Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
agenda.council.regular.20110214
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA February 14, 2011 5:00 P.M. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances a) Outstanding Bonus Awards IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Deletions and Additions c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #11, 2011 — Iselin Playing Field Contract b) Resolution #12, 2011 — Contract — Dell Systems Management c) Resolution #13, 2011 — ACRA Tourism Promotion Fund Contract d) Resolution #14, 2011 — Supporting White River Forest Grant Applications e) Board Appointments f) Minutes — January 24, February 7, 2011 VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #7, 2011 — Code Amendment - Historic Lot Split P.H. 3/14 b) Ordinance #8, 2011 — Adopting the Energy Code 2/28 c) Ordinance #4, 2011 — Community Development Fees P.H. 2/28 d) Ordinance #3, 2011 - Engineering Fees P.H. 2/28 e) Ordinance #5, 2011 — BMC Annexation P.H. 2/28 f) Ordinance #6, 2011 — BMC Zoning P.H. 2/28 VIII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #2, 2011 — Amending Municipal Code - Elections b) Resolution #15, 2011 — Extension of Vested Rights, 110 E. Bleeker Street c) Ordinance #1, 2011 — Given Institute 100 E. Francis Street IX. Action Items X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting February 28, 2011 COUNCIL'S ADOPTED GUIDELINES ✓ Stick to top priorities ✓ Foster a safe, supportive, innovative environment that encourages creativity and acceptable risk - taking ✓ Create structure and allow adequate time & resources for citizen processes. Demonstrate and invite active listening COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. a ��op� • c February 7, 2011 Amy Guthrie Historic Preservation Officer City of Aspen Sara Adams Senior Planner City of Aspen Dear Amy and Sara, Congratulations! It is my pleasure to inform you that you have been selected to receive a City of Aspen Outstanding Employee Team Award in recognition of your work on Aspen Modern. Please plan to attend the Monday, February 14 City Council meeting to receive your award from Mayor Ireland and the Aspen City Council. Ordinance 30 (subsequently Ordinance 48) was adopted as an emergency ordinance and set -off many months of animated debate on post war architecture. You both were thrust into the middle and were challenged both personally and professionally. Resolution to the issue became a major goal of the City Council and a significant community issue. At the same time, resolution seemed impossible — even the community task force was evenly split on core concepts. You worked so well as a team and your ability to maintain composure and perspective enabled the project to move forward. The biggest challenge was to tell the story of the emergence of modern Aspen from the quiet years, the influence of post war European transplants, the evolution of skiing in North America, and the cultural transformation that took place here. And, relate this story to post war architecture in a responsible, engaging, and meaningful way. Your decision for Community Development to produce a simple film as a friendly and meaningful way to share information was courageous it was also clearly not in the budget. Your ability to gain in -kind and volunteer services for the scripting, photo resources, voice over, and filming is admirable. More impressive was Sara's editing and final production work on the film with no previous training. It turned -out great! Between our web site, YouTube, Grassroots, and all the folks we mailed it to, probably 1,000 people watched the 'film. It was a very effective tool in increasing public awareness and understanding of the resources being debated. All for $225 — nice! Your ability to leverage outside resources provided credibility to the conversation. Aspen's discussions can become insular — we can believe we're the only community to have ever struggled with an issue. Getting the National Trust for Historic Preservation to include Aspen as the fourth city (Boston, Minneapolis, and Los Angeles were also • s THECrricalAseEN selected as host cities) for a special series on the preservation of post war architecture in America provided great awareness and perspective around this issue. You provided the Trust with confidence in Aspen by obtaining the support of the State Historic Preservation Office, the Aspen City Council, the Aspen Institute, and several owners of - properties being discussed. The screening of the documentary on the architecture of John Lautner is an example of the innovation and enthusiasm you both bring to your job. As you know, Lautner developed several, noteworthy modern buildings in North America over a 40 -year career, including an intriguing home in Aspen which was one of the sites featured in the documentary. The Lautner film drew about 350 people to the Wheeler including the owner who participated in a fascinating panel discussion afterwards. This effort brought credibility to the post war architecture discussion. It allowed us to feel good about these buildings, more comfortable with the topic, and enabled understanding and dialogue about preservation in a manner that was community -based. The three- plus -year journey from Ordinance 30/48 to AspenModern was extraordinarily taxing for all involved. Seriously, it was hardcore wicked gnarly. ComDev often works on controversial issues and we can get caught in the cross -fire. This was not an easy assignment and I'm so proud of Team HP's performance and that you are being recognized beyond the third floor. Amy and Sara, your sincere dedication to the organization, professionalism, integrity, healthy perspective, and sense of humor are reflected in your performance. Your creativity and innovation allowed the community to engage in an honest dialogue about a difficult and emotional issue. And, your endurance in guiding the community to an acceptable conclusion was a herculean effort worthy of this acknowledgement. Congratulations and thank you. You are stellar employees and we're all happy neither of you lost your mind through all this. The City of Aspen is proud to recognize you with this outstanding employee bonus award. 04 Chris Hendon, AICP Community Development Director City of Aspen Via. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Scott Chism, Project Manager, Parks and Recreation Dept. THRU: Stephen Ellsperman, Parks and Open Space Direc r Jeff Woods, Manager of Parks and Recreation DATE OF MEMO: February 7, 2011 MEETING DATE: February 14, 2011 RE Resolution #2011- (1 : Approval of Procurement Supply and Professional Services Agreement for Iselin Field Synthetic Turf Project REQUEST OF COUNCIL: At this time we are requesting you to authorize a Procurement and Professional Services Agreement for the SUPPLY AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE ISELIN FIELD SYNTHETIC TURF PROJECT for the amount of $479,037.00 with the Field Construction Team, Academy Sports Turf. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council provided direction to staff at a September 28, 2010 work session to proceed with redevelopment plans to convert the Iselin Field playing surface from the existing natural turfgrass to synthetic turf. City Council appropriated funding for this project in December 2010 as a portion of the 2011 budget ordinance. BACKGROUND: The shortage of athletic playing fields has been documented in a number of ways and is not a recent challenge in the community. The 1995 Parks Master Plan identifies a shortage of 4 regulation athletic playing fields. The playing fields that were built up at the Community Campus were all either upgrades to existing facilities or high quality replacements of substandard field areas that were lost to public use since 1995, like the AABC Field and Plum Tree Field. However, two (2) of the field areas built in 2000 -2001 at the Community Campus are not ideal due to restrictive covenants that curtail a great deal of use during ideal playing times. DISCUSSION: Synthetic turf proposals for Iselin Field were solicited in December 2010 - January 2011. Following receipt of five (5) viable proposals, teams were shortlisted to three (3) teams to interview. An interview panel of four (4) Parks Department staff selected this proposal as the most responsive and responsible for the City of Aspen. The proposal was also the least expensive comprehensive proposal. Page 1 of 4 Academy Sports Turf has extensive experience in the construction and installation of synthetic turf fields with the installation of over 120 fields in the last ten (10) years. Recent projects of theirs include new fields for the University of California at Berkeley, Valor Christian School in Highlands Ranch and the Louisiana Superdome for the New Orleans Saints. The synthetic turf product selected for Iselin Field is called "44 ounce Shaw Sportexe Powerblade HP," which was selected following site visits by Parks Department staff to multiple Sportexe fields in the Denver metropolitan area. The Sportexe synthetic turf product is very high quality, which was especially evident during staff's visit to Valor Christian School in Highlands Ranch. The City of Aspen Parks Department staff has analyzed all of the existing playing field areas to determine feasibility of a retrofit to synthetic turf from natural turfgrass in order to increase available playing field area. One (1) synthetic turf field can potentially handle the wear of nearly three (3) natural turf fields under Aspen's growing conditions. A synthetic turf surface does not have the same constraints as a natural grass surface located at high altitude and as a result can be programmed for a much higher level of use. When a synthetic turf field is plowed, the field can be available in early season for spring programs like baseball, lacrosse and soccer, unlike a natural turfgrass field. The Aspen High School football field was successfully redeveloped into a synthetic turf surface in 2006, which has resulted in greater field use capacity. Unfortunately even with the redevelopment of the high school field and early season plowing, a shortage of available field capacity is still present. Iselin Field is currently the best option of the existing playing fields to redevelop into a synthetic turf surface. The existing field area will allow the creation of a full size layout for soccer, lacrosse and football with synthetic turf surfacing. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: A comprehensive project budget of $650,000 has been established, which includes in -house staff labor and equipment time, materials provided to the project outside of the contracted work scope and the contracted installation of the synthetic turf. The Iselin Field Synthetic Turf Project will be completed within the comprehensive project budget. Maintenance costs associated with the synthetic turf surface as compared to a natural grass surface will be reduced. The average annual cost that has been spent on maintenance for the High School football field has been +/- $20,000 for sweeping, litter control and snow removal as compared to +/- $40,000 for mowing, fertilizer, topdressing, etc on a natural turfgrass field. A portion of the total Scope of Work will be completed by in -house Parks Department construction staff and resources. The portion of work will include all removal of existing turfgrass, overlot grading /sub -base preparation and landscape restoration work following installation of the synthetic turf. Page 2 of 4 The Field Construction Team, Academy Sports Turf proposes to complete the contracted Scope of Work covered under this Procurement Supply and Professional Services Agreement for Four Hundred Seventy - Nine Thousand Thirty - Seven Dollars ($479,037.00). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: A synthetic turf playing field surface on Iselin Field will result in 2 -3 million gallons of annual water savings. Currently, the industry standard for warranty coverage of synthetic turf surfacing is eight years, which raises the question, `what happens after eight years ?' There is evidence that the synthetic turf industry is adapting with companies buying the materials from older synthetic turf fields and re- utilizing sections of material in putting greens, driving ranges and batting cages. Machines have also been developed to lift and separate the sand and rubber pellet infill material for reuse from older fields. The fiber material used to create the synthetic turf material is made from polypropylene and polyethylene, which are both recyclable. A synthetic turf field surface at Iselin Field will definitely reduce the overall maintenance associated with the field. As a result, resources and travel necessary to complete field maintenance will be significantly reduced. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is recommending Council approval of the Procurement Supply and Professional Services Agreement for the Iselin Field Synthetic Turf Project in order to allow the project to be completed during late summer 2011. ALTERNATIVES: Council could choose not to approve this Procurement Supply and Professional Services Agreement, which would delay field redevelopment work intended to allow Iselin Field to have a higher carrying capacity for public recreational use. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the Procurement Supply and Professional Services Agreement between the City of Aspen and the Field Construction Team, Academy Sports Turf for the Iselin Field Synthetic Turf supply and installation for the amount of Four Hundred Seventy -Nine Thousand Thirty-Seven Dollars ($479,037.00). CITY MAN 4 ER COMMENTS: ter earto-a 'i �95 tr T I 1 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Procurement Supply and Professional Services Agreement Attachment B: Site Plan illustrating extent of synthetic turf installation Page 3 of 4 RESOLUTION NO. IL Series of 2011 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A PROCUREMENT SUPPLY AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT FOR SUPPLY AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE ISELIN FIELD SYNTHETIC TURF PROJECT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN AND ACADEMY SPORTS TURF AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OR CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT SAID AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council, a Procurement Supply and Professional Services Agreement between the City of Aspen and Academy Sports Turf, a true and accurate copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves a Procurement Supply and Professional Services Agreement, between the City of Aspen and Academy Sports Turf for the Iselin Field Synthetic Turf Project, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the Mayor or City Manager to approve said procurement supply and professional services agreement on behalf of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Attachment A Melly oilmen CITY OF ASPEN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT - 2011 cln Waimea OIOCe . PROCUREMENT SUPPLY AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES City of Aspen Project No.: 2010 -086 AGREEMENT made as of 14t day of February, in the year 20n. BETWEEN the City: Contract Amount: The City of Aspen Procurement: $469,037.00 c/o Steve Barwick 130 South Galena Street Professional Services: $10,000.00 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Total: $479,037.00 Phone: (970) 920 -5055 If this Agreement requires the City to pay And the Professional: an amount of money in excess of $25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Academy Sports Turf Council of the City of Aspen. c/o Paul Kelley City Council Approval: 3740 South Jason Street Englewood, Colorado 80110 Date: Phone: (303) 789 -3172 Resolution No.: For the Following Project: , Iselin Field Synthetic Turf Project I I Exhibits appended and made a part of this Agreement: Exhibit A: Comprehensive Project Cost Proposal Exhibit B: Scope of Work. Exhibit C: Special Conditions - Construction Project Exhibit D: Hourly Fee Schedule. The City and Professional agree as set forth below. Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 0 SUPPLY PROCUREMENT 1. Purchase. Professional agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the supplies, equipment, or materials as described in Exhibit A and Exhibit B, appended hereto and by this reference incorporated herein, for the sum of set forth above. 2. Delivery. (FOB 0861 Maroon Creek Road, Aspen, CO 816112 3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the same are listed in the Invitation to Bid or Request for Proposals and said Contract Document are hereby made a part of this Agreement as if fully set out at length herein. 4. Warranties. The Professional warrants and guarantees to City that all Work, whether supplied, furnished, installed, provided, or performed by Professional, a Subcontractor, or Supplier, will be in accordance with the Contract Documents and will not be Defective. All Defective Work, whether or not in place, must be rejected, corrected or accepted. Work shall be performed in a skillful and workmanlike manner. Except where longer periods of warranty are indicated for certain items, Professional warrants Work, whether famished, installed, provided, performed or supplied by Design/Builder, a Subcontractor or Supplier, to be free from faulty materials and workmanship for a period of not less than Eight (8) Years from date of Substantial Completion. The Professional, at no additional expense to the City, shall remedy damage to the site, or the synthetic turf product which is the result of any failure or defect in the Work, and restore any work damaged in fulfilling the requirements of the Contract Documents. With respect to all warranties, express or implied, from Subcontractors, manufacturers, or Suppliers for Work performed and materials furnished under the Agreement, the Professional shall: • Require all warranties to be executed, in writing, for the benefit of the City, if directed by the Owners Representative. • Enforce all warranties for the benefit of the City, if directed by the Owners Representative. • Assign all warranties and guarantees in writing to the City upon the request of the City. 5. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Professional respectively and their agents, representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Professional shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES 6. Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner the Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit A and Exhibit B attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein. Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 1 7. Completion. Professional shall commence Work immediately upon receipt of a written Notice to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as is consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work in a timely manner. The parties anticipate that all Work pursuant to this Agreement shall be completed no later than August 26, 2011, with the installation and availability of the synthetic turf field no later than August 26, 2011. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's approval, a schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as required as the project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional. 8. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional on a time and expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work performed by Professional shall not exceed those hourly rates set forth at Exhibit D appended hereto. Except as otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional shall not initially exceed the amount set forth above. Professional shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for work performed. The City shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall review the matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill. 9. Non - Assignability. Both parties recognize that this Agreement is one for personal services - and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the other. Sub - Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Professional of any of the responsibilities or obligations under this Agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely responsible to the City for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors' officers, agents and employees, each of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee of the Professional to the extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to pay or be liable for payment of any sums due which may be due to any sub - contractor. 10. Termination of Procurement. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be canceled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. • 11. Termination of Professional Services. The Professional or the City may terminate the Professional Services component of this Agreement, without specifying the reason therefor, by giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying the effective date of the termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the termination. Upon any termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Professional shall not be relieved of any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of this Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any payments to the Professional for the purposes of set -off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the Professional may be determined. 12. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 2 employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No agent, employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Professional. None of the benefits provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to herein. 13. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, insurers, and self - insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury, personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the act, omission, error, professional error, mistake, negligence, - or other fault of the Professional, any subcontractor of the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Professional or of any subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor of the Professional. The Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against, any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Professional, or at the option of the City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or in part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse the Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees. 14. Professional's Insurance. (a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy or policies of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance shall be in addition to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The Professional shall not be relieved of any Liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types. (b) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 3 coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City. All coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of any claims -made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be procured to maintain such continuous coverage. (i) Workers' Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this contract, and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - each employee. Evidence of qualified self - insured status may be substituted for the Workers' Compensation requirements of this paragraph. (ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury, broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury (including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual, independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall - contain a severability of interests provision. (iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum combined single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate with respect to each Professional's owned, hired and non - owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The policy shall contain a severability of interests provision. If the Professional has no owned automobiles, the requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee of the Professional providing services to the City under this contract. (iv) Professional Liability insurance with the minimum limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000) aggregate. (c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the City's officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or provided through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contributory insurance to that provided by Professional. No additional insured endorsement to the policy required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from completed operations. The Professional shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses under any policy required above. (d) The certificate of insurance provided by the City shall be completed by the Professional's insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 4 conditions, and minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The certificate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the policies shall not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days prior written notice has been given to the City. (e) Failure on the part of the Professional to procure or maintain policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of contract upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be repaid by Professional to City upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against monies due to Professional from City. (f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any endorsement thereto. (g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently $150,000.00 per person and $600,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24 -10 -101 et seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its - employees. 15. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the Colorado Intergovenunental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA Property/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen Finance Department and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by CIRSA. City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or participation in CIRSA. 16. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not expressly incorporated in this writing. 17. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered or mailed by certified mail return receipt requested to the respective persons and/or addresses listed above. 18. Non - Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract. Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13 -98, pertaining to non- discrimination in employment. 19. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 5 or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and forbearance or indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence. 20. Execution of Agreement by City. This Agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, this Agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his absence) following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor (or a duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same. 16. Illegal Aliens — CRS 8- 17.5 -101 & 24- 76.5 -101. (a) Purpose. During the 2006 Colorado legislative session, the Legislature passed House Bills 06 -1343 (subsequently amended by HB 07 -1073) and 06 -1023 that added new statutes relating to the employment of and contracting with illegal aliens. These new laws prohibit all state agencies and political subdivisions, including the City of Aspen, from knowingly hiring an illegal alien to perform work under a contract, or to knowingly contract with a subcontractor who knowingly hires with an illegal alien to perform work - under the contract. The new laws also require that all contracts for services include certain specific language as set forth in the statutes. The following terms and conditions have been designed to comply with the requirements of this new law. (b) Definitions. The following terms are defined in the new law and by this reference are incorporated herein and in any contract for services entered into with the City of Aspen. "Basic Pilot Program" means the basic pilot employment verification program created in Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public Law 156, 108th Congress, as amended, that is administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security. "Public Contract for Services" means this Agreement. "Services" means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor or a subcontractor not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports that are merely incidental to the required performance. (c) By signing this document, Professional certifies and represents that at this time: (i) Professional shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment in the United States; and (ii) Professional has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Pilot Program in order to verify that new employees are not employ illegal aliens. Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 6 (d) Professional hereby confirms that: (i) Professional shall not knowingly employ or contract new employees without confirming the employment eligibility of all such employees hired for . employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. (ii) Professional shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to confirm to the Professional that the subcontractor shall not knowingly hire new employees without confirming their employment eligibility for employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services. (iii) Professional has verified or has attempted to verify through participation in the Federal Basic Pilot Program that Professional does not employ any new employees who are not eligible for employment in the United States; and if Professional has not been accepted into the Federal Basic Pilot Program prior to entering into the Public Contract for Services, Professional shall forthwith apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify such application within five (5) days of the date of the Public Contract. Professional shall continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify same every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until Professional is accepted or the public contract for services has been completed, - whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be required or effective if the Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued. (iv) Professional shall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake pre - employment screening of job applicants while the Public Contract for Services is being performed. (v) If Professional obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under the Public Contract for Services knowingly employs or contracts with a new employee who is an illegal alien, Professional shall: (1) Notify such subcontractor and the City of Aspen within three days that Professional has actual knowledge that the subcontractor has newly employed or contracted with an illegal alien; and (2) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this section the subcontractor does not cease employing or contracting with the new employee who is an illegal alien; except that Professional shall not terminate the Public Contract for Services with the subcontractor if during such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. (vi) Professional shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation that Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 7 the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment undertakes or is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in Subsection 8- 17.5 -102 (5), C.R.S. (vii) If Professional violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services pertaining to the duties imposed by Subsection 8- 17.5 -102, C.R.S. the City of Aspen may terminate the Public Contract for Services. If the Public Contract for Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential damages to the City of Aspen arising out of Professional's violation of Subsection 8- 17.5 -102, C.R.S. (ix) If Professional operates as a sole proprietor, Professional hereby swears or affirms under penalty of perjury that the Professional (1) is a citizen of the United States or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law, (2) shall comply with the provisions of CRS 24- 76.5 -101 et seq., and (3) shall produce one of the forms of identification required by CRS 24- 76.5 -103 prior to the effective date of this Agreement. 21. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. (a) Professional warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or - bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Professional for the purpose of securing business. (b) Professional agrees not to give any employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefore. (c) Professional represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. (d) In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a Professional, contractor or subcontractor under City contracts; 3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of anything transferred or received by the Professional; and Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 8 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 22. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 23. General Terms. (a) It is agreed that neither this Agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived, superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties. (b) If any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision. (c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a - writing signed by the parties. (d) This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from time to time in effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on the date first written above. Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 9 CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: PROFESSIONAL: [Signature} [Signature] By: By: A � �fLLE r [Name] [Name] Title: Title: 6 / co Date: Date: 2/2 /2 / ] Approved as to form: City Attorney's Office • IPW- 2/1/2011- 6568448 -M:\ city \ purchasing \Templates\Procurement & Prof Serv\Procurement & Prof Serv.doc Agreement for Procurement and Professional Services Page 10 ACADEMY SPORTS TURF ISELIN FIELD EXHIBIT D Schedule of Hourly Rates and Charges For Engineering and Surveying Services August 2010 CLASSIFICATION HOURLY RATE Engineer $75.00 - $130.00 Project Engineer (PE) $130.00 - $150.00 Manager /Principal (PE) $150.00 - $175.00 Construction Observation $105.00 - $115.00 Site Planner $85.00 - $95.00 Landscape Architect $70.00 - $85.00 Planner $75.00 - $110.00 CADD Technician $70.00 - $95.00 - Surveyor/Technician $70.00 - $95.00 Project Surveyor (PLS) $95.00 - $120.00 Survey Manager $130.00 - $150.00 Clerical $45.00 - $60.00 Survey Crew (2 -Man) $120.00 - $155.00 Expert Witness $2,000.00 /day REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES Photocopies 8.5" x 11"/11" x 17" $.50 / $1.00 Bond Prints 24" x 36" (per sheet) $1.00 Color 24 x 36 (per sheet) $10.00 Mylar Film Sepia 24" x 36" (per sheet) $20.00 Transportation: Standard Vehicle Charge (per mile) $ 0.85 Individual Project supplies, commercial transportation, subsistence for overnight travel and similar project related expenses shall be billed at our cost plus 20 percent. 3740 South Jason Street R, Englewood, Colorado 80110 NI Phone: 800.372.66395 Fax: 303.762.8190 Exhibit A ill . . January 20, 2 Tits Orr OP ASPEN Mr. Todd Smith , Academy Sports Turf, LLC 3470 S. Jason Street Englewood, CO 80110 . Fax: 303 - 762 -819 . Re: Proposal submission, Iselin Field Synthetic Turf Project ' ' Dear Mr. Smith, - Your Field Construction Team has been further shortlisted for the Iselin Field Synthetic . Turf Project. . . The City desires to obtain finalized proposal s that Phase 1 and Phase of a .. contract value. Your proposal has presented a total co work, utilizing a 44 oz. Shaw Sportexe turf product at $470,494.00. Please confirm and provide a complete project price (not range) for the following: , 1. Base Proposal Costs: " L.. . Phase I: $ 1d Phase 2: $ 4 2., fig. with utilization of 44 oz. Shaw Sportexe Powerblade HP synthetic turf, exclude inlay football striping Total: $ Q 1 ?,Y?6�, t WED mote. colDurr Mg OR'C•si 2. " , i : e Proposal Costs: • Phase 1: +_ ••,♦ w n Phase 2: $ -to . °b .. o s:. on of 61 oz. UBU- Speed Series M. 0 • 1 ,. IC , .. • •tball striping To :: . it1E - 1M A is W TALLSS Mow w- 3. Add Alternate Proposal Cost, Lacrosse End Line Net system: Supply & installation of 9' high x 180' long (x2) 1-3!4" square mesh polyethylene/nylon net with removable 2 -318" dia. black powdercoated aluminum support posts and turf sleeves. (HBS -1 System by Aluminum . Athletic Equipmelit or similar) • Total: $L..,-%9e°° ( m ti t i ME_ m 5) Ipasiogs E1ti* CO Vitt vksijS DJRWC, lye' CSP S 1,3012,K , OP1lL�t S iki3Dso 305..G.,....9,....• N,COLORADO 81611-1975 • PROM! 970,920.5000 • Eta 970.920E197 ' www.aspenpladn<Om • • Please provide this requested proposal cost information to me Ma email (scoff .co us by 1:00 pm, Tuesday, January 25 2011. Following receipt of this requested information, the City intends to award the project to the successful Field Construction Team. Thank you again for your efforts to date with this proposal and yesterdays interview. Sincerely, ( ) • . Scott t Chism, LLA #222 Project Manager, Parks Planner • • - I 0 v m 1 a 0 l 0 o ° 9 9 1 .. F- a N A W . 2 WNW N O E °q y cv • JJ \ , :' a�� ij � 6 u gg h 2 N a aF. 0 .0. -� N �� r 414 CCC p \ . ..."'"' :4 t \ To dam' V LL r i ttt e } '° n / 7/7 .. _,_—_---,,, .,_„—. . - : 0 '-, w W - W Z = B/9 o n. — 8 Z . - ® p �FZ ,',.:,./. ' 1 \ N GI) 10 .PP i • 0 t m 1 a p U m I a a: a ® � G m c� N > . e y m plifir 1- - -1 r:: : ` ■r'r'Q1' : ` e a O O N F Fg w co _ i el 1 a s .,.........,.. . u to N .r.Q: I ■■■ W GA N .■ ■ ■ ■r ■ ■..■ ■ .L N yam . ■■■e■r ■am ■ ■Q■■ real J _ :: ■:Q ::e r:..::: ■1 : ■ 111 1 't1 C 11 C t1 ■ : . ■ ■ ■ m .. 2 - .OQ■ r..: :C . II ■ ■ :l ■ ■■ I II� I I o �� x ■.: �rrr ■■■ ■r■■■ u1 a u■ ■ ■ ■■.� ■.■ ■■r Q Q.Q...Ut.r. m Smi■ie �u ■: Q■::I'Q:� 0 ■ ■ ■ ■ ■■ ■■ ■■■ ■ ■■ O e r� 2 co I Q:Q: ■•:r■■ i - m p an $ ■ ■ ■. ■r■ �}■. 1■ ■ b a O ::Qill1:::: ID::; ' ::ii as ii I EE: 6�E ° . E o c cli MI .rrrl N1 ■:� .■■ :I y II ILA 01 a .���.... a B::: ■.1::. >w ■: : i::Q : : : re :i: 1 . ■.r:■ "' �■1■ ■r:■:rr 11■ ... 91 N 2 rp c4 ‘ mm Cn �.LU�,■ ■11Pa ■. NQ■11:U1 �i r u E 7 `A ?fir 1111111 1111141111111 ..... 11Qi F ' e� 0E �5 Ok \ . n. .aPPI■ ee:■■ Q ■ P.�i ; I_ _ m o i s pp N 1U9!••U = • :.pI. �::NE ant o a V.�� _ N as0o a ILI = ' E C d NI-. G' 1 1 s ..... ur tn.- C . 2 w • i id 0 * C M N d .� N � � 3 I p C e 0 ca of M 3 X U a 1 0 f m I a p 0 m i C 0 0 ffJ O o V d) 0 Q e ® a 1-- N 0 CO (6 t6 fq d C r 1 tD 7 N h o 'g ✓ 6 6 12.4-/ k° C A m a .,W to 1 P 9w� uvN w w� ° c� c ao a w A d< 6 N NO d c' �OL° �N7 0)S) ppp ` CO a £3 °J ti.�,, � t AM 3 4 _ a om ; 73 6 ^ N RI EErb '" s d� .0 9 W OQSUa " < _ O • QO = ' Y O a . . 1 m V) E F o..2 - E §sv O R o C) �° 0 co 0 21 8y aka co y U � o.c ,- c '0 U c eo, c G ay :-1 N N r. w N 00 �. m N N U r b � ' i�►�� \w1� iii \Wi1 1t�iAii " m r 5'`•i�ii`r. y ,►liiiii f \W1 i11i111i ''%* 1`C Y .. $ a \11111"!1iii1 iw►1'a1% K 9 in' 8 t � nA 1i1111i'ri11i. 0 0 ...1 n i A 1I4J r' r 3 a $ Nan �ro u �m � o A ��r 0 A d am kl* 0 ern Q al w. CD 2 e 0 . . . 111 0 ® C [ Xrn il. 1 a 0 m 1 0 `P a a a v m a ! Ea,lala a, . ! o8 1 dm2:-.A' LL ce i i7:iLGEi:3ii . • pp ��a w E W (� a g 1 ! o 2 EP: o _ a o i 6ili7 e lS1 = a Ec 4 Ea 1 u1 ' EE i.EE�3� ^ m N E g= o 6 dS — 1 i �E.17i.. ;; Rte rocm m o r�-� a9 : O �+— EEie:ii "!!�!� � e 00 0 ' U a � aa, E M F a � .= C7 1:EElilEik ° g� �' U m � � 0 1 a � U ., i . F Gi • 1 ge 7 ' a7 m a y g io c L +� .. C N phi: o f:iiia�BB9EEB3EEEE, o a 2 ' ; ...m_- 0 2 e E g - �p C E 2 tim�mt� n $o m 2 fY R1 d a N ` f ;E E ��4�lElEE.Ej = mN c m ..- - &EA gig! a 1 ,, Et t 'i C� 0E1tEiEitEE' IP u l l L l I I ;; : : n i n u o, rna m m n, ID L,LW }a$ v� U E u � ao <Ct 2 a EE n m N r r x U v m m 99 J M 19 a ... 6 c E y ,, z ~ M m c FF E ( . 9> o 0 0 O (7 �IIH 1 1 1 ii t o ° O N N n HIM Itt 1 m c m m m m _ 111 J y E la._ m y m 1 3 0, c mm m 1 ��F,9� U1 B� t mc ` `o ° v1 �i9illi� o `_ , .,.=__r_ t.. • . 1 1 m m ` �' ` 5 .. 6�,d'� d 8 --. . c fi c E � o m W N -c- ll i11ij j II � 3 ' m � E 0) c . na c .E . 6; 21 6 d.) h= R N ( O A Y (TI 1., • 19! 1 :.. o. _ +a £8ma m r �' n g �od 1E . I: , E 11 .. 1 022-, 2N Doti m m .. oi¢x. -U U) 'T ? 04 ti CM a - .c c o 0 � ' n. c co o m o i c ii a �� r y 3 E .6 N k ' c �c 4 0— I ao oa I ; a r m . I/ _ - d 8 m 17— E m w _ m e mE 1r� Fitt,,, � - I E z z ..M1 i 1 % 1% 1 :2: JB�s � ° 111 �1t \\ "" ' ; ' '° = = \ x.1111111 11\ t1\ w 7 ''' \ 1131711 - 1 MMIM IllinveklkS7 '---°' w da = 'm a w � � 8 g r 3 d Ia 11,111 r. mai wi'ar►1i. ., . ±'+ 53E3 o m V; W 1n E A ft i 1 N ,,---7 a 9 � ro C L - co `� CCC111 Ex ' cc, � � ® 7 W .O N a0 p W c { m 0 Ed EM 1o 0 m a v � ' N U"' O0 d 'c a t •---€31 U(1 �� �IX 1 2 • I D 0 m G i • Exhibit B Iselin Field Synthetic Turf Scope of Work SCOPE OF WORK Phase 1 The FCT (Field Construction Team) will finalize project program, complete field design documentation, including specifications and cost estimation. More specifically, the FCT shall: • Coordinate directly with City of Aspen Parks Department in -house design staff for production of drawings. • The FCT will be provided with a site survey of the project area. The FCT will also be provided with a geotechnical report. The FCT will be responsible for collecting any other documents necessary to complete the project. • The FCT will be provided schematic synthetic turf field layout plan. The synthetic turf field surface has to be integrated with a surrounding area of natural turf grass. All existing backstop and perimeter fencing will remain in place and undisturbed. • The Design phase will refine the project program, site layout of the field, specifications for the monofilament synthetic turf and provide a cost estimate. • The FCT will prepare design drawings, specifications and details for field layout, including striping for high school boy's lacrosse, high school girl's lacrosse, high school baseball, high school soccer and high school football, all at a level necessary for the FCT to complete construction. • The FCT will complete surface and subsurface drainage design within the parameters of City of Aspen stormwater requirements. A Colorado licensed civil engineer familiar with synthetic turf requirements and characteristics should be included as part of the FCT. • The FCT will complete planning and design for infrastructure necessary for a potential future field lighting system. Phase 11 The FCT will conduct Construction activities that shall include: • Coordination and oversight with City of Aspen Parks Department in -house construction crews who will complete removal of natural grass /topsoil. • Coordination and oversight with City of Aspen Parks Department in -house construction crews who will complete overlot grading of sub -base to +/- .10' and compaction to 95% proctor of field profile subgrade. • Coordination and oversight with City of Aspen Parks Department in -house construction crews who will complete provision and hauling services for imported `field base' rock based on design specifications. 1 • The FCT shall complete 4" lower level and 2" upper level of `field base' rock profile to necessary tolerances. • The FCT shall install drainage infrastructure necessary based on design requirements. • Tice FCT shall install infrastructure necessary for potential future field lighting system (conduits). Field lighting is not in the current scope of work for 2011. • The FCT shall complete installation of monofilament synthetic turf and rubber /sand infill with the following characteristics: ♦ 2 -1/2" – 2 -1/4" fiber length ♦ 70 %/30% rubber /sand infill mix by weight ♦ Triple layer primary backing - -8 oz. minimum, secondary backing -26 oz. minimum ♦ 40 oz. fiber density minimum ♦ 6" depth rock `field base' minimum ♦ ' /n" fiber exposed maximum ♦ Rolled timber 2 "x10" nailer edge to blend into existing natural turfgrass • The FCT shall install inlaid striping for high school boys lacrosse, high school girls lacrosse, high school soccer and high school baseball. Inlaid field layout markings for high school football practice shall also be installed by the FCT. 2 Exhibit C THE CITY OF ASPEN SPECIAL CONDITIONS — CONSTRUCTION PROJECT For Iselin Field Synthetic Turf City Project No. 2010 -086 1.0 GENERAL: 1.01 Clarification of Terms: The Special Conditions are intended to specify and provide additional description, clarification, or conditions that are applicable to this Contract. These Special Conditions amend or supplement the Standard General Conditions of the Construction Contract and other provisions of the Contract Documents as indicated below. All provisions, which are not so amended or supplemented, remain in full force and effect. 1.02 Affirmative Action Goals: The City does not have any policy for "DBE" preference nor does the City have any type of "DBE" certification program. The City of Aspen promotes an equal opportunity for any Contractor bidding on City jobs. No federal or state funds are being utilized for the Iselin Field Synthetic Turf Project; as a result no "affirmative action goals" as defined at a federal or state level, apply to this work scope. 2.0 CONTRACT TIME 2.01 A verbal and written Notice of Award will be issued from the City by Mail and Phone, on January 26, 2011, and the Contractor's Representative shall pick up three (3) sets of the Contract Agreement Form Documents (at the City Managers Office) on the same day. The Contractor will execute all necessary pages of the contracts and their required documents and submittals, and deliver them to the City Managers Office by 10:00 AM, February 4'". 2011. The Commencement Date of the contract performance time is the date determined at the Notice to Proceed conference, which will be scheduled by the Owners Representative. 2.02 The Contractor shall execute the Scope of Work with due diligence and shall fully complete in every detail of the Work to be done under this Contract within 187 Consecutive Calendar Days starting no earlier than February 20, 2011 and finishing no later than August 26 2011. Contract Time commences at the date determined at the Notice to Proceed Conference. All time extensions must be authorized by the Owners Representative. 2.03 All Work shall be one hundred percent (100 %) complete for this project on or before August 26 2011. The Contractor shall be responsible for implementing all improvements by this date. 3.0 BONDS, INDEMNIFICATION, LIABILITY, AND INSURANCE: 3.01 Performance, Payment, and Maintenance Bonds: For Construction, the Contractor shall furnish Performance, Payment and Maintenance Bonds, each in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100 %) of the total Contract price as security for the faithful performance, payment, maintenance obligations of all Contractor's Work under the Contract Documents. Reference is made to the General Conditions for further requirements for Performance, Payment and Maintenance Bonds. 3.02 Bid Bond: A Bid Bond is not required for this project. 4.0 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES: Liquidated Damages shall be as set forth in the document labeled Liquidated Damages (LDI) included in the Project Documents. 5.0 EXPLORATION REPORTS & MATERIALS TESTING: 5.01 Limited exploration reports and tests of subsurface conditions at the site are available from the Owners Representative. The Contractor shall evaluate available soils report and obtain/perform additional subsurface soil investigations when deemed necessary through a certified materials Lab. All soil sampling & compaction related testing and re- testing will be performed by a certified materials testing laboratory acceptable to the Owners Representative and at his direction. The Contractor shall pay the cost of testing and re- testing. 6.0 OWNERS REPRESENTATIVE: All references in the Contract Documents to "The Project Engineer" and "City's Representative" shall refer to Owners Representative. The Owners Representative for this project will be The City of Aspen Parks Project Manager. The Owners Representative, unless provided in writing by the City of Aspen Manager of Parks & Recreation, is the only individual having the authority to render any binding decisions, and/or judgments to the Contractor pertaining to any work which may change the Contract price or time of completion, or change the quality of Work, or change the manner in which the Work is being performed. The City of Aspen Project Manager shall serve solely as a means of communication between the City and the Contractor and shall monitor the Work for the City. 7.0 MANDATORY PRE - CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE & WEEKLY PROGRESS MEETINGS: A pre - construction conference will be held following City Council's approval of the Contract Amount on the date determined by the Owners Representative. The purpose of the meeting shall be to explain and coordinate, as required, to the Contractor, the requirements of the Contract Documents, the procedures to be used in the administration of the - Contract, and to discuss any item of concern to the work. The Contractor and the Owners Representative shall be required to attend the pre - construction conference as a condition of the Contract. The time and the day for Mandatory Weekly Progress Meetings shall be scheduled at the pre- construction conference. 8.0 PROGRESS SCHEDULE AND SEQUENCE OF OPERATIONS: 8.01 Within seven (7) days of the date of the contract award, and prior to the pre - construction conference, the Contractor shall submit for review of the Owners Representative a critical -path chart showing the estimated progress for the component divisions of the Work and a balanced time breakdown, showing the estimated progress schedule for the entire Project. For purposes of comparison, the Contractor shall submit with each progress pay estimate a form showing the actual rate of progress to date for the component divisions and for the Project as a whole. The actual rate of progress shown on the form shall only include Work completed and shall not include stored materials. 8.02 The Contractor shall also submit for approval, prior to the pre - construction conference, a Construction Staging and Mitigation Plan and a narrative of the planned sequence of construction indicating the approximate date and time duration of Aspen Recreation Center parking lot restrictions, utility interruptions, etc., as applicable to this project. 8.03 In the event that the rate of actual progress of the Work falls behind the estimated progress indicated on the approved critical -path chart, and in the absence of time extensions if any granted by the Owners Representative, the Contractor shall accelerate the Work by placing additional forces and equipment on the Project so that the Project will be completed within the Contract Time. The Contractor shall be capable, and make available the necessary work crews and equipment to perform the work on time. 8.04 The Contractor shall provide a list of emergency (24 hour) contact name(s), addresses, and phone numbers to the Owners Representative 24 hours prior to the pre - construction conference. Emergency phone calls must be responded to in 15 minutes or less and action must be taken on the emergency condition immediately. Such emergency calls shall be project related corrective and restorative work and shall be considered subsidiary to the construction bid items and at the Contractor's cost. The Owner may initiate such corrective work at Contractor's cost if the Contractor fails to perform the required task within one hour of an emergency call. 8.05 The Contractor shall be responsible for keeping the field area closed to public use at all times during and after their daily work activities. 9.0 SURVEY CONTROL: The Contractor shall be responsible for establishing grades from the Bench Mark(s) established from the existing survey • and described in the Contract Documents. The Contractor will be responsible for the establishment of a construction base line, and all layout and grade staking by an insured Colorado registered professional land surveyor. The Contractor shall be responsible for protecting and/or re- establishing benchmark control, and layout staking during the construction process. 10.0 PROTECTION OF PUBLIC FACILITIES, UTILITIES AND OTHER ADJOINING PROPERTY: The Contractor shall take all reasonable precautions for the safety of, and shall provide all reasonable protection to prevent damage, injury, or loss to other property at the site or adjacent thereto, and he shall be liable for any and all claims for such damage on account of his failure to fully provide such protection. The Contractor shall notify all public utility companies at least forty -eight (48) hours prior to commencement of any Work in the vicinity of the utilities. No Work shall commence until the utilities have been located and marked by the utility company. If utility service must be interrupted, the Contractor shall coordinate with the respective utility provider at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to interruption. Notice shall consist of publication in a local newspaper and/or announcement on local radio stations as determined by the Owners Representative. 11.0 DAMAGE TO CONSTRUCTION: The Contractor shall safeguard, until all Work embraced by the Contract is formally accepted, all construction, both complete and incomplete, against damage and destruction. Should damage result, The Contractor will be required to reconstruct at his expense all damaged work back to the original Plans and Specifications. Reconstruction shall be in a manner suitable to the Owners Representative. No repair or mitigating option for damaged Work will be accepted. 12.0 JOB SITE RESTRICTIONS: All materials to be removed from the project site or demolished on site shall be disposed of by the Contractor off the project site unless requested otherwise by the Owners Representative. The City's property is not available for Contractor staging or storage area, unless if permitted by the Owners Representative. The Owners Representative will indicate a staging and storage area near the construction zone for use by the Contractor. The City's property is not otherwise available for a Contractor's disposal area. Noise levels cannot exceed 80 Decibels at the property line before 9:00 am on any work day. 13.0 WORKING HOURS: Work will be permitted in the designated construction area between 7:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday and between 9:00 am and 5:00 pm Saturday. Site work is not permitted on Sunday. Other work hours must be approved by the Owners Representative in writing. 14.0 LABOR, MATERIALS, AND EQUIPMENT 14.01 Water: Water will be available from a city special loading hydrant for construction use for this scope of work. The Contractor shall contact the City's Water Department (970- 429 -1981) to arrange inspection and approval of equipment to transport water from the special loading hydrant to the work site. 15.0 DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: The disposal of any hazardous materials shall be the sole responsibility of the Contractor. 16.0 SALVAGE: Stone masonry, concrete, timber and other items removed from the site remains the property of the City unless otherwise noted in writing by the Owners Representative. 17.0 MATERIAL TESTS AND CERTIFICATES: 17.01 All materials to be incorporated into the Work may be subject to sampling, testing by the Contractor per Section 5.0 of these Special Conditions, and approval and samples furnished shall be representative of the material to be used. 17.02 Tests required guarding against unsuitable materials or defective workmanship and to demonstrate that materials comply with the provisions of the Contract Documents shall be paid for by the Contractor. 17.03 The procedures and methods used to sample and test materials shall be as specified or as determined by the Contract Documents. Unless otherwise specified in these Special Conditions, samples and test shall be made in accordance with the latest standard methods of ASTM, AWWA, AASHTO, and CDOT's 2005 edition of Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction. 17.04 The Contractor shall furnish at least one copy of test results to the Owners Representative. 17.05 Material Testing: Material testing shall be considered subsidiary to the construction bid items and shall be at the Contractor's cost. 18.0 MOBILIZATION/DEMOBILIZATION: Will be measured and paid on a pro -rata basis as explained in the General Conditions of this Contract. 19.0 SUB - EXCAVATION, BACKFILLING & COMPACTION: Unsuitable materials are not anticipated within the project limits. However, if encountered, unstable or unsuitable material shall, at the discretion and direction of the Owners Representative, be removed. Removal of such material shall be to the depth and horizontal limits specified by the Owners Representative. Any such areas which are over - excavated shall be filled to the subgrade elevation with aggregate base course class 6. The backfill material shall be placed in lifts of 12" or less and compacted to a minimum of 95% density of the modified proctor test method. The price for sub - excavation, backfill and compaction will be measured by the ton actually installed. 20.0 WAIVER: It is expressly understood and agreed that any waiver granted by the Owners Representative of any term, provision or covenant of this Contract shall not constitute a precedent nor breach of same or any other terms, provisions or covenants of this Contract. Neither the acceptance of the Work by the Owners Representative nor the payment of all or part of the sum due the Contractor hereunder, shall constitute a waiver by the Owner Rep. of any claim which the Owners Rep. may have against the Contractor or otherwise. 21.0 PAYMENTS TO CONTRACTOR: 21.01 The Work quantities recorded by the Contractor on a Daily Construction Log shall serve as the basis for preparation and justification of the progress payments. Payments to the Contractor shall be prepared on a Progress Pay Estimate form on account of Unit Price Work based on the number of units actually installed complete in place and transferred from the Daily Construction Log. 21.02 Progress payments shall be made once each month as the Work progresses, when the Contractor is performing under the terms of the Contract Documents. Said payments shall be based upon progress estimates by the Contractor, of the value of work performed and materials placed in accordance with the Contract Documents and the value of materials on hand in accordance with the General Condition. 22.0 PRECEDENCE OF THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS: The order of precedence of Contract Documents shall be as follows: 1. Addenda 2. Drawings, if any a. Detailed Drawings b. Standard Drawings 3. Special Conditions 4. Referenced Technical Specifications 6. Contract for Construction 7. Instruction to Bidders 8. Standard General Conditions 23.0 CONTRACT CLOSEOUT: Upon completion of all punch list item(s) from the final inspection by the Owners Representative and submittal of a fully executed Claim Release form by the Contractor, the City will advertise twice in the newspaper, and following a Thirty (30) Consecutive Calendar Dav waiting period, and with no verified claim against the Contractor by the City up until the end of this waiting period, the City will declare the project closed and will release the retainage to the Contractor. The -Project close -out final inspection must be recorded on a final Daily Construction log, signed by the Owners Representative and the Contractor and prior to advertisement for closure. No liquidated damages will be imposed past the date of substantial completion. 24.0 WARRANTY INSPECTION: At the City's discretion, a warranty inspection will be held during sixty (60) calendar days prior to the expiration of the warranty period under the Maintenance Bond. The Contractor shall provide an authorized representative at such inspection to represent the Contractor's interests. All defects identified during inspection shall be corrected at Contractor's expense at the direction of the City immediately. Corrective Work shall be commenced within five (5) consecutive calendar days after written notice to Contractor. 25.0 AS -BUILT PLANS: The Contractor shall be responsible for delivering to the City (1) Set of Mylars and (1) digital file (AutoCad release 14, 2000 or 2004 up to release 2010) of finally constructed improvements plans and details. Plans must be titled "As- Builts" and will be provided to the City at no extra cost. Attachment B [ • , 11 .7-Atemr „wit Ns, 30§ , . .... ,. • .....• .. . . ; , • .• , -:itirk ••• / , ,, 7 •.•,.. . . . :,••,•.:-.Avotop" -,, '., o cv • . .,:.4 ....., • t... , ' ---4.,*; ...y,.• ..----; ›, :_: i ,-;,, ..L.Q „,,,,,..., ...... _. •:.,, .. _. ,........,..• -5 - .,- -_. „!■.,--: '''''-' ..., 4..' 4" 1—. . __. _ : -, ...,, ,• - . . - • • • ::-..t",: * _ .. • .. ,. 1 ,.. .. , , • •,•,.,. 1-.7'.....:., - .. .• . ....• - - • ,. _,7r, ." - '•• .•,,,,_-- • . • - - - ---^4. . , . . . .... _ . . „. . .. . - : . • _ ... . , ..... ..• ............ Ir . t'..i,.......-- ...:,••,.... - • A•.: Nk ,, O. • 4 , . ''' • - -e' ' ' ,, .. . . , 1 „,..:','' - ..--'-• ‘ 4 ' . • - - • ' : ', / . - ----,' ''''' '. ' ',. ..;''+,,. ':•:-'. ' / ,.1 — k -' - ' - . .- - - N -1,, ''', '.' - I ''., # ; ■ ';'. • r , i VVI ''. / : •7_,,-- \,,, . ' i ,,:,- ,.., 4_, / it • • - • • • — .. 44 • .1 • ' . ;,...' ...N 4F) ,t• • - '1." , ( ' 4•P;A:i- -.A\ . + - ' c.-C.,krip ..Pi'' N„, • ,, •, -•-• ,.. 3, ::•._ .,.,.., • --. ,:'• -, . • , '••4' , . 44 '..,": . . • • ...' if";....•'..'! Ap ' ' .-... - ' •• - --.. N . ,: • .N. - r'. - . ._ ...- , ,. -,;',9.4"....: r-,-• - - - -,.. , !.‘ • ----r., - . .,... . - - -.- . --, - it -: .,,,,,, 'JO C4t • ._,,i- •-•_-• ,t...c-^-, • - • ..r-i• -• -• .'>-.. 'ilfp4.- ...: ' •- - - ' ' 'i° - . . gr.. --------„'', ' 'F.g. Mir , „„or.7- :- ./...5'.;,--..--r",,,. ----„,,,"■ ,,--•. ,... -..,::',-,:.• -••• .•,' . • , . . . “• .:1: ''.--- r:4 ,..' ilb,„,: -:' -: - 861 ..' ' • .::::'-' ' '' .., ) '''.• -;^. -•-, „iii4t4t ' 440' 4 -.''' -''' . .... . ' ';'-:_- ,.,•- - I 4 2ft wr ; , . r , c -,-0 - '• ' '•-. - .,.. :.---,.......____,., , .. ' . -././..' •.... . - -.7,, -!, 0,,,i,-....: , .1,--,.., •- H - ' . .'-•:: . •-' ..0. yet • .,-..: _ .:,.. _ ---,AEA II ___40:- N • - _, .,. ....- - : . -.•.”. , • - - - ------. ----- - - - ' __ y 11( it'';--- - N _ 4 -, t _ --: ......._ •• Z N ''' , .'0, '., :, .17 '''. ,', 1 - .• - .-- . , •,.. .1. - ' ' ' . • ), C....) '. ' I • , ,.., ' • " 11 .. ,:,, . A z • 0 ...:.:,....:„:„:„.„..:.:.,,,...,;::,•,:.•,...,,,,-,.. .; , •-•:ie• ...' -,. ..,-,-• • • • 0 —i , - -.. - ;•6 _ , 1+. - . , • H = z • ' ..`.. ;„.. , r C., ■ , ' .:1'.•.. '•:.?'„:`,4110' . ' < al-I , 11 ' .'; ' • ' - ' , . ., _ . . 41 . . . .... _ tb. - :•,... -. .,. , , % ; - • - _ ---.1 - r' , ,',I -4- I.T. 0) • 4-4 - = c, P4 o 040116,ki°*001i m I ... . . , I - ,- . . , 1,...' --.;_. ,, -::: --• .2 u yi . • - • '- .- A ' • • , , -.L c,-5.:A:., P. s... - ' . ' --. -.',. ,, :... 5r •', ;'-': , ...- - - . - 1 ' . . 2 6 . . . C*-q 1,14 1) • ,,!.. ",.; .- ' .:.,', .....----....,--,... „ , ' 1. PG , ,/ ., - • es " -to -11 ftriaitKir: :,-, ': --•:-. . . . -- . . _ - ,.,1 E ■ '-I = cci • • - . ..- . • • • - - +-'1) Z ""' • . . ,.;.-- • 4-4 r .,- - 1 = . ... '0'.:.-17 ' - .7; ''''". , , .t• ' .; .,-: .,,, ... .-- • ' . . ,••• Cip ° • , - ...- ,,,) - •- i 1 g ii z s.- 0 „... 1b 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Whelan Smith, IT Support Coordinator THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager Jim Considine, IT Director DATE OF MEMO: January 28th, 2011 MEETING DATE: February 14th, 2011 RE: Spending Approval — KACE Systems Management Solution REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Information Technology (IT) Department, a joint City/County department, requests approval to spend previously approved budget in the amount of $43,129.36 (shared 5o /5o with Pitkin County) for the purchase of a KACE Systems Management Appliance. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Aspen City Council and Pitkin County BOCC approved 2011 budget for capital replacement and upgrade of networking equipment. BACKGROUND: Challenges the IT Department currently face: 1. Need for a New Service Desk Software- The IT Department currently uses Help Desk software that is no longer supported by its vendor and has become a liability to our Support Team. It has become a priority for the Support Team to find new Service Desk software that will best serve our users and allow our Support Team to become more efficient. 2. Recent Loss of IT Support Staff - The IT support team has lost 2 full -time employees and 2 part-time employees within the last 9 months and will only be replacing the part-time employees. IT KACE Appliance_Solution —Memo to City Council, revised 01/31/2011. by Whelan Smith 2 3. Demand for Greater Support from City and County Employees- The support our City of Aspen and Pitkin County employees now demand requires our Support Team to be more accessible, time - sensitive and efficient. Doing "more with less" has become a necessity for our department as a whole, not only the Support Staff. 4. Need for Network and Asset Management - The IT Department has struggled to manage its hardware and software inventory, as well as all the other assets and applications that we are responsible to manage. In addition, we don't have the proper tools in place to role out large software upgrades /patches to our servers and end users. DISCUSSION: KACE is a leading systems management appliance company with solutions tailored to the requirements of midsized businesses and public (government, education and healthcare) institutions. The KACE Khoo by Dell offers a complete desktop and asset management solution. It is an out -of -the box appliance solution with a wide range of standard management features which include: • Hardware and software inventory • Service desk software • Asset and application management • Software distribution • Patch management The KACE Web -Based Service Desk and Integrated User Portal • Makes it easy for users to submit support requests by email or through the portal • Allows users access to a flexible knowledge base • Allows users to install IT controlled software packages and access their support tickets Dell purchased KACE in February of 2010 and is the sole provider for the KACE Appliances. Dell is the primary server, laptop and desktop provider for the City of Aspen and Pitkin County. IT KACE Appliance Solution— Memo to City Council, revised 01/31/2011, by Whelan Smith 3 FINANCIAL /BUDGET IMPACTS: Pitkin County and City of Aspen are contributing 5o /5o to this project's total cost.The funding for this project was approved in the 2011 IT Capital budget. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Using the single Dell KACE appliance we would be able to consolidate the function of 4 -5 different tools to this single device, saving power and rack space. This would also allow the IT Department to become more efficient which would mean less time traveling to remote sites and /or more energy saved with more remote access. ALTERNATIVES: 1. Do nothing. Doing nothing and struggle with a helpdesk software that is archaic and not supported. Continue on with no Asset Management tool and no Inventory solution. 2. Piece together the tools using independent solutions. This would require greater man hours to configure and provide a solution that will never truly be integrated. In short, both of these alternatives would adversely affect the IT Department's continued ability to provide reliable, timely and cost effective customer support to our customers. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve spending of existing budget in the amount of $43,1 PROPOSED MOTION: `I move to approve the IT Department's expenditure of existing and approved budget in the amount of $43,129.36 for a KACE K11oo Systems Management Solution." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: s ern (An S2)1 c ajar j,,,,natirAft • ATTACHMENTS: - -end of file- - IT KACE_Appliance Memo to City Council, revised 01/31/2011. by Whelan Smith RESOLUTION # 1 d (Series of 2011) A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND DELL SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING KACE K1100 TAA HW SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT APPLICANCE AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council an agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and the, a copy of which agreement is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Dell regarding KACE K1100 TAA HW Systems Management Appliance for the city of Aspen, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, February 14, 2011 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk The City elllspen CITY OF ASPEN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT - 2009 SUPPLY PROCUREMENT City of Aspen Project No.: 2011 - 008 AGREEMENT made as of 14 day of February, in the year 2011. BETWEEN the City: Contract Amount: The City of Aspen c/o Information Technology 130 South Galena Street Total: $43,129.36 Aspen, Colorado 81611 Phone: (970) 920 -5055 If this Agreement requires the City to pay And the Vendor: an amount of money in excess of $25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid Dell until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. c/o City Council Approval: Phone: Date: Resolution No.: Summary Description of Items to be Purchased: KACE K11 TAA HIV based systems management applicance MNT RNWL — DELL KACE (A3718798) Exhibits appended and made a part of this Agreement: Exhibit A: List of supplies, equipment, or materials to be purchased. The City and Vendor agree as set forth below. 1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the items on Exhibit A appended hereto and by this reference incorporated herein as if fully set forth here for the sum set forth hereinabove. 2. Delivery. (FOB 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen, Colorado 81611) [Delivery Address] 3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the same are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Document are hereby made a part of this Agreement as if fully set out at length herein. 4. Warranties. Provisions listed in Exhibit A. 5. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents, representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor the Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder without the written consent of the other party. 6. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may assign this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any right to claim damages or to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein contained. 7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party. 8. Agreement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado. 9. Attorney's Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 10. Waiver of Presumption. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement. 11. Certification Regarding Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility, and Voluntary Exclusion. Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It further certifies that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that Vendor or any lower tier participant was unable to certify to the statement, an explanation was attached to the Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City. 12. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest. (A) Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of securing business. (B) Vendor agrees not to give any employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefore. (C) Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this Agreement. (D) In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to: 1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City; 2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor or subcontractor under City contracts; 3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of anything transferred or received by the Vendor; and 4. Recover such value from the offending parties. 13. Termination for Default or for Convenience of City. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be canceled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience. 14. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. If this Agreement contemplates the City using state or federal funds to meet its obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 15. City Council Approval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money in excess of $10,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council of the City of Aspen. 16. Non - Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform under this Agreement. Vendor agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, section 13 -98, pertaining to nondiscrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act of 1957, as amended and other applicable state and federal laws respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices. 17. Integration and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council meeting, has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on behalf of the City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed by the parties hereto. 18. Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he /she is an authorized representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he /she has full and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified herein. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this Agreement to be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all intents and purposes, shall be considered as the original. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE] • FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN: ATTEST: By: City Manager City Clerk VENDOR: DELL By: Senior Contracts Manager Title EXHIBIT A • DELL QUOTATION QUOTE #: 569378218 Customer #: 534496 Contract #: WNO2ACA CustomerAgreement #: 20511YYY3OMIWSCA Quote Date: 12/29/10 Date: 12/29110 4:15:33 PM Customer Name: CITY OF ASPEN TOTAL QUOTE AMOUNT: $43,129.36 Product Subtotal: $43,129.36 Tax: $0.00 Shipping & Handling: $0.00 Shipping Method: Ground Total Number of System Groups: GROUP: 1 ' QUANTITY: 1 SYSTEM PRICE: $35,553.111 GROUP TOTAL: $35,553.11 Base Unit KACE K1100 TAA NW based systems management appliance, with 100 nodes (224 401) Base Unit KACE, Non iretw abte Product. Informational SKU only 13314414) Baas Uri Race 1100 taaa (3314080) Floppy Disk Drive: KACE1100,NODE, Add 100 (331-0814) - Quantly 8 Bask Hardware SeMC4s: Business Hours (1X10) Next easiness Day On Site Naraware Warranty Swim aepait 4Year Extend (9264944) Basle Iterdware SsMeea: Buelneae Noun (8X10) Next Business Day On Site Hardware Warman Service: Reek mMal Year (11.144310) Sankt: Dora Hardwire Limited Warranty Plus OosIte SSMa manes Yw (9314498) SeMea: Dell Hardware Limited Warranty Pius Onsite Service Initial Year (9258177) Service: SATA lard DMe Ltd Yhwanty war Bask Supped.• Year Extended (989 -4014) Service: SATA lard Drive Ltd Warranty with Bask Support, tnItisl nor (9•4 -4100) Extended Service: Sandia Software Support it Melebnenee tor 100 Additional Nodes, 3 Yeas (9324432) - Quantity a DkIlne Standard Software Support & Maintenance ter up to 100 Nodes, 3 Wars (929 -4202) Installation: Standard Amain* Jumpatsf 4 None of Online Training (928.2019) SOFTWARE & ACCESSORIES Product Quantity Unk Price I Total PANT HNWL -DELL KACE- Non Returnable037107S0) 7975 10.96 97,67838 Number of S & A Items: 1 S&A Total Amount: (7,576.25 SALES REP:' DANA HARRIS I PHONE: I 1- 0004164038 vtcn MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM : Randy Ready, Asst. City Manager CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager DATE: January 28, 2011 RE: Resolution # 3 , Series of 2011, Tourism Promotion Fund Agreement with the Aspen Chamber Resort Association SUMMARY: Attached for your approval is a proposed resolution and agreement with the Aspen Chamber Resort Association regarding the City of Aspen Tourism Promotion Fund. The term of this Fourth Amended and Restated Agreement would expire on December 31, 2012. The scope of services, reporting, budgeting, accounting and other provisions remain the same as in previous agreements. The dates have been changed to correspond to the new three -year term, and the agreement now incorporates the additional 1% Visitor Benefit and Promotions Tax that was approved by Aspen voters in November 2010. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The original 1.0% Visitor Benefit Tax on the short-term rental of commercial lodging accommodations was approved by Aspen voters in November 2000. Fifty percent (50 %) of the proceeds from that tax is dedicated to transportation services and fifty percent (50 %) is dedicated to tourism promotion activities as described in Ordinance No. 45, Series 2000, in the Agreement effective February 27, 2001 and in subsequent restated agreements. In November 2010 Aspen voters approved an additional 1% Visitor Benefit and Promotions Tax, 100% of which is dedicated for tourism promotion activities. Therefore, the current total Visitor Benefit and Promotions Tax is 2 %. 25% of that total amount is dedicated to transportation services and 75% is dedicated for tourism promotion activities as described in Ordinance 31 of 2010 and in the attached agreement. Debbie Braun and Julia Theisen annually present the ACRA Marketing Plan and Budget to Council during a work session typically in November each year. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Resolution # F 3 , Series of 2011. RESOLUTION NO. 15 SERIES OF 2011 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A FOURTH AMENDED AND RESTATED AREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AND THE ASPEN CHAMBER RESORT ASSOCIATION SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING MARKETING AND TOURISM PROMOTION SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a Fourth Amended and Restated Agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado and the Aspen Chamber Resort Association, LLLP, a copy of which document is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves a Fourth Amended and Restated Agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado and the Aspen Chamber Resort Association regarding marketing and tourism promotion services for the City of Aspen, a copy of which document is annexed hereto, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said document on behalf of the City of Aspen. RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this th day of February, 2011, by the City Council for the City of Aspen, Colorado. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held February , 2011. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Fourth Amended and Restated CITY OF ASPEN AND ACRA TOURISM PROMOTION FUND AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is effective this 1st day of January 2011, by and between the CITY OF ASPEN (the "City ") and the ASPEN CHAMBER RESORT ASSOCIATION ( "ACRA "), RECITALS 1. The City and ACRA entered into that certain Agreement dated February 27, 2001, and the parties hereto desire to renew said agreement and include reference to the additional 1% visitor benefit and promotion tax approved in 2010. 2. The City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 45, Series of 2000, which imposes a 1.0% visitor benefits tax on condition that the voters of the City of Aspen approve the aforementioned ballot question at the November 7, 2000 municipal election, which the voters did approve. 3. Ordinance No. 45, Series of 2000, requires the City Council to appropriate 50% of all revenues generated by the original tax for marketing and promotional efforts for the City's tourism industry. 4. The City Council has adopted Ordinance No. 31, Series of 2010, which imposes an additional 1% visitor benefit and promotion tax on condition that the voters of the City of Aspen approve the aforementioned ballot question at the November 2, 2010 municipal election, which the voters did approve. 5. Ordinance No. 31, Series 2010, requires the City Council to appropriate 100% of all revenues generated by the additional 1% tax for marketing and promotional efforts for the City's tourism industry. 6. As a result, 25% of all revenues generated by the total 2% visitor benefit and promotion tax shall be used to enable the City to meet its financial obligations to the Roaring Fork Regional Transportation Authority or other similar transportation services provider, and 75% of all revenues generated shall be used for marketing and promotional efforts for the City's tourism industry. 7. The City desires to contract with an organization capable of performing the marketing and promotional efforts contemplated by said ordinance. 8. The Aspen Chamber Resort Association desires to contract with the City to receive funds appropriated by the City Council for tourism promotion activities and to thereafter perform such tourism promotion activities on behalf of the City of Aspen. AGREEMENT In consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby mutually acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: 1. Intent of the Parties. The parties to this Agreement agree that the following sets forth their intent in entering into this agreement and the principles set forth below shall help guide all future interpretations of this Agreement and the parties continuing relationship with respect to the expenditure of tourism promotion funds of the City of Aspen. a. The parties acknowledge that the City shall use funds generated by the visitor benefit and promotions tax imposed by Ordinance No. 45, Series of 2000, and Ordinance No. 31, Series 2010, to meet its financial obligations pursuant to this Agreement. Accordingly, the parties acknowledge that the purpose, limitations, and administrative requirements of such funds as set forth in said ordinances shall apply to this Agreement. b. The parties intend to enter into a continuing relationship for the multi -year planning and implementation of tourism promotion activities as set forth herein. c. The parties acknowledge that the purpose of 75% of the 2% visitor benefit and promotions tax is to, inter alia, to generate sufficient funds primarily for new (i.e. developed since February 27, 2001, strategies and activities) for planning and delivering tourism promotion activities on behalf of the City of Aspen. Accordingly, the marketing plan and budget contemplated by this Agreement shall be primarily for new strategies and activities not funded by the City, ACRA or other third parties prior to 2001 that support the goal of bringing new visitors to Aspen. 2. Scope of Services and Marketing Program. a. During the City's annual budget review and adoption procedures, ACRA shall recommend a marketing plan and budget for the City's forthcoming calendar year. b. The marketing plan and budget shall include the following: 1. planning and implementing the advertisement, promotion, and development of tourism in the City of Aspen; 2. tourism advertising, written and graphic materials, and cooperative and matching promotional materials; 3. gathering and disseminating information on the tourist industries and attractions of the City of Aspen; 4. purchasing such equipment, materials, and supplies as shall be necessary, to be used solely for tourist promotion; 5. contracting for those services and materials as may be incidental, necessary, and appropriate to the accomplishment of the purposes of the fund, including but not limited to, administrative, secretarial, clerical, or professional services deemed necessary; 6. promoting conferences, conventions, and meetings of a commercial, cultural, educational, or social nature to the City of Aspen; 7. promoting sporting events and social and cultural events sponsored by non - profit organizations; 8. defraying administrative and clerical costs of collecting and administering the tax, provided such expenses do not exceed the actual costs of such administrative and clerical costs. c. The marketing services shall be generally primarily for new (Le. developed since February 27, 2001 strategies and activities), and ACRA shall not defray costs of existing programs, special events and marketing efforts including airport host program, visitor center support, among others, with funds from the marketing fund. Marketing funds may be used to enhance or promote existing tourism promotion programs and special events. d. The general nature and content of advertising paid for by the marketing fund shall follow these guidelines: the purpose of advertising and promotion shall be to enhance the year -round economy and public welfare of the City as a whole; advertising and promotional efforts shall avoid undue emphasis upon any particular commercial activity or enterprise that might be construed to create a competitive disadvantage to other similar commercial enterprises; and there shall be no advertising or promotion that is misleading or deceptive and therefore opposed to the public interest or prejudicial to the interests of the City . e. ACRA shall be solely responsible for planning and implementation of specific details of the marketing program and may include the lodging community in such planning. ACRA shall monitor the program and ensure conformance to its budget. At least 70 per cent of the funds are to be expended on program costs, rather than on support or staff. ACRA shall not use fund proceeds for its existing operational costs, for expenses not directly attributable to the purposes of this Agreement, or expenses not indentified in its annual marketing plan and budget as approved by the City Council. f. The ACRA and Aspen Lodging Association shall meet at least annually before October 15 of each calendar year to review a tourism promotion plan and budget for the City's following fiscal year prior to presentation to the City Council. 3. Term. The term of this Agreement shall be from January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2012. This agreement may be terminated by either party as set forth as Section 8, below. 4. Reporting and Budgeting. ACRA shall submit a detailed marketing program and expense budget for inclusion in the City's budgeting packets, along with a review of the previous year's program. The City Manager shall provide budget recommendations, including an estimate of prospective tax proceeds, general fund contributions, prior year carry- forward balance, and interest income. The marketing fund shall be eliminated from the City's Grant Panel Review process in that it is its own separate fund. The ACRA is allowed and encouraged to attend and advise the City Council at all such meetings where the marketing program and budget is discussed. ACRA shall provide annual reports to the City on the fund and expenditures from it. 5. Accounting. The City shall pay ACRA based on an agreed upon schedule on a monthly basis the total amount approved by the City Council each year. ACRA shall be responsible for paying its vendors, suppliers, subcontractors, staff, and the like. ACRA shall maintain the tax fund receipts in a separate and interest - bearing bank account from its general funds. The City may inspect ACRA's records upon reasonable notice. All marketing funds accrued during the life of this Agreement shall be paid over to ACRA, although ACRA shall account for and refund any funds not expended for the purposes set forth in this Agreement. 6. Supplemental Funding. The City agreed for the calendar year 2009 to supplement from the City's General Fund the funds raised from the visitor benefit and promotions tax by the amount of 5170,753. The parties agreed that $80,000 of that amount would be repaid from excess collections above the budgeted annual revenue estimates by the end of 2011 if the additional 1% visitor benefit and promotions tax passed. In addition, the City agreed for the calendar year 2010 to supplement from the City's General Fund the funds raised from the visitor benefit and promotions tax by the amount of $500,000. The parties agreed that $400,000 of that amount would be repaid if the additional 1% visitor benefit and promotions tax passed. In November of 2010, the City secured additional funding for tourism promotion in the form of an additional 1% visitor benefit and promotions tax. Because the additional funding for tourism promotion was approved by voters on November 2, 2010, the tourism promotion fund will repay the City's General Fund 5480,000. The repayment shall be 5100,000 per year for four years beginning in 2011, plus the repayment of the $80,000 as outlined above, unless sooner required in order for the City to be in compliance with its adopted Financial Policies as may be amended by the City Council. 7. Equal Access. Any and all businesses within the City shall be permitted equal access and opportunity to participate in cooperative advertising efforts and package promotions specifically related to and supported by the use of the marketing funds referenced in this Agreement, whether or not the business is a member of the ACRA or the Aspen Lodging Association. That is, to the maximum extent possible, ACRA shall make a distinction between member service and other existing programs supported by membership dues, and new programs supported by the City and this Agreement, and as to the latter, not discriminate based on membership in the organizations. 8. Termination. Either party may terminate this agreement effective on December 31, 2010, or December 31, 2011; provided, however, that written notice is delivered to the other party not later than September 30 of the year preceding the calendar year that termination is to become effective. 9. Other Restrictions and Provisions a. The City shall not unreasonably withhold or redirect funds from the marketing funds raised by the visitor benefit and promotions tax that are to be handled by the ACRA. These are intended to be additional funds for marketing, and the intent is that the City will continue its existing funding (for the visitors center, etc.) as a floor, and not lessen those so that the marketing funds from the tax are not absorbed into existing ACRA /City programs. b. The marketing funds shall not be used for city capital projects such as the construction of visitor information centers or other tourist amenities. c. The City Council shall not, without prior consultation with ACRA, change the agent assigned to manage the tourism marketing funds. Nor shall the City change that agent without some sort of cause and explanation, and it shall consult with the ACRA as to any new fund manager. d. ACRA shall not use any of the marketing funds for providing direct reservation services. e. ACRA shall not use fund proceeds to influence the outcome of any election. 10. Binding Effect. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective heirs, representatives, successors and assigns and to any person into or with which any party hereto may merge, consolidate, or reorganize. 11. Acknowledgements. The parties declared that they have read and understand the terms of this Agreement, that they have had an opportunity to be represented by counsel with regard to the execution of this Agreement, and that they execute this Agreement voluntarily and without being pressured or influenced by any statement or representation made by any person acting on behalf of anyone else. 12. Indemnification. ACRA agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers, employees, insurers, from and against all liability, claims and demands on account of injury, loss, or damage, arising out of or in any manner connected with this Agreement, if such injury, loss, or damage is caused in whole or part, or is claimed to be caused in whole or part by, the act, omission, error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of ACRA, employee, representative, or agent. ACRA agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide a defense for and defend against any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of ACRA, or at the option of the City, ACRA agree to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the City in connection with, any such liability, claims or demands. If it is determined by the final judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or part by the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse ACRA for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or employees. If any lawsuit challenges the City's authority to impose the visitor benefits tax, the City shall be primarily responsible for the defense of the suit. 13. No Warranties. Except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, the parties have not made and make no other representations, warranties, statements, promises or agreements to each other. 14. Entire Agreement. The parties agree that this Agreement represents the entire agreement and supersedes all prior agreements between and among them with regard to the subject matter set forth herein, and may not be amended nor may any condition contained herein be waived except by written instrument signed by all parties. 15. Notices. Notices hereunder shall be sent to the City Manager and the City Attorney at 130 S. Galena Street, Aspen CO 81611; to ACRA at Aspen Chamber Resort Association, 425 Rio Grande Place, Aspen CO 81611; and to Oates, Knezevich & Gardenswartz, P.C., 533 East Hopkins Avenue, Aspen CO 81611. 16. Counterpart Signatures. This document may be executed in counterpart original copies, with the original signatures on separate pages to be collated together on one original form of the agreement. CITY OF ASPEN, a municipal corporation Attest: By: Stephen H. Barwick City Clerk ASPEN CHAMBER RESORT ASSOCIATION Attest: By: Debbie Braun, President Secretary ct MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: February 7, 2011 RE: Resolution # 2011 — Supporting the White River National Forest's Grant Proposal At a January 11, 2011 County Commissioners work session, representatives of the White River National Forest Service and the Colorado Division of Wildlife presented information regarding the proposed Aspen - Sopris Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project to the County Commissioners. The goal of this project is to improve wildlife browse and habitat for bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk, and a variety of non -game wildlife that inhabit fire - adapted vegetation communities. Prescribed burning and mechanical treatments is proposed on shrublands, aspen, conifer, and grassland vegetation on approximately 50,000 acres of Forest Service lands across the Aspen - Sopris District. Approximately half of the 50,000 acres to be treated will be in Pitkin County. To fund the proposed project, the White River National Forest is applying for an internal U.S. Forest Service grant known as the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) grant. The attached resolution is in support of the White River National Forest grant application and has no financial implications to the city. The Pitkin County Commissioners are being asked to adopt a similar resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 1 (Series of 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, SUPPORTING THE COLLABORATIVE FOREST LANDSCAPE RESTORATION PROGRAM (CFLRP) GRANT PROPOSAL FOR THE ASPEN - SOPRIS WILDLIFE HABITAT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ON THE WHITE RIVER NATIONAL FOREST WHEREAS the stated purpose of the Aspen - Sopris Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project proposal is to develop a collaborative approach to improve wildlife browse and habitat for bighorn sheep, mule deer, elk and a variety of non -game wildlife that inhabit fire - adapted vegetation communities. Prescribed burning and mechanical treatments are proposed on shrublands, aspen, conifer, and grassland vegetation on approximately 50,000 acres of land across the Aspen - Sopris District of the White River National Forest Service. Approximately half of the 50,000 acres to be treated will be in Pitkin County, and WHEREAS, the City of Aspen supports funding of the Aspen - Sopris Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project through the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) grant because it ultimately results in the following benefits: a. Maintenance of resources that are a critical component of Pitkin County's tourism economy; Wildlife viewing and hunting are both activities that are highly valued by residents and tourists, and dependent upon healthy wildlife populations and habitat; and b. Public health/safety and tax dollar savings related to reduction of risk for catastrophic wildland fire; Restoring natural fire regimes in appropriate locations may not only improve habitat, but ultimately reduce the risk for catastrophic wildland fire and associated risks to adjacent populated areas in Pitkin County. Collaborating with local fire management agencies on controlled burns may in the long run not only address health/safety issues, but save tax dollars otherwise necessary to fight wildland fires; and c. Potential for a collaborative effort between the White River National Forest and Pitkin County Open Space and Trails; Pitkin County Open Space and Trails owns and protects thousands of acres of wildlife habitat, some of which is adjacent and provides access to, the National Forest Lands. County- adopted management plans for these lands define similar goals to those of the Forest for habitat management. Coordination and collaboration between the two agencies may result in cost sharing and improved habitat on a larger scale, allowing for a broader application of habitat improvement on contiguous lands, increasing overall benefits to wildlife and the public. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Aspen, Colorado that it hereby supports funding of the Aspen - Sopris Wildlife Habitat Improvement Project through the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) grant. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED ON THE 14TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held on the day hereinabove stated. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk ill THE CITY OF ASPEN OFFICE OF THE MAYOR February 16` 2011 United States Forest Service - White River National Forest ' 900 Grand Ave P.O. Box 948 Glenwood Springs CO 81602 RE: Aspen - Sopris Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Project Dear Colleagues: The City of Aspen supports funding for the Aspen - Sopris Wildlife Habitat Enhancement Project through the Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program because it results in the following benefits: ' a. Maintenance of resources that are a critical component of Aspen and Pitkin County's tourism economy, including wildlife viewing and hunting b. Public health and safety tax dollar savings because of the reduction of risk for catastrophic wildland fire, and c. The potential for a collaborative effort between the White River National Forest and the community's open space and trails programs. The elected official and the staff of the City of Aspen look forward to working with the White River National Forest Team on this project and other collaborative efforts in the future. A Sincerely, g - it/i i Michael C. Ireland Mayor 130 SOUTH GALENA STREET • ASPEN, COLORADO 81611 -1975 • PHONE 970.920.5199 • FAX 970.920.5119 Printed on Recycled Paper Vte. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk DATE: February 7, 2011 RE: Board Appointments Open Space and Trails Howie Mallory — reappointed regular member Joyce Allgaier — regular member Gyles Thornely — alternate member Historic Preservation Commission Brian McNellis — reappointed regular member Willis Pember — alternate member Planning and Zoning Commission LJ Erspamer — reappointed regular member Commercial Core and Lodging Commission Bill Dinsmoor — reappointed regular member Siam Castillo — regular member Jim Pomeroy — alternate member Wheeler Opera House Tom Kurt — regular member Vacancies not filled Housing joint position Planning and Zoning — one alternate Wheeler Opera House — one regular By approving the consent calendar, Council is making the above appointments. MEMORANDUM V It TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council efik THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: First Reading of Ordinance # Series of 2011, Proposed Amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 26.480, Subdivision DATE: February 14, 2011 APPLICANT: SUMMARY: The City of Aspen Community The Community Development Department proposes Development Department amendments to land use regulations related to historic landmark lot splits. While this form of subdivision exemption was initially created to benefit residential properties, it was extended to the Mixed Use, MU ,+1'' r Zone district ten years ago. The proposed code III , /�,• � ' amendment would remove some existing disincentives for historic landmark lot splits in the Mixed Use zone %' district, and would permit this historic preservation strategy to be applied in the Commercial, C -1 zone AI I district. OF STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff, HPC and P &Z recommend Council approval of the attached code amendments. H I S T O R I C PRESERVATION BACKGROUND: There are two changes proposed. 1. To remove language that requires the purpose of the lot split to be for the creation of a new single family house. The historic preservation program has included special benefits for owners of landmark properties since 1987. Among the original provisions was the ability to develop a free market residential unit adjacent to the landmark structure, exempt from the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS.) In 1995, the concept of allowing more than one home on a landmark parcel - 1 - morphed into the Historic Landmark Lot Split, whereby two units on a designated, residentially zoned site could be on individual, fee simple lots, rather than limited to a condominium form of ownership. This was allowed in the R -6 and R -15A zone districts. In 2001, the Historic Landmark Lot Split was extended to the "0, Office" zone district (since renamed "MU, Mixed Use, ") the bulk of which is located on Main Street. In 2002, R -15 and RMF were added. There have been 21 Historic Landmark Lot Splits approved over the last 16 years. According to the subdivision review criteria, a Historic Landmark Lot Split is to be for the purpose of developing one new single- family dwelling. This has proven to be an awkward goal relative to the "Mixed Use" zone district because in 2005 a number of disincentives for the creation of new single family homes in the neighborhood were adopted, such as a reduction in allowable floor area. As a result, if a home is the only use that can be developed in this zone on a lot created by a Historic Landmark Lot Split, it has become much less desirable from an owner's perspective than exercising the rights allowed for mixed use buildings, plus confining the lot split to residential uses eliminates potentially desirable commercial use options. Two lot splits approved on Main Street in 2005 never had a plat recorded because the owners determined the restrictions were undesirable for them. The proposed code amendment would allow any permitted use on a Mixed Use lot created through a Historic Landmark Lot Split. Though Community Development is sponsoring the code amendment, there is an advocate. In 2007, Michael Tullio requested this same code amendment in order to allow the possibility of subdividing the condominium association currently in place between Salon Tullio (208 E. Main) and Aspen Home Consignment (202 E. Main). Each owner might wish to be on a 3,000 square foot fee simple lot. The code amendment was reviewed in 2007, received the support of P &Z and proceeded to second reading at City Council. Council decided not to take action because they were in the process of adopting Ordinance #48, and were envisioning the creation of the Historic Preservation Task Force, who was to look at all aspects of the program, including incentives. The Task Force did express general comments and concerns about the possibility of overdeveloping historic properties through the award of incentives including the Historic Landmark Lot Split, but did not make any specific recommendations for changes. In staff's estimation, there are approximately 6 lots in the Mixed Use Zone District that are possible candidates for a Historic Landmark Lot Split. One of the goals of the lot split is to offer an incentive to direct development pressure towards new buildings that are detached from the adjacent historic resource. This may be more likely if the language requiring the development to be a single family home is removed. 2. To extend the lot split to the C -1 zone district. The Commercial, C -1 zone district is comprised of three and a half city blocks between Hunter and Spring Streets. There are four historic properties in this area, three of which are candidates for a Historic Landmark Lot Split, which is not currently allowed. Again, Community Development is the applicant for the code amendment to include the C -1 zone district in the program, but advocates are Greg and Jane Hills, who own the three properties that might be eligible for the lot split. (The properties are currently occupied by Susie's at 623 E. Hopkins, Six 2 Five Salon at 625 E. Hopkins, and the former Adam Walton house, historically known as the -2- Berg House at 205 S. Spring.) The Historic Landmark Lot Split may provide more opportunities to separate ownership, diversify uses on these parcels, create detached buildings on the lots, etc. REVIEW PROCEDURE: Text Amendment. At a duly noticed public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall recommend by Resolution the City Council to approve, approve with conditions or deny the application. City Council is the final review authority. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the proposed amendments are consistent with the Standards of Review for amendments to the Municipal Code, as outlined in Exhibit A, and recommends Council approval on First Reading. HPC RECOMMENDATION: HPC reviewed the proposed code amendments on January 26, 2011 and recommended approval. P & Z RECOMMENDATION: P &Z reviewed the proposed code amendments on February 1, 2011 and recommended approval. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance # 7 Series of 2011, on First Reading." ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance # T Series of 2011 Exhibit A — Section 26.310.040 Standards of Review Exhibit B — Proposed amendments to Municipal Code Chapter 26.480, Subdivision - 3 - Exhibit A Sec. 26.310.040. Standards of review. In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Response: The amendment is not in conflict with other areas of the Municipal Code. Aspen adopted historic preservation regulations almost 40 years ago and policies that support preservation can be found throughout the Municipal Code. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Response: The AACP specifically addresses historic preservation and the importance of incentives. It states as a goal, "Maintain and add innovative ways to make preservation work in Aspen, such as the historic landmark lot split." The AACP also encourages efforts that "Create a more vibrant town with appropriate mixed uses and a variety of building sizes. Allow historic patterns to inform new development throughout town." Staff believes that restoring some of the smaller lot sizes that existed historically in town is in keeping with this statement. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Response: The amendments do not change the underlying zoning, allowed uses, or dimensional requirements on properties where a Historic Landmark Lot Split might occur. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Staff Response: n/a. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. Staff Response: nla. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Response: A well used quote within the preservation field is that "The greenest building is the one that already exists." Staff believes that impacts on the natural environment are generally reduced by historic preservation efforts. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. -4- Staff Response: This code amendment is intended to ensure stability in Aspen's neighborhoods and community characteristics by preserving past development patterns where appropriate. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Staff Response: n/a. 1 Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Response: Historic Preservation is a difficult task in Aspen because of high property values. It is clear that the City must provide a workable historic preservation program and benefits, which is addressed through these code amendments. - 5 - Ordinance # (SERIES OF 2011) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO AMENDING THE FOLLOWING SECTION OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE: 26.480, SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, the Community Development Department prepared amendments to Chapter 26.480 of the Aspen Municipal code, affecting historic landmark lot splits in the Mixed Use (MU) and Commercial(C -1) zone districts; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.310, applications to amend the text of Title 26 of the Municipal Code shall be reviewed and recommended for approval, approval with conditions, or denial by the Community Development Director and then by the Planning and Zoning Commission at a public hearing.•Final action shall be by City Council after reviewing and considering these recommendations; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Director of the Community Development Department recommends approval of the proposed amendments to the Land Use Code; and, WHEREAS, the proposed amendments were presented to the Aspen Historic Preservation Commission on January 26, 2011 for referral comments to be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and Aspen City Council. The Historic Preservation Commission recommended approval; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed amendments to the above noted Chapter on February 1, 2011, took and considered public testimony and the recommendations of the Community Development Director and Historic Preservation Commission and recommended, by a _ to _ vote, City Council adopt amendments to the land use code as written in Section 1, below, and WHEREAS, the amendments to the Land Use Code are delineated as follows: • Text being removed is bold and strikethrough. Text—being-removed—looks thith • Text being added is bold and underlined. Text being added looks like this. • Text which is not shown as strikethrough or underlined is not affected. WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the recommended changes to the Municipal Code under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendations of the Community Development 1 Director, Historic Preservation Commission and Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposed text amendments to the Municipal Code meet or exceed all applicable standards and that the approval of the proposal is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO as follows: Section 1: Chapter 26.480, Subdivision is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26.480.030. Exemptions. The following development shall be exempted from the terms of this Chapter: A. General exemptions. 1. Lot line adjustment. An adjustment of a lot line between contiguous lots if all the following conditions are met: a. It is demonstrated that the request is to correct an engineering or surveying error in a recorded plat or is to permit an insubstantial boundary change between adjacent parcels; and b. All landowners whose lot lines are being adjusted shall provide written consent to the application; and c. The corrected plat will meet the standards of this Chapter and conform to the requirements of this Title, including the dimensional requirements of the Zone District in which the lots are located, except in cases of an existing nonconforming lot, in which the adjustment shall not increase the nonconformity of the lot. The plat shall be submitted and recorded in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder. Failure to record the plat within a period of one hundred eighty (180) days following approval shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the Community Development Director will be required before its acceptance and recording; and d. It is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect the development rights, including any increase in FAR or permitted density of the affected lots by providing the opportunity to create a new lot for resale or development. A plat note will be added to the corrected plat indicating the purpose of the lot line adjustment and the recognition that no additional FAR will be allowed with the adjustment. 2 2. Lot split. The split of a lot for the purpose of • • : • • : •• • • : • • • creating one (1) additional development parcel on a lot formed by a lot split granted subsequent to November 14, 1977, where all of the following conditions are met: a. The land is not located in a subdivision approved by either the Board of County Commissioners or the City Council or the land is described as a metes and bounds parcel which has not been subdivided after the adoption of subdivision regulations by the City on March 24, 1969. This restriction shall not apply to properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. b. No more than two (2) lots are created by the lot split, both lots conform to the requirements of the underlying Zone District. Any lot for which development is proposed will mitigate for affordable housing pursuant to Chapter 26.470. c. The lot under consideration or any part thereof, was not previously the subject of a subdivision exemption under the provisions of this Chapter or a "lot split" exemption pursuant to . .. Chapter 26.470. d. A subdivision plat which meets the terms of this Chapter and conforms to the requirements of this Title, is submitted and recorded in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder after approval, indicating that no further subdivision may be granted for these lots nor will additional units be built without receipt of applicable approvals pursuant to this Chapter and growth management allocation pursuant to Chapter 26.470. e. The subdivision exemption agreement and plat shall be recorded in the office of the County Clerk and Recorder. Failure on the part of the applicant to record the plat within one hundred eighty (180) days following approval by the City Council shall render the plat invalid and reconsideration of the plat by the City Council will be required for a showing of good cause. f. In the case where an existing building occupies a site which is eligible for a lot split, the dwelling building need not be demolished prior to application for a lot split. g. Maximum potential residential build -out for the two (2) parcels created by a lot split shall not exceed three (3) units, which may be composed of a duplex and a single - family home. 3. Approved subdivision. All subdivisions approved prior to the effective date of this Chapter, except those lots contained within an approved subdivision which are intended or designed to be resubdivided into smaller lots, condominium units or multi- family dwellings. 3 4. Historic Landmark lot split. The split of a lot that is listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures for • • e • • .:.. • • : . • • • • • • • f m,,,,,i;y- dwelli ng the purpose of creating one (1) additional development parcel. The Historic Landmark lot split shall meet the requirements of Subsections 26.480.030.A.2 and 4, ~ ti 2c nen•G Chapter 26.470, : • - • • • • • • -' • • - i • • Code -and the following standards: a. The original parcel shall be a minimum of six thousand (6,000) square feet in size and be located in the R -6, R -15, R -15A, RMF, C-1 or 0 MU Zone District. b. The total FAR for booth- residenees each lot shall be established by dividing the size allowable floor area for a duplex or two detached residences on e€ the fathering parcel and according to the Zone District where the property is located. The total FAR for each lot shall be noted on the subdivision exemption plat. When the property is redeveloped with any allowed uses other than single family or duplex residential, refer to the Zone District for allowable FAR on each lot. s .. _ • 1 • • c. The proposed development meets all dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District. The variances provided in ' + : :: • - ; •' • - • • • . + ° ` • ' • Chapter 26.415 as benefits for historic preservation are only permitted on the A R b ius w ill b_ l' d t parcels that will-contains an historic structure. T -F e • , • _ • .. • • . Only one (1) FAR bonus of up • • to 500 square feet may be granted to each historic landmark lot split subdivision exemption. 5. Exempt timesharing. The creation of time -span estates that comply with the requirements for exempt timesharing, pursuant to Section 26.590.030 of the Code. This subdivision exemption shall not be used to create any new lots or dwelling units. (Ord. 4 No. 55 -2000, §11; Ord. No. 1 -2002, §11, 2002; Ord. No. 9 -2002, §9; Ord. No. 21 -2002, §7; Ord. No. 34 -2003, §1) Section 2: Existing Litigation This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4: Recordation That the City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 5: Public Hearing A public hearing on the ordinance was held on the 14th day of March, 2011, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney 5 VIlt MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official THROUGH: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director( " MEETING DATE: February 14, 2011 RE: Amendments to Title 8, Chapter 8.46 dhe 2009 International Energy Conservation Code. First Reading of Ordinance #_e Series of 2011 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests action from Council regarding an Ordinance to amend the current adoption the 2009 International Energy Conservation Code. The code continues to include commercial and residential renewable energy mitigation programs. SUMMARY: The proposed amendments to International Energy Conservation Code (IECC) and Appendices A and B result from staff and community input since June 2009 and the adoption and administration of the new code. Staff sought clarification regarding required inspections and sequencing. The design and energy engineer community produced results of monitoring solar hot water and ground source heat pump systems and offered suggestions to more fairly equate the onsite energy credits. Also, sections are added to address electric and hydronic roof and gutter deicing systems. This is the first of several ordinances building staff will bring to Council for adopting the 2009 International Codes. BACKGROUND: The community and staff have now applied the 2009 IECC to hundreds of residential and commercial projects over seventeen months. Free trainings have been offered to the public and staff continues to support our design and construction professionals to achieve compliance in plan review and the field. Staff and the renewable energy design professional agree the proposed amendments to Appendix A, the Residential Renewable Energy Mitigation Program, and Appendix B, the Commercial Renewable Energy Mitigation Program refine, clarify and make the code equitable and user friendly. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Ordinance # 00 2011 on first reading. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 1 ORDINANCE NO.6 (SERIES 2011) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING CHAPTER 8.46 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT THE 2009 INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODE. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen is nationally recognized as a leader in developing, adopting and administrating progressive energy codes; and WHEREAS, in 1995 the City of Aspen was the first jurisdiction in the country to regulate exterior energy use; and WHEREAS, in 2000 the City of Aspen was the first jurisdiction in the country to adopt a mandatory Renewable Energy Mitigation Program; and WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the citizens of and visitors to our community to continue and maintain a leadership role in energy code adoption and administration. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. Title 8 Chapter 8.46 of the Aspen Municipal Code is hereby amended and shall read as follows: Chapter 8.46 International Energy Conservation Code Sec. 8.46.010. Adoption of the 2009 Edition of the International Energy Conservation Code. Pursuant to the powers and authority conferred by the laws of the State and the Charter of the City, there is hereby adopted and incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth those regulations contained in the International Energy Conservation Code, 2009 Edition, as published by the International Code Council except as otherwise provided by amendment or deletion as contained in Section 8.46.020 of this Chapter. At least one (1) copy of the International Energy Conservation Code shall be available for inspection during regular business hours in the City Clerk's Office, second floor of City Hall. Sec. 8.46.020. Amendments. The International Energy Conservation Code, 2009 Edition, the addition of Appendix A "Residential Renewable Energy Mitigation Program" and Appendix B "Commercial Renewable Energy Mitigation Program" as adopted by the City at Section 8.46.010, is hereby amended to 1 provide and read as follows: (a) Section 101.1 Insert: "City of Aspen" for [NAME OF JURISDICTION]. (b) Section 104.3 "Final Inspection" is hereby amended and to read as follows: Section 104.3 Required energy efficiency inspections. The building official, upon notification, shall make the inspections set forth in Sections 104.3.1 through 104.4.5. Section 104.3.1 Building thermal envelope. Specific items referenced in Section 402.4.1 and Section 502.4.3 shall be inspected and approved. Section 104.3.2 Fenestration. All fenestration as defined in Section 202 shall be labeled, inspected and approved before the gypsum board inspection. Section 104.3.3 Insulation. All above and below grade wall and ceiling cavity insulation shall be labeled, inspected and approved before the gypsum board inspection. Section 104.3.4 Other inspections. In addition to the inspections specified above other inspection shall include, but not be limited to, inspections for: duct system R- value, HVAC and water - heating equipment efficiency and lighting compliance. Section 104.3.5 Final inspection. The building shall have a final energy efficiency inspection and not be occupied until approved. (c) Section 107.2 "Schedule of permit fees" is hereby amended and to read as follows: "A permit shall not be valid until the fees prescribed by Section 2.12.100 of this Code are paid in full." (d) Section 109 "Means of appeal" is deleted in its entirety and shall read as follows: "Section 109.1 Appeals shall be in accordance with Chapter 8.08 of this Code." (e) Add Section 110 "Liability" to read as follows: "The Building Official or his or her authorized representative charged with the enforcement of this code, acting in good faith and without malice in the discharge of his or her duties, shall not thereby render himself or herself personally liable for any damage that may accrue to persons or property as a result of any act or omission in the discharge of his or her 2 duties. "This Code shall not be construed to relieve or lessen the responsibility of any person owning, operating or controlling any building or structure for any damage to persons or property caused by defects on or in such premises, nor shall the code enforcement agency, any employee thereof or City be held as assuming any such responsibility or liability by reason of the adoption of this code or by the exercise of inspections authorized and carried out hereunder or by the issuance of any permits or certificates issued pursuant to this code." (f) Section 301 "Climate zones" is deleted in its entirety and shall read as follows: "The City of Aspen, Colorado shall use Climate Zone 7 in determining the applicable requirements from Chapters 4 and 5 ". (g) Section 402.4.2 Shall be amended as follows: Air sealing and insulation. Building envelope air tightness and insulation installation shall be demonstrated to comply with Section 402.4.2.1 . (h) 402.4.2.2 is deleted in its entirety. (i) Section 403.8 Snow Melt System Controls (Mandatory).shall be amended as follows: (Add) 403.8.1 "Snow Melt Slab Insulation. "R 10 insulation shall be installed under the area to be snow melted or R -5 insulation shall be installed under and at the slab edges of the area to be snow melted. (Add) 403.8.2 "Roof and gutter deicing ". Electric roof and gutter deicing systems shall be self regulating type cable and include automatic controls which limit the use of the system to daylight hours by means of a programmable timer. When installation exceeds manufacturers' design requirements electric roof and gutter deicing systems shall have automatic controls capable of turning off the system with when the outdoor temperature is above 50 degrees F and monitor moisture. Hydronic roof and gutter deicing systems shall have an automatic or manual control that will allow shutoff when the outdoor temperature is above 40 degrees F. 0) Section 503.2.4.5 Snow Melt System Controls. Shall be amended as follows: (Add) 503.2.4.5.1 "Snow Melt Slab Insulation. "R 10 insulation shall be installed under the area to be snow melted or R -5 insulation shall be installed under and at the slab edges of the area to be snow melted. (Add) 403.8.2 "Roof and gutter deicing ". Electric roof and gutter deicing systems shall be 3 self regulating type cable and include automatic controls which limit the use of the system to daylight hours by means of a programmable timer. When installation exceeds manufacturers' design requirements electric roof and gutter deicing systems shall have automatic controls capable of turning off the system with when the outdoor temperature is above 50 degrees F and monitor moisture. Hydronic roof and gutter deicing systems • shall have an automatic or manual control that will allow shutoff when the outdoor temperature is above 40 degrees F. Section 2. The International Energy Conservation Code is hereby amended by the addition of an Exhibit A which shall read as follows: Appendix A "Residential Renewable Energy Mitigation Program" SECTION 101 SCOPE AND ADMINISTRATION Section 101.1 Scope. Residential snowmelt, outside pool, or outside spa systems and equipment may be installed only if the supplemental energy meets the requirements of the Residential Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (RREMP) Appendix A. This applies to all installations for which an application for a permit or renewal of an existing permit is filed or is by law required to be filed with or without an associated Building Permit that include systems described in section 101.1. Residential Building is defined in IECC section 202. Section 101.2 Residential Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (RREMP) Option — Exterior energy use for residential snowmelt systems, outdoor spas, and outdoor pools are calculated as directed by Section 201. Section 101.3 On - site Renewable Credits Option — Renewable credit options are calculated as directed by Section 301. Section 102 Payment option. The RREMP payment option is the difference in energy use calculated in section 202 and on -site renewable credits calculated in section 302 and shall be paid at the time of issuance of the building permit. The payment, if any, is based on the amount of energy required, expressed as dollars per square foot, to operate the exterior energy use systems. No payment shall be made to an applicant that exceeds the energy use with on -site renewable credits. All monies collected pursuant to this section shall be recorded in a separate fund by the City Finance Director and shall be spent in accordance with a joint resolution by the Aspen City Council and Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. Section 103 Credits for on - site renewable energy. This RREMP payment option is voluntary. Applicants interested in exterior energy use systems can alternatively choose to produce on -site renewable energy (Section 301) with solar photovoltaics and/or solar hot water. Also the energy efficient technology of ground source heat pump systems (GSHP) is permitted for supplemental on -site energy. Micro -hydro and wind generation systems will be credited according to industry 4 standard site specific production reports. Section 104 Pre - existing systems. Pre- existing snowmelt, pools or spas which are being overhauled or renovated qualify for exterior energy credit. This credit can only be applied towards an installation of exterior energy on the same parcel. The calculation of the credit shall be based on section 301. Section 105 - Residential Repairs. Repairs to building components, systems, or equipment which do not increase their pre- existing energy consumption need not comply with RREMP. All replacement mechanical equipment shall be Energy Star© rated. SECTION 201 EXTERIOR ENERGY USE CALCULATIONS Section 201.1 Snow melt energy consumption shall be calculated as a RREMP payment option at $34.00 per square foot divided by the boiler efficiency (AFUE). Electric snow melt energy consumption shall be calculated as a RREMP payment option at $34.00 per square foot. Exception: Areas critical to pedestrian ingress, egress or life safety may be snow melted with the approval of the building official. Section 201.2 Outdoor pool energy use shall be calculated as a RREMP payment option at $136.00 per square foot divided by the boiler efficiency (AFUE). Section 201.3 Spa energy use shall be calculated as a RREMP payment option at $176.00 per square foot divided by the boiler efficiency (AFUE). Package portable self contained spas not more than 64 square feet are exempt. Section 201.4 The area of electric or hydronic roof and gutter deicing systems extending from the roof eave edge beyond six feet inside the exterior wall line measured beyond the sloped roof surface shall be considered a snow melt system and subject to mitigation calculated in section 201.1. Section 202 The total RREMP payment option is the total sum of exterior energy use of sections 201.1, 201.2 and 201.3. SECTION 301 ON - SITE RENEWABLE CREDITS Section 301.1 Photovoltaic Systems — On -site renewable credit shall be calculated as $6,250.00 per 1 KiloWatt of the system design. Solar electric (photovoltaic) systems tied to the electric grid, are eligible for on -site renewable credit. Systems must be sited, oriented and installed for solar electric panels to supply at least 90% of rated capacity of the installed KW. System designer /installer must be certified by COSEIA (Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association) , NABCEP (National Association of Board Certified Energy Professionals) or a licensed electrical contractor registered with the City of Aspen. The code official is authorized to accept other certification agencies that satisfy equivalent requirement and qualifications. 5 Section 301.2 Solar Hot Water - On -site renewable credit shall be calculated as $125.00 per 1 square foot of the system design. System designer /installer must be certified by COSEIA (Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association) , NABCEP (National Association of Board Certified Energy Professionals) or a licensed plumbing contractor registered with the City of Aspen.. The code official is authorized to accept other certification agencies that satisfy equivalent requirement and qualifications. Section 301.3 Ground Source Heat Pump - On -site renewable credit shall be calculated as $1,400 per 10,000 BTU per hour of the system capacity. In order to use a GSHP for on -site renewable credit the GSHP system must supply at least 40% of the peak load for heating the building (Manual J or equivalent). A minimum COP of 3 at entering source water temperature maximum of 30 degress and leaving load water temperature minimum of 110 degrees shall be the design criteria. Section 302 The total RREMP on -site renewable credit is the total sum of sections 301.1, 301.2 and 301.3. PUBLIC DOMAIN SOFTWARE Section 401 A free calculation program known as RREMP 2009 shall be made available to the public. EXAMPLE CALCULATION FOR RESIDENTIAL RENEWABLE ENERGY MITIGATION PROGRAM Snowmelt Example ( Snowmelt requested 800 sq. ft.) $34.00 *800/ .91 (efficiency rating of boiler) = $29,890.11 RREMP payment option for exterior energy use will be $29,890.11 ON -SITE RENEWABLE CREDITS 96 square feet of solar hot water panels *$125.00 per square foot = $12,000.00 RREMP payment option will be $17,890.11 OR 4.8 KW photovoltaic system *$6,250.00 per kilowatt = $30.000.00 RREMP payment option will be $0 6 Section 3. The International Energy Conservation Code is hereby amended by the addition of an Exhibit B which shall read as follows: Appendix B "Commercial Renewable Energy Mitigation Program" SECTION 101 SCOPE AND ADMINISTRATION. Section 101.1 Scope. Commercial snowmelt, outside pool, or outside spa systems and equipment may be installed only if the supplemental energy meets the requirements of the Commercial Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (CREMP) Appendix B. This applies to all installations for which an application for a permit or renewal of an existing permit is filed or is by law required to be filed with or without an associated Building Permit that include systems described in section 101.1. Commercial Building is defined in IECC section 202. Section 101.2 Commercial Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (CREMP) Option — Exterior energy use for commercial snowmelt systems, outdoor spas, and outdoor pools are calculated as directed by Section 201. Section 101.3 On - site Renewable Credits Option — Renewable credit options are calculated as directed by Section 301. Section 102 Payment option. The CREMP payment option is the difference in energy use calculated in section 202 and on -site renewable credits calculated in section 302 and shall be paid at the time of issuance of the building permit. The payment, if any, is based on the amount of energy required, expressed as dollars per square foot, to operate the exterior energy use systems. No payment shall be made to an applicant that exceeds the energy use with on -site renewable credits. All monies collected pursuant to this section shall be recorded in a separate fund by the City Finance Director and shall be spent in accordance with a joint resolution by the Aspen City Council and Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. Section 103 Credits for on - site renewable energy. This CREMP payment option is voluntary. Applicants interested in exterior energy use systems can alternatively choose to produce on -site renewable energy (Section 301) with solar photovoltaics and/or solar hot water. Also the energy efficient technology of ground source heat pump systems (GSHP) is permitted for supplemental on -site energy. Micro -hydro and wind generation systems will be credited according to industry standard site specific production reports. Section 104 Pre - existing systems. Pre - existing snowmelt, pools or spas which are being overhauled or renovated qualify for exterior energy credit. This credit can only be applied towards an installation of exterior energy on the same parcel. The calculation of the credit shall be based on section 301. Section 105 - Commercial Repairs. Repairs to building components, systems, or equipment 7 which do not increase their pre- existing energy consumption need not comply with CREMP. Section 201 EXTERIOR ENERGY USE CALCULATIONS Section 201.1 Snow melt energy consumption shall be calculated as a CREMP payment option at $60.00 per square foot divided by the boiler efficiency (AFUE). Electric snow melt energy consumption shall be calculated as a CREMP payment option at $60.00 per square foot. Exception: Areas critical to pedestrian ingress, egress or life safety may be snow melted with the approval of the building official. Section 201.2 Outdoor pool energy use shall be calculated as a CREMP payment option at $170.00 per square foot divided by the boiler efficiency (AFUE). Section 201.3 Spa energy use shall be calculated as a CREMP payment option at $176.00 per square foot divided by the boiler efficiency (AFUE). Package portable self contained spas not more than 64 square feet are exempt. Section 201.4 The area of electric or hydronic roof and gutter deicing systems extending from the roof eave edge beyond six feet inside the exterior wall line measured beyond the sloped roof surface shall be considered a snow melt system and subject to mitigation calculated in section 201.1. Section 202 The total CREMP payment option is the total sum of exterior energy use of sections 201.1, 201.2 and 201.3. Section 301 ON -SITE RENEWABLE CREDITS Section 301.1 Photovoltaic Systems — On -site renewable credit shall be calculated as $6,250.00 per 1 KiloWatt of the system design. Solar electric (photovoltaic) systems tied to the electric grid, are eligible for on -site renewable credit. Systems must be sited, oriented and installed for solar electric panels to supply at least 90% of rated capacity of the installed KW. System designer /installer must be certified by COSEIA (Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association), NABCEP (National Association of Board Certified Energy Professionals) or) or a licensed electrical contractor registered with the City of Aspen.. The code official is authorized to accept other certification agencies that satisfy equivalent requirement and qualifications. Section 301.2 Solar Hot Water - On -site renewable credit shall be calculated as $224.65 per 1 square foot of the system design. System designer /installer must be certified by COSEIA (Colorado Solar Energy Industries Association), NABCEP (National Association of Board Certified Energy Professionals) or a licensed plumbing contractor registered with the City of Aspen.. The code official is authorized to accept other certification agencies that satisfy equivalent requirement and qualifications. Section 301.3 Ground Source Heat Pump - On -site renewable credit shall be calculated as $1,400 per 10,000 BTU per hour of the system capacity. In order to use a GSHP for on -site 8 renewable credit the GSHP system must supply at least 40% of the peak load for heating the building (Manual J or equivalent). A minimum COP of 3 at entering source water temperature maximum of 30 degress and leaving load water temperature minimum of 110 degrees shall be the design criteria. Section 302 The total CREMP on -site renewable credit is the total sum of sections 301.1, 301.2 and 301.3. PUBLIC DOMAIN SOFTWARE Section 401 A free calculation program known as CREMP 2009 shall be made available to the public. EXAMPLE CALCULATION FOR COMMERCIAL RENEWABLE ENERGY MITIGATION PROGRAM Snowmelt area 1200 sq. ft. $60.00* 1,200/.92 (efficiency rating of boiler) = $78,260.87 Pool area 700 sq. ft. $170.00 *700 /.92(efficiency rating of boiler)= $119000.00 Spa area 80 sq. ft. $176.00* 80 /.92(efficiency rating of boiler) = $15,304.35 RREMP payment option for exterior energy use will be $222,913.04 ON -SITE RENEWABLE CREDITS 448 square feet of solar hot water panels *$125.00 per square foot = $56,000 20 KW photovoltaic system *$6,241.20 per kilowatt = $124,824.00 RREMP payment option will be $0 Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: A public hearing on the Ordinance was held on the 28`" day of February, 2011, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 6: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. 9 rtildPiWif •110000. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 14 day of February, 2011. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, Michael C. Ireland, City Clerk Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2011. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, Michael C. Ireland, City Clerk Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney 10 VI MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director DATE: February 14, 2011 RE: First reading of Ordinance No. tf , Series of 2011 2011 Development Fees Second reading February 28 SUMMARY: Community Development is proposing changes to the fees charged to applicants for planning and building services. The current system subsidizes development services and has become a major burden on the General Fund. Development fees have not been raised in four years. During a recent work session, City Council directed staff to prepare a development fee system based on how each type of service in building and planning should be allocated — either as a development service, a public service, or split. Planning reviews are billed at an hourly rate that includes the department's overhead costs. The rate has been $245 per hour. Long -range planning activities are a significant portion of the department's expenditure. Council directed staff to prepare a fee structure based on long - range planning being supported 75% by development and 25% by the public's general fund. This results in an hourly rate of $330. The proposed ordinance uses a rate of $315 per hour, which is the rate currently charged by Pitkin County. Staff also looked at a scenario splitting long -range planning expense 50/50, which results in a rate of $290 per hour. Zoning review fees are based on the size and complexity of a project. The proposal separates projects that require precise measurements (floor area, height, etc.) verses those that are limited to interior work and take significantly less time to review. New are change order fees and a fee for a conditional CO. These are extra services not included in the base fee that staff feels should be charged. Building fees for projects of less than $10,000 are being lowered. These small projects represent about 50% of the number of permits issued by the City each year. Projects over $10,000 will not be seeing a reduction in fees while projects over $50,000 will no longer be subsidized. Overall, building permit fees represent roughly 3% of a project's total costs. Mechanical and plumbing fees are being raised about 10 %. Staff is not proposing amendments to the REMP fees and the proposed electrical permit fees are compliant with State limits. Council expressed interest in penalties for developing without a permit. Both zoning and building fee systems incorporate progressive penalties for correction orders and possible municipal court fines. Staff is recommending first reading approval and scheduling of second reading for February 28` 1 BACKGROUND: Community Development is within the General Fund of the City. Any subsidy of the planning and building functions is essentially a cost to the general public. Currently, revenues do not cover the expenses and the public is subsidizing these services. This holds true in future projections promoting the need to address the issue by either accepting the deficit, ensuring development fees cover the costs of services, or a combination thereof. City Council reviewed the planning and building functions and how the costs of services should be allocated as either a public service or a development service. Exhibit B contains a detailed summary of the work session direction. Based on this direction, staff time for the planning and building divisions is allocated as follows: Planning Department Activities Development Service Public Title Direct Indirect Service Admin Asst 2% 50% 48% Administrative Manager 2% 50% 48% ComDev Director 12% 61% 27% Deputy Planning Director 26% 49% 25% Historic Preservation Officer 31 % 42% 27% Long Range Planner 8% 61 % 31% Planner 36% 43% 21% Senior Planner 37% 44% 19% Special Projects Planner 6% 55% 39% Zoning Enforcement Officer 39% 31% 30% Temp 0% 50% 50% Total Employees: 1.7 4.6 2.9 Building Department Activities Development Service Public Title Direct Indirect Service Admin Asst. 15% 65% 20% Admin Asst. 15% 65% 20% Building Inspector 50% 28% 22% Chief Building Official 5% 59% 36% Joint Combo Inspector 30% 24% 46% Field Inspection Manager 18% 50% 32% Plans Examination Manager 40% 50% 10% Plans Examiner 30% 50% 20% Administrative Manager 0% 42% 58% ComDev Director 0% 27% 73% Total Employees: 1.3 4 2.6 2 Considering the Planning Division's payroll, operating, and overhead expenditures an hourly rate for time directly associated with a planning case should be $330 per hour. Staff is proposing an hourly rate of $315 to align with the Pitkin County rate. Planning Department Cost per Billable Hour Calculation 2011 Total Recoverable Recoverable Non Name Compensation Direct Not Direct Recoverable _ Total Payroll � y $935,195 $183,114 $462,518 $289,563 Pa � Area Avg. Expense Joint Administration (13000) $17,500 Planning (13200) $60,850 Historic (13400) $1,500 Code Amend. - 3/4 of average $75,000 AACP - 3/4 of average $115,000 Special Projects - average $25,000 Tech. Services - Average $55,000 Total Operating Expenditures $334,850 Olrerh4Ad;- , i,' 3 . , :. y °1 Expense 2011 Allocation $334,664 ,„ fi 'k L 1 a.tt leN f g4 t .. , "�' wik'�+a3 is �.� P �.. uh �t�"�x � a�W Type Expense Payroll $645532 Operating Expenditures $334550 Overhead $334,664 Total Recoverable Costs $1,315,146 Billable Hours 4,027 Cost/Hour $330.27 3 The same calculation method applied to the Building Division results in an hourly rate of $262. Staff is proposing a fee structure based on an hourly rate of $250 for building services. Building Department Cost per Billable Hour Calculation .h t A� a :'z , ?, .1„4, ` ^ 2011 Total Recoverable Recoverable Non Name Compensation Direct Not Direct Recoverable Total Payroll $848,388 $158,736 gg $369,724 $319,928 , Opiineitg Exatativegie 41, :'f $ " . v 4 `.. ? .. . - ' "wF ", x k T Area Avg. Expense Joint Electrical (21100) $2,750 Building (21000) $197,770 Litigation /Arbitration $50,000 Special Projects $25,000 Total Operating Expenditures $275,520 Expense 2011 Allocation $189,470 M ) Type Expense Payroll $528,460 Operating Expenditures $275,520 Overhead $189,470 Total Recoverable Costs $993,450 Billable Hours 3,786 Cost/Hour $262.43 1 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Long -Range forecasting of development services is a tenuous exercise. Under the new fees system, revenues are much closer to expenditures. However, many projects remain "on- hold" and the department is not issuing many of the permits that are being applied for. This means that actual revenues may not meet these projections. And, depending on how many of these projects do go forward, staff resources may need to be adjusted. Attached as Exhibit A is an estimate of revenue for a "normal" year and years 2011 through 2013 prepared in conjunction with City Finance. 2011 reflects one third of the year with existing fees and two thirds with the proposed fees. Subsidy percentages are decreasing in out years. 4 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move the approval of Ordinance No. If , Series 2011, on first reading." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Projected Revenues Exhibit B — Summary of January 3` work session 5 3 m 2 2 9 0 y E ry 0 > n d o U e 0 92 r C 0 0 c = O co T C O N LL d d N N U N f! ?1 r o w m m E o CO 9.1 re is ` I L LL O m C O LL D G LL LL_� V= >, l0 • c E a ' 0 E. �/I/I✓4T A LL 2 2 0 0 0 a 1 m CCCCCC /// /// r M 3 L E w 30 m G W 0 5 W 2 o E 2 2 m O N 0 co C C V O a r co t C o O O O N N t To m E 10 CZ O c a L O j U C N m O d 11 d 0 Ti M C ar 2 re 0 x 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 v 0 0 0 a o e ". a) O O O O O O O O O N O O 03 O 0 0 • i O O O O O O O O O N O Cl 00 • O N p o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o V 0 10 E O Q 03 b O O Q O O< O I � M O O N o oi or 000 N O N 0 N N N :it N O co N N 0) ` n N w N 7 C C d d N p w re 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 V v O O6 O O O6 O O 6 O O O O o N N • C e o 0 o N o 0 0 0 0 (0 O P N O b O E E o N O O N N N O A O O el 0 O Cl r O No N N O W N (0 I- N W ry O. N N > F.4) N w w la o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e > 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 an �. o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o • o m o 000000000000 6 C o 0 0 m o 0 0 0 o m 0 0 0 m 0 7 E o C O • o N i00 0) 6 a 0 N.- CO E P co — m r E w 0 w w 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e L O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N 1: r0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0$ o m 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ,e 6 r. (O co O— O N O N O QS 0 0 N - p ro N N O Q N (0 0 co N Q TS e O _Z N ca W CO W Z W LL F LL LU > f ~ CC LU Y w N w CO 2 Ill 0 0) LL d d LU Ill LL z l- U z co o. Z w w Z w U U Z 2 W 2 W g z w a IL Illn_2 >> 00 0 U W 2 z LL w re Z 2 v w p U k Y Z Z Z 0 E- W d W 0 E 0_ U Z O LL g 0 z z z z z d z z w> r W 0 O 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 5 5 z 5 5 5 w a a a o c) c) m m w m in m 7_ N N r 0 h 0 0 0 Y 0 00 0 N- N m m � 0) 0 0 ) n 0) 0) n co m .o [O 0 00 0 00 00 0 0 m CO CO CO 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 o e 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 y9 O O O O O O O O O O co co O T a Cl C) C) CI V "o N N N N N N N N N a W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LL Work Session Follow -Up TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Johannah Richards, Administrative Manager Tricia Aragon, City Engineer WS DATE: January 3, 2011 RE: Development Fees — Work Session Summary SUMMARY OF WORK SESSION: Community Development and Engineering staffs proposed changes to the fees charged to development. In order to propose a fee structure, staff asked Council for direction on cost allocations between services considered public service (charged to the general fund) and development services (charged to development applicants). Some changes were made to staff proposal and are reflected in the attached pages. City Council also discussed ways to minimize permit fees for "small" projects. Council reiterated their desire for small projects to enjoy low fees and requested staff return with a proposal. Council expressed concern about harming the general fund. Staff reviewed development fee structures from other municipalities. They vary widely. The fee structures reflect a jurisdiction's public policy on development — either encouraging development through low fees or requiring the full costs of services be covered by development. Mesa County, for example, has waived all development fees for 2011 and adopted a developer's bill of rights. Other jurisdictions require development pay for every service, including pre - application conferences. These are extremes, but demonstrate the wide variety of approach. DEFINITIONS: Public Service — This is a service that the public, collectively, should pay for. It is a service that is a core service of the City, like police protection or snow plowing. It is a service that should exist regardless of the amount of development activity happening. These also may be development - related services that promote certain public goals deserving of a subsidy. Services in this category will translate to an amount that ComDev and Engineering are supported by the general fund. Development Service — These are services directly related to development that development should pay for. These are services that the City would not need to provide if development were not occurring. Services that can be attributed to a specific project will be billed to that applicant. Services that are development based, but are not easily assigned to any particular project are considered overhead costs and are paid by development on a proportionate basis. 1 Current Planning Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect POD, Walk -in, Pre -Apps, 50% 50% Gen. Info. Code Updates - Printing & 50% 50% Web Code Interpretations 75% 25% Interpretation Appeals 100% Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Admin. Food Vending 50% 50% Admin. Temp. Use 50% 50% Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Case Review - analysis, 100% hearings, plats /agmts. Case Admin. - Opening, 100% Closing, AR Historic Preservation Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Historic Designation 100% Hist. Pres. - Exempt by HPO 100% Hist. Pres. - Approval by 75% 25% HPO Hist. Pres. - Amend by HPO 100% Hist. Pres. - Amend by 100% Monitor Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect HP Case Review - analysis, 100% hearings HP Case Admin. - Opening, 100% Closing, AR Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Annual HP Awards 100% State & Federal Tax Credit 50 -75% 25 -50% Program Property -Owner 100% Assistance/Technical Advice 2 Long -Range Planning & Special Projects Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Code Amendments - 25% 75% Development Policy Task Force - Development 25% 75% Policy Aspen Area Community Plan 25% 75% ** *Amended from a 50/50 split Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Non - Development Long- 100% Range Special Projects - COWOP, Depends on each situation Area Plans Administration Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect General Admin., HR, Reflect overall ComDev split % Personnel, Training Budget, Eden, AP Reflect overall ComDev split % Front Desk Reflect overall ComDev split % Const. Use Tax (moved to 100% Finance) ** *Amended from a 50/50 split to mirror the overall allocation within ComDev. 3 Zoninj' Review Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Dev. Review Committee - 100% Project related Pre - Permit Assist. - Minor 50% 50% Pre - Permit Assist. - Major 50% 50% Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Zoning Review for Building 100% Permit Change Orders 100% Special Services - CCO, Red 100% Tags, Corrections Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Bear -Proof container 75% 25% Signs & Awnings 50% 50% Fence Permit 50% 50% Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Development - Related 100% Zoning Enforcement General Zoning Enforcement 100% * ** Council directed staff to examine ways to ensure enforcement penalties affect compliance. 4 Building Division Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect BOD, Walk -in, Gen. Info. 50% 50% Policy /Code Interpretations 75% 25% Policy /Code Interp. Appeals 100% Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Dev. Review Committee - 100% Project related Pre - Permit Assist. - Minor 50% 50% Pre - Permit Assist. - Major 50% 50% Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Building Permit Review 100% Change Orders 100% Inspections through CO 100% Special Services - CCO, Red 100% Tags, Re- Inspection Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Code Amendments / 50% 50% Adoptions Public Training - New 100% Codes /Programs /Outreach Property -Owner 100% Assistance/Technical Advice * ** Council directed staff to examine ways to ensure enforcement penalties affect compliance. 5 City Engineering Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect EOD, Walk -in, Gen. Info. 50% 50% Policy / Code Updates 50% 50% Property -Owner 100% Assistance/Technical Advice Pre -App Assist. - Minor 50% 50% Pre -App Assist. - Major 50% 50% DRC & Case Review 100% Plats and Agmts. Review 100% ** *Amended to reflect allocation of zoning review and building review. Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect Pre - Permit Assist. - Minor 50% 50% Pre - Permit Assist. - Major 50% 50% Review for Permit/Changes 100% Special Services — CCO, Red 100% Tags ** *Amended to reflect allocation of zoning review and building review. Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect EOD, Walk -in, Gen. Info. 50% 50% Pre - Const. Meetings 100% CM Plan Review /Changes 100% CM Daily Inspections 100% Complaints / Enforcement 25% 75% Special Services — CCO, Red 100% Tags, Re- Inspections * ** Amended to reflect allocation of zoning review and building review. Public Service Development Development Service — Direct Service — Indirect EOD, Walk -in, Gen. Info. 50% 50% Pre - Permit Assistance 50% 50% Enc. & ROW Permit Review 100% Daily Inspections 100% * ** Amended to reflect allocation of zoning review and building review. * ** Council directed staff to examine ways to ensure enforcement penalties affect compliance. 6 ORDINANCE NO. Series of 2011 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO AMEND CERTAIN MUNICIPAL FEES RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS. WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a policy of requiring consumers and users of the miscellaneous City of Aspen programs and services to pay fees that fairly approximate the costs of providing such programs and services; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain fees currently in effect do not raise revenues sufficient to pay for the attendant costs of providing said programs and services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That Section 2.12.100 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for Building Permit and Inspection Services, is hereby amended to read as described in Exhibit A. Section 2. That Section 26.104.070 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain user fees for Land Use Applications for planning or historic preservation review, is hereby amended to read as described in Exhibit B. Section 3. That Section 26.104.071 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section did set forth certain fees for historic preservation review, is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 26.104.071— Reserved. Section 4. That Section 26.104.072 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth certain fees for zoning review and inspection services of a building permit application, is hereby amended to read as described in Exhibit C. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 14th day of February, 2011, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this _ day of , 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 1 Sec. 2.12.100 — BUILDING PERMIT FEES ExhibitA The Chief Building Official may establish policies for estimating permit valuation, including policies and procedures for accepting applicant- submitted project valuation, which may include post - project audit and fee reconciliation requirements. Notwithstanding the building permit fee schedule, City Council may authorize a reduction or waiver of building permit fees, engineering review fees, or construction mitigation fees as deemed appropriate. The Community Development Director shall waive building permit fees for General Fund Departments of the City of Aspen consistent with City policy. The Community Development Director may reduce building permit review fees by no more than 50% for projects with a fee significantly disproportionate to the service requirements. The City may not waive or reduce fees collected on behalf of a separate government agency. The City may not reduce or waive a tax. This fee structure shall apply to applications submitted on or after March 31, 2011. Permit Valuation Fee Schedule Permit Valuation Fee based on Valuation $0 - $5,000 $25.00 Flat fee $5,001 to $10,000 $50.00 Flat fee $10,001 to $100,000 $50 plus 3.5% of permit valuation over $10,000 $100,001 to $250,000 $3,200 plus 2.5% of permit valuation over $100,000 $250,001 to $500,000 $6,950 plus 2.0% of permit valuation over $250,000 $500,001 to $1,000,000 $11,950 plus 1.5% of permit valuation over $500,000 $19,450 plus 1.0% of permit valuation over $1,000,001 to $2,500,000 $1,000,000 $34,450 plus .75% of permit valuation over $2,500,001 to $5,000,000 $2,500,000 $53,200 plus 0.5% of permit valuation over $Above $5,000,000 $5,000,000 Hourly Building Permit Review Fee $250 per hour Fees Due Upon Permit Acceptance: Plan Check Fee 65% of the Permit Valuation Fee. Energy Code Review Fee 15% of the Permit Valuation Fee. Fire Plan Check 65% of the Permit Valuation Fee. This fee is based on the valuation of the sprinkler system only Fees Dues Upon Permit Issuance: Building Permit Fee 100% of the Permit Valuation Fee. Fire Sprinkler Permit Fee 100% of Permit Valuation Fee. This fee is based on the valuation of the sprinkler system only REMP Fees - as applicable See Residential Renewable Energy Mitigation Program or Commercial Renewable Energy Mitigation Program, as applicable. Use Tax Deposit - City of Aspen 2.1% of value of materials for projects over $100,000 [(Project Valuation - $100,000.00) X .5] X 2.1% Use Tax Deposit - Pitkin County 0.5% of value of materials (Project Valuation X .5) X .5% Geographic Information Systems Fee Only applies to permits changing the footprint of a building. Interior work is exempt. $250.00 Fees Dues Upon Certificate of Occupancy or Final Inspection Fee Reconciliation Payment and reconcilliation of all plans review, change order, inspection fees as applicable. Adjustments in project valuation are subject to department policy. Use Tax Adjustment - City of Aspen Final Use Tax calculation minus Original Use Tax calculation Adjustment and reconcilitation occurs 30 days after issuance of a CO. Use Tax Adjustment - Pitkin County Pursuant to Pitkin County Use Tax Policy Change Order Fees Applications for change orders shall cause a new project valuation. The change order fees shall be based on this revised permit valuation. Fees for the previously submitted permit application shall not be refunded or credited toward change order fees. Not all change orders will require additional fees in each fee category. A change order fee applies each time a change order is submitted. A change order may propose multiple changes and applicants are encourage to "bundle" their change order requests to minimize fees. Change Order Fee - Plans Examination Minor Change Order - Projects with a valuation of $500,000 or less. Greater of 5% of revised Permit Valuation Fee or $250 Major Change Order - Projects with a valuation more than $500,000. Greater of 10% of revised Permit Valuation Fee or $500 Change Order Fee - Energy Code 10% of original Energy Code fee Change Order Fee - Fire Sprinkler Pursuant to Aspen Fire Protection District Policy Special Services Fees Expedited/Phased Permit Fee - applies to the issuance of an Excavation /Foundation only 35% of the Permit Valuation Fee. Fee is in addition to fees due upon issuance of a full building permit. Reinspection Fee - Applies to inspection required after a failed inspection $250.00 per reinspection After Hours Inspection Fee $250.00 per hour, a minimum of two hours for any one inspection. Special Inspection Fee - Applies when no permit is required or no fee is otherwise established $250.00 per hour, a minimum of one hour for any one inspection. Building Permit Extension Fee - for each extension $125.00 Projects with a valuation of $500,000 or less. $250.00 Projects with a valuation of more than $500,000. Certificate of Occupancy Fee No charge Conditional Certificate of Occupancy - Valid for a limited period $250.00 for first CCO issued $500.00 for second CCO issued $1,000.00 for third and subsequent CCO issued. Issuance is at the discretion of the Chief Building Official Enforcement Fees and Penalties No Certificate of Occupancy or Conditional CO shall be issued until all fees have been paid in full. Violations of this policy are subject to fines, penalties, or assessments as assigned by the Municipal Court Judge Stop Work Order or Correction Notice Fee - Assesment for non - permitted work: 1st Infraction Double Permit Valuation Fee 2nd Infraction Four times the Permit Valuation Fee 3rd Infraction Contractor License subject to suspension or revocation plus eight times the Permit Valuation Fee. Enforcement Penalties and Fees For violations of the adopted building codes other than a stop work order or correction notice, the Chief Building Official may issue a Municipal Court citation. Fees, fines, and penalties by citation for violations of the Building Code shall be established by the Municipal Court Judge according to the scope and duration of the offense. Penalties may include: revocation of Contractor License(s); prohibition of any work on the property for a period of time; recovery of costs to the public for any required remediation of the site; additional Building Permit Review Fees; fees to recover administrative costs required by City staff to address the violation; and, other fees, fines, and penalties or assesments as assigned by the Municipal Court Judge. Renewable Energy Mitigation Fees RREMP (Residential) Exterior Enerqv Use Calculations Snowmelt: $34.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE) Outdoor Pool: $136.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE) Spa: $176.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE) Package spas not more that 64 square feet are exempt On -Site Renewable Credits Photovoltaic Systems: $6,241.20 per 1 KiloWatt of the system design (Photovoltaic systems tied to the electric grid are eligible for on -site renewable credit. Systems must be sited, oriented and installed for solar electric panels to supply at least 90% of rated capacity of the installed KW. System designer /installer must be certified by COSEIA) Solar Hot Water: $231.00 per 1 square foot of the system design Ground Source Heat Pump: $7.00 per 100,000 BTU per year of the system design (In order to use GSHP for on -site renewable credit the GSHP system must supply at least 20% of the peak load for heating the house and all exterior energy uses) CREMP (Commercial) Exterior Energy Use Calculations Snowmelt: $60.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE) Outdoor Pool: $170.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE) Spa: $176.00 per square foot divided by boiler efficiency (AFUE) Package spas not more that 64 square feet are exempt On -Site Renewable Credits Photovoltaic Systems: $6,241.20 per 1 KiloWatt of the system design (Photovoltaic systems tied to the electric grid are eligible for on -site renewable credit. Systems must be sited, oriented and installed for solar electric panels to supply at least 90% of rated capacity of the installed KW. System designer /installer must be certified by COSEIA) Solar Hot Water: $224.65 per 1 square foot of the system design Ground Source Heat Pump: $6.84 per 100,000 BTU per year of the system design (In order to use GSHP for on -site renewable credit the GSHP system must supply at least 20% of the peak load for heating the house and all exterior energy uses) ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES Section A: Residential Fees This fee, based on the enclosed living area only, includes construction of, or remodeling or addition to a: single family home, duplex, condominium, or townhouse If you are ONLY changing or providing a service and not wiring any portion of the above, see section B below for correct permit fee. LIVING AREA Not more than 1,000 s.f. $115.00 1,001 to 1,500 s.f $172.50 1,501 to 2,000 s.f $230.00 More than 2,000 s.f Base fee of $230.00 plus $11.50 per 100 s.f over 2,000 Example: The home is 2,235 s.f. The base fee for 2,000 s.f. (of the 2,235 s.f. total) is $230 $230.00 The remaining 235 s.f. is rounded up to 300 s.f. (3 x $11.50 = $34.50) $34.50 Total fee is: $264.50 Section B: All Other Fees Including some residential installations that are not based on square footage (not in a living area, i.e. garage, shop, and photovoltaic, etc.). Fees in this section are calculated from the total cost to customer, including electrical materials, items and labor - whether provided by the contractor or the property owner. Use this chart for a service connection, a temporary meter, and all commercial installations. Such fees shall be computed as follows: (See 'C' below for the permit fees for mobile /modular home and travel trailer parks). Valuation of Installation: (based on cost to customer of labor, materials, and items): Not more than $2,000.00 $115.00 $2,001.00 and above $11.50 per thousand OR FRACTION thereof PLUS $115.00 Example: The cost of installation is $5,150 (round up to $6,000) The base fee is calculated as: 6 x $11.50 = $69 PLUS $115 Total fee is: $184.00 Section C: Mobile Homes and Travel parks, per space $115.00 Section D: Reinspections $57.50 Section E: Extra Inspections $57.50 Section F: Temporary Heat Release $57.50 MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES Permit Issuance and Heaters 1 For the issuance of each mechanical permit $62.50 2 For issuing each supplemental permit for which the original has not expired, been $25.00 canceled or had a final inspection Unit Fee Schedule (Note: the following does not include permit issuing fee) 1 Furnaces For the installation or relocation of each forced -air or gravity -type furnace or burner, $62.50 including ducts and vents attached to each appliance up to and including 100,000 Btu /h (29.3 kW) For the installation or relocation of each forced -air or gravity -type furnace or burner, $62.50 including ducts and vents attached to such appliance over 100,000 Btu/ h (29.3 kW) For the installation or relocation of floor furnace, including vent $62.50 For the installation or relocation of each suspended heater, recessed well heater or $62.50 floor- mounted unit heater 2 Appliance Vents $31.25 For the installation, relocation or replacement of each appliance vent installed and not included with unit heater 3 Repairs and Additions $31.25 For the repair of, or addition of each heating appliance, refrigeration unit, cooling unit, absorption unit, or each heating, cooling, absorption or evaporative cooling system, including installation of controls regulated by the Mechanical code 4 Boilers, Compressors and Absorption Systems For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor to and including 3 $62.50 horsepower (10.6 kW), or each absorption system to and including 100,000 Btu /h (29.3 kW) For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 3 horsepower $125.00 (10.6 kW) to and including 15 horsepower (52.7 kW), or each absorption system over 100,000 Btu /h (29.3 kW) to and including 500,000 Btu /h (293.1 kW) For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 15 horsepower $166.67 (52.7 kW) to and including 30 horsepower (105.5 kW) Or each absorption system over 500,000 Btu /h (146.6 kW) to and Including 1,000,000 Btu /h (293.1 kW) For installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 30 horsepower $250.00 (105.5 kW) to and including 50 horsepower (176 kW), or each absorption system over 1,000,000 Btu /h (293.1 kW) to and including 1,750,000 Btu /h (512.9 kW) For the installation or relocation of each boiler or compressor over 50 horsepower $312.50 (176 kW) or each absorption system over 1,750,000 Btu /h (512.9 kW) 5 Air Handlers For each air - handling unit to and including 10,000 cubic feet per minute (cfm) (4719 $31.25 Us), including ducts attached thereto Note: This fee does not apply to an air - handling unit which is a portion of a factory- assembled appliance, cooling unit, evaporative cooler, or absorption unit for which a permit is required elsewhere in the Mechanical Code. For each air - handling unit over 10,000 cfm (4719 Us) $62.50 6 Evaporative Coolers For each evaporative cooler other than portable type $31.25 7 Ventilation and Exhaust For each ventilation fan connected to a single duct $25.00 For each ventilation system which is a portion of any heating or air cooling system $31.25 authorized by a permit For the installation of each hood which is served by the mechanical exhaust, $31.25 including the ducts for such hood 8 Miscellaneous For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Mechanical Code but is $31.25 not classed in the other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in the table. Other Fees - Mechanical Reinspection Fee - Applies to inspection required after a failed inspection $250.00 per reinspection After Hours Inspection Fee $250.00 per hour, a minimum of two hours for any one inspection. Special Inspection Fee - Applies when no fee is otherwise established $250.00 per hour, a minimum of one hour for any one inspection. Change Orders - Mechanical $250.00 per hour for any additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to previously submitted plans. Minimum of one hour. PLUMBING PERMIT FEES Permit Issuance 1 For the issuance of each plumbing permit $62.50 2 For issuing each supplemental permit for which the original has not expired, been $25.00 cancelled or finaled Unit Fee Schedule (does not include permit- issuing fee) 1 Fixtures and Vents For Each plumbing fixture or trap or set of fixtures on one trap (including water, $25.00 drainage piping and backflow protection thereof) For repair or alteration of drainage or vent piping, each fixture $12.50 2 Sewers, Disposal Systems and Interceptors For each building sewer and each trailer park sewer $250.00 For each cesspool $500.00 For each private sewage disposal system $1,000.00 For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor, including its trap and vent, $62.50 excepting kitchen -type grease interceptors functioning as traps Rainwater systems, per drain (inside buildings) $31.25 3 Water Piping and Water Heaters For installation, alteration, or repair of water piping or water treating equipment, or $25.00 both. Fee for each. For each water heater including vent $31.25 4 Gas Piping Systems For each gas piping system of one to five outlets $12.50 For each additional outlet over five, each $6.25 5 Lawn Sprinklers, Vacuum Breakers and Backflow Protection Devices For each lawn sprinkler system on any one meter, including Back -flow protection $25.00 devices thereof. For atmospheric -type vacuum breakers or backflow protection devices not included in Item 1: 1 to 5 devices $25.00 Over 5 devices, each $6.25 For each backflow- protection device other than atmospheric -type vacuum breakers: 2 inches (50.88 mm) and smaller $31.25 Over 2 inches (50.88 mm) $50.00 6 Swimming Pools For each swimming pool or spa: Public pool $1,500.00 Public spa $750.00 Private pool $500.00 Private spa $250.00 7 Miscellaneous For each appliance or piece of equipment regulated by the Plumbing Code but not $31.25 classed in the other appliance categories, or for which no other fee is listed in this code Other Fees - Plumbing Reinspection Fee - Applies to inspection required after a failed inspection $250.00 per reinspection After Hours Inspection Fee $250.00 per hour, a minimum of two hours for any one inspection. Special Inspection Fee - Applies when no fee is otherwise established $250.00 per hour, a minimum of one hour for any one inspection. Change Orders - Plumbing $250.00 per hour for any additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to previously submitted plans. Minimum of one hour. Sec. 26.104.070 - PLANNING & HISTORIC PRESERVATION REVIEW FEES Exhibit B Hourly Review Fee $315 per hour No Charge Planning and Historic Preservation Services Applies to: $0 Pre - Application / Pre - Permit meetings Call -in, walk -in development questions GMQS - SF or Dx on Historic Landmark Historic Designation Hist. Pres. - Exempt Development Hist. Pres. - Minor Amendment, HPO Review Hist. Pres. - Minor Amendment, Monitor Review Development Order Publication Fee Note: Applicant meetings with the Zoning Officer or a Planner to discuss prospective planning applications or prospective building permit applications are a free service and staff time is not charged to the applicant. However, this service is limited to the time reasonably necessary for understanding a project's requirements, review procedures, city regulations, etc. An applicant shall be billed for any pre - application or pre - permit staff time significantly in excess of that which is reasonably necessary. Billing will be at the Planning /Zoning hourly billing rate. The applicant will be notified prior to any billing for pre - application or pre - permit service. Planning Review - Administrative, Flat Fees Applies to: Flat Fee 1 $79 GMQS - Temporary Food Vending Code Interpretation, formal issuance Historic Pres. - Cert of No Negative Effect Flat Fee 2 $158 Temporary Use, admin. Flat Fee 3 $315 GMQS - SF or Dx replacement - cash -in -lieu GMQS - SF or Dx replacement - ADU, admin. GMQS - Change -in -use for Historic landmark GMQS - Minor Enlargement for Historic landmark GMQS - Alley Store GMQS - Exemption from MF Housing Replacement Flat Fee 4 $630 Residential Design Variance, admin. GMQS - Minor Enlargement, non - historic • Planning Review - Administrative. Hourly Fee Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: 2 $630 Review of Condominium plats or amendments. Review time for City Attorney, City Engineer, and other referral departments also applies and is billed at same rate. Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: 3 $945 Recordation Documents Review - review of subdivision plats, subdivision exemption plats (except condo), PUD plans, development agreements, subdivision agreements, PUD or SPA agreements, or amendments to recorded documents. Review time for City Attorney, City Engineer, and other referral departments also applies and is billed at same rate. Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: 4 $1,260 Admin. Cond. Use or Special Review Admin. ESA or ESA exemption Admin. Subdivision - Lot Line Adjustment Admin. PUD or SPA Amendments Admin. Commercial Design Review Amendment Exempt Timesharing Plus $315 per hour for staff review time in excess of deposit hours. If case takes less time than deposit, the applicant will be refunded. Referal Agency Fees - Admin. reviews, as applicable $315 City Engineering, per hour. Billed with planning case $630 Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority, flat fee $630 City Parks Department, flat fee $630 City Environmental Health Department, flat fee Planning Review - One -Step. Hourly Fee Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: 4 $1,260 Historic Pres. - Minor Development Historic Pres. - Major Development up to 1,000 s.f. Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: 6 $1,890 Historic Pres. - Major Development over 1,000 s.f. Historic Pres. - Demolitions and Off -Site Relocations Historic Pres. - Substantial Amendment Board of Adjustment variance Temporary Use, City Council Vested Rights Extension, City Council Appeals of Administrative or Board Decisions Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: 10 $3,150 Growth Management - Minor P &Z Accesory Dwelling Unit - Special Review by P &Z Conditional Use Special Review Environmentally Sensitive Area Review Residential Design Variance - P &Z Minor Subdivision - Lot Split, Historic Lot Split Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: 14 $4,410 PUD Amendment - P &Z only SPA Amendment - P &Z only Commercial Design Review, Conceptual or Final Growth Management - Major P &Z, or City Council Plus 5315 per hour for staff review time in excess of deposit hours. If case takes less time than deposit, the applicant will be refunded. Referal Agency Fees - one -step reviews, as applicable $315 City Engineering, per hour. Billed with planning case $945 Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority, flat fee $945 City Parks Department, flat fee $945 City Environmental Health Department, flat fee Planning Review - Two -Step, Hourly Fee Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: 24 $7,560 Subdivision Land Use Code Amendment Rezoning or Inititial Zoning (Annexations) Plus $315 per hour for staff review time in excess of deposit hours. If case takes less time than deposit, the applicant will be refunded. Referal Agency Fees - two -step reviews, as applicable $315 City Engineering, per hour. Billed with planning case $1,260 Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority, flat fee $1,260 City Parks Department, flat fee $1,260 City Environmental Health Department, flat fee Planning Review - PUD and SPA, Hourly Fee Deposit Hours Deposit Applies to: PUD and SPA projects 32 $10,080 Planned Unit Development or PUD Substantial Amend. Specially Planned Area or SPA Substantial Amend. Plus $315 per hour for staff review time in excess of deposit hours. If case takes less time than deposit, the applicant will be refunded. Referal Agency Fees - PUD & SPA reviews, as applicable $315 City Engineering, per hour. Billed with planning case $1,575 Aspen /Pitkin County Housing Authority, flat fee $1,575 City Parks Department, flat fee $1,575 City Environmental Health Department, flat fee Planning Review - COWOP Review or Joint Applicant Applications for the City's COWOP process - Convenience or Welfare of the Public - shall be assessed land use review fees and /or a portion of joint planning costs as determined appropriate by City Council. If no such determination is made, the application shall be billed as a PUD. Special Services - Planning. Applies when no fee is otherwise established $315 per hour, a minimum of one hour for any one special project. Planning Review Deposit and Billing Administration The Community Development Department staff shall keep an accurate record of the actual time required for the processing of each land use application and additional billings shall be made commensurate with the additional costs incurred by the city when the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes more time than is covered by the deposit. In the event the processing of an application by the Community Development Department takes less time than provided for by the deposit, the department shall refund the unused portion of the deposited fee. The Community Development Director shall establish appropriate guidelines for the regular issuance of invoices and collection of amounts due. The Community Development Director shall establish appropriate guidelines for the collection of past due invoices, as required, which may include any of the following: 1) Assessment of additional late fees for accounts at least 90 days past due in an amount not to exceed 1.75% per month. 2) Cessation of application processing. 3) Review of past -due accounts with City Council. 4) Withholding the issuance of a Development Order. 5) Withholding the recordation of development documents. 6) Prohibition of the acceptance of building permits for the subject property. 7) Cessation of building permit processing. 8) Revocation of an issued building permit. 9) Other penalties, assessments, fines, or actions as may be assigned by the Municipal Court Judge. Flat fees for the processing of applications shall be cumulative. Applications for more than one land use review requiring an hourly deposit on planning time shall require submission of the larger deposit amount. The Community Development Director shall bill applicants for any incidental costs of reviewing an application at direct costs, with no administrative or processing charge. Land use review fee deposits may be reduced if, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, the project is expected to take significantly Tess time to process than the deposit indicates. A determination shall be made during the pre - application conference by the case planner. Hourly billing shall still apply. Review fees for projects requiring conceptual review, final review, and recordation of approval documents. Unless otherwise combined by the Director for simplicity of billing, all applications for conceptual, final, and recordation of approval documents shall be handled as individual cases for the purposes of billing. Upon conceptual approval all billing shall be reconciled and all past due invoices shall be paid prior to the Director accepting an application for final review. Final review shall require a new deposit at the rate in effect at the time of final application submission. Upon final approval all billing shall again be reconciled prior to the Director accepting an application for review of recordation documents. Notwithstanding the planning review fee schedule, the Community Development Director shall waive planning review fees for General Fund Departments of the City of Aspen consistent with City policy. Notwithstanding the planning review fee schedule, City Council may authorize a reduction or waiver of planning review fees as deemed appropriate. This fee structure shall apply to applications submitted on or after March 31, 2011. Sec. 26.104.072 — ZONING REVIEW FEES Exhibit C General and Applicability Zoning review fees shall apply to all development requiring a building permit and all development not requiring a building permit but which requires review by the Community Development Department. The fee covers the Zoning Officer's review of a permit including any correspondence with the caseload planner, Historic Preservation Officer, the Deputy Director, the Director, or other city staff. A permit, amendment to a permit, or change order which requires a Floor Area, Height, net leasable, or net livable measurement by the Zoning Officer shall be considered a Major permit. All other permits are considered Minor permits. For the purposes of this section, the square footage used to calculate the fee shall be the greater of the gross square footage affected by the permit or the gross square footage which must be measured to review the permit. All change orders and amendments to a permit require additional fees. A change order or amendment to an un- issued permit shall require payment of both fees (initial and change order). Official confirmation of existing conditions of a property which requires measurement of Floor Area, Height, net leasable area, or net livable area of a structure, prior to demolition or for other purposes, shall be considered a Major permit. For projects with multiple uses, the zoning review fee for each individual use shall be calculated based on the gross square footage of the use and added to determine the total project fee. Zoning review fees for major permits for properties within a Planned Unit Development shall be 125% of the fee schedule. This additional charge does not apply to demolition permits. Zoning Inspection fees shall apply to all development requiring either a final inspection or a Certificate of Occupancy. The fee shall be based on the gross square footage of the permit. This fee is for the zoning inspection; other final inspection fees may apply. This fee shall apply to temporary and conditional certificates of occupancy and an additional zoning inspection fee shall apply upon a final certificate of occupancy. Notwithstanding the zoning review fee schedule, the Community Development Director shall waive zoning review fees for General Fund Departments of the City of Aspen consistent with City policy. The Community Development Director may reduce Zoning review fees by no more than 50% for projects with a gross square footage (and resulting fee) significantly disproportionate to the required review requirements. Notwithstanding the zoning review fee schedule, City Council may authorize a reduction or waiver of zoning review fees as deemed appropriate. This fee structure shall apply to applications submitted on or after March 31, 2011. 50% of Zoning Review Deposit Required For any Zoning fee of $500 or more, 50% of the fee is due at permit submittal. This deposit is non - refundable. The applicant shall pay the remaining 50% at permit issuance, which shall include any reconciliation of fees due. Special Services - Zoninq Review Hourly Zoning Review Fee $315 per hour Pre - Permit or Pre - Application Meetings Applicant meetings with the Zoning Officer or a Planner to discuss prospective planning applications or prospective building permit applications are a free service and staff time is not charged to the applicant. However, this service is limited to the time reasonably necessary for understanding a project's requirements, review procedures, city regulations, etc. An applicant shall be billed for any pre - application or pre - permit staff time significantly in excess of that which is reasonably necessary. Billing will be at the Planning /Zoning hourly billing rate. The applicant will be notified prior to any billing for pre - application or pre - permit service. Zone District Confirmation Letter $315 Confirms parcel's zone district only. Does not confirm legality of existing improvements or uses. Existing Conditions Confirmation Service subject to authorization by Community Development Director and may not be available. Fee based on a Major permit review for the type of land use. Does not confirm legality of existing improvements or uses. Requires submission of dimensioned drawings. Expedited Zoning Review Double Applicable Fee. Prioritizes project's zoning review over all other projects. Service subject to authorization by Community Development Director considering department workload, staffing, and effects on other projects. Change Order Fees - Zoning Review Applications for change orders shall require an additional Zoning Review Fee. A change order which does not require a new measurement of floor area, height, net leasable, or net livable shall be considered a Minor change order and assessed the minor fee. A change order which requires a new measurement of floor area, height, net leasable area, or net livable area shall be assessed the Major zoning fee. Fees for the previously submitted permit application shall not be refunded or credited toward change order fees. Certificate of Occupancy or Final Inspection Fee - Zoning No charge Conditional Certificate of Occupancy - Zoning $315 for first CCO issued $630 for second CCO issued $945 for third or subsequent CCO issued. Special Review or Inspection Fee - Zoning. Applies when no fee is otherwise established $315 per hour, a minimum of one hour for any one review or inspection. Demolition Zoning Review Fees Minor Zoning Fee - Does not require measurement or confirmation of existing conditions Square footage of Project Fee Up to 500 sq. ft. $79 501 to 2,500 sq. ft. $158 2,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $236 Above 5,000 sq. ft. $315 Major Zoning Fee - If demolition requires measurement of the structure or confirmation of existing conditions, the fee will be the major fee according to the land use. Exterior Repair Zoning Review Fees Applies to Residential, Commercial, Lodging, Arts /Cultural /Civic/Institutional exterior repair work requiring a building permit or review by the Historic Preservation Officer. Does not apply to interior work. Does not apply to alteration. Square footage of Repair Fee Up to 500 sq. ft. $32 501 to 1,000 sq. ft. $79 1,001 to 2,500 sq. ft. $158 Above 2,500 sq. ft. $315 Residential Zoning Review Fees Applies to single - family, duplex, accessory dwelling units, carriage houses, multi - family and residential units in a mixed -use building Minor Zoning Fee - Existing Development, Minor Remodel or Minor Change Order Square footage of Project Fee Up to 500 sq. ft. $315 501 to 2,500 sq. ft. $630 2,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $945 Above 5,000 sq. ft. $1,260 Major Zoning Fee - New Development, Major Remodel, Demolition w/ Confirmation, Major Change Order Square footage of Project Base Fee + Fee based on project size Up to 500 sq. ft. $315 + $.50 per sq. ft. of project 501 to 2,500 sq. ft. $630 + $.75 per sq. ft. of project 2,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $945 + $.90 per sq. ft. of project Above 5,000 sq. ft. $1,260 + $1.00 per sq. ft of project Major Residential permits within a PUD shall be 125% of the above fee schedule. (Does not apply to demo.) Commercial Zoning Review Fees Applies to commercial projects and commercial portions of a mixed -use project. Minor Zoning Fee - Existing Development, Minor Remodel or Minor Change Order Square footage of Project Fee Up to 500 sq. ft. $315 501 to 2,500 sq. ft. $630 2,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $945 Above 5,000 sq. ft. $1,260 Major Zoning Fee - New Development, Major Remodel, Demolition w/ Confirmation, Major Change Order Square footage of Project Base Fee + Fee based on project size Up to 500 sq. ft. $315 + $.50 per sq. ft. of project 501 to 2,500 sq. ft. $630 + $.75 per sq. ft. of project 2,501 to 5,000 sq. ft. $945 + $.90 per sq. ft. of project Above 5,000 sq. ft. $1,260 + $1.00 per sq. ft. of project Major Commercial permits within a PUD shall be 125% of the above fee schedule. (Does not apply to demo.) Lodging Zoning Review Fees Applies to lodging projects and lodging portions of a mixed -use project. All fractional interest, timeshare, and exempt timeshare projects are considered Lodging for the purposes of this review fee. Minor Zoning Fee- Existing Development, Minor Remodel or Minor Change Order Square footage of Project Fee Up to 1,000 sq. ft. $315 1,001 to 5,000 sq. ft. $630 5,001 to 10,000 sq. ft. $945 Above 10,000 sq. ft. $1,260 Major Zoning Fee - New Development, Major Remodel, Demolition w/ Confirmation, Major Change Order Square footage of Project Base Fee + Fee based on project size Up to 1,000 sq. ft. $315 + $.35 per sq. ft. of project 1,001 to 5,000 sq. ft. $630 + $.40 per sq. ft. of project 5,001 to 10,000 sq. ft. $945 + $.45 per sq. ft. of project Above 10,000 sq. ft. $1,260 + $.50 per sq. ft. of project Major Lodging permits within a PUD shall be 125% of the above fee schedule. (Does not apply to demo.) Arts/Cultural /Civic /Institutional Zoning Review Fees Applies to Arts, Cultural, Civic and Institutional uses or portions of a mixed -use project with these uses. Minor Zoning Fee - Existing Development, Minor Remodel or Minor Change Order Square footage of Project Fee Up to 1,000 sq. ft. $315 1,001 to 5,000 sq. ft. $630 5,001 to 10,000 sq. ft. $945 Above 10,000 sq. ft. $1,260 Major Zoning Fee - New Development, Major Remodel, Demolition w/ Confirmation, Major Change Order Square footage of Project Base Fee + Fee based on project size Up to 1,000 sq. ft. $315 + $.35 per sq. ft of project 1,001 to 5,000 sq. ft. $630 + $.40 per sq. ft. of project 5,001 to 10,000 sq. ft. $945 + $.45 per sq. ft. of project Above 10,000 sq. ft. $1,260 + $.50 per sq. ft. of project Major Arts /Cultural /Civic /Institutional permits within a PUD shall be 125% of the above fee schedule. (Does not apply to demo.) Signs and Awnings - Zoning Review Fees Individual Sign Permit Fee $79 per sign Multiple Sign Permit Fee $315 per business, unlimited number of signs Permanent Sandwich Board Sign $79 per sign * Must be in an approved sandwich board location Temporary Sandwich Board Sign $32 per one -week permit $158 for 8 one -week permits Awning Permit Fee $79 per awning * Includes signage Multiple Awning Permit Fee $315 per business review fee. Banner Installation Fee $79 Single banner * Banner fees collected $158 Double banner by the City Manager's Office Fence - Zoning Review Fee Single - Family and Duplex Residential $79 All other uses $158 Bear -Proof Trash Container - Combined Zoning & Building Review Fee Single - Family and Duplex Residential $79 All other uses $158 Enforcement Fees, Fines, and Penalties No Certificate of Occupancy or Conditional CO shall be issued until all fees have been paid in full. Failure to pay applicable fees is subject to fines, penalties, or assessments as assigned by the Municipal Court Judge. Non - Permitted Work Fine: Work done without a zoning approval, without a building permit, or work done counter to an issued zoning approval is subject to this enforcement fine. Non - permitted work fee is per infraction and per project. Additional hourly fees may be applicable to account for staff time. No other action on the project may occur until non - permitted work issue has been rectified to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. Any correction requiring a building permit or zoning application shall also be subject to the Correction Order Fees described below. First infraction $315 plus, hourly fee for any staff time in excess of one hour. Second Infraction $630 plus, hourly fee for any staff time in excess of one hour. Third Infraction $945 plus, hourly fee for any staff time in excess of one hour. Correction Order Fee: This fee shall apply to any work required to correct a zoning violation or to permit work that has been accomplished without a permit or not covered by a permit. Infractions are per project. First infraction Double Zoning Review Fee, minimum of $500 Second Infraction Four times the Zoning Review Fee, minimum of $500 Third Infraction Eight times the Zoning Review Fee, minimum of $500. Subject to additional penalties by citation as assigned by the Municipal Judge. For any correction requiring a planning review, the planning review fees shall be increased according to the above schedule. Municipal Court Enforcement - Zoning Fees, fines, and penalties by citation for violations of the Land Use Code shall be established by the Municipal Court Judge according to the scope and duration of the offense. Zoning Enforcement Fee may include an assessment for administrative time required by the Zoning Officer to address the violation. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM : Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director DATE OF MEMO: February 9, 2011 MEETING DATE: February 14, 2011 RE: Proposed Engineering Fees SUMMARY: Staff is proposing Engineering Permit Review Fees to recover costs for staff time associated with building permits. This is the first of two readings. PREVIOUS MEETINGS: At the January 3, 2011 work session, Council directed staff to proceed with a fee structure that included a subsidy for those services that were associated with activities related to public service. DISCUSSION: Currently, fees are not charged for the engineering staff time associated with building permit review and the related construction mitigation for these permits. By not charging engineering fees, development is receiving "free" engineering services from the City. These services are subsidized through a combination of the General Fund and the Stormwater Fund. Often times we will see an application multiple times through several iterations because we are not charging for this service. Staff is proposing to recover those costs associated with the staff time used toward building permits. Those services associated with public service will continue to be subsidized. Public service examples include pedestrian and transportation safety, stormwater program activities, right of way (ROW) support and capital projects. Exhibit A contains the analysis of the Department's activities. Based on the Department's activities as shown in Exhibit A the costs to deliver development services was analyzed. This is shown in Exhibit B. The Engineering permit review fee proposed will vary depending on project size, i.e. the bigger the project the more time to review the application. The table below estimates the amount of time it takes to review each type of permit: Building Permit Engr. Review Estimate Basic Avg 2 hr Minor Avg 5 hrs Major Avg 22 hrs A construction mitigation fee of $1 per gross square foot is proposed to cover those services directly related to development. Fifty percent of this fee would be collected at permit submission and the remaining upon permit issuance. Exhibit C shows the proposed fees for engineering staff time for building permits and associated construction mitigation. Examples of what the fees would look like for a variety of scenarios is presented in Exhibit D along with the estimated revenue of the proposed fees. Since the activities associated with building permit review is spread across two funds, (General Fund and the Stormwater Fund) the revenue will be distributed proportionally across these funds, refer to Exhibit D. These fees appear to be consistent with other high end resort style municipalities. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: With the adoption of the proposed fees, the costs associated with building permit and land use review (approx $774,000) would be recovered. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of Engineering Development fees as proposed in the ordinance included in Exhibit E. ALTERNATIVES: Council could approve larger or smaller fees. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments Exhibit A - Engineering Department Activities Exhibit B - Engineering Department Cost per Billable Hour Calculation Exhibit C - Proposed Fee Structure Exhibit D - Examples of Fees and Revenue Estimate Exhibit E - Fee Ordinance Exhibit A Engineering Department Activities Development (direct and indirect) Public Service Building Permit Review Construction Mitigation (mudflow, flood plain, (CMPreview, site visits, Other (projects, ped and stabilization, drainage, erosion inspections, ROW permits and trans safety, general sediment control) complaints) Landuse Encroachments support City Engineer 10% 10% 10% 10% 60% Project Manager 11 20% 80% Development Engineer 90% 10% Stormwater Manager 7% 7% 7% 79% Construction Mitigation Officer 11 75% 25% Construction Mitigation Officer 1 38% 38% 25% Engineering Technician 11 20% 80% Admin (1/2 FTE) 17% 17% 17% 50% Total Employees: 1.2 1.4 01 1.0 3.8 Exhibit 13 2011 Engineering Department Cost per Billable Hour Calculation Non Compensation Recoverable Recoverable Payroll $596,259 $389,233 $207,025 ra° Non Avg. Expense Recoverable Recoverable Administration (15000) $260,930 $170,330 $90,600 Remodel Depreciation $120,000 $78,340 $41,660 Total Operating $380,930 $248,670 $132,260 Overhead Non Expense Recoverable Recoverable Overhead (IT and GF) $225,540 $147,230 $78,310 Total Recoverable Non Type Total Expense Recoverable Payroll $596,259 $389,233 $207,025 Operating Expenditures $380,930 $248,670 $132,260 Overhead $225,540 $147,230 $78,310 Total $1,202,729 $785,133 $417,595 Billable Hours 2,954 Cost /Hour $265.82 Exhibit C Proposed Engineering Development Fee Structure Engineering Permit Review Fee Affected Area Fee Basic review = 0 - 500 sq.ft. $530.00 Minor Review = 501 - 1000 sq.ft. $1325.00 Major Review = 1001 — 15,000 sq.ft. $1,590.00 + $2 per square foot over 2,000 Above 15,000 $1,590.00 + $2 per square foot over 2,000 and up to 15,000 + .10 per square foot over 15,000 Additional plan review required by changes, additions, revisions to plans $265/hr (Minimum charge V2 hr) Construction Mitigation Fee Projects up to 15,000 square feet - $1.00 x gross square footage of project. Projects of 15,000 or more square feet - $1.00 x gross square footage of project up to 15,000 sq.ft. + $.05 per square foot of project over 15,000 sf. Note: Fifty percent of the construction mitigation fee will be collected at permit submission and the remaining upon permit issuance. Exhibit D Example Fees Commercial Remodel Residential Remodel Residential Remodel Commercial Tenant Finish (Minor Review) (Major Review) (Basic Review) Valuation 52,000 540,000 550,000 5320,000 Square Footage 100 1000 1834 3200 Construction Mitigation Fee 5100 51,000 $1,834 $3,200 Engineering Review Fee 50 51,325 $1,590 5530 Total Engineering Fee 5100 $2,325 $3,424 $3,730 Fee %of Valuation 5% 6% 7% 1% Commercial Remodel Residential Remodel New Single Family Residence New Single Family Residence (Major Review) (Major Review) (Major Review) (Major Review) Valuation $500,000 51,000,000 52,100,000 $5,353,800 Square Footage 2000 2437 4500 8976 Construction Mitigation Fee 52,000 52,437 $4,500 58,976 Engineering Review Fee 51,590 $2,464 $6,590 515,542 Total Engineering Fee $3,590 54,901 511,090 $24,518 Fee %of Valuation 1% 0.5% 1% 0.5% 2011 Estimated Revenue (2010 Activity Level) Fee Revenue Existing New General Fund New Stormwater Construction Mitigation Total $173,600 $0 $173,600 $0 Land Use Engineering Review Total $212,000 $6,000 $184,800 $21,200 Building Permit Engineering Review Total $394,600 $0 $217,100 $177,500 ROW & Enc Fees Total $90,943 $90,943 $0 $0 'Total $871,143 $96,943 $575,500 $198,700 Note: This is a full year of estimated revenue and the fee has not been adopted so only two -third might be recognized in 2011. This might be the amount expected for 2012. Additionally because 50% of the construction mitigation fee is collected up front, the revenue may be Tess than what is shown. It all depends on the completion of the project which could extend into multiple out years. Exhibit E Ordinance No. Series of 2011 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO INCREASE CERTAIN MUNICIPAL FEES WHEREAS, The City Council has adopted a policy of requiring consumers and users of the miscellaneous City of Aspen programs and services to pay fee that fairly approximate the costs of providing such programs and services; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain fees currently in effect do not raise revenues sufficient to pay for the attendant costs of providing said programs and services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO; Section 1. That Section 2.12.100 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, which section sets forth International Building and Residential Code Permit fees, is hereby amended to include the following additional section: 2.12.100 (1) Engineering Development Fees Engineering Permit Review Fee Affected Area Fee 0 - 500 sq.ft. $530.00 501 - 1000 sq.ft. $1,325.00 1001 — 15,000 sq.ft. $1,590.00 + $2 per square foot over 2,000 Above 15,000 $1,590.00 + $2 per square foot over 2,000 and up to 15,000 + .10 per square foot over 15,000 Additional plan review required by changes, additions, revisions to plans $265/hr (Minimum charge V2 hr) Construction Mitigation Fee Projects up to 15,000 square feet - $1.00 x gross square footage of project. Projects of 15,000 or more square feet - $1.00 x gross square footage of project up to 15,000 sq.ft. + $.05 per square foot of project over 15,000 sq.ft. Note: Fifty percent of the construction mitigation fee will be collected at permit submission and the remaining upon permit issuance. Section 2: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 3: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 4: A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the day of , in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of Mick Ireland, Mayor Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved, this day of Mick Ireland, Mayor 1 Attest: VIIee The City of Memorandum .. Women O en ...Women lice TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: John P. Worcester DATE: February 14, 2011 RE: BMC West Property Annexation - Ordinance No. 5 , Series of 2011 - First Reading Attached for your consideration and review is a proposed ordinance which, if adopted, would annex the Bar /X Ranch Property to the City of Aspen. This matter is before you on First Reading. The petition for annexation was filed with the City Clerk on November 17, 2010. On December 6, 2010, City Council adopted a resolution finding substantial compliance with Section 31 -12- 107(1), C.R.S. A public hearing was held on JANUARY 24, 2011, at which time Council determined that the proposed annexation was in compliance with §§ 31 -12 -104 and 31 -12 -105, C.R.S. City staff will be present at the public hearing and second reading of the proposed ordinance to answer any questions you might have on the proposed annexation and potential impacts the annexation will have on City operations. The decision to annex property to the City is a legislative act and is entirely within your discretionary powers. You may annex, or not, for any reason, or no reason at all. ACTION REQUIRED: A Motion to approve Ordinance No. 5 , Series of 2011. CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: cc: City Manager Community Development Director 1 ORDINANCE NO. 5 (Series of 2011) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING THE ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN TERRITORY TO THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO BE KNOWN AND DESIGNATED AS THE "BMC WEST PROPERTY" ANNEXATION. WHEREAS, on November 17, 2010, the City Manager on behalf of the City of Aspen, the owner of the property proposed to be annexed, did file with the City Clerk of the City of Aspen a Petition for Annexation of territory to the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, the petition, including accompanying copies of an annexation map, has been reviewed by the City Attorney's Office and the City Engineer and found by them to contain the information prescribed and set forth in §31 -12 -107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 98, Series of 2010) at its regular meeting on December 6, 2010, did find and determine said Petition for Annexation to be in substantial compliance with the provisions of §31 -12 -107, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the City Council, by resolution (Number 10, Series of 2011) at its regular meeting on January 24, 2011, did find and determine, following a public hearing, said Petition for Annexation to be in substantial compliance with §§ 31 -12 -104 and 31 -12 -105, C.R.S.; and WHEREAS, the City Council does hereby find and determine that approval of the annexation of said territory to be in the City's best interest; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That the tract of land described in the Petition for Annexation, commonly referred to as the "BMC West Property", and as shown on the annexation map, is hereby annexed to the City of Aspen, Colorado. Section 2. The City Clerk of the City of Aspen is hereby directed as follows: (a) To file one copy of the annexation map with the original of this annexation ordinance in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Aspen. (b) To certify and file two copies of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Clerk and Recorder of the County of Pitkin, State of Colorado. (c) To request the Clerk and Recorder of Pitkin County to file one certified copy of this annexation ordinance and of the annexation map with the Division of Local Government of the Department of Local Affairs, State of Colorado. Section 3. The City Engineer of the City of Aspen is hereby directed to amend the Official Map of the City of Aspen to reflect the boundary changes adopted pursuant to this annexation ordinance. Section 4. That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5. That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on 28 day February, 2011, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. 2 INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk 3 V114- MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council n a. FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ' /n M MEETING DATE: February 14, 2011 VVV111111 ��r RE: Amendment to the Zone District Map — Zoning of the BMC West property ff 1 Reading of Ordinance No. (Q , Series of 2011 Second reading scheduled for February 28th APPLICANT /OWNER: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: City of Aspen Staff recommends City Council assign the property to the Service Commercial REPRESENTATIVE: Industrial Zone District with a Planned Steve Barwick, City Manager Unit Development overlay (SCI -PUD). Scott Miller, Asset Manager And, staff recommends Council approve a Chris Everson, Project Manager PUD Plan reflecting current conditions. LOCATION: P &Z RECOMMENDATION: 38005 Highway 82 The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended in favor or this application SUMMARY: by a five to zero vote. This property is being considered for annexation. If annexed, the City needs to provide the property with zoning within 90 days. LAND USE REQUEST AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The application requires the following reviews: • Amendment to the Zone District Map [Initial Zoning[ — An application for Amendment to the Zone District Map, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.310.020, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, forward a recommendation to City Council. The City Council is the final decision - making body. • Consolidated Conceptual and Final PUD — An application for Consolidated Conceptual and Final PUD, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.445.030(B)2, requires the Planning and Zoning Commission, at a public hearing, forward a recommendation to City Council. The City Council is the final decision - making body. BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen purchased the 4.6 -acre BMC West property in December 2007, with the long -term intent of developing affordable housing. However, the City has no intent to initiate a public process to plan the property for at least three to five years. In the meantime, the City has a fiduciary responsibility to its taxpayers to annex the property in order to collect property tax, sales tax and Construction Materials Use tax. Applicant is in a parallel review process for annexation. The intent at this time is to essentially "freeze" the site in its current condition as a lumber yard. This will be accomplished by the adoption of a Final PUD Plan that establishes the dimensional requirements and use of the parcel as they are today, referencing the 2009 Improvement Survey Plat (see application). A new development plan for the parcel would require a full review by the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council either through a PUD Amendment or rezoning — and very likely both. STAFF FINDINGS: Many of the standards of review for an Amendment to the Zone District Map do not apply in this case, because there is no "proposed development." For example, standards for an Amendment to the Zone District Map ask whether the proposal is "compatible with surrounding zone districts;" if it would have an impact on "traffic generation;" if it would place "demands on public facilities;" or if it would have "adverse impacts on the natural environment." If the City were seeking only to have the subject parcel rezoned to Service /Commercial/Industrial, the applicant would need to conduct an analysis of the potential build -out of the parcel under the allowances of the S /C /I Zone District. However, by adopting a Final PUD Plan that effectively "freezes" the current condition in place, this application does not include any "proposed development." The concept is that once the City is ready to move forward with a development plan in approximately three to five years, a land use application would be submitted, resulting in a comprehensive land use review. Therefore, this Amendment to the Zone District Map would not have any impact on surrounding zone districts, traffic generation, public facilities or infrastructure, or the natural environment. RECOMMENDATION: Staff finds that the application meets or exceeds the standards of review. Staff recommends the property be zoned SCI -PUD and the existing conditions be considered the approved PUD plan. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "I move the adoption of Ordinance No. 2, Series of 2011, upon first reading." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Application Exhibit B — Staff Findings for Amendment to Zone District Map Exhibit C — Staff findings for Final PUD Plan ORDINANCE NO. 4 , (SERIES OF 2011) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REZONING TO THE SERVICE COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL ZONE DISTRICT AND APPROVING A FINAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE FORMER BMC WEST PROPERTY LOCATED AT 38005 STATE HIGHWAY 82, ASPEN AIRPORT BUSINESS CENTER, BLOCK 1, LOTS 1 AND 2, CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel ID: 273503101801 and 2 735031 01 802 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from the City of Aspen, represented by City Manager Steve Barwick, requesting approval of an Amendment to the Zone District Map and a final Planned Unit Development (PUD), for the property at 38005 State Highway 82, commonly known as the BMC West property, and legally described as Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Aspen Airport Business Center, Pitkin County, Colorado; and, WHEREAS, the property is located at 38005 State Highway 82, and is zoned B2 (General Business) in Pitkin County; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant requested and received annexation into the City of Aspen and the City has a requirement to designate zoning for the property; and, WHEREAS, upon review of the application and the applicable code standards, the Community Development Department found that the application meets or exceeds applicable standards of review and recommended the property be zoned into the Service Commercial Industrial Zone District with a Planned Unit Development overlay (SCI -PUD); and, WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed and considered the proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 1, 2011, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved Resolution No. 1, Series of 2011, by a five to zero vote, recommending approval of an Amendment to the Zone District Map, initially zoning the property as Service Commercial Industrial with Planned Unit Development overlay (SCI -PUD), and recommending the Aspen City Council approve a Final PUD plan reflecting existing dimensions; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council reviewed and considered the proposal under • the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, has reviewed and considered the recommendations of the Community Development Director and the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public comment; and, WHEREAS, during a duly noticed public hearing on February 28, 2011, the Aspen City Council approved an Amendment to the Zone District Map, initially zoning the property as Service Commercial Industrial with Planned Unit development overlay (SCI - PUD), and approved a Final PUD plan reflecting existing dimensions; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the proposal meets or exceeds all applicable standards and that assigning the subject property to the SCI -PUD Zone District is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: Initial Zoning to SCI -PUD Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in City of Aspen Land Use Code Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, The Official Zone District Map of the City of Aspen shall be amended by the Community Development Director to reflect Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Aspen Airport Business Center, as included in the Service Commercial Industrial Zone District with a Planned Unit Development overlay (SCI -PUD). The Community Development Director shall use the survey descriptions contained in the Improvement Survey Plat of April 22, 2009, attached as Exhibit A, as the basis for determining the zoning boundaries. Section 2: Approved PUD Dimensions The dimensional allowances and limitations for Lots 1 and 2, Block 1, Aspen Airport Business Center, shall be the existing conditions as outlined in Improvement Survey Plat of April 22, 2009, attached as Exhibit A. Section 3: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to record a copy of this Ordinance in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder. Section 6: Public hearings on the Ordinance were held on the 28 day of February, 2011, at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen. Section 7: This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following final adoption. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 14 day of February, 2011. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, Michael C. Ireland, City Clerk Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of , 2011. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, Michael C. Ireland, City Clerk Mayor Approved as to form: City Attorney Exhibit A: Improvement Survey Plat of April 22, 2009 IV A 9 4 a gp NI 0o ..i il Ord Plv _,salt P 8 5 y P �_ $ � \ yY yy a y ; Y 9 -. a / P '°"' ' tr ,x � a p ?' s rc we „ �' \ ` ` g ed e S „ �'O',E\ e6 ^`J � 1 -r te �� ^ ▪ 6 till �xR 1n - '_�' , a 3 x@ w a a lie R , i v y 64 Y pr- I , a9 @ y .v0. g I g p 5 5 9 V €� p 9 p N ( w >•QsPO 9 � 1 ii 91 '8�' '� � & --:.— 'n W Mosi8 y se�Q ' n �S� ®b : i yy � k _ L j tvi I p Pt' F8 1I B CDC I� _"^ O ".�{ T 'I F-��gg Ii -, - -� x !r 2 ® W W agaa A n 55 a bdw� Q f 9 a ® ® § t � / C Jy `�+ 3e " ror za rc. F4 c ill 9 ! 3 a. �.,. ...,n. a t 5 yy �C)Gf' M£ r g 8 R P gii a ogre® 1� - 0 GS 2: R O I i'8e f as �� °4.; -9 $ . ,+ o 1 1i M g P OF g M 6 • 1 ' P r. ta o a mqA Y • Y 9 ;il s i il l WO p�p�yy�� i 4� g �`ggg 'S z 1? a� @� z U@ A @ g ?z S s" F ? � g p g Y 1 i ., sa • o t 8 8 e d. • I l i a e. n a j e 5 c ©11 : FIai� Iiiii E s 141 j A City of Aspen - September 10, 2009 • Annexation Request IV. Initial Zoning A. Completed Application PROJECT: Name: Aspen Airport Business Center, Block I, Lots 1 and 2 (Former BMC West Property) Location: 38005 State Highway 82, Aspen, CO 81611 (indicate street address, lot & block number, legal description where appropriate) Parcel ID #: 273503101801 and 273503101802 APPLICANT: Name: City of Aspen Address: 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO 8161 I Phone #: 970-920-5000 REPRESENTATIVE: Name: Steve Barwick, City Manager Address: 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 Phone #: 970 - 920 -5205 TYPE OF APPLICATION: (please check all that apply) - GMQS Exemption _ Conceptual PUD E Temporary Use ❑ GMQS Allotment _ Final PUD (& PUD Amendment) ® Text/Map Amendment __ - Special Review Subdivision ❑ Conceptual SPA ❑ ESA — 8040 Greenline, Stream Margin, H Subdivision Exemption (includes H Final SPA (& SPA Hallam Lake Bluff, Mountain View Plane condominiumization) Amendment) Li L ot Split C. Small Lodge Conversion/ Li Commercial Design Review P Expansion _ LI Residential Design Variance Li Lot Line Adjustment U C onditional Use _ ❑ Other: — EXISTING CONDITIONS: (description of existing buildings, uses, previous approvals, etc.) The property is currently zoned B2 -- General Business in Pitkin County. The property is 201,683 square feet in size. The l subject property is currently used as existing Harbert Lumber operation. PROPOSAL: (description of proposed buildings, uses, modifications, etc.) Annexation of the subject property into the City of Aspen and establish the newly annexed parcel's initial zoning as SC1 -- Service, Commercial, Industrial in the City of Aspen and continue the operation of the existing lumber yard. Have you attached the following? FEES DUE: $ ® Pre - Application Conference Summary ® Attachment #I, Signed Fee Agreement N/A Response to Attachment #3, Dimensional Requirements Form ® Response to Attachment #4, Submittal Requirements- Including Written Responses to Review Standards N/A 3 -D Model for large project All plans that are larger than 8.5" X 11" must be folded. A disk with an electric copy of all written text (Microsoft Word Format) must be submitted as part of the application. Large scale projects should include an electronic 3 -D model. Your pre - application conference summary will indicate if you must submit a 3 -D model. Page 18 of 27 FINAL DRAFT c� City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Agreement for Payment of City of Aspen Development Application Fees CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter CITY) and CITY OF ASPEN (hereinafter APPLICANT) AGREE AS FOLLOWS: APPLICANT has submitted to CITY an application for Annexation of the subject property, located at 38005 State Highway 82, into the City of Aspen. (hereinafter, THE PROJECT). 2. APPLICANT understands and agrees that the City of Aspen has an adopted fee structure for Land Use applications and the payment of all processing fees is a condition precedent to a determination of application completeness. 3. APPLICANT and CITY agree that because of the size, nature or scope of the proposed project, it is not possible at this time to ascertain the full extent of the costs involved in processing the application. APPLICANT and CITY further agree that it is in the interest of the parties that APPLICANT make payment of an initial deposit and to thereafter permit additional costs to be billed to APPLICANT on a monthly basis. APPLICANT agrees additional costs may accrue following their hearings and /or approvals. APPLICANT agrees he will be benefited by retaining greater cash liquidity and will make additional payments upon notification by the CITY when they are necessary as costs are incurred. CITY agrees it will be benefited through the greater certainty of recovering its full costs to process APPLICANT'S application. 4. CITY and APPLICANT further agree that it is impracticable for CITY staff to complete processing or present sufficient information to the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and /or City Council to enable the Historic Preservation Commission, Planning and Zoning Commission and /or City Council to make legally required findings for project consideration, unless current billings are paid in full prior to decision. 5. Therefore, APPLICANT agrees that in consideration of the CITY's waiver of its right to collect full fees prior to a determination of application completeness, APPLICANT shall pay an initial deposit in the amount of $ which is for hours of Community Development staff time, and if actual recorded costs exceed the initial deposit, APPLICANT shall pay additional monthly billings to CITY to reimburse the CITY for the processing of the application mentioned above, including post approval review at a rate of $245.00 per planner hour over the initial deposit. Such periodic payments shall be made within 30 days of the billing date. APPLICANT further agrees that failure to pay such accrued costs shall be grounds for suspension of processing, and in no case will building permits be issued until all costs associated with case processing have been paid. CITY OF ASPEN APPLICANT By: By: Chris Bendon Community Development Director Date: Billing Address and Telephone Number: City of Aspen, 130 South Galena Street, Aspen, CO 81611 (970)920 -5000 Account # 150.23.23140.82770 Page 19 of 27 FINAL DRAFT City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request B. Pre - Application Conference Summary CITY OF ASPEN PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE SUMMARY PLANNER: Erin Evans, 429-2745 DATE: 11.05.2008 PROJECT: 38005 Highway 82 REPRESENTATIVE: Adam Trzdnski DESCRIPTION: The City owns two lots al the south end of the Airport Business Center. The properties are currently located in Pilkin County. On behalf of the City, Adam would like to annex these properties located at 38005, Highway 82, for an affordable housing project. There are currently businesses operating on the premises with a lease. The lease will expire in a few years, at that time the property will be used for affordable housing. Annexation is governed by Colorado Revised Slate Statutes (CRS 31 -12 -102 et.seq.) Please refer to the City's annexation plan located at httpl/ www .aseenpilkku.com /pols/depts /41 /annex plan.pdf for an overview of the process and an example petition for annexation. It is important to note that a property's perimeter boundary must have a minimum amount of contiguity with the City's boundary to be able to annex and that the subject property is capable of being integrated and serviced (utilities, etc.) by the City. The applicant may wish to schedule a development review committee meeting to find out i any improvements will be required of the property as a part of an annexation agreement prior to submitting a petition for application. If the applcant is not securing any development approvals at this time, other than the zoning designation, it will be important to include a summary in the annexation proposal on the existing development potential within Ore County compared to the development potential within the City. Once the annexation petition is filed with the City Clerk, the City, through the Attorney's Office, initiates the annexation process as outlined in the City's Annexation Plan. As part of the annexation process, the City concurrently initiates zoning of the property to a City zone district. Relevant Land Use Code Section(s): 26.304 Common Development Review Procedures 26.310 Amendments to Text and Zone District Map 26.575.020 Calculating FAR CRS 31-12-102 et.seq. Colorado State Statutes http: tlwww. aspenpitkin .comldeMsl38lcirycode. cfm Review by: - Staff for complete application - Referral agencies for technical considerations • City Council for annexation process - Planning and Zoning Commission for recommendation on the zone district designation of the property to the City Council Public Hearing: Yes, at P&Z and City Council Planning Fees: $2,940 Deposit for 12 hours of staff time (additional staff time required is billed at $245 per hour) associated with the applicant initiated zoning of the subject property Total Deposit: $2,940 Page 20 of 27 FINAL DRAFT City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request Total number of application copies: 4 Copies of petition and map (state requirement) 20 copies of zoning (Map Amendment) application To apply, submit the following Information: 1. Total Deposit for review of application. 2. Applicant's name, address and telephone number, contained within a letter signed by the applicant staling the name, address, and telephone number of the representative authorized to act an behalf of the applicant 3. Street address and legal description of the parcel on which development is proposed to occur, consisting of a current certificate from a title insurance company, or attorney licensed to practice in the State of Colorado, listing the names of all owners of the property, and all mortgages, judgments, lions, easements, contracts and agreements affecting 11* parcel, and demonstrating the owner's right to apply for the Development Application. 4. Completed Land Use Application and annexation petition. 5. Signed lee agreement (if applicable — there Is no fee associated with submitting a petition for annexation and if staff initiates 11* zoning of the property; however, If the applicant submits the request for zoning the fee is $2,940.0). 6. Pre - application Conference Summary. 7. An 8 1/2' x 11' vicinity map locating the subject parcel within the City of Aspen. 8. Proof of ownership. 9. An annexation plat. 10. A site improvement survey that includes all existing natural and man -made site features. 12. A written description of the proposal and a written explanation of how a proposed development complies with the review standards relevant to the development application. 13. All other materials required pursuant to the specific submittal requirements. 14. Applications shall be provided in paper format (number of copies noted above) as well as the text only on either of the following digital formats. Compact Disk (CD) preferred, Lp Disk or Floppy Disk. Microsoft Word format is preferred. Text format easily convertible to Word is acceptable. Disclaimer. The foregoing summary is advisory in nature only and is not binding on the City. The summary is based on current zoning, which is subject to change in the future, and upon factual representations that may or may not be accurate. The summary does not create a legal or vested right. • Page 21 of 27 FINAL DRAFT City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request C. Vicinity Map The subject property is located at 38005 State Highway 82, Aspen Airport Business Center, Block 1, Lots 1 and 2; across State Highway 82 from the south end of the Aspen /Pitkin County Airport. VICINITY MAP ( sk ts SUBJECT PROPERTY ` 7 - - -_ n"GE RD Page 22 of 27 FINAL DRAFT City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request D. Description of Compliance Aspen Municipal Code Sec. 26.310.040, Land Use Regulations, General Procedures and Regulations, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District Map, Standards of review: In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Response: The applicant proposes an initial zoning of SCI for the continued operation of the lumber yard. Because the current request will facilitate only the annexation of the property and the continued operation of the lumber yard, this request does not represent a new land use policy or a change in land use policy. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Response: While the initial zoning request for the subject property is SCI - Service, Commercial, Industrial (which will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard operation on the site), the future development intent of the site is for affordable housing. A future land use application (separate from this annexation request) will be processed by the City of Aspen to request that the property be rezoned as AH -PUD. The AH -PUD designation will be requested based on affordable housing development plans that will be developed in the future for that specific purpose. This effort is underway in an effort to fulfill the housing goals established in the AACP. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Response: This request will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard operation on the site. As such, this request does not create any adverse effects on the subject property's neighborhood or surrounding environment. When the City develops plans for affordable housing development at the subject property, a separate land use application will be submitted to request that the subject property be rezoned as AH -PUD. At that time, compliance with the AH -PUD zone district will be established. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. Response: This request will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard operation on the site. As such, this request does not propose additional traffic generation that might contribute to road safety issues. When the City develops plans for affordable housing development at the subject property, a separate land use application will be submitted which will address traffic generation and road safety for that (future) application. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. Response: The property proposed for annexation is currently served by City municipal water and district sanitary sewer service. For the continued short-term operation of the lumber yard at the Page 23 of 27 FINAL DRAFT City of Aspen September 10, 2009 Annexation Request subject property, there will be no additional demands on public facilities, nor would the current application cause the capacity of transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools or emergency medical facilities be in any way exceeded beyond current uses. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Response: This request will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard operation on the site. As such, this request would not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Response: The current lumber yard operation on the site is immediately adjacent to the City of Aspen as previously described in this document. As such, the Petitioner attests that the existing lumber yard operation is already integrated with and thus consistent with the community character in the City. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. Response: Not Applicable I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Response: Based on the above responses, the Petitioner attests that the proposed amendment would not be in conflict with the public interest and that the proposed amendment is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations. This request meets all of the Standards of review" criteria established in the above noted Section 26.310.040 of the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations and as such the Petitioner requests annexation and initial zoning as requested. Please see the proposed zoning map included in the next section of this application. Page 24 of 27 FINAL DRAFT Exhibit B Amendment to Zone District Map Review Criteria & Staff Findings Standards of Review: In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the Official Zone District Map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider: A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this Title. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment is not in conflict with any applicable portion of this title, as the responses to standards of review illustrate below. The applicant proposes an initial underlying zoning of Service /Commercial/Industrial, which is the only city zone district that expressly permits a lumber yard. The applicant proposes a Planned Unit Development (PUD) overlay with the express intent of "freezing" the existing development on -site in its current condition, including the existing dimensions and use. Any future change to the existing dimensions and use would require a rezoning and/or PUD Amendment. The intent of the current request is to facilitate only the annexation of the property and the continued operation of the lumber yard; this application does not represent a proposed development. Staff believes this criterion is met. B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment would make no changes to existing conditions. However, the proposed amendment requires any future proposed development to rezone and/or gain approval for a PUD Amendment. Both a rezoning or PUD review process includes a criteria assuring that any future development must be "consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan." If the property is annexed, the City of Aspen has an obligation to assign a zone district to the property. Staff believes S /C /I- PUD for this property is consistent with all the elements of the AACP. C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics. Staff Finding: This request will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard operation on the site. As such, this request does not create any adverse effects on the subject property's neighborhood or surrounding environment. Any future development proposal must comply with this standard under rezoning, or similar standards under a PUD Amendment. Under a future PUD Amendment, any future development proposal must comply with a set of more specific criteria regarding compatibility. Staff believes this criterion is met. D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffic generation and road safety. BMC Zoning Exhibit B Page 1 Staff Finding: This request will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard operation on the site. As such, this request does not propose additional traffic generation that might contribute to road safety issues. Any future development proposal must comply with this standard under rezoning, or similar standards under a PUD Amendment. Under a future PUD Amendment, any future development proposal must comply with a set of more specific criteria regarding traffic generation and road safety. Staff believes this criterion is met. E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands on public facilities and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would exceed the capacity of such public facilities including, but not limited to, transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools and emergency medical facilities. Staff Finding: The property proposed for annexation is currently served by City municipal water and district sanitary sewer service. For the continued operation of the lumber yard, there will be no additional demands on public facilities. Any future development proposal must comply with this standard for rezoning, or similar standards under a PUD Amendment. Under a future PUD Amendment, any future development proposal must comply with a set of more specific criteria regarding public facilities. F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Staff Finding: This request will facilitate the continued operation of the current lumber yard operation on the site. As such, this request would not result in significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment. Any future development proposal must comply with this standard under rezoning, or similar standards under a PUD Amendment. Under a future PUD Amendment, any future development proposal must comply with a set of more specific criteria regarding impacts on natural resources. G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community character in the City. Staff Finding: The existing lumber yard operation is already integrated with and thus consistent with the community character in the City. Any future development proposal must comply with this standard under rezoning, or similar standards under a PUD Amendment. Under a future PUD Amendment, any future development proposal must comply with a set of more specific criteria regarding "consistency with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area," as well as criteria regarding site design and architectural character. H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment. BMC Zoning Exhibit B Page 2 Staff Finding: The City has purchased this parcel and wishes to annex it at this time, largely in fiduciary responsibility to city taxpayers through the future collection of property and sales taxes. Any future rezoning proposal must comply with this standard. I. Whether the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title. Staff Finding: Based on the above responses, the proposed amendment would not be in conflict with the public interest and the proposed amendment is in harmony with the purpose and intent of the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations. This request meets all of the "Standards of review" criteria established in the above noted Section 26.310.040 of the City of Aspen Land Use Regulations. Any future rezoning proposal must comply with this standard. BMC Zoning Exhibit B Page 3 Exhibit C PUD Review Criteria & Staff Findings A. General requirements. 1. The proposed development shall be consistent with the Aspen Area Community Plan. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does not represent or reflect a "proposed development," and would make no changes to existing conditions. However, the proposed amendment requires any future proposed development to rezone and/or gain approval for a PUD Amendment. Both a rezoning or PUD review process includes a criteria assuring that any future development must be "consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan." This parcel is part of the urbanized area of Aspen. Staff finds this criterion is met. 2. The proposed development shall be consistent with the character of existing land uses in the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does not represent or reflect a "proposed development," and would make no changes to existing conditions. The existing lumber yard operation is already integrated with and thus consistent with the character in the surrounding area. 3. The proposed development shall not adversely affect the future development of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The proposed amendment does not represent or reflect a "proposed development," and would make no changes to existing conditions. Initial zoning and PUD designation will not adversely effect future development of the surrounding area. 4. The proposed development has either been granted GMQS allotments, is exempt from GMQS or GMQS allotments are available to accommodate the proposed development and will be considered prior to or in combination with, final PUD development plan review. Staff Finding: No GMQS allotments are being requested. B. Establishment of dimensional requirements: The final PUD development plans shall establish the dimensional requirements for all properties within the PUD as described in General Provisions, Section 26.445.040, above. The dimensional requirements of the underlying Zone District shall be used as a guide in determining the appropriate dimensions for the PUD. During review of the proposed dimensional requirements, compatibility with surrounding land uses and existing BMC Zoning Exhibit C Page 1 development patterns shall be emphasized. The proposed dimensional requirements shall comply with the following: 1. The proposed dimensional requirements for the subject property are appropriate and compatible with the following influences on the property: a) The character of and compatibility with, existing and expected future land uses in the surrounding area. b) Natural or man -made hazards. c) Existing natural characteristics of the property and surrounding area such as steep slopes, waterways, shade and significant vegetation and landforms. d) Existing and proposed man -made characteristics of the property and the surrounding area such as noise, traffic, transit, pedestrian circulation, parking and historical resources. Staff Finding: The proposed dimensional requirements in the Final PUD Plan limit development on the site to existing conditions and uses. Staff finds criteria a -d are met. 2. The proposed dimensional requirements permit a scale, massing and quantity of open space and site coverage appropriate and favorable to the character of the proposed PUD and of the surrounding area. Staff Finding: The proposed dimensional requirements in the Final PUD Plan limit development on the site to existing conditions and uses. Staff finds the proposed dimensional requirements are appropriate. 3. The appropriate number of off - street parking spaces shall be established based on the following considerations: a) The probable number of cars used by those using the proposed development including any nonresidential land uses. b) The varying time periods of use, whenever joint use of common parking is proposed. c) The availability of public transit and other transportation facilities, including those for pedestrian access and /or the commitment to utilize automobile disincentive techniques in the proposed development. d) The proximity of the proposed development to the commercial core and general activity centers in the City. Staff Finding: There is no proposed development. The proposed dimensional requirements in the Final PUD Plan limit development on the site to existing conditions and uses. Staff finds these criteria met. Any future PUD Amendment must comply with this criteria. 4. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists insufficient infrastructure capabilities. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: BMC Zoning Exhibit C Page 2 Staff Finding: The proposed dimensional requirements in the Final PUD Plan limit development on the site to existing conditions and uses. 5. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be reduced if there exists natural hazards or critical natural site features. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be reduced if: Staff Finding: The proposed dimensional requirements in the Final PUD Plan limit development on the site to existing conditions and uses. 6. The maximum allowable density within a PUD may be increased if there exists a significant community goal to be achieved through such increase and the development pattern is compatible with its surrounding development patterns and with the site's physical constraints. Specifically, the maximum density of a PUD may be increased if: a) The increase in density serves one or more goals of the community as expressed in the Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) or a specific area plan to which the property is subject. b) The site's physical capabilities can accommodate additional density and there exists no negative physical characteristics of the site, as identified in Subparagraphs 4 and 5, above, those areas can be avoided or those characteristics mitigated. c) The increase in maximum density results in a development pattern compatible with and complimentary to, the surrounding existing and expected development pattern, land uses and characteristics. Staff Finding: Not applicable. There is not a proposal to increase allowable density. C. Site design. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the PUD enhances public spaces, is complimentary to the site's natural and man -made features and the adjacent public spaces and ensures the public's health and safety. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. Existing natural or man -made features of the site which are unique, provide visual interest or a specific reference to the past or contribute to the identity of the town are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 2. Structures have been clustered to appropriately preserve significant open spaces and vistas. 3. Structures are appropriately oriented to public streets, contribute to the urban or rural context where appropriate and provide visual interest and engagement of vehicular and pedestrian movement. 4. Buildings and access ways are appropriately arranged to allow emergency and service vehicle access. 5. Adequate pedestrian and handicapped access is provided. BMC Zoning Exhibit C Page 3 6. Site drainage is accommodated for the proposed development in a practical and reasonable manner and shall not negatively impact surrounding properties. 7. For nonresidential land uses, spaces between buildings are appropriately designed to accommodate any programmatic functions associated with the use. Staff Finding: There is no proposed development at this time. Potential future development or redevelopment will need to address these criteria. Staff believes accepting current conditions on the parcel meets this standard C(1 -7). D. Landscape plan. The purpose of this standard is to ensure compatibility of the proposed landscape with the visual character of the City, with surrounding parcels and with existing and proposed features of the subject property. The proposed development shall comply with the following: 1. The landscape plan exhibits a well - designated treatment of exterior spaces, preserves existing significant vegetation and provides an ample quantity and variety of ornamental plant species suitable for the Aspen area climate. 2. Significant existing natural and man -made site features, which provide uniqueness and interest in the landscape, are preserved or enhanced in an appropriate manner. 3. The proposed method of protecting existing vegetation and other landscape features is appropriate. Staff Finding: There is no proposed development at this time. Potential future development or redevelopment will need to address these criteria. Staff believes accepting current conditions on the parcel meets this standard D(1 - 3). E. Architectural character. 1. Be compatible with or enhance the visual character of the City, appropriately relate to existing and proposed architecture of the property, represent a character suitable for and indicative of the intended use and respect the scale and massing of nearby historical and cultural resources. 2. Incorporate, to the extent practical, natural heating and cooling by taking advantage of the property's solar access, shade and vegetation and by use of non- or less - intensive mechanical systems. 3. Accommodate the storage and shedding of snow, ice and water in a safe and appropriate manner that does not require significant maintenance. Staff Finding: There is no proposed development at this time. Potential future development or redevelopment will need to address this criteria. Staff believes accepting current conditions on the parcel meets standards E(1 -3). BMC Zoning Exhibit C Page 4 F. Lighting. The purpose of this standard to ensure the exterior of the development will be lighted in an appropriate manner considering both Public Safety and general aesthetic concerns. The following standards shall be accomplished: 1. All lighting is proposed so as to prevent direct glare or hazardous interference of any kind to adjoining streets or lands. Lighting of site features, structures and access ways is proposed in an appropriate manner. 2. All exterior lighting shall in compliance with the outdoor lighting standards unless otherwise approved and noted in the final PUD documents. Up- lighting of site features, buildings, landscape elements and lighting to call inordinate attention to the property is prohibited for residential development. Staff Finding: There is no proposed development at this time. Potential future development or redevelopment will need to address this criteria. Staff believes accepting current conditions on the parcel meets standards F(1 -2). G. Common park, open space or recreation area. If the proposed development includes a common park, open space or recreation area for the mutual benefit of all development in the proposed PUD, the following criteria shall be met: Staff Finding: Not applicable. There is no common park or open space propsed. H. Utilities and public facilities. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development does not impose an undue burden on the City's infrastructure capabilities and that the public does not incur an unjustified financial burden. The proposed utilities and public facilities associated with the development shall comply with the following: 1. Adequate public infrastructure facilities exist to accommodate the development. 2. Adverse impacts on public infrastructure by the development will be mitigated by the necessary improvements at the sole cost of the developer. 3. Oversized utilities, public facilities or site improvements are provided appropriately and where the developer is reimbursed proportionately for the additional improvement. Staff Finding: Not applicable. There is no proposed increase in development at this time. Staff believes accepting current conditions on the parcel meets standard H(1 -3). I. Access and circulation. The purpose of this standard is to ensure the development is easily accessible, does not unduly burden the surrounding road network, provides adequate pedestrian and recreational trail facilities and minimizes the use of security gates. The proposed access and circulation of the development shall meet the following criteria: BMC Zoning Exhibit C Page 5 1. Each lot, structure or other land use within the PUD has adequate access to a public street either directly or through an approved private road, a pedestrian way or other area dedicated to public or private use. 2. The proposed development, vehicular access points and parking arrangement do not create traffic congestion on the roads surrounding the proposed development or such surrounding roads are proposed to be improved to accommodate the development. 3. Areas of historic pedestrian or recreational trail use, improvements of or connections to, the bicycle and pedestrian trail system and adequate access to significant public lands and the rivers are provided through dedicated public trail easements and are proposed for appropriate improvements and maintenance. 4. The recommendations of the Aspen Area Community Plan and adopted specific plans regarding recreational trails, pedestrian and bicycle paths and transportation are proposed to be implemented in an appropriate manner. 5. Streets in the PUD which are proposed or recommended to be retained under private ownership provide appropriate dedication to public use to ensure appropriate public and emergency access. 6. Security gates, guard posts or other entryway expressions for the PUD or for lots within the PUD, are minimized to the extent practical. Staff Finding: There is no proposed change to the access or circulation patterns. Staff believes accepting current conditions on the parcel meets criterion I (1 -6). J. Phasing of development plan. The purpose of this criteria is to ensure partially completed projects do not create an unnecessary burden on the public or surrounding property owners and impacts of an individual phase are mitigated adequately. If phasing of the development plan is proposed, each phase shall be defined in the adopted final PUD development plan. The phasing plan shall comply with the following: Staff Finding: Not applicable. There is no phasing proposed. BMC Zoning Exhibit C Page 6 VUIa. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: City of Aspen Election Commission Kathryn Koch, Bob Leatherman, Ward Hauenstein DATE: February 7, 2011 RE: Ordinance #2, 2011 — Amendments to the Municipal Election Code — Second reading and public hearing. REQUEST OF COUNCIL: - The Election Commission requests Council adopt Ordinance #2, Series of 2011, on first reading and set a public hearing for February 14` Ordinance #2 amends the Municipal Election Code. DISCUSSION: At first reading January 24` Council requested minutes from the Election Commission meetings discussing requiring identification at polls. These are attached. Council also requested a status of the complaints from the 2009 election. This is also attached. Section 9.10.070 has been amended by the addition of (c) (c) Not later than 8:30 a.m. on the day of any municipal election, the clerk shall deliver to the judges appointed as the absentee /mail -in ballot counting judges, all the absent voters' envelopes received up to that time, in sealed packages, taking a receipt for the packages, together with the list of absent voters. The clerk shall continue to deliver any envelopes which may be received thereafter during said day up to and including 7 p.m. On the sealed packages shall be printed or written, "This package contains ....(number) absent voters' ballots." With the envelopes the clerk shall deliver to one of the election judges written instructions, which shall be followed by the judges of election in casting and counting the ballots, and all the books, records, and supplies as are needed for tabulating, recording, and certifying said absent voters' ballots. With the requirement to participate in permanent mail -in voters, which should increase the number of mail ballots, and not wanting to transport any ballots outside of city hall where they have been received, the city clerk's staff recommends that 9.10.070(c) be amended to have "absentee /mail -in ballot" counting judges in city hall. The Election Commission will review the absentee /mail -in ballot counting procedures. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Election Commission recommends Council adopt Ordinance #2, 2011 on second reading. ALTERNATIVES: Council must adopt at least Section 1 to repeal the IRV procedures. Council could adopt some or all of the recommendations in the ordinance. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to adopt Ordinance #2, 2011 on second reading. Election Commission January 6. 2011 Kathryn Koch, chair, called the meeting to order at 2 PM with members Bob Leatherman and Ward Hauenstein present. Also present Jim True and John Worcester, city attorney's office. Minutes Hauenstein noted the minutes should be corrected that voters should be residents "at the time of the election" rather than after the election. The minutes should be corrected that Hauenstein moved and seconded a motion to approve the minutes. Hauenstein said the write -in candidate affidavit should be amended to state on is "willing" and qualified to serve. Leatherman moved to approve the minutes of December 16, 2010, as amended; seconded by Hauenstein. All in favor, motion carried. Legislative Amendments to Municipal Code A draft ordinance was sent to the election commission members reflecting the amendments discussed at meetings in December. Hauenstein pointed out in the applicability section, it states this applies to Mayor and council races and asked if it would be applicable to referendum and special elections. Leatherman suggested that section be amended to read, "shall apply to all municipal elections conducted in the city of Aspen ". Hauenstein said the definition of "special absentee voting" be amended to "when the ballot proof has been certified by the city clerk ". The Commission discussed the wording for 9.10.060 and requested it be consistent with the application for a special absentee ballot that a voter is registered in Aspen at the time of the election. Hauenstein asked the definition of "casting" a ballot; is that when a ballot is put into the Diebold machine. Hauenstein said the section on provisional ballots refers to "casting" a ballot and what is the time frame for the ballot being counted or tabulated. John Worcester said once a voter completes a provisional ballot and puts it in the envelop, it is complete. The commission suggested the draft ordinance be sent to the Pitkin County Clerk for their review. Worcester said he will look at defining "cast" and "count" to see if that will clarify the intent of this section. Ms. Koch said a person who goes to the polls to vote on election day and has been mailed a ballot will be allowed to cast a provisional ballot until the election officials can determine that they did not vote the mail ballot. That provisional ballot is not counted until this is verified. Hauenstein asked what happens if a person casts a provisional ballot in that circumstance but has also returned their mail ballot. Ms. Koch noted subsection (5) states the clerk shall count all mail -in ballots cast before counting any provisional ballots so that it appears the mail -in ballot would be the one that counts. Worcester said when someone casts a ballot, they have made an irrevocable choice. Hauenstein said for him cast is the point at which the ballot is inserted into the Diebold machine. 1 Ms. Koch asked the Commission and attorneys to review the judge's oath that a voter is known to them in lieu of identification. Hauenstein said the title should be changed to "Oath of Identity "; the judge is affirming they know the voter is who they claim to be. The city attorney's office will review the oath of identity. Ms. Koch gave the Commission written procedures to comply with the proposed section 9.10.100, Electronic Vote Count Equipment Testing that states "shall conduct testing in accordance with the procedures adopted by the Election Commission ". These procedures are based on logic and accuracy test to fit the election in Aspen. 'Worcester said these procedures should not be part of the ordinance and should be generic in order to fit what machines will be used in Aspen. Leatherman agreed these should be flexible. Ms. Koch said the city machines were grandfathered in because they were purchased in 2001. The Secretary of State's office certifies or reviews county machines; when asked if they would do the same for Aspen, they told the city clerk's office that they do not have the manpower or money to certify municipal machines. Ms. Koch pointed out the county will not allow municipalities to use their machine because they are locked up for county use only. Ms. Koch said the pre - election testing is important to show all 6 or 7 machines report the same thing with a test deck. All cities that run their own elections have a pre - election test. Worcester asked what happens if the tests do not count the same. Hauenstein asked how many accuvote machine the city owns. Ms. Koch said 5 and they may need 6 in order to count mail ballots separately. Ms. Koch said she will find out how much election equipment costs and if it would be certified equipment. Ms. Koch said the Secretary of State has a list of vendors and machines that are certified. Hauenstein agreed individual machines are not certified by the Secretary of State's office because they do not do that for municipalities. The closest a municipality can come is having a machine on the list provided by the Secretary of State and certified by the manufacturer to be up to those specs. Worcester said the pre - election testing is a way for the Election Commission to be confident the machines are counting as they are supposed to. Worcester pointed out in the 2009 logic and accuracy test, an error in the software was discovered, which is what a test is to find out. Ms. Koch pointed out there is not a central counting place in Aspen's municipal election; each precinct has a Diebold which is counting as the ballots are cast. Each one of these machines plus the absentee machines will be tested prior to any voting. Then these machines are sealed before they are sent to the precincts. Ms. Koch said there are two tapes run at each precinct, one of which is posted on the door of the polling place. The accuvote machine is returned to the city clerk's office with the sealed magnetic card in the machine. The card is removed and run through a machine at the city clerk's office which reiterates what was counted in the polling places. Hauenstein said the magnetic cards should have some identification and then the seal number, which is two levels of security. 2 Election Commission December 16, 2010 Kathryn Koch, chair called the meeting to order at 10 AM with members Ward Hauenstein and Bob Leatherman present. Also present, Jim True and John Worcester. Ms. Koch said she feels the priorities for the Commission should be to address those items that need legislative approval so an ordinance can be forwarded to Council by January or February for first reading. Ms. Koch noted there are process improvements for the Commission to review and address but these can be done after the legislative items are written. Minutes Hauenstein requested page numbers be added and that on page 3, that if people want to vote before the time stipulated by C.R.S., they fill out an affidavit not an application. Leatherman asked that "he is ambivalent" be changed to he cares but it is not an issue. Leatherman said he does not have a problem with electors voting in the office as long as privacy booths are provided. Hauenstein asked what "term of art" means. John Worcester, city attorney, said "term of art" means a term that is defined legally somewhere. Leatherman moved to approve the minutes of December 2, 2010, as corrected; seconded by Hauenstein. All in favor motion carried. Write -in candidate affidavit and pre - ballot voting Ms. Koch pointed out the Commission discussed and approved these concepts December 2 The commission requested to know what other municipalities do about write -in candidate affidavit; this report was in the packet. Ms. Koch said the Commission said it is too subjective to require a reason that a person will not be able to absentee vote in the regular manner and requested that be deleted. Worcester wanted that form amended to make sure a voter's permanent residence would be Aspen at the time of the election. Worcester said he will review this to make sure the language says what the commission intends. Worcester noted that, "I believe that 1 cannot vote a mail ballot due to military and other contingences during the normal period" should be changed to "I believe that I cannot vote a mail ballot due to contingencies that would preclude normal mail delivery during the normal period." The Commission agreed. Ms. Koch reminded the Commission at the last meeting, write -in candidate affidavit required was discussed. If someone wants to be a write -in candidate, they should sign an affidavit that they are willing and qualified to serve. Ms. Koch said the Commission discussed what happens in the event two candidates are tied and the write -ins could affect the outcome. Hauenstein said when undervotes equal or exceed the margin, it should trigger an automatic count of write ins. Ms. Koch said that count of write ins could be part of the legislative amendments. Jim True said in the existing legislation, the write ins only comes up in a recount situation. Ms. Koch said Ordinance #3 will need to be repealed since there is no longer IRV. True noted that ordinance contains a recount at 3% and C.R.S. 31 -10 -1207 requires a recount at .05% and states it is the difference between the highest number of votes cast in the election and the next highest vote getter and is less than .05 %. Hauenstein said his concern is an examination of write - ins which is different from what may trigger the recount. Worcester requested the write -in affidavit for a candidate be amended to "immediately preceding the election ". Commission agreed that legislation to 1 Election Commission December 16, 2010 require a write -in affidavit and to draft a procedure for examining write -ins in the case the number of write -ins is greater than the difference in the number of votes be forwarded to Council. Hauenstein said it would be easy to count the write ins as they are kicked into a separate bin if the oval is filled in and after that if the undervotes may be a factor, those are examined. True said this could be written where if the difference is greater than the result of the election, the loss by a candidate, then all the ballots are examined. Hauenstein said the write in votes would be looked at first and if the undervotes are enough to decide the election, those ballots are looked at. True said the machine segregates the ballots with write - ins; however, to look at under votes, all ballots would have to be looked at. Hauenstein suggested the language state that in the event an automatic recount is not triggered and the margin of victory is less than the number of write -in votes and then the undervotes are examined. Ms. Koch noted a recount means to recount the ballots the manner in which they were counted in the first place rather than ballot examination. If the city wants this done differently, it needs to be spelled out. Hauenstein said the process should be written if the number of write in votes is greater than the determination of the winner and looking at the write ins still does not determine a winner, the undervotes are examined and only for write in candidates that are official candidates. Worcester said these rules should be the same for a recount. Leatherman asked who conducts the recount. True said the city clerk does. Ms. Koch read the language from C.R.S. 31 -10 -1207 regarding recounts. Ms. Koch presented a calendar to illustrate when ballots would most likely be back from the printer and the time when by statute a voting machine would be available in the city clerk's office for absentee voting. Ms. Koch requested the election commission consider amending the C.R.S. to allow people to vote on the Diebold machine in the city clerk's office earlier than 12 days outlined in 31 -10 -1005. True said special early voting should be defined in the legislation. Hauenstein said his understanding is the "early early" starts as soon as the ballot proof is back from the printer, which in 2011 could be as early as April 12 Voting after April 12 will be "early early" with the voter filling out the special voting affidavit. Ms. Koch asked if the official ballots are back before the 12 days allowed under C.R.S. 31 -10- 1005, can the legislation be adopted to allow absentee voting on the Diebold machines in the office. Ms. Koch pointed out there was a complaint that in 2009, 120 people voted in the city clerk's office before that 12 days. Ms. Koch requested for ease of voting and counting that the legislation be changed to allow voters to cast a ballot in the city clerk's office as soon as the ballots are back from the printer. Leatherman and Hauenstein indicated they supported this legislative amendment. Worcester said this should be written to include that both the machines and the ballots be available for voting in the office to maximize the voter's ability to vote. Requiring ID at polls Ms. Koch said the next legislative change would be to require ID at polls. Currently, municipalities do not require ID before voting; one has to be on the list of registered electors to vote. Title 1 has a list of acceptable forms of identification, which is used by counties at their elections. Worcester asked what happens in counties if one shows up without an ID. Hauenstein said they are allowed to cast a provisional ballot. Ms. Koch said there are not provisional ballots in municipalities so that would have to be added to the legislation. The county allows up to 12 days for the provisional ballots to be made good, which may hold up the runoff election process. Leatherman asked if it is on the voter to take care the provisional 2 Election Commission December 16, 2010 ballot or on the election officials. Ms. Koch said it is the responsibility of the voter. Ms. Koch pointed out if IDs are not required; there is no reason for provisional voting. Worcester said requiring ID would make city and county elections consistent. Hauenstein said he likes the idea of requiring ID to vote. Hauenstein said provisional balloting does allow one to vote if they do not have an ID with them. Ms. Koch said she would be concerned about provisional ballots and 12 days with a runoff following shortly after the regular election. Worcester suggested the cure period for the provisional ballots be shorter than 12 days and anyone filling out a provisional ballot should receive instructions on how to cure those ballots. True suggested an ID waiver if an election judge is willing to certify they know the voter. Hauenstein and Leatherman agreed to recommend requiring ID at polls if there is an affidavit for an election judge to affirm they personally know the voter. If no judge is willing to do that, the voter will be given a provisional ballot with instructions to return to the city clerk's office with an ID within 24/48 hours. Ms. Koch brought up permanent mail -in ballots, C.R.S. 31 -10 -1002 (2.5) which is a new state requirement since 2009 and requires the clerk's office to mail ballots to all those who have signed up to receive mail -in ballots. Ms. Koch told the Commission there are 761 city voters on permanent mail -in list. Ms. Koch said she asked the city attorney's office if the city could opt out of this provision. Ms. Koch said all the city clerk's office will get from the county clerk's office is a list of voters who have signed up for permanent mail in ballots. These will be mailed out and there will be nothing to compare signatures. Signature verification is not a requirement in the municipal election code. Ms. Koch said municipalities are not allowed access to the secretary of state's voter data base but for $25.00 the secretary of state's office will supply signatures from other sources, like driver's licenses. Worcester said opting out of this will be confusing for people who expect a ballot in the mail. Leatherman said he would prefer not to opt out. Ms. Koch said she will write a process for permanent mail in ballots for the Election Commission to review. Ms. Koch reiterated there is no requirement for signature verification in the Municipal Election Code and there will be nothing with which to compare signatures. Hauenstein noted the larger issue here is voter enfranchisement /ease of voting versus voter fraud. Worcester said if the city cannot get access to SCORE, verifying signatures from other sources will be randomly successful. Hauenstein said this opens up avenues of voter fraud and loss of secrecy than voting at the polls. Ms. Koch said one other legislative amendment is the logic and accuracy testing, which she will have drafted for the next meeting. Hauenstein moved to adjourn at 11:30 AM; seconded by Leatherman. All in favor, motion carried. 3 In a letter to the Election Commission dated June 14, 2010, the City Attorney's Office identified nine issues that would be legitimately addressed by the Election Commission and City Council. Below are the nine issues and how they have been addressed is set forth in red: 1) One or more privacy booths should be provided for walk -in absentee voters. The Election Commission has briefly considered this issue and certainly may adopt procedural requirement for the number and location of privacy booths for walk -in absentee voting in the 2011 election. The Election Commission by minutes action directed the Clerk to provide privacy booths for walk -in absentee voters. 2) Keys should not be left, even momentarily, in the key hole that accesses any part of the Accu -Vote machine. Any key should be used, then removed. If it has not already done so, this requirement certainly can be adopted by the Election Commission. The Election Commission by minute actions directed the Clerk to adopt procedures tin• all Election Officials so that kevs would not he left in the key hole that accesses anv part of the Accu -Vote machine or ballot box even momentarily. 3) If IRV is retained the Election Commission should adopt a formal procedure as to how ballots are shuffled prior to counting. The strings that are created in the counting process should be randomized prior to releasing them to the public, if they are released at all. The Election Commission considered these issues at its meeting of May 5, 2010 and a final determination of all procedures is under advisement. Whether and how poll books should be released and whether the strings should be released at all are still appropriately to be discussed. With the repeal of IRV. this issue is now moot. 4) IRV procedures are within the purview of the City Council. However, if IRV is retained by the electorate, whether the system used in the 2009 election is retained is certainly legitimately to be discussed. This was debated extensively prior to the last election. Nonetheless, there is no prohibition on reopening that discussion. With the repeal of IRV. this issue is now moot. 5) The recount language in Section 8.4.1 of the manual needs to be revised to clearly reflect the intent of the Council. However, other modifications can be considered. For instance, should a recount be mandated in early elimination rounds? Should a recount only be conducted by hand, as is presently the case? This decision is in the purview of the City Council. Nonetheless, the Election Commission certainly could make a recommendation. With the repeal of IRV, the terms within the manual. including Section 8.4.1 are also moot. Otherwise, the Election Commission did not recommend changes to the recount procedures set forth in the Colorado Municipal Election other than requiring analysis of voter intent. 6) The issue of whether the tally is done by computer or by hand count may be within the purview of the Election Commission. Even if it is within the purview of the Council, the Election Commission certainly can make recommendations and establish procedures as to how any system that is used is properly tested. The Election Commission did not recommend hand counting. However. the proposed Ordinance requires the Election Commission to adopt appropriate testing; procedures. 7) The Election Commission can establish rules as to how any post election audits are conducted. The Election Commission does not support pursuing post election audits. The Election Commission believes that proper testing of the equipment used will eliminate the need for post election audits. 8) The Election Commission can evaluate the absentee voting conducted prior to the printing of the final ballots. Although this was an effort to enfranchise more voters, the Election Commission could chose not to continue this program. This issue is addressed in the proposed ordinance. 9) The rules as to how to evaluate write -in votes was adopted by the City Council. However, it would certainly be appropriate for the Election Commission to review those rules and recommend changes, if it is believed changes are appropriate. This issue is addressed in the proposed ordinance. ORDINANCE NO. 2 Series of 2011 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN BY REPEALING CHAPTER 2.26 AND AMENDING TITLE 9 BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW CHAPTER 9.10, RELATING TO THE CONDUCT OF MUNICPAL ELECTIONS. WHEREAS, Article XX, Section 6(d) of the Colorado State Constitution grants to Home Rule municipalities the power to legislate in "all matters pertaining to municipal elections"; and, WHEREAS, The City of Aspen is a Home Rule municipality having adopted a home rule in accordance with the Colorado Constitution; and, WHEREAS, Section 2.1 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter states that all "City elections shall be governed by the Colorado Municipal Election Laws as now existing or hereafter amended or modified except as otherwise provided by this Chapter, or by ordinance hereafter enacted"; and, WHEREAS, on November 2, 2010, the electorate of the City of Aspen did approve Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2010, to amend the City of Aspen City Charter by repealing instant run -off voting procedures and reinstate previously used run -off election procedures for the election of Mayor and members of City Council; and, WHEREAS, the City Council desires to reinstate the previously used run -off election procedures as approved by the electorate and to make improvements to those procedures. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1. That Chapter 2.26 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen is hereby repealed in its entirety. 1 Section 2. That Title 9 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen is hereby amended by the addition of a new Chapter 9.10 which chapter shall read as follows: Chapter 9.10 Conduct of Municipal Elections Sec. 9.10.010. Applicability. This Chapter shall apply to all municipal elections conducted in the City of Aspen. All other provisions of the Colorado Municipal Election Code, Sections 31 -10 -101, et seq., C.R.S., shall apply to the extent they are not inconsistent with this Chapter. Sec. 9.10.020. Definitions. As used in this Code, unless the context otherwise requires, the following terms shall be defined as follows: Electronic vote - tabulating equipment or electronic vote - counting equipment. Any apparatus that examines and records votes automatically and tabulates the result, including but not limited to optical scanning equipment. The term includes any apparatus that counts votes electronically and tabulates the results simultaneously on a paper tape within the apparatus, that uses an electronic device to store the tabulation results, and that has the capability to transmit the votes into a central processing unit for purposes of a printout and an official count. Overvote. The selection by an elector of more names than there are persons to be elected to an office or the designation of more than one answer to a ballot question or ballot issue. Undervote. The failure of an elector to vote on a ballot question or ballot issue, the failure of an elector to vote for any candidate for an office, or the designation by an elector of fewer votes than there are offices to be filled; except that it is not an undervote if there are fewer candidates than offices to be filled and the elector designates as many votes as there are candidates. Sec. 9.10.030. Write - in Affidavit Required. Pursuant to §31 -10 -306, C.R.S., and except as set for below, no write -in vote for any candidate for municipal office shall be counted unless an affidavit of intent has been filed with the clerk's office by the person whose name is to be written in prior to twenty (20) days before the day of the election indicating that such person desires the office and is qualified to assume the duties of that office if elected. Sec. 9.10.040. Counting Votes 2 (a) On Election Day, all votes shall be counted pursuant to the Colorado Municipal Election Code, as amended by this chapter. (b) Counting Write -in Votes. Write -in votes for a candidate who has filed an affidavit pursuant to Section 9.10.030 of this chapter, shall be counted in the initial tabulation if the voter marks the oval before the write -in area and adequately indentifies the write -in candidate. A voter must write the last name of an eligible write -in candidate in order for their selection to count. If the voter incorrectly spells the write -in candidate's name, the vote may still count if the voter's intent to vote for an eligible write -in candidate is clear. A voter that writes only the first name or nickname of an eligible candidate has failed to make a valid selection. If a voter designates a named candidate on the ballot and writes in the name of a different candidate in the write -in area, the vote shall be considered an overvote for that office so long as the number of chosen candidates exceeds the number of permitted to be voted for that office. If a voter has overvoted, no vote for that office may count. Sec. 9.10.050. Determination of voter intent. Election officials may only consider voter intent in the situations that follow. Election officials required to determine voter intent shall use guidelines issued by the Colorado Secretary of State for this purpose including the publication adopted in 2008 entitled "Voter Intent - A Guide to the Determination of Voter Intent for Colorado Elections ", and any amendments thereto. (a) During a recount as outlined in §31 -10 -1027, C. R. S. (b) In the event that there is no write -in candidate who has filed an affidavit to declare eligibility pursuant to Section 9.10.030 of this chapter, yet the number of write -in votes in a given race is greater than the difference in the number of votes between the top two vote getters in any race, then the ballots separated by the electronic vote counting equipment shall be examined. If a voter has not designated a vote for a candidate named on the ballot, but has written -in the name of a candidate in the write -in area who is a named candidate in the election, the vote must be counted as a vote for the candidate named on the ballot. (c) In the event that there is a declared write -in candidate pursuant to Section 9.10.030, above, and the number of undervotes in the race involving such write -in candidates is great enough to affect the outcome of the election if all undervotes were given to one candidate, then the ballots shall be examined. If a voter failed to complete the targeted area but did write in the name of a qualified candidate, the write -in vote shall be counted for the qualified candidate. (d) In duplication of ballots cast pursuant to section 9.10.060 of this chapter. Sec. 9.10.060. Special Absentee Voter Ballot 3 Once the clerk is able to provide official sample ballots for public inspection, any registered elector who will be outside the United States on Election Day and during the period of time for Absentee Voting in accordance with section 9.10.070 of this chapter may apply to the clerk for a Special Absentee Voter Ballot to vote at a regular municipal or runoff election, regardless of whether the elector has previously submitted an absentee ballot application for the election. In no event shall a Special Absentee Voter Ballot be made available to voters after Absentee Voting is permitted in accordance with Section 9.10.070 of this chapter. An application for a Special Absentee Voter Ballot shall contain a statement by the registered elector that due to extenuating circumstances the elector will be out of the United States on Election Day and the elector believes that he or she cannot vote a mail -in ballot during the normal period provided by §31 -10 -1002, C.R.S., or otherwise participate in Absentee Voting, set forth in Section 9.10.070, below. Voters using a Special Absentee Voter Ballots shall be advised that their ballot will be copied onto an official ballot and cast by an election official in the same manner as votes would be cast on Election Day. Sec. 9.10.070. Absentee Voting (a) The clerk shall provide absentee voting pursuant to C.R.S. Section 31 -10 -1001, et seq. (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of C.R.S. Section 31 -10 -1005, the clerk may provide one or more voting machine in the clerk's office for the use of qualified applicants for absent voters' ballots. If such machines are provided, they may be available when the clerk is able to provide official ballots for public inspection and the voting machines have been tested, but in no event shall said voting machines be made available after the close of business on the Friday immediately preceding the election. Votes on such machines shall be cast and counted in the same manner as votes would be cast and counted on a voting machine in a precinct polling place on Election Day. The clerk shall supervise the casting and counting of absent voters' ballots on the machines. The machines shall remain locked and the tabulation of the votes cast shall remain unknown until Election Day. (c) Not later than 8:30 a.m. on the day of any municipal election, the clerk shall deliver to the judges appointed as the absentee /mail -in ballot counting judges, all the absent voters' envelopes received up to that time, in sealed packages, taking a receipt for the packages, together with the list of absent voters. The clerk shall continue to deliver any envelopes which may be received thereafter during said day up to and including 7 p.m. On the sealed packages shall be printed or written, "This package contains ....(number) absent voters' ballots." With the envelopes the clerk shall deliver to one of the election judges written instructions, which shall be followed by the judges of election in casting and counting the ballots, and all the books, records, and supplies as are needed for tabulating, recording, and certifying said absent voters' ballots. 4 Sec. 9.10.080. Verification of Identification (a) Any registered elector desiring to vote shall be required to have his or her identification verified by an election judge. Any document on the following list shall be an acceptable form of identification. When the voter shows identification, the election judge shall check to ensure that the.name matches, and that the address, if one is listed, is in the State of Colorado. During verification, names given which are similar common variants or nicknames of the name shall be acceptable. i. A valid Colorado driver's license; ii. A valid identification card issued by the department of revenue in accordance with the requirements of part 3 of article 2 of title 42, C.R.S.; iii. A valid United States passport; iv. A valid employee identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector issued by any branch, department, agency, or entity of the United States government or of this state, or by any county, municipality, board, authority, or other political subdivision of this state; v. A valid pilot's license issued by the federal aviation administration or other authorized agency of the United States; vi. A valid United States military identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector; vii. A copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document that shows the name and address of the elector ( "current" as used in this section means that the document is within 60 days of the date submitted for identification purposes unless the document states a longer billing cycle); viii. A valid medicare or medicaid card issued by the United States health care financing administration; ix. A certified copy of a birth certificate for the elector issued in the United States; x. Certified documentation of naturalization; or xi. A valid student identification card with a photograph of the eligible elector issued by an institution of higher education in Colorado, as defined in section §23 -3.1 -102 (5), C.R.S. (b) A registered elector desiring to vote who has no identification as described in subsection (a), above, and who is known personally to one of the election judges, may sign an affidavit also signed by the election judge that that person is who they purport to be and is personally known 5 to the election judge. That registered elector will be allowed to cast a ballot as long as their name appears on the registration list. (c) An eligible elector who is unable to produce identification or to have an election judge sign an affidavit in accordance with subsection 9.10.080(b) above, may cast a provisional ballot in accordance with §9.10.090 of this chapter. Sec. 9.10.090. Provisional Balloting (a) At any election conducted pursuant to this chapter, a voter claiming to be properly registered but whose qualification or entitlement to vote cannot be immediately established upon examination of the registration list for the precinct or upon examination of the records on file with the county clerk and recorder shall be entitled to cast a provisional ballot in accordance with this section. (b) An elector who desires to vote but does not show identification in accordance with section 9.10.080 of this chapter may cast a provisional ballot. (c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (g)(5) of this section, if an elector applies for and has been issued a mail -in ballot but spoils it or otherwise does not cast it, the elector may cast a provisional ballot at the polling place or vote center if the elector affirms under oath that the elector has not and will not cast the mail -in ballot. The provisional ballot shall be counted if the designated election official verifies that the elector is registered to vote and did not cast the mail -in ballot and if the elector's eligibility to vote in the county is verified. (d) A provisional ballot shall contain text clearly identifying it as a provisional ballot. (e) An elector casting a provisional ballot shall complete an affidavit and receive information and instructions on the voting and handling of provision ballots. (f) Each polling place using paper provisional ballots shall have on hand a sufficient number of provisional ballots and provisional ballot envelopes. (g) Voting procedures for provisional ballots (1) An elector casting a provisional ballot shall complete and sign the provisional ballot affidavit and cast the ballot. (2) The fact that an elector casts a provisional ballot shall be indicated on the signature card and pollbook next to the elector's name. (3) The election judge shall examine the provisional ballot affidavit and shall inform the elector that the affidavit must be signed in order for the provisional ballot to be counted. 6 (4) If an elector who is casting a provisional ballot does not show identification as required by section 9.10.080 of this chapter, the election official shall indicate on a space provided on the provisional ballot envelope that the elector did not show identification. (5) If paper provisional ballots and envelopes are used in an election, the provisional ballot envelope containing the marked provisional ballot shall be deposited in a ballot container. All paper provisional ballots cast shall remain sealed in their envelopes for return to the city clerk. (6) After an elector casts a provisional ballot, the election judge shall give the elector a written notice that an elector who casts a provisional ballot has the right to know whether the vote was counted and the reason not counted. The notice shall specify the phone number of the clerk's office. (7) Once a provisional ballot is given to an election official to be cast, it may not be changed, retrieved, or nullified by the elector. (h) Verification of provisional ballot information (1) The designated election official shall attempt to verify that an elector who cast a provisional ballot is eligible to vote. The designated election official or designee shall complete the preliminary verification of the elector's eligibility to vote before the ballot is counted in accordance with subsection (4) of this subsection. (2) If the elector signs but does not fill in all the information requested on the provisional ballot affidavit, the ballot shall be counted only if the designated election official is able to determine that the elector was eligible to vote in the precinct and city. (3) If a provisional ballot affidavit is not signed, the designated election official shall contact the elector by phone the day after the election after the signature deficiency has been confirmed, informing the elector that the affidavit was not signed and that the provisional ballot cannot be counted unless the affidavit is signed. The designated election official shall state that the elector may come to the office of the clerk to sign the provisional ballot affidavit no later than two days after the election. If the elector does not sign the provisional ballot affidavit after receiving notice, the provisional ballot shall not be counted. (4) The clerk shall set the time for the verification and counting of all provisional ballots. A board appointed by the clerk shall count all verified provisional ballots in accordance with the procedure approved by the Election Commission. (5) The clerk shall count all mail -in ballots cast in an election before counting any provisional ballots cast by electors who requested mail in ballots for the election. 7 (i) If the clerk verifies that an elector who cast a provisional ballot is eligible to vote, the provisional ballot shall be counted. Sec. 9.10.100. Electronic Vote Counting Equipment Testing Prior to an election in which an electronic vote counting equipment is to be used, the clerk shall have all system components prepared for voting and shall inspect and determine that each vote recorder or voting device is in proper working order and shall conduct testing in accordance with the procedures adopted by the Election Commission. The clerk shall cause a sufficient number of recorders or devices to be delivered to each election precinct in which an electronic voting system is to be used. Section 3 Existing Litigation This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4 Severability If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5 Public Hearing A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 14 day of February, 2011, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado, prior to which hearing a public notice of the same was published on the city's website. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 24 day of January 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: 8 Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of February, 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney 9 VI( I, b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Vv) FROM: Drew Alexander, Planner l RE: 110 East Bleeker Street, Extension of Vested Property Rights — Resolution 15 t Series 2011— Public Hearing MEETING DATE: February 14, 2011 APPLICANT /OWNER: RECOMMENDATION: Lexie Brockway Potamkin Staff recommends approval. REPRESENTATIVE: SUMMARY: Klein, Cote & Edwards, 201 North Mill The Applicant requests a three year extension of Street, STE 203, Aspen, Colorado 81611 their vested rights to December 9, 2013 with regard to the existing approval. LOCATION: 110 E. Bleeker Street, Lots L and M, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen. y � y c c , .. CURRENT ZONING & APPROVED USE ' I" ;4 - .. � .kk$ R -6 (Medium- density Residential) Zone I , ,. District. A historically landmarked , 1 M single - family dwelling unit is approved. 4.10eur .. rY .7. Figure 1: 110 East Bleeker Street LAND USE REQUESTS AND REVIEW PROCEDURES: The Applicant is requesting the following land use approval: • Extension of Vested Rights to extend the vested rights of the approved project to December 9, 2013, pursuant to Land Use Code Section 26.308.010 C., Extension or Reinstatement of Vested Rights. (City Council is final review authority who may approve or deny the proposal). 110 East Bleeker Street Staff Memo 1 PROJECT SUMMARY: 110 E. Bleeker Street is a 6,000 square foot lot located within Aspen's R -6 (Medium- Density Residential) Zone District. The structure is situated on the eastern portion of the lot, and the original approval grants the ability to construct an attached addition on the western portion of the lot. The existing structure is a historic landmark property. The Applicant requests an extension of their vested rights for the project approved by Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) Resolution No. 33, Series 2004. This project was subsequently granted a three year extension of vested property rights through City Council Resolution No. 95, Series of 2007 HPC Resolution No. 33, Series of 2004 granted the Applicant a 5% site coverage variance, a 325 square foot floor area bonus, authority to renovate the existing home, and the ability to construct a new addition. Resolution No. 33 provided 18 conditions of approval to ensure appropriate completeness of the project and proper care of the historic resource. Elevations and floor plans of the proposed redevelopment are provided in Exhibit C. STAFF COMMENTS: VESTED RIGHTS EXTENSION: The Applicant is requesting an extension of their vested rights until December 9, 2013, pursuant to Section 26.308.010 (C) Extension or Reinstatement of Vested Rights, of the City's Land Use Code. The review criteria are addressed in Exhibit A. The Applicant has experienced a number of hardships since the previous vested rights extension. Primarily, there was a boundary line dispute involving the historic carriage house at the rear of the Applicant's property. This was a multi -year dispute that was finally settled in August of 2010. Secondly, the current economic condition has not permitted a level of lending that would make the project easily accomplished. These two issues have contributed significantly to the delay in this development plan. The Land Use Code has not received any major revisions that would alter HPC's original approval. The City's Historic Preservation Officer has reviewed this request and finds that the project still represents a reasonable development plan for the historic resource. Additionally, the 18 conditions of approval in HPC Resolution No. 33 provide strong direction for a successful completion (Exhibit B). RECOMMENDATION: Given the hardships experience since the previous extension, and the comprehensive list of approval conditions imposed by the original HPC Resolution, Staff recommends that the City Council approve the requested extension of vested property rights with an expiration date of December 9, 2013 for 110 East Bleeker Street. The City Council Resolution which previously extended the vested rights expired on December 8, 2010. 110 East Bleeker Street Staff Memo 2 RECOMMENDED MOTION (ALL MOTIONS ARE PROPOSED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE): "I move to approve Resolution No. 6, Series of 2011, extending the vested rights for 110 East Bleeker Street to December 9, 2013." CITY MANAGER'S COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. i5 Series of 2011 EXHIBIT A — Review Criteria and Staff Findings. EXHIBIT B — HPC Resolution No. 33, Series of 2004 (includes conditions of approval) EXHIBIT C - HPC approved floor plans and elevations. EXHIBIT D — City Council Resolution No. 95, Series of 2007 EXHIBIT E — Application. 110 East Bleeker Street Staff Memo 3 Resolution No. l (Series of 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A THREE (3) YEAR EXTENSION OF THE VESTED PROPERTY RIGHTS GRANTED BY HPC RESOLUTION NO. 33, SERIES OF 2004 (AS AMENDED) AND SUBSEQUENTLY EXTENDED THROUGH ASPEN CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 95, SERIES OF 2007 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 110 E. BLEEKER STREET, LOTS L AND M, BLOCK 65, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735- 124 -37 -006 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Lexie Brockway Potamkin, represented by Jody Edwards of Klein, Cote and Edwards, LLC, requesting approval of a three (3) year extension of the vested property rights granted for the project approved by HPC Resolution No. 33, Series of 2004 (as amended and subsequently extended through Aspen City Council Resolution No. 95, Series of 2007; and, WHEREAS, the applicant submitted the application for extension of vested property rights on December 7, 2010 before the vested property rights expired; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.308.010, Vested Property Rights, of the Land Use Code, City Council may grant an extension of vested property rights after a public hearing is held and resolution is adopted; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the application and recommended approval of a three (3) year extension of vested rights for 110 E. Bleeker Street; and, WHEREAS, The Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the requested extension of vested property rights for 110 E. Bleeker Street under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the extension of vested property rights proposal meets of exceeds all applicable land use standards and that the approval of the extension of vested property rights proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: The Aspen City Council does hereby approve a three (3) year extension of vested property rights for the 110 E. Bleeker project as was originally approved by HPC Resolution No. 33, Series of 2004 (as amended) and subsequently extended through Aspen City Council Resolution No. 95, Series of 2007 establishing a new expiration date of December 9, 2013. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such" portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: A duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution was held on the 14th day of February, 2011 at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. {Signatures on following page} INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 14` day of February, 2011. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY, adopted, passed, and approved by a _ to _ vote on this _ day of , 2011. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to form John P. Worcester, City Attorney Exhibit A Vested Property Rights Extension 110 East Bleeker Street Extension or Reinstatement of Vested Rights: 26.308.O10.0 The City Council may by resolution at a public hearing noticed by publication, mailing, and posting (See Section 26.304.060(E)(3)(a)(b)(c)) approve an extension or reinstatement of expired vested rights or a revoked development order in accordance with this section 1. In reviewing a request for the extension or reinstatement of vested rights the City Council shall consider, but not limited to, the following criteria: a. The applicant's compliance with any conditions requiring performance prior to the date of application for extension or reinstatement; Staff finding: Most conditions associated with this project deal with elements once construction begun. These conditions can be found in HPC Resolution No. 33, Series of 2004. No other conditions have required performance prior to this extension request. Staff finds this criterion met. b. The progress made in pursuing the project to date including the effort to obtain any other permits, including a building permit, and the expenditures made by the applicant in pursuing the project; Staff finding: The Applicant has had to deal with two major setbacks since the previous vested rights extension. These include a boundary line dispute and a stagnant lending economy. In addition, the Applicant has made multiple revisions to the project through Staff direction and request, submitted for building permit,' and obtained an encroachment license. It is Staffs finding that the Applicant has been active in the past three years and has a justifiable means to request this extension. Staff finds this criterion met. c. The nature and extent of any benefits already received by the city as a result of the project approval such as impact fees or land dedications; Staff finding: Being that the project has not been issued a building permit, no impact fees have been collected. The project still intends to preserve an historic landmark, and is committed to the conditions placed by the Historic Preservation Commission. Staff finds this criterion met. d. The needs of the city and the applicant that would be served by the approval of the extension or reinstatement request. Issues arose during the permit process and the permit has since expired. Staff finding: An extension of vested property rights would hopefully grant the Applicant enough time to complete the project, or receive a building permit. The Applicant is not receiving a waiver from any major Land Use Code changes through an extension of vested rights. Staff does not believe that subjecting the Applicant to another review would result in a better project. The vast majority of the regulations remain unchanged, and Staff has repeatedly stated throughout this project's history that it represents a good project. The project will preserve a valuable historic resource -- one of the few remaining 19 century brick homes in Aspen. Staff finds this criterion met. f )C 1 4 16 it 6 S III II 011011 1 111 I IIII IIlI III II�IIIIII00 ©6 ©05 1.301 RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION (IIPC) APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR A SUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO MAJOR DEVELOPMENT (FINAL) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 110 E. BLEEKER STREET, LOTS L AND M, BLOCK 65, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, COLORADO RESOLUTION NO. 33, SERIES OF 2004 PARCEL ID: 2735- 124 -37 -006 WHEREAS, Robert and l.exie Potamkin, represented by Rally Dupps, Consortium Architects, and Mitch Haas, Haas Land Planning,• have requested a Substantial Amendment to the Final Development granted by Resolution #27, Series of 2002 for the property located at 110 E. Bleeker Street, Lot L and M, Block 65, City and Townsite of Aspen, Colorado. The property is listed on the "Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures;" and WHEREAS, Section 26.415.070 of the Municipal Code states that "no building or structure shall be erected, constructed, enlarged, altered, repaired, relocated or improved involving a designated historic property or district until plans or sufficient information have been submitted to the Community Development Director and approved in accordance with the procedures established for their review;" and WHEREAS, for a Substantial Amendment to Final Major Development Review, the HPC must review the application, a staff analysis report and the evidence presented at a hearing to determine the project's conformance with the City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines per Section 26.415.070.D.3.b.2 and 3 of the Municipal Code and other applicable Code Sections. The IIPC may approve, disapprove, approve with conditions or continue the application to obtain additional information necessary to make a decision to approve or deny; and WHEREAS, Amy Guthrie, in her staff report dated December 8, 2004, performed an analysis of the application based on the standards, found that the review standards and the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines have been met, and recommended approval with conditions; and WHEREAS, at their regular meeting on December 8, 2004, the Historic Preservation Commission considered the application, found the application was consistent with the review standards and "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and approved the application by a vote of 5 to 1. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: HPC grants approval for a Substantial Amendment to Major Development (Final) for 110 E. Bleeker Street with the following conditions: 1. HPC has granted a 325 square foot FAR bonus and a 5% site coverage variance for the project. In order for this project to qualify for the FAR bonus, the porch, front III VIII III II IIII I I I IIIIIiII I 0111 0 © 6 © 0055 11:301 SILVIA DAVIS PITKIN COUNTY CO R 16.00 0 0.00 window, and both front doors are to be restored to their original condition and the paint must be removed from the masonry. 2. The method for removing the paint from the masonry must be approved by HPC staff and monitor. Test patches will be reviewed by staff and monitor. 3. After the paint has been removed from the historic house, the applicant shall contact staff for an inspection to determine whether there were any original window openings on the east facade of the house, under the gable end. If so, the window(s) should be restored based on a plan approved by staff and monitor. 4. A cut sheet must be provided for any new windows to be installed in the historic building, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. 5. Detail drawings showing the reconstruction of the porch and bay window to match the photographs must be submitted for review and approval by staff and monitor. 6. Any changes to the landscape plan must be reviewed and approved by HPC staff and monitor. Provide additional information about the new tree installation indicated on the landscape plan, for approval by staff and monitor. 7. As part of an overall restoration of the historic character of the property, staff recommends the owner work with the City Parks Department to remove and replace the existing trees on the City right of way with more appropriate trees. The current trees disrupt the relationship between the front of the house and the street. If the owner is in agreement, this will be done at the City's expense. 8. A picket fence as represented in the plans may be constructed along the property lines. 9. HPC staff and monitor must approve a plan for the type and location of all exterior lighting fixtures prior to wiring, installation or purchase. The light fixtures must comply with the "City of Aspen Historic Preservation Design Guidelines" and the "City Lighting Code." 10. information on all venting locations and meter locations not described in the approved drawings shall be provided for review and approval by staff and monitor when the information is available, before their installation. 11. Submit a demolition plan, as part of the building permit plan set, indicating exactly what areas of the existing house are to be removed as part of the renovation. 12. No elements are to be added to the historic house that did not previously exist, other than what is approved by UPC. No existing exterior materials other than what has been specifically approved herein may be removed without the approval of staff and monitor. 13. There shall be no deviations from the exterior elevations as approved without first being reviewed and approved by I IPC staff and monitor. 14. The conditions of approval will he required to be printed on the cover sheet of the building permit plan set and all other prints made for the purpose of construction. 15. The applicant shall be required to provide the contractor with copies of the HPC resolution applicable to this project. The contractor must submit a letter addressed to HPC staff as part of the building permit application indicating that all conditions of approval are known and understood and must meet with the Historic Preservation Officer prior to applying for the building permit. 16. The General Contractor and /or Superintendent shall be required to obtain a specialty license in historic preservation prior to receiving a building permit. 17. Restudy the detailing of the junction between the historic house and the rear porch of the addition. The design, which must be approved by staff and monitor, must protect the historic building from damage (for instance from snow or drainage directed at the old masonry), and must look at eliminating the overlap onto the comer in terms of protecting the original building's integrity. 18. Restudy the roof over the stair town on the addition to meet guideline 10.9, to be reviewed and approved by staff and monitor. APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION at its regular meeting on the 8th day of December, 2004. Approved as to Form: • Davi Hoefer, Assistan City Attorney Approved as to content: HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION v • y Je Ialferty, Chair ATTEST: C (. 2 etn. Kathy Strickland, Chief Deputy Clerk In 5 ©6 ©78 11111111111111111111111111111 00191x9 0174023111.301 R 16.0 SILVIA DAVID PITKIN COUNTY GO 1 j r O g i° ;°_. 5 Y I 0 n •3= %�►` 1I- h ::='- 23� =-5 rn �I III I - �II =1_.. l=i��� J v) _ � _ - _ ; i,__II�I� o ; P D i II _I 1 II-1- N - z I �� III -- =��� H �� 2 m rn I o 11 I lilitainalit , ,,, p ixj n$ Lr — � T -- r I� o 4 z N XI J w 0 > �--- - gr i i •u u i . i .u i i, \ _ ig n —I 4,0 0 N $ 1 11 1 1 � � 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1111111 1 1 1 1 1 , 1 , , V III p s S - r � 111 1 dd,461- _� X 111, N r I . 441 as - Ir I I O 0 111111 :,1111,u� `� D rn 111ii� �:Ip11 �; I 0 — 1 4114 __L E m 4 \ 0 �'� 11 '1`I.1•ppp "Jhl -_- o0 -- 11111 c . 1 111 11111111 A - -s 1' >> o. m _ I,L46L1�41dd,6 epoo -o rn F� 1111 =1 13! . r - -+ =' I � 1 - -�� i �n _ ' t r I��I I r 1 1 1 7a '� - i ala 3_ II - gg 1 $ ' liti iliti!�I�Il l!1' 1:1�1�1 »e a tti Li — GAG ��•� o IY t ti 4€ $I q 1 I lip i Fl St x m x b y, x li i s� zy [ Z N Z IR ? , � °sae ■ 1 >, ( 1 e1 _ q qi rn 1.1011. 1111111 � � � � R I 4 ..... L .aa 1 M EMO. 1 x,1, \ i j 1 rrr a ' I ,l i an $$ 11111111111111111 ri- -I 4 , , i— , 1 !1!1! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 , hhhhh �I�I�1�1�1 mm : i � ,11 � � � 1 4 -� 1I N.101 11 I 'I'i' i'i'i 'i'i • — - � l E lili1i� l lip,o,ir P d ,' 1 .1.1 .1.6 11 1111 x It I IIi!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!! `� - -- 111111111- _ 1. - s - �►I�� -air- "m��a_�3 n1 -- s:__ - o � a — — — - -er?3 � 3 - L Nrim :_ ■ b in r: = I � Il iliiiiiii Bs AG 00 = 1 == - 0 d mami_____: 1 II A e o S 2° 1 2 gT 1 _ o s S I; x 6 1, ? I. a I r MA lOCRnw 0PS s�Rx6e oaaRs 0 V STQ@ VCFlfR 1bJC C.MnNi BELOW 6A MIR ^ I 0 1 ) - O \ L O TM T C • X11111 I F T • NEM a - 0.4 1 •1111111 ll i,. 61 riaLYLAGE oK aw l o 11iPblD I E ° I a. wR • I u rz 1mROO11 =MI � I , o % / / /,� /A % 1\ f ; Q jr i \ �'� o� (� 0d 1 i ( pwrcei 1 11 � j r h �i A y ; / HATI 0,,„ 11 0 1 I �^'°� J rsx C x1oo1+ 1 1EI ma/J RooR.v+ -- . O r \\ , i. 1 n [i Y i �MYZA ° NORTH % r O AN O MAIN LEVEL PLAN r� r. u cRds / � r ROTOR! SAY 1 PLCY1 1,, • ` STOIC STS 5- ../H T n RESOLUTION NO. 7b (Series of 2007) A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL APPROVING A THREE (3) YEAR EXTENSION OF THE VESTED RIGHTS GRANTED BY HPC RESOLUTION NO. 33, SERIES OF 2004 (AS AMENDED) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 110 E. BLF,EKER STREET, LOTS L AND M, BLOCK 65, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO. Parcel No. 2735- 124 -37 -006 WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application from Lexie Brockway Potamkin, represented by Eben Klein of Klein, Cott & Edwards, LLC, requesting approval of a three (3) year extension of the vested rights granted for the project approved by HPC Resolution No. 33, Series of 2004 (as amended); and WHEREAS, the applicant submitted the application for extension of vested property rights on August 14, 2007 before the vested rights expired; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.308.010 Vested Property Rights of the Land Use Code, City Council may grant an extension of vested rights after a public hearing is held and a resolution is adopted; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has reviewed the application and recommended approval of a three (3) year extension of vested rights for 110 E. Bleeker Street; and, WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the requested extension of vested rights for 110 E. Bleeker Street under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director, and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the extension of vested rights proposal meets or exceeds all applicable land use standards and that the approval of the extension of vested rights proposal, with conditions, is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area Community Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: The Aspen City Council does hereby approve a three (3) year extension of vested rights for the 110 E. Sleeker project as was originally approved by HPC Resolution No.33, Series of 2004 (and later amended with regard to setbacks by HPC Resolution No. 8, 2007) establishing a new expiration date of December 8, 2010, with the following condition: 1. That, should the existing building permit application expire, the establishment herein of a vested property right shall not preclude a new building permit from the applications or regulations which are general in nature and are applicable to all property subject to land use regulation by the City of Aspen including, but not limited to, building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, and all adopted impact fees. The developer shall abide by any and all such building, fire, plumbing, electrical and mechanical codes, and impact fees that are in effect at the time of building permit, unless an exemption therefrom is granted in writing. Section 2: All material representations and commitments made by the applicant pursuant to the development proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before the City Council, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized entity. Section 3: This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 5: A duly noticed public hearing on this Resolution was held on the 12th day of November, 2007 at 5:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. FI LLY, adopted, passed, and approved by a to _ L -j vote on this '3day of 007 Approved as to form: Approved as to content: VPMS Job r ces Ss ter, City Attorney Michael C. Ireland, Ma or Attest: ' /r' A/de Kathryn S. Ks,' , City Clerk V c MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 601 FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: Second Reading of Ordinance #1, Series of 2011, 100 E. Francis Street- Historic Landmark Designation, Subdivision and Ordinance #48 Negotiation DATE: February 14, 2011 SUMMARY: Council heard Second Reading of Ordinance #1, Series of 2011, regarding preservation and redevelopment of The Given Institute property on January 24, 2011. The hearing was continued to February 7 in order to allow time for the contract purchaser of this parcel to revise their plan based on Council input. The land use application was withdrawn on February 4` Council continued the public hearing from February 7 to February 14` Staff expects Ordinance #1, Series of 2011 to be denied or terminated at this meeting. RECOMMENDED MOTION: "1 move to terminate the public hearing on Ordinance #1, Series of 2011, 100 E. Francis Street - Historic Landmark Designation, Subdivision and Ordinance #48 Negotiation." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development DirectorQ FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 100 E. Francis Street, The Given Institute, Extension of Ordinance #48 Negotiation Period DATE: February 14, 2011 SUMMARY: On January 10, 2011, City Council, with the consent of the University of Colorado, extended the Ordinance #48 negotiation period for the preservation of The Given Institute to February 15, 2011. As of February 4` the land use application submitted by a contract purchaser of the property was withdrawn. Staff will determine prior to the February 14` City Council meeting whether or not the University of Colorado wishes to extend the Ordinance #48 negotiation period further or not. If the Ordinance #48 negotiation is terminated, any new proposal to preserve The Given Institute with preservation benefits would be reviewed through a similar process established by the new AspenModern ordinance.