HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.202102221
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
February 22, 2021
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
WEBEX
www.webex.com
Enter Meeting Number 182 192 2793
Password provided 81611
Click "Join Meeting"
OR
Join by phone
Call: 1-408-418-9388
Meeting number (access code): 182 192 2793#
I.WORK SESSION
I.A.Grant Program – Consultant Recommendations
I.B.Growth Management Quota System Development
I.C.Board and Commission Interviews
1
1 | Page
MEMORANDUM
TO: City Council
FROM: Karen Harrington, Quality Office Director
THROUGH: Alissa Farrell, Administrative Services Director
Sara Ott, City Manager
MEETING DATE: February 22, 2021
RE: Grants Program Evaluation Report Findings
REQUEST OF COUNCIL
Guidance from Council on next steps and preliminary plans to implement the recommendations in the
Grants Evaluation Report.
BACKGROUND
On November 18, 2019, City Council provided direction to proceed with an evaluation of the City’s grants
programs.
DISCUSSION
Project Development
The City grant program has three components:
• Community Nonprofit program
• Health and Human Services program
• Wheeler Arts program
For the 2021 grant cycle, approximately $1.2 million in cash funding was awarded through competitive
processes to 88 programs. (This excludes the amount of funds dedicated to the Red Brick Center for the
Arts and the amounts dedicated to Intergovernmental Agreements for human services). In addition, for
2020 only, an additional $304,528 was awarded to 16 grantees through the Arts and Cultural Arts
Recovery Grant Program, which was put into place to assist with the immediate impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic.
Under Council direction, the City recently completed a formal grant program evaluation. Through a
competitive process, staff hired Point b(e) to conduct the evaluation. In spring 2020, the consultant was
poised to begin the study. However, the advent of COVID-19 delayed the launch of the evaluation project
until third quarter of 2020.
To elicit potential improvements to the grant program, Point b(e):
Conducted best practices research
Observed grant review meetings
Held interviews with grantees, grant reviewers, City staff and managers, and City Council
members
2
2
Hosted grantee focus groups
Conducted surveys of grantees and Council members
In gathering this information, the primary focus was on discerning whether and how to 1) bring additional
consistency, transparency and equity to the programs; 2) streamline and strengthen the programs for
community and grantee benefit, and 3) update and enrich the grant review approach and processes.
Point b(e) collaborated with a project Steering Committee to refine the research questions and
recommendations. The members of the Steering Committee included representatives from multiple
stakeholder groups:
Grants Evaluation Steering Committee Members
Barbara Owen Community Representative
Daniel Ciobanu Community Representative
Julie Gillespie Community and Former Staff Representative
Teraissa McGovern Citizen Grant Committee Representative
Chip Fuller Citizen Grant Committee Representative
Cristal Logan Grantee Representative
Michaela Idhammar Grantee Representative
Lindsay Lofaro Grantee Representative
Zander Higbie Grantee Representative
Valerie Carlin Granting Agency Representative
Point b(e) has completed its work and now has its recommendations for Council consideration.
Project Recommendations
The grant program recommendations are wide-ranging and encompass suggestions that will affect the
program end-to-end. The recommendations include the following:
1. Shift the timelines
2. Redefine the staffing structure
3. Consolidate the programs
4. Create multi-year partnership grants
5. Redesign and codify review committees
6. Develop strategic priorities for the funding
7. Develop scoring criteria that match the funding priorities
8. Modify the grant applications
9. Develop a communication campaign
Details for each of these recommendations can be found in Attachment A, Grant Program Evaluation
Recommendations and an abbreviated summary is included below. The specific details associated with
implementation of the recommendations will require further staff discussion. A preliminary workplan is
available in Attachment B.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Some recommendations, if implemented, will have budget impacts. For
instance, the acquisition of an electronic grants management system in a future year will have a budget
impact. Additionally, in the short term, the Quality Office will continue to oversee and manage any of
the approved Council revisions to the program. However, in the long-term, there will likely be a funding
3
3
request due to the program administration cost of approximately $50,000 for the management and
coordination of the grants program. This may be in the form of an independent contractor or part-time
employee. In addition, recommendations include 3-year partnership grants, subject to appropriations.
Depending on how those are structured and rolled out, it may have short-term budget impacts. However,
no additional funds are currently requested at this time.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Implementation of the recommendations is not anticipated to have
negative environmental impacts.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
If Council agrees with the nine recommendations, the following table proposes information on the next
steps. Pending Council direction, Attachment B is included as a comprehensive timeline for possible
implementation of the recommendations. Please note that the electronic application software is
tentatively scheduled for acquisition in 2021 and deployment in 2022, and the three-year partnership
grant option is scheduled for development in 2021 and implementation/rollout in 2022.
Recommendation: Proposed Action Plan:
Shift Timeline • Execute and communicate shift of the grant application release from
Spring to Fall, with funding distribution remaining in April.
Redefine Staffing Structure • Further evaluate staffing structure or consultant approach for the
grants program administration.
Consolidation of Grant
Programs
• Implement overarching strategy and policy-focused Grant Steering
Committee.
• Create separate funding line for the health and human services (HHS)
Intergovernmental Agreements (IGAs) from the HHS grant funding line.
• Combine the application processes for the Wheeler, Community
Nonprofit, and HHS grant application and review processes, separating
HHS from the County grant application process.
• Expand opportunities for the community to participate in grant reviews.
Create Multi-year
Partnership Programs.
• Develop and implement a three-year partnership award, contingent up
City budget and partnership reports. One-year grants would remain
available.
Redesign and Codify
Review Committees
• Strengthen and expand review committees to include overarching
Grant Steering Committee and the following review subcommittees:
Arts Review, Health & Human Services and Community Non-
Profit. Consider adding a capital grant program and committee. Include
committee charters.
Develop Strategic Priorities
for Funding
• Work in conjunction with the newly created Grant Steering Committee
to enhance additional strategic focus areas for each program.
• Advance and refine scoring criteria to align with funding focus areas and
develop matrix for grant evaluation.
4
4
Modify Grant Applications • Develop application for grants under $10,000, offer separate
application for grants over $10,000 and implement a system for capital
requests.
Develop a Communication
Campaign
• Collaborate with the Communications Office and the Grant Steering
Committee volunteers in the development of a targeted campaign to
communicate Council approved improvements.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
5
5
ATTACHMENT A:
GRANT PROGRAM EVALUATION RECOMMENDATIONS REPORT
FROM POINT B(e)
6
Grant Programs Evaluation
Final Recommendations
Submitted February 17, 2021
Prepared by Point b(e) Strategies, LLC
7
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 1
Table of Contents
Introduction and Methodology ................................................................................................................ 2
Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 3
#1 Shift the Timeline ............................................................................................................................... 4
#2 Redefine the Staffing Structure ......................................................................................................... 6
#3 Consolidate the Grant Programs ....................................................................................................... 7
#4 Create Partnership Opportunities ...................................................................................................... 8
#5 Redesign and Codify Review Committees ........................................................................................ 9
#6 Develop Strategic Priorities for the Funding .................................................................................. 12
#7 Develop a Scoring Criteria That Matches Funding Priorities ........................................................ 13
#8 Modify the Grant Applications ........................................................................................................ 14
#9 Develop a Communication Campaign ............................................................................................ 15
Implementation Outline ........................................................................................................................ 17
Conclusion ............................................................................................................................................. 18
Additional Resources ............................................................................................................................ 18
Appendix A: City of Aspen Grantee Survey Summary ......................................................................... 19
Appendix B: Key Stakeholder Interview Summary .............................................................................. 27
8
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 2
Introduction and Methodology
The City of Aspen (the City) partnered with Point b(e) Strategies, LLC (Point b(e)) to evaluate its grant
programs. The City of Aspen grants approximately $1.5 million per year to organizations seeking to
improve the quality of life for residents in the City of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. The City’s
grant programs have been supporting nonprofits for decades. For example, since 2011, the City of
Aspen has granted over $13 million to local organizations through its three grant programs: Health
and Human Services (HHS), Community Non-Profit and Wheeler Opera House Arts grants.
Collaboratively, the City and Point b(e) developed an evaluation of the grant programs with the
following goals in mind:
• Bring additional consistency across the City’s grant programs.
• Streamline the grant programs.
• Update the grant review approaches and processes, including governance and staffing.
Additionally, Point b(e) and the City sought ways to increase transparency, equity and accountability
throughout the grant programs, while remaining responsive to the needs of local organizations and
the community.
Point b(e) utilized a mixed-methods approach to evaluate the City’s grant programs and understand
the unique needs of the community of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. Each method is described
in detail below.
Steering Committee. Point b(e) and the City created a Steering Committee to help guide the
evaluation process. The Steering Committee was composed of 12 members, including City staff,
members of the Citizen Grant Review Committee, nonprofit leaders, staff from other philanthropic
institutions, and local members of the community. The role of the Steering Committee was to assess
whether the goals and outcomes of the evaluation aligned with their expectations, weigh in on the
development of the evaluation tools, and bring the perspectives of the community to the process.
Document Review and Best Practice Research. Point b(e) reviewed grant-related documents from
the City for all grant programs to understand the grantmaking processes. Additionally, Point b(e)
researched best practices in grantmaking to inform recommendations.
Citizen Grant Review Committee Observations. Point b(e) observed three meetings of the Citizen
Grant Review Committee for the Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grants. Similarly, staff
observed two Citizen Grant Review Committee Meetings for the Pitkin County Healthy Community
Fund, as it related to the Health and Human Services funding. These observations provided
opportunities to understand the current process to evaluate applications and determine funding
amounts.
Grantee Survey. Point b(e) administered a survey to all current grantees of the City’s grant programs
to gather thoughts and feedback about the grant application and evaluation processes. The survey
was administered online via Survey Monkey to 99 individuals, with 59 (60%) respondents completing
the survey. Results of the grantee survey were quantitatively and qualitatively analyzed. The results
of the survey are provided in Appendix A.
9
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 3
Key Stakeholder Interviews. Point b(e) conducted nine key stakeholder interviews to gather in-depth
information about the grant programs. Interviewees included members of the Citizen Grant Review
Committee for Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grants, members of the Citizen Grant Review
Committee for Pitkin County’s Healthy Community Fund for the Health and Human Services grants,
staff with the City of Aspen, and the City Manager. Additionally, Point b(e) administered an online
survey to all of Aspen’s City Councilmembers. One Councilmember completed the electronic survey,
and two Councilmembers opted for telephone interviews. All of the key stakeholder interviews and
Councilmember surveys were qualitatively analyzed. The findings are presented in Appendix B.
Grantee Focus Groups. Point b(e) facilitated three focus groups with a total of 12 current grantees of
the City of Aspen. Focus group participants were recruited through the grantee survey, and survey
respondents had the opportunity to self-select into a focus group. Focus group participants
discussed ways to bring more transparency, accountability and equity to the City’s grantmaking.
City of Aspen Recommendation Meetings. Upon drafting the initial recommendations for the grant
programs, Point b(e) facilitated two meetings with City staff and the City Manager to understand their
perspectives on the recommendations and how to best align them with the unique needs of the City
of Aspen.
Point b(e) used data, insights, feedback and research from all of the above data collection methods
to formulate the recommendations presented in this report.
Recommendations
Throughout the data collection process, it was clear that there are a number of strengths in the City’s
grantmaking. It is a unique and historical City tradition, which illustrates a consistency and
commitment to ensure funds are available year after year. Through the grant programs, the City is
making a statement that it values organizations serving the community of Aspen and the Roaring
Fork Valley. There are a number of dedicated and engaged community members who have
volunteered significant time and energy to see that these programs bring important funds to
organizations. Finally, the City’s grant programs enrich life in the mountains by supporting nonprofits.
The data collection process also revealed numerous opportunities to improve the City’s grant
programs. The recommendations presented below outline a process to transform the City’s grant
programs into more equitable, efficient, transparent and accountable processes. The
recommendations are a targeted synthesis of data gathered from the research in the community
combined with best practices in philanthropy and grantmaking.
Point b(e) proposes nine recommendations to transform the City’s grant programs. Each
recommendation below outlines the current structure for context, followed by a detailed explanation
of the recommendation, along with applicable justification based on the evaluation methods. These
changes are significant and will require a concerted effort from City staff and community volunteers.
However, Point b(e) believes that this community is more than capable of making these changes. At
the end of the report is a recommended implementation outline that demonstrates the feasibility of
these changes while maintaining the current award cycle that is vital to the success of the nonprofits
that rely on this funding.
10
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 4
#1 Shift the Timeline
The timeline of the grant process from Funding Announcement to Award is quite lengthy. Shifting
some dates will streamline the process for the grant recipients, review committee and the City of
Aspen.
Current Structure
● The Funding Opportunity Announcement is released to grant recipients and the public in May
and open until August 1st.
● The City’s volunteer grant reviewers (including the Citizen Grant Review Committee (CGRC)
members for Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grants and a City Council member for
HHS grants) have about a month to review nearly 90 City cash requests, plus City in-kind
requests. The reviewers make funding recommendations in September, before the final
dollar amount available for awards in the upcoming year has been formally approved by City
Council. In 2020, due to budget uncertainties associated with COVID impacts, the Committee
had to assume a much smaller amount of available funding than in previous years for the
Wheeler Arts grants and come up with a formula for escalating the awards should more
funding become available.
● In October, as a part of its budgeting process, Council reviews and approves the final budget
for grants and the recommended grant awards are presented. At this point, the funding
recommendations are public; however, Council has the authority to adjust the committee’s
recommendations after this time.
● Contracts are distributed for signatures in January or February.
● Funds are distributed to grantees in April.
Figure 1 provides an overview of the current timeline.
Figure 1. Grant Timeline.
11
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 5
Proposed Recommendations
● Shift the timeline for the grant application release from spring to fall, with funding award
distribution remaining in April.
● Keep City Council approval of funding amounts for each category (Arts, Community Non-Profit
and Health and Human Services (HHS)) during the budget process in November, which
allows the CGRC to know the final funding amounts available to award.
● Close applications early in the new year, giving the reviewers six weeks to make funding
recommendations.
● This shortens the grant process from an 11-month process to a six-month process.
Figure 2 provides an overview of the proposed timeline based on recommendations.
Figure 2. Proposed Grant Timeline.
Justification
● While grantees appreciate consistency in this grant cycle, the summer is often their most
active season for programming, which means this application is due at their busiest time of
year. Shifting it to a fall release and a winter deadline will allow them to complete the
application at a more convenient time either before the holiday season or during January.
● This past year, the CGRC did not know how much funding was available to award to grantees.
This led to a far more complicated evaluation and allocation process that required the
creation of an equation to increase funding amounts after initial recommendations were
made. While recognizing that 2020 presented unique challenges and uncertain funding
levels, for the CGRC to most effectively review applications and make decisions, it needs to
know the amount of funding available before it makes its allocation recommendations.
● Based on research in philanthropy, the typical grant award process lasts approximately six
months.
○ Pre-award phase (4 months)
12
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 6
■ Funding Announcement is publicized.
■ Applications are typically due 30–60 days later.
■ Applications are reviewed over a 1- to 3-month period.
○ Award Phase (1–2 months)
■ Funding decisions are finalized.
■ Applicants receive awards.
● As was seen this past year with the COVID pandemic, a lot of factors can shift for a small
organization in 11 months. Shortening the grant cycle will mean that organizations are better
able to write and adhere to the applications they submit to the City. This will allow them to
better report on the impact of programs and the use of funds in subsequent grant cycles.
#2 Redefine the Staffing Structure
Staffing the grant programs within the City has shifted between departments over the years. The
grant programs are currently housed in the Wheeler, with less than one FTE of time allocated. In
2020, the Quality Office provided significant assistance and support to the Wheeler staff. Point b(e)
recommends housing the grant programs in a permanent department and devoting the appropriate
staff hours to the programs. This will allow the City to measure impact and gain accountability from
fund recipients in an efficient manner that can ensure the grant programs best meet the
community’s needs.
Proposed Recommendation
● Reconsider placement of grant programs administration, taking into account the multi-
disciplinary nature of the programs and the benefits of a more strategic approach to the
programs.
● Increase staffing levels associated with the programs, so that staff can more effectively cover
the associated needs.
● Revisit and reintegrate the necessary portions of grants management within the job
descriptions of City staff.
● Introduce a grants management software to ease the operational burden on City staff,
grantees and the review committee.
Justification
● Administration of grant programs takes a significant number of staff hours. Typical
administrative costs for grant programs range anywhere between 5–20% of the overall fund,
with the median at 7%. Without this investment, staff have little time to assure the programs
meet more than minimal standards, much less best practices in programs management.
13
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 7
#3 Consolidate the Grant Programs
The current grant programs do not have one process, but two, one of which is very reliant on Pitkin
County and the decisions of a single individual. Streamlining the process into one unified system will
increase efficiency and consistency and help create a far more equitable distribution of funds
through the empowerment and onboarding of a more diverse set of community volunteers.
Current Structure
● All Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit applications are reviewed by one committee
made up of four individuals from the community, one of whom is the chair of the Wheeler
Opera House Board of Directors. These individuals have to review approximately 80
applications in two weeks. Subsequently, they interview a subset of applicants and then
come together in consensus meetings to make their final recommendations.
● The Health and Human Services grant applications are currently tied to Pitkin County’s
Healthy Community Fund grant application process. A member of Aspen’s City Council sits in
on Pitkin County’s decision-making process and makes recommendations based on those
meetings as well as their own review of the applications. This individual is responsible for
making decisions for the City of Aspen’s HHS grants.
Proposed Recommendation
● The process through which grants are awarded should be consolidated into one system that
is applicable for all those that receive City funds, including Wheeler Arts, Community Non-
Profit and HHS grants. This will separate the HHS grant process from the Pitkin County’s
Healthy Community Fund process entirely.
● Separate the funding line for the health and human services-related Intergovernmental
Agreements (IGAs) from the HHS grant funding line. This funding, while dedicated to HHS
services, is not available for competitive grants.
● Establish a strategy- and policy-focused Grants Steering Committee (described in more detail
below.)
● Expand opportunities for more community members to become involved in City grants
review. Create separate review committees for each of the three grant programs (described
in more detail below.)
Justification
● The current system wherein the Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grants are awarded
by one Citizen Grant Review Committee puts an undue burden on Committee members.
Because of the number of applications they need to review, it is challenging to spend
appropriate time on each application to ensure an equitable and transparent process.
● Funding decisions should be made by individuals within the community who have specific
content-area expertise and experience in order to adequately assess the applications. Peer
and community-led review processes have been shown to increase equitable distribution of
funds.
14
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 8
● Standardizing the process for which all City grants are awarded allows for a more equitable
process that will allow the City to better track its outcomes and ensure accountability to
those whose tax dollars are funding these programs.
● Applicants will no longer have to be as concerned about applying for the “proper” grant
program. With an integrated process, if someone applies for an inappropriate program, their
application can be redirected to the correct program more easily prior to review.
#4 Create Partnership Opportunities
These grant programs have been funding organizations in the community for decades. Many of these
organizations have received the same or similar funding year after year. The history and trust
between the two have long been established. Formalizing this process into a multi-year partnership
opportunity will further the long-established trust and increase accountability for the City. Point b(e)
also recommends continuing to provide one-year grants for organizations that are new to the City’s
grant programs or for organizations implementing new programs.
Current Structure
● All grant applicants submit the same application to the City whether they are new or long-
standing recipients, regardless of financial ask.
● Funding decisions are often made based on the funding given the year before.
● The total budget for the grant programs has largely remained stagnant over the past few
years, despite an influx of applications from new organizations.
● There is no formal reporting process or requirement for grant recipients.
Proposed Recommendation
● Create a new type of grant—a three-year partnership award. The funding would go toward
general operating costs and would be contingent upon City budget renewal as well as
partners completing a yearly status and outcomes report.
● Each year, rather than submit another application, partners would submit an evaluation
report that would track their outcomes for the year and verify that the funds were spent as
intended.
● Continue to evaluate applicants in subgroups distinguished by their grant program.
● Stagger the initial terms of the partnership grants, such that over time, the grant review
committees are annually reviewing one third of the partnership applications.
● One-year grants would still be available, thus allowing new organizations the chance to apply
and prove themselves eligible for partnerships in the future or accomplish shorter-term
goals.
15
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 9
Justification
● The most significant emerging best practice in philanthropy is the creation of multi-year
operating grants.
○ It fosters a feeling of partnership between funders and fund recipients.
○ It allows organizations more flexibility to adapt to participant and community needs.
○ It allows financial stability for organizations that often increases funding from other
sources and frees staff time to focus on participants rather than cumbersome grant
applications.
○ It allows funders to truly measure their work because it requires a yearly evaluation
of results.
● Aspen has many grantees who have been receiving similar funding levels year after year.
Introducing a three-year partnership grant will allow the City to formalize a longer-term
partnership with these grantees.
● This process will also result in fewer applications year after year for the CGRCs to evaluate,
thus allowing them more time to focus on new applications or applications where situations
have changed (such as the onboarding of a new Executive Director).
#5 Redesign and Codify Review Committees
The integration of Health and Human Services Grants into the current Citizen Grant Review
Committee is not feasible given the capacity and expertise of the individuals on the current
committee. In order to ensure that the grant funds are distributed to the organizations that are best
meeting community needs, applications should be reviewed by a broad range of individuals that
interact with the services on a regular basis and/or have skill sets that are directly applicable to
application review. This recommendation, therefore, focuses on strengthening and expanding
participation in the review of City grants, building on the current volunteer reviewer.
Further, reviewers currently operate without the guidance of a formal charter describing how they are
appointed, how long their terms are, their roles and responsibilities and their expectations. To
remedy this, Point b(e) recommends that the City formalize the roles of reviewers.
Current Structure
● The current Citizen Grant Review Committee for Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit
grants exists without a charter or a formal appointment process. There are no term limits or
formal processes to govern members’ appointment or actions.
● During the 2020 review process, the Citizen Grant Review Committee was comprised of four
individuals, some of whom have sat on the committee for decades.1 They are passionate,
1 We acknowledge the loss felt by the community with the passing of a dedicated and long-standing committee
member this year.
16
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 10
dedicated, intelligent and well-respected individuals who were all selected by various
processes and never formally appointed.
● The review of the HHS grants is currently the responsibility of one individual from City
Council. As with the Citizen Grant Review Committee, there are no guidelines for when and
how the reviewer for the HHS grants is selected nor for how long they should serve.
Proposed Recommendations
● Reformulate review responsibilities into four separate bodies, each with its own purpose and
funding dollars.
o Citizen Grant Steering Committee—This body does not conduct reviews nor make
funding recommendations but serves as the main strategic arm that liaises with the
City on logistics, sets strategic priorities, and monitors the subcommittees below.
Members of the City, including the City Manager, could potentially serve on this
committee, but should not be the only members of it.
o Arts Citizen Grant Review Committee—This subcommittee will review and make
recommendations for awards for the Wheeler Arts grants. This group should be
comprised of individuals who have a passion for and experience with the Arts in
Aspen and the surrounding community. Individuals could include local artists, gallery
owners, radio hosts, stage managers, patrons, Wheeler Board Chair, etc.
o Community Non-Profit Citizen Grant Review Committee—This subcommittee will
review and make recommendations for all awards for the Community Non-Profit
grants. This group should be comprised of individuals who have a passion for and
experience with the community nonprofit work in Aspen and the surrounding
community. Individuals may work in schools, run youth mentoring programs, be high
school students, work in outdoor/environmental programming, or run local
community gardens or other nonprofits, etc.
o Health and Human Services Citizen Grant Review Committee—This subcommittee will
review and make recommendations for all the Health and Human Services grant
funds. This group should largely be comprised of individuals who work in or have
lived experience with Health and Human Services. Individuals could include local
doctors, mental health service providers, school district representatives, individuals
with disabilities, case managers or day-program operators.
o Point b(e) recommends that one person from each subcommittee sit on the
overarching Steering Committee to serve as liaison between the groups.
17
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 11
Figure 3. Structure of the Grant Steering Committee and Subcommittees
● Develop a charter for Committees that includes: purpose, term limits, recommended number
of members, decision making processes, and other bylaws.
● These charters should be accompanied by job descriptions and desired skill sets of
members.
o All committees should include representation from the communities that the funding
is designed to impact. This includes youth, BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and People of
Color) individuals, local artists, etc.
o Other recommended skill sets include: financial, legal, nonprofit management,
philanthropy, equity, subject matter expertise, etc.
● All Committee members should be term limited in their service, which should be outlined in
the job description and charter.
● A targeted recruitment plan should be developed and circulated within the community in
order to fill all open positions with a representative population.
Justification
● A thorough review of a grant application can take up to six hours. A thorough review of an
application is paramount to ensuring funds are distributed to those who will best impact the
community.
● The current structure leads to overworked volunteers who are challenged to devote adequate
time to ensuring an objective and equitable review process.
Grant Steering
Committee
Arts Review Committee Health & Human Services
Review Committee
Community Non-Profit
Review Committee
18
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 12
● Representation from the communities that the funding is designed for allows the committees
to truly understand the needs of the community and therefore award funding where it will
have the greatest impact.
● Formalizing the committees with the addition of charters will allow for increased direction
and a greater degree of alignment with and accountability to the City’s priorities.
● Term limits allow for a graceful transition on and off the committee. This will increase interest
in serving if it is known that it is for a set amount of time. It also allows for the addition of
new perspectives and the opportunity to adapt to changing community needs.
#6 Develop Strategic Priorities for the Funding
This grant funding is designed to positively impact the City of Aspen. In order to most effectively do
that, the desired impacts need to be stated, clarified and evaluated.
Current Structure
● There are currently strategic focus areas and funding priorities for the grant programs;
however, they do not appear to be thoroughly understood by the grantees or aligned with the
grant application.
● The general grant review criteria for the Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit programs
are posted on the City website, but no matrix is available to help applicants understand what
is needed to score well on criteria.
● The HHS grant application includes language on the City’s focus areas, but as with the other
grant programs, no scoring matrix is available to help guide applicants in understanding
expectations.
● The relative role of formal numeric scoring in overall considerations is not well
communicated.
Proposed Recommendations
● City staff should work with the newly created Steering Committee to create strategic priorities
for each grant program. These grant priorities should be aligned with the City’s mission,
priorities and desired outcomes.
● Priorities should be revisited on a regular basis along with the City of Aspen’s priorities.
● Priorities should be re-evaluated every three years.
● All grants should align with the strategic priorities.
Justification
● Currently, neither the CGRC nor grantees understand what the City’s funding priorities are for
the grant programs. Setting strategic priorities will allow the City to evaluate impact based on
the priorities that City Council and the Steering Committee deem important for the
community.
19
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 13
● Strategic priorities allow fund recipients to understand where the community is focusing
attention. This might allow them to better understand why they did or did not receive funding,
or to share an aspect of their programming that is aligned with the City that they did not
know was a priority.
● This is not designed to tell organizations how they should shape their programming, but
rather allows them to understand what the City is prioritizing, and how those priorities are
designed to strengthen the community as a whole.
#7 Develop a Scoring Criteria That Matches Funding Priorities
Point b(e) recommends developing an application scoring system that allows the CGRCs to evaluate
applications against the established strategic priorities. This will allow the CGRCs to ensure funding
is distributed to organizations and programs that are best aligned with the strategic priorities.
Current Structure
● Two years ago, scoring criteria was introduced to the Citizen Grant Review Committee. Prior
to that time, no numeric scores were used to guide decision-making. This year the CGRC
calculated scores for individual applications, however, the scoring rarely factored into final
decisions about funding amounts and was deemed relatively cumbersome by the CGRC
members.
● No numeric scoring criteria exist for the HHS grant evaluations.
Proposed Recommendations
● Scoring criteria needs to be created based on the strategic priorities set by the Steering
Committee and the City.
● The criteria and the requirements to score at each level should be made public to all
applicants with the Funding Opportunity Announcement.
● The criteria should be integrated into the review process by the CGRC through the use of a
grant management system.
● Applicants' scores should be used as the primary basis for funding decisions.
○ If an application scores below a certain threshold, they should not receive any
funding.
○ If an application scores above a certain threshold, they should receive funding. The
amount they receive will not necessarily be their full ask but will be based on further
criteria as elaborated below.
● Final funding amount should be based on total available budget, total dollar amount of
approved applications, appropriateness of proposed budget, final score, and any other
criteria the review committee deems relevant. These criteria should be finalized prior to the
application review and published with the application.
20
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 14
Justification
● Establishing a criteria and matrix by which to assess alignment allows for the greatest
amount of objectivity in a grant-making process.
● If an applicant is unhappy with their award, they can be given their score to understand why
they were not funded. Because the score will not be the sole criteria that determines funding
amounts notes should be taken about which other criteria precluded organizations from
receiving their full ask. This also allows an opportunity to improve their application to receive
funds in future years.
● Scoring criteria provides an opportunity for new organizations to have a pathway to increase
funding if their work aligns with the City’s strategic priorities. However, if overall budget for
the grant programs does not increase, this will decrease funding for other grantees.
#8 Modify the Grant Applications
Grant applications should give reviewers just enough information to make an informed funding
decision without requiring them to wade through pages of irrelevant information. Due to the changes
in prioritization and types of grants, the City’s grant applications will need to be streamlined and/or
modified.
Current Structure
● Potential Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grantees submit one application to the City,
while HHS applicants submit a city-specific addendum to the Pitkin County Healthy
Community Fund application. This application process is the same for all funding amounts
ranging from $2,000–$100,000 or for in-kind donations.
● The application for the Wheeler Arts and Community Non-Profit grant is eight pages long with
extensive financial, board and salary information requests. While the City portion of the
County application form is only two pages, it follows a much lengthier County application.
● Capital requests are made to the City on an ad hoc basis throughout the year, outside of the
grant programs. If a capital request is made using the Community Non-Profit or Wheeler Arts
grant application, it is usually denied because capital requests are not typically considered
eligible for City grant programs funding. This places the city in a situation where capital
requests are inconsistently considered on an ad-hoc basis without uniform evaluation
criteria. Because of this, it may result in inconsistent decision making and may be perceived
as biased.
Proposed Recommendations
● Develop an application that is specific for grant requests under $10,000. Questions should
be limited to those that are most important to assist the evaluators with scoring the
application. Additionally, Point b(e) recommends requiring a much more limited financial
request, such as requesting the organization’s 990 or Profit & Loss Statement and Balance
21
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 15
Sheet. Questions surrounding staff salaries & other funding sources should be greatly
limited, if included at all.
● For requests of more than $10,000, a more robust application should be created. This will
include all three-year partnership requests that total more than $10,000 over the three-year
period. If the City feels questions around other funding sources, staffing structure, and
organizational capacity are relevant in order to make funding decisions for these larger
grants, they should be included in this application only.
o Financial reporting should still be limited to documents that organizations already
have rather than asking for a budget based on City’s line items.
o Information requests should still be limited to information that assists with decision-
making for the review committees.
● A system for capital requests needs to be established and shared with the community, which
should articulate a time frame. A separate application that is relevant to capital requests
needs to be created, and a selection of the reviewers needs to be devoted to reviewing these
applications. Additionally, it should be noted that funding for capital requests continues to
remain separate and outside of the funding for the Wheeler Arts, Community Non-Profit and
HHS grant programs.
Justification
● Overly cumbersome grant applications do not benefit anyone. They lead to more time spent
completing applications for organizations that are often understaffed. Time spent filling out
applications can be better utilized to strengthen programs or create more robust evaluation
processes. Additionally, the longer the application is, the longer it takes for the volunteers to
review.
● The majority of the current CGRC members expressed that they do not have the capacity to
review the significant financial information in each application, leaving it unread, and
therefore unused.
● “Right sizing” grant applications is becoming increasingly common among grantmaking
institutions because it allows organizations that are getting significantly less funding from a
source to devote less time to the application. This is particularly important for smaller
organizations that are often staffed by one or two individuals and do not have grant writers
on staff.
● Capital campaigns often include information such as blueprints, building plans and
significant budgets. Because of this, it takes a specific skill set to evaluate their merit. As
such, a specific committee comprised of volunteers from the community who have that skill
set should review and pass recommendations on to the City Manager. If established, it
would require an additional grant review subcommittee, with at least some subject matter
experts added.
#9 Develop a Communication Campaign
The City of Aspen is on the cusp of making big changes to the way it distributes grant funds. This is
an exciting new endeavor that will increase equity, transparency and efficiency. The final
recommendation is to communicate this plan early, often and fully.
22
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 16
Current System
● Information is disseminated to grant recipients and the community in a variety of ways, with
limited structure for how or who receives information directly related to the grant programs.
o The basic grant eligibility requirements, overarching criteria, grant applications and
award process and schedule are posted on the City of Aspen website at
https://www.cityofaspen.com/383/Grants
o Current grant recipients are emailed the fund announcement when made public.
o City staff respond to emails and phone calls regarding the programs.
o City Council meetings are open to the public, so anyone can attend the meeting
where decisions are finalized.
o Emails are sent to the grantees with their award amounts. As well, those who do not
receive funding are contacted via email. Staff also respond to questions from
individual organizations regarding the funding decisions.
Proposed Recommendations
● Create a targeted campaign within the City and surrounding communities that communicates
and announces the new, more equitable and transparent City grant process.
● This campaign should include the recruitment of volunteers for the Steering Committee and
program-specific review committees.
● It should target potential grant recipients that have not received funding but may be eligible.
● It should communicate all changes to the grant application, timeline and review process.
● Lastly, it should include a process wherein decisions are shared quickly with those who do
and do not receive their full dollar amount, such as took place in 2020 when emails were
sent to all grantees early. This will ensure that complaints are handled efficiently, rather than
over an extended period of time. The scoring results should be the backbone of the
communication process.
Justification
● The number one way to create transparency is to communicate. The City should
communicate all shifts in opportunity, priorities and funding.
● Grant recipients are currently unaware of significant aspects of the grant programs that have
been made public through memos or at City Council meetings.
● Point b(e) has proposed significant programmatic and process adjustments that will affect all
grantees and the community as a whole. It is vital to the success of the program that these
changes are communicated to all potential stakeholders early, often and accurately.
23
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 17
Implementation Outline
24
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 18
Conclusion
If implemented, these nine recommendations will strengthen the City of Aspen’s grant programs.
They will increase transparency, efficiency and accountability, and help ensure the equitable
distribution of funds to organizations that are best serving the community. They are not minor
tweaks, but large changes that will require staff and volunteer time and energy in order to
accomplish. Yet, they are extremely feasible to enact over the next year. The City of Aspen is filled
with intelligent individuals who are extremely passionate about their community. Point b(e) has no
doubt that the City staff will be able to effectively work with the community to foster real change for
the City’s grant programs and therefore the community as a whole.
There are alternative options to the recommendations offered, such as outsourcing management of
the entire grant program or the creation of administrative only reviews. However, Point b(e) feels that
in strengthening and empowering community members to take a more focused scope, the grant
programs will best be able to meet the needs of the City of Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. This
approach will work best when implemented in its entirety and by combining a more targeted
prioritization of fund dollars with a review process to match.
Additional Resources
DirectRFP®. “7 RFP Scoring Guidelines You Need to Improve Transparency and Buy-In.” DirectRFP®,
4 June 2019, directrfp.com/rfp-scoring-guidelines-to-improve/.
DirectRFP®. “Write RFP Questions The Right Way & Get Better Responses.” DirectRFP®, 4 June
2019, directrfp.com/write-rfp-questions-the-right-way-and-get-better-responses/.
Edwards, Sandy. “The Benefits of Multiyear Grantmaking: A Funder’s Perspective.” Philanthropy
News Digest (PND), 31 Jan. 2013, https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/commentary-and-
opinion/benefits-of-multiyear-grantmaking
Gibson, Cynthia M. “Deciding Together: Shifting Power and Resources Through Participatory
Grantmaking.” IssueLab, IssueLab, 2 Oct. 2018,
participatorygrantmaking.issuelab.org/resource/deciding-together-shifting-power-and-
resources-through-participatory-grantmaking.html.
National Committee for Responsive Philanthropy. “Criteria for Philanthropy at Its Best. Benchmarks
to Assess and Enhance Grantmaker Impact” 8 March, 2019,
https://bjn9t2lhlni2dhd5hvym7llj-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/10/paib-fulldoc_lowres.pdf
25
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 19
Appendix A: City of Aspen Grantee Survey Summary
Point b(e) administered a survey to all current grantees of the City of Aspen’s grant programs. The
survey was administered online via Survey Monkey to 99 individuals, with 59 (60%) respondents
completing the survey. The results of the survey are presented below.
Type of Funding Applied for This Year
Respondents were asked to identify the type of funding they applied for—Wheeler Arts, Community
Non-Profit or Health and Human Services.
Figure 1. Type of Funding
Number of Years Received Funding From the City of Aspen
Respondents were also asked to indicate the number of years they have received funding from the
City of Aspen.
20%
59%
20%
Type of Funding
% HHS % Community Non-Profit % Wheerler Arts
26
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 20
Figure 2. Number of Years Received Funding
Strengths of the City’s Grant Programs
Respondents were asked to describe the strengths of the City’s grantmaking programs. Responses
fell into several themes:
• The funding supports organizations that help the community in a variety of ways and
illustrates the City’s commitment to the community (n=26).
• The application process—The online form is easy, the process is clear, the grant guidelines
are straight forward, there are fewer redundant questions this year (n=18).
o HHS grantees appreciate that the application is connected to the Pitkin County
application, as it reduces duplication (n=5).
• The supportive team is responsive to questions and provides good communication
throughout the process (n=14).
• The funding is consistent and reliable (n=12).
Grant Application Process
Respondents were asked to provide feedback about the grant application process by rating a series
of statements on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. Figure 3
displays the results.
39%
11%
27%
23%
Number of Years Received
Funding
0-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-19 Years 20+ Years
27
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 21
Figure 3. Feedback About Grant Application
Opportunities for Improvement
• Reduce the number of questions on the application, modify the way financial data is
requested, consider a new online platform for the application, provide an abbreviated
application for smaller grants.
• Allow opportunities on the application for grantees to elaborate on their impact, show the
extent of services provided, or share a client story.
• Consider a multi-year grant cycle, rather than annual applications.
Grant Evaluation Process
Respondents were asked to provide feedback about the grant evaluation process by rating a series
of statements on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Strongly Disagree and 5 = Strongly Agree. Figure 4
illustrates the feedback by grantees.
80%
93%
91%
91%
86%
78%
76%
76%
78%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
The City’s funding priorities were clearly communicated.
The eligibility criteria to apply for grants was clearly
communicated.
The City’s grantmaking staff was responsive to
questions during the application process.
The City’s grantmaking staff was helpful during the
application process.
The grant application process was clear.
The online grant application was easy to use.
The amount of information required on the grant
application was reasonable.
Based on the information asked in the grant application,
I believe the City has a good understanding of my
organization’s programs.
Based on the information asked in the grant application,
I believe the City has a good understanding of my
organization’s goals.
Feedback About Grant Application
% Agree or Strongly Agree
28
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 22
Figure 4. Feedback About the Grant Evaluation Process
Respondents were also asked to rate how the City’s grant application compares with other grant
applications their organizations submit, on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = It is more time consuming
than most applications to 5 = It is less time consuming than most applications.
Figure 5. City’s Application Compared With Other Grant Applications
64%
46%
63%
61%
46%
46%
45%
75%
67%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
I understand the criteria used to evaluate my
application.
I understand the criteria used to determine my draft
funding amount.
I believe all applicants are treated equally in the grant
evaluation process.
I believe all applicants are treated fairly in the
determination of draft funding amounts.
The City is transparent with its process for evaluating
the applicants.
The City is transparent with its process for selecting
grantees.
The City is transparent with its process for determining
draft funding amounts for grantees.
The City’s grantmaking staff is responsive to questions
about the evaluation process.
The City’s grantmaking staff is responsive to questions
about draft funding amounts.
Feedback About the Grant Evaluation Process
% Agree or Strongly Agree
31%
36%
34%
City's Application Compared with Other
Grant Applications
Selected 4 or 5 (It is less time consuming than most applications)
Selected 1 or 2 (It is more time consuming than most applications)
Selected 3 (Neutral)
29
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 23
Opportunities for Improvement
Respondents were asked to provide feedback about how the City can improve its grant evaluation
process. Responses fell into the following themes:
• Increase transparency in how award amounts are determined.
• Increase clarity about how committees make decisions and the criteria that are used.
• Consider a 'Zero Budget' exercise where applications are evaluated regardless of the
previous year's awards or historical trends.
• Provide a rubric about how applicants are scored.
• Provide a pathway for organizations to increase the amount of funding, particularly for
organizations that receive low amounts.
• Provide clarity in the role of City Council in the funding decisions.
Timing of the Grant Application Process
Respondents were asked to provide feedback about the timing of the grant application process by
rating a series of statements on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Not At All Satisfied and 5 = Very
Satisfied. Results are displayed in Figure 6 below.
Figure 6. Feedback About the Timing of the Grant Application Process
Respondents were also asked to rate the length of time it takes to receive awarded funds compared
with other funders. Responses were on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = It takes longer than most funders
to 5 = It is faster than most funders. Figure 7 presents respondents’ feedback.
81%
69%
86%
78%
81%
75%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
The date the grant opens.
The date the grant is due.
The length of time the grant remains open.
The length of time to announce awards.
The length of time to finalize contracts.
The length of time to receive funds.
Feedback About Timing
% Satisfied or Very Satisfied
30
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 24
Figure 7. Time to Receive Funds Compared With Other Grants
Opportunities for Improvement
Respondents were asked to provide recommendations for how the City can improve the timing of the
grant process.
• Consider changing the timing to not coincide with summer programming.
• Reduce the time it takes from application to receiving funds.
29%
27%
44%
Time to Receive Funds Compared with
Other Grants
Selected 4 or 5 (It is faster than most funders)
Selected 1 or 2 (It takes longer than most funders)
Selected 3 (Neutral)
31
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 25
Overall Satisfaction With the Grant Programs and Impact of the Grant Programs
Respondents were asked to rate how satisfied they are with the City’s grantmaking process overall on
a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 = Not At All Satisfied and 5 = Very Satisfied. Figure 8 presents the results.
Figure 8. Satisfaction With the City’s Grant Programs
Respondents were asked to provide feedback about the impact of the City’s grantmaking on their
organization, the community, and their field. They rated a series of statements on a scale of 1 to 5,
where 1 = No Impact and 5 = Significant Positive Impact. Results are presented in Figure 9.
Figure 9. Feedback About the Impact of the City’s Grantmaking on Organization, the Community, and
the Field
79%
72%
71%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Application process
Evaluation process
Award process
Feedback on City's Grant Process Overall
% Satisfied or Very Satisfied
88%
92%
76%
0%20%40%60%80%100%
Impact on my organization.
Impact on my community.
Impact on my field.
Feedback on Impact of City's Grantmaking
% Positive Impact
32
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 26
Opportunities for Improvement
Respondents were provided a final opportunity to provide feedback about how the City’s
grantmaking programs can be improved. Results fell into the following themes:
• Increase communication about the evaluation process.
• Clarify criteria to determine funding.
• Consider a multi-year grant cycle.
• Decrease the overall time frame.
• Identify a pathway for smaller grantees to increase their funding.
• Provide a rubric for how applicants are scored.
• Streamline the requested financials.
33
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 27
Appendix B: Key Stakeholder Interview Summary
Point b(e) conducted nine key stakeholder interviews to gather in-depth information about the grant
programs. Interviewees included members of the Citizen Grant Review Committee for Wheeler Arts
and Community Non-Profit grants, members of the Citizen Grant Review Committee for Pitkin
County’s Healthy Community Fund for the Health and Human Services grants, staff with the City of
Aspen and the City Manager. Additionally, Point b(e) administered an online survey to all of Aspen’s
City Councilmembers. One Councilmember completed the electronic survey and two
Councilmembers opted for telephone interviews. All of the key stakeholder interviews and
Councilmember surveys were qualitatively analyzed, and respondents from both data collection
methods are referred to as interviewees. The findings are presented below.
Overall Strengths and Impact of the City of Aspen’s Grant Programs
Interviewees highlighted several strengths of the City’s grant programs. Feedback focused on the
unique, historical impact the City has on arts, culture, nonprofits and health and human services
programs. There is a level of consistency and a commitment of the City to ensure funds are there
year after year. The grant programs are important to the economic, public health and social fabric of
the community. It is a statement that the City values organizations within a small community and it
funds a wide array of organizations within the valley. The grant programs enrich life in the mountains
through the support of nonprofits. Finally, organizations can use the funding from the City as
leverage for more donations.
Interviewees did address concerns about the challenge of understanding the overall impact of the
City’s grant programs. For one interviewee, the role and importance of the City’s grant programs has
not been clearly defined or set. Another interviewee commented that it is unclear what the long-term
goals of the programs are and how they are aligned with the community plan.
Recommendations
Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations:
• Revisit the purpose of the grant programs and clearly define the goals of the grant programs,
aligned with metrics and objectives; create a funding program that can tell a story about why
it’s important the City donate and how much it should contribute; answer the question about
the effect the grant programs have on the community; provide better structure and clarity
about what the City is hoping to achieve with this funding.
• Increase funding when necessary to accommodate for increases in cost-of-living and
additional grant applicants. This can include an increase in the RETT funding.
• Change the order in how funding is approved and allocated.
Community Non-Profit and Wheeler Arts Grants Citizen Grants Review Committee
Interviewees highlighted the knowledge and experience of the current Citizen Grants Review
Committee. Members are active in the community, attend events, and the committee has
representation from Wheeler Opera House, which is important to interviewees. Interviewees are
34
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 28
appreciative of the engaged and intelligent members who are currently on the review committee and
recognize that the members respect the community and the nonprofits.
Recommendations
Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations:
• Provide more structure around the make-up of the review committee. For example,
interviewees highlighted that members should be appointed by City Council, and members
should cover a broad range of skill sets and areas of expertise, including business,
entrepreneurship, health, arts, culture, etc. There could also be youth/younger populations
on the committee. Additionally, there could be sub-committees to review the different grants
to align with specific members’ expertise. While it’s great to have historical knowledge on the
committee, interviewees noted that it would be appropriate to have term limits for members.
• Develop a charter for the review committee. The structure could be more formalized, with a
chair, vice chair, etc. There should be rules on how members are selected/appointed, how
they are trained, and the criteria used to make decisions. There should also be structures in
place for the City’s role with the review committee, such as the amount of oversight or
management that should be provided.
Health and Human Services
The City of Aspen’s Health and Human Services (HHS) grant funding process is different than the
Community Non-Profit and Wheeler Arts Grants process. The City’s grant application is attached to
the end of the Pitkin County Healthy Communities Fund Health grant application. Several
interviewees were appreciative of the integration of the application process and noted that the City
of Aspen enjoys several benefits from that integration. Pitkin County provides more oversight and
accountability with those funded through the County funding, and the City of Aspen gets to benefit
from that oversight. Interviewees expressed that the City and County have worked as great partners
over the years, and by having the City and County coordinate funding, there is more continuity in the
grant programs.
Recommendations
Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations:
• Increase communication about funded organizations between the City and County programs.
• Provide more representation from the City of Aspen on the Pitkin County Citizen Grant Review
Committee. Currently, only one City Councilperson sits on the review committee, and that
Councilperson is terming off this summer. There should be more individuals with a wider
range of expertise making decisions about the City’s HHS grant funds.
Transparency
Interviewees were asked to describe the extent to which there is transparency in the grants process.
A few interviewees noted that the process has transparency because funding amounts are made
public during the City Council meeting in which they are discussed. Individuals have access to who
35
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 29
was funded and the amount they received. However, many interviewees noted that the process to
make those decisions, specifically why organizations are funded a specific amount, lacks
transparency.
Recommendations
Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations:
• Develop more rigorous scoring criteria. Interviewees expressed a desire to have solid
evaluation criteria with accompanying data in order to respond to applicant questions. Once
a scoring matrix is in place and used, the results can be disclosed to applicants so they can
improve the next time.
• Provide information about scoring criteria and funding limits at the time the application is
released. Interviewees noted it would be helpful if applicants were aware of total funding
available, applicable funding limits, and evaluation criteria when they received the
application. It would be ideal for applicants to see at the time of award a data-driven process
that illustrates how they scored and the rationale for the amount of funding received.
Role of City Council
Interviewees were asked to discuss the role of City Council. Interviewees agreed that City Council has
final decision-making powers on grants that are funded and that they make their decisions based on
the recommendations of the Citizen Grant Review Committees, both for Community Non-Profit and
Wheeler Art grants, as well as for HHS grants.
Recommendations
Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations:
• City Council needs to establish the goals and objectives of the grant programs and revisit
these regularly.
• City Council needs to allocate the amount of total funding for the grants, and many
interviewees indicated it is time to assess increases in the amount of funding that is
allocated overall.
• Communication and clarity should be increased. There is a gap between the decisions of the
Citizen Grants Review Committee and City Council. While City Council has the final say in
grant decisions, they don’t have a full picture of the evaluation criteria and the process to
determine funding amounts.
Administration
Interviewees were asked to discuss questions related to the administration of the grant programs,
such as whether they should continue to be managed in-house by City staff and whether the staffing
structure is effective and efficient. Several interviewees indicated it is important the grant funds
continue to be managed by the City, as opposed to a third party. According to one interviewee,
because the funding comes from taxpayer dollars, it provides more accountability to have it
managed by the City, and the funding should not go to an outside group. A few interviewees
36
City of Aspen Grant Programs Evaluation: Final Recommendations 2021 30
mentioned the possibility of having an organization such as Aspen Community Foundation manage
the funds.
Regarding staffing of the grant programs, several interviewees expressed that there needs to be
better infrastructure to support the programs and more staff time devoted to the programs.
Interviewees expressed that it has been passed around to staff and departments, which has caused
a lack of consistency within the City.
Recommendations
Interviewees highlighted the following recommendations:
• Develop better infrastructure and staffing system within the City to manage the grants. While
many interviewees indicated the current department is a logical home for the programs, they
agreed there needs to be more staff time allocated to managing the programs.
• Adopt a grants management software program. Pitkin County recently adopted a new
program to manage grant applications and tracking. A few interviewees highlighted the need
to adopt a program that can better manage grants—from application, to contracting, to
tracking progress.
Additional Recommendations
Interviewees were asked to provide any additional thoughts on improvements to the grant programs.
The following recommendations emerged:
• Adjust the timeline of the grant programs. The process from the time the application is made
available to when the grantees receive funding is too lengthy.
• Streamline the application itself, specifically the financial information. Potentially develop a
short form and a long form depending on the size of the ask. Include more questions on the
application that ask about how the funds will be used and how funds were used in the past.
Include questions about the salaries of organizational leadership and questions around the
number of people served and those under the age of 18. Also, include questions that illicit
more information on an organization’s impact.
• Develop a two-year grant cycle.
37
ATTACHMENT B: PRELIMINARY WORK PLAN FOR GRANTS PROGRAM IMPROVEMENTS
TASKS 21-Feb 21-Mar 21-Apr 21-May 21-Jun 21-Jul 21-Aug 21-Sep 21-Oct 21-Nov 21-Dec 21-Jan 21-Feb 21-Mar 21-Apr
Finalize grant round opening date
Initial communication with grantees and reviewers re
changes
Open 2022 grant round
Finalize amount of 2022 grant funds (Council)
Close 2022 grant round
Review applications
Bring funding recommendations to Council
Distribute contracts
Distribute funding
Evaluate staffing structure or consultant approach.
Select staffing option
Separate funding line for HHS grants and HHS IGAs
Communicate process change to HHS applicant pool
Update grant application form
Develop/update eligibility criteria, gather key stakeholder
feedback, develop grant parameters and monitoring
process for 1 and 3-year grants
Develop committee options for City Manager review
Approve committee structure and charters
Solicit committee members
Train committee members
Implement committee changes
Prepare guidance document on City priorities
Share guidance with Steering Committee (SC)
Collaborate with SC to propose grant funding priorities
that are in alignment with City priorities
Develop agreement on purpose/use/role of scoring
criteria
Develop draft scoring criteria, based on priorities
Align scoring criteria with funding priorities
Modify grant applications
Shift the grants timeline
Redefine staffing structure
Consolidate grant programs
2021 - Develop 3-year partnership grant program. *2022 - Implement/Rollout 3-year partnership grants.*
Redesign and codify grant committees
Develop strategic priorities for funding
38
TASKS 21-Feb 21-Mar 21-Apr 21-May 21-Jun 21-Jul 21-Aug 21-Sep 21-Oct 21-Nov 21-Dec 21-Jan 21-Feb 21-Mar 21-Apr
Develop draft application forms (under $10,000, over
$10,000, capital)
Implement final forms in 2022 grant cycle
Verify target audiences
Send initial message re grant cycle and other upcoming
changes
Develop additional key messages re 2022 cycle
Select communication media, timing and frequency
Implement touch points according to timelines
Develop communication campaign
39
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and Aspen City Council
FROM: Ben Anderson, Principal Long-Range Planner
Phillip Supino, Community Development Director MEMO DATE: February 18, 2021
MEETING DATE: February 22, 2021
RE: Work Session Discussion – GMQS Development Allotment System
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This work session’s purpose is to follow-up on previous
Council direction to facilitate a discussion on the current system of development
allotments within the Growth Management Quota System (GMQS). Council’s desire to
hold this discussion emerged from earlier Council direction around affordable housing
goals and the consideration of the annual action item for Council to consider rolling-over
unused GMQS allotments.
This memo and staff’s introductory presentation at the work session will provide a high-
level discussion of the following:
1. A brief history of the GMQS system and of the use of development allotments
within this system
2. Trends in the recent utilization of development allotments and impacts within the
GMQS system
3. Other trends in the development landscape that manifest as “growth” but are not
captured in the GMQS system
4. Identification of range of possible responses to the current condition
At the conclusion of the discussion, staff will request direction from Council as to the
desire to pursue further study and evaluation of the development environment and
possible responses within the GMQS. Depending on this response, follow-up questions
related to prioritization in ComDev’s workplan and support for budget authorization may
be necessary.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
History
Affordable housing in Aspen dates to the 1977 adoption of the Growth Management
Quota System (GMQS). Since then, inclusionary zoning, affordable housing mitigation
requirements, and the assessment of impact fees on development for the provisions of
affordable housing have become keystones of Aspen’s approach to maintaining
community character, social equity, and a functional in-town economy – and regulating
“growth”.
40
Page 2 of 11
Affordable Housing/Land Use Code Coordination
The initial response to growth in the Aspen area was based on a description of things that
residents were seeing and feeling in the late 60s and early 70s. Traffic was increasing,
new homes were being built, new businesses were coming to town, skier visits were
increasing, population was growing. Conversations about infrastructure’s capacity to
serve these developments were being held as were calculations made about how to pay
for necessary expansions of infrastructure to meet increasing demands. Following
innovative approaches from communities like Petaluma, CA and Ramapo, NY, Aspen and
Pitkin County established a series of policies to define and limit growth. Many types of
policies emerged from this effort, but most central to our current discussion, the 1977 Plan
recommended annual quotas for the City of Aspen based on the phasing of development
types:
• Permanent residential development 39 units
• Tourist residential development 18 units
• Commercial building potential 24,385 square feet
These numbers were arrived at by examining building potential based on zoning at the
time and allocating 80% of this potential over a period of 15 years. It is also important to
note that at the time “growth”, like today, was viewed as a complex idea – of which not a
single element “can be singled out to explain the total growth phenomenon” (pg. 3 of 1977
Plan). It was understood that the recommended growth allotments would help to realize
this ideal 3.47% “growth rate” identified by the plan.
Significant efforts to study growth and craft fine-tuned responses continued through the
80s and 90s. In 1994, a major re-write of the GMQS chapter of the land Use Code was
undertaken and codified in response to the 1993 AACP. An important change reduced
the desired growth rate from 3.47% to 2%. Interestingly, this is also the AACP that
Figures 1&2. Cover and image from the 1977 Aspen / Pitkin County Growth Management
Policy Plan. This document set the basis for Aspen’s current GMQS system. Responding to
the growth rates at the time for population and housing starts exceeding 10%, this document
established a goal for limiting growth across factors at 3.47% annually. This number served as
the foundation for the initial establishment of growth management allotments.
41
Page 3 of 11
Affordable Housing/Land Use Code Coordination
established the affordable housing goal of housing 60% of Aspen’s workforce. A new,
more complex allotment system was established in response:
• Tourist Accommodations 11 units
• Free Market Residential 4 units
• Free Market Residential AH associated 8 units
• Resident Occupied 8 units
• Affordable Housing 43 units
• Commercial (allocated by zone district) 20,000 square feet
This new system gave further definition to a system for development to compete and
qualify for these allotments. Categories of “exempt” and “non-exempt” developments
were established. There was a Growth Management Commission that reviewed
development proposals against these criteria in being granted allotments. It was a much
more involved system than currently exists today.
In 2007, Ordinance No.14 codified the next significant change to GMQS. Continuing to
use the 2% growth rate, a new study and analysis established the number of annual
allotments that remain in place today:
• Residential – Free Market 18 units
• Commercial 33,300 square feet
• Lodging 112 pillows
• Residential Affordable Housing No limit
• Essential Public Facility No limit
Requests/applications for allotments were reviewed twice annually. A scoring/ranking
system was still utilized, but it was simplified from previous systems and not required for
all projects. Unused allotments could be carried forward with Council approval
Today, the same allotment number for each development type remains. However, the
ranking/scoring/competition process has been removed by subsequent code
amendments and projects receive allotments on a first come, first serve basis – and are
confirmed at the issuance of a development order following land use approval.
While significant aspects of the GMQS system have changed over the years, a few
constants emerge:
1) Similar questions across time:
• What do we mean when we use the term “growth”?
• What impacts of growth are we trying to reduce or mitigate?
• What are the best tools to most effectively mitigate these impacts?
2) Intensive studies to get at the right number of GMQS quotas or allotments.
42
Page 4 of 11
Affordable Housing/Land Use Code Coordination
3) Fixed allotments for Free Market Residential, Commercial, and Lodging
development.
4) The constant presence of affordable housing goals and policy in GMQS study and
evaluation.
5) Increasing relationships between growth management policies and affordable
housing mitigation requirements.
Current Conditions
While the GMQS system has changed in multiple ways since 2007, the number of
allotments has remained fixed. As required by code, staff provides a yearly audit of the
available allotments utilized and requests Council direction on whether to roll-over
unutilized allotments into the next year.
Year FM Residential
Units
Commercial
square feet
Lodging
Pillows
Affordable Housing
Units
Essential Public Facility
square feet
GMQS Allotments allowed per year *established in 2007
18 33,300 112 No limit No limit
Utilized GMQS Allotments
2015 11 28,701 32 11 20,070
2016 8 28,045 112 42 47,640
2017 0 231 90 60 9,194
2018 1 4,471 20 9 13,000
2019 1 1,760 0 0 5,372
2020 2 3,056 0 7 8,319
Total GMQS Allotments and Percentage Utilized 2015-2020
23
of
108
21.2%
66,264
of
199,800
33.2%
254
of
672
37.8%
129
N/A
103,595
N/A
Total GMQS Allotments and Percentage Utilized 2018-2020
4
of
54
7.4%
9,297
of
99,900
9.3%
20
of
336
5.9%
16
N/A
26,691
N/A
Table 1. GMQS allotment utilization, 2015 – 2020
43
Page 5 of 11
Affordable Housing/Land Use Code Coordination
As Table 1 identifies, over the last six years, annual utilization of allotments has been
minimal, using roughly a third of the available allotments. In the last three years utilization
has diminished further, with less than 10% of allotments being utilized. It is important to
note that while allotments for Affordable Housing units and Essential Public Facility
square footage is tracked year to year, there are not current limits for these development
types.
Table 2 below, describes recent changes in Aspen’s population. Population has been
growing by roughly 2% over the last 5 years or so – consistent with the 2% “growth” rate
identified as a goal in the 1993 re-write of GMQS. It is unclear the role that GMQS system
plays in controlling population growth with other barriers to entry in Aspen, including
median home price, availability of workforce housing, geographical and political
constraints on development and other factors.
In the context of Council discussions on affordable housing goals, real and perceived
development pressures, and yearly reports that show minimal utilization of the allotments
at the foundation of Aspen’s growth management system, Council is right to ask for an
understanding of the situation. Furthermore, given the age of the system relative to the
rapidly changing dynamics in real estate markets, federal economic policy, and consumer
preferences for Aspen, staff believes it is important to periodically assess the
effectiveness of central regulatory controls and policies, like GMQS.
STAFF DISCUSSION:
If GMQS Allotments are not being utilized and population is growing at a moderate
rate, what is the community seeing and feeling today related to growth?
1) Development Activity that does not utilize allotments
Figure 3 (on the next page) is a map that identifies the 138 issued, currently open building
permits for projects with a valuation of greater than $200,000 (Note: $200K was identified
Year Aspen’s Population
(U.S. Census Bureau)
% Growth from
Previous Year
2015 6,740 0.5%
2016 6,788 0.7%
2017 7,097 4.6%
2018 7,234 2%
2019 7,431 2.7%
Total change
2015-2019 +691 +10.3%
Average Annual Growth Rate 2015-2019 +2.1%
Source: American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year
Table 2. Population growth,
2015 – 2019. While variation
across years exists, over the last
five years, population has
increased by an average annual
rate of roughly 2%.
44
Page 6 of 11
Affordable Housing/Land Use Code Coordination
to filter out projects with a more limited impact). This map and data does not include
recently completed projects, or projects that are in the land use or building permit review
process. Combined, the open permits depicted in the map represent nearly a half of a
billion dollars in project valuation. If averaged. each blue dot represents $3.3 million
dollars of labor and materials value. While a few of these projects (commercial projects
primarily) did receive allotments in years past at the time of land use approval, most of
the development depicted in this map is entirely exempt from the allotment process – and
did not utilize any GMQS allotments for residential, commercial or lodge development.
Development types that do not utilize GMQS allotments:
• scrape and replace redevelopment of residential units;
• addition of floor area to existing residential units;
• addition of subgrade floor area to residential units;
• redevelopment of existing Lodge units;
• redevelopment of existing commercial net leasable area; and
• renovations that do not alter number of units or floor area
Figure 3. Open Building permits and project valuation. Each blue dot identifies a project with a valuation of greater than $200K.
In total, the projects depicted combine for a valuation of $455M. On average each dot represents $3.3M of labor and materials.
45
Page 7 of 11
Affordable Housing/Land Use Code Coordination
In staff’s view, this situation is the primary contributor to what the community is witnessing
and perceiving related to development pressures. Evaluated one way, each of these dots
represents a booming design and construction economy, well-paying jobs, and fees and
taxes that support essential community functions. In another view, each dot represents
noise, construction fencing, cranes, increased traffic, parking issues in neighborhoods,
disruption of adjacent right-of-way, and impacts to the landfill.
There is also the matter of “community character” – a subjective term which carries a lot
of weight for community members. To some, a rapidly changing built environment defines
Aspen and makes way for new architecture, design and neighborhood character. To
others, perceived changes translate into feelings of loss of context, loss of a sense of
place, and departure from the city’s history. With the recent unprecedented activity in
Aspen’s real estate market, staff anticipates a continuation, if not an acceleration of this
condition.
2) Emergence of the short-term rental market – beyond the traditional lodge room
base
Recent changes to business license and vacation rental permit requirements for short-
term rentals will soon provide much better data on the scale of this phenomena, but at a
high level, it is clear that the emergence of AirBnB, VRBO, and other mechanisms to
connect visitors to residential “lodging” accommodation have ushered in new dynamics
to the lodging, real estate, and development markets. There are many implications to this
new trend, but most important to GMQS – is that growth and limitation on lodging and
tourist accommodations have been defined by the allotment system since the very
beginning of efforts to manage growth. This is and has been in recognition of the fact that
tourist visitation drives many of the “growth” related impacts previous Councils and
community members sought to control: traffic, demand for goods and services, strains on
city infrastructure
Currently, GMQS has no mechanism to evaluate or limit the number of short-term rentals
in otherwise residential uses. It is clear, however, that visitors staying in private, short-
term rentals still create many of the same impacts as with traditional lodging. Additionally,
private homes used intermittently as lodging require maintenance and services separate
from those required for traditional lodging properties. With better data, the issue will be
better understood, but at present, the Land Use Code has minimal tools to mitigate the
impacts of the growth pressures caused by this industry.
3) Duration between allotments being granted and initiation of construction activity
Even when allotments are required, there is a time disconnect between the approval of
development allotments and when the impacts of those allotments are felt by the
community. For example, the Lift One Lodge and Gorsuch Haus projects, when built, will
represent one of the largest development projects in Aspen’s history. Lift One Lodge’s
approval of development allotments span across several land use approvals going back
to 2007. Gorsuch Haus was granted development allotments over two years in 2015 and
2016. If the projects have building permits issued in 2022/2023, the duration between the
first allotment issuance related to the project and first signs of construction will be 15
46
Page 8 of 11
Affordable Housing/Land Use Code Coordination
years or more. While the Lift One Corridor project is perhaps an extreme case, even a
typical duration between GMQS review and the felt impacts of development to the
community contributes to the perception of a problem in the system. There are
commercial projects currently under construction that received GMQS allotments as far
back as 2012.
Is the disconnect between the GMQS allotments and the real and perceived impacts
of development activity a problem?
While reasonable people can honestly debate the costs, benefits, and trade-offs within
Aspen’s current development context, staff has identified two tangible concerns.
1) We no longer have the right tools
The purpose of Aspen’s entire system of growth management, since its first inception,
was to make sure that “growth” could be accommodated by existing and planned
infrastructure, that new development was appropriately funding these infrastructure
needs, and that “growth” was proceeding at a rate that was sustainable in preserving
identified elements of community character. Identification and analysis of the factors that
contributed to “growth” were carried out through complex studies. Those factors were
then strategically limited to align infrastructure capacity and financing – and to provide
direction to some degree of growth and change that was acceptable to the community.
The types of development pressure in Aspen have clearly changed over time – and this
change seems to be accelerating in recent years. As a consequence, it is staff’s view that
the once direct nexus between the factors that cause “growth” and the tools that the LUC
offers to mitigate “growth” is now less defined. The primary outcome is that the
community does not have the right tools to mitigate the pressures or any negative impacts
of development types that have come to define Aspen’s recent real estate and
development context.
2) The impact to affordable housing mitigation
As previously stated, affordable housing mitigation requirements have increasingly
become a central component of the GMQS. Through careful study, employee generation
rates and mitigation requirements have been crafted in direct relationship to the
development types limited by the allotment system. Today, because of the trends
identified above, staff utilizes the GMQS chapter of the LUC to more frequently identify
affordable housing mitigation requirements for a project than to use the allotment system
or other components of GMQS. Within this intricate relationship, over the years, various
credits and incentives have been included to encourage or discourage different types of
development (example – the lodge unit size incentive in reducing mitigation
requirements).
Three important outcomes have resulted. First, development uses these credits and
incentives. Commercial, residential, and lodge development and redevelopment are
evaluated in their pro forma through the lens of these incentives and disincentives and
then designed accordingly to minimize mitigation requirements. This is not a surprise, but
47
Page 9 of 11
Affordable Housing/Land Use Code Coordination
what it means is that the community experiences these projects as “growth” – but does
not realize the anticipated proportion of related affordable housing. This was very much
a part of the community conversation around the Lift One Corridor project. Per Council
direction, staff is currently working on potential code amendments to refine existing
incentives and credits within AH mitigation requirements
Second, and more importantly, is the impact of development types that have been
discussed above that do not require GMQS allotments. It is also true that these
development types are largely exempt from affordable housing mitigation requirements.
As these types of projects have become a prominent part of the development landscape,
the implications to the affordable housing mitigation system is becoming clearer: There
is significant development activity that is not appropriately mitigating for its observed
employee generation impacts.
Lastly (and really an extension of the previous point), the GMQS / affordable housing
mitigation relationship is built on an assumed premise – that if growth occurs within the
allotment system, it will have mitigation requirements that will provide a proportional
amount of affordable housing. For all of the reasons described above, this presumed
relationship no longer functions as designed. There is clearly extensive development
activity ($286M in building permit valuation in 2020 alone). However, the number of new
FTEs created requiring mitigation does not seem to be driving the development of new
affordable housing at scale with this development activity. This has implications to the
150 Fund and to the health and sustainability of the Affordable Housing Credits program.
If allotment related AH mitigation is no longer as prevalent, what mechanisms or funding
sources will take the place in meeting affordable housing goals?
What are the potential responses to this disconnect in the GMQS?
The creation of the GMQS placed Aspen and Pitkin County on the forefront of planning
innovation in defining and managing the impacts of growth. While the basic goals and
pursuits remain valid today more than ever, it is staff’s view that the changing
development context in Aspen has shifted some of the fundamentals of the “growth” that
the community feels – away from the tools designed in GMQS to mitigate these impacts.
Is it time to change these tools – or add new tools to the toolbelt?
A range of choices
1) Continue with the status quo. While staff acknowledges that there are gaps
in the system that could and probably should be corrected, is this time during a
global pandemic that has translated into unprecedented local real estate activity –
an appropriate time to begin making significant changes to a system that has been
in place since 1977? Ultimately, this response asks a question: Is this issue a
sufficient enough priority for Council to initiate what could be a significant policy
and regulatory analysis given Council’s other high priority goals?
48
Page 10 of 11
Affordable Housing/Land Use Code Coordination
2) Targeted policy and code responses to prevalent development types that
are not currently captured in GMQS. Per Council direction, staff is already
working on potential code amendments that would re-evaluate some of the existing
credits and incentives that preclude development types from being captured in the
allotment system and reduce affordable housing mitigation requirements. But
other areas for targeted responses could be appropriate. Examples of this may
include the following: rethinking how the code handles “demolition”; creating new
categories in the allotment system that would capture re-development scenarios;
or including short-term rentals as a development type within the GMQS. (Staff
believes that any approach related to the latter should be included in a more
comprehensive regulatory response to short-term rental uses.)
3) Reducing the current allotments to reflect current development realities.
In staff’s view, while this would create consistency between the code and current
development reality, this tactic would not address many of the issues identified the
current development context. It may be appropriate to utilize this tool in
combination with other responses. One issue with this choice is that development
allotments have been crafted in response to previous technical studies. Any
change to allotments, even in reduction, should also be in response to a new study
of current and future conditions.
4) Rethink the direct tie between growth and affordable housing mitigation /
development. As discussed above, affordable housing has been placed in a direct
supply and demand relationship with free-market commercial and residential
development. In essence – growth happens, mitigation is provided, and affordable
housing is developed to meet the needs of an expanding workforce. If “growth” is
not happening in the way that GMQS currently defines growth, this causes a
significant problem in meeting current and future affordable housing needs. Staff
is not providing a recommendation on specific policy or code changes on this topic
at this time. However, staff does believe that this dilemma is significant and will
ultimately need to be studied and addressed – in potentially transformative ways.
5) A whole cloth rethinking of growth management. It is staff’s view that there
are important fundamentals in the GMQS that no longer apply today as they did in
1977. Some of this is a consequence of this system working exactly as it was
designed. Without question though, “growth” as the community experiences today,
is not the same “growth” that was felt in 1977. The impacts may feel the same, but
the underlying factors are very different. Is this a reason to redesign the foundation
of Aspen’s Land Use Code? Perhaps, but while there are compelling reasons to
do so, it should be noted that this would be a major undertaking for the community.
It might also be appropriate that any such change would instead follow a
community conversation on “growth” that could define the next update of the
AACP.
49
Page 11 of 11
Affordable Housing/Land Use Code Coordination
QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL:
1)To what degree is a response to this issue a priority for Council?
2) If it is identified as a priority, where is the appropriate response within the range
of choices discussed above?
3)If priorities for a response are identified, how should staff prioritize this work
relative to other Council goals, ComDev work program items, and the demands of
responding to community needs resulting from the pandemic? Note that, should
Council seek to prioritize work on this topic, additional resources to support
ComDev staff may be required.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: At this time, N/A.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: N/A
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
RECOMMENDATIONS: N/A
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
EXHIBITS:
A. Full-size map identifying open building permits
50
EXHIBIT A - Location and Valuation of Open Building Permits
51
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM: Nicole Henning, City Clerk
DATE OF MEMO:February 18, 2021
MEETING DATE:February 22,2021
RE:Citizen Board Appointment for the Wheeler Opera House Board of Directors
City Council has been conducting board interviews for various citizen boards twice a year,
typically in January and July. Council has shown desire to fill all boards with vacancies
with qualified and passionate members of the community. To be consistent with how
board interviews have been conducted in the past and do to the interest of these
applicants, staff is recommending that Council interview the individuals for the board at
the same time instead of conducting individual interviews.
Included in the packet for this board is a list of the current members, the most recent
ordinance or code sectionas well as bylaws if available, and applicant resumes.
52
Wheeler Opera House Board of Directors
Open Positions
One Alternate
Current Members:
Chip Fuller, Chair exp. 6/2022
Christine Benedetti, Vice Chair exp. 3/2022
Tom Kurt exp. 1/2023
Richard Stettner exp. 2/2022
Nina Gabianelli exp. 7/2023
Amy Mountjoy exp. 3/2022
Ziska Childs exp. 7/2023
*Peter Greeney exp. 1/1/2021 Alternate
Justin Brown AMFS - ex officio
Mission Statement
“The mission of the Wheeler Opera House is to monitor and ensure the preservation
and viability of the historic venue and its property through exceptional performance
experiences for residents, guests and performers, and to support the cultural assets of
the Roaring Fork Valley.”
Goals Statement
The goals of the Wheeler Opera House are to provide appropriate facilities and
resources in order to:
Assist user groups in the successful presentation of rental and
community events, series, and festivals;
Foster and advocate artistic expression within the Roaring Fork Valley
community;
Present world-class arts experiences to Aspen, through the production,
co-production, or creation of individual events, series, and festivals;
Provide opportunities for educational experiences for students of all ages
throughout the Roaring Fork Valley;
Provide a public gathering place for the use of area groups, residents,
governments, and guests;
Preserve and enhance Aspen’s reputation as a premiere resort
destination with a dedication to arts and humanities; and
53
Ensure the long-term viability of the facility through responsible fiscal
management.
Enabling Legislation
Ordinance #10, 1982, amended by Ordinance #63, 1992, amended by Ordinance.
#5, 2004, amended by Ordinance. #48, 2005, amended by Ordinance #50, 2013
Powers and Duties
Advise the city with the planning and policy related to the daily and long-term
operations of the Wheeler Opera House. These management duties shall include the
following:
o recommend scheduling policy, priorities and rates for theatre operations,
and
o recommend operating policy and rental rates for the commercial space in
the Opera House building
Meetings
1st Wednesday 4 p.m. at the Wheeler Opera House. The executive director of the
Wheeler, Gram Slayton, staffs this Board.
Membership
Qualification – All members at large. One non-voting ex officio member of the
Aspen Music Festival and School.
Term-3 years. No term limits
Number-8 members
54
ORDINANCE NO.,5)
Series of 2013)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO.
48 (SERIES OF 2005)AND RE-ENACTING AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE
COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE.
WHEREAS,the City of Aspen owns the historic structure known as the Wheeler Opera
House, located at the corner of South Mill Street and East Hyman Avenue in the City of Aspen,
Colorado, and has the right and responsibility to manage the same; and
WHEREAS,the City Council did appoint a Board of Directors of the Wheeler Opera
House to undertake the management of the Wheeler Opera House in accordance with Ordinance
No. 10 (Series of 1982); and
WHEREAS,the City Council repealed Ordinance No 10(Series of 1982)and re-enacted
an ordinance(Ordinance 63 of 1992)to clarify that the Board of Directors is to function as an
advisory board and not a managing board; and
WHEREAS,the City Council repealed Ordinance No. 63 (Series of 1992) and re-enacted
an ordinance(Ordinance No. 5, Series of 2004)to change the powers and duties of the Board of
Directors to clarify its role in establishing policies for the Wheeler Opera House and to expand
the membership of the Board of Directors from seven(7)to nine(9)members; and
WHEREAS,the City Council repealed Ordinance No. 5 (Series of 2004)and re-enacted
an ordinance(Ordinance No. 48, Series of 2005)to decrease the membership of the Board of
Directors from nine(9)to seven(7)members, one of which was designated as a youth
representative, and modified the qualification requirements to eliminate members or candidates
that have a conflict of interest as described in the City Charter(Section 4.7)as"a substantial
personal or financial interest" in the Wheeler Opera House; and
WHEREAS,the City Council desires to now remove the designation of one of the voting
members as a youth representative and return such board seat to another community
representative;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. Establishment of the Board of Directors.
There is hereby established the Board of Director of the Wheeler Opera House for the City of
Aspen, Colorado,which Board of Directors shall serve for an indefinite term and at the pleasure
of the City Council.
Section 2. Composition; Term; Qualification.
The Board of Directors shall be constituted as follows:
a) The Board of Directors of the Wheeler Opera House shall consist of seven(7)
members, all of whom shall serve overlapping three(3)-year terms. The Board shall
55
be appointed by the City Council with all appointees designated as at-large
appointees who shall be selected primarily for their knowledge of and experience in
the performing arts and/or financial, management or marketing capabilities.
b) Except for the filling of vacancies, all terms of appointment shall be for three-year
periods, commencing at the time of appointment.
c) The Aspen Music Festival and School(AMFS)or its successor organization that may
have the right to the exclusive use of the Wheeler Opera House during the summer
season, as per contract through August 2034, shall appoint a representative to fill a
permanent,non-voting, ex-officio seat on the Board of Directors. By virtue of
AMFS's Wheeler Opera House management responsibilities for a significant portion
of the year,the AMFS representative shall be entitled to participate in any of the
activities and deliberations of the Board,but shall not vote.
d) All members of the Board of Directors shall serve at the pleasure of the City Council
and may be removed by majority vote thereof.
e) The Board of Directors is declared not to be a permanent board within the meaning of
Section 8.2 of the Charter of the City of Aspen and,therefore,there shall be imposed
no age or residency requirement for membership on the Board of Directors nor shall
candidates for appointment be required to be qualified electors.
Section 3. Powers and Duties.
Generally,the Board of Directors is empowered to advise the City of Aspen on the
planning and policy related to the daily and long-term operations of the Wheeler Opera House.
These management duties shall include the following:
a) Recommend scheduling policy, priorities and rates for the theatre operations; and
b) Recommend operating policy and rental rates for the commercial space in the Opera
House building.
Section 4. Rules of Procedure.
a) A quorum to transact the business of the Board of Directors shall consist of four(4)
members.
b) At its first meeting(which shall be called by the City Manager),the Board of
Directors shall elect a chairperson,vice-chairperson, and secretary.
c) The Board of Directors shall establish regular meeting times and days. Special
meetings may be called by the chairperson or at the request of any two(2)members
on at least twenty-four(24)hours written notice to each member of the Board of
Directors, provided that a special meeting may be held on shorter notice if all
members of the Board of Directors waive notice in writing. No business shall be
transacted at any special meeting unless it has been stated in the notice of such
meeting.
56
d) All regular and special meetings of the Board of Directors shall be open to the public
except for executive(closed door)meetings as are permitted by law. Citizens shall
have a reasonable opportunity to be heard and all minutes and other records of action
of the Board of Directors shall be made available to the public.
e) The Board of Directors may adopt by-laws for the conduct of its business not
inconsistent with this ordinance and the Charter of the City of Aspen, and shall adopt
such rules of procedures as it deems necessary.
Section 5. Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence,clause,phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be
deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 6. Public Hearing
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 9th day of December, 2013, in the
City Council Chambers,Aspen City Hall,Aspen, Colorado.
INTRODUCED,READ,AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 2nd day of December, 2013.
z
L
StevetSkadron Mayor
ATTEST:
athrynKoc , ty Clerk
FINALLY adopted, passed and ordered published this 9"day of December, 2013.
ICS
Stev adron, ayor
ATTEST:
KathnKo lity Cl rk
57
Ad Name: 9750070A LEGAL NOTICE
PUBLIC HEARINGCustomer: Aspen (LEGALS) City of Ordinance N50.Seresof120113was adopted onfirst
reading at the City Council meeting December 2,
Your account number: 1013028 2013. This ordinance,if adopted,will amend the
composition of the Board of Directors of the
Wheeler Opera House.The public hearing on this
ordinance is scheduled for December 9,2013 at
Tos etntis130 tayPROOFOFPUBLICATIONheeetet,go to the city's legal notice
website
http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Clerk/Le-
gal-Notices/
IF you would like a copy FAXed or e-mailed to you,
call the city clerk's office,429-2687
Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on Decem-
ber 5,2013. [9750070]TS: Alr:x TIME:
STATE OF COLORADO,
COUNTY OF PITKIN
I,Jim Morgan, do solemnly swear that I am General
Manager of the ASPEN TIMES WEEKLY, that
the same weekly newspaper printed,in whole or in
part and published in the County of Pitkin, State of
Colorado,and has a general circulation therein;that
said newspaper has been published continuously and
uninterruptedly in said County of Pitkin for a period
of more than fifty-two consecutive weeks next prior
to the first publication of the annexed legal notice or
advertisement.
The Aspen Times is an accepted legal advertising
medium, only for jurisdictions operating -under
Colorado's Home Rule provision.
That the annexed legal notice or advertisement was
published in the regular and entire issue of every
number of said daily newspaper for the period of 1
consecutive insertions;and that the first publication
of said notice was in the issue of said newspaper
dated 12/5/2013 and that the last publication of
said notice was in the issue of said newspaper dated
12/5/2013.
In witness whereof,I have here unto set my hand
this 12/09/2013.
Jim Morgan,General Manager
Subscribed and sworn to before me,a notary public
in and for the County of Garfield,State of Colorado
this 12/09/2013.
Pamela J.Schultz,Notary Public
Commission expires:November 1,2015
pRy PUe/
PAMELA J.
SCHULTZ t
c01
P
My CommissOn Expires IMInO15
58
Board / Commission Application
Instructions:
Please submit your application along with a resume to the City Clerk’s office.
Interviews for board/commission openings will be held in January and June. Please
check the residency and age requirements for the various boards.
Name Lauren Forman
Street Address 122 Sopris Avenue
Mailing Address Carbondale, CO 81623
Phone 607-333-4814
Email laurenpierce141@gmail.com
Board
or commission for
which application is
made
Wheeler Board of Directors
I desire the
appointment for the
following reasons:
I would like to express my keen interest in the Wheeler Board of
Directors volunteers position with the City of Aspen. I admire the
Wheeler beyond that of a building, but an avenue to encouraging
community engagement, excellence in the performing arts and
public service, and the focus to promote its partnerships with
renowned groups, nonprofits, filmmakers, comedians, singers,
songwriters, and artists alike.
My experience goes beyond thirteen years in the non-
profit/municipality sector- encouraging strong relations
with boards, staff, community members, media, and partners-
managing operations, developing strategic marketing plans, and
planning events; festivals; and speaking engagements. I had the
incredible opportunity to work for the Wheeler from 2007-2015. I
was hired following the final HBO Comedy Festival when the City
identified the role of the Wheeler would be to produce annual
festivals. I was honored to be brought on as the Wheeler
developed and produced The Aspen Laugh Festival, 7908
Songwriters Festival, and MountainFilm. My tenure oversaw a
time of incredible growth. I have a vast knowledge of the building,
rich in its history but also the recent construction projects and
expansion proposals. One of my assignments was to record the
minutes for the Board meetings, providing me with a detailed
59
understanding of the goals and vision of the City and Board of
Directors.
My vision for the Wheeler is to develop a mentoring program with
local students and to encourage programming that will appeal to
youth, families, and a wide variety of guests. The Wheeler has the
opportunity to support the local arts organizations as we navigate
out of social restrictions, brought on by COVID-19. These next
few years will be a time for the Wheeler to be a pillar of the
community and lead as arts organizations adapt to new social
gathering policies.
It would be an honor to serve the community in this volunteer role.
I appreciate the consideration and the opportunity to provide
the Board with support.
Resume Lauren Forman. WheelerBoard. Resume.pdf
Electronic Signature
Agreement
I agree
Electronic Signature Lauren P Forman
60
LAUREN FORMAN
WHEELER BOARD OF DIRECTORS
EDUCATION
SKILL
CONTACT PROFILE
EXPERIENCE
BA IN COMMUNICATIONS ART MINOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
GRAPHIC DESIGN COURSES
1. Business development
2. Community engagement
3. Development
4. Fiscal management
5. Donor management
6. Leadership management
7. Community Outreach
607 333 4814
laurenpierce141@gmail.com
122 Sopris Avenue
Carbondale, Colorado 81623
I am committed to creating, growing, and sustaining successful
collaborations and strategic partnerships. With over 13 years of
management experience, I have been responsible for developing,
implementing, and managing programs to build awareness of
non-profit organizations, community projects, and events.
College of Saint Rose / 2001-2005 Chris Klug Foundation / 2016 - Present
Responsible for program execution, cultivating financial support, and
fostering public awareness of the Foundation’s mission, vision and
programs.
• Developed strategic plan, board and staff relations, and
financial policy to cultivate the Foundation’s opportunities and
sustainability.
• Responsible for fiscal management, fundraising and developing
resources necessary to support CKF’s mission, including and
expanding- annual reports, annual appeal, grants, sponsorship
and development.
• Prepare and execute all marketing/media opportunities both
nationally and locally that reach over 2 million annually.
• Managed strategic partnerships with funders - High-net-worth
individuals, Family Foundations, and Corporations securing year
on year increase of 15%.
• Accountable for youth, patient/caregiver, volunteer, and
community relations.
• Manage an effective administration and staff of operations.
• Conceptualized, implemented, and oversee program execution.
Colorado Mountain College / 2008-2010
PROFESSIONAL
61
LAUREN FORMAN
WHEELER BOARD OF DIRECTORS
EXTRA
SKILL
INTEREST
EXPERIENCE CONTINUED
REFERENCES
ROARING FORK CONSERVANCY
RIVER STEWARD
MARKETING CONSULTANT
NONPROFITS AND LOCAL BUSINESSES
DONATE LIFE AMERICA
YOUTH EDUCATION COMMITTEE
MARKETING MANAGER
OUTREACH COORDINATOR
1. Event management
2. Graphic design
3. Web CMS
4. Public speaking
5. Webinar production
1. Skiing
2. Rafting
3. Camping
4. Volunteering
2019 / Present
2015 / Present
2015 / 2020
City of Aspen, Wheeler Opera House / 2007 - 2015
City of Albany, Office of Special Events / 2005 - 2007
• Promoted events and festivals through the development of
communication plans, media relations, social media, event
production, content management, and customer outreach.
• Manage artist and production schedules, contracts, and travel.
• Communicate all event details with internal and external staff.
• Supervise, facilitate, and coordinate operations of staff,
volunteers and patrons.
• Manage community relations through developing outreach
programs, and volunteer opportunities.
• Design, implement and manage volunteer programs with
oversite of a database of 13,000 volunteers, schedule and direct
approximately 300 volunteers per event with 10,000-120,000
attendees.
PROFESSIONAL NONPROFIT AND BUSINESS CONSULTANT
2015 - 2016
Provided management consulting services to nonprofits and local
businesses, including strategic planning, marketing, event develop-
ment, graphic design, and community relations.
ROSE BENNETT
Former Finance Director,
Wheeler Opera House
T: 970 319 1949
E: rose.bennett@hotmail.com
62
Board / Commission Application
Instructions:
Please submit your application along with a resume to the City Clerk’s office.
Interviews for board/commission openings will be held in January and June. Please
check the residency and age requirements for the various boards.
Name Meredith Carroll
Street Address 605 W. Hopkins Ave. Unit 210, Aspen, CO 81611
Mailing Address Field not completed.
Phone 9703197031
Email meredithxcarroll@gmail.com
Board
or commission for
which application is
made
Wheeler Board of Directors
I desire the
appointment for the
following reasons:
One aspect of the pandemic that has hit me profoundly has been
the loss of live music and events. I grew up going to concerts and
the theater and have endeavored to expose my children to as
much as possible. I'd like the serve on the Wheeler Opera
House board to help continue the long, proud and necessary
tradition of performing arts in Aspen.
Resume MCC Resume 2021.pdf
Electronic Signature
Agreement
I agree
Electronic Signature Meredith Carroll
63
MEREDITH C. CARROLL
meredithXcarroll@gmail.com • +1 970 319 7031 • MeredithCarroll.com
EXPERIENCE
Advice Columnist
Aspen Sojourner magazine
2018 - Present
Op-Ed Columnist
The Aspen Times
2014 - Present
Creator/Writer
Special Oddcasions greeting cards
2015 - 2019
Contributing Writer
Mom.me
2012 – 2018
Contributing Writer
Babble.com/Disney Interactive
2010 – 2017
Op-Ed Columnist
The Denver Post
2012 – 2015
Writing Consultant
2009 – Present
Freelance Writer
Various (including The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Week, Town & Country, Parents
magazine, Good Housekeeping, Redbook, Condé Nast Traveler)
2009 – Present
Blogger
The Huffington Post
2009 - 2015
On-Air Host
Aspen Public Radio
2006 – 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
The Aspen Times, Summit Daily News, Santa Monica Daily Press
2005 – 2012
News Correspondent
Plum TV’s Morning, Noon & Night Show
2005 – 2006
64
Talent Executive
HBO’s Russell Simmons Presents Def Poetry
2003 – 2004
Talent Executive
NBC’s Macy’s 4th of July Fireworks Spectacular
2003 – 2004
News Director/Anchor
KSNO-FM Radio
2003 –2006
Producer/Music Talent Executive
Warner Bros. & Telepictures’ The Caroline Rhea Show
2002 – 2003
Producer/Senior Music & Talent Executive
The Oxygen Network
1999 – 2002
Assistant Music Supervisor/SNL Band Music Librarian
NBC’s Saturday Night Live
1997 – 2003
Page
NBC Guest Relations
1996 – 1997
EDUCATION
Skidmore College
Saratoga Springs, New York
Bachelor of Arts
AWARDS & DISTINCTIONS
Aspen Times Weekly Reader’s Choice Award 2017: Best Columnist
Colorado Press Association 2016 Award: First place, Best Humorous Column Writing
Colorado Press Association 2016 Award: Second place, Best Serious Column Writing
Colorado Press Association 2015 Award: Second place, Best Serious Column Writing
Colorado Press Association 2009 Award: Third place, Best Humorous Column Writing
Colorado Press Association 2007 Award: Second place, Best Humorous Column Writing
Colorado Press Association 2005 Award: First place, Best Humorous Column Writing
Colorado Broadcasters Association 2005 Awards of Excellence: Best News Feature Report or Series
Colorado Broadcasters Association 2004 Awards of Excellence: First place, Best Regularly Scheduled Newscast
Colorado Broadcasters Association 2004 Awards of Excellence: First place, Best Single Event News Coverage
Colorado Broadcasters Association 2003 Awards of Excellence: Best Regularly Scheduled Newscast
American Theatre Wing’s 2003 Tony Awards: Official Voter
Academy of Television Arts & Sciences 1999-2000 Primetime Emmy Award: Saturday Night Live: The 25th Anniversary Special
65
Board / Commission Application
Instructions:
Please submit your application along with a resume to the City Clerk’s office.
Interviews for board/commission openings will be held in January and June. Please
check the residency and age requirements for the various boards.
Name Peter Grenney
Street Address 531 E Cooper Ave Apt 1
Mailing Address Field not completed.
Phone 9704567343
Email petergrenney@gmail.com
Board
or commission for
which application is
made
Wheeler Board of Directors
I desire the
appointment for the
following reasons:
Thank you for the opportunity to reapply for the
Wheeler Board position. I believe that I had been both a
meaningful contributor and a strong advocate for the Wheeler
while on the board. I had regular attendance and brought
continuity through a time of transition. I worked well with
other board members and feel that my area of focus on
budget/finances and visioning are complementary to the
other board members.
In the community, I'm a dedicated advocate for the Wheeler and
enjoy promoting all that it has to offer. Recognizing what an
important community asset the Wheeler is, I would value being on
the board again and would take seriously the responsibility to look
out for the best interest of the Wheeler and the community.
Resume Wheeler Resume.pdf
Electronic Signature
Agreement
I agree
Electronic Signature Peter W Grenney
Email not displaying correctly?View it in your browser.
66
PETER W. GRENNEY
petergrenney@gmail.com 531 E Cooper Avenue, Aspen CO, 81611 (970) 456-7343
Professional Experience
Inside The Roundabout - Aspen, Colorado Present
Owner
●Project management, owner’s rep, land planning, brokerage and consulting services for Aspen properties.
Silich Construction - Aspen, Colorado 2018
Consulting Project Manager
●Developed the pre-construction budget and schedule for the Discovery Land Company Barbuda Ocean
Club 450-unit luxury development on the Caribbean island of Barbuda.
The Libman Group - Aspen, Colorado 2017-2018
Director of Development
●Lead the planning, development, and sourcing of financing for several spec home projects. Executed the
sale of a $3mm residential property for redevelopment, fulfilling brokerage duties and marketing.
Pyramid Property Advisors - Aspen, Colorado 2015-2016
Owner ’s Representative, Asset Manager
●Owner’s representative on the $30mm downtown Victorian Square development. Managed the
homeowners associations for two mixed-used commercial buildings.
J.D. Black Construction - Aspen, Colorado 2014-2015
Project Manager
●Managed the project budget and schedule for a $36mm, 15k square foot Red Mountain home. Coordinated
subs, consultants, permits and various county approvals.
Genesis Company - Aspen, Colorado 2011-2014
Owner
●Independently sourced and raised capital to purchase a 7-acre property in Broomfield, Colorado. Rezoned
the land for 200 units and sold the property within 14 months, doubling the partnership’s investment.
Lowe Enterprises - Snowmass, Colorado 2010-2011
Asset Management
●Receivership duties on the $520mm Snowmass Base Village development.
●Preserve entitlements, oversee construction completion on unfinished projects, outline project exit strategy.
Related Companies - Snowmass, Colorado 2007-2008
Owner ’s Representative
●Owner’s Rep on the build-out of the Base Village commercial spaces including Junk & Liquid Sky, The
Sweet Life, Performance Ski, and Four Mountain Sports.
●Managed the entitlement changes for the Viceroy condo-hotel (previously planned as Westin), including the
second phase design and planning.
Aspen Community Involvement
●Wheeler Opera House Board Alternate
●We-Cycle Board Member
●Christ Episcopal Church Vestry & Search Committee
●Aspen Airport Vision Committee Member
●Aspen Skiing Company Ski Instructor
Education
University of Colorado - Bachelor of Arts - Environmental Design & Urban Planning 2002
67
Board / Commission Application
Instructions:
Please submit your application along with a resume to the City Clerk’s office.
Interviews for board/commission openings will be held in January and June. Please
check the residency and age requirements for the various boards.
Name Stephanie B. Davis
Street Address 1310 Sierra Vista Drive
Mailing Address Field not completed.
Phone 3107092920
Email stephiebri@gmail.com
Board
or commission for
which application is
made
Wheeler Board of Directors
I desire the
appointment for the
following reasons:
I moved to Aspen from Los Angeles one year ago. It has been an
incredibly welcoming and inspiring community. I'd like to give
back to the community and volunteer my time continuing the
legacy of service that has paved the way into Aspen becoming a
heavenly place to live. While I love the history of Wheeler, I'd be
honored to serve on Historic Preservation or Planning and
Zoning, given my background and expertise as a real estate
developer.
Resume Stephanie Davis Resume .doc
Electronic Signature
Agreement
Field not completed.
Electronic Signature Stephanie Davis
68
STEPHANIE BRIANNE DAVIS
Stephanie@AdellaProperties.com
310.709.2920
EXPERIENCE Adella Properties – Los Angeles, CA
Principal – Residential and Commercial Real Estate Development (February 2017 – Present)
Coordinates and manages all aspects of running development firm – real estate endeavors and overall business
Follows real estate trends and locates opportunities for short and long-term investment
Builds financial models for projects and coordinates assets for development budgets and value-add construction
Performs tasks and negotiations associated with real estate acquisitions, entitlements, development process, lease/sales
Hires and manages team members: accounting, real estate agents, consultants, contractors, engineers, architects, legal
Designs all projects: floor plans, FF&E specifications, materials, staging – selection and sourcing
JMF Development – Los Angeles, CA
Development Manager – Commercial Real Estate Development (February 2019 – June 2019)
Managed all aspects of real estate development for commercial development firm
Evaluated potential acquisitions, managed aspects of current asset portfolio
Worked on financial models, development budgets and feasibility studies
Oversaw all third-party consultants during entitlement process on 53-story ground-up high-rise project in DTLA
Engaged in process of selection of: hotel flag, financing partners, funding sources, consultants, general contractor
Hired and managed team members
Molori – Los Angeles, CA
Managing Director – Residential and Commercial Real Estate Development (November 2012 – February 2017)
Managed design-build process on all development endeavors
Oversaw relations with clients, contractors, legal teams and international associates
Assisted in acquiring, structuring, and closing over $60 million in core real estate investments
Led weekly construction meetings with Director of Construction, General Contractors, Civil Engineers and Project
Architects to review critical path items which drive project completion, budget, and projected profitability
Developed and implemented internal business systems, hired staff, consultants and contractors
Coordinated real estate contracts, business affairs and intellectual property protection endeavors with legal team
Oversaw junior professionals, including project assignment, skill training, coaching, and mentoring
Stephanie Brianne Design – Los Angeles, CA
Principal – Boutique Interior Architecture Design Practice (January 2010 – November 2012)
Ran all aspects of freelance design practice that offered comprehensive architectural design services
Designed interior spaces, coordinated contractor agreements with clients
Specification of FF&E, custom design, construction administration, project management
Assembled, critiqued, and distributed RFP submittals
Researched components and materials to support design on technical issues influencing concept development
Managed contractors, textile/furniture reps, individuals on job sites and clients to ensure project completion
Performed cost/budget analysis, managed design selections and consultants to keep within client budgets
Wippman Davis & Associates – Minneapolis, MN
Business Affairs Associate – Financial Advising (August 2006 – June 2009)
Assisted in monitoring asset allocation at financial advising firm
Collaborated with advisor on wealth management allocation options
Coordinated the check-in process of financial packages received from subsidiaries
Assisted in coordinating the assemblage of various sources of data to provide fully integrated company wide responses
to RFPs, client inquiries and broker-dealer assessments
EDUCATION UCLA, Cal Poly Pomona Collaborative Program – Los Angeles, CA
Master of Interior Architecture – Completed June 2011
The University of California, Berkeley – Berkeley, CA
Bachelor of Arts in Political Science – Completed May 2006 (Concentration: International Relations)
COMPUTER Windows XP, Microsoft Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Outlook • Mac OSX • FileMaker Pro
Adobe: Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Acrobat Pro • AutoCAD • Google SketchUp
LANGUAGES Spanish and Hebrew: Conversational
69
Board / Commission Application
Instructions:
Please submit your application along with a resume to the City Clerk’s office.
Interviews for board/commission openings will be held in January and June. Please
check the residency and age requirements for the various boards.
Name Kathy Small
Street Address 1377 Barber Drive
Mailing Address 1377 Barber Drive Carbondale CO 81623
Phone 9706186028
Email kathy@kathy-small.com
Board or commission for
which application is made
Wheeler Board of Directors
I desire the appointment
for the following reasons:
I ask to be considered as a candidate for the Wheeler
Advisory Board in order to contribute to the goals of ensuring the
short term and long term success and vibrancy of the Wheeler
Opera House. I believe my experience in product development
and my passion for the performing arts will enable me to
contribute to the board.
Resume Resume_Kathy_Small.pdf
Electronic Signature
Agreement
I agree
Electronic Signature Kathleen R Small
70
KATHY SMALL
Mobile (970) 618 6028
kathy@kathy-small.com
Sopris Valuation, Real Estate Appraisal Trainee 1997-Present
• Complete requirements for licensed Appraiser; exam expected in 2021.
• Created regression analysis models for support of appraisal adjustments
• Managed database for automation of report completion
• Managed back end office systems to scale business and enable business agility
Cisco Systems, San Jose, California 1997-2016
Cisco is a global leader in the company's core development areas of routing and switching, as well as in
advanced technologies such as unified communications, data centers, security and wireless technology. Cisco
also provides service offerings, including technical support and advanced services.
Summary IT Manager with extensive experience in software development, product management and
emerging offers in a high-tech environment. Experience in analytics and collaboration technologies with
emphasis on profitable business innovation.
Demonstrated competence in:
• Agile software development and SaaS business models
• Requirements definition and technical training
• Lifecycle management of product portfolios
Senior Product Manager, Analytics
• Accelerated time to revenue by implementing an enterprise license agreement business
model and built $25M customer pipeline via field engagement
• Managed a 16 person agile software development team to deliver solutions.
Development environment is Hadoop/MapReduce and Pentaho visualizations
• Developed and trained predictive analytics models to enable customers to reduce
internal travel expenses and increase usage of video and web conferencing, resulting in a
potential annual travel budget reduction of up to 30%
• Managed roadmap through extensive engagement at a technical and commercial level with internal
and external executives, senior managers, developers and industry analysts
• Exceeded committed forecast of revenue with $1.2M in SaaS bookings in first year
Market Manager, Mobility Solutions
Developed & implemented market strategies for a Voice Ready Wireless campaign and
Vertical Market solutions
• Evangelized Cisco’s leadership in Wireless Unified Communications through industry
speaking events, webinars, contributed articles, press interviews and analyst briefings
• Lead Wi-Fi Alliance participation in the Voice Task Group to align industry
interoperability standards with wireless technology
• Supported major enterprise accounts worldwide to win lighthouse accounts – customer
briefings, RFP’s, competitive responses and marketing collateral
Product Manager
71
Kathy Small Page 2
Lead two major router platforms, responsible for driving global P&L and growing market
share in the SOHO and Mobile Access Router segments. Grew revenue from $0 to
$150M without downsell and maintained excellent gross margins
• Provided technical/marketing leadership to drive product requirements and commit new
product programs, including a Mobile Access Router
• Managed existing run-rate models as well as new products, including forecasting and
driving growth in units, revenue, and margins
• Provided technical leadership to provide product vision, champion new product
requirements, and articulate our technological advantages to customers.
• Provided cross-functional leadership to the product development team
EDUCATION
Masters in Business Administration, The Ross School of Business, University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
Bachelor of Arts, Economics, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan
72