Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20150106 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION January 06, 2015 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Council Goal Update II. Mail Ballot/Polling Place Election Discussion III. Planning Future AH development IV. Economic Sustainability Dashboard Discussion Traffic Lights Quarter: 1st Date Scored: December 19, 2014 COA Leadership Team 2014-2015 TOP TEN GOALS Goals in Good Shape 1. By May 1st, perform an assessment of city streets against best practices that prioritizes pedestrian access and safety and emphasizes the overall enjoyment and well-being for residents and guests, then create a list of tools and concepts that can be used as “test projects” to illustrate what a “walkable city” might look like. Champion: Scott Miller & Chris Bendon, Randy, Jeff, Mitzi, Richard Barry and Karen 2. In conjunction with Pitkin County and the APCHA Board of Directors, complete a review of the Housing Guidelines by the end of May 2015 as they pertain to the following areas: a. Asset/Income Limits – what counts as income, what is discounted as “not really disposable income” b. Ability to qualify for more bedrooms than you can currently – so you can “grow in place” as your family grows c. AirBNB – short-term rentals as an option for deed-restricted owners/renters d. Product mix – what are we building and for whom? Champion: Barry Crook, Jim True & Don Taylor 4. Develop policies and procedures by March 1st that would reduce the duration and intensity of construction impacts in residential areas and the downtown. Champion: Scott Miller, Chris Bendon, C.J. Oliver 5. Propose creative additions to the economic fabric of the community by May 1st, including (a) new or enhanced uses on the North Mill property and a redefinition of the SCI zone; and (b) the development of a framework for an “uphill economy”. Champion: Chris Bendon, Don Taylor, Barry Crook & Karen Harrington 6. Create a financial plan for Wheeler RETT revenues, determine the available funding level for a Community Investment Fund, and P1 I. decide on a methodology for a community discussion and decision about re-purposing and extending the Wheeler RETT. Champion: Randy Ready, Steve Barwick, Jim True & Don Taylor 7. Complete a review of HHS funding that identifies the purpose of the city’s involvement in funding of HHS services, how we will participate in that funding effort, and the amount and source of the city contribution. Champion: Steve Barwick, Don Taylor, Barry Crook & Karen Harrington 9. By July 1, 2015 identify carbon reduction opportunities in transportation and lay out a pathway that infuses appropriate and forward thinking technologies into the Aspen community. Champion: Ashley Perl, David Hornbacher 10. Engage the community in the creation of a resiliency plan that identifies Aspen's climate related vulnerabilities and establishes a plan for reducing those risks and monitoring progress. The resiliency plan will focus on energy, water, recreation, ecosystems, health, and infrastructure. Champion: Ashley Perl, CJ Oliver, Dave Hornbacher and Karen Harrington Goals Needing Attention 8. Achieve direction from city council on a solution for the loss of downtown Police and municipal office spaces. Champion: Scott Miller, Randy, Barry, Don, Alissa, Richard Mitzi and Ashley, Randy Ready and Steve Barwick Goals in Trouble 3. GOAL POSTPONED: Re-do of the Malls: a. Design – use of the malls, how much outdoor dining, utilities, brick pavers, drainage, features, furniture, lighting, water ditches, etc. b. Public Outreach c. Construction and timing Champion: Jeff Woods P2 I. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Linda Manning, City Clerk RE: Changes to Election Procedures – Mail Ballot versus Polling Place DATE: December 30, 2014 Since the last municipal election in May 2013, the state legislature has adopted two bills affecting the way municipal elections are conducted. In 2013, the state legislature adopted H.B. 1303, which requires counties to mail ballots to all registered voters. In addition, counties utilize vote centers rather than polling places for their elections to manage additional registration opportunities and voting methods. Because the county conducts all mail ballot elections, they no longer have permanent mail-in voters (PMIV) or keep permanent mail in voter registration lists. For the 2013 City of Aspen municipal election, Pitkin County provided the city a list of all city voters designated as PMIV which we used to mail ballots to PMIV voters. Any PMIV list Pitkin County would have will be out of date by the upcoming municipal election. The other bill, H.B. 14-1164 which was signed in February, adopted mail ballot procedures for municipalities, as well as for special districts. C.R.S. 31-10-908 states “Mail ballot elections - preelection process (1) if the governing body of a municipality determines that an election is to be conducted by mail ballot, the clerk shall supervise…” I interpret this section to state Council can decide the type of municipal election by resolution. C.R.S. 31-10-1002 2.5(a) leaves it up to the municipality to maintain a permanent absentee voter list for eligible electors who wish to request permanent absentee status should the municipality conduct a polling place election. Since the county maintains the official voter registrar, it would be very difficult for the city to maintain an up to date list of registered voters who request this status. Staff and the Election Commission have discussed the potential positive and negative impacts from these legislative changes. They type of election, all mail ballot versus polling place is a Council decision and the choices would be: 1. Conduct an all mail ballot election with a voting center allowing the voter to complete and drop off a ballot as well as obtain a replacement ballot to be voted 2. Have a polling place election requiring any absentee voter to apply as done in the past with no PMIV list If an all mail ballot election were to be selected and conducted in 2015 as defined in C.R.S. 31- 10-101 et. seq., petitions would start February 3, 2015 which is 40 days earlier than a polling place election. P3 II. The pros and cons for an all mail ballot election include the following. PROS • Mail ballot is the same type of election conducted by the county and fire district • All voters would receive a ballot in the mail eliminating the need for the PMIV list • Voters may still complete and turn in their ballot at a voting center • Voter turnout may increase due to the convenience for the voters (Pitkin County saw a 5% increase at the November election) CONS • Security concerns – the election procedures adopted by the election commission have signature verification included that is stricter than most municipalities • Petition deadlines will change to an earlier and shorter timeframe: o From: 50 days before election (March 16 th ) due 30 days before election (April 5 th ) o To: 90 days before election (February 3 rd ) due 71 days before election (February 21 st ) • Maintenance of permanent absentee voter list would be difficult I would like Council to determine whether the May 5th election will be an all mail ballot election with a voting center or a polling place election. I will come back to Council at the January 12 th meeting with a resolution for the selected type of election. P4 II. Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager THRU: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: December 29, 2014 MEETING DATE: January 6, 2015 RE: Planning for future affordable housing development REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff seeks Council direction on planning for future affordable housing development. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: This is a continuation of a work session topic which was tabled from a work session on June 24, 2014. BACKGROUND: In a joint City-County housing work session in 2012, staff submitted a Strategic Review of Housing study that considered the effects of job growth, neighborhood gentrification and retirement. The study concluded that 657 new affordable workforce housing units are needed within the urban growth boundary from 2012 to 2022. The City’s housing development fund owns property which, per the 2012 study, could potentially site an estimated 377 of the 657 units needed. Since that time, approximately 100 affordable units have been created, including the City development of 82 ownership units at Burlingame Phase 2 (34 of which are currently about 85% complete). Staff has long believed that a prudent next step would be to consider the creation of additional affordable long-term rental facilities. There have been two recent local media articles which pointed out a lack of available affordable rentals this season. DISCUSSION: There may be alternatives, but staff suggests the following options: (1) Staff should perform community outreach in 2015 in the following manner: (1a) Take public input which considers all development options at all City-owned sites; or (1b) Council could narrow the choices of what type of housing to develop and where to develop it – and seek feedback on those choices. (2) Instead of performing community outreach in 2015, staff could: (2a) Go straight to a City-led design process or to an RFP for partnerships; or (2b) Do nothing at this time. Table this entire topic until a later date. Staff created the attached draft community outreach program (Exhibit A). The draft community outreach program attempts to be consistent with option (1a) above – it attempts to take input on all development options at all City-owned housing properties. Included in Exhibit A are opinions received from 36 members of the City of Aspen staff in a “mock open house” held on October 2, 2014. While weighing options (1a) and (1b) presented above, consider the following examples: First Example: Given the question about whether the City should develop for-rent or for-sale housing: (5) opinions were recorded which suggested that near-term focus should be on for-rent, (5) P5 III. Page 2 of 2 suggested that near-term focus should be on for-sale, and (11) suggested that near-term focus should be on some for-rent and some for-sale. Second Example: Given the question about whether to develop the City’s 802 West Main Street property as low-density or high-density and with either for-rent or for-sale housing: (10) opinions were recorded which suggested that site should be developed as high-density for-rent housing, (10) suggested that site should be developed as low-density for-sale housing, and (7) opinions suggested other alternatives. The opinions in Exhibit A are only “test data” and sample sizes are small, but the first and second examples attempt to highlight the likelihood that Council will need to make difficult choices as part of this process. Thinking about options (1a) or (1b) may boil down to whether Council would prefer to take the time to hear broad input from the community and then make choices between potentially equal voices (option 1a) or if Council would instead prefer to make choices in advance of the community outreach effort which narrow the proposed development alternatives (option 1b), which could streamline the process to some degree. One other thing to watch out for when considering the option to take public input which considers all development options at all City-owned housing properties (option 1a) is that it could create an expectation that the option which receives the most ‘upvotes’ will necessarily be the chosen direction. Options (2a) and (2b) provide additional options, and staff wishes to discuss with Council pros and cons of each of the options suggested as well as potential alternatives. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: As a very rough initial evaluation, it seems the 150 Housing Development Fund could support the development of around 60 additional housing units assuming a 2016–2017 construction timeframe and assuming development roughly consistent with recent City developments. This plus additional expansion tentatively planned for Burlingame Ranch in 2020-2021 would still leave the estimated need of 657 units by 2022 - as concluded in the 2012 study - less than 40% fulfilled. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the use of public outreach as a planning tool with a goal of either initiating a City-led design process to begin fall 2015 or to release an RFP for public-private partnerships at about that same time. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Opinion comments received from 36 members of the City of Aspen staff and display materials presented at the “mock open house” held on October 2, 2014. P6 III. HOUSING NEED Comment Quantity City should produce all units needed to maintain existing traffic 4 City should produce the 380 units which it has the capacity for 8 Let’s focus on one housing development at a time 5 Increased traffic doesn’t bother me. City should do nothing 0 Disagree City definitely should address traffic & entrance to Aspen 1 Can’t afford affordable housing HOA dues so I commute. Commute isn’t too bad form Carbondale 1 City should figure out how to get private employee housing built 1 Build what you can maintain no lawsuits 1 Need more single, 1 bedroom housing – mid income 1 More 1-bed, cat 2 & 3, especially cat3 1 More projects in conjunction with employers? Have them help more w costs?1 More single family homes for those who can afford $500K-$800K range, big jump from Cat 7 to RO 1 Please finish BG2. I need housing for 2 new employees 1 DENSITY / LIVABILITY Comment Quantity Why does it have to be one or the other?1 If density is combined with open space / community garden space, does that help with both?1 High density townhomes are not long term sustainable for growing families 1 Balance density with efficient use – don’t over develop 1 Fewer townhomes because of cost? More condos because of density? (the purpose or meaning of the “continuum” might not be clear)1 It is not necessarily true that fewer housing units = less community benefit 1 More housing units = More efficient use of resources 1 More housing units = Public subsidies to more people 1 100% Fewer townhomes / fewer opportunities --- More condos / more opportunities 0%3 60% Fewer townhomes / fewer opportunities --- More condos / more opportunities 40%1 50% Fewer townhomes / fewer opportunities --- More condos / more opportunities 50%3 40% Fewer townhomes / fewer opportunities --- More condos / more opportunities 60%2 25% Fewer townhomes / fewer opportunities --- More condos / more opportunities 75%4 10% Fewer townhomes / fewer opportunities --- More condos / more opportunities 90%1 Can you have density and livability?1 Division/separation of family vs single/retired or a mix use?1 Go with what you are capable of developing long term, and maintaining.. too much neglect after the fact 1 Ensure efficiencies are high priority, gas/electric/CO2 2 Is community defined as building more?1 Homes unoccupied should be rented/occupied 1 Build ‘livability’ i.e. gear storage into dense housing 1 Align transportation and housing planning. If no/fewer cars, need transit options 2 Standardize unit designs 1 Burlingame Phase2 - Way too dense layout is confusing 1 Current density at Burlingame is max 1 Burlingame Phase2 - Very poorly layed out project 1 Burlingame Phase2 -Too dense as it is. Too cookie cutter.1 Maintain Burlingame Phase2 design criteria 3 Discard Burlingame Phase2 design criteria 1 Improve upon Burlingame Phase2 design criteria 9 FOR SALE / FOR RENT Comment Quantity Near-term focus should be on creating more FOR-RENT 5 Near-term focus should be on creating more FOR-SALE 5 Near-term focus should be on creating some for rent and some for sale 11 Near-term focus should be on creating no new housing development 0 Kick out non-qualified renters 1 For rent creates transient population, depreciation of units/pride of ownership. This community has a demand for rent, of which they will pay high-dollar 1 For sale commits those who were otherwise unsure of future endeavors 1 Gauge from the bidding on units and population fluctuation 1 What does the City vision for its future & citizens 1 Rentals needed to keep workforce in Aspen 1 Less traffic more community 1 Not everyone is ready to buy 1 Don’t build anymore if you cannot allow pets = at least 1 dog 2 For rent and no dogs 1 Rent then convert to sales 1 Evaluate existing system for owners overqualified for subsidized housing 1 Pet ownership is not served in the rental/sale opportunities 1 If your child qualifies for housing, should be able to sell your unit directly to your child without going through the lottery 1 P7 III. POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITES - GENERAL Comment Quantity Why is further development of Burlingame tabled until 2020?1 Agree develop 517 Park Circle 7 Agree develop lumber yard 5 Disagree develop lumber yard 1 Agree develop 802 West Main 4 Agree develop 488 Castle Creek 5 Lumber yard, greatest spot for 1 bedrooms, do combo of rental and purchase, renters in complex to purchase 1 High-density rentals in town (core), low density sales outside 1 How can you improve the category system to allow those planning families to rent/buy ahead of time 1 POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITES - 517 PARK CIRCLE Comment Quantity There is a need for more dogs allowed in rental/sale 1 Dogs 2 Convert to sale in future 1 Affordable rental units 1 Medium livability right at smuggler?1 For sale / lower density 11 For sale / balance of low and high density 2 For sale / higher density 2 For rent / lower density 1 For rent / higher density 8 Balance of high density / low density / for sale / for rent 2 Balance of low / high density 1 Increase renewable energy, put a solar panel community garden this space hasn’t been used/built, solar could be “walk the walk” option 1 Increase City of Aspen inventory only, build single family LEED, all high density is already surrounding 1 Rent to own – allow people to buy in the future, cat 2&3, 1 and 2-bedrooms 1 Blend of 1-3 bedrooms, combo of rent and sale 1 Don’t mix rentals and sales in same development (different values)1 I personally don’t like high density 1 POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITES - 802 WEST MAIN ST Comment Quantity Dogs 3 Affordable Rent 1 Low Density / For Sale 10 High Density / For Sale 4 Low Density / For Rent 3 High Density / For Rent 10 Balance Density / For Sale and For Rent 1 Balance all 4 1 Difficult location for high density @ curve, make it no car, for rent or for sale, Cat 1 rentals, lots of storage 1 Dog/pet units. What % would allow them? People drive to work with dog because they can’t find housing in Aspen or RFTA won’t allow 4 Blend of studio-3-bedroom, sale and rent 1 Micro rental units 1 POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITES - 488 CASTLE CREEK DR Comment Quantity Low Density / For Sale 13 High Density / For Sale 2 Low Density / For Rent 1 High Density / For Rent 10 Balance Density / For Sale and For Rent 1 Balance all 4 1 Dogs 1 Affordable rental 1 What about low density with no townhomes?1 Area is on transit, keep rental and high density 1 Need geotech at this fill site 1 Medium density 1 P8 III. ™ Ho u s i n g is s u e s af f e c t th e en t i r e co m m u n i t y – r e s i d e n t s , em p l o y e r s and the  pu b l i c an d pr i v a t e se c t o r s . ™ Th e in c l u s i o n of co m m u n i t y st a k e h o l d e r s in th e pl a n n i n g pr o c e s s helps  en s u r e ho u s i n g op p o r t u n i t i e s ar e be t t e r ev a l u a t e d , de v e l o p e d , and  im p l e m e n t e d . ™ Wh e n a gr e a t e r po r t i o n of th e co m m u n i t y ha s pa r t i c i p a t e d in the planning  ef f o r t , we ha v e a gr e a t e r ch a n c e of ac h i e v i n g co m m u n i t y go a l s . “A st r o n g an d di v e r s e ye a r Ͳ ro u n d co m m u n i t y an d a vi a b l e an d he a l t h y lo c a l workforce  ar e fu n d a m e n t a l co r n e r s t o n e s fo r th e su s t a i n a b i l i t y of th e As p e n Ar e a co m m u n i t y ”  Ͳ 20 1 2 As p e n Ar e a Co m m u n i t y Plan "M e n of t e n op p o s e a th i n g me r e l y be c a u s e th e y ha v e ha d no ag e n c y in pl a n n i n g it." Ͳ Al e x a n d e r Hamilton "L e t ou r ad v a n c e wo r r y i n g be c o m e ad v a n c e th i n k i n g an d pl a n n i n g . " Ͳ Wi n s t o n Churchill P9III. 20 1 4 St a r t 2 0 1 ? End 0. Te s t Ou t r e a c h Pr o g r a m 0. 1 Re c o r d Fe e d b a c k 0. 2 Fo r m u l a t e Pr o p o s e d Ou t r e a c h Pr o g r a m 1. Pr o p o s e Ou t r e a c h Pr o g r a m to Ci t y Co u n c i l 1. 1 Re c o r d Fe e d b a c k 1. 2 Mo d i f y &In i t i a t e Ou t r e a c h Pr o g r a m 2. Br o a d Co m m u n i t y Ou t r e a c h 2. 1 Re c o r d Fe e d b a c k 2. 2 Fo r m u l a t e Ge n e r a l Di r e c t i o n 2. 3 Dr a f t De s i g n Cr i t e r i a , Ar c h i t e c t u r a l Co n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s 3. Ta r g e t e d St a k e h o l d e r Ou t r e a c h 3. 1 Re c o r d Fe e d b a c k 3. 2 De t a i l De s i g n Cr i t e r i a 3. 3 Ar c h i t e c t u r e / E n g i n e e r i n g De t a i l De s i g n 4. La n d Us e Ap p r o v a l Pr o c e s s 4. 1 Re c o r d Fe e d b a c k 4. 2 Mo d i f y De t a i l De s i g n , Re c o r d , Const.Docs. 5. Bu i l d i n g Pe r m i t Pr o c e s s 5. 1 Re c o r d Fe e d b a c k 5. 2 Mo d i f y Co n s t r u c t i o n Details 6. Co n s t r u c t i o n Contract 6. 1 Co n s t r u c t i o n Oversight 6. 2 Qu a l i t y Assurance 6. 3 Oc c u p a n c y /Closeout We ’ r e he r e . Wh e n is it go i n g to be bu i l t ? We do n ’ t kn o w wh a t “i t ” is un t i l we ge t he r e . St a k e h o l d e r s include: 9 Ci t y Council 9 BO C C 9 Ho u s i n g Board 9 Ho u s i n g Frontiers 9 P& Z 9 Ot h e r s ? P10III. 20 1 2 Ec o n o m i c &Pl a n n i n g Sy s t e m s (E P S ) Study ™ Ti m e l i n e of an a l y s i s =20 1 2 th r o u g h 20 2 2 ™ Go a l of ho u s i n g 60 % of wo r k f o r c e is no t in th e 20 1 0 AA C P ™ Cu r r e n t l y ab o u t 47 % of wo r k f o r c e ho u s e d lo c a l l y an d ab o u t 53 % commute ™ Fr o m 20 0 1 to 20 0 9 , em p l o y m e n t in As p e n gr e w +0 . 4 % . In c l u d e d two recessions. Ob j e c t i v e : Wh a t wo u l d it ta k e to av o i d an in c r e a s e in co m m u t i n g by 20 2 2 ? ™ Es t i m a t e d jo b gr o w t h of 0. 5 % wo u l d cr e a t e ab o u t 52 6 ne w em p l o y e e households (4 7 % =24 7 ho u s e d lo c a l l y ) ™ Es t i m a t e of 16 0 af f o r d a b l e fr e e ma r k e t un i t s lo s t to re d e v e l o p m e n t (1 6 0 ne e d to be re p l a c e d 100%) ™ EP S es t i m a t e d th a t 36 7 un i t s wi l l ho u s e ne w re t i r e e s . Th e Ci t y lo w e r e d this  es t i m a t e to 25 0 th r o u g h th e us e of an ad d i t i o n a l st u d y . (2 5 0 ne e d to be re p l a c e d 100%) Co n c l u s i o n : To t a l of 65 7 n e w af f o r d a b l e ho u s i n g un i t s ar e ne e d e d fr o m 2012 to 2022. Th e Ci t y of As p e n ha s th e ca p a c i t y to pr o d u c e ab o u t 38 0 un i t s to w a r d this goal.P11III. %OF WO R K F O R C E WH I C H CO M M U T E S WI L L RE A C H 60 % U N L E S S : Wh a t ’ s yo u r op i n i o n ? 4 Th e Ci t y of As p e n ha s ca p a c i t y to pr o d u c e ar o u n d 380 units Re t i r e m e n t +Ge n t r i f i c a t i o n +Jo b Gr o w t h Cr e a t e 65 7 N e w  Ho u s i n g Un i t s by  20 2 2 Ci t y sh o u l d pr o d u c e  al l ho u s i n g un i t s  ne e d e d to ma i n t a i n  ex i s t i n g tr a f f i c In c r e a s e d traffic  do e s n ’ t bother me. Ci t y should do nothing. Th e Ci t y sh o u l d  pr o d u c e th e 38 0  un i t s wh i c h it ha s  th e ca p a c i t y fo r Le t ’ s fo c u s on on e  ho u s i n g de v e l o p m e n t  at a ti m e P12III. SEPT 2014 “W e ar e st a r t i n g to se e tr e n d s of li m i t e d af f o r d a b l e ho u s i n g , no t ju s t in As p e n , bu t in th e en t i r e va l l e y . . it has been  qu i t e di f f i c u l t to fi l l po s i t i o n s . . fo r bo t h se a s o n a l an d lo n g te r m em p l o y e e s . ” Ͳ Di n a Fa r n e l l , Ho u s i n g Manager,RFTA “W e ac t u a l l y ha d an em p l o y e e le a v e us af t e r tw o mo n t h s of em p l o y m e n t du e to la c k of af f o r d a b l e housing.” Ͳ Vi c A. Gi a n n e l l i , Re s o r t Ma n a g e r , Hy a t t Gr a n d As p e n “I es t i m a t e th a t 6 of ou r em p l o y e e s wo u l d be n e f i t fr o m an in c r e a s e in th e nu m b e r of re n t a l un i t s available.” Ͳ Ma r k Co l e , Ex e c u t i v e Di r e c t o r , AV S C “R e n t a l s , fo r ou r ne e d s . Th i s su m m e r , we we r e $8 0 , 0 0 0 ov e r bu d g e t fo r ho u s i n g . ”  Ͳ Pa i g e Pr i c e , Ex e c u t i v e Ar t i s t i c Di r e c t o r , Th e a t r e As p e n "M y be l i e f is to wa i t on mo r e af f o r d a b l e ho u s i n g Ͳ ta k e in v e n t o r y of wh a t is av a i l a b l e . La r g e ho t e l s should provide on  si t e ho u s i n g fo r th e i r em p l o y e e s . "                 Ͳ Ca r o l Bl o m q u i s t , Pr e s i d e n t , Ch a l e t Li s l L o d g e P13III. Fo r Ͳ Sa l e U n i t s F o r Ͳ Rent Units Pe r s i s t e n t De m a n d at Lo w e r In c o m e s E x i s t i n g R e n t a l Fa c i l i t i e s 100%Full Ab o u t 10 0 Fo r Ͳ Sa l e Un i t s Re c e n t l y Cr e a t e d L o n g Ti m e Si n c e Fo r Ͳ Re n t Units Created Ab o u t 25 0 Mo r e Fo r Ͳ Sa l e Un i t s Ex i s t A b o u t 25 0 Fe w e r Fo r Ͳ Rent Units Exist In yo u r op i n i o n , wh a t sh o u l d be do n e in th e ne x t fe w years? Ne a r Ͳ te r m fo c u s sh o u l d be  on cr e a t i n g mo r e FO R Ͳ RE N T Ne a r Ͳ te r m fo c u s sh o u l d be on  cr e a t i n g mo r e FO R Ͳ SA L E So m e of each. No n e of any.P14III. Fe w e r To w n h o m e s Fe w e r Op p o r t u n i t i e s Mo r e Condos Mo r e Op p o r t u n i t i e s Fe w e r Ho u s i n g Un i t s M o r e Housing Units Le s s Co m m u n i t y Be n e f i t M o r e Co m m u n i t y Benefit Mo r e In d i v i d u a l Be n e f i t L e s s In d i v i d u a l Benefit Le s s Ef f i c i e n t Us e of Re s o u r c e s M o r e Ef f i c i e n t Use of Resources Pu b l i c Su b s i d i e s to F e w e r Pe o p l e P u b l i c Su b s i d i e s to More People WH E R E ON TH E SP E C T R U M IS TH E RI G H T TA R G E T ? He r e ? Here? He r e ? He r e ? He r e ? Wh a t ’ s th e ri g h t ty p e of ho u s i n g ? P15III. In 20 0 8 , tw o se p a r a t e ci t i z e n gr o u p s re c o m m e n d e d : 9 in c r e a s e co s t ef f i c i e n c y 9 re p e a t a b l e bu i l d i n g de s i g n s 9 st a n d a r d i z e un i t de s i g n s 9 in c r e a s e de n s i t y Th e s e ha v e be e n im p l e m e n t e d to g e t h e r wi t h li v a b i l i t y a n d quality.8 Ma i n t a i n th e s e de s i g n  cr i t e r i a . Di s c a r d th e s e de s i g n cr i t e r i a . Im p r o v e upon these  de s i g n criteria.P16III. AG R E E or DI S A G R E E ?  Th e mo s t vi a b l e op p o r t u n i t i e s fo r ne w  af f o r d a b l e ho u s i n g se e m to be at : Lo c a t i o n A g r e e D i s a g r e e 51 7 Pa r k Ci r c l e Lu m b e r Ya r d 80 2 We s t Ma i n 48 8 Ca s t l e Cr e e k P17III. 10 Ne i g h b o r h o o d : “N o r t h e a s t of As p e n ” 9 Mu l t i f a m i l y 9 Si n g l e fa m i l y 9 Lo n g te r m 9 Wa l k / R i d e / B u s Ne a r b y  Af f o r d a b l e Ho u s i n g : 9 Mi d l a n d Pa r k 9 Ce n t e n n i a l 51 7 Pa r k Ci r c l e Ne i g h b o r i n g Pr o p e r t y Ne a r b y Pr o p e r t y P18III. 11 Lo w e r De n s i t y , Fo r Ͳ Sa l e Ex a m p l e : Qu a n t i t y =Ap p r o x i m a t e l y 6 3 Ͳ Be d r o o m To w n h o m e Un i t s Fo r Sa l e Wo r k e r s ho u s e d : 18 Li v a b i l i t y : Ve r y Hi g h Pu b l i c Su b s i d y : Ve r y Hi g h Ne i g h b o r h o o d Im p a c t : Lo w Lo w e r De n s i t y , Fo r Ͳ Re n t Ex a m p l e : Qu a n t i t y =Ap p r o x i m a t e l y 6 3 Ͳ Be d r o o m To w n h o m e Un i t s Fo r Re n t Wo r k e r s ho u s e d : 18 Li v a b i l i t y : Hi g h Pu b l i c Su b s i d y : Hi g h Ne i g h b o r h o o d Im p a c t : Lo w Hi g h e r De n s i t y Fo r Ͳ Sale Example: Qu a n t i t y =Ap p r o x i m a t e l y 20 1 Ͳ Be d r o o m Ap a r t m e n t s For Sale Wo r k e r s housed:35 Li v a b i l i t y : Medium/High Pu b l i c Su b s i d y : Medium Ne i g h b o r h o o d Im p a c t : Medium Hi g h e r De n s i t y Fo r Ͳ Rent Example: Qu a n t i t y =Ap p r o x i m a t e l y 20 1 Ͳ Be d r o o m Ap a r t m e n t s For Rent Wo r k e r s housed:35 Li v a b i l i t y : Medium Pu b l i c Su b s i d y : Very Low Ne i g h b o r h o o d Im p a c t : Medium I wo u l d fa v o r a lo w e r  de n s i t y fo r Ͳ sa l e pr o g r a m . I ge t th e tr a d e Ͳ of f s an d fe e l we  ne e d to ba l a n c e th e de n s i t y . I wo u l d fa v o r a lo w e r  de n s i t y fo r Ͳ re n t pr o g r a m . I wo u l d fa v o r a higher  de n s i t y fo r Ͳ sa l e program. I wo u l d fa v o r a higher  de n s i t y fo r Ͳ re n t program. No de v e l o p m e n t at th i s si t e . Fo r Sa l e Fo r Re n t Lo w e r De n s i t y Hi g h e r Density P19III. 12 Ba v a r i a n In n Co n d o s 7 th an d Ma i n 80 2 West Main Ne i g h b o r h o o d : “N o r t h We s t En d ” 9 Mu l t i f a m i l y 9 Si n g l e fa m i l y 9 Co m m e r c i a l 9 Wa l k / R i d e / B u s Ne a r b y  Af f o r d a b l e Ho u s i n g : 9 7 th an d Ma i n 9 Ba v a r i a n Co n d o s P20III. 13 Lo w e r De n s i t y , Fo r Ͳ Sa l e Ex a m p l e : Qu a n t i t y =Ap p r o x i m a t e l y 4 3 Ͳ Be d r o o m To w n h o m e Un i t s Fo r Sa l e Wo r k e r s ho u s e d : 12 Li v a b i l i t y : Ve r y Hi g h Pu b l i c Su b s i d y : Ve r y Hi g h Ne i g h b o r h o o d Im p a c t : Lo w Lo w e r De n s i t y , Fo r Ͳ Re n t Ex a m p l e : Qu a n t i t y =Ap p r o x i m a t e l y 4 3 Ͳ Be d r o o m To w n h o m e Un i t s Fo r Re n t Wo r k e r s ho u s e d : 12 Li v a b i l i t y : Hi g h Pu b l i c Su b s i d y : Hi g h Ne i g h b o r h o o d Im p a c t : Lo w Hi g h e r De n s i t y Fo r Ͳ Sale Example: Qu a n t i t y =Ap p r o x i m a t e l y 13 1 Ͳ Be d r o o m Ap a r t m e n t s For Sale Wo r k e r s housed:22 Li v a b i l i t y : Medium/High Pu b l i c Su b s i d y : Medium Ne i g h b o r h o o d Im p a c t : Medium Hi g h e r De n s i t y Fo r Ͳ Rent Example: Qu a n t i t y =Ap p r o x i m a t e l y 13 1 Ͳ Be d r o o m Ap a r t m e n t s For Rent Wo r k e r s housed:22 Li v a b i l i t y : Medium Pu b l i c Su b s i d y : Very Low Ne i g h b o r h o o d Im p a c t : Medium I wo u l d fa v o r a lo w e r  de n s i t y fo r Ͳ sa l e pr o g r a m . I ge t th e tr a d e Ͳ of f s an d fe e l we  ne e d to ba l a n c e th e de n s i t y . I wo u l d fa v o r a lo w e r  de n s i t y fo r Ͳ re n t pr o g r a m . I wo u l d fa v o r a higher  de n s i t y fo r Ͳ sa l e program. I wo u l d fa v o r a higher  de n s i t y fo r Ͳ re n t program. No de v e l o p m e n t at th i s si t e . Fo r Sa l e Fo r Re n t Lo w e r De n s i t y Hi g h e r Density P21III. 14 48 8 Ca s t l e Cr e e k Ca s t l e Ri d g e Ap a r t m e n t s Ne i g h b o r h o o d : “L o w e r Castle Creek” 9 Mu l t i f a m i l y 9 Si n g l e family 9 AV H / H H S 9 Wa l k / R i d e / B u s Ne a r b y  Af f o r d a b l e Housing: 9 Ca s t l e Ridge 9 Ma r o l t Seasonal P22III. 15 48 8 Ca s t l e Cr e e k : De v e l o p m e n t Al t e r n a t i v e s Lo w e r De n s i t y , Fo r Ͳ Sa l e Ex a m p l e : Qu a n t i t y =Ap p r o x i m a t e l y 12 3 Ͳ Be d r o o m To w n h o m e Un i t s Fo r Sa l e Wo r k e r s ho u s e d : 36 Li v a b i l i t y : Ve r y Hi g h Pu b l i c Su b s i d y : Ve r y Hi g h Ne i g h b o r h o o d Im p a c t : Lo w Lo w e r De n s i t y , Fo r Ͳ Re n t Ex a m p l e : Qu a n t i t y =Ap p r o x i m a t e l y 12 3 Ͳ Be d r o o m To w n h o m e Un i t s Fo r Re n t Wo r k e r s ho u s e d : 36 Li v a b i l i t y : Hi g h Pu b l i c Su b s i d y : Hi g h Ne i g h b o r h o o d Im p a c t : Lo w Hi g h e r De n s i t y Fo r Ͳ Sale Example: Qu a n t i t y =Ap p r o x i m a t e l y 30 1 Ͳ Be d r o o m Ap a r t m e n t s For Sale Wo r k e r s housed:52 Li v a b i l i t y : Medium/High Pu b l i c Su b s i d y : Medium Ne i g h b o r h o o d Im p a c t : Medium Hi g h e r De n s i t y Fo r Ͳ Rent Example: Qu a n t i t y =Ap p r o x i m a t e l y 30 1 Ͳ Be d r o o m Ap a r t m e n t s For Rent Wo r k e r s housed:52 Li v a b i l i t y : Medium Pu b l i c Su b s i d y : Very Low Ne i g h b o r h o o d Im p a c t : Medium I wo u l d fa v o r a lo w e r  de n s i t y fo r Ͳ sa l e pr o g r a m . I ge t th e tr a d e Ͳ of f s an d fe e l we  ne e d to ba l a n c e th e de n s i t y . I wo u l d fa v o r a lo w e r  de n s i t y fo r Ͳ re n t pr o g r a m . I wo u l d fa v o r a higher  de n s i t y fo r Ͳ sa l e program. I wo u l d fa v o r a higher  de n s i t y fo r Ͳ re n t program. No de v e l o p m e n t at th i s si t e . Fo r Sa l e Fo r Re n t Lo w e r De n s i t y Hi g h e r Density P23III. Page 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: January 2, 2015 MEETING DATE: January 6, 2015 RE: Economic Sustainability Dashboard REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff seeks to update Council on the development of the Economic Sustainability Dashboard. The purpose of this memo is to provide an update to Council on the progress and next steps of the Economic Sustainability Dashboard, including: 1. Meeting with the Next Generation Advisory Commission again to let them provide feedback as to which metrics would be used in the dashboard 2. Scheduling public Open Houses to continue the refinement of the dashboard. 3. Presenting Council with a refined dashboard that staff would recommend for adoption. Along with a plan to maintain the dashboard and report on its results periodically. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council adopted as one of their 2013-14 Top Ten Goals the development of another dashboard – this one would define economic sustainability and the development of a dashboard to measure it. BACKGROUND: As a follow-up to the creation of an Environmental Sustainability Dashboard, council elected to continue to explore the creation and use of “dashboards” that provide a set of metrics to measure results in a variety of policy areas. Jurisdictions around the country have been adopting a series of performance metrics that policy makers can use to see where they are at in reference to a desired state – and in so doing, can see whether or not policy initiatives have any impact on stated objectives or goals. DISCUSSION: Staff has conducted research on the development and use of dashboards in general and an Economic Sustainability Dashboard in particular. We have drafted some ideas about the topical areas such a dashboard should cover. We have held focus groups with two sets of ACRA stakeholders and with the Next Generation Advisory Commission, around what it means, what areas of economic activity/effort it ought to be looking at, and what metrics might best measure the idea of economic sustainability for our comm unity. We have circled back with ACRA to get their help in assessing which of the metrics identified should be used in the dashboard (the lists in the attachment represent a “brainstorming” effort by our focus groups and by staff – the list needs to be pared down to better focus on a few metrics to track). Our effort is trying to discern what our community views as important – what are OUR economic concerns, what would reflect OUR values, how do we maintain OUR quality of life? We think we P24 IV. Page 2 are honing in on those areas that reflect our community and our economy and have a long list of metrics that help define those values – but that list still needs to be reduced to a more manageable number of metrics. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: None to date – eventually someone will need to be identified to track and report on the metrics and that will incur expense that will have to be budgeted. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: Attachment A: Areas of Interest in Defining and Measuring Economic Sustainability Attachment B: Excerpts from Background Research P25 IV. Page 3 ATTACHMENT A: Areas of interest in defining and measuring Economic Sustainability P26 IV. Page 4 P27 IV. Page 5 P28 IV. Page 6 P29 IV. Page 7 P30 IV. Page 8 P31 IV. Page 9 P32 IV. Page 10 P33 IV. Page 11 Attachment B Excerpts from Background Research P34 IV. Page 12 P35 IV. Page 13 Below are some excerpts from background research you might find interesting. Here are links to two examples of Colorado communities that use economic sustainability dashboards: Breckenridge: http://www.townofbreckenridge.com/index.aspx?page=1108 Ft. Collins: http://www.fcgov.com/dashboard/index.php?action=measures&id=3 From Wikipedia: “Sustainability is the capacity to endure. In ecology the word describes how biological systems remain diverse and productive over time. Long-lived and healthy wetlands and forests are examples of sustainable biological systems. For humans, sustainability is the potential for long-term maintenance of well-being, which has ecological, economic, political and cultural dimensions. Sustainability requires the reconciliation of environmental, social equity and economic demands - also referred to as the "three pillars" of sustainability or (the 3 Es). On one account, sustainability "concerns the specification of a set of actions to be taken by present persons that will not diminish the prospects of future persons to enjoy levels of consumption, wealth, utility, or welfare comparable to those enjoyed by present persons." From THWINK.ORG: Sustainability is the ability to continue a defined behavior indefinitely. For more practical detail the behavior you wish to continue indefinitely must be defined. For example:  Environmental sustainability is the ability to maintain rates of renewable resource harvest, pollution creation, and non-renewable resource depletion that can be continued indefinitely.  Economic sustainability is the ability to support a defined level of economic production indefinitely.  Social sustainability is the ability of a social system, such as a country, to function at a defined level of social well being indefinitely. A more complete definition of sustainability is thus environmental, economic, and social sustainability. This forms the goal of The Three Pillars of Sustainability. From “How do economists define sustainability?” by Gregory D. Graff, PhD, Colorado State University: “Concepts integral to the contemporary idea of “sustainability” have always been central to economics. Economics is, after all, the study of how humans allocate scarce resources. . . . In the 1930s and 40s, John Hicks formalized a concept later called Hicksian income, that describes the level at which an individual, a household, or a whole economy could consume and still leave their stock of productive capital intact so as to be able to keep on consuming at that level indefinitely. P36 IV. Page 14 Yet, today’s notion of sustainability—as popularized by the Brundtland commission in 1987 as the ability “to meet the needs of the present generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet theirs”—comes most directly out of ecology, where the concept is both tangible and intuitive. We can observe an ecosystem at carrying capacity, with population levels sustained in a steady state dynamic equilibrium. We can also observe an ecosystem collapse. The lessons for humankind seem straightforward enough: we can either maintain a dynamic equilibrium within the planet’s carrying capacity, or we can consume beyond its capacity and cause our civilization, the human species, or even the planetary ecosystem to collapse. When framed in such broad terms, “sustainability” is something that everyone can support. Indeed, the great appeal of “sustainability” as a policy goal lies largely in its lack of specificity, in its fluidity and ambiguity, in its ability to project different messages to different constituencies and thereby allow for a degree of political consensus. Who, after all, would be against “sustainability” and thus, by implication, for the end of the world as we know it? Left to such breadth and flexibility, however, the concept of sustainability becomes far less useful if we want to apply it as a decision-making criterion within a specific policy context (such as the one before us today over modifying the capacity of an aviation fleet to utilize biofuels.) Economists have therefore sought to craft sharper definitions of sustainability, largely by focusing on three big questions implied by the conventional notion of not compromising the ability of future generations to meet their needs. Those questions are, to paraphrase Lele and Norgaard (1996), what exactly is to be sustained, over what time period, and with how much certainty? 1. What is to be sustained? For economists, the first challenge in creating a useful definition of “sustainability” has been to identify just what should be sustained or, mathematically speaking, what value (or values) should be non-decreasing over time. Were we asked to create an indicator of sustainability, what would we measure? Robert Solow (1991) argued that what needs to be sustained is our “generalized capacity to create well being”, while emphasizing that this capacity need not consist of “any particular thing or any particular natural resource”, since resources are at least to some degree fungible or substitutable. If one resource were to run low, we could draw upon another to maintain our well being. 2. Over what time period? Economists have observed that levels of interest rates or, more abstractly, of social discount rates mean we significantly undervalue the future use of resources relative to their use in the present. At first look, it may appear as if we only value the use of resources while we are alive. This has led economists to recognize the time aspect of sustainability as a moral question, a question of intergenerational fairness. It is, fundamentally, about distributive equity between those who value resources today and those, yet unborn, who will value those resources tomorrow. 3. With how much certainty? Finally, the third crucial aspect of defining sustainability is the level of certainty over how our well being and our capacity to maintain it is sustained. Economists have clarified what factors in the calculation are impossible for us to know with certainty. We cannot know even who the future generations are going to be, or even how many there will be. We cannot know what their intrinsic preferences will be: what will they value? We cannot know what technologies will be available, how efficiently they will be able to utilize what resources and thus what the relative scarcity of different forms of natural and physical capital will be. The best guidance we can take today is to maintain reasonably safe lower bounds on P37 IV. Page 15 the levels of natural capital with which we have been endowed, to invest sufficiently in the potentially most durable forms of capital—the human and intellectual—and to avoid imposing too much certainty on the future, in the negative sense, by not introducing too many completely irreversible changes.” From: Building Back Better – Creating a Sustainable Community After Disaster by Jacquelyn L. Monday Principles of Sustainability The concept of sustainability is based on the premise that people and their communities are made up of social, economic, and environmental systems that are in constant interaction and that must be kept in harmony or balance if the community is to continue to function to the benefit of its inhabitants— now and in the future. Although it adopts a broad perspective, in practice the pursuit of sustainability is fundamentally a local endeavor because every community has different social, economic, and environmental needs and concerns. There are six principles of sustainability that can help a community ensure that it’s social, economic, and environmental systems are well integrated and will endure. We should remember that, although the list of principles is useful, each of them has the potential to overlap and inter-relate with some or all of the others. A community or society that wants to pursue sustainability will try to: 1. Maintain and, if possible, enhance, its residents’ quality of life. Quality of life—or “livability”—differs from community to community. It has many components: income, education, health care, housing, employment, legal rights on the one hand; exposure to crime, pollution, disease, disaster, and other risks on the other. One town may be proud of its safe streets, high quality schools, and rural atmosphere, while another thinks that job opportunities and its historical heritage are what make it an attractive place to live. Each locality must define and plan for the quality of life it wants and believes it can achieve, for now and for future generations. 2. Enhance local economic vitality. A viable local economy is essential to sustainability. This includes job opportunities, sufficient tax base and revenue to support government and the provision of infrastructure and services, and a suitable business climate. A sustainable economy is also diversified, so that it is not easily disrupted by internal or external events or disasters, and such an economy does not simply shift the costs of maintaining its good health onto other regions or onto the oceans or atmosphere. Nor is a sustainable local economy reliant on unlimited population growth, high consumption, or nonrenewable resources. P38 IV. Page 16 3. Promote social and intergenerational equity. A sustainable community’s resources and opportunities are available to everyone, regardless of ethnicity, age, gender, cultural background, religion, or other characteristics. Further, a sustainable community does not deplete its resources, destroy natural systems, or pass along unnecessary hazards to its great-great-grandchildren. 4. Maintain and, if possible, enhance, the quality of the environment. A sustainable community sees itself as existing within a physical environment and natural ecosystem and tries to find ways to co-exist with that environment. It does its part by avoiding unnecessary degradation of the air, oceans, fresh water, and other natural systems. It tries to replace detrimental practices with those that allow ecosystems to continuously renew themselves. In some cases, this means simply protecting what is already there by finding ways to redirect human activities and development into less sensitive areas. But a community may need to take action to reclaim, restore, or rehabilitate an already- damaged ecosystem such as a nearby wetland. 5. Incorporate disaster resilience and mitigation into its decisions and actions. A community is resilient in the face of inevitable natural disasters like tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, floods, and drought if it takes steps to ensure that such events cause as little damage as possible, that productivity is only minimally interrupted, and that quality of life remains at (or quickly returns to) high levels. A disaster-resilient community further takes responsibility for the risks it faces and, to the extent possible, is self-reliant. That is, it does not anticipate that outside entities (such as federal or state government) can or will mitigate its hazards or pay for its disasters. 6. Use a consensus-building, participatory process when making decisions. Participatory processes are vital to community sustainability. Such a process engages all the people who have a stake in the outcome of the decision being contemplated. It encourages the identification of concerns and issues, promotes the wide generation of ideas for dealing with those concerns, and helps those involved find a way to reach agreement about solutions. It results in the production and dissemination of important, relevant information, fosters a sense of community, produces ideas that may not have been considered otherwise, and engenders a sense of ownership on the part of the community for the final decision. P39 IV.