HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20141118
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
November 18, 2014
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Old Power House RFQ Recommendation
II. Library Temporary Use of Old Power House
III. ACRA Destination Marketing
Page 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
FROM: Old Power House RFQ Review Committee:
Peter Louras, Chair
Robin Hamill Kathryn Koch
Catherine Lutz Chris Bendon
Barry Crook Jeff Woods
DATE: November 14, 2014
MEETING DATE: November 18, 2014
RE: Old Power House RFQ Responses
Summary: Following a number of meetings and a full review of the 15 submissions to the City’s
Request for Qualifications (RFQ), the Old Power House RFQ Review Committee is pleased to
provide Council with a summary of its findings and final recommendation. We will also be
available at the November 18 work session to provide further insights and answer any questions
the Council might have.
The Committee recommends that four organizations be invited to respond to a Request for
Proposal (RFP) for use of the OPH site: Aspen Media Powerhouse (submitted by Grassroots
Community Network), Aspen Science Center, John Denver Museum and Cultural Center, and
Powerhouse Performance and Event Center (submitted by The Red Brick). A fifth proposal, The
Power House —Aspen (the Gathering Place) was highlighted by our group as containing several
compelling ideas that should be considered in the ultimate use of the building.
On behalf of the Aspen community at large, the Committee would like to thank all 15 of the
individuals and organizations who submitted proposals in response to the City’s RFQ. One of the
things that makes Aspen such a vibrant and energetic community is the active participation of its
residents in continually improving our community, and this process was a clear indication of Aspen
at its best.
Previous Council Action: On August 4, 2014, City Council agreed to prepare a Request For
Qualifications for outside organizations interested in occupying the City’s Old Power House building
P1
I.
Page 2
once it is vacated by the current tenant, the Aspen Art Museum. Separately, City Council agreed to
form a committee comprised of four citizens and three City staff members to evaluate all responses
to the RFQ and make a recommendation to City Council on their top choices. Potential future uses of
the Old Powerhouse have also been discussed in work sessions and at an Open House that gathered
general community feedback.
Background: The City of Aspen’s Old Power House, built in 1886, functioned as a power plant for
nearly a century. The building was remodeled and the Aspen Art Museum has occupied it since 1979.
With the completion of the new Aspen Art Museum building on Hyman Avenue, the Old Power
House building will be vacated and made available for another use.
In preliminary discussions about future occupation of the Old Power House, Council members and
the public said they would like to see widespread public usage, a center for the community and
multiple uses in that space. Council suggested that the uses have a “memory-making” quality and a
“wow factor.”
To identify an appropriate use to occupy the OPH, City Council created a multi-step evaluation
process. The first step was to have all interested organizations respond to an RFQ by October 17,
2014, containing basic questions about the organization’s vision, ideas, and financial plan for use of
the facility. Step two was to evaluate the RFQ responses and reduce the number of participants to a
smaller number of high-potential users. Step three is to invite the remaining participants to respond
to a Request for Proposal, which will have a more detailed set of questions. This will require
respondents to further develop their ideas, work with other organizations to create partnerships, create
their individual facility plans and refine their financial assumptions. Responses to the RFP will be
evaluated by City Council with the goal of selecting the best idea for use of the OPH facility.
Discussion: A total of 15 responses were received in response to the RFQ (see Exhibit 1 for a list of
all respondents). (See links at the following site: www.aspenpitkin.com/oldpowerhouserfq for all
proposals, council worksession memo and Review Committee scoring sheets)
On August 21, 2014, the RFQ Review Committee met to discuss and agree on the methodology to be
used to evaluate responses to the RFQ. A scoring methodology was developed by the Committee that
awards points to respondents based on their responses to individual questions in the RFQ. Separately,
the Committee agreed that scores alone would not be the only evaluation tool used, but that we would
also discuss and evaluate proposals in light of the goals and concepts discussed by City Council and
the public at large.
Each Committee member read and evaluated the responses, and the Committee met to discuss the
results of the scoring on Tuesday and Wednesday, November 4 and 5, 2014. During these meetings,
Committee members openly discussed their reactions to the responses received, reviewed and
discussed the summary of scores awarded to each respondent, and challenged each other on the scores
awarded. Following these detailed evaluations, the Committee unanimously agreed on the
P2
I.
Page 3
recommendation to be made to City Council. See Exhibit 2 for a summary of the scores awarded to
each of the 15 respondents to the RFQ.
Recommendation: This provides the Committee’s thoughts on the four finalists that we are
recommending to City Council. First, we would like to highlight some overarching ideas our group
has compiled about the site and eventual proposals for use of the site, as follows:
1. The OPH building is a unique community asset and an ideal opportunity for a community-
focused organization to transform it into a broadly utilized facility that meets the many
needs of our community.
2. We are concerned that none of our four finalists have an idea that seems to offer broad
community appeal on its own. Finalists should give thought to partnering with others -
including but not limited to the other finalists - in order to broaden the appeal of the
site to many segments of our population – both tourists and residents – such that it is a
frequently used, year-round operation and not simply a niche attraction.
3. Clarity should be given to whether the OPH will be a permanent home for the chosen
organization, with a corresponding long-term lease, or whether the new tenant is expected
to utilize the facility temporarily, perhaps as an incubator space, and then graduate to a
new, more permanent home, freeing up the facility for other community needs.
4. Some form of food and beverage operation and/or catering potential is considered
essential to making this facility a frequent attraction and to enhance its usage. We would
encourage Council to ask all finalists to include a food and beverage component in their
RFP responses.
5. We have concerns about admission fees curtailing the attractiveness and frequency of use
of the facility. We encourage finalists to consider some free space and/or uses, and to find
alternative ways to fund operations, such as memberships, sponsorships, development and
outside fundraising, just to name a few.
6. More information will be required on the capacity of the applicants to finance capital
improvements and operating costs, in order for the City to understand how much of the
financial burden the applicant will bear, and how much of the financing will fall on the
City of Aspen.
7. Parking and transit to / from the OPH site is a concern to the Committee. We suggest that
private vehicle use be strongly discouraged, and ask that finalists address parking and
visitor transit to the site in their final submissions.
*****************
Following are the Committee’s thoughts on the four finalists we are recommending:
Aspen Media Powerhouse (submitted by Grassroots Community Network):
Strengths of proposal: an established organization with an established management
structure and fundraising capability; an intriguing, forward-thinking concept of a “media
museum” for Aspen; strong potential for creating memory-making experiences; strong
P3
I.
Page 4
capability for creating partnerships with other organizations, eg the CMC new media
school, to broaden the use of the facility; can appeal to experts and non-experts who want
to experience media creation; very open to broad community uses
Opportunities to address: how much community usage of the facility will really occur, and
whether it will have broad appeal to residents and visitors alike; how different this proposal is
from what Grassroots is already doing at the Red Brick and whether new uses need a second
or larger location; how partnerships with other organizations will be managed to broaden the
programming appeal; whether a “media laboratory for novices” can successfully be done;
requires considerable financial support from the City; clarify what food and beverage
component is being contemplated; not clear how the outside space will be utilized to broaden
the appeal of the proposal.
Aspen Science Center:
Strengths of proposal: an established organization with management and fundraising
capabilities (though not scaled to the level needed to support the proposal if it is selected);
concept is unique to the area; has considerable family appeal which is needed in the area; has
excellent links between the indoor and outdoor uses of the facility; speaks to some of
Council’s interest in STEM (academic disciplines of science, technology, engineering and
mathematics); represents a compelling collaboration with schools and other educational
organizations; strong potential for creating memory-making experiences.
Opportunities to address: whether there is enough appeal for this to operate as a year-round,
full-time venue (what happens when everyone has “seen that/done that”?); whether the
organization has the ability to finance the considerable cost of operations to support this
proposal, including but not limited to frequent changes of exhibits; lacks a food and
beverage component; whether operation as a science exhibit space limits the ability to
utilize the space for other community uses and collaborations with other organizations; the
admission fee structure could limit broad appeal of this use; whether this is the right space
for an organization seeking a home; whether the space is too small to create the kind of
variety of exhibits contemplated.
John Denver Museum and Cultural Center:
Strengths of proposal: builds on the proximity of the site to the John Denver Sanctuary;
individuals connected with the proposal appear to have the potential to make this happen;
the combination of activities in the proposed space (museum, live music venue, music and
environmental education) can help create an area where people want to go and hang out;
the café component is integral to making it a space where people want to gather; appears
to have the financial capacity to create and support the venue (though more information on
finances is needed); has great potential for collaboration with other users to broaden the
appeal.
P4
I.
Page 5
Opportunities to address: whether the programming appeals much more to visitors than to
local community; whether it appeals to the younger demographic who may not know who
John Denver and his music; whether this proposal has enough appeal to justify year-round
usage; need to better understand how this proposal has a community focus; clarify what
the term “global business center” means and how it impacts the use of the facility; the
“music and environmental education” component is not unique to Aspen where we have a
number of organizations that focus on this; concern about whether the City should be
memorializing an individual with a City-owned building; concern over whether the
organization needs or wants to create local partnerships.
Powerhouse Performance and Event Center (submitted by The Red Brick):
Strengths of proposal: an established organization with established management capability
and proven business model; vision for an arts district is compelling and could activate this
area of Aspen; potential for more of a “community center” is intriguing; creates mid-sized
performance spaces (100-150 seats) that are needed in the community; use of the facility
by non-performing arts organizations to activate daytime use is critical to the proposal (but
not clear how this will occur); recognizes the need for dynamic programming in order to
draw repeat customers – both locals and tourists.
Opportunities to address: whether this is another Red Brick operation that we really need;
whether the focus of this proposal is too narrow (performing arts) and whether it competes
with existing facilities such as the Wheeler and Aspen Independent School District; lacks
a food and beverage component; whether too much of the space is earmarked for office
space; whether this proposal requires too much parking and exacerbates traffic; whether
this facility will draw people during the day and what kind of programming is contemplated
to do that.
Request of Council: We request that City Council accept our recommendation to invite four
organizations to participate in the Request for Proposal process, and to address the challenges and
capitalize on the strengths we have identified in their proposals to create a detailed, dynamic, and
inclusive plan for the OPH building and grounds.
City Council has the prerogative to modify our recommendation by adding or removing proposed
ideas from our list. The Committee would be happy to assist the Council in finalizing its list in any
way we can.
Once a final list of finalists is determined, Council should instruct staff to finalize the RFP document
and publish it. Participants will need six to eight weeks to respond to the RFP since it will contain
many detailed questions for the finalists to answer.
P5
I.
Page 6
City Manager Comments:
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
Exhibits
Exhibit 1: List of Respondents
Exhibit 2: Summary Score Sheet of Review Committee
P6
I.
Page 7
Exhibit 1
List of RFQ Respondents
(alphabetical order)
1. Advancement of Renewable Energies
2. Aspen Community Center
3. Aspen Homeless Shelter
4. Aspen Hostel Company
5. *Aspen Media Powerhouse (submitted by GrassRoots Network)
6. Aspen Power & Light
7. *Aspen Science Center
8. Canary’s Nest
9. *John Denver Museum & Cultural Center
10. *Powerhouse Performance and Event Center (submitted by The Red Brick)
11. Power House – Aspen (the Gathering Place)
12. Power Plant Brewery
13. Senior Center
14. Wild Rose Healing Center
15. ZG Old Power House
* Four proposals recommended as finalists.
P7
I.
Page 8
P8
I.
Page 9
Exhibit 2
Review Committee Summary Scoring Sheet
P9
I.
Old Powerhouse Conversion RFQ Scoring Sheet
Summary of All Applicants
Question Weight
Jo
h
n
D
e
n
v
e
r
M
u
s
e
u
m
Ga
t
h
e
r
i
n
g
P
l
a
c
e
Po
w
e
r
h
o
u
s
e
P
E
C
As
p
e
n
H
o
s
t
e
l
Po
w
e
r
P
l
a
n
t
B
r
e
w
e
r
y
W
i
l
d
R
o
s
e
H
e
a
l
i
n
g
C
n
t
r
Ad
v
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
R
e
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
E
n
e
r
g
i
e
s
ZG
O
l
d
P
o
w
e
r
h
o
u
s
e
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
Ca
n
a
r
y
N
e
s
t
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
As
p
e
n
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
Gr
a
s
s
r
o
o
t
s
Pi
t
C
o
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
As
p
e
n
P
o
w
e
r
&
L
i
g
h
t
Section 1
1.1 Tell us who you are.31 21 33 24 20 16 21 26 18 13 18 32 31 32 31
1.2 What is your proposal?18 18 20 16 20 13 13 21 9 11 10 19 20 16 15
1.3 Describe your management structure for your proposed use.14 8 12 9 7 3 4 6 3 4 4 11 15 12 15
1.4 Provide the most current annual income statement and balance sheet for your
organization if available. If not available, please provide a narrative regarding
the ability of your proposal to be financially viable
Y/N Y N Y N N N Y N N N N Y Y ?N
Section 2
2.1
Describe how your proposal –and what a visitor’s would see,feel,hear,touch,
learn,etc.–would produce a “memory-making”experience that would have a
visitor relating that visit to others in an enthusiastic way.
15
70 55 73 50 71 47 49 53 26 38 41 87 81 52 46
2.2 Describe how your proposed use of the building/grounds would provide a
unique experience – unduplicated by any other venue in Aspen or the valley.10 53 51 52 39 42 32 38 38 19 33 27 63 56 36 31
2.3 Describe how your proposal links the building and grounds to the adjacent land
uses.7 44 32 37 23 25 21 23 26 8 19 20 41 29 30 24
2.4 Would you be willing to partner with other organizations to create a multi-use
building if your proposal doesn't fully keep the building "active"?3 20 19 23 6 17 17 11 14 11 12 15 19 22 15 13
Introduction of Organization, staff, and general purpose of the building you propose
Proposed use of the building and grounds.
10 Points
Maximu
m for all
10 points max
35 points max
P
1
0
I
.
Question Weight
Jo
h
n
D
e
n
v
e
r
M
u
s
e
u
m
Ga
t
h
e
r
i
n
g
P
l
a
c
e
Po
w
e
r
h
o
u
s
e
P
E
C
As
p
e
n
H
o
s
t
e
l
Po
w
e
r
P
l
a
n
t
B
r
e
w
e
r
y
W
i
l
d
R
o
s
e
H
e
a
l
i
n
g
C
n
t
r
Ad
v
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
R
e
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
E
n
e
r
g
i
e
s
ZG
O
l
d
P
o
w
e
r
h
o
u
s
e
Ho
m
e
l
e
s
s
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
Ca
n
a
r
y
N
e
s
t
Co
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
As
p
e
n
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
Gr
a
s
s
r
o
o
t
s
Pi
t
C
o
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
As
p
e
n
P
o
w
e
r
&
L
i
g
h
t
Section 3
3.1 Describe how your proposal creates a “center of community” for those who live
here, work here and visit here.25 105 97 126 77 92 70 56 74 30 51 62 113 113 83 70
3.2
Explain if/how your plan includes the participation of other groups or
organizations that are not necessarily leaseholders in the building. (For example,
a dance group is invited to perform once a month, or art classes are occasionally
given.)
10
48 49 58 22 43 39 25 33 22 28 29 50 57 43 25
Section 4
4.1
Describe how you propose to finance the capital investment necessary to
prepare the building for your use and the annual operating expenses associated
with that use. What portion do you expect the City to pay for?
20
81 62 104 62 80 46 57 47 25 32 25 107 89 84 65
484 412 538 328 417 304 297 338 171 241 251 542 513 403 335
J
o
h
n
D
e
n
v
e
r
M
u
s
e
u
m
G
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
g
P
l
a
c
e
P
o
w
e
r
h
o
u
s
e
P
E
C
A
s
p
e
n
H
o
s
t
e
l
P
o
w
e
r
P
l
a
n
t
B
r
e
w
e
r
y
W
i
l
d
R
o
s
e
H
e
a
l
i
n
g
C
n
t
r
A
d
v
a
n
c
e
m
e
n
t
o
f
R
e
n
e
w
a
b
l
e
E
n
e
r
g
i
e
s
Z
G
O
l
d
P
o
w
e
r
h
o
u
s
e
H
o
m
e
l
e
s
s
S
h
e
l
t
e
r
C
a
n
a
r
y
N
e
s
t
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
A
s
p
e
n
S
c
i
e
n
c
e
C
e
n
t
e
r
G
r
a
s
s
r
o
o
t
s
P
i
t
C
o
S
e
n
i
o
r
C
e
n
t
e
r
A
s
p
e
n
P
o
w
e
r
&
L
i
g
h
t
TOTAL SCORE
Community
Financials
35 points max
20 points max
P
1
1
I
.
P
1
2
I
I
.
P13
III.
P14
III.
P15
III.
P16
III.
P17
III.
P18
III.
P19
III.
P20
III.
P21
III.
P22
III.