Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-02-06 Agenda and Supporting Documentation Town Council Afternoon Meeting1.Call to Order 2.Joint Meeting with Vail Local Housing Authority (45 min.) 2.1 Joint Town Council & Vail Local Housing Authority Meeting Agenda 1. Engaging Vail Home Partners 2. Roles & Responsibilities 3. Opportunities & Solutions 4. Regional Collaboration, Public/Private Partnerships, & Public/Public Partnerships 5. Tools, Resources, & Funding 3.Presentation/Discussion 3.1 Car Share Program Update - Vail and Avon 30 min. Listen to presentation and provide feedback. Presenter(s): Kristen Bertuglia, Director of Environmental Sustainability Background: Please see memo. 4.DRB/PEC (5 min.) 4.1 DRB/PEC Update 5.Information Update 5.1 December 4, 2023 AIPP Meeting Minutes 5.2 December 12, 2023 VLHA Minutes VAIL TOWN COUNCIL MEETING Afternoon Session Agenda Town Council Chambers and virtually by Zoom Zoom Meeting Link: https://vail.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_rrnW9U22T56YDOpBoM6_PA 2:15 PM, February 6, 2024 Notes: Times of items are approximate, subject to change, and cannot be relied upon to determine what time Council will consider an item. 2024 Housing Strategic Planning Worksession Memorandum 02062024.docx Memo to Town Council - Carsharing Update.pdf Impact-report-Car-sharing-in-Belgium-in-2022.pdf EV Car Share Presentation.pdf 23 - CCS Proposal - Eagle County Regional Car Share Program (2).pdf DRB Results 1-17-24.pdf PEC Results 1-22-24.pdf December 4, 2023 - Minutes.pdf 2023-12-12 VLHA Minutes.pdf 1 5.3 January 18, 2024 VLMDAC Regular Meeting and January 19, 2024 VLMDAC Special Meeting Minutes 5.4 January 2024 Revenue Update 6.Matters from Mayor, Council, Town Manager and Committee Reports (20 min.) 7.Executive Session (60 min.) Executive Session pursuant to: C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(a) to consider the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of any real, personal or other property interest, §24-6-402(4)(e) to determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations, develop a strategy for negotiations and instruct negotiators and on the topic of potential real property sale and acquisitions by the Town. 8.Recess 4:55pm (estimate) VLMDAC special meeting minutes January 19, 2024.pdf VLMDAC meeting minutes January 18, 2024.pdf 240206 Revenue Update.pdf 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. 2 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.1 Item Cover Page DATE:February 6, 2024 SUBMITTED BY:Steph Johnson, Housing ITEM TYPE:Main Agenda AGENDA SECTION:Joint Meeting with Vail Local Housing Authority (45 min.) SUBJECT:Joint Town Council & Vail Local Housing Authority Meeting Agenda SUGGESTED ACTION:1. Engaging Vail Home Partners 2. Roles & Responsibilities 3. Opportunities & Solutions 4. Regional Collaboration, Public/Private Partnerships, & Public/Public Partnerships 5. Tools, Resources, & Funding VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 2024 Housing Strategic Planning Worksession Memorandum 02062024.docx 3 To:Vail Home Partners From:George Ruther, Housing Director Vail Local Housing Authority Date:February 6, 2024 Subject:Joint Vail Town Council/ Vail Local Housing Authority Strategic Planning Afternoon Worksession I.Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to outline topics for a strategic planning worksession with Vail Home Partners. A key component of the presentation will be a strategic look forward into 2024 and beyond for delivering on housing in the Vail community. II.Topics for Discussion The Vail Local Housing Authority and the Vail Town Council, collaborating as Vail Home Partners, have realized substantial success in delivering housing results in the Vail community. Much of the success is attributed to thoughtful and strategic planning on behalf of the partners. Since adoption of the 2027 Vail Housing Strategic Plan and inception of the Town’s Housing Department, the Vail community has realized a 54% increase in the total number of deed-restricted homes available for year-round and seasonal residents. Today, more than 1,050 deed-restricted homes are built or under construction in Vail. The Vail community is well on the way of realizing its adopted goal of acquiring 1,000 net new deed restrictions by the year 2027. Looking forward to 2024 and beyond, five themes are likely to drive housing successes into the coming years. Those themes focus on the following: 1)Engaging Vail Home Partners 2) Roles and Responsibilities 3)Opportunities and Solutions 4)Regional Collaboration, Public/Private Partnerships, and Public/Public Partnerships 5) Tools, Resources, and Funding 4 Town of Vail Page 2 1). Engaging Vail Home Partners Vail Home Partners has served as a collaborative partnership between the Vail Town Council and the Vail Local Housing Authority. Born out of the Vail Housing 2027 Strategic Plan, the Town Council and the Housing Authority realized that to achieve the adopted of 1,000 new deed restrictions by the year 2027, a fundamentally different approach to housing decision-making and implementation was needed. The new approach, one which is more collaborative, proactive in nature, entrepreneurial, and partner-oriented, has since been implemented. In many ways, this collaborative and entrepreneurial approach is unique to Vail and has served as a model of efficiency and effectiveness in delivering housing solutions for the Vail community. Both the approach and relationship, and the resulting alignment they’ve achieved, are now being replicated in other communities across the country. Examples of Vail Homes Partners’ work include: Vail Housing 2027 Plan 2018 Housing Policy Statements 2019 Economic Values and Community Benefits of the Town’s Investment in Deed-Restricted Homes Chamonix Vail Townhomes Development Review Process and Zoning Reform Initiative Vail InDEED Deed Restriction Purchase Program 2). Roles and Responsibilities The Vail Local Housing Authority and the Town of Vail Housing Department bring value to the Vail Town Council’s ability to delivering housing solutions for the Vail community. This value should be maintained and expanded when and where appropriate. For instance, the Vail Local Housing Authority should continue to be looked upon for expertise and advice on housing-related matters. Their role could be expanded to include ownership of assets and issuance of debt where applicable. The value of the Vail Local Housing Authority and the Housing Department include: Knowledgeable and experienced staff with years of institutional knowledge Well-established relationships with local, regional, and private-sector partners Proven and demonstrated track record of delivering on housing success Team of experts within their fields and profession on the Vail Local Housing Authority Technical expertise, knowledge, and well-rounded experience in real estate development, finance, and implementation of housing solutions Information and data collection (i.e. ehu occupancy survey) 5 Town of Vail Page 3 3). Opportunities and Solutions The coming years are filled with new opportunities to advance the Town’s adopted housing goal. Consistent with Vail’s “all of the above” approaches to delivering on housing, which includes developments, programs, and initiatives, the following opportunities and solutions exist to increase the supply of deed-restricted homes in the coming years: DeveIopments In town: East Vail CDOT parcel (15 to 20 homes) Public Works facility (130 to 150 homes) West Middle Creek (270 homes) Civic Area (TBD) Cascade tennis court site (TBD) Timber Ridge Village Apartments (290 homes) West Vail neighborhoods (TBD) West Vail Commercial Area (TBD) United States Postal Service site (TBD) Out of town: Eagle-Vail State Land Board parcel (Phase I - 75 to 90 homes) Programs Vail InDEED Deed Restriction Purchase Program Vail InDEED Buydown Program Town of Vail Internal Housing Program Long-term Rental Property Owner Incentives EHU Exchange amendments Initiatives Amend commercial linkage, inclusionary zoning, and residential linkage Regional Housing Action Plan Vail Housing 2027 Plan update Vail Home Partners Housing Subcommittee Remote working policy deed restriction qualifications No Net Loss of Rental Homes 4). Regional Collaboration, Public/Private Partnerships, and Public/Public Partnerships Vail Home Partners has relied heavily upon collaboration and partnerships in its pursuit of increasing the supply of deed restricted homes for Vail residents. To that end, for instance, the Vail Town Council has directed amendments to the development review 6 Town of Vail Page 4 process and zoning regulation reform to foster an environment which is more favorable to private sector partnerships and involvement in housing solutions. This approach is in direct response to the adopted housing policy statements. Through Vail Home Partners, the Vail Local Housing Authority 5). Tools, Resources and Funding In 2018, the Vail Town Council, in collaboration with the Vail Local Housing Authority, adopted 10 Housing Statements. Each of these statements is intended to articulate the measures the Vail Town Council will towards achieving the adopted housing goal. Of significance, Housing Policy Statements #4 and #10 state, “#4 Leverage Financial Strength – We will use our financial strength and acumen to acquire deed-restrictions”, and “#10 Funding is Policy – The Vail Town Council will fund housing opportunities and solutions.” Sources of funding for housing opportunities and solutions include the following: 0.5% dedicated sales tax Bonding/Issuance of debt Fund balance reserves Private equity participation Housing mitigation fees Federal/state grants (i.e. Proposition 123) Legislative review III.Questions for Vail Town Council Consideration The Vail Town Council is preparing to adopt an updated strategic action plan for the years 2024 through 2028. The adoption of an updated plan is anticipated to occur in the coming months. The strategic action plan is likely to include specific recommendations for actions and priorities for implementation to achieve community objectives, including housing solutions. To better articulate a vision and further inform the 2024-2028 Action Plan, the Vail Local Housing Authority recommends the Vail Town Council considers providing responses to the following questions: 1.What is the Vail Town Council’s vision for the future of housing in Vail? What role does building homes down valley play and how is it best to address the unintended consequences? 2.How can the Vail Local Housing Authority better assist the Vail Town Council in achieving its adopted housing goal? (i.e. bond issuer) Are there additional 7 Town of Vail Page 5 actions the Authority should be taking or possibly pursuing differently? (i.e. technical advisors) 3.What are the Vail Town Council’s preferred strategies for achieving its adopted housing goal? New development? Public partnerships? Private sector incentives? Deed restriction purchase? In-town or down valley? All of the above? 4.How should the estimated $3.5M to $4M funds collected annually from the 0.5% housing fund sales tax increase be invested to increase the supply of deed- restricted homes? 5.From a visioning perspective, what if housing became integral to Vail’s secret sauce to success? If housing is in fact infrastructure in the eyes of town leaders, how do we leverage the availability, attainability, and affordability of housing to give Vail a competitive edge amongst its peers and serve to provide the core for ongoing sustainability and stewardship efforts? 6.From a housing perspective, what is going to be different 5 to 7 years from now? What progress has the Town made towards achieving the housing goal? How have the conditions changed? 8 AGENDA ITEM NO. 3.1 Item Cover Page DATE:February 6, 2024 TIME:30 min. SUBMITTED BY:Kristen Bertuglia, Environmental Sustainability ITEM TYPE:Presentation/Discussion AGENDA SECTION:Presentation/Discussion SUBJECT:Car Share Program Update - Vail and Avon SUGGESTED ACTION:Listen to presentation and provide feedback. PRESENTER(S):Kristen Bertuglia, Director of Environmental Sustainability VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM REPORT ATTACHMENTS: Memo to Town Council - Carsharing Update.pdf Impact-report-Car-sharing-in-Belgium-in-2022.pdf EV Car Share Presentation.pdf 23 - CCS Proposal - Eagle County Regional Car Share Program (2).pdf 9 To: Town Council From: Department of Environmental Sustainability Date: February 6, 2024 Subject: Car Share Program – Vail and Avon I. Purpose The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the Vail Town Council an update on the potential of the proposed Vail-Avon Car Share program. II. Background Car sharing as a key component of Housing Developments Throughout the entitlement process of the Timber Ridge deed-restricted housing project over the past year, the Planning and Environmental Commission discussed the option of creative solutions to achieving more unit density and less land devoted to parking spaces. In December 2023, Ordinance No. 29, Series of 2023 amending Title 12, Chapter 6, Vail Town Code, was adopted to establish a new housing district, and language is now included to require a mobility management plan if a development is proposing less than the required number of parking spaces. A car sharing program is allowed as one potential opportunity to achieving this goal. As the town continues to invest in deed-restricted housing, providing homes for more than 1,000 new residents, and invest in programs that reduce parking, local car sharing has emerged among resort communities, as it has in larger cities for many years, as a viable alternative to car ownership. Car sharing is an on-demand, membership-based form of short-term car rental in which you only pay for what you use, typically through a phone App. Car share programs contribute to a more sustainable transportation system by providing a convenient mobility option to residents and visitors of the region that may otherwise be unavailable or prohibitively expensive. See Attachment A for recent car-sharing research and impacts in Belgium. Valley-wide Car Share In anticipation of the growing need for a more resident-focused and less car-focused community, in the summer of 2023, staff was directed to explore a valley-wide car 10 Town of Vail Page 2 share program as a potential solution to first-last mile challenges with public transportation, shared environmental goals, and a creative way to allow for less on- site parking to the benefit of increased housing density. In June, staff presented to the County Mayors’ and Managers’ meeting (Attachment B) to seek partnership among valley communities and spent several weeks establishing goals, a common vision and a Request for Proposals (RFP) with the Towns of Minturn, Avon, Vail and Eagle County as follows. The stated goals for an Eagle-Valley regional car share program were: 1. Equitable access to mobility solutions 2. Less congestion and parking demand 3. Decreased VMT (Vehicle Miles Travelled) 4. Increased mobility alternatives, especially for local workforce and residents 5. Enhanced flexibility for guests who use regional transit, electric bike share, and airport services 6. Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions The RFP requested the applicants meet the following Scope of Work • Evaluate local conditions and viability of parking locations • Collaborate with community partners on program development, with a minimum of 2 vehicles per community, 8 total • Provide electric vehicles or a combination of hybrid electric and plug-in electric, vehicle registration, and insurance • Deliver turnkey technology solution to facilitate car sharing program • Provide and maintain App, software, web access, etc. • Deliver excellent customer service and guest experience • Maintain, care for and clean vehicles • Develop promotional and marketing materials • Conduct ongoing program evaluation and improvement Community partners recognized the need to support the program either through in- kind, financial contributions or both. Such support may include dedicated parking spots, electric vehicle (EV) charging stations, and collaboration to achieve program goals. The program required a vendor with turnkey carsharing program experience, a clear business plan for program success, a demonstrated track record of harnessing technology and a customer-support and maintenance approach. The RFP originally requested an approach to a regional program based on eight cars across four communities. Two of the four communities opted out for now, leaving Vail and Avon as partners to implement car share. Staff and the partner communities received two responses in December, 2023 and recommend Colorado Car Share as the partner for this program. 11 Town of Vail Page 3 III. Colorado Car Share Colorado Car Share is a non-profit organization active for over twenty-five years, currently operating car sharing programs in Boulder, Denver, Breckenridge, Dillon, and Frisco. Colorado Car Share’s mission is to “empower our community to live a car- free lifestyle and have a positive impact on our health, wealth, and shared environment. We aim to make Colorado a “cooler,” healthier, and more socially equitable place to live.” Unlike for-profit car share companies that operate in major metro-areas, Colorado Car Share exists “to provide car sharing as a service, not a business. We keep our margins as low as possible, and keep our members and mission at the forefront of all decisions in order to provide:” low cost service, a community focused approach, fully insured and turnkey operation as well as environmental benefits. On average each car share vehicle in operation is the equivalent of taking 9-10 cars off the road each year. Members end up reducing the amount they drive by 40-50% and the program has a very high overall fuel efficiency. Many communities opt for all-electric vehicles (EV), or a combination of all EV or plug-in hybrid vehicles. Complete rate plans, equity programs, process, and typical user profiles are provided in Attachment C. All rate plans may be customized by community in order to drive participation on the desired sectors. Budget The proposed budget includes start-up costs such as procurement, outfitting vehicles, and technology setup. Ongoing overhead costs include insurance, member support, outreach, maintenance, etc. Partnering with Avon will help both communities share overhead and reduce costs. Note that costs are higher year one then year two due to vehicle procurement and launch costs. Year 1 estimated contribution per community: $133,075* Year 2 estimate contribution per community: $12,975* *Budget contribution is based on two communities (Vail and Avon) with two cars each. Program income is expected to increase over time, reducing overhead costs, however some contribution to the program is expected to be ongoing. IV. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends the Vail Town Council direct staff to move forward with developing a partnership with Colorado Car Share to implement a local pilot program with two vehicles in Vail, one fully electric vehicle and one plug-in hybrid, to be located at the Red Sandstone parking structure. This location allows for easy access from deed- restricted housing developments in a secure, covered, and video-monitored location with existing charging stations that do not see the demand of the Village and 12 Town of Vail Page 4 Lionshead. Note that the developers of Timber Ridge have also proposed that parking spots be available on-site to serve this program in the future. Avon will also be requesting to move forward with proposing a two-vehicle program to their Council in late February. V. Next Steps Should the Town Council wish to move forward, staff will return to the Council with a contract request and a supplemental budget request from the housing fund. Details of pricing structure, firm locations, specific vehicle types and cost will be provided at that time. VI. Attachments A. Impact Report – Car Sharing in Belgium B. Mayors and Managers Meeting Car Share Research Presentation C. Colorado Car Share Proposal (original proposal includes all original community partners, see Section III above for updated all-in contribution) 13 IMPACT REPORTim pact CAR SHARING IN BELGIUM IN 2022 14 Dear Reader, This annual report describes the state of car sharing in Belgium at the end of 2022. As usual, you can find an overview of the number of shared cars and car sharers (both active and registered), the average distances and duration of trips using a shared car and the active car sharing providers. But this report is also a first for Flanders. For the first time ever, a large-scale study has been conducted on the impact of car sharing on car ownership and modal shift. The methodology and results of the impact study can be found in the first part of this report. I would like to take this opportunity to since rely thank the participating providers (cambio, Claus2you, CoopStroom, Cozywheels, Dégage, Flexigo, GreenMobility, Partago, ShareMobility and Stapp.in) for distributing the questionnaires and actively engag- ing in the preparation of the impact report. It is thanks to them that, for the first time, we can make informed statements about the impact of car sharing in Flanders. Autodelen.net makes a distinction between the three main forms of car sharing (round-trip, private and free-float- ing). For the first two, we can present a representative sample and our conclusions are solidly based. For free-floating car sharing, Green- Mobility was the only provider actively involved and only achieved a response rate of 3.5%. These figures are given as an indication only; no far-reaching conclusions can be drawn from them. I am particularly struck by the discrepancy between the number of registered car sharers and the number of car sharers who made at least one trip using a shared car in 2022, referred to in this report as “active car sharers”. There are some 121,000 active car sharers in Bel- gium, but as many as 270,000 registered car sharers. There is therefore still huge scope for engaging people who are already familiar with the concept and who have even taken the step of registering. The addi- tional impact of this “low-hanging fruit” is potentially very large. I therefore call on policy-makers and car sharing providers to make both the conditions and the offer of car sharing even more attractive so that we dramatically increase the number of active car-sharers in 2023. Because the more car-sharers there are, the fewer private cars there will be, and the more we can create liveable and agreeable living environments designed with people rather than cars in mind. Happy reading! Jeffrey Matthijs Director of Autodelen.net INTRODUCTION 2 15 sSUMMARY A lot of car sharers get rid of their own vehicle because they need no, or fewer, private cars. Autodelen.net in collaboration with KULeu- ven, has calculated that ownership among car sharers ranges between 0.36 and 0.57 cars per household. By way of comparison, in 2021, an average Flemish household owned 1.14 cars. In a fictitious and theoretical example, this would mean that, in a street with 30 families who do not use car-sharing, there are 34 parked cars. Car sharers own significantly fewer cars than the average in Flanders. Every shared car takes between three and ten private cars off the street. What’s more, car sharers are conspicuously more likely to choose bicycles, and to travel by car less. This emerges from a survey by Autodelen.net, the first to calculate the replacement ratio of shared cars in Flanders. ONE SHARED CAR REPLACES TEN PRIVATELY OWNED CARS In a street with 30 families of car sharers, that will be about 12, supplemented by one or two shared vehicles. The research also shows that each shared car replaces between 3 and 10 private cars, depending on the form of car-sharing. ‘So, tak- en together the shared cars in Flanders replace at least 17,740 private cars. If you were to park these saved cars side by side, they would cov- 3 16 3,1 9,5 One shared car replaces 3.1 to 9.5 private cars, according to the type of car sharing. 1 x = Private Round-trip Free-floating Total 54,578 87,745 5,09222,204 34,889 47,764 62,155 53,478 32,374 5,761 121,394 Belgium today has 121,394 active car sharers. That is 40% more than last year. Free-floating car sharing in particular saw strong growth in active car sharers. 120,000 90,000 60,000 30,000 0 2020 2021 2022 ­­—­Strong­and­sustainable­growth­ in­active­car­sharers By the end of 2022, Belgium had 121,394 active car sharers. That represents a 40% increase on 2021. Around half of these car sharers are Flemish (67,578), four in ten live in Brussels (50,178), and 3% are Walloons (3,638). Brussels is the region in which car-sharing is most firmly embedded: 6.3% of all driving licence holders make use of shared cars. Free-floating car-shar- ing systems saw the biggest increase last year, with a 78% rise in active car sharers. er an area of 22 hectares, enough for almost 32 football pitches. Shared cars today make up only 0.07% of registered vehicles in Flan- ders, but still save almost 2% of public parking spaces. In this way, car-sharing improves the liveability of our cities and towns’, says Autodel- en.net’s Jeffrey Matthijs. These figures are based on an online survey conducted by Autodelen.net and most car-shar- ing providers among 6,288 respondents in summer 2022. The study is a first for Flanders. Since engaging in car sharing, 35% of car sharers drive the car less often. ‘There is still huge scope for engaging people who are already familiar with the car-sharing concept, some of whom have even taken the step of registering. This includes the nearly 150,000 car sharers who are registered but did not travel in a shared car in 2022. By making the framework conditions and supply of car-shar- ing even more attractive, policymakers and car-sharing providers can better harness this huge potential in 2023 to create liveable and agreeable living environments on a human scale,’ points out Jeffrey Matthijs. The number of shared cars also saw a huge increase in 2022. Today, the tally stands at 5,316. As many as 671 new shared cars were added last year, the strongest growth in the past five years. This is mainly due to free-floating car-sharing systems, with the arrival of the German player Miles and the expansion of Poppy’s fleet. ­­—­Car­sharers­cycle­more­often­ and­take­the­car­less­often Car sharers are conspicuously more likely to opt for sustainable travel. Since they started car-sharing, 35% have made fewer car jour- neys. Cycling is the big winner: 31% of car sharers cycle more often. Train, tram and bus benefit less from car-sharing: most car sharers (75%) use public transport to the same extent as before. 16% do so more often. 4 17 Introduction 2 Summary 3 Contents 5 What­is­car­sharing­and­what­types­exist?­6 Providers with their own fleet of shared cars 7 Sharing of private vehicles 7 Methodology­8 Impact of car sharing 8 Car sharing in 2022: state of play 10 Impact­of­car­sharing­11 Impact on car ownership 12 – Number of cars per household 12 – Replacement ratio 13 Impact on travel behaviour 15 Car sharer profile 17 Car­sharing­in­2022:­state­of­play­18 The number of car sharers and shared cars today 19 Number of trips, duration & distance 21 Historical growth 22 Summary of key figures 24 Glossary 25 Annexes 26 Annex 1: Questionnaire used for the car sharers’ impact survey 26 Annex 2: Summary of car share providers in Belgium since inception 27 Colophon 28cCONTENTS 5 18 With car sharing, several families and/or legal entities take turns to use one or more vehicles. They use the vehicle only when they need it. If the vehicle is free, another family or legal entity can use it. Car sharing generates major social and economic benefits. It reduces the number of vehicles, CO2 emissions, parking congestion and the individual cost of using1 a vehicle, and leads to a sustaina- ble modal shift. Car sharing is a sustainable and flexible alternative to owning a private car. In 2022, there were 15 car share providers oper- ating in Belgium. Historically speaking, there have been two main types: car share providers with their own fleet, and car share providers that facilitate the sharing of private vehicles. Both of these two main categories can again be divided into two groups. w&WHAT TYPES EXIST? CARSHARING WHAT IS 1 Calculate your own financial benefit as compared with car ownership and/or compare car share formulas at www.savewithcarsharing.be 6 19 PROVIDERS WITH THEIR OWNFLEET OF SHARED CARS These providers make a vehicle fleet available to their customers. The fleet varies for each provider and can consist of various models. The user pays the organisation for the use of a vehicle by kilometre, by time, and/or use. Sometimes there is a one-off joining fee and/ or subscription fee. Depending on the place at which you collect and return a shared car, there are two different systems. ­­—­Round-trip­car­sharing In round-trip car sharing, the car sharer returns the shared car to the same location or zone (neighbourhood or district) after use. Systems that use permanent locations are known as ‘sta- tion-based’, and those that use a specific zone to which the vehicle must be returned are ‘home zone-based’. ­­—­Free-floating­car­sharing Free-floating car share allows the user to leave the shared vehicle in another place (in some cases even in another city). A further distinction is made between systems that use permanent stations (‘pool stations’) and systems that use a specific zone within which the car may be parked anywhere (‘operational area’). Users must have a smartphone to locate the shared car. SHARING OF PRIVATE VEHICLES ­­—­Private­cost-sharing­car­sharing In this form of car sharing, private cars are used by different households or organisations in a centralised (one large, open group) or decentral- ised system (several small, closed groups). The vehicle is the property of one member of the car share group or can be bought in joint ownership by several group members. A second significant feature is the cost-sharing principle. The owner of the vehicle does not make a profit, but is reim- bursed for the actual cost price of the vehicle for Providers­with­ their­own­fleet­ of­shared­cars Sharing­ of­private­vehicles Round-trip car­sharing Free-floating­ car­sharing Private­cost-sharing­ car­sharing each shared kilometre. Thirdly, this type of car share involves a great deal of self-organisation and social interaction, with individual arrange- ments and rules. However, this does not mean that centrally provided services cannot be signif- icantly professionalised by, for example, a group of individuals or a non-profit organisation. — Private car rental There are also online hire platforms where users can rent a private car. This is called peer-to-peer (P2P) car sharing or private car rental, and works in the same way as AirBnB. Owners register their cars on the platform; users hire a car on the plat- form for a consideration determined by the owner (price per kilometre and/or an hourly rate). Fuel is not included in this charge: as a user, you have to fill up the car again after use, so you do not know in advance exactly how much your trip will cost. Each time you use it, you as the hirer enter into a contract with the owner of the car. We therefore refer to this as car rental rather than car sharing. With car sharing, you only need to sign a member- ship contract, after which you have access to all the vehicles. Data on private car rental are not includ- ed in this report, which focuses on car sharing. 7 20 mMETHODO-LOGY 2 https://carsharing.de/alles-ueber-carsharing/studien/ evaluations-standard-verkehrsentlastende-wirkung IMPACT OF CAR SHARING — Large-scale survey of 10 car share providers All the results presented in the section on the impact of car sharing come from a user survey conducted in spring and summer 2022. Ten of the twelve Flemish car sharing providers active at the time took part in the survey. All customers were asked to complete an online questionnaire via a direct email from the car share provider. This questionnaire was prepared in consulta- tion with the car share questionnaire used in a German survey coordinated by the Bundes- verband CarSharing (bcs)2. For the analysis of the results, we received the much-appreciated help of Jozef Cossey, doctoral researcher at KU Leuven’s Faculty of Economics. The user survey resulted in a dataset of 6,288 respondents. The table opposite shows the distribution of respondents by type of car sharing. For each provider that distributed the questionnaire, the response rate is also shown. A few figures at a glance: _On average, 19% of all active private custom- ers of the participating providers completed the survey. _The round-trip and private car sharing categories recorded high response rates, allowing us to make statements about the entire population of round-trip and private car sharers on the basis of the sample, com- bined with weighting of the data (see below). _Regarding free-floating car sharing, we can only rely on the results of the questionnaire GreenMobility distributed to its customers. Moreover, their response rate is also very low (3.5%). Although the results have been weighted, this small sample cannot guaran- tee representative data. The results in this report give an indication of the impact of GreenMobility’s carsharers, but due to the low response rate we should treat the results with caution. We cannot extrapolate these to all free-floating car sharers. Nor, therefore, is it possible to draw one-to-one compari- sons between the results for free-floating car sharing and those of round-trip and private car sharing. Response rate ROUND-TRIP CAR SHARE 20.5% Cambio 27.5% Share­Mobility 2.5% Partago 9.8% Coopstroom 37.1% Stapp.in 3.8% Claus2you 24.3% Flexigo 12.7% PRIVATE CAR SHARE 16.9% Dégage!20.0% Cozywheels 5.7% FREE-FLOATING CAR SHARE 3.5% GreenMobility 3.5% TOTAL 18.8% 8 21 — Data weighting by frequency of use To correctly extrapolate survey results from the sample to the entire population of car sharers, we weighted the data. This is because we can expect regular car sharers to be more likely to participate in surveys, creating an over-report- ing effect in the absence of weighting based on frequency of use. This bias is mitigated by the fact that survey responses are weighted per respondent based on actual frequency of use. Each respondent was assigned a weighting coeffi cient that indicates the weight given to his/her responses in the overall survey result. For each provider, respondents were divided into five categories according to the nature of their car share use3. The same exercise was conducted for frequency of use within the pro- vider’s entire customer base. Depending on the over- or under-representation of certain categories of questionnaire respondents, they are assigned a weighting coefficient smaller or larger than 1. For two providers, we lack data for the actual frequency of use of the shared cars across the entire customer base, so it is not possible to cal- culate specific weighting coefficients for those providers. To weight these data, we relied on the (average) weighting coefficients of provid- ers with similar user profiles. The private cost-sharing car share organisation Cozywheels is organised in a decentralised way into many small ‘car share groups’ that are not obliged to use the central platform to record trips. As a result, Cozywheels does not have the necessary data with which to calculate the weighting coefficients. For Cozywheels, we relied on the weighting coefficients of the other private cost-sharing car share organisation, Dégage. For GreenMobility, it was not possible to supply customers’ actual frequency of use. Therefore, we used the average weighting coefficients of all those providers that, like the free-floating provider, do not charge an entry fee and sub- scription fees. The consequence of weighting the data is that, for all forms of car sharing, a shift can be seen in the results of the impact param- eters addressed in the report. For example, the reported number of cars in the household among round-trip car share users rises with weighting from 0.28 to 0.37. — Private car sharing: what about the owners? When we discuss results from private car shar- ers, in most cases we are only talking about respondents who do not share their own vehicle, and who occasionally use a car from a private car sharer. This choice enables us to properly compare different groups of car users for the ‘current car ownership’ and ‘replace- ment ratio’ indicators. Car ownership among owners of privately shared cars will necessarily be higher than among users, which also affects the replacement ratio. However, for the ‘change in travel behaviour’ indicator, we did take the entire group of private car users into account. We can assume that the owner of a shared car may also identify a possible change in their travel pattern as a result of sharing the vehicle. — The replacement ratio: how many private cars are replaced by one shared car? As mentioned, our calculation method relied very largely on the evaluation standard devel- oped by the Bundesverband CarSharing (bcs)4 There are two types of replacement ratio, real and hypothetical, and these are combined in an integrated replacement ratio. Methodolo gically, real and hypothetical replacement ratios have a different status. The real replacement ratio is based on the real trend in car ownership up to the time of the study. The hypothetical replacement ratio is based on answers given instinctively by respondents. This reflects intentions. The real replacement ratio shows how many cars respondents have dispensed with since they started car sharing, and the proportion due to car sharing. We calculated this as follows: _The total number of a car share provider’s active private customers divided by the num- ber of respondents. _The result of this calculation is then multi plied by the number of cars actual- ly dispensed with: the number of cars the respondent gave up by joining the car shar- ing provider, multiplied by the weight that membership of the car share scheme had in this decision. The answers to the latter ques- tion range from ‘of no importance’ (score 0), ‘of little importance’ (score 0.25), to ‘of very great importance’ (score 1). _The result of the above division (= the total number of cars dispensed with as a result of car sharing) is divided by the number of shared cars owned by the respective providers. 3 1) Once a week or more on average 2) more than once a month on average but less than once a week + once a month on average 3) less than once a month on average 4) once 5) never 4 https://carsharing.de/alles-ueber-carsharing/ studien/evaluations-standard-verkehrsentlastende- wirkung When calculating the real replacement ratio, we added one aspect at the second step of the calculation (B) by comparison with the German bcs. That is, we also included the impact of membership of a car sharing organisation on the number of cars the respondents dispensed with when they started car sharing. Perhaps people were already planning to get rid of a car and only subsequently decided to start car sharing. Applying this additional weighting to the reduction in the number of cars owned reduces the replacement ratio but it gives us an even more accurate picture of the effective, causal impact of car sharing on car ownership. The hypothetical replacement ratio repre- sents the probability that a respondent, without membership of a car share organisation, would have purchased an additional vehicle. We can- not arrive at an integrated replacement ratio by simply adding up the real and hypothetical replacement ratios because there would be double counting. Nevertheless, we can combine them based on the calculation below: _The number of cars hypothetically averted by respondents who did not dispense with cars due to car sharing is multiplied by the ratio of the total number of active private customers of the car sharing provider and the number of respondents. 9 22 _The result of this multiplication is added to the real replacement ratio. _The result of this calculation is divided by the number of shared cars owned by the respec- tive providers. The result, the integrated replacement ratio, takes into account the cars that car sharers actually dispensed with as well as the cars that car sharers did not purchase due to member- ship of the car sharing provider. The calculation results in a single replacement ratio without double counting. —­Recommendations­for­future­research For a future edition of this survey, Autodelen.net will work with car sharing providers to develop an adapted methodology that takes even great- er account of the nuanced differences between private car sharing and car sharing through fleet-based providers. It is also our intention to examine the impact of car sharing in Brussels and Wallonia, using data from all active car sharing providers. In this way, we should be able to reach conclusions for free-floating car sharing too. Finally, the impact of car sharing could be explored in even wider terms. The current research focuses on car ownership, the replacement ratio and the shift in the travel behaviour of car sharers. This can be further expanded to include the CO2 savings generated by car sharing, an indication of the reduction in car mileage, etc. CAR­SHARING­IN­2022:STATE OF PLAY The data for this section of the report were requested in December 2022 from the car shar- ing organisations operating in Belgium5. The figures relate to the period from 1 January 2022 to 1 December 2022. The data analysis is always performed at an aggregated level, either by type of car sharing or by region. No reference is therefore made in this report to individual pro- viders’ data, other than exceptionally and with the explicit consent of the provider concerned (see below). In terms of the number of (active) car sharers, it cannot be ruled out that people using several car sharing systems are also included multiple times in the figures. Unfortunately, this cannot be avoided without violating GDPR legislation. The data used in this report relate to car share providers with their own fleet (both round-trip and free-floating) and private cost-sharing car share. Private car rental (or P2P car sharing see ‘What is car sharing?’) is not included in this annual report. In order to make a proper com- parison with previous figures, this type has also been omitted from previous years’ data. Two organisations operate in the private cost-sharing car share segment in Belgium: Cozywheels and Dégage. However, we only have data from Dégage for the number of com- pleted journeys made by shared car, the average journey length and distance, and the average number of journeys per user and per shared vehicle. Therefore, statements about these indicators for private car sharing in this report rely solely on the Dégage data. For the Brussels-Capital Region, we have no data on the number of trips and their charac- teristics for free-floating providers. The total number of trips in Brussels and at the Belgian level is therefore an underestimate. For Brussels and Wallonia, the private cost-sharing car sharing organisation Cozy- wheels used a different, stricter count of the number of car sharers and shared cars in 2022, resulting in a decrease in these indicators for both regions compared with 2021. This should be seen as a one-off adjustment to the data. 5 We received data from the following car shar- ing providers and would like to thank them. BattMobility, cambio, Claus2you, CoopStroom, Cozywheels, Dégage, GreenMobility, Klimaan, Miles, Partago, Poppy, ShareMobility, Stapp. in and Wibee. How many private cars have respondents gotten rid of since they started car sharing? And how many cars have they not bought thanks to car sharing? 10 23 Car sharing has expanded dramatically in Belgium and Flanders in recent years. The number of trips, shared vehicles and car shar- ers all increased significantly. But does that growth translate into streets with fewer cars? We know from research conducted abroad that one shared car displaces several private cars from the streets. But what is the situation in Flanders? The results of the study below show very clearly that car sharers on average own fewer cars than the average person in Flanders, dispose of cars, refrain from buying addition- al cars and more often opt for sustainable travel (e.g. bicycle or public transport) instead of a (shared) car journey. This study is a first for Flanders. For the first time, we have conducted a large-scale study of the impact of car sharing on the car own- ership and travel behaviour of car sharers. We have only been able to do so thanks to the car sharing providers. Ten of the twelve then-ac- tive car sharing organisations sent an online questionnaire to their customers in spring and summer 2022. This yielded a sample of more than 6,300 respondents. In this part of the report, we again distinguish between the three forms of car sharing: round-trip, private and free-floating. In future editions, it is also our intention to examine the impact of car sharing in Brussels and Wallonia. ­­—­Nuancing­the­results­for­free­floating­ and­private­car­sharing Given the very low response rate among free-floating respondents (3.5%), we must treat the available data with caution. The results in this report give an indication of the impact of GreenMobility’s car sharers, but they cannot be extrapolated to all free-floating car sharers. Nor is it possible to draw one-to-one compar- isons between the results for free-floating car sharing and those for round-trip and private car sharing. When we discuss results from private car shar- ers, in most cases we are only talking about the respondents who do not share their own vehicle. These car sharers use a car from a private car sharer. However, for the ‘change in travel behaviour’ indicator, we did take the entire group of private car users into account. For more information on the study design and how the results were processed, please refer to the Methodology section. iOF CAR SHARING IMPACT 11 24 IMPACT ON CAR OWNERSHIP ­­—­Number­of­cars­per­household A first indicator of the impact of car sharing is the current number of cars in a household. In 2021, the average Flemish household owned 1.14 cars. Just over one in five Flemish fami- lies do not own a car6. These include both own cars and company cars. Among car sharers, car ownership was strikingly lower at the time of the survey (see figure at bottom left). Depend- ing on the car sharing model, between five and seven in ten car sharers have no car available in the household7. Average car ownership among private and round-trip car sharers is 0.36 and 0.378 cars per household, respectively. Among free-floating car sharers (GreenMobility), the average number of cars in the household is 0.57. In a fictitious and theoretical example, this could mean the following: on a street with 30 families not practising car sharing, 34 cars are parked. In a street with 30 families all using car sharing, that will be about 129, supplement- ed by one or two shared vehicles. Number of cars on a street with 30 families if no one does car sharing vs if everyone does car sharing 6 https://statbel.fgov.be/nl/themas/datalab/ wagenbezit-huishouden 7 The proportion of households without a car among round-trip car sharers is 69%, but this conceals a wide variation. For some round-trip providers, 6.1% of households are car-free, but equally there are providers where the proportion stands at 72%. 8 Among the various round-trip car sharing providers who cooperated in the study, average car ownership lay between 0.31 and 1.34. 9 For this calculation, based on the proportions of customers among the car sharing providers participating in the survey, we factored in 62.2% round-trip car sharers in the street, 9.5% free-floating car sharers and 28.3% private car sharers. ×30 ×34 P ×30 ×14 P Share of households without a car in Flanders Private car­sharers Round-trip car­sharers Free-floating­ car­sharers Due to the low response rate of free-floating car sharers, these results give an indication of car ownership. We cannot extrapolate these to all free-floating car sharers. Nor is it possible to draw one-to- one comparisons between the results for free-floating car sharing and those of round-trip and private car sharing. Population Flanders 68.9%66.7% 22.9% Average car ownership per household in Flanders Private car­sharers Round-trip car­sharers Free-floating­ car­sharers 0.37 0.36 0.57 Population Flanders 1.14 48.6% 12 25 One round-trip shared car replaces on average 9.5 private cars. A privately shared car replaces on average 3.1 private cars. ­­—­Significant­differences by­region­and­maturity­of­car­sharing The overall Flemish averages conceal a number of striking differences. For instance, there are differences in car ownership among car sharers depending on the degree of urbanisation of the region and on the maturity of the car sharing organisation used. The largest cities in Flanders have a high population density and have had a car sharing presence for almost two decades. In Antwerp, for example, car ownership among car sharers stands at 0.22 cars per household compared with 0.73 for all the city’s residents. In Ghent, a similar ratio can be seen: 0.27 cars per household among car sharers, 0.80 cars among the general population. By way of con- trast, in Zottegem, an East Flanders town with a population of around 26,000, shared cars have only been present since 2020 and we note an average of 1.12 cars per household and 0.52 cars among car sharers. — Replacement ratio Car sharers own significantly fewer cars than the average in Flanders, but to what extent does car sharing play a role in this? Are people who own no or few cars more likely to choose car sharing? Or is rather the case that car sharing simply enables them to reduce their rate of car ownership? To resolve these hypotheses, we asked respond- ents two questions. First question: how many cars have they dispensed with since they started car sharing, and what part did car sharing play? (actual replacement) Second question: how likely is it that, absent car sharing, they would have acquired another vehicle? (hypothetical replacement). Combining the two indicators allows us to calculate an integrated replace- ment ratio, representing how many private cars one shared car replaces. Details of how the replacement ratio is calculat- ed can be found in the section on Methodology. We should mention here that the calculations below are an underestimate of the actual replacement ratio as we only take account of the private customers of car sharing provid- ers in this study. We did not survey corporate account holders, nor did we include them in determining the replacement ratio. The replacement ratio is highest for round- trip car sharing organisations. One round-trip shared car replaces on average 9.5 private cars10. Of these, 6.6 cars have been dispensed with since people started car sharing, while the remaining 2.9 cars are the extra vehicles not purchased due to the availability of car sharing. There are two important reasons for this high figure. First, customers of round-trip provid- ers appear to dispense with a high number of cars per shared car on average when they start car sharing, i.e. 6.6. That number is at least 10 In calculating the real replacement ratio, we diverge from the German Bundesverband CarSharing (bcs) by including the impact of membership of a car sharing organisation on the number of cars the respondents dispensed with when they started car sharing (see Methodology). Applying this additional weighting to the reduction in the number of cars owned reduces the replacement ratio but it gives us an even more accurate picture of the effective, causal impact of car sharing on car ownership. However, it does mean that the data can no longer be compared one-to-one with studies from abroad. Without the additional weighting, we obtain a replacement ratio of 11.6 for round-trip car sharing. One private cost-sharing shared car replaces 4 private cars in this model, and one free-floating car replaces 5.5 vehicles. 11 44% of private car sharing users use a shared car less than once a month, compared with 27% of round-trip car sharers and 32% of free-floating car sharers. three times higher than for the other catego- ries of car sharing. Second, the ratio of users to shared car (i.e. 21.5) also plays a major role here. Once again, this is the highest in any form of car sharing and has a positive impact on the replacement ratio. A privately shared car replaces 3.1 private cars on average. However, this underestimates the actual replacement ratio of private car sharing. As described in the Methodology, this calculation only takes account of the users of private vehicles, and not their owners. On average, for every pri- vately shared car, users dispense with 1.7 other cars and refrain from purchasing an additional 1.4 cars due to the availability of car sharing. The explanation for the lower replacement ratio must be sought mainly in the low level of car ownership among private car sharers. At the time of the survey, the number of cars per household was the lowest in this group (0.36 cars per household), and it was also significantly low before users started car sharing. Among private car sharers, 24% have dispensed with a car by joining a car sharing organisation, while almost 40% of respondents among round-trip car shar- ers have done so. In other words: private car sharers did not have many cars to dispose of at the time of joining. Therefore, the replacement ratio, and especially the real replacement ratio, is in any event lower than among providers whose customers had higher car ownership lev- els before they entered car sharing. In addition, the ratio of users per shared car for private car sharing organisations (10.8) is much lower than for round-trip and free-float- ing car sharing, which translates into a lower replacement ratio. Since private cost-sharing car sharing organisations do not charge for the reservation time of a shared trip, we see a much higher average reservation time than for other car sharing organisations (see p. 21). This partly explains the lower number of car sharers per shared car. Finally, at 1.4 cars, the hypothetical replacement ratio is also lower than for round-trip (2.9 cars) and free-floating car sharing (2.7 cars). The pro- file of privately cost-sharing car users offers an explanation here. They generally have less need for a car and make fewer trips using a shared car. This is also evident in this study from a low- er rate of shared car use than among users of other forms of car sharing11. The more limited need for cars makes private car users less likely to consider buying an (additional) car. 13 26 In other words, private car sharing appeals to a different profile of car sharers, provides a low-threshold alternative way to gain entry as a user by using the existing fleet and is comple- mentary to the other forms of car sharing. Low car ownership and use by private car users and the more efficient use of existing private cars have a real beneficial impact, but do not affect the replacement ratio. And what about the owners of privately shared cars? It is not possible to calculate a replace- ment ratio for them as we have done for private users and users of providers with their own fleet. For that, we need an adapted calculation method12. Owners who share their car relin- quish their “own car”, so to speak, and engage in a system where they themselves also make reservations for the use of their “shared car”. We did ask the car owners to what extent they would buy another car if (one of) their own car(s), which is currently shared, were to be removed. Almost half of the respond- ents (46%) who share a car on a cost-sharing basis would not buy a new car if their cur- rent vehicle were to disappear. At that point, current car owners would themselves become users of ( private) shared cars and would avoid the purchase of additional cars. The current methodology does not take into account this hypothetical replacement of cars by owners. This means that the effective replacement ratio of private shared cars is in actuality higher that the statistics above suggest. For a future edition of this survey, Autodelen.net will work with car sharing providers to develop an adapted methodology that takes even great- er account of the nuanced differences between private car sharing and car sharing through fleet-based providers. On average, one free-floating shared car replaces 3.6 private cars, according to Green- Mobility figures. Of these, 0.9 cars have been dispensed with since people started car sharing, while the remaining 2.7 cars are the extra vehi- cles not purchased due to the availability of car sharing. Real car ownership among free-float- ing car sharers changes the least among the three categories after starting car sharing. Among free-floating respondents, only 12% dispensed with a car, compared with 40% of round-trip users and 24% of private car sharers. Nevertheless, we found a high replacement rate per shared car and there are two explanations for this. First, free-floating car sharing has a rel- atively high hypothetical replacement rate. This is because for every free-floating shared car, 2.7 cars are not purchased. To calculate the hypo- thetical replacement ratio, we only take into account respondents who have not disposed of a car: this group is also the largest among free-floating car sharers. Second, the high ratio of customers per shared car also causes the replacement ratio to rise. ­­—­Fewer­cars,­more­public­space Based on these replacement ratios, we know that the approximately 1,500 round-trip and 1,100 private shared cars in Flanders reduce the total private car fleet by 17,740 cars: 14,345 for round-trip and 3,395 for private car sharing13. The 2,605 round-trip and private shared cars today account for only 0.07% of registered vehi- cles in Flanders14, but do save 1.7% of publicly designated parking spaces15. If you were to park all these 17,740 saved cars right next to each other, you would cover an area of 22 hectares16, good for almost 32 football fields. *The general term car sharing conceals differences in terms of the replace- ment ratio of one shared car. It is therefore appropriate to calculate the impact at the car sharing operator level. 12 As private cost-sharing car sharing is currently almost unknown in other (European) countries, a separate method has not yet been developed. 13 Given the low response rate, we reach no conclusions as to the total number of private cars saved through free-floating car sharing 14 https://www.vlaanderen.be/ statistiek-vlaanderen/mobiliteit/ personenwagenpark 15 There are at least 1,059,000 publicly designated parking spaces in Flanders (source: Ruimterapport Vlaanderen 2021, https://publicaties.vlaanderen. be/view-file/47143). 16 Calculated on the basis of 12.5 square metres per parking space. The conclusion is clear: on average, car sharers own fewer cars than the average person in Flanders. Car sharing enables them to keep the number of cars in the household low or even to reduce it. Car sharing thus enables citizens to live with no or fewer cars. 3.1 9.5 Range between which replacement ratios vary by form of car sharing 1 x = 14 27 IMPACT ON TRAVEL BEHAVIOUR Car sharing reduces car ownership and thus improves the liveability of our cities and towns. The social impact of car sharing becomes even greater if it generates a positive modal shift: a shift from car travel towards more sustain- able modes. We therefore asked the almost 6,300 Flemish car sharers how much their travel behaviour had changed since they joined a car sharing organisation. ­­—­Car­use: 35%­travel­(much)­less­by­car In the first instance, we probed the change in car use. We asked about the number of trips made with a private car or a shared car, both as a driver and as a passenger. In general, car sharers’ vehicle use decreases after they join a car sharing organisation. The group of car shar- ers who travel by car less or much less (35%) is larger than the group who opt for the car more or much more often (17%). About half of car sharers have noticed no change in their car use since they started car sharing. Among round-trip car sharers, the group of customers who (greatly) reduced their car use was more than twice as large as the group that travelled by car more or much more often, 37% versus 15%. Among free-floating car sharers (GreenMobility), the proportion who take a car more or much more often is as high as the proportion of customers who saw their car journeys (much) reduced, at 19%. Three in ten private car sharers used the car more or much more often, while one in five (greatly) reduced their car travel. As with the lower replacement ratio among pri- vate car users, the slight increase in car travel can also be explained by car ownership. At the time of the survey, the number of cars per household was lower among private car sharers Change in car travel behaviour since the start of car sharing, across all forms of car sharing 34.7% (much)­less­often 48.4% no­change 16.9% (much)­more often Change­in CAR USE 5.9%­(much)­less­often 63.5% no­change 30.6% (much)­ more­often Change­in­ BICYCLE USE 9.6%­(much)­less­often 74.6% no­change 15.8% (much)­more­ often Change­in BUS, TRAM and METRO USE than among respondents who are members of round-trip and free-floating systems (0.36 vs. 0.37 vs. 0.57). Low car ownership among pri- vate car users appears to be less the result of car sharing than in the case of round-trip car shar- ers. One in four private car users has dispensed with a car by joining a car sharing organisa- tion, compared with 40% among round-trip car sharing users. This suggests that many private users had few cars even before they started car sharing and that, due to car sharing, they now have access to a car for the first time, which may explain the increase in car use. Finally, for private car owners we observe that the group opting less or much less often for car travel since they started sharing their own car is larg- er than the group more often using a car (36% versus 13%).Change in car use since the start of car sharing Round-trip car­share 37.2% (much)­less­often 47.9% no­change 14.9% (much)­ more­often Private car­share 20.6% (much)­less­ often 49.8% no­change 29.6% (much)­ more­often Free-floating car­share 19.5% (much)­less­ often 61.9% no­change 18.6% (much)­ more­often Due to the low response rate of free-floating car sharers, these results give an indication of the change in travel behaviour. We cannot extrapolate these to all free-floating car sharers. Nor is it possible to draw one- to-one comparisons between the results for free-floating car sharing and those of round-trip and private car sharing. 35% travel (much) less by car 15 28 Due to the low response rate of free-floating car sharers, these results give an indication of the change in travel behaviour. We cannot extrapolate these to all free-floating car sharers. Nor is it possible to draw one-to-one comparisons between the results for free-floating car sharing and those of round-trip and private car sharing. ­­—­Bicycle­use: 31%­travel­(much)­more­often­by­bike Second, we looked at changes in bicycle use. Across all forms of car sharing, the number of bicycle trips increases after joining a car shar- ing organisation. The group of car sharers who travel by bike more or much more often (31%) is considerably larger than the group who opt for the bike less or much less often (6%). As with car use, the high percentage of car sharers who saw no change in their number of bicycle trips is striking. Among round-trip and private car sharers, the group of customers who cycle (much) more often is six to eight times larger than the group who cycle (much) less often since they started car sharing. The reverse is true of free-floating car sharers: the proportion of customers who cycle (much) less often is slightly higher than the proportion of customers who cycle (much) more often. This slight decrease in the number of bicycle trips among free-floating car sharers can be explained by the typical travel pattern of free-floating shared cars. Free-floating systems, which operate on a per-minute fare, are charac- terised by mainly shorter rides within the city, from location A to B. So in some cases, these are likely to be journeys previously made by (elec- tric) bicycle which are replaced by a trip using a free-floating shared car. ­­—­Use­of­public­transport: limited impact Finally, we considered change in the use of public transport (bus, tram and metro). Across all forms of car sharing, the number of journeys using public transport increases slightly after joining a car sharing organisation. The group of car sharers who travel by bus, tram or metro more or much more often (16%) is considerably larger than the group who travel less or much less often by public transport (10%), although the difference is smaller than for bicycle use. However, the majority of car sharers see no change in their use of public transport (75%). Change in bicycle travel behaviour since the start of car sharing Round-trip car­share 64.1% no­change 30.0% (much)­more­ often 5.9%­(much)­less­often Private car­share 59.7% no­change 36.1% (much)­more­ often 4.2%­(much)­less­often Free-floating car­share 19.2% (much)­less­ often 64.7% no­change 16.1% (much)­more­ often Among round-trip and private car sharers, the proportion of customers who saw their use of public transport (greatly) increase is about twice as large as the group that travelled (much) less often by bus, tram or metro since starting car sharing. For free-floating car shar- ing a different trend emerges: the proportion of customers who use public transport less or much less often is almost twenty times higher than the proportion of customers who made such journeys more or much more often. As with the change in cycling behaviour, the typ- ical intra-urban travel profile of a free-floating car sharer explains the decline in public trans- port use. The average free-floating car sharing trip in Flanders in early 2022 was about 20 km and 1 hour and 40 minutes. It may be that some customers use free-floating shared cars as a sub- stitute for the urban public transport network.Change in travel behaviour by bus, tram and metro since the start of car sharing Free-floating car­share 1.8%­(much)­more­often 33.8% (much)­less­ often 64.4% no­change Private car­share 3.2%­(much)­less­often 10.1%­(much)­ more­often 86.7% no­change Round-trip car­share 10.1%­(much)­less­often 72.8% no­change 17.1% (much)­more­ often 16 29 CAR SHARER PROFILE Who are the nearly 6,300 respondents who took part in this survey? The average car sharer is around 40, highly educated, lives with one or two other family members and resides in a cen- tral city. In the following paragraphs, we explore the unweighted proportions within the sample population. Where relevant we make a distinc- tion between the different types of car sharing. ­­—­Gender­and­age 51% of our respondents were men and 49% women. 0.7% identified as neither. The propor- tion of women among private car sharers (61%) is significantly higher than in the full sample. The largest group of car sharers is found in the 26–39 age group (35%). Combined with the 40–49-year-old category, they make up 60% of all car sharers. In terms of age, there are some interesting differences between the different types of car sharing. The largest group of over-65s use round-trip car sharing schemes, at 11%. Respondents aged 50–64 were the most likely to use round-trip providers, at 27%. At 73%, the figure for private car sharers in the middle bracket, aged 26–49, is more than 10% higher than for other providers. Finally, the average age is lowest among free-floating car sharers. Whereas for round-trip and private organisa- tions, the proportion of users under 25 is just 4%, for free-floating car sharing it is 13%. —­Family­composition­and­education Just under three in ten car sharers are single (27%) and one in three live with one other per- son in the household (33%). 15% and 17% of respondents, respectively, constitute a family of 3 or 4 people. Four in ten car sharers live with at least two other people. We did not explicitly ask about the ratio of children to adults, but we can assume that a large part of that 40 per cent con- sists of families with children. Almost half of all car sharers are university graduates (49%). More than one in three have a college-level diploma. This confirms the picture that car sharers tend to be (very) highly educated. The lowest level of educational attainment is found among free-floating car sharers. Just under a third of these respondents have at most a sec- ondary school diploma, which is two and three times higher, respectively, than for round-trip and private car sharers. — Region: focal point in the cities Finally, we observe the strong representation of respondents from the largest Flemish cit- ies. More than half of the respondents come from Ghent (26%) and Antwerp (25%). If we add the responses from Leuven and Mechelen, we arrive at almost 70% of the sample. Car sharing thrives in environments with high population density, a quality supply of public transport and cycling facilities and some form of parking reg- ulation. So it makes sense that this is reflected in the geographical distribution of respondents. The average car sharer is around 40, highly educated, lives with one or two other family members and resides in a central city. 17 30 How many car sharers and shared cars did Bel- gium actually have in 2022? How many were there in Flanders, Brussels and Wallonia? On average, how many trips do car sharers make with a shared car, and what distances do they cover? How do these numbers differ for each type of car sharing? (see ‘What is car sharing?’)? And what trends emerge if we include the fig- ures from the past few years? The answers to all these questions can be found in this section.cSTATE OF PLAY CAR SHARINGIN­2022 Number of car sharers, shared cars and trips in Belgium and the three regions Flanders Belgium Brussels­Capital­Region Wallonia 67,578­active­car­sharers 3,420­shared­cars 892,194 trips 3,638­active­car­sharers 317­shared­cars 77,191 trips 50,178­active­car­sharers 1,579­shared­cars 340,495 trips 121,394­active­car­sharers 5,316­shared­cars 1,309,880 trips 18 31 THE NUMBER OF CAR SHARERSAND SHARED CARS TODAY ­­—­Belgium­has­121,394­active­car­sharers In 2022, 121,394 Belgians made active use of a shared car. Around half were Flemish (67,578), four in ten lived in Brussels (50,178), and 3% were Walloons (3,638). This means that 1.6% of Belgian driving licence holders are engaged in car sharing, or half a percentage point more than in 202117. In Flanders, this figure stands at 1.5% (+0.4 percentage points since 2021) and in Wallonia at 0.2% (more or less unchanged since the previous year). In addition, the high acceptance rate of car sharing in Brussels is particularly striking. In 2021, 4.3% of driving licence holders in Brussels were already active car sharers; in 2022 the proportion was 2 per- centage points higher at 6.3%. In our 2021 annual report, we argued that the innovation phase of car sharing is over in Bel- gium. According to Rogers’ innovation theory, the ‘early adopters’ phase has now arrived. This should manifest itself in spectacular growth in the use or sale of a product. That prediction is indeed coming true in Brussels and Flanders. In these regions, the number of active car sharers increased by 47% and 33% respectively com- pared with 2021, meaning that 6.3% and 1.5% of driving licence holders are now car sharing. The number of registered users is more than double the number of active users. Belgium had 270,796 registered car sharers by the end of 2022: 173,759 in Flanders, 90,485 in Brussels and 6,552 in Wallonia. ­­­­—­Registered­v.­active­users: further­conclusions The figures shown above almost always refer to active users, rather than registered users. This distinction is important because it has a big impact on the numbers. If, for example, 17 Calculation method: OVG 5.5: 83.38% of Flemish over-18s have a driving licence // Statistiek Vlaanderen: in 2022 there were 5,399,620 over-18s in Flanders. In 2022 therefore, around 4,502,203 Flemish people had a driving licence. We could not find any recent figures for the number of driving licences in Belgium, Brussels and Wallonia. We therefore elected to use the same percentage as Flanders (83.38 % of over-18s). This may lead to an underestimate in Brussels given pre- 2018 figures show that a quarter of Brussels residents do not possess a driving licence. 5,761 180 53,478 3,458 62,155 Number of active car sharers in Belgium by form of car sharing Number of active car sharers in Wallonia by form of car sharing Private Round-trip Free-floating In Brussels and in Flanders, the number of active car sharers has increased by 47% and 33% respectively by 2021.5,115 29,526 32,937 Number of active car sharers in Flanders by form of car sharing Number of active car sharers in Brussels Capital Region by form of car sharing 466 20,494 29,218 19 32 we look at the different forms of car sharing, we find that almost three-quarters (73%) of all registered round-trip car sharers actually took part in car sharing in 2022. For free-floating and private cost-sharing car sharers this stands at 48% and 32% respectively. The latter two forms of car sharing generally involve slightly lower (recurring) financial contributions (e.g. join- ing or subscription fees) in order to use shared cars, making the threshold for becoming a cus- tomer lower. In Belgium, 67% of all registered car sharers are free-floating car users, followed by 27% round- trip car sharers and 6% private car sharers. Among active car sharers, on the other hand, these proportions are quite a bit closer. Just over half of all active car sharers use free-float- ing cars (51%), 44% opt for round-trip cars and 5% choose private car sharing. ­­—­Belgium­has­5,316­shared­cars­ The number of shared cars in Belgium exceed- ed the 5,300 mark by the end of 2022, with 3,420 in Flanders (64%), 1,579 in Brussels (30%) and 317 in Wallonia (6%). Almost half of all shared cars are owned by round-trip providers (2,491 or 47%). There are also 1,390 individual shared cars (26%) and 1,435 free-floating shared cars (27%). In Belgium, 16% of all shared cars were fully electric at the end of 2022. This is mainly due to the efforts of providers and car sharers in Flanders, where one shared car in four is elec- tric. In Brussels and Wallonia, the figures stand at 2% and 4% respectively. More than six in ten electric shared cars belong to a round-trip provider’s fleet. The remaining 28% and 9% are found among free-floating providers or are owned by individuals who share an electric car with others. On average, each shared car is used by 22 dif- ferent active car sharers (see Table below). The proportions in terms of the average number of active users per shared car vary greatly depend- ing on the type of car sharing. A free-floating shared car is used by 43 different active cus- tomers, a round-trip shared car by 21, and for private car sharing, that ratio is four active users per shared car. The number of active car sharers per shared car is highest in Brussels (32) and lowest in Wallonia (11). General Round trip Free-floating Private Belgium 23 21 43 4 Flanders 20 20 40 5 Brussels 32 26 47 3 Wallonia 11 15 /1.5 Number of active users per shared car, by form of car sharing 1,390 174 196 2,491 785 121 1,435 620 Number of shared cars in Belgium by form of car sharing Number of shared cars in Brussels Capital Region by form of car sharing Number of shared cars in Flanders by form of car sharing Number of shared cars in Wallonia by form of car sharing 1,510 1,095 815 Private Round-trip Free-floating 20 33 NUMBER OF TRIPS,DURATION & DISTANCE In Belgium, more than 1.3 million trips by shared car were recorded between 1 January and 1 December 2022. Given that we received no information on the number of free-floating trips in the Brussels-Capital Region, the actu- al number of trips is even higher (see reader’s guide). Since these trips were for an average distance of 51 km, an approximate 67 million kilometres will have been travelled by shared cars by 2022. That represents nearly 1,669 trips around the equator or 87 trips to the moon and back. The trips lasted for an average of 7 hours 49 minutes. As the mean is sensitive to outliers and shared cars are also used for longer trips, we also include the medians. The weighted average median for kilometres travelled per trip across providers is 25 kilometres. The median journey time is 3 hours 33 minutes. A shared car record- ed an average of 363 trips, representing around one trip per day per shared car. An active car sharer made an average of 15 trips a year. Number of trips in Flanders by form of car sharing Of the more than 1.3 million trips recorded, 68% were in Flanders, 26% in Brussels and 6% in Wallonia. The majority of trips were made using a round-trip shared car (71%), almost one in three 23% using a free-floating car and 7% using a privately shared car. For the latter category, however, we only have data from the car sharing organisation Dégage (see reader’s guide), which means that the actual number of trips using private shared cars, and hence the overall number of trips using a shared car, is higher than reported here. In Flanders, the number of trips per shared car averaged 338. On an annual basis, a free-floating shared car makes almost twice as many trips as a private shared car in Flanders (410 versus 217 trips). A round-trip shared car is in between, with an average of 337 trips. In 2022 the average number of trips per active car sharer stood at 14 in Flanders. Active pri- vate car sharers made an average of 29 trips, round-trip car sharers 17 and free-floating car sharers 9 trips. In Brussels, the average distance and dura tion of a shared trip was 8 hours 25 minutes and 58 km. In terms of time, trips were on average the longest in Wallonia (8 hours 35 minutes and 56 km.) In Flanders, the averages are close to the figures for Belgium as a whole (7 hours 33 min- utes and 48 km), which is not unexpected, given the Flemish predominance in the total number of trips. A journey using a round-trip shared car takes 8 hours 00 minutes on average in Belgium (median: 3 hours 36 minutes) and covers an average of 58 kilometres (median: 27 km). Free-floating shared cars generally cover a slightly shorter distance: 20 kilometres on aver- age. Trips are also shorter in time terms: one hour 41 minutes on average. Private shared cars 89,594 509,373293,227 Private Round-trip Free-floating Average distance ride (km) in Flanders by form of car sharing Average journey duration in Flanders by form of car sharing Average number of trips per shared car in Flanders by form of car sharing 337 217 410 79.0 58.3 20.3 26:00:00 07:41:22 01:40:34 29 9 17 Average number of trips per car sharer in Flanders by form of car sharing 21 34 HISTORICAL GROWTH ­­—­Strong­growth­of­active­car­sharers The first time Autodelen.net collected (some) figures for car sharing in Belgium was in early 2017. The number of registered car sharers then stood at just over 28,000. Over the past six years, this number has risen by a factor of almost 10 to the current level of around 270,000. If we look at the number of active car sharers, we observe an increase of about 40% in 2022 compared with a year earlier (see graphic below). The number of active car sharers in Belgium increased by 33,000 in both 2022 and 2021. record the longest trips on average: 26 hours and 79 km (median: 10 hours). In terms of estimated daily use, a shared car in Belgium is used for an average of 476 min- utes per day, equating to 32% of the time. A free-floating vehicle is in use for an average of 114 minutes, equating to 8% of the time. For round trip car sharing this is an average of 492 minutes, or 34% of the day. For private car shar- ing this rises to 926 minutes or 64% of the time. In both Wallonia and Brussels, shared cars are in use about 40% of the time. In Flanders this is a little below 30%. However, these figures must be significantly qualified. By use, we mean here the average time a shared car is reserved per day. The reservation time does not correlate one-to-one with the actual driving time in all car sharing systems. A typical trip with a round- trip or privately shared car consists of a journey from location A to location B, a time period during which the shared car is stationary and a journey back from B to A. Thus, the journey time or reservation time is longer than the actu- al driving time. In free-floating car sharing, ‘one way’ journeys (from A to B) are much more fre- quent, so the actual driving time more closely matches the journey time. This also explains the lower per-day use. The large differences in these data show that we should not lump the different types and systems together. Different car share systems attract different types of users. Users of free-floating systems, which work on a per-minute and/or per-kilometre rate, mainly make shorter trips from A to B, while most round-trip shared cars, which apply an hourly rate, make on average somewhat longer trips from A to B and back. With private car sharing, on the other hand, you only pay for the distance driven, making longer use more advantageous in comparison with the other systems. Just as in 2021, free-floating car sharing record- ed the strongest growth by comparison with other car sharing systems, recording an addi- tional 78% of active car sharers. Growth rates are slightly lower for round-trip car sharing, but there the stable annual growth is particu- larly striking. In 2022, the number of customers increased by around 12%. Both round-trip and free-floating car sharing have virtually doubled the number of active car sharers in two years. For private car share we found a 13% rise in active car sharers. The biggest growth in the number of car shar- ers was found in the capital. In Brussels the number of active car sharers rose by 47% over the year. In other words, almost half as many Brussels residents again will have taken a trip in a shared car in 2022 as in 2021. This strong growth is mainly due to the rise of free-floating car sharing. In Flanders the number of active car sharers rose by 33% in comparison with 2021, and in Wallonia by 28%. ­­—­Strong­increase­in­shared­cars In 2022 the number of shared cars rose by 14% in Belgium (+671 vehicles). This is the strongest growth in the past five years. Large contrasts can be seen in the evolution of the number of (electric) shared vehicles across car share segments. The round-trip shared car fleet increased by 12% in 2022 compared with a year earlier (+266 cars) and by 49% compared with 2018. Private car sharing organisations saw the total number of shared cars decline by 9% by 2022. This decrease is mainly explained by a change in the way Cozywheels counts the number of private shared cars in Brussels and Wallonia and should therefore be seen as a one-off adjustment to the data. The number of Over the past six years, the number of car sharers increased by almost a factor of 10, from 28,000 to 270,000 (registered) car sharers today. Private Round-trip Free-floating Total 54,578 87,745 5,09222,204 34,889 47,764 62,155 53,478 32,374 5,761 121,394 Historical overview of active car sharers in Belgium 120,000 90,000 60,000 30,000 0 2020 2021 2022 22 35 free-floating shared cars increased by almost 60% in 2022, reaching a new peak after the record in 2018. This is explained by the arriv- al of German player Miles and the expansion of Poppy’s fleet. At the end of 2018 there were 910 free- floating shared vehicles. At the end of 2022 there were 1,435. Based on the announce- ments made by free-floating providers, we expect further strong growth in the number of free-floating shared cars in Belgium in 2023. — Growth in electric shared cars stalls The growth in the number of electric shared cars slowed down in 2022. While between 26% and 30% more electric shared cars entered the market in 2020 and 2021, the figure was 5% in 2022. As a result, the proportion of electric cars in the total shared fleet fell from 17% to 16%. There are several explanations for this decline. On the one hand, the spillover effects from the corona pandemic and the war in Ukraine are causing very long delivery times for new cars. Second, the effects of scrapping the Flemish zero-emission premium in 2020 are now visi- ble on the ground. Together with high charging rates due to the energy crisis, this makes invest- ment in electric shared cars a less obvious choice in 2022. In 2022 the number of electric round-trip shared cars rose by 17% in comparison with 2021. A year earlier, growth stood at 45%. The propor tion of electric cars in the total shared round-trip fleet was 22% by 2022, the highest percentage in the past five years. Private car sharing organisations recorded strong growth in the number of electric cars (42%, or 22 additional electric shared cars). The number of electric free-floating shared cars rose by 20% in comparison with 2021. This is explained by Poppy’s decision to scale back its electric shared car offering in recent years for operational and financial reasons. That brings the proportion of electric shared vehicles in the overall fleet to 16%. The Brussels-Capital Region has seen the great- est growth in shared cars (+18%) in comparison with the other regions but at the same time saw the number of shared electric vehicles decline by 32% on the previous year. That brings the proportion of e-vehicles in the overall fleet to 2%. In Flanders, the proportion is much high- er (24%) and the number of shared electric cars also continued to grow in 2022 (+7%). — More and longer trips In comparison with a year earlier, 19% more jour- neys were made using a shared car in Belgium in 2022 (1,312,234 vs 1,107,390). We further see that the average trip distance is slightly longer than in 2021 (51 versus 46 km). The average journey time rose from 6 hours 20 minutes in 2021 to 7 hours 49 minutes in 2022. The explanation lies mainly in the sharp increase in the average distance and duration of free-floating trips. The number of journeys made with a round-trip shared car increased by almost 30% compared with 2021 (from 725,000 to 926,987 journeys) and the average journey time also increased by 42 minutes, to 8 hours. Among free-floating car sharing organisations, the increase in the average distance (from 12 to 20 km) and dura- tion (from 41 min to 1h41min) of shared trips is particularly striking. There are two reasons for this. First, free-floating car sharing providers allow ‘one way’ trips between different cities in Belgium. This was not the case in previous years, or much less so, resulting in more longer trips. Second, operators have put more effort into offering economical day packages, formu- las where a fixed cost is paid for a full day’s use of the shared car. This makes longer journeys more affordable than with regular pricing. For private car sharing organisations, we observe a fairly large increase in the number of trips, from 53,000 in 2021 to almost 90,000 in 2022 (+71%). In turn, the average distance fell from 111 to 79 km. Average trip duration also fell, from 29 hours to 26 hours. In Flanders, the number of shared trips increased by 44% and the average trip was half an hour longer than in 2021. Finally, the average number of trips per shared car in Belgium also rose by 14% when com- pared with a year earlier, from 318 to 363. The magic barrier of one trip per day on average is all but broken, which is good news for the prof- itability of the car sharing business model in Belgium. The number of trips per shared car is growing most strongly for private car shar- ing, more precisely at the provider Dégage. The number of trips per shared car at Dégage rose from 148 to 217 over the year (+48%). Growth in Flanders also stood out. There, trips per shared car rose by more than a quarter over the year, from 326 to 374. The number of electric shared cars increased among round-trip and private opera- tors, but decreased among free-floating providers. Historical overview of number of shared cars in Belgium Private Round-trip Free-floating Total 3,874 1,804 1,380 690 4,645 2,225 1,520 900 5,316 2,491 1,435 1,390 5,000 4,000 3,000 2,000 1,000 0 2020 2021 2022 23 36 SUMMARY OF KEY FIGURES CAR SHARERS SHARED CARS TRIPS DURATION DISTANCE Number of active car sharers Number of registered car sharers Number of shared cars Number of electric shared cars Average number of active users per shared car Average number of trips per shared car Number of trips Average num- ber of trips per shared car per day (334 days) Average number of trips per active car sharer Average journey duration Median journey duration Average journey distance (km) Median journey distance (km) Belgium TOTAL 121,394 270,796 5,316 851 23 363 1,312,234 1.09 15 7:48:52 3:33:00 51 24.8 Round-trip car sharing 53,478 73,532 2,491 537 21 374 926,987 1.12 17 8:00:25 3:35:50 58 27 Free-floating car sharing 62,155 180,837 1,435 240 43 411 295,581 1.23 10 1:41:07 /20.3 / Private car sharing 5,761 16,427 1,390 74 4 217 89,666 0.65 29 26:01:53 10:00:00 79.1 / Flanders TOTAL 67,578 173,759 3,420 804 20 338 892,194 1.01 14 7:33:07 3:32:54 47.9 25.9 Round-trip car sharing 29,526 43,226 1,510 516 20 337 509,373 1.01 17 7:41:22 3:38:04 58.3 30.4 Free-floating car sharing 32,937 117,779 815 220 40 410 293,227 1.23 9 1:40:34 0:27:54 20.3 14.7 Private car sharing 5,115 12,754 1,095 68 5 217 89,594 0.65 29 26:00:00 10:00:00 79 / Brussels TOTAL 50,178 90,485 1,579 34 32 430 340,495 1.29 16 8:25:13 3:38:06 58.4 23.2 Round-trip car sharing 20,494 25,468 785 12 26 434 340,423 1.3 17 8:21:00 3:36:00 58 23 Free-floating car sharing 29,218 63,058 620 20 47 //////// Private car sharing 466 1,959 174 2 3 72 72 0.22 4 65:00:00 52:00:00 178 / Wallonia TOTAL 3,638 6,552 317 13 11 426 77,191 1.28 22 8:35:17 3:41:35 56.4 27.3 Round-trip car sharing 3,458 4,838 196 9 19 426 77,191 1.28 22 8:35:17 3:41:35 56.4 27.3 Free-floating car sharing //////////// Private car sharing 180 1,714 121 4 1.5 //////// 24 37 — Car sharing organisation: a legal entity that has its own or leased fleet and/or relies on pre-existing vehicles (belong- ing to individuals or legal entities). All a car sharing organisation’s vehicles are available to users at any time unless they are in use by another member or the owner, undergoing maintenance or being recharged. — Registered user/car sharer: a person who is a customer or member of a car sharing organisation, whether or not by paying an entry fee and/or a periodic subscription fee. Membership gives the user access to the car sharing organisation’s shared cars. ­­—­Active­user/car­sharer: a registered user who has made at least one trip using a shared car in the last year. — Journey time: the total time during which the user has exclu- sive access to the shared car, regardless of the actual driving time. This could also be described as reservation time. A typical trip with a round- trip or privately shared car consists of a journey from location A to location B, a time period during which the shared car is stationary and a journey back from B to A. Thus, the journey time or reservation time is longer than the actu- al driving time. In free-floating car sharing, ‘one way’ journeys (from A to B) are much more fre- quent, so the actual driving time more closely matches the journey time. — Average journey time and distance: to calculate average journey time and distance for a given car sharing organisation segment we used weighted averages. This means that the relative share of a given car sharing organ- isation (based on the total number of trips) is taken into account. — Average number of users per shared car: the quotient of the number of a car sharing organisation’s active users and the number of shared cars it offers. — Average number of journeys per user: the quotient of the number of journeys made using shared vehicles from a given car sharing organisa- tion between 01/01/2022 and 01/12/2022 and the number of active users of the same organisation. — Average number of journeys per shared vehicle: the quotient of the number of journeys made using shared vehicles from a car sharing organ- isation between 01/01/2022 and 01/12/2022 and the number of shared vehicles provided by that organisation. — Replacement ratio: the number of private vehicles replaced by one shared car. There are two types of replace- ment ratio, real and hypothetical, and these are combined in an integrated replacement ratio. Methodologically, real and hypothetical replacement ratios have a different status. The real replacement ratio is based on the real trend in car ownership up to the time of the study. The hypothetical replacement ratio is based on answers given instinctively by respondents. This reflects intentions. For more details see under Methodology. gGLOSSARY 25 38 ­­­­—­Annex­1: Questionnaire used for the­car­sharers’­impact­survey­ _In the past 12 months, how often have you reserved a shared car from car share provid- er x? (Once a week or more on average / more than once a month on average but less than once a week / once a month on average / less than once a month on average / once / never) _How many private cars does your household currently own (including work-related and company cars)? (none/1/2/3/ 4 or more) _IF 2. = 1/2/3/4 or more, THEN: How many work-related and company cars does your household currently own? (none/1/2/3/4 or more) _IF 2.a = 1/2/3/4 or more, THEN: Have you used a mobility budget for this purpose (i.e. have you opted for a smaller salary or company car so that you had extra budget left over for other sustainable transport alternatives or cash income)? (no/yes) _IF 2. = 1/2/3/4 or more, THEN: How many of the cars do you share with others? (none/1/2/3/ 4 or more) _In your family, have you dispensed with a car by joining car share provider x? (no/yes) _IF 3. = yes, THEN: How many cars have you dispensed with by joining car share provider x? (1/2/3 or more) _IF 3. = yes, THEN: What part did your membership of car sharing provider x play in this decision? (of no importance/of little importance/of some importance/of great importance/of very great importance) _How likely do you think it is that you would have purchased an (additional) car if you had not joined car sharing provider x? (We would definitely have bought an (additional) car/We would probably have bought an (additional) car/We would have considered buying an (additional) car/We would not have bought an (additional) car) _How often do you currently use the following transport modes? (scale: daily or almost dai- ly / 1 – 3 times a week / 1 – 3 times a month / less than once a month / never or almost nev- er / don’t know) – (Bus, tram or metro, Train, Motorbike or moped, Bicycle, Electric bicycle, (Shared) (electric) cargo bike or bicycle with tow bar, Pedelec, Shared bike, Scooter, Own car as driver, Shared car as driver, (Shared) car as passenger, Taxi, Walking, Other) _How has your use of other means of transport changed since joining car sharing provider x? (scale: Much more often – Often – No change – Less often – Much less often) – (Bus, tram or metro, Train, Motorbike or moped, Bicycle, Electric bicycle, (Shared) (electric) cargo bike or bicycle with tow bar, Pedelec, Shared bike, Scooter, Own car as driver, Shared car as driv- er, (Shared) car as passenger, Taxi, Walking, Other) _What is your gender? (m/f/x/rather not say) _How old are you? (in years) [open field n which to enter age in years] _How many members does your household have, including you yourself? (1/2/3/4/5 or more) _How many driving licences are there in your household? (1/2/3/4/5 or more) _What is the highest qualification you have obtained? (Primary education/secondary education/college/university/postgraduate) _What is your employment situation? (working full-time / working part-time / seeking work / incapacitated for work/ student / retired / other) _What is your postcode? [open field n which to enter postcode] aANNEXES 26 39 ­­—­Annex­2: Summary­of­car­share­providers­in­Belgium­since­inception PLATFORM PLATFORM REGION STARTED ENDED ROUND-TRIP Cambio Wallonië Wallonia 2002 Cambio Brussel Brussels 2003 Cambio Vlaanderen Flanders 2004 Zen Car Brussels en Flanders 2011 2020 Bolides Flanders 2012 2020 (B2B only) Wibee Belgium 2014 Partago Flanders 2015 Ubeeqo Brussels 2016 2019 Stapp.in Flanders 2016 Battmobility Flanders 2017 CoopStroom Flanders 2019 Justdrive Flanders 2019 2020 ShareMobility Flanders and Wallonia 2020 Claus2you Flanders 2021 Flexigo Flanders 2021 Klimaan Flanders 2021 Autosphère Wallonia 2022 FREE-FLOATING Drivenow Brussels 2016 2019 Zipcar Brussels 2016 2019 Poppy Flanders 2018 Brussels 2019 GreenMobility Flanders and Brusselss 2020 Miles Flanders and Brusselss 2022 PRIVATE Dégage!Flanders and Brusselss 1999 Cozywheels Belgium 2003 Tapazz Belgium 2014 2019 (still only B2B) CarAmigo Belgium 2015 2019 (still only B2B) Drivy Belgium 2016 Taken over by Getaround in 2019 Getaround Belgium 2019 (after takeover of Drivy) 27 40 COLOPHON Publisher responsible Autodelen.net, Koningin Astridlaan 185 box 201, 9000 Ghent Content Johannes Rodenbach, Jeffrey Matthijs, Bram Seeuws, Suzanne Ryvers and Sarah Decombel Design Trien Pauwels, trien.org Translation Architekst With thanks to BattMobility, cambio, Claus2you, CoopStroom, Cozywheels, Dégage, Flexigo, Getaround, GreenMobility, Klimaan, Miles, Partago, Poppy, ShareMobility, Stapp.in and Wibee. Copyright­and­re-use Unless otherwise stated, everything in this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence. This means you may copy, adapt and further dis- tribute this publication, even for commercial purposes, provided that you credit the creator of the work. More info via creative- commons.org. Autodelen.net, February 2023 This publication was prepared with the support of the Interreg North-West Europe project eHUBS, the Flemish Government, the Flanders Agentschap Binnenlands Bestuur and Brussels Mobility. 28 41 Car Share Program for Eagle County Mayors and Managers June 16, 2023 42 What is a Car Share Program? •A form of short-term car rental with more flexibility than traditional rentals •A membership-based model that reduces cost of vehicle ownership •Comes in a variety of models (private, public, partnership) •System design is customizable to specific markets •Reserved and accessed by variety of means (web, app, mailed FOB, or lock-box) •Convenient pick-up or drop-off locations •https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23OooBtIDz0 Town of Vail |TR vailgov.com 43 Car Share Opportunities Opportunities 1.Achieve housing goals to reduce on-site parking and increase housing density 2.Increase accessibility and equity to mobility solutions 3.Support environmental and climate goals –reduces 9-15 private vehicles per car share vehicle* 4.Compliment regional transportation initiatives 5.Reduce VMTs (Vehicle Miles Traveled), traffic congestion and parking demand 6.Improves guest experience and marketability *Green Commuter, Colorado Car Share 44 Car Share Program Models Town of Vail |TR vailgov.com Program Type Description Examples 3rd Party Vendor Program and fleet managed by specialized 3rd party vendor Zip Car, Envoy, Evie, Share Now Self-Managed Organization owns and manages the fleet and program City of Aspen, City of Golden Public-Private (NGO or business) Partnership Public entity adds support (financial, program design, visibility, locations) to bolster program success Green Commuter & Central Valley, Blink Mobility and City of Los Angeles, Colorado Car Share and Denver/Boulder Other (Peer-to-peer, fractional, traditional rental) Individuals can rent car out to others, shared ownership of vehicles, and other Turo, Getaround, Snapcar, Drivy, etc. 45 Car Share Model Strengths & Weaknesses Town of Vail |TR vailgov.com Program Type Strengths Weaknesses 3rd Party Vendor •Self-funded •Risk is with vendor •Strong fleet management •Inherent risk •Unknown local market •Obstacles and barriers may exist •Less alignment with community goals Self-Managed •Experienced fleet managers •Focused on meeting specific goals (e.g., parking and density) •Significant resources for car share maintenance and operations •High insurance expenses Public/Private Partnership •Program success is encouraged by municipal support •Program can be tailored towards goals •Flexible program structure •Pilot program success is not a given •Multi-agency coordination required •Some car share programs of this type have not gone beyond the pilot stage 46 Car Share Models in Action Town of Vail |TR vailgov.com Community # of Vehicles Annual Program Cost Cost to User 3rd Party Vendor Boulder, Denver, Fort Collins (Zipcar) 225 No cost to local government $7.50/hr, $70 annual membership Self-Managed Aspen (Car to Go)7 $56K (Not including staff or cost of cars which were grant funded) $25 application fee,monthly $10 fee,$5.50/hour plus $0.25-$.65/mile Public/Private Partnership Boulder & Denver County (Colorado Car Share) 50+Non-profit, self-sustaining, collab costs for chargers and discounts Discounted for Boulder Housing Partners, $5.50-$7.95/hr Summit County- Breckenridge (Colorado Car Share) 2 EVs in Breck; 2 EVs in Frisco; 2 EVs CMC campuses Pilot program through 2024 through Xcel grant funding $5.50 -7.95/hour plus per mile charge $0.43 -$0.48/mile; Optional membership for $12/month 47 Example Program: Aspen Car To Go Key Features •Geographically bounded •Web -based scheduling •60-minute user orientation •Open to anyone with valid driver's license •No discounted rates for specific user groups •Multiple Vehicles –6 Hybrids, 1 EV, AWD, SUV and Truck •Designated parking spots •Designated EV charging stations Town of Vail |TR vailgov.com 48 Example Program: Colorado Car Share (Boulder & Denver) Key Features: •400-mile radius or in State of Colorado, whichever is larger •Web -based scheduling, reservations or on-demand •Online user orientation •Open to anyone with valid driver's license •Discounted rates for specific user groups (students,affordable housing residents,etc) •Multiple vehicle types including hybrids, EVs, etc •Designated pickup/drop-off locations •Designated EV charging stations Town of Vail |TR vailgov.com 49 Car Share Considerations Town of Vail |TR vailgov.com 50 Grant Programs and Funding Opportunities Town of Vail |TR vailgov.com Funding: •Innovative Mobility Grant from Colorado Energy Office program is currently closed and future status unknown:https://www.codot.gov/programs/innovativemobility/grants •Inflation Reduction Act –Full $7500 towards leasing or buying a qualifying electric vehicle •Xcel Energy program could assist with electric vehicles and charging infrastructure.Could locate in Minturn to take advantage •Energy Smart Colorado / Utility (HCE) provides rebates for EVs in Vail and EV charging elsewhere, could apply to business start-up •Collaborative approach across the region could share costs and risks of program 51 Next Steps Town of Vail |TR vailgov.com 1.Identify interested entities and create committee to steer program development 2.Determine appropriate program model, structure, timeline, and funding sources 3.Discuss future RFP 4.Gauge public interest and support 5.Customize parameters to meet goals 6.Formalize program 7.Implementation 52 Discussion Town of Vail |TR vailgov.com Questions and Discussion 53 December 1, 2023 Proposal: RFP 2023-10-23 Vail, Avon, Minturn, and Eagle County Regional Car Share Program Cameron Millard, Energy Efficiency Coordinator Town of Vail 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81657 cmillard@vail.gov Dear Mr. Millard, On behalf of Colorado CarShare please accept this response to the Request for Proposals (RFP) for an Eagle County Regional Car Share Program with Vail, Avon, Minturn, and Eagle County. Building on our 25+ years of experience and current fleet of 75+ vehicles, Colorado CarShare provides community access to shared, electric vehicles and other mobility options that have a positive impact on health, wealth, and the shared environment. We aim to make Colorado a "cooler," healthier, and more socially equitable place to live by helping our community to "get there better." In our proposal we offer to work with partner communities to complete a feasibility and readiness assessment to launch a robust electric vehicle (EV) community carshare in Eagle County, working closely with community partners to advance transportation equity and human and environmental health. This may be a bit different than what you are expecting, but we envision implementation of a carshare program based on the outcomes of a feasibility and readiness roadmap where we can leverage existing resources, in order to ensure greater likelihood of success during launch. Our proposed process includes assessing county-wide carshare-mobility potential, with an emphasis on electric and including under-serviced areas such as workforce housing and new residential developments. The goal will be to improve the health and economic prospects of mixed income areas while simultaneously reducing parking / traffic congestion and carbon emissions. We will also focus on complementing other shared mobility options and or transit hubs (existing or new). This comprehensive and thoughtful process will result in a blueprint to bring myriad EV carshare benefits to all residents, particularly in mixed-income areas. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration, and please note that this proposal shall remain valid for one hundred twenty (120) days from the due date of the proposal (December 1, 2023). Sincerely, Peter D. Krahenbuhl, C.E.O. 54 Colorado CarShare · 2855 63rd St., Boulder, CO 80301 www.carshare.org · 303.720.1185 · info@carshare.org 2 2. Qualifications Colorado CarShare Organizational Capacity & Operations Colorado CarShare has over 25 years of experience with shared community mobility. In recent years, with the urgent need to increase resilience to climate change, respond to high healthcare, housing, and food costs, and societal changes related to lifestyles and employment brought on by the COVID pandemic, we have seen a surge of interest in community carshare. There has been a particular demand by individuals, businesses, and government for more electric vehicle (EV) carshare options. Our fleet of vehicles across the state is conveniently located and available to our members 24/7, where people live and work. We help reduce the burden of family households’ second largest expenditure next to shelter -- transportation – while extending critical access to healthcare, employment, grocery stores, and lower cost housing. We also provide access to the outdoors, including regional parks, recreational trails, the mountains and open space for people who otherwise would not have access to nature. Our largest existing carshare fleets are in the Denver-Metro Region and Boulder County, the latter of which is where we began a successful carshare program in 1998. We have since expanded from urban areas to include smaller communities (e.g. Longmont, Louisville, and Lafayette), as well as less dense, affordable housing areas neighborhoods. We recently launched in Summit County (Breckenridge) working with Xcel Energy on their Transportation Electrification Plan (TEP), and we are currently testing a community carshare co-management opportunity with the town of Aspen’s CarToGo program. Through these initiatives, we are the only carshare organization intimately familiar with operating this service under the unique terrains, conditions, and socio-economic demographics within Colorado. In every geographic program, we’ve worked closely with local partners, including: ● Municipalities: City and County of Denver, Boulder, Boulder County, Breckenridge, Aspen, etc.; ● Property Partners, including private property owners and affordable housing: Denver Housing Authority, Boulder County Housing Authority, Urban Land Conservancy; ● Business: Boulder Chamber (on-site car location partnership), Denver Metro Chamber, the Alliance Center (bi-directional EV carshare location) and local businesses; ● Educational institutions (University of Colorado, Naropa University, CO Mountain College); ● Local Nonprofits: Boulder Food Rescue, Denver Streets Partnership, the Alliance Center, etc. ● Utilities: Xcel Energy In 2017 we commissioned a study to electrify our fleet, with the goal of becoming the nation’s first all- electric nonprofit carshare organization. The following reflects our efforts from that process: Current Fleet Profile: ● 77 fleet vehicles; 55 in service across the state (31% EVs); ● 22 additional EVs poised for deployment with existing program with Xcel Energy; ● Estimated 40% of our vehicles service to low-to-moderate income neighborhoods; 55 Colorado CarShare · 2855 63rd St., Boulder, CO 80301 www.carshare.org · 303.720.1185 · info@carshare.org 3 Colorado CarShare Team We currently are a nonprofit team of 8 staff, led by a full Board of Directors and our Executive Director, who would be actively involved in this project. Our fleet, tech and operations managers, as well as our member service, administration and outreach staff will all actively participate in this program. Core staff and Board Members are available here (https://carshare.org/team/) and include the following: ● Key Personnel – Peter D. Krahenbuhl, CEO & Executive Director; Bobbi Solis, Member Services & Outreach Manager; Andrew Rathbun, Fleet & Technology Manager; Sarah Greenholz, Member Services & Admin Assistant; ● We also have after-hours on-call support for 24/7 assistance in case of real-time emergencies, and we will be looking to add staff up along the I-70 Corridor as our program grows there. 3. Project Development Colorado CarShare’s mission, goals and outputs are directly aligned with the stated goals for an Eagle- Valley regional car share program in the RFP. This includes the following: 1. Reductions in greenhouse gas emissions 2. Less congestion and parking demand 3. Decreased VMT (Vehicle Miles Travelled) 4. Increased mobility alternatives, especially for local workforce and residents 5. Enhanced flexibility for guests who use regional transit, electric bike share, and airport services 6. Equitable access to mobility solutions In our round-trip, station-based carshare model, each carshare vehicle creates the following benefits: ● Replaces 9-13 personally owned vehicles ● Reduces an ~ 150,000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) ● Averts over 8,000 gallons of gasoline from being used* (*EV savings are greater) ● Prevents over 73 tons of greenhouse gasses from entering the atmosphere* ● Helps our members drive an average of 44% less and save up to $6,500 in car expenses ● Reduces demand for parking, and traffic/congestion Development Process Colorado CarShare will work closely with the Partner Communities, including Vail, Minturn, Avon and Eagle County, along with other community stakeholders, to develop a countywide carsharing program based on an initial feasibility assessment and readiness process. In terms of program development, the recommended process will include the following components: 56 Colorado CarShare · 2855 63rd St., Boulder, CO 80301 www.carshare.org · 303.720.1185 · info@carshare.org 4 Phase 1 – Community Site Assessment We will work with partner communities to identify prospective carshare locations based on resident demographics, partner needs, and existing or potential new dedicated charge station availability. This will include identifying the most relevant neighborhoods for introducing carsharing (both existing and new developments with parking reduction requirements, for example). We will also consider factors impacting electric carshare such as customer adoption potential, equity considerations, operational complexity, technical feasibility and viability. Equity considerations may also include current transportation deficiencies, including lack of mobility options, affordability challenges, etc. We will also consider charge station ownership and administration factors. Phase 2 – Stakeholder Engagement & Policy Recommendations A robust process for community engagement as well as developing site host partnerships (public & private) will be vital to the success of this program. This will include the following components: ● For potential sites, identify key stakeholders recommended for engagement during the planning process and/or implementation; ● Pilot engagement experiences; ● Use results for future engagement during implementation of additional locations; ● Collate EV carshare best practices policies from our experience and similar municipalities; ● Recommend policies that will be relevant for carshare expansion in the region. This will include identifying barriers to adoption and lessons learned from other municipalities; Phase 3 - Recommendations & Program Implementation Based on the above activity we will synthesize analyses to arrive at suggested potential EV carshare locations at a community/neighborhood and site-specific level. This will include business and financial needs assessment, fleet size, funding requirements, vehicle procurement, replication, and sustainability considerations. Recommendations for implementation will include a refinement of estimates provided in this proposal related to partner costs, phases, and timeline for program launch, as well as requirements for operational success. We will work with the partner communities through the following process timeline to implement the car share system and meet community goals. Program Timeline Months Activity (Responsible Party) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sign Grant Agreement Identify & overlay relevant data inputs (e.g., housing, resident density, transit) Identify most relevant carshare neighborhoods/locations 57 Colorado CarShare · 2855 63rd St., Boulder, CO 80301 www.carshare.org · 303.720.1185 · info@carshare.org 5 Create policy recommendations that help support carshare Host site partnership assessment & engagement Create partner/community outreach plan Finalize target neighborhoods for community engagement & launch Conduct pilot engagement Procure & Deploy Vehicles Rollout additional locations Business Model, Pricing & Cost Sharing Our carshare business operates on a membership model that allows users to choose a rate plan that best suits their vehicle needs and driving demand. Fees are based on time (hourly rates in 15 minute increments) and mileage. That way they literally only pay for what they use. See Section 4. Membership, below regarding specific rate plan options. This is the earned-income component of our nonprofit business model. Based on this, in our “free- market” locations, such as core urban corridors like downtown Denver, each vehicle needs to earn about $1.2k per vehicle per month to be self-sustaining. To complement earned income in other locations, for example in more remote areas, smaller communities, or for example affordable housing residences, we work with our partners to identify and source funding to bridge likely revenue gaps. This allows us to support equitable transportation access in those communities where other providers do not operate, which is a part of our nonprofit model. Think of it as “self-drive transit”, which should be treated and supported as such. So for example, where one vehicle location requires $14,400 annually on average to be viable ($1.2k / mo. / vehicle), and it only earns half of that in earned income, then the “gap” that needs to be filled is $7,200 per vehicle location per year. This may come in the form of foundation or business grants or sponsorship, partnerships like our program with Xcel Energy (EV procurement), or community partner cost-sharing, including vehicle procurement and or operational costs. Community partner cost-sharing can also be directed toward resident carshare credits, subsidies and discounts, for example. This helps incentivize residents to access the program, as we’ve discovered the biggest barrier to regular carshare use is simply getting started. This approach also helps communities meet their goals around mitigating traffic and parking congestion, carbon emissions and other pollution, as well as improving social equity related to affordable transportation. 58 Colorado CarShare · 2855 63rd St., Boulder, CO 80301 www.carshare.org · 303.720.1185 · info@carshare.org 6 Through this process we will work with community partners to identify sources of funding where feasible, for example through the Community Accelerated Mobility Project (CAMP) out of the Governor’s Energy Office, which may be available to support a program such as this. Regardless, in addition to capital procurement costs (vehicles), any revenue not earned from carshare Member use will require partner support. Under-Represented Communities Colorado CarShare has decades of expertise integrating carshare in mixed-income communities. We recently implemented EV carshare in the affordable housing community of the Mariposa district of Denver (located in the Lincoln Park neighborhood). Launched in 2019 in partnership with the City of Denver and Denver Housing Authority, this location has been a resounding success. We attribute this success to resident demographics and careful attention to community input and collaboration. This work has given us critical experience related to cross-cultural/language education, centering equity, listening carefully as we seek community feedback, and utilizing outreach channels and methods that resonate with specific neighborhoods. Working with the City and County of Denver through the CARES Act during the COVID pandemic, we also replicated our success in Mariposa in a half dozen other Denver neighborhoods and have gleaned valuable insight that can be leveraged. Not only do we use an equity lens related to carshare locations, but we do so with our fee structure as well. When the economic impact of COVID-19 hit, we offered free driving credit to first-responders, front line workers and volunteers. Later, we offered free carshare use to COVID vaccine appointments. Most recently, in response to the devastating Marshall Fire in Boulder County, we took immediate action to help those impacted by offering free carshare use. Where funding support is available, we offer deeply discounted carshare rates and credits in affordable housing communities. We look forward to leveraging our experience serving mixed-income communities to undertake a comprehensive and thoughtful community engagement process. We also have specific rate plan subsidies, deep discounts and carshare credit recommendations described in the Membership rate plan section, below. Member Service Profile ● More than 1/3 of our members are aged 50 and older. ● At least 50% live in low-to-mixed income (LMI) areas. ● 53.1% of members have combined family annual incomes of less than $50,000 (with 37% under $35,000 in income). ● Many of our members participate in qualified affordable housing programs ● An estimated 40% of our existing fleet services LMI residents 59 Colorado CarShare · 2855 63rd St., Boulder, CO 80301 www.carshare.org · 303.720.1185 · info@carshare.org 7 4. Membership All of our Membership rate plans and structures are available here (https://carshare.org/individual- rates/). We have 3 easy rate plans based on the following considerations: ● Peace of Mind – If you drive LESS than 5 hours per month ● Free Wheelin’ – If you drive MORE than 5 hours per month ● Simply Hourly – If you want a plan with miles included (up to 150 miles per day); great for longer, multi-day rentals * The “Hourly Max” is the limit to the per hour charge of an extended car rental and is automatically calculated. For example, a 12-hour reservation on the Free Wheelin’ plan is not $6.50 x 12 hours = $78; it is “capped” at $69/day. Mileage fees are calculated separately, making the rate you will be charged the next day for extended trip the hourly cap plus the estimated mileage per hour of your reservation. Electric Vehicle Discount! Our new EV Discount is $1 / hr or $10 / day off of the daily cap. Just choose your vehicle type by electric vehicle and enjoy the savings! Fuel and Insurance are included (*Except gas purchased during weekly rentals.) Weekly Rates – $397* Applies to 4-7 day increment car rentals; $70/week surcharge for AWDs or trucks; Includes insurance & first 250 miles ($0.30/mile after); Taxes & gas not included *EV discounted rate is $367/week; $70/week surcharge for EUV’s 60 Colorado CarShare · 2855 63rd St., Boulder, CO 80301 www.carshare.org · 303.720.1185 · info@carshare.org 8 Any additional fees members might accrue, such as late fees, parking tickets, or membership renewals, are available here (https://carshare.org/fees-credits/) Low-Income Residential Support Lower-income residents registered in a qualified affordable housing program may have options for significantly subsidized rates pending partner support. If funding is available, we recommend deep carshare discounts and subsidies that would include the following for qualified residents: ● Waived application fee ($25) + $75 in carshare credit = $100 in incentive. We find that the biggest hurdle to getting folks involved in carshare is simply getting them into the program. ● 25% off of our most affordable hourly rate plan, the Free Wheelin’ Plan ● Waived $12 monthly subscription fees User Experience For new members to sign up, all the way to finishing a reservation, the process is described here: Become a Member by completing the online application here. You must have at least 2 years of licensed driving experience to apply. Approval. It takes approximately 3-5 business days to approve membership, including processing your motor vehicle record. Your driving record must be relatively good to be approved. Key Fob / Card. Once your application is approved, your key fob will be sent in the mail in 1-2 business days. Please be patient with the Post Office and do not reserve a vehicle until you receive your fob. Watch this video to see how easy it is to use! (mobile app that will replace this is launching soon) Once they are approved as a member, the user experience from making a reservation to accessing/using/returning the vehicle, is as follows: Get Started 1. Reserve a Vehicle ● Online at reservations.carshare.org (mobile app that will replace this is launching soon) 2. When You Get to the Car ● Use your key fob to unlock the door. ● Hold the fob against the fob read on the driver’s side windshield. 3. Drive ● Every time you enter or exit the car, use your key fob to unlock and lock the doors. For vehicles with a push button start, depress the brake pedal when you push the start button. All other vehicles have the ignition key tethered to the steering column. ● Call us immediately at 303.720.1185×3 if you are running late and are unable to extend your booking (during business hours only). If you fail to notify us, you will be charged a Late Fee of $1 per minute. 61 Colorado CarShare · 2855 63rd St., Boulder, CO 80301 www.carshare.org · 303.720.1185 · info@carshare.org 9 4. At the End of Your Trip ● Return the car to its designated parking space. If the space is occupied, call us. ● Use your key fob to lock the doors and end your reservation. The following Membership policies, procedures and other member information apply and are easily accessible right on our website: ● Membership Info ● Member Handbook ● Membership Agreement
 ● Online Orientation ● Fees Schedule
 ● Privacy Policy
 ● Foreign Driving Records
 ● Insurance
 5. Insurance Our insurance coverage is detailed on our website here. For our Member drivers: As the vehicles are owned (or leased) by Colorado CarShare, the policy provides primary coverage for Auto Liability and physical damage coverages that are part of the Business Auto policy to anyone that the organization provides permission to operate the owned vehicles. The Business Auto Coverage policy is a standard Insurance Services Office with several endorsements that provide various broadened coverages. Colorado CarShare’s liability coverage is $1,000,000. This coverage pays for any bodily injury or property damage that is caused by a Colorado CarShare driver’s negligence. This would pay for injuries to someone in another vehicle or damage to their property – as long as the Colorado CarShare driver is legally liable for the damages. Damage to a Colorado CarShare vehicle caused by an accident would be paid for by our Collision coverage (Physical Damage). This coverage is subject to a $1,000 deductible. Collision coverage pays for any collision with our vehicles (including damage while parked) – regardless of who is at fault in the accident. If another party causes the damage to a Colorado CarShare vehicle, and they are found legally liable for the damage, our insurance carrier would pay for the damage, but attempt to recover the amount paid (plus our deductible) from the party who caused the damage. 62 Colorado CarShare · 2855 63rd St., Boulder, CO 80301 www.carshare.org · 303.720.1185 · info@carshare.org 10 Comprehensive Coverage pays for damage to Colorado CarShare vehicles caused by something other than a collision. (ie: theft, vandalism, hail damage, etc). Collision with an animal is also covered under Comprehensive. This coverage is also subject to a $1,000 deductible. Colorado CarShare’s policy also has a $5,000 Medical Payments limit. This pays for medical bills incurred by the driver and any passengers in a Colorado CarShare vehicle – regardless of fault. After the $5,000 limit is reached, if the other driver is legally liable, their liability policy pays for the injuries to a Colorado CarShare driver. If they have no insurance, or it is a hit and run, then Colorado CarShare’s Uninsured Motorist coverage pays for the injuries. If the Colorado CarShare driver is legally liable for the accident, after the $5,000 in Medical Payments is exhausted, his/her personal medical insurance coverage would pay for their medical bills. Other than the $5,000 in Medical Payments, Colorado CarShare’s insurance does not cover injuries to one of Colorado CarShare’s drivers if they have no medical insurance and their negligence causes the accident. * This is only a summary and not the legal language of our coverage. Exclusions that are included in CarShare’s policy are those that are standard to the industry, such as Terrorism, Terrorism that involves Nuclear, Biological or Chemical in nature, Communicable Disease, Punitive Damages. Regarding community partners being indemnified from liability, there are endorsements available that can be added to the policy to provide Additional Insured Coverages as well as provide coverage for Social Service Agency volunteers as Insureds. Organizational Insurance Policies carried by Colorado CarShare include: ● Property Policy - Covers physical assets of the organization ● General Liability Policy - Covers the office space and related office exposures ● Umbrella Liability Policy – This policy provides excess limits to protect in case of catastrophic losses. It provides these limits over the General Liability as well as the Auto Liability and Workers Compensation limits. ● Workers Compensation Policy – Required by law to cover any employees of the organization. Based on payroll of the classification of employees and their main duties. ● Directors & Officers Liability/Employment Practices Liability – Protection provided for the Board of Directors and their operational decision making as well as financial decisions. This policy also provides Employment Related Practices coverage as operations are as a NonProfit. ● Accident Policy – Provides for Medical coverages for the volunteers of the organization. ● Cyber Liability Policy – Provides protection for computer systems that contain personally identifiable information. It contains various limits for exposures related to maintaining the information you retain. 63 Colorado CarShare · 2855 63rd St., Boulder, CO 80301 www.carshare.org · 303.720.1185 · info@carshare.org 11 6. Technology, Innovation & Member Support Colorado CarShare has been operating for 25 years as one of the nation’s longest running, and still remaining carshare organizations. That implicitly requires keeping current with innovations in the industry. For example, we were the first carshare nonprofit in the nation to commit to 100% fleet electrification in 2017, and similarly we have been keeping our eye on technology trends (e.g., autonomous EVs, carshare vehicle to grid, solar to EV and hydrogen vehicles), as well as socio-economic trends (e.g., providing subsidized carshare use to lower income communities) and user trends (e.g., connecting carshare with other forms of multi-modal transportation). Colorado CarShare’s CEO also sits on the Board of Directors of the global Carsharing Association (CSA) and speaks on the latest trends in the industry. Being actively involved in the CSA allows us to be kept abreast of innovation and cutting-edge trends. Technology Our hardware is provided by Astus, a global leader in fleet and carshare vehicle service technology. The Astus telemetry technology includes the physical connection between the car and the driver, for example allowing the door to be unlocked when a legitimate reservation is made, the car to start, drive, capture miles driven, vehicle tracking via GPS, etc. Our software, called Engage, is provided by Modo, which is Canada’s leading carshare “Co-op”erative (i.e. member-owned). Modo licenses the Engage software to other North American carshare organizations. We have been working with Modo and the Engage software for over 10 years and it was built specifically for the unique needs of carshare users and operators. The software is the interface with our member customers, allowing them to sign up for the service, make reservations, obtain usage data from the vehicle through the Astus hardware, receive and pay invoices, etc. On the front-end, the user experience is seamlessly integrated via our mobile site or app, the latter of which is currently being implemented. On the backend, our staff has access to a much deeper level of administration related to fleet management, troubleshooting, member administration, support, reservations, billing and payment activity, etc. Our staff is available to our members during normal business hours (M-F, 9-5) for member service support, billing, reservations, payment, vehicle cleaning, maintenance, etc. Additionally, we have 24/7 member support for real time “urgencies”/emergencies after hours, for example if: ● Members get into an accident; ● The car is not there, or the parking space is taken; ● They get a flat tire; the car won’t start or is not drivable; ● They are unable to access the car with their key fob / RFID card; 64 Colorado CarShare · 2855 63rd St., Boulder, CO 80301 www.carshare.org · 303.720.1185 · info@carshare.org 12 7. Fleet Recommendations, Maintenance & Management We recommend battery electric (BEV) or Plug-in Hybrid EVs (PHEVs) in all locations. While we are willing to consider a limited number of hybrid or traditional internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles where an EV is not yet feasible/available (e.g., affordable truck EVs), in general it is not compatible with our goal to electrify our fleet ASAP. Fuel economy will be dependent on vehicles available / procured. Dedicated carshare charge station locations will be required to implement our program, or at least a commitment to develop charge station locations that are dedicated to carshare parking within an agreed timeframe. We are flexible with the network provider, though Chargepoint or another network with a roaming agreement is preferred. From a user perspective, our members need to be able to plug in to charge at the end of their reservation, and the partner charge station location provider must be willing to provide the charging at no cost to Colorado CarShare, or otherwise pay for it externally. In addition, we need to have basic administrative access to the charge station network account, for example to be able to receive notifications as to whether a car is plugged in/charging. Or for example, if there is an issue with the charging station, we would need to be able to create a work order request directly or through the partner station location owner. We also educate our members related to charging, both at the end of a reservation and during their trip. We provide charging RFID cards (typically ChargePoint with roaming capability) in-car, so they do not have to pay for any charging. And we encourage them to download appropriate apps to help them find charge stations should they need one during their trip. Colorado CarShare has a fleet management system and staff to perform routine maintenance, repair, cleaning, etc. We have regularly scheduled “rounds'' to perform these duties, along with “car captains” (i.e., local members who help out with basic tasks such as car washes, etc., in exchange for carshare credit). In addition, Members are required to do a walk-around at the beginning of each reservation and report to Colorado CarShare any issues that need to be addressed. This then becomes a vehicle maintenance or repair “ticket” in our system, and it is assigned staff to complete the necessary tasks. If Eagle County and Colorado CarShare agree to work together, it is assumed that we will have to hire at least one part-time fleet support person based out of the region. We will also expect a basic level of agreed support from community partners (e.g., parking enforcement, charge station access, notification if a vehicle is displaced, etc.). 65 Colorado CarShare · 2855 63rd St., Boulder, CO 80301 www.carshare.org · 303.720.1185 · info@carshare.org 13 8. Marketing, Education & Outreach Marketing and outreach for the new carshare program will be determined through the development of the readiness process in conjunction with community partners. It will be dependent on the level of community partner support for engagement and is anticipated that it will be an iterative process. Elements of that process and outreach activity may include: ● Create community partners stakeholder outreach list; ● Identify target neighborhoods for community engagement & launch; ● Conduct pilot engagement experiences; ● Create external PR, education and outreach materials (e.g., county partner media outlets, etc.); ● Create content for internal communications and outreach (e.g. social media, newsletters, etc.); ● Connect with regionally relevant stakeholders (e.g., Bustang); ● Create carshare use incentives for low-to-moderate (LMI) member residents, for example free carshare credit, subsidized rates, etc. This will be dependent on Community Partner support; ● Targeted online and electronic communications related to the above; ● On-site communications (e.g., worker housing), such as e-communications, fliers, brochures, etc. ● Referral promotions (e.g., refer a friend and get carshare credit); ● On-car branded advertising (Colorado CarShare branding; Additional partner sponsorship branding at additional cost may be considered) ● Search Engine Optimization and other digital marketing; ● On-site events (e.g., bike-to-work day, housing, ski resort, etc.) We encourage and expect community partners to help us develop engagement strategies and support. This may include, but is not limited to, outreach through housing and property managers, affordable housing authorities, municipalities, workforce outreach in the private sector (e.g. Vail Resorts), etc. 9. Budget The estimated budget below is based on an estimated program launch with eight (electric) vehicles in Year 1, noting that this will vary depending on the actual number of vehicles deployed, as well as the final cost of procured vehicles. Vehicle costs are conservative based on an average of $50k per EV, assuming that the majority will be more expensive AWD EVs, but that some may be lower cost vehicles. Year 1 also has higher up-front project management costs, including our CEO’s involvement in the feasibility and readiness process. This results in an estimated Year 1 budget of $521,400, of which $428,000 is directly related to vehicle procurement and carshare make-ready add-ons. That funding will need to be secured locally or with external funding, for example through the Community Accelerated Mobility Project (CAMP), which is a program of the Community Access Enterprise (CAE) in partnership with the Colorado Energy Office (CEO). 66 Colorado CarShare · 2855 63rd St., Boulder, CO 80301 www.carshare.org · 303.720.1185 · info@carshare.org 14 On the income side, Colorado CarShare’s contribution to the overall budget through earned revenue from carshare Member use (hourly + mileage fees) is an estimated $57,600. Thisi is based on low-to- medium use in Year 1 of $600 / vehicle / month. The Year 2 budget reflects the removal of all of the procurement and make-ready costs, as well as lower project management costs, resulting in a budget of $84,400. On the income side, a modest increase in estimated usage results in an earned income goal of $72,000 ($750 / vehicle / month), resulting in required partner cost sharing or other support of only $12,400 in Year 2. Our goal is that an increase in carshare usage would allow for the program to be self-sustaining by year three. We recommend a two-year pilot and then a review of program viability, including options to continue the program. Note that this will likely result in fleet size and or location adjustments. Yr. 1 EV Carshare project - Eagle County Budget Cars 8 Expenses Amount Qty Total Notes EV Charging Station Purchase - - - Partner Contribution - site host EV Charging Station installation - - - Partner Contribution - site host Vehicle procurement $50,000 8 $400,000 Costs will vary depending on vehicle type/cost Tech & Graphics (Procure & Install) $1,500 8 $12,000 Make-ready add-ons (e.g. snow tires, ski racks, etc.) $2,000 8 $16,000 Vehicle Insurance $2,500 8 $20,000 Vehicle Maintenance & Repair $1,000 8 $8,000 Waived Membership Application Fee $25 100 $2,500 Estimate depends on new member acquisition & use Waive $12 monthly subscription fee for one year $144 100 $14,400 Estimate depends on new member acquisition & use 25% off of the Free Wheelin' plan for one year $2,500 5 $12,500 Assumes 5% of new members are regular users Member Service, Admin & Outreach Support* $1,000 12 $12,000 One year (12 months) of support Fleet / Operations Support* $1,000 12 $12,000 One year (12 months) of support Project Management/Overhead* $1,000 12 $12,000 One year (12 months) of support *Staff Expenses Total Program Budget $521,400 $428,000 Income Partners (EVSI) - EVSI - Property owner 67 Colorado CarShare · 2855 63rd St., Boulder, CO 80301 www.carshare.org · 303.720.1185 · info@carshare.org 15 External Funding: Grant, Local support, etc. $463,800 89.0% CO CarShare Contribution (earned income)** 600 12 $57,600 11.0% ** CO CarShare Contributions will continue past first year $521,400 Yr. 2 EV Carshare project - Eagle County Budget Cars 8 Expenses Amount Qty Total Notes EV Charging Station Purchase - - - Partner Contribution - site host EV Charging Station installation - - - Partner Contribution - site host Vehicle procurement $0 8 $0 Tech & Graphics (Procure & Install) $0 8 $0 Make-ready add-ons (e.g. snow tires, ski racks, etc.) $0 8 $0 Vehicle Insurance $2,500 8 $20,000 Vehicle Maintenance & Repair $1,000 8 $8,000 Waived Membership Application Fee $25 100 $2,500 Estimate depends on new member acquisition & use Waive $12 monthly subscription fee for one year $144 100 $14,400 Estimate depends on new member acquisition & use 25% off of the Free Wheelin' plan for one year $2,500 5 $12,500 Assumes 5% of new members are regular users Member Service, Admin & Outreach Support* $1,000 12 $12,000 One year (12 months) of support Fleet / Operations Support* $1,000 12 $12,000 One year (12 months) of support Project Management/Overhead* $250 12 $3,000 One year (12 months) of support *Staff Expenses Total Program Budget $84,400 Income Partners (EVSI) - EVSI - Property owner External Funding: Grant, Local support, etc. $12,400 14.7% CO CarShare Contribution (earned income)** 750 12 $72,000 85.3% ** CO CarShare Contributions will continue past first year $84,400 68 Colorado CarShare · 2855 63rd St., Boulder, CO 80301 www.carshare.org · 303.720.1185 · info@carshare.org 16 10. Evaluation Within the context this regional program, we will focus on evaluating four primary goals: 1) Launch, operate, and maintain an agreed number of carshare vehicles in Eagle County. We will measure that through fleet vehicle reports and usage data. 2) Provide program-related education, marketing / outreach, and communications to advance shared mobility options in mixed-income communities. We will measure this through the number of people reached through digital (i.e., e-communications) and physical (events, fliers, etc.) channels. 3) Provide successful access to an agreed to number of shared EVs in mixed-income communities in Eagle County: Include subsidies with community partner support, such as discounted rates and credits for mixed-income and workforce residents to ensure they have access to sustainable mobility solutions. Evaluation metrics will include: ● Number of individual (members) / families serviced in project areas; ● Carshare hours available and booked by members by location; ● Percentage of time booked by location; ● Total bookings and distance by location; ● New member applications, location-based member and usage reports will be used to identify the number of members joining in the service area. 4) Become a self-sustaining regional carshare program within three years. This will occur when earned income covers costs, or if not feasible, when there is a longer-term commitment for local partner community support to fill any needed revenue gaps. Colorado CarShare will also meet with partner communities in order to ensure alignment with partner goals around mobility, environment, and equity. We measure metrics of success based on reduction in single occupancy vehicles (SOV), an increase in the use of alternative mobility modes, and an increase in personal wealth and access to vital services in disadvantaged communities. We do so through: 1) Data from our carshare vehicle use; 2) External national studies; and 3) Direct Member surveys. We translate our data to quantify environmental, social and economic impacts, based on the fact that on an annual basis, every round-trip station-based carshare vehicle in service results in the following: • Replaces 9-13 personally owned vehicles; • Reduces an ~ 150,000 vehicle miles traveled (VMT); • Averts over 8,000 gallons of gasoline from being used* (*EV savings are greater); • Prevents over 73 tons of greenhouse gasses from entering the atmosphere* • Helps our members drive an average of 44% less and save around $6,500 in car expenses Multiply that by our full fleet & 4k+ Members to measure our overall community impact! 69 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4.1 Item Cover Page DATE:February 6, 2024 SUBMITTED BY:Jamie Leaman-Miller, Community Development ITEM TYPE:DRB/PEC Update AGENDA SECTION:DRB/PEC (5 min.) SUBJECT:DRB/PEC Update SUGGESTED ACTION: VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM REPORT ATTACHMENTS: DRB Results 1-17-24.pdf PEC Results 1-22-24.pdf 70 Present:Rys Olsen Herbert Roth Kit Austin Erin Iba Absent:Kathryn Middleton 1.Virtual Meeting Link Register to attend Design Review Board Meetings. Once registered, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining this webinar. 2.Call to Order 3.Main Agenda Final review of an exterior alteration (hot tub/walkway) Address/ Legal Description: 3013 Booth Creek Drive/Lot 4, Block 2, Vail Village Filing 11 Planner: Heather Knight Applicant Name: Thomas Conrad 3.1 DRB23-0338 - Conrad Residence Final review of an exterior alteration (storefront) Address/ Legal Description: 141 East Meadow Drive/Lot P & Tract C, Block 5D, Vail Village Filing 1 Planner: Greg Roy Applicant Name: Fusalp, represented by Suman Architects 3.2 DRB23-0453 - Solaris Conceptual review of a new multiple family residential development Address/ Legal Description: North Frontage Road West/Tract A, Middle Creek Subdivision Planner: Greg Roy Applicant Name: Town of Vail, represented by George Ruther 3.3 DRB24-0004 - West Middle Creek Conceptual only. No action taken. (Austin recused) Design Review Board Minutes Wednesday, January 17, 2024 2:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers DRB23-0338_Presentation.pdf Rys Olsen made a motion to Approve with the findings the application meets 14-10-2 & 14-10-5; Herbert Roth seconded the motion Passed (4 - 0). DRB23-0453 Plans.pdf Rys Olsen made a motion to Approve with the findings the application meets 14-10-2 & 14-10-5; Herbert Roth seconded the motion Passed (4 - 0). DRB24-0004 Conceptual Plans.pdf 1 Design Review Board Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2024 71 4.Staff Approvals Final review of an exterior alteration (deck) Address/ Legal Description: 1860 Meadow Ridge Road A6/Lot 8, Buffehr Creek Resubdivision 4.1 DRB23-0443 - Town of Vail Planner: Greg Roy Applicant Name: Town of Vail, represented by John King Final review of an exterior alteration (windows) 4.2 DRB24-0005 - Dura Residence Address/ Legal Description: 1136 Sandstone Drive A203/Lot A6, Block A, Lion's Ridge Subdivision Filing 1 Planner: Heather Knight Applicant Name: Caroline Dura, represented by Home Depot 5.Staff Denials 6.Adjournment (Austin not present for vote) Rys Olsen made a motion to Adjourn ; Herbert Roth seconded the motion Passed (3 - 0). 2 Design Review Board Meeting Minutes of January 17, 2024 72 Present:Scott P McBride John Rediker Henry Pratt Bill Jensen Robyn Smith Bobby Lipnick Absent:Brad Hagedorn 1.Virtual Link Register to attend the Planning and Environmental Commission meeting. Once registered, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining this webinar. 2.Call to Order 3.Main Agenda 4.Approval of Minutes 4.1 PEC Results 1-8-24 5.Information Update 5.1 Go Vail 2045 Transportation Master Plan Update - Tom Kassmel Tom Kassmel, Town Engineer, provided information concerning the GOVAIL Transportation Plan. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss traffic and sound mitigation. Information concerning public feedback was provided. General support and alignment with the plan. Support for sidewalks and striped shoulders. Support for "road diets", flashing beacons at road crossings, traffic calming and speed limits was presented. A discussion about speed limits of 15 mph or 20 mph was had. Key takeaways from the public feedback included support for transit (East Vail to West Vail) and free- fare from Edwards to Vail. Frontage Road skier parking was discussed. Kassmel walked the Commission through existing traffic volumes and possible volumes in the future and the potential impact on key intersections and possible roundabouts. Kassmel discussed Travel Demand Management and the possible effect of Fare Free Zones on in town traffic and parking. A plan to expand the Vail Transit Center to allow greater bus capacity and accommodate additional taxis/uber was presented. Kassmel provided information on horizontal speed control measures and a pilot study on Chamonix. Planning and Environmental Commission Minutes Monday, January 22, 2024 1:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers PEC Results 1-8-24.pdf Bobby Lipnick made a motion to Approve ; Robyn Smith seconded the motion Passed (6 - 0). PEC 1-22-24 Traffic, Transit Center, I-70 & Technology.pdf PEC Memo 1-22-24.pdf 1 Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of January 22, 2024 73 Additional discussion concerning traffic speeds ensued. The roads with the most speeding were presented with corresponding traffic calming opportunities. A proposed outline of traffic calming policy was walked through. Proposed improvements to I-70 were presented. Kassmel presented noise study information and increases observed. Potential methods to reduce noise along the I-70 corridor were provided. A summary of I-70 tunnel options was also provided. Kassmel concluded his presentation with information on Technology Trends. This includes autonomous vehicles, alternative fuel vehicles and the ITS, connected vehicles and drone delivery. 6.Adjournment Henry Pratt made a motion to Adjourn ; Robyn Smith seconded the motion Passed (6 - 0). 2 Planning and Environmental Commission Meeting Minutes of January 22, 2024 74 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.1 Item Cover Page DATE:February 6, 2024 SUBMITTED BY:Stephanie Bibbens, Town Manager ITEM TYPE:Information Update AGENDA SECTION:Information Update SUBJECT:December 4, 2023 AIPP Meeting Minutes SUGGESTED ACTION: VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM REPORT ATTACHMENTS: December 4, 2023 - Minutes.pdf 75 Public Notice - Art in Public Places Board Meeting Minutes Monday, December 4, 2023 AIPP Board members present: Tracy Gordon, Susanne Graf, Kathy Langenwalter, Courtney St. John, Lindsea Stowe Others present: Molly Eppard - AIPP Coordinator, Greg Hall – Director of Public Works 1. Call to Order 2. No Citizen Participation 3. Main Agenda 3.1. Approval of November 6, 2023 minutes. 3.2. Dobson Ice Arena introduction of project and overview of public art opportunities • Architect Patrick Gleason of Populous and Greg Hall Director of Public Works. • Greg updates the Board on the status and timeline of the major renovation of Dobson Ice Arena. • The project has an allocated public art budget. • Patrick highlights exterior and interior opportunities for public art with the design of the arena. He reviews the site plan, orientation of the entrances, pedestrian and vehicular flow, and interior uses. • He discusses an artistic screening opportunity required due to a cooling tower. The existing concrete towers with the murals will have to be removed. There is also a screening opportunity on the northeast. • They would like to modify the existing art gates, so they are functional at the wider loading dock. • Interior locations for art/murals are discussed. • Construction is aimed to start April 2025. Greg remarks it is ideal to bring AIPP Board, artist(s) and designers in early within the process. 3.3. Artist in Residency (AIR) visioning session • Facilitated by Nine Dot Arts, Molly Casey and Mary Gangel. 4. Coordinator Updates. • Winterfest update – new banners and printed materials are in production for winter programs. • Old structure easily demolished where AIR studio will be sited. • Strategic Plan formally adopted by Council at the November 7th meeting. • Summer 2024 activations and installation of sculpture by Artist in Residence Squire Broel. • Preliminary discussion of summer murals. Molly will inquire with Vail Valley Foundation (VVF) if they are interested in sponsoring another mural in partnership with GoPro. • Colorado University – College Media Communications Information capstone class presentations are given to Board. 5. Adjournment. 76 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.2 Item Cover Page DATE:February 6, 2024 SUBMITTED BY:Missy Johnson, Housing ITEM TYPE:Information Update AGENDA SECTION:Information Update SUBJECT:December 12, 2023 VLHA Minutes SUGGESTED ACTION: VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 2023-12-12 VLHA Minutes.pdf 77 Vail Local Housing Authority Minutes Tuesday, December 12, 2023 3:00 PM Vail Town Council Chambers and via ZOOM PRESENT ABSENT Steve Lindstrom Craig Denton Kristin Williams Dan Godec James Wilkins STAFF George Ruther, Housing Director Martha Anderson, Housing Coordinator Missy Johnson, Housing Coordinator 1. Call to Order 1. 1 Call to Order The meeting was called to order at 3 p.m. with a quorum present. Soon after, all authority members were present. 1.2 Zoom Meeting 1 (Pre-Executive Session) 1.3 Zoom Meeting 2 (Post-Executive Session) 2. Citizen Participation 2.1 Citizen Participation Presenter(s): Kyle Diebel, Vice President, ANB Bank Avon Jaris Romeo and Kyle Deibel joined the meeting from ANB bank of Avon and Eagle. They provided a brief of who they are and highlighted creative banking solutions relevant to local Eagle County Employees seeking home-ownership. They are a portfolio lender and can make decisions quickly. They can offer 125% of AMI buyers 95% financing without private mortgage insurance. They are familiar with the variety of deed restrictions in Eagle County. Godec pointed out that with 260+ residences available for purchase with Timber Ridge that there will be a lot of opportunity and anticipate 9- 10 months from now that the Authority will seek unique solutions. Kyle Deibel will be the primary point of contact for prospective buyers in the future. 3. Approval of Minutes 3.1 VLHA November 28, 2023 Minutes MOTION: Williams SECOND: Denton PASSED: (5 - 0) 4. Main Agenda 4.1 Colorado Housing and Land Use Survey Results Presenter(s): David Flaherty, CEO & Founder of Magellan Strategies 78 Background: The complete survey can be found here: Colorado Housing and Land Use Opinion Survey | Magellan Strategies Flaherty reviewed the presentation with primary focus on the local and state vs. regional data. The survey was conducted in September 2023. Survey objectives was to provide provide public sector clients, public policy partners, elected officials and media with reliable voter opinion data regarding housing and land use policy. Topics such as satisfaction with current housing situation, how much of a problem is the availability of rental and ownership opportunities, rate of speed of residential housing grown and development, interpreting respondents' definition of "local control", trust of local vs. state government, views of state policies and more. Highlights include: Among those that say that state policy would be more effective in addressing affordable housing (26% of Coloradoans), they were asked why. They believe that themes include: NIMBYism and special interests, state policy makers have the "bigger picture" in mind compared to local decision-makers, the State has more resources and control over policy enforcement, affordable housing is a statewide problem and needs a statewide solution, keeping in mind that 1 out of 4 Coloradoans have this view. 49% of respondents believe that the state is not more effective in addressing the problem of affordable housing. Reasons include: lack of local specificity, governments should not be involved in housing, lack of trust in state government and belief that they are detached from local problems, and distrust in state government and the fear of overreaching state policies causing harm to communities. The opinion of respondents about supporting state policy prohibiting local governments from restricting the construction of multi-unit housing on residential land zoned for single-family homes was split down the middle. Those that support the above mentioned policy for a variety of reasons: because of the need for affordable housing, the opinion that local government should not be involved, and the diverse mix of diverse housing types will help address the problem. Those that appose have a firm belief in local control, don't trust the government at the state level, believe that it decreases the value of single-family homes in the area and/or density could create infrastructure and parking problems. The survey showed a wide variety of reasons why respondents believe there is a housing problem, many of which are out of anyone's control. Most local communities have a "NIMBY" or negative attitude regarding multi-unit residential developments, and they would prefer single-family residential developments. Rent control will be introduced in legislative session and the details of the policy will very much determine the support or lack of support. Godec asked Flaherty what his sense of what might be proposed in this next session. Flaherty suggests that there will be 12-13 bills and they will go through a lot of small policies over time that could affect state zoning policies and mountain communities. 79 Linstrom asked for advise and Flaherty comments that the best place for the Authority to use their voice would be individually as well as the authority cases of appeal with consistency. Let them know that the group is there, to share how these policies could negatively effect the mountain community. Flaherty suggests to show them where we've been and what we've done with the all of the above successes. Show them Chamonix and other projects that have showed success. Show that the authority is not representing the developers etc. The youth are activists and there is a story to share with them. Be sure they hear a lot from Vail and show the partnerships with local business and the community. 4.2 Discussion on Deed Restricted Home Demographics Presenter(s): George Ruther, Housing Director Ruther and Magellan led a further discussion around demographics as it relates to the survey and future policy and solutions. Who, what, where, why people are residing in Town of Vail EHUs. Seeking Magellan's assistance to survey owners and/or renters to quantify and qualify who is living in the deed restricted housing. Magellan has not done this type of survey but he would be very interested. He suggests nice, open-ended verbatim information. Another interesting survey would be the STR owners. The data would be a strong public advocacy vehicle in effort to begin to establish trends and changes in demographics over time. Authority members are very interested in getting strategic moving forward. Ruther and Magellan will reconnect and bring forward to the Authority for review and consideration. 4.3 West End Project Presentation Presenter(s): Jim Telling, Managing Partner - Vail Valley, East West Partners Jim Telling joined the Authority to present the West End Project as a summary of the planning, site plan and next steps. After 620 days, they are getting to their first public meeting with the planning commission on January 17th and hope to move forward with the County Commissioners in the first quarter. Quick summary about the project. The presentation has been used with a variety of local HOAs, Edwards Metro District and more. Telling's intention is the present the project to the group and seeks a letter of support from the Authority. Located just to the west side of the Gas House, East West purchased the site just over two years ago. They have spent $1.8M thus far and currently working through the county process. 275 housing units with 70% deed restricted for Eagle County residents with 5% of the 70% will be deed-restricted units (80-100 AMI) in Eagle County. In summary, it will be a high density, residential development. This is a typical Urban Wrap project with parking in the middle. It will include fitness, pool, dog park, community garden with a very sustainable approach. All electric and very close to lead platinum with goal to be net zero operating. 80 East West is working with Dominique who is the planner of Edwards River Park. The project is stand alone and parking is 430 spaces which equates to one per bedroom. Master leases are a possibility for organizations such as East West Hospitality, Venture Sports, Eagle County School District and more. East West does not want to master lease the whole thing. Telling requested a letter of support from the Authority and/or individuals. East West is going broad in the community outreach because housing is needed in all shapes and sizes. 4.4 Resolution No. 12, Series of 2023, A Resolution Adopting a Budget and Making Appropriations to Pay the Costs, Expenses and Liabilities of the Vail Local Housing Authority, for its Fiscal Year January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024. Presenter(s): Jake Shipe, Budget Accountant and Martha Anderson, Housing Coordinator MOTION: Wilkins SECOND: Williams PASSED: (5 - 0) 5. Matters from the Chairman and Authority Members 5.1 Matters from the Chairman and Authority Members Presenter(s): Steve Lindstrom, VLHA Chairman Lindstrom recapped the PEC meeting from December 11. The Housing Zone District was thoroughly discussed and passed 4:3. First reading at Town Council on Tuesday, December 19 and second reading on Tuesday, January 2nd. The Authority has consensus to support the West End project with a letter of support. Williams moved to leave the regular session and enter executive session at 4:26 p.m. MOTION: Williams SECOND: Godec PASSED: (5 - 0) 6. Executive Session 6.1 Executive Session per C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(a)(e) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of real, personal or other property interests and to determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators regarding: Certain real property acquisitions. Presenter(s): George Ruther, Housing Director 6.2 Executive Session per C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(a)(e) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of real, personal or other property interests and to determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators regarding: Vail InDEED. Presenter(s): Martha Anderson, Housing Coordinator 81 6.3 Executive Session per C.R.S. §24-6-402(4)(a)(e) - to discuss the purchase, acquisition, lease, transfer or sale of real, personal or other property interests and to determine positions relative to matters that may be subject to negotiations; developing strategy for negotiations; and instructing negotiators regarding: EHU Exchange. Presenter(s): Martha Anderson, Housing Coordinator 7. Any Action as a Result of Executive Session 7.1 Any Action as a Result of Executive Session The authority reentered regular session at 5:07 p.m. James Wilkins made a motion to Authorize Instructed to staff to move forward as determined in Executive Session. MOTION: Wilkins SECOND: Denton PASSED: (5 - 0) 8. Adjournment 8.1 Adjournment 5:00 PM (Estimate) The meeting adjourned at 5:07 p.m. MOTION: Williams SECOND: Wilkins PASSED: (5 - 0) 9. Future Agenda Items 9.1 Vail Housing 2027 Land Banking Investment Banker Discussion Review Retirement and Remote Worker Policies 10. Next Meeting Date 10.1 Next Meeting Date January 9, 2024 82 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.3 Item Cover Page DATE:February 6, 2024 SUBMITTED BY:Abby Oliveira, Economic Development ITEM TYPE:Information Update AGENDA SECTION:Information Update SUBJECT:January 18, 2024 VLMDAC Regular Meeting and January 19, 2024 VLMDAC Special Meeting Minutes SUGGESTED ACTION: VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM REPORT ATTACHMENTS: VLMDAC special meeting minutes January 19, 2024.pdf VLMDAC meeting minutes January 18, 2024.pdf 83 Public Notice Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Council Special Meeting January 19, 2024 10:30am AGENDA Jana called the meeting to order at 10:34am Board Members attendees: Esmarie Faessler (Sonnenalp), Jana Morgan (Sweet Basil) Liana Moore (Antlers), Theron Gore (East West), Sam Biszantz (Town Council) Douglas Kessler (Homeowner), Kim Fuller (Jaunt Media Collection) Additional attendees: Liz Gladitsch (Town of Vail), Slade Cogswell (970), Michal Bednarczyk (970), Kristin Yantis (MYPR), Mia Vlaar (Town of Vail), Ben Walton (Miles), Beth Wright-Cheeseman (Miles), Jeremy Coleman (BAAG), Michal Bednarczyk (970), Caitlin Hanely (East West), Chris Romer (VVP), Bobby Lheureux (Jaunt Media Collection), Robyn Smith (Resident) I. Brand Platform Discovery Phase Review & Discussion (30 minutes) Resonance Presented findings of the research, survey and focus groups II. Brand Architecture Review & Discussion (90 minutes) Resonance and VLMDAC Board Familiarize yourself with this Brand Archetypes resource for the discussion. Understand that a brand position is an internal guide, not the external consumer facing brand. 3 different brand archetypes were presented. The board was asked to narrow down to two for Resonance to move forward The Magician // Connector The Ruler // Excellence The Creator // Visionary 84 Majority agreed on The Magician // Connector but the archetype word “Magician” isn’t the one word that best describes the brand position statement. Connector resonates best. Ruler seems to be more of the Vail Mountain brand position. Creator was a close second but not as strong as connector. III. Other Business IV. Adjournment Liana / Theron / Unanimous Upcoming Meetings: VLMD Meeting, Tuesday, February 6, 2024 Vail Town Council Chambers VLMDAC Board Meeting, Thursday, February 15, 2024, Grand View Room 85 Vail Local Marketing District Advisory Council Monthly Meeting January 18, 2024, 8:30am Grand View Room AGENDA VLMDAC Board Member Attendees: In Person- Esmarie Faessler (Sonnenalp), Jana Morgan (Sweet Basil) Liana Moore (Antlers), Theron Gore (East West), Douglas Kessler (Homeowner), Sam Biszantz (Council Rep/Root & Flower) Kim Fuller (), Jonathan Reap (Four Seasons), Zoom- Additional attendees: In Person- Liz Gladitsch (Town of Vail), Michal Bednarczyk (970), Mia Vlaar (Town of Vail), Chris Romer (Vail Valley Partnership), Carlie Smith (Town of Vail) Kim Brussow (Vail Valley Partnership), Slade Cogswell (970) Zoom- Kay Schneider (Vail Valley Partnership), Parker Owens (Bravo! Vail), Jenna Luberto (BAAG), Jeremy Coleman (BAAG), Danielle Amos (Miles), Ivy Vaughn (Miles), Amanda McNally (MYPR), Bob Brown (BAAG), Caitlin Row, Callie Winter, Eric Thompson (Ripe), Geoff Grimmer, Kristin Yantis (MYPR), Sara Ostrand, Steve Correa (Ripe) Call to Order Esmarie called the meeting to order 8:44 AM I. SWEARING IN NEW VLMDAC MEMBERS Stephanie Bibbens Kim Fuller, Jonathan Reap, and Jana Morgan II. MONTHLY FINANCIAL REPORT Through November tax collections $146.900, 3% down from 2022, 7.8% up from budget Year to date collections total $4.6mil., 1.6% increase from 2022 and 2.4% increase compared to budget Expenditures $5.4mil., that is $1.4mil better than budget (year-end expenditures are still coming in) Interest collections to date $125,000 investment account earning a little over 5% III. MINUTES Approval • VLMDAC December 21, 2023 Minutes Approval Approval first Jonathan/ Jana second /unanimous 86 IV. INFORMATION & DISCUSSION UPDATES Motion to move our booking agency from BookDirect to Ripe Jana First / Jonathan Second/unanimous • 2024 GOALS & TACTICS Tactics presented and discussed. New Influencer Program strategy with Trip Scout was discussed and will be tabled until February’s meeting where a new direction will be presented. Ripe presented on their booking engine. This would replace the existing lodging platform, BookDirect. Liz asked the Board to consider moving to Ripe with a partial contract with BookDirect to overlap. • 2024 CAMPAIGN UPDATE 6-30-90 second videos presented • WEBSITE UPDATES Interactive Map being developed will present in February • TOWN OF VAIL UPDATES • OTHER BUSINESS • ADJOURNMENT Jana called the meeting to adjourn 11:09am Jonathan first / Douglas second /unanimous Upcoming Meetings: Special VLMDAC Board Meeting, Friday, January 19, 2024, Virtual VLMD Meeting, Tuesday, February 6, 2024, Vail Town Council Chambers 87 VLMDAC Board Meeting, Thursday, February 15, 2024, Grand View Room 88 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5.4 Item Cover Page DATE:February 6, 2024 SUBMITTED BY:Jake Shipe ITEM TYPE:Information Update AGENDA SECTION:Information Update SUBJECT:January 2024 Revenue Update SUGGESTED ACTION: VAIL TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM REPORT ATTACHMENTS: 240206 Revenue Update.pdf 89 1 TOWN OF VAIL REVENUE UPDATE February 6, 2024 4.0% General Sales Tax Upon receipt of all sales tax returns, December 2023 collections are estimated to be $5,670,649, up 1.2% from 2022 and up 10.4% from the amended budget. 2023 YTD collections of $41,826,064 are up 2.6% from 2022 and up 4.3% from the amended budget. Inflation as measured by the consumer price index was up 3.4% for the 12-months ending December 2023. The annual amended budget totals $40.1 million. 0.5% Housing Fund Sales Tax Upon receipt of all sales tax returns, December 2023 collections of the 0.5% housing sales tax are estimated to be $685,388, up 2.0% from 2022 and up 10.9% from the amended budget. 2023 YTD collections of $5,068,867 are up 2.3% from 2022 and up 4.3% from the amended budget. The 2023 amended budget for the housing fund sales tax totals $4.9 million. Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) Unaudited 2023 RETT collections total $7,993,433, down (16.8)% from 2022. The 2023 RETT amended budget totals $7,600,000. Construction Use Tax Unaudited 2023 Use Tax collections total $2,548,274 compared to $2,189,830 in 2022. The 2023 amended budget totals $2,200,000. Lift Tax Unaudited 2023 lift tax collections total $6,536,433, up 1.0% or $62,815 from 2022. The 2023 amended budget totals $6,234,550. Daily Parking Sales Daily sales from the parking structures from November through January 25 total approximately $3,233,153, down $(131,494), or (3.9)% from this time last year. This amount includes daily fees charged to parking passholders. Parking Pass Sales Parking pass sale revenue through January 26 for the 2023/2024 winter season totals $1,126,290, down (24.5)% or $(365,236) from this time last year. A total of 1,566 passes have been sold this year. A detailed breakout of 2023/24 passes sold by type is provided in the chart on the following page: 90 2 *In order to provide a better customer service experience while staff explores an alternative pass sales system, the annual fees for the Eagle County Local and Vail Local passes were waived. Prior year passes were auto-renewed for the 2023/2024 season for pass holders who purchased these passes for the 2022/2023 winter season. Of the 1,582 auto renewed Eagle County Locals passes 1,288 have been used during the 2023/2024 winter season. Of the 1,539 auto renewed Vail Local passes 1,314 have been used during the 2023/2024 winter season. Summary Across all funds, year-to-date total revenue of $94.2 million is up 5.2% from the amended budget and up 7.2% from prior year. The majority of the positive variance compared to the amended budget is due to higher-than-expected sales tax, daily parking fees, earnings on investments, construction use tax, and real estate transfer tax. Pass Type 2023/24 Oct-Jan Sales 2023/24 Auto- Renewed Passes Utilized Total 2023/24 Passes 2022/23 Oct-Jan Sales Change from prior season Premier 25 - 25 21 4 Vail Village Business Premier 60 - 60 65 (5) Lionshead Business Premier 3 - 3 11 (8) Employee 418 - 418 495 (77) Employee Plus 351 - 351 359 (8) Eagle County Local* 373 1,288 1,661 1,602 59 Vail Local* 336 1,314 1,650 1,578 72 Total 1,566 2,602 4,168 4,131 37 91 2023 Amended Budget % change % change 2018 2019 2020 Budget Variance from 2022 from Budget January 3,597,610$ 4,079,994$ 4,076,145$ 3,422,209$ 5,217,125$ 5,904,670$ 5,911,505$ 6,835$ 13.31%0.12% February 3,818,356 4,137,087 4,285,633 3,691,850 5,686,585 6,030,915 6,041,040 10,125 6.23%0.17% March 4,167,880 4,237,933 2,243,518 4,364,797 5,912,059 6,034,154 6,055,800 21,646 2.43%0.36% April 1,233,474 1,445,071 427,518 1,751,528 2,234,296 2,213,286 2,264,836 51,550 1.37%2.33% May 830,193 763,756 503,828 1,061,516 1,227,974 1,043,778 1,117,956 74,178 -8.96%7.11% June 1,648,443 1,606,748 1,023,517 2,149,312 2,317,931 2,132,497 2,272,392 139,895 -1.96%6.56% July 2,412,425 2,480,292 2,084,644 3,491,668 3,507,973 3,227,335 3,405,034 177,699 -2.93%5.51% August 2,195,175 2,237,050 2,138,838 2,877,550 2,997,389 2,757,598 2,928,324 170,726 -2.30%6.19% September 1,540,490 1,600,100 1,767,393 2,359,528 2,441,331 2,246,025 2,504,886 258,861 2.60%11.53% October 1,106,596 1,165,176 1,371,727 1,734,964 1,729,558 1,591,193 1,763,592 172,399 1.97%10.83% November 1,264,600 1,260,314 1,425,461 1,880,397 1,902,643 1,750,432 1,890,050 139,618 -0.66%7.98% December 4,070,870 4,237,178 3,625,189 5,749,365 5,602,018 5,153,117 5,670,649 517,532 1.23%10.04% Total 27,886,112$ 29,250,698$ 24,973,411$ 34,534,683$ 40,776,882$ 40,085,000$ 41,826,064$ 1,741,064$ 2.57%4.34% 2022 2023 Amended Budget % change % change Collections Budget Variance from 2022 from Budget January 645,487$ 720,043$ 720,897$ 854$ 11.68%0.12% February 702,730 735,514 736,780 1,266 4.85%0.17% March 719,717 735,514 738,220 2,706 2.57%0.37% April 269,018 259,234 271,923 12,689 1.08%4.89% May 146,657 134,924 132,326 (2,598) -9.77%-1.93% June 280,460 258,023 275,104 17,081 -1.91%6.62% July 424,602 390,634 411,944 21,310 -2.98%5.46% August 361,165 332,272 352,414 20,142 -2.42%6.06% September 294,861 271,272 303,671 32,399 2.99%11.94% October 207,397 190,805 212,347 21,542 2.39%11.29% November 230,383 211,952 227,854 15,902 -1.10%7.50% December 671,982 618,223 685,388 67,165 1.99%10.86% Total 4,954,459$ 4,858,410$ 5,068,867$ 210,457$ 2.31%4.33% Town of Vail Revenue Update February 6, 2024 4.0% GENERAL SALES TAX2023 Budget Comparison 0.5% Collected Sales Tax 0.5% HOUSING SALES TAX 2023 Budget Comparison Actual 4.0% Collections 4.0% Collected Sales Tax20212022 92 Town of Vail Revenue Update February 6, 2024 YTD 4% General Sales Tax Collections By Year Through December 31 December 4% General Sales Tax Collections By Year Through December 31 •December collections of $5,670,649 are up 1.2% from prior year and are up 10.0% from the amended budget. $4,237,178 $3,625,189 $5,749,365 $5,602,018 $5,670,649 $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 $29,250,698 $24,973,411 $34,534,683 $40,776,882 $41,826,064 $0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000 $30,000,000 $40,000,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 •YTD collections of $41,826,064 are up 2.6% from prior year and are up 4.3%from the amended budget. •Inflation as measured by the consumer price index was up 3.4% in December. 93 Town of Vail Revenue Update February 6, 2024 December 0.5% Housing Fund Sales Tax Collections By Year Real Estate Transfer Tax by Year YTD Through December 2023 December Collections YTD Collections •This chart shows YTD collections of 1% RETT, segmented by real property values. 2023 collections are down (16.8)% from the prior year. $0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 $14,000,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Sales Less Than $2.5 Million Sales $2.5 to $5 Million Sales $5 to $10 Million Sales Over $10 Million $7,224,668 $10,448,525 $13,371,555 $9,603,456 $7,993,433 •December collections of $685,388 are up 2.0% from prior year and are up 10.9% from the amended budget.YTD collections of $5.1M are up 2.3% from this time last year and are up 4.3% from the amended budget. $671,982 $685,388 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 2022 2023 $4,954,459 $5,068,867 $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 2022 2023 94 Town of Vail Revenue Update February 6, 2024 Construction Use Tax by Year YTD Through December 2023 YTD Lift Tax Collections YTD Through December 2023 •Use Tax collections through December 31 total $2,548,271, compared to $2,189,830 from this time last year. This is an increase of 16.4%. $2,467,928 $2,078,577 $3,682,745 $2,189,830 $2,548,274 $0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $4,000,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 •2023 YTD lift tax collections of $6,536,433 are up 1.0% or $62,815 from the same time last year. $5,341,369 $4,095,812 $5,518,890 $6,473,618 $6,536,433 $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 95 Vail Business Review November 2023 February 6, 2024 The Vail Business Review breaks down the 4.5% sales tax collected for the month of November 2023. The 4.5% sales tax includes the town’s general 4% sales tax and the 0.5% housing sales tax supported by Town of Vail voters during the November 2021 election, effective January 1, 2022. The housing sales tax sunsets on December 31, 2051. Overall, November 4.5% sales tax was down from the prior year (0.6%). Retail increased 4.2%, lodging decreased (1.6%), food and beverage decreased (3.2%), and utilities/other decreased (13.9%). Excluding the out-of-town category, sales tax for the month of November was down (0.5%) compared to prior year. Town of Vail sales tax forms, the Vail Business Review, and sales tax worksheets are available on the internet at vail.gov. You may email me to request to have the Vail Business Review and the sales tax worksheet emailed to you automatically. Please remember when reading the Vail Business Review that it is produced from sales tax collections as opposed to actual gross sales. If you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at (970) 479-2125 or Carlie Smith, Finance Director, at (970) 479-2119. Sincerely, Lauren Noll Sales Tax Administrator 96 Town of Vail Business Review November Sales Tax Collections by Year November 2023 Sales Tax November 2022 Sales Tax Collections by Business Type November 2023 992,797 Lodging 570,793 Food & Beverage 363,973 Utilities & Other 190,192 $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 4.2%(3.2%)(13.9%) Retail 1,267,783 1,389,683 1,884,730 $0 $250,000 $500,000 $750,000 $1,000,000 $1,250,000 $1,500,000 $1,750,000 $2,000,000 $2,250,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 General Sales Tax Housing Sales Tax 2,129,949 2,117,756 • November 2023 retail sales increased 4.2%, lodging decreased (1.6%), food and beverage decreased (3.2%), and utilities and other decreased (13.9%). • The figures above reflect 4.5% sales tax. Retail 953,138 Lodging 580,140 Food & Beverage 375,821 Utilities & Other 220,851 $0 $200,000 $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 (1.6%) • This report represents collections of Town of Vail sales tax, as opposed to actual gross sales. • On January 1st, 2022, Town of Vail sales tax increased from 4.0% to 4.5% on all items except food for home consumption. 2022 and 2023 above include the 0.5% increase to sales tax, depicted in light blue. Prior years show 4.0% sales tax collections. • Total November 2022 collections were $2,129,949; November 2023 collections were $2,117,756, down from the prior year (0.6%). 97 Town of Vail Business Review November 2022November 2023 Geographic Area Trends by Year November Sales Tax Sales Tax by Location November 2023 Sales Tax Other Areas 13% Lionshead 11% Out of Town 43% Vail Village 33% • Vail Village sales tax increased 5.6%, Lionshead decreased (10.2%), Other Areas decreased (7.3%), and Out of Town decreased (0.7%). Excluding Out of Town collections, all areas were down (0.5%). • The figures above reflect 4.5% sales tax. 215,620 241,663 236,093 185,306 164,197 218,068 365,625 526,845 766,998 501,233 456,978 663,571 $0 $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000 $900,000 $1,000,000 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Vail Village Out of Town Lionshead Other Areas • This chart shows November sales tax collections by geographic area over time. • 2022 and 2023 include the 0.5% increase for housing sales tax, depicted in lighter shades. General 4.0% sales tax collections are shown in darker shades. 283,656238,497 917,357690,439 729,107 214,287 911,362 263,000 Other Areas 12% Lionshead 10% Out of Town 43% Vail Village 35% 98 Retail Business 4.5% Sales Tax Detail November 2023 Sales Tax Town of Vail Business Review Accommodation Services Sales Tax by Year $0 $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 $250,000 $300,000 $350,000 Apparel $150,481 Grocery $126,356 Gallery $9,941 Gifts $4,447 Jewelry $30,203 Retail Liquor $33,437 Retail Other $392,975 Sporting Goods $151,040 Online Retailers $93,712 Retail Home Occupation $206 • Overall, November 2023 accommodations services decreased (1.6%) from prior year. Short-term rentals decreased (1.2%) and hotels and lodges decreased (1.9%). • 2022 and 2023 include the 0.5% increase for housing sales tax, depicted in lighter shades. General 4.0% sales tax collections are shown in darker shades. • Short-term rental sales tax collection numbers include online marketplace facilitators like Airbnb and VRBO. Revenue collections from facilitators may include some hotels and lodges. 324,721 252,773 Hotel and Lodges Short-Term Rentals 2023 2022 2021 254,661 319,267 325,478 251,526 99 Retail 146,449.31                                            126,739.21                                            15.55% Lodging 71,977.71                                              72,403.86                                               ‐0.59% F & B 41,786.94                                              57,067.82                                               ‐26.78% Other 2,786.10                                                 27,445.40                                               ‐89.85% Total 263,000.06                                            283,656.29                                             ‐7.28% Retail 73,509.38                                              82,202.34                                               ‐10.58% Lodging 81,980.74                                              87,467.01                                               ‐6.27% F & B 55,780.76                                              66,100.62                                               ‐15.61% Other 3,015.72                                                 2,727.40                                                 10.57% Total 214,286.60                                            238,497.37                                             ‐10.15% Retail 464,782.16                                            468,809.14                                             ‐0.86% Lodging 264,549.51                                            260,407.19                                            1.59% F & B 608.64                                                    739.12                                                     ‐17.65% Other 181,421.47                                            187,401.23                                             ‐3.19% Total 911,361.78                                            917,356.68                                             ‐0.65% Retail 308,056.13                                            275,387.43                                            11.86% Lodging 152,285.04                                            159,861.47                                             ‐4.74% F & B 265,797.02                                            251,913.50                                            5.51% Other 2,969.14                                                 3,276.57                                                  ‐9.38% Total 729,107.33                                            690,438.97                                            5.60% Retail 992,796.97                                            953,138.11                                            4.16% Lodging 570,793.00                                            580,139.53                                             ‐1.61% F & B 363,973.36                                            375,821.06                                             ‐3.15% Other 190,192.44                                            220,850.60                                             ‐13.88% Total 2,117,755.77                                         2,129,949.31                                          ‐0.57% Retail Apparel 150,481.05                                            139,108.72                                            8.18% Retail Food 126,355.63                                            106,370.34                                            18.79% Retail Gallery 9,940.69                                                 8,488.56                                                 17.11% Retail Gift 4,447.04                                                 3,648.23                                                 21.90% Retail Home Occupation 205.73                                                    234.16                                                     ‐12.14% Retail Jewelry 30,203.11                                              26,438.21                                              14.24% Retail Liquor 33,436.80                                              37,658.05                                               ‐11.21% Retail Other 392,974.80                                            395,775.07                                             ‐0.71% Retail Sport 151,039.98                                            147,862.81                                            2.15% Retail Online Retailer 93,712.13                                              87,553.97                                              7.03% Total 992,796.97                                            953,138.12                                            4.16% Total ‐ All Areas Lionshead Out of Town Vail Village Retail Summary Cascade Village / East Vail / Sandstone / West Vail Town of Vail Business Review November 4.5% Sales Tax 2023 Collections   2022 Collections YoY % Change 100