Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.201906181 AGENDA CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION June 18, 2019 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers 130 S Galena Street, Aspen I.COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 4:00-4:10 II.WORK SESSION II.A.EOTC Meeting Prep II.B.Water Update II.C.Public Litigation Update 1 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 18, 2019 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: June 20, 2019 EOTC Meeting Preparation STAFF RESPONSIBLE: David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator ISSUE STATEMENT: Prior to the June 20, 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: At the preparation meeting with Council on June 18, Staff will provide an overview and answer questions related to the June 20 EOTC agenda items. BUDGETARY IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review June 20, 2019 EOTC packet. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - EOTC June 20, 2019 Packet 2 Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) Thursday, June 20, 2019 - 4:00pm Location - Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room Host and Chair - Pitkin County ____________________________________________________________________________________ I. 4:00 - 4:10 PUBLIC COMMENT (Comments limited to three minutes per person) II.4:10 - 4:30 EOTC RETREAT - UPDATE David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator; Stephanie Zaza, Retreat Facilitator III.4:30 - 5:30 BRUSH CREEK PARK AND RIDE - FLAP IMPROVEMENTS David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator Decision Needed: Reallocation of Certain Matching Funds from 2020 to 2019, and Specific Design Review IV.5:30 - 6:00 DYNAMIC MESSAGE SIGN (DMS) David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator; Chris Baroody, Pitkin County Decision Needed: Location of DMS V.6:00 – 6:30 UPDATES-INFORMATION ONLY A.TOSV TRANSIT CENTER David Peckler, Town of Snowmass Village B.RFTA RETREAT AND BALLOT MEASURE 7A UPDATE David Johnson, RFTA *Next meeting is October 17, 2019 - City of Aspen to Host & Chair Page 5 1 Page 7 Page 33 Page 46 Page 47 Attachment A 3 ELECTED OFFICIALS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (EOTC) AGREEMENTS & DECISIONS REACHED AT THE MARCH 21, 2019 MEETING Location - Snowmass Town Council Chambers Town of Snowmass - Host & Chair Elected Officials in Attendance: Aspen - 2 Pitkin County - 5 Snowmass - 4 Adam Frisch Kelly McNicholas Kury Markey Butler Ward Hauenstein Greg Poschman Bill Madsen George Newman Bob Sirkus Steve Child Alyssa Shenk Patti Clapper Absent: Tom Goode, Ann Mullins, Steve Skadron, Bert Myrin ______________________________________________________________________________ Agreements & Decisions Reached PUBLIC COMMENT Toni Kronberg thanked Adam Frisch for his service as an Aspen City Councilor. EOTC Budget Impacts from the Passage of RFTA Ballot Measure 7A David Pesnichak - Transportation Administrator Mr. Pesnichak presented the budget impacts to the EOTC as a result of the passage of RFTA Ballot Measure 7A in November 2018. It was explained 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. The cost of this service is currently budgeted for $419,587. Under the currently approved 2019 EOTC budget, this allocation was to come from 50% “above the line” and 50% from the Snowmass Savings Account. Based on feedback received from the Town of Snowmass that this reallocation presents an opportunity by freeing up previously utilized capacity within the Town of Snowmass Savings Account, Mr. Pesnichak noted that continuing this reallocation to the October 17, 2019 EOTC meeting date does not present any budgetary issues. This time would allow for an exploration of possibilities to utilize this budgetary capacity for transit purposes. Decision Reached: Continued to October 17, 2019 EOTC Meeting. 2 4 Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) and Park and Ride Name David Pesnichak - Transportation Administrator 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. Mr. Pesnichak explained that as the project nears 30% plans, there are several decisions that need to be made by the EOTC. These decision points are as follows: ●Consider Reallocation of $400,000 from 2020 EOTC budget to 2019. ●Decide on Cantilever or Butterfly design. ●If Butterfly design, provide direction on size of sign - 26’ wide or 18’ wide. ●Decide on standardized name for Park and Ride - “Brush Creek Park and Ride” or “Aspen / Snowmass Park and Ride”. Decisions Reached: ●Reallocate $400,000 from 2020 EOTC budget to 2019. ●Utilize Butterfly design. ●EOTC requested further information on the sign’s visual and message impacts in order to decide between a 26’ and 18’ wide Butterfly sign. Mr. Pesnichak indicated he would bring further visualizations and messages to each EOTC jurisdiction to find consensus. ●Standardize name to “Brush Creek Park and Ride”. Brush Creek PnR - FLAP Grant Improvements David Pesnichak - Transportation Administrator Pitkin County and the U.S. Forest Service applied for a FLAP grant to improve the Brush Creek Park and Ride in 2017. The grant was awarded in 2018 with funding beginning in 2019. Design and permitting is planned for 2019 and 2020. Construction is planned for 2021. 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 Mr. Pesnichak presented three concepts that were drafted by the consultant team and reviewed by Staff. These options are entitled in relation to the location of the restroom facilities for that respective concept: “North of Station”, “Mid-Station”, and “On Platform”. The pros and cons of each location for the restrooms were described by Staff. It was explained that a decision by the EOTC on the restroom location 3 5 is important at this stage so keep the project moving forward to 30% plans in June. Staff requested a decision on the restroom location. Decision Reached: “Mid-Station” restroom location. Set Date for EOTC Retreat David Pesnichak - Transportation Administrator At the EOTC meeting on October 2018, the EOTC budgeted for a retreat in 2019. Staff requested a decision on the optimal date for the retreat and suggested that it take place in late July or early August. Staff also suggested that the retreat focus on reevaluating the EOTC mission as well as formalizing a common vision and values for the Committee that could be utilized with the development of a strategic plan. It is understood that all members may not be able to make the retreat date and as a result, the date that works the best for the most people is to be chosen. Decision Reached: Staff to send out a Doodle Poll to determine an optimal date for the retreat. VI. UPDATES & FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ●Town of Snowmass Village Transit Station Update - David Peckler - Town of Snowmass Village, Transportation Director ●HOV Lane Enforcement - David Pesnichak - Transportation Administrator ●Aspen Country Inn Subsidized Rides - David Pesnichak - Transportation Administrator ●X Games Revenue vs. Cost - David Pesnichak - Transportation Administrator 4 6 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: June 20, 2019 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EOTC Retreat Agenda and Update STAFF RESPONSIBLE: David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator ISSUE STATEMENT: At the EOTC meeting in October 2018, the EOTC budgeted for a retreat in 2019. The last EOTC retreat was in 2014. City, County, Town, and EOTC staff have been working together with the facilitator, Stephanie Zaza, to help establish the purpose and goals for the upcoming retreat. Staff will gather feedback from the EOTC on the proposed purpose and goals for the retreat, and introduce Stephanie Zaza, the retreat facilitator. BACKGROUND: The purpose of the retreat is to develop strategic planning elements that will guide future EOTC efforts. The goals of the retreat are: 1) to establish a baseline understanding of the EOTC purpose, requirements, structure, funding and operations; 2) identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the EOTC today, and 3) create a priority list of themes, major topics, and projects to help guide the EOTC’s next steps and vision. This strategic planning effort has become particularly important with the new hire of a Transportation Administrator. The guidance from this retreat will help ensure that this resource is utilized in an efficient and effective manner. The retreat is currently scheduled for 8.15am to 3.00pm on August 7 at Aspen Meadows. BUDGETARY IMPACT: ●The EOTC Budgeted $10,000 for a retreat in 2019. RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION: ●Provide any feedback on the purpose and goals of the retreat. ATTACHMENTS: Retreat agenda and short bio of Stephanie Zaza 5 7 EOTC Retreat Agenda August 7, 2019 Aspen Meadows Resort FACILITATOR BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Stephanie Zaza, MD, MPH, FACPM Captain (retired), US Public Health Service Stephanie Zaza is a strategic planning and decision-making facilitator. Dr. Zaza had a 25-year career at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, GA where she served in numerous leadership roles including director of strategic planning for CDC’s Emergency Preparedness and Response Program. In 2016, Dr. Zaza retired from the US Public Health Service having earned numerous service awards. She and her husband, Joseph Armstrong, moved to the Roaring Fork Valley where she maintains a strategic planning, leadership, preventive medicine, and public health consulting practice. Dr. Zaza currently serves as President of the American College of Preventive Medicine, a national professional society of physicians in the practice of preventive medicine and public health. Dr. Zaza is an avid hiker and skier and performs with Symphony in the Valley and High Country Sinfonia as a violinist, and the Aspen Choral Society as an alto and member of its Board of Directors. Time Topic Lead Outcome 8:15-8:30 Gathering, coffee, mingling 8:30-8:45 Introductions and Overview Stephanie Zaza Participants agree to process and expected outputs of the day’s work 8:45-10:15 Presentation: EOTC Basics David Pesnichak 1.Participants are familiar with the purpose, requirements, structure, funding and operations of the EOTC 2.Participants have an environmental scan to use during the SWOT analysis 10:15-10:30 Break 10:30-12:15 EOTC SWOT* Analysis Working Session: *Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats Stephanie Zaza 1.Participants produce a general SWOT analysis of the EOTC to use in evaluating the feasibility and priority of potential next steps 2.Participants have a SWOT analysis to inform Identification of Transportation Projects and Themes 12:15-12:45 Lunch 12:45-2:45 Identification of Transportation Projects and Themes Stephanie Zaza 1.Participants produce a priority list of themes/major topics that can be used by staff to develop a strategic vision statement 2.Participants produce a priority list of projects that can be used as a starting point for EOTC future decision-making 2:45-3:00 Wrap-Up and Next Steps Stephanie Zaza Facilitator will provide a summary of the day’s work and outline of next steps to be executed by staff and EOTC members Attachment 1 6 8 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: June 20, 2019 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Brush Creek Park-and-Ride - Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) Grant Improvements STAFF RESPONSIBLE: David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator ISSUE STATEMENT: This memo is intended to update the EOTC members on the current progress of the FLAP Grant improvements at Brush Creek Park-and-Ride, obtain direction on key design items, and address certain budgetary requirements of the grant. BACKGROUND: Pitkin County and the U.S. Forest Service applied for a FLAP grant from the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) to improve the Brush Creek Park-and-Ride in 2017. The grant was awarded in 2018 with design work beginning in 2019. Construction is planned for 2021. The improvements are to be funded by ~$1.9 million from the federal FLAP grant with matching funds from the EOTC for a total budget of approximately $3.9 million. Preliminary Engineer Estimates for the project are coming in at $3.9 million (with an uncovered and open Special Events / Flex space – see below for more details). The general 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) ○Security lighting and landscaping The consultant, Jacobs Engineering Group, has been retained by the FHWA to proceed with the Brush Creek Park-and-Ride design and engineering as a part of the FLAP grant award. The project is currently in the early design phase at roughly 30%. Direction and decisions are needed from the EOTC at certain points in the design process. The EOTC will continue to be involved in the design as it develops. At the March 21, 2019 EOTC meeting, staff brought three restroom placement concepts to the Committee for consideration: “North of Station”, “Mid-Station”, and “On Platform”. At this meeting, the EOTC agreed to the “Mid-Station” concept and as a result, staff and the design team have been progressing with this restroom location. This memo and discussion are intended to update the EOTC members on the current progress of the FLAP Grant Improvements, request a reallocation of a limited amount of matching funds from 2020 to 2019 to satisfy the FLAP Grant requirements, and obtain particular design review direction. 7 9 Specifically, Staff is looking to the EOTC to provide a decision and/or direction on the following items. All of these items are more fully described within this memo. 1. Reallocate $70,000 of FLAP Matching Funds from 2020 to 2019 ($41,126.45 invoice Summer 2019 + ~$25,000 invoice Fall 2019 + $3,873.55 contingency) 2.Design Review Decisions: a. Special Events / Info Booth Area (Open, Covered, or Enclosed) b.Security (cameras - buildings only or buildings and parking, emergency button / phone, human security, lighting) c.Snow Melt on Restroom Platform and Crosswalks d.Sustainability: ○Solar Panels on Building and/or Ground Mount ○Strive for LEED Building Outreach Update: -Outreach to Date ●Online Public Survey, PitkinConnect (May) (See Summary – Attachment 3) ●Public Open House with Consulting Team at CMC, Aspen (April) ●W/J Metro District and Homeowners Association (February) ●Brush Creek Metro District and Landowners Association (January) ●Woody Creek Caucus (January) -Highlights of PitkinConnect Public Survey Results (Survey Summary – Attachment 3): ●80 Respondents (31.6% Aspen, 31.6% Carbondale, 11.4% El Jebel, 7.6% Snowmass, 6.3% Glenwood Springs) ●Approximately 45% use lot “Occasionally” – these are individuals who are familiar with the facility and may be persuaded to use it more regularly. ●Primary identified issues with current facility: Safety, Lack of Desired Bus Connection, Lack of Restrooms, Disorganized / Dirty, People Camping. ●Light pollution is primary concern with proposed improvements. ●Most people who park at the lot: ○Take bus to Aspen for work or non-skiing activity ○Take bus to Snowmass for skiing ○Take bus for a special event ○Utilize outdoor recreation from lot (running, cycling, rafting, cross-country / skate skiing) ●Top ways to increase use: Advanced Warning of Congestion / Full Parking in Aspen and Snowmass, Permanent Flush Toilets, Increased Security, More Paved Parking. ●Carpool Kiosk ranked higher than expected in ways to increase use of lot. ●Summary of Written Comments: ○Many supportive and positive comments for restrooms and paved parking 8 10 ○ Concerns about both excessive lighting (light pollution) and not enough lighting (lack of safety) ○ Current lot is scary, messy, disorganized ○ Needs better maintenance, cleaning, and not allowing camping ○ Needs better wayfinding and information about special events ○ Support for e-bike charging and better bike trail connectivity through the lot and to the Rio Grande Trail. ○ Increased security with cameras and cameras that can be viewed by the public ○ Desire for more amenities at the Park-and-Ride (e.g. food trucks, coffee) ○ Desire for light rail station, having electric vehicles pay, rearrange 15-minute parking ○ Install solar facilities ○ Make the Park-and-Ride a destination for outdoor recreation (trail to river, connection to bike/hike trails) ○ Increase bus service headways and connections ○ Needs a place to stay warm in winter when waiting for bus ○ Increase messaging about up valley congestion and parking to drivers ○ Needs more paved parking that is striped and organized - Other Comments Received to Date (meeting with Brush Creek Metro District and Landowners Association, Woody Creek Caucus, W/J Homeowners Association, CMC Open House, and Email Correspondence): ● 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. ● 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. ● Do not install more lighting at Park-and-Ride. FLAP Funding Reallocation As a part of the budget approved in October 2018, the EOTC allocated $2 million dollars in matching funds for the FLAP grant improvements in 2020, making a total project budget of $3.9 million. As more 9 11 details of the administration of the grant have become clear, it is now understood that the FHWA will invoice the EOTC for the proportionate share of the costs as they are incurred. Since engineering and design began in 2019 the FHWA anticipates receiving invoices from Jacobs, the design and engineering consultant, beginning in the summer and fall of 2019 for their services. As a result, invoices from the FHWA to the EOTC are anticipated shortly. Currently, the matching funds for the FLAP grant improvements are allocated for 2020, not 2019. And as such, access to the matching funds is not anticipated to be available when the invoices are received from FHWA in 2019. It is expected that these invoices will total approximately $66,126.45 in 2019. To this end, Staff recommends reallocating a small percentage of the $2 million matching funds from 2020 to 2019 to allow staff to satisfy these invoices in a timely fashion. While the total estimated 2019 invoices are predicted to be $66,126.45, since the exact amount of the fall invoice is not yet known, staff recommends reallocating $70,000 from 2020 to 2019 to allow for some flexibility should the amounts be slightly higher than expected. (See Draft Budget with Amendment – Attachment 1) Any unspent money will be moved back to 2020 as a part of the next budget cycle. In addition, any funds expended during 2019 will be a part of the $2 million matching funds and will not add to the total EOTC liability for this project. Staff Recommendation: Reallocate $70,000 of FLAP Matching Funds from 2020 to 2019 ($41,126.45 invoice Summer 2019 + ~$25,000 invoice Fall 2019 + $3,873.55 contingency) Carpool Kiosk Relocation The relocation of the City of Aspen Carpool Kiosk from the Airport to Brush Creek Park-and-Ride was reviewed by the EOTC on October 18, 2018 and again at the March 21, 2019 meeting. The Kiosk relocation gained conditional approval from the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission for a Location and Extent Review in February 2019. The location of the kiosk within the Park-and-Ride is allowable by the lease with CDOT and the IGA with Aspen, Pitkin County, and Snowmass. CDOT has also provided a letter of support for the relocation of the kiosk. While this project was originally anticipated as a part of the FLAP Grant improvements, this project was moved up and the Kiosk is now anticipated to be relocated in the summer of 2019. Staff foresees potential benefits having the Kiosk at the Park-and-Ride prior to the finalization of the planning for the FLAP grant improvements as it will allow an opportunity to review its impact and performance before finalizing the circulation improvements. Funding of the new kiosk and the relocation is to be the responsibility of the City of Aspen. 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. 10 12 The Carpool Kiosk is anticipated to be relocated permanently to the Park-and-Ride, however the Kiosk would be initially placed on skids for minor modifications in the placement as planning for surrounding FLAP improvements are finalized. Aspen, Pitkin County, Snowmass, RFTA and EOTC staff have been working with the FLAP design team to determine the best circulation and location for the Kiosk within the reconfigured Park-and-Ride. Currently, Staff is recommending a location parallel to and just south of the Park-and-Ride access drive from Highway 82. It is Staff’s opinion that this location provides the most convenience to carpool pass users while creating the least amount of conflict with other vehicle, pedestrian, and bus operations. This said, Staff anticipates monitoring the usage and traffic flow into and out of the kiosk over the coming summer and fall seasons to determine the exact configuration for the final placement. Should it be determined after studying the placement and functioning of the Kiosk that another location or configuration should be considered, Staff will bring that to the EOTC for consideration at a later meeting if necessary. Restroom and Special Events / Info Booth Area: As noted previously, the EOTC decided on the “Mid-Station” location for the restroom facilities at the March 21, 2019 meeting. One of the benefits to this location is it offers options for a special events / information booth expansion area, if desired. As a result of Staff and design team conversations, several design features around the restroom area are worth noting at this point. 1. Special Events / Information Booth Area. As currently designed, the restrooms have an area to the south of the proposed restroom building (up valley) that can be used as a flexible event and/or information space. Currently, it is anticipated that the space can be used as a gathering, rest area, and meeting location on a typical day. The space can also be utilized during special events where an area is needed to disseminate information and / or conduct other event functions (e.g. registration area for a bike or running event). There are three general designs that have been discussed to date: open, covered, or partially enclosed (See Renderings – Attachment 2). For these three options, the Open concept is the least expensive and is currently within the Engineers Estimate of $3.9 million of the entire FLAP grant. Covering the space with a roof or partially enclosing the space would likely require additional contributions by the EOTC to make these improvements simultaneously with the FLAP grant construction. Currently, it is estimated that the Covered concept would cost an additional $600,000 while a partially enclosed concept would cost an additional $840,000. The space is to be designed so that it can be covered and/or partially enclosed at a later date as well. a. Open. The open design leaves the area open to the elements but also leaves the most flexibility for event specific configurations such as erecting tents. However, on typical days there would be no protection for users of the facility from the elements. Furnishing elements of the space (landscaping, picnic tables, benches, etc.) can be determined at a later date. This space can also be covered or enclosed later as a part of a phase II of the 11 13 facility. This design is anticipated to be the lowest cost option and should fit within the current funding levels for the FLAP grant. (See Renderings – Attachment 2) b.Covered. The covered design option would install a roof over the area that would provide some protection from rain, snow and sun while still maintaining a generous level of flexibility during special events, depending on furnishings. The protection provided by the roof would have benefits to the daily user of the facility. Furnishing elements of the space (landscaping, picnic tables, benches, etc.) can be determined at a later date. This space can also be fully or partially enclosed later as a part of a phase II of the facility. This design is anticipated to be the mid-cost option and could require additional funding outside of the FLAP grant. This additional funding is currently estimated at $600,000. (See Renderings – Attachment 2) c. Partially Enclosed. The partially enclosed design option would leave part of the area covered and enclose the rest to allow for flexible indoor space. This space is anticipated to be closed and locked on a typical day, but can then be open and utilized for events during inclement weather, as a potential future permanent information booth, and extend the season that the Park-and-Ride can comfortably be used for information dissemination and events. Heating of the space can also be an option. It is currently contemplated that such a space would have a garage door (or equivalent substitute) on one or both sides to allow it to be opened up for events during favorable weather or when appropriate for the circumstances. The enclosure can reduce certain types of flexibility of the area for special events, however. Furnishing elements of the space (landscaping, picnic tables, benches, etc.) can be determined at a later date. This space can also be enclosed later as a part of a phase II for the facility should that be desired. This design is anticipated to be the highest-cost option and would likely require additional funding outside of the FLAP grant. This additional construction funding is currently estimated at $840,000. Further, the ongoing operations costs for an enclosed facility would be higher than either the open or covered options. (See Renderings – Attachment 2) Staff Recommendation: Pursue the Open concept and monitor the use and interest in the area for possible future covering or partial enclosure. 2. Information Board Area. Through the main pedestrian way from the parking area to the bus platform, Staff is considering an information board area similar to that found at Rubey Park. This board area would include permanent information signs on RFTA bus routes, transportation options once in Aspen and Snowmass, a real time sign for the next busses arriving, upcoming event information, as well as surrounding trails and other recreation information available by foot, bike, or bus from the Park-and-Ride 3. Backup Restroom Option. For security and maintenance reasons, Staff is currently contemplating locking the permanent restrooms at a certain time of the evening and open them again in the morning. In addition, there will likely be times when the restrooms will be closed for maintenance or other reasons. During these times, Staff recommends maintaining several portable 12 14 toilets at the site to prevent other maintenance issues associated with a complete lack of facilities as well as always having facilities available for the convenience of the public. Staff and the design team is currently looking at placing these portable toilets in a screened area on the north side of the restroom building. The existing portable toilets located on the bus platform are to be removed in order to allow for possible future expansion of the RFTA platform for bus use. 4. In Pavement Snow Melt. Snow removal is a constant battle at facilities such as Brush Creek, including the nearby RFTA bus platform. Currently, RFTA operates an in pavement snow melt system on the bus platform. This snow melt system enhances the safety and usability of the facility and thereby encourages transit use. Several other snow melt systems are utilized at transit facilities throughout the valley including Rubey Park. To encourage the safe use of the new restroom platform and transit in general, staff is considering an in pavement snow melt system. There are several options for such a system, including natural gas heated glycol and electric. One of the main drawbacks to such a system is the large amount of energy consumption demanded and the costs to operate these systems. While staff is currently considering a natural gas powered glycol system, other options may be available such as geothermal, however this option would likely be significantly more expensive, outside the budget for the current FLAP grant, or not technically feasible. Based on RFTA’s experience with electric snow melt systems, this option is currently not recommended. Staff Recommendation: Install targeted in pavement snow melt system through high traffic corridors of the restroom platform (not the entire platform area) and crosswalks to the bus platform. 5. Solar Panels. With the construction of a new building, we have the opportunity to help offset a degree of carbon footprint through the installation of solar panels. While it is understood that the orientation of the new building does not lend itself ideally for solar generation, the wide open site does have solar generation potential. Such panels do have visual impacts to surrounding property owners, although these impacts are minimized when installed on a rooftop. The engineers estimate for rooftop solar on the restroom building only is $50,000 - $100,000 depending on the size of the array. This cost could increase the project total above the FLAP grant amount and may need to be funded by the EOTC, however a good portion of this expense could be recouped through local grants. (See Renderings – Attachment 2) Should the EOTC desire to increase the amount of solar generation above what can be achieved through a rooftop array, there are opportunities for 1-2 small tracking ground mounted clusters. It is likely that ground mounted clusters could have a higher initial cost that would be outside the scope of the FLAP grant. In addition, ground mounted clusters would likely have a higher visual impact than roof mounted panels. Staff Recommendation: Include rooftop mounted solar panels to capture as much energy as possible on the restroom building. Consider location, cost, and generation potential for 1-2 ground mounted tracking solar panel clusters. 13 15 6.Building Sustainability. While many components are tied with sustainability, including the level of transit the facility promotes and power generation, building design is also important. With the details still to be determined, staff has been working to make the building as energy efficient as possible. While it is understood that a LEED certification is admirable, it is also very expensive. As a result, a more cost effective approach may be to design and build the restroom building to LEED principles without obtaining LEED certification. Staff Recommendation: Design restroom building utilizing LEED principles. Egress Driveway Reconfiguration. There is currently an egress driveway on the north side of the Park- and-Ride that filters into the bus loop. This egress is only used during special events and connects in with the bus loop at a location that makes it very difficult to utilize without causing undo conflicts. Use of this driveway is currently only possible with traffic control. As a result, staff is considering relocating the exit point for this egress to a location closer to Highway 82 and out of the bus loop in order to minimize bus / vehicle conflicts. (See Site Plan – Attachment 2) Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging - Conduit Installation. The construction at the Park-and-Ride, particularly the paving, poses an opportunity to help futureproof the facility. While the EV fleet of vehicles is still small regionally, it is growing quickly and demand for charging is expected to increase. Responsiveness to these market demands at the Park-and-Ride can then encourage the use of transit while also encouraging the use of EV technology. As one of the largest costs for EV charger installation is running conduit under existing pavement for the electrical wires, there will be an opportunity to install conduit under the concrete and asphalt with this construction project at a greatly reduced cost do doing it later. By having the conduit in the ground at appropriate locations where EV chargers can be placed, the EOTC is in a better position to obtain grants and move on other funding sources quickly to get chargers put in place as demand materializes. Based on conversations with experts in the field at CLEER and Holy Cross Energy, there are expectations that electric fleet, taxis and other rideshare vehicles will come on the scene within the next few years in addition to private vehicles. Consequently, there is a growing trend to place electric conduit in the back portion of Park-and-Ride lots to accommodate these vehicles without having them located within the prime spots near the main facility. Therefore, staff is considering placing conduit in the back portions of the newly paved area to accommodate these charging needs should they arise. Staff has also been consulting with Holy Cross Energy and RFTA regarding the need for en route bus charging. Battery electric buses will be arriving in Aspen in the fall of 2019. In response to this need, the electrical transformer is anticipated to be upgraded to 480 volts and 3 phase. This will allow for both en route bus charging and level 3 (fast) EV chargers within certain areas of the parking area if desired. 14 16 It is worth noting that while conduit is looking to be installed to accommodate future EV chargers along with this construction project, no EV chargers are currently in the budget or anticipated to be installed immediately. With the conduit, however, Staff will be in a position to obtain grants to install chargers as demand necessitates. It is understood that grants for EV chargers have about a 6-month lead time. As a result, Staff anticipates moving on an appropriate number of new EV chargers within 6 months of completion of the project. All parking spaces will be for general use until / if an EV charger is installed at that location. Security. Security is the primary issue that has come up throughout public comment to date. There are several components to security including lighting, active monitoring, and passive systems. 1. Lighting. Through the public review conducted to date, it is clear there are a range of opinions on lighting mostly based on how the individual interacts with the facility and the surrounding area. There appear to be a notable number of facility users today that have safety concerns when they use the parking area at night and would like to see additional lighting. Meanwhile there is also a number of individuals who value the dark sky and rural character (particularly those who live in the surrounding area of Brush Creek, Woody Creek, and W/J). Further, the EOTC has a charge to encourage the use of public mass transportation. Balancing these seemingly competing demands is the objective that staff is working to achieve when it comes to lighting and security. While full lighting details are not yet available, staff is working to identify this sweet spot where lighting is the minimum amount for people to feel safe using the Park-and-Ride at night. There are some technologies available that can help, including motion detection and light dimming. LEDs have also progressed over the years so the color of the light can be more yellow and warm which can have less impact. As is required by County Code, all lighting must be Dark Sky Compliant, downward facing, and fully shielded. The EOTC will have the opportunity to review more detailed lighting plans as these design details develop. 2. Active Monitoring. Active monitoring includes cameras and even human security located onsite. Cameras are currently in use by RFTA on the bus platform. The use of cameras and monitoring technology has installation and ongoing costs that may fall outside the funds available through the FLAP grant. The use of human security certainly has a high ongoing cost and falls outside the FLAP grant funds. It is Staff’s position to date that the use of cameras should be examined along with merging any cameras into the system utilized by RFTA in order to increase operational efficiency. Meanwhile, human security should be examined once experience with the new facility is obtained and it can be determined whether a need for this level of security exists. Staff Recommendation: Consider the use of cameras throughout the restroom platform and look into the feasibility of connecting that system into RFTA’s existing network. 15 17 3.Passive Systems. A passive security system is the use of emergency call boxes throughout the parking area and restroom platform. These call boxes automatically phone or message the Sheriff’s Office if activated. This type of call box is common on university campuses and parking garages. While the function of such boxes needs to be examined particularly with its interface to the Sheriff’s Office, it is Staff’s position that call boxes along with some low level security lighting in the parking area and cameras around the restroom facility offer a potentially much higher sense of security to users of the lot than currently exists. Staff Recommendation: Consider the use of call boxes throughout the parking area and restroom facility and examine the feasibility to tie these boxes into the County Sheriff’s Office. Landscaping and Irrigation. Landscaping and irrigation plans have not yet been developed, but will be available to the EOTC later in the design review process. Generally, staff is looking into maintaining as much existing landscaping and trees as possible to help ease visual impacts from the start. In addition, the design team is looking into adding landscaping along the back east edge to help soften visual impacts to residents across the Roaring Fork River. There are some Holy Cross easements that cannot be planted in this area and the design team in continuing to examine possibilities. Bike Path Connection. The Park-and-Ride currently is a trailhead for both the Sky Mountain Trails and the Aspen Mass Trail (to the Rio Grande Trail). Connecting the bike paths with a more intuitive route came up within the survey and other public input. Connecting the bike paths strategically can also allow the restrooms and flexible space area to be utilized as a bike rest area as well as encourage the transition between bikes and busses. As a result, the plans currently contemplate connecting the bike trails with a new bike path that runs between the transit area and the restrooms / flex space. Since this connection should work well for those beginning a trip, ending a trip, transitioning between a bike and bus, or if the biker is utilizing the restroom area, it could also be more congested with pedestrians and bikers dismounting for those passing through. As a result, staff is also looking to have sharrows through the parking area with appropriate signage and trail stubs to provide an intuitive route for those passing through to avoid this potentially more congested area. (See Site Plan – Attachment 2) While a more direct connection from the Brush Creek Park-and-Ride to the Rio Grande Trail also come up in public comments, this is another large project that needs to be tackled separately. Staff has been cognizant of this need and the efforts by Pitkin County and the City of Aspen to address this connection. Through the design process, Staff is working to not adversely impact this potential future connection as a result of the FLAP improvements. 16 18 BUDGETARY IMPACT: ● FLAP Grant - Matching Funds Budgeted by EOTC ○ Reallocate $70,000 of FLAP Matching Funds from 2020 to 2019 ($41,126.45 invoice Summer 2019 + ~$25,000 invoice Fall 2019 + $3,873.55 contingency) ● Carpool Kiosk - None (funded by City of Aspen) RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION: ● Funding Reallocation. ○ Staff Recommendation: Reallocate $70,000 of FLAP Matching Funds from 2020 to 2019 ($41,126.45 invoice Summer 2019 + ~$25,000 invoice Fall 2019 + $3,873.55 contingency) ● Special Events / Info Booth Area. ○ Staff Recommendation: Pursue the Open concept and monitor the use and interest in the area for possible future covering or partial enclosure. ● Snow Melt. ○ Staff Recommendation: Install in pavement snow melt system through high traffic corridors of the restroom platform (not the entire area) and crosswalks to bus platform. ● Solar Panels. ○ Staff Recommendation: Include rooftop mounted solar panels to capture as much energy as possible on the restroom building. Consider location, cost, and generation potential for 1-2 ground mounted tracking solar panel clusters. ● Sustainability. ○ Staff Recommendation: Design restroom building utilizing LEED principles. ● Security. ○ Staff Recommendation: ■ Consider the use of cameras throughout the restroom platform and look into the feasibility of connecting that system into RFTA’s existing network. ■ Consider the use of call boxes throughout the parking area and restroom facility and the feasibility to tie these boxes into the County Sheriff’s Office. ATTACHMENTS: 1) EOTC Budget - Reallocation of $70,000 in FLAP Matching Funds from 2020 to 2019 2) Site Plans and Renderings 3) Public Opinion Survey Results Summary 17 19 2019 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN - AMENDED MARCH 2019 - DRAFT FLAP AMENDMENTS PAGE 1 6/5/2019 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.89,000 124,000 187,000 225,000 243,000 317,000 189,000 Total Funding Sources 2,727,914 2,590,690 2,696,350 2,770,374 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 Park and Ride 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 1,550,431 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 consolidate in 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)70,000 3,830,000 less Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant (1,900,000) Total Uses 1,582,646 1,515,880 2,971,911 3,149,943 1,269,770 7,192,927 1,360,211 EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)1,145,269 1,074,810 (275,561) (379,569) 1,555,765 (4,254,903) 1,489,439 EOTC CUMULATIVE SURPLUS FUND BALANCE 8,583,356 9,658,166 9,382,605 9,003,036 10,558,801 6,303,898 7,793,337 Attachment 1 18 20 2019 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN - AMENDED MARCH 2019 - DRAFT FLAP AMENDMENTS PAGE 2 6/5/2019 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 1,271,810 284,233 (379,569) 1,555,765 1,623,883.87 1,489,439 25% to Snowmass Village Savings until restored to maximum 372,828 274,022 71,058 (94,892) 233,628 - - remainder to Aspen Savings 1,118,484 997,788 213,174 (284,677) 1,322,138 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 71,058 (94,892) 233,628 - - 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 5,740,052 5,645,159 5,878,787 - - Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area share of annual surplus/deficit 1,118,484 997,788 213,174 (284,677) 1,322,138 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 3,642,553 3,357,877 4,680,014 6,303,898 7,793,337 Revenue projections: Attachment 1 19 21 Attachment 2 20 22 STATE CO PROJECT FLAP PIT 82(1) SHEET U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION X6 FOR REFERENCE - EXTERIOR RENDERING Attachment 2 21 23 STATE CO PROJECT FLAP PIT 82(1) SHEET U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION X7 FOR REFERENCE - EXTERIOR RENDERING Attachment 2 22 24 STATE CO PROJECT FLAP PIT 82(1) SHEET U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION X8 FOR REFERENCE - EXTERIOR RENDERING Attachment 2 23 25 STATE CO PROJECT FLAP PIT 82(1) SHEET U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION X9 FOR REFERENCE - INTERIOR RENDERING Attachment 2 24 26 STATE CO PROJECT FLAP PIT 82(1) SHEET U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION X10 FOR REFERENCE - FUTURE SPECIAL EVENTS - OPEN Attachment 2 25 27 STATE CO PROJECT FLAP PIT 82(1) SHEET U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION X11 FOR REFERENCE - FUTURE SPECIAL EVENTS - ENCLOSED Attachment 2Attachment 3 26 28 1 | www.pitkincountyconnect.com/7172 Created with OpenGov | June 5, 2019, 10:32 AM Brush Creek Park and Ride Use and Development Survey June 5, 2019, 10:32 AM Contents i. Summary of responses 2 Attachment 3 27 29 Summary Of Responses As of June 5, 2019, 10:32 AM, this forum had: Topic Start Topic End Attendees:129 March 13, 2019, 12:31 PM May 22, 2019, 9:37 AM Responses:80 Hours of Public Comment:4.0 QUESTION 1 Where is your primary residence (pick one)? % Count Aspen 31.6% 25 Snowmass 7.6%6 Basalt / El Jebel 11.4%9 Carbondale / Missouri Heights 31.6% 25 Glenwood Springs 6.3%5 Other 11.4%9 QUESTION 2 Have you utilized Brush Creek Park and Ride for any reason in the past year? % Count Yes 98.7% 78 No 1.3%1 2 | www.pitkincountyconnect.com/7172 Created with OpenGov | June 5, 2019, 10:32 AM Brush Creek Park and Ride Use and Development Survey What Characteristics are Important at the Brush Creek Park and Ride with the Development of New Restrooms and Paved Parking? Attachment 3 28 30 QUESTION 3 If you have utilized Brush Creek Park and Ride in the past year, how many days per week do you use it on average (pick one)? % Count 1 - 2 Days per Week 25.6% 20 2 - 5 Days per Week 12.8% 10 5 - 7 Days per Week 7.7%6 Special Events Only 7.7%6 Occasionally 46.2% 36 QUESTION 4 If you have NOT utilized Brush Creek Park and Ride for any reason in the past year, why not? Answered 5 Skipped 75 QUESTION 5 How do you use the Brush Creek Park and Ride (pick all that apply)? % Count Pass-through Transit (stay on bus through Park and Ride) 59.5% 47 Transfer point for Transit (Change bus at Park and Ride) 44.3% 35 Carpool to Work 16.5% 13 Carpool for Skiing or other Outdoor Activities 30.4% 24 Park and get on bus to Aspen for skiing 20.3% 16 3 | www.pitkincountyconnect.com/7172 Created with OpenGov | June 5, 2019, 10:32 AM Brush Creek Park and Ride Use and Development Survey What Characteristics are Important at the Brush Creek Park and Ride with the Development of New Restrooms and Paved Parking? Attachment 3 29 31 % Count Park and get on bus to Aspen for work or other non-skiing activity 43.0% 34 Park and get on bus to Snowmass for skiing 40.5% 32 Park and get on bus to Snowmass for work or other non-skiing activity 26.6% 21 Park for Outdoor Activities (running, cycling, rafting, cross-country / skate skiing, etc.) 39.2% 31 Use as Meetup Location 38.0% 30 Utilize Restrooms 10.1%8 Charge Electric Vehicle 3.8%3 Park for Special Events in Aspen or Snowmass 41.8% 33 Not for any reason 1.3%1 Other 2.5%2 QUESTION 6 If you park your vehicle at Brush Creek Park and Ride, how long do you typically leave your vehicle parked in the lot? % Count Less than 1 hour 4.2%3 1 to 3 hours 8.5%6 3 to 8 hours 43.7% 31 8 to 12 hours 38.0% 27 12 to 24 hours 4.2%3 4 | www.pitkincountyconnect.com/7172 Created with OpenGov | June 5, 2019, 10:32 AM Brush Creek Park and Ride Use and Development Survey What Characteristics are Important at the Brush Creek Park and Ride with the Development of New Restrooms and Paved Parking? Attachment 3 30 32 % Count Over 24 hours 1.4%1 QUESTION 7 What could encourage you to begin using or increase your use of the Brush Creek Park and Ride to Carpool, use Transit, or Bicycle to your final destination? % Count Permanent flush restroom facilities 49.4% 38 More paved parking 33.8% 26 Increased security 33.8% 26 Carpool Kiosk located in Lot for City of Aspen 22.1%17 Advanced warning that parking in Aspen or Snowmass is full 39.0% 30 More or faster electric vehicle charging stations 13.0% 10 Advanced warning of congestion into Aspen and/or Snowmass 51.9% 40 Nothing 5.2%4 Other 32.5% 25 QUESTION 8 The site plan and description above illustrates the layout and features currently being considered with the Park and Ride improvements. Please provide your thoughts and comments. Answered 42 Skipped 38 5 | www.pitkincountyconnect.com/7172 Created with OpenGov | June 5, 2019, 10:32 AM Brush Creek Park and Ride Use and Development Survey What Characteristics are Important at the Brush Creek Park and Ride with the Development of New Restrooms and Paved Parking? Attachment 3 31 33 QUESTION 9 Optional - What is your overall opinion of the Brush Creek Park and Ride how it exists today and why? Answered 46 Skipped 34 6 | www.pitkincountyconnect.com/7172 Created with OpenGov | June 5, 2019, 10:32 AM Brush Creek Park and Ride Use and Development Survey What Characteristics are Important at the Brush Creek Park and Ride with the Development of New Restrooms and Paved Parking? Attachment 3 32 34 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: June 20, 2019 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) STAFF RESPONSIBLE: David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator ISSUE STATEMENT: This memo is intended to update the EOTC on the current progress of the DMS and obtain direction on the sign’s location. BACKGROUND: The purpose of the proposed DMS is 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. At the March 21, 2019 meeting, the EOTC gave direction to staff: 1. Pursue a “butterfly” design. 2.Standardize the name to Brush Creek Park and Ride. 3. Reallocate $400,000 for construction from 2020 to 2019 in order to allow the project to move ahead as soon as possible. 4.Go back to each jurisdiction with the following information to make a decision on whether an 18 or 26-foot wide sign is appropriate: a.Visualizations of both the 18-foot and 26-foot butterfly design sign. b.Full list of messages to show how the messages are impacted by an 18-foot sign vs. a 26- foot sign. At the meetings with each jurisdiction, there was an agreement to pursue the 8-foot high by 18-foot wide butterfly sign. However, there was some concern raised over the proposed location for the sign that has required Staff to come back to the full EOTC on June 20 for direction. While the memo, presentation and discussions at the March 21 EOTC meeting provided reasons for the proposed location of the sign, it did not discuss alternative options as it was Staff’s opinion that functionally comparable location options are not available. This memo is intended to provide the EOTC with information regarding the proposed location for the sign and a more thorough discussion for the Staff proposal. As a result, Staff is looking for direction from the EOTC on the preferred location. While the memo from the March 21 EOTC meeting discussed the design options, name options, size, and funding, this memo is to be focussed on the location question at hand. 33 35 At the March 21 EOTC meeting, Staff provided the following reasons for the DMS location approximately one mile downvalley of the Brush Creek Park and Ride: ○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. It is worth noting that any location will have visual impacts and the reduction of these impacts was the primary reason for the decision to utilize the “butterfly” vs. “cantilever” design. All locations are proposed to be within the Highway 82 right of way and as a result will require a permit from CDOT to approve the final design, location, and messages. Staff has vetted the recommended location approximately one mile downvalley from the Brush Creek Park and Ride with CDOT who has not raised any safety concerns to date. Staff has identified two alternative locations that provide the required sight distance for both visibility and legibility to the sign. The first is approximately 1.0- mile from the Brush Creek Road intersection (Staff proposed location) and the second is approximately 2.2-miles from the intersection. There do not appear to be feasible options for the location of the sign between 1.0 and 2.2-miles from Brush Creek that provide the required sight distances to read the sign. Placing the sign closer than 1.0- mile presents significant safety concerns and a notable drop in operational effectiveness. Meanwhile, extending the distance from the intersection to 2.2-miles does not present additional safety concerns, however it is expected to result in a significant loss in effectiveness. Based on these considerations, Staff recommends that the EOTC approve the location approximately 1.0- mile downvalley from the Brush Creek Park and Ride. BUDGETARY IMPACT: The EOTC has allocated $450,000 to design and construct the DMS. RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION: ●Location - 1 mile or 2.2 miles down valley from the Brush Creek Park and Ride. ○Staff Recommendation: Approximately 1 mile downvalley from the Brush Creek Park and Ride. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Memo from Chris Baroody, Pitkin County Project Engineer 34 36 Contract # 142.2019 Budget Line Item # 127.7095790.82000 SH82 Dynamic Message Sign Memorandum SH82 DMS Site Selection May 21, 2019 Page 1 of 5 MEMORANDUM Project: Pitkin County SH82 Dynamic Message Sign To: David Pesnichak, AICP Regional Transportation Administrator Pitkin County – Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) 530 East Main St., Suite 205 Aspen, CO 81611 From: Chris Baroody, PE Pitkin County Project Engineer Date: May 21, 2019 Subject: SH82 DMS Site Selection Pitkin County Public Works has been tasked by the Elected Official Transportation Committee (EOTC); whose members include Pitkin County, City of Aspen and the Town of Snowmass Village, to provide engineering design services and construction delivery of a new Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) on SH82. The DMS sign is to be located on the east bound lanes of SH82 and is to provide messaging to motorist traveling to the City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village and locations within Pitkin County, including the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport, Maroon Bells, Independence Pass and ski resorts. Messaging at the DMS will include travel alerts, information on events, driving conditions, congestion and available parking within each jurisdiction. The DMS is to be located west of the intersection of Brush Creek Road to provide messaging that serves each of the EOTC members. This will allow the DMS to advise and direct travelers to use commuter parking and mass transit available from the Brush Creek Park-n-Ride. The DMS will be located within the CDOT Right of Way and will require coordination and approval of CDOT for the location, size, messaging and construction of the DMS. Installation of the DMS will require a CDOT Special Use Permit to be issued upon review and approval of final construction plans for the DMS. Maintenance of the DMS will be the responsibility of the EOTC. The estimated construction cost for the DMS is $546,000. This cost includes installation of a travel time monitoring system that will compute travel times for both buses and cars into the City of Aspen and Town of Snowmass Village. These travel times will be displayed at the DMS to advise travelers to use the Brush Creek Park-n-Ride. The project is anticipated to provide benefits to several stakeholders. The stakeholders and benefits of the project are presented in Table 1. Table 1: SH82 DMS Project Stakeholders Stakeholder Benefits SH82 Travelers Travel alerts Reduction in travel delays Parking and commuter information City of Aspen Reduction in traffic congestion in downtown area Available parking notifications Event management Attachment 1 35 37 Contract # 142.2019 Budget Line Item # 127.7095790.82000 SH82 Dynamic Message Sign Memorandum SH82 DMS Site Selection May 21, 2019 Page 2 of 5 Town of Snowmass Village Reduction in traffic congestion in downtown area Available parking notifications Event management Pitkin County Construction notifications Emergency notifications Reduction in traffic on County Roads RFTA Increased ridership from Brush Creek Park-n-Ride Information to RFTA Bus System riders CDOT Reduction of congestion on SH82 Enforcement of HOV-2 Over-length Vehicle enforcement on Independence Pass Notification of Independence Pass closure Preliminary scoping for the location of the DMS was performed by the EOTC staff, during which two locations for the DMS where identified that provided suitable sight distance on straight tangent sections of SH82 and visibility of the sign. The first of these two is the currently proposed location approximately 5500-feet north of the intersection of SH82 and Brush Creek Road. The second location is an additional mile north of the intersection near the intersection of Wildcat Ranch Road. Appendix 1 “Alternate Site Study Location Map” displays the two locations for the DMS considered by the EOTC. The EOTC staff determined the first location as preferred due to the proximity to the proposed Park-n-Ride. The location closest to the Brush Creek Road is in a more developed area and closer to the decision points where information to travelers will be most needed and expected. It is the opinion of the EOTC staff that the second alternative is too remote from Brush Creek Road to provide effective messaging. Alternate locations between one and two miles from Brush Creek Road where not considered due to the limitations of sight distance. Appendix 2 and 3 present visualizations of the proposed DMS at the preferred and alternate locations (Locations 1 and 2). An evaluation of the preferred location was made to verify the location met the current criteria for the location of a DMS. These criteria are outlined in the following: 1.CDOT Guidelines on Variable Message Signs, CDOT, October 2017 2.Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, FHWA, May 2012 3.CDOT M&S Standards, CDOT, 2012 4.Roadside Design Guide (4th Edition), AASHTO, October 2011 EOTC staff has moved forward with preliminary design and plans for installation of the DMS at the preferred location for the following: Preliminary design to coordinate survey and geotechnical investigation of the preferred site. Concurrence for location of the DMS with CDOT Region 3 Traffic to move forward with final design and construction plans for the DMS. Coordination with utilities to provide power and communication to the DMS Identify impacts to utilities and roadway infrastructure. Coordination with potential DMS vendors to determine dimension of proposed sign to display messaging required by the EOTC. Evaluation of alternative Butterfly or Cantilevered support structure to display the DMS. Preparation of plans, specifications and estimate for bidding. During the March 21, 2019 meeting with EOTC, staff recommended installation of a 26-foot wide by 8-foot high DMS on a roadside butterfly structure at the preferred site. Staff also requested approval from the Board to move ahead with construction of the project in 2019 by moving budget from fiscal year 2020 to 2019. The Board approved moving the budget and construction in 2019 and installation of the DMS on a butterfly structure; however, the board had concerns about the size of the proposed 26-foot sign. Attachment 1 36 38 Contract # 142.2019 Budget Line Item # 127.7095790.82000 SH82 Dynamic Message Sign Memorandum SH82 DMS Site Selection May 21, 2019 Page 3 of 5 The EOTC Board directed that visualizations and proposed messaging on alternate DMS sizes would be presented to each individual Board of the EOTC for consideration. The size of the alternate DMS sizes included an 18-foot wide or 26-foot wide DMS with both widths being 8-feet high. In the follow up meetings with the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, City of Aspen Council, and Town of Snowmass Council, there was agreement to move forward with an 18-foot wide instead of a 26-foot wide sign. The City of Aspen raised the following questions with regard to the proposed location of the DMS. The questions and response to these questions or concerns are provided. 1)How was the current location decided? Can the DMS be installed elsewhere on SH82 so as not to be located adjacent to the existing City of Aspen Cozy Point Open Space? The proposed DMS is expected to act primarily as a guide sign to the improved Brush Creek Park-n-Ride and provide notifications of events and available parking in the City of Aspen and Town of Snowmass Village. There is no direction on how far a guide sign should be to the referred destination but 1.0-mile is standard for a static sign. (i.e. REST AREA 1 MILE AHEAD). The proposed location of the DMS will provide a 1.0-mile distance to Brush Creek Road. The proposed location also provides both the minimum visibility and legibility Line-Of-Sight (LOS) along a straight tangent of roadway. The visibility Line-Of-Sight (LOS) at Location 1 is initiated at a sag curve of the profile giving the traveler better visibility of the sign as opposed to Location 2. The sign itself will be located on a clear open and flat area with few obstructions allowing for better visibility. The sign will be located within a more developed area where there are more queues to drivers of expected decision points and guidance will be needed. Appendix 4 and 5 present the plan and profile of each location’s LOS. The proposed DMS will be a roadside obstruction and will require installation of approximately 200-feet of guardrail and end treatment to protect the sign and errant vehicles. The exact DMS location was selected to allow installation of the guardrail and maintain the existing field entrance to the adjacent parcel. The flat open terrain of the proposed DMS location will allow easier access for maintenance and inspections. 2)The proposed DMS is to be located very close to the intersection of SH82 with Smith Way. There is a dangerous situation where traffic making a left turn from SH82 onto Smith Way must slow down within SH82 to weave around traffic making a left turn onto Wood Road or traffic making a left turn from Smith Way onto SH82. The DMS will distract drivers from vehicles making the left turns and merging onto SH82. The location of the proposed DMS within the vicinity of the Smith Way and Woods Road intersections and the condition noted above was evaluated when considering the location of the DMS. The evaluation included mapping the location of the DMS within the intersections and measuring the available Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) to the critical locations at the intersections. The posted speed on SH82 at the location of the DMS and Smith Way is 55 mph. Per the CDOT State Highway Access Code, the design and minimum SSD are provided in the following Table 1. Given the grade of SH82 of less than 3.0%, no grade adjustment is applied; however, the uphill condition on SH82 will reduce the SSD. Table 2: Required Stopping Sight Distance Posted Speed 55 mph 65 mph Sight Distance (Minimum) 450-ft 550-ft Sight Distance (Design) 550-ft 725-ft Attachment 1 37 39 Contract # 142.2019 Budget Line Item # 127.7095790.82000 SH82 Dynamic Message Sign Memorandum SH82 DMS Site Selection May 21, 2019 Page 4 of 5 A combined length of 600-feet of the taper and decel lane into Woods Road is expected to allow vehicles to make left turns with minimum impact to traffic on SH82 and traffic volumes making a left turn are expected to be minimal to cause traffic to overflow into SH82. Therefore, providing any SSD to the intersection of Woods Road is not expected to be required. The decel and storage lane for the left-turn into Smith Way is approximately 890-feet beyond the legibility cone of the proposed DMS. This distance is in excess of the 500-feet of length required for vehicles with drivers who may be distracted by the DMS to stop in order to avoid collision with vehicles that have overflowed into SH82. The attached Appendix 6 “DMS Location Study” presents the mapping of the available SSD to the Smith Way and Woods Road intersections. 3)Can the proposed DMS be installed either within or east of the intersection of Smith Way and closer to the intersection of Brush Creek Road? No, for the following reasons: The intersection of Smith Way is located at the crest of a vertical curve. Placing the DMS beyond this curve does not provide the required visibility LOS along the vertical profile of SH82. The alignment of SH82 shifts to widen the median to accommodate the intersection. Within this median there are several trees that obscure the visibility of the DMS. Within the intersection there are both accel and decel lanes for vehicles making right turns to and from Buddy Road. There is also a RFTA Bus Stop adjacent to the accel lane for the right from Buddy Road. The DMS would need to be located at an excessive offset from the roadside to be legible to travelers on SH82. Operationally, locating the DMS within the intersection is not preferred due to the potential of the sign to distract drivers on SH82 from cars merging onto the SH82 from Smith Way or Buddy Road. Locating the sign east of the intersection would be too close to Brush Creek Park-n-Ride to provide travelers on SH82 the time to respond to messaging provided by the DMS and use the parking and mass transit provide by the Park n Ride. The following points are provided when considering installation of the DMS at either the currently proposed location of the DMS (Location 1) or the alternate location beyond the limits of the Cozy Point Opens Space (Location 2). 1.Location 1 is in a more "developed" area where new infrastructure is expected to be more accepted. 2.Location 1 provides messaging closer to decision points where guidance will be needed. 3.DMS should be placed on flat grades, both locations are on grades but location 2 is slightly steeper at 2.9% versus 2.2% at location 1. 4.Possible impacts to resident's experience of Wildcat Ranch entrance from Highway 82. 5.There are several existing signs between the alternate DMS location and the intersection of Wildcat Ranch on the shoulder of SH82. These signs are expected to obstruct or distract from the proposed messaging provided by DMS and may need to be moved to provide legibility of the DMS. 6.Visibility of the DMS at locations 2 will begin on SH82 just before the intersection of Wildcat Ranch Road and legibility and reading of the DMS sign will begin just after the intersection. The DMS may distract drivers on SH82 from drivers making left and right turns into and from Wildcat Ranch Road. 7.There is some evidence to suggest that a DMS may act to calm traffic. Active and relevant messaging that provide motorists with information about events, driving Attachment 1 38 40 Contract # 142.2019 Budget Line Item # 127.7095790.82000 SH82 Dynamic Message Sign Memorandum SH82 DMS Site Selection May 21, 2019 Page 5 of 5 conditions or alerts may induce traffic to reduce speed within the legibility zone on SH82 in order to read the sign. This potential reduction in speed 1000-feet before the intersection of Smith Way may act as a safety improvement to the traffic conditions at Smith Way previously discussed. 8.One large CDOT Wildlife Warning sign located in front of the DMS at Location 2 may need to be relocated. It is noted that SH82 is located within a CDOT posted wildlife zone from Location 2 to the airport. Use of Brush Creek as the corridor for elk migration may contribute to collisions on SH82 with elk at the intersection of Brush Creek Road. Location 1 may be able to provide immediate alerts of migrating elk within the vicinity of elk herds crossing the high way. 9.At Location 2, the DMS would be placed on steep sideslopes of SH82. Access to the sign for maintenance and inspections may be difficult on this slope. These sideslopes; with vegetation in front of the DMS, may obstruct portions of the sign and require the sign to be placed on a taller roadside support structure. Figure 1: Steep Sideslopes at Location 2 10.A cellular modem may be the preferred method to communicate to the DMS. A cellular modem will require a service plan and monthly cost to operate the DMS; however, the DMS are susceptible to lightning strikes that short regular ground communications. Location 1 provides better or acceptable cellular reception than Location 2. Please review the above information and provide any comments or questions. We may provide any additional information that may be useful in understanding the selection of the site for the DMS and its proposed configuration. Sincerely, Chris Baroody, P.E. Pitkin County Project Engineer cc: Project File Attachment 1 39 41 SH82BUDDY ROAD TO TOWNOF BASALT (10 .0 -M ILES )TO PITKINAIRPORT(2.5-MILES)TO TOWN OFSNOWMASS(2.6-MILES)BRUSH CREEK ROADINTERCEPT LOTSMITH WAYRIO GRANDE RIVERUPPER R IVER ROADWOODS ROADWILDCAT ROADAttachment 14042 Attachment 14143 Attachment 14244 SH82BRUSH CREEK ROADINTERCEPT LOTBUDDY ROADSMITH WAYRIO GRANDE RIVERUPPER R IVER ROADTO TOWNOF BASALT(11.0-MILES)TO PITKINAIRPORT(2.5-MILES)TO TOWN OFSNOWMASS(2.6-MILES)WOODS ROADBID PLANS04/10/19Know what's below.R Call before you dig.Attachment 14345 CITY OF ASPENCOZY POINT PARCELCOUGARCANYON PUDWILDCATRANCHWILDCAT ROADKnow what's below.RCall before you dig.Attachment 14446 BUDDY ROADSMITH WAYWOODS ROADSH82 WESTBOUNDBID PLANS04/10/19Know what's below.RCall before you dig.THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT ON SH82 EAST BOUND WITHIN THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED DMS AND THEINTERSECTIONS OF WOODS ROAD AND SMITH WAY IS 55 MPH. REQUIRED STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE (SSD) ARETHE FOLLOWING:55 MPH65 MPHSSD LENGTH (SH82):450-FT (MINIMUM)550-FT (MINIMUM)550-FT (DESIRABLE)725-FT (DESIRABLE)WOODS ROAD IS EXPECTED TO HAVE MINIMUM TRAFFIC VOLUME TO CAUSE TRAFFIC MAKING LEFT TURN ATWOODS ROAD TO OVERFLOW INTO SH82. PROVIDING SSD FROM THE DMS TO THE START OF DECEL INTO WOODSROAD IS NOT EXPECTED TO BE REQUIRED.THE DECEL AND STORAGE FOR THE LEFT TURN ONTO SMITH WAY BEGINS 890-FEET BEYOND THE VISIBILITY CONEOF THE PROPOSED DMS. SUITABLE STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE IS TO BE PROVIDED IN THE EVENT IF TRAFFICVOLUME EXCEEDS CAPACITY OF LEFT TURN LANE AND OVER FLOWS INTO THE SH82 EASTBOUND LANE.Attachment 14547 AGNEDA ITEM SUMMARY TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee FROM: David Peckler, Town of Snowmass Village Transportation Director MEETING DATE: June 20, 2019 SUBJECT: Mall Transit Station Project Update The Town has been working with a stakeholder group, RFTA staff and the firm Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) to create a preferred pre-sketch design to take to our Town Council for discussion. Three conceptual drafts were presented to the council and the public in meetings and an open house on March 20, 2019 to gather general comments on a preferred layout. The constraints for the project are to fit on the proposed location, not to lose any parking close to the Mall, and fit within a roughly $7 million construction budget. After discussions with RFTA staff we are working to provide roughly four operational transit bays for RFTA, five for the local transit service, and an overflow bay to accommodate drop offs should the other bays be occupied. The draft design will be brought to the Snowmass Town Council for discussion on June 17, 2019. There will not be enough time between this Town Council meeting and the EOTC meeting on June 20, 2019 to present Council’s preferred option to the EOTC. We are still working under the $50,000 appropriation for conceptual design work. 46 48 MEMORANDUM TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) FROM: David Johnson, RFTA MEETING DATE: June 20, 2019 SUBJECT: RFTA Update: Destination 2040 and RFTA Board Retreat The purpose of this memorandum is to: 1) Summarize progress on Destination 2040 Projects 2) Summarize the outcomes of the June 13 RFTA Board Retreat Destination 2040 Update Over the last three years, RFTA engaged in extensive dialogue with its member jurisdictions about long- term transportation goals and priorities, which became the basis of the Destination 2040 Plan. During the funding and implementation phase of this planning effort, RFTA and its member jurisdictions determined that a property tax mill levy up to 5 mills, if approved by voters, was the most feasible method to fund and implement these projects. Through a number of polls, RFTA estimated that a 2.65 mill property tax might be achievable. RFTA refined the project list, project scopes, and funding commitments to align with a 2.65 mill property tax mill levy. Voter approved the 2.65 mill levy in November 2018. Immediately thereafter, RFTA began planning, designing and implementing the Destination 2040 projects. 47 49 The attached PowerPoint is an update on the projects that are located in, or highly relevant to the EOTC governments. More information can be found on the status of all Destination 2040 projects at https://www.rfta.com/2040roadmap/ RFTA Board Retreat The RFTA Board Retreat was conducted June 13, 2019 at Rocky Mountain Institute, after submittal of the EOTC packet. An update will be provided at the EOTC meeting. 48 50 IMPROVEMENTS FOR REDUCING CONGESTION AND IMPROVING MOBILITYDESTINATION 2040 UPDATE 49 51 IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT Bus Replacement –10 Clean Diesel Buses •Contract to purchase issued 1/28/2019 •Delivery of 10 buses scheduled for December 2019 50 52 IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT Bus Replacement –Battery Electric Buses •Delivery of 8 buses scheduled for August 2019 •Commissioning and training August -October •Operating October/November 2019 IN PARTNERSHIP WITH 51 53 IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT Rio Grande Trail Maintenance and Improvements IN PARTNERSHIP WITH •Bridge deck and sub-structure repairs for Roaring Fork, Emma and Wingo bridges •Construction to be completed in September-October •Asphalt repair plan in progress 52 54 IMPROVEMENTS FOR REDUCING CONGESTION AND IMPROVING MOBILITY •April 22 Start Date •Local Valley service will be 30-minute headways all day, Monday -Friday during Spring, Fall and Fall Shoulder; and daily (Monday-Sunday) during Summer and Winter peak seasons. •Enhanced Snowmass Connections after 8:15 pm Service Increase, 30-minute Valley Service w/ Enhanced Snowmass Service 53 55 IMPROVEMENTS FOR REDUCING CONGESTION AND IMPROVING MOBILITY Increase Weekend BRT (Spring/Fall) w/ Enhanced Carbondale Circulator •Starting April 22, VelociRFTA BRT (and Carbondale Circulator) will now operate 7 Days a Week, 365 Days a Year! 54 56 IMPROVEMENTS FOR REDUCING CONGESTION AND IMPROVING MOBILITY Better transit service connections to Snowmass Village on Brush Creek Road •Service was implemented in 2018 •EOTC funding for this service transferred to RFTA on January 1, 2019 55 57 IMPROVEMENTS FOR REDUCING CONGESTION AND IMPROVING MOBILITY Improvements to Mid Valley Highway 82 Bus Stations •Currently in design and engineering to upgrade the following stops: –Sage Wood: –Lazy Glen –Aspen Village –Holland Hills –Catherine Store •Design completed June 2019 •Construction late 2019/early 2020 56 58 IMPROVEMENTS FOR REDUCING CONGESTION AND IMPROVING MOBILITY Improvements to Town of Snowmass Village Transit Center •Town of Snowmass Village is in design of the TOSV Transit Center. •RFTA staff are engaged and participating in design review. 57 59 IMPROVEMENTS FOR SUSTAINABILITY AND SAFETY Aspen Maintenance Facility Expansion Phase 9 (Fuel Farm) •Replace and/or Reline Fuel Tanks •Design and permitting begins this summer •Construction scheduled for 2020 58 60 Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) Thursday, June 20, 2019 - 4:00pm Location - Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners Meeting Room Host and Chair - Pitkin County ____________________________________________________________________________________ I. 4:00 - 4:10 PUBLIC COMMENT (Comments limited to three minutes per person) II.4:10 - 4:30 EOTC RETREAT - UPDATE David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator; Stephanie Zaza, Retreat Facilitator III.4:30 - 5:30 BRUSH CREEK PARK AND RIDE - FLAP IMPROVEMENTS David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator Decision Needed: Reallocation of Certain Matching Funds from 2020 to 2019, and Specific Design Review IV.5:30 - 6:00 DYNAMIC MESSAGE SIGN (DMS) David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator; Chris Baroody, Pitkin County Decision Needed: Location of DMS V.6:00 – 6:30 UPDATES-INFORMATION ONLY A.TOSV TRANSIT CENTER David Peckler, Town of Snowmass Village B.RFTA RETREAT AND BALLOT MEASURE 7A UPDATE David Johnson, RFTA *Next meeting is October 17, 2019 - City of Aspen to Host & Chair Page 5 1 Page 7 Page 33 Page 46 Page 47 61 ELECTED OFFICIALS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (EOTC) AGREEMENTS & DECISIONS REACHED AT THE MARCH 21, 2019 MEETING Location - Snowmass Town Council Chambers Town of Snowmass - Host & Chair Elected Officials in Attendance: Aspen - 2 Pitkin County - 5 Snowmass - 4 Adam Frisch Kelly McNicholas Kury Markey Butler Ward Hauenstein Greg Poschman Bill Madsen George Newman Bob Sirkus Steve Child Alyssa Shenk Patti Clapper Absent: Tom Goode, Ann Mullins, Steve Skadron, Bert Myrin ______________________________________________________________________________ Agreements & Decisions Reached PUBLIC COMMENT Toni Kronberg thanked Adam Frisch for his service as an Aspen City Councilor. EOTC Budget Impacts from the Passage of RFTA Ballot Measure 7A David Pesnichak - Transportation Administrator Mr. Pesnichak presented the budget impacts to the EOTC as a result of the passage of RFTA Ballot Measure 7A in November 2018. It was explained 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. The cost of this service is currently budgeted for $419,587. Under the currently approved 2019 EOTC budget, this allocation was to come from 50% “above the line” and 50% from the Snowmass Savings Account. Based on feedback received from the Town of Snowmass that this reallocation presents an opportunity by freeing up previously utilized capacity within the Town of Snowmass Savings Account, Mr. Pesnichak noted that continuing this reallocation to the October 17, 2019 EOTC meeting date does not present any budgetary issues. This time would allow for an exploration of possibilities to utilize this budgetary capacity for transit purposes. Decision Reached: Continued to October 17, 2019 EOTC Meeting. 2 62 Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) and Park and Ride Name David Pesnichak - Transportation Administrator 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. Mr. Pesnichak explained that as the project nears 30% plans, there are several decisions that need to be made by the EOTC. These decision points are as follows: ●Consider Reallocation of $400,000 from 2020 EOTC budget to 2019. ●Decide on Cantilever or Butterfly design. ●If Butterfly design, provide direction on size of sign - 26’ wide or 18’ wide. ●Decide on standardized name for Park and Ride - “Brush Creek Park and Ride” or “Aspen / Snowmass Park and Ride”. Decisions Reached: ●Reallocate $400,000 from 2020 EOTC budget to 2019. ●Utilize Butterfly design. ●EOTC requested further information on the sign’s visual and message impacts in order to decide between a 26’ and 18’ wide Butterfly sign. Mr. Pesnichak indicated he would bring further visualizations and messages to each EOTC jurisdiction to find consensus. ●Standardize name to “Brush Creek Park and Ride”. Brush Creek PnR - FLAP Grant Improvements David Pesnichak - Transportation Administrator Pitkin County and the U.S. Forest Service applied for a FLAP grant to improve the Brush Creek Park and Ride in 2017. The grant was awarded in 2018 with funding beginning in 2019. Design and permitting is planned for 2019 and 2020. Construction is planned for 2021. 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 Mr. Pesnichak presented three concepts that were drafted by the consultant team and reviewed by Staff. These options are entitled in relation to the location of the restroom facilities for that respective concept: “North of Station”, “Mid-Station”, and “On Platform”. The pros and cons of each location for the restrooms were described by Staff. It was explained that a decision by the EOTC on the restroom location 3 63 is important at this stage so keep the project moving forward to 30% plans in June. Staff requested a decision on the restroom location. Decision Reached: “Mid-Station” restroom location. Set Date for EOTC Retreat David Pesnichak - Transportation Administrator At the EOTC meeting on October 2018, the EOTC budgeted for a retreat in 2019. Staff requested a decision on the optimal date for the retreat and suggested that it take place in late July or early August. Staff also suggested that the retreat focus on reevaluating the EOTC mission as well as formalizing a common vision and values for the Committee that could be utilized with the development of a strategic plan. It is understood that all members may not be able to make the retreat date and as a result, the date that works the best for the most people is to be chosen. Decision Reached: Staff to send out a Doodle Poll to determine an optimal date for the retreat. VI. UPDATES & FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ●Town of Snowmass Village Transit Station Update - David Peckler - Town of Snowmass Village, Transportation Director ●HOV Lane Enforcement - David Pesnichak - Transportation Administrator ●Aspen Country Inn Subsidized Rides - David Pesnichak - Transportation Administrator ●X Games Revenue vs. Cost - David Pesnichak - Transportation Administrator 4 64 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: June 20, 2019 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EOTC Retreat Agenda and Update STAFF RESPONSIBLE: David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator ISSUE STATEMENT: At the EOTC meeting in October 2018, the EOTC budgeted for a retreat in 2019. The last EOTC retreat was in 2014. City, County, Town, and EOTC staff have been working together with the facilitator, Stephanie Zaza, to help establish the purpose and goals for the upcoming retreat. Staff will gather feedback from the EOTC on the proposed purpose and goals for the retreat, and introduce Stephanie Zaza, the retreat facilitator. BACKGROUND: The purpose of the retreat is to develop strategic planning elements that will guide future EOTC efforts. The goals of the retreat are: 1) to establish a baseline understanding of the EOTC purpose, requirements, structure, funding and operations; 2) identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the EOTC today, and 3) create a priority list of themes, major topics, and projects to help guide the EOTC’s next steps and vision. This strategic planning effort has become particularly important with the new hire of a Transportation Administrator. The guidance from this retreat will help ensure that this resource is utilized in an efficient and effective manner. The retreat is currently scheduled for 8.15am to 3.00pm on August 7 at Aspen Meadows. BUDGETARY IMPACT: ●The EOTC Budgeted $10,000 for a retreat in 2019. RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION: ●Provide any feedback on the purpose and goals of the retreat. ATTACHMENTS: Retreat agenda and short bio of Stephanie Zaza 5 65 EOTC Retreat Agenda August 7, 2019 Aspen Meadows Resort FACILITATOR BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Stephanie Zaza, MD, MPH, FACPM Captain (retired), US Public Health Service Stephanie Zaza is a strategic planning and decision-making facilitator. Dr. Zaza had a 25-year career at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, GA where she served in numerous leadership roles including director of strategic planning for CDC’s Emergency Preparedness and Response Program. In 2016, Dr. Zaza retired from the US Public Health Service having earned numerous service awards. She and her husband, Joseph Armstrong, moved to the Roaring Fork Valley where she maintains a strategic planning, leadership, preventive medicine, and public health consulting practice. Dr. Zaza currently serves as President of the American College of Preventive Medicine, a national professional society of physicians in the practice of preventive medicine and public health. Dr. Zaza is an avid hiker and skier and performs with Symphony in the Valley and High Country Sinfonia as a violinist, and the Aspen Choral Society as an alto and member of its Board of Directors. Time Topic Lead Outcome 8:15-8:30 Gathering, coffee, mingling 8:30-8:45 Introductions and Overview Stephanie Zaza Participants agree to process and expected outputs of the day’s work 8:45-10:15 Presentation: EOTC Basics David Pesnichak 1.Participants are familiar with the purpose, requirements, structure, funding and operations of the EOTC 2.Participants have an environmental scan to use during the SWOT analysis 10:15-10:30 Break 10:30-12:15 EOTC SWOT* Analysis Working Session: *Strengths, Weakness, Opportunities and Threats Stephanie Zaza 1.Participants produce a general SWOT analysis of the EOTC to use in evaluating the feasibility and priority of potential next steps 2.Participants have a SWOT analysis to inform Identification of Transportation Projects and Themes 12:15-12:45 Lunch 12:45-2:45 Identification of Transportation Projects and Themes Stephanie Zaza 1.Participants produce a priority list of themes/major topics that can be used by staff to develop a strategic vision statement 2.Participants produce a priority list of projects that can be used as a starting point for EOTC future decision-making 2:45-3:00 Wrap-Up and Next Steps Stephanie Zaza Facilitator will provide a summary of the day’s work and outline of next steps to be executed by staff and EOTC members Attachment 1 6 66 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: June 20, 2019 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Brush Creek Park-and-Ride - Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) Grant Improvements STAFF RESPONSIBLE: David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator ISSUE STATEMENT: This memo is intended to update the EOTC members on the current progress of the FLAP Grant improvements at Brush Creek Park-and-Ride, obtain direction on key design items, and address certain budgetary requirements of the grant. BACKGROUND: Pitkin County and the U.S. Forest Service applied for a FLAP grant from the Federal Highways Administration (FHWA) to improve the Brush Creek Park-and-Ride in 2017. The grant was awarded in 2018 with design work beginning in 2019. Construction is planned for 2021. The improvements are to be funded by ~$1.9 million from the federal FLAP grant with matching funds from the EOTC for a total budget of approximately $3.9 million. Preliminary Engineer Estimates for the project are coming in at $3.9 million (with an uncovered and open Special Events / Flex space – see below for more details). The general 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) ○Security lighting and landscaping The consultant, Jacobs Engineering Group, has been retained by the FHWA to proceed with the Brush Creek Park-and-Ride design and engineering as a part of the FLAP grant award. The project is currently in the early design phase at roughly 30%. Direction and decisions are needed from the EOTC at certain points in the design process. The EOTC will continue to be involved in the design as it develops. At the March 21, 2019 EOTC meeting, staff brought three restroom placement concepts to the Committee for consideration: “North of Station”, “Mid-Station”, and “On Platform”. At this meeting, the EOTC agreed to the “Mid-Station” concept and as a result, staff and the design team have been progressing with this restroom location. This memo and discussion are intended to update the EOTC members on the current progress of the FLAP Grant Improvements, request a reallocation of a limited amount of matching funds from 2020 to 2019 to satisfy the FLAP Grant requirements, and obtain particular design review direction. 7 67 Specifically, Staff is looking to the EOTC to provide a decision and/or direction on the following items. All of these items are more fully described within this memo. 1. Reallocate $70,000 of FLAP Matching Funds from 2020 to 2019 ($41,126.45 invoice Summer 2019 + ~$25,000 invoice Fall 2019 + $3,873.55 contingency) 2.Design Review Decisions: a. Special Events / Info Booth Area (Open, Covered, or Enclosed) b.Security (cameras - buildings only or buildings and parking, emergency button / phone, human security, lighting) c.Snow Melt on Restroom Platform and Crosswalks d.Sustainability: ○Solar Panels on Building and/or Ground Mount ○Strive for LEED Building Outreach Update: -Outreach to Date ●Online Public Survey, PitkinConnect (May) (See Summary – Attachment 3) ●Public Open House with Consulting Team at CMC, Aspen (April) ●W/J Metro District and Homeowners Association (February) ●Brush Creek Metro District and Landowners Association (January) ●Woody Creek Caucus (January) -Highlights of PitkinConnect Public Survey Results (Survey Summary – Attachment 3): ●80 Respondents (31.6% Aspen, 31.6% Carbondale, 11.4% El Jebel, 7.6% Snowmass, 6.3% Glenwood Springs) ●Approximately 45% use lot “Occasionally” – these are individuals who are familiar with the facility and may be persuaded to use it more regularly. ●Primary identified issues with current facility: Safety, Lack of Desired Bus Connection, Lack of Restrooms, Disorganized / Dirty, People Camping. ●Light pollution is primary concern with proposed improvements. ●Most people who park at the lot: ○Take bus to Aspen for work or non-skiing activity ○Take bus to Snowmass for skiing ○Take bus for a special event ○Utilize outdoor recreation from lot (running, cycling, rafting, cross-country / skate skiing) ●Top ways to increase use: Advanced Warning of Congestion / Full Parking in Aspen and Snowmass, Permanent Flush Toilets, Increased Security, More Paved Parking. ●Carpool Kiosk ranked higher than expected in ways to increase use of lot. ●Summary of Written Comments: ○Many supportive and positive comments for restrooms and paved parking 8 68 ○ Concerns about both excessive lighting (light pollution) and not enough lighting (lack of safety) ○ Current lot is scary, messy, disorganized ○ Needs better maintenance, cleaning, and not allowing camping ○ Needs better wayfinding and information about special events ○ Support for e-bike charging and better bike trail connectivity through the lot and to the Rio Grande Trail. ○ Increased security with cameras and cameras that can be viewed by the public ○ Desire for more amenities at the Park-and-Ride (e.g. food trucks, coffee) ○ Desire for light rail station, having electric vehicles pay, rearrange 15-minute parking ○ Install solar facilities ○ Make the Park-and-Ride a destination for outdoor recreation (trail to river, connection to bike/hike trails) ○ Increase bus service headways and connections ○ Needs a place to stay warm in winter when waiting for bus ○ Increase messaging about up valley congestion and parking to drivers ○ Needs more paved parking that is striped and organized - Other Comments Received to Date (meeting with Brush Creek Metro District and Landowners Association, Woody Creek Caucus, W/J Homeowners Association, CMC Open House, and Email Correspondence): ● 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. ● 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. ● Do not install more lighting at Park-and-Ride. FLAP Funding Reallocation As a part of the budget approved in October 2018, the EOTC allocated $2 million dollars in matching funds for the FLAP grant improvements in 2020, making a total project budget of $3.9 million. As more 9 69 details of the administration of the grant have become clear, it is now understood that the FHWA will invoice the EOTC for the proportionate share of the costs as they are incurred. Since engineering and design began in 2019 the FHWA anticipates receiving invoices from Jacobs, the design and engineering consultant, beginning in the summer and fall of 2019 for their services. As a result, invoices from the FHWA to the EOTC are anticipated shortly. Currently, the matching funds for the FLAP grant improvements are allocated for 2020, not 2019. And as such, access to the matching funds is not anticipated to be available when the invoices are received from FHWA in 2019. It is expected that these invoices will total approximately $66,126.45 in 2019. To this end, Staff recommends reallocating a small percentage of the $2 million matching funds from 2020 to 2019 to allow staff to satisfy these invoices in a timely fashion. While the total estimated 2019 invoices are predicted to be $66,126.45, since the exact amount of the fall invoice is not yet known, staff recommends reallocating $70,000 from 2020 to 2019 to allow for some flexibility should the amounts be slightly higher than expected. (See Draft Budget with Amendment – Attachment 1) Any unspent money will be moved back to 2020 as a part of the next budget cycle. In addition, any funds expended during 2019 will be a part of the $2 million matching funds and will not add to the total EOTC liability for this project. Staff Recommendation: Reallocate $70,000 of FLAP Matching Funds from 2020 to 2019 ($41,126.45 invoice Summer 2019 + ~$25,000 invoice Fall 2019 + $3,873.55 contingency) Carpool Kiosk Relocation The relocation of the City of Aspen Carpool Kiosk from the Airport to Brush Creek Park-and-Ride was reviewed by the EOTC on October 18, 2018 and again at the March 21, 2019 meeting. The Kiosk relocation gained conditional approval from the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission for a Location and Extent Review in February 2019. The location of the kiosk within the Park-and-Ride is allowable by the lease with CDOT and the IGA with Aspen, Pitkin County, and Snowmass. CDOT has also provided a letter of support for the relocation of the kiosk. While this project was originally anticipated as a part of the FLAP Grant improvements, this project was moved up and the Kiosk is now anticipated to be relocated in the summer of 2019. Staff foresees potential benefits having the Kiosk at the Park-and-Ride prior to the finalization of the planning for the FLAP grant improvements as it will allow an opportunity to review its impact and performance before finalizing the circulation improvements. Funding of the new kiosk and the relocation is to be the responsibility of the City of Aspen. 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. 10 70 The Carpool Kiosk is anticipated to be relocated permanently to the Park-and-Ride, however the Kiosk would be initially placed on skids for minor modifications in the placement as planning for surrounding FLAP improvements are finalized. Aspen, Pitkin County, Snowmass, RFTA and EOTC staff have been working with the FLAP design team to determine the best circulation and location for the Kiosk within the reconfigured Park-and-Ride. Currently, Staff is recommending a location parallel to and just south of the Park-and-Ride access drive from Highway 82. It is Staff’s opinion that this location provides the most convenience to carpool pass users while creating the least amount of conflict with other vehicle, pedestrian, and bus operations. This said, Staff anticipates monitoring the usage and traffic flow into and out of the kiosk over the coming summer and fall seasons to determine the exact configuration for the final placement. Should it be determined after studying the placement and functioning of the Kiosk that another location or configuration should be considered, Staff will bring that to the EOTC for consideration at a later meeting if necessary. Restroom and Special Events / Info Booth Area: As noted previously, the EOTC decided on the “Mid-Station” location for the restroom facilities at the March 21, 2019 meeting. One of the benefits to this location is it offers options for a special events / information booth expansion area, if desired. As a result of Staff and design team conversations, several design features around the restroom area are worth noting at this point. 1. Special Events / Information Booth Area. As currently designed, the restrooms have an area to the south of the proposed restroom building (up valley) that can be used as a flexible event and/or information space. Currently, it is anticipated that the space can be used as a gathering, rest area, and meeting location on a typical day. The space can also be utilized during special events where an area is needed to disseminate information and / or conduct other event functions (e.g. registration area for a bike or running event). There are three general designs that have been discussed to date: open, covered, or partially enclosed (See Renderings – Attachment 2). For these three options, the Open concept is the least expensive and is currently within the Engineers Estimate of $3.9 million of the entire FLAP grant. Covering the space with a roof or partially enclosing the space would likely require additional contributions by the EOTC to make these improvements simultaneously with the FLAP grant construction. Currently, it is estimated that the Covered concept would cost an additional $600,000 while a partially enclosed concept would cost an additional $840,000. The space is to be designed so that it can be covered and/or partially enclosed at a later date as well. a. Open. The open design leaves the area open to the elements but also leaves the most flexibility for event specific configurations such as erecting tents. However, on typical days there would be no protection for users of the facility from the elements. Furnishing elements of the space (landscaping, picnic tables, benches, etc.) can be determined at a later date. This space can also be covered or enclosed later as a part of a phase II of the 11 71 facility. This design is anticipated to be the lowest cost option and should fit within the current funding levels for the FLAP grant. (See Renderings – Attachment 2) b.Covered. The covered design option would install a roof over the area that would provide some protection from rain, snow and sun while still maintaining a generous level of flexibility during special events, depending on furnishings. The protection provided by the roof would have benefits to the daily user of the facility. Furnishing elements of the space (landscaping, picnic tables, benches, etc.) can be determined at a later date. This space can also be fully or partially enclosed later as a part of a phase II of the facility. This design is anticipated to be the mid-cost option and could require additional funding outside of the FLAP grant. This additional funding is currently estimated at $600,000. (See Renderings – Attachment 2) c. Partially Enclosed. The partially enclosed design option would leave part of the area covered and enclose the rest to allow for flexible indoor space. This space is anticipated to be closed and locked on a typical day, but can then be open and utilized for events during inclement weather, as a potential future permanent information booth, and extend the season that the Park-and-Ride can comfortably be used for information dissemination and events. Heating of the space can also be an option. It is currently contemplated that such a space would have a garage door (or equivalent substitute) on one or both sides to allow it to be opened up for events during favorable weather or when appropriate for the circumstances. The enclosure can reduce certain types of flexibility of the area for special events, however. Furnishing elements of the space (landscaping, picnic tables, benches, etc.) can be determined at a later date. This space can also be enclosed later as a part of a phase II for the facility should that be desired. This design is anticipated to be the highest-cost option and would likely require additional funding outside of the FLAP grant. This additional construction funding is currently estimated at $840,000. Further, the ongoing operations costs for an enclosed facility would be higher than either the open or covered options. (See Renderings – Attachment 2) Staff Recommendation: Pursue the Open concept and monitor the use and interest in the area for possible future covering or partial enclosure. 2. Information Board Area. Through the main pedestrian way from the parking area to the bus platform, Staff is considering an information board area similar to that found at Rubey Park. This board area would include permanent information signs on RFTA bus routes, transportation options once in Aspen and Snowmass, a real time sign for the next busses arriving, upcoming event information, as well as surrounding trails and other recreation information available by foot, bike, or bus from the Park-and-Ride 3. Backup Restroom Option. For security and maintenance reasons, Staff is currently contemplating locking the permanent restrooms at a certain time of the evening and open them again in the morning. In addition, there will likely be times when the restrooms will be closed for maintenance or other reasons. During these times, Staff recommends maintaining several portable 12 72 toilets at the site to prevent other maintenance issues associated with a complete lack of facilities as well as always having facilities available for the convenience of the public. Staff and the design team is currently looking at placing these portable toilets in a screened area on the north side of the restroom building. The existing portable toilets located on the bus platform are to be removed in order to allow for possible future expansion of the RFTA platform for bus use. 4. In Pavement Snow Melt. Snow removal is a constant battle at facilities such as Brush Creek, including the nearby RFTA bus platform. Currently, RFTA operates an in pavement snow melt system on the bus platform. This snow melt system enhances the safety and usability of the facility and thereby encourages transit use. Several other snow melt systems are utilized at transit facilities throughout the valley including Rubey Park. To encourage the safe use of the new restroom platform and transit in general, staff is considering an in pavement snow melt system. There are several options for such a system, including natural gas heated glycol and electric. One of the main drawbacks to such a system is the large amount of energy consumption demanded and the costs to operate these systems. While staff is currently considering a natural gas powered glycol system, other options may be available such as geothermal, however this option would likely be significantly more expensive, outside the budget for the current FLAP grant, or not technically feasible. Based on RFTA’s experience with electric snow melt systems, this option is currently not recommended. Staff Recommendation: Install targeted in pavement snow melt system through high traffic corridors of the restroom platform (not the entire platform area) and crosswalks to the bus platform. 5. Solar Panels. With the construction of a new building, we have the opportunity to help offset a degree of carbon footprint through the installation of solar panels. While it is understood that the orientation of the new building does not lend itself ideally for solar generation, the wide open site does have solar generation potential. Such panels do have visual impacts to surrounding property owners, although these impacts are minimized when installed on a rooftop. The engineers estimate for rooftop solar on the restroom building only is $50,000 - $100,000 depending on the size of the array. This cost could increase the project total above the FLAP grant amount and may need to be funded by the EOTC, however a good portion of this expense could be recouped through local grants. (See Renderings – Attachment 2) Should the EOTC desire to increase the amount of solar generation above what can be achieved through a rooftop array, there are opportunities for 1-2 small tracking ground mounted clusters. It is likely that ground mounted clusters could have a higher initial cost that would be outside the scope of the FLAP grant. In addition, ground mounted clusters would likely have a higher visual impact than roof mounted panels. Staff Recommendation: Include rooftop mounted solar panels to capture as much energy as possible on the restroom building. Consider location, cost, and generation potential for 1-2 ground mounted tracking solar panel clusters. 13 73 6.Building Sustainability. While many components are tied with sustainability, including the level of transit the facility promotes and power generation, building design is also important. With the details still to be determined, staff has been working to make the building as energy efficient as possible. While it is understood that a LEED certification is admirable, it is also very expensive. As a result, a more cost effective approach may be to design and build the restroom building to LEED principles without obtaining LEED certification. Staff Recommendation: Design restroom building utilizing LEED principles. Egress Driveway Reconfiguration. There is currently an egress driveway on the north side of the Park- and-Ride that filters into the bus loop. This egress is only used during special events and connects in with the bus loop at a location that makes it very difficult to utilize without causing undo conflicts. Use of this driveway is currently only possible with traffic control. As a result, staff is considering relocating the exit point for this egress to a location closer to Highway 82 and out of the bus loop in order to minimize bus / vehicle conflicts. (See Site Plan – Attachment 2) Electric Vehicle (EV) Charging - Conduit Installation. The construction at the Park-and-Ride, particularly the paving, poses an opportunity to help futureproof the facility. While the EV fleet of vehicles is still small regionally, it is growing quickly and demand for charging is expected to increase. Responsiveness to these market demands at the Park-and-Ride can then encourage the use of transit while also encouraging the use of EV technology. As one of the largest costs for EV charger installation is running conduit under existing pavement for the electrical wires, there will be an opportunity to install conduit under the concrete and asphalt with this construction project at a greatly reduced cost do doing it later. By having the conduit in the ground at appropriate locations where EV chargers can be placed, the EOTC is in a better position to obtain grants and move on other funding sources quickly to get chargers put in place as demand materializes. Based on conversations with experts in the field at CLEER and Holy Cross Energy, there are expectations that electric fleet, taxis and other rideshare vehicles will come on the scene within the next few years in addition to private vehicles. Consequently, there is a growing trend to place electric conduit in the back portion of Park-and-Ride lots to accommodate these vehicles without having them located within the prime spots near the main facility. Therefore, staff is considering placing conduit in the back portions of the newly paved area to accommodate these charging needs should they arise. Staff has also been consulting with Holy Cross Energy and RFTA regarding the need for en route bus charging. Battery electric buses will be arriving in Aspen in the fall of 2019. In response to this need, the electrical transformer is anticipated to be upgraded to 480 volts and 3 phase. This will allow for both en route bus charging and level 3 (fast) EV chargers within certain areas of the parking area if desired. 14 74 It is worth noting that while conduit is looking to be installed to accommodate future EV chargers along with this construction project, no EV chargers are currently in the budget or anticipated to be installed immediately. With the conduit, however, Staff will be in a position to obtain grants to install chargers as demand necessitates. It is understood that grants for EV chargers have about a 6-month lead time. As a result, Staff anticipates moving on an appropriate number of new EV chargers within 6 months of completion of the project. All parking spaces will be for general use until / if an EV charger is installed at that location. Security. Security is the primary issue that has come up throughout public comment to date. There are several components to security including lighting, active monitoring, and passive systems. 1. Lighting. Through the public review conducted to date, it is clear there are a range of opinions on lighting mostly based on how the individual interacts with the facility and the surrounding area. There appear to be a notable number of facility users today that have safety concerns when they use the parking area at night and would like to see additional lighting. Meanwhile there is also a number of individuals who value the dark sky and rural character (particularly those who live in the surrounding area of Brush Creek, Woody Creek, and W/J). Further, the EOTC has a charge to encourage the use of public mass transportation. Balancing these seemingly competing demands is the objective that staff is working to achieve when it comes to lighting and security. While full lighting details are not yet available, staff is working to identify this sweet spot where lighting is the minimum amount for people to feel safe using the Park-and-Ride at night. There are some technologies available that can help, including motion detection and light dimming. LEDs have also progressed over the years so the color of the light can be more yellow and warm which can have less impact. As is required by County Code, all lighting must be Dark Sky Compliant, downward facing, and fully shielded. The EOTC will have the opportunity to review more detailed lighting plans as these design details develop. 2. Active Monitoring. Active monitoring includes cameras and even human security located onsite. Cameras are currently in use by RFTA on the bus platform. The use of cameras and monitoring technology has installation and ongoing costs that may fall outside the funds available through the FLAP grant. The use of human security certainly has a high ongoing cost and falls outside the FLAP grant funds. It is Staff’s position to date that the use of cameras should be examined along with merging any cameras into the system utilized by RFTA in order to increase operational efficiency. Meanwhile, human security should be examined once experience with the new facility is obtained and it can be determined whether a need for this level of security exists. Staff Recommendation: Consider the use of cameras throughout the restroom platform and look into the feasibility of connecting that system into RFTA’s existing network. 15 75 3.Passive Systems. A passive security system is the use of emergency call boxes throughout the parking area and restroom platform. These call boxes automatically phone or message the Sheriff’s Office if activated. This type of call box is common on university campuses and parking garages. While the function of such boxes needs to be examined particularly with its interface to the Sheriff’s Office, it is Staff’s position that call boxes along with some low level security lighting in the parking area and cameras around the restroom facility offer a potentially much higher sense of security to users of the lot than currently exists. Staff Recommendation: Consider the use of call boxes throughout the parking area and restroom facility and examine the feasibility to tie these boxes into the County Sheriff’s Office. Landscaping and Irrigation. Landscaping and irrigation plans have not yet been developed, but will be available to the EOTC later in the design review process. Generally, staff is looking into maintaining as much existing landscaping and trees as possible to help ease visual impacts from the start. In addition, the design team is looking into adding landscaping along the back east edge to help soften visual impacts to residents across the Roaring Fork River. There are some Holy Cross easements that cannot be planted in this area and the design team in continuing to examine possibilities. Bike Path Connection. The Park-and-Ride currently is a trailhead for both the Sky Mountain Trails and the Aspen Mass Trail (to the Rio Grande Trail). Connecting the bike paths with a more intuitive route came up within the survey and other public input. Connecting the bike paths strategically can also allow the restrooms and flexible space area to be utilized as a bike rest area as well as encourage the transition between bikes and busses. As a result, the plans currently contemplate connecting the bike trails with a new bike path that runs between the transit area and the restrooms / flex space. Since this connection should work well for those beginning a trip, ending a trip, transitioning between a bike and bus, or if the biker is utilizing the restroom area, it could also be more congested with pedestrians and bikers dismounting for those passing through. As a result, staff is also looking to have sharrows through the parking area with appropriate signage and trail stubs to provide an intuitive route for those passing through to avoid this potentially more congested area. (See Site Plan – Attachment 2) While a more direct connection from the Brush Creek Park-and-Ride to the Rio Grande Trail also come up in public comments, this is another large project that needs to be tackled separately. Staff has been cognizant of this need and the efforts by Pitkin County and the City of Aspen to address this connection. Through the design process, Staff is working to not adversely impact this potential future connection as a result of the FLAP improvements. 16 76 BUDGETARY IMPACT: ● FLAP Grant - Matching Funds Budgeted by EOTC ○ Reallocate $70,000 of FLAP Matching Funds from 2020 to 2019 ($41,126.45 invoice Summer 2019 + ~$25,000 invoice Fall 2019 + $3,873.55 contingency) ● Carpool Kiosk - None (funded by City of Aspen) RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION: ● Funding Reallocation. ○ Staff Recommendation: Reallocate $70,000 of FLAP Matching Funds from 2020 to 2019 ($41,126.45 invoice Summer 2019 + ~$25,000 invoice Fall 2019 + $3,873.55 contingency) ● Special Events / Info Booth Area. ○ Staff Recommendation: Pursue the Open concept and monitor the use and interest in the area for possible future covering or partial enclosure. ● Snow Melt. ○ Staff Recommendation: Install in pavement snow melt system through high traffic corridors of the restroom platform (not the entire area) and crosswalks to bus platform. ● Solar Panels. ○ Staff Recommendation: Include rooftop mounted solar panels to capture as much energy as possible on the restroom building. Consider location, cost, and generation potential for 1-2 ground mounted tracking solar panel clusters. ● Sustainability. ○ Staff Recommendation: Design restroom building utilizing LEED principles. ● Security. ○ Staff Recommendation: ■ Consider the use of cameras throughout the restroom platform and look into the feasibility of connecting that system into RFTA’s existing network. ■ Consider the use of call boxes throughout the parking area and restroom facility and the feasibility to tie these boxes into the County Sheriff’s Office. ATTACHMENTS: 1) EOTC Budget - Reallocation of $70,000 in FLAP Matching Funds from 2020 to 2019 2) Site Plans and Renderings 3) Public Opinion Survey Results Summary 17 77 2019 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN - AMENDED MARCH 2019 - DRAFT FLAP AMENDMENTS PAGE 1 6/5/2019 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.89,000 124,000 187,000 225,000 243,000 317,000 189,000 Total Funding Sources 2,727,914 2,590,690 2,696,350 2,770,374 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 Park and Ride 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 1,550,431 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 consolidate in 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)70,000 3,830,000 less Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant (1,900,000) Total Uses 1,582,646 1,515,880 2,971,911 3,149,943 1,269,770 7,192,927 1,360,211 EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)1,145,269 1,074,810 (275,561) (379,569) 1,555,765 (4,254,903) 1,489,439 EOTC CUMULATIVE SURPLUS FUND BALANCE 8,583,356 9,658,166 9,382,605 9,003,036 10,558,801 6,303,898 7,793,337 Attachment 1 18 78 2019 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN - AMENDED MARCH 2019 - DRAFT FLAP AMENDMENTS PAGE 2 6/5/2019 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 1,271,810 284,233 (379,569) 1,555,765 1,623,883.87 1,489,439 25% to Snowmass Village Savings until restored to maximum 372,828 274,022 71,058 (94,892) 233,628 - - remainder to Aspen Savings 1,118,484 997,788 213,174 (284,677) 1,322,138 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 71,058 (94,892) 233,628 - - 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 5,740,052 5,645,159 5,878,787 - - Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area share of annual surplus/deficit 1,118,484 997,788 213,174 (284,677) 1,322,138 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 3,642,553 3,357,877 4,680,014 6,303,898 7,793,337 Revenue projections: Attachment 1 19 79 Attachment 2 20 80 STATE CO PROJECT FLAP PIT 82(1) SHEET U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION X6 FOR REFERENCE - EXTERIOR RENDERING Attachment 2 21 81 STATE CO PROJECT FLAP PIT 82(1) SHEET U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION X7 FOR REFERENCE - EXTERIOR RENDERING Attachment 2 22 82 STATE CO PROJECT FLAP PIT 82(1) SHEET U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION X8 FOR REFERENCE - EXTERIOR RENDERING Attachment 2 23 83 STATE CO PROJECT FLAP PIT 82(1) SHEET U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION X9 FOR REFERENCE - INTERIOR RENDERING Attachment 2 24 84 STATE CO PROJECT FLAP PIT 82(1) SHEET U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION X10 FOR REFERENCE - FUTURE SPECIAL EVENTS - OPEN Attachment 2 25 85 STATE CO PROJECT FLAP PIT 82(1) SHEET U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION CENTRAL FEDERAL LANDS HIGHWAY DIVISION X11 FOR REFERENCE - FUTURE SPECIAL EVENTS - ENCLOSED Attachment 2Attachment 3 26 86 1 | www.pitkincountyconnect.com/7172 Created with OpenGov | June 5, 2019, 10:32 AM Brush Creek Park and Ride Use and Development Survey June 5, 2019, 10:32 AM Contents i. Summary of responses 2 Attachment 3 27 87 Summary Of Responses As of June 5, 2019, 10:32 AM, this forum had: Topic Start Topic End Attendees:129 March 13, 2019, 12:31 PM May 22, 2019, 9:37 AM Responses:80 Hours of Public Comment:4.0 QUESTION 1 Where is your primary residence (pick one)? % Count Aspen 31.6% 25 Snowmass 7.6%6 Basalt / El Jebel 11.4%9 Carbondale / Missouri Heights 31.6% 25 Glenwood Springs 6.3%5 Other 11.4%9 QUESTION 2 Have you utilized Brush Creek Park and Ride for any reason in the past year? % Count Yes 98.7% 78 No 1.3%1 2 | www.pitkincountyconnect.com/7172 Created with OpenGov | June 5, 2019, 10:32 AM Brush Creek Park and Ride Use and Development Survey What Characteristics are Important at the Brush Creek Park and Ride with the Development of New Restrooms and Paved Parking? Attachment 3 28 88 QUESTION 3 If you have utilized Brush Creek Park and Ride in the past year, how many days per week do you use it on average (pick one)? % Count 1 - 2 Days per Week 25.6% 20 2 - 5 Days per Week 12.8% 10 5 - 7 Days per Week 7.7%6 Special Events Only 7.7%6 Occasionally 46.2% 36 QUESTION 4 If you have NOT utilized Brush Creek Park and Ride for any reason in the past year, why not? Answered 5 Skipped 75 QUESTION 5 How do you use the Brush Creek Park and Ride (pick all that apply)? % Count Pass-through Transit (stay on bus through Park and Ride) 59.5% 47 Transfer point for Transit (Change bus at Park and Ride) 44.3% 35 Carpool to Work 16.5% 13 Carpool for Skiing or other Outdoor Activities 30.4% 24 Park and get on bus to Aspen for skiing 20.3% 16 3 | www.pitkincountyconnect.com/7172 Created with OpenGov | June 5, 2019, 10:32 AM Brush Creek Park and Ride Use and Development Survey What Characteristics are Important at the Brush Creek Park and Ride with the Development of New Restrooms and Paved Parking? Attachment 3 29 89 % Count Park and get on bus to Aspen for work or other non-skiing activity 43.0% 34 Park and get on bus to Snowmass for skiing 40.5% 32 Park and get on bus to Snowmass for work or other non-skiing activity 26.6% 21 Park for Outdoor Activities (running, cycling, rafting, cross-country / skate skiing, etc.) 39.2% 31 Use as Meetup Location 38.0% 30 Utilize Restrooms 10.1%8 Charge Electric Vehicle 3.8%3 Park for Special Events in Aspen or Snowmass 41.8% 33 Not for any reason 1.3%1 Other 2.5%2 QUESTION 6 If you park your vehicle at Brush Creek Park and Ride, how long do you typically leave your vehicle parked in the lot? % Count Less than 1 hour 4.2%3 1 to 3 hours 8.5%6 3 to 8 hours 43.7% 31 8 to 12 hours 38.0% 27 12 to 24 hours 4.2%3 4 | www.pitkincountyconnect.com/7172 Created with OpenGov | June 5, 2019, 10:32 AM Brush Creek Park and Ride Use and Development Survey What Characteristics are Important at the Brush Creek Park and Ride with the Development of New Restrooms and Paved Parking? Attachment 3 30 90 % Count Over 24 hours 1.4%1 QUESTION 7 What could encourage you to begin using or increase your use of the Brush Creek Park and Ride to Carpool, use Transit, or Bicycle to your final destination? % Count Permanent flush restroom facilities 49.4% 38 More paved parking 33.8% 26 Increased security 33.8% 26 Carpool Kiosk located in Lot for City of Aspen 22.1%17 Advanced warning that parking in Aspen or Snowmass is full 39.0% 30 More or faster electric vehicle charging stations 13.0% 10 Advanced warning of congestion into Aspen and/or Snowmass 51.9% 40 Nothing 5.2%4 Other 32.5% 25 QUESTION 8 The site plan and description above illustrates the layout and features currently being considered with the Park and Ride improvements. Please provide your thoughts and comments. Answered 42 Skipped 38 5 | www.pitkincountyconnect.com/7172 Created with OpenGov | June 5, 2019, 10:32 AM Brush Creek Park and Ride Use and Development Survey What Characteristics are Important at the Brush Creek Park and Ride with the Development of New Restrooms and Paved Parking? Attachment 3 31 91 QUESTION 9 Optional - What is your overall opinion of the Brush Creek Park and Ride how it exists today and why? Answered 46 Skipped 34 6 | www.pitkincountyconnect.com/7172 Created with OpenGov | June 5, 2019, 10:32 AM Brush Creek Park and Ride Use and Development Survey What Characteristics are Important at the Brush Creek Park and Ride with the Development of New Restrooms and Paved Parking? Attachment 3 32 92 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: June 20, 2019 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) STAFF RESPONSIBLE: David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator ISSUE STATEMENT: This memo is intended to update the EOTC on the current progress of the DMS and obtain direction on the sign’s location. BACKGROUND: The purpose of the proposed DMS is 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. At the March 21, 2019 meeting, the EOTC gave direction to staff: 1. Pursue a “butterfly” design. 2.Standardize the name to Brush Creek Park and Ride. 3. Reallocate $400,000 for construction from 2020 to 2019 in order to allow the project to move ahead as soon as possible. 4.Go back to each jurisdiction with the following information to make a decision on whether an 18 or 26-foot wide sign is appropriate: a.Visualizations of both the 18-foot and 26-foot butterfly design sign. b.Full list of messages to show how the messages are impacted by an 18-foot sign vs. a 26- foot sign. At the meetings with each jurisdiction, there was an agreement to pursue the 8-foot high by 18-foot wide butterfly sign. However, there was some concern raised over the proposed location for the sign that has required Staff to come back to the full EOTC on June 20 for direction. While the memo, presentation and discussions at the March 21 EOTC meeting provided reasons for the proposed location of the sign, it did not discuss alternative options as it was Staff’s opinion that functionally comparable location options are not available. This memo is intended to provide the EOTC with information regarding the proposed location for the sign and a more thorough discussion for the Staff proposal. As a result, Staff is looking for direction from the EOTC on the preferred location. While the memo from the March 21 EOTC meeting discussed the design options, name options, size, and funding, this memo is to be focussed on the location question at hand. 33 93 At the March 21 EOTC meeting, Staff provided the following reasons for the DMS location approximately one mile downvalley of the Brush Creek Park and Ride: ○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. It is worth noting that any location will have visual impacts and the reduction of these impacts was the primary reason for the decision to utilize the “butterfly” vs. “cantilever” design. All locations are proposed to be within the Highway 82 right of way and as a result will require a permit from CDOT to approve the final design, location, and messages. Staff has vetted the recommended location approximately one mile downvalley from the Brush Creek Park and Ride with CDOT who has not raised any safety concerns to date. Staff has identified two alternative locations that provide the required sight distance for both visibility and legibility to the sign. The first is approximately 1.0- mile from the Brush Creek Road intersection (Staff proposed location) and the second is approximately 2.2-miles from the intersection. There do not appear to be feasible options for the location of the sign between 1.0 and 2.2-miles from Brush Creek that provide the required sight distances to read the sign. Placing the sign closer than 1.0- mile presents significant safety concerns and a notable drop in operational effectiveness. Meanwhile, extending the distance from the intersection to 2.2-miles does not present additional safety concerns, however it is expected to result in a significant loss in effectiveness. Based on these considerations, Staff recommends that the EOTC approve the location approximately 1.0- mile downvalley from the Brush Creek Park and Ride. BUDGETARY IMPACT: The EOTC has allocated $450,000 to design and construct the DMS. RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION: ●Location - 1 mile or 2.2 miles down valley from the Brush Creek Park and Ride. ○Staff Recommendation: Approximately 1 mile downvalley from the Brush Creek Park and Ride. ATTACHMENTS: 1) Memo from Chris Baroody, Pitkin County Project Engineer 34 94 Contract # 142.2019 Budget Line Item # 127.7095790.82000 SH82 Dynamic Message Sign Memorandum SH82 DMS Site Selection May 21, 2019 Page 1 of 5 MEMORANDUM Project: Pitkin County SH82 Dynamic Message Sign To: David Pesnichak, AICP Regional Transportation Administrator Pitkin County – Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) 530 East Main St., Suite 205 Aspen, CO 81611 From: Chris Baroody, PE Pitkin County Project Engineer Date: May 21, 2019 Subject: SH82 DMS Site Selection Pitkin County Public Works has been tasked by the Elected Official Transportation Committee (EOTC); whose members include Pitkin County, City of Aspen and the Town of Snowmass Village, to provide engineering design services and construction delivery of a new Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) on SH82. The DMS sign is to be located on the east bound lanes of SH82 and is to provide messaging to motorist traveling to the City of Aspen, Town of Snowmass Village and locations within Pitkin County, including the Aspen-Pitkin County Airport, Maroon Bells, Independence Pass and ski resorts. Messaging at the DMS will include travel alerts, information on events, driving conditions, congestion and available parking within each jurisdiction. The DMS is to be located west of the intersection of Brush Creek Road to provide messaging that serves each of the EOTC members. This will allow the DMS to advise and direct travelers to use commuter parking and mass transit available from the Brush Creek Park-n-Ride. The DMS will be located within the CDOT Right of Way and will require coordination and approval of CDOT for the location, size, messaging and construction of the DMS. Installation of the DMS will require a CDOT Special Use Permit to be issued upon review and approval of final construction plans for the DMS. Maintenance of the DMS will be the responsibility of the EOTC. The estimated construction cost for the DMS is $546,000. This cost includes installation of a travel time monitoring system that will compute travel times for both buses and cars into the City of Aspen and Town of Snowmass Village. These travel times will be displayed at the DMS to advise travelers to use the Brush Creek Park-n-Ride. The project is anticipated to provide benefits to several stakeholders. The stakeholders and benefits of the project are presented in Table 1. Table 1: SH82 DMS Project Stakeholders Stakeholder Benefits SH82 Travelers Travel alerts Reduction in travel delays Parking and commuter information City of Aspen Reduction in traffic congestion in downtown area Available parking notifications Event management Attachment 1 35 95 Contract # 142.2019 Budget Line Item # 127.7095790.82000 SH82 Dynamic Message Sign Memorandum SH82 DMS Site Selection May 21, 2019 Page 2 of 5 Town of Snowmass Village Reduction in traffic congestion in downtown area Available parking notifications Event management Pitkin County Construction notifications Emergency notifications Reduction in traffic on County Roads RFTA Increased ridership from Brush Creek Park-n-Ride Information to RFTA Bus System riders CDOT Reduction of congestion on SH82 Enforcement of HOV-2 Over-length Vehicle enforcement on Independence Pass Notification of Independence Pass closure Preliminary scoping for the location of the DMS was performed by the EOTC staff, during which two locations for the DMS where identified that provided suitable sight distance on straight tangent sections of SH82 and visibility of the sign. The first of these two is the currently proposed location approximately 5500-feet north of the intersection of SH82 and Brush Creek Road. The second location is an additional mile north of the intersection near the intersection of Wildcat Ranch Road. Appendix 1 “Alternate Site Study Location Map” displays the two locations for the DMS considered by the EOTC. The EOTC staff determined the first location as preferred due to the proximity to the proposed Park-n-Ride. The location closest to the Brush Creek Road is in a more developed area and closer to the decision points where information to travelers will be most needed and expected. It is the opinion of the EOTC staff that the second alternative is too remote from Brush Creek Road to provide effective messaging. Alternate locations between one and two miles from Brush Creek Road where not considered due to the limitations of sight distance. Appendix 2 and 3 present visualizations of the proposed DMS at the preferred and alternate locations (Locations 1 and 2). An evaluation of the preferred location was made to verify the location met the current criteria for the location of a DMS. These criteria are outlined in the following: 1.CDOT Guidelines on Variable Message Signs, CDOT, October 2017 2.Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices, FHWA, May 2012 3.CDOT M&S Standards, CDOT, 2012 4.Roadside Design Guide (4th Edition), AASHTO, October 2011 EOTC staff has moved forward with preliminary design and plans for installation of the DMS at the preferred location for the following: Preliminary design to coordinate survey and geotechnical investigation of the preferred site. Concurrence for location of the DMS with CDOT Region 3 Traffic to move forward with final design and construction plans for the DMS. Coordination with utilities to provide power and communication to the DMS Identify impacts to utilities and roadway infrastructure. Coordination with potential DMS vendors to determine dimension of proposed sign to display messaging required by the EOTC. Evaluation of alternative Butterfly or Cantilevered support structure to display the DMS. Preparation of plans, specifications and estimate for bidding. During the March 21, 2019 meeting with EOTC, staff recommended installation of a 26-foot wide by 8-foot high DMS on a roadside butterfly structure at the preferred site. Staff also requested approval from the Board to move ahead with construction of the project in 2019 by moving budget from fiscal year 2020 to 2019. The Board approved moving the budget and construction in 2019 and installation of the DMS on a butterfly structure; however, the board had concerns about the size of the proposed 26-foot sign. Attachment 1 36 96 Contract # 142.2019 Budget Line Item # 127.7095790.82000 SH82 Dynamic Message Sign Memorandum SH82 DMS Site Selection May 21, 2019 Page 3 of 5 The EOTC Board directed that visualizations and proposed messaging on alternate DMS sizes would be presented to each individual Board of the EOTC for consideration. The size of the alternate DMS sizes included an 18-foot wide or 26-foot wide DMS with both widths being 8-feet high. In the follow up meetings with the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, City of Aspen Council, and Town of Snowmass Council, there was agreement to move forward with an 18-foot wide instead of a 26-foot wide sign. The City of Aspen raised the following questions with regard to the proposed location of the DMS. The questions and response to these questions or concerns are provided. 1)How was the current location decided? Can the DMS be installed elsewhere on SH82 so as not to be located adjacent to the existing City of Aspen Cozy Point Open Space? The proposed DMS is expected to act primarily as a guide sign to the improved Brush Creek Park-n-Ride and provide notifications of events and available parking in the City of Aspen and Town of Snowmass Village. There is no direction on how far a guide sign should be to the referred destination but 1.0-mile is standard for a static sign. (i.e. REST AREA 1 MILE AHEAD). The proposed location of the DMS will provide a 1.0-mile distance to Brush Creek Road. The proposed location also provides both the minimum visibility and legibility Line-Of-Sight (LOS) along a straight tangent of roadway. The visibility Line-Of-Sight (LOS) at Location 1 is initiated at a sag curve of the profile giving the traveler better visibility of the sign as opposed to Location 2. The sign itself will be located on a clear open and flat area with few obstructions allowing for better visibility. The sign will be located within a more developed area where there are more queues to drivers of expected decision points and guidance will be needed. Appendix 4 and 5 present the plan and profile of each location’s LOS. The proposed DMS will be a roadside obstruction and will require installation of approximately 200-feet of guardrail and end treatment to protect the sign and errant vehicles. The exact DMS location was selected to allow installation of the guardrail and maintain the existing field entrance to the adjacent parcel. The flat open terrain of the proposed DMS location will allow easier access for maintenance and inspections. 2)The proposed DMS is to be located very close to the intersection of SH82 with Smith Way. There is a dangerous situation where traffic making a left turn from SH82 onto Smith Way must slow down within SH82 to weave around traffic making a left turn onto Wood Road or traffic making a left turn from Smith Way onto SH82. The DMS will distract drivers from vehicles making the left turns and merging onto SH82. The location of the proposed DMS within the vicinity of the Smith Way and Woods Road intersections and the condition noted above was evaluated when considering the location of the DMS. The evaluation included mapping the location of the DMS within the intersections and measuring the available Stopping Sight Distance (SSD) to the critical locations at the intersections. The posted speed on SH82 at the location of the DMS and Smith Way is 55 mph. Per the CDOT State Highway Access Code, the design and minimum SSD are provided in the following Table 1. Given the grade of SH82 of less than 3.0%, no grade adjustment is applied; however, the uphill condition on SH82 will reduce the SSD. Table 2: Required Stopping Sight Distance Posted Speed 55 mph 65 mph Sight Distance (Minimum) 450-ft 550-ft Sight Distance (Design) 550-ft 725-ft Attachment 1 37 97 Contract # 142.2019 Budget Line Item # 127.7095790.82000 SH82 Dynamic Message Sign Memorandum SH82 DMS Site Selection May 21, 2019 Page 4 of 5 A combined length of 600-feet of the taper and decel lane into Woods Road is expected to allow vehicles to make left turns with minimum impact to traffic on SH82 and traffic volumes making a left turn are expected to be minimal to cause traffic to overflow into SH82. Therefore, providing any SSD to the intersection of Woods Road is not expected to be required. The decel and storage lane for the left-turn into Smith Way is approximately 890-feet beyond the legibility cone of the proposed DMS. This distance is in excess of the 500-feet of length required for vehicles with drivers who may be distracted by the DMS to stop in order to avoid collision with vehicles that have overflowed into SH82. The attached Appendix 6 “DMS Location Study” presents the mapping of the available SSD to the Smith Way and Woods Road intersections. 3)Can the proposed DMS be installed either within or east of the intersection of Smith Way and closer to the intersection of Brush Creek Road? No, for the following reasons: The intersection of Smith Way is located at the crest of a vertical curve. Placing the DMS beyond this curve does not provide the required visibility LOS along the vertical profile of SH82. The alignment of SH82 shifts to widen the median to accommodate the intersection. Within this median there are several trees that obscure the visibility of the DMS. Within the intersection there are both accel and decel lanes for vehicles making right turns to and from Buddy Road. There is also a RFTA Bus Stop adjacent to the accel lane for the right from Buddy Road. The DMS would need to be located at an excessive offset from the roadside to be legible to travelers on SH82. Operationally, locating the DMS within the intersection is not preferred due to the potential of the sign to distract drivers on SH82 from cars merging onto the SH82 from Smith Way or Buddy Road. Locating the sign east of the intersection would be too close to Brush Creek Park-n-Ride to provide travelers on SH82 the time to respond to messaging provided by the DMS and use the parking and mass transit provide by the Park n Ride. The following points are provided when considering installation of the DMS at either the currently proposed location of the DMS (Location 1) or the alternate location beyond the limits of the Cozy Point Opens Space (Location 2). 1.Location 1 is in a more "developed" area where new infrastructure is expected to be more accepted. 2.Location 1 provides messaging closer to decision points where guidance will be needed. 3.DMS should be placed on flat grades, both locations are on grades but location 2 is slightly steeper at 2.9% versus 2.2% at location 1. 4.Possible impacts to resident's experience of Wildcat Ranch entrance from Highway 82. 5.There are several existing signs between the alternate DMS location and the intersection of Wildcat Ranch on the shoulder of SH82. These signs are expected to obstruct or distract from the proposed messaging provided by DMS and may need to be moved to provide legibility of the DMS. 6.Visibility of the DMS at locations 2 will begin on SH82 just before the intersection of Wildcat Ranch Road and legibility and reading of the DMS sign will begin just after the intersection. The DMS may distract drivers on SH82 from drivers making left and right turns into and from Wildcat Ranch Road. 7.There is some evidence to suggest that a DMS may act to calm traffic. Active and relevant messaging that provide motorists with information about events, driving Attachment 1 38 98 Contract # 142.2019 Budget Line Item # 127.7095790.82000 SH82 Dynamic Message Sign Memorandum SH82 DMS Site Selection May 21, 2019 Page 5 of 5 conditions or alerts may induce traffic to reduce speed within the legibility zone on SH82 in order to read the sign. This potential reduction in speed 1000-feet before the intersection of Smith Way may act as a safety improvement to the traffic conditions at Smith Way previously discussed. 8.One large CDOT Wildlife Warning sign located in front of the DMS at Location 2 may need to be relocated. It is noted that SH82 is located within a CDOT posted wildlife zone from Location 2 to the airport. Use of Brush Creek as the corridor for elk migration may contribute to collisions on SH82 with elk at the intersection of Brush Creek Road. Location 1 may be able to provide immediate alerts of migrating elk within the vicinity of elk herds crossing the high way. 9.At Location 2, the DMS would be placed on steep sideslopes of SH82. Access to the sign for maintenance and inspections may be difficult on this slope. These sideslopes; with vegetation in front of the DMS, may obstruct portions of the sign and require the sign to be placed on a taller roadside support structure. Figure 1: Steep Sideslopes at Location 2 10.A cellular modem may be the preferred method to communicate to the DMS. A cellular modem will require a service plan and monthly cost to operate the DMS; however, the DMS are susceptible to lightning strikes that short regular ground communications. Location 1 provides better or acceptable cellular reception than Location 2. Please review the above information and provide any comments or questions. We may provide any additional information that may be useful in understanding the selection of the site for the DMS and its proposed configuration. Sincerely, Chris Baroody, P.E. Pitkin County Project Engineer cc: Project File Attachment 1 39 99 SH82BUDDY ROAD TO TOWNOF BASALT (10 .0 -M ILES )TO PITKINAIRPORT(2.5-MILES)TO TOWN OFSNOWMASS(2.6-MILES)BRUSH CREEK ROADINTERCEPT LOTSMITH WAYRIO GRANDE RIVERUPPER R IVER ROADWOODS ROADWILDCAT ROADAttachment 140100 Attachment 141101 Attachment 142102 SH82BRUSH CREEK ROADINTERCEPT LOTBUDDY ROADSMITH WAYRIO GRANDE RIVERUPPER R IVER ROADTO TOWNOF BASALT(11.0-MILES)TO PITKINAIRPORT(2.5-MILES)TO TOWN OFSNOWMASS(2.6-MILES)WOODS ROADBID PLANS04/10/19Know what's below.R Call before you dig.Attachment 143103 CITY OF ASPENCOZY POINT PARCELCOUGARCANYON PUDWILDCATRANCHWILDCAT ROADKnow what's below.RCall before you dig.Attachment 144104 BUDDY ROADSMITH WAYWOODS ROADSH82 WESTBOUNDBID PLANS04/10/19Know what's below.RCall before you dig.THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT ON SH82 EAST BOUND WITHIN THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED DMS AND THEINTERSECTIONS OF WOODS ROAD AND SMITH WAY IS 55 MPH. REQUIRED STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE (SSD) ARETHE FOLLOWING:55 MPH65 MPHSSD LENGTH (SH82):450-FT (MINIMUM)550-FT (MINIMUM)550-FT (DESIRABLE)725-FT (DESIRABLE)WOODS ROAD IS EXPECTED TO HAVE MINIMUM TRAFFIC VOLUME TO CAUSE TRAFFIC MAKING LEFT TURN ATWOODS ROAD TO OVERFLOW INTO SH82. PROVIDING SSD FROM THE DMS TO THE START OF DECEL INTO WOODSROAD IS NOT EXPECTED TO BE REQUIRED.THE DECEL AND STORAGE FOR THE LEFT TURN ONTO SMITH WAY BEGINS 890-FEET BEYOND THE VISIBILITY CONEOF THE PROPOSED DMS. SUITABLE STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE IS TO BE PROVIDED IN THE EVENT IF TRAFFICVOLUME EXCEEDS CAPACITY OF LEFT TURN LANE AND OVER FLOWS INTO THE SH82 EASTBOUND LANE.Attachment 145105 AGNEDA ITEM SUMMARY TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee FROM: David Peckler, Town of Snowmass Village Transportation Director MEETING DATE: June 20, 2019 SUBJECT: Mall Transit Station Project Update The Town has been working with a stakeholder group, RFTA staff and the firm Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. (SEH) to create a preferred pre-sketch design to take to our Town Council for discussion. Three conceptual drafts were presented to the council and the public in meetings and an open house on March 20, 2019 to gather general comments on a preferred layout. The constraints for the project are to fit on the proposed location, not to lose any parking close to the Mall, and fit within a roughly $7 million construction budget. After discussions with RFTA staff we are working to provide roughly four operational transit bays for RFTA, five for the local transit service, and an overflow bay to accommodate drop offs should the other bays be occupied. The draft design will be brought to the Snowmass Town Council for discussion on June 17, 2019. There will not be enough time between this Town Council meeting and the EOTC meeting on June 20, 2019 to present Council’s preferred option to the EOTC. We are still working under the $50,000 appropriation for conceptual design work. 46 106 MEMORANDUM TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) FROM: David Johnson, RFTA MEETING DATE: June 20, 2019 SUBJECT: RFTA Update: Destination 2040 and RFTA Board Retreat The purpose of this memorandum is to: 1) Summarize progress on Destination 2040 Projects 2) Summarize the outcomes of the June 13 RFTA Board Retreat Destination 2040 Update Over the last three years, RFTA engaged in extensive dialogue with its member jurisdictions about long- term transportation goals and priorities, which became the basis of the Destination 2040 Plan. During the funding and implementation phase of this planning effort, RFTA and its member jurisdictions determined that a property tax mill levy up to 5 mills, if approved by voters, was the most feasible method to fund and implement these projects. Through a number of polls, RFTA estimated that a 2.65 mill property tax might be achievable. RFTA refined the project list, project scopes, and funding commitments to align with a 2.65 mill property tax mill levy. Voter approved the 2.65 mill levy in November 2018. Immediately thereafter, RFTA began planning, designing and implementing the Destination 2040 projects. 47 107 The attached PowerPoint is an update on the projects that are located in, or highly relevant to the EOTC governments. More information can be found on the status of all Destination 2040 projects at https://www.rfta.com/2040roadmap/ RFTA Board Retreat The RFTA Board Retreat was conducted June 13, 2019 at Rocky Mountain Institute, after submittal of the EOTC packet. An update will be provided at the EOTC meeting. 48 108 IMPROVEMENTS FOR REDUCING CONGESTION AND IMPROVING MOBILITYDESTINATION 2040 UPDATE 49 109 IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT Bus Replacement –10 Clean Diesel Buses •Contract to purchase issued 1/28/2019 •Delivery of 10 buses scheduled for December 2019 50 110 IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT Bus Replacement –Battery Electric Buses •Delivery of 8 buses scheduled for August 2019 •Commissioning and training August -October •Operating October/November 2019 IN PARTNERSHIP WITH 51 111 IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT Rio Grande Trail Maintenance and Improvements IN PARTNERSHIP WITH •Bridge deck and sub-structure repairs for Roaring Fork, Emma and Wingo bridges •Construction to be completed in September-October •Asphalt repair plan in progress 52 112 IMPROVEMENTS FOR REDUCING CONGESTION AND IMPROVING MOBILITY •April 22 Start Date •Local Valley service will be 30-minute headways all day, Monday -Friday during Spring, Fall and Fall Shoulder; and daily (Monday-Sunday) during Summer and Winter peak seasons. •Enhanced Snowmass Connections after 8:15 pm Service Increase, 30-minute Valley Service w/ Enhanced Snowmass Service 53 113 IMPROVEMENTS FOR REDUCING CONGESTION AND IMPROVING MOBILITY Increase Weekend BRT (Spring/Fall) w/ Enhanced Carbondale Circulator •Starting April 22, VelociRFTA BRT (and Carbondale Circulator) will now operate 7 Days a Week, 365 Days a Year! 54 114 IMPROVEMENTS FOR REDUCING CONGESTION AND IMPROVING MOBILITY Better transit service connections to Snowmass Village on Brush Creek Road •Service was implemented in 2018 •EOTC funding for this service transferred to RFTA on January 1, 2019 55 115 IMPROVEMENTS FOR REDUCING CONGESTION AND IMPROVING MOBILITY Improvements to Mid Valley Highway 82 Bus Stations •Currently in design and engineering to upgrade the following stops: –Sage Wood: –Lazy Glen –Aspen Village –Holland Hills –Catherine Store •Design completed June 2019 •Construction late 2019/early 2020 56 116 IMPROVEMENTS FOR REDUCING CONGESTION AND IMPROVING MOBILITY Improvements to Town of Snowmass Village Transit Center •Town of Snowmass Village is in design of the TOSV Transit Center. •RFTA staff are engaged and participating in design review. 57 117 IMPROVEMENTS FOR SUSTAINABILITY AND SAFETY Aspen Maintenance Facility Expansion Phase 9 (Fuel Farm) •Replace and/or Reline Fuel Tanks •Design and permitting begins this summer •Construction scheduled for 2020 58 118 MEMORANDUM TO:City Council FROM:Pete Strecker, Finance Director DATE:June 18, 2019 RE:Informational Only – Changes in Sales and Use Tax Collections Colorado HB 19-1240 Sales and Use Tax Administration came into effect on June 1, 2019 as a part of an end of session legislative action by the Colorado General Assembly. The new state law is the result of the U.S. Supreme Court case South Dakota vs. Wayfair decision that requires all retailers, including out- of-state retailers that do not have a physical presence in Colorado to collect state and local sales tax at the point of delivery. This memorandum is intended to provide you an overview of the new law and a conceptual understanding of its impact on the City of Aspen in two ways. A fiscal analysis of the new statute’s impact will be forthcoming later this year as part of the budgeting process. This law should result in an increase in local sales tax collections, but will likely result in a reduction in the City’s use tax on construction materials and fabricated goods as well as the Pitkin County’s use tax on construction materials and fabricated goods. The City may not collect use and sales tax on the same goods, as this practice would be considered double-taxation and not permissible under state laws. The City’s sales tax rates for various purposes are collectively higher than the current use tax rate. HB19-1240 impacts the City of Aspen in two ways: City Use Tax The City’s 2.1% use tax was passed in 2010 to capture revenue from the construction goods and fabricated goods entering into the City that did not necessarily pay local sales tax because of the goods originating from outside the city limits. These revenues are dedicated to public transit and are held on deposit, but are eventually realized once a construction project is given its certificate of occupancy, and recorded as revenue into the Transportation Fund. City 2.10% Use TaxTransportation Fund (100%) Use Tax Receipts 2018 - $1,438,864 2017 - $1,834,425 2016 - $2,357,926 2015 - $1,295,844 2014 - $1,367,242 119 The City staff is anticipating a drop in use tax collections, as broader compliance with the new State regulation will drive retail establishments to tax construction materials under the City’s sales tax rates through the point of delivery method. The result of this will be increases in all sales tax funds and a reduction in the use tax revenues. Staff will model this change in preparing long range financial plans for the impacted funds in the future, but Council can know that the impact to the Transportation Fund will be buffered in the interim by the realization of previous use tax collections that are being held on deposit – this balance sheet account held $5.3 million at the end of 2018. Additionally, as outlined in the subsequent information on County taxes, the City’s subsidy paid by the Transportation Fund to support the eight free bus routes is anticipated to drop. This is due to an increase in the 1.0% transit tax that is collected, of which roughly 37% is deemed to support the City’s transit routes. County Use Tax and Sales Tax impact on EOTC The funding for the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) comes from two sources, a 0.5% county-wide use tax on construction goods and fabricated goods 100% dedicated to EOTC activities and a county-wide 0.5% sales tax that is split approximately 19% to EOTC activities and 81% to Roaring Fork Transportation Agency (RFTA). City Sales Tax Receipts 2018 - $18,118,438 2017 - $17,376,816 2016 - $17,125,369 2015 - $16,050,733 2014 - $14,958,315 City 2.40% Sales Tax1.50% Parks and Open Space Fund (62.5%) 0.15% Transportation Fund (6.25%) 0.45% Kids First & Housing Development Funds (18.75%) 0.30% Public Education Fund (12.5%) Balance of Use Tax Held on Deposit 2018 - $5,317,624 2017 - $4,753,876 2016 - $3,967,020 2015 - $2,602,399 2014 - $2,025,681 120 The EOTC will be experiencing a similar decrease in use tax collections and increase in sales tax collections. However, while County staff do not anticipate the increase in sales tax revenues will fully offset the reduction in use tax collections, at this time, there is no immediate concern of the EOTC not being funded in the short term for current projects or operations. The County will monitor this situation and report to the EOTC a modeling of revenue changes. Additionally, the City and the County have an intergovernmental agreement (IGA) for the collection of a deposit of the County’s use tax at the issuance of city building permits. This IGA will need to be amended to comply with the new law. City and County staff are working together on this amendment. County 0.50% Use TaxEOTC (100%)County 3.60% Sales Tax2.00% Tax Pitkin County (43%) City of Aspen (~43%) Snowmass (~12%) Basalt (~2%) 1.00% Tax RFTA - Valleywide (48%) RFTA - Aspen (~37%) RFTA - Snowmass (~15%) 0.50% Tax RFTA (~81%) EOTC (~19%) 0.10% Tax Healthy Rivers & Streams (100%) 121 Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Council FROM:Margaret Medellin, Utilities Portfolio Manager THRU:Scott Miller, Director of Public Works; Tyler Christoff, Deputy Public Works Director; Dave Hornbacher, Director of Utilities; DATE OF MEMO:June 14, 2019 MEETING DATE:June 18, 2019 RE:Status of Aspen’s Integrated Water Supply System REQUEST OF COUNCIL: During today’s work session, staff will provide Council a status update on the City’s Integrated Water Supply System (IWSS), which includes its watersheds, distribution network, operational and management strategies and projects designed to increase the reliability of this system. BACKGROUND: The City Utilities Department is responsible for assuring Aspen has a safe, legal and reliable water supply, now and into the future. To this end, the City has developed an Integrated Water Supply System (IWSS) which coordinates a portfolio of water supply options, management techniques, and operational strategies. Many variables are included in managing this portfolio, including changing climate conditions, water demand patterns and system efficiency. DISCUSSION: At this work session, staff will present key aspects of the IWSS and associated project updates. A summary of topics to be covered is included below: Castle and Maroon Creek Conditional Water Storage Rights Aspen uses direct flow rights from Maroon and Castle Creeks, which are diverted to the Leonard Thomas Reservoir located at Aspen’s Water Treatment Facility, treated, and then delivered to Aspen customers. The Leonard Thomas Reservoir is an operational reservoir with a capacity of approximately 9 acre-feet, which is less than a day of storage during peak summer use. Storage reservoirs, however, can retain water from season to season and year to year, and can provide water supplies even during times of shortage. The City’s lack of storage presents significant vulnerabilities during events such as fire or avalanches as there is no buffer or back-up system when these two headgates are threatened. In addition, climate change continues to alter local hydrology introducing further vulnerabilities into our water supply now and into the future. 122 Page 2 of 3 In recognition of these vulnerabilities, the City has maintained two conditional water storage rights on Castle and Maroon Creeks. Applications for findings of reasonable diligence were timely filed in the Division 5 Water Court for the Maroon Creek Reservoir (Case No. 16CW3128) and Castle Creek Reservoir (16CW3129). Statements of opposition were filed to both applications. The City and opposers reached agreement on these cases. The Court filed a final decree for the Castle Creek water storage case on May 10, 2019 and a final decree for the Maroon Creek water storage case on June 11, 2019. The next diligence applications for these water rights must be filed in 2025 and in accordance with Aspen’s stipulations, applications to move these rights must be filed before the end of the next diligence period. Watershed Monitoring Efforts Recent studies identified the present level of watershed data as a significant vulnerability in Aspen’s IWSS. In response, staff has implemented additional monitoring in Aspen’s watersheds. These efforts include: USGS stream gage stations installed on Maroon Creek; USGS stream gage station installed on Roaring Fork River in collaboration with the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District; USGS stream gage stations being planned for 2019 on Castle Creek in collaboration with Pitkin County; Procurement of soil moisture and climate monitoring station for the Castle Creek watershed in collaboration with the Aspen Global Change Institute; Collaboration with the National Center for Atmospheric Research on changing climate conditions in high elevation watersheds; Collaboration with the National Snow and Ice Data Center on LiDAR use for determining water content of snow supply. Alternative Transfer Methods Alternative Transfer Methods (ATMs) are a relatively new concept in Colorado that allow for temporary transfers of water that fit within the parameters of Colorado Water Law and do not injure water rights’ holders. The State believes ATMs can be beneficial to municipal water supplies, rural communities and the environment. The City, Western Resource Advocates and Wilderness Workshop have been exploring the potential of implementing ATMs in the Upper Roaring Fork Basin to benefit Aspen’s water supplies and local ecosystems. Jointly, this group held a workshop in Aspen on October 30, 2018 to learn from experts in this area. Subsequently, the same group solicited for a consultant to develop a Scope of Work for submission to the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) for a grant to pursue an ATM project. The consultant team, led by Western Water Partnerships, successfully bid on this project. A grant request has been developed and was submitted to the CWCB for consideration at its July 2019 Board meeting. Aspen Water Meter Replacement Project On March 11, 2019 Council approved a contract for the implementation of Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) for both the City’s Water and Electric Utilities. This advanced technology will provide many benefits to the City and its customers, including improved management of 123 Page 3 of 3 water supply and use. Some customers will require new meters to be compatible with the new AMI technology. Drought Response Team Aspen manages its drought response with a team that represents a cross-section of City departments. This team met during the 2018 drought to develop recommendations for Council. Following Council direction, this team will continue to meet to review the current water shortage documents and to provide recommendations to Council on updates to the drought response. In addition, the team will provide recommendations on water savings measures that should be a part of the City’s on-going water savings efforts. The Drought Response Team intends to provide recommendations to Council in the fall of 2019. Reclaimed Water System The City has acquired rights to reclaim the potable water that is treated at the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District’s (ACSD’s) wastewater treatment facility. Currently, the City is working with the ACSD to determine the best strategy for physically capturing these water rights and reintroducing to the City’s IWSS. Conservation and Efficiency The City is committed to water efficiency and operates several programs designed to help the community use water efficiently. Among these programs are the recently adopted Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance, QWEL certification program, treatment production metering, acoustic survey of the City’s distribution system, and on-going irrigation audits. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Work included in this status update is within the current 2019 budget authority. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The City is committed to reducing its footprint (carbon and water), but even with this effort and action the City recognizes that it is best practice to plan for a future that looks very different than today. The City’s efforts to monitor, manage and improve its Integrated Water Supply System is necessary to ensure the City’s resiliency. RECOMMENDED ACTION: This presentation is intended to be informational and no formal action is requested of Council. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: 124 MEMORANDUM TO:MAYOR and COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM:JAMES R. TRUE DATE:June 14, 2019 RE:Litigation Report and proposed executive session ══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════ A work session is scheduled before Council on Tuesday, June 18, 2019, to discuss pending litigation. Such litigation is described in the June litigation report from the City Attorney’s Office that is attached hereto along with theCity water attorney’s litigation report. I will briefly discuss each case during the work session. Although certain questions and comments of Council may be appropriate during the work session, I recommend that most questions be addressed in the executive session that is scheduled for the special meeting following the work session. In addition to the cases that are set forth in the litigation reports for discussion in the executive session, I will raise other potential or threatened litigation, as well as issues for which I wish to provide legal advice, including a personnel matter and the purchase, sale or lease of real property. I am unable to further describe the substance of those issues without compromising the purpose of the executive session. 125 JUNE 2019 LITIGATION REPORT PENDING CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY – LAWSUITS FILED The following matters are cases actually filed in court against the City and pending as of June 2019. Centennial Owners’ Association v. City of Aspen, et al. On December 23, 2015, the Centennial Owners’ Association filed a complaint against the City of Aspen, Pitkin County and Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) on numerous theories seeking, in essence, a court order for the three entities to expend sums to fix ongoing maintenance problems with the housing project or to set aside longstanding deed restrictions on the ownership of the individual units. In October of 2017, the District Court dismissed all but one of the claims against the City and other Defendants. The one remaining claim is for rescission of the deed restriction on the affordable housing properties. By agreement, the parties filed appeals of all of the District Court decisions. The Plaintiffs appealed the dismissal of their claims and the Defendants appeal the failure to dismiss the remaining claim. Oral argument before the Court of Appeals was conducted on May 7, 2019. A decision is not expected for six months. This case is handled by an attorney in Denver retained by the governmental entities’ insurance companies. The Thomas M Marshall Revocable Trust, et al v. The City of Aspen, et al. A complaint was filed by plaintiff on August 25, 2016 and service was accepted on November 2, 2016. Plaintiffs reside at 300 Riverside Avenue in Aspen, Colorado and allege the original plat of the area included an alleyway running through Block 6 in the north/south direction but does not contain any dedication of the alleyway or Dale Avenue to either the City or the public. The City filed its Answer on November 23, 2016. Procedural disputes involving another party and the plaintiff delayed the action. The plaintiff does not seek monetary damages from the City. The issue involves ownership claims of property that the City asserts is public right-of-way, although none of the property claimed is or has ever been actively used as right-of-way. This is being handled in house and has no financial implication to the City. North Mill Street LLC v. City of Aspen, et. al. On February 28, 2017 North Mill Street Investors filed a complaint against the City of Aspen alleging that recent zoning amendments have affected the property to such an extent to act as a takings under federal and state law. North Mill Street Investors sold the property to North Mill Street LLC in 2018 and the case title was amended. Although the case was filed in 2017, service 126 was not completed until April 22, 2019. In addition, in February of 2019, North Mill Street LLC filed two additional actions, including a claim in Federal District Court. Service of these new actions was also completed on April 22, 2019. The City has requested until July 12, 2019, to respond to these cases in order to give the Plaintiff, represented by Mark Hunt, an opportunity to address the cases with the new Council. We are working with the insurance carrier to determine who will handle these cases. 119 Neale Avenue LLC v City of Aspen, et al. This action sought judicial review of the City’s denial of a land use application seeking the severance of transferrable development rights (TDRs) from Plaintiff’s property in conformity with the provisions of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. In 2012, Plaintiff submitted a land use application to the City of Aspen for historic designation and landmark lot split. By the application, Plaintiff agreed to accept the voluntary designation of its Property as a Historic Landmark while simultaneously splitting the Property into two contiguous lots – Lot 1 (117 Neale Avenue) and Lot 2 (119 Neale Avenue) – both of which retained historic landmark designation on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Plaintiff’s request for the issuance of three TDRs was denied by Council. Thus, a complaint was filed on November 19, 2017 seeking the issuance of the three TDRs. Following settlement discussions, a settlement was reached in February of 2019, which allows the issuance of two TDRs. Pursuant to the settlement the case was dismissed on March 28, 2019. However, Mr. Shoaf still has an obligation under the settlement agreement to remove an improperly constructed shed and the City Council must still issue the two TDR’s, which cannot be issued prior to removal of the shed. Although the case is dismissed, because of these remaining obligations, we consider the case still open. Mountain Laurel LLC v. City of Aspen, City of Aspen Local Licensing Authority and Clark’s Market. A complaint was filed on September 4, 2018 seeking a review of the issuance of a liquor license to a local grocery store. Specifically, Plaintiff, Mountain Laurel, LLC, d/b/a Aspen Wine & Spirits seeks to overturn grant of a license by the City of Aspen Local Licensing Authority for the sale of fermented malt beverages to Aspen Grocery Inc., (Clark’s Market). Plaintiff is a competitor of Clark’s Market on the same property. The complaint is based on the assertion that there is no unfulfilled need for an additional beer license in the City of Aspen at this location. Plaintiff feels that it more than adequately fulfills all of the reasonable requirements and needs of the neighborhood it serves with regard to retail sale of beer, wine and spirituous beverages. The case is ongoing but is handled by an attorney appointed by the insurance carrier. Maximum liability should be $10,000. 127 Frontier, LLC v. 777 Gibson, LLC, the City of Aspen, et al. This case was filed on or about June 7, 2019. This is a matter between two adjacent property owners whereby one owner, Frontier, LLC, is asserting, based on the doctrine of adverse possession, ownership of a piece of property that has been previously claimed by its neighbor 777 Gibson, LLC. Pursuant to Aspen Land Use Code, Sec. 26.480.020A, the City is entitled to participate in this proceeding due to its potential impact on subdivision rules. Based on controversies associated with these properties, the City Attorney’s Office supported participation in the lawsuit. This will be handled in house and should have no financial implication to the City. 128 KISSINGER & FELLMAN, P.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW PTARMIGAN PLACE, SUITE 900 3773 CHERRY CREEK NORTH DRIVE DENVER, COLORADO 80209 RICHARD P. KISSINGER TELEPHONE: (303) 320-6100 KENNETH S. FELLMAN FAX: (303) 327-8601 JONATHAN M. ABRAMSON www.kandf.com BOBBY G. RILEY JORDAN C. LUBECK BRANDON M. DITTMAN PAUL D. GODEC, SPECIAL COUNSEL ATTORNEY – CLIENT PRIVILEGED M E M O R A N D U M TO: James True, City Attorney City of Aspen, Colorado FROM: Ken Fellman, Esq. DATE: March 10, 2018 RE: Approval of Franchise Renewal by Vote of Qualified Taxpaying Electorate Per your request, this memorandum addresses the issue of whether, with specific respect to the Comcast franchise renewal, the City of Aspen (“Aspen”) can legally enforce its Charter requirement that local voters must approve franchise agreements. While the Charter requires voter approval, the federal Cable Act requires franchise renewals to be approved when certain criteria are met – criteria that might not (and likely would not) be considered by voters in an election. If Aspen attempted to hold a vote on the franchise, and if that decision were challenged by Comcast, the analysis by the U.S. District Court of Colorado, in Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. v. City of Boulder, 151 F.Supp.2d 1236 (D. Colo. 2001),1 would likely form the foundation of a holding, and suggests that Aspen’s Charter provision is likely preempted by federal law. Introduction Local laws that require voter approval of cable franchises directly conflict with federal law and stifle Congressional intent. Qwest, 151 F.Supp.2d at 1242. Section 11.3 of Aspen’s Charter provides that “[n]o franchise shall be granted except upon approval by a majority of the electors voting thereon.” Meanwhile, the federal Cable Act (47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1)) regulates cable franchises and prohibits restraints on competition within local cable markets. The federal statute states: A franchising authority may award, … 1 or more franchises within its jurisdiction; except that a franchising authority may not grant an exclusive franchise and may not unreasonably refuse to award an additional competitive franchise. Any applicant whose application for a second franchise has been denied by a final decision of the franchising authority may appeal such final decision pursuant to the provisions of section 555 of this title for failure to comply with this subsection. 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) (emphasis added) 1 The lawsuit was initially filed by US West, but became Qwest Broadband Services, Inc. following a merger. 129 2 When a direct conflict between local and federal laws arise under the U.S. Constitution, the Supremacy Clause provides that, “[t]his Constitution and the Laws of the United States … shall be the supreme Law of the Land,” effectively allowing federal law to preempt local laws. As will be described in more detail below, while the Qwest case involved an application for a competitive franchise, and in Aspen, we are considering a franchise renewal, I strongly believe that the District Court’s reasoning would apply under the facts in Aspen. Discussion A number of Colorado municipalities’ charter provisions require public elections to accept franchises, similar to Aspen. In 2001, the City of Boulder was sued after it tried to enforce its charter provision that required voter approval of franchise agreements. Qwest argued that the City of Boulder violated the Cable Act and frustrated Congressional intent, which provides specific criteria for assessing whether to grant a franchise. The Boulder Charter requirement that required voter approval of franchises was found to directly conflict with the Cable Act. First, the Cable Act provides “guidance to, and restrictions on ‘franchising authorities.’” Qwest, 151 F.Supp.2d at 1242. The plain reading of the Act provides that a governmental entity cannot be replaced by the electorate because Congress intended the governmental entity to be capable of engaging in negotiations. Id. The Court went further to say by allowing voters final approval of a franchise agreement, “the City has abdicated franchising authority.” Id. Second, the Court found that “by allowing voters unfettered and unreviewed discretion to grant or reject a franchise,” local governments could not meet the affirmative requirements or prohibitions of franchising authorities. Among other prohibitions, the Cable Act prohibits franchising authorities from granting exclusive franchises, unreasonably refusing to award additional competitive franchises, and ordering a cable operator to discontinue a provision of a telecommunications service. Id. citing 47 U.S.C. § 541(a)(1) and (b)(3)(B). The Court found that the election requirement to approve cable franchise agreements directly conflicts with each of these provisions. Qwest, 151 F.Supp.2d at 1242. Even if the Court had not found that the local Charter directly conflicted with the Cable Act, the local Charter would be preempted because the Charter “conflicts with the clear Congressional purpose of the Communications Act,” and ultimately “stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.” Id. at 1243, citing Hines v. Davidowitz, 312 U.S. 52, 67-68 (1941). The language in the Communications Act clearly states that Congress intended to promote a managed competition scheme among cable operators at the local level and that Congress considered competition in local cable markets as essential. Id. at 1244, citing S. Rep. No. 92, 102d Cong., 1st Sess. 14 (1991), see also H.R. Conf. Rep. No. 862, 102d Cong., 2d Sess. 77 (1992), U.S. Code Cong. & Admin. News 1992, at 1231, 1259 (the 1992 Act “is intended to promote the development of competition….”). Under both the Supremacy Clause and conflict preemption doctrine, federal law preempts state and local law where local law conflicts with federal law. Ultimately, Judge Babcock held that the Cable Act preempted the City of Boulder’s Charter provision that required voter approval of franchises. 130 3 The facts in Qwest and Aspen are not identical. Qwest involved a new franchise; in Aspen, Comcast is seeking a franchise renewal. This distinction matters because the Cable Act provides separate criteria for a new franchise applicant versus the renewal of an incumbent franchise cable operator. The criteria for evaluating a renewal franchise are more detailed and specific than the criteria for granting a new franchise, that the federal law provides that if an incumbent cable operator meets those criteria, it is presumed to have a right to a renewal franchise. 47 U.S.C. § 546. Therefore, my opinion is that the rationale of Qwest applies more strongly to a franchise renewal, even though the facts of that case involved a new franchise. At this time, Qwest is the only case I am aware of that has addressed this issue. All that being said, the Qwest decision is not an appellate decision, and therefore not binding on another District Court. While we may speculate that another District Court judge would find Qwest credible, there is no rule of law that requires such an outcome. During the pendency of the Qwest case, I spoke to the then Boulder City Attorney and he explained that while he understood the merits of the preemption argument, it was important to the City to defend its Charter at least through the District Court process. While not an appellate decision, Judge Babcock’s ruling is a clear and logical reading of the statute, so I believe any other city that attempts to impose an election would not prevail, if challenged. Subsequent to the Qwest decision, I am aware of a number of cities (Fort Morgan, Colorado Springs and Fort Collins) that have decided not to enforce their Charters’ election requirements for cable franchises. Ultimately however, this is a decision for each individual community to make. Once you have had a chance to review this information, please advise if there is any other assistance I may provide, or if you have any questions regarding this legal opinion. 131