Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20190312 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION 4:00 PM I. Local Restriction of Flavored Tobacco and Nicotine Products II. 2018 Tobacco Tax Revenue Update III. King Street Design Options IV. Board Appointment Discussion CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION March 12, 2019 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA Local Restriction of Flavored Tobacco and Nicotine Products Revenue Update Board Appointment Discussion P1 Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: CJ Oliver, Environmental Health and Sustainability Director THROUGH: Jessica Garrow, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: March 12, 2019 RE: Local Restriction of Flavored Tobacco and Nicotine Products REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Risa Turetsky from Pitkin County Public Health and Dr. Kim Levin, Medical Officer for the Pitkin County Board of Health, will be presenting on the topic of restricting flavored tobacco and nicotine products in the City of Aspen. They are asking Aspen City Council to consider local restrictions on the sale of these products. SUMMARY: Youth tobacco and e-cigarette users are particularly attracted to flavored nicotine products. From the packaging and marketing of the products to the flavors themselves, they are geared towards youth and adolescents and they are the preferred product among younger users. Candy and fruit flavored cigarettes were banned by the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act in 2009 but menthol cigarettes, flavored chewing tobacco and e-cigarette cartridges/pods were not included in the ban and are available for purchase today. Restricting the sale of flavored nicotine products in Aspen will create a barrier for youth users trying to obtain these products and would play a preventative role in youth picking up a tobacco or vaping habit. BACKGROUND: The data available for our area shows concerning numbers around youth and tobacco and e-cigarette use. Recent studies show that Colorado has the highest youth rates of e-cigarette use in the nation, and rates for the Roaring Fork Valley are higher than the Colorado state average as well. A majority of Aspen High School Seniors report having tried vaping and 1 in 5 Aspen 8th grade students report having tried e-cigarettes. Youth who have tried e-cigarettes are significantly more likely to pick up regular cigarettes as well. Aspen High School students reported an increase in cigarette use from 2015-2017 which present a concerning trend that hasn’t been seen in many years. DISCUSSION: In depth discussion on this topic will be provided by Risa Turetsky, Health Promotion Program Administrator and Tobacco Specialist for Pitkin County Public Health along with Dr. Kim Levin, Medical Officer for the Pitkin County Board of Health. A summary of their main talking points is provided as Attachment A: Flavor Danger. In brief, the information available on youth usage rate for e-cigarettes and tobacco use in the Aspen area show a concerning trend that public health professionals want to get in front of as P2 I. soon as possible. One action that stands to make a difference is to restrict the sale of the items that are most desirable to youth consumers - flavored tobacco and nicotine, which are the products that a significant majority of youth and young adult tobacco users report was their first tobacco or e-cigarette product. Restrictions on the sale of flavored tobacco and nicotine are already in place in a number of other areas with varying degrees of limitations, depending on location. A listing is provided as Attachment B. The FDA is also considering a ban on the sale of menthol cigarettes and flavored cigars along with tighter restriction on the sale of e-cigarettes and vaping liquid. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: There may be a reduction in tobacco and sales tax revenues if certain tobacco products are ban for sale in the City of Aspen. If Aspen City Council wishes to pursue a ban staff will research these changes in greater detail and they will be included in a follow up presentation. NEXT STEPS: If City Council supports moving forward with a restriction or ban on flavored tobacco, menthol cigarettes, and/or e-cigarette, staff would return with language to implement the changes. While staff has reached out to certain businesses that may be impacted, some community outreach may be necessary if Council directs staff to move forward with additional restrictions or a ban. If Council does not support moving forward with additional restrictions or a ban, no additional work would be conducted on this topic at this time. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: Pitkin County, Flavor Danger, Fact Sheet Exhibit B: Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids Fact Sheet P3 I. FLAVOR DANGER Today, tobacco products come in hundreds of fruit flavors such as little cigars, chewing tobacco, hookah tobacco, or liquids for e-cigarettes. Flavors do not reduce the harm of tobacco products. In fact, flavors can mask the harsh taste of tobacco, making it easier to get hooked on nicotine. Once-Secret Tobacco Industry Documents Reveal Youth Are Targeted With Flavors · “It's a well known fact that teenagers like sweet products…”1 · “New users of smokeless tobacco ... are most likely to begin with products that are milder tasting, more flavored…”2 · “Menthol brands have been said to be good starter products because new smokers appear to know that menthol covers up some of the tobacco taste and they already know what menthol tastes like, vis-à-vis candy”3 Flavored Tobacco Products Attracting (and Addicting) Youth and Young Adults · At least two-thirds of youth tobacco users report using tobacco products “because they come in flavors I like .” 4 · Of teens and young adults who ever used tobacco, 81% of teens and 86% of young adults reported that their first product was flavored.4 Local E-Cigarette Use · Regular use of e-cigarettes among high school students has more than doubled from 21% to 45%.6 · More than 2/3 of high school seniors and 1/5 of 8th graders have tried e-cigarettes.6 · Colorado has the highest rates of e-cigarette use among youth in the nation, and the Roaring Fork Valley has some of the highest rates in in the state. 6 7 · Youth who use e-cigarettes are 4x more likely to pick up cigarettes. Aspen HAS seen an increase in cigarette use among high school students from 2015 to 2017.6 8 Current Youth Use of Flavored Tobacco · More than two-thirds of high school e-cigarette users are using flavored e-cigarettes.5 · 51% of youth e-cigarette use is mint or menthol.5 · 81% of youth who ever tried tobac- co chose flavored tobacco as their first tobacco product.5 P4 I. Citations and References 1: SWAT (Students Working Against Tobacco) Florida Tobacco Industry Quotes and Facts Related to Flavor Tobacco http://swatflorida.com/uploads/fightresource/Flavored%20Tobacco%20Industry%20Quotes%20and%20Facts.pdf 2: SWAT (Students Working Against Tobacco) Florida Tobacco Industry Quotes and Facts Related to Flavor Tobacco http://swatflorida.com/uploads/fightresource/Flavored%20Tobacco%20Industry%20Quotes%20and%20Facts.pdf 3: Tobacco Control, January 2011, Menthol cigarettes and smoking initiation: a tobacco industry perspective https://tobaccocontrol.bmj.com/content/tobaccocontrol/20/Suppl_2/ii12.full.pdf 4: Ambrose, BK, et al., “Flavored Tobacco Product Use Among US Youth Aged 12-17 Years, 2013-2014,” JAMA. 2015;314(17):1871-1873. 5: National Youth Tobacco Survey, 2018. 6: Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, 2017. 7: U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2018 NYTS Data: A Startling Rise in Youth E-cigarette Use https://www.fda.gov/TobaccoProducts/PublicHealthEducation/ProtectingKidsfromTobacco/ucm625887.htm 8: Healthy Kids Colorado Survey, 2015. 9: Flavored Tobacco Products, Counter Tobacco https://countertobacco.org/resources-tools/evidence-summaries/flavored- tobacco-products/ 10: Farley SM, Johns M. New York City flavoured tobacco product sales ban evaluation. Tobacco Control 2017;26:78-84. 11: States and Localities with Flavored Tobacco Restrictions, Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, 2019. Flavor Danger Fact Sheet, Updated January 2019 Federal Law on Flavored Tobacco Candy and fruit-flavored cigarettes were banned under the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act in 2009. However, all of the products shown below, including menthol cigarettes, non -cigarette smoked tobacco products and smokeless products, were not included in the ban. Impact of Flavored Tobacco Restrictions · The 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act ban on flavored cigarettes was associat- ed with a 17% reduction in the probability of middle and high school youth becoming smokers and a 58% reduction in cigarettes smoked by current youth smokers.9 · In 2009, New York City passed a law restricting the sale of most flavored tobacco. By 2013, product sales decreased by 87%.10 Communities with Flavored Tobacco Restrictions Two states and over 180 communities have passed restrictions on the sale of flavored tobacco products (laws differ according to product and store type).11 What the City of Aspen Can Do Pass a comprehensive policy restricting the sale of all flavored tobacco products. · Restrict all flavors, including mint and menthol, for all types of tobacco products, including e-cigarettes · Restrict at all access points, including general stores and adult-only retailers. For more information contact Risa Turetsky Pitkin County Public Health (970) 618-1781 P5 I. 1400 I Street NW · Suite 1200 · Washington, DC 20005 Phone (202) 296-5469 · Fax (202) 296-5427 · www.tobaccofreekids.org Cigarettes with specific characterizing flavors were prohibited in the U.S. on September 22, 2009, as part of the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (TCA) that gave the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authority over tobacco products. In addition to the federal ban on flavored cigarettes, states and localities can implement additional sales restrictions to address the flavored non- cigarette tobacco products on the market and their appeal to youth and young adults. Despite possible challenges from tobacco companies, states and localities have clear authority to restrict the sale of flavored tobacco products to reduce tobacco use and its harms to its citizens. At least two states and over 180 localities have passed restrictions* on the sale of flavored tobacco products, although laws differ in their application to specific products and store types (see endnotes). Prior to the enactment of the Tobacco Control Act, New Jersey had already restricted the sale of flavored cigarettes, excluding menthol and clove flavors. Maine restricts the sale of flavored non-premium cigars, with the exception of menthol, clove, coffee, nut and pepper flavors. Over two dozen of these communities—those listed in italics—restrict the sale of menthol cigarettes. California (25) 1. Alameda 2. Berkeley1 3. Beverly Hills 4. Cloverdale 5. Contra Costa County1,3 6. El Cerrito 7. Fairfax5 8. Half Moon Bay 9. Hayward1 10. Los Gatos2 11. Manhattan Beach2 12. Marin County3 13. Novato 14. Oakland2 15. Palo Alto2 16. Richmond 17. San Francisco 18. San Leandro 19. San Mateo County3 20. Santa Clara County2,3 21. Santa Cruz 22. Sonoma5 23. West Hollywood1 24. Windsor5 25. Yolo County3 Illinois (1) 1. Chicago1,2 Massachusetts (140)2 1. Agawam 2. Andover 3. Amherst 4. Arlington Massachusetts (cont’d) 5. Ashburnham 6. Ashby 7. Ashland 8. Athol 9. Attleboro 10. Avon 11. Ayer 12. Bedford 13. Belmont 14. Beverly 15. Billerica 16. Bolton 17. Boston 18. Braintree 19. Brockton 20. Brookline 21. Buckland 22. Cambridge 23. Canton 24. Carver 25. Charlemont 26. Chelsea 27. Clinton 28. Cohasset 29. Concord 30. Conway 31. Danvers 32. Dedham 33. Deerfield 34. Dracut 35. Duxbury 36. Easthampton 37. E. Longmeadow Massachusetts (cont’d) 38. Easton 39. Edgartown 40. Essex 41. Everett 42. Fairhaven 43. Fitchburg 44. Framingham 45. Gardner 46. Gill 47. Gloucester 48. Grafton 49. Granby 50. Greenfield 51. Groton 52. Hadley 53. Halifax 54. Hamilton 55. Harvard 56. Hatfield 57. Haverhill 58. Holbrook 59. Holden 60. Holyoke 61. Ipswich 62. Lancaster 63. Lanesboro 64. Lawrence 65. Leominster 66. Leverett 67. Lowell 68. Ludlow 69. Lynnfield 70. Malden STATES & LOCALITIES THAT HAVE RESTRICTED THE SALE OF FLAVORED TOBACCO PRODUCTS P6 I. States & Localities with Flavored Tobacco Restrictions / 2 Massachusetts (cont’d) 71. Marblehead 72. Marlboro 73. Marshfield 74. Mashpee 75. Maynard 76. Medfield 77. Medford 78. Melrose 79. Methuen 80. Middleton 81. Millis 82. Milton 83. Montague 84. Natick 85. Needham 86. Newburyport 87. Newton 88. North Adams 89. North Andover 90. North Attleboro 91. Northampton 92. North Reading 93. Norton 94. Norwell 95. Norwood 96. Oak Bluffs 97. Orange 98. Orleans 99. Palmer 100. Peabody 101. Pittsfield 102. Provincetown Massachusetts (cont’d) 103. Reading 104. Rockport 105. Salem 106. Sandwich 107. Saugus 108. Shelburne 109. Sherborn 110. Somerville 111. Southampton 112. South Hadley 113. Spencer 114. Stoneham 115. Stow 116. Sudbury 117. Sunderland 118. Templeton 119. Tewksbury 120. Townsend 121. Tyngsboro 122. Wakefield 123. Walpole 124. Wareham 125. Watertown 126. Webster 127. Wellfleet 128. West Boylston 129. Westboro 130. Westford 131. Westwood 132. Whately 133. Wilbraham Massachusetts (cont’d) 134. Williamstown 135. Wilmington 136. Winchendon 137. Winchester 138. Winthrop 139. Worcester 140. Yarmouth Minnesota (9) 1. Duluth2 2. Falcon Heights2 3. Lauderdale2 4. Mendota Heights2 5. Minneapolis2 6. Robbinsdale2 7. St. Louis Park 8. St. Paul2 9. Shoreview2 New York (1) 1. New York City2,4 Rhode Island (6)2 1. Barrington 2. Central Falls 3. Johnston 4. Middletown 5. Providence 6. Woonsocket MA localities courtesy of the Municipal Tobacco Control Technical Assistance Program. As of December 2018, these policies cover 61.4% of the state’s population. *The above list may not be comprehensive. It includes communities that have passed restrictions, but some have future implementation dates and/or are the subject of litigation. Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids, January 22, 2019 / Laura Bach ___________________________________________ 1 Applies only to retailers within a certain distance of schools or youth oriented facilities. 2 Exempts certain types of retailers, such as tobacco retailers (stores that receive a certain proportion of their revenue from tobacco), tobacco/smoking bars, e-cigarette establishments, adult-only retailers and/or liquor stores. 3 Applies only to retailers in unincorporated areas of the County. 4 Flavor restrictions do not apply to e-cigarettes. 5 Exempts the following products: pipe tobacco; chewing tobacco and cigars sold in packages of 5 or more units; and single cigars exceeding $5. P7 I. MEMORANDUM TO: City Council FROM: Pete Strecker, Finance Director; CJ Oliver, Environmental Health Director THROUGH: Sara Ott, Interim City Manager MEETING DATE: March 12, 2019 RE: Tobacco Tax – 2018 Collections, Uses and Refunds REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is seeking direction from Council regarding the use of tobacco tax revenues collected for 2018 and how to address collections that exceeded the $325,000 estimate included in the November 7, 2017 ballot question. BACKGROUND: In 2017, the City of Aspen took action towards the prevention of tobacco use among youth and young adults in the community. Beginning with Ordinance 17, the City adopted more restrictive regulations around the sale of tobacco and tobacco related products. This legislation included new requirements for tobacco retailers as it related to the advertisement for tobacco products, increasing the legal age of both the buyer and the seller of tobacco to a minimum of 21 years old, and a 500-foot buffer between tobacco selling establishments and schools or playgrounds where youth would frequently congregate. Note that with the passage of this ordinance, due to it being more restrictive than the State of Colorado requirements for tobacco consumption, the City elected to forfeit its share of State Tobacco Settlement funds (roughly $75K annually). Subsequent to this Ordinance being adopted, City Council also adopted Resolution 122, establishing language to be included on the November 7, 2017 ballot for Aspen voters to consider a new tax on tobacco and tobacco related products, beginning January 2018. The expressed purpose of the tax was to push the price of tobacco products by a substantial amount such that it would be too costly for younger consumers to obtain. The tax was passed by Aspen voters and an initial tax of $3 per pack of cigarettes and 40% on the retail price of all other tobacco products (excluding cessation products) was established. Included in this ballot question was the language that the tax revenue “shall be used for the specific purposes of financing health and human services, tobacco related health issues, and addition and substance abuse education and mitigation.” DISCUSSION: Uses for the tobacco tax dollars are limited to tobacco and other substance use prevention/cessation programs and mental health as directed by City Council. Staff will conduct stakeholder meetings and additional analysis to determine the best us for the dollars collected up to the collection limit during 2019 and make P8 II. recommendations to City Council for the 2020 budget. The City does not have plans to create any new initiatives or create additional positions to serve these needs inside of the organization but rather will use the money to fund existing programs and efforts already underway in these specified areas in the community. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Due to the provisions of Article X, Section 20 of the Colorado Constitution (TABOR), all excess tax collection above the estimate included in the ballot question should be refunded. For 2018, total collections were $436,622, or $111,622 above the estimated amount of $325,000. There is an option for the Council to recommend a new ballot question to ask voters to keep the additional collections above the $325,000 estimate if that was something that the Council wanted to consider. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Given Council’s earlier discussions around the establishment of a new tobacco tax with the sole purpose of curbing tobacco usage by young adults and not for any significant new revenue for the City, staff recommendation is to refund excess tax collections as part of the food tax refund checks that will be processed in May 2019. This is a reasonable mechanism to remit the funds back to local taxpayers and complies with the requirement to refund the money in the subsequent year following collection. Additionally, staff will begin an outreach process with the stakeholder community on recommendations for the best application of the tax proceeds in the coming Spring / Summer of 2019. P9 II. Page 1 of 9 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM : Michael Horvath, P.E., Civil Engineer II THROUGH: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer April Long, P.E., Stormwater Manager DATE OF MEMO: March 1, 2019 RE: King St. Infrastructure Improvements – Follow up to Council Work Session Alternative Design Options for the Roadway SUMMARY: During the Critical Pedestrian Connection Work Session held on January 8th, staff reviewed the sidewalk connection proposed on King Street with Council. During this discussion, Council directed staff to assess alternative options for the drainage implementation that did not involve the use of curb and gutter. The following memo describes alternatives that could be applied to the King Street roadway that would effectively manage the stormwater flooding. BACKGROUND: Several years ago, staff began to receive concerns from residents of King Street regarding a drainage issue that flooded the entire width of the roadway during storm events. There is no stormwater conveyance system for this street and there is a low point located in the middle of the street between two speed humps. This flooding issue was highlighted during the development of the Smuggler Hunter Master Drainage Plan (completed in 2015) and infrastructure improvements on King Street were added to a list of capital improvement needs in that area. In the fall of 2017, King Street residents experienced more frequent flooding during snowmelt events that threatened flooding a nearby home and created unsafe driving and walking conditions. They notified staff that they would like improvements made to address this flooding. Staff attempted a quick and simple in-house solution that involved a shallow roadside gravel-filled trench. However, the attempt was not successful and in the winter of 2017-2018, the City’s Streets Department regularly responded to requests from adjacent property owners to remove ponding to prevent downstream flooding. Therefore, staff worked to design a more effective and permanent solution – King Street Infrastructure Improvements - as recommended in the Smuggler Hunter Drainage Master Plan. P10 III. Page 2 of 9 The design included two inlets located in the low spot, connected to the Neale Ave main storm line by 260 linear feet of 18-inch stormwater pipe. It included curb and gutter to convey drainage to the inlets and prevent downstream flooding, and a 4 ft sidewalk on the north side to provide public connectivity between Neale Avenue and Smuggler trailhead as recommended in the 2015 Bike and Pedestrian Masterplan. The design was based on public outreach that was performed throughout the design project. Conceptual plans were presented at an open house on April 5, 2018. All residents that live within 300 ft of King St were notified of the open house. Citizen feedback was split 50/50 on the addition of a sidewalk. It was communicated to citizens that curb and gutter was necessary to solve drainage issue with extensive tree removal. Numerous King St residents were met with or communicated with via email following the open house to discuss the design and how final design was settled on. The King Street Infrastructure Improvements contract with Aspen Digger was approved by Council on December 10, 2018. At that time, and due to concerns voiced by residents, Council indicated they would like more discussion on the proposed sidewalk. As requested, staff followed up on the sidewalk connection on King Street during the Critical Pedestrian Connections Council Work Session on January 8, 2019. Council discussed the scope of the King Street project with staff and residents in attendance. Council directed staff to suspend the project until alternatives, specifically ones with a more natural aesthetic, could be fully vetted. DISCUSSION: At Council request, staff has prepared four alternatives to the originally proposed design for King Street Infrastructure Improvements (one is a do-nothing alternative, which leaves the street in its existing condition). A cross section and narrative for each design option, including the original, is provided in Attachment A. Staff has included “advantages” and “disadvantages” as well. P11 III. Page 3 of 9 Only Option B has been fully designed. The other cross sections are conceptual and may have further impacts or not be feasible. To provide opportunity to review the design, the contract with Aspen Digger (approved in December 2018) was put on hold. Cancelling this project will result in a breach of the executed contract. RECOMMENDATION: Having reviewed and considered potential alternatives, staff continues to recommend Option B as the option most capable of alleviating the flooding issue and meeting the recommendations of the Smuggler Hunter Master Drainage Plan and the Bike and Ped Master Plan while meeting all other City requirements and standards. ATTACHMENT A – King Street Design Options P12 III. Page 4 of 9 ATTACHMENT A OPTION A - EXISTING CONDITION: The existing asphalt pavement section on King St. varies considerably in width from 17 ft to 27 ft. The existing roadway section includes an 8 ft parking lane for the majority of the roadway and a travel lane that varies between 9 ft and 19 ft. The City of Aspen Engineering Design Standards require a travel lane of 11 ft. Parking is prohibited in the section where the roadway does not meet a minimum 11 ft of width. During the January 8th work session, citizens described vehicle speeds being high and staff concludes this could be due to a widened road. Citizens also described pedestrians travelling within the road, but view this as part of the character of the neighborhood. P13 III. Page 5 of 9 OPTION B - RECOMMENDED CROSS SECTION: The proposed design includes an 8 ft parking lane similar to existing conditions, 11 ft vehicle travel lane, curb and gutter, and 4 ft sidewalk on the north side of the drive. This cross section was included in the plans that are under contract with Aspen Digger. Advantages · Alleviates drainage issue utilizing curb & gutter as conveyance · Curb & gutter creates a solid raised barrier that significantly reduces risk to structures from flooding · The travel lane is narrowed to reduce vehicle speeds for traffic calming · The travel lane is consistent which creates user predictability · Sidewalk allows for safe pedestrian passage · Sidewalk allows for fire department required drive lane width · Protects underground utilities · Meets City of Aspen Engineering Design Standards · The sidewalk meets the intent of Pedestrian and 2015 Bicycle Masterplan for connectivity Disadvantages · Removes 7 trees for inlet installation & 3 for sidewalk · Modifies the historic character of the street · The neighborhood is split on the need for a sidewalk without a consensus. P14 III. Page 6 of 9 OPTION C - CROSS SECTION WITHOUT SIDEWALK: The proposed design includes an 8 ft parking lane, 11 ft vehicle travel lane, and curb and gutter. Advantages · Alleviates drainage issue utilizing curb & gutter as conveyance with stormwater capture · Curb & gutter creates a solid barrier that significantly reduces risk to structures from flooding · The travel lane is narrowed to reduce vehicle speeds for traffic calming · Protects underground utilities Disadvantages · The roadway width does not meet the current fire department agreement-Engineering would be required to obtain permission from the fire department to proceed with this design · Removes 7 trees for inlet installation · Curb & gutter can be viewed as an adjustment to the historic character of the roadway · Reduces the safety for pedestrians and increases the interaction between users P15 III. Page 7 of 9 OPTION D - SWALE CROSS SECTION WITH PARKING: The proposed design includes an 8 ft parking lane, 11 ft vehicle travel lane, and swales on both sides of the road. The southern swale is deeper to provide capacity to protect structures. Advantages · Reduces risk for drainage issue utilizing swales as conveyance · Swales reduce the risk to structures from flooding · The travel lane is narrowed to reduce vehicle speeds for traffic calming · Protects underground utilities · More natural aesthetic Disadvantages · The roadway width does not meet the current fire department agreement-Engineering would be required to obtain permission from the fire department to proceed with this design · Removes 7 trees for inlet installation · An estimated 20 additional trees for swales-This has not been fully vetted through the Parks Department and may not be permitted · Historical character of the neighborhood is modified with the substantial tree removal · Reduces the safety for pedestrians and increases the interaction between users · Prevents sidewalk extensions in the future · Requires further above ground utility relocation P16 III. Page 8 of 9 OPTION E - SWALE CROSS SECTION WITHOUT PARKING: The proposed design includes an 11 ft vehicle travel lane, and swales on both sides of the road. The southern swale is wide and deeper to provide capacity to protect structures. This section does not include on street parking. Advantages · Alleviates drainage issue utilizing swales as conveyance · Swales protect homes from flooding · The travel lane is narrowed to reduce vehicle speeds for traffic calming · Protects underground utilities · Meets City of Aspen Engineering Design Standards · More natural aesthetic Disadvantages · Removes on street parking · The roadway width does not meet the current fire department agreement-Engineering would be required to obtain permission from the fire department to proceed with this design · Removes 7 trees for inlet installation · An additional 3 trees for swales · Historical character of the neighborhood is modified with the substantial tree removal · Reduces the safety for pedestrians and increases the interaction between users · Prevents sidewalk extensions in the future P17 III. Page 9 of 9 OPTION F – PERVIOUS PAVERS AT ROADWAY LOW POINT: The proposed design includes an 8 ft parking lane similar to existing conditions, 11 ft vehicle travel lane and permeable pavers for a portion of the roadway. Advantages · Reduces the ponding that occurs at the low point of the roadway · Infiltrates minor storm events and creates positive water quality · Tree removal is not required · Reduces the impact on the character of the neighborhood Disadvantages · Difficult to implement · A higher degree of maintenance is required · Reduces the safety for pedestrians and increases the interaction between users · Snow removal is complicated and often damages streets that change material midblock · A degree of risk in flooding of structures during large storm events · High cost · Winter functionality of system is minimal · No conveyance of stormwater to infiltration area allowing stormwater to flow onto private property · The roadway width does not meet the current fire department agreement-Engineering would be required to obtain permission from the fire department to proceed with this design P18 III.