Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018.05.03 OSTB_Joint COA_minutes_S MINUTES OPEN SPACE AND TRAILS BOARD REGULAR SESSION May 3, 2018 Aspen Firehouse; 420 East Hopkins Ave.,Aspen OSTB Present: Graeme Means Howie Mallory Amy Barrow Vacant Wayne Ives, Dist. 1, Chair Dist. 2 Dist. 3 Dist. 4 Dist. 5 Staff Present: Gary Tennenbaum, Paul Holsinger, Janet Urquhart, Fran Soroka, Richard Neiley, Dale Will BOCC Present: George Newman Others Present: Austin Weiss (City of Aspen Parks and Open Space Director); Mitch Haas (Haas Land Planning, LLC) Graeme Means called the meeting to order at 9:35 a.m. The OSTB Trustees and OST staff welcomed Amy Barrow to her first meeting representing Commissioner District 3. PUBLIC COMMENT No Public Comment. APPROVAL OR THE MINUTES Howie Mallory moved for the OSTB Regular and Executive Session minutes of April 10, 2018 be approved as presented and the BOCC Joint Work Session minutes ofApril 10 and April 24, 2018 be approved as amended. Wayne Ives seconded. Motion passed. (4-0) OST Summer Intern Ilia Fiene will start around June 18th for ten to twelve weeks. She has received her bachelor's degree in environmental studies at the University of Colorado Boulder and is pursuing a master's degree in landscape architecture at the University of Oregon. Ilia has GIS and Adobe Suite expertise and will be assisting with current planning and conservation easement stewardship projects. E-Bike Survey Discussion/ OST's current Title 12 regulations stipulates that e-bikes use is a prohibited motorize use on OST trails. Only American Disability Act (ADA) compliant mobility devices are allowed on designated OST ADA compliant trails. In 2017 Colorado passed bill HB17-1151- Electrical Assisted Bicycles Regulation Operation which changed the state's e-bike classification from motorized vehicle to bicycle. The bill prompted Colorado Statute C.R.S. § 42-4- 1412 which defines "electrical assisted bicycles" into Class 1, 2 and 3. The Colorado Statue C.R.S. § 42-4- 1 5/3/2018 OSTB Meeting Packet: Memorandum-Ebike Use on Pitkin County Trails; Memorandum: ebikes Roaring Fork +Colorado River Valley Public Input Summary of Findings;Exhibit A-Survey Results and Public Comments 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular and Joint AVLT Meeting Page 1 of 7 1412 allows Class 1 and 2 electrical assisted bicycles on multi-use trails unless the managing land agency explicitly prohibits the use giving the local governments the authority to allow or prohibit the use of specified classes of electrical bicycles on pedestrian paths and bilce paths. Since the enactment of the statue the Roaring Fork Transit Authority (RFTA), City of Aspen, Town of Carbondale and Glenwood Springs have chosen to allow Class 1 and 2 on their hard surface trails. Town of Snowmass Village currently does not allow e-bilces on any trails. To pursue consistent valley wide regulations for e-bilce usage, OST and RFTA contracted PR Studio to conduct public processes, outreach campaign and a public survey on the usage of Class 1 &2 e-bilces from New Castle to Aspen. Gary Tennenbaum proceeded with a presentation summarizing the process and survey outcomes. The presentation is made part of this record as `Exhibit A'. Public input theme summary: • 68.65%respondents support Class 1 e-bilce use • E-bilce support themes o Alleviating traffic congestion o Older/aging population can continue their use of the trail system o Commuting o Alternative transportation o Health /exercise o Allowing for more diverse crowd to use the trails • E-bilce opposition themes o Safety and etiquette were the overwhelming statements o Concerns about the dangers of tourists, unskilled cyclists in multi-use congested areas o Enforcement of speed limits o Belief that anything with a motor should be on a roadway not a trail o Disruptive to non-cyclists • Themes in both o Etiquette and enforcing speed limits as an important focus if e-bilces are allowed and to be part of the recommendation o There were also quite a few comments regarding suggestion of a test period, for example: "Allow then revisit. If the public can't handle them, out they go. " OST staff recommends changing Title 12 regulations to allow Class 1 pedal assist e-bilces on Pitkin County paved /hard surface trails. And for the OSTB and BOCC to recommend to RFTA and other jurisdictions to also limit their regulations to Class 1 e-bilces. OST Rangers are very concerned about rental bilce users, especially on the congested upper valley trails. In discussions with the rental shops Rangers have learned that many of the rental e-bilces can be set to specific operational levels (ie. Class 1, 2 or 3 and limit speed)by the rental shop. OST will work with City of Aspen OST staff to develop a rental bilce safety plan possibly requiring the rental shops to limit their e-bilce fleets to 15 mph Austin Weiss concurred the COA is committed to working with Pitkin OST toward regulating Aspen's bilce rental shops. Austin added the COA Open Space Board had expressed concern at their recent retreat about the bice rental fleets. Mitch Haas provided a public comment suggestion to require announcing bells on all rental bilce fleets. 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular and Joint AVLT Meeting Page 2 of 7 Board Discussion Graeme Means requested staff provide the Title 12 language that speaks to trail bike speed. Current language says "All trail users will travel at safe speed at all times".2 This puts the responsibility on the user to be safe. RFTA has a different approach and posts a 20 mph speed limit. Gary added, the OST Rangers have been satisfied with this language that provides safe speeds are determined by trail conditions. Howie Mallory commented he would like to add to staffs recommendation to acknowledge that going forward the e-blce experience will be an ongoing process and be prepared for changes. Howie added that unlike trail etiquette, bike speed limits can be managed and speed limits should be posted on Pitkin County trails and posting would be consistent with RFTA trail speeds. Speed limits are a guideline and most e-bices are equipped with speedometers. Howie foresees Class 2 use becoming a problem in the future. He agrees with the positive working relationship approach with the bike rental shops by creating a rental bike safety plan. Would like to add to the recommendation "in accordance with speed limits that RFTA has used outside of Pitkin County". Amy Barrow questioned whether last year's reported e-bilce incidents involved personal or rental e-bikes. Gary responded it was a rental e-bike accident. Amy queried OST violation fine schedule. Rangers always strive to educate first then as needed follow with violation fines for first offense is $100; second is $500 and third is $1,000. The bilce rental shops should know what the regulations are and inform their renters. Amy asked about OST trail signage. OST does have signage prohbiting e-bikes on trails and does not currently have posted speed limit signage. Gary stated his concern about posting speed limits that an incident could occur with a b ce rider going at or below a posted speed limit but the trail conditions at any given time to be safe may require a much lower speed appropriate to the activities and the condition of the trail at any given time. Amy added her support to require rental bikes be equipped with announcing bells. Amy noted from personal experience that being passed by an unannounced e-bike can be a jarring experience. Wayne Ives stated he supports a maximum 20 mph speed limit on the entire Rio Grande Trail, but OST should keep the Title 12 safe speed regulation language. He would support posting signage, but would dislike seeing a proliferation of signage. Possbly just at trail portals. Wayne questioned whether rangers can distinguish between Class 1 and 2 e-bikes. Gary responded that Colorado state law will be requiring labeling e-bike's by class, but rangers can identify riders who are obviously speeding along and not pedaling. To enhance the rangers' enforcement capabilities, OST is considering equipping the rangers with e-bikes. Some manufacturers provide the ability for owners to select the Class level and turn on/off the throttle. Wayne stressed the importance of outreach communication with the rental shops and encouraged the effort include all the valley's bike rental shops. Wayne added his support to requiring announcing bells on all rental bikes. He supports staffs recommendation for Class 1. Graeme Means noted the board's consensus supporting the staffs recommendation. Graeme expressed his concerns that the introduction of e-bilces will promote more trail traffic and at a higher speed. OST paved /hard surface trails are not designed to handle this kind of capacity 2 Title 12: 12.04.030 B `Allowed Uses' 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular and Joint AVLT Meeting Page 3 of 7 issue. Trail enforcement will be complicated no matter what the board decides. Commenting the public opinion supports Class 1 use. Trail regulation consistency still needs to be worked out. Concluding that he supports staff's recommendation, supports a posted maximum 20 mph speed limit, and encourage other jurisdictions to follow the same trail regulations. Graeme questioned how a bell requirement can be implemented. Gary responded by working with COA staff a way can be figured out how to require announcing bells on all Aspen rental bike fleets. Austin added that last year COA gave away 750 bike bells to the public and anticipates the same this year. See Board Action below. Richard Neiley entered the meeting at 10:20 a.m. Dale Will entered the meeting at 10:40 a.m. Skybeam Ranch Subdivision Referral Mitch Haas was present representing the applicants. The BOCC has approved the subdivision through growth management. Skybeam Ranch has the ability for three developable lots. The approval requires Skybeam Ranch to provide a conservation easement on 26.67 acres to prevent any further subdivision of the property, a trail easement along the remaining property in case any future planning determines the need to connect a trail from Buttermilk ski area to Sky Mountain Park, and $35,000 toward trail development, improvement and/or maintenance in the Buttermilk and Sky Mountain Park area. The City of Aspen would co-hold the conservation easement. Gary pointed out that the proposed house sets down and does not break the ridgeline. Additionally, the adjacent Burlingame Ranch Open Space is owned by COA with a conservation easement held by AVLT and they have already allowed the Buttermilk Connector Trail. Austin added that it would be a lengthy conversation to convince AVLT to allow any additional recreational trail. Mitch answered the board's location questions and explained the conservation easement provides potential for a future trail but because of the existing Buttermilk Connector Trail and wildlife concerns a second trail in the area is not supported or proposed at this time. See Board Action below. Austin Weiss and Mitch Haas left the meeting at 10:45 a.m. BOARD & STAFF COMMENTS Howie wanted to acknowledge the new signage along the Rio Grande Trail and Moore Open Space. Gary added that the whole Rio Grande Trail will be brought up to the new sign standards this year. All OST trails will eventually be brought up to the latest signage standards. Howie wanted to clarify he was erroneously quoted recently in an Aspen Times article that covered the recent joint COA Open Space Board and COA Council meeting. He actually said that some people think of open space as a green holding area for higher and better use. The City Council strongly supports that open space is open space and not to be changed. However, there is always the future potential of the governing entities to claim eminent domain for higher or better use. Howie suggested the OSTB and the COA OS board partner and consider adopting a section of Hwy. 82 for clean-up. Gary responded Pitkin County already has a `adopt a highway' section 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular and Joint AVLT Meeting Page 4 of 7 along Hwy 82 from the shale bluffs area to the County's Solid Waste Center. Trustees are welcome to participate. There is a training component when participating. The annual event is happening sometime in May. BOARD ACTION Title 12 Amendment—E-bike Usage on Pitkin County Paved/Hard Surface Trails Wayne Ives moved for the OSTB to recommend to the BOCC to amend OST Title 12 regulations to allow Class 1 e-bikes on Pitkin County paved/hard surface trails including the crusher fine sections of the Rio Grande Trail and East of Aspen Trail. To amend Title 12 safe trail speed language to include maximum trail speed of 20 mph or as otherwise posted. And to recommend to RFTA and other jurisdictions to limit or allow just Class 1 e-bikes to provide consistency through the valley. And to see how e-bikes are adopted and safely used throughout the valley over time. Howie Mallory seconded. Motion passed. (4-0) Skybeam Ranch Conservation Easement and Trail Easement Donations Howie Mallory moved for the OSTB to approve the recommendations of Pitkin County Community Development in respect to Skybeam Ranch Subdivision Application for Detailed Submission &Final Plat stipulating that Pitkin County OST will hold a 26.67 acre conservation easement and receive a growth management donation of$35,000. Amy Barrow seconded. Motion passed. (4-0) EXECUTIVE SESSION The OSTB moved to enter executive session in accordance with CRS 24-6-402(4)(a)(b) and (e) for the purpose of discussing acquisitions, attorney consultation and negotiations at 11:05 a.m. The OSTB adjourned executive session at 11:55 a.m. ASPEN VALLEY LAND TRUST (AVLT) JOINT WORK MEETING All OSTB Present AVLT Staff: Suzanne Stephens (Executive Director), Erin Quinn (Conservation Director) AVLT Board: Fred Lodge, Gary Knaus, Jim Cardamone, Dr. Amy Krick, Ellen Huntley Dube Staff Present: Gary Tennenbaum, Paul Holsinger, Janet Urquhart, Fran Soroka, Richard Neiley, Dale Will BOCC Present: George Newman Joint Work Session—Structuring future conservation easement collaborations AVLT and OST acknowledged their successful conservation partnership. The joint work session discussion focus was on how both AVLT and Pitkin County OST can attain their conservation goals and can best collaborate on future projects that include an agricultural conservation component. The OST program's agricultural goal to preserve and promote local agricultural production has introduced affirmative agricultural production obligations as a tool where appropriate in conservation easements. Although most Colorado conservation easements have an implied agricultural affirmative obligation when it requires 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular and Joint AVLT Meeting Page 5 of 7 exercising water rights, including affirmative obligations for agricultural uses is not supported by AVLT's liability insurer. AVLT's liability insurer will not cover enforcement of affirmative obligations such as requiring the landowner to continue agricultural production. 3 The problem is how to protect the land and its ability to produce from being turned into a non-productive hobby ranch as seen too often in the upper valley. Both entities acknowledged that conservation easements are an imperfect tool and ultimate control of how land is used is by ownership. Conservation easements are typically considered negative covenants that stipulates what the land owner cannot do as opposed to what they must do. Fred Lodge contributed that conservation easement violations typically occur with subsequent owners not by the originating landowner. Additionally, there is the question about what happens when the landowner or subsequent owner no longer wants to produce. AVLT finds that landowners who are willing to conserve want to have the flexibility to change how they operate. Erin Quinn added in AVLT's experience landowners are using conservation easements as a tool to promote best practices on their land and a legal document preserving their rights. AVLT interprets agricultural production as a management practice and not a legal right. From the landowners perspective affirmative obligation requirements are not desirable. County Attorney & OST have been in conversations about other legal options that would be palatable and address AVLT's liability concerns. Dale Will explained that OST does not intend the use of agricultural affirmative obligations as a blanket requirement, but as a mutually agreed upon tool especially when OST is making a significant public fiord investment to conserve and in some way guarantee the land will continue to be agriculturally productive. If the landowner is unable to fulfill the agricultural production requirement then the landowner has the ability to lease the conserved land for agricultural purposes. OST sees this as an opportunity for the landowner to continue to produce and not a draconian requirement on the landowner. If no suitable agreed upon agricultural lessee is found then OST can waive the lease requirement. Gary Knaus indicated that he finds the concept intriguing. He added that at some future time AVLT will be facing a similar situation when AVLT eventually inherits land and at that time will need to determine what to do or how to manage and continue the lands agricultural production. AVLT Board has had and continues to have these continued future use discussions. Gary K.continued as a conserved landowner that there may be a time when he can no longer irrigate and his children are not interested in continuing to work the land and he can see the advantage of having the option to have the assistance from an entity like OST that would help find a suitable agricultural lessee. Adding he would want to make the choice not be told he had to. Gary K.noted all properties are unique and conservation easements can address each property's uniqueness. Richard Neiley contributed that leases can be structured with insurance obligation on the lessee. Richard added, Colorado conservation easement law statutes allows an obligation to take place ie. requiring agricultural use and or putting water rights to beneficial use. Additionally, agricultural activity like leasing for grazing or benefiting from crops growing on the land are property interests and recognized by the Colorado statues. Richard acknowledged he has not reviewed the Federal laws referenced by AVLT. Graeme Means brought up the concept to separate the agricultural affirmative obligation as a separate agreement with Pitkin County. There is a possibility that a separate agreement could occur, added Dale but it is not fully worked out. Suzanne Stephens indicated such an approach would solve AVLT's liability issues. In the case of the Deadwood CE, the easement wording is not sufficient protection and could end up with both AVLT and Pitkin County potentially being sued. As a non-profit AVLT is constantly in fund raising mode unlike Pitkin 3 5/3/2018 OSTB meeting materials: Memorandum—Tools for protecting food production. 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular and Joint AVLT Meeting Page 6 of 7 County which has a board, dedicated funds and in-house legal counsel which enables Pitkin County to take more risks. If a landowner came to AVLT wanting a conservation easement that would assure continued agricultural use; AVLT would only provide a provision that would keep agricultural use available and it would be up to the current landowner and the successors to operate the agricultural use. To date AVLT has not been approached by a landowner who wants to assure their land stays in agricultural production. Amy Krick provided another approach to connect farmers to available land which was to develop a program to help coordinate agricultural lease opportunities with landowners. Landowners' don't want to be forced to pursue agriculture nor does a landowner want to apply more land restrictions which would ultimately devalue the land further. The upvalley land demographics and land values are much different than downvalley. A question arose whether a second conservation easement between Pitkin County and the landowner that included the affirmative obligation could be applied. AVLT would prefer a different recordable document tool not a conservation easement. Suzanne added that the Federal conservation easement regulations do not recognize agriculture as a conservation value and it is buried as a subset of open space value. AVLT and OSTB concluded they would continue work together utilizing the standard conservation easement tool and would continue to explore other legal instruments that could provide ways to link continued agricultural endeavors to the land. Stewardship Projects Suzanne announced that AVLT would love to partner with OST on any upcoming stewardship projects. Janet Urquhart left the meeting at 12:10 pm Gary Knaus left the meeting at 1:25 pm Dr. Amy Krick left the meeting at 1:30 pm ADJOURN The OSTB meetings of May 3, 2018 were adjourned at approximately 1:40 p.m. Approved: Attest: 447, rae' " Bans, Chair 1~ran Soroka Pi n County Open Space & Trails Board Pitkin County Open Space & Trails Administrative Specialist 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular and Joint AVLT Meeting Page 7 of 7 Exhibit A 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular Session Minutes: Page 1 of 17 ..._.. 013 i kes ROARING FORK + COLORADO RIVER VALLEY PUBLIC INPUT ROARING FORK + COLORADO RIVER VALLEY PUBLIC INPUT SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Exhibit A • 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular Session Minutes: Page 2 of 17 ----- 00 i kes OV E RV I E W ROARING FORK+COLORADO RIVER VALLEY PUBLIC INPUT • In 2017, HB17-1151 Electrical Assisted Bicycles ;1 - Regulation Operation was passed. The bill changed Colorado bike law, specifically C. R.S. § 42-4- 1412, to �'`, 1 ' � allow Class I and II electric assisted bicycles on multi-use ,', ' Otto- trails unless explicitly prohibited by the managing land a, agency. The bill gives local governments the authority to , allow or p prohibit the use of specified classes of electrical " assisted bicycles on pedestrian paths and bike paths .'v,t 1 , A YY Y, r 4,. • • Public interest and discussion of e-bikes has been - increasing in the valley. $V/\ _ ' ,,.,�y n le • E-bikes are newer technology with inconsistent /// regulation. Consistent local policy is desired. Aspen local Kathleen Brewer takes a class 1 E-bike fora spin outside the Aspen Rec Center Tuesday afternoon during a demo and public input gathering event at the Aspen Rec Center.A survey regarding E-bike use on the paved portions of the Rio Grande Trail is currently circulating to determine the feasibility of a-bike use on the trail. Craig Turpin/Aspen Daily News Exhibit A • 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular Session Minutes: Page 3 of 17 I S 1) ROARING FORK+COLORADO RIVER VALLEY PUBLIC INPUT Regional public process initiated by Pitkin County and RFTA to gather public opinion on class 1 & 2 e-bike usage on paved trails from New Castle to Aspen with targeted outreach campaign, a project specific website, project brand and hosted e-bikes events. • The project specific website serves as a hub for e-bike information and provides resource links to the most recent regional e-bike study, and Colorado laws and policy. • Public interest and discussion of e-bikes has been increasing over recent months in the valley. • Consistency of regulation is desired among the involved entities to provide simplicity and clarity to the general public and cycling community. • Public input and participation during the collection process provided a solid sample set to base for the committee to form recommendations. Exhibit A • 5/3/2018 OSTB Relar Session Minutes: Page 4 of 17 i kes PUBLIC AWARENESS BRAND ROARING FORK+COLORADO RIVER VALLEY Logos/Website/Flyer/Print Advertising PUBLIC INPUT The objective was to create an identify that was nonspecific to a government agency. ikes http://www.ebikesroaringforkvalley.com/ ______,}Di kesebikes_ ROARING FORK+ ROARING FORK+COLORADO RIVER VALLEY COLORADO RIVER VALLEY ! . r'—.. PUBLIC INPUT PUBLIC INPUT ROARING FORK +COLORADO RIVER VALLEY __/e.JIkes Share your opinion on E-BIKES SURVEY allowing e-bikes on paved bike paths from New Castle ROARING FORK.COLORADO RIVER VALLEY to Aspen. III PUBLIC INPUT I � i BEGIN SURVEY Take the Survey You can complete the online survey&submit comments at: ebikesroaringforkvalley.com JOIN US AT COMMUNITY APRIL About the E-Bike MEET UPS&DEMOS No• Roaring Fork* E-BIKES ON ROARING FORK+COLORADO RIVER Informational and outdoor demo events. Colorado River VALLEY PAVED TRAILS Valley Project The primary objective — LF¢h CARBONDALE �'r of this project is to T he shatle pavilion next to Rio Grande Trail he rd TawnHalVRec Center.567 Colorado Avenue collect publicclass s1opinion The project website remains active, but the survey is regarding class�&2 sfih NE\V CASTLE 5 e-bike usage on Lakota Rec center:parking lot paved trails.The ,rCI nor summary of this closed. PR STUDIO will upload the presentation survey lath ASPEN 4 6 input will help the ASp¢n Roc center;parking lot project team make 01161 maroon Creek Rwtl a recommendation results the week of 4 30 18. for consistent GLEN,, N VOOD SPNGS 1 -r 11191 regulations on Behind High School parking lot along the thee Rio Grande Trail a LL paved trails throughout the 12.th BASALT 4-11 v regionaltrailsystem. Next to Basalt mlgh Scheel parking. Lot along the Rio Grande Trail Project&Event Information (9701340-4334I info@ebikesroaringforkvalley.com ebikesroaringforkvalley.com Exhibit A • 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular Session Minutes: Page 5 of 17 ----- 00 i kes PUBLIC PROCESS ROARING FORK+COLORADO RIVER VALLEY PUBLIC INPUT Public comments were collected via the project webpage, a 13-question electronic survey and comment submission, public meet-ups, written comments and surveys, and a project phone line. The project webpage was publicized on project team (justifications and agency) websites, social platforms, flyers, advertisements (see page 4) , radio and community calendar beginning on March 16, 2018 the public comment period closed April 20, 2018. The public meet-ups/demos: • 4/4/18 Carbondale — rec center — shade pavilion, along Rio Grande Trail: ^'35 attendees • 4/5/18 New Castle - Lakota Rec Center: —15 attendees • 4/10/18 Aspen — Aspen Rec Center ^'25 attendees • 4/11/18 Glenwood Springs behind H.S. parking lot along Rio Grande Trail "'30 attendees • 4/12/18 Basalt - by H.S. parking lot, along Rio Grande Trail ^'10 attendees Exhibit A • 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular Session Minutes: Page 6 of 17 I S PUBLIC INPUT THEMES ________/00 ROARING FORK+COLORADO RIVER VALLEY PUBLIC INPUT The overarching trend on allowing e-bikes on paved trails: • Solid support of class 1, 68.65%. • For class 2 e-bikes, slightly more survey takers were in support (49.42%) than opposed (40.44%). • The 32 direct comments (website submission, e-mails, comment cards) were divided by: 11 in opposition of use of e-bikes on paved trails and 21 in support of use of e-bikes on paved trails. Themes on Support: Themes in Opposition: Themes in Both: • alleviating traffic congestion • safety, and etiquette were the • Etiquette and enforcing speed • older/aging population to continue overwhelming statements limits as an important focus if they are allowed, and to be part of the their use of the trail system • concerns about the dangers of tourist, recommendation. • commuting unskilled cyclists in multi-use, congested • alternative transportation areas • There were also quite a few • health/exercise • enforcement of speed limits comments regarding suggestion of • allowing for a more diverse crowd to • belief that anything with a motor should a test period, for example: "Allow then revisit. If the public can't use the trails. be on a roadway not a trail. handle them, out they go." • disruptive to non-cyclists. Exhibit A • 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular Session Minutes: Page 7 of 17 ---- 01I kes PARTICIPATION NUMBERS ROARING FORK+COLORADO RIVER VALLEY PUBLIC INPUT • A total of 984 participants contributed with 952 survey respondents and 32 comments (submitted from the website, e-mail, & comment cards). • Meet-up/Demo Events: —100 >.p t , � s . _ ,y "° d .. . _,.,.. • FAM. ' , ' .} r • o a w - r'4/ " .:). t If7 s ' _____„:2 1 1 �� ,lad I iLA ,..„ — —ft. L. • 0, „_,..,,, Wry. i .. Exhibit A • 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular Session Minutes: Page 8 of 17 ----- 00 I kes ROARING FORK+COLORADO RIVER VALLEY PUBLIC INPUT Participants residence (Q1) : Aspen had the most participants at 203, followed by Carbondale at 178 and Glenwood Springs at 169. • Upvalley (Aspen, Snowmass Village, Woody Creek Old Snowmass, Pitkin County) : 340 • Midvalley (Basalt, El Jebel, Carbondale, Eagle County): 286 • Downvalley (Glenwood Springs, New Castle, Silt, Rifle, Unincorporated Garfield County) : 239 • Elsewhere in CO: 68 (7.23%) • Outside of CO: 8 (.85%) 21.18% Ages 41-50 Age of Participants (Q2) : 16.86% Ages 31-40 The majority of the participants, 53.64%, identified themselves ' 7.57% Ages 21-30 as 51+, the remainder of the age division: 1.05% Ages 0-20 Exhibit A • 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular Session Minutes: Page 9 of 17 I kes _______ 00 ROARING FORK+COLORADO RIVER VALLEY PUBLIC INPUT Ownership & Experience with E-Bikes: (Q3-5): • 23.76% (225) of participants own an e-bike, 19.47% use for commuting, 34.98% use for leisure, 43.23% use for both. 15.75% answered other, stating reasons such as: exercise, health, fun, social group rides, car replacement, work, shopping, banking and errands. • 554 have ridden an e-bike • 396 have not Typical activities participants use the paved trail systems for, allowing for checking all activities listed that apply as well as a write in for `other' (Q6): • A strong majority, at 91.24% marked biking as an activity they use the path, followed by: • Hike: 56.86% • Walk the dog: 45.46% • Commute: 38.08% • Run: 35.86% 64.98% of participants are aware of the speed limits on the Rio Grande bike trail (Q8) while 35.02% were not. Exhibit A • • 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular Session Minutes: Page 10 of 17 I I<es ROARING FORK+COLORADO RIVER VALLEY PUBLIC INPUT (Q9) Class 1 opinion : Public opinion regarding class 1 usage shows strong support at 51.59%, support at 17.06% = 68.65%. Strong opposition is 16.95%, opposition at 7.31% = 24.26%. 7.10% survey participants were neutral. •Strongly Oppose Oppose Neutral Support 1.1 Strongly Support STRONGLY OPPOSE v OPPOSE NEUTRAL v SUPPORT v STRONGLY SUPPORT v TOTAL 16.95% 7.31% 7.10% 17.i_lc 51.59% 160 69 67 487 C044 Exhibit A • 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular Session Minutes: Page 11 of 17 Ike s ROARING FORK+COLORADO RIVER VALLEY PUBLIC INPUT (Q10) Class 2 opinion : Public opinion gathered regarding class 2 usage outcome is much closer, with a slightly higher percentage in support: with strong support at 35.48%, support at 13.94% = 49.42%. Strong opposition is 29.25%, opposition at 11.19% = 40.44%. With 10.14% survey participants indicating neutral. 4111111110 Strongly Oppose Oppose El Neutral III Support Strongly Support STRONGLY OPPOSE v OPPOSE NEUTRAL • SUPPORT • STRONGLY SUPPORT v TOTAL 29.25% 11.19% 10.14% 13.94% 35.48% 277 106 96 132 336 C94— Exhibit A • 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular Session Minutes: Page 12 of 17 I I<es _-______/00 ROARING FORK+COLORADO RIVER VALLEY PUBLIC INPUT (Q9) (Q10) class opinion, per residence: Aspen: 203 Snowmass Village: 85 Old Snowmass: 12 Class 1 Class 2 Class 1 Class 2 Class 1 Class 2 33 Strongly Oppose 54 19 Strongly Oppose 28 3 Strongly Oppose 4 19 Oppose 23 5 Oppose 11 Oppose 2 11 Neutral 24 3 Neutral 3 Neutral 1 27 Support 34 8 Support 8 2 Support 111 ~Strongly Support 68 50 Strongly Support 34 7 Strongly Support 5 Woody Creek: 17 Pitkin County: 23 Class 1 Class 2 Class 1 Class 2 3 Strongly Oppose 8 6 Strongly Oppose 8 0 Oppose 2 1 Oppose 2 3 Neutral 3 3 Neutral 3 5 Support 2 3 Support 4 6 Strongly Support 2 10 Strongly Support 5 Exhibit A • 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular Session Minutes: Page 13 of 17 ----- 00 I I<es ROARING FORK+COLORADO RIVER VALLEY PUBLIC INPUT (Q9) (Q10) class opinion, per residence: Basalt: 64 El Jebel: 35 Class 1 Class 2 Class 1 Class 2 5 Strongly Oppose 12 6 Strongly Oppose 17 3 Oppose _ 8 2 Oppose 2 4 Neutral 4 5 Neutral 4 14 Support 11 6 Support 4 37 Strongly Support 27 16 Strongly Support 8 Carbondale: 178 Eagle County: 9 Class 1 Class 2 Class 1 Class 2 38 Strongly Oppose 68 2 Strongly Oppose 2 17 Oppose 27 Oppose 1 14 Neutral 25 Neutral 40 Support 20 1 Support 3 68 Strongly Support 37 6 Strongly Support 3 Exhibit A • 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular Session Minutes: Page 14 of 17 ----- 00 I I<es ROARING FORK+COLORADO RIVER VALLEY PUBLIC INPUT (Q9) (Q10) class opinion, per residence: Glenwood Springs: 169 New Castle: 33 Silt: 9 Class 1 Class 2 Class 1 Class 2 Class 1 Class 2 33 Strongly Oppose 57 4 Strongly Oppose 3 Strongly Oppose 13 Oppose 16 Oppose 3 1 Oppose 1 15 Neutral 15 2 Neutral 3 Neutral 32 Support 20 5 Support 5 2 Support 5 74 Strongly Support 61 21 Strongly Support 18 6 Strongly Support 3 Rifle: 7 Class 1 Class 2 Unincorporated Garfield County: 21 1 _ Strongly Oppose 2 Class 1 Class 2 1 Oppose 1 3 Strongly Oppose 5 1 Oppose 4 Neutral 3 Neutral 3 1 Support 1 4 Support 4 Strongly Support 3 10 Strongly Support 6 Exhibit A • 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular Session Minutes: Page 15 of 17 ----- 00 I I<es ROARING FORK+COLORADO RIVER VALLEY PUBLIC INPUT (Q9) (Q10) class opinion, per residence: Elsewhere in Colorado : 68 Outside Colorado: 8 Class 1 Class 2 Class 1 Class 2 1 Strongly Oppose 2 1 Strongly Oppose 3 2 Oppose 1 3 Oppose 1 1 Neutral 3 1 Neutral 1 8 Support 11 0 Support 54 Strongly Support 51 3 Strongly Support 3 Exhibit A • 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular Session Minutes: Page 16 of 17 ----- 01) I I<es ROARING FORK+COLORADO RIVER VALLEY PUBLIC INPUT (Q11-12) on the survey asked if contributors would be more likely to use the trails for commuting purposes and recreational purposes if e- bikes were allowed . The answers were divided almost in half ( removing neutral responses) with just a few more saying chances of recreational would not increase if e-bikes were allowed, and the opposite, with a bit higher percentage indicating that it would increase chances of using the trail for transportation purposes. (Q13) on the survey asked if contributors would comment or explain their answers on the use of e-bikes on paved trails. Of the 952 surveys, 662 submitted comments, see Exhibit A. Exhibit A 5/3/2018 OSTB Regular Session Minutes: Page 17 of 17 *no question was mandatory, so some skipped, thus not all answers sum to: 952, or to totals per category A • ROARING FORK + COLORADO RIVER VALLEY PUBLIC INPUT Summary Prepared By: Mavis Fitzgerald, PR STUDIO April 26, 2018 Exhibits Attached