Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcclc.ag.07062005Jfine 30,2005 Commercial Core and Lodging Commission City of Aspen Aspen, CO 81611 Re: Ducky Derby Sales Tent - Cooper Mall Request Dear Commission: On behalf of the Aspen Rotary Club, I am requesting a permit to erect a vending tent on the Cooper Avenue Mall for the two weeks prior to our principal fund raising event - the 14th annual Ducky Derby. This is a request we've made in the past and that the Commission has approved. The year our tent is 20 feet by 20 feet. This is larger than last year but will allow us to keep the table and all our extra merchandise within the tent. I've discussed this with Ed VanWalraven of the Aspen Fire Protection District and this larger dimension maintains adequate clearances for fire apparatus. We're requesting a two-week permit - July 30 through August 12th. The event is on August 13th. Attached is a photo rendering of the approximate footprint of the tent. I'll bring a map of the mall area to the meeting. Sincerely, Chris Bendon Aspen Rotary Club Page 1 of 3 From: mgoodman~markfichardsaspen.com Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 02:21:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Meeting Agenda for the CCLC To: kathys~ci.aspen.co.us User-Agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.4 Importance: Normal X-Spam: [F-0.0001020200; B=0.500(0); BMI-0.500(none); S=0.010(2005051801); MH=0.500 (2005062413); R-0.010(s8/nl410); SC-~mne] X-MAIL-FROM: <mgoodman~markfichardsaspen.com> X-SOURCE-IP: [209.68.3.41] X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean Kathy, Below is a comprehensive review of the process of where we stand with the lighting issue in the downtown core. I would like to see this forwarded to members of the CCLC and get it on the agenda for our next meeting. I personally feel that this is one of the highest priorities for improvements in the downtown core and the one that has received the least attention. Thanks, Mark Goodman ............................ Original Message ............................ Subject: (no subject) From: "Scott Chism" <scottc~ci.aspen.co.us> Date: Fri, June 17, 2005 4:03 pm To: mgoodman~markrichardsaspen.com Mark- I'm following up with you from our conversation at last week's HPC meeting. Since you and I visited, I have spoken with Phil Overeynder (director of the City's water and electric depts), Ed Sadler (assistant city manager), David Cox (electric dept.) and Robert Sardinsky, aka Sardo (lighting consultant) regarding your concerns you raised with me. Here is what I have learned from my conversations: Over the past couple of years, the City has reviewed light improvement options for the light fixtures located on both Main Street and the pedestrian malls. The light fixtures on Main Street and the pedestrian malls are different from one another. Basically the Main Street light fixtures have a glass prismatic globe that controls light distribution better than the plastic crepe file://C:XDOCUME-1 ~kathys\LOCALS-1 \Temp\eud8 .htm 6/28/2005 Page 2 of 3 textured globes used on the fixtures located in the pedestrian malls. The City has recently replaced many of the bulbs in the Main Street fixtures with a brighter, higher wattage (55 watt from a 23 watt) florescent bulb based on requests from the Police Dept. Sardo believes that the option of replacing the bulbs on the pedestrian malls as well would in the effort to create more light would create even more glare without much additional downward light since the pedestrian mall fixtures have the poor quality plastic globes. Last year, the City commissioned Sardo for a few hours to explore possible retrofit options (reflectors/optics) for the plastic globe fixtures on the pedestrian malls. The reflector options didn't really create a noticeably different effect due to the poor quality plastic globe. At that time, the decision was apparently made by Council/city manager that the retrofit to the plastic globes didn't provide enough of an improvement to warrant further expenditure. Also, according to Ed, the City was dissuaded from changing the historical appearance of the existing light poles by the members of the CCLC. However, Sardo has suggested that a new glass fixture/light source could be obtained for the pedestrian mall lights that would appear almost identical to the plastic globes and be able to provide the better optics that we need to cast the light down onto the paving surface. New fixtures could cost in the range of $800-$1,000 each according to Sardo. Right now, I am aware of no funding that has been set aside for such a fixture change out. Sardo's comprehensive recommendation includes multiple levels of light to appropriately improve the lighting on the pedestrian malls. One level of light includes the building facades. Another level of light includes the historic light pole with a replaced fixture (light source + glass globe with appropriate optics). An additional level of light includes the introduction of low level light (bollards below eye level) and finally enhancing the lighting on elements like trees, artwork, etc. The hollow infrastructure (conduit) is now in place for the secondary electrical circuit that would power additional lights for the pedestrian malls. The conduit connections were recently completed in conjunction with the gas line improvements. According to Phil O., the secondary circuit itself (wire) is currently not scheduled for installation this year. Next spring is the likely time that the secondary circuit (wire) would be installed, but could be installed sooner in the fall if the labor and financial resources were available. How to proceed to improve lighting? The City has initiated the infrastructure necessary to bring a secondary circuit for more light on the pedestrian malls. Public comment could encourage the time frame for the actual secondary circuit schedule to be accelerated but the City is already planning to complete the circuit sometime early next year. The City has gotten some basic recommendations from a lighting consultant to implement a layered lighting concept. A comprehensive, complete lighting plan would be extremely beneficial to identify types and locations of additional lights and any other necessary adjustments. Presently the City has completed small experiments based on actual power availability within the public rights-of-way. Funding has not been made available for such a comprehensive lighting plan. Public comment to City Council could encourage funding to be appropriated for such a plan. I hope this gives you a better idea of the City's current position regarding lighting. I file://C 5DOCUME- 1Lkathys\LOCALS- 1 \Temp\eud8.htm 6/28/2005 Page 3 of 3 believe most people agree that the lighting on the pedestrian malls needs to be enhanced. The City is moving to improve the lighting but not moving fast enough to suit the desires of those business owners and merchants such as yourself. That could change if you and your like-minded colleagues were to convince Council that more resources should be appropriated to this issue. Scott Chism, PLA Parks Planner/Project Manager City of Aspen - Parks Department (970) 429-2029 scottc~ci.aspen.co.us file://C:~DOCUME- 1 ~kathys\LOCALS- 1 \Temp\eud8.htm 6/28/2005 Kathy, I have attached a memo written by staff in the Attorney's Office, Environmental Health, and Finance Department describing legal constraints and pro's and con's of franchising, having the city take over trash hauling, or amending the ordinance. Since CCLC asked for this memo, I thought I would provide it now rather than waiting until we have compiled all of the other information. Please let me know if CCLC wants to discuss this memo Thanks, Lee MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Steve Barwick Lee Cassin, David Hoefer August 19, 2004 Trash Collection Options to Increase the Recycle Capture Rate and Curbside Recycling in the City of Aspen, Including Franchising SUMMARY: This memo is a staff report on our investigation of issues related to possible trash franchising in an effort to increase recycling capture rate and waste reduction in the City of Aspen. The intent is that if the City provided its own trash collection service, or contracted with existing trash haulers to provide that service on behalf of the City, we could make recycling free and increase the cost of other trash to compensate, thus increasing recycling capture rate. Lee Cassin, David Hoefer, and Paul Menter researched methods to accomplish the stated goal. There are alternatives that may be more effective than franchising trash service. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council directed the Environmental Health Department to research ways to increase the recycle capture rate and curbside recycling in the City of Aspen as part of the Environmental Health 2004 V,/orkplan. BACKGROUND: Some materials that can be recycled make up a significant portion of our waste stream while others make up a much smaller part of local trash. Franchising or having the City provide trash service can be compared to other ways to improve recycling so the City focuses on getting the most "bang for the buck". Materials that are produced in large volumes and that could be recycled include yard waste (making up 25% of a typical landfill), retail cardboard, restaurant bottles and cardboard, and construction materials. A market-based approach could help increase recycling. A homeowner pays the same fee whether his or her dumpster is overflowing or only 1/4 full. There is little financial incentive to reduce trash volumes either by reducing the amount of trash generated or by recycling more. Customers also typically have to pay an additional amount to have their recycling picked up. So not only is there no incentive to reduce trash by recycling, there is a negative incentive in that recycling costs extra. In reality, future residents will be paying for the filling of the landfill by current customers. The market is not giving accurate price signals about the true long term costs of trash disposal. Because of Federal Antitrust Laws, two approaches definitely cannot be pursued: 1. The awarding of exclusive franchises to trash collectors in various sectors of the city or perhaps for the entire city. This would be enjoinable as an antitrust activity. 2. Sitting down with the trash haulers and dividing up the pie by allocating territories to the exclusion of newcomers. This too would be enjoinable as an antitrust activity. The following approaches would be legal in that they would not violate Antitrust Laws: 1. The displacement of private trash collectors in favor of the establishment of a municipally operated trash collection service. The City could provide recycling at no charge, and Could charge a low rate for one small container and higher rates for customers generating more trash. 2. The engagement by contract with the City of Aspen of a trash collector to operate under the governmental authority of the municipality to collect trash within the city (i.e. trash collected by the city, but by a contract with a private entity). The City could require recycling as part of the base rate and set fees based on volume of trash. 3. The sectoring of the city and the engagement of multiple contractors to serve in various sectors (i.e. trash collected by the city, but by multiple contracts). 4. An ordinance requiring trash companies to provide recycling as part of their base rate and to require volume-based pricing. The County licenses trash haulers, and requires volume-based pricing, but the base volume is too large to encourage waste reduction. In addition, the city requirements may establish a "method for billing," but may not "establish, set, or regulate rates" for trash services (i.e. such rate regulation would be in violation of Section 30-15-401(4) {5), C.R.$.). Requiring recycling in the base rate is a method of billing. Several issues pose challenges. "Pay as you throw" programs can very effectively reduce trash, but we cannot allow people to put individual trash bags outside. Requiring small bear proof containers like those we have downtown would be expensive for homeowners. One year after 13oulder implemented volume-based trash rates, 54% of Boulder households have 1-can or less per week trash service, compared to 26% of households before the change. The amount of trash sent to the landfill, and not recycled, was reduced. The added costs to haulers because of the requirement to pick-up additional recyclables increase costs to consumers, although the costs tend to be borne more by large users. One hauler, for example, increased his rate by about two dollars per month for its customers. Other haulers' rates increased for large volume trash customers and went down for smaller volume trash users. Multi-family buildings are a big challenge, and an important one, since we have so many. Providing "pay as you throw" in multi-family settings might require a punch code system so individual homeowners could be charged according to their use. Businesses are also a challenge because they may see the added cost of separating materials as being greater than the savings in trash rates. If the City operated a trash service or could apply "pay as you throw" the savings could be increased. DISCUSSION: Clearly, recycling and volume-based rates may be required under any approach to trash collection, be it a municipally operated trash collection service, a contract with a trash collector or collectors under the government authority of the city, or the adoption of an ordinance. Advantages and disadvantages of changi~g the city ordinance include: An ordinance would be legally "safer" than contracting. The controversy would be less, in that there would be more opposition from haulers to the City taking over trash service, and there would be more opposition to contracting from companies that felt they might lose business. Starting our own trash service would require a substantial bureaucracy, while an ordinance change would not. A disadvantage is that having the city provide the service could provide city revenues. Using the ordinance approach would not shut out small providers and would maintain Competition. A city ordinance setting a different base volume from the County's would be confusing. ~V~/hatever approach is considered, city staff will want to discuss with the trash haulers and CCLC. Then staff will need to work with retailers and restaurant owners to overcome barriers to recycling, with Parks to implement more recycling, and with citizens to begin a backyard composting program. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: A thorough financial analysis should be done by staff once Council determines whether any of these options should be pursued, to determine exact costs to provide municipal trash service, to contract trash service, or to enact a local ordinance. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City work with the County to lower the base volume and require that recycling be included in the base rate under the County hauler licensing ordinance. The City's role would be to implement a backyard composting program first, investigate the possibility of a community compost program, add recycling in parks and trails, then increase recycling in the malls, and improve recycling by restaurants and retail shops. Staff believes that to make minor progress on these items using existing staff will not fulfill Council's desire to implement significant and visible recycling measures in a timely way. Success will require meeting with the haulers and community groups, working with restaurants and businesses to make real progress on recycling, and research to implement backyard composting A staff member dedicated to implementing these projects quickly would produce the results for which we believe Council is looking.