HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20121031
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John D. Krueger, Director of Transportation
THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: October 24, 2012
MEETING DATE: October 30, 2012
RE: Revised Rubey Park Funding Request of the EOTC
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
Staff is seeking direction and approval to move forward with a
revised funding request submitted to the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) at
the meeting on October 12, 2012 in the amount of $200,000 for the planning, scoping and public
involvement/outreach for the Rubey Park Transit Center for the next 20 years. If Council
approves the request for planning funds, it would go forward to each jurisdiction for approval at
their regular meetings as a part of the 2013 EOTC Budget.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
At a previous Council work session staff provided a
briefing to Council on the October 18, EOTC meeting. During the briefing staff asked Council
for direction and if they agreed with the proposed EOTC funding request for the planning,
outreach, design and engineering of Rubey Park in the amount of $500,000. Council directed
staff to go ahead with the request. At the October 18, 2012 EOTC meeting, City Council as a
member of the EOTC agreed to any action on this funding request until a work session
between staff and City Council could be held. The 2013 EOTC proposed budget is waiting on
direction from City Council before going forward for approval.
BACKGROUND:
Rubey Park has been in operation for over 30 years and has served the transit
system well. It was built to accommodate a much smaller transit system than it accommodates
today. The transit facility is almost at the end of its useful life and is in need of repair,
rehabilitation and redesign in order for it to keep up with current and future bus operations,
including but not limited to BRT. (Please see the attached EOTC memo for more details).
DISCUSSION:
After the October 18, EOTC meeting Transportation staff met with staff from Asset
Management, Engineering, and the Parks Department to discuss Rubey Park. All agreed to team
up and help with the project. Transportation, Engineering and RFTA will contribute funds
towards some basic repairs in 2013 with funds contained within their budgets.
Page 1 of 4
Basic repairscouldinclude fixing the tripping hazards in the sidewalks, curb and gutter
replacement, a new interior paint scheme, floor repair, and some fixture replacement.
Beyond these basic repairs to the building and sidewalks, the staff consensus was that thefacility
needs to go through a comprehensive pre-design and planning process with public outreach and
involvement. The project could be divided up into the following phases:
Phase I: Project planning, scoping, public involvement/outreach and conceptual
design
Phase II: 30% Preliminary Design
Phase III: Final Design (Plans & Specifications)
Phase IV: Project Construction
Phase V: 20 year plan
Phase VI: New multi-use Transit Center
Phase I:
The first phase would include planning, scope of work, public outreach and conceptual design.
This phase will require an interdisciplinary project consultant team. A Request for Proposals
(RFP) would be issued.
The funding request to the EOTC in the amount of $200,000 beginning in 2013 would be used
for this phase of the project.
Phase I could have the following planning elements:
Existing Conditions and Site Assessment $25,000
Existing usage, problems and issues
o
Limitations of current facility
o
Engineering Research
o
Building, Site, Easement and ROW Survey
o
Drainage Plan
o
Utility Assessment and research
o
Quality of Experience
o
Assessment of future demand (BRT and other transit services)
o
Needs assessment $50,000
Project Goals and design issues clarified
o
Identify possible improvements needed
o
Technical needs and wants for transit facility
o
Social needs and wants
o
Prioritize needs and wants
o
Design Assessment $50,000
Clarify the needs, wants and desires for the transit facility for design purposes
o
Sustainable Goals
o
Page 2 of 4
Conceptual design $25,000
Illustrate design concepts based on the needs and priorities established in the
design assessment
Public Involvement/Outreach $50,000
As with most major projects the public outreach and involvement portion of the design budget
could be significant
This planning process would also address a 20 year plan for the facility and a conceptual plan for
a new multi-use transit center of the future.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
An upgrade to Rubey Park to make it function more efficiently could improve ridership on transit
and reduce bus idling and bus repositioning around town. Both of these impacts would have a
positive effect on the environment.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
There would be no immediate impact to the City of Aspen budget. If the project moves forward
there could be budgetary impacts related to design or construction.
Phase I Planning: $200,000-EOTC
The funding request to the EOTC in the amount of $200,000 beginning in 2013 would be used
toward the first phase of the project for planning and public outreach.
After talking to Tom Oken with the County about the impacts of funding this request from the
ETA lockbox or the $3 million capital pool, staff recommends that this funding would come out
of the $3 million capital pool. After funding is provided for the AABC underpass for $1,125,000
there will be a balance of $1,875,000 left in the $3 million capital pool.
The $3 million capital pool is made up of funding from the ETA lock box at 50% and the
Snowmass lock box at 50%. The two lock boxes would eventually be repaid from discretionary
funds for any project funded from the $3 million capital pool. During the creation of the current
EOTC spending policy including the $3 million capital pool for projects Rubey Park was
prioritized as one of the top projects to be funded from the pool and a reason for creating the
pool.
If the project is funded from the ETA lockbox as originally requested there would be no future
repayment to the ETA lockbox and available funding for future projects could be reduced.
Phases II & III Design:
Funding for design phases II and III, of the project would be requested from the EOTC capital
pool.
Page 3 of 4
Phase IV Construction:
It is important to note that funding for construction has been anticipated but not resolved.
Funding sources could include funding from grant opportunities, the City of Aspen, RFTA or the
EOTC.
The Transportation staff (with help from RFTA staff) have applied for a statewide FASTER
grant for construction of improvements to Rubey Park. An important consideration for this grant
is local commitment to the project, local investment in the project and at least a 30% design level
of the project. A 100% final design of the project would be preferred. If local investment can be
demonstrated with the planning funding request to the EOTC approved the project becomes
much more competitive in the eyes of the grant evaluators. If the community views this project
as important it is critical to get it to a fully designed-shovel ready project as soon as possible.
It is important to note that CDOT is strongly considering this project for statewide funding if
funding for planning through final design is provided locally.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff is seeking approval to move forward with a revised EOTC
funding request for 2013 in the amount of $200,000 for the planning, scoping and public
outreach of the Rubey Park Transit Center.
ALTERNATIVES:
If Council does not want to approve the staff recommendation for planning
funding, the minor building repairs programmed in 2013 would go forward as planned but the
rest of the facility would remain in its current condition. This will compromise the current and
future bus operations, aesthetics and other issues associated with Rubey Park.
Another alternative would be to replace all of the existing concrete flatwork in the facility (bus
parking and staging areas and sidewalk area) at an estimated cost of $1.2 million. No change in
design or use would be made. The old failing concrete would be removed and replaced with new
concrete. This would not solve any structural long term problems but would help in the near
term.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Page 4 of 4