Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes.OSB.20260416.Regular MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on April 16, 2026 5:00pm at Pearl Pass Room, Aspen City Hall City OST Board Members Present: Julie Hardman, Ted Mahon, Howie Mallory, Ann Mullins, Dan Perl City Staff Members Present: John Spiess, Matt Kuhn, Michael Tunte, Austin Weiss Adoption of the Agenda: Ted made a motion to approve the agenda; Ann seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: None. Approval of the Minutes: Ann made a motion to approve the minutes; Ted seconded, and the vote was unanimous. Staff Comments: John: Roaring Fork Coalition’s community survey is online and public outreach will begin soon. Matt: Parks’ summer seasonal crews will begin in two weeks. Park spaces are free of snow early and will have a brown appearance for a while until soil temperatures rise, allowing them to green up. The City will likely move into Stage 3 drought protocols soon. This means Parks will have a dynamic season managing properties with less water than usual. New Business: Review of Parks Budget and Priorities Matt presented a high-level review of the capital projects budget and strategic thinking about where Parks is headed regarding these projects. Parks’ finance team recently aligned timing of capital and operational budgets to better support holistic planning. The City’s budget season has not officially begun; Parks does not yet have all working documents. The May 21st OSTB (Open Space & Trails Board) meeting will circle back to topics that arise in addition to gathering Board input on the draft general budget which will be provided one week prior. Matt will be away at that time and John will present. Matt presented a strategy and vision for this budget cycle. Mike and Mary and their team have been working to complete the Parks & Open Space Department’s Strategic Plan. In this process, priorities are being added and changed; a staff retreat next Friday will focus on a prioritization exercise that considers parks, open space, and trails. It is hoped that some of these key strategic plan themes can be captured in the 2027 budget, especially in relation to staff time. There are a couple of shifts in major projects. Regarding the Pedestrian Mall: a softening of sales tax revenue and the related budget adaptations are now projected for 2027 (due to airport closure). The five-year vision does not need to be changed at this point. In last year’s budget cycle, contracted design and construction work was reduced. Last year, this came to about $30m (million), which was a lot for staff to manage. For 2026, Parks paced and timed projects for greater use of in-house teams. It is hoped to keep this approach for the next few years. Parks’ aging infrastructure is increasingly costly, and repairs are being made to assets that are 20-30 years old. Often projects are more complex than expected, such as the ARC pool, which was originally budgeted at $1.2m, and $2.9m (from Parks fund) was added as more complexities arose. In the case of large, externally driven projects, Lift One Lodge is an example of how such projects affect budget and staff time. Other such examples are the Entrance to Aspen and Theatre Aspen, projects in which Parks staff is increasingly involved and for which planning and funding will likely be needed for related impacts to trails. Ann asked about the Lumberyard project; Matt explained that staff have already been there this week establishing trail detours. Parks will not oversee construction, but will handle detouring, scheduling, and post construction work. Due to this project’s density and rental-base, there will be green spaces, but they will not be park spaces. Dan asked for clarification of the additional funding required by the ARC pool project; Austin explained that investigation work revealed a drainage failure around the lap pool due to settling beneath the pool shell and mechanical room, requiring more excavation than initially anticipated. Dan asked about the Parks Fund monies that are covering the overage. Matt highlighted the Parks Fund balance, including sources and spending, noting that revenue is being spent according to the current capital plan. He explained that the Parks Fund and spending tracking for other projects are considered when such unforeseen expenses arise. As 2025 books closed out, Parks had about $900,000 in project savings, which contributed to the resources available to the ARC Pool overage. Dan asked about fund balance over the next five years. Matt said that sales tax revenue has been growing well, increasing Parks’ ability to spend. Decisions on pacing of large projects do not contribute to growing the Fund balance. The ABC to Brush Creek Park and Ride project is an example of this concept. The current placeholder is at $1m for this project; if it is increased to $3m in 2028, the balance will change drastically. Parks tends to look 4 years out, keeping targeted reserves above 100% for the 5-year outlook. Matt likes to keep $5-7m in the Fund balance, which allows flexibility for acquisitions and other unexpected expenses. Dan suggested adjusting targeted reserves goals; Matt said that this can be considered at a later date, and that related discussions about bonding and debt repayments will also come up soon. Howie asked if Parks oversees the capital for the pool project; Austin explained that the Parks Fund has traditionally been involved in the construction and major capital expenditures for the ARC, golf center, and similar recreation facilities. Howie asked about revenue generated by the ARC; Austin said that the ARC operates out of the General Fund and has a Council directed goal of 50% cost recovery. This was at 49% for 2025. Revenue goes back into the General Fund, and the other 50% is subsidized. Matt explained that when Parks reauthorized, Facilities was brought into the Parks Fund to alleviate limitations inherent under the General Fund scenario. Parks draws the following distinction: buildings and facilities are funded by the Parks Fund, while things such as lifeguards, program costs, and chlorine are funded by the Recreation program. Matt shared some upcoming changes. The ARC and Golf Facility Master Plan is underway along with a lot of effort to engage the public. It is still unknown how this will affect the Parks Fund and related priorities, but Parks will have upcoming discussions about this. The City’s reconsideration of the record of decision (ROD) on the Entrance to Aspen will have influence on the trail system. The ROD does not fully contemplate and define multi-modal improvements that will happen with this project; drawings of the preferred alternative, for example, do not show new trail connections. Staff are engaging with this process as much as possible to ensure that these values are not diminished. When the ROD goes into an implementation phase, those multi-modal factors will likely be paid for in partnership of in full by an agency outside of CDOT, and certain trail improvements may fall on Parks’ shoulders. Good alignment already exists, including the Cemetery Lane underpass, but such things tend to be big ticket items and require more contemplation. Howie commented that when this Board was created, there was a desire to play a role in the future of the entrance to Aspen, noting density along the highway approaching other nearby communities. He mentioned the Board’s diligence in protecting open space and trails in the entrance area. Ann asked about CDOT’s interest in trails, citing Glenwood Canyon and trails along Highway 6. She expressed hope that CDOT would take charge of the trail system incorporating Parks’ input. Matt said that incorporation of multi modal pedestrian access is a requirement of CDOT’s design standards. Parks is trying to ensure that this is done well, noting that there may be a disconnect between what CDOT and Parks each deem appropriate and is willing and able to fund, such as underpasses and seamless Nordic connections. Austin clarified that the Clear Creek Canyon Trail project has been led by Jefferson County Open Space and Trails. Ann recalled a past prioritization effort in which the Yellow Brick was a top priority and asked if that is still a priority. Matt clarified that the examples shared are not necessarily priorities but are rather anticipated and priorities are not yet clear. Matt mentioned that in terms of acquisitions, Parks has two to three that may come up in the next several years. Matt next highlighted the combination of future revenue softening in 2027 and related adjustments to total capital spending, and the Willoughby Park project coming up in 2028. Parks is paying close attention to projects that will need to be funded in 2028, as the potential for a number of projects to come to fruition at that time is an important variable. Howie asked if the ABC to Brush Creek Bridge is included in the future outlook; Matt said that a modest placeholder is currently in the budget. Howie expressed that he would like that to be a larger number; Matt explained that staff will return to this question because it relates to bonding and scaling questions. Dan asked if Parks has both a capital reserve and the Parks Fund fund; Matt clarified that these are two names for the same fund. Ted asked for this year’s sales tax status; Matt said that current data shows that sales tax is 1-2% year over year. Lodging/hotel tax is at zero, down in volume but up in cost. Howie asked for Finance’s 2027 projection during the airport closure. Matt said that this topic will be coming up in this presentation. Matt presented a review of financials pertaining to 592 Business Services (facilities) and 572 Parks & Open Space. Recreation Facilities is spending a lot more money than Parks this year; Matt showed how these trends alternate from year to year. Regarding capital spending, Parks continues to track at about two-thirds and Facilities tracks at about one third. Staff time must be balanced and reflect this spending on projects. Matt then addressed the forecast from Finance. In 2026, the City of Aspen moved to an online ledger book, which is a useful resource (available at aspen.gov) where financial forecasts pertaining to the City and its departments can be viewed. Matt demonstrated how to navigate this tool. Dan asked if every department is using the same projections for sales tax; Matt said yes, for those that operate on sales tax. Matt highlighted a way to view Parks’ budget information for the next ten years, showing examples of projects and associated outlooks. Matt recapped 2025, mentioning the Office Remodel ($5.8m), which is just now wrapping up; Wagner Park Playground ($674k); Cozy Point Archery ($147k); Cozy Point Compost and Ops ($95k); and Interpretive Signs ($183k). In 2026, Parks is focused on Koch Volleyball minor improvements; Trail improvements including asphalt and Maroon Creek Bridge concrete; and Cozy Point water and building maintenance. This list reflects an intentional scaling back and a focus on deferred maintenance. Matt shared the outcome of a prioritization exercise conducted in 2025, providing a list of projects and their current status. Items labeled “TBD” will retain that status until the Strategic Plan wraps up and provides needed comprehensive consideration. Ann asked for clarification of “Twin Bridge project,” which is the ABC to Brush Creek Intercept Lot Trail/Bridge. The chart includes votes received during the prioritization exercise as well as projected timing of planning, design, funding, etc.: Yellow Brick Playground, Twin Bridge project, Snowmaking and Driving Range Improvements at Golf Course, Galena Plaza phase two, Truscott Trail, Skate Park Expansion, Anderson Park renovation, and Francis Whitaker remodel. Matt mentioned various factors for these projects such as in-house design approaches, target timing, and other possibilities as these projects come into focus. Matt added information on the Wheeler node safety improvements project, for which Council directed an expedited 2027 timing. Ann mentioned the dwindling supply of historic bricks used in the Pedestrian Mall and other locations. Mike shared that the historic bricks will be concentrated at several nodes, while other areas such as the runs of the malls will be replaced with a modern brick that will accommodate accessibility needs. Salvage rate for historic bricks is 50% or less, as the bricks are past useful service. Ann asked for clarification of improvement plans for the mall related to the brick surface. Mike shared that maintenance and improvement efforts are ongoing, and a new brick standard will appear here over time. Regarding the Yellow Brick Park, Parks teams have begun working on this effort, including understanding how the site functions in the different seasons, conversations with the childcare services that use the space, land use process, and cost estimate ranges for budgeting. The team has also been working on Connor Park in collaboration with the City’s Asset team. At Cozy Point, work includes water treatment expansion and testing, a riparian plan, storage within the Farm Collaboration’s lease area, and ongoing upkeep. John added that the learning center building has a CO and the Board is invited to visit. Staff are actively using the Strategic Plan to inform work and capital plans, for example accessibility at Moore Ballfields and John Denver Sanctuary, forestry and trails at Shadow Mountain, and Open Space management plans. Howie asked about gaps in the future trail alignment across Shadow Mountain; Matt explained that two remaining properties are needed to bridge this gap and that the Strategic Plan will help inform this process. Matt opened discussion, posing questions for the Board: Does the pace and focus feel appropriate? Thoughts on how long we balance current budget vs. taking on larger projects that would require a bond? Parks Fund commitments to AABC to Brush Creek Bridge Project? Dan commented on the voting method for prioritization, suggesting that this could be looked at again to re-evaluate the true highest to lowest priorities. Howie commented the greatest public good would be served by prioritizing the Twin Bridges project in two phases. Julie commented that the pace feels good and mentioned her concern for the potential for many projects to happen at the same time, such as Entrance to Aspen, Lumberyard, airport, and school campus projects. Matt added that other streets projects could also coincide. Ann expressed her support for Twin Bridges, contingent on contributing partners. She expressed hesitancy about pursuing a bond, given the airport closure and uncertainty about future low snow winters. Austin mentioned the ’99 bonds that are currently being paid off. Howie mentioned that there are obligations to perform on the basis of any bond. Dan expressed that he is not supportive of a bond, mentioning that he supports Twin Bridges within current budget constraints. Ted said the pace feels appropriate, and that it is important to address deferred maintenance. He asked if Twin Bridges is penciled in and asked for status on this project. Matt said that this project does not have a green light from the BOCC, although there are a couple of check-ins with BOCC coming up. He commented that this is still a priority if it goes forward but is not a bond-worthy situation. Howie added that two commissioners are reluctant to support this project, and that incoming commissioners may or may not be supportive. Howie added concern that the airport modernization project could demand additional resources. Howie expressed his reluctance about a bond, suggesting a phased approach. Austin added that projects like the Golf/Nordic Master Plan and any expansion of the ARC would require bonds to move forward, and future acquisitions could also require large sums. Howie asked if completion of the office remodel will free up some staff time. Austin said that the Asset Department managed this project. Mike added that crews and teams will function better when back in the same workspace. Matt recapped Board input: support for pace and focus, work within existing budget, and support for Twin Bridges with partners and BOCC approval. Matt said that more high-level budget information will be provided for the May meeting. Old Business: None. Board Comments: Dan: asked if a Board meeting could be hosted at the new Parks office. He suggested a conversation about current targeted reserves in relation to future uses and any needed updates. Matt mentioned that a tour will be provided in late May or early June. Ted: mentioned that the yellow school bus that someone lives in is now back in the area and asked if it is permitted to park on the settling pond area near the hospital. Staff said that this is not permitted. Howie: asked if the church property purchase by the historic Maroon Creek Bridge is moving forward; John said that an offer has been made and a response is awaited. Howie asked for an update on Class 2 e-bikes on trails. These are allowed on all paved trails subject to speed limits, wattage, and mass. On May 11th there will be a Council work session to discuss e-bikes. Parks will be present and prepared to discuss education and enforcement, adding that overall management recommendations can be taken to Council at this time. Next Meeting Date(s): Regular meeting May 21, 2026. Executive Session: N/A Adjourned: Ted made a motion to adjourn; Ann seconded, and the vote was unanimous.