The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutBOCC.packet.ws.02-27-2018 1'K I N Board of Commissioners COUNT1 Work Session Agenda TUESDAY,FEBRUARY 27,2018, 10:00 AM Q/D. G Pitkin County Library-Dunaway Community Room 120 N Mill St,Aspen, CO 81611 A work-session agenda is structured to give the Board of Commissioners an opportunity to touch base with each other,staff,and invited community members and organizations to discuss and work through issues the County is facing,but not ready to take official action on at a regular board meeting. Work sessions are open to the public(with exception of executive session). However,public input is typically not taken during a work session unless specifically asked for by the Board. 10:00 AM SPECIAL MEETING-EXECUTIVE SESSION Personnel - County Manager Performance Review CRS 24-6-402 (4)(f) Chaparral Aspen Trail Easement Dispute Kloser Activity Envelope and Site Plan Review Celestial Land Company Request to Lift Stay CRS 24-6-402(4)(b) Red Mountain Ranch HOA Common Area Parcel CRS 24-6-402(4)(a)&(b) Shoaf Litigation Update CRS 24-6-402(4) Advice of Attorney(IGA) CRS 24-6-402 (4)(b) 12:00 PM Adjourn Executive Session 12:00 PM Lunch Break 1:00 PM Staff/Community Presentations This is time set aside for staff and community partners to formally present community or organizational issues that may lead to future Board action. 1:00 PM Little Elk Creek,Brian Pettet(30 minutes) 1:30 PM Healthy Rivers& Streams Project Update,Lisa MacDonald(30 minutes) 2:00 PM Upcoming Regular Meeting Items This portion of the agenda is intended to: 1)Provide the Board and Staff an opportunity to discuss items that will come before the Board and public for formal adoption at a future Regular Meeting/Public Hearing, 2) To review the calendar of business for future Board Work Sessions and Regular Meetings. 2:00 PM Castle Creek Trail Discussion-Gary Tennenbaum(1 hour) AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE 3:00 PM Citizen Board Interview/Charley Podalak- Board of Adjustment, Charlotte Anderson(15 minutes) 3:15 PM Review of Future Agenda Calendar-Work Session/Regular Meeting(15 minutes) 3:30 PM Break 3:45 PM Discussion Items/Open Discussion No formal written materials 3:45 PM Administration and Sheriffs Office/Ambulance Building Updates,Rich Englehart,Chandler Deimund,Gabe Meuthing(15 minutes) 4:00 PM Board Open Discussion(15 Minutes) 4:00 PM 2018 Joint Meeting Discussion: Town of Snowmass Village; Town of Basalt; Garfield County; Eagle County; Lake County; Aspen Valley Hospital;Aspen School Board; RE# 1 4:15 PM Legislative Update,Kara Silbernagel (15 minutes) 4:30 PM Adjourn AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY WORK SESSION DATE: February 27,2018 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Little Elk Creek HOA request STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Brian Pettet,Public Works Director 1 ISSUE STATEMENT: The Little Elk Creek(LEC) Subdivision Homeowners Association(HOA)Board has requested that Pitkin County take over the LEC subdivision roads for maintenance and capital improvements. BACKGROUND: Public roads within several subdivisions in the County,and listed as County Roads;have not formally been accepted for maintenance by the County. These subdivisions include: Little Elk Creek, Crystal River Estates, Gateway and Brush Creek(which is now a metro-district). Historically,HUTF funds received for roads in these subdivisions have been passed through to the subdivisions for the purposes of road maintenance. In 1985,the County made an effort to memorialize this arrangement with the subdivisions. The agreement with Little Elk Creek is attached. In 2016, $6491.00 HUTF funds were provided to LEC to offset road maintenance costs. Given costs provided by the LEC HOA,these pass through funds do not cover the cost of snow removal (most)winter seasons and the HOA has submitted a letter requesting the County assume maintenance responsibilities for the subdivision roads(attached). The 1.51 miles of roads within the LEC subdivision are narrow and have a chip and sealed surface. In some areas the roads are poorly drained. Additionally,the structure of the roads would likely not support heavy tandem axel plow trucks assigned to plow this area of the County. If accepted for maintenance,the County would probably contract out the snowplowing work just as the subdivision has in the past. Accepting these roads for maintenance would add cost to the existing road and bridge maintenance(as well as capital replacement) budget(s). According to the Pitkin County Assessor's records,in 2017 the 72 homes in LEC paid$826.00 in total to the road and bridge fund. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Flourishing Natural and Built Environment. Responsibly maintained and enhanced County assets. KEY DISCUSSION ITEMS: Is the BOCC comfortable with the historic approach to managing the aforementioned subdivision roads in Pitkin County? BUDGETARY IMPACT: None. RECOMMENDED BOCC ACTION: Continue current HUTF road funding pass through to the Little Elk Creek Homeowners Association for the purposes of road maintenance of the LEC subdivision roads. 1 1 r :`% i t A ' °j4'„• "4 v j5 "y�tc1.'��ii• Ei.•ixsfMi'i a i•' w r' • • RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ;':`F OF YITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO, ACCEPTING, tt I i SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS, THE ROADS IN TUXf'' tr• :;, LITTLEE ELIC CREEK VILLAGE SUDDIVISION FOR MAINTENANCE RESOLUTION NO. 04- $5 ,, . '-t - =*`! WHEREAS, the Board of CountyCommissioners has determined n: i 1) The roads in the Little Elk Creek Village subdivision 1 "`'^� are dedicatedpublic rights-of-way. hta-of-•wa r. S Y ;y�, j -{E 2) The roads shown on the attached Exhibit "A" conform 1 1 to the minimum required standards and specifications adopted :',?j' '� by Pitkin County. s ' `u J°i 3) A majority of the roaidonts within the subdivision "i 1 t-‘;`;;1 desire to receive County maintenance. i 6:`• ` 4) Ho additional cost to Pitkin County will incur. c"..c . `;j_._ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY ':_1 COMMISSIONERS OF AITKXH COUNTY that it does hereby accept the a i �;'; q maintenance responsibilities of the roads in the Little Elk Creek ." v Pillage subdivision (as shown on the attached Exhibit "A") "- i ,; subject to the following conditions: • i ��kid, � ,� L) The annual maintenance cost shall not exceed the PM i:' y:;�:` additional amount of State Highway Users Tax received by the f Via.,),�_. te r} County because of the addition of the Little Elk Creek Village sub^ S. ;., division roads, i.tjgsr� 2) The County shall have no responeibility nor liability C',� for the safety and/or structural condition of the road or appurten- 4--;:;1 "1.- ances. l L'-:� 3) The County shall have no responsibility for any ''. 1 1 capital improvements to the alignment or surface condition of the -L- road beyond that which currently exists. 1 .V 4 4) The effect of this Resolution is specifically 1 ' h ., conditional upon the availability of State Highway User Tax. ' • 5) The County shall be responsible for the administration ,P$44 and management of the maintenance of these roada and may ensign $,' or contract thma responsibility. 1 } • .— _ -,-.-:',;',' • . ri.1 • . - .•,..-',,K ,, — • . • 1 :' .17—' :.' —,,' VIIITOt- ' : y . .• -. -,,:.4,, . :, ft, 1 - ' Via' 'eldkiw _:',.14•1-4, 6) The effect of this Resolution in specifically ,... . conditional upon execution of a contraet between the County and . '11 the Little Elk Creek Village Subdivision Homeowners' Association, in a form satisfactory to both parties, reserving in the 'e Association, as predecessor owner of the subdivision roads, all responsibilities rejected or not specifically accepted by the County in this Resolution, VAW APPROVED BY THE HOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF s , 'MI , ,ii3e-1 PITK/N COUNTY, COLORADo at its regular meeting on 10 sawma 1.7'1* 1• - IVW• 1904. 1 fei,fk RAVI ! 1 • •-:z••:s.f,, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS :4;a0 ATTEST: PITKIN COUNTY, OOLORADO 1 We-.• •ix.!:=1:q 1 I. 1 ' '''fVi: (711----------- • f . Law Scanlan Mi heel Kinaiey, f . 4%1 Deputy Clerk and Recorder Cbairno 1 • / . ;•.,;_i.t a , WO. i• ' • el r APPROVED AS 70 rum! i 4 - 'qiiit r.‘)LA i '-''- T ones Fenton Smith County Attorney 1 ft.1 1 i aN1:4, :. ..... (#1 : 4. -1.,..M .... . . f; t:1 :•.,, . ... - ,:.- • • y.:;:::• , I _ .. . , :t [ i .raf . Ii 1.:.-, 1 . M2 0 . ,:t., August 21, 2017 Pitkin County Road and Bridge Gerald Fielding 76 Service Center Road Aspen, CO 81611 Dear Mr. Fielding, Little Elk Creek Village Homeowner's Association would like to officially request road maintenance of all the roads within our subdivision. Pitkin County approved Little Elk Creek Village Subdivision in June, 1972 at which time all roadways were dedicated to Pitkin County and Pitkin County had agreed to "undertake maintenance of such ways, streets and roads" (original plat filing)after construction of said roadways. These roadways include Little Elk Creek Ave, Katydid Lane, Haystack Lane, Driskel Lane, Davidson Lane and Alexander Ave. In 2014 we spent$12,165 for snowplowing and$31,894 on general maintenance for a total of$44,059. In 2015 we spent$9,350 for snowplowing and$12,433 on general maintenance for a total of$21,783. All of the roads in the subdivision were completely redone in 2016. The work performed at this time included: 1. Drainage improvements- a. Removing overgrown vegetation from the edges of the roadways that impedes drainage b. Making/improving slopes and swales to direct water away from roadways 2. Culvert replacement 3. Repairing roadways a. Filling potholes b. Fixing cracks,alligatoring and damage 4. Chip Seal a. All roadways within the subdivision b. Broom up loose chip material The HOA spent a total of$204,000 on this project and$7,250 for snowplowing for a total budget of $211,215 in 2016. We feel that since we have recently performed the above mentioned work and brought the roads within the subdivision up to a better standard that this would be good timing for Pitkin County to take on the responsibility of maintenance. We also believe that Pitkin County has had continued oversight on impacts to the roads within the subdivision because you require a road cut permit to be obtained prior to and work within the right-of-way. Sincerely, Tim Vogel President of Little Elk Creek Village Homeowner's Association EE[ I i 4 i I AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY REGULAR MEETING DATE: February 27, 2018 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Healthy Rivers Funding Requests and Updates STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Lisa MacDonald, Healthy Rivers Administrator ISSUE STATEMENT: The River Board at its January 19th and February 15th regular meetings heard the following funding requests. 1. At a regular meeting on January 19th and again on February 15th the Healthy Rivers Board (River Board) and Sarah Johnson of Wild Rose Education discussed the 2018 Youth Water Leadership Program, a student driven educational experience intended to increase watershed literacy and specifically Colorado watershed management knowledge. The BOCC also heard a presentation by Sarah Johnson on January 9th on the success of the 2017 summit. Sarah produced the 2017 program with direction from the River Board. The 2018 program includes a full day summit of more than 150 middle and high school students along with many educational opportunities as noted in the attached program funding request. The River Board voted 3/2 to recommended approval of$32,170.00 request. Funding for the request would come from a line item for Board Projects approved and appropriated by the BOCC during the 2018 budget process. 2. At a regular meeting on January 19, 2018, the River Board heard a funding request from the Water Education Colorado's Director, Jayla Poppleton. The sponsorship requests totaling $5,000 would cover two events to be held in Pitkin County and production and distribution of the Headwaters Magazine Summer of 2018 issue. See attached request for more detail. The items are as follows: a) A Snow to Stream hands-on learning workshop and SNOTEL field trip up to the top of McClure Pass to be held March 9th Request for$1500 b) Production and Distribution of the Headwaters Magazine's Stream Management Planning Summer of 2018 issue Request for$2500 c) Water Leaders Program Day Sponsor held in Redstone, CO Request for$1000 The River Board unanimously recommended approval of the $5,000 sponsorship request. Funding for the sponsorship would come from the approved and appropriated sponsorship line item. 3. At its February 15th meeting, the River Board reviewed the request for the Aquatic Nuisance Species Program at Ruedi Reservoir. The BOCC also heard the request at a November 2017 meeting by Mark Fuller in Basalt. The request from Ruedi Water and Power Authority is for $15,000. The River Board unanimously approved and recommended funding through an appropriated line item of$10,000 and from its sponsorship line item for $5,000. The River Fund line item for 2018 sponsorships is $15,000 and the appropriated line item for 2018 Aquatic Nuisance is $10,000. UPDATE Pitkin County Healthy Rivers Whitewater Park The BOCC was briefed on the in-channel modifications and streamside work at the whitewater park on January nth by the County's river engineer, Quinn Donnelly of RiverRestoration.org. We received the permit extension from the USACE on the evening of February 8th and our Contractor began work on February 9th. Work is proceeding on schedule and according to plan with the in-channel adjustments. While the Contractor is in the river and staged, work on the foundation for future trail improvements upstream will also occur pending a Nation Wide Permit that is expected to be issued the week of February 19th. This work on streamside improvements will consolidate costs and reduce impact to the Roaring Fork River during any future park construction. Funding for all the work has been appropriated and approved in the 2018 budget. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Ballot language objectives for the fund provide for the maintenance and improvements of water quality and quantity within the Roaring Fork Watershed as well as working in conjunction with various agencies to ensure ecological health, recreational opportunities and wildlife and riparian habitat and as such promotes the County's strategic goals of Flourishing Natural &Built Environment. The Board's adopted aspiration statement states it be a leader in protecting, defending and enhancing rivers and streams through collaboration on watershed wide opportunities, solutions and education on water issues. These projects promote the Board's aspiration statement. BUDGETARY IMPACT: There is a net zero effect on fund balance, as the Healthy Rivers Fund has appropriated a 2018 pool from which to fund grant requests and the whitewater park adjustments and streamside improvements. RECOMMENDED BOCC ACTION: 1. Authorize the expenditure of funds for $32,170 for the Pitkin County Healthy Rivers Youth Water Leadership Summit 2018. 2. Authorize the expenditure of$5,000 for the Water Education for Colorado Snowtel site visit, the Water Leaders Program and production and distribution of the Headwaters Magazine Summer 2018 edition. 3. Authorize the expenditure of $15,000 for the 2018 Aquatic Nuisance Species Program contribution to RWAPA. ATTACHMENTS: • Youth Water Leadership Summit Program Request • Water Education Colorado Sponsorship Request • RWAPA Aquatic Nuisance Species Request Youth Water Leadership Program Healthy Rivers Youth Water Summit for students of the Roaring Fork Valley, Colorado November 15, 2018 in Carbondale, CO The Youth Water Leadership Program is a student-driven education experience intended to increase watershed literacy and specifically Colorado watershed management knowledge. The program inspires meaningful dialogue and community a engagement among students and water resource professionals and policy makers. ,410. Secondary students and teachers engage in project based learning to create unique, wild Rose student-driven water stewardship calls to action. The development of a call to EDUCATION action process promotes critical thinking and leadership skills applicable and tools necessary for the 21st century workforce. The program also connects students with the best available watershed science and management information and exposes them to experts in the field as well as introduces future career possibilities in natural resource and STEM fields. The culminating event in the Roaring Fork Watershed, the Healthy Rivers Youth Water Summit is a student-driven educational conference . creating an opportunity for learning, dialogue, and action on Colorado fA:6 NM River Basin issues. Wild Rose Education founded and directs the Youth Water Leadership Program. Read more and view videos and news stories from previous year at www.wildroseeducation.com/youthsummit. The 2018 Healthy River Youth Water Summit will include: $ 'AR, • More than 150 middle and high school students participating from New Castle to Aspen, Colorado. 'ate ' ' • 30 students will participate in the summer Lens on Climate Change r Program investigating effects of climate change on water resources in the community and create a film to share their discoveries. • A Student Summit Leaders Steering Committee will be formed to help with Summit planning, logistics, and greeting and introducing speakers. • Teachers and students will experience and learn about watershed issues and pose solutions and prepare action plans and ), �w,„-�y , presentations. • Career and summer leadershipopportunity fair will occur during - PP Y � �" � the Summit. : • Water policy decision makers and resource professionals will be engaged in dialogue with students throughout program. ` 1. • Media students will creatively tell the story of the entire program1 \ _ ` through video and film. PO Box 83, Carbondale, CO 816231 sarah@wildroseeducation.com WildRoseEducation.com 1 970-510-0697 Pitkin County Sponsorship We invite you to be a champion for youth watershed leadership by sponsoring the 2018 Healthy Rivers Youth Water Summit through monetary support of$32,170. By producing and underwriting this important learning experience,you will help offset costs allowing free 1 1 -5'--31' ki, participation by students and teachers. This is a great opportunity to - -:N. ~ ,� - stay informed what is going on with watershed education in the Roaring 1.1 �r Fork Valley, and to make it known that you support these activities. Recognition for your sponsorship takes many and varied forms ' including acknowledgment at the Summit, in the Program Report, advertisement in Summit programs, and thank you in electronic media. Program Sponsors 4pF CAliUp,I, THE CITY OF ASPEN $o4,4 .14KN aao UTILITIES ��"/� C** RE =do,��.4 SNOWMASS O1 Community Office for Resource Efficiency C I R E S ® WATER&SANITATION %USW°0 RENEWA°LEC WATER ELECTRIC D T S T R I C T Colorado River District PAIN COUNTy )( DEFIANCE Protecting Western Colorado Water Since 1937 REDUCE.REUSE.LANDFILL DEFUSE RECYCLE. ROARING FORK SCHOOLS RAFTING —LandfillRules.com- C L E E R Sihiii,Iles TNIRD STREET CENtEK Design. Build. Race. Two Rivers Unitarian Universalise Probable Sponsors pTKIN jLENWOOD '-' COUNT11 (11.11; PRINGS �, ;� _ - COLORS 0 , BASALT Program Partners Q\� A�\NN Ty Ai EALTH irIVIVERSA protect. defend. enhance. o h r _ QVNGi E Universityof Idaho %IT 04 'I'' - 9�04, FLIGHT �°"�w7 Collegeof Education Outreach and COLORADO y9 Engagement MOUNTAIN COLLEGE `44f INST�'� ' ` Lens PI MIDDLE COLORADO Climate Chan WATERSHED COUNCIL g YOUTH CLIMATE SUMMITS z�� *es e cm""'"'"THE WILD CENTER Updated 2/21/18 Mario WATER EDUCATION COLORADO Sponsorship Request Pitkin County Healthy Rivers & Streams Board Water Education Colorado (formerly Colorado Foundation for Water Education) is a non-profit organization providing quality information, educational tools, learning experiences and leadership development programs focused on Colorado's most precious resource—water. Since our founding by the state legislature in 2002, our mission has been to help Coloradans understand water as a limited resource and make informed decisions. Water Education Colorado works to promote a better understanding of Colorado's water resources and issues by providing balanced and accurate information and education through our programs, events and publications. Our vision is for all Coloradans to have the resources and knowledge to make more informed water decisions for a sustainable water future and to have the tools to practice good water stewardship. Our programs reach thousands of individuals across the state each year. Thank you to the members of the Pitkin County Healthy Rivers &Streams Board! We strongly value the work that you do.We are honored to submit a sponsorship request for funding, and we thank you in advance for your consideration! You have been a generous and loyal partner to Water Education Colorado and we sincerely appreciate your continued investment. Your support to our mission and programs is vital! We are requesting a total of $5,000 in sponsorship support for 3 key educational programs in 2018. Project 1: Snow to Stream:A hands-on learning workshop and SNOTEL field trip in Pitkin County March 9, 2018 Sponsorship Request: $1,500 In March 2018, Water Education Colorado will be partnering with the Roaring Fork Conservancy for a one-day workshop and field trip in Pitkin County, exploring the nexus between water, climate, and snow. In Colorado, snow is more than a type of weather; it's a way of life. What might be less apparent is what snowpack means in terms of water, soil moisture, and forest health... and how climate variability is impacting it all. This workshop and field trip will be geared towards educators, but is open to the public and will be interesting for anyone wishing to learn more about these topics. Participants will spend the morning hearing from a variety of experts and enhancing their water and climate science literacy and knowledge. The afternoon will feature a unique opportunity to visit a SNOTEL site at the top of McClure Pass! Participants will learn how to conduct a snow course survey and will then have the opportunity to collect samples themselves.We'll finish the day by snowshoeing to the actual SNOTEL site. Participants will walk away with the knowledge and resources to educate others about water, snow science, climate, forest health and more. Your support is vital for helping us to bring this hands-on learning opportunity to Pitkin County! Sponsorship benefits will include: • 2 free workshop registrations • Partial scholarship assistance given in name of Pitkin County Healthy Rivers & Streams Board to 1 workshop attendee • Logo included on signage at the event • Logo included on workshop day materials for participants and speakers • Logo placement on promotional materials for the event • Recognition as a sponsor in press releases and social media posts about the event • Invitation to have a representative address the audience at the event • Opportunity to distribute promotional materials at the workshop • Recognition in follow-up email communication to all event attendees with a link to your website Project 2: Headwaters Magazine, Stream Management Planning Issue Summer 2018 Sponsorship Ask: $2,500 Published 3x annually in a glossy, four-color format, Headwaters magazine is HEADWATERS Water Education Colorado's flagship publication, covering the most pressing water issues with compelling, impartial reporting and storytelling. Headwaters W Magazine explores Colorado's top water issues with objective, peer-reviewed, accessible articles. By providing timely, accessible coverage that considers diverse perspectives and value sets, Headwaters helps advance the dialogue and fosters innovative and collaborative solutions for Colorado's water challenges. h4'9 No other publication in Colorado targets the broad cross-section of interested RE1E1111f T61:q'11 111E @IFET1 citizens, community members and professionals from the water management, oFPI1111r 111TEll.� conservation, agricultural and business communities like Headwaters magazine. - Headwaters reaches these diverse audiences with one thing in common: a passion for understanding water issues. Each Headwaters has a distribution of over 10,000+ through print issues and online subscribers, and each issue crosses multiple desks as it is circulated within offices and repeatedly referred back to. Headwaters is also handed out at numerous conferences and events and is archived online and accessible indefinitely, so your sponsorship support lasts for years to come. The Summer 2018 issue "Stream Management Planning" will explore pathways toward meeting the Colorado Water Plan goal of having 80 percent of locally prioritized stream segments covered by stream management plans by 2030. We'll dive into the goals, methodologies, funding mechanisms, and potential barriers of SMPs. Your sponsorship support will go directly toward supporting the production and distribution of this Headwaters issue in order to accomplish the educational objectives of Water Education Colorado. Confirmed supporters to date for this issue include: Colorado Water Conservation Board, Colorado Water Congress, River Network, Southwestern Water Conservation Board, SGM, Denver Water, and CoBank. Sponsorship benefits will include: • 1/3 page full-color ad in sponsored issue • Logo placement on the back cover of sponsored issue in print and online • Logo placement and sponsor thank you on the relevant Headwaters pages of WEco's website • Recognition as a sponsor in Headwaters promotional communications • 25 free copies of sponsored Headwaters magazine issue • Ability to reprint and use articles for your own organizational use, subject to certain limitations • The invitation for Pitkin County Healthy Rivers & Streams Board to be featured in an upcoming blog post surrounding the issue's publication date Project 3: Water Leaders Program Day Sponsor May 17-18, 2018 Redstone, Colorado Sponsorship Ask: $1,000 The Water Leaders program is recognized as the premier professional development course for the water community in Colorado. Since 2006, the program has provided training to participants across Colorado, helping them become more effective leaders. Water Education Colorado staff has worked hard year after year to adapt and evolve the course to build the skills of water professionals that will prepare them to address current water issues by using the most advanced leadership development tools and trainings available! Water Education Colorado's Water Leaders program positively impacts the Colorado water profession by developing a pipeline of skilled water leaders across the state, representing diverse fields and ready to chart the path forward to innovative and collaborative water solutions in an increasingly complex world. The Water Leaders 2018 program will conduct a 2-day session in May 2018 in Pitkin County (Redstone, Colorado).We are requesting that Pitkin County Healthy Rivers & Streams Board help to sponsor one of these 2 program days.In return, you will be recognized as a Program Day Partner! Program Day Partners have the opportunity to move beyond networking, and build meaningful relationships with tomorrow's Water Leaders.As a partner, you can position your organization as a leader committed to the future of water in Colorado, and you can bring value to your organization by supporting Colorado's premier leadership development course for the water community. Program Day Partner Benefits: • The invitation to attend a portion of your sponsored program day and to speak to the class • The invitation to distribute organizational materials to program day participants • Brand recognition throughout the full program day through signage • Logo placement on class materials for your sponsored program day • Public brand recognition before, during and after program day through WEco's communications channels including Headwaters PULSE e-newsletter(reaching 5,000+), and social media, reaching an additional 1,000+, as well as other public media outlets • Logo recognition on WEco's website, with a link to your website • Recognition in follow-up e-mail communications to participants, with a link to your website THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTIUED SUPPORT OF WATER EDUCATION! WE GREATLY APPRECIATE YOU! Proposal Contact: Alicia Prescott Water Education Colorado Development Coordinator alicia@yourwatercolorado.org or 601-941-9132 TO: RWAPA Members FROM: Mark Fuller RE: 2018 Budget and Billing Date: December 27, 2017 This is to provide some background on the attached invoice for RWAPA Dues and ANS Contribution for 2018. 2018 will see a significant transition for RWAPA as I will be stepping down as Director after 36 years(!) and a new Director will be engaged to take over my duties. This transition will generate some new expenses which are not covered in the original 2018 budget. The RWAPA Board decided unanimously at their last meeting to raise annual operating dues from $4,750/year to $5,500/year to cover transition costs and the increased cost of annual RWAPA operations. Those costs have risen largely because of the time and labor associated with administration of the ANS Program at Ruedi Reservoir. RWAPA dues have not gone up since 2011 and overall costs of labor and operations have also gone up in that time. We understand that this dues increase is being implemented outside the normal time-frame for the budgeting process of our member entities. With that in mind,we recognize that dues payments above the amount already budgeted by members may require a supplemental budget allocation or other process in keeping with the normal requirements of our member jurisdictions. We are completely willing and able to comply with whatever those requirements might be. The invoice for members' contribution to the ANS Program at Ruedi Reservoir reflects my understanding of what RWAPA's various members have budgeted for this Program in 2018. I would be happy to provide further information and detail on RWAPA's operating expenses and ANS Program costs at your request. INVOICE Ruedi Water and Power Authority 2018 Annual Dues and ANS Program Contribution December 27, 2017 Pitkin County Annual Dues -$5,500.00 Paid ANS Program Contribution -$15,000.00 Due TOTAL $20,500.00 Please remit at your earliest convenience to: Ruedi Water and Power Authority 238 Fawn Drive Carbondale, Co 81623 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY WORK SESSION MEETING DATE: February 27, 2018 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Castle Creek Corridor Planning STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Gary Tennenbaum and Gerald Fielding ISSUE STATEMENT: The County and City have been working on planning safety improvements along the Castle Creek Road corridor from the Music/Aspen Country Day Schools to the Marolt Trail. In this meeting, staff is providing all the public comment received during the second round of public process, which included alternatives for options on trail and shoulder improvements and a recommended direction on a preferred alternative to go to final design and cost estimate. Staff will then bring back the final design and cost estimate to both the City and County Open Space Boards for approval and budget recommendation. Then it will go to the City Council and BOCC for final project and budget approval. BACKGROUND: At a joint meeting between the County and City Open Space Boards in September 2016, the Castle Creek Trail was prioritized for planning in 2017 in response to many community members' requests. The Castle Creek Trail planning began on July 24, 2017 with an open house to start soliciting public feedback on the opportunities and challenges associated with improving pedestrian and bicycle safety along Castle Creek Road. Staff also has met with interested parties, including neighbors and the Music and Aspen Country Day School, to get feedback on what data to get to help the Open Space Boards and elected officials make decisions with regard to improvements. The public comment period was extended till September 29th to ensure all stakeholders had time to submit comments. All public comments were included in the open space boards' packet and are still available online. There was a community survey, Aspen Music Festival and School survey, comment cards received at the public open house, letters and emails received, website comment submissions, and the insights from the kickoff meeting. This generated a large amount of public feedback. The consultants hired a firm to provide user counts along the road via video camera for two weeks. The first week counted use from August 2-9 and the second week was from September 17-24. Neither the Music nor Aspen Country Day School were notified that the cameras were in use during those weeks. The data is available on the projects website. The consulting engineers have considered all of the public feedback and have analyzed the corridor for what is feasible. A survey of the right-of-way that included all trees over 4 inches in diameter was completed, so all impacts along the alignments could be evaluated. Alignment concepts and estimated costs were created and presented at a joint meeting of the City and County Open Space Boards on November 2, 2017. At the joint meeting on November 2nd, the boards recommended releasing the alternatives to the public for feedback. An open house and presentation on the alternatives was held on November 15, 2017. The public comment period was open through January 1, 2018,providing the opportunity to participate in a survey about options and to provide open comment. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: The following "Core Focus Areas & Success Factors" are related to this item: Flourishing Natural & Built Environment—Success Factors 1. Conserved natural resources and environment 2. Responsibly maintain and enhance County assets 3. Ease of mobility via safe and efficient transportation systems 4. Well planned and livable built environment KEY DISCUSSION ITEMS: All public comment and a summary of the survey is included in the packet. After reviewing the public comment and survey responses, it became evident that a strong majority supports pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements in this corridor. In the survey responses, the east-side alternative came out slightly ahead in preference for alternatives. The "no improvements" option was the least preferred. Shoulder improvements came in with relatively little support in the survey,but there was strong support in the survey responses for widening the shoulders in the corridor and uphill bike lanes. Improved safety measures - increased signage, slower speeds and speed tables -had strong support. A physically separated trail also had strong support. There was also some support in the comments, as well as in the survey, for limiting impacts from any trail alternative. Aside from the survey,public comment received in emails, comment cards and letters was split in preference between the east-side trail and shoulder improvements. Overall, the east-side trail alternative received the most support, but there is concern for the cost and impacts. Staff worked to combine all the comments and survey responses into a recommended preferred alignment. The recommended alignment is a modified east-side separated trail. This modified design would include the uphill bike lane and as much separated trail from the roadway as possible by narrowing the trail to less than 6-8 feet wide,uphill bike lane to less than 4 feet wide, and buffer to less than 3 feet wide where necessary to limit the disturbance to vegetation, height or need for retaining walls, and to reduce cost. The desire from the public and Open Space Boards was also to keep the trail at road level. This design will include increased safety signage and speed tables along the corridor. Staff will also propose lowering the speed limits in this corridor. A modified east-side alignment will significantly reduce the current east-side cost estimate of$3.8 million, limit the impacts to aesthetics and vegetation, and provide a much safer corridor for pedestrians and bicyclists. Open Space and Trails will work with Pitkin County Public Works on rockfall mitigation strategies and recommend an alternative to the BOCC in the final design to determine if it is necessary and if it is, how to fund rockfall mitigation. BUDGETARY IMPACT: None at this time. Budget is included in the 2018 budget of the County and City to complete the design. RECOMMENDED BOCC ACTION: Direct staff to create a final design of a modified east side alignment and bring that design and cost estimate back to the City and County Open Space Boards, City Council, and BOCC for final approval. ATTACHMENTS: Public comments and public comment summary eCEar CASTLE CREEK CORRIDOR ASPEN RS 8 RECREATION kIN COVE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MEMORANDUM TO: Castle Creek Corridor Improvement Consultant Team FROM: Kathleen Wanatowicz RE: Castle Creek Corridor Improvement Preferred Alignment Public Input: October 1, 2017— January 1, 2018 DATE: January 11, 2018 CASTLE CREEK CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT PUBLIC INPUT Overview Public input on the conceptual alignments was collected via the project webpage, public meeting— written comments, and a public online community survey. For a complete copy of submissions, comments and survey results, please see Exhibit B- Public Comments and Data for Conceptual Alignments [October 2017-January 2018]. The project webpage was published on the Pitkin Open Space and Trails projects site on July 5, 2017. The Open House, which was the 3rd public event, where the designs where presented was held on November 15, 2017 and allowed for feedback via: comment cards, paper survey, and post-it notes placed on presentation boards.This meeting was also shared on Grassroots TV. QUANTITATIVE INPUT DATA Public Online Community Survey The online community Castle Creek Corridor Improvement Project(CCCIP)survey opened for response on October 1, 2017 and closed for responses on January 1, 2018. Included in the survey were images of rendered sections from the alignment alternatives, a link to the 11/15/18 open house presentation, one checkbox question, two level of support questions and four opportunities for additional comments. The survey was publicized via stakeholder email lists,the project webpage, social media and the Pitkin County OST e-newsletter. A total of 94 respondents contributed,yielding the following results: Overall Alignment Preference: Public comments demonstrated a fairly close preference with East and West trail alignment designs,with the Shoulder Improvement option in third and no improvements with the smallest percentage of votes. Comments are categorized into four categories: West Trail, East Trail, Shoulder Improvements or None. (see chart on next page, illustrate by percentage) pitkinostprojects.com/castle-creek-corridor-improvement-project I page 1 of 4 yQ pCE 4 PARKS 8 RECREATION k/NCEO" IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MEMORANDUM West Trail Comments: Comments from respondents indicating a preference for the West Trail alignment included the following themes: safest option, aesthetic, user-friendly, natural extension of the existing trail between the chapel and hospital. East Trail Comments: Comments from respondents indicating a preference for the East Trail alignment included the following themes: natural feel/aesthetic, safest—no road crossing, connection to the trail system. After learning about each alignment, which alignment do you prefer overall? (select one) 94 responses West Trail • East Trail Shoulder Improvements 42.696 • None pitkinostprojects.com/castle-creek-corridor-improvement-project) page 2 of 4 2eCEar SSPEN CASTLE CREEK CORRIDOR o�T�� PARKS&RECREATION kiN COV° IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MEMORANDUM Level of support indicated for the following specific features: The majority of the comments were in favor,just calling out a few specific options/features, other voiced general support, one strongly against the project in general. Strongly Strongly Level of Support » Against Against Neutral In Favor in Favor Unsure Other Uphill Bike Lane 3 3 7 21 47 3 0 Widen Shoulder(s) 2 4 15 27 35 3 0 Physically Separate Trail 8 3 9 17 47 1 0 Bollard Separated Trail 11 8 14 20 14 8 0 Above-grade Trail 7 11 15 21 25 4 0 At-grade trail/route 3 12 20 28 9 7 0 Below-grade trail/route 9 16 22 16 10 5 0 Pedestrian road crossing 3 7 8 22 41 1 0 Slower traffic speeds 3 14 23 15 28 1 0 Speed Table/Bump 3 14 16 23 27 1 1 Safety Signage 2 4 7 27 44 1 0 Rapid Flash beacons @ Ped crossings 6 4 14 25 34 2 0 Narrow trail to limit impact 12 11 29 15 13 4 0 Level of Support for Rockfall Mitigation Strategies: The majority of survey participants in the additional comments section specific to this question voiced safety as the main concern, aesthetics secondly.There were some comments voicing concern about the cost, necessity and whether it should be an OST project vs. a county/city funded project. Strongly In Strongly in Level of Support » Against Against Neutral Favor Favor Unsure Other Sculpted Shotcrete 6 9 16 29 24 3 0 Rockfall Fence 22 29 16 9 5 4 0 Cable Net&Wire Mesh 4 10 6 38 28 1 1 pitkinostprojects.com/castle-creek-corridor-improvement-projects page 3 of 4 2PpCEBr ASPEN CASTLE CREEK CORRIDOR � &RECREATION /NCO. IMPROVEMENT PROJECT MEMORANDUM Additional Public Comment Summary: Community Survey Again, a majority of comments indicate support for the project, many on safety, and caution on keeping the aesthetics, and focus on commuting specific to the school communities.There were a few comments calling for a more quantitative presentation, and another about why rockfall mitigation is an OST project, why no cost estimates presented and why it isn't falling under the county/city (public works.) Additional Public Comment Summary: E-mails, Comment Cards, Letters The additional public comments that were gathered, approximately 19, all were in favor in some alignment improvement or development.There was again an even split, but within this participant group between the East Trail and Shoulder Improvements.Those who chose the East Trail, relayed themes of: affinity for trail flow and safety (no road crossings).Those in favor of the Shoulder Improvements, like those in the survey data set expressed the main reason for their choice as cost saving/efficiency. pitkinostprojects.com/castle-creek-corridor-improvement-project I page 4 of 4 ?pCE:t) 4/ASPEN RKS & RECREATION IIIW /IN C O‘ CASTLE CREEK CORRIDOR IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Exhibit B - Public Comments and Data for Conceptual Alignments [October 2017-January 2018] CCCIP Exhibit B Page 1 CASTLE CREEK TRAIL PROJECT Exhibit B - Public Comments and Data for Conceptual Alignments [October 2017-January 2018] TABLE OF CONTENTS Castle Creek Corridor Improvement Project Conceptual Alignment Online Community Survey 3 8 Comment Cards 9-18 Letters and Emails 19-52 Project Website Submissions 53-63 CCCIP Exhibit B Page 2 CCCIP Conceptual Alignment Community Survey 'Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate your Please indicate your Please indicate your Please indicate your "After teaming about each, "Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate your level of level of support for level of support for level of support for level of support for g your level of your level of your level of your level of your level of your level of Please provide comments on your preferred your level of your level of your level of your level of your level of support for the the following. the following rockfall the following rockfall the following rockfall alignment,which support for Ne support for of, support for Ne support for the support for the support for the [Level of Support]Additional [Rockfall Mitigation] ali omen[do alignment.If you selected none,please share support for the support for the support for the support for the support for the following.[Rapid[Narrowing of the mitigation mitigation mitigation Additional Comments g you prefer following. following. following. following. following. following.[Speed Comments Additional Comments why: following.[Uphill following.[Above.following.[At- following.[Below. following.[Safely Flashing Beacons trail to minimize the strategies.[Rockfall strategies.[Rockfall strategies.[Rockfall overall?(select one) [Widened [Physically [Bollard [Pedestrian road [Slower traffic Table/Speed Bike Lane] gra ShoUlder(s)] Separated Trail] Separated Trail] de trail] grade trail/route] grade trail] Crossings] speeds] Bump] signage] at pedestrian number of trees Mitigation:Sculpted Mitigation:Rockfall Mitigation:Cable crossings] impacted] Shotcrete] Fence] Net&Wire Mesh] I like that the trail is elevated above the roadway in some sections.More likely to get sun,less likely to get sprayed with overflow snow/gravel from plowing,provides a natural extension of the Anyf these would be Just so happythat this is happening, 1 West Trail trail that's on the west side of Castle Creek Road Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor In Favor Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Neutral narrowing if necessary Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor o and that the between the chapel and the hospital.It seems fine. process has been so thorough and methodical. that this trail would be useable during more months of the year than the other two altematives. The rapid Flashing beacons could be on demand;would not want them constant.The The West Trail seems too expensive,and I would existing trees on the east side worry about walking right under the loose rocks are mostly not very 2 East Trail on the big cut.While the shoulder improvements Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral impressive,and,if removed, In Favor Against In Favor Rockfall fence seems very clearly offer greater safety than the present state, would open up more views of ugly. the East Trail seems more like a trail. Ajax.The places where the east trail is lower than the roadway would be visually unobtrusive. In your very careful counting of traffic along the corridor,you seem to have forgotten move-in and Not sure about frequency move-out days for the Aspen Festival.Our son has of maintenance needed stayed at the Aspen condos along the route and Shared trail appears Wide enough for cyclists and for sculpted shotcrete,but walks/rides a bike(if he's missed the bus)and has foot red t to share and in some spots there it's much more esthetically found it challenging to remain out of the way of 3 West Trail lv Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Against In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Unsure Strongly In Favor Strongly Against In Favor pleasing than the fence vehicular traffic(he plays the oboe,so his case is not appears to be a banter between cyclists/walkers and vehicular traffic for protection. option.The cable net and that large).When we come out to visit him,we're on wire mesh would seem a the road and find it difficult to navigate the roadway compromise between the with so many cyclists and walkers.Any improvement two. would be better than none,but I believe ones that set walkers and cyclists farther apart from cam and buses are highly preferred! 4 West Trail Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly Against Strongly In Favor Against Strongly Against In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly Against Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor Most bang for the buck on these badly needed Prefer regrading slopes to 5 Shoulder Improvements safety improvements.Improves all modes of Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Against Against Strongly In Favor Against Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly Against Strongly In Favor natural angle of inclination transportation and addresses all ability levels. and revegetating. N6 Shoulder Improvements $°need to"overbuild"...keep this simple and less In Favor In Favor Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly Against In Favor 7 East Trail Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor Neutral Against Against In Favor Against Strongly In Favor vest savings from shoulder improvements separate bike lanes in blind curves all the way to 8 Shoulder Improvements option by expanding to blind curves further up Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Against In Favor Against Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Against In Favor Ashcroft Castle Creek Rd. 9 West Trail In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral In Favor Neutral Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor Against In Favor Neutral In Favor Safety needs to be#1.Rich white people#18.This it not about wildlife. I cycle up the road weekly.Uphill cyclists on an East trail would not have to cross traffic when trail 10 East Trail ends.If the uphill trail were on the west side, Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor In Favor Neutral Strongly Against Strongly In Favor Against Against Strongly Against Strongly In Favor cyclist would have to cross traffic lanes to continue up Castle Creek Road I like the west trail alignment as it seems more user friendly and ascetic.I think it could be Used in winter also.However the 5 million$price tag I think something needs to be done for the safety of 11 West Trail for a trail that is less than a mile seems absurd. In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Against In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Against Against the students and I'm fine with whatever gets decided That being said,my next choice would be the as long as it is something. shoulder improvements.I think the east trail is a loser. I support the alignment that will be the safest,ie the most separated from traffic.This will be the 12 East Trail best trail for Music School,Country Day,and Strongly In Favor Against Strongly In Favor Against Strongly In Favor Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor recreational cyclists and pedestrians.I do not support shoulder improvements since I do not think this supports the goal of a safe trail. in favor of speed tables/ 13 West Trail feels safer for peels and bikers Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Unsure Neutral Neutral Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Other Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly Against bumps S not in the path of Strongly In Favor Against Strongly In Favor cyclists Just grade it back a bit Really important that something is done here to 14 Shoulder Improvements Will greatly improve safety at a reasonable cost. Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Against Against Strongly In Favor Against Against In Favor In Favor In Favor Against Neutral Neutral Strongly Against Against and secure with improve a very unsafe situation.My family and have biodegradable mesh and had several near head-on collisions on this blind curve revegetate. as cars,trucks and buses pass the bicyclists. I favor maximum separation 15 West Trail Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Unsure Unsure Unsure Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Against of cars and self powered Neutral Against In Favor people--on foot or bike. After viewing your detailed presentation I would prefer the east alignment both for a safety and f6 East Trail cost aspect.I would like removable plastic Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Against delineators to keep the cars away from the pedestrians. CCCIP Exhibit B Page 4 "Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate your Please indicate your Please indicate your Please indicate your "After teaming about each" "Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate your level of level of support for level of support for level of support for level of support for g your level of your level of your level of your level of your level of your level of Please provide comments on your preferred your level of your level of your level of your level of your level of support for the the following. the following rookie!!the following rockfall the following rookie!! alignment,which support for Ne support for the support for the support for the support for the support for the [Level of Support]Additional [Rockfall Mitigation] ali omen[do alignment.If you selected none,please share support for the support for the support the support for the support for the following.[Rapid[Narrowing of the mitigation mitigation mitigation Additional Comments g you prefer following. following. following. following. following. following.[Speed Comments Additional Comments why: following.[Uphill following.[Above.following.[At- following.[Below following.[Safely Flashing Beacons trail to minimize the strategies.[Rookie!!strategies.[Rockfall strategies.[Rookie!! overall?[select one) [Widened [Physically [Bollard [Pedestrian road [Slower traffic Table/Speed Bike Lane] ShoUlder(s)] Separated Trail] Separated Trail] grade trail] grade trail/route] grade trail] Crossings] speeds] Bump] signage] at pedestrian number of trees Mitigation:Sculpted Mitigation:Rockfall Mitigation:Cable crossings] impacted] Shotcrete] Fence] Net&Wire Mesh] I am in favor of widening the trail and making the whole road at the same level with no barriers caused by additional side trails.The numbers of bikers who use the road are 17 Shoulder Improvements Strongly In Favor Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Against far greater and will continue to Strongly Against Strongly Against In Favor increase and it is their safety that we should be looking protect.The small numbers of school bikers and walkers can maintain on the extended shoulders. 18 Shoulder Improvements Against In Favor Against Neutral Against In Favor Against Against Against Against Against Neutral Neutral Against Strongly Against In Favor I don't think project is needed 19 East Trail In Favor Against In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral Neutral In Favor Neutral Neutral In Favor Against In Favor 20 East Trail Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Against Strongly In Favor 21 East Trail It feels like the Safest and most cost effective Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly Against Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor solution for the public. 22 West Trail Neutral In Favor Neutral Neutral In Favor Neutral Neutral In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral Unsure Unsure Other 23 East Trail In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor Against Against In Favor Against In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly In Favor 24 West Trail Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Against Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Please just find a way to add Neutral Neutral Neutral a trail! 25 East Trail In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral In Favor Neutral Neutral In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor use becaa you haven't demonstrated a real need you mu In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor for the usetrail same old sts ow a generarzal'e need for ra trailothert an just[e 26 None ins 27 East Trail Strongly In Favor Just widening the shoulder does not provide enough space for tail users.The Rockfall mitigation costs speeds from residents and should not be included in It provides the best balance of Safety visitors coming down that the trail costs because this Please put in the trial.It is desperately needed and wil 28 East Trail improvements and environmental impacts. Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral Against In Favor In Favor Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Neutral road are ridiculous and some In Favor Against In Favor is needed now and has not negatively affect anyone living beyond the music speed tables would help to been needed.The county school campus. improve the safety.I don't has neglected this risk for think having multiple long enough. pedestrian crossings would make a safer solution. 29 West Trail Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral In Favor Against In Favor Neutral Neutral Neutral In Favor Against Against 30 West Trail Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor FOR ME IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO EVALUATE BASED ON PRETTY PICTURES.IT WOULD TAKE HOURS TO WALK IT TO EVEN START 31 None THE EVALUATION.MY INITIAL REACTION WOULD BE SHOULDER IMPROVEMENTS IF IT KEEPS THE COST DOWN.I RIDE THE ROAD OFTEN AND NEVER FEEL THREATENED. THIS SEEMS TO BE FOR WALKING SAFETY. 32 East Trail Unsure Unsure Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Against In Favor Neutral Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly Against Neutral Strongly In Favor 33 East Trail Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Against Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Against In Favor The east trail seems the 34 East Trail In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Unsure Neutral Neutral Neutral In Favor Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral safest,as it also keeps Against Against In Favor pedestrians and children away from rock-fall danger. 35 West Trail West trail seems like the safer location. In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Unsure Neutral In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Neutral In Favor The west trail maintains the beauty of castle 36 West Trail cr.k and the sensibility of the service needed,a Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Neutral Neutral Against Neutral Neutral Against Neutral Strongly Against Strongly In Favor Against Strongly Against way for foot and pedal traffic to be utilized. 37 East Trail West trail seemed to have more safety for 38 West Trail pedestrians(possibly children if walking to Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor school).Also,the green space buffer could help offset tree removal elsewhere. Raised trail is safer for kids walking to the school. 39 West Trail Green space between the trail and road will In Favor Neutral In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor Strongly In Favor Against In Favor preserve existing trees and vegetation which i s important West seems safer and to achieve the goals better,especially if 488 Castle Creek development goes through and during that building process.But I'm not clear where snow How far up Castle Creek would an uphill bike lane 40 West Trail goes in the winter,or how on-road parking(which Neutral In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Against In Favor extend? will be necessary with 488 Castle Creek development)is accommodated.However,this presentation/survey hasn't taken into account financial concerns(yet?). 41 Shoulder Improvements Seems the most logical Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor I think this rack wall is a Overall,I want to see something done to improve the major Safety concern. safety of this area.I think it is also important that we I am a teacher at ACDS.I feel this trail will Falling rocks are anas a unity support"green transportation." 42 East Trail provide the most safety to our students at a In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor Unsure Unsure Unsure Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Strongly In Favor In Favor Against accident waiting to happen People in this community want to walk and bike,but reasonable cost. end we need to be proactive in mitigating this sometimes choose not to because it is unsafe.The risk. castle creek corridor is a petted anent[ry f'.Exhibit B Page 5 'Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate your Please indicate your Please indicate your Please indicate your "After learningabout each, "Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate your level of level of support for level of support for level of support for level of support for your level of your level of your level of your level of your level of your level of Please provide comments on your preferred your level of your level of your level of your level of your level of support for the the following. the following rockier!the following rockfall the following rockfall alignment,which support for Ne support for el_ support for Ne support for the support for the support for the [Level of Support]Additional [Rockfall Mitigation] alignment alignment.If you selected none,please share support for the support for the support for the support for the support for the following.[Rapid[Narrowing of the mitigation mitigation mitigation Additional Comments g you prefer following. following. following. following. following. following.[Speed Comments Additional Comments why: following.[Uphill following.[Above following.[At- following.[Below. following.[Safely Flashing Beacons trail to minimize the strategies.[Rockier!strategies.[Rockfall strategies.[Rockier) overall?(select one) [Widened [Physically [Bollard IPedestrtan road [Slower traffic Table/Speed Bike Lane] ShoUlder(s)] Separated Trail] Separated Trail] grade trail] grade trail/route] grade trail] Crossings] speeds] Bump] signage] at pedestrian number of trees Mitigation:Sculpted Mitigation:Rockfall Mitigation:Cable crossings] impacted] Shotcrete] Fence] Net&Wire Mesh] This project is long overdue.Thank you for pushing it 43 East Trail East side seems safer Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor Against Strongly In Favor through.Safety of our pedestrians,cyclists,motorists, and other individuals Is paramount. The East trail is the safest alternative for kids, 44 East Trail pedestrians and recreational riders as there is no Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor Neutral Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor Against In Favor required road crossing. 45 Shoulder Improvements Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Neutral Strongly Against In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Strongly Against In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly Against Strongly Against 46 West Trail Location 2 vegetation in between. Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Neutral Against Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral In Favor In Favor Neutral Against Strongly In Favor In Favor This looks like the safest option.We need something so the music students,school students,bike riders,runners and walkers are Safe.I[is a highly used corridor and would be an Safety signs and speed bumps have been used and excellent addition to the trail system as well as with the narrow road and shadowed lighting this road 47 East Trail safe way to travel to this area.Currently RFTA Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Against Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Against Strongly In Favor will always be dangerous to pedestrians.There needs doesn't service this area most of the year and commuters are left on foot or bike on this to be a separated trail for pedestrians. dangerous road.Many more people would use this passageway if there was a safe altenative. The East side looks more visible to traffic. This is a much needed access for the community school and music school,this would encourage more 48 West Trail Unsure Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly Against Strongly Against Neutral Strongly In Favor people to walk or ride.Property owners are always a loud voice but do not represent the community and don't live here. 49 East Trail Keep bikers or walkers near the river so they can Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor In FavorAgainst In Favor In Favor In FavorAgainst Strongly Against In Favor In FavorAgainst Against In Favor StronglyIn Favor enjoy it instead of being closed in by traffic g y g y g y 9 50 Shoulder Improvements In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Against Neutral Against In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor Neutral Neutral In Favor Against Strongly In Favor 51 East Trail 52 East Trail Against Unsure Unsure Unsure Neutral In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral Against Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly Against Against 53 East Trail In Favor In Favor In Favor Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly In Favor Strongly Against Against 54 East Trail Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral 55 West Trail Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Against In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Strongly Against Strongly In Favor I think the safety of our As I have said before,it is imperative this pathway is children Is paramount.We done.Reflectors should be provided and the trail must should be able to bike or walk I think as kids come up from the west end,it's safely to the school.I don't be wide enough for those going up and coming down. 56 West Trail safer to stayon that side of the road vs Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Neutral In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly Against think its necessaryto have In Favor StronglyAgainst In Favor Once completed, think we ensure the Safety of our just9Y 9Y 9Y 9Y 9Y 9Y 9 9 having to cross over. separate bike/walk lanes,but children and also encourage the riding effort to school Ido think It's imperative it's and back,alleviating these roads of extra,unneeded wide enough for both ways traffic,promoting environmental efforts as well.There (Up and downhill). is no downside to this improvement. I think the road is most dangerous for bikers and 57 East Trail pedestrians headed down toward town on castle Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Unsure Unsure Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Unsure In Favor In Favor In Favor creek rd 58 East Trail Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Unsure In Favor Unsure Unsure Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor 59 West Trail Strongly In Favor Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Against Against Against Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly Against In Favor Against Strongly In Favor 60 East Trail Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor 61 East Trail Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor Strongly Against Strongly In Favor 62 East Trail Best and safest is the East trail Neutral In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor Strongly Against No problem with cutting trees.Against In Favor In Favor Nets yes Make Kochs pay for it thin them out!!! 63 East Trail Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Please find a way to keep the bicycles off of the 64 None road.A bike lane on the west side of the road will Strongly Against Neutral Strongly In Favor Unsure Against Unsure In Favor Neutral Against Strongly Against Against Neutral Neutral In Favor Strongly Against Against do absolutely nothing. 65 West Trail Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly Against Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor mostly concerned about safety for bikers,pedestrians, 66 East Trail Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor Unsure Unsure Unsure Unsure In Favor In Favor Against In Favor In Favor Neutral In Favor Neutral In Favor kids;and easy connection to existing trail system through Marolt,etc. 67 East Trail Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly Against Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against In Favor In Favor Strongly Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor 68 West Trail It is the safest and one that could continue with In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Against Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Neutral less maintenance 69 West Trail Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Neutral Strongly In Favor Against Against In Favor In Favor Neutral In Favor Against In Favor 70 West Trail Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor This seams like the best overall use of the space We would ride bikes to school on a far more regular 71 East Trail with the least cost Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor basis if this path was in place.Without it,we do not ride to school,it is too uncomfortable. 72 East Trail Strongly In Favor In Favor Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Against In Favor 73 West Trail Neutral In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral Neutral Unsure In Favor The most cost effective 74 West Trail Safer to be on the interior of the road as a cyclist.In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Against Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Against In Favor solution seems to make the most sense. 75 West Trail In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral CCCIP Exhibit B Page 6 "Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate your Please indicate your Please indicate your Please indicate your "After learningabout each" "Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate Please indicate your level of level of support for level of support for level of support for level of support for your level of your level of your level of your level of your level of your level of Please provide comments on your preferred your level of your level of your level of your level of your level of support for the the following. the following rockfall the following rockfall the following rockfall alignment,which support for Sre support for Sre support for the support for the support for the support for the [Level of Support]Additional [Rockfall Mitigation] ali omen[do alignment.If you selected none,please share support for Sre support for the support for Sre support for the support for the following.[Rapid[Narrowing of the mitigation mitigation mitigation Additional Comments g you prefer following. following. following. following. following. following.[Speed Comments Additional Comments why: following.[Uphill following.[Above.following.[At- following.[Below. following.[Safely Flashing Beacons trail to minimize Sre strategies.[Rockfall strategies.[Rockfall strategies.[Rockfall overall?(select one) [Widened [Physically [Bollard IPetlestrian •road [Slower traffic Table/Speed Bike Lane] ShoUlder(s)] Separated Trail] Separated Trail] grade trail] grade trail/route] grade trail] Crossings] speeds] Bump] signage] at pedestrian number of trees Mitigation:Sculpted Mitigation:Rockfall Mitigation:Cable crossings] impacted] Shotcrete] Fence] Net&Wire Mesh] 76 West Trail In Favor In Favor In Favor Unsure Strongly In Favor Unsure Against In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Against In Favor It balances out costs vs.the ability for trail users 77 East Trail to be safe from cars.The shoulder option doesn't Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Unsure Unsure Against In Favor In Favor Strongly Against do enough(in my opinion)to keep children safe when commuting to/from school. Considering the current available bus Speed your time and system/schedules and the actual very limited This proposal is a total waste oney on more critical 78 None Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly In Favor projects that would benefit need for pedestrians,it makes no sense to create of taxpayers money) more residents and the corridor improvement. tourists. 79 West Trail Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor I feel the trot should follow a route along Castle Creek,Instead of the road.Private property owners 80 None In Favor In Favor Strongly Against Against Against Against Against Against Against Against Against Strongly Against Against Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor will be encouraged,In community spirit,to donate easements.The County will have enough courage to condemn the overall easement to purchase the portions not donated. 81 Shoulder Improvements Neutral In Favor Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against In Favor Strongly Against In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Strongly Against In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly Against Neutral The shoulder improvements appear to have the Preserve the mountain roadside as much as possible, least visual disruption but haven't accomplished West side far safer,East side a complete monstrosity 82 None much.Absolutely certain the West alignment is Against Neutral Strongly Against Against Strongly Against Neutral Neutral Strongly Against Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Strongly Against Against with little or no cost justification,and huge impact on the safest Mr Wachs It seems like the best compromise between just a I believe this bike/pedestrian path is a very necessary 83 West Trail shoulder which I don't think Is safe enough,and Strongly In Favor Against Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Neutral Neutral Strongly Against Strongly In Favor investment in our trail systems for the safety of ACDS major costly construction. and AMS students. 84 East Trail Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral In Favor In Favor In Favor Seems to have best cost-benefit ratio;seems like 85 East Trail it will keep car traffic Bowing more smoothly than Unsure Unsure In Favor In Favor Unsure Unsure Unsure Unsure Against Against In Favor Unsure Strongly In Favor In Favor Unsure In Favor other options and car traffic is the primary use of this road. This is a false dichotomy.The choice is not OST should not be paying between their$1.1 million,$3.9 million and$5.1 for road safety projects million options.The real-world choice is between which should be funded by making this short stretch of road as safe as any the City and County.OST other near a school.Typically,this is done by may now have acquired reducing the speed limit,installing speed bumps, the legal ability to spend 86 None flashing lights and zebra stripes and should cost In Favor Neutral Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against In Favor Strongly Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Unsure Strongly Against Strongly Against Strongly Against millions of dollars on road"See Attachment for Survey Response#86 about$100,000.These safety improvements safety problems that (Next Page) should be funded by the City and County,not by should be handled by the Open Space&Trails.Moreover,if student safety City and Country but is is a genuine concern,these improvements should also has a moral be made todayll obligation not to squander Pitkin County taxpayer funds. 87 East Trail Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral Neutral 88 West Trail In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Strongly In Favor Against In Favor Neutral In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Against In Favor there are great hike/bike trails all over aspen that add to the quality of life,lifestyle km not educated or cutting the new trail into the uphill slope seems to amenities and enjoyment of knowledgeable enough to the area.this castle creek trail provide an intelligent 89 West Trail be best for aesthetics and stabilit y.moreover,it Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor Neutral Against In Favor Neutral In Favor Against Against In Favor Strongly Against Against will do the same,plus add a Unsure Strongly Against Unsure comment here. thanks for seeing this project through. would seem more natural to the terrain. safety element for music and aesthetically,sum don't school attendees.I strongly want the fence,though. support a beautiful and aesthetically pleasing trail. 90 West Trail I like the safety features for now and the future Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Unsure In Favor Against In Favor 91 Shoulder Improvements In Favor In Favor In Favor Unsure Unsure In Favor 92 West Trail In Favor In Favor Strongly In Favor Against In Favor In Favor Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Against Against Strongly In Favor best balance of safety for pedestrians and bikers, Thanks for keeping the ball 93 East Trail cost,and connection to the existing trail system In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor In Favor Neutral Strongly In Favor Neutral In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor In Favor rolling) In Favor Against Strongly In Favor This alignment is the safer and most functional plan for all the users of Castle Creek Road because the it keeps all the vehicle traffic versus 94 West Trail pedestrian traffic in clear auras.It is so important Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Neutral Strongly Against Strongly In Favor Against Strongly Against Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly In Favor Strongly Against Against to not destroy the natural vegetation and maintain the beauty of this valley that has been here for hundreds of years. CCCIP Exhibit B Page 7 Attachment for Survey Response#86 On 14 December 2017, Open Space &Trails requested additional community input on the Castle Creek Trail Project. OST offers three conceptual 'alignments' but this is a false dichotomy.The choice is not between their$1.1 million, $3.9 million and $5.1 million options.The real-world choice is between making this short stretch of road as safe as any other near a school. Typically,this is done by reducing the speed limit, installing speed bumps,flashing lights and zebra stripes and should cost about $100,000.These safety improvements should be funded by the City and County, not by Open Space & Trails. Moreover, if student safety is a genuine concern,these improvements should be made today!! Only after these basic safety precautions have been implemented and tested for a while, should the City and County consider any additional spending on safety, like widening the road (where possible) and building retaining walls, etc.The additional costs (in dollars and trees/shrubs destroyed) for these improvements should be evaluated against the added student safety,they are designed to achieve. Again, OST funds should not be spent on assuming City and County safety responsibilities to an elite and very-well funded school. The latest OST survey includes pretty drawings but omits any dollar amounts when asking citizens to indicate their preferences.As a neighbor of the Music School aptly stated at the first public meeting on this project, OST is in essence asking if we are in favor of motherhood and apple pie. Of course the answer is 'yes' until we learn the pie costs$1, 3 and 5 million a slice ... . and requires the felling of many trees and shrubs and the ruining of a beautiful entrance to Aspen. Open Space &Trails may now have acquired the legal ability to spend millions of dollars on a $100,000 safety problem that should be handled by the City and Country but is also a moral obligation not to squander Pitkin County taxpayer funds. CCCIP Exhibit B Page 8 Comment Ca CCCIP Exhibit B Page 9 Sp'CE j CASTLE CREEK TRAIL PROJECT I COMMENT CARD °' )'. ok E A...S.EP !! NCO fi L/*I D rh') c 7-CV,% /Gu 2,(p✓G/7/ ai y77J - 1/. e42 144'4/4( Colic ,s b Us�,> i v ��1 h��,� �t ��i� Co,ev 2 Dii—v6 11 44-Ds 4,4 /Tic y1Lif i)(1iWie-Uj9 M1 iL e, /C /cc. (Optional)Name: et i W�� Date: 1/1 Email: et T%d,4 14/L . C^'/rt Phone: 9 70 ? 16-, 2i j CCCIP Exhibit B Page 10 fi^ass CASTLE CREEK TRAIL PROJECT I COMMENT CARD p �`; ASPEN ,-)e& ,' 1-, -c,\ i d, ,yip t , L, • ' (3 ' ' r eink.ie-e../A (4- 4 . 41 INMEIMEENEMEINIMAINIMMILAA 1 MR et tO V- ( Al• +/A ' v x\ G 0 'Py i A 6K g 5 ado ' - ac A (dr A "'� Lb h Q/IY't of (Optional) Na C ) (j(} \ p ate• Email: Phone: ) 24— CCCIP Exhibit B Page 11 -Y�o �r '' �� SPEN CASTLE CREEK TRAIL PROJECT I COMMENT CARD 1 A..=..EE a MC pq r 0-es-1 bILr S 'f e 055 4ra-( I 41V; CP - .1 ue 56iot (Optional)Name: aUlat 1") Date: 5 Email: Phone: q 8 CCCIP Exhibit B Page 12 ♦ /9 CASTLE CREEK TRAIL PROJECT I COMMENT CARD "? ASPEN a_ 4-e "/Ite,0--6(-1-e- _ oa, . (Optional) Name: C-7‘Q.,,,-* +iIt_ Date: //�� ' Email: (/m Phone: 9 - 5 '6 CCCIP Exhibit B Page 13 CASTLE CREEK TRAIL PROJECT I COMMENT CARD � .' ARM lit) ccV� was r �� av DR-s-t- � o�v -tz LA- - U 1L j2 GO ALA JCt-uc, S c �� (P-t v'-'t'o'`- dtca,ua.z. Lr'd S S t J1 S . — -CAST S c Vt.L, r �.c - lla,�,t,� atc.�5 � � C2' (Optional)Name: t--6 'A1 Date: 11 . \ ' 2 a 1^*- Email: Phone: � 2- S CCCIP Exhibit B Page 14 CASTLE CREEK TRAIL PROJECT I COMMENT CARD ilk A.,,5 Zet"'-C-eW /. 4Ete Vic%T ,4o&>oe / (- L7 72U7/C-6» Gr)/ Af-e_Se 4- A//Ga. P6-v&, ', / (Optional)Name: Date: f/ l�/'7. Email: Phone: CCCIP Exhibit B Page 15 CASTLE CREEK TRAIL PROJECT I COMMENT CARD P�CE�� ASPEN Nro _ Slpo/i i) '(oveilic,;t 10 c ;G/oOr, 1 11lieK � ; 5" 0 ;mpo f ct/rf 4cIGI 5a Fe y 10 Jae ;ea, 1 u m .5D worried aboy 01,2 Ci CC,'de%'t th,n -1e we51 5;ae Ira,/ 5 41ost SAre v✓e i1eec( i, ;4v05i ,i Pail 5 1ha l P/►COc{("a9c /e55 (a(5 Cn �h2_ roar( (Optional) Name: r; f Via 1 1'n Date: 5/` 7 Email: JAI 1i/'(cv9(re, C/Yl Phone: ( 7/) t35 --S/,1 CCCIP Exhibit B Page 16 CASTLE CREEK TRAIL PROJECT I COMMENT CARD (Li)yr A..=po �, gyp.- c�►�n M�4, c (y G e'►�;�'n�►C 5 • �� `�a -fir 3 7+0 c.-cy,51k t Qc_ iflo ��' z C w c , ( F L . W ,r c-( 001411100k9kic0 )qk; r CA k Inc A,„(-P►�.�- c. eve,At-1-eQ C' ra., 40k).QtiN) -1171;,R (Optional) Name: Afi► Date: 11W/ Jmail: CMG-7 tiCisey\ Phone: C r1O C(20—7 7F3'7 CCCIP Exhibit B Page 17 ,CC - CASTLE CREEK TRAIL PROJECT I COMMENT CARD APE es,At iokl.) �� gat,r" -i C'A' t / G-y.2 G'l .9-- 5 T -> ` L frr Tikie ix1,440 T,t v1.x r vo ' r ? UP ri d'A/S &Olet/4-A Y .iv �v� C t, t 1e>43 rb r� 5 (Optional)Name: I01-7C(71J l +AOS Date: ( l/ 1 ,) / 11 /Email: '{/ �j — J- Q 4. ? 4 aL. . e_emiPhone: CCCIP Exhibit B Page 18 Letters a n Emails CCCIP Exhibit B Page 19 From: Kathleen Wanatowicz To: Bryana Starbuck Cc: Samantha Montgomery Subject: FW: Music School Trail Date: Thursday,November 16,2017 3:12:50 PM Attachments: 2017(11-14)Castle Creek Caucus Letter 1.odf 2017(11-14)Castle Creek Caucus Letter 2.odf Please create new folder for public comment on alternatives-thank you. Original Message From:joseph wells[mailto:joewells@me.com] Sent:Wednesday,November 15,2017 2:39 PM To:Gary Tennenbaum<Gary.Tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com>;Kathleen Wanatowicz <kathleen@prstudioco.com> Subject:Music School Trail Attached are two letters regarding the Music School Trail. Thanks, Joe Wells CCCIP Exhibit B Page 20 Joseph Wells P 0 Box 4259 Aspen,CO 81612 joewells@me.com 14 November, 2017 To: Gary Tennenbaum (gary.tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com) Kathleen Wanatowicz (kathleen@prstudioco.com) Castle Creek Caucus Membership Re: Castle Creek Trail Project My wife and I live about one mile further up Castle Creek Road past the Music School Campus. Both the Aspen Music Festival & School and Aspen Country Day School are beloved institutions at our house. Both of our children attended Aspen Country Day from pre-school until their graduation in 8th grade. Carrie served as President of the Board for a number of years. Carrie has also served on the Board of AMFS for many years and is currently President of the National Council. It seems very unlikely to us that we would be living in Aspen if either of these organizations did not exist. I have to say, however, that the thought of putting a heavy backpack full of books on either of my childrens' backs while they were attending Aspen Country Day and sending them off on bikes in the early morning hours, even if a separate bike path existed, during those limited times of the school year when weather would have permitted, is not a thought that would have EVER crossed my mind. First and foremost, at that age, children don't always make the best decisions, so we would have worried every day about their safety. Another reason we would not have done that is because both of our children, like many of the students at ACDS, typically had after-school activities such as sports,ballet or tutoring that required us to pick them up at school and immediately take them to those activities. Their bikes would have been left behind on-campus for us to deal with later. Personally, I think the notion that the young students of Aspen Country Day will be flocking to ride their bikes to school from their scattered locations around town and beyond, if conditions were improved, is just fantasy. And surely, everyone will concede that no one will be riding their bikes once the snow flies in earnest. Likewise, there seem to be legitimate reasons why large numbers of music school students are not likely to walk or bike to the Campus during the nine-week period when the school is in session. Only a limited number of students can be accommodated at the Marolt seasonal housing. There are only 100 dormitory-style rooms, and I believe that it was suggested at the earlier meeting that up to 300 students are accommodated at Marolt at times during the summer season. A significant number of the students who responded to the 2017 AMFS Student Survey indicated that they were living in pretty remote locations---Burlingame, Snowmass Village, Basalt, for instance. Many students play bulky instruments---cellos, double CCCIP Exhibit B Page 21 14 November, 2017 Castle Creek Trail Project Page two of three bass, trombones, tubas, harps---and many more play instruments that are both valuable and fragile. It seems likely that most students would choose to carry their instruments around rather than store them on-campus, even if they had that option, and would not choose to carry them around on a bike. Most students have intensive schedules requiring trips to various locations around town, including the public school complex, the Meadows and downtown. They experience long days, while at both the school and at other locations, often remaining on-campus late at night. In reviewing other responses to the student survey, the responses to that survey seems to be quite at odds with the other solicited responses included with the packet materials. Apparently, 608 students responded to the 2017 student survey, a very high percentage as surveys go. Some students skipped certain questions. Of those who responded, 554 students, or 92.49 percent, responded that they either drove or took the bus to the Campus. Only 45 students, or 7.52 percent, responded that they walked or biked to the campus. When asked if a safer bike/pedestrian connection were in place to the Campus, 241 students, or 40.24 percent responded that they would still never, rarely or only occasionally bike to the campus. In contrast, 358 students, or 59.77 percent, said they would walk or bike frequently or daily if a safer bike/pedestrian connection were in place. I believe this indicates what the students would like to do,but when the reality of their schedules set in, the number who would have time to actually do so would be a much lower percentage. Going through the students' individual responses to the question about their route to the Campus, its safety and what would enhance their experience, 336 students, or 56 percent, described their transportation mode to the campus was satisfactory, using terms like not applicable, good, safe, fine, great, easy, fabulous, no complaints and no suggestions. Another 123 students, or 20.5 percent, made suggestions about changes to the bus service that would make it easier to get around. These included more frequent service, more attention to class schedules, more care in the timing at transfer points, instrument storage on the Campus, more we-cycle locations, park-and-ride locations and later bus trips to and from Campus. These two above groups represent 76.5 percent of the responses. A total of 139 students, or 23 percent, responded that they did not feel safe walking or biking or encouraged a safer connection or, specifically, the construction of a walkway/ bikeway. Some (a total of 8 respondents)requested lighting on the route and two students expressed concerns about bears near the Marolt Seasonal Housing, and near the walkway from the bus stop down to Marolt. CCCIP Exhibit B Page 22 14 November, 2017 Castle Creek Trail Project Page three of three I believe that the needs of the music school students would be better served, and available public funds would be better spent, through the acquisition of a fleet of smaller buses, suitable for carrying large instruments, and operating on a schedule better suited for the students' needs. Thanks for your consideration of these points, Joe Wells Coordinator, Castle Creek Caucus CCCIP Exhibit B Page 23 Joseph Wells P 0 Box 4259 Aspen,CO 81612 joewells@me.com 14 November, 2017 To: Gary Tennenbaum (gary.tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com) Kathleen Wanatowicz (kathleen@prstudioco.com) Castle Creek Caucus Membership Re: Castle Creek Trail Project Here are my observations regarding trail construction in the Castle Creek Valley. Castle Creek Road is a winding twelve-mile road of standard lane widths without a paved shoulder. Because there is limited visibility along the road, the County has deemed Castle Creek Road unsafe for passing throughout its entire length, striping the road with double yellow lines for its entire length. It is important that any plan for trail construction in the Castle Creek valley consider other users, and not just those who might be traveling to the campus. Castle Creek Road is also one of, if not THE most popular routes for bike riders and other forms of recreational travel in the County. As a result, safety is an issue along the entire length of the roadway, particularly on the many blind corners that exist over the route. This is not an issue limited to only a small segment of the roadway at the beginning of the route, where visibility is generally as good, or better, than elsewhere on the route. Over the years, observing the use of trails separated from roadways where they exist, I have come to two conclusions. The first is that many, if not most,bikers will not use trails separated from the roadway even where they are in place, preferring to ride in the roadway. Secondly, when bikers do use such trails, there are safety concerns for pedestrians using the same trail. For these two reasons, I have reluctantly concluded that the separated trail easements should be reserved for pedestrians and that the safest solution for all concerned would be to expand the road platform by four feet, at least along the uphill side of the roadway, for use by bikers, where this can be done without changing the visual character of the road corridor or unnecessarily impacting on the environment. There are many sections of the roadway where an expansion of the pavement could be accomplished with minimal long-term impacts on the visual character of the valley, once new vegetation becomes established. 1. A Comment About All Three Trail Alternatives: For all three of the alternatives, the travel lanes for vehicles is reduced from the existing 12 foot width down to 11 feet. I do not support this reduction because of winter safety issues. CCCIP Exhibit B Page 24 14 November 2017 Castle Creek Trail Project Page two of three 2. My Preferred Alternative: I do not believe that the limited number of Aspen Country Day students (grades Pre-K through 8th Grade) who would walk or bike to the Campus during the limited period of the school year in which it would realistically be an option justifies the greater expenditures of public funds required to accomplish the other two more expensive alternatives in this narrow section of the Castle Creek valley. I also believe that it is also unrealistic to expect that Music School students with expensive and quite often heavy instruments, an intense schedule and trips to various locations in the area are going to be walking or biking to Campus regularly and that they would therefore be better served by the addition of a fleet of smaller buses which are more responsive to student's needs, for the reasons that I have elaborated on in a separate memo of this date. For these reasons, I prefer a variation of the Shoulder Improvements Alternative. Beginning at the existing eastern edge of the pavement and working west, I would include a four-foot section of pavement dedicated for bikers and those walking to the Campus, two twelve-foot travel lanes and a four-foot section of pavement for uphill bike traffic. This would result in a 32 foot platform overall. Retaining would be required along the west side to accomplish the added width. With the added width, I would hope it would not be necessary to install ugly white plastic bollards (which offer no protection) along the east side between the travel lane and the area for bikers and those walking to the campus. Up-valley of the Campus turn-off, I favor a solution as described above, except with the elimination of the four-foot expansion of the platform in the downhill direction. This would result in a 28 foot road platform overall, where this can be accomplished. 3. My Second Choice: I prefer the West Trail Alternative with variations as my second choice. Beginning at the existing eastern edge of the pavement, I would retain two twelve-foot travel lanes and add a four-foot section of pavement for uphill bike traffic. This would result in a 28 foot continuous road platform overall. Retaining would be required along the west side to accomplish the added width. I favor retaining on the uphill side of the grade-separated trail, rather than on the downhill side, to eliminate the need for a protective railing on the downhill side where possible. For this reason, I believe that beginning at the entry to the Campus, the terrain on the uphill side may be flat enough for 1000 feet or so to the north to move the trail away from the uphill bike lane. A significant portion of this property is owned by the City. Where it is necessary to bring the grade-separated trail back alongside the uphill bike lane in the area of the cut slopes, I favor continuing the concrete base higher than the trail, say 24 inches, so that it is not necessary to have a CCCIP Exhibit B Page 25 14 November 2017 Castle Creek Trail Project Page three of three railing. I favor a consistent plane for the wall (either vertical or canted), rather than the jersey barricade shape shown on the drawings. Alongside the Castle Ridge Apartments property, the grade-separated trail is shown diverting to the west, to avoid the large cottonwoods along Castle Creek Road. However, it is shown as encroaching onto the Castle Ridge property, and this may not be acceptable to the owners of that property. The grade-separated trail extends 500 feet further up Castle Creek Road beyond the entrance to the Campus. This seems unnecessary,but if,by doing that, the grades allow a separation between the uphill bike lane and the grade-separated trail, I can live with that. Maintaining the uphill bike lane in this area and beyond is desirable regardless. 4. My Least Favorite Alternative: Although the East Trail Alternative offers the advantage of avoiding having students cross Castle Creek Road, I think the disadvantages far outweigh this benefit. My notes of the presentation on November 2 indicate that the east side trail was to be located within the existing northbound travel lane and the road was to be shifted to the west. The drawings indicate, however, that that is the case for only a portion of the alignment. Both the depressed portion of the trail and another portion that is an extension of the existing pavement with a retaining wall on the downhill side are located to the east of the existing road platform. As a result, all of the existing vegetation along the top of the bank on the east side of the road in those sections would be lost. Further, the portion of that alternative that is depressed requires a permanent jersey barrier type barricade of some three feet in height,blocking the view of the valley floor from the travel lanes with a man-made barrier. Finally, the trail on the east side conflicts with existing accesses to three homes, whereas a trail on the west side is without any such conflicts. Thanks for your consideration of these points, Joe Wells Coordinator, Castle Creek Caucus CCCIP Exhibit B Page 26 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK CCCIP Exhibit B Page 27 From: Phil Overeynder To: Bryana Starbuck Subject: FW: Castle Creek Trail Alignment Options&Water Plant Overflow Date: Monday,November 20,2017 12:43:45 PM Attachments: Reservoir overflow Castle creek rd culver.ipg Reservoir overflow diversion box at castle matched photos.ipg From: Phil Overeynder Sent: Monday, November 20, 2017 12:42 PM To: 'bryana@prsudioco.com' <bryana@prsudioco.com> Cc: Chuck Bailey<charlie.bailey@cityofaspen.com>;Tyler Christoff <Tyler.Christoff@cityofaspen.com>; David Hornbacher<david.hornbacher@cityofaspen.com>; Robert Covington <robert.covington@cityofaspen.com>; Austin Weiss <austin.weiss@cityofaspen.com> Subject: Castle Creek Trail Alignment Options &Water Plant Overflow Hello Bryana, I attended your open house regarding potential trail alignments along Castle Creek Road last week and provided some preferences from a personal perspective. I also wanted to add some comments from the perspective of heading the water plant operations in my capacity of the former utility director. The new trail would abut water department lands for a significant distance and like other facilities along the road right of way, the design of your project may be impacted by operations at the water plant.The most significant concern is the culvert crossing (shown at Station 33+00). I am attaching some photos of conditions showing the effect of water releases from Thomas Reservoir on the what is identified as an "existing drainageway" on the plan sets. These photos were of a test of the capacity of the overflow system conducted during 2012. The test had to be curtailed before the existing hydraulic capacity of the overflow system from Thomas Reservoir was reached because damage began to occur on downstream structures. The point is that the photos show the effect of releasing only a fraction of the potential reservoir releases under emergency conditions. Design flows are significantly higher. Release of high volumes of water has the potential to dislodge rocks and loose material from the steeper slopes above and to discharge that material downstream on the roadway and potentially onto any new trail additions. The first photo in the attachment shows conditions during the 2012 tests just downstream of the 48"CMP crossing at Castle Creek Road, looking up towards the roadway. The second photo shows the junction box on the Holden Ditch just below the same point. Not shown in the photos are winter conditions at the drainageway when the 48" culvert nearly freezes shut with a very diminished hydraulic capacity. If emergency releases from Thomas Reservoir occur during this circumstance, high velocity water coming down the hillside can back up in the depressed area at the toe of the slope and potentially overtop the roadway. I don't have photos of this circumstance, but it poses a significant potential for damage to the road and any potential trail CCCIP Exhibit B Page 28 additions. The West Trail alignment option appears to fully utilize the existing right of way in the vicinity of the drainageway and in fact may slightly encroach onto water department property.The cross sections at that location are somewhat difficult to interpret in terms of whether the drainageway would be bridged or filled in. If the trail is located as shown there is the potential for significant damage from high velocity water coming off the steep slopes above the proposed trail. The East Trail option as well as the Roadway Shoulder options appear to be designed to add fill over the existing culvert while moving the extent of road/trail in an easterly direction.These options do not appear to hold the same considerations for impacting he drainageway, since it appears that water would continue to exit the culvert and drop to the same location beyond the edge of the existing fill slopes. Again it's difficult to confirm this with the level of detail in the preliminary drawings. If your engineer would like to further address questions related to water plant operations, please feel free to contact me. Phil Overeynder Utilities Engineer—Special Projects City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611-1975 970-920-5111 phil.overeynder@cityofaspen.com CCCIP Exhibit B Page 29 .. , i tillkit 11 :or. -• , ,,,,',. 1 . ilivit .fi,11' ik. I . , 1 kh • 1;•,,,, 4 • - 1, • ,,.re • • 'r • "'.`' 5-'1, v t. 7,1, ' • 'ram 1 , (i. I , __ .10,.... .INTI 1 0, .._ . .11 or. „ -, ,, • _ . •:\ ) 4 4 4 '. ... al?,..... ..„ • •g . . it,dier„,,,,,e. .11 a 1 , • 4,4 ' 1111111111k4k141V4111 li ,••• h - ,,,# r ,,,, , ,, .., „,,,,, ,. i , , ..., tit. ,, • A. iiit Iv i 't 4 It # 4111fur 1° 'all.. * 4, II 4 - r , , f*.- P.P. e' . . -- ..- P til!lrf ilk,. k ;00 _ _..„ , ., . ,„_. . 1 , 14,1 ... e•i tt%It.0::"i et- 11111111r:- , . 111111111,,,,,:‘ flimp . . . 7 ' pp v lair'�� f t.'� ,` R r 1g,:11 ,' /fic- II. , , It, ,„, 1- : . .. I - Nit --34* . ` - • • liokt to y tt/ i i .t p 1 [• . ... 4.4 k e y : 4f- !* 40, kleA ., ., .: 14,1,• , I '‘,. :, .. ..• . . , 4.0- . i'L'''41P4:1.1• '',' 't \ i Ale 10111/4, • :4-1 N .1 i 1 4• �• :_A4 tf,.1r• II I /.'`` 1. it; � 1 ..,• .' - ' $ 1 i .$16:•'i, iiil ,,.16:'" . .,,, 14. „ . .... • .11 , 1,4e1A' \ ""‘k ' 1 i ili yt • • Ii ..: . --*.,, . T.-.-.. -• .. 1 4 i. IF i ,11111friii %%Al, . • I IA os , -. . \,-,' .. .-. , . . _ ...y . .... _. • .ilt • • . 1 i *'% of ! 4t; . it 4. ' • .4.\ •• 4- W 6 4 . .., I , 1 :I.4. r . 3.10, 1 4. .,- i, •• 'r«i44 f� w* 2 1»Y �! �' �� it A I'; Ili 111, , �`. Y� ,444. }ter A. ft. I t v: • `•.�°•' - t 6. f r 1 r 1, ! 1 � I• s J •apt - `S 1 ,.;.,:, ,,•,-",._.:..- . �1" ~4.: : ,,,r' , ,:,..1,.).4111, 1.L'..`1 `!' l ` , 1 . . ...... -: 44 to., ,_... ' T • . �'i�•' r err f > • > r ti y �'� j ,_ lor, ,,, if 4.:. . 7'.4iir,44:•!-• - il,:: f - ' .4 ' ' ;' I • i 34 - "�iiF ta..-a4 ;q , :ram" '. �.4= 1 I `�` t'y !'r�1 ,' ,. ... . .-4 i � f " �,. 4 A ♦ `al. ♦.�7r�_ _ `.y I`� :::44.E;l1,-•4,si...144 • _./V ..Z. \ i'I ,,,,. y 1 1 r-rt.. •.j,5f(I `I, t Il., II.#,/1�' "� 1 jf - I �� ' 4Y 1 '� 1 I 1 - 1 .. _ripi. . iii. l .., „....\ -- off: ' , , AI, ,i I I ? r d I • I - ...Lk' ' - *V-*. ' • .,. ' ii 11111i j. ;�� I irY�7 ✓ I,� s • . II ['F ''/ 10k • li 1 41 os "�•�r ' a .,y• y 4 ,� I1 ; l r11,,',..'": , i • ' ,�• '''• ,. — 4;- ,,,,.:...11:11,* :".,10:t_i •,„tilit. '.:i � e / .��. .-•r �1- }r1 y. _ •, t"I$,�,t �,I ' 4'• -'�•■ •�� %'_ ,ter.- al, illtili • • iji - ,l•. -.1 4L� d 'yia • .' rr+�•- ,-fit t�;�` K'`, 1 ji% 4! 3 .li F 1y . 4: A /4), liti .1 . , ; /0111110 I'kill" ,.,‘. . , 'I' . 4i'-1'.4‘‘.',...22.1,-'' _.Alir,..t. „4...., 1.' ,„:, : . 31114. Il\ .. I k ' !O. • /10;41:i8.i% 1,, i , y /0, .t,,. :„ /1, , Ali,-.4‘li •,,, L ,11,C,0; ,,:i' . IPA.4/a %6., .V.::! 4.e.111Ap 4 ,, - 1--- • . _ .-.•. . -4. .."` , 1 --4..... • - - .. . 0-' 1 i p , . ... ; k-11111 ,40Pr W7110kai . r ?` , ... ,. f,41 6E4 '.--1- ,' 7' 4 fal,ii ;4'. "'Al.' ' . -.1 Al, ill i ' '' Vit V I 'r!' 1! "T \IF ' ' ' -.>,- -I k ' , , . - !,,i1-,4‘'.. I!a- , , - jli '. , , '_-wit :a. -r:... , 1.7,,,,- .,"ks,... 445 . i': * '. r 1 . V d k i_14- _,' - 1 i& 1 if 10" 'V.. ' . - ".111'• i illifili6 'I .., It)110,' 1 , ,- .•-• . A t , ,_ ..„ -,,- lir ,s ..„,„ • 4,‘ At .. , - , \,....,. , , , .,_ i k ., , , , , i ,. s v , , , ill - ,....._.\._4r •lilt re ' q. • 0 . .• ._= „,__ .: vitoos k . ,,, ..--..,,,de rillot , , , :*,,-..I:.- 7' '. ' ' . :4,0'. ,4 , ", . '''. ' 'Amiie)c_21,.. -'•11' ‘. 44f '*,°,,, ' ' JO!-•fr .' - . '. .‘v,, ih r 61 .it ii Ciii` c j t II .. i / r" * .. .,P : -- ,,,,,r • .,,, \', . .„ .. ,_, , _ „, ,_"5 ,...., ,. •-• ..s.r.-..,•,-. •,gigir. * ,.. . 1.1441111"'. - littk • 0104 ,�� mac'.-.-v. r w - .:M•. _ wa.ip2 '.a'!.. Y3, j�•r.,�, • , "� •r• .�r -�F �1. 'fRti,ya 9^ n �` 44 • •• ' f a • .- . ' S IA IGr* 3. f ' . Y: • 3A • . ^vt Malt e Page 30 r � ! '� 4 • .. . .. ... ,. . al:- .7_ ... *or: ..... .. , 1'::.'' •';.. ..4r. :4•1,-• ' 1 -.:,.., _. -, ,,,,, �` I. ��i♦ + III O� '' „ 4 : ,1 (. . tvai .. },r r 1 • •• • ', _ r h _ • �j a r ill 1� 1 � '-., / - . .�� 1 1. �� 0... '�1 Yam.. .. `� •� � s - 111K f �f f • yam= R.: .� "'�' '�- L• --- �' . -- `, - - ; ' y ' t . t4,q► ; ',at mill- ' a. lahhi, A r- » .• ' • .a -it �/ - ---_�� _ �. •P' tir'»_ ' F. ti 4 1 T. � CCCIP Exhibit B Page 31 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK CCCIP Exhibit B Page 32 From: Bryana Starbuck To: Bryana Starbuck Subject: FW: Castle Creek Trail Project Date: Wednesday,January 10,2018 10:02:37 AM Forwarded message From: Bob Rafelson <curlyPaspennights.com> Date: Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 4:58 PM Subject: Fwd: Castle Creek Trail Project To: "To: Gary Tennenbaum" <gary.tennenbaumPpitkincounty.com>, "Cc:Joseph Wells" <joewells@me.com>, Bob & Gaby Rafelson <curlyPaspennights.com>, Carrie Wells <carriePcarriewells.com>, "Michael (Mike)Tanguay" <mtanguay(8 aspenconstructors.com>, Linda Sandrich <Iinda205Pmac.com>,Julia Rowland <juliaarowland@gmail.com>, "Nate (Nathan) Rowland" <nathanrowland(8gmail.com>, Alice Davis<adavisCarof.net>, Glenn Horn <ghornProf.net>, Chris Shearer Cooper<chris(Jsc3.net>, Marcella Larsen <marcellalarsenPme.com>, George Zachar<georgePgreensward.com>, Cliff Weiss <Cliffweiss49Pgmail.com>,Tony Battaglia <anthonydbattagliacgmail.com>, Michael Lipkin <mlipkinPlipkinwarner.com>, Ed Zasacky<EdZasackyPusa.net>, Pete Stouffer <hpstouffer@sopris.net>, Graeme Means<gdmarchitectPgmail.com>,Tom Barron <tabarron(8 tabarron.com>,Joachim Diedrich <jsd(6thelbackoffice.com>, "Tom Kurt, MD" <tomkurtmdPcomcast.net>, Gary Wright<gaw@wrightlasalle.com>, Ron Morehead <rmorehead(6aspensnowmass.com>, Andy& Lis a Poole<Andy@ptaspen.com>, Randy Gold <randygaspen@gmail.com>, Katie Schwoerer <kschwoerer@aspennature.org>, Karen Ryman <kryman@msn.com>, Marisa Silverman <marisa@silvermanmuseum.com>,John Doyle<johndoylesculpture@gmail.com>, Catherine Anne Provine<catherineanne@aspenchapel.org>, Sue Diedrich <suedPthelbackoffice.com>, Chris Lacy <clacy@rof.net>, Sandie Eskin <sandreskin@aol.com>, Lois Teegarden <hapsmtnmama@aol.com>, Alan Hassenflu <ahassenflu@frpltd.com>, Dennis Vaughn <vaughndennis58@gmail.com>, D Stone Davis<dstoned@comcast.net>, Sue Smalley<Sue@suesmalley.com>, Kevin Wall <KwallPcontrolroom.com>, Trent Palmer<trent@wtp-law.com>, Steve Busky <smbuskyc gmail.com>,John Duficy<dome@sopris.net>, Elaine Pagels<epagels@princeton.edu>, Dawn Shepard <dawn(8 dawnshepard.com>,Terri Sharp<tlsharpPsopris.net>,Jordan Greengrass <jhg3787Pgmail.com>, Dan Bunta <victor@sopris.net>, Christine Anderson <likesartsupplies55Pgmail.com>, Chuck Frias<chuckPfriasproperties.com>, Bru ce Gordon <Bruce@ecoflight.org>, Aspen <scotthicks@aspencountryday.net>, Hawk & Shelley Greenway<hawkgreenwayPgmail.com>, Mac Coffey<maccoffey@comcast.net>, Bruce Coffey <bcoffey3Pearthlink.net>, Annie Katz<anniekatzc me.com>,Todd & Nikola Freemen <freemans5@sbcglobal.net>, Dick Butera <dickbuteraPsopris.net>, Michael Katz <mdk@katzbarron.com>, Gregg Lowe<gregglowe@me.com>, Sebastian Wanatowicz <swmidnightmine@gmail.com>, Polly& Murry Bowden <pbowden@hanoverco.com>, Patti Morgan <pattim@morgangroup.com>,John Walla <johnPjwalla.com>,John Perko CCCIP Exhibit B Page 33 <johnptruenorth@gmail.com>, Marshall Hall <marshall@wildernet.com>, Alfred LaFave <alfred.Iafave@gmail.com>, Brian Boyd <boyd@btcappartners.com>, Edward Wachs <ewachs@wachscompanies.com>, Deborah Glass <deganglass@gmail.com>,Janet Clark <janetclark2015@gmail.com>, Brian Sharples<sharplesbrian@gmail.com>, Unidentified Resident <dnieciag@me.com>, Brian Davies<briandavies@aspencountryday.net>, Carolyn Hines <carolynhines@aspencou ntryday.net>,Jason Suazo<jason.suazo@renegadellc.com>, Lawrence Butler <larry@getawestruck.com>,John Wilcox<wilcoxashcroft@gmail.com>, Colleen Carvelli <colleencarvelli@gmail.com>, Peter Carvelli <carvellipeter@gmail.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <D11E65AB-4D6A-4B80-A527-CAE675D5653B@aspennights.com> References: <77E27260-16B3-4929-8BF3-B4435B18346A@usagri.com> To: "gary.tennenbaum" <gary.tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3124) gary=E2=80=94there has never been an accident to a kid. stop this = nonsense so you can put another feather in your cap of a new trail to= complete a dream of a larger trail from here to utah, maybe california = to be named undoubtedly Tha Tannenbaum Trail. You are making a mess with = a pr woman to help you. It=E2=80=99s a wank job.lve lived on this road = 46 years!!! bob rafelson CCCIP Exhibit B Page 34 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK CCCIP Exhibit B Page 35 From: Kathleen Wanatowicz To: Bryana Starbuck Subject: FW: Castle Creek Trail Project Date: Wednesday,January 10,2018 10:00:23 AM New entry From: Gary Tennenbaum [mailto:gary.tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com] Sent: Wednesday,January 10, 2018 9:55 AM To: Kathleen Wanatowicz<kathleen@prstudioco.com>; Austin Weiss <austin.weiss@cityofaspen.com>; Gerald Fielding<gerald.fielding@pitkincounty.com> Cc: Derek Webb<dwebb@lorisandassociates.com>;Jessie Young<jessie.young@pitkincounty.com>; Janet Urquhart<janet.urquhart@pitkincounty.com>; Lindsey Utter <lindsey.utter@pitkincounty.com> Subject: Fwd: Castle Creek Trail Project Another for the public record. Gary Tennenbaum Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Director 806 W. Hallam St (the Aspen Ranger Station Forest Service building) Aspen, CO 81611 970-920-5355 Find OST on Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/Pitkin-County-Open-Space-and- Trails/179446995445330 Forwarded message From: Eddie Wachs<ewachs@wachscompanies.com> Date: Sun, Dec 31, 2017 at 7:52 PM Subject: Re: Castle Creek Trail Project To: Simon Pinniger<simonPusagri.com> Cc: Gary Tennenbaum <gary.tennenbaumJpitkincounty.com>,Joseph Wells<joewellsPme.com>, Bob &Gaby Rafelson <curlyPaspennights.com>, Carrie Wells<carriePcarriewells.com>, "Michael (Mike)Tanguay" <mtanguay@aspenconstructors.com>, Linda Sandrich <linda205Pmac.com>,Julia Rowland <juliaarowlandPgmail.com>, "Nate (Nathan) Rowland" <nathanrowlandPgmail.com>, Alice Davis<adavisProf.net>, Glenn Horn <ghornProf.net>, Chris Shearer Cooper<chris@sc3.net>, Marcella Larsen <marcellalarsenPme.com>, George Zachar<georgePgreensward.com>, Cliff Weiss <Cliffweiss49Pgmail.com>,Tony Battaglia <anthonydbattaglia@gmail.com>, Michael Lipkin <mlipkinPlipkinwarner.com>, Ed Zasacky<EdZasacky@usa.net>, Pete Stouffer <h,pstouffer@sopris.net>, Graeme Means<gdmarchitect@gmail.com>,Tom Barron <tabarronPtabarron.com>,Joachim Diedrich <jsdPthe1backoffice.com>, "Tom Kurt, MD" <tomkurtmdPcomcast.net>, Gary Wright<gawPwrightlasalle.com>, Ron Morehead <rmoreheadPaspensnowmass.com>, Andy& Lisa Poole <Andy@ptaspen.com>, Randy Gold <randygasnenPgmail.com>, Katie Schwoerer<kschwoererPaspennature.org>, Karen Ryman CCCIP Exhibit B Page 36 <kryman@msn.com>, Marisa Silverman <marisa@silvermanmuseum.com>,John Doyle <iohndoylesculpture@gmail.com>, Catherine Anne Provine <catherineanne@aspenchapel.org>, Sue Diedrich <sued@thelbackoffice.com>, Chris Lacy<clacy@rof.net>, Sandie Eskin <sandreskin@aol.com>, Lois Teegarden <hapsmtnmama@aol.com>, Alan Hassenflu <ahassenflu@frpltd.com>, Dennis Vaughn <vaughndennis58@gmail.com>, D Stone Davis <dstoned@comcast.net>, Sue Smalley<Sue@suesmalley.com>, Kevin Wall <Kwall@controlroom.com>, Trent Palmer<trent@wtp-law.com>, Steve Busky <smbusky@gmail.com>,John Duficy<dome@sopris.net>, Elaine Pagels<epagels@princeton.edu>, Dawn Shepard <dawn@dawnshepard.com>, Terri Sharp <tlsharp@sopris.net>,Jordan Greengrass <ihe3787@gmail.com>, Dan Bunta <victor@sopris.net>, Christine Anderson <likesartsupplies55@gmail.com>, Chuck Frias<chuck@friasproperties.com>, Bruce Gordon <Bruce@ecoflight.org>, Aspen <scotthicks@aspencountryday.net>, Hawk & Shelley Greenway <hawkgreenway@gmail.com>, Mac Coffey<maccoffey@comcast.net>, Bruce Coffey <bcoffey3@earthlink.net>, Annie Katz <anniekatk@me.com>, Todd & Nikola Freemen <freemans5@sbcglobal.net>, Dick Butera <dickbutera@sopris.net>, Michael Katz <mdk@katzbarron.com>, Gregg Lowe <gregglowe@me.com>, Sebastian Wanatowicz <swmidnightmine@gmail.com>, Polly& Murry Bowden <pbowden@hanoverco.com>, Patti Morgan <pattim@morgangroup.com>,John Walla <john@jwalla.com>,John Perko <johnptruenorth@gmail.com>, Marshall Hall <marshall@wildernet.com>, Alfred LaFave <alfred.lafave@gmail.com>, Brian Boyd <bovd@btcappartners.com>, Deborah Glass <deganglass@gmail.com>, Janet Clark<janetclark2015@gmail.com>, Brian Sharples <sharolesbrian@gmail.com>, Unidentified Resident<dnieciag@me.com>, Brian Davies <briandavies@aspencountryday.net>, Carolyn Hines<carolynhines@aspencountryday.net>,Jason Suazo<jason.suazo@renegadellc.com>, Lawrence Butler<larry@getawestruck.com>,John Wilcox <wilcoxashcroft@gmail.com>, Colleen Carvelli <colleencarvelli@gmail.com>, Peter Carvelli <carvellipeter@gmail.com> Simon Well stated, I agree we should all ask for the brakes to be put on this project until safety Is the major concern and need for the trail or student access is evaluated.Thanks for your Comments. Eddie Wachs Sent from my iPhone > On Dec 31, 2017, at 4:04 PM, Simon Pinniger<simon@usagri.com>wrote: >Aspen CCCIP Exhibit B Page 37 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK CCCIP Exhibit B Page 38 From: Kathleen Wanatowicz To: Bryana Starbuck Subject: Fw: Music School Trail Date: Wednesday,January 10,2018 10:49:27 AM Attachments: 2018(01-01)Castle Creek Caucus Letter 2.docx From:joseph wells<joewells@me.com> Sent: Monday,January 1, 2018 6:24 PM To: Gary Tennenbaum; Kathleen Wanatowicz Subject: Music School Trail Attached are some additional thoughts about the trail alternatives. Thanks, Joe Wells ccciv Exhibit B Page 39 Joseph Wells P 0 Box 4259 Aspen,CO 81612 joewells@me.com 01 January, 2018 To: Gary Tennenbaum (gary.tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com) Kathleen Wanatowicz (kathleen@prstudioco.corn) Castle Creek Caucus Membership Re: Music School Trail Project In my November 14 letter, I previously forwarded my thoughts about my preferred alternative among the three identified alternatives, which is a variation of the Shoulder Improvements Alternative, as well as my second choice, which is the trail along the west side of the road platform. I would like to add some additional comments regarding the alternative on the east side, as well as to comment on some additional issues associated with the trail proposal. 1. My Third Choice Alternative: I previously identified the East Trail Alternative as my least favorite alternative among the three choices that we were given. However, since an alignment on the east side offers the advantage of avoiding having students cross Castle Creek Road, I want to make some suggestions as to how this alignment could be modified to remove my objections to that alternative. a. The east side trail should be located along the outside of the existing northbound travel lane and the two lanes of the road should be shifted to the west. This would shift the proposed retaining from the east side of the road to the west side. Among other advantages, this would preserve the screening vegetation on the east side of the road, and would result in the loss of trees, if any, only on the west side of the road, where there are no residences. b. The depressed portion of the east side trail proposal currently includes the construction of a concrete "jersey barrier" immediately adjacent to the east side of the north-bound travel lane. This barricade forms an immoveable obstruction for the mixed traffic in the lane. The serious bikers would have nowhere to bail out in the event of a problem, such as a flat tire. The CCCIP Exhibit B Page 40 depressed segment should be eliminated, and the trail should be built as an extension of the existing pavement (with the pavement shifted to the west, as noted above). c. More substantial looking bollards, such as those used at the ends of the terminated roads in the west end in the S curves of Highway 82, but preferably in a darker finish than white, should be used to delineate the location of the trail if desired, rather than the more flimsy white pvc pipe-like bollards that are now in use in various locations around town. 01 January, 2018 Gary Tennenbaum (gary.tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com) Kathleen Wanatowicz (kathleen@prstudioco.com) Castle Creek Caucus Membership Page two of two d. Fixed lighting of any kind along the trail should not be considered in this Rural-designated area within the County. Users who want to use the trail at night need to provide their own lighting on their bikes as required by State law or to facilitate walking. 2. Construction Issues: As I recall, the plan during construction that was contemplated when the trail was being pursued by the County previously was to shut down one lane of traffic on Castle Creek Road for the duration of construction, place stop lights at both ends of the construction which would not include sensors to monitor differing levels of traffic throughout the day, and throughout the week. These stoplights would have stopped traffic at each end of the construction 24 four hours a day, seven days a week. Users would have had to wait for a green light regardless of whether there was any opposing traffic or not. A more sophisticated solution for traffic control needs to be proposed by the County as a part of this construction effort. 3. Retaining the Hillside: The consultants illustrated several alternatives for retaining the unstable cutslopes along the west side of the road. The shotcrete alternative is the far more preferable alternative if such a technique can be used successfully to stabilize a loosely consolidated cobble hillside. CCCIP Exhibit B Page 41 3. What Auto Disincentives are the Two Organizations Offering to Implement?: It is clear that both of the organizations that use the Music School Campus sincerely believe that if the Community builds this trail segment, that it will significantly affect traffic patterns to the school. I have previously expressed my opinions as to why I do not believe that will be the case. I do not believe that significant numbers of trips to the Campus will be diverted to the trail unless the two organizations implement specific measures to cause that to happen. It seems fair for the Community to ask the two organizations what measures they plan to implement to reduce auto trips to the Campus if the Community agrees to build one of these trail alternatives. Thanks for your consideration of these points, Joe Wells Coordinator, Castle Creek Caucus CCCIP Exhibit B Page 42 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK CCCIP Exhibit B Page 43 From: Kathleen Wanatowicz To: Bryana Starbuck Subject: FW: FW:Castle Creek Trail Project Date: Tuesday,January 09,2018 12:46:57 PM Please add to PDF exhibit From: Gary Tennenbaum [mailto:gary.tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com] Sent:Tuesday,January 09, 2018 12:27 PM To: BOCC<bocc@pitkincounty.com>; Howie Mallory<ihmallory@gmail.com>; McFlynn Tim <mcflynn@public-counsel.org>; GDM <gdmarchitect@gmail.com>; Hawk Greenway <hawkgreenway@gmail.com>; Wayne Ives<wayne.ivesl@gmail.com> Cc: Open Space &Trails<open_space_trails@pitkincounty.com>;Jon Peacock <jon.peacock@pitkincounty.com>; Kathleen Wanatowicz<kathleen@prstudioco.com> Subject: Fwd: FW: Castle Creek Trail Project See below from Karen Ryman as she addressed her comments to the BOCC and Open Space Board of Trustees.This will go into the public record. Gary Tennenbaum Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Director 806 W. Hallam St (the Aspen Ranger Station Forest Service building) Aspen, CO 81611 970-920-5355 Find OST on Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/Pitkin-County-Open-Space-and- Tra i ls/179446995445330 Forwarded message From: Karen Ryman<KRYMAN@msn.com> Date: Mon,Jan 1, 2018 at 11:11 PM Subject: FW: Castle Creek Trail Project To: "gary.tennenbaumc nitkincounty.com" <gary.tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com> Open Space and Trails Trustees and Director Pitkin County Commissioners The following letter has been submitted to you by Simon Pinniger requesting that only improvements on Castle Creek be similar to the improvements done around our public schools. I have already submitted my comments choosing to negate the two east and west plans and just widen the current footprint along Castle Creek. I agree with all the comments from Mr. Pinniger and need not repeat them again. Respectfully submitted, Karen Ryman CCCIP Exhibit B Page 44 Castle Creek Caucus From: Simon Pinniger [mailto:simonOusagri.com] Sent: Sunday, December 31, 2017 4:04 PM To: Gary Tennenbaum Cc: Joseph Wells; Bob &Gaby Rafelson; Carrie Wells; Michael (Mike) Tanguay; Linda Sandrich; Julia Rowland; Nate (Nathan) Rowland; Alice Davis; Glenn Horn; Chris Shearer Cooper; Marcella Larsen; George Zachar; Cliff Weiss; Tony Battaglia; Michael Lipkin; Ed Zasacky; Pete Stouffer; Graeme Means; Tom Barron; Joachim Diedrich; Tom Kurt, MD; Gary Wright; Ron Morehead; Andy & Lisa Poole; Randy Gold; Katie Schwoerer; Karen Ryman; Marisa Silverman; John Doyle; Catherine Anne Provine; Sue Diedrich; Chris Lacy; Sandie Eskin; Lois Teegarden; Alan Hassenflu; Dennis Vaughn; D Stone Davis; Sue Smalley; Kevin Wall; Trent Palmer; Steve Busky; John Duficy; Elaine Pagels; Dawn Shepard; Terri Sharp; Jordan Greengrass; Dan Bunta; Christine Anderson; Chuck Frias; Bruce Gordon; Aspen; Hawk&Shelley Greenway; Mac Coffey; Bruce Coffey; Annie Katz; Todd & Nikola Freemen; Dick Butera; Michael Katz; Gregg Lowe; Sebastian Wanatowicz; Polly & Murry Bowden; Patti Morgan; John Walla; John Perko; Marshall Hall; Alfred LaFave; Brian Boyd; Edward Wachs; Deborah Glass; Janet Clark; Brian Sharples; Unidentified Resident; Brian Davies; Carolyn Hines; Jason Suazo; Lawrence Butler; John Wilcox; Colleen Carvelli; Peter Carvelli Subject: Castle Creek Trail Project Dear Pitkin County Commissioners. Dear Aspen City Councilors. Dear Open Space & Trails Trustees and Director. On 14 December 2017, Open Space&Trails requested additional community input on the Castle Creek Trail Project. OST offers three conceptual `alignments' but this is a false dichotomy. The choice is not between their$1.1 million, $3.9 million and$5.1 million options. The real-world choice is between making this short stretch of road as safe as any other near a school. Typically, this is done by reducing the speed limit, installing speed bumps, flashing lights and zebra stripes and should cost about$100,000. These safety improvements should be funded by the City and County, not by Open Space&Trails. Moreover, if student safety is a genuine concern,these improvements should be made today!! Only after these basic safety precautions have been implemented and tested for a while, should the City and County consider any additional spending on safety, like widening the road(where possible) and building retaining walls, etc. The additional costs (in dollars and trees/shrubs destroyed) for these improvements should be evaluated against the added student safety, they are designed to achieve. Again, OST funds should not be spent on assuming City and County safety responsibilities to an elite and very-well funded school. The latest OST survey includes pretty drawings but omits any dollar amounts when asking citizens to indicate their preferences. As a neighbor of the Music School aptly stated at the first public meeting on this project, OST is in essence asking if we are in favor of motherhood and apple pie. Of course the answer is 'yes' until we learn the pie costs $1, 3 and 5 million a slice ... . and requires the felling of many trees and shrubs and the ruining of a beautiful entrance to Aspen. Open Space&Trails may now have acquired the legal ability to spend millions of dollars on a $100,000 safety problem that should be handled by the City and Country but is also a moral obligation not to squander Pitkin County taxpayer funds. Sincerely, CCCIP Exhibit B Page 45 Simon Pinniger Castle Creek Road PS: Gary -Kindly forward to the various elected officials. Thanks, Simon CCCIP Exhibit B Page 46 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK CCCIP Exhibit B Page 47 From: Kathleen Wanatowicz To: Bryana Starbuck Subject: FW: Castle Creek Trail Project Date: Tuesday,January 09,2018 12:46:27 PM Please add to exhibit From: Gary Tennenbaum [mailto:gary.tennenbaum@pitkincounty.com] Sent:Tuesday,January 09, 2018 12:24 PM To: BOCC<bocc@pitkincounty.com>; GDM <gdmarchitect@gmail.com>; Hawk Greenway <hawkgreenway@gmail.com>; Howie Mallory<ihmallory@gmail.com>; McFlynn Tim <mcflynn@public-counsel.org>; Wayne Ives<wayne.ivesl@gmail.com> Cc: Kathleen Wanatowicz<kathleen@prstudioco.com>; Austin Weiss <austin.weiss@cityofaspen.com> Subject: Fwd: Castle Creek Trail Project Hi all, Simon Pinniger requested to have his comments forwarded to both the BOCC and Open Space Board of Trustees.This will also go in the public record. Gary Tennenbaum Pitkin County Open Space and Trails Director 806 W. Hallam St (the Aspen Ranger Station Forest Service building) Aspen, CO 81611 970-920-5355 Find OST on Facebook: www.facebook.com/pages/Pitkin-County-Open-Space-and- Trails/179446995445330 Dear Pitkin County Commissioners. Dear Aspen City Councilors. Dear Open Space & Trails Trustees and Director. On 14 December 2017, Open Space & Trails requested additional community input on the Castle Creek Trail Project. OST offers three conceptual `alignments' but this is a false dichotomy. The choice is not between their $1.1 million, $3.9 million and $5.1 million options. The real-world choice is between making this short stretch of road as safe as any other near a school. Typically, this is done by reducing the speed limit, installing speed bumps, flashing lights and zebra stripes and should cost about $100,000. These safety improvements should be funded by the City and County, not by Open Space & Trails. Moreover, if student safety is a genuine concern, these improvements should be made today!! Only after these basic safety precautions have been implemented and tested for a while, CCCIP Exhibit B Page 48 should the City and County consider any additional spending on safety, like widening the road(where possible) and building retaining walls, etc. The additional costs (in dollars and trees/shrubs destroyed) for these improvements should be evaluated against the added student safety, they are designed to achieve. Again, OST funds should not be spent on assuming City and County safety responsibilities to an elite and very-well funded school. The latest OST survey includes pretty drawings but omits any dollar amounts when asking citizens to indicate their preferences. As a neighbor of the Music School aptly stated at the first public meeting on this project, OST is in essence asking if we are in favor of motherhood and apple pie. Of course the answer is 'yes' until we learn the pie costs $1, 3 and 5 million a slice ... . and requires the felling of many trees and shrubs and the ruining of a beautiful entrance to Aspen. Open Space & Trails may now have acquired the legal ability to spend millions of dollars on a $100,000 safety problem that should be handled by the City and Country but is also a moral obligation not to squander Pitkin County taxpayer funds. Sincerely, Simon Pinniger Castle Creek Road PS: Gary - Kindly forward to the various elected officials. Thanks, Simon CCCIP Exhibit B Page 49 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK CCCIP Exhibit B Page 50 •Fp COUNTRY SCHOOL DaY a ASPEN S N MUSIC L ��Low AND SCHOOL TO: Pitkin County Open Space &Trails Board of Trustees, Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners; City of Aspen Open Space&Trails Board,Aspen City Council cc. Gary Tennenbaum, Pitkin County;Austin Weiss, City of Aspen January 2018 Aspen Country Day School and the Aspen Music Festival &School, both located on the Bucksbaum Campus adjacent to Castle Creek Road, wish to express our appreciation for the county's thorough and thoughtful approach to planning for the Castle Creek Corridor Improvement Project.We have been pleased to participate in the public comment process to date, as well as to witness the participation of many neighbors and constituents. Teams from both schools have studied the three alignments presented by the project team. We have walked the corridor with the conceptual sketches in hand and with an eye towards the primary concern, safety.We wish to convey our enthusiastic support of the East Trail concept. The East Trail design offers a definite separation of pedestrian and vehicular traffic, which makes it preferable to the Shoulder Improvements option. The three-foot shoulder expansion called for in the Shoulder Improvements design is not wide enough to significantly improve safety, especially for the "non-expert" user, whether a child biking to school in the fall or a music student carrying an instrument in the summer. And while the Shoulder Improvements option comes in at the lowest price, it's not a true trail solution on a par with the rest of our area's excellent trails. An east-side alignment creates a direct and logical connection to the existing trail system, and this makes it preferable to the West Trail option.We also note that a west-side alignment would require pedestrians or bicyclists to make two road crossings—one at the Marolt campus and another at the entrance to Music School Road.We believe these two crossings, no matter how well marked, could raise safety concerns.They would also be a disincentive to pedestrians or bicyclists who naturally seek the most efficient route along the corridor. We are also aware that the West Trail, at the highest estimated cost of the three alternatives, may be more than is necessary in this corridor. The East Trail offers a true trail at a reasonable cost.We urge staff to review the east alignment for areas where the buffer zone can be narrowed and walls shortened to simplify the design.We also endorse full review of rockfall prevention at the road cut on the west side of the curve. Usage data presented at the public meetings in the fall proves that corridor improvements are long overdue. Our own daily use convinced us that lower Castle Creek Road sees a lot of pedestrian and bicycle traffic, and the counts confirmed that. We believe that an improvement such as the East Trail would quickly become a well-used and well-loved public amenity, offering a safe and inviting entry to this spectacular valley and improving transit concerns in the corridor. We look forward to following the progress of this proposed project as it proceeds to the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners and City of Aspen City Council for consideration. Josh Wolman, Head of School, Aspen Country Day School Alan Fletcher, President &CEO, Aspen Music Festival &School CCCIP Exhibit B Page 51 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK CCCIP Exhibit B Page 52 Project Website Submissions Kathleen Wanatowicz From: hamtharp@gmail.com <no-reply@weebly.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 17, 2017 4:53 PM To: Kathleen Wanatowicz Subject: New Form Entry: Contact Form You've just received a new submission to your Contact Form. Submitted Information: Name Hamilton Tharp Email hamtharp@gmail.com Comments / questions Without a doubt the section of Castle Creek Road from SH-82 to the Music School campus should be enhanced with a dedicated bicycle/walking trail. That road is simply dangerous for cyclists and pedestrians as it currently exists. If the trail is built next to the roadway, without a physical separation, much lower speed limits and/or traffic calming devices are imperative. 1 CCCIP Exhibit B Page 54 Kathleen Wanatowicz From: fishandmassage@aol.com <no-reply@weebly.com> Sent: Monday, October 30, 2017 9:37 AM To: Kathleen Wanatowicz Subject: New Form Entry: Contact Form You've just received a new submission to your Contact Form. Submitted Information: Name Judy Norman Email fishandmassage@aol.com Comments /questions Yes we really need this trail it is long overdue! Students and public need a safe place to ride and walk as it is very dangerous with cars etc. whizzing up and down the road! Please build the trail!! I have lived in Aspen over 40 years and I wish this would've been there 40 years ago!! Thanks for all your help! i CCCIP Exhibit B Page 55 Kathleen Wanatowicz From: Aaclapper8@gmail.com <no-reply@weebly.com> Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2017 4:18 PM To: Kathleen Wanatowicz Subject: New Form Entry: Contact Form You've just received a new submission to your Contact Form. Submitted Information: Name Anne Clapper Email Aaclapper8@gmail.com Comments / questions I am totally in favor of a trail for bikers & hikers along Castle Creek Road. A must for the safety of the Music School and Country Day School students. I am tired of all the NIMBY's! i CCCIP Exhibit B Page 56 Kathleen Wanatowicz From: brettnelson@aspencountryday.net <no-reply@weebly.com> Sent: Friday, November 10, 2017 10:02 PM To: Kathleen Wanatowicz Subject: New Form Entry: Contact Form You've just received a new submission to your Contact Form. Submitted Information: Name Brett Nelson Email brettnelson@aspencountryday.net Comments / questions There is a serious need for a bike path up to the campus. I know it might anger the homeowners, but it is so necessary for safe and efficient travel up Castle Creek Rd. i CCCIP Exhibit B Page 57 Kathleen Wanatowicz From: deniebur@gmail.com <no-reply@weebly.com> Sent: Sunday, November 12, 2017 5:16 PM To: Kathleen Wanatowicz Subject: New Form Entry: Contact Form You've just received a new submission to your Contact Form. Submitted Information: Name Dewayne Niebur Email deniebur@gmail.com Comments / questions I do believe that something needs to be done to improve safe access to the campus (move the campus?). You've successfully encouraged students to ride when possible, extending the WeCycle to them at nominal cost was brilliant, but the corridor isn't going to get any less crowded (unless those living in the Castle Creek valley move away?). How many shattered million-dollar Stradivarii will it take to convince folks that a safer corridor is worth some changes to their"pristine" back yard? What about the irrigation ditch easement? Could that work as a conveniently direct access from the Marolt housing? I'd prefer a separated path but, considering cost, would/could compromise for better shoulders on the roadway. i CCCIP Exhibit B Page 58 From: Kathleen Wanatowicz To: Brvana Starbuck Subject: FW:New Form Entry:Contact Form Date: Friday,November 17,2017 7:54:17 AM Please tell her we recived the message and save to new file From:anniekatz@me.com [mailto:no-reply@weebly.com] Sent:Wednesday, November 15, 2017 6:57 PM To: Kathleen Wanatowicz<kathleen@prstudioco.com> Subject: New Form Entry: Contact Form You've just received a new submission to your Contact Form. Submitted Information: Name Annie Katz Email anniekatz@me.com Comments/questions The West Side Trail seems to me to be the better option. It appears to address the problem with the rocks and hill while still maintaining the aesthetics of the valley. Even more trees are impacted there are more trees TO BE impacted on the West side,...whereas the East side, once the trees go, there are none left at all. The West Side Trail also seems to be much better for Winter use. Thank you for your efforts. Annie Katz CCCIP Exhibit B Page 59 From: Bryana Starbuck To: "marshallctwildernet.com" Cc: Kathleen Wanatowicz Bcc: Mavis Fitzgerald;Brvana Starbuck Subject: RE:New Form Entry:Contact Form Date: Wednesday,November 29,2017 9:43:00 AM Attachments: imaae001.ipg Marshall, With the videos,we counted the raw trip counts at the Marolt Crossing.The image from the open house is one snapshot from two weeks'worth of video. Motorists encroaching or crossing over into the other traffic lane due to pedestrians/cyclists is not an isolated incident, but we do not have a specific count for driver behavior. Thank you, Bryana Starbuck Castle Creek Corridor Improvement Project email/bryanaPprstudioco.com project website/Castle Creek Trail public relations+project resources prstudiowebsite/prstudioco.com I facebook/prstudioco instagram/prstudioco From: marshall@wildernet.com [mailto:no-reply@weebly.com] Sent:Tuesday, November 28, 2017 1:27 PM To: Kathleen Wanatowicz<kathleen@prstudioco.com> Subject: New Form Entry: Contact Form You've just received a new submission to your Contact Form. Submitted Information: Name Marshall Hall Email marshall@wildernet.com Comments/questions I attended the open house and noticed the image of a bus passing a bicycle on the blind curve. My family and I have had several near head on collisions on this curve as we have been heading into town while an impatient driver has been half way into our lane going around a bike. My question is how many times did this happen over the two week data collection period? Thanks, CCCIP Exhibit B Page 60 Marshall Hall CCCIP Exhibit B Page 61 From: Kathleen Wanatowicz To: Bryana Starbuck Subject: Fwd:New Form Entry:Contact Form Date: Monday,December 04,2017 2:34:18 PM Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: "helencarlsencolo@gmail.com"<no-reply@weebly.com> Date: December 4,2017 at 4:12:18 PM EST To: kathleen@prstudioco.com Subject:New Form Entry: Contact Form Reply-To: helencarlsencolona gmail.com You've just received a new submission to your Contact Form. Submitted Information: Name Helen Carlsen Email helencarlsencolo@gmail.com Comments/questions I support a fully separated paved trail, preferably the East Trail Location. This would provide the safest route for the hundreds of Music School and Country Day students and staff as well as for recreational cyclists and runners. With the increased traffic on Castle Creek Rd due to the Pine Creek Cookhouse expansion and the number of people working in houses in the valley, safety improvements are desperately needed. Simply widening the road shoulders and making a bike lane is insufficient. A trail would have long-term environmental benefits since more people would walk and bike, and fewer people would drive to the school campus. CCCIP Exhibit B Page 62 THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY BLANK CCCIP Exhibit B Page 63 AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY WORK SESSION DATE: February 27, 2018 AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Citizen Board Interview/Charley Podolak—Board of Adjustment STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Charlotte Anderson ISSUE STATEMENT: Staff has been advertising regularly when there are vacancies on Citizen Boards. The Board of Adjustment has one vacancy due to the recent resignation of Jamie Brewster— McLeod. There are no terms up for renewal on the Board of Adjustment. Charley Podolak has applied and will appear before you today for an interview. There are currently no other applicants for this position. BACKGROUND: Traditionally, applicants are interviewed and approved by the Board of County Commissioners. Per the by-laws, there are to be three (3)to five (5)members on the Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment's role is to Hears appeals due to the inability of an individual to obtain a building permit or the decision of an administrative officer or agency concerning the administration or enforcement of zoning regulations. LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Core Focus Area: Livable & supportive Community. Success Factor#5: Improved community engagement and participation KEY DISCUSSION ITEMS: Charley will attend your Work Session today for an interview with the Board. BUDGETARY IMPACT: None RECOMMENDED BOCC ACTION: Advise staff whether you wish to make this appointment at your next Regular Meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Application and Resume of Charley Podolak Current list of members on the Board of Adjustment 1 2/20/2018 Pitkin County Mail-Online Form Submittal:Citizen Board Application Form �tTK1N CouNTil Charlotte Anderson <charlotte.anderson@pitkincounty.com> Online Form Submittal: Citizen Board Application Form 1 message noreply@civicplus.com <noreply@civicplus.com> Tue, Feb 20, 2018 at 10:37 AM To: charlotte.anderson@pitkincounty.com Citizen Board Application Form Select the Board, Board of Adjustment Commission, or Committee applying for Personal Information First Name Charley Last Name Podolak Physical Address Snowmass Village, 81615 Mailing Address City Aspen State Colorado Zip 81612 Home Phone Number Business Address Aspen, CO> 81611 Business Phone Number Occupation Real Estate Sales Email Address Residency Information Length of Residency in Pitkin Colorado County Are you a registered voter Yes Education and Hobbies High School Atlantic, Iowa College University of Iowa Trade or Business School Field not completed. Hobbies Golf, skiing https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=55c4318ae9&jsver=9CtlOcfiVYQ.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=161 b44aa202f66a1&sim1=161 b44aa202f6... 1/2 2/20/2018 Pitkin County Mail-Online Form Submittal:Citizen Board Application Form Organization Membership Information Are you currently serving on No other Boards, Commissions, or Committees? If yes, which Field not completed. Have you served on a Board, No Commission, or Committee before? If yes, which Field not completed. Please list organization Aspen Board of Realtors, Committee Chairman Board of memberships and positions Director, Aspen Chamber Resort Association held Please List Areas of Special Field not completed. Interest Please Attach Your Resume CHARLEY PODOLAK Resume.docx as a pdf Email not displaying correctly?View it in your browser. https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=55c4318ae9&jsver=9CtlOcfiVYQ.en.&view=pt&search=inbox&th=161 b44aa202f66a 1&sim1=161 b44aa202f6... 2/2 CHARLEY PODOLAK MIMM Long time Aspen local with knowledge of the local landscape, activities and community. WORK EXPERIENCE Broker Associate,Aspen Snowmass Sotheby's International Realty, 2011-Present,Aspen, CO. - Assisting Buyer and Sellers with the process of selling or purchasing property Broker Associate, Chaffin Light Real Estate, 2009-2011,Aspen, CO. - Assisting Buyer and Sellers with the process of selling or purchasing property Broker Associate, BJ Adams and Company, 2006-2009,Aspen, CO. - Assisting Buyer and Sellers with the process of selling or purchasing property Broker Associate, Coates Reid and Waldron Real Estate Company, 1988-2006, Aspen, CO. - Assisting Buyer and Sellers with the process of selling or purchasing property Broker Associate, Podolak Real Estate and Investments, 1976-1988, Aspen, CO. Construction Manager and Property Manager,JR Trueman and Associates, 1976-1979, Building Clark's Market Building,Aspen, CO. Broker Associate and Property Manager, Fitzgerald Real Estate Company, 1973-1976,Aspen, CO. LEADERSHIP EXPERIENCE Currently Serving on Scholarship Committee for Aspen Board of Realtors Voted Realtor of the Year 2007, Aspen Board of Realtors Member, Board of Directors, Aspen Chamber Resort Association 1998-2004, representing Aspen Board of Realtors. EDUCATION Obtained Real Estate Broker's License 1973 University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA. Bachelor of Business Administration Board Term Exp. Last_name First_name Address City State Zip Office_Ph Home Ph Cell Fax Email Board of HRC/Citizen PURPOSE: Hears appeals due to the inability of an individual to obtain a building permit or the decision of an administrative officer or agency Adjustment Bd concerning the administration or enforcement of zoning regulations. Appeal& AUTHORITY:The board will hear and decide appeals concerning any error in order,requirement,decision or refusal made by an administrative Administrative official of agency in the enforcement of zoning regulations;requests for special exceptions/interpretation of zoning maps;grant variances when, Review because of exceptional practical difficulties,undue hardship,exceptional topographical conditions or when the exceptional narrowness, shallowness or shape of a specific piece of property cannot comply with the strict application of zoning regulations Staff Liaison:Corn- MEMBERSHIP: Three(3)to five(5)members,not more that one half(1/2)of which may be members of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Dev Article III of the Home Rule Charter provides for a membership of five(5)regular and up to five(5)alternate members. Joanna Schaffner TERM:Terms are four(4)years. Terms shall be staggered so that not all terms expire at the same time. 920-5105 MEETINGS: First Tuesday of each month as needed. REMOVAL:A member may be removed if they have two(2)unexcused absences within one year. (1)Regular 1-Apr-20 Hmielowski Seth Aspen CO 81611 (2)Regular 1-Apr-19 McAllister Patrick Aspen CO 81611 (3)Regular 1-Apr-19 Rifkin James SMV CO 81615 (4)Regular 1-Apr-20 Head Rick Aspen CO 81611 (5)Regular 1-Apr-18 VACANT (1)Alternate 1-Apr-21 Eigelberger Cristof Woody Creek CO 81656 Future Agendas ‘pt1'K I N Board of Commissioners COUNT1 Work Session Agenda TUESDAY,MARCH 6,2018, 10:00 AM Q/D• G Pitkin County Library-Dunaway Community Room 120 N Mill St,Aspen, CO 81611 (Commissioners Richards and Child not attending) A work-session agenda is structured to give the Board of Commissioners an opportunity to touch base with each other,staff,and invited community members and organizations to discuss and work through issues the County is facing,but not ready to take official action on at a regular board meeting. Work sessions are open to the public(with exception of executive session). However,public input is typically not taken during a work session unless specifically asked for by the Board. 11:00 AM Special Meeting-Executive Session(Library Clock Tower) Windstar Ranch LLC Conservation Easement Dispute CRS 24-6-402 (4)(b) 12:00 PM Adjourn Executive Session 12:00 PM Lunch 1:00 PM Staff/Community Presentations This is time set aside for staff and community partners to formally present community or organizational issues that may lead to future Board action. 1:00 PM Prince Creek Trailhead- Gary Tennenbaum(30 minutes) 2:30 PM Break 2:45 PM Upcoming Regular Meeting Items This portion of the agenda is intended to: 1)Provide the Board and Staff an opportunity to discuss items that will come before the Board and public for formal adoption at a future Regular Meeting/Public Hearing, 2) To review the calendar of business for future Board Work Sessions and Regular Meetings. 2:45 PM Citizen Board Interview/Amy Barrow- Open Space&Trails(District 3), Charlotte Anderson (15 minutes) 3:00 PM Review of Future Agenda Calendars-Work Session/Regular Meeting(15 Minutes) 3:15 PM Discussion Items/Open Discussion No formal written materials 3:15 PM Board Open Discussion(15 Minutes) 3;30 PM Legislative Update,Kara Silbernagel (15 minutes) 3:45 PM Department Updates 3:45 PM Community Development Department Update, Cindy Houben and staff 4:45 PM Adjourn (P &Z begins at 5:00 PM) AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE 1'K I N Board of Commissioners COUNT1 Work Session Agenda TUESDAY,MARCH 13,2018, 10:00 AM Q/D. G Pitkin County Library-Dunaway Community Room 120 N Mill St,Aspen, CO 81611 A work-session agenda is structured to give the Board of Commissioners an opportunity to touch base with each other,staff,and invited community members and organizations to discuss and work through issues the County is facing,but not ready to take official action on at a regular board meeting. Work sessions are open to the public(with exception of executive session). However,public input is typically not taken during a work session unless specifically asked for by the Board. 10:00 AM Joint Executive Session with Open Space and Trails Board(Location TBD) 10:00 AM SPECIAL MEETING-EXECUTIVE SESSION Land Acquisitions CRS 24-6-402(a) Negotiations CRS 24-6-402(e) Discussion with Legal Counsel CRS 24-6-402 (4)(b) 11:45 PM Break for lunch-Library Community Room (Lunch provided by OST) 12:00 PM Joint Meeting with Open Space and Trails Board(OST)in Library Community Room 2:00 PM Staff/Community Presentations This is time set aside for staff and community partners to formally present community or organizational issues that may lead to future Board action. 2:00 PM Landfill Expansion Update,Cathy Hall(1 hour) Do not move invited guests 3:00 PM Upcoming Regular Meeting Items This portion of the agenda is intended to: 1)Provide the Board and Staff an opportunity to discuss items that will come before the Board and public for formal adoption at a future Regular Meeting/Public Hearing, 2) To review the calendar of business for future Board Work Sessions and Regular Meetings. 3:00 PM Review of Future Agenda Calendar-Work Session/Regular Meeting(15 minutes) 3:15 PM Citizen Board Interview/Molly Haberman-OST,Dist. 3 (15 minutes) 3:30 PM Break 3:45 PM Discussion Items/Open Discussion No formal written materials 3:45 PM Board Open Discussion(15 Minutes) 4:00 PM Legislative Update,Kara Silbernagel (15 minutes) 4:30 PM Executive Session (Library Clock Tower) 4:30 PM Personnel-County Attorney Performance Review CRS 24-6-402 (4)(f) AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE 5:00 PM Adjourn AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE ‘pfT'K I N Board of Commissioners COUNT1 Regular Meeting Agenda WEDNESDAY,MARCH 14,2018, 12:00 PM @/-DEC--N Pitkin County Library-Dunaway Community Room 120 N Mill St,Aspen, CO 81611 Additions/Deletions to Agenda Public Comments(please limit to 3 minutes per speaker unless otherwise advised by the Chair) Commissioner Comments Consent Items: Consent items are generally perceived as non-controversial and allow the Board to spend its time on more complex items elsewhere on the agenda.A Board member or member of the public may ask for a Consent item be removed for individual consideration.Consent items typically have been discussed in work sessions with the Board and are approved by a single motion. Consent Items-Single Reading: 1. Minutes of Consent Items Set for Public Hearing on DATE: Individual Consideration Items: Individual Consideration Items/First Readings set for Public Hearings on DATE: 2. Ordinance Authorizing Joint Acquisition of the Red Hill Conservation Easement-Dale Will Individual Consideration Items/Public Hearing, One Reading: Individual Consideration Items/Public Hearing, 2nd Readings: 3. Resolution Authorizing Approval of a Cable Franchise Agreement with Comcast of Colorado, Kara Silbernagel (Continued from February 14, 2018) 4. Budget Supplemental Request for Phillips Mobile Home Park, Connie Baker Individual Consideration Items/Emergency Ordinance and Resolution Confirmatory Reading: Land Use Items: Land Use Public Hearings: 5. Resolution Relief to Celestial Land Company Ltd from the Stay in Effect as a Result of the Appeals of Board of Adjustment Resolution No. 10-2017, Suzanne Wolff Land Use Actions: Open Discussion Adjourn Regular Meeting AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE ‘pt1'K I N Board of Commissioners COUNT1 Work Session Agenda TUESDAY,MARCH 20,2018, 10:00 AM Q/D• G Pitkin County Library-Dunaway Community Room 120 N Mill St,Aspen, CO 81611 (Commissioner Richards will not be present) A work-session agenda is structured to give the Board of Commissioners an opportunity to touch base with each other,staff,and invited community members and organizations to discuss and work through issues the County is facing,but not ready to take official action on at a regular board meeting. Work sessions are open to the public(with exception of executive session). However,public input is typically not taken during a work session unless specifically asked for by the Board. 10:00 AM SPECIAL MEETING-EXECUTIVE SESSION 12:00 PM Adjourn Executive Session 12:00 PM Lunch Break 1:00 PM Staff/Community Presentations This is time set aside for staff and community partners to formally present community or organizational issues that may lead to future Board action. 2:00 PM Upcoming Regular Meeting Items This portion of the agenda is intended to: 1)Provide the Board and Staff an opportunity to discuss items that will come before the Board and public for formal adoption at a future Regular Meeting/Public Hearing, 2) To review the calendar of business for future Board Work Sessions and Regular Meetings. 2:00 PM Review of Future Agenda Calendar-Work Session/Regular Meeting(15 minutes) 2:45 PM Break 3:00 PM Discussion Items/Open Discussion No formal written materials 3:00 PM Board Open Discussion(15 Minutes) 3:15 PM Legislative Update,Kara Silbernagel (15 minutes) 4:00 PM Department Updates Department Updates provide an opportunity for staff to share accomplishments, trends, issues and challenges with the Board. Board Membership Reports is time set aside for Board members to report on the activities of other boards, commissions and entities they have been appointed to as representative of Pitkin County. 4:45 PM Adjourn(P&Z Meeting begins at 5 PM) AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE MARCH 22,2018,4:00-6:00 PM Elected Officials Transportation Committee(EOTC)Meeting Aspen City Council Chambers AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE ‘pt1'K I N Board of Commissioners COUNT1 Work Session Agenda TUESDAY,MARCH 27,2018, 10:00 AM Q/D• G Pitkin County Library-Dunaway Community Room 120 N Mill St,Aspen, CO 81611 (Commissioners Richards &Poschman will not be present) A work-session agenda is structured to give the Board of Commissioners an opportunity to touch base with each other,staff,and invited community members and organizations to discuss and work through issues the County is facing,but not ready to take official action on at a regular board meeting. Work sessions are open to the public(with exception of executive session). However,public input is typically not taken during a work session unless specifically asked for by the Board. 10:00 AM Staff/Community Presentations This is time set aside for staff and community partners to formally present community or organizational issues that may lead to future Board action. 10:00 AM SPECIAL MEETING-Quarterly Meeting Public Health/Quarter 1 - Karen Koenemann, (2 hours) 12:00 PM Lunch Break 1:00 PM Upcoming Regular Meeting Items This portion of the agenda is intended to: 1)Provide the Board and Staff an opportunity to discuss items that will come before the Board and public for formal adoption at a future Regular Meeting/Public Hearing, 2) To review the calendar of business for future Board Work Sessions and Regular Meetings. 1:00 PM Budget Update,Connie Baker(20 minutes) 1:20 PM Quarterly Budget Supplementals, Connie Baker(30 minutes) 1:50 PM Review of Future Agenda Calendar-Work Session/Regular Meeting(15 minutes) 3:00 PM Break 3:15 PM Discussion Items/Open Discussion No formal written materials 3:15 PM Administration and Sheriffs Office/Ambulance Building Updates,Rich Englehart,Chandler Deimund, Gabe Meuthing(15 minutes) 3:30 PM Board Open Discussion(15 Minutes) 3:45 PM Legislative Update,Kara Silbernagel (15 minutes) 4:00 PM Department Updates Department Updates provide an opportunity for staff to share accomplishments, trends, issues and challenges with the Board. Board Membership Reports is time set aside for Board members to report on the activities of other boards, commissions and entities they have been appointed to as representative of Pitkin County. 5:00 PM Adjourn AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE priCK IN Board of Commissioners COUNT1 Regular Meeting Agenda WEDNESDAY,MARCH 28,2018, 12:00 PM @ D• Pitkin County Library-Dunaway Community Room 120 N Mill St,Aspen, CO 81611 (Commissioners Richards &Poschman will not be present) Additions/Deletions to Agenda Public Comments(please limit to 3 minutes per speaker unless otherwise advised by the Chair) Commissioner Comments Consent Items: Consent items are generally perceived as non-controversial and allow the Board to spend its time on more complex items elsewhere on the agenda.A Board member or member of the public may ask for a Consent item be removed for individual consideration.Consent items typically have been discussed in work sessions with the Board and are approved by a single motion. Consent Items-Single Reading: 1. Minutes of Consent Items Set for Public Hearing on DATE: Individual Consideration Items: Individual Consideration Items/First Readings set for Public Hearings on April, 11, 2017: 2. Resolution Approving 1st Quarter Budget Supplementals, Connie Baker 3. Ordinance for Red Mountain Property Acquisition,Richard Neily,III Individual Consideration Items/Public Hearing, One Reading: Individual Consideration Items/Public Hearing, 2nd Readings: 4. Ordinance Authorizing Joint Acquisition of the Red Hill Conservation Easement-Dale Will Individual Consideration Items/Emergency Ordinance and Resolution Confirmatory Reading: Land Use Items: Land Use Public Hearings: Land Use Actions: Open Discussion Adjourn Regular Meeting AGENDA and TIMES ARE SUBJECT TO CHANGE