Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Airport Parking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pitkin County hears options to raise airport parking rates, staff to pursue stepped increase and employee‑parking policy
Summary
Consultants told the board Aspen’s airport parking rates haven’t kept pace with peers and presented two staged alternatives; staff reported substantial unpaid employee parking in the Elk lot and the board directed a stepped pricing approach and further study of employee parking policies.
Consultants from Recondo told the Pitkin County Board of Commissioners the airport’s parking rates have not been adjusted meaningfully in roughly 16 years and that Aspen lags peer airports on per‑passenger parking revenue.
"It has been 16 years since you've last looked at these rates," Brian Elliott said, describing options from an inflation‑adjusted scenario (roughly $19/$9 short/long) to a higher‑price scenario ($28/$15) and showing associated revenue projections. He said the county currently collects about $1 million a year in parking revenue on existing rates and that higher scenarios could materially increase that total.
Consultants and the parking operator reported a large share of 'complimentary' transactions — short visits and employee use — that reduce available paid spaces. "The SB Plus analysis showed 73% of the Elk Lot transactions were employee related, which seems extraordinary," Jason Apt summarized, and staff said employee use could have suppressed revenue by about $140,000 in a single month in the recent dataset.
Commissioners and staff discussed multiple knobs: increase rates this year at a moderate level, revisit a larger step when the airport reopens after runway reconstruction, change the tiered/surge structure, and design an enforceable employee‑parking approach (validation, employer payments, off‑site incentives, or reserved/limited employee passes). Several commissioners favored a two‑step approach: a moderate increase now and a larger adjustment after runway work is complete.
Staff will return with refined revenue impacts, comparisons of peer employee‑parking policies and options for validation or employer billing. No formal rate change was approved at the session; the board asked staff to evaluate a stepped implementation and to bring back employee‑parking options for decision.
