agenda eotc

1

AGENDA

EOTC

October 17, 2019

4:00 PM,

AGENDA AMENDED 10-15-2019

CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS - 130 S GALENA ST

I. EOTC

I.A. EOTC

1

Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC)

Thursday, October 17, 2019 - 4:00pm Location - City of Aspen Council Chambers

Host and Chair - City of Aspen

____________________________________________________________________________________

I. 4:00 - 4:10 PUBLIC COMMENT(Comments limited to three minutes per person)

II. 4:10 - 4:30 2019 EOTC RETREAT REVIEWDavid Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator Decision Needed: Acceptance of 2019 EOTC Retreat Outcomes

III. 4:30 – 5:00 COMMUNITY FORUM TASK FORCE ON TRANSPORTATIONAND MOBILITY – PROPOSAL AND REQUEST John Bennett and Cristal Logan Decision Needed: Consideration for Inclusion with EOTC Work Plan and Budget

IV. 5:00 – 6:00 2020 PROPOSED BUDGETDavid Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator Decision Needed: Approval of 2020 Budget

V. 6:00 – 6:30 2020 EOTC WORK PLANDavid Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator Decision Needed: Acceptance of 2020 Work Plan

VI. 6:30 – 7:00 UPDATES-INFORMATION ONLY

A. TOSV TRANSIT STATION UPDATEDavid Peckler, Town of Snowmass Village

*Next meeting is March 19, 2020 - Town of Snowmass to Host & Chair (TBD)

Page 5

9

Page 50

Page 54

2

ELECTED OFFICIALS TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE (EOTC)

AGREEMENTS & DECISIONS REACHED AT THE JUNE 20, 2019 MEETING

Location - Pitkin County

Pitkin County - Host & Chair

Elected Officials in Attendance:

Aspen - 4 Pitkin County - 4 Snowmass - 4 Torre Kelly McNicholas Kury Markey Butler

Ward Hauenstein Greg Poschman Tom Goode Skippy Mesirow Steve Child Bob Sirkus Rachel Richards Patti Clapper Alyssa Shenk Absent: Ann Mullins, George Newman, Bill Madsen

______________________________________________________________________________ Agreements & Decisions Reached PUBLIC COMMENT Letter Submittal - Toni Kronberg provided a letter noting concerns with staff recommended location of the proposed Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) on Highway 82. Brush Creek PnR - FLAP Grant Improvements David Pesnichak - Transportation Administrator Pitkin County and the U.S. Forest Service applied for a FLAP grant to improve the Brush Creek Park and Ride in 2017. The grant was awarded in 2018 with funding beginning in 2019. Design and permitting is planned for 2019 and 2020. Construction is planned for 2021. Project description includes:

○ Permanent restroom facilities with flush toilets ○ Water and wastewater facilities (well and septic) ○ Increase paved area for parking (pave recycled asphalt area) ○ Add security lighting

Mr. Pesnichak explained that at the March 21, 2019 EOTC meeting, the Committee decided to pursue the “Mid-Station” location for the restroom facility and presented several items that were in need of Committee input and direction. In addition, Mr. Pesnichak provided an overview of the results of the May 2019 public opinion survey and an overview of the current design. Mr. Pesnichak reviewed each of the decision items and the Committee voted on each one individually. All votes were unanimous.

2

3

Decisions Reached:

● Budget: Reallocate $70,000 of FLAP Matching Funds from 2020 to 2019 . ● Special Events / Flex Space: Pursue the Open concept . ● Snow Melt: Install in pavement snow melt system tubing through high traffic corridors of the

restroom platform. Install snow melt boiler if funds are available. ● Solar Panels: Include rooftop mounted solar panels to capture as much energy as possible on

the restroom building. Consider location, cost, and generation potential for ground mounted tracking solar panel clusters. Provide visualizations of ground mounted panels at 70% plans.

● Sustainability: Design restroom building to meet or exceed LEED principles. ● Security: Consider the use of cameras and call boxes throughout the restroom platform and

parking area. Consider the feasibility of connecting the camera system into RFTA’s existing network and the call boxes into the County Sheriff’s Office.

Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) and Park and Ride Name David Pesnichak - Transportation Administrator As a part of the EOTC budget, $450,000 has been allocated for 2019 to design and install a DMS on upvalley Highway 82. This sign is to be installed downvalley of the Brush Creek Park and Ride in order to convey messages to drivers related to parking, congestion, bus and vehicle travel times, and emergency situations. The goal is to encourage drivers to utilize the Brush Creek Park and Ride to either carpool or utilize the free bus to either Snowmass or Aspen. Mr. Pesnichak explained that this item was discussed by the EOTC at their March 21, 2019 meeting, where several decisions were made as listed below.

● Pursue a “butterfly” design. ● Standardize the name to Brush Creek Park and Ride. ● Reallocate $400,000 for construction from 2020 to 2019 in order to allow the project to

move ahead as soon as possible. ● Go back to each jurisdiction with the following information to make a decision on

whether an 18 or 26-foot wide sign is appropriate: ○ Visualizations of both the 18-foot and 26-foot butterfly design sign. ○ Full list of messages to show how the messages are impacted by an 18-foot sign

vs. a 26-foot sign.

Mr. Pesnichak explained that as a result of the follow-up meetings after the March 21 EOTC meeting, it became clear that further discussion was necessary regarding the proposed location of the DMS. As a result, it is necessary that the EOTC discuss the staff recommended location of the DMS further before pursuing the project further. The EOTC voted on the location of the DMS, which was unanimous. Decision Reached: Locate the DMS approximately 1 mile downvalley from the Brush Creek Park and Ride, moving the sign as far downvalley as possible (likely a couple hundred feet) and still maintain adequate sight distance. Examine coating options as permitted by CDOT to soften the look of the plain steel structure.

3

4

VI. UPDATES & FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS

● EOTC Retreat - David Pesnichak - Transportation Administrator Feedback provided by Committee: Provide packet of materials prior to retreat, extend planned time for the retreat to 4pm.

● Town of Snowmass Village Transit Station Update - David Peckler - Town of Snowmass Village, Transportation Director

● RFTA Ballot Measure 7A and RFTA Board Retreat - David Johnson - RFTA, Director of Planning

4

5

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY

EOTC MEETING DATE: October 17, 2019

AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EOTC Retreat Report and Next Steps

STAFF RESPONSIBLE: David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator

ISSUE STATEMENT: On August 7, 2019, the EOTC held a 1-day retreat. The retreat facilitator, Stephanie Zaza, compiled a final report that contains a summary of the day, including key discussion points, recommendations and compilation of raw feedback. Staff are requesting any comments and/or feedback on the report to ensure that this record is accurate. In addition, with the retreat and report complete, Staff will review the next steps and moving forward based on the direction from the retreat.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of the retreat was to develop strategic planning elements that will guide future EOTC efforts. The goals of the retreat were to:

1. Establish a baseline understanding of the EOTC purpose, requirements, structure, fundingand operations;

2. Identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats facing the EOTC today, and3. Create a priority list of themes, major topics, and projects to help guide the EOTC’s next

steps and vision.

The retreat was broken into three main sections in order to accomplish these goals:

1. Presentation by the Regional Transportation Administrator:• EOTC history, accomplishments, current operating procedures• Budget and decision-making• Entrance to Aspen Record of Decision overview

2. Strengths, Opportunities and Challenges Analysis3. Identification and Prioritization of Transportation Projects and Themes

While a significant amount of information was collected and documented during the retreat that work toward the development of a full strategic plan, direction from the Committee was clearly to focus initially on 1) EOTC governance and decision making, and 2) updating EOTC plans and governance documents.

With this direction, Staff recommends the following approach in 2020.

- EOTC governance and decision making – Led by the jurisdictional managers with the support ofEOTC staff, each elected body will work to identify recommendations to address the decisionmaking process. While discussions will be with the individual bodies, the managers and EOTC

5

6

staff will ensure coordination across all three jurisdictions. The purpose of these conversations are to vet options and address the decision making process. Conversations are anticipated to begin in the winter of 2019 / 2020. The full EOTC will have the opportunity to review and discuss the decision making update at the March 2020 meeting.

- Develop Strategic Plan – Utilizing the information received from the EOTC retreat, EOTC Staffwill draft a strategic plan and outline key policies for EOTC consideration. Development of thestrategic plan is to take place simultaneously with the decision-making policies update. This draftplan and decision-making policies update will be reviewed in a dedicated EOTC meeting inMarch 2020.

- Update Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (CVTP) – Following agreement on a newEOTC strategic plan, the EOTC will dive into an update to the CVTP. Due to the nature of theCVTP, Staff recommends this document be updated in a mini-retreat to be held in either thesummer or fall of 2020 depending on the progress of the strategic plan.

Looking out to 2021, Staff foresees the following steps to continue building from the strategic plan, decision-making process discussions and updated CVTP:

- Update EOTC 1993 IGA based on new strategic plan, updated CVTP, and updated decision-making policies.

- Develop new budget framework based on new strategic plan, policies, and updated CVTP. Thisframework is anticipated to reinforce, amend, or replace the existing Savings Fund structure.

Attached is the final report submitted by the EOTC retreat facilitator, Stephanie Zaza. In addition, a draft 2020 / 2021 EOTC Work Plan and Meeting Schedule is attached. This Work Plan is anticipated to accompany the 2020 EOTC budget and has been included to illustrate how the strategic plan, decision-making, and CVTP conversations fit with other obligations for the EOTC in the coming years.

BUDGETARY IMPACT: None. For review and feedback only.

RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Provide comments and/or feedback on the EOTC retreat report to ensure that this record is

accurate.2. Provide comments and/or feedback on the staff suggested next steps following the EOTC

retreat.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Retreat report submitted by EOTC retreat facilitator, Stephanie Zaza.2. 2020 Draft EOTC Work Plan and Meeting Schedule

6

7

Elected Officials Transportation Committee Pitkin County, Colorado

Report of August 7, 2019 Strategic Planning Retreat

Submitted by Facilitator Stephanie Zaza August 29, 2019

Attachment 1

7

8

Attachment 1

8

9

EOTC Retreat Report August 29, 2019

1

Background This facilitation agreement was to accomplish a 1-day strategic planning retreat with the 15-member Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC). The EOTC is comprised of the Pitkin County Commissioners, the Aspen City Council, and the Snowmass Village Town Council (5 members each). The EOTC was formed in 1993 to oversee the implementation of a 0.05% sales and use tax provided for mass transportation activities in the upper Roaring Fork Valley.

The sponsor of the retreat is the Regional Transportation Administrator, David Pesnichak, in collaboration with the three jurisdictions’ managers and transportation leads. The EOTC sought to improve both their governance processes and strategic decision-making capabilities. The first step in this improvement was to hold a special all-day meeting (i.e., a retreat) of the EOTC, the goals of which were to:

1. Establish a baseline understanding among the EOTC members of the EOTC purpose,requirements, structure, funding and operations;

2. Identify the strengths, opportunities and challenges facing the EOTC today; and,3. Create a priority list of themes, major topics, and/or projects to help guide the EOTC’s next

steps and vision.

Retreat Preparation Preparation for the retreat (January – July 2019) included a series of meetings to clarify the goals, identify the types of activities to best meet those goals and that would be acceptable to the EOTC members, and develop the agenda. Each discussion led to important clarifications and refinements of the agenda which was finalized and reviewed with the EOTC members during their regular meeting in June 2019. The final agenda is attached (Attachment A), and included three segments:

1. Presentation by the Regional Transportation Administrator:

• EOTC history, accomplishments, current operating procedures

• Budget and decision-making

• Entrance to Aspen Record Of Decision overview2. Strengths, Opportunities and Challenges Analysis3. Identification and Prioritization of Transportation Projects and Themes

In addition to the agenda, the Regional Transportation Administrator prepared a substantial package of written materials (https://pitkincoco.civicclerk.com/Web/GenFile.aspx?ad=6339) providing information similar to the planned presentation topics and adding important demographic information about the Roaring Fork Valley. These written materials were provided as pre-retreat reading materials to the EOTC members 10 days prior to the retreat.

Retreat Participants The retreat was held on August 7, 2019. Participants included EOTC members, jurisdictional managers, and jurisdictional staff with transportation-related duties. Guests included leadership staff from the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA), Aspen Skiing Company and members of the public. Staff and guests were invited to participate in the exercises. There was no public comment period. The participant list is attached (Attachment B).

Attachment 1

9

10

https://pitkincoco.civicclerk.com/Web/GenFile.aspx?ad=6339


2

Summary of and Findings from Retreat Session 1: Presentation The presentation was well-received and served to provide level-setting information to the diverse membership of the EOTC, some members of which have extensive experience and familiarity with transportation issues and the history of the EOTC, and some members of which are new to government service and decision-making about transportation issues. The presentation session offered the opportunity for clarifying questions and answers, and the EOTC members took advantage of this time to help each other understand the relevant issues facing the EOTC. Session 2: Strengths/Opportunities/Challenges Analysis The Strengths/Opportunities/Challenges session included three segments. First, participants were asked to work individually to think about 1) why they ran for office; 2) their highest priority for accomplishment during this term of office; and 3) how transportation is related to that priority. This exercise was not meant to result in information shared with other participants, but to get each EOTC member thinking about how transportation issues are related to most other responsibilities and jurisdictional business. The EOTC-member participants were then divided into three small groups of 4 or 5 members each. Staff and guests were invited to form a fourth group. These small groups were asked to spend 30 minutes discussing the strengths, opportunities, and challenges facing the EOTC and to document their discussion on a simple worksheet. Small groups were reminded to consider both internal and external issues, and to consider the regional nature of transportation issues in the Roaring Fork Valley. For the final segment, all the participants re-convened and each small group reported their findings which were documented on flip charts. The discussion of the full group included consolidating the findings across groups. The discussion is summarized; tables with the specific responses are provided in Attachment C, Tables 1-3.

Strengths: Several responses indicated a history of recognizing and appreciating the regional nature of transportation as a strength of the EOTC. The development and strong history of a regional transportation authority with high levels of current support, the regional nature of the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan, a common purpose to address quality of life were provided as examples of this strength. The governance, leadership, and staffing of the EOTC were also identified as a strength, with dedication and a history of multi-jurisdictional decision-making provided as examples. A third strength, history and legacy, expanded on these ideas, with the extant governing documents, and history of successful action, consensus and agreement provided as examples. Finally, the existence of a stable funding source and structure was identified as an important strength.

Opportunities: The EOTC had a rich conversation about opportunities that was modified by the recognition that each opportunity also poses numerous challenges. They also recognized that many of the strengths identified above also serve to open opportunities for future action. In particular the strengths of a regional approach, a strong staff and governance structure, and a history of success provide opportunities to expand regional thinking and projects, improve governance especially in the area of strategic decision-making and priority-setting, and working with staff to review and update governing documents where needed.

Attachment 1

10

11


3

In addition, opportunities in the areas of emerging technology, improved communication, and the use of multiple transportation modalities to change behavior were highlighted in the discussion. Specific areas of opportunity, such as improving airport connectivity and taking advantage of excellent Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) resources were also raised. Challenges: Each of the opportunities above also generated discussion about the challenges posed to accomplish work in those areas. For example, expanding the EOTC to include broader regional input and/or representation requires difficult changes to governance and relationship-building. Expanding first/last mile transportation connectivity is critical to change people’s behavior but can be difficult to implement, and behavior change is – in and of itself – difficult to accomplish. While the EOTC’s governance has been a strength and was recognized as an opportunity to accomplish even more, the ongoing challenge of clarifying how decisions are made was recognized as an important first step, especially when determining how to “complete” the work of improving the Entrance to Aspen within the confines of the current Record of Decision. In addition, unique challenges were identified. Changes to the EOTC funding and the expense of remaining projects are a challenge, as are the challenge of Roaring Fork Valley topography, and newer emphases on resiliency, emergency management, and climate-change.

Unprompted, the participants recognized several themes that cut across the strengths, opportunities, and challenges they face:

• Regionalism

• Governance

• Funding (internal/external)

• Community-wide outreach/communication

• Technology

• Behavioral change

• Entrance to Aspen o Funding o Record of Decision o Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan

• Resiliency

• Multi-modal methods

• 1st/Last mile

• Environmental impacts and improvements And finally, several issues were highlighted as constituting values and/or decision-making criteria rather than strengths, opportunities or challenges per se. EOTC members reiterated that they want to assure that their decisions consider:

• The quality of life of residents

• A top-line experience for visitors

• Community resilience in emergencies

• Care of the environment

Attachment 1

11

12


4

• Equity of access, proximity, cost, ease, and convenience to meet the transportation needs of all people

• The entire region’s needs

• Aesthetics appropriate to the natural environment

• Practicality and feasibility

• A holistic approach recognizing the relationship of transportation to other goals Session 3: Transportation Project Identification, Categorization, and Prioritization The final session of the retreat also included three segments. First, the participants were again asked to work individually. Given a small Post-It™ notepad, each member was asked to write down as many EOTC-related or transportation projects as possible, one per note. They were reminded to consider the work from Session 2 – especially the themes they identified, and the criteria for identifying and selecting projects that emerged from the conversation. The small groups then reconvened for 30 minutes to share their individual ideas, group them into themes, and name each theme. Each group placed the related Post-It™ notes on a single flip chart page and wrote the theme across the top. The flip chart pages were then posted around the room. During the final segment of this session, each small group reported their themes and individual projects. The full group of participants then worked to consolidate the themes and re-group the individual projects. Five major themes emerged, with multiple projects listed under each theme. Sub-groups of projects shown in the tables below were created by the facilitator following the retreat, in order to provide a summary. Comprehensive lists of the specific projects as described by the participants are provided in Attachment D, Themes 1-5.

1. Projects that address EOTC Governance fell into 6 sub-groups; the sub-groups and number of specific projects mentioned (including duplicates) are shown.

Specify the EOTC decision-making process 8

Restructure the EOTC budget 6

Regionalize the EOTC 4

Create an EOTC executive committee 3

Market transportation-related decision making 2

Restructure the EOTC meeting schedule 1

2. Projects requiring the Revision of Existing Plans and Governing Documents fell into 3 sub-

groups; the sub-groups and number of specific projects mentioned (including duplicates) are shown.

Revise the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (CVTP) 9

• Include airport-specific plans 2

• Include holistic approach with zoning 2

Complete the Entrance to Aspen Improvements 5

Create separate regional plan and ways to influence 3

Attachment 1

12

13


5

3. Projects that attempt to Change Behavior by Providing New/Alternative Modes of Transportation fell into 3 sub-groups; the sub-groups and number of specific projects mentioned (including duplicates) are shown.

4. Infrastructure projects were numerous, many suggested by staff. Several sub-groups emerged:

Improve roads, lanes, bridges, and parking lots 9

Implement electrification infrastructure (buses, personnel, charging stations)

5

Implement specific improvements at the airport 4

5. Pedestrian and Bicycle projects were suggested to achieve the goal of fully walkable Aspen and Snowmass Village cores:

Bike-specific improvements 4

Trail and connectivity improvements 4

Bus-specific improvements to enhance walking-biking 2

The session concluded with each EOTC member identifying her/his top two priorities among the 5 theme areas. The results of this exercise were:

Themes Priority Votes

Governance projects 11

Plans and Governing Documents projects 9

Mode Shift/Behavior Change projects 4

Infrastructure projects 3

Pedestrian and Bike projects 0

Create incentives by:

• Improving Park-and-Ride lots 4

• Using technology and apps to shift modes 4

• Increasing ridesharing options 3

• Providing on-demand services and shuttles 2

• Focusing on first/last mile 2

• Expanding Downtowner 1

Create disincentives (paired with a project to create incentives) by:

• Enforcing HOV lane restrictions 2

• Discouraging school driving 1

Improve knowledge through communications, marketing, and market segmentation

5

Attachment 1

13

14


6

Recommendations

1. The output from the retreat provides a substantial base of information from which the RegionalTransportation Administrator can begin drafting a strategic plan. An analysis of the retreat outputcan be used to develop the following elements of a strategic plan:

• Mission Statement: The existing mission statement was provided and discussed, without astrong need for revising the statement identified.

• Mid- to Long-Term Vision: The highest priority transportation needs identified were reviewingand revising (where necessary) the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan, and the relatedwork of “completing” the Entrance to Aspen improvements. Issues of creating options thatincentivize behavior change were also frequently identified as important and should be builtinto revised plans. At the same time, the EOTC recognizes that work on more immediateprojects will generate community buy-in and support. These elements could be crafted into a 5-year vision statement for the EOTC’s consideration.

• Values and Criteria for Decision-Making: Especially during the Strengths, Opportunities, andChallenges exercises, the EOTC raised several issues that can be used to articulate the valuesimportant to transportation decision-making. These can be crafted into specific “guidingprinciples,” “values,” or “decision-making criteria” that can be included in a strategic plan.

• Goals, Strategies and Tactics: During the session to identify and set priorities among EOTC-governance projects and transportation-specific projects, the EOTC members providednumerous ideas that can be sorted into goals, strategies and tactics. These initial ideas can befurther shaped into specific goals, strategies, and prioritized lists of projects. To monitorprogress, measurable objectives should be developed at the strategy level, and outcomemeasures and milestones at the tactical level.

• Implementation Plan: The retreat did not result in a specific timeline for activities, but anannual implementation plan can be developed based on the priorities set by the EOTCmembers.

2. The emphasis and priority placed on improving the EOTC governance, especially with regard todecision-making structure and process, can be addressed through the process of developing thestrategic plan.

• Use a structured decision-making process to clarify:o The staff role to analyze and present options and operational considerations; ando The EOTC role to provide a decision based on that analysis

• Once comfortable with the structured decision-making process, create a schedule to addressupcoming decisions. The 5-year strategic plan and implementation plan will consist of all theprevious elements, plus this schedule. Update the plan with respect to successes each year.

Attachment 1

14

15

A-1

Attachment A

EOTC Retreat Agenda August 7, 2019

Aspen Meadows Resort

Time Topic Outcome

8:15-8:30 Gathering, coffee, mingling

8:30-8:45 Introductions, Overview of Retreat agenda, Ground Rules Participants agree to process and expected outputs of the day’s work

8:45-10:00

Presentation

• EOTC History, Accomplishments

• Current Operating Procedures and Role of NewCoordinator

• ETA ROD overview

• Environmental scan

1. Participants are familiar withthe purpose, requirements,structure, funding andoperations of the EOTC

2. Participants have anenvironmental scan to useduring the SOC analysis

10:00-10:15 Break

10:15-12:30

Strengths/Opportunities/Challenges (SOC) Analysis

• Individual work (10 minutes): Personal vision

• Small group work (30 minutes): SOC

• Full group (90 minutes):o Report out from small groupso Consolidate and prioritize within each SOC category

1. Main categories of strengths,opportunities and challenges

2. Specific strengths,opportunities, and challengeswithin each category

12:30-1:00 Lunch

1:00-1:15 Review SOC and how to use it for the next exercise

The SOC will be well understood as a tool for identifying a priority goal and transportation projects to achieve that goal

1:15-3:45

Identification of Transportation Projects and Themes

• Individual work (10 minutes): Write top 5 – 8 veryspecific transportation projects on sticky notes

• Small groups (30 minutes): sort and group sticky notesinto themes – give each group a theme title; postthemes and projects around the room; consolidateacross groups

• Full group (105 minutes): prioritize themes and projects

1. Participants produce a prioritylist of themes/major topics thatcan be used by staff to developa strategic vision statement

2. Participants produce a prioritylist of projects that can be usedas a starting point for EOTCfuture decision-making

3:45-4:00 Wrap-Up and Next Steps

Facilitator will provide a summary of the day’s work and outline of next steps to be executed by staff and EOTC members

Attachment 1

15

16

A-2

Attachment 1

16

17

B-1

Attachment B

EOTC Retreat Participants

Category Name Title

EOTC Member

Tom Goode Bill Madsen Alyssa Shenk Bob Sirkus

Town of Snowmass Village – Council Members

Steve Child Patti Clapper Kelly McNicholas Kury George Newman Greg Poschman

Pitkin County – County Commissioners

Torre Ward Hauenstein Ann Mullins Skippy Mesirow Rachel Richards

City of Aspen – Council Members

Staff and Invited Guests

Trish Aragon City of Aspen – City Engineer

Dan Blankenship RFTA – CEO

David Johnson RFTA – Planning Director

Clint Kinney Town of Snowmass Village – Town Manager

John Krueger City of Aspen – Director of Transportation

Michael Miracle Aspen Skiing Company – Director of Community Engagement

Mitch Osur City of Aspen – Director of Parking and Downtown Services

Sara Ott City of Aspen – City Manager

Jon Peacock Pitkin County – County Manager

David Pesnichak EOTC – Regional Transportation Administrator

Kara Silbernogal Pitkin County – Policy and Project Manager

Michael Yang RFTA – Chief Financial & Administrative Officer

Members of the Public

Toni Kronberg Eduard Oliemans

Attachment 1

17

18

B-2

Attachment 1

18

19

C-1

Attachment C Strengths, Opportunities and Challenges

Raw Input from Session 2

Table 1. Consolidated Strengths by Theme

Theme Individual Responses

Regional Approach

Regionalism/understanding that regional needs are similar

RTA, RFTA, passage of issue 7A, extant park-and-ride lots

History of the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan

Common purpose to focus on quality of life for residents and visitors

Contribution of WeCycle

New CDOT executive director

Governance, Leadership and Staffing

Independent regional transportation coordinator + jurisdictional staff

Leadership

Dedication of staff and elected officials

History of multijurisdictional decision-making

History and Legacy Legacy/history of successful action, consensus and agreement

Existence of Records of Decision

Funding Source and Structure

Existing stable funding source

Structure of sales and use tax

Attachment 1

19

20

C-2

Table 2: Consolidated Opportunities by Theme


Regional Approach

Grand Avenue “experiment” (getting people to use bus during bridge replacement)

Housing near workplace

Explore RFTA as multimodal solution

EOTC improve multi-modal all options

Regionalism

Unified regional agreement on priorities

Technology

Electrification and advancing on climate goals

Technology innovations

Apps

Broadband and telecommuting

Communications Consistency in messaging

Better public awareness and building community awareness

Governance

Create executive EOTC committee

Include downvalley municipalities

Leadership and history

EOTC decision process/prioritization for projects and $$

Group policy direction regarding transportation and more

Governing Documents

Update comprehensive plan

Complete Entrance to Aspen

Multi-modal entrance to Aspen

HOV Lane opportunity for other vehicles

Airport Connectivity

Shared airport shuttles/luggage

Address airport connectivity

Airport improvement process

Mode Shift

Commuter trails, electric bikes/safety

Mode shift goal

Destination specific shuttles

1st/last miles

Opportunities for experiment (downtowner)

Coordinate taxi companies

Improving commuter/skier use at Buttermilk

Tiehack bridge and school traffic

Pet/family friendly for commuters (strollers/pets and transit)

Behavioral psychologists

Upper valley mobility plan and EOTC

Behavior change

CDOT CDOT funds for multi-modal

CDOT 2040 plan and need in the plan

Attachment 1

20

21

C-3

Table 3. Consolidated Challenges by Theme


Regional Approach

Housing near workplace; dispersed work locations

Growth; private property valley-wide

Brush Creek P&R future

Buy-in/collaboration down valley (including $)

Not inclusive of all jurisdictions (representative of all users of EtoA)

River Road, McClain flats and others not in plan

Valley-wide congestion

Regionalism

Lack of clarity on various community’s will/priorities

Snowmass connectivity (down and up valley)

Behavior Change <--> Mode Shift

1st/last miles

Process of behavior change; different life circumstances

Framing of various transportation efforts

Trade worker behaviors

Community workforce

Mode shift and unintended consequences/induced demand

Funding changes

EOTC relevance and use tax changes

Costs of electrification

New state law – use/sales tax collection rules

How EOTC funds are split/lock box

Lock box concept vs EOTC mission

EOTC decision-making Federal leadership/consistency

EOTC governance/decision-making

Resiliency Winter access/egress

Do emergency management needs change environmental conditions for ROD

Topography Topography

Entrance to Aspen School traffic

Funding and political will

Attachment 1

21

22

C-4

Attachment 1

22

23

D-1

Attachment D Specific Projects by Theme

Raw Input from Session 3 and Sub-Theme Analysis

Original projects were identified by individual EOTC members and subsequently grouped into themes through the small group and full group facilitated projects. Sub-themes were derived and assigned by the facilitator/consultant following the retreat to provide a summary report and are shown here for transparency, review and reassignment as desired by the EOTC and staff.

Theme 1: Governance

Original Individual Projects Sub-Themes

Increase EOTC transparency to public (i.e., purpose, successes, challenges, CVTP, etc) Market the EOTC More press releases and activity about transportation

Bring new entities into EOTC without duplicating RFTA; regional EOTC valley-wide

Regionalize the EOTC Encourage other municipalities to join EOTC

Scope of RFTA

Include other jurisdictions (down valley)

Governance/exec board or advisory board

Create EOTC Executive Committee Executive committee to meet more often for EOTC

Create executive committee and working groups

Evaluate internal collections changes (change 81.04/18.96% formula…)

Restructure EOTC Budget Process

Savings/decision making

Better idea of where the money will come from for all these ideas

Funding priorities

Future of EOTC re change to funding

Budget/lockbox

Decision making

Specify EOTC decision-making process

Future of EOTC re changes of purpose

Structure

Governance improvement for decision making

Decision making process

EOTC board as final authority body

Prioritize transportation projects

Set and agree on priorities (operational and capital)

Create shared goals with respect to mode shift and regional plans

Meet more often to hash out goals, future plans (more than 4 times a year)

Restructure EOTC meeting schedule

Don’t forget the Brush Creek IGA ?

Governance N/A

Attachment 1

23

24

D-2

Theme 2: Plans and Documents

ETA proceed with ROD: bargain/compromise with transit/autos similar to successful parkway rail/parkway vote, including improvements for drivers and transit

Complete the Entrance to Aspen Improvements

Entrance to Aspen

Prep work for CDOT 2040 for Entrance to Aspen

Determine a clear direction for the ETA

ETA final design

Convene an EOTC process to review and compare our current master plan with the upper valley mobility report and include 1 proponent of big innovation and 1 of historical reality → outcome → newly aligned master plan

Revise CVTP

Revisit/revise CVTP (regionalism)

Review/rewrite CVTP

Re-evaluate update the CVTP

CVTP update

Update CVTP to reflect current reality and projections

Realign governing documents into new prioritized plan with projects

Examine and update CVTP and governing docs

Utilize community forum recommendations for 5-year planning infrastructure for 10+ year planning

Transportation at new airport: options, minimal impact on traffic and environment; efficient and many others

Revise CVTP (include airport-specific plans)

Influence a great airport transportation plan

Link land use to transportation planning Revise CVTP (include holistic approach to zoning) CVTP in relation to regional housing

Identify non-EOTC jurisdiction improvements that are critical for the success of regional system. Estimate their cost and their value to the greater system as a way to think about cost-sharing

Create separate Regional plan and ways to influence

Regional first/last mile planning (or investments)

Coordinate transit efforts with downvalley activities

Induced demand: real of fake news? Implications on traffic, congestion, parking and quality of life

Misc

To fix/solve the public transit paradox (the more successful public transit becomes the more chronic stress is placed on downtown Aspen)

ROD

Evaluate up valley Maroon Creek roundabout BRT dropoff

Strike the “/or” from mission statement of EOTC

Identify equity obstacles (e.g., people with private parking in Aspen) (Criteria/values) Climate action plan in guiding principles

Attachment 1

24

25

D-3

Theme 3: Mode Shift and Behavior Change

Make the intercept lot a place you want to stop and need what it offers

Create incentives (P&R) Increased usage of Brush Creek P&R – yielding less traffic and congestion and less demand on parking

Encourage facilitate utilizing park-n-rides

Amenities at the intercept lot

Mode shift/plans: destination specific shuttles; shared hotel shuttles; manage/discourage school driving Create incentives (Shuttles)

On demand services

Last mile options Create incentives (first/last mile)

First mile last mile connection

HOV lane enforcement with ridesharing app

Create incentives (ridesharing) Ride sharing

Ride hailing

Expand downtowner Create incentives (Downtowner)

Integrated apps for transit/modal user

Create incentives (tech/apps) App to see and pay for transportation

Real time reliable bus connectivity via transit app

Use RFTA tech experience to build apps for transport infrastructure

Discourage school driving Create disincentives (School driving)

HOV enforcement Create disincentives (HOV enforcement) HOV lane enforcement with ridesharing app

Mode shift/communication

Improve knowledge (Communications and Marketing)

Communication: create public buy-in/understanding of shared goals and change sacrifices needed

Better understand who we are trying to impact

Examination of motivating behaviors of transportation users and redirection options

Social engineering: how to make people change behaviors to advance goals of EOTC

Tragedy of the commons; the wages of success (price of inaction) ?

To fix the public transit paradox (= the more successful public transit becomes the more chronic stress is placed on Aspen’s downtown streets

?

Build happiness into transit

(criteria/values) Balancing growth driven tourism $ regarding economy with limited resources degraded quality of life

Quality of life valley-wide

Attachment 1

25

26

D-4

Theme 4: Infrastructure

Fleet electrician

Implement electrification infrastructure (buses, personnel, charging stations)

Autonomous vehicles buses

Electric vehicles

EV charging stations

Successful implementation of better electric buses

Build/convert transit stop at airport to Aspen and Snowmass

Implement specific improvements at the airport

Create baggage drop system for airport

Create a shuttle between airport and Aspen/Snowmass to replace hotel vans

AABC/Airport to/from Aspen core (and SMV) frequency and convenience

Better use of existing bus lanes in and out of Aspen

Improve roads, lanes, bridges, and parking lots

Cemetery lane roundabout

New bridge

Identification and prioritization process for TSP/queue jumps at congested intersections

Brush Creek parking expansion with higher frequency shuttle service to/from Aspen and SMV

8th Street/Maroon Creek transfer find solution

Extend car 4-lane from ABC to Buttermilk light (Basalt to Buttermilk ROD)

Bigger and better P&R lots downvalley (Aspen Village, Old Snowmass, Two Rivers West, Catherine, ??)

Pursue new ROD: split S curves solution to entrance outbound on existing inbound or near access Marolt (Entrance to Aspen ROD)

Theme 5: Pedestrian/Bike Projects

Dogs, bikes and strollers for buses Bus-specific improvements to enhance walking-biking First and last mile solutions to all BRT stations

Electric WeCycle

Bike-specific improvements WeCycle station at Buttermilk

WeCycle e-bike transition

Increased safe usage of e-bikes not only for 1st and last mile

Allowed uses of Rio Grande Trail

Trail and connectivity improvements Buttermilk to Truscott bike/ped trail on upvalley side

Buttermilk underpass

Brush Creek P&R connector to ABC trail system

Elderly last mile options (criteria/values)

Explore how to arrive at a fully walkable Aspen/SMV core with equity and convenience; including bike and electric on demand shuttle

(goals)

Attachment 1

26

27

EOTC Work Plan and Meeting Schedule2020

Action Responsible Party Timeline Expected Outcome

Development of Strategic Plan

Initial Development: Staff Amendment/Approval: EOTC

- Spring 2020 Mtg.- All Year

Develop a Strategic Plan for EOTC

Develop Updated Decision Making Policies

EOTC w/ Jurisdiction Managers and EOTC Staff

Winter 2019/2020 Develop Updated EOTC Decision Making Policies

Update Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (CVTP)

EOTC w/ Staff Support - Summer/Fall 2020Mini-Retreat

- All Year

Develop Updated CVTP

Pursue EOTC Budget Mitigation

Staff w/ EOTC Guidance - Fall 2020 Mtg.- All Year

Determine Feasible Option to Mitigate the Effects of Sales and Use Tax Collection Changes.

Brush Creek PnR:

70% and 95% FLAP Plan Review

Develop Vision Profile

Develop Operations Plan

Update Cost Analysis

EOTC w/ Staff Support

EOTC w/ Staff Support

Staff w/ EOTC Guidance

Staff w/ EOTC Guidance

70% Review: Spring 2020 95% Review: Fall 2020

Spring 2020

All Year

All Year

Review and Approve Brush Creek PnR Plans for 2021 Construction.

Develop Vision for Brush Creek PnR

Develop Operations Plan Based on FLAP Plans and Vision Discussion.

Update Cost Analysis for 2021 Budget Cycle to Include FLAP Improvements

Develop Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) Operations and Management Plan

Staff Prior to DMS Installation Develop DMS Operations and Management Plan for Ongoing Operations.

Participate in Snowmass Transit Center, Airport, and Regional Transportation Planning / Visioning

Staff and EOTC, as Appropriate All Year Participate in Transportation Related Planning and Visioning, as Appropriate.

Attachment 2

27

28

2021


Continue / Finalize Strategic Plan and CVTP, as necessary

EOTC w/ Staff Support All Year, as Needed Finalize Strategic Plan and CVTP

Update EOTC IGA based on Strategic Plan and Incorporate Updated CVTP


All Year Update 1993 EOTC IGA Based on Updated Strategic Plan and CVTP

Develop Budget Framework based on Strategic Plan and CVTP


All Year Develop Budget Framework to Guide EOTC Spending Based on Updated Strategic Plan and CVTP

Participate in Snowmass Transit Center, Brush Creek PnR Development, Airport, and regional transportation planning / visioning


2020 Work Schedule and Meeting DatesRegular Meetings:

March 19, 2020 (Snowmass) - Strategic Plan Focus April 30, 2020 (PitCo) - Brush Creek PnR Focus (70% Plans and Visioning) October 29, 2020 (Aspen) - Budget Focus

Mini-Retreat: Summer/Fall - Strategic Plan and CVTP Focus

Fall / Winter 2020: Additional EOTC Meeting, if necessary, to complete CVTP and Strategic Plan / Release of Draft Strategic Plan and CVTP

Attachment 2

28

29

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY


AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Proposed 2020 Budget


ISSUE STATEMENT: Attached for review and approval is the Proposed 2020 Budget. The routine line items and new requests for the Proposed 2020 Budget are discussed below. In addition, this memo discusses the impacts and recommended next steps to respond to the changes in State law regarding sales and use tax collections.

BACKGROUND: As the EOTC is aware, HB19-1240 - Sales and Use Tax Administration - came into effect on June 1, 2019. This new State law is the result of the Supreme Court South Dakota vs. Wayfair decision that requires all retailers, including out-of-state retailers that do not have a physical presence in Colorado, to collect state and local sales tax at the point of delivery.

With retailers now collecting at the point of delivery, there will be less collection of use taxes and increased collections in sales taxes. While this new law is likely to result in an overall increase in sales tax revenues at the jurisdictional level, it has significant implications to the EOTC budget and use tax appropriations. As a reminder, EOTC sales and use tax revenues have the following distribution:

• EOTC retains 100% of funds generated by the Transit Use Tax• EOTC retains only 18.96% from the Transit Sales Tax – the remaining 81.04% is

allocated to RFTA per the 2004 ballot measure

As a result of this distribution, the anticipated decline in use tax revenues will be entirely shown in the EOTC budget while only a portion of the increase in sales tax revenues will be reflected. Since 81.04% of the Transit Sales Tax revenue is allocated to RFTA per a voter-approved measure, any change to this allocation will require an additional vote.

As the law just went into effect June 1, 2019, Staff only has a couple months of sales and use tax data to make predictions for the 2020 budget year. With the delays in tax reporting from the State, the first indicators of the impact started to come available in mid-August 2019. Based on the changes seen to date, between 2018 and 2020 we are anticipating a 63% decrease in use tax revenues and a 12.7% increase in sales tax revenues to the 0.5% Transit Sales and Use Tax.

29

30

EOTC Revenue Sources – 2018 & 2020

Revenue

Destination 2018 Revenue 2020 Revenue Dollar

Change Percent Change

Pitkin County 0.5% Transit Sales Tax

RFTA (81.04%)

$4,594,862 $5,178,410 $583,548 12.7%

EOTC (18.96%)

$1,075,007 $1,211,533 $136,526 12.7%

Pitkin County 0.5% Transit Use Tax

EOTC $1,484,002 $550,000 - $934,002 - 63%

Investment Income

EOTC $166,211 $252,213 $86,002 51.7%

Total EOTC Annual Revenues

EOTC $2,725,220 $2,013,746 - $711,474 - 26.1%

Note: For comparison purposes, 2019 was not included since the law went into effect mid-year.

$0.00

$1,000,000.00

$2,000,000.00

$3,000,000.00

$4,000,000.00

$5,000,000.00

$6,000,000.00

$7,000,000.00

2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

EOTC Revenues Compared to RFTA 1/2% Pitkin County Transit Sales Tax (81.04%) Revenues

Note: 2019 - 2024 are projected revenues

Transit 1/2% Sales Tax - RFTA (81.04%) Transit 1/2% Sales Tax - EOTC (18.96%)

Transit 1/2% Use Tax - EOTC (100%) EOTC Investment Income

Total EOTC Revenues

30

31

The calculations above are the County’s formal projections developed in conjunction with its Financial Advisory Board. Use tax collections have been notoriously volatile. Due to the changes in the sales and use tax collection laws and the small amount of historical data available to make predictions for the 2020 budget year and beyond, abnormally large swings in both sales and use tax collection predictions can be expected in the coming years.

2020 Budget Options and Recommended Direction

As has been discussed, the EOTC is expecting a decrease in annual revenues at approximately $711,000 (26.1%) starting in 2020 when compared to funding levels in 2018. When made aware of this upcoming funding decrease in the summer of 2019, Staff has been looking into potential options to mitigate the impacts to the EOTC budget. Some of the options considered include:

1) Backfill EOTC budget from the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and Town of Snowmass Villagebudgets since each of these jurisdictions will be seeing increased revenue from this change inState law.

2) Request that RFTA assume the No-Fare Aspen / Snowmass / Wood Creek service since RFTAwill be seeing an increase in revenue from the 0.5% Transit Sales Tax while the EOTC will beseeing a decrease.

3) Consider ways for the EOTC to cut its budget in order to balance the budget back to 2018 levels.4) Consider ways for the EOTC to continue for one year with existing service levels to further

examine possible mitigation options and gather more data on expected long-term revenue.

When considering these options, the Transportation Administrator considered the below goals in identifying a recommended path forward.

Goals for 2020 Budget Mitigation:

- Meet voter required funding for Town of Snowmass Village Transit Center by year approved by EOTC(2022)

- Maintain programs currently obligated, including:Tax collection, insurance, administrative overhead, and meeting costs Brush Creek Park and Ride maintenance Brush Creek Park and Ride FLAP Grant match No-Fare RFTA bus services (Aspen, Woody Creek, Snowmass) Aspen Country Inn taxi program in lieu of bus stop safety improvements Regional Transportation Administrator position

- Consider cuts to programs actively up for renewal and not currently obligated, including:We-Cycle operational support X-Games bus subsidy

- Make long-term EOTC budget and management simpler as a result of any mitigation.

- Gather as much data as possible to inform any long-term measures.

Staff Recommendation: Based on these goals and options, Staff identified the transfer of the No-Fare bus service to RFTA as the best long-term option. This option is the simplest in terms of the EOTC’s long-term budget management

31

32

while at the same time institutionalizing the no-fare service and minimizing administrative overhead. The other options either heavily restrict the EOTC’s reserves for potential future projects, or required ongoing administrative support and monitoring that becomes increasingly complicated and burdensome over time for all entities involved.

The Transportation Administrator has begun conversations with RFTA staff to initially vet the possibility of RFTA assuming the Aspen / Snowmass / Wood Creek No-Fare service. It is generally understood that the intent of this transfer is to move the financial component of this service from the EOTC where funds are decreasing to RFTA where funding is increasing as a result of this change in State law. While this transfer makes sense in this respect, obtaining buy in from the RFTA board and administering the necessary written agreements require time to complete. In addition, obtaining a few months of additional data on sales and use tax revenues will help better inform these conversations.

As one can see from the preliminary budget, the expected increase in revenue to RFTA in 2020 over 2018 from the 0.5% Transit Sales Tax revenue is $583,548 while the expected cost of the No-Fare Aspen / Wood Creek / Snowmass service is expected to be $690,075 – a gap of $106,527.

As a result of this funding gap, RFTA and EOTC Staff have been discussing options to make the arrangement revenue neutral to RFTA. If the EOTC supports this approach to transfer the service obligation, Staff will continue to examine options over the course of 2020 to fill this funding gap with a goal of resolution in time for the 2021 budget. At this point, EOTC and RFTA Staff feel there is potential to find a solution that benefits both RFTA and the EOTC.

For these reasons, Staff recommends that the EOTC adopt the “Transition” year budget for 2020 (Attachment 2) along with the 2020 EOTC Work Plan (Attachment 6). This budget and Work Plan then act as a transition budget as more data is accumulated regarding the impacts of the State law change to sales and use tax collections and allows time for Staff and elected officials to work through the details of RFTA potentially assuming the No-Fare service. These efforts can then serve as the foundation for transitioning to the “Example 2021 EOTC Budget – Use of Savings in 2020 and Long-Term Mitigation (Goal)” budget in 2021 (Attachment 3).

Alternatives: Below are descriptions of potential scenarios to the 2020 EOTC budget, based on the stated goals, including (1) maintaining all existing policies (status quo); (2) a one-year policy deviation to allow use of savings in 2020 (transition); and (3) an example 2021 budget with use of savings in 2020 and long-term mitigation (goal).

“Proposed 2020 EOTC Budget – Maintain All Existing Policies (Status Quo)” (Attachment 1) – This budget shows the predicted impacts to the 2020 EOTC budget should all current policies be adhered to, specifically the distribution of funds “below the line” (EOTC savings). Under this scenario, the renewal requests from We-Cycle and X-Games Bus Subsidy would not be able to be fully funded from 2020 revenues (“above the line”) as is customary and still meet the voter required allocation to the Town of Snowmass Village Transit Center in 2022. In addition, significant negative long-term impacts to the cumulative savings for the EOTC are expected which will similarly have negative impacts on the EOTC’s ability to fund projects in the coming years.

RECOMMENDED: “Proposed 2020 EOTC Budget – One Year Policy Deviation to Use Savings (Transition)” (Attachment 2) – This is anticipated to be a one year transition budget. This budget is intended to allow full “above the line” funding of current renewal requests and allow time for: 1) further data collection on the impacts of the change in sales and use tax collections on the EOTC, and 2) further

32

33

vetting of EOTC budget mitigation including RFTA assuming the No-Fare Aspen / Snowmass / Woody Creek service. The policy deviation allows the EOTC to utilize existing savings to backfill the “above the line” budget and allow for full funding of all requests. The degree of impact for this deviation is approximately $171,000 in the year 2020. This budget does not incorporate mitigation due to a lack of time to get measures in place before budget adoption. However, the adoption of this budget in 2020 along with the EOTC Work Plan builds the bridge to ideally bring the EOTC budget back in good standing by 2021. It is worth noting that Staff does not recommend the EOTC obligate funding for the X Games Bus Subsidy and We-Cycle for more than one year at this time due to the abnormally high degree of uncertainty in out-year revenue predictions. As a result, it is recommended that the EOTC revisit these funding requests as a part of the 2021 budget year. “Example 2021 EOTC Budget – Use of Savings in 2020 and Long-Term Mitigation (Goal)” (Attachment 3) – This budget, ideally adopted in 2021, is the goal year budget. In the long-term this scenario puts the EOTC in a better financial position than was anticipated prior to the recent change in sales and use tax collections. Getting to this point will simplify the EOTC budget by not only eliminating a significant line item but also removing the need for complicated annual calculations to determine what the no-fare share should be to the EOTC. For RFTA, who will be seeing a significant increase in funding as a result of this change in sales and use tax collection, they can manage the service in house and similarly simplify their budgeting process. Adding the No-Fare service in with RFTA’s standard practices also institutionalizes it and takes it from the “experimental” stage funded by the EOTC to standard practice for the upper valley.

Proposed 2020 Budget -Maintain All Existing Policies (Status Quo)

Proposed 2020 Budget - One Year Policy Deviation to Use Savings in 2020 (Transition) - Recommended

Example 2021 Budget - Use Savings in 2020 and Long-Term Mitigation (Goal)

Pros Maintains consistency with existing policies.

Can be implemented in 2020. Allows for all programs to continue for 2020. Can function as a transition budget to allow one year to work toward budget mitigation. Allows time to collect additional tax data.

Allows time to collect additional tax data. Allows for all programs to continue for 2020 and beyond. Puts EOTC in potentially better financial position than it is currently by 2021 and beyond.

Cons Does not fully fund current requests. Requires cuts to historically funded programs or will significantly reduce overall fund balance.

Requires one-year deviation from current revenue / deficit distribution policy. If no long-term mitigation measure is finalized, then it requires cuts to historically funded programs or will significantly reduce overall fund balance.

Cannot be implemented in time for 2020 budget. Requires one-year deviation from current revenue / deficit distributions. Requires time to vet and implement possible budget mitigation measures.

33

34

Comparison of Year 2020 Budgets: “Proposed 2020 EOTC Budget – Maintain All Existing Policies (Status Quo)” and

“Proposed 2020 EOTC Budget – One Year Policy Deviation to Use Savings (Transition)” Note: Both Budget Alternatives Provide Required Snowmass Transit Center Funding by 2022

EOTC Transit Project Funding "Status Quo" "Transition"Budget Budget

2020 2020

FUNDING SOURCES:Pitkin County 1/2% sales tax 6,389,943 6,389,943less RFTA contribution (81.04% of 1/2% sales tax) 5,178,410 5,178,410net 1/2% sales tax funding to EOTC 1,211,533 1,211,533

Pitkin County 1/2% use tax 550,000 550,000Investment income & misc. 252,213 252,213

Total Funding Sources 2,013,746 2,013,746

FUNDING USES:Ongoing / Operational

Use tax collection costs & overhead 148,299 148,299Administrative costs & meeting costs 12,400 12,400Country Inn taxi program in-lieu of bus stop safety improvements 4,000 4,000X-Games transit subsidy 22,000 115,000Brush Creek Intercept Lot operating costs 42,000 42,000No-fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek bus service - year-round 690,075 690,075WE-cycle operational support 22,000 100,000Brush Creek BRT connecting service - spring, summer, fall (50% from Snowmass Sav)Regional Transportation Administrator 140,881 140,881

sub-total Ongoing / Operational 1,081,655 1,252,655net funding available for projects 932,091 761,091Projects

Buttermilk/SH82 Pedestrian Crossing AnalysisBattery Electric Bus Program

Variable message sign on Hwy 82 564,019 564,019Snowmass Mall transit station (funded from Snowmass Village Savings Fund) 650,000 650,000EOTC Retreat, Professional Services, Regional Transportation Participation 8,000 8,000Brush Creek Park and Ride FLAP grant match (EOTC approved 10/20/16) 1,958,873 1,958,873

Total Uses 4,262,547 4,433,547EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (2,248,801) (2,419,801)

EOTC CUMULATIVE SURPLUS FUND BALANCE 8,388,028 8,217,028

DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL SURPLUS (excludes projects funded from savings funds) (1,598,801) (1,769,801)25% to Snowmass Village Savings until restored to maximum (399,700) (353,960)remainder to Aspen Savings (1,199,101) (1,415,841)

Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village AreaSavings Fund maximum 5,578,787 5,578,787share of annual surplus/deficit (399,700) (353,960)less 50% of Brush Creek BRT connecting serviceless Snowmass mall transit station - reduces savings fund maximum (650,000) (650,000)

Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area 5,179,087 5,224,827

Savings Fund for greater Aspen Areashare of annual surplus/deficit (1,199,101) (1,415,841)

Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area 3,208,941 2,992,201

34

35

Outline of Funding Uses Ongoing / Operational 1) Use tax collection costs and County overhead - $148,299 The proposed budget includes the county’s administrative costs of collection for both the sales and use tax as well as insurance. These costs are collected from the EOTC budget 1 year in arrears. The increased cost starting in 2019 is due primarily to increased staff time devoted to collection and auditing in the County’s Finance Department starting in 2018. In order to maintain compliance with State law and auditing requirements, the County Finance Director felt this increase in oversight is necessary. The costs are anticipated to increase in 2020 due to the administrative cost of the new Transportation Administrator position (payroll, technical support, and human resources support). 2) Administrative cost and meeting costs - $12,400 The proposed budget includes other administrative and meeting costs. This includes costs such as recording and broadcasting EOTC meetings, food at EOTC meetings, and costs associated with the Transportation Administrator positions (communications - cell phone, work related travel, professional dues, education and training, postage and shipping, materials and supplies, and computers and computer equipment). 3) Country Inn taxi program in-lieu of bus stop safety improvements - $4,000 The EOTC implemented the Country Inn taxi service in 2001 to address bus stop safety issues faced by residents at this senior-priority housing complex. The lack of a traffic signal, crosswalk, or median at this location along Highway 82 makes it unsafe for Country Inn residents to use transit for down valley trips or for return trips from Aspen. The Aspen Country Inn taxi program allows residents to use a taxi when their travel would otherwise require the crossing of Highway 82. Although underutilized in recent years compared to budget, starting in mid-2019 demand has picked up significantly. 4) X-Games transit subsidy - $115,000 This budget is paid to RFTA to help fund transit services for the X-Games and was previously approved through 2019. As noted earlier, since this line item is up for renewal in 2020 and is not currently obligated, this item may not be fully funded should the EOTC move forward with the “Status Quo” budget (See Attachment 1). Please see the attached memo from the Aspen Skiing Company for details (Attachment 5). 5) Brush Creek Park and Ride operating costs - $42,000 The City of Aspen’s Parking Department manages the parking area of the Brush Creek Park and Ride Lot for the EOTC per an intergovernmental agreement. No staff cost for parking enforcement or management of the lot is included. Instead, this budget funds utilities, snow removal, trash removal, irrigation, and weed control. The budget was increased by $10,000 for 2020 as snow removal costs alone in 2019 rose to 35% of the budget leaving a potentially insufficient amount in case of an unexpected repair or unforeseen cost. The cost for this service is expected to increase significantly to about $95,000 annually starting in 2021 as a result of the installation of restrooms, additional landscaping and lighting, and increased paved parking area. In addition, costs of operating and maintaining the new Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) is anticipated to be included in this line item. Staff will continue to evaluate the anticipated cost to maintain this new infrastructure over the coming year, however it is important to show the preliminary increased cost in the out years given the current volatility in the EOTC budget.

35

36

6) No-fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek bus service subsidy - $690,075 ($687,310 Aspen-Snowmass,$2,765 Woody Creek) The EOTC previously agreed with RFTA to set the Aspen-Snowmass subsidy at 36.7% of the actual cost of the service two years prior to the year being budgeted. Thus, the $690,075 budget for 2020 (and amount to be paid) for 2020 is 36.7% of the actual cost for 2018. The 2021 and 2022 estimated costs are based on the 2019 and 2020 budgets for this service, but actual costs have been less than budget so far.

The initial EOTC subsidy was set at the amount of fare revenue estimated to be lost by eliminating the fare for this service. For 2010, the first full year of no-fare service, that estimate of lost fare revenue was approximately $480,000, and the actual cost of the service that year was approximately $1,308,000. Thus 36.7% of the actual cost was estimated to be recovered from fare revenue.

For the 2021 budget cycle, the EOTC is likely to see a more significant increase in the cost of this service as the BRT connecting service between Snowmass and Brush Creek Park and Ride will also be factored in at the same 36.7% rate. Since RFTA took over this service as a result of the passage of Ballot Measure 7A in 2019 (the EOTC formerly paid the full amount of this service), considering the 2-year delay the cost of this no-fare service will be reflected in the 2021 budget cycle.

As was previously discussed, should the EOTC adopt the “Transition” budget (See Attachment 2) to work toward RFTA assuming the No-Fare service and an agreement can be reached with RFTA in 2020, then this line item would be eliminated starting in 2021 (See Attachment 3).

7) We-Cycle operational support – $100,000The EOTC had approved 2 years of funding at this level for 2018 and 2019. Since this line item is up forrenewal in 2020 and is not currently obligated, it may not be fully funded should the EOTC move forwardwith the “Status Quo” budget (See Attachment 1). See the attached memo for an update on We-Cycle for2020 (Attachment 4).

8) Regional Transportation Administrator - $140,881The EOTC previously approved this on-going full-time position beginning in 2018. This amount reflectsthe cost of the position including base salary and County benefits as well as health insurance and wellnessbenefits.

Projects

9) Brush Creek Park and Ride – Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP) Improvements - $1,958,873While the total cost of the project is approximately $4 million, the EOTC match contribution is $2million. In 2019, design of the improvements to the Brush Creek Park and Ride began and were carriedthrough to 30% plans. Invoices are expected to be received in 2019 in the amount of $41,126.45 from theFederal Highways Administration (FHWA) for initial design. As a result the total budget amount to theEOTC in 2020 is expected to be $1,958,873.55 ($2 million minus $41,126.45). Any unused portion of the$41,126.45 from 2019 will be carried forward to 2020 and added to the $1.958 million currently budgetedto ensure a total contribution amount of $2 million from the EOTC.

10) Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) on Hwy 82 near Brush Creek Park and Ride - $564,019In 2019, the EOTC decided on the size and location of the DMS. Construction of the sign is scheduled for2020. Initial engineering estimates for construction of the sign is $564,019. Pitkin County Public Workshas contributed engineering support for this project which has reduced the cost to the EOTC. The sign isexpected to be installed in spring of 2020 and fully operational by fall.

36

37

11) Snowmass Mall transit station (funded from Snowmass Village Savings Fund) - $650,000After budgeting $50,000 in 2018 for conceptual design, the request for 2020 is for continuing design andengineering of a new Snowmass Mall transit station. In 2019 the Snowmass Town Council decided on aconceptual approach to move forward. Snowmass estimates that the remainder of the Snowmass SavingsFund may be used for construction of this project in 2022. In 2019, the Town planned to utilize $350,000for further design. The request is to carry this funding forward to 2020 and add $300,000 in order to movethe design to 30% engineering plans. This makes the total 2020 request at $650,000.

It is worth noting that this full amount is to come from the Snowmass Savings Fund intended for the new transit center. As a result, this withdrawal reduces the overall cap on the Snowmass Savings fund per current EOTC policies with the balance of this voter approved funding ($5,578,787 of the original $7 million) expected to be withdrawn in 2022 for construction.

2020 Budget - New Requests

12) EOTC Mini-Retreat, Professional Services, Regional Transportation Participation- $8,000At the 2019 strategic planning retreat, the EOTC identified updating the current governing documents asone of the top priorities. As a result, Staff proposes the development of an EOTC strategic plan in thespring and summer of 2020 with a half-day retreat in the summer or fall of 2020 to provide the EOTCtime to specifically approve the plan and update the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (CVTP).The proposed request is to pay for any necessary professional services associated with the development ofa strategic plan, retreat expenses related to updating the CVTP, and any special meetings that may benecessary to accomplish these goals. This effort is expected not to exceed $5,000.

In addition, Staff has recently been in communication with the City of Rifle, City of Glenwood Springs, and CDOT regarding a potential presentation and information gathering meeting within the Roaring Fork Valley to examine the link between housing, land use, and transportation in the winter of 2020. This event is timely as CDOT is currently in the process of updating their 10-year transportation plan and investment priorities. This meeting is above and beyond their regular regional meetings and is anticipated to dive deeper into the link between housing, land use and transportation. This is also a potential opportunity to learn more about CDOT’s planning efforts and provide input into their upcoming investments in our region. While it is understood that CDOT, the City of Glenwood Springs, and the City of Rifle will be financially participating to make this event happen, this EOTC funding is to act as matching funds to help increase the chances that the event can occur. Staff feels that this is a valuable opportunity for staff and elected officials within the Roaring Fork and Colorado River Valley to discuss regional transportation, housing and land use needs with CDOT officials. The meeting is anticipated to be professionally facilitated and would likely occur in Glenwood Springs, as it is the center of the corridor. The amount of EOTC funds allocated for this event is not to exceed $3,000 or the individual contribution from the City of Glenwood Springs and/or City of Rifle, whichever is less.

RECOMMENDED EOTC ACTION: - Adopt “Proposed 2020 EOTC Budget - One Year Policy Deviation to Use Savings (Transition)” - 2020Transition Year Budget

ATTACHMENTS: 1. “Proposed 2020 EOTC Budget - Maintain All Existing Policies (Status Quo)”2. “Proposed 2020 EOTC Budget - One Year Policy Deviation to Use Savings (Transition) -

Recommended”3. “Example 2012 EOTC Budget – Use of Savings in 2020 and Long Term Mitigation (Goal)”

37

38

4. Memo from We-Cycle5. Memo from Aspen Skiing Company6. Draft 2020 EOTC Work Plan

38

39

Proposed 2020 EOTC BUDGET - Maintain All Existing Policies (Status Quo)

EOTC Transit Project Funding Projection orActual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

FUNDING SOURCES:Pitkin County 1/2% sales tax 5,669,869 6,520,350 6,389,943 6,597,616 6,812,039 7,033,430 7,262,016 less RFTA contribution (81.04% of 1/2% sales tax) 4,594,862 5,284,092 5,178,410 5,346,708 5,520,476 5,699,892 5,885,138 net 1/2% sales tax funding to EOTC 1,075,007 1,236,258 1,211,533 1,250,908 1,291,563 1,333,538 1,376,878

Pitkin County 1/2% use tax 1,484,002 1,000,000 550,000 567,875 586,331 605,387 625,062 Investment income & misc. 166,211 187,000 252,213 261,020 287,404 138,943 159,877

Total Funding Sources 2,725,220 2,423,258 2,013,746 2,079,803 2,165,298 2,077,868 2,161,817


Use tax collection costs & overhead 67,213 113,090 148,299 151,413 154,593 157,839 161,154 Administrative costs & meeting costs 4,781 11,700 12,400 12,660 12,926 13,197 13,474 Country Inn taxi program in-lieu of bus stop safety improvements 2,108 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 X-Games transit subsidy 115,000 115,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 Brush Creek Intercept Lot operating costs 30,252 32,000 42,000 95,000 96,995 99,032 101,112 No-fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek bus service - year-round 650,556 662,158 690,075 838,888 872,444 907,342 943,636 WE-cycle operational support 100,000 100,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 22,000 Brush Creek BRT connecting service - spring, summer, fall (50% from Snowmass Sav 294,400 - Regional Transportation Administrator 34,492 134,376 140,881 148,177 155,856 163,937 172,442

sub-total Ongoing / Operational 1,298,801 1,172,324 1,081,655 1,294,138 1,340,814 1,389,347 1,439,818 net funding available for projects 1,426,419 1,250,934 932,091 785,665 824,484 688,521 721,999 Projects

Buttermilk/SH82 Pedestrian Crossing Analysis 22,753 Battery Electric Bus Program 500,000

Variable message sign on Hwy 82 - 564,019 Snowmass Mall transit station (funded from Snowmass Village Savings Fund) 50,000 - 650,000 5,578,787 EOTC Retreat, Professional Services, Regional Transportation Participation 10,000 8,000 Brush Creek Park and Ride FLAP grant match (EOTC approved 10/20/16) 41,127 1,958,873

Total Uses 1,371,554 1,723,451 4,262,547 1,294,138 6,919,601 1,389,347 1,439,818 EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 1,353,666 699,807 (2,248,801) 785,665 (4,754,303) 688,521 721,999

EOTC CUMULATIVE SURPLUS FUND BALANCE 9,937,022 10,636,829 8,388,028 9,173,693 4,419,390 5,107,911 5,829,910

Attachment 1

39

40

Proposed 2020 EOTC BUDGET - Maintain All Existing Policies (Status Quo)

a) sales tax 5.8% 15.00% -2.00% 3.25% 3.25% 3.25% 3.25%

b) use tax -8.6% -32.6% -45.0% 3.25% 3.25% 3.25% 3.25%c) investment earnings rate 1.64% 1.5% 1.5% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75% 1.75%

Projection orActual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024

DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL SURPLUS (excludes projects funded from savings funds) 1,550,866 699,807 (1,598,801) 785,665 824,484.00 688,521 721,999 25% to Snowmass Village Savings until restored to maximum 274,222 - (399,700) 196,416 203,284 - - remainder to Aspen Savings 1,276,645 699,807 (1,199,101) 589,249 621,200 688,521 721,999

Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village AreaSavings Fund maximum 6,228,787 6,228,787 5,578,787 5,578,787 - - - share of annual surplus/deficit 274,222 - (399,700) 196,416 203,284 - - less 50% of Brush Creek BRT connecting service (147,200) - less Snowmass mall transit station - reduces savings fund maximum (50,000) - (650,000) - (5,578,787) - -

Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village Area 6,228,787 6,228,787 5,179,087 5,375,503 - - -

Savings Fund for greater Aspen Areashare of annual surplus/deficit 1,276,645 699,807 (1,199,101) 589,249 621,200 688,521 721,999

Savings Fund for greater Aspen Area 3,708,235 4,408,042 3,208,941 3,798,190 4,419,390 5,107,911 5,829,910

Revenue projections:

Attachment 1

40

41

Proposed 2020 EOTC BUDGET - One Year Policy Deviation to Use Savings (Transition) - Recommended

EOTC Transit Project Funding Projection or Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024





Use tax collection costs & overhead 67,213 113,090 148,299 151,413 154,593 157,839 161,154 Administrative costs & meeting costs 4,781 11,700 12,400 12,660 12,926 13,197 13,474 Country Inn taxi program in-lieu of bus stop safety improvements 2,108 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 X-Games transit subsidy 115,000 115,000 115,000 - - - - Brush Creek Intercept Lot operating costs 30,252 32,000 42,000 95,000 96,995 99,032 101,112 No-fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek bus service - year-round 650,556 662,158 690,075 838,888 872,444 907,342 943,636 WE-cycle operational support 100,000 100,000 100,000 Brush Creek BRT connecting service - spring, summer, fall (50% from Snowmass Sav 294,400 - Regional Transportation Administrator 34,492 134,376 140,881 148,177 155,856 163,937 172,442






Attachment 2

41

42

Proposed 2020 EOTC BUDGET - One Year Policy Deviation to Use Savings (Transition) - Recommended

a) sales tax 5.8% 15.00% -2.00% 3.25% 3.25% 3.25% 3.25%


Projection or Actual Budget Budget Plan Plan Plan Plan2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024







Attachment 2

42

43

Example 2021 EOTC BUDGET - Use of Savings in 2020 and Long Term Mitigation (Goal)






Use tax collection costs & overhead 67,213 113,090 148,299 151,413 154,593 157,839 161,154 Administrative costs & meeting costs 4,781 11,700 12,400 12,660 12,926 13,197 13,474 Country Inn taxi program in-lieu of bus stop safety improvements 2,108 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 X-Games transit subsidy 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 115,000 Brush Creek Intercept Lot operating costs 30,252 32,000 42,000 95,000 96,995 99,032 101,112 No-fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek bus service - year-round 650,556 662,158 690,075 - - - - WE-cycle operational support 100,000 100,000 100,000 Brush Creek BRT connecting service - spring, summer, fall (Reimbursement) 294,400 200,000 Regional Transportation Administrator 34,492 134,376 140,881 148,177 155,856 163,937 172,442

sub-total Ongoing / Operational 1,298,801 1,172,324 1,252,655 726,250 539,370 553,005 567,182 net funding available for projects 1,426,419 1,250,934 761,091 1,353,553 1,625,928 1,524,863 1,594,635 Projects



Total Uses 1,371,554 1,723,451 4,433,547 726,250 6,118,157 553,005 567,182 EOTC ANNUAL SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) 1,353,666 699,807 (2,419,801) 1,353,553 (3,952,859) 1,524,863 1,594,635


Attachment 3

43

44

Example 2021 EOTC BUDGET - Use of Savings in 2020 and Long Term Mitigation (Goal)

a) sales tax 5.8% 15.00% -2.00% 3.25% 3.25% 3.25% 3.25%



DISTRIBUTION OF ANNUAL SURPLUS (excludes projects funded from savings funds) 1,550,866 699,807 (1,769,801) 1,453,553 1,625,928.00 1,524,863 1,594,635 25% to Snowmass Village Savings until restored to maximum 274,222 - (353,960) 363,388 190,572 - - remainder to Aspen Savings 1,276,645 699,807 (1,415,841) 1,090,165 1,435,356 1,524,863 1,594,635

Savings Fund for greater Snowmass Village AreaSavings Fund maximum 6,228,787 6,228,787 5,578,787 5,578,787 - - - share of annual surplus/deficit 274,222 - (353,960) 363,388 190,572 - - less 50% of Brush Creek BRT connecting service (Reimbursement for BRT Conn Serv (147,200) - (200,000) less Snowmass mall transit station - reduces savings fund maximum (50,000) - (650,000) - (5,578,787) - -


Savings Fund for greater Aspen Areashare of annual surplus/deficit 1,276,645 699,807 (1,415,841) 1,090,165 1,435,356 1,524,863 1,594,635



Attachment 3

44

45

TO: David Pesnichak, Elected Officials Transportation Committee FROM: Mirte Mallory, WE-cycle, Co-Founder and Executive Director RE: 2020 WE-cycle EOTC Funding Request __________ REQUEST OF EOTC: Continued investment in WE-cycle, at the $100,000 level, to support day to day operations of the Upper Valley’s bike transit system designed as a first/last mile feeder to RFTA and an in-town, on-demand transit offering. New in 2020, WE-cycle is planning a service expansion to Snowmass Village with the launch of 2 – 3 stations, ~ 20 bikes, with the primary goal of testing bike share in Snowmass Village by enhancing transit connectivity to and from the Snowmass Club and Club Commons with the Town Park bus stop. In the Aspen System, WE-cycle will continue to refine and evolve its station configurations, locations, and balancing strategies to enhance the first/last mile focus of its service. In the context of the recent changes impacting the EOTC’s annual income, WE-cycle respectfully requests that in 2020, funding be considered from above the line appropriations and be re-evaluated in 2021 based on the EOTC’s strategic planning outcomes and available funding. SUPPORTING MATERIALS:

• Please visit www.we-cycle.org/aspensystem for the 2018 WE-cycle Annual Report highlighting achievements, partners, programming, and financials.

• WE-cycle’s 2019 Mid-Season Report can be viewed at www.we-cycle.org/reports/2019-midseason-report/ .

CONTEXT: WE-cycle is grateful to the EOTC for its 2017, 2018, and 2019 operating support of $100,000. This contribution has been instrumental in helping WE-cycle stabilize its service year over year such that it could become an established, relied-upon, and expected part of the Upper Valley’s transportation system. Since WE-cycle opened in 2013, its funding model and sources have evolved in response to changes in the micro-mobility industry and the Roaring Fork Valley’s transportation ecosystem. WE-cycle remains committed to innovating and adapting to best serve the first/last mile transit needs of communities in the Upper Valley and looks forward to collaborating with the EOTC as it identifies its future priorities. On a regional level, RFTA is a cornerstone partner of WE-cycle. In addition to being WE-cycle’s first Founding Partner, RFTA has made a multi-year commitment of $100,000 annually through 2022 to support WE-cycle operations. In November of 2018, RFTA member-jurisdictions passed a property tax mill levy to sustain and enhance service levels as outlined in the Destination 2040 Plan. The Plan calls for new and expanded bike share systems and designates both capital and annual operating dollars to the bike transit services. RFTA recently adopted its 2019 Strategic Plan with one of its Smart Objectives being to increase first/last mile offerings throughout the service area. In 2020, WE-cycle and RFTA will explore ways to partner in order to deliver bike share to more member-jurisdictions and optimize existing services, while simultaneously assessing how bike share complements emerging mobility offerings.

Attachment 4

45

46

2020 will be a year of converging planning efforts on behalf of the EOTC, RFTA, and WE-cycle. The synergies and priorities identified in these processes will create a collaborative framework for delivering forward thinking transportation services throughout the Roaring Fork Valley. While these planning efforts proceed, it would be in the best interest of valley-wide transit riders to maintain existing levels of WE-cycle service in 2020. Hence, the importance of the continued EOTC funding. As illustrated below, the EOTC funding comprises essentially 25% percent of the WE-cycle Aspen System’s annual revenue. Identifying a replacement source for these funds for 2020 within a short time frame is unlikely given the existing high level of private sector contributions.

WE-cycle: Aspen System – Revenue Projected 2019 figures

Source Amount Notes Public Investment City of Aspen $145,000 Per annual service contract EOTC $100,000 Operating support RFTA $57,143 Allocated portion of RFTA investment to Upper Valley bike share Private Investment Sponsorship $85,000 On-bike and station-based messaging, special events Fees $14,000 Charged at $0.50 per minute for rides over 30 minutes Donations $1,500 Rider donations and individuals TOTAL $402,643 NOTE: WE-cycle is still in its 2019 operating year with notable expenses forthcoming as the system undertakes annual fall maintenance and repairs and closes for the season. Based on projections, expenses are aligned with revenues.

2019 WE-CYCLE PARTNERS:

Attachment 4

46

47

To: Elected Officials Transportation Committee From: Aspen Skiing Company

Date: September 18, 2019

Re: 2020-24 X Games Aspen Funding Request

Aspen Skiing Company, with the support of Pitkin County, the City of Aspen, the Town of Snowmass Village, RFTA, the Aspen Chamber Resort Association and the Elected Officials Transportation Committee, has collaboratively and successfully hosted X Games at Buttermilk since 2002. This past year we worked together on a bid to keep X Games in Aspen for the next 5 years (2020-2024). The terms of support per entity remained flat to the previous 5 years, and we all heard the good news that X will be staying right where it belongs – here in the Roaring Fork Valley. This memo serves as a brief recap of the event and the official request to continue the EOTC’s funding to support the transit needs of the event in the amount of $115,000 per year. For background, X Games is a multi-season, global event property owned by ESPN. The winter event has been hosted in Aspen for the past 18 years. It is televised globally on ABC, ESPN, ESPN2 in 192 countries and territories, reaching more than 500 million homes, with live coverage in Latin America, the Middle East, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and multiple countries in Europe. Aspen Snowmass receives 16 hours of live programming annually that reaches tens of millions of viewers. Nearly as many fans follow X Games across digital and social media platforms (Facebook, Instagram, YouTube and Twitter), watching behind-the-scenes and athlete-curated content that enhances the telecasts. Engagement in these arenas continues to show significant growth, with the greatest engagement coming from the 15 - to 35-year-old demographic. Locally, last year’s attendance was estimated at 117,000 during X Games Aspen 2019. The week continues to be one of the highest occupancy weekends of the entire year, and the economic impact of to the Roaring Fork Valley is enormous, with the majority of that impact supporting lodges, retailers and restaurants. When coupled with mass promotion of the sports of skiing and snowboarding -- 75 Olympic athletes compete -- plus the global media platform and marketing support for Aspen Snowmass, the event generates both short- and long-term benefit for the valley. And with ESPN’s and Aspen Skiing Company’s commitment to keeping both the event and the spectator experience fresh and relevant, we garner the attention of influencers throughout the industry. Over the course of a generation, the event has become part of our identity and remains part of our strategy for Aspen Snowmass to remain relevant with a younger demographic. One unique element to the X Games is that there is no on-site parking at Buttermilk, making transportation arguably the most critical piece to this very complex puzzle. All attendees must take some form of alternative transportation to Buttermilk, and the most efficient and safe mode of transit has proven to be the dedicated event shuttles to/from the Brush Creek Lot, Aspen, and Snowmass. Approximately 75% of X Games guests take advantage of the services we collectively provide. For a community as committed as the Roaring Fork Valley is to increasing transit ridership, we think X Games should be considered a point of pride. The EOTC funds have been used directly to support both our local community and destination guests to X and the high level of service in and out of Buttermilk. The event has grown tremendously over time, and we are requesting continued funding to provide the best and safest spectator shuttles to and from the event, all while showcasing how strong public transportation is within the Roaring Fork Valley. Thank you for your continued support. Buck Erickson Director, Event Operations Aspen Skiing Company

X Games Aspen

Attachment 5

47

48

EOTC Work Plan and Meeting Schedule

2020




- Spring 2020 Mtg. - All Year






EOTC w/ Staff Support - Summer/Fall 2020 Mini-Retreat

- All Year



Staff w/ EOTC Guidance - Fall 2020 Mtg. - All Year


Brush Creek PnR:


Develop Vision Profile Develop Operations Plan Update Cost Analysis

EOTC w/ Staff Support EOTC w/ Staff Support Staff w/ EOTC Guidance Staff w/ EOTC Guidance

70% Review: Spring 2020 95% Review: Fall 2020 Spring 2020 All Year All Year

Review and Approve Brush Creek PnR Plans for 2021 Construction. Develop Vision for Brush Creek PnR Develop Operations Plan Based on FLAP Plans and Vision Discussion. Update Cost Analysis for 2021 Budget Cycle to Include FLAP Improvements





Attachment 6

48

49

2021












2020 Work Schedule and Meeting Dates

Regular Meetings: March 19, 2020 (Snowmass) - Strategic Plan Focus April 30, 2020 (PitCo) - Brush Creek PnR Focus (70% Plans and Visioning) October 29, 2020 (Aspen) - Budget Focus Mini-Retreat:

Summer/Fall - Strategic Plan and CVTP Focus Fall / Winter 2020:

Additional EOTC Meeting, if necessary, to complete CVTP and Strategic Plan / Release of Draft Strategic Plan and CVTP

Attachment 6

49

50

AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY


AGENDA ITEM TITLE: EOTC 2020 Work Plan


ISSUE STATEMENT: Following the EOTC Retreat on August 7, 2019, direction was determined to pursue strategic planning and update existing EOTC governing documents including the Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (CVTP). The EOTC also needs to address the impacts from the recent changes in sales and use tax as well as the upcoming developments at the Brush Creek Park and Ride. In order to tackle these items with limited time available and with the greatest amount of efficiency, Staff has created a draft 2020 Work Plan to enable transparent planning. In addition, this Plan includes proposed meeting dates and for 2020 and the focus for each of the EOTC meetings.

BACKGROUND: The EOTC has many work items that need to be addressed in the coming years. In order to ensure we are all moving in an agreed upon direction, Staff has created the attached 2020 Work Plan. This Work Plan extends preliminarily into 2021 and includes proposed meeting dates.

This Plan is to bring together the following work projects facing the EOTC through 2021. This Plan is not intended to be all-inclusive and is anticipated to be updated as needed. The following topics are proposed to be addressed:

2020:

- Development of Strategic Plan- Develop Updated Decision Making Process- Update Comprehensive Valley Transportation Plan (CVTP)- Pursue EOTC Budget Mitigation- Brush Creek Park and Ride Development, including:

- 70% and 95% FLAP Plan Review- Develop Vision Profile for Park and Ride- Develop Operations Plan for Park and Ride- Update Cost Analysis

- Develop Dynamic Message Sign (DMS) Operations and Management Plan- Participate in Snowmass Transit Center, Airport, and Regional Transportation Planning / Visioning, asappropriate

2021:

- Continue / Finalize Strategic Plan and CVTP, as necessary

50

51

- Update EOTC IGA based on Strategic Plan and Incorporate Updated CVTP - Develop Budget Framework based on Strategic Plan and CVTP - Participate in Snowmass Transit Center, Brush Creek PnR Development, Airport, and regional transportation planning / visioning, as appropriate In addition to the above actions, the Work Plan also identifies the responsible party, preliminary timeline, and the expected outcome from the action. The Work Plan also includes the following regular meeting dates and focusses for 2020: March 19, 2020 (Snowmass) - Strategic Plan Focus April 30, 2020 (PitCo) - Brush Creek PnR Focus (70% Plans and Visioning Profile) October 29, 2020 (Aspen) - Budget Focus Due to the nature of the CVTP, Staff proposes a one-day “mini-retreat” in the summer or fall of 2020 to address this document specifically. This update will require a charrette style review of the current CVTP. This updated CVTP combined with the strategic plan is then proposed to be employed to reexamine the EOTC budget prioritization framework in 2021 in anticipation for the Snowmass Savings Fund to be fully utilized in 2022 for the construction of the Snowmass Transit Center. This CVTP can also be incorporated with an updated IGA for the EOTC. The Work Plan also calls for additional meetings, if necessary, in order to complete necessary tasks related to the CVTP and / or strategic plan. BUDGETARY IMPACT: Staff has proposed a line item for $5,000 in 2020 to help support this Work Plan should professional services, meeting space, or other materials be needed. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve proposed 2020 EOTC Work Plan and Meeting Schedule ATTACHMENTS: 1 - 2020 Draft EOTC Work Plan and Meeting Schedule

51

52

EOTC Work Plan and Meeting Schedule

2020




- Spring 2020 Mtg. - All Year






EOTC w/ Staff Support - Summer/Fall 2020 Mini-Retreat

- All Year



Staff w/ EOTC Guidance - Fall 2020 Mtg. - All Year


Brush Creek PnR:


Develop Vision Profile Develop Operations Plan Update Cost Analysis

EOTC w/ Staff Support EOTC w/ Staff Support Staff w/ EOTC Guidance Staff w/ EOTC Guidance

70% Review: Spring 2020 95% Review: Fall 2020 Spring 2020 All Year All Year

Review and Approve Brush Creek PnR Plans for 2021 Construction. Develop Vision for Brush Creek PnR Develop Operations Plan Based on FLAP Plans and Vision Discussion. Update Cost Analysis for 2021 Budget Cycle to Include FLAP Improvements





Attachment 1

52

53

2021












2020 Work Schedule and Meeting Dates

Regular Meetings: March 19, 2020 (Snowmass) - Strategic Plan Focus April 30, 2020 (PitCo) - Brush Creek PnR Focus (70% Plans and Visioning) October 29, 2020 (Aspen) - Budget Focus Mini-Retreat:

Summer/Fall - Strategic Plan and CVTP Focus Fall / Winter 2020:

Additional EOTC Meeting, if necessary, to complete CVTP and Strategic Plan / Release of Draft Strategic Plan and CVTP

Attachment 1

53

54

AGNEDA ITEM SUMMARY

TO: Elected Officials Transportation Committee

FROM: David Peckler, Town of Snowmass Village Transportation Director

MEETING DATE: October 17, 2019

SUBJECT: Mall Transit Station Project Update

I am providing the Elected Officials Transportation Committee (EOTC) with the completed Feasibility Study on the Mall Transit Station design work to date. Attached you will find the report from our consultant Short Elliot Hendrickson, Inc (S.E.H.) covering: the public input, the information gathered, the design criteria, the preferred option to date, a rough cost estimate, and project schedule. The report presents the design that covered most of the input and criteria defined for the project.

The major design elements for the project were: • Combine the RFTA and Village Shuttle terminals in one location that is at the

Mall level;• Provide RFTA with four bus bays and the Village Shuttle with six bus bays from

which the vehicles can operate as independently as possible;• Accommodate the RFTA MCI vehicles that have a minimum turning radius of

48.4’;• Replace any displaced parking;• Improve the passengers’ waiting experience;• Define the pedestrian access to the loading platforms to address the pedestrian

interface with bus traffic;• Provide for pedestrian access to the Mall from Upper Brush Creek Rd.;• Provide public restrooms, information center, and bus driver breakroom; and• Address ADA access to the transit station and public parking area.

The design work to date has been funded by the EOTC. The Probable Cost estimate was made with input from a firm with construction experience in the Roaring Fork valley. The cost estimate for the preferred option is $8.711 million. Roughly $6 million remains in funding for the project from the (EOTC). RFTA has proposed to contribute $500,000 and construction management to the project as well. RFTA is also Interested in providing an electrical charging station for their new electric buses. Staff has been discussing grant possibilities with the state.

54

55

It is our hope to begin the 30% design work and to move into the land use review process. We have requested $650,000 in the EOTC 2020 budget to continue the design work. Public outreach and presentations will continue through the end of the year.

55

56

08/23/2019

TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGEMALL TRANSIT STATIONFEASIBILITY STUDYMall Transit Station Redevelopment

Attachment 1

56

57

EXECUTIVE SUMMARYPROJECT BACKGROUND + GOALS

01 Town of Snowmass Village Feasibility Study

Attachment 1

57

58

PROJECT GOALSThe primary project goal is to design a new station and bus platform that incorporates the desired number of RFTA and TOSV loading/unloading stops. The stops should consider current & potential future bus sizes, limiting pedestrian traffic & bus conflicts, and should also have separation from public vehicular traffic with bus only access to the platform.

The new transit station is to provide new driver facilities, public information and public restrooms located adjacent to the bus loading/unloading areas.

The lower parking level is to replace the existing Lot 6 surface parking lot capacity while including pedestrian and freight elevator access to Mall level above. Delivery vehicle parking and public Kiss & Ride accommodations should also be included within the lower level, with clear access to and from elevators.

CONCEPT EVOLUTIONThe design team, SEH & DHM Design, together with TOSV and other stakeholders, began the process with establishing the

primary goals stated above. From there, design iterations and options were created for discussion and review by the Town of Snowmass Village Staff & Bus Operations, RFTA and Mall Owners. The Initial Concept Plans included three design options for both the Upper Level (Mall Level) and Lower Level (Parking Level). The team evaluated bus circulation, loading/unloading, as well as evaluated pedestrian circulation and how it interacted with the transit station, bus platform and bus operations. This also included the study of pedestrian wayfinding nodes, circulation routes, gathering zones and planting areas.

The initial three options were developed through several stakeholder design workshops and were also introduced during a TOSV Public Open House, in which feedback from the public was incorporated into the preferred design option.

PREFERRED DESIGN OPTIONThe Preferred Design Option derived from a combination of several components of the initial

PROJECT BACKGROUNDThe Town of Snowmass Village (TOSV), along with other local stakeholders, are interested in redeveloping and revitalizing the existing Snowmass Mall Transit Station. The current facility provides the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) two loading/unloading bus stops as well as two staging, which are utilized as loading/unloading during peak season due to necessity. These are primary regional routes providing transportation to Glenwood Springs and Aspen, with an additional local route to the nearby Intercept Lot located on SH 82. The Town of Snowmass Village Shuttle currently loads/unloads north of the Mall on Daly Lane. The separation of the two transit facilities is less than ideal and both introduce public vehicular traffic among the bus traffic and have sporadic pedestrian crossing interaction with the bus. This Mall Transit Station Feasibility Study had established a collaborative vision to redevelop these existing facilities into a singular loading/unloading platform for both RFTA and TOSV, independent of public vehicle traffic and limited pedestrian and bus interaction.

concepts. These key features are elements the design team and stakeholders believe to be necessities to the project and reflect the primary goals set forth at the beginning of the Feasibility Study.

KEY FEATURES

• Clear Pedestrian Circulation Paths

• Minimize Bus & Pedestrian Circulation

• Enhance Mall Entry/Approach

• “At Grade” access to Mall from Bus Platform

• (12) Bus & Shuttle Bays w/ Flexible Bay Sizes

• Clear identification of Local vs Regional Bus Routes

• (54) Parking Spaces Min.

• Overall Massing & Scale

FINAL STEPSThe Preferred Design Option incorporates these elements and is to be used as a basis of design moving forward. Additional design details and material selections will need to be provided and reviewed by TOSV and stakeholders during final design.

Mall Transit Station Redevelopment 02

Attachment 1

58

59

PROGRAM REQUIREMENTSPARKING + TRANSIT STATION + PLATFORM


Attachment 1

60

61

Programed Space Quantity Area (sq. ft.) Total (sq. ft.)

Par

king

Gar

age

Parking Space 59 162 9,558

Van Parking Space 1 198 198

Drive Circulation 47% 8,800

Delivery Vehicle Parking 1 900 900

Kiss & Ride Parking 5 300 1,500

Daily Lane Connection 1 7,555 7,555

Mechanical/Electrical 1 1,450 1,450

Pedestrian Circulation 1 9,000 9,000

Elevator/Stairs 4 260 1,040

Parking Garage Total 40,000

Tran

sit

Sta

tion

Driver Breakroom 1 500 500

Staff Toilet 2 64 128

Skier Services 1 200 200

Janitor 1 100 100

Public Restroom (Men’s & Women’s) 1 640 640

Storage 1 100 100

Circulation 17% 332

Transit Station Total 2,000

Bus

Pla

tfor

m

Transit Station Platform 1 10.250 10,250

45’ Bus Loading/Unloading 6 382 2,292

40’ Bus Loading/Unloading 2 363 726

30’ Bus Loading/Unloading 2 270 540

Future Loading/Unloading 1 1,750 1,750

Bus Circulation 1 37,507 27,257

Bus Platform Total 42,815

SPACE PROGRAM REQUIREMENTSMALL TRANSIT STATION


Attachment 1

61

62

PREFERRED DESIGN CONCEPTPLANS + PERSPECTIVES


Attachment 1

62

63


EXISTING TRANSIT STATIONBus Operations• SINGLE BUS PLATFORM

• TOSV SHUTTLE LOADING/UNLOADING LOCATED ON DALY LANE



| CARRIAGE WAY

| CA

RRIA

GE W

AY

| BRUSH CREEK RD

| DA

LY LA

NE

LOT 5 | EXISTING PARKING TO REMAIN

LOT 6 | 54 EXISTING PARKING TO BE RELOCATED

EXISTING TRANSIT STATION


N

Attachment 1

63

64


OPTION 4UPPER LEVELBus Operations• SINGLE BUS PLATFORM

• (2) 30’ SHUTTLE LOADING/UNLOADING

• (1) 30’ SHUTTLE UNLOADING

• (2) 40’ LOADING/UNLOADING

• (7) 45’ LOADING/UNLOADING


• 2,000 SF COMBINED TRANSIT STATION• DRIVER LOUNGE

• SKIER SERVICES




| ELEVATOR

| STAIRS TO GARAGE

| LANDSCAPING/SEATING

| FUTURE LOADING/UNLOADING

| PLATFORM +25’ ABOVE LOT 5

| STAIRS TO GARAGE

| SKYLIGHTS TO BELOW

| PEDESTRIAN ROUTE TO BRUSH CREEK RD

| PEDESTRIAN ROUTE TO BRUSH CREEK RD

| WAYFINDING/ART | UPPER MALL ACCESS



| CARRIAGE WAY

| CA

RRIA

GE W

AY

| BRUSH CREEK RD

| DA

LY LA

NE

raised paving pattern

to direct ped traffic

site wall to direct ped traffic

B-145’ loading/unloading




B-1145’ staging

B-1230’ staging







| MAIN MALL ACCESS

raised paving pattern

to direct ped traffic

| TRANSIT STATION



N

Attachment 1

64

65


OPTION 4

PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION GATHERING

PLANTING CANOPY

PRIMARY CIRCULATION ROUTES

SECONDARY CIRCULATION ROUTES

ACTIVE GATHERING ZONES• QUEUING• WAYFINDING• TICKET PURCHASING

PASSIVE GATHERING ZONES• RESTING• SITTING• WAITING

WAYFINDING NODE/HUB

OPTION 4DIAGRAMSPedestrian Circulation

Gathering Spaces

Attachment 1

66

67


SNOWMASS MALL TRANSIT STATIONCONCEPTUAL SITE DIAGRAMS

PLANTING CANOPY

PLANTING AREAS ARCHITECTURAL CANOPY

TREE CANOPY

SECONDARY CIRCULATION ROUTES

PASSIVE GATHERING ZONES• RESTING• SITTING• WAITING

OPTION 4DIAGRAMSPlanting Areas

Canopies

Attachment 1

67

68


CARRIAGE WAYPERSPECTIVEFLAT TOP SCREENING

Attachment 1

68

69


DALY LANEPERSPECTIVEFLAT TOP SCREENING

Attachment 1

69

70


CARRIAGE WAYPERSPECTIVESLOPED TOP SCREENING

Attachment 1

70

71

OPINION OF PROBABLE COSTPROJECT SUMMARY + DETAILED ASSUMPTIONS


Attachment 1

71

72

Total

A 1,506,080.00$

B 1,958,361.89$

C 32,529.22$

D 674,943.25$

E 2,761.00$

60 SPACES 69,577.92$ 4,174,675.36$

Total

A 43,680.00$

B 324,568.90$

C 51,112.00$

D 244,084.00$

G 160,576.50$

2,000 SF 412.01$ 824,021.40$

Total

A 649,386.98$

B 437,320.00$

1,086,706.98$

Sub-Total 6,085,403.74$

15% 912,810.56$

10% 608,540.37$

1,521,350.94$

10% 608,540.37$

5.5% 334,697.21$

2.65% 161,042.38$

1,104,279.96$

8,711,034.63$

Final Project Total 42,815 SF 203.46$ 8,711,034.63$

1. Cost Estimate based on 2019 RS Means Facilities Construction Cost Data.

2. Additional review & input has been provided by local contractor.

3. This document is an opinion of probable cost and not an official bid.

Construction Hard + Soft Cost Sub-Total

Fees Sub-Total

Additional Soft Costs Sub-Total

Permitting/Plan Review

Roadwork & Sitework

Substructure

Services

Construction Contingency

General Contractor Fees

Contractor Insurance/Bonds

Architectural/Engineering Design Fees

Construction Hard Cost Sub-Total

Parking Garage

Transit Station & Platform

Substructure

Shell

Construction Hard Cost

Interiors

Substructure

Equipment & Furnishings

Services

Construction Soft Costs

Shell



Building Sitework

Interiors

Services

OPINION OF PROBABLE COST

FEASIBILITY STUDY

TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE

MALL TRANSIT STATION REDEVELOPMENT

SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO

Project Summary 1Mall Transit Station Redevelopment 24

Attachment 1

72

73

A Quantity Unit Cost / Unit Total

1 Standard Foundations 40,000 SF 10.70$ 427,960.00$

2 Slab on Grade 40,000 SF 8.45$ 338,000.00$

3 Basement Excavation 40,000 SF 9.50$ 380,120.00$

4 Exterior Walls (Parking Garage) 300 LF 1,200.00$ 360,000.00$

1,506,080.00$

B Quantity Unit Cost / Unit Total

1 Roof Construction - Columns (Bus Drive Aisle) 42,815 SF 3.73$ 159,528.69$

2 Roof Construction - Slab (Bus Drive Aisle) 42,815 SF 34.00$ 1,455,710.00$

3 Exterior Walls (Elevator) 3,100 SF 17.75$ 55,009.50$

4 Metal Roofing (Elevator) 1,500 SF 8.51$ 12,768.00$

5 Gutters & Downspouts ( Elevator) 1,500 SF 4.68$ 7,025.70$

6 Waterproofing 40,000 SF 6.71$ 268,320.00$

1,958,361.89$

C Quantity Unit Cost / Unit Total

1 Stairs 2 EA 16,264.61$ 32,529.22$

32,529.22$

D Quantity Unit Cost / Unit Total

1 Elevators 2 EA 155,791.62$ 311,583.25$

2 Rain Water Drainage 40,000 SF 1.55$ 61,880.00$

3 Sprinklers 40,000 SF 4.45$ 177,840.00$

4 Standpipes 40,000 SF 0.25$ 10,080.00$

5 Lighting & Wiring 40,000 SF 2.59$ 103,480.00$

6 Communications & Security 40,000 SF 0.25$ 10,080.00$

674,943.25$

E Quantity Unit Cost / Unit Total

1 Pavement Markings 60 EA 25.00$ 1,500.00$

2 Directional Sigange 10 EA 126.10$ 1,261.00$

2,761.00$

Construction Cost Sub-Total 40,000 SF 104.37$ 4,174,675.36$




Equipment & Furnishings

Total

Shell

Total

Interiors

Total

Services

Total

Total





Parking Garage

Substructure

Parking Garage 225 Town of Snowmass Village Feasibility Study

Attachment 1

73

74


1 Mechanical Room Walls 3,200 SF 13.65$ 43,680.00$

43,680.00$

B Quantity Unit Cost / Unit Total

1 Roof Construction - Columns 2,000 SF 17.13$ 34,268.00$

2 Roof Construction 3,500 SF 25.00$ 87,500.00$

3 Exterior Walls 2,100 SF 44.56$ 93,578.10$

4 Exterior Windows 2,000 SF 12.13$ 24,258.00$

5 Exterior Doors 2,000 SF 5.45$ 10,894.00$

6 Metal Roofing 3,500 SF 18.00$ 63,000.00$

7 Gutters & Downspouts 2,000 SF 5.54$ 11,070.80$

324,568.90$

C Quantity Unit Cost / Unit Total

1 Partitions 2,000 SF 2.47$ 4,940.00$

2 Interior Doors 2,000 SF 1.33$ 2,664.00$

3 Toilet Room Partitions 2,000 SF 2.85$ 5,694.00$

4 Wall Finishes 2,000 SF 13.17$ 26,338.00$

5 Floor Finishes 2,000 SF 2.94$ 5,876.00$

6 Ceiling Finishes 2,000 SF 2.80$ 5,600.00$

51,112.00$


1 Plumbing Fixtures 2,000 EA 14.64$ 29,276.00$

2 Domestic Water Distribution 2,000 SF 10.00$ 20,000.00$

3 HVAC Systems 2,000 SF 20.00$ 40,000.00$

4 Sprinklers 2,000 SF 4.00$ 8,000.00$

5 Standpipes 2,000 SF 0.72$ 1,430.00$

6 Electrical Service/Distribution 2,000 SF 24.93$ 49,868.00$

7 Lighting & Branch Wiring 2,000 SF 16.74$ 33,488.00$

8 Communications & Security 2,000 SF 11.01$ 22,022.00$

9 Gen Set & Energy Monitoring 2,000 SF 20.00$ 40,000.00$

244,084.00$

G Quantity Unit Cost / Unit Total

1 Landscaping 10,250 SF 3.67$ 37,576.50$

2 Snowmelt (60% of Platform) 6,150 SF 20.00$ 123,000.00$

160,576.50$

Construction Cost Sub-Total 2,000 SF 412.01$ 824,021.40$




Building Sitework

Total

Total

Transit Station & Platform

Substructure

Total

Shell

Total

Interiors

Total

Services





Transit Station & Platform 3Mall Transit Station Redevelopment 26

Attachment 1

74

75


1 Upper Carraige Way Road 1,222 SY 104.00$ 127,088.00$

2 Retaining Wall 250 LF 629.80$ 157,450.50$

3 Backfill 3,000 CY 25.00$ 75,000.00$

4 Snowmelt 8,400 SF 20.00$ 168,000.00$

5 Daly Lane Connection 333 SY 104.00$ 34,632.00$

6 Existing Mall Connection 5,200 SF 15.30$ 79,560.00$

7 Brush Creek Connection Sidewalk 180 LF 42.54$ 7,656.48$

649,386.98$


1 Utilities 42,050 SF 3.58$ 150,328.75$

2 Stormwater Management 42,050 SF 6.83$ 286,991.25$

437,320.00$

Construction Cost Sub-Total 1,086,706.98$




Services

Total

Roadwork & Sitework

Substructure

Total





Roadwork & Sitework 427 Town of Snowmass Village Feasibility Study

Attachment 1

75

76

PROJECT SCHEDULEFINAL DESIGN + CONSTRUCTION


Attachment 1

76

77

ID Task Name Duration1 617 days2 Pre-Design 15 days3 Notice to Proceed 1 day4 Contracting 14 days5 Conceptual Design 23 days6 Pre-Design Meeting and Site Walk 1 day7 Feasibility Study Review & Program Verification 14 days8 CM/GC RFP Issued 1 day9 Cost / Constructability Review 7 days10 CM/GC Pre-Proposal Meeting 1 day11 CM/GC Proposal Process 21 days12 Conceptual Design Workshop 1 day13 30% Design Documents 87 days14 Preparation of 30% Design Development Review Set 28 days15 CM/GC Award 1 day16 30% Design Workshop 1 day17 QA/QC Review 7 days18 30% Design Documents Submittal 10 days19 CM/GC 30% Design Document Review 14 days20 Value Engineering 14 days21 Revise 30% Submittal Documents 7 days22 TOSV Review Period 7 days23 30% Design Review Meeting 1 day24 75% Design Documents and Platting 54 days25 Preparation of 75% Design Development Review Set 28 days26 Specifications and Special Provisions 14 days27 Opinion of Probable Cost with CM/GC Input 14 days28 QA/QC Review 7 days29 75% Constructability Review 7 days30 Submittal of 75% Documents 1 day31 TOSV Review Period 10 days32 75% Design Review Meeting 1 day33 100% Construction Documents 49 days34 Preparation of 100% Design Document Set 28 days35 100% Specifications and Special Provisions 14 days36 Final Opinion of Probable Cost with CM/GC Input 7 days37 100% Submittal for QA/QC and Constructability Review 1 day38 QA/QC Review 7 days39 Final Constructability Review 7 days40 Contractor GMP 1 day41 Construction Contracting 21 days42 Pickup Final Review Comments as Needed 7 days43 Submittal of Final 100% Stamped Construction Documents 1 day44 Permitting and Construction 395 days45 Permitting 30 days46 Construction 365 days

Month 1 Month 2 Month 3 Month 4 Month 5 Month 6 Month 7 Month 8 Month 9 Month 10

City of Greeley - Architectural Services for Fire PROJECT SCHEDULEFINAL DESIGN + CONSTRUCTION

29 Town of Snowmass Village Feasibility Study Mall Transit Station Redevelopment 30

Attachment 1

77

78

Integrated Mobility System Analysis Scope of Work

Fehr & Peers applauds the Aspen Institute Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility on the development of the Integrated Mobility System (IMS). The measures identified in the study could have a positive impact on reducing carbon emissions related to transportation and traffic congestion and increasing mobility. Fehr & Peers has conducted a significant amount of research related to carbon emissions related to transportation and we would be excited to work with you to develop an implementation plan.

Below, we outline several potential steps to further vet and analyze some of the transportation strategies in the Aspen Institute’s proposed Integrated Mobility System (IMS) and a potential path toward implementation. This analysis will help to ensure that the strategies are well thought-out and will allow for a rough order of magnitude evaluation of potential effectiveness of managing vehicle traffic in the upper valley, reducing overall and per capita Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT), reducing carbon emissions related to transportation, and reducing the overall carbon footprint of the valley.

1. Review and Refine the Strategies – Refine the five principle strategies outlined in theIMS. This task would also add more definition so that the parameters of each of thesystems can be roughly identified and modeled for how effective the IMS could be atimproving mobility and managing traffic congestion (see next task).Estimated Cost: $ 5,280

2. Perform a High-Level Effectiveness Analysis of the IMS – The consultant will evaluatethe potential effectiveness of the Integrated Mobility System using off-the shelf tools,travel elasticities, and similar analytical techniques. The purpose of this analysis is not anexhaustive study of traffic implications or detailed GHG analysis, but a general picture ofthe potential reduction in VMT, GHG emissions, and reduced SOV vehicle travel.Estimated Cost: $ 5,240

3. Identify an Implementation Framework – While the IMS provides a robust approach tomanaging vehicle travel in the upper valley, some elements are more complex and couldtake more time to implement than others. This framework would help identify apotential “pilot project” that brings together two-to-three of the IMS strategies thatcould be simpler to get off the ground but would still have enough synergistic benefitsto reduce demand for SOV travel. This task would involve some additional analysis ofhow to combine different strategies along with working with EOTC staff to understandwhich strategies might be the easiest to implement (from a practical and politicalstandpoint). We propose this task as an in-person workshop.Estimated Cost: $ 8,890Total Cost for Task 1-3: $19,510

79

October 14, 2019 Dear Elected Officials Transportation Committee: Thank you for including us in your upcoming meeting agenda on October 17th. As a follow up to the summer meetings that we hosted to update you on our work, we are coming to you now with a formal request. When we completed our 15-month project, we presented to the EOTC our recommendation that work begin to further study and flesh out an integrated mobility system to reduce traffic congestion and carbon emissions. At the heart of our recommendations was a shift away from primarily expensive infrastructure to primarily operational innovations, which we believe would have profound implications for the EOTC’s future work and the community’s long-term success at overcoming our historic mobility challenges and congestion – and carbon reduction. To this end, we have asked Fehr + Peers to give us a proposal for the first phase of work to study and develop the Integrated Mobility System. Phase One would cost $19,510 and we are asking EOTC to grant the Aspen Institute Community Forum half of this amount in 2020. We are seeking other partners, including RFTA, to fund the other half of Phase One. We look forward to discussing this with you at your meeting on October 17th. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration of our request and for all you’re doing to improve transportation and mobility in our community and to reduce our valley’s carbon footprint. Sincerely, Co-Chairs, John Bennett and Bill Kane Community Forum Task Force on Transportation and Mobility

80

Proposed 2020 EOTC BUDGET - One Year Policy Deviation to Use Savings (Transition) - RecommendedWith Community Forum Integrated Mobility System - Phase 1






Use tax collection costs & overhead 67,213 113,090 148,299 151,413 154,593 157,839 161,154 Administrative costs & meeting costs 4,781 11,700 12,400 12,660 12,926 13,197 13,474 Country Inn taxi program in-lieu of bus stop safety improvements 2,108 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 X-Games transit subsidy 115,000 115,000 115,000 - - - - Brush Creek Intercept Lot operating costs 30,252 32,000 42,000 95,000 96,995 99,032 101,112 No-fare Aspen-Snowmass-Woody Creek bus service - year-round 650,556 662,158 690,075 838,888 872,444 907,342 943,636 WE-cycle operational support 100,000 100,000 100,000 Brush Creek BRT connecting service - spring, summer, fall (50% from Snowmass Sav 294,400 - Regional Transportation Administrator 34,492 134,376 140,881 148,177 155,856 163,937 172,442



Variable message sign on Hwy 82 - 564,019 Snowmass Mall transit station (funded from Snowmass Village Savings Fund) 50,000 - 650,000 5,578,787 EOTC Retreat, Professional Services, Regional Transportation Participation 10,000 8,000 Brush Creek Park and Ride FLAP grant match (EOTC approved 10/20/16) 41,127 1,958,873 Community Task Force - Integrated Mobility System Feasability 10,000



81

Proposed 2020 EOTC BUDGET - One Year Policy Deviation to Use Savings (Transition) - RecommendedWith Community Forum Integrated Mobility System - Phase 1

a) sales tax 5.8% 15.00% -2.00% 3.25% 3.25% 3.25% 3.25%









82