Basalt Connect funding, congestion pricing and bridge repairs

Council is holding a work session at 5 p.m. to discuss future funding for Basalt Connect, the town’s on-demand shared-ride service. This is an information session rather than a scheduled vote, so council is not being asked to approve fares or a 2027 operating budget Tuesday. Staff is seeking direction before preparing next year’s budget and applying for outside money. The central question is how much Basalt should pay from its General Fund, whether riders should begin paying, and whether the service can expand without creating an unsustainable obligation.

Basalt contracts with Via, formerly called the Downtowner, to operate the service. Basalt was the first community to receive support in 2022 from the Roaring Fork Transportation Authority’s First and Last Mile Mobility Reserve program. That program was created with $3 million transferred from the transit authority’s unassigned balance. It is intended as temporary seed funding for local services that connect people with regional buses, not as permanent operating support. The guidelines allow up to 50% support for the first 36 months and then reduce the eligible percentage over time.

The 2026 cost is $649,468. That includes expanded hours from 10 a.m. to 3 p.m. during June, July and August. Revenue consists of a $243,114 Roaring Fork Transportation Authority grant, $93,025 from Lake Modern real estate transfer assessment funds to replace lost grant support, another $37,648 from that source for the summer midday hours, and $275,681 from Basalt’s General Fund. The regional grant covers 40% of the $611,820 base operation, excluding the added summer hours. Staff says a recent service-area expansion did not increase the town’s cost because most added trips must pick up or drop off at regional bus stops, except for City Market.

For 2027, the estimated operating cost rises 3%, or $19,484, to $668,952 if the summer midday schedule continues. Regional support is expected to fall from 40% to 30%, producing an estimated $206,685 grant. The packet presents two fare scenarios. A $1 fare could net about $26,000 annually, while a $2 fare could net about $52,000. Those estimates use the 42,739 rides recorded in 2025, assume ridership falls 7%, and account for payment-processing costs estimated at 30% to 35%.

Council may consider free or discounted rides for seniors. Another option would charge $2 for ordinary trips while reducing or eliminating the fare when a rider connects with a regional bus stop. That structure could encourage transit connections and strengthen future grant applications. Staff also identifies a possible $40,000 van-wrap sponsorship and a target of $150,000 from grants or government partners. Under the $2 fare scenario, the General Fund contribution is estimated at $240,267; under the $1 scenario, it would be $266,267. These are planning options, not approved amounts.

Staff reports demand for another van to reach Holland Hills, Hoaglund Ranch, Sopris Village, Sopris View Apartments and Summit Vista. The packet does not provide the purchase or operating cost of an added vehicle, say whether that cost is included in the $668,952 estimate, or establish when expansion could begin. Basalt also plans to seek $127,000 from Pitkin County’s Elected Officials Transportation Committee after an unsuccessful 2025 request. Staff believes the new bus-stop connections better fit that committee’s requirements. Eagle County, Aspen One housing and possible state or regional grants are other prospects, but none is committed.

The Lake Modern real estate transfer assessment account is a major concern. It had an unaudited balance of $372,100 in December 2025 and was originally budgeted to end 2026 with $70,000. After adding money for the summer midday service, the estimated ending balance is $32,358 if no qualifying property transactions occur. Staff reports that no sales contributed to the account during the first quarter of 2026. The money may be used for transportation or affordable housing, making continued transit spending a trade-off with another town priority.

May’s operating report recorded 1,989 rides and 2,474 passenger trips, with 371 unique rider accounts. Average wait time was 11 minutes, average ride time was eight minutes and the customer rating was 4.95 out of 5. About 33% of rides were shared. There were 545 trips to or from Roaring Fork Transportation Authority stops, representing 22% of ridership. Most bookings carried one passenger, and 6% of waits exceeded 30 minutes. Those figures may help council weigh affordability, demand and the grant program’s emphasis on regional transit connections.

The regional grant application is due August 14, with preliminary decisions expected at the end of August and final awards typically made with the regional authority’s December budget. Funded 2027 work could begin January 1. Residents can speak for three minutes during general public comment near the start of the regular meeting and ask to comment when the work-session topic is discussed. They may also email council for the public record, particularly about fares, senior discounts, neighborhood expansion and the appropriate General Fund contribution.

Council will receive a 6:50 p.m. presentation from the Roaring Fork Transportation Coalition. No ordinance, resolution or suggested motion accompanies the presentation, so Basalt is not being asked Tuesday to establish a toll or commit town money. The coalition is presenting an initial regional framework and requesting public feedback. Any implementation would require technical analysis, legal review, engineering, cooperation among multiple governments and transportation agencies, and likely additional public decisions.

The coalition consists of 28 residents, employers, commuters and current or former elected officials from Glenwood Springs, Carbondale, Basalt, Snowmass and Aspen. Eight members are current elected officials, but the group says it meets as a citizen organization rather than a government body. It worked from May through December 2025 with transportation consultant Fehr & Peers. The packet describes the February 2026 report as a starting point rather than a finished plan.

The group’s stated goals are to reduce congestion and travel time, create equitable valley-wide solutions, remove 5,000 daily vehicles from Castle Creek Bridge traffic and cut annual emissions by 25,000 tons. It also wants to prioritize transit, reduce rush-hour traffic on neighborhood streets and improve evacuation times and safety. The initial focus is the upper valley between Brush Creek and Aspen, although the coalition says congestion from Glenwood Springs to Aspen ultimately requires a valley-wide response.

The proposed system has four parts. Road improvements could include extending a bus or express lane into Aspen, improving roundabouts, using traffic signals that adjust to conditions, adding electronic message signs and possibly building separated road or trail crossings. Transit measures could include more frequent or lower-cost Roaring Fork Transportation Authority buses, additional Basalt Connect-style microtransit, more WE-cycle bicycle sharing and expanded park-and-ride capacity. A ridesharing program could use an app, informal carpools, employer vanpools and automated checks of vehicle occupancy.

The most consequential component is a two-phase pricing system. Phase one would create a dynamic high-occupancy toll lane approaching Aspen. Buses and vehicles with at least three occupants would use it free, while drivers with fewer occupants could pay. “Dynamic” means the price would change with traffic, potentially every five minutes, to preserve a target speed such as 45 to 50 miles per hour. The other lane would remain free. The report suggests the lowest fee might be around 65 cents outside busy periods, but it does not recommend a maximum rush-hour toll or identify exactly where charging equipment would be placed.

Phase two would replace that arrangement with a congestion-reduction fee on both upvalley lanes during crowded periods. Prices would rise or fall to keep traffic moving, while buses, carpools, vanpools, off-peak drivers and other qualifying travelers could avoid the charge. The coalition says phase two might not be needed if the express lane meets the plan’s goals. It also suggests a pilot followed by a public referendum after 12 to 24 months, but the packet does not say which voters would participate or which government would administer the election.

The coalition estimates express-lane users could save up to 30 minutes entering Aspen on peak mornings. It predicts drivers remaining in the free lane might initially save five to 10 minutes, although added demand could eventually return that lane to present congestion levels. The report estimates a 15% to 18% reduction in greenhouse-gas emissions under the express-lane phase and a broader 15% to 25% reduction under the overall approach. These are consultant estimates requiring further modeling, not guaranteed outcomes.

Money raised would be returned to transportation programs. The packet estimates that an express toll lane could generate $5 million to $10 million annually, while charging both upvalley lanes could generate $10 million to $20 million. The coalition proposes spending all proceeds on buses, ridesharing subsidies, road improvements and system operation. It does not provide capital costs, enforcement expenses, collection costs, effects on lower-income workers or a formula for distributing revenue among communities. It also does not identify who would own the system or carry financial risk if revenue fell short.

A 2025 vehicle count found more than 34,000 empty seats entering Aspen on a peak-season day. The coalition argues that filling about 7% of those seats would largely resolve congestion. A reasonable resident may weigh that available capacity against the inconvenience and privacy concerns of organized ridesharing. Other questions include whether tolls would unfairly favor higher-income drivers, whether Basalt neighborhoods could experience diverted traffic, and whether promised bus and carpool options would be operating before charges begin.

Basalt residents, especially Highway 82 commuters from Willits, El Jebel and other midvalley areas, would experience both the costs and benefits of any future system. Residents may speak for three minutes during general public comment and request an opportunity to comment when the coalition presentation is called. Comments can also be emailed to council for the record. Useful feedback would address acceptable fees, exemptions, worker impacts, privacy, revenue oversight and whether a pilot should require a public vote.

Council is being asked to approve Resolution No. 27, Series of 2026, authorizing two change orders for Phase I of the Confluence Park Safe Routes to School project. A change order modifies an existing construction contract after work has begun. The two additions total $122,751.45. Because their combined value exceeds 10% of the original contract, Basalt’s purchasing rules require council approval rather than allowing staff to authorize them alone.

Council approved the original construction contract with Stutsman-Gerbaz Earthmoving, Inc. on December 9, 2025, through Resolution No. 63. That contract was for $1,190,182.96. Construction began in March 2026. Town staff and the design team, led by OTAK, had warned council in December that the exact condition of Emma Bridge could not be fully known before damaged areas were opened. The additional work now before council stems from conditions uncovered during demolition and repair.

Change Order No. 1 is for $68,422.70. Contractors found failing expansion joints and deteriorated concrete at the bridge abutments and pier. Expansion joints allow the bridge to move slightly with temperature and structural forces; failed joints can allow water into the structure and accelerate damage. The proposed work replaces the joints, repairs deteriorated concrete and installs new concrete headers at a slightly higher elevation so they connect smoothly with the planned bridge overlay.

The first change order also installs an Emseal joint system. The packet describes it as a modern system intended to accommodate bridge movement while improving durability and protection from water. Staff says the work is necessary to prevent further structural deterioration and extend the life of the overall improvement. The packet does not provide a separate expected lifespan for the new system or compare its cost with other joint products.

Change Order No. 2 is for $54,328.75 and addresses deterioration within the bridge deck. The design estimate had anticipated replacing approximately two cubic yards of specialized Concrete Class DR, based on what could be observed before construction. Once the deck was opened, contractors found that another 11.69 cubic yards required removal and replacement. Staff says the additional concrete is needed to restore structural deficiencies and provide a durable finished bridge deck.

Together, the two changes equal 10.3% of the original construction contract. Adding them produces a revised contract amount of approximately $1.313 million, although that combined figure is calculated from the amounts in the packet rather than separately stated by staff. The town engineer reports that money has already been identified in Basalt’s 2026 budget and that the project remains within the budgeted amount. The packet does not identify the precise budget line, total project contingency, remaining contingency after approval or outside grant contributions.

The broader project follows the 2007 Two Rivers Greenway Master Plan and Basalt’s 2020 Master Plan. Its purpose is to improve connections among neighborhoods, schools and community facilities while supporting people who walk, bicycle or have limited mobility. Planned elements include accessible sidewalks, safer crossings, bicycle improvements, lighting, landscaping, drainage upgrades and snow-removal accommodations. The bridge is also intended to provide a “park-on-a-bridge” experience overlooking the Roaring Fork River.

The work affects travel between the Emma area, Two Rivers Road, Cottonwood Drive, Confluence Park and Basalt’s elementary-school route. For Basalt as a whole, the project is intended to provide a safer nonmotorized connection and preserve a bridge that carries local traffic. Staff’s June project update says all bridge repairs have been made, concrete on the north side has been poured and paving was expected during the week of June 23 or shortly afterward. Planter delivery has been delayed until July, and overall completion remains scheduled for summer 2026.

Council’s practical choice is whether to approve the documented additional repairs, request more information or decline the change orders. Staff recommends approval and asks council to authorize the town manager to sign them, direct the contractor with the town engineer and ratify project actions already taken. Because staff reports that all bridge repairs have been completed, part of the resolution effectively confirms work performed in response to conditions found during construction. The packet does not explain whether delaying that work until a council meeting was feasible or whether any additional hidden deterioration could still emerge.

Residents may reasonably ask how much contingency remains, whether the contractor’s prices were independently reviewed, and whether the repaired bridge is expected to need further near-term structural work. They can speak for three minutes at general public comment and ask that this consent-agenda item be pulled for discussion when called. Comments may also be emailed to council for the record. Because the resolution is on the consent agenda, it could otherwise be approved with several routine items in one vote.

Council is not scheduled to approve or deny the 555 Basalt Avenue development Tuesday. The consent agenda asks council to continue the public hearing to July 14, 2026. A continuance keeps the application active but postpones the decision and public hearing. Unless a council member removes the item from consent, the delay may be approved without a detailed presentation or renewed discussion of the project’s merits.

The application concerns the Myers and Company property in Southside and is submitted by MREH LLC. It requires special review, amendments to the site’s planned unit development and related development approvals. A planned unit development is a customized set of zoning and development rules for a specific property. The proposal has generated extended discussion over housing, commercial storage, traffic, emergency access, neighborhood buffering and whether changing Basalt’s master plan for one parcel is appropriate.

At the June 9 hearing, the applicant presented a revised plan with 54,000 square feet of commercial or industrial storage and mini-warehouse space, 30 residential condominiums in two multistory buildings and 12 live-work units. Live-work units combine a residence with space for a business or employment activity. Council minutes described 42 total residential and live-work units and 42 commercial storage units. The project had been reduced from three residential buildings to two and no longer required an exception to the town’s building-height rules.

The June 23 agenda title does not match that presentation. It lists 54 commercial storage units and 47 residential units and does not separately mention live-work units. Those figures resemble an earlier version of the application. The consent item includes no revised staff report, plans or explanation establishing which numbers are current. Before the July 14 hearing, residents and council will need a clear statement of the controlling proposal, including whether the mismatch is an agenda error or reflects another design change.

Under the June 9 version, 21 of the 42 residential and live-work units would be deed-restricted, or 50%. Restrictions would take the form of price- and income-controlled affordable housing or primary-resident ownership requirements. The applicants said that was twice Basalt’s current 25% requirement. Council member Angela Anderson Ward questioned why only five of the 12 live-work units would carry primary-resident restrictions, while other members requested clearer definitions of allowed businesses and possible employer-provided housing. The current consent item does not report whether those issues have been resolved.

Transportation remains the project’s largest neighborhood concern. The applicant supported a circulation option that would make Fiou Lane one-way inbound, open the Somerset pedestrian route for a one-way exit and improve pedestrian and fire access around the site. Some Southside residents opposed turning Somerset into a roadway and requested that it remain a bicycle and pedestrian connection or emergency-only route. Other residents sought retention or replacement of the eight-foot fence along Fiou Lane because it provides a physical and visual boundary between industrial activity and nearby homes.

Cody Lane would carry residential traffic. Representatives of the Basalt Business Center East Association and Cody Lane homeowners described it as substandard, lacking sidewalks, curbs and gutters and experiencing a drainage problem associated with the regional bus parking lot. Speakers also raised the Cody Lane and Highway 82 intersection and the absence of a second emergency exit for Southside. Council discussed phased infrastructure improvements, but the packet for June 23 includes no cost estimate, construction commitment, responsibility agreement or final circulation plan.

After the June 9 hearing, council voted 6-1 to continue the matter to June 23 and directed staff to work with the applicant on a draft ordinance. Town Attorney Jeff Conklin identified possible ordinance provisions covering primary-resident restrictions for live-work units, public improvements on Fiou Lane and Cody Lane, buffering, land-use limitations and alternatives to conventional storage. Anderson Ward voted no because she believed Southside infrastructure concerns should be addressed before development approval. The current packet does not include the requested draft ordinance or report the outcome of staff’s June 15 meeting with the applicants.

The applicant has said Myers and Company is relocating toward the Interstate 70 corridor because of workforce shortages and that the property would be sold if this project is not approved. Applicant representatives argued that a large construction company buying the site could create more traffic than the current or proposed uses. Several council members nevertheless questioned whether mini-warehouse storage is the best commercial component and whether Basalt should amend its master plan parcel by parcel rather than conduct a broader Southside planning process.

The agenda identifies no project cost, town contribution, road-improvement budget or construction schedule. If council approves the continuance, the next scheduled step is a July 14 public hearing, when council could consider an ordinance, impose conditions, seek further revisions, continue the matter again or deny it. Residents may speak for three minutes during general public comment Tuesday and request to address the continuance when the item is called. They may also email council for the record before July 14, especially regarding the correct unit count, Cody Lane, Fiou Lane, Somerset access, buffering and deed restrictions.

Council is being asked to approve a letter supporting Pitkin County’s application to the Colorado Broadband Office’s Advance-Local Middle-Mile Grant Program. The county is seeking money for fiber infrastructure connecting the new 911 Dispatch Center and Fire Station 42 in El Jebel with existing regional fiber assets. The request is on Basalt’s consent agenda, so council is endorsing the county’s proposal rather than awarding a construction contract or committing a stated amount of town money.

“Middle-mile” fiber is the high-capacity connection between major facilities or regional networks; it is different from the final connection directly serving an individual home or business. The proposed project is primarily for public-safety communications. The town’s letter says the link would add capacity, reliability and redundancy for emergency operations. Redundancy means providing another communications path so a single break or equipment failure is less likely to isolate a dispatch center or fire station.

The facilities named are Pitkin County’s new 911 Dispatch Center and Fire Station 42 in El Jebel. Reliable fiber is increasingly important because dispatch, emergency records, interagency coordination and other public-safety systems depend on secure, high-capacity communications. Basalt’s letter says the project would improve coordination among emergency providers and strengthen service for residents and visitors throughout Pitkin County and the Roaring Fork Valley.

The proposal could also affect Basalt infrastructure. The draft letter commits the town to coordinating with Pitkin County and project partners on the possible use of existing town conduit, local permits and route planning where the fiber alignment intersects town property or facilities. Conduit is protective underground tubing through which fiber cable can be installed. The letter does not identify the route, the particular streets or facilities involved, or whether construction would require excavation, lane closures or work within developed parts of Basalt.

The packet provides no total project cost, requested grant amount, required local match or division of expenses among Pitkin County, Basalt and other partners. It does not obligate Basalt to a specific cash contribution. It also does not assign a dollar value to town conduit or staff assistance. If the grant requires a match or the proposed route creates new town expenses, those details would need to return through a budget, agreement, permit or contract unless existing administrative authority covers them.

The letter notes that the new fiber might support future broadband expansion through partnerships with qualified providers. That is a possible secondary benefit, not a promise of household internet service. The packet does not identify an internet provider, neighborhoods that might receive service, expected speeds, customer prices or a schedule for residential connections. Residents should distinguish the immediate public-safety purpose from any later commercial or community broadband use.

Council’s immediate decision is narrow: whether to lend Basalt’s name and stated cooperation to Pitkin County’s grant application. Supporting the letter could improve the application by demonstrating regional cooperation and access to local infrastructure. Council could approve it, remove it from consent for questions, revise the language or decline support. The packet does not provide the grant deadline, award date, construction schedule or anticipated completion date.

The project most directly affects El Jebel, where the dispatch center and Fire Station 42 are located, but emergency communications cross municipal and county boundaries. Basalt residents may benefit when police, fire, ambulance and dispatch agencies can share information reliably, particularly during wildfire, evacuation, severe weather or a regional communications failure. The letter does not quantify expected improvements in response times or disclose the current system’s failure history, so its benefit is described in terms of resilience rather than a measured service change.

Reasonable questions include whether the route will disturb streets or private property, whether Basalt will retain access to fiber strands, and what cybersecurity protections will apply. Residents may also ask whether the infrastructure will create a meaningful path toward better broadband service or remain dedicated to public safety. The packet does not address ownership, long-term maintenance, repair responsibilities or what happens if the grant covers only part of the planned work.

Residents may speak for three minutes during general public comment and ask council to pull the support letter from the consent agenda for discussion when it is called. Comments may also be emailed to council for the official record. Input may be especially useful on route impacts, use of town conduit, future financial commitments and whether any public-access benefits should be included in later agreements.