TC Council Packet 09-23-2008Hr�lra 11,,um'
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING FOR TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008
MEETING BEGINS AT 5:30 PM
AVON MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 400 BENCHMARK ROAD
A VU 'N
PRESIDING OFFICIALS
MAYOR RON WOLFE
MAYOR PRO TEM BRIAN SIPES
COUNCILORS RICHARD CARROLL, DAVE DANTAS, KRISTI FERRARO
AMY PHILLIPS, TAMRA NOTTINGHAM UNDERWOOD
TOWN ATTORNEY: JOHN DUNN
TOWN STAFF
TOWN MANAGER: LARRY BROOKS TOWN CLERK: PATTY MCKENNY
ALL REGULAR MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC EXCEPT EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ARE WELCOME DURING CITIZEN AND COMMUNITY INPUT AND PUBLIC HEARINGS
PLEASE VIEW AVON'S WEBSITE, HTTP://WWW.AVON.ORG, FOR MEETING AGENDAS AND MEETING MATERIALS
AGENDAS ARE POSTED AT AVON MUNICIPAL BUILDING AND RECREATION CENTER, ALPINE BANK, AND AVON LIBRARY
THE AVON TOWN COUNCIL MEETS ON THE SECOND AND FOURTH TUESDAYS OF EVERY MONTH
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
2. INQUIRY OF THE PUBLIC FOR COMMENT AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3. DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
4. COMMUNITY INPUT
5. CONSENT AGENDA
a. Minutes from September 9, 2008
b. Service Agreement with Vail Resorts, Inc. (D.A.R.) (Dan Higgins, Fleet Manager)
c. Agreement for Continuing Legal Services with John Dunn Law Office
d. Resolution No. 08-35, Series of 2008 Resolution Affirming That Avon Joined the Upper Eagle
Regional Water Authority In Order To Develop An Integrated Water System With All Of Its
Members (Justin Hildreth, Town Engineer)
6. UNFINISHED / OLD BUSINESS
7. NEW BUSINESS
8. ORDINANCES
9. RESOLUTIONS
a. Resolution No. 08-34, Series of 2008, Resolution in Appreciation of Town Attorney John Dunn's
Years of Service (Ron Wolfe, Mayor)
10. APPEALS FROM OR RECOMMENDATIONS OF PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION
11. OTHER BUSINESS
12. TOWN MANAGER REPORT
13. TOWN ATTORNEY REPORT
14. MAYOR REPORT
15. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
October 7 & 8, 2008: Budget Retreat
October 14, 2008: Avon 21 Project, URA: Community Revitalization
16. ADJOURNMENT
17. RECEPTION FOR TOWN ATTORNEY JOHN DUNN AT VIN 48 RESTAURANT (48 E. BEAVER CREEK BLVD.)
Avon Council Meeting.08.09.23
Page 3 of 3
MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE AVON TOWN COUNCIL
HELD SEPTEMBER 9, 2008
A regular meeting of the Town of Avon, Colorado was held at the Avon Municipal Building, 400
Benchmark Road, Avon, Colorado in the Council Chambers.
Mayor Pro Tem Sipes called the meeting to order at5:45 PM. A roll call was taken and Council
members present were Rich Carroll, Dave Dantas, Kristi Ferraro, Amy Phillips, Brian Sipes, and
Tamra Underwood. Ron Wolfe was absent. Also present were Town Attorney Eric Heil, Town
Manager Larry Brooks, Director Administrative Service Patty McKenny, Town Engineer Justin
Hildreth, Assistant Town Manager Finance Scott Wright, Assistant Town Manager Community
Development Eric Heidemann as well as members of the public.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA & DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were none.
CONSENT AGENDA
Mayor Pro tern Sipes asked for a motion on the consent agenda. Councilor Phillips moved to
approve the consent; Councilor Ferraro seconded the motion and it passed unanimously.
a. Minutes from August 26, 2008
b. Service Agreement with Greater Eagle Fire Protection District (Dan Higgins, Fleet
Manager) Four month service agreement for the remainder of 2008
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Avon Municipal Code Update/Preview of Scope of Work for Avon Municipal Code Update
Eric Heidemann, Assistant Town Manager Community Development, and Elizabeth Garvin,
Clarion & Associates presented the proposal related to the Avon Municipal Code Update. The
projected work plan and public participation process was outlined and discussed as follows:
➢ Phase 1 Project Initiation
➢ Phase 2 Diagnosis and annotated Outline
➢ Phase 3 Draft Unified Development Code
➢ Phase 4 Code Adoption
After further review by Council, suggestions from them would be forwarded to Eric Heidemann
to be reviewed by the agreed upon advisory committee members. The next meeting would be
in held in October.
ORDINANCES
Matt Gennett, Planning Manager, presented Ordinance No. 08-09, Series of 2008, Second
Reading, Ordinance amending Chapter 15.12, Electrical Code, Title 15, Building and
Construction, Avon Municipal Code (AMC), in order to adopt by reference the 2008 Edition of
the National Electrical Code; and setting forth details in regard thereto. It was noted that the
ordinance would amend Title 15 to adopt by reference the 2008 Edition of the National Electric
Code; currently the town was operating under the 2002 National Electric Code. Mayor Pro Tem
Sipes opened the public hearing, no comments were made, the hearing was closed. Councilor
Phillips moved to approve Ordinance No. 08-09; Councilor Ferraro seconded the motion and it
passed unanimously.
TOWN MANAGER REPORT
Larry Brooks, Town Manager asked Meryl Jacobs and Danita Chirichillo to inform the Council
about the conversations related to hosting an Iron Kids Triathlon in the Town of Avon.
Discussion was held about when would be the best time of year to hold this national event.
There are other towns that the Triathlon organizers are looking at also. Vail Valley Partnership
is involved in acquiring the accommodations for the event. Mayor Pro tem Sipes and Councilor
Carroll mentioned that the staff had done a great job on Lake Street and it looks very well.
There being no further business to come before the Council, the meeting was adjourned at 7:10
PM.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
APPROVED:
Rich Carroll
Dave Dantas
Kristi Ferraro
Amy Phillips
Brian Sipes
Tamra Underwood
Ron Wolfe
Regular Council Meeting Page 2 of 2
08-09.09
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Dan Higgins
Date: September 8, 2008
Re: Service Agreement with Vail Resorts Inc. (D.A.R.)
Background: The Town of Avon operates fleet maintenance out of its Swift Gulch
facility located at 500 Swift Gulch Road. We have several annual maintenance contracts with
neighboring districts.
One of our goals is to secure more third party revenue to help reduce the subsidy of our
operation.
Discussion: Attached is a one-year service agreement for 2008/2009 between the
Town and Vail Resorts Inc. for vehicle maintenance.
Financial Implications: The agreement contains our standard price of
$100.00/hour ($105.00/hour for 2008) for routine and preventive maintenance as well as
repair and replacement. We have billed V.R.I. (D.A.R) 3,422 hours of labor ($342,257.00) in
2007/2008.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of the one-year service agreement
with Vail Resorts Inc.
Town Manager Comments:
SERVICE AGREEMENT
he i4;/Cape- a/7°'", J/6/a
This agreement Is made and entered into this day of . 2008 by and betweerVall Associates Inc , a
Colorado corporation whose address is P.O. Box 7, Vail Colorado, 81658 (hereafter know as NM") and the Town of on
whose address is P O Box 975, 500 Swift Gulch Road, Avon, Colorado, 81620 (hereafter designated as 'Contractor")
RECITAL
In consideration of the obligation of VAI to pay the Contractor as herein provided and in consideration of the other t
and conditions hereof, the parties agree as follows:
1. Contractor Services: Contractor will, during the term of this Agreement, provide:.
(a) Routine maintenance and preventive maintenance ('Routine Maintenance") of the Beaver Creek
Resort Company buses, which are operated by VAI. Service will be performed on .approximately 7
buses or other vehicles, although the number of vehicles and equipment serviced may be increas d
or decreased In VAI'ssole discretion; provided, the combined number of vehicles and equipment
shall not exceed 75 without the approval of Contractor Routine Maintenance will be performed a
least every 3,000 miles or 250 hours of use. Routine Maintenance shall consist of those services
outlined in Exhibit A attached hereto
(b) Repair and replacement work as requested by VAI ('Repair and Replacement"). No payment for ny
Repair and Replacement shall be due unless VAI has approved of such charges. Services may
commenced with verbal approval by VAI of a written estimate submitted by Contractor. Repair a
Replacement includes, without limitation, transmissions repairs, engine repairs, rearend repairs a
anyother work or repairs exceeding $2,000.00 VAI acknowledges that subcontractors will perlo
certain repair. work Contractor shall be responsible for assuring that all such subcontracted work II
be performed promptly and in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement
(collectively the 'Services")
2.. Facilities: Contractor represents that its facilities are in good repair and adequately equipped a
that it has a sufficient staff to perform all work in a timely manner. All Routine Maintenance shall
completed within 24 hours of any vehicle being brought to Contractor's facility
3. Compensation: in consideration of Contractor's services during the term of this Agreement, VAI "II
pay Contractor the shop rate of $100.00 per hour for Routine Maintenance and Repair and
Replacement. Effective January 1, 2009 the shop rate will be $105.00 per hour. Materials and su let
work shall be charged at cost plus ten percent. Invoice shall be Issued by the 10'" of each month r
services performed the previous month. Payment shall be remitted within ten (10) days of receipt f
Invoice. Contractor's Fueling Facilities may be used by VAI. The cost of Unleaded Gasoline and
Diesel Fuel will be at the Contractors cost plus ten percent Contractor's vehicle washing facilities
may be used by VAI Contact TOA for current wash rates
4. Terms and Termination: This Agreement will be effective as of October 1, 2008 and will terminat
on September 30, 2009 unless either party fails to substantially perform the duties and obligations In
accordance herewith. in such an event, the other party may terminate this Agreement upon se
(7) days written notice to that party, unless that party cures the breach within the seven (7) day
remedy period Either party may terminate this Agreement without cause upon' 30 Days written
notice.
5 Relationships and Taxes: The relationship between the parties is that of independent contractin
parties, and nothing herein shall be deemed or construed by the parties hereto or by any third pa
as creating a relationship of principal and. agent or partnership, of of a joint venture between the
parties. Contractor shall be solely responsible for any tax, withholding or contribution levied by th
Federal Social Security Act. Contractor is not entitled to unemployment compensation or other
employment related benefits, which are otherwise made available by VAI to its employees.
Contractor shall provide VAI an original of its Form W9 (Request for Taxpayer Identification Num r
of Certification),
6 Warranty: Contractor shall perform all Services in a prompt, efficient and workmanlike manner
Contractor shall promptly correct any defective work. This warranty shall be in lieu of all other
warranties, express or implied. Contractor's sole liability hereunder, whether in tort or In contract, s
expressly limited to the warranty provided for herein..
7 Assignment: Contractor's duties hereunder requires particular expertise and skills, and may not
assigned to any third party without the expressed written consent of VAI, and any attempt to do
shall render this Agreement null and void and no effect as respects the assignee (s) and shall
constitute anevent of default by Contractor.
8.. Waiver. Failure to insist upon strict compliance with any terms, covenants, and! or conditions her f
shall not be deemed a waiver of such term, covenant, or condition, nor shall any waiver or
relinquishment of any right or power hereunder at any time or more times be deemed a waiver or
relinquishment of such right or power at any other time or times.
9 Benefit: The terms, provisions, and covenants contained in this Agreement shall apply -to, inure
the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, successors in
interest, and legal representatives except as otherwise herein expressly provided.
10 Situs and severability: The laws of the State of Colorado shall govern the interpretation, validity.
performance and enforcement of this Agreement If any provision of this Agreement shall be held o
be invalid or unenforceable, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions of this
Agreement shall not be affected thereby
11 Modification: This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the parties, and no
agreement shall be effective to change, modify, or terminate in whole or in part unless such
agreement Is in writing and duly signed by the party against whom enforcement of such change,
modification, or termination is sought.
EXECUT,Ellthis day of , 2008.
Th.tr- yap 1 Gel -77110m. d/b/ct
�Vali Associates inc.
A ColoraCrorpo-'
By:
EXEC TB this __day of _, 2008.
TOWN OF AVON
By:
IFDSE35L58DA04088
1FDSE35L38DA04087
1FDXE45528DA05153
1FDXE45598DA05151
1FDXE45S28DA03421
1FDXE45S08DA03420
IFDXE45S28DA03418
IFDXE45506DA96047
1FDXE45566DA99938
IFDXE45346DA99937
IFDSE35LX6DA50433
1FDXE45S36DA48915
1FDXE45S16DA48914
1FDXE45586DA46013
1FDSE35L35HB49294
1FDXE45SX6HA04208
1FDXE45566HA20907
1FDXE45546HA20906
1FDXE45526HA20905
1FDXE45506HA20904
1 FDSE35L14HA56661
IFDSE35L14HA56658
IFDXE45S34HA42036
1FDXE45514HA42O35
IFDXE45SX4HA42034
WORK
'A" PM
Preventive Maintenance
inspection
"Annuar
Preventive Maintenance
Inspection
EXHIBIT A
FREQUENCY
3,000 miles or
250 hours
every 12months
RATE
$100.00 hr.
$105 00 hr after 1/1/09
Plus parts &
sublet
$100.00 hr
$105 00 hr. after 1/1/09
Plus parts &
sublet
NOTE: Included as a part of Exhibit A is the vehicle listing applicable to this agreement as of
August 11, 2008,
VIN tnx Manufacturer r Equipment Type I Owner I Unit
1 FDSE35L78DA04089 13 Turtle Top
1FDXE40S2WHB99096 20 Terra Transit
13 Turtle Top
13 Turtle Top
18 Federal Coach
18 Federal Coach
18 Federal Coach
18 Federal Coach
18 Federal Coach
19 Federal Coach
18 Federal Coach
18 Federal Coach
13 Turtle Top
19 Federal Coach
19 Federal Coach
19 Federal Coach
13 Turtle Top
20 Terra Transit
20 Terra Transit
20 Terra Transit
20 Terra Transit
20 Terra Transit
13 Turtle Top
13 Turtle Top
18 Terra Transit
18 Terra Transit
18 Terra Transit
Van
Body On Chassis
Van
Van
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Van
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Van
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Van
Van
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Bachelor Gulch 889
Arrowhead 896
Bachelor Gulch 888
Bachelor Gulch 887
Bachelor Gulch 853
Beaver Creek 85i
Beaver Creek 821
Beaver Creek 820
Beaver Creek 818
Beaver Creek 747
Bachelor Gulch 738
Bachelor Gulch 737
Bachelor Gulch 733
Beaver Creek 715
Beaver Creek 714
Beaver Creek 713
Beaver Creek 694
Bachelor Gulch 608
Beaver Creek 607
Beaver Creek 606
Beaver Creek 605
Bachelor Gulch 604
Bachelor Gulch 561
Beaver Creek 558
Bachelor Gulch 536
Beaver Creek 535
Beaver Creek 534
1FDXE45S84HA42033 18
1 FDSE35L04HA37020 13
1FDSE35L44HA37019 13
1 FDSE35L43HB72595 13
1FDXE45S03HB30508 20
1 FDXE45832HB44692 20
1FDXE45M62HB56403 17
1FDXE45S71HB47190 20
3GNFK16T71G127988 5
Rental 20
Rental 20
Rental 20
Pending 20
Pending 20
Pending 13
Pending 13
Pending 13
Pending 20
Pending 20
Pending 20
Terra Transit
Turtle Top
Turtle Top
Turtle Top
Terra Transit
Terra Transit
Terra Transit
Terra Transit
Chevy
Federal Coach
Federal Coach
Turtle Top
Turtle Top
Turtle Top
Federal Coach
Federal Coach
Federal Coach
Body On Chassis
Van
Van
Van
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Suburban
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Van
Van
Van
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Body On Chassis
Beaver Creek 533
Bachelor Gulch 520
Bachelor Gulch 519
Beaver Creek 495
Bachelor Gulch 408
Beaver Creek 392
Beaver Creek 303
Beaver Creek 290
Beaver Creek 112
Arrowhead
Arrowhead
Bachelor Gulch
Beaver Creek
Beaver Creek
Beaver Creek
Beaver Creek
Beaver Creek
Bachelor Gulch
Bachelor Gulch
Bachelor Gulch
LAW OFFICES OF
DUNN KEYES GELMAN & PUMMELL, LLC
COMMUNITY BANK CENTER SUfl F 206
70 BENCI NARK ROAD
POST OFFICE BOX 7717
AVON, COLORADO
81620
(970)748-6400
jdunnajwdunnlaw.com
September 17, 2008
Larry Brooks, Town Manager
Town of Avon
P.O. Box 975
Avon CO 81620
Re: Agreement for Legal Services
Dear Larry:
This letter will set forth the basis of my continuing relationship with the
Town in providing legal consultation.
Legal services provided by this agreement shall include only such work as
requested or directed by the Town Council, Town Manager or successor Town Attorney.
Work performed for the Town will be based upon the hourly rates shown on the attached
schedule. We reserve the right to increase our fees from time to time but will provide you
with notice at least thirty days prior to the effective date of such fee increase. Town
reserves the right to terminate this agreement for legal services at any time and shall be
liable only for fees and costs incurred prior to such termination.
The Town will be charged for all time spent by attorneys and legal
assistants in the representation of its interests. In addition to our fees, the Town will be
expected to pay all costs incurred by us on your behalf. Such costs will include long
distance telephone calls, photocopying, telecopying, postage, courier fees, overnight
delivery fees, and, where applicable, fees for online legal research. We agree not to incur
any single cost in the Town's behalf in excess of $350.00 without your prior consent.
The Town will be billed each month for current charges (both fees and
costs) and the bill is due and payable upon receipt.. A FINANCE CHARGE of 1 1/2%
per month (18% ANNUAL PERCENTAGE RATE) may be applied to the outstanding
balance of the account not paid within thirty (30) days after the date of the bill. All
payments received will be applied first to costs, then to interest, and then to fees.
Deductions for payments received and charges for fees and costs incurred after the date
of the bill will appear on the next bill.
If our bills are not paid in a timely manner, we shall have the right to
cease legal work on the Town's behalf, to withdraw from any proceeding in which we
have entered an appearance and to retain the Town's files until we have received
payment.
Each of us (the Town and the firm) has the option to arbitrate any dispute
arising between us that we are unable to resolve ourselves, including disputes about the
Town's obligations to pay the firm under this agreement or the legal services it received.
If the Town or the firm files a claim in court against the other party to this agreement, the
other party will have 15 business days after receiving the summons and complaint or
other pleading initiating the claim to notify the complaining party that it will exercise the
arbitration option described above and the resulting arbitration shall be binding and
enforceable in the District Court for Eagle County, Colorado.
Unless the firm otherwise agrees, any arbitration between us will be
conducted through the Judicial Arbiter Group and any litigation between us will be in the
District Court for Eagle County. The prevailing party in any such arbitration or litigation,
as determined by the arbitrator or court, will be awarded reasonable attorneys' fees,
expert witness fees and costs (including the hourly rate for time firm lawyers expend in
preparing for and attending hearings and internal expenses the firm incurs). Anyone to
whom the firm assigns its rights in this Agreement may enforce the arbitration and
attorneys' fees provisions above.
YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND THAT THIS AGREEMENT
GIVING THE FIRM THE OPTION TO ARBITRATE ALL ARBITRABLE
DISPUTES MEANS YOU ARE AGREEING TO WAIVE TO THE MAXIMUM
EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW ANY RIGHT YOU MAY HAVE TO ASK FOR
A JURY OR COURT TRIAL IN ANY DISPUTE WITH THE FIRM.
It is our policy to retain files for a minimum of ten years after completion.
If you wish a file returned to you, please let us know; otherwise, the file will be destroyed
or otherwise disposed of after that time.
I am reserving the right to discontinue further work for the Town on thirty
days notice.
Should you have any questions at any time concerning your account or the
matter which you have entrusted to us, please do not hesitate to contact me. If you have
no questions regarding this agreement and it is acceptable to you, please sign the
enclosed copy and return it to me so that our records will be complete.
Yours very truly,
DUNN YES GELMAN & PUMMELL, LLC
Join W. Dunn
kern
APPROVAL
The fee arrangements set forth above are accepted and approved this
day of , 2008.
By:
Its
DUNN KEYES GELMAN & PUMMELL, LLC
SCHEDULE OF FEES
John W. Dunn
Karen M. Dunn, ACP
$300.00 per hour
$125.00 per hour
Memo
To: Avon Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Justin Hildreth, P.E., Town Enginee y,h61-
Date: September 19, 2008
Re: Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority Integrated Water System
Summary: The Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority (UERWA) has requested that all of its member entities
adopt Resolution 08-35, attached as Exhibit A. The resolution asserts that all of the member entities agree
and understand that they are participating in an integrated water system.
Discussion: The UERWA is currently negotiating a water rights case with the state authorities. During
negotiations, state officials expressed concern about the UERWA's management of water rights among its
members. As a result, the UERWA requested that each of the members adopt the attached resolution which
affirms that Avon is aware of how the UERWA operates and manages it system. The UERWA has always
operated an integrated system with its member entities and is not proposing any changes to it operation.
Resolution 08-35 is mearly an effort to mitigate concerns of state officials.
Jay Montgomery, the Town's Water Attorney, has reviewed the resolution and discussed it with the UERWA
Attorneys and supports the resolution.
Financial Implications: There are no financial implications in adopting the attached resolution.
Recommendation: Staff recommends approval of Resolution No. 08-35, Series of 2008, A Resolution
Affirming that Avon Joined the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority in order to Develop an Integrated
Water System with all of its Members.
Proposed Motion: I move to approve Resolution No. 08-35, Series of 2008, A Resolution Affirming that Avon
Joined the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority in order to Develop an Integrated Water System with all of
its Members.
Town Manager Comments:
Attachments:
Exhibit A Resolution 08-35, Series of 2008
EXHIBIT A
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
RESOLUTION 08-35
SERIES 2008
A RESOLUTION AFFIRMING THAT AVON JOINED THE UPPER EAGLE
REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY IN ORDER TO DEVELOP AN INTEGRATED
WATER SYSTEM WITH ALL OF ITS MEMEBERS
WHEREAS, the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority ("Authority") was formed in
part to develop an integrated water system to provide water service to its members, and those
that it agrees to serve by contract;
WHEREAS, the Authority has developed an integrated water system by among other
matters (1) obtaining the water rights of its members and contractees; (2) constructing and
operating three common diversion points at Avon and Edwards; (3) obtaining the right to
alternately divert its water rights at the Avon and Edwards diversion points and use these
water rights throughout the Authority service area; (4) obtaining interests in Green Mountain,
Eagle Park and Homestake Reservoirs; (5) adjudicating changes of water rights and
augmentation and exchange plans utilizing those storage sources for the system wide benefit
of its members and contractees; (6) constructing and operating an interconnect with the water
system of the Eagle River Water and Sanitation District ("District"); and (7) obtaining the
right to alternately divert certain of its water rights at the District diversion points for delivery
through the interconnect to the Authority members;
WHEREAS, the Authority members have been aware of and all times authorized the
integrated use of the water rights they provided to the Authority;
WHEREAS, initial examples of integrated use include the use of the Avon and Eagle
Vail water rights in connection with the District interconnect, and the utilization of member
consumptive use credits to store in and augment the yield of Eagle Park Reservoir for the
benefit of all Authority members and contractees for all decreed purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Authority sought and obtained in Division 5 Case Nos. 95CW348,
98CW205 and 00CW83, the total integration of the consumptive use credits and other water
rights obtained from the Authority's members for use within the service areas of the Authority
and District.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the members of the Authority have
been well aware that the water rights it provided to the Authority by conveyance or perpetual
lease were and are being used in an integrated fashion for the benefit of all Authority
members and contractees, and that such an integrated water system is one of the principal
purposes for which the Authority was formed; and
Be it further resolved that the system integration decreed in Case Nos. 95CW348,
98CW205 and 00CW83 and the State acknowledgement and enforcement of the express
terms of that decree serve an important public purpose.
25052
Done this 23rd day of September, 2008, at Avon, Colorado.
TOWN COUNCIL OF THE
TOWN OF AVON,
EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO
By,
Mayor
ATTEST
Avon Town Clerk
MEMO
To: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
THROUGH: LARRY BROOKS, TOWN MANAGER
FROM: PATTY MCKENNY, DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2008
RE: RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION OF JOHN DUNN'S YEARS OF SERVICE
SUMMARY:
Attached is a resolution in appreciation of John Dunn's years of service.
A reception will be held immediately following the regular meeting at Vin 48, an opportunity
to thank John for his years of service to the Town of Avon.
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
RESOLUTION NO. 08-34
SERIES OF 2008
A RESOLUTION IN APPRECIATION OF TOWN ATTORNEY JOHN DUNN
WHEREAS, John Dunn, has served as an attorney in the State of Colorado for over thirty-five
years and as the Town Attorney for the Town of Avon for a period of twenty five years; and
WHEREAS, John Dunn has served local government in both mining and mountain communities
throughout his career, with long standing commitments to both Lake County as its Attorney (1971-1993)
and the Town of Avon as its Attorney (1980-1998 and 2001-2008), spending many hours attending
work sessions, regular and special meetings, and community functions; and
WHEREAS, John Dunn's legal expertise in Real Estate Law, Municipal Law, and Land Use &
Zoning Law has been instrumental in guiding the development of the town since the early eighties and
has resulted in the enactment of many ordinances and other legislation that benefits and improves the
quality of life within Avon; and
WHEREAS, John Dunn's participation over the years in professional organizations including the
Colorado Bar Association, the Colorado County Attorneys' Association and the Colorado Municipal
League is appreciated as this participation has contributed to providing a state wide perspective when
offering legal advice to the town on matters of local concern; and
WHEREAS, John Dunn's commitment to advising the Avon Town Council in matters relating to
their official powers and duties has been greatly appreciated and respected over the years.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF AVON, AS
FOLLOWS:
1. The sincere thanks of the Town Council and the residents of the Town of Avon are extended to
John Dunn for his many years of service to the Town of Avon.
ADOPTED THIS 23RD DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2008.
TOWN COUNCIL, AVON, COLORADO
Ronald C. Wolfe, Mayor
ATTEST:
Patty McKenny, Town Clerk
ME.
TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO
WORK SESSION FOR TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 23, 2008
MEETING BEGINS AT 2 PM
AVON MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 400 BENCHMARK ROAD
PRESIDING OFFICIALS
MAYOR RON WOLFE
MAYOR PRO TEM BRIAN SIPES
COUNCILORS RICHARD CARROLL, DAVE DANTAS, KRISTI FERRARO
AMY PHILLIPS, TAMRA NOTTINGHAM UNDERWOOD
TOWN ATTORNEY: JOHN DUNN
TOWN STAFF
TOWN MANAGER: LARRY BROOKS TOWN CLERK: PATTY MCKENNY
ALL WORK SESSION MEETINGS ARE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC EXCEPT EXECUTIVE SESSIONS
COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ARE WELCOME; PLEASE TELL THE MAYOR YOU WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK UNDER No. 2 BELOW
ESTIMATED TIMES ARE SHOWN FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE
PLEASE VIEW AVON'S WEBSITE, HTTP://WWW.AVON.ORG, FOR MEETING AGENDAS AND MEETING MATERIALS
AGENDAS ARE POSTED AT AVON MUNICIPAL BUILDING AND RECREATION CENTER, ALPINE BANK, AND AVON LIBRARY
THE AVON TOWN COUNCIL MEETS ON THE SECOND AND FOURTH TUESDAYS OF EVERY MONTH
2:00 PM -3:30 PM 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION pursuant to C.R.S. 24-6-402 (4) (b), C.R.S. for the
purpose of conferencing with the Town Attorney for the local public body to
receive legal advice on specific legal questions related to pending issues with
the Village at Avon
2. INQUIRY OF THE PUBLIC FOR COMMENT AND APPROVAL OF AGENDA
3:30 PM — 4:30 PM 3. JOINT MEETING WITH EAGLE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS (Peter Runyon, Sara
Fisher, Am Menconi, Eagle County Commissioners) A Review of Sustainable
Communities Initiative 2010
(Eagle County Staff Attending include: Bruce Baumgartner, County Manager, Keith
Montag, Community Development, Cliff Simonton, Community Development, Jill
Hunsaker, Public Health, Alex Potente, Housing & Development, Eva Wilson,
Engineering)
4:30 PM — 5:00 PM 4. UPDATE ON REGIONAL AIR SERVICE PROGRAM (Kent Myers, Airplanners)
5:00 PM — 5:15 PM 5. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND STAFF UPDATES
a. US Forest Service Land Exchange Update (Ron Wolfe, Mayor)
b. Review "Request for Proposals for Audit Services" (Scott Wright, Assistant
Town Manager Finance)
c. Web Streaming Update with Eagle County (Becky Lawlor, Community
Relations Officer) Memo only / Review of status of web streaming in the near
future with a direct link from Avon's website to ECOTV channel
d. Financial Matters (Scott Wright, Assistant Town Manager Finance) Memo Only
5:15 PM 6. ADJOURNMENT
Avon Council Meeting.08.09.23
Page 1 of 3
Sustainable Communities 2010
Draft Document
EAGLE COUNTY
O
O
Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT
TABLE of CONTENTS
Executive Summary . 3
Quality of Life Indicator Matrix .
Current Levels of Service, Goals, Gaps, Costs and Methods to Close the Gaps
Narrative Analyses
Environmental Sustainability
Community Separators
Parks . .
Environmental Management System
Transportation
Road Infrastructure .
Mass Transit .
Bike and Pedestrian Trails
Housing
Workforce and Senior Housing
Social Capital
Health Care
Dental Care
Child Care
Assisted Living.
Fiscal Impact Tool: Site Stats .
Communication and Collaboration Tools
Build -Out Analysis .
Mayor -Manager Collaborative Mapping
Intergovernmental Agreements .
Transportation Collaborative .
Resources
Mandated and Discretionary Services
Cost to Serve . .
Data Resources: Population Figures .
Data Resources: Sources for More Information
Town and County Mayor -Manager Maps .
Community Separators Maps .
5
II
I3
15
18
19
20
21
27
30
31
32
33
34
36
37
38
39
41
44
45
47
48
Sustainable Communities 2010
Sustainable Communities 2010
Executive Summary
DRAFT
Purpose and Background:
Eagle County Commissioners and staff have initiated a comprehensive program called
Sustainable Communities 2010. This effort will provide local decision makers quantifiable
"quality of life" data and information along with suggested tools to assist in developing public
policy regarding sustainable communities throughout Eagle County. The program is in direct
support of our organizational mission statement, which is "to be the model of excellence for
mountain communities by 2010."
The purpose of Sustainable Communities 2010 is to create and offer a comprehensive set of
techniques and solutions to ensure that impacts associated with growth are mitigated and
adequate services are provided to meet the demands of the population. It addresses the
economic, social and environmental challenges that arise from growth. Perhaps the most
important aspect of the program is the development and sharing of this information with towns
and other community leaders through ongoing communication and collaboration.
Why are we engaging in this exercise? Based on feedback the County received from a survey
completed last winter, certain issues were identified by respondents that may impact their
quality of life. In general, these threats are associated with:
• Growth and Land Use
• Transportation and Traffic Congestion
• Affordable Housing and Cost of Living
• Environmental Protection
• Provision of Services
Outcome:
The outcome from Sustainable Communities 2010 will be the creation of open communication
and collaboration resulting in a set of tools for all decision makers to consider in the
formulation of public policy. Products will include:
• A gap analysis and report that identifies some key quality of life indicators on a
countywide basis. For each indicator, the current level of service will be compared to the
desired goal resulting in a potential gap in the service level.The challenge is to close that
gap.
• An economic and fiscal impact tool that is used to analyze site -specific development
proposals.
• An updated countywide build -out analysis and associated visioning exercise that
graphically show results of growth and development.
• Increased communication and collaboration efforts with community and town leaders
whereby data can be shared and analyzed allowing for visioning and public policy
creation.
• Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) on common land use and public policy goals.
3
Sustainable Communities 2010
DRAFT
• A set of joint county -town maps that depict growth boundaries and high priority open
space, locations for affordable housing and transit -oriented development, and locations
of transportation improvement projects.
• A continuation of the Transportation Collaborative identifying transportation issues
along the 1-70 corridor and seeking solutions and revenue sources.
The following graphic shows the Sustainable Communities Initiative in the context of economic
drivers, quality of life measures, and public policy decisions.
Through the ongoing efforts of the Sustainable Communities 2010 initiative, our goal as county
commissioners is to create an open forum where information can be shared with all town and
community leaders for public policy formulation by which all citizens can benefit.
4
Sustainable Communities 2010
Quality of Life Indicator Matrix
DRAFT
Quality of
Life
Indicators
Current
Level of
Service
Goals
Gap
Cost
to Close
Gap
Methods
to Close
Gap
Environmental Sustainability
Community
Separators
Using the
current status
as a starting
point, the
current level
of service is
adequate.
The challenge
is to preserve
what we
have.
To preserve
and enhance
the adequacy
of community
separation/
buffer that
currently
exists. To
reach the
goal of 3288
acres by year
2025, we
need to
preserve 219
acres/year.
Analysis has
identified 3288
acres of
private
property
located
outside of
municipal
boundaries
that would
contribute to
community
separation. To
reach the goal
of 3288 acres
by year 2025,
we need to
preserve 219
acres/year.
Fee simple
purchase of
3288 acres at
today's value
would cost
$90M (based on
a value of
$30,000/ac.) At
219 acres/yr, the
cost would be
$6.57 M/yr.
I. Preserve public
lands
2. Preserve existing
open spaces
3. Encourage
landscape
enhancements/
screening
4. Purchase
conservation
easements
5. Purchase fee
simple
6. Zoning overlays
7. Implement
growth boundaries
8. Im1lement IGA's
Parks
The
incorporated
and
unincorporated
areas of Eagle
County
currently have
1,006 acres of
parkland. The
current level of
service is
adequate.
Standard is 7
acres of
parkland/1000
population.
2010 Goal: 407
acres of
parkland
2025 Goal: 570
acres of
parkland
Based on 1,006
acres of
parkland in Eagle
County, there is
not currently a
gap.
N.A.
N.A.
5
Sustainable Communities 2010
DRAFT
Quality of
Life
Indicators
Current
Level of
Service
Goals
Gap
Cost
to Close
Gap
Methods
to Close
Gap
Environmental
Electricity:
2025 Goals:
In most
•Energy
•EPCs, lighting,
Management
Usage =
•Electricity:
cases, the
Performance
heating, boiler
System
$338,455
50%
gap is the
Contracts: cost
retrofits.
Natural
Gas: Usage
reduction in
use.
•50%
goal minus
the current
baseline.
normally can be
financed into the
scope of work/
•Incentives or
invest capital in
county -run
=$214,035
electricity
However
contract timeline
to
renewable
provided from
those real
yield positive
annual cash flow.
Projects.
Renewable
local
numbers can
•General cost
*Invest in highly
Energy: 0
renewable
be projected
for solar PV
efficient heating
systems.
•Biomass
here.
systems: $8000
per kilowatt. To
systems and
controls.
Gasoline:
1 19,461 gal
= $329,179
Diesel:
projects,
geothermal,
and/or solar
thermal offset
30% heating
Solid waste:
current
baseline is 12
pounds per
day per
meet the goal of
50% electricity
generated by
local systems, an
estimated 3000
KW (or 3 MW)
*Invest in
biomass/ pellet
boilers for
facilities as
applicable.
370,098 gal
needs.
person, goal
would need to
•B30 Biodiesel
=$1,017,369
*Natural gas:
= 5, so gap is
be installed, for
for fleet. No
30%
7.
an estimated
vehicle/engine
Solid
Waste:
reduction,
*Fuel: 50%
straight cost of
$2.4 M.
retrofits are
required. A B30
1 15,489
overall mpg
However, PPAs
mix (30%
tons
average
increase
would lump any
costs into
biodiesel, 70%
petroleum diesel)
Recycling
*Fuel: 30% of
existing utility
budgets.
is recommended
10,789 tons
fuel is from
alternative
sources
(CNG,
biofuels,
electricity,
etc.)
•Reduce water
consumption
by 50%.
*Solid waste:
•Biodiesel:
negligible cost
increase.
*Install pellet
boilers/furnaces:
$85,000/unit.
Assuming 4
similar systems
are installed at
other county
facilities, would be
for 3 -season fleet
use.
*Efficient
irrigation
systems/controls.
•Xeriscape
landscaping
designs for
county facilities.
*Higher tipping
fees,pay-as-you-
5total
lbs. per
capita or less.
•Recycling:
50% diversion
rate.
$340,000. Cost
savings ROI
needs further
calculation.
•260,400 kWh
wind credits
offset 100%
electrical usage.
Cost $78,120.
•Higher tipping
fees = positive
cash flow, funds
can be used
toward further
waste reduction
throw programs.
•Require
recycling for
construction
projects.
•State-of-the-art
recycling
program/
incentives
(MRF,
composting, PR,
etc.)
6
Sustainable Communities 2010
DRAFT
Quality of
Life
Indicators
Current
Level of
Service
Goals
Gap
Cost
to Close
Gap
Methods
to Close
Gap
Transportation
County Roads
Fair
Maintain LOS
C&D for
roadways and
Intersections
$238.01/capita
Road Impact Fees,
State grants,
Development Fees
State Roads
Poor to Fair
Maintain LOS
C&D for
roadways and
Intersections
$4,672.93/capita
Road Impact Fees,
State grants,
Development Fees
Mass Transit
Alternative IA
Free -Fare ECO
Transit Program
with current Level
of Service
At Current
LOS without
expansion and
growth
Free -Fare ECO
Transit Program
I) Promote
Mass Transit -
Energy
Conservation
2) Reduce
vehicle
congestion -
delay
infrastructure
projects 3)
Accessibility for
all - system
expansion 4)
Improve
operations
Current LOS
has low Capital
Investment/
reserve (from
Consultant
study on
ridership)
$2 million to
cover lost
revenue (from
Consultant study
on ridership)
1/6 cent sales tax
increase to generate
$2M
Alternative I B:
Free -Fare ECO
Transit Program
with increased
ridership
Increase
ridership 50%
due to Free-
Fare program -
$4M
See above.
1/3 cent sales tax
increase to generate
$4M
Alternative I C:
Free -Fare ECO
Transit Program
including local
systems
Increase LOS
to include local
feeder systems
in Edwards &
Eaglfeeder
$6M *Gypsum -
$6M
See above.
1/2 cent sales tax
increase to generate
$6M
Alternative 2:
Current Fare
Regional System
Regional - Fair -
1,000,000 trips/
year - 500,000
rdtrips/year -
260 work day/
year - 1,923
riders/day -
3.9% of
population
served
Eco Transit
provide
regional
transporta-
tion - 20%
increase -
2,308 riders
-1,200,000 -
4.68%
population
served
$900/capita
State grants, fare
revenue, sales taxes,
Development fees
7
Sustainable Communities 2010
DRAFT
Quality of
Life
Indicators
Current
Level of
Service
Goals
Gap
Cost
to Close
Gap
Methods
to Close
Gap
Alternative 2:
Current Fare
Local Transit
System
Local Transit
Poor - no local
feeder system
in Edwards,
Minturn, Eagle-
Gypsum
Provide Local
feeder system
to Edwards,
Mintum, and
Eagle -Gypsum
(new) provide
local transit
$288/capita
State grants, fare
revenue, sales taxes,
Development fees
Pedestrian Trails
Fair, 3 of 6
community
connections
made
Complete full
connection to
all Eagle Valley
Communities
by 2020.
Planned core
trail is 63 miles
long, 33
constructed, 30
miles remains
to be
constructed.
$600/capita
State grants, sales
taxes, Development
fees
Housing
Workforce and
Senior Housing
3,500
households in
Eagle County
are cost-
burdened
(pay more
than 30% of
AGI for
housing)
Maintain and
improve
housing stock
affordable to
Eagle
County's
workforce
Catch-up:
3,500 units
currently.
Keep -up:
Residential --
35% of total
sq. ft..
affordable
Commercial --
714 sq. ft.
affordable per
1,000 sq. ft.
commercial
Catch up: $144/
• Public -private
housing
developments.
• Down -payment
assistance.
Housing
Guidelines (keep
up only).
• Facilitate
employer buy -
downs.
sq. ft. (Housing
Authority and
private -sector
affordable
housing
developers to
produce stock
at break even).
Keep upi. $144/
sq. ft. or
compliance with
Hsng. Guidelines
Social Capital
Health Care
23,967
primary care
slots available
for 14,151
uninsured
persons are
meeting 46%
of the need.
2010 goal of
serving 80%
of the
uninsured will
require
25,510
additional
appointment
slots
annually .
7,641
residents lack
access to care.
Catch-up:
To cat_ ch up to
80% of need:
$3,312,496 new
dollars or $145/
appointment
100% catch-up
requires
$4,140,620 in
new funds,
To keep up with
Obtain a Federal
Community Health
Center designation
which will provide
access to state and
federal grants;
develop a pro-
forma to
determine other
types of revenue
sources: client
fees, donations,
Medicaid, etc
28,556 more
appointment
slots.
Keep -up: 3,332
add'l appt
slots needed
by 2010.
3,289 sq. ft. of
new res.
development
= one new
uninsured
resident.
1,757 sq. ft. of
new comm.
development
= one more
uninsured
resident.
80% of need: an
additional
$386,512 by
2010. 100%
keep -up
requires
$483,140
additional by
2010.
8
Sustainable Communities 2010
DRAFT
Quality of
Life
Indicators
Current
Level of
Service
Goals
Gap
Cost
to Close
Gap
Methods
to Close
Gap
Dental Care
48% of
2010 Goal:
26,125 residents
100% Catch Up=
Provide services
residents do
Start up an
lacking adequate
$3,983,198 (not
through a Federally
not have
indigent care
dental insurance
including start up
Qualified Health
adequate
dental
dental clinic
and see 1,367
(I in 3)
costs)
Center (see
above) with a start
insurance
residents by
Catch up: 53,827
Catch Up to 5.4%=
-up dental clinic.
The only
offering 2,187
indigent care appt
$383,935 new
indigent
dental care
available in
appt slots
(1.6 annual
appointments
slots needed
annually.
dollars.
100% Keep Up:
county is a
per resident).
Keep Up: 2894
$214,156 additional
mobile dental
van, which
This will
meet 6% of
additional appt
slots will be
by 2010.
serves 180
low income
children
(5-18). On
average, 989
procedures
performed
over 234
visits
the need.
required by 2010.
Every 1,988 sq ft
of new residential
development
brings in I new
resident lacking
access to dental
care.
5.4% Keep Up:
$171,325 additional
by 2010.
Every 1,062 sq ft
of new
commercial
development
brings in 1 new
resident lacking
access to dental
care.
9
Sustainable Communities 2010
DRAFT
Quality of
Life
Indicators
Current
Level of
Service
Goals
Gap
Cost
to Close
Gap
Methods
to Close
Gap
Child Care
961 available
licensed
2010 Goal:
Add an
Currently,
2,023 children
Keep Uo:47
additional child
Four new Child
Care proposals :
childcare
spaces are
meeting 32%
of the need.
additional
200 spaces to
meet 38% of
the need.
(1 in 2.5) do
not have
access to
licensed care.
Catch Up:
Need an
additional
2023 spaces
Keep Up: 47
additional
child care
spaces will be
required by
2010.
Every 15,588
sq ft of new
residential
develop brings
in one more
child without
access to
licensed child
care spaces will
be required by
2010.
Every 15,588 sq
ft of new
residential
develop brings
in one more
child without
access to
licensed child
care.
Every 8328 sq ft
of new
commercial
development,
brings in one
more child
without access
to licensed child
care.
100% Keep Up:
Gypsum, Stratton
Flats, Basalt/
Growing Years,
Riverview.
care.
Every 8328 sq
ft of new
commercial
development,
brings in one
more child
without access
to licensed
child care.
$489,552
additional by
2010
Assisted Living
2,710
residents ages
65 and older.
No Assisted
Living
facilities in
Eagle County.
2015 Goal:
45 bed
Facility.
132 Assisted
Living spaces
needed. To
keep up, 150
additional
assisted living
spaces by
2015.
24% Catch -Up:
$15,000,000. (45
residents @
1,000 sq. ft. per
resident @
$325 per sq. ft.).
100% Keep Up
in 2015: 13
more residents
in one year:
Public -Private
partnership.
$4,225,500.
10
Sustainable Communities 2010
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY:
Community Separators
Mandate of service
DRAFT
There is no legislative mandate for service. Eagle County could become a place where
development is continuous without break along 1-70 between East Vail and Dotsero, excepting
public lands (which are subject to trade) and areas where development would not be possible
due to physical and topographic constraints. However, and to the degree that public sentiment
provides a mandate, recent surveys would indicate that the citizens of Eagle County would not
support a development pattern of continuous unbroken nature. Community separation
contributes to the preservation of ecosystem integrity and the health of local wildlife
populations, to the preservation of views, visual quality, air quality and water quality, to the
perception that historic rural character is being preserved, to the maintenance of opportunities
for and access to outdoor recreation. Modern practices in land planning increasingly promote
the benefits of community identity and place -making, which is strongly enhanced by physical
separation between communities.
Current level of service
Separation between communities is currently provided by a combination of public lands,
developed low density private ranches, and other undeveloped private lands. The Future Land
Use Map (FLUM) of the 2006 Eagle County Comprehensive Plan identified lands that could
contribute to community separation along the Interstate corridor. There are areas along the
1-70 corridor where development from one community has blended with or overlapped
development from the adjacent community. In these areas opportunities for adequate
separation has, for all practicable purposes, been lost.
Using the present as a starting point, we could (or should) say that the current level of service is
adequate.
This Sustainability Report provides further refinement of the information in the FLUM, targeting
private properties that are either largely undeveloped or used for agricultural purposes located
in between existing communities but outside recently defined urban growth boundaries (see
map attached). The highlighted properties have also been evaluated against the County's open
space criteria, and would potentially qualify for public open space funding should that
opportunity present itself.
Goals
The goal would be to preserve the adequacy of community separation/buffer that currently
exists.
What is or isn't"adequate" is somewhat subjective, and additional work is needed to better
define the elements that contribute to "adequate community separation".
Sustainable Communities 2010
DRAFT
Depending on your definition, there are areas between communities where tasteful developed
could occur with little loss to the level of service. In other areas, and again depending on your
definition, we are on the brink of loosing adequate separation.
Gap
Since removing development to correct current deficiencies in community separation is not
reasonable, it is assumed that there is no present gap. Analysis has identified 3,288 acres of
private property located outside municipal boundaries that currently contribute to community
separation, mostly west of Edwards.
Cost
If the fee simple purchase of related properties by Government was the only mechanism by
which to maintain the adequacy of future community separation, an estimated purchase price
for the 3,288 acres in today's value would be over $90 million. While some purchases might be
appropriate, the ownership and consequent long term maintenance of these lands by the
government would not be practicable. A better approach would involve preserving lands
through the purchase of conservation easements or through providing incentives (or
regulations) that promote the continued use of the land for agricultural or open space
purposes. The popularity of hobby ranches among the wealthy could influence this outcome,
but only if the lands remain available over the long term for purchase by this demographic.
Water rights would also need to be preserved for irrigation on these lands.
The true "cost" of assuring this outcome would be the political will and risk and work required
to establish a shared vision with agreements and policies between all government entities that
would I) define the lands that should be targeted, and 2) limit and/or promote the types of
development and land use that could occur on these lands.
Methods
• Preserve public lands in separation areas
• Preserve existing open spaces, parks and river corridor
• Encourage landscape enhancements to screen/diminish impacts of existing development
in separation areas
• Purchase conservation easements
• Purchase lands in fee simple
• Implement zoning overlays
• Implement community growth and service boundaries
• Implement IGA's with provisions that preserve community separation
12
Sustainable Communities 2010
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY:
Parks
Mandate of service
DRAFT
Currently there is no Eagle County mandate for parkland dedication. With the large amount of
existing recreation opportunities in the community from public lands, the County has not
required the dedication of parkland or fees in lieu of parkland at any time during the
development process.
Current level of service
The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) suggests that a park system, at a
minimum, be composed of a total of 6.25 to 10.50 acres of developed open space per 1,000
people. The NRPA defines parkland as including play lots, neighborhood playground,
neighborhood park, community playfield, major community park, urban green space/open space,
and recreation facilities. The parkland and recreation facilities in the County are operated by
the towns,Vail Recreation District,Western Eagle County Metropolitan Recreation District,
Crown Mountain Recreation District and the school districts. Staff decided to have a parkland
requirement on the lower end of the recommendation scale of NRPA, specifically seven acres
per 1,000 people because of the large tracts of existing public lands in Eagle County.
The incorporated and unincorporated sections of Eagle County currently have approximately
1,006 acres of existing parkland. With our current population estimates in 2008 of 54,427
people at 7 acres per person, Eagle County needs 381 acres of parkland. We are above the
recommended level of service by 625 acres.
Goals
In 2008, the goal is to have 381 acres of parkland. In 2010, the goal is to have 407 acres of
parkland based on a population increase to 58,196. In 2025, the goal is to have 570 acres of
parkland based on a population increase to 81,350. With no increase is parkland development,
Eagle County is within the industry recommendation until 2025.
Gap
Eagle County does not have a deficit in developed parkland.
Cost
Eagle County would not need to develop and or acquire parkland on its own. At this time, Eagle
County does not require the dedication of parkland for developments which is allowed under
Colorado State Statute. Under the Methods section, the ability to acquire parkland in the
future is discussed.
Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT
A future cost for parkland is in the ongoing maintenance of any additional developed parkland.
The different entities currently managing parkland would need an increase in financial resources
to take on any additional parkland in their districts.
Methods
According to Colorado State Statute, Eagle County has the legal right to ask for parkland
dedication or a fee in lieu of parkland dedication. The existing Land Use Regulations, governing
the subdivision process, could be amended to require the dedication of parkland for all future
developments.
14
Sustainable Communities 2010
ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY:
Environmental Management System
DRAFT
Mandate of Service: There is no legislative requirement as it pertains to creation of an
Environmental Management System. However, Eagle County has adopted policies relating to
energy efficiency, water efficiency, and reducing waste. To this end, it is imperative that we
demonstrate leadership in this arena through monitoring our consumption levels, setting
aggressive goals for reductions which save taxpayer money as well as reduce environmental
impacts.
Level of Service/Baseline info: In 2007, Eagle County consumed the following utility
and fuel resources totaling:
Cost
Electricity: xxxxx $338,455
Natural Gas: xxxxx $214,035
Renewable Energy: 0
Water: x gallons $ xx,xxx
Gasoline: 119,461 gallons $329,179
Diesel: 370,098 gallons $1,017,369
Solid Waste: 115,489 tons $xxx,xxx
Recycling: 10,789 tons $xx,xxx
Average energy cost/square foot in an Eagle County facility: $1.88
Average pounds per person per day of trash: 12.0
The emissions created from these consumptions include:
Xxxx tons CO2
Xxx tons NOx
Xxx tons Sox
Growth Impact: New development brings in additional resource consumption to meet
the needs of a building's occupants. In an effort to meet reduction in overall energy and
water consumption, new buildings must be designed to consume 50% of existing
consumption rates. It is the goal of this report to incorporate community -wide indicators
for these numbers. However, for the time being with the exception of solid waste and
recycling indicators, this EMS will focus on Eagle County fleet and facilities only.
Future Goals: The future goals of the EMS are as follows:
• Electricity: 50% reduction/ft2
• Natural gas: 30% reduction/ft2
• Water: 50% reduction.
Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT
• Renewable Energy: Local renewable energy systems provide at least 50% of the
remaining electricity needs of county facilities.
• Renewable Energy: Biomass projects, geothermal, and/or solar thermal offset 50% of
the remaining heating needs.
• Fuel: 50% average miles per gallon increase of county fleet
• Fuel: 30% of fuel is from alternative sources (CNG, biofuels, electricity, etc.)
• Solid waste: 5 pounds per person per day or less (national average)
• Recycling: 50% diversion rate
Gap: In most cases above the gap is essentially the goal. However, in the case of solid
waste, the current metric is 12 pounds per person per day entering the landfill. A goal of 5
pounds per person per day, which is the national average, would leave a gap of 7 pounds per
person per day reduction needed.
Methodology:
• Energy Performance Contracts: aggressive retrofits and commissioning of existing
buildings to meet use reduction targets.
• Construct renewable energy systems to offset county -operated facility energy needs.
• Install pellet boilers to additional facilities as is applicable.
• Pursue biodiesel feasibility for fleet.
• Xeriscape and efficient water systems/controls.
• Higher tipping fees, pay -as -you -throw waste programs.
• Require recycling/deconstruction for all construction projects (50% of the landfill
waste is construction/demolition waste.
• Implement state-of-the-art recycling programs. While Eagle County cannot mandate
recycling, there are other incentives or carrot/stick approaches to encourage
recycling and partner with the towns.
Costs:
• Energy Performance Contracts: cost normally can be financed into the scope of
work/contract timeline to yield positive annual cash flow.
• General cost for solar PV systems: $8000 per kilowatt. To meet the goal of 50%
electricity being generated by local systems, an estimated 3000 kilowatts (or 3
MegaWatts (MW)) would need to be installed, for an estimated straight cost of
$2,400,000. However, since tax credits which make such projects more economically
feasible are only available to private companies, it is recommended that future
projects be constructed on a Power Purchase Agreement basis, in which costs are
lumped into existing utility costs.
• Install pellet boilers/furnaces: the cost for the system at the landfill was $85,000.
Assuming 4 similar systems are installed at other county facilities, that total would be
$340,000. The systems would yield cost savings over natural gas, such paybacks will
depend on the relative cost of pellets vs. natural gas in the future.
• Biodiesel: Biodiesel doesn't cost more than conventional diesel, in fact it can be less
expensive. No vehicle/engine retrofits are required. A B30 mix (30% biodiesel, 70%
16
Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT
petroleum diesel) is recommended for fleet use. B30 has been used by Vail Resorts
and Aspen Ski Company for years in their snow cat fleet.
• Xeriscape and efficient water systems/controls:
• Higher tipping fees = positive cash flow, funds can be used toward further waste
reduction (MRF, composting, PR, etc.)
• Require recycling/deconstruction for all construction projects: no cost, enforcement
through existing inspections.
• Fleet 50% miles per gallon increase: evaluate initial purchase price of vehicles by
combining life cycle fuel consumption costs based on our average vehicle ownership
time. Significant additional costs would not be expected; it is anticipated that this
would save money as the Prius fleet has demonstrated.
• Fleet 30% of fuel from alternative sources: Replace vehicles as necessary with
alternative or flex -fuel vehicles such as compressed natural gas (CNG), electric
vehicles, plug-in hybrids, etc. Not anticipated to represent a significant cost.
• Wind: 260,400 kWh wind credits offset 100% electrical usage. Cost $78,120.
17
Sustainable Communities 2010
TRANSPORTATION:
Road Infrastructure
Level of Service:
County Roads: Fair
State Roads: Poor to Fair
DRAFT
Growth Impact: New development increases the number of new residents, which
impacts road capacity and maintenance requirements.
Gap: $450M of identified road improvements needed in the next 20 years.
Goal: Maintain Level of Service C&D for roadways and Intersections
Cost: $450M of identified road improvements needed in the next 20 years.
Methodology: HUFT funding, CDOT funding/grants, Impact Fees, Improvement
Districts, County General Fund
Mandated Service: Provide Safe Roads for community
Sustainable Communities 2010
TRANSPORTATION:
Mass Transit
DRAFT
Level of Service: Current regional service is good; Local system is poor.
Growth Impact: New development increases the number of new residents, which
impacts service capacity.
Gap: Current funding lacks sufficient capital improvement. Town of Eagle/Gypsum and
Edwards need a local feeder system.
Future Goal: Maintain a good LOS and provide Local feeder System
Cost: See appendix
Methodology: Sale Tax, CDOT funding/grants, Impact Fees, Improvement Districts,
County General Fund
Mandated Service: Mass transit is not a mandate, but a worthwhile service for a
community's dynamic
19
Sustainable Communities 2010
TRANSPORTATION:
Bike and Pedestrian Trails
Level of Service: Fair; 3 of 6 community connections completed
DRAFT
Growth Impact: New development increases the number of new residents, which
impacts service capacity.
Gap: 3 communities do not have trail connections
Goal: Complete full connection to all Eagle Valley Communities by 2020. Planned core trail
is 63 miles long, 33 constructed, 30 miles remains to be constructed.
Cost: $600/capita
Methodology: Sales Tax, CDOT funding/grants, Impact Fees, Improvement Districts,
County General Fund
Mandated Service: Mass bike/pedestrian trail is not a mandate, but it is a highly sought-
after amenity for top -rated resort communities.
20
Sustainable Communities 2010
HOUSING:
Workforce and Senior Housing
DRAFT
Overview:
Eagle County faces a substantial County -wide gap in the availability of ownership and rental
housing that is affordable for local residents, both active workers and retired seniors. High
housing payments burden households, and employees are forced to commute long distances.
Overcrowding is common. Jobs remain unfilled, negatively impacting business operations, and
the vast majority of employers believe that the availability of workforce housing is a critical or
major problem in Eagle County.
As detailed more fully in Eagle County's 2007 Housing Needs Assessment, the current state of
Eagle County's housing need is as follows:
• Approximately 5,300 Households live in homes that are not affordable given their
incomes, making it difficult for those Households to pay for other necessities, like food,
utilities, transportation, and health care;
• Housing prices are continuing to rise faster than incomes, indicating that housing is
becoming progressively less affordable for local wage earners;
• Commuting into Eagle County is on the increase —over 18 percent of employees
commute in from homes outside of Eagle County to jobs within Eagle County;
• The relationship between primary and vacation homes is changing, and local wage-
earning residents are unable to compete with buyers from outside of Eagle County. The
proportion of homes in unincorporated Eagle County occupied by County residents
declined from 69 percent in 2000 to 66.5 percent as of 2006. Local residents currently
occupy at least 52 percent of the total square footage of the housing stock in Eagle
County, but that percentage is declining. This has implications on the demand for and
availability of workforce housing.
• As of the 2000 Census, approximately 69 percent of all housing units in Eagle County
were occupied by residents and 31 percent were vacant, primarily because of seasonal
and recreational use. The Department of Local Affairs estimates that the occupancy rate
in 2006 was about 64 percent, indicating a decline of 7 percent in the proportion of units
that actually serve as housing.
• Based on residential sales in 2007, the primary -to -secondary home occupancy ratio has
continued to decline from 2000 to 2006. In 2007, locals purchased 52 percent of all
units sold. Of these, 54 units were deed restricted. Locals purchased only 49 percent of
free-market units.
• 3,400 housing units are needed to address current deficiencies that the free market has
not and is not expected to address; and
• Over 8,000 additional units will be needed to keep up with the demand for workforce
housing by the year 2015.
Homes that are not occupied, but rather function as vacation accommodations, generate
demand for workforce housing through their requirements for upkeep and maintenance.
21
Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT
Moreover, a shift from primary to secondary residences degrades the local character of a
mountain community. As Eagle County's housing imbalance increases, availability of housing for
employees becomes even more limited, and the fabric of the entire community is threatened.
Despite the documented demand for workforce housing, private developers have little incentive
to provide housing for Households with incomes less than 140 percent of the Area Median
Income (hereinafter "AMI") because responding to demand for high -end homes is more
profitable. With the quality of life, natural beauty, and abundance of recreation opportunities in
Eagle County, demand for housing by purchasers of vacation homes will continue to drive prices
upward and dominate the market absent a major recession or revision of federal tax policy.
Level of Service:
Catch -Up Needs, based on current deficiencies in housing, are as follows:
• 1,420 additional housing units are needed to attract employees to fill the over 4,000
jobs that are now vacant.
• Employees who commute in from homes in neighboring counties for jobs in Eagle
County and would like to move to be closer to work generate demand for 2,469
additional housing units.
• Approximately 557 housing units are needed to address overcrowding of homes in
Eagle County.
As of April 2008, roughly 1,050 residential units were listed for sale in Eagle County.
These free-market units narrow the current catch-up gap to approximately 3,400 units, a
number which is close to previous estimates for workforce housing recently derived by
the Eagle County Housing Department and the Urban Land Institute
Keep -Up Needs, defined as the number of units needed to keep up with future demand for
housing based on projected employment and population growth and the requirement to replace
retiring employees, include:
• 4,776 additional units to accommodate growth in the labor force through in -migration
to sustain business expansion and start ups, and
• 3,284 units for employees are needed to fill positions that will be vacated by retiring
workers.
Managing the Housing Effect of Growth:
The purpose of the Eagle County Local -Resident Housing Guidelines (the "Guidelines"), is to
implement specific strategies of the Comprehensive Plan calling for private development to
share in the responsibility for keeping up with the demand for workforce housing in the future
as part of all new residential and commercial growth.
22
Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT
The Guidelines are intended to promote sustainable communities in Eagle County through the
creation of affordable, permanent -resident housing stock. They call for the provision of
workforce housing for Households earning the equivalent of 140 percent AMI or lower —
households that have little or no opportunity to purchase free-market housing without
significant subsidy. They also provide options for providing housing priced for local residents
with incomes greater than 140 percent AMI since free-market housing opportunities for these
Households are also limited in terms of unit type and location. They complement other County
programs, noted above, to address the economic spectrum of Households in Eagle County that
cannot afford housing. The Guidelines are part of Eagle County's broader solution of making
housing available for and affordable to Eagle County's growing workforce. All development in
unincorporated Eagle County must adhere to the Guidelines.
Gap:
There is a significant gap between the current demand for units (catch-up) and the number of
homes available as of April, 2007.The difference of 3,398 units between current demand for
4,446 units and 1,048 current listings represents the magnitude of the gap between what
residents and in -commuting employees want for housing and what the free market is providing.
The difference for each AMI category represents the net demand between what residents and
in -commuters can afford and the free market price of units.
The gap is largest in the 81 to 120 percent AMI range ($53,850 - $73,000 for a 3 -person
household). Since federal and state housing programs only serve households with incomes equal
to or less than 80 percent AMI (Low Income Housing Tax Credits and several grant programs
have even lower income eligibility standards) addressing the gap in the 81 to 120 percent AMI
range will require partnering with private developers and other local solutions that do not rely
on funding from outside of Eagle County.
Proportionately, the free market best serves households with incomes greater than 140 percent
AMI; units available as of April could potentially meet approximately 64 percent of catch-up
demand in the upper income category.These figures are dynamic; additional units will be placed
on the market during 2007 that will slightly lower the gap.With 97 percent of the current
listings affordable only for households with incomes greater than 140 percent AMI, the change
should not significantly impact planning for solutions to
address catch-up demand.
23
Sustainable Communities 2010
Net Demand for Housing
DRAFT
Keep and Catch -Up Demand Summarized:
HOUSING NEEDS AND GAPS
Summary -of Housing Demand —
Units
Source of Demand Needed
Catch -Up Needs
Unfilled Jobs, 2007 1,420
In Commuters 2,469
Overcrowded Units 557
Total Catch -Up Demand 4,446
Keep -Up Needs
New Jobs, 2007 - 2015 4,776
Replacement of Retirees, 2007 - 2015 3,284
Total Keep -Up Demand 8,060
Total Demand for Additional Units by 2015 12,506
Further Breakdown of Keep Up Demand:
HOUSING NEEDS AND GAPS
Net Demand far -Housing
# Current # Current
AMI Range Max Price Listings MLS Demand Gap
50% AMI or less $124,796 2 242 -240
60% AMI $148,123 0 327 -327
80% AMI $180,238 0 384 -384
100% AMI $241,432 4 683 -679
120% AMI $288,086 4 678 -674
140% AMI $334,741 18 545 -527
Over 140% AMI Over $334,741 1,020 1,588 -568
Total
1,048 4,446 -3,398
Source: Eagle County MLS; RRC/Rees Calculations
24
Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT
Future Goal:
Keep Up: Compliance with the Eagle County Housing Guidelines for new development:
(I) inclusionary Housing for Residential Developments. In order to slow the shift
from primary to secondary home ownership, Eagle County has set its base rate for Local
Resident Housing at 35 percent of the total square footage of a project, a figure substantially
below the 52 percent of the residential square footage in Eagle County that is currently
occupied by local residents. As such, all new Residential Development, except un-subdivided 35 -
acre parcels, must include the following:
(A) Affordable Housing equal to 35 percent of total Net Square Footage of the
Residential Development;
or
(B) Affordable Housing equal to 30 percent of total Net Square Footage of the
Residential Development and Resident -Occupied Housing equal to 10 percent of
total Net Square Footage of the Residential Development.
or
(C) Affordable Housing equal to 30 percent of total Net Square Footage of the
Residential Development and voluntary adoption of a 1.5 percent transfer
assessment placed on the second and all subsequent sales of all market -rate units
(excluding units resold to Eligible Households).
or
(D) Affordable Housing equal to 25 percent of total Net Square Footage of the
Residential Development and voluntary adoption of a 1.5 percent transfer
assessment placed on the second and all subsequent sales of all market -rate
units (excluding units resold to Eligible Households) and Resident -Occupied
Housing equal to 10 percent of total Net Square Footage of the Residential
Development.
(2) Affordable Employee Housing Required for Commercial Mitigation. All new
Commercial Development that, by hiring new employees, creates the need for one or more
additional housing units must mitigate the impact of such development on Eagle County housing
stock by providing Affordable Housing for up to 100 percent of the housing demand generated
by Households with incomes less than 140 percent AMI, accounting for current in -commuting
rates (for an overall mitigation rate for the housing demand created by all new jobs of 55
percent). If 20 percent of Net Square Footage of the new Commercial Development is
Affordable Commercial Space the mitigation rate will be reduced by 10 percentage points to 45
percent.
(3) For mixed -use projects, only the higher of the (I) (Inclusionary Housing) or (2) (Affordable
Employee Housing) requirements apply at the lowest applicable AMI-affordability levels.
25
Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT
(4) Either Affordable Rental Housing or Affordable For -Sale Housing may be constructed to
comply with the Inclusionary Housing or the Commercial Employee Housing Mitigation
component of the Guidelines.
(5) While on -site construction of Local -Resident Housing is preferred, it may be built off site
under conditions enumerated herein.
The Guidelines apply to all applicants for Development Permits, including all governmental and
non-profit entities, in unincorporated Eagle County. The Guidelines do not apply to
development within the municipalities ofVail,Avon, Minturn, Red Cliff, Eagle, Gypsum, or Basalt.
Compliance with the Guidelines represents one of several relevant elements in a land use
application as detailed in Eagle County's Land Use Regulations and the Comprehensive Plan.
Complying with the Guidelines, however, does not assure an applicant that a Development
Permit will be approved.
Catch Up: Construction of 3500 workforce and senior units throughout
Eagle County.
Cost:
Keep Up: No cost to Eagle County.
Catch Up: No net cost to Eagle County (using existing resources, including
existing capital with a projected 6% IRR).
26
Sustainable Communities 2010
SOCIAL CAPITAL:
Access to Health Care
DRAFT
Overview: In Eagle County, 26% of residents (14,500 individuals) cannot afford medical
care because they are uninsured. This is nearly 1 in 4 residents.
Level of Service: Eagle County, Eagle Care Clinic, and a few area physicians offer primary
care, based on the ability to pay, but are still only meeting 46% of the need.
CURRENT STATUS - ACCESS TO HEALTH CARE
12%
14%
74%
Insured Medical Care Uninsured - No Coverage Uninsured - Covered by Public/Private
Growth: New development increases the number of new residents, which impacts service
capacity. For example, every 3,300 sq ft of new residential development in Eagle County and
every 1,757 sq ft of new commercial development bring in one new uninsured resident that
needs medical services.
Gap: The medical needs of and preventive services for nearly 7,700 residents are currently
going unmet except for their access to the hospital emergency room. By 2010, Eagle County
will have 979 more uninsured residents.
27
Sustainable Communities 2010
DRAFT
Future Goal: To offer primary care services to 80% of uninsured residents by the year 2010.
5%
GOAL - ACCESS to HEALTH CARE
21%
74%
Insured Medical Care Uninsured - No Coverage Uninsured - Covered Riblic/Private
Cost: The total 2010 annual operating cost to serve 80% of the uninsured population is
$7,200,000, of which only $3,700,000 is new funds.These new funds equal a per capita cost
of $68 annually.
28
Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT
COSTS to CLOSE the GAP
8000000 140
c
o
7000000
co
O 6000000
a
2 5000000
3
c 4000000
c
I 3000000
m
N 2000000
O
TA 1000000
V
0
Current
Goal
120
100
J9
a.
80 V
m
60 °'
H
o
o
40
20
Methodology: Using a Community Health Center (CHC) model, the county can apply
for state and federal designations that would help us obtain government grants.The key for
sustaining a CHC is to have multiple payer sources including grants, client fees, Medicaid/
Medicare, taxes and private donations.
29
Sustainable Communities 2010
SOCIAL CAPITAL:
Access to Dental Care
DRAFT
Level of Service: In Eagle County, 48 percent of residents (26,125) do not have adequate
dental insurance. The only indigent dental care available in county is a mobile dental van,
which serves 180 low income children ages 5-18.On average, nearly 1,000 procedures are
performed on these kids, over 234 visits.
In addition, only 50 percent of water systems within Eagle County are fluoridated. Fluoride
is a natural cavity fighter that helps delay the onset and progression of tooth decay.The
absence of fluoride makes access to dental services even more critical.
Growth Impact: New development increases the number of new residents, which
impacts service capacity. For example, Every 1,988 square feet of new residential
development, and every 1,062 square feet of new commercial development brings in one
new resident lacking access to dental care.
Gap: The dental needs, including preventive services for nearly 25,945 residents are going
unmet. By 2010, Eagle County will have 1809 more residents without adequate dental
insurance.
Future Goal: To start an indigent care dental clinic and serve 1,367 residents, meeting 6%
of the need, by the year 2010.
Cost: The 2010 start up and operating costs will require $383,935 in new funds.
Methodology: Using a Community Health Center (CHC) model, the County can apply
for state and federal designations that would help us obtain government grants.Additionally,
clients can be charged on a sliding fee scale, in addition to government payer sources of $45
per CHP+ client and $65 per Medicaid client visit. Patient fees should generate 1/3 of the
revenue. Other revenue sources will need to include public and private donations.
Mandated Service: Dental care is not a mandated service.
Sustainable Communities 2010
SOCIAL CAPITAL:
Access to Child Care
DRAFT
Level of Service: In Eagle County, there are over 5000 children ages 5 and younger. In
59% of these families, both parents work, resulting in nearly 3,000 EC children needing care.
Only 961 licensed childcare spaces currently exist and are only meeting 32% of the need.
❑ Don't Need Care
❑ Have Licensed Care
❑ No Licensed Care
Growth Impact: Every 15,588 sq ft of new residential development and every 8,328 sq ft
of new commercial development brings in a family with one more child without access to
licensed child care.
Gap: In 2008, there are 2,023 children with out access to licensed care. By 2010, this
number will increase to 2070.
Future Goal: To help community partners develop four new licensed child care facilities,
with an additional 200 spaces.This will meet 38% of the need by 2010.
Cost: Annual operating costs alone will require 2,083,200 in new funds.
Methodology: Currently, four new child care facility proposals are being developed:
Gypsum, Stratton Flats, Basalt/Growing Years, and Riverview. However, there is a worker
shortage in existing child care facilities, and it is estimated that a minimum of 63 more staff
will be required for these four new facilities.This type of worker demand could increase the
cost to pay employees.
Mandated Service: Child care is not a statutorily mandated service.
31
Sustainable Communities 2010
SOCIAL CAPITAL:
Assisted Living
DRAFT
Level of Service: In Eagle County, there are 2,710 residents ages 65 and older and no
assisted living facilities. According to national figures, 5% of seniors in this age group are at
risk of needing assisted living annually.
Growth: To keep up after 2015 would require planning for an addition 13 residents
annually.
Gap: According to national figures, 5% of seniors, ages 65 and older, are at risk of needing
assisted living annually.
Future Goal: To establish a 45 bed assisted living facility by 2015.
Cost: $15,000,000, which equates to 45 residents @1000 sq. ft. per resident@ $325 per sq.
ft.
Methodology: Use a public -private partnership to purchase land, develop and run facility.
Mandated Service: Assisted Living is not a mandated service.
32
Sustainable Communities 2010
FISCAL IMPACT TOOL:
Site Stats
DRAFT
SiteStatsTM is a tool developed by Development Research Partners and available through the
Economic Council of Eagle County.
SiteStatsTM is used for evaluating the economic and fiscal impacts associated with new,
expanding and existing development. Economic impact analysis is the analytical approach used to
assess the measurable direct and indirect, public and private costs and benefits resulting from a
project or policy over a specific time period. Only those costs and benefits that can be
measured or quantified are included. Intangible costs and benefits, such as enhancement of
community character or diversification of the job base, are not included. Fiscal impact analysis is
a narrower concept that measures only the direct, public (governmental) costs and public
revenues associated with a project over a specific time period such as sales and use tax,
property tax, franchise fees, licenses and permits, and other charges for services. In other
words, economic impacts measure the effect of spending of businesses, employees and residents
on other businesses whereas fiscal impacts measure the effect of this spending on the local
government(s) budget.
SiteStatsTM enables (I) cost -benefit analysis for a specific project and (2) comparison between
multiple projects. Analytical results can be used to evaluate a project's ability to meet various
economic and financial criteria established by public policy. Analytical results will contribute to
the decision making process, but in no case should the resulting analysis be construed as
establishing public policy or economic criteria. SiteStatsTM is but one of several inputs that
should be considered in the decision process.
33
Sustainable Communities 2010
DRAFT
COMMUNICATION and COLLABORATION TOOLS:
Build -Out Analysis
Eagle County is currently updating the 2006 Build Out Analysis with the assistance of
TerraCognito GIS Services.
Work program activities for the update to the 2008 Build Out Analysis and Visioning Exercise
include the following projects:
• Phase I :Theoretical build out of existing zoning,
• Phase 2: Practical build out of existing zoning,
• Phase 3: Practical build out of master plans and potential zoning,
• Phase 4: 3D visualization of build out analyses.
Phase I:
The existing zoning designations for each jurisdiction will be analyzed using the CommunityViz
Build Out Wizard, resulting in geographically distributed points representing future dwelling
units. This build out analysis will represent the maximum residential development allowed by
underlying zoning, known as theoretical build out.
Projected population growth rates as well as anticipated development phasing for each
jurisdiction will be applied to the build out results, generating residential growth allocations for
a given future time interval. This is referred to as TimeScope analysis, and will enable us to see a
snapshot of development at the year 2025.
Phase 2:
While theoretical build out is how each jurisdiction could develop in a landscape without
practical development constraints, practical build out is a more realistic depiction of future
development. It accounts for the effects of development constraints that tend to impede
parcels from being developed to their full zoning potential.
The results from Phase I will be adjusted to more accurately represent growth patterns at
2025, based on input from the planners in each jurisdiction. All other assumptions from Phase I
will remain unchanged (i.e. growth rates, development phasing and non-negotiable constraints).
Phase 3:
Practical build out analysis only illustrates development patterns if the existing zoning never
changes. Therefore, a more useful tool is the exercise of analyzing the build out potential of
future zoning or master plans.
In Phase 3, the master plan land use designations and future land use maps for each jurisdiction
will be analyzed using the CommunityViz Build Out Wizard, resulting in geographically
distributed points representing additional future dwelling units.
Phase 4:
The results of the spatial build out analyses in the previous three phases will be rendered in
three dimensions and placed on a digital terrain model to show how each build out scenario will
look on the landscape at the year 2025.
34
Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT
The intent of these landscape visualizations is to provide a bird's eye view of potential future
development patterns. The models representing residential buildings will accurately depict
overall massing (dwelling units, footprint, height and form) but will not represent any particular
details in terms of architecture, color or texture.
Existing buildings will also be rendered based on the availability and completeness of building
footprint data and building heights.
It is anticipated that the Build Out Analysis and Visioning exercise will be completed by October
2008.
35
Sustainable Communities 2010
DRAFT
COMMUNICATION and COLLABORATION TOOLS:
Mayor -Manager Collaborative Mapping
As a result of discussions at a Mayors/Managers meeting in April 2008, it was decided that a set
of joint county and town maps would be generated depicting a number of attributes associated
with common goals for Eagle County and the towns. The maps show:
• The first and second priorities for transportation improvements in each municipality.
Specifically, each municipality showed on the map the location of where the two most
critical transportation elements/issues they are facing and briefly describe the issues.
• Opportunities for affordable housing within each municipality. Specifically, each
municipality identified the location of where affordable housing should be located within
each town and indicated their estimate of potential units.
• Opportunities for Transit Oriented Development (TOD's) within each municipality.
Specifically, each municipality gave the location where anticipated potential transit
stations and/or Transit Oriented Development could occur. The jurisdictions were
reminded that an affordable housing component may be incorporated into the TOD.
• Open space parcels in or around each municipality that are of particular importance.
Specifically, each municipality provided the location of key open space parcels in each
town (or in close proximity) that are of significant importance.
• Extent of the urban growth boundary and/or urban service area for each municipality.
Specifically, each municipality assigned the location of the designated urban growth
boundary and/or the urban service area.
The Eagle County GIS Department consolidated the information for distribution and discussion.
These maps are a conduit for continued discussion and collaboration between the towns and
Eagle County as we look for ways to plan together the Eagle valley and Roaring Fork valley
portions in Eagle County.
36
Sustainable Communities 2010
COMMUNICATION and COLLABORATION TOOLS:
Inter -Governmental Agreements
DRAFT
The Town of Basalt and Eagle County have been negotiating an Intergovernmental Agreement
(IGA) to improve relations over competing interests of developers in the two jurisdictions.
Future development could result in substantial impacts, both positive and negative, within the
County and the Town.The necessity exists for coordinated and cooperative planning and
decision making with respect to such development between the County and the Town as well as
the establishment of evaluation, design and mitigation standards for both direct and indirect on -
site and off -site impacts with any future development.
The IGA specifically addresses the following items:
• To further the goals and intentions of the 2007 Basalt Master Plan, as amended;
• To further the policies and recommendations of the 2005 Eagle County Comprehensive Plan
and Area Plans, as amended;
• To assure that urban scale development is appropriate and consistent with sound land
planning and development principles pending the update of the Mid Valley Community
Master Plan;
• To preserve and protect sensitive areas and natural resources; including but not limited to
natural wildlife habitat, cultural resources, open space, air quality, water resources, night sky
preservation, view corridors, and noise mitigation;
• To maintain the natural beauty of the area to the extent possible consistent with the rights
of property owners and the needs of the Town and County and their citizens;
• To facilitate and ensure fiscal planning for the adequate provision of essential governmental
services consistent and compatible with land use and development decisions;
• To strongly encourage and, where appropriate, require specific assurances of adequate
provisions for water, sewerage, drainage, air quality, open space, roads, parking,
transportation, public services, public facilities, and affordable housing;
• To protect the environment and quality of life through appropriate controls and standards
designed to provide adequate open space; to avoid unserviceable concentrations of
populations; to avoid congestion on roadways; to provide for clean air; to protect water
quality and eliminate stream pollution and excess sedimentation; and to prevent erosion and
development on any unstable slopes;
• To preserve, promote and protect the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of and
visitors to the Town and County.
• To facilitate cooperation between the Town and County for all long range planning and
community plans.
It is anticipated that the IGA will be signed by both jurisdictions at the end of September 2008.
The IGA will become a template for future IGA's with the other municipalities in Eagle County
to promote regional planning efforts.
37
Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT
TRANSPORTATION COLLABORATIVE
The Transportation Collaborative is a forward thinking group of valley wide representatives
from the County, the Towns and special interest groups that are working together to identify
current and future transportation issues as well as propose and implement solutions. By
enhancing the dialogue, we can work together locally to be better prepared when responding to
the Federal and State authorities on transportation issues.
The discussion to date has included:
• Transportation implications of existing and future land use approvals.
• Transportation improvements that need to be accomplished in order to maintain an
"adequate" level of service for our residents and visitors.
• Ramifications and relationships to the overall transportation system relative to public
transit, bus systems, potential rail systems, airport expansion, etc.
• Determine where the money comes from to address the transportation system
deficiencies.
• Determine who the players are and what partnerships should be formed.
• Determine financing options.
• Determine timing.
Programs and projects the Collaborative has achieved or is currently working towards
outcomes include:
• Review of existing transportation reports, plans and data to determine the current level
of service and existing deficiencies.
• Completion of the Eagle/Gypsum/Eagle County financial analysis for transportation
improvements in the down valley region.
• Investigation and discussion of transportation infrastructure financing opportunities.
• Assisting the 1-70 Coalition regarding a study of land use patterns and potential transit
station locations along the 1-70 corridor.
The Transportation Collaborative is an excellent example of communication and collaboration
among the community leaders working in unison to identify transportation issues and find
solutions.
38
Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT
RESOURCES:
Statement of Commercial/Residential Activities
and
Mandated and Discretionary Governmental Funds
The Statement of Commercial/Residential Activities is an estimate of the revenue generated by type of
construction. Commercial developments generate all sales taxes and have a higher assessment value.
However, due to the volume of residential developments, they bring in a larger share of the property
taxes. Other revenue has been allocated to commercial and residential developments based on estimates
and discussions with Finance and Treasury personnel as well as personnel from the Assessor's Office.
Based on these estimates, a little over two thirds of all revenue generated by the County is from
residential development.The remaining on third is generated from the construction and continued
success of commercial development and businesses.
Mandated and Discretionary Governmental Funds are estimates based on discussion with most of the
County Departmental Directors and the County Attorney.They are for discussion purposes only and
require additional analysis before any conclusions may be drawn.These are rough estimates and, if taken
out of context, may be misleading. For example, the jail is mandated and security systems and computers
are necessary for the safe operation of the jail. However, the type and $ value of those security systems
are not mandated and therefore a portion of the cost may be considered discretionary.The portion that
could be considered discretionary is obviously subjective and, therefore, requires more attention by
governing bodies.
Other examples include the Airport and Landfill Departments. It is not mandated that the County has an
airport; however, the presence of one provides an incredible economic benefit. It is not mandated that
the County has a landfill. However, if a landfill exists in a County, it is mandated that the County run it.
In the General Fund it can be even more complicated. It is mandated that the Finance Department has an
audit and a budget. However, many of the activities of the Finance Department, such as filing procedures,
computer systems, etc. are not mandated but make great business sense.Their elimination based on a
strict adherence to a mandated/discretionary principle would increase audit and mandated reporting
costs of other departments beyond what would be considered reasonable or cost effective.
The County expenditures that may be considered to be and are estimated to be discretionary are those
expenditures that the County commissioners spend most of their time analyzing.They are at the heart of
the service levels that are demanded by the citizens.
39
Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT
RESOURCES:
STATEMENT OF COMMERCIAL/RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITIES
MANDATED AND DISCRETIONARY GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS
Commercial Residential Total
Revenues
Sales Taxes
PropertyTaxes
Specific Ownership Fees
Licenses, fees and permits
Internal Service Charges
Federal, State, Local Aid
Investment earnings
Miscellaneous
Total revenues
Expenditures - Mandated
General Fund
Road & Bridge
Early Childhood
Social Services
Wrap Fund
Insurance Reserve
Offsite Road Improvements
Capital Improvements
ECO
ECO Replacement
Trails
Roaring Fork Trans
Roaring Fork Trails
Airport
Conservation Trust
800 MGHZ
COP Debt Service
Housing Fund
Hazardous Materials
Open Space
Landfill Fund
Motor Pool
Health Insurance
E 911
Total
Net available after mandated
Expenditures - Discretionary
General Fund
Road & Bridge
Early Childhood
Social Services
Wrap Fund
Insurance Reserve
Offsile Road Improvements
Capital Improvements
ECO
ECO Replacement
Trails
Roaring Fork Trans
Roaring Fork Trails
Airport
Conservation Trust
800 MGHZ
COP Debt Service
Housing Fund
Hazardous Materials
Open Space
Landfill Fund
Motor Pool
Health Insurance
E 911
20,387,044 0 20,387,044
6,067,522 20,494,002 26,561,524
203,110 865,890 1,069,000
4,943,613 14,830,838 19,774,450
2,511,570 10,707,219 13,218,789
826,526 15, 703, 994 16, 530, 520
563,289 2,401,390 2,964,679
629,884 2,685,295 3,315,179
36,132,557 67,688,628 103,821,185
23,253,086
7,763,530
0
3,148,406
13,000
216,685
200,000
4,900,000
8,554,019
1,149,511
511,551
402,487
44,717
0
150,000
471,450
1,269,139
0
58,942
452,377
0
4,719,941
7,363,172
889,105
65,531,117
38,290,068
12,759,426
1,213
1,446,511
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
9,621,102
0
0
0
443,815
0
0
4,183,650
2,896,343
0
0
Total 31,352,060
40
Sustainable Communities 2010
RESOURCES:
Cost to Serve
Cost to Serve Definition and Calculation
DRAFT
The costs to serve by department and fund as shown is an estimate of the costs of any development on
a per capita basis.A widespread theory of development is that commercial properties pay for
themselves.This theory is based on the sales and property taxes that are generated from commercial
developments. However, this theory is a metropolitan area theory that assumes that additional employee
needs such as health care and affordable housing are already available. In addition, the theory does not
anticipate tax increment financing impacts that reduce the revenue that would otherwise offset the
costs to serve the impacts of the new development.
In order to calculate the cost to serve determinations, the following steps were taken:
I) Went back 5 years and forward 20 years to determine dependencies in revenue and
expenditures for every department and every fund.
2) Analyzed those dependencies and determined the correlations in dollar terms.
3) Re -calculated costs based on correlations and projected revenues over the next 20 years.
4) Divided the additional expenditures, net of additional actual and/or projected revenues, by the
increases in population (also actual or projected).
5) Also determined the net impact of those that commute into the County to work.
The result is a per person cost to serve, net of fee revenue, that will be required in the future for all
developments.
This estimate of the cost to serve should be used as a guide for any new developments. Based on this
analysis, consideration should be given to require a new development within the County to prove that it
can generate enough revenue to cover the cost to serve the impacts.Those impacts would include
$1,242 for any new resident or resident employees and $124 for any commuting employees created by
the development. Since this analysis does not include any affordable housing costs that may also be
required in Eagle County, those costs should also be considered in addition to those shown in this
analysis.
41
Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT
Cost to Serve per Person by Budget Fund
Fund
General Fund (001)
Road & Bridge Fund (100)
Early Childhood Fund (109)
Social Services Fund (110)
WRAP Fund (111)
Retirement Fund (120)
Insurance Reserve Fund (130)
Off -site Road Improvement Fund (140)
Capital Improvements Fund (150)
Eagle Valley Transportation Fund (151)
Eagle Valley Trails Fund (152)
R. F. V. Transpiration Fund (153)
R. F. V. Trails Fund (154)
E. V. Transportation Vehicle Replacement Fund (155)
Airport Fund (160)
Conservation Trust Fund (170)
Microwave Maintenance Fund (180)
Contingent Fund (190)
Emergency Reserves Fund (191)
G. O. (Admin. Building) Debt Ser. Fund (200)
Joint Maintenance Debt Ser. Fund (201)
Capital Expenditure Fund (300)
Affordable Housing Fund (310)
Construction Fund (350)
Housing Fund (400)
Hazardous Materials Fund (441)
Open Space Fund (442)
Landfill Fund (600)
Motor Pool Fund (700)
Health Insurance Fund (790)
E911 Fund (900)
TOTAL EXPENSES
Expenditures
$36849207
$9010026
$1451165
$3123193
$13000
$0
$215838
$650000
$6208300
$8306094
$545622
$395095
$43896
$1149511
$9459252
$0
$569595
$0
$0
$0
$1258088
$0
$0
$0
$452340
$58942
$1439063
$4194506
$7631008
$7488172
$889005
$101400918
2008
Cost to
Serve
(per Pop)
Annually
2008
Cost to
Serve (per
In -Commute)
Annually
$451.36 $45.14
$110.36 $11.04
$17.78 $1.78
$38.26 $3.83
$0.16 $0.02
$0.00 $0.00
$2.64 $0.26
$7.96 $0.80
$76.04 $7.60
$101.74 $10.17
$6.68 $0.67
$4.84 $0.48
$0.54 $0.05
$14.08 $1.41
$115.86 $11.59
$0.00 $0.00
$6.98 $0.70
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00
$15.41 $1.54
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00
$0.00 $0.00
$5.54 $0.55
$0.72 $0.07
$17.63 $1.76
$51.38 $5.14
$93.47 $9.35
$91.72 $9.17
$10.89 $1.09
$1242.04 $124.20
42
Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT
Cost to Serve per Person - General Fund
General Fund (001)
Assessor
Total Clerk & Recorder
Total Board of County Commissioners
Total Treasurer
County Surveyor
County Attorney (operations)
Total Administration
GIS
Total Finance
Total Human Resources
Facilities Management
Information Technology
Planning & Zoning (community development)
Housing
Total Sheriff
Emergency Management
County Coroner
Weed & Pest Control
Animal Services
Building Inspection
Total Public Works
Total Health & Human Services
Environmental Health
Total Culture & Recreation
Total Intergovernmental Support
Total General Fund
43
2008
Cost to
Serve
(per Pop)
Annually
$21.05
$22.09
$13.61
$17.68
$0.23
$12.61
$13.84
$2.69
-$3.69
$11.61
$37.90
$30.11
$17.21
$10.07
$125.83
$1.82
$1.69
$2.23
$8.28
$13.14
$12.86
$44.24
$6.84
$4.99
$22.46
2008
Cost to
Serve (per
In -Commute)
Annually
$2.10
$2.21
$1.36
$1.77
$0.02
$1.26
$1.38
$0.27
-$0.37
$1.16
$3.79
$3.01
$1.72
$1.01
$12.58
$0.18
$0.17
$0.22
$0.83
$1.31
$1.29
$4.42
$0.68
$0.50
$2.25
$451.36 $45.14
Sustainable Communities 2010
DRAFT
RESOURCES:
Eagle County Population Projections Used in Matrices
110,000
82,500
55,000
27,500
0
45,380
*Colorado Department of Local Affairs Estimates
51,566
58,196
66,453
74,038
81,350
89,369
102,020
2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035
44
Sustainable Communities 2010
RESOURCES:
Sources for More Information
Transportation Resources:
General Assumptions:
2008 estimated population = 50,000 - Buildout = 2020 estimated population = 75,000 (DOLA - 74,038 (estimate 84% as Eagle Valley =
62,191.92,16% as RFV = 11,846)
Buildout = 2020 estimated population = 75,000 (DOLA - 74,038 (estimate 84% as Eagle Valley = 62,191.92,16% as RFV = 11,846)
$$ recrumpment by $2020 - All $ in current 2008 dollars - Subtracted revenue (cts) from line items (revenue will keep up with
Maintence/current LOS)
1.17p/1000 SF of Residential 2.17p/1000SF Comercial - assume 50% ratio - 1.67p/1000SF
DRAFT
2008 Cost to Serve per 2008 Cost to Serve per In -
Fund Expenditures pop/Annually Commute/Annually
Road & Bridge Fund (100) $9,010,026 $110.36 $11.04
Off -site Road Improvement Fund (140) $650,000 $7.96 $0.80
Eagle Valley Transportation Fund (151) $8,306,094 $101.74 $10.17
E. V. Transportation Vehicle Replacement Fund ( $1,149,511 $14.08 $1.41
Road Infrastructure assumptions:
County Roads State Roads
Growth accounts for 1/3 of Buildout population
CIP needs = $37,852,845 - $1 M/year = 20 year total $20M - $17,852,845 Assume STIP support = $100M CIP needs = $450,504,802
CIP need Final need = $350,504,802
1/3 CIP needs = $5,950353.23 - $238.01/capita 1/3 CIP needs = $116,823,250.07 - $4,672.93/capita
Mass transit assumptions:
Regional Transit Local Transit
Sale Tax revenue: $6M/annually
Fare revenue: $1.7M/annually
Current Cost to serve = $116/capita/year local feeder system - $200k per community - $600,000/25,00
20% Increase in service = $140/capita/year $24/capita/year =12 years = $288/pp
gap = $25/capita/year - Buildout = $25'$75,000 = $1,875,000
gap paid by growth = $1,875,000/25,000pop $75/capita/annual' 12 years= $900/pp growth
Pedestrian Trials assumptions:
Core Trail, known as Eagle Valley Trail, is 63 miles long. 33 miles are constructed. 30 miles remain to be constructed.
Estimated Trails Tax revenues through 2020 are $9,000,000 - 30 mile cost is estimated at $26 million in 2008. - Funding shortfall is
$15,000,000 - gap paid by growth $15,000,000/25,000p = $600/capita
2035 vision: full connection up all tributary valleys and Colorado River Road, connection to Tennesee Pass. 70 additional miles =
$60,000,000 in 2008 dollars.
Apply same formula to RF Trails, but with reduced trail mileage per smaller population and lands under EC jurisdiction.
Cost of transportation per mode per mile:
Cars
Buses
Rail
Air
Social Capital Resources:
Eagle County Housing Guidelines: Alex Potente, Eagle County Housing Director
Eagle County Health & Quality of Life Survey 2005: Jill Hunsaker, Public Health Manager
Eagle County Early Childhood Assessment, 2006: Jennie Wahrer, Early Childhood Manager
Eagle County Economic Services Division Medicaid Numbers: Kathy Lyons, Manager
45
Sustainable Communities 2010 DRAFT
Healthy Eagle County 2010-A Blueprint for Improving out Community's Health: Jill Hunsaker,
Public Health Manager
Indigent Dental Care Feasibility Study for Eagle County Smiles, 2007: Jill Hunsaker, Public Health
Manager
State of Colorado, Dept of Local Affairs, Demographer Population Forecast, 2008, Available
online: http://www.dola.state.co.us/demog webapps/population age gender
Urban Institute: Need for Assisted Living by Age Group
National Center for Assisted Living
46
Sustainable Communities 2010
DRAFT
RESOURCES:
Town and County Mayor -Manager Maps
47
Sustainable Communities 2010
DRAFT
RESOURCES:
Community Separator Maps
48
Open Space Criteria Mapping
Privately Owned Properties that Meet
Analysis Criteria & are Touching
Community Buffers
1531
Parcels that Meet Open
Space Criteria & that Touch
Community Buffers'
Community Buffers
1-70 Viewshed
(Viewable to Ridgeline)
Parcels Boundary
BLM
State
USFS
Wildemess
*Open Space Criteria Areas meet one or more of the following criteria:
1) Within 100 year food plain or major streams; Or
2) Has Four or more wildlife habitat occurances; Or
3) Falls in CNHP Potential Conservation Areas; Or
4) Falls within identified Sensitive Ridgeline Analysis areas; AND
5) Located in Vacant, Agricultural and Ranching Lands parcels
2
Miles
J L
r
op
%.6
C1
MEMO
To: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
THROUGH: LARRY BROOKS, TOWN MANAGER
FROM: PATTY MCKENNY, DIRECTOR ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES
DATE: SEPTEMBER 18, 2008
RE: MATERIALS FOR THE UPDATE ON THE REGIONAL AIR SERVICE PROGRAM PRESENTED BY
KENT MYERS, AIRPLANNERS
SUMMARY:
Attached are some documents that Kent Myers will review with you on Tuesday.
SUMMER 2007 COMBINED DATA SUMMARY
INBOUND PASSENGERS
SUMMER SERVICE DATES JUNE 12 - SEPTEMBER 1
THIS WEEK
DALLAS
Month
Capacity
Sold
Load Factor
June
3,572
2,138
60%
July
5,828
4,565
78%
August
5,828
3,908
67%
September
188
58
31%
TOTAL
15,416
10,669
69%
FALL SERVICE DATES SEPTEMBER 3 - NOVEMBER 14
THIS WEEK.
DALLAS
Month
Capacity
Sold
Load Factor
September
5,264
2,104
40%
October
5,828
911
16%
November
2,632
150
6%
TOTAL
13,724
3,165
23%
PREVIOUS WEEKS SALES
DALLAS
Seat:S.old-
Month
Capacity Sold
Load Factor
ttiffre ce.
June
3,572
2,138
60%
4 0
July
5,828
4,565
78%
0
August
5,828
3,908
67%
0
September
188
58
31%
0
TOTAL
15,416
10,669
69%
0
PREVIOUS WEEKS SALES
DALLAS
Seat Sold
Month
Capacity Sold
Load Factor
Difference
September
5,264 2,045
39%
r: %;59
October
5,828 750
13%
= W1'61t
November
2,632 129
5%
2,.
TOTAL
13,724 2,924
21%
-'241'
SUMMARY Airplanners LLC Confidential
Page 1
YEAR OVER YEAR COMPARISON
INBOUND EGE PASSENGERS
2008 COMPARED TO 2007
Dallas as of 9/4/07
Month
Capacity
Sold
Load Factor
June
3,196
2,275
71%
July
5,828
4,585
79%
August
5,828
4,289
74%
September
564
255
45%
TOTAL
15,416
11,404
74%
Service from June 14 - September 4
FALL SERVICE
Dallas as of 9/18/07
Month
Capacity
Sold
Load Factor
September
4,888
3,247
66%
October
5,828
1,513
26%
November
2,820
319
11%
TOTAL
13,536
5,079
38%
IIEII�'�aulftl��I f3
Dallas 2008
Seat-5old ;
Difference
Last Week
Difference
Difference
W2W
Month
Capacity
Sold
Load Factor
June
3,572
2,138
60%
(137)
0
0
July
5,828
4,565
78%
(20)
0
0
August
5,828
3,908
67%
(381)
0
0
September
188
58
31%
(197)
0
0
TOTAL
15,416
10,669
69%
(5.78)
0
0
Service from June 12 - September 1
Dallas 2008
Seat`Sold
.Difference
Last Week
Difference
Difference
W2W
Month
Capacity
Sold
Load Factor
September
5,264
2,104
40%
(1,143)
(1,140)
(3)
October
5,828
911
16%
(602)
(453)
(149)
November
2,632
150
6%
(169)
(112)
(57)
;,
(1,914L
(1,705)
(209)
TOTAL
13,724
3,165
23%
Page 2
EAGLE COUNTY
Eagle County Regional Airport
For Release: Sept. 10, 2008
Contact: Chris Anderson
Airport Terminal Manager
970.524.8246 p
chris.anderson@eaglecounoi.us
News Release
2009 Eagle County Regional Airport (EGE) runway construction update
Eagle County Regional Airport air traffic will be limited to smaller aircraft in summer 2009 as EGE's
primary runway will be closed for maintenance. The closure is scheduled for April 15 — Aug.31, 2009 with
dates subject to change. Smaller aircraft will still have the ability to land on an interim runway while primary
runway maintenance is conducted. After exhausting all possible options, Eagle County Regional Airport has
been unable to secure airline service to operate on the interim runway next summer.
According to Chris Anderson, Terminal Manager, project scope was analyzed to ensure that the closure
would occur during a period of the year that incurs the lowest passenger and traffic numbers. Once construction
is complete in September, regular air service is expected to resume with improvements bringing increased
safety and passenger capacity.
Renovation efforts include milling and resurfacing of the eastern half of the runway and a complete
restoration of the western half, both processes are `typical' of every airport from time to time according to
Airport Director Ovid Seifers. "This type of runway rehabilitation is not an abnormal occurrence at any
airport," said Seifers. "Like roads, runways need repair work every 15 to 20 years. Next year just happens to be
Eagle County's time." Last year, Aspen Airport's runway was closed 84 days for renovation. "After a thorough
investigation, county engineers and the FAA decided it is not feasible to continue aircraft operations on EGE's
primary runway during 2009 summer months due to the runway renovation," says Seifers. "We've looked at
every alternative, but with the type of renovation we'll be doing, it's not possible for the runway to be used
during this time. If there is a silver lining, it is that EGE will be able to accommodate smaller, private aircraft on
a temporary runway, which normally serves as EGE's primary taxiway."
Eagle County Regional Airport remains committed to providing its passengers the highest possible
level of service and accessibility in and out of Eagle County. For further information, please call 970-524-8246
or visit www.eaglecounty.us'airport for updated runway construction reports.
###
MULTI -PARTY LAND EXCHANGE
STATUS UPDATE AS OR SEPTEMBER 18, 2008
SLB: Reviewing relocation of E -V facilities with CDOT;
Selecting local Land Planner;
Deciding on development plan venue and possible annexation.
TOA: Engaged Land Planning Collaborative to do assessment of
additional parcels;
Engaged Kevin Chandler to do site inspection of additional
parcels prior to snow;
Negotiating cost allocation and recovery.
WLG: Participation requested by USFS;
Western Land Group meeting with County, EVLT and Avon Oct 1;
Role and costs TBD (see attached proposal).
EVLT: Coordinating all parties and funding.
USFS: Approved Kevin Chandler (also endorsed by WLG);
Preparing "Feasibility Analysis," step 1 of the 15 step process
(see attached USFS process).
WESTERN
LAND
GROUP,INC.
1760 High St., Denver, CO 80218 • (303) 715-3570 • Fax (303) 715-3569 • wwwwestemlandgroup.com
September 17, 2008
Jennifer Scroggins and Cindy Cohagen
Eagle Valley Land Trust
PO Box 3308
Eagle, CO 81631
RE: Heart of the Valley Land Exchange — Employment Agreement
Dear Jen and Cindy:
Western Land Group, Inc. ("WLG") is pleased to present this proposal to assist Eagle County,
the Town of Avon, the Colorado State Land Board, and the Eagle Valley Land Trust complete
the proposed Heart of the Valley Land Exchange with the US Forest Service. WLG has
specialized in completing real estate transactions with public land management agencies since
the early 1980s and has a long history of facilitating successful land exchanges with the White
River National Forest. Outlined below is a brief scope of work and our terms of compensation to
provide you with land exchange facilitation services.
BACKGROUND
Eagle County, the Town of Avon, the Colorado State Land Board and the Eagle Valley Land
Trust intend to complex land exchange with the US Forest Service involving Federal and State
School Trust lands in Eagle County, Colorado. Attached to this proposal are materials, including
maps, describing the proposed transaction. The proposed transaction as depicted on the attached
Heart of the Valley Map includes the following:
• The State Land Board ("SLB") will convey two sections of land (Parcels 1 and 2) to the
Forest Service;
• The Forest Service will convey two tracts of National Forest System land (Parcels 5 and
6) to the Town of Avon which in turn will grant deeds of conservation easement to the
Eagle Valley Land Trust ("EVLT") on all of Parcel 5, and all or part of Parcel 6, possibly
reserving a small portion of Parcel 6 for affordable housing;
• Eagle County will consider the manner required by State law and County regulations a
proposal to up -zone Parcels 3 and 8 by way of a PUD;
• The Forest Service will convey Parcel 7 to Eagle County which will grant a deed of
conservation to EVLT;
• The Forest Service will convey Parcel 8 to the SLB; and,
Jennifer Scroggins and Cindy Cohagen
Eagle Valley Land Trust
September 17, 2008
Page 2 of 4
• All Parcels, excepting Parcel 3, will be appraised using Forest Service and SLB required
protocols. If deemed appropriate by the SLB, Parcels 3 and 8 may be appraised before
and/or after establishment of a particular PUD.
SCOPE OF SERVICES
Western Land Group ("WLG") will work with EVLT, as principle contact in the Heart of -the
Valley Land Exchange to complete the contemplated land exchange. WLG will provide the
partners with the full range of land exchange transaction management services beginning with
the Forest Service's necessary pre -exchange assessment activities and concluding with the
successful completion of the exchange.
Land Exchange Proposal Development:
During this stage of the process, WLG will work with EVLT, the other exchange partners and the
Forest Service to develop the land exchange proposal which will serve as the basis for the Forest
Service's Feasibility Analysis. Tasks to complete this stage of the process, include, but are not
limited to analyses and other materials addressing the following:
a. Consistency with existing management plans and landownership adjustment analyses prepared
for the area.
b. Land status, including the presence of unpatented mining claims, special use permits, rights -of -
way, etc.
c. The adequacy of existing surveys for the purpose of patent issuance by the federal government.
d. Major resource issues such as wetlands, public access, wildlife, cultural resources and the like
which may require modification of the exchange proposal or the inclusion of appropriate
mitigation measures in a formal exchange proposal.
e. Relationship to local land use plans and policies.
f. Issues pertaining to the preparation of the necessary appraisals.
g. The depth of opposition and/or support which an exchange may generate among local
governmental entities, neighboring landowners and others.
h. A recommended strategy and schedule of activities to complete the exchange in an expedited
manner though the administrative process.
Jennifer Scroggins and Cindy Cohagen
Eagle Valley Land Trust
September 17, 2008
Page 3 of 4
i. A proposed budget for completion of a land exchange in accordance with the recommended
strategy.
j. Prepare the comprehensive land exchange proposal for formal submittal to the Forest Service.
WLG fully acknowledges that extensive materials regarding the proposed exchange have already
been prepared and discussed with the Forest Service. To the greatest extent possible, the above
tasks will be completed taking full advantage of existing analyses and other materials. —
Land Exchange Processing
a. WLG will complete all tasks necessary for closing of the exchange. Such tasks may include,
but are not necessarily limited to the following: securing approval of the Feasibility Analysis
and Agreement to Initiate by the White River National Forest and the Rocky Mountain Regional
Office, preparing environmental documents; drafting public notices and other notification
documents; appraisal negotiations; preparation of the Exchange Agreement; and, other tasks
necessary to close the exchange in a timely manner.
b. WLG will supervise any contractors such as appraisers, biologists, cultural resource specialists
and surveyors as may be necessary to complete the land exchange. Such contractors will
contract directly with EVLT or your designee. To the maximum extent possible, WLG will
utiii7e currently available data and analyses to complete the required steps in the exchange
process.
c. In conjunction with EVLT, WLG will participate in necessary negotiations and discussions with
the Forest Service, other governmental entities and interested parties throughout the process.
WLG will neither initiate such discussions nor agree to any action or condition without
your prior approval.
COMPENSATION
1. Western Land Group (WLG) will complete the tasks necessary for completion of the land
exchange at an hourly rate of $175 (subject to periodic adjustment). WLG agrees to bill
travel one-way only. All bills are due and payable within 30 days.
2. In addition to the fees discussed above, EVLT will reimburse WLG for direct out-of-pocket
expense such as telephone calls, mileage at the rate of $0.585 per mile (subject to adjustment
based on IRS mileage rates), airfare, lodging, photocopying, facsimile and other necessary and
reasonable expenditures. To the maximum extent possible, WLG will seek to share travel and
other expenses on a pro rata basis with other WLG clients.
Jennifer Scroggins and Cindy Cohagen
Eagle Valley Land Trust
September 17, 2008
Page 4 of 4
3. EVLT shall have the right to unilaterally terminate the exchange at any time. If the work is
terminated prior to completion, WLG shall be compensated for any time and expenses expended
on the land exchange through the date of termination.
4. Any amounts billed to EVLT in accordance with this agreement which remain unpaid for 30
days after delivery of our statement will accrue a finance charge of 1.5% per month which is
18% annual percentage rate. In the event legal action is required to collect any amount due to
us, and said amount is properly documented, EVLT agrees to pay any attorney fees, court costs
and other incurred expenses.
5. In the event WLG acts as a transaction broker, in order to acquire suitable offered lands, WLG
will be entitled to retain an appropriate share of all commissions collected from the seller or
listing company. (Note: Additional non -Federal lands are not anticipated to be required at this
time.)
I hope the above is consistent with your expectations. I understand that in the interest of time
you would like WLG to begin work immediately. Therefore, this agreement shall cover all work
from September 17 forward. I also recognize that another entity (i.e. Eagle County and/or Town
of Avon) may assume responsibilities under this letter agreement as outlined above. If this
becomes the case, WLG will agree to such a transfer of financial responsibility and will honor
the same terms and conditions of compensation as provided above.
Please return a signed copy of this agreement for our files. I look forward to working with you
on this project.
Sincerely,
Adam Poe
The above terms and conditions are acceptable:
By: Cindy Cohagen Date
Its: Executive Director
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Forest
Service
White River Supervisor's Office
National 900 Grand Avenue
Forest P.O. Box 948
Glenwood Spgs., CO 81602-0948
(970) 945-2521
TTY (970) 945-3255
FAX (970) 945-3266
LAND EXCHANGES ON THE WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST
The Forest Service enters into land exchanges to meet the Land & Resource Management Plan
for the National Forests where the actions are proposed, meet Federal Laws, Regulations, and
Forest Service Policy regarding land transactions. The net result of land exchanges that have
been completed do result in public benefits, including but not limited to the agency's ability to
more efficiently manage public lands, enhanced wildlife habitat, and provide accessible land for
multiple uses by the public. Benefits to the non -Federal landowners that have participated in
land exchanges are also realized through land consolidation, access, and management efficiency.
The Forest Service must complete certain resource surveys on the Federal and on the non -
Federal lands to ensure full disclosure of the properties legal and physical characteristics are
known to the Forest Service Deciding Official, the non -Federal landowner participating in a
proposed land exchange, and to the public before lands are exchanged. Resource surveys and
subsequent reports provide information about physical characteristics, and the historic, present,
and future uses of the lands. Resource surveys are necessary to meet Federal laws and Executive
Orders that govern the management of Federal lands. The inventory of the lands allows for
informed decisions to both parties on whether or not to proceed with the proposed land
exchange. The private landowner and the Forest Service share the costs of these surveys.
The following are steps in the land exchange process and estimated costs based on a typical
proposed land exchange.
Costs typically borne by the non -Federal landowner
Title commitment/ Title Insurance Policy
The private landowner bears the responsibility and costs of providing a title insurance policy on
their land proposed to be exchanged. This may include the need to clear up any outstanding
rights or "clouds on the title" not acceptable to the United States. The costs of title insurance
policies are regulated by the respective states. Costs are based on land values. It is necessary to
update and get endorsements to the title commitments periodically during the land exchange
process. Costs are variable dependant upon the amount of work needed for the update or
endorsement, and the title company providing the service. The Forest Service does not provide
title insurance on Federal lands to be exchanged.
Caring for the Land and Serving People
Printed on Recycled Paper
Appraisals
The values of the Federal and non -Federal lands are based on fair market value of the lands as
determined by an appraisal. The appraisal must be completed following the Uniform Appraisal
Standards for Federal Land Acquisitions, Forest Service policy, and the Uniform Standards for
Professional Appraisal Practice. The appraiser must meet Agency requirements for State
certification and experience and be approved by the Forest Service review appraiser assigned to
the case prior to the appraisal process.
The contract for service of the appraiser will be held between the private landowner and the
appraiser. The Forest Service review appraiser and the appraiser must attend a pre -work
conference for issuance of appraisal instructions prior to any work beginning on an appraisal.
Upon completion of the appraisal the appraiser will be instructed to submit a copy of the
appraisal report to the Forest Service review appraiser simultaneously with the submittal to the
property owner. No appraisal may be used for a land exchange until it has been reviewed and
approved by a Forest Service review appraiser.
If the Forest Service determines the value of the Federal lands are $150,000.00 or less; the
proposed land exchange is non -controversial; and the physical characteristics of the lands
proposed to be exchanged are similar in characteristics; the Forest Service may waive the
requirement for an appraisal.
The cost of land appraisals can be approximately $6,000-$8,000 per project. Actual costs of an
appraisal can be estimated for each case by the assigned review appraiser.
Value for value
Lands are exchanged on a value for value basis, not necessarily acre for acre. Cash value of
land is determined by an appraisal as discussed above. The appraisal review will document the
research completed for the appraisal, and will state the cash value of the lands from the date that
it was last inspected by the appraiser. If the stated cash value for the Federal and non -Federal
lands are not equal within 25%, they can be made equal at the closing by one proponent
compensating the other for the difference in cash value. This can also be completed by possibly
deleting land from the proposed exchange. Adding land would require further analysis and may
delay the proposed action for one more year. Initial negotiations attempt to match properties that
are equal in value with available information at the time of negotiations.
Legal ads
Notices of the proposed land exchange are advertised in the newspaper of general circulation
where the lands are located and in the newspaper of record where Forest Service Decision
documents are published. The land exchange proposal must be published for four consecutive
weeks in the newspaper of general circulation. In addition, to meet NEPA requirements, a notice
of the thirty -day comment period for the Environmental Assessment must be published once in
the newspaper of record, and commonly in the local papers. Following that, the notice of the
forty-five day appeal period for the Decision Notice will again be published in the newspaper of
record and local papers. The Forest Service will compose the text of the ads. Legal
advertisements can costs in excess of $500.
Title record and other documents to be recorded
Documents that are required to be recorded include easements for utility lines or roads, the
Exchange Agreement (this is binding agreement similar to a purchase option), and deed
documents. Costs for recording documents depend upon state requirements. Each landowner is
responsible to have the conveyance documents they receive be recorded.
Property Taxes
The non -Federal landowner is responsible for ALL taxes on the lands to be exchanged to the
United States. An estimate of taxes will be made prior to closing. The non -Federal landowner
will be required to provide funds to be deposited into an account to be expended when the
property taxes are due. Any funds in excess of $40.00 not used to pay taxes will be refunded to
the landowner. The Forest Service will act as the escrow agent. If the property taxes were
underestimated at the time of closing, the landowner will be responsible to provide the additional
amount. The United States has no authority to pay property taxes.
The Title Insurance Policy will be requested after the taxes are paid in full.
Costs typically borne by the Forest Service
Hazardous materials report
The Forest Service must complete surveys of both the non -Federal and Federal lands, confirming
the absence of any hazardous materials and petroleum product. We must walk all parcels,
interview landowners, and complete a report. The cost is about $400, depending upon the
existence of hazardous materials and past land uses.
Hydrology report
A hydrologist must determine the presence or absence of floodplains, and wetlands on both
parcels. We must also determine the status of water rights on both parcels. This survey and
report cost is variable dependant upon the existence and quantity and quality of floodplains and
wetlands on the lands proposed for exchange. The Forest Service must meet the Executive
Orders for both Floodplains and Wetlands. These state that the United States cannot loose net
acreage of either. The United States can place reservations on the Federal land proposed to be
conveyed into private ownership if there is a net loss in the quality or quantity of wetlands and/or
floodplains. The agency's preference is to not place reservations on land it is conveying out of
the Federal estate. Any reservations placed on land will require a survey of the area, reservations
on land are reflected in land values to be appraised, and the agency is responsible to administer
the area that is reserved from title. Costs for wetlands and floodplains reports are variable, but
have been up to $3,000 per proposed land exchange project.
Acreage certification
A certified land surveyor must verify the land acreage, and legal description of all parcels. The
cost is about $300 per case.
Biological Assessment and Biological Evaluation
The District wildlife biologist must determine the effects of the proposed land exchange on
threatened, endangered, and Region 2 sensitive plant and animal species. The US Fish and
Wildlife Service must concur with our findings. This evaluation is estimated at $500, again
dependant upon if surveys have been completed, and findings in the field.
Heritage Resources report
The Federal land must be surveyed for the presence of prehistoric or historic resources. An
archeologist must complete the report findings, and the respective State Historical Preservation
Officer (SHPO) must concur with the findings. Costs are dependant on the size of the land
surveyed, if the Federal lands have been previously surveyed, and presence of sites eligible for
National Historic Register listing. If the Forest Service Archeologist or SHPO determines there
are sites that need further study, the exchange can be delayed and additional costs incurred to
examine the sites. These additional costs would then be negotiated between the landowner and
the Forest Service.
Paleontological report
The Federal lands must be surveyed for the presence of fossilized materials. Costs are about $10
to $16 per acre of land surveyed, dependant if the Federal lands have been previously surveyed
and the presence of fossilized material.
Minerals report
The Federal and non -Federal lands will be surveyed if the mineral rights are to be exchanged.
The Bureau of Land Management must provide concurrence of the project. The non -Federal
landowner may be asked to have outstanding mineral rights, and expired oil & gas leases
removed from title. The United States will convey minerals on lands where the mineral interest
not outstanding to third parties. The costs are dependant upon the need for a geologist to
complete fieldwork on the lands proposed for exchange.
Appraisal review
A Forest Service Senior Review Appraiser will review the land appraisal whether it be
completed by a Forest Service staff appraiser or state licensed appraiser contracted to complete
the work. This cost is about $1500 per appraisal reviewed.
Case processing
The Forest Service staff spends many hours preparing the land exchange proposal, drafting the
Feasibility Analysis and the Agreement to Initiate, creating maps, preparing the appraisal
package, and reviewing materials. While the time spent greatly depends on the complexity of
the proposal, the case processing can easily cost the Forest Service upwards of $5,000 per land
exchange proposal.
National Environmental Policy Act of 1970
Each proposal must follow Forest Service policy regarding the National Environmental Policy
Act. This is done by completing an environmental assessment, which is a report where the
information collected by the resource staff is included in one document. This document is open
to the public comment to assist in determining issues and alternatives. In addition, in all
exchanges, we notify the congressional delegations and the county commissioners. The NEPA
document contains an evaluation of the public comments and issues, including the resource
reports mentioned earlier. Costs vary, but estimated costs to produce this assessment can be
approximately $5000.
What else you should know
Landline surveys
Landline surveys may or may not be required during the course of a proposed land exchange. As
stated in the Agreement to Initiate, the non -Federal landowner may be required to provide a
certificate of survey of their property to be able to identify the land on the ground. This would
allow the Forest Service to accurately post landownership boundaries after the land exchange is
completed. A state certified land surveyor would review the parcels and recommend additional
survey needs.
Full disclosure
Please realize that everything concerning the land exchange is public information. The Forest
Service is a public agency, charged with administering public lands; therefore, the public has a
right to know what we want to do with those lands. The information about the exchange
proposal will be published in the newspapers, and we will solicit comments from county
commissioners, legislators, tribal governments, adjoining landowners and anyone who has a
concern or interest about the proposed project.
Timing
A land exchange typically takes two to three years from the start of a viable land exchange
proposal to the recording of deeds.
Other reports and documents
We must complete all of the above items to execute a land exchange. The costs above do not
cover all the expenses, nor are they in any order of completion. To display some of the other
required reports, and the order in which we proceed. Attached is an Implementation Schedule
that lists steps in the land exchange process.
Flexibility
Land exchanges are completed on a will seller, willing buyer basis. Either party can cancel out
of a land exchange proposal up to the time when Exchange Agreement, a binding document, is
signed and recorded. The costs mentioned above are estimates that can be more closely
estimated by Forest Resource staff after the land parcels are identified. Some costs will remain
the same regardless of the acreage and number of parcels, thus land exchanges with larger
parcels are more cost effective to complete. The list above is only a guideline, and costs can be
negotiated on a case -by -case basis. The non -Federal landowner is asked to pay for some of the
expenses associated with processing a land exchange. These expenses are those above and
beyond the costs invested in the land(s) being offered in a proposed land exchange. There are no
guarantees that a land exchange will be completed, regardless of investments either parties have
made in the proposed project. Open and honest communications and full disclosure are
necessary by both parties to provide efficiency and expediency to any land exchange proposal.
Further Information
If you feel you have a valid proposal for a potential land exchange on the White River National
Forest, contact the Lands Staff at the Ranger District that has jurisdiction over the land.
LAND EXCHANGE PROCESS FLOW CHART
Exchange Proposal
Feasibility Analysis
Oversight Review
Execute Agreement to Initiate
Public Notification
Congressional Review
Scoping
NEPA Analysis
Appraisal Preparation and Approval
Oversight Review
Decision
Title Clearance
Transaction Closing
Final title Clearance
Close Case
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
Land -for -Land Exchange
Case Name:
Action Item
Feasibility Analysis (Items 1-8)
Responsible
for
Preparation
Responsible
for
Costs
Target
Date
1. Exchange Proposal - Define the Estates
Non-Fed/FS
2. Forest Plan Compliance Review/Public
Benefits Summary
3. Obtain Title Insurance Commitment
Non -Fed Party
4. Boundary Management Review
Forest Surveyor
5. Federal Land Status Report
-
6.*Water Rights Analysis
Hydro/Appraiser
7. Valuation Consultation
Appraiser
8. Identify party responsible for costs
-
9. Draft ATI & Exhibits
10.**Oversight (FA & Draft ATI)
RO/WO
11. Execute Agreement to Initiate (ATI)
Non-Fed/SO/RO
12.*Request BLM Serialization/Segregation
13. Prepare Notice of Publication/Posting
14. Notify County Commissioners, State
Clearinghouse, Congressional Delegations,
Tribal Governments, and other Agencies
15. **Submit Notice of Publication for 30 day
Appropriation Committee Review
16.*Notify Permittees
-
_
17.4 -Week Publication Period, including
wetlands and floodplains information
18. Initiate Public Scoping
19.*Request Land Survey (BLM/Forest Service)
20.*Request Withdrawal Revocation(s)
21 *Prepare Mineral Potential Report
22. Complete Certificate of Possession
23. Obtain SHPO Concurrence
24. Prepare TES Report/Consultation
25. Prepare Wetlands/Floodplains Report
26. Prepare Hazardous Substances Evaluation
27. Analyze Effects on Cost Share Agreements
28. Request Appraisals
29. Finalize Appraisals
30. Prepare appropriate NEPA documentation
31.*Request BLM Concurrence on Minerals
32.*NEPA Comment Period
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Land -for -Land Exchange - Continued
Case Name:
Action Item
Responsible
for
Preparation
Responsible
for
Costs
Target
Date
33. Appraisal Reviews and Approvals
Appraiser
•
34. Certificate of Use and Consent
35. Agreement on Values
36. Finalize NEPA Document
37. Draft Decision Document
38. Draft Exchange Agreement (optional)
39.**Oversight (NEPA document & supporting
documents, draft decision, appraisals and reviews,
draft exchange agreement, and initial 5le material)
RO/WO
40. Issue Decision
41. Publish Decision
42. Appeal Period
43. Supplemental Certificate of Possession
44. *** Certify Estate Consistency
45. Execute Exchange Agreement (optional)
46. Prepare 5400-10 (Digest)
47.*Submit to WO for Congressional Oversight
48. Record Exchange Agreement and
Update Title Commitments (optional)
49.*Prepare/Obtain Easements /
Relinquishments for Special Use Permits
50. Prepare Deed to Non -Federal Land; Patent
Request/Exchange Deed to Federal Land
51. Request Preliminary Title Opinion
52. Provide Preliminary Title Opinion
OGC
53*Execute Easements/Relinquishment
54. Execute Deeds to Non -Federal Land
55. Deliver Deeds &./or Patent
56. Record Patent and All Deeds &/or Patent
57. File Water Rights Transfer/Use Documents
58. Return Deeds to Non -Federal Land
with Title Insurance Policy
Non -Fed Party
_
59. Final Certificate of Use and Consent
60. Return copies of recorded Patent /or Deeds
to RO
61. Submit final 5400-10 (Digest) to WO
62. Request Final Title Opinion
63. Provide Final Title Opinion
64. Post Status and Close Case
* If applicable/if needed
** Regional oversight applies to ALL cases. WO review required commensurate with WO designated value threshold.
ass Certify that the estate appraised is identical to the physical estate, estate noted in Decision Document, Exchange
Agreement and Deeds.
Town of Avon
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Scott Wright, Asst. Town Manager - Finance
Date: September 19, 2008
Re: Audit Request for Proposal
Summary:
Due to various factors including cost, timing, etc., staff would like to discuss with Council on
Tuesday the possibility of sending out requests for proposals for audit services for the Town's
calendar year 2008 audit and beyond.
The Town's current auditors, Clifton Gunderson, have been our auditors for eight years,
having purchased the firm of Van Schooneveld & Company in 2001. Van Schooneveld had
been the Town's auditors for at least 15 years prior to that.
Town Manager Comments:
Council Memo 2008-013.doc
Memo
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager
From: Becky Lawlor, Community Relations Officer
Date: September 23, 2008
Re: Webstreaming Town Council Meetings
Summary: EcoTV, thru the support of Eagle County, is now offering a free webstreaming
opportunity to the Town of Avon for Town Council meetings and other community meetings or other
videos.
Background: The Town of Avon looked into the possibility of purchasing webstreaming software
for meetings, especially because not all Avon residents have access to cable TV; however, it was
decided that at this time the town could not afford the expenditure.
Discussion:
A soft launch of ECOTV's new webstreaming program is underway to allow time for all of the
county municipalities to add content to their "channels". The Town of Avon will have its own
channel on the site and we can create a direct link on our website to our channel. J.K. at
Channel 5 Vail Valley Community Television has tested Channel 5's recordings and will be
uploading them to the site every Friday after the Council meeting.
This is an excellent opportunity for the Town of Avon to provide its citizens with 24 hour access
to our meetings. In addition, we can video tape other meetings, events, etc. and webstream
these as well. When ECOTV indicates it is ready for a full launch, we will include a button on
our website to direct people to Avon's channel.
To preview the system, click here and use the drop down menu at top right:
http://eaglecounty.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view id=14
Financial Implications: None.
Town Manager Comments:
FINANCIAL MATTERS
September 23, 2008
1. YTD Building Revenue Report Actual vs Budget - August
2. Detail - Real Estate Transfer Taxes - August
3. Accomodations Tax Worksheet Actual vs Budget - July
4. Sales Tax Worksheet Actual vs Budget - July
E
a
o 0
a O
z W N
o a N
9 U1
FC -,
CO CO O1 d' O N M r+1 r+t
ri rI NV) O1tn H H
E co
�+ O1 O1 N N N V' N N N
U1 U1 1O ri 1O U1 U1 U1 U1
OO 01 HO Cr V• V•
M 01 O CO O CO O1 O1
UiU1 NOU1 N N N
U1 U1 N CO CO CO N N
OO O00O100 O1O1
N N O1 CO NO N N
O O V' N ri O1 O1 O1
H H e4 ri
W W OO N O1 O CO w U)
En r O 1 morn O O
q W sr sr NoilnN N r-
> vs). Nrt Hf•1 N r-
() a O1 O1 O1 H O H O O •
N N O W N O1 N N
a w V' CO NO Ul in
a,' H H H N N
RECEIVABLES
O O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O O
192,922.94
257,077.06
O
O
O CO m m N O O N O O O
OE WW UnOO in N N N
H a
a H O1 O1 n O n N N N
W W M m V' U1 O1 m m m
a C) 1O 1O r•i U1 CO U1 U1 U1
a ri ri N H M Ui in rn
N N H H 01 m 01
a.1
a
O E OO OOOO O O
u O •• OOOO O O
Ed q o0 O O o o O O
D o 000o O o
Iv PO OO OOOO O o
O)
b 00 OMin0 O O
U F Ul U1 01 01 01 O Ul in
'L N N H IN V' V'
U O
).1 O
o UJ
b 4 aa F
H
b 4 E
P W
�
EF Cu I
I
II W I
CI -1 P En
co W I
E UI
U kw H o qz I
H
H z 0\ is 0U a wed
°� CO�(�J� ✓Qa4 H as
H HQ as W Woo E.
iz-l
N� Hw01 H
oa'" I O)
Ems•• as w wEa 0 E
wHo C.) O •z wEE-.E•'E.I w
aO\101 OOH 0 0) I O I
ll
H
000 HE Qa O E H.7
E'yz OW W r -I PC 'yz
Q, •• •• U D W .7 qI UI D
OW W WO EFCW zoN O Ho EN
CI)AE' cn4 COEa aa� g4 in
W
W
W
W
EA C13
UI 7 W U)
01 DI
wawH
O
OO)a
U H W
Wcnam
HCDO
qHW
(1)
Cn
a En
U
H N m
O O O
N N N
V' V' V' O
In in In E
4
TOTAL TITLE NOT FOUND
TOTAL GENERAL FUND
450,000.00
TOTAL REPORT
Town of Avon
Real Estate Transfer Tax
Calendar Year 2008
Purchaser Name Property
Annual Recurring Riverfront PUD
The Gates at
Beaver Creek
July 31, 2008 $ 511,998.85 $ $
Holiday
Holiday
Land Title Guarantee
Title Comp Rockies
Title Comp Rockies
Title Comp Rockies
Title Comp Rockies
Title Comp Rockies
Holiday
Title Comp Rockies
Resort Closings
1st Ameriscan Title
Nancy Ann Olsen
Luke R. Schenk
Matthew O Merritt
Jane Eberly 1999 Trust
Christie Lodge Timeshare
Christie Lodge Timeshare
Falcon Pointe 101-35
Mtn. Vista 31-08
Mtn. Vista 32-08
Mtn. Vista 33-08
Mtn. Vista 34-08
Mtn. Vista 35-08
Mtn. Vista 1201-36
Mtn. Vista 1203 & 1201-34
Mtn. Vista 1306 & 1308-03
Mtn. Vista 1614 & 1616-48
Sunridge @ Avon G-208
Lakewiew & BMBC A-6
Sherwood Meadows II 4-F
Lot 54 Mtn. Star
60.00
360.00
40.00
4,206.70
8,185.60
2,151.00
4,221.35
4,186.80
40.00
50.00
198.00
260.00
2,560.00
5,612.00
1,850.00
75,000.00
Total August Revenue 108,981.45
Total YTD Revenue
Total 2008 Budget
620,980.30
1,500,000.00
2,530,067.00
Variance, Favorable (Unfavorable) $ (879,019.70) $ (2,530,067.00) $
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e e e e O O O 0
I
w
w
2
YN c
w
z
O
> )/c�
V
O ▪ (I)�
z
ZOO
O Q
20
2c.
ON
U
✓
CU
C O
as O
0
O O
YTD Collections
Actual Collections
CO
0
0
N
t`
O
O
N
(O
0
0
N
T1 -
CV
M
0
0
N
O CO N .-- CO CO 0 0 0 0 0
O t` O n 0 0 0 0 00
N N- C6(0 (0 C) 4 0 0 0 0 0
N ( .-- .-- .-- 0 0 0 0 0
CO CO CO M 0) 1"--
0) 0 CO N- 0 0 0
.-- N. O .-- CO N N
N O '47CO 0 .--
0
t` N O CO
I-
N- CO CO N .-- M M
49.
(H
N O
N 0)
CV N 0
0)
([ (00
Cf)
M
N
N
O
N.
0) M CO
M
tF N- N-
O O
O O
C) C6) CO
N .-- N N N .-- .--
N- (0(0 0)
N- 0) O M
M M M .--
O O N O
0 r--
6 (0 N. 0)
M 0) Cr) V (C) 0
4 N M CO M
4 tt CV N
6 O co M M 0) N
CO N M CO .- CO
O M CO- O O
.� N N N '-- .-
M (O
O .--
�- f-
.- CO
O N
o) CO -
CO
tF
(O
0) CO N 0) co N. M 0 0 0
CO CO CO LC) 0 M 0) 0) CO 0 CO
O (0 0) N N C7) M aO
co 0) 0) 0) .-- O 0 co M N. CO O
O O N- CO O I,- (C) CO (O O
O O 4 C+) 0) 0) C) a0 (O O
(O CO .— N‘—
(H
(11
N
O
((0
N. CO CO 0 CO N (D O 0 ."
N- (C) (C) 0) CO 0 U) 0) N 0 0
(O I- M CO O (O 0) N O O 4 N
O O co co O O O 0 0( 0
(O N M O CO 0) 0 O 0) O .--
0) N (C) .-- co" O) N O O 0) O
(f) co .-- N r .-- in
Eft
M ( O
0) N co
O M
0 M
CO) (0
co 4
Hi
.-' N- 0 in .-- N- O O
0 .-- O M .-- M CO N O
(C) N r O N- (O N 0) (O
LO
N. 0 (On N- LO CO LC) (0 0 0) 00) h
N O 0) (n O 0) 0 .-
as RS
_ Na)
C • — C T O a Q) U
LL Q 2 ▪ Q (0 0 • Z
CD
N
1
N
co
C')
O
co
0)
M
(H
O
O
CO
CO
M
(f)
O
(H
N
U)
O
N
O
M
(H
co
N
0)
C)
CC')
Cf)
M
O
0)
N
CO
0)
M
O
0)
N
(H
Accommodations Tax Collections for July
0 O 0 O O O O O
O O O O O O O
O O O O O O O
O O U) O U) O (n
co CO N N
O
0
O
N
0
0
0
N
O
O
O
N
0
O
N
M
O
O
N
(00
TOWN OF AVON
CC r
0
N 0
L N
U
O O
YTD Collections
N
C
O
U
d
O O
UN
m
U
0
0
0
0
N
0
0
nr
0
N
0
O
N
O O O O O O C .O O O O O
M ILO 0 CO N If) If) 0 0 0 0 0
1f) ui c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
O O O O O
Mo N O N- 0 0)
0) (r) 00 0)C.1C.1 O CO N M
LO lrn ((00 co in TI oi co -
b9
CO (0 (r�p7j (0 0) O 0) Cl CO N O CO I 7 C.1
O ('1 r fM CO r (+) P U) (•) C")
Rco O 0) CO00 N COO 0
LO 00_ 00) M co
- r N N: 'C In LC)- r- CO-
N GO
CO
I) U C.1 Cl R N NV C.1 CCO 0.) CO
EA
0 co 0 co ( U') 0 0 0 0 co(O co 0) O O O (O co 0 0) U,
Ni O- I- (00 O) In coNO N- Ni: v-
r CO ,— co co co r on co in
(0 CO v N. CO- 00)) ti CO 00)) 0 Tr -
CO in co N co co (+) co N co N.
EA
CO 0 (O 0) co C) O N 0 0
O CO O r N 0 CO CO 0) 0
O R Cl ClNV 0 ON) 0) 0 M ui
O
In N N Cl M COO} Cl r CO_ CO 0)
' NT U N N C) C0.) CO M M M N -
EA
(00 CO0 (r0 N 8 O ( ) O Cl (00
V V 0) O r r Ti(O 0 O
M N IN N (On O Cl I - O q
Q
8 () N N (O7 CM M N N ((0
69
0) 0CO lLn N (NO CO CO0N N . CD
N GO I(�0 Cl aO C ) (0 0) In
O N ((0 CO co co 00) 0 CO 0 00))
(O (O M Cl M N- In0) O) O
co Lo o co
yr M Cl CO C) N N N N LO
EA
Z a a a
m E d
o m
a = >. C a, o) n E w
m n m
(i 2< 2 Q to O Z O
(0
co
O
U,
(07
l�7
co -
69.
O)
N
N
U)
0
U)
69.
co
0)
0)
Tr -
EA
67)
(O
r
O
O
O
0)
N
0
CO
U)
EA