HomeMy WebLinkAboutInformation Update 062425AGENDA
INFORMATION UPDATE
June 24, 2025
5:00 PM,
I.Information Update
I.A June 9 work session follow-up memo, Lumberyard
I.B City of Aspen Receives 2024 Local Government “A” Score from Climate Disclosure
Project (CDP)
I.C Discussion on Single-Use Plastics Restrictions
I.D Armory Hall work session_6.16.25: Follow-up memo
WS Follow-Up Memo 9JUN2025.docx
Information Only Memo - CDP A Result.docx
Attatchment A - A-List Badge.png
Info_Only_Discussion_on_Single-Use_Plastics_Restrictions (1).docx
Armory Hall work session_6.16.2025_Follow-Up Memo.pdf
1
1
FOLLOW-UP MEMORANDUM
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
WORK SESSION MEETING DATE: June 9, 2025
FOLLOW-UP MEMO DATE: June 24, 2025
AGENDA TOPIC: Lumberyard Project Update and Developer
Negotiation
PRESENTED BY: Chris Everson, Affordable Housing
Development Senior Project Manager
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mayor Rachael Richards, Mayor Pro Tem John
Doyle, Bill Guth, Sam Rose, Christine
Benedetti
______________________________________________________________________
WORK SESSION DISCUSSION SUMMARY:
Staff presented a project update and proposed implementation plan for the Lumberyard
affordable housing development, including the following topics:
Progress in 2025
Shifting the Phase 0.2 Infrastructure Scope to the Developer
Developer Negotiation and Developer Model Overview
Lottery Priority for Employment Location and/or Essential Workers
Lottery Priority for Employer Partnerships
City Funding and Developer Funding Sources
Role of APCHA and APCHA Deed Restrictions
Implementation Timeline April 2026 through June 2029
Next Steps, including follow-up work session and ballot language
Individual Council input included:
Interested in UGB work location priority and well-defined essential workers.
It could take two work sessions to get through the worker priority and employer
partner discussions so please schedule a follow-up work session soon.
Recommendation to pre-lease as many units as possible prior to completion of
construction.
When drafting ballot language, please be explicit that bond funding will be used for
the Lumberyard project.
Request that the MDA be posted early enough for sufficient time for Council review
prior to July 8, given holiday and Council time commitment considerations.
Council otherwise provided no majority objection to the path forward proposed in
the work session materials presented by staff.
2
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will present the proposed developer agreement for Council consideration on
Council’s July 8, 2025 regular meeting agenda.
Staff has scheduled a follow-up work session to discuss the worker priority and
employer partnership programs for July 21, 2025.
Staff will begin work on drafting ballot language related to the public vote on bond
financing for the November 2025 ballot. This may also be part of the July 21
discussion.
CITY MANAGER NOTES:
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
3
INFORMATION ONLY MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Baker Casagrande, Sustainability Analyst
Caroline Moore, Sustainability Analyst
Tim Karfs, Sustainability Programs Administrator
THROUGH: Clare McLaughlin, Sustainability Manager
Ben Anderson, Director of Community Development
MEMO DATE: June 9, 2025
MEETING DATE: June 24, 2025
RE: City of Aspen Receives 2024 Local Government “A” Score from
Climate Disclosure Project (CDP)
_____
PURPOSE: The purpose of this information only memo is to share the City of Aspen’s
2024 Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) Local Governments A List Score, which is a
globally recognized award that reflects the highest standard of local climate leadership.
BACKGROUND: CDP is a global non-profit that runs the world’s only independent
environmental disclosure system. In 2024, CDP helped more than 1,000 cities, states,
and regions disclose their environmental information and performance. The City of Aspen
has disclosed data to the CDP since 2015, and this is the second year in a row in which
the city achieved an A score. To be recognized with an A, cities must publicly disclose
data to the CDP and must submit key items—including a city-wide emissions inventory,
a climate risk and vulnerability assessment (CRVA), and a published climate action plan.
Disclosing this data to the CDP earns recognition, demonstrates leadership, and supports
international knowledge exchange as Aspen works towards its 2022 science-based
targets to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 63.4% in 2030 and 100% in 2050, as
compared to 2017 levels.
The City of Aspen is recognized with an A score alongside four other cities in Colorado:
City of Boulder, City of Denver, City of Fort Collins, and the City of Lakewood.
2024 CDP A LIST RESULTS:
Total # of reporting cities: 973
Total # of A List cities: 112
Total # of A List cities in North America: 37
Total # of A List cities in Colorado: 5
DISCUSSION: The Climate innovation, infrastructure investment and economic
opportunity reported in A List cities demonstrate local leadership’s crucial impact on
4
2
global climate progress. By disclosing local sustainability data and programs, Aspen
demonstrates transparency and leadership on a global stage while contributing to an
international repository of success stories and replicable climate initiatives f rom which
cities, states, and regions can learn. The A List Score is the culmination of decades of
work by the City of Aspen to strengthen long-term community resilience. Aspen’s A score
in 2024 reflects many projects across multiple city departments, including:
Department Projects
Engineering Clean Rivers Program, Rio Grande Park Stormwater Project, Street
Smart, Safety and Connectivity Action Plan
Parks Wildfire Prevention, Tree Plotter Software, Community Forest
Management Plan, Sequestration Investigation and Story Map.
EHS,
Engineering,
Parking,
Streets
Public EV Charging Infrastructure, Fleet Zero Roadmap
Community
Development
Adoption of 2021 I-Codes, REMP, Aspen Sustainability Action Plan,
Waste Programs, Transportation Programs, and Buildings Programs
APD Electric Fleet Adoption
Utilities Aspen Intelligent Metering, Management of Local Hydroelectric
Power, Commitment to Providing 100% renewable electricity,
Integrated Resource Efficiency Plan
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
There are no financial impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
An A score with the CDP recognizes Aspen’s commitment to environmental health,
community resiliency, and impactful action.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – A List Badge
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
5
6
INFORMATION ONLY MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Ainsley Brosnan-Smith, Sustainability Programs Administrator
THROUGH: Clare McLaughlin, Sustainability Manager;
Ben Anderson, Community Development Director
MEMO DATE: June 16, 2025
MEETING DATE: June 24, 2025
RE: Discussion on Single-Use Plastics Restrictions
______________________________________________________________________
PURPOSE:
At a Regular Meeting on April 8, 2025, Council requested information on the options to
reduce single-use plastic materials in the community. This memo includes an evaluation
of restrictions on plastic materials in neighboring communities and various options the
City of Aspen could consider.
BACKGROUND:
On July 6, 2021, Colorado General Assembly enacted House Bill 21 -1162 Plastic
Pollution Reduction Act (PPRA) to manage the distribution of single -use materials such
as plastic and polystyrene in Colorado. In response, on March 14, 2023, Aspen City
Council adopted Ordinance No. 06, Series of 2023, which amended Chapter 13.24 of the
City of Aspen Municipal Code to mirror Colorado House Bill 21-1162 that expands
restrictions on the use of single-use plastic bags by certain retailers. The PPRA also
repealed the state law prohibiting local governments from requiring or banning specific
plastic materials or products. This repeal occurred on July 1, 2024, and granted Colorado
municipalities the authority to enact more stringent laws to prohibit, restrict, or mandate
the use or sale of plastic materials, containers, packaging, or labeling.
At the April 8, 2025 meeting, Council requested staff to provide additional information on
plastics reductions regulations and options. In this memo, staff evaluated similar mountain
communities in Colorado to understand what regulations they have enacted to reduce
plastic and analyzed how Aspen could advance plastics restrictions given the local
context.
7
DISCUSSION:
This information only memo explores measures taken by other Colorado mountain towns
to limit plastics, evaluates the feasibility of similar programs in Aspen based on local and
geographical context, and shares potential staffing and programming requirements of
these programs.
Examples of Plastics Restrictions in Colorado
Staff engaged with leaders from Breckenridge and Telluride regarding their plastic
restriction policies to understand their enforcement strategies and business compliance.
As these policies are relatively new, no analysis has been produced yet to show landfill
savings or emissions reductions.
Breckenridge
Effective July 2024, Breckenridge banned single -use plastic water bottles under
one gallon and plastic packaging for ready-to-eat meals. Their ordinance excludes
carbonated, vitamin, flavored, sparkling, and electrolyte waters, as Breckenridge
received pushback from major beverage companies on those items. In addition,
Breckenridge staff had to work closely with grocery stores to offer exemptions for
packaging of specific ready-to-eat foods that did not have a viable alternative to
plastic. Additionally, their law states retail food establishments will only provide
single-use utensils and other service ware upon customer requests to cut down on
take-out waste.
This policy takes a quarter of a full-time employee’s (FTE) work plan to administer
and monitor. Breckenridge noted the importance of extensive community and
business engagement prior to implementing additional restrictions, and consulting
corporate suppliers from the beginning to learn about available alternatives and
understanding ongoing contracts with retailers that might complicate the
implementation of a ban.
Telluride
Effective September 2024, the Town of Telluride banned single-use plastic
containers, bowls, and plates, straws, cutlery, condiment packets, stirrers, garnish
spears, and single-use plastic water bottles under one gallon from distribution at
the town’s retailers. Like Breckenridge, Telluride’s policy al so requires single-use
food ware to be provided upon request. Telluride does not have dedicated
enforcement staff to oversee their policy but hosts regular business roundtables to
address retailers’ concerns or considerations. The town noted that finding
alternative packaging materials for items like condiment sauce packaging is
8
challenging and provided exemptions for certain products. Telluride emphasized
the need for initial stakeholder engagement prior to policy adoption and the need
for enforcement staff to improve compliance rates.
Larger communities like the City of Denver have implemented a “skip the stuff” policy,
which requires restaurants and takeout and food delivery apps to ask customers whether
they want items like utensils, napkins, and condiments before providing them.
Options to Reduce Single-Use Plastics
The table below outlines various options to regulate single-use plastics. Each pursuit
would require staff to dedicate 8-12 months of community engagement and environmental
analysis prior to proposing policy alternatives to Council.
Policy Options Staff Preparation
Time
Outreach and Analysis
(8–12 months)
Staff
Enforcement
Ban plastic
water
containers
under 1
Gallon.
Moderate – ~25% of
an FTE for drafting
policy, stakeholder
engagement, and an
environmental
assessment.
High – 10–12 months of
engagement with
residents, retailers, and
beverage companies;
includes education,
stakeholder meetings,
and policy adjustments.
Moderate –
Requires
monitoring of
retail practices;
likely managed
through a
complaints-based
system.
Ban plastic
containers for
ready-to-eat
take-out
materials.
Moderate – ~25% of
an FTE for ordinance
development,
coordination with
food service
businesses, and an
environmental
assessment.
Moderate to High – 8–
12 months of
engagement with
restaurants, food
vendors, and the public;
includes education,
surveys, and adaptation
based on feedback.
Moderate –
Likely enforced
through existing
health
inspections or
targeted
compliance visits.
Develop and
implement a
broader retail
single-use
plastics ban.
High – 50–75% of an
FTE for research,
cross-department
coordination, policy
drafting, and
environmental
assessment.
High – 10–12 months of
broad outreach across
retail sectors; includes
economic impact
analysis, alignment with
state EPR policy, and
iterative policy
development.
High – Will
require a
structured
enforcement
strategy,
including
inspections and
phased
implementation.
9
Introduce a fee
for the use of
take-out
materials.
Moderate – ~25% of
an FTE to develop
the fee structure,
integrate with
licensing or billing
systems, and support
implementation.
Moderate – 8–12
months of outreach to
businesses and the
public; focused on
education, rationale for
the fee, and clarification
of differences with EPR
goals.
Moderate –
Requires
reporting and
auditing,
potentially built
into existing
business
processes.
“Skip the
Stuff”:
Customer
opt-in for
utensils and
extras.
Low – ~10% of an
FTE to draft policy
language and
coordinate with
restaurants.
Low to Moderate – 8–
12 months of education
and outreach to food
establishments and
customers; includes
signage and
communication
strategies.
Low – Primarily
self-enforced by
businesses;
compliance can
be monitored
through spot
checks or
complaints.
Alternatives to Plastics & Environmental Considerations:
Each of the policy proposals above would require staff to work with businesses to find
alternatives to plastics and evaluate their environmental impact. The most common
alternatives to plastic packaging for food service include cartons, aluminum, and
compostables. Staff would research emissions profiles and end-of-life impacts of these
products to ensure materials substitutes do not result in equal or greater emissions.
Bottle Packaging
Currently, there is a strong market for single-use plastic bottles for recycling.
Bottles that are recycled are likely resold and recycled in alternative products.
Aluminum cans have a strong recycling market, but beverage suppliers do not
always offer this alternative. Boxed water, as in carton packaging, contains a
plastic interior coating and does not always have a strong economic demand and
currently, the recycling facility does not accept cartons for recycling.
Compostables for Take-out
Replacing single-use to-go materials with compostable alternatives may reduce
plastic use, but it will have minimal impact on landfill disposal rates or associated
disposal emissions. Currently, visitors and patrons do not always have easy
access to compost receptacles, which is likely to result in these materials being
disposed of as landfill trash. When compostable materials are thrown in the trash
instead of compost, there is limited environmental benefit. The containers do not
10
break down faster; they retain their volume in the landfill and generate methane
during decomposition.
Ready-to-Eat Food Containers
Currently, there are no single-use take out materials for ready to eat foods that are
recyclable, and the compostable alternatives must be composted for the
environmental benefit to be seen.
Most single-use plastic alternatives still contain plastic, lack robust recycling markets, or
generate higher emissions when landfilled. This is why staff recommends conducting an
environmental assessment of materials substitutes prior to proposing plastic regulations.
Ongoing Efforts
Currently, staff is prioritizing the support of state policy action to improve recycling
infrastructure in Colorado. Colorado is in the process of developing guidelines for the
Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) legislation which shifts the responsibility from
the consumer to the producer for managing the end-of-life disposal of products. This
state-level effort is designed to improve end-of-life handling of packaging materials by
requiring producers to financially contribute to a fund that supports recycling
infrastructure. If successful, EPR could introduce more locally viable recycling options
and better end markets for materials that are currently landfilled due to incompatibility
with existing systems.
Banning single-use plastic materials for ready-to-eat foods would likely lead businesses
to use the common alternative products like bioplastics, wax-coated paper, or fiber
blends, which are not always recyclable in Colorado. A successful EPR program would
open up recycling markets for hard to recycle materials, such as the alternatives to single-
use plastic currently available. Staff will continue to support EPR through regular
attendance at board meetings and partnerships with the state’s advisory committee.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Pitkin County’s 2022 waste characterization report found plastic make s up 11% of the
municipal waste stream, whereas recyclable papers, and alternative recyclable materials,
make up over 20% of the municipal waste stream. When evaluating the environmental
impact of replacing single-use plastics with alternative recyclable materials, it is important
to consider the full lifecycle of substitute products since the probability of their disposal as
trash is high. This includes emissions generated during raw material extraction,
manufacturing, and transportation. Although plastic bans may reduce certain types of
pollution, alternative materials such as paper, bioplastics, or fiber composites can also
carry significant environmental costs when produced, landfilled, or recycled.
11
Should Council direct staff to move forward with single-use plastics bans or reduction
programs, staff will need to analyze the potential greenhouse gas reductions associated
with restricting single-use plastics. This analysis would include a comparison of emissions
from alternative materials and an evaluation of the financial impact on businesses, given
that plastic is often the most affordable option. An understanding of these tradeoffs is
necessary to ensure that any policy changes result in meaningful environmental benefits
and community benefits.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
Should council direct staff to pursue policy related to single-use plastics, staff would
conduct a detailed analysis on the financial impacts of the policy on businesses and the
cost to the city to implement and manage.
NEXT STEPS:
No action is requested of Council.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
12
FOLLOW-UP MEMORANDUM
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
WORK SESSION MEETING DATE: June 16, 2025
FOLLOW-UP MEMO DATE: June 18, 2025
AGENDA TOPIC: Armory Hall Remodel & Reuse: Status Update
PRESENTED BY: Jennifer Phelan
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: John Doyle – mayor pro tem, Christine
Benedetti, Bill Guth, and Sam Rose
______________________________________________________________________
WORK SESSION DISCUSSION SUMMARY:
Staff and the consultant team provided an update on three components of the project:
interior programming and design of the Armory, considerations for a potential operator
Request for Proposal (RFP), and the direction provided by the Historic Preservation
Commission during its review of the land use application. The intent was to inform Council
of progress and gain direction on the project. After the presentation and discussion, Council
provided the following direction:
Topic: Interior Programming and Design
1. Confirm minor programming changes (main stairway footprint, main level
‘lunch counter’ concept, and mezzanine ‘library’) and interior design
advancement are supported.
Council majority consensus: Overall Council supported the design progression
of the main stairway and main level lunch counter concept (to promote a family
friendly feel/de-emphasis of bar service on the main level). Some Council
members felt the ‘library’ room could be more open or may be underutilized. The
progress made on the interior finishes was supported.
2. Operations. Confirm timing of RFP issuance for an operator of Armory Hall.
Additionally, staff asked if consideration of a longer lease term/renewal
options, food and beverage consumption in Conner Park/parklet,
affordability restrictions, and an expedited building permit are supported.
Council majority consensus: In general terms, Council consensus landed on
allowing flexibility with lease terms/renewal options but ensuring there are
performance standards/lease termination rights for the city. There did not appear
to be majority support for affordability requirements as it is anticipated that the
provision of food via counter service will lead to affordability; however, one Council
13
member appeared to have some reservations on the topic. Consumption of food
and beverage in the park/parklet appeared to be supported, although one
comment noted that private events should not occur in the park. A majority of
Council supported an expedited building permit review.
3. Exterior Design and Land Use Review. Staff asked for guidance on a number
of exterior design items in light of past guidance provided by Council and
recent recommendations provided by the Historic Preservation
Commission.
Council majority consensus: All Council members agreed that the extended
eave could be removed, they also asked for an alternative option to synthetic turf.
Regarding roof material, the accessible entry vestibule, fenestration detail, Conner
Park window opening and integrated gutter, Council asked that the project team
work with HPC’s chair, vice chair and city HP staff to develop solutions.
14