HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20241202AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
December 2, 2024
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen
I.Work Session
I.A Multi-Jurisdictional Wildfire Preparations and Evacuation Planning
I.B Lumberyard Affordable Housing Project Update
I.C APCHA discussion led by Councilors Hauenstein and Doyle
Zoom Meeting Instructions
Join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device:
Please click this URL to join: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/87499758805?
pwd=0O1nGxSf2SaeG3F2Mj852ImrYnziN9.1
Passcode: 81611
Or join by phone:
Dial:
US: +1 346 248 7799
Webinar ID: 874 9975 8805
Passcode: 81611
International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kdmW5kMPJB
wildfire council meeting memo.pdf
2DEC2024 Work Session Lumberyard update 11-25-2024 Revision1.pdf
1
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bill Linn, Assistant Chief of Police
THROUGH: Kim Ferber, Police Chief
Sara Ott, City Manager
MEMO DATE: Nov. 14, 2024
MEETING DATE: Dec. 2, 2024
RE: Multi-jurisdictional wildfire preparations and evacuation planning
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This informational memo is to update city council on the
status of regional wildfire preparations, including technology, inter-operational plans,
and communication efforts.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
Due to the spectacular environment in which we all live, the Roaring Fork Valley lives
under the risk of wildland fire, including historical fires suffered at the upper end of the
valley during the last century. However, advancements in firefighting technology meant
that most residents did not even recall the last time a significant wildfire occurred. The
Lake Christine fire in July 2018 made th is theoretical risk become very real for valley
residents. Since then, public safety has prepared extensively, achieving what we see as
significant increases in planning, cooperation, technology, prevention/mitigation,
communication, and community education.
Cooperation:
The Aspen Police Department, as well as Parks, Utilities, and Special Events
Departments, meet regularly with representatives from the Aspen Fire Department to
discuss, plan and most importantly, build relationship s to support response for large
scale events such as an evacuation . We are cooperating on a level not seen before,
with, at a minimum, monthly meetings.
Planning:
Much of the land on the boundaries of the City of Aspen are government -owned and
therefore, with political will, opportunities exist to provide protective zones against
wildfire.
2
Technology:
Ladris – Artificial Intelligence-supported traffic analysis for evacuation planning.
Genasys – Evacuation zone mapping/planning software.
Pano – Artificial Intelligence wildfire detection camera system.
Prevention/mitigation:
To reduce the wildfire hazards in our community, Aspen Fire offers wildfire education
and mitigation assessments for private residences, neighborhoods and subdivisions, as
well as supporting regional efforts for the removal of undergrowth and brush in the fire
protection district.
Communication:
The regional Public Safety Council (PSC), representing agencies and organizations
across our region to promote public safety and emergency response in our
communities, is engaged in multi-jurisdictional messaging to encourage personal
responsibility and preparation for emergency situations. The PSC is also working on an
agreement with Aspen Public Radio to further enhance emergency communications.
Community education:
Over the past several years, Aspen Fire, Aspen Police, Pitkin County, and many other
key stakeholders have collaborated to provide education and resources to community
members, so they and their loved ones are better prepared to respond in the event of a
wildfire.
In September of 2023, the city hosted an emergency readiness event in collaboration
with the Pitkin County Office of Emergency Management and the Sheriff’s Office , which
drew strong attendance. The event focused on how to prepare a personal go-kit,
resource navigation and developing a communication plan with loved ones. The
second annual emergency preparedness event held in October of 2024 focused on
equipping caregivers with the tools and resources to be ready in case of an emergency.
In the summer of 2024, the city’s communications, engineering and special events
departments collaborated with Aspen Fire to hold an open house on emergency
preparedness and evacuation plans. This outreach was targeted on the caregiver
community.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Ladris software, $49,000.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS: N/A
3
Page 1 of 9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Development Project Mgr.
THROUGH: Rob Schober, Capital Asset Director
MEMO DATE: November 25, 2024
MEETING DATE: December 2, 2024
RE: Lumberyard Affordable Housing Development Project Update
REQUEST OF CITY COUNCIL: Update only - No council direction requested
BACKGROUND: On September 12, 2024, the City of Aspen received 12 detailed
proposals from pre-qualified private developers to deliver the vertical phases of the
Lumberyard project. Information is included below about developer proposals related to
the delivery of the project, given the City’s available resources.
Recent updates to City Council on October 8, October 14 and November 12 generated
questions about the updated budget and project delivery process for the phase 0
demolition and infrastructure phase of the project.
The information below provides further clarity on the above topics.
DISCUSSION:
1) Vertical Development Proposals from Private Developers
The vertical development of the Lumberyard includes phase/building 1 with 94 to 114
units, phase/building 2 with 82 to 100 units, and phase/building 3 with 74 to 90 units . The
project is entitled to include a minimum of 277 total units and a maximum of 304 total
units.
In the City’s RFP, developers were instructed to deliver as much of the Lumberyard
affordable housing facilities as possible, given available resources. The RFP described
the City’s potentially available resources, such as fund balance from the City’s 150
Housing Fund as well as the possibility that the City could potentially issue debt via a
revenue bond or COP’s.
4
Page 2 of 9
The City’s evaluation team reviewed 12 developer proposals for the Lumberyard
project. The City’s Procurement Officer is directly overseeing the process to ensure
thorough and unbiased evaluation. Highlights are included below:
• Team Composition: Three Capital Asset Department staff members and two
consultants, one being a Denver-area affordable housing finance specialist.
• Proposal Review: Evaluation of 12 proposals, each 50-65 pages long, totaling
over 600 pages, including reference checks.
• Evaluation Process: Empirical scoring based on the City's RFP criteria and
consultations with the financing specialist to address knowledge gaps.
• Re-evaluation: Further iteration of evaluations after addressing blind spots and
deep discussions about each proposal's alignment with project goals.
• Selection Outcome: Documented rationale, including comments and concerns
about each proposal. Notified seven developers of non -selection, offering
feedback discussions to those not selected as finalists
The evaluation team’s work resulted in a consensus to shortlist the five best-suited
proposals for the Lumberyard project. While focusing on the selection criteria in the RFP,
emphasis was also placed on selecting highly qualified developers with the most viable
financing plans which work within the City’s available resources, minimize risk to the City,
with reasonable fees, strong implementation resources, and efficient implementation
schedules. Relevance of development experience is also considered, including a focus
on development of affordable housing and experience in Colorado and mountain resort
communities. The evaluation selected the following 5 finalist developers:
• Aspen Housing Partners II (SCG Development & Berkshire Lane Development)
• Continuum Partners
• Corum Real Estate Group
• Fairfield Residential
• Gorman & Company
Highlights of the five finalist proposals are below , project durations are based on start of
vertical construction in mid-2026:
• All finalists propose to implement the Lumberyard project to 100% completion
• All finalists propose to complete the project within the City’s available resources
• The earliest proposed 100% completion is by the end of 2028
• The average proposed 100% completion is by 2029 or 2030
• The longest proposed completion is phases 1 & 2 by 2029 and phase 3 by 2033
• All rely on completion of phase 0 to facilitate 2026 start of vertical construction
To accomplish the completion of the project based on the timelines discussed above, the
finalist developer proposals require varying levels of initial City of Aspen funding
5
Page 3 of 9
investment into the project. The range of initial City of Aspen funding investment needed
is $173 million to $221 million, from 2026 to 2030.
The above figures are achievable for the City’s 150 Housing fund through a combination
of fund balance and either a revenue bond or COP debt at levels which have previously
been considered responsibly achievable. Use of a revenue bond could require a public
vote, and additional conditions may apply.
Although details may vary, the developer engagement process generally flows as follows:
Overview of typical developer engagement process
• Once a developer is selected, an initial agreement is negotiated which typically
directs the developer to perform due diligence on a schedule and with the goal of
assembling the financing and implementation resources based on the agreed
approach.
• Developer proposals do not provide guarantees at the time of selection and initial
agreement. Because of this, it should be expected that there will be changes to the
financing figures and implementation plans as due diligence moves forward. Those
trends are communicated to City Council through updates along the way.
• During the due diligence period, the developer’s team works toward the following,
and in collaboration with the City where appropriate, per the initial agreement:
- Production of construction documents to prepare for permits & construction
- Research, application, and agreements related to funding sources
• After the due diligence period, when verified resources have been documented in
financing agreements, City Council will be asked to approve the agreements, along
with a City land lease, deed restrictions and related documents.
• The approved financing agreements and related documents are finalized and
recorded at a financial closing through a title company.
• It is only upon closing that the developer’s financial, implementation and ongoing
management obligations are memorialized. As planned, this would occur around
mid-2026, with vertical construction, lease-up and ongoing management thereafter.
The developer evaluation process is ongoing. The evaluation team is continuing to weigh
developer capabilities, references, and the viability of proposed approaches to project
implementation. Staff plans to bring a recommendation to City Council early in 2025, with
the aim of developer selection potentially by end of January and an initial agreement
possibly in February.
2) Updated Phase 0 Budget Estimate
On October 14, 2024, staff delivered an updated budget estimate for Lumberyard phase
0 as part of the 2025 budget request process . The updated budget shown below
estimates 2024-2026 costs to implement phase 0 of the Lumberyard project. Hard costs
6
Page 4 of 9
were estimated in mid-2024 based on post-entitlements DD-level plans by a general
contractor with local project experience in recent years:
2024 DD phase 0 budget estimate estimated cost
Soft Costs $4,125,000
Hard Construction Costs $37,276,630
Contingency $3,727,663
Total $45,129,293
The 2024 updated project budget estimate showed an increase over the prior 2022 phase
0 budget estimate, which was based on pre-entitlements SD-level plans, and which was
estimated by a consultant who also had local experience on similar projects:
2022 SD phase 0 budget estimate (SD) estimated cost
Soft Costs $2,276,224
Hard Construction Costs $10,883,213
Contingency $1,088,321
Total $14,247,758
Budget increases were initially attributed 47% to construction inflation and 53% to
additions to project scope of work from early-2022 to mid-2024. More information on this
is included in the sections that follow.
3) How the current City of Aspen Phase 0 project delivery plan addresses cost efficiency
The City’s 150 Housing Fund can afford the phase 0 budget estimate increase and still
be able to complete the entire Lumberyard project as described above. And the effort
described below provides an opportunity to improve upon the updated phase 0 budget
estimate.
Although staff planned to bid and contract the entire phase 0 construction project entirely,
as concerns began to arise, the process was modified by splitting phase 0 into two parts:
• Phase 0.1 Abatement and demolition
• Phase 0.2 Grading and infrastructure construction
Through a competitive bidding process, Gould Construction was chosen as the preferred
contractor for the phase 0.1 abatement and demolition scope of work for the Lumberyard
project. This initial contract, totaling $3,031,087, aligns with the approved 2024 project
budget and aims to expedite the project timeline by overlapping with additional tasks. Key
info is summarized below:
• Initial Contract: Phase 0.1 contract of $3,031,087 was approved by City Council
on November 12.
7
Page 5 of 9
• Current Work: Abatement and demolition underway, overlapping with additional
work plans to maintain schedule.
• Bid Process: Gould Construction also selected for the AIA CM-GC preconstruction
process for phase 0.2 grading and infrastructure, as a "contractor at risk."
• CM-GC Preconstruction Process: Project team and Gould Construction
collaborate on an “open book” review aimed at streamlining constructability and to
assemble a transparent GMP bid for the work.
• Future Plans: Staff intends to present Gould’s CM-GC GMP bid for phase 0.2
grading and infrastructure in early 2025 for City Council review and comparison to
the updated budget.
The CM-GC preconstruction collaboration between Gould and the Lumberyard project
team creates an opportunity to improve upon the costs shown in the updated budget
estimate. This provides a pathway for implementation of phase 0.2 grading and
infrastructure to begin early 2025 and maintain the developer-proposed schedules.
4) Concerns raised related to costs shown in the updated budget estimate
❖ On October 14, 2024, staff was asked, “How much of the increase is added scope?”
Previous information provided to City Council indicated that 53% of the hard cost increase
can be attributed to additions of scope. The chart below provides a more detailed
breakdown of the increases in the 2024 DD post-entitlements estimate as compared to
the 2022 SD pre-entitlements estimate:
Areas of Hard Cost Estimate Increase Added
Scope
Construction
Inflation Total
Underground Trail Passage $2,190,654 $2,190,654
Contractor Contingency/Fee/Ins. & Bonding $2,184,583 $2,513,445 $4,698,028
Site Retaining Walls $1,583,605 $1,583,605
Stormwater infrastructure, CDOT drainage $1,337,750 $1,539,132 $2,876,882
Roads & CDOT Highway 82 Improvements $1,239,699 $818,988 $2,058,687
Abatement/Deconstruction/Demolition $1,116,837 $1,284,964 $2,401,801
Sound walls $897,376 $897,376
Pedestrian Safety Improvements $554,262 $554,262
Excavation - removal of unsuitable soils $527,868 $527,868
Excavation - structural material $501,475 $501,475
Construction Survey $475,082 $475,082
General Requirements & General Conditions $441,826 $508,337 $950,163
Landscape $355,915 $409,494 $765,409
Winter Conditions $319,096 $367,132 $686,229
Erosion Control $263,934 $263,934
8
Page 6 of 9
Water Distribution $2,058,687 $2,058,687
Electric & Data Utility Work $1,346,064 $1,346,064
Miscellaneous increases $791,803 $791,803
Pervious Pavers $765,409 $765,409
Total $13,989,963 $12,403,454 $26,393,417
Below is a short description of the top contributing items, which cause 80% of the hard
cost increase due to scope additions.
#1 Underground Trail Passage: +$2.2M hard cost estimate. The prior estimate included
surface trail connections as shown on the site plan (page 17) in this March 2022
presentation to City Council.
#2 Contractor Contingency, Fee, Insurance & Bonding: +$2.2M hard cost estimate. This
goes up as a % of all other scope additions.
#3 Site retaining walls: +$1.6M hard cost estimate. As engineering due diligence
progressed, it became necessary to add more site retaining walls at numerous locations
throughout the site.
#4 CDOT drainage stormwater storage: +$1.3 hard cost estimate, CDOT requirement
after prior estimate, required addition of underground stormwater storage adjacent to the
project driveway entrance and at the north and south ends of the Hwy 82 frontage.
#5 Roads/CDOT Hwy Improvements: +$1.2M hard cost estimate. CDOT required
Highway 82 deceleration lane extensions & related additional roadway improvements.
#6 Abatement & Demo: +$1.1M hard cost estimate. More abatement of asbestos
containing material and contaminated soils were encountered during on site testing than
was anticipated.
#7 Sound Walls: + $0.9M hard cost estimate. The previous design consisted of trees and
landscape elements. This can also be seen in the March 2022 site plan linked above.
#8 Ped Safety Improvements: + $0.6M hard cost estimate. As a jurisdiction having
authority, Pitkin County added pedestrian safety requirements at the interface with the
AABC, where the Lumberyard project is required to make improvements on roads which
are outside city limits.
❖ On October 8, 2024, staff was asked about, “extraordinarily high soft costs” on the
project.
Some reliable industry sources suggest that soft costs generally account for around 10%
to 30% of project costs and include any costs not attributable to physical construction and
not considering land acquisition costs. Prior City housing development project soft costs
9
Page 7 of 9
have ranged between 10% and 30% and depend on various conditions. In the private
developer proposals for vertical development currently under evaluation, soft costs are
on average 18% of total development cost. Staff offers the following two different ways of
considering Lumberyard phase 0 softs costs:
1) All soft costs, from 2019 community outreach through completion of phase 0
implementation in 2026, including all soft costs related to entitlements and the planned
development documentation process, as a percentage of total phase 0 project cost:
Period and description $MM % of total
2019-2023 all soft costs $3.1 6.4%
2024 phase 0 soft costs $2.5 5.2%
2025-2026 estimated phase 0 soft costs $1.6 3.3%
2019-2026 estimated total cost through end of phase 0 $48.2 14.9%
2) Project soft costs from 2019 through 2023 include community outreach, land use
entitlements, and the design development of the project's vertical phases. Th ose
activities support the entire project rather than only phase 0. An alternative approach
might allocate a pro-rata share of the 2019-2023 soft costs to phase 0 and the
remainder to the project’s vertical phases. In this alternate approach, phase 0 soft
costs would come to about 10% of the total phase 0 cost. The remaining 2019 -2023
soft costs would then be distributed across vertical phases 1-3, increasing those from
about 18% to 19%.
In either case, when considered in context, Lumberyard project soft costs, as a
percentage of total project cost, appear on target to be within an expected range.
5) What if a developer were hired to deliver phase 0?
The City’s 12 pre-qualified private developers were informed that the City of Aspen plans
to remove the risks of entitlements and infrastructure, allowing developers to focus on
vertical development. Feedback from private developers related to this has been positive.
The City could change course and inform developers that the City wishes to explore the
possibility of having private developers perform the phase 0 work . The table below lists
possible pros and cons of hiring a developer to deliver phase 0:
Pros: Cons:
Some developers might be interested in
submitting an updated proposal to include phase
0.
It is unknown what effect a modification to the
developer procurement process would have on the
current RFQ/RFP process, whether any of the 5
finalists would be interested in bidding on phase 0,
and/or whether this would need to be offered to the 7
non-finalists, and/or whether the entire process would
need to start over.
10
Page 8 of 9
The City could attempt to offload risks related to
adverse subsurface conditions and other possible
unforeseen conditions as well as changing
conditions within the construction marketplace
between now and when a developer would be able
to start the work.
The City would not likely be able to entirely offload
risks related to adverse subsurface conditions and
other possible unforeseen conditions, nor ongoing
changing conditions within the construction
marketplace between now and when a developer
would be able to start the work.
Some developers are proposing to use general
contractors who do not commonly do work in
Aspen, and this could possibly expand the pool of
construction resources for phase 0.
Although it varies, the average developer fee proposed
among all 12 developers is 6% to 7% of total project
cost, and a similar fee would likely be included in
developer proposals to perform the phase 0 work.
Developers could attempt to value-engineer the
project to reduce costs.
With the infrastructure designed to local jurisdictional
standards, a developer’s value engineering effort is
unlikely to yield savings greater than what the
proposed CM-GC process with Gould Construction
can provide.
Reduction in scope for owner's representative
services could reduce project management costs.
City staff would be freed up to provide baseline
phase 0 project oversight, and with a lighter
workload, this could free up staff time for other
projects concurrently.
A typical developer engagement requires agreements
and financial closing. Whether or not this would be
necessary for phase 0 or what other such mechanisms
would be required is unknown. Therefore, it is unknown
if the phase 0 work could begin within 6 months or if it
could take up to 18 months to begin the phase 0 work
under a developer.
Openness to a change in process can unlock
otherwise unrealized opportunities and can create
positive optics.
When the City sends mixed signals and/or changes
course abruptly, this can have an effect on how City
projects are perceived in the construction marketplace
and can undermine attractiveness of City projects in
an already difficult market.
Third party opinions: The attached Exhibits A and B are opinions from the City owner’s
representative, Dynamic Program Management and from the City’s project architect,
Cushing Terrell.
Both exhibits are generally positive on the approach to phase 0 as currently underway,
and both note pros and cons similar to those stated above. It should be noted that Cushing
Terrell is listed as the proposed architect in 4 of out 5 of the finalist developer proposals
(and 9 of the original 12).
One counterpoint to these opinions would be that these third -party firms potentially have
a stake in the outcome.
RECOMMENDATIONS: No specific recommendations at this time. Staff plan to take the
steps described and will return to Council in early 2025 as described above.
11
Page 9 of 9
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The CM-GC process provides an opportunity for
savings as compared to the updated project budget estimate.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: No effect on environmental impacts.
ALTERNATIVES: N/A
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit A – Memorandum of Opinion, Dynamic Program Management
Exhibit B – Memorandum of Opinion, Cushing Terrell Architects
Exhibit C – Work session presentation slides
12
Page 1 of 4
DECISION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Torre and City Council
FROM: Reilly O’Brien, Senior Project Manager, Dynamic Program Management
THROUGH: Robert Schober, Capital Asset Director
MEMO DATE: October 17, 2024
MEETING DATE: October 22, 2024
RE: Resolution #133, Series of 2024 – Lumberyard Affordable Housing Project
Phase 0 Contract for Abatement, Deconstruction & Demolition, and Pre-
Construction Services with Gould Construction
Phase 0 CMGC Procurement
The process used by the City of Aspen Capital Asset staff to procure Construction
Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) Professional Services for the Abatement, Deconstruction
& Demolition, and Pre-Construction Services for Phase 0 of the Lumberyard Affordable Housing
Project was of high standard and typical to the industry. The process was facilitated in a fair and
transparent manner while maintaining competition between the candidates. The City of Aspen
Procurement Department reviewed all materials for approval prior to the release of any Request
for Qualifications & Proposal (RFQ/P) documents and interview invitations.
The RFQ/P advertisement was advertised on BidNet, as is typical for City of Aspen Capital
Construction and the public sector. Based on the high number of firms requesting the RFQ/P
there was a strong level of interest in this project. The virtual pre-bid meeting was well attended
and provided an opportunity for candidates to ask questions. Site walks were provided to
candidates as requested over a long window of time, between 7/29/2024 and 9/6/2024.
The members of the selection committee thoroughly reviewed the qualifications and proposal
responses from each candidate. A scoring matrix was followed to assist in making decisions about
the candidates that should move forward in the process by sending an invitation to interview with
the selection committee. Six responses were received from candidates. A short list of three firms
were selected to be invited to interview.
The fees requested for the CM/GC Professional Services were consistent with industry standards
and included General Conditions, to be treated at cost, not-to-exceed within the contract.
Preconstruction fees and percentage markups for overhead, profit, change orders, bonds and
insurances were requested in the competitive environment.
Phase 0.1 of the Lumberyard project included bid documents from the design team for the
following:
- Abatement of asbestos and contaminated soils
- Demolition and recycling of existing structures
- Demolition and recycling of existing asphalt & concrete
Exhibit A – Memorandum of Opinion, Dynamic Program Management
13
Page 2 of 4
Gould’s proposed fees and General Conditions are consistent with pricing we have seen recently
on similar projects. Gould’s fees were the most competitive of the three qualified candidates
responding to the RFQ/P. It worked out well that Gould as the best fit of the three qualified for the
project was also the most cost-effective.
The CM/GC delivery method allows the contractor to engage early in the design process to
provide value engineering and constructability feedback to the design team on the costs of
infrastructure and grading for the project (Phase 0.2). Therefore, the competitive request for
proposals for the CM/GC delivery method include the fees as outlined above and are intended to
be held throughout the project and when the City and CM/GC agree upon a Guaranteed Maximum
Price (GMP) at the conclusion of design phases.
Interviews were held on September 27th, 2024, with three candidates. Each candidate was
provided 45 minutes with the selection committee including five minutes of introductions, a 15-
minute vendor presentation, 20 minutes of questions, and five minutes for closing statements.
The questions were the same questions asked of each firm, with follow-up questions asked by
persons attending the interviews for clarification.
After firms had completed their interviews, the selection committee members scored each firm
individually. Then the committee held a debrief discussion for approximately 30-45 minutes. Each
person in attendance was able to express their observations and notes about strengths and/or
weaknesses of each team. Based on the score cards submitted, the selection committee
unanimously selected Gould Construction as the top candidate.
There was a follow up interview with Gould construction on October 1st, 2024, to confirm their
good fit for the project. Gould Construction was informed of the intent to award them at the
conclusion of that meeting.
After the intent to award, Gould Construction provided contract comments on the contract
proposed by the City of Aspen. City legal has reviewed the comments and the reviewed contract
is included in the memo for approval. Dynamic Program Management has reviewed the contract
and finds it meets industry standards.
Updated Phase 0 Cost Model
Cairn Consulting’s original 2022 Schematic Design estimate was prepared with the best
information available at the time regarding the scope of work and with standard industry practices.
The 5% annual escalation applied to Cairn Consulting’s 2022 Schematic Design estimate is not
consistent with the 18% annual escalation Dynamic Program Management has observed from
2022 to 2024.
The cost increases are not the result of escalation of the same scope of work priced in 2022, but
an increase in the scope of the work as design progressed from Schematic to Design
Development in order to satisfy the stakeholders in the process.
14
Page 3 of 4
Shaw Construction was engaged to provide cost estimating services as the project moved into
Design Development. The 2024 Design Development estimate incorporated scope additions as
follows that were not included in the Schematic Design:
- Sound walls
- Snow fence
- Annie Mitchell stair connection to transit
- Stormwater facilities by the bus stop and northeast corner
- Trail realignment in ROW - including walls/fence that was previously primarily sharrow on
site roads
- Grade separation for AABC trail at intersection
- Significant utility relocation at Highway 82 underpass
- Additional accessible connections from AABC trail to the development
- Offsite utility connections in adjacent County Road
- Closure of Sage Way
- Additional site retaining walls
- Unexpected CDOT drainage onto site requiring additional underground storage on site
- Additional drainage swales
- Change from curb/gutter to full sidewalks
- Increases in landscape material quantities and additional irrigation
These items above were not included in the 2022 Schematic Design estimate. Dynamic Program
Management, the Capital Asset department, and Cushing Terrell thoroughly investigated the
increase from the 2022 Schematic Design to the 2024 Design Development estimate. The scope
changed substantially, and the escalation applied at 5% per year was optimistic.
Phase 0 Contractor
At this point in the process, pivoting from the current project approach of having the City manage
the Phase 0 scope to a hired developer could have negative schedule and budget implications.
Gould Construction and their abatement contractor are scheduled to mobilize on November 4th,
2024, with abatement and demolition scopes of work. Delaying the start of abatement and
demolition will directly delay the start of site work and infrastructure in the spring. With the City
managing the CM/GC through a GMP process, all savings will be returned to the City.
The City is currently in process of procuring a developer for the phases beyond Phase 0. Per that
process, the City has communicated to candidates that the Phase 0 scope is currently assumed
to be completed by the City. Prior to issuance of the developer RFQP, staff heard positive remarks
from developers regarding their interest in pursuing the project if Phase 0 was managed by the
City. If the City would like to move Phase 0 into the developer’s scope of work, the timeline for
the developer procurement will need to be extended.
We have seen steep escalation in the market over the past two years. While the industry is
experiencing a leveling of the curve of escalation, it still exists in the Aspen market. Each month
of delay could put the City at risk for 1%+ of the construction scope awarded to Gould
Construction. Having a developer control Phase 0 would add months to the start of the project
given the current timeframe for the developer procurement.
15
Page 4 of 4
With the increase in the scope of work from Schematic Design to Design Development, it is our
opinion that the costs will not be reduced by significant amounts, if any, from the costs that will be
finalized in a GMP with Gould Construction, regardless of which entity (City or Developer) leads
the process. The cost increases were mostly attributed to increases in scope needed as the
design moved forward.
Gould Construction has been a good partner of the City on past projects. A developer without
knowledge of the local market may not be able to procure an earthwork and infrastructure
contractor with as much experience as Gould in completing projects with high quality for the City
for a fair price. The developer would need time to procure their own contractor for the Phase 0
scope and bring that contractor up to speed on the complex project.
If a developer were to take on this scope of work, while the initial costs may be higher and the
schedule extended, the advantage could be a lower risk to the City for construction escalation
costs and unforeseen conditions dependent on contract language. In addition, moving the
responsibility of Phase 0 to the developer would free up City staff to focus on other projects for
the community.
Dynamic Program Management recommends moving forward with the contract for Gould
Construction for Phase 0 of the project. However, our team is prepared to support the City to
deliver the scope of work in the method deemed the best pathway forward for this important
project.
Sincerely,
Reilly O’Brien
Senior Project Manager, Dynamic Program Management
Attachments:
None
16
cushingterrell.com
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 25, 2024
To: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Development Senior Project Manager
From: Randy Rhoads, Executive Director of Affordable Housing
RE: Phase 0 Implementation/Construction
The City has received feedback over the course of the RFQ/RFP process that having the City act as developer
for the Phase 0 work is perceived beneficially because it creates certainty of schedule and reduces overall risk
for the developers. Having twelve developers respond to the RFP is a testament to the extreme amount of
buy in there is for the process that was outlined in the developer RFP.
The Phase 0 project is past the development stage – it is now simply a construction project. The entitlements,
construction documentation (other than potential Value Engineering changes through a GMGC process) and
contractor bidding/selection is complete. Having a developer manage the Phase 0 construction process
could add cost to revisit these already completed stages. Additionally, a developer will need compensation
for the management of a construction project should they take on Phase 0 from this point.
The Phase 0 Construction contract will need to be (re) negotiated between developer and general contractor
or a wholly new contract will need to be negotiated with a new general contractor if the developer chooses
to not move forward with the selected general contractor.
Schedule: There will be added time for a developer team to take on Phase 0 and determine approach
(maintain selected GC and process or rebid phase 0 scope – 4 months in process thus far). The current
schedule to select a developer team based on the proposals submitted for vertical construction is mid-
December. This would push a construction start date to May 2025. With demolition needing to occur prior to
any site/infrastructure work, overall construction will be adversely delayed. Current construction schedule
allowed demolition activities to start in the winter months with infrastructure construction starting in early
spring to maximize construction in during weather favorable months.
Cost: Schedule delays increase construction cost due to escalation. Developer fees to manage the Phase 0
construction project are in addition to any currently contemplated costs.
Exhibit B – Memorandum of Opinion, Cushing Terrell Architects
17
2
cushingterrell.com
Optics: Loss of confidence in process with phase 0 general contractor and developers. Multiple changes in
course, multiple exercises in costing/proformas could lead to developer fatigue.
Ultimately, developer involvement does not diminish City of Aspen construction risk. The city is still
responsible for any unforeseen cost. Having a developer manage the Phase 0 construction process will not
result in cost savings or schedule reductions.
Cushing Terrell recommends that the city approve the Phase 0 contract with the selected general contractor
and immediately provide a notice to proceed so that the abatement and demolition portions of the Phase 0
work get underway and allow the GMGC process to commence with the selected contractor for the reminder
of the Phase 0 scope.
Developers seeing the Phase 0 work stay on track sends a strong signal, which will boost confidence in the
city’s commitment to the process outlined in the RFQ and RFP documents and will allow the developers to
focus on what they do best, finance, build, and manage affordable housing.
18
Aspen Lumberyard Affordable Housing
Project Update
December 2, 202419
Agenda
1)Vertical development proposals from private developers
2)Updated phase 0 budget estimate
3)How the current phase 0 delivery plan addresses cost efficiency
4)Concerns raised related to the updated budget estimate
5)What if a developer were hired to deliver phase 0?
6)Third party opinions
7)Council questions, discussion, direction
2 of 13
20
All proposals rely on 2026 completion of phase 0 infrastructure.
1) Vertical Development Proposals
•With Procurement Officer oversight, team has narrowed the field to five finalists
•All finalists propose to implement the Lumberyard project to 100% completion
•All finalists propose to complete the project within the City’s available resources
Demolition
| - - - 2024 - - - | - - - 2025 - - - | - - - 2026 - - - | - - - 2027 - - - |- - - 2028 - - -|- - - 2029 - - -|- - - 2030 - - -|- - - 2031 - - -|- - - 2032 - - -|- - - 2033 - - -|
Infrastructure
Phase / Bldg. 1 (104 Units)
Shortest Proposed:
All units by end 2028
Phase / Bldg. 2 (91 Units)
Phase / Bldg. 3 (82 Units)
Mid-2026 financial
closing memorializes
developer financial and
implementation
obligations
3 of 13
Due Diligence
Longest Proposed:
Phase 3 by end of
2033
Average Proposed:
All units by end of
2029 or 2030
21
1) Vertical Development Proposals
Levels of City of Aspen initial investment needed in
5 finalist private developer proposals.
The lowest proposed
initial City investment
is $173 million.
•The above figures are achievable with the City’s 150 Housing Fund
•Finalist proposals utilize varying financing mechanisms
•Evaluation team is considering the viability of the various approaches
The highest proposed
initial City investment is
$221 million.
4 of 13
$173
$190 $198 $210 $221
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Initial City of Aspen Funds Needed $Millions
The average finalist proposed City investment needed is $198 million.
22
1) Vertical Development Proposals
Developer engagement process:
•No guarantees at the time of selection and initial agreement
•Financing figures can change during due diligence period
•Trends are communicated to City Council through updates
•Developer due diligence, collaboration w City, where appropriate:
✓Construction documents
✓Financing & other agreements
✓City funding elements (City effort)
•City Council review and approval of final agreements (City attorney)
•Financial closing through title company mid-2026
•Memorializes developer financing and implementation obligations
•Developer begins vertical construction thereafter
•Completion, lease-up, ongoing management through completion of term
5 of 13
23
1) Vertical Development Proposals
•Evaluation of developer proposals is still in process (lots of details!)
•Staff plans to bring a recommendation in early 2025
•Recommendation will consider
✓Higher confidence
✓Lower risk
✓City funds needed
✓Delivery timeline
✓Capabilities and resources
✓Additional factors
6 of 13
24
2) Updated budget estimate and concerns
October 14 Updated Phase 0 Budget Estimate
2024 DD phase 0 budget estimate estimated cost
Soft Costs $4,125,000
Hard Construction Costs $37,276,630
Contingency $3,727,663
Total 2024 DD Phase 0 budget estimate $45,129,293
2022 SD phase 0 budget estimate estimated cost
Soft Costs $2,276,224
Hard Construction Costs $10,883,213
Contingency $1,088,321
Total 2022 Phase 0 SD budget estimate $14,247,758
•Updated phase 0 budget estimate was based
on post-entitlements DD-level plans by a
general contractor with local experience
•The 2022 budget estimate was based on pre -
entitlements SD-level plans, by a cost
consultant with experience on similar local
projects
•Budget increases were initially attributed 47%
to construction inflation and 53% to scope of
work additions
7 of 13
25
3) How the current plan addresses concerns
•150 Housing fund can afford the phase 0 budget estimate increase and still deliver
•Due to concerns, bid process was modified, split into:
0.1 Abatement and demolition
0.2 Grading and infrastructure construction
•Competitive bidding, Gould construction was selected for:
❖$3 million GMP contract for phase 0.1 abatement and demolition, approved Nov 12
❖Precon CM-GC collaboration on GMP bid for phase 0.2 grading and infrastructure
Nov 12
8 of 13
•The CM-GC preconstruction collaboration
provides an opportunity to improve upon the
costs in the updated budget estimate
•Done concurrently, utilizes time during demo
•Staff to plans deliver Gould’s bid in early 2025
26
Areas of Hard Cost Estimate Increase Added Scope Construction Inflation Total
Underground Trail Passage $2,190,654 $2,190,654
Contractor Contingency/Fee/Ins. & Bonding $2,184,583 $2,513,445 $4,698,028
Site Retaining Walls $1,583,605 $1,583,605
Stormwater infrastructure, CDOT runoff storage $1,337,750 $1,539,132 $2,876,882
New Roads & CDOT Highway 82 Improvements $1,239,699 $818,988 $2,058,687
Abatement/Deconstruction/Demolition $1,116,837 $1,284,964 $2,401,801
Sound walls $897,376 $897,376
Pedestrian Safety Improvements $554,262 $554,262
Excavation - removal of unsuitable soils $527,868 $527,868
Excavation - structural material $501,475 $501,475
Construction Survey $475,082 $475,082
General Requirements & General Conditions $441,826 $508,337 $950,163
Landscape $355,915 $409,494 $765,409
Winter Conditions $319,096 $367,132 $686,229
Erosion Control $263,934 $263,934
Water Distribution $2,058,687 $2,058,687
Electric & Data Utility Work $1,346,064 $1,346,064
Miscellaneous increases $791,803 $791,803
Pervious Pavers $765,409 $765,409
Total $13,989,963 $12,403,454 $26,393,417
4) Concerns raised related to updated budget
estimateOctober 14: “How much of the increase is added scope?”
Answer: Approximately 53% of the
hard cost increase, about $14 million.
•Slides are available upon request to
review each of these items
9 of 13
27
4) Concerns raised related to updated budget
October 8: Question about “Extraordinarily high soft costs”
•Expected range, soft cost typically 10% - 30% of total project cost
•Developer proposals, soft costs on average 18% of total development cost
•Includes anything not construction nor land acquisition
•Lumberyard phase 0 soft costs, trending toward 15% of project cost,
includes:
✓Recent soft costs approved Oct 8, scope additions w architect and subs
✓Future soft costs: Soft costs through end of phase 0, consent early 2025
✓Past Soft Costs: 2019-2023 soft costs (outreach, design, entitlements)
•If 2019-2023 soft costs are allocated to all phases, on target for about 10%
•In context, soft costs are on target within expected range
10 of 13
28
5) What if a developer were hired for phase 0?
Possible Pros:Possible Cons:
Developers may be interested in updating proposals
to bid
Could be a risk to the current developer procurement
process
City could attempt to offload risks City would not likely be able to entirely offload risks
Some developers using GCs from out of region, could
possibly expand pool of construction resources
Average developer fee is 6% to 7%, similar fee would
be likely
Developers could attempt to value-engineer the
project to reduce costs
Utilities and infrastructure are designed to
jurisdictional standards, limits value engineering
opportunities
Project management cost savings, frees up staff Delay is likely, could be 6 to 18 months
Openness to change could create opportunity and
positive optics
Abrupt changes in course can affect attractiveness of
City projects in the marketplace
11 of 13
29
•Attached third party opinions from owner’s rep and architect:
✓Both generally positive on current phase 0 approach
✓Similar pros and cons about developer involvement in phase 0
•Staff otherwise has no specific recommendation at this time
•Staff plan to take the steps described and will return to
Council in early 2025 as described above.
6) Third party opinions
12 of 13
30
7) Council questions, discussion, direction
Thank you!
13 of 13
31
Additional slides if needed
14 of 15
The slides below are for additional
discussion with Council if asked
32
4) Concerns raised related to updated budget
October 14: “How much of the increase is added scope?”
Largest items added:
#1 Underground Trail Passage
+ $2.2M hard cost estimate
Surface trail routed through
project was previously estimated
#2 Contractor Contingency, Fee, Ins. & Bonding
+ $2.2M hard cost estimate
This goes up as a % of all other scope additions
15 of 15
33
4) Concerns raised related to updated budget
16 of 15
October 14: “How much of the increase is added scope?”
Largest items added:
#3 Site retaining walls
+ $1.6M hard cost estimate
It was necessary to add more site
retaining walls at numerous
locations throughout the site in
the process of going from
schematic design to construction
documents
34
4) Concerns raised related to updated budget
17 of 15
October 14: “How much of the increase is added scope?”
Largest items added:
#4 CDOT drainage stormwater storage
+ $1.3 hard cost estimate
CDOT requirement after prior estimate,
driveway shown, additional locations
at north and south ends of site
#5 Roads & CDOT Hwy 82 Improvements
+ $1.2M hard cost estimate
CDOT required Hwy-82 deceleration lane
extensions & related additional roadway improvements 35
4) Concerns raised related to updated budget
October 14: “How much of the increase is added scope?”
Largest items added:
#6 Abatement & Demo
+ $1.1M hard cost estimate
More abatement of asbestos
and soils were encountered
during on site testing than
was originally estimated
#7 Sound Walls
+ $0.9M hard cost estimate, Previous design
contained a row of tall spruce trees 18 of 15
36
4) Concerns raised related to updated budget
October 14: “How much of the increase is added scope?”
Largest items added:
#8 Ped Safety Improvements
+ $0.6M hard cost estimate
As a jurisdiction having
authority, Pitkin County added
pedestrian safety requirements
at the interface with the AABC
19 of 15
37