HomeMy WebLinkAboutInformation Only 052824AGENDA
INFORMATION UPDATE
May 28, 2024
5:00 PM,
I.Information Update
I.A ACRA Destination Marketing April Report
I.B Follow-up Memorandum: Construction and Demolition Debris Diversion - Code
Considerations
I.C State of Aspen’s Forest - 2023 Year-in-Review
I.D Transportation Updates for Fleet Replacement and RFTA Zero Emission Planning
I.E Tobacco Tax Follow Up Memo
I.F Work Session Follow-up Memorandum
Community Development Fee Discussion - 5/13/24
DM_Dashboard_April2024.pdf
C+D Diversion Work Session May 13 2024 - Follow up memo.docx
State_of_the_Forest_Memo_240521.pdf
Attachment A - ZEV Plan Board Presentation 4-11-24.pdf
info_memo_zev_update_and_fleet_replacements_april_2024.pdf
Work_Session_Follow-Up_Memo.docx
Work_Session_Follow-Up_Memo.docx
1
1
April 2024 Destination Marketing Report for Council
Please note that while this is an April report, reporting on March activity, the ACRA Visitor Center Pavilion is closed
May until early June. Pitkin County Airport is also closed from May 6 – 23 for runway improvements.
On April 30th the ACRA Board of Directors participated in a retreat alongside staff. We look forward to returning to our
regular Board report following the May 28th Board Meeting, until then please enjoy the metrics as usual:
Sales Tax Reports:
As of the February 2024 Consumption Tax Report, released in April, the 2024 Tourism Promotion Fund is coming in 2%
ahead of 2023 collections and 2% above projections.
Recent Press Coverage
Occupancy statistics and commentary, as well as visitor center counts, website data and air service information can now
be found on the following page in the Defy Ordinary Dashboard. All data points are sourced from our monthly report
with Blue Room Research and can be found in the Data Center on the website.
2
HOTEL
OCCUPANCY
ASE
PASSENGER
DATA
VISITOR
CENTER
COUNTS
KEY
TAKEAWAYS
WEBSITE
STATS
ACRA's 4 Visitor Information Centers saw a 79%
increase in traffic in March 2024 as compared
to March 2023. Staff assisted 11,316 individuals
this year.
APRIL 202 4
In March 2024, Aspen's lodging properties reported
the following:
•Occupancy fell 5.6% YOY to 73.5%
•Average Daily Rate increased 4.7% YOY to $1056
•Room Nights Available increased 8.7% YOY
•Room Nights Booked increased 2.6% YOY
Aspen Airport saw an increase of 11.5% for March
enplanements & deplanements YOY.
March load factor was 73.5% vs. 72.1% in 2023.
March enplanements are actually lower than 2019 &
2022 attributed to many more flights in early April,
pushing volume for outbound passengers into April.
Aspen website top performing blogs and pages for March 2024
Blogs:
1.Winter Family Fun in Aspen, CO (2,500 views)
2.5 Reasons to Ski Aspen in March (2,311 views)
3.Spring Skiing in Aspen (2,060 views)
4.10 Reason to use ACRA for Group Travel(1,735 views)
5.5 Reasons to Consider an Aspen Wedding (1,379 views)
Pages:
1.Maroon Bells Reservations (19,842 views)2.Homepage (8,524 views)3.Winter in Aspen (8,200 views) 4.Events (6,829 views)5.Discover the Maroon Bells (4,197 views)
•“Desirable on-mountain conditions boosted March’s performance, solidifying once again the assertion
that snowfall is the make-or-break element. Despite strong snowfall boosting March bookings, the
winter season For West Region Markets as a whole remains relatively unchanged from last month.
Occupancy decline has not changed, remaining down -3.8 percent, while ADR gain has decreased, now
up +2.4 percent.”•Short Term Rental National Stats: The combination of slowing supply and surging demand increased
March occupancy. After overcoming January’s weak occupancy, 2024 has so far enjoyed higher
occupancies YOY, with February 0.9% higher and March 2.0% higher. These two months of positive
YOY occupancy growth come after a 23-month streak of falling YOY occupancies following the
remarkable highs of 2021.
3
4
5
6
7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: David Coon, City Forester
THROUGH: Austin Weiss, Director of Parks and Recreation
MEMO DATE: May 20th, 2024
MEETING DATE: May 28th, 2024
RE: State of Aspen’s Forest - 2023 Year-in-Review
PURPOSE: The purpose of this memo is to update the Mayor and Council on the condition of
Aspen’s community forest at the conclusion of 2023. The ‘State of the Forest’ summarizes the
city’s initiatives and current forest conditions, including changes to our inventory, new
management strategies, and current threats to the community forest. These three main sections
of this memo focus on challenges and progress made toward maintaining a healthy and resilient
resource.
SUMMARY:
1. INVENTORY AND FOREST METRICS
The City of Aspen uses species diversity, size diversity and canopy cover as metrics to monitor
the overall health of the urban forest.
Species Diversity – Diversity is a crucial
component of the overall health of the urban
forest ecosystem. Best management practices
recommend that no single tree species exceed
10 percent of the total tree population. Plant
diversity is a mechanism that helps keep insect
and disease outbreaks from having a significant
impact on the forest as a whole. The city
forester actively promotes the use of new tree
species, and updates to the Aspen Arbor Guide
in 2023 offer resources for diverse planting and
provides a comprehensive resource to assist
the community in tree selection and care.
8
While narrowleaf cottonwood remains our most
common species, we can see from the adjacent table
that many of the traditional community species are
being balanced by the planting of new species
(represented in the table’s ‘other’ category). This
includes species such as hybrid maples, oaks, and
lindens. Please note the number of trees inventoried
continues to be expanded which impacts species
diversity percentages. Recently mapped trees account
for a 13% increase in the ‘other’ category and a 7%
decrease in narrowleaf cottonwood percentage
showing progress towards our diversity goals.
Size Diversity - Varying tree size is also important to the overall
health and value of the community forest. A higher
percentage of small and medium-sized trees (12-18” DBH) is
essential for the future health of an urban forest to replace
large trees that reach the end of their natural life cycle.
Aspen’s goal is to maintain at least 50% of its trees within this
size range. The percentage of trees in the 12-18” size class has
increased since 2017 showing some progress toward this goal.
Canopy Cover - The City of Aspen has a goal of maintaining a minimum 30% canopy cover for the
city. Uban tree canopy cover (UTC) is a useful metric indicating the environmental, social, and
economic benefits of trees. UTC is measured from a combination of satellite imagery and liDAR
data. The UTC for Aspen has been recently measured as 35.7% for the entire land area within city
limits. In addition to setting baseline goals for community benefits, Aspen’s Urban Tree Canopy
metrics also assist with:
- Informing management decisions to help reach canopy goals such as tree planting or
weighting tree values when making tree preservation decisions.
- Tracking the changes and impacts to the urban forest from activities and impacts such
as development, climate change, disturbances, and pests and disease.
The City also publishes an online, public-facing tree inventory and canopy tool. Users are able to
view key metrics of Aspen’s canopy in an easy-to-view platform. A link to Aspen's Tree Plotter
Software
2. MANAGEMENT
Unit Management - The City of Aspen manages its community forest with the use of both in-
house and contracted pruning, removal, planting, and health treatment services. Management
units are maintained on a six-year rolling cycle. In 2023, the city implemented two key changes
to better utilize our inventory and enhance the management of each unit.
Tree Species Species
Percentage
2017 2023
Narrowleaf
Cottonwood 34% 27%
Quaking Aspen 25% 24%
Blue Spruce 20% 17%
Lanceleaf Cottonwood 4% 3.3%
Green Ash 4% 3.2%
Crabapple 4% 3.3%
Norway Maple 2.7% 2.7%
Other 6.3% 19.5%
Tree Size
Class
Percentage of Trees
within Size Class
2017 2023
0-3in 7.5% 6.8%
3-6in 18.2% 19.6%
6-12in 39.7% 38.2%
12-18in 19.5% 20.8%
18-24in 7.8% 7.6%
24-30in 3.4% 3.3%
>30in 3.7% 3.5%
9
i. Addition of a new management unit - Unit VI consists of 2,135 trees and includes the
Aspen Golf Course as well as city owned and operated housing: Truscott, Water Place,
Burlingame Ranch, Marolt housing, Castle Creek Apartments, and 517 Park Circle. See
APPENDIX A for an updated map of the City’s six management unit areas.
ii. Change to a yearly rolling inventory project – With this approach a unit is inventoried
in the calendar year prior to its management. This gives the city forester timely and
relevant data to base his maintenance goals on. In 2023 we solicited bids for a 2024
inventory project to map Unit V.
2023 Management Highlights - In 2023 the city
focused on management Unit III which consists
of the commercial core east of Mill Street
including the neighborhood east of Original.
Within Unit III we performed crown cleaning,
clearance pruning, and hazard pruning as well as
tree removals and planting. We spent
approximately $60,000 on contracted work in
Unit III.
The forestry program planted a total of 108
trees, 12 of which were in Unit III, and removed
71 trees across the city for health or
safety/structural issues, 8 of which were in Unit III.
Early Fall Snow Storm - On October 29th and
30th Aspen received about 8” of heavy snow,
and many trees were still in full leaf, causing
widespread tree damage across town. The
city spent approximately $30,000 in storm
response cleanup and hazard mitigation tree
work. The Parks staff undertook an all-hands
on deck effort following the storm, and the
cleanup effort removed approximately 15
tons of debris. The impacted trees were
primarily mature cottonwood, aspen, silver
maple, and Siberian elm. Due to the size of
limbs affected by this particular storm, there
were many “hangers” which became hazards over sidewalks and roads and had to be
expeditiously removed.
3. CURRENT THREATS TO THE URBAN FOREST
Douglas-fir Beetle - The City of Aspen continues to lead an inter-agency group monitoring and
actively managing Doug-fir beetle populations causing tree mortality on Aspen Mountain. The
group is comprised of stakeholders from the City of Aspen, Aspen Fire, ACES, Pitkin County, US
10
Forest Service, Aspen Skiing Companay and the Colorado State Forest Service. In June, a team
successfully completed a second year of MCH pheromone packet installation and trapping on
166 acres across Shadow Mountain and the flanks of Aspen Mountain. The map in APPENDIX B
shows affected areas and the areas treated with grids of MCH pheromone packets for both
2022 and 2023. During the 2022 MCH packet installation it was determined by the ground
crews that the western slopes of Shadow Mountain were unsafe for access and therefore
untreatable. The group has agreed to continue efforts to mitigate and monitor beetle
populations along the face of Aspen Mountain from Ute Mountain to Shadow Mountain until
data indicates they have subsided to normal levels.
Emerald Ash Borer - Emerald ash borer (EAB) is a wood boring insect, originally from Asia, which
is now present in the Roaring Fork Valley. Accidentally introduced from Asia to the US in the
1990s, EAB has since caused significant damage, leading to the death or decline of millions of ash
trees across North America and resulting in substantial costs for communities in treatment,
removal, and replacement. The city forester has drafted an EAB Management plant to address
the eventual impacts to our vulnerable ash tree population most of which are concentrated in
the commercial core. The plan is attached as APPENDIX C.
Poplar Budgall Mite (PBM) – Since around 2010, Aspen’s mature cottonwoods have been
increasingly impacted by a native microscopic mite which causes woody galls to form on their
buds. These woody growths can cause twig and branch dieback and also increase the likelihood
of branch failure. Having trialed various control methods, we finally decided to try systemic
injections of insecticide to gain control of multiple pests including alder flea beetle to reduce the
loss of dually impacted trees. There are currently ten trees receiving systemic injections for both
PBM and AFB. The treatment lasts for a minimum of three consecutive years. This relatively new
method of treating PBM will help to increase the longevity of our valuable mature cottonwoods.
Wildfire Mitigation – During 2023 the Parks and Open Space staff worked with Aspen Fire
Protection District (AFPD) to build a framework for assessing wildfire-related tree removal
requests. Recognizing the potential impacts on the urban forest due to proposed tree removal
allowances for fire mitigation, the group emphasized the importance of balancing wildfire
safety with preserving the benefits of Aspen's Community Forest. Outcomes from this work will
be detailed in a future discussion with City Council.
Standalone and Development
Related Tree Removals: A major
component of the forestry
program is the review and
permitting for tree removals and
the adjacent table summarizes
permitting in 2023.
2023 Permit Summary
Total #
Permits/Reviews
Total #
Trees
Total
Diameter
of
Affected
Standalone Permits 145 516 2667
Construction Permits 57 441 3649
Development Reviews*617
*(All major and minor permits possibly affecting trees)
11
NEST STEPS: No action is requested of Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
APPENDIX A – Forest Management Units Map
APPENDIX B – Douglas Fir Beetle Map
APPENDIX C – Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan
CITY MANAGER NOTES:
12
APPENDIX A
13
APPENDIX B
14
APPENDIX C
Emerald Ash Borer Management Plan
City of Aspen, CO - 2024
Executive Summary
In June 2023, the emerald ash borer (EAB) was discovered in Carbondale by the Town
Arborist and confirmed by Colorado State University. Its introduction into the community
likely resulted from the transport of infested material from an area where EAB had already
been present. Carbondale is the first Colorado community on the western slope to confirm
EAB. It was likely present in Carbondale for 2-3 years before detection.
The City of Aspen has 445 Ash Trees within its inventory, this represents approximately 3.8%
of the overall public tree population. Almost half of the ash trees in Aspen are located
downtown and in the commercial core.
Although emerald ash borer has not been discovered in the City of Aspen, a response plan
is important as experts agree that EAB will reach our community. Adult insects can fly about
30 miles, so it likely the insect will reach Aspen in the coming years. This EAB Management
Plan is dynamic, recognizing that though emerald ash borer can move quickly through
communities, each community is unique. In Aspen, the life cycle of EAB could be shortened
or disrupted due to high elevation and a shorter summer season. Aspen also lacks large
contiguous plantings of ash or any ash in native buffer which would contribute to the
proliferation of a local EAB population. Regardless, all ash trees are susceptible to EAB and
are susceptible to being killed by EAB calling for a detailed management plan.
Introduction
Emerald ash borer (EAB) (Agrilus plannipennis) has devastated many communities since its
first detection in Detroit, Michigan in 2002. EAB is a wood boring beetle that affects all
species of ash (Fraxinus spp.) and was introduced to the United States and Canada from
Asia through wooden shipping materials originating from China. Since its introduction, EAB
has resulted in the loss of millions of ash trees.
In 2013, EAB was detected in the City and County of Boulder. A quarantine was imposed on
Boulder County, which likely resulted in the delayed spread of EAB to surrounding
communities. However, with numerous detections of EAB outside of the quarantine
boundaries, the quarantine was lifted at the beginning of 2020.
15
EAB Biology and Morphology
All species of ash are susceptible to EAB. The metallic green wood boring beetle (flat -
headed borer) damages trees by tunneling under the bark, which results in girdling that
interferes with movement of water and nutrients. Eventually, the lack of water and nutrients
results in the decline and death of the tree.
When EAB is first introduced and population numbers are low, detection is very difficult.
Often, EAB can go for several years before being detected because the visual symptoms of
an infestation present themselves after the population of EAB in the tree builds up. Visual
signs and symptoms of the infestation include thinning of leaf canopy, epicormic shoots at
the base of the tree or on branches, bark splits with ‘s’ shaped galleries, woodpecker
damage, and ‘D’ shaped exit holes.
Due to Colorado’s climate, all species of trees, including ash are often stressed. Stressed
trees, or trees in poor health are especially vulnerable to EAB. Yet, even vigorous and healthy
ash trees are still susceptible and can easily be overwhelmed by EAB and rapidly decline
and die.
EAB Management Plan
When it comes to managing EAB, urban forest management becomes increasingly
important as the loss of ash trees will have significant ecological and economic impacts .
The loss of mature public ash trees in the core will also reduce the visual appeal and
associated economic benefits most notably in the retail and restaurant areas of the core.
There are 445 public ash trees in the City of Aspen, 145 of them or 33% are within the
downtown core. Studies have shown that patrons are willing to spend 9-12% more shopping
for goods and services in areas with mature trees.
This plan summarizes City of Aspen’s response to emerald ash borer and the management
strategies that will be used if Emerald ash borer is discovered within Aspen. The City of
Aspen’s plan includes:
• Inventory and monitor ash trees for symptoms of EAB.
• Chemically treat suitable candidates. (Once EAB is detected within Aspen city limits)
• Remove ash trees that are not suitable for treatment (Once EAB is detected within
Aspen city limits)
• Plant replacement trees based on a re-planting plan.
• Provide private property owners with info relating to EAB in ash trees on private
property
16
Inventory and Monitoring - Having a complete inventory of all public trees is important for
effective management and maintenance, but it is especially important when managing EAB.
The City of Aspen has an inventory of all public ash trees. The data will be updated or
collected for each ash tree and will include:
• Species.
• Diameter at breast height (DBH) in inches
• Condition.
• Whether the tree is irrigated
• Priority Level for treatment 1-3
Following the assessment trees will either be monoitored,treated chemically, or removed.
Chemical Treatment Chemical treatments can control EAB in trees if infestations are
detected early. Treatments are most effective in healthy trees and is the only management
strategy that can protect mature ash trees. The City of Aspen intends to use systemic soil
drenches, systemic trunk/bark sprays, systemic trunk injections, on ash trees that are
considered suitable for chemical treatment and record treatment applications.
Wood Disposal
Removals associated with EAB are expected to generate a significant amount of wood
debris. There are not only costs associated with disposal, but also costs that result from the
release of carbon that currently stored in the wood of these trees if they were burned.
Once EAB is confirmed in the City, the City of Aspen will establish a wood processing area
or “marshalling pile” for city operations to separate ash material from other wood waste.
The city forestry crew or contractor will chip and dispose of material at the Pitkin County
Landfill during the period between September and April.
Private Ash Trees
The Colorado Department of Agriculture estimates that 15% of Colorado’s urban forest is
made up by ash trees. Statewide Most of these ash trees are on private property. The City of
Aspen will provide information and a list of qualified arborists for property owners who are
interested in the preservation of trees on their property. A general outline of interventions is
listed below.
• Promote shadow plantings. (new trees close to a mature tree to take its place)
• Remove high-risk ash (i.e., trees in poor condition, trees in the wrong place,
sites with no irrigation, etc.).
• Discourage the movement of ash wood and debris (especially between
Memorial Day and Labor Day due to EAB adult flight).
• Delay treatment until positive identification of EAB in the community.
• Pre-treat high value ash trees.
17
Other Management Strategies
When it comes to managing EAB, urban forest management becomes increasingly
important as the loss of ash trees will have significant ecological and aesthetic impacts. In
addition to the strategies listed above the parks department will also do the following.
• Provide education to staff about proper identification of EAB and other
pests/pathogens.
• Expand public outreach on EAB including:
o Distribute materials to property owners about EAB management options via
social media.
o Provide EAB information through the community website.
• Review Municipal Code to determine if changes are necessary to make management
efforts more effective.
• Provide clear direction to residents on the proper removal, handling and disposal of
infected material.
Management Costs
Treatment Costs
Current chemical application costs are between $7.50 to $12.00 per inch. These costs can
be significant. In fact, a 10-inch diameter tree could cost $180 for one treatment, every one
to three years (depending on the product used) or a 20-inch tree could cost $250 every one
to three years (depending on the product used).
Removal, Replacement, and Planting Costs
Removing ash trees that are in poor or worse condition can help reduce the spread of EAB
as these trees attract EAB adults. Not all trees are worth treating chemically to prevent EAB.
It is important to understand that ash trees that are heavily infested with EAB need to be
removed promptly, as research suggests that dead or dying ash trees become brittle and if
left standing are a concern for public safety.
Replacing trees that have been removed and incorporating new trees is critical for mitigating
the loss of ecological and community benefits. New trees can cost between $1000 to $1,100
(includes tree and installation), but there are also costs associated with the long-term
management of these trees, as well (irrigation, structural pruning, routine maintenance,
removal).
Conclusions
EAB could have a significant impact on The City of Aspen. The City of Aspen has 445 ash
trees not including private trees that may be impacted by EAB. EAB can go for several years
without detection, which requires an integrated approach to management, combining
18
treatment, removals, and replanting. Having a plan for management of EAB before the pest
arrives allows for the preservation of significant ash trees via the proactive management of
EAB.
While EAB is a destructive and costly pest, an EAB Management Plan provides an
opportunity to plan for the resources needed to preserve as many large, high value ash trees
as possible, while also balancing the anticipated impacts of the loss in benefits from ash
trees that will be removed. With this EAB Management Plan, The City of Aspen is in a position
to better prepare for EAB.
In addition to identifying City of Aspen’s strategy for managing EAB in public trees, this EAB
Management Plan is critical for communicating this response strategy to the community
and serves as a tool to educate private property owners about the pest and the management
options available for private ash trees.
19
1
ROARING FORK
TRANSPORTATION
AUTHORITY
Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV)
Transition Plan
APRIL 11,2024
20
Presentation
Overview
1.Project Purpose & Recap
2.Existing Conditions –Key Findings
3.ZE Modeling and Findings
4.Cost of Ownership Analysis
5.Evaluation Criteria and Screening
6.Recommended Alternative
7.Discussion
2 21
PROJECT PURPOSE &
RECAP
3 22
Background -State ZEV/EV Policy
4
Climate Action Plan (House Bill 19-1261)
•Establishes statewide GHG emissions reduction goals of 26% by 2025, 50% by 2030 and 90% by 2050 (2005 baseline)
Colorado 2023 EV Plan
•1,000 ZEV Transit Vehicles by 2030
•100% ZEV by 2050
Colorado Transit ZEV Roadmap
•Reaffirms ZEV transition goals and strategies for Colorado transit agencies
•Foundation for the development of the Clean Transit Enterprise Ten-Year Plan
Clean Transit Enterprise
•The Clean Transit Enterprise in Colorado supports the electrification of public transit through planning, site upgrades,
procurement of electric transit buses, and the development of associated charging infrastructure. Provides funding for
battery electric, plug in hybrid electric and hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (and RNG under certain circumstances).
Future Clean Transit Rule (Colorado 2023 EV Plan & Clean Truck Strategy)
•Action to investigate the adoption of a Clean Transit Rule that would require a long-term transition to zero emission transit
vehicles
23
RFTA Background & Policy
5
2019 RFTA-City of Aspen BEB Pilot Project
•RFTA began operating 8 BEBs
RFTA Destination 2040 Plan
•Desired fleet of 1/3 diesel, 1/3 CNG and 1/3 ZEV by
2040
RFTA Climate Action Plan
•Reduce scope 1 and 2 GHG emissions 50% by 2030
and 90% by 2050
•Reduce transportation-related emissions throughout
the region by increasing emissions offset compared to
emissions produced in 2019 to 3x by 2030 and 5x by
2050.
•Key Strategy Categories
o Emissions from Fleet
o Emissions from Facilities
o Emissions Displaced by Transit
24
6
Technology Mix and Year-to-Year CompositionDEFINE
Revenue fleet, including paratransit and support/admin fleet
ZEV Infrastructure Upgrade and TimelineDETERMINE
GMF, AMF, and potential on-route charging locations
Operational Changes and Cost of OwnershipASSESS
Buses, existing and proposed ZEV support infrastructure
Project Overview
25
7
Project Management and Project Initiation
(Task 1)
Evaluation Criteria for ZEB Transition Alternatives
(Task 2)
Service Assessment
(Task 3)
Modeling and Route Simulations
(Task 4)
Fleet and Facilities Replacement and Expansion Plans
(Task 5)
Total Cost and Resources of Ownership Assessment
(Task 6)
Evaluation of Alternatives/ Prioritization and Selection
(Task 7)
Final Plan
(Task 8)
Project Approach
26
EXISTING CONDITIONS –
KEY FINDINGS
8 27
99
Current Revenue Fleet
Mix of fixed-route
local, fixed-route
commuter, BRT, and
demand-response
services.
Support vehicles are
also considered as
part of the transition
analysis 145
TOTAL VEHICLE
(INCLUDES ACTIVE PREP AND SURPLUS) AVERAGE VEHICLE AGE (YEARS)8
22 4 5 87 27
Cutaways
(Ford)29-30-ft buses
(Optima, Gillig)
35-ft. buses
(Gillig).
40-ft buses
(Newflyer, Gillig,
Newflyer,
Excelsior -8 BEB).
45-ft. motor
coaches (MCI).
FUEL
TYPES
Gasoline, diesel,
CNG,
and electric.
117ACTIVE VEHICLES AS OF SEP’23
28
Functions:
Admin, Maintenance
Operations, Fuel-wash
Upgrades underway:
•New bus-storage canopy
•New wash bays
•Space for future hydrogen fueling and storage.
Transition Requirements:
BEBs:
•electrical upgrades
•chargers
•generators
•fall protection, etc.
•additional storage for vehicles and equipment
FCEBs
•hydrogen storage/fueling equipment
•gas leak and flame detection
•additional storage for vehicles and equipment
10 Rendering of GMF with planned upgrades
Maintenance Facility – GMF/RTC
29
1111
Functions:
Maintenance, Operations, Fuel-wash
Upgrades completed from 2014 to 2019:
•Fuel island and wash lane replacement.
•Electric bus charging stations
(four, dual-port pedestal Level 2 chargers).
Transition Requirements:
BEBs:
•electrical upgrades
•additional chargers
•additional generators
•fall protection, etc.
•additional storage for vehicles and equipment
FCEBs
•new hydrogen storage/fueling infrastructure
•Major ventilation system updates
•gas leak and flame detection
•electrical upgrades
•additional storage for vehicles and equipmentExisting BEB Chargers
Maintenance Facility - AMF
30
Existing Conditions
Key Observations
RFTA operates a mix of fixed-route and demand-
response services.
Fixed route blocks run between 16 and 496 miles per
day.
Demand-response cutaways run an average of 64
miles a day.
Limited capacity for growth at the current AMF.
GMF is currently undergoing upgrades that will
help accommodate the transition to ZEBs.
12 31
ZE MODELING AND
FINDINGS
13 32
14
ZEVDecide
BUS SPECS
DRIVING CYCLES
PASSENGER LOADS
AMBIENT CONDITIONS
ELEVATION AND TOPOGRAPHY VehicleBlocksRoute
•High passenger load (90% of seated capacity)
•Low passenger load (75% of seated capacity)
•Curb weight
•Frontal dimensions
•Auxiliary
•HVAC
•Aerodynamic drag
•Rolling resistance coefficients
Modeling Process Overview
33
15
BEB Model Electric
Cutaway
Electric 30’
Bus
Electric 35’
Bus
Electric 40’
Bus
Electric
Motorcoach
Battery (kWh)120 350 450 525 544
Curb Weight
(lbs.)14,500 29,700 29,700 45,000 47,000
Service type(s)DR,
Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route
FCEB Model Hydrogen
Cutaway*
Hydrogen 30’
Bus*
Hydrogen 35’
Bus
Hydrogen 40’
Bus
Hydrogen
Motorcoach*
Tank (kg)13.5 37.5 37.5 50 50
Curb Weight
(lbs.)16,500 29,700 29,700 45,000 47,000
Service type(s)DR,
Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route Fixed Route
*Hydrogen cutaways, 30’ buses, and motorcoaches are not currently commercially available.
**Electric cutaways and motorcoaches currently do not have commercially available on-route charging options.
Bus Specifications
34
16
*Hydrogen cutaways, 30’ buses, and motorcoaches are not currently commercially available
**Electric cutaways and motorcoaches currently don’t have commercially available on-route charging options
Cutaways Coach 45’ Buses40’ Buses
*
30’ Buses 35’ Buses
BEB MODELS
FCEB MODELS
****
**
Bus Specifications
35
17
Success of ZEB technology at the block level is critical to minimize operational impacts
such as fleet size and labor force increases.
Success of the modeled ZEB technology at the vehicle level is desired but can be mitigated
with changes in dispatch process.
Modeling Inputs at the Block and Vehicle Level
VEHICLE ASSIGNMENT
36
18
•FCEBs have longer range therefore more
successful outcomes compared to BEBs.
•Neither technology provides 100%
success with current vehicle sizes and
blocking.
•69% of modeled Dial-a-Ride services were
successfully completed by BEBs. And
96% of modeled Dail-A-Ride services were
successfully completed by FCEBs
•Fleet and/or blocking changes are
required with either technology in order
to successfully transition to ZEBs.
78%
85%
93%94%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
High Low
Fixed Route Block Level Success Rates
BEB FCEB
49%
60%
84%87%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
High Low
Fixed Route Vehicle Level Success Rates
BEB FCEB
Modeling Summary
37
19
BEB FCEB MIXED
FULL TRANSITION BY 2050
BEB FCEB MIXED
FULL TRANSITION BY 2040
01 Timeline
02 Technology Type
1.BEB Only
2.FCEB Only
3.Mixed
maximizes the operational strengths of various technology types
and their fit to RFTA’s operations
Accelerated Transition by (2040)
higher cumulative GHG reduction
higher cumulative costs
Transition by (2050)
lower cumulative GHG reduction
lower cumulative costs
03 Six Analysis Cases
Analysis Cases
38
20
3.1 Requires an increase in active vehicles for demand response and COA routes
serviced by cutaways.
1.1 On-route charging is required to address the long block distances in existing
operations (21 blocks)
1.2 Three on-route chargers will be needed at Rubey Park and three additional ones at
West Glenwood Springs Park and Ride lot to support operations.
1.3 Assumes midday charging during layovers at the GMF and AMF
BEB Modeling
2.1 Re-blocking or vehicles with larger batteries are needed for 4% of the blocks in
2040 (5 blocks)
2.2 Limits the current flexibility to assign vehicles to more than one block in a day on
an arbitrary basis
39
21
1.1 Assumes midday re-fueling at GMF and AMF between blocks (4 blocks)
2.1 Re-blocking or vehicles with larger tanks are needed for only 2.5 % of the blocks
in 2040 ( 3 blocks)
2.2 Allows demand response services and COA cutaway routes to operate with
minimal changes from existing service
3.1 Major capital investments at AMF needed for safety improvements and upgrades
that are needed to allow CNG and FCEB maintenance and storage on-site
(mechanical systems such as ventilation and gas detection systems)
FCEB Modeling
40
COST OF OWNERSHIP
ANALYSIS
22 41
23
STEPS
1)Collected relevant financial data on current operations
2)Determined financial model inputs in collaboration with RFTA staff
3)Projected annual costs 2023-2050
4)Compared cumulative costs between the six analyzed cases
LIMITATIONS
1)The cost categories modeled are focused on the impacts of a change
in propulsion type
2)This analysis is meant to be a comparison between the different
scenarios and not a detailed capital and operational forecast for RFTA
BEB FCEB MIXED
FULL TRANSITION BY 2050
BEB FCEB MIXED
FULL TRANSITION BY 2040
Cost of Ownership Analysis
42
24
COST CATEGORIES
Fleet Acquisition Fuel/Energy Maintenance Refurbishment Infrastructure
Fleet
Replacement
Plan
Fleet Annual
Fuel/Energy
Consumption
Fleet Annual
Miles travelled
by vehicle type
Fleet Annual
Refurbishments
by vehicle type
ZEB
charging/fueling
equipment and
installation
Vehicle Costs Fuel/Energy
Costs
Maintenance
Costs by vehicle
type
Refurbishment
Costs by vehicle
type
Costs for
charging/fueling
equipment
DOES NOT INCLUDE:
•Service delivery costs (such as driver/mechanic salaries) assumes those will be comparable in all
scenarios(cases)
•Maintenance bays retrofits/mechanical modifications to meet codes related to ventilation and gas
detection systems.
Cost of Ownership Assumptions and Inputs
43
10/5: City of Aspen
10/5: Glenwood Springs
10/3: Holy Cross Utility
8/14: Holy Cross Utility
OctoberSeptemberAugust
Common Meeting Topics
•Discussion of Electric Rate Structures and options
•Utility upgrades, RFTA upgrades, Make-Ready Incentives
•Funding Strategies (on-bill financing, Federal funding)
•ZEV Strategies (on-route charging, charging strategies)
•Exploring Hydrogen Fuel options and “Green” Hydrogen
Utility Coordination Meetings
25 44
26
Base Case:
Follows the Destination 2040 Plan
with programed 29% BEBs by 2032
$590
$673 $710 $696 $659 $671 $676
$0
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
$600
$700
$800
Base
Case
BEB
2040
FCEB
2040
Mixed
2040
BEB
2050
FCEB
2050
Mixed
2050Millions
Scenarios
2040 ZEB Cases have higher costs due to:
•Earlier procurement of vehicles
•More ZEB vehicles are procured during the analysis
period
•Charging infrastructure replacement occurs
BEB 2050 Case ($659 million) Estimated to be 12% higher than the base case.
FCEB 2050 Case ($671 million)
BEB 2040 Case ($673 million) Estimated to be 14%-15% higher than the base case
Case.
Mixed 2050 Case ($676 million)
1
2,3,4
Cost of Ownership Summary Results
Analysis Period:
Costs are cumulative for the period 2023-2050
45
EVALUATION CRITERIA AND
SCREENING
27 46
RFTA’s staff selected and weighted Seven Base
Criteria (June 2023) via:
•Online survey
•In-person workshop
Two additional Base Criteria added:
•As further discussions were held with the
RFTA staff and internal stakeholders
(Environmental Considerations and Rider
Experience)
Stantec Evaluated with RFTA staff Forty-Nine Sub-
Criteria :
•Final evaluation workshop review (February
2024)
Evaluation Criteria
28 47
Qualitative criterions (Sub-Categories) Scoring:
Highly critical -15
Medium critical -10
Low critical -5
No reductions 0
BEB FCEB Mixed
Base score 100 100 100
Availability of a 45ft FCEB
and 45ft with on-route charging -10 -10
Number of different OEMs
offering vehicle types needed by -5
Complexity of procurement and
warranty agreements -5
Integration of IT technology
requirements -5
Adaptability by diversification -10 -10
Update of O&M contracts
(Union restrictions)-5 -5 -10
Total score 70 70 85
2050
Technology Availability/
OEMs/Procurement
Base
Criteria
Sub-
Criteria
Evaluation Sub-Criteria Example
29 48
30
Preferred Fleet: 2050 Mixed Case
•Mixed Case received highest score when considering
all nine evaluation criteria
•Benefits from diversification increased the Mixed Case
relative scoring
•FCEB Case scoring weighed down by risks associated
with hydrogen availability and distribution
Mixed 2050 Case (79) Has the highest score
FCEB 2050 Case (78)
FCEB 2040 Case (74) Have a close score to the preferred scenario
Mixed 2040 Case (70)
1
2,3,4
57
74 70 67
78 79
-
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
BEB 2040 FCEB
2040
Mixed
2040
BEB 2050 FCEB
2050
Mixed
2050
Evaluation Results
Evaluation Results
49
RECOMMENDED
ALTERNATIVE
31 50
32
2023
109 fossil fuel (FFs) buses and 8 ZEBs
2050
0 FFs, 52 BEBs (44%) and 65 FCEBs (55%)
40-ft and 30-35-ft buses
Transition first
45-ft coach buses
Transition later as more options for BEB
coaches with on-route charging, and
FCEB coaches are expected in the
future
Cutaways
Transition last since technology has
limited ranges
Fleet Composition
Mixed Case Full Adoption by 2050
51
33
Estimated Savings for:
•Fleet Maintenance
•Fleet Refurbishments
Estimated Higher Costs for:
•Fleet Acquisition
•Fuel/Electricity
•Infrastructure
Mixed Case Full Adoption by 2050
$270
$345
$208 $199
$73 $76
$23 $40
$16 $15
$-
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
Base Case Mixed CaseMillionsEstimated Cumalative Cost of Ownership (2023-2050)
Fleet Acquisition Fleet Maintenance Fuel/Electricity Infrastructure Fleet Refurbishment
52
34
STRENGTHS
Utilizes current investments of the already
planned BEB fleet and charging equipment
Leans on FCEB technology to cover longer
ranges which reduce operational changes
Provides the highest operational flexibility to
RFTA
WEAKNESSES
Complexity of operating and
maintaining two ZEB technologies
Maintenance and fueling for FCEBs
exclusively at GMF
THREATS
By investing in two ZEB technologies,
slightly higher costs are expected
and potential for economy of scale is
underutilized
Hydrogen supply chain can take
longer to mature in the region
OPPORTUNITIES
Diversified energy/fuel sources
Allows a smooth pivot if one technology
outpaces the other
Allows for both technologies to mature
until they can satisfy operational needs Internal OriginExternal OriginHarmfulHelpful
Mixed Case 2050 SWOT
53
Questions?
35 54
Support Slides
36 55
37
Utility Coordination –
Opportunities & Next Steps
•On-going strategic planning for ZEV
Transition
•Exploring opportunities for
collaborative investment and planning
•Mutually beneficial opportunities to
align strategies to meet RFTA service
needs and optimize utility resource
planning and grid management
•Pilot/test and develop ZEV rates
•Facilitate strategic coordination
between utilities to identify strategies
to meet RFTA needs
56
Estimated Annual Cost Comparison Base vs Mixed Case Full Adoption by 2050
38
Estimated Mixed Case Full Adoption by 2050 Total Cost of Ownership (2023-2050)
Mixed Case Full Adoption by 2050
FCEB at GMF
2032 Phase 1
(infrastructure, generator, and fueling island)
2040 Phase 2
(redundancy equipment)
BEB at AMF
2025 – 16 chargers(plugs) (8 existing and 8
planned)
2027 – Phase 1 (new transformer, conduit,
backup generator and 4 chargers(plugs))
2035 – Phase 2 (13chargers(plugs))
On Route Charging
Rubey Park – 1 existing + 2 new chargers
West Glenwood P&R – 3 new chargers
Cost Components
Estimated Base
Case
Estimated Mixed
Case
Estimated
Savings
Estimated Cost
difference
(Mixed - Base)
270.5$ 345.4$ (74.9)$ 74.9$
16.3$ 15.2$ 1.1$ (1.1)$
207.6$ 199.1$ 8.5$ (8.5)$
72.8$ 76.1$ (3.3)$ 3.3$
22.9$ 39.8$ (16.9)$ 16.9$
590.0$ 675.6$ (85.7)$ 85.7$
Infrastructure
Total
Mixed 2050 Scenario
Fleet Acquisition
Fleet Refurbishment
Fleet Maintenance
Fuel/Electricity
57
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM: Lynn Rumbaugh, TDM-cp, Mobility Division Manager,
Pete Rice, P.E., Director of Transportation and Parking
THROUGH: Tyler Christoff, P.E., Deputy Director of Public Works
Scott Miller, Director of Public Works
RE: Information Only: Zero Emission Transition Plan Update and
Transit/Micro-Transit Fleet Replacement
SUMMARY:
The purpose of this memo is to provide Council with an update on the Roaring Fork
Transportation Authority’s Zero Emission Vehicle Transition Plan. In addition, this memo
summarizes upcoming replacements to transit and micro-transit vehicles.
DISCUSSION
1. ZERO EMISSION VEHICLE TRANSITION PLAN
One of City Council’s current mobility goals is to increase electrification of the City and
regional transit fleet. A critical task related to this goal has been the City’s participation in
the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority’s (RFTA) Zero Emission Vehicle (ZEV)
Transition Plan. The primary goal of the ZEV plan is to create a comprehensive
operational and financial roadmap for transitioning RFTA’s fleet to zero -emission by 2050.
Stantec, RFTA’S consultant, has included Aspen vehicles and routes into their modeling
scenarios. Their recommendation is the transition to a mixed fleet of battery electric and
fuel cell electric buses by 2050. The RFTA Board received an update at its April 11
meeting and will see the plan again for final approval on May 9. A copy of the slide deck
presented at the Board meeting is included in this memo as Attachment A.
58
2. TRANSIT FLEET REPLACEMENT
The City of Aspen owns its fixed-route transit vehicles which are operated and maintained
by RFTA. Most of these vehicles are purchased in partnership with the Colorado
Department of Transportation (CDOT) via their generous grant funding; meaning that
specific regulations must be followed related to vehicle sourcing, purchasing, operations
and disposals. CDOT’s 2024 application process for replacement vehicles is now open,
and staff is preparing applications for the following vehicle types.
a. Shuttle Vehicles: Four 12-passenger shuttles (sometimes referred to as cutaways)
are due for replacement. These vehicles are used on the Cross Town, Galena
Street and Mountain Valley routes as well as for some ADA services. CDOT’s
process requires that the City purchase these vehicles from the vendor selected
through the State’s procurement process.
It is important to note that, while staff understands Council’s preference for
electric vehicle technology, these replacement shuttles will be gasoline powered
because the market for electric cutaway vehicles is not yet mature. Specifically,
few models are offered, range and charging issues have been identified and
CDOT is not offering grant funding for this technology yet. Staff has delayed the
replacement of these shuttles in hopes that technology would move forward, but
electric cutaways are not available through CDOT’s procurement process.
Delaying further is not a good option as the four vehicles are near the end of their
useful life. This issue is further detailed by Stantec, the consultant managing
RFTA’s ZEV planning process (see Attachment A).
b. Full-Size Transit Vehicle: One diesel transit vehicle is due to be replaced in 2025.
Due to the lengthy granting and manufacturing process for these vehicle types,
staff will submit for grant funding in 2024. Should a grant be awarded, this vehicle
will be procured through a RFTA price agreement in place for diesel and battery
electric full-size buses. This procurement will replace a diesel bus with a battery
electric bus.
59
3. MICRO-TRANSIT FLEET REPLACEMENT
The City of Aspen contracts with the Downtowner Group for its micro-transit services.
Downtowner procures and maintains its fleet but takes direction from the City on vehicle
type. The following vehicles are due for replacement in 2024-25 with no new costs to
the City.
a. Ford Transit Vehicle: This larger Downtowner vehicle allows for more grouping of
rides as well as ADA service. Downtowner proposes the replacement the Ford
Transit with an ADA accessible, all-wheel drive, hybrid Toyota Sienna van. Staff
is supportive of this switch as it will reduce the size of the vehicle while still
allowing for ADA access and grouped rides. Additionally, a hybrid vehicle is more
in keeping with the City’s goals, as the Sienna can likely run on battery power for
much of its service day. This vehicle has worked well for Downtowner in Lake
Tahoe, even during periods of heavy snow.
b. Chevy Bolt Vehicles: Three Chevy Bolt vehicles are due for replacement in
2024/25. Downtowner recommends replacement with the fully electric
Volkswagen ID Buzz. Staff is supportive of this option due to its electric platform,
larger passenger capacity (7 seats) and unique style.
60
NEXT STEPS:
1. Transit vehicles: Staff will complete grant applications for four gasoline-powered
shuttles and one battery electric bus unless otherwise directed.
2. Downtowner vehicles: Staff will direct Downtowner to replace its gasoline-
powered Ford Transit vehicle with a hybrid Toyota Sienna van. Additionally, staff
will direct Downtowner to replace its Chevy Bolts with Volkswagen ID Buzz
unless otherwise directed.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: RFTA Zero Emission Transition Plan slides from April 11 RFTA Board
meeting
61
FOLLOW-UP MEMORANDUM
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
WORK SESSION MEETING DATE:May 20th, 2024
FOLLOW-UP MEMO DATE:May 28th, 2024
AGENDA TOPIC:Tobacco Tax
PRESENTED BY:CJ Oliver, Director of Environmental Health
and Sustainability
Katherine Sand, Aspen Family Connections
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:Torre, Ward Hauenstein, Sam Rose, John
Doyle, Bill Guth
______________________________________________________________________
WORK SESSION DISCUSSION SUMMARY:
Information was presented to Aspen City Council regarding the use of the Aspen Tobacco
Tax funds by Aspen Family Connections (AFC). The information provided included
programming details and plans, survey results and strategies for the future use of tobacco
tax dollars by AFC to continue to address substance misuse and mental health challenges
in our community. Financial information related to tax collection and use of funds was
also presented by staff. Requests and direction from Aspen City Council included the
following items:
1.Resolution to Continue Funding AFC:A majority of council members
supported bringing back a resolution to continue funding Aspen Family
Connections at the current amount for an additional 3-year time period.
2.Additional Financial Information from Aspen Family Connections: A
minority of council members requested some additional information related to the
financial details related to expenditures of the tobacco tax funds by AFC.
3.Additional Information about identifying proper focus areas:A minority
of council members requested that additional information be provided to
demonstrate appropriate early causes of mental health and substance issues are
being identified and that work is targeted to address those areas.
4.Work Session on Strategic Plan for Spending Uncommitted Tobacco
Tax Funds: A majority of Council members requested that a future work session
62
be held to provide strategies for spending of non-committed tobacco tax funds,
both current balance and future collections, on properly aligned requests.
NEXT STEPS:
This section outlines next steps for staff and Council on the topic(s) described
above. This section conveys actionable information to staff in how to respond to Council
discussion from the work session, described above.
1. Staff will work with AFC to collect additional financial information and work area
identification strategies, related to tobacco tax expenditures, as requested at
the work session and provide that information to council.
2. Staff will update the current IGA and write a resolution pertaining to the
continuation of funding to Aspen Family Connections at the rate of $250,000
per year. This will be completed for consideration prior to the expiration of the
existing IGA, which runs through August 31
st, 2024.
3. Staff will schedule a work session conversation regarding the use of
uncommitted tobacco tax dollars, considering both the current balance and
future collections, to be used in accordance with applicable ballot language.
CITY MANAGER NOTES:The discussion about uncommitted tobacco tax revenues
will be brought forward at the June 10, 2024 work session as part of the health and
human services grants discussion. - SGO
63
FOLLOW-UP MEMORANDUM
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
WORK SESSION MEETING DATE:May 13, 2024
FOLLOW-UP MEMO DATE:May 28, 2024
AGENDA TOPIC:Community Development Fees
PRESENTED BY:Ben Anderson, ComDev Director
Pete Strecker, Finance Director
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:Torre, Ward Hauenstein, Sam Rose, John
Doyle, Bill Guth
______________________________________________________________________
WORK SESSION DISCUSSION SUMMARY:
Information was presented to Aspen City Council regarding policy level options within
Community Development’s fee structure for building and planning functions. The policy
questions arose during broad consultant work in 2023 on fees for several City agencies,
including Community Development. Due to the unresolved nature of these policy topics,
ComDev kept 2024 fees consistent with previous fee schedules. Council was asked to
evaluate five policy questions and provide direction in shaping what will be proposed
changes to building and planning fees for 2025. Any changes would be approved by an
eventual ordinance process.
1) Should building permit fees continue to cover a portion of planning’s cost?
Council agreed that it was appropriate for permit fees to continue to cover some
portion of planning costs. One suggestion that had majority support was to front
load some of the planning costs on larger more complex planning cases – like
Planned Development reviews.
2) Should building permit fees continue to be based on project valuation – or
should they instead be based on a more consistent fee per square foot of
work?
Council majority supported a move to a calculation based on square feet, with
some qualifiers based on permit type and complexity. Staff will evaluate this topic
further and will return at First Reading with options for Council to consider.
64
3) Should planning fees continue to be based on a deposit amount with billing
for actual planning hours, or should we move to a flat fee system?
Council was unanimous in their support of flat fees, as long as their was the ability
to bill for the most complex cases.
4) Should planning continue to offer a variety of services at “no cost”.
Council was supportive of the customer service outcomes that are related to many
of things that are provided at “no cost”. However, there was suggestion that there
should be guardrails or limits as to the amount of staff time that was provided at
“no cost” for a particular property.
5) Should there be planning and building fee waivers for renovations or
remodels of existing, deed-restricted affordable housing?
Council was unanimously supportive of the concept broadly, but there was some
differences expressed on details of how this might be structured. Staff will evaluate
this topic further and will return at First Reading with options for Council to
consider.
NEXT STEPS:
This section outlines next steps for staff and Council on the topic(s) described
above. This section conveys actionable information to staff in how to respond to Council
discussion from the work session, described above.
Staff will incorporate Council direction into continued evaluation of the 2023
consultant work. From this staff will draft a proposed fee schedule for building an
planning fees.
Staff will conduct outreach to ComDev’s customers and will solicit feedback on
the proposed changes.
Staff will return to Council in late Summer/early Fall to begin the ordinance
process:
+ Policy Resolution (for Planning’s Fees)
+ First Reading of Ordinance
+ Second Reading of Ordinance
Following adoption, new fee schedule would go into effect in January 2025.
CITY MANAGER NOTES:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
65