Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.council.worksession.20120319
MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Katherine Dart,Community Office for Resource Efficiency, Energy Smart Program THROUGH: Lauren McDonell,Environmental Initiatives Program Manager CC: Steve Barwick,City Manager DATE OF MEMO: March 12,2012 MEETING DATE: March 19,2012 RE: Update on Energy Smart Colorado ISSUE STATEMENT: Katherine Dart of the Energy Smart staff would like to update the City Council about the status of the program and provide an overview of the 2011 annual report. A summary of the report along with a copy of the PowerPoint to be presented are attached. BACKGROUND: Energy efficiency for existing homes is a growth industry with enormous economic, social and environmental benefits. Energy efficiency improvements promote jobs for skilled workers and help homeowners realize savings on utility bills, freeing up dollars to be invested elsewhere in the community. Efficiency measures also raise awareness and actions to improve indoor air quality and health (such as the instance of carbon monoxide and radon),reduce greenhouse gas emissions and support the smart use of natural resources. In 2011 Energy Smart Colorado began the important work of finding and fixing the leaky, inefficient and unhealthy homes in our mountain communities. We've made home energy improvements easier by actively promoting the service, signing up interested homeowners, and connecting them with qualified contractors who want the work. We make it affordable by partnering with the homeowner and their utility company to share the costs and the benefits. Through our marketing and outreach to homeowners, and training for contractors,we're growing both the supply and demand for home energy services. By quick comparison, we estimate that in 2010, fewer than 200 home energy assessments were completed across our three counties, with no measured results. Since opening our Energy Resource Centers in 2011, Energy Smart completed nearly 1000 assessments and 500 home energy improvement projects. These new jobs represent the beginning of a vital new industry that improves our community. In 2011, Energy Smart Colorado worked directly with 3 non-profit community organizations, 6 natural gas and electricity utility providers, 26 separate businesses, local community colleges, and over 1,000 homeowners who each learned much more about their homes. Energy Smart provided technical training for our growing team of 20 home energy analysts, and provided continuing education for over 100 building contractors throughout the 3 counties. Our growing network of utility partners, product and service suppliers, energy analysts, and contractors are all helping to meet our goals for both energy and cost savings, and good jobs that make a positive difference. Locally,the Community Office for Resource Efficiency(CORE) implements the program with 2.5 FTE employed through the grant. CORE opened an office at the Aspen Business Center in January 2011 where homeowners and contractors are invited to learn about efficiency measures, apply for rebates and consult with Home Energy Advisors. Six energy analysts are involved with the program in Pitkin County and over 20 different contractors. In 2012, the program is working to fill in the missing pieces and gaps in our program that will help sustain this positive economic impact for our communities. We invite all ideas and suggestions to improve our program and services. KEY DISCUSSION ITEMS: This is an overview of the merits and successes of the program over the last year including energy efficient home improvements, contractor opportunities and regional collaboration with public and private sector entities. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: Attachment 1: Abridged version of the 2011 Energy Smart Annual Report. Please visit www.energysmartcolorado.com to view the full report. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Lauren McDonell, Environmental Initiatives Program Manager CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager DATE OF MEMO: March 12,2012 MEETING DATE: March 19,2012 RE: It Starts at Home Affordable Housing Energy Efficiency Pilot Project REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests feedback from City Council on design and implementation strategies for It Starts at Home: Affordable Housing Pilot Project. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: None BACKGROUND: In the U.S. an estimated 40 percent of all energy consumption is from buildings, 55 percent of which is from the residential sector. Many affordable housing units within the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority's housing stock are in need of improvements and there is an excellent opportunity for APCHA and the City to work together to enhance energy efficiency, comfort and safety for affordable housing residents, while also benefitting the community. City staff is proposing to develop and launch a one-year pilot project that would make quick, high-impact energy efficiency improvements to APCHA sale units during the time period when they are sold to new residents. These upgrades would be possible without creating undue burden to home sellers or buyers. This pilot project would provide important information to create a framework for a larger-scale affordable housing retrofit program that could eventually work to improve energy efficiency in the majority of sale units. A set of eligibility criteria needs to be created to determine which sale units are appropriate for participation in the pilot project. Possible criteria include: units built before the International Energy Conservation Code was first adopted (2003), units with simple sales transactions, units that have separately metered electricity and units for which there are not comparable units that have been on the market for more than three months (to avoid burdening sellers in particularly soft markets). Also, for simplicity, resident-owned units would be excluded from participating in the pilot project. Page 1 of 3 Efficiency upgrades would be selected based on highest efficiency gains as determined by a professional energy assessment and might include sealing and insulating units, installing programmable thermostats and low-flow fixtures, and insulating or replacing water heaters. The City and APCHA would partner with the Community Office for Resource Efficiency's Energy Smart Program to apply relevant rebates and incentives and help maximize benefits and reduce costs for homebuyers. Cost of improvements would be rolled into the unit price at time of listing and the increase in mortgage would be offset by estimated energy savings (based on average occupant usage). A financial incentive (possibly $100 gift card) could be offered to encourage sellers to provide the City access to units for 5-10 days (while still occupied) for improvements. This would prevent the need for APCHA to take possession of a unit for any significant period of time, thereby reducing APCHA's potential costs and financial risk. This pilot project is in the initial stages of development which is why City staff is seeking input at this time. The following outlines one proposed project model and describes how it would work given two possible scenarios. When an APCHA unit comes on the market, the process for conducting energy assessments and improvements could go as follows: Process: 1. Seller contacts APCHA to list unit. 2. APCHA determines whether the unit meets eligibility criteria. If unit is deemed eligible, APCHA explains program to seller, seller is offered a financial incentive (perhaps $100 gift card or Visa card) for the City to access the property and to allow the energy assessment and the applicable improvements. 3. Seller's listing price is increased by $2,000, ($3,000 for larger units) with additional provision in contract that funds will be repaid out of seller's sales proceeds at closing. Efforts will be made to schedule energy audit simultaneously with buyer's inspection, for convenience to the seller. Final sale price may be reduced, dependent on actual costs of improvements and/or applicable rebates. 4. If seller agrees to provide access, energy assessment and improvements (temporarily funded by the 150 Fund) will be completed before closing. If seller declines, energy audit will still be done at time of home inspection but improvements will be done once the buyer takes possession. 5. Final cost of improvements (lower than or equal to additional provision amount in listing) is added to the sale price. Buyer may pay for improvements outright, roll them into the mortgage, or get a low-interest loan. 6. 150 Fund is reimbursed at the closing. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: A funding source would need to be identified for the financial incentives for sellers who give the City access to units for energy assessments and improvements. These incentives could be in the form of$100 gift cards or Visa cards (per unit). Page 2 of 3 If the model outlined above is used for the pilot project, in cases where sellers provide access, the 150 Fund would temporarily fund improvements and would be reimbursed by the buyer at the time of sale. In cases where sellers deny access to units for improvements, the cost of improvements (based on energy assessment) would be added to the unit sale price and no external funds would be needed for improvements. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: This program has the potential to significantly improve energy efficiency in Aspen's affordable housing stock and reduce community-wide greenhouse gas emissions. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide feedback, suggestions and questions to help create a successful pilot project. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: none Page 3 of 3 Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) AGENDA Thursday, March 22, 2012 Location-City of Aspen-Council Chambers City of Aspen to Host and Chair Meeting I. 4:00 - 4:10 REVIEW OF DECISIONS REACHED AT THE OCTOBER 20, 2011 MEETING John D. Krueger-City of Aspen II. 4:10 -4:15 PUBLIC COMMENT —Regarding Any Item Not on the Agenda (Comments limited to three minutes per person) III. 4:15—5:15 EOTC SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT Robert Schultz-Robert Schultz Consulting Tom Oken-Pitkin County Decision Needed: Approval of the Subcommittee Recommendation On the No fare Service and Capital Plan IV. 5:15—5:45 AIRPORT/AABC PEDESTRIAN CROSSING Gerald Fielding-Pitkin County Decision Needed: Direction on Which Alternative to Pursue for Final Design and Possible Funding Options V. 5:45 - 6:00 UPDATES SH 82 Grand Avenue Bridge Environmental Assessment Brian Pettet-Pitkin County Decision Needed: None Needed- Information Only FUTURE MEETINGS & AGENDA ITEMS o June 21, 2012 Snowmass to Host &Chair o October 18, 2012 Pitkin County to Host & Chair sr • ELECTED OFFICIALS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (EOTC) City of Aspen Council Chambers Pitkin County to Host & Chair October 20, 2011 AGREEMENTS & DECISIONS REACHED Elected Officials in Attendance: Aspen -5 Pitkin County - 2 TOSV—3 Mick Ireland Rachel Richards (Chair) Bill Boineau Tone George Newman John Wilkinson Adam Frisch Michael Owsley Jason Haber Steve Skadron Derek Johnson Absent: Aspen: None BOCC: Jack Hatfield, Rob Ittner TOSV: Markey Butler, Fred Kucker Agreements & Decisions Reached: 1. REVIEW OF DECISIONS REACHED AT THE JULY 21, 2011 MEETING John D. Krueger-City of Aspen No comments were received. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT A. Mountain Gondola Connection Presentation-Scott Writer Scott Writer made a presentation and passed out information on the Mountain Gondola Connection. He made a funding request of$5,000 for a "Feasibility Sniff Test" for some preliminary feasibility planning to be done on the concept. The EOTC thanked Scott Writer for his presentation but, indicated that there was "no support" for funding his request. B. Improved Toilet Facilities at the Brush Creek Park N Ride Pitkin County representatives indicated to RFTA and the EOTC their concern that there were no plans for improved toilet facilities at the Brush Creek Park N Ride as part of the BRT project. RFTA explained that there is no water or sanitation service at the Brush 1 Creek Park N Ride currently and that it would be expensive and time consuming to plan and provide them. RFTA also, indicated that while improved restroom facilities are not in the BRT plans currently, funding may be available later in the project as part of the project contingency. The EOTC asked RFTA to pursue improved restroom facilities if contingency funds are available and to also look into other options such as composting type toilets. 3. 2012 MEETING DATES John D. Krueger-City of Aspen The meeting dates for 2012 were reconfirmed at the meeting. They are: • March 15, 2012 City of Aspen to Chair& Host (Changed to March 22) • June 21, 2012 Town of Snowmass to Chair& Host • October 18, 2012 Pitkin County to Chair and Host 4. Proposed 2012 BUDGET & MULTI-YEAR PLAN Tom Oken-Pitkin County Tom Oken provided the proposed 2012 budget to the EOTC. The 2012 budget contains the following projections: Funding Sources $4,723,660 o Pitkin County 'h% Sales Tax +2% o Pitkin County ''/% Use Tax +3.7% o Investment Income +0.75% o Brush Creek Lot Rentals none Funding Uses $3,839,590 o Use Tax Collection Costs o Administrative Costs o Country Inn Taxi Program o X-Games o Brush Creek Park N Ride Operating Costs o RFTA Contribution (81.04%) o No Fare Service o SH 82 AABC Pedestrian Crossing-Design & Engineering Annual Surplus/Deficit $884,070 Cumulative Surplus/Deficit $11,044,505 2 2 Decisions Reached: Unanimous Approval of the Proposed 2012 Budget by those EOTC Members Present Additional Direction to Staff: • Bring additional funding ideas and alternatives for the no fare service to the next EOTC meeting (Mar 22, 2012). • Form a subcommittee to evaluate funding alternatives and other potential uses of discretionary funding • Create a strategic plan for future capital needs/projects • Provide subcommittee recommendation to full EOTC on funding and capital projects at the March 22, 2012 meeting 3 3 %Tr MEMORANDUM TO: EOTC Members FROM: Bob Schultz, Robert Schultz Consulting RE: EOTC Subcommittee Report DATE: March 14, 2012 I am pleased to report on the hard work by the Subcommittee that you created to bring forward a recommendation to the entire EOTC to address both capital and operating needs for transit improvements in the upper valley. The remarkable achievements of the EOTC have been crafted from such compromises and the Subcommittee worked in that spirit to examine the issues. There was both thoughtful and heated discussion of the various transit needs over the next several years. As you are aware, the combination of reductions in tax revenue, the expiration of the commitment to no-fare service between Aspen and Snowmass (and Woody Creek) in 2013, and the desire to create a pool of capital funds that would allow upper valley governments to compete for non-local matching funds have required the EOTC to revisit previous agreements. While the group was unable to reach consensus, after three meetings and thoughtful discussion, five of the six members were able to agree on a proposal to forward to the EOTC as a whole. That recommendation is described below. The positions of Subcommittee members were: George Newman and Rob Ittner- Both Yes Mick Ireland- Yes Tone- Had to leave early but expressed support as long as it was clear that no specific capital projects were being approved at this time Bill Boineau- Yes John Wilkinson- No, John felt strongly that Snowmass should not be asked to incur any expenses or reduce its lockbox to support no-fare service A packet of Supplemental Materials includes information prepared for each meeting and a description of all of the alternatives examined. At the March 22 meeting, Tom Oken and I will make brief presentations and be available to answer questions in support of your deliberations. Given time constraints, you created the Subcommittee to review the details and construct a proposal. We cannot condense more than six hours of work into the agenda for the March 22 meeting so we will use our time to test whether the board of each of the three jurisdictions can support the compromise proposal or refine it to address any concerns. 4 Proposal 1.) Maintain the fund balance dedicated to Entrance To Aspen and Snowmass Village Transit Center(lockboxes), for future large projects 2.) Maintain 2/3 capital to 1/3 discretionary split of EOTC funds 3.) Fulfill commitment to $250,000 AABC pedestrian crossing design loan payback from discretionary to ETA lockbox by end of 2016 4.) $3M capital pool created for near term capital projects in order to attract non- local funds (additional work needed in future in order to create a list of EOTC approved projects) 5.) Capital Pool is funded with 50% from each lockbox to be repaid from discretionary funds 6.) No-fare service between Aspen and Snowmass (Woody Creek) continued from 2013-2016 during winter and summer season. EOTC to pay cost of winter service from discretionary funds contingent on TOSV funding for summer season (SV may elect to redirect SVTC lockbox funds for this purpose or other source) 7.) Spring and fall Aspen to Snowmass Village buses to return to fare service While these are listed as seven separate items, they are best viewed as a compromise package in which different points were conceded in order to attempt to create an agreement that could be supported by a majority of each jurisdiction. The table below lists the effects of the proposed policy in comparison to the existing policy, which would allow no-fare service to expire in April 2013. Current Policy Proposed Policy SVTC Balance 2016 $6,430,000 $5,168,800 SVTC Receivable from $0 $949,500 Future Discretionary ETA Balance 2016 $8,438,000 $7,488,000 ETA Receivable from $0 $949,500 Future Discretionary Available for New Capital $2,640,000 $3,000,000 2013-2016 The value listed under the Proposed Policy for SVTC Balance 2016 assumes that $76,000 has been removed from the lockbox per year to support summer Aspen-Snowmass Village transit service. The discretionary fund is estimated to generate about $475,000 in 2016 that could be used toward repayment to the lockboxes. 5 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY EOTC MEETING DATE: March 22, 2012 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: AABC/Airport Pedestrian Crossing STAFF RESPONSIBLE: G.R. Fielding, County Engineer ISSUE STATEMENT: The EOTC has funded the planning and design of a pedestrian crossing located near the AABC and the Aspen Pitkin County Airport. Staff and a team of consultants from Parsons Transportation Group and Stan Clauson Associates have developed alternatives and brought the alternatives through a public process. At this time the project team is seeking direction on which alternative to bring through to final design and discuss how to fund the eventual construction. BACKGROUND: Staff began the planning and engineering for the Pedestrian Crossing in 2011 with a public process that included several stakeholder meetings and a public design charrette. Staff and consultants will present details on this process and discuss the feedback gathered. Through the public process, a recommended alternative was developed. This alternative will be presented along with three other alternatives developed. Two locations were identified, one at the Baltic Avenue and State Highway 82 intersection, the other up valley adjacent to the RFTA bus stops. Each an underpass and overpass were considered at each location. After the public and stakeholder input was gathered, the project team determined the underpass adjacent to the RFTA Bus Stops to be the recommended option. KEY DISCUSSION ITEMS: • Selection of Location and Type of Crossing • Project Timeline o Staff anticipates full design to be completed by spring of 2013 o Construction— See Budgetary Impact BUDGETING/CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE: This Pedestrian Crossing has been added to two funding pools. The first is FASTER funding in the amount of$500,000. The second is Regional Priority Projects (RPP) for $1.5M which is dedicated in 2016. Additionally, this project has been submitted for several grant opportunities; however, this effort has not been successful in the results which have been received to date. The most recent grant opportunity has been submitted by RFTA for TIGER funds and we expect to know that result by early summer. With each of the previously mentioned funding streams, the missing piece is a local match. A local match is imperative to being competitive for these grants and in some instances is required. To ensure public safety, the project team also feels that the timing of construction should be closely linked to the timing of the construction of the BRT stops soon to be built at the AABC/Aspen Pitkin County Airport. The project team believes that having the pedestrian 6 crossing built close in time proximity would provide the necessary safe pedestrian connectivity to make the BRT stops easily and safely accessed. Ideally, the pedestrian crossing would be completed prior to the BRT stops; however, completing the project immediately following the completion of the BRT stops could also help facilitate this. The project team will be continuing discussions with CDOT and other regional partners on options for funding and moving funding years for this project. Additionally, the project will be submitted for all appropriate grant opportunities as well. With some of the project funding sources, such as the RPP funding, being fairly tenuous, the project team finds it important to find some alternative funding, and to try to match the funding timing, with the timing that would create the best project overall and ensure public safety. RECOMMENDED ACTION: • Give staff direction to complete design on the recommended option • Identify project funding goals and a construction timeline • 7 SH 82 GRAND AVENU EBRIDGE SH 82 Grand Avenue Bridge Environmental Assessment Background The Colorado Department of Transportation(CDOT) and the Federal • Highway Administration (FHWA) have initiated an Environmental Assessment (EA) process to address functional, structural,and safety deficiencies of the ` SH 82 Grand Avenue Bridge and to d+►�� g �. I9k t bring it up to current standards for a -Id .. t four-lane bridge. '" v: ilk 4 `e '} The EA's broad purposes are to: ! ,�,. `� br _ ► Complete and define the purpose and need for the project. • Describe reasonable improvement alternatives. • Evaluate the social,economic,historical and environmental impacts of the improvements. • Define measures to avoid,minimize or mitigate negative impacts of the project. • Solicit and obtain public input for the decision-making process. Project Working Teams The following project teams are helping guide and provide input into the study: ► CDOT formed a Project Leadership Team (PLT)to champion the EA process. The PLT has representatives from CDOT;FHWA;City of Glenwood Springs; Colorado Bridge Enterprise;Garfield,Pitkin and Eagle Counties; the Glenwood Hot Springs;the Glenwood Chamber of Commerce;the Historic Preservation Commission; and the Downtown Development Authority. The PLT is not a decision-making body. Its primary charge to make sure the study team is following a context sensitive solutions (CSS) process to complete the study. Ii ► A Project Working Group (PWG)was formed to execute the process.This is a technical team of agency representatives from CDOT, FHWA,City of Glenwood Springs,and the consultant team. This group meets regularly to address technical issues like the bridge condition,traffic analysis,and environmental analysis.They also make recommendations as they develop, evaluate,and screen alternatives. ► A Stakeholders Working Group (SWG) was formed after the project Visioning Workshop.This group includes interested and engaged stakeholders and meets at key milestones of the study to obtain updates and provide input. i; ,or w March 2012 Q 8 SH 82 GRAND AVENUE BRIDG Purpose and Need A project purpose and project needs have been developed through the study process. Project The purpose of the project is to provide a safe, secure, and effective connection from downtown Glenwood Springs across the Colorado River and 1-70 to the historic Purpose Glenwood Hot Springs area. 1. Improve connectivity between downtown Glenwood Springs,and the Roaring Fork Valley,with the historic Hot Springs pool area Project Needs and I-70. 2. Address the functional and structural deficiencies of the bridge to improve public safety,including emergency service response,and reliability as a critical transportation route. Project Decision Process A's alternatives for the bridge are developed,they go through three levels of screening.The study team has Three-step Decision Process completed Level 1 (fatal flaw) screening that considered • • 60 1/4.6© o o families of alternatives for alignments and cross sections. o ®.0 4 © � They considered if the alignments and cross sections met •v v �o the purpose and needs (an EA requirement) and if there a pe wo e © p were environmental or technical problems that couldn't v o°, w g be overcome.The alternatives included single bridge n„ , and paired(or couplet)alignments and variations on g o NALRAK% number of lanes.Based on these criteria,the following avn r weltl.c were screened out from further consideration: ; 4 ► Alignments that don't connect to existing streets in downtown. ► .Alignments west and east of Colorado/Cooper (bypasses or alternate routes). ► Alignments that start at Exit 116 and go south krumnvi ■ Two-lane bridge. Level 2 screening is underway. Level 2 is further evaluating alignments and cross sections in qualitative terms based on relevant differences between alternatives.The measures of effectiveness developed for the project purpose and needs and goals help differentiate alternatives. Results of this Level 2 screening for alignments and cross sections are anticipated in June. March 2012 9 SH82 • GRAND AVENUE BRIDGE Public Participation There are multiple opportunities for public participation. Some of the key avenues of this participation are listed below. Public Scoping Meeting, November 15,2011.Introduced the Glenwood community to the project and obtained initial input to the process. Visioning Workshop,December 4 and 5,2011.Established common goals and defined what values are important about the design and construction of the future bridge. Stakeholder Working Group (SWG) Meeting,February 13,2012.Follow-up to the Visioning Workshop to review how the group's input was incorporated into the project purpose and needs and goals. One-on-one Meetings with Stakeholders.Meetings with individual stakeholders to gain a better understanding of stakeholder concerns and inputs. Community and Civic Organization Meetings.Briefings and presentations to elected officials and community organizations to provide status updates and solicit input to the study. Project Website,www.sh82grandavenuebridge.com. Housed on CDOT's website,it provides useful information about the project,including project contact information. Key Public Inputs to the Decision-Making Process PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE SWG Aug 2012 MEETING _ VALUE _....__....___. .Ad./Arc..2012 SWG ENGINEERING MEETING Jed 2011 l PUBLIC Jun.2012 OPEN HOUSE SWG Apr.28/2 MEETING Level 3 VISIONING Evaluation&Screening WORKSHOP ! fob 2411 ` AGENCY Dec 2411 I __MIMIC PUBLIC SCOPING Level 1&2 MEETING ____ _ Evaluation&Screening Nov.2011 Public Open House in April The next public open house is scheduled for Wednesday,April 4,2012,4:30-7:00 p.m.,at the Glenwood Springs Community Center. •"nifie March 2012 rAdminurroi. .. 10 SH 82 . ..... .... . . :.. .. .. GRAND AVENUE BRIDGE Project Schedule If the project receives the federally required approvals,construction could begin in late 2014. 2011 2013 2011 Initiation&Feasibility Alternatives NEPA Documentation Design Construction Start • Project Information ■ Project Website — www.sh82grandavenuebridge.com GovDelivery Updates — www.coloradodot.info/ (Click on green cell phone in the upper right hand side of the page. After signing in,scroll down the"Projects" list to"SH 82 Aspen to Glenwood" and check the box.) 1 Project Contact Joe Elsen,P.E. Program Engineer,CDOT Region 3 202 Centennial St. Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 (970) 945-7629 Joseph.Elsen@dot.state.co.us I /'mmirta �,..... a Federal Hhway March 2012 Adrutnistranigon 11 EOTC SUBCOMMITTEE MEETINGS NO-FARE SERVICE AND CAPITAL PLAN MEETING THREE-MARCH 7, 2012 MEETING TWO-FEBRUARY 29, 2012 MEETING ONE-February 9, 2012 12 EOTC Subcommittee Meeting March 7, 2012 Meeting Three Meeting Three- 3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. Aspen Sister Cities Meeting Room Agenda 1. Review of Subcommittee Purpose &Agenda Objective- To seek a consensus recommendation to entire EOTC on a way forward to address both capital and operating needs for transit improvements in the upper valley. 2. Clarification of Alternatives 3. Subcommittee Discussion 4. Check for Consensus and Create Agreement on What to Forward to EOTC 5. Closing 13 MEMORANDUM TO: EOTC Subcommittee FROM: Bob Schultz, Robert Schultz Consulting RE: Meeting Packet Materials DATE: March 5, 2012 I look forward to being with you at the March 7, 2012 meeting at 3 pm at Aspen Sister Cities Room. This memo describes the intended work plan for what is expected to be our final meeting. Work Plan • At our last meeting there was good discussion about priorities and possible changes to the status quo related to capital projects and the upcoming expiration of no-fare service between Aspen and Snowmass Village. While we were not able to reach a conclusion on the best way forward,the group provided the direction needed to prepare several concrete proposals for review and consideration. Staff's assessment of the last meeting was that the majority of the Subcommittee is: o Willing to support funding capital projects beyond the ETA and Snowmass Village Transit Center. o Willing to support funding continuation of no-fare service between Aspen and Snowmass Village during peak season. Our goal for this meeting is to review four alternatives that were developed based on our work to date. Each of the alternatives is intended to illuminate the choices available to decision-makers and the economic consequences of each choice through 2016. The Subcommittee may choose to send all of the options to the full EOTC with a recommended option identified, send them without a recommendation, or to adjust or eliminate one or more of them to b@tter reflect your thoughts. In the ideal, we would create a consensus proposal for EOTC review. 14 TU... o O 0 O OO 00 00 O0 OO O o O O O O N m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 M c6 `i = 0 0 0 of vl O O O rn o m L v VI 00 0M lla en ^ 00 0M u0l L t\ M' N N 0) al N ni Ni n m m N M e-I Z L = L 0 O O 4" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 '� 0 O O M 0 0 0 0 O O O p r.. 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 V M m m Q as c O O O N O O N To H Ol o Ol Z O N in M 0 N N C M - N CO C -.• N N N N - Y w F O a a Ul II ni II II II Y CO 0 tO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 00. O 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ` M O M 0 0 0 0 u) 0 0 u) W L O O CM .-I N L in O ul 0 0 0 ul N O O N N O) Y O Ol t0 O) u) a' 0 in 0 LO O in N c-1 1— c N v a VD H co en 1O v v of v N of In c n to o O m I.)0 c _ W V W EC F- Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 O in +�' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 a P c 00 ' aci 000 P 3 000 0000ufoovfuf W , M O E pop Oi V W O N OVI O ul N O VD ^ ul O� a N m N W d M O> N rl us- n N M N O) C O ? C M M I. N ' ` m a) 3 cr Co 173 1 .73 O o _-0 _a L N N y J O VI V1 3 C c bp I ' v O C N U c = U H W_ la 'E W as = oY J Q O * u) o > U, J U _a c c 0 m a Ce in 0 to j •'Y v, o w -0 Fes- c U .n o y c ..J h C vii O W a0- a) C N N E H an J a Q N "O N h 0 Q C t to in o 'O C �_ Z Y al 4-. o O' "O L L Y d CU �' U W Q "6 a+ •.0 V) 7 6 `J U m O. O. Y h0 m C_ J "6 J I- , .D m C "O H 0 cu U _I L Y W in Q Ma I C d Y Y m i Y 0 4 a/ co m ym, ~ `J m W aJ aJ to CO V) Q W N CO C Q N N V d H • N N '�. t, O.CU Z 4 Y N * al J m O O s D_ m "O Ill O m c r m J m Z e a. In E E a ,� CC O W 5 al 3 eta v) E al 0) o l7 �c V Y �+ Y a1 N , F O N ,_ ,_ pJ C Y aJ O. u v m o o .o al 'a O m in m m m v o . a) U 4 a, I. r t .N v v a u w a a u E u 4) to i J Y C E =1 'O Y Y Y aJ U O in U m 3 U d N c U m s Z o a a > c f m o L. c o v Y O J J NJ.N W . V) V) cc * OW W in Q K K m K CO CO 15 o o o o 01 O o � � 0 0 N O O N Ni ao' N I N N o O O o N O O 0 ~I 0 0 N UOj N Si o o o 0 o 0 0 0 )o 0 0 0 0 d o d ui r481 o CT • N N N u1 Y I O N.81 0 0 0 `1 O N o O o N NI N UO) N em-I m .- v o N O O W til c:. O J N 0 0 O no rn W N U NIH 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .• 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U m d m c c d ui ui d d d r o) u) V 0 N V) M ^ O OM u) al Z M id ‘I' N N r N' o al o 0 O O Y Y a S a ,n al no us ` C N U 00 N 0 1 LLI a) C 7 U O O > h 00 C m O m m a E u c N N 0 Y in J J ate+ a0-, CO O 0 -O K l ' v N In S CO Y d N C v , a) a a 4-, c -O ,n a Q aJ C a) Y t1 w Y O .� C a c c 10 .• CD CO U a) ,o E J a L. O E E r C- 0 L. O > > Z O L. N m 1- C c m E o s a v v O a i -O o W °' m ,n E E a ¢ m ao- O Q aJ s O 0 �c YO H CC 0 Y Y W C Y N O. o m O a o i a a ,co 3 v aT aT L v r m _o _o '^ o ,^ O °• c = = 2 m r 2 W w cm Q CC C0 m K m m 16 EOTC FUNDING ALTERNATIVES Features common to all alternatives • Focus on current planning horizon, through 2016 • ETA and SVTC lockboxes remain; saving for future large projects • 1/3 and 2/3 split (discretionary & ETA) as currently calculated (X-games, etc. off the top) • $250,000 loan payback by the end of 2016 Funding Alternatives 1. Current policy, budget and multi-year plan: default option if can't agree on another No-fare service funding expires spring 2013 New capital pool funded from 1/3 discretionary 2. Fund no-fare service year-round $553,838 annually New capital pool funded from remaining 1/3 discretionary 3. Fund winter& summer no-fare service $436,390 annually Off-season service to be funded by fares (or by TOSV or through drawdown of SVTC lockbox, $117,448 annually) New capital pool funded from remaining 1/3 discretionary 4. Same as#3 (fund winter& summer) but advance $3 million for new capital pool from lockboxes $1.5 million advanced from each lockbox, ETA and SVTC, in 2013 Advance repaid from remaining 1/3 discretionary Summary Results Balance at the end of 2016 Alternative New New Capital Funding SVTC ETA Capital 2013-14 2015-16 1 - current policy $6,430,000 $8,438,000 $2,640,000 $836,000 $1,804,000 2—fund year-round 6,430,000 8,438,000 553,000 32,000 523,000 3 - winter& summer 6,430,000 8,438,000 1,059,000 222,000 837,000 4—w& s +$3mm capital advance 5,430,000 7,438,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 17 EOTC Subcommittee Meeting February 29, 2012 41Flr1Nc rwo Meeting Two-11:00 a.m.to 1:00 p.m.Pitkin County Annex BOCC Meeting Room 1.Review of Subcommittee Purpose&Agenda Objective-To seek a consensus recommendation to entire EOTC on a may forward to address both capital and operating needs for transit improvements in the upper valley. 2.Comments From Elected Officials 3.Review Responses to Information Requests from Previous Meeting 4.Decision Tree-Discussion and Decisions 5. 12:45 Check In-Are we leading to a recommendation or another meeting? 6. Closing 1R MEMORANDUM TO: EOTC Subcommittee FROM: Bob Schultz,Robert Schultz Consulting RE: Meeting Packet Materials DATE: February 24,2012 I Look forward to being with you at the February 29,2012 meeting at 11 am at Pitkin County Annex.This memo describes the intended work plan for our meeting. Work Plan One of the productive aspects of the previous meeting was hearing from subcommittee members about the direction that they thought discussions should head in order to reach an agreement on a recommendation to the full EOTC in March.The discussion was thoughtful and lively.Mick Ireland was unable to attend that meeting,so John Krueger, Tom Oken,Torre and I met with him to share the presentation materials and a summary of the discussion. I would propose to start the meeting with brief comments from Mick and any other subcommittee member. Packet Materials The goal for this meeting is to use a logical and orderly process to develop consensus,if possible,about a recommendation to the EOTC that addresses funding for Aspen- Snowmass service and capital project spending. With your staff,I have developed a decision tree that I hope will allow the group to discuss and make decisions at this meeting. Please consider the core purpose of the 0.5 cent sales tax and how the various choices serve that purpose. Tom Oken reminded us of the original ballot language at the last meeting: B 'ML SALES MO USE TM TO RAND IMSSTRNaPORTATIOS IMAHON:NESTS SHALL MO COUNTY TAXES BE INCREASED!PTO STANAOPAMN DALLY BY TIE IMPOSMON OF AR ADOTIIONALOIEYWPOFONE FERMI SALES TAX NC AN A )fl St 0SE44A5F or OlE PERCENT USE TAX'COIMBJCINO JANUARY I,1NIaAND TNBIEwTu1, FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING AND N flDW67NEPSJC MASS TRANSPORTATION STUBS MINN THE Romeo FORK VNLEY; SUCH MASS TMNSPORTATION SYSTEM INPRO IABITS TO E APPROVED SY INTERGOVERMIBITAL AGREEMENT SEMEN PIRiO COUNTY, THE CITY OF ASPEN,AND THE TON OF SNIOANIA9.R YNEAE AND TO DICWOE BUT NOT BE UNITED To a INCREASED MD IMPROVED BUS SONCE,RNCUJOI 4 MERE FEASHF TNECOMBISIONOPOESB.•POWERE EWES TO CIEMB4DPNVI]ALTB IATWE RELS,NtPANL- ANWDEFAC61IES,EPARTICIPATING wantROA INGKa VALLEY GOVERN ENTSAND/MOTHERS TO ACQUIRE THE OBNBINO NO ORAN=ERMLROAD BOIT-0FWAT FORTRANSPORTATION=RELATED TRAILS AND OPBI SPACE USES,MEI Po)A PEED GUIDEWAY PSIS TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM ONA SENSATE DBRAFTMY owl ASA SSWAY,MONORAIL,HOME OR SOLAR IMMIAMCALLTRAMar SOMA CCON TRIQ ASPEN,WDIASAusMDOOYMFNIEYLACADONS WITHIN 1NERDASC FORK VALLEY NC Demons vats DE REIERAL,STATE,=PRIOR Ba1RER THE PROCESS OF SUCH C5E4 w.F or ac ISIT WE TAX TO E UTILIZED FIRST FOR THE ACONSIRON OF TIEOBNBN NE RIO ONNOE RAILROAD BCHT-0FWAY(MESS M ACCtr'TABLE PURCHASE AC EB,BIT CANNOT BE REAMED,ANO Dim FOR OTIER PUBuc MASS 1RANSPoRrAtioN SYSTEM NPROY6BR8. 1 19 First Decision The first threshold that needs to be crossed is the source of funding for Aspen-Snowmass bus service. How will Aspen-Snowmass service be funded? Existing Revenue 0.1% Sales Tax Vote . z_ry� _,. .. New Revenue 0.21 Mil Property Tax • Vote• 0.4%Lodging Tax 4001, Vote Return to Fare Service Other How does choice relate to purpose of 0.5 cent sales tax? Can this be supported by all of the governments? What are the implementation issues? Notes: 2 20 I • Second Decision The next logical series of choices involve a review of the 2/3 capital reserve to 1/3 discretionary projects spending policy that was developed in 2009. Tom Oken reminded us that the bonding agent will require 1/3 of cash flow for coverage for capital bonds and that resulted in the current 2/3 to 1/3 policy. The 2/3 is currently target for the Entrance to Aspen and Snowmass Transit Center. Staff notes that there are capital projects outside of the ETA and SV Transit Center that might qualify for EOTC funding that cannot be funded under current constraints. In • addition, there is a need to recheck the commitment to reserving funds for each project, given other opportunities. Are We Still Committed to 2/3 to 1/3 Split and the ETA/SVTC Lockbox? ETA& SVTC Lockbox Lockbox? - .- `.,, r;.. ETA SVTC+New e r New Capital Plan No. More Capital .,. 44'4111111111eCN New Capital Plan '40) More Operating Please review the choices at hand in a reflective manner rather than locking into a specific solution. There are many good choices available and we will all learn from hearing each other's thoughts about the choices. I look forward to working with you during our meeting. Please call or email me with any comments or questions-bschultz@strategy.org or 456-7503. 3 21 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 24, 2012 TO: EOTC Subcommittee FROM: David Peckler,Dan Blankenship,Tom Oken RE: Responses to Information Requests from Previous Meeting 1. What is the cost of the Aspen-Snowmass service and what does the Aspen Skiing Company (ASC)contribute to this service? A rough estimate of the annual operating cost for the combined regional and skier services is $3,000,000. ASC contributes about $1,350,000 for the Aspen to Snowmass portion•'of their services (additional paid for Buttermilk and Highlands service). Thus RFTA's cost for part of the winter service and all of the spring, summer,and fall is $1,650,000. The$550,000 from the EOTC replaces fare revenue, and RFTA's net cost is about $1.1 million. Capital replacement costs are not included in these figures. However, ASC is covering roughly $284,000 a year in vehicle and equipment replacement under the current contract(this is the final year of 5-year contract). 2. What was the net gain in ridership from going fare-free? Given that the recession hit shortly after going fare-free, it is hard to determine the exact impact. The attached report, RFTA FOUR-YEAR RIDERSHIP COMPARISON, is probably the most telling. In comparing ridership on RFTA between 2008 and 2011, the service as a whole declined by 16% and Valley service declined by 20%. Even the free services in Aspen and Glenwood Springs declined 12% and 15%respectively, but Aspen-Snowmass ridership remained flat. Had Aspen-Snowmass declined relative to RFTA service as a whole or the Valley service, ridership would have declined by 108,000 to 135,000. The fact that Aspen-Snowmass did not decline by that amount can probably only be attributed to going fare-free. 3. By how much would ridership decline if fares were reinstated? The standard rule for fare elasticity is that with every 10%increase in a fare there will be a 4% decline in ridership. In this case, however, the fare is going from free to$4 so the standard rule is not applicable. The range above of 108,000 to 135,000 is probably the best estimate for a decline in ridership if the full fare were reinstated. 4. What would be the impacts on revenue and ridership if a $1 fare were instituted on the Aspen-Snowmass service? Revenue from a$1 fare would not justify separating the winter regional service from the free skier-shuttles. Therefore, the fare would only be charged prior to 8:30 a.m. and after 4:45 p.m. in the winter but throughout the entire service day for the remainder of the year. A $1 fare then might generate 1/4 of the current$551,000 EOTC subsidy or approximately $138,000. The impact on ridership is unknown. In April Glenwood Spring is instituting a$1 fare for service that currently is free, so we may have a better understanding of how this level of increase impacts ridership in the near future. 4 22 5. What would be the cost of extending fare-free service to Basalt,and what would be the impacts?This is hard to estimate. It is possible that a lot of people who do not live in Basalt would try to get to Basalt to take advantage of the free fare; i.e., Basalt might become the new intercept lot for the Valley. Compared to subsidizing the fares for about 356,000 trips on Aspen-Snowmass, you would be subsidizing a substantial portion of nearly 1.5 million trips. That would consume the entire annual surplus of the EOTC. 6. If we are trying to manage demand on SH82, is the fare-free service the right strategy or"bang for the buck?" Fare-free seems a pretty good way to go. Combining with the ASC service has made fare-free service accessible at a high frequency to a greater number of "local" users, i.e., people from Aspen, Truscott, Aspen Country Inn, Buttermilk/Maroon Creek/Burlingame, and the AABC and airport, as well as from Aspen and Snowmass Village. The fact that Aspen-Snowmass ridership remained flat in the recession while riders on other routes declined points to a potential future increase in utilization as the economy rebounds. 7. Could we fund the service with a tax on lift tickets? Although Aspen and Snowmass Village, as home-rule municipalities, could probably impose such a tax, there are many negatives: a. Lack of nexus to service users—why should only those buying lift tickets subsidize service for everyone, and especially during spring, summer and fall? b. Don't know what tax rate is needed because we don't know the base dollar volume of lift ticket sales. c. Requires inter-dependent voter approval in both Aspen and Snowmass d. ASC will want to substitute tax revenue for its substantial contributions to RFTA and Snowmass for service 8. Provide a pro-forma for paying the$550,000 subsidy from the 1/3 through 2016. See attachment,No fare Service Funded from the 1/3 through 2016. The 1/3 is about$10,000 short of covering the no-fare subsidy in 2013, but 2014 • 2016 show surpluses ranging from $142,000 to $345,000, more than enough to repay the$250,000 advance from the ETA. 2016 ending surplus is$15.4 million. 2 5 23 RFTA FOUR-YEAR RIDERSHIP COMPARISON 2008/2011 I. CITY OF ASPEN 2008 2009 2010 2011 Variance YEAR ROUND ASPEN 1,014,913 956,757 896;134 943,621 -7% SEASONAL ASPEN 243,852 194,046 170,047 160,512 -34% TOTAL CITY OF ASPEN _ 1,258,765 11150,803 1,066,181 1,104,133 -12% IL VALLEY SERVICE ONLY HWY 82 CORRIDOR 1,824,622 1,500,874 1,373,827 1,464,838 -20% SM-DV 65,036 52,019 39,861 47,785 -27% WOODY CREEK 8,199 6,636 5,050 6,671 -19% TOTAL VALLEY ONLY 1,897,857_ 1,559,529 1,418,738 _ 1,519,294_ -20% IN. SNOWMASS VILLAGE-INTERCEPT-ASPEN SM-INTERCEPT 102,181 ' 138,669 102,716 110,415 8% TOSV/BC&82 NO SUMMER IN'09 115,363 51,208 _ 55,600 55,735 -52% SUBTOTAL 217,544 189,877 158,316 166,150 -24% ASPEN-SNOWMASS DIRECT 126,282 191,372 187,204 189,936. 50% ASPEN-SNOW MASS SKIER 332,169 295,872 259,609 319,229 -4% SUBTOTAL AS/SM INTEGRATED 458,451 487,244 446,813 509,165 11% TOTAL SNOWMASS VILLAGE 675,995 677,121 605,129 675,315 0% IV. GRAND HOGBACK TOTAL HOGBACK I 105,459 ] 89,391 1 60,745 6 790 1 -40%] V. OTHER _ SKI CO LESS SNOW VLG 229,809 202,567 197,160 174,836 -24% RIDE GLENWOOD 526,710 453,233 424,455 448,602 -15% OTHER 222,184 154,134 148,889 152,935 -31% TOTAL OTHER 978,703 809,934 770,504 776,373 _ -21% GRAND TOTAL 1 4,916,779 1 4,286,778 1 3,921,297 1 4,137,905 I -16% 6 24 6 N 2 Q b C 1 94pp8p pp; pprtp l�� r ,- OQ�OO aOt �;p�8S m rOO p Cri y, 000 O fO�Vym OA N W c�i vi N pomp 0�0f[U qi Orc0+1 a0 p0 W sr '1 txt W p8• E N - 2; g 2,1 ;--2-2R°�n W N o 7 i� .,- O O O N O, f�'7 \° o� ICI Q o 2 . 81g`u n N b ry Z52S:co� �25 m .R.,_-.... o m�+no nv �'o of n.n r '2 °§R3g, $ Eta o�`N`; o 'c5cv�$a�op.u) go c a ogO4° g8 '' go om, cYoo chi m. � ui CO a V m v 0� CO �^f� V • OBO § pm Q D p h us OW ~ • o Y V ?CONU 0 O N NO m NI- O p ) OO f: ) OOO 66 O N 0m a) O N Am va O m bIOC )I pW& Uroa) a) 0)m`r-� N CO CO. NS e°p pp p p pOm�� eS yf cif of M aj(rp vj f 1q Q) �, N �Opp O 10 �D - C1°�Q.QQ6 QO W OA�S_ �1Wyy4 O O N ' ~ ,.p- co O!0b0 w eo,mpr O w 0•-O oO itg Q m H ^ !. O~I�r.=4i puff Cp ONJ 0 V ti vO MQ� N' u7 r 88° 8§ pop pq Qq p p S c V 7y� r 0000 0007W Ot0 � �i aj co c0 o0:1II)I')')co co mcy oN tO i o ii Wm r . O 8 0.0 Ol o O aN. 0-0 o Q) i '7 0o 01A V O .-O Oi): oo a0 d1 N 't O I.f� Oi co N tD O L '; (�1m W v-NN t(gyW r� (y�p t.. Y i+ cQj 11��00000000 O'ON O W n co o Pi% N73, mO�N N 4 0 L V.. ri '0 0 ✓ c .4 c a CD I c o F EN U o c m,y O c Z E = o wa 6 el Gn ct, : � 1 F m m 0.of � Z pp.^ L N E�. = Q y C m Q aglod Li. (a - 4-,1! '&5' c O 0.2 c _ C Qg w V G b r 4 1 o,Um .t a V D F o W c t,• g �.a • md�@ W 0 c O E o y n p x a a, 0} 2 W = c o -0 s ` g m 'g2 . g�.g.'x m � CO a o :' eft 07c _ ro ca .E 3 � ?m 'is a-9 oQm. ; J 0) L° o aM x go gcS tA4cEm o C (-ateE o Er o.� fat W m xx cg map mac ..3 ;'e1c m•Q C 'J a v c a m N 1- 'Et 'm a 7t 0 m g,m3 �'aD V OpEp N n� Q ' �i c m . r.--t1112 z . ao9 J cacar.. c4 r 0(JUEUa xtio c) 8 #2 .p c.., c c v 5 cc KFLQ ZZ' c 2•m gE zD'm0$ cm 'c i'3 �'e � WvmUarib= m Q •' c. ¢ a,� 2c ®oc W �aa � Dar xmarzv)pa U' m n ri �� o . cu922,° 0 I 3 ,-,,,:r-3---, ;,--5- ,-Nmv�.cnm�N FU- c ..,.g..c am • � mE '" ' E. II a O O I m si v o 3c�c C1 Q- m- m 3 LL F- y, F W W �- Uddm-z �+W Q Z01 1 25 EOTC Subcommittee Meeting Free Fare Service February 9, 2012 Aspen City Council Chambers 3:00pm Meeting One Agenda: 1. Review of Subcommittee Purpose&Agenda Objective- To seek a consensus recommendation to entire EOTC on a way forward to address both capital and operating needs for transit improvements in the upper valley. 2. Elected Official Comments 3. Financial Capacity-Tom Oken 4. Capital Projects-Brian Pettet and Tom Oken 5. Introduce Ways Forward-Tom Oken and Bob Schultz 6. Discussion 7. Closing- Identify Critical Information Needs and Plan for Meeting Two 26 MEMORANDUM TO: EOTC Subcommittee FROM: Bob Schultz, Robert Schultz Consulting RE: Meeting One DATE: February 2,2012 Given the amount of work to be accomplished and the limited meeting time, EOTC staffers have asked me to help facilitate the Subcommittee's efforts at the February 9 and March 1, 2012 meetings.We have worked together to prepare the attached information for your review prior to the first meeting.This memo describes the intended work plan and purpose for the background information provided. Work Plan Our first meeting will focus on creating a common understanding of the history and current understanding of financial and policy commitments made by the EOTC related to capital funding and Aspen-Snowmass Free Fare Service. There will be time during the start of the first meeting for you to share your thoughts, issues,or clarifications needed in order to feel comfortable with the past and present commitments. In addition, staff will introduce possible future capital projects and possible future funding sources, if additional funds are desired. The second meeting will be an attempt to create a consensus recommendation about how to move forward on capital and operating funding to present to the entire EOTC at the March 22 EOTC meeting. Packet Materials The attached materials are intended to support our work at the first meeting. An agenda for the meeting is presented along with three sections of support materials. The Background Section includes a history of free fare service between Aspen and Snowmass Village,the current EOTC funding policy, and the 2012 Approved Budget and Multi-Year Plan. These documents are most critical for your review prior to the meeting as they provide the foundation that will allow us to resolve issues about what has happened in the past,to end the meeting grounded in the present and to look forward to the future during our second meeting. The Financial Section includes information on EOTC Financial Capacity,a list of near and medium term Capital Projects that could qualify for EOTC funding,and a list of possible additional funding sources. Staff will present the Financial Section documents during the meeting. 27 The capacity analysis is intended to inform the Subcommittee members of the funding available using existing sources. The Capital Projects identified by staff are intended to be a draft of what will eventually be an EOTC-approved list of capital projects that would provide staff with the authorization necessary to leverage local funds to pursue non-local matching funds.The Possible Funding Options document provides a coarse evaluation of possible funding sources if the EOTC determined that additional funding would be required in order to continue EOTC funding for free fare service. The Appendix includes a variety of documents that may answers questions that come up from your review of the documents above.The EOTC Mission and History document provides a powerful reminder of the many EOTC accomplishments working through consensus. I look forward to working with you during our meetings. Please call or email me with any comments or questions-bschultz(strategy.org or 456-7503. 28 BACKGROUND SECTION 29 1 History of the Free Fare Service Summer 2006 City of Aspen made the 30 minute service between the Brush Creek lot and Aspen free from July through Labor Day Summer 2007 The City of Aspen made the service between the Brush Creek Lot and Aspen free from July 2 through Labor Day at a cost to the City of$90,000 lulu 19.2007 Meeting TOW through RFfA requested funding of$36,561 for free fare service from the Brush Creek lot to Snowmass from July 23-Labor Day. This made the services between Aspen and Snowmass free. November 15.2007 Meeting FREE SNOWBMSS TO ASPEN SERVICE efahlik The EOTC made a motion to fund free bus service between Snowmass and Aspen for the 2007/08 winter season through the spring 2008 season until June 19,2008(November 22,2007 until June 19,2008). At the June 2008 EOTC meeting,the service would be reviewed and evaluated for further operation and funding. The motion failed based on the City of Aspen vote at the meeting. VO>7'E: ASPEN NO 2 YES 1 NO (J.E.DeVilbiss s NO) POTION COUNTY YES 3 YES 1 NO (Rachel Richards=NO) TOW YES 3 YES 0 NO The funding request was presented to Aspen City Council at their regular meeting of December 3,2007 for consideration as a 2007 supplemental budget request. The funding request failed to be approved at that meeting as wet The EOTC directed staff to bring a revised funding proposal back to the February 14,2008 meeting for further consideration. 1 3 0) FellanW 14.2008 Meratino FREE SNOWMASS TO ASPEN SERVICE • itaftifigget The EOTC approved the funding request as proposed on page 7 of the meeting packet which states: "....EOTC approval of this initial 2008 supplemental budget request in the amount of$117,000 for the implementation,study,analysis,and marketing of free bus service between Snowmass and Aspen with the following conditions:" • EOTC commitment to support,fund,analyze,and market a free bus service test program from June 2008 through April 2009(summer,fall,and winter seasons). • EOTC commitment to fund the collection and analysis of fare and ridership data during the winter of 2008 in the amount of$10,000 to be used to evaluate and analyze the cost of free bus service in preparation for a funding request for free bus service for the winter of 2008/09. • EOTC commitment to initially fund the free bus service for the summer and fall seasons at existing levels of service in the amount of$102,000 • EOTC commitment to fund the cost of free bus service for the winter of 2008/09 after careful review of ridership and fare data at a future EOTC meeting prior to April 30,2008. MIL ASPEN YES S YES 0 NO PITION COUNTY YES 4 YES 1 NO (Jack Hatfield) TOW YES S YES 0 NO April 17.2008 Meeting The EOTC unanimously approved funding for free service between Snowman an Aspen for the 2008/09 winter as a one-time experiment In the amount of$251,116. The free service will be reviewed in the spring of 2009 to see if the funding for the free service will be continued for the rest of 2009 and into the future. MIL ASPEN YES 2 YES 0 NO MTKIN COUNTY YES S YES 0 NO TOW YES S YES 0 NO Awn 17.2008 Meeting FREE WINTER SNOWMASS TO ASPEN SERVICE FOLLOW-UP 2 31 ficalicafttast The EOTC unanimously approved funding for free service between Snowman an Aspen for the 2008/09 winter as a one-time experiment in the amount of$251,116. The free service will be reviewed In the spring of 2009 to see if the funding for the free service will be continued for the rest of 2009 and into the future. VOTE: ASPEN YES 2 YES 0 NO PITION COUNTY YES 5 YES 0 NO TOW YES 5 YES 0 NO October 16.2008 Meeting 1. The EOTC agreed to fund the extension of the free fare service until June 14,2009 induding the additional cost increase(due to a fare increase)in the amount of$44,012.00 as part of the 2009 budget. MOM ASPEN YES 3 YES 0 NO PITKIN COUNTY YES 3 YES 1 NO(Michael Owsley) TOSV YES 3 YES 0 NO 2. The EOTC agreed to fund a consultant study and analysis of the free fare service in an amount not to exceed$20,000 as part of the 2009 budget. ASPEN YES 3 YES 0 NO PITION COUNTYYES YES 4 YES 0 NO TOW YES 3 YES 0 NO The EOTC seed to have a flnandal planning meeting in 2009 to review the use of the available funds for the next S-10 years. Wit ASPEN YES 3 YES 0 NO MEIN COUNTY YES 3 YES 0 NO TOW YES 2 YES 0 NO(Sally Sparhawk abstained) 3. The EOTC took no action on the issue of RFTA's integration of service this winter but they were supportive. 3 321 emir 16.2009 Meeting EOTC FUNDING CAPACITY The EOTC agreed to fund the free fare service until September 30,2009 in the amount of$79,365. Any additional funding would be discussed after a financial retreat In August to discuss the EOTCs mission and spending policies. ASPEN YES 2 YES 0 NO PITKIN COUNTY YES 4 YES 1 NO(Jack Hatfield) TOSV YES 3 YES 0 NO Aspen only had two representatives attending this meeting. At its regular City Council meeting on July 13,2009,Aspen approved the funding of the free fare service until September 30,2009 In the amount of $79,365. August 6.2009 Retreat FUTURE SPENDING POLICY&DIRECTION gffSIEWBBSGEbdi The ROTC decided at the retreat to dedicate 2/3 of the fund to the Entrance to Aspen and 1/3 of the fund would be available for discretionary purposes. V217• YES COA: yes=3 no=0 TOW yes=2 no=1 (John Wilkinson) BOCC yes-S no=0 CONTINUED RNMXNG OF THE FREE FARE SERVICE BETWEEN ASPEN&SNOB/MASS- ' Rearlrcd Jack Hatfield test a motion to continue to fund the free fare service between Aspen and Snowmass from October 1,2009 through the end of the 2010 ski season(April 11,2010). Dwayne Romero seconded the motion. The motion was amended to include funding from the EOTC for fix fate service on the Woody Creek bus service for the same dates as the Aspen to Snowiness service. The estimated cost for the free fare service including the Woody Creek service for the rest of 2009 and 2010 is$444,405. The EOTC also agreed to obtain continued analysis of the free fare service during the upcoming winter. A scope of service and cost will be presented at the October budget meeting. 4 33 5 EaglAGGingu COA. yes=3 no=0 TOW yes=3 no=0 BOCC yes=S no=0 9. r 15.2009 Meeta The EOTC asked for language clarification regarding the future spending policy agreed to at the August 6,2009 Retreat meeting. The new language will be included in the resolutions and ordinance approving the 2009/10 budget submitted to each member jurisdiction for final approval. The language will be the parties decided to designate at least two-tHirds of each year's net bondable revenue to fund the Entrance to Aspen capital project with the remainder available to fund operations and discretionary projects•' 2010 BUDGET APPROVAL A subcommittee was to be formed to discuss the free fare service funding and ridership analysis. One elected oNidal from each jurisdiction is to attend. Representatives so far Include Markey Butler from TOW and Dwayne Romero from Aspen. 2010 BUDGET SUMMARY TOTAL 2010 REVENUES $4,139,800 • TOTAL 2010 EXPENDITURES $3,246,602 The 2010 budget was approved. yom Aspen: 44 yes PitkM S-0 yes TOW: 1-0 yes Subsequently,at their regular meetings Pitkin County(December 16,2009)and the City of Aspen (January 11,2010),approved by resolution,the 2009 and 2010 initial budget,including the designation of at least 2/3 dead;year's net bondable revenue to fund the Entrance to Aspen capital project 5 34 beginning in 2010 and the remaining annual revenue to be available to fund operations and discretionary projects. The Town of Snowmass at its March 1,2010 meeting,did approve by resolution the 2009 and 2010 initial budget but,did not include the designation of 2/3 of each year's net bondable revenue to fund the Entrance to Aspen capital project beginning in 2010 and the remaining annual revenue to be available to fund operations and discretionary projects in its resolution. March 18.2010 Meejing CONTINUED FUNDING OF THE FREE FARE SERVICE BETWEEN ASPEN&SNOWMASS VILLAGE&WOODY CREEK Decisions Reached: Mick Ireland made a motion regarding the free fare service and Jack Hatfield seconded it and Arnie Mordkln called the question. The motion contained the Mowing conditions: • A policy commitment by the EOTC to fully fund,on a year round basis,the free fare service between Aspen and Snowmass and Woody Creek,for three years,through the end of the ski season for 2013. The free fare service is to be reviewed at the end of three years. The EOTC funding for the free fare service is subject to annual appropriation. • A c mmitment by the Town of Snowmass Village,as the lead agency,to make a good faith effort,to seek out additional partners or additional revenue sources to continue to fund the free fare wake. • A pennanent commitment by the EOTC to fund the ETA using the revised allocation method, until such time as enough money is accumulated to pay for an Entrance to Aspen solution approved by the voters,to be reviewed in S years • No task force or subcommittee to be formed. Before the vote was caged,lack Hatfield requested an amendment to Mick Ireland's motion. The amendment would limit the funding of the free fare service to two years. Steve Skadron seconded the amendment The amendment failed with only three yes votes. TWO YEAR AMENDMENT VOTE: NO COA: 2-2 SPLIT (Tone it Steve Skadron=yes-Mick Ireland&Dwayne Romero-no) BOCC: 1-4 NO (lack Hatfield=yes) TOW: 0d NO 6 35 7 QfficitialaMgalex COA: 2-2 SPLIT (Mick Ireland&Dwayne Romero=yes-Steve flatiron&Torre=no) 80CC: 4-1 YES (lack Ikatfteld=no) TOW: 4-0 YES The motion will now go to each Individual EOTC member's Jurisdiction for approval by resolution at a regularly scheduled meeting of each members Council or Commission. Nov agaller 4.2010 Meeting 2011 PROPOSED BUDGET&MULTI-YEAR PLAN Decisions Reached: 2011 BASE BUDGET The 2011 EOTC base budget was approved by a unanimous vote of the EOTC(including the Grassroots TV filming of meetings). The base budget included all Funding Sources(revenues)and all Funding Uses except the AABC Pedestrian Crossing. VOTE: YES Unanimously COA: 4-0 YES BOCC: 4-0 YES TOW: 3-0 YES 2012 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET ITEMS The supplemental budget Item for 2011 was the AABC Pedestrian Crossing request for$250,000 for design and engineering. A letter from Michael Tullar,President of the North 40 HOA was presented to the EOTC by Patti Clapper regarding the AABC pedestrian crossing. The funding for the AABC Pedestrian Crossing was approved"on the condition that the discretionary funding deficit In 2011,resulting from the$250,000 approved for the design and engineering of a pedestrian crossing at the AABC be repaid to the fund balance designated for the Entrance-to-Aspen out of discretionary funds over five years at$50,000 per year beginning kh 2012". VOTE: YES COA: 3-1 YES (Tore a No) 80CC: 4-0 YES TOW: 3-0 YES 7 3& All of the EOTC members did subsequently approve the 2011 EOTC Budget(which included the base budget and supplemental budget items)by resolution at their regular public meetings as required by the intergovernmental Agreement dated September 14,1993. July 212011 Meetine No action was taken on the free fare service at this meeting. October 20.201 iAeeting Proposed 2012 BUDGET&MULTI-YEAR PLAN • Unanimous Approval of the Proposed 2012 Budget by those EOTC Members Present Addfdono/Otiection to Staff. • Bring additional funding Ideas and alternatives for the no fare service to the next EOTC meeting(Mar 15,2012). • Form a subcommittee to evaluate funding alternatives and other potential uses of discretionary funding • Create a strategic plan for future capital needs/projects • Provide a history/summary of expenditures and uses to date • Provide subcommittee recommendation to full EOTC on funding and capital projects at the March 15,2012 meeting 8 37 a RECENT EOTC FUNDING POLICY To provide some direction for future funding,the EOTC at its August 2009 strategic planning meeting,agreed to dedicate at least 2/3 of annual net revenue to the Entrance-to-Aspen Project (ETA)with the remaining 1/3 available to fund operations and discretionary projects such as the no-fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek bus service. A separate allocation of$6A3 million was also maintained for Snowiness Transit Improvements. The 1/3 operating/discretionary to 2/3 capital project ratio evolved from a discussion of the bonding/borrowing capacity of the 0.5% sales and use tax. The maximum net revenue that would likely be committed to repay future borrowing against the 0.5%transit tax would only be 2/3 of the net revenue available. Consequently 1/3 of the net revenue was the maximum amount that could be committed to ongoing operating/discretionary projects without decreasing the amount of bonding available. This ratio is usually stated as a 15x coverage requirement for debt to be repaid from a variable revenue source such as sales and use tax. That means that there needs to be half again as much revenue projected as what is needed to repay the debt to allow for a potential 33% decline in revenue while still maintaining the ability to make debt payments. For example, with $1.5 million in net revenue and a 1.5x coverage ratio, debt service requirements could equal $1 million of net revenue, leaving $500,000 of net revenue as "coverage"available to cushion any decline in revenue. $500,000 coverage,could be used to fund operations +$1 million committed to repay debt issued to fund capital protects $1.5 million total net revenue available At the strategic planning meeting the only capital projects presented to be funded from the EOTC were the Snowmass transit center and the Entrance to Aspen. Other capital projects were to be funded by BRT/FCA. With 6.4 million available and committed to Snowmass, the 2/3 of net revenue for capital was designated for the ETA. (See the calculation on the next page of the 2/3 net revenue allocation to the ETA for the 2012 budget.) In 2010 the EOTC made.a policy commitment to fully fund,on a year-round basis, the no-fare service between Aspen and Snowmass and Woody Creek for three years,through the end of the ski season for 2013, regardless of whether the 1/3 discretionary funding allocation was sufficient to cover the no fare service. The EOTC approved$250,000 in the 2011 budget for the design and engineering of a pedestrian crossing from AABC to the Airport bus stops. This project was determined to be outside the scope of the ETA,requiring the use of discretionary funding. However,that would result in a discretionary funding deficit for 2011 of approximately the same amount so the project was approved by the EOTC to be taken as a reduction in the Entrance-to-Aspen reserves. Subsequently the EOTC approved the project as an advance from the ETA reserves to be repaid out of future discretionary funds over five years at $50,000 per year beginning in 2012. However,with no surplus discretionary funds in the 2012 budget, repayment was deferred until discretionary funding was available. 2012 Buda*Calculation of amount allocated to Entrance-to-Moen Pltidn County 112%sales tax J3,798,000 Pitldn County 112%use tax 850,000 Less: Use tax collection costs ($7,463) Administrative cost albcation (19,390) Bus stop safety Imprvs/cab ride in-lieu (11,000) Mimes transit subsidy (80,000) Brush Creek parking expansion-annual operating costs (30,000) RFTA contribution(81.04%of 1/2%sales tax) (3,077,898) Net revers to be allocated 1,982,248 Annual 213's allocafon to Entrance-to-Aspen 908,185 • • 39 11 2012 Budget end Multi-year Plan ROTC Transit • • .. Funding Aalrl swra Nabs Aka Non ligli 7 all 2110 i. 7114 2016 s Fade Cany/afa Mkt a, - ,0454454 **490'' '4764459 Sao 4,010400 4.114000 4296000 91 Sian Cow 1/2%a61tn 016.179 454450 450900 MOAN 454450 MOM MAN c) iaainna tams a nein 112,981 16.000 76,000 09.001 278,000 430.000 100.000 Brush CNALs 1. :. 8rflu_s .^er f_iF.t.=F. -r:Yc,:.T,.:.:Wf.:i1-;::2=:i,:?:_i:LC_:SStta:J 4 • ,T7 xx ` xx .i' + s'31 • l∎ `,P pr045 x aai� wt *! a 111(-! Z �. 1• � 4 x .Y`` j ,F gP y.''g ' 1 .nr 4°!tm ."ism x4�* r - : r• 'Jrrr �� nr � `'r2� � s �L',-+C 3�f *.+ �Fw S� � srl, * # , x .14.4-....-'C sr ;f- 7T i- { -....A Ola[ ++skx1 x pig 1•� 4,7� r ; s 74 ,!'a . . ,r"Cr-' rr-r.'CG,3 k k ,T«'cd , r7p. `est! •,.mua s1� ifY' a 1rc 1V v :. 7) Sn7M111ruw1NspYaMllniia' a199OM niMon I4 4b4196 N elasnnala Rimadabcathin Iirl00nwuaes - "CM00: ca ydrw0aru20M % No4snAspo4rosnan9fas*Clwa tot anoke(1wI,LPNn2) 961.071 553,830 452.070 275.881 c1e9a a .. . xi:s =rd:T.i7T_.._`.. IN'1T,ii.Mit! :'.: .NALTS T:fillET_! ] 1,:icI!: '-:4.'..,�.' -.�t.:.._u _ �� _ •:4 'ssL, LiaL.:,::c_ r ,1. - 4 /::_.-3K T":T Tl`T''Tr.>r7_;f L •iii•1 ',.1 Inucl___,.0' a:_tll:!-11..'-'•' 'r_.-s,-.s2.-rjj :T-=f,.i lhj 1-r__5L?_J-._iii;-T._:__WE' .':ia7 i.- -T^,?' ",/7"- r —-.11:1 T 77. 7. -., C0sw1123alut an _ :#. # vas ass 0714000 0.785090 2,990.000 4.010400 .. 4.185000 1, , .«...,'',„;�:.•'ry;43:47.;"E. .:; :: ^. 1 c 45sao9 459,600 SCAN N9100D r - a J d a7w �s - fi'_ ._T ci r k_:*._..12 -z ."1 WL.T iilr -iy".r...'j 185.i 1771 --7.17.--MILL T.::.�T.:: 7: =..-_a.T.u.T- '.:_7allICT:: ir-'T' JAliClf —1-1"---r 1 T — -_-1 - - I'.i 94:.1 I'-r(I'.;I'..:t.- L. '^'... m•-^;-:i 1-''.-. _ t-. �;-' 4. 5`.,+ ST.f 5 9 ,0 .-:V Ma umadonlpland 8/ams7rtsWmcenamaalan m.iiim OS 0ia onOf&Sr1.d711nd Ma*rAno nsw MWy rumW improvements 0.410.185 - IY:T (T•r :YW '3. ., _. L �",:�'T"'r -_-Z -T-7 U r - ..,. ;'may T......,j •�-��-.. Tsy L.. _._r 7 I 7 7. -;3"" i.. 3,,i __""( i J '7 .r. F-r9_'- r3P ' :d37.,1T.:_l ' , ,,Eortk.Rnno, ATh FINANCIAL SECTION 41 13 . g§ g g . gil � i t 4 4 4 FE §Igill Ig `8' ra 0..... 0 r Q" +N mg • ^ El .., . 05-;-: . Isi il fli .141 jib 21 0 §§§ § W:gtAl fJ 4 VA fs t-, ge, h Le i s Hr- s-P ' fT 2i u2,1 $1 Lg S3 a h co —1 fip.igEAAE ma IE §§§ § V§(6)§§1 § O2 § g 4 9 8 R. ao N r -8 m C.5 Q x E Y fl) w r 1 N a) Sn;-:gq grog g o Q. U a so 411§E '0(p�?p. 'too_ § FS Poi of-h N R tic C ,. 7 oi v- C O F. E 2 R Q -a a_ M, si r, v► °ir: ` r C r V A c 1 jH ;H ' Ti iil'0 --66 g I it " tg .0 t':-. p� r� to g ...44,AIL Iffitilho: . ii : W Q t0 �41291t aTi , C� $ x xuszv, g snn'Gp r0407r'NoP0001 • • a .1..., „ •rti H 159 c 8 o a q m S- 0 ni 121 0 J 8 k / 0 / 2 2 0 2 / 0 § �1 � a 0 q 7 A k 2 � �iri k N 'a t A $ � �I ■ J L. e 0 0 ! g % 7 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 $ 7 0, 0 � 0 � 0 ( o M ~ & al t' � i M 0 m k 6 § S $ k k S c CO c 2 t c _° o c 2 th % 2 k 8 R in W _ 7 A m WV U 14 To 2 2 L. � <A I" � V .1- 5 / 15 3 k■ c& Q 2 Q o - © 5 2 > w2 5 k / J 0 ] ~ w [ p t « 2 / 2 § 2 0 - 2 O. 7 13 J - a % q k m CO 2 2 k k {n r. 0 \ k J ° R 4' g § J E E a- 2 IL k S $ k k 0 c 2 ® G £ g 2 3 $ a 2 � ■ _ c 2 > § g C k k k k 2 0. W ■ CO ■ 03 in C 0 9 O C O a in NI r . C M I N N • 8 i 8 � 88 88p88888 88 a• t VMI N O VMI O O 8 N 0 N n Of O to V O N O tow) O N t0 m �r m to v tri v � to al co w c § 8 88 888888 88 a . 0O0 00006- u; g u; tri 8 G .N-I O N to O N $ ID WI N X71 N 01 1N0 to N N m m m „ t0 m N R1 N' a0 se �C L N V1 W 8 C CO O O E c N 8 c o N W Q Q 5Q� 4 •E a = E $ = $ FS � 2 m N 7 N to d to C N trt Cl) N `1 VF VI Vi N VF N N I- ''''• 7 g L a _ 7 y N 3 It 10 u a u` N O m c H O 2 C •h 7 U et o .N 8 `O to O se U N C N N E y N CO a C C 4 N N N O O 'O Y C ` N N ° u— �oe av v NctL O. a a a v r m -5 a)a c •0 W y m y 4.4 cu a c d C C CO d d L. E z t m d it 0 E E ? a e. cc° d w 3 c m > > z S o' c `.ter y a ° a a a ` v r d t- m ¢ Q n E E a w y y O C7 S o °' E s a ar c ; d Z w m s. w t e m �j °R a ti ° E U •C W C £ T L u O YO v ei. O U v W ? a 0 i- cc O O gmaa O aj WW G 0. C C 4 CC S CO 2 CO "4 NO-FARE TRANSIT SERVICE—POSSIBLE FUNDING OPTIONS Funding Needed In 2012 the no-fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek subsidy will cost between $537,515 and$551,073 depending on the start and end dates of high and low season service. Future costs wi®increase with RFTA fare increases. New Sources of Funding • Sales tax—0.1%increase in county-wide sales tax generates approximately$747,000 o Aspen 9.0%to 9.1%total sales tax o Snowmass 10.4%to 10.5% o County unincorporated 6.9%to 7% Pros and cons: + Small tax rate increase - Requires voter approval at a November election - Puts Snowmass further over 10% - Smallest rate increment(0.1%)generates much more than needed ($747,000 vs.$552,000) - County-wide is broader than service area - Existing 0.5%transit sales and use tax currently generates$1.4 million annual surplus and has an unspent$11 million cumulative surplus • Sales tax—0.1%increase in Aspen-Snowman area county special district generates approximately$612,000 o Aspen 9.0%to 9.1% o Snowmass 10.4%to 10.5% o County unincorporated 6.9%to 7%in special district only Pros and cons: + Small tax rate increase + Matches the service area + Could expand service area to include Aspen Village - Requires voter approval at a November election - Puts Snowman further over 10% - Existing 0.5%transit sales and use tax currently generates$1.4 million annual surplus and has an unspent$11 million cumulative surplus • Lodging Tax—0.4%increase in Aspen and Snowman generates approximately$586,000 o Aspen 2.0%to 2.4%;total tax on lodging 11.0%to 11.4% o Snowman 2.4%to 2.8%:total 12.8%to 13.2% Pros and cons: + Approximates the service area - Only taxes visitors,not resident service users - Requires inter-dependent voter approval in both Aspen and Snowmass 45 17 - Greater rate increase needed than for sales tax - Likely opposition from lodging community - Existing 0.5%transit sales and use tax currently generates$1.4 million annual surplus and has an unspent$11 million cumulative surplus • Property Tax-0.216 mills in county special district assuming boundaries of the Aspen School District generates approximately$552,000 o Aspen 31.653 to 31.869 total mill levy o Snowmass 39.493 to 39.709 o Woody Creek 26.287 to 26.503 o $17.21 property tax increase per$1 million residential market value Pros and cons: + Small tax rate increase • Matches the service area + Allows expansion of service area to indude Aspen Village - Requires voter approval at a November election - Property tax not commonly used to fund transit - Existing 0.5%transit sales and use tax currently generates$1.4 million annual surplus and has an unspent$11 million cumulative surplus Existing Source of Funding: 0.5%Transit Sales&Use Tax Funding the no-fare subsidy from the 1/3 discretionary allocation results in a 2013 discretionary shortfall,estimated at$59,549 including the$50,000 annual repayment. No shortfall is projected for 2014 or thereafter;however,insufficient discretionary funding would remain for additional capital projects. • Change the 2/3 ETA: 1/3 discretionary funding ratio o 60%ETA:40%discretionary would cover the 2013 no-fare subsidy and the $50,000 repayment o A greater discretionary allocation would be required if additional capital projects were to be funded from discretionary • Fund the no-fare subsidy from the 1/3 discretionary allocation,but change the use of the 2/3 allocation and accumulated surplus to fund any desired capital project(Including, but no longer limited to,the ETA and Snowmass transit center). Make up any shortfall In discretionary funding from one of the following options: o Charge fares during one or both of the off-seasons to reduce the subsidy required($26,735 per month savings) o Advance the shortfall from the funds designated for capital projects and repay from future discretionary surpluses • 18 6 • Quit allocating between discretionary and committed projects and treat the entire fund as discretionary—to be used to fund operating or capital projects as the EOTC deems them worthwhile. Pros and cons for using existing funding source; + No tax increase until ultimately needed to fund the ETA - Reduces the amount saved for the ETA,requiring a larger future tax increase to fund the ETA • 47 19 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Mike Hermes, RFTA BRT Project Manager THRU: John D. Krueger,Director of Transportation DATE OF MEMO: March 15, 2012 MEETING DATE: March 20,2012 RE: RFTA BRT Real Time Signs Informational Item REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Provide input on proposed Real Time Sign and confirm that it is acceptable for use at the city of Aspen BRT stations—Rubey Park and down valley Buttermilk. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: None. BACKGROUND: RFTA is implementing Bus Rapid Transit service—branded the VelociRFTA—beginning in September 2013. The service will operate like rail; BRT buses will travel on Highway 82 (with a short off-line trip to the Carbondale Park and Ride) and stop only at nine stations within the corridor. Travel times between Aspen and Glenwood Springs will be reduced to about an hour, making transit use more convenient for existing riders and extremely attractive to potential riders. Buses will be equipped with geographic positioning system devices and other technologies that will allow dispatchers to ensure that the buses stay on schedule. In addition, the technologies will allow riders at each BRT station to know when their bus will arrive and depart in real time with proposed new signs. These features, including the real time sign, have been discussed with the public during open houses and other meetings and have received positive feedback. DISCUSSION: The sign type RFTA is planning to use to communicate the real time information uses LEDs. Through RFTA's work with Community Development staff, it is understood that Council has had concerns about moving signs in the past. The information on the LED signs will update approximately every minute and is considered a moving sign. Staff recognizes the public purpose of the sign, but wants to check in with Council. Attachment A— Exhibit One-Proposed Real Time Sign includes an image of a sign similar to the one RFTA is proposing and other specifications, including the sign's overall size. Attachment B—Exhibit Two-Proposed Real Time Sign at Rubey Park includes images of the similar sign in its approximate location during both the day and evening. RFTA will also have a sign at the Page 1 of 2 worksession for Council to see in person. The sign specified by RFTA is similar to the sign illustrated in these images except that the specified sign will be dark gray/black, not red. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: None. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The real time sign information is an important feature of the BRT service. Its use will make transit more attractive and will contribute to increased ridership. The sign's illumination levels automatically adjust to ambient light conditions and can be manually adjusted to respond to any brightness concerns, if needed. The sign uses low-voltage power making it more energy efficient than other signs. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide input on proposed Real Time Sign and confirm that it is acceptable for use at the city of Aspen BRT stations—Rubey Park and down valley Buttermilk. ALTERNATIVES: If Council does not find the sign to be acceptable, RFTA will not provide this technology at the stations located within the city of Aspen. PROPOSED MOTION: Not required. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: A -Exhibit One–Proposed Real Time Sign B-Exhibit Two–Proposed Real Time Sign at Rubey Park Page 2 of 2 LED Matrix 40 pixels high x 180 pixels wide full matrix LED type Discrete LED lamp amber color 2mm diameter round LED lamp Vertical pitch 3.8mm Horizontal pitch 3.05mm LED brightness 1000 mCd per pixel typical Visible Display Area Height 6" Width 21.5" External Dimensions Approximately Height 190mm (7.48") Width 750mm (29.5") Depth 150mm (5.9") Materials Outer enclosure fabricated aluminum with polyester powder coat paint to customer specified RAL number Screen 6mm Lexan polycarbonate with anti reflective and anti scratch coatings Internal metal parts aluminum Construction Enclosure to be Ingress Protected to IP65 Standard Vandal Resistant security locks Audio 3.3" audio speaker-Visaton Art#2087 LED Diagnostics Temperature measurement (1 x on-board as standard) On-demand LED Test(open and short circuit) Brightness monitoring !+ LED Brightness Automatic brightness control via ambient light sensor Control Temperature Range Operating range: -40C / +62C (-40F / +144F) Figures above with optional heater module Storage range: -30C/+85C(-22F/+185F) Humidity-5%to 95% Non Condensing Mounting Options Available mounting methods are: Ceiling Wall Pole Product Ingress Protection to IP65 Certifications Impact Rating to IK7 EMC testing to FCC regulations Part 15 Class A Electrical Safety to BS EN 60950 Low Voltage Directive Estimated Weight 8kg(17.61b) A-Exhibit One-Proposed Real Time Sign (page 1 of 2) I • • .{ ',m° �a��m� . �y Y w« • /d < '114- y »� � • AE hibit One-Proposed Real T meS\n (page 2 0 2) . .. ' • 4 ■..r'04 11 II . ■ . i ''''• A, -I. ." r` ' ' • . , , „ .4. • - - .. r,... , . •.. ' %. ...!,.,1 -- -r .- ■• et. T'Vi J. ' . t,..i.. •-•,i4‘.. , ,AN, API' .11 .. . • . ... .,...-- :211."- 1 , t 1... if r. 1 1W"' to • A ' ..4 ...... —.....),.. _ , [10 tool t 1 —, .. • , • I " 1, B—Exhibit 2—Proposed Real Time Sign at Rubey Park(page 1 of 2) .� =r • • • • B—Exhibit 2—Proposed Real Time Sign at Rubey Park(page 2 of 2)