HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20140721
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
July 21, 2014
5:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Council Goal Update
II. Community Development Work Program
III. 2015 Budget Assumptions
IV. Marijuana Issues
Traffic Lights
Quarter: 3rd
Date Scored: May 30, 2014
Leadership Team 2013 - 2014
TOP TEN GOALS
Goals in Good Shape
2. Determine Aspen’s role in the valley-wide Health and Human Service system
and then develop an effective city policy/process for funding that role by August
1, 2014.
Champion: Steve Barwick, Don and Barry, Karen Harrington
3. Complete a plan to coordinate improvements to Rubey Park, Wagner Park,
Downtown Malls and Durant Avenue by June 30, 2014.
Champion: Randy Ready, Chris Bendon, Jeff Woods
4. Determine a use for the Art Museum and Mountain Rescue sites by September
1, 2014 that results in the greatest benefit to the community.
Champion: Scott Miller, Chris Bendon, Mitzi and Barry
5. Create a Municipal Facilities Master Plan by September 1, 2014.
Champion: Scott Miller, Barry Crook, Ashley Perl, Randy Ready, Richard Pryor
and Don Taylor
6. Begin to draft a Climate Change Resiliency Plan that will sustain the community
and respond to the impacts of altered environmental parameters.
Champion: C.J. Oliver, Dave and Karen, Ashley Perl
7. Adopt a Wildfire Mitigation Plan by February 1, 2014.
Champion: Steve Barwick, Barry Crook, Randy Ready and Dave Hornbacher
8. Implement an incentive program for the short-term bed base by July 1, 2014
(with policy guidance by March 1, 2014).
Champion: Chris Bendon, Don and Barry, Scott Miller
9. Define economic sustainability and create a dashboard to measure it.
Champion: Barry Crook, Steve Barwick, Don Taylor and Karen Harrington
10. By August 31, 2014 help insure the livability of Aspen for future generations by
identifying strategies to expand business diversity and enhance business
sustainability by reducing business start-up obstacles.
Champion: Chris Bendon, Don Taylor, Barry Crook and Karen Harrington
Goals Needing Attention
1. The City will work with APCHA and Pitkin County to recommend a revised
capital reserve policy that will ensure the longevity of the deed-restricted
housing stock (by June 30, 2014).
Champion: Barry Crook, Don and Scott, Jim True
P1
I.
P2
I.
2013-1 Top Ten Council Goals
Status Update
This effort has been delayed due to the need to accommodate consideration
of an approach to providing assistance to Centennial homeowners.
Understanding that any agreement with Centennial to provide government
assistance to them will set a precedent in constructing a policy for other deed-
restricted owners has meant that a long-term policy for capital reserves will
have to take into consideration the terms of an agreement for helping
Centennial. Nonetheless, the outlines of a proposed approach with Centennial
has been created and it forms the basis for a proposed capital reserve policy
as well.
A series of “focus group” conversations with stakeholder groups has begun
and scheduling will continue for the APCHA Board, deed-restricted HOA board
members and other stakeholders. Those conversations will focus on three
questions: (1) who should pay to fund capital reserves in our deed-restricted
HOA communities? Current owners? Future owners? Governments? Or some
combination of the three? (2) Why? (3) What mechanisms should be employed
to accumulate the cash contributions necessary to fund capital reserves and
to what level?
Draft policy statements have been developed and will be vetted at the
appropriate time with stakeholders and council, BOCC and APCHA board
members.
It is anticipated that the work on this goal will continue into the fall.
Finalization of policy recommendations may be delayed until after agreements
with Centennial are concluded.
Goal 1: The City will work with APCHA and Pitkin County
to recommend a revised capital reserve policy that will
ensure the longevity of the deed-restricted housing stock
(by June 30, 2014).
Champion: Barry Crook, Don Taylor, Scott Miller and Jim True
P3
I.
Goal 2: Determine Aspen’s role in the valley-wide Health
and Human Service system and then develop an effective
city policy/process for funding that role by August 1, 2014.
Champion: Steve Barwick, Don Taylor, Karen Harrington and Barry Crook
Council determined to maintain funding at the previous year’s levels going
forward and to revisit the funding levels in the out years as part of the
discussion on future outlays and the possible repurposing of a portion of the
Real Estate Transfer Tax.
Goal 3: Complete a plan to coordinate improvements to
Rubey Park, Wagner Park, Downtown Malls and Durant
Avenue by June 30, 2014.
Champion: Randy Ready, Jeff Woods, and Chris Bendon
This goal has involved coordination of three major projects: rehabilitation of
Rubey Park, Wagner Park and the pedestrian malls to avoid duplication, take
advantage of efficiencies and explore design opportunities. Coordination of
the staff and consultant planning and project teams has been successful. Both
the Rubey Park and the Wagner Park projects have achieved significant
milestones this year and utility infrastructure has been sized and located to
accommodate both projects.
The Rubey Park remodel and rehabilitation project is in the final design phase,
with the results of a peer-review process to be incorporated into the design
soon. HPC and P&Z have approved the plans. Final design will be presented
for City Council approval in late July. The remaining permit applications will
then be submitted and construction drawings and cost estimates can be
completed in time for an October construction funding request in the EOTC
transit project budget. The project has already earned $3 million in state and
federal grants, and construction is scheduled to begin spring 2015.
The Wagner Park rehabilitation project is well underway. The irrigation and
electric work and most of the drainage work were completed this spring. The
Park has been available for use in June and July. Starting in August, the rest
of the drainage work and the turf renovation part of the project will begin and
will continue through the fall. Special event flooring has proven to help
minimize turf damage caused by large-scale events and will be a key part of
the turf management strategy going forward. Part of the coordina tion with
other projects has been directed to the design of a small structure to be
P4
I.
located at the southeast corner of Wagner Park to house electrical gear for
both mall and park infrastructure.
Renovation of the pedestrian malls is the third project component in this
coordination goal. Planning for both the park and the transit center has
involved extensive effort to avoid duplication, to right-size utilities and not to
preempt mall design opportunities. Due to the complexities and potential
broad impacts of any significant work on the malls, next steps involve
extensive collaboration among representatives of Parks, Transportation,
Utilities, Sanitation District, Asset Management and Community Development
to begin multi-disciplinary discussion about coordination, budgeting, design
and timing of mall rehabilitation, improving ADA access and accommodating
new uses while retaining the historic and economic integrity of the mall. This
project will require significant public outreach and participation throughout the
planning and construction process. Planning, utility engineering and outreach
are expected to continue through 2015, with renovation beginning in 2016.
Goal 4: Determine a use for the Old Powerhouse and
Mountain Rescue sites by September 1, 2014 that results in
the greatest benefit to the community.
Champion: Scott Miller, Mitzi Rapkin, Barry Crook and Chris Bendon
So far the goal for the Art Museum, now called The Old Powerhouse, is steadily
progressing. Since January the City has held three work sessions with Council
about 1) the vision for the property and new use, 2) specifics about what they
are looking for in an Request for Proposals and 3) what th e RFP process will
look like. In addition the City has taken feedback online from the public since
February 2013 on Open City Hall, held a public open house in January and a
work session for the public to share their ideas in June 2014.
The next step in the process now is to draft a Request for Qualifications i .e.
an “Expression of Interest” document that will ask applicants their basic vision
and general funding needs/capacities but will not be too in depth regarding
their financial history and present situation. A committee of citizens and staff
(total of 5-7 which includes staff members) will review all applications
submitted, which will then go to final vetting from Council to see who proceeds
to the next step. Staff is now drafting RFQ and in the process of soliciting and
selecting citizen members. Once this is accomplished, staff will come back to
Council with recommendations of RFQ questions and committee members and
evaluation criteria. The projected timeline for this is to issue an RFQ in August
but that is only speculative at this time. Overall, this goal is proceeding toward
P5
I.
fruition, though not by September 1, 2014. Nevertheless, it is on target and
has been consistently moving forward since last summer.
Regarding the Mountain Rescue site, it has been determined that the City will
likely use it as interim office space while some departments are being shifted
due to lease closures or other circumstances such as that so it is off the table
for now in terms of planning for its future use.
Goal 5: Create a Municipal Facilities Master Plan by
September 1, 2014.
Champion: Scott Miller, Randy Ready, Richard Pryor, Don Taylor, Ashley Perl and
Barry Crook.
The architecture firms RNL Design and Charles Cunniffe Architects have been
hired to perform the Facilities Master Plan for the City of Aspen. Work complete
to date includes: facilities and site assessments, interviews with all city
departments, assessments of current departmental space programming, and
comparison of current programming to national office and police facility
standards.
From this work, the team has studied the development potential of city assets
and begun to identify potential solutions to the current space deficit. These
draft solutions will be presented to Council in August to begin the work of
finalizing the Master Plan.
Goal 6: Begin to draft a Climate Change Resiliency Plan
that will sustain the community and respond to the impacts
of altered environmental parameters.
Champion: C.J. Oliver, Dave Hornbacher, Ashley Perl and Karen Harrington
History of Goal:
The Canary Action Plan (CAP) is a guiding document for the Aspen community
in all things related to climate change. The CAP provides a roadmap for
reducing greenhouse gases, but the plan was also designed with a placeholder
for the addition of an adaptation planning section. The authors of the plan
knew that it would be critical for Aspen to not only fight climate change by
reducing greenhouse gases, but that Aspen would also need to plan for a
future that looks very different than today because of the effects of climate
change. By adding a placeholder for resiliency planning, the expectation was
that the City would one day create a plan to guide the community in building
P6
I.
resilience in the face of inevitable climate change impacts. In 2013, this
resiliency planning became a priority of the City’s, as the topic also gained
traction on an international scale and cites all over the world embarked on this
next step together with support from federal and state governments.
Work To Date:
Prior to drafting a resiliency plan for the Aspen community, the City needed
to gather data on the climate impacts that we expect to see locally. Aspen has
an existing Climate Impacts Assessment Report that was published in 2006
by the Aspen Global Change Institute (AGCI). This report is useful to provide
baseline data, but the report needed to be updated with new climate models
and up-to-date observations. With an updated report, scaled regionally, Aspen
has the best available data to help us plan for an unknown future.
The first step to achieve the BYY goal was to work with AGCI to update the
Climate Impact Assessment Report that was originally published in 2006. The
majority of this BYY year was spent working with AGCI to identify new
stakeholders, updating the report, and conducting interviews. The finished
report was submitted to the City in April and was reviewed internally in May.
The updated report details expected impacts to particular sectors. Those
sectors include: Energy, Water, Public Health and Safety, Recreation and
Tourism, Ecosystems, and Infrastructure. Using the updated report as a guide,
staff created a draft outline of the resiliency plan, including topics that would
be covered and the key regional partners.
Next Steps:
Prior to taking the next step of working with the community to write the
resiliency plan, the City needs to finalize the AGCI report and share it with key
stakeholders and City Council. In order to gain buy-in and increase the value
of the report, staff will meet with numerous stakeholders in each sector over
the 2014 summer months.
These meetings will be an opportunity for stakeholders to share their reactions
to the report and share concerns about what is to come. Staff will also be able
to identify topics or ideas that need to be included in the report for future
study based on the needs of the stakeholders.
The final Climate Impacts Assessment Report will include comments and
changes from stakeholders and will be presented to City Council in November.
Once City Council has viewed the report, staff will begin to share the report
with the public and solicit comments from the community. These comments
and public involvement will be used as we move forward with writing the actual
Resiliency Plan for all six of the sectors named above.
P7
I.
The Canary Initiative recommends City Council continue to make resiliency
planning a focus for the coming year and beyond. The City of Aspen has a
responsibility to the community to plan for the future and to do what is
possible now to ensure that Aspen is a livable community now and always.
Although much work has been completed to date, the City still lacks a
resiliency plan to use as a guiding document for preparing for the future.
Canary staff will continue to work on this effort and plans to involve the
community in the drafting of a plan over the next year.
Goal 7: Adopt a Wildfire Mitigation Plan by February 1,
2014.
Champion: Steve Barwick, Randy Ready, Barry Crook, and Dave Hornbacher
Since City Council included the adoption of a Wildfire Mitigation Plan into their
annual goals, the City has accomplished a number of things in order to
improve the community’s preparedness and overall safety from wildfire
events. Although no single plan has been put in place, a holistic approach has
been taken to incorporate several project areas into the community’s wildfire
mitigation efforts. These project areas have included: community education
and outreach, defensible space, fuel break construction, evacuation route
construction, utility fire suppression enhancements, additional risk ratings and
map updates and an evaluation of the City’s building code.
By partnering with several other agencies in the community a lot of individual
accomplishments took place within these project areas, and we intend to
continue our efforts into upcoming years. Below is a summary of these
accomplishments, as well as challenges, and plans for the near future.
Accomplishments:
Continued partnership with Aspen Fire, Pitkin County, Holy Cross, and
Colorado State Forest Service – the Community Wildfire Mitigation Team
Construction of two fuel breaks on Red Mountain
Mastication and fuel removal on Smuggler Mountain
Updated portions of the wildfire risk assessment map
Created a defensible space incentive program for private property
owners – the Neighborhood Wildfire Mitigation Program
10 properties participating to date
Conducted a water system analysis and identified needed fire
suppression upgrades
P8
I.
Designed fire suppression upgrades
Outlined plans for two evacuation routes and identified egress needs in
other dead-end neighborhoods
Held wildfire preparedness community meeting – Ready, Set, Go!
Created educational materials for defensible space and ignition resistant
vegetation
BOCC adoption of the County Wildfire Protection Plan (CWPP)
Challenges:
Failed to get approval or easements from property owners for
evacuation route locations
Low participation by property owners for incentive program and
neighborhood meetings
Next Steps:
Additional fuel removal within right of ways in high risk areas and
around public facilities
Neighborhood meetings in high risk areas
Risk assessments through Aspen Fire
Final design of utility fire suppression upgrades
Continued evaluation of building code and ignition resistant
requirements
Application for DNR defensible space grant
Goal 8: Implement an incentive program for the short-
term bed base by July 1, 2014 (with policy guidance by
March 1, 2014).
Champion: Chris Bendon, Don Taylor, Scott Miller and Barry Crook
This goal came about partly because of the recognition that Aspen has lost a
significant amount of our bed base since the 1990s. Between 1995 and 2006,
the city lost 27% of the bed base – including both traditional hotels as well as
condominium rentals.
Staff gathered existing conditions information and worked extensively with
the lodging and condominium community. The City learned that over 40% of
the bed base is in condominium rentals, that more families are visiting and
they demand larger units, and that the city process is unwieldy and
unpredictable. The City also learned through the 2013 lodging economics
study by EPS, that basic free-market units that are not required to be in the
P9
I.
rental pool continue to be a critical economic engine for lodge upgrades and
redevelopment.
Staff has met with City Council in a number of work sessions since the fall of
2013 and received direction on key aspects of a potential lodge incentive
program. An ordinance proposing a wide range of incentives is currently
pending. The incentives attempt to make the process more predictable by
limiting the range of requests and also provide simpler criteria for
approval. For example, requests for additional height in the past have had no
upper limit while the proposal limits the requests to a fourth floor, only in
certain areas and by meeting specific criteria. The proposal also contains
“non-development” incentives to assist ongoing operations of current lodges.
The lodging ordinance will be presented on July 14th, July 28th, and August
11th. Additional meetings may be necessary to refine the ordinance prior to
adoption. Staff is also including several budgetary aspects of the proposal in
the proposed 2015 budget. These will not be considered until Council’s budget
review in the fall.
After ordinance consideration and review of the budget items, staff believes
this effort will be complete. Projects will be submitted and reviewed under
these new codes. There may be a need to evaluate the program after a year
or two. Staff does not see this item requiring significant staff resources over
the next BYY year.
Goal 9: Define economic sustainability and create a
dashboard to measure it.
Champion: Barry Crook, Don Taylor, Steve Barwick and Karen Harrington
Staff work has concluded research into what others have done in the area of
identifying metrics for economic sustainability and what experts have to say
about the notion of economic sustainability.
Stakeholder focus groups have been conducted with ACRA board and
committee members and with the Next Generation Advisory Commission.
Additional stakeholder groups will be engaged.
Upon completion of the focus group effort, staff will prepare drafts of the areas
of focus for the dashboard as well as specific measures to track. We plan on
then using community open houses to test reaction and gather feedback on
the dashboard before bringing it to Council for your reaction.
P10
I.
The work on this goal will continue into the fall and into the first quarter of
next year.
Goal 10: By August 31, 2014 help ensure the livability of
Aspen by identifying strategies to expand business
diversity, enhance business longevity and stability, and
reduce business start-up obstacles.
Champion: Chris Bendon, Don Taylor, Barry Crook and Karen Harrington
In January staff reviewed a series of ideas with City Council in order to refine
the goal. Following is a recap of each idea and progress to date:
Business Navigator.
Staff continued an effort started previously to streamline business services
and make the process of starting a new business easier. Staff interviewed
new business owners having just experienced the process of opening a new
establishment. A new website was created – Business Navigator – that
contains step-by-step information on how to start, move, or enhance a
business. Staff has received positive feedback on the site. Future plans
include expanding the site to provide information on development and special
events.
Welcoming New Businesses.
This effort emphasizes the personal contact not present with today’s websites
and forms. In cooperation with Aspen Chamber Resort Association, staff
has developed a welcome package to give out to all new businesses opening
in Aspen. This would accompany the personal greeting by local officials,
perhaps by the mayor or council members, and a representative from
ACRA. Next steps – commitment is needed to operationalize this effort.
Expanding Retail to the Mixed-Use Zone. The Mixed-Use zone was
recently amended to allow retail and restaurants. Staff met with local
business owners, commercial brokers, and the P&Z and HPC before
presenting the ordinance to Council. A few art studios have recently added
small retail elements to their business.
Unbinding Commercial Space within Lodges.
Older lodges often have specific restrictions – often limited uses that no
longer exist. Staff reached out to lodges with these older, quirky
restrictions. The St. Regis responded and recently gained approval to unbind
their retail spaces. Staff is also proposing greater flexibility for retail within
lodges as part of the lodging code amendments.
P11
I.
Selective SCI Rezoning.
The SCI zone has long been a difficult zone to manage – the list of uses is
very specific and antiquated. Staff must review the business plan of each
new operation and prospective business operators are usually left wondering
why the City is so restrictive. Staff has discussed potential rezoning options
with the Obermeyer Place HOA. Staff is not aware of any official position of
the board and the City has not received an application.
Public/Private Redevelopment of North Mill SCI Properties.
The SCI properties along North Mill Street are redevelopment
candidates. The City has previously explored rezoning options to adjust the
types of allowable businesses. This effort was met with significant concern
about the effects on existing businesses.
Staff has met with the property owners. They are most interested in minimal
upgrades to the property and buildings. Staff believes there is an opportunity
to balance property upgrades, an incubator commercial operation, stability
for existing tenants, and a more-flexible set of zoning limits for the
property. Staff also believes the HUBAspen venture is an opportunity for the
City and property owner to forward this discussion and explore physical and
policy changes. This effort needs more attention if progress is expected.
Redevelopment of Zupancis Parcel.
This item entailed a public/private commercial development on this site. The
idea gained little interest. The City is now including this site in various City
facility planning scenarios.
Cooper Street Basement.
The basement of 508 E. Cooper contains a commercial space, currently
vacant. The project was approved through a settlement agreement which
requires this rent-capped space be rented to a restaurant with an additional
limitation on menu prices. The 1,800 s.f. space is unfinished with a tenant
finish estimate of roughly $1 million.
The City worked with the landowner to advertise the space. There continues
to be little interest. The space has been empty for close to two years and it
is likely this space will sit empty until the restriction is reconsidered. The
current advertising campaign will go through mid-July. Staff believes the
next step requires a Council discussion on the restriction.
“Uphill Economy” (was “Aspen Brand”)
Aspen enjoys a high profile and international identity as a luxury
resort. Businesses constantly evolve their identity to stay current and
P12
I.
fresh. This is especially prevalent in retail fashion as each season presents
a challenge to be cutting-edge while being true to brand legacy.
This effort morphed into an economic development goal centered on uphill
fitness. Uphill sports are growing in Europe and Aspen is an ideal place for
this emerging sport. The potential to evolve brand identity, create
professional jobs, attract tourists, etc. is present and can assist resort and
community sustainability.
Next steps. This effort needs resources and focus if progress is expected.
P13
I.
7.21.2014 Council Work Session Memo
Page 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: July 21, 2014
RE: Community Development Department work program review
SUMMARY: This memo outlines the Community Development Department’s current work program, as
well as other priorities previously identified by City Council, P&Z, HPC, and staff. Council may wish
to re-evaluate the priorities, but based on the department’s staffing levels, realistically the department
cannot add new work program items without deleting others. The purpose of this work session is to
update City Council on the Community Development Department’s work program in advance of
Council’s retreat. No action is requested.
At the beginning of 2013, City Council identified a number of AACP implementation priorities. Many
of these fell to Community Development. In addition, Council identified a number of priorities for
Community Development as part of the 2013 Council Retreat.
In addition to these projects, staff continues to work on regular work items, such as building permits and
current caseload. Staff met with the Planning & Zoning Commission and the Historic Preservation
Commission in June to hear their ideas for important policies the city should work on. Their suggested
work program ideas are listed at the end of the memo.
CURRENT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WORK PROGRAM ITEMS: Beyond the general planning
services the city provides (processing land use applications, providing walk-in services, etc), community
development staff is working on the following items.
1. Permit Process Change. The Community Development Department is working on a complete
overhaul of the building permitting process, from initial pre-planning inquiries through the
issuance of a CO. This also involves conversion to a new software system and digital plans
review. This is a significant effort and involves all Community Development staff and multiple
review agencies of the City. Efforts will be ongoing though the end of the year and possibly into
2015. Staff: All of Community Development.
2. Standardized Zoning Submission – Model Z-Sheets. As part of the new process
improvements, staff is working on a standard format for all zoning submittals. Initial work has
already streamlined reviews significantly. This has been budgeted from department savings.
Staff: Chris Bendon and Claude Salter.
3. Standardized Building Submission – Model B-Sheets. Based on staff’s experience with the
Model Z-Sheets, staff is working on a standard format for building submittals. (A similar effort
P14
II.
7.21.2014 Council Work Session Memo
Page 2 of 6
is being pursued within Engineering.) This has been budgeted from department savings. Staff:
Stephen Kanipe and Denis Murray.
4. Lodging Development (Council Goal #8). As part of AACP implementation and Council’s
Top Ten Goals, Council directed staff to study lodging and engage the lodging community in a
discussion related to the future of our lodging product. A copy of all work completed to date is
available online at: http://www.aspenpitkin.com/Departments/Community-
Development/Planning-and-Zoning/Long-Range-Planning/). The project is now at City Council
for review and public hearings. Staff anticipates this project will continue through the summer
and possibly into the fall. Staff: Jessica Garrow and Chris Bendon.
5. Business start-up web site (Council Goal #10). Staff continued an effort started previously to
streamline business services and make the process of starting a new business easier. Staff
interviewed new business owners having just experienced the process of opening a new
establishment. A new website was created – Business Navigator – that contains step-by-step
information on how to start, move, or enhance a business. Staff has received positive feedback on
the site. Future plans include expanding the site to provide information on development and special
events. Staff: Jim Pomeroy and Chris Bendon.
6. Rubey Park Remodel. Last year the City began a process to examine remodel options for
Rubey Park. Based on the community and Council feedback, the project is moving into the
design and land use review phase. The Transportation Department is heading this project, with a
number of other city departments sitting on the core project team and assisting with public
outreach, technical needs, etc. This phase of the project is anticipated to be complete in the fall.
Community Development Staff Rep: Justin Barker.
7. Review and Update the SCI Zone District (Council Goal #10). In April 2013 City Council
asked staff to begin work to address the Service/Commercial/Industrial (SCI) zone district.
There are four (4) areas of the city in the zone district, each with a unique identity and set of
businesses. The SCI zone has long been a difficult zone to manage – the list of uses is very
specific and antiquated. Staff must review the business plan of each new operation and
prospective business operators are usually left wondering why the City is so restrictive. Staff has
discussed potential rezoning options with the Obermeyer Place HOA. Staff is not aware of any
official position of the board and the City has not received an application.
The SCI properties along North Mill Street are redevelopment candidates. The City has
previously explored rezoning options to adjust the types of allowable businesses. This effort was
met with significant concern about the effects on existing businesses.
Staff has met with the property owners. They are most interested in minimal upgrades to the
property and buildings. Staff believes there is an opportunity to balance property upgrades, an
incubator commercial operation, stability for existing tenants, and a more-flexible set of zoning
limits for the property. Staff also believes the HUBAspen venture is an opportunity for the City
and property owner to forward this discussion and explore physical and policy changes. This
effort needs more attention if progress is expected. Staff: Chris Bendon and Sara Nadolny.
P15
II.
7.21.2014 Council Work Session Memo
Page 3 of 6
8. Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA) Code Amendment. Staff is working on an update to
the ESA chapter of the Land Use Code. This section requires a heightened review for any
project located near our rivers and streams, within an established view plane, located near
Hallam Lake, or located within 100 feet of the 8040 elevation line. This code amendment
requires extensive work with other city departments and the development community, which has
just begun. Mapping work may be required and could be funded from remaining AACP funds.
Staff anticipates the amendment will be ready for public hearings in late 2014. Staff: Jessica
Garrow.
9. Single-Family and Duplex Housing Mitigation. The project proposes to update the fee-in-lieu
requirements for single-family and duplex development. The proposal also would eliminate the
ADU option consistent with the AACP and previous Council and APCHA direction. The
project relies on the not yet adopted fee-in-lieu methodology developed by the Housing
Authority. While the basis for the fee would be new, the amount that an applicant would pay
does not need to be the full fee stated in the Housing Guidelines. Staff has conducted some
outreach on this item and is working with the consultant team to finalize the study. This has
been budgeted from department savings. Staff anticipates the work will be completed by the end
of the year. Staff: Chris Bendon.
10. Update Public Noticing Requirements. City Council has expressed interest in updating the
public noticing contents to enable the public to better understand land use projects that are before
the City’s review bodies. Public notices for all land use cases are posted on the property,
published in the Aspen Times, and mailed to property owners with 300 feet of the subject
property. Public notices already include contact information for the staff planner, so anyone
receiving a mailed notice, or reading the posted or newspaper notice can contact the planner
directly to ask questions. Staff is working to update the basic notice form that is mailed to all
property owners with 300 feet of a proposed land use application to include a clear summary of
the work proposed and how to comment. This is ongoing, and will also be incorporated into the
software upgrades. Staff: Jessica Garrow.
11. AspenModern Website. Historic Preservation staff worked on a website dedicated to Aspen’s
Post-WWII era properties. The website was completed in April and includes information on
each style of architecture and each architect modern properties (http://www.aspenmod.com/)
Staff: Amy Simon, Sara Adams.
12. AspenVictorian Website. Historic Preservation staff is working on a website that is dedicated
to Aspen’s Victorian era properties. This would mimic the AspenModern website. Staff
anticipates the website will be live in September. Staff: Amy Simon, Sara Adams.
13. Lift One Restoration. The City is working with a consultant team to assess the preservation
options for the historic Lift 1. This is the first phase of work, and the City will be applying for a
state preservation grant to complete restoration work based on the options outlined in the
assessment. This phase should be completed in September, but the overall project will last for 1-
2 years. Staff: Sara Adams, Amy Simon.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF SUGGESTIONS:
P16
II.
7.21.2014 Council Work Session Memo
Page 4 of 6
1. Update Residential Design Standards. The City has Residential Design Standards in place that
address all single-family, duplex, and multi-family development. These standards have not been
updated since their initial creation roughly fifteen (15) years ago. Staff believes a re-
examination and update to these standards is needed. Much of the work could be completed in-
house, with some consultant assistance.
Remaining funds from the AACP budget could be used for this and the project could be initiated
this fall. This project could be completed in 2015.
2. Update Historic Preservation Guidelines. The city’s Historic Preservation Guidelines have
not been updated since 2000. A general update is recommended to address emerging issues such
as landscaping and to ensure the guidelines result in development that respects Aspen’s historic
buildings and districts. This work requires a consultant and would be completed with the
Historic Preservation Commission.
Remaining funds from the AACP budget could be used for this and the project could be initiated
this fall. This project could be completed in 2015.
3. Downtown Streetscape. The history of streetscape improvements to downtown suggests a
random, hodge-podge approach. The DEPP project in the late 90s suggested a master plan, one
phase of which was implemented. Some improvements based on the “Fricke and Beer” report
were implemented. Multiple one-off city projects have been implemented, each with a different
design. Some improvements fall to Parks, others to Engineering or to Planning, or CCLC, or the
HPC, or individual project designers. Each development project downtown has implemented a
unique design adjacent to their property. Other than technical engineering standards, there is no
plan and nobody in charge. In addition, downtown can feel “jammed” with cars with little or no
accommodation for pedestrians. Cities around the country are making their streets more people-
friendly and the same effort could happen here.
An organized design process could result in a better pedestrian experience, less auto dominance,
implementation of storm water drainage systems, more outdoor seating and “dwell” spaces.
Galena street, for example, could be a much better pedestrian corridor than it is today with some
intention and focus. (This is NOT a proposal to extend the malls.)
This effort would need to be coordinated between several departments and could be an extensive
work program item. Additional monies would need to be budgeted.
4. SCI / North Mill Planning. This effort could focus on the properties along North Mill. The
City is about to complete a substantial street and storm water improvement project connected to
the work being finished on John Denver Sanctuary. The North Mill SCI properties received
minimal attention this past year as part of the business goal (BYY #10). A deeper effort focused
on these properties could produce an incubator-type property for a wider range of businesses.
The effort could be expanded to include the properties along the river. The river properties could
be repurposed and relate better to the new park.
P17
II.
7.21.2014 Council Work Session Memo
Page 5 of 6
This could be an extensive work program item, but could get underway in late 2014 with
anticipated completion in 2015.
PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM IDEAS: The Planning and Zoning Commission
identified a number of potential work program items. The follow list includes the items identified by a
majority of P&Z as important to include in a future work program. Their ideas generally focused on
having conversations about particular policy issues that might ultimately become code amendments.
1. Discuss the establishment of overall limits that cannot be exceeded through a Planned
Development process. The P&Z expressed interest in allowing some flexibility, but potentially
establishing minimum thresholds an applicant must meet to request a PD. Some of this
discussion is occurring as part of the Lodge Incentive Program discussion, including limiting the
ability to amend height and unit size through the PD process. Additional work could include
broadening limits beyond that program.
Staff anticipates minimal financial resources would be needed, but that broad community
outreach would be needed.
2. P&Z has expressed interest in looking at the parking requirement outlined in the code. The code
currently allows less on-site parking for projects located in the core area than projects located
outside of the core. The code also allows the payment of cash-in-lieu for some parking
requirements. A comprehensive study are parking needs for different land uses may be
beneficial, given the section has not been updated in approximately 10 years. There are new
trends related to land use review of parking, including establishing a maximum parking
requirement rather than a minimum parking requirement (in an effort to encourage use of
alternative transportation modes). In addition, this may be a worthwhile “next step” related to
the recently adopted transportation mitigation system.
Staff suggests that discussion on parking policy are always more time-consuming than
anticipated. However, the city’s minimum parking requirements are antiquated compared with
new approaches many cities have implemented. This would require moderate financial resources
and significant community outreach.
3. Discuss ways to encourage free-market multi-family housing that is “affordable” to working
people.
Staff suggests this is too broad of a topic and would likely be too unwieldy and suffer for lack of
focus. The effort could also likely require significant financial resources and significant
community outreach. Staff does not suggest this as a work program item.
4. Amend vested rights section to require an applicant to apply under the current code if their
amendment is a “significant” change to their vested approval. Staff has proposed this as part of
the code changes in the Lodge Incentive Program (review of this will occur at the July 28th
public hearing).
P18
II.
7.21.2014 Council Work Session Memo
Page 6 of 6
At this time staff anticipates the code change will be incorporated in the Lodge Incentive
Program so recommends no action at this time.
HISTORIC PRESERVATION COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM IDEAS: The Historic Preservation
Commission also identified a number of potential work program items. Like with the P&Z, their ideas
generally focused on having conversations about particular policy issues that might ultimately become
code amendments.
1. Update Aspen Modern. In 2010 City Council approved the AspenModern program, which
allows for voluntary designation of Aspen’s post-war historic resources. The program requires
review by the HPC and City Council, with applicants able to request various benefits in
exchange for designating their property. City Council has reviewed and approved designation of
5 buildings in 2012-2013 under the program. Because of the voluntary nature of the
designations, applicants request various benefits including fee and mitigation waivers, and
variations to dimensional requirements. City Council has expressed interest in evaluating the
program. The process to create AspenModern took over 2 years and 2 staff members dedicated
solely to the project.
With a scope limited to examining some specific sections of the standards, staff anticipates this
would require minimal financial resources, moderate community outreach, and could be
completed in 2015. However, given the experiences with the creation of the program, staff is
concerned about scope-creep and being pulled into deep philosophical discussions that
overwhelmed the initial 2+ year effort. Staff recommends any effort on this topic be limited to
focusing on specific, limited amendments.
2. Update Historic Preservation Guidelines. The city’s Historic Preservation Guidelines have
not been updated since 2000. A general update is recommended to address emerging issues such
as landscaping and to ensure the guidelines result in development that respects Aspen’s historic
buildings and districts. This work requires a consultant and would be completed with the
Historic Preservation Commission.
With a scope limited to examining some specific sections of the standards, staff anticipates this
would require minimal to moderate financial resources from the AACP budget, moderate
community outreach, and could be completed in 2015.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The current Community Development work program has been
budgeted for and additional work program items identified by City Council will likely require additional
monies. Most of the AACP budget has been allocated to complete existing work program priorities.
Remaining AACP monies could be allocated to new items.
P19
II.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Johannah Richards, Community Development Administrative
Manager
THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Community Development Activity Levels
MEETING DATE: July 21, 2014
________________________________________________________________________
DISCUSSION:
Development activity has been increasing steadily; total building permit valuation has
increased annually since 2009. From 2010 to 2012, total investment year-to-date has
more than quadrupled, from $39,405,294 in 2010 to $171,407,172 in 2014. Valuation is
up 72% and revenues up 63% from this time last year.
Community Development Revenue
Permit Valuations
$‐
$1,000,000
$2,000,000
$3,000,000
$4,000,000
$5,000,000
$6,000,000
200920102011201220132013
YTD
2014
YTD
$‐
$50,000,000
$100,000,000
$150,000,000
$200,000,000
$250,000,000
200920102011201220132013
YTD
2014
YTD
P20
II.
Permits and Land Use Cases YTD
The changes appear to be a consistent trend. (See Exhibit A) Projects appear to be
getting larger in scope as seen by the typical permit value of $12,000, which has been
on the rise since 2010. Building permit and land use case volume has been slowly
increasing along with the complexity and review of projects. Applications have
increased by 15% in the last year, only 26% down from the peak of activity experienced
in 2007. In addition to increased activity on the Planning side, there seems to be
interest from a number of lodge and condominium developers in the pending Lodge
Incentive Program.
Median Permit Value
Community Development recently polled local design firms and contractors. The private
sector reports being “busy” to “extremely busy” and has been adding staff or hiring
contract help. Firms are being more thoughtful about project selection, and the majority
are turning projects away.
500
550
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
2009 YTD2010 YTD2011 YTD2012 YTD2013 YTD2014 YTD
$7,350
$5,000
$5,800 $6,000
$9,800
$12,000
$‐
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
200920102011201220132014 YTD
P21
II.
St
a
f
f
L
e
v
e
l
s
20
0
9
1s
t
Q
t
r
.
20
0
9
2n
d
Q
t
r
.
20
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
4
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
26
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
8
1
9
2
2
Re
v
e
n
u
e
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
3
Y
T
D
2
0
1
4
Y
T
D
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
S
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
1
,
6
4
0
,
8
3
8
$
1
,
6
1
9
,
7
1
9
$
2
,
5
1
2
,
8
0
0
$
3,
5
0
4
,
4
7
4
$
5,
1
2
1
,
8
1
1
$
2,379,204
$
3,870,141$
Pe
r
m
i
t
V
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
2013 YTD2014 YTD
82
,
2
1
1
,
6
0
2
$
85
,
3
4
6
,
8
2
7
$
$
1
5
1
,
4
5
9
,
4
6
8
*
15
2
,
4
3
3
,
2
5
6
$
20
9
,
8
6
2
,
2
6
0
$
99,544,787
$
$ 171,407,172 **
*
$
5
2
,
1
9
7
,
2
1
4
H
os
p
i
t
a
l
V
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
**
$
4
0
,
3
6
3
,
0
0
0
H
o
s
p
i
t
a
l
V
a
l
u
a
t
i
o
n
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
d
De
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
A
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
2013 YTD2014 YTD
Pe
r
m
i
t
s
13
8
5
13
9
0
14
1
4
14
1
9
16
2
5
772871
La
n
d
U
s
e
C
a
s
e
s
10
3
11
0
11
3
12
3
12
4
6792
To
t
a
l
14
8
8
15
0
0
15
2
7
15
4
2
17
4
9
839963
Pe
r
F
T
E
20
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
2
0
1
3
2
0
1
3
Y
T
D
2
0
1
4
Y
T
D
Re
v
e
n
u
e
6
3
,
1
0
9
$
89
,
9
8
4
$
13
9
,
6
0
0
$
19
4
,
6
9
3
$
28
4
,
5
4
5
$
125,221
$
175,916$
Va
l
u
at
i
o
n
3,
1
6
1
,
9
8
5
$
4,
7
4
1
,
4
9
0
$
8,
4
1
4
,
4
1
5
$
8,
4
6
8
,
5
1
4
$
11
,
6
5
9
,
0
1
4
$
5,239,199
$
7,791,235$
Med
i
a
n
P
e
r
m
i
t
V
a
l
u
e
20
0
9
20
1
0
20
1
1
20
1
2
20
1
3
2014 YTD
7,
3
5
0
$
5,
0
0
0
$
5,
8
0
0
$
6,
0
0
0
$
9,
8
0
0
$
12,000
$
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
Exhibit A P22II.
TRANSFERRABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM |
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Hillary Seminick, Planner Technician
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
MEETING DATE: July 21, 2014
RE: Transferrable Development Rights Program Update
SUMMARY: Attached is a report outlining the history of the City’s Historic Transferable Development
Rights (TDR) Program, and providing an update on the number of TDRs established and landed. This is
an information item, and no action is requested.
P23
II.
TRANSFERRABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM |
City of Aspen Transferrable Development Rights Program 2014 Update
The purpose of the Transferable Development Rights (TDR) program was established in 2006 to encourage
preservation of historic landmarks, properties listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures, and properties identified in the Aspen Modern program. The program allows property owners to sever
and convey undeveloped floor area as a separate development right to be developed on a different property
within the City. A TDR can be landed on either an eligible single family home or duplex. City TDRs cannot be
utilized in Pitkin County nor can a County TDR be accepted in the City.
Once a TDR is established for a property; a deed restriction is placed on the property legally reducing the
allowable floor area on the lot, or Sending Site. The recorded document will reduce the allowable square footage
to the amount allowed by the underlying zoning less 250 sf per TDR certificate.
A receiving, or Landing Site, is a property where development rights are increased in exchange for a City-
extinguished TDR certificate held by the developer of the property. The value of a TDR is determined on the free
market. The City does not regulate, nor guarantee, the market value of TDRs.
TDRs can be landed in the R6, R15, R15a, R15b, and R30 zone districts to add 250 square feet of floor area. Only
one TDR per residence can be landed (two on a property containing a duplex). TDRs can be landed in the CC, NC,
MU, RMF, and RMFA zone districts to increase the unit size caps by 500 square feet.
An administrative review is required for the landing of a TDR. An ordinance is required to establish the TDR
certificate. City Council ordinances require two readings, the second being a public hearing. This process typically
can take between 6-8 weeks.
Update
Over the history of the program, a total of 64 TDRs have been established; where a total of 18, or approximately
28%, have been landed at a different property. In 2013, a total of seven (7) TDRs were issued and of those, one
TDR was landed. No TDRs have been issued or landed in 2014. A history of the program can be found below.
Sending and landing site locations are shown in the TDR 2014 Program Update graphic.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
TDR History 2006 through 2013
TDR Established TDR Landed
P24
II.
TRANSFERRABLE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS PROGRAM |
A small amount of outreach was conducted on the success of the TDR Program. Mitch Hass of Hass Land Planning
brought up the following summarized observations:
• Clients show greatest interest in converting 500 sf of their development rights into two TDRs.
• The greatest impediment to the program is the supply is greater than demand.
• Market rates for a TDR may be too high, thus driving down demand.
TDRs have also been used as incentives in the Aspen Modern Program. Aspen Modern is a voluntary program
incentivizing the preservation of modern or midcentury buildings. Sites where a TDR was negotiated within the
Aspen Modern program are indicated in the TDR 2014 Program Update map. For more on Aspen Modern
designated properties please visit www.aspenmod.com.
Potential Potential Potential Potential Future ChangesFuture ChangesFuture ChangesFuture Changes
The City is considering including the use of TDRs in the Lodge Incentive Program that is currently being developed.
A concept to allow additional TDRs on larger parcels is also under consideration.
Additional InformationAdditional InformationAdditional InformationAdditional Information
For more information contact the Community Development Department at 970.429.2764 or at
plannerofheday@gmail.com
P25
II.
City of Aspen
2015 Proposed Budget Assumptions
July 21, 2014
P2
6
II
I
.
Summary of Contents
•City Sales Tax
•Lodging Tax
•Property Tax
•Real Estate Transfer Tax
•Use Tax Collections
•Budget Assumptions
2 P2
7
II
I
.
City Sales Tax
•Recipients of Collections (Total Tax = 2.4%)
–Parks & Open Space (1.50%)
–Transportation (0.15%)
–Kids First/Housing Development (0.45%)
–School District (0.30%)
•Sunset provisions exist for:
–Parks & Open Space 0.50% Tax (12/2025)
–School District 0.30% Sales Tax (12/2015)
3
$6,000,000
$7,000,000
$8,000,000
$9,000,000
$10,000,000
$11,000,000
$12,000,000
$13,000,000
$14,000,000
City Collections Inflation Adjusted
P2
8
II
I
.
City Sales Tax
•2013 taxable sales increased 6.9%, greater than the 4.5% budgeted
•Taxable sales through May 2014 are up 8.6% over last year
Month 2011 Actual 2012 Actual 2013 Actual
Percent
Change to
2012 Actual
2014 Original
Budget 2014 Forecast
Percent
Change to
2013 Actual 2015 Forecast
Percent
Change to
2014 Forecast
January $58,122,904 $65,052,254 $67,445,883 3.7%$66,280,000 $70,611,680 4.7%$71,100,000 0.7%
February $49,979,564 $56,116,229 $58,654,179 4.5%$61,950,000 $63,311,093 7.9%$66,340,000 4.8%
March $60,363,456 $62,009,946 $68,197,218 10.0%$71,080,000 $75,213,971 10.3%$76,780,000 2.1%
April $20,357,998 $21,624,251 $22,049,353 2.0%$25,790,000 $25,675,872 16.4%$27,650,000 7.7%
May $16,418,130 $17,971,924 $19,818,914 10.3%$20,330,000 $21,690,050 9.4%$21,550,000 -0.6%
June $38,136,595 $44,924,281 $45,700,221 1.7%$44,430,000 $47,236,706 3.4%$49,520,000 4.8%
July $54,168,489 $57,011,145 $61,294,160 7.5%$59,330,000 $62,896,230 2.6%$65,910,000 4.8%
August $47,072,669 $49,576,453 $54,157,531 9.2%$54,610,000 $55,720,811 2.9%$58,460,000 4.9%
September $37,762,915 $36,132,983 $38,330,272 6.1%$40,950,000 $41,841,295 9.2%$44,030,000 5.2%
October $21,287,467 $21,899,132 $24,796,219 13.2%$25,680,000 $25,937,916 4.6%$27,340,000 5.4%
November $21,601,115 $22,580,107 $22,584,393 0.0%$25,220,000 $23,887,816 5.8%$25,300,000 5.9%
December $79,142,849 $76,443,002 $85,100,512 11.3%$83,790,000 $83,295,394 -2.1%$87,610,000 5.2%
Total Taxable $504,414,151 $531,341,707 $568,128,857 6.9%$579,440,000 $597,318,834 5.1%$621,590,000 4.1%
Total Tax $10,526,713 $11,091,013 $11,795,568 6.4%$12,167,700 $12,402,000 5.1%$12,906,000 4.1%
4 P2
9
II
I
.
City Sales Tax
•Projecting ~5% growth for 2014 ($235,000 above budgeted estimates)
•Benchmark approx. historical avg. (inclusive of recessions) for 2015
Industry 2011 Actual 2012 Actual 2013 Actual
Percent
Change to
2012 Actual
2014
Forecast
Percent
Change to
2013 Actual
2015
Forecast
Percent
Change to
2014
Forecast
Annual
Average
Change
2003-2013
Accommodations 128,522,881 138,489,654 153,903,346 11.1%164,676,580 7.0%171,260,000 4.0%4.8%
Restaurants 92,699,561 95,815,935 100,493,179 4.9%106,020,304 5.5%110,250,000 4.0%4.0%
Sporting Goods 35,011,079 38,124,490 41,220,532 8.1%43,075,456 4.5%44,790,000 4.0%5.5%
Clothing 46,069,445 48,274,392 48,991,504 1.5%50,951,164 4.0%53,000,000 4.0%4.2%
Food & Drug 47,496,663 48,667,583 49,643,196 2.0%50,636,060 2.0%51,640,000 2.0%2.0%
Liquor 8,273,060 8,582,513 8,970,004 4.5%9,328,805 4.0%9,700,000 4.0%3.6%
General & Miscellaneous 35,074,437 38,322,420 42,438,759 10.7%42,767,933 0.8%44,170,000 3.3%3.2%
Luxury Goods 25,168,510 24,527,388 25,043,843 2.1%26,796,912 7.0%27,870,000 4.0%3.3%
Utilities 38,190,547 38,847,634 40,659,049 4.7%40,659,049 0.0%42,090,000 3.5%4.0%
Construction 34,617,783 38,433,661 41,052,713 6.8%44,336,930 8.0%48,020,000 8.3%11.8%
Automobile 13,290,185 13,061,869 15,712,733 20.3%18,069,643 15.0%18,800,000 4.0%6.7%
Total Taxable Sales 504,414,151 531,147,539 568,128,857 7.0%597,318,834 5.1%621,590,000 4.1%4.6%
Net Revenues 10,526,713 11,091,013 11,795,568 6.4%$12,402,000 5.1%$12,906,000 4.1%N/A
5 P3
0
II
I
.
City Lodging Tax
•Recipients include ACRA (1.5%) and Transportation (0.5%)
•Closely mirrors accommodations sales tax -7.5% & 4.5% est. increase
•Strong start and outlook for 2014; winter season occupancy improving
6
Month Avg.2000-2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
January 76%69%68%71%74%72%73%
February 78%65%66%69%70%69%72%
March 79%58%60%68%65%70%74%
April 30%26%22%26%22%22%23%
May 23%18%20%20%25%24%27%
June 56%46%50%53%62%55%
July 77%57%72%71%78%77%
August 73%50%58%64%70%71%
September 50%37%45%52%47%48%
October 33%24%26%33%32%19%
November 26%19%19%22%23%19%
December 57%49%49%56%48%52%
Average 55%43%46%50%51%50%54%
(Dec-Mar)73%60%61%64%66%65%68%
(Jun-Sep)64%48%56%60%64%63%TBD P3
1
II
I
.
Property Taxes
•First glimpse of 2014 estimate will be available in August (from County)
•2014 is a non-reassessment year –new construction is only adjustment
•2014 budget allocation: General Fund (35%), Asset Management (65%)
•Maximum annual increase to property tax revenue under TABOR is combination of inflation + new construction growth
•The City has not applied the full mill levy and has had a mill levy credit since 2007 -last year’s (2013) credit was 0.426 mills ($527,810)
7 P3
2
II
I
.
Real Estate Transfer Tax (1.0% Housing)
•2014
–Starting off strong (large sales for a number of commercial spaces)
•2015
–Conservative stance for 2015, assuming 5% below ($6,650,000) projected 2014
Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Average 2014 Proj.% of Avg 2014 Budget
Jan -Jun $2,900,680 $2,440,206 $3,001,060 $2,461,700 $2,060,642 $2,572,858 $4,028,717 157%$2,761,300
Annual $5,881,378 $6,370,311 $5,233,329 $6,592,914 $5,671,597 $5,949,906 $7,000,000 118%$5,500,000
$2,000,000
$4,000,000
$6,000,000
$8,000,000
$10,000,000
$12,000,000
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
RETT Revenue Inflation Adj. to 2003 Level 8 P3
3
II
I
.
Use Tax (2.1%)
•Realizing revenue lags use tax deposits typically by three to four years
•2014 expectations are below original budget estimates
•Timing of project completion and issuance of CO are deciding drivers
•2015 projected increase is 8.7%
Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Average 2014 Proj.% of Avg 2014 Budget
Jan –Jul $162,650 $234,031 $217,606 $196,387 $148,368 $191,808 $96,674*50%N/A
Annual $974,325 $1,186,299 $944,954 $525,938 $911,617 $908,627 $816,000 90%$847,600
$0
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024
Ending Year Balance Realized Revenue New Collections 9 P3
4
II
I
.
Budget Assumptions
•Base Budgeting vs. Alternatives
–What defines a supplemental request?
•Operating Expenses
–2% allowance for materials, goods, and service
•Personnel Expenses
–Up to 4% merit increases (based on performance review); no change from prior yr.
–3%-4% increase to health insurance premiums for employer (and employee)
–Continuation of employee recognition, goals and outcomes awards structure
–Adjusted play plan to re-align with desired benchmarks; average change to ranges is roughly 3%
10 P3
5
II
I
.
1
MemorandumMemorandumMemorandumMemorandum
TO: Mayor Skadron and Aspen City Council
FROM: Debbie Quinn, Assistant City Attorney
Jonathan Hayden, Community Development Intern
THRU: Jim True, City Attorney
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director
RE: Marijuana Issues
DATE OF MEMO: July 17, 2014
MEETING DATE: July 21, 2014
══════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════════
COUNCIL REQUEST: Council requested this work session on two marijuana issues:
1. Shall the current transition period (allowing retail applications only from
certain existing medical marijuana licensees) be extended beyond October 1, 2014?
2. Shall staff revisit the private club issue?
Staff is requesting additional direction to clarify that licensed marijuana businesses are not an
appropriate home occupation.
DISCUSSION:
Background and previous action.
In October of 2013, the City adopted Ordinance 38, series of 2013, containing its regulations for
both medical and retail marijuana and requiring licenses for those marijuana businesses authorized
by state law, now codified in Section 5 of our Municipal Code. Relevant to the issues here are the
following:
Sec. 5.16.160 Unlawful acts.
The following acts are prohibited and unlawful and are punishable as set forth it
Section 1.04.080 unless otherwise specified:
…
P36
IV.
2
e. The operation of any public or private club or business allowing the
consumption of marijuana on the premises.
Sec. 5.16.180 Transition Period.
a. Prior to January 1, 2015, no retail marijuana establishment shall be licensed or
otherwise permitted in the City unless, as of October 1, 2013:
1. The applicant for licensing is currently operating in good standing a state
licensed medical marijuana business within the City or has a pending state medical
marijuana license application for premises within the City and has a City business
license and the applicant proposes to surrender the existing medical marijuana license
upon receipt of a retail marijuana license, thereby converting the existing medical
marijuana establishment into a retail marijuana establishment; or
2. The applicant for licensing is currently operating in good standing a licensed
medical marijuana business within the City or has a pending state application for a
licensed medical marijuana business within the City and has a City business license and
the applicant proposes to retain the existing medical marijuana license while locating a
retail marijuana establishment under common ownership at the same location to the
extent allowed by the Colorado Retail Marijuana Code and applicable state rules and
regulations.
b. Prior to January 1, 2015, any person who obtains a transfer of ownership of an
existing medical marijuana business that is duly licensed under both the Medical
Marijuana Code and this Chapter may qualify for retail licensing as allowed by
subsection (a) of this section.
c. Prior to January 1, 2015, any person who obtains a change of location of an
existing medical marijuana business that is duly licensed under both the Medical
Marijuana Code and this chapter may qualify for retail licensing as allowed by
subsection (a) of this section.
d. On and after October 1, 2014, any person who otherwise qualifies for licensing
under applicable state and City laws may apply for licensing of a retail marijuana
establishment in the City, regardless of whether or not the applicant is the owner of an
existing medical marijuana business in the City; provided that such license shall not
issue any sooner than January 1, 2015.
Existing City marijuana facilities, historical revenues, cap and transition discussions
To date, only two retail marijuana store licenses have been applied for and issued. The three
medical marijuana centers existing prior to our regulation applied for and received City medical
marijuana center licenses and one new operator (who met transition criteria) obtained a medical
marijuana center license (and later one of the two retail licenses). A license was also issued for
P37
IV.
3
an existing medical marijuana-infused products manufacturer. Thus we have seven licensed
marijuana businesses in the City, some of which are co-located, resulting in four locations currently.
Two of the existing medical marijuana center licensees have indicated an intention to apply for
retail in the near future.
Although confidentiality rules prohibit the disclosure of revenue figures for the retail operations
until we have at least three stores submitting taxes, we have had three or more medical marijuana
centers paying sales tax since 2010, and the annual and year to date estimated tax revenues are as
follows:
Estimated sales tax revenues for medical marijuana in Aspen since 2010 are:
2010 total: $22,300 (6 stores)
2011 total: $24,600 (5 stores)
2012 total: $29,600 (3 stores)
2013 total: $35,800 (4 stores)
2014 through May: $11,000 (4 stores)
Although there have been discussions about the possibility of limiting the number of retail
licenses within the City, there is currently no cap. There is also no cap on the number of retail
liquor stores, restaurants or bars, although there have been inquiries and requests for caps,
usually, as here, from someone who already holds a license. The response generally has been
that the market will dictate the numbers. In addition, one option if there were to be a cap is to
have a lottery for qualified applicants, so that existing businesses would have the same chance as
any other qualified applicant to obtain one of the limited number of licenses, should a cap ever
be imposed. Any cap on retail marijuana license would need a method for determining who gets
the licenses.
Among smaller mountain towns, two approaches to controlling the number of retail establishments
have emerged: 1) capping the number of licenses through ordinance, and 2) letting locational
restrictions dictate the number of licenses issued. Town Clerks in Breckenridge and Frisco—which
have taken the latter approach—reported a high level of interest from prospective licensees, but that
operations simply aren’t allowed in the applicant’s desired location. Towns that have set a cap—
Carbondale, Crested Butte, and Ridgway, for example—also report high levels of interest. All three
are operating under a first-come, first-served framework, and Carbondale even accepted “letters of
intent” before the July 1st application period opened. That said, like Breckenridge and Frisco, clerks
in Carbondale, Crested Butte, and Ridgway reported that many potential applicants lost interest
once they were informed of locational restrictions. The Town Clerk in Carbondale does not expect
its cap to be met anytime soon. More information should be available in coming weeks as
application and issuance statistics become available.
Various City departments have received numerous calls about starting legal marijuana businesses
in the City. Staff has consistently advised that the City’s regulations will allow anyone to apply
for a retail marijuana license as of October 1 of this year and that the City currently does not
have a cap. The state’s restrictions on retail applications ended on July 1, 2014 with new
licenses issuing October 1; ours is set to end October 1 with new licenses issuing January 1. Staff
P38
IV.
4
has heard anecdotally that there are landlords and property owners’ associations that prohibit
marijuana businesses, as the constitutional provisions clearly authorize. Staff believes that many
of the inquiries about starting businesses were simply exploratory and that the rigors and costs of
state and local licensing as well as the cost of rent in Aspen will reduce the number of potential
applicants for retail operations here.
Private clubs in other jurisdictions and staff concerns
The Town of Nederland made headlines earlier this year when it allowed the country’s first
cannabis café: “Club Ned.” But even in a community that was overwhelmingly supportive of such a
business, significant legal barriers had to be overcome before the idea became a reality. First, the
business had to find a way around the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act, which prohibits indoor
smoking—including marijuana smoking—in a wide variety of establishments. Club Ned utilizes an
exception to these prohibitions for businesses that employ three or fewer employees and are not
open to the public (C.R.S. 25-14-205(1)(h)).
Second—and related to the first point—Club Ned has to maintain its status as a business “not open
to the public,” meaning it has to make a significant amount of its revenue from membership dues
and retain some modicum of selectivity when admitting new members.
Third, Club Ned cannot sell marijuana on the premises, pursuant to the Department of Revenue’s
rule R402L. Marijuana could arguably be given away, however, depending on whether club dues
would qualify as consideration for the marijuana.
Finally, the Town of Nederland had to amend their land use regulations by creating a new use
category of “private club” that specifically included “legal drug use” and set it apart from non-profit
clubs like the Elks, Kiwanis, Rotary, etc.
Denver also has a marijuana club—iBake—and Colorado Springs has two—Studio A64 and the
SpeakEasy Vape Lounge. SpeakEasy regularly advertises marijuana give-aways to members at
various events, even including a Fourth of July marijuana-filled piñata. Unlike Club Ned, however,
it appears that these clubs sprung up without the active engagement of the City, and have been
subject to attempts to shut them down. Earlier this month, Denver police officers raided
“Maryjane’s 420 Shop & Cannabis Social Lounge,” issuing citations to customers for public
consumption, ticketing the club owner for violating the Colorado Clean Indoor Air Act, and
prompting the club’s closure.
The remaining three have taken different approaches to achieving legitimacy. iBake operates as a
dual cannabis-tobacco smoking club, as tobacco clubs and cigar rooms are also exempt under the
Colorado Indoor Clean Air Act. Studio A64 stresses its private nature on its website, including its
right to deny entry to anyone and mandatory compliance with undisclosed membership terms.
SpeakEasy Vape Lounge has taken the opposite approach: “simply show your ID, sign in at the
table, maybe pay a small cover,” according to its website. Such a lax membership policy would not
likely qualify SpeakEasy as a private club if challenged in court.
P39
IV.
5
Community Development continues to have two concerns related to private clubs. The first issue is
related to commercial spaces within buildings that contain free-market residences. Staff continues
to be concerned about the viability of commercial ventures within penthouse buildings. Currently,
commercial uses must be open to the general public and this stipulation has possibly curtailed the
conversion of retail spaces into residential annexes. If a private club were an allowed commercial
use, these spaces may convert to “private clubs exclusive to the owners of the penthouse” and turn
into living rooms effectively annexed into the residence. This is an extreme example, but staff
believes the market motivation is such to produce this result. This is likely a resolvable issue with
the right set of requirements and/or amendments to the land use code.
Second, and a bigger issue, is the exposure and focus a private pot club could bring to Aspen. The
constitutional prohibition on public consumption has yet to be genuinely tested with respect to
private clubs. Officially sanctioning a commercial venture to host public or quasi-public guests
(e.g. creating a marijuana bar) will push the limits of this prohibition. Given Aspen’s national and
international profile, this could provoke unwanted Federal involvement and wide-spread media
interest. Staff has mentioned before that this question will be resolved through legislation or
litigation. Until then, staff suggests Aspen not instigate an answer to the question of whether pot
clubs violate the no-public-consumption clause.
Home Occupations
Community Development suggests a slight tweak to the home occupation regulations to explicitly
prohibit marijuana businesses. The current regulations prohibit operations which require an
operational license but do not address marijuana specifically. Aspen already restricts retailing and
any use that produces noxious fumes, smells, etc. Some types of product manufacturing produce
volatile substances and staff suggests these types of situations are not compatible with residential
uses. Specifically, the manufacture of hash oil—which involves the use of flammable gases—has
caused numerous explosions and fires statewide. In June, the Town of Telluride became the first
community in the state to outright ban the manufacture of hash oil, and other municipalities are
contemplating similar prohibitions.
Update on federal law enforcement:
One of the concerns discussed at the time the City adopted its regulations was the fact that
marijuana is still a controlled substance under federal law. Council was unwilling to be on the
cutting edge of legal marijuana uses within the state. The legalization occurred fairly quickly and
both the state and local jurisdictions have been addressing issues that are not yet subject to any
specific laws or regulations, like private clubs. City staff has taken a very conservative approach on
any businesses outside those for which licenses may issue, given the constitutional provision that
open and public use is not allowed. On the issue of private clubs, Council agreed with staff’s
approach and specifically prohibited private clubs. Retail marijuana has only been legal since
January 1 of this year, and there has not been sufficient time for the legislature or state Department
of Revenue to address issues like private clubs.
Since city discussions last October, a number of enforcement actions have occurred in various
jurisdictions throughout the country in connection with legalized medical or retail marijuana. Most
P40
IV.
6
notably, a federal raid of more than a dozen Denver/Boulder-area dispensaries in November
uncovered links with Columbian drugs cartels. Four Colombian men are alleged to have set up a
shell corporation in order to open a U.S bank account, to which they transferred thousands of dollars
from a Columbian bank. They then allegedly used that money to purchase a large grow house in
Denver and to support a number of medical dispensaries. The four men have been charged with
money laundering and firearms-related charges, likely indicating that Federal authorities are sticking
to the enforcement priorities they outlined in August, one of which is the prevention of “revenue
from the sale of marijuana from going to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels.”
Other federal actions have focused on interstate trafficking of marijuana that originated in states
where it is illegal. These are generally small-scale busts of individuals or groups of individuals
independently trafficking marijuana bought legally. Marijuana dispensaries and cultivation facilities
operating in compliance with state laws are rarely implicated or prosecuted.
In addition to outlining enforcement priorities, the Department of Justice issued banking guidelines
in February intended to give banks confidence that they will not be prosecuted if they should
provide services to legitimate marijuana enterprises operating in compliance with relevant state
laws. This policy stems from the public safety problem inherent in operating an entire industry on a
cash-only basis. The impact of this policy remains to be seen, and reports of banking difficulties
within the industry remain widespread.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The financial impact of extending the transitional period is
difficult to calculate. One could argue that allowing more stores would increase the sales tax
revenues for the City, but again, supply and demand in this new industry is not yet predictable. A
private club would not have a measurable financial impact on the City.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction to staff on these questions:
1. Shall the current transition period (allowing retail applications only from certain existing
medical marijuana licensees) be extended beyond October 1, 2014?
2. Shall staff revisit the private club issue?
3. Shall staff clarify the home occupations uses to clearly prohibit licensed marijuana
businesses?
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
P41
IV.