Loading...
07-15-19 Town Council PacketTown Council Monday, July 15, 2019 4:00 PM 130 Kearns Road Council Chambers Agenda 1.CALL TO ORDER - Mayor Butler called to order the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council 2.ROLL CALL 3.PUBLIC COMMENT - This section is set aside for the Town Council to LISTEN to comments by the public regarding items that do not otherwise appear on this agenda. Generally, the Town Council will not discuss the issue and will not take an official action under this section of the agenda. (Five Minute Time Limit) 4.CONSENT AGENDA - These are items where all conditions or requirements have been agreed to or met prior to the time they come before the Council for final action. A Single Public Hearing will be opened for all items on the Consent Agenda. These items will be approved by a single motion of the Council. The Mayor will ask if there is anyone present who has objection to such procedure as to certain items. Members of the Council may also ask that an item be removed from the consent section and fully discussed. All items not removed from the consent section will then be approved. A member of the Council may vote no on specific items without asking that they be removed from the consent section for full discussion. Any item that is removed from the consent agenda will be placed on the regular agenda. 4.A.DRAFT AGENDAS Draft Agendas Page 3 4.B.MINUTES FOR APPROVAL 1 Town Council Page - 2 06-17-19 Minutes for Approval Page 6 07-01-19 Minutes for Approval Page 11 4.C.RESOLUTION NO. 33, SERIES OF 2019 - A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS 8 VILLAGE, COLORADO, TO ADOPT THE GROUP TRANSIT ASSET MANAGEMENT 9 PLAN DEVELOPED BY THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 10 FOR SMALLER TIER 2 AGENCIES THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES 11 OF THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, AN OPERATING ADMINISTRATION 12 OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FOR FEDERAL 13 TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE AUTHORIZED BY 49 U.S.C. CHAPTER 53, TITLE 14 23 UNITED STATES CODE, AND OTHER FEDERAL STATUTES ADMINISTERED BY 15 THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION. Agenda Summary Reso 33 Page 15 Reso 33 Page 17 CDOT Group TRAMP Page 20 5.ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 5.A.HAWK RIDGE TRAIL POSTR RECOMMENDATION Agenda Summary Hawk Ridge Trail Page 94 5.B.VARIABLE MESSAGE SIGN UPDATE Agenda Summary Variable Message Sign Page 97 Variable Message Signs Page 99 5.C.A CONTINUED DISCUSSION REGARDING THE BRUSH CREEK/OWL CREEK ROUNDABOUT DESIGN AND FURTHER DISCUSSION ON PEDESTRIAN CROSSING DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS AT OTHER BRUSH CREEK ROAD INTERSECTIONS. Agenday Summary Design Update Page 117 Exhibit A, B, C Page 120 Exhibit D Page 123 6.TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS AND ACTIONS - Reports and Updates 6.A.CONSIDERATION OF A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE WOODY CREEK SOLAR PROJECT Agenda Summary Solar Project Page 126 Draft Letter of Support Page 127 Visual Analysis Page 128 2 Town Council Page - 3 7.ADJOURNMENT 3 DRAFT 2019 Agenda Items • Regular Meetings begin at 4:00 p.m. unless otherwise noted • Work Sessions begin at 4:00 p.m. and aim to end at 6:00 p.m. • The dates on which agenda items are listed are only a best approximation. Agenda items are added to this list as they arise. Agenda items may well be moved to different meeting dates. Agendas are generally not finalized until the Thursday prior to the meeting. • In addition to agenda items, this document also lists expected absences of Town Council members. In compliance with section 2-49 of the municipal code, once the consent agenda is approved, the absences noted will be considered to have received the prior approval necessary of the majority of the Council for members to be absent from meetings. 2019 Meetings Mon. Jul. 15th - Regular Meeting (Shenk out) • Variable Message Sign Update • Brush Creek Pedestrian Crossing Design Update • Hawk Ridge Trail POSTR Recommendation • Reso – Transit Asset Management Mon. Aug. 5th - Regular Meeting • Exec Session personnel review • 1st Reading Ord Coffey Place Housing Proposal Wed. Aug 7th - EOTC All Day Retreat Mon. Aug. 12th - Work Session (Butler out) • Joint Meeting with Snowmass Arts Advisory Board Mon. Aug 19th - Regular Meeting • Exec session personnel review • 2nd Reading Ord Coffey Place Housing Proposal • TBD Possible Senior Housing Discussion Tue. Sep. 3rd - Regular Meeting (Monday is Labor Day) • 2019 Community Survey Report of Results • Review Proposed Housing Regulations Modifications?? Mon. Sep. 9th - Work Session (Sirkus Out) • Joint Meeting with POSTR Board • Joint Meeting with PTRAB Mon. Sep. 16th - Regular Meeting • Compensation Analysis Review Mon. Oct. 7th - Regular Meeting • 2020 Budget Introduction Mon. Oct. 14th - Work Session 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 3 of 144 4 DRAFT 2019 Agenda Items • Joint Meeting with Volunteer Board Thurs. Oct. 17th - EOTC Meeting -Aspen to Chair Mon. Oct. 21st - Regular Meeting Mon. Nov. 4th – Regular GID Meeting • GID revised Budget 2019 • GID Budget 2020 Mon. Nov. 4th - Regular Meeting • PH and Reso Adopting 2020 Budget • Public Hearing – Road Mill Levy Mon. Nov. 11th -Work Session • GID Budget approval • Mon. Nov. 18th - Regular Meeting Mon. Dec. 2nd - Regular Meeting Mon. Dec. 9th – Regular GID Meeting • GID – Reso Setting Mill Levy Mon. Dec. 9th - Special Meeting • TC – Reso Setting Mill Levy Mon. Dec. 16th - Regular Meeting 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 4 of 144 5 DRAFT 2019 Agenda Items Topics for Work Sessions or Other Meetings Requested by Town Council Members • Broad discussion regarding dogs on trails and leash law enforcement • Discussion regarding putting a tobacco tax on November ballot • Discussion to consider a ban on the sale of flavored tobacco • Review the outdoor smoking ordinance to consider modifications • Update on Daly Town Home regarding retaining wall • How did they do that? • Environmental Discussions/ Approaches: 1) Meet with EAB and prioritize Sustainability goals 2) update on Solar and Renewable Energy for the Town of Snowmass Village 3) Discuss the Climate Reality Project 4) overview of the Re-Op Fund, its uses and successes. 5) a presentation of the Energy Navigator from the EAB/PW 6) discussion regarding how to move energy conservation efforts beyond town government to a community wide effort enabling individuals to help make progress 7) Update Council on solar project that was included in 2019 budget with findings from FAB, etc • Housing strategy: 1) discuss a potential regional approach to aging in place/ work with Pitkin county and county senior services- 2) find ways to encourage/ allow individuals to move from larger homes to smaller homes 3) meeting other needs- such as specific housing for town employees 4) update on current housing construction project 5) update on meeting the overall housing strategy • Action on Necessary IGA’s or other documents regarding “school property tax” distribution • A discussion on potentially allowing camping (RV or other) within the Village • Schedule Updates will all of the Town Boards to review priorities and current initiatives o EAB o FAB o PTRAB o POSTR o Marketing o Grants – Recent Awards; Review of Criteria; Purpose, etc. o SAAB o Planning • RFTA Strategic Priorities Update w. New Mill Levy 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 5 of 144 6 SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL 1 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 2 JUNE 17, 2019 3 4 1) CALL TO ORDER 5 6 Mayor Butler called to order the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town 7 Council on Monday, June 17, 2019 at 4:03 p.m. 8 9 A complete live recording of this meeting can be found at www.tosv.com under Town 10 Council Meetings. This will be archived indefinitely allowing you to view at any time. 11 12 2) ROLL CALL 13 14 15 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Goode, Bill Madsen, Bob Sirkus, Alyssa Shenk, and Markey Butler. 16 COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: All council members were present. 17 STAFF PRESENT: Clint Kinney, Town Manager; Travis Elliott, Assistant to the Town Manager; Rose Abello, Tourism Director; Andy Worline, Parks, Trails and Recreation Director and Rhonda B. Coxon, Town Clerk. 18 PUBLIC PRESENT: Michelle Wilson, David Pesnichak and other members of the public interested in today’s Agenda items. 19 20 3) JOINT MEETING WITH MARKETING, GROUP SALES AND SPECIAL EVENTS 21 BOARD 22 23 John Quigley the current Chair of the Marketing, Group Sales and Special Events 24 Board, provided a brief overview of this board and each Board Member introduced 25 themselves and their position on the Board and what area they represent. Quigley 26 stated that some of the issues that cause concern which the current Board include the 27 future of the airport, employee housing, transportation and connectivity. The airport 28 being the biggest concern due to that operation being the life line of Snowmass Village 29 and its guests. At some point in the future the Board would like to discuss the makeup 30 of the positions on the Board. The At-large positions are getting filled by those who are 31 in retail, lodging or food and beverage. Town Council thanked the Board for all their 32 hard work and providing feedback. 33 34 4) PUBLIC COMMENT 35 36 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 6 of 144 7 06-17-19 TC Minutes Page 2 of 5 37 Michelle Wilson a resident at Rodeo Place spoke to a unit being proposed in the new 38 Coffey Place has concerns regarding a house being built on land that was noted as 39 open space when she bought her unit. Clint Kinney, Town Manager spoke to the open 40 space and commented on the review process for this project. 41 42 5) CONSENT AGENDA 43 44 A. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES 06-03-19 45 46 47 B. DRAFT AGENDAS 48 49 50 C. APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT 2019 COMMUNITY SURVEY 51 52 53 D. SECOND READING - ORDINANCE NO. 09, SERIES OF 2019 - AN 54 ORDINANCE AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE AND 55 DEVELOPMENT CODE 6 INCORPORATING NEW FLOODPLAIN STANDARDS 56 CONSISTENT WITH THE STATE OF COLORADO 7 FLOODPLAIN 57 REGULATIONS AND ADOPTING APPLICABLE ASSOCIATED FIRM MAPS 58 59 60 E. RESOLUTION NO. 31, SERIES OF 2019 – AMENDING THE TITLE VI PLAN IN 61 COMPLIANCE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 AND TITLE 49 – PART 21, 62 NONDISCRIMINATION IN FEDERALLY-ASSISTED PROGRAMS OF THE 63 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 64 65 66 Bob Sirkus made the motion to approve by a roll call vote for items A, B, D and E as 67 listed on today's consent agenda. Tom Goode seconded the motion. The motion was 68 approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. 69 70 Voting Aye: Tom Goode, Bill Madsen, Bob Sirkus, Alyssa Shenk, and Markey Butler. 71 72 Voting Nay: None. 73 C. APPROVAL OF THE DRAFT 2019 COMMUNITY SURVEY 74 75 76 Travis Elliott, Assistant to the Town Manager reviewed the changes from the previous 77 discussion and the Town Council had some additional clarifications and discussion 78 regarding the survey. After discussion and minor changes, the Town Council directed 79 Elliott to move forward on the Community Survey. The results will be presented by ETC 80 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 7 of 144 8 06-17-19 TC Minutes Page 3 of 5 at the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town Council on Tuesday, September 81 03, 2019. 82 83 6) ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 84 85 A. UPDATE ON HAWK RIDGE TRAIL MANAGEMENT 86 87 Andy Worline, Director of Parks, Recreation and Trails Director presented this item and 88 stated that on On October 4th, 2016 the Parks, Open Space, Trails & Recreation 89 (POSTR) Plan was unanimously adopted by the Town of Snowmass Village Town 90 Council. This policy document included vision, goals, objectives, and guides the 91 decision makers and Town Leaders in the development of Snowmass Village’s POSTR 92 resources. One such overall goal of the POSTR Plan was to: Coordinate the 93 development of POSTR components to build a cohesive network of recreational 94 opportunities within the Town boundaries and connect those opportunities to recreation 95 and values beyond the Town boundaries. The goals and the recommendations outlined 96 in the POSTR plan clearly describe the creation of a trails system that accommodates 97 the needs of all user groups and individuals within the community: 98 99 • Objective 1.2: Establish trails in a variety of settings that provide an experience, 100 connect places of interest, or serve both purposes. 101 • Objective 1.5: Look for opportunities to connect to regional trail systems (i.e., Sky 102 Mountain Park, USFS, ASC, etc.) to support a continuous network that extends beyond 103 the Town of Snowmass Village. 104 • Objective 2.1: Consider safety on multi-use trails with a focus on design, education, 105 and management, while providing separate facilities where necessary. 106 107 In April of 2019, The POSTR Advisory Board recommended the construction of the 108 Hawk Ridge Trail. The specific recommendation from the POSTR plan stated: 109 110 Hawk Ridge Trail Project Description: This rugged trail would provide a connection 111 between the Mountain View Trail and the Rim Trail behind employee housing and Hawk 112 Ridge Lane. 113 114 The Town Council directed staff to take the survey information back to the POSTR 115 Board and have them provide the Town Council with a recommendation for the use of 116 this trail. 117 118 B. REVIEW OF UPDATED MALL TRANSIT STATION CONCEPT 119 120 David Peckler, Transportation Director and Alex Jauch from Architectural Designer 121 presented this item. Peckler noted that he has been gathering input on the Mall Transit 122 Station concept since the beginning of the new year. The goal has been to get input on 123 the program elements, layout and concerns. Two meetings were held with the preferred 124 consulting firm Short Elliot Hendrickson Inc. (S.E.H.), the Town Manager’s office, RFTA, 125 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 8 of 144 9 06-17-19 TC Minutes Page 4 of 5 the Mall ownership, Public Works, Community Development, and the Transportation 126 Department. The objective of these early meetings was to determine what materials 127 were available covering: topography and constraints of the site; the projects budget 128 constraints; and general elements to be addressed in the design. On April 1, 2019 129 Council was presented with three rough conceptual options for the site. Peckler 130 reviewed the three options with the Town Council. He also provided information 131 regarding the meetings held with stakeholders, RFTA and an Open House for the Public 132 and he stated that Option No. 1 was the preferred option. 133 134 Peckler noted that the next step of this design process will be to refine and evaluate the 135 potential construction costs. 136 137 C. JUNE 20TH, 2019 EOTC PREPARATION MEETING 138 139 David Pesnichak, Transportation Administrator stated that staff met with Council on May 140 20. At this meeting, Council had the opportunity to provide feedback on the June 20, 141 2019 EOTC meeting agenda. The goal of the June 17 meeting is to prepare Council for 142 the upcoming EOTC meeting on June 20, 2019 and answer questions on this meeting 143 packet. The EOTC retreat date is scheduled for August 07, 2019. At this time 144 Pesnichak continued reviewing the decisions made at the May 20th EOTC meeting and 145 reviewing the items for discussion on the upcoming meeting. 146 147 7) TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS AND ACTIONS 148 149 Council Member Goode stated he has a C.O.R.E. meeting and EOTC meeting on 150 Thursday. 151 152 Council Member Sirkus commended Premier Property Management for converting to 153 LED lighting to help reduce our energy footprint. The Airport Visioning Group met on 154 June 6 and the topic was air craft safety. He attended the RFTA strategic planning 155 retreat and the results are due in August. 156 157 Mayor Butler attended a Public Health Board meeting and discussed day care center 158 and school inspections. She also sat on the RFTA audit committee. 159 160 8) ADJOURNMENT 161 162 At 7:20 p.m. 163 164 Alyssa Shenk made the motion to adjourn the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass 165 Village Town Council on Monday, June 17, 2019. Bill Madsen seconded the 166 motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 5 in favor to 0 opposed. 167 168 Voting Aye: Tom Goode, Bill Madsen, Bob Sirkus, Alyssa Shenk, and Markey Butler. 169 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 9 of 144 10 06-17-19 TC Minutes Page 5 of 5 170 Voting Nay: None. 171 172 This set of meeting minutes was approved by the Town of Snowmass Village Town 173 Council at their Regular Meeting on July 15, 2019. 174 Submitted By, 175 176 ________________________ 177 Rhonda B. Coxon, CMC 178 Town Clerk 179 180 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 10 of 144 11 1 SNOWMASS VILLAGE TOWN COUNCIL 2 REGULAR MEETING MINUTES 3 JULY 1, 2019 4 5 1) CALL TO ORDER 6 7 Mayor Butler called to order the Regular Meeting of the Snowmass Village Town 8 Council on Monday, July 01, 2019 at 4:03 p.m. 9 10 A complete live recording of this meeting can be found at www.tosv.com under Town 11 Council Meetings. This will be archived indefinitely allowing you to view at any time. 12 13 2) ROLL CALL 14 15 16 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Tom Goode, Bob Sirkus, Alyssa Shenk, and Markey Butler. 17 COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Bill Madsen. 18 STAFF PRESENT: Travis Elliott, Assistant Town Manager; John Dresser, Town Attorney; Betsy Crum, Housing Director; David Peckler, Transit Director and Rhonda B. Coxon, Town Clerk 19 PUBLIC PRESENT: Katherine Bell, Hailey Walsh, Anne White, David 20 Pesnichak, Joyce Shenk, Jay Shumacher and other 21 members of the public interested in today’s Agenda 22 items. 23 3) PUBLIC COMMENT 24 None at this time 25 26 4) CONSENT AGENDA 27 28 A. DRAFT AGENDAS 29 30 Mayor Butler noted that she will not attend the August 12, 2019 Work Session. Town 31 Council consensus was to cancel the Work Session on July 08, 2019 and move the 32 items currently on the Work Session to the July 15, 2019 Regular Town Council 33 Meeting. 34 35 B. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL 36 37 Council Member Shenk arrived at this time. 38 39 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 11 of 144 12 07-01-19 TC Minutes Page 2 of 4 C. RESOLUTION NO. 32, SERIES OF 2019 - A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN 40 COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE, COLORADO, 41 APPROVING THE 2nd AMENDED 2019 BUDGET FOR THE PITKIN COUNTY 42 1/2 CENT TRANSIT SALES AND USE TAX 43 44 45 Council Member Sirkus asked a question of David Pesnichak Transportation 46 Administrator regarding the EOTC budget. 47 48 Bob Sirkus made the motion to adjourn those items listed on today's agenda. Tom 49 Goode seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 50 opposed. 51 52 Voting Aye: Tom Goode, Bob Sirkus, Alyssa Shenk, and Markey Butler. 53 54 Voting Nay: None. 55 5) ADMINISTRATIVE REPORTS 56 57 58 A. SNOWMASS ARTS ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION ON ENTRYWAY 59 ART SELECTION 60 61 62 Mayor Butler stated at this time the Snowmass Arts Board item will be discussed first. 63 64 Katherine Bell member of the Snowmass Arts Advisory Board introduced the member of 65 the Snowmass Arts Advisory Board that were present then she presented the top 66 choice for the Public Art piece to be located near the Town Park station. The piece they 67 are recommending is the Ice cubes by Joe McDonnell. She thanked the Town Council 68 for allowing the RFP process and supporting Public Art in Snowmass Village. Bell 69 provided background information on the artist and explained the material of the 70 piece. Julie Ann Woods, Community Development Director stated that the next steps 71 would be the contract and coming up with the additional monies needed for the project. 72 73 Jay Shumacher a resident of Snowmass Village asked for a continuance on this 74 item. He feels the community should have more time to review. 75 76 Tom Goode made the motion to approve the recommendation from the Snowmass Arts 77 Advisory Board for the Public Art near the Town Park station which was the Ice Cubes 78 by Joe McDonnell. Bob Sirkus seconded the motion. The motion was approved by a 79 vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. 80 81 Voting Aye: Tom Goode, Bob Sirkus, Alyssa Shenk, and Markey Butler. 82 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 12 of 144 13 07-01-19 TC Minutes Page 3 of 4 83 Voting Nay: None. 84 B. SENIOR HOUSING IN SNOWMASS VILLAGE AND AGING IN PLACE 85 86 Mayor Butler turned this discussion over to Betsy Crum, Housing Director and the 87 Mayor also noted this is just the beginning of many discussion on this topic. According 88 to the Colorado State Demography Office, Colorado is a very young state. In 2010, only 89 10% of the population was over the age of 65, and in 2015 we had the 8th lowest share 90 of those 65 and older in the US. By 2030, our population aged 65 and older will be 91 125% larger than it was in 2010. The current regulations for the Town ownership 92 housing people can retire at 62 if they have lived in the unit for ten years. If they are in 93 a rental unit they do not qualify to retire in the rental units. David Peckler, Transit 94 Director also had input regarding transportation issues relating to aging in place. Mayor 95 Butler commented that she feels this is a regional issue. Maximizing bedroom efficiency 96 was discussed and incentives for those in larger units or houses to downsize. Currently 97 our income and asset guidelines do not allow this. Town Council consensus was to 98 have staff start looking at a way to offer downsizing if people were willing. Town 99 Council asked staff to reach out to key players throughout the valley and discuss aging 100 in place. Mayor Butler will get with Travis Elliott, Assistant Town Manager to discuss 101 the invitation list to discuss this topic. 102 103 6) TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS AND ACTIONS 104 105 106 A. LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR THE WOODY CREEK SOLAR PROJECT 107 108 Travis Elliott, Assistant Town Manager stated that Mona Newton from C.O.R.E reached 109 out to Council Member Goode for a letter of support for the Holy Cross Solar Project at 110 Woody Creek. Elliott and the Town Council discussed the location and more details of 111 the project. This project is currently under a land use review with the Pitkin County 112 Planning Department. As Holy Cross customer the Town of Snowmass Village has 113 agreed to buy from this project. The Town Council would like to do a site visit and 114 continue the discussion of support until the next Regular Meeting on Monday, July 15, 115 2019. 116 117 Town Council Reports: 118 119 Council Member Shenk has a NWCCOG meeting later this month and will attend by 120 phone. She also commented on the movie at Base Village and stated how wonderful it 121 was and she thinks the Collective is doing a great job in the Base Village. 122 123 Council Member Goode attended a C.O.R.E meeting and the Board reviewed the grants 124 that were currently distributed. 125 126 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 13 of 144 14 07-01-19 TC Minutes Page 4 of 4 7) ADJOURNMENT 127 128 129 At 5:50 p.m. 130 131 Tom Goode made the motion to adjourn the Regular Meeting of Snowmass Village 132 Town Council on Monday, July 1, 2019. Bob Sirkus seconded the motion. The motion 133 was approved by a vote of 4 in favor to 0 opposed. 134 135 Voting Aye: Tom Goode, Bob Sirkus, Alyssa Shenk, and Markey Butler. 136 137 Voting Nay: None. 138 This set of meeting minutes was approved by the Snowmass Village Town Council at 139 their Regular Meeting on July 15, 2019. 140 141 Submitted By, 142 143 ________________________ 144 Rhonda B. Coxon, CMC 145 Town Clerk 146 147 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 14 of 144 15 Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item Summary DATE OF MEETING: July 15, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Resolution 33, Series of 2019 Adoption of Transit Asset Management Group Plan PRESENTED BY: David Peckler, Transportation Director BACKGROUND: In the passage of the U.S. transportation reauthorization legislation, Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) there was an emphasis on developing a plan to “implement a national transit asset management system.” This legislation focused on establishing: 1. A definition of the State of Good Repair (SGR) with objective standards for measuring the condition of capital assets; 2. The requirement that funding recipients develop a transit asset management plan; 3. The requirement that funding recipients report on asset conditions; 4. Development of an analytical process for assessing and prioritizing SGR needs; and 5. Technical assistance to funding recipients. The Transportation Department joined 53 other agencies in the state to work with the Colorado Department of Transportation’s Division of Transit and Rail (DTR) to develop a Transit Asset Management Group Plan (TAMGP) as required under the MAP-21 legislation. The document that you are approving is the culmination of work by the agencies and DTR staff to meet the requirements established in MAP-21 under the SGR guidelines. The Transportation Department (Department) has been reporting to DTR on our asset management plans and we have been conducting annual evaluations of our rolling stock and facilities. Our Preventative Maintenance program, managed by the Fleet Superintendent, is compliant with the guidelines in the regulations. I am a little concerned with the Useful Life Benchmarks for the vehicles established in the plan because of the severity of the environment we are working in: 300 inches of snow annually, 6% and 10% grades over all the service routes, 8,200 feet in elevation, and 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 15 of 144 16 maximum peak loading. My concern is about the condition the vehicles will be in at the end of the plan’s Useful Life Benchmark: ten years for body-on-chassis shuttles and fourteen years for small buses. I have brought this issue to the attention of the DTR and have had discussions with them about alternatives. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Fleet Superintendent is looking at extending our current Useful Life Benchmarks for the vehicles in our fleet to meet the conditions of the TAMGP while not compromising the safety, service and condition of our vehicles. Currently we are using six years for the body-on-chassis shuttles and ten years for the small buses. This was consistent with the Minimum Useful Life guidelines in federal regulations. Extending the useful life of vehicles in our fleet would help conserve reserves in the Capital Equipment Replacement Fund (CERF) and we are looking at seven years for the body-on-chassis shuttles and eleven years for the small buses. APPLICABILITY TO COUNCIL GOALS & OBJECTIVES: We remain committed to the safety and quality of the transit service we provide to the community that is in balance with the fiscal responsibility to the community, the DTR and the members of the TAMGP. COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Approve the resolution 2. Amend and approve the resolution 3. Disapprove the resolution. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approving the resolution to remain in compliance with SGR guidelines and remain grant eligible for capital grants. The TAMGP was written to cover 53 agencies in the state as the state’s overarching plan, so it is difficult to alter the plan to be specific for our situation. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution # 33 Series of 2019 Transit Asset Management Group Plan 2. Colorado DOT Transit Asset Management Group Plan 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 16 of 144 17 1 SNOWMASS VILLAGE 2 TOWN COUNCIL 3 4 RESOLUTION NO. 33 5 SERIES OF 2019 6 7 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF SNOWMASS 8 VILLAGE, COLORADO, TO ADOPT THE GROUP TRANSIT ASSET MANAGEMENT 9 PLAN DEVELOPED BY THE COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 10 FOR SMALLER TIER 2 AGENCIES THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDELINES 11 OF THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION, AN OPERATING ADMINISTRATION 12 OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, FOR FEDERAL 13 TRANSPORTATION ASSISTANCE AUTHORIZED BY 49 U.S.C. CHAPTER 53, TITLE 14 23 UNITED STATES CODE, AND OTHER FEDERAL STATUTES ADMINISTERED BY 15 THE FEDERAL TRANSIT ADMINISTRATION. 16 17 WHEREAS, the Town of Snowmass Village (TOSV) has the power to adopt the 18 Group Transit Asset Management Plan (Group TAM Plan) in compliance with the July 19 2016 Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA) National Transit Asset Management (TAM) 20 Final Rule, Title 49 U.S.C. 625 defining the term “state of good repair” (SGR) and 21 establishing requirements for transit asset management for FTA recipients and sub-22 recipients; and, 23 24 WHEREAS, the FTA TAM Rule requires that all agencies that receive federal 25 financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 and own, operate, or manage capital 26 assets used in the provision of public transportation create an asset management plan by 27 October 1, 2018; and, 28 29 WHEREAS, a TAM Plan must include, at a minimum, the following four elements: 30 1. An inventory of the number and type of capital assets, including 31 Rolling Stock (vehicles), Facilities, and Equipment. 32 2. A condition assessment of those inventoried assets for which an 33 agency carries direct capital responsibility. 34 3. A description of the analytical process and decision-support tools 35 used to estimate capital investment needs over time, and to develop 36 a investment prioritization. 37 4. A project-based prioritization of capital investments based on 38 reasonably anticipated funding available; and, 39 40 WHEREAS, smaller Tier 2 agencies are required to either develop their own 41 agency TAM Plan or participate in a sponsored Group TAM Plan; and, 42 43 WHEREAS, Departments of Transportation, including the Colorado Department of 44 Transportation (CDOT), are required to develop Group TAM Plans on behalf of Tier 2 45 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 17 of 144 18 19-33 RESO. Page 2 of 3 2 agencies in Colorado to reduce the planning and reporting burden on those agencies; 46 and, 47 WHEREAS, the TAM Rule does apply to the TOSV as a public transportation 48 provider and recipient of financial assistance through FTA 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 49 programs and the agency has opted to participate in the CDOT-sponsored 2018 Group 50 TAM Plan; and, 51 52 WHEREAS, as the sponsor, CDOT leads the effort to collaboratively develop the 53 Group TAM Plan, to develop decision support and analysis tools, to set SGR 54 performance targets for the plan participants, to develop a ranked list of prioritized asset 55 management projects based on anticipated revenues, and to annual report to the 56 National Transit Database the asset inventories, SGR measures, SGR targets, and a plan 57 narrative on behalf of the plan participants; and, 58 59 WHEREAS, Group TAM Plan participants are responsible to provide and maintain 60 up-to-date asset inventory and condition assessment data, to collaborate in the 61 development of the Group TAM Plan, to work cooperatively with CDOT toward meeting 62 SGR targets, and for agency Accountable Executives to formally approve and implement 63 the plan within their agencies; and, 64 65 WHEREAS, throughout 2017 and 2018 CDOT and the TOSV collaborated along 66 with other participating agencies to compile and analyze a comprehensive transit asset 67 inventory, to estimate Federal, State and Local revenues available for investments in the 68 list of priority projects designed to address the backlog of needed transit asset 69 replacements and investments; and, 70 71 WHEREAS, On September 29, 2018 the 2018 Group TAM Plan was completed, 72 satisfying the FTA TAM Rule as it applies to CDOT and to tis participating agencies; and, 73 74 WHEREAS, the Group TAM Plan provides TOSV, CDOT and its participating 75 agencies valuable information to achieve the best possible state of good repair of transit 76 assets by supporting the optimal investment of Federal, State and Local transit capital 77 revenues; and, 78 79 80 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of 81 Snowmass Village, Colorado, 82 83 Does hereby adopt the 2018 Group TAM Plan; and, 84 85 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, upon adoption of this resolution TOSV will work to 86 enhance its asset management practices to improve system safety and reliability, reduce 87 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 18 of 144 19 19-33 RESO. Page 3 of 3 3 costs, improve customer service, and optimize resource allocation by working 88 cooperatively with CDOT toward meeting SGR targets. 89 90 91 92 CERTIFICATION 93 94 READ, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of 95 Snowmass Village on the 15th of July 2019 upon a motion made by Council Member 96 _______, the second of Council Member _______, and upon a vote of __in favor and 97 __ opposed. 98 99 100 TOWN OF SNOWMASS VILLAGE 101 102 103 ____________________ 104 Markey Butler, Mayor 105 106 107 APPROVED AS TO FORM 108 109 110 _________________________ 111 John Dresser, Town Attorney 112 113 114 115 ATTEST: 116 117 118 ________________________________ 119 Rhonda Coxon, Town Clerk 120 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 19 of 144 20 Colorado DOT Transit Asset Management Group Plan Fall 2018 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 20 of 144 21 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Table of Contents Table of Contents Chapter 1—Introduction Chapter 2—Goals and Objectives Chapter 3—Inventory and Conditions Chapter 4—Analytical Approach Chapter 5—State of Good Repair and Investment Prioritization Appendix A—Participating Agencies Appendix B—Full Inventory and Condition Summaries of Participating Agencies 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 21 of 144 22 Chapter 1 Introduction The Colorado Department of Transportation has created this Transit Asset Management Plan to for its participating agencies to document asset management processes, project future performance of assets given expected funding, and develop recommendations for transit asset management improvements moving forward . This document is also designed to meet federal requirements that are tied to the funding required for Colorado’s transit system. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 22 of 144 23 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Introduction 1-1 Welcome and Overview Transit asset management (TAM) is a business model that uses asset condition to guide funding prioritization in order to keep transit networks in a State of Good Repair (SGR). Having a TAM Plan benefits an agency in a number of ways: • Improved transparency and accountability • Optimized capital investment and maintenance decisions • Data-driven maintenance decisions • Potential safety benefits Federal Legislative Context FTA defines TAM policy as “a transit provider’s documented commitment to achieving and maintaining SGR for all of its capital assets. A TAM policy defines the transit provider’s TAM objectives and defines and assigns roles and responsibilities for meeting those objectives. “ The FTA’s TAM Rule, effective October 1, 2016 applies to recipients and sub recipients of Federal financial assistance under 49 U.S.C. Chapter 53 that own, operate or manage capital assets in the provision of public transportation. Public transportation in this context means regular, continuing shared-ride surface transportation services that are open to the general public, or open to segments of the general population defined by age, disability or low income. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 23 of 144 24 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Introduction 1-2 Executive Summary A Transit Asset Management Plan (TAM) is a business model that uses the condition of assets to guide the optimal prioritization of investments at transit agencies in order to keep transit systems in a State of Good Repair (SGR). By implementing this TAM Plan, the benefits include: • Improved transparency and accountability for funding investments; • Optimized capital investment and maintenance decisions; • Data-driven capital planning; and • Improved system safety and reliability, and reduced maintenance costs. This Group TAM Plan, sponsored by CDOT and developed by the Division of Transit and Rail (DTR), serves to reduce the burden of the TAM Rule on sm aller, Tier II transit agencies who might otherwise struggle to support the administrative and technical capacity needed to develop individual plans. Participants in this Group TAM Plan include 53 public transportation providers in Colorado who provide a combination of fixed-route, demand response and other specialized transportation services throughout the state. These critical services are dependent on an inventory of over $500 mi llion in capital assets, including: • 1,146 Revenue and Service Vehicles, • 64 Administrative or Maintenance Facilities, • 190 Passenger and Parking Facilities, and • 23 Equipment assets (valued over $50,000 each) An inventory and its State of Good Repair (SGR) is summarized in Chapter 3 for each individual asset class. It is estimated there is a total of $15 million available annually of Federal, State and Local funding for improving the inventory SGR. This figure, derived from historic spending data, is used to model an optimal investment plan using the Transit Asset Planning Tool (TAPT) and to project the long-term SGR of these assets given this funding level. A description of this analysis and modeling is provided in Chapter 4. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 24 of 144 25 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Introduction 1-3 The following table summarizes the Inventory, SGR Measures and SGR Targets for the CDOT Group TAM Plan. Asset Category Asset Class Inventory Current % Beyond SGR 2019 Target Revenue Vehicles Aerial Tramway 71 80.3% 41%* Bus – Large 286 19.9% 20% Bus – Medium 80 15% 14% Cutaway – Large 88 18.2% 15% Cutaway – Small 243 28.8% 18% Van/Minivan 254 26% 2% Automobile 64 35.9% 8% Service Vehicles Trucks & Other Rubber Tire Vehicles 37 13.5% 11% Automobiles 23 47.8% 4% Facilities Support Facilities 64 15.6% 11% Passenger Facilities 190 2.1% 2% Equipment Non-vehicle equipment 23 n/a n/a The TAPT tool is also used in this Plan to develop a prioritization of investment projects, listed in Chapter 5, which will support CDOT and participating agencies in its future asset management investment decisions. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 25 of 144 26 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Introduction 1-4 Transit Asset Management Plan (TAM Plan) Purpose of the Group Plan The TAM Plan is a federally required planning tool intended to inform and improve asset management practices and funding decisions by CDOT and its participating transit agencies. A key TAM objective is making data-driven investment decisions to meet federal requirements and make progress towards stated asset conditions goals. The TAM Plan will help agencies and CDOT maintain the transit system in a state of good repair with the most efficient use of financial resources. Colorado Transit Vision Colorado’s public transit system will enhance mobility for residents and visitors in an effective, safe, efficient and sustainable manner; will offer meaningful transportation choices to all segment of the state’s population; and will provide access to and connectivity among transportation modes. TAM Objectives • Attain the best asset conditions achievable given available resources, while striving towards a State of Good Repair • Deliver an efficient and effective program to optimize the life of our transit assets • Improve communication and transparency regarding decisions and outcomes • Achieve and maintain compliance with Federal asset management requirements 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 26 of 144 27 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Introduction 1-5 Summary of Participating Agencies Colorado is currently home to approximately 58 agencies providing public transportation services across the state. Of the 55 Tier II agencies to which the FTA TAM Rule applies in Colorado, 53 opted to participate in this Group TAM Plan. Figure 1-1 provides a map of the office locations of the Tier II public transportation agencies across the state. Colorado’s Tier II Public Transportation Providers Participating Group TAM Plan Agencies: All Points Transit Aspen, City of Avon, Town of Baca County Seniors Van Bent County Berthoud Area Transportation Service (BATS) Black Hawk, City of Breckenridge, Town of Broomfield, City and County of Castle Rock Senior Center Cripple Creek, City of Dolores County Durango, City of Eagle County East Central Council of Governments (ECCOG) El Paso Fountain Valley Senior Citizens Program Envida Estes Park, Town of Glenwood Springs, City of Golden Age Shuttle Gunnison Valley Rural Transportation Authority Huerfano/Las Animas Area Council of Governments (SCCOG) La Junta, City of La Plata County Senior Services Lake County Lakewood, City of Littleton Omnibus Loveland, City of Montezuma County Mountain Express Transit Mountain Express, The Mountain Family Center Mountain Village, Town of Northeast Colorado Association of Local Governments (NECALG) Neighbor to Neighbor Volunteers North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Council (NFRMPO) Park County Senior Coalition Prowers County Pueblo, City of Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) Routt County San Miguel County Senior Resource Development Agency (SRDA) Seniors' Resource Center, Inc. (SRC) Snowmass Village, Town of Southern Colorado Community Action Agency Steamboat Springs, City of Summit Stage Teller Senior Coalition Telluride, Town of Via Mobility Services Wet Mountain Valley Community Service Corp Winter Park, Town of Non-participating public transit agencies: Greeley Evans Transit (GET) Mesa County A larger version of the map in Figure 1-1 and list of the Group TAM Plan participating agencies with corresponding map IDs are provided in Appendix A. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 27 of 144 28 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Introduction 1-6 Figure 1-1. Colorado Tier II agencies Group Plan Building Process Overview CDOT began the process for TAM Plan development in 2017. After updating a list of transit agencies and contacts across the state, communication was sent to each transit agency to identify the Accountable Executive who would be the primary contact for future discussions and information. A number of subsequent communications were sent to provide the agencies insight into the status and process of TAM Plan development. CDOT employed the Transit & Rail Advisory Committee (TRAC) as a resource and partner to move the TAM Plan discussions, development and decisions forward. Participating Transit Agency Non-participating Transit Agency 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 28 of 144 29 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Introduction 1-7 TAM Plan Framework This TAM Plan document is organized in 5 chapters: • Introduction – this chapter provides an overview of TAM Plan requirements and resources and an Executive Summary of the plan. • Goals and Objectives – this chapter outlines CDOT and participating agency goals and objectives specific to maintaining SGR. • Inventory and Conditions – this chapter summarizes the participating transit agency capital assets and condition data for rolling stock, facilities and equipment. • Analytical Approach – this chapter describes the data collection resources and analytic tools and processes used to analyze the inventory and to prioritize asset replacements. • Investment Prioritization – this chapter presents funding scenarios and a prioritized list of asset replacement needs. Other resources Related CDOT Plans Transportation Matters: Statewide Transportation Plan https://www.codot.gov/programs/colorado-transportation-matters/statewide-transportation-plans Statewide Transit Plan https://www.codot.gov/programs/colorado-transportation-matters/documents/statewide-transit-plan 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 29 of 144 30 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Goals and Objectives 2-1 Chapter 2 Goals and Objectives Identifying goals and objectives is an important step in developing transit asset management practices and processes at an agency. These goals and objectives help focus agency operations, drive improved performance, and influence investments in transit ass ets. CDOT’s Group TAM goals and objectives constitute a commitment to maintaining assets in a state of good repair. This commitment will yield benefits for riders by improving transit service s and for transit providers by improving decision-making and reducing costs. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 30 of 144 31 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Goals and Objectives 2-2 Overview As the sponsor of the Group Plan, CDOT is a committed partner with the Tier II participant agencies in creating an aligned TA M plan useful for all providers. As indicated by their participation in the Group TAM plan, the participating Tier II transit providers are committed to the same goals and objectives as CDOT. Separately from this Group TAM plan, each provider has developed specific facility and vehicle management plans which detail their policies and practices for effectively managing those assets. CDOT’s mission and vision are guiding principles that shape TAM policy and transit goals and objectives. Goals and objectives help define and guide the TAM program at CDOT and are an integral part of the TAM Plan. Goals are broad ideas that express the ideal state of the transit system in Colorado. Objectives are the measurable, achievable steps that will help make progre ss towards goals. This chapter presents CDOT’s mission, vision, and goals and objectives, and defines state of good repair (SGR). Federal Legislative Context Tier II providers are not required to include a TAM and SGR policy in their individual or Group TAM plan. However, it is good practice to define and document asset management goals, objectives and policies. FTA defines TAM policy as “a transit provider’s documented commitment to achieving and maintaining SGR for all of its capital assets. The TAM policy defines the transit provider’s TAM objectives and de fines and assigns roles and responsibilities for meeting those objectives. “ SGR is defined by FTA as “the condition in which a capital asset is able to operate at a full level of performance.” The FTA final rule on transit asset management further defines SGR in §625.41: “A capital asset is in a state of good repair if it meets the following objective standards: • The capital asset is able to perform its designed function • The use of the asset in its current condition does not pose an identified unacceptable safety risk • The life-cycle investment needs of the asset have been met or recovered, including all scheduled maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacements.” 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 31 of 144 32 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Goals and Objectives 2-3 Goals and Objectives The highest level guiding principles at CDOT are its vision and mission. These principles influence transportation goals and objectives across the agency. Vision and Mission Colorado strives to be the best Department of Transportation in the country for all customers, by providing freedom, connection and experience through travel. CDOT Vision & Mission CDOT’s vision is to enhance the quality of life and the environment of the citizens of Colorado by creating an integrated transportation system that focuses on safely moving people and goods by offering convenient linkages among modal choices. CDOT’s mission is to provide the best multi-modal transportation system for Colorado that most effectively and safely moves people, goods and information Consistent with the CDOT mission, the Division of Transit and Rail (DTR), established in 2009, is responsible for the planning, development, operation and integration of transit and rail into the statewide transportation system. Colorado Transit Vision Colorado’s public transit system will enhance mobility for residents and visitors in an effective, safe, efficient and sustainable manner; will offer meaningful transportation choices to all segment s of the state’s population; and will provide access to and connectivity among transportation modes. DTR has a number of priorities used to guide the departments’ goals, objectives and performance measures. These priorities, as outlined in the Statewide Transit Plan, are used to inform this TAM Plan. • System Preservation and Expansion • Mobility/Accessibility • Transit System and Partnerships Development • Environmental Stewardship • Economic Vitality • Safety and Security 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 32 of 144 33 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Goals and Objectives 2-4 CDOT’s vision and mission are further detailed in the Long-Range Transportation Plan “Transportation Matters: Statewide Transportation Plan 2040” Long-Range Transportation Plan Insights • The safe movement of people and goods in the most important goal of the transportation system. • Reducing congestion and increasing travel choice are of high importance • There is a connection between the transportation system and economic vitality of a region. CDOT identifies “maintaining the system” as a primary goal, and includes a number of items within the plan supporting the maintenance of assets, including: • CDOT has to maintain its existing transportation assets for the long -term, including more than 23,000 lane miles of roads, over 3,400 bridges, 35 year-round mountain passes, and help support interregional transit as well as more than 55 urban and rural general public transit providers, in addition to over 100 human services agencies providing specialized transportation services. • Maintain the percentage of rural Colorado transit fleet vehicles operating in at least fair condition. • Require all applicable Colorado transit grantees to have Asset Management Plans in place or participate in the CDOT sponsored Group Plan. • Replacing and rehabilitating existing and future transportation facilities on a long -term basis, including preventative maintenance. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 33 of 144 34 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Goals and Objectives 2-5 Summary of TAM Objectives CDOT has adopted a set of TAM objectives for the Group Plan that are al igned with the vision and mission of the agency. These objectives are helping to inform participating transit agencies and CDOT DTR in decision making as it develops, refines , and implements TAM policies, processes, and practices. As the sponsor of the Group Plan, CDOT is focused on supporting Colorado’s holistic transit strategies and goals. CDOT intends to provide leadership, resources and guidance to transit agenc ies as it creates a transit asset management plan that benefits all agencies. CDOT’s effort for the plan is to encourage and engage plan participants to create a collaborative exercise to deliver a meaningful and useful plan and improve investment decisions statewide. The TAM effort also informs other non-participating agencies as they develop and implement their own TAM Plans. TAM Objective Examples • Achieve and maintain compliance with federal transit asset management rules • Attain the best asset conditions achievable, given available funding and resources • Improve communication and transparency regarding decisions and outcomes • Improve transit safety Performance measures, targets, and SGR modeling capabilities are being developed to help achieve TAM objectives. These tools, systems, and practices are being linked through all funding decision processes so that CDOT and all transit agencies across the state can operate more effectively and make progress towards federal requirements and state goals. Applied to transit assets, the above goals and objectives translate into a commitment to make optimal investments, where possible, to achieve and maintain a SGR for transit assets. These assets include revenue vehicles, equipment, and facilities. Asset inventory and condition are described in Chapter 3: Inventory and Condition. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 34 of 144 35 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition 3-1 Chapter 3 Inventory and Condition Inventory and condition data for transit assets are the building blocks upon which investment decisions are made. Inventory and condition data also provide valuable information for communicating the extent of an agency’s assets and the state of those asset s. Accurate inventory and condition data support meaningful asset management practices such as predicting asset conditions, projecting funding needs, and prioritizing investments. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 35 of 144 36 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition 3-2 Overview This chapter presents a summary of transit asset inventory and condition data for Colorado Group TAM Plan participants. This includes information related to rolling stock; equipment; and facilities for 53 participating transit providers. Federal Legislative Context FTA requires that a Group TAM Plan include an inventory and condition assessment of all capital assets for which the provider has direct capital responsibility. The inventory and condition assessment must be at a level of detail sufficient to model asset condition and support investment prioritization to maintain assets in a State of Good Repair. SGR is defined by FTA as “the condition in which a capital asset is able to operate at a full level of performance.” The FTA final rule on transit asset management further defines SGR in §625.41: “A capital asset is in a state of good repair if it meets the following objective standards: • The capital asset is able to perform its designed function • The use of the asset in its current condition does not pose an identified unacceptable safety risk • The life-cycle investment needs of the asset have been met or recovered, including all scheduled maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacements.” As part of the TAM Plan rule, transit providers are also required to set performance targets for performance measures defined by FTA in 49 CFR §625.43. These are listed below. FTA SGR Performance Measures for Capital Assets • Rolling Stock: The performance measure for rolling stock is the percentage of revenue vehicles within a particular asset class that have either met or exceeded their useful life benchmark (ULB). ULB is the age at which an asset has reached the end of its economic useful life, specified in terms of asset age, mileage and/or other factors. • Equipment: The performance measure for service and maintenance vehicles (non-revenue) is the percentage of those vehicles that have either met or exceeded their ULB. • Facilities: The performance measure for facilities is the percentage of facilities within an asset class, rated below 3.0 on the FTA Transit Economic Requirements Model (TERM) scale. For this Group TAM Plan, CDOT as the Sponsor is responsible for setting unified performance targets for each asset class in the plan. The targets for each asset class are outlined in Chapter 5 and are reported to the National Transit Database (NTD) by the Sponsor on behalf of the Group TAM Plan participants. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 36 of 144 37 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition 3-3 Colorado Group TAM Plan Transit System Summary Colorado is home to approximately 5.6 million people. Serving their transportation needs is an extensive network of 58 known public transit providers (including Tier 1 and Tier 2) and an additional 80-90 human service agencies that provide specialized transit services. With over 3 million jobs in Colorado, there is great demand for transit to connect residents to the job market. Figure 3-1 displays employment density in Colorado as a means to understand this key element of demand for transit across the state. Figure 3-1. Colorado Employment Density Of the 55 existing Tier II (smaller) public transit providers in Colorado, 53 are agencies that have chosen to participate in this Group TAM Plan. These agencies possess a total of 1,423 capital assets utilized in the delivery of transit services. The combined assets of these participants include: • 1086 revenue vehicles • 60 service vehicles • 64 administrative / maintenance facilities • 190 passenger facilities • 23 non-vehicle equipment assets Measuring and monitoring transit asset conditions enables transit providers to gain a holistic view of assets across the state. This information allows the plan sponsor and individual agencies to assess the performance of the transit system, analyze deficiencies and predict future needs, effectively allocate funding, and prioritize investments to maintain SGR. Asset condition is also an important public-facing measure. Users of the transit network notice and experience asset condition every day and recognize changes in asset condition. Public trust and confidence is bolstered when objective measurable results can be demonstrated through smart public investments. For depicting asset conditions, this TAM Plan uses definitions of asset condition and SGR developed by CDOT, the Transit & Rail Advisory Committee (TRAC) and the Group TAM Plan participants that are consistent with FTA’s mandated performance measures. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 37 of 144 38 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition 3-4 Revenue Vehicles In 49 CFR §625.5, FTA defines rolling stock as a revenue vehicle used in providing public transportation, including vehicles used to transport passengers and includes buses, vans, cars, locomotives, trolley cars, ferryboats, light rails, streetcars, other rail vehicles and vehicles used for guideways and incline planes, as well as vehicles used for support services. Rolling Stock Condition The purpose of the rolling stock (vehicle) condition assessment is to provide an overall snapshot of the current state of good repair of a fleet to aid in decisions concerning when it is m ost cost effective to replace the asset. FTA’s mandated performance measure for rolling stock is the percentage of assets within a class that have met or exceeded their ULB. An asset is deemed to be in SGR if its age is less than the ULB specified for the corresponding asset type. Likewise, an asset is deemed to no longer be in SGR if its age equals or exceeds the corresponding ULB. The ULB value may be specified in terms of asset age, mileage and/or other factors. For purposes of this TAM Plan, CDOT is using the FTA default ULB values by asset type, all of which are specified in terms of asset age. More nuanced and comprehensive aspects of participants’ assets and asset conditions, such as mileage and maintenance history, may be considered in subsequent updates to this Plan. There are a variety of vehicle types identified in this plan, which are defined in the 2017 NTD Glossary1, and illustrated in Table 3-1 below. Table 3-1. Revenue Vehicle Types Revenue Vehicle Types Over-the-Road (OTR) Coach: A bus characterized by an elevated passenger deck located over a baggage compartment, which can be equipped with a restroom. Transit bus: A bus with front and center doors, normally with a rear-mounted engine, low-back seating, and without luggage compartments or restroom facilities for use in frequent- stop service. This vehicle is commonly used on fixed route systems and can usually hold about 42 ambulatory passengers if two wheelchair tiedowns are provided.2 Cutaway: A vehicle that consists of a bus body mounted on the chassis of a van or light-duty truck. The original van or light-duty truck chassis may be reinforced or extended. Cutaways typically seat 15 or more passengers and may accommodate standing passengers. 1 FTA. National Transit Database Glossary. FTA, 2017. 2 Colorado DOT. Overview of Transit Vehicles. CDOT. https://www.codot.gov/programs/commuterchoices/documents/trandir_transit.pdf 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 38 of 144 39 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition 3-5 Van/Minivan: A factory-built vehicle designed to be something between a car and a van. These vehicles typically hold seven or more passengers, including the driver. 3 Aerial Tramway: An electric system of aerial cables with suspended powerless passenger vehicles. Revenue Vehicle Condition Assessment and Performance Measures CDOT collects inventory and condition data from transit providers in a database called COTRAMS . The Division of Transit and Rail (DTR) is also in the process of capturing more comprehensive transit asset data for a robust update to the database currently contained in COTRAMS. DTR’s inventory system contains the asset data from all transit agencies with whom CDOT has a sub-recipient relationship, including the 53 providers participating in the group plan. Plan participant asset data is differentiated and tracked separately from the statewide database for the purposes of this Group TAM Plan. Condition for revenue vehicles is determined by the age of vehicles relative to the Useful Life Benchmark (ULB) for each vehicle class. For purposes of this Group Plan, the FTA default ULB values are used to evaluate vehicle condition. These values are shown in Table 3-2. Table 3-2. Revenue Vehicle ULB values Vehicle Type ULB Automobile/SUV/Van 8 years Cutaway 10 years Aerial Tramway 12 years Bus 14 years 3 Colorado DOT. Overview of Transit Vehicles. CDOT. https://www.codot.gov/programs/commuterchoices/documents/trandir_transit.pdf 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 39 of 144 40 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition 3-6 Rolling Stock Inventory and Conditions A total of 1,086 revenue vehicles across vehicle classes are included in the inventory and condi tion assessment. Of these, 72.3%, or 785 vehicles, are in a state of good repair, with 301 having asset ages beyond the ULB. Table 3-3 summarizes the 53 participating agencies’ combined revenue vehicle conditions as a percent within SGR or percent beyond SGR. Agency specific SGR measures are provided in Appendix A. Table 3-3. Revenue Vehicle Condition Summary Vehicle Category Class Subtypes ULB Total % in SGR % Not in SGR Revenue Vehicles Aerial Tramway Aerial Tramway 12 71 19.7% 80.3% Bus – Large Bus 35’-42’, OTR Coaches, Articulated 14 286 80.1% 19.9% Bus – Medium Bus < 35’ 14 80 85% 15% Cutaway – Large Cutaway with > 15 seats 10 88 81.8% 18.2% Cutaway – Small Cutaway with < 15 seats 10 243 71.2% 28.8% Van/Minivan Vans, Minivans 8 254 74% 26% Automobile Sedan, Wagon, SUV 8 64 64.1% 35.9% TOTAL 1086 72.3% 27.7% 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 40 of 144 41 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition 3-7 Equipment In 49 CFR §625.5, equipment is defined as an article of nonexpendable, tangible property having a useful life of at least one year. Equipment is used generally to support operations, construction or maintenance and repair work for public transportation. Examples of service vehicles provided in the 2017 NTD Glossary include tow trucks, supervisor vans, transit police cars, staff cars, and maintenance vehicles for maintaining passenger facilities or rolling stock. Examples of other inventoried equipment include IT/Office, Communication, Fare Collection, Maintenance or Surveillance systems. Per the FTA Asset Management Rule, the inventory in this TAM Plan includes equipment with an original cost of $50,000 or more plus all Service Vehicles (Rolling Stock), regardless of original cost. It includes only equipment assets owned by plan participants or for which they carry Direct Capital Responsibility. Equipment Condition Assessment and Performance Measures Service vehicles make up the primary class of equipment for purposes of this TAM Plan. Please note that Equipment other than Service Vehicles are inventoried, but are not included in SGR measures or targets for this TAM Plan . The State of Good Repair approach for Service Vehicles is similar to those used with Revenue Vehicles, using FTA’s default ULB for each class, as noted in Table 3-4. Table 3-4. Equipment (Service Vehicles) ULB values Equipment (Service Vehicle) Category ULB Automobile/SUV/Van 8 years Pickup Truck/Rubber Tire Vehicles 14 years Equipment Inventory and Condition This Group Plan covers 86 equipment items, including 60 Service Vehicles and 23 non-rolling stock items with an initial value over $50,000. Of the Service Vehicles identified in this plan, 73.3% are within a state of good repair. Table 3-5 provides a summary view of equipment inventory, and service vehicle condition by class. Agency specific summaries are provided in Appendix A. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 41 of 144 42 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition 3-8 Table 3-5. Equipment Condition Summary Category Equipment Class Subtype Total % in SGR % Not in SGR Equipment Maintenance 5 n/a Facility 1 n/a IT/Office 13 n/a Communications - Signs/Signals 4 n/a Service Vehicles Trucks & Other Rubber Tire Vehicles Pickup Truck, Maintenance, Construction 37 86% 14% Automobiles Sedan, SUV, Van 23 52% 48% Total Service Vehicles 60 73% 27% 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 42 of 144 43 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition 3-9 Facilities The facilities owned or operated by agencies participating in this Plan fall into one of two general categories: administrative/maintenance facilities, and passenger facilities. The approach used to assess the condition for both categories is based on guidance detailed in the CDOT Vehicle and Facility Condition Guide. The general approach relies on visual inspection of a facility’s primary components to determine their rating using the FTA’s five-point TERM scale shown below, which are then aggregated to arrive at an overall facility condition rating. This supports FTA’s mandated SGR performance measure for facilities, which is the percentage of facilities within an asset class rated less than 3 on the TERM scale. Table 3-6 below describes the condition ratings. Table 3-6. FTA TERM scale values Rating Condition Description 5 Excellent No visible defects, near new condition 4 Good Some (slightly) defective or deteriorated component(s) 3 Adequate Moderately defective or deteriorated component(s) 2 Marginal Defective or deteriorated component(s) in need of replacement 1 Poor Critically damaged component(s) or in need of immediate repair The components outlined in Table 3-7 are the minimum major facility components that are assessed to ultimately inform the agency’s determination of a facility’s overall condition and state of good repair. The FTA TAM Rule requires that all facilities undergo this full component-based assessment at least once every four years with at least 25% of facility assessments being completed in TAM Plan year 2 (2019) and another 25% completed in each subsequent Plan year thereafter. While CDOT and participating agencies intend to fully implement this approach within the plan’s four year horizon, in cases where facilities have not yet undergone a full assessment in this first Plan year, agencies have provided one overall condition score based on the agency’s unique assessment methods. Facility condition data will be continually updated based on completion of component assessments and reflected in annual Plan updates. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 43 of 144 44 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition 3-10 Table 3-7. Facility Components Component Number Component 1 Roof 2 Shell 3 Interior 4 Conveyance 5 Plumbing 6 HVAC 7 Fire Protection 8 Electrical 9 Equipment 10 Site (parking, grounds) Administrative/Maintenance Facility Condition Assessment 64 Administrative/Maintenance Facilities across Colorado are assessed in this TAM Plan. This category of facilities may include administration or maintenance facilities, bus parking, storage, or fueling facilities. These facilities average at 84% within SGR. Table 3-8 provides a summary of condition data for the support facilities for Group Plan participants. Agency specific SGR results are provided in Appendix A. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 44 of 144 45 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition 3-11 Table 3-8. Support Facility Condition–Admin/Maintenance Facility Type Asset type Total % in SGR % Not in SGR Support Facilities Admin 13 84% 15% Admin Office/Sales Office 2 50% 50% Bus Maintenance Facility 13 92% 8% Bus Parking Facility 12 83% 17% Combined Admin and Maintenance Building 3 67% 33% Maintenance Facility (Service and Inspection) 1 100% 0% Other Support Facility 10 100% 0% Other, Admin and Maintenance 9 67% 33% Storage Yard 0 n/a n/a Vehicle Fueling Facility 1 100% 0% TOTAL 64 84% 16% 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 45 of 144 46 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition 3-12 Passenger Facility Assessment 190 Passenger and Parking Facilities across Colorado are also assessed in this TAM Plan. This category of facilities includes Bus Shelters, Bus Stations, Intermodal Terminals, Park and Ride Lots, and Other Passenger Transit Facilities. Passenger facilities measure in at an exceptional 98% within SGR. Summary data is provided in Table 3-9. Agency specific SGR summaries are provided in Appendix A. Table 3-9. Passenger Facility Condition–Passenger and Parking Facilities Category Subtype Total % in SGR % Not in SGR Stations – Terminals Bus Shelter 81 99% 1% Bus Station 33 97% 3% Intermodal Terminal 12 100% 0% Other Transit Facility 57 96% 4% Park and Ride Lot 1 100% 0% Parking Garage 3 100% 0% Parking Lot 3 100% 0% TOTAL 190 98% 2% 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 46 of 144 47 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Analytical Approach 4-1 Chapter 4 Analytical Approach The section of the Transit Asset management plan provides an overview of key decision-making tools and processes for improving the state of good repair of transit assets within the public transportation system in Colorado. These tools will assist participating agencies in assessing financial needs and asset prioritization now and in the future. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 47 of 144 48 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Analytical Approach 4-2 Overview Colorado’s Group TAM Plan is sponsored by CDOT. CDOT has partnered with Plan participants to gather updated asset data in an effort to inform the analytical process for project and program prioritization. This asset data allows for modeling transit investment needs for Tier II providers. This chapter describes CDOT’s analytical approach to assist in prioritization of Tier II agency assets, in alignment with the FTA rule. Federal Legislative Context In 49 CFR 625.25, FTA requires than a group TAM plan include a “description of analytical processes or decision-support tools that a provider uses to estimate capital investment needs over time and develop its investment prioritization .” Data Collection The analytical approach for understanding investment needs utilizes two data sources. The asset data described in Chapter 3 is sourced from a relational database, COTRAMS, along with an updated inventory Excel Workbook used to inform the TAM Plan. Also, to perform the analysis and prioritization of SGR needs, CDOT is using a customized version of the Transit Asset Prioritization Tool (TAPT) developed through the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) and included with TCRP Report 172. COTRAMS database and TAM Plan inventory CDOT collects inventory and condition data from transit providers in a database called COTRAMS , which is a relational database used across the organization, with primary use to support grant making . This database is used by transit agencies across the state to provide a view into their asset inventory. The data from COTRAMS is used to update NTD. The Division of Transit and Rail (DTR) also maintains an active working Excel workbook to capture more comprehensive and updated transit asset data. Using baseline asset data sourced from COTRAMS, the 2018 TAM Plan Inventory Analysis workbook was developed in an effort to inform the TAM Plan with the most current and accurate data. DTR’s inventory system contains the asset data from all transit agencies with whom CDOT has a sub recipient relationship, including the 53 providers participating in the group plan. Plan participant data is differentiated and tracked separately for the purposes o f this Group TAM Plan. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 48 of 144 49 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Analytical Approach 4-3 Analytic Tools To perform the analysis and prioritization of SGR needs, CDOT is using a customized version of the Transit Asset Prioritization Tool (TAPT) developed through the Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) and included with TCRP Report 172. TAPT is a Excel-based spreadsheet tool for predicting transit asset conditions and SGR needs. The tool contains customizable models for different asset types, and generates recommendations for rehabilitation or replacement of assets. TAPT can also predict asset conditions and performance over time. This analytic tool supports prediction of the overall performance using specified funding scenarios, and will generate a prioritized list of projects to fund given a budget constraint. Figure 4-2 is a diagram illustrating the structure of TAPT. The tool has a single start screen that supports navigation, modeling, and analysis. The tool has templates for vehicle and facility models, including flexibility to create age-based and condition- based models. The tool creates new worksheets with summary outputs and detailed outputs for each scenario. Figure 4-1. TAPT Structure 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 49 of 144 50 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Analytical Approach 4-4 TAPT Inputs TAPT Inputs can be maneuvered using the start screen, shown in Figure 4-2. From this screen, a user can add vehicle and facility inventory for analysis. Here, a user can also create, edit or delete an asset model, and adjust any model parameters. This screen will also support entering or adjusting budget and funding scenarios to best understand how variable funding will impact the ability to maintain a state of good repair. Using the start screen will also provide the ability to view and export program level and/or summary results. Figure 4-2. TAPT Start Screen TAPT Outputs TAPT generates summary results, as well as program level prioritization. Summary level results will provide an overview of funding levels needed, by year, to address the asset replacement or rehabilitation needs. Figure 4-3 illustrates an example of summary level output from TAPT using an unconstrained budget. It provides a view of costs by various factors, including energy costs, passenger delay and general budget expenditures. Figure 4-3. TAPT Summary Output 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 50 of 144 51 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Analytical Approach 4-5 The outputs generated using TAPT include a view of specifying the point at which the asset should be rehabilitated or replaced. The prioritization model uses the asset-specific results to predict future conditions and recommend work given a budget. Figure 4-4 shows an example of asset-specific results. Figure 4-4. TAPT Program Output 1 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 51 of 144 52 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Analytical Approach 4-6 Using the TAPT tool Below is a summary of the data elements needed for vehicle and facility modeling, and can provide a baseline for understanding the data inputs. TCRP Report 172 has a detailed description of TAPT, guidance on how to use the spreadsheet tool, and two tutorials using example data. Vehicle The user can edit the following fields for each fleet, ei ther using imported data or overriding it as appropriate: • Fleet ID. This is formed by concatenating the agency name and a sequence number, both of which can be edited. • Vehicle description. This is formed from SGR Trans Database data by concatenating the m odel year, manufacturer and model. • Vehicle Useful Life (miles). The ULB for the fleet in miles, if defined (by default this is not used). • Vehicle Useful Life (years). The ULB for the fleet in year. This is defined by CTDOT by vehicle type. • Vehicle type. This field specifies which specific vehicle model to use of the types defined in CTDOT’s asset hierarchy. • Model year. This is formed from SGR Trans Database data and used to calculate vehicle age. • Total current miles/hours. This is an optional field and is not populated by default. If populated it is used to calculate an effective age for the fleet. • Number of vehicles. This is the number of vehicles in a fleet and is formed from SGR Trans Database data. • Condition. The condition of the fleet, measured using the 1-5 TERM scale. This is an optional field and is not populated by default. If populated it is used to calculate an effective age for the fleet. • Vehicle age. This is calculated based on model year or date vehicle is placed into service. Vehicle condition is provided to assist in evaluating effective age. • Project code. This is an optional field that can be used to identify a known project. • Pipeline year. This is an optional field that can be used to identify a specific year when the vehicle will be replaced. • Indicator of whether or not to include the vehicle in the modeling. Vehicles may be excluded if data are incomplete, or if the vehicle is modeled through a separately-defined asset group model. Facility The facility inventory is similar in concept to the vehicle inventory. For each facility defined, the screen allows specifica tion of the following items: • Facility ID. This is formed by concatenating the agency name, facility description and a sequence number, all of which can be edited. • Condition. This is specified for ten facility systems – substructure, shell, interior, conveyance, plumbing, HVAC, fire protection, electrical, equipment, and site. • Construction year. This field is used to calculate facility age. • Quantity. This must be specified separately by system, and is typically either the roof area, floor area, or site area. • Project code. This is an optional field that can be used to identify a known project. • Pipeline year. This is an optional field that can be used to identify a specific year when the facility will be replaced/rehabilitated. • Indicator of whether or not to include the facility in the modeling. Facilities may be excluded if data are incomplete, or if the vehicle is modeled through a separately-defined asset group model. Note that each facility is modeled as a set of ten assets in TAPT, with one asset defined for each of the ten facility s ystems listed above. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 52 of 144 53 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Analytical Approach 4-7 Modeling The TAPT modeling approach incorporates the three different asset-level models, as well as a prioritization model that integrates the asset-level models and simulates the allocation of resources to address SGR needs over time and across asset types. Below is a brief description of each of these: • Vehicle Model: the revenue vehicle model takes as input data items reported by urban transit agencies to the NTD specified for a given fleet of vehicles, such as vehicle mileage, reve nue passenger miles, maintenance costs, energy consumption and mechanical failures. The model then predicts agency, user and external costs, and mean distance between failures (MDBF) as a function of vehicle mileage. Further, it calculates the mileage at which a given vehicle should be replaced to minimize lifecycle costs, and the increased lifecycle costs that will result each year a needed replacement is deferred. The model includes default assumptions for growth in maintenance costs, rehabilitation costs and failures that are calibrated based on model inputs. Alternatively, one may override the default assumptions. • Condition-Based Model: this model, which is technically a Markovian Decision Model, may be used to model any asset. It predicts the lifecycle agency, user and external costs associated with an asset, as well as the optimal point to perform rehabilitation or replacement, and the increase in lifecycle costs of deferring action. An asset is modeled as existing in one of a number of different condition states (in this case, using the five-point condition scale from TERM), and a set of transition probabilities describes the likelihood of transition from a given state to another given either the asset deteriorates or some action is taken. The model determines the optimal policy, or set of actions to take as a function of condition, to minimize agency, user and external costs. Further, the model explicitly calculates the cost of deferring a recommended action in terms of the increased lifecycle co st resulting from action deferral. Model defaults are provided for each asset type defined in TERM using TERM data. • Age-Based Model: like the condition-based model, this is a generic model that can be used to model any asset. However, the condition-based model is recommended over this model where condition data are available. In the age- based model, asset rehabilitation or replacement is motivated by the gradually increasing cost of asset maintenance, as well as increasing likelihood of asset failure. This likelihood is modeled using a Weibull distribution. Using the model requires data on asset age, and the model outputs are essentially the same as those produced using the condition-based model. • Prioritization Model: in TAPT asset rehabilitation/replacement is prioritized with an objective of minimizing lifecycle agency, user and external costs subject to a budget constraint. To acc omplish this objective, the model establishes candidate rehabilitation/replacement actions, and calculates the costs and impacts of these using the asset -level models. The model then prioritizes potential investments in decreasing order of Prioritization Index (PI), where the PI is defined as the change in lifecycle cost resulting from delaying an action one year relative performing it in the specified year divided by the action cost. In concept the PI is a benefit cost ratio. However, one may tailor the prioritization function to change the weight of different types of benefits and/or specify an additional benefit realized from replacing an asset over and above that modeled by the asset-level models. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 53 of 144 54 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Analytical Approach 4-8 Modeling Assumptions for Colorado Transit Assets Revenue Vehicles. TAPT age-based models were developed for the different types revenue vehicles defined in Chapter 3. TAPT defaults were used, calibrating these to CDOT’s established ULB values. Vehicle replacement costs were established based on the 2018 Vehicle Inventory referenced earlier in this chapter. Facilities. For CDOT facilities, the TAPT condition-based model was used to define models for each of the major facility components defined in Chapter 3. TAPT defaults (which are in turn derived from those in TERM) were used to predict deterioration rates for each facility component. Service Vehicles. Age-based models were developed for the service vehicle types defined in Chapter 3. TAPT defaults were used, calibrating these to CDOT’s established ULB values. Vehicle replacement costs were established based on the 2018 Vehicle Inventory referenced earlier in this chapter. Applying Analytics The use of analytic tools, TAPT, is an important element of the development of the Group TAM Plan, though its results are but one of a number of steps in the decision-making process for capital planning. The process for applying the analysis of SGR needs and using this to develop the capital plan should include the following: • Populate TAPT with available data on the asset inventory, its condition, costs, budget and other data. • Enter “pipelined” projects that are in progress or planned in the near term. This forces TAPT to rehabilitate or replace these assets in the specified year. • Perform TAPT run using applicable budget constraints. • Review results; adjust if necessary • Perform another TAPT run, if necessary • Use results from TAPT to help inform decision-making and generate a capital plan. o Please note - the final prioritization may differ significantly from that recommended by TAPT for a variety of reasons. These include: ▪ Bundling of related needs differently than that modeled by the system. ▪ Differences in costs. ▪ Need for geographical equity. TAPT does not consider the need to balance investments between different areas or regions, but this is an important factor in “real world” decisions. ▪ Limitations in uses of funding. TAPT models a budget as a single fund that can be used without limitation for any project. ▪ CDOT or agency staff may identify additional factors and perspectives in prioritizing needs beyond those captured in any model. Ideally, the outcomes of the analytic process and application will be: ✓ A capital plan that reflects available funding and inc orporates TAPT priorities as is reasonable. ✓ A prioritized list of SGR needs that helps inform decisions concerning where additional and/or future investment should be directed. ✓ A list of prioritized needs that is a product of Plan participants judgment, TAPT analysis, and institutional experience. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 54 of 144 55 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-1 Chapter 5 SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization Understanding investment needs and p rioritizing asset replacement is a key element of developing a useful and actionable transit asset management plan . This section provides an overview of funding requirements to meet SGR and outlines specific asset prioritization needs. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 55 of 144 56 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-2 Overview As the sponsor of Colorado’s Group Plan, CDOT has evaluated the asset replacement needs using funding streams from both the federal and state sources. As outlined in Chapter 4, CDOT has used TAPT as the analytic tool to provide a baseline to predict investments needed to achieve and maintain assets in a state of good repair. Federal Legislative Context In 49 CFR 625.25, FTA requires than a group TAM plan include a “provider’s project-based prioritization of investments.” The investment prioritization must “take into consideration its estimation of funding levels from all available sources that it reasonably expects will be available in each fiscal year during the group TAM plan horizon period.” Transit Funding in Colorado Funding for Colorado’s transit capital investments draws from federal, state and local sources. For the investment analysis in this TAM Plan, estimates of future Federal, State and Local funding were derived from recent CDOT and participating agencies’ spending history. Tables 5-1 and 5-2 show the historical average of annual capital spending over a three year period. Based on these figures, an annual $15 million budget for combined State, Federal and Local asset management was used to model a theoretical asset investment plan and resulting SGR Targets for this Group TAM Plan. A second, fiscally unconstrained model is also used to develop the TAM Plan’s Project Prioritization. Table 5-1: 3-Year Average Vehicle Funding Vehicle Funding State $4,067,134 Federal $4,363,837 Local $6,267,561 Combined $14,698,542 Table 5-2: 3-Year Average Facility Funding Facilities Funding State $332,000 Federal $33,233 Combined $365,233 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 56 of 144 57 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-3 Estimated Investment Needs In order to fund all assets projected to need replacement in the next 4 years, with no backlog, the TAPT analysis indicates a budget requirement just over $118 million combined, as shown in Table 5-3. In this timeline, 99% of assets requiring replacement are in the vehicle category. Table 5-3. Unconstrained Needs Estimate Year Amount 2019 $62,680,586 2020 $14,144,943 2021 $29,972,197 2022 $11,342,138 The TAPT analysis was also used to model an investment scenario based on the combined estimated $15 million annual capital budget. Given these annual funding levels and resulting theoretical investment prioritization, the participating agenc ies could expect to see a range of approximately $62 million - $74 million in combined SGR needs year-to-year through the four-year plan horizon. The estimated $15 million capital budget, if invested according to the modeled replacement prioritization, would result in a backlog of $48 million - $64 million for asset replacements year over year, as shown in Table 5-4 below. Table 5-4. $15 million Scenario Budget with Backlog Year Amount Backlog 2019 $62,680,586 $48,214,266 2020 $62,359,209 $46,849,643 2021 $76,821,840 $62,419,392 2022 $73,761,530 $62,991,648 Table 5-5 summarizes the TAPT recommended prioritized replacements over the first four years in the TAM Plan horizon, based on the $15 million budget scenario and broken down by asset class. Note: While the investment analysis projects facility investments by individual subcomponents, facility figures in the table represent the number of facilities returned to an over all SGR rather than the number of subcomponent investments in the scenario. In the model scenarios, the aerial tramways were treated with the FTA default ULB of 12 years. All the vehicles in this class are owned and operated by the Town of Mountain Village. The agency manages these vehicles using a s ignificantly longer expected life policy and replacement plan of 20-30 years. The model recommends replacement of all 50 aerial tramway vehicles beyond the 12-yr SGR within the first year of this Plan, which sets an unrealistic expectation, considering the agency’s vehicle expected life. To compensate, the replacement count in the Table 5-5 scenario below has been adjusted from 50 to 28 based on a 20-yr replacement age, rather than the 12-yr default. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 57 of 144 58 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-4 Table 5-5. $15 Million Annual Investment Scenario, Number of Investments by Asset Class Asset Category Class 2019 2020 2021 2022 Revenue Vehicles Aerial Tramway* 28 7 0 0 Bus – Large 0 5 12 0 Bus – Medium 1 5 0 7 Cutaway – Large 3 8 3 0 Cutaway – Small 26 21 29 0 Van/Minivan 61 8 16 13 Automobile 18 6 4 3 TOTAL Revenue Vehicles 137 60 64 23 Service Vehicles Trucks & Other 1 0 2 0 Automobile 10 2 0 0 TOTAL Service Vehicles 11 2 2 0 Facilities† Support Facilities 3 3 1 0 Passenger Facilities 1 5 1 1 TOTAL Facilities 4 8 2 2 TOTAL 152 70 68 25 *Based on agency’s expected vehicle life †Reflects number of facilities returned to SGR, rather than the number of subcomponent investments 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 58 of 144 59 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-5 State of Good Repair (SGR) Targets Assuming the $15 million prioritized investment plan were theoretically implemented in 2019, the SGR measures for each of the asset classes identified in this plan would be improved accordingly. These resulting measures, depicted in Table 5-6, form the 2019 SGR Targets for this Group TAM Plan. SGR Targets are a measure of the percent of assets in each class that are beyond a state of good repair following the program year’s replacements. Therefore, a lower SGR Target represents a better asset class condition and a higher SGR Target represents a less favorable asset class condition. Note: The aerial tramway target is based on the adjusted number of 2019 replacements in Table 5-5. Table 5-6. 2019 Group TAM Plan SGR Targets *Based on agency’s expected vehicle life Utilizing the Group TAM Plan It is important at this point to briefly note some of the limitations of this TAM Plan and to consider how it can best be use d by CDOT and by plan participants to improve the condition of transit assets. Of particular significance is the fact that the SGR measures, model investment scenarios and resulting SGR Targets are based on uniform parameters for all the assets in the plan. Using a single ULB for all the vehicle assets in a certain class within a Group TAM Plan allows all the vehicles across multiple agencies to be compared like -for-like against one another. Doing so, however, also asserts that every vehicle in a certain asset class is actually beyond SGR and prime for replacement at the same age regardless of those vehicle’s unique characteristics and operating environments. Similarly, the resulting model investment scenarios are based on asset age alongside estimated maintenance costs, passenger delay costs, replacement costs and emissions costs derived from aggregated industry data rather than the actual costs related to each agency’s operating environments and each asset’s characteristics. More sophisticated TAM Plans and analyses are possible, but are more feasible when they are developed and limited to a single agency versus a Group TAM Plan where availability of consistent and reliable data from numerous agencies is more difficult to obtain. Asset Category Class Current % Beyond SGR 2019 Target Revenue Vehicles Aerial Tramway* 80.3% 41% Bus – Large 19.9% 20% Bus – Medium 15% 14% Cutaway – Large 18.2% 15% Cutaway – Small 28.8% 18% Van/Minivan 26% 2% Automobile 35.9% 8% TOTAL Revenue Vehicles 27.7% 15% Service Vehicles Trucks & Other Rubber Tire Vehicles 13.5% 11% Automobiles 47.8% 4% TOTAL Service Vehicles 26.7% 8% Facilities Support Facilities 15.6% 11% Passenger Facilities 2.1% 2% TOTAL Facilities 5.5% 4% 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 59 of 144 60 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-6 Another inherent limitation in this Group TAM Plan is that actual investment decisions are not centralized. Every participating agency manages its own capital budget and makes its own asset replacement plans based on its specific environment, policies and local priorities. Those decisions consider many unique factors not included in this Plan. Further, the estimated Local funding estimate used in the Plan’s investment scenarios assumes funding in prior years is representative of actual funds available and that it will continue to be available in future years. It also assumes that all local funds are available to replace any asset throughout the collective Group TAM Plan inventory. With these limitations in mind, this Group TAM Plan is best utilized as a tool to better inform investment decisions rather t han as a firm, prescriptive plan of investments. CDOT may use the prioritization of projects and the multi -year balance of those investments among the various asset classes to inform its decisions on how it balances the use of its consolidated capital funds among different capital needs. CDOT will also consider where individual assets fall beyond a state of good repair relative to other like assets within the statewide inventory when it evaluates competitive applications for Federal or State funding. Plan Participants would be expected to optimi ze the use of their capital funding by also considering the relative age of vehicles and condition of facilities among all the agency’s assets when developing capital plans. Agencies that do not already consider increasing maintenance costs or cost of passenger delays in their capital planning might look to the model prioritized projects list to inform their replacement decisions. The Group TAM Plan will undergo periodic, if not annual updates. Refinements to the asset inventory data will continually improve the effectiveness of the Plan as a reliable tool. In subsequent updates, other Plan improvements will be considered, such the inclusion of asset maintenance data in investment prioritizations, improved and standardized vehicle and facility condition assessments and the identification of each participating agency’s capital budgets. In addition, the ULB for aerial tramways will be adjusted to the agency’s unique expected life, so that more realistic SGR measures, targets and prioritizati on models are reflected in the Plan. Project Prioritization This section presents the prioritized list of investments for assets within this Plan, using the fiscally unconstrained scenario of asset replacement to generate the results. The project prioritization is presented in Table 5-7 below, sorted in order of project year and project rank for the next 4 years. The table includes 5 columns: • Year. The program year of the investment. (Year Enters SGR Backlog for Unconstrained Model) • Asset ID Code. Identifies the specific asset(s) in the investment. For vehicle assets, the ID is comprised of the owner/operator, the agency’s vehicle ID, and the vehicle model. For facilities, the ID is comprised of the agency name and the facility name. • Description. The asset type, as defined in the asset classes presented in Chapter 3. For facilities, this also includes the subcomponent (e.g. substructure, shell, interior etc.). • Cost. The projected cost of the investment or replacement. • Rank. The priority of the investment within the program year, descending from a Rank value of one (1). Rank is assigned according to the Prioritization Index (PI) value of the investment. Projects with the same Rank value carried equal PI values. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 60 of 144 61 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-7 Table 5-7. Investment Priorities by Asset, Unconstrained Funding Scenario Program Year Asset ID Code Description Costs Rank 2019 RFTA V14-WINDSTAR Van/Minivan $39,352 1 2019 NECALG 34-Van Van/Minivan $39,352 2 2019 NECALG 35-Van Van/Minivan $39,352 2 2019 NECALG 36-Van Van/Minivan $39,352 2 2019 NECALG 37-Club Wagon Van/Minivan $39,352 2 2019 NECALG 36-Van Van/Minivan $39,352 2 2019 ECCOG DDI-Safari Van/Minivan $39,352 7 2019 City and County of Broomfield 1660-Taurus Automobile (Rev) $33,145 8 2019 Mountain Village, Town of ES-12-Suburban Automobile (Rev) $33,145 9 2019 RFTA C6-Explorer Automobile (Rev) $33,145 10 2019 El Paso Fountain Valley S.C.P 325-Econovan Van/Minivan $39,352 11 2019 Mountain Village, Town of PT-06-Van/Handicap Van/Minivan $39,352 11 2019 Montezuma County 32-3-Expedition XLT Automobile (Rev) $33,145 13 2019 Wet Mountain Valley Community Services, Inc Wet Mtn-F250 Econoline Automobile (Rev) $33,145 13 2019 Dolores County 1-Windstar Van/Minivan $39,352 15 2019 Mountain Village, Town of ES-02-Yukon XL Van/Minivan $39,352 15 2019 NECALG 56-Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 15 2019 Mountain Village, Town of ES-08-Highlander Ltd Hybrid Automobile (Rev) $33,145 18 2019 Mountain Village, Town of ES-18-Highlander Hybrid Automobile (Rev) $33,145 18 2019 Montezuma County 32-4-Monterey Van/Minivan $39,352 20 2019 NECALG 20-Grand Caravan Sport Van/Minivan $39,352 20 2019 RFTA G5-MONTANA Van/Minivan $39,352 20 2019 RFTA X2-Explorer Automobile (Rev) $33,145 23 2019 RFTA X3-Explorer Automobile (Rev) $33,145 23 2019 Senior Resource Development Agency 823 -Focus Passenger Car Automobile (Rev) $33,145 23 2019 Senior Resource Development Agency 824 -Focus Passenger Car Automobile (Rev) $33,145 23 2019 NECALG 60-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 27 2019 NECALG 61-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 27 2019 RFTA G7-Van Van/Minivan $39,352 27 2019 Town of Telluride 126-Passenger Van Van/Minivan $39,352 27 2019 Town of Breckenridge 7427-PRIUS Automobile (Serv) $34,250 31 2019 Mountain Village, Town of ES-20-Yukon XL Automobile (Rev) $33,145 32 2019 Mountain Village, Town of PT-11-Escape Hybrid Automobile (Serv) $34,250 33 2019 RFTA C7-Explorer Automobile (Serv) $34,250 33 2019 All Points Transit 21-MPV Wagon DX Van/Minivan $39,352 35 2019 Huerfano/Las Animas Area Council of Governments 17-Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 35 2019 Huerfano/Las Animas Area Council of Governments 16-Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 35 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 61 of 144 62 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-8 Program Year Asset ID Code Description Costs Rank 2019 NECALG 69-Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 35 2019 NECALG 71-Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 35 2019 NECALG 72-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 35 2019 NECALG 73-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 35 2019 NECALG 73-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 35 2019 Park County 88-Trailblazer Automobile (Rev) $33,145 43 2019 Via Mobility Services VPT-100-Prius Automobile (Rev) $33,145 43 2019 Park County 36-MV200 Cutaway - Sm $88,726 45 2019 All Points Transit 22-Uplander Van/Minivan $39,352 46 2019 City of Loveland 8026-Uplander Van/Minivan $39,352 46 2019 City of Loveland 8026-Uplander Van/Minivan $39,352 46 2019 Montezuma County 32-5-Uplander - ADA Braun Van/Minivan $39,352 46 2019 Mountain Village, Town of ES-15-C-10 Chevy Van Van/Minivan $39,352 46 2019 NECALG 74-Uplander Van/Minivan $39,352 46 2019 NECALG 76-Uplander Van/Minivan $39,352 46 2019 NECALG 77-Uplander Van/Minivan $39,352 46 2019 NECALG 78-Uplander Van/Minivan $39,352 46 2019 NECALG 79-Uplander Van/Minivan $39,352 46 2019 NECALG 77-Uplander Van/Minivan $39,352 46 2019 RFTA L3-FUSION Van/Minivan $39,352 46 2019 RFTA L1-STATION WAGON Cutaway - Sm $88,726 58 2019 Town of Avon #332-Tahoe Automobile (Serv) $34,250 59 2019 Town of Avon #800-Escape Hybrid Automobile (Serv) $34,250 59 2019 Teller Senior Coalition Outback-Outback Automobile (Rev) $33,145 61 2019 Via Mobility Services VPT-101-Prius Automobile (Rev) $33,145 61 2019 Via Mobility Services VPT-102 -Prius Automobile (Rev) $33,145 61 2019 Pueblo Admin / Maintenance Facility-Equipment $1,319,370 64 2019 RFTA T4-SAND TRUCK Trucks & Other $41,660 65 2019 RFTA AMF Old Facility- Conveyance $721,786 66 2019 Mountain Village, Town of GO-02-Suburban Automobile (Serv) $34,250 67 2019 RFTA C10-COMMANDER Automobile (Serv) $34,250 67 2019 RFTA C11-COMMANDER Automobile (Serv) $34,250 67 2019 RFTA L2-PRIUS Automobile (Serv) $34,250 67 2019 Castle Rock Senior Center Inc V-7-Town and Country Van/Minivan $39,352 71 2019 Dolores County 2-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 71 2019 El Paso Fountain Valley S.C.P 329-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 71 2019 El Paso Fountain Valley S.C.P 324-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 71 2019 Huerfano/Las Animas Area Council of Governments 802-Uplander Van/Minivan $39,352 71 2019 Huerfano/Las Animas Area Council of Governments 803-Uplander Van/Minivan $39,352 71 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 62 of 144 63 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-9 Program Year Asset ID Code Description Costs Rank 2019 Mountain Village, Town of ES-16-SD 12 PASSENGER VAN Van/Minivan $39,352 71 2019 Mountain Village, Town of ES-17-SD 12 PASSENGER VAN Van/Minivan $39,352 71 2019 NECALG 83-Uplander Van/Minivan $39,352 71 2019 RFTA L4-GRAND CARAVAN Van/Minivan $39,352 71 2019 SUCAP SC-374-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 71 2019 Teller Senior Coalition Savana Van-Savana Van/Minivan $39,352 71 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 42-10904-CWA OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 23-10901-CWA OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 15-10906-CWA OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 49-10907-CWA OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 41-10897-CWA OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 11-10898-CWA OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 43-10908-CWA OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 18-10902-CWA OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 50-10905-CWA OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 21-10909-OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 10-10910-OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 13-10913-OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 1-10896-OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 17-10903-OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 3-10889-OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 7-10890-OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 25-10891-OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 6-10895-OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 5-10893-OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 22-10899-OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 55-10892-OM-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 56-10911-OM-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 83 2019 RFTA G1-Panel VAN Cutaway - Sm $88,726 105 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 31-21932-CWA OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 106 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 54-21936-CWA OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 106 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 45-21935-CWA OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 106 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 29-21934-OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 106 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 63 of 144 64 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-10 Program Year Asset ID Code Description Costs Rank 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 30-21933-OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 106 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 27-21937-OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 106 2019 El Paso Fountain Valley S.C.P Kitty Pastor Building 1 Facility-Equipment $88,400 112 2019 Town of Snowmass Village Daly Lane Depot Facility-Equipment $501,582 113 2019 El Paso Fountain Valley S.C.P 320-GCII Cutaway - Sm $88,726 114 2019 El Paso Fountain Valley S.C.P 319-GCII Cutaway - Sm $88,726 114 2019 Senior Resource Development Agency 813 -Ram Van Cutaway - Sm $88,726 114 2019 El Paso Fountain Valley S.C.P Kitty Pastor Building 1 Facility- Conveyance $44,200 117 2019 Senior Resource Development Agency 828 -Focus Automobile (Rev) $33,145 118 2019 Pueblo 63001-Fusion Automobile (Serv) $34,250 119 2019 City of Loveland 8018-CL100 Cutaway - Lg $88,726 120 2019 NECALG 49-GCII Cutaway - Sm $88,726 120 2019 NECALG 50-GCII Cutaway - Sm $88,726 120 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 53-23300-CWA OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 123 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 34-23299-CWA OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 123 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 38-23301-CWA OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 123 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 37-23302-OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 123 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 47-23297-OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 123 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 35-23298-OMEGA-S Aerial Tramway $45,000 123 2019 Town of Winter Park Bus Barn Facility-Interior $143,650 129 2019 El Paso Fountain Valley S.C.P Kitty Pastor Building 1 Facility-Fire $22,100 130 2019 Senior's Resource Center SRC Evergreen Facility-Fire $5,525 130 2019 City of Aspen S-10-Aerotech 200 Cutaway - Sm $88,726 132 2019 El Paso Fountain Valley S.C.P 315-Pacer II Cutaway - Sm $88,726 132 2019 Golden Age Council 3-Cutaway Cutaway - Sm $88,726 132 2019 Montezuma County 32-2-GOSHEN Cutaway - Sm $88,726 132 2019 RFTA S10-EL DORADO Cutaway - Sm $88,726 132 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 9-25905-3-CWA OMEGA-III Aerial Tramway $45,000 137 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 8-25903-3-CWA OMEGA-III Aerial Tramway $45,000 137 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 3-25898-3-CWA OMEGA-III Aerial Tramway $45,000 137 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 1-25900-3-CWA OMEGA-III Aerial Tramway $45,000 137 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 6-25904-3-CWA OMEGA-III Aerial Tramway $45,000 137 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 4-25899-3-CWA OMEGA-III Aerial Tramway $45,000 137 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 5-25901-3-OMEGA-III Aerial Tramway $45,000 137 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 64 of 144 65 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-11 Program Year Asset ID Code Description Costs Rank 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 2-25906-3-OMEGA-III Aerial Tramway $45,000 137 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 7-25902-3-OMEGA-III Aerial Tramway $45,000 137 2019 All Points Transit 28-Entervan Van/Minivan $39,352 146 2019 Dolores County 3-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 146 2019 Mountain Family Center 5-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 146 2019 Mountain Family Center 8-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 146 2019 NECALG 95-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 146 2019 NECALG 95-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 146 2019 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20523-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 146 2019 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20525-Town and Country Van/Minivan $39,352 146 2019 Senior Resource Development Agency 827 - Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 146 2019 SUCAP SC-2-PV Entervan Van/Minivan $39,352 146 2019 RFTA CMF Facility-Site $160,115 156 2019 Town of Winter Park Bus Barn Facility-Site $71,825 156 2019 Archuleta County 249-Senator Cutaway - Lg $88,726 158 2019 Huerfano/Las Animas Area Council of Governments 8-Pacer II Cutaway - Sm $88,726 158 2019 Huerfano/Las Animas Area Council of Governments 6-Supreme Cutaway - Sm $88,726 158 2019 La Junta City Of 1408 -Allstar Cutaway - Lg $88,726 158 2019 NECALG 22-Supreme Candidate Cutaway - Sm $88,726 158 2019 Prowers County 25-3091-Candidate Cutaway - Sm $88,726 158 2019 RFTA G3-Bus Cutaway - Sm $88,726 158 2019 Senior Resource Development Agency 821 -Pacer ll Cutaway - Sm $88,726 158 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 16-27273-OMEGA-III XL Aerial Tramway $45,000 166 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 28-27272-OMEGA-III XL Aerial Tramway $45,000 166 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 12-27270-OMEGA-III XL Aerial Tramway $45,000 166 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 4-27269-OMEGA-III XL Aerial Tramway $45,000 166 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 24-27268-OMEGA-III XL Aerial Tramway $45,000 166 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 20-27267-OMEGA-III XL Aerial Tramway $45,000 166 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 8-27271-OMEGA-III XL Aerial Tramway $45,000 166 2019 Dolores County Bus-Senator Cutaway - Sm $88,726 173 2019 Huerfano/Las Animas Area Council of Governments 9-Supreme Cutaway - Sm $88,726 173 2019 NECALG 25-Supreme Candidate Cutaway - Sm $88,726 173 2019 RFTA S12 -STARCRAFT Cutaway - Sm $88,726 173 2019 RFTA G4-Bus Cutaway - Sm $88,726 173 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 65 of 144 66 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-12 Program Year Asset ID Code Description Costs Rank 2019 Routt County Government 800-Supreme Cutaway - Sm $88,726 173 2019 Steamboat Springs 41-Startrans Cutaway - Sm $88,726 173 2019 Steamboat Springs 56-Phantom Bus - Md $465,039 180 2019 RFTA CMF Facility-Plumbing $320,229 181 2019 RFTA Parker House 2 Facility-Plumbing $309,400 181 2019 RFTA Parker House 4 Facility-Plumbing $309,400 181 2019 RFTA AMF Office Trailer Facility-HVAC $16,575 181 2019 RFTA CMF Facility-HVAC $320,229 181 2019 RFTA Parker House 4 Facility-HVAC $309,400 181 2019 Pueblo Transit Center Facility-HVAC $102,500 181 2019 RFTA Parker House 1 Facility-Electrical $309,400 181 2019 RFTA Parker House 2 Facility-Electrical $309,400 181 2019 RFTA Parker House 4 Facility-Electrical $309,400 181 2019 Pueblo Transit Center Facility-Electrical $102,500 181 2019 El Paso Fountain Valley S.C.P Kitty Pastor Building 1 Facility-Plumbing $44,200 192 2019 Pueblo Admin / Maintenance Facility-Plumbing $659,685 192 2019 All Points Transit All Points Transit Office 1 Facility-HVAC $53,040 192 2019 El Paso Fountain Valley S.C.P Kitty Pastor Building 1 Facility-HVAC $44,200 192 2019 Steamboat Springs Transit Operations Center Facility-HVAC $547,947 192 2019 Pueblo Admin / Maintenance Facility-HVAC $659,685 192 2019 El Paso Fountain Valley S.C.P Kitty Pastor Building 1 Facility-Electrical $44,200 192 2019 Pueblo Admin / Maintenance Facility-Electrical $659,685 192 2019 Town of Snowmass Village Daly Lane Depot Facility-Electrical $250,791 192 2019 El Paso Fountain Valley S.C.P Kitty Pastor Building 1 Facility- Substructure $44,200 201 2019 RFTA AMF Office Trailer Facility- Substructure $16,575 201 2019 RFTA Parker House 1 Facility- Substructure $309,400 201 2019 RFTA Parker House 4 Facility- Substructure $309,400 201 2019 El Paso Fountain Valley S.C.P Kitty Pastor Building 1 Facility-Shell $44,200 201 2019 RFTA CMF Facility-Shell $320,229 201 2019 RFTA Parker House 1 Facility-Shell $309,400 201 2019 RFTA Parker House 2 Facility-Shell $309,400 201 2019 RFTA Parker House 4 Facility-Shell $309,400 201 2019 Routt County Government Steamboat Shop Facility-Shell $44,200 201 2019 Town of Winter Park Bus Barn Facility-Shell $143,650 201 2019 Town of Snowmass Village RFTA Depot at Village Mall Facility-Shell $183,872 201 2019 El Paso Fountain Valley S.C.P Kitty Pastor Building 1 Facility-Interior $44,200 201 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 66 of 144 67 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-13 Program Year Asset ID Code Description Costs Rank 2019 RFTA AMF Office Trailer Facility-Interior $16,575 201 2019 RFTA CMF Facility-Interior $320,229 201 2019 RFTA Parker House 1 Facility-Interior $309,400 201 2019 RFTA Parker House 4 Facility-Interior $309,400 201 2019 Town of Snowmass Village Brush Crk/Owl Crk DH Bus Stop Facility-Shell $36,841 218 2019 Senior's Resource Center 5562-Prius Automobile (Rev) $33,145 219 2019 Senior's Resource Center 5561-Prius Automobile (Rev) $33,145 219 2019 City of Aspen S-13-Aerotech Cutaway - Sm $88,726 221 2019 City of Aspen S-14-Aerotech Cutaway - Sm $88,726 221 2019 Prowers County 25-3092-Candidate Cutaway - Sm $88,726 221 2019 Pueblo 63305-G27 Cutaway - Lg $88,726 221 2019 RFTA S13-EL DORADO Cutaway - Sm $88,726 221 2019 RFTA S14-EL DORADO Cutaway - Sm $88,726 221 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 40-31029-CWA OMEGA-III XL Aerial Tramway $45,000 227 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 44-31030-OMEGA-III XL Aerial Tramway $45,000 227 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 48-31031-OMEGA-III XL Aerial Tramway $45,000 227 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 36-31032-OMEGA-III XL Aerial Tramway $45,000 227 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 32-31033-OMEGA-III XL Aerial Tramway $45,000 227 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 11-31028-3-OMEGA- III Aerial Tramway $45,000 227 2019 Mountain Village, Town of 10-31027-3-OMEGA- III Aerial Tramway $45,000 227 2019 RFTA 376-AN440 TRANSLINER Bus - Lg $482,445 234 2019 RFTA 377-AN440 TRANSLINER Bus - Lg $482,445 234 2019 RFTA 378-AN440 TRANSLINER Bus - Lg $482,445 234 2019 RFTA 382-AN440 TRANSLINER Bus - Lg $482,445 234 2019 RFTA 386-AN440 TRANSLINER Bus - Lg $482,445 234 2019 Mountain Express 40-AS FE Bus - Md $465,039 239 2019 El Paso Fountain Valley S.C.P Kitty Pastor Building 1 Facility-Site $22,100 240 2019 RFTA Bunker Offices Facility-Site $22,100 240 2019 RFTA Parker House 1 Facility-Site $154,700 240 2019 RFTA Parker House 2 Facility-Site $154,700 240 2019 RFTA Parker House 3 Facility-Site $154,700 240 2019 RFTA Parker House 4 Facility-Site $154,700 240 2019 Town of Snowmass Village RFTA Depot at Village Mall Facility-Site $91,936 240 2019 Town of Snowmass Village Daly Lane Depot Facility-Site $125,395 240 2019 Town of Snowmass Village Brush Crk/Owl Crk DH Bus Stop Facility-Site $18,420 240 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 67 of 144 68 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-14 Program Year Asset ID Code Description Costs Rank 2019 Town of Snowmass Village Brush Crk./Owl Crk UH Pullout Facility-Site $13,072 249 2019 Town of Snowmass Village Brush Creek/Faraway Pull Out Facility-Site $20,763 249 2019 Town of Snowmass Village Brush Crk/Faraway DH Bus Stop Facility-Site $25,316 249 2019 City of Loveland 8024-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 252 2019 City of Loveland 8022-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 252 2019 City of Loveland 8022-E35Y Cutaway - Sm $88,726 252 2019 Eagle County 453-Aeroelite Cutaway - Lg $88,726 252 2019 Eagle County 454-Aeroelite Cutaway - Lg $88,726 252 2019 El Paso Fountain Valley S.C.P 326-Starcraft Cutaway - Sm $88,726 252 2019 Golden Age Council 2-Econoline Cutaway - Sm $88,726 252 2019 Huerfano/Las Animas Area Council of Governments 7-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 252 2019 Mountain Village, Town of PT-14-GCII Cutaway - Sm $88,726 252 2019 NECALG 64-Senator Cutaway - Lg $88,726 252 2019 NECALG 65-Senator Cutaway - Lg $88,726 252 2019 NECALG 66-Senator Cutaway - Lg $88,726 252 2019 NECALG 67-Senator Cutaway - Lg $88,726 252 2019 Pueblo 63207-Econoline Cutaway - Lg $88,726 252 2019 RFTA G8-Bus Cutaway - Sm $88,726 252 2019 Senior Resource Development Agency 825-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 252 2019 Via Mobility Services VPT-47-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 252 2019 Via Mobility Services VPT-48-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 252 2019 Via Mobility Services VPT-49-Senator Cutaway - Sm $88,726 252 2019 Via Mobility Services VPT-50-Senator Cutaway - Sm $88,726 252 2019 Via Mobility Services VPT-51-Senator Cutaway - Sm $88,726 252 2019 Via Mobility Services VPT-52-Senator Cutaway - Sm $88,726 252 2019 Via Mobility Services VPT-53-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 252 2019 Mountain Express 41-AS FE Bus - Md $465,039 275 2019 Pueblo 63240-Opus Bus - Md $465,039 275 2019 Town of Breckenridge 9207-Opus LFB-29 Bus - Md $465,039 275 2019 Town of Breckenridge 9209-Opus LFB-29 Bus - Md $465,039 275 2019 ECCOG DDI-Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 279 2019 Montezuma County 32-6-Amerivan Van/Minivan $39,352 279 2019 NECALG 98-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 279 2019 NECALG 99-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 279 2019 NECALG 100-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 279 2019 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20534-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 279 2019 Senior Resource Development Agency 805-Town & Country Van/Minivan $39,352 279 2019 SUCAP RR 10-250 Van/Minivan $39,352 279 2019 RFTA G2-F250 Trucks & Other $41,660 287 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 68 of 144 69 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-15 Program Year Asset ID Code Description Costs Rank 2019 City of Aspen 260-AN 435L Bus Bus - Lg $482,445 288 2019 City of Aspen 262-AN 435L Bus Bus - Lg $482,445 288 2019 City of Aspen 264-AN 435L Bus Bus - Lg $482,445 288 2019 City of Aspen 261-AN 435L Bus Bus - Lg $482,445 288 2019 City of Aspen 263-AN 435L Bus Bus - Lg $482,445 288 2019 City of Aspen 265-AN 435L Bus Bus - Lg $482,445 288 2019 Mountain Express 39-A3 RE Bus - Lg $482,445 288 2019 Pueblo 63112-Phantom Bus - Lg $482,445 288 2019 RFTA 261-AN 435L BUS Bus - Lg $482,445 288 2019 RFTA 262-AN 435L BUS Bus - Lg $482,445 288 2019 RFTA 263-AN 435L BUS Bus - Lg $482,445 288 2019 Steamboat Springs 61-Phantom Bus - Lg $482,445 288 2019 All Points Transit S1-Fiesta Automobile (Serv) $34,250 300 2019 Huerfano/Las Animas Area Council of Governments 805-Jeep Liberty Automobile (Serv) $34,250 300 2019 Mountain Express 42-Transit-Liner Bus - Lg $482,445 302 2019 Mountain Express 43-Transit-Liner Bus - Lg $482,445 302 2019 RFTA 327-Windstar Bus - Lg $482,445 302 2019 RFTA 328-Universal Bus - Lg $482,445 302 2019 Steamboat Springs 65-Phantom Bus - Lg $482,445 302 2019 Steamboat Springs 64-Phantom Bus - Lg $482,445 302 2019 Steamboat Springs 66-Phantom Bus - Lg $482,445 302 2019 Steamboat Springs 63-Phantom Bus - Lg $482,445 302 2019 Steamboat Springs 62-Phantom Bus - Lg $482,445 302 2019 Summit Stage 546-AN-440 Bus - Lg $482,445 302 2019 Summit Stage 543-AN-440 Bus - Lg $482,445 302 2019 Summit Stage 545-AN-440 Bus - Lg $482,445 302 2019 Summit Stage 547-AN-440 Bus - Lg $482,445 302 2019 Summit Stage 548-AN-440 Bus - Lg $482,445 302 2019 Summit Stage 551-AN-440 Bus - Lg $482,445 302 2019 All Points Transit 100-Turtle Top Cutaway - Sm $88,726 317 2019 City of Lakewood 300-Body on chassis Cutaway - Lg $88,726 317 2019 City of Lakewood 306-Body on chassis Cutaway - Lg $88,726 317 2019 Park County 85-Senator Cutaway - Sm $88,726 317 2019 Park County 86-Senator Cutaway - Sm $88,726 317 2019 RFTA G9-Bus Cutaway - Sm $88,726 317 2019 RFTA T6-SILVERADO Trucks & Other $41,660 323 2019 Summit Stage 555-Phantom Bus - Md $465,039 324 2019 Summit Stage 556-Phantom Bus - Md $465,039 324 2019 Summit Stage 557-Phantom Bus - Md $465,039 324 2019 Summit Stage 558-Phantom Bus - Md $465,039 324 2019 Summit Stage 560-Phantom Bus - Md $465,039 324 2019 Via Mobility Services HOP-15 -Transit Bus - Md $465,039 324 2019 Via Mobility Services HOP-17 -Transit Bus - Md $465,039 324 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 69 of 144 70 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-16 Program Year Asset ID Code Description Costs Rank 2019 Town of Avon #850-Phantom Bus - Lg $482,445 331 2019 Pueblo 63260-Phantom Bus - Lg $482,445 332 2019 RFTA 425-D4500 Bus - Lg $482,445 332 2019 RFTA 426-D4500 Bus - Lg $482,445 332 2019 RFTA 427-D4500 Bus - Lg $482,445 332 2019 RFTA 428-D4500 Bus - Lg $482,445 332 2019 RFTA T7-F550 Bus - Lg $482,445 332 2019 Steamboat Springs 1002-D4500 Commuter Coach Bus - Lg $482,445 332 2019 Mountain Express 57-Ram 2500 Trucks & Other $41,660 339 2019 RFTA F8-RANGER Trucks & Other $41,660 339 2019 RFTA F9-RANGER Trucks & Other $41,660 339 2019 City of Aspen 271-D401 INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 342 2019 Eagle County 866-Phantom Bus - Lg $482,445 342 2019 Eagle County 865-Phantom Bus - Lg $482,445 342 2019 Mountain Express 44-Transit-Liner Bus - Lg $482,445 342 2019 RFTA 271-D401 INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 342 2019 RFTA 601-D40I INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 342 2019 RFTA 602-D40I INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 342 2019 RFTA 603-D40I INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 342 2019 RFTA 604-D40I INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 342 2019 RFTA 605-D40I INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 342 2019 RFTA 606-D40I INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 342 2019 RFTA 607-D40I INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 342 2019 RFTA 608-D40I INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 342 2019 RFTA 609-D40I INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 342 2019 RFTA 610-D40I INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 342 2019 RFTA 611-D40I INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 342 2019 RFTA 612-D40I INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 342 2019 RFTA 613-D40I INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 342 2019 Steamboat Springs 1003-D4500 Commuter Coach Bus - Lg $482,445 342 2019 Town of Avon #853-Opus Bus - Lg $482,445 342 2019 All Points Transit 26-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 City and County of Broomfield 1630 -Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 City of Aspen S-15-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 City of Aspen S-16-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 City of Aspen S-17-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 City of Aspen S-18-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 El Paso Fountain Valley S.C.P 321-Pacer II Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 Huerfano/Las Animas Area Council of Governments 804-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 Huerfano/Las Animas Area Council of Governments 901-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 NECALG 87-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 NECALG 88-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 70 of 144 71 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-17 Program Year Asset ID Code Description Costs Rank 2019 Neighbor to Neighbor Volunteers Mtn. Goat- Odyssey Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 RFTA S15-STARCRAFT Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 RFTA S16-STARCRAFT Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 RFTA S17-STARCRAFT Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 RFTA S18-STARCRAFT Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 RFTA G11-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 RFTA G12-PACER Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 Senior Resource Development Agency 826 -Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 Senior's Resource Center 93-Pacer Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 Senior's Resource Center 91-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 Town of Berthoud BATS # 10-Van Terra Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 Town of Telluride 129-President RE Cutaway - Lg $88,726 362 2019 Via Mobility Services VPT-55-Pacer II Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 Via Mobility Services VPT-56-Pacer II Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2019 Via Mobility Services VPT-57-Pacer II Cutaway - Sm $88,726 362 2020 Golden Age Council 6-Grand Caravan Automobile (Rev) $33,145 1 2020 Summit Stage 309-MV-1 Automobile (Rev) $33,145 1 2020 Via Mobility Services VPT-103-Prius V Automobile (Rev) $33,145 1 2020 Via Mobility Services VPT-104-Prius V Automobile (Rev) $33,145 1 2020 All Points Transit 32-Entervan Van/Minivan $39,352 5 2020 All Points Transit 31-E1500 Van Van/Minivan $39,352 5 2020 Castle Rock Senior Center Inc MV-1-MV-1 Van/Minivan $39,352 5 2020 Dolores County 4-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 5 2020 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20542-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 5 2020 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20544-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 5 2020 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20545-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 5 2020 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20547-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 5 2020 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20548-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 5 2020 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20551-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 5 2020 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20553-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 5 2020 Via Mobility Services VPT-60-MV-1 Van/Minivan $39,352 5 2020 Via Mobility Services VPT-61-MV-1 Van/Minivan $39,352 5 2020 Via Mobility Services VPT-62-MV-1 Van/Minivan $39,352 5 2020 Via Mobility Services VPT-63-MV-1 Van/Minivan $39,352 5 2020 Via Mobility Services VPT-64-MV-1 Van/Minivan $39,352 5 2020 Mountain Express 58-Dakota Trucks & Other $41,660 21 2020 Via Mobility Services HOP-18 -Transit Bus - Md $465,039 22 2020 Via Mobility Services HOP-19 -Transit Bus - Md $465,039 22 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 71 of 144 72 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-18 Program Year Asset ID Code Description Costs Rank 2020 Via Mobility Services HOP-20 -Transit Bus - Md $465,039 22 2020 City of Aspen 272-D401 INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 City of Aspen 273-D401 INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 City of Aspen 274-D401 INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 City of Black Hawk Ten-ULTRA LF Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 City of Glenwood Springs 398-AN 440 Transliner Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 Eagle County 868-Phantom Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 Eagle County 867-Phantom Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 Pueblo 63106-R80 Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 Pueblo 63206-R80 Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 RFTA 272-D401 INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 RFTA 273-D401 INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 RFTA 274-D401 INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 RFTA 429-D4500 Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 RFTA 430-D4500 Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 RFTA 614-D40I INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 RFTA 615-D40I INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 RFTA 616-D40I INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 RFTA 617-D40I INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 RFTA 618-D40I INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 RFTA 619-D40I INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 RFTA 620-D40I INVERO HYBRID Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 Steamboat Springs 1004-D4500 Commuter Coach Bus - Lg $482,445 25 2020 Mountain Village, Town of 57-37951-OMEGA-III Aerial Tramway $45,000 47 2020 Mountain Village, Town of 52-37952-OM-III Aerial Tramway $45,000 47 2020 All Points Transit 30-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 49 2020 All Points Transit T-3-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 49 2020 All Points Transit 29-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 49 2020 Bent County Of GATS-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 49 2020 Eagle County 455-Spirit of Mobility Cutaway - Sm $88,726 49 2020 Golden Age Council 4-Econoline Cutaway - Sm $88,726 49 2020 Golden Age Council 5-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 49 2020 Huerfano/Las Animas Area Council of Governments 1001-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 49 2020 La Junta City Of 1406 -EL DORADO Cutaway - Lg $88,726 49 2020 NECALG 91-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 49 2020 NECALG 92-Starcraft Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 49 2020 NECALG 93-Starcraft Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 49 2020 NECALG 94-Starcraft Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 49 2020 Senior's Resource Center 5559-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 49 2021 RFTA C12-Explorer Automobile (Rev) $33,145 1 2021 RFTA X1-Explorer Automobile (Rev) $33,145 1 2021 Senior Resource Development Agency 803 -Focus Automobile (Rev) $33,145 1 2021 Teller Senior Coalition Escape-Escape Automobile (Rev) $33,145 1 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 72 of 144 73 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-19 Program Year Asset ID Code Description Costs Rank 2021 City of Durango City Services 1 Facility-Equipment $326,196 5 2021 Eagle County Vail Transportation Center 1 Facility-Equipment $124,777 6 2021 Lake County Summit Stage Operations Center 1 Facility-Equipment $1,140,360 6 2021 Littleton Omnibus LITTLETON SERVICE CENTER 1 Facility-Equipment $88,400 6 2021 RFTA AMF Old Facility-Equipment $1,443,572 6 2021 RFTA AMF Trash Building Facility-Equipment $106,080 6 2021 Summit Stage Summit Stage Operations Center Facility-Equipment $1,140,360 6 2021 Town of Winter Park Bus Barn Facility-Equipment $287,300 6 2021 Pueblo Transit Center Facility-Equipment $205,000 6 2021 Summit Stage Frisco Transfer Center Facility-Equipment $66,300 6 2021 City of Lakewood Clements Community Center 1 Facility-Equipment $31,382 15 2021 RFTA GMF Building Facility-Equipment $3,469,081 15 2021 Town of Snowmass Village Parcel C Bus Storage Facility Facility-Equipment $786,185 15 2021 Summit Stage Silverthorne Station Facility-Equipment $912,288 15 2021 Bent County Of BCT#3-Van 15P Van/Minivan $39,352 19 2021 El Paso Fountain Valley S.C.P 328-MV1 Van/Minivan $39,352 19 2021 Neighbor to Neighbor Volunteers Mini Van - Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 19 2021 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20367-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 19 2021 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20368-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 19 2021 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20369-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 19 2021 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20370-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 19 2021 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20371-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 19 2021 RFTA L5-FUSION Van/Minivan $39,352 19 2021 Via Mobility Services VPT-65-MV-1 Van/Minivan $39,352 19 2021 Via Mobility Services VPT-66-MV-1 Van/Minivan $39,352 19 2021 Via Mobility Services VPT-67-MV-1 Van/Minivan $39,352 19 2021 Via Mobility Services VPT-68-MV-1 Van/Minivan $39,352 19 2021 City of Durango City Services 1 Facility- Conveyance $163,098 32 2021 Eagle County Vail Transportation Center 1 Facility- Conveyance $62,388 32 2021 Steamboat Springs Transit Operations Center Facility- Conveyance $547,947 32 2021 Town of Snowmass Village Parcel C Bus Storage Facility Facility- Conveyance $393,093 32 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 73 of 144 74 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-20 Program Year Asset ID Code Description Costs Rank 2021 Summit Stage Frisco Transfer Center Facility- Conveyance $33,150 32 2021 Steamboat Springs Stockbridge Transit Center Facility- Conveyance $33,150 32 2021 City of Lakewood Clements Community Center 1 Facility- Conveyance $15,691 38 2021 Summit Stage Silverthorne Station Facility- Conveyance $456,144 38 2021 RFTA F10-RANGER Trucks & Other $41,660 40 2021 City of Lakewood 325-C2 Bus - Md $465,039 41 2021 City of Lakewood 386-C2 Bus - Md $465,039 41 2021 City of Lakewood 337-C2 Bus - Md $465,039 41 2021 City of Glenwood Springs 399-AN 440 Transliner Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 Eagle County 872-BRT Low Floor Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 Eagle County 873-BRT Low Floor Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 Eagle County 874-BRT Low Floor Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 Eagle County 875-BRT Low Floor Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 Eagle County 871-BRT Low Floor Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 Gunnison Valley Transportation Authority 83- XCEL 102 Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 Gunnison Valley Transportation Authority 81- XCEL 102 Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 Pueblo 63107-Opus Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 RFTA 431-D4500 Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 RFTA 531-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 RFTA 532-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 RFTA 533-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 RFTA 534-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 RFTA 541-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 RFTA 542-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 RFTA 543-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 RFTA 544-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 RFTA 545-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 RFTA 546-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 RFTA 547-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 RFTA 548-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 RFTA 549-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 RFTA 550-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 RFTA 551-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 RFTA 552-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 RFTA 553-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 RFTA 554-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 RFTA 555-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 RFTA 556-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 Town of Avon #854-Phantom Bus - Lg $482,445 44 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 74 of 144 75 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-21 Program Year Asset ID Code Description Costs Rank 2021 Town of Avon #855-Electric Hybrid Bus - Lg $482,445 44 2021 City of Loveland 8019-E450 Cutaway - Lg $88,726 76 2021 City of Loveland 8021-E450 Cutaway - Lg $88,726 76 2021 Senior Resource Development Agency 814 -Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 76 2021 Town of Snowmass Village 440-Micro Bird G5 Cutaway - Lg $88,726 76 2021 Town of Snowmass Village 441-Micro Bird G5 Cutaway - Lg $88,726 76 2021 Town of Telluride 133-Aeroelite Cutaway - Lg $88,726 76 2021 Via Mobility Services CLI-954-Defender Cutaway - Lg $88,726 76 2022 Castle Rock Senior Center Inc C-6-Sonata Automobile (Rev) $33,145 1 2022 Montezuma County 32-7-Durango Automobile (Rev) $33,145 1 2022 RFTA C14-Explorer Automobile (Rev) $33,145 1 2022 Montezuma County 32-8-Town & Country Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 Mountain Village, Town of ES-21-Express Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 Mountain Village, Town of ES-25-Express Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 Mountain Village, Town of ES-24-Express Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 Mountain Village, Town of ES-22-Express Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 Mountain Village, Town of ES -23-Express Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20554-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20555-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20556-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20557-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20558-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20559-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20560-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20561-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20562-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20563-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20564-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20565-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20566-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20567-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20569-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 4 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 75 of 144 76 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-22 Program Year Asset ID Code Description Costs Rank 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20570-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20572-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20573-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20574-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20575-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20576-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20577-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20578-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20579-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20580-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20581-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20582-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20583-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20584-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20585-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20586-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20587-Grand Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20588-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20589-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20590-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20591-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20592-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20593-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20594-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 76 of 144 77 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-23 Program Year Asset ID Code Description Costs Rank 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20595-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20596-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20597-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20598-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20599-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council 20600-Sienna Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 Summit Stage 513-Caravan Van/Minivan $39,352 4 2022 RFTA F12-RANGER Trucks & Other $41,660 56 2022 RFTA T8-F250 Trucks & Other $41,660 56 2022 RFTA T9-F250 Trucks & Other $41,660 56 2022 Steamboat Springs 71-Diesel/Electric Low Floor Bus - Md $465,039 59 2022 Eagle County 879-BRT Low Floor Bus - Lg $482,445 60 2022 Eagle County 876-BRT Low Floor Bus - Lg $482,445 60 2022 Eagle County 877-BRT Low Floor Bus - Lg $482,445 60 2022 Eagle County 878-BRT Low Floor Bus - Lg $482,445 60 2022 Gunnison Valley Transportation Authority 84- XCEL 102 Bus - Lg $482,445 60 2022 RFTA 277-D40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 60 2022 RFTA 278-D40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 60 2022 RFTA 279-D40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 60 2022 RFTA 535-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 60 2022 RFTA 536-DE40LFR Bus - Lg $482,445 60 2022 Summit Stage 561-G27D102N4 Bus - Lg $482,445 60 2022 Summit Stage 562-G27D102N4 Bus - Lg $482,445 60 2022 Summit Stage 563-G27D102N4 Bus - Lg $482,445 60 2022 Town of Avon #856-Phantom Bus - Lg $482,445 60 2022 Town of Breckenridge 9215-G30B102N4 Bus - Lg $482,445 60 2022 Town of Breckenridge 9214-G30B102N4 Bus - Lg $482,445 60 2022 Envida 522-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 76 2022 Envida 488-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 76 2022 Envida 386-Allstar Cutaway - Sm $88,726 76 2022 Neighbor to Neighbor Volunteers Polar Bear- Pacer II Cutaway - Sm $88,726 76 2022 Neighbor to Neighbor Volunteers Eagle-MDL All star Cutaway - Sm $88,726 76 2022 Senior Resource Development Agency 830 -All Star Cutaway - Sm $88,726 76 2022 Summit Stage 512-Cutaway Cutaway - Lg $88,726 76 2022 Town of Snowmass Village 442-Micro Bird G5 Cutaway - Lg $88,726 76 2022 Via Mobility Services CLI-956-Defender Cutaway - Lg $88,726 76 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 77 of 144 78 Colorado Group TAM Plan: SGR Targets and Investment Prioritization 5-24 Program Year Asset ID Code Description Costs Rank 2022 Via Mobility Services CLI-957-Defender Cutaway - Lg $88,726 0 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 78 of 144 79 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Participating Agencies A-1 Appendix A. Participating Agencies (office locations) 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 79 of 144 80 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Participating Agencies A-2 Participating Group TAM Plan Agencies: 1 All Points Transit 2 Aspen, City of 3 Avon, Town of 4 Baca County Seniors Van 5 Bent County 6 Berthoud Area Transportation Service (BATS) 7 Black Hawk, City of 8 Breckenridge, Town of 9 Broomfield, City and County of 10 Castle Rock Senior Center 11 Cripple Creek, City of 12 Dolores County 13 Durango, City of 14 Eagle County 15 East Central Council of Governments 16 El Paso Fountain Valley Senior Citizens Program 17 Envida 18 Estes Park, Town of 19 Glenwood Springs, City of 20 Golden Shuttle 21 Gunnison Valley Rural Transportation Authority 22 Huerfano/Las Animas Area Council of Governments (SCCOG) 23 La Junta, City of 24 La Plata County Senior Services 25 Lake County 26 Lakewood, City of 27 Littleton Omnibus 28 Loveland, City of 29 Montezuma County 30 Mountain Express Transit 31 Mountain Express, The 32 Mountain Family Center 33 Mountain Village, Town of Map Inset 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 80 of 144 81 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Participating Agencies A-3 34 NECALG 35 Neighbor to Neighbor Volunteers 36 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Council (NFRMPO) 37 Park County Senior Coalition 38 Prowers County 39 Pueblo, City of 40 Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) 41 Routt County 42 San Miguel County 43 Senior Resource Development Agency 44 Seniors' Resource Center, Inc. (SRC) 45 Snowmass Village, Town of 46 Southern Ute Community Action Programs 47 Steamboat Springs, City of 48 Summit Stage 49 Teller Senior Coalition 50 Telluride, Town of 51 Via Mobility Services 52 Wet Mountain Valley Community Service Corp 53 Winter Park, Town of Non-participating Tier II public transit providers: 54 Greeley Evans Transit (GET) 55 Mesa County 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 81 of 144 82 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition Summaries B-1 Appendix B Tables B-1 through B-53 are the Group TAM Plan participating agencies’ inventory and condition summaries for vehicles, equipment and facilities for which the agency carries Direct Capital Responsibility. Table B-1 All Points Transit Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR All Points Transit Cutaway – Lg 4 100% 0% Cutaway – Sm 17 82% 18% Van/Minivan 10 60% 40% Total Revenue Vehicles 31 77% 23% Service Automobile 2 100% 0% Total Service Vehicles 2 100% 0% Administration Building 2 100% 0% Bus Station 1 100% 0% Total Facilities 2 100% 0% Table B-2 Archuleta County Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Archuleta County Cutaway – Lg 1 0% 100% Cutaway – Sm 1 100% 0% Van/Minivan 2 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 4 75% 25% Table B-3 Aspen, City of Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR City of Aspen Bus - Lg 14 57% 43% Cutaway – Sm 10 70% 30% Total Revenue Vehicles 24 63% 38% Bus Station 1 100% 0% Total Facilities 1 100% 0% Table B-4 Avon, City of Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Avon, Town of Bus – Lg 5 80% 20% Bus – Med 3 100% 0% Cutaway - Lg 2 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 10 90% 10% Service Automobile 3 33% 67% Total Service Vehicles 3 33% 67% Bus Parking Facility 1 100% 0% Bus Station 23 100% 0% Intermodal Terminal 1 100% 0% Total Facilities 25 100% 0% 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 82 of 144 83 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition Summaries B-2 Table B-5 Baca County Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Baca County Cutaway – Sm 1 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 1 100% 0% Table B-6 Bent County Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Bent County Bus - Lg 1 0% 100% Cutaway – Lg 1 100% 0% Cutaway – Sm 2 100% 0% Van/Minivan 1 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 5 80% 20% Table B-7 Berthoud, Town of Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Berthoud, Town of Cutaway - Sm 2 100% 0% Van/Minivan 1 0% 100% Total Revenue Vehicles 3 90% 10% Table B-8 Blackhawk, City of Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR City of Blackhawk Bus - Lg 1 100% 0% Bus - Med 3 100% 0% Cutaway – Lg 2 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 6 100% 0% Bus Maintenance Facility 1 100% 0% Total Facilities 1 100% 0% Maintenance Equipment 2 Total Equipment 2 Table B-9 Breckenridge, City of Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Breckenridge, Town of Bus – Lg 3 100% 0% Bus – Med 11 82% 18% Cutaway - Lg 2 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 16 88% 12% Service Automobile 2 50% 50% Trucks & Other Service Vehicles 1 100% 0% Total Service Vehicles 3 67% 33% Bus Maintenance Facility 1 100% 0% Bus Parking Facility 1 100% 0% Bus Shelter 20 100% 0% Bus Station 1 100% 0% Total Facilities 23 100% 0% 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 83 of 144 84 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition Summaries B-3 Table B-10 Broomfield, City and County Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR City and County of Broomfield Automobile 1 0% 100% Bus - Lg 3 100% 0% Cutaway – Lg 1 100% 0% Cutaway – Sm 2 100% 0% Van/Minivan 1 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 8 88% 12% Table B-11 Castle Rock Senior Center Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Castle Rock Senior Center Automobile 4 100% 0% Bus - Med 2 100% 0% Cutaway – Sm 1 100% 0% Van/Minivan 3 67%% 33% Total Revenue Vehicles 10 90% 10% Table B-12 Cripple Creek, City of Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Cripple Creek, City of Bus - Med 1 100% 0% Cutaway – Lg 2 100% 0% Cutaway – Sm 3 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 6 100% 0% Trucks & Other Service Vehicles 1 100% 0% Total Service Vehicles 1 100% 0% Other Support Facility 1 100% 0% Bus Shelter 2 100% 0% Total Facilities 3 100% 0% Maintenance Equipment 2 Total Equipment 2 Table B-13 Dolores County Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Dolores County Automobile 1 0% 100% Cutaway – Sm 3 67% 33% Van/Minivan 5 40% 60% Total Revenue Vehicles 9 44% 56% 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 84 of 144 85 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition Summaries B-4 Table B-14 Durango, City of Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Durango, City of Bus - Med 3 100% 0% Cutaway – Lg 7 100% 0% Cutaway – Sm 2 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 12 100% 0% Service Automobile 1 100% 0% Trucks & Other Service Vehicles 2 100% 0% Total Service Vehicles 3 100% 0% Administration Building 1 100% 0% Bus Maintenance Facility 1 100% 0% Bus Shelter 1 100% 0% Intermodal Terminal 1 100% 0% Other Transit Facility 1 100% 0% Total Facilities 5 100% 0% Table B-15 Eagle County Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Eagle County Bus – Lg 30 100% 0% Cutaway – Lg 5 60% 40% Cutaway - Sm 3 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 38 95% 5% Administration Building 3 100% 0% Bus Parking Facility 3 100% 0% Bus Shelter 37 97% 3% Other Transit Facility 47 100% 0% Parking Garage 1 100% 0% Total Facilities 91 99% 1% Table B-16 ECCOG Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR ECCOG Cutaway – Sm 13 46% 54% Van/Minivan 4 50% 50% Total Revenue Vehicles 17 47% 53% Table B-17 El Paso Fountain Valley S.C.P Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR El Paso Fountain Valley S.C.P. Cutaway – Sm 7 43% 57% Van/Minivan 5 40% 60% Total Revenue Vehicles 12 42% 58% Administration Building 2 50% 50% Total Facilities 2 50% 50% Table B-18 Envida Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Envida Cutaway - Sm 7 100% 0% Van/Minivan 5 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 12 100% 0% 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 85 of 144 86 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition Summaries B-5 Table B-19 Estes Park, Town of Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Estes Park, Town of Bus – Med 1 0% 100% Cutaway - Lg 2 100% 0% Cutaway - Sm 2 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 5 80% 20% Bus Station 1 100% 0% Total Facilities 1 100% 0% Table B-20 Glenwood Springs, City of Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Glenwood Springs, City of Bus - Lg 3 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 3 100% 0% Communication – Signs/Signals 1 Total Equipment 1 Table B-21 Golden Age Council Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Golden Age Council Automobile 4 75% 25% Cutaway - Sm 4 25% 75% Total Revenue Vehicles 8 50% 50% Table B-22 Gunnison Valley Transportation Authority Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Gunnison Valley Trans Authority Bus - Lg 6 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 6 100% 0% Bus Shelter 3 100% 0% Total Facilities 3 100% 0% Table B-23 Huerfano/Las Animas Council of Governments (SCCOG) Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Huerfano /Las Animas Area COG Cutaway – Sm 4 50% 50% Van/Minivan 4 50% 50% Total Revenue Vehicles 8 50% 50% Service Automobile 1 0% 100% Total Service Vehicles 1 0% 100% Table B-24 La Junta Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR La Junta Cutaway – Lg 2 50% 50% Cutaway – Sm 2 50% 50% Total Revenue Vehicles 4 50% 50% Table B-25 La Plata County Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR La Plata County Cutaway – Sm 2 100% 0% Van/Minivan 2 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 4 100% 0% Bus Maintenance Facility 1 100% 0% Total Facilities 1 100% 0% 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 86 of 144 87 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition Summaries B-6 Table B-26 Lake County Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Lake County Bus - Lg 8 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 8 100% 0% Bus Maintenance Facility 1 100% 0% Bus Parking Facility 1 0% 100% Total Facilities 2 50% 50% Table B-27 Lakewood, City of Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Lakewood, City of Bus - Med 3 100% 0% Cutaway – Lg 2 100% 0% Cutaway – Sm 2 100% 0% Van/Minivan 3 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 10 100% 0% Other Support Facility 2 100% 0% Total Facilities 2 100% 0% Table B-28 Littleton Omnibus Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Littleton Omnibus Cutaway - Sm 2 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 2 100% 0% Bus Maintenance Facility 1 100% 0% Total Facilities 1 100% 0% Table B-29 Loveland, City of Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Loveland, City of Bus – Lg 6 100% 0% Cutaway – Lg 6 67% 33% Cutaway – Sm 3 0% 100% Van/Minivan 2 0% 100% Total Revenue Vehicles 17 59% 41% Table B-30 Montezuma County Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Montezuma County Automobile 2 0% 100% Cutaway – Sm 3 67% 33% Van/Minivan 4 50% 50% Total Revenue Vehicles 9 44% 56% Administration Building 2 50% 50% Bus Maintenance Facility 1 100% 0% Other Support Facility 1 100% 0% Total Facilities 4 75% 25% 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 87 of 144 88 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition Summaries B-7 Table B-31 Mountain Express, The Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Mountain Express, The Bus –Lg 12 75% 25% Bus – Med 6 67% 33% Cutaway – Sm 2 50% 50% Total Revenue Vehicles 20 70% 30% Trucks & Other Service Vehicles 4 100% 0% Total Service Vehicles 4 100% 0% Administration Building 1 100% 0% Total Facilities 1 100% 0% Table B-32 Mountain Family Center Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Mountain Family Center Automobile 2 50% 50% Van/Minivan 4 50% 50% Total Revenue Vehicles 6 50% 50% Table B-33 Mountain Village, Town of Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Mountain Village, Town of Aerial Tramway 71 20% 80% Automobile 4 0% 100% Cutaway – Sm 4 75% 25$ Van/Minivan 14 50% 50% Total Revenue Vehicles 93 26% 74% Service Automobile 2 0% 100% Trucks & Other Service Vehicles 2 100% 0% Total Service Vehicles 4 50% 50% Bus Maintenance Facility 1 100% 0% Bus Shelter 6 100% 0% Intermodal Terminal 6 100% 0% Parking Garage 2 100% 0% Parking Lot 3 100% 0% Total Facilities 17 100% 0% Table B-34 Northeast Colorado Agency of Local Governments (NECALG) Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR NECALG Bus – Lg 1 0% 100% Cutaway –Lg 7 0% 100% Cutaway – Sm 20 65% 35% Van/Minivan 44 48% 52% Total Revenue Vehicles 72 47% 53% Other Support Facility 2 100% 0% Total Facilities 2 100% 0% 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 88 of 144 89 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition Summaries B-8 Table B-35 Neighbor to Neighbor Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Neighbor to Neighbor Volunteers Cutaway – Sm 7 100% 0% Van/Minivan 2 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 9 100% 0% Bus Station 1 100% 0% Total Facilities 1 100% 0% Table B-36 North Front Range Transportation & Air Quality Planning Council Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR NFRTAQPC Van/Minivan 79 99% 1% Total Revenue Vehicles 79 99% 1% Table B-37 Park County Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Park County Automobile 2 50% 50% Cutaway - Sm 3 0% 100% Total Revenue Vehicles 5 20% 80% Table B-38 Prowers County Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Prowers County Automobile 1 100% 0% Cutaway - Sm 6 67% 33% Total Revenue Vehicles 7 71% 29% Bus Maintenance Facility 1 100% 0% Total Facilities 1 100% 0% Table B-39 Pueblo, City of Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Pueblo, City of Bus – Lg 15 87% 13% Bus – Med 1 0% 100% Cutaway - Lg 13 85% 15% Total Revenue Vehicles 29 83% 17% Service Automobile 3 67% 33% Trucks & Other Service Vehicles 1 100% 0% Total Service Vehicles 4 75% 25% Bus Station 1 100% 0% Other Transit Facility 1 0% 100% Total Facilities 2 50% 50% Communication – Signs/Signals 2 IT/Office Equipment 1 Total Equipment 3 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 89 of 144 90 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition Summaries B-9 Table B-40 Roaring Fork Transportation Authority (RFTA) Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR RFTA Automobile 7 57% 43% Bus – Lg 113 87% 13% Cutaway – Lg 2 100% 0% Cutaway - Sm 25 60% 40% Van/Minivan 8 38% 63% Total Revenue Vehicles 155 79% 21% Service Automobile 5 20% 80% Trucks & Other Service Vehicles 22 86% 14% Total Service Vehicles 27 74% 26% Administration Office/Sales Office 2 50% 50% Bus Parking Facility 1 100% 0% Combined Administrative and Maintenance 3 67% 33% Maintenance Facility 1 100% 0% Other Admin and Maintenance 9 67% 33% Asset Fueling Facility 1 100% 0% Total Facilities 17 71% 29% Table B-41 Routt County Government Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Routt County Cutaway – Lg 1 100% 0% Cutaway – Sm 2 50% 50% Total Revenue Vehicles 3 67% 33% Bus Maintenance Facility 1 100% 0% Bus Parking Facility 2 100% 0% Total Facilities 3 100% 0% Table B-42 San Miguel County Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR San Miguel County Van/Minivan 2 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 2 100% 0% Other Support Facility 1 100% 0% Total Facilities 1 100% 0% Table B-43 Senior Resource Development Agency (SRDA) Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR SRDA Automobile 4 25% 75% Cutaway - Sm 17 76% 24% Van/Minivan 3 67% 33% Total Revenue Vehicles 24 67% 33% IT/Office Equipment 1 Total Equipment 1 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 90 of 144 91 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition Summaries B-10 Table B-44 Senior's Resource Center Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Senior’s Resource Center Automobile 13 100% 0% Cutaway – Sm 21 100% 0% Van/Minivan 12 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 46 100% 0% Administration Building 2 100% 0% Total Facilities 2 100% 0% Table B-45 Snowmass Village, Town of Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Snowmass Village, Town of Bus – Med 19 100% 0% Cutaway - Lg 10 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 29 100% 0% Service Automobile 1 100% 0% Trucks & Other Service Vehicles 1 100% 0% Total Service Vehicles 2 100% 0% Bus Maintenance Facility 1 100% 0% Bus Parking Facility 1 100% 0% Other Support Facility 1 100% 0% Bus Shelter 12 100% 0% Bus Station 2 50% 50% Intermodal Terminal 1 100% 0% Other Transit Facility 8 88% 12% Park and Ride Lot 1 100% 0% Total Facilities 27 93% 7% Facility Equipment 1 Total Equipment 1 Table B-46 Steamboat Springs, City of Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Steamboat Springs, City of Bus – Lg 16 88% 12% Bus – Med 4 75% 25% Cutaway - Sm 1 0% 100% Total Revenue Vehicles 21 81% 19% Other Support Facility 1 100% 0% Intermodal Terminal 2 100% 0% Total Facilities 3 100% 0% Table B-47 Southern Colorado Community Action Agency (SoCoCAA) Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR SoCoCAA Bus – Lg 1 0% 100% Cutaway – Sm 5 80% 20% Van/Minivan 4 50% 50% Total Revenue Vehicles 10 60% 40% Trucks & Other Service Vehicles 1 100% 0% Total Service Vehicles 1 100% 0% 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 91 of 144 92 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition Summaries B-11 Table B-48 Summit Stage Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Summit Stage Automobile 2 100% 0% Bus – Lg 25 76% 24% Bus – Med 5 100% 0% Cutaway - Lg 1 100% 0% Van/Minivan 1 100% 0% Total Revenue Vehicles 34 82% 18% Service Automobile 3 100% 0% Total Service Vehicles 3 100% 0% Bus Maintenance Facility 1 100% 0% Bus Parking Facility 2 50% 50% Bus Station 2 100% 0% Intermodal Terminal 1 100% 0% Total Facilities 6 83% 17% IT/Office Equipment 2 Total Equipment 2 Table B-49 Teller Senior Coalition Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Teller Senior Coalition Automobile 4 50% 50% Cutaway – Sm 1 100% 0% Van/Minivan 2 50% 50% Total Revenue Vehicles 7 57% 43% Table B-50 Telluride, Town of Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Telluride, Town of Bus – Lg 2 100% 0% Bus – Med 1 100% 0% Cutaway - Lg 5 100% 0% Cutaway - Sm 1 100% 0% Van/Minivan 2 50% 50% Total Revenue Vehicles 11 91% 9% Other Support Facility 1 100% 0% Total Facilities 1 100% 0% Table B-51 Via Mobility Services Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Via Mobility Services Automobile 9 67% 33% Bus – Med 12 100% 0% Cutaway - Lg 8 88% 13% Cutaway - Sm 25 68% 32% Van/Minivan 21 95% 5% Total Revenue Vehicles 75 83% 17% Trucks & Other Service Vehicles 2 0% 100% Total Service Vehicles 2 0% 100% Administration Building 1 100% 0% Total Facilities 1 100% 0% Communication – Signs/Signals 1 IT/Office Equipment 9 Maintenance Equipment 2 Total Equipment 12 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 92 of 144 93 Colorado Group TAM Plan: Inventory and Condition Summaries B-12 Table B-52 Wet Mountain Valley Community Services Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Wet Mountain Valley Automobile 4 75% 25% Total Revenue Vehicles 4 75% 25% Table B-53 Winter Park, Town of Agency Asset Class Inventory % in SGR % Not in SGR Winter Park, Town of Bus – Lg 21 10% 90% Bus – Med 5 0% 100% Cutaway - Lg 2 100% 0% Cutaway - Sm 1 0% 100% Total Revenue Vehicles 29 14% 86% Bus Maintenance Facility 1 0% 100% Total Facilities 1 0% 100% 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 93 of 144 94 Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item Summary DATE OF MEETING: July 15, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Hawk Ridge Trail POSTR Recommendation PRESENTED BY: Andy Worline, Parks, Recreation & Trails Director BACKGROUND: On October 4th, 2016 the Parks, Open Space, Trails & Recreation (POSTR) Plan was unanimously adopted by the Town of Snowmass Village Town Council. This policy document included vision, goals, objectives, and guides the decision makers and Town Leaders in the development of Snowmass Village’s POSTR resources. One such overall goal of the POSTR Plan was to: Coordinate the development of POSTR components to build a cohesive network of recreational opportunities within the Town boundaries and connect those opportunities to recreation and values beyond the Town boundaries. The goals and the recommendations outlined in the POSTR plan clearly describe the creation of a trails system that accommodates the needs of all user groups and individuals within the community: • Objective 1.2: Establish trails in a variety of settings that provide an experience, connect places of interest, or serve both purposes. • Objective 1.5: Look for opportunities to connect to regional trail systems (i.e., Sky Mountain Park, USFS, ASC, etc.) to support a continuous network that extends beyond the Town of Snowmass Village. • Objective 2.1: Consider safety on multi-use trails with a focus on design, education, and management, while providing separate facilities where necessary. In April of 2019, The POSTR Advisory Board recommended the construction of the Hawk Ridge Trail. The specific recommendation from the POSTR plan stated: Hawk Ridge Trail Project Description: This rugged trail would provide a connection between the Mountain View Trail and the Rim Trail behind employee housing and Hawk Ridge Lane. The POSTR Committee recommended that dogs not be allowed on this trail segment. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 94 of 144 95 Prior to that recommendation, the POSTR Advisory Board invited all members from the HOA of Mountain View to attend the November 2018 monthly meeting to discuss the alignment, timing and future rules regarding this trail connection. The POSTR Board also invited this group and the community back to hear the trail construction presentation on April 3, 2019, and April 24, 2019, to make sure we have answered all their questions and concerns. The feedback the board addressed at these meetings resolved around pedestrian safety, dog access, and wildlife concerns. This trail will remove the users from navigating through the mountain view parking lot and create access, both to the south rim trail and the Snowmass Center. A critical safe connection identified by the community in POSTR planning. We communicated to the homeowners that this parcel (Parcel #3) designated for Open Space and Pedestrian Trails. The ordinance approving the land use for the Mountain View Resident Housing Planned Unit Development (Ordinance No. 5, Series of 1990) includes the acknowledgment of some wildlife impact of the housing project. It stated because of the multiple family nature of the (housing) project and because the (housing) project will have an impact on an area used by wildlife, dogs should be prohibited (in the housing project). On May 6, 2019, the Town Council received the POSTR Boards recommendation. The Town Council directed staff begin construction of the Hawk Ridge Trail. Trail construction is underway, but is not expected to be complete for some time, potentially 2 more months. Town Council did not provide definitive direction as to how to manage dogs on the trail. The Council did direct staff to gather more information from the Community regarding the management of the trail, specifically allowing dogs on the trail. Staff developed a survey to help garner public opinion on the questions. The Town received 255 responses to the survey. The results of the specific question, “The new Hawk Ridge trail should be dog-friendly (on leash only)?”, are: 137 or 53.94% - Strongly Agree 23 or 9.06% - Agree 19 or 7.48% - Disagree 72 or 28.35% - Strongly Disagree 3 or 1.18% - No Label Staff recommended that the Town Council make a motion to refer this issue back to the POSTR Advisory Board so that they can evaluate the new information provided by the survey results. The POSTR Advisory Board met on June 26, 2019. The POSTR Board deliberated and re-evaluated its recommendation to the Town Council in-light of this new information. The POSTR Board continues to recommend that dogs should be restricted from the new trail. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None currently. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 95 of 144 96 APPLICABILITY TO COUNCIL GOALS & OBJECTIVES: Safety, Connectivity, Parking and Transit - The Town needs to continue focusing its energy on making the community physically connected and as safe as possible. COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Approve 2. Deny STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The POSTR Advisory Board unanimously reaffirms their original direction to Town Council, based on the POSTR Master Plan, PUD, CPW direction, wishes of Mountain View HOA as well as survey result comments. This decision also comes with recommendation to enhance enforcement, financing, and general support for dog related issues brought up in this survey. ATTACHMENTS: 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 96 of 144 97 Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item Summary DATE OF MEETING: July 15, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Variable message sign - Update PRESENTED BY: Brian Olson, Chief of Police BACKGROUND: During the 2019 budget process, Council was briefed and approved a plan, and the necessary funding, to upgrade the existing Variable Message Sign (VMS) at the entrance to Snowmass Village on Brush Creek Road and install a new VMS on Owl Creek Road directly above the Town Public Works Facility. As approved, the project intended to use “Amber” color/style signs like the existing sign on Brush Creek Road. After researching VMS, it has become evident that the Amber style sign is old technology being replaced by full color models. That said, full color models can still be used in such a way to display only amber colors. Because these new signs will have a life span extending twenty plus years, it is staff position that the new, full color technology should be purchased using the most advanced technology available today that would allow for more messaging options moving into the future while still being able to use a single color until such time a change was considered. This item is being brought to the Council’s attention to ensure full disclosure of information and a transparent decision making process. Because amber lights will still be used, no decision is necessary. However, if there is concern about having the capacity to use full color on these VMS, that concern needs to be discussed prior to the purchase of the new VMS. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 97 of 144 98 FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Town Council approved $80,000 in the 2019 budget to purchase these signs. There is an increased cost of the full color sign compared to an amber sign. However, installation costs remain the same and this added cost can still be managed within the adoped budget. APPLICABILITY TO COUNCIL GOALS & OBJECTIVES: Safety, Connectivity, Parking and Transit. COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Approve purchase/use of full color VMS. 2. Deny the purchase/use of full color VMS. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the purchase of full color VMS, with the condition, that the amber color will be primarily used and any future use of color will monitored closely to ensure appropriateness. ATTACHMENTS: PDF- Variable Message Sign power point with added photos of full color VMS examples. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 98 of 144 99 107-15-19 TC PacketPage 99 of 144100 207-15-19 TC PacketPage 100 of 144101 307-15-19 TC PacketPage 101 of 144102 407-15-19 TC PacketPage 102 of 144103 507-15-19 TC PacketPage 103 of 144104 607-15-19 TC PacketPage 104 of 144105 707-15-19 TC PacketPage 105 of 144106 807-15-19 TC PacketPage 106 of 144107 907-15-19 TC PacketPage 107 of 144108 1007-15-19 TC PacketPage 108 of 144109 1107-15-19 TC PacketPage 109 of 144110 1207-15-19 TC PacketPage 110 of 144111 1307-15-19 TC PacketPage 111 of 144112 1407-15-19 TC PacketPage 112 of 144113 1507-15-19 TC PacketPage 113 of 144114 1607-15-19 TC PacketPage 114 of 144115 1707-15-19 TC PacketPage 115 of 144116 1807-15-19 TC PacketPage 116 of 144117 Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item Summary DATE OF MEETING: July 15, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: A Continued Discussion regarding the Brush Creek/Owl Creek Roundabout Design and further discussion on Pedestrian Crossings Design Recommendations at Other Brush Creek Road Intersections. PRESENTED BY: Anne Martens, Public Works Director Clint Kinney, Town Manager BACKGROUND: The Town Council approved funds in the 2019 Budget to continue the design of the roundabout at the intersection of Owl Creek Road and Brush Creek Road. At the May 20, 2019 Council meeting, staff presented the most recent design drawings for the Owl Creek Road and Brush Creek Road roundabout. The goal of that presentation was to receive direction on the actual size of roundabout. Staff recommended that design continue with the larger roundabout configuration and was asking for Council concurrence so that design efforts could continue. Understanding that the Owl/Brush intersection was but one intersection planned for improvements in a longer Brush Creek Corridor, Council directed staff to further investigate crossing improvements for the intersections along Brush Creek Road at Sinclair Road and Faraway Road in conjunction with the Owl Creek Road intersection project. Before making a decision on the size of roundabout at Owl/Brush, the Council wanted to understand what other types of improvements could be expected to occur in the corridor. To that end, SGM was engaged to develop designs for improvements at the other intersections. Attached are the Owl Creek Road and Brush Creek Road roundabout comparison drawings (exhibit A, B & C). Also attached are three images (Exhibit D) of 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 117 of 144 118 the proposed improvements to improve pedestrian safety at the three intersection on Brush Creek Road mentioned above. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The 2019 budget has appropriated $25,000 for design of the Brush Creek Road and Sinclair Road intersection. The 2019 budget also allocated $450,000 for the Street Improvement project to Brush Creek Road, and other roadways. It was discussed at the December 20, 2019 council meeting that a portion of this funding could be used towards the intersection improvements on Brush Creek Road in lieu of some overlay improvements. We are currently in the final plan document creation to go out to bid for the annual overlay improvements project. APPLICABILITY TO COUNCIL GOALS & OBJECTIVES: The improvement projects along Brush Creek Road are part of the council goal to improve safety within the community. The improvements connect the community by improving access for pedestrians, transit, bike users, and mobility. COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Make a motion to move forward with the proposed pedestrian improvements at the intersections of Brush Creek/ Sinclair Road, Brush Creek Road/ Owl Creek Road, and Brush Creek Road/Faraway Road as general depicted in the attached Exhibits. 2. Direct staff to move forward with only certain intersection improvements 3. Direct staff to move forward with design of the larger roundabout at Owl Creek Road and Brush Creek Road. 4. Direct staff to not move forward with implementation of the proposed improvements. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that: 1) Design efforts at Owl Creek and Brush Creek continue forward with the larger roundabout design and 2) staff proceed with the installation of the proposed pedestrian improvements at the intersections of Sinclair/Brush, Owl/Brush, and Faraway/Brush as generally depicted in the exhibits. 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 118 of 144 119 ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A, B & C – Owl Creek Road Roundabout Comparison Drawings Exhibit D – Pedestrian Improvement designs for Sinclair, Owl Creek Road and Faraway Road Intersections with Brush Creek Road 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 119 of 144 120 Title:RoundaboutComparison ExhibitRevision#Dwg No.Brush Creek Roundabout Snowmass Village, COJob No.Drawn by:Date:File:PE:QC:91004DAMC1.8.19RGNBrushCreekRB-ComparisonExhibitRG118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Date By: Preliminary Not For ConstructionProject Milestone:13Of :Graphic ScaleIn Feet: 1" = 60'0 30 6012007-15-19 TC PacketPage 120 of 144121 Title: 115' RoundaboutRevision#Dwg No.Brush CreekRoundaboutSnowmass Village, COJob No. Drawn by: Date: File: PE:QC: 91004D AMC 1.8.19 RGN BrushCreekRB-ComparisonExhibit RG 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.comDate By:Preliminary Not For ConstructionProject Milestone:2 3Of : Graphic Scale In Feet: 1" = 60' 0 30 60 120 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 121 of 144 122 Title:87' RoundaboutRevision#Dwg No.Brush Creek Roundabout Snowmass Village, COJob No.Drawn by:Date:File:PE:QC:91004DAMC1.8.19RGNBrushCreekRB-ComparisonExhibitRG118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200 Glenwood Springs, CO 81601 970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Date By: Preliminary Not For ConstructionProject Milestone:33Of :Graphic ScaleIn Feet: 1" = 60'0 30 6012007-15-19 TC PacketPage 122 of 144123 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 123 of 144 124 Title: Existing Intersection With RRFB's and CrosswalkRevision#Dwg No.Brush Creek Rd - Owl Creek RdIntersection ImprovementsSnowmass Village, COJob No. Drawn by: Date: File: PE:QC: 91004D AMC 06/18/2019 RGN BCR-OCR-Exhibit XX 118 West Sixth Street, Suite 200Glenwood Springs, CO 81601970.945.1004 www.sgm-inc.com Date By:Preliminary Not For ConstructionProject Milestone:1 6Of : Graphic Scale In Feet: 1" = 40' 0 20 40 80 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 124 of 144 125 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 125 of 144 126 Town of Snowmass Village Agenda Item Summary DATE OF MEETING: July 15, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Consideration of a Letter of Support for the Woody Creek Solar Project PRESENTED BY: Travis Elliott, Assistant Town Manager BACKGROUND: The Community Office of Resource Efficiency (CORE) has requested the Town Council draft a letter of support for the proposed 5MW solar farm near Woody Creek. This is a Holy Cross Energy project that is being developed by a third party, and it is currently under review as a Land Use Application with the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission. They will review the application at their meeting on July 16th. Details about this project are available online at www.pitkincountysolar.com. The full visual analysis provided by the applicant is also attached to this memo for your review. The Town of Snowmass Village, through the Renewable Energy Purchase Program (REPP), has already agreed to purchase power from the project – if and when it becomes available. The project will continue to improve the renewable energy portfolio of our electric grid, and it will assist the community meet our goals. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There are no direct financial impacts associated with sending a letter of support. APPLICABILITY TO COUNCIL GOALS & OBJECTIVES: This topic is related to the Town Council’s strategic goal of a continued commitment to resiliency. COUNCIL OPTIONS: 1. Approve the letter as written and direct staff to send it to Pitkin County P&Z 2. Amend the letter and direct staff to send it to Pitkin County P&Z 3. Decline to send a letter of support for the project at this time 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 126 of 144 127 Town of Snowmass Village P.O. Box 5010, Snowmass Village, Colorado 81615 970.923.3777 www.tosv.com July 15, 2019 Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission 530 E. Main Street, Suite 302 Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Woody Creek 5MW Solar PV Project Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission, On behalf of the Town, the Snowmass Village Town Council would like to express strong support for the Woody Creek Solar PV project currently before the Pitkin County Planning and Zoning Commission. The Town Council believes this is a beneficial project for our community, the Roaring Fork Valley, and our collective future. As a quasi-judicial land use review body ourselves, we understand that this can be a difficult decision with a number of competing values to consider. However, the Town Council believes that the benefits of this project would be far-reaching. Not only will this project create a clean source of renewable electricity for all of our residents, guests, and businesses, it will also be a testament to our community’s sustainable values. Snowmass Village has long been a supporter of renewable energy and this project is consistent with our community’s long-range goals to reduce our carbon footprint. As customers of Holy Cross, we also strongly support their efforts to increase sources of clean electricity, which further assist us in meeting the many goals we have set for ourselves. Should this project come into fruition, the Town has already committed to purchase power from this facility through Holy Cross and their Renewable Energy Purchase Program. We look forward to doing so. We appreciate your time and effort as you review this flagship project for the valley. Sincerely yours, Markey Butler Mayor CC: Snowmass Village Town Council Clinton M. Kinney, Town Manager 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 127 of 144 128 Attachment B - Visual Analysis Exhibit from Land Use Application07-15-19 TC Packet Page 128 of 144 129 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 129 of 144 130 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 130 of 144 131 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 131 of 144 132 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 132 of 144 133 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 133 of 144 134 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 134 of 144 135 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 135 of 144 136 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 136 of 144 137 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 137 of 144 138 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 138 of 144 139 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 139 of 144 140 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 140 of 144 141 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 141 of 144 142 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 142 of 144 143 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 143 of 144 144 07-15-19 TC Packet Page 144 of 144 145