Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20080610MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner THRU: Jennifer Phelan, Community Development Deputy Director RE: Council Work Session -Building Permit Tracking DATE OF MEMO: June 4, 2008 MEETING DATE: Juue 10, 2008, S:OOpm REQUEST OF COUNCIL: No action is required at this meeting. Gabe Preston of RPI Consulting will be presenting his building permit analysis at the meeting and taking questions from Council. Note: Gabe's original due date for this information is June 10~h. Therefore, the final report is not attached to this memo, but will be provided at the work session. Gabe will also be giving a detailed power point presentation that outlines the findings of his work. Council will receive a hard copy of the presentation at the work session. DISCUSSION: Staff has contracted with Gabe Preston of RPI Consulting to produce a detailed Scrape and Replace database and a Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) database, as well as to track building permit data since 2000. The Scrape and Replace database tracks scrape and replace residential development over the last ten (10) or so years. The GMQS database tracks Aspen's residential and commercial development over time. The GMQS database will focus on projects that have received Growth Management allotments, for instance new mixed- use projects, as well as projects that have received exemptions from the GMQS system, for instance residential or commercial remodels. Building Permit Tracking: The focus of this work session will be on the work Gabe has done on building permit tracking. Gabe has taken the EDEN building permit files and tracked all types of development, not just development that has gone through a GMQS process or that City Council sees in a review. The building permit data has been divided into the following categories: • Residential, Commercial, Lodging New on Vacant; • Residential, Commercial, Lodging Scrape and Renlace; • Residential, Commercial, Lodging Remodel and Additions; • Residential, Commercial, Lodging Remodel; and • Residential, Commercial, Lodging Systems and Minor Hermits (plumbing, electrical, and minor permits such as installing a heater or fixing a porch roof) Gabe's analysis uses these building permit types and tracks the total number of projects, the permit valuation, and the total gross square footage. This will give us a picture of the amount and value of all construction and development occurring in each main sector (residential, commercial, and lodge). Further, Gabe has divided the City into geographic areas to illustrate the level and types of development that have occurred in the different geographical areas of town. The map below illustrates the neighborhood breakdown. Burlingame and Stage Rd ~:.rr~. Cemetery Lane Meadowocd 1 ~ West End ~ _ Midland and Park ~'~'rMain a ~d MIN Streets, Castle Creek~~_(/ I CcstEnd Shadow Mounta: ~, `~ gy Mountain Valley ~ Maroon Creek Riverside Aspen Mountain N I:PI lunsultin;;, LLC - - - -~'« Demographic Analysis: Gabe is also conducting on a demographic analysis that will track information on second homes and registered voters. This includes a comparative analysis of the Pitkin County Second Home survey results from 2004 and 2007, an analysis of Second Homes by neighborhood as well as by value and square footage, and an analysis of registered voters by neighborhood in i 996 and 2007. Results from this work will be provided at the June l Ot" work session. MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council FROM: Steve Barwick -City Manager Bentley Henderson -Assistant City Manager Don Taylor -Finance Director SUBJECT: Ballot Measure Policy Issues DATE: 6-7-08 MEETING DATE: 6-10-08 SUMMARY: Several policy questions must be addressed by City Council in preparation for a possible affordable housing ballot measure in November. The key issues are: • The possible inclusion of an extension of the Daycare tax on the same ballot • The length of extensions to the current RETT and sales taxes • The housing program for 488 Castle Creek Drive • The density and possible phasing of further Burlingame development. • The purpose, size, and duration of the bond issue BACKGROUND: City Council has previously directed staff to prepare for a November, 2008 ballot measure for affordable housing funding. During the housing summit held in Fall of 2007, City Council decided to pursue a more aggressive affordable housing plan including renewed land banking, partnerships, housing construction, bond financing, and creative programs to better use the existing housing inventory. DISCUSSION: Current Revenue Sources: The two primary current revenue sources for the City of Aspen's affordable housing program are: 1) The 1% Real Estate Transfer Tax (RETT) dedicated exclusively to affordable housing. This tax is scheduled to expire in 2024. 2) The 1% Affordable Housing/Daycaze tax. 55% of the revenues from this tax aze currently allocated toward the City's daycare program and 45% of the proceeds aze allocated toward affordable housing. Bond Financing: Since the revenue sources to be used to repay bonds must be in place for the entire term of a bond, it will be necessary to extend the expiration dates of the RETT and the affordable housing sales taxes in order to issue bonds. Current plans for affordable housing bonds include bond terms of up to 30 years and staff is recommending extending the expiration dates for these taxes to match a 30 year bond term. Should City Council decide upon a shorter bond term, the expiration dates in the ballot question can be adjusted accordingly. Ballot Measure Structure: There aze two primary methods for structuring the ballot measures. Both alternatives involve asking two separate questions Alternative 1) Put all affordable housing questions in one ballot issue and have a sepazate ballot measure for renewal of the daycare tax. For example: the first ballot question could address extending the RETT and housing sales tax, and issuing bonds for the purpose of Burlingame construction and repaying a portion of past affordable housing land purchases. The second question would extend the expiration date of the daycaee sales tax. Alternative 2) the first ballot question could extend the existing Housing/Daycare sales tax. The second ballot question would extend the RETT and address the bonding question. Recommendation: The cleanest approach is to combine the authorization to issue debt with the approval of the taxes providing the revenue to pay for it. That way you do not end up with a situation where a bond issue is approved but the revenue stream to pay the debt service is not. Alternative 1 would be the best approach. 488 Castle Creek Drive: Past City Council discussions regarding the ballot measures have included the possibility of also bonding for housing construction on 488 Castle Creek Drive. Per City Council direction, staff has also had partnership discussions with the Music Associates of Aspen, Aspen Valley Hospital, Aspen School District, and the Aspen Skiing Company. It appeazs likely that the MAA and one or more of the other entities would be willing to construct seasonal housing on this parcel in exchange fora 30 year lease of the property. Staff needs direction on the following two issues: 1) Should this parcel be used for seasonal or year-round housing? If the 488 Castle Creek Drive parcel were to be used for seasonal housing, we have estimated that it maybe possible to build as many as 35 seasonal units on the property. These units could be of similaz design to the existing units at Marolt, and the site could serve as an extension of the Marolt seasonal housing development and could potentially be accessed and pazked via the existing Marolt property, with perhaps only emergency access via the Castle Creek side of the property. In the event that these 35 seasonal units are built on the 488 Castle Creek property, this may also open the opportunity for a couple of Mazolt buildings at a time could be taken off line while Mazolt is expanded or somehow otherwise redeveloped. Development of this parcel as seasonal housing could considerably help the seasonal housing needs of the potential partners mentioned in the following section on partnerships, but at the same time this approach would sacrifice the opportunity to fulfill the urgent need for year-round long-term housing. If the property were to be developed for year-round housing, there aze a number of options possible. It may be possible to develop 15 long-term rental units of mixed category and mixed unit size/type. As a different option, it may be possible to build approximately 20 one-bedroom units (since they would be smaller) on the site. Either of these long-term rental options would help to provide housing supply in an effort to alleviate the long-term housing crisis for year-round resident county workers either specific to the partners mentioned in the following section on partnerships or to the general public. There is also the option of building for-sale housing at the 488 Castle Creek drive site. Unfortunately, this option might greatly affect the opportunity for development partnerships and the funding options for the development of the 488 Castle Creek Drive parcel. See the section below on partnerships for more information about this. 2) Should the City enter into partnerships for development of this parcel? Staff has been in contact with various potential development partners for the 488 Castle Creek Drive parcel. Both the Music Associates of Aspen and the Aspen Skiing Company could potentially be development partners with the City in the event that the site was approved for seasonal use. It maybe possible for the City to offer the property as a 30-yeaz ]and-lease opportunity for these potential partners to develop as seasonal housing. In the event that these two organizations could raise enough funds to develop the property as seasonal housing, the City maybe able to lease the land to these partners for a negligible sum over a predetermined term, and the City might not need to invest any additional capital to achieve this seasonal housing scenario. Similarly, staff has been in contact with both the Aspen School District and the Aspen Valley Hospital. Both of these organizations have an overwhelming need for long-term employee housing. In the event that the 488 Castle Creek site was approved for long-term rental housing, these organizations could possibly partner up and raise enough funds to develop the property, again as a long-term lease from the City, to achieve either of the above mentioned long-term rental scenarios with potentially no additional capital required from the City of Aspen. Alternatively, if the 488 Castle Creek parcel was approved as for-sale housing, it would likely be the case that the City would need to fund the development from the housing fund. The units could then be made available for sale to yeaz-round resident county workers, and we could perhaps sell some units to some of the aforementioned potential partners in an effort to try to mitigate a portion of their needs. Currently, there are no firm commitments in place at this time for any of the above mentioned scenarios, however all parties mentioned have expressed considerable interest in exploring all options. There maybe some concern about dedicating the use of this parcel exclusively for the needs of the partner organizations mentioned above, but this concern should be weighed heavily with the potential that if the partners can provide funding for the development of the site, the City would not need to invest additional money from the housing fund. Staff believes that all of these options aze potentially viable, but we would need to further explore the details involved in each option and would need to firm up commitments from potential partners in the event that a specific use for the parcel was approved at this time. Recommendation: If City Council decides 488 Castle Creek Drive is best suited for seasonal or long-term rental housing, staff recommends entering into partnerships wherein the partners develop the parcel in exchange fora 30 year lease. Allowing partners to develop this site will allow the City to focus its resources on housing development on other sites. If City Council decides 488 Castle Creek Drive is best suited for for-sale housing, staff recommends delaying development of this parcel until future years. Additional Burlingame Development: As communicated to City Council previously, a team of local development and construction experts will be recommending methods for minimizing development costs for additional Burlingame units. The team will also be providing cost estimates for these units. Since this work is not yet available, we are using the following assumptions regarding costs for additional Burlingame development. The latest number I have seen show that the incremental cost for a Burlingame unit are: $3,300,000 + $74,991,667 / 145 units = $539,943/unit (call it $540,000/unit) Thus we can develop 57 units for $31,000,000 $ needed for the 150 Fund 18,000,000 Total bond issue $49,000,000 (plus cost of issuance) If we assume partners are willing to fund 40 units, the next phase of Burlingame should be approximately 97 units. This keeps the total bond issue to less than $50 million. MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Mayor and Council FROM : Kids First Advisory Board and Shirley Ritter THRU: Tim Anderson DATE OF MEMO: June 5, 2008 RE: Housing/Childcare sales tax renewal SUMMARY: The purpose of this memorandum is to provide the City Council with the recommendations from the Kids First Advisory Board concerning the council's plans for the renewal of the sales tax benefiting affordable housing and childcare. The Kids First Advisory Board has discussed this matter for many months and recommends the following: 1. That the sales tax dedicated to affordable housing /daycare be renewed as an existing tax benefitting both housing and childcare. 2. That the ballot question asking for the renewal of this tax be placed on the ballot in May 2009. BACKGROUND: When this tax was first proposed and placed on the ballot in 1990 the logic was that the two issues were fundamentally inter-connected; that families who would benefit from affordable housing were likely to also need and benefit from childcare. The tax passed with a fairly strong margin. When the tax was renewed in May 1999 (prior to the sunset July 1 2000), the same thinking meant that the tax would go on the ballot as a renewal, not a new tax. This tax renewal passed overwhelmingly. DISCUSSION: The Kids First Advisory Board believes at this time that the philosophy of keeping the sales tax as a tax renewal question, and by joining forces with affordable housing advocates, there is a strong likelihood that the tax will again renew. We believe that the funds have been well used to the communities benefit and that the need is as great as ever for the services and funding this tax allows, certainly for childcare. The need for childcare has become desperate. Figures from the Colorado State Demographers office show 1,054 children age birth to 5 in Pitkin County; using 60% as the rate of parents who work and are seeking some kind of childcare (632 children), and knowing that we currently have 353 licensed childcare spaces, we are seriously short without even considering families who live outside Pitkin County and commute to work in Aspen. Conservative figures for this population in 2006 accounted for another 149 children whose parents work in Aspen and are seeking spaces for their young children. As many as 428 children are in some other unlicensed, informal care; or families change their work hours/days, delay returning to work, or leave the community. Capacity issues aze increasing; at the same time funding from this tax has allowed Kids First to increase quality and support continuing education for childcare staff. It has also allowed operational funding to keep the infant and toddler spaces open. We have so few; we cannot afford to lose these spaces. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Kids First direct funding and programming to support families with young children and the childcare programs that care for them is entirely dependant on the funding from the .45% sales tax. It is our hope that however and whenever the tax renewal question is asked that the community will support it. Our fear is that to change it, to separate it from housing, or to ask the question during an economic downturn would be a serious risk having far-reaching effects on families with young children. RECOMMENDATION: Kids First Advisory Board recommends that the sales tax dedicated to affordable housing /daycare be renewed as an existing tax benefitting both housing and childcare and that the ballot question asking for the renewal of this tax be placed on the ballot in May 2009.