HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.joint.20140304
CITY COUNCIL & JOINT WORK SESSION
March 04, 2014
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Pitkin County Board of Health
II. Centennial Units
1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
SPECIAL MEETING DATE: March 4, 2014
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: City of Aspen Representation on the Pitkin County Board of
Health
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Nan Sundeen, Liz Stark
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) desire a conversation with the City of Aspen about City
representation on an expanded Pitkin County Board of Health.
BACKGROUND:
Since 2009, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) serves as the Board of Health (BOH) for Pitkin
County, and the City Council serves as the BOH for the City of Aspen. In September 2013, City of
Aspen, Pitkin County and Community Health Services staff participated in a joint City/County Board of
Health meeting and received general approval to move forward with the concept of dissolving the City of
Aspen Board of Health in order to establish one Pitkin County Board of Health. The City of Aspen is
scheduled to take this action in mid-March. The Board of County Commissioners have expressed a
willingness to take on at least one new BOH member from City of Aspen and one from the Town of
Snowmass Village (2 total). The BOCC will solicit recommendations from the City of Aspen and Town
of Snowmass Village for expanded BOH membership. Attachment A includes Local Boards of Health
Powers and Responsibilities to inform the discussion today.
Once the Pitkin BOH approves the two municipality representatives, staff will draft a resolution
establishing the Pitkin County Board of Health with seven members. Then staff will set up a joint
strategic prioritization session between the BOH and Community Health Services board of directors. This
is in an effort to increase collaboration between the two boards and maximize the expertise from each
board to address public health issues in Pitkin County. Staff would like this joint meeting to take place by
July 2014.
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN:
Livable and Supportive Community- Self Sufficient Individuals and Families
Prosperous Economy – Affordable and quality health care options
KEY DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Confirm plan for identifying representation from the City of Aspen to an expanded Pitkin County
Board of Health
BUDGETARY IMPACT: None at this time.
RECOMMENDED BOH ACTION: None at this time
ATTACHMENTS: A) ’Local Boards of Health Powers and Duties’ from the Colorado Public Health
Act Executive Summary.
P1
I.
P2
I.
Page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Steve Barwick, City Manager
Jon Peacock, County Manager
FROM: R. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director
DATE: February 19, 2014
MEETING DATE: March 4, 2014
RE: Centennial Issues
Executive Summary:
Since the summer of 2009 when the Centennial HOA and their attorney brought to the city and the
county’s attention water intrusion issues at Centennial, the city has been working with the HOA
to identify and understand the scope of their problem and determine how to fix that problem and
how much that might cost. There is now agreement that the problems involve approximately a
total of $3.24 million in repairs needed to stop water intrusion, replace siding/damage and correct
drainage deficiencies. The consultant (Athen Builders) suggest that this should be done over a
period of 6 years, although what is necessary is a repair project of some $2.1 million over the next
three to four years (attic, roof, flashing, decks, entryways on the north side of the buildings, other
waterproofing details and siding on the southern aspects and return elevations east and west), then
an investment of $1.1 million over a longer period of time – probably as much as 10 years (the
northern aspects issues).
The process to date has included:
The HOA employing the firm of Resource Engineering Group, Inc. and DS Consulting to
examine the problem and issue a report and recommendations.
In early 2010 the City agreed to provide interim project management services to assist the
HOA/APCHA/City of Aspen/Pitkin County team in expanding the overall evaluation. The
City requested, received, and executed a proposal from Building Science Corporation (BSC),
a Boston based engineering and architecture firm with extensive experience in building
mechanics, systems, and water management. BSC has conducted numerous forensic
examinations and prepared evaluations and solutions for moisture damaged buildings.
P3
II.
Page 2
Included as part of the BSC evaluation was a three page report from Michael V. Van Dyke,
PhD, from National Jewish Health (NJH) in Denver (engaged at the recommendation of the
City Environmental Health Department). He had provided visual inspection of mold presence
and extent, and had reviewed one document from DS Consulting (the Centennial HOA
retained mold assessment firm). The City Asset staff had provided Dr. Van Dyke with the
information it had thus received from the Centennial HOA and management.
Building Science Corporation (City of Aspen consultant), and Resource Engineering Group
(Centennial consultant) collaborated and agreed on a general repair strategy. This revised
strategy was more extensive and more expensive than that initially recommended by BSC. It
went beyond normal standards for building repair and allows for the building owner to install
a new and complete building wrap over 100% of the exterior wall assemblies, detailed a
moisture drainage plane, and new cladding.
In 2013, Athen Builders was engaged to conduct a thorough cost estimate of the repairs agreed
to by the city project management staff and the Centennial HOA. As discussed in the first
paragraph, the Athen Report has identified a total of $3,243,813 in repairs needed to stop
water intrusion, replace siding/damage and correct drainage deficiencies.
The direction from the elected officials has been consistent over time. It includes:
Provide technical assistance and help them get started with the BSC recommendation to begin
repairs with a few units or a few walls so you can really see what is going on behind the
cladding and get a better estimate on projected costs.
Do not negotiate with the HOA over government assistance to pay for the repairs.
Get an estimate on an agreed upon scope of work from an agreed upon contractor and report
back on the results.
In meetings with the HOA this past fall, the HOA proposes a variety of options, most of which are
designed to be so onerous as to not be considered serious options. Their most desired outcome is
for the city to assume $2.4 million of the $3.2 million cost or 74% of the cost burden – with the
HOA taking care of the remaining $800K.
The latest cost estimate for repairs and rehabilitation of the Centennial buildings appears to staff to be
within the ability of residents to pay for. We have recommended an approach where some $2.1 million
be funded for more immediate repairs and the remainder of approximately $900K be funded over
time from the annual contributions they are currently making for capital reserves ($90K per year).
With some $3.6 million in already realized appreciation (and undoubtedly more in equity from paying
down mortgage debt over the years) – most of the residents are able to tap into their equity to pay a
cash assessment that ranges from $13K (for a studio unit) to just more than $38K for the 3-bedroom
units (assuming the assessment is allocated on a square foot basis).
For those who lack such equity, the HOA should be able to secure a loan from a local lender and
allow those owners to pay back their assessment over time.
If the elected officials so desire, a loan program using government funds can be created under
conditions we would recommend and for which a more general capital reserve policy may be
fashioned.
P4
II.
Page 3
The government entities should also be able to help with energy efficiency upgrades that the HOA
and unit owners may wish make and for which loans/rebates can be found and made available.
Background:
The Centennial complex consists of two legally separate segments, one consisting of 148 category
three, deed restricted rental units and the other consisting of 92 category four, deed restricted
ownership units. They were constructed in 1985 and both segments use the same design, stick built
materials, and layout and they are located on the same site at the base of Smuggler Mountain.
The values/principles that have driven the staff effort and the Council/BOCC direction to-date are:
The community has provided a subsidy for workforce/community housing so that our
community can accommodate working class people in an otherwise priced-out housing
market. This effort creates an opportunity for workers to be able to afford to live in the
community they work in. The subsidy was meant to provide for affordable rents and
affordable housing purchase prices.
The cost of home ownership includes the need to maintain the unit you have purchased – the
community’s responsibility has been to subsidize the purchase price, not provide for upkeep
of one’s home.
The interest of the community in maintaining affordability into the future is provided for in
the system of category pricing and in the deed restriction that limits future price appreciation.
This limitation does not prohibit owners from maintaining their investments, nor make that
investment unaffordable.
Deed restrictions allow for only a certain level of appreciation and have matched free market
appreciation over recent history.
Any decisions to subsidize the cost of maintaining one’s home ownership investment must be
made in light of the precedent-setting condition it would create. If failure to maintain one’s
housing investment is seen as a responsibility of the government, other owners will quickly
follow suit – they will cease making their own investment in home maintenance and soon
enough come to the government and ask the government to do that for them.
Government can help owners by providing assistance, advice and direction – but not by taking
over their responsibilities for them.
2009 - 2010
On August 8th, 2009 selected city staff members and the Centennial HOA president, Ed Cross
and HOA attorney Fred Pierce sat down to go over what is known about the scope of the problems
at Centennial. Problems at units #314 and #316 underscored the nature of the issues. Water damage
to structural members and a significant amount of mold in the walls of the above mentioned units
forced substantial structural repairs local to those units. The situation was front page news in the
newspapers and resulted in a meeting to determine what, if any, part the city or county may play
in helping the HOA. For its part the HOA had hired an engineering firm to examine the problem
and issue a report and recommendations (enclosed). Mr. Cross summarized the report by saying
the engineer recommended scrapping the buildings and starting over again. That would involve 92
condominium homes consisting of 70,000 square feet of space. The association’s insurance, even
if completely applicable to the issue, has a $15,000,000 cap and is not thought to be nearly enough
P5
II.
Page 4
to replace 92 units. Standard insurance policies exclude mold issues and that reality would
probably provide the insurance carrier with further cause to limit the extent of insurance coverage.
Mr. Cross’s statements certainly were alarming to all at the meeting and the discussions that
followed centered on what could be done by local governments, if anything, to help the HOA cope
with the problem. It was clear that more information would be needed to understand the true scope
of the situation.
The HOA employed the firm of Resource Engineering Group, Inc. to look at the two units in
question -- #314 and #316 – and were able to examine those units while repairs were being
conducted. The siding, exterior gypsum board and sheathing had been removed on the south and
east facing facades of #314 and the west façade of #316. Some of the interior drywall had been
removed in #316. Their observations of those units were:
The areas of exterior wall that were open for observation showed multiple structural
members with significant moisture damage. It appears the predominant cause of this
damage is poor waterproofing details in the original construction. This damage extends to
the foundation level in many areas.
The flooring in the kitchen of Unit 314 has swelled due to moisture and created an
uneven surface. It appears this is from moisture transported through the structural system
from the exterior wall.
The exterior shower stall wall in Unit 314 was open for investigation and showed signs of
moisture damage both of the exterior moisture issue and from improper moisture
detailing for shower stall construction.
There is some moisture damage from a leaking drainpipe in the common wall between
Units 314 & 316. However, the structural system in this area is mostly intact.
We also observed conditions in the crawlspace under this building. In the crawl space, the
sill plates of the east facing walls on the north side of the building showed signs of
moisture damage and rot. A few joists showed signs of surface mold. One LVL beam
showed extensive rot on one end, and others had signs of moisture damage. The air in the
crawlspace was damp and most of the passive vents were covered with batt insulation. It
appears this is typical of all the crawlspaces.
Their recommendation to the HOA board was to:
Remove siding on all units in the complex to inspect the level of moisture damage to the
structure and repair and replace damaged members. A local inspector should be hired
during this time to inspect units on a case-by-case basis to specify which members should
be replaced.
Mechanically vent all crawlspaces for proper humidity control.
Remove all roofing material to allow for the installation of proper flashing detailing. At
this time the roof sheathing would also be inspected. The attic spaces of all units should be
inspected for signs of moisture damage on the under side of the sheathing.
Remove and replace any damaged members in the porches and decks.
When the wall and roof structural systems are exposed, new waterproofing/flashing details
must be installed to prevent moisture damage in the future. These details will need to be
provided by the Architect and/or waterproofing specialist.
P6
II.
Page 5
Contract with mold mitigation specialists to investigate the level of mold issue in the
buildings and determine the proper remediation steps as needed. Based on the observations
and report prepared by DS Consulting of the mold conditions found in Units 314 & 316, it
is possible that mold could be found in many of the units within the complex.
We recommend that similar steps are taken at the rental properties adjacent to the units that
are part of the HOA.
Their conclusions was: “In our opinion, the moisture damage observed is primarily from poor
design and installation of flashing and other waterproofing details, not a lack of maintenance.
These details (or lack thereof) have resulted in water flowing within the wall cavity [Lance Sigley
has photos documenting this effect] during moisture events (rain and/or snow melt). The wall
assembly cannot properly dry out between moisture events; this condition has been largely masked
for over two decades by the choice of redwood for siding. Redwood is naturally very resistant to
moisture damage and therefore effectively hid the issues within the structure resulting in the
possible wide spread damage currently in place.”
Tom McCabe has spoken with the professional property manager for the 148 Centennial rental
units, Kim Keilin, to see if they had experienced any of these problems. The rental units are
identical in every way to the ownership units and he was interested to see if Kim had experienced
the same issues. Kim was very helpful and volunteered that her staff would cooperate fully with
the HOA directors to share what they had learned over the years. Kim confirmed that the rental
units had been experiencing the same issues and that they had found a way to correct the problem.
She also mentioned that the problem was common but not systemic to all the roofs and walls. She
speculated that the same would be true of the HOA units. One significant difference between the
two management entities is that in the case of the rental units, the problem was found sooner and
addressed promptly. This gave the rental management the time needed to budget for doing the
repairs over time, as problem areas were discovered in different portions of the complex. Because
the rental unit’s management found the problem sooner and responded promptly, the expense has
not been a major problem for them. The extent of the damage in the ownership (HOA) units is
likely to be larger because they were not aware of, and did not address, the problem sooner.
The rental unit management team added some concrete pilings to provide additional deck support
where needed and replaced some damaged wood. When they discovered water penetration into the
exterior walls they had C&M contractors replace the original components with Gold Board, Tyvec
and Hardy Board. Pacific Sheet Metal addressed the flashing problems. So, the good news is that
there is proven local expertise and solutions that can be utilized to address the challenges.
Direction given / What was done:
1. We initiated disclosure to buyers of what APCHA knows about the problems at Centennial
because this represented our obligation as brokers of the sale of units between qualified seller
and buyer.
2. Pursue viability of claims against original architect and builder
3. Evaluate liability of insurance carrier – why was claim denied, is there avenue for further
pursuit
P7
II.
Page 6
4. Immediate health and safety evaluation for mold infestation – if a problem, is there any
remediation steps that can keep people in their homes? (air filters, etc.)
5. Legal risk analysis for Pitkin County, City of Aspen and APCHA
6. Examination of original plans and approval processes – who was land planner, who
approved plans, who issued building permits, who did inspections, who issued COs, etc?
7. Communication Plan to public – appoint a single spokesperson
8. Communicate and coordinate with HOA/owners
9. Analyze any available emergency funding sources
10. Emergency plan for temporary relocations
11. Analyze their capital reserves and capacity for taking on debt
12. Evaluation of a permanent/final remediation plan for both structural/design problems and
mold.
2010 – 2011
In early 2010 the City agreed to provide interim project management services to assist the
HOA/APCHA/City of Aspen/Pitkin County team in expanding the overall evaluation. The City
requested, received, and executed a proposal from Building Science Corporation (BSC), a Boston
based engineering and architecture firm with extensive experience in building mechanics, systems,
and water management. BSC has conducted numerous forensic examinations and prepared
evaluations and solutions for moisture damaged buildings. The City has worked with BSC as the
liaison for the US Department of Energy Building America program.
BSC visited the site on June 30th, 2010. For the investigations the City engaged Rudd Construction
(Rudd) to provide manpower, equipment, tools and materials to assist in uncovering areas for
inspection, and for replacement and waterproofing repair. Also present on the day of these
inspections, at the request of Lee Cassin (City Environmental Health Director) was industrial
hygienist and mold expert, Michael V. Van Dyke, PhD, from National Jewish Health in Denver. He
provided visual inspection of mold presence and extent.
On August 3, 2010 City of Aspen Capital Asset Department staff presented a report to a joint meeting
of the City of Aspen City Council and the Pitkin County Commissioners. The report was prepared by
Building Science Corporation (BSC), http://www.buildingscience.com/, a building science and
consulting firm, with a focus on preventing and resolving problems related to building design,
construction and operation. BSC is internationally recognized for its expertise in moisture dynamics,
indoor air quality, and building failure forensic investigations.
Also presented at that meeting was a three page report from Michael V. Van Dyke, PhD, from
National Jewish Health (NJH) in Denver (engaged at the recommendation of the City Environmental
Health Department). He had provided visual inspection of mold presence and extent, and had
reviewed one document from DS Consulting (the Centennial HOA retained mold assessment firm).
The City Asset staff had provided Dr. Van Dyke with the information it had thus received from the
Centennial HOA and management.
P8
II.
Page 7
The staff presentation was cut short by Ed Cross, HOA president, who highlighted another report
from DS which contained sample evidence of elevated mold levels within living spaces at Centennial.
City Council and The Board of County Commissioners requested staff to resolve the “dueling
experts” reports and return at a later date to complete the report.
We have resolved the questions of differing opinions by obtaining joint letters of agreement from the
building experts and from the mold experts. Council and the BOCC asked staff to try and have the
“dueling consultants” of the City and the Centennial HOA agree to some background facts.
Other highlights from this time period were:
The “good news” of these reports was that the city’s consultants did not believe the
situation is as dire as was indicated to us by the Centennial HOA back in April 2010 as a
result of the report they received from the HOA’s consultant. Instead of a potential $100K
per unit or $10 million estimate, Rudd Construction had a “big ballpark” working estimate
of less than $4000 per unit or around $350K to solve the moisture problems.
Now this was NOT a construction bid and would be subject to change as construction
documents are prepared, but it is meant to be an “order of magnitude” number.
These numbers could be somewhat higher depending on the HOA’s decision about which
options to pursue – whether they want to repair the moisture issues or go beyond to
additional improvements and upgrades – but even if it were 2 or 3 times that amount it is
still nowhere near the HOA’s estimates from last Fall of $10 million in repairs.
The bad news was that the HOA needed to reconcile the opinions of the “dueling experts”
– the consultants that were hired by the HOA and those we engaged to review the buildings.
And they appear to be skeptical of the opinion of the city’s consultants.
After determining whose advice to follow, the HOA will need to make some decisions
about how to plan for and sequence the repairs to the buildings that will deal with the
moisture infiltration problems that exist.
BUT, if the opinions of the city/county experts are accepted by the HOA, it is our
conclusion that the repairs are well within the ability of the homeowners to pursue on their
own – it is within the realm of their responsibility as homeowners and within their means
to afford this work.
The next steps was for the HOA to be fully briefed by the consultants, to put the HOA
experts together with the city/county experts and reconcile their opinions and cost
estimates, then for them to begin to make some decisions about which of the options they
want to pursue in order to rectify the water intrusion issues . . . and finally to develop their
financing options for funding.
Unfortunately most of these capital investments would NOT be recoverable under the
capital improvements limitations set forth in the Housing guidelines. It falls under the
“maintenance” expense category – much like roof replacements – and would not meet the
guidelines for permitted capital improvements that are recoverable in the sales price.
If PACE funding becomes operable – some of their investments (for example, window
replacement that addressed window flashing issues) might fall under the ability of that loan
program and be eligible for that source of funding.
P9
II.
Page 8
It was clear that moisture intrusion issues have long been known to the Centennial HOA Board and
that studies have been repeatedly done over the past 20 years. Some work has been done, but much
of the recommended repairs have been continuously deferred. Capital reserve recommendations have
been ignored – indeed a rebate was provided to owners in one year, even though the need to save for
repairs was readily apparent.
Construction Repairs/Recommendations/Alternatives
• Building Science Corporation (City of Aspen consultant), and Resource Engineering Group
(Centennial consultant) have collaborated and agreed on a general repair strategy. Note that
this revised strategy is more extensive and more expensive than that initially recommended
by BSC. It goes beyond normal standards for building repair and allows for the building owner
to install a new and complete building wrap over 100% of the exterior wall assemblies,
• detail a moisture drainage plane, and new cladding.
• BSC has noted that if this repair approach is taken, the owner may wish to also replace
windows and doors with more modern and thermally efficient units (an additional cost).
• Both the original and the expanded repair strategies will allow moisture damaged areas to be
uncovered and examined for deeper damage and mold. Once uncovered, and only when
uncovered, can any accurate estimate of mold remediation be determined, and those repairs
should be undertaken in that process.
History of moisture issues at Centennial – what did they know and when did they know it?
In August of 2010, city staff requested that the Centennial HOA board provide copies of any and all
available meeting minutes, financial reports, or anything else that would help staff understand the
history of moisture intrusion issues, the HOA’s finances, and what has been done to mitigate the
moisture problems. The HOA’s management company, First Choice Properties & Management, Inc.,
immediately provided electronic copies of meeting minutes, budgets, and financial statements from
2007 through 2010. However, staff was told that all other records were stored in an office in
Glenwood Springs and would be difficult to produce. In December, 2010 some records dating back
to 1986 were scanned and e-mailed to staff. While these records were by no means a complete record,
many years’ records are still missing; they provided a good snapshot of discovery of the moisture
problems, HOA board discussion of those problems and attempts to remedy the problems.
The following bullet points document some of the more important events in a timeline from 1986 to
the present. This is by no means a comprehensive study of all the facts:
• 11/24/86- Capital reserve study considered replacement of exterior stain, parking lot paving
and roofs only. Beginning fund balance was $12,000, out year contributions started at
$16,000, inflated each year by 3.5%, anticipated a capital reserve balance of $409,010 by year
2010.
• 5/19/87- board meeting minutes mention broken window seals throughout complex..
• 6/17/87- board meeting minutes mention window problems and possible developer liability.
• 8/12/91- James J. Wilson Building Consultants, Inc. / Code Analysis and Design hired to
study water damage.
• 10/17/91- Wilson hired to perform comprehensive study of moisture damage and recommend
remedial measures.
• 11/20/91- Board letter to all homeowners identifies “potentially serious problem” of moisture
infiltration behind siding, “causing deterioration”. Possible causes include; lack of roof
P10
II.
Page 9
overhangs, lack of exterior caulking, poor ventilation of baths and appliances, sprinklers
directed at siding, lack of crawl-space and attic ventilation. Possible remedies predicted to be
“costly and complicated”. Increases fees by 15% for 1992.
• 1/7/92- Wilson progress report discusses possible mold, decay, and “extensive moisture
damage”.
• 3/9/92- Wilson progress report discusses latent defects and possibility of legal action.
• 11/23/92- Letter to all homeowners further discusses water infiltration, Wilson report, and
15% fees increase to study problem, install dryer vents, repair water damage, install prototype
roof drip edges.
• 11/17/93- Minutes of annual meeting reports that roof overhangs were installed on south side
of all buildings for $47,595.50. No increase in fees for 1994.
• 11/30/94- Minutes of annual meeting anticipates a surplus at year end of $40,000- $45,000.
• 1/24/95- Replacement Cost Study by Wilson Building Consultants, Inc. recommends total
funding for repair and replacement of $892,279.
• 2/1/95- First Choice revises total replacement costs from Wilson report down to $264,834.
• 2/8/95- Board meeting minutes note “now that replacement study has been completed, the
surplus will be passed on to the owners as a credit” to reduce 1995 assessments.
• 12/9/98- Board meeting minutes note “not enough money in the reserve fund”. Reserve
assessments will be increased “twofold”, getting assessments back to same level of “five years
ago”.
• 4/19/99- Wilson Replacement Cost Study recommends Replacement cost funding of
$804,700 for next 5 years.
• 9/1/99- Board meeting minutes state that reserve account is not sufficient. Will likely need to
increase both operating and replacement assessments for next year.
• 10/20/99- Board meeting minutes state that association finances are under budget.
• 12/1/99- Annual meeting minutes state assessments will increase no mention of amounts.
• 6/16/09- REG, Inc. prepared study recommending removal of all building exteriors to
repair/replace any and all moisture damaged building components.
The capital reserve studies and expert reports as early as 1991 pointed to a large problem with
moisture intrusion and potential damage to all buildings if a comprehensive program of repairs funded
by a large increase in capital assessments was not undertaken immediately. While some repairs were
done, and assessments were increased slightly, by and large the expert’s recommendations were not
heeded. Wilson Building Consultants has published a study undertaken in 1991 and completed in
1992 that explains the scope and the urgency of the problem. This report was the basis of updated
reports by Wilson in 1995 and 1999 which repeated the scope of the problem and recommended very
large increases in the HOA’s capital reserves to pay for the needed repairs. These recommendations
were not followed.
After a ten-year period of very little discussion or action on the problem, the HOA hired REG to
perform another study of the moisture problems in 2009. In this report the study’s author August
Hasz, recommends wholesale removal of all building cladding, roofing, windows and doors and
removal of all damaged members. This report is the basis for the HOA’s seeking approximately
$10,000,000 for repairs to their buildings.
P11
II.
Page 10
REG, Inc. prepared study recommending removal of all building exteriors to repair/replace any and
all moisture damaged building components Staff’s conclusion is that if the HOA had acted sooner on
the recommendations of several experts, it could have mitigated most of its problems rather painlessly.
However, even today the problem is not a $10,000,000 problem and if a sensible program of capital
repairs is undertaken, the HOA can fund this program with an increase in capital assessments and
doing repairs over a several year period, making the most serious repairs a high priority.
Conclusions:
The inspections reports all corroborate and identify the initial requirement to repair the construction
issues that result in water intrusion. Once the excess moisture intrusion is mitigated mold will not
grow.
The costs we can estimate from this investigation are well below the suggested outcomes from 2009.
If the mold mitigation is added, and considering some contingency for unforeseen conditions the per-
unit cost of repairs may be below $7,000.
Buildings depreciate. Regularly scheduled repair and maintenance are necessary to avoid
deterioration, correct deficiencies, and maintain function and value. Homeowners routinely incur
periodic repair expenses with any structure. In the case of multifamily homeownership, those repair
costs are shared, typically through reserves, special assessments, or other financing.
The 2009 extrapolation of costs based on what was experience and projected by the HOA was
$100,000 per unit but involved, as best we could discern, a comprehensive redesign and
reconstruction of the buildings, inside and out.
This redesign and rebuilding approach is potentially attractive in some respects (essentially a “new
building”) but it is well beyond what most building owners would prudently consider, unless there
was expectation of an outside funding mechanism or other value windfall. The HOA has suggested
equity increase and borrowing potential by removal of the affordable housing program deed
restrictions. That discussion is beyond a Staff level purview. However, home ownership and
building ownership requires owner responsibility for regular maintenance and preservation of the
depreciable elements. It would be highly unusual for an original builder or a mortgagor to carry
maintenance as an outside responsibility while granting fee ownership, and forced removal of
agreed-upon terms and conditions is unknown.
The 2010 BSC investigation was accompanied by a local construction firm which provided
manpower and equipment. They have performed similar work locally. Based on their observations
and discussions with BSC they felt considerably less work would be required than was suggested
in 2009. We spoke with DS about mold work and received “very worst” case numbers for attic
mold clean-up. Together the total per unit cost was less than $7,000. Again, the building science
experts and mold experts have agreed that the prudent approach is to stop the moisture intrusion,
and then identify and repair damaged areas. The record indicates the HOA had similar information
and recommendations for as much as 20 years.
P12
II.
Page 11
Direction provided at that meeting was:
1. Provide technical assistance and help them get started with the BSC recommendation to
begin repairs with a few units or a few walls so you can really see what is going on behind
the cladding and get a better estimate on projected costs.
2. Do not continue with cost estimating efforts under RLB nor negotiate with the HOA over
government assistance to pay for the repairs.
2012
Results to-date are encouraging and suggest a total project cost much more in keeping with our
original estimates of less than $10,000 per unit. This is an amount that is reasonably within the ability
of the Centennial HOA to finance through assessments and loans from a bank (which loans banks are
ready to make), and can be done over the course of several years (See memo dated 8/1/2012 and part
of Attachment 5).
A repair estimate from Summit Consulting (cost split between the HOA and the governments) will:
• review the Building Science Corporation (BSC) report dated 02.21.2012 and solicit feedback
from Athens Builders (the HOA’s current Contractor); John Forster (HOA representative);
and BSC.
• A narrative for the following estimate option will be prepared prior to commencing the
estimate phase.
• Once approved, master bid forms will be assembled and quantity surveys will be performed.
Select subcontractor feedback will be solicited to market validate the estimate. The estimate
will be accompanied by a Basis of Budget attachment.
The approach/estimate option that will be the basis for the estimate will be similar to the approach
taken by the Centennial rental project:
• An estimate to replace the exterior wall envelope of the south and west facing aspects based
upon BSC feedback . The north and east facing aspects will be reviewed for water intrusion
areas and particularly for repairs/replacement of flashing details at the roof/wall juncture.
Over the course of the past year:
• Athen Builders, the same contractor who has been working on the Centennial rental buildings,
was selected by the HOA to conduct repairs on three units, on their worst south and west
exposures.
• The HOA and contractor determined it was not possible to remove and restore the existing
siding. Instead new siding was used on those south and west exposures (this is how the
Centennial rental project has proceeded). This had a cost impact.
• The selected sample appears to be costing $7-10,000 per unit, based on the small quantity.
Athen believes a larger selection of units will increase efficiency and allow for quantity
materials costs.
• A review of deteriorated decks indicates costs for those could be $2,500 to $3,000 per deck.
Conclusions from that work
The inspections reports all corroborate and identify the initial requirement to repair the construction
issues that result in water intrusion. Once the excess moisture intrusion is mitigated mold will not
grow.
P13
II.
Page 12
The costs we can estimate from this investigation are well below the suggested outcomes from the
HOA’s 2009 scenario and our original estimates. If the mold mitigation is added, and considering
some contingency for unforeseen conditions the per-unit cost of repairs may be below $7,000.
Recommendations at that time:
Continue with the effort already underway to do a side or two at a time (the south and west facing
aspects) on selected buildings. Let the HOA continue to assess the efficacy of replacing windows
and help them secure outside funds where possible for that effort. Let the HOA assess their desire
to deal with decks and how to deal with the individual deck’s owner’s responsibility.
Engage a local consulting firm to evaluate and extrapolate on the work scope undertaken by
the rental property and the HOA in 2012. Get a professional estimate for the entire project
using an approach that emphasizes the effort on the south and west facing aspects of the
building (taking off the siding and reviewing what needs to be done) and a review of the north
and east facing aspects for flashing detail repairs, particularly at the juncture of the roof and
wall.
We do not believe it is wise, nor necessary, for government funds to pay for the responsibilities
of home ownership. The repair costs that are underway at Centennial are a necessary part of being
a home owner – and in fact have been somewhat neglected for a long time (as evidenced in the
meeting minutes of the Centennial HOA since the early ‘90’s). There are opportunities for energy-
related grants to be made available to Centennial owners to defray a portion of their
repairs/maintenance costs. Policy discussions have been underway about some ways of helping
an HOA raise capital reserve funds (e.g. a payment to be assessed and collected at each sale –
something already in place for Burlingame transactions). It is anticipated that this will be a topic
for consideration at the upcoming Housing Summit in September.
Direction provided at that time:
1. Continue with the effort outlined.
2. Get the estimate and report back on the results.
3. Take up on a policy level the issue at the Housing Summit
Current Discussion
2013
Athen Builders was engaged to conduct a thorough cost estimate of the repairs agreed to by the city
project management staff and the Centennial HOA.
The Athen Report has identified a total of $3,243,813 in repairs needed to stop water intrusion,
replace siding/damage and correct drainage deficiencies. They suggest that this should be done
over a period of 6 years, although what is necessary is a repair project of some $2.1 million over
the next three to four years (attic, roof, flashing, decks, entryways on the north side of the buildings,
other waterproofing details and siding on the southern aspects and return elevations east and west),
P14
II.
Page 13
then an investment of $1.1 million over a longer period of time – probably as much as 10 years
(the northern aspects issues).
The HOA proposes a variety of options, most of which are designed to be so onerous as to not be
considered serious options. They outline dire consequences of having to pay for the repairs
themselves and choose short amortization schedules to buttress those conclusions.
Their proposed options are to:
1) Get a loan for the amount of repairs chosen to initiate; dues increase depends on loan
amount. Projected impact on owners varies from dire (75% default rate/migration out
rate) to somewhat less dire (30% default rate/20% migration out rate).
2) Pay cash special assessments for the amount of repairs chosen to initiate; assessment
per unit varies depending on amount of repairs chosen. They calculate $35K =/- per
unit.
3) Small loan, small cash contribution from capital reserves – fund only $1.25 million in
repairs – results in small monthly dues increase.
4) No loan; no special assessment; no change in current monthly assessments; takes 36
years to effectuate repairs.
5) City/County buys out owners; condemns property; sells property to private developer;
pockets profit (if it exists).
6) Cancel further repairs; cancel $90K current capital reserve assessments; reduce
monthly assessments to handle essential services of snow plowing and water; cancel
landscaping, irrigation, cable and maintenance; wait.
7) City/County form a partnership where the cost of reconstruction is shared and the
HOA receives financial assistance in whatever form that can be provided…loans,
grants, gifts, manpower and equipment.
Their most desired outcome is for the city to assume $2.4 million of the $3.2
million cost or 74% of the cost burden – with the HOA taking care of the
remaining $800K.
This would set a precedent and undermine any notion currently existing in the deed-restricted
homeowner communities that THEY as owners are responsible for the cost of home ownership –
instead the message deed-restricted HOA boards and owners would understand is that the city
would assume a disproportionate responsibility for taking care of their communities in addition to
subsidizing their purchase of a home.
What is at Centennial?
There are 92 units owned at Centennial – all are Category 4 units.
10 – Studio units
38 – 1-bedroom units
39 – 2-bedroom units
5 – 3 bedroom units
P15
II.
Page 14
Of the 92 units, most have appreciation caps of 3% or CPI, whichever is less. However 29 of the
units have caps of 6% or CPI, whichever is less.
Owners have tenure in their units ranging from 2 months to over 28 years. The distribution is
shown in the following graph:
With this kind of ownership tenure total unit appreciation is $3.57 million, with a range from
$544 to $103,051. The distribution is shown on the graph below:
0
5
10
15
20
25
< 1 year 1- 3 years 3 - 5 years 5 - 8 years 8 - 12 years 12-16 years 16 - 20
years
> 20 years
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
<
$2000
2K - 5K 5K -
10K
10K -
15K
15K -
20K
20K -
25K
25K -
30K
30K -
40K
40K -
50K
50K -
60K
60K -
70K
70K -
80K
>80K
P16
II.
Page 15
Just more than half of all owners have appreciated their original purchase price by $30,000
or more.
The Current HOA Dues Structure
The existing monthly assessments are:
Unit Size Monthly Assessment Per Sq Foot Basis
Studio $262.04 $0.58
1-Bedroom $319.67 $0.44
2-Bedroom $438.82 $0.50
3-Bedroom $612.08 $0.47
This includes water and cable, and of which approximately $82 per unit per month is for capital
reserves.
Assuming this is allocated on a square footage basis, this yields capital reserve assessments as
follows:
$90K Capital Assessment 1.25 / sq foot Monthly
studio $ 569.18 $ 47.43
1-bdrm $ 748.07 $ 62.34
2-bdrm $ 1,102.09 $ 91.84
3-bdrm $ 1,636.25 $ 136.35
And this provides for a 2013 HOA budget of:
Operating Assessment 261,820
Replacement Assessment 90,000
Interest Income 300
Late Fees/Finance Charges 750
Cable Fees 44,500
Water Fees 15,000
Pet Registration 700
Total Income $413,070
What would it cost individual homeowners to do?
We will consider a scenario where the immediate need for $2.1 million is borrowed/cash
accumulated and the existing capital reserve assessment is used to take care of the additional $1.1
million over time.
P17
II.
Page 16
Assuming the assessment is allocated according to square footage, the following would be required
of homeowners:
$/per square foot
$2.1 million
assessment $ 29.19
studio - 455 ft2 $ 13,280.98
1-bdrm - 598 ft2 $ 17,455.00
1-bdrm - 600 ft2 $ 17,513.38
1-bdrm - 720 ft2 $ 21,016.05
1-bdrm - 733 ft2 $ 21,395.51
1-bdrm - 805 ft2 $ 23,497.12
1-bdrm - 841 ft2 $ 24,547.92
1-bdrm - 878 ft2 $ 25,627.91
2-bdrm - 780 ft2 $ 22,767.39
2-bdrm - 832 ft2 $ 24,285.22
2-bdrm - 840 ft2 $ 24,518.73
2-bdrm - 850 ft2 $ 24,810.62
2-bdrm - 881 ft2 $ 25,715.48
2-bdrm - 922 ft2 $ 26,912.22
3-bdrm – 1308 ft2 $ 38,179.16
Looking at each individual unit, and given the amount of appreciation in the units, all owners
would be able to refinance their units and pay all or some of the assessment in cash – increasing
the payout on their loans. Most would be able to completely pay their assessment by tapping into
their appreciation equity, some would only be able to pay for a portion of that assessment. Thirty-
three (33) of the unit owners would need to borrow some or almost all of the assessment in order
to meet their obligations.
For the $2.1 million assessment, $1,726,398 could be paid in cash by the unit owners by accessing
their accumulated appreciation (assuming they haven’t already borrowed against that amount).
Given the length of time it would take to be credited with significant amounts of appreciation, a
large portion of these owners should have additional equity that could be tapped to buy down the
remaining $373,631 that might need to be borrowed in order to meet the assessment total.
Since we have no information on this, and for calculation’s sake, we assume that no equity derived
from paying down a mortgage is used to finance the assessment, and that 33 owners would need
to borrow $373,631 in amounts that vary from $1,308 to $30,935. We have sought out information
from local bankers and they would make a 15-year loan to the HOA at prime + .75% (we used 4%
for purposes of the calculation), thus a monthly payment of $2,763.70 would be necessary to
service that loan. Allocating the monthly payment on the basis of square footage and the portion
of the each individual unit’s share of the total loan amount yields payments that vary from $5.83
to $225.87 per month per unit. It seems rather obvious that some of the unit owners would avoid
this additional borrowing – either by borrowing from some other source or tapping into their equity
acquired by virtue of having paid down their original mortgage (for example, one unit would need
to borrow an additional $819 to complete their share of the assessment).
P18
II.
Page 17
How affordable is this approach?
On a per square foot basis this would add to the monthly housing outlay anywhere from $0.01 to
$0.31 per month.
The existing monthly assessments are:
Unit Size Monthly Assessment Per Sq Foot Basis
Studio $262.04 $0.58
1-Bedroom $319.67 $0.44
2-Bedroom $438.82 $0.50
3-Bedroom $612.08 $0.47
With the additional assessment required to service the debt, units would have monthly assessments
that look like this:
Unit Size Monthly Assessment Per Sq Foot Basis
Studio $262.04 + $25.40 to $94.21 $0.58 + $.03 to $.16
1-Bedroom $319.67 + $5.83 to $155.18 $0.44 + $.01 to $.12
2-Bedroom $438.82 + $25.00 to $148.77 $0.50 + $.03 to $.17
3-Bedroom $612.08 + $90.16 to $225.87 $0.47 + $.10 to $.17
And therefore the new monthly assessments and the resulting percentage increases ranges from:
Unit Size Monthly Assessment Percentage Increase
Studio from $287.44 to $356.25 5.2% to 27.6% increase
1-Bedroom from $325.50 to $474.85 2.3% to 27.3% increase
2-Bedroom from $463.82 to $587.59 6% to 34% increase
3-Bedroom from $702.24 to $837.95 21.3% to 36.2% increase
In preparing for the 2012 Housing Summit, we performed some work on affordability – looking
at the cost of home ownership (including mortgage, HOA dues, utilities and insurance) as a
percentage of income across the various categories/dependent numbers/unit sizes (see Attachments
1 and 2).
One generally accepted debt-to-income ratio threshold (including principal, interest, insurance and
taxes) for conventional home loans has been 28% of gross monthly income; FHA loans allow for
a slightly higher ratio at 29%. Many analysts will tell you that ratios in the 30%+ range may put
some pressure on households, but the amount of income devoted to housing does not become
onerous until you are well into the 40%+ areas. Remember, our calculations INCLUDE HOA
assessments not normally included in the “accepted debt-to-income” ratios.
When you factor in the increases contemplated under the funding approach outlined above, the
MAXIMUM INCREASES associated with the 33 units that will need to pay additional monthly
assessments produces the following results:
P19
II.
Page 18
% of monthly income Cat4
Dependents / Unit Min Max
0 / Studio 23.4% 14.4%
0 / 1BR 26.9% 16.5%
0 / 2BR 31.0% 19.1%
0 / 3BR 37.7% 23.2%
1 / Studio 21.4% 13.6%
1 / 1BR 24.7% 15.7%
1 / 2BR 28.4% 18.0%
1 / 3BR 34.6% 21.9%
2 / Studio 19.8% 12.9%
2 / 1BR 22.8% 14.9%
2 / 2BR 26.2% 17.1%
2 / 3BR 31.9% 20.9%
3 / Studio 18.4% 12.3%
3 / 1BR 21.2% 14.2%
3 / 2BR 24.4% 16.3%
3 / 3BR 29.6% 19.9%
For those unit owners who will see the maximum monthly assessment increases to service their
debt, the analysis indicates that all are still in the affordable range, with one more additional
condition moving to the “yellow” area – now four conditions instead of the minimum assessment
increases’ condition three.
While the additional outlays will not always be easy for these property owners, it is do-able. More
to the point, it is part of the responsibility of home ownership. It will entail sacrifice and the use
of appreciation and homeowner equity – but that is what non-deed-restricted home owners face all
the time.
Recommendations
Great care should be taken with the approach the city (and the county) determines to the request
of the Centennial homeowners. The response will be precedent-setting and will convey messages
to all other HOAs in the deed-restricted system of owned housing. What is done for Centennial
owners will be seen as “available” to other owners – and they will likely demand equal treatment.
The first recommendation is to continue the elected officials’ directive to let the homeowners
fund their own capital repairs.
They should be able to afford a special assessment of some $2.1 million to take care of immediate
needs that is met by either: (1) cash contributions through a refinancing of their units to take
advantage of their appreciation equity, or (2) for those who lack the appreciation equity the HOA
P20
II.
Page 19
can enter into a loan package with a local lender and those units can pay back their share over a
15-year time period.
As indicated earlier, a $2.1 million immediate package should be able to be committed to by the
owners. Fifty-six of the 92 owners have appreciation in excess of $25K in their units (and should
have much more in equity, as their loans should have been paid down substantially in the time it
takes to earn that much appreciation). An analysis of individual owners and their appreciation
situation vs. the amount of assessment they would be responsible for indicates that there are 33
owners in need of some kind of loan financing – from much of their share to very little of it.
Alternative Recommendation Should City/County Elect to Provide a Loan
(1) Limited common responsibilities – and extension to common elements at the
time of sale:
Under the existing guidelines, a unit owner must produce a unit for sale that meets certain
minimum standards, and if those standards are not met, APCHA may retain sufficient funds from
the sale proceeds to ensure that the unit meets those standards.
In applying this policy to condominium sales, this policy ensures that those limited common
elements of the condominium being sold by a unit owner meet certain guideline standards or
APCHA will see to it that those standards are met and the seller will pay for meeting those
standards.
This guideline policy should be amended to include common elements as well. Under this kind of
policy, an HOA must conduct a capital reserve study and unit assigned shares of any reserve deficit
would become the responsibility of the seller in any sales transaction. For example, if an HOA’s
capital reserve study indicates that a shortfall of $9,000 per unit exists in order to fully fund a
complex’s capital reserves; and the APCHA Guideline policy says that “full funding” shall be
considered to require 70% cash funding of a capital reserve study shortfall, then the unit in question
must be prepared to contribute $6300 in order to have fully funded its obligation to the HOA’s
capital reserves. By applying the same kind of principle to common elements that today’s existing
policy applies to limited common elements, APCHA would retain $6300 from the seller’s proceeds
and contribute that to the HOA’s Capital Reserve Fund.
This kind of policy would ensure that an HOA fully funds its capital reserves and is able to
maintain the unit’s common elements. An owner would presumably put pressure on the HOA
Board to either have a plan to fund the reserves (and “live” the benefit from ongoing maintenance
of the complex) or fund their obligation at the time of sale – in either case the incentive to try and
“push off the responsibilities of ownership onto the next generation of owners” would cease. This
should become a part of all new deed restrictions that APCHA imposes as part of new/sold units
in the system inventory.
Current guideline policy:
A Seller’s Property Disclosure Form will be completed by the Seller at the time of listing. This will
be reviewed with the Sales Manager. Each seller will be provided a copy of the Minimum Standards
P21
II.
Page 20
required in order for the Seller to receive maximum value. It is required that the Seller shall provide
the Buyer with a clean, working unit upon delivery of deed. Holes in the walls will be filled, carpets
steam cleaned, damaged windows will be repaired, appliances will be in working order, and the
plumbing shall be in working order. A final inspection of the unit shall be conducted by the Buyer
on the day of closing. If the unit is not left in satisfactory condition, at the sole discretion of the
APCHA, monetary compensation shall be held in escrow at closing from the Seller’s proceeds until
the repairs and/or cleaning are completed. The repairs and/or cleaning shall be paid from this fund.
Any monies left over shall then be distributed to the Seller. The escrow amount shall be determined
by the APCHA.
SECTION 10
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT POLICY AND
MINIMUM STANDARDS TO RECEIVE FULL VALUE AT TIME AT RESALE
Capital improvements and upkeep on deed-restricted units are necessary to enhance the longevity of the
affordable housing unit. A maximum sales price will be affected, either higher or lower, relating to the
condition of the unit and if the unit meets the minimum standard criteria. Any owner wishing to utilize the
new capital improvement policy will be required to enter into the deed restriction that is currently being used
at the time of the request.
Units Built After January 1, 2004 and Re-Sale Units: An owner will be required to maintain a minimum
standard for the unit purchased. See Table I, Minimum Standards for Seller to Receive Full Value. Prior to
any sale of a unit, the APCHA Staff will determine a maximum sales price. The Sales Manager shall conduct
an inspection and a list provided to the Seller as to the items that will need to be done PRIOR to closing to get
full value. The Buyer also has the right to pay for a formal inspection of the unit during the inspection period
stated in the Sales Contract. If said inspection reflects items not met on the Minimum Standards for Seller
to Receive Full Value table, the Seller shall be required to remedy those items. If the unit meets the standard
criteria, the Property or Unit shall be sold for an amount ("Maximum Resale Price") in excess of the lesser of
the purchase price:
Plus an increase of three percent (3%) of such price per year from the date of purchase to the date of
Owner's notice of intent to sell (prorated at the rate of .25 percent for each whole month for any part
of a year); OR
An amount based upon the Consumer Price Index (All Items, U.S. City Average, Urban Wage Earners
and Clerical Workers (Revised), published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor
Statistics) calculated as follows: the Owner's purchase price divided by the Consumer Price Index
published at the time of Owner's purchase stated on the Settlement Statement, multiplied by the
Consumer Price Index current at the date of intent to sell;
Plus any approved capital improvements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Prior to any unit at Centennial becoming eligible for a loan from city/county
sources, ALL units would have to amend their Deed Restrictions to accept this
new guideline feature. This would ensure that the current Centennial problem
does not develop again.
P22
II.
Page 21
(2) Shared Appreciation (as the City’s employee housing deed restrictions establish)
for anyone seeking a loan from city/county funds:
When an employee of the city purchases a unit from the city’s housing stock (NOT part of the
APCHA system), their deed restriction “splits” any appreciation between the city and the owner
according to the formula: 1.33% of any appreciation to the city, and the remainder (1.67% on a
3% appreciation for example) is allocated to the owner/seller. This policy ensures that capital
improvements are funded through the appreciation on a unit and is recoverable at the time of sale.
RECOMMENDATION:
For any unit owner that elects to not fund their Centennial responsibility
themselves and instead chooses to seek a loan from city/county f unds, they must
accept a deed restriction that imposes this kind of shared appreciation feature
into their unit’s subsequent sale. This would apply to all appreciation on their
unit from the time of their purchase.
This loan would be with the HOA. This deed restriction would remain in force
until the HOA in question has repaid its entire loan obligation (with an annual
interest rate equal to the city/county’s investment pool earnings).
This serves as an incentive to any HOA /owner contemplating a loan from the
city/county to try and deal with their responsibility themselves, without any
perceived low cost help from the governments.
This deed restriction would continue with each subsequent sale of all units
participating in the loan program until the entire HOA loan amount is fully
repaid with interest.
If a “program” of government loan assistance were to be created, it would require of
homeowners:
(1) That ALL OWNERS agree to the mandatory common element/capital reserve funding
deed restriction that would also become part of all new APCHA deed restrictions, and
(2) That any owner needing loan assistance from the government enters into a shared
appreciation agreement via a new deed restriction that will only be removed when the
entire loan amount from the HOA has been repaid.
This would be a precedent setting effort and this same set of conditions would apply to any
condominium complex and their HOA that decides to apply for similar assistance in the future.
Such a policy change will require further investigation and many details would need to be worked
out before approval and implementation.
P23
II.
Page 22
Where Should Funding for a Loan Program Come From?
Centennial was a Pitkin County project – it was approved by the BOCC, permits were issued by
Pitkin County, and inspections were performed by county inspectors. The project was later
annexed into the Aspen city limits. Both the city of Aspen and Pitkin County are in the business
of developing or causing to be developed affordable housing units for the workforce – neither
entity is in the business of maintaining private property.
Both entities have funding streams for creating new affordable housing and it is debatable whether
or not those funding streams would be eligible for use in rehabbing privately owned deed-restricted
units. What is not debatable is that both entities could use General Fund monies if they so choose
to do so.
If a loan program is established, the program should be run through APCHA. The source of such
funding then would be: (1) residual APCHA fund balances and (2) contributions from Pitkin
County and the City of Aspen according to the IGA that establishes the Housing Authority (i.e.
50/50 contributions from each local government).
An alternative that must be considered is the use of the statutory taxing authority available to the
Housing Authority. If the elected bodies so determine, they could – acting through the APCHA
Board of Directors – go to the electorate and seek the authority to levy either a property tax or a
sales tax in order to create a funding stream to operate a loan program. This would keep both
governments from having to tap existing funding streams and jeopardizing already planned for
programs and seek specific voter authorization for a loan program for current deed-restricted
housing owners.
Recommendation / Direction Sought:
1. Affirm previous direction that the problems at Centennial are the HOA’s to solve.
Alternative
1. Direct staff to create a loan program along the lines of the alternative recommendation.
Attachments
Affordability of recommended funding program
Background Information from Housing Summit Documents
Athen Builders Report
Sam Brown Editorial – Aspen Daily News, August 15, 2013
Historical Memos on Centennial
P24
II.
Page 23
Attachment 1
Affordability Calculations
for recommended
funding program
P25
II.
Page 24
Recommendation for funding of rehabilition
In preparing for the 2012 Housing Summit, we performed some work on affordability – looking
at the cost of home ownership (including mortgage, HOA dues, utilities and insurance) as a
percentage of income across the various categories/dependent numbers/unit sizes.
Using the information available for Centennial, the results yields the following table for the
CURRENT CONDITIONS (CURRENT ASSESSMENTS):
% of monthly income Cat4
Dependents / Unit Min Max
0 / Studio 22.0% 13.5%
0 / 1BR 24.7% 15.2%
0 / 2BR 28.8% 17.7%
0 / 3BR 34.4% 21.2%
1 / Studio 20.2% 12.8%
1 / 1BR 22.6% 14.4%
1 / 2BR 26.4% 16.8%
1 / 3BR 31.6% 20.0%
2 / Studio 18.6% 12.2%
2 / 1BR 20.9% 13.6%
2 / 2BR 24.4% 16.0%
2 / 3BR 29.1% 19.0%
3 / Studio 17.3% 11.6%
3 / 1BR 19.4% 13.0%
3 / 2BR 22.7% 15.2%
3 / 3BR 27.1% 18.1%
All of the results indicate an ability to afford the current conditions, albeit with two conditions
being in our “yellow” area.
When you factor in the increases contemplated under the funding approach outlined above, the
MINIMUM INCREASES associated with the 33 units that will need to pay additional monthly
assessments produces the following results:
% of monthly income Cat4
Dependents / Unit Min Max
0 / Studio 22.4% 13.8%
0 / 1BR 24.7% 15.2%
0 / 2BR 29.2% 18.0%
0 / 3BR 35.7% 22.0%
1 / Studio 20.5% 13.0%
P26
II.
Page 25
1 / 1BR 22.7% 14.4%
1 / 2BR 26.8% 17.0%
1 / 3BR 32.8% 20.8%
2 / Studio 19.0% 12.4%
2 / 1BR 21.0% 13.7%
2 / 2BR 24.7% 16.2%
2 / 3BR 30.3% 19.8%
3 / Studio 17.6% 11.8%
3 / 1BR 19.5% 13.0%
3 / 2BR 23.0% 15.4%
3 / 3BR 28.1% 18.8%
For those unit owners who will see the minimum monthly assessment increases to service their
debt, the analysis indicates that all are still in the affordable range, with one additional condition
moving to the “yellow” area – now three conditions instead of the current assessment rate’s
conditions two.
When you factor in the increases contemplated under the funding approach outlined above, the
MAXIMUM INCREASES associated with the 33 units that will need to pay additional monthly
assessments produces the following results:
% of monthly income Cat4
Dependents / Unit Min Max
0 / Studio 23.4% 14.4%
0 / 1BR 26.9% 16.5%
0 / 2BR 31.0% 19.1%
0 / 3BR 37.7% 23.2%
1 / Studio 21.4% 13.6%
1 / 1BR 24.7% 15.7%
1 / 2BR 28.4% 18.0%
1 / 3BR 34.6% 21.9%
2 / Studio 19.8% 12.9%
2 / 1BR 22.8% 14.9%
2 / 2BR 26.2% 17.1%
2 / 3BR 31.9% 20.9%
3 / Studio 18.4% 12.3%
3 / 1BR 21.2% 14.2%
3 / 2BR 24.4% 16.3%
3 / 3BR 29.6% 19.9%
For those unit owners who will see the maximum monthly assessment increases to service their
debt, the analysis indicates that all are still in the affordable range, with one more additional
P27
II.
Page 26
condition moving to the “yellow” area – now four conditions instead of the minimum assessment
increases’ condition three.
While the additional outlays will not always be easy for these property owners, it is do-able. More
to the point, it is part of the responsibility of home ownership. It will entail sacrifice and the use
of appreciation and homeowner equity – but that is what non-deed-restricted home owners face
daily.
P28
II.
Page 27
Attachment 2
Background Information
from
Housing Summit Documents
P29
II.
Page 28
CAPITAL RESERVES
The purpose of a capital reserve fund for a condo or homeowners association is to fund and plan for
the inevitable repair and replacements costs in the common areas of a community. From roofs to
sidewalks, from shutters to gardens, repair and replacement is part of any property owner's task list.
When done properly, an audit or capital reserve study will collect information on property condition,
and project a useful life and repair and replacement costs. When projected out over a 15 or 30 year
period (allowing for inflation), a study can provide a board with a roadmap to follow for the funding,
replacement, and repair of the association's common areas.
According to the Community Associations Institute (CAI), at the end of 2009 the total amount of
money held in reserves (accumulated reserves) by all HOAs and condominiums in the U.S. is
approximately $35 billion dollars. When divided by the total number of homes within these HOAs
(24 million) we can see that the average accumulated reserves per household are a paltry $1,458!
Under a cost sharing agreement with APCHA, Capital Reserve studies for maintaining existing
housing stock are in various states of progress – some associations have rough estimates of need;
others are still compiling assessments of various capital items and continue to develop their financial
situation. However, from what data currently available, an underlying truth exists – that being there
is a shortfall in capital reserves for the affordable housing developments in Aspen and Pitkin County,
as there is for almost every HOA in the free market world.
The following table notes that of the associations already reviewed, aggregate funded status for capital
reserves stands at roughly 22%, or the equivalent shortfall of around $7.4 million. If the additional
associations and total of ~1500 units were extrapolated from those which were the subject of the
studies – and had a similar average shortfall per unit – the potential shortfall for the entire affordable
housing environment could be as large as roughly $14.2 million.
Table 9
# of
Units
Starting
Capital
Reserve
Targeted
Reserve
Funded
Percent
Shortfall
per Unit
Aggregate
Capital
Shortfall
Associations
Reviewed 778 $2,050,018 $9,428,246 21.7% ($9,484) ($7,378,228)
Minimum 91 $130,000 $82,481 158% $522 $47,519
Maximum 92 $500,455 $3,301,170 15% ($30,443) ($2,800,715)
Source: Aggregated data from Housing Frontier’s as of July 2012
P30
II.
Page 29
Looking at the across the distribution of associations who have participated in the study effort, first
from the perspective of the total reserves needed and the gap between current reserve amounts and
the recommendations:
You can see that the vast majority of the gaps are less than $500,000 per association. When looking
at the gap on a per unit basis the majority is less than $10,000 per unit.
What is clear is that there are a few associations who have significant (> $1 million per
association, >$20,000 per unit) funding problems to address. Of course, the shortfall above
-$3,000,000
-$2,500,000
-$2,000,000
-$1,500,000
-$1,000,000
-$500,000
$0
$500,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
-$35,000.00
-$30,000.00
-$25,000.00
-$20,000.00
-$15,000.00
-$10,000.00
-$5,000.00
$0.00
$5,000.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
P31
II.
Page 30
assumes reaching full funding for replacement of all capital items – a benchmark not typically
achieved by homeowner associations whether deed restricted or free market, especially following
recent economic conditions. In fact, most homeowner associations never target a full funding
scenario but instead opt for other common threshold levels as described below:
Baseline funding: Simply maintaining a positive balance in the reserve account – any
amount is sufficient, so long as the balance does not fall below zero.
Threshold funding: Similar to Baseline funding, this method targets a specific dollar
amount to maintain in reserves (other than zero).
Statutory funding: Uniquely defined by individual localities through statute, if such law
exists in the location of your property, defining a minimum necessary reserve percent.
Note that while some states prescribe specific funding requirements for HOAs in rule or law,
Colorado is not one of these – Colorado’s only requirement is to have a replacement plan
established, funding is not mandated and the reserve study may even be performed internally and
not by an independent, third party.
With multiple perspectives held by vastly different individual governing groups and the unique
circumstances and regulations surrounding each development being managed, it is ineffective to
relate the status of capital reserve funding shortfalls for Pitkin County affordable housing
developments to other groupings. Rather, given the diversity that exists, instead of focusing on
the state of the universe for current reserves, it is better to look at the implications of low
reserves and how that affects the development. It is more beneficial to focus on individual unit
sales and ability to secure lending as the basis for determining appropriate reserve levels, and
given today’s economic environment, reserve levels in the 70%-80% range appear favorable
when considering lending options and real estate transactions.
While there is a sizable gap between the desired 70%-80% benchmark and the current 22% reserve
funding percentage in affordable housing units in the Valley with governing associations, given
the number of units involved and potential to spread the shortfall over multiple years, the problem
does appear to be more manageable.
Many experts have recommended a 5-10 year plan to bring reserve levels up to the study-
recommended amounts. Using the average shortfall per unit of $9484, and assuming a 70%
target and a ten-year amortization period for all 684 units, the average temporary monthly
increase would be less than $53/month per unit (assuming a 1% interest earned).
Our HOA communities – and especially their board members – have to recognize the need to be
responsible owners and create a plan to properly fund their reserve amounts at a higher level than
is the current norm. If we look at a hypothetical Category 3 buyer of a 2-bedroom unit in 2000
who paid around $130,000 for the unit, and who, under the guidelines, could sell that unit today
for $187,000, they would have $57,000 of appreciation. How much of an investment would be
appropriate to secure that gain? It appears to be a reasonable expectation to invest $10,000 (the
P32
II.
Page 31
average capital reserve shortfall per unit) over those 10 years ($1000 per year) to realize their gain
of $57,000, certainly the counterpart in the free market would see that as a very reasonable cost of
home ownership.
When faced with the need to make a repair and actually spend money, the following are ways that
an HOA can budget those expenditures:
1. Reserves: If you’ve set aside reserves for the type of project you’re facing, dipping into
the reserves is an obvious option. “Unfortunately, associations aren’t reserving anywhere
where they should be,” says Lisa A. Magill, a shareholder and association attorney at
Becker & Poliakoff PA in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. “In Florida, owners can vote down the
association’s funding of any reserves. Continually, you’ll have owners who aren’t in a
position to pay any assessments. So if an association is collecting reserves, it’s usually only
about 10 percent of what it should be collecting. When projects come up, they’re either
paid for by a special assessment or some other means, usually a loan.”
2. A special assessment: A special assessment is a common fallback option for HOAs that
need money immediately and have no other or better way to raise it.
3. A loan: “An institutional loan usually entails pledging as collateral the HOA’s lien rights
in terms of collecting assessments,” says Andrew Lewis of Eisinger, Brown, Lewis,
Frankel & Chaiet PA in Hollywood, Fla., who specializes in representing community
associations. “Lenders look at all kinds of factors when considering HOA loans,” explains
Magill. “Are you capitalized? Do you have reserves? What’s your percentage of
delinquencies? What other maintenance items have to be performed? For example, with
the loan, are you funding only one of 10 projects that need to be done? They also look to
make sure you have all the appropriate insurance, which associations should have, anyway,
but sometimes don’t. But really, the delinquency rate is the most important thing. Some
lenders won’t approve a loan if your HOA has 7-8 percent delinquencies, but the
benchmark is 15 percent.” In our conversations with local lenders, they indicate they are
making these loans and are willing to make these loans to deed restricted HOAs.
Obviously, a combination of these three options is the most likely way that our deed restricted
communities will fund major maintenance/repair work, given the general condition of their capital
reserves.
HOMEOWNER AFFORDABILITY
One generally accepted debt-to-income ratio threshold (including principal, interest, insurance and
taxes) for conventional home loans has been 28% of gross monthly income; FHA loans allow for
a slightly higher ratio at 29%. While recent history has demonstrated that such thresholds have not
been adhered to in a strict sense; it has also reinforced that the principle behind the establishment
of these thresholds had merit.
P33
II.
32
Looking at the averages below, one can see that generally speaking, home ownership for Category 4 and below households requires a
greater percentage of gross income relative to Category 5 and above households. Additionally, in some cases, home ownership is
significant relative to income minimums in Category 1 and 2 (and one instance in Category 3), and is above established FHA de bt-to-
income ratio thresholds for some income maximums (see highlighted cells).
Table 13 – Principal, Interest, Insurance and Tax Obligations Relative to Gross Household Income
% of monthly income Cat1 Cat2 Cat3 Cat4 Cat5 Cat6 Cat7
Dependents / Unit Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
0 / Studio 20% 9% 17% 11% 18% 11% 18% 11% 15% 14% 16% 14% 16% 15%
0 / 1BR 26% 12% 21% 14% 20% 12% 19% 12% 16% 15% 17% 16% 17% 16%
0 / 2BR 33% 15% 27% 18% 24% 15% 22% 13% 18% 17% 18% 17% 19% 17%
0 / 3BR 39% 18% 33% 21% 29% 18% 24% 15% 20% 18% 20% 18% 20% 18%
0 / SF 45% 21% 38% 25% 33% 20% 27% 16% 21% 20% 22% 20% 22% 20%
1 / Studio 13% 7% 14% 10% 15% 10% 16% 10% 14% 13% 15% 14% 15% 14%
1 / 1BR 17% 10% 17% 12% 17% 11% 18% 11% 16% 15% 16% 15% 17% 15%
1 / 2BR 22% 12% 22% 15% 21% 14% 20% 13% 17% 16% 18% 16% 18% 16%
1 / 3BR 26% 14% 27% 18% 25% 16% 22% 14% 19% 17% 19% 17% 19% 17%
1 / SF 30% 17% 31% 22% 28% 18% 25% 16% 20% 19% 21% 19% 21% 19%
2 / Studio 10% 6% 12% 9% 14% 9% 15% 10% 13% 13% 14% 13% 15% 13%
2 / 1BR 13% 8% 15% 11% 15% 10% 16% 11% 15% 14% 15% 14% 16% 14%
2 / 2BR 17% 10% 19% 14% 19% 13% 19% 12% 16% 15% 17% 15% 17% 16%
2 / 3BR 19% 12% 22% 16% 22% 15% 21% 14% 18% 17% 18% 17% 18% 17%
2 / SF 23% 14% 26% 19% 25% 17% 23% 15% 19% 18% 20% 18% 20% 18%
3 / Studio 8% 5% 10% 8% 12% 9% 14% 9% 13% 12% 13% 13% 14% 13%
3 / 1BR 10% 7% 13% 10% 14% 10% 15% 10% 14% 13% 15% 14% 15% 14%
3 / 2BR 13% 9% 16% 12% 17% 12% 17% 12% 15% 15% 16% 15% 16% 15%
3 / 3BR 15% 10% 19% 15% 20% 14% 19% 13% 17% 16% 17% 16% 18% 16%
3 / SF 18% 12% 23% 17% 23% 16% 21% 14% 18% 17% 19% 17% 19% 17%
Average 21% 11% 21% 15% 21% 13% 20% 13% 17% 16% 17% 16% 18% 16%
* Taxes are calculated with a mill levy of 31.653. Principal and interest are based on a 30 -year fixed, 4.00% rate with 10% down. Insurance is assumed at $1.50
per $2,000 covered.
P3
4
II
.
33
If additional home ownership costs such as HOA dues and utilities are included into the debt -to-income ratio calculation, percentages
increase dramatically. Though not a complete apples-to-apples comparison, shading has again been included for percentages exceeding
the FHA debt-to-income thresholds even though FHA calculations would not include these other costs.
Table 14 – Including HOA Dues and Utilities to Table 13 Figures
% of monthly income Cat1 Cat2 Cat3 Cat4 Cat5 Cat6 Cat7
Dependents / Unit Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max Min Max
0 / Studio 37% 17% 25% 16% 24% 15% 22% 13% 18% 17% 18% 17% 19% 17%
0 / 1BR 52% 24% 33% 22% 29% 18% 25% 15% 20% 19% 21% 19% 21% 19%
0 / 2BR 71% 32% 44% 29% 37% 23% 29% 18% 23% 22% 23% 21% 23% 21%
0 / 3BR 83% 38% 53% 34% 44% 27% 34% 21% 26% 24% 26% 24% 26% 23%
0 / SF 94% 43% 60% 39% 51% 31% 38% 23% 30% 28% 29% 27% 30% 27%
1 / Studio 25% 14% 20% 14% 21% 14% 20% 13% 17% 16% 17% 16% 18% 16%
1 / 1BR 35% 19% 27% 19% 25% 16% 23% 14% 19% 18% 20% 18% 20% 18%
1 / 2BR 47% 26% 36% 25% 32% 21% 27% 17% 22% 20% 22% 20% 22% 20%
1 / 3BR 55% 31% 43% 30% 39% 25% 31% 20% 25% 23% 25% 23% 25% 22%
1 / SF 63% 35% 49% 34% 44% 29% 35% 22% 28% 27% 28% 26% 28% 26%
2 / Studio 19% 12% 17% 13% 19% 13% 18% 12% 16% 15% 17% 15% 17% 16%
2 / 1BR 26% 16% 23% 17% 22% 15% 21% 14% 18% 17% 19% 17% 19% 18%
2 / 2BR 35% 22% 30% 22% 28% 19% 25% 16% 21% 19% 21% 19% 21% 19%
2 / 3BR 41% 26% 36% 26% 34% 23% 29% 19% 23% 22% 23% 22% 24% 22%
2 / SF 47% 29% 42% 30% 39% 26% 32% 21% 27% 25% 27% 25% 27% 25%
3 / Studio 15% 10% 15% 11% 17% 12% 17% 11% 15% 15% 16% 15% 17% 15%
3 / 1BR 21% 14% 20% 15% 20% 14% 20% 13% 17% 17% 18% 17% 19% 17%
3 / 2BR 28% 19% 26% 20% 25% 18% 23% 16% 20% 19% 20% 18% 20% 19%
3 / 3BR 33% 22% 31% 24% 31% 21% 27% 18% 22% 21% 22% 21% 23% 21%
3 / SF 38% 25% 36% 27% 35% 25% 30% 20% 26% 24% 25% 24% 26% 24%
Average 43% 24% 33% 23% 31% 20% 26% 17% 22% 20% 22% 20% 22% 20%
* HOA dues are estimated at $0.40 per square foot per month. Utilities are estimated at $0.08 per square foot per month.
P3
5
II
.
34
P36
II.
35
Attachment 3
Athen Builder
Summary Report
P37
II.
36
P38
II.
37
P39
II.
38
P40
II.
39
Attachment 4
Sam Brown
Centennial Editorial
Aspen Daily News
August 15, 2013
P41
II.
40
Published on Aspen Daily News Online (http://www.aspendailynews.com)
Centennial article misrepresents design, engineering issues
Guest - Non ADN Writer:
Sam Brown
Byline:
Special to the Aspen Daily News
Once again it is important to correct misrepresentations made about the Centennial housing
complex. First, it is important to note there are two different properties. One is a rental complex
of 148 units. The other a condominium of 92 units. The article in Monday’s Aspen Daily News
(“Report details $2M in needed repairs at Centennial complex,” Aug. 12) repeats a number of
wellworn misrepresentations about the problems faced by the homeowners. I am not
unsympathetic with them, but blame needs to be placed correctly. So let me deal with the well-
worn assertions about design, engineering and construction problems.
First is the allegation that “design problems” led to the situation now faced by the homeowners. I
would note that the architect for the project Moshe Safdie was, at the time, the director of the
graduate school of design at Harvard. He was well-known in Aspen from his time as chair of the
Design Conference at the Aspen Institute. He was well -known in the housing community as the
designer of the athlete housing for the Montreal Winter Olympics. And he is now world-renowned
as a designer of museums and public buildings (msafdie.com). He was not a beginner as an
architect or as a designer for cold weather. It is because of his design that each unit has an outside
entrance rather than the more common central hall in apartments. It is because of his design that
you can’t see any cars or parking as you drive by the complex or see it from Aspen Mountain and
that each apartment has south-facing views of Aspen Mountain. Those design elements are
expensive, not “value engineered.”
Second is the allegation that the engineering for the project was somehow deficient. The project
engineers were Anderson/Hastings. Again, they are a well-known firm with, today, over 10,000
projects in their portfolio including extensive housing experience. They were not the cheapest we
could find, but the best.
Third is the allegation that shoddy construction and cheap materials contributed to the problems.
The siding they will be removing — and which we have already replaced over the last five years
on the rental property — is clear vertical grain redwood. Siding of this quality was the most
expensive and finest available wood. So good that it is no longer even available. The windows
were tripleglazed and the insulation substantially above code because of an early concern about
energy conservation. The roofs are standing-seam metal which is among the most expensive
roofing materials but has a very long life.
So let’s lay those old canards to rest.
Centennial article misrepresents design, engineering issues Page 1 of 2
P42
II.
41
I do want to acknowledge that there was a problem, not with the flashing, but with run-off from
the roofs which ran directly down the side of the buildings. The fix, adding a lip to direct water 4
inches away from the building, was simple and done by the rental management more than 20 years
ago. I do not know whether the homeowners have done this.
As I understand the problems faced by the homeowners, the most severe are around the porches
built, not by the developer and not in the original design, but added by individuals at a later date.
I don’t know what design, engineering or construction work went into these additions. I do know
that we do not have similar problems with the rental units and we have treated siding replacement
as maintenance work done when needed and now largely completed. The budget, $21,739 per unit,
is intimidating for an individual when faced all at once. But I would point out that, over the 30 -
year history of the project, this is less than $20 per unit per month. If that money had been collected
and kept in a maintenance reserve, as a prudent HOA would do, and if the exterior maintenance
had been done on a regular basis, the HOA would not be in the situation where they now find
themselves. The problem was, of course, compounded when, many years ago, the HOA decided
that the capital reserves were too high and distributed the bulk of their funds to the then -current
homeowners.
I have two other observations. First, it seems wrong to me that capital improvements made within
a unit can be recovered at time of sale but capital improvements (if that is what this is) made to the
exterior are not added to the basis at time of resale. Second, a $90,000 a year fund, if that is their
current capital reserve contribution, goes a long ways toward amortizing a loan of $2,000,000,
with or without public financing assistance.
Finally, I would point out that most of the allegations about construction, engineering, and
materials come from the same source as the now totally-discredited $10 million repair estimate. It
would be helpful if the Daily News would not repeat unsubstantiated and ill-informed allegations
as if they had some basis in fact.
(Editor’s note: Sam Brown represents Centennial Community Management, Inc., which manages
the rental units. He was the original developer on the housing project.)
Source URL: http://www.aspendailynews.com/section/columnist/159071
Centennial article misrepresents design, engineering issues Page 2 of 2
P43
II.
42
P44
II.
43
Attachment 5
Historical Memos
in re: Centennial
P45
II.
44
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Board of County Commissioners
FROM: R. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
Scott Miller, Director, Capital Asset Department
Steve Bossart, Capital Asset Project Manager
DATE: March 31, 2011
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2011
RE: Centennial HOA – Assessment and Recommendations
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Beginning in 1987, the Centennial HOA board meeting minutes began to mention issues related
to broken window seals, window issues and possible liability issues with the developer. This was
the beginning of a long-standing understanding around water intrusion issues associated with their
building. In 1991 a consultant was hired to study water damage and water intrusion to the building.
Their report identifies “potentially serious problem” of moisture infiltration behind siding,
“causing deterioration,” possible mold, decay, and “extensive moisture damage”. Possible causes
include: lack of roof overhangs, lack of exterior caulking, poor ventilation of baths and appliances,
sprinklers directed at siding, lack of crawl-space and attic ventilation. Possible remedies were
predicted to be “costly and complicated.” It recommended increasing fees by 15% for 1992 in
anticipation of capital repairs.
Over the ensuing years the HOA Board meetings reveal:
They discussed installing dryer vents, repairing water damage, installing prototype roof
drip edges.
Mentioned that roof overhangs were installed on south side of all buildings for $47,595.50
Had another Replacement Cost Study done by Wilson Building Consultants, Inc.— it
recommended total funding for repair and replacement of $892,279
First Choice (property manager) revises total replacement costs from Wilson report down
to $264,834.
Meeting minutes note “now that replacement study has been completed, the surplus will
be passed on to the owners as a credit” to reduce 1995 assessments.
Three and one-half years later Board meeting minutes note “not enough money in the
reserve fund”. Reserve assessments will be increased “twofold”, getting assessments back
to same level of “five years ago”.
In 1999, Wilson Replacement Cost Study recommends Replacement cost funding of
$804,700 for next 5 years.
P46
II.
45
In 2009, REG, Inc. prepared study recommending removal of all building exteriors to
repair/replace any and all moisture damaged building components.
It is clear that moisture intrusion issues have long been known to the Centennial HOA Board and
that studies have been repeatedly done over the past 20 years. Some work has been done, but much
of the recommended repairs have been continuously deferred. Capital reserve recommendations
have been ignored – indeed a rebate was provided to owners in one year, even though the need to
save for repairs was well understood.
The latest proposal to deconstruct the entire outer shell of every building (replace all wall framing,
sheet rock and exterior cladding, replacement of all roofs) goes way beyond what is necessary to
reasonably deal with the structural issues and stop water intrusion – which stops mold growth and
any deterioration to support structures. The HOA’s proposal of a “$10 million fix that must be
accompanied by the lifting of deed restrictions” is unnecessary to the problems that exist with the
buildings – that is the inevitable conclusion one would draw by a review of the experts hired by
the City and whose findings have been agreed to by the HOA’s consultants.
As far as the building issues are concerned, in order to deal with moisture and mold the HOA
should:
Moisture and Mold Mitigation (all consultants are in agreement)
Step 1 - stop the water infiltration
Step 2 - assess and repair damage at exterior and behind the exterior sheathing
Steps 3 - (simultaneous with Step 2) conduct tests for mold and mitigate to standards (such
as the New York City protocols).
Mold Assessment
Mold exists everywhere in the environment
Mold tests reflect a “moment in time” and can vary from day to day
Centennial 2009 tests (DS Consulting, September 29, 2009) were “10.8 times greater than
the outdoor sample” in two tested units and 23.7 times greater and 17.7 greater than the
outdoor sample in the two other tested units.
The unit tests genus was of the smuts, Pericconia, Myxomycetes group, a type that
“generally pose no health concerns to humans or animals” and is found in soil, and living
and decaying plants (DS Consulting, Appendix A, Description of Common Mold Types)
Attic tests (Unit 321 Free Silver) identified smuts, Pericconia, Myxomycetes ,
Penicillium/Aspergillus (Aspergillus colonizes on continuously damp materials and
Penicillium is common bread mold in one species – both are allergenic to some
individuals), and Basidiospores (commonly found in gardens, forests, woodlands, and
outdoor air samples. Can be allergenic but not potentially toxigenic.) NOTE: Attics were
not originally accessible. In some units access stairs wrere installed by owners.
Recommendations are offered to address these situations and attics in general.)
None of the tests showed evidence of Stachybotrys (often referred to as “Toxic Black
Mold” which is potentially toxigenic)
P47
II.
46
No visible molds in some areas with elevated levels, visible mold in some areas but no
elevated levels
DS Consulting suggested using a recognized method like the “NYC Protocols” – there is
no national standard
There is no state or federal established level of “normal”, “safe”, or “unsafe” mold counts
Both DS Consulting and National Jewish Health advised distribution of informational
materials on methods to avoid mold growth, and that individual complaints of health or
comfort are addressed through further testing, and/or individual mitigation.
Construction Repairs/Recommendations/Alternatives
Building Science Corporation (City of Aspen consultant), and Resource Engineering
Group (Centennial consultant) have collaborated and agreed on a general repair strategy.
Note that this revised strategy is more extensive and than that initially recommended by
BSC. It goes beyond normal standards for building repair and allows for the building owner
to install a new and complete building wrap over 100% of the exterior wall assemblies,
detail a moisture drainage plane, and new cladding.
BSC has noted that if this repair approach is taken, the owner may wish to also replace
windows and doors with more modern and thermally efficient units (an additional cost).
Both the original and the expanded repair strategies will allow moisture damaged areas to
be uncovered and examined for deeper damage and mold. Once uncovered, and only when
uncovered, can any accurate estimate of mold remediation be determined, and those repairs
should be undertaken in that process.
The “sister buildings” at the Centennial rental property were constructed at the same time, using
the same designs and the same contractors. They have been dutifully dealing with the same
problems over the years with a relentless capital improvement program and do not face the same
issues as a result of their diligence at repairing and fixing their water intrusion problems.
It is the staff conclusion that the building’s repairs have been well understood for 20 years and that
fixing the moisture intrusion problems can be undertaken at a cost well within the means of the
property owners at Centennial.
REQUEST OF COUNCIL/BOCC:
Accept the consultants’ reports and staff recommendations to let the HOA deal with their
ownership issues without further public assistance, or modification of the affordable housing
program’s deed restrictions.
Staff must recommend a careful approach, similar to what any prudent home or building owner
would do with such an asset. That is implement strategies immediately, consistent with the BSC
recommendations, to stop and mitigate the moisture issues in every building. Failure to do so or
continuing the debate merely increases the damage and financial problem. Then begin work on a
strategic approach to each building to uncover and repair the damage. This could be done on a
schedule that allows moderate assessments to the owners over time. If additional improvements
such as new windows were desired those could be handled unit by unit or through an HOA arrange
finance mechanism.
P48
II.
47
PREVIOUS COUNCIL/BOCC ACTION:
On August 3, 2010 City of Aspen Capital Asset Department staff presented a report to a joint
meeting of the City of Aspen City Council and the Pitkin County Commissioners. The report was
prepared by Building Science Corporation (BSC), http://www.buildingscience.com/, a building
science and consulting firm, with a focus on preventing and resolving problems related to building
design, construction and operation. BSC is internationally recognized for its expertise in moisture
dynamics, indoor air quality, and building failure forensic investigations.
Also presented at that meeting was a three page report from Michael V. Van Dyke, PhD, from
National Jewish Health (NJH) in Denver (engaged at the recommendation of the City Environmental
Health Department). He had provided visual inspection of mold presence and extent, and had
reviewed one document from DS Consulting (the Centennial HOA retained mold assessment firm).
The City Asset staff had provided Dr. Van Dyke with the information it had thus received from the
Centennial HOA and management.
The staff presentation was cut short by Ed Cross, HOA president, who highlighted another report
from DS which contained sample evidence of elevated mold levels within living spaces at Centennial.
City Council and The Board of County Commissioners requested staff to resolve the “dueling
experts” reports and return at a later date to complete the report.
We have resolved the questions of differing opinions by obtaining joint letters of agreement from the
building experts and from the mold experts.
DISCUSSION:
Staff has since worked extensively with the combined resources of BSC and Resource Engineering
Group (REG), and with NJH and DS to present joint reports of the conditions and recommendations.
These are referenced in this memo and attached to this report.
Centennial
The Centennial ownership complex consists of 92 category-four, deed restricted ownership units.
They were constructed in 1985 and are located at the base of Smuggler Mountain. There is also a
Centennial rental complex at the same location consisting of 148 category three restricted rental
units. Both complexes are frame construction with sloped standing seam metal roofing, and painted
ship-lap rabbet redwood siding. Roofing ends nearly flush to building gable ends and at eaves.
Early moisture damage was noted at one window on the southeast several years after construction.
There are examples of retrofit sheet metal overhang assemblies and kick -out metal flashings at
lower eaves. In August of 2009 a wastepipe break in a party wall required repairs and other
infiltration moisture damage was discovered. Investigation uncovered other areas of concern and
further investigations were commissioned by the HOA.
P49
II.
48
On August 8th, 2009 selected city staff members and then Centennial HOA president, Ed Cross
and HOA attorney Fred Pierce sat down to go over what was then known about the scope of the
problems at Centennial. Recent water and mold problems at units #314 and #316 increased the
HOA urgency. For its part the HOA had hired an engineering firm, Resource Engineeri ng Group
(REG), to examine the problem and issue a report and recommendations - REG recommended
extensive demolition and reconstruction.
The HOA hired DS Consulting to conduct an inspection of mold as well as sampling reports of
interior air quality.
It was clear that more information and evaluation was needed to fully understand the scope of the
problems and the approach to a solution.
Approach and Preliminary Findings
In early 2010 the City agreed to provide interim project management services to assist the
HOA/APCHA/City of Aspen/Pitkin County team in expanding the overall evaluation. The City
requested, received, and executed a proposal from Building Science Corporation (BSC), a Boston
based engineering and architecture firm with extensive experience in building mechanics, systems,
and water management. BSC has conducted numerous forensic examinations and prepared
evaluations and solutions for moisture damaged buildings. The City has worked with BSC as the
liaison for the US Department of Energy Building America program.
BSC visited the site on June 30th, 2010. For the investigations the City engaged Rudd Construction
(Rudd) to provide manpower, equipment, tools and materials to assist in uncovering areas for
inspection, and for replacement and waterproofing repair. Also present on the day of these
inspections, at the request of Lee Cassin (City Environmental Health Director) was industrial
hygienist and mold expert, Michael V. Van Dyke, PhD, from National Jewish Health in Denver. He
provided visual inspection of mold presence and extent.
Attached is the final BSC report which was reviewed extensively with, and modified by
recommendations of, REG. The primary cause of damage is reported to be inadequate flashing,
particularly at roof- to-wall details, at some windows, and at eave overhangs. In addition there are
issues with attic air leakage and ventilation. The June 2010 BSC inspections removed large expanses
of siding where the earlier investigation relied on localized core samples. This more extensive
removal showed the water leakage and resultant water caused deterioration occurring at specific
flashing intersections while adjacent areas were in good condition.
The windows do not have any head flashings installed nor is there a membrane flashing seal
between the flange and the wall. In addition, the flanges are installed in front of the gypsum.
Building Science has recommended a dual benefit by replacing the windows with contemporary
units. If the HOA wished to retain existing windows, flashing recommendations have been
provided.
A further complication top the structural and water intrusion issues at the Centennial ownership
buildings have been owner installed balconies and other additions. It appeared that in many cases
P50
II.
49
appropriate detailing and flashing wasn’t implemented resulting in additional water access to building
structural elements.
After last June’s BSC investigation staff asked Rudd for their assessment of the work required to
effect repairs and corrections to the building enclosure. Rudd indicated they observed areas where
wall studs and plates would require replacement, while other areas needed siding removal, flashing
enhancement, and re-siding. The redwood siding is apparently of high quality and is generally in very
good shape – it may be considered for reuse if it can be safely removed without excess marring.
Dr. Van Dyke issued a three page report dated July 19, 2010 (attached with a cover memo from Lee
Cassin) addressing his observations of conditions on the same day of inspection. He included five
recommendations for repairing the water intrusion issues, cleaning mold where identified, educating
residents, and further inspections. Lee Cassin noted that not having ductwork or forced air furnace
systems is a fortunate situation in that mold spores have not been circulated. Dr Van Dyke and Steve
Shurtliff (DS) have met via telephone conference and have released a joint letter statement of
agreement regarding the observations and tests occurring at Centennial. The City of Aspen
Environmental Health Department has provided staff with information from the Colorado
Environmental Health Association (“The Top 10 Mold Myths, Replacing Hysteria with Science”),
the Colorado Department of Public Health (“Mold Information Sheet” August 2002), and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (“Mold Remediation – Key Steps”).
It should be noted and emphasized that according to building science experts, moisture damage
remediation is generally accomplished carefully and deliberately. BSC initially recommended a range
of options with respect to the attic issues and exterior walls. This approach was based on their years
of experience in the field over decades and is consistent with generally accepted asset management
practices for repair and preservation. It is generally accepted that elimination and control of moisture
is first necessary and successful step in retarding further mold growth. It is also generally accepted
that mold exists everywhere in the environment, and that testing procedures can quantify and identify
those genus that can be health concerns, after moisture control is established.
The sequence of these work efforts is logical and straightforward. Moisture must be mitigated before
repair and investigation of damaged materials can begin. Once the moisture is managed, mold growth
ceases and sampling can be reliably completed, and an action plan can be designed and priced. The
HOA and their consultant REG have understandably emphasized a comprehensive repair estimate
including mold mitigation. At this time we can make broad educated judgments and attempt to bracket
potential costs.
Costs
The 2009 assessment resulted in estimates from the HOA of repair costs of $100,000 per unit or $10
million for the entire complex. This estimate was based on observed conditions at the time of repair
of the unit which encountered the waste line break. Based on BSC’s site investigation and similar
restoration work, a local construction company took a very broad and very preliminary look at work
scope, based on the first level of recommended repairs. The total using that example would be $30,000
per building, or $2,300 per unit, or $212,336 to restore the complete project. It was recommended to
address 1-2 buildings at a time. Residents would be able to stay in their home during the work, unless
P51
II.
50
individual conditions required removal and replacement of wall elements, or penetration to the unit
interior.
Mold mediation techniques and recommendations are varied. It is generally accepted that mold is in
the environment and creates health effects only when in excess amounts in living spaces. Existing
mold spores, if encapsulated or isolated, do not pose a health hazard. Dr. Van Dyke recommends
eliminating excess moisture is the first and most important step. He suggests following the New York
City Department of Health’s “Guidelines on Assessment and Remediation of Fungi in Indoor
Environments” to clean the existing mold in crawlspaces and attics (see Attachment 12 – the
recommendations are straightforward depending on the extent of observed damage)..
Cleanup costs haven’t been estimated as of this date. We have spoken with the mold inspection
consultant and the mold testing firm used in 2009. We were able to get a “very worst” case number
of $10,000 per building attic. For our present discussions we might extrapolate $20,000 total per
building or $1,500 per unit.
The HOA and their consultant REG have emphasized a comprehensive repair approach calling for a
complete de-clad and re-clad of the building exterior, with a complete building wrap and new drainage
space with 1x4 wood furring. This is the way we would build in 2011 but it is not the way the exterior
was assembled when new. Originally BSC presented options starting with a patch and repair strategy;
an intermediate approach calling for de-clad and re-clad and repair of walls adjacent to deteriorated
areas; followed by the de-clad and re-clad of all walls. Prudent facility preservation management
attempts a reasonable balance of repair cost and life-cycle/operations analysis. The original BSC
program addressed this in a way that provided the HOA several options. The revised BSC analysis
begins with the complete de-clad and attempts to provide bracketed ranges of damage to be repaired.
The rental section of Centennial has pursued a mitigation and repair program similar to these
recommendations for a number of years and it has reportedly been successful in stopping moisture
intrusion and damage.
Process
The decision team members must carefully review the report from BSC, and resolve any questions.
The HOA must weigh project objectives against the BSC cost options. BSC has provided specific
details for window flashing, roof to wall section flashing, and balcony railing intersections.
A general construction firm would provide estimates based on the believed scope of work, with
general fee schedules, as well as specific fee schedules for predicted work components. Contracts
would by necessity be on a time and materials basis (T&M). As work commences and actual
conditions are fully understood the rates and scope would be correlated and confirmed against
estimates, and the overall budget totals would be recalculated.
The HOA would be advised to obtain project management services with special attention to finance
and contractual conditions. While recognizing the nature of unforeseen conditions in remodel and
repair work, we believe the repairs can be completed within a reasonable time frame, together with a
budget consistent with typical building maintenance and repair expectations. The HOA reports that
the owner improvements made to balconies, deck, and other appurtenances are limited common
P52
II.
51
elements and thus the responsibility of the HOA in common. These repairs should be concurrent with
the other design and construction activities.
History of moisture issues at Centennial – what did they know and when did they know it?
In August of 2010, city staff requested that the Centennial HOA board provide copies of any and all
available meeting minutes, financial reports, or anything else that would help staff understand the
history of moisture intrusion issues, the HOA’s finances, and what has been done to mitigate the
moisture problems. The HOA’s management company, First Choice Properties & Management, Inc.,
immediately provided electronic copies of meeting minutes, budgets, and financial statements from
2007 through 2010. However, staff was told that all other records were stored in an office in
Glenwood Springs and would be difficult to produce. In December, 2010 some records dating back
to 1986 were scanned and e-mailed to staff. While these records were by no means a complete record,
many years’ records are still missing; they provided a good snapshot of discovery of the moisture
problems, HOA board discussion of those problems and attempts to remedy the problems.
The following bullet points document some of the more important events in a timeline from 1986 to
the present. This is by no means a comprehensive study of all the facts:
• 11/24/86- Capital reserve study considered replacement of exterior stain, parking lot paving
and roofs only. Beginning fund balance was $12,000, out year contributions started at
$16,000, inflated each year by 3.5%, anticipated a capital reserve balance of $409,010 by year
2010.
• 5/19/87- board meeting minutes mention broken window seals throughout complex..
• 6/17/87- board meeting minutes mention window problems and possible developer liability.
• 8/12/91- James J. Wilson Building Consultants, Inc. / Code Analysis and Design hired to
study water damage.
• 10/17/91- Wilson hired to perform comprehensive study of moisture damage and recommend
remedial measures.
• 11/20/91- Board letter to all homeowners identifies “potentially serious problem” of moisture
infiltration behind siding, “causing deterioration”. Possible causes include; lack of roof
overhangs, lack of exterior caulking, poor ventilation of baths and appliances, sprinklers
directed at siding, lack of crawl-space and attic ventilation. Possible remedies predicted to be
“costly and complicated”. Increases fees by 15% for 1992.
• 1/7/92- Wilson progress report discusses possible mold, decay, and “extensive moisture
damage”.
• 3/9/92- Wilson progress report discusses latent defects and possibility of legal action.
• 11/23/92- Letter to all homeowners further discusses water infiltration, Wilson report, and
15% fees increase to study problem, install dryer vents, repair water damage, install prototype
roof drip edges.
• 11/17/93- Minutes of annual meeting reports that roof overhangs were installed on south side
of all buildings for $47,595.50. No increase in fees for 1994.
• 11/30/94- Minutes of annual meeting anticipates a surplus at year end of $40,000- $45,000.
• 1/24/95- Replacement Cost Study by Wilson Building Consultants, Inc. recommends total
funding for repair and replacement of $892,279.
• 2/1/95- First Choice revises total replacement costs from Wilson report down to $264,834.
P53
II.
52
• 2/8/95- Board meeting minutes note “now that replacement study has been completed, the
surplus will be passed on to the owners as a credit” to reduce 1995 assessments.
• 12/9/98- Board meeting minutes note “not enough money in the reserve fund”. Reserve
assessments will be increased “twofold”, getting assessments back to same level of “five years
ago”.
• 4/19/99- Wilson Replacement Cost Study recommends Replacement cost funding of
$804,700 for next 5 years.
• 9/1/99- Board meeting minutes state that reserve account is not sufficient. Will likely need to
increase both operating and replacement assessments for next year.
• 10/20/99- Board meeting minutes state that association finances are under budget.
• 12/1/99- Annual meeting minutes state assessments will increase no mention of amounts.
• 6/16/09- REG, Inc. prepared study recommending removal of all building exteriors to
repair/replace any and all moisture damaged building components.
The capital reserve studies and expert reports as early as 1991 pointed to a large problem with
moisture intrusion and potential damage to all buildings if a comprehensive program of repairs funded
by a large increase in capital assessments was not undertaken immediately. While some repairs were
done, and assessments were increased slightly, by and large the expert’s recommendations were not
heeded. Wilson Building Consultants has published a study undertaken in 1991 and completed in
1992 that explains the scope and the urgency of the problem. This report was the basis of updated
reports by Wilson in 1995 and 1999 which repeated the scope of the problem and recommended very
large increases in the HOA’s capital reserves to pay for the needed repairs. These recommendations
were not followed.
After a ten-year period of very little discussion or action on the problem, the HOA hired REG to
perform another study of the moisture problems in 2009. In this report the study’s author August
Hasz, recommends wholesale removal of all building cladding, roofing, windows and doors and
removal of all damaged members. This report is the basis for the HOA’s seeking approximately
$10,000,000 for repairs to their buildings.
REG, Inc. prepared study recommending removal of all building exteriors to repair/replace any and
all moisture damaged building components Staff’s conclusion is that if the HOA had acted sooner on
the recommendations of several experts, it could have mitigated most of its problems rather painlessly.
However, even today the problem is not a $10,000,000 problem and if a sensible program of capital
repairs is undertaken, the HOA can fund this program with an increase in capital assessments and
doing repairs over a several year period, making the most serious repairs a high priority.
Conclusions
The inspections reports all corroborate and identify the initial requirement to repair the construction
issues that result in water intrusion. Once the excess moisture intrusion is mitigated mold will not
grow.
The costs we can estimate from this investigation are well below the suggested outcomes from 2009.
If the mold mitigation is added, and considering some contingency for unforeseen conditions the per-
unit cost of repairs may be below $7,000.
P54
II.
53
Buildings depreciate. Regularly scheduled repair and maintenance are necessary to avoid
deterioration, correct deficiencies, and maintain function and value. Homeowners routinely incur
periodic repair expenses with any structure. In the case of multifamily homeownership, those repair
costs are shared, typically through reserves, special assessments, or other financing.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
The 2009 extrapolation of costs based on what was experience and projected by the HOA was
$100,000 per unit but involved, as best we could discern, a comprehensive redesign and
reconstruction of the buildings, inside and out.
This redesign and rebuilding approach is potentially attractive in some respects (essentially a “new
building”) but it is well beyond what most building owners would prudently consider, unless there
was expectation of an outside funding mechanism or other value windfall. The HOA has suggested
equity increase and borrowing potential by removal of the affordable housing program deed
restrictions. That discussion is beyond a Staff level purview. However, home ownership and
building ownership requires owner responsibility for regular maintenance and preservation of the
depreciable elements. It would be highly unusual for an original builder or a mortgagor to carry
maintenance as an outside responsibility while granting fee ownership, and forced removal of
agreed-upon terms and conditions is unknown.
The 2010 BSC investigation was accompanied by a local construction firm which provided
manpower and equipment. They have performed similar work locally. Based on their observations
and discussions with BSC they felt considerably less work would be required than was suggested
in 2009. We spoke with DS about mold work and received “very worst” case numbers for attic
mold clean-up. Together the total per unit cost was less than $7,000. Again, the building science
experts and mold experts have agreed that the prudent approach is to stop the moisture intrusion,
and then identify and repair damaged areas. The record indicates the HOA had similar information
and recommendations for as much as 20 years.
The revised scope proposed by the HOA may be attractive to the owners to use the provided
opportunity to enhance improvements to a point. But it would have per unit financial implications.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Building reuse and preservation is one the most sustainable and environmentally effective method
of resource management. For this reason reuse of existing materials and reduction of demolition
is recommended. As the areas of de-cladding are expanded beyond those areas needing repair
increase material, transportation, and landfill deposits are increased.
On the other hand, a complete de-clad would allow for installation of a complete building wrap,
and perhaps additional insulation and more efficient windows.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff must recommend a careful approach, similar to what any prudent home or building owner
would do with such an asset. That is, implement strategies immediately and incrementally,
P55
II.
54
consistent with the BSC recommendations, to stop and mitigate the moisture issues in ever y
building. Failure to do so or continuing the debate merely prolongs and increases the damage and
financial problem. The HOA should then begin work on a strategic approach to each building to
uncover and repair the damage. This could be done on a schedule that allows moderate assessments
to the owners over time. If additional improvements such as new windows were desired, those
could be handled unit by unit or through an HOA arranged finance mechanism.
This same work program has been recommended in one form or another to the HOA for over 20
years. The rental portion of Centennial has been gradually dealing with the design/construction
problems that bring on moisture/mold problems on an ongoing basis and claims not to have the
same issues that the ownership group now faces. Had the HOA accepted the recommendations of
their consultants and property managers over the years, they would not now be facing the work
that is in front of them. The magnitude of the recommended work is within the capability of the
HOA and homeowners.
In addition, the HOA must plan for approval and inspection of any owner initiated additions to the
buildings to ensure they are correctly constructed and installed, to avoid a repetiti on of water
intrusion due to inadequate flashing. Penetrations into attics must be monitored to maintain
moisture barriers, if the HOA continues to allow attic access into Limited Common Elements
(which should also be properly documented in the association documents).
ALTERNATIVES:
The HOA has understandably been concerned about how to fund a project scope as was discussed
in 2009. Removal of the affordable housing program deed restrictions was suggested as a possible
funding mechanism/equity increase that might allow debt.
The BSC suggested strategies are significantly less expensive and are consistent with HOA and
homeowner responsibilities, and environmentally sound policies.
If City Council authorized funding, capital asset staff could assist the HOA with project
management tasks
PROPOSED MOTION:
NA at this time
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P56
II.
55
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
BSC/REG joint letter
National Jewish Health/DS Consulting joint letter
BSC Investigation and Recommendation report
BSC Architectural Details
DS Consulting Mold Inspection and Sampling Report
Resource Engineering Group, 8.20.2009, Centennial Site Report
Resource Engineering Group, 8.20.2009, Centennial Housing Unit 314 & 316 Site
Observations
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, “ Mold Information Sheet”
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency “Mold Remediation in Schools and
Commercial Buildings”; also addressing residential.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, “Mold Remediation - Key Steps”
New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene; Guidelines on Assessment
and Remediation of Fungi in Indoor Environments, November 2008
Colorado Environmental Health Association, “The Top 10 Mold Myths – Replacing
hysteria with science”
DS Consulting/National Jewish Health – conference call minutes – August 2010
August 16, 2010, Lee Cassin, City of Aspen Environmental Health Director – notes on
the DS/National Jewish Heath conference call
P57
II.
56
COUNCIL WORKSESSION MEETING NOTES
MEETING DATE: April 5, 2011
AGENDA TOPIC: Centennial
PRESENTED BY: R. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Torre, Johnson, Kruger, Skadron, Ireland
Topic Summary:
On August 3, 2010 City of Aspen Capital Asset Department staff presented a report to a joint meeting
of the City of Aspen City Council and the Pitkin County Commissioners. The report was prepared by
Building Science Corporation (BSC), http://www.buildingscience.com/, a building science and
consulting firm, with a focus on preventing and resolving problems related to building design,
construction and operation. BSC is internationally recognized for its expertise in moisture dynamics,
indoor air quality, and building failure forensic investigations.
Also presented at that meeting was a three page report from Michael V. Van Dyke, PhD, from
National Jewish Health (NJH) in Denver (engaged at the recommendation of the City Environmental
Health Department). He had provided visual inspection of mold presence and extent, and had
reviewed one document from DS Consulting (the Centennial HOA retained mold assessment firm).
The City Asset staff had provided Dr. Van Dyke with the information it had thus received from the
Centennial HOA and management.
The staff presentation was cut short by Ed Cross, HOA president, who highlighted another report
from DS which contained sample evidence of elevated mold levels within living spaces at Centennial.
City Council and The Board of County Commissioners requested staff to resolve the “dueling
experts” reports and return at a later date to complete the report.
We have resolved the questions of differing opinions by obtaining joint letters of agreement from the
building experts and from the mold experts. Council and the BOCC asked staff to try and have the
“dueling consultants” of the City and the Centennial HOA agree to some background facts.
Discussion Summary:
It is clear that moisture intrusion issues have long been known to the Centennial HOA Board and that
studies have been repeatedly done over the past 20 years. Some work has been done, but much of the
recommended repairs have been continuously deferred. Capital reserve recommendations have been
ignored – indeed a rebate was provided to owners in one year, even though the need to save for repairs
was well understood.
P58
II.
57
As far as the building issues are concerned, in order to deal with moisture and mold the HOA should:
Moisture and Mold Mitigation (all consultants are in agreement)
• Step 1 - stop the water infiltration
• Step 2 - assess and repair damage at exterior and behind the exterior sheathing
• Steps 3 - (simultaneous with Step 2) conduct tests for mold and mitigate to standards (such as
the New York City protocols).
Mold Assessment
• Mold exists everywhere in the environment
• Mold tests reflect a “moment in time” and can vary from day to day
• Centennial 2009 tests (DS Consulting, September 29, 2009) were “10.8 times greater than the
outdoor sample” in two tested units and 23.7 times greater and 17.7 greater than the outdoor
sample in the two other tested units.
• The unit tests genus was of the smuts, Pericconia, Myxomycetes group, a type that “generally
pose no health concerns to humans or animals” and is found in soil, and living and decaying
plants (DS Consulting, Appendix A, Description of Common Mold Types)
• Attic tests (Unit 321 Free Silver) identified smuts, Pericconia, Myxomycetes,
Penicillium/Aspergillus (Aspergillus colonizes on continuously damp materials and
Penicillium is common bread mold in one species – both are allergenic to some individuals),
and Basidiospores (commonly found in gardens, forests, woodlands, and outdoor air samples.
Can be allergenic but not potentially toxigenic.) NOTE: Attics were not originally accessible.
In some units access stairs wrere installed by owners. Recommendations are offered to address
these situations and attics in general.)
• None of the tests showed evidence of Stachybotrys (often referred to as “Toxic Black Mold”
which is potentially toxigenic)
• No visible molds in some areas with elevated levels, visible mold in some areas but no
elevated levels
• DS Consulting suggested using a recognized method like the “NYC Protocols” – there is no
national standard
• There is no state or federal established level of “normal”, “safe”, or “unsafe” mold counts
• Both DS Consulting and National Jewish Health advised distribution of informational
materials on methods to avoid mold growth, and that individual complaints of health or
comfort are addressed through further testing, and/or individual mitigation.
Construction Repairs/Recommendations/Alternatives
• Building Science Corporation (City of Aspen consultant), and Resource Engineering Group
(Centennial consultant) have collaborated and agreed on a general repair strategy. Note that
this revised strategy is more extensive and than that initially recommended by BSC. It goes
beyond normal standards for building repair and allows for the building owner to install a new
and complete building wrap over 100% of the exterior wall assemblies,
• detail a moisture drainage plane, and new cladding.
• BSC has noted that if this repair approach is taken, the owner may wish to also replace
windows and doors with more modern and thermally efficient units (an additional cost).
• Both the original and the expanded repair strategies will allow moisture damaged areas to be
uncovered and examined for deeper damage and mold. Once uncovered, and only when
P59
II.
58
uncovered, can any accurate estimate of mold remediation be determined, and those repairs
should be undertaken in that process.
Board and Council Discussion:
Role should be in assisting the HOA to deal with their problem
Staff should meet with the HOA and fully brief them on the parts of the presentation they
missed due to the meeting proceeding faster than anticipated
Not sure about providing the HOA any funding – but rather emphasis should be on providing
technical assistance
Proceed with BSC recommendation to start with a few units, a few walls – to see what you
are really dealing with and get a better handle on the projected cost of repairs
Direction:
Provide technical assistance and help them get started with the BSC recommendation to begin repairs
with a few units or a few walls so you can really see what is going on behind the cladding and get a
better estimate on projected costs. Do not continue with cost estimating efforts under RLB nor
negotiate with the HOA over government assistance to pay for the repairs.
P60
II.
59
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Board of County Commissioners
FROM: R. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
DATE: August 1, 2012
MEETING DATE: August 7, 2012
RE: Joint Worksession – Centennial
SUMMARY:
The work recommended by City staff is inappropriately characterized by the Centennial HOA as “a
band aid.” It is in fact a comprehensive effort to fix the problems with their buildings in a responsible
manner, consistent with any owner’s desire to balance fixing the problem for a long term solution
with responsible use of an owner’s funds. It is consistent with the approach taken for years now by
the Centennial Rental Project – constructed at the same time and with the same design features.
Results to-date are encouraging and suggest a total project cost much more in keeping with our
original estimates of less than $10,000 per unit. This is an amount that is reasonably within the ability
of the Centennial HOA to finance through assessments and loans from a bank (which loans banks are
ready to make), and can be done over the course of several years.
A repair estimate from Summit Consulting (cost split between the HOA and the governments) will:
review the Building Science Corporation (BSC) report dated 02.21.2012 and solicit feedback
from Athens Builders (the HOA’s current Contractor); John Forster (HOA representative);
and BSC.
A narrative for the following estimate option will be prepared prior to commencing the
estimate phase.
Once approved, master bid forms will be assembled and quantity surveys will be performed.
Select subcontractor feedback will be solicited to market validate the estimate. The estimate
will be accompanied by a Basis of Budget attachment.
P61
II.
60
The approach/estimate option that will be the basis for the estimate will be similar to the approach
taken by the Centennial rental project:
An estimate to replace the exterior wall envelop of the south and west facing aspects based
upon BSC feedback . The north and east facing aspects will be reviewed for water intrusion
areas and particularly for repairs/replacement of flashing details at the roof/wall juncture.
BACKGROUND AND PREVIOUS ACTION:
Approach and Preliminary Findings:
• In early 2010 the City agreed to provide interim project management services to assist the
HOA/APCHA/City of Aspen/Pitkin County team in expanding the overall evaluation.
• The City requested, received, and executed a proposal from Building Science Corporation
(BSC), a Boston based engineering and architecture firm with extensive experience in
building mechanics, systems, and water management. BSC has conducted numerous forensic
examinations and prepared evaluations and solutions for moisture damaged buildings. The
City has worked with BSC as the liaison for the US Department of Energy Building America
program.
• BSC visited the site on June 30th, 2010. For the investigations the City engaged Rudd
Construction (Rudd) to provide manpower, equipment, tools and materials to assist in
uncovering areas for inspection, and for replacement and waterproofing repair. Also present
on the day of these inspections, at the request of Lee Cassin (City Environmental Health
Director) was industrial hygienist and mold expert, Michael V. Van Dyke, PhD, from National
Jewish Health in Denver. He provided visual inspection of mold presence and extent.
• The final BSC report which was reviewed extensively with, and modified by
recommendations of, REG.
• The primary cause of damage is reported to be inadequate flashing, particularly at roof- to-
wall details, at some windows, and at eave overhangs.
• In addition there are issues with attic air leakage and ventilation. The June 2010 BSC
inspections removed large expanses of siding where the earlier investigation relied on
localized core samples. This more extensive removal showed the water leakage and resultant
water caused deterioration occurring at specific flashing intersections while adjacent areas
were in good condition.
• A further complication top the structural and water intrusion issues at the Centennial
ownership buildings have been owner installed balconies and other additions
• It should be noted and emphasized that according to building science experts, moisture
damage remediation is generally accomplished carefully and deliberately.
• BSC initially recommended a range of options with respect to the attic issues and exterior
walls. This approach was based on their years of experience in the field over decades and is
consistent with generally accepted asset management practices for repair and preservation.
• It is generally accepted that elimination and control of moisture is first necessary and
successful step in retarding further mold growth. It is also generally accepted that mold exists
P62
II.
61
everywhere in the environment, and that testing procedures can quantify and identify those
genus that can be health concerns, after moisture control is established.
• The sequence of these work efforts is logical and straightforward. Moisture must be mitigated
before repair and investigation of damaged materials can begin.
Costs
• The 2009 assessment resulted in estimates from the HOA of repair costs of $100,000 per unit
or $10 million for the entire complex. This estimate was based on observed conditions at the
time of repair of the unit which encountered the waste line break, and a complete
destruction/reconstruction of the outer shell of the buildings – walls and roof.
• Based on BSC’s site investigation and similar restoration work, a local construction company
took a very broad and very preliminary look at work scope, based on the first level of
recommended repairs.
• The total using that example was estimated at $30,000 per building, or $2,300 per unit, or
$212,336 to restore the complete project. It was recommended to address 1-2 buildings at a
time. Residents would be able to stay in their home during the work, unless individual
conditions required removal and replacement of wall elements, or penetration to the unit
interior.
On August 3, 2010 City of Aspen Capital Asset Department staff presented a report to a joint meeting
of the City of Aspen City Council and the Pitkin County Commissioners. The report was prepared by
Building Science Corporation (BSC), http://www.buildingscience.com/, a building science and
consulting firm, with a focus on preventing and resolving problems related to building design,
construction and operation. BSC is internationally recognized for its expertise in moisture dynamics,
indoor air quality, and building failure forensic investigations.
Also presented at that meeting was a three page report from Michael V. Van Dyke, PhD, from
National Jewish Health (NJH) in Denver (engaged at the recommendation of the City Environmental
Health Department). He had provided visual inspection of mold presence and extent, and had
reviewed one document from DS Consulting (the Centennial HOA retained mold assessment firm).
The City Asset staff had provided Dr. Van Dyke with the information it had thus received from the
Centennial HOA and management.
The staff presentation was cut short by Ed Cross, HOA president, who highlighted another report
from DS which contained sample evidence of elevated mold levels within living spaces at Centennial.
City Council and The Board of County Commissioners requested staff to resolve the “dueling
experts” reports and return at a later date to complete the report.
We resolved the questions of differing opinions by obtaining joint letters of agreement from the
building experts and from the mold experts. Council and the BOCC asked staff to try and have the
“dueling consultants” of the City and the Centennial HOA agree to some background facts.
At a joint worksession on April 5, 2011 the following discussion/direction was provided:
P63
II.
62
It is clear that moisture intrusion issues have long been known to the Centennial HOA Board
and that studies have been repeatedly done over the past 20 years. Some work has been done,
but much of the recommended repairs have been continuously deferred. Capital reserve
recommendations have been ignored – indeed a rebate was provided to owners in one year,
even though the need to save for repairs was well understood.
As far as the building issues are concerned, in order to deal with moisture and mold the HOA
should:
Moisture and Mold Mitigation (all consultants are in agreement)
• Step 1 - stop the water infiltration
• Step 2 - assess and repair damage at exterior and behind the exterior sheathing
• Steps 3 - (simultaneous with Step 2) conduct tests for mold and mitigate to standards (such
as the New York City protocols).
Mold Assessment
• Mold exists everywhere in the environment
• Mold tests reflect a “moment in time” and can vary from day to day
• None of the tests showed evidence of Stachybotrys (often referred to as “Toxic Black
Mold” which is potentially toxigenic)
• No visible molds in some areas with elevated levels, visible mold in some areas but no
elevated levels
• DS Consulting suggested using a recognized method like the “NYC Protocols” – there is
no national standard
• There is no state or federal established level of “normal”, “safe”, or “unsafe” mold counts
• Both DS Consulting and National Jewish Health advised distribution of informational
materials on methods to avoid mold growth, and that individual complaints of health or
comfort are addressed through further testing, and/or individual mitigation.
Construction Repairs/Recommendations/Alternatives
• Building Science Corporation (City of Aspen consultant), and Resource Engineering
Group (Centennial consultant) have collaborated and agreed on a general repair strategy.
Note that this revised strategy is more extensive and than that initially recommended by
BSC. It goes beyond normal standards for building repair and allows for the building
owner to install a new and complete building wrap over 100% of the exterior wall
assemblies (NOTE: this option is not being pursued, rather the repairs will concentrate on
the south and west facing aspects of the buildings, as the Centennial rental property has
done),
• Detail a moisture drainage plane, and new cladding.
• BSC has noted that if this repair approach is taken, the owner may wish to also replace
windows and doors with more modern and thermally efficient units (an additional cost).
• Both the original and the expanded repair strategies will allow moisture damaged areas to
be uncovered and examined for deeper damage and mold. Once uncovered, and only when
uncovered, can any accurate estimate of mold remediation be determined, and those
repairs should be undertaken in that process.
P64
II.
63
The HOA elected to follow the example of the rental section and re-cladded the south and
west aspects (3 units), while refining the flashing and moisture intrusion areas of the roofs.
Board and Council Discussion:
• Role should be in assisting the HOA to deal with their problem
• Staff should meet with the HOA and fully brief them on the parts of the presentation they
missed due to the meeting proceeding faster than anticipated
• Not sure about providing the HOA any funding – but rather emphasis should be on
providing technical assistance
• Proceed with BSC recommendation to start with a few units, a few walls – to see what
you are really dealing with and get a better handle on the projected cost of repairs
Direction:
• Provide technical assistance and help them get started with the BSC recommendation to
begin repairs with a few units or a few walls so you can really see what is going on behind
the cladding and get a better estimate on projected costs.
• Do not continue with cost estimating efforts under RLB nor negotiate with the HOA over
government assistance to pay for the repairs.
TODAY’S DISCUSSION:
Over the course of the past year:
• Athen Builders, the same contractor who has been working on the Centennial rental buildings,
was selected by the HOA to conduct repairs on three units, on their worst south and west
exposures.
• The HOA and contractor determined it was not possible to remove and restore the existing
siding. Instead new siding was used on those south and west exposures (this is how the
Centennial rental project has proceeded). This had a cost impact.
• The selected sample appears to be costing $7-10,000 per unit, based on the small quantity.
Athen believes a larger selection of units will increase efficiency and allow for quantity
materials costs.
• A review of deteriorated decks indicates costs for those could be $2,500 to $3,000 per deck.
Conclusions
The inspections reports all corroborate and identify the initial requirement to repair the construction
issues that result in water intrusion. Once the excess moisture intrusion is mitigated mold will not
grow.
The costs we can estimate from this investigation are well below the suggested outcomes from the
HOA’s 2009 scenario and our original estimates. If the mold mitigation is added, and considering
some contingency for unforeseen conditions the per-unit cost of repairs may be below $7,000.
P65
II.
64
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Continue with the effort already underway to do a side or two at a time (the south and west
facing aspects) on selected buildings. Let the HOA continue to assess the efficacy of replacing
windows and help them secure outside funds where possible for that effort. Let the HOA
assess their desire to deal with decks and how to deal with the individual deck’s owner’s
responsibility.
Engage a local consulting firm to evaluate and extrapolate on the work scope undertaken
by the rental property and the HOA in 2012. Get a professional estimate for the entire
project using an approach that emphasizes the effort on the south and west facing aspects
of the building (taking off the siding and reviewing what needs to be done) and a review
of the north and east facing aspects for flashing detail repairs, particularly at the juncture
of the roof and wall.
We do not believe it is wise, nor necessary, for government funds to pay for the responsibilities
of home ownership. The repair costs that are underway at Centennial are a necessary part of
being a home owner – and in fact have been somewhat neglected for a long time (as evidenced
in the meeting minutes of the Centennial HOA since the early ‘90’s). There are opportunities
for energy-related grants to be made available to Centennial owners to defray a portion of
their repairs/maintenance costs. Policy discussions have been underway about some ways of
helping an HOA raise capital reserve funds (e.g. a payment to be assessed and collected at
each sale – something already in place for Burlingame transactions). It is anticipated that this
will be a topic for consideration at the upcoming Housing Summit in September.
FINANCIAL/ BUDGET IMPACTS:
City staff estimates they will spend slightly less than the $75,000 originally authorized for our
participation on this project (consultants, staff time and shared costs with the HOA). This amount is
to be split evenly between city and county.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A: Memo from April 5, 2011 Joint meeting
P66
II.
65
COUNCIL/BOCC JOINT WORKSESSION MEETING NOTES
MEETING DATE: August 7, 2012
AGENDA TOPIC: Centennial
PRESENTED BY: R. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mick Ireland
Torre
Derek Johnson
Steve Skadron
BOCC MEMBERS PRESENT:
Michael Owsley
George Newman
Rachel Richards
Jack Hatfield
Rob Ittner
Topic Summary:
Results to-date are encouraging and suggest a total project cost much more in keeping with our
original estimates of less than $10,000 per unit. This is an amount that is reasonably within the ability
of the Centennial HOA to finance through assessments and loans from a bank (which loans banks are
ready to make), and can be done over the course of several years.
A repair estimate from Summit Consulting (cost split between the HOA and the governments) will:
• review the Building Science Corporation (BSC) report dated 02.21.2012 and solicit feedback
from Athens Builders (the HOA’s current Contractor); John Forster (HOA representative);
and BSC.
• A narrative for the following estimate option will be prepared prior to commencing the
estimate phase.
• Once approved, master bid forms will be assembled and quantity surveys will be performed.
Select subcontractor feedback will be solicited to market validate the estimate. The estimate
will be accompanied by a Basis of Budget attachment.
The approach/estimate option that will be the basis for the estimate will be similar to the approach
taken by the Centennial rental project:
P67
II.
66
• An estimate to replace the exterior wall envelop of the south and west facing aspects based
upon BSC feedback . The north and east facing aspects will be reviewed for water intrusion
areas and particularly for repairs/replacement of flashing details at the roof/wall juncture.
Over the course of the past year:
• Athen Builders, the same contractor who has been working on the Centennial rental buildings,
was selected by the HOA to conduct repairs on three units, on their worst south and west
exposures.
• The HOA and contractor determined it was not possible to remove and restore the existing
siding. Instead new siding was used on those south and west exposures (this is how the
Centennial rental project has proceeded). This had a cost impact.
• The selected sample appears to be costing $7-10,000 per unit, based on the small quantity.
Athen believes a larger selection of units will increase efficiency and allow for quantity
materials costs.
• A review of deteriorated decks indicates costs for those could be $2,500 to $3,000 per deck.
Conclusions
The inspections reports all corroborate and identify the initial requirement to repair the construction
issues that result in water intrusion. Once the excess moisture intrusion is mitigated mold will not
grow.
The costs we can estimate from this investigation are well below the suggested outcomes from the
HOA’s 2009 scenario and our original estimates. If the mold mitigation is added, and considering
some contingency for unforeseen conditions the per-unit cost of repairs may be below $7,000.
Recommendations:
Continue with the effort already underway to do a side or two at a time (the south and west
facing aspects) on selected buildings. Let the HOA continue to assess the efficacy of replacing
windows and help them secure outside funds where possible for that effort. Let the HOA
assess their desire to deal with decks and how to deal with the individual deck’s owner’s
responsibility.
Engage a local consulting firm to evaluate and extrapolate on the work scope undertaken by
the rental property and the HOA in 2012. Get a professional estimate for the entire project
using an approach that emphasizes the effort on the south and west facing aspects of the
building (taking off the siding and reviewing what needs to be done) and a review of the north
and east facing aspects for flashing detail repairs, particularly at the juncture of the roof and
wall.
We do not believe it is wise, nor necessary, for government funds to pay for the responsibilities
of home ownership. The repair costs that are underway at Centennial are a necessary part of
being a home owner – and in fact have been somewhat neglected for a long time (as evidenced
in the meeting minutes of the Centennial HOA since the early ‘90’s). There are opportunities
for energy-related grants to be made available to Centennial owners to defray a portion of
their repairs/maintenance costs. Policy discussions have been underway about some ways of
helping an HOA raise capital reserve funds (e.g. a payment to be assessed and collected at
each sale – something already in place for Burlingame transactions). It is anticipated that this
will be a topic for consideration at the upcoming Housing Summit in September.
P68
II.
67
Financial/ Budget Impacts:
City staff estimates they will spend slightly less than the $75,000 originally authorized for our
participation on this project (consultants, staff time and shared costs with the HOA). This amount is
to be split evenly between city and county.
Discussion Summary:
MI: Has the HOA been in on the Summit recommendation? “Yes”
MO: The issue is who will pay for the repairs
JH: How to fund the money required? . . . it is not a government responsibility
RR: County funds have to be used for new construction and mitigation . . . lots of HOAs find
themselves facing similar issues . . . record does seem to indicate some knowledge of the problem
from the early 90’s . . . there may be some role for government in repairs for older projects – maybe
low cost loans? . . . the city should do it, given the restrictions on County dedicated funds
T: summit is coming up . . . what is the state of need? . . . let’s get the information at the summit and
determine the role for government funding
JH: Let’s talk about this on a policy level at the summit – but not focus solely on Centennial.
Direction:
1. Continue with the effort outlined.
2. Get the estimate and report back on the results.
3. Take up on a policy level the issue at the Housing Summit
P69
II.
THE CITY or.ASPEN
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council and the BOCC
FROM: Travis Elliott, Management Analyst Intern
THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: February 28,2014
MEETING DATE: March 4,2014
RE: Wildfire Mitigation Program Update
PURPOSE: The purpose of this memo is to summarize our progress towards wildfire mitigation
projects, and to bring areas needing additional resources to your attention. It is for informational
purposes only, and no requests are being made of Council or the Board at this time.
BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen and Pitkin County have been giving an increasing amount
of attention and resources toward wildfire mitigation and preparation over the past several years,
but there is still a lot of work to be done to ensure our community is as safe and prepared as possible
for a wildfire event. Recently, we have come to realize that certain aspects of preparation for
wildfires in Aspen's Wildland/Urban Interface (WUI) areas have not received adequate attention.
In 2013, City Council made the creation of a comprehensive wildfire mitigation plan one of their
Top Ten Goals for the year. Since then, staff members from the City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and
the AFPD have teamed up to prepare a multi-dimensional wildfire mitigation plan that emphasizes
a collaborative effort between the agencies by forming one Wildfire Mitigation Team.
UPDATE: The Wildfire Mitigation Team has incorporated the following areas of focus into our
community wide plan:
1. Harden Water Delivery Systems in Pump Zones on Red Mtn. and Eastwood/Knollwood
In summary, this is a large infrastructure upgrade project based on the recently
completed water system model (by Merrick & Co. in 2013). This analysis concluded
that the City's current water system is in need of upgrading in several of its pump-water
zones. Specifically, the water delivery infrastructure needs to provide more sufficient
firefighting flows to two of the highest-risk wildfire neighborhoods in Aspen and the
adjacent Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) of unincorporated Pitkin County.
The recommended system improvements include: pump system upgrades, backup
power generators for pump stations, replacement of conduit, installation of water
storage tanks,and reconfiguration of the existing system.This project has been put into
4 phases by Merrick & Co., which considers Red Mountain the first priority. Various
funding scenarios are being developed to fund this project, including a large grant
opportunity from FEMA.
Page 1 of 3
2. Development of a 2014 Neighborhood Wildfire Mitigation Program (NWMP)
The 2014 NWMP intends to provide collective groups of property owners the means
and education they need to successfully mitigate the risk to their property from wildfire.
Although there have been several successful mitigation programs and efforts in the
past,these programs were based on a voluntary property by property patchwork of fuel
removal. While accomplishing minor successes, these past programs were not able to
influence large areas of adjoining properties and property owners to cohesively mitigate
their property.Also,there was no continuation of the program in place or collaboration
with other jurisdictions to make wildfire mitigation efforts uniform across the
community—year after year.
Specifically, this new program intends to: partner with multiple jurisdictions, identify
priority neighborhoods that fall in high risk areas, communicate with and educate
property owners, hold neighborhood meetings, conduct risk assessments, and provide
financial incentives for collective groups of property owners to conduct the fuel
removal work.
In order to carry through with this program and offer financial incentives,the City and
County will need to identify additional funds. City staff is planning on utilizing the
wildfire outreach and education operational funds approved by Council in June 2013
of $50,000, but these funds are limited, will be stretched thin, and will not benefit
properties in the greater Pitkin County area.
3. Construction of Evacuation Routes
The Aspen area has numerous dead-end neighborhoods that have been identified as
hazardous in a wildfire or any natural disaster event. In these neighborhoods, not only
could evacuation for residents by vehicle be difficult, but access to the area may also
be difficult for emergency responders.
With this in mind, officials have begun to evaluate possibilities of constructing
alternative routes out of dead-end neighborhoods. So far, 7 neighborhoods in the
immediate Aspen area have been identified by the AFPD as needing alternative egress
options in a wildfire event. 2 of these 7 routes are in East Aspen, and City staff
requested funds (approximately $185,000) from Council which was approved in June
2013 for the planning and construction of these routes separately.
In order to make this construction possible, the owners of select properties are going to
have to give consent and a formal easement to allow construction of the routes through
their property. At that time, funding sources will need to be identified for the
construction of any additional routes.
4. Create Utilities Easement Fuel Breaks/Anchor Lines
The focus of this task is to create fuel breaks and anchor lines along public easements
or within public land to give firefighters a leg-up on a potential wildfire in the most
hazardous areas. These breaks can slow the spread of wildfires, provide firefighters
improved staging and access, as well as even stop the fire altogether. Last summer,the
Wildfire Mitigation Team was able to complete fuel removal work and construct two
fuel breaks on Red Mountain.
Page 2 of 3
This year, the Wildfire Mitigation Team is evaluating other public easements and
public property that could also benefit from fuel removal projects.
5. Exploration of Further Legislative Options
Although both Pitkin County and the City of Aspen have building codes in place based
on the International Wildland-Urban Interface Code to ensure structures are ignition
resistant, the Wildfire Mitigation Team has had discussions on what could be done to
improve these codes.
For the City, a risk assessment map was created and implemented in 2007 as part of a
wildfire ordinance which required structures be built with certain levels of fire resistant
assemblies depending on the level of risk the structure was in. In the near future, the
City would like to update this map and the risk areas and amend the 2007 ordinance.
6. Establish a Fire Hydrant Testing/Flowing Plan between AFPD and the City of Aspen
Utilities Department
There are approximately 630 fire hydrants on the COA's water distribution system.
National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) guidelines recommend that fire hydrants
be tested twice per year to gauge capacity and ensure functionality in the event of a
structure and/or wildfire event.
The Wildfire Mitigation Team has drafted a memorandum of understanding to be
adopted by AFPD and the COA in order to clearly delineate tasks and responsibilities
between the COA and the AFPD with regard to hydrant testing. The City will need
supplemental seasonal staff to assist with this function, and this has yet to be
appropriated by Council.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Page 3 of 3