HomeMy WebLinkAboutInformation Only 20250128AGENDA
INFORMATION UPDATE
January 28, 2025
5:00 PM,
I.Information Update
I.A Tax Credit Properties
I.B Alley Management
I.C Right-of-Way Temporary Encroachment Fees
I.D Aspen Country Inn Bus Stop
I.E
Armory Hall Adaptive Reuse: Land Use Application Follow Up Memo
Info Only Memo - tax credit properties.docx
2025.01.22_Info Only Memo_Alley Management Final.docx
2025.01.22_Info Only Memo ROW Fees.docx
Aspen Country Inn Bus Stop Info Memo_To Upload.pdf
Attachment A: EOTC 2021 Near Term Transit Improvement Program - FINAL
APPROVED - 7-29-21.pdf
Armory Hall Follow-Up Memo_January 13,2025 work session.docx
1
1
INFORMATION ONLY MEMORANDUM
TO:Aspen City Council
FROM:Pete Strecker, Finance Director
THROUGH:Sara Ott, City Manager
MEMO DATE:January 15, 2025
RE: ACI and Truscott II Tax Credit Properties
PURPOSE:
This memorandum is for informational purposes only; no action is requested of
Council. This update is related to questions of the Council expressed during the 2025
budget review process, specifically around existing City involvement in tax credit
affordable housing properties.
SUMMARY:
During the discussion of funding needs for asphalt overlays at multiple existing affordable
housing properties, staff relayed that both Aspen Country Inn and Truscott II tax credit
properties did not have sufficient reserves to cover their cost for these improvements and
that the City needed to commit resources from the 150 Fund (Affordable Housing
Development Fund) to implement these needed capital items. This was the catalyst for
denoting that there is an underlying issue with tax credit properties in that they do not
have the means to charge sufficient rent to cover long-term capital upkeep.
Given this reality, Council inquired if there were opportunities to sell the City’s interest to
another party. Staff has looked into whether this would be possible and also engaged
with the 3rd party consultant that assisted in the most recent tax partnership structuring
for Aspen Country Inn back in 2016. Ultimately, staff received validation that there is
largely no real market for selling these properties that have an inability to generate
positive cashflow. Additionally, there are arguments to encourage retaining ownership of
one property. For instance, given that Truscott II units are nearly the end of the terms of
the land use restriction agreement (LURA) in place today, which will expire in 2032, there
is significant upside for the City (either in rebasing rents to match financial needs or in re-
development opportunities) that can easily outweigh the near-term financial support of
capital in the coming years.
Aspen Country Inn doesn’t share the same time horizon as Truscott II, as its tax credits
were re-syndicated in 2016, which results in the LURA for this property extending through
2
2046. Additionally, the tax credit partner remains the majority interest holder at 99.9%
whereas APCHA and the City of Aspen bought out the tax credit partner for Truscott II in
2018.
NEXT STEPS:
No action is requested of Council at this time. That said, staff will continue to assess
opportunities to lessen the financial needs for these properties. One possibility that may
arise in the future is a restructuring of existing debt, to generate needed capital reserves.
Today’s interest rate environment does not currently allow for this benefit; but if rates
were to fall in the future, this could be a possibility.
CITY MANAGER NOTES:
Please contact the City Manager if there are questions or follow up needed regarding
the information provided.
3
INFORMATION ONLY MEMORANDUM
TO:Aspen City Council
FROM:Jack Danneberg, P.E., Senior Project Manager
Tricia Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
THROUGH:Tyler Christof, P.E., Public Works Director
MEMO DATE:January 20, 2025
RE: Alley Management Program
PURPOSE: This memorandum is to inform council on the planned alterations to the
City’s alley management program. Staff intends to include 2 alleys in long-range capital
project planning starting in the 2026 budget planning cycle. Alley projects may include
drainage infrastructure, regrading, subgrade improvements and/or asphalt paving. Alley
selection will be based on numerous existing conditions metrics to ensure equitable use
of City resources. This alley management approach differs from the current alley
management which focuses on minor regrading and dust suppression of dirt alleys.
SUMMARY:
Current Alley Management
City alleys are mostly located in the core and west end neighborhoods. There are 83
alleyways totaling approximately 4.7 miles. 42 of these alleyways are paved and 41 alleys
remain dirt or gravel.
Use Number of
Alleyways
Percent Paved Miles
Commercial 12 100%0.68
Mixed Use 33 55%1.88
Residential 38 26%2.16
Table 1: Alleyway segment classification summary
The Engineering design standard for an alley is paved in commercial areas and
unpaved gravel in residential areas. Alleys in mixed use areas may be paved or gravel
depending on the density and history of development.
Due to lower traffic volumes and localized usage alleys are designed to a lower standard
than roadways for width, drainage, loading capacities, and drive surface durability. Alleys
4
have historically been left as dirt or gravel and City funds for asphalt have been spent on
streets.
The City has a management plan for re-paving streets but does not currently include
alleys in the asphalt placement schedule. Instead, current alley maintenance is focused
on grading and dust suppression of unpaved alleyways. These management practices
are managed to their highest potential, increasing grading and dust suppression from
current practices will not increase the level of service of the alleyway. To advance the
level of service of the alleys, additional alley improvements would need to be derived
from projects that rebuild unpaved alleys to improve subgrade and drainage conditions
and through alley paving projects.
Historically, minor grading and dust suppression has been the strategy as opposed to
paving and installing drainage infrastructure in alleys for the following reasons:
1. Re-asphalting streets has been prioritized over paving alleys. Funds
dedicated to alley paving have the potential to pull funds away from placing
asphalt on streets. Roadways serve a significantly larger population than the
localized use of alleys. Funds have historically been prioritized to street
paving.
2. Paving an alleyway is a complicated and costly endeavor. Staff doesn’t
recommend paving all alleyways as this would cost approximately
$12,000,000 and would result in significant increases in maintenance costs.
Paving all alleys is not feasible within the City’s current Capital Management
funding. A system to prioritize certain alleys over others has not been
developed.
3. Solutions to existing drainage issues in alleys may include the expansion of
the City storm system. Most alleys do not have the downstream storm
infrastructure in place to easily tie in to.
4. There are various grading constraints within alleys. As development has
happened incrementally as opposed to a masterplan within the alleys, various
grading constraints have arisen that make easy cheap solutions non-viable.
5. Most asphalt alleys were paved in the 90’s and 2000’s and have not yet
reached the end of their useful life. For this reason, repaving existing asphalt
alleys has not been incorporated into the City’s Capital Improvements plan.
Drainage issues are consistent complaints associated with unpaved alleyways.
Drainage issues are often a result of failing subgrade and typically require detailed
reconstruction to fix. The magnitude and cost of such projects varies greatly depending
on the current site constraints and potential solutions. Solely paving an alley will not
5
always solve drainage issues. There may be significant regrading and storm sewer pipe
may be needed to truly solve an issue.
As alleyway paving requests have been received in recent years, a policy has been
developed for residents to pave their own alleyways. If residents get the approval of all
neighbors, they can finance and manage the project to pave their own alleyway. Several
alleys have been paved using this process.
Changes to Alley Management
Maintaining vehicle transportation infrastructure is of the utmost importance to city
operations and community vitality. Finding the right balance of cost and level-of-service
is an important and difficult task for community leaders.
In recent years the Engineering Department has received a number of drainage
complaints along alleys. Drainage conditions have worsened, and the level of service
requested by residents has increased. For this reason, staff plans to incorporate two
alley improvement projects into the 2026 capital project long range plan. Two alleys will
be selected based on set equitable metrics. Design and construction of each alley will
take place on a three-year schedule.
Alleyway paving projects will be highly specific, requiring complex survey and design
processes. There is a complicated network of shallow utilities that must be negotiated
and potentially relocated. Additionally, there are many fixed elevations that need to be
met such as driveways, doorways, trees and other fixed objects. The drainage
infrastructure necessary will vary greatly depending on the situation from a simple v-pan
design to inlets, manholes and pipes. There is limited underground stormwater
conveyance infrastructure in town which means the nearest pipe connection could be
blocks away resulting in millions of dollars of necessary infrastructure. Subpar
infrastructure such as drywells may be appropriate in such instances.
Selecting which alleyways receive investment of time and tax dollars in form of paving
projects will be a challenging undertaking. It will be important to create a clear and fair
set of criteria to decide which alleyways are targeted for projects. Thie below criteria is
what is recommended by staff.
The alleyway is used as primary access by multiple properties.
Complaints have been received about the condition of the alleyway regarding
drainage or dust.
Mitigation efforts such as grading and dust suppression have not solved the
alleyway issues.
There is a risk to private property from flooding due to poor drainage.
Paving will address the issues in the alleyway and not exasperate any problems.
6
The cost to pave an alleyway will be weighed against the benefits of paving. There are
certain alleyways that the cost to pave will outweigh the benefits.
This targeted approach to paving high priority alleyways slowly over time would
compliment the citizen paving policy. If a resident is not satisfied with the priority of their
alleyway in the paving process, paying to pave the alleyway with support of their
neighbors is an option.
Financial Impacts
Increasing maintenance of alleyways will come at a cost. Staff estimates that depending
on the utility impacts and drainage infrastructure necessary, paving one alleyway
segment could cost between $250k to $400k. This is a rough estimate and has the
potential to be much higher if the drainage infrastructure demands require tying into
underground stormwater conveyance systems.
Estimates are provided in today’s dollars but inflation must be considered. As
construction inflation has outpaced the Consumer Price Index over the last decade,
these costs will rise considerably overtime.
Financing alleyway improvements may require removal of other capital projects. In
particular, the roadway asphalt paving schedule may be impacted. Instead of paving
sections of roadways funding would go to paving alleyways. Council and staff should
consider the tradeoffs of paving alleys versus streets and the number of citizens served.
These decisions and cost allocations should be considered within the capital budget
planning period.
NEXT STEPS:
No action is requested of Council if the desired direction is to incorporate two alley
projects in the AMP long range plan. Site selection and funding amounts will be
determined in the 2026 Budget planning cycle. If further discussion is warranted a work
session can be scheduled.
CITY MANAGER NOTES:
Please contact the City Manager if there are questions or follow up needed regarding
the information provided.
7
INFORMATION ONLY MEMORANDUM
TO:Aspen City Council
FROM:Aaron Reed, Engineering Plans and Construction Supervisor
THROUGH:Tricia Aragon PE, City Engineer
MEMO DATE:1/20/2025
RE: Right of Way Encroachment Fee Increase
PURPOSE:
This memorandum is for informational and clarification purposes related to the
Engineering Department staff recommendation to increase fees associated with
construction encroachments that utilize the City of Aspen Right of Way. Further
discussion related to such an increase will occur as part of the 2026 fee ordinance update.
No action is requested of Council.
SUMMARY:
The Engineering Department has noted a growing challenge in balancing the impacts of
construction with the needs of our business community, residents, and visitors due to
encroachments into the City Right of Way. An essential element of the Construction
Mitigation program is to reduce the negative effects of construction activities on our
community, visitors, and the traveling public. However, the current fee structure is
creating its own challenge to effectively achieve this goal.
At the onset of the construction season that followed the last encroachment fee
increase, the Engineering Department did recognize a reduction in the size, frequency,
and duration of temporary encroachments. However, now that several years have
passed since this increase the fee is no longer a deterrent and these temporary
encroachments are becoming much more impactful, lengthy, and resulting in more
variance requests, permitting such impacts during what we all can refer to as our “on-
seasons” within the Commercial Core. The current fee structure appears to incentivize
the use of the Right of Way over parking reservations, negatively impacting the
community’s accessibility of the Right of Way.
8
Unlike parking reservations, Right of Way encroachments often alter the use of public
space continuously, sometimes for 24 hours a day. In contrast, parking reservations
secure a specific area for parking purposes and are typically accessible to the public
outside of construction hours, including Sundays and designated holidays when
construction activities are not permitted. This distinction highlights the more significant
impact that encroachments can have on public accessibility and use of space.
The current fee structure in the Commercial Core sets reserved parking rates at $100
per day. This means that a standard parking space, which measures 160 square feet
(8’x20’), costs the user approximately $0.625 per square foot per day, or $18.75 per
square foot per month.
On the other hand, the fee for using city space for construction (called an
"encroachment") is currently lower. Off-season, it costs $7 per square foot per month,
which is about $0.23 per day. During the busy or "on-season" period, it’s $9 per square
foot per month, or $0.30 per day.
To put this into perspective, off-season encroachment fees are approximately 63% less
expensive than parking fees ($0.23 vs. $0.625 per day), and on-season encroachment
fees are about 52% less expensive than parking fees ($0.30 vs. $0.625 per day).
In the 2026 budget, staff will seek to align encroachment fees with parking fees. This
adjustment shows the City's commitment to valuing pedestrian areas equally to parking
spaces, ensuring public spaces are accessible and beneficial to all.
NEXT STEPS:
No action is requested of Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
Please see attached informational graphics related to Temporary Encroachments in the
Commercial Core and in residential neighborhoods.
CITY MANAGER NOTES:
Please contact the City Manager if there are questions or follow up needed regarding
the information provided.
9
10
11
INFORMATION ONLY MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Jack Danneberg, P.E., Senior Project Manager
THROUGH: Tyler Christof, P.E., Public Works Director
Tricia Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
Lynn Rumbaugh, Director of Transportation
MEMO DATE: January 20, 2025
RE: Aspen Country Inn Crossing and Transit Information
PURPOSE:
The purpose of this memo is to provide background on the Aspen Country Inn Bus
Stop.
SUMMARY:
The Aspen Country Inn Bus stop is a regional bus stop located between the Buttermilk
RFTA Stop and the Truscott RFTA Stop. It serves the residents of the Aspen Country Inn
and Pomegranate Condos. This bus stop does not have lighting or pedestrian crossing
infrastructure. As a result, this location has been discussed by the Elected Officials
Transportation Committee (EOTC). Refer to Attachment A: EOTC 2021 Near Term
Transit Improvement Program.
In order to allow safe access for the residents at this location, EOTC has funded and
managed a taxi shuttle service for over 20 years. The Country Inn taxi program allows
residents to use a taxi when their travel would otherwise require the crossing of Highway
82. Specifically, residents may take a taxi from downtown Aspen to the Country Inn or
from the Country Inn down valley (west) as far as the Brush Creek Park & Ride Lot. In
2024, the taxi service provided 198 rides for a cost of $4,369.00.
EOTC is also working on a project to complete a trail connection from Truscott to Owl
Creek on the south side of Highway 82. This trail will improve pedestrian access to Aspen
Country Inn. The design of the trail is scheduled to finish in 2025 with constru ction in
2027.
12
There have been two (2) vehicle vs. pedestrian accidents since 2022. The accident
recorded in 2022 involved a pedestrian walking south from the bus stop and a vehicle
traveling east on Highway 82. The pedestrian was struck while attempting to cross
Highway 82 East. At this time, an investigation is ongoing regarding the most recent
accident. Further details can be provided at a later date once the investigation has been
completed. It is anticipated the investigation will conclude in a month.
Figure 1: Highway 82 bus stop serving Aspen Country Inn and Pomegranate Condos
NEXT STEPS:
No action requested of City Council.
CITY MANAGER NOTES:
Please contact the City Manager if there are questions or follow-up needed regarding
the information provided.
Aspen Country Inn
Bus Stops
13
Project Name IMS Tenant Project Attribute(s)
Relative
Implementation
Cost ($‐$$$)Notes
Tier 1
Aspen Country Inn Trail
Improvements to Bike /
Ped Underpass and
Transit Stops at Truscott
and Buttermilk **
BRT
Enhancements Higher value to dollar ratio $
Important bike / ped connection to
transit for senior housing and service
destinations. Basic infrastructure
connection. Move to concept plan in
2021.
Design and Feasibility
Review of Maroon Creek
Roundabout Down Valley
Channelization and Down
Valley Queue Jump at
Cemetery Lane **
BRT
Enhancements Higher value to dollar ratio $$ (design only)
Move to design and permitting to
further evaluate feasibility. Initial
rollout anticipated as an experiment.
Requires CDOT approved design and
permitting. Potential benefit to all
motorized roadway users including
transit. Channelization likely to be
seasonal due to snow removal issues.
Move to concept plan in 2021.
Design and Feasibility
Review of Harmony / Owl
Creek Transit Signal
Bypass Lane and
Buttermilk Bike / Ped
Underpass **
BRT
Enhancements Higher value to dollar ratio $$ (design only)
First move to design to make eligible
for funding. Superior bike / ped
protection crossing Hwy 82 and
increased transit speed and reliability.
High construction cost. Move to
concept plan in 2021.
HOV Lane Enforcement
Analysis
HOV Lane
Enforcement Important Preliminary Effort $ (analysis only)
Necessary to determine best
alternatives for HOV enforcement
options (automated vs. personnel).
Could require a phased
implementation.
Analysis of Up Valley and
Down Valley BRT Direct
Service to Snowmass
BRT
Enhancements Higher value to dollar ratio $ (analysis only)
Aspen to Snowmass, and Snowmass to
down valley transit connection analysis
to evaluate transit effectiveness and
efficiency, and determine cost,
frequency, and expected utilization of
increased/enhanced service levels.
Current BRT connecting service to
remain in place.
Additional Permanent
Automated Vehicle
Counters on Brush Creek
Road, Owl Creek Road,
Airport/AABC and
Highway 82 in Pitkin
County
Congestion
Reduction
Measures Important Preliminary Effort $$
Additional vehicle counters are
necessary to monitor program success,
VMT and greenhouse gas emissions
over the long term.
Tier 2
Pilot Ridesharing app for
Commuters Ride Sharing Dependent on Tier 1 Effort $‐$$
Effort dependent on HOV lane
enforcement implementation for
highest level of effectiveness. May be
able to use results of RFTA's 2021 First
Last Mile Mobility (FLMM) Study to
guide this effort. Ongoing cost and
staff time unknown.
Analysis of Regional Ride
Hailing and Car Sharing
Service
Ride Sharing
and Ride Hailing Lower value to dollar ratio $ (analysis only)
Potentially lower relative benefits to
transit ridership, GHG emissions, and
VMT reductions. Analysis necessary to
determine service scope, type and
ensure service supports transit. May
be able to use results of RFTA's 2021
First Last Mile Mobility (FLMM) Study
to guide this effort.
Analysis of Valley Wide
Commuter Parking, EV
Charging, and Ride Hailing
/ Sharing Pick Up / Drop
Off Locations
Congestion
Reduction
Measures, Ride
Sharing, and
Ride Hailing Important Preliminary Effort $ (analysis only)
Necessary to determine amount and
location of needed parking,
appropriate parking pricing, and
incentives via EV charging placement
to encourage transit ridership.
2021 EOTC Near‐Term Transit Improvement Program ‐ Approved July 29, 2021 ‐ Administrative Direction
First Priority ‐ Higher value* to dollar ratio and / or Important preliminary effort
Second Priority ‐ Lower value* to dollar ratio and / or Dependent on Tier 1 effort
14
Tier 3
Service Center Road
Signalization and Hwy 82
Brush Creek P&R to
Airport Speed Limit
Reduction
BRT
Enhancements
Hold status due to dependence
on efforts outside EOTC purview
and Significant legal hurdles $$
Relatively expensive improvement.
Gains in vehicular and bike / ped safety
accessing transit. Hold due to ongoing
design of new airport terminal and
layout. Speed limit reduction to be
reviewed by CDOT and possibly
incorporated with signalization of
intersection. Would require amending
Access Control Plan with CDOT.
Extension of HOV Lanes
Up Valley from Airport
and / or Down Valley of
Maroon Creek
Roundabout
BRT
Enhancements
Significant legal hurdles and
Significant cost $$
Initial construction cost of exclusive
bus lanes must be reimbursed to EOTC
if any loss of exclusive bus lanes
occurs. Source of reimbursement funds
is unknown and amount of initial
construction cost reimbursement
could be high. Potential conflicts with
ROD. Only to be pursued if 1) no loss to
bus only lane can be achieved and 2)
effective HOV lane enforcement is in
place.
Dynamic Road Pricing
(Cordon Pricing or
Managed / HOT Lane)
Congestion
Reduction
Measures
Significant legal hurdles and
Significant cost $$$
Significant legal hurdles as State law
would need to be amended to allow
for cordon pricing. Cordon pricing or
managed lane would require
significant permitting, operational
infrastructure, and partnerships.
Implementation, public relations and
maintenance costs expected to be high
for either cordon or managed lanes.
Potential legal hurdles if bus only lanes
are converted to HOT lanes.
Amendment or new Hwy 82 EIS / ROD
is necessary. Additional analysis is
necessary. Could have significant
positive impacts on GHG emissions and
VMT if implementable.
Sage Way Sidewalk
Extension
BRT
Enhancements
Hold status due to dependence
on efforts outside EOTC purview $
Hold pending implementation of
Access Control Plan to be triggered by
Airport redevelopment and/or large
developments within the AABC.
Signal Timing for Transit
Speed and Reliability
Improvement
BRT
Enhancements Not to be pursued at this time $$
Limited deployment in Pitkin County
modeling showed very little
effectiveness. Additional modeling for
entire Hwy 82 corridor may
demonstrate ability to substantively
improve transit speed and reliability.
Airport Terminal BRT
Routing
BRT
Enhancements Not to be pursued at this time $$$
Dependent on Airport terminal
redevelopment. Very expensive
improvement as down valley BRT line
would need to be grade separated to
and from the Airport in order to
maintain current transit times. Gains in
access at airport terminal only with
possible detriment to greater BRT
system. Significant transit operational
issues to be overcome. Other options
should be analyzed first.
HAWK Beacon at Aspen
Country Inn
BRT
Enhancements Significant cost $$
Relatively significant implementation
cost relative to number of users.
* "Value" is determination based on efforts' ability to support transit through increased access, speed and reliability; reduce greenhouse
gas emissions (GHG); and reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
** Efforts are proposed to be carried forward in the second half of 2021 for development of conceptual design by Mead and Hunt
utilizing remaining UVTE study funds
Third Priority ‐ Hold status due to dependence on efforts outside EOTC purview, Significant cost, and / or Significant legal hurdles
Other Efforts Considered ‐ Not to be Pursued at this Time
15
FOLLOW-UP MEMORANDUM
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
WORK SESSION MEETING DATE:January 13, 2025
FOLLOW-UP MEMO DATE:January 21, 2025
AGENDA TOPIC:Armory Hall Adaptive Reuse: Land Use
Application
PRESENTED BY:Jennifer Phelan
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:Torre, John Doyle, Sam Rose, and Ward
Hauenstein
__________________________________________________________________
WORK SESSION DISCUSSION SUMMARY:
Staff and the consultant team provided a summary of the draft land use application that is
being readied for submission and updated City Council on progression of the design since
last reviewed by City Council in October 2024. Key discussion topics included: Building
Design/Façade Development, the Public Realm, Land Use Reviews, Land Use
Review/Construction Timeline Building Design/Façade Development, and Scope
Expansion/Contract Change Order. Staff and the consultant team requested direction on a
number of topics. After the presentation and discussion, Council provided the following
direction:
Topic: Building Design/Façade Development
1. Confirm the change from sandstone to metal for the additions and the
introduction of a metal roof are supported as well as consideration of a
darker paint scheme.
Council majority consensus: The material and paint changes the design team
is moving forward with are supported. One comment touched on further
consideration of the heat gain/cooling needs with a darker roof.
2. Verify the preferred facade treatment along Hopkins Ave.
Council majority consensus: Council preferred Option 2, with only bays 2 and 5
being modified along the Hopkins Avenue façade.
3. Affirm removal of the extended south eave.
Council majorityconsensus: Support for the removal of the extended eave along
the south side of the building, bringing the eave back to its original condition was
supported by a majority of City Council.
16
Topic: The Public Realm
4. Confirm expansion of the parkway and off-street parking preference.
Council majority consensus: Council members support expanding the parkway
along Hopkins Avenue and generally like the direction of improvements for Conner
Park. Seasonally maximizing parking was mentioned.
Topic: Land Use Review/Construction Timeline
5. Weigh-in on expedited land use and building permit review.
Council majority consensus: A majority of Council wanted to see both the land
use review and building permit application review process expedited. With a land
use review before the Historic Preservation Commission in April and City Council
in May.
6. Confirmation that a June /July 2026 start date is supported.
Council majority consensus: A majority of Council confirmed a preference for a
June/July 2026 start date.
NEXT STEPS:
The consultant team intends to submit the land use application by February 3, 2025.
Additionally, the following items are progressing:
Addition of a Construction Manager/General Contractor (CM/GC) for Cost
Estimating.
Start of Design Development.
An RFP Soliciting Operators/Licensees.
Construction manager as Advisor (CMa) RFP.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
17