, Chamonix, Main Gore Drive, Lions Ridge Loop, Buffehr Creek Road. VI. NEXT STEPS & RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends Council provide direction regarding next steps for the traffic calming discussion and possible test site(s) and improvements. Critical questions to discuss prior to an implementation include; • Does the Town have an excessive speed issue on residential streets that warrants mitigation? • And if so would Council like to move forward with speed humps or shoulder striping? VII. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A — Presentation April 17, 2018 - Page 94 of 141 April 17, 2018 - Page 95 of 141 Traffic Calming Reduce Vehicular Speeds Reduce Traffic Volumes Typically for Residential or High Pedestrian Activity Areas Posted Speed Limits <3omph But with vehicular speeds of 3o-4omph Vail Residential Road Speed Limits 15-25 mph Actual Vehicular Speeds 24-29mph April 17, 2018 - Page 96 of 141 Traffic Calming Measures Effective Measures Slowing vehicles to 25mph Non -Physical Measures & Perceived Constraints Physical Constraints • Horizontal • Vertical Impacts to • Emergency Response • Transit • Snow Removal • Neighborhood (Noise, Inconvienence) April 17, 2018 - Page 97 of 141 Non -Physical Measures Physical Measures Vertical Measures Horizontal Measures Diversions Speed Enforcement Textured Pavements Traffic Circles Street Closures Radar Trailers Speed Humps Roundabouts Diagonal Diverters Lane Striping Speed Lumps Curb Extensions Semi-diverters Signage Speed Tables Chicanes Pavement Markings Raised Crosswalks Lateral Shifts High Visibility Crosswalks Raised Intersections Neckdowns On -Street Parking Realigned Intersections Raised Pavement Markers Bulbouts Streetscaping Two -Lane Chokers Multi -Way Stops One -Lane Chokers Turn & Other Restrictions Center Island Narrowing Gateways / Entryways Medians Colored Pavements April 17, 2018 - Page 98 of 141 Traffic Calming In Colorado Aspen • Mill St. Median: Reduced traffic 27mph to 23 mph • Neale Ave. Speed Table: Reduced traffic 29mph to 24mph Avon • W. Beaver Creek Blvd. Restripe: traffic at -27mph April 17, 2018 - Page 99 of 141 Traffic Calming in Colorado Durango • Requires traffic calming • loo VPH or more • Straight for > 500' • Short Cut/Congestion avoidance streets Lakewood • Allows Speed Humps & Speed Display Signs • 8o% of Residents on street must agree • Cost split 5o/5o for Speed Humps • Cost split 90/10 for Speed Display Signs April 17, 2018 - Page 100 of 141 Vail Options Vail Speeds 24-29mph Reduction to 20 mph requires significant traffic calming Installations every 225' to consistently reduce speed Device Sample Size 85th Percentile Before Speed (mph) 85th Percentile After Speed (mph) Average Change in Speed (mph) Average Percent Change 12 -foot Humps 179 35 27.4 -7.6 - 22% 14 -foot Humps 15 33.3 25.6 -7.7 - 23% 22 -foot Tables 58 36.7 30.1 -6.6 - 18% Longer Tables 10 34.8 31.6 -3.2 - 9% Raised Intersections 3 34.6 34.3 -0.3 - 1% Circles 45 34.2 30.3 -3.9 - 11% Narrowings 7 34.9 32.3 -2.6 - 4% One Lane Slow Pts. 5 33.4 28.6 -4.8 - 14% Diagonal Diverters 7 29.3 27.9 -1.4 - 4% April 17, 2018 - Page 101 of 141 Vail Examples Shoulder Striping on West Gore Creek Drive and/or on Chamonix Lane • 9-10' travel lanes & 2-3' shoulder/bike lane • Estimated Cost: -$300045000 per road • Speed Reduction: Unknown (initially 2-3mph) • Negative Impacts: • Yearly Maintenance and cost April 17, 2018 - Page 102 of 141 Vail Examples Speed Humps on West Gore Creek Drive or Chamonix Lane Current Speed 29mph Length of road: 2450'! 2650' Install 2 Speed Humps at specified location @ 225' spacing Expected Speed Reduction: 3-8mph Estimated Cost: $io,000 Negative Impacts: Emergency Services Transit Snow Removal Neighborhood (Noise & Inconvenience) April 17, 2018 - Page 103 of 141 Next Steps Does the Town have an excessive speed issue? If so, does it warrant mitigation? If so, staff suggests a trial on Chamonix Lane and/or West Gore Creek Drive using speed humps and/or shoulder striping Trail Study; Data collected on; Speed Neighborhood impacts (Noise & Inconvenience) Transit, Maintenance, Emergency operations impacts Implementation Policies should be further discussed April 17, 2018 - Page 104 of 141 TOWN Of UAIL VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Vail Nature Center Update PRESENTER(S): Todd Oppenheimer, Landscape Architect Project Manager ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Given that the apparent outcome of the mitigation/remediation efforts will result in an incomplete remediation of the environmental and structural issues, Staff is requesting the Town Council provide direction to begin the process of vacating the existing VNC building, procuring and installing a yurt as a temporary facility and initiating a process which will engage the community in the design of a new, permanent facility to ensure the long-term success of the Vail Nature Center. BACKGROUND: The purpose of this discussion is to provide an update to the Town Council on the continued on-going work on the Vail Nature Center short-term actions intended to allow continuation of the VNC programming by the Walking Mountains Science Center. Staff is continuing to pursue two distinct approaches to resolving the facility needs of the VNC. These approaches are to 1) mitigate and/or remediate the environmental and structural issues and 2) to construct a yurt as a temporary structure to house the VNC programs. The attached memorandum outlines progress that has been made on the multiple issues effecting the Vail Nature Center. STAFF RECOM M ENDAT ION: Staff recommends the Town Council consider the above stated request and provide direction in regards to the short-term actions and long-term future of the Vail Nature Center. ATTACHMENTS: Description Vail Nature Center Update Memorandum April 17, 2018 - Page 105 of 141 TOWN OF VAIL' Memorandum To: Vail Town Council From: Department of Public Works Date: April 17, 2018 Subject: Vail Nature Center Update I. INTRODUCTION The purpose of this discussion is to provide an update to the Town Council on the continued on- going work on the Vail Nature Center (VNC) short-term actions intended to allow continuation of the VNC programming by the Walking Mountains Science Center. II. BACKGROUND At the April 3, 2018 Town Council meeting Staff presented an update on the Short Term Actions being pursued regarding the Vail Nature Center. These actions included the following topics. 1. Building Structure. The roof structure snow load and second floor occupancy load capacities are below what would be required by current building codes. 2. Temporary Facility. A temporary structure, specifically a yurt, may be required to house the Vail Nature Center operations if the identified issues can be mitigated or remediated in time for the scheduled opening in early June. 3. ADA Compliance. The building and the site do not currently comply with ADA requirements. 4. Environmental Survey. The building environment has elevated levels of mold and radon as well as a small amount of asbestos in the drywall tape or compound. This was inaccurately stated at the April 3, 2018 discussion. 5. Fire Department Access. There is currently no access for fire trucks. A fire in the building would result in a total loss of the building and contents. 6. Composting Toilet. The existing composting toilet system needs to be repaired and or modified or removed. 7. Vehicle Access. The grade and tight curve of the existing driveway make it difficult for many vehicles to use the driveway. The following paragraphs are intended to update the Council regarding the on-going efforts to resolve the above mentioned issues. Staff is continuing to pursue two distinct approaches to resolving the facility needs of the VNC. These approaches are to 1) mitigate and/or remediate the environmental and structural issues and 2) to construct a yurt as a temporary structure to house the VNC programs. The Town Council was in favor of this approach at the April 3, 2018 discussion. Staff has not pursued an approach that would curtail the VNC program for the period of time it would take to make permanent improvements to the VNC facilities. Staff feels such an approach would not serve the Vail community and would be detrimental to the Walking Mountains Science School organization. III. VAIL NATURE CENTER SHORT TERM ACTIONS UPDATE April 17, 2018 - Page 106 of 141 Following are updates to the multiple short term actions identified and discussed at the April 3, 2018 Council afternoon session. 1. Building Structure. Install beams and posts beneath the second floor to increase the load capacity. The Hopkins Architecture team is currently completing the structural engineering for this modification. There is no cost estimate at this time. Modifications to the roof system are beyond the scope of any short-term actions. 2. Temporary Facility. Building code requires any structure in place longer than 180 days to be treated as a permanent structure. A 27 foot diameter yurt would not have the occupancy to require a fire sprinkler system if there were fire truck access. Since there is no fire truck access and no water service, the feasible approach, at this time, is to assemble and disassemble the yurt each spring and fall. Town of Vail Staff time to do this work will be approximately $7200 per year. The yurt can be attached to a concrete slab instead of a deck which reduces the cost of construction and improves fire resistance. The total cost of purchasing and installing the yurt and slab is approximately $52K. Two PEC actions are required for the yurt. One is an amendment to the 2013 Ford Park Master Plan to allow a new building in the Gore Creek Preservation Sub -area and the other is a Conditional Use Permit for the yurt. These items are on the PEC agenda for April 23, 2018. 3. ADA Compliance. The Hopkins Architecture team is developing plans to make the existing History Trail to the Nature Center Bridge ADA compliant. This will require the construction of a 115 foot (+/-) boardwalk/ramp and installing a firm, stable and slip resistant surface on the trail. There is currently no cost estimate for this work. 4. Environmental Survey. Staff and consultants have not been able to identify a specific source for the mold. The Town's Industrial Hygienist consultant will be on-site April 13 to perform an additional visual inspection which may provide some additional insight into any remediation efforts. This would conclude the investigation process. Without a specific source to remediate the action would be to install an HEPA air filtration system and professionally clean the building regularly with HEPA filter vacuums and anti- bacterial wipes to control mold spore accumulation. HEPA air filtration systems are plug in units and would cost $500 to $1000. The way the building is constructed makes it very difficult to remediate the radon levels. Ventilating the building by opening the doors and windows is probably the only means to reduce radon levels when occupied. Given the public information that has been provided the public and VNC staff may not feel treating the air without removing the source is sufficient remediation, even with periodic testing. 5. Fire Department Access. No new progress beyond building code compliance of the yurt structure. 6. Composting Toilet. Replacement parts of the composting toilet system have been identified and are available for purchase if the decision is made to continue use of the building. The cost of repairing the composting toilet system is estimated to be $2500. 7. Vehicle Access. The Hopkins Architecture team has developed plans to reduce the maximum grade of the road from 17% to 10% at the switchback area. There is currently no estimated cost for the work. IV. BUDGET DISCUSSION The current fund balance in the Vail Nature Center RETT account (RMT025) is $60K. Some of the costs of the short term actions are still being evaluated and staff will return to the Council at the next update with cost and budget information. Preliminary cost information for the following actions has been determined. 1. Environmental Survey $2000 Town of Vail Page 2 April 17, 2018 - Page 107 of 141 2. Design fees for short term actions $12K 3. Construction costs temporary structures $55K V. TOWN COUNCIL REQUEST Given that the apparent outcome of the mitigation/remediation efforts will result in an incomplete remediation of the environmental and structural issues and the Town would not occupy a less than safe facility, Staff is requesting the Town Council provide direction to begin the process of vacating the existing VNC building, procuring and installing a yurt as a temporary facility and initiate a process which will engage the community in the design of a new, permanent facility to ensure the long-term success of the Vail Nature Center. VI. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Town Council provide direction to begin the process of vacating the existing VNC building, procuring and installing a yurt as a temporary facility and initiating a process which will engage the community in the design of a new, permanent facility to ensure the long-term success of the Vail Nature Center. Town of Vail Page 3 April 17, 2018 - Page 108 of 141 TOWN OF 1 X41 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Proposal for Recognizing Boards & Commissions PRESENTER(S): Patty McKenny, Town Clerk ACTION REQUESTED OF COUNCIL: Town Council input, feedback and direction on suggestions for recognizing boards and commissions. BACKGROUND: The Town Council appoints local community members to serve on ten boards and commissions; there are over 70 volunteers who give their time to these boards. The memo in the packet presents suggestions for recognizing and thanking the volunteers. ATTACHMENTS: Description Boards and Commissions Recognition Memorandum 041718 April 17, 2018 - Page 109 of 141 TOWN OF VAIL. Memorandum To: Mayor and Town Council From: Patty McKenny, Town Clerk Date: April 17, 2018 Subject: Suggestions for Recognition and Thanks to Boards and Commissions 1. SUMMARY The Town Council is asked to review a list of suggestions below for recognizing its boards and commissions as requested earlier this year. Those staff members who oversee a board or commission were asked to provide feedback about how to recognize the 76 members of the town's boards and commissions. 2. BACKGROUND Vail's boards and commissions are essential components of local government, offering critical checks and balances in the decision-making process. The ten boards, commissions, and task force are made-up of residents, local business people, and others who take an active interest in the town. As volunteers, the members contribute many hours to improving Vail's quality of life. Board vacancies occur nearly annually and appointments are made by the Vail Town Council. In exchange for volunteering, the town provides some boards with free parking passes (valued at $1,250) and/or ski passes (valued at $750). Council members have expressed a desire to additionally recognize these volunteers and thank them for their hours of time and commitment to this endeavor. 3. CONSIDERATIONS There are 76 volunteers serving on the ten boards, commissions, and task force. The following table shows ideas and estimated costs for recognizing our volunteers. The lists have been divided into categories, 1) gifts, 2) gatherings, and 3) public recognition. Currently the town hosts a reception "recognizing" the Welcome Center volunteers. Community Development has in the past thanked their outgoing members with a luncheon and gift. The volunteers serving these boards and commissions typically give an estimated two to eight hours per month depending on the specific board. If there is a desire to move forward with implementing a program, it would be recommended to incorporate funding on an annual basis within the Town Council's budget. 4. ACTION REQUESTED The Town Council is being asked to provide feedback about some of the suggestions and to provide direction about which suggestions might be implemented. Attachments: ✓ Summary of Boards and Commissions April 17, 2018 - Page 110 of 141 A. 1 2 3 Suggestions & Ideas for Recognition/Thanks to Board & Commission Members Total Members 76 Budget Estimates: Gifts Unit Cost Est. Total Cost Est. Leather Padfolio with town logo $ 50.00 $ 3,800.00 Sweater/Shirt / Vest with town logo $ 50.00 $ 3,800.00 Tickets to Bravo! Vail or International Dance Festival Performance $ 100.00 $ 7,600.00 4 Fitbits $ 100.00 $ 7,600.00 5 Smart Fitbit / Watch $ 150.00 $ 11,400.00 B. Gathering Unit Cost Est. Total Cost Est. Location suggestions: Donovan Pavilion, Vail Golf & Nordic Clubhouse, Hot Summer Nights concert @ Borgen Plaza, Lobby of GRFA 1 Lunch $ 35.00 $ 2,660.00 2 After Work Mixer $ 50.00 $ 3,800.00 3 Dinner $ 75.00 $ 5,700.00 * cost includes estimates for only board members C. Public Recognition 1 Vail Daily full page advertisement $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 3 2 Plaques given to members at town council meeting $ 40.00 Social Media Blasts NA $ 3,040.00 Town of Vail Page 2 April 17, 2018 - Page 111 of 141 Town of Vail Summary Boards and Commissions 76 3-1-1: DURATION OF TERMS: No member of any permanent Town board or commission shall serve for more than eight (8) consecutive years. A board or commission member who has served eight (8) consecutive years may serve again after a period of one year of nonservice. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if there is an insufficient number of applicants for a vacant position or positions on any permanent Town board or commission, a board or commission member who has served for more than eight (8) consecutive years shall be eligible to apply for reappointment. (Ord. 32(1993): Ord. 30(1992)) 3-1-2: EXCEPTIONS: All current members of the Town's permanent boards or commissions on the effective date hereof shall be entitled to complete their term of office regardless of whether the completion of such term would exceed eight (8) years. (Ord. 32(1993): Ord. 30(1992)) 3-1-3: COMPENSATION: The Town Council may provide for appropriate compensation, benefits, privileges, or reimbursement of expenses of any or all of the boards and commissions of the Town which are established by the Charter or ordinance of the Town. Provided, however, that such compensation shall not be in the form of the payment of monies but in benefits or privileges in lieu thereof. (1997 Code: Ord. 37(1981) § 2) 4/5/2018 A 17 7(11 Q D.,..., 1 1 7 .,f 1 A 1 Name Acronym Benefits Meetings: Day of week Meetings: Time # Serving on Board Terms 1 Art in Public Places AIPP Blue Parking Pass $1250 1st Monday 8:30 am until 10:30 am 7 2 year terms Expires Mar 31 2 Building & Fire Codes Appeal Board B&FCAB Blue Parking Pass $1250 2nd Thursday 2 hours; 3 pm to 5 pm 7 5 year terms Expires Mar 31 3 Design Review Board DRB Ski Pass $700 Blue Parking Pass $1250 1st & 3rd Wednesdays 12 p until 7 pm 5 2 year terms Expires Mar 31 4 Commission on Special Events CSE Blue Parking Pass $1250 Event tickets and gifts 1st Wednesday + 2 additional meetings in early November 8 am until noon 7 2 Year terms Expires Dec 31 5 Planning & Environmental Commission PEC Ski Pass $700 Blue Parking Pass $1250 2nd & 4th Mondays 12 pm until 7 pm 7 2 year terms Expires Mar 31 6 Vail Local Housing Authority VLHA Blue Parking Pass $1250 4th Tuesday 3 pm to 6 pm 5 5 year terms Expires April 30 7 Vail Local LicensingAuthority VLLA Blue Parking Pass $1250 2nd Wednesdays 10 am to noon 5 2 year terms Expires Jun 30 8 Vail Economic Advisory Council VEAC No benefits 2nd Tuesdays 8 am until 10 am 17 9 Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Council VLMDAC Blue Parking Pass $1250 3rd Thursdays 8:30 am until 11 am 9 2 Year terms 10 Vail Parking & Transportation Task Force VPTTF No benefits as needed varies 7 No terms 76 3-1-1: DURATION OF TERMS: No member of any permanent Town board or commission shall serve for more than eight (8) consecutive years. A board or commission member who has served eight (8) consecutive years may serve again after a period of one year of nonservice. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if there is an insufficient number of applicants for a vacant position or positions on any permanent Town board or commission, a board or commission member who has served for more than eight (8) consecutive years shall be eligible to apply for reappointment. (Ord. 32(1993): Ord. 30(1992)) 3-1-2: EXCEPTIONS: All current members of the Town's permanent boards or commissions on the effective date hereof shall be entitled to complete their term of office regardless of whether the completion of such term would exceed eight (8) years. (Ord. 32(1993): Ord. 30(1992)) 3-1-3: COMPENSATION: The Town Council may provide for appropriate compensation, benefits, privileges, or reimbursement of expenses of any or all of the boards and commissions of the Town which are established by the Charter or ordinance of the Town. Provided, however, that such compensation shall not be in the form of the payment of monies but in benefits or privileges in lieu thereof. (1997 Code: Ord. 37(1981) § 2) 4/5/2018 A 17 7(11 Q D.,..., 1 1 7 .,f 1 A 1 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: DRB / PEC Update PRESENTER(S): Chris Neubecker, Planning Manager ATTACHMENTS: Description April 4, 2018 DRB Meeting Results April 9, 2018 PEC Meeting Results TOWN OF 1 X41 April 17, 2018 - Page 113 of 141 TOWN OF UAJt DESIGN REVIEW BOARD April 4, 2018, 3:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road - Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Call to Order 1.1. Present: Peter Cope, David Campbell, John Rediker, Doug Cahill Absent: Bill Pierce 1.2. Election of Chair & Vice Chair 2. Project Orientation 2.1. 1:30 PM 3. Site Visits 3.1. 223 Gore Creek Drive Unit 3 - Potter Residence 3.2. 54 Beaver Dam Road - Beaver Dam International LLC 3.3. 224 Forest Road - Allen Residence 3.4. 1345 Westhaven Circle - Trabold Residence 3.5. 2658 Arosa Drive - Arosa Partners LLC 3.6. 1984 Buffehr Creek Road - Ivy Residence 4. Main Agenda 4.1. DRB18-0053 - Storr Residence Final review of an addition Address/Legal Description: 1965 Sunburst Drive/Lot 11, Vail Valley Filing 3 Applicant: Hans Storr, represented by Sipes Architects, Inc. Planner: Justin Lightfield Peter Cope moved to approve. David Campbell seconded the motion and it passed (4-0). Absent(1) Pierce 4.2. DRB18-0086 - Arosa Partners LLC Conceptual review of a secondary unit of a separated duplex Address/Legal Description: 2658 Arosa Drive/Lot 3, Block D, Vail Ridge Subdivision Applicant: Arosa Partners LLC, represented by TAB Associates, Inc. Planner: Justin Lightfield April 17, 2018 - Page 114 of 141 4.3. DRB18-0055 - Trabold Residence Final review of an addition Address/Legal Description: 1345 Westhaven Circle/Lot 50, Glen Lyon Subdivision Applicant: Frank & Colleen Trabold, represented by Wyatt & Associates, Inc. Planner: Chris Neubecker 1. Prior to submittal for a building permit application, the applicant shall revise the plans to show that the railing at the patio/terrace to the west side of the building at the kitchen will be a glass railing to match the other glass railings on the building. John Rediker moved to approve with conditions. David Campbell seconded the motion and it passed (4-0). Absent(1) Pierce 4.4. DRB18-0078 - Ski Club Vail Final review of a change to approved plans (windows/doors) Address/Legal Description: 598 Vail Valley Drive/Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7 Applicant: Ski Club Vail, represented by KH Webb Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence Peter Cope moved to approve. John Rediker seconded the motion and it passed (4-0). Absent(1) Pierce 4.5. DRB18-0079 - Ivy Residence Final review of an addition Address/Legal Description: 1984 Buffehr Creek Road/Lot 19, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision Applicant: Matt & Jane Ivy, represented by Michael Hazard Associates Planner: Jonathan Spence Peter Cope moved to approve. David Campbell seconded the motion and it passed (4-0). Absent(1) Pierce 4.6. DRB18-0075 - Potter Residence Final review of an addition (Enclose deck)) Address/Legal Description: 223 Gore Creek Drive/Lot A, Block 5B, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Creekside Homeowners Association, represented by Pierce Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence Peter Cope moved to approve. David Campbell seconded the motion and it passed (4-0). Absent(1) Pierce April 17, 2018 - Page 115 of 141 4.7. DRB17-0390 - Gatto Pardo Bianco LLC Final review of an exterior alteration (facade) Address/Legal Description: 100 East Meadow Drive Unit 15/Lot 0, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Gatto Pardo Bianco LLC, represented by Steven James Riden Architect Planner: Jonathan Spence Peter Cope moved to table to April 18, 2018. David Campbell seconded the motion and it passed (4-0). Absent(1) Pierce 4.8. DRB18-0089 - Allen Residence Conceptual review of a new separated duplex Address/Legal Description: 224 Forest Road / Lot 11-B, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Larry & Lori Allen, represented by Ron Byrne and Associates Planner: Matt Panfil John Rediker moved to table to April 18, 2018. David Campbell seconded the motion and it passed (4-0). Absent(1) Pierce 4.9. DRB18-0081 - Beaver Dam International LLC Final review of an exterior alteration (windows/doors) Address/Legal Description: 54 Beaver Dam Road/Lot 32, Block 7, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Beaver Dam International, represented by Victor Mark Donaldson Architects Planner: Matt Panfil Peter Cope moved to approve. John Rediker seconded the motion and it passed (4-0). Absent(1) Pierce 5. Staff Approvals 5.1. DRB18-0027 - Svensson Residence Final review of an addition Address/Legal Description: 4770 Bighorn Road Unit 2P/Racquet Club Townhomes Applicant: Yngve Svensson, represented by Burke Harrington Contruction Planner: Justin Lightfield 5.2. DRB18-0062 - 44 Willow Road Homeowners Association Final review of an exterior alteration (Railings/paint) Address/Legal Description: 44 Willow Road/Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: 44 Willow Road Homeowners Association, represented by KH Webb Architects April 17, 2018 - Page 116 of 141 Planner: Justin Lightfield 5.3. DRB18-0063 - Bighorn Mutual Sanitation & Recreation Co Final review of an exterior alteration (windows/siding) Address/Legal Description: 4205 Columbine Drive/Lot 19, Bighorn Subdivision Applicant: Bighorn Mutual Sanitation & Recreation Co, represented by Modern Remodel and Repair Planner: Justin Lightfield 5.4. DRB18-0067 - Christopher B. Galvin Revocable Trust Final review of a changes to approved plans (railings/veneer/gate/doors/lights) Address/Legal Description: 303 Gore Creek Drive Unit 9/Lot 10, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Christopher B. Galvin Revocable Trust, represented by SRI Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence 5.5. DRB18-0068 - Sun Up Trust Final review of a changes to approved plans Address/Legal Description: 303 Gore Creek Drive Unit 10/Lot 10, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Sun Up Trust, represented by SRI Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence 5.6. DRB18-0069 - Vail Racquet Club Homeowner Association Final review of an exterior alteration (balcony/stairs) Address/Legal Description: 4670 Vail Racquet Club Drive/Unplatted Applicant: Vail Racquet Club Homeowners Association, represented by VMDA Planner: Justin Lightfield 5.7. DRB18-0072 - Meiners Residence Final review of an exterior alteration (windows) Address/Legal Description: 385 Gore Creek Drive Unit 203/Lot 14 - 18, Block 5, Vail Village Filing 5 Applicant: Mark Meiners, represented by KH Webb Architects Planner: Matt Panfil 5.8. DRB18-0074 - Hamilton Family Trust Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping) Address/Legal Description: 2417 Garmisch Drive Unit B/Lot 14, Block H, Vail Das Schone Filing 2 Applicant: Hamilton Family Trust, represented by Ceres Plus Landscaping Planner: Jonathan Spence 5.9. DRB18-0076 - Naiman Residence Final review of an exterior alteration (windows) Address/Legal Description: 4770 Bighorn Road Unit 4P/Racquet Club Townhomes April 17, 2018 - Page 117 of 141 Applicant: Hal Naiman, represented by Barefoot Construction Planner: Justin Lightfield 5.10. DRB18-0077 - Smith Residence Final review of an exterior alteration (AC unit) Address/Legal Description: 44 West Meadow Drive Unit 2/Lot I, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Michael Smith, represented by RA Nelson Planner: Chris Neubecker 5.11. DRB18-0080 - Daly Residence Final review of an exterior alteration (windows/doors) Address/Legal Description: 782 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 16, Block 1, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1 Applicant: Andrew Daly Planner: Justin Lightfield 5.12. DRB18-0082 - Forrest Residence Final review of an addition Address/Legal Description: 600 Vail Valley Drive Unit E2/Tract B, Vail Village Filing 7 Applicant: William Clinton Forrest Revocable Trust, represented by Beth Levine Architect, Inc. Planner: Jonathan Spence 5.13. DRB18-0087 - Potato Patch Townhomes Association Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping) Address/Legal Description: 770 Potato Patch Drive/Lot 6, Block 2, Vail Potato Patch Filing 1 Applicant: Potato Patch Townhomes Association, represented by Ceres Landcare 5.14. DRB18-0092 - Cooper Residence Final review of an exterior alteration (repaint) Address/Legal Description: 2038 Sunburst Drive/Lot 17, Vail Valley Filing 3 Applicant: Elisabeth Cooper Planner: Justin Lightfield 5.15. DRB18-0095 - Gonzalez Residence Final review of changes to approved plans (deck addition) Address/Legal Description: 44 Vail Road Unit 3 / Lot 9, Block 6, Vail Village Filing 1 Applicant: Alejandro Gonzalez Cimadevilla, represented by KH Webb Architects Planner: Jonathan Spence 5.16. DRB18-0100 - Boehland Residence Final review of an exterior alteration (landscaping) Address/Legal Description: 3966 Lupine Drive Unit 1/Lot 3, Block 2, Bighorn Subdivision 1st Addition Applicant: Thomas & Kim Boehland, represented by Nedbo Construction April 17, 2018 - Page 118 of 141 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. April 17, 2018 - Page 119 of 141 PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMMISSION TOWN Of 4IAJt April 9, 2018, 1:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 S. Frontage Road -Vail, Colorado, 81657 1. Call to Order Present: Brian Gillette, Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, Karen Perez, Brian Stockmar Absent: Pam Hopkins, John -Ryan Lockman 1.2. Rollie Kjesbo, Ludwig Kurz, and Brian Stockmar were sworn in as members of the Planning and Environmental Commission. 1.3. The PEC agreed to postpone the election of a Chair and Vice -Chair until a meeting with more commissioners present. 2. Main Agenda 2.1. A request for review of variances from Section 12-15-2, GRFA Requirements 45 min. by Zone District, Section 12-15-3 Definition, Calculation and Exclusions, Section 12-18-4 Uses, and Section 12-18-5, Density Control, Vail Town Code, pursuant to Title 12 Chapter 17, Variances, Vail Town Code, to allow for Gross Residential Floor Area (GRFA) in excess of the amount permitted by lot area and zone district and to allow an access opening to a crawl space of greater than 12 square feet , located at 2014 West Gore Creek Drive Unit 5/Lot 41-43 (Hamlet Townhouses), Vail Village West Filing 2, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0009) Applicanti-lolly Proctor and John Hutto, represented by Martin Manley Architects Planner: Chris Neubecker Neubecker began by summarizing the proposed project and the comments from the previous time the item appeared before the PEC on March 26, 2018. In response to the comments the applicant has proposed changes to the previously submitted plans. The changes include: a reduction of the storage area head height to less than five feet (5') so that the previously requested gross residential floor area (GRFA) variance is no longer necessary. The applicant is still requesting a variance to allow for an entrance to the storage area greater than twelve (12) square feet. Staff still believes that the request does not meet all of the criteria for a variance as there is nothing specific about the site that warrants special consideration. Therefore, staff recommends denial of the application as proposed. John Martin, Martin Manley Architects, asked for clarification as to the term "hardship" and then introduced the unit owner, Holly Proctor. April 17, 2018 - Page 120 of 141 Kurz — Asked for clarification on why a 24 square foot access door is necessary as opposed to the 12 square feet allowed by the Vail Town Code. Holly Proctor, applicant/owner, summarized the previous variance requests and the changes that have been made since the previous appearance before the PEC. She stated that since the last meeting she has discussed the variance criteria in more detail with staff. She believes that the requested variance for an access opening greater than twelve (12) square feet does meet the second criteria. Specifically, she believes that the strict interpretation of the Code does prevent her from the same benefits as other properties in the Town. To her, the Two -Family Primary/Secondary Residential (PS) District designation creates a hardship. She believes the proper zoning classification for her property is Residential Cluster (RC), which would allow for the project, as proposed, due to the allowed 250 Addition. She thanked Commissioner Gillette for his suggestion to look at the possibility of accessing a storage area through the existing garage. She recalled to the PEC the difficult path she has had over the last fifteen (15) months in trying to get her project approved. She asked if the PEC could still consider granting a GRFA variance. Stockmar — Asked Proctor when she purchased the property. Proctor responded that two separate units were bought in 2006 and 2010. Stockmar followed up by asking Neubecker when the zoning district was designated. Neubecker responded that the property was designated Primary/Secondary (PS) in 1985. Stockmar asked about the cost differences between different concepts. Neubecker asked Perez to clarify her status on potential conflicts of interest, and if she would recuse herself from reviewing this item. Kurz suggested that it was up to Commissioner Perez to determine if there might be any conflict of interest. Perez asked if the GRFA variance was still up for review. Ms. Proctor confirmed that she would still like the GRFA variance to be considered. The Board discussed potential conflicts of interest, and Ms. Perez indicated she did not believe there was a conflict. The Board indicated that it is up to the individual Commissioner to determine a conflict. Gillette — Asked for clarification as to the definition of crawlspace. Neubecker stated that the characteristics of a crawlspace are discussed within Section 12-15-3, Vail Town Code. Gillette believes staff is misapplying the Code in this instance. Gillette asked for an explanation on the difference between a crawlspace and a shed, as he believes the proposal is not for a crawlspace and therefore the variance for a twelve (12) square foot access opening is not relevant. Neubecker — Stated that if the applicant were correct in her statement that the property has been zoned incorrectly, the April 17, 2018 - Page 121 of 141 proper method to resolve this issue would be through a rezoning request. Kurz — Asked Gillette to clarify his statement that the variance should be for GRFA and not a crawlspace opening. Stockmar — Suggested tabling the item in order to restructure the request. Gillette — Staff did not include the purpose of the zoning regulations title in the staff memo. He believes that the purpose of the title should be included in future staff memos, but also believes there are conflicts within the text of the purpose. Neubecker asked for clarification. Gillette stated that the purpose of the overall zoning regulations title, the purpose of the specific zone district, and the purpose of GRFA should all be included within the staff memo. Kjesbo — Stated that twelve (12) square feet may be too small for a crawlspace entrance, but a 24 square foot opening is excessive. Kurz — Stated that he agreed with Kjesbo that the size of the requested variance seems excessive, but there is some hardship established by the zoning classification. He suggested that the GRFA variance not be considered and that the applicant attempt to provide a more modest -sized crawlspace opening. Gillette — Asked for a description of the rezoning process. Neubecker responded. Stockmar — Asked Ms. Proctor if the zoning issue has been discussed among the other Hamlet owners. She responded that almost all of the owners are familiar with the rezoning process and are all aware of the site restrictions under the existing PS zoning. He indicated that he is still uncertain as to whether or not the requested variance is a grant of special privilege. He suggested it may be worthwhile for the HOA to pursue a rezoning in lieu of the requested variance. Gillette — Agreed that a rezoning may be the best approach. Perez — Asked how the applicant arrived at the request for a 24 square foot opening. Proctor responded that it was based on various items that she would like to store. Martin stated that 25 square feet is what is reasonable to accommodate bikes, etc. Neubecker stated that a variance should be unique to a property such that it does not set a precedent. Kurz stated that it is the appearance of a precedent that concerns him. Stockmar — The PEC is constrained by the Vail Town Code, which requires something unique about the property that would warrant a variance. As the staff memo indicates, there is nothing unique about the subject property. April 17, 2018 - Page 122 of 141 Perez — Asked for clarification of the "250 Ordinance." Neubecker stated that it does not apply to the PS zone district. Gillette — Suggested a motion be made. Kjesbo — Clarified his remarks that he believes the Code may need amending to allow for a larger opening, but does not believe 24 square feet is a reasonable variance request. Perez — Asked staff about the alternatives they have considered and why they did not find anything unique about the subject property. She believes the incorrect zoning is what makes the subject unique. Jonathan Spence, Senior Planner, clarified that the zoning is not incorrect, but rather was applied with a purpose, despite the fact that it may not match the existing conditions. Martin responded that at this time they are unsure if the alternative and removing the garage wall is physically possible. Gillette made alternative design recommendations involving the use of a gate. Gillette — Recommended that the applicant return with a rezoning request. He asked for staff's opinion on a rezoning request. Neubecker stated that staff has not yet conducted the research to form an opinion. Spence elaborated as to the criteria that would be evaluated in order to make a recommendation on any rezoning request. Gillette reworded his earlier statement that approving a rezoning would be a "slam dunk," but rather that it would be easy to support a rezoning as long as a corresponding zone district could be identified. Kurz opened the meeting for public comment. There was none. Kurz encouraged the PEC to refocus on the variance request before them. Brian Gillette moved to table to May 14, 2018. Brian Stockmar seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Hopkins, Lockman 2.2. A request for the review of the following three (3) variances: 1.) a variance from Section 12-21-12, Restrictions in Specific Zones on Excessive Slopes, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than ten percent (10%) of the total site area to be covered by driveways and surface parking; 2.) a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for more than one (1) curb cut per unit; and 3.) a variance from Section 14-3-1, Minimum Standards, Vail Town Code, to allow for a minimum horizontal clearance between a garage door (parallel to road) to edge of public street pavement of less than 24 feet, located at 2841 Basingdale Boulevard/Lot 3, Block 8, Vail Intermountain Development Subdivision, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0012) This application was withdrawn by the applicant. 5 min. April 17, 2018 - Page 123 of 141 ApplicantiVlichael & Yoshimi Moore, represented by RAL Architects, Inc. Planner: Matt Panfil 2.3. Report to the Planning and Environmental Commission of an administrative action regarding a request for a minor amendment to Special Development District (SDD) No. 6, Vail Village Inn, Phases I and II, pursuant to Section 12-9A-10, Amendment Procedures, Vail Town Code, to allow for modifications to the approved development plan in order to permit three (3) building additions totaling 149 square feet to commercial Unit 15 to accommodate increased restaurant seating and a new public entrance, located at 100 East Meadow Drive Unit 15/Lot 0, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1, and setting forth details in regard thereto. (PEC18-0011) (It should be noted that Public Notice was previously provided for this application as a Major Amendment, however the scope of the project has been reduced, resulting in a reclassification of the project as a Minor Amendment.) Spence informed the PEC that the item would not be heard at this meeting. ApplicantGatto Pardo Bianco LLC, represented by Steven James Riden AIA Architect Planner: Jonathan Spence 2.4. Motion to Ratify Motions made prior to the Swearing in of PEC Members Applicant: Planner: Karen Perez moved to motion to ratify motions made prior to swearing in of PEC members. Brian Gillette seconded the motion and it passed (5-0). Absent: (2) Hopkins, Lockman 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1. March 26, 2018 PEC Results 4. Adjournment 10 min. 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 hour prior to meeting time. Community Development Department April 17, 2018 - Page 124 of 141 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: VLHA Meeting Results ATTACHMENTS: Description VLHA March 27, 2018 Meeting Results VLHAApril 3, 2018 Special Meeting Results TOWN OF 1 X41 April 17, 2018 - Page 125 of 141 Vail Local Housing Authority TOWN OF VAIt Meeting Results Tuesday, March 27, 2018 Housing Demand Analysis Report 1:30 PM — 2:30 PM Community Development Large Conference Room Regular Meeting 3:00 PM — 5:00 PM Town Council Chambers 75 South Frontage Road West, Vail, Colorado 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT Steve Lindstrom Molly Morales Mary McDougall James Wilkins Staff Lynne Campbell Matt Mire, Town Attorney MEMBERS ABSENT Francisco Meza The Board met prior to the regular meeting. Present for the Eagle County Commissioner meeting streaming on Housing Demand Analysis Report was Steve Lindstrom, Mary McDougall, Francisco Meza, James Wilkins and Vail Town Councilman Greg Moffet. Molly Morales was attending the Eagle County Commissioner meeting and will be present for the VLHA meeting. Lindstrom called the regular meeting to order at 3:05 PM as a quorum was present. Lindstrom, Wilkins, McDougall and Morales present, Meza was absent for the regular meeting. The Authority reviewed and approved the March 13, 2018 Meeting Results. MOTION: Wilkins SECOND: McDougall VOTE: 4-0 Note regarding housing lottery, Lindstrom asked Board to support when presented to Town Council. Currently the annual housing lottery review is scheduled for the April 17, 2018 afternoon session. Page 1 April 17, 2018 - Page 126 of 141 Town Council approved a VLHA subcommittee and Jenn Bruno and Greg Moffet were nominated. VLHA Board agreed to appointed Molly Morales and Steve Lindstrom to the subcommittee. Mire stated the Board could change out members if they want. Mire said the subcommittee can meet as often as needed. Morales asked who can be in executive session. Mire stated anyone the Board wants. Board can invite whoever they would like. A majority of the board would have to be in agreement with who is invited to stay. Morales made a motion to enter Executive Session per C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(a)(b)(e) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of real, personal or other property interests; for the purposes of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions and to determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations regarding: Vail InDEED applications and deed restrictions. MOTION: Wilkins SECOND: Morales VOTE: 4-0 Unanimous McDougall made a motion to exit executive session and re-enter the authority regular meeting. Present was Lindstrom, Wilkins, Morales, McDougall and Campbell. MOTION: McDougall SECOND: Morales VOTE: 4-0 Unanimous The regular meeting resumed. Lindstrom asked if there was other business. McDougall asked about Solar Vail status. Campbell stated demo to occur after mountain closes and anticipating completion in early 2019. Morales asked if VLHA subcommittee members will bring up funding at the first meeting. Yes per Lindstrom. He said they need to schedule discussion regarding housing policies with Council. Morales asked about the housing guidelines updates. Lindstrom said updates will occur after Council meeting on April 17, 2018 Campbell suggested Lindstrom and Ruther meet to discuss the updated annual resale lottery. Staff will work with confirm when the first subcommittee meetings will be held. Linstrom stated the Town Attorney would like to be present at the first meeting. The Board and staff discussed topic items for future agendas. Wilkins made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Meeting adjourned at 4:50 PM. MOTION: Wilkins SECOND: Morales VOTE: 4-0 Unanimous Next Meeting — April 10, 2018 Page 2 April 17, 2018 - Page 127 of 141 TOWN OFD Vail Local Housing Authority SPECIAL MEETING RESULTS Tuesday, April 3, 2018 4:00 PM — 5:00 PM Municipal Building Admin Conference Room 75 South Frontage Road West, Vail, Colorado 81657 MEMBERS PRESENT Steve Lindstrom Molly Morales Francisco Meza Staff Lynne Campbell George Ruther MEMBERS ABSENT Mary McDougall James Wilkins Lindstrom called the meeting to order at 4:00 PM as a quorum was present. The Board was asked to review the Chamonix Vail Deed Restriction Occupancy Requirements and make an interpretation if Charles Howard meets the requirements. Howard works for company owned out of state and sells product to and services Eagle County businesses, mainly restaurants and retail. He serves the community and maintains his clients while establishing new business. Howard was asked how many of his clients are in Eagle County. He stated about 105 businesses or 80%. Howard stated his employer Heartland is a legitimate business. Howard acknowledges working more than 30 hours per week of employment on an annualized basis. Also he is a 23 year Vail Resort ski school employee currently working part time. Charles explained he is a local, he volunteers in the community, is a Rotary Club member and services Eagle County. Lindstrom said the Board needs to consider this interpretation for other deed restriction compliance besides Chamonix Vail. The Board believes there is a need to define to further "legitimate business". George Ruther arrived to the meeting. Ruther said staff was looking for a determination of intent rather than an exemption or variance and neither an exemption nor variance are applicable. Page 1 April 17, 2018 - Page 128 of 141 Howard works from his home office. Ruther stated based on Town of Vail adopted land use regulations a home occupation license is not required Ruther noted another deed restriction requirement is 75% of ones income is earned in Eagle County. Howard was asked how he will demonstrate future compliance. He stated he has a client list, W-2 information, voter registration, etc. Howard was asked to leave the room while the Board deliberated in executive session. Morales made a motion to enter Executive Session per 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: a determination of intent of the Chamonix Vail Deed Restriction section 2(i) Qualified Owner. MOTION: Morales SECOND: Meza VOTE: 3-0 (unanimous) As an action of results from the executive session Morales made a motion that Charles Howard is a "Qualified Owner" according to section 2(i) of the DEED RESTRICTION AGREEMENT FOR THE OCCUPANCY AND TRANSFER OF CHAMONIX VAIL COMMUNITY RESIDENTIAL DWELLING UNITS. MOTION: Morales SECOND: Meza VOTE: 3-0 (unanimous) Morales made a motion to adjournment the meeting at 5:00 PM. MOTION: Morales SECOND: Meza VOTE: 3-0 (unanimous) Next Meeting — April 10, 2018 Page 2 April 17, 2018 - Page 129 of 141 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: AI PP Meeting Minutes for March 5, 2018 ATTACHMENTS: Description AIPP Meeting Minutes 030518 TOWN OF 1 X41 April 17, 2018 - Page 130 of 141 TOWN OF VAIL 1309 Elkhorn Drive Vail, Colorado 81657 artinvail.com Public Notice - Art in Public Places Board Meeting Monday, March 6, 2018 - 8:30 a.m. *Public Works Administration Conference Room 1309 Elkhorn Drive, Vail, CO 81657 Art in Public Places 970.479.2344 970.479.2166 fax AIPP Board members present: Susan Bristol, Patricia Donovan, Julie Hansen, Nancy Lassetter, Bill Pierce, Margaret Rogers, Kara Woods AIPP Board members absent: Others present: Molly Eppard, AIPP Coordinator 1. Approval of minutes from February 5th meeting. 2. No citizen input. 3. Seibert Memorial Project The Board discusses updates on the Seibert Memorial and the recent push by Bill Rey and Roger Tilkemeir to have the TOV fully fund the project. The board believes this is not how the project was proposed and does not feel comfortable endorsing the project, as it was only approved as a donation and not an acquisition. They feel with the recent developments to have the town fully fund the project they cannot support it, as it did not go through the proper public channels for commissioning public art. For a project of this budget the board would have had a public call to artists. They feel it is an inappropriate means to have the sculpture funded as it was presented as a donation with Bill Rey promising the private funding would be a "slam-dunk." Many board members are planning to write Council with their concern of how public process is being skirted in this request for funding. They feel it opens the door setting a poor precedent of public process. 4. Red Sandstone Elementary Garage Project Review of submitted artist portfolios and qualifications for consideration. 77 artists submitted their qualifications for the project from around the country and many within Colorado. Trish reminds the board we are not designing the art and we should be careful not to comment on design. Molly discusses how the board should review the selected applications. The board should consider the applications as presented including letters, images, annotated image lists, public art experience & budgets, use of materials and appropriateness to the project, and CV/resumes. The board reviews their written notes. It is requested to pull up the images while we are reviewing the notes. The board should consider the criteria as outlined in master plan: Artwork Criteria: • Quality and Innovation: The consideration of highest priority is the inherent artistic excellence and innovation of the artwork. • Timelessness: Each artwork should be viewed as a long-term acquisition that should have relevance aesthetically to the community in future years. Due to the high visibility of public art by residents and guests who frequent public places, artworks should be selected that reflect enduring artistic quality. • Compatibility with Site: Works of art should be compatible in style, scale, material, form, and content with their surroundings, and should form an overall relationship with the site. • Permanence: Works of art shall have structural and surface soundness, and be resistant to theft, vandalism, and weathering. Artworks shall not require excessive maintenance or repair costs. Artworks that require frequent maintenance are discouraged. April 17, 2018 - Page 131 of 141 • Public Safety: Artwork shall not create inordinate safety problems or liability problems for the general public or Town of Vail. The board decides to narrow the selection to ten artists in the first review and from there the board will further examine the artists' work. Molly reminds the board to make their comments on the portfolios as a whole and qualifications rather than just liking one work. Trish motions for the following artists to present site-specific proposals and for Molly confirm references: Demiurge from Denver, CO; Marsh Scott from Dana Point, CA; John Fleming from Seattle, WA; and Mario Miguel Echevarria from Longmont, CO. Margaret seconds and all are in favor. Meeting adjourned. Town of Vail Page 2 April 17, 2018 - Page 132 of 141 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: CSE Draft Meeting Minutes from April 4, 2018 ATTACHMENTS: Description CSE Meeting Minutes DRAFT - April 4, 2018 TOWN OF 1 X41 April 17, 2018 - Page 133 of 141 TOWN OF VAIL Commission on Special Events IRPFT COMMISSION ON SPECIAL EVENTS MEETING Vail Town Council Chambers Wednesday, April 4, 2018 @ 8:30a.m. AGENDA: Meeting materials can be accessed at the following link: http://bit.ly/2t6tAvo CSE Members Present: TOV Staff Present: Others Present: Mark Gordon Alison Wadey Barry Davis Rayla Kundolf Samantha Biszantz Marco Valenti Kim Rediker Laura Waniuk, Event Liaison Specialist Mia Vlaar, Economic Development Director Andrea Sbicca, Highline Melissa Meyers, Bravo! Vail Colleen Davis, Vail Centre Becca Aliber, Vail Veterans Program Eddie Shipstad, Shipstad Entertainment CSE Chair, Barry Davis, called the meeting to order at 8:31am. Administrative Items Approval of the Minutes of the CSE Meeting on March 7, 2018 ➢ Motion to approve the minutes of the CSE Regular Meeting on March 7, 2018 as presented. M/S/P: Gordon/Kundolf/Unanimous. The motion passed 6-0 (Rediker Abstain) Meeting reminders: • July 4 CSE meeting — rescheduled to July 11 • Vail Brand Meeting for Producers: Thursday, April 19 — Grand View @ 12:00-1:30pm CSE Minutes April 4, 2018 Page 1 of 5 April 17, 2018 - Page 134 of 141 1. Waniuk noted that the VLMDAC will be presenting their marketing strategy for 2018. Upcoming events to attend: Taste of Vail — 4/4-4/8 Spring Back to Vail Pond Skimming — 4/15 Skate Vail's Melee in the Mountains — 4/27-4/29 • Rediker noted that The Antlers is receiving a lot of reservations for this event. • Kundolf suggested creating talking points and communicating the success story of this event. Legacy Fighting Alliance — 5/4 • Waniuk noted the article in the Vail Daily. • Vlaar said the talking points will be very helpful for many to understand the event. Spring Back to Vail Concert Recap: • Biszantz asked how Spring Back to Vail went. • Kundolf said it was great but the sound check was very long and loud. • Kundolf added that the age of attendees was very diverse and the music was good. • Rediker said there was a very good crowd and all were having fun. • Rediker added that the concert attendees are not the customers that The Antlers draws. • Rediker believes that a lot of people were from out of town. • Kundolf said she believes most were from Summit County. • Wadey noted that she received many e-mails from businesses commenting on how long and loud the sound check was. • Gordon said it was busy but seemed more like a social event as opposed to a fun party event. • Gordon believes that the crowd was mostly Easter visitors who were already in town. • Gordon said it was not the usual Vail demographic. • Biszantz said her bar usually gets very busy after concerts and she was not busy after this one. • Wadey noted that the media from the event being released by Vail Resorts looked great. • Gordon suggested creating a strategy for concerts and the type of bands that are being booked. • Wadey said she believes this is more of a brand discussion for Town Council. • Wadey said she thought that SOJA was a solid booking based on the amount of funding that Highline was given. • Rediker added that Highline has a strategy and believes that the Town of Vail may need to create their own strategy as well. CSE Minutes April 4, 2018 Page 2 of 5 April 17, 2018 - Page 135 of 141 • Gordon said he does not think it is a CSE discussion regarding concert strategy and rather it is a Council discussion. • Vlaar said she believes we may be struggling with the audience and how the audience resonates with what the strategy is. • Vlaar added that we need to identify not only the audience that we are targeting for this specific event but also identifying the audience we do not want to target. • Waniuk noted that she highly suggests attending the brand meeting on April 19th Review Education & Enrichment Discussion with Council: • Davis said Council wants to further define the category and how they invest in it. • Davis said he thinks Council wants to have a better understanding of the Education & Enrichment category. • Davis said he believes Council wants to understand the demographic that is attending Education & Enrichment events. • Davis said Council commented that out of town over night guests are still important for this category. • Gordon asked Waniuk to send out an invite to the Council discussion regarding the Education & Enrichment category. • Kundolf suggested this discussion should happen by end of June. • Valenti asked if it would be defunded for 2019? • Davis said it is unclear at this time. • Davis said the scorecard still needs to be better communicated to Council. • Waniuk said she will create a memo which will include the scorecard. • Davis suggested adding a break out graph identifying visitor demographics and net promotor score of the Education & Enrichment category. • Waniuk said not all of the Education & Enrichment events have been surveyed and have this data. • Davis suggested providing Council with sample questions for their discussion. • Gordon noted that Council referred to two events receiving a majority of the category budget • Rediker suggested including the amount requested by events and the actual amount funded. • Vlaar noted past conversations regarding ambient events in town and what value and ROI they had. • Vlaar said it is important to communicate that these types of events may not bring ROI but enhance the guests experience in town. • Gordon agreed with Rediker's comment that the CSE takes direction from a majority of the Council. • Waniuk suggested changing the vernacular to ambient events. CSE Minutes April 4, 2018 Page 3 of 5 April 17, 2018 - Page 136 of 141 • Wadey added that Lionshead merchants have expressed their desire to have smaller ambient style events. December Ice Skating Show Overview: • Shipstad said his goal is to bring elite level figure skating back to Vail • Shipstad said it would be a Vail skating festival which would include multiple shows including free events and a paid show at Dobson. • Shipstad said they plan on having at least three Olympians at the paid show at Dobson. • Shipstad said he will be applying for funding through Town Council. • Kundolf said this would be a great event and addition to Vail Holidays. • Rediker said she supports the event but noted that December 22nd is the start of the holiday booking period which requires seven night stays. • Shipstad said he is open to date suggestions and what works best for the Town of Vail. • Shipstad suggested spreading out the shows to the paid events the first week of Holidays and then the free events the later week. • Gordon asked if he can still do the paid event if he does not receive any funding. • Gordon added that the in-kind rental of Dobson is a much more relevant ask. • Shipstad said his largest expense is the Dobson rental. • Davis confirmed that Shipstad is asking for CSE's recommendation for support. • Shipstad said yes. • Wadey stated motion for the CSE to recommend the event to Town Council. • Kundolf second. • Davis said the motion is to support the mid season funding request of in- kind use of Dobson and monetary funding for a paid show and two free shows. • Vlaar said she likes the idea of having the event on the weekend of the 15th in order to draw Front Range guests to Vail. • Davis suggested to bundle all events together and to point out the Olympians that would be performing. • Waniuk suggested to include the desire to improve Vail Holidays in the recommendation letter to Council. Motion to write a letter support for the figure skating event request to Town Council for in-kind use of Dobson Ice Arena and financial support for two free shows and one paid show during Vail Holidays 2018. M/S/P: Wadey/Kundolf/Unanimous. Motion passed 7-0. Event Recaps: Vail Veterans Program CSE Minutes April 4, 2018 Page 4 of 5 April 17, 2018 - Page 137 of 141 *motion to release final funding disbursement required Please see presentation for further details. • Aliber noted that 100% of participants come to Vail for the event only. • Aliber noted that 69% of their participants were new visitors to Vail. • Aliber noted that the additionally day of the event this year provided roughly $40,000 in additional revenue to the Town of Vail • Kundolf noted that the participants do come back to Vail and bring their families and friends. Motion to approve the final funding distribution Vail Veterans Program. M/S/P: Kundolf/Valenti/Unanimous The motion passed 7-0 TEDxVail *motion to release final funding disbursement required Please see presentation for further details. • Haber noted there will be a total of over 150 talks with over 1 million views. • Haber noted that sustainability is a major goal of their event. • Haber said they calculate their carbon footprint so they can purchase carbon offsets. • Haber noted that April 14th is the TEDxVail Youth event at Battle Mountain High School. • Haber said they are offering TEDx in Spanish at The Antlers at Vail. • Kundolf asked if the venue worked. • Haber said they are looking at Donovan Pavilion in 2019. • Haber added that they do not want to be in competition with other events like they were with Project Funway this year. Motion to approve the final funding distribution Vail Veterans Program. M/S/P: Valenti/Rediker/Unanimous The motion passed 7-0 New Business and Community Input: • Waniuk introduced Andrea from Highline • Rediker noted that Biszantz is nominated for two Vail Valley Partnership awards including Young Professional of the Year. • Davis introduced herself representing the Vail Centre. • Davis said thank you to the CSE for their work regarding the Education & Enrichment events. Motion to adjourn at 10:13am. M/S/P: Kundolf/Rediker/Unanimous. Motion passed 7-0 CSE Minutes April 4, 2018 Page 5 of 5 April 17, 2018 - Page 138 of 141 TOWN Of 9 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Executive Session, pursuant to: 1) C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(b)(e) - to receive legal advice on specific legal questions; and to determine positions, develop a strategy and instruct negotiators, Regarding: General Improvement District PRESENTER(S): Matt Mire, Town Attorney April 17, 2018 - Page 139 of 141 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Recess at4:30 p.m. TOWN OF 1 X41 April 17, 2018 - Page 140 of 141 VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO ITEM/TOPIC: Preview Japan Exploration Visit Presentation TOWN OF 1 X41 April 17, 2018 - Page 141 of 141