Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutInformation Update 1026211 AGENDA INFORMATION UPDATE October 26, 2021 5:00 PM, I.INFORMATION UPDATE I.A.Entrance to Aspen I.B.Compensation and Classification Study Update I.C.Aspen Water Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) Update I.D.2022 City Council Meeting Dates 1 MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Council FROM:John D. Krueger-Director of Transportation THROUGH:Trish Aragon-City Engineer Scott Miller-Director Public Works MEMO DATE:October 10, 2021 MEETING DATE:October 26, 2021 RE:Informational Memo - Entrance to Aspen REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The purpose of this memo is to provide a follow up to some of the questions Council asked at the work session on the Entrance to Aspen. CASTLE CREEK BRIDGE: What is the latest rating/classification for the Castle Creek Bridge? The Castle Creek Bridge was built in 1961. It receives regular inspections to review many different structural elements of the bridge. It receives a sufficiency rating (structural) and a functional rating. The 2020 inspection report indicated a sufficiency rating (SR) of 50.3. The bridge has a functional rating of “0” showing it to be obsolete functionally. A functionally obsolete bridge is one that does not have adequate lane widths shoulder widths or vertical clearances to serve current traffic demand. When does the Castle Creek Bridge need to be replaced? Currently the bridge is not listed on the CDOT priority list due to its current rating. A structural rating below 50 would trigger the bridge to become eligible for the CDOT priority list and possible funding. The next bridge inspection is scheduled for 2022. What is the estimated life of the Castle Creek Bridge? This is difficult to determine. There are many factors to consider. CDOT wouldn’t commit to an estimated life span of the bridge and feel that it will provide safe service for years to come. Generally, 15 to 20 years is a good estimate based on the recent inspections. Is the existing Castle Creek Bridge on CDOT’s radar to be replaced or improved? The Castle Creek Bridge is not currently on CDOT’s list of bridge replacements due to its recent inspection and structural rating. 2 2 Is the replacement of the bridge on the CDOT 10-year strategic project list/or any CDOT list? What is the process to replace it? No. The replacement of the Castle Creek Bridge is not on the CDOT 10-year strategic project list. The SR of the bridge must be below 50 for CDOT to consider it for replacement. Once the bridge rating goes below 50 the bridge would go on the list of bridges eligible for funding and replacement based on priority/need/rating. The lowest rated bridges would receive the highest priority for replacement and funding. Is there a cost estimate to replace the existing bridge in the same location? No. There is not a cost estimate to replace the existing Castle Creek Bridge in the same location. Is there room for 3 highway lanes on the bridge? No. Studies have shown there is not capacity for the additional weight of three lanes and the bridge was designed for a two- lane loading only. CDOT would not allow the current two-lane bridge to become a three-lane bridge What happens to the current Castle Creek Bridge if the Preferred Alternative is implemented, and a new Castle Creek Bridge is built? If the Preferred Alternative is built with the new Castle Creek Bridge in the new location as part of SH 82 the old Castle Creek Bridge would be turned over to the City of Aspen. CHANGES TO THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE The attached 2008 memo from Jane Boand, Senior Environmental Planner for David Evans and Associates details the evaluation process for proposed changes to an approved EIS Preferred Alternative. It includes the review of the Split Shot Alternative as an example of the process. Changes to a Preferred Alternative are allowed. However, additional NEPA evaluation and documentation would be required to determine if the change would result in greater, less, or different environmental impacts. The environmental impacts would determine the process, documentation, and next steps by the FHWA. Local Agencies (City) and CDOT would provide information on a proposed change to the Preferred Alternative to the FHWA and the FHWA would then determine the NEPA documentation required. Many questions about the Preferred Alternative fall into this process. Some of these questions are: Can portions of the Preferred alternative be left out or not built or do we have to build the Preferred Alternative as described in the ROD and FEIS? Can trackless tram be implemented instead of LRT? Can the multimodal parking facilities at Buttermilk and the Airport be removed or reduced in the Preferred Alternative? 3 3 Can transit modes other than bus or LRT be implemented as part of the Preferred Alternative? Are there portions of the Preferred Alternative that no longer apply or are relevant? Most of these questions would follow the EIS Decision Process for Changes to the Preferred Alternative matrix that is attached as part of the 2008 memo. PARKING AT BUTTERMILK AND AIRPORT: Parking facilities at Buttermilk and the Airport are included in the FEIS and ROD. These facilities were intended as multimodal facilities. The parking facilities were intended to help keep traffic at or below 1993 levels by providing a facility to park and then use transit to get to Aspen. In the ROD it states: Multimodal facilities will be developed at two locations in the project corridor-the Pitkin County Airport and Buttermilk Ski Area. Each of these locations will accommodate a transit station (or stop) and parking facilities. The parking demand for each facility was determined based on the parking demand induced by the incremental TM program. The parking demand will range from 750 spaces at the Buttermilk Ski Area to 3,600 spaces at the airport. The facility at the Pitkin County Airport will be used primarily by commuters with an Aspen destination. The Buttermilk Ski Area Facility will primarily be used by day- skiers and recreationalists. The size of the facilities may be reduced based on several factors including actual population and traffic growth experience, transit service, success of TM programs, linkages to other communities, and increased downvalley parking facilities. Construction of the parking spaces can be phased. Initially, the construction of these multimodal facilities would not need to be for maximum capacity. Instead, the number of parking spaces at the multimodal facilities could be developed as the parking need arises. The parking spaces at the Pitkin County Airport are owned and managed by the County. The parking spaces at Buttermilk are owned and managed by the County and SKICO. The City of Aspen Parking Department contracts with the County to manage the spaces. The spaces closest to SH 82 are for short term day commuter parking. The spaces behind these are longer term parking, construction parking and parking for Sky Mountain Park. There are approximately 347 parking spaces available seasonally May-November. The commuter parking spaces are free. Overnight parking for up to four days is $6/day. Oversize and construction vehicles can park for a fee from $40/day. A portion of the lot can be leased for special events. Parking is free for those who want to use the Buttermilk or Sky Mountain Park trails. The SKICO manages the parking spaces at the base of the ski area for skier parking during the ski season. QUESTIONS: Are the parking spaces in the ROD at Buttermilk and the airport still needed? 4 4 A study and analysis would be needed to determine if the parking spaces would still be needed. Park and rides have been built since the ROD in Glenwood Springs, Carbondale, Basalt, Old Snowmass, Aspen Village, Buttermilk, and the Brush Creek Park N Ride. High frequency BRT has also been implemented since the ROD. BRT and the additional parking lots could reduce the need for additional parking at Buttermilk and the airport as stated in the ROD. Could the multimodal parking facilities at Buttermilk and the Pitkin County Airport be left out of the implementation of the Preferred Alternative? The ROD states that the parking spaces could be phased and developed as the need arises. If it was the desire of the community was to not develop the additional parking spaces at Buttermilk and the airport as stated in the ROD, the FHWA and CDOT would want to have a justification as to why the facilities should not be built. The justification would have to address the impacts of not building the multimodal parking facilities to the Preferred Alternative. BUSES, LIGHT RAIL, TRAMS & TRACKLESS TRAMS There are numerous definitions and descriptions of these different transit modes. Most of these definitions and descriptions are similar. In the American Public Transportation Association (APTA) fact glossary uses the following definitions for bus and light rail: Bus is a mode of transit service (also called motor bus) characterized by roadway vehicles powered by diesel, gasoline, battery, or alternative fuel engines contained within the vehicle. Vehicles operate on streets and roadways in fixed-route or other regular service. Types of bus service include local service, where vehicles may stop every block or two along a route several miles long. When limited to a small geographic area or to short-distance trips, local service is often called circulator,feeder,neighborhood,trolley, or shuttle service. Other types of bus service are express service,limited-stop service, and bus rapid transit (BRT). Light Rail is a mode of transit service (also called streetcar,tramway, or trolley) operating passenger rail cars singly (or in short, usually two-car or three-car, trains) on fixed rails in right-of-way that is often separated from other traffic for part or much of the way in exclusive lanes or ROW. Light rail vehicles are typically driven electrically with power being drawn from an overhead electric line via a trolley or a pantograph; driven by an operator on board the vehicle; and may have either high platform loading or low-level boarding using steps. The 2007 Revaluation describes light rail as: Light rail consists of light-weight passenger rail cars operating singly or in short train on fixed rails. Light rail vehicles are typically driven electronically with power being drawn from an overhead electric line. The Preferred Alternative allows for “phasing” of the transit component. It states: The Preferred Alternative allows for a phased implementation of the transit component of the project. While LRT is the ultimate transit objective, the Preferred Alternative allows for exclusive bus lanes to be implemented until and unless LRT funding and public approval is obtained. 5 5 A TRAM is a rail vehicle (streetcar or trolley) which runs on fixed rails or tracks and is designed to travel on streets sometimes in separate rights of way. A tram can also share road space with other traffic and pedestrians. Trams are usually powered by overhead electric lines. Trackless trams are a hybrid between buses, light rail, and conventional trams. They are powered by electric batteries, have rubber wheels, and use sensors to guide their way along roads. Trackless trams seek to replicate the light rail experience without rails and overhead wires. QUESTION: Could trackless tram be implemented as part of the Preferred Alternative as a substitution for LRT? The term Light Rail can be applied to a broad spectrum of systems. Most tram systems can be considered light rail. Trackless tram is closer to light rail than other tram systems. Many communities are considering trackless tram as an alternative to light rail due to its lower cost and easier implementation. Since trackless tram is relatively new and does not exist in the U.S. yet it an interpretation from CDOT or the FHWA would be needed to see if it could be substituted for light rail in the Preferred Alternative. The impacts of not building LRT and implementing trackless tram instead would have to be provided to the FHWA for a final determination. Funding could also be a challenge as there are no specific grants for trackless tram at this time. The preferred Alternative does allow for a “phased implementation of the transit component”. Perhaps trackless tram could be the intermediate transit component to light rail. Trackless Tram Light Rail ENTRANCE TO ASPEN COSTS: How do the estimated O & M costs for enhanced BRT in the Upper Valley Mobility Study (UVMS) compare with current RFTA costs? The estimated O & M costs for the enhanced BRT system in the UVMS of $3.2 million per year don’t easily compare to the current RFTA BRT system. The enhanced BRT system in the UVMS included the cost of additional electric buses, use of the modified direct alignment, upgraded and additional BRT stops, rehabilitation of the Castle Creek Bridge, and bus service refinements. It would take some in depth analysis of the current and enhanced system to be able to compare the costs. 6 6 OTHER QUESTIONS: Is the Entrance to Aspen on the CDOT 10-year strategic project list? No, the Entrance to Aspen is not on the CDOT 10-year strategic project list. In 2019 the Inter Mountain Transportation Planning Region (IMTPR) went through a planning exercise and came up with a list of hundreds of projects in the IMTPR to be considered for the CDOT 10-year strategic project list. This included projects on I-70. This initial list included 40-50 projects for the SH 82 corridor including the ETA. The planning exercise then reduced the initial list of projects down to the top 10 projects for the IMTPR which were submitted to the state Transportation Commission for consideration. The ETA did not make the final IMTPR list. Projects that did make the final list include: o Snowmass Transit Center o RFTA Glenwood Maintenance Center o RFTA Asen Maintenance Center 2007 REEVALUATION OF THE ENTRANCE TO ASPEN FEIS & ROD Links to the Reevaluation and technical reports have been included for your review. In the 2007 Reevaluation System Management Technical Report it referenced some of the Origin and Destination Study data. The survey showed that 6% of summer trips and 17% of winter trips on SH 82 were made on RFTA. During peak hour winter operations, the RFTA person trip share was 37% in the morning and 26% in the afternoon. The transit mode in 2004 was approximately 10-13% of all commute trips in the valley. This was high when compared to other cities Like Portland, Oregon with a 5% mode split. FUTURE/ADDITIONAL STUDIES The Entrance to Aspen over the years has proven to be a data heavy, complicated, and intensive public outreach issue. To get updated information and data may require more studies or updates of previous studies to provide Council, staff, and the community with the information it needs to make data-based decisions. These studies could compare information in previous studies and documents with the current conditions. The last Origin and Destination study survey was performed in1993/94 by CDOT. It provided valuable information and data. A new Origin and Destination study could provide valuable data as to existing conditions and could compare the data to the original study. An Origin and destination study could be helpful to answer some of the questions like: Where do people begin and end their trips? What is the purpose of their trips? How many trips are commuter, construction, or recreation related? Would a different mode of travel make a difference in your trip? What traffic are we trying to manage-commuters, locals, or construction? What is driving traffic today? How will the growth and development in the valley impact traffic? 7 7 Who are the single occupant vehicles driving around? All of these are good questions and need to be answered. It is important to note that the Entrance to Aspen is a 40-year process with numerous studies, votes and processes. Most staff and consultants involved in this process over the past 40 years have moved on. A new process will most likely require the hiring of a consultant team to review previous documents, determine new studies needed and guide the community through next steps. Attachments: 2008 Memo-Evaluation Process for Proposed Changes to an EIS Preferred Alternative Traffic Count Data-2021 RFTA Ridership 3/4/20-10/4/21 RFTA Regional Travel Patterns Study Summary Reference Materials and Links: Record of Decision 2007 Reevaluation of the ETA FEIS & ROD 2007 Reevaluation of the ETA FEIS & ROD-System Management Technical Report 2007 Revaluation ETA FEIS & ROD-Traffic Characteristics and Safety Technical Report Upper Valley Mobility Study 2014 Regional Travel Patterns Study 8 8 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC. DATE:May 28,2008 MEMORANDUM TO:Ralph Trapani,Principal Project Manager -Parsons Transportation Group FROM:Jane Boand,Senior Environmental Planner ·SUBJECT:Evaluation Process for Proposed Changes to an EIS Preferred Alternative PROJECT:SH 82 Entrance to Aspen Split Shot Alternative -Additional Studies PROJECT NO:PRSNOOOOOOl COPIES: The following describes the federal NEPA evaluation process for a new or changed Preferred Alternative selected in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).Also included is an evaluation of the proposed Split Shot alternative that follows this process to identify the likely type of NEPA that would be required by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)(Figure -EIS Decision Process for Changes to the Preferred Alternative).A description is also included of the Section 4(f)process that may be required as part of the evaluation process. Changes to an EIS Preferred Alternative The Federal Highway Administration allows changes or modifications to a Preferred Alternative that was identified through an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)process and selected in the Record of Decision (ROD).However,under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)any change to a selected Preferred Alternative would require additional NEPA evaluation and documentation to determine if that change would result in greater,less or different environmental impacts.According to FHWA regulations (Code of Federal Regulations 23 CFR 771.128-130),such documentation ranges from a simple memo to the EIS file (for a modified alternative that clearly results in less environmental impact)to a new Supplemental EIS/Record of Decision (for an alternative that would result in new significant impacts).If the potential significance of environmental impacts is not known,new environmental studies may be conducted through an Environmental Assessment (EA)process to make that determination.Ifan alternative was fully evaluated in the original EIS but was not selected as the Preferred Alternative,a revised ROD may be prepared to document the new Preferred Alternative. The type of required NEPA documentation is determined by the FHWA based on information provided by CDOT and local agencies.The decision process for determining the type of required NEPA documentation is shown in the following figure -EIS Decision Process for Changes to the Preferred Alternative. If a new EA or a Supplemental EIS (SEIS)is required,a modified NEPA process must be followed.Steps include comparing the new alternative to the previous preferred alternative,evaluating any different environmental impacts,and identifying necessary additional mitigation.Unlike the original EIS,however,a full public and 1331 17th Street,Suite 900 Denver Colorado 80202 Phone:720.946.0969 Facsimile:720.946.0973 9 9 " Ralph Trapani,Principal Project Manager -Parsons Transportation Group May 28,2008 Page 3 agency scoping process to identify any new issues or concerns is not required.However,if the public or an agency identifies any issues that may affect the new alternative,those issues must be reasonably evaluated. To the extent practicable,the EA,SEIS or revised ROD must be provided to the same persons,organizations and agencies that received the original EIS.Comments received must be addressed before a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSD or ROD can be signed and the new Preferred Alternative approved.No other activities (final design,right-of-way acquisition,allocation of funds or construction)can begin before FHWA approval of the FONS!or ROD,except for areas outside of the "focus area" of the revised alternative (see discussion on Path E below). Example -Split Shot Alternative Options Two versions of a proposed "Split Shot"alternative have been proposed and are under evaluation (see "Split Shot Alternative Analysis -Additional Studies”,Parsons Transportation Group 2008).Option A includes a roundabout at Cemetery Lane and Option B reflects a grade-separated intersection at Cemetery Lane.Under both options,a new two-lane road would extend on a more southerly alignment compared to the Preferred Alternative and would cross both parklands and trails.Split Shot Options A and B were evaluated to determine what type of NEPA documentation may be required by the FHWA using the decision process shown in the figure (Paths A-E). On the eastern portion of the alignment,the Split Shot alternative is substantially different from the Preferred Alternative (Modified Direct)that was fully evaluated and approved in the original EIS.The Split Shot is therefore not an "alternative fully evaluated in the EIS but was not the Preferred Alternative"and is not eligible for documentation in a revised ROD (Path D). The footprints of the Split Shot options have an overall greater footprint and traverses more parkland acreage than the Preferred Alternative.Therefore,this alternative is not likely to result in less adverse impact,and a memo to the original EIS file would not be sufficient (Path C). The Split Shot alternative options modify only the eastern portion of the original EIS Preferred Alternative,and much of the original alignment would be unaffected.Therefore,this modification could be considered a change that is a "location or design variation for a limited portion of the overall project".Under this definition,a new Supplemental EIS/ROD would be required (Path E).An SEIS can be focused only on the changed portion of the alignment,and there is no requirement to suspend project activities (ROW acquisition,construction,mitigation) for the portion of the project area that is already constructed or not directly affected. The Split Shot options would require more ROW within parklands,which are protected as Section 4(f)resources (49 U.S.C.303).If there is no other "feasible and prudent"1 alternative,the 4(f)use could be approved if the Split Shot alternative results in the "least overall harm’“by reflecting all possible planning to minimize harm or mitigate for adverse impacts.This finding must be approved by the FHWA,although the City of Aspen does have input into the finding as the "official with jurisdiction 3. 10 10 Ralph Trapani,Principal Project Manager -Parsons Transportation Group May 28,2008 Page 4 Other environmental resources must also be evaluated (noise,visual quality,biological resources,etc.)to determine whether any significant environmental impacts may result from the Split Shot alternative.If it is unknown whether significant impacts may result,additional studies and/or an Environmental Assessment (EA) would be required (Path B).The purpose of an EA is to determine if significant environmental impacts are likely to result from the Preferred Alternative.If the EA process finds that no significant impacts would result,the process is concluded with a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONS!).If significant impacts are likely,a new SEIS/ROD must be prepared (Path A). In summary,the major environmental difference between the original Preferred Alternative and the Split Shot options appears to be the greater use of Section 4(f)resources.A Section 4(f)evaluation would be needed to demonstrate the extent to which the Split Shot alternative could be mitigated,minimized o r otherwise enhanced in order for the FHWA to conclude that it would result in the least overall harm and can be approved.Overall,it seems that the most appropriate NEPA documentation for the Split Shot alternative would be Option E (new SEIS/ROD but project activities outside of the affected area may continue)with a new Section 4(f)evaluation. The new SEIS would focus only on the Split Shot alternative and does not need to include other new alternatives. However,public and agency comments on the Split Shot options must be considered,and the FHWA must determine that the SEIS/ROD and the Section 4(f)evaluation identify adequate mitigation for any adverse impacts. 1.An alternative is not feasible if it cannot be built as a matter of sound engineering judgment.An alternative is not prudent if:a)it results in unacceptable safety or operational problems;b)reasonable mitigation does not effectively address impacts;c)results in additional construction,maintenance,or operational costs of an extraordinary magnitude,d) causes other unique or unusual factors,or e)involves multiple factors that while individually minor,cumulatively cause unique problems or impacts of extraordinary magnitude (23 CFR 774). 2.Least overall harm is determined by balancing the following factors:a)the ability to mitigate adverse impacts to each Section 4(f)property (including any measures that result in benefits to the property);b)the relative severity of the remaining harm,after mitigation,to the protected activities,attributes or features that qualify each Section 4(f)property for protection;c)the relative significance of each Section 4(f)property;d)the views of the official(s)with jurisdiction over each Section 4(f)property;e)the degree to which each alternative meets the purpose and need for the project,f) after reasonable mitigation,the magnitude of any adverse impacts to resources not protected by Section 4(f);and g) substantial differences in costs among the alternatives (23 CFR 773.3c). 3.The official(s)with jurisdiction are the official(s)of the agency that owns or administers the property in question (23 CFR 774.17 Definitions). Attachments/Enclosures: Figure Initials:jebo File Name: RevisedAlttechmemo05-27-08 Project Number:PRSNOOOOI 11 11 DECISION PROCESS MATRIX FOR A PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE Hwy 82 RODs are Here Level of Impact (Determined by FHWA) Process Based on Level of Impact (Determined by FHWA) FHWA Determination 12 12 TRAFFIC COUNTS 1999-2021 MONTHLY 1993 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2021 %2021 % AADT vs 1993 vs 1993 vs 2020 vs 2020 JAN 23,800 22,701 22,504 22,827 22,945 22,837 23,816 24,398 20,588 23,387 22,584 21,745 21,254 21,994 22,607 23,859 22,956 23,415 23,649 22,766 22,418 21,262 22,005 19,272 -4,528 -19.0%-2,733 -12.4% FEB 24,300 23,638 23,910 23,932 23,207 23,694 23,400 24,162 22,356 23,000 22,449 21,131 20,730 21,376 21,684 22,077 22,405 22,804 22,825 23,486 21,871 21,717 21,771 20,501 -3,799 -15.6%-1,270 -5.8% MAR 24,800 25,574 24,590 24,752 23,822 23,812 25,417 25,892 23,618 23,927 23,171 21,967 23,852 22,384 22,436 22,742 23,432 24,285 23,648 23,405 22,650 21,792 15,501 21,793 -3,007 -12.1%6,292 40.6% APR 18,800 19,734 20,270 19,443 19,900 19,789 18,921 19,420 18,264 18,993 18,882 19,177 18,405 no data 17,134 17,425 17,883 19,163 18,098 17,781 14,528 18,519 8,462 18,627 -173 -0.9%10,165 120.1% MAY 19,300 18,538 19,944 18,929 19,310 18,837 18,924 19,021 18,051 18,530 17,813 17,392 17,878 17,874 19,077 17,662 17,396 17,208 18,037 17,985 11,294 17,443 13,748 17,313 -1,987 -10.3%3,565 25.9% JUN 26,200 25,408 25,126 23,719 23,618 25,003 25,650 25,097 22,552 23,940 23,279 22,877 22,701 22,724 25,124 22,966 23,884 24,993 24,501 23,986 21,218 23,259 20,344 23,510 -2,690 -10.3%3,166 15.6% JUL 28,600 26,579 27,873 27,325 28,777 29,285 29,278 29,544 26,165 27,193 26,187 25,950 26,538 25,849 26,245 26,785 27,286 27,825 26,549 26,489 25,979 26,083 23,766 25,844 -2,756 -9.6%2,078 8.7% AUG 28,600 25,142 27,375 26,237 27,497 27,391 27,952 27,998 24,233 26,171 24,375 23,374 24,763 24,755 25,077 26,141 25,081 25,621 25,857 25,193 24,690 24,831 22,939 24,341 -4,259 -14.9%1,402 6.1% SEPT 24,000 23,294 21,964 21,763 22,396 22,231 23,879 23,796 no data*22,068 21,151 no data*21,901 21,590 21,080 21,428 22,033 23,207 23,325 23,246 17,474 22,170 22,402 22,852 -1,148 -4.8%450 2.0% OCT 20,500 20,038 20,511 19,921 19,969 19,866 20,521 20,371 no data*19,576 19,640 no data*18,350 18,189 18,873 19,024 19,519 20,497 19,772 19,823 14,307 17,782 19,577 NOV 20,000 no data*18,643 18,430 no data*18,220 19,652 18,892 no data*19,076 17,930 no data*17,853 17,531 18,910 no data no data 17,390 17,790 17,910 16,431 16,805 16,483 DEC 25,200 24,743 22,847 22,394 no data*22,880 24,882 22,449 22,567 21,983 21,038 20,376 21,986 23,049 24,788 no data no data 22,524 22,298 22,905 22,066 21,597 20,146 ANNUAL MONTHLY TOTAL 284,100 255,389 275,557 269,672 231,441 273,845 282,292 281,040 198,394 267,844 258,499 193,989 256,211 237,315 263,035 220,109 221,875 268,932 266,349 264,975 234,926 253,260 227,144 194,053 -24,347 -8.6%23,115 10.2% ANNUAL MONTHLY AVERAGE 23,675 23,217 22,963 22,473 23,144 22,820 23,524 23,420 22,044 22,320 21,542 21,554 21,351 21,574 21,920 22,011 22,188 22,411 22,196 22,081 19,577 21,105 18,929 21,561 -2,114 -8.9%2,633 13.9% The numbers highlighted in yellow mean monthly traffic counts exceeded the 1993 levels 13 13 23,217 22,963 22,473 23,144 22,820 23,524 23,420 22,044 22,320 21,542 21,554 21,351 21,574 21,920 22,011 22,188 22,411 22,196 22,081 19,577 21,105 18,929 21,561 18,500 19,000 19,500 20,000 20,500 21,000 21,500 22,000 22,500 23,000 23,500 24,000 24,500 19992000200120022003200420052006200720082009201020112012201320142015201620172018201920202021AADTAnnual AADT 1999 - 2021 AADT 1999-2021 1993 COMMUNITY GOAL Poly. (AADT 1999-2021) 14 14 JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEPT OCT NOV DEC 2019 21,262 21,717 21,792 18,519 17,443 23,259 26,083 24,831 22,170 17,782 16,805 21,597 2020 22,005 21,771 15,501 8,462 13,748 20,344 23,766 22,939 22,402 19,577 16,483 20,146 2021 19,272 20,501 21,793 18,627 17,313 23,510 25,844 24,341 22,852 1993 Community Goal 23,800 24,300 24,800 18,800 19,300 26,200 28,600 28,600 24,000 20,500 20,000 25,200 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 11,000 12,000 13,000 14,000 15,000 16,000 17,000 18,000 19,000 20,000 21,000 22,000 23,000 24,000 25,000 26,000 27,000 28,000 29,000 30,000 MONTHLY TRAFFIC COUNT COMPARISON 1993, 2019, 2020, 2021 YTD 2019 2020 2021 1993 Community Goal 15 15 12:00 AM 1:00 AM 2:00 AM 3:00 AM 4:00 AM 5:00 AM 6:00 AM 7:00 AM 8:00 AM 9:00 AM 10:00 AM 11:00 AM 12:00 PM 1:00 PM 2:00 PM 3:00 PM 4:00 PM 5:00 PM 6:00 PM 7:00 PM 8:00 PM 9:00 PM 10:00 PM 11:00 PM Inbound 61 37 22 19 33 123 559 1,05 1,20 1,21 1,09 1,21 1,19 1,14 1,08 1,11 1,01 986 844 635 502 359 244 137 Outbound 148 75 57 23 24 69 177 356 562 667 671 819 881 880 961 922 870 900 816 614 552 488 438 326 S-Curves free flow 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 700 - 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 Average Hourly Counts August 2021 MTD Inbound Outbound S-Curves free flow 16 16 RFTA SYSTEM TRANSIT RIDERSHIP MARCH 4, 2020 – OCTOBER 4, 2021 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 10,000 12,000 14,000 16,000 18,000 20,000 22,000 RidershipRFTA All Services: Daily Ridership (Preliminary) Total Daily Ridership Total RF Valley Total Carbondale Circulator Total COA Total MB Total ASC Total RGS Total MAA 17 17 CITY OF ASPEN TRANSIT RIDERSHIP MARCH 4, 2020 – OCTOBER 4, 2021 0 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 5,500 RFTA City Of Aspen Services: Daily Ridership (Preliminary) BURLINGAME CASTLE MAROON CEMETERY LANE CROSS TOWN*GSS: GALENA STREET SHUTTLE HD: HIGHLANDS DIRECT HUNTER CREEK MAA: MUSIC MOUNTAIN VALLEY Total COA 18 18 2014 RFTA Regional Travel Patterns Study Summary 19 19 20 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Courtney DeVito, Human Resources Director Jessica Roberts, Compensation and Benefits Manager THROUGH: Alissa Farrell, Administrative Services Director MEMO DATE: October 15, 2021 MEETING DATE: October 19, 2021 RE: Information Only: Compensation & Classification Study Update The purpose of the following informational memo is to update Mayor and Council on the City’s 2021 Compensation & Classification study. Summary: In June 2021, City Council approved the City of Aspen’s Total Compensation Philosophy as part of phase I of the Compensation and Classification Study. This document is now being used to guide Segal with future stages of the overall study. Segal continues to work with the City Human Resources staff and the Compensation and Classification Steering Committee for feedback. The Steering Committee is comprised of a cross-departmental group of employees who understand the City’s unique operational and business challenges, and are actively engaged in the retention, attraction, and development of the City’s qualified workforce. Steering Committee Members: • Tyler Christoff, Utilities Director • Trish Aragon, City Engineer • Diane Foster, Assistant City Manager • Matt Kuhn, Parks & Open Space Director • Richard Pryor, Police Chief • Alissa Farrell, Administrative Services Director • Courtney DeVito, Human Resources Director • Jessica Roberts, Compensation & Benefits Manager 21 The City’s Total Compensation Philosophy (TCP) provides a framework to guide decision making on compensation and benefit programs for employees. It is guiding key study elements in the study that are currently underway including but not limited to the analysis of the compensation data gathered from the City’s targeted local, regional, and national competitive employers. Additionally, the TCP will be the foundation to the consultant’s final recommendations and in the development of a multi-year compensation plan for the City of Aspen which includes the annual budget process. As an example, the approved Total Compensation Philosophy (TCP) was used as the guiding principles for the creation of the 2022 budget and benefit recommendations including health insurance premiums, cafeteria option, a potential 2% COLA increase and more. Upon completion of the Benchmarking 1 , Market Study 2 , and Classification Analysis 3 , Segal will provide a recommended classification structure that can be easily updated as the market changes year over year. Currently 133 positions are included as benchmark jobs representative of the Aspen workforce. Feedback was gathered from City of Aspen leadership and the Steering Committee in the development of benchmark positions. By late October, the City of Aspen will review market data presented by Segal and begin work on the classification phase of the study. The attached Compensation and Classification Study timeline provides further information on the project schedule. Next Steps: Segal is garnering feedback from the Compensation and Classification Steering Committee recommendations on the Position Classifications and External Labor Market Assessment to present to Council before finalization of the study which is anticipated in December 2021. ATTACHMENT A: The City of Aspen’s Total Compensation Philosophy ATTACHMENT B: Segal and City of Aspen’s Compensation & Classification Study Timeline 1 Benchmarking refers to the evaluation of job descriptions to match to established salary survey jobs in order to identify the external market rate for each benchmark position. 2 Market Study refers to the use of internal and external data to determine whether an employer rewards employees fairly or not for the work they are doing. 3 Classification Analysis refers to the process of assigning jobs to categories/classes in order to improve the accuracy of an analysis. 22 23 CITY OF ASPEN Total Compensation Philosophy 1 | City of Aspen TCP Total Compensation Philosophy OVERVIEW The City of Aspen’s Total Compensation Philosophy provides a framework to guide decision-making on compensation and benefits programs for employees. As an employer of choice, the City encourages an engaged and innovative workforce through a Total Compensation Philosophy that supports highly competitive and equitable pay. Employees that embody the City’s values and mission enjoy a unique and rewarding mountain culture experience. City of Aspen EXPERIENCE The City is committed to providing a Total Compensation Philosophy that attracts, retains, and rewards a talented and motivated workforce that embraces the City’s Mission statement and Organizational Values. MISSION STATEMENT To engage with positive civil dialogue, provide the highest quality innovative and efficient municipal services, steward the natural environment, and support a healthy and sustainable community for the benefit of future generations with respect for the work of our predecessors. ORGANIZATIONAL VALUES SERVICE: We serve with a spirit of excellence, humility, integrity, respect PARTNERSHIP: Our impact is greater together STEWARDSHIP: Investing in a thriving future for all by balancing social, environmental, and financial responsibilities INNOVATION: Pursuing creative outcomes, grounded in Aspen’s distinctive challenges and opportunities The City invites employees to bring their passion and experience to affect positive change through public service. Diverse perspectives, rich ideas, and a culture with an appreciation for individuality and a sense of belonging are reinforced and appreciated in the City. To pursue creative outcomes, demonstrate excellence, and address the distinctive opportunities found in Aspen, the City recruits qualified and talented employees who are prepared to manage complex and highly technical challenges. 24 CITY OF ASPEN Total Compensation Philosophy 2 | City of Aspen TCP HOW WE COMPARE OURSELVES To respond to the unique Aspen environment and labor market conditions, the City will: • Ensure we are a market leader locally, regionally, and as appropriate, nationally. • Utilize a comparable labor market that includes both private and public sectors, as appropriate. • Regularly evaluate the City’s competitive labor market and compare similar positions to other organizations whom the City competes with for its workforce. WHAT WE OFFER To achieve a sustainable, fiscally responsible, and highly competitive compensation program, the City will provide the following core Total Compensation programs to City of Aspen employees: PAY  • Market-leading pay structures that consider the high cost of living in Aspen and the surrounding area. • Pay for similar work that is equitable both internally and externally and applied consistently across the organization. • Meaningful merit/performance increases that recognize employee’s contributions and reflect the varying levels of employee achievements. HEALTHY LIFESTYLE BENEFITS  • Comprehensive and competitive benefits programs designed to support the health of City employees and their families. • Robust employee benefits that encourage awareness of individual health and offer resources to pursue healthy lifestyles. • Benefits that are inclusive and meaningful at a variety of life stages.  • Work-life balance enhancements through offerings such as alternative work schedules, employee wellness programs, and ancillary benefit programs. PAY COMMUNICATION • Clarity and transparency in managing the total compensation system. • Communication of the value of the total compensation package offered to City employees. • Guidance and oversight in pay decisions to ensure fairness and consistency. 25 CITY OF ASPEN Total Compensation Philosophy 3 | City of Aspen TCP WHAT WE OFFER - CONTINUED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT & CONTINUOUS LEARNING  The City seeks to retain and develop employees by providing opportunities for learning and professional development. The City and employees both play critical roles in maintaining the success of a professional development culture. • Foster a positive work environment that is meaningful, stimulating, and encourages employee innovation and creativity. • Provide a range of learning and professional development opportunities for all employees that support personal and professional growth. • Offer ongoing and timely communication to employees on their performance, goals, and professional development throughout the year. REWARDS & RECOGNITION • Acknowledge and celebrate employees’ contributions that align with the City’s mission statement and organizational values.   • Provide financial and non-financial incentives for extraordinary and exemplary performance. • Reward employees by offering learning opportunities to promote professional growth and development. HOUSING SUPPORT • Respond to the high cost of living and lack of affordable housing through an array of housing program options. • Review creative and innovative opportunities on an ongoing basis to further enhance employee support with housing challenges. 26 Completion Date Status Notes 1.1 Segal sends data request to City of Aspen Thursday, April 29, 2021 Completed 1.2 Segal sets up SFT Thursday, May 13, 2021 Completed 1.3 Segal sends City of Aspen documents to discuss at initial project meeting Friday, April 30, 2021 Completed 1.4 Initial project meeting Wednesday, May 5, 2021 Completed 1.5 City of Aspen provides requested information to Segal via Secure File Transfer (SFT)Thursday, May 6, 2021 Completed Job Descriptions to be sent to Segal by June 30 2.1 Confirmation of project timeline and development of communication plan Thursday, April 22, 2021 Completed 2.2 Review of materials provided by Aspen, discussion with Project Team to clarify and confirm various data Thursday, April 29, 2021 Completed 2.3 Identification of Key Stakeholders and outline of issues and questions for discussion Wednesday, April 28, 2021 Completed 2.4 Steering Committee briefing and Confirmation of Key Stakeholders Wednesday, April 28, 2021 Completed 2.5 Conduct Stakeholder meetings Monday, May 3rd, 2021 - Monday, May 10th, 2021 Completed 2.6 Analysis and summarization of feedback Friday, May 14, 2021 Completed 2.7 Development of format for Philosophy with discussion of Philosophy Key Elements and City’s position on each element including Pay Policy, Market Definition, and Pay Administration, etc. Friday, May 28, 2021 Completed 2.8 Facilitation of agreement on Philosophy Key Elements and components of the philosophy Friday, June 4, 2021 Completed 2.9 Development of draft philosophy for Project Team review and feedback Friday, June 18, 2021 Completed 2.10 Presentation of Comp Philosophy to Council Monday, June 28, 2021 Completed 2.11 Incorporation of feedback and finalization of Pay Philosophy Tuesday, June 29, 2021 Completed Classification Analysis City of Aspen Compensation & Classification Analysis Project Work Plan and Timeline As of 10/7/2021 Task Project Initiation Pay Philosophy Development Doc ID: 1 27 Completion Date Status Notes City of Aspen Compensation & Classification Analysis Project Work Plan and Timeline As of 10/7/2021 Task 3.1 City of Aspen provides updated job descriptions Wednesday, June 30, 2021 Completed 3.2 Segal reviews updated job descriptions; identifies which jobs are in need to clarify position responsibilities Wednesday, October 20, 2021 In Progress 3.3 Segal conducts interviews with employees and managers, as needed Tuesday, October 26, 2021 3.4 Segal sends draft classification structure to City of Aspen Tuesday, November 9, 2021 3.5 City of Aspen and Segal discuss draft classification structure Wednesday, November 17, 2021 3.6 City of Aspen provides feedback on draft classification structure Monday, November 22, 2021 3.7 Segal captures feedback Wednesday, December 1, 2021 3.8 City of Aspen approves job title/structure recommendations Wednesday, December 15, 2021 5.1 Segal develops methodology for compensation analysis and sends to City of Aspen for review Tuesday, August 31, 2021 Completed 5.2 City of Aspen approves methodology for compensation analysis Wednesday, September 8, 2021 Completed 5.3 Segal finalizes the benchmark position analysis and sends to City of Aspen for review Tuesday, September 14, 2021 Completed 5.4 City of Aspen approves benchmark positions selected for the market study Tuesday, September 21, 2021 Completed 5.5 Segal analyzes data Wednesday, October 13, 2021 In Progress 5.6 Segal sends City of Aspen draft Appendix B report Friday, October 15, 2021 In Progress 5.7 City of Aspen reviews draft Appendix B report, provides feedback to Segal Friday, October 29, 2021 5.8 Segal performs follow-up per feedback received from City of Aspen Wednesday, November 10, 2021 5.9 Segal sends an updated Appendix B report to City of Aspen Tuesday, November 16, 2021 These last steps may be faster than anticipated depending on review time/required edits 5.10 City of Aspen approves Appendix B report Tuesday, November 23, 2021 5.11 Segal prepares draft report, sends to City of Aspen for review Thursday, December 2, 2021 Salary Market Assessment Doc ID: 2 28 Completion Date Status Notes City of Aspen Compensation & Classification Analysis Project Work Plan and Timeline As of 10/7/2021 Task 5.12 City of Aspen and Segal discuss market study report Monday, December 6, 2021 5.13 Segal captures feedback and sends final version of market study report Wednesday, December 8, 2021 Present Final Results Doc ID: 3 29 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Steve Hunter, Utilities Resource Manager THROUGH: Tyler Christoff, Director of Utilities MEMO DATE: October 14, 2021 MEETING DATE: October 26, 2021 RE: Aspen Water Integrated Resources Plan (IRP) Update REQUEST OF COUNCIL: No request for approval or specific direction. Staff is providing this memo to the Mayor and City Council so that they may be informed of the status of the Aspen Water Integrated Resource Plan (IRP). City staff and its consultant will be presenting the IRP in detail at an upcoming Council work session. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen initiated work on its Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) in 2019 with an initial phase of work (Phase 1) focused on developing water planning goals and opportunities specific to Aspen’s water supplies as well as identifying information gaps. Phase 1 also crafted strategies for engaging public and technical stakeholders during Phase 2. Phase 2 of the IRP began in May 2020 and will be completed by November 30, 2021. Key outcomes from phase 2 include: • Roadmap for the City’s water strategy to provide long-term water supply resiliency and reliability. • Plan to secure a sustainable, reliable water supply for decades to come, in the face of threats such as climate change, extended drought, and other vulnerabilities. • Clear path forward for implementing the City’s conditional storage rights. • Community support and Council approval of the IRP recommendations. DISCUSSION: The City of Aspen provides water to a population of about 11,300 permanent residents, a seasonal non-resident population ranging as high as approximately 16,500, and a wide range of commercial businesses. The significant range in customers served seasonally creates challenges for the City's water supply, and specifically its raw (untreated) water storage needs. The City operates an integrated water supply system, which currently includes water rights for surface water from streams and ditches, groundwater, and mine water. The City has minimal raw water storage available upstream of its water treatment facility (WTF), equivalent to less than one day of peak demands. This results in operational constraints and potential challenges with water supply reliability. In 2018, the City formally 30 committed to relocating its existing conditional storage rights for Castle Creek and Maroon Creek to a more environmentally compatible site. The IRP recommends an amount of storage that should be used to address operational needs and to mitigate vulnerabilities to supply threats, in parallel with the City's ongoing investigation of several potential storage sites. Variability in water supply availability is common across most of the western United States. In Aspen, conditions in recent years demonstrate how the availability of surface water resources can vary from one year to the next. Exceptional drought conditions were prevalent in 2020 in Aspen and much of Colorado, when the state experienced one of the most severe wildfire seasons in recorded history. It is anticipated that climate change will further affect the yield and variability of the City's water resources portfolio. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: By more efficiently managing its Integrated Water Supply System, the City will also increase its efficiency in energy management and continue its dedication to environmental stewardship of the watersheds we depend on for sustaining our community. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) Executive Summary 31 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DRAFT | October 2021 32 ASPEN WATER INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN | CITY OF ASPEN DRAFT | OCTOBER 2021 | ES-1 Executive Summary Executive Summary ES.1 Overview The City of Aspen (City) provides water to a population of about 11,300 permanent residents, a seasonal non-resident population ranging as high as approximately 16,500, and a wide range of commercial businesses. The significant range in customers served seasonally creates challenges for the City's water supply, and specifically its raw (untreated) water storage needs. The City operates an integrated water supply system, which currently includes water rights for surface water from streams and ditches, groundwater, and mine water. The City has minimal raw water storage available upstream of its water treatment facility (WTF), equivalent to less than one day of peak demands. This results in operational constraints and potential challenges with water supply reliability. In 2018, the City formally committed to relocating its existing conditional storage rights for Castle Creek and Maroon Creek to a more environmentally compatible site. The IRP recommends an amount of storage that should be used to address operational needs and to mitigate vulnerabilities to supply threats, in parallel with the City's ongoing investigation of several potential storage sites. Variability in water supply availability is common across most of the western United States. In Aspen, conditions in recent years demonstrate how the availability of surface water resources can vary from one year to the next. Exceptional drought conditions were prevalent in 2020 in Aspen and much of Colorado, when the state experienced one of the most severe wildfire seasons in recorded history. It is anticipated that climate change will further affect the yield and variability of the City's water resources portfolio. ES.2 Planning Basis The City provides water service within the city limits and to portions of unincorporated Pitkin County for a total service area of approximately 8.5 square miles. The IRP is based on supplying water to the City's existing service area, plus the potential that City water service could be extended someday to the extents of the entire urban growth boundary (UGB). The IRP includes water demand and supply forecasts and analyzes existing and potential new water supply sources for the City's service area through 2070. Planning, permitting, and implementing water projects in Colorado can take years – sometimes decades – thus driving the need for a long-range outlook with a phased implementation schedule to meet the community's needs over time. The City deliberately chose a planning period of approximately 50 years to reflect the long-lasting implications of water resources decisions, such as siting storage for the Castle Creek and Maroon Creek conditional storage water rights, and the time it can take to plan, permit, construct, and implement water projects. The IRP uses a conservative basis for planning coupled with an adaptive implementation approach, so the City is prepared for any reasonably foreseeable future condition, but only recommends system improvements when they become necessary. Planning uncertainties are greater in more distant years due to limitations in abilities to accurately forecast future conditions; this does not alleviate the need to plan water This Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) for water evaluates the City's water supply portfolio and provides a robust plan to provide a safe, resilient, and reliable water supply to its customers through the coming decades, while respecting the City's commitment to environmental stewardship. 33 CITY OF ASPEN | ASPEN WATER INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN ES-2 | OCTOBER 2021 | DRAFT supplies far in advance. These uncertainties can be addressed in part by implementing IRP recommendations that are "trigger-based" – such as a certain demand level or frequency of shortages – rather than strictly on a planning year basis. The IRP should be updated regularly, such as every 10 years, to adjust for changes in "existing" conditions, incorporate new data and science, address evolving regulations, and extend the planning horizon. ES.3 Stakeholder Engagement The City made extensive efforts to engage stakeholders and the public in developing a plan that reflects a breadth of local technical expertise and the community's values and priorities through a multi-phase stakeholder engagement process. Primary elements of stakeholder engagement in support of IRP analyses included: •Community interviews, •Technical Work Group meetings, •Community meetings, and •Aspen Community Voice online engagement portal. A series of 14 one-on-one interviews was conducted with community members to gain insights from a range of perspectives on Aspen's water supplies and water system. Three rounds of engagement were conducted in November 2020, January 2021, and March 2021, with each round including a community meeting and a Technical Work Group meeting. Each facilitated meeting featured a presentation on key aspects of the IRP development and included opportunities for participants to ask questions, discuss content, and advise the planning team. All meetings were held virtually due to restrictions associated with the COVID-19 pandemic that coincided with the development of the IRP. The City's online public information and engagement platform, Aspen Community Voice, was used throughout the development of the IRP to inform the community and solicit input. In addition to providing background information on the City's water supply resources and options, the Aspen Community Voice site provided an opportunity for community members to ask the project team questions and provide additional input on key topics as the IRP development moved through its various phases of development. The City made deliberate outreach to the community to increase awareness of the site and participation in the online forum. This included outreach through local media, paid advertisements, City newsletters, Aspen Chamber Resort Association (ACRA) newsletters, water bill inserts, and Aspen Community Voice newsletters. ES.4 Water Demand Forecasts To provide a foundation for water supply planning, water demands were forecasted through the 50-year planning period to 2070. The City provides potable water (treated to drinking water standards) and untreated water (for irrigation and other non-potable uses) to its customers. Water demands are higher during the summer months due primarily to outdoor water use. An analysis of water use records estimates that approximately 45 percent of potable water use was associated with outdoor water use from 2012 through 2019. Peak water production has typically occurred in June, July, or August each year. Non-potable water deliveries serve primarily irrigation and snowmaking uses. The City serves approximately 60 irrigation customers through the non-pressurized open-channel ditch system and 11 irrigation customers 34 ASPEN WATER INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN | CITY OF ASPEN DRAFT | OCTOBER 2021 | ES-3 through the pressurized non-potable water system via releases from Leonard Thomas Reservoir. The irrigation supply is typically available from mid-May through mid-October, with uses peaking in June, July, and August. The City has a raw water agreement with the Aspen Skiing Company (Aspen Ski Co.) to provide a non- potable water supply for snowmaking for the Aspen Highlands Ski Area and an agreement to provide treated water for snowmaking on Aspen Mountain 1. It also owns an absolute water right decreed for recreational boating use that supplies the Aspen Whitewater Park, located adjacent to the Roaring Fork River. The City's Maroon Creek Hydroelectric Power Plant (MCHPP) is a 400-kilowatt hydroelectric generation facility; 46 percent of the energy use in Aspen is served through hydroelectric power. The City also operates its senior water rights in a way that will maintain decreed instream flows while striving to meet voluntary instream flow targets, including flows in Castle Creek, Maroon Creek, Hunter Creek, and the Roaring Fork River. As part of this analysis, a baseline demand projection and a range of potential future demand scenarios were developed to provide an envelope of potential potable water demands through 2070. For each projection scenario, four separate demand drivers were used to adjust demands under future conditions: 1.Population Growth and Visitor Occupancy. 2.Climate Change. 3.Water Use Efficiency and Conservation. 4.Non-Revenue Water. The resulting total projected 2070 annual demands range from 4,878 to 9,281 acre-feet per year (AFY), as shown in Figure ES.1. Figure ES.1 Historical and Projected Potable Water Demand Range through 2070 1 "Treated water" and "potable water" are generally used interchangeably throughout this IRP to refer to water that has been treated at the City's WTF. However, water provided for snowmaking on Aspen Mountain is treated but may not meet potable standards at the point of use. - 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 8,000 9,000 10,000 19951998200120042007201020132016201920222025202820312034203720402043204620492052205520582061206420672070Demand (AFY)Historical Demand High-End Projection Low-End Projection 9,300 AFY 4,900 AFY Future Demand Envelope 35 CITY OF ASPEN | ASPEN WATER INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN ES-4 | OCTOBER 2021 | DRAFT The methods used to project future potable water demands are not directly transferable to non-potable water demands due to limited data availability and because many of the non-potable water demands are constrained by legal agreements and water court decrees. In addition, some non-potable demands are limited to the supply available via raw water license agreements. ES.5 Water Supplies The majority of water served to the City's customers is supplied by diversions from Castle Creek and Maroon Creek. The City's primary potable water supply intake is located on Castle Creek; Maroon Creek is generally used as a supplemental supply when flows in Castle Creek are insufficient to meet demands or when Castle Creek exhibits lower water quality. Raw water is delivered from the Castle Creek pipeline and Maroon Creek pipeline to the City's WTF via Leonard Thomas Reservoir. Water treated to drinking water standards is delivered to the community through approximately 73 miles of water mainlines that range in size from 4 to 24 inches in diameter. Untreated ("raw") water from a variety of sources is delivered to portions of the community through a network of piping and ditches. The City also utilizes its water rights and supplies in a way that supports maintenance of decreed instream flows, while also striving to meet voluntary flow goals. The City does not currently have any meaningful raw water carryover storage capacity that would allow it to retime water supplies to match water deliveries with demands, or to provide a water supply if drought or emergency conditions prevent or reduce diversions from Castle Creek or Maroon Creek. Rather, the City is dependent upon direct use of available streamflow, which is susceptible to annual variability and changing conditions, as well as daily variability. If the climate in the Castle Creek and Maroon Creek watersheds becomes drier in the future due to climate change, the City may face additional challenges in meeting demand from streamflow diversions alone while maintaining instream flow goals. For Aspen, the existing water supply is most vulnerable in late summer into early fall, after snowmelt runoff has tapered off, and while landscape irrigation demands are still high. Lack of raw water storage also makes the City's water system vulnerable to threats that could prevent or constrain the City from diverting water through either or both of its diversions on Castle Creek and Maroon Creek and/or treating it to potable standards. Vulnerabilities assessed for each existing or potential future water supply source include: •Persistent drought, •Wildfire, •Infrastructure failure, •Power outage, •Supply chain disruption, •Malevolent acts or cybersecurity, •Flooding, •Treatment process outage, •Avalanches, •Source water contamination, and •Staff turnover/loss of institutional knowledge. The adjacent siting of the Castle Creek and Maroon Creek watersheds increases the potential that both could be impacted by the same event. The City does not have practical opportunities for interconnections with other municipal systems to provide water supply system redundancy. 36 ASPEN WATER INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN | CITY OF ASPEN DRAFT | OCTOBER 2021 | ES-5 ES.6 Water Supply Portfolios To mitigate the supply vulnerabilities discussed above and to avoid the potential for a water supply shortfall (demands exceeding supply), the following potential supply options were packaged into alternative water supply portfolios: • Enhanced Water Conservation: In addition to the community's existing conservation practices and increased levels of efficiency built into the demand projections, enhanced conservation could potentially reduce per-capita water use. • Groundwater Wells: The City owns three alluvial wells located in the downtown area currently not connected to the potable water distribution system because of concerns with their ability to meet drinking water standards. A new blending structure and associated infrastructure would allow reinstatement of these wells, delivering a total of 3.2 million gallons per day (mgd) of potable water. The potential for stream depletions associated with use of these wells was evaluated as part of IRP analyses. • Hunter Creek: The City owns water rights on Hunter Creek that could be used to meet potable water needs. Hunter Creek was at one time diverted and treated by the City, but the treatment facility was subsequently decommissioned and would need to be rebuilt. • Water Reuse: A system to deliver reclaimed water from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District (ACSD) water reclamation facility could be used to support non-potable irrigation and snowmaking needs. The City has already constructed a pipeline from near the ACSD facility to the Aspen Municipal Golf Course with the intent of supplying irrigation water to the golf course. Completion of this system would require construction of a new pump station and a supplemental disinfection system. • New Raw Water Storage ("Operational Storage"): The City is evaluating several sites outside the Castle Creek and Maroon Creek watersheds for potential storage of Castle Creek and Maroon Creek flows. Stored water would be pumped to the WTF to augment or replace direct diversions from Castle Creek and Maroon Creek when necessary due to low creek flows, water quality reasons, or emergency conditions. • Drought Management: The IRP assumes that the City will continue to deploy its existing four-stage system to temporarily reduce demands when necessary, under drought or other emergency conditions. Each of these supply options is locally available and could help meet the City's future needs, avoiding some of the significant costs and socioeconomic concerns that can be associated with non-local or inter-basin supply transfers. Given the availability of local supply options, non-local supply options were not considered in this IRP. It was assumed that the City will continue to use Castle Creek and Maroon Creek as primary supplies, and will utilize its existing drought restriction system as needed. Portfolios were constructed assuming that the City could implement up to "Extreme – Stage 3" drought restrictions to reduce systemwide water use by up to 25 percent when needed. The "Exceptional – Emergency Response" restrictions are assumed to be kept in reserve for emergencies outside of normal operational considerations. Modeling of the City's existing supplies using 25 years of historical hydrology modified to reflect 2070 climate change impacts with 2070 demands indicated that the largest supply shortfall would occur in two consecutive dry years (i.e., the hydrologic conditions of 1977 and 1978, modified to include hotter and drier conditions due to climate change). At the conservative (high-end) demand projection, these conditions would produce a total supply shortage ("gap") of approximately 2,300 acre-feet (AF) over the course of both years. Combinations of 37 CITY OF ASPEN | ASPEN WATER INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN ES-6 | OCTOBER 2021 | DRAFT supply options ("portfolios") were modeled to confirm that they could resolve this supply gap, such that no shortages would be expected under 2070 demand and climate conditions. Six water supply portfolios were compiled from the potential supply options based on meeting the minimum threshold of being able to fully meet maximum 2070 demand (9,281 AFY) under the worst-case future climate condition considered in this IRP. This conservative approach for projecting water supply shortages also drives a conservative level of potential water supply investments that will be needed to meet 2070 demands. However, this IRP recommends that the City adopt an adaptive approach to implementing its water supply recommendations, using supply/demand triggers to implement additional supplies and demand management options over time in response to observed conditions. As such, the City will have a plan in place for how it will meet demands if these conservatively assumed conditions materialize over the next 50 years, but it will only implement the components that are needed, when they are needed. If conditions do not require this pace of implementation, new supply strategies can be deferred. The supply portfolios analyzed are summarized in Table ES.1. Operational raw water storage is included in all supply portfolios (other than Portfolio 1, No Action) because no single supply option or combination of supply options can completely mitigate shortages in the driest 2-year period of the 25 years of hydrology analyzed (including projected climate change impacts) without the use of at least some operational storage. However, the amount of operational storage included in each portfolio varies based on the extent to which the other supply options included in each portfolio can mitigate the supply and demand gap during the driest 2-year period analyzed. The composition of how each supply portfolio mitigates the supply-demand gap during the driest 2-year period is also graphically shown in Figure ES.2. Table ES.1 Supply Portfolio Summary Portfolio Operational Storage (AF)(1) Hunter Creek Groundwater Enhanced Conservation Non-Potable Reuse 1. No Action 0 - - - - 2. Storage Only 2,200 - - - - 3. Hunter Creek + Storage 2,000 ● - - - 4. Groundwater + Storage 800 - ● - - 5. Enhanced Conservation + Storage 1,600 - - ● - 6. Groundwater + Storage + Enhanced Conservation + Reuse 400 - ● ● ● Notes: (1) The raw water storage amount does not include emergency storage or an allocation for storage inefficiencies, which add to the amount of storage recommended. 38 ASPEN WATER INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN | CITY OF ASPEN DRAFT | OCTOBER 2021 | ES-7 Figure ES.2 Supply Portfolio Composition to Mitigate the Two-Year Supply-Demand Gap ES.7 Portfolio Evaluation The six portfolios were evaluated and compared using a suite of economic and non-economic criteria. Selection of the criteria and the importance of each in choosing a supply portfolio were guided by public input to reflect the needs and priorities of the community. The criteria included the following major objectives: •Supply availability, •Supply resilience, •Community and environmental benefits, •Affordability, •Ease of implementation, and •Ease of operations. To facilitate the evaluation, a decision model was used to normalize the criteria scores and apply the criteria weights to compare portfolios. Portfolios that score well against the most important criteria receive a higher decision score, which indicates a preferable portfolio. The normalized total decision score for each portfolio ranges from 0 to 1, with 1 being a perfect score across all criteria. The results of the analysis are shown in Figure ES.3. Portfolio 6 best met the range of criteria, followed by Portfolios 5 and 4. Portfolio 1 scored the worst, clearly confirming that "no action" is not a viable approach. - 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 1 2 3 4 5 6Supply -Demand Gap (AF)Portfolio Raw Water Storage Groundwater Enhanced Water Conservation Non-Potable Reuse Hunter Creek Drought Restrictions (<25%) Shortage 39 CITY OF ASPEN | ASPEN WATER INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN ES-8 | OCTOBER 2021 | DRAFT Figure ES.3 Portfolio Evaluation Results ES.8 Emergency Raw Water Storage The operational raw water storage needs described above are intended to be used in conjunction with other supply options to eliminate the potential seasonal gap between supply and demand in particularly dry years. Operational raw water storage helps buffer natural seasonal and annual fluctuations in available supply from Castle Creek and Maroon Creek to allow the City to continue to serve customers if creek supplies fall below demand. In contrast, emergency raw water storage is intended to be used when the capacity of the City's water supply sources cannot meet demand due to a temporary emergency situation. This may occur due to a supply vulnerability event, such as wildfire or critical infrastructure failure. Emergency storage needs increase total storage needs above and beyond operational raw water storage. In order for emergency storage to be effective, it must be "full" and ready for use when the need arises; its quantity should be considered to be separate and distinct from (not "shared" with) operational storage, which could result in less water available in storage than needed when an emergency event occurs. However, operational storage and emergency storage could be co-located within a single storage facility, with separate "paper" tracking of stored volumes. The recommended amount of emergency storage was determined by assessing the amount of additional supply needed if the City's largest supply source for the top-ranked portfolio is unavailable due to the worst-case threat scenario for a period of 1 to 12 months. Under Portfolio 6, the largest supply source will continue to be direct diversions from Castle Creek and Maroon Creek, even after diversification of supplies. Reinstating the City's three groundwater wells in central Aspen will reduce the need for emergency storage, because they will be able to meet a portion of the community's demands. However, they are subject to blending requirements – meaning groundwater cannot operate as the sole source of potable water for the community at any point, and some amount of treated water sourced from Castle Creek, Maroon Creek, or storage will be required at all times. Emergency raw water storage sizing is summarized in Figure ES.4 for the upper-end of projected 2040 and 2070 demand levels as a function of the duration of Castle Creek and Maroon Creek diversion interruptions. If demands increase at a slower rate, emergency storage needs would be lower, and expansions could be deferred. Faster growth (or failure to implement other components of Portfolio 6, such as reinstating the groundwater wells) would accelerate the need for emergency storage expansions. Note that the need for emergency storage is not delayed until 2040; 2040 was selected as an interim year for illustrating the increasing need for and importance of storage in protecting against emergency conditions. 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 6 Groundwater + Storage + Enhanced Conservation + Reuse 5 Enhanced Conservation + Storage 4 Groundwater + Storage 3 Hunter Creek + Storage 2 Storage Only 1 No Action Supply Availability Supply Resilience Community and Environmental Benefits Affordability Ease of Implementation Ease of Operations 40 ASPEN WATER INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN | CITY OF ASPEN DRAFT | OCTOBER 2021 | ES-9 Figure ES.4 Emergency Storage Sizing as a Function of Castle Creek and Maroon Creek Diversion Interruption Total raw water storage needs for 2070 conditions include a minimum of 520 AF for operational storage (400 AF plus a 30 percent allocation for storage inefficiencies) and 5,300 AF to provide up to 12 months of emergency storage (including storage inefficiencies). Together, this 5,820 AF of raw water storage will provide coverage for seasonal and annual fluctuations in Castle Creek and Maroon Creek flows and 12 months of emergency interruptions in Castle Creek and Maroon Creek diversions. An accelerated rate of increasing demand (or incomplete achievement of other Portfolio 6 supply options) would increase and accelerate the need for storage, and vice versa. It should be recognized that there is significant uncertainty in future demand projections and supply conditions (particularly regarding climate change), and that the IRP projects needs only through 2070. Application of a safety factor and planning for conditions beyond 2070 could significantly increase the storage need beyond the 5,820 AF value identified here. All told, construction of 5,820 AF of storage and its associated conveyance infrastructure would cost over $400 million in 2021 dollars as it is implemented over the coming decades. Emergency storage capital costs directly correlate to the associated level of water supply reliability. Greater amounts of storage would increase the costs and the amount of reliability provided, whereas smaller investments would reduce the reliability benefit. Phased design and construction of storage provides the City the flexibility to further assess these tradeoffs and conduct financial planning in the coming years. The majority of storage sites considered in the City's ongoing siting investigations would be constructed as in situ (subsurface) storage. Two of the sites considered, Woody Creek and Vagneur Gravel Pit, could be developed as open (surface) storage. 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 1-mo (Jul)2-mo (Jul-Aug)3-mo (Jul-Sep)6-mo (Jun-Nov)12-mo (Jan-Dec)Emergency Storage Size (AF)Duration and Timing of Castle Creek & Maroon Creek Interruption 2040 Emergency Storage 2070 Emergency Storage 41 CITY OF ASPEN | ASPEN WATER INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN ES-10 | OCTOBER 2021 | DRAFT ES.9 Implementation Plan Water supply system enhancements should be implemented in a prioritized, phased manner to continue to reliably meet water demands, reduce system vulnerabilities, while being mindful of surges in capital expenditures. The implementation plan includes a near-term (10-year) capital implementation plan (CIP) and an approach for later phases of system improvements beyond 2030 to maintain a reliable water supply system through 2070. The IRP uses adaptive planning to define the system improvements needed to reliably meet demands in 2070, coupled with a trigger-based approach that provides for phased implementation of those improvements when conditions develop to the point that the improvements become necessary. The implementation plan is summarized in Figure ES.5. Figure ES.5 Implementation Plan Summary Implementation of the projects shown in Figure ES.6 will address near-term priority water supply needs in the City's water supply system and longer-term investments to reflect conditions over time as water demands increase and climate change impacts intensify. It is important to recognize that the timing of each of these improvements – particularly after the near-term CIP period (2022 through 2030) – will be affected by factors such as water use patterns and amounts, and by water supply and snowmelt runoff patterns. The result could be a need to accelerate or an opportunity to delay implementation of each project. 42 ASPEN WATER INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN | CITY OF ASPEN DRAFT | OCTOBER 2021 | ES-11 Figure ES.6 Overview of IRP Water Supply Projects 43 CITY OF ASPEN | ASPEN WATER INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN ES-12 | OCTOBER 2021 | DRAFT In support of the capital projects described and as part of continued stewardship of the City's water supplies and infrastructure, the following additional projects are recommended: • WTF condition assessment and master plan in 2023, including recommendations for Project WT1 to modify treatment processes to better accommodate water quality constraints following wildfires in the Castle Creek and Maroon Creek watersheds. • Groundwater level monitoring and water quality monitoring upon reactivation of the groundwater wells. • Water Efficiency Plan Updates in 2022 and every 7 years thereafter. • Water Transmission and Distribution Master Plan building on the 2018 hydraulic modeling project (Bohannon Huston, 2019), including demand updates and a condition assessment to support asset management on the City's linear water assets and storage facilities, in 2025 and updated at least every 10 years. • IRP updates every 10 years, including climate change supply availability analysis updates. • Updated Rate Study following completion of master plans for the WTF and Transmission and Distribution systems. ES.10 Capital Improvement Plan Summary A summary of capital project expenditures through 2030 is provided in Table ES.2. Near-term investments in water reuse and groundwater blending will enhance the City's water use efficiency and reduce existing vulnerabilities in the Castle Creek and Maroon Creek sources. Altogether, the near- and long-term investments identified in this IRP will result in a resilient, reliable water supply for the Aspen community for the next 50 years. 44 ASPEN WATER INTEGRATED RESOURCE PLAN | CITY OF ASPEN DRAFT | OCTOBER ͮͬͮͭ | ES‐ͭͯ Table ES.ͮ Near‐term CIP Summary Expenditure (ͮͬͮͭ ͈M unless noted otherwise) Project ͮͬͮͮ ͮͬͮͯ ͮͬͮͰ ͮͬͮͱ ͮͬͮͲ ͮͬͮͳ ͮͬͮʹ ͮͬͮ͵ ͮͬͯͬ Capital Projects(ͭ) ͈ͬ.ͯ ͈ͭ.ʹ ͈Ͱ.ͮ ͈ʹ.ͭ ͈ͱ.ͬ ͈ͬ.ͱ ͈ͬ.ͱ ͈ͬ.Ͳ ͈ͭͭ.ͭ WRͭ: Reuse at Aspen Municipal Golf Course ͈ͬ.ͭ ͈ͭ.ͮ ͈ͮ.Ͳ  WRͮ: Reuse Expansion ͈ͬ.ͬͯ  ͈ͬ.ͮ  GWͭ: Groundwater Blending Facility ͈ͬ.ͭ ͈ͬ.ͭ ͈ͬ.ʹ ͈ͳ.ͭ ECͭ: Enhanced Conservation Phase ͭ ͈ͬ.ͱ  ͈ͬ.ͱ  ͈ͬ.ͱ  ͈ͬ.ͱ  ͈ͬ.ͱ  ͈ͬ.ͱ  ͈ͬ.ͱ  ͈ͬ.ͱ WTͭ: Water Treatment Facility Resilience Improvements ͈ͬ.ͱ ͈Ͱ.ͱ ESͭ: Emergency Storage Phase ͭ and Raw Water Conveyance  ͈ͬ.ͬͰ  ͈ͬ.ͬͰ  ͈ͬ.ͮͱ  ͈ͬ.ͬͰ  ͈ͬ.ͬͰ  ͈ͬ.ͬͰ  ͈ͬ.ͬͰ  ͈ͬ.ͬͰ  ͈ͭͬ.Ͱ Master Planning ͈ͬ.ͭ ͈ͬ.ͭ ͈ͬ.ͬ ͈ͬ.ͭ ͈ͬ.ͬ ͈ͬ.ͬ ͈ͬ.ͬ ͈ͬ.ͭ ͈ͬ.ͬ WTF Master Plan ͈ͬ.ͭWater Efficiency Plan Update ͈ͬ.ͬͱ ͈ͬ.ͬͱ Transmission/Distribution Master Plan ͈ͬ.ͭ  Total Expenditures (ͮͬͮͭ ͈M) ͈ͬ.ͯ ͈ͭ.͵ ͈Ͱ.ͮ ͈ʹ.ͮ ͈ͱ.ͬ ͈ͬ.ͱ ͈ͬ.ͱ ͈ͬ.Ͳ ͈ͭͭ.ͭ Total Expenditures (Escalated ͈M)(ͮ) ͈ͬ.ͯ ͈ͮ.ͬ ͈Ͱ.Ͳ ͈͵.ͯ ͈ͱ.ʹ ͈ͬ.Ͳ ͈ͬ.ͳ ͈ͬ.ʹ ͈ͭͰ.ͱ Notes: (ͭ) Projects initiated in ͮͬͯͭ and beyond are not detailed in this table; see Figure ES.ͱ for schedule and Section ͱ.ͯ for narrative descriptions. (ͮ) Escalation to future years at assumed ͯ% annual rate. 45 INFORMATION ONLY MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Torre and City Council FROM: Nicole Henning, City Clerk and Shannon Buckner, Executive Asst. THROUGH: Sara Ott, City Manager MEMO DATE: 10/22/21 MEETING DATE: 10/26/21 RE: 2022 City Council Meeting Dates Attached please find City Council meeting dates proposed for 2022. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 46     *This calendar is for planning and public informational purposes only. All dates / topics are subject to change.    Refer to the Current City Webcast / Meetings and Agendas page for updated City Council Events at:  https://www.cityofaspen.com/1225/Current‐City‐Webcast‐Meetings‐Agendas   The City Council Long Range Calendar is updated weekly and may be found at: https://www.cityofaspen.com/171/Clerk   ASPEN CITY COUNCIL   2022 LONG RANGE CALENDAR*      JANUARY     Monday 3‐Jan 4pm No Meeting  Tuesday 4‐Jan 4pm No Meeting  Monday 10‐Jan 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 11‐Jan 5pm Regular Meeting  Monday 17‐Jan   No Meeting ‐ Martin Luther King Day  Tuesday 18‐Jan 4pm Joint Work Session with BOCC  Monday 24‐Jan 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 25‐Jan 5pm Regular Meeting  Monday 31‐Jan 4pm No Meeting ‐ 5th Monday       FEBRUARY     Tuesday 1‐Feb 4pm Work Session  Monday 7‐Feb 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 8‐Feb 5pm Regular Meeting  Monday 14‐Feb 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 15‐Feb 4pm Work Session  Thurs‐Fri 17‐18 Feb  Club 20 Winter Policy Committee Mtgs – Grand Junction  Monday 21‐Feb 4pm No Meeting ‐ President's Day  Tuesday 22‐Feb 5pm Regular Meeting  Monday 28‐Feb 4pm Work Session       MARCH     Tuesday 1‐Mar   Work Session  Monday 7‐Mar   Work Session  Tuesday 8‐Mar 5pm Regular Meeting  Monday 14‐Mar 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 15‐Mar 4pm Work Session  Monday 21‐Apr 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 22‐Mar 5pm Regular Meeting  Wed‐Fri 23‐25 Mar  Club 20 Spring Conference – Grand Junction  Thursday 24‐Mar 4pm EOTC Meeting  Monday 28‐Mar 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 29‐Mar   No Meeting ‐ 5th Tuesday  47 Aspen City Council ‐ 2022 LONG RANGE CALENDAR*    Page 2    *This calendar is for planning and public informational purposes. All dates / topics are subject to change.    Refer to the Current City Webcast / Meetings and Agendas page for updated City Council Events at:  https://www.cityofaspen.com/1225/Current‐City‐Webcast‐Meetings‐Agendas   The City Council Long Range Calendar is updated weekly and may be found at: https://www.cityofaspen.com/171/Clerk   APRIL     Monday 4‐Apr 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 5‐Apr 4pm Work Session  Monday 11‐Apr 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 12‐Apr 5pm Regular Meeting  Tues‐Friday 12‐15 Apr  Downtown Colorado, Inc Conference – Colorado Springs  Monday 18‐Apr 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 19‐Apr 4pm Joint Work Session with BOCC  Monday 25‐Apr 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 26‐Apr 5pm Regular Meeting  Thursday 28‐Apr 3pm Elected Officials Transportation Committee Retreat       MAY     Monday 2‐May 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 3‐May 4pm Work Session  Monday 9‐May 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 10‐May 5pm Regular Meeting  Monday 16‐May 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 17‐May 4pm Work Session  Monday 23‐May 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 24‐May 5pm Regular Meeting  Thursday 26‐May 4pm Elected Officials Transportation Committee Meeting (EOTC)  Monday 30‐May   No Meeting ‐ Memorial Day  Tuesday 31‐May   No Meeting ‐ 5th Tuesday       JUNE     Monday 6‐Jun 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 7‐Jun 4pm Work Session  Monday 13‐Jun 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 14‐Jun 5pm Regular Meeting  Monday 20‐Jun 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 21‐Jun 4pm Work Session  Tues‐Friday 21‐24 Jun  Colorado Municipal League Conference ‐ Breckenridge  Monday 27‐Jun 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 28‐Jun 5pm Regular Meeting  48 Aspen City Council ‐ 2022 LONG RANGE CALENDAR*    Page 3    *This calendar is for planning and public informational purposes. All dates / topics are subject to change.    Refer to the Current City Webcast / Meetings and Agendas page for updated City Council Events at:  https://www.cityofaspen.com/1225/Current‐City‐Webcast‐Meetings‐Agendas   The City Council Long Range Calendar is updated weekly and may be found at: https://www.cityofaspen.com/171/Clerk   JULY     Monday 4‐Jul   No Meeting ‐ Independence Day  Tuesday 5‐Jul 4pm Work Session  Monday 11‐Jul 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 12‐Jul 5PM Regular Meeting  Thurs‐Fri 14‐15 Jul  Club 20 Summer Policy Meetings (Week 1) – Location TBD  Monday 18‐Jul 4PM Work Session  Tuesday 19‐Jul 4PM Joint Work Session with BOCC  Monday 25‐Jul 4PM Work Session  Tuesday 26‐Jul 5PM Regular Meeting  Thurs‐Fri 28‐29 Jul  Club 20 Summer Policy Meetings (Week 2) – Location TBD       AUGUST     Monday 1‐Aug 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 2‐Aug 4pm Work Session  Monday 8‐Aug 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 9‐Aug 5pm Regular Meeting  Monday 15‐Aug 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 16‐Aug 4pm Work Session  Monday 22‐Aug 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 23‐Aug 5pm Regular Meeting  TBD Aug  Colorado Assoc of Ski Towns (CAST) Conference – Location TBD  Monday 29‐Aug   No Meeting ‐ 5th Monday  Tuesday 30‐Aug   No Meeting ‐ 5th Tuesday       SEPTEMBER     Monday 5‐Sep   No Meeting ‐ Labor Day  Tuesday 6‐Sep 4pm Work Session  Fri‐Sat 9‐10 Sep  Club 20 Fall Conference & Candidate Debates – Grand Junction  Monday 12‐Sep 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 13‐Sep 5pm Regular Meeting  Monday 19‐Sep 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 20‐Sep 4pm Joint Work Session with BOCC  Mon ‐ Wed 26‐28 Sept   UN Mountain Partnership Global Meeting – Aspen Institute  Monday 26‐Sep 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 27‐Sep 5pm Regular Meeting  49 Aspen City Council ‐ 2022 LONG RANGE CALENDAR*    Page 4    *This calendar is for planning and public informational purposes. All dates / topics are subject to change.    Refer to the Current City Webcast / Meetings and Agendas page for updated City Council Events at:  https://www.cityofaspen.com/1225/Current‐City‐Webcast‐Meetings‐Agendas   The City Council Long Range Calendar is updated weekly and may be found at: https://www.cityofaspen.com/171/Clerk   OCTOBER     Monday 3‐Oct 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 4‐Oct 4pm Work Session  Monday 10‐Oct 4pm Work Session   Monday 10‐Oct  Indigenous Peoples' Day   Tuesday 11‐Oct 5pm Regular Meeting  Monday 17‐Oct 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 18‐Oct 4pm Work Session  Monday 24‐Oct 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 25‐Oct 5pm Regular Meeting  Thursday 27‐Oct 4pm Elected Officials Transportation Committee Meeting (EOTC)  Monday 31‐Oct   No Meeting – 5th Monday         NOVEMBER     Tuesday 1‐Nov 4pm Work Session  Monday 7‐Nov 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 8‐Nov   No Meeting ‐ Election Day  Monday 14‐Nov 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 15‐Nov 5pm Regular Meeting  Monday 21‐Nov 4pm No Meeting ‐ 5th Monday  Tuesday 22‐Nov   No Meeting ‐ 5th Tuesday  Thursday 24‐Nov   Thanksgiving Day  Monday 28‐Nov 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 29‐Nov 5pm Regular Meeting       DECEMBER     Monday 5‐Dec 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 6‐Dec 5pm Regular Meeting  Monday 12‐Dec 4pm Work Session  Tuesday 13‐Dec 5pm Regular Meeting  Monday 19‐Dec  No Meeting  Tuesday 20‐Dec  No Meeting  Sunday 25‐Dec   Christmas Day  Monday 26‐Dec  No Meeting  Tuesday 27‐Dec  No Meeting  50