HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.201908051
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
August 5, 2019
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I.COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 4:00-4:10
II.WORK SESSION
II.A.Small Cell Infrastructure Update
II.B.APCHA Call Ups/Policy Discussion on Affordability Index, Hearing Officer and Fines
II.C.Rio Grande Recycle Center Update
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Justin Forman, P.E., Division Manager Engineering Department
Paul Schultz, Director of Information Technology
Tyler Christoff, P.E., Interim Director of Utilities
Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
Jennifer Phelan, Interim Director of Community Development
Ben Anderson, Planner II Community Development
Andrea Bryan, Assistant City Attorney
MEMO DATE: August 2nd, 2019
MEETING DATE: August 5th, 2019
RE: Small Cell Wireless Update
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This memo serves as an introduction for the scheduled work
session discussion on August 5th regarding Small Cell Wireless facilities within the City of
Aspen. While the City has already taken significant steps to address new federal and
state regulation, staff is seeking direction from Council on the following topics:
• Are there specific public engagement activities that staff should include in the
community engagement campaign?
• What specific location or aesthetic concerns should staff explore through the
update of our design guidelines?
• Should staff continue to investigate/pursue a Neutral Host option?
• Should staff pursue a physical mock-up of one of the neutral host facilities?
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
• Passing of Ordinance No.5, Series of 2019 – Amending City of Aspen Land Use
Code Related to Wireless Infrastructure Regulation
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
This is an update on the Small Cell wireless work currently in progress. Work includes
updating our design guidelines, deployment of a communication campaign, development
of a master license agreement (MLA) and exploring Neutral Host options.
The global trend for wireless infrastructure is smaller, more numerous wireless facilities
to “densify” wireless networks and deliver better wireless coverage and capacity. These
smaller “Small Cells” can be located on buildings, poles, other structures (e.g., bus stops,
fake rocks) and underground. The City of Aspen may specify preferences for where Small
Cells are located, for example, on existing buildings, on public property, etc. Small Cells
2
can be implemented by each individual carrier (i.e., single-carrier facilities) or as Neutral
Host/multi-carrier.
State and Federal law surrounding “Small Cell” wireless infrastructure has been rapidly
evolving. In late 2017 Colorado state law was amended to, among other things, create a
“use by right” for Small Cell facilities in any zone district, and subjects applications for
Small Cell facilities to new “shot clocks” that require expedited processing of all Small Cell
applications. More recently, a ruling issued by the FCC, and which is currently in effect,
significantly reduces local control of Small Cell wireless infrastructure.
To address this changing landscape, the City adopted new Wireless Regulations in March
of this year. These regulations outline the requirements for any wireless deployment on
private property, in the public right of way, and on City property. As part of this work, the
City has sought guidance from a telecommunications attorney to ensure our regulations
meet state and federal requirements, while also going as far as possible to protect
Aspen’s unique small-town character.
These regulations, initial interim design guidelines, and the applications requirements are
available online at: https://www.cityofaspen.com/1223/Small-Cell-Facilities
To date, three (3) requests have been formally processed under the new land use code
for updates to existing wireless facilities. These facilities are located on the roofs of the
St. Regis Hotel, Aspen Highlands and Aspen Meadows. All three properties have been
locations for significant wireless facilities over the years, and the recent applications are
consistent with the previous deployments.
Recently, a wireless carrier has approached City staff and indicated an interest in adding
two (2) new poles located in the Main Street/Highway 82 right-of-way corridor, and 8
additional poles throughout the City. These applications would comply with the current
requirements; limiting height to twenty-five (25) feet, located outside sight triangles and
tree drip lines. It is anticipated that the City will see multiple applications for small cell
facilities in early 2020. However, at this time, no additional applications have been
received.
DISCUSSION:
Wireless facility deployment is a critical issue that will impact the aesthetic and
communication paradigm in Aspen for years to come. Due to state and federal
regulations, the City now has a shortened time frame to review and approve applications
through land use and permitting (in some cases as little as 30 days). The circumstances
under which local governments can deny such applications is limited. As such, a broad
multi-department team is working on this issue so the City can stay as ahead of Small
Cell deployment as much as possible. This work includes:
1. Deploying a community engagement campaign to inform and receive input from
the community.
3
2. Updating our design guidelines to protect the City’s aesthetic and historic
preservation interests.
3. Developing an MLA to standardize and streamline the process for permitting,
installation, and maintenance of Small Cells within the City right-of-way.
4. Exploring Neutral Hosting as an alternative to single-carrier facilities to potentially
minimize the number of Small Cell facilities in the City
Community Engagement Campaign – Staff is currently working with the communications
department to determine the needs of community information materials on this topic. It is
expected that a public relations firm will be hired to help with this effort. The outreach
effort at minimum will include flyers, social media campaign, farmer’s market booth, and
newspaper ads.
Educating the public will be a major aspect of this campaign. Our goal is to ensure the
community is aware of and understands the limitations we have in regulating this
technology, as well as the proactive work being completed to ensure our codes match
our local character. Additionally, should City Council support exploration of a Neutral Host
system, staff will work with the firm to publicize any example deployments.
• Decision Point: Staff seeks direction from Council on any other specific public
engagement activities that staff should include in the community engagement
campaign.
Design Guidelines - It should be noted that local governments are preempted from
regulating Small Cells (or other wireless facilities) on the basis of health concerns and
radio frequency (RF) emissions. Our current code does require the carriers to comply with
all federal regulations regarding RF emissions. Local government can, however, regulate
based on aesthetics, location, and installation type.
The recently updated amendment to Aspen’s Land Use Code related to wireless
responds adequately to the requirements of the new FCC rules and protects Aspen from
some of the negative impacts of this federal mandate. In addition to the update to the
Land Use Code, a new land use application specifically for wireless facilities has been
developed as has an improved process that better coordinates land use and building
permit review. These changes will help the City comply with the review timelines
established by the new federal regulation.
It should be noted that the recent Land Use Code change was completed as a stop gap
measure. When these changes were adopted in March of 2019, Council directed staff to
update the City’s Design Guidelines on new wireless deployments. These design
guidelines will outline and standardize Small Cell wireless applications on private property
and within public right-of-way.
In the 2019 Spring supplemental, City Council provided additional budget to complete a
robust design guidelines document, and as a result, the City issued a Request for
Proposal (RFP) for this work. The bid process closed on Friday, June 28th, and three (3)
4
bids were received. Staff will be requesting Council approval for this contract on the
Monday, August 12th agenda. The guidelines are estimated to be completed by the late
fall/early winter of this year.
Once the design guidelines are completed, Community Development staff will initiate an
amendment to the land use code to coordinate the new document with the code and
related review process.
• Decision Point: Staff seeks direction from Council on any specific location or aesthetic
concerns that should be explored through the update of our design guidelines.
Master License Agreement - The City Attorney’s office is currently working with staff on
an MLA for Small Cell facilities in the rights-of-way. Entering into this type of agreement
is common and standard for local governments in Colorado and throughout the country
and will assist in streamlining the application and permitting process as well as
standardizing the design of small cell facilities on public property. This license will also
outline technical and siting standards for Small Cells, and to set the fees for installation
on City property. Staff will also utilize services from outside counsel specializing in
telecommunications for final review and input on this document.
Neutral Host Small Cells - Staff has been exploring ways to minimize the number and
size of Small Cells including using Neutral Host/multi-carrier Small Cells. Through a
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) and RFP process, staff has identified and is working
with a Neutral Host firm with the goal of incentivizing wireless carriers to operate using
shared Small Cell facilities versus each carrier implementing their own Small Cell facility.
Staff is currently reviewing a draft agreement from the selected Neutral Host firm.
A Neutral Host is a company that builds, operates and maintains wireless facilities that
they lease to wireless service providers/carriers. Cell tower companies are examples of
Neutral Hosts. Neutral Host can be contrasted with single-carrier solutions where a single
carrier is only interested in that carriers’ wireless network. The Neutral Host business
model is to create wireless facilities that multiple wireless carriers lease. Neutral Host may
result in little to no cost for City of Aspen or some cost depending on the extent to which
the City of Aspen wants to incent specific outcomes.
Pros of Neutral Host include:
• takes a more community-wide approach to improving wireless service coverage
and capacity vs. just improving a single carrier’s network
• hosting multiple carriers vs. a single carrier on wireless facilities may result in less
overall wireless facilities
• a Neutral Host is a single point of contact for wireless facilities versus multiple
carriers individual contacts, which may lead to more uniform wireless facilities
5
Cons of Neutral Host include:
• the possibility that carriers still build their own single-carrier wireless facilities
versus agree to lease shared facilities from the Neutral Host
• the City would rely on the Neutral Host to build, operate and maintain wireless
facilities that wireless carriers are willing to lease and wireless facilities that deliver
the robust and reliable wireless services desired by our community
• Decision Point: Staff seeks direction from Council as to whether or not the City should
staff continue to investigate/pursue a neutral host option.
The previous City Council authorized budget for Small Cell experiments and staff is
exploring various options to test visual and construction impacts of Neutral Host Small
Cells, e.g., a “mock” Small Cell pole.
• Decision Point: Staff seeks direction from Council as to whether or not staff should
pursue a physical mock-up of one of the neutral host facilities?
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
At this time, there are no financial budget decisions that need to be made. The design
guidelines, community information campaign, and Neutral Host experiments all have
funds appropriated within this year’s budget to cover the initial costs. However, Council
may need to provide supplemental funding for any change orders that arrive, future
outyear ongoing costs, or to augment the review process in case the City receives more
permit applications than it can handle.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
RECOMMENDATIONS: N/A
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
6
Strengthening Community Through Workforce Housing
1
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE EMPLOYEE HOUSING GUIDELINES
TO:Aspen City Council
FROM:Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director
WORK SESSION DATE:August 5, 2019
RE:Discussion of Resolution No. 02 (Series of 2018), Adopting Amendments to the
Employee Housing Guidelines adopting an Affordability Standard, establishing New
Minimum Net Livable Square Feet for new Affordable Housing,and Minimum
Household Income Requirements to Bid on Ownership Units set on a Per Unit Basis
Using Cost of Ownership, and adding Definitions of Affordability, etc.
This memo is in response to City Council’s request on June 10, 2019, to call-up Resolution No. 05 (Series of 2019)
for discussion and recommendation; however, the call-up process required under the 5th Amended
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) is no longer in effect. Any recommendations made by City Council at its work
session will be brought back to the new APCHA Board for further consideration and action.
PURPOSE:
Establish a Definition and Standard of Affordability for the Housing Program.
Part III APCHA Affordable Housing Development Policies and Procedures, Section 5: Minimum Net
Livable Square Footage for Affordable Housing Development:
o Eliminate (strike) Subsection A (1) Permitted Adjustments to Net Minimum Livable Square
Footage;
o Amend Table VII: Minimum Net Livable Square Feet (SF) for Affordable Housing by 20%
across all unit types; and
o Renumber Subsection A (2) Permitted Addition of Square Footage to Subsection A (1).
Part VI APCHA Purchase and Sale Policies and Procedures, Section 3. Bid Process:
o Amend Subsection B. Bid Submission, Paragraph 1, to establish a policy based on minimum
incomes to bid.
Adding definitions of affordability and other terms to Part VIII, Definitions.
BACKGROUND:
The previous APCHA Board of Directors unanimously approved Resolution No. 2 (Series of 2018) in 2018.
The Pitkin Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) approved these amendments except for Part III, Section
5 which proposes reducing the Minimum Net Livable Square Footage for new Affordable Housing
Development by 20% among other things.On June 10, 2019, City Council voted to call-up for further
discussion these proposed amendments before sending them back to the APCHA Board for further
consideration and action.
DISCUSSION:
Establish a Definition and Standard of Affordability
APCHA’s Employee Housing Guidelines do not have a standard or definition of affordability. This is
unusual for an affordable housing program because without such a standard, or central benchmark, it is
7
Strengthening Community Through Workforce Housing
2
difficult if not impossible to measure whether the affordable workforce housing program is meeting its
affordability objectives for various income groups now and over time.
According to APCHA’s 2016 Policy Study, “prices are not determined consistently based on an adopted
standard for affordability. In some categories, rents and prices are too high, about right, or too low
relative to income, yet affordability is a clear object of the Housing Program”(2016 Policy Study: Executive
Summary,p. 15; 2016).Without a definition or standard of affordability, decision makers for the housing
program cannot objectively determine sales prices, rents, or household income minimums and limits.
Adopting an affordability standard or definition would:
Help APCHA determine which income groups and households are housing cost burdened;
Help APCHA evaluate its effectiveness serving targeted income households;
Help APCHA objectively compare and evaluate itself to other housing programs;
Help APCHA determine sales prices, rents, appreciation rates, and income qualifications; and
Help APCHA sustain the long-term affordability of housing within the community.
The 2016 Policy Study also recommended defining affordability using a 30%of gross income measure.
Albeit imperfect, most private lenders and government agencies in the U.S. measure affordability using
this standard including all of Aspen’s peer mountain resort communities.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and Colorado Housing and Finance Authority
(CHFA)also use affordability measures to determine the allocation of public funds by measuring the level
of cost burden in communities for determining eligibility and setting rental rates for public housing.
HUD uses a simple share of income approach stating that housing is not affordable if housing costs
exceed 30% of the household’s gross (pre-tax) income.1 This standard originated for HUD public housing
programs in the United States Housing Act of 1937. The 30% ratio has evolved over time, beginning at
20% in 1940, rising to 25% in 1968 and to 30% in 1981.2
A household is defined as cost-burdened by their housing payment when housing costs exceed 30% of a
household’s gross (pre-tax) income. Households are severely cost-burdened when rent or mortgage
comprises 50% or more of gross income. Cost burdened households, particularly those in lower income
groups may be forced to make tradeoffs to meet other necessary household expenses, such as food,
healthcare, and transportation, or in the safety, quality, and location of their housing.
The application of the 30% ratio of housing costs to income varies. The calculation may compare just rent
or mortgage to a household’s income or may include the cost of utilities in the calculation. For example,
for rents in public housing projects, federal regulations limit the amount of rent plus an allowance for
1 Income is measured for public housing programs as defined in 25 C.F.R. § 5.609.
2 See the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 and Housing and Community Development Amendments of 1981, Public
Law 97-35 (8/13/81), 95 Stat. 400.8
Strengthening Community Through Workforce Housing
3
utilities to be no more than 30% of income.3 The Colorado Housing Finance Authority (CHFA), however,
allows rents plus utilities for low-income housing tax credit rentals (LIHTC) to comprise up to 40% of a
qualifying household’s income.4
Although HUD’s standard is applied with some variation and has some deficiencies, it is acknowledged as
the most widely used standard across federal,state, and local housing programs. Its simplicity and
universal acceptance as an affordability indicator makes it a good starting point for APCHA because it is
computed from readily available federal census-based data and is easily calculated and tracked over time.
Tying affordability to 30% of gross household income is meant to safeguard APCHA households by
ensuring they have enough money to pay for other nondiscretionary costs. But it also creates a
comparatively equitable and objective standard for setting the prices for newly deed restricted homes
and maximum monthly rental rents for APCHA participants.
The 30% affordability standard is admittedly not perfect. A flat 30% ratio does not consider the varying
ability for households at different income levels to afford non-housing essentials such as food, clothing,
transportation, healthcare and childcare.For example, households earning $100,000 per year have more
disposable income available after paying 30% of their income towards rent or mortgage than households
earning less than $30,000 per year.
A flat 30% ratio also does not account for the cost differences in food, shelter, transportation, and other
living expenses that occur from one housing market to another, affecting the total cost of living in an area
and what a household can realistically afford to pay for housing to meet other expenses.A flat 30% ratio
does not take into consideration the physical condition, safety, or location tradeoffs that households
must make (or may be willing to make)to afford their housing. Nor does it account for investments that
owners might have to make to repair substandard properties because of age or neglect.
Different approaches for determining affordability have long been debated. Beyond a flat 30% ratio
approach, APCHA could consider a progressive or scaled-up affordability standard for households with
higher gross incomes, like the income category structure that APCHA currently uses.
In general, high cost communities like Aspen serve higher income households compared to most HUD-
assisted communities. Aspen and other resort-based communities provide the environment for a scaled-
up or progressive residual-income approach. However, APCHA knows of no other housing authorities to
have adopted this approach.
Low Income APCHA Renter Households
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, for households at the bottom rungs of the income ladder, the use of
the 30% affordability standard as a measure of a housing affordability is as relevant today as it was four
3 Reference CFR sections here.
4 See Colorado Housing and Finance Authority LIHTC Regulations, http://www.chfainfo.com/arh/asset/Pages/lihtc-
compliance.aspx 9
Strengthening Community Through Workforce Housing
4
decades ago.The 2016 Policy Study found that approximately 23% of existing APCHA renters are cost-
burdened (i.e. pay more than 30% of their income to rent). Cost burden is particularly acute for Category
1 and 2 renter households (Table 1) and higher for 1-adult households compared to other household
sizes.Cost burden is not an issue for Category 3 and 4 renter households.5
Overall, APCHA’s published maximum rents are affordable compared to maximum incomes for every
income or category level (Table 2).In other words, for APCHA’s rents are affordable for most households
in the housing program.
Table 1. Households Paying Over 30% of Income for Rent: APCHA Renters 2015
1-adult 2-adults 3-adults Total
Households
% Cost-Burdened 29.9%18.0%9.1%23.0%
Category 1 Category 2 Category 3 Category 4
% Cost-Burdened 61.5%32.4%0.3%0.0%
Source: 2015 Employee Survey
Table 2.Average Affordability of APCHA’s Maximum Rents (2015)
Cat1 Cat2 Cat3 Cat4
Average income range*$49,667 $77,667 $125,667 $204,000
Average rent**$721 $1,178 $1,612 $2,038
Ratio of monthly rent to
monthly income***
17%18%15%12%
*Simple average of 1-, 2-and 3-adult maximum incomes specified by APCHA.
**Simple average of maximum rents specified for each unit type.
***Ratio of average rent divided by average income.
Affordability for APCHA Owners
Cost burden is not a significant problem for most APCHA owners.6 In fact, only 10% of APCHA owners are
cost-burdened (i.e. pay more than 30% of their income to mortgage), which is lower than employed
households working in Pitkin County overall (19% total).7 If you add the cost of Homeowners’ Association
(HOA) fees, cost burden for APCHA homeowners increases to 15%.APCHA homeownership is very
affordable for all but the lowest income category households and certainly more affordable than what
households working in Pitkin County are paying on average for housing outside of the APCHA program.
By referencing Tables 3 and 4 below, we found:
Only 10% of APCHA owners are paying more than 30% of their gross income on mortgage.
If you add the cost of HOA fees, only 15% of APCHA owners are paying more than 30% of their
gross income on mortgage.
5 It was not until 2017 that APCHA expanded the number of rental categories from 4 to 5.
6 2016 Policy Study of the Affordable Employee Housing Guidelines
7 See Section 1 –APCHA Affordable Housing Program for data.10
Strengthening Community Through Workforce Housing
5
Overall, cost-burden is not an issue overall for APCHA owners.
Cost burden is an issue for Category 1 and 2 APCHA owners, 55.4% and 23.8%respectively.
Cost burden of APCHA owners with 0 to 3 dependents range between 7.5%to 11%; cost burden
increases slightly for most of these households after adding the cost of HOA fees.
Table 3. Households Paying Over 30% of Income for Mortgage: APCHA Owners 2015
0-dependents 1-dependent 2-dependents 3-dependents*TOTAL
owners
% cost-burdened 10.8%10.6%7.5%11.0%10.0%
Including HOA 15.6%16.6%9.3%--15.0%
*Small sample size for 3+ dependent households, consider this with interpretation.
Table 4.The total % of APCHA owners that are cost-burdened, by income category
Category 1*Category 2 Category 3 Category 4 Categories 5 -
7**
% cost-burdened 55.4%23.8%4.7%4.1%1.3%
*Category 1 had a small sample size,so this must be taken into consideration.
**Categories 5, 6, and 7 are consolidated due to small individual sample sizes.
Source: 2015 Employee Survey
There are several conclusions that can be drawn from the data. First, APCHA is very affordable for most
renter and owner households. Second, cost-burden is primarily an issue for Category 1 and 2 renters and
owners. Third, the community may be over-subsidizing middle to higher income households (Category 3
and above) at the expense of helping lower income households (Category 1 and 2).This is unusual for any
affordable housing program, workforce-related or not.
Affordability Definition or Formula
APCHA’s proposes the following definition, or standard, of affordability:
Affordable housing is based on the concept of affordability. Affordability is a primary policy
objective of APCHA.
APCHA measures housing affordability on a simple share of income approach which states that
housing becomes less affordable the more that housing payments exceed 30% of a household’s
gross (pre-tax) income. Households are generally more cost-burdened when their housing
payment (mortgage or rent) exceeds 30% of their gross (pre-tax) income.
A mortgage is defined as an owner-occupied household’s payment of Principal, Interest, Taxes,
and Insurance (PITI). Rent is defined as a tenant’s regular payment to a landlord for the use of
property, excluding utilities.
The inputs for calculating the 30% affordability standard vary among housing agencies and peer
communities. APCHA did not recommend including the cost of utilities for two primary reasons.
11
Strengthening Community Through Workforce Housing
6
First,measuring the cost of utilities as an input in affordability is difficult because utilities are highly
variable and often paid in different ways. For example, in the case of a renter, the cost of utilities might
be included in their rent,while for others the cost might be separate. In the case of a homeowner, the
cost of utilities might be paid by the HOA, while some owners might pay for them individually. The point is
that there are too many factors involved to try and reliably track and measure the true cost of utilities for
APCHA households. Second, when studying peer resort-based housing authorities, APCHA found that
utilities are not factored by any of its peer communities’ ownership or rental programs.If APCHA were to
start factoring in the cost of utilities in its formula for affordability, it would then be difficult for it to
compare itself with its peer community housing authorities on an apples-to-apples basis.
Originally, Homeowners’ Association (HOA) fees were not recommended as part of the definition of
affordability for ownership households.Like utilities, the cost of monthly HOA operating and reserve
assessments can vary widely and wildly. There is no apples-to-apples method for comparing and
calculating HOA operating and capital reserve assessments. Getting this information would also require
the voluntary cooperation of HOAs serving deed restricted communities, which has not been easy to do in
the past, in part, because APCHA has no legal authority to directly compel HOA Boards or their
professional representatives to comply or provide information back to APCHA about their business affairs,
particularly their financials.
APCHA is open to revising its original policy recommendation to not add the cost of HOAs to any
affordability standard for owners. It could get this information from HOAs on a case-by-case basis during
the qualification process when attempting to income-qualify a household before a lottery. However, if
APCHA will be expected to track and measure HOA assessment costs across the affordable housing
program, then it will need policies in place to persuade HOAs to want to voluntarily work with us.
Minimum Net Livable Square Footage for Affordable Housing Development
Under Part III APCHA Affordable Housing Development Policies and Procedures, Section 5, APCHA Board
recommends eliminating (i.e. striking) Subsection A (1) Permitted Adjustments to Net Minimum Livable
Square Footage allowing developers of affordable workforce housing the opportunity to seek reductions
of up to 20% in the minimum net livable square feet for new deed restricted units, regardless of unit type.
Eliminating the exemption would not only streamline the community’s review (Community
Development’s and APCHA’s) process for new affordable housing projects but would eliminate potential
inconsistencies with the way these decisions have been handled in the past.
APCHA believes reducing Minimum Net Livable Square Feet for Affordable Housing (Table VII) across all
unit types by 20% and eliminating exemptions from square footage reductions is a better alternative to
continuing to exempt projects on a case-by-case basis using a set of ill-defined criteria found under Part
III, Section 5.A.1, which specifically provides concessions for significant storage space located outside the
unit; above average natural light; efficient, flexible layout with limited hall space and staircase space;
12
Strengthening Community Through Workforce Housing
7
availability of site amenities; unit location within the development, etc.APCHA believes the criteria to
allow square foot reductions are too vague and subjective.
Under the previous IGA and board structure, all affordable housing development applications in 2017 and
2018 had requested and received some type of exemption, or reduction,under the Permitted
Adjustments to Net Minimum Livable Square Footage,including South Aspen Street, 404 Park Avenue,
210 W. Main, 331-338 Midland Park, 834 W. Hallam, 488 Castle Creek Road, 802 W. Main, and 517 Park
Circle.
In 2017, there were nine affordable housing development projects with a total of 112 units reviewed by
APCHA. Out of those 112 units, 107 units requested and received a reduction in net livable square
footage –i.e. 96% of all units with an average reduction of 10% and a maximum reduction request of 22%
(slightly beyond the allowable SF reduction under the Guidelines).
Square foot reductions (exemptions) have become the norm. Therefore, it calls into question whether the
Minimum Net Livable Square Feet for Affordable Housing (Table VII)are presently too high or the criteria
to evaluate permitted reductions in square footage are inadequate, or both?
Reducing minimum square footages for new affordable housing development (Figure 1) by 20%, which
again is the maximum reduction currently allowed in the Guidelines, has several advantages:
1.It eliminates unnecessary complexity in the Guidelines;
2.It eliminates future square foot reduction exemptions;
3.It allows for slightly more density and number of units for new affordable housing development
projects;
4.It reduces the overall unit cost to the community and taxpayers for building new affordable
housing, both public and private developers; and
5.It better aligns APCHA with peer communities’ minimum square foot requirements.
Figure 1
Unit Type
Current Min.
SF 20%
Proposed
Min. SF
Studio 500 100 400
1-Bedroom 700 140 560
2-Bedroom 900 180 720
3-Bedroom 1200 240 960
Single Family Detached 1500 300 1200
Net Minimum Livable Square Feet For Affordable Housing (Table VII)
Current vs. Proposed
13
Strengthening Community Through Workforce Housing
8
APCHA staff researched other housing authorities’ minimum square footage (size)requirements:
Town of Breckenridge
Minimum unit size permitted to qualify as employee housing is 250 SF. They are considering
increasing to 300 or 350 SF per employee generated.
Teton County
Like APCHA, they allow up to a 20% reduction. However, they have different standards for
rental units vs. ownership units. Rental units can be smaller. They also have SF minimum and
maximums. With a 20% reduction, they allow:
Studio 320 SF
1-Bedroom 480 SF
2-Bedroom 680 SF
3-Bedroom 960 SF
Each Add.BR 120 SF
Vail
Residential developments require 300 SF minimum and 1,200 SF maximum. Dormitory units
must contain 200 SF for each person occupying the unit.
Creating a Minimum Household Income to Bid on any Ownership Unit set on a Per Unit Basis Using Cost of
Ownership (Part VI APCHA Purchase and Sale Policies and Procedures, Section 3. Bid Process)
Subsection 3B, Bid Submission, allows for qualified households to bid up in category:
Only qualified APCHA applicants may submit bids on ownership units. Bids at a price higher
than the listed sale price, which is ordinarily the maximum sales price permitted by the Deed
Restriction,shall not be accepted. If otherwise qualified, ownership applicants may be
permitted to bid for a unit in a higher category.However, bidding in a lower category is not
permitted.
Any household, regardless of current income category, may bid on and potentially purchase a higher category
(higher priced) home all the way up to and into Resident Occupied (RO). Although the sales price of upper
category units is set at a deed restricted amount, buyers of these units still must pay free market costs for
HOA assessments and home maintenance. Therefore, while some lower-income households may be able to
acquire financing for higher category units, the actual cost of ownership is often not considered, leading to
cost-burden concerns (households spending more than 30% of their gross annual income on housing
payment).Allowing unlimited “bidding up” for lower-income households could lead to higher rates of default
and foreclosure, HOA assessment delinquencies (which is a frequent compliance issue), HOA funding issues
(i.e. shortages in operating and capital reserves funds), etc.
Eliminating or limiting the policy of bidding up may minimize future affordability issues within the
ownership program. Limiting applicants to bid up only on properties they can afford should help curb
financial issues down the road and force more realistic bidding by applicants.
14
Strengthening Community Through Workforce Housing
9
In its discussion on November 15, 2017, the Board agreed with staff’s affordability concerns with allowing
households to bid up in category without limit; however, the Board also expressed a desire to allow some
option to bid up, e.g. possibly no more than one category.
Unfortunately, there is an issue with limiting prospective buyers to bid up only one category –in some
cases, lower category households that could afford to purchase and own a higher category unit might be
excluding from bidding.
For example, the 2017 maximum sales price for a newly deed restricted Category 6, three-bedroom unit is
$505,000; however, there is currently a Category 6, three-bedroom unit at Burlingame with a maximum
resale price of only $356,000 –slightly above the maximum sales price for a newly deed restricted unit at
Category 4.
Clearly, there is a difference between the sales price of an existing versus newly deed restricted unit.This
is because resale prices are not directly linked to the current category income limits, but are determined
by the unit sales history (i.e. original purchase price; total number of sales; capital improvements to unit,
etc.). Therefore, some existing higher category units have resale prices far below the maximum sales price
for a newly deed restricted unit in the same category.
Figure 2 shows a sample of upper category sales listings from 2017. The Estimated Annual Cost of Ownership
(red column)includes mortgage payments, property taxes, insurance, and HOA assessments (i.e. PITI +
HOA). The Minimum Income for No Cost-Burden (blue column)shows the annual household income
necessary to spend less than 30% of gross income towards housing costs. The Minimum Category with No
Cost Burden (orange column) identifies what category a household making the Minimum Income for No
Cost-Burden would fall in.
Figure 2
Property Unit
Category
Number of
Bedrooms
Purchase
Price
Total Estd. Monthly
Payment*
Estd. Annual Cost
of Ownership
Min. Income for
No Cost-Burden**
Min. Category w/
No Cost-Burden
Hougland Ranch 4 3 Bed 383,206$ $2,317 $27,800 $92,668 Category 4
Hunter Creek 4 2 Bed 226,503$ $1,531 $18,366 $61,221 Category 3
Hunter Creek 4 2 Bed 163,305$ $1,192 $14,299 $47,662 Category 2
Woody Creek 6 3 Bed 463,165$ $2,725 $32,705 $109,015 Category 4
Burlingame Ranch 7 3 Bed 540,155$ $3,431 $41,175 $137,251 Category 4
Who Can Afford to Own Upper Category Units? (December 2017)
*Total Estimated Monthly Payment includes PITI and HOA fees; Mortgage payments assume 5% down payment, and a 30 year loan with 5% interest
**As of 12/4/17, no affordability standard has been established and approved by the APCHA Board
15
Strengthening Community Through Workforce Housing
10
Although both Hunter Creek units are Category 4,2-bedroom units, the first unit listed above would be
affordable to a household in the Category 3 income range, while the second unit listed above would be
affordable to a Category 2 household. The Hoagland Ranch unit is also a Category 4 unit, yet the analysis
shows that a household income in the Category 4 income range is necessary for that unit to remain
affordable. The Woody Creek and Burlingame Ranch units, Category 6 and 7 respectively, would still be
affordable to some Category 4 households. Therefore, allowing prospective homeowners to only bid up
one category would exclude certain households from bidding even though they have the financial capacity
to do so.
Figure 3
Also, the impact that HOA assessments (dues) have on cost of ownership is shown in Figure 3 comparing
two Category 4, 2-bedroom units, one at Smuggler Run and the other at Twin Ridge. While the Smuggler
Run unit was priced more than $50,000 higher than the Twin Ridge unit, the cost of ownership is
higher for the Twin Ridge unit because of significantly higher HOA assessments. A policy that sets the
minimum household income required to bid up on a unit must also account for this.
Therefore, APCHA recommends that the minimum household income to bid on any ownership unit be set
on a per unit basis using the cost of ownership for that unit and the adopted affordability standard herein
(i.e.30% of annual household gross income).
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide feedback and recommendations to the APCHA Board on the policy recommendations presented in
Resolution No. 02 (Series of 2018).
Attachment: Resolution No. 02 (Series of 2018)
16
Strengthening Community Through Workforce Housing
1
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSEDAMENDMENTS TO THE EMPLOYEE HOUSING GUIDELINES
TO:Aspen City Council
FROM:Mike Kosdrosky, Executive Director
WORK SESSIONDATE:August 5, 2019
RE:Discussion of APCHA Resolution No. 05 (Series of 2019), recommending
Amendments to the Housing Guidelines creating a hearing officer and adopting civil
penalties for non-compliance (Schedule of Fines)
This memo is in response to City Council’s request on June 10, 2019, to call-up Resolution No. 05 (Series of 2019)
for discussion and recommendation; however, the call-up process required under the 5th Amended
Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA)is no longer in place. Anyrecommendations made byCityCouncil at its work
session will be brought back to the new APCHA Board for further considerationand action.
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this memo istofoster a discussion around
creatinga third-party hearing officer, hiredby the Board of Directors,to conduct compliance and
enforcement hearings, special reviews, and grievance cases; and
adoptingcivil penalties(Schedule of Fines) to help deterviolationsof deed restrictions and housing
program rules and regulations (Housing Guidelines).
ISSUES:
APCHA has three different quasi-judicial decision-making processes: special reviews, grievance
hearings, and Notices of Violation (NOV) appeals. This adds program complexity and increases
the risk of legal liability for APCHA.
APCHA’s Notice of Violation (NOV) process is one of extremes, it’s either too lenient or too
harsh. The current“all or nothing” approach to compliance and enforcementdoes notpromote
program accountability and hurts the integrity of the program.
BACKGROUND:
The APCHA Board adopted Resolution No. 05 (Series of 2018) to create an independent third-party hearing
officerforhearingspecial reviews, NOV(enforcement) hearings, and grievances. It also adopteda Schedule of
Fines (civil penalties) to increase program accountability and public trust. Prior to June 10, 2019, City Council
and the Board of County Commissioners adopted an amended IGA governing APCHA. Then on June 10, 2019,
Council briefly discussed the proposed policy changes and asked for a work session to discuss in more detail.
DISCUSSION:
Hearing Officer(s)
APCHA’s processes for special reviews, enforcement hearings, and grievances are outdated, costly, and
different. APCHA would like to standardize and consolidate these quasi-judicial reviews using an
independent third-party hearing officer.
17
Strengthening Community Through Workforce Housing
2
APCHA believes a hearing officer would help
Improve overall program accountability and integrity;
increase public trust in the program and in its enforcement of rules and deed restrictions;
reduce the risk of potential decision-making errors and inconsistencies over time;
reduce APCHA’s risk of exposure to legal liability;
improve and ensure overall due process and fairness in the application of the rules;
improve overall Board governance and allow them more time to focus on policy making; and
increase public transparency and confidence in how APCHA handles compliance and
enforcement cases.
The APCHA Board can delegate its enforcement authority to a Hearing officerin cases whereaproperty’sdeed
restriction permits it, including evidentiary hearings and initial enforcement decisions.Public Housing
Authorities (PHAs) often use hearing officers for hearing cases and conducting investigations. The
Jackson/Teton Housing Authority Board occasionally conducts contested case hearings and appeals of
decisions of the Authority through athird-party hearing officer.
The hearing officer will not be a permanent or part-time staff positionbut established by appointment to serve
at the discretion of the APCHA Board. The Board should appoint more than one hearing officer to ensure there
is a backup in case any conflicts arise.
At the direction of the Board, staff will issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to conduct a search for a qualified
hearing officer.Minimum qualifications should include:
1. A current licensed Colorado Attorney with at least five years civil or criminal litigation experience;
2. The person doesnot currentlyreside or have financial interest in any APCHA housing; and
3. The personis free of any conflict or relationship with staff, board, or the program.
In making judgements or decisions, the hearing officer shall base its decision upon the evidence in the record
presented by APCHA and the alleged violator according to the applicable deed restriction and Housing
Guidelines (rules and regulations). The hearing officer must make its decision in writing within 30 days of the
conclusion of the hearing and may uphold the NOV in whole or in part, or may dismiss the NOV.
Finally, hearing officer decisions may be appealed to the APCHA Board solely based on the record of the
proceedings before the hearing officer. The APCHA Board cannot consider new evidence unless there is proof
of excusable neglect, misrepresentation, or other misconduct in the proceedings before the hearing officer.
Civil Penalties/Fines
Civil penalties or fines are intended to increaseprogram accountability and voluntary compliance. Arecent
surveyby APCHA asked deed restricted homeownerswhat policy issues are most important for APCHA to focus
its attention on. With fourteen issues to choose from, APCHA homeownerssaid that preventing fraud, abuse,
and noncompliance should be one of APCHA’s top two policy concerns(the other was addressingthe deferred
maintenance of units).
18
Strengthening Community Through Workforce Housing
3
In 2018, APCHA hired its first full-time compliance manager. However, without meaningful or effective
measures to ensure compliance, particularly against repeat or deliberate rule violators, the compliance
manager has little to work with short of issuing a Notice of Violation (NOV). But incases involving noncompliant
landlords, property managers, or employers, a NOV has little to no effect. So much so that well over 50% of
private deed restricted landlords have not providedAPCHA with a current signed lease.Without a signed lease,
it is hard for APCHA to establish unit occupancy, availability, and compliance with certain rules like maximum
rentcharged.
Based on theAPCHA Board’s direction, fines should be simple, consistent, logical, graded, and punitiveenough
to deter noncompliance of any kind. They should also be simple enough to communicate to the public to
promote public education and voluntary compliance. APCHA plans to create a communication plan as part of
any implementation effort to inform and educate the public about the adoption of civil penalties.
Statelaw requires specificity as to the range of penalties applicable for anytype of violation(i.e. fines must not
bediscretionary).Such specificity gives noticeto the publicof what the penalty is for a violation andhelpsavoid
unequal treatmentof violators.The Schedule of Fines adopted by the APCHA Board coversall violations stated
in theEmployee HousingGuidelines andwhat is required under every deed restrictionrecorded today.
Fines (civil penalties) are meant to deter owners, renters, landlords, property managers, and businessesfrom
breaking the affordable housing rules, whether intentional or not. The Board adopted a progressive fine
structure based on five stages. Stage 1 addresses the lowest or least severecompliance violations while Stage
5 violations addresses the highest or mostsevere compliance violations.
Each stagein the violation process, or hierarchy,allowsfora 15-day cure period from the time of issuance ofa
Notice of Violation (NOV)1. The Schedule of Fines process could give violators or alleged violators (for all but
the most severe cases or when a severe past violation cannot be cured) more time to cure and/or appeal a
NOV. Although fines are progressive, they are not cumulative. Also, fines will not be used to pay for APCHA’s
ongoing operations butwill be used to pay for the cost of a hearing officerand for further public education and
engagement.
Under today’s system,compliance violators areallowed 15 days to cure a NOV.Failure to cure or appeal a NOV
within 15 days is grounds for losing one’s affordablehome or rental unit. Underthe proposed Schedule of Fines
and NOV process, households in violation of a Stage 1 violation could receive up to an additional 90 days to
cure or appeal a NOV before facing the prospect orpenalty of losingtheir home.2 This extends the due process
period substantially for most low-level compliance violations and violators -up to five or six timeslonger.
1 Prior to issuing the first NOV, APCHA will issue a Notice of Investigation at its discretion, to determine whether a
violation has occurred. This would allow most alleged violators up to an additional 15 days to cure or appeal their
alleged violation.
2 This policy would not prevent private and public landlords, like APCHA, from exercising their contractual rights
under a lease agreement and/or under Colorado law to demand compliance within a shorter timeframe prior to a
Notice of Eviction.19
Strengthening Community Through Workforce Housing
4
FISCAL IMPACT:
Adoption of Resolution No. 05 (Series of 2019) will likely require additional funds to be budgeted in 2020
through the Budget Supplemental process to pay the services of a hearing officer. Fines collected by APCHA
will be used to offset the cost of a hearing officer in future years and will be used to provide educational
materials and public outreach concerning the APCHA program.Based on preliminary research, APCHA expects
to pay around $175 per hour for a hearing officer. At around 350 hours per year, a budget of $60,000 will be
requested in the 2020 budget cycle.
RECOMMENDATION:
Provide feedback and recommendations to the APCHA Board on the policy recommendations presented in
Resolution No. 05 (Series of 2019), Adopting Amendments to the Aspen/Pitkin Employee Housing Guidelines
Creating a Hearing officerPosition and Adopting a Schedule of Fines.
Attachments:
Resolution No. 05 (Series of 2019)
20
Strengthening Community Through Workforce Housing
Resolution No. 02
(Series of 2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD
ADOPTING AN AFFORDABILITY STANDARD AND ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
THE ASPEN/PITKIN EMPLOYEE HOUSING GUIDELINES
PERTAINING TO MINIMUM NET LIVABLE SQUARE FEET FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND CREATING A MINIMUM HOUSEHOLD INCOME
TO BID ON ANY OWNERSHIP UNIT BE SET ON A PER UNIT BASIS
USING COST OF OWNERSHIP
RECITALS
WHEREAS,the Executive Director of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, a
multi-jurisdictional housing authority (hereinafter referred to as “APCHA”) established pursuant to
the FIFTH AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT recorded
on January 15, 2014 at Reception No. 607311 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder's Office (hereinafter referred to as the "IGA"), has proposed amendments to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Guidelines (hereinafter referred to as “Guidelines”)
pursuant to paragraph III.C.2 of the IGA; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to prior resolutions and ordinances of the City Council of the City
of Aspen and the Board of County Commissioners of Pitkin County established employee
housing income eligibility guidelines and housing price guidelines for prior years upon the
recommendation of APCHA; and
WHEREAS, the adoption of further amendments to the Guidelines has been
recommended to the Board of Directors of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, a copy of
which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, which Guidelines set forth inter alia, the
21
2
employee housing qualification guidelines for Category 1 through 7 and RO ownership, rental
housing projects, lodge and commercial development, and development of residential housing
units; and
WHEREAS, the APCHA Board desires to adopt said amendments to the Guidelines
pursuant to paragraph III.C.2.b of the IGA; and
WHEREAS, by the enactment of this Resolution and upon approval of the City Council
and the Board of County Commissioners, the amendments contained in this Resolution will
supersede and amend prior resolutions and ordinances of the City and County pertaining to
housing guidelines; and
WHEREAS,this Resolution, upon shall be brought forward to the City Council and the
Board of County Commissioners for their review in accordance with paragraph III.C.2.b of the
IGA.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE APCHA BOARD OF
DIRECTORS:
Section 1
That the APCHA hereby adopts the amendments to the Aspen/Pitkin County Employee
Housing Guidelines, dated 2018, a copy of the Amendments is annexed hereto and incorporated
herein.
Section 2
That the Guidelines set forth and adopted herein shall supersede all previously adopted
Guidelines as they have been amended annually.
Section 3
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Resolution or the
Guidelines approved hereby 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.
22
3
Section 4
Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any
resolution or ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this Resolution, and the same shall be
continued and concluded under such prior ordinances and resolutions.
Section 5
A public hearing on the Resolution shall be held on the 17th day of January 2018, in the
Sister Cities Meeting Room, City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the
APCHA, the City Council of the City of Aspen, and the Board of County Commissioners on the 3rd
day of January 2018.
_______________________________________
A. Ronald Erickson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Michael Kosdrosky, Secretary
Adopted, passed and approved this 17th day of January 2018 by the APCHA Board of
Directors.
______________________________________
A. Ronald Erickson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
________________________________
Michael Kosdrosky, Secretary
Attachments Exhibit A – Part II, APCHA Housing Board Policies
Exhibit B – Part VI, Section 3B, Bid Submissions
Exhibit C – Part III, Table VIII and Section 5A
Exhibit D – Part VIII, Definitions
23
4
EXHIBIT A
PART II
APCHA HOUSING BOARD POLICIES
Section 1. Mission Statement
The MISSION of APCHA is to provide affordable housing opportunities through rental and
sale to persons who are or have been actively employed or self-employed within Aspen
and Pitkin County, and that provide or have provided goods and services to individuals,
businesses or institutional operations, within Aspen and Pitkin County (prior to retirement
and/or any disability), and other qualified persons as defined in these Guidelines, and as
they are amended from time to time.
Section 2. AFFORDABLITY
AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS BASED ON THE CONCEPT OF AFFORDABILITY. AFFORDABILITY
IS A PRIMARY POLICY OBJECTIVE OF APCHA.
APCHA MEASURES HOUSING AFFORDABILITY ON A SIMPLE SHARE OF INCOME
APPROACH WHICH STATES THAT HOUSING BECOMES LESS AFFORDABLE THE MORE
THAT HOUSING PAYMENTS EXCEED 30% OF A HOUSEHOLD’S GROSS (PRE-TAX) INCOME.
HOUSEHOLDS ARE GENERALLY MORE COST-BURDENED WHEN THEIR HOUSING
PAYMENT (I.E. MORTGAGE OR RENT) EXCEEDS 30% OF THEIR GROSS (PRE-TAX)
INCOME.
A MORTGAGE IS DEFINED AS AN OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLD’S PAYMENT OF
PRINCIPAL, INTEREST, TAXES, AND INSURANCE (PITI). RENT IS DEFINED AS A TENANT’S
REGULAR PAYMENT TO A LANDLORD FOR THE USE OF PROPERTY, EXCLUDING UTILITIES.
Section 3. Affordable Housing Governance and Deed-restriction Policies
Affordable housing is deed-restricted housing for qualified employees as stated in these
Guidelines. Rental and ownership are restricted by terms ensuring Housing Board policies
are met.
APCHA rental and ownership housing is developed by county and city authority and
managed according to APCHA Guidelines. APCHA rental properties are leased and managed
both by APCHA and by the private sector in the form of a property management company
or the owner. The majority of APCHA ownership units are sold through APCHA and
managed by a not-for-profit Homeowners’ Association (HOA) specific to the property. The
HOA is responsible for maintaining common elements of the property with the power to 24
5
assess owners as necessary. APCHA tenants and owners qualify with APCHA and occupy
units under the terms of the respective lease or HOA and in compliance with deed
restrictions.
Section 4. APCHA Guidelines
In keeping with state regulations, the Housing Board publishes Guidelines establishing the
operation of the housing program, along with creating policies and procedures for APCHA
operations. Guidelines are reviewed and amended periodically. Amended Guidelines are
published annually. Amendments can be made between publication dates due to city
ordinances or county resolutions or for administrative purposes. APCHA keeps on file all
editions of Guidelines where they are located at www.apcha.org.
Section 5. Affordable Housing Funding
Affordable housing in the City of Aspen and Pitkin County is supported by funding from the
city, county and APCHA.
Revenues are raised from sources described below; and the city and county from time to
time dedicate general funds to the affordable housing program.
Private sector property developers are required to mitigate the relative impact of property
development on affordable housing needs; the resulting impact fees or conveyances help
fund the housing program.
A. City of Aspen Funding
The City of Aspen maintains a Housing Development Fund dedicated to affordable
housing.
A housing real estate transfer tax (RETT) of one percent (1%) is charged on the sale price
above $100,000 of private sector real property sold within the City of Aspen. The housing
RETT has been renewed by referendum three times, most recently in 2001, and will
remain in effect until December 31, 2040.
A portion of city sales tax is dedicated to housing. Affordable housing and day care
programs currently share .45% of the city sales tax as determined by Council.
Payment-in-lieu, or impact fees, may be charged to private sector developers who do not
construct or convert affordable housing as part of development projects. Fees are
calculated according to a formula based on city and county land use regulations and
codes.
Land-in-lieu, or a conveyance of vacant property to the city or APCHA may mitigate
private sector property development requirements. Such conveyances afford APCHA
and/or the city the opportunity to acquire real property that, if not appropriate for public
affordable housing development, may be sold to fund the housing program.
25
6
Under the Credit Certificate Program, a private sector developer may mitigate
affordable housing requirements by purchasing a credit equivalent to the free market
value of an affordable housing unit located in an all-affordable housing project.
B. Pitkin County Funding
Pitkin County maintains a fund dedicated to providing affordable housing. The
Employee Housing Impact Fee was created under BOCC Ordinance No. 23-2005 and
amended portions of the Pitkin County Land Use Code.
The purpose of the Employee Housing Impact Fee, known as payment-in-lieu in
the city, is to require the applicable development to pay to mitigate the impacts of
development and land use to the employee housing stock managed or controlled
by Pitkin County or its housing designee, APCHA. Fees are calculated according to
a formula based on county land use regulations and codes.
C. APCHA Funding
APCHA charges various fees and maintains an operational fund. See Appendix C for
APCHA Fee Schedule.
Fees are charged for application, bid submission, requalification, processing of
documents and other administrative services.
Sellers of ownership units are charged listing and transaction fees. The listing fee
is a non-refundable portion of the transaction fee.
Section 6. Affordable Housing Unit Types and Categories
APCHA rental and ownership units, including Resident-Occupied (RO) units, are located
throughout the City of Aspen and Pitkin County in public and private all-affordable housing
properties and/or as designated affordable housing units in private sector property
developments.
Qualification for APCHA housing is determined according to applicant household size and
maximum gross income and net assets per category. Asset caps test an applicant’s (buyer
or renter) need to purchase or rent a deed restricted unit. They are intended to provide an
equity-based solution to limit competition for scarce affordable housing units. They are
meant to address higher asset, lower income applicants who might otherwise acquire free
market or higher category housing.
APCHA housing categories are established according to household income levels. See Table
I APCHA Target Household Income Levels per Category.
26
7
Categories are further defined according to household size:
The number of qualified adults and/or dependent members in a household
determines household size.
See Table II for Maximum Gross Income and Net Assets per Household per household size
and category.
Prior to 1990, income categories were designated as low, moderate or middle income in accordance
with the applicable guidelines at that time. In 1990, APCHA redefined the terms and established four
income categories in an effort to create a greater variety of units to serve the community's income
levels, along with Resident Occupied (RO). The four income categories were equated to the past
income categories and adjusted annually using the Consumer Price Index (CPI). In 2003, Categories 5,
6 and 7 were added.
Current income amounts were derived from 1999 data collected by the APCHA including: 1999
Housing Survey of Pitkin County Employees; Colorado Department of Labor and Employment reports;
Colorado Department of Employment and Wages reports; U.S. Census Bureau: Flow of Funds Accounts
Report and Annual Expenditures Per Child Report; and Housing and Urban Development Data Sets.
Increases from these amounts are determined annually based upon the CPI or 3%, whichever is lower,
of the existing maximum income levels.
The 1999 survey of employees within Pitkin County determined the median household income for
households with zero and one dependent was $60,000.
Section 7. Affordable Housing Rental and Ownership
A. Rental Units
Rental units administered by APCHA are available in Categories 1 through 4 and RO, as
studio units, one-, two- and three-bedroom units and as on-site employee dormitories
and units. Rental units are managed and leased by both APCHA and the private sector.
Qualification for all rentals in the APCHA inventory must be approved by APCHA. See
Part IV for APCHA eligibility and qualification and Part V for rental policies and
procedures.
B. Ownership Units
Ownership units administered by APCHA are available in Categories 1 through 7, and in
the Resident-Occupied (RO) category. The majority of the ownership units are marketed
by and through APCHA. Qualification for all sales units in the APCHA inventory must be
approved by APCHA. Bid results are prioritized and decided by lottery where applicable.
See Part VI for purchase and sale policies and procedures.
C. Resident-occupied Ownership (RO) Units
27
8
The Resident-occupied (RO) category offers private property owners an incentive to
construct affordable housing for the benefit of the community. RO ownership policies
and procedures are subject to land use approvals and/or the deed restrictions specific
to each property. RO units predating the publication of APCHA Guidelines are subject to
deed restrictions recorded with property title at the time of purchase. Other RO units are
subject to deed restrictions specific to the property as recorded and to the Guidelines.
For RO ownership qualification, Maximum Household Gross Income Levels are
unlimited and the Maximum Household Net Assets Level is higher than other APCHA
categories, or unlimited as stated in the applicable deed restriction.
Section 8. APCHA Eligibility
In order to be eligible for housing in the APCHA inventory, all persons must:
Work full-time (1,500 hours per calendar year) in Pitkin County;
Occupy the APCHA unit as a primary residence (at least nine months per year); and
Own NO other developed residential property within the Ownership Exclusion Zone (OEZ)
A. APCHA Application and Qualification
To be eligible for APCHA housing, all persons must submit written application and
documentation required to verify employment/work history, household size, income
and assets, and other necessary information. History of employment/work, special
needs and other factors may affect bid priority. See Guidelines Part IV for qualification
policies and procedures.
B. Maximum Household Income and Assets
The APCHA adjusts Maximum Gross Income levels annually by the difference of the
Consumer Price Index (CPI) from November of the previous year to November of the
current year, or a three percent (3%) increase, whichever is less. Assets will be updated
annually based on the change to maximum sales prices for newly deed-restricted SFH as
shown in Table V. See Tables II and III for Maximum Gross Income and Net Assets per
Household for APCHA rental and ownership categories.
C. Non-discrimination Policy
APCHA does not discriminate against anyone due to race, color, creed, religion,
ancestry, national origin, sex, age, marital status, physical disability, affectional or
sexual orientation, family responsibility or political affiliation resulting in the unequal
treatment or separation of any person; and shall not deny, prevent, limit or otherwise
adversely affect, the benefit of enjoyment by any person of employment, ownership or
occupancy of real property, or public service or accommodations.
28
9 29
10
EXHIBIT B
PART VI
APCHA PURCHASE AND SALE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Section 1. Application and Qualification to Purchase Affordable Housing
Applicants for ownership of deed restricted units must apply by submitting an APCHA
Ownership Application Packet with copies of those documents demonstrating qualification,
and all applicable fees. Applicants are advised to apply and qualify in advance of submitting a
bid for an ownership unit with a lender. However, bids may be submitted with the application
documents. All first-time applicants must also include a Certificate of Completion of the Home
Buyer On-Line Education Program and review and complete the quiz provided in An
Introduction to Community Association Living provided by the Community Associations Institute
(CAI). This document can be found on-line at www.apcha.org, or picked up in the APCHA Office.
See Appendices B and C for APCHA forms and fees.
Bids are prioritized by APCHA according to the qualification criteria stated in Part IV for
eligibility and qualification.
Section 2. Sale Listings
A. Fees for Listing and Selling
There are two fees involved in the listing and sale of a Deed Restricted Affordable Housing
unit – a Listing Fee and a Sales Fee. The Sales Fee is equal to two percent (2%) of the sale’s
price of the property, unless otherwise specified in the Deed Restriction. Unless otherwise
specified in the Deed Restriction, the APCHA will collect half of the total fee (the Listing Fee)
at the time of the listing. If a sale is completed by the APCHA, the Listing Fee is considered
part of the overall Sales Fee and will be applied to the total Sales Fee payable at closing. The
APCHA may instruct the title company to pay said fees to the APCHA out of the funds held for
the Seller at the closing. In the event that the Seller: a) fails to perform under the listing
contract, b) rejects all offers at maximum price in cash or cash-equivalent terms, or c)
withdraws the listing after advertising has commenced, that portion of the Listing Fee will not
be refunded. In the event that the Seller withdraws for failure of any bids to be received at
maximum price or with acceptable terms, the advertising and administrative costs incurred by
the APCHA shall be deducted from the fee. The balance will be credited to the Seller’s sales
fee when the property is sold.
B. Sale Advertisements
APCHA advertises ownership units listed for sale weekly, on Fridays on the APCHA website
www.apcha.org and on Wednesdays in the local newspaper. Listings and advertisements
include information pertaining to category, size, price, taxes, HOA dues/assessments,
30
11
amenities and bidding. The listing/advertisement shall include either scheduled open house
date and time and/or contact information for making a viewing appointment.
C. Viewing Listed Units
Ownership applicants are advised to make every effort to view units in advance of placing a
bid; however, the only official viewing is during the open house.
D. Financing Pre-qualification
Ownership applicants are encouraged to investigate sources of financing and it is highly
recommended that the applicant obtain a pre-qualification letter from a lending institution
prior to submitting a bid. Go to www.apcha.org, click on Housing Forms. Under the Sales
designation is the list of the local lending institutions familiar with the APCHA housing
program.
Section 3. Bid Process
Qualified ownership applicants shall submit bids to APCHA on a Bid Submission form during the
bid period with the applicable fee.
A. Bid Period
The initial bid period is usually two weeks (an exception would be in-complex bids); see
Section C.2 below. If no bids are received for a unit during the initial bid period,
advertisement of the listed unit shall continue until the unit is sold or the listing is withdrawn.
B. Bid Submission
Only qualified APCHA applicants may submit bids on ownership units. Bids at a price higher
than the listed sale price, which is ordinarily the maximum sales price permitted by the Deed
Restriction, shall not be accepted. THE MINIMUM HOUSEHOLD INCOME TO BID ON AN
OWNERSHIP UNIT SHALL BE SET ON A PER UNIT BASIS USING THE COST OF OWNERSHIP
FOR THAT UNIT AND THE AFFORDABILITY STANDARD, AS DEFINED IN THE GUIDELINES.
However, bidding in a lower category is not permitted.
A member of a currently qualified APCHA household may not bid on another unit separately
from his/her household unless legal verification of separation or divorce is submitted (if
married) or a sworn statement of separation that is notarized is submitted (if unmarried) to
APCHA in advance of bidding. Documentation of separated assets and income must be
provided in advance of bidding.
At the end of the bid period, bids at the listed sale price that meet all top priority criteria are
considered first and are placed into a lottery.
31
12
EXHIBIT C
PART III
APCHA AFFORDABLE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
TABLE VII
MINIMUM NET LIVABLE SQUARE FEET (SF) FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
Per Unit Size (standardized)
Unit Size Minimum Square Footage
Studio 400
1-Bedroom 560
2-Bedroom 720
3-Bedroom 960
Single-Family Detached 1,200
Section 5. Minimum Net Livable Square Footage for Affordable Housing Development
Dwelling units provided in satisfaction of affordable housing requirements shall meet square footage
requirements of city and county land use regulations and codes. See Table VII for Minimum Net
Livable Square Footage requirements per affordable housing unit type. Unit size is not based on the
category of the unit, but rather the number of bedrooms.
Subject to the approval of the City or County, developers may elect to construct units larger
than the required minimum square footage. However, sale prices and rental rates for any such
newly deed-restricted units shall not exceed maximum figures shown in Tables IV and V.
A.Minimum Net Livable Square Footage for Dormitories
Qualified employers, including lodging facilities, agricultural operations and commercial
developments demonstrating the need to house employees onsite may be permitted to develop
affordable housing dormitory and/or category units onsite.
In accordance with city and county land use regulations and codes, the Minimum Net Livable
Square Footage for dormitory units is 150 square feet of living area per person. Living area includes
sleeping and bathroom areas, but does not include interior or exterior hallways, parking areas,
patios, decks, cooking area, common lounge area, laundry rooms, and mechanical and storage areas.
Dormitories shall include at least one bathroom for shared use by no more than four persons. Each
bathroom shall contain at least one water closet, one lavatory, and one bathtub with a shower, and
shall have a total area of at least sixty (60) net livable square feet. Each dormitory unit shall include
a kitchen facility or access to a common kitchen and eating facility sufficient for the number of
persons sharing the dormitory, as approved by the city or county. Each occupant shall be provided
the use of twenty (20) square feet of enclosed storage space located within or adjacent to the unit.
Dormitory occupancy is limited to eight (8) APCHA-qualified employees per unit.
B.RO Unit Square Footage 32
13
RO units are limited to a maximum 2,200 gross square feet of livable space plus a maximum 500
square foot garage and maximum 800 square foot basement. If a larger garage or basement is
approved, the square footage in excess of these limitations shall be deducted from the maximum
gross square footage of livable space. In no event shall the square footage of all improvements
exceed 3,500 square feet.
33
14
EXHIBIT D
PART VIII
DEFINITIONS
ACI AFFORDABLE 1 LLLP TENANT: A TENANT THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS OF A LOW-
INCOME HOUSING TAX CREDIT (LIHTC) PROGRAM AT THE ASPEN COUNTRY INN.
AFFORDABILITY: WHEN AN APCHA HOUSEHOLD’S HOUSING PAYMENT EXCEEDS 30 PERCENT
OF ITS GROSS (PRE-TAX) INCOME.KEEPING HOUSING PAYMENTS BELOW 30 PERCENT OF
GROSS INCOME IS MEANT TO SAFEGUARD THAT APCHA HOUSEHOLDS HAVE ENOUGH
MONEY TO PAY FOR OTHER NON-DISCRETIONARY COSTS.
COST BURDEN(ED): WHEN AN APCHA HOUSEHOLD PAYS MORE THAN 30 PERCENT OF THEIR
GROSS INCOME ON A HOUSING PAYMENT (MORTGAGE PAYMENT OR RENT).
COST OF OWNERSHIP: AN APCHA OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLD’S HOUSING PAYMENT
PLUS REGULAR HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION (HOA) ASSESSMENTS.
HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION (HOA) DUES: SEE DEFINITION FOR REGULAR ASSESSMENT(S).
HOUSING PAYMENT: AN APCHA HOUSEHOLD’S MORTGAGE PAYMENT OR RENT.
MORTGAGE PAYMENT: THE SUM TOTAL OF AN APCHA OWNER-OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLD’S
PAYMENT OF PRINCIPAL, INTEREST, TAXES, AND INSURANCE (PITI).
REGULAR ASSESSMENT(S) (A.K.A. HOA DUES): A PERIODIC, CONSISTENT FEE (E.G.
MONTHLY, QUARTERLY, OR ANNUALLY) USED TO DEFRAY EXPENSES RELATED TO THE
OWNERSHIP, OPERATION, OR FURNISHING OF A HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION’S (HOA’S)
COMMON INTERESTS. A REGULAR ASSESSMENT CAN BE EITHER AN OPERATING OR CAPITAL
RESERVE (OR RESERVE) ASSESSMENT, OR BOTH. A REGULAR ASSESSMENT IS NOT A SPECIAL
ASSESSMENT OR PAYMENTS MADE AGAINST A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT.
RENT: AN APCHA TENANT’S REGULAR PAYMENT TO A LANDLORD FOR THE USE OF
PROPERTY, EXCLUDING UTILITIES.
34
Strengthening Community Through Workforce Housing
Resolution No. 05
(Series of 2018)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN/PITKIN COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY BOARD
ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE ASPEN/PITKIN EMPLOYEE HOUSING
GUIDELINES CREATING A HEARING OFFICER POSITION AND ADOPTING A
SCHEDULE OF FINES
RECITALS
WHEREAS,the Executive Director of the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, a
multi-jurisdictional housing authority (hereinafter referred to as “APCHA”) established pursuant to
the FIFTH AMENDED AND RESTATED INTERGOVERNMENTAL AGREEMENT recorded
on January 15, 2014 at Reception No. 607311 of the records of the Pitkin County Clerk and
Recorder's Office (hereinafter referred to as the "IGA"), has proposed amendments to the
Aspen/Pitkin County Employee Housing Guidelines (hereinafter referred to as “Guidelines”)
pursuant to paragraph III.C.2 of the IGA; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the IGA, the APCHA will bring forward to the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Authority Board of Directors (hereinafter referred to as the “APCHA Board”)
deletions, additions and amendments to the Guidelines for final approval in a resolution with
public comment through a public hearing process;
WHEREAS, the adoption of further amendments to the Guidelines has been
recommended to the APCHA Board, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein,
which amendments set forth inter alia, establishing a third-party Hearing Officer to hear appeals
of Notice of Violations, Special Reviews, Grievances, and adopting a Schedule of Fines; and
35
2
WHEREAS, the APCHA Board desires to adopt said amendments to the Guidelines
pursuant to paragraph III.C.2.b of the IGA; and
WHEREAS, by the enactment of this Resolution and upon approval of the City Council
and the Board of County Commissioners of such resolution via the notification and call-up
procedure as stated in the IGA, the amendments contained in this Resolution will supersede and
amend prior resolutions and ordinances of the City and County pertaining to housing guidelines.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE APCHA BOARD OF
DIRECTORS:
Section 1
That the APCHA hereby adopts the amendments to the Aspen/Pitkin County Employee
Housing Guidelines, dated 2018, a copy of the Amendments is annexed hereto and incorporated
herein.
Section 2
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Resolution or the
Guidelines approved hereby 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 3
Nothing in this Resolution shall be construed to affect any right, duty or liability under any
resolution or ordinance in effect prior to the effective date of this Resolution, and the same shall be
continued and concluded under such prior ordinances and resolutions.
Section 4
A public hearing on the Resolution shall be held on the 5th day of September 2018, in the
Pitkin County Commissioners Meeting Room, 530 East Main Street, 1st Floor, Aspen, Colorado.
36
3
INTRODUCED, READ, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the
APCHA, on the 15th day of August 2018.
_______________________________________
A. Ronald Erickson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Michael Kosdrosky, Secretary
Adopted, passed and approved this 5
th day of September 2018 by the APCHA Board of
Directors.
______________________________________
A. Ronald Erickson, Chairperson
ATTEST:
________________________________
Michael Kosdrosky, Secretary
Attachments
37
4
EXHIBIT A
PART VII
MAINTAINING ELIGIBILITY, SPECIAL REVIEW, COMPLIANCE
AND GRIEVANCE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Page
Section 1. Maintaining Eligibility 57
A. Rental – Requalification Every Two Years/Tenant Responsibilities 57
B. Ownership Affidavits and Audits 58
C. Death of a Qualified Employee 58
1.Rental
2.Ownership
Section 2. Landlord Responsibilities 59
A. Prior Approval by APCHA of Tenant and Lease 59
B. Maximum Rental Rates for Newly Deed-Restricted APCHA Units 59
C. Maximum Vacancy Period 59
D. Roommate Policy 59
E. Property Maintenance 60
F. Requalification Notice to Tenant 60
G. Landlord/Tenant Disputes - Alpine Legal Services 60
Section 3. Owner Responsibilities 60
A. Property Management 60
1. HOAs
a. Dues and Assessments
b. Capital Reserves
2. Affordable Housing Rendered Unaffordable
B. Maintaining Ownership Qualification 61
C. Property Maintenance 62
D. Capital Improvements Policy and Procedure 62
1. Added Value to Maximum Sale Price
2. Permitted Capital Improvements
E. Roommate Rental Policy and Procedure 64
F. Owner Leave of Absence Policy and Procedure 64
1.Leave Request Procedure
2.Approved Leave Period
3.Rental during Approved Leave Period
38
5
G. Retiring in APCHA Ownership Housing 66
H. Rental Policy of Approved Retirees who own Deed Restricted Housing 66
Section 4. Special Review Policy and Procedure 67
A. Special Review Procedure 67
B. Special Review Committee HEARING OFFICER 67
C. Decision 68
Section 5. Enforcement Policies and Procedures 68
A. Compliance with Applicable Deed Restrictions and APCHA Guidelines
68
B. Enforcement Procedures 68
1.Notice of Violation (NOV)
2.Complaint Based Investigation
3.Investigations and Site Visits
4.Aspen Municipal Code and Pitkin County Code
C. Grievance Procedure 70
D. HEARING OFFICER
1.ESTABLISHMENT
2.APPOINTMENT
3.POWERS AND DUTIES
4.DECISIONS
E. APPEALS OF HEARING OFFICER DECISIONS
1. GENERAL PROCEDURES
2. SCOPE OF REVIEW
3. JUDICIAL REVIEW
39
6
PART VII
MAINTAINING ELIGIBILITY, SPECIAL REVIEW, COMPLIANCE
AND GRIEVANCE POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
Section 4. Special Review Policy and Procedure
An applicant for a rental or ownership unit may request a Special Review approval for a variance from
the strict application of the Guidelines if the following can be shown:
Unusual hardship; and
Consistency with APCHA policies and purposes.
A. Special Review Procedure
A Special Review for a variance from the strict application of these Guidelines may be requested if
an unusual hardship can be shown, and the variance from the strict application of the Guidelines is
consistent with the Housing Program intent and POLICIES. TO request a Special Review, a letter
must be submitted to the APCHA stating the request, with documentation regarding the unusual
hardship. The applicant shall submit any additional information reasonably requested by the
APCHA and a Special Review meeting will be scheduled WITH A SPECIAL REVIEW HEARING
OFFICER in a timely manner.
B. Special Review Committee SPECIAL REVIEW HEARING OFFICER
Special Review is conducted by a committee of at least three persons: one from the city staff as
designated by the City Manager’s office, one from the county staff as designated by the County
Manager, and one APCHA Board member as designated by the APCHA Board Chair.
HEARING OFFICER APPOINTED BY THE APCHA BOARD FOR THAT PURPOSE.
C. Decision
The Special Review Committee HEARING OFFICER may grant the request, with or without
conditions, if the approval will not cause a substantial detriment to the public good and without
substantially impairing the intent and purpose of THESE Guidelines, and if an unusual hardship is
shown.
Section 5. Enforcement Policies and Procedures
A. Compliance with Applicable Deed Restrictions and APCHA Guidelines.
All owners and occupants of deed restricted rental and ownership housing administered by
APCHA must comply with the requirements of applicable deed restrictions, the APCHA
Guidelines as amended from time to time, and applicable federal, state and local laws. All
violations of such requirements are subject to enforcement as provided herein.
40
7
B. Enforcement Procedures.
Enforcement procedures may be initiated by an APCHA investigation or a complaint from a third
party.
1. NOTICE OF INVESTIGATION (NOI)
a) AT THE DISCRETION OF THE APCHA, BEFORE ISSUING A NOTICE OF
VIOLATION (NOV), THE APCHA MAY ISSUE A NOI IF IT IS DEEMED
NECESSARY TO DETERMINE IF A VIOLATION OCCURRED PROVIDING A 15-
DAY RESPONSE TIME.
2. Notice of Violation (NOV)
a) In the event that APCHA, as a result of an independent investigation or based upon a
third party complaint as described in Section 5B(2) below, or for failure to comply with a
compliance request, audit or affidavit requirement, determines that a violation has
occurred, APCHA shall serve a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) on the person(s) deemed to
be in violation. The NOV may be served by regular mail, e-mail or as otherwise provided
by the applicable deed restriction or by law for service of process. The NOV shall state
the following:
i. identify the name of the alleged violator, and
ii. the date(s) of the violation if known, and
iii. the actions or inactions constituting the violation, and
iv. the requirement(s) which have been violated.
b) The NOV shall, AT THE DISCRETION OF APCHA,require one OR MORE of the
following:
i. that the violation be cured within fifteen (15) days of the NOV; , or
that within the 15-day period the person charged with the violation request, in
writing, a hearing before the APCHA Board in order to dispute the charged
contained in the NOV; , or
ii. that the lease (if a rental unit) shall be terminated WITHIN A SPECIFIED
PERIOD OF TIME; or
iii. that the unit shall be listed for sale as stated in the deed restriction (IF AN
OWNERSHIP UNIT) WITHIN A SPECIFIED PERIOD OF TIME;
iv. THAT THE OWNER WILL FORFEIT APPRECIATION FROM THE DATE
THAT THE VIOLATION OCCURRED, OR FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF
NON-COMPLIANCE; AND/OR
v. THAT A FINE BE PAID IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SCHEDULE OF
FINES FOUND IN THE APPENDICES OF THESE GUIDELINES.
c)THE NOV SHALL PROVIDE THAT THE PERSON CHARGED IN THE NOV MAY,
WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE NOV, REQUEST IN
WRITING A HEARING BEFORE THE APCHA BOARD, OR THE APCHA
HEARING OFFICER IF SUCH POSITION IS ESTABLISHED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THESE GUIDELINES. THE HEARING MAY BE REQUESTED IN ORDER
TO APPEAL THE FINDING(S) THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED AND/OR
TO APPEAL THE RELIEF DEMANDED IN THE NOV.41
8
d) If the alleged violator does not cure the violation or request a hearing before the APCHA
Board within the fifteen (15) day period COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF
THE NOV AND DOES NOT REQUEST A HEARING BEFORE THE APCHA
BOARD OR HEARING OFFICER WITHIN THE FIFTEEN (15) DAY PERIOD, the
violation identified in the NOV AND THE RELIEF DEMANDED shall be deemed final.
In the event of litigation, the failure to request a hearing as provided above shall be
deemed by APCHA to constitute a failure to exhaust administrative remedies for the
purpose of judicial review. At the conclusion of the fifteen (15) day period, APCHA may
pursue all remedies as provided by law or in equity, including, where applicable, a
requirement that the subject property be sold in accordance with the deed restriction.
e) If, within the fifteen (15) day period, a hearing is requested before the APCHA BOARD
OR HEARING OFFICER, such hearing shall be scheduled to commence no later than
thirty (30) days from the date of the request. At such hearing, APCHA staff, the person
requesting the hearing, and interested members of the public shall be permitted to present
evidence in the form of testimony and documents to the APCHA Board OR HEARING
OFFICER.
f) The APCHA Board OR HEARING OFFICER shall base its decision based upon the
evidence in the record and it shall make its decision in writing within thirty (30) days of
the conclusion of the hearing. The APCHA Board OR HEARING OFFICER may uphold
the NOV in whole or in part, or it may dismiss the NOV. In taking any such action, the
APCHA Board OR HEARING OFFICER may impose a remedy appropriate to the case,
which may include a requirement for the owner to PAY A FINE AND/OR sell the
subject property, or REQUIRE the occupants to vacate the premises. Where a sale is
required, the procedures identified in the applicable deed restriction shall be followed.
The determination of the APCHA Board OR HEARING OFFICER may direct that legal
action be taken to enforce its decision. The costs of such action, including reasonable
attorney’s fees, shall be taxed ASSESSED against the proceeds of the sale, or tenant’s
security deposit.
g) APCHA staff and the alleged violator shall exchange the documentary evidence they
wish to present at the hearing at least one (1) week prior to the hearing. The APCHA
Board may accept additional documentary evidence at the hearing for good cause shown,
and may continue the hearing if it is deemed necessary in the interest of fairness.
3. Complaint Based Investigation
a) Any person may submit to APCHA a complaint that a violation has occurred. Within thirty
(30) days of the receipt of any such complaint, and if sufficient grounds are found to exist,
APCHA staff shall commence an investigation and notify the alleged violator of the receipt
of such complaint. For good cause and as authorized by law, APCHA may withhold the
identity of the complainant.
b) In connection with its investigation of the complaint, APCHA shall request that the alleged
violator provide written information as may be reasonably necessary for its investigation,
and the alleged violator shall be required to provide such information within fifteen (15)
days from the date of the request. APCHA shall maintain the confidentiality of any
42
9
financial or other information provided by the alleged violation which is not required to be
disclosed by the Colorado Open Records Act.
c) APCHA staff shall complete its investigation as soon as possible, and within ninety (90)
days from the receipt of the complaint whenever possible. Upon completion of its
investigation, APCHA staff shall either notify the parties in writing that there are not
reasonable grounds to determine that a violation has occurred, or it shall issue an NOV in
accordance with the subsection 5B1 above and follow those procedures.
4. Investigations and Site Visits
In responding to a complaint or in the conduct of any other investigation, APCHA may
inspect the subject premises. Any such inspection shall be preceded by at least 24 hours’
written notice to the owner and occupants, either by mail or posted on the premises in a
conspicuous place. Except in an emergency, all such inspections shall occur between 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday.
5. Aspen Municipal Code and Pitkin County Code
Enforcement by APCHA as provided herein does not constitute a waiver by the City of
Aspen or Pitkin County of any authority they may have pursuant to their respective
ordinances for enforcement with respect to the events described in an APCHA NOV.
C. Grievance Procedure
A “grievance” is any dispute, claim, or request a person may have with APCHA, not covered by
Section 5B above, arising out of a deed restriction or the APCHA Guidelines.
1. Any person with a grievance shall first submit such matter to APCHA staff. APCHA staff
shall attempt to resolve such matter informally with the aggrieved party, but in doing so,
APCHA staff is not authorized to make any determination contrary to a deed restriction,
APCHA Guidelines, APCHA policies, or established precedents.
2. At such time as APCHA staff or the aggrieved party determines that the procedure identified
in Section C1 above will not resolve the matter, or by agreement of APCHA staff and the
aggrieved party, the grievance may be submitted to the APCHA Board of Directors
HEARING OFFICER for a determination. All such grievances shall be submitted in
writing and shall include the following information:
Name, address, telephone number and e-mail address of the aggrieved party;
and
A summary of the grievance, the relief requested, and identification of the
provision of the applicable deed restriction and APCHA Guidelines at issue.
43
10
3. Upon receipt of a grievance in accordance with subsection C2 above, the matter shall be set
for a public hearing before the APCHA BoardHEARING OFFICER, at which time THE
HEARING OFFICERAPCHA shall consider the testimony and other evidence presented
by APCHA staff, the aggrieved party, and members of the public.
4. APCHA staff and the aggrieved party shall exchange the documentary evidence they wish to
present at the hearing at least one (1) week prior to the hearing. The APCHA
BoardHEARING OFFICER may accept additional documentary evidence at the hearing for
good cause shown.
5. The APCHA BoardHEARING OFFICER shall base its determination regarding the
grievance upon the evidence in the record and it shall make its determination in writing
within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of the hearing. Such determination shall be
considered a final administrative determination by APCHA.
D. HEARING OFFICER
1. ESTABLISHMENT
THERE IS HEREBY ESTABLISHED WITHIN APCHA THE POSITION OF
HEARING OFFICER.
2. APPOINTMENT
THE HEARING OFFICER SHALL BE APPOINTED BY, AND SERVE AT THE
DISCRETION OF THE APCHA BOARD OF DIRECTORS. THE BOARD MAY
APPOINT MORE THAN ONE HEARING OFFICER IF DEEMED NECESSARY,
BASED ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST, AVALABILITY, OR FOR OTHER GOOD
REASON. NO EMPLOYEE OF APCHA OR MEMBER OF THE APCHA BOARD
SHALL SERVE AS HEARING OFFICER.
3. POWERS AND DUTIES
THE HEARING OFFICER SHALL HEAR AND CONSIDER THOSE MATTERS
SPECIFIC IN THESE GUIDELINES. ALL MATTERS CONSIDERD BY THE
HEARING OFFICER SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN A PUBLIC HEARING AND ALL
SUCH HEARINGS SHALL BE RECORDED. NOTICE OF ALL SUCH HEARINGS
SHALL BE GIVEN IN THE SAME MANNER AS MEETINGS OF THE APCHA
BOARD. IN ADDITION, PERSONAL NOTICE SHALL BE GIVEN IN WRITING TO
THE APPELLANT AND ALL OTHER PERSONS KNOWN BY APCHA STAFF TO
HAVE AN INTEREST IN THE MATTER.
4. DECISIONS
THE HEARING OFFICER MAY APPROVE, APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS, OR
DENY ANY MATTER SUBJECT TO HIS/HER REVIEW. THE DECISIONS OF THE
HEARING OFFICER SHALL INCLUDE FINDINGS OF FACT AND
CONLCUSIONS OF LAW, AND SHALL BE MADE IN WRITING, SIGNED AND
DATED. ALL SUCH DECISIONS SHALL BE DEEMED FINAL AFTER 15 DAYS OF
44
11
THE DATE OF THE DECISION UNLESS APPEALED TO THE APCHA BOARD AS
PROVIDED BELOW. AN UNAPPEALED DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER
IS NOT SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IN ACCORDANCE WITH CRCP RULE
106(A)(4), BASED ON THE FAILURE TO EXHAUST ADMINISTRATIVE
REMEDIES.
E. APPEALS OF HEARING OFFICER DECISIONS
1.GENERAL PROCEDURES
A. ANY PERSON ADVERSELY AFFECTED OR AGGRIEVED BY A DECISION
OF THE HEARING OFFICER MAY APPEAL SUCH DECISION TO THE
APCHA BOARD OF DIRECTORS AS PROVIDED HEREIN.
B. NOTICE OF APPEAL AND A WRITTEN SUMMARY OF THE GROUNDS FOR
THE APPEAL MUST BE SUBMITTED TO THE APCHA EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR WITHIN FIFTEEN (15) DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE HEARING
OFFICER’S DECISION.
C. NO APPEAL SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY THE APCHA BOARD UNTIL THE
APPELLANT, AT ITS EXPENSE, PRESENTS THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
WITH A TRANSCRIPT OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HEARING
OFFICER, WHICH MUST OCCUR NO LATER THAN SIXTY (60) CALENDAR
DAYS AFTER THE HEARING OFFICER’S DECISION UNLESS EXTENDED
BY THE APCHA BOARD FOR GOOD CAUSE SHOWN.
D. UPON RECEIPT OF THE TRANSCRIPT, THE BOARD SHALL SCHEDULE
THE APPEAL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE EARLIEST DATE
POSSIBLE, WITH THE CONSIDERATION TO THE INTERESTS OF ALL
PARTIES.
2. SCOPE OF REVIEW
A. THE APPEAL TO THE BOARD SHALL BE BASED SOLELY ON THE
RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER. THE
BOARD SHALL CONSIDER THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT,
APCHA STAFF, AND OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES BASED ON THE
RECORD. THE BOARD SHALL NOT CONSIDER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
UNLESS THERE IS A DEMONSTRATION OF EXCUSABLE NEGLECT,
MISREPRESENTATION, OR OTHER MISCONDUCT IN THE PROCEEDINGS
BEFORE THE HEARING OFFICER.
B. BASED UPON THE ARGUMENTS MADE AT THE HEARING, THE BOARD
MAY AFFIRM, MODIFY OR REVERSE THE DECISION OF THE HEARING
OFFICER. IN ADDITION, THE BOARD MAY DETERMINE THAT
ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY AND REMAND THE MATTER TO
THE HEARING OFFICER FOR THE RECEIPT OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE
AND RECONSIDERATION BASED TEHREON. THE BOARD’S DECISION
SHALL BE MADE IN WRITING AND SHALL INCLUDE FINDINGS OF FACT
AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW.
45
12
3. JUDICIAL REVIEW
THE DECISION OF THE APCHA BOARD SHALL CONSTITUTE FINAL AGENCY
ACTION SUBJECT TO JUDICIAL REVIEW IN ACCORANCE WITH CRCP RULE
106(A)(4).
46
13
EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF FINES
#Stage 1 Violation Fine Amount
1 Failure to requalify by original deadline set by APCHA.$250
2 Failure to provide requested information to establish continued
compliance by original deadline set by APCHA.$250
3 Failure to provide Census Information by original deadline set by APCHA.$250
4
Failure to pay HOA assessments (general or special) after failing to cure
delinquency. HOA must follow collections policies and procdures under
CCIOA before reporting owner to APCHA.
$250
5 Failure to pay property taxes annually by the deadline imposed by Pitkin
County. $250
6
Failure to allow the APCHA to inspect the property or unit as provided in
the deed restriction, after providing Owner with no less than 24 hours’
written notice.
$250
7 $250
#Stage 2 Violation Fine Amount
1 Failure to requalify by Stage 1 NOV deadline.$500
2 Failure to provide requested information to establish continued
compliance by Stage 1 NOV deadline.$500
47
14
3 Failure to provide Census Information by Stage 1 NOV deadline.$500
4 Failure to pay HOA assessments (general or special) by Stage 1 NOV
deadline.$500
5 Failure to pay property taxes by Stage 1 NOV deadline.$500
6 Failure to get roommate approved prior to move-in.$500
7 Failure to maintain eligibility (generally).$500
8 Failure to obtain approved Leave of Absence (LOA).$500
9 Failure to provide APCHA with copy of signed lease prior to occupancy by
tenant(s).$500
10 Failure to notify APCHA of pending foreclosure within 5 Business Days.$500
11 Failure to notify APCHA in writing of any default within five calendar days
of Owner's notification.$500
12 Failure to cure Stage 1 Violation.$500
13 $500
#Stage 3 Violation Fine Amount
1 Failure to requalify by Stage 2 NOV deadline.$1,000
48
15
2 Failure to provide requested information to establish continued
compliance by Stage 2 NOV deadline.$1,000
3 Failure to provide Census Information by Stage 2 NOV deadline.$1,000
4 Failure to pay HOA assessments (general or special) by Stage 2 NOV
deadline.$1,000
5 Failure to pay property taxes by Stage 2 NOV deadline.$1,000
6 Failure to get lease approved in advance.$1,000
7 Charging rent in excess of amount permitted by Deed Restriction and/or
Guidelines (< 20% of Maximum Monthly Rent Allowed).$1,000
8 Exceeding maximum vacancy period of rental unit.$1,000
9 Failure to cure Stage 2 Violation.$1,000
10 $1,000
#Stage 4 Violation Fine Amount
1 Failure to requalify by Stage 3 NOV deadline.$2,500
2 Failure to provide requested information to establish continued
compliance by Stage 3 NOV deadline.$2,500
3 Failure to provide Census Information by Stage 3 NOV deadline.$2,500
49
16
4 Failure to pay HOA assessments (general or special) by Stage 3 NOV
deadline.$2,500
5 Failure to pay property taxes by Stage 3 NOV deadline.$2,500
6 Failure to occupy unit as sole and exclusive place of residence.$2,500
7 Failure to use and occupy unit exclusively to house persons who meet the
definition of Qualified Resident(s) (owner(s)) and their families. $2,500
8 Failure to work full-time in Pitkin County as required by Deed Restriction
and/or Guidelines. $2,500
9 Owning other developed residential property in OEZ in violation of Deed
Restriction and/or Guidelines.$2,500
10 Use of premises for other than residential purposes.$2,500
11 Advertising rental without APCHA approval as required by Deed
Restriction and/or Guidelines.$2,500
12 Charging rent in excess of amount permitted by Deed Restriction and/or
Guidelines (> 20% of Maximum Monthly Rent Allowed).$2,500
13 Failure to cure Stage 3 Violation.$2,500
14 $2,500
#Stage 5 Violation Fine Amount
1 Failure to requalify by Stage 4 NOV deadline.$5,000
50
17
2 Failure to provide requested information to establish continued
compliance by Stage 4 NOV deadline.$5,000
3 Failure to provide Census Information by Stage 4 NOV deadline.$5,000
4 Failure to pay HOA assessments (general or special) by Stage 4 NOV
deadline.$5,000
5 Failure to pay property taxes by Stage 4 NOV deadline.$5,000
6 Failure to occupy unit as sole place of residence during time unit is owned
by Stage 4 NOV deadline.$5,000
7
Failure to use and occupy unit exclusively to house persons who meet the
definition of Qualified Resident(s) (owner(s)) and their families by Stage 4
NOV deadline.
$5,000
8 Failure to work full-time in Pitkin County as required by Deed Restriction
and/or Guidelines by Stage 4 NOV deadline.$5,000
9 Failing to list other developed residential property in OEZ in violation of
Deed Restriction and/or Guidelines by Stage 4 NOV deadline.$5,000
10 Selling or conveying a property or unit without APCHA approval.$5,000
11 Encumbering property with debt in any form which exceeds at any time
the Maximum Resale Price of the Unit.$5,000
12 Permitting any use or occupancy of Unit not in compliance with the Deed
Restriction and/or Guidelines.$5,000
13 Making unauthorized improvements and/or failing to obtain building
permit or certificate of occupancy with respect to capital improvements.$5,000
14 Creating an additional dwelling unit as defined in the Pitkin County or City
of Aspen Land Use Codes, in or on the property.$5,000
51
18
15 Rental of all or part of a unit in violation of the Deed Restriction and/or
Guidelines.$5,000
16 Submitting false/inaccurate information.$5,000
17 Failure by Non-Qualified Transferees to transfer Property or Unit to a
Qualified Buyer.$5,000
18 Using deed restricted property as income producing property.$5,000
19 Failure to list home by deadline after NOV becomes final.$5,000
20
Accepting any consideration which would cause an increase in the
purchase price above the bid price to induce an Owner to sell to a
prospective buyer.
$5,000
21 Fraud (as defined in Guidelines).$5,000
22 Selling or otherwise transferring Unit not in accordance with the Deed
Restriction and/or Guidelines. $5,000
23 Sell or otherwise transfer Unit for use in a trade or business.$5,000
24 Purchasing other developed residential property in OEZ while owning an
APCHA deed restricted property.$5,000
25 Failure to Cure Stage 4 Violation.$5,000
26 $5,000
52
Page 1 of 5
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Liz Chapman, Environmental Health and Sustainability
THROUGH: CJ Oliver, Environmental Health and Sustainability Director
MEETING DATE: August 5, 2019
RE: Rio Grande Recycle Center (RGRC) Service Proposals
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is asking Council if they prefer to switch to Targeted Materials collections
at the Rio Grande Recycle Center in September 2019 or approve a contract to continue 1 year of Single
Stream collection.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS: In June 2019, Council directed staff to solicit Request for Proposals (RFP) for one
year of single stream collection at RGRC to allow the community, Council and staff to develop a long-
term strategy for waste diversion. This was based on the community preference for maintaining single
stream service at the Rio Grande Recycle Center, as well as the community value for continuing recycling
efforts in Aspen. The costs for continuing service were unknown but expected to be higher than the
$250,000 Pitkin County paid Waste Management in 2018 for service at the Rio Grande Recycle Center.
Proposals were received with a range of approximately $560,000 to $750,000 for one year of single
stream service at current levels (Exhibit A).
In early 2019, in response to the 2015-2017 Waste Study (Exhibit B) funded by both Pitkin County and the
City of Aspen, Pitkin County revised their waste ordinance, requiring haulers to provide curbside
recycling. Subsequently, the Board of County Commissioners removed funding of all public drop-off
recycle centers outside of the Solid Waste Center (Redstone, Basalt, Rio Grande Recycle Center). The
County has funded recycling services at Rio Grande Recycling Center the until the end of August 2019.
BACKGROUND: There are a multitude of reasons for the cost of recycling to increase dramatically. One
of the contributing factors is the remote and rural location of Aspen. There are no local Material Recovery
Facilities (MRF) accepting single stream recycling on the Western Slope. There are al so no local transfer
stations. Although the Pitkin County landfill serves as a transfer station for small haulers, private haulers
are limited to bringing 120 tons of recycling per year (10 tons per month). The Town of Snowmass Village
exceeds this limit through an intra-governmental agreement with Pitkin County. The current capacity of
the recycling transfer station prevents the City of Aspen from making a similar agreement. Increasing
labor and fuel cost are also contributing factors. The international tr ade of recyclable material has
undergone significant upheavals in the past two years which have also pushed the cost of recycling higher.
As commodity prices have dropped, the operational costs of dealing with (and disposing of)
contamination have risen.
53
Page 2 of 5
Contamination is defined as non-recyclables intermingled with recyclable materials at collection.
Examples of contamination include food solids, liquids, non-recyclable plastics, etc. Contamination is a
growing challenge facing all communities trying to divert waste and higher contamination results in
paying a high price for collection and sorting at a MRF.
In Aspen, the enthusiasm for recycling is outpacing the public’s understanding of how recycling
works and what Aspen’s Municipal Code requires and prohibits. Regardless of whether Council
chooses to move to Targeted Collections or accept a proposal to continue Single Stream collection
services, a robust educational campaign is needed to match the public’s desire for recycling with
knowledge to do so effectively and keep expenditures within expected totals.
DISCUSSION:
Single Stream collection – This option represents collecting all recyclables into a single container and
then transporting to a Materials Recovery Facility (MRF) on the Front Range. Staff created a Request for
Proposals (RFP) for vendors to collect, sort, and send to market the recyclable materials. In June of 2019.
The bids received range from $560,000 to $750,000 (Exhibit A) which represent estimates that will vary
with actual demand and contamination levels. Adding yard waste to the collection services would be an
estimated $34,000 to 40,000 additional dollars (depending on the vendor selected).
• Uncertain costs – Both of the vendors specified costs beyond their control (fuel costs,
contamination, commodity prices) as factors which could increase the cost over the
proposal price.
Targeted Materials collection – This option represents selecting specific materials (i.e., cardboard,
glass, metals, yard waste, etc.) to be collected in large bins (4-6, 30 yards each) and shipped directly to
facilities which can sell or process the source-separated materials. Changing the center to this type of
recyclable collection could reduce the estimated total cost to between $100,000 to $200,000 per year. It
would also rely on existing curbside recycling programs to divert plastics and cartons (i.e., milk, juice and
soup cartons) because those materials would not be targeted at current commodity prices. Textiles,
batteries, and a separate glass collection would continue at the center in this scenario. If pursuing this
option, compostable (food and paper) materials would be considered as a potential targeted material.
Yard waste collection year-round would cost approximately $36,000 per year in partnership with Pitkin
County.
• Uncertain participation – Estimates on the amount targeted materials (metal,
cardboard, glass, et.) would be deposited in this system are based on amounts
collected in the single stream system. Based on interactions with the public, the
expansion of metals collection outside of single stream, and factoring in the impact of
an outreach campaign, staff believes larger amounts than estimated would be
deposited at the center under a targeted collections scheme.
Education - Approving a contract for Single Stream services will require doing two separate education
campaigns. One to prevent contamination and encourage curbside participation and a second to
communicate the switch to Targeted Materials one year later. Choosing to move into Targeted Materials
collection in September 2019 requires a single educational campaign about the changes at the recycle
center and to encourage curbside participation. Curbside recycling is reported at approximately 20% in
recent years. By increasing curbside diversion to 50%, over 1,1oo tons of single stream recycling would
be diverted. The Rio Grande Recycle Center is currently diverting 1160 tons per year. An effective 54
Page 3 of 5
outreach campaign (including staffing the Rio Grande Recycle Center at busy times), coupled with
Targeted Materials collection, has the potential to divert not only the current 1160 tons of single stream
via curbside, but to increase what is diverted by expanding the options at the center.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Estimating the exact costs of the various options is difficult because
there are multiple unknown factors. Contamination, fuel prices, and amount of material will significantly
affect the cost of a single stream contract. Targeted Materials collection cos ts are more stable because
staff will select those materials which are most cost-effective to collect, even though the quantity which
will be collected is uncertain.
Single Stream collection (no changes to current operations)
o Proposal cost estimates: $560,000 to $750,000 (depending on vendor selected)
o Proposal cost for year-round yard waste composting: $34,000 to 40,000 (depending on
vendor selected)
o One-time educational campaign to reduce contamination: $50,00 to 150,000
Total Cost: $650,000- up to $1,125,000 for one year
Targeted Materials collection (limited to select materials collected separately)
o Estimated annual cost: $100,000 –200,000 (depending on what materials are targeted),
broken into the following categories:
▪ $36,000/year to haul yard waste for composting
▪ $8-12,000/year to haul food waste for composting
▪ $20,000 /year to haul cardboard for composting
▪ $6-8,000 /year to haul glass for recycling
▪ $0 /year to haul metals for recycling
▪ $8,000/year to haul textiles & books & batteries for recycling
o Estimated annual additional labor costs for maintenance and enforcement: $25,000
o Estimated one-time cost in equipment (depending on what materials are targeted):
$25,000 - $100,000
o One-time educational campaign regarding changes: $100,000 - $150,000
Total Cost: $225,000- $450,000
Staff from both The City of Aspen and Pitkin County have discussed the possibility of changing the
materials collected at the center to be in closer alignment with the recommendations of Phase II of
the Waste Study the City and County conducted in 2017. Moving to a Targeted Materials collection
would emphasize organics collection. Pitkin County staff have indicated they would be partners in a
Targeted Materials collection effort by participating in the collection of organic materials, textiles,
books, and batteries
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
By reducing the amount of material sent to be buried in the landfill, resources are conserved. It also
extends the life of the sources of raw materials. The embodied energy and carbon emissions of
manufacturing products from virgin resources are reduced when materials are recycled. Recycling results
in greenhouse gas reduction, even when transportation emissions are considered. The table below
approximates potential tons diverted and greenhouse gas emissions prevented due to the Rio Grande
Recycle Center under the various options. 55
Page 4 of 5
Options Yard
waste
Food &
Paper
Cardboard Glass Metals Mixed
recyclables
TOTALS
1.Single stream
Tons diverted* 80 N/A N/A N/A N/A 1,200 + 1280
MTCO2e
prevented**
12.8 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2,880 2892.8
2.Targeted Materials
Tons diverted* 2,500 5,000 400 400 30 N/A 8330
MTCO2e
prevented**
400 900 1,200 212 130.2 N/A 2842.2
*Actual amount will depend on public participation
**MTCO2e = estimated metric tons of CO2 equivalent based on EPA WARM model
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Given the environmental benefits realized by the continued operation of the Rio Grande Recycle Center
(RGRC), the goals articulated in the AACP, the realities in the current markets for recyclable products, as
well as the overwhelming community support expressed during the outreach process, staff recomme nds:
Convert to Targeted Materials collection in September 2019 – This option has the potential to
offer new waste diversion programs to the community (i.e., metal, yard waste year-round). It is a
less expensive approach than single stream but would require education and a transition in how
the community uses the RGRC. This would be teamed with an extensive outreach campaign (both
in the media and in person at the recycle center) to encourage more residents and businesses to
utilize the recycling services already available, as well as how to best use the new system.
If Council prefers to approve a contract for continuing single stream recycling, then staff recommends
choosing Waste Management’s Option 1 at $750,000 (Exhibit A) with an educational campaign of $50,000
to encourage curbside participation and reduce contamination.
FINANCES:
These services are General Fund expenditures, with the possibility of the bag use fee funds being used to
enhance community education efforts. The 2018 General Fund clo sing balance is $16,800,675. Of this
balance, the City maintains a fund balance policy of a minimum of 25% of current year expenditures.
There are funds for a one-year expenditure of the recommended option for Targeted Materials, or if
Council desires, Single Stream Collection. However, for year 2 and beyond, the expenditures should be
considered in conjunction with other General Fund requests in the budget process.
Additionally, staff recommends exploration of a fee to cover the direct costs of the Rio Grande Recycle
Center. The fee needs to be in direct nexus to the City’s waste diversion priorities. As Council moves
forward with year-two and beyond, staff seeks Council’s input on whether staff should explore revenue
options to sustain this service.
56
Page 5 of 5
ALTERNATIVES:
Continue Single Stream collection indefinitely – This option would be the least disruptive to the
community by continuing the status quo but is the most expensive approach to City-sponsored recycling
and waste diversion efforts. It would require a new Request for Proposals to determine what the price
would be for a 3-5-year contract.
City of Aspen hauling – Staff evaluated the possibility of the City of Aspen purchasing the equipment to haul
recyclables from the Rio Grande Recycle Center (Exhibit C). This operational plan represents a drastic reduction in
service levels compared to current service (i.e., smaller capacity, harder to use recycle bins). This pro-forma
assumes the material could be taken to a local transfer station which is not currently available. The only option
available is to haul to Denver and the additional labor, fuel and equipment required makes this option prohibitively
expensive.
NEXT STEPS:
With Council direction on the preferred path forward, staff will either execute a contract with one of the
vendors or begin soliciting Requests for Quotes to implement targeted materials collection in September
of 2019. In either case, staff will be returning to Council in August for approval.
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A – Comparison of proposals received for RGRC
Exhibit B – Waste Study Phase 2
Exhibit C – City of Aspen hauling estimate
57