Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes.OSB.20230216 MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on February 16, 2023 5:00pm at Pearl Pass Room, Aspen City Hall City OST Board Members Present: Ted Mahon, Howie Mallory, Adam McCurdy, Dan Perl City Staff Members Present: John Spiess, Matt Kuhn, Michael Tunte, Brian Long, Nick Oliver, Steve Barr Adoption of the Agenda: Ted made a motion to approve the agenda; Dan seconded and the vote was unanimous. Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: None. Approval of the Minutes: Ted made a motion to approve the minutes; Adam seconded and the vote was unanimous. Staff Comments: Brian: Reported that crews are working on ice on the trails. John: None. Matt: Reported that City Council approved a 5-year trail license with Pyramid Ranch, LLC (S&J Investments). It will be held jointly with Pitkin County and will go to BOCC in March. He also mentioned that stemming from a plan last fall to shift some seasonal labor to permanent labor, six new permanent positions have been filled. The Owl Creek Chase event was rerouted due to moose in the Tiehack area. Ski for the Pass is this weekend, followed by an RMN race and the Silverboom. Dan asked if the agreement with S&J would change the alignment of the trail. Matt explained that there will be no significant changes. Matt added that several Board positions will be up for renewal (Howie 6/1/2023; Julie and Adam 9/2023). Old Business: Matt suggested moving park rental policy to the first agenda item because a member of the public is present to comment. Park Rental (Use) Policy: Matt mentioned that this topic was discussed at the November 2022 Board meeting and this will likely be the last check in with this Board before this policy is rolled out. The policy presented in November has been refined; it will be an agenda item during a Council work session on 2/27. Staff seeks Board support for the direction of this effort and the four key policy changes. An open house last Thursday attended by eight people elicited some important feedback; representatives from ACRA and users of key parks attended. A dditionally, Aspen Community Voice has gathered 20 responses. Responses cover a broad spectrum from those preferring no special use of parks to those involved with larger uses that will be impacted by the new policy. Most people seem to be in line with the proposed policy. Matt reviewed the two policy documents that staff are currently working on: Parks and Open Space Draft Park Rental Policy and Special Event Policy Draft Policy. Today’s focus is park rentals. The policy is based on “a use is a use.” Key thresholds for park rentals are: less than 125 people, 4 hours or less, reserved 90 days or less in advance, and simple infrastructure (mats, pop-up tents, etc). For special events: these events must be open to the public; this policy is separate from this Board’s purview; Council reviews this directly. Steve explained why this designation needed to be made: as larger events have exceeded thresholds, other departments have had to become involved and complexity increased. Matt added that in August, Council expressed general support for commercial use. A commercial use fee of $25 is proposed in addition to the park hourly fee. Hourly fees are currently $29/hour for athletic and m inor park rentals; the proposed hourly fee is $32/hour. Adam asked whether any commercial use, even below the 25-person threshold, would require a permit. Matt clarified that all commercial uses will require a permit. Adam asked whether dog walkers and kids summer programs would be exempted. Matt said dog walkers would not incur a fee at this point. Day camps would incur the base hourly rate of $32/hour. For the skate park, the fee would be a daily $50 rate. Partial fee waivers may be granted for certain commercial uses. If approved by Council on the 27th, this will be rolled out as a trial for the remainder of this year. This policy can be revised periodically. Matt showed a chart addressing Cumulative Park Use toward managing the overall amount of use parks see. Dan asked if commercial events play into the hourly targeted use limits. Matt explained that special events are handled separately. Ted asked whether staff feel that the proposed policy fits all potential scenarios. Steve explained that it seems to fit fairly well with the many annual or recurring events that typically take place. A member of the public (who not introduce herself) commented that she supports the overall policy changes. She commented that the new policies seem basically the same and asked if the changes are mainly to bring in more money. Matt explained Park’s rationale for the new definitions within the policies, and parameters that provide limits to keep these amenities open to general public enjoyment. Steve added that the parks are first and foremost for the sustainable use of the community. She asked if the public can still use parks during events other than when events involve tickets. Matt explained that park use is non-exclusive except for special events. Dan made a motion to support the policy. Howie seconded and the vote was unanimous. The Board and staff decided to discuss the farm collaborative topic next. Farm Collaborative, Lease and Infrastructure John introduced this topic and Eden Vardy, director of the Farm Collaborative (FC). Eden introduced his board president Jeff Davlyn, John Ward, Adam Lewis, and Philip Ring, project manager for the farm center facility. Eden shared that the FC has merged with Seed Peace. Eden reviewed basic background on the FC and the phases of the new farm center. Eden emphasized the need to accelerate phase two due to a recent Omnibus appropriation for the project’s kitchen. Three infrastructure components that need to be figured out before the FC can build its farm center, including the kitchen, are: water service, fire suppression, and septic. FC wishes for the City to contribute to the development/improvement of these infrastructure items. Per the Board’s request, Eden presented costs: Water service: $6 00,489. Septic: $734,940. Fire suppression: $367,615. Total $1,703,044. These cost figures are specific to the FC’s facility and farm center. Fire suppression is part of phase one and the FC’s shortfall for this phase represents this cost. Septic and water service are specific to phase two. The goal is to find solutions that would service the FC’s building as well as the entire ranch overall. Th e costs of fire suppression and water service would be incurred by the ranch at large in the future; there is more variability in the way the septic system could be funded and planned for. The FC is asking the Board to approve a $1,703,000 supplemental bud get for these site needs represented by the FC at Cozy Point Ranch. Alternatively, the Board could approve a $367615 supplemental budget for fire suppression in 2023 and a $1,335,429 supplemental budget for septic and water service in 2024. Eden mentioned inflation and efficiency are important considerations. Adam asked if the lease is part of this discussion. Eden mentioned that revisiting the FC’s lease with the goal of making the lease equally representative of FC’s investment in the site was part of the last discussion and can be discussed now as well. Adam asked what his ideal would be regarding the lease. Eden said that a 35-year lease is their ideal, with 30 years as a minimum. Matt mentioned that staff received the dollar amount of the ask today. The infrastructure elements have been discussion topics for a long time, and they can potentially dovetail with other goals for the ranch. The timeline for the infrastructure improvements for Parks and for FC are not aligned, however. Howie asked for clarification of the differing timelines. John explained that FC would like to break ground this summer, while Parks is entering a planning phase for addressing these needs holistically for the ranch. Matt explained that there ha ve been emerging and compounded complexities as projects are tackled at the ranch. As various efforts have progressed over the past several years, it has become clear that comprehensive solutions to septic, fire suppression, and water service are the preferred strategy; these were not originally envisioned to be developed all at the same time. Matt added as an example that a fire suppression system for the FC learning center cannot fit within the leased area and must be located outside the leased area which involves greater costs. Howie asked what the time constraints are related to the Omnibus funding. Eden explained that this funding is coming from the 2023 budget and that approved permits, etc. must be submitted to the Senate before funds can be released to the FC. Prior to those steps, FC must have funding in place for the three needed infrastructure items. Dan asked for clarification of phase two work. Eden explained that this includes a septic system for the kitchen and bathroom. Dan asked if there are any alternatives to unlocking this funding outside of this timeframe, toward aligning timing of infrastructure items with Parks; Eden said no (short of finding funding elsewhere). Eden clarified that the funding is specific to the kitchen; theoretically, it could be built now and plumbed later, but Pitkin County will not allow that. Ted asked staff how moving forward with these infrastructure items would affect other items budgeted for Cozy Point Ranch. Matt explained that when looking at the FC alone, it is feasible, but the overlap that exists with fire suppression, water, and septic could lead inefficiencies in terms of land use and cost. Howie commented on the ongoing nature of needs at Cozy Point Ranch, mentioning that this could an opportunity to take care of long-standing needs through a creative approach. Howie asked what is currently budgeted. Matt said that since last year John and his staff have put a lot of energy into the ranch, citing $6 million approved by Council for a number of improvements including the housing that Council has prioritized. Matt explained that an aggregate, comprehensive, interdisciplinary approach is being taken to support the broad master plan for the ranch. Adam commented that 20% of capital budget goes to Cozy Point Ranch. This is a large chunk to spend on one property; much of it will go toward deferred maintenance. Ted suggested that it could be considered a matching situation. Dan commented that the way this fits into the overall plan is critical, yet it is hard to consider re-doing infrastructure work when Parks’ timeframe comes around. Eden said that a commitment of funding availability would be enough to demonstrate to the U.S. government that the project will be realized. Dan commented that Parks could be making this type of contribution for a system that serves the whole ranch; it could be split between the ranch and the two lease holders and there could be surplus that funds the kitchen. Eden clarified that the $1.7 million would allow the $7 million structure to be built; it is not just for the kitchen. Dan clarified that the City wants to develop water, fire suppression, and septic to serve all of the needs on the property as well as future needs; he feels comfortable committing to that, but when and how much is a separate story. John commented that septic research has led to some dead ends; fire and water have more potential for site-wide solutions. John added that part of the current grading project is replacing the current, failing septic system. There is currently no future solution for additional septic for housing, etc. Matt added that potential solutions would be either a system that delivers treated wastewater to the Roaring Fork River or allocating an increasingly large area of land to septic. Matt clarified the supplemental budget mentioned by Eden. There are two supplemental budget periods and one standard budget period per calendar year. He explained the timing for these periods, and that supplemental budgets address unforeseen or changing circumstances such as change orders. Spring supplemental is currently being prepared and will be appropriated around June 1st. A supplemental request of this nature would be considered a new project and would be subject to approval by City leadership and Council in addition to a recommendation by this Board. A discussion followed in which thoughts on possible scenarios were shared. Matt commented that the septic system is the least volatile to the City’s project; water and fire suppression are the most integrated. The FC could build and occupy their leased area with a septic system that meets their needs, and the City could deal with the other septic needs separately. John mentioned that this is in line with the new leach field that is being built at the moment; although septic for future housing is an unknown variable. Adam asked Matt if he could speak with City leadership to see if they would entertain this idea. Matt replied that the Board’s recommendation does not bind the City; the recommendation would bolster the “ask” toward a matching of federal funding, but there are more steps beyond this. Dan commented that he is more open to the septic being an item that the FC handles separately. Adam mentioned that the lease discussion will not take place today with only three Board members present. He suggested that Matt and John gather more information on septic and then revisit this and the lease at next month’s meeting. Matt said that waiting until then would probably make it a fall rather than spring supplemental request. Fall supplemental timing does not work for Eden. Matt added that there is another potential avenue; it is an alternative approach and would receive more scrutiny. Eden suggested making a motion and if subsequent information is not favorable, the motion could be withdrawn. Patti added that rushing and taking a piecemeal approach is probably not the answer, supporting a more unified approach. A FC board member commented that it could be possible to return to piecemeal solutions if no overall solutions are found, while losing the $1 million Omnibus funding. Eden commented on the past three years of looking into septic, and that no overall solutions have been discovered. Adam expressed discomfort with the time pressure to make an informed decision. Dan expressed that he is happy to prioritize this above other projects, but he needs to hear from staff that the only way forward it to have the FC have its own septic system. There was a discussion about chances of discovering a holistic septic system. Matt added that cost numbers were provided to staff today. He expressed that the City’s timeline is to have fire suppression, water system, and septic, and housing complete within the next five years. It is least risky to proceed with the FC having its own septic system. Supporting using the Parks fund to match federal fund is not a hard story to tell if this Board supports that. Ted made a motion to recommend a supplemental budget request for the septic system, and to hear about feasibility at a later date. Dan seconded and the vote was unanimous. New Business: Work plan and 2024-2028 Capital Projects Matt presented a “getting close draft” of the capital budget, mentioning the primary discussion will occur in March. The budget process is: February OST initial presentation, Feb -Mar staff review – budget review, March OST Board follow-up, April submission to Finance, Late Summer to Fall operational budgets and Council review. Values include staff capacity, complexity (multi- year projects, community impacts/perception), unforeseen priorities (acquisitions), community impact (safety, asset preservation). Matt presented a review of financials, continuing with an explanation of project delays: Maroon Creek Multi-use Trail (2024), Iselin Tennis and Pickleball (likely a one-year delay), Herron Park bathrooms (TBD), Cozy Point Grading (TBD). At Cozy Point there are four projects: developing a comprehensive scope of work, design and plan four simultaneous projects, requesting a Project Manager to be added to our staff for this and other facility projects. Projects that are moving up include: snowmaking feasibility and concept design ($150,000), AABC to Brush Creek Bridge Project ($250,000, County will propose matching funding, in addition). Dan asked for more clarification of the AABC project; Matt discussed EOTC requests and engineering work; he mentioned that initial funding was a three-way split among the three entities. Matt provided an overview of capital budget items for Cozy Point Ranch, explaining line items, placeholders, priorities, and timing details. There are no new additions in the park overview; current projects will be finished and new projects will pick up in 2025 and 2026. A theme of this year’s budget is consolidating tasks for a unified approach. The Maroon Creek Multi -Use Trail is the only new trail in the trail overview, other than the potential bridges over the Roaring Fork River. For the campus overview, there will be a broad re-look at the entire campus in the out years and there is a redevelopment of interior office spaces in 2024. Other considerations include recreation facilities, strategy for acquisition, and projects or priorities that are missing. Old Business, Continued: New Castle Creek Bridge Update Matt updated the Board: this topic went to the Council work session on Monday. The past 4-5 months have been an education phase to inform the public about the preferred alternative. City staff prepared a request for proposals for review. Engineering and the City Manager went to Council Monday night to ask whether they should proceed with the next phase (design, analysis, and understanding how the 20-year-old record of decision applies today). Council directed staff to slow down while the election window passes. Parks has been increasingly engaged with this project as a stakeholder. Parks is keen to be a leader in this project to guide it related to our principles and values especially because the right-of-way exists over open space. A question was asked about how the alignment would affect the historic site; Matt explained that the project is largely to the north of the historic site, however the potato shed would be affected. The Board decided to postpone the executive session item until the March meeting due to low Board attendance at this meeting. Board Comments: None. Next Meeting Date(s): Regular meeting March 16, 2022. Executive Session: N/A Adjourned: Dan made a motion to adjourn; Ted seconded and the vote was unanimous.