HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.201908201
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
August 20, 2019
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
I.COUNCIL ROUNDTABLE 4:00-4:10
II.WORK SESSION
II.A.Childcare Capacity Update
II.B.Housing Development Outreach Update
1
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:Shirley Ritter, Director Kids First
THROUGH Sara Ott, Interim City Manager
MEETING DATE:August 20, 2019
RE:Childcare capacity
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:Staff seeks direction from council for next steps in addressing
the community need for high quality childcare. The key questions staff requests direction
on include:
1. Does Council desire a short-term increase in infant spaces using space at the
Yellow Brick?
2. Does Council support longer term increase in spaces from infants to pre-school,
and if so, does Council authorize staff to move forward with an engagement and
planning process in 2020?
3. In addressing short- and long-term needs for child care spaces, does Council
desire resources to be focused only within City limits, or within the larger region?
This memo will outline information to assist Council in making decisions on this important
issue.
SUMMARY: The Kids First Advisory Board and staff met with City Council in a January
work session, and Council directed capacity building work to begin in 2020. To ensure
that work could occur on this timeline, staff began working with the Kids First Advisory
Board to understand the different opportunities and constraints at the two potential child
care locations – the Yellow Brick block, and Burlingame Phase 3. Staff examined the
land use process required for both sites and began to outline a rough community outreach
and engagement process. With the Council change over in June, this Council has
requested child care capacity be made a higher priority within the City’s overall work
program. To support this direction, staff began looking at short term options to increase
childcare capacity at the Yellow Brick.
This memo outlines both the short and long term options for increasing childcare capacity,
with each idea presented with pros and cons, considering time, cost, quality,
effectiveness, and value.
BACKGROUND: Early childhood concerns and intentional solutions tend to be grouped
in 3 overall buckets – Capacity, Quality, and Affordability. The Kids First budget and
2
programming reflect this, with public awareness and parent education goals included to
broaden our ability to engage a broader base of the community in these three (3) areas.
Our community continues to grow and change; we are fortunate to have dedicated
funding that can be used to address current issues and anticipate future needs. It is also
important to understand that all this work - Capacity, Quality, and Affordability, is related.
In January we talked about all the operational areas of work that Kids First is involved in.
Over 60% of the Kids First expenditures annually are direct contributions in the form of
grants and incentives; direct services - nurse consulting, resource teacher, quality
improvement coaching; and financial aid on behalf of qualifying families. Please see
Attachment A for 2019 budget detail and long range plan.
Currently, there are 30 licensed childcare spaces available for infants, 88 for toddlers,
and 293 for preschoolers in Pitkin County. These spaces are provided in a range of
programs located throughout the community. The birth rate to residents of Pitkin County
in 2017 was 134 babies. (Attachment D gives details on birth rate data and projections.)
With licensed childcare space for only 22% of babies born to Pitkin County residents, new
parents must get creative with care for their new babies, drop out of the workforce, accept
less than optimal care, or leave the community. There are a variety of reasons there are
fewer spaces for infants, including the high cost of offering infant care, qualifications
needed for infant staff, and ratios required to provide quality care for babies. For example,
most preschool ratios are 16 children to 2 adult staff, for infants, it’s 8 babies to 2 adult
staff. The cost is twice as much, but most parents cannot afford to pay twice the amount
for care, and early childhood education is not funded in the same way that K-12 or higher
education is.
One program that had offered infant care had to close their infant room in 2018 due to
problems finding staff for the room. Another program was able to pick up the classroom,
but finding qualified staff is a serious barrier that impacts the ability to provide infant care
even if space is built. Pitkin County childcare programs are currently advertising for 7
open positions, there are more opening in neighboring communities.
Availability of childcare has always played an important role, along with housing and
transportation, in having an available workforce in our community. In recent years, with
Kids First support, we have seen programs add classrooms, move into new and bigger
spaces, and change their use of space to accommodate changing community needs. We
are however, still seeing more need than current programs can accommodate.
Kids First has provided funding to equip new classrooms; staff provides technical
assistance to programs and their governing boards to plan for expansion, as well
as planning for ensuring their current capacity is not reduced.
Infant-toddler operational funding directly addresses the cost of providing care for
these ages. This is the second largest single cost in the Kids First contribution
budget.
3
Challenges to increasing capacity to meet the current and anticipated need include:
The financial limitations of the Kids First fund to provide operational support at the
current levels, to an additional 8 or so classrooms. The Kids First Advisory Board
has developed a plan to accommodate these changes to avoid a structural deficit
in future years in the fund.
Limited available space or land to use for childcare. Our two top choices for long-
term space would use city-owned land.
The need for partnerships and capital funding. The Kids First fund is not able to
provide capital funding and maintain operational supports to childcare programs
and to families, so additional funding would be required.
DISCUSSION: The discussion for this work session is divided into two parts:
Short term solutions to address the immediate need for additional infant space:
Long term solutions to address the overall need for childcare, for all ages, infants,
toddlers, and preschoolers.
Staff has compiled an estimate of how soon we could realize the space, the cost, the
number of children served and other considerations. We surveyed current childcare
directors and board members regarding the short and long-term options known to us at
this time. There are concerns with each option; we know that any decision will have
positive and negative outcomes. Exhibits B and C outline these options in more detail.
Consideration for any of the increased capacity options is the concern for being able to
staff new classrooms with qualified teachers. Community-wide it is a difficult time to recruit
and retain staff. This is certainly the case for our existing childcare programs and was the
top concern stated in the survey for the operation of new classrooms. Increasing childcare
capacity must include a physical space that is appropriate for young children, both indoors
and outdoors. It is important to remember however, that childcare workforce is a second
and equally important consideration. Kids First has offered supports for recruitment of
childcare staff, and we continue to partner with childcare directors to see if there is more
Kids First can and should be doing. Kids First definitely has a role in training and coaching
childcare staff, so there could be a larger role for the City of Aspen and Kids First.
Kids First staff continue to have conversations with community partners and other
organizations that are both feeling the impacts of the shortage of infant childcare spaces
and have some research and planning to address the need within their organizations.
This could result in partnerships with the City of Aspen and Kids First, as well as address
the number of spaces needed in the long-term.
Kids First staff is actively participating in childcare capacity planning in the Basalt/Willets
area, and with Eagle County since this is not just a need that is felt in Aspen, but across
the state. Kids First staff also plays a leadership role in the Rocky Mountain Early
Childhood Council, working with our peers in Eagle, Lake and Garfield Counties to
support young children and their families.
4
There are many ways to support regional planning for additional childcare capacity;
including the formalization of a regional task force to assess and plan for childcare. This
could build on the work done by the Aspen Community Foundation and the Cradle to
Career Initiative that Kids First staff has been involved in. It would require a high level of
engagement and commitment from neighboring communities, business, and
governments.
Short Term Options: Options for short term increases in infant capacity exist at the
Yellow brick, either using existing spaces inside the building, or using temporary
structures outside the building.
1.Utilize existing Early Learning Center office space for 1 additional infant
room. This option was recently proposed by the Playgroup director and the
outgoing director at ELC and could provide one additional classroom with a
capacity for up to 8 infants. With changes in leadership within that program, this
option is in flux. However, staff and the Kids First Advisory Board believe this may
be the simplest and quickest way to provide additional spaces. It would reduce
usable office space and staff planning space for over 20 employees of ELC by
nearly 70%. Because this uses existing educational space, no additional affordable
housing mitigation is needed for this option.
2.Utilize a portion of the existing gym space for 2 additional infant rooms. This
option has been under review for the last few months, with staff and outside
consultants working to understand any land use implications as well as licensing
and construction requirements. This option could provide up to 2 classrooms, with
a total capacity of 16 infants. Conversion of space within the building to childcare
classrooms would not change the dimensional limitations of the site and would not
alter the exterior of the building or site. This option would not require HPC review
or a PD amendment and could be taken directly to building permit/zoning
compliance review.
3.Utilize temporary trailers on the outdoor basketball court for 2 additional
infant rooms. This option has also been under review. This option could provide
up to 2 classrooms, with a total capacity of 16 infants.
There is not a simple land use process for this option – a Temporary Use review
is only valid for 180 days in a calendar year, so year-round, full-time care in trailers
would require a more detailed and lengthy land use review process. Affordable
Housing mitigation would be required for this option.
Long Term Options: Options for long term increases in infant, toddler, and pre-school
capacity exist at the Yellow Brick or at Burlingame Phase 3, as well as the potential for
partnerships within the region. Either of these options could provide up to 8 classrooms
for 96 kids.
5
1.Build additional facilities on the outdoor basketball courts at the yellow brick
site. This option would require a land use review process. Because of the location
and zoning, a full Planned Development process would be required, including a
design review, and payment of all impact fees as well as affordable housing
mitigation. On an aggressive time frame, staff estimates this process would take
a minimum of 18 months for full entitlements.
2.Build additional facilities at Burlingame. The approvals for the next phase of
Burlingame Ranch Affordable Housing include an allowance for childcare facilities.
No dimensions or specifics, other than contemplating the potential addition of
childcare facilities, is included in the approvals. Staff and our consultant believe a
Planned Development amendment is needed to establish dimensions and a design
for the space. Because this is an amendment, the land use review process could
be slightly shorter than the Yellow Brick option, estimated at a minimum of 12
months. Staff believes most impact fees, as well as affordable housing mitigation,
would be required for this option.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:Any expansion of childcare capacity would impact the
Kids First fund. Kids First Advisory Board continues to consider what changes could be
made in several areas, balancing funding that is effective at reaching our goals with ways
to include additional classrooms and families. The first programs to be evaluated were
the financial aid for families and infant/toddler operational support expenditures, since
they account for the largest sums of funding. Kids First has begun working with the finance
department to create a detailed analysis of the cost to run a quality infant classroom to
determine appropriate levels of funding, and to see if efficiencies may exist in the current
system.
Evaluating the effectiveness of Kids First operational funding is an ongoing process; what
is clear is the Kids First fund, even with reserves, is not able to provide capital funding for
a new building, and continue to support childcare programs, staff, and working families if
additional classrooms are created. That option creates a structural deficit in future for the
Kids First fund.
Without assuming the capital and ongoing maintenance costs of a new building, Kids First
fund can be evaluated annually to maintain operational services that support affordability
of high-quality childcare programs for families and young children.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: We recognize that any future increase in capacity carries
an impact, and this has been a part of the conversation with the larger community group
as they have considered locations that are in Aspen, or out of town (but in the urban
growth boundary); whether there is access to public transportation, even conceptually
about building planning to minimize environmental impacts. This will continue to be an
integral part of the discussion.
6
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:Direction for the Kids First Advisory Board and staff to
pursue the desired short-term option; and continue planning and community engagement
related to the long-term options.
ALTERNATIVES: Alternatively, Kids First Advisory Board and staff could do nothing to
expand capacity; this would have an enormous negative impact on our community,
employers, and families. Kids First Advisory Board and staff could consider other
options for additional childcare space.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Kids First fund budget and long range plan
B. Short term options
C. Long term options
D. Current capacity and birthrate data
E. Alan Richman planning report YB
F. Alan Richman planning report Burlingame
G. Survey results from current childcare programs regarding short term options
H. Proposed floor plan for gym infant classrooms
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
Attachment B – Short Term options for infant space
Concept1: Using the existing Early Learning Center office, room 10, for 1 additional infant room.
Current Situation: The Early Learning Center uses room 10 as their office and staff work space. Early
Learning Center operates 8 other rooms as classrooms. Playgroup uses a smaller office space near the
east end of the building.
Proposed Situation: Playgroup is willing to give up their office space, that is seldom used. Instead using
storage and meeting space in the lower level as needed. The former director at Early Learning Center
offered to give up their office space and use the former Playgroup space for their office, also using some
basement space for storage. This would allow for the use of classroom 10 for one infant room (616 s.f.),
that could serve 8 infants per day.
Time to complete: 3 months
Cost to complete: $10,000 to $20,000
Advantages/opportunities Disadvantages/obstacles
Could happen quickly and allow an existing
program to add one room of infants, serving 8
children a day.
Playgroup loses a main floor office;Early Learning
Center moves to a much smaller space and loses
teacher work space. Early Learning Center
director has less of a presence at the west end of
the building. Early Learning Center board recently
renovated their office space and are unhappy at
being expected to give up the office space.
Cost is the lowest of all short-term options.Somewhat increased building density, additional
parking, potential for increased illness in the
building by adding more children.
Minimal disruption to existing operations.It only increases infant capacity by one room
There is space available in the Yellow brick lower
level for meeting and storage space.
Finding qualified staff is challenging, even for one
room.
Other considerations: Aspen Mountain Tots has tentatively agreed to operate this room, we are
negotiating how we can support staffing.
15
Attachment B – Short Term options for infant space
Concept 2: Using approximately half of the space in the yellow brick building gym for 2 infant rooms.
Current Situation: The existing gym is approximately 2,400 square feet. Children and staff from the
existing 13 classrooms use this space at agreed-upon times throughout the day. Children have the
opportunity for large movement (gross motor) by running, riding bikes, using parachutes, balls, balance
beams and other equipment, even if the weather is not favorable to be outdoors. Licensing does require
a period of outdoor play each day unless the weather is prohibitive. This is a wonderful amenity for the
children and the staff outside of their regular classrooms (most classrooms in the yellow brick building
are approximately 800 s.f.). This space is not included in the lease agreement for childcare programs;
there is no charge to use the space.
Proposed Situation: Two infant rooms, each approximately 600 s.f., would be built in one-half of the
gym space, leaving approximately 1,200 s.f. remaining for large movement space. Storage space in the
existing gym would need to be re-located. This proposal would allow space for 16 infants per day to be
cared for within the existing yellow brick building.
Time to complete:
Cost to complete:
Advantages-positives-gains-opportunities
Reasons to support
Disadvantages-negatives-losses-obstacles
reasons to oppose
16 infants a day could be cared for,so more
parents are able to return to work
Existing programs would see the gym space
reduced by half in size. Storage in the gym would
have to be moved.
Within the existing building space and use Increased building density, additional parking,
potential for increased illness in the building by
adding more children.
Walls, heat and plumbing would need to be part
of the construction, also additional doors. But
this space is across the hall from bathrooms and
kitchen, so infants could be served with only
adding hand-washing sinks.
Construction would impact the gym space for a
period of time, and potentially the entire building
for short periods of time – for example turning
off the water or electricity for the time to
connect the new classrooms.
Rooms will have natural light from skylights No windows, no ability so outside, from either of
these classrooms.
Other considerations: Operating infant rooms, even with Kids First operational support, is a challenging
proposition. Infant care is the most expensive care to provide and is almost never seen as a stand-alone
operation. There are efficiencies when infants, toddlers, and preschoolers are cared for as one larger
program. This would suggest that an existing childcare program in the yellow brick building would be
needed to operate these classrooms. Kids First staff has met with directors and continues to work to
identify a way to work this out to be successful for everyone.
16
Attachment B – Short Term options for infant space
Concept 3: Placing mobile units in the yellow brick park for 2 infant rooms.
Current Situation: The yellow brick park, outside of the childcare playground area is a public park and
includes a basketball court, large green playing area, playground climbing/sliding structure, trees,
benches, and a picnic shelter with tables.
Proposed Situation: Mobile classrooms could be purchased or rented, moved to this space (or other
open space), and used for temporary infant classrooms. Initial research has found 2 different types of
classrooms: mobile – meant to be used for a period of months, for example while construction is going
on for a permanent building), or modular – meant to be more permanent and connected to utilities.
*Mobile classrooms include a finished space, with electricity and HVAC provided, no water or sewer.
They are intended to be transported in and back out, most are above ground, have steps, and are rented
rather than purchased. An example of this was what Aspen Country Day School used during the
construction of their campus. They were rented for about 10 months. This option would not meet
childcare licensing regulations for infants.
*Modular classrooms are more like a permanent building. They are intended to be a faster, less
expensive alternative to a stick-built building. They are constructed, transported onto a site and placed
on a foundation and connected to all utilities. Examples of this are in use at Growing Years in Basalt for
their infant rooms, Little Red Schoolhouse for the toddler room, and at Aspen School District. This could
be considered as a long-term option.
Both types would require land use approvals and permits, and would have to comply with building codes
in the City of Aspen. (Attachment E)
Time to complete: To be determinedwith further research
Cost to complete: To be determined with further research
Advantages-positives-gains-opportunities
Reasons to support
Disadvantages-negatives-losses-obstacles
reasons to oppose
16 infants a day could be cared for so parents are
able to return to work
Time and cost for land use approvals could
exceed current expectations.
A detached classroom would have fewer impacts
on the existing yellow brick classrooms
Neighborhood resistance
Loss of basketball courts and park space for the
community.
A short term solution could preclude the
community willingness to consider more long
term solutions.
Increased traffic and parking concerns in an area
that is already heavily used.
17
Other considerations: Operating infant rooms, even with Kids First operational support, is a challenging
proposition. Infant care is the most expensive care to provide and is almost never seen as a stand-alone
operation. There are efficiencies when infants, toddlers, and preschoolers are cared for as one larger
program. This option would not offer that opportunity.
18
Attachment C – Long Term options for childcare space
Concept: Yellow brick building park/basketball court area for new building
Concept: Burlingame Park Parcel C, Phase 2, Burlingame Ranch Subdivision
These are current options for long term building to accommodate up to 8 classrooms of childcare,
serving approximately 96 children. Both options will require additional public engagement and land use
planning. Kids First plans to request supplemental funding to support these efforts.
Kids First Advisory Board Recommendation: There continues to be demonstrated need for more
childcare capacity for infant, toddler, and preschool ages to meet community demand.
We recommend that Aspen City Council support this continued work. We hope to work with a
city-led community team to construct a childcare building at one of these locations as soon as
possible.
We recommend that Aspen City Council consider public/private partnerships to fund this capital
project, providing leadership in the business and charitable community.
We recommend that the City of Aspen consider changes to the land use code to allow for
development mitigation to support increased childcare capacity; and to recognize the need for
added childcare capacity when new employee housing units are built.
19
Attachment A: Current Capacity and Birthrate Data
For the last 4 years licensed childcare programs have reported enrollment rates for infants averaging 94%, toddler
averaging 97%, and preschoolers averaging 92%. Programs budget typically for 80% and consider anything over
90% to be filled. Spaces are often one-off days that cannot be booked, or the gap between when one child leaves
and another starts. Childcare programs are not really allowed to “overbook”.
Childcare Capacity Average Rates of Enrollment
Number of Births in Pitkin County *Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Birth Rate 123 129 136 169 134
Infant Spaces 34 30 22 22 30
Birth projections from Department of Local Affairs:
80%
85%
90%
95%
100%
105%
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Licensed Capacity - % Filled
infants toddlers preschool
0
50
100
150
200
2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Capacity: Need compared to available space
Birth Rate Infant Spaces
0
50
100
150
200
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
Capacity Need compared to available space
20
2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025
161 163 165 168 170 172 175 178 Birth Rate
30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 Infant Spaces
What we know about the gap – These are births to people who live in Pitkin County.
2017 as an example, we know that 134 babies were born. Using state data, we can assume that at least
62% of those babies have all parents working, that would give us 83 babies needing care. We currently
have 30 licensed spaces per day for infants; that leaves 53 babies not in licensed care, every year. Parents
may work part-time, they may find friends or neighbors to use for childcare, or they may leave their jobs,
possibly even leaving the community. These figures lead us to believe that the need is for 7 to 8
additional classrooms.
*This does not account for families that work in Aspen and use childcare in Aspen, but the children are
not born to Pitkin residents. Currently, we estimate about 18-20% of children served are part of a family
that lives outside Pitkin County.
**There are external factors that could change this – new facilities could be built in neighboring
communities, existing programs could reduce spaces or change the use of their space, an economic
downturn could impact the need for workers and childcare.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Childcare Director - Capacity Survey - 7/23/2019
15 responses from childcare directors and board members, this was not a community
survey.
QUESTION #1
How many children do you currently have on your waitlist?
Infants: Range 1 to 40, 2 programs reporting 40.
Toddlers: Range 5 to 20, 3 programs reporting 15, 15, 20.
Preschoolers: Range 5 to 14, 4 programs reporting 10, 1 reporting 14.
QUESTION #2
What is your reaction to the creation of creating 2 new infant rooms in part of the gym at the Yellow Brick?
This would meet all licensing and quality requirements, it would reduce the gym to about 1,200 square
feet, and it would serve 16 infants a day.
Extremely valuable - 2
Very Valuable - 0
Somewhat valuable - 6
Not so valuable - 4
Not at all valuable - 3
COMMENTS:
For us, most of our families live in Snowmass, so to still have to go into Aspen for infant care, it helps
the families to some degree, but it doesn't solve the problem of it not being in Snowmass.
I think many people find nanny shares for infants, but I think more infant rooms are good. I think it is
important to find someone good to run it. I think it is hard to keep infant teachers-also it would be a
bummer to lose that gym on the other side of things
I would want to know more about how this would impact currently enrolled children in the Yellow
Brick's use of the gym? If the impact is not severe, I would be more amenable. The Yellow Brick is a
hub, and many families are already dropping off older children there, and it is centrally located.
I believe infant care is a great need in this valley. I receive multiple calls a week inquiring about
availability. Families feel very discouraged in such an exciting time.
I am not located within the Red Brick building in Aspen, but I do know that there is a huge need for
infant care and this will serve a very valuable need.
I have held off on responding to this for some time. While I agree that it is worthwhile to add infant, I
see a huge number of issues with adding in the gym. First and foremost, it seems cost ineffective.
There is a room being used as an office that ELC has offered to convert back to infant -this could be
done for very little cost and almost immediately. This would also give everyone the chance to see if
the was fully utilized and there was demand for an additional 8 s per day. I would also be more than
willing to move my downstairs so ELC could have a main floor office. Also, perhaps some of the Kids
First staff who do not need to be on the first floor could also consider moving their offices down
stairs to make an even larger for ELC to occupy. All of this could be done for VERY SMALL fraction of
the cost of conversion of the gym and I am positive the timeline would be much, much shorter which
would provide for infant care more immediately. In addition, I have major concerns regarding density
of children, especially additional infants who cannot be immunized against many illnesses, in the YB.
These babies are annually exposed to so many illnesses that they could otherwise be insulated from, 36
and some of those, like RSV, can be extremely dangerous for the tiny infants that are in care.
Exposure in our shared is inevitable. There are also density concerns from a parking/congestion
perspective. These could both be cured by placing mobile classrooms on the field outside, which is
rarely used by the current childcare programs and the public. Placement here would also allow for
better traffic flow since parents could drop-off/pick-up on that side of the block. I will only list one
additional concern, although I have many (including staffing, the potential itself and how pleasant
that will be for staff and babies to occupy 10 hours/day, how many infants actually need and stay
enrolled, etc.), and that is that all of the other children will be denied an invaluable for gross motor
play throughout the long, cold winters that we are accustomed to. I have heard from KF that this is a
privilege, and I agree. It is a privilege that we have afforded to the children for many years and it is a
privilege that I firmly believe we should continue to afford so long as it is possible. It is not a privilege
for me as a lessee. Anyone who has spent any amount of time with a group of children in the gym
knows just how much the kids love and utilize that. I have already and will continue to reach out to
parents and to the community to express my concerns and I plan to be present at all upcoming
meetings. If there are any other meetings that are open to the public, I would like to be notified.
I think we need more infant just not sure if it should be at the expense of the gym.
The gym is constantly used by the programs in the Yellow Brick and becomes an essential in the
winter for the kids to run around. Making it smaller is not ideal when it is needed so much. The noise
level of the kids in the gym is also something to be considered, if infants are trying to sleep right next
door.
I believe this meets demand with a makeshift approach rather than a meaningful long-term strategy.
It detracts from the so vital to a growing child. It also doesn't solve what happens when needs for
those kids change: when they are not infants, how can their learning needs be meaningfully met?
Yes, it adds infants - but how does this impact existing kids? And what happens to the 16 infants
when they outgrow that room?
The gym is a valuable place for the programs at the yellow brick.
I feel like this change is going to make our amount of children and staff in the Yellow Brick too big,
especially when it comes to containing illness. The gym is part of the appeal of the programs in the
Yellow Brick, and many parents choose to come here because of the ability to have a place to move
around in an indoor during the 9 months out of the year that we have inclement weather. I think that
there is a great need for infant, but that there are better solutions than overcrowding an already
crowded building. I also have concerns about the lack of parking for staff, parking for drop-offs and
pick-ups, and staff (such a toilets) for adding additional people into the building. We are also already
working with very old and fragile plumbing and I could see that becoming an issue.
What about our kids' gym time?? Not ok!
I would be most interested in a classroom that met the highest quality level of an ITERS rating and
that would include a playground adjacent to the classroom, intentionally placed
handwashing/diapering sinks, sound absorbing walls to eliminate the surrounding sounds, ADA
accessible doorways/ entryway/ and to comfortably maneuver around the classroom. ability to
control the light from the natural lights/skylights, in classroom storage. Consider built in permanent
furniture to make the most of the limited space, the leftover gym is more than sufficient for the
current tenants to use for gross motor- what are the proposed provisions for toy storage? If this plan
were a temporary inexpensive fix that could be immediate it would make sense, but if the plan is still
2-3 years out then it would be more prudent to find a location that could contain all ages in a high-
quality structure rather than what seems like a band aid effect.
PLEASE DO NOT take the gym from the YB children, DO NOT reduce their valuable play at all.
37
QUESTION #3
What is your reaction to using modular units, possibly at the Yellow Brick Park Basketball Courts to create
2 infant childcare classrooms? This could also meet all licensing and quality requirements and would serve
16 infants a day.
Extremely valuable - 3
Very valuable - 4
Somewhat valuable - 4
Not so valuable - 2
Not at all valuable - 1
COMMENTS:
I would want to know more about the modular units, and poll parents to ensure they would be
accepting for their infants. I would guess neighbors would be worried about the aesthetics. I really
have no idea how much use the basketball courts get, but it adds to the feeling of being "open".
Again, it is a good, central location, with older children often being dropped off as well.
It would be a bummer to lose the basketball courts as I think they are used.
Our infant center is located in a modular building and we have been able to create a very
comfortable and home-like environment for our children.
I think this option could be much more valuable and a much better option for all involved, but as
proposed above, I would suggest using the field. The basketball courts are used so often by the public
and the schools and the field sits vacant.
Not sure how much use the basketball court gets used but I don’t use it. So it’s fine with me to take it
over.
I can't imagine the local neighbors would allow modular units outside on the courts.
This will never happen in Aspen with historical regulations. It also doesn’t meet the needs when
those 16 are older.
Short sighted solution without a long-term plan. Where will these kids go to play - or are they in the
trailer for ten hours each day?
I think that building out modulars and a playground space on the grass area outside of the Yellow
Brick is a great option for adding additional space. One of the programs that does not offer infant
care could easily enjoy this space for their program, opening up more infant space inside of the
building. This could also open up another space on the four streets for parking for drop off and pick
up but the grass. I do think if any additional childcare is taking place on this building, we really need
to push for the area around it to be seen as a school zone, and to get pelican crossings and flashing
lights on the streets around the building.
There is not enough infant care in the valley.
Why are you doing this? Taking away basketball ball courts?? Not a good idea.
I think this is a more reasonable option given that you can purchase a modular and tailor it to your
needs. A program would have direct access to playgrounds etc- This could be done well with good
planning and doesn't have to look like a "trailer court". It also seems like a faster fix and could be
considered temporary while a larger scale permanent plan was implemented.
Much better alternative than the Gym.
38
QUESTION #4
Is there another idea or location that you have thought of as a short-term way of meeting the need for
infant childcare space?
If you're thinking modules, why not here in Snowmass somewhere.
Unfortunately, not.
Burlingame? This used to a place of interest??
If/when we create a new space, I would hope to include a 2nd infant room.
We have an extra room within the Red Brick building that we are considering turning into another
room for Growing Years School.
Old art museum
I heard the Fire Dept were trying to make something happen at the AABC? but perhaps that is more
long term. how about the Old Aspen Art Museum Building?!
Downvalley
Basement of yellow brick.
I am more than happy to have a conversation about where we could move the ELC office in the
upstairs space at the Yellow Brick so that we can move on of our classrooms into this space and open
up space for Dawn to open a classroom if it saves our children's gross motor space. I would still need
room for a staff lounge/workspace and a workspace for the administration.
I really wish that Aspen has a special location as an Early Childhood center that can accommodate the
nerds of not only Aspen residents by especially working parents from down valley.
Having property donated to build a school. It is Aspen and I'm sure we could get funded
The Burlingame Commons, or another type of common space that is being underused and could be
renovated quickly and cheaply. The fire dept is considering daycare as an option at the ABC facility-
maybe there could be a collaboration?
Utilize the current Programming Offices at the YB, relocating their offices to the existing basement
area.
QUESTION #5
If infant classrooms were created in the near future, what is your level of interest in operating one or two
infant classrooms?
Extremely interested - 0
Very interested - 1
Somewhat interested - 7
Not so interested - 4
Not at all interested - 2
COMMENTS:
I don't know how logical it would be for us to have a satellite of infant classes somewhere else other
than Snowmass for us. Parents will still have to go into town. They are interested more in the
location for us than the name.
We operate a school bus to and from our facility, and we could not transport infants (and with our
land lease from the Forest Service, we cannot add any additional classrooms to our facility).
I enjoy having a small school, but I could run a successful infant program - love those babies. I would
have to run it similar to Woody creek kids because I have seen that my schedule and philosophy has
kept staff and increased number of families 39
I am not sure it would be possible to run an offsite location. Also, I worry about staffing the rooms.
I may have some interest in operating a room for the short-term. I have a huge number of families
with infants that would like care (at the hours/days that I currently offer) and I would consider
something while my own and my staff's children are still young.
Hard to staff. Those classes lose money. Where do these kids go as they get older?
Those infant classes come at the highest cost to us and are difficult to staff as always.
Entirely depends on long term plan.
At the moment our Board of Directors would like to focus on our strategic plan and the goals that we
are working on to improve our current program. We do not see expanding our program as part of
this plan, especially because we are already running a large infant program.
I would be interested. Given the current climate of employment and the extreme challenges of hiring
and retaining high-quality infant staff, I would be concerned about being able to fill the staffing slots.
There is also a great concern about the cost of infant care; startup and ongoing operation of an infant
facility.
Very onerous and cost prohibitive, this is where KF funding would be useful for families and
providers. Problem is it comes at a cost to providers, layered rules and bureaucracy. High staff
turnover = lower quality for the babies. Consistency is key!
QUESTION #6
What incentives or support would you need from Kids First and the City of Aspen to make this a reality?
Startup funding would be helpful but not necessary - possibly infant subsidy
Speaking to the school district.
I'm unsure.
Make sure the class is profitable and that we have a place to put the kids in as they get older
More monetary incentives to level out the costs it takes for the infant rooms
I think space elsewhere would be more meaningful.
Have a meeting and we all can discuss this. Family, board members and etc I feel like this is not going
to be a good idea. We can't take away gym space
By my bookkeeper's calculations even if we were gifted rent at $10K annually and received 20K in INF
subsidy grant, even with seven infants a day, we'd come up short about 60K. The City would do
better to run the facility and absorb the costs better than any small/large childcare program could.
Intentional training of infant staff specific to licensing, CO Shines and the program's philosophy- we
can't keep serving the infants with the least qualified staff otherwise we are continuing to perpetuate
the cycle of babysitting instead of elevating childcare to the level of early education.
Happy to share if interested in hearing.
40
QUESTION #7
We understand this is a complicated issue and there is much more to consider. Timing, staffing, how
children move up, and more. Know that we are just considering the first step of this process, that we will
continue to communicate with you, and that we really need to hear from your perspective. Is there
anything else you want to tell us? Thank you!
This is a complicated issue, with many things to consider, and I for one appreciate being approached.
Looking at birth numbers and tracking enrollment (and long-term needs) is so important, so thank
you for your efforts in using data gathered by being a child care resource center!
I clearly have not been at meetings in the last three years so really am out of touch with everything
but am always interested to help. I also think an infant should not be open 10 hours a day- children
and staff needs need to be taken into consideration. You want to have these new infant rooms have
consistent staff and continuity for the kids
I think this is a great step! *When parents call, I am also honest with them and explain we will most
likely not have a spot until their child is 3. Often times parents do not want to get on the waiting list,
therefore the number could be larger.
Loading the ELC with infant rooms that people just use until they can get into the other programs is
not ideal. Other programs should also provide infant care so that continuity of care can exist across
several programs.
Childcare is extremely important for this community - which is tied in with housing and labor on a
local level. Has there been any discussion with the city to do an addition to the yellow brick? Seems
like with all the money laying around they could push something through for the community.
I feel like there are a lot of people who are impacted and invested in the building out of the gym
(teachers, parents, children), and want to know if there is going to be a public forum with the council
where they can go to ask questions and get information if it is going to move forward. I do have
concerns about the amount of people that are already occupying this building and the thought of
adding more. I am also concerned with all of our programs being at 95-100% capacity at all ages
where these infants will go when they age out of the infant rooms, especially with the projected
Aspen birth rate staying high. I also think that there needs to be more discussions on how these
classrooms are going to be staffed without it being at the expense of current programs who have
spent a long time raising up ECTs in their programs. It is easy to hire assistants and aids into
programs, but when a program hires an ECT it is typically at the expense of another program losing a
teacher. I think that there could be a training program happening now where current programs are
being given a grant to have an additional staff member in the infant classrooms to train them up and
get them through the necessary classes and experience to be ECT's when additional space opens.
Very disappointed, you guys should use the money to build a teacher's lounge or a bathroom.
It feels like the current programs understand the need for community infant care. The parents are
telling us every day their challenges for care for their young. However, the current programs are
maxed out or burned out and are fighting an uphill battle to answer and maintain the call for
increasing quality. Most program directors will say that they have done it and won't do it again or
that there's no way they'd ever try it because they understand the financial impacts of
offering/facilitating infant care. I think it needs to be approached from an entirely new perspective
and management to be successful.
Happy to share if interested in hearing.
41
Project:Kids First Subject: Value Analysis Date:8/15/2019All areas assumed from existing drawings provided by the City of Aspen. Infant Rooms1,280SFAssumes painted drywall walls, level 4; ceiling grid with LED flush mount lighting, carpet and vinyl sheet flooring.120SFCorridor remodel to accommodate new doors and removal of old doors.1,400SFTotal gross floor areaConstruction Range Estimates$ / SF$350,000SF$250 / SFEstimated Soft Costs, Fees, Etc. (15% on the high side):$52,50015%Includes permit, design, and GC fees. Total Project Costs Range:$402,500Assumes that no building mechancial needs to be replaced but rather these spaces could have new ductwork feed to them. Assumes no expansion of fire suppression system.42
43
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager, and
Michelle Bonfils Thibeault, Capital Asset Project Manager
THROUGH: Scott Miller and Sara Ott, City Manager’s Office
MEMO DATE: August 16, 2019
MEETING DATE: August 20, 2019
RE: Community Outreach Schedule / Affordable Housing Developments
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Update and potential for further Council input
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On June 11, 2019, Council directed staff to move forward
with community outreach for three affordable housing developments: Burlingame Ranch Phase
III, the Lumberyard and Water Place II.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: On June 24, 2019, Council approved contracts for
community outreach and design with 359 Design for the Burlingame Ranch Phase III and Water
Place II projects and with DHM Design for the Lumberyard project.
DISCUSSION: Staff has been working with the contracted design teams and have created the
attached collateral materials to help the community understand a basic overview of each of the
projects currently in process.
There are many ways for community members to get involved and let their voices be heard in these
concurrent outreach and design processes. The project team(s) have recently been “popping up” at
community events such as the Aspen Saturday market and the community picnic as well as at the
entrance to Builders First Choice at the lumberyard site and at Burlingame Ranch.
Those type of “pop-up” activities will continue and allow people to provide their input in an ad-
hoc manner at the time. Community members can take a survey at one of those pop-ups or simply
allow the project team to write down whatever their comments, concerns or ideas may be.
And whether from the comfort of their home or using a mobile device on the go, community
members can navigate to www.aspencommunityvoice.com where they can review project
information and provide feedback via an online survey – the process just takes a few minutes!
Additional upcoming activities are shown in the schedules below, and staff is excited to announce
that there will be a community open house at the Limelight Hotel on September 19, 6-9pm. The
event is scheduled to be a more ‘traditional’ open house style social event for all three of these
projects, and food and beverages will be available.
44
Page 2 of 2
Additional upcoming activities are shown below, but stay tuned for more information as we move
forward with these important community projects.
RECOMMENDATION/ALTERNATIVES: Staff welcomes feedback and ideas from City
Council to enhance these community input activities
ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Collateral Materials
45
City of Aspen Affordable Housing Developments
A strong and diverse year-round community and a viable
and healthy local workforce are fundamental cornerstones
for the sustainability of the Aspen Area community. The
City of Aspen is commiƩ ed to opening doors and creaƟ ng
opportuniƟ es for its workforce, ciƟ zens and the overall
community to thrive.
To support our eff orts of developing more aff ordable
housing, we are conducƟ ng widespread community
outreach to hear stakeholder and community input
related to the design of Water Place II and for potenƟ al
improvements to the remaining work at Burlingame.
Why is this important?
Background
Responding to the recent Greater Roaring Fork Regional
Housing Study, the City of Aspen now has four aff ordable
housing development projects underway!
• Burlingame Phase III, the fi nal phase of the Burlingame
Ranch master plan will bring 79 new 1-, 2-, and 3-
bedroom for-sale condo units.
• Water Place Phase II, the second phase of the Water
Place City employee housing development. The project
is just entering iniƟ al design eff orts and is expected to
begin construcƟ on in 2021.
• Lumber Yard, future housing development located in
the ABC. Ongoing community outreach eff orts will
inform conceptual design ideas which are expected
to be presented to City Council this fall. AddiƟ onal
outreach will further the chosen conceptual design in
2020 with land use enƟ tlements beginning in 2021.
• Aspen Housing Partners, aŌ er several years of
community outreach eff orts, three locaƟ ons are
currently under construcƟ on: AHP Main Street, AHP
Park Circle, AHP Castle Creek.
Outreach schedule: Burlingame + Water Place
www.aspencommunityvoice.com 970.925.2855 Ext. 3reilly@bendonadams.com
Saturday market: Project Information27th
Listening Post @ Burlingame Bus Stop 4-6pm7th
Info gathering with Burlingame Residents, HOAAugust
City of Aspen Staff Barbecue @ Connor Park
12-1pm16th
City Council Check-In: Burlingame + Water
Place 5pm20th
Community Open House @ Limelight Hotel
6-9pm: Conceptual Design Presentations19th
July
Listening Post @ Aspen Ped Mall 11-1pm6th
August
Listening Post @ Castle Ridge Bus Stop 4-6pm8th
ACRA Board Presentation27th
Water Place: External stakeholder meetings 27-31st
Community Picnic @ Red Brick Center
for the Arts 4:30-7pm14th
Water Place Site Tour: City Staff 3-5pmTBD
September
Check us out online! Project informaƟ on, detailed event
scheduling, and surveys will available on our project
pages at www.aspencommunityvoice.com starƟ ng August
14th. Want to aƩ end an event? QuesƟ ons? Contact Reilly
Thimons at reilly@bendonadams.com.
Have your say!
City of Aspen Staff Lunch and Learn:
Conceptual Design PresentationsTBD
Saturday market: Conceptual Design
Presentations21st
City Council Check-In: Burlingame + Water
Place 5pm24th
Water Place: Ongoing internal stakeholder
meetings
8.12-
9.12
Neighborhood Meeting @ Burlingame27th
46
City of Aspen Affordable Housing Development – The Lumberyard
Background
Responding to the recent Greater Roaring Fork Regional
Housing Study, the City of A spen now has four affordable
housing development projects underway!
• Burlingame Phase III, the final phase of the Burlingame
Ranch master plan will bring 79 new 1-, 2-, and 3-
bedroom for-sale condo units.
• Water Place Phase II, the second phase of the Water
Place Cit y employee housing development. The project is
just entering initial design effor ts and is expected to begin
construction in 2021.
• Lumber Yard, future housing development located near
the AABC. Early outreach effor ts will inform conceptual
design alternatives which will be presented to City
Council this fall. Additional outreach will occur in 2020
for further vetting of conceptual design alternatives
with land use entitlements planned for 2021 .
• Aspen Housing Par tners, after several years of
community outreach effor ts, three locations are
currently under constructi on: AHP Main Street, AHP
Park Circle, AHP Castle Creek.
Why is this important?
A strong and diverse year-round community and a viable
and healthy local work force are fundamental cornerstones
for the sustainability of the A spen Area community. The City
of Aspen is committed to opening doors and creating
opportunities for its workforce, citizens and the overall
communit y to thrive.
To suppor t our effor ts of developing more affordable
housing, we are conduc ting widespread communit y
outreach to hear stakeholder and communit y input
related to the design of Water Place II and for potential
improvements to the remaining work at Burlingame.
Have your say!
Check us out online! Project information, detailed event
scheduling, and sur veys will available on our project
pages at www.aspencommunity voice.com starting August
14th. Want to attend an event? Questions? Contact
chris.everson@cityofaspen.com
Outreach Summary Schedule – Lumberyard
July
1st Key Stakeholder Engagement: Interviews Begin
27th Saturday Market: Process Introduction
August
31-Jan Key Stakeholder Engagement: Interviews Continue
14th Community Picnic @ Red Brick: Public Input
14th Launch www.aspencommunityvoice.com
20th City Council Work Session: Schedule Update
24th Saturday Market: Public Input
September
1-30 Key Stakeholder Engagement: Interviews Continue
TBD Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #1
7th Saturday Market: Public Input
16th Key Stakeholder Emails and Interviews Complete
19th Community Open House @ Limelight Hotel
24th City Council Work Session: Outreach Update #1
October
1st Update to www.aspencommunityvoice.com
TBD Key Stakeholder Work Session
TBD Technical Advisory Committee Meeting #2
TBD Community Open House #2
Nov - Dec MORE TO COME – STAY TUNED!
47
5HVSRQGLQJWRWKHUHFHQW*UHDWHU5RDULQJ)RUN5HJLRQDO+RXVLQJ6WXG\WKH&LW\RI$VSHQQRZKDVIRXUDႇRUGDEOHKRXVLQJGHYHORSPHQWSURMHFWVXQGHUZD\$ႇRUGDEOH+RXVLQJ'HYHORSPHQW%XUOLQJDPH3KDVH,,, )RU6DOH&RQGRV3LWNLQ&RXQW\:RUNIRUFH :DWHU3ODFH,,&LW\(PSOR\HH+RXVLQJ 7%'±XQLWVIRU&LW\HPSOR\HHV /XPEHU<DUG)XWXUH+RXVLQJ'HYHORSPHQW 7%'8QLWV3LWNLQ&RXQW\:RUNIRUFH $VSHQ+RXVLQJ3DUWQHUV $ႇRUGDEOH5HQWDO8QLWV3LWNLQ&RXQW\:RUNIRUFH ƉƉƌŽǀĞĚŝŶϮϬϭϭKƵƚƌĞĂĐŚĞǀĞŶƚƐŬŝĐŬŝŶŐŽīƐŽŽŶ͗ƵŐƵƐƚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚKĐƚŽďĞƌKƵƚƌĞĂĐŚǁŝůůďĞĨŽĐƵƐĞĚŽŶƉŽƚĞŶƟĂůŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐdĞĂŵǁŝůůĐŽůůĞĐƚĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬĂŶĚǁŽƌŬǁŝƚŚŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůŽŶƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚĚĞƐŝŐŶŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐtŽƌŬŝŶŐƚŽƐƚĂLJǁŝƚŚŝŶĂƉƉƌŽǀĂůƐĂŶĚŝŶĐŽƌƉŽƌĂƚĞŝŶĐƌĞŵĞŶƚĂůŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐǁŚĞƌĞƉŽƐƐŝďůĞϮϬϭϵŽŵƉůĞƚĞƚŚĞƉƌŽĐĞƐƐƚŽŝĚĞŶƟĨLJƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚŝŵƉƌŽǀĞŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚŐŽͲĂŚĞĂĚϮϬϮϬĞƚĂŝůĞĚĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶĚĞŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ͕ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉĞƌŵŝƚƐϮϬϮϭŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶŽĨϳϵŶĞǁĂīŽƌĚĂďůĞϭͲ͕ϮͲĂŶĚϯͲďĞĚƌŽŽŵĨŽƌͲƐĂůĞĐŽŶĚŽŵŝŶŝƵŵƐŝŶmŽĚĞƌĂƚĞͲĂŶĚŵŝĚĚůĞͲŝŶĐŽŵĞůĞǀĞůƐĨŽƌWŝƚŬŝŶŽƵŶƚLJǁŽƌŬĨŽƌĐĞŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂůĚĞƐŝŐŶƐŚĂǀĞŶŽƚLJĞƚďĞĞŶĐƌĞĂƚĞĚKƵƚƌĞĂĐŚĞǀĞŶƚƐŬŝĐŬŝŶŐŽīƐŽŽŶ͗ƵŐƵƐƚƚŚƌŽƵŐŚKĐƚŽďĞƌKƵƚƌĞĂĐŚǁŝůůďĞĨŽĐƵƐĞĚŽŶŝŶǀŽůǀŝŶŐƚŚĞĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŝŶĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂůĚĞƐŝŐŶƐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŝŶƉƵƚǁŝůůďĞƉƌŝŽƌŝƟnjĞĚďĂƐĞĚŽŶŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůĚŝƌĞĐƟŽŶŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂůĚĞƐŝŐŶǁŝůůƉƌŽĐĞĞĚďĂƐĞĚƵƉŽŶĚŝƌĞĐƟŽŶĨƌŽŵŽƵŶĐŝůϮϬϮϬŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽƵƚƌĞĂĐŚƚŽƐĞůĞĐƚĂŶĚĨƵƌƚŚĞƌŚŽŶĞƚŚĞĐŚŽƐĞŶĐŽŶĐĞƉƚƵĂůĚĞƐŝŐŶϮϬϮϭͲϮϬϮϮĞƐŝŐŶ͕>ĂŶĚhƐĞ ŶƟƚůĞŵĞŶƚƐ͕ ŶŐŝŶĞĞƌŝŶŐ͕WůĂŶŶĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƌĞĐŽƌĚŝŶŐϮϬϮϯͲϮϬϮϰŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶĚŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐ͕ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉĞƌŵŝƚƐϮϬϮϱŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶͲƉƌŽŐƌĂŵĂŶĚƵŶŝƚŵŝdžd͕WŝƚŬŝŶŽƵŶƚLJtŽƌŬĨŽƌĐĞϮϬϭϴŽƵŶĐŝůĚŝƌĞĐƚĞĚ^ƚĂīƚŽĐŽŶĚƵĐƚĂĨĞĂƐŝďŝůŝƚLJĂŶĂůLJƐŝƐŽĨƚŚĞƐŝƚĞĨŽƌĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞŚŽƵƐŝŶŐ&ŽĐƵƐŽŶŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝƚLJƐƚĂīƚŽďĞƐƚƐĞƌǀĞĞŵĞƌŐĞŶĐLJƐĞƌǀŝĐĞƐ͕ƌĞƚĂŝŶŚŝŐŚƋƵĂůŝƚLJŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůĞŵƉůŽLJĞĞƐĂŶĚǁĂůŬͲƚŚĞͲƚĂůŬŽĨĞŵƉůŽLJĞƌƉƌŽǀŝĚĞĚŚŽƵƐŝŶŐLJƚŚĞŝƚLJŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝƚƐŽǁŶƐƚĂī͕ŝƚŝƐƌĞůŝĞǀŝŶŐƚŚĞƉƌĞƐƐƵƌĞŽŶƚŚĞŐĞŶĞƌĂůŚŽƵƐŝŶŐŝŶǀĞŶƚŽƌLJ:ƵŶĞϮϬϭϵŝƚLJĐŽŶƚƌĂĐƚĞĚĂŶĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĞƚĞĂŵƚŽďĞŐŝŶƚŚĞϮͲLJĞĂƌĚĞƐŝŐŶĂŶĚĞŶƟƚůĞŵĞŶƚƉƌŽĐĞƐƐϰ͘ϳϱĂĐƌĞƐŽŶƚŚĞŶŽƌƚŚĞŶĚŽĨƚŚĞнͬͲϰϵĂĐƌĞtĂƚĞƌ&ĂĐŝůŝƟĞƐƉƌŽƉĞƌƚLJŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶƚŽƐƚĂƌƚϮϬϮϭdŚƌĞĞůŽĐĂƟŽŶƐĐƵƌƌĞŶƚůLJƵŶĚĞƌĐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƟŽŶKĐĐƵƉĂŶĐLJƉůĂŶŶĞĚĨŽƌϮŶĚƋƵĂƌƚĞƌϮϬϮϬ^ƵŵŵĞƌϮϬϭϱ͕ĮƌƐƚƌŽƵŶĚŽĨĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽƵƚƌĞĂĐŚŽĐĐƵƌƌĞĚ ĂƌůLJϮϬϭϳ͕ƐĞĐŽŶĚƌŽƵŶĚŽĨĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJŽƵƚƌĞĂĐŚŽĐĐƵƌƌĞĚŝƚLJŽĨƐƉĞŶƌĞƐƉŽŶĚĞĚƐŝŐŶŝĮĐĂŶƚůLJƚŽŶĞŝŐŚďŽƌŚŽŽĚĨĞĞĚďĂĐŬĂŶĚŝŶƉƵƚdŽƚĂůŽĨϰϱůŽŶŐͲƚĞƌŵƌĞŶƚĂůƵŶŝƚƐĨŽƌWŝƚŬŝŶŽƵŶƚLJǁŽƌŬĨŽƌĐĞDŝdžŽĨůŽǁͲ͕ŵŽĚĞƌĂƚĞͲ͕ĂŶĚŵŝĚĚůĞͲŝŶĐŽŵĞƵŶŝƚƐĂǀĂŝůĂďůĞ>ŽĐĂƚĞĚĂƚϱϭϳWĂƌŬŝƌĐůĞ;ϭϭͿ͕ϴϬϮtĞƐƚDĂŝŶ^ƚƌĞĞƚ;ϭϬͿ͕ĂŶĚϰϴϴĂƐƚůĞƌĞĞŬZĚ;ϮϰͿ$VWURQJDQGGLYHUVH\HDUURXQGFRPPXQLW\DQGDYLDEOHDQGKHDOWK\ORFDOZRUNIRUFHDUHIXQGDPHQWDOFRUQHUVWRQHVIRUWKHVXVWDLQDELOLW\RIWKH$VSHQ$UHDFRPPXQLW\7KH&LW\RI$VSHQLVFRPPLWWHGWRLQYHVWLQJLQRSHQLQJGRRUVDQGFUHDWLQJRSSRUWXQLWLHVIRULWVZRUNIRUFHFLWL]HQVDQGWKHRYHUDOOFRPPXQLW\WRWKULYH48
Projectswww.aspencommunityvoice.com970.925.2855 Ext. 3reilly@bendonadams.comŐƉϮϬϭϬ ϮϬϭϭ ϮϬϭϮ ϮϬϭϯ ϮϬϭϰ ϮϬϭϱ ϮϬϭϲ ϮϬϭϳ ϮϬϭϴ ϮϬϭϵ ϮϬϭϵ ϮϬϮϬ ϮϬϮϭ ϮϬϮϮ ϮϬϮϯ ϮϬϮϰ ϮϬϮϱ ϮϬϮϲƵƌůŝŶŐĂŵĞWŚĂƐĞ//ŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJKƵƚƌĞĂĐŚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƉƌŽǀĂůƵŝůĚŝŶŐWĞƌŵŝƚƐŽŶƐƚ͘ĐĐĞƐƐΘ/ŶĨƌĂƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶWŚĂƐĞ//KĐĐƵƉĂŶĐLJŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJKƵƚƌĞĂĐŚŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJKƵƚƌĞĂĐŚŽŶƐƚ͘ŽĐƐͬůĚŐ͘WĞƌŵŝƚƐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶWŚĂƐĞ//KĐĐƵƉĂŶĐLJ>ƵŵďĞƌzĂƌĚŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJKƵƚƌĞĂĐŚŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJKƵƚƌĞĂĐŚŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJKƵƚƌĞĂĐŚĞƐŝŐŶĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƉƉƌŽǀĂůŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶŽĐƵŵĞŶƚƐƵŝůĚŝŶŐWĞƌŵŝƚƐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ KĐĐƵƉĂŶĐLJtĂƚĞƌWůĂĐĞ//ŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJKƵƚƌĞĂĐŚŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJKƵƚƌĞĂĐŚĞǀ͘ƉƉƌŽǀĂůͬůĚŐ͘WĞƌŵŝƚƐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ KĐĐƵƉĂŶĐLJ,WZĞŶƚĂůƐŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶŽŵŵƵŶŝƚLJKƵƚƌĞĂĐŚŝƚLJŽƵŶĐŝůŝƌĞĐƚŝŽŶKƵƚƌĞĂĐŚΘĞǀƉƉƌŽǀĂůƵŝůĚŝŶŐWĞƌŵŝƚƐŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ ŽŶƐƚƌƵĐƚŝŽŶ KĐĐƵƉĂŶĐLJĐƚƵĂůWůĂŶŶĞĚLumber YardBurlingame 3AHP Castle CreekWater Place 2AHP Main StreetAHP Park Circle49