The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Transportation Advisory Board 2019-10-16 A EP TOWN OF ESTES PA I Transportation Advisory Board Agenda October 16,2019 Current Members: Belle Morris(03/31/20) 12:00 PM—2:00 PM Stan Black(03/31/20) Gordon Slack(03/31/21) Room 202&203 Ron Wilcocks (03/31/21) Tom Street(03/31/22) Estes Park Town Hall Ann Finley(03/31/20) Linda Hanick(03/31/22) 170 MacGregor Ave Scott Moulton (03/31/22) Janice Crow(3/31/21) 12:00— 12:15 Public Comment 12:15— 12:20 Approval of September Meeting Minutes Chair Belle Morris 12:20— 12:40 Project Updates Parking& Transit Manager Vanessa Solesbee 12:40— 1:00 Paid Parking: Town Board Study Session Parking& Transit Manager Vanessa Solesbee Feedback—October 8,2019 1:00— 1:20 Project Updates Engineering Manager David Hook 1:20—2:00 Other Business Adjourn The mission of the Town of Estes Park Transportation Advisory Board is to advise the Board of Trustees and the Public Works staff on Local and Regional Comprehensive Transportation Planning Policies; Maintenance, Operation and Expansion Programs; and Transportation Capital Projects. Carlie Bangs, Town Board Trustee Liaison Greg Muhonen, Estes Park Public Works Staff Liaison RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado, September 18, 2019 Minutes of a regular meeting of the Transportation Advisory Board of the Town of Estes Park, Larimer County, Colorado. Meeting held in the Room 202 of Town Hall on the 18th day of September, 2019. Present: Gordon Slack Belle Morris Janice Crow Stan Black Linda Hanick Tom Street Also Present: Trustee Carlie Bangs, Town Board Liaison Greg Muhonen, Public Works Director Vanessa Solesbee, Parking & Transit Manager David Hook, Engineering Manager Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Admin. Assistant Elias Wilson, Public Works Admin. Assistant Absent: Ann Finley Ron Wilcocks Scott Moulton Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 12:03 p.m. PUBLIC COMMENT: Four members of the public were in attendance: Tom Hannah, Pat Newsome, John Long, Ted Williams Tom Hannah, Estes Park resident and business owner, was in attendance and shared being that he feels the Downtown Estes Loop is a good idea with his only opposition due to the impact to Riverside Park near the winery. It currently provides a lot of shade. John Long, retired Executive Director of Bike Houston advocacy group joined the TAB on the recent bike ride around Estes Park. Long praised the Town of Estes Park for the design and construction on 4th Street using the complete streets principals. He believes this is a good example for future street rehab within the Town. John and the other riders went to the area between 36 Hwy & 7 Hwy near the schools and Estes Valley Community Center. At the 7 Hwy crossings John and others on the bike ride witnessed pedestrians attempting to cross the road at the crosswalk. Even with the rapid flashing beacons many individuals appeared to run for their lives. Many cars at this intersection did not yield until the pedestrian stepped out into the crosswalk. There clearly needs to be additional measures taken to increase the safety of pedestrians and bikers. Trustee Bangs asked what statistical data would be needed to help determine how to increase pedestrian and biker safety. Manager Hook commented that this might be a situation where there is a need for increased driver education. Member Crow questioned whether the law applied to pedestrians who were in the crosswalk or those waiting to cross. Crow asked if a change to the law would be required. Chair Morris shared that an individual's line of sight narrows dramatically at speeds of 35-40 mph. Part of the issue at this particular intersection may be that drivers do not see the crossing beacons because they are perhaps out of their line of sight. Pat Newsome, a long-time resident of Estes Park for over 40 years, and property owner for 50 years, was in attendance and shared her negative feelings towards the Downtown Estes Loop project. She shared that while she welcomes newcomers to Estes Park, many people see the town as a place that needs improvement. Newsome commented that she has never heard of, nor met anyone living in Estes Park that Transportation Advisory Board — September 18, 2019 — Page 2 supports the Loop project. Newsome commented that Baldwin Park is filled with children playing throughout the Spring, Summer, and Fall and the Loop would take away this space. Newsome advocated that Estes Park needs to stay beautiful and maintain its open spaces because it is the reason that people come to visit. She communicated that the basis of the Loop is to get visitors into Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP) more efficiently even though RMNP doesn't want more visitors. Newsome also wanted to share her displeasure with the planned roundabout at MacGregor Ave. & US 34. She believes the problem with the motor vehicle accidents could be addressed by installing reduce speed signs rather than a roundabout. She concluded by stating that these major changes are ruining Estes Park. Ted Williams and his wife are business owners in Downtown Estes Park. Williams attended all of the recent parking meetings hosted by Parking & Transit Manager Vanessa Solesbee. Solesbee invited Williams to come to TAB to present his thoughts about the importance of parking to business. Representing the Estes Park Chamber of Commerce, Williams distributed a handout which highlighted the Downtown Commercial District intent and the desire for a public/private partnership to come up with a parking solution in the downtown core. Member Slack asked Williams for specific recommendations regarding the number of spaces needed in downtown and where these spaces should be placed. Williams did not have an exact number. Slack expressed that the TAB is very open to suggestions and that there is no argument that Estes Park needs more parking spaces. TAB is struggling to find answers and perhaps a needs assessment for parking would be helpful. Williams shared that businesses feel like the Town Trustees ask what businesses need and when they express the need for more parking, they're told that they won't get more parking. Member Crow asked Williams for options that the TAB could consider for the benefit of downtown business owners. Williams suggested that we look at the ratio of cars to businesses to help make a determination of parking needs. Member Street explained the need for optimization of the parking structure and that the structure is the downtown parking option. Trustee Liaison Bangs invited Williams for a discussion to gain further understanding of the issues and how the Town can help. Chair Morris requested approval by the TAB to request a youth from the organization Youth in Action, attend TAB as a non-voting member. A motion was made and seconded (Slack/Crow) to approve adding a non-voting Youth in Action Participant to the TAB and all were in favor. Chair Morris will be responsible for selecting the young member. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: It was moved and seconded (Slack/Black) to approve the August meeting minutes and all were in favor. PROJECT UPDATES (V. Solesbee — Parking & Transit Manager) Bustang Update: Manager Solesbee provided an update on the ridership for Bustang. The ridership numbers this month started strong, then dipped, returning strong this past weekend. CDOT considers the pilot program a success. Bustang is offering kids under 11 a free ride. Parking: As of last week, 4% more citations were written in 2019 then were written in 2018. No inclusion of voided tickets or warnings. PAID PARKING ANALYSIS (V. Solesbee — Parking & Transit Manager) Manager Solesbee will be attending the Town Board Study Session October 8, 2019 to provide data from the 2019 season and begin discussions for Phase II of the Downtown Parking Management Plan (DPMP). Solesbee requested the TAB to attend the study Transportation Advisory Board — September 18, 2019 — Page 3 session on October 8t". Director Muhonen explained to the TAB how Phase II fits within the budget process. Manager Solesbee provided to the TAB, a revenue analysis on the expansion of paid parking and stated the importance of being honest with ourselves on cost. This analysis was produced in response to the research that has been conducted on parking is Estes Park. Solesbee presented a progressive pricing model for paid parking. Member Slack stated that the goal is not to make a bunch of money, just to modify behavior. Member Black asked Solesbee if the technology will have ability for market pricing. Solesbee replied that Scenario E offered this option. A modified dynamic pricing system would impact tourists more than a progressive system but a progressive system would impact residents more. Solesbee stated that Scenario E is her preferred option. Member Slack commented that starting simple and communicating scenario A or B makes the most sense. Muhonen shared that the existing signs and time limits stay in place (great simplicity, higher risk of citation, etc.) and that scenarios C and D reduce the citation component because they are able to pay for as long as they decide to stay. Muhonen emphasized the convenience for user but stated that there needs to be turnover. Member Street questioned what percentage of lots would be paid. Solesbee replied that Phase II would implement 30% of downtown parking to be paid in 2020. Street responded that if not all parking is paid there will still be congestion issues with people waiting in the free lots. He commented that all downtown parking needs to be paid. Member Black stated his agreement with Street that this may contradict the goal. If we don't do it all at once, we will be unable to gather accurate data at the end of Phase II. Solesbee replied that the downtown business community holds various viewpoints on the implementation of paid parking. There are currently 1 ,200 parking spaces in the core. Solesbee mentioned the importance of implementation along with education while remaining sensitive to the amount of change. Solesbee is also identifying employee areas and exploring both paid and unpaid permit possibilities. TAB needs to review additional data before making assumptions and implementing solutions. Solesbee adopted a conservative estimate of $200,000 in startup costs projecting that, in the first year, all scenarios lose money and make a profit in the following year. Member Black questioned the basis for assuming an increase in revenue. Solesbee added this to the list of considerations. Black also questioned the 2024 revenue and cost. Solesbee will compile and present further information on this subject. A four-month season will be used moving forward. Black expressed concern that the projections for the month of May are equal to that of June. The counts for May and September are too high. Solesbee suggested lowering or discounting the price of parking in May. Black questioned the assumption of increased revenue and on the basis for the assumption. Solesbee will take a closer look at this assumption. Discussions continued regarding treatment of residents versus visitors. Black suggested the TAB create more opportunities for residents to shop downtown rather than feel the need to travel. He advocates for free parking for residents (1-hr) since there was a commitment to the residents for different treatment. Hanick agreed that parking isn't a primary issue with residents coming downtown, it's the traffic. Hanick commented that she will shop in town regardless, but will not spend 4 hours shopping. A motion was made and seconded (Slack/Street) for residents to have 15 minutes free. A second motion was made by Member Black to increase this time allowance to 30 minutes and Member Crow seconded. Member Slack withdrew his previous motion. The vote was 4 to 2 vote in favor of 30 minute free parking for residents. A motion was made and seconded (Street/Hanick) that a letter be written to the Town Board by 10/1/2019 recommending Scenarios D or E. The vote was 5 to 1 in favor of this letter. Manager Solesbee suggested that TAB could benefit from meeting with the Shuttle Committee at the regularly scheduled December meeting. Transportation Advisory Board — September 18, 2019 — Page 4 Morris asked when a work session could be set up with Ted Williams. Trustee Bangs agreed to reach out to Williams to further discuss the parking issues in downtown. Member Black stated that the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors should be included in the meeting. PROJECT UPDATES (G. Muhonen — Public Works Director) Muhonen attended an all-day meeting with Larimer County area traffic engineers. The relevant topics included bike lane markings and symbols. A poll was taken from the different engineers in attendance on policies and justifications. Boulder now mandates the use of green backgrounds for all bike symbols and requires them in conflict zones between cars and bikes. Fort Collins has decided to stick with the typical white on black colors and don't want green backgrounds except for bike/car conflict zones. Greely is increasing the 6 inch lane line to 8 inches. Boulder has done accident research and analysis in regards to bike lanes and found that green backgrounds reduce the number of biking accidents and deaths. CDOT is now requiring 6 inch lane lines and will be implementing this on edge lanes only. Special events in Estes Park have been handled informally regarding traffic control. There is a proposal for closing US 36 for a Vintage Car Race Rally, which has introduced questions about special event traffic control. Universally, all applicants for events that impact traffic, whether pedestrian or vehicular, must submit a traffic control plan. PROJECT UPDATES (D. Hook — Engineering Manager) US 36 & Community Drive Roundabout: A public meeting for the US 36 & Community Drive Roundabout project on Aug. 29 at the Estes Park Museum. The feedback received was mixed, with the majority being opposed to the roundabout. Brodie Avenue Improvements: Work continues to progress with curb and gutter beginning to be replaced. The work underground is complete and all work occurring is now above ground. Co-Chair Street commented that the `Trail Closed' sign is still up but the bike lane is open for use. Manager Hook will follow up on the signage. Fall River Trail: Hook informed the TAB that both the Fall River Trail grant applications were denied. One was submitted to Great Outdoor Colorado (GOCO) and the other for the Federal Lands Access Program (FLAP). Hook stated the grants were denied due to the fact that other submitted projects were focused on finishing connections, whereas the application submitted by Estes Park was asking for was a middle section of a trail to be completed. Muhonen commented that the Estes Park application also did not identify how RMNP would be tied into the trail plan. The pavement markings have been completed on both the 4th Street and Elkhorn Avenue projects. The Downtown Wayfinding, Cleave Street project, and Graves Avenue design are pending. TAB 2020 PRIORITIES: Chair Morris distributed the updated TAB Priority Matrix for review. No additional time was available to discuss the matrix but will be discussed at the next regularly scheduled meeting. OTHER BUSINESS With no other business to discuss, Chair Morris adjourned the meeting at 2:38 p.m. Recording Secretary Megan Van Hoozer, Public Works Department Ell ' A NEEDS ASSESSMENT The Estes Park Chamber of Commerce is pleased to present this synopsis of "Parking in the Downtown Commercial District a Business Perspective." Zoned Downtown Commercial - DCD The intent of the Downtown Commercial District maintain its function as the Valleys focal point of tourist shopping and entertainment activity. This area is also a key economic engine for the Town of Estes Park and the Valley; therefore, future sales-tax generating uses are strongly encouraged. It is also the intent of this district that new development develop in ways integrating and even enhancing the qualities of the streams, rivers, topography and other natural assets of the area. Public/Private Partnership The long term historic success of the Downtown Commercial District has always been predicated upon the long existing Public/ Private Partnership between the Business Community in the Downtown Commercial District, aka DCD as business owners/operators and the citizens of Estes Park. The community owns the parking, businesses use the parking to access visitors and create sales taxes to fund essential services. A true Public/ Private Partnership. The citizens of Estes Park own and maintain the parking lots assuring their business partners access to customers. Business in-turn through private investment generate millions of dollars in revenue circulated theoretically several times throughout Estes Park and the Valley in addition to the generation of tax dollars fund essential services for all. in the Valley will loose funding. Being in the floodplain is an additional complicating factor. A visitor sitting in a vehicle (in motion or static) is a liability to our community, they produce air pollution (health risks) and uncontrolled congestion along with safety issues and security risks. Whereas a visitor on foot lingering eating an ice cream cone is an asset contributing to the economy with funds carried to Estes Park from all points of the globe. With adequate parking a tourist is an ideal source of revenue. They visit make purchases they would never make at home and then in a timely manner vacate making room for more fellow travelers. The perfect renewable resource. A fundamental component ignored by staff and elected volunteers in study after study of parking in the DCD is the silent productivity of one parking space to generate economic gain. That one parking spot has great value well beyond replacement cost and serves its purpose day in and day out with very little maintenance. In our economy how much does one parking space produce in essential sales contributing to economic gain? Although it would seem to be basic good sense and fundamental in a resort community, this vital tooth in our economic cog, a parking spot, has been slowly shrinking and politically mismanaged with a callous indifference to the irreplaceable importance essential to all Estes Park and Valley citizens. It has even been stated in a 2003 study that everyone knows that RMNP is responsible for all Estes Park Sale Tax generation, not the Estes Park business community. Funding our community essential services requires a lot of sales tax dollars, that means a lot of healthy businesses making a profit. year fewer and fewer parking spaces are available for brick and mortar businesses. This is not a sustainable situation. How much parking do the business need in the downtown business core ? Before we start calculating toward the real number of the minimum number of parking spots needed in the DCD it is important to ask; is it possible to have too much parking? queried this question often and in each of my discussions with shopping mall designers, community planners and parking consultants along with hours of reading studies. I have never heard anyone complain of too much parking. How much parking do we need and how to find a reasonable calculation to that number? Shopping mall parking planners and architects have historically used acceptable standards in the form of ratios, parking ft. sq. to retail floor space ft. sq.. within convenient walking distance, 300 to 400 feet, to calculate total parking numbers. I have found ratios varying from 4 parking spaces per 1000 ft. sq of retail within 300 feet to 17 parking spaces per 1000 ft. sq retail within 300-400 feet. My feeling being planners and architects prescribe back to "one can't have to much parking" Convenience being top priority, especially in Estes Park as we are 7522 feet in elevation. The proliferation of shopping centers across the country became popular as downtown shopping hubs became over cluttered and inconvenient to access. Shopping malls being located in undeveloped land near suburban growth convenient to access. Space was not a problem retail offerings designed to meet The messages from Town Hall are conflicting. After spending millions of tax dollars in marketing to attract people to Estes Park from all over the world people responded in record numbers and the Town trustees have failed to meet the fulfillment obligations we have to our guests and DCD. Not enough parking to shop, they can't get into the National Park. The local political reaction to all the positive response to the communities advertising/marketing is to build the Loop to get people out of town as fast a possible in an exercise labeled "decongesting". While simultaneously the town events department host events in the down town commercial district hosting retailers that set up shop in parking spaces reducing an already limited supply in an exercise known as "congesting". These events are designed (as it has been explained to me by Town Trustees and Administrators) to attract tourists to the downtown business district. Public works is decongesting while the events department is simultaneously congesting the downtown commercial district. The town trustees and several other taxing districts are spending precious tax dollars on "Economic Development". Events hosted by the town events department in Bond park are bleeding hundreds of thousands of dollars in sales out of our economy each week. We appear to be developing and bleeding our economy at the same time. As described earlier parking supply is a ratio of numbers of parking spaces for every 1000 ft sq of brick and mortar retail Revenue Analysis Scenario A Scenario B Scenario C Scenario D Scenario E <1 Hour $1.50 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 10-11 AM: 1-2 Hours $1.50 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00 $2.00/Hour 2-3 Hours $1.50 $2.00 $3.00 $2.00 3-4 Hours $1.50 $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 11AM-2 PM: 4-5 Hours $1.50 $2.00 $4.00 $4.00 $4.00/Hour 5-6 Hours $1.50 $2.00 $4.00 $4.00 6-7 Hours $1.50 $2.00 $5.00 $6.00 2PM-6PM: 7-8 Hours $1.50 $2.00 $5.00 $6.00 $2.00/Hour Max daily $12.00 $16.00 $28.00 $30.00 $22.00 YEAR 1 (2020) (June 1-September 30) No Discounts: No Price Sensitivity $712,000 $950,000 $1,206,000 $1,200,000 $1,332,000 Low Price Sensitivity $528,000 $637,000 $730,000 $689,000 $724,000 Med. Price Sensitivity $454,000 $521,000 $568,000 $530,000 $542,000 High Price Sensitivity $391,000 $427,000 $443,000 $412,000 $409,000 First 15 Minutes Free: Med. Price Sensitivity $409,000 $470,000 $502,000 $470,000 $488,000 Lost Revenue (From Base) ($45,000) ($51,000) ($66,000) ($60,000) ($54,000) First Hour Free for Residents: Med. Price Sensitivity $418,000 $473,000 $420,000 $482,000 $469,000 Lost Revenue (From Base) ($36,000) ($48,000) ($48,000) ($48,000) ($73,000) YEAR 2 (2021) (May 1-September 30) No Price Sensitivity $895,000 $1,193,000 $1,514,000 $1,507,000 $1,674,000 Low Price Sensitivity $663,000 $800,000 $917,000 $866,000 $909,000 Med. Price Sensitivity $571,000 $655,000 $713,000 $666,000 $681,000 High Price Sensitivity $491,000 $536,000 $556,000 $518,000 $514,000 First 15 Minutes Free: Med. Price Sensitivity $514,000 $590,000 $630,000 $591,000 $613,000 Lost Revenue (From Base) ($57,000) ($65,000) ($83,000) ($75,000) ($68,000) First Hour Free for Residents: Med. Price Sensitivity $525,000 $594,000 $652,000 $605,000 $590,000 Lost Revenue (From Base) ($46,000) ($61,000) ($61,000) ($61,000) ($91,000) Estes Park Paid Parking Analysis ASSUMPTIONS • 691 metered stalls, including Town Hall (249 stalls of 279 total stalls), Virginia (30 stalls), E. Riverside (43 stalls), Riverside (91 stalls), Weist (96 stalls of 141 total stalls), Post Office (99 stalls), and Bond Park (83 stalls) • Baseline average summer utilization: 0.71 (based on the average of three occupancy counts per day from May 28, 2019 through September 4, 2019 in the Town Hall Lot, Virginia, East Riverside Lot, Riverside Lot, Weist Lot, the Post Office Lost, and Bond Park). • Progressive Pricing Scenarios (C & D): Baseline length of stay calibrated based on July/August utilization data from Town Hall Lot, East Riverside Lot, Riverside Lot, and Weist Lot. • Progressive Pricing Scenarios (C & D): 50% of reduced vehicle-hours at higher hourly rates reallocated to lowest hourly rate category (to estimate backfilling due to reduced long-term parking). • Peak Pricing Scenario (E): 90%factor applied to revenue estimates to approximate lost revenue due to first 15-minutes free parking. • First Hour Free for Residents: 200 Resident vehicles per day assumed (approximately 10% of baseline number of vehicles served per day). • The following adjusted average utilization factors are assumed at each price point to account for anticipated reduced demands due to pricing: By Price: No Sensitivity Low Sensitivity Medium Sensitivity High Sensitivity $1.50 0.71 0.53 0.45 0.39 $2.00 0.71 0.48 0.39 0.32 $3.00 0.71 0.39 0.29 0.21 $4.00 0.71 0.32 0.21 0.14 $5.00 0.71 0.26 0.16 0.10 $6.00 0.71 0.21 0.12 0.06 Blended, By Scenario: No Sensitivity Low Sensitivity Medium Sensitivity High Sensitivity A 0.71 0.53 0.45 0.39 B 0.71 0.48 0.39 0.32 C 0.71 0.46 0.37 0.30 D 0.71 0.45 0.36 0.28 E 0.71 0.41 0.32 0.25 Estes Park Paid Parking Analysis September 2C 2 Cost Analysis Line Item Type Cost One-Time Costs Meter Hardware (13 Meters) Infrastructure $156,000 Signage Infrastructure $2,500 Installation,testing&commissioning Technical $25,000 Software IT $45,000 Website Upgrades Pub. Ed. $2,500 Instructional Videos Pub. Ed. (Included) Total One-Time Costs: $231,000 Annual Ongoing Costs-In-House Option Utilities (Power, IT) Infrastructure $25,000 Software IT $5,000 Bank/Credit Card/PCl/EMV Fees' Financial $16,800 Pay-by-Phone Convenience Feet Financial $25,000 Cellular/Communication3 Financial/IT $2,925 Meter maintenance, repair, & misc. Maintenance $7,500 P&T Program Asst. position4 FTE Staff $63,000 IT Dept. support Allocation $0 Finance Dep.Support Allocation $0 Educational materials Pub. Ed. $10,000 Social media promotion-TOEP6 Marketing $500 VEP Partnership Marketing $0 P&T Program Base Budget Program $208,000 Total Annual Costs: $363,725 Annual Ongoing Costs-Outsourced Option Operator Budget (see detailed breakdown) Program $114,497 Full In-House Option Annual Costs Program $363,725 (Reduced Staff Requirement) FTE Staff ($63,000) Total Annual Costs: $415,222 In-House Outsourced • Year 1 Costs(w/Base Budget): $231,000+$363,725=$594,725 $231,000+$415,222=$646,222 • Year 1 Costs(w/out Base Budget): $231,000+$155,725=$386,725 $231,000+$207,222=$438,222 • Year 2 Costs: $363,725 $415,222 'Assumes 4%fee on$420,000 in credit card transactions(approximated as 70%of$600,000 gross revenue) 2 Assumes 125,000 transactions per year at$0.20 per transactions 3 Assumes$45/month per meter(13 assumes)for 5 months per year 4$45,000 plus 40%benefits 5 Stickers for meters,windshield flyers 6 Paid campaigns on social media 3 Estes Park Paid Parking Analysis September 2019 Net Revenue Over Time (No Discounts) Net Revenue Over Time (In-House Option) $1,400,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $800,000.00 $600,000.00 $400,000.00 $200,000.00 $- $(200,000.00) $(400,000.00) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 -Scenario A $- $(140,725.00) $66,550.00 $273,825.00 $481,100.00 $688,375.00 -Scenario B $- $(73,725.00) $217,550.00 $508,825.00 $800,100.00 $1,091,375.00 -Scenario C $- $(26,725.00) $322,550.00 $671,825.00 $1,021,100.00 $1,370,375.00 -Scenario D $- $(64,725.00) $237,550.00 $539,825.00 $842,100.00 $1,144,375.00 Scenario E $- $(52,725.00) $264,550.00 $581,825.00 $899,100.00 $1,216,375.00 Net Revenue Over Time (Outsourced Option) $1,400,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $800,000.00 $600,000.00 $400,000.00 $200,000.00 $- $(200,000.00) $(400,000.00) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 -Scenario A $- $(192,222.00) $(36,444.00) $119,334.00 $275,112.00 $430,890.00 -Scenario B $- $(125,222.00) $114,556.00 $354,334.00 $594,112.00 $833,890.00 -Scenario C $- $(78,222.00) $219,556.00 $517,334.00 $815,112.00 $1,112,890.00 -Scenario D $- $(116,222.00) $134,556.00 $385,334.00 $636,112.00 $886,890.00 Scenario E $- $(104,222.00) $161,556.00 $427,334.00 $693,112.00 $958,890.00 • *AII revenue scenarios assume "Medium Price Sensitivity" Estes Park Paid Parking Analysis September 2 4 Net Revenue Over Time (Including 15-Minutes Free) Net Revenue Over Time (In-House Option) $1,400,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $800,000.00 $600,000.00 $400,000.00 $200,000.00 $- $(200,000.00) $(400,000.00) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 -Scenario A $- $(185,725.00) $(35,450.00) $114,825.00 $265,100.00 $415,375.00 -Scenario B $- $(124,725.00) $101,550.00 $327,825.00 $554,100.00 $780,375.00 -Scenario C $- $(92,725.00) $173,550.00 $439,825.00 $706,100.00 $972,375.00 -Scenario D $- $(124,725.00) $102,550.00 $329,825.00 $557,100.00 $784,375.00 Scenario E $- $(106,725.00) $142,550.00 $391,825.00 $641,100.00 $890,375.00 Net Revenue Over Time (Outsourced Option) $1,400,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $800,000.00 $600,000.00 $400,000.00 $200,000.00 $- $(200,000.00) $(400,000.00) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 -Scenario A $- $(237,222.00) $(138,444.00) $(39,666.00) $59,112.00 $157,890.00 -Scenario B $- $(176,222.00) $(1,444.00) $173,334.00 $348,112.00 $522,890.00 -Scenario C $- $(144,222.00) $70,556.00 $285,334.00 $500,112.00 $714,890.00 -Scenario D $- $(176,222.00) $(444.00) $175,334.00 $351,112.00 $526,890.00 Scenario E S- $(158,222.00) S39,556.00 $237,334.00 $435,112.00 $632,890.00 • *AII revenue scenarios assume "Medium Price Sensitivity" 5 Estes Park Paid Parking Analysis Net Revenue Over Time (Including 1st Hour Free for Residents) Net Revenue Over Time (In-House Option) $1,400,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $800,000.00 $600,000.00 $400,000.00 $200,000.00 $- $(200,000.00) $(400,000.00) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 -Scenario A $- $(176,725.00) $(15,450.00) $145,825.00 $307,100.00 $468,375.00 -Scenario B $- $(121,725.00) $108,550.00 $338,825.00 $569,100.00 $799,375.00 -Scenario C $- $(174,725.00) $113,550.00 $401,825.00 $690,100.00 $978,375.00 -Scenario D $- $(112,725.00) $128,550.00 $369,825.00 $611,100.00 $852,375.00 Scenario E $- $(125,725.00) $100,550.00 $326,825.00 $553,100.00 $779,375.00 Net Revenue Over Time (Outsourced Option) $1,400,000.00 $1,200,000.00 $1,000,000.00 $800,000.00 $600,000.00 $400,000.00 $200,000.00 $- $(200,000.00) $(400,000.00) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 -Scenario A $- $(228,222.00) $(118,444.00) $(8,666.00) $101,112.00 $210,890.00 -Scenario B $- $(173,222.00) $5,556.00 $184,334.00 $363,112.00 $541,890.00 -Scenario C $- $(226,222.00) $10,556.00 $247,334.00 $484,112.00 $720,890.00 -Scenario D $- $(164,222.00) $25,556.00 $215,334.00 $405,112.00 $594,890.00 Scenario E $- $(177,222.00) $(2,444.00) $172,334.00 $347,112.00 $521,890.00 • *AII revenue scenarios assume "Medium Price Sensitivity" Estes Park Paid Parking Analysis September 2 6 Eli v ^a a G, CO F '' w CD w �° al: co " 7 n do,a a pc' b o5 o C fl R o CD co Pa" C) (D -i VI .d CD ,-s O rn fl. CD cu CO C C C C C C c C C Fir < < c c CO 73 0 C C c c C C c 8- 73 A .�..� m N C C c C C C (Ti 7J C c c c S Co C C C C C C c c o C C C C g c C c c C R. 4 0 C c C C C C) co o--. .. '--. NJ W W W W co.) 41. .A Ch t!) J =k to