Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20151027 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 27, 2015 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. 2:00 p.m. - Site Visit Aspen Historical Soicety II. 4:00 p.m. Budget Work Session - Wrap-Up AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY JOINT MEETING DATE: October 27, 2015 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Rio Grande Recycling Center Cost Share Request between Pitkin County and the City of Aspen STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Cathy Hall, Pitkin County Solid Waste Manager _______________________________________________________________________________ ISSUE STATEMENT: County and City Staff are cooperating on several programs to increase the waste diversion rate in Aspen and Pitkin County. As a portion of those diversion efforts the County is requesting City Council allocate 50% of the cost share to support the services for the Rio Grande Recycling Center. BACKGROUND: Pitkin County has provided collection service to public drop-off recycling Centers for well over 15 years. The County entered into a contract with Waste Management in early 2014 to privatize collection at the Recycling Centers resulting in significant cost savings for the County. Prior to privatization the cost to service these Centers was approximately $350,000 to $400,000 annually. Privatization has increased collection efficiency and has resulted in cost savings. Since the conversion to single stream collection, there has been an approximately 30% increase in recycling materials deposited at the Rio Grande Recycling Center. The County currently covers the costs to manage and service the Recycling Center out of the Solid Waste Center’s (SWC) enterprise fund. No County tax or general fund dollars are used in the cost associated with managing the Recycling Center. County and City Staff conducted an informal survey for five days in July 2014 to determine the demography of Rio Grande recyclers. Responses to this survey suggest that 58% of people coming into the Rio Grande Center reside within COA limits; 75% of users were residential, and 25% were commercial. 89% of the commercial users were entities in Aspen and brought in significantly more material per load than did residential users. Both the County and City have ordinances in regard to recycling collection. Both codes require haulers to charge based on the amount of materials hauled away to encourage resource recovery and recycling. The County’s Waste Ordinance states that all waste haulers must offer curbside recycling services; however, it is up to the customer on whether or not they enter into a recycling collection contract with the hauler and recycling services are provided at an additional charge to trash services. The City’s Waste Ordinance requires recycling services be included in the base rate for trash service, so the customer is paying for recycling whether they utilize the service or not. The following table presents the current contracted costs for servicing the Centers and the County budget with a 50% cost sharing. P1 II. Recycling Center Budget (Based on Contracted Rates) Recycling Center Estimated Annual Budget County Budget Estimate with Cost Sharing Rio Grande/Aspen $190,000 $95,000 SWC $88,220 $88,220 Redstone $5,240 $5,240 Total $283,460 $188,460 Discussions between County and City staff indicated both organizations would like to improve the amount of material diverted from the landfill. As a result, the BOCC and City Council approved a waste assessment study and plan to determine the current recycling rates, areas for increased diversion improvement, and developing a plan to establish and meet diversion goals. COA and Pitkin County are conducting a joint waste diversion study and development of waste diversion goals for the community. A waste diversion plan will consist of determining baseline waste diversion data, creating diversion goals, and setting a timeline to meet those goals. Staff feel this is a worthwhile cooperative venture that will be done in unison with a cost sharing partnership of the Rio Grande Recycling Center. The waste assessment study began in July 2015 and phase 1 will conclude in early 2016. Preparation of a waste diversion plan will take approximately two years to complete, and will be done in two phases. The first phase will consist of data collection and stakeholder meetings. The second phase will be development of waste diversion goals and a plan to meet those objectives. The cost of Phase I of the diversion plan is $89,000 and has been appropriated in the 2015 Budget. COA will share the cost of this study with the County. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Conserve natural resources and environment of the Flourishing Natural and Built Environment Core Focus Area of the Pitkin County Strategic Plan. LINK TO THE ASPEN AREA COMMUNITY PLAN: Maximize recycling, implement waste reduction and environmentally responsible purchasing programs, and encourage behavior that moves the Aspen Area toward being a zero waste community and extends the life of the landfill. KEY DISCUSSION ITEMS: Does the City Council support a 50% cost share between Pitkin County and the City of Aspen for recycling services at the Rio Grande Center. RECOMMENDED CITY OF ASPEN COUNCIL ACTION: Provide funding in the COA 2016 budget to cover 50% of the costs to manage recycling collection at the Rio Grande Recycling Center. P2 II. 10/27/2015 2pm Site Visit Memo Aspen Historical Society Funding follow up Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: October 27, 2015, 2pm Site Visit only RE: Historical Society Funding Follow Up SUMMARY: This memo serves as a follow up to the discussions related to the Historical Society’s long term plans. Earlier this year the Historical Society applied to create TDRs from their Wheeler-Stallard property as part of an effort to provide some long term funding for their ongoing operations. Voters approved a taxing district for the Aspen Historical Society in 2005. The Historical Society has tabled their TDR application and is interested in working with City Council on some longer term funding options that preserve the existing civic use at the Wheeler-Stallard Museum, while supporting their ongoing community and school-based educational programing and their archives. Council is invited to a 2pm site visit on Tuesday October 27th to tour the Wheeler-Stallard facility, learn about the existing operations as well as the long term plans and needs, and provide some direction to staff and the Historical Society about next steps related to funding. At this time staff believes these conversations can occur during the site visit and would not need additional time at that evening’s work session. No formal decision is requested. BACKGROUND: In 2005, the AHS submitted a land use application requesting to subdivide the property by creating a 9,000 sq. ft. lot and to sterilize the development rights associated with the proposed lot by establishing sixteen (16) Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). At the time, the Planning and Zoning Commission supported the request, but it was not approved by City Council. There is a protective covenant between AHS and the Paepcke Estate regarding the Wheeler/Stallard property. AHS is currently working with the Paepcke Estate to clarify some of the language in the private covenant regarding the ability to construct affordable housing for employees, or sever TDRs. It should be noted that regardless of what the private covenant states, a land use review for any new development, including the creation of TDRs, is required. In March of 2005, the Aspen Historical Society (AHS) proposed the creation of a special park and recreation taxing district within Pitkin County. The district proposed was essentially equivalent to the Aspen School District. As part of the creation of this district, AHS sought a property tax levy on all properties within the district. P3 II. 10/27/2015 2pm Site Visit Memo Aspen Historical Society Funding follow up Page 2 of 3 According to state law, in order to form a special taxing district the proponents of the district must submit to local governments and the public a service plan outlining various statutory requirements. The plan includes detailed financial projections and budgeting. Following submission of the Service Plan, the City of Aspen submitted comments and concerns regarding the plan. One of the concerns expressed was whether tax funding source (.3 mills) was adequate on a long term basis. In addition, the City inquired as to the use of proceeds from the sale of TDR’s that had been contemplated by the AHS. In response to this letter the AHS explained its understanding of its resources and future funding but noted that the use of proceeds from TDR’s would be specified if an application for TDR’s was ever submitted. The potential for TDR’s was not set forth in the Service Plan. However, the following description was provided regarding AHS assets: 1. Wheeler/Stallard Museum, Carriage House and Grounds, 620 West Bleeker Street, City of Aspen. This facility consists of a fully-restored 1888 Victorian mansion that currently houses historic artifacts, exhibits, and the AHS offices. The Carriage House houses more than 6,000 artifacts, 13,000 historic photographs and 3,500 other archival papers. The Wheeler/Stallard grounds consist of nearly an entire city block including a lush garden that is available for public events and gatherings1. In the November 2005 election, the district was created and the property tax approved. The tax is still in place. Earlier this year, AHS submitted a new land use application requesting to subdivide the property to create a 9,000 sq. ft. lot and to sterilize a portion of the development rights associated with the proposed lot by establishing twelve (12) Transferable Development Rights (TDRs). That request has been tabled. DISCUSSION: Staff has met with AHS to gain insight on their existing operations and potential future needs, as well as areas the City could be of assistance. Staff is interested in Council’s feedback regarding potential future funding options for AHS, particularly as it relates to the general policy questions listed below. Based on Council direction, staff will continue to work with AHS as appropriate. 1. Does City Council wish for AHS to seek additional funding through their taxing district before exploring funding options from the City? 2. Are there any funding options that should or should not be up for discussion between the City and AHS? 3. Are there any City-related requirements that should or should not be up for discussion between the City and AHS? Staff has brainstormed a list of potential requirements in exchange for a City funding/partnership with AHS and is interested if Council believes any options should be added or removed as conversations with AHS continue. 1 Note AHS is responsible for even more artifacts now P4 II. 10/27/2015 2pm Site Visit Memo Aspen Historical Society Funding follow up Page 3 of 3 a. Rezoning to Public. This is a policy listed in the latest Aspen Area Community Plan, as a way to ensure longevity of the City’s quasi-public assets from moving into more private development (the Given, Silverlining Ranch, etc). b. City ownership of archives. This could be a partnership or complete ownership of the archives. The Historical Society is responsible for the preservation of essential and irreplaceable records of the City’s history. Multiple City departments utilize the archives, particularly the Community Development Department and the HPC. c. Limiting development rights. This could be tied to the rezoning to Public or used as a standalone option. This likely means establishing a Planned Development that sets a maximum floor area and better legalizes the existing use. The set floor area could be limited to what’s there today, set at some other amount, or establish a set number of TDRs that could be created. d. New protective covenant. Place a protective covenant on the property that the City has first right of refusal to buy the property and that the property is forever limited to public and quasi-public uses. This is a lot like rezoning Public, but potentially has more permanency. e. City ownership of land. The City would have an undivided interest in in the Historical Society’s land (likely only those areas within City Limits). This looks a lot like the protective covenant, but the City would have the ability to own the land. f. Amended protective covenant. The City could work with AHS and the Paepcke Estate on the existing covenant to enable the City to seek remedies if the Wheeler-Stallard property is taken out of civic/public use in the future. AHS is currently in discussions with the Paepcke Estate to determine if this is an option. NEXT STEPS: No formal direction from Council is requested at this time. Staff will continue to work with AHS to understand their immediate and longer term needs. AHS may request individual support from City Council members if they choose to seek additional taxing authority. Staff will return at a later date with potential funding and requirement options. P5 II. TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Mirte Mallory, WE-cycle, Co-Founder and Director DATE OF MEETING: October 27, 2015 RE: WE-cycle Supplemental Funding Request through City of Aspen Transportation Fund. REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Approve a one-time $38,433.24 supplemental funding request to the 2016 City of Aspen Transportation budget to provide operational funding to WE-cycle. WE-cycle provides Aspen with 24/7 bike transit services from May 15 – November 1 as a complementary transit option to the City of Aspen funded services including bus, dial-a-ride, car share, commuter and employer programs. The funding will cover the hard-operating costs, excluding staffing, of 9 WE-cycle stations located on City of Aspen bus routes. These WE- cycle stations enhance Aspen’s multi-modal transportation offerings and network by providing an on-demand, 24/7, flexible mode of transportation. WE-cycle also requests a work session with Council in early January 2016 to provide an update on WE-cycle’s learnings after 3 years of operations, present its 3-Year Strategic Plan, and to discuss and articulate WE-cycle’s relationship with the City of Aspen, in the short and long-term, specifically with regards to synergistic partnership opportunities and capital and operational funding. WE-CYCLE, AN OVERVIEW: WE-cycle, a 501(c)3 nonprofit organization, was founded as a public/priviate partnership with the mission to provide easily accessible and affordable bikes within Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley as the “first/last mile” connection to the transit corridor and as a form of pedal-powered mobility for around town transportation. WE-cycle’s vision is one of increased bike and multi-modal transportation use fostering a more livable, vibrant, healthy, and environmentally engaged community. WE-cycle will conclude its third operating season on November 1st withover 20,000 rides which amounts to a doubling of ridership since its opening year. WE-cycle opened in Aspen in 2013 as North America’s first and only bike share system located in a mountain town, the 34th program in the US. (Today there are 65 bike share programs in the US.) WE-cycle came to fruition thanks to the financial contributions and visionary support of many of Aspen’s leading P6 II. organizations. These Founding Partners include The Aspen Institute, Aspen Meadows Resort, Aspen Skiing Company, Aspen Valley Hospital, City of Aspen, Genshaft Cramer LLP, Nick DeWolf Foundation, TheMyersRobertsCollective, Pitkin County, and the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority. WE-cycle’s start-up and initial capital infrastructure were funded by its Founding Partners, a federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality grant through the City of Aspen and Pitkin County, private donors, grantors and foundations. WE-CYCLE’S ALIGNMENT WITH ASPEN’S COMMUNITY GOALS AND COUNCIL GOALS: Ø In community surveys, Aspen residents regularly identify traffic congestion and air quality as two of the greatest threats to Aspen’s quality of life.1 o WE-cycle came to fruition out of a commitment to being part of the solution to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. Ø The Canary Initiative’s Community Goal is to reduce carbon emissions by 30% by 2020. The community – public and private entities – were asked to participate in providing solutions and alternatives to help achieve this goal. o WE-cycle is a public/private partnership which is already having a tangible and measurable impact in helping achieve this goal by taking cars of the road. o Since 2013, an estimated 40,000 lbs of carbon emissions have been avoided by using WE-cycle. Ø 19% of Aspen’s carbon emissions are generated from vehicles traveling within and to or from Aspen, the third largest source of greenhouse gas 1 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan Community Surveys P7 II. emissions.2 A recent study of vehicle miles of travel – VMT – (all motor types) estimated 401,524 vehicle miles travelled attributable to the City of Aspen on an average day.3 o WE-cycle’s goal is to reduce carbon emissions by encouraging individuals to use a WE-cycle for their in-town trips rather than relying on a car and to provide a bikes to get around Aspen such that one may ride the bus into Aspen from an adjacent community, thereby magnifying the reduction in vehicle miles travelled. Meet Antonio who lives in Parachute and works in Aspen. He rides WE-cycle to go to the bank and for errands at lunch. WE-cycle and its Transit App introduced him to the convenience of riding RFTA. Antonio is now riding RFTA from Parachute, 83.5 miles away, into Aspen. He then hops on WE-cycle to ride his final leg to work. Antonio is now part of the solution by avoiding an estimated 41,750 VMT annually and 17.18 metric tons of carbon emissions. o WE-cycle is committed to feeding riders to RFTA to reduce the long- haul vehicle miles into Aspen, 85% of WE-cyclers would be more inclined to ride RFTA if one had access to WE-cycle at either end (based on 2014 Passholder Survey) Ø Aspen City Council Top Ten Goals, August 2015 – July 2017 Council Goal #1: Identify and determine feasibility of viable alternatives to personal vehicles including “next generation” mobility technology in order to improve the downtown experience. o WE-cycle, in collaboration with its internationally-based transit partners, is providing critical leadership in helping accomplish this goal by bringing innovative mobility technology to Aspen in the form of the Transit App. Transit App aggregates all transit offerings in one handy, free app, such that individuals are informed in real-time of all of the alternatives to driving a personal vehicle in one place, with one swipe. o WE-cycle was chosen as the beta-test bike share program in North America to use Transit App’s new bike share purchase check out integration. WE-cyclers are currently using the app to check out a bike 2 2014 Greenhouse Gas Inventory 3 2015 Aspen VMT Model P8 II. and plan RFTA routes. WE-cycle feedback will help improve the product before its rolls out worldwide. Council Goal #6: Develop and implement a plan to reduce traffic within the next two years. o The ongoing success of WE-cycle is a critical component to the implementation of this multi-pronged, multi-mode, multi-jurisdictional P9 II. plan. WE-cycle is already on the ground with a proven record of being used to reduce traffic and congestion. o 36% of WE-cycle rides replace car trips (based on 2014 Passholder Survey) o 30% of WE-cyclers ride to avoid traffic (based on 2014 Passholder Survey) o 46% of WE-cyclers ride to avoid parking (based on 2014 Passholder Survey) o 53% of the Aspen Brewing Company Station rides originate from outside of the core, an example of how WE-cycle provides a direct route to the downtown core thereby reducing a vehicle trip into town WE-CYCLE: A TRANSIT PROVIDER Since its founding, the nature of WE-cycle’s services have evolved from a bike share program to becoming an integral part of the valley’s transit system. As ridership data affirms its use for primarily transit purposes, WE-cycle has adjusted its operations to provide a reliable, safe, and efficient transportation service. Providing these services increases operational costs. WE-cycle must retain a skilled and trained Operations Team on-duty, 7 am – 10 pm, 7-days a week. WE-cycle contracts with an after-hours call center to answer customer calls from 10 pm – 7 am nightly in addition to having a staff member on call every night in case of an emergency or system malfunction. Ø Serving primarily locals and valley-residents o In 2015, WE-cycle’s 526 season passholders completed 62% of WE-cycle rides, averaging 8.1 minutes. 97.5% of passholder rides are under 30 minutes. WE-cycle experienced a 22% growth in season passholders in 2015, a confirmation of its convenient, flexible, on-demand complementary transit service. Ø 24/7 service provider o 37.5% of WE-cycle’s rides are between 5 pm and 8 am o 2.2% of rides are between 2 am and 6:30 am when bus service is not available. The Aspen Valley Hospital Station has the most rides during this period. WE-cycle is thereby extending the hours of Aspen’s complete transit system without adding extended hours and costs to this City of Aspen bus route. o 34% of system bike balancing occurs between 5pm and 8am P10 II. Ø First/last mile service o The new 8th Street Station is an excellent example of how WE-cycle seamlessly connects with bus service/hubs by providing riders with a faster, healthier and non-personal vehicle option to get to and from the bus. 8th Street is the first/last BRT stop into and out of Aspen. § In 2015, WE-cycle’s most traveled routes are: • FROM 8th Street TO Aspen Meadows • TO 8th Street FROM Aspen Meadows § The Aspen Music Tent Station surged from the 14th most utilized station in 2014 to the 8th most frequented in 2015. This significant increase in attributed to the 8th Street Station from which 23% of the rides began. § 10% of 8th Street’s WE-cycle arrivals are from the Aspen Valley Hospital Station, a pattern WE-cycle attributes to 8th Street being the last BRT stop as buses are leaving Aspen. o The Molly Gibson Station, the second BRT stop coming into/out of Aspen is also an important transit hub for WE-cycle. § It serves as the #1 feeder station to the City Hall | Peach’s Station, an example of a faster, and more physically fit, route to work at City Hall. § It serves as the second most frequent feeder station to the Music Tent Station Ø On-demand, point-to-point transit service o One of WE-cycle’s differentiators as a transit offering is its on- demand flexibility. With bike share one is on one’s own schedule not relying on a fixed route. o WE-cycle thereby adds options to Aspen’s transit services by allowing users to ride directly from one station to another, without transfers, at whatever time one chooses. This service is an excellent complement to Aspen’s in-town and well-utilized services. o As an example, a WE-cycle user can ride directly from Hunter Creek to the Aspen Meadows in approximately 10 minutes whereas taking the bus would require a transfer then a walk and take 3 times as long, as demonstrated from Transit App’s Trip Planner below: P11 II. Ø Regional transit provider o While currently only operating in Aspen, WE-cycle serves valley- wide residents, with 43% of WE-cycle passholders living outside of Aspen. o WE-cycle would like to offer both first and last mile valley-wide. 78% of WE-cycle passholders would ride WE-cycle in other communities in the Roaring Fork Valley. o With the proven success of WE-cycle as an enhancement to a comprehensive transit system in Aspen, other communities in the Roaring Fork Valley are exploring the implementation of WE-cycle for their transit purposes. § The Basalt Town Council resolved: “The Basalt Town Council hereby supports establishing WE-cycle as Basalt’s first public transportation system as it is aligned with Basalt’s goals.” - Resolution No. 46, Series of 2015 o WE-cycle is exploring the implementation of a system in Basalt in 2016, pending the securing of both capital and operating funding from both public and private partners. o Committed to maintaining the valuable complementary service WE- cycle’s 24/7 bike transit services provides to RFTA’s fixed-route long and short-haul bus services, RFTA granted WE-cycle $20,000 in 2015 and $25,000 in 2016 to support these services. o In order to facilitate and augment transit use, WE-cycle envisions a future in which one can purchase a pass that provides access to both WE-cycle and RFTA valley-wide. The implementation of technology such as Transit App and collaborative partnerships can make this seamless integration a reality. P12 II. WE-CYCLE: A PUBLIC | PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP As WE-cycle transitions from its 3-year experimental phase as a pioneering bike share program in a small town to having become an integral and relied-upon mode of transit within the City of Aspen, WE-cycle is seeking to diversify and add predictability to its revenue sources. To date, the private sector (sponsorship, grants, donations) and pass sales have provided the significant majority of WE- cycle’s revenue. As WE-cycle was founded on the principle of public/private partnership, and serves primarily as a public transit service, WE-cycle is asking the public sector for annual operating funds. WE-cycle worked closely with the City of Aspen Transportation Department in formalizing this request as it is aligned with enhancing the City of Aspen’s transit offerings (See attached Supplemental Request which was submitted as part of the budget process in summer of 2015.) The $38,433 being requested accounts for hard-operating costs of 9 WE-cycle stations located on City of Aspen bus routes to help WE-cycle provide Aspen with a bike transit service. This financial support from the City of Aspen to WE-cycle will account for 12% of WE-cycle’s provisional 2016 revenue projections. By contrast, sponsorship would account for 33% and private grants and donations for 21%. In order to retain private support of this public transit service, it is important that the public sector participate in a meaningful way. 33%   21%   21%   12%   8%   2%  3%   2016 Provisional Revenue - $330,400 Sponsorship - $110,000 System Generated Pass Sales - $70,000 Grants/Private Donations - $69,067 City of Aspen - Transportation Fund Request - $38,433 RFTA Grant Approved - $25,000 Special Events - $7,000 Trade | In Kind | Misc - $10,900 P13 II. Below is chart of WE-cycle’s revenues as projected for 2015. WE-cycle is on track to break-even in 2015. Below is an overview of WE-cycle’s revenue and expenses. WE-cycle operates on a very lean budget while still striving to retain skilled and exceptional staff. With partnership at the core of its mission, WE-cycle is an active collaborator and is grateful for its over 60 community partners and sponsors. WE-cycle thanks the City of Aspen and the City of Aspen Transportation Department for its close partnership and looks forward to many years of enhanced synergies in helping realize our mutual goals. 42%   25%   13%   8%   5%   5%   1%  1%   2015 Board Approved Revenue - $238,900 Sponsorship - $100,000 System Generated Pass Sales - $60,000 Private Donations/Grants - $30,000 RFTA Grant - $20,000 Special Events - $13,000 Trade | In Kind | Misc - $10,900 City of Aspen Non-Profit Grant - $3,000 Pitkin County Healthy Communities Fund Grant - $2,000 P14 II. EXHIBITS: • City of Aspen Transportation Dept Supplement Request, Summer 2015 P15 II. EXHIBIT:  Supplemental  Funding  Request   TRANSPORTATION  –  WE-­‐cycle  Annual  Station  Costs     Summary  of  Request:   • The  Transportation  Dept.  is  requesting  $38,433.24  for  the  purpose  of  covering  annual   expenses  related  to  9  WE-­‐cycle  stations  located  on  City  of  Aspen  bus  routes.   • This  request  is  considered  ongoing  and  may  increase  annually  based  on  the  number  of   stations  the  City  determines  necessary  to  augment  local  transit  routes.   Proposed  Solution  and  Outcomes:   • These  new  resources  will  allow  the  City  of  Aspen  to  ensure  continued  operation  of  stations   considered  key  to  local  transit  connectivity  and  continuity.  Examples  include  stations  located   along  seasonal  transit  routes  (providing  a  transit  service  when  seasonal  routes  are  not   operating)  and  stations  along  routes  with  high  transit  demand  (as  options  during  peak  times).   • Outcomes  from  this  change  will  equate  to:  the  continuity  of  bike  sharing  as  a  transit  option   along  key  transit  corridors  specific  to  the  City  of  Aspen  system.   Specific  Role  /  Duties  /  Use  of  New  Resources:   • New  resources  will  be  applied  to  hard  costs  related  to  the  bike  share  stations  including   insurance,  installation,  software,  replacement  parts  and  cellular  connectivity.   • These  funds  will  not  be  used  to  cover  WE-­‐cycle  staffing  costs.     Current  Environment  and  Resources:   • The  need  for  these  resources  is  related  to  bike  sharing  proving  to  be  an  important  partner  in   Aspen’s  transit  system  via  providing  a  last-­‐mile  and/or  additional  option  along  Aspen’s  transit   routes.   • Staff  recommends  the  funding  of  annual  costs  for  stations  along  key  City  of  Aspen  routes,   especially  those  lacking  in  year-­‐round  service,  lacking  in  capacity  and/or  lacking  in  service   hours.     Assumptions  and  Calculations:   • The  amount  of  $38,433.24  was  derived  by  working  with  WE-­‐cycle  to  determine  hard  costs   related  to  specific  station  locations.         Enter  Eden  line  Item  #  $0  80***  Payroll  and  Benefits   Enter  Eden  line  Item  #  0  81***  Training,  Travel  &  Education   141-­‐34-­‐34000-­‐                                                                                                                                           new  line  item  in  operations  budget   38,433.24   82***  Professional  Fees   Enter  Eden  line  Item  #  0  83***  Materials  and  Supplies   Enter  Eden  line  Item  #  0  84***  Contribution   Enter  Eden  line  Item  #  0  86***  Fixed  Asset  Expenditures  >$5k   Total  Requested  Authority  38,433.24       P16 II.