Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20131119 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION November 19, 2013 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. EOTC Prep II. Canary Initiative;Renewable Energy;Overview of Carbon Reduction Measures III. Galena Plaza Design Review Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) AGENDA Thursday, November 21, 2013 - 4pm Location-Aspen-City Hall-Council Chambers City of Aspen to Host and Chair Meeting __________________________________________________________________________________________ I. 4:00 - 4:10 REVIEW OF DECISIONS REACHED AT THE AUGUST 29, 2013 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 –4:30 2014 PROPOSED MEETING DATES  February 20, 2014 Pitkin County-Host & Chair  June 19, 2014 Snowmass-Host & Chair  October 16, 2014 Aspen-Host & Chair Decision Needed: Approval of the proposed 2014 meeting dates IV. 4:30 – 5:00 PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE EOTC DECISION MAKING PROCESS Tom Oken-Pitkin County Decision Needed: Approval of the proposed change to the EOTC decision making process V. 5:00 – 6:00 2014 PROPOSED BUDGET Tom Oken-Pitkin County New Funding Requests  Rubey Park-John Krueger-City of Aspen  Planning Retreat-Brian Pettet-Pitkin County  Regional Travel Patterns Study-Collin Laird & David Johnson Decision Needed: Approval of the proposed 2014 Budget and funding requests VI. 6:00 – 6:15 UPDATES  VelociRFTA BRT-Dan Blankenship-RFTA  AABC Underpass-G.R.Fielding-Pitkin County VII. 6:30 - 6:45 FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS P1 I. ELECTED OFFICIALS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (EOTC) August 29, 2013 Town of Snowmass-Council Chambers Town of Snowmass - Host & Chair AGREEMENTS & DECISIONS REACHED Elected Officials in Attendance: Aspen -2 Pitkin County - 4 TOSV -3 Dwayne Romero George Newman Bill Boineau Adam Frisch Michael Owsley Jason Haber Rob Ittner Markey Butler Steve Child Absent: Aspen: Steve Skadron, Art Daly, and Ann Mullins Pitkin County: Rachel Richards Snowmass: Fred Kucker, Chris Jacobson Agreements & Decisions Reached: I. REVIEW OF DECISIONS REACHED AT THE MARCH 7, 2013 SPECIAL MEETING John D. Krueger-City of Aspen Tom Oken provided a correction to the Decision Reached on the AABC Underpass. The EOTC approved additional funding for the AABC Underpass Project in the amount of $1,025,000 for 2013 to be advanced from the $3,000,000 EOTC capital pool. II. PUBLIC COMMENT Fred Brodsky the Group Sales Director for Snowmass provided a “heads up” to the EOTC on a potential upcoming event for Snowmass-Tough Mudder. Fed was asking the EOTC for permission to use the Brush Creek parking lot during the event in September of 2014. The event would provide a parking and transit plan to the EOTC to review. The event is projecting parking between 1000-1200 cars in the lot. Fred also asked the EOTC if the event would be able to charge for parking during the event. The EOTC directed Fred to come back to a future meeting with a specific parking, transit and transportation plan for the event for the EOTC to review as well as a possible request for paid parking for the event. P2 I. 2 III. FINANCIAL UPDATE Tom Oken-Pitkin County Tom Oken provided a financial update to the EOTC. This was an informational item and no decision was required. IV. EOTC STRATEGIC PLANNING RETREAT Bob Schultz-Robert Schultz Consulting Decision Needed: Direction from the EOTC to move forward with Strategic Planning in 2014 Bob Schultz presented a short history of EOTC projects and the current mission statement. He also presented a proposal to move forward with a strategic planning retreat to review, reaffirm or change the EOTC goals. Bob also presented a proposal for changing the decision making process currently used by the EOTC. The EOTC directed Bob and staff to come to the next EOTC meeting with a strategic planning request to the next meeting to be reviewed as part of the 2014 budget. The EOTC also directed Bob and staff to come to the next EOTC meeting with a specific proposal to change the decision making process to be reviewed by the member’s attorneys. V. UPDATES  Rubey Park Remodel Project- John Krueger-City of Aspen, Sheri Sanzone-Bluegreen & Gilbert Sanchez-Studio B Architects  VelociRFTA BRT-Dan Blankenship-RFTA  AABC Underpass-G.R.Fielding-Pitkin County VI. FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDA ITEMS  October 17, 2013 o 2014 Budget Meeting o City of Aspen to Host & Chair P3 I. MEMORANDUM TO: The Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) FR: John D. Krueger, City Of Aspen DATE: November 10, 2013 Meeting Date: November 21, 2013 RE: 2014 EOTC Meeting Dates Decision Needed: Selection of 2014 meeting dates Staff is proposing the following meeting dates for 201 4.  February 20, 2014 Pitkin County-Host & Chair  June 19, 2014 Snowmass-Host & Chair  October 16, 2014 Aspen-Host & Chair *There could be additional strategic planning meetings during the year. In 2013 the EOTC met four times.  February 28, 2013 Aspen-Host & Chair  March 7, 2013 * Pitkin County-Host & Chair  August 28, 2013 Snowmass-Host & Chair  November 21, 2013 Aspen-Host & Chair *Special Meeting P4 I. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) FROM: Tom Oken, Pitkin County Treasurer MEETING DATE: November 21, 2013 SUBJECT: Proposed change to the EOTC decision-making process This issue concerns the process by which the EOTC approves of project expenditures. The requirement for approval was in the 1993 ballot question for the ½% county transit sales and use tax: “for the purpose of 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…” A 1993 intergovernmental agreement between the County, City, and Town specified the approval process as follows: ”The parties further agree that the amount of all expenditures and projects to be funded with revenues derived from the county-wide one half (1/2) cent sales and one half (1/2) cent use tax as described in paragraphs 7 & 8 below shall be agreed upon by all three parties in advance of any such expenditure and/or project as evidenced by a resolution duly adopted by the governing bodies of each party.” At the last EOTC meeting staff was directed to return at the next meeting with a proposed amendment to the IGA that would permit the parties to give final approval of EOTC spending at an EOTC meeting without the subsequent approval of a resolution by each entity. The proposed amendment is as follows: “The parties further agree that the budget for all expenditures and projects to be funded with revenues derived from the county-wide one-half (1/2) cent sales and use tax shall be approved by all three parties in advance of any such expenditure and/or project. Such approval may be granted, after taking public comment, by affirmative vote by a majority of a quorum of the governing body of each party, preferably at a joint meeting of the parties. However, if any party is unable to grant such approval at a joint meeting, then it may grant approval at a separate meeting of its governing body.” The City, County and Town attorneys have reviewed the proposed amendment, but the Town attorney has not approved, citing conflicts with the Snowmass Town Charter. The Snowmass Town Council will discuss this issue at its November 18th meeting prior to the EOTC meeting. P5 I. AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) FROM: Tom Oken, Pitkin County Treasurer MEETING DATE: November 21, 2013 SUBJECT: Proposed 2014 Budget & Multi-Year Plan Attached for review and approval at your meeting is the Proposed 2014 Budget & Multi-Year Plan. Some of the line items for the Proposed 2014 Budget are discussed below. See the attached memos for an explanation of other line items and new requests. Funding Sources a) Pitkin County 1/2% sales tax After increasing 3.0% in 2012 we are projecting a 5.2% increase for this year (on budget) and 3.5% annually for 2014-2018. These are the County’s formal projections developed in conjunction with its Financial Advisory Board. b) Pitkin County 1/2% use tax Use tax collections on building materials and vehicles are expected to increase by 8% in 2014, 4.5% in 2015, and 3% annually thereafter. c) Investment income With the Federal Reserve Board intending to keep short-term interest rates low for an extended time, we are forecasting an investment earnings rate of 0.6% for 2014 and 2015 and then somewhat of a rebound to rates of 1.9%, 3.8% and 4.4% for 2016, 2017, and 2018 respectively. These are the County’s formal projections developed in conjunction with its Financial Advisory Board. With an invested fund balance of nearly $10 million, this variation in rates produces a wide range of forecast investment income: from a low of $56,000 in 2014 to a high of $546,000 in 2018. As a result, investment income produces much of the discretionary surplus in 2016- 2018. Funding Uses 1) Use tax collection costs The proposed budget of $116,060 for 2014 is primarily for staff (auditing) but also for administrative overhead (supervision, computers, training, phone, postage, etc.) 2) Administrative cost allocation and meeting costs The proposed budget of $18,827 for 2014 is composed of $12,379 administrative overhead (accounting and auditing), $4,448 insurance, and $2,000 purchased services (for TV broadcast/recording of meetings and other meeting support). P6 I. 2a) Planning retreat Approved in concept at the prior EOTC meeting, this budget request is $6,000 for facilitation plus $800 for meeting space and support. See attached memo for details. 3) Cab ride in lieu of bus stop safety improvements -- See attached memo. 4) X-Games transit subsidy The annual budget is paid to RFTA to help fund transit services for the X-Games. An increase to $100,000 from $50,000 was approved at the 3-22-12 EOTC meeting for 2013 and 2014. See attached memo. 5) Brush Creek Intercept Lot operating costs -- See attached memo. 6) RFTA contribution (81.04% of 1/2% sales tax) By intergovernmental agreement and voter approval, 81.04% of the half-cent sales tax (but not use tax) is committed to RFTA. 7 - 11) No-fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek bus service & capital projects pool The 2014 budget was prepared in accordance with the funding agreement reached by the EOTC in June of 2013. Although the funding agreement is only through 2016, the multi-year plan illustrates the result if extended through 2018. No-Fare Service & Capital Pool Policy 1. Maintain a 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. Create $3-million capital pool for near-term capital projects in order to attract non- local funds. Specific projects are subject to future authorization by the EOTC. To date, $2,150,000 has been approved for the AABC underpass pedestrian crossing; $850,000 remains unallocated. 5. Fund capital pool with 50% from each lockbox to be repaid from discretionary funds 6. No-Fare service between Aspen, Snowmass and Woody Creek continued year-round through 2016. EOTC to pay cost of winter, spring, and fall service from discretionary funds contingent on TOSV funding summer service from Snowmass Village Transit Center lockbox funds or other source. The 2014 EOTC cost for winter, spring, and fall no-fare service is $476,211. The cost for summer service, to be paid from the Snowmass Village Transit Center lockbox, is $75,689. 12b) Rubey Park final design, land use and permitting (funded from ETA lockbox) P7 I. See attached memo. 13) Regional Travel Plans Study – see attached memo Cumulative Surplus (Fund Balance) The proposed 2014 budget shows a projected 2014 ending fund balance of $9,584,076: $5,203,787 is designated for the Snowmass Village Transit Center and $4,380,289 is designated for the Entrance-to-Aspen. Although the funding agreement outlined above extends only through 2016, the multi-year plan shows the result if it were continued through 2018. Projected 2018 ending fund balance is $14,269,552 with $5,088,923 designated for the Snowmass Village Transit Center and $9,180,629 designated for the Entrance-to-Aspen. Each designated fund (lockbox) also has a receivable of $880,296 from future years’ discretionary surplus. This represents the remaining balance to be reimbursed to the lockboxes for the $3 million advance to the capital pool. P8 I. EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN EOTC Transit Project Funding Proposed Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 FUNDING SOURCES: a)Pitkin County 1/2% sales tax 3,913,565 4,116,000 4,260,000 4,409,000 4,563,000 4,723,000 4,888,000 b)Pitkin County 1/2% use tax 784,524 813,000 878,000 918,000 946,000 974,000 1,003,000 c)Investment income & misc.51,181 54,000 56,000 58,000 185,000 412,000 546,000 Total Funding Sources 4,749,270 4,983,000 5,194,000 5,385,000 5,694,000 6,109,000 6,437,000 FUNDING USES: 1)Use tax collection costs 78,773 101,809 111,596 116,060 120,702 125,530 130,552 2)Administrative cost allocation & meeting costs 25,041 17,392 18,827 19,768 20,757 21,795 22,884 2a) Planning retreat 6,800 3)Cab ride in-lieu of bus stop safety imprvs 5,171 8,000 8,000 8,280 8,570 8,870 9,180 4)X-Games transit subsidy 50,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 5)Brush Creek Intercept Lot operating costs 28,478 32,000 35,000 36,225 37,493 38,805 40,163 6)RFTA contribution (81.04% of 1/2% sales tax)3,171,553 3,335,606 3,452,304 3,573,054 3,697,855 3,697,855 3,697,855 7)No-fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek bus service - year-round 553,838 8)No-fare bus service - winter, spring, fall 478,148 476,211 476,211 490,497 490,497 490,497 9)No-fare bus service - summer (funded from SVTC lockbox)75,689 75,689 75,689 77,960 77,960 77,960 10)Capital projects pool ($3M advanced equally from ETA & SVTC lockboxes) 10a) AABC pedestrian crossing design & engineering (addtl $125,000)104,246 20,754 10b) AABC pedestrian crossing construction contribution 2,025,000 10c) remainder - unallocated 850,000 11)AABC ped. crossing design & engineering ($250k advanced from ETA lockbox)158,632 12)Rubey Park planning, scoping & conceptual design (funded from ETA) 12a) scoping & conceptual design 200,000 12b) final design, landuse & permitting 650,000 13)Regional Travel Patterns study 30,000 Total Uses 4,175,732 6,394,398 4,964,427 5,255,287 4,553,834 4,561,312 4,569,091 EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)573,538 (1,411,398) 229,573 129,713 1,140,166 1,547,688 1,867,909 EOTC CUMULATIVE SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) FUND BALANCE 10,765,901 9,354,503 9,584,076 9,713,789 10,853,955 12,401,644 14,269,552 a)sales tax 3.0%5.2%3.5%3.5%3.5%3.5%3.5% b)use tax 2.5%3.6%8.0%4.5%3.0%3.0%3.0% c)investment earnings rate 0.5%0.5%0.6%0.6%1.9%3.8%4.4% Revenue projections: 11/15/2013 14 EOTC.xlsx P9 I. EOTC BUDGET AND MULTI-YEAR PLAN Actual Budget Proposed Plan Plan Plan Plan Fund balance designated for Snowmass Village Transit Center (SVTC)2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 less summer no- fare service (75,689) (75,689) (75,689) (77,960) (77,960) (77,960) less 1/2 of advance to capital pool (52,123) (1,022,877) - (425,000) - - - plus reimbursement of advance to capital pool - - - 32,116 244,775 342,812 Year-end fund balance designated for Snowmass Village Transit Center 6,378,042 5,279,476 5,203,787 4,703,098 4,657,255 4,824,070 5,088,923 Advance 880,296 receivable Actual Budget Proposed Plan Plan Plan Plan Calculation of amount allocated to Entrance-to-Aspen (ETA)2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Pitkin County 1/2% sales tax 3,913,565 4,116,000 4,260,000 4,409,000 4,563,000 4,723,000 4,888,000 Pitkin County 1/2% use tax 784,524 813,000 878,000 918,000 946,000 974,000 1,003,000 less committed funding (187,463) (259,201) (280,223) (280,333) (287,522) (295,000) (302,779) less RFTA contribution (81.04% of 1/2% sales tax)(3,171,553) (3,335,606) (3,452,304) (3,573,054) (3,697,855) (3,697,855) (3,697,855) Net revenue to be allocated 1,339,073 1,334,193 1,405,473 1,473,613 1,523,623 1,704,145 1,890,366 Annual 2/3's allocation to Entrance-to-Aspen 892,715 889,462 936,982 982,409 1,015,749 1,136,097 1,260,244 plus reimbursement to ETA for $250,000 pedestrian crossing funding 20,583 18,280 72,993 138,144 - - less 1/2 of advance to capital pool (52,123) (1,022,877) - (425,000) - - - plus reimbursement of advance to capital pool - - - 32,116 244,775 342,812 less Rubey Park planning funded from ETA (200,000) (650,000) less annual discretionary funding deficit (214,931) Year-end fund balance designated for Entrance-to-Aspen (ETA)4,387,859 4,075,027 4,380,289 5,010,691 6,196,701 7,577,573 9,180,629 Advance 880,296 receivable Actual Budget Proposed Plan Plan Plan Plan Calculation of amount allocated to discretionary funding 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS (after funding operations)573,538 (1,411,398) 229,573 129,713 1,140,166 1,547,688 1,867,909 less Annual 2/3's allocation to Entrance-to-Aspen (892,715) (889,462) (936,982) (982,409) (1,015,749) (1,136,097) (1,260,244) plus advance for capital projects pool 104,246 2,045,754 - 850,000 - - - plus Rubey Park planning funded from ETA 200,000 650,000 plus summer no-fare bus service funded from SVTC lockbox 75,689 75,689 75,689 77,960 77,960 77,960 Remaining annual discretionary funding (214,931) 20,583 18,280 72,993 202,377 489,551 685,624 less reimbursement to ETA for $250,000 ped crossing funding (20,583) (18,280) (72,993) (138,144) - - less reimbursement of advance to capital pool - - (64,233) (489,551) (685,624) Net annual discretionary funding after reimbursements - - - - - Cumulative remaining discretionary funding after reimbursements - - - - - - remaining balance to reimburse ETA & SVTC for advance to capital pool 104,246 2,150,000 2,150,000 3,000,000 2,935,767 2,446,216 1,760,592 remaining balance to reimburse ETA for 2011-12 $250,000 advance 250,000 229,417 211,137 138,144 - - - Advance 1,760,592 payable 11/15/2013 14 EOTC.xlsx P1 0 I. MEMORANDUM TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee FROM: Lynn Rumbaugh, City of Aspen Transportation Programs Manager DATE: October 1, 2013 RE: Country Inn Taxi Program – 2014 Budget Request PROGRAM BACKGROUND: 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 EOTC implemented this taxi program in lieu of funding the construction of a highway underpass. The Country Inn taxi program allows residents to use a taxi when their travel would otherwise require the crossing of Highway 82. Specifically, residents may take a taxi from downtown Aspen to the Country Inn or from the Country Inn down valley as far as the Brush Creek Intercept Lot. The typical trip involves a resident taking the bus to Aspen and using a taxi for the return trip. This program is typically well-utilized and appreciated by Country Inn residents. The program averages approximately 40 trips per month. Staff estimates that approximately $7,000 will be spent by year’s end for taxi rides. Additional program costs include the printing of taxi vouchers as well as periodic educational materials. Alternatives to providing this service include the construction of an under/overpass or the implementation of dedicated bus service. The City’s Burlingame/Hwy 82 bus service does not P11 I. present a viable alternative due to its limited schedule, as well as the operational constraints of entering and exiting the Country Inn facility without the assistance of a traffic signal. 2014 BUDGET REQUEST: Staff requests that the EOTC continue to fund Country Inn taxi service in 2014. Based on previous year’s expenses staff recommends budgeting $8,000 for taxi services, vouchers and other materials. Management of this program by City of Aspen staff will continue to be provided in-kind. P12 I. To: Elected Officials Transportation Committee From: Aspen Skiing Company Cc: Dan Blankenship, John Hocker, and Kent Blackmer Date: October 9, 2013 Re: 2014 X Games Aspen Funding Request Aspen/Snowmass will host the Winter X Games for a 13th consecutive year from January 23 – 26, 2014. Year-over year X Games continues to grow and reach larger audiences in attendance, television viewership, web coverage and other content vehicles. Pre event promotion of our resort is better than ever, with specific host site mentions throughout. Attendance in 2013 set an all time record for X Games Aspen with 114,500 attendees (just north of the previous record set in 2011). Saturday also set a record for the busiest day in X Games Aspen history with attendance of 47,000 (previous day record was 45,000 set in 2012). 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 2014 we will again work with our transportation partners (RFTA, McDonald Transportation and Ramblin Express) to provide the quality service the guests of our community and X Games have come to expect. With over 75% of guests taking advantage of the aforementioned services it is truly an integral part of the event. In March of 2012 the EOTC board approved EOTC funding of $100,000 annually for 2013 and 2014. At this time we would like to confirm $100,000 funding for the 2014 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. ASC is currently in negotiations with ESPN for 2015 and beyond to remain home to X Games in another multi-year deal. Continued support from the EOTC will be critical to the success of our new deal. When the time comes to discuss in greater detail we plan to reconvene with this group. 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 Winter X Games from the Roaring Fork Valley residents, and we are proud to work together with everyone on this event Thank you for your continued support. Justin Erickson Aspen Skiing Company 2014 X Games Aspen P13 I. MEMORANDUM TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) FR: John D. Krueger, City of Aspen Blake Fitch, City of Aspen RE: Brush Creek Park N Ride Annual Operating Budget DATE: November 1, 2013 MEETING DATE: November 20, 2013 2014 Budget Request: The annual expense budget proposed for 2014 for operating and maintaining the Brush Creek Park N Ride is $35,000. The budget includes snow removal, irrigation repair and servicing, landscaping, weed control, trash pick-up, and electricity. No cost for parking enforcement or management of the lot is included. 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 (IGA). BRUSH CREEK PARK N RIDE BUDGET ITEMS 2013 BUDGET 2013-FORECAST 2014-BUDGET EXPENSES ELECTRICITY $ 1,600.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 SNOW REMOVAL $ 12,000.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 15,000.00 TRASH REMOVAL $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 7,500.00 IRRIGATION $ 9,500.00 $ 12,500.00 $ 9,500.00 WEED CONTROL $ 1,400.00 $ 1,500.00 $ 1,500.00 TOTAL EXPENSES $ 32,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 35,000.00 P14 I. MEMORANDUM TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) FROM: John D. Krueger, City of Aspen RE: Funding Request - Rubey Park Transit Center Final Design DATE: November 12, 2013 MEETING DATE: November 21, 2013 2014 Budget Request of the EOTC The City of Aspen, in partnership with RFTA, is moving forward with a remodel of the Rubey Park Transit Center. Schematic design of this project was funded by the EOTC and was completed at the end of October 2013. Next steps include final design, land use and permitting in 2014, followed by the start of construction in the spring of 2015. The proposed 2014 EOTC budget request includes an allocation of $650,000 from the Entrance to Aspen (ETA) lock box to fund the final design, land use process, permitting and construction support services for the remodel of Rubey Park. Previous Action by the EOTC In 2012, the EOTC approved $200,000 in funding from the Entrance to Aspen lock box for the initial schematic design phase of the Rubey Park remodel project. The EOTC has been provided with project updates at all of its meetings. The initial schematic design phase has been completed on-time and under budget. Background The Rubey Park Transit Center has served as the terminus for both City of Aspen and RFTA valley transit routes for over 30 years, with only modest improvements. Major issues at the site include inadequate bus load/staging capacity, residential grade bathrooms, failing concrete, lacking rider amenities, poor staff work and break areas and numerous pedestrian conflict points. Because of all of the problems and issues Aspen City Council made it a top ten goal to make improvements to the facility. In 2013, the EOTC funded the $200,000 schematic design phase of a planned remodel using Entrance to Aspen lock box funds. The schematic design phase has been completed on time and under budget. The construction of this remodel has met with support at the State and Federal level, with $1-million in State FASTER funds and $2-million in Federal FLAP funds awarded to date. Both grants require that the project needs to demonstrate that the project has local support, will complete the final design in a timely manner using local funds, and that the project will ready to proceed to construction in 2015. Schematic Design The schematic design process included assessment of the facility’s existing conditions and current and future needs along with extensive outreach to a variety of user groups. A staff working team including representatives from the City of Aspen, Pitkin County and the Town of Snowmass Village guided the work of the consultant team. This work led to the development of several design alternatives which were vetted by the public and presented to Aspen City Council on 1 P15 I. September 24. The selected design (Attachment A) has been identified as best meeting the numerous needs of the Rubey Park facility and is being finalized at a schematic level. This work was completed by October 31, 2013 and must be quickly followed by final design and permitting in order to meet grant-related deadlines. A copy of the completed initial schematic design report has been attached for your review. Rubey Park Final Design Services The City of Aspen and RFTA issued a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for Architectural and Engineering Services for Final Design of the Rubey Park Transit Center. The scope of services includes project administration, civil engineering, landscape architecture, transportation planning, architecture, independent construction cost estimation, land use process, permitting, construction drawings, assistance with the bid process and construction support services. Most of this activity will take place in 2014 with the goal of beginning construction in the spring of 2015 to satisfy state and federal grant requirements. Requested Construction Funding for the Project The following funding has been tentatively approved for construction of the project in 2015. Construction 2015: FHWA Flap Grant $2,000,000 State FASTER Grant $1,000,000 (tentative award) City of Aspen $500,000 RFTA $500,000 Total $4,000,000 Other funding may be needed when the final construction costs are known. After the final design of the project staff will seek approval for construction of the project and look for additional funding. Project Responsibilities The City of Aspen Transportation Department will continue to act as the lead on the design, planning and permitting of the Rubey Park Transit Center remodel. RFTA will also play a key role, guiding the procurement of a final design team and leading the ultimate construction effort. The EOTC will make decisions regarding the allocation of the ½ cent transit tax. EOTC City of Aspen RFTA ½ Transit Tax Appropriations Responsible NA NA Rubey Park Design Vendor Selection NA Responsible Responsible Rubey Park Design/Permitting/Land Use Advisory Responsible Advisory Rubey Park Construction NA Advisory Responsible 2 P16 I. 2014 Budget Request The City of Aspen is requesting $650,000 from the Entrance to Aspen lock box to fund final design services for the remodel of Rubey Park. The budget request would be for: Final Design, Land Use, & Permitting $515,000 Construction Support Services $88,000 Bid Support $22,000 Contingency $25,000 Total $650,000 The construction support services and bid support could be considered as part of a second phase and part of the construction funding request. Key points regarding this request include: • The estimated 2014 ending balance of the Entrance to Aspen lock box is estimated at $4,380,289. • Rubey Park improvements are aligned with intentions of ½ cent funding proposal and creation of a lock box for the Entrance to Aspen. Recommendation Approve the 2014 budget request for the final design, land use process, permitting and construction support services for the Rubey Park remodel project from the ETA lock box in the amount of $650,000. Attachments: Attachment A: Rubey Park Transit Center – Selected Design Alternative Attachment B: Rubey Park Schematic Design Report 3 P17 I. 4 P18 I. P1 9 I. P2 0 I. P2 1 I. MEMORANDUM TO: EOTC Members FROM: Brian Pettet, Public Works Director RE: EOTC Direction Setting DATE: October 20, 2013 At your August meeting, EOTC members directed staff to put together a plan for meetings to revisit the mission and longer-term goals/objectives for the EOTC. An outline and proposed budget was reviewed with EOTC staff at their October 8 meeting. For the purposes of the 2014 EOTC budget, the decision for the EOTC is whether to budget a total of $6,800 for that work, from January through April. The cost estimate includes space rental for the retreat and lunch for the retreat. Robert Shultz Consulting has been contacted to facilitate this planning effort. The plan is similar to what was presented in August, one-on-one conversations about the process and goals of the work would occur in January with at least two elected officials from each jurisdiction, a mini-retreat would be scheduled in February for all elected officials, a subcommittee of elected officials and staff would be created to help refine objectives, and a renewed mission and set of goals/objectives are presented to the entire EOTC for discussion and adoption at the following EOTC meeting. Outline of EOTC Direction Setting Work Plan EOTC Direction Setting Goals: 1.) Update Mission 2.) Identify Broad Goals 3.) Develop Macro-Priorities January • One-on-one meetings with Mayor/Chair and one other elected official from each jurisdiction to identify issues to prep for February retreat. • Staff meeting to share findings and finalize plan for retreat February • Retreat- Four Hours Background Mission discussion SWOT Create Subcommittee P22 I. March • Two or Three Subcommittee Meetings Refine mission Clarify goals Preliminary priorities • Staff Meeting April • EOTC Meeting- Two Hours Review, revise, adopt subcommittee work Document results Staff meeting P23 I. Memo To: Elected Officials Transportation Committee From: David Johnson, Planning Director, Roaring Fork Transportation Authority Colin Laird, Director, Healthy Mountain Communities Re: Update of Local & Regional Travel Patterns Study Date: November 6, 2013 Request Summary The purpose of this request is to secure local cash match to update the Local and Regional Travel Patterns Study. The study, conducted in 1998 and 2004, details how, why, and when residents are moving within the Roaring Fork and Colorado River Valleys. Past studies have helped elected officials, public agency staff, and community leaders gauge progress toward local and regional transportation goals and evaluate transportation policies and investments. With this proposed update, RFTA also plans to start acquiring data and resources to budget, plan, implement, operate and maintain a regional travel demand model to help regional planners and decision makers to better understand and coordinate transit and land use decisions. CDOT has awarded RFTA a $75,000 grant for the study update. RFTA is requesting matching funds from local governments to complete the project, which we estimate will cost $150,000. This budget will enable an expansion of scope from previous studies (e.g., including both winter 2013 and summer 2014 surveys). RFTA has budgeted a $10,000 contribution to the location match. A consultant team will be selected through an RFP process coordinated by RFTA. RFTA approached Garfield County in August 2013. The Commissioners suggested that RFTA request a mini-grant from the Garfield County Federal Mineral Lease District Grant Program, and to return to Garfield County if RFTA were not successful. GCFMLD declined the request in late October. Background In both 1998 and 2004, local governments partnered to implement the Local and Regional Travel Patterns Study. The purpose of the study is to give local officials in the Roaring Fork and Colorado River Valleys a more detailed view on the how, why, and when residents are moving within the region, gauge progress toward local and regional transportation goals, and inform future investments in transportation infrastructure. P24 I. Previous studies were instrumental in guiding regional transportation policy and investment. For instance: • The 1998 study helped in the formation of the Regional Transportation Authority in 2000 by laying a better understanding of the similar transportation challenges facing upvalley and downvalley communities as well as the value of increased investment in transit for the economic health of the region. • The 1998 study illustrated how connected we really are as a region. For instance, in 1998, only 39% of workers in the Parachute to Aspen Region lived and worked in the same town. The study was included as evidence before the PUC to support local calling in Garfield County, which the PUC approved in 2003. • The 2004 study helped confirm the value of BRT investment and the value of expanded regional transit service. An updated and expanded Local and Regional Travel Patterns Study (to include Summer and Winter surveys) will determine: • How travel patterns have evolved given the changes in economic conditions over the last several years; • How travel patterns differ between Winter and Summer seasons; • A benchmark for BRT startup and ongoing evaluation; and, • How best to begin the foundation of a regional travel model. Some things to remember about our region from previous studies: • All communities in the region import workers that live in other communities. Some communities like Aspen and Glenwood import well over half their local workforce while some, like Rifle import about 40%. • Bus mode share on a regional average is 12-13% and in some areas of the region such as Basalt to Aspen, bus mode split is 20%. This rate is 5-10X higher than what you would usually find in rural small towns in the US. • Commuting via Carpool, Transit, Bike, or foot in our region is higher on a percentage basis that transit friendly places like Denver/Boulder and Portland/Salem. • 1 in 5 Aspen and Snowmass workers use transit to get to work. • Successful transportation options are vital to the economic health of the region and an integral part of the economic development of the region. P25 I. Suggested Local Match Contributions Regional Travel Patterns Study Amount Budget estimate for update and expansion of study (summer and winter) 150,000 Funding to date Amount Confirmed CDOT 75,000 x Local Match Estimates EOTC (Pitkin County, Aspen, Snowmass) 30,000 Garfield County 10,000 City of Glenwood Springs 10,000 x Town of Basalt 2,500 x Town of Carbondale 2,500 Town of New Castle 2,500 City of Rifle 5,000 x Eagle County 3,000 RFTA 10,000 x Total 150,500 P26 I. P2 7 I. P2 8 I. P2 9 I. P3 0 I. P3 1 I. P3 2 I. P3 3 I. P3 4 I. P3 5 I. P3 6 I. P3 7 I. P3 8 I. P3 9 I. P4 0 I. P4 1 I. P4 2 I. P4 3 I. P4 4 I. P4 5 I. P4 6 I. P4 7 I. P4 8 I. P4 9 I. P5 0 I. P5 1 I. P5 2 I. P5 3 I. P5 4 I. P5 5 I. P5 6 I. P5 7 I. P5 8 I. P5 9 I. P6 0 I. P6 1 I. P6 2 I. P6 3 I. P6 4 I. P6 5 I. P6 6 I. P6 7 I. P6 8 I. P6 9 I. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: William Dolan, Utilities Project Coordinator THRU: David Hornbacher, Director of Utilities & Environmental Initiatives DATE OF MEMO: November 15, 2013 RE: NREL Renewable Energy Expert Review (Part I of III) BACKGROUND: During the January 22nd, 2013 Council Work Session, City staff presented the results of an internal two-month renewable energy alternatives study.1 The goal of this presentation was to reconfirm Council’s dedication to the Canary Initiative’s ‘100% renewable energy by 2015’ goal, as well as to refocus the conversation regarding renewable alternatives in light of the November, 2012 election results. A multitude of technologies were presented during the work session, all within the context of the City’s contractual agreement with our wholesale energy supplier (the Municipal Energy Association of Nebraska (MEAN)), as well as the Utilities Dept.’s ongoing energy efficiency initiatives. At the end of this work session, staff solicited direction from Council in order to further pursue one or more of the suggested renewable energy technologies/projects. Ultimately, Council directed staff to “continue to look into alternative ways to achieve our renewable energy goals”, and to consider a third-party analysis. In the late winter/early spring of this year, staff began searching for an independent, unbiased, and expert organization to conduct a third-party “expert review” of the City’s 100% renewable energy goal, and provide alternative solutions to facilitate its achievement. City staff selected the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to conduct this study—based on their extensive expertise, resources, and unbiased approach to renewable energy research (NREL is a US Department of Energy research and development laboratory). A similarly structured NREL energy efficiency study is to follow, and will be conducted in early 2014. DISCUSSION: Today’s work session with NREL energy experts is the first of three dealing with Aspen’s renewable energy alternatives; it aims to provide the information needed for Council to make fully-informed decisions regarding the utility’s energy portfolio during the second and third work sessions. Generally speaking, this incremental three-part approach has been designed to facilitate a progressive narrowing of renewable energy alternatives; the ultimate objective is to provide staff clear direction regarding which alternative renewable energy resource(s) to pursue. This presentation will be comprised of two important background information components and three decision points. The two background information components are: 1. The basics of our MEAN contract (see Figure 1: “Exhibit B of MEAN Contract”, attached); and 2. The basics of Aspen Electric’s energy portfolio and renewable energy shortfall (see Figure 2: “Projected Renewables Gap, 2015”, attached). 1 Renewable Energy Alternatives Study – Overview, prepared by William Dolan for the Aspen City Council, January, 2013. P70 II. The three decision points for Council during this work session are: 1. Define an official stance on accepted renewable resources and technologies (see Figure 3: “Staff’s Recommended Renewables List”, attached); 2. Define an official stance regarding Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs) (see Figure 4: “Staff’s Recommended REC Policy”, attached); and 3. Determine the priorities guiding selection of future renewable energy projects. ATTACHMENTS: Figure 1: Exhibit B of MEAN Contract P71 II. Figure 2: Projected Renewables Gap, 2015 City of Aspen’s Renewable Energy Supply & Estimated 2015 Gap P72 II. Figure 3: Staff’s Recommended Renewables List Staff Recommendation City of Aspen Renewable Energy Definition City of Aspen staff is currently working to finalize a renewable energy policy, detailing those resources, technologies and energies the City of Aspen considers to be renewable for the purposes of carbon accounting and utility management. This is a working list for the purpose of City Council discussion. Renewable Not Renewable Solar Nuclear Energy Wind Municipal Solid Waste to Energy Geothermal Coal Methane Capture Hydroelectric Wastewater Methane Capture Biomass* Landfill Gas Capture* Directed Biogass* *These technologies would be considered renewable on an individual project basis given the variety of implementation methods related to these generation technologies. P73 II. Page 5 of 6 Figure 4: Staff’s Recommended REC Policy What are RECs? Renewable energy certificates (RECs) are tradable instruments that validate the generation of electricity from eligible renewable energy resources. RECs function as tracking mechanisms to prevent the double- counting of renewable energy output. RECs are distinct from “carbon credits” or “carbon offsets”, and do not merely provide a “license to pollute”, as is often how they are misconceived. Rather, they correspond—usually on a 1REC:1MWh basis—with the renewable energy produced and/or sold from a given renewable generation resource. Organizations use RECs to track the legitimacy and associated environmental benefits of their renewable energy portfolios. “Bundled” vs “Unbundled” One distinction within the REC realm lies in the difference between “bundled” and “unbundled” RECs. Basically, RECs that are sold with their associated energy are deemed “bundled”, whereas RECs that are sold without their associated energy are deemed “unbundled”. The latter are generally responsible for much of the confusion and debate surrounding REC legitimacy in general. The EPA contends that “bundled” RECs “are functionally equivalent to green power purchases from a local utility, no matter where the REC may be sourced”2. City Staff’s Historical Position on RECs Aspen is the holder of both “bundled” and “unbundled” RECs, but only counts the “bundled” RECs towards our renewable percentages. Accordingly, although the City has no official policy on RECs staff has generally viewed the attribution of “unbundled” RECs towards our renewable energy goal as illegitimate. That said, there are two key instances where “unbundled” RECs present a real benefit to the City of Aspen: 1. After the utility reaches 100%, a limited quantity of “unbundled” RECs can provide the ability to balance the natural variability and fluctuations of our energy supplies/demands to maintain our 100% renewable portfolio (although a limit to what percentage “unbundled” RECs can occupy within the portfolio should be established; staff recommends up to10% of total load); and 2. In order to preserve the right to participate in future renewable energy opportunities, with the intent of “re-bundling” the RECs with its their associated energy (a perfect example is additional Ridgway purchases in the future; Aspen would preclude itself from buying Tri-State’s portion of Ridgway energy unless it bought the currently available “unbundled” RECs that Tri-State stripped out during their PPA negotiations). Staff believes it is important for Council to adopt an official REC policy for the City. What follows is staff’s policy recommendation: 2 EPA Office of Air, 2010. Guide to Purchasing Green Power. ISBN: 1-596973-577-8 P74 II. Page 6 of 6 Staff Recommendation City of Aspen Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) Policy 1. The City of Aspen’s (COA) Electric Utility will only count RECs towards its renewable energy percentages as long as those RECs are “bundled” on a 1:1 basis with an associated renewable energy generation resource, with two notable exceptions (See 2 (a) and (b), below);3 4 2. “Unbundled” RECs—that is, RECs that are sold without their accompanying renewable energy—will not be purchased or counted towards its renewable energy percentages unless: a. They are purchased in order to preserve the right to acquire renewable energy from a specific project within a reasonable timeframe (e.g., if COA were to purchase the unsold RECs associated with Tri-State’s Ridgway hydroelectric contract in order to ensure any future COA Ridgway energy purchases could be counted as renewable—effectively “bundling” of previously “unbundled” RECs); b. Upon reaching the 100% renewable energy goal, they are purchased and counted in order to maintain Aspen’s 100% renewable portfolio—up to 10% of total load (effectively, a balancing mechanism to accommodate fluctuations in the City’s diverse generation resources). 3 Two of the City’s existing renewable resources (federal WAPA allocation and a small renewable component of Schedule M deliveries) do not come with associated RECs, but are still counted as renewable since no RECs were ever applied to or sold these projects in the first place. 4 It should also be noted that Aspen will not sell any of its existing RECs in order to further its renewable energy goals. P75 II. Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM: __________________________________________ TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John Laatsch –Project Manager, Capital Asset Scott Chism – Planning and Construction Operations Manager, Parks THRU: Randy Ready – Assistant City Manager Scott Miller – Capital Asset Director Jeff Woods – Manager of Parks and Recreation DATE OF MEMO: November 14, 2013 MEETING DATE: November 19, 2013 RE: Galena Plaza Site Plan Design Review REQUEST OF COUNCIL: City Council approval of the Galena Plaza Site Plan, 100% Detail Design and direction to continue work into the Implementation Document, construction drawing,. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The last Council action specific to Galena Plaza occurred on August 5, 2013, when Council provided approval on the Detail Design Site Plan with only the Library Expansion Easement reserved for future development. We received direction to continued development of Detail Design. The site plan was reviewed by City Council and included minor comments and staff was directed to continue work. Council has also reviewed the Galena Plaza design at a September 18, 2012 work session and identified project priorities from each Council member including: • More/better utilization of the space; • Create a strong connectivity between Rio Grande Park and the Aspen Downtown Core; • Simplify and provide flexibility--Open Park Plan; • Enhance Pedestrian Experience; • Humble and Organic in its creation; “Less is More”; BACKGROUND: The design process to determine a replacement public space to Galena Plaza in association with the required parking garage roof repair started in earnest in January 2010. At that time, a staff and stakeholder group established Galena Plaza Program Requirements and Galena Plaza Design Objectives which were intended to guide the comprehensive project design effort and test various design proposals. Staff has checked in with Council multiple times over the last three (3) years to review aspects of the garage roof replacement and plaza redevelopment project. Each discussion with Council has generated adjustments to the project design. P76 III. Page 2 of 2 DISCUSSION: Staff and the Design Team believe that the presented Galena Plaza Site Plan (Attachment A) achieves the design balance that Council has requested to date, achieves Council priorities for quality public space, achieves the Law Enforcement parking requirements and presents the Plaza Design that will include the Library Future Expansion. Staff has begun biweekly meetings with Library’s owner agent, county staff and Library staff with their design consultants. We are working to achieve coordination with the structural requirements for the library and will modify and adjust the plaza interface with the expansion structure as that design process continues. Our goal is to complete the construction documents in January 2014, submit for permits, bid the project and be in a position to start construction in the summer of 2014. Within this schedule we will link up with the construction schedule of the Library Expansion and continue both projects toward a summer of 2015 completion. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: A comprehensive construction budget range of $4.0- $4.4 million for the proposed Criteria Design was established in 2011 and approved by Council. Construction costs for the 100% Detail Design are projected to be in the $4.6 million range including contingences. Funding partnerships still must be finalized with Pitkin County Library, Sanitation District and a further review of our funding partner’s needs to take place. We will continue to refine costs and work thru the Implementation Documents to achieve the best valued project. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The environmental impacts are generally positive. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council approve the submitted Galena Plaza Site Plan (Attachment A) and authorize the continuation of work into the Implementation Document phase. ALTERNATIVES: City Council could choose not to approve the recommended Galena Plaza Site Plan and a continuation of the project’s effort. City Council could choose to provide other direction to staff than the requested recommended action. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ______ ______________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Galena Plaza Site Plan P77 III. Ga l e n a P l a z a As p e n , C o l o r a d o IS S U E D A T E 11 . 1 9 . 1 3 10 ’ 2 0 ’ 40 ’ 6 0 ’ N PI T K I N C O U N T Y LI B R A R Y FU T U R E LI B R A R Y EX P A N S I O N E . M A I N S T . 6 S P A C E S 4 S P A C E S 2 S P A C E S 6 S P A C E S 10 S P A C E S N . M I L L S T . R I O G R A N D E P L A C E CI T Y OF F I C E S PI T K I N C O U N T Y JA I L CO U R T H O U S E LIB R A R Y A L L E Y AC R A S T U D Y A R E A N. GALE N A S T . 44’ LA W E N F O R C E M E N T PA R K I N G S U M M A R Y : 26 V E H I C L E S 2 P U B L I C ATTACHMENTAATTACHMENT A At t a c h m e n t A SI T E P L A N P78III.