The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.worksession.20190319 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA March 19, 2019 4:00 PM I. New City Offices Financing II. EOTC Meeting Prep III. Parking in Park Circle and Lone Pine Neighborhoods Next Regular Meeting Not Scheduled COUNCIL’S ADOPTED GUIDELINES · Make Decisions Based on 30 Year Vision · Tone and Tenor Matter · Remember Where We’re Living and Why We’re Here COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. Agenda Amended 3/18/19 P1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Pete Strecker, Finance Director MEETING DATE: March 19, 2019 RE: Funding Construction for New Administrative Offices REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is seeking direction for the financing for City Offices. Previously discussed financing has been centered around the use of certificates of participation (“COPs”), a financing mechanism that has been used by the City in the past for projects like the recently built Police department, the Rio Grande parking structure and the Isis theater renovation. Staff explored other options based on Council direction from the March 11 meeting and has included information on alternatives in the following memo. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council directed staff to move forward with the construction of new administrative offices at the site across from Rio Grande Park and adjacent to the Rio Grande parking structure. This direction followed the November 6, 2018 voter approval for this location as the preferred site for offices. At the December 3, 2018 Council meeting, Resolution 149 (Series 2018) was adopted, providing the City allowances for a future debt financing to reimburse the City for any costs on the project that would be incurred prior to the actually financing being secured. Most recently, at the February 11, 2019 Council meeting, staff received approval for four contracts related to the design and demolition work associated with the project. Those projects equate to $3.8M for the City Offices project. The total amount for proposed municipal office space development / renovation is roughly $46 million, consistent with language included in the November 6, 2018 ballot, and is outlined below: Construction of the New Rio Grande Offices $30,594,000 Renovation of the Existing Rio Grande Building $1,200,000 Renovation of Armory Building $13,912,000 Total Cost for Aggregate Administrative Offices Solution $45,706,000 DISCUSSION: At first reading, Council directed staff to review the opportunity to use a portion of the fund balance within the Wheeler Opera House Fund as part of the borrowing package, to lower the cost of the issuance. Council members also indicated that the receipt of all the borrowing proceeds should be evaluated and inquired whether it would be possible to structure the lending similar to a traditional construction loan agreement, with the lending occurring based on draws. Borrowing from the Wheeler Opera House Fund a. Staff has explored options for borrowing from this source. Per the City’s auditors, the term of such a borrowing should not be set more than 50-75% of the useful life of the asset for which it is being borrowed. This does have some gray however, as the size of the borrowing should also be considered – tying up a significant sum for a long period of time may raise concerns of this being viewed more like a transfer as the P2 I. funds are not accessible for an extended period of time and are material. As the Wheeler RETT proceeds were collected for a specific voter-approved purpose, limiting access to a significant amount of these funds for a prolonged period of time could be questioned. b. Additionally, based on Council direction following a previous loan between the Wheeler Opera House Fund and the Water Utility Fund, Resolution 166 (Series 2017) was adopted to create parameters around these intrafund advances, and provides for a maximum of a 10-year term with interest benchmarked to the corresponding treasury yield for the specified loan term. Council could adopt a new resolution to rebase these parameters, however Staff does feel the current resolution provides for reasonable terms to limit these intrafund advances beyond what the auditors would support. c. Given the parameters that exist as noted in (a) and (b) above, in addition to financing the project solely with COPs, the Council could also consider: i. Create a financing package that includes cash on hand, plus COPs for a shorter duration, taking advantage of lower short-term rates and a smaller par value. This option would require the City to go back to the market when it is time to renovate the Armory building (~$14M) and will introduce interest rate risk. A possible intrafund borrowing with Wheeler Opera House Funds could be considered when it is time to renovate the Armory, after a further discussion could be had around the Wheeler funds and after the needs assessment is completed. ii. Create a financing package that includes cash on hand, plus a Wheeler Opera House Fund intrafund loan with the 10-year payback. Interest rate risk is again introduced as the Armory renovation would need outside financing; however, this solution would completely eliminate the City going out to the market to finance the current municipal office project. Restructuring the Receipt of Proceeds a. Staff has discussed the concept of a more conventional construction loan arrangement with the City’s underwriter on this financing. There is the option to issue debt in stages, but it would be more costly (administratively) to do so as the City would be going to the market multiple times and will partially offset any savings from delaying the remittance of debt proceeds. Additionally, as noted in first reading, the construction proceeds are held in an account that earns interest. A current return rate of 2.6% is representational for an account that the City could possibly hold the construction funds within (ColoTrust Plus+). Estimating a draw schedule on construction funds over a two-year period, interest income could be roughly $600K to offset borrowing costs if the full $30M was borrowed. Month Beg Balance Draw % Withdrawls End Balance Interest Earnings 1 $30,600,000 2.6% ($795,600) $29,804,400 $64,576 2 $29,804,400 3.0% ($924,120) $28,880,280 $62,574 3 $28,880,280 4.3% ($1,318,860) $27,561,420 $59,716 4 $27,561,420 4.1% ($1,260,720) $26,300,700 $56,985 5 $26,300,700 4.8% ($1,468,800) $24,831,900 $53,802 6 $24,831,900 5.4% ($1,652,400) $23,179,500 $50,222 7 $23,179,500 6.6% ($2,019,600) $21,159,900 $45,846 P3 I. 8 $21,159,900 7.7% ($2,340,900) $18,819,000 $40,775 9 $18,819,000 9.5% ($2,913,120) $15,905,880 $34,463 10 $15,905,880 7.7% ($2,356,200) $13,549,680 $29,358 11 $13,549,680 7.9% ($2,423,520) $11,126,160 $24,107 12 $11,126,160 7.6% ($2,313,360) $8,812,800 $19,094 13 $8,812,800 6.2% ($1,909,440) $6,903,360 $14,957 14 $6,903,360 4.6% ($1,395,360) $5,508,000 $11,934 15 $5,508,000 4.7% ($1,438,200) $4,069,800 $8,818 16 $4,069,800 3.0% ($918,000) $3,151,800 $6,829 17 $3,151,800 2.4% ($719,100) $2,432,700 $5,271 18 $2,432,700 2.2% ($673,200) $1,759,500 $3,812 19 $1,759,500 1.4% ($428,400) $1,331,100 $2,884 20 $1,331,100 1.6% ($474,300) $856,800 $1,856 21 $856,800 1.4% ($428,400) $428,400 $928 22 $428,400 0.6% ($183,600) $244,800 $530 23 $244,800 0.4% ($122,400) $122,400 $265 24 $122,400 0.4% ($122,400) $0 $0 Interest Earnings Assuming 2.6% $599,604 RECOMMENDATION: Staff still recommends Council proceed with the financing for the new municipal office building through the use of certificates of participation. Borrowing rates are favorable in today’s market and the City has very minimal debt. This will allow the City to move forward with the new administrative building and still maintain cash to finance the Armory remodel for the next phase of municipal offices. ALTERNATIVES: Council has alternatives to borrowing for the full amount of the project with COPs. Remaining options include borrowing $10 million either from the market (using COPs) or by an intrafund loan from the Wheeler Opera House Fund. Given the pending arts space needs assessment slated for this year, concerns of tying up a substantial amount of Wheeler funds for a ten-year period, plus favorable market conditions for borrowing that exist today, Staff would recommend going to the market as the primary alternative to consider. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit on various financing options based on current market conditions. P4 I. All COPsCash + $10M COP 10 YearCash + $10M W heeler 10 YearDate Principal Interest Total P&I Date Principal Interest Total P&I Date Principal Interest Total P&I12/1/2019 $235,000 $702,578 $937,578 12/1/2019 $420,000 $228,748 $648,748 12/1/2019 $510,000 $142,100 $652,10012/1/2020 $440,000 $1,283,400 $1,723,400 12/1/2020 $780,000 $407,550 $1,187,550 12/1/2020 $950,000 $247,689 $1,197,68912/1/2021 $460,000 $1,265,800 $1,725,800 12/1/2021 $815,000 $376,350 $1,191,350 12/1/2021 $975,000 $222,894 $1,197,89412/1/2022 $480,000 $1,247,400 $1,727,400 12/1/2022 $845,000 $343,750 $1,188,750 12/1/2022 $1,000,000 $197,447 $1,197,44712/1/2023 $500,000 $1,223,400 $1,723,400 12/1/2023 $885,000 $301,500 $1,186,500 12/1/2023 $1,025,000 $171,347 $1,196,34712/1/2024 $525,000 $1,198,400 $1,723,400 12/1/2024 $930,000 $257,250 $1,187,250 12/1/2024 $1,050,000 $144,594 $1,194,59412/1/2025 $555,000 $1,172,150 $1,727,150 12/1/2025 $980,000 $210,750 $1,190,750 12/1/2025 $1,080,000 $117,189 $1,197,18912/1/2026 $580,000 $1,144,400 $1,724,400 12/1/2026 $1,025,000 $161,750 $1,186,750 12/1/2026 $1,110,000 $89,001 $1,199,00112/1/2027 $610,000 $1,115,400 $1,725,400 12/1/2027 $1,080,000 $110,500 $1,190,500 12/1/2027 $1,135,000 $60,030 $1,195,03012/1/2028 $640,000 $1,084,900 $1,724,900 12/1/2028 $1,130,000 $56,500 $1,186,500 12/1/2028 $1,165,000 $30,407 $1,195,40712/1/2029 $675,000 $1,052,900 $1,727,900 12/1/2029$0 12/1/2029$012/1/2030 $705,000 $1,019,150 $1,724,150 12/1/2030$0 12/1/2030$012/1/2031 $740,000 $983,900 $1,723,900 12/1/2031$0 12/1/2031$012/1/2032 $780,000 $946,900 $1,726,900 12/1/2032$0 12/1/2032$012/1/2033 $820,000 $907,900 $1,727,900 12/1/2033$0 12/1/2033$012/1/2034 $860,000 $866,900 $1,726,900 12/1/2034$0 12/1/2034$012/1/2035 $900,000 $823,900 $1,723,900 12/1/2035$0 12/1/2035$012/1/2036 $945,000 $778,900 $1,723,900 12/1/2036$0 12/1/2036$012/1/2037 $995,000 $731,650 $1,726,650 12/1/2037$0 12/1/2037$012/1/2038 $1,025,000 $699,313 $1,724,313 12/1/2038$0 12/1/2038$012/1/2039 $1,060,000 $666,000 $1,726,000 12/1/2039$0 12/1/2039$012/1/2040 $1,110,000 $613,000 $1,723,000 12/1/2040$0 12/1/2040$012/1/2041 $1,170,000 $557,500 $1,727,500 12/1/2041$0 12/1/2041$012/1/2042 $1,225,000 $499,000 $1,724,000 12/1/2042$0 12/1/2042$012/1/2043 $1,285,000 $437,750 $1,722,750 12/1/2043$0 12/1/2043$012/1/2044 $1,350,000 $373,500 $1,723,500 12/1/2044$0 12/1/2044$012/1/2045 $1,420,000 $306,000 $1,726,000 12/1/2045$0 12/1/2045$012/1/2046 $1,490,000 $235,000 $1,725,000 12/1/2046$0 12/1/2046$012/1/2047$1,565,000$160,500$1,725,50012/1/2047$012/1/2047$012/1/2047$1,565,000$160,500$1,725,50012/1/2047$012/1/2047$012/1/2048 $1,645,000 $82,250 $1,727,250 12/1/2048$0 12/1/2048$0Total: $26,790,000 $24,179,741 $50,969,741 Total: $8,890,000 $2,454,648 $11,344,648 Total: $10,000,000 $1,422,697 $11,422,697N PV @ 3.00% $33,050,805 N PV @ 3.00% $9,613,771 N PV @ 3.00%$9,679,947P5I. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:March 19, 2019 AGENDA ITEM TITLE:March 21, 2019 EOTC Meeting Preparation STAFF RESPONSIBLE:David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator ISSUE STATEMENT:Prior to the March 21, 2019 EOTC meeting, Staff will provide an overview of the agenda items and answer questions related to the packet material and decisions to be made at the upcoming meeting. BACKGROUND: Staff will focus the preparation time on the items below that require EOTC action: -Comments and/or Corrections: Decisions Reached from October 18, 2018 EOTC meeting -EOTC Budget Impacts from the Passage of RFTA Ballot Measure 7A -Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) -Brush Creek Park and Ride FLAP Grant Improvements -EOTC Retreat Date Depending on time available, Staff will also answer questions on the EOTC Updates - Information Only agenda items, including: -HOV Lane Enforcement -Aspen Country Inn EOTC Subsidized Rides -X Games Revenue vs. Cost David Peckler, Town of Snowmass Transportation Director, will provide an update on the Town of Snowmass Village Station at the EOTC meeting on March 21. At the March 21 EOTC meeting, while Staff will be providing a presentation of the action items (EOTC budget impacts from RFTA 7A, DMS, Brush Creek Park and Ride, and EOTC Retreat), a presentation is not anticipated for the Updates - Information Only agenda items. However, Staff will be on hand to answer any additional questions related to these items on March 21. It is worth noting that this preparation format is experimental and will be adjusted as appropriate in the upcoming meetings. The goal of these adjustments is to streamline the full EOTC meetings to have the members ready to discuss each of the necessary items and focus the time on those items that require action. In addition, Staff feels that it is important to provide the EOTC members with appropriate background information and updates on germaine topics to help inform future decisions. P6 II. BUDGETARY IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review March 21, 2019 EOTC packet. ATTACHMENTS: None. P7 II. Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) Thursday, March 21, 2019 - 4:00pm Location - Town of Snowmass Village Council Chambers Host and Chair - Town of Snowmass Village ____________________________________________________________________________________ I.4:00 - 4:10 PUBLIC COMMENT (Comments limited to three minutes per person) II.4:10 - 4:30 EOTC BUDGET IMPACTS - PASSAGE OF RFTA 7A David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator; David Johnson, RFTA Decision Needed: Reallocate Funding - BRT Connecting Service to TOSV III.4:30 - 5:00 DYNAMIC MESSAGE SIGN (DMS) and DISCUSSION OF PnR IV.5:00 – 5:30 BRUSH CREEK PnR - FLAP GRANT IMPROVEMENTS David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator; Brian Pettet, Pitkin County Decision Needed: Provide Feedback V.5:30 – 6:00 SET DATE FOR EOTC RETREAT David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator Decision Needed: Identify Date for Retreat VI.6:00 – 6:45 UPDATES-INFORMATION ONLY A.TOSV TRANSIT STATION UPDATE David Peckler, Town of Snowmass Village 1 Page 3Page 3 NAME Page 10 David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator; Chris Baroody, Pitkin County Decision Needed: Reallocate Funding, Provide Feedback, and Discuss PnR Name Page 20 Page 31 Page 33 P8 II. B.HOV LANE ENFORCEMENT David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator C.ASPEN COUNTRY INN David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator D.X GAMES REVENUE VS. COST David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator *Next meeting is June 20, 2019 - Pitkin County to Host & Chair 2 Page 34 Page 36 Page 39 P9 II. ELECTED OFFICIALS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (EOTC) AGREEMENTS & DECISIONS REACHED AT THE OCTOBER 18, 2018 MEETING Location - Aspen City Council Chambers City of Aspen - Host & Chair Elected Officials in Attendance: Aspen - 5 Pitkin County - 4 Snowmass - 4 Bert Myrin Rachel Richards Markey Butler Adam Frisch Greg Poschman Bill Madsen Ward Hauenstein George Newman Tom Goode Steve Skadron Steve Child Alyssa Shenk Ann Mullins Absent: Patti Clapper, Bob Sirkus ______________________________________________________________________________ Agreements & Decisions Reached REVIEW OF DECISIONS REACHED AT THE JUNE 14, 2018 MEETING John D. Krueger-City of Aspen ADOPTION OF 2019 MEETING DATES March 21, 2019 - Snowmass Host June 20, 2019 - Pitkin County Host October 17, 2019 - City of Aspen Host These 2019 meeting dates were approved. SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENTS Brian Pettet: Retirement of Tom Oken from Pitkin County and departure of Rachel Richards, whose term expires following this meeting. And introduction of David Pesnichak, new Regional Transportation Administrator. PUBLIC COMMENT No Public Comment 3 P10 II. PROPOSED 2018 BUDGET & MULTI-YEAR PLAN Tom Oken-Pitkin County Decision Needed: Approval of the 2019 Budget & Multi-year Plan Tom presented the proposed 2019 EOTC budget and multi-year plan. He reviewed the funding sources for 2018 and projections for 2019. Tom then went through the ongoing/operational funding uses for the 2019 base budget. The base budget was considered and approved. 2019 Base Budget: Decision Reached: Approval of the 2019 Base Budget as follows: ●Use Tax Collection Costs $93,280 ●Administrative Costs $24,810 ●Country Inn Taxi Program $4,000 ●X-Games Subsidy $115,000 ●Brush Creek Intercept Lot $32,000 ●No-fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek Service $662,158 ●We-Cycle Operational Support- (2 years 2018/19)$100,000/year ●Brush Creek BRT Connecting Service $419,587 o Spring, Summer, Fall o (50% from Snowmass savings account) ●Regional Transportation Planner-(Ongoing)$141,076 The new funding requests for 2019 were presented for consideration and approval. The ongoing/operational requests were presented and approved. Project Requests Approved: ●Battery Electric Bus Program $500,000 o Carried Forward from 2018 ●Variable Message Sign (VMS) Sign on SH 82 $50,000 o Carried Forward from 2018 2019 New Budget Requests: Decision Reached: Approval of the Following Budget Requests as follows: ●Retreat $10,000 ●Snowmass Mall Transit Station $350,000 o (from TOSV savings account) VI. UPDATES & FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ●SHIFT / Mobility Lab - Steve Skadron - City of Aspen ●Battery Electric Bus Program - John Krueger - City of Aspen ●Relocation of the Carpool Kiosk - Mitch Osur - City of Aspen ●RFTA Destination 2040 - David Johnson - RFTA ●Next Meeting March 21, 2019 - Snowmass to Host & Chair 4 P11 II. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: March 21, 2019 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EOTC Budget Impacts - Passage of RFTA 7A STAFF RESPONSIBLE:David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator ISSUE STATEMENT: As a result of the passage of RFTA Ballot Measure 7A, money that had been allocated by the EOTC to go to RFTA to offset the cost of providing BRT connecting service between the Brush Creek Park and Ride and the Town of Snowmass Village will now be covered by RFTA. The EOTC budget, therefore, needs to be adjusted to move the money from allocated for this service to unallocated. BACKGROUND: On November 6, 2018, RFTA Ballot Measure 7A passed. As a result of the passage of 7A, there are certain budget implications for the EOTC. Specifically, RFTA will now cover the cost for BRT connecting service between the Brush Creek Park and Ride and the Town of Snowmass Village. The cost of this service is currently budgeted for $419,587. Under the currently approved 2019 EOTC budget, this allocation is to come from 50% “above the line” and 50% from the Snowmass Savings Account. Staff understands that RFTA will not be invoicing the EOTC for these funds in 2019. BUDGETARY IMPACT: The following summary highlights the impacts that would occur from unallocating these funds (see attached budgets): ●Total Ongoing / Operational Expenditures: Decrease from $1,591,911 to $1,172,324 ●Cumulative Balance: Increase from $9,852,605 to $10,272,192 ●Snowmass Savings: Increase from $5,857,552 to $5,878,787 (cap) ●Aspen Savings: Increase from $3,995,053 to $4,393,405 RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION: ●Adjust the 2019 EOTC Budget to unallocate $419,587 identified as “Brush Creek BRT connecting service - spring, summer, fall (50% from Snowmass Savings)” ATTACHMENTS: 1)Approved 2019 EOTC Budget 2)Amended 2019 EOTC Budget (unallocating BRT Connecting Service only) 5 P12 II. APPROVED 2019 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN PAGE 1 2/22/2019 (3B) EOTC budget 2019 EOTC Transit Project Funding Projection or Proposed Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 FUNDING SOURCES: a) Pitkin County 1/2% sales tax (5,357,764) (5,626,000) (5,851,000) (6,041,000) (6,237,000) (6,440,000) (6,649,000) less RFTA contribution (81.04% of 1/2% sales tax) (4,341,932) (4,559,310) (4,741,650) (4,895,626) (5,054,465) (5,218,976) (5,388,350) net 1/2% sales tax funding to EOTC (1,015,832) (1,066,690) (1,109,350) (1,145,374) (1,182,535) (1,221,024) (1,260,650) b) Pitkin County 1/2% use tax (1,623,082) (1,400,000) (1,400,000) (1,400,000) (1,400,000) (1,400,000) (1,400,000) c) Investment income & misc.(89,000) (124,000) (187,000) (236,000) (243,000) (317,000) (189,000) Total Funding Sources (2,727,914) (2,590,690) (2,696,350) (2,781,374) (2,825,535) (2,938,024) (2,849,650) FUNDING USES: Ongoing / Operational 1) Use tax collection costs (23,329) (42,614) (93,280) (96,078) (98,961) (101,930) (104,987) 2) Administrative cost allocation & meeting costs (15,104) (22,710) (24,810) (25,554) (26,321) (27,111) (27,924) 3) Country Inn taxi program in-lieu of bus stop safety improvements (2,494) (6,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) 4) X-Games transit subsidy (115,000) (115,000) (115,000) (115,000) (115,000) (115,000) (115,000) 5) Brush Creek Intercept Lot operating costs (29,950) (35,000) (32,000) (33,000) (34,000) (35,000) (36,000) 6) No-fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek bus service - year-round (615,726) (650,556) (662,158) (799,610) (838,888) (872,400) (907,300) 7) WE-cycle operational support (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) 8) Brush Creek BRT connecting service - spring, summer, fall (50% from Snowmass Sav)(294,000) (419,587) 9)Regional Transportation Administrator (160,000) (141,076) (146,700) (152,600) (158,700) (165,000) sub-total Ongoing / Operational (901,602) (1,425,880) (1,591,911) (1,219,943) (1,269,770) (1,314,140) (1,360,211) net funding available for projects (1,826,312) (1,164,810) (1,104,439) (1,561,431) (1,555,765) (1,623,884) (1,489,439) Projects 10) Grand Ave Bridge construction - transit mitigation funding (335,000) Projects funded from Savings for greater Aspen Area 11) Upper Valley Mobility Study (276,044) 12) Cell phone transportation data collection (70,000) 13)Buttermilk/SH82 Pedestrian Crossing Analysis (40,000) 14) Battery Electric Bus Program carry over to 2019 (500,000) 15)Variable message sign on Hwy 82 carry over to 2019 (50,000) (400,000) 16) Snowmass Mall transit station (funded from Snowmass Village Savings Fund)(50,000) (350,000) (5,878,787) 17) EOTC retreat (10,000) 18) Brush Creek Park and Ride improvements (FLAP grant) (EOTC approved 10/20/16)(3,900,000) less Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant ((1,900,000) Total Uses (1,582,646) (1,515,880) (2,501,911) (3,619,943) (1,269,770) (7,192,927) (1,360,211) EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (1,145,269) (1,074,810) (194,439) ((838,569) (1,555,765) ((4,254,903) (1,489,439) EOTC CUMULATIVE SURPLUS FUND BALANCE (8,583,356) (9,658,166) (9,852,605) (9,014,036) (10,569,801) (6,314,898) (7,804,337) Attachment 1 6 P13II. APPROVED 2019 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN PAGE 2 2/22/2019 (3B) EOTC budget 2019 EOTC Transit Project Funding Projection or Proposed Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Revenue projections: a) sales tax 4.9%5.0%4.00%3.25% 3.25% 3.25% 3.25% b) use tax 12.8% -13.7%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% c) investment earnings rate 1.0%1.5%1.9%2.4%2.7%3.0%3.0% Projection or Proposed Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL SURPLUS (excludes projects funded from savings funds) (1,491,312) (1,271,810) (754,233) ((838,569) (1,555,765) (1,623,883.87) (1,489,439) 25% to Snowmass Village Savings until restored to maximum (372,828) (274,022) (188,558) ((209,642) (230,878) (- ) (- ) remainder to Aspen Savings (1,118,484) (997,788) (565,674) ((628,927) (1,324,888) (1,623,884) (1,489,439) Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area Savings Fund maximum (6,278,787) (6,228,787) (5,878,787) (5,878,787) (5,878,787) (- ) (- ) share of annual surplus/deficit (372,828) (274,022) (188,558) ((209,642) (230,878) (- ) (- ) less 50% of Brush Creek BRT connecting service ((147,000) ((209,794) less Snowmass mall transit station - reduces savings fund maximum ((50,000) ((350,000) (- ) (- ) ((5,878,787) (- ) Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area (6,151,765) (6,228,787) (5,857,552) (5,647,909) (5,878,787) (- ) (- ) Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area share of annual surplus/deficit (1,118,484) (997,788) (565,674) ((628,927) (1,324,888) (1,623,884) (1,489,439) less Upper Valley Mobility Study and cell phone data funded from Aspen Savings ((346,044) Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area (2,431,590) (3,429,379) (3,995,053) (3,366,127) (4,691,014) (6,314,898) (7,804,337) Attachment 1 7 P14II. PROPOSED 2019 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN PAGE 1 2/22/2019 (3C) EOTC Budget 2019 - BRT Connecting Removal - March 2019 Updates EOTC Transit Project Funding Projection or Proposed Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 FUNDING SOURCES: a) Pitkin County 1/2% sales tax (5,357,764) (5,626,000) (5,851,000) (6,041,000) (6,237,000) (6,440,000) (6,649,000) less RFTA contribution (81.04% of 1/2% sales tax) (4,341,932) (4,559,310) (4,741,650) (4,895,626) (5,054,465) (5,218,976) (5,388,350) net 1/2% sales tax funding to EOTC (1,015,832) (1,066,690) (1,109,350) (1,145,374) (1,182,535) (1,221,024) (1,260,650) b) Pitkin County 1/2% use tax (1,623,082) (1,400,000) (1,400,000) (1,400,000) (1,400,000) (1,400,000) (1,400,000) c) Investment income & misc. (89,000) (124,000) (187,000) (247,000) (255,000) (330,000) (203,000) Total Funding Sources (2,727,914) (2,590,690) (2,696,350) (2,792,374) (2,837,535) (2,951,024) (2,863,650) FUNDING USES: Ongoing / Operational 1) Use tax collection costs (23,329) (42,614) (93,280) (96,078) (98,961) (101,930) (104,987) 2) Administrative cost allocation & meeting costs (15,104) (22,710) (24,810) (25,554) (26,321) (27,111) (27,924) 3) Country Inn taxi program in-lieu of bus stop safety improvements (2,494) (6,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) 4) X-Games transit subsidy (115,000) (115,000) (115,000) (115,000) (115,000) (115,000) (115,000) 5) Brush Creek Intercept Lot operating costs (29,950) (35,000) (32,000) (33,000) (34,000) (35,000) (36,000) 6) No-fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek bus service - year-round (615,726) (650,556) (662,158) (799,610) (838,888) (872,400) (907,300) 7) WE-cycle operational support (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) 8) Brush Creek BRT connecting service - spring, summer, fall (50% from Snowmass Sav) (294,000) 9) Regional Transportation Administrator (160,000) (141,076) (146,700) (152,600) (158,700) (165,000) sub-total Ongoing / Operational (901,602) (1,425,880) (1,172,324) (1,219,943) (1,269,770) (1,314,140) (1,360,211) net funding available for projects (1,826,312) (1,164,810) (1,524,026) (1,572,431) (1,567,765) (1,636,884) (1,503,439) Projects 10) Grand Ave Bridge construction - transit mitigation funding (335,000) Projects funded from Savings for greater Aspen Area 11) Upper Valley Mobility Study (276,044) 12) Cell phone transportation data collection (70,000) 13) Buttermilk/SH82 Pedestrian Crossing Analysis (40,000) 14) Battery Electric Bus Program carry over to 2019 (500,000) 15) Variable message sign on Hwy 82 carry over to 2019 (50,000) (400,000) 16) Snowmass Mall transit station (funded from Snowmass Village Savings Fund)(50,000) (350,000) (5,878,787) 17) EOTC retreat (10,000) 18) Brush Creek Park and Ride improvements (FLAP grant) (EOTC approved 10/20/16) (3,900,000) less Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant ((1,900,000) Total Uses (1,582,646) (1,515,880) (2,082,324) (3,619,943) (1,269,770) (7,192,927) (1,360,211) EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (1,145,269) (1,074,810) (614,026) ((827,569) (1,567,765) ((4,241,903) (1,503,439) EOTC CUMULATIVE SURPLUS FUND BALANCE (8,583,356) (9,658,166) (10,272,192) (9,444,623) (11,012,388) (6,770,485) (8,273,924) Attachment 2 8 P15II. PROPOSED 2019 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN PAGE 2 2/22/2019 (3C) EOTC Budget 2019 - BRT Connecting Removal - March 2019 Updates EOTC Transit Project Funding Projection or Proposed Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Revenue projections: a) sales tax 4.9%5.0%4.00%3.25%3.25% 3.25% 3.25% b) use tax 12.8%-13.7%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% c) investment earnings rate 1.0%1.5%1.9%2.4%2.7%3.0%3.0% Projection or Proposed Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL SURPLUS (excludes projects funded from savings funds) (1,491,312) (1,271,810) (964,026) ((827,569) (1,567,765) (1,636,883.87) (1,503,439) 25% to Snowmass Village Savings until restored to maximum (372,828) (274,022) (- ) ((206,892) (206,892) (- ) (- ) remainder to Aspen Savings (1,118,484) (997,788) (964,026) ((620,677) (1,360,873) (1,636,884) (1,503,439) Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area Savings Fund maximum (6,278,787) (6,228,787) (5,878,787) (5,878,787) (5,878,787) (- ) (- ) share of annual surplus/deficit (372,828) (274,022) (- ) ((206,892) (206,892) (- ) (- ) less 50% of Brush Creek BRT connecting service ((147,000) (- ) less Snowmass mall transit station - reduces savings fund maximum ((50,000) ((350,000) (- ) (- ) ((5,878,787) (- ) Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area (6,151,765) (6,228,787) (5,878,787) (5,671,895) (5,878,787) (- ) (- ) Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area share of annual surplus/deficit (1,118,484) (997,788) (964,026) ((620,677) (1,360,873) (1,636,884) (1,503,439) less Upper Valley Mobility Study and cell phone data funded from Aspen Savings ((346,044) Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area (2,431,590) (3,429,379) (4,393,405) (3,772,728) (5,133,601) (6,770,485) (8,273,924) Attachment 2 9 P16II. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE:March 21, 2019 AGENDA ITEM TITLE:Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) STAFF RESPONSIBLE:David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator ISSUE STATEMENT: This memo and discussion is intended to update the EOTC members on the current progress of the DMS. In addition, as this project moves through the design phase, staff would like to obtain feedback on certain aspects of the project. BACKGROUND: As a part of the EOTC budget, $50,000 has been allocated for 2019 and $400,000 in 2020 to design and install a DMS on upvalley Highway 82. This sign is to be installed approximately one mile downvalley of the Brush Creek Park and Ride in order to convey messages to drivers related to parking, congestion, bus and vehicle travel times, and emergency situations. The goal is to encourage drivers to utilize the Brush Creek Park and Ride to either carpool or utilize the free bus to either Snowmass or Aspen. Below is a brief outline of the current status of the DMS. ●Outreach conducted to date includes: ○Meeting with Brush Creek Metro District and Landowners Association ○Meeting with Woody Creek Caucus ○Meeting with W/J Metro District and Homeowners Association ●Some of the feedback received from neighborhood meetings include: ○Use smallest sign possible. ○Consider translating messages into Spanish. ○Consider implications of sign to traffic on Smith Way (could encourage traffic to use Smith Way if Highway 82 is congested, however placement of sign before Smith Way could also allow it to be used for emergency messaging to inform drivers to take Smith Way as an alternative to Highway 82). ○No value in sign, project should not be pursued. ○Will alter the rural character of the neighborhood. ●Reasons for DMS proposed location approximately 1 mile downvalley of the Brush Creek Park: ○This distance allows for adequate time for drivers to make a decision whether to utilize the Park and Ride. ○This location reduces impact on adjacent property owners. ○It allows for adequate site distance for drivers coming upvalley to read the sign. ○This location maintains a workable distance from Juniper Hill and Smith Way intersection to avoid operational conflict. 10 P17 II. ●CDOT Standard Plans allow for either Cantilever (similar to the sign in Carbondale) or Butterfly (similar to sign on downvalley Highway 82 near Public Works) style sign. The final design is to be determined by EOTC. Pros and Cons of Cantilever and Butterfly sign design (Also See Attachment 5): ○Cantilever (Max Board Size: 31’ wide x 10’ high) ■Pros: Stronger emphasis of messages, can display longer / larger messages (depending on board size), good legibility during inclimate weather, easier to read from both travel lanes. ■Cons: Significant visual impact, more expensive, more difficult to maintain, more difficult to read during sunrise. ○Butterfly (Max Board Size: 26’ wide x 8’ high) ■Pros: Less visual impact, less expensive, easier to maintain, easier to read during sunrise. ■Cons: Less emphasis of messages, displays shorter / smaller messages, less legibility during inclimate weather, can be more difficult to read from left lane with heavy, congested traffic in right lane. ○Staff Recommendation: Based on the above considerations and feedback received to date, Staff recommends the Butterfly design. ●The Butterfly design is able to accommodate up to a 26’ wide board. The standard size for Butterfly signs is 18’ wide, which is the width of the sign that is located on downvalley Highway 82 near Pitkin County Public Works. After modeling the anticipated messages for the DMS, a 26’ wide sign board will best be able to accommodate these messages. A 26’ board will also allow for better prominence and legibility of the messages to drivers. ○Staff Recommendation: In order to convey longer and more legible messages while not having the visual impact of the Cantilever design, Staff recommends the 26’ wide Butterfly board as a middle ground between the very prominent Cantilever sign and the standard 18’ wide Butterfly sign. ●Standardizing the name of the Brush Creek Park and Ride, dropping “Intercept”, is recommended by Staff. As messages must be prior approved by CDOT and static signs are to be ordered, finding a common name is very important. While “Aspen / Snowmass Park and Ride” has been suggested, Staff is ready to move forward with the use of “Brush Creek Park and Ride” for the following reasons: ○It is of a reasonable length and can be abbreviated to fit the limited space on road signs, bus stop messaging, and the DMS. Based on current modeling of messages for the DMS, “Aspen / Snowmass Park and Ride” can be abbreviated “Aspen/Snow P&R” to fit the sign. ○There is a general recognition of the name “Brush Creek Park and Ride” currently as it is often used interchangeably with “Intercept Lot”. ○“Brush Creek Park and Ride” is the official legal name for the lot, so no changes will need to occur to any legal documents or with other agencies, such as CDOT, who owns the lot. 11 P18 II. ○“Brush Creek Park and Ride” will come up on Google and Apple maps currently. In addition, most RFTA and other transit maps currently identify the lot with “Brush Creek”, helping limit confusion. ○The “Brush Creek Park and Ride” name provides information as to where the lot is geographically located and generally how it is to be used. ●Staff is reviewing options and feasibility for technology to display live travel times by bus and vehicle from the Park and Ride into Aspen and Snowmass. Further information on this technology and feasibility is anticipated to be presented to the EOTC in June. ●An Operations IGA will need to be drafted and reviewed by EOTC before the DMS goes live. ●With confirmation of DMS design, size, and reallocation of funds, Staff anticipates sending the project out for bid in early April. This should ensure that responses from those bids can be reviewed by the EOTC at the June meeting, including any issues with the cost of the project and/or with the travel time technology. ●Current cost estimates are between $570,917 (Butterfly) and $648,722 (Cantilever) (See Attachment 5). While Staff is fairly confident in these construction estimates, the cost and feasibility of the travel time technology is not as certain. Once bids on this project are received back, Staff will have an updated cost estimate. If the project is able to go out to bid in April, then Staff anticipates bringing any discrepancies in cost to the EOTC at the June meeting. BUDGETARY IMPACT: Reallocate $400,000 from 2020 EOTC budget to 2019. This would be in addition to the $50,000 currently allocated for 2019, resulting in a total allowable 2019 expenditure on the DMS of $450,000. RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION: ●Consider Reallocation of $400,000 from 2020 EOTC budget to 2019. ○Staff Recommendation: Reallocate $400,000 DMS funding from 2020 to 2019 ●Feedback on Cantilever or Butterfly design. ○Staff Recommendation: Butterfly ●If Butterfly, provide feedback on size of sign - 26’ wide or 18’ wide. ○Staff Recommendation: 26’ Wide Butterfly ●Feedback on name for Park and Ride - “Brush Creek Park and Ride” or “Aspen / Snowmass Park and Ride”. ○Staff Recommendation: “Brush Creek Park and Ride” ATTACHMENTS: 1) Amended EOTC Budget (BRT Connecting Service and DMS reallocations) 2) CDOT Standard Plans - Cantilever vs. Butterfly design 3) DMS Location Map 4) Visualization of Cantilever and Butterfly design 5) Evaluation of Cantilever and Butterfly design 12 P19 II. AMENDED 2019 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN (RFTA 7A AND DMS REALLOCATIONS)PAGE 1 2/22/2019 (4B) EOTC budget 2019 - RFTA 7A and DMS Reallocations EOTC Transit Project Funding Projection or Proposed Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 FUNDING SOURCES: a) Pitkin County 1/2% sales tax (5,357,764) (5,626,000) (5,851,000) (6,041,000) (6,237,000) (6,440,000) (6,649,000) less RFTA contribution (81.04% of 1/2% sales tax) (4,341,932) (4,559,310) (4,741,650) (4,895,626) (5,054,465) (5,218,976) (5,388,350) net 1/2% sales tax funding to EOTC (1,015,832) (1,066,690) (1,109,350) (1,145,374) (1,182,535) (1,221,024) (1,260,650) b) Pitkin County 1/2% use tax (1,623,082) (1,400,000) (1,400,000) (1,400,000) (1,400,000) (1,400,000) (1,400,000) c) Investment income & misc. (89,000) (124,000) (187,000) (237,000) (255,000) (330,000) (203,000) Total Funding Sources (2,727,914) (2,590,690) (2,696,350) (2,782,374) (2,837,535) (2,951,024) (2,863,650) FUNDING USES: Ongoing / Operational 1) Use tax collection costs (23,329) (42,614) (93,280) (96,078) (98,961) (101,930) (104,987) 2) Administrative cost allocation & meeting costs (15,104) (22,710) (24,810) (25,554) (26,321) (27,111) (27,924) 3) Country Inn taxi program in-lieu of bus stop safety improvements (2,494) (6,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) (4,000) 4) X-Games transit subsidy (115,000) (115,000) (115,000) (115,000) (115,000) (115,000) (115,000) 5) Brush Creek Intercept Lot operating costs (29,950) (35,000) (32,000) (33,000) (34,000) (35,000) (36,000) 6) No-fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek bus service - year-round (615,726) (650,556) (662,158) (799,610) (838,888) (872,400) (907,300) 7) WE-cycle operational support (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) 8) Brush Creek BRT connecting service - spring, summer, fall (50% from Snowmass Sav) (294,000) 9) Regional Transportation Administrator (160,000) (141,076) (146,700) (152,600) (158,700) (165,000) sub-total Ongoing / Operational (901,602) (1,425,880) (1,172,324) (1,219,943) (1,269,770) (1,314,140) (1,360,211) net funding available for projects (1,826,312) (1,164,810) (1,524,026) (1,562,431) (1,567,765) (1,636,884) (1,503,439) Projects 10) Grand Ave Bridge construction - transit mitigation funding (335,000) Projects funded from Savings for greater Aspen Area 11) Upper Valley Mobility Study (276,044) 12) Cell phone transportation data collection (70,000) 13) Buttermilk/SH82 Pedestrian Crossing Analysis (40,000) 14) Battery Electric Bus Program carry over to 2019 (500,000) 15) Variable message sign on Hwy 82 carry over to 2019 (450,000) 16) Snowmass Mall transit station (funded from Snowmass Village Savings Fund)(50,000) (350,000) (5,878,787) 17) EOTC retreat (10,000) 18) Brush Creek Park and Ride improvements (FLAP grant) (EOTC approved 10/20/16) (3,900,000) less Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant ((1,900,000) Total Uses (1,582,646) (1,515,880) (2,482,324) (3,219,943) (1,269,770) (7,192,927) (1,360,211) EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (1,145,269) (1,074,810) (214,026) ((437,569) (1,567,765) ((4,241,903) (1,503,439) EOTC CUMULATIVE SURPLUS FUND BALANCE (8,583,356) (9,658,166) (9,872,192) (9,434,623) (11,002,388) (6,760,485) (8,263,924) Attachment 1 13 P20II. AMENDED 2019 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN (RFTA 7A AND DMS REALLOCATIONS)PAGE 2 2/22/2019 (4B) EOTC budget 2019 - RFTA 7A and DMS Reallocations EOTC Transit Project Funding Projection or Proposed Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 Revenue projections: a) sales tax 4.9%5.0%4.00%3.25% 3.25% 3.25% 3.25% b) use tax 12.8% -13.7%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0%0.0% c) investment earnings rate 1.0%1.5%1.9%2.4%2.7%3.0%3.0% Projection or Proposed Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL SURPLUS (excludes projects funded from savings funds) (1,491,312) (1,271,810) (564,026) ((437,569) (1,567,765) (1,636,883.87) (1,503,439) 25% to Snowmass Village Savings until restored to maximum (372,828) (274,022) (- ) ((109,392) (109,392) (- ) (- ) remainder to Aspen Savings (1,118,484) (997,788) (564,026) ((328,177) (1,458,373) (1,636,884) (1,503,439) Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area Savings Fund maximum (6,278,787) (6,228,787) (5,878,787) (5,878,787) (5,878,787) (- ) (- ) share of annual surplus/deficit (372,828) (274,022) (- ) ((109,392) (109,392) (- ) (- ) less 50% of Brush Creek BRT connecting service ((147,000) (- ) less Snowmass mall transit station - reduces savings fund maximum ((50,000) ((350,000) (- ) (- ) ((5,878,787) (- ) Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area (6,151,765) (6,228,787) (5,878,787) (5,769,395) (5,878,787) (- ) (- ) Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area share of annual surplus/deficit (1,118,484) (997,788) (564,026) ((328,177) (1,458,373) (1,636,884) (1,503,439) less Upper Valley Mobility Study and cell phone data funded from Aspen Savings ((346,044) Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area (2,431,590) (3,429,379) (3,993,405) (3,665,228) (5,123,601) (6,760,485) (8,263,924) Attachment 1 14 P21II. 7'-0"17'-6" MIN.17'-6" MIN.17'-6" MIN.30'-0" = MAXIMUMNARROW MEDIANWIDE MEDIAN*CANTILEVER SIGN -SIGN NOTES (1 OF 2)- GENERAL NOTES (CONTINUED) HEX HEAD BOLTS (BAND-IT D315 OR EQUIVALENT). USING TWO •" WIDE STAINLESS STEEL BANDS AND STAINLESS STEEL FLARED LEG BRACKETS WITH INSTALL STRUCTURE IDENTIFICATION PANEL IN ACCORDANCE WITH M AND S STANDARD S-614-12 STAINLESS STEEL FLARED LEG BRACKETS WITH HEX HEAD BOLTS (BAND-IT D315 OR EQUIVALENT). ATTACH REMOTE ACCESS CABINET(S) TO POST WITH TWO •" WIDE STAINLESS STEEL BANDS AND THESE PLANS UNLESS APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO FABRICATION. THERE SHALL BE NO PENETRATIONS OF MAST/CROSS ARMS OR POST OTHER THAN AS SHOWN ON ITEMS 503, 614 AND 625 RESPECTIVELY. CAISSONS, STEEL SUPPORTS AND SURVEY WORK SHALL BE PAID FOR IN ACCORDANCE WITH BID SUBSECTION 105.02 OF THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. SHOP DRAWINGS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER FOR REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH NPS = NOMINAL PIPE SIZE; O.D. = OUTSIDE DIAMETER; DMS = DYNAMIC MESSAGE SIGN. IN THE PREPARATION OF THE SIGN X-SECTION SHEETS IN THE ROADWAY PLANS. SHEETS IN THE INDEX MARKED WITH A PROVIDE INSTRUCTIONS TO DESIGNERS FOR THEIR USE 13. 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 7. (SEE SIGN X-SECTION SHEET IN TRAFFIC PLANS) BUTTERFLY SIGN (ROADSIDE INSTALLATION) (SEE SIGN X-SECTION SHEET IN TRAFFIC PLANS) BUTTERFLY SIGN (MEDIAN INSTALLATION) INSTALLATION INSTALLATION GENERAL NOTES 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. GENERAL NOTES (CONTINUED) WITH A . SEE TABLE ON SHEET 4 FOR CABINET ROTATION ADJUSTMENTS TO VERTICAL CLEARANCES MARKED AS SPECIFIED HEREIN. THE ACCEPTABLE MAXIMUM WELD UNDERCUT IS 0.01". CIRCUMFERENTIAL GROOVE WELDS SHALL BE FULL PENETRATION GROOVE WELDS AND SHALL BE INSPECTED ALL CIRCUMFERENTIAL AND ALL LONGITUDINAL PIPE SEAM WELDS WITHIN 5" OF FULL PENETRATION AND MEMBERS WHICH ARE TACKED OR WELDED AND SUBSEQUENTLY CUT APART AND REWELDED. EDGES, CORRECTION OF FABRICATION ERRORS IN CUTTING, PUNCHING, DRILLING, OR FITTING, (4) REPAIRS. ALL REPAIR WELDS TO CORRECT DEFECTS IN GROOVE AND FILLET WELDS, PLATE CUT TENSION AREAS. (3) GROOVE WELDS. ALL THROUGH THICKNESS EDGES ON TRANSVERSE BUTT JOINT WELDMENTS IN SHALL BE RESOLVED BY EXCAVATION. INDICATIONS SHALL FURTHER BE EVALUATED WITH 10X OR 30X MAGNIFICATION. VERIFICATION MEMBER TO MAIN MEMBER WELDMENTS. ALL STOP-STARTS AND WELD TERMINI. ALL LINEAR (2) FILLET WELDS. EACH DESIGN WELD SIZE ON MAIN MEMBER TO MAIN MEMBER AND SECONDARY CUP, AND THE WELDING ELECTRODE. ALL THREE CONDITIONS ARE ARC STRIKES. (1) BASE METAL. ALL AREAS CONTACTED BY THE CARBON ARC GOUGE ELECTRODE, THE ELECTRODE ENHANCED MAGNETIC PARTICLE TESTS SHALL BE PERFORMED AT THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS: OF THE BASE METAL. BE POSITIONED BOTH NORMAL AND PARALLEL WITH RESPECT TO THE WELD AXIS AND ROLLING DIRECTION THE YOKES SHALL BE SET IN TWO POSITIONS WHEN TESTING THE WELD OR BASE METAL. THEY SHALL BE APPLIED TO THE TEST SURFACE PRIOR TO TESTING. SECTIONS 9 AND 15, EXCEPT WHITE NON-AQUEOUS DEVELOPER MEETING ASTM E 165, TYPE 3, SHALL PARTICLE APPLICATION AND SPECIMEN PREPARATION SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF ASTM E 709 RED DRY PARTICLES SHALL BE USED. THE LIGHT INTENSITY SHALL MEET ASTM E 709, SECTION 7. YOKE SPACING SHALL BE BETWEEN 2 AND 4 INCHES. THE MINIMUM LIFTING POWER SHALL BE 10 LBS. E 709 AND AWS D 1.1, EXCEPT AS AMENDED HEREIN. ALTERNATING CURRENT SHALL BE USED. THE HEREIN. ENHANCED MAGNETIC PARTICLE TESTING SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ASTM ENHANCED MAGNETIC PARTICLE TESTING SHALL BE PERFORMED ON AREAS DEFINED IN AWS D1.1 AND AND REQUIRED TESTING SHALL BE COMPLETE BEFORE ANY MATERIAL IS GALVANIZED. SHALL BE GROUND TO BRIGHT METAL. NO BUTT WELD SPLICES WILL BE PERMITTED. ALL WELDING WELDING OF STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF AWS D 1.1. ALL AREAS TO BE WELDED 16. 15. 14. A A POST HEIGHT B B B B ASECTION BSECTION INDEX IS TO SAME SHEET) NUMBER (IF BLANK, REFERENCE CROSS REFERENCE DRAWING IDENTIFICATION SECTION OR DETAIL DETAIL CUT AND LEADER LINE FOR ARROW HEAD FOR SECTION 14. 13. 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. (SEE CANTILEVER NOTE 7 ON SHEET 2) SHEET BUTTERFLY SIGN X-SECTION * 7'-0" MIN. OR AS PER THE DMS DMS CABINET ACCESS REMOTE SEE NOTE 13. I.D. PANEL STRUCTURE 18'-6" MAX.18'-6" MAX.BASE PLATE BOTTOM OF CABINET ACCESS REMOTE SEE NOTE 13. STRUCTURE I.D. PANEL WAY TRAVELED EDGE OF SEE NOTE 13. I.D. PANEL STRUCTURE WAY TRAVELED EDGE OF FOUNDATION & ANCHOR BOLT DETAILS BUTTERFLY POST DETAILS BUTTERFLY SIGN MOUNTING DETAILS BUTTERFLY ASSEMBLY DETAILS BUTTERFLY INSTALLATION DETAILS CANTILEVER SIGN WALKWAY DETAILS (2 OF 2) CANTILEVER SIGN WALKWAY DETAILS (1 OF 2) CANTILEVER BASE PLATE DETAILS CANTILEVER FIELD SPLICE DETAILS CANTILEVER POST AND ARM DETAILS CANTILEVER SIGN MOUNTING BRACKETS CANTILEVER INSTALLATION DETAILS SIGN NOTES (2 OF 2) SIGN NOTES (1 OF 2) CABINET DISCONNECT CABINET ACCESS REMOTE CommentsDate: R-1 Computer File Information Sheet Revisions Not to Scale Drawing File Name: Last Modification Date: Creation Date: CAD Ver.: Full Path: Scale:Units: Initials: Initials: EnglishMicroStation V8 07-04-12 JRM STANDARD PLAN NO. S-614-60JRM07-04-12 S-614-60_01of14.dgn Issued By: Safety and Traffic Engineering Branch on July 4, 2012 MONOTUBE STRUCTURES DYNAMIC SIGN Sheet No. 1 of 14 R-X R-X R-X STRUCTURES SHALL BE GROUNDED IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPLICABLE ELECTRICAL CODES. ROADWAY PLANS. A DISCONNECT FOR THE POWER SUPPLY TO THE DMS SHALL BE PROVIDED AS SHOWN IN THE BEFORE INSTALLING THE SIGN STRUCTURE; VERIFY CONCRETE STRENGTH WITH MATURITY METER. GRADE 60. CAISSON CONCRETE MUST HAVE A MINIMUM COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF 2,700 PSI ALL CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS BZ WITH AIR ENTRAINMENT; REINFORCING STEEL SHALL BE CONTRACTOR SHALL NOT COMMENCE FABRICATION UNTIL SUCH SPLICE LOCATIONS ARE APPROVED. GALVANIZING. SPLICE LOCATIONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER FOR APPROVAL AND THE ALL SIGN STRUCTURES SHALL BE FABRICATED INTO THE LARGEST PRACTICAL SECTIONS PRIOR TO STRUCTURES MAY BE MADE WITH GALVANIZING OR PAINT ON THE CONTACT (FAYING) SURFACES. THE STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS. ASSEMBLY OF HIGH-STRENGTH BOLTED CONNECTIONS FOR SIGN HIGH-STRENGTH BOLTED CONNECTIONS SHALL CONFORM TO THE PROVISIONS IN SECTION 509.28 OF ON SHEET 2. ALL STRUCTURAL STEEL SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS SHOWN IN THE MATERIALS TABLE 06-17-16 REVISE NOTE 4 www.codot.gov/library/traffic/traffic-standards/2012-s-standard-plans 2829 W Howard Place Phone: Denver, Colorado 80204 303-757-9543 FAX:303-757-9219 Colorado Department of Transportation Safety & Traffic Engineering KCM/RLO Attachment 2 15 P22II. Attachment 3 16 P23II. Attachment 417P24II. Attachment 418P25II. BUTTERFLY (ROADSIDE) CANTILEVER (OVERHEAD) Size max (26' W x 8' H) Size max (31' W x 10' H) Standard Application Multi-Lane Highways Sign offset from travel lanes Profile Restrictions Emphasis of Messaging Display Longer/Larger Messaging $ 36,300 $ 50,700 $ 105,000 $ 145,000 $ 45,000 $ 65,000 $ 384,617 $ 388,022 $ 570,917 $ 648,722 Sign Top 17-feet 26-feet Sign Base 9-feet 18-feet OK Excellent Hills behind sign provide good backdrop to read sign Difficult to see in AM with sun behind overhead sign Difficult to see from Left Lane Good OK Good Impact to Adjacent Properties Minimal Significant 17-feet 26-feet Minimal Considerable Considerable Significant Front Access or Walk-In Walk-In Cabinet (Ladder or Manlift) (Bucket Truck) Behind guardrail out of roadway Maintenance over travel-way Inspection - Structure Inspection - Structure Inspection - Catwalk CDOT Structure Number may not be required CDOT Structure Number will be required Other Steel Structure Sign Emphasis Impact to viewshed Access to Sign Equipment Total Risk to crew and public Inspections and maintenance Sign Height Multi-Lane Congested Traffic CDOT Requirements Height Orientation Impact to rural character Inclement Weather Visibility Aesthetics EOTC SH82 Dynamic Message Sign Project DMS (LED) Cantilevered vs Butterfly DMS Alternative Evaluation Other costs Maintenance DMS Alternative ITEM Cost (Estimated for Construction) Caisson Foundation Application 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Butterfly (Roadside) Cantilever (Overhead) DMS Alternative Scoring Good Neutral Not Good Attachment 5 19 P26 II. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE:March 21, 2019 AGENDA ITEM TITLE:Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) Grant Improvements and Kiosk Relocation STAFF RESPONSIBLE:David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator ISSUE STATEMENT: This memo and discussion is intended to update the EOTC members on the current progress of the FLAP Grant improvements and the Carpool Kiosk relocation. In addition, as this project moves through the design phase, staff would like to obtain feedback on certain aspects of the project. BACKGROUND: While these two projects are at different stages, this memo and discussion are intended to update the EOTC members on the current progress of each one. In addition, as portions of this project move through the design phases, staff would like to obtain specific feedback on these concepts in order to move the project forward. Below is a brief outline of each of these projects. Although feedback is only requested for the restroom relocation of the FLAP grant improvements currently, as the relocation of the carpool kiosk is contemplated as a part of the FLAP grant approval, this update has been included with the same memo. Outreach to Date (FLAP Grant and Kiosk Relocation): ●Brush Creek Metro District and Landowners Association ●Woody Creek Caucus ●W/J Metro District and Homeowners Association ●Press Release Planned Upcoming Outreach: ●Public Open House with Consulting Team, April 10 from 4.30 to 7.30pm. CMC Aspen Campus ●Press Release ●Online Data Collection and Feedback Tool Outline of Feedback Received to Date: FLAP Grant Improvements ●Brush Creek landowners do not want to become “Aspen’s parking lot”. ●Want facility to be kept clean with minimal security lighting. ●Install cameras and have security personal at the Lot. ●Install more defined walkways and fencing to guide people across the bus lane. ●Suggest moving bus station to middle of parking area so that parking surrounds the station. 20 P27 II. ●Lighting should be downcast and meet dark sky standards. Use low profile lighting, such as bollards. ●Control camping in all parking areas. Increase enforcement. ●Install a kiss and ride and/or 15 minute parking. ●Install bus turn around, pick up and drop off area within parking area to facilitate large events that require overflow bus transit. ●Install restrooms on existing bus platform for convenience of passengers and to allow for parking area as potential bus terminal expansion area. ●Maintain on road bike connection between existing paths, but incorporate more intuitive wayfinding. Kiosk Relocation ●Consider traffic impacts to intersection with Highway 82. ●Keep track of usage to determine if kiosk is gaining more or less usage from this relocation. ●Make it as easy as possible for those who need a carpool pass to get in and get out of the lot. ●Concern that kiosk will over promote the use of Brush Creek PnR, causing increased impacts on neighbors. ●Could alter the rural character of the neighborhood. ●Aspen and Snowmass should to deal with parking impacts within their own jurisdictions - kiosk should not be relocated to Brush Creek PnR. Brush Creek PnR - FLAP Grant Improvements ●County and U.S. Forest Service applied for a FLAP grant to improve the Brush Creek Park n Ride in 2017. The grant was awarded in 2018 with funding beginning in 2019. Construction is planned for 2020. ●Project description includes: ○Permanent restroom facilities with flush toilets ○Water and wastewater facilities (well and septic) ○Increase paved area for parking (pave recycled asphalt area) ○Add security lighting ●The consultant, Jacobs, has provided initial concept plans. ●Project in early design stages. Three concepts have been drafted and entitled in relation to the location of the restroom facilities for that respective concept: “North of Station”, “Mid-Station”, and “On Platform”. These three alternatives are in Attachment 1 with variations in the restroom location being the primary difference. At this stage the location of the restroom facilities is the primary item that needs to be determined in order to avoid delays in the project. With a determination for the restroom location, Staff can continue to narrow down on the circulation and parking design. The pros and cons for these alternatives are generally as follows: ○North of Station ■Pros: Most expandable, can include a information booth, carpoolers do not need to cross bus lane to access restrooms. 21 P28 II. ■Cons: Most inconvenient options for both carpoolers and transit users, possibly increased security issues due to the restrooms location in a less visited corner of the site, transit users need to cross bus lane to access restrooms. ○Mid-Station ■Pros: Good balance of convenience for both carpoolers and transit users, best alternative for security as it should have the most activity around the facility, possibility for expansion, could accommodate an information booth, carpoolers will not have to cross bus lane to access restrooms. ■Cons: Utilizes parking spaces, transit users will need to cross bus lane to access restrooms. ○On Platform ■Pros: Most convenient for transit users, transit users do not need to cross bus lane to access restrooms, does not take up any parking spaces. ■Cons: Inconvenient for carpoolers, carpoolers will need to cross bus lane to access restrooms, not expandable, no opportunity for information booth. ○Staff Recommendation: Based on the above considerations and feedback received to date, Staff recommends the Mid-Station location. ●From public and agency feedback received, Staff is looking into incorporating a kiss and ride area, 15 minute parking, minimal lighting, clarifying the bike connection, bus and large truck turn around, and security cameras. These will be available for EOTC review later in the process. ●Consultant is to organize general public open houses to gain comment and feedback (April 10 at 4pm at CMC Aspen Campus). Staff has conducted several outreach efforts in addition to this standard outreach, including a meeting with the Brush Creek Landowners and Metro District, a meeting with the Woody Creek Caucus, and a meeting with W/J Homeowners Association and Metro District. Staff has also been in contact with the directly adjacent neighbor, Mr. Sanditen. ●EOTC to review roughly 30% plans in June. Final plans to be approved by EOTC later in 2019. ●Improvements funded by ~$1.9 million from federal FLAP grant with matching funds from EOTC. Carpool Kiosk Relocation ●Application was submitted to Pitkin County for review as a Location and Extent (L & E) with the Planning and Zoning Commission. This application was heard by the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission on February 19 who approved it by a vote of 4 to 0 with minimal discussion. In order to move forward with the L&E review with Planning and Zoning, the Director of Pitkin County Community Development had to first issue a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). The Conditions associated with the issued FONSI and L&E are listed below. ○FONSI Conditions: 1. The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application and shall consider those representations to be conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. 2. It is the intent of the Applicant to relocate the kiosk to the Intercept Lot and not ground the kiosk until the location is optimized. Any significant change to the size, location or 22 P29 II. operation of the kiosk may require reapplication and further approvals pursuant to Section 12.30-30 (1). 3. After a full year of operation at this location, one summer season and one winter season from the date operations commence at the new location, an evaluation of the kiosk operation shall be submitted within 30 days for the Director's review. That information shall include: A. Usage data such as the number of cars that obtain a carpool permit; the number of cars that proceed into town; the number of cars diverted to park at the Intercept Lot; comparison of carpool permits to the last 5 years of permits provided. B. A traffic study to analyze the Highway 82 and Brush Creek intersection. C. Evaluation of the efficiency of the carpool program at the Intercept Lot location. 4. Once the above studies have been completed, the Director will consider whether additional information is required for further review or a reapplication is required pursuant to Section 12.30.30. 5. Any exterior lighting shall comply with the County lighting standards. 6. Failure to comply with the conditions of this approval may result in revocation of this approval, or any subsequent permit(s) or approval(s) related to this property, or vested rights associated with this property. ○Location and Extent (L&E) Conditions: 1.The Applicant shall adhere to all material representations made in the application and shall consider those representations to be conditions of approval, unless amended by other conditions. 2.It is the intent of the Applicant to relocate the kiosk to the Intercept Lot and not ground the kiosk until the location is optimized. Any significant change to the size, location or operation of the kiosk may require further review. 3. Any exterior lighting shall comply with the County lighting standards. 4. Failure to comply with the conditions of this approval may result in revocation of this approval, or any subsequent permit(s) or approval(s) related to this property, or vested rights associated with this property. ●Of note from the Conditions of approval (underlined above) are the requirements to 1) monitor the usage of the kiosk relative to previous years, 2) conduct a traffic study to indicate the impact of the kiosk relocation on the vehicle operations at the intersection with Highway 82, and 3) an evaluation of the efficiency of the carpool program at the Brush Creek Park and Ride location. City, County and EOTC staff anticipate complying with these conditions of approval. ●Relocation reviewed by EOTC on October 18, 2018. ●This project was originally anticipated as a part of the FLAP Grant improvements. ●Project entails relocating City of Aspen Carpool Kiosk from the Aspen / Pitkin County Airport to the Brush Creek Park n Ride. 23 P30 II. ●Carpool Kiosk is anticipated to be relocated permanently to the Park n Ride, however the Kiosk would be initially placed on skids for minor modifications in the placement as planning for surrounding FLAP improvements are finalized. ●The relocation is anticipated to: 1) Consolidate carpool and transit transportation options and, hopefully, encourage people who may have otherwise carpooled into town to take the bus instead; 2) Provide the carpool pass at a location where one or more cars can be parked for the day to simplify the carpool process for the user, thereby encouraging carpooling; and, 3) Reduce the amount of traffic merging into the bus lane from the airport to increase safety and efficiency of the bus system. ●Location of kiosk in Park and Ride is allowable by the lease with CDOT and the IGA with the City, County, and Town. CDOT has provided a letter of support for the relocation of the kiosk. ●Relocation funded by City of Aspen. BUDGETARY IMPACT: ●FLAP Grant - Matching Funds Budgeted by EOTC for 2020 ●Carpool Kiosk - None (funded by City of Aspen) RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION: ●FLAP Grant Improvements - Feedback on Restroom Location (North of Station, Mid-Station, or On Platform) ○Staff Recommendation: Mid-Station ATTACHMENTS: 1) Latest Concept Plans for the FLAP Grant Improvements 2) Renderings and Site Plan for Kiosk Relocation 24 P31 II. Attachment 1FLAP Improvements - Restroom Location 25 P32II. Attachment 1FLAP Improvements - Restroom Location 26 P33II. Attachment 1FLAP Improvements - Restroom Location 27 P34II. NORTHEXISTING OVER FLOW PARKINGBUS PICK-UP/ DROP-OFFHWY. 82KIOSK AREAOVERALL REFERENCE PLAN- NOT TO SCALECarpool Kiosk Relocation Attachment 2 28 P35 II. HWY. 82APPROXIMATE PARKING KIOSK LOCATIONBRUSH CREEK RD.PARKING LOT ACCESS ROAD.BUS DROP OFF/ PICK UPOVER FLOW PARKINGAPPROXIMATE TURN-AROUND LOCATIONPARKING KISOK REFERENCE PLAN- NOT TO SCALENORTHCarpool Kiosk Relocation Attachment 2 29 P36 II. POTENTIAL PARKING KIOSK SIGN LOCATIONBRUSH CREEK ROAD (PARKING LOT ENTRANCE/ EXIT ROAD)APPROXIMATE MOBILE PARKING KIOSK LOCATIONTICKETING WINDOWVIEW FROM PARKING LOT ACCESS ROAD LOOKING EAST- PROPOSEDAPPROXIMATE TURN AROUND AREACarpool Kiosk Relocation Attachment 2 30 P37 II. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: March 21, 2019 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EOTC Retreat Scheduling Discussion STAFF RESPONSIBLE:David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator THRU:Brian Pettet, Pitkin County David Peckler, Town of Snowmass Village John Krueger, City of Aspen ISSUE STATEMENT: At the last EOTC meeting in October 2018, the EOTC budgeted for a retreat in 2019. The purpose of the anticipated EOTC retreat is to move beyond status quo. In other words, the retreat is not an end goal, but a stepping stone. And in order to make this step a success, appropriate preparation is of utmost importance. While it is understood that some officials would like to have the retreat as soon as possible, staff feels that appropriate preparation time is necessary to help ensure it is productive and adequately addresses the desired outcomes. BACKGROUND: Over the past several months, the Transportation Administrator has met either one-on-one or within groups with almost every elected official on the EOTC, as well as associated staff. Based on these meetings, one prevolant thread is the desire to reevaluate and/or reaffirm the EOTC mission statement as well as identify shared values and vision. As these are some of the basic components to a strategic plan, Staff would like to focus the retreat and discussion topics as the first step in the process to the development of such a plan. The purpose of a strategic plan is anticipated to be a step back from the day to day operations of regional transportation and identify where you as a Committee are heading and what you think your priorities should be for the future. This kind of planning has become particularly important with the new hire of a Transportation Administrator and ensuring that this resource is utilized in an efficient and effective manner. Should the EOTC agree with the goal of utilizing the retreat as a stepping stone into a strategic plan, then the spring and summer months will be critical preparation for staff and the elected officials to ensure that the retreat is set up and geared appropriately. Specifically, staff anticipates utilizing this time to conduct a thorough environmental scan of the current regional transportation landscape. This scan can then be used by the EOTC at the retreat to help inform not only work on the mission statement, vision, and values, but also how the Committee would like to move forward with the development and implementation of a strategic plan. In order to allow staff and the EOTC time to appropriately set up the retreat and conduct an environmental scan, staff recommends that the retreat be scheduled for late July or early August 2019. This timing would move the retreat to more of the shoulder season yet before the fall picks up. It would 31 P38 II. also allow newly seated elected officials to be prepared for an educational values and vision setting retreat. BUDGETARY IMPACT: ●The EOTC Budgeted $10,000 for a retreat in 2019. RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION: ●Discuss goal of gearing the retreat as a stepping stone to an EOTC strategic plan. ○Staff Recommendation: Direct Staff to focus retreat as a first step in the development of a strategic plan ●Discuss a possible date for retreat either the later part of July or first part of August, 2019. ○Staff Recommendation: Identify a date in the later part of July or first part of August, 2019 to hold the retreat. ATTACHMENTS: None. 32 P39 II. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee FROM:David Peckler, Town of Snowmass Village Transportation Director MEETING DATE:March 21, 2019 SUBJECT:Mall Transit Station Project Update The Town has hired the firm Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) to create conceptual designs for a Mall Transit Station that will fit within a $7 million construction budget. SEH was selected based on their experience in designing transit stations: e.g. Denver RTD’s redevelopment of the 16th Street Mall Civic Center Station. Their associates have experience in our area with their work on RFTA’s Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) park-&-ride designs, RFTA’s Integrated Transportation System Plan (ITSP); and design work on the Snowmass Fire Station. Staff representing the Town and RFTA had preliminary scoping meetings with SEH to define the objectives for the project, identify the constraints of the site, and review of the available information and data. SEH is in the process of developing three initial concept plans for review by the end of March. Scenarios that address the objectives and meet the constraints will be presented to the community for input. Based on community input, three scenarios with preliminary cost estimates will be analyzed to land a preferred design by mid to late June. 33 P40 II. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: March 21, 2019 AGENDA ITEM TITLE:High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) Lane Enforcement STAFF RESPONSIBLE:David Pesnichak, Regional Transportation Administrator THRU:Joe DiSalvo, Pitkin County Sheriff ISSUE STATEMENT: According to the Upper Valley Mobility Report authored by the Community Forum Task Force in 2017 : The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) initially conducted a robust public relations campaign to inform the traveling public about the SH 82 HOV program. Early on, the Colorado State Patrol (CSP) enforced the HOV lanes, and motorist compliance was high. Pitkin County courts, however, were reluctant to fine motorists who challenged tickets in court. Subsequently, enforcement dropped off, and tickets are no longer issued. The lack of enforcement of existing HOV restrictions is negating the benefits of the HOV lanes. Efforts are needed to secure judicial support, provide outreach, and fully enforce HOV laws. https://assets.aspeninstitute.org/content/uploads/2017/09/Community-Forum-Mobility-Report_Final.pdf At a meeting with the Task Force in October 2018, an update informed by the Pitkin County Sheriff, Joe DiSalvo, to the EOTC was recommended regarding High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) enforcement on Highway 82. In January 2019, the Regional Transportation Administrator, David Pesnichak, met with the Pitkin County Sheriff to understand current challenges to enforcement of the HOV lanes on Highway 82. BACKGROUND: The Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Highway 82 between Basalt and Buttermilk started in 1987. From 1996 to 2004, the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) constructed HOV lanes to accommodate vehicles with 2 or more passengers during peak travel times on Highway 82. The development of these lanes are part of the Record of Decision (ROD) stemming from the EIS for the enlargement of this section of Highway 82 to four lanes and has been implemented as a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measure. The lanes are intended to increase transit efficiency and encourage carpooling. As a part of the design, it is understood that the HOV lanes were installed in the right lane, diverging from standard national practice, in order to accomodate RFTA buses that need to enter and exit the highway regularly to service stops. In addition, the hours of operation for the up valley lane and down valley lane 34 P41 II. are only in effect for peak traveling times. Outside of these peak traveling timeframes, the HOV lanes are not in effect and are utilized as standard travel lanes. Specifically, the HOV lanes are in effect Monday through Friday from 6:00 a.m. to 9:00 a.m. up valley (to Aspen) and from 3:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. down valley (to Basalt). It is understood that while Colorado State Patrol and the Pitkin County Sheriff’s Office acknowledge the need to patrol the HOV lanes, enforcement of these lanes is often not a priority. This is due to other higher competing priorities for law enforcement which directly impact life, safety and property. In addition, the Pitkin County Sheriff’s Office is otherwise short staffed and it is understood that Colorado State Patrol has similar staffing issues. Possible ways to address compliance with the HOV lanes are as follows: -Increase staffing -Implement an education campaign -Automate enforcement (technology and legal ability to implement need to be explored) All of the above noted avenues to increase compliance require additional analysis and vetting to determine the appropriate course of action. In addition, any action should be considered within the greater scheme of transportation priorities for the EOTC and the region. BUDGETARY IMPACT: None at this time. RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION: Consider enforcement measures for the HOV lanes as a part of a greater comprehensive plan to efficiently move people throughout the region. In the meantime, Staff has included HOV compliance messages as a part of the Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) to be located just down valley of the Brush Creek Park and Ride. This message is an attempt to increase awareness of the HOV lane, and hence increase compliance. As the other DMS’s along Highway 82 are controlled by CDOT, further conversation is necessary to determine the ability to utilize those signs for education and awareness as well. ATTACHMENTS: None. 35 P42 II. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE:March 21, 2019 AGENDA ITEM TITLE:Aspen Country Inn STAFF RESPONSIBLE:David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator ISSUE STATEMENT: The Aspen Country Inn taxi service program was implemented by the EOTC in 2001 to address bus stop safety issues faced by residents at this senior-priority housing complex. The lack of a grade separated pedestrian crossing, traffic signal, crosswalk or median at this location along Highway 82 makes it unsafe for Country Inn residents to use transit for down valley trips, or for return trips from Aspen. The EOTC implemented this taxi program in lieu of funding the construction of a highway underpass. At the October 18, 2018 EOTC meeting, Staff was instructed to look into the transportation landscape to identify what options are available for non personal vehicle transportation for the residents of Aspen Country Inn. Specifically, Staff was asked to look into transportation options provided by the Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG) and whether there are any opportunities to gain efficiencies or consolidate services. BACKGROUND: The Country Inn taxi program allows residents to use a taxi when their travel would otherwise require the crossing of Highway 82. Specifically, residents may take a taxi from downtown Aspen to the Country Inn or from Country Inn down valley as far as the Brush Creek Park and Ride. The typical trip involves a resident taking the bus to Aspen and using a taxi for the return trip. Utilization of the program has fluctuated over the years based on who is living in the complex, however, the program is generally appreciate by Country Inn residents. The program has been averaging approximately 10-20 trips per month but has seen average usage as high as 40 trips per month. While annual subsidies had been as high as approximately $9,000 per year, in recent years the subsidy has decreased to approximately $2,000 to $4,000 annually due to a dip in usage. Additional program costs include the printing of taxi vouchers as well as periodic educational materials. Management of this program is provided in-kind by the City of Aspen. Following an inquiry by the EOTC at the October 18, 2018 meeting, the Transportation Administrator researched the current landscape for transportation available to the residents of the Aspen Country Inn. Below is an outline of the findings. Non-Personal Vehicle Options for Aspen Country Inn Residents (further described below): -RFTA standard service (downvalley stop requires crossing Highway 82) 36 P43 II. -Pitkin County Senior Van (for those 60+ only) -Pitkin County Non-Emergent Medical Transportation (NEMT) (for Medicare recipients only) Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (NWCCOG). NWCCOG operates Mountain Ride (http://mtnride.org), which is an information central service to assist seniors and people with disabilities find ride services within one location. While Pitkin County Health and Human Services contracts with NWCCOG to provide background support for ride finding (taxis or volunteers) for Non-Emergent Medical Transportation (NEMT) of Medicare recipients and the financial components of such rides, NWCCOG itself does not directly provide transportation services. Pitkin County Senior Services. Pitkin County Senior Services provides a senior van for those 60 and older that is operated through an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) with the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA). The senior van operates on a semi-fixed route between Aspen Village, the Town of Snowmass Village and the City of Aspen dependant on demand and requests 4 days per week (Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday). Rides for seniors in Thomasville and Redstone are provided by volunteer drivers only. For those who need a ride outside of regular senior van hours the taxi fare is subsidized at 50%. When a senior needs a ride during van operating hours, however, and a van is not available then a taxi ride is subsidized at 100%. Should a senior need a ride outside of Pitkin County, such as Grand Junction or Denver, then Pitkin County Senior Services coordinates rides with volunteer drivers and offers mileage reimbursement for those volunteers. While the senior van does service the Aspen Country Inn, it is understood that usage has been minimal but fluctuates based on who is living in the complex. Pitkin County Health and Human Services. As previously noted, Health and Human Services contracts with NWCCOG for Non-Emergent Medical Transportation (NEMT). NWGGOG both coordinates the rider with the local taxi company for this service and processes payment. This service is provided by High Mountain Taxi within Pitkin County and volunteer drivers for longer trips outside the County. According to CDOT: Non-Emergent Medical Transportation (NEMT) is transportation to and from covered non-emergency medical appointments or services, NEMT is only available when a Health First Colorado (Colorado's Medicaid Program) member has no other means of transportation. NEMT services are coordinated by a State Designated Entity (SDE). Colorado has three types of SDEs: 37 P44 II. ●County Departments of Human Services ●Three Multi-county collaboratives: ■Northwest Colorado Council of Governments (Mountain Ride Transportation Resource Center) ■Northeast Colorado Transit Authority (County Express) ■San Luis Valley Multi-County Collaborative (Red Willows) ●State contracted NEMT broker - Veyo Conclusion. Based on the above findings, NWCCOG does not provide an alternative for the “taxi program in lieu of a bus stop” service that is currently subsidized by the EOTC for all residents of Aspen Country Inn. While there are some duplicative services for those who either qualify for the senior van or an NEMT qualified medicare recipient trip, there are no general services for these residents that can completely substitute the taxi in lieu service. Alternatives to providing this service include the construction of an under / overpass or the implementation of dedicated bus service. The City’s Burlingame / Hwy 82 bus service does not present a viable alternative due to its limited schedule, as well as the operational constraints of entering and exiting the Country Inn facility without the assistance of a traffic signal. This said, it is understood that at least a few residents of Aspen Country Inn do utilize the Burlingame bus from Aspen by riding through the Burlingame development, then getting off on the Aspen Country Inn side of Highway 82 to avoid the dangerous crossing. It is understood that most residents who are 60+ often split their transportation between the senior van when it is available, subsidized Senior Services taxi service with the van is not available, upvalley regular RFTA service (seniors ride free), the RFTA Burlingame bus service, the subsidized EOTC tax service, and their personal vehicles. While Aspen Country Inn is a senior priority housing development, it is not strictly limited to those who are 60+ years old. Those who are not yet 60 do not have the option of the senior van or the Senior Services subsidized taxi service, but are able to take advantage of the RFTA bus and EOTC subsidized taxi services. BUDGETARY IMPACT: None. Information Only. RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION: None. Information Only. ATTACHMENTS: None. 38 P45 II. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE:March 21, 2019 AGENDA ITEM TITLE:X Games Revenue Estimates vs. Costs STAFF RESPONSIBLE:David Pesnichak, Regional Transportation Administrator ISSUE STATEMENT: As a part of the EOTC 2019 budget discussion in October 2018, further information was requested regarding the financial impact, specifically tax revenue collected, as a result of the Aspen X Games event. BACKGROUND: The EOTC has routinely provided financial subsidies for bus transportation during the Aspen X Games events. While the amount of the subsidy has increased over time, in 2019 the EOTC budgeted $115,000 to offset the cost of this service. This memo is intended to provide context in regards to the estimated tax revenue collected from the events as well as the cost of providing the increased bus service. This memo does not attempt to quantify other secondary effects from the event on the area economy, including the impact of increased press coverage and altered area reputation that could impact visitation outside of the Aspen X Games event. It is also worth noting that all tax revenues collected are estimates. Due to the tax collection methods, pinpointed exact revenue derived from the event is not possible. Based on economic impact figures obtained from ESPN and SkiCo, the estimated economic impact of X Games and the calculated estimated tax revenue collected are outlined below. ESPN Estimated Economic Impact: -115,000 visitors for X Games in 2018 -$18-19 Million - Estimated Total Economic Taxable Impact within Pitkin County (ESPN expenditures + venders and employee lodging + local leisure expenditure) ($21.7 Million - Estimated Total Economic Impact from Glenwood Springs to Aspen) ___ X Games Local Sales Tax Collection Estimates: Excluding State Sales Tax which is collected at 2.9%, below is the breakout between local jurisdictions, based on each jurisdictions’ sales tax collection rate from 2016. Pitkin County: $309,600 City of Aspen: $495,360 Basalt (in Pitkin County): $26,841.60 39 P46 II. Town of Snowmass Village: $151,200 TOTAL Local Sales Tax Rev.: $983,001.60 (excluding State Sales Tax) ___ X Games State Sales Tax Collection Estimate: Collected by State at 2.9% countywide. TOTAL State Sales Tax Rev. (2.9%): $526,242 ___ X Games 0.5% Transit Sales Tax Collection Estimate: As this tax is applied at 0.5% of all sales countywide, this estimate was calculated at 0.5% of the estimated overall $18M economic impact within Pitkin County, including municipalities. This is the tax revenue that comes to the EOTC. TOTAL 0.5% Transit (EOTC): $90,000 (0.5% of $18M total) Note: Of the estimated $90,0000 collected during the X Games from the 0.5% EOTC transit sales tax, 81.04% goes directly to RFTA. So, of that estimated $90,000 total collection, $72,936 goes to RFTA while $17,064 stays with the EOTC within their discretionary mass transportation budget. ___ X Games 1.0% Transit Sales Tax Collection Estimate: As this tax is applied at 1.0% of all sales countywide, this estimate was calculated at 1.0% of the estimated overall $18M economic impact within Pitkin County, including municipalities (excluding Town of Basalt in Pitkin County). TOTAL 1.0% Transit (RFTA & Municipalities): $180,000 (1.0% of $18M total) Note: 48.13% of this tax revenue goes directly to RFTA while the remainder is split between the Town of Snowmass Village (~11.10%) and the City of Aspen (~40.77%) based on their proportionate share of local sales tax revenue collection. From the $180,000 estimated collection from the X Games from this tax, an estimated $86,634 goes to RFTA, $73,394 goes to the City of Aspen, and $19,971 goes to the Town of Snowmass Village. ___ X Games Lodging Tax: Based on previous sales tax reports, it is estimated that approximately 36.5% of total expenditures are on lodging during the winter months. Assuming this to be within the ballpark for the X Games event, the lodging tax was calculated at 36.5% of the overall estimated $18M total expenditure. This tax is then applied at different rates based on the location of the lodge and was assumed to be proportionate to each jurisdiction’s percentage of sales tax collected within the County. [($18M total expenditure x 36.5% estimated percentage of lodging expenditure from total) x portion of jurisdiction sales tax from 2016 x lodging tax rate by jurisdiction] Pitkin County: No Tax City of Aspen: $28,251 Town of Basalt (in PitCo): $3,022.20 Town of Snowmass Village: $17,660.16 40 P47 II. TOTAL Lodging Tax: $48,933.36 ___ X Games TOTAL Estimated Tax Collection: This is a total of the general sales tax, 0.5% transit sales tax to EOTC, 1.0% transit sales tax to municipalities, and lodging tax (if applicable by jurisdiction). TOTAL Est. Collections Including State Sales Tax: $1,828,177.36 TOTAL Est. Collections NOT Including State Sales Tax (Local): $1,301,934.96 ___ X Games RFTA Service Cost: RFTA provides enhanced bus service for the X Games through a Service Agreement with SkiCo. RFTA charges SkiCo hourly to provide this increased service. The known costs are for RFTA service only and do not include costs for other private bus services that are hired by SkiCo. Hourly fees are only charged for bus service where the fare would otherwise not be collected. In other words, the charge for additional RFTA service is only for service from the Brush Creek Park and Ride to Aspen and Snowmass where a fare would not normally be charged to the rider. Service provided downvalley of the Brush Creek Park and Ride is not charged to SkiCo. 2016 - 2018: Costs range from approximately $74,000 to $83,000 to provide increased RFTA service during the X Games event upvalley from Brush Creek Park and Ride. These costs are charged to the EOTC and are paid directly to RFTA as a result of the approved subsidy. BUDGETARY IMPACT: None - Information Only RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION: None - Information Only ATTACHMENTS: None 41 P48 II. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mitch Osur, Director of Parking and Downtown Services THRU: Scott Miller, Director of Public Works Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer DATE OF MEMO: March 11, 2019 MEETING DATE: March 19, 2019 RE: Direction on parking enforcement in the Park /Midland neighborhood REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests City Council direction on parking rules and enforcement in the Midland and Park Avenue area. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: None BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen has four parking residential zones that are enforced by the Parking Services Department, see Attachment A. The east side of town (the Park, Midland, Lone Pine area) is not in any of these zones rather it is a 72- hour parking area that is enforced on a complaint basis. We have seen an increase in complaints coming to the Parking Department about parking issues in the east side of town. The complaints are mostly vehicles not moving every 72 hours and unattached trailers. Enforcement in this area is not proactive, but rather it is on a complaint basis. On average we have enforced over 60 times in the last three months in this area. The Parking Department and two council members held a listening session on February 13, 2019 in the Midland Ave area to talk about parking issues in the east end of town. We had over 15 citizens at the meeting and the major takeaways were that storage of vehicles and trailers on the street were a major problem. In addition, in the winter, the snow compounds the parking issue. All attendees agreed something needed to be done to help the parking issues in this area, but there was not agreement on the best approach to solve the problem. P49 III. DISCUSSION: After evaluating the availability of parking (on-street and off-street) vs number of bedrooms in the Park Ave / Midland neighborhood, there appears to be a parking deficit on Park Avenue and Lone Pine. Refer to the table below. This parking deficit along with more vehicles parking in the area because this is one of the last free parking areas in town has compounded the parking issues in this area. As a result, there has been an increase in parking complaints in this area. Staff has been requested to investigate options for parking rules and enforcement in the Park Ave Midland neighborhood to address citizen concerns regarding parking availability in the area. The table below outlines the options for parking rules and enforcement in the Park Ave / Midland Area (Zone E). Zone E includes Midland Ave, Park Ave., Park Circle, Lone Pine Rd., Riverside Ave. and Dale Ave. Refer to Attachment A for a map of the proposed residential zone (Zone E). OPTION PARKING RULE ENFORCEMENT FINANCIAL IMPACT 1. Do Nothing 72 Hour Rule Complaint Basis. After a complaint is received we Green tag the vehicle the same day. If after another 72-hours the vehicle has not moved it is towed at the owner’s expense. None 2. Proactive 72 Hour Enforcement of Zone E 72 Hour Rule Daily enforcement. Green tag any vehicle that has not moved in None 3 14 71 78 443 13 112 81 83 664 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 Dale Park Ave Midland Ave Park Circle Lone Pine Total Parking (on-street and off- street) vs. Number of Bedrooms Total Total P50 III. the last 72-hours. If after another 72-hours the vehicle has not moved it would be towed at the owner’s expense. 3. Modified Residential Rules for Zone E Residents would receive one permit and one guest permit. If the building has off street parking, such as Hunter Creek, they would not be eligible for any permits. Enforcement occurs twice a day and we enforce all the same rules as we have in the current residential zones. $56,000 to cover the costs of an additional Parking Officer to provide enforcement services in the new E zone. 4. New Residential E Zone Residents would receive 4 permits and 1 guest permits. Enforcement occurs twice a day and we enforce all the same rules as we have in the current residential zones $56,000 to cover the costs of an additional Parking Officer to provide enforcement services in the new E zone. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: See table above RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends and incremental approach to the parking rules and enforcement in the Park Ave Midland neighborhood. This includes implementing Option 2 which includes enforcing the 72-hour rule in Zone E. Staff proposes that the implementation lasts for 90 days to see if the parking goals are achieved (ie a decrease in the number of complaints in Zone E). If after 90 days those goals are not achieved, staff will review what we have learned and meet with council with recommendations for the next step in increased enforcement to achieve our goals. ALTERNATIVES: Council could ask us to enforce one of the other four options that staff has presented. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Residential zone map P51 III. P52 III. P53III.