Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20171017 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION October 17, 2017 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Budget: Transportation / Parking II. Prep for EOTC meeting P1 2018 Proposed Budget October 17, 2017 P2I. Parking Fund 2 •On-Street Parking Revenue Buttermilk Lot Fee Adjustments ▪4th Hour -$0.50 Increase ▪Enforcement to 5pm ▪Business Permits -$100 ▪Service Permits –50% of Rates •Garage Revenue Maximum Daily Rate -$10 Business Pass (New) -$125 •No Lease Revenue from ACRA On-Street Revenues $3,890,500 Garage Revenues $382,000 Other Revenue $199,750 Revenues = $4,472,250 P3I. Parking Fund 3 •Transfers Dominate 2018 Expenditures $3.0M for Admin Offices $1.75M for Transportation (Continuous) •Supplemental Request Downtown Vitality: $30,000 (GF) •Capital Project Fleet Replacement (SUV): $34,000 Property / Facility Maintenance $151,010 On-Street Operations $1,234,950 Transfers Out $5,293,500 Buttermilk $49,980 Administrative $351,690 Capital $34,000 Garage Ops $247,280 Expenditures = $7,362,410 P4I. Parking Fund 4 Net Change to Fund Balance: ($2,890,160) $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 2017 Forecast 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Ending Fund Balance Revenue Expense 12.5% Reserve Requirement P5I. Transportation Fund 5 •Multiple City Tax Sources •Parking Fund Transfer: $1.75M •Reimbursement Sources Rubey Park Ops & Highlands Metro District •Proposed Fee Changes Ranges for Cleaning / Fueling ‘’Penalties’’ 0.15% Sales Tax $1,117,200 2.10% Use Tax $1,100,000 0.50% Lodging Tax $945,800 Mass Transit Refund of Expenditures $208,890 Rubey Park Reimbursement $100,000 Other Revenue $161,390 Transfers In $1,750,000 Revenues = $5,383,280 P6I. Transportation Fund 6 •1.0% RFTA Sales Tax •Transfers $1.6M for Admin Offices (Lump Sum) GF/IT Overhead and EE Housing •Supplemental Mobility Placeholder: $500,000 ▪Capital Fleet (3 Vehicles): $71,000 Rubey Park: $62,200 Annual Bus Stop Improvements: $16,000 Administrative $158,490 Property / Facility Maintenance $224,830 Alternative Transit $699,030 TDM Efforts $212,470 Capital Projects $149,200 Mass Transit $2,131,480 Transfers Out $2,117,820 Expenditures = $5,693,320 P7I. Transportation Fund 7 RIDERSHIP BY ROUTE 2014 2015 2016 CROSS TOWN SHUTTLE 31,044 33,671 34,470 GALENA ST SHUTTLE 38,945 39,213 49,556 EAST END DIAL-A-RIDE 51,563 44,748 69,951 HIGHLANDS DIRECT 51,643 52,593 57,749 MAA CAMPUS 55,989 46,161 80,981 BURLINGAME 69,985 72,886 130,952 CEMETERY LANE 82,841 74,305 95,828 HUNTER CREEK 275,959 257,566 329,961 CASTLE/MAROON 452,369 457,649 550,733 TOTAL RIDERSHIP 1,110,338 1,078,792 1,400,181 $2.21 $2.97 $3.04 $3.14 $5.85 $8.28 $7.56 $9.12 $11.51 $2.41 $3.05 $3.95 $3.07 $5.90 $8.62 $8.78 $8.91 $13.76 $1.93 $2.59 $2.24 $3.03 $4.86 $8.46 $6.98 $8.91 $8.99 $0.00 $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 $14.00 2014 2015 2016 2016 Avg Cost per Rider P8I. Transportation Fund 8 Net Change to Fund Balance: ($310,040) $0 $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 2017 Forecast 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Ending Fund Balance Revenue Expense 12.5% Reserve Requirement P9I. Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) Thursday, October 19, 2017- 4:00pm Location-Aspen City Hall-Council Chambers Pitkin County to Host and Chair Meeting ____________________________________________________________________________________ I. 4:00 - 4:05 REVIEW OF DECISIONS REACHED AT THE SEPTEMBER 14, 2017 MEETING page 1 John D. Krueger-City of Aspen II.4:05 - 4:15 PUBLIC COMMENT (Comments limited to three minutes per person) III.4:15 - 6:00 PROPOSED 2018 BUDGET & MULTI-YEAR PLAN Tom Oken-Pitkin County Decision Needed: Approval of the 2018 Budget & Multi-year Plan •2018 Base Budget Decision Needed: Approval of the 2018 Base Budget •2018 New Budget Requests Decisions Needed: Approval of New Budget Requests On Going/Operational Requests: o We-cycle Operational Support o Brush Creek BRT Connecting Service-Spring, Summer, Fall o Regional Transportation Planner Projects: o Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing Needs Analysis o Battery Electric Bus Program o Snowmass Mall Transit Station o Variable Message Sign (VMS) Sign on SH 82 IV.6:00 -UPDATES & FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS •Grand Avenue Bridge Project-Verbal Update Dan Blankenship-RFTA page 6 page 12 page 24 •2018 Meeting Dates John D. Krueger-City of Aspen Decision Needed: Confirmation of 2018 Meeting Dates page 32 P10 II. ELECTED OFFICIALS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (EOTC) September 14, 2017 Aspen City Hall-Council Chambers Aspen - Host & Chair AGREEMENTS & DECISIONS REACHED Elected Officials in Attendance: Aspen - 4 Pitkin County - 5 Snowmass - 5 Steve Skadron George Newman Markey Butler Adam Frisch Patti Clapper Bill Madsen Ann Mullins Greg Poschman Alyssa Shenk Ward Hauenstein Rachel Richards Bob Sirkus Steve Child Tom Goode Absent: Bert Myrin ______________________________________________________________________________ Agreements & Decisions Reached at the September 14, 2017 Meeting: I. REVIEW OF DECISIONS REACHED AT THE JUNE 15, 2017 MEETING John D. Krueger-City of Aspen No comments were made II. PUBLIC COMMENT Toni Kronberg commented on the Upper Valley Mobility Report. She asked elected officials to take a site visit to the Brush Creek Park N Ride to see the uses of the lot and experience the lot first hand as the entrance to Aspen and Snowmass. III. UPPER VALLEY MOBILITY REPORT Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility Decision Needed: None-Information Only Members from the task force John Bennet, Bill Kane, Cristal Logan, and Michael Kinsley presented the conclusions and recommendations from the Upper Valley Mobility Report. The Task Force expressed their hope that the recommendations in the report would be carried forward and implemented. The task force recommended balanced and integrated mobility system that could be implemented over time. 1 P11 II. There were five elements to the recommended Integrated Mobility System: 1. Ride Sharing 2. Ride Hailing 3. Congestion Reduction Measures 4. HOV Lane Enforcement 5. Phased BRT Enhancement Additional measures considered were: • Transit Oriented Development • Airport/Transit Connectivity • Snowmass Connection Enhancements One of their key recommendations was to create a single planning entity or reginal planner to coordinate and help implement the recommendations of the report. A job description and budget will be presented at the next EOTC for consideration. The task force felt that if an integrated mobility system could be implemented travel up and down the valley would be easier while remaining true to community values. IV. ASPEN MOBILITY LAB Ashley Perl-City of Aspen Decision Needed: None-Information Only Ashley Perl from the City of Aspen presented the concept of the Aspen Mobility Lab to the EOTC looking for ideas and feedback. The Mobility Lab is a two to three-month experiment proposed for the summer of 2018 that will test many different mobility technologies and services. The Mobility Lab will be an opportunity to experiment with several of the key elements of the Upper Valley Mobility Report and recommendations from the Short-Range Transit Plan. Aspen City staff is in the process of scoping, planning and fund raising for the Mobility Lab. Aspen City staff will provide ongoing updates to the EOTC as the Mobility Lab proceeds. V. INCREASED TRANSIT SERVICE IN THE BRUSH CREEK CORRIDOR David Peckler-Snowmass Decision Needed: Approval of Funding Request for $294,000 Snowmass is seeking increased bus service frequency in the Brush Creek Road Corridor for the spring, summer and fall. The service frequency would increase from 30-minute service to 15-minute service to provide better connections to the Valley and BRT service out of the Brush Creek Park N Ride lot. This agenda item was previously discussed at the March 23, 2017 EOTC meeting. It will be discussed at the RFTA Board retreat on September 14 and the EOTC meeting on September 14. The estimated cost of the additional service is $294,000. The EOTC did not vote on the funding request at this meeting and directed staff to bring it back to the October 19, 2017 EOTC budget meeting. 2 P12 II. The increased service was presented as an option in the 2018 RFTA budget at the RFTA Board meeting but, has not been not been approved for funding. The increased Brush Creek service along with several other service optimization options were developed as part of RFTA’s Integrated Transportation Service Plan (ITSP). To implement the additional Brush Creek service RFTA would have to fund it out of its capital reserves or wait until new financial resources could be identified. VI. UPDATES & FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS The next scheduled EOTC meeting is: • October 19, 2017 at 4pm, Aspen City Hall-Council Chambers Pitkin County will host and chair the meeting. 3 P13 II. PROPOSED 2018 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN PAGE 1 EOTC Transit Project Funding Budget Proposed with budget requests Actual or estimate Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 FUNDING SOURCES: a)Pitkin County 1/2% sales tax 5,106,873 5,229,000 5,355,000 5,529,000 5,709,000 5,895,000 6,087,000 less RFTA contribution (81.04% of 1/2% sales tax)4,138,610 4,237,582 4,339,692 4,480,702 4,626,574 4,777,308 4,932,905 net 1/2% sales tax funding to EOTC 968,263 991,418 1,015,308 1,048,298 1,082,426 1,117,692 1,154,095 b)Pitkin County 1/2% use tax 1,438,921 1,225,000 1,400,000 1,442,000 1,485,000 1,530,000 1,576,000 c)Investment income & misc.75,190 68,000 124,000 165,000 178,000 231,000 292,000 Total Funding Sources 2,482,373 2,284,418 2,539,308 2,655,298 2,745,426 2,878,692 3,022,095 FUNDING USES: Ongoing / Operational 1)Use tax collection costs 41,137 56,257 42,614 43,892 45,209 46,565 47,962 2)Administrative cost allocation & meeting costs 20,334 24,394 22,710 23,391 24,093 24,816 25,560 3)Country Inn taxi program in-lieu of bus stop safety improvements 2,389 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 4)X-Games transit subsidy 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 5)Brush Creek Intercept Lot operating costs 32,213 30,000 35,000 36,000 37,000 38,000 39,000 6)No-fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek bus service - year-round 621,658 615,726 650,556 728,110 816,331 849,000 883,000 Budget Requests 7)WE-cycle operational support 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 8)Brush Creek BRT connecting service - spring, summer, fall 294,000 305,800 318,000 330,700 343,900 9)Regional Transportation Planner 160,000 166,400 173,100 180,000 187,200 sub-total Ongoing / Operational 832,731 947,377 1,425,880 1,524,594 1,634,733 1,690,081 1,747,623 net funding available for projects 1,649,643 1,337,041 1,113,428 1,130,704 1,110,693 1,188,611 1,274,472 Projects 10)Grand Ave Bridge construction - transit mitigation funding 335,000 11)Buttermilk lot paving 12)Valley parking study - RFP scoping 13)Basalt pedestrian underpass 750,000 Projects funded from Savings for greater Aspen Area 14)Rubey Park final design, land use & permitting 3,814 completed 15)Rubey Park construction 373,181 completed 16)Upper Valley Mobility Study 137,947 276,057 17)Cell phone transportation data collection 70,000 Budget Requests 18)Brush Creek Park and Ride improvements (FLAP grant) (approved 10/20/16)3,900,000 less Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) grant (1,900,000) 19)Buttermilk pedestrian crossing needs analysis 80,000 20)Battery Electric Bus Program (approved 6/15/17)500,000 21)Snowmass mall transit station (funded from Snowmass Village Savings Fund) 50,000 22) Variable message sign at mm 34.5 on Hwy 82 50,000 400,000 Total Uses 2,097,672 1,628,434 2,105,880 3,924,594 1,634,733 1,690,081 1,747,623 EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)384,701 655,984 433,428 (1,269,296) 1,110,693 1,188,611 1,274,472 EOTC CUMULATIVE SURPLUS FUND BALANCE 7,610,019 8,266,003 8,699,431 7,430,135 8,540,828 9,729,439 11,003,911 10/11/2017 18 EOTC with requests4 P14II. PROPOSED 2018 EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN PAGE 2 - Budget Proposed Actual or estimate Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 a)sales tax 3.6%2.4%2.4%3.25%3.25%3.25%3.25% b)use tax -1.6%-14.9%14.3%3.0%3.0%3.0%3.0% c)investment earnings rate 0.85%0.9%1.5%1.9%2.4%2.7%3.0% DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL SURPLUS (excludes projects funded from savings funds)899,643 1,002,041 483,428 (1,269,296) 1,110,693 1,188,611 1,274,472 25% to Snowmass Village Savings until restored to $6,278,787 224,911 250,510 120,857 (317,324) 277,673 125,186 - remainder to Aspen Savings 674,732 751,531 362,571 (951,972) 833,020 1,063,425 1,274,472 Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area less Snowmass mall transit stop (50,000) plus reimbursement of advance to capital pool 224,911 250,510 120,857 (317,324) 277,673 125,186 - Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area ($6,278,787 max)5,821,885 6,072,395 6,143,252 5,825,928 6,103,601 6,228,787 6,228,787 Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area Annual surplus remaining after reimbursement of advances 564,477 751,531 362,571 (951,972) 833,020 1,063,425 1,274,472 plus reimbursement for $250,000 pedestrian crossing funding - plus reimbursement of advance to capital pool 110,255 less Rubey Park funded from Aspen Savings (376,995) - less Upper Valley Mobility Study and cell phone data funded from Aspen Savings (137,947) (346,057) Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area 1,788,134 2,193,608 2,556,179 1,604,207 2,437,227 3,500,652 4,775,124 Advances from Aspen and Snowmass Village Savings Funds remaining balance to reimburse Snowmass Savings for advance to capital pool 456,902 206,392 85,535 402,859 125,186 - - remaining balance to reimburse Aspen Savings for advance to capital pool - - - - - - - Revenue projections: 10/11/2017 18 EOTC with requests5 P15II. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) FROM: Tom Oken, Pitkin County Treasurer MEETING DATE: October 19, 2017 SUBJECT: Proposed 2018 Budget & Multi-Year Plan Attached for review and approval at your meeting is the Proposed 2018 Budget & Multi-Year Plan. The routine line items for the Proposed 2018 Budget are discussed below. See the attached memos for an explanation of the new requests. We will ask the EOTC to approve the base budget first (routine line items) and then consider each request separately for approval. 2018 Proposed Base Budget Funding Sources a) Pitkin County 1/2% sales tax - $5,229,000 gross; $1,015,308 net after contribution to RFTA After increasing 3.6% in 2016 we are projecting 2.4% increases for this year and for 2018, and then 3.25% annually for 2019-2022. These are the County’s formal projections developed in conjunction with its Financial Advisory Board. By intergovernmental agreement and voter approval, 81.04% of the half-cent sales tax (but not use tax) is committed to RFTA. The ballot questions regarding the ½% sales tax are attached for your reference. The collection sources for the sales tax for the period September 2015 - August 2016 were 69.6% Aspen, 17.8% Snowmass, 12.6% unincorporated Pitkin County. A decade ago these were more like 64% Aspen, 18% Snowmass, and 18% County. b) Pitkin County 1/2% use tax - $1,400,000 Use tax is collected on building materials (approximately 73%) and vehicles (27%) purchased outside the Pitkin County for use within the county. Collections have been very strong since 2015, and we expect that trend to continue next year and to increase by 3% annually thereafter. It is difficult to accurately source the use tax since it is collected on both building materials and vehicles, and construction activity varies considerably from year to year in each jurisdiction. For example, just based on use tax deposits for building materials (paid at the time of pulling a building permit), the ratio was 37% Aspen, 35% Snowmass, and 28% Pitkin County for this year through July (probably atypical since Snowmass included the Limelight, but prior years would have included the Viceroy and other Base Village development). We do not have any source information for use tax on vehicles. c) Investment income - $124,000 We are forecasting an increase in investment earnings rates from 1.5% in 2018 to 3.0% by 2022. Again, these are the County’s formal projections developed in conjunction with its Financial Advisory Board. Invested fund balances vary from year to year, and in conjunction with increasing interest rates, produce a wide range of forecast investment income (from $68,000 in 2017 to $289,000 in 2022). 6 P16 II. Funding Uses Ongoing / Operational 1) Use tax collection costs - $56,257 The proposed budget includes the county’s administrative costs of collection and some contracted auditing. 2) Administrative cost allocation and meeting costs - $22,710 The proposed budget is composed of $10,739 administrative overhead (accounting, auditing, revenue collection and investment), $8,971 insurance, and $3,000 purchased services (for meeting support services including video recording and broadcast of meetings). 3) Country Inn taxi program in-lieu-of bus stop safety improvements - $6,000 The Country Inn taxi service program was implemented by the EOTC in 2001 to address bus stop safety issues faced by residents at this senior-priority housing complex. The lack of a traffic signal, crosswalk or median at this location along Highway 82 makes it unsafe for Country Inn residents to use transit for down valley trips, or for return trips from Aspen. The Country Inn taxi program allows residents to use a taxi when their travel would otherwise require the crossing of Highway 82. Although underutilized in recent years compared to budget, service demand could pick up again in the future. 4) X-Games transit subsidy - $115,000 This budget is paid to RFTA to help fund transit services for the X-Games and was previously approved through 2019. It is shown as continuing indefinitely although only confirmed through 2019. See attached memo for details. 5) Brush Creek Intercept Lot operating costs - $35,000 The City of Aspen’s Parking Department manages the parking area of the Brush Creek Park-N-Ride Lot for the EOTC per the Intergovernmental Agreement. No staff cost for parking enforcement or management of the lot is included. Instead this funds utilities, snow removal, trash removal, irrigation, and weed control. 6) No-fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek bus service subsidy - $650,556 ($647,791 Aspen- Snowmass, $2,765 Woody Creek) The EOTC has agreed with RFTA to set the Aspen-Snowmass subsidy at 36.7% of the actual costs of the service two years prior to the year being budgeted. Thus, the $647,791 budget (and amount to be paid) for 2018 is 36.7% of the actual cost for 2016. The 2019 and 2020 estimated costs are based on the 2017 and 2018 budgets for this service, but actual costs have been less than budget so far. The initial EOTC subsidy was set at the amount of fare revenue estimated to be lost by eliminating the fare for this service. For 2010, the first full year of no-fare service, that estimate of lost fare revenue was approximately $480,000, and the actual cost of the service that year was approximately $1,308,000. Thus 36.7% of the actual cost was estimated to be recovered from fare revenue. 7 P17 II. Below are ridership statistics for the no-fare routes from 2010 through 2016. 2018 Budget - New Requests See the attached memos for an explanation of the following new requests: Ongoing / Operational 7) WE-cycle operational support – $100,000 8) Brush Creek BRT connecting service - spring, summer, fall – $294,000 9) Regional Transportation Planner - $160,000 Projects 19) Buttermilk pedestrian crossing needs analysis - $80,000 20) Battery Electric Bus Program (previously approved on 6/15/17) - $500,000 21) Snowmass mall transit station (funded from Snowmass Village Savings Fund) - $50,000 22) Variable message sign at mm 34.5 on Hwy 82 - $50,000 Financial Planning Policy and Distribution of Annual Surplus The following policy statement emerged from the June 2014 EOTC retreat: • The no-fare service will now be “above the line” in the budget and multi-year plan. • The “lockboxes” will be replaced with “savings funds:” o The Aspen Transportation Savings Fund will replace the Entrance-To-Aspen lockbox and be targeted for mass transportation projects in the greater Aspen area. o The Snowmass Village Transportation Savings Fund will replace the SV Transit Center lockbox and be targeted for mass transportation projects in the greater Snowmass area. • At any time, a member government may bring forward a capital project for consideration with a request for funding from either or both Savings Funds. The EOTC will determine whether to fund the project and from what source on an individual case basis. • After funding the “above-the-line” items, 25% of the remaining annual revenue will add to the Snowmass Village Transportation Savings Fund until it is restored to $6,278,787. The remaining revenue will add to the Aspen Transportation Savings Fund. Route 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Snowmass/BC82/Snowmass 102,716 110,415 100,921 119,047 154,209 211,389 179,030 Aspen/Snowmass/Aspen - Direct 187,204 189,936 185,952 188,406 288,213 311,860 315,894 Woody Creek 5,050 6,671 8,259 7,924 6,186 6,348 6,860 Totals 294,970 307,022 295,132 315,377 448,608 529,597 501,784 8 P18 II. BALLOT QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PITKIN COUNTY ½% TRANSIT SALES TAX 1993 1/2% SALES AND USE TAX FOR MASS TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS SHALL PITKIN COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED UP TO $2,870,000 ANNUALLY BY THE IMPOSITION OF AN ADDITIONAL ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT SALES TAX AND AN ADDITIONAL ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT USE TAX COMMENDING JANUARY 1, 1994, AND THEREAFTER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING AND IMPROVING THE PUBLIC MASS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM WITHIN THE ROARING FORK VALLEY; SUCH MASS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS TO BE APPROVED BY INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN PITKIN COUNTY, THE CITY OF ASPEN, AND THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE AND TO INCLUDE BUT NOT BE LIMITED TO (I) INCREASED AND IMPROVED BUS SERVICE, INCLUDING, WHERE FEASIBLE, THE CONVERSION OF DIESEL-POWERED BUSES TO CLEANER-BURNING ALTERNATIVE FUELS, (II) PARK-AND-RIDE FACILITIES, (III) PARTICIPATING WITH ROARING FORK VALLEY GOVERNMENTS AND/OR OTHERS TO ACQUIRE THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR TRANSPORTATION AND RELATED TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE USES, AND (IV) A FIXED GUIDE-WAY PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ON A SEPARATE RIGHT-OF-WAY (SUCH AS A BUSWAY, MONORAIL, LIGHT-RAIL OR SIMILAR MECHANICAL TRANSIT SYSTEM) CONNECTING ASPEN, SNOWMASS AND DOWNVALLEY LOCATIONS WITHIN THE ROARING FORK VALLEY AND DEVELOPED WITH THE PARTICIPATION OF FEDERAL, STATE, AND PRIVATE ENTITIES; THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH ONE-HALF OF ONE PERCENT USE TAX TO BE UTILIZED FIRST FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE DENVER AND RIO GRANDE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY (UNLESS AN ACCEPTABLE PURCHASE AGREEMENT CANNOT BE REACHED) AND THEN FOR OTHER PUBLIC MASS TRANSPORTATIONS SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS; THE PROCEEDS OF BOTH TAXES TO BE SUPPLEMENTED TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE BY ADDITIONAL FEDERAL, STATE, AND PRIVATE FUNDING FOR PUBLIC MASS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE ROARING FORK VALLEY; AND THE RECEIPT, COLLECTION AND EXPENDITURE OF THE FULL PROCEEDS OF SUCH SALES AND USE TAXES TO NOT BE LIMITED BY ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION (EXCEPT THAT THE FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR'S COLLECTIONS MAY NOT EXCEED THE ESTIMATED DOLLAR AMOUNT STATED ABOVE) AND TO NOT THEREBY OTHERWISE LIMIT THE RECEIPT, COLLECTION OF SPENDING OF ANY OTHER REVENUES OR FUNDS BY PITKIN COUNTY? NOTE: AS AUTHORIZED BY STATE STATUTE, APPROVAL OF THIS QUESTION WILL RESULT IN AN AGGREGATE SALES TAX RATE IN THE INCORPORATED AREAS OF THE COUNTY IN EXCESS OF THE CURRENT SEVEN PERCENT STATUTORY LIMIT. THE AGGREGATE SALES TAX RATE IN THE REMAINDER OF THE COUNTY WOULD BE 6.5 PERCENT 9 P19 II. BALLOT QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PITKIN COUNTY ½% TRANSIT SALES TAX 2000 ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY(“RTA”) SHALL THE ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (“RTA”) BE ESTABLISHED FOR THE PURPOSE OF FUNDING AND PROVIDING THE BUS SERVICES CURRENTLY PROVIDED BY THE ROARING FORK TRANSIT AGENCY PLUS EXPANDED MASS TRANSIT AND OTHER TRANSPORTATION SERVICES IN ACCORDANCE WITH AN INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT AMONG THE CITY OF ASPEN, THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE AND PITKIN COUNTY, THE OTHER MEMBERS OF WHICH ARE EXPECTED TO BE BASALT, GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CARBONDALE AND EAGLE COUNTY IF THE APPROPRIATE VOTERS APPROVE THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT; SHALL PITKIN COUNTY ENTER INTO A MULTIPLE FISCAL YEAR FINANCIAL OBLIGATION TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE RTA AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO THE PROCEEDS OF A TAX RATE OF 0.7215% FROM PITKIN COUNTY'S EXISTING 1.5% TRANSPORTATION SALES TAXES; ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE RTA IS EXPECTED TO BE PROVIDED FROM THE FOLLOWING SOURCES IF APPROVED BY THE VOTERS (OR, IN THE CASE OF THE EAGLE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX, THE COMMISSIONERS) OF SUCH JURISDICTION OR AREA: 0.4% RTA SALES AND USE TAX IN GLENWOOD SPRINGS, 0.5% RTA SALES AND USE TAX IN CARBONDALE, 0.2% RTA SALES AND USE TAX WITHIN BASALT, 0.5% EAGLE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX IN THE PORTION OF EAGLE COUNTY WITHIN BASALT AND THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF EAGLE COUNTY WITHIN ELECTION PRECINCTS 7, 8, 24 AND 25; AND SHALL ALL AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY THE RTA FROM SUCH TAXES AND CONTRIBUTIONS AND OTHERWISE PURSUANT TO THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT AND EARNINGS THEREON CONSTITUTE A VOTER-APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE? 10 P20 II. BALLOT QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PITKIN COUNTY ½% TRANSIT SALES TAX 2004 ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (RFTA) BALLOT QUESTION WITH NO INCREASE IN TAX RATES, SHALL PITKIN COUNTY ENTER INTO A MULTIPLE FISCAL YEAR FINANCIAL OBLIGATION TO CONTRIBUTE TO THE ROARING FORK TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY (RFTA) AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT, EQUAL TO THE PROCEEDS OF A TAX RATE OF 0.165%, FROM PITKIN COUNTY'S EXISTING 0.5% TRANSPORTATION SALES TAX; PROVIDED THAT THIS OBLIGATION SHALL BE CONTINGENT UPON THE PASSAGE OF A RFTA BALLOT QUESTION ASKING VOTERS IN BASALT, EAGLE COUNTY, CARBONDALE AND GLENWOOD SPRINGS TO APPROVE A 0.2% RFTA SALES AND USE TAX IN THOSE JURISDICTIONS; AND SHALL ALL AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY RFTA BE EXEMPT FROM THE REVENUE AND SPENDING LIMITS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION? 11 P21 II. TO: Elected Official Transportation Committee (EOTC) FROM: Mirte Mallory, WE-cycle, Co-Founder and Director DATE OF MEETING: October 11, 2017 RE: 2018 Regional Bike Share Operating Investment REQUEST OF EOTC: WE-cycle respectfully submits a multi-year financial request of EOTC in the amount of $100,000 each year for the fiscal years 2018, 2019, 2020, subject to annual appropriations. The funds will be dedicated to support day-to-day operations of the WE-cycle Upper Valley System such that WE-cycle can effectively serve the Upper Roaring Fork Valley with safe and reliable bike transit services as a first/last mile integration with RFTA’s trunk line services. WE-cycle, the Roaring Fork Valley’s bike transit system and mobility app purveyor, currently serves the region with 190 bikes and 43 stations in Aspen, Basalt, Willits, and El Jebel. WE- cycle introduced Transit App to the valley as the one-stop, integrated mobility app that displays WE-cycle stations and bikes, valley-wide RFTA timetables, and Uber availability in one centralized interface. In 2017, EOTC provided funding to WE-cycle for the first time in the amount of $100,000 to support WE-cycle as a complementary mass transit service by operating a first/last mile connection to the region’s fixed-route RFTA service. Bike share performs a distinct role in the region’s multi-modal transportation system by offering riders a convenient, user-driven, and on- demand mode of travel in which they can check out a bike at one station and return it to another station, 24/7. By virtue of its multi-modal app and multi-jurisdictional service, WE-cycle is a proponent of, and facilitator of, integrated regional transit service. BACKGROUND: Seven years ago this month, WE-cycle, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, presented to the Aspen City Council the organization’s goal to bring bike share to Aspen as an active, healthy, car-free, and carbon-neutral form of transportation. The vision was to offer shared bikes as a first/last mile connection to the valley’s highly-functioning RFTA service and as a fast, convenient, and flexible mode of travel for residents, the workforce, and lastly, visitors. WE- cycle outlined a plan to first introduce bike share to Aspen with the objective of rolling out in other communities within the Roaring Fork Valley to create a seamless and integrated regional bike-bus-bike transit system. In 2010, at the time WE-cycle proposed the bike share concept, there were only four bike share programs in North America using automated bike check-out technology and mobile applications. Given the upper valley’s traffic challenges and the stated community objectives of reducing single occupancy vehicles and carbon emissions, WE-cycle saw the entrepreneurial opportunity to introduce an innovative form of mobility as a public / private partnership. Bike transit, just like bus transit, took time to gain traction and financial support. 12 P22 II. In 2013, WE-cycle opened as the 25th bike share in the US and the first outside of a metropolitan area. The Roaring Fork Transportation Authority became WE-cycle’s first Founding Partner followed soon thereafter by Pitkin County and the City of Aspen and private partners consisting of The Aspen Institute, Aspen Meadows Resort, Aspen Skiing Company, Aspen Valley Hospital, Genshaft Cramer LLP, Nick DeWolf Foundation, and TheMyersRobertsCollective. All of these Founding Partners remain integrally involved, and invested in, WE-cycle’s ongoing success. Today, WE-cycle is about to complete its 5th season and has cumulatively surpassed 113,000 rides in the Aspen System. In 2017, 87% of rides have been completed by valley residents holding Season Passes. WE-cycle now operates two systems, in the upper valley and the mid- valley. Carbondale, Glenwood Springs, and New Castle have contacted WE-cycle and are eager to add bike share to their transportation options. Collaborating with its partners, Transit App and PBSC Urban Solutions, WE-cycle was the first bike share system nationwide to offer mobile bike share check-out integrated into the same app with bus schedules. This year, 67% of WE-cycle riders check out their bikes using Transit App and the Roaring Fork Valley has one of the highest adoptions per capita nationwide of using Transit App to access multi-modal transit information. Since its inception, WE-cycle has partnered with over 90 sponsors, partners, and grantors, local and national, and served over 15,000 individuals with its 24/7 system. Numbers aside, WE-cycle is proud of how it has positively impacted lives in our valley by allowing people to become bus riders when they previously hadn’t been due to fixed-routes, to live healthier lives, to reduce congestion, to improve air quality, to save time, to replace car trips with bike trips, and to feel connected to a community of individuals collectively pedaling towards more bike-friendly towns. Over the past five years, WE-cycle has become a relied-upon component of the valley’s transportation network, introduced innovative technology and a widely-used mobile application, and championed seamless and integrated valley-wide transit including the valley’s only multi- modal one pass fare card, the RFTA Seasonal Zone/WE-cycle Pass. During this time, the bike share industry has exploded with over 115 bike share systems in the US and over 88 million bike share trips since 2010. Bike share is now an expectation of every city’s multi-modal transit system. Like all start-up sectors, the bike share industry has experienced tremendous technological advancement. WE-cycle is at the forefront evolving bike share landscape and is able to role out new technology quicker and more cost effectively than larger systems. Remaining committed to best management practices, financial accountability, community- based collaboration, nimbleness and creativity, WE-cycle sees the potential for continued ridership growth while also expanding its service footprint within the Upper Roaring Fork Valley. SERVICE AREA: While WE-cycle’s bike transit service in the Upper Roaring Fork Valley is currently available only within the City of Aspen, residents from throughout the Roaring Fork Valley utilize its mobility offering. Of WE-cycle’s 1,564 Season Passholders, 51% reside outside of Aspen with 13 P23 II. 4% from the Town of Snowmass Village. WE-cycle sees transit connections which it could effectively serve in the Town of Snowmass Village and Pitkin County’s Urban Growth Boundary and is eager to collaborate with these jurisdictions on its implementation. FINANCIAL OVERVIEW: As with many bike share systems around the country, WE-cycle was established as a public/private partnership (P3). The objective of the P3 is to broaden support for the initiative, speed adoption, and generate cost efficiencies. This model has proven successful from the private sector with local businesses sponsoring WE-cycle and subsequently nurturing a culture within their organization that encourages and facilitates the use of multi-modal transit, including WE-cycle. WE-cycle attributes much of its ridership growth to its positive and collaborative partnerships with small and large local businesses. The public side of the partnership has proven to be more complex, uncertain, and variable. While WE-cycle is a public service, it does not reside within a particular public entity which creates challenges from an annual funding perspective. By definition of being a first/last mile service, WE-cycle is inherently regional providing valley residents the opportunity to use its service at the beginning or end of their journey, regardless of where they might reside. Hence, the importance of public entities, on a regional level, supporting WE-cycle. As part of the transit landscape, WE-cycle’s must remain competitive with other public transit services in order to attract riders and thereby sponsors. In recent years, the increasing number of “No-Fare to the User” public transit offerings have changed the financial landscape in which WE-cycle operates. WE-cycle questions the alignment of community values given that riding a bike for transit purposes, i.e. bike share, is now the only public transit service for which a user must pay to ride in the Upper Roaring Fork Valley. WE-cycle continues to adapt its revenue model to the changing transportation ecosystem of the Upper Roaring Fork Valley. WE-cycle is grateful to the public sector for continuing to align its investment in bike transit with that of its other transit offerings. As illustrated in the following financials, the EOTC’s investment in regional bike transit service was essential to WE-cycle’s financial viability in 2017. Of note in reviewing WE-cycle’s financials: • The majority of bike share systems throughout the country have staff within the transportation or parking department of a particular jurisdiction who manage, secure funds, promote the system, conduct station planning and lead bike share integration with the other transit offerings. This is not the case for WE-cycle. WE-cycle financials include 100% of the costs of operating bike transit services and maintaining an integrated mobility app in the Upper Roaring Fork Valley. • WE-cycle’s Basalt revenues and expenses are accounted for separately. Wherever possible, revenues and expenses are allocated directly to their respective cost center. • WE-cycle continues to operate a lean and nimble organization out of its commitment to both environmental and financial sustainability. 5 years and over 125,000 rides later, WE-cycle still only has 2 year-round employees. 14 P24 II. 2017 Upper Valley System - Revenues and Expenses (Projected) Revenue Amount % Description Public Investment $125,000 42% First Year EOTC funding: $100,000, RFTA: $25,000 Pass Sales $67,377 22% Pay-per-Ride Passes, Purchased Season Passes, No-Fare to User Season Passes courtesy of the City of Aspen’s Drive Less Program, and Overtime Fees. Down from 2016 by ~ 14%. Private Sponsorship $107,323 36% Sponsorships on bikes, of stations, of Community Panels, of events. Sponsors’ receive No-Fare to the User Season Passes to give to their employees as a benefit. Down from 2016 by ~ 24%. PROJECTED* REVENUES $299,700 Expense Amount Description Payroll $182,662 Year-Round Staff 2 full-time employees Organizational leadership, fund raising, planning, sponsorship, marketing and communications, graphic design and website, pass sales, rider outreach, events, passholder help line, partner engagement, grant writing, equity programming, financials, budgeting, reporting, insurance, compliance, human resources, office management, mobility app development and integrations, software evolution and innovation. Seasonal Operations Staff 2 full-time employees 6 part-time employees Day-to-day operations including bike balancing and cleaning, monthly bike check- overs, station maintenance and cleaning, on-street customer service, software and hardware management. 12 hours per day, 7-days a week, May – October. Operations & Maintenance $60,678 Parts, maintenance, tools, equipment, balancing vehicles, cellular connectivity, software fees, insurance, installs, storage. Organizational $47,045 Office and shop rent, administrative expenses, marketing and advertising, website and app development, events and outreach, promotional materials, pass materials. PROJECTED EXPENSES** $290,386 * 2017 revenues and expenses are projected, as WE-cycle’s season does not conclude until November. Projections are based on actuals. ** Any delta between revenues and expenses is allocated to WE-cycle to a capital account for equipment repair and replacement. 15 P25 II. 2018 Budgeted Revenues and Expenses As WE-cycle enters its sixth season, it will place an increased emphasis on the connectivity and integration of its regional service in partnership with its transit partner, RFTA. As the EOTC is very much aware, regional transit implementation doesn’t happen without deliberate and thorough planning, cultivating of multi-jurisdictional partnerships, focusing on integration opportunities and ridership growth, and communicating about priorities to further a seamless and coordinated multi-modal system. WE-cycle, as the Roaring Fork Valley’s established bike transit system and provider, and mobility app innovator, is integral to the current focus on reducing congestion from single occupancy vehicles up and down the valley. Over the years, over 90 public and private partners have made significant financial investments in WE-cycle’s existing infrastructure. It is WE-cycle’s mission and fiduciary responsibility to maintain service levels, assets, and continue to provide a sustainable and integrated valley-wide service. To this end, in 2018 WE-cycle will invest more significant time and resources in its integration with RFTA and commitment to being the valley-wide bike share operator and valley-wide mobility app aggregator to help facilitate that the valley’s existing, and future, multi-modal transit offerings connect seamlessly with the established bike share system and mobility app existing regional transit resources. RFTA has a made a multi-year commitment of a minimum of $100,000 per year for the next five years to support ongoing collaboration, integration, and regional planning. 2018 Upper Valley and Integration and Regional Planning - Revenues and Expenses - (Budgeted) Funding Source Amount Description Committed RFTA Investment $100,000 The plus these funds will be used to support WE-cycle’s core offerings that are essential to all of its service areas including implementation of best management practices, optimization of resources, technological innovation, multi-modal pass integration, and ongoing communication with partners regarding the enhancement of the valley’s multi-modal transit offerings. Requested EOTC Investment $100,000 A multi-year commitment, subject to annual appropriations, would allow WE-cycle to plan on a longer horizon and thereby retain core and highly-skilled staff which both translate into cost- savings and enhanced service levels. Requested City of Aspen Investment $145,000 Over the past few years, the City of Aspen has invested in additional No-Fare to the User transit services that are funded through the City budget and do not rely on private sponsorship dollars. WE-cycle has requested the City of Aspen to underwrite No-Fare to the User WE-cycle for the first 30 minutes of every ride and a portion of WE-cycle’s anticipated loss in private sponsorship revenue. 16 P26 II. Private Sponsorship $30,000 Sponsorships on bikes, of Community Panels, of events. WE- cycle remains very much committed to its private partnerships both to diversity its income and to cultivate collaborations which lead to enhanced ridership engagement. TOTAL BUDGETED REVENUES $375,000 Upper Valley System + Integration and Regional Planning Expense Amount Description Integration and Regional Planning $100,000 With these funds, WE-cycle will staff, scope, and draft bike share implementation and integration plans for interested RFTA member jurisdictions such as TOSV, Carbondale, Glenwood Springs, and New Castle. Payroll Upper Valley $170,000 Year-Round and Seasonal Operations Staff Operations & Maintenance $56,000 Parts, maintenance, tools, equipment, balancing vehicles, cellular connectivity, software fees, insurance, installs, storage. Organizational $49,000 Office and shop rent, administrative expenses, marketing and advertising, website and app development, events and outreach, promotional materials, pass materials. BUDGETED EXPENSES $375,000 FUTURE INNOVATION: In being the first to pioneer automated, station-based bike share in non-metropolitan areas, WE-cycle has demonstrated its ability to innovate and introduce creative solutions to allow bike share to thrive in areas with lower population densities. WE-cycle is constantly evolving its service and infrastructure with the goal of growing ridership and reducing the barriers of entry to using its service as a form of public transit. As an example, WE-cycle worked with its partners PBSC Urban Solutions and Transit App to develop “Satellite Stations” for the Basalt System. These stations are smaller and thereby more cost- effective such that there can be multiple within a neighborhood to provide closer access to possible users. As a further cost savings, bikes can only be checked out with Transit App or a key fob. WE-cycle, and its partners, successfully provided a lower cost point bike share infrastructure without sacrificing the reliability, safety, and transit-oriented focus of the service. The Basalt System wouldn’t have come to fruition without these innovations and today has a higher per-capita ridership then Salt Lake City or Denver’s bike share systems. Bike share needs, and the particularities of operating such an effective service, in the Roaring Fork Valley are unique and WE-cycle remains poised to assess and introduce the most appropriate future technologies. 17 P27 II. The bike share industry is currently experiencing two rapid cycles of development. One is the e-bike and the other is free-floating bike share. E-Bike Share WE-cycle is of the opinion that e-bikes have the ability to significantly expand its service area and the number of residents served as well as broaden the demographic who might consider using bike share. E-bikes will also be of benefit to some of the regions more topographically accentuated areas. WE-cycle’s manufacturer, PBSC Urban Solutions, has developed a state of the industry level 1 e-bike that can be integrated into WE-cycle’s existing infrastructure. A WE-cycle passholder would thereby have access to either a pedal-powered bike or e-bike with the same WE-cycle pass and either bike could be checked out with the same mobile app. PBSC is eager to explore piloting this e-bike, the Boost, with WE-cycle in 2018 subject to WE- cycle’s jurisdictional partners interest and financial participation. WE-cycle recognizes that prior to the roll-out of any e-bike share in the Upper Roaring Fork Valley that e-bike regulations would need to be clarified and adopted. WE-cycle welcomes the collaboration of any of the EOTC member jurisdictions to participate in an e-bike pilot for 2018. Free-Floating Bike Share Given the free-floating bike share systems available in today’s market, WE-cycle does not support pursuing the implementation of free-floating bike share until best practices have been established that effectively manage the public right of way and respective enforcement, maintain public safety, mitigate its environmental impacts, and develop a means of seamless and compatible integration with existing bike share service. WE-cycle is of the opinion that given some evolution of management practices, right of way regulations, safety standards, and refined technology and bike accountability, that free-floating bike share could successfully co- exist with a station-based system. The two offerings attract different rides and types of trips. If the two forms of bike share can be compatible via one pass and managed as one bike transit ecosystem, together, they have the possibility to engage a broader audience in bike share. In assessing the merits of free-floating bike share, WE-cycle offers the following considerations: Public Safety The free-floating bike share business model requires a very cost- effective bike. The bikes do not have robust safety features such as tamper proof lights and brakes and tires. The operators do not have a regular maintenance schedule or a means of tracking bikes in need of repair or unsafe to ride. Not Transit Serving Free-floating bike share is by nature an unmanaged system. Bikes can be anywhere at anytime thereby undermining their reliable integration with other modes of transit and a bike predictably waiting at a transit hub when one gets off the bus. This lack of predictability threatens one’s ability to rely on the service and thereby be a multi-modal transit user. Non-Managed System One of the tenants of the free-floating bike share model is that the bikes self-manage with little customer support and operations involvement. This concept requires a very-high number of bikes to compensate for the unmanaged nature of the system in hopes that sheer scale will create reliability. Bikes are not balanced or redistributed. Impact on Public By design, free-floating bike share bikes can be parked anywhere 18 P28 II. Right of Way thereby creating public right of way and ADA management, clutter, and enforcement issues on sidewalks, pedestrian malls, streets, bus shelters, parking spots, alleys, etc. Free-floating bikes are inherently not parked in an orderly manner and thereby require compensating public employees to provide enforcement. Environmentally Unsustainable Free-floating bikes are essentially disposable. As the bikes can be picked up and moved and do not have built-in user-accountability standards, they are regularly discarded in rivers, ponds, lakes, parks, dumpsters, junkyards, etc. Due to the bike’s low production cost point they are most often turned into refuse when damaged rather than repaired creating excessive landfill waste. More Bikes Does Not Equal More Ridership The utility rates of free-floating bike share are yet to be fully-vetted in the US given the infancy of the offering. Pilot programs are revealing that more bikes are not growing ridership and actually impacting the service area by being concentrated in areas with the greatest financial capacity – ie tourist areas and dense business districts. Equity Implications The free-floating bike share services do not facilitate bike equity goals in that they require high deposits or holds upon sign up, have minimal to non-existent customer support, and bikes are not rebalanced to lower- income neighborhoods. The schemes have to date, not been transparent with the intended use of the collected user data. Privatized Not Shared Bikes The location of a free-floating bike is identified to users by an app which relies on the accuracy of the potential, and previous users, location services. Bikes can be stored in hidden places to other users such as backyards, garages, sheds, and gardens at no penalty. Expensive for Avid Bike Sharers The free-floating bike model charges per ride. This model becomes financially impractical for regular transit riders who rely on bike share multiple times of day. The revenue model is focused on serving occasional, tourist users. Erodes Local Businesses Free-floating bike share is essentially bike-rental via an app. The cost structure does not disincentivize extended use thereby making the bikes very attractive for casual, leisurely rides. If implemented, free-floating bike share has the ability to significantly impact the many local bike rental businesses. While free-floating bike share schemes are attractive due to their minimal, to no, infrastructure costs, WE-cycle is confident that local jurisdictions will thoroughly consider the implications of such systems prior to actively soliciting, or permitting, their services. WE-cycle will be open to possibilities of collaboration once the above best bike share management practices can be addressed. *** With five years of successful bike share operations and mobility app expertise within the Roaring Fork Valley, WE-cycle looks forward to the integration opportunities and service area possibilities of the coming five years. 19 P29 II. AGNEDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: October 19, 2017 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Increase Transit Service in the Brush Creek Road Corridor STAFF RESPONSIBLE: David Peckler, Town of Snowmass Village ISSUE STATEMENT: Snowmass Village (SV) is requesting funding to increase regional service between SV and Highway 82 during the spring, summer and fall beginning in 2018. The goal is to achieve 15 minute headways that connect SV to the Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) service along the Highway 82 corridor. The increase in connections to the BRT service improves transit options for: Employees commuting to SV from down valley communities or Aspen; SV residents commuting to jobs predominately in Aspen; SV residents’ social and business trips up or down the valley; and Tourist trips predominately between the two upper valley communities. BACKGROUND: This request has been presented to the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) on three previous occasions. The RFTA board will be discussing this service increase during their budget planning hopefully on their meeting on the 14th. The cost of the increased service is projected to be $294,000 annually. SV has been supporting the BRT service since its inception in the fall of 2013. One obstacle to SV benefitting from the regional BRT service is the limited headways (every half hour generally) connecting Highway 82 and SV. The service plan being requested is to increase the headways between Highway 82 and SV to every fifteen minutes during the operation of the BRT service. A key targeted group is our workforce. In the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority’s (RFTA) latest Travel Pattern Study the 2012 Worker Population for SV was projected at 1,928: of this total 1,150 workers are commuting predominately from Glenwood Springs/Carbondale/El Jebel/Basalt, and roughly 210 employees are coming from Aspen. The service also targets SV residents commuting to Aspen. The study found that 46% of SV residents work in Aspen and represent 10% of the Commute Flow into Aspen. There is also the potential of capturing tourists moving between SV and Aspen during the day which could help reduce congestion in Aspen during the summer months. SV is requesting reasonable access to the BRT service. The request is modest compared to the combined BRT and Valley service levels enjoyed by other jurisdictions. 20 P30 II. SV views this request as reasonable given that all the communities and counties in RFTA are funding both the BRT and Valley service plans. In our contract with RFTA, SV provides the regional service connections between SV and Highway 82 in the spring and fall. SV is developing our 2018 budget and we need to know if the requested service will be included. BUDGET IMPACT: The cost of the increased regional service is projected to be $294,000 annually, please see attached memo from RFTA. If the RFTA board does not financially support the service, then SV would be requesting the funding for this additional service as an ongoing operating expense. RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION: Snowmass Village hopes the EOTC can support the increase to the regional service plan with the approval of funding in the 2018 budget to support this service. Attachment(s): RFTA Memo Estimated Cost of Providing Increased Service in the Brush Creek Road Corridor. 21 P31 II. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: October 19, 2017 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Transportation Planning Position Request STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Brian Pettet, Pitkin County Public Works Director ISSUE STATEMENT: The administrative function for the EOTC has been shared between RFTA, City of Aspen, Pitkin County and Town of Snowmass Village Staff (John Krueger with the City of Aspen has acted as EOTC administrator). Each of these Staff members have other operational and leadership duties within their organizations and the EOTC has not experienced a dedicated planning function. BACKGROUND: Since its inception, the EOTC has brought in transportation planning consultants depending on need, but has not experienced a singularly-focused position for this function. Staff from RFTA, City of Aspen, Pitkin County and the Town of Snowmass Village have shared this responsibility and have balanced this requirement with other operational and leadership duties within their respective organizations. Recently, the concept of hiring a Regional Transportation Planner for the EOTC has been discussed and the concept has generally received support. In the Upper Valley Mobility Report, the Aspen Institute recommends a single planning entity be formed to coordinate and facilitate regional mobility planning among governments, the private sector and the community. The Institute felt that over time the coordination could and should expand in scope to include the full region. This single point of contact, with its full time focus on regional mobility planning; would elevate the effort required to set goals, enhance coordination, expand transportation relationships and achieve desired mobility outcomes. Pitkin County would act as the fiscal agent for the position and the person would report to existing EOTC staff for guidance, collaboration and planning. Ultimately, the EOTC would guide the effort of the position through funding of projects and initiatives, as well as, through the collaborative development of a transportation mobility action plan. If funded, the next step for EOTC Staff would be to develop a job description, post, recruit and fill the position. The following are examples of potential duties to include in the Transportation Planner’s job description: • Prepare reports or recommendations on transportation planning. • Recommend transportation system improvements or projects, based on economic, population, land-use, or traffic projections. 22 P32 II. • Participate in public meetings or hearings to explain planning proposals, to gather feedback from those affected by projects, or to achieve consensus on project designs. • Define regional or local transportation planning problems and priorities. • Analyze and interpret data from traffic modeling software, geographic information systems, or associated databases. • Organize, schedule, facilitate and document EOTC staff meetings and elected official meetings. Develop packet for EOTC meetings. • Document and evaluate transportation project needs and costs. • Develop design ideas for new or improved transport infrastructure, such as intersection improvements, pedestrian projects, bus facilities, and car parking areas. • Collaborate with engineers, governments, the private sector and the community to research, analyze, or resolve complex transportation design issues. • Collaborate with elected officials, staff, the public on transportation priorities and coordination opportunities. BUDGETARY IMPACT: $160,000 has been placed in the 2018 budget to cover salary, benefits (etc…), training, and computer needs. RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION: Approve the budget allocation and direct Staff to hire a Transportation Planner. 23 P33 II. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: October 19, 2017 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Buttermilk/SH82 Pedestrian Crossing Funding STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Brian Pettet, Pitkin County Public Works Director ISSUE STATEMENT: The EOTC had previously funded $800,000 (for 2018) for design and engineering for a pedestrian crossing of State Highway 82 at the Buttermilk Park and Ride. When completing preliminary work for this potential project, Staff determined it would be best to complete more analysis of the need for the crossing including a cost benefit analysis of this transit amenity. BACKGROUND: The Buttermilk Pedestrian Crossing has been contemplated for years as a potential EOTC project. Last year $800,000 for design and engineering and $8,000,000 for construction were placed in the EOTC’s five year plan. However, when considering overpass or tunnel options it was determined that the constrained site with excessive utility conflicts would create a difficult and potentially expensive (exceeding current budget) underground pedestrian option. Further, the Aspen Ski Company communicated that they did not feel the crossing is needed nor were they interested in participating financially. Few pedestrians cross State Highway 82 in this location for eight months of the year (April through November). The majority of use is in the winter months by pedestrians accessing Buttermilk. The crossing is used extensively during the four days of X-games when there is typically a State Highway Patrol presence. Given the lack of consistent pedestrian activity, lack of Ski Company endorsement and potential for an expensive construction project; it is recommended that a needs analysis be completed. BUDGETARY IMPACT: $8,800,000 was removed from the five year budget and $80,000 was added into the 2018 budget to complete needs and cost benefit analysis. Ultimate funding needed for 2018 will depend on the complexity of the study. RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION: Support the budget change and direct Staff to complete the pedestrian crossing analysis. 24 P34 II. MEMORANDUM TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee FROM: Dan Blankenship, Chief Executive Officer, Roaring Fork Transportation Authority DATE: June 7, 2017 SUBJECT: Federal Transit Administration LoNo Grant Application for Battery Electric Buses Overview and Background: Over the past 18 months, RFTA and the City of Aspen have been researching the feasibility of a Battery Electric Bus (BEB) Program. On May 3, the City of Aspen, RFTA, and a group of local stakeholders participated in a Battery Electric Bus Workshop held at the Aspen Institute. Representatives from five BEB manufacturers participated in the workshop and much useful information was exchanged during the daylong event. At the conclusion of the workshop, those attending agreed that transitioning to BEB’s for a portion of the City of Aspen and RFTA bus fleets is feasible. On April 27, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Federal Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Section 5339 Low or No Emission Grant Program (LoNo). This program incentivizes the purchase of BEB’s and other alternative fuel vehicles. The current administration may reduce funding for or eliminate many FTA-related programs in the future. As such, FY2017 could be the last year for LoNo grants, and this could be RFTA’s best opportunity to apply for and capitalize upon this funding for its transition to BEB’s. RFTA’s Integrated Transportation System Plan (ITSP) and the UVMS planning processes have accelerated the region’s research on and interest in the feasibility BEB’s. Parsons Transportation Group (PTG), which is leading the consultant team on both studies, is recommending that RFTA and the City of Aspen pursue a BEB Program, in order to transition to a cleaner and quieter bus technology. RFTA staff believes that an initial fleet of eight BEB’s would provide an adequate number of vehicles with which to conduct a viable BEB pilot program. Four of the buses would be used on City of Aspen routes and four would be used initially on RFTA transit routes in the upper 25 P35 II. Roaring Fork Valley, until issues related to battery range and on-route charging can be addressed. PTG’s recommendation is based on a number of factors, including, but not limited to: • The City of Aspen is concerned that the increasing number of diesel and CNG buses circulating within Aspen’s core (approximately 500/day during peak seasons) will eventually degrade the City’s social, environmental and economic vitality. • An eight-bus fleet can create a viable BEB pilot program and should be competitive for FY17 LoNo Grant funds, due to the high level of proposed local match. • The high cost and operational issues associated with LRT and other fixed-guideway solutions make the interim transition to electric buses appear to be financially feasible, particularly if LoNo funding is awarded to RFTA. • The relatively short loops available for buses to operate within the City of Aspen and in the upper valley, should work well in terms of battery range and access to a central charging station. A BEB pilot program is implementable in the short term and can be expanded to regional routes in the future as part of routine bus replacements, as battery ranges improve. At its May 11, meeting, the RFTA Board gave conceptual authorization for staff to continue performing due diligence related to an application for Federal Transit Administration (FTA) LoNo grant funding for the purchase of eight Battery Electric Buses (BEB’s) and associated charging infrastructure. The estimated total project cost is $7.6 million. Subsequently, RFTA Procurement staff solicited proposals in order to obtain a BEB manufacturer partner for the LoNo grant. Subject to RFTA Board authorization, staff intends to submit an application to Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) by June 19 which, in turn, will submit a consolidated LoNo grant, before FTA’s June 26 deadline, on behalf of Colorado’s rural transit agencies. Following is a status report regarding several issues that need to be finalized prior to grant submission, as follows: 1. Obtain authorization to submit the LoNo grant from the RFTA Board of Directors. (To be requested at RFTA Board meeting on June 8) 2. Confirm potential local match funding contributions from the City of Aspen and the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC). (City staff has indicated that a $1 million matching contribution appears workable. The EOTC request will be made at the June 15 meeting) 3. Select a BEB manufacturer to partner on the LoNo grant with RFTA. (On June 1, following a competitive proposal process, New Flyer was selected to be RFTA’s LoNo partner) 26 P36 II. EOTC Participation Requested: In 2005, the EOTC provided seed money that enabled RFTA to acquire 4 diesel-electric hybrid buses. Currently, RFTA believes its LoNo application would be stronger if included the EOTC as a funding partner. The four RFTA BEB’s funded in part by the LoNo grant would primarily be used in the upper Roaring Fork Valley and, ideally, to/from Snowmass Village, assuming the range is sufficient. So, it is anticipated that the upper valley governments will be the primary beneficiaries of the benefits derived from the BEB’s. The suggested EOTC amount being requested is $500,000; however, a lesser amount would still be helpful. Absent an EOTC contribution to the LoNo BEB project, RFTA would decrease the local grant share by $500,000 and increase the requested LoNo grant share by $500,000, in order to keep the $7.6 million in project revenue and capital expenditures in balance. This would result in a $3.9 million local grant share and a $3.7 million LoNo grant share, a matching ratio of 51% local to 49% LoNo. In staff’s view, this would still be a competitive grant application from a cost- sharing perspective, but not quite as competitive as it would be with EOTC support. If the EOTC approves the funding and the LoNo grant is not received, the EOTC would be under no obligation to provide funding for the project. Thank you very much for your consideration of this request. 4. Finalize the BEB cost estimate, which could be higher or lower than the estimate attached below. (It will take additional time to obtain better pricing information now that RFTA’s LoNo grant partner has been selected. However, it is not anticipated that the overall project cost estimate of $7.6 million will be exceeded. Also, depending upon the funding commitment from the EOTC, the estimated LoNo grant share request can be increased to keep the project revenue in balance, if the EOTC ). 5. Finalize the LoNo grant application. (In progress) 6. Application will be submitted to CDOT June 19 27 P37 II. Item Quantity Uni t Cost Total Cost 1 40-foot Battery Electric Buses (BEB)8 900,000$ 7,200,000$ * 2 Charging Stations (two each)4 80,000$ 320,000$ 3 Infratructure Installation 1 80,000$ 80,000$ 4 Total N/A N/A 7,600,000$ Sources of Funding Total 5 FY18 Statewide FASTER Grant 1,686,000$ 6 RFTA FASTER Grant Local Match 425,000$ ** 7 City of Aspen 1,000,000$ 8 EOTC 500,000$ *** 9 Additional RFTA Funding 789,000$ ** 10 Subtotal Local BEB Funding 4,400,000$ 58%Local 11 Estimated LoNo Grant Funding 3,200,000$ 42%LoNo Item Quantity Unit Cost Total Cost 12 BEB Cost 8 900,000$ 7,200,000$ 13 Diesel Bus Cost 8 500,000$ 4,000,000$ 14 Estimated Incremental Cost of BEB Powertrain 8 400,000$ 3,200,000$ *Four buses for the City of Aspen and four buses for RFTA **Total Estimated RFTA Funding Required 1,214,000$ ***Not yet committed 500,000$ LoNo Battery Electric Bus Grant Preliminary Financing Plan with EOTC Funding 28 P38 II. AGNEDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: October 19, 2017 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Funding for Regional Bus Station in Snowmass Village STAFF RESPONSIBLE: David Peckler, Town of Snowmass Village ISSUE STATEMENT: Snowmass Village (SV) is requesting $50,000 in funding to study concepts for the regional transit station proposed in the West Village (Mall) area. The project was last studied in 2006 before the Great Recession. Interest in redeveloping infrastructure in the Mall area has resurfaced and the regional transit station is a major component of revitalization and transportation in the Mall. The funds will be come from the Snowmass account. BACKGROUND: This project has gone through two design reviews with previous land owners. The community is interested in making improvements to the bus facilities to address deficiencies that have lingered for some time. The funding will be used to study simple alternatives to the current design that can be accomplished within the funds currently available. BUDGET IMPACT: The cost of the study is projected to be $50,000. Total cost of the final design is yet to be determined. RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION: Snowmass Village recommends that the EOTC support the study of the alternatives. Attachment(s): 29 P39 II. AGNEDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: October 19, 2017 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Variable Message Sign for Highway 82 STAFF RESPONSIBLE: David Peckler, Town of Snowmass Village ISSUE STATEMENT: EOTC staff is requesting $50,000 in funding to investigate and design a variable message sign at mile 34.5 on Highway 82 (HWY 82). This location is near the Cozy Point Ranch access road. The sign is to be placed in the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) right-of-way and built according to their design standards. A similar sign is across the way on the northeast side of the highway. We have requested general information from CDOT on the process to request a sign, financial participation in design and construction, permission post traffic and parking information. BACKGROUND: There is growing interest in using the Intercept lot on Highway 82 at Brush Creek Rd as a park and ride facility. There has been discussion about providing drivers with real time information on the congestion on HWY 82 at the entrance to Aspen before they get to the Intercept lot. The hope is that by providing real time information to people traveling on HWY 82 we could boost utilization of the Intercept lot. The free park and ride program that is in place at the Intercept lot with the higher level of BRT service could be promoted to employees and social guests coming to Aspen. Information on parking and wayfinding for special events would also be a possibility. BUDGET IMPACT: The cost of $50,000 would be for survey work, pedestal design, utility location, and access to the information system. Total cost of the project has yet to be determined. RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION: Staff recommends the EOTC support the project’s funding. 30 P40 II. To: Elected Officials Transportation Committee From: Aspen Skiing Company Cc: Dan Blankenship, John Hocker, and Kent Blackmer Date: October 10, 2017 Re: 2018 X Games Aspen Funding Request Aspen Snowmass will host X Games Aspen for a 17th consecutive year January 25 – 28, 2018. Year-over -year X Games transforms youth culture by combining winter sports, music and other lifestyle elements into programming that reaches global audiences via television, web streaming and social media channels. These days ESPN, the industry and associated companies, sponsors and athletes themselves extend the programming reach through multiple mediums. Attendance in 2017 held steady at 105,000 with Saturday (concert attendance plus live events) being the busiest day at an estimated crowd of 45,000. Over the past several years we have seen a shift in attendee patterns which has resulted in transporting more guests to and from the venue for shorter time periods. Through planning and modifying bus service times we have been able to adapt and continue to offer a quality guest experience. Buttermilk has never been busier and yet we continue to effectively, safely and efficiently transport guests from the Intercept Lot, Aspen and Snowmass simultaneously to and from Buttermilk with minimal delays. For 2018 we will again work with our transportation partners (RFTA, McDonald Transportation and Ramblin Express) to provide the quality service our guests, community and X Games have come to expect. With over 75% of guests taking advantage of the aforementioned services it is arguably the most critical part of the event. In 2014 the EOTC board approved EOTC funding of $115,000 annually for 2015 - 2019. At this time we would like to confirm the $115,000 funding for the 2018 event. The event’s success and overall guest experience is directly tied to our ability to safely move people to and from the venue and that success is largely attributed to the financial contribution of the EOTC and working with our partners from RFTA. Thank you for supporting the biggest winter action sports event on the planet. It embodies youth, vitality and progression, and it happens right here in our backyard. The amazing people and local governing bodies of our valley have played a critical role in the development of this rapport and are to be thanked. In general, however, the cumulative support received from multiple sectors of the business community make a compelling statement of support for X Games Aspen from the Roaring Fork Valley residents, and we are proud to work together with everyone on this event Thank you for your continued support. Buck Erickson Director, Event Operations Aspen Skiing Company 2018 X Games Aspen 31 P41 II. MEMORANDUM TO: The Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) FR: John D. Krueger, City Of Aspen Meeting Date: October 19, 2017 RE: 2018 EOTC Meeting Dates Decision Needed: Confirmation of 2018 meeting dates Staff is proposing the following meeting dates for 2018. All meetings to begin at 4pm. • February 15, 2018 Snowmass-Host & Chair • June 14, 2018 Pitkin County-Host & Chair • October 18, 2018 Aspen-Host & Chair 32 P42 II.