HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20260615AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
June 15, 2026
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
427 Rio Grande Place, Aspen
I.Work Session
I.A Early Childhood Education Council Goal Follow Up
I.B Clean River Program Urban Runoff Management Plan Update – Threshold
Simplification and Permitting Clarity
II.Council questions and comments related to items published in the most recent
information update, as needed
Zoom Meeting Instructions
Join from PC, Mac, iPad, or Android:
https://us06web.zoom.us/j/89912661386?pwd=ajZOLdDB9duheF1HlJAO5zSbvi7djS.1
Passcode:81611
Join via audio:
+1 346 248 7799
Webinar ID: 899 1266 1386
Passcode: 81611
International numbers available: https://us06web.zoom.us/u/kctaDiWS
Kids First STAFF REPORT for Council Session June 15.pdf
26.06.08.URMP Update Staff Report.docx
1
1
1
STAFF REPORT
TO: Aspen City Council
FROM: Megan Monaghan and Nancy Nichols, Kids First Co-managers
THROUGH: Pete Strecker, City Manager; Diane Foster, Deputy City Manager
MEETING DATE: June 15, 2026
SUBJECT: Early Childhood Education Goals 2026 – Staff Recommendations
INTENDED OUTCOME:
Obtain City Council approval to implement Option 4, Operational Funding, at either $5,000 per
classroom per year for 41 classrooms, for a total annual investment of $205,000, or $10,000 per
classroom per year for 41 classrooms, for a total annual investment of $410,000.
This recommendation advances City Council’s early childhood education priorities by supporting the
availability, affordability, and quality of childcare in the community.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Following City Council’s February 2026 direction to defer construction of the Burlingame ECE Facility
and return with a fully researched proposal, staff recommend that 2026 and 2027 efforts focus on a
high-impact childcare provider base funding initiative. The purpose of this work session is to review the
proposal and seek City Council direction on the recommended approach to strengthen existing
childcare providers.
DISCUSSION:
Staff Recommendations:
Invest in Sustainability for Existing Childcare Programs
In February, staff presented three recommendations to Council: Provider Base Support, Business
Voucher Program, and Small-Scale Capacity Expansion. Based on research conducted with providers,
the potential for immediate positive impact on schools, ease of implementation, the limited number of
partners required for execution, and the short ramp-up time, staff identified the Base Funding Initiative
as the highest priority.
We know that Confluence/Every Child is planning a one-time gap funding initiative for distribution in
2026. In contrast, the proposed Kids First funding would begin in 2027 and provide a more sustainable,
long-term investment. This approach is proactive, and responsive to the ongoing needs identified by
local childcare providers.
2
2
Staff recommend starting with the Base Funding option:
Staff recommend starting with Option 4, Operational Funding, at either $5,000 per classroom per year
for 41 classrooms, for a total annual investment of $205,000, or $10,000 per classroom per year for 41
classrooms, for a total annual investment of $410,000. Funds would be allocated for use at each
childcare provider’s discretion.
After extensive interviews with childcare directors, the following items emerged as the most urgent and
ongoing needs for childcare providers in Pitkin County:
Option 1. Health and Wellness funding:
This option would provide payments to childcare staff through their childcare program to help
supplement costs associated with health and wellness benefits. Eligible uses could include health
insurance premiums, health club memberships, healthy nutrition programs, wellness activities, mental
health services, or other approved health-related expenses.
There are currently 135 employed staff members working in early childhood programs. Payments could
be structured in several ways, including:
An annual payment of up to $1,000 per employee, or
A monthly payment ranging from $50 to $100 per employee.
The projected annual budget for this option would be:
Approximately $135,000 annually for a $1,000 yearly payment per employee.
Approximately $81,000 to $162,000 annually for monthly payments ranging from $50 to $100 per
employee.
Option 2. Professional Development Seat Time (reimbursed class time):
This option would provide payments to childcare staff, through their childcare program, to help
compensate employees for participating in professional learning opportunities outside of normal
business hours.
Funding could support one or more of the following professional development opportunities:
College-Level Credit Classes:
Provide compensation at a rate of $20 per hour for up to 45 hours, twice per year, for participation in
college-level credit courses.
The projected annual cost for 50 teachers is approximately $90,000.
In-Person Training Opportunities:
Provide compensation at a rate of $20 per hour for up to 32 hours (four days) of approved in-person
training opportunities.
The projected annual cost for 100 teachers is approximately $64,000.
The total projected annual funding amount for participants in both options is approximately $154,000.
3
3
Option 3. Curriculum and Training:
This option would provide childcare programs with resources that strengthen and support each
program’s educational philosophy, curriculum implementation, and overall quality of care. Funding
would support materials, staff development, coaching, and ongoing curriculum resources to enhance
the learning experience for children and families.
This funding option includes:
Provide funding up to $10,000 per program for curriculum-related staff training and coaching, for a
projected annual cost of $120,000 based on 12 childcare programs and provide funding up to $5,000
per year, per program, to maintain and replenish curriculum materials, for a projected annual cost of
$60,000 based on 12 childcare programs.
The projected annual cost is $180,000.
Option 4. Operational Funding at the discretion of each school:
This funding option would include open-ended funding to be used at the childcare programs’ discretion
and could cover any of the previously described programs.
$2,500 per classroom per year, 41 classrooms $102,500
$5,000 per classroom per year, 41 classrooms $205,000
$10,000 per classroom per year, 41 classrooms $410,000
FINANCIAL IMPACTS:
Kids First has consistently and responsibly built its reserve balance, creating an opportunity to
strategically deploy a portion of these funds to advance priority programming such as the Base Funding
Initiative.
The cost of this program will depend on the funding level selected by City Council and could range from
$135,000 to $410,000 annually.
Any new or adjusted funding requests will be formally analyzed and brought forward to the Aspen City
Council for review, consideration, and approval at the appropriate time.
School Examples:Per Room # of rooms Per room x # rooms # of programs Totals Grand Totals
ELC $2,500.00 8 Classrooms $20,000.00 1 $20,000.00
$5,000.00 8 Classrooms $40,000.00 1 $40,000.00
$10,000.00 8 Classrooms $80,000.00 1 $80,000.00 $102,500.00
ASD, AJAX, Basalt, Stotts $2,500.00 5 Classrooms $12,500.00 4 $50,000.00
$5,000.00 5 Classrooms $25,000.00 4 $100,000.00
$10,000.00 5 Classrooms $50,000.00 4 $200,000.00 $205,000.00
JCC, LR, WW, WCK $2,500.00 2 Classrooms $5,000.00 4 $20,000.00
$5,000.00 2 Classrooms $10,000.00 4 $40,000.00
$10,000.00 2 Classrooms $20,000.00 4 $80,000.00
ACD $2,500.00 3 Classrooms $7,500.00 1 $7,500.00 $410,000.00
$5,000.00 3 Classrooms $15,000.00 1 $15,000.00
$10,000.00 3 Classrooms $30,000.00 1 $30,000.00
TP, LSC $2,500.00 1 Classrooms $2,500.00 2 $5,000.00
$5,000.00 1 Classrooms $5,000.00 2 $10,000.00
$10,000.00 1 Classrooms $10,000.00 2 $20,000.00
4
4
The City of Aspen has a strong history of recognizing childcare as critical public infrastructure,
supported through sustained public investment to ensure quality, affordability, and availability.
Continued financial prioritization through strategic reserve reallocation will further support families who
live and/or work in Pitkin County and help sustain a high-quality childcare ecosystem essential to the
region.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommend that City Council approve Option 4, Operational Funding, to provide flexible support
that enables childcare providers to address their most urgent operational needs.
• Approve Option 4, Operational Funding, at $5,000 per classroom per year for 41 classrooms, for
a total annual investment of $205,000.
OR
• Approve Option 4, Operational Funding, at $10,000 per classroom per year for 41 classrooms,
for a total annual investment of $410,000.
A key advantage of Option 4 is that it allows individual programs, in partnership with their directors and
boards, to determine how funds can be used most effectively to address their highest-priority needs.
ALTERNATIVES:
• Approve a different level of funding or a different option to support the sustainability of early
childhood providers in our community.
• Make No Changes to Kids First Programming
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
[Leave this section blank as it is intended for the city manager to provide additional context for council
at their discretion.]
ATTACHMENTS
• None
5
STAFF REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Kyla Smits, CFM, Project Manager
PJ Murray, PE, Stormwater and Clean River Program Manager
THROUGH: Tricia Aragon, PE, City Engineer
Daniel Lawson, Public Works Director
MEETING DATE: June 15, 2026
SUBJECT: Clean River Program Urban Runoff Management Plan
Update – Threshold Simplification and Permitting Clarity
__________________________________________________________________
INTENDED OUTCOME:
As part of the ongoing Urban Runoff Management Plan (URMP) update, the intended
outcome is to update City Council on the approach staff is exploring to simplify the
URMP thresholds. The goal is to improve permitting clarity, consistency, and usability
while maintaining effective stormwater management protections. The proposed
framework presented in this memo reflects staff’s current direction, though specific
thresholds and definitions may be refined as analysis continues and staff coordinates
with Development Services.
Staff is seeking Council feedback on this direction before finalizing thresholds and the
approach. The fully updated URMP, including any policy actions, will come back to
Council later this year for approval.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This memo provides City Council with an update on staff’s ongoing work to simplify the
URMP thresholds to improve clarity, consistency, and usability in the permitting process
while maintaining effective stormwater management protections . At a work session in
November 2025, Council requested additional information about how interior only and
interior with minor exterior work are viewed under the current code and how the manual
updates could simplify the engineering review for these types of projects. Additionally,
during initial stakeholder outreach events, feedback about the complexities of
determining what engineering requirements are triggered was a consistent theme.
The current framework relies on multiple documents and percentage-based calculations
that can be difficult to interpret, particularly for projects that include a mix of interior and
exterior work. In response, staff worked with Wright Water Engineers, the consultant
retained for the manual update, to explore ways to simplify how thresh olds are applied
6
while maintaining the intent of the code so that projects with comparable impacts
continue to be reviewed for runoff management, water quality treatment, and protection
of public and private infrastructure. As part of the broader URMP update, this memo is
intended to brief Council on the proposed threshold framework, explain how it
addresses previously identified concerns, and outline next steps as staff continues
refining definitions and submittal requirements.
DISCUSSION:
In 2025 council approved a contract for updates to the URMP, with the focus on three
main goals: modernized stormwater control measures (SCM), technical updates, and
improved readability and usability. This memo focuses on the third goal, improved
readability and usability.
Staff’s review of the current URMP thresholds, informed by feedback from council, the
development community, and experience administering the program, identified recurring
challenges with the complexity and usability of the existing framework, particularly in
determining when engineering review is required. While water quality treatment remains
an important consideration, the primary function of these thresholds is to ensure that
runoff generated by development is managed safely and consistently acro ss the
community. In response, this phase of the update is focused on simplifying how
thresholds are applied without reducing the City’s ability to manage runoff, protect
infrastructure, and safeguard river health. Because all properties contribute runoff, clear
and predictable thresholds are essential to maintaining effective drainage systems ,
flood prevention, protection of structures and safeguarding the Roaring Fork River and
its associated riparian areas.
Staff and applicant teams, especially when working on projects that involved interior and
exterior work, often would have to spend multiple hours discussing project scope, and
impact to determine the level of engineering review. The percentage calculations and
unclear definitions left room for interpretation, and determination differences depending
on the member of staff an applicant team met with. The threshold updates are intended
to address these issues.
The threshold changes center around 4 improvements:
1. Gross Square Footage Thresholds
2. Reduced Number of Review Categories
3. Alignment with Other Review Agencies
4. Reduction from multiple checklists to a single flow chart
Working with the Development Services team, staff conducted permit data analysis that
indicates this improved framework captures a similar number of higher-impact projects
while improving predictability for applicants and consistency across departments.
Gross Square Footage Thresholds: Replacing percentages and pre-project conditions
with gross square-footage thresholds makes the engineering development review
7
process easier to administer and better aligned with other departments and engineering
subgroups. It also aligns with square-footage standards and definitions used by other
agencies, making project impacts easier for applicants to understand. Figure 1 shows
that the existing interior remodel thresholds relied on a 50% impervious area threshold
combined with a 50% or 75% interior remodel threshold. That layered percentage
approach, along with the use of a definition not used by other departments, is why staff
identified this threshold for revision.
Figure 1: Existing Threshold Matrix Describing Percentage Calculations Required to Determine
Engineering Review Level
Reduced Number of Review Categories: In administering the current program, staff
rarely used the existing major level 1 category. It was intended to reduce requirements
when the majority of a lot remained untouched, but in practice most projects disturbed
enough of the lot to require full major level 2 review. Figure 2 below describes the
difference, greater or less than 25% of the lot meant a change in requirements. As a
result, staff is proposing to reduce the engineering categories to three: no engineering
development review, minor review, and major review. This reduction in categories will
not change the required hydraulic engineering analysis that needs to be provided by
applicants. Other proposed updates to the URMP, like updated stormwater control
measures and clearly stated exemptions, will allow for the intent of the code and level of
projects captured to remain the same.
8
Figure 2: Existing Criteria Chart showing Major Level Engineering Requirements
Alignment with Other Review Agencies: Changing to square footage-based thresholds
and reducing the categories allowed staff to adjust the numbers to be in line with the
thresholds for Construction Management Plans and with the Construction and
Demolition Debris Program. The new thresholds also align with definitions for work area
utilized by other departments. The existing definitions used to determine impact for
engineering reviews are in the International Existing Building Code (IEBC) but were not
utilized by other departments. The utilization of this definition is shown in figure 3 below.
Changing the thresholds to rely on building work area and disturbance area are
definitions used throughout engineering and in multiple other review departments. This
change unifies engineering codes and underlines how impactful large interior remodels
and combination projects are. Staff’s initial analysis shows that this relates to the same
number of projects when looking at work area versus total building square footage.
Figure 3: Existing Interior Project Definition that utilizes the IEBC.
Reduction from Multiple Checklists to a Single Flow Chart: To address the complexity of
the existing framework, staff and the consultants first organized the existing framework
into a flow chart as can be seen in Figure 4 below. This is a visual improvement on the
existing framework but still leaves confusing thresholds and 3 lengthy explanation
documents to support it. The exercise of drafting the existing threshold flowchart
allowed staff to focus in on how to improve it. The proposed flowchart is shown in figure
5 below.
9
Figure 4: Existing thresholds in flowchart form
Figure 5: Current Draft of the proposed threshold flowchart
10
The proposed threshold flowchart follows clear, uninterrupted paths. It reduces the
amount of qualifying questions and overall simplifies the process for determining the
project impact. Reducing the review types and changing to square footage numbers
adds additional clarity. The proposed flowchart is a culmination of the improvements
previously discussed.
Staff will continue refining supporting materials, including clarifying definitions, updating
submittal checklists, and incorporating standalone policies into the URMP where
appropriate. This proposed threshold revision is intended to direct future improvements
as Wright Water Engineers and staff continue to work on the URMP update.
Additional related topics, such as potential policy direction on Stream Margin
requirements and coordination with the Riparian Area Assessment, remain under
evaluation and may return to Council in a future memo or resolution. These topics are
closely related to the broader purpose of stormwater management, which is to manage
runoff in a way that protects public infrastructure, private property, water quality, and the
long-term health of Aspen’s river systems. Staff will continue coordinating with our
consultants and the Planning Department as these potential code changes are
evaluated.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
This manual has broad environmental implications. Effective drainage management
protects infrastructure and private property while supporting more natural water flow. As
a headwater community for the Roaring Fork River, Aspen’s actions affect downstream
users throughout the watershed. Increased runoff carrying higher sediment and
pollutant loading can have significant adverse effects on river health, and even small
lots can contribute meaningful impacts. The stormwater program and the URMP help
reduce these risks and support the long-term health of the river. Updating the thresholds
in the direction staff recommends, will continue to allow the City to regulate high-impact
projects while simplifying the process for the development community.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends proceeding with the threshold flowchart and related revisions as
presented. Staff will continue refining the specifics, definitions associated with these
thresholds, and updating submittal checklists to clarify required documents and
submittal expectations.
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatives to the proposed thresholds are described below:
Alternative A: Continue using the existing developed thresholds and documents with no
change.
11
Alternative B: Continue using the thresholds as is but simplify into a flowchart. This
would still add some clarity to the process but would not unify the thresholds across
engineering and other departments.
Alternative C: Rather than simplifying the existing thresholds and adding clarity, this
task could be redefined as a feasibility study to explore alternative stormwater
management thresholds not in line with maintaining the current intent of the code. For
example, the city could consider adjusting the thresholds for requiring treatment or
providing treatment systems in public rights-of-way or on city-owned parcels, rather than
relying solely on private property solutions or look at decreasing the requirements on
interior remodels only.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff will continue to work with the consultants to update all permitting documents to
align with the new threshold framework. Readability and useability will continue to be a
guiding principle in the URMP update.
As additional changes come before Council, staff’s focus will remain on aligning the
URMP with Council-adopted documents, including the Riparian Area Assessment, and
with existing code. The Stream Margin Area was established to protect the river corridor
from development that interferes with its essential functions. Aligning code with adopted
policy documents will strengthen these protections and help preserve this important
resource.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
12