HomeMy WebLinkAboutInformation Update.202012181
AGENDA
INFORMATION UPDATE
December 18, 2020
4:00 PM,
I.INFORMATION UPDATE
I.A.APCHA Move to Truscott
I.B.WE-CYCLE E-Bike Share Pilot
I.C.2021 All Program Grant Summary
I.D.REMP Energy Efficiency
I.E.Waste Reduction
I.F.Winter Warming
1
INFORMATION ONLY
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and City Council
FROM: Diane Foster, ACM & Interim Executive Director, APCHA
THROUGH: Scott Miller, Public Works Director/ Interim Assistant City Manager
Pete Strecker, Finance Director
Sara Ott, City Manager
MEMO DATE: 12/18/20
MEETING DATE: None
RE: APCHA E Hyman moving to office to Truscott
Executive Summary
Since 2014, the APCHA team has been split between the 210 E Hyman office and
Truscott. APCHA now has the opportunity to co-locate its entire team at Truscott. Over a
ten year period, this move can save APCHA $500,000.
We believe customer service levels can be maintained through the rollout of HomeTrek
and by providing paper forms, preferred by some, at both City Hall and Truscott.
The APCHA Board unanimously supported this proposal on December 9, 2020.
Financials
Currently APCHA pays approximately $90,000 a year to occupy the space at 210 E
Hyman and does not pay rent to the City for the space part of the APCHA team occupies
at Truscott. The plan to move APCHA to City Hall in 2024 would have increased the cost
to $180,000 per year, to cover APCHA’s share of the debt service.
The Asset Management Department has been working with APCHA staff for several
months to determine the minimum amount of money that could be spent on tenant
improvements that would allow APCHA to move seven team members to Truscott, while
meeting the business needs of APCHA staff – which includes the need to have some
offices with walks and doors to have confidential financial conversations with APCHA
customers. While some minor construction will be needed to split one office into two and
remove some extra doors from two offices, some staff will move into cubes that have
physical and electronic noise cancelling features, similar to what the ACRA office has.
The total cost of tenant improvements is $400k. APCHA is working with the City to roll
those costs into a long-term rent agreement
2
The City’s Finance Director Pete Strecker has developed a reasonable proposal that
would provide the 6,341 square feet at Truscott at $12.44 per square foot in 2021 and
increases to $19.44 per sf by 2030, inclusive of the $400k in capital improvements.
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 10 Yr Term
Current
Plan $90k $90k $90k $180k $180k $180k $180k $180k $180k $180k $,1,530k
Proposed
Plan $80k $85k $90k $95k $100k $105k $110k $115k $120k $125k $1,025k
Annual
Savings $10k $5k $0 $85K $80k $75k $70k $65k $60k $55k $505k
Over the course of a 10-year period, the delta between the current plan for APCHA and
the move to Truscott is a $505K in savings to APCHA…
APCHA’s lease of 210 E Hyman expires at the end of May 2021.
Maintaining High Customer Service
Pre COVID the APCHA offices were fairly high traffic locations. During COVID staff has
managed to provide all APCHA services by phone, email, forms available online and
printed copies available outside APCHA offices a drffering a drop box
HomeTrek will be launching in early 2021 and will allow APCHA’s customers to perform
nearly all services online. Additionally, HomeTrek HelpDesk will be available by phone,
email and appointment – which can include virtual support through screen sharing
• APCHA staff will still provide customer services by phone email and will have forms
available to the public
• If some customers are not comfortable with technology, APCHA staff will still
accept paper applications
Lastly, when APCHA moves to Truscott, paperwork and a dropbox will be available at
City Hall.
Additional Benefits
In the intervening months, as Asset and APCHA staff have investigated the potential to
move, it has become clear there are additional considerations to the move:
• Having the whole APCHA team in one location will improve team cohesiveness
and operations; and
• Improved communications within APCHA team.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
3
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM: Lynn Rumbaugh, John D. Krueger Transportation
THROUGH: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
MEMO DATE:December 14, 2020
MEETING DATE:December 18, 2020
RE:Information Only - E-Bikeshare Pilot Report
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:The attached E-bikeshare Pilot Report is for Council’s
information only. There is no request of Council at this time.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:In early 2020, City Council reviewed community input
expressing a lack of interest in dockless mobility programs. With that input in mind,
Council directed staff to continue partnering with the WE-cycle docked system to
incrementally implement e-bike technology. Working with WE-cycle, the City of Aspen
and the Town of Basalt piloted three bikes each into their fleets (six total) in the summer
of 2020. A review of the 2020 pilot is attached. Feedback, questions, or community input
may be directed to WE-cycle at ebike@we-cycle.org.
DISCUSSION:Attached for Council’s review is a report generated by WE-cycle. This
report includes:
Ridership
Usage patterns
Customer feedback
Success and challenges
Questions or comments about the pilot may be directed to WE-cycle at ebike@we-
cycle.org.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:There are no financial impacts associated with the attached report.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Providing shared mobility options is key to achieving
Aspen’s environmental and air quality goals.
ALTERNATIVES:N/A
4
RECOMMENDATIONS:Staff is in discussions with WE-Cycle, its e-bike vendor, and
other partners on an expansion of the e-bike fleet in 2021. Staff is working with WE-cycle,
to review the feasibility of this option. Staff will update Council in 2021.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENT:
E-Bikeshare Pilot Report
5
WE-CYCLE
E-BIKESHARE
PILOT REPORT
December 14, 2020
6
As Founding Partners of WE-cycle, the City of Aspen and the
Town of Basalt, are invested in the long-term success of their
bikeshare systems and in supporting technological innovation.
Throughout 2019 and early 2020, the City of Aspen conducted
extensive dockless mobility outreach. Public feedback, including
from local bike shops, indicated that dockless e-bikeshare was
not of interest and that if e-bikeshare were to be introduced, it
should be done in partnership with WE-cycle. With direction
from Aspen City Council and support from the Town of Basalt,
the E-bikeshare Pilot came to fruition with the goal of
determining if there was community interest in e-bikeshare
transit services and thereby merit and demand to explore a
future e-bikeshare expansion.
The goal of the community-supported E-bikeshare Pilot was to
provide safe, reliable and low-carbon transportation in Aspen
and Basalt by integrating six e-bikes into WE-cycle’s existing
fleet of 234 bikes and 46 stations. The green e-bikes, three in
Aspen and three in Basalt, roamed freely between WE-cycle
stations and could be checked out by any rider with an active
WE-cycle pass. The E-Pilot was designed to build upon the City
of Aspen's, the Town of Basalt's, and WE-cycle’s collective
vision to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, traffic
congestion, and vehicle miles traveled by providing a low-cost,
and electric, form of first/last mile bike transit.
WE-cycle, a 501(c)(3) not-for-profit organization, is the Roaring Fork Valley’s bikeshare operator with service in
Aspen, Basalt, and Snowmass Village. On August 5, 2020, WE-cycle, in partnership with, and funded by, the City of
Aspen and the Town of Basalt, launched a small e-bikeshare pilot (E-Pilot) consisting of six electric-assist bikes
(e-bikes). This report evaluates the success of the E-Pilot including how the e-bikes were utilized in both Aspen and
Basalt, rider feedback from the E-Pilot survey, and recommendations for next steps.
An e-bike docked at the Rubey Park WE-cycle station.
IN SUMMARY
WE-CYCLE E-BIKESHARE PILOT REPORT | 01
BACKGROUND
THE E-BIKESHARE PILOT
7
KEY FINDINGS
E-bikes are contributing to an industry-wide resurgence in
using bikes for transportation. The E-Pilot, albeit small,
provided valuable learnings as to the strong interest in
e-bikes, potential magnification of impacts, and areas
for refinement.
High demand:
With the e-bikes being ridden on average 204%, or 3
times, more per day than the regular WE-cycle bikes,
riders confirmed an eagerness to try a lighter weight and
comparatively effortless version of WE-cycle. The
e-bikes were used for short trips: commuting, traveling to
entertainment, dining out, socializing and personal
errands. The average ride duration, in both systems, was
7.21 minutes which indicates that the e-bikes were
primarily used for destination-intended travel, not
recreation. 80.85% of survey respondents supported
exploring an expanded e-bikeshare offering.
87
days
LOOKING AHEAD
E-bikeshare can increase community participation in
bike transit by facilitating the riding experience for a
broader audience and minimizing geographic barriers
such as hills and distance. By adding e-bikes,
e-charging stations, and slightly refining the pricing
structure, e-bikeshare is poised to be an impactful
component of the transportation system.
Charging limitations:
As the E-Pilot did not include E-charging stations.
When an e-bike reached 20% charge, it self locked
and WE-cycle staff returned it into the shop where it
would charge for at least 4 hours. On average, each
e-bike needed to be recharged every 3-4 days
equating to one charge every 20-25 rides. This
charging dynamic was staff-intensive and further
reduced the availability of e-bikes for riders.
WE-CYCLE E-BIKESHARE PILOT REPORT | 02
6
e-bikes
414
riders
1,832
total trips
AT A GLANCE
Barriers due to scale:
Due to the small number of e-bikes, only 2% of all
bikes in service, availability was limited and riders were
not likely to have an e-bike when they wanted one.
There was a sense among riders that the e-bikes
were more of a novelty than an on-demand
and reliable service.
New ridership patterns:
The E-Pilot illustrated how even a few e-bikes can
encourage riders to commute uphill, as seen in Aspen,
and ride to and from further distances, as seen in
Basalt. Accelerated travel times also resulted in riders
arriving at their destination on average 4 minutes
faster than on regular WE-cycle bikes.
8
20-minute free rides. Align with WE-cycle model of
a fare-free ride period and facilitate short trips in an
accelerated time frame.
+$5/minute for each additional minute. Penalize
rides lasting longer than the allotted free ride period.
Rent from a bike shop! Direct riders looking for
extended rides to bike shops. All bike shop contact
information was featured on the downtube of the
WE-cycle e-bikes.
ALIGNMENT + OUTREACH
The E-pilot offered six E-FIT model e-bikes, categorized as a Class 1 pedal-assist bike, from WE-cycle's bikeshare
provider, PBSC Urban Solutions, Inc. Riders could locate the green e-bikes on the app Transit by looking for a
lightning bolt on the WE-cycle station pin. Consistent with WE-cycle’s offering, the e-bikes were fare-free for an
initial time period with a fee assessed for each additional minute thereafter. The E-Pilot took place during the
COVID-19 pandemic which impacted overall transit ridership patterns and reduced bikeshare usage.
In preparation for the E-Pilot, the City of Aspen and WE-cycle engaged local bike shops to determine how an
e-bikeshare service could operate in tandem with, but not in competition with, e-bike rentals in Aspen and Basalt.
Bike shops supported the E-Pilot such that the free ride time was reduced to 20 minutes, from WE-cycle’s
traditional 30-minute free rides, and that the subsequent per minute fees highly discouraged longer/recreational
e-bike rides. Feedback also underscored the importance of promoting safe e-biking and the rules of the road.
WE-cycle educated
riders with
Bicycle Colorado’s
Rules of the Road:
THE PILOT
WE-CYCLE E-BIKESHARE PILOT REPORT | 03
Agreed-upon pricing structure :
The E-Pilot pricing structure was communicated in
highly-visible areas on each of the e-bikes, at stations, in
e-newsletters, social media, and at we-cycle.org.
Pricing featured on interior of bike basket and at stations.
How to ride safely :
9
Bikes/e-bikes deployed and used across
North America on an average day in 2019.
COMMUNITY BENEFITSForecasts for the bikeshare sector highlight electrification
as a means to boost ridership and serve a broader
audience. Of the 192 cities in the United States with
bikeshare systems, more than 40 have incorporated
e-bikes into their fleet. E-bikes in those systems are being
used up to 5 times more than regular bikes (Deloitte,
2019). As commuter preferences change due to
COVID-19, e-bikes are uniquely situated to gain
popularity as a convenient, low-cost, environmentally-
friendly and socially-distant alternative to driving.
E-BIKE TRENDS
WE-CYCLE E-BIKESHARE PILOT REPORT | 04
INDUSTRY SNAPSHOT
(ITDP, 2020)
E-bikes comprise a small percentage of bikeshare fleets
nationwide but account for more overall rides per day.
(NABSA, 2019)
Reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips.
Provide an easy to use, active and healthy
commuting option.
Inspire renewed interest in using bikes as
transportation.
Improve air quality, vehicle noise, and greenhouse
gas emissions.
Decrease the need for public investment in road
maintenance.
Improve access to transportation for low-income
communities.
Provide accessible alternatives to owning a car.
E-bikes are removing barriers for many would-be-
cyclists and bikeshare users. According to national
data, approximately 40% of all personal car trips are
two miles or less in length. By making it easier and
more time effective to use bikes for transit, e-bikes
can entice drivers out of their cars for short, intra-city
car trips. E-bikes can:
10
E-Bikes were not balanced by staff to generate ridership.
As a result, there was an almost exactly 1-to-1 ratio of e-bike checkouts
to returns at each station.
E-Bikes were available to riders until the battery level drops below 20%.
Software notified staff of e-bikes with low batteries and they were
removed from the field to be re-charged at WE-cycle’s office.
For the purposes of the E-Pilot, the e-bikes were subject to a different set of
day-to-day WE-cycle operating and re-balancing guidelines:
ASPEN BASALT
The six e-bikes, or 2% of the overall fleet, accounted for 12% of all WE-cycle rides during the pilot. As system-wide
ridership declined at the end of the season, e-bike ridership saw a relative increase, accounting for about 15% of all
trips in the month of October.
16.9%
10.74%
11.15%
14.35%
89.26%
88.85%
85.65%
87.8%83.1%
83.13%
12.2%
16.87%
RIDERSHIP OBSERVATIONS
The E-Pilot demonstrated that the e-bikes didn't induce new ridership but improved and eased the rider experience
and integrated seamlessly into the WE-cycle bikeshare fleet. The findings from the E-Pilot reiterated patterns and
trends of large-scale e-bikeshare systems.
WE-CYCLE E-BIKESHARE PILOT REPORT | 05
Methodology:
E-BIKE: THE MORE POPULAR BIKE
AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER AUGUST OCTOBERSEPTEMBER
11
In Aspen, the e-bikes were a catalyst for more uphill ridership. As an example, the Centennial Station, which
serves primarily locals living in the affordable housing complex, was a frequent destination for e-bikes. During
the E-Pilot, over 30% of all check-ins at Centennial were on e-bikes which amounts to 107 e-bike returns from
14 different stations.
WE-CYCLE E-BIKESHARE PILOT REPORT | 06
E-BIKES v REGULAR BIKES: SHORTER RIDES + MORE RIDES
ASPEN: FACILITATING NEW CONNECTIONSRIDES PER BIKE PER DAYAVERAGE RIDE TIME (MIN)Popularity of E-Bike Routes. Arrivals at Centennial Station:
1 Trip 20 Trips
When available, riders chose to ride e-bikes. They were ridden 204%, or 3 times, more frequently per bike per day
than the regular WE-cycle bikes. The average ride time on e-bikes was 4 minutes shorter than on regular WE-cycles.
Regular WE-cycle bike vs e-bike.
12
WE-CYCLE E-BIKESHARE PILOT REPORT | 07
In the Basalt System, the e-bikes induced more frequent and
longer-distance rides including routes that had not previously
been travelled:
BASALT | WILLITS | EL JEBEL: BRIDGING THE DISTANCE
Willits | El Jebel
Basalt
E-Bikes: 6.5% of all e-bike trips were between Basalt and
Willits | El Jebel.
Regular bikes: 2% of all regular bike trips were between
Basalt and Willits | El Jebel.
E-Bikes were ridden at a higher rate, as compared to regular
bikes, between Basalt and the Willits | El Jebel vicinity.
Popularity of E-Bike Routes in Basalt | Willits | El Jebel:
1 Trip 35 Trips
Basalt BRT
→
El Jebel Road
Willits BRT
→
Southside
Checking out an e-bike in Basalt using the app Transit.
Midvalley
Medical
Center
Sopris
View
School | Devon
Southside
13
High ridership at the launch of the E-Pilot is likely due to the intrigue for the new e-bikes. It is also related to the
overall strong ridership in August. Lowest points of ridership were aligned with snow and severe weather, the
second week of September and the final week of October.
WE-CYCLE E-BIKESHARE PILOT REPORT | 08
RIDERSHIP FLUCTUATIONS
Basalt e-bike ridership was noticeably more varied than in Aspen. Many low ridership days can be attributed to
e-bikes being docked at isolated and less-utilized stations.
Aspen e-bike ridership:
Basalt e-bike ridership:
14
DEMOGRAPHICS RIDER BEHAVIORS
WE-CYCLE E-BIKESHARE PILOT REPORT |09
SURVEY HIGHLIGHTS
Within a week of using a WE-cycle e-bike, an SMS message was sent to riders asking for their feedback.
95 individuals, or 23% of those who rode in the E-Pilot, responded to the survey.
I live...
My age is...
My e-bike experience....
The purpose of my ride was...
81%
14%
Roaring Fork Valley
Outside of Colorado - US
31%E-Pilot was my first e-bike ride.
Commuting
(work, bus, etc.)
Personal errands
Other
Exercise /
recreation
Travel to entertainment,
dining out, socializing
I chose an e-bike instead of a regular WE-cycle
because...
Had an e-bike not been available, I would have
chosen...
A regular WE-cycle.
57%An e-bike would get me to my
destination faster.
54%I wanted to give one of WE-cycle's new
e-bikes a spin.
33%The destination would be more difficult
for me to pedal to (uphill, too far, etc.) on
a regular WE-cycle.
71%
15
IN THE WORDS OF RIDERS...
"I would always choose an e-bike over the regular
WE-cycle bikes."
"I had never ridden an e-bike before WE-cycle's e-bike
pilot and now I'm a convert! An e-bike is much faster
and more convenient for me when commuting/running
errands on variable road grades. I'm 65 and have a few
health limitations and that matters as far as my strength
and endurance for commuting early mornings, or
whenever issues flare-up."
"Makes long-distance trips (i.e. from Willits to Basalt)
easier and safer."
"Love the e-bikes. Not sure about the five dollar a
minute penalty. Maybe one dollar a minute?"
"The e-bikes are a game changer and more enticing than
a regular bike. We live in a mountainous region and
regular biking can be difficult for some people.
E-bikes cut out the difficulty."
"You guys rock! Keep up the great work! Would be great
to get more time on the e-bike (30-minutes instead of
20-minutes)."
"As an early adopter of WE-cycle, I continue to be
grateful for the service, the friendly folks who make it
possible, and the many who financially have enabled
this important community asset."
"I really enjoyed arriving to work without being sweaty
from the ride."
"E-bikes are perfect for short rides and commuting. I
wish there were more. I always ride with my husband
and there were never two e-bikes at the same spot."
WE-CYCLE E-BIKESHARE PILOT REPORT | 10
FUTURE INTEREST
Should WE-cycle explore an expanded
e-bikeshare offering?
If WE-cycle were to have more e-bikes,
I would...
61%
48%
RIDE WE-cycle more frequently.
RIDE to more outlying stations.
RIDE to more uphill stations.
REPLACE more car trips.
RIDE WE-cycle the same I do today.
47%
46%
23%
16
E-BIKE CHARGING
On average, once in the shop, e-bike batteries
needed to be charged for 3-4 hours.
Batteries lasted for about 20-25 rides and e-bikes
traveled an estimated 30 - 35 miles per charge. This
equates to 3 to 5 days of ridership at current levels.
Cumulative actual ride time, per charge, was
approximately 3 hours. This suggests that between
charges, the e-bikes spent an average of 60 hours idle
in docking points.
Once the e-bike battery reached 20%, it automatically
locked down in place and the operations team received a
notification to pick up the bike. Staff would prioritize
charging e-bikes at the start and end of their shifts.
MAINTENANCE
WE-cycle did not experience any major maintenance
issues during the short duration of the pilot and the
e-bikes proved to be durable . WE-cycle anticipates that
the e-bikes will require more maintenance than the
regular bikes due to their more frequent use and the
increased complexity of their components and batteries.
STAFF CONSIDERATIONS
E-bikes are distinctly different than the regular WE-cycles
in size, parts, and technical demands. A larger e-bike fleet
would require adaptation of WE-cycle operating protocols,
modification of balancing equipment, and staff having
more electrical expertise.
The E-Pilot introduced new operational and customer support demands which the WE-cycle staff handled in
parallel with maintaining the reliability and safety of the WE-cycle system as a whole.
OPERATIONAL OBSERVATIONS
WE-CYCLE E-BIKESHARE PILOT REPORT | 11
Basalt: Balancing trailer was adapted to transport e-bikes.
Aspen: Staff cleaned e-bikes per COVID-19 protocols.
17
“$5 per minute...you are out of your mind. Even in Aspen, that is
price gouging.”
“$5.00 a minute after the free 20 minutes comes to $130.00
an hour. Was this a misprint?”
WE-cycle staff experienced an increase in customer support calls related to the E-Pilot. The reasons for overtime
rides were mostly related to the competing pricing structures (20-minute versus 30-minute rides), improperly
docking an e-bike to end the trip, and communicating with Spanish-speaking riders.
Pricing structure confusion:
English-language barriers:
Due to limited space, the pricing structure was only communicated
in English on the e-bikes and at the stations. This admittedly reduced
the opportunity to explain the pricing structure to the Latina/Latino
community. WE-cycle promoted the E-Pilot structure in Spanish
through its Movimiento en Bici Ambassadors, printed flyers, and on
social media. However, due to the program's size and operating
under COVID-19 safety guidelines and health standards, the extent
of engagement was constrained.
WE-CYCLE E-BIKESHARE PILOT REPORT | 12
COMMUNICATION
+ $5/minute for each additional minute was very prohibitive by
design and was in some cases accidentally overlooked by riders
and was a primary concern for many.
Rider feedback, in survey:
The 20-minute free ride time was inconsistent with the rest of the
WE-cycle bikeshare fleet that offered free, 30-minute rides. The two
different free time periods were misconstrued by some riders and
posed significant communication challenges for staff.
Free ride time and pricing on the inside of
each e-bike the basket, facing the rider.
Spanish-language flyer.
The pricing structure achieved its intended goal to encourage riders
towards short rides. Only 40 e-bike rides, 2% of all E-Pilot rides,
exceeded the 20-minute free ride threshold.
18
The E-Pilot highlighted strong community interest in using e-bikes for transportation but had limited impact on
ridership as a result of the number of e-bikes in service. If there was an opportunity to expand the e-bikeshare in
the future, WE-cycle emphasizes the following areas for consideration and improvement:
Charging infrastucture
Increased e-bike availability as not being pulled from service
for charging.
Additional e-bike rides and utilization of the service.
Decreased staffing time and operational costs.
E-Pilot findings suggest that an e-bike charge provided an
estimated 30 - 35 miles of ride time, comprised of 20-25 rides
over three to five days. When not being ridden, e-bikes would
spend an average of 60 hours sitting unused at docking points in
between each charging cycle (not between rides). To
accommodate increased e-bike capacity, adding e-charging
stations into the system would allow e-bikes to charge while idle,
which leads to:
Number of e-bikes
Improve overall reliability and community trust in the service.
Ensure better distribution of e-bikes among WE-cycle stations.
Deliver the highest emission reduction impact and help
alleviate local traffic conditions.
Despite there being only three in Aspen and three in Basalt, and
unreliable in their location and distribution, the e-bikes were
responsible for 12% of all WE-cycle rides during the E-Pilot period.
Additional e-bikes are needed to:
SCALING E-BIKESHARE
WE-CYCLE E-BIKESHARE PILOT REPORT | 13
Aspen: Two e-bikes docked at the Centennial Station.
19
WE-CYCLE E-BIKESHARE PILOT REPORT | 14
Connect and serve outlying areas
Aspen System: Aspen Highlands, Aspen Recreation Center, Buttermilk, Burlingame, Airport, Aspen Business
Center, Colorado Mountain College, and future developments in these areas.
Basalt System: Holland Hills, Mid-Valley Design Center, Blue Lake, El Jebel Mobile Home Park.
Industry-wide e-bikeshare usage highlights how the average e-bike travel range is more than double than that of a
regular bike. In the context of the WE-cycle system, this would mean that an average 2-mile bike ride could be
extended to 4 miles or the distance between Basalt and Willits | El Jebel and Aspen and the Airport Business Center.
The experience in both Aspen and Basalt suggests that e-bikes are a promising alternative to driving for both short
and mid-range travel. With 40% of all personal car trips being two miles or less in length, and the average rideshare
trip hovering at around 6-miles in length, e-bikes represent an opportunity for system-wide mode shift by bringing
e-bike transit to outlying community commercial and residential nodes. Based on rider requests over the years,
WE-cycle recommends exploring implementation of e-bikeshare for the following vicinities:
Revisit the pricing structure:
Equitable access to the service.
Clarity and ease of communication and consistency with the
WE-cycle offerings.
Alignment with organizational and community goals.
The pricing structure accomplished its goals of dissuading longer
recreational rides but brought unexpected challenges to the
bikeshare experience. The average e-bike ride time was short,
approximately 7 minutes. The rider survey confirmed that the
e-bikes were used primarily for commuting, traveling to
entertainment, dining out, socializing and personal errands.
However, the pricing structure caused confusion among some
riders and was believed to have marginalized certain riders,
especially the Latina/Latino community.
The pricing structure as it stands is not poised to scale if
WE-cycle were to add e-bikes. It creates a negative experience
for some overtime riders, it dissuades the participation of others,
and is demanding on WE-cycle customer support. Slight
modification to the time threshold and cost, with input and
feedback from bike shops and stakeholders, could help achieve:
Bike shop contact info as displayed on e-bike downtubes.
20
By allowing the community to experiment with e-bikes, the E-Pilot provided a proof of concept that using e-bikes
for commuting uphill and to/from further distances can ultimately replace short-distance car trips. The E-Pilot
offered a glimpse into the numerous benefits that an cohesive, easy to use, on-demand, and accelerated e-
bikeshare service brings to the transportation system.
With e-bikes becoming an expected offering within bikeshare systems, worldwide, WE-cycle recommends that in
the near future, a portion of its fleet be electrified. The E-Pilot demonstrated that the integration of e-bikes and
regular pedal-powered bikes into one coherent and managed system gives riders choice thereby improving the
quality of their experience and growing their reliance on bikeshare as a preferred mode of travel.
WE-cycle thanks the City of Aspen and the Town of Basalt for making this E-Pilot possible, the bike shops for their
input and support of the experiment, and its riders for taking an e-ride and for their feedback.
Next steps
Present findings to jurisdictions, bike shops, stakeholders
Collect feedback
Assess learnings, feedback, and community goals to
determine possible next steps
CONCLUSION
WE-CYCLE E-BIKESHARE PILOT REPORT | 15
Share your suggestions
We welcome your insights and reactions to the E-Pilot.
Please send comments to ebike@we-cycle.org.
21
2020 WE-cycle e-bikeshare pilot survey.
Deloitte. 2020. Cycling’s technological transformation:
Making bicycling faster, easier, and safer. 2020.
NABSA. 2019.The electric assist: Leveraging e-bikes and e-
scooters for more livable cities.
ITDP. 2019. E-bikes and scooters: Drivings of climate action.
Borsch, A. 2019. Analyzing the difference between bike
share trips made on regular and electric bicycles. 2019.
WE-CYCLE E-BIKESHARE PILOT REPORT | 16
REFERENCES
PHOTO CREDITS
Photo credits: Rising Sun Photography, WE-cycle, Kelsey
Brunner/The Aspen Times.
Three seasons of e-bikes: summer, fall, winter.
22
1
INFORMATION ONLY
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Torre and City Council
FROM:Karen Harrington, Quality Office Director
THROUGH: Alissa Farrell, Administrative Services Director
CC:Sara Ott, City Manager
MEMO DATE:12/07/2020
MEETING DATE:12/18/20
RE:Summary of City Grants Program Activities in 2020 and 2021 Direction
This is an information only summary for Council, regarding the City of Aspen’s granting processes and activity during the 2020 calendar year.
BACKGROUND
During the 2020 calendar year, the City of Aspen carried out its annual application and award processes for the 2021 Award Cycle for the Community
Nonprofit, Wheeler Arts, and Health and Human Services grants programs. Because of funding uncertainties associated with COVID-19, the final amount
of funding available for the Wheeler Arts grant program was unsettled until one week prior to the October 26 Council presentation on the Grant
Committee recommendations. While reviewers recommend funding for these programs, City Council has the final approval authority.
For 2020, the City created the Arts and Cultural Arts Recovery Grant program. This program provided the equivalent of immediate, funding assistance to
certain previous Wheeler Arts Grant recipients who found themselves in a financial bind as COVID-19 restrictions required cancellation of revenue-
generating activities.
23
2
Also new in 2020, the City began an evaluation of its grant programs. Staff evaluated multiple vendors and selected Point B(e) consultants to spearhead
this initiative. Results are expected in the first quarter of 2021, in time to begin incorporating key findings into how the City administers the grant
programs. In the interim, staff proceeded with certain administrative improvements and efficienciesto the grant programs.
2020 ARTS AND CULTURAL ARTS RECOVERY GRANT PROGRAM
On May 18, 2020 and in recognition of the importance of the arts to the Aspen community, Council approved the Arts and Cultural Arts Recovery Grant
program. This program was geared toward relief for non-profits offering arts and cultural arts opportunities, while also emphasizing the need to help
activate the community. Council agreed upon $396,000 in funding, drawn from non-tax funds from the Wheeler Opera House Fund and money from the
COVID-19 emergency relief appropriation to the General Fund. The maximum grant award was up to 10% of the organization’s annual budget, with a
limit of $30,000.
At the direction of Council, the City Manager appointed an Arts and Cultural Arts Recovery Grant Review Committee whose members included Ann
Mullins (City Council), Chip Fuller (Wheeler Advisory Board Chair), Sarah Roy (Red Brick Center for the Arts Executive Director), and Barbara Owen
(Citizen Representative and Citizen Academy Graduate). The Committee reviewed applications on a weekly rolling basis to help assure timely decisions
and quick disbursement of funds. In evaluating the applications, the Committee considered the level of organizational impact from COVID-19; the
quality and impact of the proposed activation event; and the completeness and feasibility of the organization’s recovery plan.
The Committee was able to provide funding for all applicants to the level that met the program maximums (based on budget or maximum total allowed).
Table 1 summarizes the funding provided.
Table 1. 2020 Arts and Cultural Arts Recovery Grant Awards
Requesting Agency Name Funding Provided
5Point Adventure Film $15,000.00
Anderson Ranch Arts $30,000.00
Aspen Chapel Gallery $7,500.00
24
3
Table 1. 2020 Arts and Cultural Arts Recovery Grant Awards
Requesting Agency Name Funding Provided
Aspen Choral Society $5,997.00
Aspen Community Theatre $9,300.00
Aspen Dance Connection $3,935.00
Aspen Film $30,000.00
Aspen Santa Fe Ballet $30,000.00
Aspen Words (previously Aspen Writers Foundation)$30,000.00
Jazz Aspen Snowmass $30,000.00
Music Associates of Aspen (AMFS)$30,000.00
Rogue Repertory Company $4,796.00
Roaring Fork Music Society $8,000.00
The Art Base (previously Wyly Community Arts Center)$10,000.00
The Arts Campus at Willits (TACAW)$30,000.00
Theatre Aspen $30,000.00
Total Funding Awarded $304,528.00
Total Funding Available $396,000.00
Remaining Funds Not Awarded $91,472.00
2021 HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (HHS) GRANT PROGRAM
25
4
Over recent years, the funding available for the Health and Human Services program has become split between two tracks. The first is
Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA’s) with Pitkin County. These agreements were set up in situations where a coordinated approach to a specific
service or category of services made the most strategic sense for service delivery. Currently, IGAs support services for detox, mental health and
substance abuse and senior services. Table 2 shows the funding recommended for 2021 for each of these, with a funding total of $323,350.00.
Table 2. Recommended IGA Funding
IGA Recommended Amount
Pitkin County Detox Services $172,400.00
Pitkin County Mental Health & Substance
Abuse
$107,550.00
Pitkin County Senior Services $43,400.00
Total, Intergovernmental Agreements $323,350.00
With $323,350 committed to IGAs, $173,775 remained for award in the form of grants to nonprofits for the 2021 cycle. As in past years, in awarding the
HHS grant funds the City coordinated its application and review processes with Pitkin County. Considerations specific to the City included:
1. Focus Area Priorities:
Programs that address mental health and substance abuse, including reduction of suicide rates, are a City priority. In addition, programs that support
community and family connections, and which therefore address the root causes of problems such as lack of school readiness, challenges with reading
proficiency, and risky teen behaviors, are a priority.
2. Services for Those Who Live or Work in Aspen:
The City of Aspen prefers grantees who will serve those who live or work in Aspen. While no specific quota for dollars or client composition is in place,
the City considers the strength of Aspen connections when reviewing applications.
In addition, and unlike the City’s other grant programs, applicants had a choice to apply for a two-year award instead of a one-year award. The final
grant recommendations are found in Table 3.
Table 3. HHS Grants to Nonprofits
26
5
Agency Name Recommended Amount
Community Health Services $31,350.00
Aspen Homeless Shelter $25,000.00
Hospice of the Valley $13,750.00
Aspen Family Connections $11,000.00
Buddy Program $11,000.00
Response $9,350.00
Aspen Hope Center $6,600.00
Family Visitor Program $6,600.00
West Springs Hospital $6,600.00
Alpine Legal Services $5,500.00
Mtn Valley Development Services $5,500.00
Valley Settlement $5,500.00
YouthZone -includes one-time capital of $5K $5,500.00
Sum of grants $5,000 or less (12)$30,525.00
Total Funding Recommended $173,775.00
COMMUNITY NONPROFIT AND WHEELER ARTS GRANT PROGRAMS
As in past years, applications for these two programs were reviewed by the Citizen Grant Review Committee, which includes as its members Chip Fuller,
Teraissa McGovern, Jackie Kasabach and Kathryn Koch.
While funding levels for the Community Nonprofit grant program were known at the start of the grant evaluation process this year, the final funding
level for the Wheeler Arts grant program was not. Diversions of funding to the Recovery Grant program, along with continued uncertainties about the
City budget, meant that the Citizen Grants Committee initially had to allocate grants through a matrix allowing for multiple scenarios that included a
scenario with reduced funding. In allocating the reduced funding, the Committee followed itsnormal review process and used review criteria to help
guide its decision making:
27
6
How well the application will advance the Aspen Idea
How well the application will make Aspen a better place to live, visit or work
The extent to which the application targets youth
Whether meaningful outcomes can be demonstrated
How well the organization manages and uses its funds
Organizational need and financial stability
To accommodate the potential for future increases in Wheeler Arts grant funding for the 2021 cycle, the Committee agreed upon a single rule to
escalate funding: within the constraints of 1) no organization receiving more than they requested and 2) new organizations and completely new
programs receiving at maximum $2,000 in their first application year, then escalate all funding proportionately to how it was originally allocated by the
review committee. This was felt to be the most equitable and straight-forward way to deal with potential last-minute changes in funding levels. When
additional funding was confirmed shortly before Council’s budget presentation on October 26, staff used this rule to escalate the recommended
amounts to a total of $400,000 (inclusive of funding for the Red Brick Center for the Arts) and confirmed the recommended amounts with the
Committee.
The tables below summarize the cash and in-kind recommendations associated with these two programs. One adjustment – to award of an in-kind grant
previously denied to the Aspen Historical Society – was made after clarifications of intended use, after the October 26 Council presentation.
Table 4. Wheeler Arts Program – Cash Grant Recommendations
Requesting Agency Cash Recommended
Music Associates of Aspen (AMFS)$69,560.19
Theatre Aspen $50,000.00
Aspen Santa Fe Ballet $43,127.32
Aspen Art Museum $41,736.11
Jazz Aspen Snowmass $33,388.89
Red Brick Center for the Arts $30,000.00
Aspen Film $27,824.07
28
7
Table 4. Wheeler Arts Program – Cash Grant Recommendations
Requesting Agency Cash Recommended
Aspen Words $20,868.06
Anderson Ranch Arts $13,912.04
Theater Masters $11,129.63
Aspen Community Theatre $8,347.22
The Art Base $8,347.22
5Point Adventure Film $7,000.00
Rogue Repertory Company (Aspen Fringe Festival)$6,956.02
The Arts Campus at Willits $5,564.81
The Aspen Institute -Arts $5,564.81
Total for Grants of $5,000 or less (6)$16,673.61
Total Cash Awards Recommended $400,000.00
Table 5. Community Nonprofit Program – Cash Grant Recommendations, General Fund
Requesting Agency Amount Recommended
Aspen Public Radio (KAJX)/Roaring Fork Public Radio)$100,000.00
GrassRoots $85,000.00
Aspen Valley Ski/Snowboard Club $66,000.00
Aspen Historical Society $30,000.00
Aspen Youth Center $24,000.00
Independence Pass Foundation $20,000.00
Aspen Institute -Community Programs $15,000.00
Challenge Aspen $10,500.00
29
8
Table 5. Community Nonprofit Program – Cash Grant Recommendations, General Fund
Requesting Agency Amount Recommended
Wilderness Workshop $8,010.00
Aspen Sister Cities $8,000.00
Roaring Fork Leadership $8,000.00
Shining Stars Foundation $8,000.00
Access Roaring Fork (aka Access AfterSchool)$7,500.00
Summit 54 $7,000.00
Carbondale Community Access Radio $6,000.00
Sum of Grants of $5,000 or less (27)$74,450.00
Total Cash Awards Recommended $477,460.00
Table 6. Community Nonprofit Program – Cash Grant Recommendations, Parks Fund
Requesting Agency Amount Recommended
Aspen Center for Environmental Studies $16,000.00
Roaring Fork Conservancy $8,000.00
Roaring Fork Outdoor Volunteers $5,700.00
Total Cash Awards Recommended $29,700.00
Table 7. Community Nonprofit Program - In-kind Funding, General Fund
Requesting Agency In-kind Recommended
Aspen Junior Hockey $40,000.00
30
9
Aspen Figure Skating Club $22,500.00
Aspen Swim Club $15,000.00
Revolutions Skate Club $15,000.00
Silver City Gymnastics $1,000.00
Aspen Historical Society1 $4,000.00
Totals, General Fund In-Kind $97,500.00
1Award adjusted after October 26 Council presentation
Table 8. Wheeler Arts Program - In-kind Funding
Requesting Agency In-kind Recommended
Aspen Film $4,500.00
Aspen Choral Society $3,000.00
Aspen Santa Fe Ballet $3,000.00
5Point Adventure Film $3,000.00
Aspen Words $2,500.00
Rogue Repertory Company (Aspen Fringe Festival)$1,000.00
Totals, Wheeler In-Kind $17,000.00
CITY OF ASPEN GRANT PROGRAM EVALUATION PROJECT
Early in 2020, the City was poised to launch a project to evaluate its grant programs. Staff had reviewed vendor quotes, selected Point B(e) consulting to
carry out the project, and secured members of a broad-based Steering Committee. The objectives of the evaluation included exploring opportunities to:
31
10
Bring additional consistency across the City’s grant programs, where appropriate
Streamline the grant programs
Update the grant review approaches and processes
Each of these were to be examined with an eye toward best practices in grants management. However, the COVID outbreak and associated restrictions
and impacts made it unwise to launch the project according to the original timeline. The project was shelved until third quarter, with the initial Steering
Committee kickoff meeting taking place on October 30, 2020. Since that time, Point B(e) has been progressing on several fronts to gather the
information and feedback needed to help optimize our grant programs, initiating these tasks:
Review of historical grants materials and relevant best practices
Development of phone interview questions and scheduling of interviews for a group of key stakeholders
Development of a survey for all City Council members
Development of a survey for all grantees
Table 9. Grants Evaluation Steering Committee Members
Name Sector Represented
Barbara Owen Citizen representative, Recovery Grant Reviewer
Daniel Ciobanu Citizen representative, financial specialty
Teraissa McGovern Citizen Grant Committee
Chip Fuller Citizen Grant Committee, Wheeler Board
Cristal Logan Grantee (Aspen Institute)
Michaela Idhammar Grantee (Aspen Youth Center)
Lindsay Lofaro Grantee (Buddy Program)
Zander Higbie Grantee (Aspen Santa Fe Ballet)
Valerie Carlin Granting Agency (Aspen Community Foundation)
Staff anticipate that Point B(e) will provide Council with its findings and recommendations in late February 2021. Council will then have an opportunity
to consider the recommendations and provide guidance to staff for changes to the 2022 grant process.
32
11
OTHER GRANT PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
While the detailed program evaluation study was unable to begin until third quarter 2020, staff moved forward with making certain changes to improve
the administration of the grants programs in 2020. Those changes included but are not limited to moving to an online process, adding further
information pertaining to evaluation considerations and storage of key grant documents in Laserfiche.
In 2019, grants staff had also worked with the Citizen Grant Committee to improve the Wheeler Arts and Community Nonprofit grants application form
to include electronic improvement and clarification of the grants evaluation criteria for these two programs.
In 2018, Council worked with staff to clarify priorities for the HHS grants and created the opportunity for a two-year term on the grants. These changes
were active for the 2019 grant round.
33
INFORMATION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and City Council
FROM: Laura Armstrong, Sustainability Programs Administrator
THRU: Ashley Perl, Climate Action Manager
MEMO DATE: December 18, 2020
RE: Information Only: Energy Efficiency Upgrades in Affordable Housing
Background:
Affordable housing is an essential cornerstone of social sustainability for the Aspen community.
Residential energy efficiency improvements support livability for Aspen’s most economically
vulnerable communities by lowering utility bills and improving comfort and indoor health. There is also
a large opportunity to reduce community scale energy usage and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by
improving energy efficiency in Aspen’s affordable housing stock. Affordable housing energy efficiency
upgrades are outlined as recommended actions in the Aspen Area Community Plan and the Aspen
Community Climate Action Plan (CAP).
History – 2016 Affordable Housing Energy Upgrades
In fall of 2016, the City of Aspen and Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) partnered to
perform energy efficiency upgrades to 401 residential rental units and common spaces in Truscott,
Marolt Ranch Seasonal Housing, and Burlingame Seasonal Housing complexes. The project utilized a
total budget of $516,750, primarily funded through the Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (REMP)
fund. In the year after the improvements were made, the buildings saw an average energy usage
reduction of 17%, with some buildings reducing electricity usage by 40% and natural gas usage by
38%. In that first year alone, an estimated 194 metric tons of CO2e per year was mitigated by these
improvements and an estimated $32,000 was saved on utility bills.
2020 Affordable Housing Energy Upgrades
As the 2016 project completed much of the “low hanging fruit” energy efficiency work in a wide swath
of Aspen affordable rental housing stock, the next step is to model and pilot a deep energy efficiency
retrofit project at a smaller group of existing multifamily housing buildings. The question being: how
can we effectively and affordably support affordable multifamily housing to make strides on the path
to net zero? During the 2020 budget cycle, Aspen City Council approved $500k supplemental funding
from the REMP with the goal of building off the 2016 work and delivering the next stage of energy
efficiency. Staff identified the units located in Truscott 500 rental housing as a possible fit for the
project because of the income qualification of these units and the size of the building.
Scope of Work: Developed in a close collaboration between the Climate Action Office, Capital Asset
Department, CORE, and Holy Cross Energy, the project scope aims to verify (and improve where
34
Page 2 of 3
needed) the energy performance of the envelope, retrofit gas-fired mechanical systems to efficient
electrical systems, and maximize renewable energy potential on site. The scope also considers EV
charging and electrical energy storage. The team has completed multiple assessments of the property,
analysis of utility bills, and has met with technical experts, CORE, and Holy Cross Energy to add details
to the scope of work.
Goals: The project team identified the following goals:
1. Benefit tenants. Reduce utility bills for tenants and/or improve livability, safety, and comfort of
units.
2. Reduce greenhouse emissions. Reduce energy use, electrify fossil fuels-based heating, add on-site
renewables.
3. Create learning opportunities on how to upgrade existing multifamily rental housing on the path to
net zero. Gather data to communicate what it takes to install solar, transition away from natural
gas, etc. Understand which project elements are replicable.
Findings: Initial analysis shows that there may be some challenges to implementing this project in the
Truscott 500 units while also achieving the goals. The two primary reasons for this are:
1. An ideal pilot project for a multifamily rental property would have individual energy metering for
units and/or a common meter that is exclusive to the building being renovated. The Truscott units
do not fit this description, which would result in the inability to measure energy use both before
and after the project. While not a barrier to energy efficiency work, this is a barrier to a successful
pilot project with actionable learning outcomes.
2. On-site renewables are key to lowering utility bills and long-term economic outlook of any
electrification retrofit. The available roof space is not sufficient at Truscott to accommodate
enough solar panels. Without solar panels, and with the metering constraints listed above, it is
likely that utility bills for tenants would increase instead of decrease.
These initial findings suggest that Truscott is not the ideal location for this project at this current time
or within this funding amount. However, staff will continue to assess the feasibility of this project in its
entirety and report back to City Council with a full report prior to taking next steps. At the same time,
staff has begun to identify a new approach should this project prove unfeasible.
This alternate approach would be based in principles of community engagement and data collection as
the first step to identifying a project site. To meet Goal #1 (Benefit Tenants), we need to be better
informed as to what makes energy efficiency most attractive to Aspen’s lower income households and
how it can bring co-benefits. Tenants and owners of buildings should be at the table early on to ensure
that the project is designed with their needs in mind, rather than based on assumptions from the
outside. Those that live in the housing will also be critical to sharing the story of the project and its
outcomes with the community at large. For this reason, staff from the City and CORE recommend
collecting more data and building stronger relationships with those community members who are
living in Aspen’s rental housing stock. By engaging with this audience, the project can be designed to
not only reduce energy use, but also improve the quality of life for residents.
Additionally, it is important to follow the Path to Net Zero, as recommended by CORE. This path
ensures that funds are prioritized in the areas that provide the largest return on investment and in
35
Page 3 of 3
areas where energy use can be most easily reduced. This path also suggests that renewable energy is
used at the end of a project to make up for the last remaining bit of energy, but not more than is
needed.
Next Steps:
Staff will complete the scoping analysis on the Truscott buildings and provide a report to City Council
later this winter. Staff will also begin to build out a more robust engagement and data collection plan
to better inform future project selection.
36
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Liz Chapman, Environmental Health and Sustainability
THROUGH:CJ Oliver, Environmental Health and Sustainability Director
Phillip Supino, Community Development Director
MEMO DATE:December 18, 2020
RE:Summary of Long-term waste planning direction (info only)
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: No action is requested of Council at this time. This memo is a summary of the
direction received by staff on December 7, 2020 at a Council work session. This memo summarizes
Council’s priorities and preferences and describes the next steps staff will take to advance waste reduction
and diversion in Aspen in the present and long-term future.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS:Aspen City Council has taken a variety of actions since 2005 to address waste,
diversion, and reduction. Primarily, Council has implemented policy changes aimed at reducing or
diverting Municipal Solid Waste (MSW). The City also partnered with Pitkin County on a Solid Waste
Assessment study from 2015 to 2018. In early 2020, Council set a Tier 1 City Council goal to create a long-
term waste strategy. On December 7, 2020, Council and staff held a work session to determine the
priorities and next steps for developing a long-term waste strategy for Aspen.
DISCUSSION: This section summarizes the discussion Council had with staff to determine the
preferences and priorities of Council which staff can use to direct actions. Council came to agreement on
some items (unanimous comments), offered perspective on changes to the waste ordinance (not
unanimous), and offered direction to staff for what to bring back for further consideration (scenario
preference).
Unanimous Council comments:
-Scenario A is NOT an option, so Council wants to develop a plan to increase programming and
ordinance requirements to reduce and divert waste.
-Council approved spending of ~ $100,000 for immediate increase of staff and programming.
-Council directed staff to bring back specific programming approvals in early 2021.
o Scenario C (aiming to be a zero-waste community) is the preferred option, but Council
would like to evaluate elements of both Scenario B and C to determine when to
implement various actions.
-Staff will research additional revenue sources to properly fund future programs and present to
Council various options which will highlight trade-offs, incremental implementation, and
expected revenue amounts.
37
Page 2 of 3
o Taxes (requires voter approval, earliest date for ballot in November 2022)
o Fees (does not require voter approval)
o General Fund trade-offs (what could be cut and what is the impact of cutting)
o Profit sharing or loan program with Pitkin County (if possible)
o Grants (not a guaranteed revenue source)
-All Council members agreed that systemic changes are to be prioritized over behavioral
engagement (but behavioral engagement is important to include in long-term strategy).
-Staff will NOT be considering cutting housing funding to fund waste programs upon direction
from Council.
Changes to waste ordinance
-All of Council is in favor of requiring bear-proof containers in downtown.
-Most in favor of commercial requirements for waste diversion
o Some Council members concerned about financial impact on businesses.
o Staff will be presenting Council with information about impacts to adding commercial
diversion requirements.
-Mixed comments on adding waste generator requirements
o Some Council members are not in favor of adding requirements to generators.
o Other members are in favor of adding them (specifically to match County ordinance).
o Staff will present options to Council when presenting revised ordinance suggestions.
-Scenario C includes mandating organics diversion
o Council is in favor of this scenario, so staff will provide more information about
implementation impacts and timeline.
o Council wants any requirements to be phased in over time.
Scenario preference
-Various Council members expressed a preference to act immediately on:
o Compost
o Education
o Enforcement
o Planning
-The 2022 budget could incorporate additional programs to advance goals.
-Staff will not be able to dramatically expand programs in Q1 or Q2 of 2021- staff will need
Council to approve specific plans, funding, and staff needs time to develop those plans.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:Approximately $100,000 above current budget from the General Fund will
be spent on staff and programming between now and the 2021 spring supplemental request to approve
this spending. Additional funding impacts will be determined as Council gives more direction to staff after
evaluating proposals brought before them in early 2021.
38
Page 3 of 3
NEXT STEPS: Staff will be working on advancing Council’s goals to deliver these items on the following
timeline. There will be multiple meetings over the next year to allow Council to provide staff with specific
direction when making significant changes to programs or ordinance requirements.
During Quarter 4 of 2020 and Quarter 1 of 2021:
o Hire one additional staff
o Increased education efforts to community
o Purchase of additional compost collection dumpsters to encourage more participation of
food waste diversion
o Communication between departments and Pitkin County on progress of construction and
demolition diversion program
During Quarter 1 or 2 of 2021:
o Staff will meet with Council to discuss:
Immediate and future waste ordinance changes
Proposed timeline for the development and implementation of
Assuming a net zero goal
Staggered implementation of programs
Supplemental budget request for the additional ~ $100,000 pre-approved by
Council
During Quarter 2 or 3 of 2020:
o Waste ordinance changes will be submitted for approval by Council
o Staff will use direction provided by Council in early 2021 to further develop the timeline,
programs, and budget needs requested of Council
Additional programming to be implemented in 2021 and 2022
Budget request to fund additional programming in 2022
Funding source options (based on Council direction in early 2021)
Final plan approval for the long-term waste strategy for Aspen
During Quarter 3 and 4 of 2020
o Increased education and enforcement to improve compliance with ordinance
o Implementing plans as approved by Council
o Expansion of programs as directed by Council
o Possibly hire additional staff
o Possibly purchase more waste diversion tools for community
o Possibly increase diversion efforts for construction and demolition waste
39
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Pete Rice, P.E., Engineering Division Manager
Mitch Osur, Parking Services Director
THROUGH:Trish Aragon, P.E. City Engineer
Scott Miller, Public Works Director
MEMO DATE:December 15, 2020
RE:Outdoor Winter Warming Stations
BACKGROUND:A plan was developed as a reflection of Council’s direction to provide options for
the City to assist the business community during the current economic crisis as detailed in
Resolution 33-2020 and 52-2020. The program oversees commercial activity in the downtown
core public right-of-way in order to increase the number of customers served within the health
order guidelines and to create more diverse offerings for businesses, residents, and visitors.
One of the measures approved by Council was the implementation of winter warming stations.
The two stations are located on Cooper Avenue East of the Pedestrian Mall and the other is
located next to the Eastern side of Francis Whittaker Park. The project is being funded from a
CDOT grant that city won to implement decks within the Right-of-Way to improvethe separation
of people for business groups. The decks are currently in place.
Due to the shortage of electric heaters, the city will utilize temporary propane heaters over the
holiday period. The electric heaters are anticipated to arrive within the first two weeks of January
and will replace the propane heaters.
Once complete, each deck will have green
and gray seating, propane heat, evergreen
planter(s), posted rules, holiday lights, and
safety elements such as reflectivity and
concrete barriers. To the right, Figure 1
shows the station on Monarch St near
completion.
Figure 1. Warming Station near completion on Monarch St.
40
2
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ____________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
41