Loading...
TC Council Packet 03-28-2006TOWN OF "ON, COLORADO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING FOR TUESD",MARCH 28 2006 AvON0NUNnCmPAL BUILDING, 400 BENCHMARK ROAD REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA MEETING BEGINS AT 5:30 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CAL 2' APPROVAL OF AGENDA 3. DISCLOSURE OF POTENTIAL CONFLICT OFINTEREST 4' CITIZEN AND COMMUNITY INPUT 5' PUBLIC HEARING FOR CLUSTER Box MAIL DELIVERY |NAVON (Jacquie Ha|bunnt Asst. Town Manager) Allow for public input on the possibility of offering cluster box mail delivery 6. ORDINANCES 7. RESOLUTIONS G. Resolution NO. 08-16. Series Of 2000. ReSO|UbOO approving the Amended and Restated Consolidated Service P|@O for Confluence Metropolitan [)iSth[t and Avon Station Metropolitan District (John Dunn. Town Attorney) /\pp|iC@1iOO to the Service Plan in CODDe[tiOO with the development of the Riv8rfRJnt Subdivision; made pursuant to the special district |8Vv b. Resolution NO. 06-17' 8e[keS of 2000, Resolution to Amend the 2000 Town of Avon C@pd@| Projects Fund Budget (Scott Wright, Finance Director) Revisions to the C|P budget for 2OOG street improvements project; to accommodate the US work and unexpended funds from the 2005 street improvements budget (funds budgeted for design work that did not occur in 2005) 0' NEW BUSINESS G. K8eDlO[@DdUOO Of Understanding @DlODg the COOOUeDQe K8EtnJpO|U3n District, /\vOD GL8tiOD Metropolitan District and the Town of Avon (John Dunn, Town Attorney) Action which authorizes gondola operation within the Town of Avon as part of the development of the Riverfront Subdivision 9' OTHER BUSINESS 10' UNFINISHED BUSINESS 11' TOWN MANAGER REPORT 12' TOWN ATTORNEY REPORT 13. MAYOR REPORT 14. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION APPOINTMENTS, EAST AVON DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMUwnYmxJnKSE3S|Ow 15' CONSENT AGENDA a. Minutes from Kxanuh 14, 2006 Meeting b Fireworks Production Contract with Western Enterprise, Inc. for Salute to the U.S.A. Celebration (Meryl Jacobs, Recreation Director) contract for pyrotechnic design &disp|ny c. 2000 Street Repair & Improvements — Elam Construction Award (Norm VVuod. Town Engineer) Improvements inVVi|dridge area and Avon Road d. Swift Gulch Road Bike Path, Site Resource Managemont, Construction Contract Award (Norm Wood, Town Engineer) Construction to extend bike path e. Benchmark Dam Repoir8eoteohnina| Sen/ioe, Ground Engineer, Engineering Services Contract Award (Norm Wood, Town Engineer) Work to be completed at Benchmark Dam area an a result of a dam inspection in20UG %ADJOURNK8ENT Avon Council Mmeting.o6o3.28 Page 2ofo � J� L:g I I TO: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: Jacquie Halbumt, Assistant Town Manager Date: March 23, 2006 Re: Cluster Box Mail Delivery Summary: Staff has been gathering information regarding the possibility of offering cluster box mail delivery for a few months. We've spoken with several postmasters and the LISPS HQ, who would approve a request for cluster box delivery. There are many facets to cluster box deliver and more questions arise around every turn. The last time we spoke with Council, you asked us to invite the public to give input on what is in their best interest: continue to receive their mail at the post office or install cluster boxes around town in the name of convenience. This information should be considered preliminary and only an estimate based on the information we've gathered. This information should also not be construed as a commitment on the part of the town of Avon or the LISPS. Discussion: Instituting cluster box delivery in Avon might be possible if the community is willing to overcome the obstacles involved. The LISPS approved Avon for home mail delivery several years ago. However, the bottom line is the end product must result in the LISPS approval of cluster box delivery in Avon. This includes providing route approval along with appropriating the additional money to cover their expenses. LISPS has estimated their cost at $1 million per year to offer cluster box delivery in Avon. There would also be a cost to the community of approximately $325 per residence which results in a total residence cost of approximately $750,000. Additionally, cluster box delivery can only be offered to residences and businesses that are located farther than a 1/4 mile radius of the post office, but there is an option of either for those within the "line of travel." In most cases, Avon would provide the ROW or other designated area of land to accommodate the installation and parking. There is one case, in Wildridge, Block 1, where we believe acquiring private land next to the fire station would be the solution to accommodate the boxes. We have not estimated a cost for staff time, which would include engineering the project, creating route maps, and ensuring all houses are appropriately and clearly labeled, among other things. I have spoken with the Edwards Post Office again and was assured that no one in Edwards has home mail delivery. The confusion may have occurred because once cluster box delivery is implemented, residents now use their street address as their mailing address. Hence, the address on the cluster box is the resident's street address. We have invited members of the public to weigh in with their interest in instituting cluster box delivery in Avon. Attachments: Attachment A: Businesses & residences within 1/4 mile of the post office Attachment B: Cluster box potential configuration Attachment C: Public flyer outlining cluster box delivery Attachment D: Example of cluster boxes • Page 2 I ,� � Development Area Benchmark Subdivision Block Block Block my 4=0 Block Block Block Block Block Swift Gulch Road Intersection 108 7 166 11 Lot 1S- Park Addition 438 28 450 29 Private - On-Site Clusters 383 24 383 24 Old Trail &VVildhdgeRoad Old Trail & O'Neal Spur VWk]hdge Road &BeartrapRoad VVi|dridge Road East @ Ferret Lane Mountain Star Ranch Central Eaglebend Filing 1 Filing Filing 3 Filing Riverside (Eag|ebend Housing) Nottingham Station Private - On-SheC|uohyns Brookside Private -0n-SKerClusters The Village (at Avon) Filing 2 Private - On-Site Clusters 263 17 320 20 101 7 135 8 78 5 140 Q 80 5 180 12 59 4 75 5 47 3 07 7 29 2 29 2 21 2 21 2 14 1 14 1 241 16 241 18 54 4 54 4 140 Q 140 Q 54 4 54 4 244 16 244 16 A*arh f %&00 Co Cluster Box Delivery in Avon What is Cluster Box Mail Delivery? Cluster boxes are a bank of mailboxes designed to allow residents the convenience of picking up their mail at a remote location instead of picking it up at the Post Office. The boxes are typically located throughout residential subdivisions and in the case of some multifamily dwelling units, they are placed on the property (such as Lake Creek Village Apartments in Edwards). If a resident receives a box or letter requiring a signature, the post office will attempt delivery to the residence one time. If the resident is not home, a slip will be placed in the cluster box and the person must wait in line at the Post Office to pick it up. One form of free deliver The LISPS offers one form of free delivery to residents. In Avon, the gratis service is a box at the Post Office. If cluster box delivery is instituted in Avon, it would become the free form of delivery for both residential and commercial establishments. Anyone choosing to not use a cluster box would now be required to pay for a box at the post office at a minimum of $26 per year. 1/ mile radius Cluster box delivery could only be offered to residences and businesses that are located farther than a 1/a mile radius of the post office. Those within the 1/4 mile area that are considered on the "line of travel". have the option for either. Haw much will it cost? Cluster box delivery doesn't come without a cost. Sixteen boxes with installation and shipping cost around $2150. That's about $134 per residence. In some cases, private land acquisition is necessary to install the boxes. And in most cases, the area will need to be improved with asphalt. Our best guess for land is $250,000 and $200,000 for asphalt.. With approximately 2351 existing units, the cost calculates to another $191 per unit. Total estimated cost per residence: $325 Submit Request to LISPS Colorado/Wyoming Colorado/Wyoming District HQ in Denver A request must be submitted and approved by USPS HQ before cluster box delivery could be instituted. The submittal would include items that would take considerable staff time, such as a route map, insurance that all units along the route are clearly numbered and all street signs are in place and visible. Cluster Box Deliver Pros /Cans Cluster box delivery offers a more convenient location to pick up your mail. However, you need to be willing to pay for that convenience and understand that you will most likely still need to visit the Post Office to pick up boxes and items requiring a signature. If some residents in Avon do not want to participate in cluster box delivery, they will now have to pay for a box at the Post Office. Big Picture Page 1 of I http://www.mailproducts.com/dynamicibigpicture.asp?Recld=23551 3/23/2006 TO: TOWN COUNCIL FROM: TOWN ATTORNEY RE: THE CONFLUENCE DATE: March 22, 2006 The Confluence and Avon Station Metropolitan Districts have requested approval by the Council of an Amended and Restated Consolidated Service Plan in connection with the development of the Riverfront Subdivision. The application is made pursuant to the special district law, and no notice or public hearing is required by that law. The amendments to the service plan implement Council's approval of the amended development agreement for the Confluence. The language of the plan tracks the language of the plans approved in 1998. Changes to the language contemplate the public improvements, including the gondola and public plaza, which are a part of the development agreement. Staff has commented on an initial draft of the plan, which comments were incorporated into the final draft you have before you. Approval of the amended plan by adoption of the resolution is recommended. JWD:ipse A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO APPROVING THE AMENDED AND RESTATED CONSOLIDATED SERVICE PLAN FOR CONFLUENCE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT, AND AVON STATION METROPOLITAN DISTRICT WHEREAS, on the 22 nd duv of September, 1998, the Iorvo of Avon adopted and approved the Consolidated Service Plan for Confluence Mcbopo|buu [)iabic1 and Avon Station Metropolitan District; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Sections 32-1-204.5 and 32-1-205, C.]{.8., as amended, the Amended and Restated Consolidated Service Plan for Confluence K4dzoyo|ituu District and Avon Station Metropolitan District has been submitted 10 the Town Council of the Town of Avon (the 'Cnunci|");and WBBIRE/\S` the Amended and Restated Consolidated Service Plan preserves the intent of the original Service Plan and updates development plans which were contemplated and discussed in the Service Plan approved on September 22, 1998; and W0E8LE/\S` the Council considered the /\rnundcd and Koda1sd Consolidated Service 9|uu for Confluence Metropolitan District and Avon Station Metropolitan District on March 28, 2OOh;and NOW, THEREFORE, I3II|TRESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Avon, 1. That the Council, dVcm hereby determine that the requirements Section 32-l- 3O4.5,C.KS.rckdio�io�h�U|in� and contents ofa/\n�endcd and BeutdedConsolidated Service Plan for Confluence Metropolitan District and Avon Station Metropolitan [)iabioL and the consideration thereof by the Council, have been met. 2. That based on cvk1cncc presented in the Amended and Restated Consolidated Service Plan and before Council, the Council hereby determines as follows: o- There is sufficient existing and projected uced for organized service in the area to be served by the proposed special districts. h. Existing service iu the area 0ohe served 6v the proposed special districts iu inadequate for present and projected nccda. C. The proposed special districts are capable of providing coononzica| and sufficient service to the areas within its proposed border. d. The areas to be included within the proposed special districts have or will have the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. 3. That, subject to the condition precedent set forth in Paragraph 4 hereof, the Council, dnca he'chv approve the /\u\ondcd and Restated Consolidated Service Plan for Confluence Metropolitan District and Avon Station Metropolitan District. 4. That this Duun|utbou is expressly conditioned upon the acquisition by /\vno Confluence, |.l~C (or its designee) o[fee simple title to the property described in that certain "Amended and Restated Development Aorecnucut —Tho Confluence," approved on March 14, 2006 between the Town and Avon Confluence, LLC., on or before June 15, 2006. 5. A certified copy of this Resolution shall befiled in the records of the Town and submitted to the petitioners for the purpose offi|' in the District Court nf Eagle County. 6. That all resolutions mparts thereof in conflict with the provisions hereof shall be and the same are hereby repealed. Done this 28tb day nf March, 20O0`o1 Avon, Colorado. Avon Town Clerk cNIoSpVuvuwo31433031006 TOWN COUNCIL OPTHE TOWN OF AVON, EAGLE COUNTY, COLORADO By: Mayor 2 FEW I_ " CONFLUENCE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT • ', AVON STATION METROPOLITAN DISTRICT March 21, 2006 I' � WHITE, PEAR & Ali LE Professional Corporation 1805 Shea Center Drive, Suite 100 Highlands, Ranch, CO 80129 303 -858 -1800 TABLE OF CONTENTS T� INTRODUCTION ------------------------.---------1 A. General Overview .......................................................................................... } B. General Powers of Each District .................................................................... ]. Amended and Restated Consolidated Service Plan ........................... l l. 2. History of the Districts ....................................................................... ] d 3. Need for Amendment of Original Service Plan ................................. l Strcot-------------.------_-----------.6 4. General Plan for the Districts ............................................................ 2 l 5. Dual District Structure ....................................................................... 2 h 6. Benefits of Dual District Structure .................................................... 3 Fire Protection & Emergency Medical Services ................................ 7. Location and Configuration of the Districts ...................................... 3 5. 8. District Plan----------------------'4 7 4. Existing Services and Districts .......................................................... 4 B. General Financial Information and Assumptions --------------4 C. Contents o[ Service Plan ............................................................. .................. 5 D. Modification of Service Plan------------------------. 5 D. NEED FOR DISTRICTS AND GENERAL POWERS ............................................ 5 A. Need for Metropolitan Districts ..................................................................... 5 B. General Powers of Each District .................................................................... 6 l. Water ................................................................................................. d 2 Strcot-------------.------_-----------.6 l Traffic and Safety Controls ................................................................ h 4. Fire Protection & Emergency Medical Services ................................ 7 5. Television Relay and Translator ........................................................ 7 k Transportation ----------------------------7 7. Parks and Recreation ......................................................................... 7 8. Sanitation ........................................................................................... 7 O. Mosquito and Pest Control ................................................................ 7 lO. Operations undMoioteoanuc --------------------. 8 ll. [cvuPon/crm----.^------------.----------.X 12. ()dzor--------------------------------.. 8 111. POPULATION AND VALUATION ESTIMATES ................................................. V A. Population ...................................................................................................... 9 V. PROPOSED AND EXISTING INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENTS --'4 A. Master <GA .................................................................................................... 9 B. (}thcc Agreements ------------------------------iV VI. FINANCIAL PLAN SHOWING HOW FACILITIES MAY BE FINANCED ......... 10 i A. General ....................................... B. Elections; Other Requirements.. VII. CONCLUSIONS ................................... EXHIBIT A-1 EXHIBIT A-2 EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT D EXHIBIT E EXHIBIT F ................................................................ 10 ................................................................ I I .............................. .............................12 Confluence Metropolitan District Avon Station Metropolitan District Map of Districts Cost Estimates Facility Maps Financing Plan Statutory Contents of Service Plan ii III a fill" IN 11 A. General Overview 1. Amended Consolidated Service Plan. This Amended and Restated Consolidated Service Plan ("Amended Service Plan") for Avon Station Metropolitan District (the "Financing District") and Confluence Metropolitan District (the "Service District") (collectively, the "Districts") constitutes a combined service plan for two special districts organized in Eagle County, Colorado, which serve the needs of a project generally known as the "Confluence Development" (hereinarifter referred to as the "Project"). Upon completion, the Project will consist of commercial/retail facilities, hotel and timeshare units, a central pedestrian plaza, an intermodal transportation system including a gondola, and other related public improvements. This Amended Service Plan follows the text of the original service plan approved by the Town of Avon (the "Town") on September 22, 1998, with changes necessary to reflect current facts and circumstances concerning the Project. 2. History of the Districts. The Districts have been organized and in existence since November of 1998. At the time of organization, the Districts consisted of approximately twenty-three acres, divided into several development areas. Those development areas included a parcel known as Lot B, a parcel known as Lot C, and a parcel known at the time as The Confluence (hereinafter referred to as the "Confluence Parcel"). The Town conditionally annexed these parcels into the Town, the condition being approval of a development agreement (the Development Agreement") between the Town and Vail Associates Inc. ("VAI"). The Development Agreement was to address joint VAI-Town funding of improvements in the annexed parcels, land use and zoning, the Districts, and certain specific improvements, including a conference center and roadway infrastructure. The Town approved the consolidated service plan for the Districts on September 22, 1998, VAI and the Town executed the Development Agreement on October 29, 1998, and in November of 1998, the Districts obtained an order and decree of organization from the Eagle County District Court. In the spring of 2000, VAI negotiated for and completed the sale of Lot C to Points of Colorado, Inc. As part of this sale, Lot C was excluded from the Districts, and Mountain Vista Metropolitan District ("Mountain Vista") was organized within Lot C in May of 2000. 3. Need for Amendment to Original Service Plan. Shifting needs of the Town and of the Project have caused a reevaluation of the various documents and agreements affecting the Districts and development within the Project. The original service plan for the Districts required that it be amended to be consistent with the final approved development plan for the project, including revisions to the public infrastructure cost estimates and the Financing Plan. This Amended Service Plan reflects the completion of zoning and the terms of an amended development agreement between the Town and the current developer of the Project. It provides the framework through which the Districts will have the power and authority to serve the updated needs of the Town and the Project. n 4. General Plan for Districts. The Project includes an area comprised of a parcel known as Lot B and a parcel that has generally been known as The Confluence (hereinafter referred to as the "Confluence Parcel"). The locations of Lot B and the Confluence Parcel are generally depicted on Exhibit B. The two parcels that comprise the Project total approximately 20.446 acres and consist of several development areas. Development plans for the Project include a commercial area, a public plaza, an intermodal transportation system (including a gondola, bicycle/pedestrian paths, and roads), restaurants, hotels, office and retail space, necessary parking areas and/or structures, and other public amenities, residential condominiums and/or interval ownership units and possibly employer/employee housing units. This Amended Service Plan addresses the improvements the Districts plan to finance and construct and demonstrates how the Districts proposing to serve the Project will work in tandem to provide the necessary public improvements. 5. Dual District Structure. This Amended Service Plan is submitted in accordance with C.R.S. 32-1-204.5 and defines the powers and authorities of, as well as the limitations and restrictions on, the Service District and the Financing District. The use of a consolidated service plan for the two Districts will help assure proper coordination of the powers and authorities of the independent Districts, and will help avoid the confusion regarding the separate, but coordinated purposes of both Districts that could arise from the use of separate service plans. Unless otherwise specifically noted herein, general provisions of this Amended Service Plan apply to both Districts. Where possible, however, specific reference is made to an individual District to help distinguish the powers and authorities of each District. The "Financing Plan" discussed in Section VI refers to a consolidated financial plan for both Districts. The Service District will be responsible for managing the construction and operation of facilities and improvements needed for the Project. The Service District will be a small parcel located adjacent to a riverfront park that is within the Project. The Financing District will be responsible for providing the funding and tax base needed to support the Financing Plan for capital improvements. The Financing District is comprised of Lot B and nearly all of the Confluence Parcel. The area within both Districts is depicted in Exhibit B. Various agreements are expected to be executed by both Districts clarifying the nature of the functions and services to be provided by each District. The agreements will help assure the orderly development of essential services and recreation facilities in the Project, resulting in a community that will be both an aesthetic and economic asset to the Town. The activities of Confluence Metropolitan District as the Service District (which is expected to own and operate the public facilities not otherwise dedicated to the Town or other appropriate entities) and of Avon Station Metropolitan District as the Financing District (which will generate the tax revenue sufficient to pay the costs of the capital improvements) will create several benefits for the Project and the Town. In general, those benefits are: (a) coordinated administration of construction and operation of public improvements and delivery of those improvements in a timely manner; and (b) maintenance of a uniform mill levy and reasonable tax N burden on the separate development areas within the Project through controlled management of the financing and operation of improvements. 6. Benefits of Dual District Structure. a. Build -Out and Debt. As presently planned, development of the Project will proceed in several phases, each of which will require the extension of public services and facilities. The dual district structure will assure that the construction and operation of each phase of public facilities will be primarily administered by a single board of directors consistent with a well designed and financed construction and operations program. Use of the Service District as the entity responsible for construction of each phase of improvements and for management of operations will facilitate a well- planned financing effort through all phases of construction and will assist in assuring coordinated extension of services to all areas in the Project. b. Mill Levy. The use of two districts to serve the separate areas of the Project will allow infrastructure to be provided in the various development areas as demand for services requires. In order to assure that infrastructure is provided to all areas when it is needed, it is necessary that bonds are issued and facilities constructed according to a long term financing and construction schedule, which must be administered by a single board of directors. Use of the Service District to manage these activities will assure proper control of these efforts and will enable the Financing District to impose a uniform mill levy throughout the Project so each part of the project pays its fair share of the overall infrastructure needs. Future property owners will be responsible for the mill levy required to fund the capital and operating costs of the Financing District. A written disclosure statement summarizing the anticipated mill levy obligations of the Financing District will be generated by the Districts and made available through the developer to all initial purchasers of property within the Financing District so such purchasers can make an informed decision to acquire property within the District. 7. Location and Configuration of the Districts. In order to implement the dual district structure, the boundaries of the Service District and the Financing District need to be carefully configured. Legal descriptions of the property within the boundaries of the proposed Districts are attached as Exhibit A. A map showing the boundaries of both Districts is provided in Exhibit B. The combined acreage of the two Districts covers all acreage within the Project. The "Service Area" legally permitted to be served by the Confluence Metropolitan District or Service District will consist of the entire Project, including the property within the Financing District's boundaries. It is currently anticipated that the Service District will include little or no developed property but will remain as open space. The Financing District will contain all of the area to be developed for the project. I It is currently anticipated that the preponderance of property within the current boundaries of the Service District will be developed into a public riverfrom recreation area (the "Riverfront Park"), which is expected to be dedicated to the Town for ownership, operation and maintenance after completion. Upon such acquisition by the Town, it is intended that the Service District will exclude the property encompassing the Riverfront Park from its boundaries. Such exclusion shall be deemed a non-material modification of this Amended Service Plan and shall require no additional approval from the Town. The Districts shall be authorized to adjust their respective boundaries, provided that no inclusion of property outside of the original boundaries of the Districts shall be permitted without the Town's written consent. 8. Long-Term District Plan. After all bonds or other debt instruments have been issued by the Districts and adequate provision has been made for payment of all debt of the Service District and Financing Districts, the electorates of the Districts will have the opportunity to consider either the consolidation of the Service District and Financing Districts into a single entity, or the dissolution of the Service District and/or Financing Districts in accordance with state law. The Service District and Financing Districts will consider consolidation and/or dissolution at the time each District's debt has been paid and adequate provision has been made for operation of all the Service District facilities, Additionally, the Town may cause the Districts to commence dissolution proceedings as provided in Section 32-1-701(3), C.R.S. 9. Existing Services and Districts. There are currently no other entities in existence in the Project area that have the ability and/or desire to undertake the design, financing and construction of improvements needed for the Project. Consequently, formation of the new Districts is deemed necessary for the provision of public improvements in the Project. B. General Financial Information and Assumptions The 2005 certified assessed valuation of all taxable property within the boundaries of the Districts is $1,594,830. The anticipated costs of improvements necessary to provide access to and appropriate services within the Project are substantial and are estimated in Exhibit C. The Districts may obtain financing for the capital improvements needed for the Project through the issuance of general obligation bonds, revenue bonds, developer advance and reimbursement agreements and/or other instruments as permitted by law. General obligation bonds will be payable from revenues derived from ad valorem property taxes and from other legally available sources. The Financing District is expected to issue general obligation bonds and/or revenue bonds after determination that the assessed valuation is sufficient to pay debt service with reasonable mill levies, thereby reducing risk to property owners. The financial forecasts for both Districts are contained in Exhibit E to this Amended Service Plan. The "Financing Plan" demonstrates one method that might be used by the Districts to finance the cost of infrastructure. At the time bonds are proposed to be issued, alternative financing plans may be employed and be utilized by the Districts. The Financing Plan demonstrates that the cost of infrastructure described herein can be provided with reasonable mill levies. The figures contained herein depicting costs of M infrastructure and operations shall not constitute legal limits on the financial powers of the Districts; provided, however, that neither District shall be permitted to issue bonds that are not in compliance with the bond registration and issuance requirements of Colorado law. The assumptions contained within this Amended Service Plan were derived from a variety of sources. Various figures were derived from the zoning and development guide for the Project. Figures used in the Financing Plans are more conservative. Information regarding the present status of property within both Districts, as well as the current status and projected future level of similar services, was obtained from the developer. Alpine Engineering, Inc. which has experience in the costing and construction of similar facilities, assembled construction cost estimates. Operations cost estimates were assembled by the developer. The Financing Plans were assembled by Piper Jaffray & Co. based on assumptions provided by the developer. The developer prepared projections of growth and market values. The law firm of White, Bear and Ankele Professional Corporation, which represents numerous special districts in the State, provided legal advice in the preparation of this Amended Service Plan. C. Contents of Service Plan This Amended Service Plan consists of a financial analysis and an engineering plan showing how the facilities and services for the Project can be provided and financed by the proposed Districts. Numerous items are included in this Amended Service Plan in order to satisfy the requirements of law for formation of special districts. Those items are listed in Exhibit F attached hereto. D. Modification of Service Plan This Amended Service Plan has been designed with sufficient flexibility to enable the Districts to provide required services and facilities for the Project under evolving circumstances without the need for numerous amendments. While the assumptions upon which this Amended Service Plan are generally based are reflective of current or pending zoning for the property within the Project, the cost estimates and the Financing Plans are sufficiently flexible to enable the Districts to provide necessary services and facilities without the need to amend this Amended Service Plan. Modification of the general types of services and facilities, and changes in proposed configurations, locations, or dimensions of various facilities and improvements shall be permitted to accommodate development needs consistent with then-current zoning for the property. Material modifications to this Amended Service Plan shall be deemed to exist only in the event that either District seeks to add additional powers or provide general types of improvements that are not contemplated herein. A. Need for Metropolitan Districts There are currently no other entities in existence in the Project area that have the ability and/or desire to undertake the design, financing and construction of improvements needed 5 for the community. It is the petitioners' understanding that the Town does not consider it feasible or practicable for it to provide the necessary services and facilities for the projects depicted in Exhibit C hereof and described herein. Formation of the Districts is necessary for the provision of improvements needed for the project in the most economic manner possible. B. General Powers of Each District Both Districts will have power and authority to provide the services and facilities described in this section within and outside their boundaries in accordance with law; however, the powers and authorities of each District are allocated and further refined in an intergovernmental agreement between the Districts. For purposes of applicable state law, such intergovernmental agreement and amendments made thereto for the purposes of effectuating this Amended Service Plan shall not constitute an amendment of this Amended Service Plan. It does, however, constitute a binding agreement between the Districts regarding implementation of the powers contained in this Amended Service Plan. Each District shall have authority to provide the following services and facilities: 1. Water. The design, acquisition, installation, and construction of capital improvements and/or equipment for a complete water and irrigation water system. Such capital improvements and/or equipment may include but shall not be limited to water rights, water supply, storage, transmission and distribution systems for domestic and other public or private purposes, together with all necessary and proper reservoirs, treatment works and facilities, wells, water rights, equipment and appurtenances incident thereto, which may include but shall not be limited to, transmission lines, distribution mains and laterals, storage facilities, land and easements, together with extensions of and improvements to said systems. 2. Streets. The design, acquisition, installation, construction, operation, and maintenance of street and roadway improvements, including but not limited to curbs, gutters, culverts, storm sewers and other drainage facilities, detention ponds, retaining walls and appurtenances, as well as sidewalks, bridges, parking facilities, paving, lighting, grading, landscaping, . snow removal equipment, and other street improvements, together with all necessary, incidental, and appurtenant facilities, land and easements, together with extensions of and improvements to said facilities. 3. Traffic and Safety Controls. The design, acquisition, installation, construction, operation, and maintenance of traffic and safety protection facilities and services through traffic and safety controls and devices on streets and highways, environmental monitoring, and rodent and pest controls necessary for public safety, as well as other facilities and improvements including but not limited to, main entry building, access gates, signalization at intersections, traffic signs, area identification signs, directional assistance, and driver information signs, together with all necessary, incidental, and appurtenant facilities, land easements, together with extensions of and improvements to said facilities. ro 4. Fire Protection & Emergency Medical Services. The acquisition, construction, completion, and /or installation of capital improvements and /or equipment for protection against fire, including, but not limited to; fire stations, fire protection and fire fighting equipment, and such ambulance, medical, and rescue units as are deemed necessary for proper firefighting and suppression services, adoption of fire codes, as well as all necessary, incidental, and appurtenant facilities, land and easements, together with extensions of and improvements to said system S. Television Relay and Translator. The acquisition, construction, completion, installation and /or operation and maintenance of television relay and translator facilities, including but not limited to cable television and communication facilities, together with all necessary, incidental and appurtenant facilities, land and easements, and all necessary extensions of and improvements to said facilities. 6. Transportation. The design, acquisition, installation, construction, operation and maintenance of an intermodal public transportation system, including transportation equipment, park and ride facilities and parking lots, parking structures, roofs, covers, and facilities, including, but not limited to facilities for the commercial structures and for the conveyance of the public consisting of gondolas, funicular systems, terminal buildings, public restrooms, chairlifts, buses, automobiles, and other means of conveyance, and structures for repair, operations and maintenance of such facilities, together with all necessary, incidental and appurtenant facilities, land and easements, and all necessary extensions of and improvements to said facilities or systems. 7. Parks and Recreation. The design, acquisition, installation, construction, operation and maintenance of public park and recreation facilities or programs including, but not limited to, swimming pools and spas, community and other meeting rooms and facilities, tennis courts, exercise facilities, bike paths, hiking trails, snowshoe trails, pedestrian trails, pedestrian bridges, pedestrian malls, public fountains and sculpture, art, and botanical gardens, equestrian trails and centers, picnic areas, skating areas and facilities, access areas to the Eagle River, common area landscaping and weed control, outdoor lighting of all types, community events, together with all necessary, incidental and appurtenant facilities, land and easements, and all necessary extensions of and improvements to said facilities or systems. 8. Sanitation. The design, acquisition, installation, construction, of storm or sanitary sewers, or both, flood and surface drainage, treatment and disposal works and facilities, and all necessary or proper equipment and appurtenances incident thereto, together with all necessary, incidental and appurtenant facilities, land and easements, and all necessary extensions of and improvements to said facilities or systems. 9. Mosquito and Pest Control. The design, acquisition, installation, construction, operation, and maintenance of systems and methods for the elimination and control of mosquitos, rodents and other pests. 7 10. Operations and Maintenance. It is anticipated that the Districts will dedicate certain facilities constructed and financed by the Districts to the Town or other public entities for ownership, operations and maintenance. All facilities to be dedicated to other entities will be constructed in accordance with acceptable standards for those entities. With respect to all facilities not dedicated to other entities, the Districts shall be authorized to own, operate, maintain, dispose of, and exercise all other rights incident to the ownership of, such facilities. 11. Legal Powers. Their Boards of Directors will exercise the powers of the Districts to the extent necessary to provide the services contemplated in this Amended Service Plan. The foregoing improvements and services, along with all other activities permitted by law, will be undertaken in accordance with, and pursuant to, the procedures and conditions contained in the Special District Act, other applicable statutes, and this Amended Service Plan, as any or all of the same may be amended from time to time. 12. Other. In addition to the powers enumerated above, the Boards of Directors of the Districts shall also have the following authority: a. To amend this Amended Service Plan as needed, subject to the appropriate statutory procedures and to take actions with prior written notice pursuant to § 32 -1- 207, C.R.S., the authorization of which may be unclear under this Amended Service Plan, but that either District believes are authorized by this Amended Service Plan. In the event the Town elects not to seek to enjoin any such activities under said statute, such election shall constitute agreement by the Town that such activities are within the scope of this Amended Service Plan. Both Districts shall have the right to amend this Amended Service Plan independent of participation of the other District; provided, that neither District shall be permitted to amend those portions of this Amended Service Plan that affect, impair, or impinge upon the rights or powers of the other District without such District's consent; and b. To forego, reschedule, or restructure the financing and construction of certain improvements and facilities, in order to better accommodate the pace of growth, resource availability, and potential inclusions of property within either District (if approved by the Town except as specifically contemplated herein), or if the development of the improvements and facilities would best be performed by another entity; and C. To provide all such additional services and exercise all such powers as are expressly or impliedly granted by Colorado law, and that the Districts are required to provide or exercise or, in their discretion, choose to provide or exercise; and d. To exercise all necessary and implied powers under Title 32, C.R.S. in the reasonable discretion of the Boards of Directors of the Districts. 11, I'll i 11410MMI, A. Population The estimated permanent population of the Districts is expected to be minimal, as the bulk of developed residential property will consist of condominiums and/or fractional ownership units, with a transitory population. Assuming full occupancy of all planned residential units, the maximum population of the Districts is projected to be approximately 1,700 persons. B. Assessed Valuation As noted above, the 2005 assessed valuation for the Project is $1,594,830. An estimate of projected assessed valuation within the proposed Districts is set forth in Exhibit E. The Service District and the Financing District will each be permitted to exercise their statutory powers and their respective authority set forth herein to finance, construct, acquire, operate and maintain the public facilities and improvements described herein and, as necessary, to provide the public services set forth in Section II of this Amended Service Plan either directly or by contract. Where appropriate, the Districts will contract with various public and /or private entities to undertake such functions. A description and cost estimate of improvements expected to be constructed by the Districts are contained in Exhibits C and D. Such descriptions and cost estimates are preliminary only and will be subject to modification and revision as engineering plans, financial factors and construction scheduling may require subject to the overall limitations on the powers of both Districts set forth in Section II hereof. A. Master IGA The relationship between the Service District and the Financing District, including the means for approving, financing, constructing, and operating the public services and improvements needed to serve the Project was established by means of a Master Intergovernmental Agreement (the "Master IGA ") executed by and between the Districts on November 13, 2003. The relationship between the Service District and the Financing District, including the means for approving, financing, constructing, and operating the public services and improvements needed to serve the Project has been established by means of the Master IGA. The Master IGA is expected to generally provide that the Financing District will pay to the Service District over a period of years the costs of (1) the construction, acquisition, and equipping of certain public facilities and services, and (2) the operation and maintenance of the facilities. Under the Master IGA, the Financing Districts has covenanted to levy the taxes necessary, together with other 0 available funds, to meet the payment obligations set forth in the Master IGA. In return for the payment under the agreement, the Service District has agreed to (1) acquire, construct and equip the facilities, (2) provide for their operation and maintenance, and (3) provide service to the property within the Districts or convey facilities to other appropriate entities which will provide service. B. Other Agreements To the extent practicable, the Service District may enter into additional intergovernmental and private agreements when it is in the best interest of the Service District to better ensure long-term provision of the improvements and services and effective management. Agreements may be executed with property owner associations and other service providers to coordinate the provision of these essential public services. A. General Attached to this Amended Service Plan as Exhibit E is a Consolidated Financing Plan that shows how the proposed services and facilities may be financed and operated by the Districts. The Financing Plan identifies the proposed revenues, expenses and debt issuance schedules of the Service District and the Financing District. Both Districts' plans are included for purposes of showing how the financial operations of the two Districts will be coordinated. The Financing District is expected to issue general obligation bonds supported by ad valorem mill levies. It is presently anticipated that the Service District will initially issue revenue bonds secured by the developer and by financial commitments received from the Financing District as well as revenues expected to be received pursuant to an intergovernmental agreement with the Mountain Vista Metropolitan District. This mechanism will help assure the transition of appropriate tax revenue to the payment of bonds issued to provide services for the Project. Other structures may also be used. The balance of the information contained in this section of this Amended Service Plan is preliminary in nature. All dollars are stated in 2006, uninflated dollars. Upon approval of this Amended Service Plan, both Districts will continue to develop and refine cost estimates contained herein and prepare for bond issuances. All cost estimates will be inflated to then- current dollars at the time of bond issuance and construction. Engineering and other contingencies, as well as capitalized interest and other costs of financing will be added. All construction cost estimates assume construction to applicable local, state or federal requirements. The maximum general obligation bonded indebtedness for the Financing District shall not exceed $ 36,000,000 exclusive of costs of issuance, inflation, contingencies and other costs, for parking and related facilities. The Service District shall be permitted to issue revenue bonds in any amount provided that such issues are secured or issued in a manner permitted by state law. The foregoing bond limits shall not be increased except by written approval of the Town. Other N than said restriction, the Districts shall have plenary authority to construct all facilities contemplated herein without the need to seek approval of any modification of this Amended Service Plan. Reasonable modifications of such facilities and cost estimates shall likewise be permitted. In addition to ad valorem property taxes, and in order to offset the expenses of the anticipated construction and the Service District operations and maintenance costs, the Districts will also rely upon various other revenue sources authorized by law, including fees, rates, tolls, penalties and charges as provided in § 32-1-1001(1), C.R.S. The Financing Plans assume various sources of revenue, including ad valorem property taxes, specific ownership taxes, development fees, and user charges, together with interest earnings on retained amounts. The maximum voted interest rate for bonds will be 18%. The proposed maximum underwriting discount will be 5%. It is estimated that, when issued, the bonds will mature not more than forty (40) years from date of issuance In the discretion of the Boards of Directors, the Districts may set up other qualifying entities to manage, fund, construct and operate facilities, services, and programs. To the extent allowed by law, any entity created by either District will remain under the control of its Board of Directors. The Financing Plans demonstrate that each District will have the financial capability to discharge the proposed indebtedness with reasonable mill levies assuming reasonable increases in assessed valuation and assuming the rate of build-out estimated in the Financing Plans. B. Elections.; Other Requirements All elections will be conducted as provided in the Uniform Election Code and the Constitution of Colorado, and may be held as determined by the elected Boards of Directors of both Districts. The Financing District and the Service District shall be subject to the following additional requirements: 1. Submission of annual reports as described in § 32-1-207(3), C.R.S. The annual report shall include the following information: a. Boundary changes made to the District's boundary as of December 31 of the prior year. b. Intergovernmental Agreements with other governmental entities entered into as of December 31 of the prior year. C. A list of all facilities and improvements constructed by the Districts that have been dedicated to and accepted by the Town as of December 31 of the prior year. d. The assessed valuation of the Districts for the current year. e. Current year budget including a description of the Public Improvements to be constructed in such year. f. Audit of the Districts financial statements, for the year ending December 31 of the previous year, prepared in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles or audit exemption, if applicable. 9. Notice of any uncured events of default by the District, which continue beyond a ninety (90) day period, under any Debt instrument. 3. Material modifications of this Amended Service Plan, except as contemplated herein, shall be subject to approval by the Town in accordance with the provisions of § 32-1-207, C.R.S. Said requirement of Town approval shall specifically include any attempted inclusion of land into the boundaries of the District except as specifically set forth herein. - WIRIM9 It is submitted that this Amended Service Plan for the proposed Confluence Metropolitan District and Avon Station Metropolitan District, as required by § 32-1-203(2), C.R.S., has established that: 1. There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district. 2. The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected needs. 3. The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries. 4. The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. Therefore, it is requested that the Town Council of the Town of Avon, Colorado, which has jurisdiction to approve this Amended Service Plan by virtue of § 32-1-201, C.R.S., et se g., as amended, adopt a resolution that approves this Amended Service Plan for Confluence Metropolitan District and Avon Station Metropolitan District as submitted. CMD\SVC PLAN\2006 AMENDMENT v8\WPA1730032006 0466.0003 12 Respectfully submitted, WHITE, BEAR AND ANKELE Professional Corporation rammm ", Confluence Metropolitan District CONFLUENCE A parcel of land located in the South %2 of the northwest '/4 of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 82 West of the Sixth Principal Meridian, Eagle County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the point on the approximate centerline of the Eagle River, from which the center 1/4 section of Section 12 bears S25' 57' 38"E, 268.27 feet; thence along the approximate centerline of the Eagle River the following (10) ten courses: 1. 5860 36' 05"W, 197.35 feet 2. S860 00' 59"W, 162.21 feet 3. S810 26' 34"W, 214.88 feet 4. 5530 42' 45"W, 187.29 feet 5. S500 10' 13"W, 154.96 feet 6. 5430 40' 09"W, 152.41 feet 7. S470 47' 00"W, 293.81 feet 8. S490 50' 33"W, 455.67 feet 9. S570 22' 26"W, 341.00 feet 10. S480 08' 55"W, 132.70 feet Thence departing the approximate centerline of the Eagle River the following twenty (20) courses: 1. S890 32' 01"E, 233.19 feet 2. S560 04' 00"E, 157.47 feet 3. S490 11' 26"E, 391.13 feet 4. S530 39' 23"E, 210.92 feet 5. S520 30' 25"E, 106.06 feet 6. S520 10' 38"E, 95.48 feet 7. S530 13' 33 "E, 116.06 feet 8. S370 40' 12"E, 75.38 feet 9. S350 09' 07"E, 102.83 feet 10. 5400 53' 23"E, 55.48 feet 11. S490 08' 52"E, 52.96 feet 12. S55" 19' 17"E, 79.88 feet 13. S690 58' 49"E, 57.37 feet 14. S820 22' 30"E, 181.83 feet 15. S880 00' 08"E, 82.27 feet 16. S820 22' 17"E, 54.95 feet 17. N760 09' 24"E, 84.42 feet 18. S870 18' 04"E, 59.58 feet 19. S810 18' 11 "E, 86.36 feet 20. S120 07' 30"W, 17.72 feet Thence S 12' 05' 08"W, 120.18 feet to the Point of Beginning. Parcel contains 6.895 acres F*.V9"V-J#W.V-J Avon Station Metropolitan District MVISMIMIRKO)a A parcel of land described as Lot B, Avon Center at Beaver Creek, Benchmark at Beaver Creek, Amendment No. 4, Town of Avon, Eagle County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the northernmost comer of Lot B, also being the easternmost comer of Lot C; thence along the westerly right-of-way of Beaver Creek Boulevard along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the left 187.14 feet, having a radius of 540.00 feet, a central angle of 19' 51' 21" and a chord which bears S45' 35' 34"E, 186.20 feet; thence departing said right-of-way S62' 54' 37"W, 220.50 feet; thence S27' 05' 23"E, 179.08 feet; thence N65' 58' 08"W, 366.19 feet to a point on a line common to Lots B and C; thence along said line N52' 41' 01"E, 397.57 feet to the Point of Beginning. Parcel contains 1.56 acres. AVON STATION A parcel of land located in the South 'h of the northwest '/4 of Section 12, Township 5 South, Range 82 West of the Sixth Principal Meridan, Eagle County, Colorado, being more particularly described as follows: Beginning at the point on the southerly right -of -way line of the Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad and the westerly right -of -way line of Avon Road, from which the center' /4 of Section 12 bears SO4° 18' 06 "E, 612.39 feet; thence along the southerly railroad right -of -way N65° 23' 27 "W, 1729.75 feet to the southeasterly most comer of Tract H, Benchmark at Beaver Creek Subdivision, Amendment Number 4, as recorded in Book 274 at Page 701; thence departing the southerly right -of -way line and along the southerly line of Tract H N89' 32' 01 "W, 164.10 feet; thence departing the southerly line of Tract H along the following (20) twenty courses: 1. S560 04' 00 "E, 157.47 feet 2. S490 11' 26 "E, 391.13 feet 3. S530 39' 23 "E, 210.92 feet 4. S520 30' 25 "E, 106.06 feet 5. S520 10' 38 "E, 95.48 feet 6. S530 13' 33 "E, 116.06 feet 7. S370 40' 12 "E, 75.38 feet 8. 5350 09' 07 "E, 102.83 feet 9. S400 53' 23 "E, 55.48 feet 10. S490 08' 52 "E, 52.96 feet 11. S550 19' 17E, 79.88 feet 12. S690 58' 49 "E, 57.37 feet 13. S820 22' 30 "E, 181.83 feet 14. S880 00' 08 "E, 82.27 feet 15. N820 22' 17 "E, 54.95 feet 16. N760 09' 24 "E, 84.42 feet 17. N870 18' 04 "E, 59.58 feet 18. S810 18' 11 "E, 86.36 feet 19. N120 07' 30 "E, 68.28 feet 20. N210 17' 14 "E, 52.00 feet thence N04° 29' 54 "E, 119.79 feet to the Point of Beginning. Parcel contains 11.991 acres. Map of Districts DISTRICT BOUNDARIES Cost Estimates Confluence Gondola Construction Cost Estimate Doppelmayr 2110 Add Power Filter 8 person detach Acct Budget Item 1200 - 1600 pph mm Manufacturer m 3,924,500 m1 n Installation by Manufacturer 973,100 2110 Galvanized Towers (addition - see price below o 2 110 Deduct Vendor umxouso(see»noeue/ow) o 2110 Add Lift House sxtenuonawa.ouoeach 27,600 2110 epo Meter Treater (mmvaa4 o 2110 Change toeummenn (Included) o 2110 Change to Cummins (No charge) o 2110 Add Loading Gates (w*) u 2110 Add this for pxtz System (mmudea) 5,000 1420 Return Alternator for Power Fall (included) u 2110 Deduct hi2hspeed backstop on gearbox (NIA) 0 4500 Lift Vendor Subtotal $ 4,925,200 2110 uunspnuao - *ddo% for 2005 w/.rse 2110 Add Galvanized Towers s18.000 18.000 esoo Lift Vendor Total $ 5,D90,6-5-6 2110 Add Power Filter 95,000 2110 Add vmragaa for Lift Houses rD,am *mso Site Work /Utility Maintenance ( Moving Utilities, et4. See Below n? ^uso Site Prep /Road Building n 3680 raxes@*% (may not ua applicable due to District status) 212,638 6450 Shop Tools and Equipment (Set of Tools and an Non Destructive Testing Machine u«.nno *ano Change Orders 60,000 5470 Radio Equipment 4.000 1420 Evacuation and Protective Gear 20.ouo 4120 Electricity 40.000 1*20 Maze Materials 4.000 1420 Job Supplies 5,000 1420 y/ona 5,000 1420 cxa/mamraoeoabmeuetc. 3,000 4500 Toilets, Top and Bottom o 1420 Operator Tools ruo 1420 Tower Pads e.00u esoo Engineering Fees 13.500 2540 Surveying @ 1.no/ft 4.000 4140 Telecom Installation 3,000 asso Building permits 1.200 anuu movoctiomucenoa 5,000 2590 Project Consultant 2,000 coso rrDject Labor 'Lifts 10.000 muo Project Labor Planning 2,000 moo Benefits + WIC @z1a% 3.010 2160 Fuel, Lift and Equipment 1.000 4060 Project Clearing $a000mo 16.000 5560 Project.Reveg $2500/ac a otal Non-Vendor Expenses $615,048 oubTota/ Other Costs. Builders Risk Insurance +nuou Lift Maintenance Facility snn.onu Less Lift House =x�ns/nn for the top (13.800) ' Contingency (10%) 570.600 ' sxoavauon and Site Work at Upper Terminal (subject to negotiated cost allocation ueweenvn/ and the District) 550,000 Construction Management Fee 125,ODO Total Other Costs 1,T71,800 Grand Total 1 Pannha. Railroad insurance, CDDT etc 2Demodion 2a Demolition rebainingwa||/Awon Rd. 2b Demolition existing 2c Demolition Hurd Rd. entrance 2d Demolition fencing (north property line) 2e Demolition overhead utility lines 2f Demolition Underground existing utilities 3 Traffic Control 4 Earth Work 4a Mobilization 4b Site Survey 8Layout 4o Export of unsuitable soils 4d Import ofaubab|osoils 4e Rough Grading 4f Grade for curb, sidewalk and asphalt 4g Grade at Landscape areas 4h Grade for north/south bike path 4i Topsoil 5 Temporary Shoring @ turning lane G Asphalt Paving Ga4^asphalt 8b8"base Gc Traffic Markings 7 Unit Pavers @crosswalk 7aSubn|ab for concrete pavers 8 Site Concrete Da 6' sidewalk 8b Curb &Gutter Oo H/Cnump 8d Valley Gutter 8e 10' bike path 8f Stamped concrete pavement Og Concrete pole bases 8h Concrete retaining wall 8i Retaining wall atCu|du sac EU Guard rails 8k Removable bollards Q Water Service Sa Water Service, new main 0b Tap existing main 9c Hydrants Ad Gate Valves Qe Fire Service 1U Sanitary Service 10a 1O^ PVC sanitary sewer 10b 8" PVC sanitary sewer 10o Sanitary sewer manholes LS 1 $91,800l0 $91.800I0 LS 1 $8.000.00 $8.000.00 SF 25.125 $2.00 $50,250l0 LF 1.700 $8.88 G11.698.00 LS 1 $25.000.00 $25.000.00 LS i $39,000.00 $39,000.00 SF 78.639 $0.20 $15.72780 LS 1 $14,000.08 $14,000.00 LS 1 $18.550.00 $18.550.00 CY 10,000 $15l0 $150,000.00 CY 10.008 $2210 $220.000]]0 SF 208.571 $0.525 $109.59670 SF 97.000 $0.57 $55.290.00 SF 78.639 $0.20 $15.72780 LS 1 $40.000.00 $40.000D0 SF 78.639 $0.30 $23.591.70 3F 5.100 $19.80 $89.960.00 8F 65,656 $2.53 $166.109.68 SF 65.056 $125 $82.070.00 L3 1 $5.000-00 $5.000.00 SF 3.623 $12.00 $43.476.00 SF 3.623 $5D0 $18.11580 SF 12,474 $5�00 $02,37010 LF 4.678 $25.00 $116.95010 EA 15 $275.00 $4.125.00 LF 133 $20.00 $2.860.00 SF 11.272 $5.50 $81.096�00 SF 1.200 $28.00 $24.000.80 EA 70 $714.28 $49.999.60 CY 170 $42353 $72.000.10 SF 2.600 $55.00 $143.000D0 LS 1 $35.000.00 $35.000.00 EA 2 $3.000.00 $0.000.00 LF 2,370 $75.00 $177750l0 EA 2 $10.000.00 s20.000.00 Ea 8 $7.500-00 $80.00000 Ea 10 $4.200.00 $42.008.08 LF 374 $5148 $20.001.52 LF 2.240 $53.00 $118.720.00 LF 435 $65.00 *32.175.00 EA 12 $6.064.00 $72,768.00 10d Sanitary sewer taps 11 Storm Sewer 110 24" RCP 11b48"RCP 11c|n[eto ' 11d Man holes 11e Sand-oil interceptor 11f1O"RCP 12 Utility Trenching (gas &electric) 13 Fencing (north property line) 14 Landscaping 14a Trees 14b Shrubs 14cSod/Saed 14d Irrigation 14e W4u|oh 14f Soil Preparation 15 Stone sdAvon Rd. Retaining Wall 16 Electrical 1Sa Relocate fiber optics 16b Relocate existing light poles 18c Electrical service/transformer vaults 16d Communication vaults 1Ge Splice vaults 1Gf Joint trench 16g Electrical trench 18h Riverfront Dr. Street Lights 17 Directional oignage/ street niQnage LF 580 $85.41 $50,306.40 LF i11 $221.60 $24.597.60 EA 0 $4.880.00 $44.001.00 EA 31 %4.286.00 $90,006.00 EA 1 $12.519.00 $12.510,00 LF 1.718 $54.20 $93.270.22 LF 1.900 $10D0 $19.000.00 LF 1.500 $35.00 $52.500.00 EA 231 $589,54 $130.18374 EA 350 $34.17 $11.959.50 SF 07.470 $8.11 $10.722.36 LS 1 $74.678D0 $74.678.00 SF 1.036 $1.74 $3.36&64 SF 46.312 $0.45 $28.979.34 SF 2.580 $28.00 $70.000-00 MOO LS } $375.000.00 $375.000-00 LS 1 $7.500D0 $7.500-00 EA 5 $1.850.08 $9.250.00 EA 5 $15.000.00 $75.000.00 EA 1 $5,000.00 $5.000D0 LF 3.342 $50.57 $169.004.84 LF 1.020 $17.49 $33.580.80 EA 70 $3,372.00 *238.04000 LS 1 $40.000.00 $40.000.00 SUBTOTAL $4.136/415.79 Engineering 0.5% $268.867.03 TOTAL $4.405.28281 ConUoq*noy 10.096 $440.528.28 I Concrete la Layout 1b Drill Cooiaonna 10 Place concrete etcaissons Id Reinforcing 1e Concrete nnohaha|u 1f 36" casting 2 Concrete Substructure 2a Precast floor tees 2b Precast beams 2cRebar 2d Prep Topping slab 2* Concrete topping 2f Pump Concrete topping 2g Concrete Stairs &Landing 2h Concrete paths b river access 3 Waterproofing 4 Protective concrete slab 5|nou|oUon 0 Snow melt 7 Deck Pavers 8Rai|inUm O Deck Furnishings 10 Landscaping 11 Pub|ioReshnomo 12 Plaza Lighting EA 21 $65.19 $1.368.� LF 525 $14.04 $7,371I CY 165.93 $17�55 $2.012l LF 15.418 $0.52 $8.017.3 CY 164.93 $197.20 $32,524.2 LF 525 $1521 $7.985�2 $U.O SF 18`000 $1137 $204.660.0 LF 320 $20673 $66.153.0 SF 18.000 $0.44 $7.020.0 SF 18.000 30.18 $3.240.0 CY 222 $191.09 $42.421�9 CY 222 $14.04 $3.116.8 LS 1 $110.000.00 $110.000.0 LS 1 $00.000.00 $60.000.0 SF 18.000 $6.00 $108.000.0 SF 18.000 $5.00 $90.000.0 SF 18.000 $6.41 $115.880�0 SF 18.000 $13.77 $247.860.0 SF 18.000 $8.00 $144.000.0 LS 1 $36.000.00 $35.000.0 EA 10 $1.648.00 $16.480.0 SF 18.000 $5.00 $90.000,0 LS 1 $300.000-00 $300.000.0 LS 1 $80.000.00 $80.000.0' SUBTOTAL $1.784.411.33 Engineahn/ 6.59& $115.086.74 TOTAL $1'900.398.06 Conhngenc MO% $180.039.81 Park& Western Access 1 Riverfnon Park (includes lighting, landscaping &Furnishing SF 2 East bike path SF 3 Modify existing retaining wall L5 4 Protective fencing a( retaining wall LS 140,000 $5.00 8700000.00 4,200 $5.50 $25.100I0 1 S40.000.00 $4OOOO�0� . | 1 $25,000.00 | SUBTOTAL $788.100.00 Engineerin 0�5% $51.220.50 TOTAL $839.326.50| Continqen( 10.0% $83,932.65 CONFLUENCE LANDSCAPING COST ESTIMATE 777 777 Landscaping is anticipated to be extensive throughout the public areas of the District including Estimated Cost streetscape and pedestrian areas. Improvements include trees, shrubs, mulch and flower beds, turf and native grasses, fencing, retaining walls, irrigation, etc. Additional landscaping and irrigation may be installed on the south side of the Eagle River pending easement agreements with the land owners. $500,000.00 --- ----- --- Facility Maps I P:\ECO05001 \dwg\WORK\conf—serviceplan-exh.dwg, 2/712006 11:32:59 AM, Babcock 2/7/2006 11:26:25 AM, babcock P:\EC005001\dwg\WORK\conf—Serviceplan-exh.dwg, 2/712006 11:30:46 AM, babcock 2/7/2006 11:21:47 AM, babcock EXHIBI't F", Confluence /Avon Station Metropolitan Districts Eagle County, Colorado Bond Cashflow - District Debt Capacity Schedule h._ i�rO et T8%RCMEtI1jC�. �' \., ,. YS:; •. � �., ,,' -` *.f$2T1C520Qdi i�CYetltlt l�ntf5 . �;, �Cr1eb,�Q(�9v pfJrittlitdd ]- a%('i ©�PIIdY Specific Ownership Nee Revenue LOC & Total Gtmulanve Total Property Tax Tax @ 8.0% of Mountain Visea Available for D<bt Remarketing Net Debt Net Debt Annual Developer Cumulative Ass: sed Value 1111 L<v �" Cov SurpluslDeEici Caneribut Sur Ius /Deficit 200 5 1,150,000 5 S - S 1()0,0 S 100,0 S - S 383,130 S 273,135 5 656,265 .S - $ - 5 - $ (556,265) S 556,265 5 200- '1,150,000 - 100,000 100,000 - 573,125 364,180 937,305 1837,305} R3J,.305 - 200 1,150,000 35 40,250 3,220 100,00 143,470 - 573,258 364,180 937,438 {793,968) 793,968 20(1 1,150,000 35 40,250 3,220 100,OIX 143,470 - .572,992 364,180 601,959 - 240,113 240,17. 0.24 (698,604) 698,604 - 201 24,078,491 35 942,747 67,420 100,001 1,010,167 - 960,460 960,460 1.05 49,707 49,707 201 26,969,426 35 943,930 75,514 700,0 1,119,444 85,000 960,460 1,045,460 1.07 73,984 123,691 201 35,474,043 35 1,241,592 99,327 100,00 1,440,919 385,000 956,975 1,341,975 1.07 98,944 222,635 201 35,474,043 35 1,241,592 99,327 100,00( 1,440,919 405,000 940,035 1,345,035 107 95,884 318,519 201 .35,474,043 3S 1,247,572 99,327 100,0 1,440,919 420,000 921,609 1,341,608 1.07 99,311 417,830 2(71 35,474 3 35 1,241,592 99,327 100,00 1,440,919 440,000 901,868 1,341,868 1.07 99,051 516,882 201 33,A7A,043 33 1,241,592 99,327 100,00 1,440,919 465,000 890,528 1,345,528 1.07 9.5;391 612,273 201 35,474,0= 3S 1,241,592 99,327 IOU 1,440919 485,000 957,279 1,342,278 107 98,641 710,914 201 i 35,474,043 35 1,241,592 99,327 100,00C 1,440,919 510,000 832,300 1,342,300 1.07 98,619 809,533 201 35,474,043 35 1,241,592 99,327 100,00 C,440,919 540,000 805,270 1,345,270 1.07 95,649 905,182 202 35,474,043 35 I = 41,592 99,327 100,0 1,440,919 565,000 776,110 7,347,170 1.07 99,809 1,004,991 202 35,474,043 35 1,241,592 99,327 1(10,0 1,440,919 600,000 745,035 1 ,345,035 1.07 95,884 1,100,875 211- 35,47,7,043 35 1,241,592 99,327 10(1,00 1,440,919 630,000 711,435 1,.341,435 1.07 99,484 1,200,358 207 35,474,0 <t3 35 1,241,592 99,327 100100 1,440,919 - 670,000 675,840 1,345,840 1.07 95,079 1,295,437 202 35,474,043 35 1,241,592 99,327 100,00 1,440,919 705,000 637,315 1,342,315 1.07 98,604 1,394,041 20, 35,474,043 35 1,241,593 99,327 100,0 1,440,919 745,000 $96,425 1,341,425 1.07 99,494 1,493,535 202 35,474,043 35 1,241,592 99,327 100,00 1,440,919 790,000 552,843 1,342,843 1,07 98,076 1,591,611 202 35,474,043 35 1,241,592 99,327 1,340,919 835,000 506,23.3 1,341,233 1.00 (314) 1,591,297 202 35,474,043 35 1,241,592 99,327 1,340,919 885,000 456,550 1,341,550 1.00 (631) 1,590,666 202 35,474,043 35 ,,241,592 99,327 1,340,719 940,000 403,450 1,343,450 (2,53 1) 1,588,135 203 35,474,043 35 1,241,592 99,327 1,340,919 99S,OW 346,580 1,341,58 1.00 (661) 1,587,474 203 35,474,043 35 ,,241,592 99,327 1,340,91 3,060,000 286,383 1,346,383 1.00 (5,464) 1 „582,01 203 35,474,043 3.5 1,241,592 99,327 1,340,91 1,120,000 221,723 1,341,723 1.00 (804) 1,581,20 203 35,474,043 35 1,241,592 99,327 1,340,91 1,190,000 152,843 1,342,843 1.00 (1,924) 1,579,283 203 35,474,043 35 1,241,592 99,327 1 340,97 1,265 000 79,063 1,344,06 1.00 3,144) 1,576 13 530,423,782 $2,433,903 $2,100,000 S34,957,68M1 S16,375,000 S 2,102,505 $ 1,365,675 $ 3,132,967 516,730,000 $16,404,720 533,134,720 $ 2,886,142.11 (1) Assumes ameuaI inflation of 0.00 %, ,nh a base year of 2008 12) Assaunes Laser of Credit Ca 2.001 and Remarkering Lxpenees of 12.5 bps {3) Assumes complete current refundu g of Series 2006 Bonds on 09/01/2009 ,t c . ev fit,, r a, s. Y.�:� � :i �l :i �.`d'.P. Based on the proiectionv from chz developer 7J22J2006 Confluence/Avon Station Metropolitan Districts Eagle County, Colorado General Administration Costs Cashflow - District Debt Capacity Schedule l Piperaffray Uc - Based on projections from the developer 2/22/2006 Pro oeri. Tax Revenue`: Net Revenue Available for Specific Ownership Mountain Vista General Total Cumulative Total Property Tax Tax @ 8.0% of Property Tax Additional Administration Annual General Annual Cumulative Assessed Value Mill Levy Revenue Property Tax Revenue Contributions Costs Admin Costs Coverage Surplus/Deficit Surplus/Deficit 2006 $1,150,000 0 25,000 $25,000 $150,000 -$150,000 -$150,000 2007 1,150,000 0 25,000 - $25,000 460,000 -460,000 -610,000 2008 1,150,000 10 11,500 920 25,000 247,500 $284,920 570,000 -285,080 -895,080 2009 1,150,000 10 11'.500 920 25,000 247,500 $284,920 545,000 0.52 -260,080 -1,155,160 2010 24,078,491 10 240,7851 19,263 25,000 272,500 $557,548 585,000 0.95 -27,452 -1,182,612 2011 26,969,426 10 269,694 21,576 25,000 272,500 $588,770 585,000 1.01 3,770 -1,178,843 2012 35,474,043 10 354,740 28,379 25,000 280,000 $688,120 600,000 1.15 88,120 -1,090,723 2013 35,474,043 10 354,740 28,379 25,000 280,000 $688,120 600,000 1.15 88,120 -1,002,603 2014 35,474,043 10 354,740 28,379 25,000 280,000 $688,120 600,000 1.15 88,120 -914,484 2015 35,474,043 10 354,740 28,379 25,000 280,000 $688,120 600,000 1.15 88,120 -826,364 2016 35,474,043 10 354,740 28,379 25,000 280,000 $688,120 600,000 1.15 88,120 -738,244 2017 35,474,043 10 354,740 28,379 25,000 330,000 $738,120 700,000 1.05 38,120 -700,125 2018 35,474,0,43 10 354,740 28,379 25,000 280,000 $688,120 600,000 1.15 88,120 -612,005 2019 35,474,043 10 354,740 28,379 25,000 280,000 $688,120 600,000 1.15 88,120 -523,885 2020 35,474,043 10 354,740 28,379 25,000 280,000 $688,120 600,000 1.15 88,120 -435,766 2021 35,474,043 10 354,740 28,379 25,000 280,000 $688,120 600,000 1.15 88,120 -347,646 2022 35,474,043 10 354,740 28,379 25,000 280,000 $688,120 600,000 1.15 88,120 -259,526 2023 35,474,043 10 354,740 28,379 25,000 280,000 $688,120 600,000 1.15 88,120 -171,407 2024 35,474,043 10 354,740 28,379 25,000 280,000 $688,120 600,000 1.15 88,120 -83,287 2025 35,474,043 10 354,740 28,379 25,000 280,000 $688,120 600,000 1.15 88,120 4,833 2026 35,474,043 10 354,740 28,379 25,000 280,000 $688,120 600,000 1.15 88,120 92,952 2027 35,474,043 10 354,740 28,379 - 280,000 $663,120 600,000 1.11 63,120 156,072 2028 35,474,043 10 354,740 28,379 280,000 $663,120 600,000 1.11 63,120 219,192 2029 35,474,043 10 354,740 28,379 280,000 $663,120 600,000 1.11 63,120 282,311 2030 35,474,043 10 354,740 28,379 280,000 $663,120 600,000 1.11 63,120 345,431 20311 35,474,043 10 354,740 28,379 280,000 $663,120 600,000 1.11 63,120 408,551 203] 35,474,043 10 354,740 28,379 280,000 $663,12 600,000 1.11 63,120 471,670 203] 35,474,043 10 354,740 28,379 280,000 $663,12 Lil 63,120 534,790 2034 35,474,043 10 354,74C 28,379 - 280,000 1 $663,12 600'00� 1.11 63,120 597,910 1 $8,692,5091, $695,401 $525,000 $7,530,000, 1 $17,442,91 $16,795,00� l Piperaffray Uc - Based on projections from the developer 2/22/2006 Confluence /Avon Station Metropolitan Districts Eagle County, Colorado Absorption Schedule Construction Schedule TOTAL 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 Whole Ownership Units 106 46 22 38 Timeshare Units 112 50 62 Condo Hotel Rooms 122 122 Hotel Condos 83 83 Commercial (Retail /Office) 1 27,260 21,860 5,400 Commercial (Restaurant) 9,600 9,600 Cumulative Whole Ownership Units 106 46 68 106 Timeshare Units 112 50 50 112 Condo Hotel Rooms 122 - 122 122 122 Hotel Condos 83 83 83 83 Commercial (Retail /Office) 27,260 21,860 27,260 27,260 Commercial (Restaurant) 9,600 9,600 9,600 9,600 Actual Valuation AVG Value /Unit Whole Ownership Units 1,282,575 58,998,450 87,215,100 135,952,950 Timeshare Units 992,250 49,612,500 49,612,500 111,132,000 Condo Hotel Rooms 396,100 48,324,200 48,324,200 48,324,200 Hotel Condos 1,187,450 98,558,350 98,558,350 98,558,350 Commercial (Retail /Office) 450 9,837,000 12,267,000 12,267,000 Commercial (Restaurant) 200 1,920,000 1,920,000 1,920,000 Total Actual Valuation - - 267,250,500 297,897,150 408,154,500 Assessed Valuation Assessment Rate Land Value 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 331,678 271,868 - Whole Ownership Units 7.96% - - 4,696,277 6,942,322 10,821,855 Timeshare Units 7.96 / 3,949;155 3,949,155 8,846,107 Condo Hotel Rooms T96% 3,846,606 3,846,606 3,846,606 Hotel Condos 7.96% 7,845,245 7,845,245 7,845,245 Commercial (Retail /Office) 29.00% 2,852,730 3,557,430 3,557,430 Commercial (Restaurant) 1 29.00%1 S56,800 556,800 556,800 Total Assessed Valuation 1,150,000 1,150,000 1,150,000 24,078,491 26,969,426 35,474,043 Effective AV (2 year Lag) <' 1,150 00' 4,150;000 :.: .. ` 1j150,000 ' ' E, , ;,:? 1;150 0f77 . ;: 1= 150:000 � 91ti :utu_ }: r;;i::J.c_F :r•c I i -t !': �'a'S�.' Based on projections from the developer 2122 /2006 Preliminary $16,375,000.00 Confluence/Avon Station Metropolitan Districts Revenue Bonds Series 2006 Dated 04/0112006 1 Delivered 04/01/2006 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $16,375,000.00 Total Sources $16,375,000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (1.100 %) 180,125.00 Costs of Issuance 130,000,00 Total Letter of Credit Fee Paid at Closing 60,696.67 Deposit to Project Construction Fund 16,000,000.00 Rounding Amount 4,178.33 Total Uses $1 Preliminary $16,375,000 Confluence /Avon Station Metropolitan Districts Revenue Bonds Series 2006 .t #.b, Service Schedule DATE PRINCIPAL COUPON INTEREST LOC TOTAL P +i EXPENSES NET NEW D/S 12/01/2006 0.00% 383,130.12 257,783.46 640,913.58 15,351.57 656,265.15 12/01/2007 0.00% 573,124.98 343,711.28 916,836.26 20,468.76 937,305.02 12/01/2008 0.00% 573,257.97 343,711.28 916,969.25 20,468.76 937,438.01 12/01/2009 0.00% 572,991.98 343,711.28 916,703.26 20,468.76 937,172.02 12/01/2010 5,000.00 3.50% 573,124.98 343,685.04 921,810.02 20,467.20 942,277.22 12/01/2011 5,000.00 3.50% 572,950.02 343,580.08 921,530.10 20,460.96 941,991.06 12/01/2012 5,000.00 3.50% 572,907.91 343,47512 921,383.03 20,454.71 941,837.74 12/01/2013 5,000.00 3.50% 572,467.11 343,370.17 920,837.28 20,448,44 941,285.72 12/01/2014 5,000.00 3.50% 572,425.01 343,265.24 920,690.25 20,442.20 941,132.45 12/01/2015 5,000.00 3.50% 572,249.98 343,160.28 920,410.26 20,435.96 940,846.22 12/01/2016 5,000.00 3.50% 572,207.74 343,055.32 920,263.06 20,429.71 940,692.77 12/01/2017 5,000.00 3.50% 571,767.30 342,950.37 919,717.67 20,423.44 940,141.11 12/01/2018 5,000.00 3.50% 571,725.05 342,845.44 919,570.49 20,417.20 939,987.69 12/01/2019 5,000.00 3.50% 571,549.97 342,740.48 919,290.45 20,410.96 939,701.41 12/01/2020 5,000.00 3.50% 571,507.60 342,635.52 919,143.12 20,404.71 939,547.83 12/01/2021 5,000.00 3.50% 571,067.49 342,530.57 918,598.06 20,398.44 938,996.50 12/01/2022 5,000.00 3.50% 571,024.97 342,425.64 918,450.61 20,392.20 938,842.81 12/01/2023 5,000.00 3.50% 570,850.00 342,320.68 918,170.68 20,385.96 938,556.64 12/01/2024 5,000.00 3.50% 570,807.43 342,215.72 918,023.15 20,379.71 938,402.86 12/01/2025 16,300,000.00 150% 570,36758 256,602.75 17,126,970.33 15,281.25 17,142,251.58 Total $16,375,000.00 - $11,251,505.19 $6,689,775.72 $34,316,28091 $398,390.90 $34,714,671.81 Preliminary $16,730,000-00-------------,-- Confluence/Avon Station Metropolitan Districts Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds Series 2009 Sources & Uses Dated 09/0112009 1 Delivered 09/01/2009 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $16,730,000.00 Total Sources $16,730,000.00 Uses Of Funds Total Underwriter's Discount (1.500%) 250,950.00 Costs of Issuance 100,000.00 Confluence/Avon Station Metropolitan Districts Limited Tax General Obligation Bonds Series 2009 Net Debt Service Schedule EXISTING DATE PRINCIPAL COUPON INTEREST TOTAL P+I D/S NET NEW DIS 12/01/2009 0.00% 240,115.00 240,115.00 48,676.37 288,79137 12/01/2010 0.00% 960,460.00 960,460.00 - 960,460,00 12/01/2011 85,000.00 4.10% 960,460.00 1,045,460.00 1,045,460.00 12/01/2012 385,000.00 4.40% 956,975.00 1,341,975.00 1,341,975 00 12/01/2013 405,000.00 4.55% 940,035.00 1,345,035.00 1,345,035.00 12/01/2014 420,000.00 4.70% 921,607.50 1,341,607,50 1341,607.50 12/01/2015 440,000.00 4.85% 901,867.50 1,341,867.50 1,341,867,50 yl 12/01/2016 465,000.00 5.00% 880,527.50 1,345,527.50 1,345,527.50 12/01/2017 485,000.00 5.15% 857,277.50 1,342,27250 1,342,277.50 12/01/2018 510,000.00 5.30% 832,300.00 1,342,300.00 1,342,300.00 12/01/2019 540,000.00 5.40% 805,270.00 1,345,270.00 1,345,270.00 12/01/2020 565,000.00 5.50% 776,110.00 1,34 1,11 OM 1,341,110.00 12/01/2021 600,000.00 5.60% 745,035.00 1,345,035.00 1,345,035.00 12/01/2022 630,000.00 5.65% 711,435.00 1,341,435.00 1,341,435.00 12/01/2023 670,000.00 5.75% 675,840.00 1,345,840.00 1,345,840.00 12/01/2024 705,000.00 5.80% 637,315.00 1,342,3 15,00 1,342,3 15.00 12/01/2025 745,000.00 5.85% 596,425.00 1,341,425.00 1,341,425.00 12/01/2026 790,000.00 5.90% 552,842.50 1,342,842.50 1,342,842.50 12/01/2027 835,000.00 5.95% 506,23150 1,341,232.50 1,341,232.50 12/01/2028 885,000.00 6.00% 456,550.00 1,341,550.00 1,341,550.00 12/01/2029 940,000.00 6.05% 403,450,00 1,343,450.00 1,343,450.00 12/01/2030 995,000.00 6.050% 346,580.00 1,341,580,00 1,341,580.00 12/01/2031 1,060,000.00 6.10% 286,382.50 1,346,3 82,50 1,346,382.50 12/01/2032 1,120,000.00 6.15% 221,722,50 1,341,722.50 1,341,722.50 12/01/2033 1,190,000.00 6.20% 152,842.50 1,342,842.50 1,342,842.50 12/01/2034 1,265,000.00 6.25% 79,062.50 1,344,062.50 1,344,062.50 Total $16,730,000.00 - $16,404,720.00 $33,134,720.00 $48,676.37 $33,183,396.37 1901.i1 UN Statutory Contents of Service Plan A description of the proposed services; 2. A financial plan showing how the proposed services are to be financed; 3. A preliminary engineering or architectural survey showing how the proposed services are to be provided; 4. A map of the districts' boundaries and an estimate of the population and valuation for assessment of the district; 5. A general description of the facilities to be constructed and the standards of such construction, including a statement of how the facility and service standards of the district is compatible with facility and service standards of the Town of Avon and of special districts that are interested parties pursuant to §32 -1- 204(1), C.R.S.; 6. A general description of the estimated cost of acquiring land, engineering services, legal services, administrative services, initial proposed indebtedness and estimated proposed maximum interest rates and discounts, and other major expenses related to the organization and initial operation of the districts; 7. A description of any arrangement or proposed agreement with any political subdivision for the performance of any services between the district and such other political subdivision; 8. Information satisfactory to establish that each of the following criteria as set forth in §32 -1- 203(2), C.R.S., has been met: (a) There is sufficient existing and projected need for organized service in the area to be serviced by the proposed special district. (b) The existing service in the area to be served by the proposed special district is inadequate for present and projected needs. (c) The proposed special district is capable of providing economical and sufficient service to the area within its proposed boundaries. (d) The area to be included in the proposed special district has, or will have, the financial ability to discharge the proposed indebtedness on a reasonable basis. k1l L:4 I'l M To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: Scott Wright, Finance Directo Date: March 23, 2006 Re: Resolution 06 -17, Budget Amendment Summary: A budget amendment is proposed to the Capital Projects Fund for various changes since the 2006 budget was adopted in November. Background: The Municipal code allows the Town Council the ability to make changes to the adopted budget through periodic amendments. Historically, the Town has amended the budget when additional appropriations are necessary or when significant new revenues are identified. Financial Implications: A budget amendment is needed for the 2006 street improvements project in the amount of $95,000. This amount includes unexpended funds of $25,000 from the 2005 street improvement budget and $70,000 in additional appropriations due to higher than anticipated construction costs. In addition, a budget amendment is needed for developer rebates in the amount of $175,000. This amount represents the anticipated rebate to East West Partners of one -half the real estate transfer tax collected from the closing on the Confluence parcels. This rebate is provided for in the recently adopted Confluence Development Agreement. Recommendation: Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution discussed above as presented. Town Manager Comments: X, r, Page 1 f\- Resolution 06-l7 8— Capital Project Fund, Pages I-4 RESOLUTION NO. 06 -17 SERIES OF 2006 A RESOLUTION SUMMARIZING EXPENDITURES AND REVENUES AND AMENDING THE 2006 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND BUDGET FOR THE TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO, FOR THE CALENDAR YEAR BEGINNING ON THE FIRST DAY OF JANUARY, 2006, AND ENDING ON THE LAST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2006. WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Avon has adopted the 2006 capital projects fund budget; and WHEREAS, the Town Council reviewed the revised estimated revenues and expenditures for 2006; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds it necessary to amend the 2006 capital projects fund budget to more accurately reflect the revenues and expenditures for 2006; and WHEREAS, whatever increases may have been made in the expenditures, like increases were added to the revenues so that the budget remains in balance as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO: Section 1. That estimated revenues and expenditures for the capital project fund is as follows for 2006: Original or Previously Amended 2006 Budget Capital Projects Fund Beginning Fund Balance $ 5,968,727 Revenues and Other Sources 4,194,270 Expenditures and Other Uses 7,903,105 Ending Fund Balance $ 2,259,892 1 Current Proposed Amended 2006 Budget $ 5,968,727 4,194,270 2,173,105 S 1,989,892 Section 2. That the capital projects fund budget, as submitted, amended, and hereinabove summarized, hereby is approved and adopted as the capital projects fund budget of the Town of Avon for the year stated above. Section 3. That the budget hereby approved and adopted shall be signed by the Town Manager and made part of the public record of the Town. ADOPTED this 28th day of March, 2006. Patty McKenny, Town Clerk 117@1. /► • AVK* ►�$[f] Ronald C. Wolfe, Mayor Capital Projects Fund #41 Amendment No. 1 Other Sources: Transfer In from Other Funds 376,069 535,000 645,000 645,000 TOTAL REVENUES 2,988,545 3,515,209 4,194,270 4,194,270 - EXPENDITURES Capital Improvements: Facilities - 1,168,050 1,767,610 Original or Proposed 244 150,000 Estimated Prev. Amended Revised Difference 287,199 Actual Year -end Budget Budget Increase - 2004 2005 2006 2006 (Decrease) REVENUES 150,000 40,000 40,000 - Strategic Planning Taxes $ 2,338,060 $ 2,350,000 $ 2,150,000 $ 2,150,000 $ - Intergovernmental 200,000 230,290 1,214,296 1,214,296 - Investment Earnings 46,704 81,419 85,974 85,974 - Other Revenue 27,712 318,500 99,000 99,000 - Total Operating Revenues 2,612,476 2,980,209 3,549,270 3,549,270 - Other Sources: Transfer In from Other Funds 376,069 535,000 645,000 645,000 TOTAL REVENUES 2,988,545 3,515,209 4,194,270 4,194,270 - EXPENDITURES Capital Improvements: Facilities - 1,168,050 1,767,610 1,767,610 - Land and Land Improvements 244 150,000 90,000 90,000 - Roads and Streets 287,199 1,435,000 4,539,000 4,634,000 95,000 Recreation - 30,905 161,495 161,495 - Stormwater and Drainage 376,069 150,000 40,000 40,000 - Strategic Planning 91,120 284,700 400,000 400,000 - Other - 235,000 555,000 555,000 - Developer Rebates 158,665 158,665 300,000 475,000 175,000 Total Capital Improvements 913,297 3,612,320 7,853,105 8,123,105 270,000 Other Uses Operating Transfer -Out - General Fund 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 - Operating Transfer -Out - Wildridge S.I.D. 11,292 10,311 - - - Total Other Uses 61,292 60,311 50,000 50,000 - TOTAL EXPENDITURES 974,589 3,672,631 7,903,105 8,173,105 270,000 NET SOURCE (USE) OF FUNDS 2,013,956 (157,422) (3,708,835) (3,978,835) (270,000) FUND BALANCE, Beginning of Year 4,112,193 6,126,149 5,968,727 5,968,727 - FUND BALANCE, End of Year $ 6,126,149 $ 5,968,727 $ 2,259,892 $ 1,989,892 $ (270,000) Page 1 Capital Projects Fund #41 Amendment No. 1 53000 Total Intergovernmental Investment Earnings: 57101 Interest Earnings 57000 Total Investment Earnings 149,000 149,000 - 680,296 680,296 200,000 200,000 Intergovernmental: 200,000 Original or Proposed CDOT Enhancement Funds Grant 53199 Estimated Prev. Amended Revised Difference Account Actual Year -end Budget Budget Increase Number Description 2004 2005 2006 2006 (Decrease) Taxes: 58211 Eagle River Enhancement Project - Eagle County - 50,000 - - 58211 51401 Real Estate Transfer Tax $ 2,338,060 $ 2,350,000 $ 2,150,000 $ 2,150,000 $ - 58999 Miscellaneous Nonclassified Revenues 27,336 5,000 - - 51000 Total Taxes 2,338,060 2,350,000 2,150,000 2,150,000 53000 Total Intergovernmental Investment Earnings: 57101 Interest Earnings 57000 Total Investment Earnings 149,000 149,000 - 680,296 680,296 200,000 200,000 Intergovernmental: 200,000 Federal Grants: 53199 CDOT Enhancement Funds Grant 53199 FTA/CDOT Transportation Center Grant 25,000 - Local Government/Other Agency: 53401 Village at (Avon) 53401 Confluence Metro District 53401 Eaglebend Housing Authority 53401 ERWSD Sewer Line Replacement 53000 Total Intergovernmental Investment Earnings: 57101 Interest Earnings 57000 Total Investment Earnings 149,000 149,000 - 680,296 680,296 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 - - 160,000 160,000 - - 25,000 25,000 25,000 - - 5,290 - - - 58211 Sheraton Mountain Vista - 2005 Application - 17,500 - - 200,000 230,290 1,214,296 1,214,296 46,704 81,419 85,974 85,974 46,704 81,419 85,974 85,974 58000 Total Other Revenues 27,712 318,500 99,000 99,000 Other Sources: 59201 Transfer In from Other Funds 376,069 535,000 645,000 645,000 59000 Total Other Sources 376,069 535,000 645,000 645,000 50000 TOTAL REVENUES $ 2,988,545 $ 3,515,209 $ 4,194,270 $ 4,194,270 $ m Other Revenues: 58102 Utility Capital Facility Fees 376 2,000 - - 58104 Fireplace Fees - 9,000 9,000 9,000 Reimbursements: 58211 Sheraton Mountain Vista - 2005 Application - 17,500 - - 58211 Confluence - East West Partners - 175,000 - - 58211 Eagle River Enhancement Project - East West Part - 2,500 50,000 50,000 58211 Eagle River Enhancement Project - Eagle County - 50,000 - - 58211 Eagle River Enhancement Project - BCRC - 55,000 - - 58211 W. Avon Trails - Berry Creek Metro District - 2,500 40,000 40,000 58999 Miscellaneous Nonclassified Revenues 27,336 5,000 - - 58000 Total Other Revenues 27,712 318,500 99,000 99,000 Other Sources: 59201 Transfer In from Other Funds 376,069 535,000 645,000 645,000 59000 Total Other Sources 376,069 535,000 645,000 645,000 50000 TOTAL REVENUES $ 2,988,545 $ 3,515,209 $ 4,194,270 $ 4,194,270 $ m Capital Projects Fund #41 Amendment No. 1 Page 3 Original or Proposed Estimated Prev. Amended Revised Difference Account xuma| Year-end Budget Budget Increase Number Description 200* 200e 2000 oOUO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FuniUUos 11000 Council Chambers Audio/Video Upgrade $ - $ 70.000 $ - $ $ 11007 Municipal Building Roof - 50.000 - 13004 Nottingham Lake Pump Station Expansion - - 75.000 75,000 14001 Transportation Center - 1.048.050 9e2.010 982.610 19001 Municipal Parking Facilities 700.000 700.000 - Land and Land Improvements: 2100* Tract J Bridge Removal 244 - 45.080 45.000 - 21005 vw|dhdge Park Improvements and Playground ' 150.000 ' - - 21000 Vvi|d,idgePocxotPerk ' New Block 3or4 - ' ' ' 21007 |-7VEn000w Sign Removal - - 45.000 45.000 - Roads and Streets: 3tveotsoapo: 31006 Eag|euendDc - 50.000 700.000 700.000 - 31008 Nottingham Rd. Imp. /|-7oou Buck Creek 73.894 25.000 - - - 31010 Lighting Study and Conversion - - 204.000 204.000 Street Improvements: 32007 Town Center-Mall Plan Implementation - 400.000 2.800.000 2,800.000 32008 E Beaver Creek Blvd. Improvements 6.585 ' ' Annual Street Improvements: 33004 2U0* Paving/Road Improvements 285^735 - 33005 20O5 Paving/Road Improvements ' 890.000 - ' - 33000 2008 Paving/Road Improvements ' 220.000 315.000 95.000 Multi-Modal/Alternative Mobility: 34007 vmNridge Traffic Calming & Pedestrian Circulation 1.127 250.000 250.000 - 34009 Swift Gulch Road aixepamExtension 58 45.000 - - - 34010 Swift Gulch Rd. 8ixopam 20.000 200.000 260,000 - 34011 VVim,iguo Emergency Access ' - 25.000 25.000 - 34012 West Avon Trails and Access Enhancement - 5,000 80.000 00.000 nvumaunn: 51002 Eagle River Enhancement Project - 30.905 161.495 161.495 - ntormwm*e,onu Drainage: 81003 Metcalf Rd. Drainage /|'ro¢, Nottingham Rd. 370.009 - - ' 61004 Nuttinoxam'Puder Ditch Restoration - 150.000 - - ' 61005 VV. Beaver Creek Blvd. /|-70^nRailroad ' 40.080 40.000 - Strategic Planning: Development Analysis and Review: 71004 Confluence / Westin nivomnnt Resort - 175.000 71005 Sub-area Plan - Town Center Commercial District - 150.000 150.000 - 71006 Sheraton Mountain Vista oOOnApplication 17.500 - - - Page 3 Capital Projects Fund #41 Amendment No.I Page 4 Other: Original or Proposed 93005 Historic Preservation Estimated Prev. Amended Revised Difference Account Historic Analysis Study Actual Year-end Budget Budget |nomano Number Description 2004 2005 2006 2006 94006 NCD Water Rights Acquisition - 70000 TOOOO 70800 - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 754,632 $ 3,453,655 7,648,105 $ 95000 Planning and Consulting: 78002 Comprehensive Plan 82.773 07.200 25.000 25.000 79004 20o4 General Planning and Consulting 8.347 ' 79005 20U5 General Planning and Consulting - 25.000 - 78006 2Ous General Planning and Consulting ' 25.000 25.000 78101 Nottingham Park Master Plan - ' 50.000 50.000 - 79102 Pedestrian Circulation Plan ' - 100.000 100.000 - 78103 Retail Analysis ' - 50.000 50.000 - Page 4 Other: 93005 Historic Preservation - - 25,000 25,000 ' 93006 Historic Analysis Study ' 25.000 ' ' ' 84005 Water Rights Acquisition - 140.000 460.000 400.000 - 94006 NCD Water Rights Acquisition - 70000 TOOOO 70800 - Total Capital Improvement Projects 754,632 $ 3,453,655 7,648,105 $ 95000 Page 4 MEMORANDUM TO: TOWN COUNCIL rim M E91130 DATE: March 22, 2006 The Confluence and Avon Station Metropolitan Districts have requested approval by the Council of a Memorandum of Understanding by which the Town will consent to operation of the gondola within the Town as part of the development of the Riverfront Subdivision. The application is made pursuant to CRS 32-1-1004(6), a part of the special district law It is a requirement of that law that, whenever a special district provides transportation services within a municipality which itself provides transportation services, consent to the "duplication" of services must be given by the municipality. Because the gondola will be constructed and operated by the districts pursuant to their authority to provide transportation, consent is required. Staff has commented on an initial draft of the MOU, which comments were incorporated into the final draft you have before you. Approval of the MOU by motion is recommended. JWD:ipse MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (the "MOU") is dated as of this day of , 2006, by and among CONFLUENCE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT ("Confluence"), AVON STATION METROPOLITAN DISTRICT ("ASMD")(collectively the "Districts"), and the TOWN OF AVON ("Town"). 1. The Districts were organized in 1998 and contain property wholly within the boundaries of the Town of Avon. 2. The Districts were empowered to provide a variety of public improvements to the territory within their boundaries, including transportation related facilities. ' 3. The Districts are planning the construction of a gondola (the "Gondola") to connect the development area known generally as the Confluence with the Beaver Creek ski area lift infrastructure located in the area commonly known as Beaver Creek Landing. 4. The Town of Avon will approve the final configuration of the Gondola in accordance with applicable Town procedures, the Gondola will not duplicate or impair any transportation functions being exercised by the Town in or about the Town of Avon, and the Town does not object to the construction and operation of the Gondola as approved by the Town of Avon. 5. This Memorandum of Understanding will be deemed in satisfaction of the provisions of Section 32-1-1004(6), C.R.S. relating to the exercise of the transportation power by the Districts, to the extent required therein. TOWN OF AVON CONFLUENCE METROPOLITAN DISTRICT an Mayor CMD/AGRT/G0ND0LA1GA/M0UAV0N/MJB 1725031606 0466.0300 0 President AVON STATION METROPOLITAN DISTRICT 0 President PF To: Honorable Mayor & Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: Meryl Jacobs, Director of Recreation Date: March 22, 2006 RE: Fireworks production contract Summary: Attached for signature is the 2006 Fireworks production contract between the Town of Avon and Western Enterprise, Inc. In anticipation of the 20th anniversary of ANB Salute to the USA, we have asked the pyrotechnic professionals to design $5000 of additional product for the display. Council will see that additional cost detailed in the addendum attached to the original contract. All documents have had legal review. The total cost to the Town for the 2006 display is outlined below: Original contract: $48,700 Discount if paid by 4/30: $2,435(5%) Additional product: $5,000 Total due: $51,265 In the past, Western Enterprise, Inc. has sponsored ANB Salute in the amount of $5000. Staff will pursue this contribution for the 2006 event as well. Town Manager Comments: PLEASE SIGN, DATE AND RETURN THIS Copy FIREWORKS PRODUCTION CONTRACT 1 of 3 1. This Contract is entered into this day of , 20 by and between WESTERN ENTERPRISES, INC., designated herein as the "SELLER ", and TOWN OF AVON, designated herein as the "PURCHASER" for a fireworks production to be held on JULY 3, 2006. 2. SELLER will secure, prepare and deliver said fireworks as outlined, or will make necessary substitutions of equal or greater value. SELLER will include the services of a Pyrotechnic Operator to take charge of, set up and fire the display, along with such help as he deems necessary to perform the fireworks display safely, and in accordance with such Federal, State or Local laws that might be applicable. 3. SELLER agrees that the Operator and Assistant(s) are to check the display area after the presentation of the fireworks display for any "duds" or other material which might not have ignited. Any such material found by any person other than the Operator shall be turned over to the Operator, or the proper authority having jurisdiction, for safe keeping or disposal of said material. 4. PURCHASER will furnish a secured area with minimum safety distances established by the SELLER after an on -site inspection of the proposed firing location. PURCHASER will provide adequate police protection and/or other adequate security to maintain these distances. PURCHASER also agrees to have a fire truck available on location during the display. 5. No Purchaser Liability. In carrying out any of the provisions of this Contract or in exercising any power or authority thereby, there shall be no personal liability of the PURCHASER, its officers, staff, consultants, officials, attorneys, representatives, agents, or employees. 6. Indemnification. The SELLER agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the PURCHASER and its officers, attorneys, agents, employees, representatives, insurers, and self - insurance pool from and against all liability, claims, and demands on account of injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss, or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever which arises out of or is in any manner connected with this Contract or the work, if such injury, loss, or damage Js caused in whole in or part by the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the SELLER, any subcontractor of the SELLER, or which arises out of any workers' compensation claim of any employee of the SELLER or of any employee of any subcontractor of the SELLER. The SELLER agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against any such liability, claims, or demands at the expense of the SELLER. The SELLER also agrees to bear all other costs and expenses related thereto, including court costs and attorneys' fees, whether or not any such liability, claims, or demands alleged are groundless, false, or fraudulent. 7. Insurance. a. General. The SELLER shall not commence work under this Contract until it has obtained all insurance required herein and such insurance has been approved by the PURCHASER. The SELLER shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on this project until all similar insurance required of the subcontractor has been obtained and approved. For the duration of this Contract, the SELLER must maintain the insurance coverage required in this section. b. Insurance. (1) The SELLER agrees to procure and maintain, at its own cost, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the SELLER pursuant to this Contract. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this Contract or by law. The SELLER shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed by this Contract by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of it failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types. 2 of 3 (2) SELLER shall procure and maintain, and shall cause each subcontractor of the SELLER to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverage listed below. Such coverage shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurers acceptable to the PURCHASER. All coverage shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the SELLER herein. In the case of any claims -made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. (a) Workers' compensation insurance to cover obligation imposed by applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this Contract, and employers liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000) disease policy limit, and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000) disease - each employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the workers' compensation requirements of this paragraph. (b) General liability insurance with minimum, combined single limits of FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($5,000,000) each occurrence and FIVE MILLION DOLLARS ($5,000,000) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage, personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall also include coverage for explosion and shall contain a severability of interests provision. (c) Comprehensive automobile liability insurance with minimum combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) aggregate with respect to each of SELLER'S owned, hired, or non -owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the services. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. (3) The policy required by paragraph (2) (b) above and by paragraph (2) (c) above shall be endorsed to include the PURCHASER and its officers, agents, officials, and employees as additional insured. Every policy required above shall be primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the PURCHASER, its officers, or its employees, or carried by or provided through any insurance pool of the PURCHASER shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by SELLER. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required by paragraph (2) (a) above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The SELLER shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required by the PURCHASER. (4) The Certificate of Insurance provided to the PURCHASER shall be completed by the Contractor's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverage, conditions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the PURCHASER prior to commencement of the Contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The Certificate of Insurance shall identify this Contract and shall provide that the coverage afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terminated, or materially changed until at least 30 days' prior written notice has been given to the PURCHASER. The completed Certificate of Insurance shall be submitted to the PURCHASER'S Recreation Director. (5) Failure on the party of the SELLER to procure or maintain policies providing the required coverage, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract upon which the PURCHASER may immediately terminate this Contract, or at its discretion, the PURCHASER may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith as a cost of this project. All monies so paid by the PURCHASER shall be repaid by SELLER to the PURCHASER upon demand, or the PURCHASER may offset the cost of the premiums against any monies due to SELLER from the PURCHASER. (6) The PURCHASER reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any endorsement thereto. 3 of 3 (7) The parties hereto understand and agree that the PURCHASER is relying on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this Contract, the monetary limitations or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, 24 -10 -101 at sea., 10 C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to the Purchaser, its officers, or employees. 8. It is agreed and understood that the PURCHASER will pay to the SELLER the sum of FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND SEVEN HUNDRED DOLLARS & NO /100 ($48,700.00) to be paid within fifteen (15) days after the date of the display. HOWEVER, if payment is made in full by April 30, 2006, a five percent (5 %) discount will apply. That discount can either be deducted from the total contract price, or the PURCHASER may elect to receive that amount of extra pyrotechnic product in lieu of the discount. Unpaid accounts are subject to one percent (1 %) interest charge per month after fifteen days. 9. In the event of inclement weather or other adverse conditions, so as to cause postponement of the display, it is agreed and understood that PURCHASER will notify SELLER regarding the postponement date, normally the following night, or at some future date within the calendar year. If the PURCHASER will not re- schedule the display within the calendar year, or completely cancels the display, the PURCHASER agrees to pay to the SELLER Thirty percent (30 %) of the cost of the display ($14,610.00). If prepayment option has been exercised, SELLER will refund to PURCHASER the total amount paid, less the 30% mentioned above. 10. Witness whereof, we have caused our signatures to be affixed to this Document, on this day of ,20 WESTERN ENTERPRISES INC. SELLER authorized agent TOWN OF AVON PURCHASER authorized agent March 14, 2006 TOWN OF AVON Ms. Meryl Jacobs AVON, COLORADO TOWNOFAVON JULY 3, 2006 P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 (970) 748 -4060 "OPTIONAL ADDENDUM" (Revised) The following pyrotechnic products and design concepts are provided as a means to enhance Avon's Salute the USA production for July 3, 2006. If you wish to include the pyrotechnic products and elements described below, please sign and date below where indicated. PASTEL EFFECTS & CONCEPT. These special made products will be employed along with the pastel multi -shot barrages for design complement. THREE INCH SHELLS (15 Shells) 15 — PASTEL COCONUT SHELLS (Consisting of Pastel colors in Lime, Orange, Pink, Violet, Magenta, etc.) FOUR INCH SHELLS (15 Shells) 15 — PASTEL COCONUT SHELLS (Consisting of Pastel colors in Lime, Orange, Pink, Violet, Magenta, etc.) FIVE INCH SHELLS (15 Shells) 15 — PASTEL COCONUT SHELLS (Consisting of Pastel colors in Lime, Orange, Pink, Violet, Magenta, etc.) WATER SHELLS & AQUATIC EFFECTS CONCEPT: These products will be employed strategically "in or near" the water to provide a unique effect for the performance. FIVE INCH SHELLS (6 Shells) 6 — 5" SPECIAL -MADE BROCADE WATER SHELLS (To be fired with 540 -shot Brocade Waterfall Mine Barrages on platforms in water) TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO JULY 3, 2006 PAGE TWO - - "OPTIONAL ADDENDUM " -- (Revised) CROSSETTE SHELLS & EFFECTS CONCEPT. This sequence will employ special - made Crossette shells in colors of red, white, blue, purple, silver & gold. These shells will be fired in tandem with corresponding Crossette barrages, creating a spectacular moment in the performance, especially since they are extremely animated in the sky. FOUR INCH SHELLS (20 Shells) 20 — SPECIAL MADE CROSSETTE SHELLS (Consisting of: Crossette shells in colors of red, white, blue, purple & silver) FIVE INCH SHELLS (15 Shells) 15 — SPECIAL MADE CROSSETTE SHELLS (Consisting of Crossette shells in colors of red, white, blue, purple & silver) THOUSAND REPORT (actually 1,100 reports) FINALE CONCEPT: This particular concept will Provide a truly powerful conclusion to your performance, as this "Thousand Report Finale" will actually be the second Grand Finale. Your first Grand Finale will consist of massive barrages of brilliant color shells, giving your audience the feeling that the show is over. However, after a brief pause, the second "Thousand Report Finale" will be fired. The finale will last approximately 40 seconds, exhibiting tremendous audible power that reverberates and echoes over Nottingham Lake. This type of "Thousand Report Finale" has never before been fired at Avon. THUNDER REPORT BARRAGES (1,000 Shells) 600 — 2" STROBING THUNDER SALUTES (3 - 200 Shot Strobing Thunder Barrages, duration of 30 seconds) 400 —1" SIMULTANEOUS REPORT SALUTES (4 — 100 Home Run Salute Barrages simultaneous reports) THREE INCH SHELLS (100 Shells) 100 — 3" TITANIUM SALUTES (10 — 10/3" Titanium Salute Chains) TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO JULY 3, 2006 PAGE THREE - - "OPTIONAL ADDENDUM " -- (Revised) TOTAL ADDITIONAL COST FOR "OPTIONAL ADDEND UM" - - -$S, 000.00 We hereby wish to purchase the pyrotechnic products listed herein this "Optional Addendum ", and understand that the additional cost for this is $5,000.00. And it is understood that these products and effects will to be integrated into our 3rd of July Avon Salutes the USA performance. TOWN OF AVON, AVON, COLORADO Authorized Signature Date 1 0 To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: Norm Wood, Town Engmeer�/Z�� / Jeffrey Schneider, Engineer II/ Date: March 21, 2006 Re: 2006 Street Repair and Improvements Elam Construction — Construction Contract Award Summary: The 2006 Street Improvements program generally consists of two sections: Section I is a mill and overlay of Avon Road from Roundabout I to Roundabout 3, and Section 2 is an overlay of Wildridge Road from Wildwood Road to Beartrap Road, with the portion from Old Trail Road to Beartrap Road widened to include a pedestrian lane. Sealed bids for the 2006 Street Repair and Improvements Project were received on March 17, 2006. Elam Construction submitted the Low Base Bid of $497,400.65. It is recommended that the Contract be awarded to Elam Construction based upon their Low Bid. Discussion: Two bids were submitted in response to the Advertisement for Bids for the Town of Avon 2006 Street Improvements. Elam Construction submitted a bid of $497,400.65 and B & B Excavating submitted a bid of $540,415.84, with an engineer's estimate of $500,385.50. These Bids are summarized on the Bid Tabulation Sheet attached as Exhibit A. Elam Construction, Inc., submitted the Low Total Bid of $497,400.65. Staff has reviewed the submitted bids and found them to be in general conformance with the Advertisement for Bids and Contract Documents, and both received bids are reasonably consistent with the Engineer's Estimate. Both firms submitted adequate Bid Bonds pursuant to the requirements of the Contract Documents. 1:\Engineermg\C1P\Street hirprovements\200644 Construction Contract\COUncil Memo Bid Award.Doc I Financial Implications: The project budget sources for the 2006 Street Improvements are summarized below: Design Funding from 2005 CIP Budget $ 25,000 2006 Street Improvements Budget $220,000 Wildridge Traffic Calming & Pedestrian Circulation $250,000 Total 2006 Street Improvement Budget $495,000 Construction costs are higher than previously anticipated, thus the need for adoption of Resolution 06-17, to amend the CIP budget. In addition, the portion of the project involving sidewalk and ramp removal/replacement was originally in the Swift Gulch Road Bike Path Extension Project, but was moved to the 2006 Street Improvements Project due to ease in contractor coordination. The anticipated budget for the 2006 Street Improvements is summarized below: Design $ 25,000 Construction $497,500 Contract Administration (Testing, etc.) $ 10,000 Administration $ 5,500 Contingencies $ 27,000 Total Proposed Budget $565,000 Staff recommends approval of the Bid submitted by Elam Construction, Inc., in the amount of $497,400.65 for construction of the 2006 Street Improvements Project. Award of this contract should be contingent upon approval of Resolution 06-17, Series of 2006, A Resolution to Amend the Town of Avon Capital Improvements Fund Budget. Recommendations: Award contract to Elam Construction, Inc. in the amount of $497,400.65 for construction of 2006 Street Improvements Project. Attachments: Exhibit A — 2006 Street Improvement Bid Tabulation i1r-=1 1:\Engmeermg\C1P\Street 1mprovements\2006\4.4 Construction ContractTOUncil Memo Bid Award.Doc 2 2006 AVON STREET IMPROVEMENTS - BID TABULATION March 17, 2006 CIP 33006 Section I - Avon Road 1.0 GENERAL 1.1 Mobilization 2.0 DEMOLITION 2.1 Roto-Milling - 2" 2.2 Remove Existing Ramp 2.3 Remove Existing Concrete Sidewalk 3.0 ROADWAY 3.1 Asphaltic Concrete 2" Deep (over roto-mill) PG 64-28 w/ Lime 3.2 Epoxy Paint Striping 3.3 Preformed Plastic Pavement Markings 4.0 SIDEWALK WIDENING 4.1 6" Class 6 Road Base 4.2 Class B Concrete 4.3 10' Class B Concrete Ramps 5.0 TRAFFIC CONTROL 5.1 Equipment and Personnel Page 1 of 2 2006 ST IMPROV bid tabulation.xls ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE ELAM B & B EXCAVATING QUANTITY UNIT UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL PRICE COST PRICE COST PRICE COST 1 L.S. $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $24,500.00 $24,500.00 $20,244.00 $20,244.00 67,697 S.F. $0.50 $33,848.50 $0.45 $30,463.65 $0.45 $30,463.65 3 EACH $250.00 $750.00 $360.00 $1,080.00 $622.23 $1,866.69 952 S.F. WOO $5,712.00 $3.00 $2,856.00 $3.33 $3,170.16 933 TONS $65.00 $60,645.00 $69.00 $64,377.00 $70.66 $65,92518 2,125 L.F. $0.75 $1,593.75 $0.60 $1,275.00 $0.86 $1,827.50 1 L.S. $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $26,500.00 $26,500.00 $11,907.43 $11,907.43 35 C.Y. $35.00 $1,225.00 $100.00 $3,500.00 $99.74 $3,490.90 25 C.Y. $110.00 $2,750.00 $565-00 $14,125.00 $555.59 $13,889.75 3 EACH $3,200.00 $9,600.00 $1,175.00 $3,525.00 $2,300.09 $6,900.27 1 L.S. $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $12,350.00 $12,350.00 $40,883.79 $40,883.79 SECTION I TOTALS $163,624.25 $184,551.65 $200,569.92 2006 ST IMPROV bid tabulation.xls Page 2 of 2 2006 AVON STREET IMPROVEMENTS - BID TABULATION March 17, 2006 CIP 33006 ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE ELAM B & B EXCAVATING QUANTITY UNIT UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL PRICE COST PRICE COST PRICE COST Section 9 - Wildridge Road 1.0 GENERAL 1.1 Mobilization I - L.S. $17,000.00 $17,000.00 $16,000.00 $16,000.00 $21,443.00 $21,443.00 2.0 DEMOLITION 2.1 Remove 5" of Ex. Gravel Shoulder Sta 33+00 to 64+00 140 C.Y. $32.00 $4,480.00 $105.00 $14,700.00 $132.48 $18,547.20 2.2 Remove and Replace Guardrail 92 L.F. $15.00 $1,380.00 $55.00 $5,060.00 $40.01 $3,680.92 2.3 Raise Existing Guardrail to Proper Height 1,350 L.F. $7.00 $9,450.00 $4.65 $6,277.50 $4.57 $6,169.50 2.4 Roto-Mill 2" and Taper to Existing Asphalt 2,605 S.F. $0.50 $1,302.50 $0.60 $1,563.00 $0.90 $2,344.50 3.0 ROADWAY 3.1 Full Depth Asphaltic Concrete - PG 58-28 615 TONS $65.00 $39,975.00 $68.00 $41,820.00 $68.37 $42,047.55 3.2 2" Asphaltic Concrete Overlay - PG 58-28 2,400 TONS $65.00 $156,000.00 $57.50 $138,000.00 $52.43 $125,832.00 3.3 Class 6 Road Base for Shoulder Sta 0+00 to 32+00 50 C.Y. $70.00 $3,500.00 $38.50 $1,925.00 $127.21 $6,360.50 3.4 Class 6 Road Base for Shoulder & Full Depth Paving 725 C.Y. $70.00 $50,750.00 $38.50 $27,912.50 $46.77 $33,908.25 3.5 Epoxy Paint Striping 25,365 L.F. $0.75 $19,023.75 $0.60 $15,219.00 $0.86 $21,813.90 3.6 Preformed Plastic Stop Bar (#5730) 2 EACH $290.00 $580.00 $30.00 $60.00 $342.96 $685.92 3.7 Pedestrian Lane Symbols 7 EACH $200.00 $1,400.00 $195.00 $1,365.00 $371.54 $2,600.78 3.8 Preformed Plastic Crosswalk I EACH $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,650.00 $1,650.00 $2,857.97 $2,857.97 3.9 Ped. Lane Delineators - Rumble Strip 3,100 L.F. $1.70 $5,270.00 $2.27 $7,037.00 $3.43 $10,633.00 3.10 Clean & Reshape Shoulders Beneath Guardrail I L.S. $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $8,800.00 $8,800.00 $4,831.60 $4,831.60 4.0 UTILITIES 4.1 Adjust Manhole Rim Elevation to Proposed Grade 17 EACH $250.00 $4,250.00 $85.00 $1,445.00 $102.89 $1,749.13 4.2 Adjust Valve Elevation to Proposed Grade 7 EACH $200.00 $1,400.00 $45.00 $315.00 $57.16 $400.12 5.0 TRAFFIC CONTROL - 5.1 Equipment and Personnel I L.S. $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $23,700.00 $23,700.00 $33,940.08 $33,940.08 SECTION 11 TOTALS $336,761.25 $312,849.00 $339,845.92 PROJECT TOTALS $500,385.50 $497,400.65 $540,415.84 2006 ST IMPROV bid tabulation.xls • To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: Norm Wood, Town Engineer 6- Jeffrey Schneider, Engineer 117 Date: March 21, 2006 Re: Swift Gulch Road Bike Path Site Resource Management — Construction Contract Award Summary: The Swift Gulch Road Bike Path project generally consists of extending the existing Swift Gulch Road Bike path from its current terminus near the Town of Avon Public Works Facility to Roundabout 1, immediately north of the Interstate 70 West off-ramp. The project also consists of demolition and removal of the Town of Avon entry monument sign. Sealed bids for the Swift Gulch Road Bike Path Extension Project were received on March 17, 2006. Site Resource Management submitted the Low Base Bid of $244,488.35. It is recommended that the Contract be awarded to Site Resource Management based upon their Low Bid. Discussion: Two bids were submitted in response to the Advertisement for Bids for the Town of Avon Swift Gulch Road Bike Path Extension. Site Resource Management submitted a bid of $244,488.35 and B & B Excavating submitted a bid of $284,532.33, with an engineer's estimate of $344,013.16. These Bids are summarized on the Bid Tabulation Sheet attached as Exhibit A. Site Resource Management submitted the Low Total Bid of $244,488.35. Staff has reviewed the submitted bids and found them to be in general conformance with the Advertisement for Bids and Contract Documents, and both received bids are reasonably consistent with the Engineer's Estimate. Both firms submitted adequate Bid Bonds pursuant to the requirements of the Contract Documents. I:\Engmeering\C I P\Bike Path - RAI To Swill Gulch\4.0 Construction DoCUments\4.4 Construction Contract\SGR Bike Path Council Memo Bid Award.Doc I Financial Implications: The project budget sources for the Swift Gulch Road Bike Path Extension are summarized below: Design Funding from 2005 CIP Budget $ 20,000 Swift Gulch Rd. Bike Path Budget $ 260,000 1 -70 Entrance Sign Removal $ 45,000 Total Swift Gulch Rd. Bike Path Budget $ 325,000 The Proposed Budget for the Swift Gulch Road Bike Path Extension is summarized below: Design $ 33,000 Construction $ 245,000 Contract Administration (Testing, etc.) $ 10,000 Administration $ 5,000 Contingencies $ 32,000 Total Project Budget $ 325,000 Staff recommends approval of the Bid submitted by Site Resource Management in the amount of $244,488.35 for construction of the Swift Gulch Road Bike Path Extension. Recommendations: Award contract to Site Resource Management in the amount of $244,488.35 for construction of the Swift Gulch Road Bike Path Extension. Attachments: Exhibit A — Swift Gulch Road Bike Path Bid Tabulation (:AEngineering \CIP \Bike Path - RA1 To Swift Gulch \4.0 Construction Documents \4.4 Construction Contract \SGR Bike Path Council Memo Bid Award.Doc 2 Swift Gulch Road Bike Path Bid Tab BID TABULATION SWIFT GULCH BIKE PATH EXTENSION MARCH 17,2006 1.0 GENERAL 11 Mobilization 12 Survey Stakeout 1.3 Stormwater Management Plan 21 Transplant Existing Tree 2.2 Remove Existing Tree 2.3 Remove Existing Rip Rap 2.4 Remove Existing Monument 2.5 Remove and Plug Existing Flood Gate 2.6 Remove Existing Fence 2.7 Remove Electric Service and Appurtenances 3.0 EARTHWORK 3.1 Clear and Grub 3.2SubgradePreparation 33 Fine Grading 3.4 In-place Embankment 3.5 Unclassified Excavation 3.6 Haul Off 4.0 BIKE PATH 4.1 O^ Class 0 Road Base for Pedestrian Path 4�2 3" Asphaltic Concrete Pedestrian Path 4.3 Steel Tube Pedestrian and Bikeway Railing 4.4 Pedestrian Path Signs 4.5 Boulder Wall 4.6CDDT ROW Fence 4.7 Removable Steel Bollards LPIIEIMIIIV�, 1011111 1 L.S. 1 L& 1 L.S. 2 EACH 1 EACH 1 L.S. 1 L& 1 L.S. 114 L.F. 1 LS. 1 L.S. 19,133 S.F. 45,134 S.F. 732 Cl 1,193 C.Y. 460 C.Y. 337 C.Y. 285 TONS 111 L.F. 4 EACH 2,370 F.F. 25 L.F. 2 EACH ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE SITE RESOURCE MGMT UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL PRICE COST $25,00000 $25,000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $400.00 $400.00 $570.00 $570.00 $10,550.00 $10,550.00 $500.00 $500.00 $25A0 $11,546.00 $600.00 $1,20000 PRICE COST $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $185.00 $185.00 $570.00 $570.00 $10,550.00 $10,550.00 $77.50 $183,675.00 $25A0 $11,546.00 $600.00 $1,20000 PRICE COST $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $185.00 $185.00 $570.00 $570.00 $10,550.00 $10,550.00 $250.00 $250.00 $25A0 $11,546.00 $823.74 $1,647A8 Page 1of2 UNIT TOTAL PRICE COST $24,096.57 $24,096.57 $601.27 $601.27 $300.63 $300.63 $125.00 $13,875.00 $225.00 $900.00 $877.83 $877.83 $25A0 $11,546.00 $823.74 $1,647A8 Page 1of2 UNIT TOTAL PRICE COST $24,096.57 $24,096.57 $601.27 $601.27 $300.63 $300.63 $135.89 $15,083.79 $10,742.75 $10,742.75 $877.83 $877.83 $25A0 $11,546.00 $823.74 $1,647A8 $16,200.92 $16,200.92 $135.89 $15,083.79 $147.78 $591.12 $25A0 $11,546.00 $135.89 $15,083.79 $147.78 $591.12 $823.74 $1,647A8 Swift Gulch Road Bike Path Bid Tab ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE SITE RESOURCE MGMT B & B EXCAVATING QUANTITY UNIT UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL UNIT TOTAL PRICE COST PRICE COST PRICE COST 5.0 UTILITIES 5.1 Adjust SS Manhole Barrel, Ring and Cover 1 EACH 5.2 Adjust Storm Sewer Manhole Ring and Cover 2 EACH 5.3 Relocation of Irrigation for Transplanted Trees 1 L.S. 54 18"R.C.P.QU Degree Bend 1 EACH 5�5 18" Grate Inlet 1 EACH 5.8 18'' Reinforced Concrete Pipe 29 L.F. 5.7 24" Reinforced Concrete Pipe 28 L. F. 5.8 18''HDPE 35 L.F. 5.9 18''Steel End Section 1 EACH 5.10 Relocate Existing End Section 1 L.S. 6.0 TRAFFIC CONTROL 6.1 Equipment and Personnel 1 L.S. 7.0 EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS 71 Silt Fence 1,546 L. F. 7.2 Erosion Control Fabric 78 S.Y. 7.3 Re-install Rip Rap 1 LS 7.4 Filter Fabric beneath Rip Rap 108 S.Y. 7.5 Seed and mulch disturbed areas 26951 S. F. TOTALS $344.013.16 �__��� $244�D8.36 $284,532.33 _��__� IJil:J11M To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: Norm Wood, Town Engineer Jeffrey Schneider, Engineer 11 Date: March 22, 2006 Re: Benchmark Dam Repair Geotechnical Services Ground Engineering — Engineering Services Contract Award Summary: The State of Colorado Division of Water Resources conducts biannual dam inspections for all dams in Colorado. Benchmark Dam (aka Nottingham Lake, Dam ID 370124) was inspected on October 21, 2005. The dam received a Conditionally Satisfactory rating from the inspector due to the large tree on the downstream slope near the service spillway and its potential to uproot and damage the dam during periods of high winds. A copy of the Dam Inspection Report is attached as Exhibit A. A Request for Proposals was distributed to several Geotechnical Engineering firms for oversight of the tree removal and to ensure that backfill operations meet the structural requirements of the dam. The only proposal was received from Ground Engineering Consultants, Inc. Staff recommends awarding Geotechnical Engineering Services for removal of the tree and root system of Benchmark Dam to Ground Engineering Consultants, Inc. for a base service fee of $1,050, with additional fees per hourly rates provided by Ground Engineering Consultants, Inc. Discussion: One proposal was submitted in response to the Request for Proposals for Engineering Services dated February 27, 2006. The proposal is in general conformance with the RFP, with the exception of the consultant authoring a Request for Proposals for Tree Removal. The proposal from Ground Engineering Consultants, Inc. is attached as Exhibit B. Since Ground Engineering will provide Geotechnical recommendations for preparation of the RFP by staff, this service can be absorbed by staff. Ground Engineering Consultants, Inc. will also perform all field observation, geotechnical testing, and prepare a certification letter to the Division of Water Resources to ensure that the measures conducted are satisfactory. C\Documents And Setti ngs\N wood\ Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK23\Dam Geotech COUnCil Memo Bid Award.Doc I Financial Implications: Funding for the tree removal at Benchmark Dam is provided by the Water Fund. $18,250 is available for "Other Contracted Services." Conservatively, if extra geotechnical services are required, approximately $2000 will be utilized for geotechnical engineering support, leaving approximately $16,000 for other services, including excavation and removal of the tree and root system. This Geotechnical Engineering Services agreement is well within the budget for the removal of the tree at Benchmark Dam. Recommendations: Award contract to Ground Engineering Consultants, Inc. in the amount of $1,050 for Geotechnical Engineering Services for removal of the large tree at Benchmark Dam to satisfy Colorado Division of Water Resources inspection requirements. Attachments: Exhibit A — October 2005 Dam Inspection Report Exhibit B — Ground Engineering Consultants, Inc. Proposal Town Manager Comments: C:\Documents And Settings\Nwood\Local Settings\Teniporary Internet Files\0LK23\Dam Geotech Council Memo Bid Award.Doc 2 Ex'141,101r e�q SPATE OF COLORADO DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES WATER DIVISION 5 pp en Office of the State Engineer Department of Natural Resources P 0 Box 396 (50633 U S Highway 6 & 24) aia Glenwood Springs Co 87602 Phone (970) 945-5665:g FAX (970) 945-8741 (call first) October 17 Bill Owens , 2005 Governor Russell George Executive Director Hal D. Simpson State Engineer Alan C. Martellaro Division Engineer NORMAN WOOD TOWN OF AVON P.O. BOX 975 AVON, CO. 81620 RE: BENCHMARK DAM (AKA Nottingham lake) W. Div. 5, DAMID: 370124 Dear Mr Wood: Enclosed is a copy of my report for the inspection of the Benchmark Dam (AKA Nottingham Lake) conducted on September 27, 2005. Please note and implement my recommendations on Page 2 of the inspection report. Also please sign, date, and return the extra copy of page 2 of the inspection report to the post office box at the top of this letter. Overall the dam was found in satisfactory condition with relatively only minor maintenance items to perform. However, the strong winds occurring during the inspection brought my attention to the large tree that exists near the service spillway. In the past we have not required the Town to remove this tree. However, its movement during the strong winds showed that it could topple over and it is getting large enough and to uproot a significant portion of the dam causing a dam safety problem. With this in wind, it is important to remove this tree and its root system as a high priority item. Because this will require excavation to remove the roots, it needs to be performed when the lake level is lowered and under the guidance of a professional engineer. I greatly appreciate your cooperation, and the efforts performed in the past to maintain the safety of this dam. If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me. Sincerely, n z2 Al.,Aj / n B lair, P. E. Division 5 Dam Safety Engineer Cc: -Alan Martellaro, Division Engineer Jack Byers, Deputy State Engineer Bill McEwen, Water Commissioner %, ENGINEERS INSPECTION REPORT INSPECTOR: JGEI OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER • DIVISION OF WATER RESOURCES - DAM SAFETY BRANCH 1313 SHERMAN STREET, ROOM 818, DENVER, CO 80203,(303) 866-3581 DAM NAME: BENCHMARK LAKE T: 0508 R: 0820W $.- 12 COUNTY: EAGLE DATE OF INSPECTION: 9/27/20_05 DAM ID: 370124 YRComp1, 1977 DAM HEIGHT(FT): 19.0 SPILLWAY WIDTH(FT): 3.0 PREVIOUS INSPECTION: 1012112003 CLASS: 2 DAM LENGTH(FT): 1400,0 SPILLWAY CAPACITY(CFS): 384.0 CAPACITY(AF): 125.0 DIV: 5 WD: 37 CRESTWIDTH(FT): 10.0 FREEBOARD (FT): 4.8 SURFACE AREA(AC): 19.0 EPP: 112612004 CRESTELEV(FT): 7400,0 DRAINAGE AREA (AC.). 160.0 OUTLET INSPECTED: 711711998 CURRENT RESTRICTI _NONE - OWNER. AVON METROPOLITAN DISTRICT CONTACT NAME: NORMAN WOOD ADDRESS. P.O. BOX 975 CONTACT PHONE: (970) 748-4100 AVON CO 81620 INSPECTION PARTY: Jk-othial- WATER LEVEL BELOW DAM CREST FT Above Spflh"y 0.6' sere" FT. GAGE ROD READING OBSERVED ROUND MOIMRE CONDITION, DRY WET SNOWOOVER r0`;0_$xL:01tTy1; OTHER DMECTIOW, MARK AN X FOR CONDITIONS FOUND AND UNDERLINE WORDS THAT APPLY 0"0 PROBLEMS NOTED [I (0)NONE (1)RIPRAP • MISSING, $PARSE, gj� WEATHERED [] (2) WAVE EROMN - WITH SCARPS - _X EJ(3)CRACKS WITH DISPLACEMENT [](4)SINKHOLE (5) APPEARS TOO STEEP [](6) DEPRESSION OR BULGES 0 (7) SLIDES 0 A P '2 0 c 0 0 C 0 E] (a) CONCRETE FACING - HOLES, CRACKS. DISPLACED, UNDERMINED (9) OTHER 0 a R p Riggg spar92 and di (ace §j. public above highwater line - mostly along south section neff the bond in th2 JA iii�� 1, s and on the we gt sidg between the service syLlfway and erriergency spillway. No ghange from 2 OL --- 6-- ---. A IE pROBLISMS INOTIM L (10) NONE "(11) RUT OR PW E 0(12)EROSION IVI(13)CRACKS- WITH DISPLACEMENT U (14)SINKHOLES -1 (19) OTF (IS) NOT WIDE ENOUGH n(16) LOW AREA 17 (17) MISALIGNMENT F�(13) IMPROPER SURFACE DRAINAGE IER 0 C 0 0 C 0 NuMerous cracks In thp, asphalt pedestrian path on the crest Largest one Is 112 " w1d2 12catedust east of the 9 R p b_end. See yMoto Pace 4, The cracking appears about the same as 2 yeaM ggo and only Penetrates throught T A fte asphalt. a L a PROBLEMS NOTED E](20) NONE ❑(21) LIVESTOCK DAMAGE ❑ (22) EROSION OR GULLIES [:](23) CRACKS - WITH DISPLACEMENT C(24) SINKHOLE —7- G A P (26) APPEARS TOO STEEP n(26) DEPRESSION OR BULGES FI(27)SLIDE ❑(2a) SOFT AREAS W (29) 01-HFR Large tree near service Sp 0 c 0 0 c a (25): On south yo!jign ofd am. No slans of pro Wgims duet this and the sprInkler Irtiga D 9 A tion erosion seen 2 p years a was, notapparent. (20): The largetree has been In place for several years (continued_ on Roos 3). T A L rotoisuiims No-reit, R NONE [](3I) SATURATED EMBANKMENT AREA (32) SEEPAGE EXITS ON EMBANKMENT Ma X A [P C] (33) SEEPAGE EXITS AT POINT SOURCE ❑ (34) SEEPAGE AREA AT TOE [](36) FLOW ADJACENT TO OUTLET 0(36)SEEPAGE INCREASED MUDDY 0 C 0 C 0 R Show location of drains on sketch and 0 a R 0 0 indicaw F-1(37)FLOW INCREASED I MUODYE](38)DRAIN DRY/ OBSTRUCTED p DRAIN OUTFALLS SEEN []No 7,Yes f—I (39) OTHER T A 9 Na seepage seen today or his #oricaliv L PROBLEMS NOTED ❑(40)NONE L7j(4t) NO OUTLET FOUND [3(42) POOR OPERATING ACCESS 17 (43) INOPERABLE Xx x! G A P Ej(44) UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM STRUCTURE DETERIORATED (45) OUTLET OPERATED DURING INSPECTION L_j YES WNO 0 C 0 INTERICIRINSPECTEDEI'(120)NO E](121)YES D(46)CONDUIT DETERIORATED ORCOLLAPSED 0(47)JOINTSDISPLACED F_i(48)VALVE LEAKAGE 0 C 0 P W((49) OTHER Concrete outlet catwalk does not tie into dam well T A a (19-): qi4 Pik ends above suiELace of djIM 1ja_yIng void the t Is pentrated e1g,11y with ski p L _21s for X. See photo TE PROBLEMS NOTED O(W) NONE [:] (51) NO EMERGENCY SPILLWAY FOUND 0(52)EROSIO WfTHaAcKr_u-Tp-iG [](53) CRACK -WITH DISPLACEMENT x 0 A P Ej�(54) APPEARS TO BE STRUCTURALLY INADEQUATE ' (55) APPEARS TOO SMALL Uj (56) INADEQUATE FREEBOARD LW (57) FLOW OBSTRUCTED 0 C 0 L_j 0 c 0 C'(58) CONCRET IXTEMORATED I UNDERMINEO [] (59) OTHER Rocks in D/S end of flume for service spfllway E R P T Sandbans at the entrance of the service spillway artificially raises the water Iffel and causes a minor A obstruction. Other wise both spillwM atopear In 929d condition, See Photos page 5, ffl * Effect at masmiramant of nsifffeww Fisima mart n '%'=n A r4ft I I lei DAM NAME: LAKE -- -. - . -.._ _ ..___ _. . - Page 2 DAM I.D. 370124. .._ .._.. DATE, 9127;2005 EXISTING INSTRUMENTATION FOUND (110) NONE [;(111) GAGE ROD O(112) PiEZOMETERS O(113) SEEPAGE WEIRS 1 FLUMES x 0(114) SURVEY MONUMENTS ❑ (115) OTHER k ♦ MONITORING OF INSTRUMENTATION ❑ (116) NO 10 (117) YES PERIODIC INSPECTIONS BY: ✓ (118) OWNER C 019) ENGINEER O s O O p O Reservoir Is maintained full and there is no seepage - No instrumentation Is needed ° G f PROBLEMS NOTED: u (SO NONE ❑ (61) ACCESS ROAD NEEDS MAINTENANCE ❑ (62) CATTLE DAMAGE Xs ' ❑(63) BRUSH ON UPSTREAM SLOPE, CREST, DOWNSTREAM SLOPE. TOE [-:/D (64) TREES ON UPSTREAM SLOPE, CREST, DOWNSTREAM $LOPE. TOE a c g + + 65 RODENT ACTIVITY ON UPSTREAM P CREST. DOWN T AM L PE. TOE ❑ } a a 91( ) $C g SS RE S {66 DETERIORATED FACING, OUTLET SPILLWAY o f o 0 F R (67) GATE AND OPERATING MECHANISM NEED MAINTENANCE ❑ (eel OTHER a + (64): See comments under DOWNSTREAM SLOPE, 6 :Numerous rodent activi on south facia ortion r of the downs #ream slopq & scattered rodent activity, on the u st eam shoulder. Trees In the emergency j spillway had been remov s4 as previously recommended. f The dam is In satisfactory condition. Howeyer t e iar tree on the downstream slo o near the service, spillway and its otentiai to u` o and damage the dam during high winds or If the tree dies warrant the conditionally sa i facto . . rat_ i Iii. Y • Based on this Safety Inspection and recent file review, the overall condition is determined to be: • • j ❑ (71) SATISFACTORY ® (72) CONDITIONALLY SATISFACTORY ❑ (73) UNSATISFACTORY f ITEMS REQUIRING ACTION BY OWNER TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF THE DAM S Z5 I MAINTENANCE - WOR REPAIR • MONITORING jQ (8Q) PROVI]EADDITIONAL RIPR4P; Z5 A m (81) LUBRICATE AND OPERATE OUTLET GATE$ THROUGH FULL CYCLE annuallY --- -.......... ----------............ ._..,._..------ ......-..--------------- ....___ + (82) CLEAR TREES ANOtOR BRUSH FROM:. Rempve sandbags. from in irortt of the servlCe spillway .......... q m (83) INITIATE RODENT CONTROL PROGRAM AND PROPERLY BACKFILL EXISTING HOLES Continue rodent control_PrOW@m y ❑ l64) GRADE CREST TO A UNIFORM ELEVATION WITH DRAINAGE TO THE UPSTREAM SLOPE: m ❑(85) PROVIDE SURFACE DRAINAGE FOR: (66) MONITOR: Repair cracking or- repiace,asphaitpedestri fn path an the crest as a future.ltem. if,it gets worse....... . - -- 5 (B7) DEVELOP AND SUBMIT AN EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN:j rr 3` y •o - - -- ------ -- --- -------- �' n ©(88) OTHER E�(t @nd OU,t:@ catwalk itack,lntoth@ uPstr @am slope to alteYlate associated,BCssproblems .. .. ...... ..... ... m o 60(69) OTHER Mend fence aNta(snd -th® outlet catwalk-to, iteep. pubfic away, from outlet operator .............. . m ENGINEERING • EMPLOY AR ENGINEER EXPERIENCED IN DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF DAMS TD: (plan$ and Spwftaiians must be WpMed by Stan Engineer prior to canSi}uction " ❑ (90) PREPARE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION OF THE DAM: (91) PREPARE AS -BUILT DRAWINGS OF: _..._......._.._._. - - - - -- - - ------------- -....._..._.._..----.------- -------- --- t7 (92) PERFORM A GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TO EVALUATE THE STABILITY OF THE DAM., ------- ..... ...... .. ---- '------- ___ ---------- - -------- A ❑ (93) PERFORM A HYDROLOGIC STUDY TO DETERMINE REQUIRED SPILLWAY SIZE: _ -.... - ----- -------- - - - - -' m 9 ❑ (94) PREPARE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR AN ADEQUATE SPILLWAY: _ _ _ ._-- -- ._...._t ❑ (95) SET UP A MONITORING SYSTEM INCLUDING WORK SHEETS, REDUCED DATA AND GRAPHED RESULTS. ' m ❑ . "•„ L�I (96) PERFORM AN INTERNAL INSPECTION OF THE OUTLET: _....--...... - ..-_ . _ ..................___.- --- -._ -__ w x(97) OTHER Remove large #ree from ihe,dowfaetrearrl slope near,ihe service spill way-- -------- ---•,•......-•- .- -•---- iV Olga) OTHER: --- --• -- _ .... ........ ....... . .. - ------ -------------- ------ - ❑ (99) OTHER: SAFE STORAGE LEvEt. RECOMMENr3Ei3 A8 A RESULT OF THIS iNSPECTtON Gl(iai} FULL STORAGE FT. BELOW DAM CREST (tat) CONDITIONAL FULL STORAGE FT. BELOW SPILLWAY CREST O(103) RECOMMENDEDRESTRICTION FT GAGE HEIGHT (104) CONTINUE EXISTING RESTRICTION - — NO STORAGE- MAINTAIN OUTLET FULLY OPEN REASON FOR RESTRICTION _ L .i...._,._.. ACTIONS REQUIRED FOR CONDITIONAL FULL STORAGE tern 97 t E Signatu -._ ! _.. Signature GATE: INSPECTED 8Y OWNERIOWNER'S REPRESENTATIVE 2 01 Benchmark DAMID 370124 September 27, 2005 Page 3 Of 5 INSPECTION NOTES BENCHMARK: DOWNSTREAM SLOPE CONTINUED: and it has not been previous required to remove the tree. However, the high winds that were occuring during the inspection and the resulting movement in the tree was an indication of how the tree could topple and uproot a significant portion of the dam if it were not removed. This could result in a signifeant dam safety problem. See photo page 4. The south: side of the dipstrean . west side. dote e r1prap. The west side of the downstrearr�slope and the service spillway channel. Note la tree. The high winds occuring was a sign of how the tree could topple and uproot a significant portion of the dam if it were not removed. Largest crack (1l2" wide) just east of the bend in the south portion of the crest. The concrete catwalk to the outlet does not tie into the dam leaving a void that may affect future access. This needs to be extended in the embankment. Benchmark September 27, 2005 (Page 4 of 5) ob$tniCtea by sanaDags. appears in good condition. Not afbrementoned large tree that should be removed. Looking upstream at the mouth of the emergency spillway. Te Aspen trees seen 2 years ago have been removed as recommended. Benchmark September 27, 2005 (Page 5 of 5) DAM NAME: SENCHMARK LAKE DAM 1,D,: 370124 DATE. 9127t2005 FXtSTM INSTRUMENTATION FOUND DV(110)NONE ❑(til)GAGEROD ❑(112)PIEZOMeTERS ❑(113)SEEPAGE WEIRS FLUMES x E],(114) SURVEY MONUMENTS 0 (115) OTHER • MONITORING OF INSTRUMENTATION 0 (116)NO F-1(11?)YES PERIODIC INSPECTIONS SY� g(IIS)OWNER 17(119)ENGINEER 0 1 0 0 0 D T R Reservoir Is maintained full and thore Is no seepage • No instrumentation Is needed • L • PROSLEMSNOTFO- 0,(60NONE ❑ (61)ACCESS ROAD NEEDS MAINTENANCE ❑ (62) CAME DAMAGE xt UPSTREAMSLOPE, CREST�P.QV-VNSLR MSLOPE� TOE E](63) BRUSH ON UPSTREAM SLOP!~, CREST. DOWNSTREAM SLOPE. TOE jV -FA 0 0 (65) RODENT ACTIVITY -I ITY ON UPSTREAM SLOPE. CREST, DQWNSTBEAM SLOPE TOE ❑ (es) DETERIORATED CONCRETE - FACING. OUTLET SPILLWAY 0 0 0 ❑ (07) GATE AND OPERATING MECHANISM NEED MAINTENANCE [:](68)OTHER ($4): S" cam M under DO.WN§TREAM SLOPE. t65). Numerous rod-ent gaylty 212 south facing Portion pf tho dew re sloR2 & scatteEld rodgal activity on the upstream shoulder. Tress In the en,"irgengy spillway had bee mmo ded 119 omlously recoMM2Md_td, Tho dam- Is Ins f con Ilion. HgVeyer, the lgrge- tree on the daffosAMM g1goe n tho servige spiltway -and fts RgLentlal to uproot and damam, the dam during high winds Or If the free dloss wary The condlilonally satisfag2ry- OEM Based on this Safety Inspection and recent file review, the overall condition Is determined to be; ❑(71 SATISFACTORY (72) CONDITIONALLY SATISFACTORY ❑ (73) UNSATISFACTORY ITEMS REQUIRING ACTION BY OWNER IIIANXIMCE - MMOR MAN • MOMMMO TO IMPROVE THE SAFETY OF THE DAM M(W) PROVIDE ADDITIONAL RlPRAP: ..... ... .... * . . .......... 11'8 W(81) LUBRICATE AND OPERATE OUnET'*G'A"TES'THROUGH'F'ULL'CYCLE",a-,R4pLily ....... * ................. ------------ ---- ----- ------------- - --- ir 41. ®k {62) CLEAR TREES AND OR BRUSH FROM: � R .......... ......................... . ..... ---- ....... ... ---- ..... I I I �Rqrnq'Kq -*A Oh4 11) Jmnt ot tho -*Am' C-4 4 P tqww ------ .......... ­ ......... o W(M INITIATE RODENT CONTROL PROGRAM AND PROPERLY BACKFILL EXISTING HOLES: 7(84) GRADE CREST TO A UNIFORM ELEVATION WITH DRAINAGE TO UP St. ........... ❑ THE STREAM SLOPE ❑ (06) PROVIDE SURFACE DRAINAGE FOR* Hui ------ a "1 &6(86) MONITOR, ............ ------ (M DEVELOP AND SUBMT AN EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN: • ALI - (80) OTHER .t#pd qq#gktp# �b mm ...... 10 1 —.904110-kc- .2'L a W(89) OTHER d tqW a iklm q _ P--jq�;Tq� E m - ir m- 1 ENGRAMM - EI&LOYAN 0"M WOWNCEO IN N" AND CO"MC710111 OF HAMS ft (Pl" mW Specific allons ffW be OPPV* by Stab EngkKw prior to consliuctim Cl (,) PREPARE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR REHABILITATION OF THE OW. f ❑ (91) PREPARE AS -BUILT DRAWINGS OF: IL a ❑ (92) PERFORM A GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION TO EVALUATE THE STABILITY OF THE DAM -------- --------- ------- — ........... --------- ❑(sm PERFORM A HYDROLOGIC STUDY TO DETERMINE REQUIRED SPILLWAY SIZE: ---------------- - ---- - ------------------------------- - ------------------- 1; 0 (94) PREPARE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR AN ADEQUATE SPILLWAY: ! rl(,,) SET UP A MONITORING SYSTEM INCLUDING WORK SHEETS. REDUCED DATA AND GRAPHED RESULTS; It a .............•. ...... --------------------- El (S" PERFORM AN INTERNAL INSPECTION OF THE OUTLET: OS RIB?) OTHER., jRq(n ....... ....... .................... .. .... ............................... R(se) OTHER:* [3(99) OTHER: SAFE STORAGE LEVEL t=-VrD9D' AS RESULT OF TMS �iMN ❑(101) FULL STORAGE FT. BELOW DAM CREST (102) CONDITIONAL FULL STORAGE FT, BELOW SPILLWAY CREST ❑ (103) RECOMMENDED RESTRICTION FT. GAGE HEIGHT ❑ NO STORAGE ( 104) OUTLET FULLY OPEN (104) CONTINUE EXISTING RESTRICTION REASON FOR RESTRICTION ACTIONS REQUIRED FOR CONDTIONAL FULL STORAGE :am (97) st x owners Enonew-s 1-249 Signature DATE: Z_ INSPECTED BY C--te /-o le / - March 8, 2006 Subject: Proposal for Engineering Services, Benchmark Dam, Avon, Colorado Proposal Number: 0603-0345 Town of Avon Attn: Mr, Jeffrey Schneider P.O. Box 975 Avon, CO 81620 Dear Mr. Schneider, Ground Engineering Consultants, Inc. (GROUND) appreciates the opportunity to provide you with a proposal for Engineering Services, for the Benchmark Dam located in Avon Colorado. We understand that the proposed project generally consists of the removal of a tree and it's root system near the service spillway on the west side of Benchmark Dam. Based on the provided information and our experience on similar projects, we suggest the following: Scope of Work (1) Provide general Geotechnical recommendations regarding the removal of the tree and the placement of backfill material. (2) Provide field observations of the removal of the tree and the placement of backfill material including moisture/density testing of compacted backfill. (3) Provide laboratory-testing services including development of moisture/density (proctor) curve, particle size analysis, Atterberg limits and soil classification. (4) Prepare a report summarizing the data obtained, and present our conclusions and recommendations. The fieldwork and report preparation will be conducted under the supervision of a registered professional engineer. 101AA3rpark Dn, Unit 9, PO Box 464, Gypsum, CO 81637 Phone (970) 524-0720 Fax(970)524-0721 www.groundeng.com Office Locations: nglewoo m Commerce City a Loveland Granby Gypsum Benchmark Dam Tree Removal Proposal No. 0603-0345 Page 2 of 5 This proposal does not include evaluation of the possible presence of hazardous material at the subject site. If indications of hazardous material are encountered during subsurface exploration, fieldwork will be suspended, you will be contacted, and recommendation regarding the appropriate course of action will be provided, Engineering and Supervision The project will be completed under the direct supervision of a professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado. Daily field reports and laboratory testing reports will be reviewed and summaries will be provided as requested by the client. Resumes of the proposed individuals to work on this project are attached as appendix A. We anticipate one trip to the site to observe the removal of the tree and root system. Sitework —Backfill We anticipate testing for this phase of work to involve the services of a field technician to observe and test the backfill material. We anticipate one day to complete backfill and compaction operations. Fees and Terms The total estimated lump sum fee for this project is $1,060.00. This fee includes fees associated with travel. The terms under which our work will be performed are outlined in the General Conditions that contain a limitation of GROUND's liability. If additional services are required above and beyond the scope of work outlined above, we propose that our fess for the additional services be in accordance with the hourly and units costs presented in the Fee Schedule. As times for meetings or post-report consultation are difficult to predict, we propose that fees for such meetings also be based on the hourly rates shown on our Fee Schedule. GROUND will not proceed with any additional services or out-of- scope activities, however, without your prior approval and authorization, Please review the General Conditions on Page 5 of this proposal, which contain a limitation of GROUND's liability. Also, note that GROUND reserves the right to withhold data and reports until we have received a signed proposal. Schedule We propose to initiate the investigation within 3 days of being given notice to proceed. We anticipate that the final letter regarding geotechnical recommendations should be completed in approximately 1 to 2 weeks after notice to proceed. GROUND will attempt to adhere to this Ground Engineering Consultants Inc. Benchmark Dam Tree Removal Proposal No. 0603-0346 Page 3 of 5 schedule; however, this remains dependent upon favorable weather conditions, site access. and buried utility locations. In any event, we will notify you of our progress and pertinent information, as it becomes available. Field-work will be coordinated with the selected contractor. Please contact our office if you have any questions, concerns, or comments regarding this proposal. If this proposal meets with your approval, please sign one copy and return it to our office. We appreciate your considering us for the geotechnical services. Sincerely, Ground Engineering Consultants, Inc. Michael Agreed to this - day of by Print Name and Title: Ground Engineering Consultants Inc. ,2006, Benchmark Dam Tree Removal Proposal No. 0603-mw Page *ms FEE SCHEDULE - ENGINEERING FIELD INVESTIGATION (Geotochnical and Environmental) Drill Rig - TmckwovnteuwithomanCrew *-inco and e^nch Solid Auger -- ...... ..... m1no-$1zu per hour Hollow Stem Auger o3w^ ... - ... ____ .... -$115-$|5o per hour Opnnq ......... ... --....... ....... --..... Sit Wear +$n15 per how Standby Timm-- .... .............. — ..... ___ ........ - $75 per hour Track Mounted Rig kAdWVional>-- ........ ....... ...... - $5o per hour Drill Rig Mobilization and Demobilization m Town under so miles ..... ____ ..... ....... - ............. Hourly Rate Truck Mounted Rig -....... $1zmper mile +$2o per man per hour Track Mounted Rig ..--- ............ - .............. �*z.2sper mile Water Truck .... ....... _-$0,7nper m8 +$25 per man per hour Pick up ................ ...... -... - ................... --'$0.so per mile (2005) Failing Weight Deflectometer.__...... .... ___ ... $275 per hour LABORATORY TESTING -_---...... $75 per day Natural Density and Moisture Cvnten- ........... --....... .... '$rm} AmerbvmLimit (ASTM D-4318)--------------'$30o0 Drill Crew Overtime ......... ....... Specific Gravity ............... - .... ' .............. -...... —'.... -'*2000 Gradation Analysis (ASTmo422) Field Engmenr/Enviro Tech .... a� All Standard Sieve m#o00 Siev*- ... --..... --_$3u0V P10--- .......... ---.................... b. Less than 1.s^ Down to #20o Sieve ------- ........... ........ *omuO c. Percent Less Than m2VVSieva-- .... ......... ___ ....... �$nz.0o u. Hydrometer Analysis, add ...... ----,-...... _........ $3noV Water Soluble Sulfate ........ --___ ..... ....... ............... $20.00 a Loaded to 1V,0oopsf-........ .--.n3VoV m5.0o b� Per load m Addition m1o,0o psf .... -_....... __'o5'n0 $2Oo0 y\SFwo-24os ............... --___ ... ... $2r&VV Unconfined Compressive Strength (ASTM D-21oe} ... -.... $20,00 Direct Shear, per point a- (Quick Test) ..... --..... -'u7s.0w c. (ASTMD-3080-------'$250,00 Standard Proctor Compaction (ASrM D-6n8) ..... ...... ....... .... swOm] Modified Proctor Compaction (ASTM D-1 557-------'�$70o0 Drill Rig Support Vehicles VxatoTwpx---------------'m1Cwperdav Environmental Drilling Personal Protection Equipment LevvD ----_-----'$4omemanper day Le"oC -----------$7apermanpeuoy Steam Cleaner ....... - .............. -_---...... $75 per day Eqvipmennenta/-----_-------. Cost +15m Well Construction Materials/Analytical Lwb'..Cvs +1am Drill Crew Overtime ......... ....... _-_~^ ...... $17 per hour Geophysical Survey ......... ---__....... ........... $6Oper hour Field Engmenr/Enviro Tech .... ...... ----$45475 per hour P10--- .......... ---.................... --........ $MnO per day pH[Temp Meter $35 per day ^R"-Value V\STM7n*4 ---- ............. $250,00 nooumvity- .... - .................. .................... ............. $20�00 Freeze-Thaw Test NaTmsGo ...................... ...... -_*3Vo0o Soil-Stabilization Mixture Analysis � ........ $1,500.00 per blend TriaxiaI Shear, per point a (Quick TmsV--'u1% oV b, (RFrost) .... -....... $3nuun c. ($-TeeV ...... ----... $nun,00 Permeability a Falling o, Constant Head, o-4^ Diameter ... -m150.mo u, rnaxiaPenneamxty-------_--__sar5.mu c. Remolded (w& PR E-1 3) ............. ....... ___ $1r5,mo Relative Density VvsTM 0-2049 ...... .... ..... - ....... a/moou California Bearing Ratio VASTM D-1a8y\1fomt....... $75.00 California Bearing Ratio VASTMo'1n8z.xfomt-'$20m,0o Water Soluble Sulfate ........ --___ ..... ....... ............... $20.00 px— .... ... .... ... ...... -'_...... ___ ................. m5.0o Organic Content (ASTM 0-2o74) ........ - .... .............. $2Oo0 Los Angeles Abrasion Tev .... - ........ ... - ...... ___ $1oo,0n Resilient Modulus .. $250.00 per point + tab prep at $45/hour ENGINEERING f Covers planning and general supervision, fiemtrips, analysis, consultation, preparation of reports, and travel /ime./ Principal Engineer ... --'-------_-------...... --------------...... -----......... '$1Vn,0m-$1mo.om per hour Project Manager ......... ....... -----........ ......... -...... ....... -----_-----...... --....... ....... ...... sn5Oo-$1os/m per hour Project Engineer p, Geologist ... _-_----......... ........... --~- ........ __....... ...................... ____ ... ...... - ..... $s5oo-$as.uw per hour Staff Engineer ...... ....... ----...... -----.... - ...... ---------.............. ........ ...... ................ ...... -'**5.00-$sonm per hour CxoD Technician ... -- ........... ... ......... - ...... ... .......... ... ............ --------_------_-.-----...... ­$*sooper hour Special Consultation, Expert Testimony and Court Appearance (Minirnum).. ........... ............... $1.000.0041,500,00 per day MISCELLANEOUS Auto m Pickup Mileage (Outside Metropolitan Area- .... - ....... .... ---- ......... ----........ __-----. $KnV/doy+$01.a5 per mile Ovt-nwuwn living expenses, (subsistence $26-0mmun-dov} commercial travel costs. etc, ---__ ........ ... _---...... .... -..Cvm +20m Interest charged after 30 days from invoice uate-------------_ ...... , ............ _—_._....... ....... .............. 1. 5 % per month Ground Engineering Consultants Inc. Benchmark Dam Tree Removal Proposal No. 0603-0345 Page 5 of 5 GENERAL CONDITIONS INVOICES Consultant will submit progress invoices hn client monthly and e final bill upon completion of the services. Invoices will show charges for different personnel and expense classifications, A more detailed separation of charges and backup doba, such an tinlesheets and invuiceo, is available. Each invoice is due on presentation and in past-due thirty (30) days from invoice date, Client agrees ho pay o finance charge of one and one-half percent (1.596) per month, or the maximum rate allowed by |aw, on past-due accounts. Should Consultant bring suit to recover past due payment for services rendered to Client, Consultant shall be entitled to recover all costs of collection, including reasonable attorneys' fees. SAMPLES All samples of soil and rock will be discarded thirty (30 days after report submittal. Upon Client's request and authmrization, samples will be delivered in accordance with Client's inotruchunn, or stored for an agreed charge. Unless otherwise ' agreed, Client will furnish right-of-entry for Consultant to make borings, surveys and/or explorations, Consultant will take reasonable precautions toreduce damage toproperty. However, cost of restoration or damage that may result from field operations is not included in the fee unless otherwise stated. UTILITIES We will not be liable for damage to subterranean structures (pipes, tanks, telephone wires, etc.) if the locations are not shown on the site plans furnished tous. REPORTS Raports, plans and other work prepared by Consultant remain the property of Consultant until all fees for Consultant's services have been paid. Client agrees that all reports and other work furnished ho the Client and his agents not paid for will be returned upon damand, and will not be used for |icnnming, permits, design and/or construction. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY Consultant agrees in connection with services performed under this Agreement that such services are performed with the care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession practicing under similar conditions at the same time and in the same ora similar locality- No warranty, expressed or impUed, is made or intended by rendition of consulting services or by furnishing oral or written reports of the findings made. Liability of Consultant, its of5oers, dineotoro, subconeubmnbs, agents and employees for damages due to or arising from professional neg|igenoe, breach of contract, or any cause of action, shall be limited ho the Consultant's fee, Any exploration, testing, observations and analysis associated with the work will be performed by Consultant solely hz fulfill the purpose uf this Service Agreement and Consultant is not responsible for interpretation by others of the information developed. Client recognizes that subsurface conditions beneath the project site may wary from those encountered in bodnQs, surveys of explorations and that information and recommendations developed by Consultant are based solely on the information available to him. Ground Engineering Consultants Inc. Appendix A Resumes JAMES B. KOWALSKY, P.E. Principal EngineerNice President EDUCATION: Bachelor of Science in Geological Engineering, Colorado School of Mines, 1984 Asphalt Materials and Mixtures, Colorado State University, 1994 Certified Radiation Safety Officer REGISTRATION: Registered Professional Engineer, Colorado Member, American Society of Testing and Materials Member, American Society of Civil Engineers Member, Colorado Association of Geotechnical Engineers Member, American Council of Engineering Companies, of Colorado EXPERIENCE: Mr, Kowalsky is responsible for planning and completion of a wide variety of geotechnical projects. His experience ranges from project coordination and planning to data analysis and final report preparation for geotechnical investigations of roadways, airports, bridges, drainageways, dams, mine sites, commercial buildings and residential development. These investigations have included deep borings, coring, in-situ testing and geophysical investigation. Mr. Kowalsky currently provides geotechnical engineering, quality control testing and inspection management for large commercial retail projects, transportation projects and commercial projects, such as the Central City Parkway project, Mr. Kowalsky was the Quality Control Engineer for numerous earthwork and drainage improvement projects at Denver International Airport during its initial construction. The projects included over 120 million cubic yards of controlled fill earthwork and approximately 100 miles of various pipe and box culvert construction. This was the largest earthwork project ever completed in the Denver Metropolitan area. In addition, Mr. Kowalsky is responsible for management of transportation related projects and special field and laboratory services at Ground Engineering Consultants, Inc. (GROUND). Mr. Kowalsky is highly qualified in the area of pavement investigation, pavement structural design and asphalt mixture design. He is experienced in investigation and review of slope stability, failure exploration and remediation of soils-related distress of structures and pavements. As Project Manager, he worked on the Douglas County CIP, Ken Caryl Avenue Reconstruction and E-470 segments 2 and 3, These projects included major pavement reconstruction including special subgrade treatments for swelling soils, subgrade stabilization, and SHRP asphalt mix designs, GROUND MICHAEL J. QUINN, P.E. Resident Engineer / Laboratory Manager EDUCATION: B.S., Environmental Health, 1994, San Diego State University Minor Chemistry, 1994, Sand Diego State University B.S., Civil Engineering Technology, 2005 Metro State University, REGISTRATION: Registered Professional Engineer, Colorado Troxier Certified ACI Certified, field, laboratory I & 11 NICET Level III Certified WAQTC Qualified Instructor 41 *147 jUgflX4 Mr. Quinn is currently the Resident Engineer for the Gypsum/Eagle office location. His responsibilities include performing subsurface studies and data analysis for foundation recommendations pertaining to spread footings, drilled piers, driven piles, pavement sections, and retaining walls. His experience also includes pavement stabilization methods of subgrade, including lime, fly ash and cement. Mr. Quinn also has worked on Roller Compacted Concrete for the Standley Lake Dam, from mix design to placement, Additionally Mr, Quinn is responsible for managing QA/QC testing services for several projects that include pavement, infrastructure, earthwork and vertical construction. Mr. Quinn has been employed with GROUND for over 10 years. Mr. Quinn currently provides geotechnical engineering, quality control testing and inspection management for large commercial retail projects, transportation projects and commercial projects, such as the Riverside Parkway project in Grand Junction. Mr. Quinn has extensive experience testing soil, aggregates, stabilized materials, asphalt, concrete, masonry, and special materials. Additionally, Mr. Quinn has served as the Laboratory Supervisor for Ground Engineering Consultants, Inc. Where he was responsible for the daily operations of the full-service laboratory. Mr. Quinn provides the training to the laboratory personnel and oversees test procedures. He was responsible for the inspection of the laboratory by several agencies including the Asphalt Materials Reference Laboratory (AMRL), the Cement and Concrete Reference Laboratory (CCRL), and the U.S, Army Corps of Engineers. Mr. Quinn is actively involved in statewide technician qualification in the area of soils through the CDOT WAQTC program. He has managed numerous field laboratories and is familiar with all AASHTO and ASTM procedures. Additionally, Mr. Quinn has received specialized training in testing of construction materials. This includes completion of the Asphalt Institutes Mix design course and the University of Rolla's Soils Laboratory Testing course. W�A._,_ i I JOHN WILLIAMS Engineering Technician EDUCATION: S.A. English, University of Colorado REGISTRATION: Troxier Certified ACI Certified CAPA Certified Labcat A, B & C WAQTC Mr, William's experience in construction observation and materials testing includes field and laboratory testing of soils, concrete, and asphalt for a variety of commercial, residential, and municipal projects. On a daily basis, he is responsible for the preparation of field reports and the coordination of our services with the contractor and owner. Mr. Williams is currently responsible for quality control testing at the Glenwood Meadows Development Project in Glenwood Springs, Colorado. This development includes Target and Lowes stores as anchors and sixteen other buildings ranging from 4,300 to 33,000 square feet in footprint area. The buildings area surrounded by landscaping and extensive paved parking areas and driveways. Several new roadways were installed to service the facility. Mr. Williams has also provided materials testing services on numerous other projects including, Southlands and Wheatlands, Aurora, Smokey Hill Road, Aurora, Rifle Raw Waterline and Pump House, and the ARFF/SRE Facility at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport. At the Southlands project Mr. Williams worked out of a Mobile Laboratory/Office where he was responsible for conducting on-site laboratory testing and preparing test reports and data for submission to the client. His duties for materials testing include concrete testing, asphalt testing and sampling, soil testing, reinforcing steel inspections, masonry inspections, and laboratory testing. Mr, Williams has extensive experience in cold weather concrete placement, including the utilization of maturity meters to monitor concrete temperature to help determine in-place strength. TOWN OF "ON, COLORADO REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING FOR TUESDAYV MARCH 28 2006 AVON MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 400 BENCHMARK ROAD PRESIDING OFFICIALS MAYOR RON WOLFE ' MAYOR PRO TEM TAMRA NOTTINGHAM UNDERWOOD COUNCILORS DEBBIE BUCKLEY KRIS'N FERRARO MAC McDEVITT Amy PHILLIPS BRIAN SIPES TOWN STAFF TOWN ATTORNEY: JOHN DUNN TOWN CLERK: PATTY McKENNY TOWN MANAGER: LARRY BROOKS ASSISTANT TOWN MANAGER: JACQUIEHALBURNT THIS MEETING IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC; COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC ARE WELCOME 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 COUNCIL MEETING MATERIALS AGENDAS ARE POSTED AT AVON MUNICIPAL BUILDING AND RECREATION CENTER, ALPINE BANK, AND CITY MARKET THE AVON TOWN COUNCIL MEETS ON THE SECOND AND FOURTH TUESDAYS OF EVERY MONTH WORK SESSION AGENDA MEETING BEGINS AT 3:45 PM 3:45 PM — 4:15 PM 1. EXECUTIVE SESSION (John Dunn, Town Attorney) pursuant to CRS 24 -6- 402(4)(4) conference with attorney for the local public body for the purpose of receiving legal advice on specific legal questions, specifically discussion on Transportation Center Land Acquisition and Water Negotiations 4:15 PM — 4:30 PM 2. APPROVAL OF WORK SESSION AGENDA & COUNCIL ASSIGNMENT UPDATES 4:30 PM — 4:45 PM 3. STAFF UPDATES a. Recreation Center Updates: Egg Hunt Update, New Staff Introductions (Fraidy Aber, John Curutchet) b. Housing Needs Assessment Study (Tambi Katieb, Community Development Director) Memo only c. Financial Matters, March 26, 2006 / Memo Only 4:45 PM — 5:20 PM 4. Review of Transit Routes / Hurd Lane Summer Bus Route (Bob Reed, Transit Director) Review of transit service levels for Summer 06 and potential bus routes for Village at Avon 5:25 PM 5. ADJOURNMENT Avon Council Meeting. 06.03.28 Page 1 of 2 Page lofl Larry Brooks From: Brian P. Sipes [bhons@zehren.com] Sent: Thursday' March 23, 2006 5:39PPW To: Larry Brooks Cc: Ron Wolfe email Subject: "bark beetle bill" Attached are the previous enleUs and the copy of the bill language. | have also included on article from a magazine that tells story of a northern Arizona initiative to remove fuel from the forest and how they granted the contract to a local manufacturer who now makes pellet fuel and sells it in the local community. | have asked Mark Udall to look at this article and to amend his bill hn give preferential treatment tu any local use of the biomass. Currently it reads that anyone should be given preferential treatment if they are just removing the excess fuel. | would like tn provide this material tu council on Tuesday and ask for permission to draft a letter for the Mayor to sign in support of this bill. Brian Sipes, AIA Senior Associate 0 ZehP2O And /\SS(]['@tes, Inc. Interiors Planning Architecture po. Box )y7o Avon, conls2o ph(970)e*9-0257 fax (en) y4y-lVnn 3/74/7006 REPS. UDALL, SALAZAR INTRODUCE BILL TO ADDRESS BEETLE EPIDEMIC IN NATIONAL FORESTS (Washington, DC) – U.S. Reps. Mark Udall (D-Eldorado Springs) and John Salazar (D-Manassa) today introduced legislation to help protect Rocky Mountain communities from the increased risks of severe wildfire caused by large-scale infestations of bark beetles and other insects in national forests. The Rocky Mountain Forest Insects Response Enhancement and Support (FIRES) Act reflects recommendations from local elected officials, representatives of the Forest Service, the timber and ski industries, and homeowners. "Colorado's forests are experiencing a major infestation of bark beetles. Large stands of beetle-killed trees pose a threat of severe wildfires, putting lives and property at risk in many communities. This bill provides additional tools and streamlines the processes so that the Forest Service, Interior Department and others can rapidly respond to the beetle problem plaguing our forests," said Udall, a member of the House Resources Committee who held a Bark Beetle Summit in Winter Park last fall. The bill does the following: • allows bark beetle projects—as well as projects under the Healthy Forests Restoration Act —to move forward under streamlined procedures, and the most urgent ones to move under a "categorical exclusion" from normal environmental review; • amends the Healthy Forests Restoration Act to authorize the Forest Service, on its own initiative or in response to a request from any State or 3/24/2006 Page 2 of 2 local government agency, to identify "emergency areas" in order to conduct forest thinning projects and community protection projects under a streamlined environmental review process; • provides economic incentives and tax exemptions for cutters and haulers who derive income from the removal of beetle-killed trees or other fuel reduction projects; • directs the Forest Service to give a preference to anyone seeking a federal grant to convert removed biomass (e.g. beetle-killed trees) from emergency areas into fuel or other products; • directs that $5 million annually for 5 years produced from the royalties from on-shore oil and gas development be applied to grants to help communities develop a community wildfire protection plan; and • authorizes the Forest Service to redirect existing personnel from other regions to help respond to a beetle emergency in the Rocky Mountain Region. 3/24/2006 U.S. Senator Ken Salazar Member of the Agriculture, Energy and Veterans Affairs Committees 2300 15`' Street, Suite 450 Denver, CO 80202 1 702 Hart Senate Building, Washington, D.C. 20510 For Immediate Release February 28, 2006 CONTACT: Cody Wertz — Comm. Director 303 - 455 -5999 Drew Nannis — Press Secretary 202 - 224 -5852 Sen. Salazar Fights Fifty Percent Funding Cuts To Bark Beetle Management Programs Washington, D.C. — Today, in a hearing of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Senator Salazar questioned Department of Agriculture Undersecretary Mark Rey and United States Forest Service Chief Dale Bosworth about the drastic 48 percent cut to bark beetle management funds in this year's budget. In 2004 alone, a total of 7 million trees covering over 1.5 million acres were killed by bark beetles throughout Colorado. According to the USFS' own budget justification in 2005 the USFS conducted prioritized bark beetle prevention, suppression and restoration projects on 76,444 acres of federal land and 152,226 acres of cooperative lands (State, County, Private). In FY 2007 that would drop to 44,331 acres of federal land (a drop of 42 %) and 60,589 acres of cooperative lands (State, County, Private) (a drop of 60 %) Senator Salazar stated, `Bark beetles are a major threat to forests in Colorado. Their affect on rural landscapes and communities is devastating; and beetle kills only exacerbate the fire danger in our state. We need to do more, not less and a nearly fifty percent cut to this program nationally is not a good start." In the hearing, Chief Bosworth acknowledged the "significant infestation" in Colorado and the west and spoke about how the USFS is working with local communities. Last year, Senator Salazar successfully passed an amendment to the FY 06 Agriculture Appropriations bill mandating the USFS lay out summary of Bark Beetle Management and its affect on local communities. "We must do everything we can to protect the rural communities near these bark beetle infestations, and that means fully funding bark beetle management and fire mitigation programs. I will continue to work with my colleagues to increase funding in the Interior Appropriations for Wildland Fire Management to protect our Colorado communities from fires. In addition, we can turn some of the infected timber into useful energy by pursuing investments in biomass energy technologies and operations." Over the last several years, bark beetle infestations have become a major issue nationwide. Bark Beetles have adversely impacted forests from the Southeastern United States to the Pacific Northwest. Beetle infestations are a natural part of forest ecology and tend to peak every 20 years or so. The current Colorado infestation is unnaturally large due to drought, 100 years of fire suppression, and climate change. The most significant infestations are found in the North Central and Southwest parts of the state. The beetles are spreading, however, into the Front Range. Severely impacted Colorado counties include: Grand, Jackson, Routt, Summit, Eagle, Park, Chaffee, Pitkin, Saguache, Gunnison, Hinsdale, San Miguel, Ouray, Delta, Montrose, Mesa and Garfield. I 109Tx CONGRESS � • Ro 4875 2D SESSION To amend the Healthy Forests Restora,timi Act of 2003 to help reduce the incren.sed risk of severe wildfires to communities in forested areas affected by infestations of bark beetles and other insects, and for other purposes. IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES NIAhCI3 2, 2006 Mr. UDALL of Colorado (for himself and Mr. 8ALAZ,0) introduced the fol- lowing bill; which was referred to the Committee on Agriculture, and in addition to the Committees on Resources, Nays and Means, and Science, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned To amend the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 to help reduce the increased risk of severe wildfires to communities in forested areas affected by infestations of balk beetles and other insects, and for other purposes 1 Be it enacted by the Senate and llwtsc of Represereta- 2 t�ves of the United States gj'America in, Congress asse-atbled, 3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS. 4 (a) SIIORT TITLE. —This Act may be cited as the S "Rocky Mountain Forest Insects Response Enhancement 6 and Support Act" or the "Rocky Mountain FIRES Act ". 2 1 (b) TABLE OF CONTENTS. —The table of contents for 2 this Act is as follows: Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents. Sec. 3. Findings and purpose. Sec. 3. Response to widespread infestations of bark beetles and other insects on Federal land in Rocky Mountaiin region. Sec. 4. Community wildfire protection plan development assistance for at, risk communities in the Rock '• Mountain region. Sec. 5. Additional assistance for preparation of community wildfire protection plans. Sec. G. Biomass coanmereial utiliration grant program and biomass collection. See. 7. Cooperation with certain private land- N -hers. See. 8. Partial exclusion from gross income of payments received as compensa- tion for silvicultural activities in response to insect - infestation emergencies. 3 SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSE. 4 (a) FINDINGS. — Congress finds the following: 5 (1) Fire, bark beetles, and other insects that 6 feed on trees are natural parts of the Rocky Moun- 7 twin forest ecology that have some beneficial effects 8 and help shape the forests by thinning dense tree 9 stands and promoting cyclical re- growth. 10 (2) However, in various parts of the Rocky 11 Mountain reg2on, large -scale infestations of bark 12 beetles and other insects, in combination with other 13 factors, have increased the likelihood of unusually 14 severe wildfires that pose a threat to lives and prop - 15 erty in nearby communities. 16 (3) This increased wildfire danger is the result 17 of the following factors: 1$ (A) A century -long policy of suppressing 19 even small fires on Federal lands, which com- .HR 4875 IH 3 1 bined with a more recent reduction in the quan- 2 tity, of timber harvesting on Federal lands, has 3 resulted in unusually dense vegetation that can 4 provide fuel for unusually severe wildfires. 5 (B) A pronounced and prolonged drought 6 that has weakened trees and made them more 7 susceptible to both wildfire and insects. 8 (C) Population growth in mountain coin- 9 munities adjacent to Federal lands and the de- 10 velopment of ski areas and other recreational 11 facilities on and in the vicinity of Federal lands, 12 with a resulting increase in the number of peo- 13 ple, homes, and businesses it risk; 14 (4) The Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 15 2003 (Public Law 108 -148; 16 U.S.C. 6501 et se(j) 16 addressed the need to reduce the volume of fuel that 17 can feed the most severe fires that threaten commu- 18 pities. 19 (5) However, pro-6sions of the Healthy Forests 20 Restoration Act of 2003 and other laws need to be 21 modified to help further reduce the risks to con-mu- 22 pities in the Rocky Mountain region associated with 23 current insect infestations. 24 (b) PURPOSE. —The purpose of this Act is to fac111- 25 ta,te a swifter response by the Secretary of Agriculture and -HR 4875 IH 91 wf 1 the Secretary of the Interior to reduce the increased risk 2 of severe -" ildfires to communities in the Rocky Mountain 3 region resulting from the effects of widespread infestations 4 of bark beetles and other insects. 5 SEC. 3. RESPONSE TO WIDESPREAD INFESTATIONS OF BARK BEETLES AND OTHER INSECTS ON FED- 7 ERAL LAND IN ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION. 8 (a) DEFINITIONS.— Section 101 of the Healthy For - 9 ests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6511) is amend- 10 A1i- 11 (1) by redesignating paragraphs (12) through 12 (16) as paragraphs (13), (14), (16), (17), and (18), 13 respectively; 14 (2) by inserting after paragraph (11) the fol- 15 low ing new paragraph: 16 "(12) INSECT - EMERGENCY AREA. —The terra 17 `insect - emergency area' means Federal land in the 18 Rocky Mountain region that - 19 "(A) the Secretary determines is subject to 20 a, widespread infestation of bark beetles or 21 other insects; 22 "(B) is identified for hazardous fuel reduc- 23 tion treatment in a community wildfire protee- 24 Lion plan; and -HR 4875 IH 5 1 "(C) is characterized by insect- induced tree 2 mortality that the Secretary determines has, or 3 within one year will have, produced a condition 4 such that an immediate reduction in hazardous 5 fuels is required in order to reduce the risks to 6 human life and property or to a, municipal 7 water supply from a, severe wildfire. "; and 8 (3) by inserting after paragraph (14), as redes- 9 igna,ted by paragraph (2), the following new para- 10 graph: 11 "(16) ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION. —The terra 12 `Rocky Mountain region' means the States of Ari- 13 zona., Colorado, Idaho, Montana, New Mexico, North 14 Dakota, South Dakota, Utah, and Wyoming. ". 15 (b) FUNDING ALLOCATION PRIORITIZATION FOR 16 FEDERAL LANDS IN ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION. —Sec- 17 tion 103(d)(1) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 18 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6513(d)(1)(B)) is amended by adding at 19 the end the folloNN ing new subparagraph: 20 "(D) SPECIAL RULE FOR ROCKY ll0i'N- 21 TAIN REGION. —The Secretary shall allocate not 22 less than 70 percent of the funds allocated for 23 authorized hazardous fuel reduction prgjects in 24 the Rocky Mountain region for- -HR 4875 IH 6 1 "(i) projects in the wildland -urban 2 interface; and 3 "(ii) lands that are in proximity to a 4 municipal water supply system or a stream 5 feeding such a system within a, municipal 6 watershed and that have been identified for 7 such projects in cornmuriity wildfire protec- 8 tion plans. ". 9 (e) ALTER ATi TE AN_iILYSIS PROCESS.— Section 10 104(d)(2) of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 11 (16 IT.S.C. 6514(d)(2)) is amended by inserting after "at- 12 risk community" the following: "or on any other lands 13 identified for such a. project in a, community wildfire pro - 14 tection plan for an at -risk community in or adjacent to 15 an insect- emergency area ". 16 (d) INSECT EMERGENCIES. —Title I of the healthy 17 Forests Restoration Act of 2003 is amended - 18 (1) by redesignating sections 107 and 108 as 19 sections 109 and 110, respectively; and 20 (2) by inserting after section 106 the following 21 new section: 22 "SEC. 107. ACTIONS RELATED TO INSECT - EMERGENCY 23 AREAS. 24 "(a) DES1GNAT10N. .HR 4875 IH n 1 "(1) DESIGNATION AUTHORITY. —The Secretary 2 may designate insect - emergency areas. The designa.- 3 tion shall be made on the basis of the best informa- 4 tion available, including observation of relevant in- 5 sect infestations. 6 "(2) INITIATION. —The designation of an in- 7 sect - emergency area, may be made on the initiative 8 of the Secretary or in response to a request by any 9 State agency or any political subdi -Orion of a State. 10 "(3) DEADLINE. —If a State agency or a polit- 11 ieal subdivision of a State requests an area to be 12 designated as an insect- emergency area pursuant to 13 paragraph (2), the decision regarding such request 14 shall be made no later than 90 days after receipt of 15 the request. 16 "(4) LIMITATION ON DELEGATION. —Ir1 the 17 case of National Forest System lands, the authority 18 to make a designation under this subsection may be 19 delegated only to a, Regional Forester. 20 "(%) CONSULTATION AND PUBLIC COMIT�TENT. —Re- 21 fore making a, determination to designate an insect -emer- 22 gency area, the Secretary shall - 23 "(1) consult with any Federal agency respon- 24 sible for management of lands within a relevant .HR 4875 IH 8 1 community wildfire protection plan and appropriate 2 State and local officials; and 3 "(2) provide public notice and seek public com- 4 ments. 5 "(e) REVIEW OF DESIGNATION. —Any administrative 6 or judicial review of a designation made pursuant to sub - 7 section (a) shall be subject to regulations issued pursuant 8 to section 105 and to the provisions of section 106. 9 "(d) EFFECT OF DETERMINATION. - 10 "(1) AUTHORIZED I- AZARDOUS FUEL REDI7C- 11 TION PROJECTS. —An autliorized hazardous fuel re- 12 duction project involving lands within an area des - 13 ignated as an insect - emergency area may be cat - 14 egorically excluded from documentation in an ernvi- 15 rommntal impact statement and environmental as- 16 sessment under the National Environmental Policy 17 Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) if- 18 "(A) the project involves only lands that 19 are identified for hazardous -fuel reduction 20 treatment in a community wildfire protection 21 plan; and 22 "(B) the decision to categorically exclude 23 the project is made in accordance with appliea,- 24 ble extraordinary circumstances procedures es- .HR 4875 Iii 9 1 tablished pursuant to section 1508.4 of title 40, 2 Code of Federal Regulations. 3 "(2) STEWARDSHIP PROJECTS. —A stewardship 4 contracting project under section 347 of the Depart- s ment of the Interior and Related Agencies Appro- 6 priations Act, 1999 (as contained in section 101(e) 7 of Public Law 105 -277; 16 U.S.C. 2104 note) to 8 implement a hazardous fuel reduction project in in 9 insect - emergency area may exceed 10 years, but may 10 not exceed 15 years. 11 "(e) PERSONNEL AUTHORITY . —The Secretary of Ag- 12 riculture may relocate or reassign personnel of the Forest 13 Service in order to provide additional personnel to prepare 14 and carry out applied sih.1cultural assessments under sec - 15 tion 404 in response to an insect emergency or to prepare 16 and implement other appropriate actions involving Federal 17 lands subject to an insect emergency. ". 18 (e) RELATION To Am'E v s REFOWm ACT. — Section 19 105 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 20 IJ.S.C. 6515) is amended by adding at the end the fol- 21 lowing new subsection: 22 "(d) RELATION To APPEALS REFORM AcT. —Noth- 23 ing in section 322 of the Department of the Interior and 24 Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 1999 (Public Law 25 102 -381; 16 U.S.C. 1612 note) shall be construed to re- -HR 4875 IH 10 I quire administrative review procedures different from, Or 2 in addition to, the procedures established by regulations 3 issued pursuant to this section for administrative reNTWAV 4 of an authorized hazardous fuel reduction prqject con- 5 ducted pursuant to section 102 or the designation of an 6 insect - emergency area pursuant to section 107.". 7 SEC. 4. COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLAN DEVEL- 8 OPMENT ASSISTANCE FOR AT-RISK COMMU- 9 NITIES IN THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN REGION. 10 (a) AvuLABILITY OF AsSISTA-.\-CE.—Section 103 of 11 the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 12 6513) is amended by adding at the end the following new 13 subsection: 14 "(e) PLANNING ASSISTANCE FOR AT-RISK COMMT)'_ 15 NITIES.—Using amounts made available to the Secretary 16 of Agriculture under section 35(c) of the Mineral Leasing 17 Act (30 U.S.C. 191(c)), the Secretary of Agriculture shall 18 make grants to at-risk communities in the Rocky Moun- 19 tain region to assist the at-risk communities to prepare 20 or revise a coininunity wildfire protection plan. The See- 21 rotary of Agriculture sliall make such grants in consulta, 22 tion Avith appropriate State agencies.". 23 (b) FUNDING SOURCE. — Section 35 of the Mineral 24 Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 191) is amended by adding at the Z" 25 end the following new subsection: *HR 4875 1H 11 1 "(e) Noturithstanding subsection (a), $5,000,000 of 2 the monies paid into the Treasury under such subsection 3 for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2010 shall be 4 made available to the Secretary of Agriculture, without 5 further appropriation and until expended, for obligation 6 and expenditure pursuant to section 103(e) of the Healthy 7 Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.C. 6513). ". S SEC. 5. ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR PREPARATION OF 9 COMMUNITY WILDFIRE PROTECTION PLANS. 10 Subparagraph (L) of section 33(b)(3) of the Federal I1 Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 (15 U.S.C. 12 2229(b)(3)) is amended to read as follows: 13 "(L) To fiuid fire prevention programs, in- 14 eluding the development of community wildfire 15 protection plans (as defined in section 101 of 16 the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 17 (16 U.S.C. 6511)). ". 18 SEC. 6. BIOMASS COMMERCIAL UTILIZATION GRANT PRO- 19 GRAM AND BIOMASS COLLECTION. 20 (a) GrR NT PROGRAM.- Section 203 of the healthy 21 Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 U.S.(,';. 6531) is 22 amended to read as follows: -HR 4875 IH 12 1 "SEC. 203. BIOMASS COMMERCIAL UTILIZATION GRANT 2 PROGRAM. 3 "(a) PROt�RAltiI AUTHORIZED. —The Secretary of Ag- 4 rieulture may make grants to the owners or operators of 5 facilities that use biomass - 6 "(1) as a raw material to produce electricity, 7 sensible heat, transportation fuel, or substitutes for 8 petroleum -based products; 9 "(2) for wood -based products; or 10 "(3) for other commercial purposes. 11 "(b) PRIORITY. —In making grants under this sec - 12 tion, the Secretary shall give priority to applications sub - 13 witted by persons who purchase biomass removed from 14 lands in insect - emergency areas through an authorized 15 hazardous fuel reduction project carried out pursuant to 16 section 102. 17 "(c) USE OF GRANT FUNDS.- Grants made pursuant 18 to this section may be used to offset the costs of pur- 19 chasing biomass. 20 "(d) RELATION TO OTHER AUTHORITIEs. —The au- ,21 thority provided by this section is in addition to any other 22 authority of the Secretary to make grants related to bio- 23 mass. 24 "(e) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS. —There 25 are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary .HR 4875 IH 13 1 $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2007 through 2010 2 to make grants under this section. ". 3 (b) CENTRAL COLLECTION POINTS. —Title II of the 4 Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 is amended by 5 adding at the end the following new section: 6 "SEC. 204. ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRAL COLLECTION 7 POINTS. S "(a) ESTABLISHMENT. —To the maximum extent 9 practicable and consistent with relevant land management 10 plans, the Secretary shall establish one or more collection 11 point for the placement of vegetative material removed 12 from Federal or other lands as part of hazardous Kiel re- 13 duetion projects under title L No collection point shall be 14 established on any lands not owned by the United States 15 without the consent of the owner of such lands. 16 "(b) USE.— Vegetative material placed at a, collection 17 point established under this section may be sold, donated, IS or otherwise made available to any party tivho will remove 19 the material from the collection point. 20 "(c) DEFINITION. —In this section, the term "Sec - 21 retary" means - 22 "(1) the Secretary of Agriculture with respect 23 to lands managed by the Forest Service; and .HR 4875 IH 14 1 "(2) the Secretary of the Interior with respect 2 to lands managed by any agency of the Department 3 of the Interior. ". 4 SEC. 7. COOPERATION WITH CERTAIN PRIVATE LAND- 5 OWNERS. 6 Title I of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 7 2003 is amended by inserting after section 107, as added 8 by section 3(d), the following new section: 9 "SEC. 108. COOPERATION WITH CERTAIN PRIVATE LAND- 10 OWNERS. 11 "(a) USE of PRIVATE LANDOWNERS. —The Sec - 12 retary may award stewardship contracts to or enter into 13 agreenjrents with owners of lands contiguous to Federal 14 lands managed by the Secretary under which the land - 15 owners may carry out a fuel- reduction project or other ac- 16 tivities on the contiguous Federal lands in order to reduce 17 the extent to which the Federal lands or other lands could 18 be affected by wildfires. The agreement shall include such 19 terms and conditions as the Secretary considers a.ppro- 20 priate with regard to activities to be performed on the 21 Federal lands. 22 "(b) REIMBI?RSEMENT. —A ste`va,rdship contract or 23 other agreement under this section may provide for reim- 24 bursement by the Secretary for costs incurred by the land - 25 owner related to the fuel- reduction project or other activi- •HR 4875 IH 15 I ties on the Federal lands. If reimbursement is not pro- 2 videdl the cost incurred by the landowner shall be treated 3 as a, donation to the United States for purposes of the 4 Internal Revenue Code of 1986.". 5 SEC. 8. PARTIAL EXCLUSION FROM GROSS INCOME OF PAY- 6 MENTS RECEIVED AS COMPENSATION FOR 7 SILVICULTURAL ACTIVITIES IN RESPONSE TO 8 INSECT-INFESTATION EMERGENCIES. 9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Part III of subchapter B of chap- 10 ter I of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to 11 iterns specifically exchided from gross income) is amended 12 by inserting after section 139A the following new section: 13 "SEC. 1398. COMPENSATION FOR SILVICULTURAL ACTIVI- 14 TIES IN RESPONSE TO INSECT-INFESTATION 15 EMERGENCIES. 16 "(a) GENERAL RULE. —Gross income shall not ill- 17 elude any qualified s1hricultural payments. 18 "(b) DoLLAR LEN-1ITAT10N.—The ag regate of the 19 19 payinents which may be taken into account under sub- 20 section (a) with respect to a t8,xJ)8Y0r for 8. taxable Year 21 shall not exceed $10,000 ($20,000 in the case of a joint 22 return). 23 "(c) QUALIFIED SILVICULTURAL PAYMENTS.—For 24 purposes of this Section— *HR 4875 IH 16 1 "(1) IN GENERAL. —The terns `qualified sih icul- 2 tural payment' means any amount received by the 3 taxpayer during the taxable year as compensation 4 for work performed in the Rocky Mountain region as 5 part of- 6 "(A) an authorized hazardous fuels reduc- 7 tiozr prgject conducted pursuant to section 102 8 of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act of 2003 9 (16 U.S.C. 651.2) in an insect - emergency area 10 or 11 "(B) a silvicultural assessment or other 12 treatment conducted under section 404 of such 13 Act (16 IT.S.C. 6554) in an insect - emergency 14 area. 15 "(2) DEFINITIONS. —The terms `authorized 16 Hazardous fuels reduction project', `insect - emergency 17 area', and `Rocky Mountain region' have the mean- 18 irrgs given those terms in section 101 of the Healthy 19 Forests Restoration Act of 2003 (16 IT.S.C. 20 6511). ". 21 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT. —The table of sections 22 for part III of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code 23 is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 24 1:39A the following new item: "Sec. 139B. Compensation for sihieultural activities in response to beetle erner- gencies. ". *HR 4875 IH 17 ((,,) EFFECTIVE DATE. —The amendments inade by 2 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning- after 3 December 31, 2005. O .HR 4875 IH I X-N Some il*k it fj )t u,j s is now F i R i DE t N s.,. with energy—raw potential—landing as light on the Earth's sur- uplands of the American southwest, what the light hits are the long needles of port. derosa pine true. The trees are evergreen, efficient, all year pulling light out of the clear blue skies, and using it to build long strands of carbohydrates, one upon another, out of water and carbon dio)dde and the minerals held in the soil. They build up and out, creating fractal architectures of ever-increasing complexity. The trunks rise high: the branches spread. Then in late spring the wind gusts hot and hard and the sun shines stronger and whiter in a cloudless sky. Weeks- pass without rain. The hot wind whips the sun-cured grasses and shrubs, and trees, and all those complex molecules are left rustling and waving in the air as if beseeching aid in returning to a simpler time. Like as not, they get it. 54 0 R 1 0 N MAIM11 I APAIL 2oo6 GROUNDSWELL Pvery landscape interach; with the fire of the snare, but tack one has diff I erent moments w, hen thy* spark can strike. In some it ra rely dot,& In some it's common. Scarcely any natural landscape has a greater aburidance of sparks than the ponderosa pine forests of The &)uthwest Tlhey cover mill10 i fts of acres in Arizona and New Mexdco alone. You could, were you so inclined, saddle tip a horse on the outskirts, of Silver City, New Mexico, and ride a long arc to tilt, north and then the northwest, and not lose sight of a pon- derosa pine tree for a distauce of more than two hundred and fifty 56 0 R 1 0 N MARCH : APR 0, 1, Zoof) joi1c, , Oil jnne t8. �,,Qoz— the largest wildfire in ArUxma s recorded history broke out in the middle ofthat arc- It &as i'4' fiTf,:� cious inferno that created its own weather and sent ernb�rs hurtling miles away. More tlian thirty thousand people, inchading the ot ire population of the sm all city of Show Low-were evacu- ated from their homes, Veen it was finaRy out, the Rodeo- Chedisk-i Fire had charred more than 465,000 acres and more than four hundred buildings. Property darnage totaled Bier mil- bolt. BY 2,005, the 11"Oncy Spent attempting to suppress the fire and then rehabilitate the burned lands came to a total Of $173 tnil"" The fire broke out durdig condi- tions of high wind and severe- drought, but its fast spread and its severity were widely ascril-A-d to flu, unhealthy condition of the area's forests. especially the ponderosa pine stands that made up the bulk of the acreage burned- Vbe Rodeo-Ched iski was in line with a clear trend of ever larger and more serious fires in die Souffiwest's ponderosa forests, -1bey are souvenirs of more than a Centlary of K-ological tr eddling. frorn over. grazing to extensive logging to-- in", especially—fhe exclusion of fir(�- quent ground firess, LackIng small fires, the forests groxv thick with small trees, and ripe for cGnflagra. tion. 'I'liese forests present a grave danger to human co mirittitificNs set within the rn—and a signal opportu pity for restoration of both a regional ecosystenl and regional econotines, TIME Wally C(WillgtOn Flagstaff as a newly ern Arizona University in 1975, a few cracks were beginning to show in tilt sinoodi facade of the U S. Forest Services effficient manage- ment of forests. The very basis of that ilia , riagernent was an aversion to fire. Fire was the enemy and was to J,)e given no quarter, To waver in opposing it would sij7,al the defeat of all tine well-niparfing ideak, of' If forest fires are goirlty to occur on a scale of tees of tliotts::Inds ri people re& to tw of acres, says 11, ly Covington, the platii-ilrig restonation, treatments on that sort of scale, too. scientific forestry. It Would mean that people were not in charge. The strateV worked, for a while, For decades after the cre- ation of the Forest Service, mn into and after World War 11, most of the fires in the Southwest Were Small and easily C011- trolled by a handful of men with mattocks and shovel& Photosynthesis did its work. The chains of carbohydrates grew, and the pines reached up and out. A timber industry based on cutting the venerable yellow-barked pines thrived, cattle grazed, and cool rationality had, it appeared, prevailed. Efficiency ruled., But Covington's arrival coincided with an alarming increase in the size and frequency of firms an the national forests of the Southwest. In 1971 and 1974, for the first time since records had been kept, more than two hundred thousand acres burned; in 1979, the total exceeded three hundred thousand- Yet more alarming than any numbers were the eflects of these fires. They traveled through the tree crowns, killing young and old pines alike. Where they burned particularly hot they devoured tile soil's organic matter and left behind bare mineral dirt that ran off after summer thunderstorms, In many casts they were so destructive that it was rank weeds rather than pines and native grasses that grew back after they'd passed. They represented a real danger to people, too. They were fires that got attention. Wliat they showed was that suppressing small fires year after year was no way to get rid of fire at all. in the early ios,, Covington, lvvgan a restoration experi- trient on a ten-acre tract of forest at the Gus Pearson Natural Area, near Flagstaff. It had never been logged. Massive yellow pines still towered high.. But from ground level it wras hard to see them, so inundated were they in a sea of saplings. Where only twenty to twerity-five trees per acre had stood in 1876, nearly thirteen hundred per acre grew in 1991. By then Covington and other researchers knew Why this had happened. The growth rings of the old pines showed that fire had burned through the drying bunchgrasses and fallen pine needles every few years, likely during the dry months of early summer. burning hot and clear, devouring those light fuels and the great majority of the $mail young trees. But it had raced, for the most part passing by too quickly to do much harm to the thick-barked older pines. Fire behaved in this way until r876, the year in which the first American settlers arrived in the area. That was well before federal fire suppression policies were put in place. out it was fight about the time the first sheep and cat- tle arrived,. Once the livestock ate away the grasses, ground files had no way to spread. Absent fire, voting trees proliferated, On two-thirds of the Gus Pearson tract, Covington's Learn cut down and cleared away almost all the trees but those that had been there in x&76� They left a few youriger trees standing wher- ever a downed log or standing dead tree showed that a pine had once stood. Them they burned half of the treated tract. The old pines in the burned area soon showed increased vigor and health. Cutting out the abundant young trees had the same effect as thinning the lettuce shoots in your garden-, With less, competition for nutrients, they thrived- Grasses and wildflowers teemed, too, in the thinned areas. The experiment to restore the JP forest seems to have wh} ked. Since then, Covington has been a prime advocate of implementing forest restoration on a large scale. if forest fires are going to occur on a scale of tens of thou- sands of acres, he has said, then people -need to he planning restoration treatments on that sort of scale, too. The obstacles to doing so are political and mechanical, but they are primarily econ-cmic Someone has to be paid to wield the chainsaws, on many, many thousands of acres. in an era when the federal government directs its resources elsewhere, that is likely to happen only if some market can be developed for the material removed from the woods -that is. if there is some reason to wield the saws that is integral to the human econotny. 'The scale of the problem across the *West is astronomical," said Dennis Becker; a forest economist at tile University of Minnesota who has studied tile use of small trees in the Southwest 'If we can't economically remove the material from the forest, then we can do all the research we want and it's riot going to matter because we're riot going to get tile work done.' TjilltE ARE MANY THiNCs You CAN DO With 3 piece Of wood, You can cut, it and burn it in a campfire, on a hearth, in a wood stove, but in that form wood is a balky fuel, irregular and MARCH I APRF1 _,006 0 R 1 0 N 57 inefficient, Gas arid oil and coal—which can readily be puIvrr- ized into a fine powder to make a liquid slurry—are far more practical fuels for an industrial economy. They can be trans- ported in pipelines and fed into engines as gas or hqui4. They've been standardized. To feed a large, centralized economy you need fuels that flow like water. It was to make wood move a bit more like water that a man named Rob Davis carne to Show Low in 1992. To most investors, the idea of going into the wood-products industry in northern Arizona in the early 1990S was roughly akin to bQnkT*lIm9 a buggy , manufacturer in 192os Detroit. The logging industry was in its death throes there, strangled by a dearth of large trees, by comptlition. from other states and other countries, by new envi. ronmental regulations. The smart money was elsewhere, Davis disagreed, and played his hand. He established his company, Forest Energy Corporatiort, in an open woodland on the edge of town. Fourteen years later it is still there, humming along and bigger than before. Forest Energy Corporation occupies a medium-sized industrial building over which tower huge piles oftawny wood chips that will be converted to standardized pellets resembling something yoLed feed a pet rabbit. The pellets are poured into forty - pound bags that you can buy in Flagstaff for about three dollars--not a bad deal at a time when price-, for oil and natural gas are rising. Davis will be glad to tell you the following facts about turning wood into pellets: A chunk of ponderosa pine that occupies a cubic foot weighs sixteen to eighteen pounds. A cubic foot of pine pellets weighs forty-two pounds', it contains commensurately more. eta ergy, and produces more heat, than the unprocessed wood. Since pellets are consistently sized and shaped, they bum far more efficiently, A new pellet stove produces about a fifth the emissions of a new wood stove. In most communities it can be used even when 'no•bum" days are declared to protect air quality-, wood pellets, unlike fossil fuels, are considered carbon•neutral. Rob Davis will be happy to sell you, for about Sq000, a boiler that automatically feeds and burns pellets and that will heat your house wry reliably and efficiently, when Davis began pellet production in 1992, he primarily used sawmill waste and the shavings produced at molding, truss, and furniture manufacturers as his raw materials. His business grew steadily, if not spectacularly. Then the Rodeo- Chediski Fire erupted, underscoring the need to work on the forests around Show Low and other Mogollon Rim towns, BY 2004, officials on the Apache-Sitgreaves Rational Forests were looking for someone to annually thin between ten, and fifteen thousand acres of primarily smalWiameter ponderosa pine around human communities. After the thinning, national forest staff would conduct prescribed burns in order to O.irther 58 0 R 1 0 N MARCH I APRU 2oo6 reduce the fuel load and promote the growth of plants. The cost to the federal government would total some- where, between S t 9 and $9 1 million over a ten-year period, and the Forest Service was planning to pay someone to do this '"stewardship" work Davis and Dwayne Walker, who owns a small logging firm, put in .3 hid. The only rival bid carne from Louisiana-Pacific. the giant international logging company. 'The Forest Service awarded Davis and Walker the contract. Walker aimed to thin eleven thousand acres in the first year, and Davis employed twenty-eight people to convert the 'excess' wood into pellets. He was uncertain how much money the fed- eral government would be able to pump into the project over tune, grad saw his ability to produce a value-added product as critical to its success. -Fhe only way We can pay for thillnir* in the long term is to have economically viable businesses that function without subsidy,' lie said. 'We're not going to be able to rely on the government to put money in. We're going to have to do it ourselves." By April zoos, fifteen truckloads a day of chips from the thin- ning project were being delivered to the piles outside the Forest Energy building. The trees cut as part of the thinning project range considerably in size, Those over twelve inches in diame. ter go to a sawmill. Some smaller ones can be sold as posts� Davis takes the leftovers, mainly trees too small to be used for any other purpose, the most expensive to harvest, and the stuff no one else wants." The great advantage of turning these small trees into pellets is that everything can be used—wood, bark, even needles. To have loggers cutting trees on thousands of acres of pub- lic land per year, and to have the resulting wood sold for profit, might sound like the bad old days of overexploitation of west- erns forests, but for two factors. First, the biggest trees are left standing. Second, you can get a bard-core environmentalist— Todd Schulke, to be specific- to praise the project, Schulke lives near Silver City and was one of the founder--,, in tee ,9> of the Center for Biological Diversity, a hard-litigating, take-no- prisoners nonprofit that was one of the central players in shut- ting down the old-growth logging industry on the Southwest's national forests in the early iggos. But Schulke is not a no-cut activist. 'I think,1the Forest Energy strategyJ is exactly the right way to approach these issues,." lie said, 'It's probably the right scale. Had that stewardship contract gone to Uouisiana-Pacific, we would have been very concerned. When people are trying to maximize the arnount of wood they can get, then I start to really question it, for Rob, this contract is a ten-year growth contract It's a huge risk for him, I'd rather have someone like hint, who can grow into something like this, than someone who needs all the wood right away, The community-based approach gives us room to work with people." Schulke expresses Considerable hope that work under the steward- ship contract can treat most Of the vulnerable acreage around Show Low and nearby setrlentent& As the worst fire danger around towl's is arneliorated, rnanagers, will Iie alik, to prescribe fire more liberally in the wildlands--or even let naturally ignited fires btirn, schulke advocates treating exclush�ely ating as many acres with fire as possible. He wants to see much of the forest sculpted as it once was,--by natural fire--rather than by human hands. In ffic future, he suggests, once the fire danger to human communities has been reduced, it should Ix- possible to have fire do the bulk of tire work. ­I suspect that there will be Icing -term maintenance nele(lq, especially near cornoruni- tie , s, but if we're going to maintain these stands in the future irl'S gon1g to ha),v to be with fire,- lie said -it's crazy to think vvere going to maintain these forests with mechanical thinning,' He's right, of course; it would take a huge effort to Continue to suppress wildfires and to thin huge tracts of -Southwestern pine forests on a regular basis over the long term, But from today's per- spective, what Schulke advocates seern$ equally challenging, 'Were not going to burn a million acres. a year in Arizona.' Davis , of acres,' he said. 'Id. like to know what the minimum is that said, pointing to concerns about smoke, the safety of we can burn. We have pretty divergent numbers about this. Brit prescribed burns, and a lack ref funding and staff in the states at least there is a discussion.' national f -es,� he said, constitute "a Ore-qts� Small pint trt, To burn or to thin? To let as much fire as possible run resource I don't like to see wasted if we don't have to. It's not through the forest according to its own itinerary­cTawling a waste product, Ifoil goes up another fifty bucks a barrel, this along the ground here, b1mving tip into the crowns there—OT to is going to be one of our best resources, We ought to get some bag part of the forest instead and fi ed it into stoves to warm vield out of these trees.' people's houses? I'lie argument will persist. But for now the I Davjsknows there is disagreoment here. "SOME, of the envi- important thing is that pleop4e are going out into the woods to ronmentalists want to know how to burn a rnaxitnum number wor.k, and that they re making decent money, and that the way MARCH j' APAEL 2QQ6 0 P 1 0 N 59 The strategy seems simple: do good work in the woods, sell high-quality products, make a good living, persist. Cant succeed? Check back in a few years. in which tlwylre working is more attuned to the ecological realities of the place than most forest work in the region has been for a long, long time. F o, st Tone s c H V L K E. it is a fact of life that. thinning and burn- ing are needed in the region's forests. He has stopped plenty of timber sales, but he has also marked his share of trees for cutting, and has served as a board member of a nonprofitgroup, Gila WbodNet, that markets wood cut on national forest land. For Schulke and a colleague named Gordon West, reconciling natu- ral and economic processes is no hurdlie: the real obstacle to forest stewards;hip is the difficulty of marketing small trees. West is a logger and woodwork e ' r who, a few yeas ago, was looking far logs so he could build Cabins near his borne in silver City, With Schulke and a few other collaborators, West set up, Gila WbodNet to thin the nearby Brest according to restoration. prescriptions, and worked to develop products from the resulting wood. By early 2005, the nonprofif s timber workers werecutting small trees Nvuh low impact logging equipment, and several local woodworkers were buying the larger logs to craft such products a-, furniture and vigas and Willas—the round ceiling beams and crossbearas popular in southwestern architecture, Gila Wood) et originally planned to thin about five hundred acres per year, based on a forest Service assessment that indi- wes that ten thousand acres of ponderosa pine roar Silver City need to be thinned to reduce fire danger. Five hundred acres a year would spread this work out over twenty years—a practical planning period for those trying to figure out how to structure careers, or manuracture and market products. But there are not yet enough markets to absorb the supply, arid yearly harvests have so far fallen short of that goal, It is easy to sell the larger trees that can make vigas. But selling only those does not pencil out, and West is looking to sell the other materials as wood chips or as fuel for electricity. That 2o percent of the material that goes into vigas, latillas, and so on, generates about go per- cent of the income, and the go percent that goes into chips or biomass [for energy production] generates about 20 percenL' he said. "But you don't waist just one, The ecological considera- 0 0 R I () N MANCIT 1 AP911. 2006 tions of the forests require that you deal with the mass of material that can go into biomass, but the economic health of the community requires the higher-value products. You can't neglect. one or the other' Selling that So percent has proceeded slowly. It needs to be sold locally because if s too expensive to truck low -value materials like wood chips any distance, but nearby markets have been hard to find. From a global economic perspective, Gila WoodNet has deliberately hobtiled itself West and Schulke leave a good many of the valuable larger trees standing, and they want the project's production to mirror only local demand. They don't want to be selling vies and pre-cut log cabins to customers in Santa Fe; Santa Fe has its own forests to thin. "Big industry isn't where it's at," West said. 'I'd like to see dispersed small industries. That's where it's at.. You shouldn't ignore the small solutions. Theyre perfectly good, and will last. 'Me more dispersed an industry is, the more stable it is, and the less likely to crash.' That has a nice ring to it. but sounds really idealistic. too. and it is difficult not to wonder how realistic a business model it repre- sents, West might bee looking to sell products only in the Silver City arm, but the products he competes with .are those that have come out ahead in a highly competitive, global marketplace. The success of businesses such as West and Davies may well hinge on that global economy. If the price of oil, and hence tile, cost of trans- portation, continue to rise, then such local- or regional-scale enter- prises will start looking like pretty good bets. The strat M,, seems simple-, dog work in the woods. sell I high- quality products., make a good living, persist. Can it succeed? Check back in a few years- 1 see this as creating a new culture in the woods.' West said. 'What were trying to accorn- plish comes first, and making money comes iietond—though it does come, But you don't care so much about making a lot of money if you're already doing what you want to do.' TH F A M F R I cA N POLL T1 CA L S YSTE M, like its electorate, does not like to be told that solutions to anything will take decades, or perhaps generations. Yet that is exactly the case with forest restoration. Even if all the thinning required to return the den- city of southwestern ponderosa pine forests to reasonable levels were to take place next week, it would still take many decades or even centuries before all the remaining skinny pines could grow to the stature of the big, old yellow pines that were cut long ago. Given that thinning will take many years, some dense stands of pine are no doubt going to burn in the interim as intensely as those roasted by the Rodeo-Chediski Fire. Some areas will be thinned and burned and will look spectacular. Others will never be treated after thinning, except perhaps by a lightning strike, and will look equally spectacular, Some, thinned with as much care, vxill end up looking like tree farms, Others will again grow dense with small trees. The result is going to be a crazy quilt of ecological circum- stance that wilt likely mirror an economic patchwork. The solu- tions to the problem are manifold. Each is incomplete, and all can work. There is no reason why Rob Davis, processing the wood from ten thousand acres per year, cannot thrive at the same time as Gordon West, working on a fov hundred. The Southwest's forest-products industry is in the process of reinventing itself practically from scratch, without a lot of established players and vested interests. 'In the Southwest we get to have a say in what the industry will look like,' Dennis Becker, the forest econornist, said. "I think we're actually in a unique situation because of that," When you viov ecological restoration through an economic lens it boils down to this; the ideal result is an expansion of pos- sibility. Rob Davis and Gordon West are stuck with lots of small trees and few big ones today. But if restoration succeeds on a large scale--if today's ecologically minded foresters can grow a lot fewer ponderosa pine trees, but bigger ones—then future, generations will have an expanded set of opportunities, They may have to choose between turning old•growth trees into lumber or pellets---or letting them stand, The real end result of forest restoration, then, is as much about people as it is about trees and bunchgrasses and fire. it is about ensuring that fitture generations have a generous rather than a constrained set of possibilities. "They'll have the ability to do more with fire, and with the chairrsaw. Maybe the new restoration economy woWt lead to anything sustainable at all, at least not in the long run. As prices for fossil fuels rise, maybe a hunger for wood pellets will lead to all sorts of cut-and-run logging, Maybe a great deal of time and energy and money will be spent on forest restoration in coming years simply so that southwesterners in eighty years, or a hundred, can cut big trees as rapaciously as the early loggers did. Todd Schulke, for one, views his work as culminating in such dioicm 'if my descendants decide to cut old-growth trees again,' he said, "there'll be lots of them." >vN, Memo To: Honorable Mayor& Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: Meryl Jacobs, Director of Recreation Date: March 22, 2006 Re: Recreation Center Update (Egg Hunt update & staff introductions) Summary: Mark your calendars for Saturday, April 8 2006 from 10 am till noon when 2000 kids will scramble for 10,000 eggs in the Harry A. Nottingham Park. The largest Egg Hunt in the Valley returns with a petting zoo, bouncy toys (weather permitting), a garden center, craft station, refreshments and a photo op with the Bunny. This event garners tremendous community support with the following businesses as sponsors: First Bank of Avon, John W. Dunn & Associates, LLC, Wells Fargo, the Parent Guide, Starbucks, Christie Lodge, Wishes, Wal -mart, Copy Copy, KZYR, JACK FM, KSKE, TV 8 and the Vail Daily. The Egg Hunt is offered to children 9 years of age and younger. Staff Introductions: Fraidy Aber will introduce Danita Chirichillo new Special Events Coordinator for the Town of Avon, followed by John Curutchet who will introduce McGuire Scroggins, Aquatics Coordinator and Devin Trickel, Recreation Coordinator. 0 Harry A. Nottingham Saturday, April ath 10ani-12pni • Petting Zoo • Face/Hamel Jeweling • Refreshments • Garden Center # Magnet Making • Photo With Bunny .......... Jellybean Contest! Gueoo how many Jellybeans: in the Jar and Win Prizes from Wioheo Toy Store.. ............................................. . HUNT 5EGIN5 AT 10:30AM For Children 9 & Under Only WEAR APPROPRIATE CLOTHING IN THE EVENT OF INCLEMENT WEATHER. • W I . ............................................ I . Color this ad & bring to event. A $50 5avirp Bond from Wello Fargo will be awarded the most creative in 5 age groupE, Name: Phone #: age: For more information 71f 5-1f 060 www.avonrec.org Y E w�, s 'Dail Daily 0 I 92.3 923 C OR OR TBAW JOHN W. DUN�z, AssocIATES� LC J� 1:4 , IVIDTI, 0 To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: Tambi Katieb, AICP Community Development ' ecto Date: March 21, 2006 Re: Housing Needs Assessment - April 11, 2006 Work Session Summary: Staff has scheduled a work session on April 11, 2006 to discuss the goals of a Housing Needs Assessment study. The work session will include a review of existing Town Housing policies (as adopted in the updated Comprehensive Plan), and a review of what housing policies and studies Eagle County has prepared and how that information is utilized. K.T. Gazunis, the Eagle County Housing Director, will be available to discuss how the County guidelines and recent nexus study were developed and what issues the Town may want to consider in review and development of housing policy and standards in light of the regional housing data and issues. Planning & Zoning Commissioners will also be invited to attend this discussion. In preparation for this discussion, I've attached four documents for your review and consideration. Town Manager Comments: Attachments: Exhibit A: 2006 Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan Vision Statement & Housing Policies Exhibit B: 2002 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Exhibit C: 2005 Eagle County Nexus/Proportionality Analysis Exhibit D: 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update- Data Report FACounciM4EMOS\2006\Housing Needs Assesment MEMOONLY 32106.doc Z3 -3 :3 Z3 =3- zz :3 zz :3 EXHIBIT A Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan Avon's Vision 1. Avon's Vision A. What We Want To Be Avon is unique due to its dual role as a year -round 1 community serving the needs and interests of those that live and work within the community full -time and as a resort 1 community that hosts both short and long -term visitors. The juxtaposition between these two functions has often made planning and decision - making for the Avon community and 1 its leaders challenging. During this planning process it became apparent, however, that much of what the t community expressed in terms of values, beliefs, and desires for Avon's future could in fact provide a synchronized direction for many of the unique issues and concerns associated with each of Avon's two identities. Put in terms of a vision for what we want our Town to be: "...To provide a high quality of life, today and in the future, for a diversity of people and interests in the form of a community centered around a vibrant town center." B. What We Value From the understanding that Avon's dual role as a community for year -round residents and as a destination resort community could and should be mutually supportive, a set of Core Values were identified that provide an overarching direction for the Comprehensive Plan and its implementation. Reflective of the natural environment. Avon will continue to enhance its strong connections to its spectacular scenery, magnificent natural surroundings, and ample outdoor recreational opportunities. Distinctive Built Form. Avon will develop with a hierarchy of built forms that refle�.tc tha ;,,,,,n, tor. o ^r +l.o 'T ._. Center as the center of the community. High Quality design and finishes are found throughout the community. Sense of place and character. Avon will be a fully developed community made up of smaller residential neighborhoods and a thriving Town Center that collectively provide a unique sense of place and charm that is not only enjoyed by those that live and work here year- around, but that is enviously enjoyed by those that come to visit. Thriving center of activity and entertainment: Avon will provide the Eagle Valley with unique shopping, dining, entertainment and recreational opportunities. Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan Page 5 Avon's Vision E A vibrant economy: Avon will maintain a strong and sustainable year -round economy through partnerships with local businesses and resort operators. Diversity. Avon recognizes that our community is the sum of its parts and that a healthy and vibrant community must welcome and encompass people with a wide range of backgrounds, interests, vocations, family status, and economic means. Avon will provide a total environment that is supportive of and attainable by a diverse community. Connectedness to cultural and environmental heritage. Avon will provide exceptional art, architecture and cultural events and facilities, and promote its ranching, agricultural, and railroading heritage. An exceptional transportation and transit network. Avon will support a multi -modal transportation network that provides convenient, efficient, clean links throughout the town, to ski area base facilities, and the entire Eagle Valley region. Cooperative partnership with organizations throughout the Eagle Valley: Avon will be good neighbors to Beaver Creek, Eagle County, surrounding communities, and public lands in order to achieve mutual enhancements and the success of all. C. How We Will Achieve Our Vision From our Vision and its underlying values, the Comprehensive Plan develops several tools to achieve them: Goals and Policies: Having defined the Vision for Avon and the supporting Subarea Strategic Roles, tools are needed to shape the character of the subareas to their intended outcome. These same tools are also needed to guide decision making with respect to individual development projects and governance issues. We have these tools in our Goals and Policies: • Goals: These are statements of intent by the Town Government that when implemented will support the achievement of the Vision. They are in fact our strategies to achieve our Vision. • Policies: Under each Goal, we have established a series of Policies. These tactical actions are necessary to implement and achieve the strategic objectives of our Goals and consequentially our Vision. Town District Strategic Roles: in order for the Vision to be achieved each geographic region or subarea of the Town must have a defined contribution or role within the total town. These subareas have been specified and a specific Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan Page 6 Avon's Vision strategic role, character, and identity has been assigned to each so that the area may appropriately support our becoming the town that we envision. Goals and Policies capitalize on an overall community image rather than a single venue or event. Policy E.3.13: Encourage collaborative approaches between the various community stakeholders, such as but not limited to the Eagle County, Vail Valley Chamber and Tourism Bureau, Beaver Creek Resort Company, Vail Resorts, Eagle County School District, Town of Avon Parks and Recreation Department, and Eagle County Library District to enhance Avon's overall guest potential. Policy E.3.14: Achieve greater use of existing natural assets and facilities in the community with an expanded schedule of events to strengthen the Town's year- round guest potential and to provide an amenity for local residents. F. Housing Policy F.1.1: Establish policies and programs that would address housing needs identified in a periodic housins needs assessment. Policy F.1.2: Encourage private development to include a diversity of housing types, sizes, architectural styles, and prices. Goat F.2. Provide a workforce housing program that incorporates both rehfai an d ownership opportunities for residents that are attractive, safe and integrated with the community. Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan Page 50 G. T Goals and Policies Policy F.2.1: Require that development, annexations, and major redevelopment includes or otherwise provides for workforce housing. Policy F.2.2: Require that workforce housing is integrated with, rather than separated from, the rest of the community. Policy F.2.3: Require workforce housing to be close to existing development, serviced by transit, and close to schools /child care. Policy F.2.4: Establish a definitive dwelling unit size and quality standards for required workforce housing as part of any development or redevelopment agreements. Policy F.2.5: Adhere to the principle of "no net loss" to workforce housing. Goal F.3: Participate in countywide housing policies and procedures.. Policy F.3.1: Participate in countywide down - payment assistance program. Policy F.3.2: Collaborate on joint housing studies and strategies to avoid jurisdictional shopping. Goal G.1: Create an integrated transit system that minimizes dependence on automobile travel within the Town by making it easier and more inviting to use transit, walk, ride bicycles, and utilize other non- motorized vehicles. Policy G.1.1: Connect pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular circulation systems with regional transit (including Town of Avon Comprehensive Plan Page 51 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update March 2002 Prepared for: Eagle County Department of Community Development Prepared by a member of the Housing Collaborative: RRC Associates, Inc. 4940 Pearl East Circle, Suite 103 Boulder, Colorado 80301 3031449 -6558 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update 7-r-r-TIP.7.7 17 1117 SUMMARYOF KEY FINDINGS .............................................................................................................. ..............................1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................... ..............................4 PURPOSE......................................................................................................................................................... ............................... 4 STUDYAREA.. ...................................................... — .......................... 4 ORGANIZATIONOF THE REPORT ................................................................................................................. ............................... 6 SECTION I — POPULATION AND DEMOGRAPHICS .................................................................... ..............................7 NUMBER OF PERSONS AND HOUSEHOLDS ................................................................................................. ............................... 7 POPULATIONDISTRIBUTION ........................................................................................................................ ............................... 8 POPULATIONTRENDS ................................................................................................................................... ............................... 8 COMMUNITYCOMPARISONS ........................................................................................................................ ............................... 9 AGE................................................................................................................................................................. .............................10 GENDER............................. ........ ... ... ........................................ :.................................................................... ............................... 11 HOUSEHOLDCOMPOSITION ....................................................................................................................... ............................... 12 CHILDRENIN HOUSEHOLDS ....................................................................................................................... ............................... 15 HOUSEHOLD AND INDIVIDUAL INCOMES ........................... .... .................... —.......................................................................... 15 SECTION2 — EMPLOYMENT ................................................................................................................. .............................17 NUMBEROF JOBS AND EMPLOYEES ..................... ......................... ................. ............................................. — ......................... 17 JOB GROWTH COMPARED TO POPULATION GR OWTH ............................................................................ ............................... 18 EMPLOYMENTBY INDUSTRIAL SECTOR ...................... — ......... . .......................................... .................................................... 20 SEASONAL FLUCTUATION IN EMPLOYMENT ........................................................................................... ............................... 21 JOBGROWTH OVER TIME .......................................................................................................................... ............................... 22 JOB:SPACE RATIOS ...................................................................................................................................... ............................... 23 SECTION3 — COMMUTING .................................................................................................................... .............................26 SECTION 4— HOUSING INVENTORY AND MARKET CONDITIONS ................................... .............................27 NUMBEROF UNITS ...................................................................................................................................... ............................... 27 TENURE......................................................................................................................................................... ............................... 29 HOUSINGCOSTS ............................................................................................................................................ .............................30 COSTOF LIVING ESTIMATES ...................................................................................................................... ............................... 33 SECTION5— HOUSING PROBLEMS ................................................................................................... .............................35 LOCALRESIDENT HOUSING ....................................................................................................................... ............................... 35 AFFORDABILITY.......................................................................................................................................... ............................... 35 AVAILABILITY............................................................................................................................................. ............................... 36 Rentals ......♦ .. ........ ......... ........ ForSale ..................................................................................................................................................... .............................39 IMPEDIMENTSTO OWNERSHIP ................................................................................................................... ............................... 40 SECTION 6 — SOLUTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES ....................................................................... .............................42 SUMMARYOF 1999 SURVEY FINDINGS ................................................................................................... ............................... 42 TargetMarkets ......................................................................................................................................... .............................42 DeedRestrictions ..................................................................................................................................... .............................42 TradeOffs .................................................................................................................................................. .............................42 EmployeeHousing Alternatives ............................................................................................................ .............................43 WhereHousing Should Be Built ............................................................................................................ .............................43 Responsibility for Local Resident Housing ......................................................................................... .............................43 EmployerResponses ................................................................................................................................ .............................43 RRC ASSOCIATES contents Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update SECTION7— DESIGN ................................................................................................................................. .............................44 SUMMARY OF 1999 SURVEY FINDINGS ..................................................................................................... .............................44 UnitTypes ................................................................................................................................................. .............................44 Amenitiesand Location .......................................................................................................................... .............................44 SECTION8— TRENDS ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................ .............................45 INCOMELEVELS ............................................................................................................................................ .............................45 HOUSINGCOSTS ............................................................................................................................................ .............................46 AGE............................................................................................................................................................... ............................... 46 CHILDREN..................................................................................................................................................... ............................... 46 PERSONSPER HOUSEHOLD .......................................................................................................................... .............................47 SATISFACTION WITH HOUSING .................................................................................................................. ............................... 48 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY ......................................................................................................................... ............................... 49 Overall....................................................................................................................................................... .............................49 RenterHouseholds .................................................................................................................................. .............................50 SECTION 9— CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... .............................51 1999 SURVEY VERSUS PUBLIC INFORMATION SOURCES ...................................................................... ............................... 51 POPULATION................................................................................................................................................. ............................... 51 EMPLOYMENT............ .............................................. : ................................................................................................... ............... 52 COMMUTING................................................................................................................................................ ............................... 52 HOUSING SUPPLY AND COSTS ................................................................................................................... ............................... 52 HOUSING INVENTORY AND MARKET CONDITIONS ................................................................................ ............................... 53 RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................................................................... ............................... 53 RRC ASSOCIATES contents Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS Population Growth • Eagle County was the tenth fastest growing county in the United States between 1990 and 2000, with a 90 percent increase in population. Household Composition 20.9 percent of all primary residents in Eagle County live alone. Adults living alone and single parents with children constitute a larger percentage of renters than owners. Vail has the highest percentage of non-family households (65 percent) in Eagle County. Only 13 percent of Vail households have children, whereas 51 percent of down-valley households have children (including Eagle, Gypsum, Dotsero, Wolcott and adjacent rural areas). • The majority of homeowners in Eagle County are families (couples, couples with children, and single parents with children). Family households comprise 75 percent of all down -valley households, whereas only 35 percent of Vail households are families. Tenure • The homeownership rate in Eagle County increased from 54.2 percent in 1990 to 62.1 percent in 2000. This rate varies by region, with over a 75 percent homeownership rate in Gypsum and a 47 percent homeownership rate in Avon. Employment • The average employee in Eagle County holds 1.2 jobs. • Total filled jobs in Eagle County increased about 83 percent between 1990 through 1999, whereas the local employed workforce (residents of Eagle County that are employed) increased only 67 percent, requiring more out-of-county commuters to fill local positions. • Where the resident population of Eagle County increased 82 percent between 1990 and 1999, the local employed population increased only 67 percent, implying growth in retirees and other unemployed persons during this period. RRC ASSOCIATES Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Wages The retail trade and services sectors comprised 59 percent of the wage and salary jobs in Eagle County in 2000. These jobs also paid the lowest average wages of all other job classifications. Only the professions of finance, real estate, and construction paid average yearly wages exceeding 80 percent of the area median income as defined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for single-person households ($38,160) in the year 2000. Commuting • The daily miles traveled in Eagle County increased by 40 percent between 1991 and 1998. 14 percent of those who work in Eagle County live outside the county. Housing Affordability and Availability • The median price of a home in Eagle County nearly doubled between 1995 ($250,000) and 2000 ($489,950). • Wages and income are lagging far behind the cost of home ownership. Between 1995 and 1999, home ownership costs associated with purchasing a home in the respective year increased by 87 percent, while individual income increased about 28 percent and wages increased only 24 percent, • Average rents in Eagle County are among the highest in the state and rental vacancy rates are among the lowest in the state per the State of Colorado, Division of Housing, 2001 Rental Vacancy Survey. • Almost 54 percent of all housing units in Vail and 27 percent of all housing units in Eagle County were vacant for "seasonal, recreational, or occasional use" per the 2000 Census. As of October 3,- 2001, only 6 percent of all single-family and duplex homes for sale were under $300,000 (39 homes total; 26 of which were in Gypsum). Only 45 percent of all purchased residential properties in 2000 went to buyers with an Eagle County address. Impediments to Home Ownership • In 2000, 38 percent of Eagle County residents rented. Per the 1999 Eagle County community survey, the primary reasons cited for not purchasing a home include the cost of housing and the high down payment required. RRC ASSOCIATES 2 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update In 1999 it was estimated that as many as 1,790 renters are interested and could potentially afford to purchase a home, though prices would need to be substantially below current market levels. Deed Restrictions • Potential home buyers stated that with a 3 percent cap on annual appreciation, a home would need to be priced 23 percent below market value in order for them to buy it. Satisfaction With Housing More renters reported being dissatisfied with their housing in 1999 (47 percent) than in 1990 (32 percent). Cost-Burdened Households • The percentage of cost burdened households (e.g. households paying over 30 percent of their income for housing costs) increased from 15.5 percent in 1990 to 19.6 percent in 1999. The percentage of cost burdened renter households was estimated to be a much higher 30 percent in 1999. RRC ASSOCIATES Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update INTRODUCTION ION The ^19SB Eagle County Housing Needs ^bvRees Consulting, |no. and the Housing Collaborative, provided important information on the demographics of Eagle County's population, their housing needs, the impact that housing has on employers, and the opinions that both employers and residents have about housing. The primary sources ofinformation were from surveys of households and both private and public-sector employers in February and March of199g. The document also used multiple sources of published material, including: • Population and housing unit estimates for July 1997 from the State Office; • Apartment vacancy rates from the Colorado Division of Housing and the Eagle County Housing Division; • Employment estimates from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment and the U8 Bureau of Economic Analysis (18SO through 1gS0); and' • Real estate sales and listings from the Vail Board of Realtors K4u|bp|a Listing Service. Since the 1999 report was issued, data for 1999and 2000 from the 2000 US Census, US Department of HUD, U8Department of Economic Analysis, the Colorado State Demographer, and other public sources has become available. - FhiapnovdesdleVpportunitvto compare the results and conclusions reported in the "1999 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment" to available data from these public sources and to provide updated figures, where applicable, for the year 2OOO. Purpose The purpose of this report isbo update the results and conclusions reported in the ^1S89Eagle County Housing Needs ^bv Rees Consulting, |no, and the Housing Collaborative, to available public data for 19SS and 2U0O. The 1S9S survey ie more area specific than the public data presently available, particularly with regard to local perceptions for housing needs and desires, incomes and employment in each community, and household composition differences among owners and renters. This update focuses mn the more quantitative _ available ____-____ through the 2000 U.S. Census and other public data sources. Questions of more qualitative substance are addressed more thoroughly in the 199S survey report. Study Area The 1999 report included all of Eagle County, excluding the Basalt Census County Subdivision (CCD) area shown on the following map. The 190G report also divided the Eagle County area into three nub-Gneaa: (1) the Vail area; (2) Mid-valley, which encompassed Red Cliff, K4inturn, Eagle-Vail, Avon, Beaver Creek, Edvv8nda' GinQ|etnae and adjacent rural areas; and (3) [)ovvn- mRCxSSooxTEu Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment valley, which included Eagle, Gypsum, Dotsero, Wolcott and adjacent rural areas. Available 2000 U.S. Census, U.S. Department of HUD, U.S. Department of Economic Analysis, and Colorado State Demographer data were divided into similar regiona, vvheng the Vail area includes the Town of Vail; Mid-valley includes Red Cliff, K8inturn, Eagle-Vail, Edvvards, and Avon; and Down-valley includes Eagle and Gypsum. Where available, data for the Basalt CCD region has also been included in this report. Boundaries DO County '00 Go Sub DO Gubbrri, DO Place DO Place /400 Con City '90 UA Features Major Road StreamMaterbou /x etmammvote,uuuy Basalt Census County Subdivisiom(CC0) Region 40 miles across Map Source: Census 20OO.U.S. Census Bureau. The region inbright yellow (Basalt CCD) was excluded from the "Eagle County study area" in the 1999 survey report and has been included herein where data ioavailable. nocAoSocmToa 5 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Organization of the Report For ease of comparison, this report follows the same organization as the 1999 survey report. Sections discussing qualitative and community-specific information that is not available through public data sources contain brief summaries of the 1999 survey findings. The following nine major topics are discussed: • Population and Demographics • Employment information • Commuting • Housing Inventory and Market Conditions • Housing problems • Solutions and Opportunities • Housing Design • Trends Analysis • Conclusions and Recommendations. — update; — update; — summary of 1999 findings; — update; — update; — summary of 1999 findings; — summary of 1999 findings; — update; and RRC ASSOCIATES 6 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update L This section of the report describes the residents and households of Eagle County, including: • Number of persons and households; • Population distribution; • Population trends and community comparisons; • Age and gender; • Household composition; • Children in households; and • Household and individual incomes. The 1999 survey report contains additional information on renter versus owner household compositions, household size, average incomes for each community, and length of residency, as this information was not available through the U.S. Census and other public sources. In general, it was found that the percentages and figures presented in the 1999 survey report tend to differ from those reported by the U.S. Census and Colorado State Demographer. However, the conclusions reached from the interrelationships of these figures were fairly consistent. Number of Persons and Households The following table shows population and housing estimates for the year 2000, where it is estimated that 41,659 people resided in a total of 15,148 households in Eagle County. Eagle County Population and Households, 2000 Vail 2,165 2.09 4,531 M 16 tu" r'n '' Red Cliff 109 2.65 289 Mott Eagle 1,064 2.80 3,032 Eagle-Vaill CDR 2,887 Edwards CDP 2,852 2.89 8,257 dy, psurn, i 50, 3� 3,8 54- Basalt (MCP) 751 2.60 1,952 Unincorporated 30 1685- 2.81, A, 42& Total 15,148 2.73 41,659 Source: Census 2000, U.S. Census Bureau RRC ASSOCIATES 7 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Population Distribution Based on 2000 Census data, the majority of Eagle County residents reside in the unincorporated Edwards area, followed by Basalt CCD, and Avon. Edwards and Basalt CCD also have the most occupied households and Vail (rather than Avon) follows third. This difference is due to smaller average residents per household in Vail (2.09) than other areas (upwards of 2.60 persons per household in all other regions). Population Distribution Bas Edwards CDP 20% Red Cliff - Minturn Eagle-Vail CDP Avon Rural 13% 12% 2000 Census Population Trends Eagle 7% Gypsum 9% /ail 1% Occupied Household Distribution Avon Rural 12% 12% Population estimates at the community level are available from the State Demographer through April 2000. With the exception of 1999 to 2000, annual population growth rates range from about 6% to just over 8%. Rates of Growth in Total Eagle County Population, 1990 — 2000 Yeats 1990-' 1992: i 1993-," 1994 199 19W 1997-'1998-: 91 92-' 01-, 94 9 9& 99: ` ,, 00" Growth rate 7.0% 6.3% 7.6% 8.2% 6.4% 6,6% 6.9% 6.8% 61% 4.4% Sources: Colorado Division of Local Government, Demography Section (data), Calculations by RRC Associates. Growth rates for Eagle County and each community from 1990 through 2000 are shown in the following graph. Only the unincorporated area, Avon, and Gypsum show continual growth RRC ASSOCIATES 8 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update during this period. Vail shows a relatively constant population from 1996 through 2000, whereas the Eagle County portion of the Town of Basalt shows the most growth in the past two years. Some of the larger spikes in population growth rates (e.g. Avon 1992 -93) may be due, in part, to annexations and large residential projects being completed. 30.0% 25.0% C 0 20.0% a 0 15.0% m 10.0% t v 5.0% d a. 0.0% -5.0% Population Growth Rates in Each Community, 1990 -2000 Eagle Avon Basalt Eagle Gypsum Mintum Red Cliff Vail Unincorp. County (MCP) Area Source: Colorado Division of Local Government, Demography Section (data) Community Comparisons Colorado was the fifth fastest growing state in the nation between 1990 and 2000. Eagle County was the tenth fastest growing county in the United States for the same period. Percent growth in Eagle County and other Colorado counties are shown in the following table. Growth Comparison State of Colorado 30.6% 3 Counties . Elbert 106.0% 3 Eagle 90.0% 10 San Miguel 80.5 % 18 Source: U.S. Census Bureau RRC ASSOCIATES 9 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Age The median age of residents in Eagle County is 31.2 years, according to 2000 Census estimates. The population has aged slightly since 1990, when the median age was about 30 years. This is further shown in the following table, where the largest percent increase in population occurred between the ages of 45 and 64 and the relative percentage of the population under 18 and between 25 and 44 actually decreased. Age Distribution of Entire Eagle County Population Under 18 25.6% 23.5% 25-34 27.3% 23.1% 45-54 8.3% 14.0% 65 or over 3.2% 10%, The following figure presents the age distribution for each Eagle County region based on 2000 Census results. This figure shows that there are distinct differences between each area, including: • Vail has a higher percentage of younger adults in the 18 to 24 and 25 to 34 age categories than the Basalt CCD and all communities in the Mid- and Down-valley areas; • Vail has a higher percentage of adults in the 55-64 and 65 and over age categories than the Basalt CCD, Mid-, and Down-valley areas. Only the individual community of Red Cliff surpasses Vail, where about 18.7% of Red Cliffs population is 55 and over; • Vail has the lowest percentage of adults in the 35-44 age category than all other regions; and • The Basalt CCD area has the highest percentage of adults in the 45-54 age category, followed by the Down-valley area and Vail. The Mid-valley area as a whole has fewer adults in the 45-54 age group than Vail, but the individual communities of Edwards (14.8%) and Eagle-Vail (14.4%) surpass Vail. RRC ASSOCIATES 1 0 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update <18 18-24 yrs 25-34 yrs 35-44 yrs 45-54 yrs 55-64 yrs >65 Age Distribution of Eagle County Population, 2000 Census 0.0% 5,0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% Percent of Households Gender Based on the 2000 Census, about 54.8% of Eagle County residents are male and 45.2% are female. Ratios ranged from 52.2% male in Eagle to 58.6% male in Avon. Gender by Area Male 54.8% 58.4% 55.2% 52.7% 52.3% Fern fe 452% 41.6% 48% 47.3%, 471% Source: Census 2000, U.S. Census Bureau RRC ASSOCIATES II Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Household Composition Living alone Non-family households Children inhome Family households Household composition by area, Census 2000 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percent of Households Given that 2OOO Census surveys were distributed in April 2000' Census results tend to under- represent theeeGaona|popu|ationeinreeodoreae.eucheeEao|eCountv This primarily affects the number of renter and non-family households, which tend to be higher during peak season. Overall, 2OU0 Census data indicates that, for Eagle County aeawhole: w Families couples with children, and single parents with children) comprise the majority of households (59.5%) in Eagle County; * Households comprised of roommates U.e."mm-family households" minus household "living a|one^\ constitute 1S.896ofhouseholds. * Vail consists of primarily non-f3nnik/houoehn|dsmnd8dulta|hvingmkona.vvhareaefanliUes and families with children are most common in the Down-valley region of the County; RRC ASSOCIATES 12 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update • Households in Vail are least likely to have children of all regions (12.6%); • The community of Gypsum reports the highest percentage of households with children in the home (53.5%); and • Down-valley has the most children (50.5% of households). Ml Mi 0 bo 5 50 40 30 0 20 IL 10 A Percent of Owner- and Renter-Occupied Households by Region owner-occupied housing units renter-occupied housing units Source: Census 2000, U.S. Census Bureau M Gypsum 0 Basalt CCD 0 Edwards CDP C3 Red Cliff N Eagle-Vail CDP M Eagle County M Eagle 0 Vail M Minturn EJAvon According to the 2000 Census, the homeownership rate in the Eagle County study area is 62.1 % (up from 54.2% in 1990). Only the community of Avon shows that the majority of households rent (52.7%), followed by Minturn (48.6%) and Vail (47.7%). Gypsum, on the other hand, has the highest ownership rate, at over 75%. The 1999 survey further defined household composition by whether the residence was owned or rented by its inhabitants. General conclusions for the Eagle County study area (e.g. not including the Basalt CCD region) were: • About 75% of homeowners are couples or couples with children; • Approximately 50% of renters are either couples or couples with children; • About 20% of renter households consist of unrelated roommates; and RRC ASSOCIATES 13 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Adults living alone and single parents with children constitute a larger percentage of renters than owners. The 1999 survey also revealed variations in household composition between different regions of the County, as shown in the following table. In general, it was found that: • Vail has the largest percentage of homeowners who are couples, while down valley has the largest percentage of homeowners who are couples with children and • Vail has the largest percentage of renters who are unrelated roommates, while down valley has the largest percentage of renters who are couples with children. Household Composition by Area and Own/Rent Adult living alone 20% 16% 13% 23% 9% 10% 0, $116gWo parent chiildrai*' 2%::,' 4%, 56/0 6%, 12°10 Couple 38% 28% 34% 24% 30% 24% COUple, with ,child,ren 21%,:,,�� '366%`,: 194/6, 50% 43%,' Unrelated roommates 11% 36% 6% 23% 3% 7% at' 8" 2%, Family 4'r6othm es-,""" 6% 5 Other 3% 0% 1% 1% 1% 2% '' Totat, 1000/0 1000/6 100% 100W, 100%, 100%, Source: "Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 1999," Rees Consulting, Inc. and the Housing Collaborative The 2000 Census data tends to support the general conclusion made in 1999 regarding homeowners being predominately couples or couples with children (i.e. family households). The following figure shows that those regions of Eagle County with the highest percent of family households also tend to have the highest ownership rates. RRC ASSOCIATES 14 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment 0 0 0 4- 0 a. 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 Occupied Housing Characteristics by Region owner-occupied family households non-family households housing units Source: Census 2000, U.S. Census Bureau Children in Households N Down-valley 13 Basalt CCD ❑ Mid-valley N Vail As stated above (Household Composition), households in Vail are least likely to have children under the age of 18 in Eagle County. Census 2000 data reports that about 13% of Vail households contain children under 18 (0.21 per household), 33% Mid-valley (0.64 per household), and 50% Down-valley (0.96 per household). Additionally, about 44% of the Basalt CCD households have children (0.79 per household). Overall, about 35% of all County households have a member under age 18, for an average of 0.65 children per household. Household and Individual Incomes According to US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimates, the median family income (e.g. family of four) in Eagle County was $64,300 in 1999 and $68,100 in 2000. The average per capita personal income, as estimated by the US Bureau of Economic Analysis, was $39,304 in 1999. The 1999 survey median income of $65,000 for families closely reflects the HUD estimate. The 1999 survey average income of $55,424 is much larger than the average estimated by the Bureau of Economic Analysis, attributed primarily to the over- representation of homeowners and inclusion of several households with very large incomes in the survey. The 1999 survey median income of 40,000 for individuals better reflects the Bureau of Economic Analysis estimate. RRC ASSOCIATES 15 County Housing Needs Assessment Update Median Family and Average Per Capita Personal Incomes (Thousands), 1991-2000 Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); US Bureau of Economic Analysis The 1999 survey report further defined median incomes by region and found that: "Median household incomes are highest in the Edwards/Homestead/Singletree area and lowest in Minturn/Red Cliff; Residents of Vail have the highest average individual incomes, however, residents of the Edwards/Homestead/Singletree area have the highest median income; and • Minturn/Red Cliff residents have the lowest average and median incomes." Further, based on 1999 survey responses, over 66% of respondents that own housing in Eagle County earn over 100% of the median income for the area. Comparatively (and not surprisingly), over 60% of those that rent housing earn 100% or less of the median income. This is reflected in the following table. Owner and Renter Household Incomes as a Percentage of the Median, 1999 50% or under 67% 16.8% 8.8% 810/6-100% 17.1% 23.8% 18.5% 10190 121 % or more 54.3% 24.5% 48.2%, Source: 1999 survey responses compiled by RRC Associates, Inc. RRC ASSOCIATES 16 1990" 1999 21W, Family $38.4 $41.3 $47.5 $50,6 $51.9 $56.8 $59.3 $60.9 $64.3 $68.1 Per C $301 '$qZ' $�S' $37,9, 3 Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); US Bureau of Economic Analysis The 1999 survey report further defined median incomes by region and found that: "Median household incomes are highest in the Edwards/Homestead/Singletree area and lowest in Minturn/Red Cliff; Residents of Vail have the highest average individual incomes, however, residents of the Edwards/Homestead/Singletree area have the highest median income; and • Minturn/Red Cliff residents have the lowest average and median incomes." Further, based on 1999 survey responses, over 66% of respondents that own housing in Eagle County earn over 100% of the median income for the area. Comparatively (and not surprisingly), over 60% of those that rent housing earn 100% or less of the median income. This is reflected in the following table. Owner and Renter Household Incomes as a Percentage of the Median, 1999 50% or under 67% 16.8% 8.8% 810/6-100% 17.1% 23.8% 18.5% 10190 121 % or more 54.3% 24.5% 48.2%, Source: 1999 survey responses compiled by RRC Associates, Inc. RRC ASSOCIATES 16 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment SECTION 2 — EMPLOYMENT This section of the report examines employment in Eagle County. Much ofthe community-specific information ie not available from the 20OO Census and other public sources. The 1999 survey report, therefore, provides more information on the number and type of jobs within each Eagle County community, as well as local area incomes, seasonal employment, job location, and employer perceptions of housing problems and resulting impacts on employment. Information and updates are provided for the following sections: • Number of Jobs and Employees; • Job Growth Compared 1V Population Growth; • Employment bv Industrial Sector; • Seasonal Fluctuation inEmployment; • Job Growth Over Time; and • Job:SpaoaRatioe. Number of Jobs and Employees According to the UG Bureau of Economic Analysis, there were approximately 37,457 full- and part-time jobs inEag|oCountvasavvhoksin19S9.Thieiae|i htlykow«*rthanUleestrnatein8le 1999 survey report of 38,140. Alternatively, the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment reports E8202 wage and salary jobs, which tend to be much lower than US Bureau of Economic Analysis estimates. ES202 jobs include wage and salary positions covered by unemployment compensation insurance and do not include exempt wage and salary positions (i.e. jobs with certain utilities and non-profit organizations including churches) or sole proprietors (self-employed persons and jobs on cornnnieo|on, such as maa| estate agents). The State estimated there were 28'200wage and salary jobs in Eagle County, on average, in 2000, reflecting a 3.3% increase in jobs since 1988. If the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis estimate of full- and part-time jobs increased at the same 3.3q6rate as ES202 jobs between 19QS and 2OOO. then this means that there were approximately 38,690 total full- and part-time jobs in 2000. The following graph shows the relative growth in total full- and wage and salary positions, and proprietors' employment between 1991 and 2000 in Eagle County aea whole. {JvenaU' total jobs inonaoead about 83.6% between 1991 and 2000. where wage and salary employment rose about 85% and sole proprietor employment increased at ae|iQhUy slower rate of about 7896. axcxyuoouAToo 17 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update 40,000 o 35,000 CL � 30,000 25,000 m 20,000 M � 15. O00 � 73 10,000 0 5.00 � Employment Estimates, 1991_2000* .§' q1 ,� �� IV Source: US Bureau nfEconomic Analysis *2000 figures eadmutedbyuonumingfull-oodyart-dmcjohoiuo,cmmduttbcsumo,uteumES202wa8cjobs between l999 and 200O(3.3%). Because employees in most mountain resort communities hold more than one job due to low wages, seasonal and/or part-time work, and o high cost of living, the number of full-time and part-time jobs in an area tends to exceed the actual number of employees. The 1899survey found that employees hold an average of 1.2 jobs in Eagle County in the winter season. By dividing the estirnatadnunnbaroffuU- endpart-timne jobs by1.2 jobs per employee, vve find that there were about 32,242 employees holding 38,690 jobs in the year 2000 for Eagle County as a whole. The Bureau of Economic Analysis does not provide data ot the town level. Job Growth Compared to Population Growth Eagle population increased about 90% between 1990 and 2000. whereas total kjobs increased about 92%in the same period. Average yearly rates of change in population &0.896\ and total jobs (6.8%) since 189O differ bv only about U.296. Average population growth since 1990 equaled or exceeded job growth until 1995, when job growth began exceeding increases in the population, onaverage. When job growth exceeds the number of locally available ennp|myeme needed to fill jobs, then jobs are typically left unfilled or commuters fill available jobs. ASSOCIATES 18 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Population and Job Growth Compared Year Population Rate of Change,,, Totat jobs ; ` Rafe of CMange' 1990 21,928 20,176 1991 ,458= .0a 21;07 4.50% 1992 24,940 6.3% 22,205 5.4% X99 '26,832:1 24,284 1994 29,027 8.2% 26,682 10.2% 1096 t}883 , 61.4% ' ' :; 28,149.4° 1996 32,928 6.6% 30,717 7.2% 199 3,28 34; 1tt.9la 1998 37,614 6.8 °I° 36,090 5.9% 199:: 3,909_ 6.1 %� : `. ; =,45 3.°l 2000 41,659 4.4% 38,690 (estimated) 3.3% (estimated) Source: Colorado Division of Local Government Demography Section, U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis The Colorado Department of Local Affairs provides estimates for the local employed labor force and total jobs filled in Eagle County. This information is compiled from several sources, including the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Labor Market Information; the Colorado Division of Local Government, Demography Section; and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The local employed labor force includes estimated proprietors and self - employed individuals. Total Filled Jobs vs. Local Employed Workforce, 1990 to 1999 lJ 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Colorado Economic and Demographic Information System 1.18 RRC ASSOCIATES 19 Employed Persons illed Jobs • lif • G C Y� w lJ 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 Source: Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Colorado Economic and Demographic Information System 1.18 RRC ASSOCIATES 19 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update The above graph illustrates that filled jobs exceeded the growth in the local working labor force throughout most of the 1QSO'ein Eagle County. Overall, filled jobs increased about 83Y6from 1990 through 19SS' whereas the |ouo| employed wmrWon:a increased only 67%. On average, there were about 1.25 filled jobs per local worker in1890 and 1.34 jobs per local worker in1S89. Because out-of-county (non-loca'l) workers are not included in the local employed labor force count, the actual number of jobs each local worker holds is most likely less than 1.34. However, the data shows that jobs have been growing faster than the local workforce throughout the 1990's, increasing the need for out-of-county commuters to fill available positions. Taken one step further, we see that, while the resident population of Eagle County increased 8296 between 199O and 18SS. the local employed population increased only 07Y6. This implies that growth in the unemployed population in Eagle County also occurred. Because the percent of the population under 18 actually decreased during this period and increased the most between the ages of45 and G4. this indicates more of the unemployed growth occurred inthe older population (e.g. retirees, etc.). Employment by Industrial Sector Approximately 59% of the wage and salary jobs in Eagle County were in the retail trade and services sectors in 2000. According to the Colorado Department of Labor and retail wages in Eagle County averaged $2O'S48in2OOO and services averaged $30.053. This reflects respective 7.5% and 2O.6% increase in average wages since 1gS7. Wage and Salary Jobs By Industrial Sector, 2000 Other (nining.og. Source: ES2O2 data, Colorado Department of Labor and Employment RRC ASSOCIATES 20 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update The following table shows average wages for each employment category reported by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. This shows that "Service" and "Retail" offer the lowest average wages of each job classification, yet they comprise the majority of jobs in Eagle County. Information on regional employment and income levels within Eagle County was not available from the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. Average Individual Income and Wages by Type of Employment, 1999 and 2000 Service Construction/trade $28,398 35% $2 $36,563 16% $30,053 $38,490 Finance, insurance, real estate $35,466 8% $38,345 -rrarisp a6d', {curt o'Lititities, Other (mining, ag, wholesale) $30,987 3% $32,130 W66 focturin $$37 Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Labor Market Information (ES202) Seasonal Fluctuation in Employment As reported in the 1999 survey report, "Eagle County's seasonal fluctuation in employment is typical of patterns in other counties where destination ski resorts are located." For all years except 1999, the number of jobs peaks in December and reaches a low in May, showing a difference of over 6,000 jobs between the two months. Jobs again increase slightly through August, reflecting summer seasonal employment. The seasonal pattern of ES202 employment for 1997 through 2000 is shown in the following graph. RRC ASSOCIATES 21 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment U 35,000 N 30,000 0 N Cn W N a 0 25,000 !z m R N r m 20,000 d m 3 m 0 15,000 10,000 ES202 Employment by Month, 1997 -2000 Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Labor Market Information (ES202) P Job Growth Over Time Over three - fourths of employers surveyed in 1999 reported they had more employees in 1999 than five years ago, 7% had fewer employees, and 12% had no change. Comparatively, the following graph shows the percent change in job growth by category from 1995 through 2000, as reported by ES202 data. RRC ASSOCIATES 22 Percent Change in Number of Jobs By Category, 1995 to 2000 - 10.0% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Other (mining, ag, wholesale) 0 � 68.8% Constructions , =w ^ , *,. w. 59.2% Transportation and public utilities 47.7% m Finance, insurance, real estate ;,,��� ,u, �� 36.0% m H Services r , 33.4% N d N Government, ,� s 23.9% 3 m Retail trade 22.0% Manufacturing p' -6.6% Total 33.8 °l0 Source: Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Labor Market Information (ES202) RRC ASSOCIATES 22 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Of those businesses showing an increase ink jobs since 1995'"8enioea"and had the largest numerical increase in available kjobs, at2/4&2 and 1.71S, respectively. /\bennBUve|y. "Other^and~Tnanepodabon^ had the least number ofnew jobs offered, at308 and 312. respectively. According to the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, the following businesses (category in parentheses) had fewer jobs available in 2000 than in 1995: • (Manufacturing) stone, clay, glass; lumber; furniture; miscellaneous • (Re[Gi|) apparel and accessories; food stores � (VVho|aaa|a) non-durable goods � (Government) state * (Finonce/|neunonoe/Reo| Estate) insurance carriers According to the 1999 survey, approximately 38% of those employers reporting @n increase in the number of their employees cited expanded hours ore more demanding clientele as the main reason for the growth. The study concluded that these employers are doing more business with the same square footage, thus necessitating additional employees. J Ratios The number of jobs created per 1.00square feet of space varies by type of business. The following figures help determine the impacts to housing caused bv commercial growth bv quantifying the typical number of jobs required for different uses. These figures are based mna composite of over 1,700 business surveys from the following communities: "Bbaine County, |D: 1990, 1996 • Chaffee County: 1994 • 2001 ^ Eagle County: 1890.1998.1909.2001 " Estes Park: 1991, 1999 -Frisco: 1998 • 2001 • Pitkin County: 1991 °Rnutt 1980 " San Miguel County: 2000 °SnmwmaoeVillage: 1999 " Summit County: 1990, 2001 ^ Grand County: 1992, 2001 °TeUuride: 1883'1896.2001 -Gunnison County: 1992, 1998 °Composite of Pitkin, Eagle, and Garfield Counties (per Healthy Mountain Communities surveys of18S7/98season) nnc4nsoc»AoES 23 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Jobs Per 1,000 Square Feet and Per Room/Unit by Business Type Bar/restaurant 7.37 8.0 181 Ski area/recreation/affractions/amusements 4.49 5.8 56 i,uctiprit,ad 6s �onstr fr,, I 1 1, , 7 - Finance/insurance 3.21 3.2 40 eat est-0 1l General retail/grocery/liquor/convenience 2.96 3.0 382 Edl0c Government 2.24 1.8 66 warefioOsolstorage � 24, Service commercial 1.99 1.4 87 Manufacturing 1.48 2.9 7 Property management 0.30/unit 0.35/unit 23 Source: Employer surveys conducted by RRC Associates, Inc., Rees Consulting, Inc. (members of The Housing Collaborative, Inc.) from 1990 to the present. The job generation figures for 2001 contain about 500 more business records than those reported in 1999. The business categories of "Construction," "Finance/insurance," "General retail," "Warehouse/storage," and "Utilities" show little or no change in job:space ratios. These businesses either had fairly substantive sample sizes in 1999 or showed little change in the sample size since 1999, making them subject to little variation. Alternatively, the categories of "Real estate," "Education," "Transportation," "Ski area/recreation," and "Manufacturing" show relatively large changes in job:space ratios. These categories either had small sample sizes in 1999, where the addition of a few records causes more variability than with larger sample sizes, or they saw a significant increase in the number of survey responses since 1999 (e.g. "Real estate" and "Education" sample sizes increased over 100%). The relatively large change in "Hotel/lodging" is primarily due to an increase of nearly 100 records since 1999 and improved quality control measures. Interestingly, both "Government" and "Property Management" have ,relatively small sample sizes and saw an increase of over 50% in the sample size since 1999, yet show a relatively small change in job:space ratios. Of the remaining categories, it appears that "Bar /restaurant' businesses have become more employee intensive over time (e.g. more employees in the same or less space). Because this category has a fairly substantial sample size and saw only a moderate increase in the number of records since 1999, the increased RRC ASSOCIATES 24 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update job:space ratio indicates that the new records are consistently more employee intensive than earlier database records. "Service commercial" also saw a moderate increase in records, however, the job:space ratio change is primarily due to the addition of one very large business with a relatively low job:space ratio, rather than from a consistent drop in job:space ratios across all new records. RRC ASSOCIATES 25 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update According to the Colorado Department of Transportation, doik/vehiclerni|oatnavakedonFedene| and State Highways in Eagle County increased about 40% between 1991 and 1998. This data includes local commuters, destination travelers, and those just "passing through." 3299KII 1,700,000 � 1.600.000 + 1,500,000 1,400,000 1,300,000 :E 1,200,000 > 1,100,000 m 1.000.000 Daily Vehicle Miles Traveled in Eagle County, 1991-1998 ^� �01 *r «� R R R 0� Source: Colorado Department uf Transportation (Federal and State Highway travel only) The 1S99 survey report evaluated local commuter patterns based onsurvey respondents' work and housing locations. |nter- ondintrm-counh/comnnnuUngpattemnevvene evaluated, along with commuter household costs, tenure, and composition; preferences concerning where commuters want to live; commuting patterns (length, number of days per week, transportation used); sources of income and types of jobs held; and number of jobs held and hours worked. The 198g surveys found that there h;@ significant level of commuting within the County. Avon and Vail house the lowest percentage Vf their workforce /3O96 and 3596' respectively) ond Gypsum houses the highest percentage (78%). Only 65% of Vail's residents work in the community and 57% of Avon's residents work in Avon. Changing these patterns may be difficult, as most in-county residents stated that they live in their preferred region of the County. About 14%ofEagle employees live outside the County. Approximately half of the inter-county commuters live in Lake County and the majority work in Vail. Overall, about one- third The 1999survey report should be referred to for more detail on commuting patterns and preferences in Eagle County. The primary public data sources referenced herein do not provide the level of detail available through the community surveys. mmASSOcmrES Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update SEcTioN 4 — HousiNe INVENTORY AND MARKET CONDITIONS This section of the report describes the housing supply inEagle County. It includes: * Estimates of the total number mf residential units bx area and the number occupied bvlocal residents aatheir primary horneo; • Tenure • Housing costs; and • Cost of living. Specifics on the type of housing units occupied and available in each region and the number of bedrooms and bathrooms in each occupied household was not available. The 19S8survey report should be referenced for this level of detail. Number of Units The 1999survey report utilized State Demographer estimates of occupied and vacant housing units to find that about 4OY6of all housing units in Eagle County were used as second homes and vacation accommodations in1997. Further, Vail had the lowest percent mfoccupied, primary residences in the County (2896). Census 2000 information further breaks down unoccupied housing into units that are "for sale," ''for rent," "rented or sold but yet not occupied," "for seasonal, neoneationa|, or occasional uae." "for migratory vvorkers." and "other." Eagle County Housing Units and Occupancy Estimate, 2000 Avon 2,557 73.9% 20.5% Eagle 1.116 85.3& 0.8% to Edwards CDP 3,953 72.1% 24.5% MNUnturn/Red Cliff 570 71.8% 6i19& Eagle County 22,111 68.5% 26.8% Source: Census 2000, U.S. Census Bureau RRC ASSOCIATES 27 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update /\o seen inthe above table, Census 2000 reports that approximately 08.5%of all available housing units were occupied in Eagle County and 28.8% of all units were vacant due bo ' ^eeaaona|. recreational, or occasional uaa." Much lower occupancy rates were reported for Vail (40.296)' where over ha/fof all housing units (53.096) were for ''seosonm|. recreational, or occasional use." Compared b] the 1S87State Demographer estimates, the Census 2U0O figures indicate that primary home occupancies in Eagle County increased from 8O.1%in1987kzG8.5Y6in20O0. Alternatively, Colorado State Demographer estimates indicate that primary home occupancies decreased to57.5Y6in1S8S. 100% 80% 0% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Eagle County Housing Occupancy, 1996-1999 0 Percent Occupied 0 Percent Vacant 1996 1997 1998 1999 Guunm: Colorado Division of Local Government, Demography Section Colorado State Demographer estimates were derived by projecting popu|ationaand housing occupancies from the 1990 Census. This explains why 1999 State Demographer housing occupancy percentages tend tobe fairly similar to those reported in the 198OCensus. The 2000 Census, on the other hand, being based on new survey information, shows fairly different housing occupancy percentages than those reported in 1990 (see following table). State Demographer estimates are subject to change as more information from the 2000 Census is released. uxox000cmTEm 28 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Eagle County Housing Units and Occupancy Estimate, 1990 and 2000 Avon 52.6% 73.9% Eagle 94.9% 95.3% Minturn 89.6% 89.1% Vail 27.5% 40.2% Per the above table, the following observations are made: Percent occupancies in Eagle County increased from 54.9% in 1990 to 68.5% in 2000 based on Census results. Avon shows the highest increase in occupancies during this period (21.3%), followed by Vail (12.7%); • Minturn, Red Cliff, and Basalt are the only communities showing a slight loss in primary housing occupancies between 1990 and 2000 based on Census comparisons; and Based on the Census 2000 estimates, over 6,900 housing units were used for other than primary homes in Eagle County in 2000. Tenure Census 2000 figures show that the homeownership rate in Eagle County in the year 2000 was 62.1 % (up from 54.2% in 1990). Homeownership rates also vary by area, where: The Basalt CCD area has the highest percentage of homeowners (75%), followed by Down - valley (70%), and • The Vail region has the lowest percentage of resident owners (52.3%), compared to the Basalt-, Mid-, and Down-valley regions. RRC ASSOCIATES 29 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Housing Costs It is estimated by the Eagle County Housing Department that average gross rents (including utilities) in Eagle County for the year 2OO1 were $783 for one-bedroom units, $1'O94 for twxo- badroom.$1.2DOfbrUlree-badroom.and$1.O79foraUunhacombined. These estimates were derived from a survey of1.242 rental units, of which 1'1S7(8S percent) were apartments. However, the Eagle County Housing Department estimates that actual gross rental figures may be significantly higher for the following reasons: 1) Most rental units in Eagle County (as in most resort communities) donot fall into traditional multifamily categories U.a. multi-unit apartments managed bv one endtv\. For example, there are a significant number of condominiums, lock-off apartments, caretaker units and iovvnhonngo. 2\ Many rental units inEagle County are leased from private individuals (such rents tend tobe much higher Ulontvoica|rnultifamnibunits\.amditisnotfeeebleto sun/ay all of these individual owners. 3\ Rentals to seasonal workers were also not included, and these rents tend toba much higher than those of year-round residents. it should be noted that the above mentioned gross rent averages are not likely ma high as those which could be derived from a complete survey of all rental units. The Colorado Division of Housing also surveys multi-family units in February and September of each year to determine average rents and vacancy rates in select regions of Colorado, including Eagle County. Based on734 returned surveys in September 2OO1' the Colorado Division of Housing estimated rents in Eagle County to average about $984 per month, second only to Aspen in the regions analyzed. Average and median rents for April 2OOO will also bmavailable from the 2000 Census next year. According to the Eagle County Assessor's Office, the average cost of single-family homes sold in2000was $968,819 and the median price was $489'950. |n comparison, the average and median sale prices in 1995 were over 95% lower, at $403,233 and $250.500, respectively. The following table lists the price per square foot of housing units sold in Eagle County in2000 based on Eagle County Assessor records. umCx000cu\TEu Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Price Per Square Foot of Housing Units in Eagle County, 2000 the following table lists the average cost of various single-family homes inEagle County in 2000, as reported by the Colorado Department of Local Affairs, Division of Housing. Cost mfe Home in Eagle County, 2000 ome $262,122 $302,448 $403,264 Source: Colorado Department cf Local Affairs, Division cfHousing The following graph compares the percentage change in homeowner housing costs to the percentage change in average wages and individual income from 1995 to 1999 in Eagle County. Wages include earnings from an individual's place of work; individual incomes include wages plus additional monies received through investments, retirement, unemployment, and other sources. Homeowner housing costs reflect the costs of financing a1'3O0square-foot single-family home purchased in the respective year (including principa|, intonest, taxes, and insurance), plus the cost of utilities, maintenance, supplies, and furnishings. Overall, the average monthly homeowner housing costs were about $2.2O0 for a1.3UO square foot home in 1999. In general, homeowner housing costs have been far outpacing average wage and income increases in Eagle County. mnC AamocmTsa 31 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update 100.0% 80.0% 00.096 40.0% 20.0% 0.0% Percentage Change in Wages and Personal Income Versus Percentage Change in Homeowner Costs, 1995-1999 1995 to 1997 1997 to 1999 1995 to 1999 Sources: Colorado Legislative Council, 1995-98 School District "CooufLivingGtudiea;EG3O2wagodate. Colorado Department of Labor and Employment; US Bureau of Economic Analysis, Regional Accounts Data. The 1999 survey report found that monthly rent and mortgage costs averaged about $1,239 in Eagle County. TheshxdvfudherfoundthutyWid- andOVwn-vmUayraaident tend to spend more, on average, for housing than residents of Vail, though the average price of housing units tend to be highest inVail. The demographic portion of the survey found that Vail homeowners have lived in the area longer than owners in other regions of the County. As a result, most Vail residents purchased their housing when it was less expensive than Down-valley housing is today, making their housing payments less. The following table ie excerpted from the 1B0@ survey report. Residential Sales in Eagle County, 1998 Vail Area 253 $518,418 82 $1,041,549 Down Valley 28 $188,600 111 $247885 Sources: Vail Board of Realtors MLS (data); "Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, 1999," Rees Consulting, Inc., and the Housing Collaborative (table). RRC ASSOCIATES 32 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Cost of Living Estimates Two separate studies are available that evaluate the cost of living for various household types in Eagle County. The first study is performed every two years by The Colorado Legislative Council to determine the cost of living in each school district inColorado. The results of each study are used to update the state's school funding formula and measure the cost mfan identical market basket of housing, goods and services, transportation, and taxes in each school district. The market basket was designed to include items available and affordable to a three-person household with an annual income of $37,000, representing the average salary for public school teachers inColorado. Housing costs are based on paying homeowner costs, including mortgage, utilities, maintenance, supplies, and furnishings, for a 1,300 square-foot house in the respective school districts. The results Cf the most recent study, titled the ^1989 School District Cost-of-Living Study," estimated that a three-person household required a yearly salary of $54,920 in Eagle County in 2000 to afford homeowner costs for a 1,300 square foot home plus general living expenses. This represents a12.696 increase in the cost-of-|iving since 1808in Eagle County, as estimated by the Colorado Legislative Council. A second cost-of-living study is available from the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute, titled "The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Colorado: A Family Needs Budget.^ This study estimates the income needed by working Colorado families to meet their basic needs without public or private assistance. Basic needs include the income needed for housing, transportation, child care, food, health care, miscellaneous, and taxes in the respective study areas and does not allow for any dining out expenses, recreation, entertainment, orsavings. Further, housing costs are based on2U01 Fair Market Rents (FyNRs)ae calculated bv the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), which reflect the cost of housing that meets minimum standards of decency, but ie not luxurious. FK8F{o reflect the cost ofm given size unit sk the 4ryhpercentile level, where 40% of the housing in the area is less expensive than the FMRs. The results can be compared to the Federal poverty rate, prevailing local wage rates, and the distribution of local household incomes to provide an understanding of the number of households which could ba forced (or are at risk of being forced) tomake tradeoffs between basic needs due toan inability 10 monetarily afford those needs. Based on the basic needs criteria, above, itwas found that a yearly salary of$17.O57was needed in2OOOto meet the basic needs ofmsingle adult (no ohi|dnen)'$41.O53 for a single adult and two young children (three and six years o|d). and $46.884 for two working adults plus two young children (threa- and six-years o|d). The comparative 2OOO Federal poverty rate for a single adult io$8.959; a single adult and two children ia$13.874; and two adults and two children is $17.483. The Federal poverty thresholds are used in setting eligibility criteria for many federal programs, such as Head Start, Food Stamps, the National School Lunch and School Breakfast programs, and others. The results of the Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute study indicate that households making almost two- to three- times the Federal poverty rate in Eagle County may still be in need of these Federal assistance RRC ASSOCIATES 33 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Eagle County Bask Needs Income Versus Federal Poverty Rate, 2000 One adu14",,,,,,, 'rWo working 'adults, Household Complositioni, twochildren n (3 and 6), two children (3 and 6) Eagle County Basic Needs $17,057 $41,053 $46,984 Income (2000) ($8 per hour*) ($20 per hour*) ($11.50 per hour, each adult*) Average Yearly Wage in $30,276 ($14.60 per hour) Eagle County (2000) Sources: "The Self-Sufficiency Standard for Colorado: A Family Needs Budget," Colorado Fiscal Policy Institute; Federal Poverty Rates, US Census Bureau; Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (average yearly wage). *Per hour wages based on 40 hour work week, 52 weeks per year. RRC ASSOCIATES 34 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update SECTION S — HOUSING PROBLEMS This section of the report identifies housing problems in Eagle County. This update focuses on three primary sections: Affordability of rental units; Availability of for -rent and for -sale housing units; and Persons per household. The 1999 survey report further elaborated on overcrowding; the number of households that are currently cost burdened by their rent or mortgage payments; satisfaction or dissatisfaction with their current home and reasons for dissatisfaction; and problems unique to renters, including rented units being sold and inadequate lease terms. The 1999 survey report also identified impediments to home ownership, which is summarized in this section. Local Resident Housing The Eagle County Housing Department currently defines "Local Resident Housing" as follows: Local residents include those who live or work in Eagle County. Housing for local residents is housing which serves the needs of low- and moderate - income households. Low - income households are those who earn the equivalent of or less than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Eagle County, as determined annually by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Moderate - income Households are those who earn the equivalent of or less than 120% and greater than 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Eagle County, as determined by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. Local Resident rental housing will have gross rents (rent plus utilities) not exceeding 30% of gross income. Local Resident for -sale housing will have prices that result in housing payments and homeowners' association /condominium dues not totaling more than 30% of gross household income, with a 5% down payment and a 30 -year mortgage, and the homes should be built -to -an 80 rating on the- Energy -Rated Homes Scale. - Affordability The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) estimated the income that renter households need in each county in the U.S. in 2001 to afford rental housing at Fair Market Rents (40`h percentile rents plus all utilities, except telephones). Fair Market Rents (FMRs) are estimated annually by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and are used to determine the eligibility of rental housing units for the Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments program. FMRs also serve as the payment standards used to calculate subsidies under the Rental Voucher program. RRC ASSOCIATES 35 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Based on the NLIHC study, rent is affordable when total housing costs do not exceed 30% of the household income. The following table shows average rents in Eagle County and incomes needed to afford them, as estimated by the Eagle County Housing Department; FMRs, reflecting the dollar amount below which 40 percent of the standard-quality rental housing units are rented, as estimated by HUD; and the NLIHC calculated income needed by renter households to afford FMRs in Eagle County. Affordability of Fair Market Rents (401h percentile) in Eagle County, 2001 Year 2+ of,, nit'( Zero W Th r,: F ou Average Gross Rent $783 $1,094 $1,200 Income, needed to afford average; $31,320', $43 764,'"' $4 000 rangy', Fair Market Rents (40th percentile) $540 $588 $785 $1,092 $1,287 income 1, needed i o" 'a ff ord, FMRi VJ,600r,� $23,520," 4 $1, 80:` Percent of Family Area Median 30% 33% 44% 61% 72% Income ($71,200) Source: Eagle County Housing Department; National Low income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) The NLIHC found that a worker would need to earn $15.10 per hour in order to work 40 hours per week and afford a two-bedroom unit at Eagle County's Fair Market Rent (401h percentile rent) in 2001. Based on the same 30% standard of affordability, a household would need to earn $21.04 per hour to afford a two-bedroom unit at Eagle County's average gross rent. The 1999 survey report further evaluated the number of households that are cost-burdened in each community. In general, little variation was found among the three regions covered by the study (Vail, Mid-valley, Down-valley) in housing affordability, as measured by the percentage of income spent on housing. Availability Rentals Overall, apartment availability is very low in Eagle County. The Colorado Division of Housing reported a vacancy rate of 0.1 % in the first quarter of 2001 and 1.1 % in the third quarter of 2001, based on over 700 surveyed units in each quarter. State estimates show that Eagle County consistently has the lowest vacancy rates in Colorado. RRC ASSOCIATES 36 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update 2.00 c 1.60 a� L Q. c 1.20 N d 0.80 V C N 0.40 Me Eagle County Multi- family Rental Vacancy Rates, 1997 -2001 1 st - 3rd - 1 st - 3rd - 1st - 3rd - 1 st - 3rd - 1st - 3rd - 1997 1997 1998 1998 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 Source: "Multi- Family Housing Vacancy & Rental Survey," Colorado Division of Housing. Census 2000 provides additional information on the percent of housing that was vacant as of April 2000 (the date of Census surveys), including the percent of vacant housing that was available "for rent," "for sale," and "for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use." The following table summarizes Census 2000 findings for each community in Eagle County and the County as a whole. RRC ASSOCIATES 37 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Housing Vacancy Rates, Eagle County 2000 Vail 59.8% 89.6% 1.1% 7.8% Red Cliff ' �l1�� ��. ^ 7J�� 0i0% Avon 715.4, — Eagle 4.7�� ` 17.3% 28.9% 20.9% Edwards (CDP) 27.9% ' � ' 88.1% NA 3.3% Gyo,siurrf 18.3%, Basalt (CCD) 9.5% 55.9% _ NA 5.8% Eagle" County 345% 66% Source: Census 2000, U.8. Census Bureau Note: The vacant categories of "for migratory workers" and "other' comprise the remaining percentage of vacant undo. This shows that, for Eagle County asa whole, 31.5% of all available housing units were vacant in 2000. Of the total number of vacant units, 85.2% were available for "seasonal, recreational, or occasional use" and only 6.6% were available for rent on a long-term basis. Overall, etotal of 458 "for rent" units were available in Eagle County in April 2000 (date of the Census), which equates to2.1Y6of all existing housing units. The rental vacancy rate, as estimated by the 2000 Census, was 7.7% in April of 2000. This rate is significantly higher than the Colorado Division of Housing eatnne1ee shown in the previous graph ("Eagle County Mult�family Rental Vacancy Rates, 1997-2001 ") for two primary reasons. First, 2000 Census questions relating to housing tenure, including occupancy status (renter, owner, etc.) and vacancy status (for rent, for sale, etc`)' are referred to as 100-percent questions because they are asked ufthe entire population. Aso result, these questions are also asked of all household types (single-family units, duplexes, apartments, condominiums, etc.). Therefore, the 2000 Census rental vacancy rates reflect total vacancy in Eagle County in April 2000 for all rental properties available in the County (including continuing care and life care foui|iUeS\. encompassing nearly 6.0OOunits. Second, the 2OOO Census reflects vacancy rates in the month of April, which tend to be higher than average yearly vacancy rates in Eagle County due 10 seasonal employee tVrn-over(e.Q. winter jobs endinQ). |n comparison, Colorado Division of Housing estimates for 2000 were derived from samplings of between 600 and 900 rental units in Eagle County, were limited to multi-family properties only, and were based on surveys mKCaSSouxYES Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update performed in February and September. Additional information on unit types and rents will be available from the 2000 Census in the near future. For Sale The 1999 survey report found that the availability of single - family homes, duplexes, condominiums, and townhomes priced at levels that are affordable for the County's residents was very limited, based on properties listed in May 1999. As of October 3, 2001, a total of 623 single- family homes and duplexes were for sale through the multiple listing service. A total of 593 condominiums and townhomes were also listed for sale. Housing Units For Sale, October 2001 < $100,000 0 0.0% 2 0.3% $100,000'_41491099, 1 0: °fo 19 3,2% $150,000 - $299,999 39 6.3% 178 30.0% 006;600 - X499,999 , 1 tlJ `, 17.6% � � 151 25.5% = . $500,000 - $749,999 116 18.6% 66 11.1% $750,000 - $999,999 70 11.2°1' 43 > $1,000,000 288 46.2% 134 22.6% Total, 623 100 °1 593,' 100% Source: Vail board of Realtors Multiple Listing Service About 6% of the single - family homes and duplexes were listed for less than $300,000, where all but 13 were in the Gypsum area. Substantially more of the condominiums and townhomes were listed for less than $300,000 (33 %), however, over 40% of the attached units exceeded $500,000. Verysimilar price and location ratios were found with the previously reported May 1999 listings, though there were about 35% more properties listed in October 2001 than in May 1999. The following figure shows the number of residential sales that occurred in Eagle County in 2000 by price category and specified address (city and state) of the purchaser, as calculated from Eagle County Assessor data. This shows that the majority of purchasers of residential properties under $300,000, including single - family homes, duplex - triplex structures, 4 -8 multi- unit structures, condominium units, and mobile homes, were from Eagle County (59% to 68 %). On the other hand, the majority of purchasers of properties costing $800,000 or more were from KKC ASSOCIATES 39 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update out-of-state. Overall, about 45% of all purchased residential properties in 2000 went to buyers with 8nEagle County address. Residential Sales in Eagle County, 2000 mm 400 350 300 ~ 250 n 200 z 150 100 50 O 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 3.0% 1O% l0% 0% 4P el el 01 Value of sale Source: Eagle County Assessor data; data compiled byRRC Associates, Inc. Impediments to Ownership As shown in Section 1, "Household Composition," approximately 38% of Eagle County's residents in2000rented their housing. According to the 1RS8 survey results, many ofthe renters want Uo purchase homes but have not for many reasons. The total cost of housing that is for sale io the most frequently mentioned reason followed by high down payments. The fact that housing is not available where nantanS want to buy was oa|dorn mentioned. The following table ie excerpted from the 18S9report. uncAuuoov\Tso 0- Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Reasons Why Renters Have Not Purchased a Home Total cost 83.6 84.2 82.9 84.6 Lack of down paynaeni =� :4.8 -` % , 55.3. 69.2 Lack of housing type choice 38.2 42.1 37.6 36.5 n't a iffy t r 1 a rt ;`; � � ' ; 32.4," 26:3 294" Al Housing not available where I 24.2 31.6 21.4 25.0 want to live Cheaper to rent Other 11.6 18.4 9.4 11.5 Total 674 ", :281',0 253.8 '288:5 Note: Total exceeds 100% due to multiple responses. Source: "Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, 1999," Rees Consulting, Inc., RRC ASSOCIATES 41 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update SECTION �� ~�— SOLUTIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES The 1999 survey report presented findings from the surveys concerning the conception and o1n|otune of possible housing programs and projects. This section identified target markets for for-sale housing, perceptions on deed restrictions, trade offs potential buyers are willing to make in order to purchase a home, preferred regulatory methods for supplying Local Resident Housing, and where housing should bg built and bvwhom. Employers were also surveyed tm determine the extent of employer participation in housing solutions, employer support for development of employee housing, and employer support for regional, county-wide approaches [o supplying Local Resident Housing. Public information sources regarding these qualitative issues were not available for comparison. Therefore, the 1998 survey results are briefly summarized below. Summary of 1999 Survey Findings Target Markets Two primary groups constitute the market for for-sale housing: renters who want and can afford to purchase a home and current homeowners who want topurchase a different home. Total cost and lack of a down payment are the primary reasons why renters have not yet purchased a home. Overall, homeowners primarily desire to own a larger home. However, the primary motivation for [}ovvn-vaUey residents ie the desire to live in G different location. Vail homeowners are the least concerned about living in8 different location. Deed Restrictions Overall, 5296of potential homebuyers in Eagle County feel return on investment/appreciation is very important. Vail residents are the least likely kz rank appreciation ma very important and down-valley residents are the most likely to value stability and control over their home. Potential homebuyene were further asked to specify how much ohome would have tobepriced below market ifi[ had a3Y6 cap on annual appreciation. Respondents that would consider purchasing such a home stated, on average, that the home would have to be priced 23% below market for them tn buy it. Trade Offs Eagle County residents were asked to rank the importance of various factors that influence housing selection: "price ofhone.^ "community you want to live in.^ "unit oize.^"unit type," ^Gmenitieo.^ and "desire bomwn.^ The top selections were "desire toown,^ "price ofhV0a'"and "community you want to live." This means that, when making trade offs, owning a home of any type at a price one can afford and in a community in which one wishes to live generally outweighs the opportunity to live in a larger single-family home with more amenities in @ |eam oocxxsocwToo 42 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update desirable location. |n general, Mid-valley renters are the most willing to move to buy ahome, while Vail renters are largely undecided. Employee Housing Alternatives The majority of Eagle County residents supported inouoionary zoning and commercial linkage aS methods for developing employee housing. Respondents were overwhelmingly opposed 1oe property or sales tax increase and half are opposed to an employee head tax. Where Housing Should Be Built The majority of respondents stated that housing should bebuilt "throughout the county," except seasonal ski area employee housing, where 52% of respondents felt housing for these employees should be built inVail. Responsibility for Local Resident Housing Survey respondents think that k*nza employers, private developers, and/or local governments should be responsible for building or providing funds for Local Resident Housing. Vail residents tend to favor private developers somewhat more than large employers. There islittle support for "local citizens/the general public" or "visitors/tourists" to be responsible for providing Local Resident Housing. Overall, Vail residents generally feel responsibility for Local Resident Housing should be shared by more entities than the Mid- and Down-valley regions. Employer Responses Half ofthe employers surveyed stated that they currently provide housing or subsidies toan average ofG8 employees per employer, which may be overstated aelarger employers tended tu respond k) the survey more than small businesses. About half ofthe respondents stated they would be willing to Geeiet their employees with housing in the future through master leasing rental units and would least prefer to build housing on site and provide mortgage subsidies; w Well over half Vf employers support inclusionary zoning, development fee waivers, and density bonuses for developing employee housing, whereas onemployee head tax and w Employers lanzab supported a regkona, countywide approach for most housing matters with the exception of fees/taxes for housing. RRC ASSOCIATES 43 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update SEcTioN 7 — DEsioN The 1S09 survey report evaluated preferred design options, including unit types, amenities, and neighborhood and location considerations. This section can aid the design of housing projects by helping to identify community preferences and demand for housing. Public information sources regarding these qualitative issues were not available for comparison. Therefore, the 1999 survey results are briefly summarized below. Summary of 1999 Survey Findings Unit Types Questions in the 199S survey differed from previous surveys by linking potential housing costs with housing type selections. Previous surveys that did not include relative pricing showed that over 8O96of respondents preferred single-family homes. However, only 5G96of the 199SEagle County survey respondents chose single-family housing as their most preferred option given the higher price of these units ($25O'O0O). Amenities and Location The most favored amenities were in-unit washers and dryers, followed by energy efficient heat and sunlight. Neighborhood features of importance included private yards and decks/patios, followed bv pets being pannd1ed and curbside recycling. Finally, survey respondents prefer locations that offer views, are quiet and near mpenepmce. and are away from nightly rentals and seasonal workers. Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update SlEcrm 8 — Key findings from the 18SO Housing Needs Assessment employee survey, the 1989household aun/ey, and updated 2000 figures from public information sources are compared in this section. Comparisons between the surveys indicate general trends rather than precise estimates, aathe surveys were distributed through two different methods (the 13SO survey was distributed through place of employment and the 1999 survey was distributed to households). The updated 2OOO figures (where available) serve tocheck the numbers and conclusions from the survey data. Overall, the relationships between variables reported from the survey data tend to be very similar to those seen with public data sources, though the actual figures may differ. Income Levels Based onU.G. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HU[) data, median family inonnnem (e.g. family offour) increased over 73% between 1990 and 1999. According to HUD, median family incomes have continued to increase to $70,500 in 2001 and $74,900 in 2002. Income Levels Compared % change Median (HUD) $37100 884,300 73.3% $74,900 101.9% Median (surveys) $20000 $40.00 100.0% Meen(BEA) $22330 $39,304 78,0% Median individual incomes show a 10096 increase between 1990 and 1S99ea determined from the surveys, mean individual incomes increased 133%. The U.8[ Bureau ofEconomic Analysis (BEA) reports that mean individual incomes increased 76% between 1990 and 1999. The high mean income reported in the 1999 survey is primarily attributed to the high representation of homeowners with vary large incomes. As stated in the 1899 survey report, given these haotono, the median income provides e better representation of individual incomes in Eagle County. ASSOCIATES 45 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Housing Costs Homeowner housing costs have increased more than income. In Section 4, "Housing Costs," it is shown that wages and individual incomes in Eagle County increased 24.4% and 27.8 %, respectively, from 1995 to 1999, whereas homeowner costs increased over 87 %. However, according to the 1990 and 1999 surveys, the average mortgage payment increased about 87% between 1990 and 1999. Because the data in Section 4, "Housing Costs," reports homeowner housing costs based on financing a 1,300 square -foot single - family home purchased in the respective year and the survey data includes responses from many long -term locals that purchased their homes several years prior to the survey, we would expect the surveys to under - represent actual increases in housing costs. Housing Costs Compared Avg. Mortgage Payment $697 Avg. Rent Payment_ $668 i9 5unrey Change' $1,303 86.9 % $1,035, agile County Housing k7ept. Change $1,074 60.8% Changes in rent reported from the surveys tend to better represent actual increases due to renter turnover and the ability for rents to rise over time. The surveys found rents increased about the same amount as median household incomes between 1990 and 1999 (62 %). Based on U.S. Census data for 1990 and Eagle County Housing Department data for 2000, rents increased about 61 % between 1990 and 2000. Based on the 2000 Census, the average age of Eagle County residents was 29.0 in 1990 and 30.4 in 1999. Median ages reported by the Census were 30 in 1990, 31 in 1999, and 31.2 in 2000. These figures show a slight aging of the population since 1990. Children According to the Colorado Department of Local Affairs (population aged 17 and under) and the Colorado State Demographer (total households), the number of children per household has remained at about 0.7 between 1990 and 2000. FN X101 M.M1614 FAr_ r Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Children per Household, 1990 — 2000 1990 1991 1992 1993 " 1994-; 1995'': '1996 1997 '11998, 1999 2000 0.68 OM 0.69 0.69 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.67 0.69 0.65 Source: Colorado Division of Local Government Demography Section; calculations by RRC Associates, Inc. Persons Per Household The following graph shows that, in general, the number of persons per household increased in Eagle County through the 1990's, despite the fact that the number of children per household remained about the same during this period. The decline in persons per household between 1999 and 2000 may be due, in part, to the fact that data for 1991 through 1999 was estimated by the Colorado State Demographer, whereas data for the year 2000 reflects Census 2000 estimates. Population, Households, and Persons per Household, 1991-2000 45000 40000 0 35000 E y 30000 o 25000 M 20000 0 0 = = 15000 M 'S CL 0 10000 CL 5000 0 N0 N# N* No Ne N0§0 NCSIP N41 411 Source: Colorado Division of Local Government Demography Section, *U.S. Census 2000 data 3.1 3 0) N 2.9 0 2.8 0 as 2.7 M 2.6 < 2.5 Of the 2.93 persons per household in 1999, approximately 0.69 were children under the age of 18. Dividing the Department of Local Affairs data for "local employed persons" (see Section 2, "Job Growth Compared to Population Growth") by the total number of households in Eagle County, we find that about 1.92 persons per household were employed. The remaining 10% of RRC ASSOCIATES Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update household members include unemployed persons and retirees. Department of Local Affairs "local employed persons" data is not yet available for the year 2000. Satisfaction with Housing The 1990 and 1999 surveys found that overall housing satisfaction levels appear to have increased since 1990. However, the 1999 survey report states that "this finding is somewhat skewed... by the over-representation of owners." Similar public data was not available for comparison. Very Dissatisfied Not Satisfied Satisfied Very Satisfied Satisfaction Levels Compared 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% Source: "Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, 1999," Rees Consulting, Inc., Alternatively, the 1990 and 1999 survey data indicates that renter satisfaction has declined. In 1990, 32% of renters were dissatisfied. By 1999, the percentage increased to 47%. RRC ASSOCIATES Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Satisfaction Among Renters 1990 ;r999 Very satisfied 16% 14% Satisfied 52°!a 9% Not satisfied 26 % 40% Very dissatisfied;: 6 °!�, 70k Source: "Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment, 1999," Rees Consulting, Inc., Housing Affordability Overall Comparing 1990 survey results to 1999 survey results, the percentage of cost - burdened households appears to have increased from 15.5% in 1990 to 19.6% 1999. U.S. Census estimates for the percent of household income spent on housing in 1989 are available, where housing costs include monthly mortgage or rent payments and utilities. The 1990 and 1999 survey computations include only rent or mortgage payments, not utilities. Additionally, Census estimates reflect households that spent 30% or more of their income on housing, whereas 1990 and 1999 survey results report those households that paid over 30% of their income toward housing. These two factors explain, in part, why the Census 1989 figures show a much higher percentage of "cost-burdened" households overall. 100% 90% N 80% 70% 0 60% 2 50% w 0 40% 30 % y 20% IL 10% 0% Percentage of Income Spent on Housing — All Households —30% of income spent on housing o >30% of income spent on housing 1989 (census)* 1990 (survey) 1999 (survey) *NOTE: 1989 Census data includes those household spending 30% of their income on housing in the "530W category and excludes households spending 30% of their income on housing in the " -30 %" category. Census data beyond 1989 for this category is not yet available. RRC ASSOCIATES Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Despite the larger percentage of households reported as "cost-burdened" by the 1989 Census than either the 1990 or 1999 surveys, the total number of households reported by the 1989 Census as paying 30% or more of their income toward housing is almost one -half of that reported by the 1999 surveys (1,755 households versus 2,352, respectively). Renter Households Comparing "cost-burdened" renter households for the two survey years, it appears that the percentage of renters who are cost burdened increased substantially between 1990 and 1999. However, 1989 Census results compared to 1999 survey data shows little change. Once again, categorical differences between the 1989 Census information and the survey data may account for the higher percent of "cost-burdened" renters reported by the U.S. Census. Despite these differences, however, all three data sets show that renter households are more frequently cost- burdened than owner households. 100% 90% 0 80% 70% 5 60% 0 = 50% 0 40% Z 30% m 20% d 10% 0% Percentage of Income Spent on Housing — Renter Households < =30% of income spent on rent ❑ >30% of income spent on rent 1989 (census)* 1990 (survey) 1999 (survey) *NOTE: 1989 Census data includes those household spending 30% of their income on rent in the " >30 %" category and excludes households spending 30% of their income on rent in the "­30%" category. Census data beyond 1989 for this category is not yet available. RRC ASSOCIATES 50 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update SECTION 9 — CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1999 Survey Versus Public Information Sources Not all of the information covered by the needs assessment surveys was available through public sources, particularly the more qualitative and community- and individual-specific issues, including: • Number of people housed per bedroom; • length of residency; • number of jobs held by employees and hours and seasons worked; • location of work versus location of residence; • employer and employee perceptions of housing problems and available housing; • community-specific commuting patterns; • preferred rental- and owner-housing types and amenities (number of bedrooms, bathrooms, location, etc.); and • resident and employer perceptions on how best to address housing problems and by whom. The following summarizes, in more detail, the findings from this update. Population It is estimated that 41,659 people resided in about 15,148 households in Eagle County in 2000, with an average of about 2.73 persons per household. Eagle County's population increased between 6 to 8 percent each year from 1990 through 1999, with slower 4.4 percent growth between 1999 and 2000. Overall, Eagle County's population has increased about 90 percent since 1990, which is over triple that of Colorado as a whole, but similar to neighboring Summit County (82.8 percent). The unincorporated areas of Eagle County had relatively steady growth throughout the 1990's; the community of Vail has had very little change in total population since 1996; and the Eagle County portion of the Town of Basalt has experienced the most growth in the past two years. The median age of Eagle County has been increasing, from about 30 in 1990 to 31.2 in 2000. Almost one-third of Vail's population was between the ages of 25 and 34 in 2000 and only 9.9 percent were under 18. Alternatively, about 32 percent of the Down-valley population was under 18 and about 18 percent were between 25 and 34. Correspondingly, the majority of Vail households consisted of non-family households (64.8 percent) and the majority of Down-valley households consisted of families (75 percent) in 2000. Overall, about 21 percent of households in the County consisted of one person and about 35 percent had at least one child. Eagle County averaged about 0.65 children per household, Vail RRC ASSOCIATES 51 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update averaged about 0.21 children per household, Mid- valley averaged 0.64, and Down - valley averaged 0.96. About 63.7 percent of the occupied housing in Eagle County was owned by a resident of the household in 2000. The Basalt CCD region had the highest ownership rate (75 percent), followed by the Down - valley region (70 percent). The majority of households in Avon rent (52.7 percent), followed by Minturn (48.6 percent) and Vail (47.7 percent). The median household income in 2000 was $68,100. The median household income for 2001 is estimated at $70,500. Employment It is estimated that about 32,242 employees held 38,690 total full- and part-time jobs in Eagle County in 2000. Between 1990 and 1999, the growth in total population (82 percent) lagged growth in total jobs (86 percent) by only about 4 percent. In this same time period, the number of filled jobs in Eagle County increased about 83 percent, whereas the number of employed Eagle County residents increased only 67 percent. This indicates that businesses have seen an increasing need for out -of- county commuters to fill available positions. This also implies an increase in the non - working (e.g. retired, etc.) portion of the Eagle County population. Approximately 59 percent of the wage and salary jobs in Eagle County were in the retail trade and services sectors in 2000, with average wages of $20,946 and $30,053, respectively. Those businesses showing the largest numerical increase in jobs since 1995 are in the services and construction sectors, with a combined increase of over 4,200 jobs. Commuting According to the Colorado Department of Transportation, daily vehicle miles traveled on Federal and State Highways in Eagle County increased about 40 percent between 1991 and 1998. This data does not differentiate between local commuters, destination travelers, and those just "passing through." The 1999 survey found that all communities_ in Eagle County house workers from other communities. For the most part, those living in Eagle County reside in their community of choice, whereas more than one -third of out -of- county commuters (and 60 percent of commuters from Meadville) would prefer to live in Eagle County. Housing Supply and Costs Approximately 68.5 percent of all available housing in Eagle County was occupied in 2000. Of the almost 7,000 vacant units, about 85 percent were for "seasonal , recreational, or occasional use." Over 53 percent of all housing in Vail was vacant for "seasonal , recreational, or occasional use" and only 40 percent was occupied as of the April 2000 Census survey. RRC ASSOCIATES 52 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update Average gross rent (including utilities) for all surveyed units in Eagle County was $1,079 in 2001. Based on a 30 percent standard of affordability, a household would need to earn $20.75 per hour to afford this average gross rent. The average cost ofsingle-family homes sold in 2OOO was $9G8`818 and the median price was $48G'950(95 percent higher than in1SS5). Between 1995 and 1999, the cost of owning a home purchased in the respective year increased over 87 percent, whereas local wages and individual incomes increased less than 28percent. Housing Inventory and Market Conditions Renters are more likely 0ote "cost-burdened" (pay more than 3O percent of their household income for housing) than owners. |n addition, vacancy rates for rental units |n Eagle County are below 2 percent for most of the year and are continually reported aa being the lowest statewide by the Colorado Division of Housing. As cf October 3. 2001. atoba| of 1.216 single-family homes, duplexes, condominiums, and townhomem were for sale. Only 1.8 percent were offered below $15O.00O and 1g.8 percent were below $300.000. Only 45 percent of all residential sales inEagle County in2000 were purchased by buyers from Eagle County. The majority of sales under $3OO.00O went bo Eagle County purchasers /85 percent); only 33 percent of sales over $300,000 went to Eagle County purchasers; and the majority of sales over $800,000 went to purchasers from out-of-state. In general, thenurnberofpenaoneperhouseho|dhosbeaninoremsinQ1hnoughouithe19SOo. from 2.68 persons on average in1SS1to2.S3in1BSB. The number Vf children per household has remained sd about O.7 during this same period. The average household |n Eagle County in 1999 contained O.G9 children and 1.92 employed persons. The remaining 10 percent of household members included unemployed persons and retirees. The income needed by working families to meet their basic needs without public or private assistance inEagle County ia defined ee being two Uo three times more than the Federal poverty level. The Federal poverty level, or the level at which family incomes are inadequate for needed consumption of food and other goods and services, for a family consisting of two adults and two children was $17.483in2OOO' whereas en income of$40.g84 was needed by the same size family in Eagle County tomeet their basic needs in2OOO. Recommendations The 1SS8 survey report contains several ^next-Gteo^ suggestions for addressing the current housing problems and needs of Eagle County. The quantitative survey questions helped establish the current need for housing, whereas the qualitative issues helped identify how best t0 approach that need through community desires and perceptions. The updated 2OUOfigures RRC ASSOCIATES 53 Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment Update tend to validate the housing need expressed in the 1099 survey report. Based onthis quantitative information, the following conclusions are reached: More rental housing needs to be developed for the local employed workforce. Vacancy rates are extremely low and the reliance of businesses on out-of-county commuters to fill positions has been increasing; More for-sale housing that is affordable 1olocals is needed. G percent of residential properties under $300,000 were purchased by buyers from Eagle County and only one-third of residential properties purchased over $3OO.00Dwent to buyers from Eagle County in 2000. Aoof October 2OO1. only 2Upercent of listed for-sale single-family homes, duplexes, condominiums, and townhomea were priced under $3OO.00O;and Preserve the existing housing supply. Monitor and bewary of the loss of rental units to second homeowners, conversion ofunits from multi-family housing to single-family homes, Given that the 1999 surveys the best available data for the qualitative issues associated with housing, including: where employee housing should bo located, what type of units should be constructed and how many, who should be responsible for constructing housing, and what programs should be implemented to ensure housing is built, the suggestions given in the 1999 survey report addressing demand for rental and for-sale housing in Eagle County are reiterated Develop for-sale housing. The demand for homeownership appears to be very strong. it is estimated that as many as 1,790 renters are interested in and could potentially afford to purchase ahome if provided a1 prices substantially below market. Many residents (roughly 2,800 households) who already own a home are interested in buying different homes and most want k/ rnVva up into larger homes. * Develop uniform deed restrictions throughout the County. While the majority ofresidents consider return on investment 8man important considerationandvvouldnct accept deed restrictions, 18 percent stated that a raeo|e price limitation would not impact their decision 8t all or very little. Potential humebuyars stated that a home with a 3 percent cap onannual appreciation would need to be priced 23 percent below market for them to buy it. Concentrate for-sale development efforts on attached housing and manufactured housing. Given high construction costs, limited land availability and the willingness of residents to accept living in condominiums, townhomes and manufactured housing, efforts to provide site-built single-family homes should only be pursued if done to help subsidize the costs of entry-level attached housing. uucauyocIA/ux � Address the special nead8ofthegrovvngSp8niuh-yoeaWngpopulaUon. Itka estimated that 2/42O employees do not speak English as their first language. Special needs ofthis population include rental units designed for large families, lease documents in Spanish, and bilingual leasing personnel. * commercial linkage and induaiomary zoning programs. Requiring employers to provide housing for employees is supported by nearly 70 percent of the County's residents. Well over half support requiring that a percentage of all new homes b8 designated for employee housing. r Work with employers, particularly the larger ones, and private developers to provide housing. Residents support a strong role by local governments although they donot favor increased taxes. w Develop Local Resident Housing throughout the County. � Finally, given that survey respondents stated that their main limitations in purchasing o home are due to the total cost of for-sale housing and high down payments, consideration could be given to funding down-payment and mortgage assistance programs to help local employees finance down-payments, closing costs, and other home purchasing costs through grants (if available) and |ovv interest loans. RRC ASSOCIATES 55 EXHIBIT C Introduction Eagle County is reviewing their employee housing mitigation programs for both commercial and residential development. Current "Local Resident Housing Guidelines" outline a program that utilizes a combination of inclusionary zoning and commercial and residential linkage to create housing for low and moderate income households. On -site development of units is preferred, with off -site development and payment -in -lieu options also available. Linkage programs would require that developers of commercial and residential space contribute to the provision of affordable housing in proportion to the affordable housing need that they generate by creating new employment. The basic premise of employee housing mitigation programs is that new commercial and residential development fuels demand for housing by generating new jobs. In Eagle County, and other areas where land is expensive and housing demand is fueled by wealth from outside the region, the private market tends to supply housing that is priced beyond the reach of most local employees. This results in an undersupply of adequate housing that is affordable for low- to middle- income employees and, therefore, also results in housing prices that tend to escalate much faster than wages.' This report establishes the link between new commercial and residential development and the demand for employees. It provides a rationale for determining the percentage of employees that should be mitigated by new development through linkage programs and presents a formula for determining the amount of fee that could be paid in lieu of producing units. This report does not address inclusionary zoning requirements, given that a nexus /proportionality analysis is not required for inclusionary programs. In summary, this report finds that housing linkage programs that target employee households earning less than 80 percent AMI could require up to a 30 percent mitigation rate in Eagle County based on current housing service levels in the County. Linkage programs that target employee households earning less than 100 percent AMI could require up to a 45 percent mitigation rate. And, for programs targeting 120 percent AMI households or below, a 58 percent mitigation rate could be supported. Communities may require mitigation rates different from the above service levels depending upon community needs, supplemental housing programs and development undertaken by the County, and desired outcomes from linkage housing programs. ' Average yearly wages in Eagle County increased about 13.7 percent between 2000 and 2004; the median sale price of single family homes increased 10 percent and the median sale price of condominiums increased 7 percent during this same period, which is generally favorable. However, a household earning the median wage in 2000 could afford a home priced at $240,000, whereas the median sale price of a single family home in 2000 was about $465,700. In 2004, a median AMI household could afford a home priced at $270,000 and the median sale price of a single family home was $510,000. In other words, despite home prices increasing slower than wages over the past four years, the difference was not significant enough to noticeably affect home affordability to locals. See the background "data report" in support of this Nexus for other housing and affordability trends. RRC Associates, Inc Legal Tests There are several legal considerations involved in the design of impact mitigation regulations. First, a "rational nexus" must be demonstrated between the impacts caused by a development and the nature of the mitigation required. Second, there must bea "rough proportionality" between the extent of the impacts generated and the extent of the mitigation required. In other vvonds, there must be a direct relationship between the need for affordable housing and the parties upon which mitigation requirements are imposed. |n addition, the fee must benogreater than the cost of mitigating the direct impacts from the specific developments. Therefore, itmust be demonstrated that new development creates the need for affordable housing and that the fee assessed will be no greater than the cost of providing housing for employees generated by the development. Methodology The following process is used to establish nexus/proportionality formula for these employee mitigation programs. The process uses well-documented statistics from primary research conducted in Eagle County and other mountain resort communities in Colorado and neighboring states to provide a method for quantifying the number of jobs and corresponding housing demand generated bydevelopment. The steps are: 1. Identifying the level of service that has been set for Eagle County in terms of the percentage nf low-income households and employees for which housing iotobe ensured; 2. Determining the number of jobs generated by existing commercial and residential development to calculate the housing demand generated by new development; 3. Accounting for multiple job holding to avoid double counting employees; 4. Converting the number of employees to households by applying an employees per household ratio; ` 5. Identifying the households to target in the employee housing mitigation programs by examining the income levels ofEagle County's residents; 8. Crediting developments for contributions to employee housing; and 7. Consolidating the information onk job generation, job holding patterns, employees per household, and income levels into a formula that can be applied UJcommercial, reeidentia|, or mixed-use projects to oa|cu|ate mitigation requirements. The above formula often results ina fraction ofa dwelling unit being required. When this occurs, Vrin other circumstances aa may be permitted bv the County's Housing Guidelines, fees can be paid in lieu of producing units. The amount of the payment in lieu ia based onthe affordability gap, which is the difference between what targeted households can afford topay and market prices for housing. This report concludes with en estimate of the gap between affordable and market costs and a calculation of the payment inlieu. RRC Associates, Inc. 2 Level of Service Programs that require new development to produce affordable housing ao mitigation for the housing demand generated bx the development nnue[confonnbo|ave|ofsenimaot@ndards applicable for both existing and future needs. The level Uf service indicates the current level of affordable housing that exists in the community and, when considered in conjunction with County commitments for providing housing, provides a guideline for workforce housing mitigation requirements. |t should be noted, however, that new development requirements need not be limited by the current level of service in the community if the county is actively in adopting and implementing housing programs to increase the County's current level ofservice. The level of service is defined by the current percentage of households residing in the study area that earn within the income range targeted by the adopted housing program. For example, presently 3O percent ofEagle County's households earn less than 8O percent of the AM|. If Eagle County adopted a housing linkage program requiring developments to mitigate employee households earning less than 80 percent of the AM|. the county could require uptoa3Opercent mitigation rate — equal UJ the current service level of the county (see Table 2, below). Eagle County's "Local Resident Housing Guidelines" presently specify targeting households earning 80 to 100% AM| with inclusionary programs and 60 to 80%AM| with linkage programs, with @fee-in-|ieualternative permitted for both programs. Orienting programs to the County's median family income, as published by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) each year, corresponds with State and Federal programs that might be used by private developers as well as the public sector to produce employee housing, as these programs also base income levels on the County's median family income. The following table shows U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) estimates of the median household incomes in Eagle County for one- through five-person households in 2005. Table 1. 2005 Median Family A Number of Persons in Household 4 5 hUu/oAM| Source: US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Household incomes by AM|in2005 were estimated from the 2000UG Census CHAS (Comprehensive Housing Affordability special tabulations of households bv/\M|in 1999, the 1999 and 2005 HUD median family incomes in Eagle County, housing tenure and incomes from the 2000 US Census and the estimated number of Eagle County households in 2005. These projections inc|uda1hehoUoxvingaoeunnpUong: the percentage of households in each AK8| group has remained fairly constant since 199B and household tenure has remained relatively constant since 2OOO^ These estimates indicate that about 38 percent of owners and 62 percent of renters earn less than 100% AM 1, for a total of 45.6 percent of all households z The methodology is described in more detail ino supplement to this report which evaluates changes observed in key indicators since 20OO units, sales, rentals, incomes, wages and employment) and provides support for the aforementioned assumptions. RRC Associates, Inc (8,100 total). In other words, the current service level in Eagle County for households earning less than 100 percent of the AMI is about 45 percent. Table 2. Eagle County Households by AMI: 2005 Estimates AMI Range Owners Renters Total <50% 10.5% 1,187 25.6% 1,646 16.0% 2,833 50.1 to 60% 2.1% 239 4.6% 298 3.0% 536 60.1 to 80% 8.2% 928 15.2% 980 10.8% 1,908 80.1 to 100% 15.5% 1,752 16.7% 1,073 15.9% 2,825 100.1 to 120% 13.1% 1,477 12.5% 804 12.9% 2,281 120% or more 50.6% 5,718 25.5% 1,639 41.5% 7,358 TOTAL 100.0% 11,301 100.0% 6,440 100.0% 17,741 Total <80% 20.8% 2,354 45.4% 2,924 29.7% 5,277 Total <100% 363% 4,106 62.1% 3,997 45.6% 8,102 Total <120% 49.4% 5,583 74.6% 4,801 58.5% 10,383 Source: 2000 US Census, CHAS special tabulations; HUD median family incomes; DOLA I projections; RRC Associates, Inc. copulation It is recognized that a portion of the households in Eagle County that earn less than 100 percent of the AMI are cost-burdened 3 . However, these households are still residing in the County regardless of their ratio of income to housing payments and are, therefore, being served by housing in the community. Employee housing programs and development is intended to ease the burden on these lower- income households and provide more suitable housing options for local workers. This not only results in a more stable and content workforce, but also helps the County compete with other areas for employees by providing suitable and affordable housing for the workforce. The following table lists employee unit projects that have been developed in Eagle County since the year 2000. This includes 318 rental units affordable to low income households earning less than 60 percent of the AMI, 100 rental units affordable to households earning less than 80 percent of the AMI and 162 for -sale units affordable to households earning between 60 and 120 percent of the AMI, with another 120 for -sale units to be available as of mid -2006. The below recent projects, in combination with additional programs and future planned projects of the Eagle County Housing department discussed in Appendix A, are indications of the commitment by Eagle County to provide much needed housing for its local workforce. 3 Based on year 2000 US Census data, about 53 percent of households earning less than 100% AMI were cost- burdened (paid over 30% of income for housing). This maybe lower in 2005, given the addition of 700 total rental and ownership units priced affordable to these households since 2000. See the background "data report' in support of this Nexus for more discussion on cost-burdened households. RRC Associates, Inc Table 3. Employee Restricted Units Built/Under Construction Since The 2000 US Census Year built/ Property occupied AMI served Type # units Restriction Middle Creek Dec-04 60% Rent 142 Income Buffalo Ridge Mar-04 30-80% tax credit Rent 176 Income <80% Rent 100 60-120% (based OOsales Own 282 � Miller Ranch* Late 2003 prices of units) TOTAL UNITS 700 *Miller Ranch will ba completed in2OU6. Distribution of units by AW based on current sales (162 total to-date) and remaining units expected to nenm o oimi|erAK4| mix. Source: Vail Local Housing Authority; 2UO5 Assessor database The above a potential measurement for the g�ong|��of �m��ho����M��mi����an1���e���e/�i� The data comfortably support m mitigation level of3O percent and may support mitigation os high gs4G percent (the current level of service of the County) or more based on continued workforce hVu/ingp gramna and development by the County Housing department. |tis important to recognize that alternative interpretations of the level of service standard ma be more or less conservative than presented herein, potentially supporting o higher or lower mitigation rate than the 30 percent presented above. It is recommended that communities consult with their attorney regarding mitigation rates that conform to the level of service standard. Job Generation Rates When new commercial/industrial/lodging/residentiaI projects are built, additional employment is generated. New commercial employment may be from new businesses or from businesses relocating from other space (thereby freeing up that space for other tenants). Regardless, the net effect over time is a net increase in employment in the community. Job generation rates that measure the number of jobs typically generated by residential units and in various types of commercial spaces can be used to estimate the number of jobs that will be created by new Commercial Linkage RRC Associates and Rees Consulting, Inc., bbth members ofThe Housing Collaborative, LLC, have been conducting housing needs assessments in mountain resort communities throughout Colorado and in neighboring states since 1B9O. Ao part of these studies, public and private sector employers were surveyed concerning the number Ofjobs they offer and the amount of space they occupy. From these surveys, a total of1.857 employers were used to compile a database on job generation ratios, which are expressed as the number of total jobs (full and part time combined, not FTE) per 1.00O square feet ofspace. The study area includes both core resort ana@m as well as nearby communities, which are listed below, with survey dates ranging between 1S90 and 2O04. RRC Associates, Inc. 5 • Blaine County, ID: 1990, 1996 • Chaffee County: 1994 • Copper: 2001 • Eagle County: 1990, 1999, 2001 • Estes Park: 1991, 1999 • Frisco: 1998 • Grand County: 1992, 2001 • Gunnison County: 1992, 1998 • Composite of Pitkin, Eagle, and Garfield Counties (from Healthy Mountain Communities surveys of 1997/98 season) • Keystone: 2001 • Pitkin County: 1991 • Routt County: 1990 • San Miguel County: 2000 • Snowmass Village: 1999 • Summit County: 1990, 2001 • Telluride: 1993, 1996, 2001 • Aspen 2002 • Garfield County 2004 • Pitkin County 2004 For the purposes of comparison with Eagle County, results from Chaffee County and Estes Park were not included in the merged database runs shown below in Table 4. The composite database shows about 2.9 employees work in every 1,000 square feet of commercial space overall. The ratios are considerably higher for restaurants and bars (8.1 per 1,000 SF) and recreation- related establishments (5.8 per 1,000 SF) and slightly higher for retail space (3.0 per 1,000 SF). Generation rates in Eagle County are similar, or slightly higher, than the composite database for most categories. Table 4. Commercial Job Generation Rates *Merged database excludes Estes Park and Chaffee County. Source: RRC Associates, inc. Considerations for Commercial Linkage Requirements When developing commercial linkage requirements, some communities use a single average while others combine similar categories into several groups. The rates are usually used to estimate employment when the PUD or building permit application is filed. The rates can be applied to new development and to redevelopment that results in additional space being created. Using a single average makes it less problematic when the exact use of space is not RRC Associates, Inc. Merged Database* . Eagle County 1990/1999/2001 Bar /restaurant 8.1 9.8 Construction 4.4 4.7 Education 1.4 1.2 Office (Finance /Banking, Legal, Medical, Professional Services) 3.8 4.3 Government 2.0 1.4 Lodging /hotel /housekeeping 0.8 /room 0.9 /room Personal services 2.5 6.0 Real estate /property management (office) 6.1 4.2 Retail sales 3.0 3.9 Service 1.4 1.7 Recreation /attractions /amusements 5.8 3.5 Utilities 1.5 1.6 Property Management (units) 0.4 /unit 0.5 /unit Overall 2.9 3.4 *Merged database excludes Estes Park and Chaffee County. Source: RRC Associates, inc. Considerations for Commercial Linkage Requirements When developing commercial linkage requirements, some communities use a single average while others combine similar categories into several groups. The rates are usually used to estimate employment when the PUD or building permit application is filed. The rates can be applied to new development and to redevelopment that results in additional space being created. Using a single average makes it less problematic when the exact use of space is not RRC Associates, Inc. defined 3tthe time of project approval; however, it can place disproportionate bundenVn commercial uses that have lower job gener@tonnahae. Utilizing multiple rates can complicate the situation when a change in use occurs. Some programs consider change in use toba exempt while others provide ocredit. Most programs provide the for the applicant bJ provide their own job genenotionestim@8es/nbhe event that the proposed use /a expected 8] generate jobs a/@ different rate than established bx the community. The following table shows job generation rates aggregated into five categories. The overall rate would be applied to uses that do not fit within the specified categories. ^[ffice^ includes such uses as finance/banking. legal and medical professions and other professional services. This shows that connnngnciG| operations in Eagle County are slightly more labor intensive than uses in the merged database 8eawhole. Table 5. Commercial Job Generation Rates by Condensed Categories Source: RRC Associates, Inc. The merged database contains 203 valid cases from Eagle County (103in1990'100in 1999/2001 combined). The compared composite database has 1.544 valid cases sampled from 1990 through 2004 and combines surveys from commercial core areas, where space tends to be intensively used, and nearby communities and unincorporated areas, where employment ia often less. Although the figures generated from Eagle County surveys could be used to determine local job generation, it is recommended that the merged dataset be used rather than specific local figures for the following reasons: • The smaller number of cases in individual communities is less statistically valid than the merged data set, particularly when broken down by types of businesses; • Surveys mf individual communities provide point-in-time estimates of job generation during the year of the survey. These rates are subject 0o change depending onmany factors, including local and regional economic conditions and changes in.development incentives, ordinances and regulations that may affect the intensity of commercial space usage in the community; • The merged data set provides a more general sample of the types of businesses and intensity of uses found in resort communities over a period oftime that includes both economic booms and slumps. This results in numbers that represent average commercial job generation that can be comfortably used over an extended period of time, rather than constantly changing with point-in-time economic conditions. • The merged data set also provides amore general sample of the intensity ofuses of businesses in multiple resort communities. Because each community represents a different ^nnaLunation" etota' the database presents on average mix of intensities that could be expected aG communities change and os businesses move into and out of communities. The merged database provides job generation rates that recognize the RRC Associates, Inc. I economic mix ofcommunities change over time, both within and between different industries, and accommodates this change. Residential Linkage Residential dwelling units generate demand for housing through their operation and maintenance. Activities including exterior and interior maintenance and upkeep, house cleaning, meal preparation, childcare, personal services, and home office support generate jobs, many of which are relatively low paying. The employees that fill these jobs generate demand for modestly priced housing. Further, homes built for second homeownership neduce the land and number of units available for the local workforce. As@ result, the more homes that are built in Eagle County (particularly for visitor or second home use), the more the affordable housing problem ieaggravated. Eagle County sponsored 8 study in 2001 on job generation associated with residential uses. Conducted by RRC Associates and other Housing Collaborative members, the study was used to estimate the number of permanent jobs associated with various types and sizes of residential units. This study focused on jobs directly generated 8ea result mf the residential unit. That is, jobs associated with housing maintenance and operations, including property and rental management, homeowner's association, gardeners, snow removal, exterior r aintananma, housekeepers, kitchen help/chef, child care provider/nanny, caretaker/concierege/bulter, personal trainer/administrative assistant and other related employees. This study did not include workers generated through construction of the home. The study was based onsurveys of homeowners and property management companies, with 1,112 homeowners and 6 property management companies responding. The data clearly show that employment generation intensifies aa the size of the dwelling unit increases. Average job generation rates were calculated to support an employee housing mitigation program that ie fairly simple 0uadminister, yet responsive tothe finding that large residential units generate more jobs than smaller units. The job generation rates, expressed in full-time equivalents (FTE) per unit, were found tovary by square footage according to the following exponential function: Equation of Residential Employee Generation by Home Size Total FTE =O.0913° Footage) The following table ofFTE employee generation rates was calculated by applying the above formula oo the mid-point cV each cf the residential square-footage categories shown in the first RRC Associates, Inc. 8 Table 6L Residential Employee Generation Rates Bv Home Size Unit (Square Feet) Employees Unit (Square Feet) Employees Source: RRG Associates, Inc. A study on residential job generation was also recently conducted by the Northwest Council of Governments /NVVCO<3\. titled "Second Homes and the Amenity Based Economy." The study found that, through owner spending, second homes generated about 8.50O direct basic 'obs (51.5peroentoftota|directbasiojobs) and12.0OO�te|joba(45.1percentmf�to|jobs\i' �OO2. K8onaspm:dica||y.this rasuMedin about 1.8 jobs per second homneun�that io3,000 � feet or more in size and 1.1 jobs per second home unit that is less than 3,000 square feet in size. Table 7. Jobs Created Through 2 "d Homeowner Size of 2nd Home Basic Jobs Total Jobs Total Jobs per Unit Denomination of Unit or more The NVVCOG job generation figures differ from those estimated by RRC Associates for the following primary reasons: • NWCOG focuses mn second homeowner properties only. RRC Associates calculations represent jobs generatedbvaU/neokjenbo|pro (those occupied bvfull-time residents and second homeowners) and • NWCOG figures represent all jobs created through second homeowner expenditures in the local economy (this includes not only property maintenance, but retail jobs, service jobs, etc.). RRCAoaoniotgo calculations represent only those jobs generated by the constructed residence, as measured through dineotemnp|oynlentbypnopertvoY«Oersfor ongoing property maintenance and operation (gandeners. property managers, housekeepers, etc.). Considerations for Residential Linkage Requirements The above data presents some interesting for communities when devising m residential linkage program. One method evaluates the total impact of second homes onthe economy based on expected homeowner expenditure patterns in the area and, therefore, all primary and secondary jobs created aso result of that impact (NVVC(]G). The other method evaluates only that employment directly generated by the constructed residence (employees directly hired by property owners to maintain and operate their propertv). When considering tho RRC Associates, Inc. 9 impact of residential uses, and particularly second homeowners, on local job generation and developing regulations that respond to those impacts, the following issues need tobe Homeownership cannot be determined until the time of sale of the property, although it may be possible to reasonably "predict" home occupation based on the size, price and location of proposed developments, among other factors; Properties 8V|d to |oce|e may be resold to second homeowners, causing a potential increase in employment, but with no ability to require 8 respective increase in ernp|Ovbe rnit|QobOn; Communities considering commercial linkage and residential linkage must ensure that the adopted proQnameananot"double-charging" for the same employees. In other words, if residential developments are required to mitigate for all jobs created through homeowner expenditures (direct basic jobs and secondary jobs, including property management aswell as retail jobs, service jobs, etc.), commercial linkage figures nnuS[ ensure that employees housed by residential linkage requirements are not also required tobe housed through commercial linkage; and There is a positive correlation between household size and job generation — the larger the home, the more jobs that are generated by the residence. To ensure fairness in implementation, requirements should vary by size :f the home. The implementation of requirements segmented by broad categories of mitigation (e.g..less than 3.00Osquare feet and 3,000 square feet or more) does not equitably distribute job generation and employee mitigation. It should bg noted that the direct employment bvRRC Associates, |nc., include the above considerations. Residential job generation fio only include employees directly hired by property owners to avoid double-counting employees that are needed by local commercial operations. Residential generation figures also purposefully include all property owners. This negates the complexity of trying to determine whether properties will be purchased by locals or second homeowners, but provides a middle-ground figure that results in mitigation fitted to the life of the property (including changes in ownership). However, itie recognized that some communities may prefer to have higher requirements for second homeowners in line with their total job generation in a local economy, with corresponding reduced requirements for commercial development. This is within the nea|nl of possibilities and could be achieved through creative program development and sensitivity to the above-mentioned issues. Accounting for Multiple Job Holding The job generation ratios for commercial space measure the total number Cffull- and part-time employees combined; noadjustment was made when counting part-time jobs. Some ofthe ernp|oyoao, particularly the part-time workers, may also hold other jobs. To ovoid double counting and potentially requiring two different commercial developments to pay for housing the same employee, the number of total employees inoommercia|opacethm1genenatedemGndfor housing in Eagle County needs tobe adjusted for multiple job holding. Because job generation rates for residential dwellings are presented in terms of full-time equivalents (FTE), they do not need to be adjusted for multiple job holding. The 1999Eagle County Housing Needs Assessment found that employees inEagle County hold gn average of1.2jobs. This measure was calculated bv evenly weighting thenunnberof jobs held during the winter, summer and shoulder seasons. It is similar to the results found in RRC Associates, Inc. 10 other mountain resort communities where, over the years, the number of jobs held by employees has typically ranged between 1.15 and 1.35. The projections [f jobs and workers holding jobs in Eagle County in 20O5 that were compiled by the Department ofLocal Affairs also average about 1.2 jobs per worker (see the "background data" naport). Converting from Workers to Households Employees often live together in family and unrelated roommate households. Housing requirements need k] recognize these lifestyle patterns. The number of employees per household living in family households has been estimated from the 2000 US Census. Family households with at least one employee have 1.88 employees onaverage. When non-family household estimates are included (including householders under 65 that are living alone and with unrelated persons), this drops to about 1.8 employees per household, on average. This results in large part because 21 percent ofhouseholds in Eagle County are single-person households and can, therefore, have at most one employee. The number ofhouseholds generated by@project equals the number cf new employees divided by1.8 employees per household. Identifying Methods and Household Targets A decision must bemade as to which types of programs will te targeted bvEagle County's proposed residential and commercial employee housing mitigation programs. It is important that developers not be "double-charged" by housing requirements to avoid the need for crediting developments for payments made through other mechanisms (see the section on Credits in this report). For example, many programs implemented in other Colorado mountain resort communities typically employ either residential linkage orino|ueiVnGryzoning to avoid ^doub|e- charQing^ residential developments for the same employees. However, the current approach outlined in Eagle County's Guidelines also prevents double-charging by having inclusionary and linkage requirements target different household income ranges (80 to 100% AMI and 60 to 80% AMI, respectively). Income ranges served by programs are unique for each community depending on their specific household needs. Most programs in other Colorado mountain communities require housing tmbe built for households earning anywhere between GO percent and 12O percent AM|. with many requiring that employee units average 80 percent AMI mitigation. Different ranges can be targeted based on local needs — for example, Aspen/Pitkin County have eight service- level cotegohea.00veringhnrn|nvv-incomnehVuoeho|dethnoughfour|eve|aofupperinconne categories. The County has the discretion bo require different mitigation rates for residential and commercial development, provided the rates are based on a legitimate public purpose. For example, commercial development can be assessed a lower mitigation rate than residential provided there ioa finding of fact that doing so achieves a public purpose, such as the encouragement of economic development @ndtheaupoortoffisca|youndngsoihnoughUleganenabonofoa|eatar revenues. Credits Any taxes orfees paid bvnew development that are used to address existing housing deficiencies must be credited for the amounts paid. In Eagle County, none of the fees or taxes paid bv residential or commercial development are allocated tohousing. Mitigation Formula To determine the number of affordable housing units that commercial, residential, or mixed-use projects must produce, the following formula is used. For illustrative purposes, the below table is based on the assumption that a 30% mitigation rate is required for commercial and 30% for residential mitigation. Other mitigation rates could easily be substituted, if desired. Table 8. Calculation of Commercial and Residential Linkage Requirements Commercial Factor Calculation Size of Development Leasable Square Feet Jobs generated Rate per 1,000 SF rate x SF/1,000 Bar/restaurant - 8.1 rates Commercial retail - 3.0 Office - 3.8 Households generated Other - 2.9 Employees generated/1.8 Employees generated -Households 1.2 jobs per employee Jobs generated / 1.2 generated 1.8 employees per unit Employees generated/1.8 Units Required 30% mitigation rate Households generated x 30% Units required 30% Households generated x 3�0% Residential Factor Calculation Size of Development # Units Employees generated Unit Size # units x approximate job generation See Residential Employee rates Generation Rates By Home Size table (pg. 7) Households generated 1.8 employees per unit Employees generated/1.8 Units required 30% mitigation rate Households generated x 30% • The size of the project is first multiplied by the appropriate job generation rates to estimate the number of jobs that will be created; • The number of jobs generated for commercial space and lodging is then divided by the average job holding ratio of 1.2 jobs per employee to estimate the number of new employees that will be generated by the development; • The number of new employees is then divided by the number of employees per household (1.8) to estimate the number of new households generated by the project; and RRC Associates, Inc. 12 * The total number of households is then multiplied by the percent mitigation rates, as approved by the Eagle County Board of Commissioners, to determine the number of units required. The number of new households for which housing must be provided isafunction of public policy oavvaUaa o|du Eagle County can require davekxx�rotoprov�e housing for up 100 percent of the income-targeted households generated by the development, particularly in light of existing Eagle County programs and projects thataddnmesuffordab|ehoueingneedsof households inthe targeted categories. Based on the analyses presented in this report, a3O percent mitigation rate would be easily supported for programs targeting households earning 100 percent of AN or less, with rates potentially supportable up to 45 percent or more. The mitigation requirements can be less than the maximum permitted for residential or commercial development, or both, based on the desires of the County to achieve its goals and objectives for Community Housing through mechanisms other than employee housing mitigation. Fee in Lieu Cakulation The difference between prevailing market prices and what targeted low-income households can afford to pay for housing is the gap that must be taken into consideration when determining the amount of fee that could be paid in lieu of producing units under certain circumstances. This gap varies by the income level of the targeted household and whether homeownership or rental housing iatobeprovided. To generate one number for each targeted income category that represents the gap between affordable and market costs, a series of calculations must be made, as follows: 1. The income range of targeted househo|daiafirst established. The basis ia the median family income for three-person households in Eagle County. The income for three-person households was used since the average household size |nEagle County aeof2004is2.74 persons (as estimated by the Department of Local /#fairo). The income range must be updated annually to reflect changes in the published wage or median income figures, depending upon which is used aean eligibility measure. Aea result, the amount of the gap and resulting payment in lieu will fluctuate yearly. 2. The target income point within the range is then set so that a single gap calculation can be performed. For the calculation under Category 1 (incomes at or below 80% of the median), the target point ie set at0OY6of the median. This rationale can big supported bv the fact .o( the funds received �ompayments in lieu vviUbe used by Eagle (�ountvto leverage funds kJ develop employee housing (the fee only covers the gap) and 60% of the median income is often targeted by Federal and State financing programs. I The affordable monthly housing payment is next established based nne commonly used standard: 30% of gross income equals housing payment. 4. The affordable monthly housing payment is then converted toan affordable purchase price by assuming the cost of property taxes and insurance is equal to 20 percent of the total affordable housing payment, then assuming that mortgage terms based on the remaining 80 percent of the payment include a5 percent down payment and a0 percent fixed rate of interest for 3Oyears. 5. An average size for each income category is set taking into consideration the County's housing goals and objectives, which include providing a variety of housing units for |u|bp|m RRC Associates, Inc. 13 types of households. Guidelines for the County's program should establish both an allowable range of sizes and a required average for the income categories. 6. The per square foot sales prices of dwelling units recently purchased in Eagle County is used as the basis for housing costs. The figure of $270 per square foot was the median cost of units sold from September 2004 through August 2005 (with outliers removed). The cost of units sold rather than the cost of construction has been used for several reasons: • Market -rate prices on a per square foot basis can be readily obtained and can be used to update the fee on a regular basis; • Construction costs vary widely, depending upon numerous variables. Adding the cost of land further complicates the calculation; and • The County may use the fees obtained to purchase existing units, provide rent subsidies, or support other housing efforts in addition to new construction projects. 7. The affordability gap is the difference between the cost (median per square foot price of recently purchased dwellings multiplied by the average size of units required for each income category) and the affordable purchase price. Programs targeting the lower income category (5 80% AMI) would have a per unit payment in lieu of $77,807, as shown in the following table. Table 9. Calculation of Fees in Lieu based on Median Income Limits Category 1 Category 2 580% AMI 81 % -100% AMI Income Range (3- person households) $0-$52,200 $52,201 - 72,000 Target Income Point (60% - Cat. 1; 90% AMI - Cat. 2) $43,200 $62,100 Affordable Monthly Housing Pmt. $1,080 $1,553 Property Taxes /Insurance /HOA estimate 216 311 (20% of Aff. Monthly Hsg. Pmt.) Mortgage Payment 864 $1,242 Max. Mortgage Amount* $144,108 $207,155 Affordable Purchase Price $151,693 $218,058 Average Sq. Ft of Units 850 950 Median per Sq Ft: 270 270 Cost per Unit $229,500 297,000 Affordability Gap / Payment per Unit in Lieu $77,807 38,442 * Assumes 5% down, 6% interest for 30 years. It should be noted that the calculations presented above assume that any HOA fees (plus property taxes and insurance) would be covered by 20 percent of the "affordable monthly housing payment." This percentage can be amended depending upon expected HOA dues being lower or higher than this allowance. For developments that result in a fraction of a RRC Associates, Inc. housing unit being required, the payment is determined by applying that fraction to the per -unit in lieu amount. For reference, the Table 10 shows the current 2005 Area Median Income levels for Eagle County Households and Table 11 shows the estimated affordable purchase price of homes for each income category. Table 10. Area Median Income by Household Size: Eagle County, 2005 1- person 2- persons 3- persons 4- persons 5- persons __ ._ ..,.,.... 50% $28,000 ,. ..,...... $32,000 y.- I,- $36,000 W-jVVv $40,000 y7G-7,a vV $43,150 80% $40,600 $46,400 $52,200 $58,000 $62,650 100% $56,000 $64,000 $72,000 $79,950 $86,300 120% $67,200 $76,800 $86,400 $96,000 $103,560 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development $303,385 $337,095 Table 11. Affordable Purchase Prices of Homes* by AMI: Eagle County, 2005 1- person 2- persons 3- persons 4- persons 5- nPrsnns 50% $98,319 $112,365 $126,411 $140,456 151,517 80% $142,563 $162,929 $183,295 $203,661 $219,989 100% $196,639 $224,730 $252,821 $280,912 $303,034 120% $235,966 $269,676 $303,385 $337,095 $363,641 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, RRC Associates, Inc. "Assumes a 30 -year, 6% fixed rate loan, with 5% down and 20% of monthly payment for property taxes, insurance and HOA fees, with no more than 30% of household income used for housing payments. RRC Associates, Inc. EXHIBIT D 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update — Data Report | INTRODUCTION SUMMARY OF FINDINGS POPULATION AND JOB TRENDS IN EmPLOYMENT ________________________________3 TYPES0F JOBS ................................................................................................................. 5 WAGES............................................................................................................................. h C0mvEmAL JOB GENERATION RATES ........................................................................... 7 Considerationsfor Commercial Linkage Requirements --------------..V U� ������� �"w�u���n�nn��u~����°~~~~.-"=~~._~.~~~..~~~.^^.~~~~.~.,...~^,.,~~,.,......~~,.,,,....~~~.~~,..K0 HOUSING INVENTORY OWNERSHIP UNITS ......................................................................................................... 13 Type nfunits .------------------------------------. 14 Ownershipof Units ................................................................................................... 14 ResidentialSales ....................................................................................................... 18 UnitsFor Sale (84LS) ................................................................................................ 2J AffordablePurchase Prices ...................................................................................... 22 RENTALUNITS ............................................................................................................... 23 EmO`U]YEE HOUSING UNITS ........................................................................................... 24 RESIDENTIAL JOB GENERATION RATES .......................................................................... 25 Considerations for Residential Linkage Requirements --------------..J7 RRC Associates, Inc. TOC Introduction Eagle County is in the process of reviewing their resident housing needs and development requirements related bo employee housing construction. /\o part ofthis assessment, Eagle County has contracted with RRC Associates, Inc., to update their rational nexVe, which was completed in 2001 by F|F(CAoeooiateG. Inc., and Rees Associates. The most recent Housing Needs Assessment that was conducted for Eagle County was also completed at this time. This report provides an overview of trends in population, employment and housing availability and costs between 2OUO and 2UO5. The information in this report ie meant to supplement the findings in the 2001 Housing Needs Assessment with a discussion of recent changes and trends since that time. This report provides the support for the assumptions and calculations presented in the accompanying 2005 K/exus/Pnoportione|itvAno|yaie update. Summary of Findings The period between 2OOO and 2OO5 exhibited some interesting changes. The year 2DOD was relatively stable from an economic standpoint then, in 2001, the U.S. economy weakened. Many resort communities felt this impact through reduced visitation and investment from outside dollars in retail, real estate and other industries. Eagle County followed this general trend, with the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages reporting a decline in jobs between 2OO1 and 2O03. with some recovery in2OO4and projected to continue through this year. S|nni|ady.the sale of higher-end second home properties increased in relation to more moderately priced units over the past year. � The Colorado Department of Local Affairs reports that jobs increased atGslightly slower rate between 2OOO and 2OO5(2.5 percent per year) than population and households (3.2 percent per ygah. This differs from the previous decade (1B9Oto 2000), when jobs (6.8 percent per year) outpaced local resident and household growth /0.8 and 8.1 percent per year, respectively). � The Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages reports a 2 percent decline in Eagle County jobs covered by unemployment insurance between 2000 and 2004. During this period, Eagle County lost construction jobs, which pay higher than � �average wages ^'~ the County `~—~'~~' construction average vs. $34.4w^County average). and showed the largest gain in accommodation and food services which pay the lowest average wages of any other industry in Eagle County ($22.54S in 2004). � Wages increased faster than for-sale housing prices between 2O0O and 20O4.with ao|e price gains |n2OO5 most likely outpacing gains inwages. Rents, on the other hand, increased ata slower rate than wages through 2OO5' implying inomeoeed affordability of rentals to local workers. More specifically: o Average Eagle County wages increased about 13.7 percent between 2OUO and 2004. The median sale price ofa single family home increased about 1O 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update — Data Report percent during this same period and condominiums increased about 7 percent, which io generally favorable. However, a household earning the median wage in2OOO could afford 8 home priced Et $240,000, whereas the median sale price ofa home in20OO was about $485.700. |n2OO4'amedian AyN| household could afford a home priced at$27O.000 and the median sale price of8 home was $51O.0OO. |n other words, despite home prices increasing slower than wages over the past four years, the difference was not significant enough to noticeably affect home affordability Lo |nc8|a. Further, sale prices through August 2OO5 show a noticeable increase from the prior year, indicating home prices may be picking upb3 historic growth rates. o Median rents, in comparison, increased slower than wages, at2.8percent overall (or 0.8percent when evaluated by price per square foot) between 2O0O and 2UO5. Vacancies in Eagle County reached a peak in the third quarter of28O3 and first quarter of 2OO4.at between 17to2D percent, and dropped to9 percent during the first quarter of2O05. Unstable occupancies helped to moderate rent inoneaeoo' along with the introduction of two affordable rental projects (Middle Creek and Buffalo Ridge) in 2004' which supplied 418 units affordable to households earning less than 80 percent of the Area Median Income (4W). Additional primary observations from the research include: Filled jobs |n Eagle County increased an average of 2.5 percent between 28OOand 2005, while residents holding jobs increased only about 1.0 percent on average during this hod Am jobs grow faster than the local workforce, this increases the need for out-of-counh/ commuters tu fill available positions. Job growth imexpected to continue to outpace local employee growth through at least 2O15. indicating that demand for locally affordable housing for employees will remain high. � Employment in Eagle County showed less differentiation between the winter and summer seasons in2004 than in1995. indicating movement toward a more year- round econo[ny. Employment during June through September was about 14percent lower than that from December through April in19S5 compared 0o about on8 percent difference in2000 and 2O04 between the two seasons. � Afamily of four earning the median family income in Eagle County in2005($79.Q50) could afford a home priced at about $280'C00. The median sale price ofasingle family home iO2OO5was $595,35O and for condominiums was $365l00. These units would be affordable to households earning $152,500 and $104,000 per year, respectively. About 47 percent of ownership units in Eagle County are owned Lmout-of-area residents. |n general, second homeowners are much more likely than locals toown units that are 8.80O square feet or more in size and whose sale prices are $80O,OUO or more. About 74 percent uf large properties (8.00O+ square feet) are owned by out-of-an*e owners and 7Spercent of homes sold for $8O0.00Oor more between 2OOO and August 2OO5 were toou1-of-Graaowners. About 45 percent of households in Eagle County in 2005 are estimated to earn less than 100 percent of the Area Median Income iAW\As of 2000, about 53 percent of RRC Associates, Inc. --T 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update these households were cost-burdened (paid over 30% of income for housing). This is estimated to be somewhat lower in 2005 (potentially between 44 and 48 percent), given that over 70O total rental and ownership units priced affordable tothese households were introduced into the market since 2OOU. Deaohm potential gains in affordability from introduced products, only 4 percent ofthe units listed Vn the Multiple Listing Service on October 13.2OU5. would beaffordable toa three-person household earning 1OU percent of the AK8|or less in2OO5. In other wohdo.of the 492 properties listed on October 13.2OO5.a total of21 properties were priced at $250,000 or less, which a 3-person household earning 100 percent of the AyW| could afford. Population and Job Growth Itie estimated that there are about 48.80O residents in Eagle County |n2OO5.occupying about 17.OB5homes. Between 2D0O and 2OO5.itio estimated that the local population and households increased at the same rate (3.2 percent per year on average), whereas jobs have increased a1a slower rate (2.5 percent per year onaverega). Much faster growth rates occurred between 1990 and 2000, where the population of Eagle County and total jobs in the County grew at na&ao in excess of 6.5 percent per year and at rates faster than households. With population growing faster than households in the 1SSU'o` the average household size increased from 2.01 persons in 1990 1o2.73 in 2000 and is estimated to have held at about 2.74 persons in20U4. The reduced growth rates over the past five years, particularly in jobs, is reflective of the slowdown of the economy in 2O01. with observable recovery occurring within about the past year in many resort C0nlOOUOiii9s. Population, Household and Job G 1990 to 2005 Average Yearly % Change 1990 1995 2000 2005 1990 to 2000 2000 to 2005 Population 21,922 30,608 41,659 48,800 6.6% 3.2% Households 8,354 11,391 15,148 17,695 6.1% 3.2% Jobs 18,063 26,398 34,925 39,530 6.8% 2.5% Source: Department of Local Affairs; RRC Associates, Inc. *2005 households estimated assuming the same household size in2005 as in 2004 (2.74 persons). Trends in Employment The Colorado Department of Local Affairs provides estimates for the local employed labor force and total jobs filled in Eooka Count/. This information is compiled from several sources, including the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment, Labor Market Information; the Colorado Division of Local Government, Demography Section; and the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. The local employed labor force includes estimated proprietors and self-employed individuals. The below graph illustrates that filled jobs has exceeded the growth in the local working labor force between 2OOO and 2OO5in Eagle County, a trend that ie projected to continue RRC Associates, Inc. 3 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update— Data Report through 2015. Filled jobs increased an average of2.5percent between 2000 and 2005, while residents holding jobs increased only about 1.0 percent on average during this period. Ae jobs grow faster than the local workforce, this increases the need for out-of- countvcornmnubsnotofi|| available positions. The following graph also shows that there isan average of14Sfilled jobs for every resident holding ak job in Eagle County in2OO5. Because Out-of-counb/(non-|oca|) workers are not included in the local employed labor force count, the actual number of jobs each local worker holds ie less than 1.4g. 0C)LA estimates that residents hold about 1.17 jobs per worker, on average, in2OO5. Total Filled Jobs vs. Local Employed Workforce, 1990 to 2015 60,000 EMResidents holding jobs =Total filled obs i 2.0 Filled jobs per local worker 1.7 LO 1.8 5O,00O E � 1.49 o 1.66L IL ^0,000 1.38 138 14 E � W CO CO CO CN 1.2 m 3O.00 1� 0 LN 0.8 _J -J 20,000-- W| m C6 � OO '0 � .. 04 � 10000 � . 02 � v 0.0 1990 1895 2000 2005 2010 2015 Source: Department of Local Affairs (0]LA) The Quarterly Census of Employment andW@eo(QCENrepmrts there were 27.642 jobs in Eagle County in2OO4. which ia generally about 75 percent to8O percent mfaotuo| (w�)enoonnparedto job eotinnotee�orn��[]LA). This data includes vvorherGcovered bx unemployment insurance and, therefore does not generally include self-proprietors and many agricultural laborers. /\e shown below, QCEVV jobs show a slight decline between 2OOO and 2O04(-2percend. with the fewest number of jobs reported 1n20O3(20.H43) and some recovery in2OO4. Average Yearly Employment: Eagle County, 2000 Through 2004 QCEVV reported employment is helpful for reviewing seasonal trends inemployment over time. As shown below, the / n Eagle County continues Lobe strongly dominated by the winter season (from December through Ma |). RRC Associates, Inc. 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update— Data Report However, employment in both 2000 and 2005 show a stronger relational rise during the summer months than in 1995. Employment during June through September was about 14 percent lower than that from December through April in 1995 compared to about an 8 percent difference in 2000 and 2004 between the two seasons. This indicates movement toward a more year-round economy, with potentially less dependence on winter visitation than in the past. 4 # =#1 #1 28000 E 26000 24000 E 22000 >1 E CL 20000 Ui 0 18000 16000 14000 Employment by Month: Eagle County, 1995 to 2004 0 o5 Source: QCEW - Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Types of Jobs QCEW provides useful estimates for the types of industries that supply jobs in a region, as shown below. The predominant industries in Eagle County in 2004 in terms of their percentage contribution to jobs include accommodations and food services (23 percent of jobs), construction (14 percent), retail trade (11 percent), arts/entertainment/ recreation (11 percent) and government (9 percent). Changes since 2001 indicate that construction declined from 17 percent of jobs in 2001 to 14 percent in 2004, resulting in a loss of about 1,000 construction jobs during this period. Other industries show slight increases in their percentage capture of employment during this period, including accommodations and food services, retail trade, government and real estate, rentals and leasing. RRC Associates, Inc. 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update— Data Report Average Annual Employment By Industry: Eagle County, 2001 and 2004 Accommodation and food services Construction Retail trade (44 -45) Arts- entertainment- and recreation Government Real estate and rental and leasing Health care and social assistance Administrative and waste services Professional and technical services Other services- except public administration Finance and insurance Transportation and warehousing (48 -49) Manufacturing (31 -33) Wholesale trade Information Management of companies and enterprises Educational services Utilities Agriculture- forestry- fishing and hunting Mining 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Percent of Employment Source: QCEW - Colorado Department of Labor and Employment Wages Average yearly wages paid in Eagle County increased about 13.7 percent between 2000 and 2004. The average wage paid in 2004 was about $34,433. Average Yearly Wage: Eagle County, 2000 Through 2004 9nnn mni 9nn) ')nnA inns % Change Wages by industry show that accommodation and food services (which comprises the largest percentage of jobs in Eagle County at 23 percent) pays the lowest average wage of any other industry ($22,549). Accommodation and food service wages average about 53 percent below the overall average wage for the County ($34,433). Construction jobs, which showed the largest decline in jobs since 2001, pay wages that average about 19 percent more than the overall average in the County, at $40,861. RRC Associates, Inc. 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update— Average Employment and Average Yearly Wage bwIndustry: Eagle County, 2001 and 2004 Information 310 $42,435 Management of companies and enterprises 173 $81,024 Educational services 130 $29,162 Utilities 52 $58,252 Commercial Job Generation Rates When new commercial projects are built, additional employment is generated. New commercial employment may ba from new businesses or from businesses relocating from other space (thereby freeing up that space for other tengnts). Regardless, the net effect over time is a net increase in employment in the community. Job generation rates that measure the number of jobs typically generated by various types of commercial spaces can be used Uy estimate the number of jobs that will becreated by new dama|oprnenL RRC Associates and Rees Consulting, |nc.. both members of The Housing Collaborative, LLC, have been conducting housing needs assessments in mountain resort communities throughout Colorado and in neighboring states since 1990. As part of these studies, public and private sector employers were surveyed concerning the number [f jobs they offer and the amount Vf space they occupy. From these surveys, a total of1,857 employers were used tocompile a database on job generation notioa, which are expressed as the number of total jobs (full and part time combined, not FTE) per 1.0OO square feet ofspace. The study area included both core resort areas aawell as nearby communities, which are listed ba|ovv. with their respective survey dates. RRC Associates, Inc. Employment Wage TOTAL All Industries 27,642 $34,433 Accommodation and food services 6,414 $22,549 Construction 3,859 $40,861 Retail trade 3,102 $-29,133 Arts- entertainment- and recreation 3,041 �-32,034 Government 2,519 $40,017 Real estate and rental and leasing 1,563 T3-8,324 Health care and social assistance 1,399 $47,389 Administrative and waste services 1,240 �2-8,368 Professional and technical services 1,155 T5-3,914 Information 310 $42,435 Management of companies and enterprises 173 $81,024 Educational services 130 $29,162 Utilities 52 $58,252 Commercial Job Generation Rates When new commercial projects are built, additional employment is generated. New commercial employment may ba from new businesses or from businesses relocating from other space (thereby freeing up that space for other tengnts). Regardless, the net effect over time is a net increase in employment in the community. Job generation rates that measure the number of jobs typically generated by various types of commercial spaces can be used Uy estimate the number of jobs that will becreated by new dama|oprnenL RRC Associates and Rees Consulting, |nc.. both members of The Housing Collaborative, LLC, have been conducting housing needs assessments in mountain resort communities throughout Colorado and in neighboring states since 1990. As part of these studies, public and private sector employers were surveyed concerning the number [f jobs they offer and the amount Vf space they occupy. From these surveys, a total of1,857 employers were used tocompile a database on job generation notioa, which are expressed as the number of total jobs (full and part time combined, not FTE) per 1.0OO square feet ofspace. The study area included both core resort areas aawell as nearby communities, which are listed ba|ovv. with their respective survey dates. RRC Associates, Inc. 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update— Data Report • Blaine County, ID: 1990, 1996 • Keystone: 2001 • Chaffee County: 1994 • Pitkin County: 1991 -Copper: 2001 • Routt County: 1990 • Eagle County: 1990, 1999, 2001 • San Miguel County: 2000 • Estes Park: 1991, 1999 • Snowmass Village: 1999 • Frisco: 1998 • Summit County: 1990, 2001 • Grand County: 1992, 2001 • Telluride: 1993, 1996, 2001 • Gunnison County: 1992, 1998 • Aspen 2002 • Composite of Pitkin, Eagle, and Garfield • Garfield County 2004 Counties (from Healthy Mountain • Pitkin County 2004 Communities surveys of 1997/98 season) For the purposes of comparison with Eagle County, results from Chaffee County and Estes Park were not included in the merged database runs shown below in Table 4. The composite database shows about 2.9 employees work in every 1,000 square feet of commercial space overall. The ratios are considerably higher for restaurants and bars (8.1 per 1,000 SF) and recreation-related establishments (5.8 per 1,000 SF) and slightly higher for retail space (3.0 per 1,000 SF). Generation rates in Eagle County are similar, or slightly higher, than the composite database for most categories. Table 4. Commercial Job Generation Rates a Real estate/property management (office) Merged Eagle County Retail sales Database* 1990/1999/2001 Bar/restaurant 8.1 9.8 Construction 4.4 4.7 Education 1.4 1.2 Office (Finance/Banking, Legal, Medical, 3.8 43 Professional Services) Government 2.0 1.4 a Real estate/property management (office) 61 4.2 Retail sales 3.0 3.9 Service 1.4 1.7 Recreation /attractions /amusements 5.8 3.5 Utilities 1.5 1.6 *Merged database excludes Estes Park and Chaffee County. Source: RRC Associates, inc. RRC Associates, Inc. 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update — Data Report Considerations for Commercial Linkage Requirements When developing commercial linkage requirements, some communities use @single average while others combine similar categories into several groups. The rates are usually used Uzestimate employment when the PUDor building permit application io filed. The rates can bg applied to new development and boredevelopment that results in additional space being created. Using m single average makes it less problematic when the exact use of space io not defined eL the time of project opprova|;hovvaver'it can place disproportionate burden on commercial uses that have lower job generation rates. Utilizing multiple rates can complicate the situation when o change in use occurs. Some programs consider change in use to be exempt while others provide a credit. Most programs provide the opportunity for the applicant to provide their own job generation estimates /n the event that the proposed use iS expected to generate jobs at aoYffen*n/ rate than established bv the community. The following table shows job generation rates aggregated into five categories. The overall rate would Leapplied to uses that do not fit within the specified categories. ^{JD1ce^ includes such uses as finance/ban king, legal and medical professions and other professional services. This shows that commercial operations in Eagle County are slightly more labor intensive than uses in the merged database as a whole. Commercial Job Generatio Rates by Condensed Merged Eagle County Units Database 1990,1999,2001 Bar/restaurant 8.1 9.8 Emps/1,000 sq. ft. 211 Source: RRC Associates, inc. The merged database contains 203 valid cases from Eagle County M03in1990,100in 1999/2001 combined). The compared composite database has 1,544 valid cases sampled from 1990 through 2004 and combines surveys from commercial core areas, where space tends to be intensively used, and nearby communities and unincorporated areas, where employment b; often less. Although the figures generated from Eagle County surveys could be used to determine local job generation, it is recommended that the merged dataset be used rather than specific local figures for the following reasons: The smaller number of cases in individual communities io less statistically valid than the merged data set, particularly when broken down bvtypes of businesses; Surveys of individual communities provide point-in-time estimates of job generation during the year of the survey. These rates are subject b] change depending on many factors, including local and regional economic conditions and changes in development incentives, ordinances RRC Associates, Inc. 9 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update — Data Report and regulations that may affect the intensity of commercial space usage iO the community; The merged data set provides @ more general sample ofthe types of businesses and intensity of uses found inresort communities over @ period of time that includes both economic booms and slumps. This results in numbers that represent average commercial job generation that can be comfortably used over an extended period of time, rather than constantly changing with pnint-in-tirneeconomic conditions. The merged data set also provides 8nlone general sample of the intensity of uses of businesses in multiple resort communities. Because each community represents a different "maturation" state, the database presents an average mix of intensities that could be expected as communities change and am businesses move into and out Vf communities. The merged database provides job generation rates that recognize the economic mix ofcommunities change over time, both within and between different industries, and accommodates this change. This section evaluates household income distribution in 1999 compared to that expected in 2005 given trends in employment and regional incomes over the past five years. The following table shows the distribution of household incomes by area median income (AyW|)in Eagle County in1S9G. This shows that about 28.7 percent ofhouseholds earned less than 8096AyN| and another 15.9 percent earned between 80 and 10096AK4|. Aeof the year 2OOO.about 53 percent of households earning less than 10OY6/\K8|were cost-burdened (paid over 3O96mf income for houeing). Distribution of Households by AMU: Eagle County 1999 Source: Census 2O00CHAS Housing Affordability Strategy) tabulations; Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) *Represents the AM| for 3-penmn households in Eagle County in1899. The Department of Local Affairs provides estimates of households bv income for a5- county region including Eagle County, Summit CountxFitkinCounty.Juckson County and Grand County. This shows that since 1S89 the median income of all households in this region increased about 15 percent, from $53.411to$81.382. RRC Associates, Inc. Owner Renter Total AMI Level* I-Person Household 2-Person Household 3-Person Household Source: Census 2O00CHAS Housing Affordability Strategy) tabulations; Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) *Represents the AM| for 3-penmn households in Eagle County in1899. The Department of Local Affairs provides estimates of households bv income for a5- county region including Eagle County, Summit CountxFitkinCounty.Juckson County and Grand County. This shows that since 1S89 the median income of all households in this region increased about 15 percent, from $53.411to$81.382. RRC Associates, Inc. 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update- Data Report Region 12* Households by Income: 1999 to 2005 Income Range 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 0 t $5,000 $40,000 1,010 1,068 1,111 1,145 1,143 1,147 1,164 5,000 to $10,000 900 952 967 982 981 967 908 10,000 to $15,000 1,193 1,227 1,259 1,307 1,319 1,277 1,223 15,000 to $20,000 1,556 1,565 1,611 1,684 1,700 1,618 1,523 20,000 to 25,000 1,832 1,859 1,894 1,953 1,944 1,855 1,729 25,000 to 30,000 2,026 2,053 2,108 2,193 2,190 2,117 2,028 30,000 to $35,000 1,948 2,055 2,073 2,058 2,034 1,982 2,001 35,000 to $40,000 2,283 2,255 2,344 2,534 2,646 2,440 2,069 40,000 to $45,000 2,215 2,361 2,387 2,397 2,395 2,418 2,528 45,000 to $50,000 1,875 2,068 2,147 2,178 2,250 2,338 2,322 50,000 to $60,000 3,555 3,746 3,841 3,928 4,035 4,008 4,040 60,000 to $75,000 4,380 4,761 4,855 4,888 4,967 5,060 5,212 75,000 to $100,000 4,343 4,938 5,110 5,135 5,296 5,627 5,920 100,000 to 125,000 2,449 2,862 2,986 2,962 3,076 3,398 3,729 125,000 to 150,000 1,063 1,395 1,465 1,400 1,461 1,778 2,108 150,000 to $200,000 1,562 1,761 1,805 1,811 1,876 1,951 2,047 200,000 & over 1,911 2,346 2,502 2,503 2,652 3,077 3,478 Total 36,102 39,272 40,466 41,057 41,965 43,059 44,028 Median Income $53,411 $55,804 $56,069 $55,341 $55,899 $58,409 $61,382 Source: Department of Local Affairs *Region 12 includes the following counties: Eagle, Grand, Jackson, Pitkin and Summit The average household size in the 5- county region was about 2.41 persons per household in 1999 and 2.50 in 2005. Classifying the above households into area median income ranges specified for Eagle County for 2.41 person households in 1999 and 2.50 person households in 2005 shows that the percentage of households earning less than 80 percent of the AMI increased from about 36 percent in 1999 to 39 percent in 2005 (see the chart on the next page). Similarly, the percentage of households in the region earning over 120 percent of the AMI decreased from 40 percent in 1999 to 36 percent in 2005. Area Median Income by Household Size: Eagle County, 2005 1- person 2- persons 3- persons 4- persons 5- persons 50% $28,000 $32,000 $36,000 $40,000 $43,150 80 % $40,600 $46,400 $52,200 $58,000 62,650 100% $56,000 $64,000 $72,000 $80,000 $86,300 120% $67,200 $76,800 $86,400 $96,000 $103,560 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development RRC Associates, Inc. 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update— Data Report 120%+ 100-120% 80-100% rn 60-80% 50-60% 30-50% <30% Regional Households By AMI: 1999 and 2005 Estimates 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Percent of Households Source: Department of Local Affairs; RRC Associates, Inc. E2005 1119991 Similar changes by tenure were also observed. The percentage of owners earning less than 80 percent of the AMI increased from 27 percent in 1999 to 31 percent in 2005. The percentage of renters earning less than 80 percent of the AMI increased from 50 percent in 1999 to 55 percent in 2005. This data indicates a slight decrease in the 5- county area income overall, at least in relation to the median incomes in Eagle County between 1999 and 2005. Regional Households By AMI By Tenure: 1999 and 2005 Estimates AMI Range 1999 Own 2005 Rent 1999 2005 <30% 6% 8% 16% 19% 30-50% 7% 8% 17% 20% 50-60% 5% 6% 8% 7% 60-80% 9% 9% 9% 9% 80-100% 16% 17% 14% 14% 100-120% 10% 10% 9% 8% 120%+ 46% 41% 27% 23% TOTAL 64% 69% 36% 31% Source: Department of Local Affairs; RRC Associates, Inc. Based on the above information, in conjunction with the analysis of the change in jobs and jobs by type of industry discussed earlier in this report, the income distribution of households by AMI in Eagle County in 2005 is expected to have shown little change since 1999. The most likely change points to a slight increase in the percentage of households earning less than 80 percent of the AMI and a slight decrease of higher income households (over 120 percent AMI). As a result, for purposes of this update, it is conservatively estimated that the income distribution of households by AMI in 2005 has RRC Associates, Inc. 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update- Data Report remained the same as that in 1999. This translates to about 29.7 percent of households earning less than 80 percent of the AMI (5,264 total households) and 15.9 percent of households earning between 80 and 100 percent of the AMI (2,818 total households). This is an important consideration when developing mitigation rates for employee housing in Eagle County and shows that currently about 30 percent of the households residing (or being served by housing) in Eagle County earn less than 80 percent of the AMI. Fully 45 percent of households earn less than 100 percent AMI. Households by AMI: Eagle County, 2005 • . • � This section evaluates changes in ownership and rental housing since 2000, including resident and non -local homeownership, sales prices, average rents and vacancy rates. An overview of employee units (both ownership and rentals) constructed since the 2000 US Census is also provided. Ownership Units About 63.7 percent of occupied housing units were owner - occupied in 2000. Assuming this ratio remained fairly constant through 2005, approximately 11,271 units would be owner occupied in 2005. Based on estimates from the Department of Local Affairs, the percentage of vacant units in Eagle County has increased from 31.5 percent in 2000 to 36.4 percent in 2004. This could be related both to the occupancy of rental units as well as purchases of homes by out -of -area owners (second homeowners). RRC Associates, Inc. Owners Renters Total <50% 10.5% 1,184 25.6% 1,642 16.0% 2,826 50.1 to 60% 2,1% 238 4.6% 297 3.0% 535 60.1 to 80% 8.2% 926 15.2% 977 10.8% 1,903 80.1 to 100% 15.5% 1,747 16.7% 1,071 15.9% 2,818 100.1 to 120% 13.1% 1,473 12.5% 802 12.9% 2,275 120% or more 50.6% 5,703 25,5% 1,635 41.5% 7,339 TOTAL 100.00/0 11,271 100.0% 6,424 100.0% 17,695 <80% 20.8% 2,347 45.4% 2,916 29.7% 5,264 80.1 to 100% 15.5% 1,747 16.7% 1,071 15.9% 2,818 • . • � This section evaluates changes in ownership and rental housing since 2000, including resident and non -local homeownership, sales prices, average rents and vacancy rates. An overview of employee units (both ownership and rentals) constructed since the 2000 US Census is also provided. Ownership Units About 63.7 percent of occupied housing units were owner - occupied in 2000. Assuming this ratio remained fairly constant through 2005, approximately 11,271 units would be owner occupied in 2005. Based on estimates from the Department of Local Affairs, the percentage of vacant units in Eagle County has increased from 31.5 percent in 2000 to 36.4 percent in 2004. This could be related both to the occupancy of rental units as well as purchases of homes by out -of -area owners (second homeowners). RRC Associates, Inc. 2005 Nexus Change in Housing Units: 2000 to 2005 Owner-occupied 9,649 10,066 10,602 10,850 11,084 11,271 16.8% Housing Units 22,111 22,795 26,194 26,875 27,380 27,842 25.9% rate *2005 households and housing units estimated by assuming same household size and vacancy rates as in 2004. Type of units Based on County Assessor data, about 45 percent of homes in Eagle County are condominiums, 42 percent are single family homes (including duplexes and Uip|exea).0 percent are townhomes and 7 percent are mobile homes. Ownership Units by Type: Eagle County, 2005 To GingloFami (incl.uup8pl, 42% Mobile home Condominium 45% *Excludes apartments Source: 2005 Eagle County Assessor data; RRC Associates, Inc. Ownership efUnits Eagle County residents own approximately 53 percent of residences in the County. Another 2Q percent are owned bv persons that reside out ofthe state of Colorado, 5 percent from residents in Summit, Garfield or Pitkin Counties and 13 percent from other areas ofColorado. [>[)LA figures would imply that local residents occupy about 64 percent of occupied units in Eagle County; however this includes both rental and owner- occupied un|ta.vvhenoasthehQunasbg|ovvshovvroUoeofovvnermhipofunitson|y. RRC Associates, Inc. 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update — Data Report Unit Ownership bw Place mf Residence: Eagle County, 2005 Other state/country Other Col SummxGmrfieldm Pitkin County Eagle County resident 53% Source: 2OO5 Eagle County Assessor data; RRC Associates, Inc. The "most recent sale" ofeach property was examined over the past five years bJ identify recent trends in purchases of units by residents and non-residents. Because this information is based on the "most recent sale" of the property, if a property was purchased in 2000 by an Eagle County resident, then resold to an out-of-area buyer in 2002, only the latter sale (2002) will be included in the analysis. However, over a short timeframe, this analysis can indicate any significant shifts in purchasing given the relatively low incidence of resales over short periods. As shown inthe following graph, the percentage of homes purchased bv Eagle County residents compared to out-of-area residents increased between 2000 and 2005. About 54 percent of homes in2O0O were purchased bvEagle County residents, compared to 57 percent in2OO5. The percentage ofou1-of-e1a1a and "other Colorado" purchasers remained about the same, whereas the percentage of units purchased by Summit, Garfield and Pi1kin County residents declined during this period. RRC Associates, Inc. 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update— Data Report 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Sales by Place of Residence: Eagle County, 2005 56% 57% 57% 54% 52% Eagle County resident —0 Other state /country - X Other Colorado ­*---Summit, Garfield or Pitkin County 28% 27% 26% 27% 28% 12% 12% 12% 12% 11% 9% _. 6% 5% 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 NOTE: this data is based on the most recent sale of property and, therefore, does not represent the total number of sales occuring in each year. Includes all units (condos, single family, duplex /triplex, townhomes and mobile homes). Source: 2005 Eagle County Assessor data; RRC Associates, Inc. Resident ownership of units shows some variation by the price and square footage of units, which could be factors used when trying to identify whether new projects will cater to resident needs or be primarily owned by second homeowners. Eagle County residents are more likely than out -of -area buyers to purchase properties under $500,0000. Eagle County residents purchased over one -half of all sales between 2000 and August 2005 that were priced under $500,000. This percentage declines significantly for more expensive properties, where only 20 percent of sales priced over $800,000 were purchased by Eagle County residents. The largest number of sales to Eagle County residents between 2000 and August 2005 were priced between $200,000 and $300,000, accounting for about 30 percent of total resident sales (1,310 total properties). RRC Associates, Inc. 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update— Data Report 2000 1800 LO 8 1600 04 1400 Z 1200 1000 800 600 U) 2 400 0 200 0 Price of Sale by Place of Residence: Sales Between 2000 and August 2005 .��jb gdO 4P V' "P Al2 el �r IS9 Sale Price (includes single family, condo and duplex/triplex sales) Source: 2005 Eagle County Assessor data; RRC Associates, Inc. 90% 80% '4 70% 60% 0 50% rn W 40% o 30% 0 20% 5 10% CL 00/0 Local ownership of units also varies by the size of homes. Eagle County residents are less likely than out-of-area owners to own residences that are 4,000 square feet in size or larger. Just over one-half of all homes under 4,000 square feet are owned by Eagle County residents, compared to only 26 percent that are 8,000 square feet or more in size. RRC Associates, Inc. 2005 Nexus 100% m% � 30% Unit Square Footage by Place of Residence: Eagle County, 2005 Less 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 than to to to to to to to to to to to or 1,000 1,499 1,999 2,499 2,999 3,499 3.999 4,499 *.999 5,999 6,999 7,999 more Heated Square Footage of Units Includes all units (condos, single family, uuplox/tnplex, townhomen and mobile homes). Source: 2005 Eagle County Assessor data; RRC Associates, Inc. Residential Sales This section evaluates sales of single fa ily homes (including duplex and triplex units) and condominiums between 2000 and August 2OO5. The following graph compares sale prices of new units (units sold within one year of construction) with existing, or resold, units. This analysis provides an indication of the extent to which new development fits the needs of local residents or caters kJ second hornmbuygna. Ae shown below, the percentage of new homes that sold for $8OO.0OOor more kSmuch higher than exist versus 21 percent), indicating a tendency for new units toUe priced for second homeowners. However, nna more positive note, the percentage of new unit sales under $200,000 (17 percent) was higher than for existing units (13pencent). Reflected in this difference are sales of homes in Miller Ranch —Gn employee housing project of 282 ownership units that began construction iO2O03 and should be completed mid-2OO8. For example, 55 percent of new units sold in2OO4 priced under $2OO.00O were units in Miller Ranch. RRC Associates, Inc. 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update — Data Report Sales of New vs. Existing Units bw Price Kn Eagle County: 2000 thru August 2005 � � � 20m 10% sm n1/0 �ee 'ee �oop / / / / / 0' Sale Price (Single family and condo sales between 2000 and Aug. 2005) Single family includes unattached and duplex/triplex units. New units are defined ao units sold within one year mconstruction. Source: coun Eagle County Assessor data; nncAnoovmteo. Inc. The median price of single family homes sold between 2OUO and August 2OO5 increased about 15percent. The median sale price ofcondominiums during this same period increased 31 percent. A large percentage cd this gain occurred over the past year, where the median sale price of singly family homes in 2005 increased 5 percent from 2004 and condominiums increased 21 percent during this same period. In 2005, about 36 percent of condominiums sold through August were priced at $58O.00Oor more compared to between 24 and 3O percent in2OOD through 2OO4. RRCAaoociatem Inc. 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update — Data Report 8 $*no,0oo 4) 05 $300,000 $100,000 $0 Median Sale Price mfUnits by Type: 2000 thru August 2005 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year of Sale Single family includes unattached residences and uupmiplmmo. envmouooaeaoleovunty Aamesovuota;nno^sanmoteo.mu The median sale price of units per square foot also shows a large increase since 2000. Median prices per square foot overall remained fairly consistent between 2OOOand 2003. with |a i seen in3OO4 and 2OO5. Single family homes increased about 18 percent, from $236 per square foot in 2000 to $318 per square foot for homes sold in 2O05 (through August). Condominiums increased 35 percent, from $197 per square foot in2O000o$232 per square foot in2OO5 (through August). The combined average price per square foot of single family and condominium properties was $270 per square foot. RRC Associates, Inc. 20 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update— Data Report $350 $300 16 0 LL $250 2 $200 CL $150 a $100 $50 $0 Median Sale Price of Units per Square Foot by Type: 2000 thrul August 2005 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year of Sale Single family includes unattached residences and dup/triplexes. Source: 2005 Eagle County Assessor data; RRC Associates, Inc. Units For Sale (MLS) Comparing the distribution of units available for sale to those that have sold to both locals and non-residents provides another indication of the extent to the availability of units priced affordable for Eagle County residents. As shown below, over 60 percent of single family, condominium and duplex/triplex units listed on the Multiple Listing Service (MLS) on October 13, 2005, in Eagle County were priced over $800,000 (or 307 of 492 listed properties). In comparison, 37 percent of properties sold to out-of-area residents between January 2000 and August 2005 were priced over $800,000, along with 9 percent of resident-purchased units. The MLS shows a deficiency of units for residents priced under $300,000 (6 percent of all units — 30 total units). Only two units were listed that were priced under $200,000. RRC Associates, Inc. 21 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update— Data Report Unit Sales (2000 thru August 2005) vs. MLS Listings (October 13, 2005): Eagle County 70% 60% 50% N d M N 40% r. a 30% m a 20% 10% 0% Sale Price (sales between 2000 and Aug. 2005) or Asking Sale Price (MLS) Includes single family, condo, duplex /triplex units Source: 2005 Eagle County Assessor data; Multiple Listing Service (MLS); RRC Associates, Inc. Affordable Purchase Prices The following tables show what households earning incomes at different 2005 Area Median Income (AMI) levels in the County can afford. Affordability is defined as no more than 30 percent of a household's income being used to pay for housing. The median income of households in Eagle County in 2005 is $79,950 (100 percent AMI for a 4- person household). The incomes of households at different AMI levels by household size are shown below. Area Median Income by Household Size: Eagle County, 2005 1- person 2- persons 3- persons 4- persons 5- persons 50% $28,000 $32,000 $36,000 $40,000 $43,150 80% $40,600 $46,400 $52,200 $58,000 $62,650 100% $56,000 $64,000 $72,000 $79,950 $86,300 120% $67,200 $76,800 $86,400 $96,000 1037560 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development The affordable purchase price of homes at different AMI levels was calculated based on the following assumptions: a 30 -year fixed rate loan, 5 percent down, 20 percent of monthly payment used for property taxes, insurance and homeowners association RRC Associates, Inc. 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update — Data Report (HOA)hees and no more than 30 percent of the household income used for housing payments (includes mortgage, taxes, insurance and H{JAfees\. The average household size inEagle County in2O04 was 2.74persons. As shown below, G3-personhousehold earning 1OO percent mf the AK8| could afford @home priced et about $25O.00D. Only percent uf properties listed on the K4LS on October 13.2OO5. were priced affordable tm these households, ora total of21properties. Affordable Purchase Prices mf Homes* by AMU: EaciKe County. 2005 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, RRC Associates, Inc. *Assumes a3O'peor, 6& fixed rate loan, with 5Y6 down and 2O%of monthly payment for property taxes, insurance and HOA fees, with no more than 30% of household income used for housing payments. Rental Units The Colorado Division of Housing conducts a K8uki�Fmrnik/ Vacancy and Rental Survey of market rate rental properties every first and third quarter. An evaluation of rental unite in Eagle County shows wide variation in vacancy rates ofmarket rate properties since 2000. Vacancies rose from less than 1 percent vacant in 2000 and most of 2001 to over 2O percent vacant during the first quarter of2O04. Vacancy rates have since declined to about B percent during the first quarter of20O5. Typically vacancy rates around 5to1O percent are sufficient to offer options for renters when searching for suitable housing. Vacancy rates below 5 percent generally indicate a lack of housing choice in an area, which, historically, has been the case in Eagle County. Worth noting ie that two rental projects were introduced to the rental pool in 2004— Middle Creek and Buffalo Ridge — adding over 4OO units and offering some affordable rentals for local employees (discussed in the next meoUon). These properties have since largely been absorbed by the rental market. As indicated by the declining vacancy rates between 2004 (19.9 percent) and 2005 (9.2 percent), market rate occupancies do not appear io have been adversely affected by the introduction ofthese employee units. Multi-Family Source: Colorado Division of Housing Multi-Family Vacancy and Rental Survey Average rents since 2OOO have increased about 2.6 percent overall, with much larger increases for efficiency and twc-bedroom/ona bath units. Average rents for other units show slight declines during this period, perhaps reflective of the recent lower occupancy rotes of units. It is important to note the newly opened Middle Creek Rents are among the lowest found in the area for two~bedrVorne. RRC Associates, Inc. 80% $142,563 $162,929 $183,295 $203,661 $219,989 100% $196,639 $224,730 $252,821 $280,912 $303,034 120% $235,966 $269,676 $303,385 $337,095 $363,641 Source: Department of Housing and Urban Development, RRC Associates, Inc. *Assumes a3O'peor, 6& fixed rate loan, with 5Y6 down and 2O%of monthly payment for property taxes, insurance and HOA fees, with no more than 30% of household income used for housing payments. Rental Units The Colorado Division of Housing conducts a K8uki�Fmrnik/ Vacancy and Rental Survey of market rate rental properties every first and third quarter. An evaluation of rental unite in Eagle County shows wide variation in vacancy rates ofmarket rate properties since 2000. Vacancies rose from less than 1 percent vacant in 2000 and most of 2001 to over 2O percent vacant during the first quarter of2O04. Vacancy rates have since declined to about B percent during the first quarter of20O5. Typically vacancy rates around 5to1O percent are sufficient to offer options for renters when searching for suitable housing. Vacancy rates below 5 percent generally indicate a lack of housing choice in an area, which, historically, has been the case in Eagle County. Worth noting ie that two rental projects were introduced to the rental pool in 2004— Middle Creek and Buffalo Ridge — adding over 4OO units and offering some affordable rentals for local employees (discussed in the next meoUon). These properties have since largely been absorbed by the rental market. As indicated by the declining vacancy rates between 2004 (19.9 percent) and 2005 (9.2 percent), market rate occupancies do not appear io have been adversely affected by the introduction ofthese employee units. Multi-Family Source: Colorado Division of Housing Multi-Family Vacancy and Rental Survey Average rents since 2OOO have increased about 2.6 percent overall, with much larger increases for efficiency and twc-bedroom/ona bath units. Average rents for other units show slight declines during this period, perhaps reflective of the recent lower occupancy rotes of units. It is important to note the newly opened Middle Creek Rents are among the lowest found in the area for two~bedrVorne. RRC Associates, Inc. 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update - Data Report Average Rent by Unit Size: Eagle County, 2000 to 2005 Two Bedrooms, One Bath $953.61 $1,047.75 9.9% Two Bedrooms, Two Baths $1,098.45 $1,063.51 -3.2% Three Bedrooms $1,199.78 $1,144.17 -4.6% Source: Colorado Division of Housing Multi-Family Vacancy and Rental Survey Average rents per square foot show more significant increases since 2UOO.with only twxo-bednoorn. two-bath units showing odecline. This iom better measure of actual dlgngg in rental prices over time than units in total and is less subject to fluctuations in property responses and sampling. Since 2UOO. average rents per square foot have increased about 0.0percent. This ie favorable, given that average wages in the County increased faster, ot about 13.7 percent between 2000 and 2UO4. Size: Average Rent per Square Foot by Unit Eagle County, 2000 to 2005 Unit Size 2000QI 2005Q1 % change (2000 to 2005) Efficiency $1.24 $1.75 41.1% Two Bedrooms, One Bath $1.25 $1.32 5.6% Three Bedrooms $1.05 $1,08 2.9% Source: Colorado Division of Housing Multi-Family Vacancy and Rental Survey Employee Housing Units The following table summarizes the larger restricted housing projects that have been built and opened for occupancy in Eagle County since the 2O0OU8Census. This shows a total of7OOunits constructed, with some or all of the units deed restricted based on income and/or with Eagle County employment requirements. This includes 8 total of418 rental units priced for households earning less than 80 percent of the AMI, with income restricted units priced for households earning less than 0O percent of the AK8i • Units at Buffalo Ridge include 176 tax credit units for households earning 60 percent or less of the AM|' with the balance financed bJbe affordable hJhouseholds earning upto8O%nf the AM|. • Middle Creek was introduced into the Vail market in the fall [f2OO4. Initial lease up was brisk, with all but three units leased during the winter season. Miller Ranch ioa for-sale project Ulg[viU provide 282 units upon completion in2OO8. with 162 units sold to date for prices affordable to households earning between 60 and 120 percent of the A[N|. These projects represert the dedication of Eagle County tn house their local workforce. RRC Associates, Inc. 24 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update— Data Report Employee Restricted Units Built/Under Construction Since The 2000 US Census Year built/ Property occupied AMI served ,Type # units Restriction Middle Creek Dec -04 60% Rent 142 Income 30-60% restricted; 176 Taxcredit Buffalo Ridqe Mar -04 All under 80% Rent 100 Income Miller Ranch* Late 2003 60 -120% (based on pricing of units) Own 282 Eagle County Employee TOTAL UNITS 700 *Miller Ranch will be completed in 2006. Distribution of units by AMI based on current sales (162 total to- date) and remaining units projected to serve a similar AMI mix. Source: Vail Local Housing Authority; 2005 Assessor database If we assume that, under normal market conditions between 2000 and 2005, the percentage of cost-burdened households earning less than 100 percent of the AMI remained the same in 2005 as in 2000 (53 percent), then the addition of just under 700 units that are affordable to this population would be expected to decrease the number of cost - burdened households. Under this scenario, these projects would have decreased the cost - burdened population to a minimum of 44 percent, as shown in the following table. It is therefore expected that the current cost-burdened population for households earning less than 100 percent of the AMI is between 44 and 53 percent; however, without more in -depth analysis of the changes in the housing market during this time (which is beyond the scope of this study), the actual cost - burdened percentage cannot be more accurately predicted. Cost - Burdened Households: 2005 Residential Job Generation Rates Residential dwelling units generate demand for housing through their operation and maintenance. Activities including exterior and interior maintenance and upkeep, house cleaning, meal preparation, childcare, personal services, and home office support generate jobs, many of which are relatively low paying. The employees that fill these jobs generate demand for modestly priced housing. Further, homes built for second homeownership reduce the land and number of units available for the local workforce. As a result, the more homes that are built in Eagle County (particularly for visitor or second home use), the more the affordable housing problem is aggravated. RRC Associates, Inc. Owners Renters TOTAL % Cost- % Cost- % Cost - Households Burdened Households Burdened Households Burdened TOTAL <100% AMI 4,095 - 3,987 - 8,082 - Cost - Burdened (2005 estimate) 2,140 52% 2,121 53% 4,261 53% Affordable units built 265 - 418 - 683 - Cost- Burdened " (2005 adjusted) 1,875 46% 1,703 43% 3,578 44% Residential Job Generation Rates Residential dwelling units generate demand for housing through their operation and maintenance. Activities including exterior and interior maintenance and upkeep, house cleaning, meal preparation, childcare, personal services, and home office support generate jobs, many of which are relatively low paying. The employees that fill these jobs generate demand for modestly priced housing. Further, homes built for second homeownership reduce the land and number of units available for the local workforce. As a result, the more homes that are built in Eagle County (particularly for visitor or second home use), the more the affordable housing problem is aggravated. RRC Associates, Inc. 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update— Data Report Eagle County sponsored @ study in 2001omjob generation associated with residential uses. Conducted bvRRCAssociates and other Housing Collaborative members, the study was used to estimate the number Of permanent jobs associated with various types and sizes of residential units. This study focused on jobs directly generated mmaresult of the residential unit. That is, jobs associated with housing maintenance and operations, including property and rental management, homeowner's association, gardeners, snow removal, exterior maintenance, housekeepers, kitchen help/chef, child u8na provider/nanny' caratahmr/conciene0e/bu|&ar, panoona|tn3iner/@dnninistmGtive assistant and other related employees. This study did not include workers generated through construction of the home. The study was based on surveys of homeowners and property management companies. A total of1'112 homeowner responses and 8 property management company responses were received. The data clearly show that employment generation intensifies as the size of the dwelling unit increases. Average job generation rates were calculated 10 support anemployee housing mitigation program that is fairly simple to administer, yet responsive to the finding that large residential units generate more jobs than smaller units. The job generation rates, expressed in full-time equivalents (FTE) per unit, were found to vary bv square footage according to the following exponential function: Equation of Residential Employee Generation by Home Size Total FTE =0.OQ13°e (."""")("""°re Footage) The following table ofFTE employee generation rates was calculated bv applying the above formula to the mid-point of each of the residentia|squa categories shown in the first column. Residential Employee Generation Rates By Home Size Size of Residential Unit (Square Feet) FTE Employees Size of Residential Unit (Square Feet) FTE Employees Source: RRCA0000iateo Inc. A study on residential job generation was also recently conducted by the Northwest Council of Governments (NVVC(]G). titled "Second Homes and the Amenity Based Economy." The study was completed in2OU4 and included an analysis of local and second homeowners ina four county study area: Eagle County, Grand County, Summit County and PitWnCounty. Some major findinQsnfthimstudyinc|ude: RRC Associates, Inc. 26 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update — Data Report • Second homes are the largest single economic driver in the NVVCOG study area — generating about 39 percent of combined direct basic and aeoondary'obsin the study area'; • Second homes cause job growth and the need for more workers; • Second homeowners compete with local workers for housing and, hence, developable land for future housing; and • This driver ie crowding out all other users in the competition for land use. One purpose of this study was hJ identify the kjobs generated bv second homes inthe study region. Specific to Eagle County, the study found that through owner spending, second homes generated about 8'5OO direct basic jobs (51.5 percent of total direct basic jobs) and 12,000 total jobs (45.1 percent oftotal jobs) in2DO2. More specifically, this resulted in about 1.8 jobs per second home unit that is 3,000 square feet or more in size and 1.1 jobs per second home unit that is less than 3,000 square feet in size. Jobs Created Through 2 "d Homeowner Spending: Eagle County, 2002 Size of 2nd Home Basic Jobs Total Jobs Total Jobs per Unit Denomination of Unit 2004. The NVVCCJGk job generation figures differ from those estimated bvRRC Associates for the following primary reasons: NWCOG focuses on second homeowner properties only. NRCAssooiatee calculations represent kjobs generated bv all residential properties (those occupied bv full-time residents and second homeowners) and NVVC(]G figures represent all jobs created through second homeowner expenditures in the local economy (this includes not only property maintenance, but retail jobs, service jobs, etc.). F|RC Associates calculations represent only those jobs generated by the constructed residence, as measured through direct employment by property owners for ongoing property maintenance and operation /gunJen8m». property managers, housekeepers, etn.\. Considerations for Residential Linkage Requirements The above data presents some interesting for communities when devising residential linkage program. One method evaluates the total impact of second homes onthe economy based on homeowner expenditure patterns |n the area and, therefore, all primary and secondary jobs created as a result of that impact /NVVCC)G\. The other method evaluates only that employment directly generated bythe constructed residence. |n other words, employees directly hired by property owners to maintain and operate their property (RRCAssociates, Inc., 2001 study). When considering the impact of residential uses, and particularly second homeowners, on local ' Basic jobs are those jobs created by outside dollars flowing into the economy, whereas secondary jobs are those jobs created through the recirculation of dollars within the local economy. RRC Associates, Inc. 27 2005 Eagle County Nexus Update— Data Report job generation and developing regulations that respond to those impacts, the following issues need to be considered: Homeownership cannot be determined until the time of sale of the property, although it may be possible to reasonably "predict' home occupation based on the size, price and location of proposed developments, among other factors; Properties sold to locals may be resold to second homeowners, causing a potential increase in employment, but with no ability to require a respective increase in employee mitigation; Communities considering commercial linkage and residential linkage must ensure that the adopted programs are not "double- charging" for the same employees. In other words, if residential developments are required to mitigate for all jobs created through homeowner expenditures (direct basic jobs and secondary jobs, including property management as well as retail jobs, service jobs, etc.), commercial linkage figures must ensure that employees housed by residential linkage requirements are not also required to be housed through commercial linkage; and There is a positive correlation between household size and job generation — the larger the home, the more jobs that are generated by the residence. To ensure fairness in implementation, requirements should vary by size of the home. The implementation of requirements segmented by broad categories of mitigation (e.g., less than 3,000 square feet and 3,000 square feet or more) does not equitably distribute job generation and employee mitigation. It should be noted that the direct employment figures generated by RRC Associates, Inc., include the above considerations. Residential job generation figures purposefully only include employees directly hired by property owners to avoid double- counting employees that are needed by local commercial operations. Residential generation figures also purposefully include all property owners. This negates the complexity of trying to determine whether properties will be purchased by locals or second homeowners, but provides a middle - ground figure that results in mitigation fitted to the life of the property (including changes in ownership). However, it is recognized that some communities may prefer to have higher requirements for second homeowners in line with their total job generation in a local economy, with corresponding reduced requirements for commercial development. This is within the realm of possibilities and could be achieved through creative program development and sensitivity to the above - mentioned issues. RRC Associates, Inc. FINANCIAL MATTERS March 28, 2006 1. YTD Building Revenue Report Actual vs Budget - February 2006 2. Detail - Real Estate Transfer Taxes - February 2006 3. Accomodations Tax Worksheet Actual vs Budget - January 2006 4. Sales Tax Worksheet Actual vs Budget - January 2006 M C) N v� N N Ln O N sr O N N ti O C 0.i N W (N O n N H Lz� a o H N co N W O n H H W s� W a u O U U M Cis 1 H G) rt I I H H o si � C Q H W O H H ii; E v; w H a (u W 2 J W H U �c H cN CO oG W Q M U s] D 04, 1 w Q Ln cT Ln Oz) oo CO N I- lO Q� CO C, m N m r N Ln -i E+GQ . . . . . . . . Q M, V' N -I M co Ln W N CO cc) c7) .-I m 1"+ [-Ln u-) I- Ln CC Ln N =¢!'� N -I r-i Ln 0) O C O Ln L. . H N OIm C- aW Ol Ol Ln Ln m 6l � J O f� MNM OOMC H 6l !'� OLD O W W O M C- C -I -i � a -i --I t- O H N N a Wcn H H H m W m;n Lnm Ln CCLn co E� C -m oo v' OCOO H N N O C Ln Ln O C m m v Q �+N NO O Ln Ln CD O W N CO cc) c7) M 6l QQ OI m 0 W [-19 C' CN61N N �D O O W W N t' H N OIm C- aW ImmM � H � J UUUFC sp i-i -7m W W M m � a H H m Cl) U) CCCC CCCC C W O C C C C C O O O a Qr� H a H W W U W 41 CIO cc LO LO 00 Ln O C, Ln M Q' m M H OCOO N H C O O O H N N O C Ln Ln O C m m v m m m Ln U M LO -I N C CIJ CP W c c 0 0 p' N m -IN IO OI N ! HHaa H -I N Ln al O H N M m C CC) ct+ r • M N C Ln W N H E, 00CC OCCC C C W C O O O C O O O O C U� u7 co E-1 El Ww Q c c 0 0 C O C O O O ! HHaa O C O C O C O O O O W m C CD Ln OOOC Ln Ln E+ G C1 1- Q ImmM LA C CLn CO m UUUFC sp i-i -7m CNMLn M m H H H m Cl) E+ a O Pa W a a E-+ O E u; I W W ! w U� u7 co E-1 El Ww co Cf) H H W U M> W H ! HHaa WW �z,Ww wawa w aawa WW W W z cn E+ G C1 1- Q �4 0 > H U H W a UUUFC Wcna0 F-4 (� U.'7 'Z Q Gp �C W H co � a Wcn &14 H Du,z FC Pa v�C7 ��WW aDwa a W W �EH WCO ! a U W W E- C7 w O CCC C CDC) < U NN NI E-a NNN H H U NNNO I-P +� 0 0 LnrLnN LnLnLnH P E+ a O Pa W a a E-+ O E Purchaser Name Jan -06 Town of Avon Real Estate Transfer Tax Calendar Year 2006 Property Title Comp Rockies Christie Lodge Timeshare Holiday Christie Lodge Timeshare 1st American Heritage Falcon Pointe Timeshare 1st American Heritage Falcon Pointe Timeshare 1 st American Heritage Falcon Pointe Timeshare 1stAmerican Heritage Falcon Pointe Timeshare 1 st American Heritage Falcon Pointe Timeshare 1 st American Heritage Falcon Pointe Timeshare 1st American Heritage Falcon Pointe Timeshare Title Comp Rockies Mtn. Vista 06 -01 Title Comp Rockies Mtn. Vista 06 -02 Title Comp Rockies Mtn. Vista 06 -03 Title Comp Rockies Mtn. Vista 06 -04 Title Comp Rockies Mtn. Vista 06 -05 Title Comp Rockies Mtn. Vista 06 -09 Title Comp Rockies Lakeside Terrace 06 -02 Title Comp Rockies Lakeside Terrace B -304 Title Comp Rockies Lakeside Terrace 06 -02 Bop Enterprises Barrancas 11 0-15 Allan J. Dibben Barrancas I E -14 Sondra Slappey Sunridge @ Avon II N -304 Toni Axelrod Sunridge @ Avon II F -103 Steven A. Berkow Seasons @ Avon 409 Sava Inc., a Colorado Corporation Avon Lake Villas E -1 Lisa Ann McCoy Balas Townhouse G James Satloff Metcalf Commercial # 208 Leslie & Archibald Wright Avon Town Square 11 202 Mary K. Bochain Stonebridge 13 BGR &R Colorado Realty LLC Chapel Square B -319 Thomas & Emma Kardos Brookside # 401 Dana M. Hugo Wintergreen Townhomes # 4 Alan Gay Lot 4 -B Blk 5 Wildridge Morgan Michael Mayer Lot 27 -B Blk 1 Wildridge - Wendy Drake & Frank Burton III Lot 95 -B Blk 1 Wildridge Peter & Judith Vanica Lot 96 -A Blk 1 Wildridge Wildridge Lot 34 LLC Lot 34 Blk 2 Wildridge Total February Revenue Total YTD Revenue Total 2006 Budget Amount Received $ 126,824.98 50.00 10.00 30.00 100.00 110.00 400.00 100.00 136.00 56.00 2,653.60 3,389.40 2,404.60 6,514.10 5,919.10 7,439.30 429.80 880.00 700.00 6,600.00 3,300.00 5,340.00 2,220.00 9,500.00 8,500.00 1,930.00 6,588.00 6,500.00 11,300.00 8,780.00 15, 730.00 6,180.00 6,718.00 9,600.00 8,200.00 15,660.00 8,780.00 172,747.90 299,572.88 2,150,000.00 Variance, Favorable (Unfavorable) $ (1,850,427.12) ui LU z 0 Li > cW UL o Cl) z Z 0 3: p 0 < in CG 0 0 0 C-) .-I O !� e 0-1 -1 *. -I -� -I -1 1. � e e OOOOC)OCDOOC)00 Q 0) LO N q 0 q q CD 0 q q q C, q N C CD 0 0 0 CD 0 C) C) 0 C) C) 0 (a C) CD C) CD o o 0 0 0 o c, CD v .r- N 0 E 0 0 lo o� (n C: 0 0 CD O 'a m CD CT vi cli C) N C6 0� cli C6 Ld 6 4 L6 "t to (D — — — — CN M 0 C, 0 N rt ID W (q Lo q O O Iq O OR 6 Ci 1-- 0 m N N 0 m w N . c6 M M M M M M M r- M C) r- IQ d7 P CO I aci rl-� h IQ OD Ici Ci M Oi 0 C, M M M M M to 0 rt r m co V9 w h vi 6 6 6 6 N 6 06 4 C'i C6 CO ch Oj C'! 101 cz:� LQ 'It C31 L L cil M N 0 — M M N M 'It 0 M N "t LO U') N — — — M — LO — 'It fl, 0 0 — t- M W tl- O C\! M O 7 Lo o? 7 0? CR N O I-t m h m 0 fl- �; m 1�- (0 N m m CD m m m fl- m m m CD m Ul) 0) Ci m "t rl-� C LQ It pl-i LO (C� Cl i I- co co (D It Lo o m m m N ua U') 0 a 0 m 0 m �t (0 r- Uo N LQ cc� c! LQ Vt MO 'It 'I*: C� Ol L ',I: M c, (D OJ O O N CO r- ta 0 M CD CD M r-- C, co M r W LO M r-: (q U? O -: O r-: CA OR M to 09 r. Lo N M CD t,- M M U') N -,t _2 m L,2 "t m 0 1'- u) (0 m m - 't . r-� 'Ci LQ cc� C� Ci IQ M vi N 0 N 0 to N m m t-- r-- d C6 M -,t LO N (0 C\l ua L E (3) E E 0 ::3 0) CL > L) C D 0 C co =) 75 0 0 0 0 c U- < 2 --) -, (A 0 z 0 CCS ti it 4. O is iE C) C) C) C) C) C) C) 0 C) C) O 1�0 Lr) Itt m C14 69 4L19 rys oq 69 Eoq C) C) O O CO O O O O O C) I 1 1 11 04 CN C C4 r-- I I-- Ln L Lt) C: L C\i C\! C C\� CD LO U U') CN Q3 6 6s O 0 0 0 C CD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 C CD C) 0 C CD O O O t- -T 0 0 C CD C C) rt r.- CO M M CD (0 r C CD to 00 C CD t to m m U') CD m C9 N * I- U U') E (3) E E 0 ::3 0) CL > L) C D 0 C co =) 75 0 0 0 0 c U- < 2 --) -, (A 0 z 0 CCS ti it 4. O is iE C) C) C) C) C) C) C) 0 C) C) O 1�0 Lr) Itt m C14 69 4L19 rys oq 69 Eoq C) C) O O CO O O O O O C) 0) LO n C) 0 C) a CD cu 0 m C) 0 (D 0 CD 0 0 (D a 0 a V) C14 (�? �R E 0 0 C) C6 (D Cl) co ci O cu C) 0) .0 C) S? CO cq 00 0 cli C14 0 C) 00 00 F- co CD It Cl) C) LO cli C) 0 It LO C) N LO �t C) (D r- co LO L() cc� oc� cl! v! r-� C� CI -*� oc! C\� N 00 N Lr) �2 co 't r- m - 't 00 O 0) (D (o (D r- LO (D — 11) 't �w 0') c) C) 0) C) LO Cl) Cl) Cl) C) It 04 LO ui O (D — LO r-- I.- C\J cl) (D P- --t Lo 0) C\l W 0) 1- 10 1- Cl) Cl pl• CY) 0 a, (q V) Lo C, 00 C, � U-) m m (-4 — 8 — CQ r: LOS) CIto 44 CCIY)) z LO IQ Vi rl. Cli Iri ,I: It 00 oc� rl- C� rl-. cc� 0 C) Lr) 0) r-- — m Lo P-: 10 It OOCO) ULR CLIO) (53, > Ill C'4 LO M co ce) 't It m co CV) (D -- Q i Lri 0 CID t ;�: LL 0 Z C) C) 0 04 0 LO O) -t Zq - Z: (')� (O Lr) (D C) 't 't M t- LO CN LO 0 C) 0 m 0 CD w LO 0 m C� LQ cr! C\! 'It cq (q GI L(I IQ 0 U) W a 0 C) w (0 (') N N 00 m C) N m 00 U') CD m m m rl_ 04 7 V M N m It co M co co (D rl- co ct N Ict LO 1-t m U) N t-- m 0 (D LO N O (0 (D m 0 LO lzt 0 (D w (o N 00 m N m 6 6 N C6 t 0 U') (D m 't -It m LO N 00 .9? m — C) (D C\J 0) 00 C) Cl) Ci cc� r-- — C) M 0) (J) Q0 M Itt N C) O LO r- CN m co m co m N (0 LQ ca < � 0...00 N [-- 0) �t N CO I- CO (0 N M 00 10 00 00 10 U') C, CO LO ll� O CO (0 r- -,r (D r� N N (D m a) 00 N r- co -It U-) co LO 0 D r• ,I: =� Cli (C� CL CL [I- C� T Sol C) U) rl- 00 M m m m m m (.0 co EA bc3 CD CD m LO O Q C, U? 0 M U') I- W -t LO C\ — (D N (0 It [ c! C� co (D CD (C� ocl - Cl (CL 00 C O � M O CD 0 "t M M N 10 (0 M v It U*) co M co It m M co O co 'i va Ql> I co co .c E �5 () m E E -0 co 0) Q. t 0 a) > 0 a) a) (D 0 a) U- < C/) 0 z 0 ka C) L1 � jj ;\ �, Cl 10 7 O Cl 0 C, O oo � 'r rq ------- - EH -- - (A Ef3 6'3 Go,) Iq 69 - — -- - ------------ - HEART of the VALLEY C 0 L 0 R A D 0 • A Office of the Town Manager To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council 'Ju . .... From: Larry Brooks, Town Manager Date: March 24, 2006 Regarding: Transportation service The two transit memos provided cover discrete topics that should be focused on for their individual merit. The summer Hurd Lane service is currently suspended as the result of a budget balancing exercise from last fall. We have been asked to bring that back to the council for further review and it is a good decision to do so. The expansion of our bus service into the Village is equally important in light of the development currently in the Village, as well as that which we know to be on the horizon. What makes the subject matter more compelling however, is dealing with them in a combined fashion. While I agree with Bob's recommendations, my initial preference would be to support them in tandem. In other words, we should reinstate the Hurd Lane service and extend our existing town routes onto the Village. Of course, that is easier said than done in the absence of financial assistance from the Village. We have struggled with this 'in the past, and might very well continue to do so, but I believe we owe it to our community to take a stronger stance on the importance of mass transit and mobility. I am at this point for two reasons: 1. Regarding the Hurd lane route. The service was cut for this coming summer as a budget-balancing requirement. I feel much more comfortable with the current state of economy at this point, and believe the budget could be amended to reinstate the service. 2. The extent to which the Hurd Lane summer service was under-producing (somewhat lower than desired ridership) in recent years was largely the result of reduced service levels. Again, the service level adjustments were the byproduct of fiscal constraints. Bob's memo clearly illustrates the predictable declining use of the route when the service level was reduced. It is also believed that the Town routes- both the Town Shuttle and the Hurd Lane routes- would dramatically improve in ridership if service was extended to include Wal-Mart and Buffalo Ridge. For instance, when Wal-Mart was at the old location, that stop was always more popular than any other on the town Routes. In fact it was busier than several other stops combined. It was THE DESTINATION, and it would be again if we only went there. • Page 2 March 24, 2006 With all this in mind, the question before us seems to be two-fold. Do we reinstate the Hurd Lane summer service and subsequently appeal to the Village to contribute to the transit system so we can include them in the service area as well? OR, do we wait to restore Hurd Lane summer service until we get the commitment from the Village to "opt in" and help bring our cost of service down through the partnership principle that would result? These are hard choices with significant financial implications I know. At the end of the day, I can not help but place a high priority on mobility within our community, and suggest that the only way we can make a compelling argument to the Village to start funding transit in their service area, is by setting the example in our service area. One final note. This is before you today with a full understanding that you may want to think about it more at the next meeting. We are obligated to bring it up now if we want to plan any modified summer service in a timely fashion. Some of you asked for the opportunity to discuss this again as we got a better feel for our fiscal position. I 11 ►'I l I_I_L•J To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: Bob Reed, Director of Public Works and Transportation Date: 3122/06 Re: Summer bus service Summary: In the 2006 budget process, Council voted to eliminate summer bus service to the Hurd Ln./Eaglebend area (1,708 service hours) in order to reduce overall costs. Previous Council Action: In that budget process Council heard testimony and reviewed a petition signed by Eaglebend residents asking that we do not eliminate service completely. At that time Council told those residents and staff that they would like to revisit this topic in the spring, look at the Town's financial situation at that time, and decide whether or not to reinstate service. Background: The Hurd Ln. Shuttle began operating in 1996. For the first 3 years It ran only in the winter season and averaged around 32,000 passengers. In 1999 a summer route was added and ridership jumped to 77,000. Then, in 2000 the shoulder seasons were added and two years of year round service averaged 114,000 riders. In 2002 The Hurd Ln. and the Town Shuttle were combined and went to a 40 minute loop for the summer and shoulder seasons. Ridership dropped by 50% because it just wasn't a practical bus ride for most people. hr 2003 we reinstated a year round schedule and ridership climbed back to 109,000. In 2004 and 2005, we reverted to a- combined route in the shoulder seasons only. - Ridership dipped slightly to 97,500, but the combined route still had about 38,000 riders as well. Last winter, the Hurd Ln. Shuttle averaged around 7,500 riders per month. In the summer months that average dropped to about 5,300. To date this year we have already seen a 15% increase in those numbers. Financial Implications: In order to reinstate slimmer service to Hurd Lane, we would need to add 1,708 service hours or $102,480 ($60.00 per hour) back into the Transportation budget. Recommendation: Staff feels ridership will increase as long as there is consistent service to the area. Therefore, we recommend reinstating summer Hurd Ln. service, which would mean an amendment to the 2006 Transportation budget of $102,480. Alternatives: Leave the 2006 budget as is, with no summer service to Hurd Ln. Town Manager Comments: • Page 2 A - 11 0 To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council Thru: Larry Brooks, Town Manager From: Bob Reed, Director of Public Works and Transportation Date: 3/22/06 Re: Potential bus service to the Village. Summary: There has been much discussion, in the past, as to what it would take to include bus service to the Village with the Town's existing bus routes. This question keeps coming up among passengers and other people who might want to use the transit system. Plainly put, it doesn't make sense to many of our end users that the bus system does not serve the largest single retailer in Town or the newest of the affordable housing projects in our community. This memo will provide a projected service and cost summary that would be shared by the Village. Background: While this topic has come up repeatedly, the current agreement with the Village for such service to these locations calls for them to make the request for mass transportation, at which point we provide it at our cost.. In anticipation of that request, staff has looked at and evaluated several options in past years. We feel the most efficient way to add bus service to the Village would be to simply expand our existing Town Shuttle and Hurd Ln routes. The Village has declined to offer such bus service however. Without the economies of scale that such a shared partnership can provide, The Town has been forced to reduce service within the Town due to fiscal restraints. This subject matter needs to be addressed in conjunction with the summer Hurd Ln. Service as well, which is currently not planned for in 2006. Discussion: Buffalo Ridge and WalMart could be added to the Hurd Ln. route creating a North/South route. WalMart could be added to the Town Shuttle creating an East/West rout -,In both instances a 30 minute loop can be accomplished with four common stops between the two routes. Those stops would be Avon's Transportation Center, City Market, WalMart, and the Beaver Creek Village Transportation Center. Financial Implications: In the 2006 budget, we expect to spend $365,160 operating the Town Shuttle, $153,720 operating the Hurd Ln. Shuttle (winter only), and $51,600 operating the combined evening shuttle for a total of $570,480. In running two year round routes throughout the Town of Avon and including the Village, the cost of both routes would be Approximately $391,000 each. Comparing that to 2005 combined costs (with Hurd LN. summer included), it is an increase of about $97,000. This is because there would always be two buses nuuning where at certain times only one bus ran on the combined routes. Also, I would recommend adding another $87,600 to that total for augmentation at certain times. At present, the Town Shuttle is running at maximum capacity at certain times of the day. This would bring the total of the two routes to $869,600. Because 50% of the routes would now be in the Village, Traer Creek would be billed for $434,800. With that shared cost the Town's budget for the two routes would actually decrease by approximately 250,000 (compared with summer Hurd Ln. hrs included) Recommendation: Staff recommends that this service plan be sent to the Village requesting a formal reply to the proposal. Town Manager Comments: CD CD 0 O N0d O ^ O c O ° orn O 0 0 o p ; CD rn LN Q M N N C\F O C U f Cl) LO c U L~ N � N f°o A Ei? rf' Q CeJ M � M L t- d E = O oc O � L � L ,QQ QJ E O : tD N O E '. O < u � cli 0 O a) Cn t/) Z � a) Co Co M (o co m M O p co C a) Q ai 0 O N O O O R Q Q a) 0E < o — J F- N p J F- O M M to N N N N U) E =� 'O E u O E O m m E m U) to # U) a) C C C C m U a) c c E O :03 O O -� N N N CD M M E O N U) c i U- 7 N MO M M m L Q Q _E Q E _fl (D Q N LL - E a E Q E= E E E S E Q O E E o U) o „� ,co E Q E ca U) O E o C Q M O E E t— L L (n r` cu S O 00 O N S :. O N N N tf) 'Q N: LQ Q CA L� Cfl CNO O Q C i 0) O O N C N }j LA : N N LC> ;. cn N N CN <n Q a) O co O: N N Om Q (D M ON N aQ t0 O O J H J- MO L1 O .E '.. M i L a) C !. U C O Z> R7 a) a) `� C4 > : N N M N � N a) ' OM ti '. } L NO cm L � M c.Oj G�Ei N �' L E Q E Q E Q Q O L E Q E Q E Q E Q U) E E Q E Q r` C: S co E n E r _ = cfl 1 ti � � � = Q _ `- _ CL O co m E m E m v _c o O E E E E O S Q E E c o «7 r ti ti c co r n ti C d O fl m co w f m t p N a) two to Q) O U ai O m a7 CL 0 V N (n O y O to N (D fJi _ s n _• a} C/) Ul d C Q) 'C (� L N d) p O C R co O s U3 � cn c cu °c_' ads LLO F— a � c , Cn m •C 0 c j = Cn U O E Z) a) J E m C cn J °' �— m C CO v ca J m > o Y o = > o > c Y o ° > > o 3 V) a o a Q N CA E- S W U Q N Cn :.. V--- S W Q (n N co f- Cn S