Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.council.20141110 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 10, 2014 SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES ......................................................................................................... 2 CITIZEN COMMENTS AND PETITION ........................................................................................................ 2 COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS ............................................................................................................... 2 AGENDA ADDITIONS – ............................................................................................................................. 2 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS.................................................................................................................... 2 BOARD REPORTS ..................................................................................................................................... 3 CONSENT CALENDAR ............................................................................................................................... 3  Resolution #133, Series of 2014 – EOTC 2015 ½% Transit Sales and Use Tax Budget ..................... 3  Resolution #135, Series of 2014 – Parks Maintenance Facility Roof Replacement ......................... 3  Minutes – October 27, 2014 ......................................................................................................... 3  AVSC – Request for Contribution .................................................................................................. 4 Ordinance #35, Series of 2014 –Fall Supplemental Budget ....................................................................... 4 Ordinance #36, Series of 2014 – 2015 Fee Schedule ................................................................................ 6 Ordinance #37, Series of 2014 – Electric Rate Adjustments and ............................................................... 6 Ordinance #38, Series of 2014 – Water Rate Adjustments ....................................................................... 6 Resolution #132, Series of 2014 – 2015 Budget ....................................................................................... 7 Ordinance #30, Series of 2014 – Red Butte Cemetery, PD Amendment .................................................. 12 Ordinance #34, Series of 2014 – 1235 Mountain View Drive (Messiah Lutheran Church) ....................... 16 1 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 10, 2014 Mayor Skadron called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. with Councilmembers Frisch, Mullins, Daily and Romero present. SCHEDULED PUBLIC APPEARANCES Chris Bendon stated the Community Development department won a merit award from the State division of the American Planning Association for the affordable housing credit program. CITIZEN COMMENTS AND PETITION 1. Mike Maple congratulated the City on the affordable housing award. He said Glenwood Springs borrowed the City’s plan for a similar program. He said he is happy to see the AVSC item on the consent agenda. He challenged the Council to look at the funding they provide towards skiing and to consider a much higher level of support. 2. Mitzi Rapkin invited the public to two open houses for the building replacement program at the Rio Grande room on Thursday from 4:30-6:30 pm and Friday from 11:30am-1:30pm. COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS 1. Councilwoman Mullins attended one of the small group lodging sessions and said it was well done and presented all aspects of the discussion in an objective way. She is anxious to get moving on the incentive program. 2. Councilwoman Mullins thanked Mr. Maple for his comments and supports what he is saying and it warrants more discussion. 3. Councilwoman Mullins congratulated Peter Fornell for the affordable housing credit program and thanked him for helping to get it going. 4. Councilman Frisch stated the City is in negotiations to purchase a piece of property for a park and asked for an executive session to discuss further. 5. Councilman Frisch said he will talk more about the drain line when the budget discussion takes place. 6. Mayor Skadron thanked Dr. Gail King and staff, AVH nurses, Community Bank, City Market, Firefighters, Big Wrap and the EMT’s for the free PSA blood test hosted by the Movember Aspen Team. 7. Mayor Skadron encouraged everyone to attend the open houses for the building replacement program. Mayor Skadron added an executive session pursuant to 24.6.402(a,e) to the AGENDA ADDITIONS – agenda. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS Steve Barwick gave an update on parking. The request for proposal for the accounting services should go out this week with a two week response period. Work should be completed by mid-February. As far as the police investigation a subpoena was served by the APD to the credit card processing center in mid- October. The APD hopes to receive detailed credit card information related to the investigation by mid to late November. Once data is received the APD will be in a position to determine the extent of the investigation. This will continue to be a slow moving case. Mr. Barwick stated the installation of the new meters is set to begin with a two week installation period scheduled for the 17th-29th. Staff is suggesting we turn off all the on street meters and offer free on street parking. Mr. Barwick asked for Council input. Councilman Frisch said it is a good faith policy issue and we can handle the revenue loss. 2 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 10, 2014 He said he is concerned with people leaving their vehicle in one spot for an extended period of time. Councilman Romero expressed concern for the retail community and said the system needs turned over as efficiently as possible. Councilwoman Mullins said she will support it and it could relieve some confusion with the change out. She said a shorter window would be better. Councilman Daily supports the idea. Mayor Skadron asked if it is necessary. Mr. Barwick said we could accomplish the changeover without changing the parking regulations at all. Councilman Frisch recommended stopping the free parking before Thanksgiving. Mayor Skadron said he is not comfortable with it and it tends to erode the values we put in place. He said he could get around a smaller window from the 17th-25th. Councilman Romero asked how long the accounting review will take and what steps should Council expect. Mr. Barwick said the proposals will be reviewed and a recommendation brought to Council. A final report to Council is expected by mid-February. The current audit firm will not be submitting a proposal. BOARD REPORTS 1. Councilwoman Mullins attended the health and human services board meeting and they did a run through of the upcoming work session presentation. She also mentioned the meetings are open to the public. 2. Mayor Skadron attended the CAST meeting in Ouray where they discussed tourism market updates, revenue neutral carbon tax and challenges to our water future. CONSENT CALENDAR  Resolution #133, Series of 2014 – EOTC 2015 ½% Transit Sales and Use Tax Budget  Resolution #135, Series of 2014 – Parks Maintenance Facility Roof Replacement  Minutes – October 27, 2014 Councilman Romero moved to approve Resolution #133, Resolution #135 and the Minutes from October 27, 2014; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. Councilman Frisch recused himself from discussing the AVSC request due to his wife being on the board. AVSC request for contribution. Mark Cole stated they have a world class training facility at Aspen Highlands. It is an investment to the community and he would like to find a way to partner with the City in a bigger way. He said he loves that the City sees the recreation opportunities for youth and adults. He suggested that there is an opportunity to partner with the City other than through the grant program. Councilman Daily stated he agrees and feels strongly about the City partnering. Councilwoman Mullins said it would be good for the City to look in to other ways to partner. Councilman Romero asked Mr. Cole to generally describe the revenue received to fund operations. Mr. Cole said it is roughly 60 percent earned income and 40 percent fundraising. Councilman Romero stated he is also in support of a broader conversation about partnering with the City. He asked where would Council look for funding sources. Mr. Barwick said they could use the Council contingency. Mayor Skadron said they raised two million why come to the City to ask for $15,000. Mr. Cole said it is a challenge to offset the operating expense. They thought of asking the City for help offsetting the water costs. The City was unable to do that so he asked for the equivalent of the water expense. Mr. Cole said they need to get the City on board as a partner and help with the annual operating expense instead of asking for money earlier in the process. 3 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 10, 2014 Mayor Skadron said these are two separate conversations, the current request and looking for future help. Things change when the City becomes involved. There is also a conversation about mature organizations and startups and who should be receiving the City’s money. Many believe startups should be receiving the money. Mr. Cole said they are a mature organization with a startup venture. Mayor Skadron asked what percent of programs are directed to people outside Aspen and should you be asking municipalities through the valley for help. Mr. Cole stated they asked all of the municipalities in the valley for support.  AVSC – Request for Contribution Councilwoman Mullins moved to approve the AVSC request; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. Ordinance #35, Series of 2014 – Fall Supplemental Budget Pete Strecker, finance, told the Council the total request is for 6.1 million including 3 million in technical requests and 700,000 for the lodging tax transfer. There is 2.3 million in previously discussed topics including the Dolensic purchase. The remaining 800,000 is new requests including purchase power for 490,000 and 100,000 for the Edge of Ajax renovations. The rest of the requests are smaller and highlighted in the packet. Councilman Frisch said there was discussion of the mountain rescue building be used by staff but does not remember agreeing to that. Jack Wheeler, asset department, said Council has not approved the interim or long term use of the space and the budget is based on the condition of the building. Regardless th of use the improvements are needed. They will be back on November 17 to discuss the use at a work session. Councilman Frisch asked if the electric utility fund increase is because of increases in wholesale cost and do these get passes on to customer. He asked if we are committing to pricing to our end users before we know the true cost to the City. Lee Ledesma, utilities, stated this was incorporated into the rate proposals presented at the work session. For the past three years it has been about a 10 percent increase in the purchase power cost but revenue has only been going up four. The tier shifts and smaller changes are designed to getting back on track. Mr. Barwick stated we have a decent fund balance that is used to absorb these increases when they happen. There is enough money in the fund balance to handle this. Councilwoman Mullins asked for second reading if there is a way to distinguish the new requests versus the original amounts. Councilman Romero asked about the edge of Ajax HOA special assessment and how we got from that to where we are today. Jeff Pendarvis, asset department, said the extent of the remodel is partly because of the common area work. They thought they were going to be able to reuse some of the lighting and flooring but are not able to. Some of the water leaks were from hot tubs in the upper units. The HOA and free market units are paying for that work. Councilman Romero asked when the units are expected to be back on line. Mr. Pendarvis stated the HOA work is almost complete. The other work will take six to eight weeks. Mayor Skadron stated the electric request for 490,000 is to cover increased costs of generating power from coal fired plants. He asked if it the cost of coal that is driving the increase. Will Dolan, utilities, 4 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 10, 2014 stated a component is attributed to coal fired power. There are also one off customer chargers and increases in transmission costs. Mayor Skadron said MEANs costs are rising and they are passing them on to us. Mr. Dolan replied yes and they are looking at revising their revenue collection model. The coal dynamic has been hurting their business plan. Mayor Skadron commented on the 685,000 regarding the in town bus service. He said it is unclear how that was being accounted for prior to the adjustment. Mr. Strecker stated they were lowering the payments the City made to RFTA once they accounted for the one percent transit tax and subtracted off the lodging tax. Mayor Skadron asked what the relationship is between transit and lodging. Mr. Strecker said the one percent tax lowers our cost for the bus service in town. There is a cost net and we applied the lodging tax specifically related to transportation to lower the net expense. It was not fully showing the cost in the transportation fund. Mayor Skadron asked for the components of the lodging tax. Mr. Strecker replied it is 1 ½ percent to ACRA and ½ percent to transportation. Mr. Strecker stated there was a late addition that will be included at second reading. Tom Rubel, parks, submitted a supplemental request for Cozy Point. They are working on the interim management plan due to the passing of Monroe Summers. Rob Covington and parks staff will help manage the ranch. They will need additional funds to purchase the ranch assets and the hay. Mayor Skadron asked what numbers we know. Mr. Rubel said the price for the hay is $72,000. They are close to a price for the equipment and the lease agreement. Jim True, attorney, stated this has been discussed at a previous executive session. The figures will be finalized by second reading. It is not a matter of negotiation and we are seeking the appraised value. Mr. Rubel stated the figure will be under $150,000 including the hay. Mr. Strecker said the memo has some identified cost. Don Taylor, finance, said we will amend the second reading ordinance with the final number. Councilwoman Mullins asked if the $150,000 is in addition to the $15,000 and $35,000. Mr. Barwick said the net is around $115,000-120,000. The hay is expected to be sold to the boarders during the winter. Mayor Skadron said the $35,000 request is for operational expenses and $17,000 for the interim ranch manager. Mayor Skadron asked if the ordinance as written contains the materials. Mr. Strecker replied it was not included. Councilman Romero moved to read Ordinance #35, Series of 2014; Seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 35 (SERIES OF 2014) AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING AN INCREASE IN THE GENERAL FUND OF $150,210 AN INCREASE IN THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUND OF $2,311,980, AN INCREASE IN THE PUBLIC EDUCATION FUND OF $2,131,000, AN INCREASE IN THE TRANSPORTATION FUND OF $721,040, AN INCREASE IN THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND OF $107,730, AN INCREASE IN THE DEBT SERVICE FUND OF $120,140, AN INCREASE IN THE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND EXPENDITURES OF $63,600, AN INCREASE IN THE ELECTRIC FUND OF $490,000. Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #35, Series of 2014 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote, Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Daily, yes; Romero, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. 5 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 10, 2014 Ordinance #36, Series of 2014 – 2015 Fee Schedule Mr. Strecker said the fees were discussed during the budget process in October. They would like to have the fees adopted at the next meeting so they can go into effect on January 1. There are increases in fees for golf and recreation, elimination of GIS fees, a new utility development fee, the utility rates and tiers will be in a separate ordinance. The electric review fees were cut in half from the original proposal. The mall lease fees were added to ordinance where in the past they had been adopted by a separate resolution. The last time they were adopted was 2003. This year the fee was $3.00 per square foot and the resolution that was adopted is $4.02 per square foot. There will be an update at second reading for GIS fees. Councilman Romero asked for a historical trend analysis for second reading. He would like to see an exception report for fees changing greater than seven percent. He asked to create a document that everyone can understand. Councilwoman Mullins said the memo shows how complex and expensive the building permit process is. It is difficult for Council to look at the fees for appropriate and necessary changes. At second reading she requested more detail on the pricing committee process. Mr. Strecker said it is made up of a group of internal staff doing a peer review of the fees. Councilwoman Mullins stated it is hard to see if the fee is justified. Mayor Skadron said the pricing committee came from a prior council. Councilman Daily said Councilman Romero’s suggestion is good and will be helpful. Councilman Romero moved to read Ordinance #36, Series of 2014; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 36 (SERIES OF 2014) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO ADJUST CERTAIN MUNICIPAL FEES. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #36, Series of 2014 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote, Councilmembers Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Romero, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. Ordinance #37, Series of 2014 – Electric Rate Adjustments and Ordinance #38, Series of 2014 – Water Rate Adjustments st Lee Ledesma, utilities, stated both ordinances reflect what was discussed October 21 at the work session. The majority of the increases are a result of the recommended tier tightening. The residential electric rate increase is 100 percent tier tightening. On the commercial side there will be a small increase in the availability charge of five percent. The overall increase is about four percent. The residential increase is five percent. There is no change in the base fee or KWH charge Councilman Frisch stated we are moving off the subsidy level with the tier tightening. Ms. Ledesma stated we adopted cost of service modeling in 2011. The date we are to reach 100 percent is 2017. The tiers were developed in 2006 and lots of money has been put towards the efficiency programs and are no longer showing the effectiveness they did when first implemented. The 20 percent tightening will make them more viable and effective again. They need to be careful about not increasing associated rates at the same time because the increase would be too much. 6 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 10, 2014 Councilman Frisch asked in the past the residential has been subsidized by the commercial. Ms. Ledesma said in the out years there is a four percent KWH increase for residential and only three for commercial because of the subsidy. Mayor Skadron asked Ms. Ledesma to define cost of service. Ms. Ledesma responded it is like buckets. They analyzed payroll, supplies, services and capital projects and put them into buckets. On the electric side the buckets were residential, small commercial, large commercial and city facilities. They asked how out of whack are we with revenue and how much is it costing to serve those groups. In 2011 they started closing the gap on electric but is was a six year transition. It is different on the water side because of the customer base. The raw water and pump services are the furthest behind. Councilman Romero moved to read Ordinance #37, Series of 2014; seconded by Councilman Frisch. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 37 (SERIES OF 2014) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO AMEND SECTION 25.04, ELECTRICITY. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adopt Ordinance #37, Series of 2014 on first reading; seconded by Councilman Romero. Roll call vote, Councilmembers Mullins, yes; Romero, yes; Daily, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. Councilman Frisch moved to read Ordinance #38, Series of 2014; seconded by Councilman Daily. All in favor, motion carried. ORDINANCE NO. 38 (SERIES OF 2014) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN TO AMEND SECTION 25.16 WATER RATES AND CHARGES. Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #38, Series of 2014 on first reading; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote, Councilmembers Romero, yes; Frisch, yes; Daily, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. Resolution #132, Series of 2014 – 2015 Budget Pete Strecker told the Council the total budget being proposed includes a seven percent increase over the prior year’s appropriations. The budget allows for greater staffing and customer service specifically for community development and engineering. It begins to address some of the lost space for City staff. It brings the goal of 100 percent renewable energy into reality. The budget maintains a fund balance of 85 million in reserves. Councilman Frisch said the vast majority of the expenses are supported by the community. The focus remains mostly on the general fund. Our credit rating is high and in good shape. He said there is 7 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 10, 2014 $750,000 for a drain line in addition to some money for a power corridor. Both items are linked towards the hydro plant process. He suggested a work session for where we are with the FERC process and what is in the future. He stated when the budget process first started there was $750,000 for a drain line. On st October 21 the water department had a work session and discussed the need of a drain line. On October st 21 one of the questions from Councilman Daily was if we are going for the $750,000 drain line I hoped we explored all other options and this is the one that makes the most sense from a safety issue as well as from a cost issue. During this we received a letter from the state dam inspector saying we need to provide some type of low level outlet. We wanted to make sure this is the only option we have. He recalls that Mr. Hornbacher answered we’ve explored other options and this is one that makes sense and is least expensive. A week or two later there was an article in the paper talking about other options and Councilman Frisch sent an email asking what is going on. The response was we made a mistake and did rd not explore other options and we need to do so and come back to Council. On November 3 there was a letter from Staff in the paper which said we explored all the options and this is the best way to go. Councilman Frisch said going back to the answer he heard in public which was we explored other options and this makes the most sense to what he heard a week or two later saying we haven’t explored anything and we should do that and maybe pull the funding request. Councilman Frisch asked did we explore other options or didn’t we and please explain the difference in what he heard from the two different situations. The overall concern is full confidence from Staff that we are getting consistent answers and if the answers need to change the reason for them. He said he did hear that part of the reason we are asking for the drain line is in response to concern from the inspector of something that needs to be tackled. If pulled, what are we doing to protect our citizens. Mr. Barwick said there are two issues, what are we are going to do about the drain line and second what Council was told by Staff. Our recommendation is to pull the $750,000 from the budget now but it can be added back later by supplemental. He suggested a work session at a future time to look at what the current infrastructure is, a discussion of the dam inspectors report and a presentation of outside analysis of the reservoir risks and mitigation options. He said part of the request is to start a review process to hire someone from the outside to look at risks and mitigation. Councilman Romero said it sounds like the inspection just fell in our lap but didn’t it come in in May. He said he takes exception that the inspection just came up when it was there through the entire budget process and has always been there through a regular frequency of reports. Mr. Barwick said it has not been a regular inspection but an increasing frequency. Councilwoman Mullins asked if the outside consultant disagrees with the state report what will that look like. Mr. Barwick stated he does not think they will disagree. The dam inspector is only concerned about the dam and our responsibilities are different than that. Councilwoman Mullins also suggested a tour of the facility and a copy of the state report. Randy Ready, assistant city manager, said the next review is not disagreeing with the inspection but how to comply with it. He said some of the confusion is a result of an extremely long process that has been going on since 2007. There has been a tremendous amount of confusion and lack of communication on Staffs part. He sincerely apologized for it. Part of the complexity is the need to address the two distinct but related parts. There is a need to meet the requirements of the inspectors report and meet the responsibility as the reservoir and dams owners. When responding to alternatives and have we looked at 8 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 10, 2014 alternatives it gets into a complicated seven or eight year context. There has been no intentional misrepresentation. Dave Hornbacher, utility director, stated one of our roles is to take complex issues and try to put them together into something more understandable, direct and actionable. He stated this is one of his responsibilities as director and clearly could have done a better job. He sincerely apologized for any misunderstanding or confusion or lack of diligence in information to City Council. In response to the question of exploring all alternatives, the complexity of the issue is getting it down to the two points including the state requirement for a low level outlet and the Staff discussion regarding ownership of a reservoir on a hillside that can be fed a lot of water. There is a responsibility if we need to evacuate the reservoir is there a route down the hillside that will not cause damage. When he answered the question it was in the context of solving both issues with one single solution. They have explored different solutions over time of how to get water down the hill. The real key point is we need to examine very carefully the existing facilities at the reservoir and how they can be used to meet the state requirements. What do those solutions look like and what are the costs. If they pursue two separate solutions they will need to bring it to council in addition to risk management. He said they need to come back at a work session and give all the options. He said staff has the responsibilities for daily decisions but when they get to a larger issues they need to come back to ouncil. st Councilman Frisch stated he is still confused. On the 21 of October Council asked about the $750,000 for a pipe. The reasons for the pipe were the dual use for the CCEC if it ever happens but more immediately it was a solution to solve an issue the dam inspector raised. The question to Mr. Hornbacher was is this the least expensive option and the best option. Mr. Hornbacher said yes. Have explored other options and the answer was yes. He said they lumped into one issue the drain line being tied directly to the dam report and the solution was to combine two issues into one thing. When you answered yes on the st 21that you explored other options and yes this is the best one, what were you talking about? Mr. Hornbacher replied that at that meeting he should have been very distinctive about separating those issues out. The issues are the state requirement for a low level outlet and a reservoir on the hill where they have been building a drain line to address large water flows. Councilman Frisch asked why we need to separate them if it has been pitched as a two in one deal. Council was asking is this two in one deal the best and lease expensive option to explore. Councilman Frisch stated Mr. Hornbacher was giving Council a different answer to the question and the mistake was not clarifying what Council was asking. Mr. Hornbacher said when he answered, his interpretation was not reflective of what he is being asked today. He had the opportunity at the meeting to be distinct on the two separate issues and how the completion of the drain line would solve both issues. He said he could have been better at the meeting. Councilman Frisch asked when you told me we failed and need to do a better job exploring other options what did you mean? Mr. Hornbacher replied the options specific to the state regarding the low level outlet and determine if the existing facilities or other options are available that meet the minimum requirement specific to the state regulations. Councilman Frisch asked if we did not do that yet. Mr. Hornbacher replied correct, it the one thing they need to come back to Council with so they can look at st solutions independently or as a combined solution. Councilman Frisch said the answers on the 21were a complete different solution because Council was talking about something different in your mind. Mr. Hornbacher stated when he answered in public he was thinking about the solution that included the drain rd line with the high volume water flows. Councilman Frisch said in the November 3 letter to the editor you wrote a 2014 dam inspection report confirmed existing need to complete the emergency drain and rated Thomas reservoir a significant hazard. This means properties are at risk in case of a breach. The drain line in the letter is directly related to the dam inspector. The letter further states the drain line is 9 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 10, 2014 under construction to address these issues. So you are saying the drain line is under construction irregardless of this conversation. Mr. Hornbacher stated as he wrote that the drain line is under construction he was referring to the fact that 3,600 feet of the 3,900 feet had been under construction. He stated he could have been clearer to have chosen a different word that made it obvious he was referring to what has been completed. Councilman Frisch asked for the last date the drain line has been worked on. Mr. Hornbacher replied 2011. Councilman Frisch read from the letter that neither City Staff nor anyone else has come up with a viable more effective alternative. He said he thought you just told us you have not explored those options and you want to do so and asked how that is so when you stated Staff did in the letter. Mr. Ready said that is in the larger context of evacuating the reservoir. All alternative paths meant paths for water to flow out of the dam on its way down the hill. st Councilman Frisch stated his understanding is on October 21 Council asked what the $750,000 was for. The answers you gave were different because you addressed different questions when we thought it was the same question. Mr. Hornbacher apologize directly to Councilman Frisch and Council that he was not clearer and more specific. He stated he answered the question he thought he heard not what they were asking about. He stated he can’t go back in time and correct it and he can’t sit here and discuss those points and what he did or did not do. Councilman Frisch stated a citizen sent an email saying go back to the 2012 Daily News article about the existing drain line which he forwarded on to Mr. Hornbacher and asked if that will work or not. The response he got was it would not work because it would not address the issue. Mr. Hornbacher said they should look at that pipe and any other facilities and determine if they can meet the states requirement and if they can’t, what type of modifications can be made to meet them. Councilman Frisch asked if he still stands by the statement that no existing facilities meet the state requirements. Mr. Hornbacher replied the state criteria is for a low level outlet. Councilman Romero stated he struggles this as he was part of the questions and asked specifically if this is a public safety issue and how are we responding. He said the response was we have the dam inspection and we must respond to it. That statement told him the response was to the state level requirement and he is now hearing it is twofold. He said he is still struggling because Council focused on the dam inspection and Staff provided a solutions even though Council kept asking if there are other means. Now he is hearing it is a broader City wide requirement. He said Mr. Hornbacher is an expert and the focus on safety was expresses by the inspection report and no one described to Council that it is a broader community concern. He said he tried to get past the public safety discrepancy and tried to find an alternative path. The problem was never described as a two pronged issue. He stated he agrees with the proposed actions for a work sessions and re-grouping. Mr. Ready said Staffs role of adding to the confusion has to deal with the dam inspectors report fitting into the larger context. Councilwoman Mullins said it is a difficult process. The benefit is for Council to go back to work sessions and public comment to look more closely at the process. She said in this case maybe Council should have looked at all the details and become experts. She is in support of pulling the $750,000 and looking at all the options. Councilman Daily stated he asked the original question when Council was talking about the state requirement. He asked if the suggested solution is the most cost effective and viable one. The answer 10 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 10, 2014 was yes. It is clear that Staff may have been responding to the larger picture. Going forward he would like Staff to help Council understand how to meet the state requirement. If there are additional City responsibilities and concerns around reservoir safety he wants those identified clearly and specifically. Mayor Skadron stated he concurs with Council’s comments. He asked what are the lesson learned here and how would you deal with this again? Mr. Hornbacher replied there are multiple lessons. One is recognizing that large issues and those that have been here for a while Staff needs to reset the conversation from a beginning point rather than an ending one. They need to make sure all the information is out there. He said personally he needs to make absolutely sure he listens and if he has any questions he needs to clarify them. Mayor Skadron asked if the failure is in the presentation itself. Mr. Hornbacher said clearly there was failure in communication. Mr. Barwick stated anytime we are dealing with safety we need to define the issue and the problem and need to spend time on problem definition. Mr. Ready said Staff takes Council direction very seriously. Council stated very clearly Staff is not to be working on the hydro. When they brought the drain line forward that was the furthest thought from their mind. They were blindsided by the level of controversy and should have seen that. He said they are not evading Council direction. Mayor Skadron stated he agrees that the failure was as described. It was a poorly constructed memo and the complexity of the presentation and Staff’s inability to communicate. It is a significant difference from intentional misrepresentation. He stated he does not feel an intentional misrepresentation was the issue. Councilman Frisch stated for him to buy that answer he can’t sit here and get any future reports from Mr. Hornbacher and feel confident he knows what is being asked and what he is hearing. He said it was really st clear what was asked on the 21 and what was told to Council in private. He stated he does not have the faith in the people giving the update. He stated he appreciates the apology but going forward he needs to hear it from someone else what is going on with the hydro. He agrees there was no malicious line but the brain damage needed shouldn’t be this complicated. Mayor Skadron stated they will pull $750,000 dollar line item around the drain line. The second step is to hire an outside consultant to look at the risks of dam failure and suggestions of mitigation options. There will also be an additional work session on the FERC process and a tour of the facilities. Councilman Romero asked how many dollars are needed for the FERC process for 2015. Mr. Hornbacher replied he does not have a number off the top of his head. They tried to do a lot in-house with the last report. Jim True said to remember that the FERC process focuses on micro hydro not the CCEC and some aspects may require an executive session. Councilman Frisch stated there is a concern with the express feed line. There have been power outages in the past and concern that we do a better job protecting the power grid. The line runs under where the CCEC would come about. He is fully supportive of making sure we have the correct back up plan but we are better talking about this head on. Mr. Barwick stated this has nothing to do with the hydro project. It will be the main feed line from the Holy Cross substation at the AABC into town. It will connect at the forest service property to the remainder of the grid. The routing could have been over the bridge. If CCEC was built it could have been tied into the line. We have been relying on a decades old Holy Cross line that we lease from them. The Holy Cross line will be the backup. If there was to be an outage on the rio grande line it would be the entire city grid for an extended period of time. He encouraged Council to 11 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 10, 2014 finish this line. There is 410 feet left that happens to be in same area where the pipeline would go. It would be a separate trench to put it in. Councilman Frisch asked how soon could it be up and running. Mr. Barwick replied next summer. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Maureen Hirsch commented on the feeder line and stated it goes back to the 2011 capital fund budget where it says it was for the CCEC. Mr. Barwick replied it may have said it would be used by the CCEC but it has always been a completely separate project. Ms. Hirsch said she is happy to hear Council is putting the 750,000 on ice. She said she is aware that the dam inspector has reached out to the water department in the last 10 days to ask more questions about the existing outlet and has not received a response as of this morning. The inspection never said we need to st put in the penstock. She asked for documentation that there is a low level outlet. On the 21 Hornbacher said the penstock needs to be used to quickly take out 52 cfs. Ms. Hirsch said most inspectors do not agree with that. If you take that out very quickly the dam will collapse and cause a breach. In 2011 the City spent $200,000 to improve the spillway to evacuate water in the event of an emergency or breach. The low level outlet will take five days to drain the reservoir. 2. Jasmine Depocter said she hopes as this moves forward there will be an opportunity for the public to participate. She said the City could sell the turbine to alleviate concern and it would say the City is not genuinely seriously with moving forward. Mayor Skadron said Karinjo Devore had a discussion with the Premier of Bhutan to sell the turbo. He said things are happening that everyone may not be aware of. Ms. Depocter said the residents have concerns. The FERC process is still moving along. There is still equipment that could be sold. If the City is sincere about not moving forward with that project, selling the turbine may alleviate that. Mayor Skadron closed the public hearing. Councilman Romero asked if we make adjustments on fees how that would work. Mr. Strecker stated if Council adopts changes to the fees the revenues are not appropriated. Depending on the material nature of how much they are lowered things should not be material to eat into the balance. Mayor Skadron asked about the ending balance in the general fund and is there concern it drops by 10 million from the forecast opening balance. Mr. Strecker stated that transfer is to the asset fund for the City facility build. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Resolution #132, Series of 2014 with modifications; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote, Councilmembers Frisch, yes; Daily, yes; Romero, yes; Mullins, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. Ordinance #30, Series of 2014 – Red Butte Cemetery, PD Amendment Justin Barker, community development, told the Council this will allow a portion of the maintenance facility to be used as a dwelling unit. This is being viewed as a minor PD amendment because it did not meet the threshold for an insubstantial development. It is also for a growth management amendment. This application was tabled on July 14th to search for alternative solutions that have not panned out. The proposal has been updated to add quarterly open houses for residents and to maintain a log of nights spent by the caretaker. Staff recommends approval with the addition of the two requirements. In the initial application the cemetery association did request a fee waiver for the planning fees. 12 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 10, 2014 Alan Richman, representing the cemetery association, stated they reviewed the memo and proposed ordinance and are fine with the conditions and findings. He said they reviewed the letters from the neighbors and the public hearing comments. There are three main points to consider. The first is a number of letters have made the point the request is illegal or would violate portions of the land use code. That is not correct. In 2013 the City PUD regulations were overhauled. One of the changes authorized uses to be varied in a PUD. In 2009 the variation capability did not exist. Staff determined if there is sleeping that makes it a dwelling unit. Dwelling units are not allowed in park zones which is why they applied for a use variation. They also applied for a PUD amendment asking to reconsider the condition imposed in 2009 that prohibits sleeping in the maintenance facility. There is nothing unusual about an applicant asking to amend a condition previously imposed. Mr. Richman stated Mr. Bendon defended Staffs decision to classify this as a minor amendment. The code authorizes staff to make that call. He stated the neighbors also argued this should be sent to the HPC. HPC has no jurisdiction since no changes are proposed for the exterior of the building or the grounds surrounding the building. Mr. Richman stated the neighbors said there was no public outreach. The applicant conducted public outreach at a meeting with the neighbors at the facility. They were not asked to do a second public outreach for tonight. The second point is it is important to consider the request as important for the operations to continue into the future and it is a justified request. There is a need for someone to be onsite to provide security. There have been three incidents where multiple windows were broken in the last four months. Having someone stay time to time limits the exposure of the facility. People come to the cemetery at all hours of the day to meet with representatives. Having someone there beyond nine to five is part of the customer service. The property is zoned park but the cemetery is private property acting as an active cemetery not a park. It needs to be maintained and can’t be done by volunteers alone. There were questions raised by Council about other options. Stoney did meet with City staff and the employee does not meet the housing qualifications to rent a unit. There are no vacant units in the City’s inventory. ADU’s in the neighborhood are not generally available. The association believes it should be responsible for providing housing for its employee. They want to take care of its own housing needs. Mr. Richman stated they designed a request that is as limited as can be. It is a one year trial. It they want it to continue beyond the one year they will need to submit a new application. They have agreed to hold quarterly meetings to meet with the neighbors. He said they are only asking for a pull down bed. There will be no living room or usable spaces. There will be no changes to the exterior of the building. It is a different request from what was proposed in 2009. Councilman Daily asked what is to keep the caretaker from occupying the unit on a full time basis. Mr. Richman replied the deed restriction. From a practical standpoint it is a one year trial. The current caretaker is not here seven days a week but two to three. His permanent home is in Meeker and he has no reason to occupy full time. Councilman Romero asked if the broken windows were multiple events. Stoney Davis replied the first time was in May where two windows were shot out. The next time was the day before the last hearing where three windows were broke out. A month later it was one window a glass front door and garage windows. Councilman Romero asked what the expense to repair was. Mr. Davis said $1200 for the glass. 13 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 10, 2014 Mayor Skadron asked if the employee has special skills that are hard to find. Mr. Davis said Denis has been there for 18 years and everyone knows and respects him. They call on him for genealogy. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. 1. Alexis Spiritis stated the worker will only be sleeping over occasionally and what are the odds someone will vandalize only on the nights he is working. What are the odds someone will have a question when he is working. The reason this does not qualify for an insubstantial amendment is it does change the use. A residence in a park is not a conditional or normal use. They are asking to remove the condition that was put in to prevent this kind of situation from happening. She asked what has changed in the last 18 years to have a need to have him onsite overnight. This is just a different way to accomplish what they could not get in the first place. The one year trial is a smoke screen. Who is going to judge if this is successful or not. She asked Council to deny this and put it to rest. 2. Steve Spiritis stated he has lived next to the cemetery for 23 years and has seen a lot of different things occur in the cemetery and this is one they do not want to see. He said he has not seen anything in writing about the public outreach and it is the opinion of his attorney that what is proposed is illegal. Mr. Spiritis said security cameras would address the vandalism issue. The cemetery is a park. He stated they tried to get them to explore off site options and think they can easily find something if it is needed. The problem is he is not an employee but an independent contractor. The neighbors were of the opinion that what was approved was no living quarters and maintenance done only during daylight hours. There is nothing to preclude them from changing the proposed limitations in the future. The conditions of the original approval are being dramatically changed. The letters were 42 opposed and two in favor. He has not seen any demonstration for a need for a dwelling unit. The historic nature of cemetery will be compromised. 3. LJ Erspamer told the Council he wanted to explain his vote from the 2009 planning & zoning. He said he voted for this application when it came before P&Z. The applicant met the criteria. Part of the vote was a contingency there would not be a dwelling unit. 4. John Walker stated he is a full time resident at 1555 Silver King Drive. The neighborhood has not been represented by previous comments. He feels very strongly that the immediate neighborhood should not be defined as those who have property adjacent to the cemetery. This modest request seems more than reasonable to help maintain one of Aspens historic sites. He said Denis is an asset to the city even though he does not live here. Allowing him to occasionally stay overnight is a no brainer. Aspens residents should consider red butte cemetery as part of their neighborhood. He encouraged Council to support Staffs recommendation. 5. Howie Mallory said he lives at 1230 Snowbunny and the cemetery is a tremendous asset to the town and are great neighbors. Stoney and his staff have done a wonderful job for the last 15 years. Occasional use is not a problem and he does not think it will be abused. The challenge is to help the cemetery deal with a long term housing need. This will not be accomplished by a murphy bed. If Council is willing to try the trial there should be a condition that management show a genuine effort to find a better housing arrangement. Reports should come back to the city on a regular basis. HPCs approval specifically stated there would not be a residential component in the building. He requests the Council inform HPC the rational of their decision if they decide to proceed with the trial. 6. Brian McNellis stated he represents the Spiritis. He served on HPC from 2006-2012 when the original application came before HPC. He is currently a member of P&Z. It should not be a 14 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 10, 2014 minor amendment and does not meet the criteria of being generally consistent with the original approval. The most contentious issue was the dwelling unit and ultimately removed from the application. It contained a condition that stated the maintenance building shall not be used as a dwelling unit. This is a major amendment that should be subject to HPC and P&Z review. He requested that Council heed the advice of the review boards. 7. Debbie Kendrick told the Council she is on the cemetery board. In regards to what are the odds that Denis will be there when someone needs help. The odds go up if he knows he does not need to go back to Meeker. Cameras are stationary but someone is less likely to commit vandalism if they think someone is on site. Prior to Denis staying at cemetery he stayed at her parents’ house but that is no longer available. She would like Council to consider this proposal. 8. Mr. Barker received comments of opposition from Ruth Wade, Patrick Saussus, Sandy Johnson, Michael and Kathy Tierney and Alan Englander and support from Mike and Julie Maple and Toni Kronberg. Mayor Skasron asked Mr. McNellis what a dwelling unit is. He responded it is different from an employee unit. Mayor Skadron said a dwelling unit is defined as a home, residence or sleeping place by one person who maintains a household. He said he does not see how Denis staying a night or two makes it a dwelling unit or a household. By some definition it is a dwelling unit but the reality is it is a pull down bed. Mr. McNellis said what is being proposed in the application does meet the definition in the land use code. He is worried about the precedent it sets to do something more permanent. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilwoman Mullins said it is a really tough one. There are three cemeteries in town all different and incredible assets. They need to be taken care of and we need to support that. She can’t support this. The cemetery is zoned a park which does not allow residential use. Other modifications are being made to the building so it can be considered a residential unit. Every time council makes an exception it weakens and marginalizes the code. She has not heard that the variances are needed and the situation is so unique. She is not convinced we need to chip away at the code for this. There is a lot of neighborhood opposition. Council needs to listen to what citizens are saying. The majority Council has heard from are against it. They do need to look at every opportunity for employee housing for the long term. She asked what is the City committing to after the year is up. For these reasons she cannot support it. Councilman Frisch stated he agrees with Councilwoman Mullins. There is an entity that wants to add a crash pad to an office. It is setting a bad precedent and opening up for other organizations asking for the same thing. Council should not be in the tracking system of rules. He stated he cannot support this. Councilman Daily agreed this is a tough one. He respects both sides. He does not see this as a situation where we are creating a dangerous precedent. It is not a situation that will be replicated. He said he comes down on the side of the board members. Their interests are the best interests of the cemetery. He is willing to give the proposal a one year trial. He is not concerned that in a year they will come back and enlarge the use or reduce the restrictions. This is as far as he is willing to go. It is in the best interest of the cemetery and will not damage the neighborhood. He will support the proposal with a one year termination clause. 15 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 10, 2014 Councilman Romero said he is ready to give it a trial as well. Today, Denis can’t qualify for employee housing. There needs to be some initiative to put in place the long term housing needs of the cemetery. It is an essential public facility. He is prepared to support the trial. Mayor Skadron stated it is a legitimate request. It is an essential public facility and the other business that may request this are not. It is a one year trial with a cessation clause and the burden will be on the applicant. By definition it is a dwelling unit but in reality it is a pull down bed. He concurs with Staff’s recommendation but wants to add the condition that the applicant must show a genuine effort with APCHA or appropriate body to secure long term housing arraignment with reporting to Council. He thanked the Spiritis’ for their work and effort. Mr. Barker stated there were some comments made by Mr. Spirits and recommended the following modifications. Section one to clarify employee as any person working for the cemetery. To clarify what party from the City will be present at the open houses if any. To make the sleeping log a mandatory item that becomes a public document available for inspection by anyone. Mr. True stated the motion should include to adopt the amendments suggested by the Mayor and Mr. Barker. Councilman Romero moved to adopt Ordinance #30, Series of 2014 with amendments; seconded by Councilman Daily. Roll call vote, Councilmembers Mullins, no; Romero, yes; Frisch, no; Daily, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion Carried. Ordinance #34, Series of 2014 – 1235 Mountain View Drive (Messiah Lutheran Church) Jennifer Phelan, community development, stated the request is to amend an ordinance from 1991 regarding affordable housing on site. Mayor Skadron and Councilmembers Romero and Frisch live outside the 300 foot notice area. Until recently the property was operated as the Messiah Lutheran Church. An approval was granted in 1991 to allow the development of an affordable housing unit on site to house the minister. It was approved as a category two with three bedrooms. It was partial mitigation for a commercial development downtown. Since 1991the property has been sold and the new owners want to convert to residential use. The applicant is requesting to amend the ordinance to allow more flexibility for providing affordable housing. The amendments allow for the unit to keep the affordable housing onsite in its current location or redeveloped on the site. Changes would allow the unit to be mitigated with use of affordable housing credits or allow for an offsite unit. Staff supports the additional offsite options but recommend any onsite unit be a for sale unit instead of a rental. The code encourages for sale units. Staff recommends approval. The ordinance contains a condition for a for-sale unit. APCHA is in support of the application. Seth Hmielowsiki, Z group architects, told the council the owners are planning to live here and this will be their home. They plan to fully comply with APCHA requirements. The current concept for onsite housing would be to leave it as is and develop the rest of the structure around it. The property is messy in regards to the original ordinance. It was written to have the ADU as a rental. They want to make the property into something more suitable to the neighborhood. Jim Farrey, owner, stated the goal is to leave it as is or eventually move it off site. 16 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 10, 2014 Councilwoman Mullins asked to clarify the Staff recommendation to go off site, be a housing credit or a for-sale unit. Ms. Phelan stated they suggested if the unit stays on site they recommend it is a for sale unit. If the applicant would like to move off site or use credits that could be supported also. Councilman Romero asked if they already have those options. Ms. Phelan replied they would have to amend the ordinance to remove the affordable housing unit. Councilman Romero asked if there was no action tonight could they continue with the land use plan. Ms. Phelan stated the conditional use of the church is going away. There is still a requirement for the affordable housing unit. Mr. Bendon stated the 1991 approval was wound pretty tight. It will not be used as a church. Regarding the rental unit, there has been difficulty in enforcement. Ms. Phelan added that APCHA said their preference is a replacement but would do credits and maintaining compliance of individual units is difficult. Mr. Bendon stated their recommendation is different than APCHAs. Mr. Farrey stated the immediate goal is to do nothing and keep it as a rental. When and if they can mitigate offsite that would be a goal. Mr. Bendon stated their interest is in unwinding this now and not creating a future enforcement issue. The unit can stay and be rented out as an ADU or a duplex site. The mitigation needs to be unwound in a way that is reliable for the community long term. Mr. Hmielowski said keeping it the way it is makes the renovation financially viable. Councilman Romero said he agrees with Staff. There is a need to clean up the previous approval. He is not convinced that denying the rental use is the only option. Mr. Bendon is sympathetic to the timing dynamic and understands there is a renter. He wants to ensure there is replacement of the mitigation. Councilwoman Mullins is supportive of what Staff is recommending to clean it up and get rid of the questions but only if Council shows quite a bit of generosity to the applicant in terms of the time it has to be resolved. She recommended leaving it to the schedule of the applicant. Councilman Daily stated he is generally supportive. It is functional to have a duplex with a for sale unit. It does establish the certainty Staff is seeking. He can support what Staff is saying but would like to come up with a reasonable period of time that works with the owners redevelopment. Councilman Frisch said he is looking for quicker way to turn it into a single family residence away from the church aspect. The housing needs to show up somewhere or be compensated for. He buys into for sale units better than rental. We need to figure out a way it works for everyone and move on. Mayor Skadron asked what the normal course of events is to change the church to a residence. Mr. Bendon said they are trying to unwind the church use. Originally it was platted for a residence. The issue is the expansion of Vectra bank required some employee housing mitigation so they build a unit onto the church to satisfy the mitigation. They want to provide other viable options to give the ultimate flexibility. Staff would like to turn the property back into a residential development. He is comfortable with a five year window that the unit can continue to be a rental unit. It would not prevent the applicant from cleaning this up earlier. 17 Regular Meeting Aspen City Council November 10, 2014 Mayor Skadron asked how much greater density will be added to the neighborhood with the renovation. Mr. Hmielowski stated they will need to deconstruct a portion since the current square footage is larger than what they will be permitted. Mayor Skadron opened the public comment. There was none. Mayor Skadron closed the public comment. Councilman Frisch moved to adopt Ordinance #34, Series of 2014 as amended to extend the rental period to five years from the ordinance date; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. Roll call vote, Councilmembers Daily, yes; Romero, yes; Mullins, yes; Frisch, yes; Mayor Skadron, yes. Motion carried. Mr. True stated that Councilman Frisch recommended going into executive session pursuant to section 24.6.402.4(a,b,e) matters relating to the acquisition of property and negotiations associated with that. Councilwoman Mullins moved to go in to executive session at 10:05pm; seconded by Councilman Romero. Motion carried. Councilman Daily was not present for the executive session. Councilman Frisch moved to come out of executive session at 10:35pm; seconded by Councilwoman Mullins. All in favor, motion carried. Councilwoman Mullins moved to adjourn at 10:35pm; seconded by Councilman Romero. All in favor, motion carried. Linda Manning City Clerk 18