HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.regular.20060911
^' ",""'-;_.,.....,..,.,~"."._.._".~..."-_..._.,,-"''',,,...''',._-,.,..
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
September 11, 2006
5:00 P.M.
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Moment of Silence
IV. Scheduled Public Appearances
a) Board Commendation - Craig Ward, Open Space Board
V. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues
NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes)
VI. Special Orders of the Day
a) Mayor's Comments
b) Councilmembers' Comments
c) City Manager's Comments
d) Board Reports
VII. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion)
a) Resolution #72, 2006 - Readoption of Annexation Plan
b) Resolution #73, 2006 - Purchase Mowers - Golf Department
c) Resolution #74,2006 - Replacement Air Injection Pothole Patch Truck
d) Minutes - August 28, 2006
VIII. First Reading of Ordinances
a) Ordinance #33,2006 -Impact Fees P.H. 10/10
b) Ordinance #38,2006 - Extension of Moratorium P.H. 9/25
IX. Public Hearings
a) Resolution #75, 2006 - COWOP Eligibility for Puppy Smith
b) Ordinance #34,2006 - Supplemental Appropriation
c) Ordinance #37,2006 - Dean Street Vacation
X. Action Items
XI. Adjournment
Next Regular Meeting September 25, 2006
COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMA TEL Y 7 P.M.
Vila..
MEMORANDUM
Mayor Klanderud and City Council
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director CltltVl
Jennifer, Senior Long Range Planner(~
TO:
RE:
City of Aspen Annexation Plan
DA E:
September II, 2006
Su MARY:
The City of Aspen is required by State statute to maintain an annexation plan,
adopted at least once annually. A substantial update of the plan occurred in 2002 to
be compatible with the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan and the Urban Growth
Boundary. Since 2002, minimal changes to the plan have been adopted - primarily
updates to the maps to accurately reflect newly annexed lands. Since the last update
and adoption of the annexation plan in 2005, no annexations have occurred, and no
changes to the plan are proposed.
The State's requirements for an annexation plan are minimal and are primarily
oriented to Front Range communities who sometimes use annexation to gain political
and tax base advantage. A "three-mile boundary" must be identified (municipalities
may not expand in any direction more than three miles per year). The plan must
generally describe the proposed municipal infrastructure and planned land uses for
any land to be annexed within the three-mile area. Staff believes the proposed plan
meets the State's requirements.
In addition to meeting the minimum requirements, the City's plan includes a
description of each character area in the three-mile boundary, the statutory annexation
criteria, "local annexation criteria," the sequential steps to complete an annexation,
and an example annexation petition. This additional information aids property
owners contemplating annexation. The local criteria describe potential land use and
planning issues for each character area within three miles of the City boundary.
S1' FF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends approval of the Annexation Plan.
cr'YMA~~~=r~~ 1~ ~O-~ ~
1--
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No.~Series of2006, adopting the City of Aspen
Annexation Plan."
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A - Annexation Plan
2
.._~
RESOLUTION No.l~
(SERIES OF 2006)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING
THE CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION PLAN.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 31-12-105, the City of Aspen
must annually adopt a "plan" guiding future annexations; and,
WHEREAS, the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) called for an update of the
City's annexation plan to reflect the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as jointly adopted by the
City of Aspen and Pitkin County; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission discussed a draft of this
updated plan during a work session on May 28, 2002; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council and the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners discussed a draft of the updated plan on July 16, 2002; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department refined and updated this
plan, in consultation with the Pitkin County Community Development Department, to be
consistent with the 2000 AACP; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the updated annexation plan on September 22,
2002; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has subsequently adopted annexation plans with minor
boundary changes as a result of annexations on an annual basis; and,
WHEREAS, there has been no annexation of land in the past year resulting in no
amendments to the annexation plan of2005; and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on September II, 2006, the City Council
considered the City's boundary, the city's annexation plan, and a recommendation of approval
from the Community Development Director; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the annexation plan meets or exceeds all applicable
standards and that adoption of the plan is consistent with the goals and elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council has formally adopted the City of Aspen
Annexation Plan.
RESOL YED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED FINALLY this II th day of September,
2006.
Approved as to form:
Approved as to content:
City Attorney
Helen K. K1anderud, Mayor
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
I..
ANNEXA liON PLAN
CITY OF ASPEN
SEPTEMBER, 2006
I....
,
CONTENTS
2 City Council Resolution
3 Purpose
4 Annexation Area
5 Annexation Area Characteristics
8 Sequential Steps to Complete Annexation
11 Statutory Annexation Criteria
12 Local Annexation Criteria
15 Example Annexation Petition
17 Map A
18 Map B
PREPARED BY
City of Aspen Community Development Department
Jennifer Phelan, Long Range PLanner
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
970.920.5090
THI Ci I Y OF ASI'F".
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 1
RESOLUTION NO.
(SERIES OF 2006)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING
THE CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION PLAN.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) 31-12-105, the
City of Aspen must annually adopt a "plan" guiding future annexations; and,
WHEREAS, the 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan (AACP) called for an update of
the City's annexation plan to reflect the Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) as jointly adopted
by the City of Aspen and Pitkin County; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission discussed a draft of this
updated plan during a work session on May 28,2002; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council and the Pitkin County Board of County
Commissioners discussed a draft of the updated plan on July 16, 2002; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Community Development Department refined and updated
this plan, in consultation with the Pitkin County Community Development Department, to be
consistent with the 2000 AACP; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council adopted the updated annexation plan on September 22,
2002; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council has subsequently adopted annexation plans with minor
boundary changes as a result of annexations on an annual basis; and,
WHEREAS, there has been no annexation of land in the past year resulting in no
amendments to the annexation plan of2005; and,
WHEREAS, during a regular meeting on September II, 2006, the City Council
considered the City's boundary, the city's annexation plan, and a recommendation of
approval from the Community Development Director; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the annexation plan meets or exceeds all
applicable standards and that adoption of the plan is consistent with the goals and elements of
the Aspen Area Community Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: That the City Council has formally adopted the City of
Aspen Annexation Plan.
RESOLVED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED FINALLY this II th day of September,
2006.
Approved as to form:
Approved as to content:
Signed copy on file with City Clerk
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 2
City Attorney
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Helen K. K1anderud, Mayor
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 3
PURPOSE
The City of Aspen Annexation Plan reflects land use policy of the Aspen Area Community
Plan (MCP) with regard to adding urbanized land, and land appropriate for urbanization,
surrounding Aspen to the City's jurisdiction. The Plan provides landowners whose property
is adjacent to the City of Aspen with the relevant requirements and processes for requesting
inclusion into the City of Aspen. The City of Aspen shall use its legislative authority of
annexation and this annexation plan to:
. Ensure the natural and well-ordered development of the City.
. Distribute fairly and equitably the costs of city services among those persons who
benefit therefrom.
. Extend the city's government, services, and facilities to eligible citizens forming part
of a whole community.
. Simplify jurisdictional boundaries and reduce administrative confusion.
. Increase the City's ability to provide its citizens with the services they require.
Colorado Revised Statute
All annexation actions by cities in Colorado are governed by CRS 31-12-102, et. seq.
These statutory requirements include the City's need to maintain an annexation plan for a
three-mile boundary around the existing City limits. The specific requirements include the
following:
"Prior to completion of any annexation, within the three mile area, the municipality
shall have in place a plan for the area, which generally describes the proposed
location character, and extent of streets, subways, bridges, waterways, waterfronts,
parkways, playgrounds, squares, parks, aviation fields, other public ways, grounds,
open spaces, public utilities, and terminals for water, light, sanitation, transportation,
and power to be provided by the municipality and the proposed land uses for the
area. Such plan shall be updated at least once annually. "
Urban Growth Boundarv
The City of Aspen and Pitkin County jointly approved Aspen's Urban Growth Boundary
(UGB) via adoption of the 2000 MCP. (The 2000 Aspen Area Community Plan may be
obtained from the Aspen/Pitkin Community Development Office, City Hall, Aspen.) The UGB
identifies the land surrounding Aspen as either appropriate for urban development (within
the UGB) or inappropriate for urban development (outside the UGB). Land within the UGB
is expected to become part of the City's urbanized area, at some point, while land outside
the UGB should only be annexed as a method of preserving the non-urban character of
lands surrounding Aspen. The UGB should be amended upon determination that the
subject land should be re-categorized, independent of an annexation decision.
Disclosure
The City of Aspen Annexation Plan has been adopted to meet the compulsory requirements
set forth by the State of Colorado, pursuant to CRS 31-12-105. The plan should not be
considered a replacement or complete reflection of the state statutes. Property owners
seeking annexation should consult the Colorado Revised Statutes. The plan is not binding
upon the City of Aspen.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 4
CITY OF ASPEN ANNEXATION AREA
Map A depicts Aspen's annexation area, corresponding to the State's three-mile area
requirement, based on the September, 20ct jurisdictional boundary. The jointly-adopted
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) is also shown.
The City of Aspen is currently approximately 2,420 acres. The area within the UGB is
approximately 4,860 acres, roughly twice the size of the current City jurisdiction. This land
within the UGB has been determined appropriate for urbanization and is likely to become
part of the City of Aspen.
The three-mile area is approximately 48,000 acres, 46,000 acres larger than the current City
jurisdiction. Much of this three-mile area is outside Aspen's UGB and considered
inappropriate for urbanization. Annexation of areas outside the UGB should only be
considered as a means of preserving the non-urban character of the land.
To understand the City's potential service needs, annexation areas within the UGB have
been analyzed as smaller land areas. The boundaries for each area were developed based
on the following factors: physical features, existing development patterns, existing property
lines, and established neighborhood areas.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 5
ANNEXATION AREA CHARACTERISTICS
The City is required to identify the area within three miles of its boundary. (See Map A.) The
proximity of these areas, however, does not necessarily mean these areas are desirable for
annexation. The three-mile area is a State requirement and should not be considered an
intention of the Citv of Aspen. Many areas, outside of the UGB especially, may be entirely
inappropriate for annexation.
Following is an overview of land use characteristics for each area within a three-mile radius
of the City, with particular attention paid to the areas within the UGB. The areas described
are shown on Map B. These general characteristics provide a basis for understanding
potential land use issues that may need to be addressed during an annexation.
Ute/Northstar. Shadow Mountain. Red Butte
Generally, rural areas with very limited growth potential due to their physical
circumstances. These areas are particularly affected by environmental hazards and
each request should include an analysis of the regulatory tools used to address such
hazards. The City's Land Use Code provisions for Environmentally Sensitive Areas
(ESA's) may adequately guide the growth and development of these areas. Further
consideration should be given to the more stringent County 1041 regulations
particularly with regard to development on steep slopes.
Mountain Valley. Red Mountain
Generally, suburban areas comprised of predominantly developed subdivisions.
Several similar subdivisions, such as Eastwood and Knollwood, have already
annexed into the City. The major land use issues affecting this group include floor
area ratios, legitimizing "bandit dwelling units," wildfire mitigation, wildlife corridors,
and the status of the roads and ability of the City to adequately maintain and upgrade
them as necessary.
Remote Subdivisions
Several small residential subdivisions, located along the Maroon Creek, Castle
Creek, and Roaring Fork River drainages, are within the three-mile area. These
subdivisions have little to no additional development potential. These areas do not
appear to provide any advantage to the City and could become infrastructure service
burdens. New land use regulations addressing wildfire, wildlife, avalanche, and
development on steep slopes would be required.
Lower Smuqqler
This area contains large development parcels with growth potential, existing
subdivisions with little remaining growth potential, the historically important Smuggler
Mine, and steeply sloped areas with limited growth potential. Continued public
access to the Upper Smuggler area and recreational opportunities would need to be
ensured. Land Use Code provisions for mining activity would be necessary.
Regulatory tools to address development on steep slopes would be necessary.
Upper Smuqqler
This area contains large publicly and privately-owned parcels with significant
infrastructure limitations and steeply sloped areas with very limited growth potential.
This area was an active mining area. Currently, this area is a very popular recreation
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 6
area and is a primary public access to public lands. Much of this area has been
identified as "land with conservation value" in the MCP. Continued public access to
public lands and recreational opportunities would need to be ensured. Regulatory
tools to address development on steep slopes would be necessary.
Meadowood, Tennis Club, West Buttermilk Subdivision. and State Hiqhwav 82 Corridor
Generally, suburban areas comprised of predominantly developed subdivisions.
The major land use issues affecting this group include floor area ratios, legitimizing
"bandit dwelling units," trail connections, and the status of the roads and ability of the
City to adequately maintain and upgrade them as necessary. A few large parcels
with significant development potential exist between Meadowood and State Highway
82. The Aspen Valley Hospital was recently annexed.
Bar X Ranch. A VL T. and Lower Maroon Creek
Generally agricultural in character with significant growth potential. Development
issues include preserving the riparian habitat along Maroon Creek, trail connections,
fishing access, and traffic generation impacts to the Highway 82 corridor. The Bar X
Ranch and A VL T land was recently annexed for the purposes of developing a mix of
free-market and affordable dwelling units. The Soldner Family parcel remains in
County jurisdiction.
Buttermilk Base Area
The base of Buttermilk Ski Area represents significant development opportunity with
potential impacts on, and benefits to, the City of Aspen. This area is presently
underutilized and is identified in the MCP as a development node for concentrated
mixed-use, transit-oriented development. Residential, commercial, and lodging
development would affect the City's infrastructure and the area's commercial and
lodging profile. This area represents a significant opportunity for transportation
improvements. Additionally, the redevelopment of this area may provide the City
opportunity to reach community goals. This area should be annexed into the City of
Aspen prior to development review. If redevelopment of this area is entitled in the
County and then the land is annexed, significant coordination on the administration
of development approvals will be necessary.
Aspen Business Center and North Fortv
Suburban areas with moderate growth potential. The North Forty subdivision is
reaching its residential build-out and has some potential for additional commercial
development. The ABC has moderate growth potential in both residential and
commercial sectors, most of which would involve redevelopment. Significant
expansion of commercial uses in the ABC' would affect the profile of commercial
activity in the Aspen area and may affect transportation patterns. A new zone district
would likely be required to accommodate the ABC.
Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District. County Maintenance Facility, RFTA bus barn, Sardy
Field (Aspen/Pitkin Countv Airport), North Hiqhway 82 Corridor
These public infrastructure facilities are currently operated by either the county or
special districts. Expansion of these facilities could be expected to coincide with
growth of the area's population and service needs, although physical constraints may
limit expansion capabilities. Expansion of the airport is also controlled by public
policy discussions of increasing Aspen's tourist capacity. Intergovernmental
agreements may be necessary for annexation of these facilities.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 7
Brush Creek Villaqe. Cozv Point Ranch. Starwood. McLain Flats
Suburban subdivisions comprised of single-family residences. Cozy Point Ranch is
an agricultural and equestrian operation owned and managed by the City of Aspen.
These areas, while within the three-mile area, are removed from Aspen and not likely
to become incorporated into the City. The major land use issues affecting this group
include floor area ratios, legitimizing "bandit dwelling units," wildfire mitigation, wildlife
corridors, and the status of the roads and ability of the City to adequately maintain
and upgrade them as necessary.
Woodv Creek
The three-mile area includes a portion of the Woody Creek drainage. Thi~ rural area
is predominantly agricultural and estate ranches. Although geographically proximate
to the City's boundary, this area lies in a separate drainage basin and is logistically
remote from Aspen. This area is not expected to become part of the City of Aspen.
Snowmass Villaqe
The three-mile area includes part of Snowmass Village, an incorporated town. Only
unincorporated lands are eligible for annexation. This area is not expected to
become part of the City of Aspen.
Owl Creek Ranch. Droste Ranch
This rural area functions as a buffer between the urbanized areas of Aspen and
Snowmass Village. Predominantly single-family homes on large lots, this area could
sustain significant additional development with the extension of urban infrastructure
and bring about significant change in the character of the area. The major land use
issues affecting this group include the desired character of the area, additional
development potential, wildfire mitigation, wildlife corridors, recreational trails, and
the status of the area's infrastructure.
Ski Areas - Aspen Mountain. Aspen Hiqhlands. Buttermilk
These areas correspond with ski area permit boundaries. . This land is typically
Forest Service land, although substantial portions of Aspen Mountain Ski Area are
owned by the Aspen Ski Company. The City's Land Use Code is better suited to
regulate base facilities. Annexation would necessitate new land use legislation to
regulate ski area operation and may also necessitate backcountry emergency rescue
operation.
Forest Lands
These areas correspond with Federally-owned land maintained by the United States
Forest Service and privately-owned "in-holdings," These areas are remote, with little
or no existing services and have limited access. These areas are typically zoned
Rural and Remote (RR) by Pitkin County to maintain the backcountry character.
These areas do not appear to provide any advantage to the City and could be a
burden. Annexation of these areas would necessitate new land use legislation to
regulate backcountry development, agreements with the Forest Service for
permitting and administration of forest-related activities, and may also necessitate
backcountry emergency rescue operation.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 8
_.._,------.-~- .."~.._~._--._---
SEQUENTIAL STEPS TO COMPLETE ANNEXATION
Annexation Process: Associated Processes:
Pre-Application Conference. (See Note #1)
Annexation Petition Filed - Landowner
submits necessary application materials to
the City Clerk. (See example petition,
attached.)
Property owner may enter into a pre-
annexation agreement with the City of
Aspen. (See note #2\
Resolution #1 - City Council Initiates
annexation process by adoption of a
resolution. Resolution establishes a pubiic
hearing be scheduled more than 30 days and
less than 60 days.
City Engineer verifies contiguity requirement
for eligibility.
Public Hearing and Resolution #2 - City
Council identifies properties eligible for
annexation accordinq to State Statute.
Annexation Impact Report - For
annexations of more than 10 acres. (See note
#3)
Land use reviews - The landowner may
initiate any City land use review process
necessary to develOp the property. (See note
#4)
Acknowledgement of Development Rights
- The City reserves the right to accept land
use approvals granted in the county and
establish an agr!3ement for the administration
of said riqhts. (See note #5)
Initial Zoning - The Community Development
Department begins an initial zoning process
and establishes public hearing schedule with
the Planning and Zoning Commission. (See
note #6)
First Reading of Annexation Ordinance -
City Council establishes second reading and
public hearing date.
The City may postpone second reading to
permit a property owner to confirm associated
land use reviews.
Second Reading of Annexation Ordinance
- Property either annexed or denied. -----
Initial Zoning Ordinance - Newly annexed
iand must be assigned zoning within 90 days
of annexation. (See note #6) .
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 9
Process Notes:
1. Pre-Application. Potential applicants are encouraged to meet with the City Attorney to
discuss the annexation process and with the Community Development Director to discuss
the potential benefits of annexation. An annexation petition must be found in compliance
with the statutory annexation criteria and is subject to compliance with local annexation
criteria, to the extent those criteria are considered applicable to the specific petition.
2. Pre-Annexation Aqreement. A property owner seeking annexation may negotiate a pre-
annexation agreement with the City of Aspen. Such negotiations may include, but are not
limited to, the type, amount, character, and timing of development and may specify certain
improvements required of a property owner and financial arrangements securing such
improvements. At such time of actual annexation, a final annexation agreement may be
confirmed.
3. Annexation Impact Report. CRS 31-12-108.5 requires the annexing municipality prepare
an annexation impact report at least 25 days prior to the public hearing (Resolution #2). The
report must be filed with the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). A
report is not required for annexations of 10 acres or less or when the City and the BOCC
agree the report requirement may be waived. An annexation Impact Report shall include, as
a minimum:
A. A map or maps of the municipality and adjacent territory showing the following
information:
1. The present and proposed boundaries for the municipality and in the vicinity of
the proposed annexation.
2. The present streets, major trunk water mains, sewer interceptors and outfalls,
other utility lines and ditches, and the proposed extension of such streets and
utility lines in the vicinity of the proposed annexation.
3. The existing and proposed land use pattern in the areas to be annexed.
B. A copy of any draft or final pre-annexation agreement, if applicable.
C. A statement setting forth the plans of the municipality for extending to or otherwise
providing for, within the area to be annexed, municipal services performed by or on
behalf of the municipality at the time of annexation.
D. A statement setting forth the method under which the municipality plans to finance
the extension of the municipal services into the area to be annexed.
E. A statement identifying existing districts within the area to be annexed.
F. A statement on the effect of annexation upon local public school district systems,
including the estimated number of students generated and the capital construction
required to educate such students.
4. Land Use Reviews. A property owner seeking annexation into the City of Aspen may
initiate land use reviews with the City after the petition for annexation has been found valid
(after adoption of resolution #2). Property owners seeking to develop the property, in fact,
may wish to secure entitlements prior to completing annexation. Land use approvals
granted prior to annexation are subject to final adoption of an annexation ordinance. City
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 10
Council may postpone the final adoption hearing of the annexation ordinance to allow a
property owner to complete a land use review process.
5. Acknowledaement of Development Riahts
Property subject of an annexation request may have certain development rights granted by
Pitkin County. The City of Aspen may choose to recognize these exact development rights
or reach another solution in consultation with the landowner. In instances where land use
approvals .were granted in the County prior to annexing into the City, the City has
significantly benefited with the adoption of a Development Guidebook in combination with
the annexation of the land. This guidebook can be used to define the approvals and
describe how the City will administer the development of the land, including the applicable
design standards for capital improvements. This guidebook can serve an interest of the
landowner, developers interested in realizing the development approvals, the interests of
prospective property owners within the annexed area, and helps clarify the City's
understanding of the development rights.
6. Initial Zonina. The City is required to assign zoning to newly annexed property within 90
days of annexation. Failure to zone land within 90 days may permit unwanted land uses on
newly annexed lands. The City typically begins an initial zoning process prior to final
annexation. This aids a landowner in determining the benefit of completing an annexation.
This initial zoning process follows the process for amending the Official Zone District Map
(rezoning), as outlined in the City of Aspen Land Use Code, and requires a review and
recommendation from the City Community Development Director and a public hearing and
recommendation from the City's Planning and Zoning Commission. Adoption of an
ordinance by City Council is the final step in the initial zoning process. Ideally, second
reading of an annexation ordinance and second reading of a zoning ordinance occur
simultaneously. Property owners are encouraged to participate as an applicant, although not
required, in this initial zoning process.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 11
STATUTORY ANNEXATION CRITERIA
In accordance with CRS 31-12-104, an area is eligible for annexation if the governing body,
at a hearing, finds and determines the following.
1. That not less than one-sixth of the perimeter of the area proposed to be annexed is
contiguous with the annexing municipality. Contiguity is not affected by the existence of
a platted street or alley, a public or private right-of-way area, public lands (except
county-owned open space), or lake, reservoir, stream, or other natural or man-made
waterway between the annexing municipality and the land proposed to be annexed.
Subject to the requirements of CRS 31-12-105, contiguity may be established by the
annexation of one or more parcels in a series, which annexations may be completed
simultaneously and considered together.
2. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and the
annexing municipality; that such area is urban or will be urbanizing in the near future;
and that said area is integrated with or is capable of being integrated with the annexing
municipality. The fact that the area proposed to be annexed has the contiguity with the
annexing municipality required by the above requirement shall be a basis for a finding of
compliance with these requirements unless the governing body, upon the basis of
competent evidence presented at the hearing, finds that at least two of the following are
shown to exist:
a. Less than fifty percent of the adult residents of the area propose to be annexed make
use of part or all of the following types of facilities of the annexing municipality;
Recreational, civic, social, religious, industrial, or commercial; and less than twenty-
five percent of said area's adult residents are employed in the annexing municipality.
If there are no adult residents at the time of the hearing, this standard does not
apply.
b. One half or more of the land in the area proposed to be annexed (including streets)
is agricultural, and the landowners of such agricultural land, under oath, express an
intent to devote the land to such agricultural use for a period of not less than five
years.
c. It is not physically practicable to extend to the area proposed to be annexed those
urban services which the annexing municipality provides in common to all of its
citizens on the same terms and conditions as such services are made available to
such citizens. This standard shall not apply to the extent that any portion of an area
proposed to be annexed is provided or will within the reasonably near future be
provided with any service by or through a quasi-municipal corporation.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 12
LOCAL ANNEXATION CRITERIA
Annexation is a quasi-legislative authority of the City and as such the City may consider the
interests of its citizens as guiding annexation policy, in addition to the procedural statutory
requirements. This section identifies specific public policy concerns likely to arise during
consideration of an annexation request. These criteria should be used to determine when
annexation is appropriate, which land should be annexed, and how it should be zoned.
Additional considerations, beyond those identified herein, may also arise and guide public
policy.
AACP Compliance
Annexation requests should be reviewed for compliance with the Aspen Area Community
Plan. Annexation of certain lands could facilitate accomplishment of the plan's goals,
objectives, or specific action items. Newly annexed properties should be assigned zoning
supporting public policy directives of the MCP.
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB)
The City of Aspen and Pitkin County jointly approved Aspen's Urban Growth Boundary via
adoption of the 2000 MCP. The UGB identifies the land surrounding Aspen as either
appropriate for urban development (within the UGB) or inappropriate for urban development
(outside the UGB). Land within the UGB is expected to become part of the City's urbanized
area and should be considered appropriate for annexation.
Land outside the UGB should only be annexed as a method of preserving the non-urban
character of lands surrounding Aspen. The UGB does not necessarily need to be amended
unless the land is intended for an urban level of development. Annexation of land outside
the UGB, in fact, may serve a significant public purpose.
Significant Annexations
Changing the regulatory structure and jurisdiction of significant community facilities, large
developments, and large tracts of vacant land present considerable potential for community
change. These annexation proposals should involve discussion between the Aspen City
Council and the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners. A joint work session at
which various land use issues are discussed can only benefit the City in it analysis of a
significant annexation. For example: properties entitled by the County and annexed into the
City can require complex administration of development rights, especially when
amendments are requested. Discussing the primary elements of the land use review can
simplify administration and provide benefit to the annexing landowner.
Likewise, certain annexation proposals may present concerns to other governmental and
quasi-governmental agencies with jurisdiction or other interest in the property. As
necessary, formal referral comments or work session-format meetings can be held to
identify these concerns.
Fiscal Impact Analysis
The City should fully understand the financial implication of assuming additional lands upon
each of its functions. The City Finance Department has modeled fiscal impacts of recent
significant annexations and this information has been critical in determining the
appropriateness of annexation. Certain capital improvements may be necessary as well as
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 13
additional operation and service costs. These need to be balanced with additional special
fund revenues that are gained.
Pitkin County voters adopted a 2 percent Countywide sales tax, including a provIsion
distributing 47 percent of the tax proceeds to Pitkin County and 53 percent to the City of
Aspen. At some point, the distribution of countywide sales tax may need to be reconsidered
as more service responsibilities shift to the City.
Development Rights/Zoning
Development rights associated with a property in Pitkin County verses those if the property
is annexed into the City of Aspen should be considered. Annexations are typically
associated with a proposal to further develop the property. Traditionally, the City weighs an
increase in development rights in relation to accomplishment towards community goals
available through annexation.
A complete understanding of a property's development potential, prior to annexation, should
include a zoning build-out analysis considering regulatory limitations, such as grow1h
management and impact fees, and regulatory incentives, such as the use of Transferable
Development Rights. The public policy of such regulations and the impact of changing the
regulatory structure upon the City should be considered.
Zoning of newly annexed land should approximate development rights prior to annexation,
unless a site-specific development plan is approved concurrent with annexation. The
creation of non-conformities should be avoided, although custom legislation to address
special interests can further complicate the City's regulatory environment.
The City should encourage the legalization of "bandit units" through the City's Accessory
Dwelling Unit provisions to ensure compliance with the health and safety standards of the
Uniform Building Code. These units should be expected in older subdivisions surrounding
Aspen.
Pitkin County Transferable Development Rights
Certain lands in the County within the City's annexation area are eligible for increased
development rights through the extinguishment of transferable development rights (TDRs).
Certain site specific approvals granted in Pitkin County may involve or require the use of
TORs. And, certain development may have already occurred by use of these TDRs
necessitating acknowledgement of the realized increased development right.
Until the City adopts a program for accepting Pitkin County Transferable development
Rights, each individual annexation request should include an analysis of TDR-contingent
land use scenarios and, if necessary, an agreement should be reached describing the future
use of Pitkin County TDRs within the newly annexed area.
Usefulness and appropriateness of each jurisdiction's regulations
As Aspen City limits expand beyond the original townsite, the effects of environmental
constraints and hazards on deveiopment increase. Pitkin County's 1041 regulations address
development on steep slopes, in wildfire hazard areas, in rockfall and avalanche hazard
areas, and within wildlife corridors. The City's Environmentally Sensitive Area review
standards address flood hazard areas and development above the 8,040-foot elevation.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 14
The County's regulations primarily attempt to minimize land use intensity and minimize the
infrastructure and operational effects of development. The City's land use code encourages
the intense use of land and addresses urban development issues, such as architectural
character. In transition areas, the City's PUD regulations should be used to establish an
appropriate balance.
Design standards for public improvements also reflect the rural and urban aspect of each
jurisdiction. The appropriateness of each jurisdiction's development regulations and design
standards should be considered in each annexation. The acceptance of substandard public
improvements and potential public costs of upgrading those facilities should also be
considered. The City may require certain facilities be upgraded prior to annexation.
Alternatively, the City may require a cash payment to accommodate expected City capital
improvement and operational expenses.
The City currently has no experience administering remote backcountry and Forest Service
lands. These lands could require significant changes to the City's emergency services. The
public costs of annexing remote lands should be considered in relation to the public goals of
such an action.
Aspen recently adopted the Ski Area Base (SKI) Zone District to administer development at
the base of ski areas. The zoning provides for a mixture of skiing, recreational, commercial,
and tourist-oriented uses and requires adoption of a Planned Unit Development. This
zoning was applied to Aspen Highlands Base Village and may be appropriate for the
Buttermilk Ski Area base, upon annexation.
Infrastructure and Ability to Serve
Annexation reviews typically focus a great deal of fiscal analysis on the potential extension
of urban services to annexed territories. Cost, capacity, and engineering issues related
extension of the City's municipal water system to developing land on the urban fringe is a
significant annexation issue.
Currently, there are several small water districts serving residences located outside the
City's boundaries but within the service area of the water system. These small districts may
present a problem for the City as their capital facilities may not be providing acceptable
standards of service. Upgrading is expensive, and may become the responsibility of the
City following annexation.
The County does not currently require new periphery development to join the City's
municipal water system. However, these county development proposals must be reviewed
by the City Council and found in compliance with the MCP in order to obtain City water
service. In these cases, the City often requires compliance with City development
regulations. Property owners developing a property eligible for annexation should consult
the City's Community Development Department and consider annexation.
Simplicity of City Boundary
The CitylCounty boundary has created confusion for citizens and staff responsible for
enforcing public policy. A complex boundary can complicate emergency service provision
and, in extreme cases, defeat efforts of City police officers. Annexations simplifying the
boundary should be encouraged while those further complicating the division should be
avoided.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 15
..1.--
[Example]
PETITION FOR ANNEXATION OF TERRITORY
TO THE CITY OF ASPEN
THE UNDERSIGNED (hereinafter referred to as the "Petitioners") hereby petition the
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado for the annexation of an area, to be referred to as the
Annexation to the City of Aspen. Said area,
consisting of approximately (_) acres, is more particularly
described on Attachment "A," attached hereto.
The Petitioners allege:
1. That it is desirable and necessary that such area be annexed to the City of Aspen.
2. That the requirements of Sections 31-12-104 and 31-12-108, C.R.S., exist or have
been met.
3. That not less than one-sixth (1/6) of the perimeter of the area proposed to be
annexed is contiguous with the boundaries of the City of Aspen.
4. That a community of interest exists between the area proposed to be annexed and
the City of Aspen.
5. That the area to be annexed is urban or will be urbanized in the near future.
6. That the area proposed to be annexed is integrated with or capable of being
integrated with the City of Aspen.
7. That the Petitioners herein comprise more that fifty percent (50%) of the landowners
in the area and own more than fifty percent (50%) of the area to be annexed,
excluding public streets, alleys and lands owned by the City of Aspen.
WHEREFORE, said Petitioners request that the Council of the City of Aspen approve the
annexation of the area described on Attachment "A," legal description of the land.
The Petitioners reserve the right to withdraw this petition and their signatures therefrom at
any time prior to the commencement of the roll call of the City Council for the vote upon the
second reading of the annexation ordinance.
Individual Petitioners signing this Petition represent that they own the portion(s) of the area
described on Attachment "A."
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I/we have executed this Petition for Annexation this
,2_.
day of
Petitioner'sIOwner's Signature
Petitioner'sIOwner's Printed Name
Address
City, State, Zip
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 16
Please attach the following:
ATTACHMENT "A" - LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE ANNEXATION
ATTACHMENT "B" - AFFIDAVIT OF CIRCULATOR
STATE OF COLORADO
COUNTY OF PITKIN
The undersigned, being first duly sworn upon his oath states:
That he was the circulator of the attached Petition for Annexation and that each signature
therein is the signature of the person whose name it purports to be.
Circulator's Signature
Subscribed and sworn to before me this
2_, by
day of
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Commission Expiration
Notary Public
ATTACHMENT "C" - PROOF OF OWNERSHIP
Constituting more than 50% of the landowners in the area proposed for annexation, as said
area is described on Attachment "A", and more than 50% of the land in said area, exclusive
of streets and alleys.
ATTACHMENT "D" - FOUR PRINTS OF AN ANNEXATION MAP
Containing the information required by C.R.S. 197331-8-107.
City of Aspen Annexation Plan - Page 17
I~
~ .
C1l "
~ :E
aJ '0 ~
<( c: c
aJ aJ ..... , m M
0 '0
0.= <( .al c
,
'O~ 0
en ~ c: ~~ C al
&
c.. <(,0 . -!1 w
aJ'- ""<9 me;( :!:
CO oaJm ec;"ii)o~.v z.~N
>...c X ~ ~ ~ >. tlJ e
~ ......f-aJ OC:;~G&~
.- c: 10 1<
u c:
<( :;:
'"
...
..
-
,. 't...
~
\
\
o
1"
~
E
"
[l,
~
c :! :g
~ cO
o.~N
~Q.a5
o~~
~>~
"- Ql 0.
UO ~
~'"
.0
,
E
E
8
~
co
~
OJ
CJl
'"
CL
I
c
'"
0::
c
o
""
'"
X
OJ
c
c
<{
c
OJ
0.
'"
<{
-
o
1='
U
---.--i
m
c.
cu
:E
'"
c l!!
~~ c(
I/o:lii c
C(,O
., .-
ofcu
~.c ~
.- I- c:
U c
c(
--z
"
o
E
~
.
~
o
l:: ~"
o cO
g-~ N.
:: g-~
O"ijj E
8~ *-
~~
c
,
E
E
o
()
...
~
..
..
,t.
~
.
~
c
.
~
~
.
o
~
)
p~
.
~
c
.
~
~
.
o
~
~~
Ol
Q)
Ol
'"
lJ..
1
c:
'"
c:
c:
o
'"
'"
X
Q)
c:
c:
c(
c:
Q)
0.
~
~
o
~
U
c
]I
H
i~
~
j
,.. III
~
~
~
.
U
~~
H
I~
*
2
D
~
()
l
J '
.
.
~
j
~
.
"'
'0 * .
HI
I;' r ",,\,
,,"'. ;.~ ,:',~~~~ ~~~ N;i/;<~,
," ',,<""-/""Y" ~~>J ."" "'I
'"c"..'" ""',,,."'. ',.' II
\~ '.l '~~~;~\~,; ::~1,
w"
Vll17
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
Jerry Nye, Superintendent of Streets
THRU:
Phil Overeynder, Publie Works Director
THRU:
Randy Ready, Asst. City Manager
DATE:
August 28, 2006
RE:
Contract ApprovaI2006-10FM, for the purchase of Two (2) Toro
Mowers for the Golf and Parks Departments
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the contract 2006-IOFM for the purchase of One
Toro Model 4500D Grounds Master mower for the Parks Department and One Toro model
3500D Grounds Master mower for the Golf Department.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: City Council approved the purchase of these pieces of
equipment as part of the 2006 Asset Management Plan in the 2006 budget.
BACKGROUND: These purchases are the result of sole source procurement from 1.1. Johnson
for equipment consistency, parts availability and accessory interchangeability reasons.
DISCUSSION: The Parks Department and Golf Department mower fleets are mostly made up
ofToro mowers that all have been purchased from 1.1. Johnson along with the Toro work carts
that are used by both departments, as well. Both Golf and Parks staff would like to remain with
the Toro mowers because they already have additional mower attachments and accessories that
will interchange with these new purchases. They have most of the necessary parts in stock and
staff has been trained to take care of the routine maintenance issues that arise. The Parks and
Golf departments have been using Toro mowers for several years and have received extremely
good results from them. Staff is well trained in the operation and maintenance of these machines,
and they get responsive technical support and any necessary parts and supplies in a timely
manner from the distributor. These machines will provide improved service for the mowing
operations for the Golf and Parks Departments. These newly purchased mowers will be put on a
7 -year replacement cycle.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Two Toro 580D's of Parks were scheduled to be replaced in
2004. Due to budget constraints, Parks sold one of the 580 D's and traded the other one for a
smaller Toro 4500 with the intent to replace the other one at a later date. After using the Toro
4500 for a year, staff determined that the 4500 is more economical and efficient than the larger
580 D. Funds are available in the AMP for this purchase. $59,000.00 was budgeted; the actual
cost is $49,589.00. The purchase for Golf Department is from the 2005 AMP plan and was
postponed due to funding constraints. Funds are available in the AMP for this purchase.
$38,000.00 was budgeted; the actual cost for the 3500D is $32,268.00. the total contract price for
both of these machines is $81,857.00
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the purchase of the two Toro mowers
outlined in the above summary.
PROPOSED MOTION: 1 move to approve Resolution # '1"3
Of2006 on the Consent Calendar of Monday, September ~I ,2006.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ~ ~
RESOLUTION NO. ';::f-5
Series of 2006
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND L.L. Johnson Distributing Company,
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENT(S) ON
BEHALF OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a
CONTRACT
between the City of Aspen, Colorado and
L.L. Johnson Distributing Company a copy
of which contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof.
NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section One
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that CONTRACT between
the City of Aspen, Colorado, and
L.L. Johnson Distributing Company
a copy of which
is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City
of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen.
Dated:
,2006.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certifY that the foregoing is a
true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held , 2006.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
SUPPLY PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT
CITY OF ASPEN BID NO. 2006 -10FM
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into, this 28th dav in June of 2005, by and
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as the "City" and
L.L Johnson Distributina Companv . hereinafter referred to as the "Vendor."
WITNESSETH, that whereas the City wishes to purchase"
One (1) Toro model 3500 0 aroudsmaster and One (1) Toro model 45000 aroundsmaster
Hereinafter called the UNIT(S), in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in the
Contract Documents and any associated Specifications, and Vendor wishes to sell said UNIT to
the City as specified in its Bid.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Vendor, for the considerations hereinafter set forth,
agree as follows:
1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the UNIT(S) as described
in the Contract Documents and more specifically in Vendor's Bid for the sum of
Eiahtv One Thousand Eiaht Hundred Fiftv Seven and no cents dollars ($ 81.857.00 ).
2. Delivery. (FOB 1080 POWER PLANT RD. ASPEN, CO.)
3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the same
are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Documents are hereby made a part of this
Agreement as if fully set out at length herein.
4. Warranties. A full description of all warranties associated with this purchase shall
accompany this contract document.
5. Successors and Assians. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to
the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vendor respectively and their agents,
representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor
the Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder
without the written consent of the other party.
6. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer
upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may assign
this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any rights to claim damages or
to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor because of any
breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein
contained.
7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or
conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or
operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions
herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party.
7-PURCH.DOC
.. . ~.
. I
8. Aareement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to
be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado.
9. Attomev's Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the
provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable
attorney's fees.
10. Waiver of Presumotion. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the
mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or
presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the
parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement.
11. Certification Reaardina Debarment. Susoension. Ineliaibilitv. and Voluntary Exclusion.
Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently
debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from
participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It further certifies
that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier
transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that vendor or any
lower tier participant was unable to certify to this statement, an explanation was attached to the
Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City.
12. Warranties Aaainst Continaent Fees. Gratuities. Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest.
Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or
secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage,
brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial
or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of securing business.
Vendor agrees not to give any employee or former employee of the City a gratuity or any
offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation,
preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of
any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any
other adviSOry capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or
controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or
proposal therefor.
Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during
the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect,
in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time
City Council approved the execution of this Agreement.
7-PURCH.DOC
In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent
fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to:
1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City;
2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor or
sub-contractor under City contracts;
3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the
value of anything transferred or received by the Vendor; and
4. Recover such value from the offending parties.
13. Termination for Default or for Convenience of Citv.
The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be cancelled by the City prior to
acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall detenmine
that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience.
14. Fund Availabilitv. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year
are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made
available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its
obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of of those funds for
payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
15. Citv Council Approval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money
in excess of $10,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council
of the City of Aspen.
16. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital
status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or
religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform under this Agreement. Vendor
agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, section 13-98, pertaining to non-
discrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of the
Colorado Antidiscrimination ACt of 1957, as amended, and other applicable state and federal laws
respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices.
17. InteQration and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract
Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any
prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City
official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council meeting,
has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on behalf of the
City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed
by the parties hereto.
18. Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an
inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an authorized
representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full
and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the tenms and conditions specified herein.
7-PURCH.DOC
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor, respectively have caused this Agreement to
be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all intents
and purposes, shall be considered as the original.
FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN:
By:
City Manager
ATTEST:
City Clerk
VENDOR: t. L-. 'J;ff1Js..:>rJ bl5.T.
By. JL"~j
Title. \N~~~f!.-;"fo~'7 ff/.1'-
7-PURCH.DOC
~6;'~/2006 16:04 FAX 3033558250
LL JOHNSON HOLLV
IX J~HNSON &t.I97~
DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
IaI 002/002
TORO-
P.O. Box 16102 4700 Holly Street Denver, Colorado 80216-6400 (lOl) 320-1270 Fa,,, (303) 3S5~2S0
June 14, 2006
City of Aspen Parks
Attn: Wtlly McFarlin
Fax # 970-920-5015
Willy, here is the price on the equipment we discussed yesterday.
(1) Toro Groundsmaster 4500-D five gang rotary mower
with (5) Contour Plus 27" independent decks, 9' width
of cut. power steering, bi-directional 4-wheel drive,
hydrostatic planetary front wheel drive, individual brake
controls, air-ride suspension seat, annrests and powered
by a 58 hp Kubota diesel engine $49,589.00
The above price is good for 90 days and includes all freight, set-up and delivery to
Aspen. Please call with any questions.
s<r'
Don Swanberg
Western Territory Manager
. 06/~0/2006 08: 17 FAX 3033558250
LL JOHNSON HOLLV
IX };>HNSON &t.I97~
DISTRIBUTING COMPANY
~ 002/002
TORO
P.O. Box 16102 4700 Holly Street Denver, Colorado 80216-6400 (lOl) 320-1270 Fax: (lOl) lSS-S2S0
June 20, 2006
City of Aspen Golf Course
Attn: Steve Aitken
Fax # 970-920-5015
Steve, here is the price on the equipment we discussed.
(1) Toro Groundsmaster 3500-D with three independent
2T' Contour Plus rotary decks, 6Sn width of cut, Side-
Winder side to side cutting unit transfer, three-wheel
drive Series-Parallel traction, power steering, and powered
by B. 35 hp turbo-charged Kubota diesel engine $32,268.00
The above prices are good for 90 days and include all freight, set-
up and delivery to you. Please call with any questions.
Sincerely,
/J~
Don Swanberg
Western Territory Manager
-~~...--_..--,.I-
MEMORANDUM
Vie.
TO:
Mayor and City Council
FROM:
Jerry Nye, Superintendent of Streets
THRU:
Phil Overeynder, Director of Public Works
THRU:
Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
DATE:
August 29, 2006
RE:
Contraet ApprovaI2006-11FM for the replacement of 1 Rosco air injection
Pothole patch truck for the Streets Department
SUMMARY: Staff recommends approval of the contract 2006-11FM for the purchase of one
(1) Rosco air injection pothole patch truck model RA 300 for the Streets Department.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: This new vehicle replacement purchase was approved in the
2006 Fleet Replacement Plan. City Council approved the 2006 Asset Management Plan as part of
the 2006 Budget.
BACKGROUND: This purchase is the result of sole source procurement through MacDonald
Equipment Company. This is the only truck mounted spray air injected pothole repair system
available at this time that will replace the existing machine we currently have. Macdonald
Equipment is the only dealer that handles this machine in our area.
DISCUSSION: The Streets Department currently has a Rosco hot oil spray and air injection
pothole truck that is due to be traded in on an 8-year replacement cycle. This machine has done
all of our fall/winter and spring season pothole patching. This machine is a one-person operation
and does a high quality, more durable patch compared to the cold-mix type of patch that we were
doing in the past. With this machine the operator can pull up to the pot hole area in need of
repair, direct the boom over the hole, and blowout the hole with compressed air to clean out any
type of moisture or debris that would keep the mixture from adhering to the existing pavement
around the pot hole. Then the operator sprays a mixture of oil and aggregate rock at the same
time into the hole under air pressure and then tops it off with a top course of 3/8 inch washed
aggregate rock that gets compacted into the hole by the weight oftraveling vehicles. This
operation is much faster and safer both for the public and for the Street Department crew. The
result is that we have a higher quality pothole repair that usually does not need to be redone until
the summer hot asphalt patching season. Staff has been pleased with the performance of this
type of pothole repair machine and the service that we have received from MacDonald
Equipment. This machine will be put on a 10-year replacement cycle instead of the originalS-
year cycle that the existing machine was on because there are fewer potholes to repair than when
the last machine was purchased. Therefore this machine should last longer.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The 2006 Asset Management Plan contains the approved
budget for this replacement purchase. Staff budgeted $156,000 for the replacement of this
machine. The new price is $169,735 with a $40,000 trade-in value, resulting in the net contract
price of$129,735.00
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the replacement of The Rosco RA 300
spray air injection pothole repair truck as outlined above.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution # ':f tf of2006
On the consent calendar of Monday ~~ l \ 2006
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 1:~-:-;:::;;" ~? f-t:f-'J~
.JUyA,om_~__._
RESOLUTION NO~
Series of 2006
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, APPROVING A CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND MacDonald EQuioment. AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID DOCUMENT(S) ON BEHALF
OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO.
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a
CONTRACT
between the City of Aspen, Colorado and
MacDonald EQuioment
a copy of which
contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof.
NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section One
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that CONTRACT between
the City of Aspen, Colorado, and
MacDonald EQuioment a copy of which is annexed hereto
and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to
execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen.
Dated:
,2006.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duIy appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a
true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen,
Colorado, at a meeting held
,2006.
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
SUPPLY PROCUREMENT AGREEMENT
CITY OF ASPEN BID NO. 2006 - 11 FM
THIS AGREEMENT made and entered into, this 27th dav of Julv
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereinafter referred to as
MacDonald Eauioment . hereinafter referred to as the 'Vendor."
of 2006, by and
the "City" and
WITNESSETH, that whereas the City wishes to purchase.
One (1) Rosco model RA-300 Sorav Patcher Hereinafter called the UNIT(S), in accordance
with the terms and conditions outlined in the Contract Documents and any associated
Specifications, and Vendor wishes to sell said UNIT to the City as specified in its Bid.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City and the Vendor, for the considerations hereinafter set forth,
agree as follows:
1. Purchase. Vendor agrees to sell and City agrees to purchase the UNIT(S) as described
in the Contract Documents and more specifically in Vendor's Bid for the sum of _
One Hundred Twentv Nine Thousand. Seven Hundred Thirtv Five and no cents dollars
_ ($ 129.735.00 ).
2. Delivery. (FOB 1080 POWER PLANT RD. ASPEN, CO.)
3. Contract Documents. This Agreement shall include all Contract Documents as the same
are listed in the Invitation to Bid and said Contract Documents are hereby made a part of this
Agreement as if fully set out at length herein.
4. Warranties. A full description of all warranties associated with this purchase shall
accompany this contract document.
5. Successors and Assians. This Agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to
the benefit of and be binding upon the City and the Vend.or respectively and their agents,
representatives, employee, successors, assigns and legal representatives. Neither the City nor
the Vendor shall have the right to assign, transfer or sublet its interest or obligations hereunder
without the written consent of the other party.
6. Third Parties. This Agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer
upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom Vendor or City may assign
this Agreement in accordance with the specific written permission, any rights to claim damages or
to bring any suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or Vendor because of any
breach hereof or because of any of the terms, covenants, agreements or conditions herein
contained.
7. Waivers. No waiver of default by either party of any of the terms, covenants or
conditions hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be construed, or
operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the terms, covenants or conditions
herein contained, to be performed, kept and observed by the other party.
7-PURCH.DOC
8. Aareement Made in Colorado. The parties agree that this Agreement was made in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed. Venue is agreed to
be exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County, Colorado.
9. Attornev's Fees. In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the
provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs and reasonable
attomey's fees.
10. Waiver of Presumotion. This Agreement was negotiated and reviewed through the
mutual efforts of the parties hereto and the parties agree that no construction shall be made or
presumption shall arise for or against either party based on any alleged unequal status of the
parties in the negotiation, review or drafting of the Agreement.
11. Certification Reaardina Debarment. Susoension. Ineliaibilitv. and Voluntarv Exclusion.
Vendor certifies, by acceptance of this Agreement, that neither it nor its principals is presently
debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible or voluntarily excluded from
participation in any transaction with a Federal or State department or agency. It further certifies
that prior to submitting its Bid that it did include this clause without modification in all lower tier
transactions, solicitations, proposals, contracts and subcontracts. In the event that vendor or any
lower tier participant was unable to certify to this statement, an explanation was attached to the
Bid and was determined by the City to be satisfactory to the City.
12. Warranties aaainst Continaent Fees. Gratuities. Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest.
Vendor warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or retained to solicit or
secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage,
brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or bona fide established commercial
or selling agencies maintained by the Vendor for the purpose of securing business.
Vendor agrees not to give any employee or former employee of the City a gratuity or any
offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation,
preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of
any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation, auditing, or in any
other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or
controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this Agreement, or to any solicitation or
proposal therefor.
Vendor represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the City during
the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any interest, direct or indirect,
in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that may have been disclosed at the time
City Council approved the execution of this Agreement.
7-PURCH.DOC
In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against contingent
fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right to:
1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City;
2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a vendor, contractor or
sub-contractor under City contracts;
3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the
value of anything transferred or received by the Vendor; and
4. Recover such value from the offending parties.
13. Termination for Default or for Convenience of Citv.
The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be cancelled by the City prior to
acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole discretion the City shall determine
that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience.
14. Fund Availabilitv. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year
are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made
available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its
obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of of those funds for
payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
15. Citv Council Approval. If this Agreement requires the City to pay an amount of money
in excess of $10,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid until it has been approved by the City Council
of the City of Aspen.
16. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital
status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or
religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform under this Agreement. Vendor
agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, section 13-98, pertaining to non-
discrimination in employment. Vendor further agrees to comply with the letter and the spirit of the
Colorado Antidiscrimination ACt of 1957, as amended and other applicable state and federal laws
respecting discrimination and unfair employment practices.
17. InteClration and Modification. This written Agreement along with all Contract
Documents shall constitute the contract between the parties and supersedes or incorporates any
prior written and oral agreements of the parties. In addition, vendor understands that no City
official or employee, other than the Mayor and City Council acting as a body at a council meeting,
has authority to enter into an Agreement or to modify the terms of the Agreement on behalf of the
City. Any such Agreement or modification to this Agreement must be in writing and be executed
by the parties hereto.
18. Authorized Representative. The undersigned representative of Vendor, as an
inducement to the City to execute this Agreement, represents that he/she is an authorized
representative of Vendor for the purposes of executing this Agreement and that he/she has full
and complete authority to enter into this Agreement for the terms and conditions specified herein.
7-PURCH.DOC
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, The City and the Vendor respectively have caused this Agreement to
be duly executed the day and year first herein written in three (3) copies, all of which, to all intents
and purposes, shall be considered as the original.
FOR THE CITY OF ASPEN:
By, ~~~
ATTEST:
City Clerk
VENDOR: 'MkQi'~ JlU..-- 79J. ,{ll,w'",-{ e
I
By: YtV' {}W~
C'
Title. rlG"v Q,4.S IO-u> I
7-PURCH.DOC
"
"'(.~~~,,~~
E<::IL"-S'P~E~'-
7333 Highway 85 P.O. Box 5011
Commerce City, CO 80022
Phone: (303) 287-7401 Fax: (303) 287-7404
July 20, 2006
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611-19/5
Attn:Mr. Willy McFarlin
We are pleasecJ to quote the following:
New Rosco Model RA-300 Spray Patcher mounted on a Sterling chassis and designed for
one-man control from the cab of the truck. Units are equipped with a 400 gallon emulsion tank,
hydraulically driven lOw pressure-poSitive displacement blower and the exclusive ~Hydraulic
patch on the GO" system, welded around aggregate hOpper With cold weather heat kit, VitlratiM
system, Cldjustatlle feed cOntrol slide gate, drlver's Side emulsion level indicatOr, tank mounted
5" dial thermometer, tank heat, overnight heating with two electrlC heat elements located In the
water heat exchanger tube, one piece double acting boom, 3 stage telescoping aggregate
delivery tube, emulsion hose take-up reel, 30" x 60" multi-function arrow board, control panel
with fuses, switches for blower, hydrauliC pump, rock on/off, and boom lower/raise, joystick
control for extending, retracting and swing of boom, hour meter, beacon light switch and
separate arrow board control panel.
TOTAL PRICE LESS OPTION:
Less trade-in of (:1) :1998 GMC Chassis with a Rosco RA300 Patch:
TOTAL PRICE AFTER TRADE IN:
1
$169,735.00
(, 40. nnn nn)
$129,735.00
OPTION:
Auxiliary Engine Patch on the Go
Jet Flush System
add to above price
add to above price
$ 12,300.00
$ 1,450.00
*************************************************************************************************************.*
Units quoted from stock are quoted subject to prior soles. Prices subject to udjustment to comply with rrtaIIlI!octurer prices in effect at date of shipment ond
quotation automatically expire thirty (30) days from its date. Prices quoted do not include any state. local ond /(JI" other applicable laxes ond such laxes (if
any) .hallbe paid by th~ pw'chtLli!' in addition to the quott!d prie~. tittless shown separately ob6i1l!. DeliVi!i')i quoted is an esttmate only and is bost!d 011 the
date of this quotation ond is fUrther subject to any delay encountered in receiving a firm (JI"der ond to other .factors being beyond our conirol. Warranty is
limiteito that on new machines a:J pravided by the manufactwers, copies ofwhich are available on request. Nfl WITI'rtHfI:IJ ~-' or btfp1/Ptl nil UJ,;,d
p.flqjp""nt UHI.-r: dN-ln,.,d in th, hntly qfthk ~untp. It is understood that there are no verbal agreements or understandings, which in any mmmer conflict
with the written terms a/this quotation.
F.O.B.: Aspen, Colorado
Estimated Shipping: 60-90 ARO
Terms: Net 30
Macdonald Equipment Company:
~/l~
Joe , Vice President
"
Approved by:
.-
,----.."..,,"-~~-._'''''~
~-"..-..._.~
RESOLUTION # 1tp
(Series of2006)
A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO, AND CLIMATE CONTROL SETTING FORTH THE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING MAROLT HOUSING BOILER
REPLACEMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE
SAID CONTRACT
WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a contract
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Climate Control, a copy of which
contract is annexed hereto and made a part thereof.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that contract
between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Climate Control regarding Marolt
Housing Boiler Replacement, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated
herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to
execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen.
Dated: ~~ / ~ 2cttJ h
}
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the
foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City
Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held ~ I', za-j,
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
John Mickles, Marolt Ranch Manager
THRU:
Tom McCabe, Housing Department Director
DATE:
7 September 06
RE: Request City Council approval for expenditure from the Marolt Ranch Capital
Reserve fund to for the replacement of the #800 building boiler room at Marolt Ranch
employee housing.
SUMMARY: The Marolt Ranch seasonal housing complex was built in 1989 and was occupied
in the fall of 1990. The existing boilers have been in continuous service since that time. During
this time the boilers have performed adequately with few systematic problems. However, with
the rising cost of natural gas it is desirable to reduce the operating costs with new, higher
efficiency boilers and electronic controls. The housing office is requesting that City Council
approve the contractual bid submitted by Climate Control Company to replace the existing
mechanical components in the #800 building boiler room.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 2005 City Council approved the expenditure of$IIO,OOO
from the Marolt Ranch capital reserve account for the removal and replacement oftwo boiler
rooms. The work was not completed in 2005 and the funds were carried over into 2006. The
initial estimates for the work were done in 2004 and do not cover the current cost of the boiler
rooms.
BACKGROUND: The original installed boilers were approximately 81% efficient, atmospheric
type boilers when new. Taking into account the de-rated boiler efficiency due to Aspen's high
altitude, the boilers are probably operating near 50% efficiency. At today's gas utility rates this is
a less than desirable efficiency. The new high efficiency, fan-powered or fan-assisted boilers can
increase the operation efficiency up to 70-75%. This should result in significant utility savings of
approximately $15,000-$20,000 per year. The domestic hot water system will also be revised to a
more efficient instantaneous type.
DISCUSSION: Although the boiler system has performed adequately for the last 16 years, the
effects ofthe Aspen area's hard water are definitely evident in the boiler rooms. Many of the
pipes and pumps are showing calcified damage from water deposits. In addition to this the
current hot water storage tanks are at the end of their useful existence.
."
The chief concern has been that the bottoms will fall out of the tanks and we would lose heat and
hot water, perhaps in mid-winter. M-E Engineers out of Avon, Colorado designed the boiler
room refitting. This project was put through the "Invitation to Bid" process and Climate Control
Company of Glenwood Springs, CO was awarded the bid.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The total estimated cost ofthe project is $69,338.00 per
boiler room. We intend to do one just one boiler room at this time and continue with the refit in
the other boiler rooms in the coming three years. We had initially budgeted $110,000.00 for the
replacement of two boiler rooms in 2004. Current construction costs being what they are, the
replacement costs have increased and our initial projections need to be revised in the future. The
funding for this project is included in the current year budget. This project will reduce the
amount of natural gas needed to heat and produce domestic hot water at the Marolt Ranch
housing complex and be more enviromnentally friendly. Initial estimates are in the range of a
$15,000-$20,000 in annual utility savings.
RECOMMENDATION: We recommend City Council approve the contractual bid as
submitted by Climate Control Company to replace the existing boiler room at the #800 building
at Marot Ranch employee housing.
AL TERNA TIVES: If Council does not want to approve the staff recommendation at this time,
this project will have to be postponed until the spring of2006 at the earliest. A project of this
magnitude needs to be completed in the shoulder seasons in order to have as little impact on both
seasonal employee or Music Associate of Aspen student housing. Additionally, we will miss the
opportunity to reduce significant amounts of greenhouse gases and use fewer hydrocarbons over
the course of the coming winter.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve resolution # . . .2006"
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
Notes:
· Please use page numbers on all memo
· Try to keep staff memos to 2 or 3 pages. Use attachments for more detailed information,
ordinances and resolutions, etc.
· Attachments: All attachments to the memo should be referenced somewhere in the body of
the memo. All attachments should be titled as "Attachment", "Exhibit" or "Schedule" with a
letter following:
Attachments:
A - Exhibit One - Map ...
CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION
iii
TH[GTI'(lF~"J
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into on September 12, 2006, by and
between the CITY OF ASPEN, Colorado, hereinafter called the "City", and
Climate Control, hereinafter called the "Contractor".
WHEREAS, the City has caused to be prepared, in accordance with the law,
specifications and other Contract Documents for the work herein described, and has
approved and adopted said documents, and has caused to be published, in the
manner and for the time required by law, an advertisement, for the project:
Marolt Housina Boiler Replacement Buildina 800, and,
WHEREAS, the Contractor, in response to such advertisement, or in
response to direct invitation, has submitted to the City, in the manner and at the time
specified, a sealed Bid in accordance with the terms of said Invitation for Bids; and,
WHEREAS, the City, in the manner prescribed by law, has publicly opened,
examined, and canvassed the Bids submitted in response to the published Invitation
for Bids therefore, and as a result of such canvass has determined and declared the
Contractor to be the lowest responsible and responsive bidder for the said Work and
has duly awarded to the Contractor a Contract for Construction therefore, for the
sum or sums set forth herein;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the payments and Contract for
Construction herein mentioned:
1. The Contractor shall commence and complete the construction of the Work
as fully described in the Contract Documents.
2. The Contractor shall furnish all of the materials, supplies, tools, equipment,
labor and other services necessary for the construction and completion of the
Work described herein.
3. The Contractor shall commence the work required by the Contract
Documents within seven (7) consecutive calendar days after the date of
"Notice To Proceed" and will complete the same by the date and time
indicated in the Special Conditions unless the time is extended in accordance
with appropriate provisions in the Contract Documents.
4. The Contractor agrees to perform all of the Work described in the Contract
Documents and comply with the terms therein for a sum not to exceed
Sixty Nine Thousand Three Hundred Thirty Eiaht ($69.338.00) DOLLARS
or as shown on the BID proposal.
I .._-
5. The term "Contract Documents" means and includes the documents listed in
the City of Aspen General Conditions to Contracts for Construction (version
GC97-2) and in the Special Conditions. The Contract Documents are
included herein by this reference and made a part hereof as if fully set forth
here.
6. The City shall pay to the Contractor in the manner and at such time as set
forth in the General Conditions, unless modified by the Special Conditions,
such amounts as required by the Documents.
7. This Contract for Construction shall be binding upon all parties hereto and
their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns.
Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein or in the Contract
Documents, this Contract for Construction shall be subject to the City of
Aspen Procurement Code, Title 4 of the Municipal Code, including the
approval requirements of Section 4-08-040. This agreement shall not be
binding upon the City unless duly executed by the City Manager or the Mayor
of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his/her absence) following
a resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor or City
Manager (or a duly authorized official in his/her absence) to execute the
same.
8. This agreement and all of the covenants hereof shall inure to the benefit of
and be binding upon the City and the Contractor respectively and their
agents, representatives, employees. Successors, assigns, and legal
representatives. Neither the City nor the Contractor shall have the right to
assign, transfer or sublet his or her interest or obligations hereunder without
the written consent of the other party.
9. This agreement does not and shall not be deemed or construed to confer
upon or grant to any third party or parties, except to parties to whom the
Contractor or the City may assign this Contract For Construction in
accordance with the specific written consent, any rights to claim damages or
to bring suit, action or other proceeding against either the City or the
Contractor because of any breach hereof or because of any of the terms,
covenants, agreements or conditions herein contained.
10. No waiver of default by either party of any terms, covenants or conditions
hereof to be performed, kept and observed by the other party shall be
construed, or operate as, a waiver of any subsequent default of any of the
terms, covenants or conditions herein contained, to be performed, kept and
observed by the other party.
11. The parties agree that this Contract For Construction was made in
accordance with the laws of the State of Colorado and shall be so construed.
Venue is agreed to be kept exclusively in the courts of Pitkin County,
Colorado.
-------1.
12.
13.
14.
In the event that legal action is necessary to enforce any of the provisions of
this Contract for Construction, the prevailing party shall be entitled to its costs
and reasonable attorney's fees.
This Contract For Construction was reviewed and accepted through the
mutual efforts of the parties hereto, and the parties agree that no construction
shall be made or presumption shall arise for or against either party based on
any alleged unequal status of the parties in the negotiation, review or drafting
of this Contract For Construction.
The undersigned representative of the Contractor, as an inducement to the
City to execute this Contract For Construction, represents that he/she is an
authorized representative of the Contractor for the purposes of executing this
Contract For Construction and that he/she has full and complete authority to
enter into this Contract For Construction for the terms and conditions
specified herein.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties agree hereto have executed this Contract for
Construction on the date first above written.
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
By:
ATTESTED BY:
Title:
RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL:
City Engineering Department
CONTRACTOR:
el.1m~ a:.-n DYVlf;~ l" of
(llt?~wc;od .vCrs
By:
ATTESTED BY:
~~
Title: r?/Z.eSJ'Z>e:lI-'7"
Note: Certification of Incorporation shall be executed if Contractor is a Corporation. If
a partnership, the Contract shall be signed by a Principal and indicate title.
PERFORMANCE BOND
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That we, the undersigned, as,
Ct., M2H CI,,~ dll'lf1"....y ",t:" C.~Wdocl.~a/)6-s
business ~
(Principal's Name)
having a legal
Address at
153..., County RbI 30
c:.~~I1L.O hDN
.
c:.feJt)wooel ~.ei.ur.s
(20 f? 1(.0 I
a
and
as Principal, hereinafter called "Principal",
(Corporation. Partnership, or Individual)
lice s{)e~.t'm"fJ/'Y'
(Aaaress Of ~urety)
a corporation organized under the laws of the State of e_,t..Da-~c/ 0 , and qualified to
transact business in the State of Colorado, hereinafter called "Surety", are held and firmly bound unto the
City of Aspen, a Colorado home rule municipality, as Obligee, hereinafter called "City", in the amount of:
1'"'\ ." '"' .
. -- ($, ),
in lawful money of the United States for payment whereof Pnncipal and Surety bind themselves, their
heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly unto these present.
WHEREAS, Principal has by written agreement dated September 11, 2006, entered
into a contract with City for Marolt Housing Boiler Replacement in accordance with the Contract
Documents which Contract Documents is by reference made a part hereof, and is hereinafter referred to
as the Contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, if Principal shall well, truly and faithfully perform its duties, all the undertakings,
covenants, terms, conditions and agreements of said Contract during the original term thereof, and any
extensions thereof which may be granted by the City, with or without notice to the Surety and during the
guaranty period, and if Principal shall satisfy all claims and demands incurred under such Contract, and
shall fully indemnify and save harmless City from all costs and damages which it may suffer by reason of
failure to do so, and shall reimburse and repay the City all outlay and expense which the City may incur
in making good any default. then this obligation shall be void; otherwise it shall remain in full force and
effect.
The Surety hereby waives notice of any alteration or extension of time made by the City.
Whenever Principal shall be, and declared by City to be in default under the Contract, the City having
performed City's obligation hereunder, the Surety may promptly remedy the default or shall promptly:
(1) Complete the Contract in accordance with its terms and conditions, or
(2) Obtain a bid or bids for completing the Contract in accordance with its terms and conditions, and
upon determination by Surety of the lowest responsible bidder, or, if the City elects, upon
determination by the City and Surety jointly of the lowest responsible bidder, arrange for a
contract between such bidder and City, and make available as work progresses (even though
there should be a default or succession of defaults under the Contract or Contracts of completion
arranged under this paragraph) sufficient funds to pay the cost of completion less the balance of
the contract price. including other costs and damages for which the Surety may be liable
hereunder, the amount set forth in the first paragraph hereof. The term "balance of the Contract
price" as used in this paragraph, shall mean the total amount payable by City to Principal under
the Contract and any amendments thereto, less the amount properly paid by City to Principal.
(3) Any contract or succession of contracts entered into hereunder for the completion of the
Contract, shall also be subject to this bond as part of the original Contract obligations.
This bond is intended to be in satisfaction of. and in addition to, the bond required pursuant to Section
38-26-106, C.R.S., as amended.
This bond, as a penalty and indemnification bond, shall also entitle City to recover as part of the
completion of the Contract or the payment of any labor or material costs hereunder, actual and
consequential damages, liquidated and unliquidated damages, costs, reasonable attomeys fees and
expert witness fees, including, without limitations, the fees of engineering or architectural consultants.
Surety, for value received, hereby stipulates and agrees that to indemnify and save harmless the City to
the extent of any and all payments in connection with the carrying out of the contract which the City may
be required to make under the law by any reason of such failure or default of the Principal.
Further, Surety and Principal shall protect, defend, indemnify and save harmless the City's officers,
agents, servants, and employees from and against all claims and actions and all expenses incidental to
the defense of such claims or actions, based upon or arising out of injuries or death of persons or
damage to properly caused by, or sustained in connection with. this Contract by conditions created
thereby, and on request of the City will assume the defense of any claim or action brought against the
City.
No right of action shall accrue on this Bond to or for the use of any person or corporation other than the
City named herein or the employees, agents, administrators or successors of City.
SIGNED AND SEALED this
7-rh
(....Cb
day of ~p'J.-h:~ ,200G.
r
c+ (,lenAA:>t5d .sf~M(,<S
(seal)
Attest: ~C; :::;;__~.u .
72/ '
SURETY:
(seal)
By:
Attest:
Title:
NOTE: Accompany this bond with certified copy of General Power of Attorney from the Surety to include
the date of the bond. (Date of Bond must not be prior to date of Contracl.) If Principal is Partnership, all
partners should execute Bond.
1 -
PAYMENT BOND
KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS: That we, the undersigned. as,
(!1 (W"/z.k G. T\~i.. d mpz IU v ~I' ':/enwtJud
legal business
srelll,)li-".,5
having a
address al/6"37 d."...~ 1?ou:I
(Principal's Name)
(3tJ ~~~!i!i!_d ~/JI)"""
(l"'nnClpa s ress)
("..L..ojt.:~o
[jl(~, D I
a (1~~e~~~~~~~ or 1~IVlaualJ
, as Principal. hereinafter called "Principal", and
(:suretys Name)
(:;uretysAOoress)
a corporation organized under the laws of the State of6.L- o~d6 , and qualified to transact
business in the State of Colorado, hereinafter called "Surety", are held and firmly bound unto the City of
Aspen, a Colorado home rule municipality, as Obligee, hereinafter called "City", in the amount of:
- ~...... _....,
lawfui mo;ey ~fthe United States for payment ~h;r~of ~incipal and Surety bind the~selves, theiri1~I:'
executors, administrators, successors and assigns, jointly and severally, firmly unto these present.
WHEREAS, Principal has by written agreement datedsept /.:JoffJ , 2Od', entered into a contract
with the City for a project entitled: Marolt Housing Boiler Replacement loroiect no 2006-044\
in accordance with the Contract Documents which Contract Documents is by reference made a part
hereof, and is hereinafter referred to as the Contract.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CONDITION OF THIS OBLIGATION is such that, If Principal shall promptly
make payment to all claimants hereinafter defined, for all labor and material used or reasonably required
for the use in the performance of the Contract, then this obligation shall be void; otherwise it shall remain
in full force and effect, subject, however, to the following conditions:
1. A Claimant is defined as having a direct contract with the Principal or with subcontractor of
the Principal for labor, material, or both, used or reasonably required for the performance of the Contract,
labor and material being construed to include that part of water, gas, power. light, heat. oil. gasoline,
telephone service or rental equipment directly applicable to the Contract.
2. The above-name Principal and Surety hereby jointly and severally agree with the City that
every claimant as herein defined who has not been paid in full before the expiration of ninety (90) days
after the date on which the last of such claimant's work or labor was done or performed or materials were
furnished by such claimant, may sue on this bond for use of such sums as may be justly due claimant,
and have execution thereon. The City shall not be liable for the payment of any costs or expenses of any
such suit.
3. No suit or action shall commence hereunder by any claimant:
(a) Unless claimant, other than one having a direct contract with the Principal shall
have given written notice to any of the following: The Principal, the City, or the Surety above named,
within ninety (90) days after such claimant did or performed the last of the work or labor, or furnished the
last of the material for which said claim is made, slating with substantial accuracy the amount claimed
and the name of the party to whom the materials were furnished, or for whom the work of labor was done
or performed. Such notice shall be served by mailing the same registered mail or certified mail. postage
prepaid, in an envelope addressed to the Principal, City or Surety, at any place where an office is
regularly maintained for the transaction of business, or served in any manner in which legal process may
be served in the State of Colorado.
(b) After the expiration of one (1) year following the date on which Principal ceased
work on said Contract, it being understood, however, that if any limitation embodied in this Bond is
prohibited by any law controlling the construction hereof, such iimitation shall be deemed to be amended
so as to be equal to the minimum period of limitation permitted by such law.
(c) Other than in a state of competent jurisdiction in and for the County of Pitkin, State
of Colorado.
4. The amount of this Bond shall be reduced to the extent of any payment or payments made
hereunder, inclusive of the payment by surety of liens or claims which may be filed of record against the
improvement(s), whether or not claim for the amount of such lien be presented under and against this
Bond.
5. This Bond is intended to be in satisfaction of. and in addition to. the bond required pursuant to
Section 38-26-105. C.R.S., as amended.
6. No final settlement between the City and Principal shall abridge the right of any beneficiary
hereunder, whose claim may be unsatisfied.
SIGNED AND SEALED this
t>'l
day of S~.bZ<.e- . 20" ~
IZ/.,." c.r".."d..spt/lA JI..>(t-S
F ~~
Attes./ff~
SURETY:
(seal)
By:
Attest:
Title:
NOTE: Accompany this bond with certified copy of General Power of Attorney from the Surety Company
to include the date of the bond. (Date of Bond must not be prior to date of Contract). If Principal is a
Partnership, all partners should execute Bond.
I....
Certification and Supplemental Conditions to Contract for Services -
Conformance with &8-17.5.101. et seq.
purpose. During the 2006 Colorado legislative session, the Legislature passed House Bill 06-1343
that added a new article 17.5 to Title 8 of the Colorado Revised Statutes entitled "lllegal Aliens -
Public Contracts for Services." This new law prohibits all state agencies and political subdivisions,
including the City of Aspen, from knowingly employing or contracting with an illegal alien to
perform work under a contract, or to knowingly contract with a subcontractor who knowingly
employs or contracts with an illegal alien to perform work under the contract. The new law also
requires that all contracts for services include certain specific language as set forth in the statutes. This
Certification and Supplemental Conditions has been designed to comply with the requirements of this
new law.
Applicabilitv. The certification and supplemental conditions set forth herein shall be required to be
executed by all persons having a public contract for services with the City of Aspen.
Definitions. The following terms are defined in the new law and by this reference are incorporated
herein and in any contract for services entered into with the City of Aspen.
"Basic Pilot Program" means the basic pilot employment verification program created in
Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public Law 156, 108th Congress, as
amended, that is administered by the United States Department of Homeland Security.
"Contractor" means a person having a public contract for services with the City of Aspen.
"Public Contract for Services" means any type of agreement, regardless of what the agreement
may be called, between the City of Aspen and a Contractor for the procurement of services. It
specifically means the contract or agreement referenced below.
"Services" means the furnishing oflabor, time, or effort by a Contractor or a subcontractor not
involving the delivery of a specific end product other than reports that are merely incidental to the
required performance.
PURSUANT TO SECTION 8-17.5-101, C.R.S., et. seq.:
By signing this document, Contractor certifies and represents that at this time:
(i) Contractor does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien; and
(ii) Contractor has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Pilot Program in order
to verify that it does not employ illegal aliens.
The Public Contract for Services referenced below is hereby amended to include the following
terms and conditions:
I. Contractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under
the Public Contract for Services.
2. Contractor shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify to the
Contractor that the subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to
perform work under the Public Contract for Services.
3. Contractor has verified or has attempted to verify through participation in the Federal Basic
Pilot Program that Contractor does not employ any illegal aliens; and if Contractor has not been
accepted into the Federal Basic Pilot Program prior to entering into the Public Contract for Services,
Contractor shall forthwith apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing
verify such application within five (5) days of the date of the Public Contract. Contractor shall
continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify same
every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until Contractor is accepted or the public contract for
services has been completed, whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be
required or effective ifthe Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued.
4. Contractor shall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake pre-employment
screening of job applicants while the Public Contract for Services is being performed.
5. If Contractor obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under the Public
Contract for Services knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien, Contractor shall:
(i) Notify such subcontractor and the City of Aspen within three days that Contractor has
actual knowledge that the subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal
alien; and
(ii) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three days of receiving the
notice required pursuant to this section the subcontractor does not cease employing or
contracting with the illegal alien; except that Contractor shall not terminate the Public
Contract for Services with the subcontractor if during such three days the subcontractor
provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or
contracted with an illegal alien.
6. Contractor shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado Department of Labor
and Employment made in the course of an investigation that the Colorado Department of Labor and
Employment undertakes or is undertaking pursuant to the authority established in Subsection 8-17.5-
102 (5), C.R.S.
7. If Contractor violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services pertaining to the
duties imposed by Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. the City of Aspen may terminate the Public Contract
for Services. If the Public Contract for Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for actual
CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
(To be completed if Contractor is a Corporation)
STATE OF c::.,).,"/I!.~alD
)
) SS.
)
COUNTY OF e,,€hn..v
02ao~
, 19 , before me
On this "7 day of $~ nEe.-
appeared
e first duly sworn, did
of
, to me personally
say that s/he is
and that the
seal affixed to said instrument is the corporate s al of sai corporation, and that said
instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of said corporation by authority of its
board of directors, and said deponent acknowledged said instrument to be the free
act and deed of said corporation.
WITNESS MY HAND AND NOTARIAL SEAL the day and year in this certificate first
above written.
~~~
Notary Public
/537 C'n-I'V ~ (30
Gltmt.Voocl .sp/l!.I'A.>~ 0" S'/~d I
Address
My commission expires:
/z./n /05'
, I
1 --
. .
and consequential damages to the City of Aspen arising out of Contractor's violation of Subsection 8-
17.5-102, C.R.S.
Public Contract for Services: C'('f''7' tlu>jEcf jU(): 02~~' -tj#1
ern hu. '-' (!() rn f2~q (J~ a /6?I ~ is tld S plJ.,xJ6-S
JPW~ saved: 8/JOI2006-867-M:\city\cityatty\contract\fonns\certification - hb-06-1343.doc
MEMORANDUM
V" \ a.
FROM:
THROUGH:
Mayor Klanderud and Aspen City Council
Jennifer Phelan, Senior Long Range Planner~^ I" .
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~\
TO:
RE:
Proposed Code Amendments: Repeal and Re-enactment of Existing and
New Impact Fees and School Land Dedication, First Reading of Ordinance
No. ~1> , Series of 2006
MEETING
DATE:
September 11, 2006
Summary: .
Impact fees and the School Lands Dedication are ways in which the community can ensure that
growth and development "pays its own way." In essence, an impact fee ensures that the current
level of service, whether for parks, transportation, roads, or utilities is maintained as growth
occurs and prevents the level of service from being diminished. The fee is established to mitigate
the impacts of new growth and development and cannot be used to improve existing deficiencies
in the City's capital facilities.
The ordinance before Council updates both the existing Park Development Impact Fee and the.
School Lands Dedication. It also adopts one new impact fee: a Transportation Demand
Management impact fee. Once adopted, these fees and dedication will be effective at submission
of a building permit application. As a regulation of general applicability, the ordinance will be
applied to all projects regardless of their date of approval.
Staff is not recommending adoption of the Storm Drainage impact fee at this time due to the
renewed effort of looking at a storm water utility. Depending on how a utility is structured and
whether the capital improvements plan is modified, the impact fee may not be necessary or the
calculated fee may need to be amended.
Staff recommends adoption of Ordinance No. 3.3 upon first reading.
Backl!round:
On January 10,2006, a work session was jointly held by the City Council and the Planning and
Zoning Commission to review the draft impact fee report. The reason for conducting this work
session was due to the fact that the City, which has had an adopted Park Dedication Fee and
School Lands Dedication since the eighties, had not updated either the fee or dedication since
their inception. Prior to the work session, staff hired a firm (BBC Research and Consulting) to
update both the adopted impact fee and land dedication and study the feasibility of a number of
additional fees. The draft proposed an update of the Park Development Impact Fee and School
Land Dedication and also looked at the feasibility of creating a new Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)/Air Quality Impact Fee, a new Storm Drainage Impact Fee and, at the
Page I of6
school district's request, a new School Capital Cost Recovery Fee. City Council followed with a
final work session on the draft report on March 20,2006, where a potential new Fire Impact Fee
along with other policy issues were discussed. Staff and the Fire Chief are looking at working
with BBC to make changes to the proposed impact fee and if the district decides to move
forward with a proposal, an ordinance would be submitted to council at a later date.
As a result of the work sessions, a number of policy issues were discussed and direction to staff
was provided and incorporated into a resolution that was reviewed and approved by the Planning
and Zoning Commission. The content (except for storm drainage) of the resolution is
incorporated into the proposed ordinance before City Council. The policy direction included in
the ordinance is summarized below:
· Impact fees should be assessed on a per bedroom rather than per unit basis; and,
· The discretion of Council to provide waivers from the impact fees (but not the School
Lands Dedication) should remain; and,
· Studio units should be assessed at .8 of the per bedroom fee.
Impact fees can only be used to maintain the city's current level of service with regard to capital
infrastructure and cannot be used for operating expenses and maintenance costs. In essence, an
impact fee ensures that the current level of service, whether for parks, transportation, roads, or
utilities is maintained as growth occurs and prevents the level of service from being diminished.
This is often referred to as, "growth paying its own way."
These fees cannot be used to remedy existing deficiencies in the provision of services. For
example, an impact fee can be used to expand a trail system but should not be used to maintain
or repair an existing stretch of trail. An impact fee cannot be used towards paying an employee's
salary.
The fees and dedication in the ordinance included with this memo represent the maximum
allowable amount that the City could possibly charge.'
ImDact Fees:
Section 1 of the attached ordinance will repeal and reinstate Chapter 26.610, Impact Fees. The
new language for the chapter will update the Park Development Impact Fee, and adopt a new
Transportation Demand Management (TDM)/Air Quality Impact Fee. These fees are assessed by
the number of bedrooms (Park Development and TDM/Air Quality) or the amount of net
leasable space (Park Development, TDM/Air Quality) created by a development project. Below,
staff is highlighting important aspects of the new code language.
Exemptions (Proposed Section 26.610.030)
Currently, the language in the Land Use Code that pertains to the Park Development Impact Fee
waives the fee for the development of essential community facilities and development involving
a property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and Structures. Also
excluded from the assessment of impact fees is the alteration or expansion of a building that does
Page 2 of 6
not create any additional bedrooms or the replacement of a destroyed structure that does not
create any additional bedrooms (the existing code language neglects to mention an equivalent
exemption for net leasable space). Staff is recommending amending the code section to allow
exemptions for:
. Any alteration, expansion, or replacement of a structure or site improvement that does
not create additional bedrooms or net leasable space. An example would be an interior
remodel of a house that does not add additional bedrooms.
. Development involving a structure listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark
Sites and Structures. Under the current code any development of an historic property, an
example being a new house built on a lot created by a historic lot split, would be exempt
from the assessment of the Park Development Impact Fee. Staff is recommending that
only the historic resource (i.e. the historic building) be exempt from the impact fees.
. The existing Park Development Impact Fee exempts essential community facilities
which really should be called an 'essential public facility' as defined in the Land Use
Code. An essential public facility is, "a facility which serves an essential public purpose,
is available for use by, or benefit of, the general public and serves the needs of the
community." An example of an essential public facility is the fire station or the Wheeler
Opera House. Staff has amended the ordinance language to allow any fees to be waived
through the discretion of City Council review.
Imposition, calculation and collection offees/charges (Proposed Section 26.610.050)
Both the current Park Development Impact Fee language and the proposed impact fee code
language require the payment of impact fees at the time of issuance of a building permit. The
proposed language also provides for the impact fees to be updated annually. When assessing an
impact fee for a studio, City Council has recommended that a studio unit be assessed at a slightly
lower amount than the per bedroom fee. A studio would be charged at eighty percent of the per
bedroom fee; the underlying premise being that a one bedroom unit wi\1 accommodate more
people than a studio.
)
When calculating impact fees for lock-off units in a lodging project, staff currently assesses the
impact fee based upon the largest number of bedrooms in a unit configuration that could be
created rather than the smallest number of bedrooms in a unit configuration that could be created
with lock-off units. Staff recommends that this practice continue in the future, levying a fee
based on maximum potential occlolpancy. For example, a three bedroom lodge unit that can be
locked-off into a one bedroom unit and two studio units would be charged a fee based upon the
three bedroom lodge unit configuration.
Fee Schedule (Proposed Section 26.610.090)
The following fee schedule is proposed to be adopted and is provided in additional detail in the
impact fee report prepared by BBC (Exhibit E) and provides for a substantial fee increase for the
Park Development Impact Fee.
Table I: Proposed Impact Fee Schedule
Page 3 of6
Park Develo ment Fee:
Residential and Hotel studio
Residential and Hotel (per bedroom)
Pro osed
$3,543.20
$4,429.00
Existin
1,520.00
2,120.00 (I bedroom)
2,725.00 (2 bedroom)
3,634.00 3+ bedroom
1,520.00 - 2,163.00
er 1,000 s uare feet
Nonresidential (per net leasable sq. ft.)
$4.10
$398.40
$498.00
$0.46
Credits (Proposed Section 26.610.080)
Currently, any person can receive a credit from the impact fee if the person elects to construct or
dedicate part of a capital facility (for example a trail easement). This allowance for credit is
included in the new impact fee language. Additionally, how a credit would work in the case of
someone adding bedrooms or net leasable space is included in the impact fee language. For
example, in the case where a house is demolished and replaced with a new house with a net gain
of two bedrooms, the applicant will be charged for the two additional bedrooms.
Appeals and waivers (Proposed Section 26.610.100)
The City has the ability to waive or reduce impact fees and the present code language allows for
the waiving of impact fees for affordable housing. At the March work session, Council's
direction was to continue this allowance for affordable housing and include the potential for
lodging projects to be exempted. Staff would also suggest that "essential public facilities" be
considered for the waiving of impact fees on a case by case basis rather than being automatically
exempted from the impact fees. The proposed ordinance reflects this suggestion. Also included
in the ordinance is the ability to appeal the imposition of an impact fee.
School Lands Dedication:
Section 2 of the attached ordinance will repeal and reinstate Chapter 26.630, School Lands
Dedication, as Chapter 26.620. The new language for the chapter will upd~te the School Lands
Dedication. Below, staff is highlighting the important aspects of the new code language.
Exemptions (Proposed Section 26.610.030)
Any non-residential development (including lodging) is exempt from assessment of the school
land dedication as non residential development does not generate school children.
Imposition, calculation and collection offeeslcharges (Proposed Section 26.610.050)
The existing School Lands Dedication is only applied to subdivision applications. When a house
adds bedrooms, it creates the potential of additional student generation. At the March work
session Council agreed that any development that creates additional bedrooms should contribute
to the School Lands Dedication, not just development in a new subdivision. Currently, the
dedication is collected at issuance of building permit and staff is recommending that this practice
continue.
Page 4 of 6
Dedication schedule (Proposed Section 26.610.070)
The School Lands Dedication is calculated based upon the type of development proposed
(studio, two bedroom, etc.); the numbers of students generated by the type of development
proposed, and the amount of land necessary to serve the children. An important part of the study
conducted by BBC was updating student generation rates and the land area necessary per
student. If a developer does not wish to provide a land dedication, the developer has the option to
make a cash payment in-lieu. This cash payment is based upon the market value of the subject
land rather than an average cost. The following dedication schedule is proposed to be adopted
and is provided in additional detail in the impact fee report prepared by BBC (Exhibit E).
Table 2: Student Generation Rates
Bedrooms / ........; i...... ... ... .. . TotalN umber of StudentS. Generated
Studio 0.049
I bedroom 0.062
2 bedroom 0.115
3 bedroom 0.310
4 or more bedrooms 0.452
Credits (Proposed Section 26.610.080)
A credit will be assessed for existing bedrooms. In the case where a house is demolished and
replaced with a new house, only the net gain of bedrooms will be assessed the School Lands
Dedication.
Appeals (Proposed Section 26.610.090)
Included in the ordinance is the ability to appeal the imposition of an impact fee.
Development Example:
To provide a better picture of what type of numbers could be assessed with the adoption of the
Impact Fees and School Lands Dedication, staff has provided the example below.
Table 3: 1m act Fees and SchQol Lands Dedication Com arison
Existin
Max.
Allowed
Existin
Max.
Allowed
New Three
Bedroom
Dwelling Unit
Lodge
redevelopment
with 15 new
studio units
NOTES:
. Assumes the land cost for the sin le-famil
3,634.00
14,781.00
10,692.00
13,020.00
14,326.00
27,801.00
22,800.00
53,148.00
NA
5,976.00
22,800.00
59,124.00
NA
NA
22,800.00
59,124.00
residence is $2,000,000.00.
Page 5 of6
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the code amendment as the proposed language
will update both the Park Dedication Impact Fee and the School Lands Dedication as well as
adopt one new impact fee.
City Manager's Comments:
Recommended Motion:
"I move to approve Ordinance No.~, Series of 2006, approving the proposed land use code
amendments to Land Use Code Section 26.610 and 26.630, Park Development Impact Fee and
School Lands Dedication upon first reading."
Attachments:
Exhibit A -- Review Criteria and Staff Findings
Exhibit B -- Existing Land Use Code: Part 600- Impact Fees and Dedications
Exhibit C -- Impact Fee Work Session Minutes (1/10/06)
Exhibit D -- Impact Fee Work Session Minutes (3/20/06)
Exhibit E -- P&Z resolution
Exhibit F -- P&Z minutes, June 13,2006
Exhibit G -- BBC Study - Final Report
,a
Page 6 of6
ORDINANCE NO. 53
(Series 2006)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, APPROVING
REPEAL AND RE-ENACTMENT OF TITLE 26, PART 600, IMPACT FEES AND
DEDlCA TIONS, OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS, new development imposes increased demands on City facilities and
infrastructure needed to provide necessary public services; and,
WHEREAS, City staff has provided an update, through a consultant, to the previous
study of the Park Dedication Impact Fee and the School Lands Dedication which shows the level
of fees needed to generate sufficient funds to provide capital facilities and infrastructure to serve
new development and the amount of school lands necessary to serve new development; and,
WHEREAS, the City projects new development to continue which will place ever-
increasing demands on the City to provide capital facilities and infrastructure to serve new
development; and,
WHEREAS, to the extent that new development places demands upon capital facilities
and infrastructure, those demands should be satisfied by shifting the responsibility for financing
such capital facilities and infrastructure from the public to the development creating the
demands; and,
WHEREAS, impact fees and dedications collected pursuant to Title 26, Part 600, Impact
Fees and Dedications, of the Aspen Land Use Code may not be used to cure existing deficiencies
in capital facilities and infrastructure; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the
text amendments under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as listed under Land Use
Code Section 26.310.040, Standards of Review; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission during a duly noticed public
hearing on June 13, 2006, as required by Section 26.3 10.020, Procedure for amendment, approved
Resolution No. 23, Series of 2006, by a six to zero (6-0) vote, approving the recommended repeal
and reinstatement to the above referenced title and part of the Land Use Code, and
recommending that City Council approve the proposed amendments.
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council is vested with the authority to adopt changes to the
Land Use Code and has reviewed and considered the code amendments under the applicable
provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has taken public testimony, and heard the
recommendations of the Planning and Zoning Commission and Community Development Director
on October 9, 2006; and,
WHEREAS, the code amendments proposed are of general applicability and are calculated
at the time of building permit application.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 26.310 of the City of Aspen Municipal
Code, the City Council hereby approves the Code Amendment sections initiated by the
Community Development Department as outlined below:
Section 1:
Chapter 26.610, Park Development 1mpact Fee, of the Municipal Code, which chapter sets forth
how an impact fee is assessed towards new development, is hereby repealed in full and re-
enacted to read as follows:
Sections:
26.610.010
26.610.020
26.610.030
26.610.040
26.610.050
26.610.060
26.610.070
26.610.080
26.610.090
26.610.100
26.610.110
Chapter 26.610
. IMPACT FEES
Purpose and intent.
Applicability.
Exemptions.
Definitions.
Imposition, calculation and collection offees/charges.
Impact fee accounts.
Use of impact fee proceeds.
Credits.
Current impact fees.
Waiver of fees.
Appeals.
26.610.010. Purpose and intent.
This chapter is enacted for the purpose of implementing the City's plans for capital facilities by
requiring that new development pay for its fair share of such facilities through the imposition of
impact fees that will be used to finance, defray, or reimburse all or a portion of the costs incurred
by the City to serve new development.
26.610.020 Applicability.
Unless expressly exempted, the Park Development Impact Fee, and Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)/Air Quality Impact Fee shall be assessed upon all development within the
City of Aspen which contains new residential units or net leasable space.
26.610.030 Exemptions.
This chapter does not apply to:
Page 2 of12
A. Development involving a building listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark
Sites and Structures. This exemption is only for a historic structure and its accessory
structures. Development on a historic landmark property involving a non-historic or new
building shall not be exempt.
B. Alteration, expansion, or rephlcement of a structure which does not create additional
bedrooms or net leasable space.
26.610.040 Definitions.
When used in this chapter, the following words, terms, and phrases, and their derivations, shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a
different meaning. Other words and terms shall be defined under the Definition section of this
title:
A. Capital facilities means land, structures or equipment for purposes of parks and
recreation, transportation demand management, air quality, and storm drainage. "Capital
facilities" also includes design, engineering, inspection, testing, planning, legal review, land
acquisition, and all other costs associated with the construction or purchase of land,
structures or equipment.
B. Collection means the point at which the impact fee/charge is actually paid to the City.
C. New development or development project means any project undertaken for the purpose
of development, including without limitation, a project involving the issuance of a permit for
construction, reconstruction, or change of use, but not a project involving the issuance of a
permit to operate or to remodel, rehabilitate, reconstruct or improve an existing structure,
which does not change the number of bedrooms, amount of net leasable space, amount of
impervious surface area, density or intensity of use.
D. Impact fee means a monetary exaction imposed by the City pursuant to this chapter as a
condition of or in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of
defraying all or some of the City's cost for capital facilities associated with that development
project.
E. Impose means to determine that a particular development project IS subject to the
collection of impact fees as a condition of development approval.
F. Nonresidential development project means all development other than residential
development projects.
G. Residential development project means any development undertaken to create a new
dwelling unit or add one or more additional bedrooms to an existing dwelling unit.
H. Building permit means any City permit that involves increases in the number of
bedrooms, net leasable square footage, impervious surface area and/or changes to land use.
26.610.050 Imposition, calculation and collection offees/charges.
Page 3 of]2
A. Imposition. Except as provided in this chapter and any amendment to this chapter, the
City may impose impact fees as a condition of approval of all new development projects.
B. Updated Annually. The base amount of each impact fee for each type of development
project may be calculated annually and adopted by City Council ordinance. The City may
choose to update its fee schedule based on the change in the Engineering News Record
inflation index that occurs between annual updates.
C. Collection. Impact fees shall be collected by the Building Department at the time and as a
condition for issuance of a building permit.
26.610.060 Impact fee accounts.
A. Individual Accounts. The City shall establish an impact fee account for each type of
capital facility for which an impact fee is imposed. The impact fees collected shall be
deposited in each such account according to type of improvement. The funds of the account
shall not be commingled with other funds of the City.
B. Interest Bearing. Each impact fee account shall be interest-bearing, and the accumulated
interest shaii become part of the account.
26.610.070 Use of impact fee proceeds.
Impact fees may be expended only for the type of capital facilities for which they were imposed,
calculated, and collected and according to procedures established in this chapter. Impact fees
may be used to pay the principal, interest, and other costs of bonds, notes, and other obligations
issued or undertaken by or on behalf of the City to finance such improvements.
26.610.080 Credits.
A. A property owner who dedicates land or improvements or agrees to participate in an
improvement district or otherwise contributes funds for capital facilities as defined in this
chapter may be eligible for a credit for such contribution against the impact fee paid.
1. The City Engineer shall determine:
a. The value of the developer contribution;
b. Whether the contribution meets capital facilities needs for which the particular
impact fee has been imposed; and
c. Whether the contribution will substitute or otherwise reduce the need for capital
facilities anticipated to be provided with impact fee funds.
In no event, however, shall the credit exceed the amount of the applicable impact fee.
Page 4 of 12
B. When additional residential bedrooms, hotel bedrooms, or net leasable space are proposed,
either individually or in combination, a credit for the existing bedrooms or net leasable space
shall be credited towards the development.
C. Any application for credit must be submitted on forms provided by the City before
development project approval. The application shall contain a declaration under oath of
those facts which qualify the property owner for the credit, accompanied by the relevant
documentary evidence.
26.610.090 Current impact fees.
Impact fees are hereby established as follows:
T bl 610 I I
F S h d I
a e . , mpact ee c e u e
Parks Development Fee:
Residential and Hotel (studio) $3,543.20
Residential and Hotel (per bedroom) $4,429 "
Nonresidential (per net leasable sq. ft.) $4.10
TDMlAir Qualitv Fee:
Residential and Hotel (studio) $398.40
Residential and Hotel (per bedroom) $498
Nonresidential (per net leasable Sq. ft.) $0.46
Notes:
- AnAccessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House, as defined by and meeting the requirements
of this Title, shall be calculated as an additional bedroom or bedrooms of a single-family or
duplex dwelling.
- When a hotel proposes "lock-off' units, the fee will be calculated based upon the largest
possible bedroom configuration for unit. For example, a three bedroom hotel unit that can
be locked-off into a one bedroom unit and two studio units will be charged a fee based upon
the three bedroom hotel unit configuration.
26.610.100 Waiver offees.
Whenever the City Council determines that any part of a proposed development constitutes an
affordable housing development, or an Essential Public Facility, as defined by this title, and
wishes to subsidize the construction, the City Council may exempt that part of the development
from the application of the impact fees, or may reduce by any amount the fees imposed by this
chapter. As an economic development incentive, a lodging development may apply for a waiver
of the impact fees. An application for a waiver must be made and acted upon by the City Council
prior to the submission of a building permit application. Retroactive waivers are not permitted.
26.610.110 Appeals.
A. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant may challenge the imposition of a fee
imposed pursuant to this chapter by filing with the Community Development Director a written
Page 5 of 12
notice of appeal as provided in Section 26.316.030, Appeals procedures, with a full statement of
the grounds and an appeal fee as may be fixed from time to time by ordinance by the City
Council. The City may continue processing the building permit application. If the building
permit is available for issuance by the City and the Appeal has not been heard, the building
permit may be issued if a bond or other security in an amount equal to the challenged/unpaid
portion of the impact fee/charge is provided to the City. The appeal shall be heard by City
Council.
Section 2:
Chapter 26.630, School Lands Dedication of the Municipal Code, which chapter sets forth how
the School Lands Dedication is assessed for new development, is hereby repealed in full and
reinstated to read as follows:
Sections:
26.620.010
26.620.020
26.620.030
26.620,040
26.620.050
26.620.060
26.620.070
26.620.080
Chapter 26.620
SCHOOL LAND DEDICATION
Purpose and intent.
Applicability.
Exemptions.
Definitions.
Imposition, calculation and collection of dedications.
Procedures for Land Dedication and/or Cash Payment.
Current Land Dedication or Cash in lieu fees.
Appeals.
26.620.01 O. Purpose and intent. '
The Aspen School District requires land for necessary school functions, which may include, but
is not limited to, school buildings, support facilities, open space and recreation areas and housing
for employees and their immediate families. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that as
development occurs and enrollment in the schools grows, the current level of service provided to
students can be maintained. This is accomplished by the adoption of standards for new
development to provide land, or cash-in-lieu thereof to the City, for use by the Aspen School
District. The standards are based on the number of students the development generates and the
current level of service standard within the Aspen School District for land area provided per
student.
26.620.020 Applicability.
Unless expressly exempted, the School Land Dedication standard shall be assessed upon all
development within the City of Aspen which contains residential units.
26.620.030 Exemptions.
Any development considered nonresidential development, as defined by this chapter, is exempt
from the School Land Dedication.
26.620.040 Definitions.
Page 6 of 12
When used in this chapter, the following words, terms, and phrases, and their derivations, shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a
different meaning:
A. Capital facilities means land, structures or equipment for purposes of school functions,
which may include, but is not limited to, school buildings, support facilities, open space, and
re creation areas and housing for employees and their immediate families. "Capital facilities"
also includes design, engineering, inspection, testing, planning, legal review, land
acquisition, and all other costs associated with the construction or purchase of land,
structures or equipment.
B. Collection means the point at which land or a cash payment in-lieu is actually transferred
or paid to the City.
C. New development or development project means any project undertaken for the purpose
of development, including without limitation, a project involving the issuance of a permit for
construction, reconstruction, or change of use, but not a project involving the issuance of a
permit to operate or to remodel, rehabilitate, reconstruct or improve an existing structure,
which does not change the number of bedrooms or amount of net leasable space.
D. Land dedication means a land exaction imposed by the City pursuant to this chapter as a
condition of or in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of
defraying all or some of the Aspen School District's cost for capital facilities associated with
that development project.
E. Impose means to determine that a particular development project IS subject to the
collection of a land dedication as a condition of development approval.
F. Nonresidential development project means all development other than residential
development.
G. Residential development project means any development undertaken to create a new
dwelling unit or add one or more additional bedrooms to an existing dwelling unit, excluding
lodge, hotel, or motel units.
H. Building permit means any City permit that increases the number of bedrooms, and/or
changes to land use to residential development.
26.620.050 Imposition, calculation and collection of dedications.
A. Imposition. Except as provided in this chapter and any amendment to this chapter, the
City may impose a school land dedication as a condition of approval of all new development
projects. All lands dedicated to the City pursuant to this Section shall be held by the City for
the Aspen School District, until such time as they shall be requested by the School District
Page 7 of 12
for school purposes. The Aspen School District shall be responsible for maintenance of said
lands in a reasonable manner while they are being held by the City.
B. Collection. Land dedications shall be finalized and completed prior building permit
application. A cash payment in-lieu; however, shall be collected by the Building Department
at the time and as a condition for issuance of a building permit.
I. Funds. All funds collected pursuant to this division shall be transferred by the
Community Development Director to the Finance Director. All funds so collected shall
be properly identified and promptly deposited in a designated account. Funds withdrawn
from this fund shall be used exclusively for the purposes specified herein.
2. City Shall Transfer Funds to School District. Funds collected pursuant to this division
shall be remitted monthly to the Aspen School District. The Aspen School District shall
deposit said funds into an interest-bearing account authorized bylaw. The Aspen School
District shall be the owners of the funds in the account, but the signature of the chief
financial officer of the Aspen School District, or his or her designee, and the signature of
the finance director of the City of Aspen, or his or her designee, shall be required for the
withdrawal of monies from the account.
3. Administrative Fee. The City shall be entitled to retain two (2) percent of the f.mds
collected to compensate it for its administrative expenses of collecting the fees. Said fees
shall be deposited in the City's General Revenue fund to be expended as the City shall
determine in its sole discretion.
.4. Use of Land or Funds for Housing. If the School District decides that land or funds
dedicated pursuant to this Section should be used for housing, then the School District
shall place a deed restriction on those housing units, restricting their occupancy to School
District employees and their immediate families. In the event the inventory of housing
exceeds the district's needs, the School Board may allow occupancy of the units through
the Housing Authority.
C. Updated Annually. The land dedication standard imposed may be updated annually and
adopted by City Council ordinance.
26.620.060 Procedures for Land Dedication and/or Cash Payment.
A. Land Dedication. Lands to be dedicated to the City to fulfill the standards of this chapter
shall be identified on the subdivision plat and shall be dedicated to the City at the time of
final plat approval.
I. Acceptance. Acceptance of the lands to be dedicated shall be at the discretion of the
Aspen City Council.
2. Criteria. Prior to acceptance, the City shall consider the comments of the Aspen School
District, to determine whether the lands proposed to be dedicated are of adequate size and
Page 8 of 12
can be suitably developed for school purposes or whether the lands have the capability of
being sold, with the proceeds being used for school purposes. City shall also consider the
probable impacts on neighboring properties of the development of the land for school
purposes. When the lands proposed to be dedicated are not adequate or suitable for
school purposes and cannot feasibly be sold, the City shall require a cash payment in-lieu
of the land dedication.
B. Cash-in-Lieu Payment. Payment of cash in-lieu of a land dedication shall be made to the
City prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the
residential dwelling units.
26.620.070 Current Land Dedication and Cash in-lieu fees.
A. The current land area per student equals 893 square feet or .0205 acres. Table 620.1
provides the student generation rates as follows:
Table 620.1, Student Generation Rates
Bedrooms Total No. of Students Generated
Studio 0.049
I bedroom 0.062
2 bedroom 0.115
3 bedroom 0.310
4 or more bedrooms 0.452
Note: .
- An Accessory Dwelling Unit or Carriage House, as defined by and meeting the
requirements of this Title, shall be calculated as an additional bedroom or bedrooms of
a single-family or duplex dwelling.
Figure 620.1, School Land Dedication Calculation
Land Area per Student Standard (acres or square feet)
times
Total Students Generated (calculated from Table 620.1, Student Generation Rates)
equals
Total acres or square feet to be Dedicated
B. Cash Payment-in-Lieu. An applicant may make a cash payment in-lieu of dedicating land
to the City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply
with the standards of this chapter. The formula to determine the amount of cash-in-lieu
payment for each residential dwelling unit is as follows in the sample land dedication:
Page 9 of 12
Figure 620.2, Cash Pavment-in-Lieu Example
The following example provides a development scenario in which an eXlstmg three
bedroom detached residential dwelling is remodeled creating one additional bedroom and
the same parcel is also developed with an additional two bedroom detached residential
dwelling.
Bedrooms
2 bedroom (new)
4 bedroom (1 bedroom added)
(4 bedroom Student Generation Rate minus 3 bedroom
Student Generation Rate)
Students Generated
0.115
0.142
0.257
Land Dedication Calculation
Land Area per Student Standard (sq. ft)
times
Total Students Generated (from above calculation)
equals
Total Square Feet to be Dedicated
893
0.257
229.50 sq.ft.
Where a developer would prefer to make a cash payment in-lieu of a land dedication
(assuming a total land value of $2,500,000.00 for a 6,000 sq. ft. lot containing the two
dwelling units), the following calculation would be used to determine the cash payment in-
lieu.
Market Value of Land per Sq. Ft.
limes
Total Square Feet to be Dedicated
equals
Cash Payment-in-Lieu
$57.39 per sq. ft.
229.50 sq. ft.
$ 13,171.00
1. Current Market Value. Current market value means the value of the land at the time of
the cash-in-lieu payment, including site improvements such as streets and utilities, but
excluding the value of residential dwelling units and other structures on the property.
2. Substantiation. Market value may be substantiated by a documented purchase price (if
an arms length transaction no more than two (2) years old) or other mutually agreed upon
recognized means.
3. Appraisal. In the event the developer and the City fail to agree on market value, such
value shall be established by a qualified real estate appraiser acceptable to both parties.
The developer shall pay for the appraisal.
C. Mixed Use Developments. When the proposed subdivision contains a mix of residential,
commercial, and other uses, the required dedication shall be based on the number of
Page 10 of 12
proposed residential units only. The estimated land value for the residential units will be
calculated on a proportionate share of gross square footage based upon all the permitted uses
of the parcel ofland.
26.620.80
Appeals.
A. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant may challenge the imposition of a land
dedication imposed pursuant to this chapter by filing with the Community Development Director
a written notice of appeal as provided in Section 26.316.030, Appeals procedures, with a full
statement of the grounds and an appeal fee as may be fixed from time to time by ordinance by
the City Council. The City may continue processing the building permit application. If the
building permit is available for issuance by the City and the Appeal has not been heard, the
building permit may be issued if a bond or other security in an amount equal to the
challenged/unpaid portion of the land dedication is provided to the City. The appeal shall be
heard by City Council.
Section 3:
This ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 5:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 9th day of October, 2006, at a meeting of the
Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published in
a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 11 th day of September, 2006.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Helen K. KIanderud, Mayor
Page II of 12
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this _ day of
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
,2006.
Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor
Pagel2ofl2
Exhibit A
TEXT AMENDMENT REVIEW CRITERIA & STAFF FINDINGS
Section 26.310.040 of the City Land Use Code provides that applications for text amendments to
the Land Use Code must comply with the following standards and requirements.
26.310.040 Standards of review.
In reviewing an amendment to the text of this Title or an amendment to the official zone district
map, the City Council and the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider:
A. Whether the proposed amendment is in conflict with any applicable portions of this
Title.
Staff Finding
The intent of the proposed amendments is to update the existing Park Dedication Impact Fee and
School Lands Dedication as well as adopt two new impact fees. By repealing the existing code
language and adopting new code, there should be no conflicts with the Land Use Code. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
B. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with all elements of the Aspen Area
Community Plan.
Staff Finding
The code amendments generally are not specifically discussed in the MCP; however, the
premise of growth paying its own way provides that a quality level of services continued. Staff
finds this criterion to be met.
C. Whether the proposed amendment is compatible with surrounding zone districts
and land uses, considering existing land use and neighborhood characteristics.
Staff Finding
The text amendments are not site specific. This review standard is not applicable.
D. The effect of the proposed amendment on traffie generation and road safety.
Staff Finding
The text amendments will not directly impact traffic generation and road safety (i.e. they will not
create additional traffic). With additional development throughout the City, additional revenues
for transportation capital will be generated. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in demands
on public facilities, and whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment
would exceed the capacity of such public facilities, including but not limited to
transportation facilities, sewage facilities, water supply, parks, drainage, schools,
and emergency medical facilities.
Staff Finding
The text amendments will not directly impact public facilities (i. e. the need for additional
facilities. As new development continues the proposed text amendments will create additional
revenue for capital facilities so that the current level of service is maintained. Staff finds this
criterion to be met.
F. Whether and the extent to which the proposed amendment would result in
significantly adverse impacts on the natural environment.
Staff Finding
The text amendments will not directly impact the natural environment. Stafffinds this criterion to
bernet,
G. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent and compatible with the community
character in the City of Aspen.
Staff Finding
The code amendment will help the city in maintaining a high level of service for its residents,
workforce and visitors. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
H. Whether there have been changed conditions affecting the subject parcel or the
surrounding neighborhood which support the proposed amendment.
Staff Finding
The text amendments will not directly impact a specific site. This review criteria is not
applicable.
I. Whethe,r the proposed amendment would be in conflict with the public interest and
whether it is in harmony with the purpose and intent of this Title.
Staff Finding
The intent of the text amendments is to have the city maintain it current level of service and have
growth pay is fair share of capital costs. Staff finds this criterion to be met.
E~b\\P
PART 600--IMPACT FEES AND DEDICATIONS
26.61 0 PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
26.610.010 Purpose.
26.610.020 Applicability.
26.610.030 Fee schedule.
26.610.040 Time of payment and use of funds.
26.610.050 Refund offees.
26.610.060 Enforcement.
26.610.070 Credits.
26.630 SCHOOL LANDS DEDICATION
26.630.010 Purpose.
26.630.020 Applicability.
26.630.030 Dedication schedule.
26.630.040 Procedures for land dedication and cash payments.
26.630.050 Use oflands and use of funds.
26.630.060 Periodic review.
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005
Part 600, Page 1
Chapter 26.610
PARK DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Sections:
26.610.010 Purpose.
26.610.020 Applicability.
26.610.030 Fee schedule.
26.610.040 Time of payment and use of funds.
26.610.050 Refund of fees.
26.610.060 Enforcement.
26.610.070 Credits.
26.610.010 Purpose.
For residents and visitors, parks and recreation facilities make up a significant part of the
community character of the City of Aspen. As a result of growth, increased pressure is placed on
existing parks and recreation facilities necessitating acquisition of new park lands and development of
additional recreation facilities. In order to maintain the current community standards for acquisition of
open space and development of parks and recreation facilities, the City of Aspen finds it necessary to
impose a park development impact fee on new development.
The impact fee requires new development to pay its pro-rata share of the costs of growth, thereby
providing relief to current city residents regarding the full costs of such facilities which are attributable
principally or solely to new development. The impact fee fairly apportions the cost of acquisition and
development of park and recreation lands to new versus current residents by partially capturing the
actual cost of those improvements which are necessary to maintain the current park and recreation
facility standards in the City of Aspen.
26.610.020 Applicability.
Park development impact fees shall be assessed upon all development in the City of Aspen which
creates additional bedrooms in residential dwellings, lodges, hotels, bed and breakfasts,
boardinghouses, roominghouses or dormitories and on all development which creates additional
commercial or office space. Park development impact fees shall not be assessed upon the following:
A. Alteration or expansion of a structure which does not create any additional bedrooms.
B. The replacement of a partially or totally destroyed structure which does not create any additional
bedrooms.
C. Development of essential community facilities.
D. Reserved
E. Development involving a property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark Sites and
Structures.
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005
Part 600, Page 2
F. Re-subdivision ofland, if a park development impact fee or a fee similar thereto was assessed by
the City of Aspen and collected at the time ofthe initial subdivision, unless the re-subdivision shall be
for the purpose of additional development, in which case the fee shall be assessed upon any additional
bedrooms or commercial or office space permitted by the re-subdivision. (Ord. No. 1-2002 S 19,2002)
26.610.030 Fee schedule.
The park development impact fee shall be assessed according to the following schedule:
ResidentiaVlodge:
Studio:
One-bedroom:
Two-bedroom:
Three-bedroom or larger:
$1,520.00 per unit.
$2,120.00 per unit.
$2,725.00 per unit.
$3,634.00 per unit.
ComnierciaVoffice:
CC/C-I zone districts:
NC/SCI zone districts:
o zone districts:
CL and other zone districts:
$2,163.00 per 1,000 square feet.
$1,168.00 per 1,000 square feet.
$1,530.00 per 1,000 square feet.
$1,785.00 per 1,000 square feet.
For development which increases the size of a unit between the types listed in the schedule, the fee
shall be assessed by calculating the difference in the cost between the unit types.
26.610.040 Time of payment and use offunds.
The park development impact fee shall be due and payable at the time of issuance of a building
permit for the development. All funds collected shall be transferred by the Community Development
Director to the Finance Director for deposit in a separate interest bearing account. Such funds shall
only be used for the acquisition ofland for public park and recreation purposes, including trails, and for
capital improvements to such newly acquired or existing park and recreation lands.
26.610.050 Refund offees.
Fees collected pursuant to this section may be returned to the then present owner of property for
which a fee was paid, including any interest earned, if the fees have not been spent within seven (7)
years from the date fees were paid, unless the City Council shall have earmarked the funds for
expenditure on a specific project, in which case the City Council may extend the time period by up to
three (3) more years. To obtain a refund, the present owner must submit a petition to the Finance
Director within one (I) year following the end of the seventh year from the date payment was received.
For the purpose of this section, payments collected shall be deemed spent on the basis of the first
payment received shall be the first payment expended. Any payment made for a project for which a
building permit is cancelled, due to non-commencement of construction, may be refunded if a petition
for refund is submitted to the Finance Director within three (3) months of the date of the cancellation of
the building permit. All petitions shall be accompanied by a notarized, sworn statement that the
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005
Part 600, Page 3
petitioner is the current owner of the property and by a copy of the dated receipt issued for payment of
the fee. .
26.610.060 Enforcement.
All park development impact fees, from the time they shall be due and payable, shall become and
remain a lien upon the land or improvements against which they are assessed and may be collected
against any owner of such lands or improvements. Any claim for payment may be prosecuted as an
action in personam against any owner or by any action in rem for enforcement of such lien, or both.
26.610.070 Credits.
Subject to the approval requirements set forth below, in lieu of paying the park development
impact fee, the applicant may elect to construct park and recreation facilities and dedicate them to the
City of Aspen. Prior to acceptance of such dedications, the Parks Department Director shall be required
to verify the value of the park and recreation facilities to be used as a credit toward the required park
development impact fee. An applicant may also elect to dedicate lands to the city which are to be used
for park or open space purposes, including any trail system easement. Prior to acceptance of such
dedications, the Parks Department Director and Community Development Director shall determine that
the facilities or parcel to be dedicated are of adequate size for the use intended, can be accessed by the
public and are located outside of any environmentally hazardous area. To obtain a credit for any land or
easement dedication, the applicant shall submit an appraisal of the value of the land or easement to be
dedicated, which shall be performed by a qualified professional real estate appraiser.
26.610.080 Mfordable housing.
Whenever the city council shall have determined that any part of a proposed development
constitutes an affordable housing development and wishes to subsidize its construction, the city council
may exempt that part of the development from the application of the park development impact fee, or
reduce by any amount the fees imposed by this section. (Ord. No. 9-2002 S 15,2002)
(
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005
Part 600, Page 4
Chapter 26.630
SCHOOL LANDS DEDICATIONS
Sections:
26.630.0l0Purpose.
26.630.020Applicability.
26.630.030Dedication schedule.
26.630.040Procedures for Land Dedication and Cash Payment.
26.630.050Use of Land and Use of Funds.
26.630.060Periodic Review.
26.630.010 Purpose.
The Aspen School District requires land for necessary school functions, which may include, but is
not limited to, school buildings, support facilities, open space and recreation areas and housing for
employees and their immediate families. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that as development
occurs and enrollment in the schools grows, the current level of service provided to students can be
maintained. This is accomplished by the adoption of standards for new development to provide land, or
cash-in-lieu thereof to the City, for use by the Aspen School District. The standards are based on the
number of students the development generates and the current level of service standard within the
Aspen School District for land area provided per student.
26.630.020 Applicability.
School land dedications standards shall be assessed upon all new subdivisions within the City of
Aspen which contain residential units.
26.630.030 Dedication schedule.
A. Land Dedication. School land dedications shall be assessed according to tjJ.e following schedule:
I
"'-
B. Cash-in-Lieu Payment. An applicant may make a cash payment in-lieu of dedicating land to the
City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply with the standards
of this Section. Because of the cost of subdivided land in the City of Aspen, the School District and the
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005
Part 600, Page 5
City of Aspen have decided to require payment of a cash-in-lieu amount which is less than the full
market value of the land area. The formula to determine the amount of cash-in-lieu payment for each
residential dwelling unit is as follows:
Cash payment = VA x STAND x 0.33
Where:
VA = Market value of land proposed for subdivision
STAND = Land dedication standard
For example, for a property having a market land value of one hundred thousand
dollars ($100,000.00) on which a four (4) bedroom house is proposed, the
payment would be:
$100,000 x 0.0248 x 0.33 = $818.40
(a) Current Market Value. Current market value means the value of the land at the time of the
cash-in-lieu payment, including site improvements such as streets and utilities, but excluding the value
of residential dwelling units and other structures on the property. When more than one (1) residential
dwelling unit is to be built on a lot, then each unit shall be assigned its proportionate share of the
current market value of the lot.
(b) Substantiation. Market value may be substantiated by a documented purchase price (if an anus
length transaction no more than two (2) years old) or other mutually agreed upon recognized means.
(c) Appraisal. In the event the developer and the City fail to agree ollmarket value, such value
shall be established by a qualified real estate appraiser acceptable to both parties. The developer shall
pay for the appraisal.
C. Mixed Use Developments. When the proposed subdivision contains a mix of residential,
commercial, and other uses, the required dedication shall be based on the number of proposed
residential units only.
26.630.040 Procedures for Land Dedication and Cash Payment.
A. Land Dedication. Lands to be dedicated to the City to fulfill the standards of this provision shall
be identified on the subdivision plat and shall be dedicated to the City at the time of final plat approval.
I. Acceptance. Acceptance of the lands to be dedicated shall be at the discretion of the Aspen
City Council.
2. Criteria. Prior to acceptance, the Council shall consider the comments of the Aspen School
District, to determine whether the lands proposed to be dedicated are of adequate size and can be
suitably developed for school purposes or whether the lands have the capability of being sold, with the
c
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005
Part 600, Page 6
proceeds being used for school purposes. Council shall also consider the probable impacts on
neighboring properties ofthe development of the land for school purposes. When the lands proposed to
be dedicated are not adequate or suitable for school purposes and cannot feasibly be sold, the Council
shall require a cash payment in-lieu of the land dedication.
B. Cash-in-Lieu Payment. Payment of cash in-lieu of a land dedication shall be made to the City
prior to and on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the residential dwelling
units.
26.630.050 Use of Land and Use of Funds.
A. Land. All lands dedicated to the City pursuant to this Section shall be held by the City for the
Aspen School District, until such time as they shall be requested by the School District for school
purposes. The Aspen School District shall be responsible for maintenance of said lands in a reasonable
manner while they are being held by the City.
B. Funds. All funds collected pursuant to this division shall be transferred by the Community
Development Director to the Finance Director. All funds so collected shall be properly identified and
promptly deposited in a designated account. Funds withdrawn from this fund shall be used exclusively
for the purposes specified herein.
I. City Shall Transfer Funds to School District. Funds collected pursuant to this division shall be
remitted monthly to the Aspen School District. The Aspen School District shall deposit said funds into
an interest-bearing account authorized by law. The Aspen School District shall be the owners of the
funds in the account, but the signature of the ;:hieffinancial officer of the Aspen School District, or his
or her designee, and the signature of the finance director of the City of Aspen, or his or her designee,
shall be required for the withdrawal of monies from the account.
2. Administrative Fee. The City shall be entitled to retain two (2) percent of the funds collected
to compensate it for its administrative expenses of collecting the fees. Said fees shall be deposited in
the City's General Revenue fund to be expended as the City shall determine in its sole discretion.
3. Use of Land or Funds for Housing. If the School District decides that land or funds dedicated
pursuant to this Section should be used for housing, then the School District shall place a deed
restriction on those housing units, restricting their occupancy to School District employees and their
immediate families. In the event the inventory of housing exceeds the district's needs, the School Board
may allow occupancy of the units through the Housing Authority.
26.630.060 Periodic Review.
In order to ensure that the land dedication standards which are assessed are fair and represent the
current level of service provided by the Aspen School District, the dedication schedule shall be
reviewed by the City, together with the School District, and amended as necessary within three (3)
years of its effective date and every three (3) years thereafter.
I.
\2.r~
City of Aspen Land Use Code. June, 2005
Part 600, Page 7
L:::-'A-\1I B \\ G
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
MEETItNG NOTES
MEETING DATE:
January 10, 2006
AGENDA TOPIC:
Draft Impact Fee Report
PRESENTED BY:
Jennifer Phelan, Senior Long Range Planner
Tom Pippin, BBC Research and Consulting
COUNCIL MEMEBERS
PRESENT:
Helen, Torre, J.E., and Jack
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION:
The purpose of the workse~sion was to update the City Council (Council) and the Planning and
Zoning Commission (P &Z) on the draft outcomes of the update on the existing parks and
recreation impact fees, school lands dedication, and the results of ~tudying the feasibility of new
impact fees for both transportation demand management/air quality and storm drainage. Staff
and the consultant provided general background on impact fees and the re~uIts of the draft report.
Following are key policy issues that were discussed:
Per Unit vs. Per Bedroom Assessment - After discus~ion on the benefits and constraints of
assessing an impact fee based upon a per unit or per bedroom basis, Council and P &Z agreed
upon continuing with the current per bedroom assessment. The consultant will amend the draft to
reflect this policy direction. Staffwill also provide more information on how "lock-off' units are
current! y assessed.
Waivers or Reductions - Council and P&Z agreed on keeping the ability of waiving impact fees
for affordable housing as an option for future housing development~. As a potential development
incentive for lodging, Councilman Jackson asked that staff and the consultant develop a proposal
for a tiered lodging impact fee.
School Capital Recovery Cost Fee - Council and P&Z agreed with staff~ initial
recommendation not to adopt the fee.
Storm Drainage - As noted by Staff the storm drainage impact fee data should be synchronized
with the data in the draft ~tormwater utility plan. By synchronizing the data, both tool~ may be
used in a complementary fashion. Council and P&Z agreed with this recommendation.
Next Steps - Staff will bring an amended report back to the City Council and the Planning
Commi~sion for a final review of the draft. Included in the draft will be a projection of potential
fee collection amounts. If acceptable to Council, a timeline for adoption of the impact fees will
be determined.
SXti \f{\ b
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
MEETIfNG NOTES
MEETING DATE:
March 20, 2006
AGENDA TOPIC:
Final Impact Fee Report
PRESENTED BY:
Jennifer Phelan, Senior Long Range Planner
Tom Pippin, BBC Research and Consulting
COUNCIL MEMEBERS
PRESENT:
Helen, Jack, Rachel, and Torre
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION:
The purpose of the worksession was to update the City Council (Council) on the final report
developed by BBC that incorporated a number of policy directives provided by Council at the
January lOth worksession. Following are key policy issues that were discussed:
Per Unit vs. Per Bedroom Assessment - Based on direction provided by Council and the
Planning on Zoning Commission, the proposed impact fees will be assessed on a per bedroom
basis. Staff also requested direction from Council on whether studio units should be charged as a
one bedroom or at a lesser amount. The theory behind charging a reduced fee for studio units is
that a studio unit will not accommodate as many people as a unit with a separate bedroom. After .
discussion on the benefits and constraints of assessing a reduced fee for studio units, Council
Determined that a studio unit should be assessed at .8 ofthe per bedroom fee for both the
TDM/Air Qualitv Impact Fee and the Park Dedication Impact Fee.
Waivers or Reductions - Staff summarized Council's ability to waive or reduce impact fees and
provided a table to compare existing fees, proposed maximum fees and potential reductions.
Council agreed to keep the ability of waiving impact fees for affordable housing as an option for
future housing developments as well as include language similar to existing code language that
would allow a lodging development to applv for a waiver as an economic incentive.
Additionally, Councilwoman Richards asked that Staff research the potential and need for an
affordable housing waiver for private developers to aid the Housing Authority in getting lower
category units rather than resident occupied units.
With regard to Historic Landmark Properties, the current Land Use Code waives the levying of
the Park Development Impact Fee. Council requested Staff provide more detailed information on
when the fee is waived (for the historic resource only or for new residential development on a
historic landmark property). Council also directed Staffto include a basis for the waiver in the
code language.
School Land Dedication - After outlining that the dedication is currently assessed when
subdivision is undertaken, Staff suggested that it be assessed on a per bedroom basis. This will
require a property that increases the number of bedrooms on the property to pay a proportionate
share for the increase in bedrooms. Council directed Staff to make the change in the ordinance
language. Council also felt the appraised value of the land should be used in assessing the cash-
in-lieu of the dedication rather than an average.
Park Development Impact Fee - The Council requested that the "Parks and Recreation Impact
Fee" be switched to" Park Development Impact Fee" as it is currently called in the Land Use
Code.
Fire District Impact Fee - Council supported the concept of the Fire District Impact Fee, but
felt that additional work on the fee needed to be undertaken. The Council suggested that district
representatives work with staff on the proposal.
Next Steps - Staff will bring an ordinance to the Planning Commission to begin the public
hearing process of adopting the impact fees and land dedication. Once recommended for
approval by the Planning and Zoning Commission the ordinance will be scheduled before
Council.
b rW\\?) \\ 8
RESOLUTION NO. J. g
(Series 2006)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION
RECOMMENDING REPEAL AND REINSTATEMENT OF TITLE 26, PART 600,
IMPACT FEES AND DEDICATIONS, OF THE CITY OF ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE.
WHEREAS, new development imposes increased demands on City facilities and
infrastructure needed to provide necessary public services; and,
WHEREAS, City staff has provided an update, through a consultant, to the previous fee
study of the Park Dedication Impact Fee and the School Lands Dedication which shows the level
of fees needed to generate sufficient funds to provide capital facilities and infrastructure to serve
new development; and,
WHEREAS, the City projects new development to continue which will place ever-
increasing demands on the City to provide capital facilities and infrastructure to serve new
development; and,
WHEREAS, to the extent that new development places demands upon capital facilities
and infrastructure, those demands should be satisfied by shifting the responsibility for fmancing
such capital facilities and infrastructure from the public to the development creating the
demands; and,
WHEREAS, impact fees and dedications collected pursuant to Title 26, Part 600, Impact
Frees and Dedications, of the Aspen Land Use Code may not be used to cure existing
deficiencies in capital facilities and infrastructure; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission has reviewed and considered the
text amendments under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as listed under Land Use
Code Section 26.310.040, Standards of Review; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen Planning and Zoning Commission during a duly noticed public
hearing on June 13, 2006, as required by Section 26.310.020, Procedure for amendment, approved
Resolution N~ Series of2006, by a_to _ L---.J vote, approving the recommended repeal
and reinstatement to the above referenced title and part of the Land Use Code, and
recommending that City Council approve the proposed amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN PLANNING AND
ZONING COMMISSION AS FOLLOWS:
Pursuant to the procedures and standards set forth in Chapter 26.310 of the City of Aspen Municipal
Code, the Planning and Zoning Commission hereby approves the Code Amendment sections
initiated by the Community Development Department as outlined below:
Section 1:
Chapter 26.610, Park Development Impact Fee, of the Municipal Code, which chapter sets forth
how an impact fee is assessed towards new development, is hereby recommended to be repealed
in full and reinstated to read as follows:
Sections:
26.610.010
26.610.020
26.610.030
26.610.040
26.610.050
26.610.060
26.610.070
26.610.080
26.610.090
26.610.100
26.610.11 0
Chapter 26.610
IMPACT FEES
Purpose and intent.
Applicability.
Exemptions.
Definitions.
Imposition, calculation and collection offees/charges.
Impact fee accounts.
Use of impact fee proceeds.
Credits.
Current impact fees.
Waiver of fees.
Appeals.
26.610.010. Purpose and intent.
This chapter is enacted for the purpose of implementing the City's plans for capital facilities by
requiring that new development pay for its fair share of such facilities through the imposition of
impact fees that will be used to finance, defray, or reimburse all or a portion of the costs incurred
by the City to serve new development.
26.610.020 Applicability.
Unless expressly exempted, the Park Development Impact Fee, Transportation Demand
Management (TDM)/Air Quality Impact Fee, and Storm Drainage Impact Fee shall be assessed
upon all development within the City of Aspen which contains new residential units, net leasable
space, or new impervious surface area.
26.610.030 Exemptions.
This chapter does not apply to:
A. Development involving a property listed on the Aspen Inventory of Historic Landmark
Sites and Structures. This exemption is. only for a historic structure and its accessory
structures.
B. Alteration, expansion, or replacement of a structure which does not create additional
bedrooms, net leasable space, or impervious surface area.
26.610.040 Defmitions.
When used in this chapter, the following words, terms, and phrases, and their derivations, shall
2
have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a
different meaning:
A. Capital facilities means land, structures or equipment for purposes of parks and
recreation, transportation demand management, air quality, and storm drainage. "Capital
facilities" also includes design, engineering, inspection, testing, planning, legal review, land
acquisition, and all other costs associated with the construction or purchase of land,
structures or equipment.
B. Collection means the point at which the impact fee/charge is actually paid to the City.
C. New development or development project means any project undertaken for the purpose
of development, including without limitation, a project involving the issuance of a permit for
construction, reconstruction, or change of use, but not a project involving the issuance of a
permit to operate or to remodel, rehabilitate, reconstruct or improve an existing structure,
which does not change the number of bedrooms, amount of net leasable space, amount of
impervious surface area, density or intensity of use.
D. Dwelling Unit means a separately enterable room or combination of rooms which contain
a kitchen and bathroom and which are designed for or used as an individual residence.
E. Impact fee means a monetary exaction imposed by the City pursuant to this chapter as a
condition of or in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of
defraying all or some of the City's cost for capital facilities associated with that development
project.
F. Impose means to determine that a particular development project IS subject to the
collection of impact fees as a condition of development approval.
G. Nonresidential development project means all development other than residential
development projects.
H. Residential development project means any development undertaken to create a new
dwelling unit or add one or more additional bedrooms to an existing dwelling unit.
I. Building permit means any City permit that involves vertical construction, increases the
nwnber of bedrooms, net leasable square footage, and/or changes to land use.
J. Hotel (a.k.a. Lodge). A building or parcel containing individual units used for overnight
lodging by the general public on a short-term basis for a fee, with or without kitchens within
individual units, with or without meals provided, and which has common reservation and
cleaning services, combined utilities, and on-site management and reception services.
Timeshare (a.k.a. fractional) units and timeshare developments are considered Hotels for the
purposes of the Land Use Code. For Hotels with flexible unit configurations, also known as
"lock-off units," each rentable division, or "key", shall constitute a Lodge unit for the
purposes of this Title.
3
"
Unless otherwise approved pursuant to Chapter 26.590 - Timeshare Development,
occupancy periods of a Hotel, or unit thereof, by anyone person or entity with an ownership
interest in the Hotel, or unit thereof, shall not exceed 30 consecutive days or exceed 90 days
within any calendar year, regardless of the form of ownership. Occupancy periods for
persons or entities with no ownership interest (e.g. vacationers) shall be limited only by the
90-days per calendar year requirement.
Residential properties, and units thereon, located within zone districts permitting Lodge use
shall be permitted, but not required, to operate as a Lodge. The occupancy period limitations
shall not apply to residential properties (single-family, duplex, and multi-family) located
within lodging zone districts regardless of whether the residential units are used for short-
term occupancies.
26.610.050 Imposition, calculation and collection of fees/charges.
A. Imposition. Except as provided in this chapter and any amendment to this chapter, the
City may impose impact fees as a condition of approval of all new development projects.
B. Updated Annually. The base amount of each impact fee for each type of development
project may be calculated annually and adopted by City Council ordinance. The City may
choose to update its fee schedule based on the change in the Engineering News Record
inflation index that occurs between annual updates.
C. Collection. Impact fees shall be collected by the Building Department at the time and as a
condition for issuance of a building permit.
26.610.060 Impact fee accounts.
A. Individual Accounts. The City shall establish an impact fee account for each type of
capital facility for which an impact fee is imposed. The impact fees collected shall be
deposited in each such account according to type of improvement. The funds of the account
shall not be commingled with other funds of the City.
B. Interest Bearing. Each impact fee account shall be interest-bearing, and the accumulated
interest shall become part of the account.
26.610.070 . Use of impact fee proceeds.
Impact fees may be expended only for the type of capital facilities for which they were imposed,
calculated, and collected and according to procedures established in this chapter. Impact fees
may be used to pay the principal, interest, and other costs of bonds, notes, and other obligations
issued or undertaken by or on behalf of the City to finance such improvements.
26.610.080
Credits.
A. A property owner who dedicates land or improvements or agrees to participate in an
4
improvement district or otherwise contributes funds for capital facilities as defined in this
chapter may be eligible for a credit for such contribution against the impact fee paid.
I. The City Engineer shall determine:
a. The value of the developer contribution;
b. Whether the contribution meets capital facilities needs for which the particular
impact fee has been imposed; and
c. Whether the contribution will substitute or otherwise reduce the need for capital
facilities anticipated to be provided with impact fee funds.
In no event, however, shall the credit exceed the amount of the applicable impact fee.
B. When additional residential bedrooms, hotel bedrooms, net leasable space, or impervious
surface area are proposed, either individually or in combination, a credit for the existing
bedrooms, net leasable space, or impervious surface area shall be credited towards the
development.
C. Any application for credit must be submitted on forms provided by the City before
development project approval. The application shall contain a declaration under oath of
those facts which qualify the property owner for the credit, accompanied by the relevant
documentary evidence.
26.610.090 Current impact fees.
Impact fees are hereby established as follows:
$0.92
26.610.100 Waiver offees.
Whenever the City Council determines that arty part of a proposed development constitutes and
affordable housing development and wishes to subsidize the construction, the City Council may
5
exempt that part of the development from the application of the impact fees, or may reduce by
any amount the fees imposed by this chapter. As an economic development incentive, a lodging
development may apply for a waiver of the impact fees. Impact fees for Essential Public
Facilities, as defined by this title, may be waived by the City Council.
26.610.110 Appeals.
A. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant may challenge the imposition of a fee
imposed pursuant to this chapter by filing with the Community Development Director a written
notice of appeal with a full statement of the grounds and an appeal fee as may be fixed from time
to time by ordinance by the City Council. The City may continue processing the building permit
application if the notice of appeal is accompanied with a bond or other security in an amount
equal to the challenged/unpaid portion of the impact fee/charge.
B. The Community Development Director shall schedule a hearing at a regular City Council
meeting and shall mail notice of the hearing to the appellant at the address given in the notice of
appeal. The hearing shall be conducted at the time and place stated in the notice. The
determination of the City Council shall be final.
Section 2:
Chapter 26.630, School Lands Dedication of the Municipal Code, which chapter sets forth how
the School Lands Dedication is assessed for new development, is hereby repealed in full and
reinstated to read as follows:
Sections:
26.620.010
26.620.020
26.620.030
26.620.040
26.620.050
26.620.060
26.620.070
26.620.080
Chapter 26.620
SCHOOL LAND DEDICATION
Purpose and intent.
Applicability.
Exemptions.
Definitions.
Imposition, calculation and collection of fees/charges.
Procedures for Land Dedication and/or Cash Payment.
Current Land Dedication or Cash in lieu fees.
Appeals.
26.620.010. Purpose and intent. ,
The Aspen School District requires land for necessary school functions, which may include, but
is not limited to, school buildings, support facilities, open space and recreation areas and housing
for employees and their immediate families. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that as
development occurs and enrollment in the schools grows, the current level of service provided to
students can be maintained. This is accomplished by the adoption of standards for new
development to provide land, or cash-in-lieu thereof to the City, for use by the Aspen School
District. The standards are based on the number of students the development generates and the
~-
6
current level of service standard within the Aspen School District for land area provided per
stud ent.
26.620.020 Applicability.
;Unless expressly exempted, the School Land Dedication standard shall be assessed upon all
development within the City of Aspen which contains residential units.
26.620.030 Exemptions.
Any development considered nonresidential development, as defined by this chapter, is exempt
from the School Land Dedication.
26.620.040 Defmitions.
When used in this chapter, the following words, terms, and phrases, and their derivations, shall
have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a
different meaning:
A. Capital facilities means land, structures or equipment for purposes of school functions,
which may include, but is not limited to, school buildings, support facilities, open space, and
re creation areas and housing for employees and their immediate families. "Capital facilities"
also includes design, engineering, inspection, testing, planning, legal review, land
acquisition, and ail other costs associated with the construction or purchase of land,
structures or equipment.
B. Collection means the point at which land or a cash payment in-lieu is actually paid to the
City. .
C. New development or development project means any project undertaken for the purpose
of development, including without limitation, a project involving the issuance of a permit for
construction, reconstruction, or change of use, but not a project involving the issuance of a
permit to operate or to remodel, rehabilitate, reconstruct or improve an existing structure,
which does not change the number of bedrooms or amount of net leasable space.
D. Dwelling unit means a separately enterable room or combination of rooms which contain
a kitchen and bathroom and which are designed for or used as an individual residence.
E. Land dedication means a land exaction imposed by the City pursuant to this chapter as a
condition of or in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of
defraying all or some of the Aspen School District's cost for capital facilities associated with
that development project.
F. Impose means to determine that a particular development project IS subject to the
collection of a land dedication as a condition of development approval.
G. Nonresidential development project means all development other than residential
development.
7
H. Residential development project means any development undertaken to create a new
dwelling unit or add one or more additional bedrooms to an existing dwelling unit, excluding
lodge, hotel, or motel units.
1. Building permit means any City permit that involves vertical construction which creates
or increases the number of bedrooms, and/or changes to land use to residential development.
1. Hotel (a.k.a. Lodge). A building or parcel containing individual units used for overnight
lodging by the general public on a short-term basis for a fee, with or without kitchens within
individual units, with or without meals provided, and which has common reservation and
cleaning services, combined utilities, and on-site management and reception services.
Timeshare (a.k.a. fractional) units and timeshare developments are considered Hotels for the
purposes of the Land Use Code. For Hotels with flexible unit configurations, also known as
"lock-off units," each rentable division, or "key", shall constitute a Lodge unit for the
purposes of this Title.
Unless otherwise approved pursuant to Chapter 26.590 - Timeshare Development,
occupancy periods of a Hotel, or unit thereof, by anyone person or entity with an ownership
interest in the Hotel, or unit thereof, shall not exceed 30 consecutive days or exceed 90 days
within any calendar year, regardless of the form of ownership. Occupancy periods for
persons or entities with no ownership interest (e.g. vacationers) shall be limited only by the
90-days per calendar year requirement.
Residential properties, and units thereon, located within zone districts permitting Lodge use
shall be permitted, but not required, to operate as a Lodge. The occupancy period limitations
shall not apply to residential properties (single-family, duplex, and multi-family) located
within lodging zone districts regardless of whether the residential units are used for short-
term occupancies.
26.620.050 Imposition, calculation and collection of dedications.
A. Imposition. Except as provided in this chapter and. any amendment to this chapter, the
City may impose a school land dedication as a condition of approval of all new development
projects. All lands dedicated to the City pursuant to this Section shall be held by the City for
the Aspen School District, until such time as they shall be requested by the School District
for school purposes. The Aspen School District shall be responsible for maintenance of said
'lands in a reasonable manner while they are being held by the City.
B. Collection. Land dedications shall be finalized and completed prior building permit
application. A cash payment in-lieu; however, shall be collected by the Building Department
at the time and as a condition for issuance of a building permit.
1. Funds. All funds collected 'pursuant to this division shall be transferred by the
Community Development Director to the Finance Director. All funds so collected shall
be properly identified and promptly deposited in a designated account. Funds withdrawn
from this fund shall be used exclusively for the purposes specified herein.
8
2. City Shall Transfer Funds to School District. Funds collected pursuant to this division
shall be remitted monthly to the Aspen School District. The Aspen School District shall
deposit said funds into an interest-bearing account authorized by law. The Aspen School
District shall be the owners of the funds in the account, but the signature of the chief
financial officer of the Aspen School District, or his or her designee, and the signature of
the finance director of the City of Aspen, or his or her designee, shall be required for the
withdrawal of monies from the account.
3. Administrative Fee. The City shall be entitled to retain two (2) percent of the funds
collected to compensate it for its administrative expenses of collecting the fees. Said fees
shall be deposited in the City's General Revenue fund to be expended as the City shall
determine in its sole discretion.
4. Use of Land or Funds for Housing. If the School District decides that land or funds
dedicated pursuant to this Section should be used for housing, then the School District
shall place a deed restriction on those housing units, restricting their occupancy to School
District employees and their immediate families. In the event the inventory of housing
exceeds the district's needs, the School Board may allow occupancy of the units through
the Housing Authority.
C. Updated Annually. The base amount of the land dedication imposed may be calculated
annually and adopted by City Council ordinance.
26.620.060 Procedures for Land Dedication and/or Cash Payment.
A. Land Dedication. Lands to be dedicated to the City to fulfill the standards of this chapter
shall be identified on the subdivision plat and shall be dedicated to the City at the time of
final plat approval. .
1. Acceptance. Acceptance of the lands to be dedicated shall be at the discretion of the
Aspen City Council.
2. Criteria. Prior to acceptance, the Council shall consider the comments of the Aspen
School District, to determine whether the lands proposed to be dedicated are of adequate
size and can be suitably developed for school purposes or whether the lands have the
capability of being sold, with the proceeds being used for school purposes. Council shall
also consider the probable impacts on neighboring properties of the development of the
land for school purposes. When the lands proposed to be dedicated are not adequate or
suitable for school purposes and cannot feasibly be sold, the Council shall require a cash
payment in-lieu of the land dedication.
B. Cash-in-Lieu Payment. Payment of cash in-lieu of a land dedication shall be made to the
City prior to ~d on a proportional basis to the issuance of any building permits for the
residential dwelling units.
9
26.620.070 Current Land Dedication and Cash in-lieu fees.
A. The current land area per student equals 896 square feet or .021 acres. Table 620.1
provides the student generation rates as follows:
Table 620.1, Student Generation Rates
.... < Bedrooms. . . . .. Total No. .of Students Generated
Studio 0.049
1 bedroom 0.062
2 bedroom 0.115
3 bedroom 0.310
4 or more bedrooms 0.452
B. Cash Payment-in-Lieu. An applicant may make a cash payment in-lieu of dedicating land
to the City, or may make a cash payment in combination with a land dedication, to comply
with the standards of this chapter. The formula to determine the amount of cash-in-lieu
payment for each residential dwelling unit is as follows in the sample land dedication:
Pi re 620.1, School Land Dedication Example
8i1.lderiHi:Geherat~d
Total
0.115
0.\42
0.257
2 bedroom (new)
4 bedroom (1 bedroom added)
(4 bedroom Student Generation Rate minus 3 bedroom
Student Generation Rate)
Land DedicationCa]cula:tib1fl~" .
Land Area per Student Standard (acres)
multiplied by
Total Students Generated (from above calculation)
equals
Total Acres t6 be Dedicated
0.021
0.257
0.005397
Where a developer would prefer to make a cash payment in-lieu of a land
dedication (assuming a total land value of $2,500,000.00 for the new house
and addition), the following calculation would be used to determine the cash
payment in-lieu.
VA = Market value of\and proposed for subdivision
Multiplied by
STAND = Land dedication standard
$2,500,000 x 0.005397 = $13,492.50
1. Current Market Value. Current market value means the value of the land at the time of
the cash-in-lieu payment, including site improvements such as streets and utilities, but
excluding the value of residential dwelling units and other structures on the property.
10
When more than one (1) residential dwelling unit is to be built on a lot, then each unit
shall be assigned its proportionate share of the current market value of the lot.
2. Substantiation. Market value may be substantiated by a documented purchase price (if
an arms length transaction no more than two (2) years old) or other mutually agreed upon
recognized means.
3. Appraisal. In the event the developer and the City fail to agree on market value, such
value shall be established by a qualified real estate appraiser acceptable to both parties.
The developer shall pay for the appraisal.
C. Mixed Use Developments. When the proposed subdivision contains a mix of residential,
commercial, and other uses, the required dedication shall be based on the number of
proposed residential units only.
26.620.80
Appeals.
A. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant may challenge the imposition of a fee
imposed pursuant to this chapter by filing with the Community Development Director a
written notice of appeal with a full statement of the grounds and an appeal fee as may be
fixed from time to time by ordinance by the City Council. The City may continue processing
the building permit application if the notice of appeal is accompanied with a bond or other
security in an amount equal to the challenged/unpaid portion ofthe impact fee/charge.
B. The Community Development Director shall schedule a hearing at a regular City Council
meeting and shaH mail notice of the hearing to the appellant at the address given in the notice
of appeal. The hearing shall be conducted at the time and place stated in the notice. The
determination of the City Council shall be final.
Section 3:
This resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shaH be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
Section 5:
All material representations and commitments made by the Applicant pursuant to the development
proposal approvals as herein awarded, whether in public hearing or documentation presented before
the Planning and Zoning Commission, are hereby incorporated in such plan development approvals
and the same shall be complied with as if fully set forth herein, unless amended by an authorized
entity.
11
APPROVED by the Commission at its meeting on June 13,2006.
APPROVED AS TO FOR.1\1:
PLANNING AND ZONING
COMMISSION:
City Attorney
Jasmine Tygre, Chair
ATTEST:
Jackie Lothian, Deputy City Clerk
12
&mEn- r:
Aspen Plannine & ZoRine Commission Meetine Minutes - June 13, 2006
Jasmine Tygre opened the Special Planning and Zoning Meeting at 4:30 pm in the
Pitkin County Library. Commissioners Steve Skadron, Brian Speck, Mary Liz
Wilson, John Rowland, Dylan Johns and Jasmine Tygre were present. Ruth
Kruger and Brandon Marion were excused. Staffin attendance were Jennifer
Phelan, Joyce Allgaier, Community Development; Jackie Lothian, Deputy City
Clerk.
COMMENTS
Dylan Johns spoke about the June lih City Council Meeting. Jennifer Phelan said
there was a work session scheduled the week of August 24th with P&Z and
Council.
The commissioners discussed infill projects and the moratorium.
Steve Skadron mentioned that while driving through Glenwood Springs he was
impressed by the availability of free parking and free internet service in one of
their parks; he was able to conduct his business within 15 minutes. Skadron stated
the Glenwood Springs experience was positive.
Jennifer Phelan distributed the first reading of Ordinance 23, 2006 with minor
changes to the moratorium and service award nominations.
The minutes will be voted at the next meeting.
DECLARATION OF CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
None.
PUBLIC HEARING:
CODE AMENDMENT IMP ACT FEES
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Code Amendment Impact Fees.
Jennifer Phelan explained the work sessions and discussions. Resolution #23
would update the current park impact fees, the TDM air quality impact fees and
school land dedication fees. Phelan said there would be a per bedroom impact fee
charge and studios would be charged at.8 of the per bedroom fee with the basis
that there would be less people in a studio than a one bedroom unit.
Phelan said that if you were remodeling and you do not increase the number of net
bedrooms or the surface area there would not be an impact fee. Staff requested
feedback from P&Z on the current park and dedication impact fee exempts historic
landmark inventoried property. Phelan said that a historic lot split property would
not have to pay the fee but the new lot and structure would pay the impact fee.
2
.
Aspen Plannin!! & Zonin!! Commission Meetin!! Minutes - June 13. 2006
Phelan stated the park impact development fee has increased; the air quality and
storm drainage fees were new as well as an appeal process. The school land
dedication fee was reviewed by the number of students generated by the kind of
housing, which the consultant updated. The school land dedication was only
assessed through subdivision but this revision would require any bedrooms added
would be assessed the fee. Lodges and commercial development were not
assessed.
Public Comments:
Tom Dunlop, former Environmental Health Director for the City and County,
stated that the PMlO mitigation program went through a number of processes and
it was a battle that went on for years.
The Commission agreed with staffs' approach for the changes to the park
dedication and school land dedication impact fees.
MOTION: Steve Skadron moved to approve Resolution #23, Series of 2006,
recommending City Council approve the proposed land use code amendments to
Section 26.610 and 26.630 Park Development Impact Fee and School Land
Dedication. Seconded by John Rowland. Roll call vote: Johns, yes; Wilson, yes;
Speck, yes; Rowland, yes; Skadron, yes; Tygre. yes. APPROVED 6-0.
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
BOOMERANGLODGEREDEVELOPMENTPUD
Jasmine Tygre opened the public hearing for the Boomerang Lodge redevelopment
PUD. Tygre noted that she was not at the last Boomerang hearing and has not read
the minutes but this was a revised plan. Sunny Vann responded that they had no
objections to Jasmine participating.
Joyce Allgaier provided the overview of the project now with 52 hotel rooms and
about 50,500 square feet. There were 6 free-market units proposed with about
12,822 square feet; 2 affordable housing units; 48 parking spaces, 31 in an
underground garage and 17 surface spaces. The property was zoned R-6 with a
Lodge Preservation Overlay; this was a lodge incentive development. Growth
Management Review included the lodge units, free-market units and affordable
housing units. This was a planned unit development to set the dimensional
standards for the project; rezoning for the PUD overlay; subdivision because of the
8 new residential units (6 free market and 2 affordable); and condominiumization.
Allgaier stated the issues were height, massing of the structure and the historic east
wing; the historic preservation commission would like to see a component of this
3
-.-.-.-._....--~~.. ..."",..",,~_..~.--
E-x:tDfS\I 0-
Final Report
City of Aspen
Impact Fee Study and
Update of School Lands Dedication
Final Report
August 7, 2006
City of Aspen
Impact Fee Study and
Update of School lands Dedication
Prepared for
City of Aspen
Planning Department
1 30 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Prepared by
SSC Research & Consulting
3773 Cherry Creek N. Drive, Suite 850
Denver, CO 80209-3827
303.321.2547 fax 303.399.0448
www.bbcresearch.com
bbc@bbcresearch.com
mmtll
REsEARCH &
CoNSULTING
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
Report Db jective ................................ ....................................................... ..... ................................ 1
Defi n ition of I m pact Fees ....... ........ .............. ........... ............. n.... ........... .......................................... 1
Report Organization ........ ........ ................ ..,...... ........ ........... ........... .............. ................ .................. 3
Reliance on City-Provided Data................... ........... ..,...... ........... ........... n.... ........ ........"....... ........... 4
Acknowledgements...."....................... ........ ................... ........... .................. ....... ...... ....... ....... ........ 4
II. land Use and Demographic Data
Residential Data ........... ........ ......... ._.,............ ........... ........ ........... ................... ........ ................ ......... 5
Non residential Data....... ................. ................. ................... ........... ........... ......... .............. ......... ...... 7
Land Use Di stribution ............. ......... ................ .................... ........... ........... .................................. ... 8
Calculation of Bedrooms in the City of Aspen ............................................................................... 11
Calculation of Bedrooms in the Aspen School District................................................................... 13
III. Parks Development Impact Fees
Impact Fee Methodology .............................................................................................................15
Fee Calcu lation........... ........................... ........................................ ................. ........ ...................... 1 6
IV. Transportation Demand Management/Air Quality Impact Fees
Impact Fee Methodology .............................................................................................................17
Fee Calcu lation.. .................... ........................ .............................. ................. .................... ........ .... 19
V. Storm Drainage Impact Fees
I m pact Fee Methodology............ ........ ........ ........... ......................................... ............................. 20
Fee Calcu lation... ................... ......................... ............ ...................... ........... ........ ......................... 21
VI. School Capital Cost Recovery Fees
Fee Methodology......................................... ................................................... ........ ........ ............ 23
Fee Calcu lation... ........... ......................... ........... ........... ............ ........... ........ ................. ................ 25
VII. School lands Dedication
Land Area per Student ........... ........ ........ ....................................................... ........ ......... ............... 26
Student Generation Rates................................. ........... .............. ........ ............................ ............... 27
Sample Calcu lati on ................. .............................. .............................. n......... ......................... ..... 29
Cash I n-Lieu Val ue ........... ................... ......................................... ........... ........ ........ ............ .......... 30
VIII. Summary
Recom mendations ........... ......... ................... ........... ........... ........... ................. ....... ........ ........... .... 32
Attachments:
Appendix A -Affordable Housing Demographic Data
Appendix B - Parks and Recreation Assets
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - i
SECTION I.
Introduction
BBC Research & Consulring (BBC) was rerained by rhe Ciry of Aspen (Ciry) in Seprember 2005 ro
calculate impact fees and update the school lands dedication. This report presents the maximum
allowable fees that the City may assess and outlines the methodologies used in fee calculations.
Methodologies were selected in accordance with Colorado state legislation based on the best available
data from the Ciry. This report also explains the approach used ro update the school lands
dedication.
Report Objective
The objective of this document is to set forth calculations of the maximum legally allowable impact
fees for the expansion of infrastructure to accommodate new growth. Specifically, impact fees are
calculated for infrastructure in the following areas:
. parks;
· transportation demand management (TDM)/air qualiry; and
. storm drainage.
In addition, Section VI of this report calculates a school capital cost recovery fee and Section VII
details the updated school lands dedication.
Definition of Impact Fees
Impact fees are generally defined as one-time assessments used to recover the capital costs imposed on
local governments by new growth. They are governed by principles established in both state and
federal law - most recently Colorado's Senate Bill 15, which was passed in 2001 - and specifically
gives cities, towns and counties the authority to levy impact fees. While the state legislation does not
define impact fees, it does define land development charges as "any fee charge, or assessment relating
to a capital expenditure which is imposed on land development as a condition of approval..." 1
What can impact fees be used for? Colorado's Senate Bill t 5 is generally consistent with federal
law in the restrictions it places on the use of impact fees. As discussed by the Colorado Municipal
League in their handbook, Payingftr Growth, Impact Fees Under Senate Bill 15, municipalities
"contemplating impact fees should first consider the following limitations:
. Impact fees can only be used to finance capital infrastructure - they cannot be used to
cover ongoing operations and maintenance costs.
· Impact fees cannot be deposited in the General Fund - they must be earmarked for
capital expenses and deposited into separate accounts.
1
Colorado Municipal League, Payingftr Growth, Impact Fees Under Senate Bill 15, April 2002, p. 3.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 1
. Impact fees should be expended within a very short time frame-typically no longer
than the horizon for the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP).
. Impact fees cannot be imposed to address existing service deficiencies.,,2
In addition, impact fees must be "intended to defray projected impacts on capital facilities caused by
proposed development.,,3 In federal law, there are two guidelines that govern this last principle. First,
impact fee revenues must be dedicated exclusively to infrastructure expansion required by new
development. That is, there must be a "rational nexus" (as described in federal case law) between the
charge levied and the infrastructure needs imposed. Additionally, impact fees must be in "rough
proportion" to the new development's appropriate share of infrastructure cost. The fees described in
this report meet all of the standards outlined above.
How should fees be calculated? There are two generally accepted methodologies for calculating
impact fees. The two approaches are described in detail below.
Current service standard. A Current Service Standard (CSS) approach, sometimes described as a
"buy-in" methodology, is one method for calculating impact fees. This approach involves calculating
the City's current service standard by quantifying the replacement value of its investment in capital
infrastructure for each fee area and allocating a portion of these assets (0 residential and
nonresidential development. After allocating assets accordingly, the resulting amounts are divided by
residential and nonresidential units of demand. Commonly utilized residential units of demand are
current housing units or number of bedrooms and for nonresidential development the common
demand unit is current square footage. By using current assets (0 denote the current service standard,
this methodology guards against using fees (0 correct existing deficiencies.
Forward-looking fee calculation. The other generally accepred methodology for calculating impact
fees is the forward-looking or Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) approach. Unlike the Current Service
Standard method, which looks at current assets, this second approach considers projected capital
investments. Of the projected capital infrastructure, only the share of the infrastructure that is
attributable to growth can be included in the fee calculation. The total projected investment needed
to serve growth is then allocated to residential and nonresidential development with the resulting
amounts divided by the incremental increase in demand units. Among the advantages of the Clr
approach is its establishment of a spending plan to give developers and new residents more certainty
about the uses of their fee revenues.
Another advantage of the ClP approach is that as cities approach build-our and departments
determine that all future growth-related infrastructure needs have been fulfilled, impact fees are
zeroed out. Fees can be zeroed our in timely accordance with the phasing our of future infrastructure
plans. Under the CIP approach therefore, there is little possibiliry of over-collecting fees. Under the
Current Service Standard approach, however, because fees are not based on future infrastructure
plans, rhere may be lag time between the last growth-related capitai project and rhe end of fee
collection, resulting in a greater possibility of over collecting fees.
, .
Ibid. p. 23.
'[bid. p. 13.
SSC RESEARCH &: CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 2
The Colorado Revised Statutes do not mandate use of eithet approach. Of the two methodologies,
BBC used the CSS approach to calculate all fees except storm drainage to be consistent with the
City's methodology in prior years. For storm drainage fees however, we employed the City's new
ClP.
Other fee calculation considerations. The basic methodologies used to describe fee calculations
are presented above. However, in implementing the CSS and elr methodology. there are a number
of decisions that must be made regarding fee calculations. The considerations accounted for in BBC's
fee calculations include the following:
· The allocation of costs is typically made using some type of demand unit. The demand
units chosen by BBC ate all linked ditectly to eithet the numbet of bedrooms in the City
or the number of square feet. This choice conforms with the guidelines suggested by the
Colorado Municipal League: "because [the] Colorado statutory authority to impose an
impact fee is in the land-use statutes, it is best to aim for land use-based demand unit
(e.g.. number of bedrooms, residential units, nonresidential square footage, etc.).,,4
· A second question involves refinement of the allocation of costs to different land uses.
The level of detail can vary from a residential vs. nonresidential breakdown to
establishing proportionate shares for residential unit types (multifamily and single
family) and nonresidential types (office, industrial, retail. institutional, etc.). BBC has
chosen to use the greatest level of detail supportable by available data. fu a result, fees are
only allocated among aggregated residential and nonresidential development.
. Finally, it is important to remember that impact fees are imposed to maintain
jurisdiction-wide service levels and should be expended to achieve objectives as defined
in Master Plans and erps fot the community at large. BBC urges the City to continually
refine these documents for use as spending guidelines.
Report Organization
The remainder of this report contains seven sections. Section II outlines the demographic and land
use assumptions used in the analysis. Appendix A supplements Section II with a detailed description
of the assumptions and calculations used fo~ the affordable housing component of the City's
demographics.
Sections III through VII document the calculation of fees for each infrastructure category. The four
fee sections are organized similarly; each begins with a determination of current or future
infrastructure based on information from City departments, continues through the mechanics of fee
calculation, and concludes with a recommended maximum fee amount. Due to the sheer length of
the City's parks and recreation asset list, it has been included as Appendix B in this report. It is also
important to note that in the storm drainage section, the eIr presented is not intended to be
inclusive of all future projects (growth and non-growth related). Section VII discusses the school
lands dedication methodology. Finally, Section VIII summarizes all of the ptevious sections and gives
several implementation recommendations.
4 .
Ib,d. pg. 27.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 3
Reliance on City-Provided Data
During the course of this project, the City of Aspen provided BBC with a variety of data and
information. We have relied on these data in the formulation of our findings and recommendations
and in the preparation of this report. As is onen the case, there will be differences between actual and
projected data, but these differences should be within the bounds of rough proportionality.
Acknowledgements
The assistance of the City of Aspen staff was invaluable in the preparation of this report. In
particular, we would like ro thank Ms. Jennifer Phelan of the Community Development Department
who served as our project coordinator.
BBC RESEARCH'" CONSULTING
FINAL RE.PORT - PAGE. 4
SECTION II.
Land Use and Demographic Data
The fee calculations developed in this report are based on the following information:
· Cost of necessary current or future infrastructure to deliver services to future residents at
the current level of service;
· Current (2005) distribution of land uses among residential and nonresidential uses;
. Number of bedrooms in rhe Ciry and in rhe Aspen School Disrricr;
· Furure (2015) number of square feer in rhe Ciry (applies only ro srorm drainage fees).
Each of the following sections outlines the cost of necessary current Of future infrastructure
to deliver current levels of service to future residents and then applies the land use
distribution to those costs to arrive at an impact fee amount. This section outlines the land
use data that are used in fee calculations.
Residential Data
The Ciry of Aspen's Land Use Code, Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS),
provides the current and future demographic data used to calculate fees. 1 In addition, the City's
Communiry Development Department and the Aspen/Pirkin Counry Housing Authoriry provided
specific data on single family and multifamily affordable housing units and building permit square
footage data for free market units.
Because both fee calculation methodologies are used in this report, it was necessary to collect current
and future demographic data to support the Current Service Standard approach and the Capital
Improvement Plan approach.
Current residential units. Exhibit II-Ion the following page organizes current and future
residential development into three categories: free market units, affordable housing units and lodging
units. The GMQS identifies 3,774 free marker residences in rhe Ciry in 2005, comprised of 1,140
single family homes and 2,634 multifamily homes. 2 Single family homes include single family
residences and manufactured homes. Multifamily units include duplexes, triplexes, condominiums
and multi-unir buildings.
,
The data set forth in the City's Land Use Code, Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) are from the
Pitkin County Assessor, March 7,2005.
2
The GMQS idemified 4,906 total residences in 2005; however, 1,132 were affordable housing units. The affordable
housing units were subtracted from the total free market single family and multifamily units based on the currem ratio of
single family affordable housing units to multifamily affordable housing units (9:91) per the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority.
SSC RESEARCH &: CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 5
Specific affordable housing data were provided by the City's Community Development Department.
BBC analyzed the data to determine the approximate single family and multifamily split. See
Appendix A for a more detailed discussion of the assumptions.
The City's Land Use Code, Chapter 26 470, Growth Management Quota System also supplied the
count of current lodging units in the City. In this analysis, lodging units are considered a component
of residential development because, in essence, lodged persons are temporary residents demanding the
same infrastructure as permanent City residents. 3 The initial data cites 8,583 pillows; to arrive at a
unit count, pillows were divided by 2, which assumes 2 pillows per room. In 2005, there were an
estimated 4,300 lodging units in the City, as seen in Exhibit II-I.
Exhibit 11-1.
Current and Projected Residential Development
Total.. '
2GOS
;,)'j<;ri
TioI!!l'ill" Olf(eJl!RCe;wclS
.,f; to 2015
.!
Free Market Residential (1)
Single Family 1,140 1,251 111
Multifamily 2634 2892 ill
Total Households 3,774 4,143 369
Affordable Housing (2)
Single Family 177 205 28
Multifamily Ull 2MZ 216.
Total Households 1,988 2,252 264
Lodging (3)
Units 4,292 4,721 429
Total 10,053 11,115 1,062
Note: (1) Household projections assume 37 new units annually perthe Growth Management Quota System based on the current
distribution of single family and multifamily units.
(2) Projections for affordable housing assume a net increase of 97 units in 2006 and 2007, according to Burlingame phasing
schedules. Projections for affordable housing after 2007 assume that the current ratio between free market units and
affordable units will remain the same. Therefore, because free market residential units are dictated to grow by 1 percent per
year according to the Growth Management Quota System, affordable units will also grow by 1 percent to maintain the same
unit ratios. During years 3 through 10, projections also assume the current ratio between single family and multifamily units
will continue over the next 10 years.
(3) Projections for lodging assume that the current ratio between free market units and lodging units will remain the same
over the next 10 years. Therefore, because free market residential units are dictated to grow by 1 percent per year according
to the Growth Management Quota System, lodging unit.s will also grow by 1 percent to maintain the same unit ratios.
Source: City of Aspen, Land Use Code, Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System, City of Aspen Community Development
Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and BBC Research &: Consulting.
In 2005, there were an estimated 10,000 residential units consisting of free market, affordable
housing and lodging units.
Future residential units. According to the City's Land Use Code, Chapter 26470, Growth
Management Quota System, free market residential development within the City is limited to an
3 It is important to note that "lodging" also appears as a component of current nonresidential space in Exhibit II-2.
"Lodging" in Exhibit II~2 is strictly the commercial space within lodging units such as boutiques, salons/spas and
restaurants.
BBC RESEARCH &: CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 6
annual growth tate of I petcent (37 units based on Match 2005 development). Therefore, free
market residential unit projections were matched to the annual residential allotment of 37 units per
year, assuming the current distribution between single family and multifamily units (30:70 percent,
respectively). Exhibit II-I above lists the free market residential projections to 2015 that result from
the I percent annual growth rate. In 2015, the City will have approximately 1,250 single family and
2,900 multifamily free market housing units.
Unlike free market units, the City does not mandate growth rate restrictions or annual allotments for
affordable housing. BBC has used a combination of approaches to project affordable housing units.
The City's building permit data reveal the total unit count for phase I of a new affordable housing
development, Burlingame. Ninety-seven units have already been approved for this new development.
City staff anticipate that these 97 units will be built by the end of 2007. Therefore, for affordable
housing projections, BBC has assumed that Burlingame's 97 units will be absorbed during the first
two years. For the remaining 8 years, BBe assumes that the current ratio between free market units
and affordable units will remain constant. Therefore, because free market residential units are
dictated to grow by 1 percent per year, affordable units are estimated to grow by 1 percent to
maintain the same unit ratio during years 3 through 10. Projec~ions for years 3 through 10 also
assume the current ratio between single family and multifamily units will remain constant,
The City does not mandate growth rate restrictions or annual allotments for lodging units.
Projections for lodging units follow the same methodology as affordable housing units during years 3
through 10. BBC assumes that the current ratio between free market units and lodging units will
remain constant. Therefore, because free market residential units are dictated to grow by 1 percent
per year, lodging units are estimated to grow by 1 percent to maintain the same unit ratio during the
I O-year period.
The results of these projections for affordable housing and lodging units are specified in Exhibit II-I
on the previous page. Single family affordable housing units will total approximately 200 in 2015 and
multifamily affordable units will reach almost 2,050. Lodging units are expected to increase by
approximately 400 to 4,700 by 2015.
Overall, the City of Aspen will observe an increase of almost 1,100 residential units over the next 10
years.
Nonresidential Data
The City's Land Use Code, Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System also provided BBC
with estimates of current and future nonresidential development in square feet. Commercial classes
were condensed into 3 major nonresidential types: retail, office and industrial. See the notes in the
exhibit on the following page for a specification of the combined commercial classes. Total
nonresidential square footage in 2005 was 1.41 million, the majority (67 percent) comprising retail
development.
BSC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 7
Exhibit 11-2.
Current and Projected Nonresidential Development
T,pgl'1e,
';~$'f;:::;
"'~.r_"
:; t TotaIln
-;,.i~t'\~;~;;,'ao.U-'(l)
~~2Oti.,
. . ,~';!nS
Nonresidential Square Feet
Retail (2)
Office (3)
Industrial (4)
Total Square Feet
945,104
387,656
ZQJM3.
1,408,803
963,888
399,141
lll.ll2
1,444,564
18,784
11,485
5A23.
35,761
Note: (1) Projections assume an annual addition of 28,000 square feet, per the Growth Management Quota System.
(2) Retail:::: merchandising (554,827) + lodging (19,950) + recreation <1 00,057) + special purpose (197,974) + 1/3 of multi-
use (72,296) per the Growth Management Quota System. Perthe Growth Management Quota System, lodge unit square footage
was removed from the total to estimate commercial space within lodge developments.
(3) Office = office (315,360) + 1/3 of multi-use (72,296) per the Growth Management Quota System.
(4) Industrial = warehouse/storage (3,747) + 1/3 of multi-use (72,296) per the Growth Management Quota System.
Source: City of Aspen, Land Use Code, Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS) and BSC Research &: Consulting.
Nonresidenrial projections wete set forth in the GMQS. The City limits commetcial development ro
2 petcent annually. Based on Match 2005 data, the 2 percent growth tate produces an annual
allotment of 28,000 square feet. The annual increase of 28,000 square feet was distributed among the
specific nonresidential classes based on the current distribution (67 percent retait 28 percent office
and 5 percent industrial). This assumes that future nonresidential development will mirror the
current land use.
In 20 I 5, the City is projected ro have 1.44 million square feet of nonresidential development, based
on a 10-year increase of almost 36,000 square feet.
Land Use Distribution
Residential unit data is converted to square feet for an "apple to apples" comparison with
nonresidential square footage. This conversion allows an identification of the current and future
distribution ofland uses in the City. Once this distribution is established, impact fee costs can be
accurately assigned to nonresidential and residential development.
Free market residential square feet. The Community Development Department accessed
building petmit data from 2003 though 2005 year-ro-date. Free market single family figures were
calculated using the average square footage of new permitted units over the 3-year period. These new
units were thought to be a representative sample of the entire City housing stock.
The City's single family units are coded in the building petmit data as Census Code 101. From 2003
to 2005, new single family units in Aspen averaged 6,144 square feet. This square footage was
multiplied by the number of single family units in 2005 and 2015 ro achieve total square footage
figures fot all single family units in the City.
Likewise, the exercise described above was applied to multifamily units in 2005 and 2015 using
building permit data for new multifamily units. The Census Codes designating multifamily units in
the building permit data are 102, 103 and 104. Over the 3-yeat period, new multifamily units
averaged 2,746 square feet.
SSC RESEARCH &: CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 8
Current affordable housing square feet. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines served as
the basis for information on rhe square footage of affordable housing units. Please see AppendixA for
a more detailed discussion of the assumptions used to calculate the current square footage of
affordable housing.
Projected affordable housing square feet. To calculate rhe future distribution of affordable
housing square footage, BBC used the average of current single family and multifamily affordable
units. Single family affordable units in 2005 averaged 1,712 square feet and multifamily units
averaged 794 square feet. The averages were multiplied by the projected units in 2015.
Square footage of lodging units. For cutrent and projected lodging square footage data, BBC
used the City's target of 500 square feet per unit. The 500 square feet was then multiplied by the
current and projected lodging unit count.
Exhibit 11-3 below shows the land-use distribution of Aspen development in 2005. The land-use
percentages are used to allocate fees between residential and nonresidential development under the
Current Service Standard.
Exhibit 11-3.
Current Land Use Distribution, 2005
Land 'Use Category ,Sq....re Feet Percent of TOtal
Free Market Residential 14,238,049 73%
Single Family (1) 7,004,744 36%
Multifamily (2) 7,233,305 37%
Affordable Housing 1,740,900 9%
Single Family (3) 303,000 2%
Multifamily (4) 1,437,900 7%
Lodging Units (5) 2,145,750 11%
Total Residential 18,124,699 93%
Total Nonresidential 1,408.803 7%
Retail 945,104 5%
Office 387,656 2%
Industrial 76,043 0%
Grand Total 19,533,502 100%
Note: (1) Includes 1,140 single family residential units ., 6,144 square feet. Free market single family square footage figures were
calculated using the average square footage of new permitted units from 2003-2005 (Census Code 101).
(2) Includes 2,634 multifamily units" 2,746 square feet. Free market multifamily square footage figures were calculated using
the 2005 average square footage of new permitted units (Census Code 102, 103 and 104).
(3) Includes 177 single family affordable housing units. Category 1 == 1 unit; Category 3 = 20 units; Category 4 == 45 units; and
RO = 111 units. Total square footage was calculated by multiplying the unit counts per category by the minimum net livable
square feet in the corresponding category.
(4) Includes 1,988 multifamily affordable housing units. Studio = 290 units; l-bedroom == 407 units; 2-bedroom = 61 7 units; 3
bedrooms = 159 units; 4~bedroom = 30 units; dormitory=1 76 units; not specified = 132 units. Total square footage was
calculated by multiplying the unit counts per category by the minimum net livable square feet in the corresponding category.
(5) Lodging units are assumed to be 500 square feet each to match the City's targeted square footage for lodging units.
Source: City of Aspen, Land Use Code, Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), City of Aspen Community
Development Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and SSC Research & Consulting.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 9
As displayed above, residential development accounted for 93 percent of the land uses in 2005, and
nonresidential development comprised 7 percent of total land use.
It should be noted that when calculating fees for parks, TOM/air quality and schools, tesidential
development is charged on a per bedroom basis and thus no distinction has been made between
single family, multifamily and affordable housing residential units. Similarly, nonresidential fees are
charged on a per square footage basis and do not distinguish between retail, office and industrial
development. In addition, the nonresidential fees calculated in this report are based on net leasable
square feet, to retain consistency with the current and future square footage data published in the
Growth Management Quota System.
Exhibit II-4 on the following page highlights the projected land uses in 2015 calculated using the
methodologies desctibed pteviously. The 2015 projections ate only used in this analysis to calculate
fees for storm drainage under the Capital Improvement Plan approach.
Specifically, the square footage in 2015 is used to calculate the inctemental change in the square
footage of building footptints from 2005 to 20154 The building footprint data is then used to
calculate the square feet of impervious surface in the City. S As opposed to the other fees in this
report, storm drainage fees will be assessed per impervious square foot for residential and
nonresidential development alike.
4
The square footage of building footprints in 2005 was calculated from the City of Aspen Stormwater Utility Business Plan,
December 2005, prepared by AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc.
S Impervious surfaces are areas such as asphalt and cement parking lots that do not absorb moisture and therefore place high
demand on the storm drainage system.
BBC RESEARCH &: CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 10
Exhibit 11-4.
Projected Land Use Distribution, 2015
l.al\d.U$e.~
PerCel'lt of Total
Free Market Residential
Single Family (1)
Multifamily (2)
Affordable Housing
Single Family (3)
Multifamily (4)
Lodging Units (5)
Total Residential
Total Nonresidential
Retail
Office
Industrial
Grand Total
~'Feet
15,628,998
7,686,358
7,942,641
1,976,237
351,275
1,624,962
2,360,325
19,965,560
1,444,564
963,888
399,141
81,536
21,410,124
73%
36%
37%
9%
2%
7%
11%
93%
7%
5%
2%
0%
100%
Note: (1) Includes 1,251 single family residential units * 6,144 square feet. Free market single family square footage figures are
calculated using the average square footage of new permitted units from 2003-2005 (Census Code 101).
(2) Includes 2,892 multifamily units" 2,746 square feet. Free market multifamily square footage figures are calculated using
the 2005 average square footage of new permitted units (Census Code 102, 103 and 104).
(3) Includes 205 single family affordable housing units. Total square footage was calculated by multiplying the unit counts by
the average square footage of single family affordable housing units in 2005.
(4) Includes 2,047 multifamily affordable housing units. Total square footage was calculated by multiplying the unit counts by
the average square footage of multifamily affordable housing units in 2005.
(5) Lodging units are assumed to be 500 square feet each to match the City's targeted square footage for lodging units.
Source: City of Aspen, Land Use Code, Chapter 26.470, Growth Management Quota System (GMQS), City af Aspen Community
Development Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority and BSC Research &; Consulting.
In 2015, the land use distribution will look similar to the current distribution. This is to be expected
because many of the residential ratios in 2005 were held constant through projection data. There will
be a rotal of21 million square feet of residential and nonresidential development in 2015.
Calculation of Bedrooms in the City of Aspen
Impact fees can be charged to residential development based on a variety of demand measures such as
a residential unit or bedroom. The City of Aspen has chosen to charge fees based on the most
detailed methodology available, residential fees per bedroom. Please note that this analysis does not
calculate a fee differential between single family, multifamily, affordable and lodging bedrooms.
The calculation of the number of bedrooms in the City in 2005 involved a number of steps. 2000
Census data served as the starting point for the calculation of bedrooms in 2005.
Data from the 2000 Census tabulated the housing units in the City by number of bedrooms (no
bedroom, I-bedroom, 2-bedrooms, 3-bedrooms, 4-bedrooms and 5 or more bedrooms). To calculate
the number of bedrooms in the City, the number of housing units in each bedroom category were
multiplied by the corresponding number of bedrooms. However, if the number of studio units were
SSC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 11
multiplied by the number of bedrooms (zero), the total number of bedrooms in the City would
underrepresent .the true demand on City infrastructure. BBC assigned studio units a bedroom size of
.8 to indicate that these units do require City infrastructure, but at a presumably lower rate than 1-
bedroom unirs. Exhibit 11-5 below demonstrates BBC's calculation of rhe number of bedrooms in the
City in 2000.
Exhibit 11-5.
Number of Non-Lodging
Bedrooms in the City of
Aspen,2OGO
;::,::~~'i~':'';'',:",,'\'_,' :>L::,
-;,i,\,'~,~; ft~,,~1J~,
w.ighl " ,:~~~..
Source:
u.s. Census Bureau, 2000 Census
and BBe Research &: Consulting.
No bedroom 524 x 0.8 419
1 bedroom 893 x 1 893
2-bedrooms 1,296 x 2 2,592
3-bedrooms 853 x 3 ~,559
4.bedrooms 531 x 4 2,124
5 or more bedrooms 2.42 x 5 ~
Total 4,346 9,832
In 2000, Aspen had a total of almost 10,000 bedrooms. The 10,000 bedrooms, however, do not
include lodging units, which are included in this fee analysis as residential units. It is necessary to
quantifY the number of lodging units in order to add the bedrooms within rhese lodging unirs to the
overall bedroom count in 2000.
Calculation of lodging units in 2000. To esrimate the number of lodging units in the City in
2000, BBC used rhe 2005 data on the distriburion of unirs by type to "back cast" the number of
lodging units in 2000. This calculation assumes that the ratio of specific types of units to the overall
housing stock has remained constant since 2000.
Calculation of total units in 2000. The firsr step to determine the number of lodging units in rhe
City in 2000 was to calculate the number of total units (i.e., free market units + affordable units +
lodging units). Again, rhe 10,000 unirs calculated in Exhibit 11-5 only represent the free marker and
affordable units.
Of the 10,053 housing units in the City in 2005 (identified in Exhibit II-I), 57 percent were free
market and affordable housing units. Using this 2005 rario between total unirs and free market and
affordable units, BBC could calculate the toral number of units (including lodging) in 2000. The
equations below depict the steps taken to determine the total number of units in 2000.
. Free market + affordable unirs = 57.31 % of total unirs in 2005
> 4,346 free market and affordable units = 57.31 % * rotal units in 2000
> 4,346 free marker and affordable units / 57.31 % = rotal unirs
> Total units in 2000 = 7,583
In 2000, there were approximately 7,600 housing units in rhe City comprised of free market,
affordable and lodging units.
SSC RESEARCH &: CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 12
Calculation of lodging units in 2000. Calculated from Exhibit II-I, lodging units represented 42.69
percent of total units in 2005. Knowing the total number of units in the City in 2000, now enables a
calculation of the number of lodging units using the 2005 ratio of lodging units to total units. The
calculation below shows the steps taken to determine the number of lodging units in 2000.
· Lodging unirs = 42.69% of total units in 2005
> Lodging units = 42.69% * 7,583 total units in 2000
> 2000 lodging units = 3,237
In 2000, BBC estimates that there were approximately 3,200 lodging units. It is estimated that, on
average, these lodging units were I-bedroom units. Therefore, there were an additional 3,100 1-
bedroom units in 2000 that should be added to the 9,832 bedrooms in Exhibit 11-5. In total, there
were 13,069 bedrooms in the City of Aspen in 2000.
Projecting 2000 bedroom data forward to 2005. The final step in calculating the number of
bedrooms in the City in 2005 involved creating a simple proponion between the total number of
units and the total number of bedrooms in 2000. In 2000, the 7,583 units represented approximately
58.02 percent of the total bedrooms in the City. The following equation calculates the number of
bedrooms in the City in 2005.
· Total housing units in 2000 = 58.02% * total bedrooms
> 10,053 housing units in 2005 = 58.02% * total bedrooms
> 10,053 housing units / 58.02% = total bedrooms
> Total bedrooms in 2005 = 17,327
In 2005, it is estimated that there were 17,327 bedrooms in the City of Aspen scattered throughout
single family, multifamily, affordable and lodging units. In the fee calculations in the following
sections, the total growth-related elP cost is charged to residential development on a per bedroom
basis. Thus, the 17,327 bedrooms is a key assumption in the calculation of the residential ftes.
Calculation of Bedrooms in the Aspen School District
Unlike the parks development impact fee and the TOM/air quality fee, the school cost recovety fee
can be assessed in rhe Aspen School District, which not only includes the City of Aspen, but parts of
unincorporared Pitkin County and Snowmass Village. In addition to the 17,327 bedrooms in the
City of Aspen, to charge equitable fees, the bedrooms in the unincorporated county and in Snowmass
Village need to be quantified.
BBC used a similar approach to the calculation of bedrooms in the City itself. It is important to note,
however, that school capital cost recovery fees are not charged to lodging units and as such, the
bedroom count excludes lodging units located in the School District.
sse RESEARCH & CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 13
Data from the Colorado Department of Local Affairs quantified the housing units in Pitkin County
and Snowmass Village as of 2005. Based on a School District map, BBC assumed that all of
Snowmass Village and 75 percent of unincorporated Pirkin County were conrained within the Aspen
School District. Therefore, the total housing units in rhe School District in 2005 was 11,649 (5,762
City of Aspen housing units (excluding lodging units) + 2,790 housing units in Snowmass Village +
3,097 housing units in unincorporated Pirkin County).
Setting up a simple ratio between housing units and bedrooms, as done above for the total bedrooms
wirhin the City limits, enables a quanrification of bedrooms in the District in 2005. In 2000, rhe
housing units represented 40 percent of the bedrooms in the District. The equation below determines
the number of bedrooms in 2005.
. Total housing unirs in 2000 = 39.81 % * total bedrooms
> 11,649 housing units in 2005 = 39.81 % * toral bedrooms
> 11,649 housing units I 39.81 % = total bedrooms
> Total bedrooms in School District in 2005 = 29,259
In 2005, it is estimared that there were 29,259 bedrooms in the Aspen School Districr scattered
throughout single family, mulrifamily and affordable units. In Secrion VII, the total growth-relared
CIP cost is charged to residential development on a per bedroom basis. Thus, the 29,259 bedrooms is a
key assumption in the calculation of the school cost recovery fie.
BBC RESEARCH &: CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 14
SECTION III.
Parks Development Impact Fees
The impact fees for the City of Aspen's parks and recreation infrastructure were calculated using the
following steps:
· IdentifY current parks and recreation infrastructure based on the City's current asset
sheets;
· Gather additional data from parks and recreation regarding equity percentages and
replacement costs;
. Determine the percentage of the facility that will be shared between departments, if
applicable;
· Calculate an apportionment of service costs to residential and nonresidential land uses
based on current development; and
· Utilize distribution of service demands by land use to calculate applicable fees.
Impact Fee Methodology
The types of costs eligible for inclusion in this calculation include any land purchases, land
improvements and construction of facilities. The cost of the fee study is also eligible for inclusion into
the impact fee calculation for all fee categories. Because fees are calculated for four fee areas, 25
percent (or one-fourth) of the fee study cost is included in all calculations.
Additionally, the City's current impact fee fund balance is added to the total value of assets. The fund
balance monies represent assets for which impact fee money has already been collected; however, the
asset has not yet been built. Essentially, there is lag time between when the money is collected and
when the money is converted into an actual capital investment. Therefore, the fund balance monies
increase the value of current assets and should be added to the overall value of current infrastructure.
Parks and recreation assets were divided into several categories based on type of usage: open space;
parks; fields and courts; trails; and recreation center and other. "When available from the parks and
recreation capital inventoty database, BBC used the actual purchase price of land for parks and
recreation assets. Land costs were updated to 2005 dollars using a 3 percent annual rate of inflation.
For park assets in which the actual purchase price was not available, BBC calculated the median cost
per acre from the capital inventory database and applied that figure to the total acreage. The median
land costs per acre in 2005 dollars were $89,250 per acre for open space and $256,890 per acre for
parks. Median land costs for fields and courts and recreation center and other assumed the $256,890
per acre.
sse RESEARCH &: CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 15
Cost for trails were esrimated by park sraff at $150,000 per mile of concrete rrail; $100,000 per mile
of asphalr trail; $35,000 per mile of crusher fines trails; $10,000 per mile of dirt trail; and $10,000
per mile of Nordic trail.
Not all parks and recreation assets are owned ourright by the City. The City has financed some land
and equipment through sales tax revenue bonds issued in 1999,2001 and 2005. Internal City data
from the finance department helped BBC determine the equity percentages for bonded assets based
on interest rates and debt service schedules. To date, the City's equity percentage for assets purchased
with 1999 bonds is 20.9 percenr. The equity percentage for assets financed through 2001 and 2005
bonds is 4.0 and 4.4 percenr, respectively.
Appendix B presents the current parks and recreation assets reflecting all details mentioned above.
Parks and recreation assets that are eligible for inclusion into the impact fee calculation total $82.5
million.
Fee Calculation
Using the costs summarized in Appendix B and the demographic information from Section II,
impact fees are calculated based on the total allocated replacement value of the parks and recreation
assets. Impact fees are then calculated by dividing the appropriate portion of infrastructure costs by
total residential or nonresidential development (bedrooms and square feet, respectively). Costs of
providing infrastructure are apportioned using the current distribution of land uses in Aspen. In
many communities, nonresidential development does not pay a parks impact fee because resident
households are the primaty users of parks during peak hours. However, in the City of Aspen, because
so few people live and work in Aspen, businesses actually create a demand for parks and recreation
infrastructure. For example, persons living in the rural part of the county who work in Aspen might
take advantage of Aspen's recreation center because such a facility does not exist where they reside.
Exhibit III-2 below presents a calculation of impact fees based on the infrastructure costs in Appendix
B. This merhod results in charges of $4,429 per residential bedrooms, including single family,
multifamily family and lodging units, and $4.10 per net leasable nonresidential square foot. A fee not
to exceed this amount is recommended for the parks and recreation infrastructure.
Exhibit 11I-2.
Calculation of Park
Development Impact
Fees
Note:
(1) See Appendix B. Parks and
Recreation Assets.
(2) See Exhibit 11-3 Current land Use
Distribution.
Source:
City of Aspen and SBC Research &
Consulting.
<:.lcvllll~ Jlflt!lpild.j'ns ",
Allocated Value for Parks and Recreation Infrastructure (1)
Current land Use Percentage (2)
Residential
Nonresidential
Costs by land Use Category
Residential
Nonresidential
$82,523,778
93%
7%
$76,747,113
$5,776,664
Current Development
Residential (in bedrooms)
Nonresidential (in net leasable square feet)
Impact Fee by Unit of Development (rounded)
Residential (per bedroom)
Nonresidential (per net leasable square foot)
17,327
1,408,803
$4,429
$4.10
BBC RESEARCH" CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 1 6
SECTION IV.
Transportation Demand Management!
Air Quality Impact Fees
The impact fees for the City of Aspen's transportation demand management (TDM)/air quality
infrastructure were calculated using the following steps:
· Identify current TDM/air quality infrastructure based on the City's current asset sheets;
· Gather additional data from City departments regarding equity percentages and
replacement costs;
· Determine the percentage of the facility that will be shared between departments, if
applicable;
· Calculate an apportionment of service costs to residential and nonresidential land uses
based on current development; and
· Utilize distribution of service demands by land use to calculate applicable fees.
Impact Fee Methodology
The types of costs eligible for inclusion in this calculation include any land purchases, equipment
purchases and construction or expansion of facilities. The cost of the fee study is also eligible for
inclusion into the impact fee calculation for all fee categories. Because fees are calculated for four fee
areas, 25 percent (or one-fourth) of the fee study cost is included in all calculations.
If the City had assessed TOM/air quality fees in prior years, the current impacr fee fund balance
would be added to the total value of assets. 1
Additionally, any costs provided to BBC in historic dollar amounts were updated to 2005 dollars
using two methods. Land costs and equipment costs were updated using a 3 percent annual rate of
inflation and construction costs were updated using the change in the construction cost index from
the Engineering New Record.
1
The fund balance monies represent assets for which impact fee money has already been collected; however, the asset has
not yet been built. Essentially, there is lag time between when the money is collected and when the money is converted into
an actual capital investment. Therefore, the fund balance monies increase the value of current assets and should be added to
the overall value of current infrasrructure.
SSC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 17
Exhibir IV-l below presents almosr $9.3 million of current infrastrucrure rhat is eligible for inclusion
in impact fees.
Exhibit IV-l.
TDM/ Air Quality Assets
':lti~}~<Qtj~:,i&ffi:'~T
~:~;,,;l,{1.~'r. 'I,' ~:~~
,
',,:'>',.-,{
Equipment
Rubey Park (1)
6 Diesel Busesw
3 Hybrid Buses(Jl
75 Parking Meters (4)
60 Multi-Space Parking Meters (5)
15PassengerShuttles(6l
10 Full Service Bus Stops (1)
Street Sweeper 3
Street Sweeper 2 (B)
StreetSwel:'perl(I}
17 Partial Service Bus Stop~ (0)
SCar~hareVehicle5(\O)
Carpool Kio5k(l)
Air Monitor
Pedestrian Beacol1- 2@8th5treet(includingpoles)
TrafficCounter5
Pede~trian Beacon _ 1 @GarmiKh Stre@t(including pole5)
Total
Fee Study
Plus Impact Fee Fund Balance (11)
Uncommitte<l October 2005
Estimated FY05/06 Revenue
btimated FY05J06 Expenditures
Total Fund Balance
Grand TotaJ
"~~';.1uot
';:'-':~i',' ", <:/>~l'T"'.. .,:.' ,'-~j'"
..M"'.;~~~
;'~::_"")" (;:.f{;,'::..I'.' ....",.... -",:,):::t~>~~._;-.:",.-.',,~;,,~ -,:_~, .,:F",
$2,656,389 100% 100% 100% $2,656,389
$1,980,000 100% ,_ 100% $1,980,000
$1,980,000 100% 100% 100% $1,980,000
$650,000 100% 100% 100% $650,000
$600,000 100% 100% 100% $600,000
$360,000 100% 100% 100% $360,000
$250,000 100% 100% 100% $250,000
$194,175 100% 100% 100% $194,175
$179,923 100% 100% 100% $179,923
$158,078 100% 100% 100% $158,078
$85,000 100% 100% 100% $85,000
$75,000 100% 100% 100% $75,000
$34,606 100% 100% 100% $34,606
$25,265 100% 100% 100% $25,265
$19,540 100% 100% 100% $19,540
$15,000 100% 100% 100% $15,000
$10,691 100% 100% 100% =
$9,273,667
$36,500 2S% 100% ZS% $9,125
$0 100% 100% 100% 10
10 100% 100% 100% $0
$0 100% 100% 100% 10
10
$9,282,792
Notes: (1) Initial equipment and building costs in 1985 to 1994 dollars. Used either a 3 percent annual inflation rate or the change in
the construction cost index from 19XX to 2005 to update the costs. Land was purchased in 1970 and updated to 2005 using
a 5 percent annual inflation rate.
(2) Cost per diesel bus is $330,000.
(3) Cost per hybrid bus is $660,000.
(4) Cost per parking meter is approximately $8,666.
(5) Cost per multi-space parking meter is $10,000.
(6) Cost per passenger shuttle is $60,000.
(7) Cost perfull service bus stop is $25,000.
(8) Initial cost inflated to 2005 dollars using a 3 percent annual inflation rate.
(9) Cost per partial service bus stop is $5,000.
(10) Cost per carshare vehicle is $15,000.
(11) Since Aspen does not currently have TDM/Air Quality Impact Fees, these values will remain at $0.
Source: BBC Research &: Consulting and City of Aspen.
BBC RESEARCH &. CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 18
Fee Calculation
Using the costs summarized above and the demographic information from Section II, impact fees are
calculated based on the total replacement value of TOM/air quality assets. Costs of providing
infrastructure are apportioned using the current distribution ofland uses in Aspen. Impact fees are
then calculated by dividing the appropriate porrion of infrastructure costs by total residential or
nonresidential development (bedrooms and square feet, respectively).
Exhibit IV-2 below presents a calculation of impact fees based on the infrastructure costs in Exhibit
IV-I. This method results in charges of $498 per residential bedroom, including single family,
multifamily and lodging units, and $0.46 per net leasable square foot of nonresidential development.
Exhibit IV-2.
Calculation of TOM/Air
Quality Impact Fees
Note:
(1) See Exhibit IV-l. TDM/Air Quality
Assets.
(2) See Exhibit 11-3. Current Land Use
Distribution, 2005.
Source:
City of Aspen and BSC Research &
Consulting.
'c"l!ilil.tiohof~t.es
Allocated Value for TOM/Air Quality Infrastructure (1)
Current land Use Percentage (2)
Residential
Nonresidential
Costs by land Use Category
Residential
Nonresidential
Current Development
Residential (in bedrooms)
Nonresidential (in net leasable square feet)
Impact Fee by Unit of Development (rounded)
Residential (per bedroom)
Nonresidential (per net leasable square foot)
$9,282,792
93%
7%
$8,632,996
$649,795
17,327
1 ,408,803
$498
$0.46
SSC RESEARCH &: CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 19
SECTION V.
Storm Drainage Impact Fees
The impacr fees for the City of Aspen's srorm drainage deparrment were calculated using the
following steps:
. Identify future growth-related storm drainage infrastructure investments based on the
City's Capital Improvemenr Program from 2005-2015;
. Determine the portion of future infrastructure that is attributable to incremental growth
from 2005 to 2015 and the percentage of the facility that will be shared berween
departments, if applicable;
. Calculate the change in impervious surface from 2005 to 2015;
. Divide growrh-related cosrs by the change in impervious surface to calculare applicable
fees.
Impact Fee Methodology
The types of costs eligible for inclusion in this calculation include any growrh-related land purchases,
construction of new facilities and expansion of existing facilities. The cost of the fee study is also
eligible for inclusion into the impact fee calculation for all fee categories. Because fees are calculated
for four fee areas, 25 percent (or one-fourth) of the fee study cost is included in all calculations.
The growth-relared portion in the storm drainage CIP on rhe following page was determined by
expressing the total incremental square footage built from 2005 to 2015 as a proportion of the total
(existing and new) square footage in 2015. That is, 9 percent of the rotal square footage in 2015 will
be attributed solely to new development.
Exhibit V -1 on the following page presents $900,000 million of future infrastructure that is eligible
for inclusion in the storm drainage impact fee. 1
,
Please note that the storm drainage CIP on the following page and the CIP costs in Table 3: Citywide Service Area of the
City of Aspen Stormwater Utility Business Plan are identical. That is, the first column in the CIP on the following page, "CIP
Value" muches the project title and cost values of Table 3 in the Utility Business Plan prepared by AMEC Earth &
Environmental, Inc.
SSC RESEARCH & CONSULTiNG
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 20
Exhibit Vol.
Storm Drainage Capital Improvement Plan, 2005 to 2015
1)peofc.pltallntrastrvdun!
.,_,'" " ~L-'ltj:rlt..d
~'~:_'J;;:_:~:.#w
SI...t4~"..:~:'>~-
>'~-~-"""'~; ;~
Infrastructu",(2)
Slorm Sewer Upgrad.s-A,pen Mountain Ba,in
Stormwate, Quality Enhancements, Rio Grande Park Mi,cell.neou, Facilitie,
Slr~..t Dr.inage CQrT~<tion' including Pavements, Curb.. GU~r. Out,ide of A'p~n Mountain S.,in
StreetDraiMg@Cor",ctionincludingPavem@nt,Cu,b&Gutter_A,penMountainB.,;n
Rernaining Master Plan
Sto,mwat.r Quality Enh.nc~ment', Rio Gronde Park Headgate for F""h Wat~r Supply
Mechanic.1 Sediment Removal at Snow Dump Site
Sediment Drying Bed,atSnowDump Site
A'pen Mountain Mud Flow Conlrol, (10001 ,hare Mly, ."urne, 75% t",",,,,d by FEMA grant)
Total
$4,161,300 .. 100% .. $364,743
$2,919,672 .. 100% ,. $255,913
$1,320,000 ,. 100% .. $115,700
11,254,000 .. 100'16 .. 5109,915
BOO,OOO .. 100'16 .. 526,295
$100,000 .. 100'16 .. $8,765
$69,300 .. 100% .. $6,074
$44,000 .. 100'16 .. Sl,857
"""""'" ,. 100% ,. "
$12,918,272 $891,261
$36,500 ,"'. ,,. ,,. $9,125
SO 100% 100% ",,. SO
SO 100'16 100% ''''. SO
SO ''''. 100% ,"'. "
SO
$900,386
Fee5tudy
MlnlJ.lmpa(\FeeFund8alanceI1l
UncommittedOclober2005
E<limaledFY05/06R.Vl'nu.
E,~maled FY05/06 Expendilu,"",
Totallmp"cl Fee Fund g"lance
C..ndTolal
Notes: (1) Growth-related percentage determined by the total incremental square footage built from 2005 to 2015 as a proportion
of the total (existing and new) square footage in the City in 2015,
(2) Per the City of Aspen Stormwater Utility Business Plan prepared by AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc., December 2005,
Table 3: Citywide Service Area.
(3) Since Aspen does not currently have Storm Drainage Impact Fees, these values will remain at $0.
Source: City of Aspen Stormwater Utility Business Plan prepared by AMEC earth & Environmental, Inc., December 2005, Table 3:
Citywide Service Area, City of Aspen and BBC Research & Consulting.
Fee Calculation
As stated in Colorado's impact fee statutes, impact fees must be in "rough proportion" to new
development's appropriate share of infrastructure cost. Therefore, the square feet used to determine
costs under the Capital Improvement Plan approach must reflect, not the total development in 2015,
but the incremental change in land use from 2005 to 2015. The percent of incremental square feet
built between 2005 and 2015 is used to allocate infrastructure costs in the calculations in this section.
Adjustment for impervious surface. It is not equitable to charge storm drainage fees simply
based on the change in square footage. Not all of the net new square footage in the City of Aspen will
be placing demands on the storm drainage system. In essence, only the impervious square footage
(areas that do not absorb moisture such as asphalt and cement parking lots) increase the demand on
the storm drainage system. Therefore, the City and BBC decided to charge storm drainage fees based
on impervious square footage for both residential and nonresidential development. Typically,
residential development contains fewer impervious square feet and places less demand on the storm
drainage system. By charging fees per impervious square foot, residential and nonresidential
development will be paying for an equitable portion of storm drainage infrastructure based on their
demand.
In December 2005, AMEC Earth & Environmental, Inc. released a report entitled, City of Aspen
Storm water Utility Business Plan. AMEC identified the number of impervious acres in the City, as of
2005. In order to charge fees using the Capital Improvement Plan approach, BBC needed to quantifY
the number of impervious square feet in the City in 2015.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 21
In 2005, impervious surfaces represented 52 percent of the total square footage calculated in Exhibit
11-3 (19,533,502). Using this proporrion and assuming similar growth parrerns over rhe next 10
years, rhere will be approximately 11.2 million square feet of impervious surface in 2015 (21,410,124
square feer from Exhibir 11-4 . 52 percent). Exhibir V-2 below specifies the square footage of
impervious surface in 2005 and 2015 by the caregories listed in the Utility Business Plan.
Exhibit V-2.
Calculation of Impervious Square Feet, 2005-2015
..' .:{t~.~:.,~,:~~~,.
2005
2015
Change
7,980,192
8 746865
766,673
657,756
~
63.192
1,594,296
1 747463
153,167
10,232,244
11 ?15 276
983,032
Note: (1) Miscellaneous impervious square footage includes driveways, sidewalks and small parking lots.
Source: City of Aspen Stormwater Utility Business Plan, prepared by AMEC Earth &. Environmental, Inc., December 2005, Table 3:
Citywide Service Area and BBC Research &. Consulting.
Because storm drainage fees are calculated using the Capital Improvement Plan approach, the key
number in Exhibir V-2 above is the 983,032 impervious square feet thar will be added to the City
from 2005 to 2015.
Exhibit V-2 below presents a calculation of storm drainage impact fees based on the infrastructure
costs in Exhibit V-I and the incremental increase in impervious square feet in Exhibit V-2. Fees not
to exceed $0.92 per impervious square foot are recommended for storm drainage.
Exhibit V-l.
Calculation of Storm Drainage Impact Fees
Allocated Value for Storm Drainage Infrastructure (1)
Increase in Impervious Surface from 2005 to 201 5 (Square Feet) (2)
Building Footprints
Parking Lots
Miscellaneous (driveways, sidewalks and small parking areas)
Total
$900,386
Impact Fee per Impervious Square Foot (rounded)
766,673
63,192
lli.16Z
983,032
$0.92
Note: (l)See Exhibit V-l.5torm Drainage Capital Improvement Plan, 2005 to 201 5.
(2) Data extrapolated using the City of Aspen Stormwater Utility Business Plan, prepared by AMEC Earth &. Environmentallnc.,
December 2005, Table 3: Citywide Service Area.
Source: City of Aspen Stormwater Utility Business Plan, prepared by AMEC Earth &. Environmentallnc., December 2005, Table 3;
Citywide Service Area and BBC Research &. Consulting.
BBe RESEARCH & CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 22
SECTION VI.
School Capital Cost Recovery Fees
The capital cost recovery fees for the Aspen School District were calculated using the following steps:
· Identify current school infrastructure based on the School District's current asset sheets;
. Gather additional data from the School District regarding equity percentages and
replacement costs;
· Determine the percentage of the facility that will be shared between departments, if
applicable;
. Calculate an apportionment of service costs to residential and nonresidential land uses
based on current development; and
· Utilize distriburion of service demands by land use to calculate applicable fees.
Fee Methodology
It is important to note that school impact fees in the State of Colorado are not specifically authorized
by rhe Colorado Revised Statutes. Thereftre, the fies calculated in this section would be collected from
those developers contributing voluntarily to the school district or intermediary non-profit foundation.
Land costs cannot be included in the capital cost recovery fee; the school lands dedication is set up to
cover the cost of future land necessitated by growth. Therefore, the only types of costs eligible for
inclusion in this calculation include construction or expansion of school facilities. The cost of the fee
study is also eligible for inclusion into the impact fee calculation for all fee categories. Because fees are
calculated for four fee areas, 25 percent (or one-fourth) of the fee study cost is included in all
calculations.
The current assets exhibit on the following page calculates the replacement value of school buildings
and employee housing. The City's school system consists of an elementaty, middle and high school as
well as a theatre building using a combined 392,028 heated square feet.
The cost of construction employed in this model for educational school facilities is $261.27 per
square foot, based on the recent construction costs of the new middle school.
The Aspen School District extends beyond the City limits of Aspen into areas of Pitkin County.
Therefore, in order to serve the District's employees, the District owns employee housing in the City
of Aspen and in Pitkin County. The District owns 12 units of employees housing in the City and 10
units in Pitkin County. Construction costs for employee housing were assumed to be $200 per
square foot.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 23
The School District currently has an outstanding mortgage balance on the employee housing. The
remaining mortgage balance represents 44 percent of the total cost of the employee housing.
Therefore, the Oistricr owns approximarely 56 percenr (the equity percenrage), which is used to
calculate the roral replacement value of employee housing in Exhibir VI-I below. (This is similar to
the park developmenr fee calcularion found in Section III).
Exhibit VI-I presenrs $105 million of current infrastructure that is eligible for inclusion in the school
capital cost recovery fee.
Exhibit VI-l.
School District Assets
. ,~~fg~~~{;~C:i"
Educational School Facilities
High School (1)
Elementary School (I)
Middle School (l)
Theatre (~)
Total School Buildings
Employee Housing (~)
Woody Creek (Pitkin County) Units (6)
City of Aspen Standalone Units (7)
City of Aspen Condominium Units (8)
Total Employee Housing
Fee Study
Plu~ Impact Fee Fund Balance (9)
Uncommitted October 200S
Estimated FYOS/06 Revenue
Estimated FY05/06 Expenditures
Total Fund Balance
Grand Total
,'~ :,"i,~.~~-:~;:::~r.~~~,~~-'};"l~;~~ft~'1;1:-~::::'(~_-_':~',';~~:~.~!
.,:'lIl"tfi. , -
-J\ept"--.tVaiue
$47,028,600 100% 100% 100% $47,02B,600
$25,572,324 100% 100% 100% $25,S72,324
$21,685,410 100% 100% 100% $21,685,410
$8,138,822 100% 100% 100% .IU1U2l
$102,425,156
$2,703,000 100% 56% 56% $1,S08,274
$1,340,400 100% 56% 56% $747,943
$1,050,000 100% S6% S6% 1>a.\.2OO
$2,842,117
S36,500 25% 100% 2S% $9,125
10 100% 100% 100% '0
'0 100% 100% 100% 10
'0 100% 100% 100% '"
'0
$105,276,398
Notes: (1) Includes a total of 180,000 heated square feet at a cost of $261 .27 per square foot.
(2) includes a total of 97,877 heated square feet at a cost of $261 ,27 per square foot.
(3) Includes a total of 83,000 heated square feet at a cost of $261.27 per square foot.
(4) Includes a total of 31,151 heated square feet at a cost of $261.27 per square foot.
(5) The City owns approximately 56 percent of all employee housing. The remaining 44 percent is debt financed.
(6) Includes a total of 1 0 units with 13,515 square feet at a cost of $200 per square foot.
(7) Includes a total of 4 units with 6,702 square feet at a cost of $200 per square foot.
(8) Includes a total of 8 units with 5,250 square feet at a cost of $200 per square foot.
(9) Since Aspen does not currently have school cost recovery fees, these values will remain at $0.
Source: Aspen School District and BBC Research &: Consulting.
BBC RESEARCH &: CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 24
Fee Calculation
Using the costs summarized above and the demographic information from Section II, capital cost
recovery fees were calculated based on the total replacement value of current school assets. Costs are
attributed 100 percent to residential development as housing units are the sole users of the school
system. Fees are calculated by dividing the appropriate portion of service costs by total bedrooms in
the School District.
Unlike the other fee sections, the School District boundaries extend beyond the City limits of Aspen.
Therefore, School District fees may also be collected outside of the City limits in the Aspen School
District area of Pitkin County. As a result, when dividing total costs by bedrooms in Exhibit VI-2,
the denominator also includes bedrooms in Snowmass Villages and unincorporated Pitkin County
(see Section II, Calculation of Bedrooms in the Aspen School District for more detail).
Exhibit VI-2 presents a calculation of capital cost recovery fees based on the infrastructure costs in
Exhibit VI- I. This method results in charges of $3,598 per bedroom of residential development
including single family, multifamily and affordable units. A fee not to exceed this amount can be
voluntarily paid by developers for schools. I
Exhibit VI-2.
Calculation of
School Capital Cost
Recovery Fees
, " . ,',
:,/;-',",-;>,.,.",;"'-':::>::" ,
Calculatiolt:Mt::...;taI~R~~
Note:
Allocated Value for School Infrastructure (1)
Current land Use Percentage
Residential
Nonresidential
Costs by land Use Category
Residential
Nonresidential
Current Development in School District
Residential (in bedrooms)
Nonresidential (in net leasable square feet)
Impact Fee by Unit of Development (rounded)
Residential (per bedroom)
Nonresidential (per net leasable square foot)
$105.276,398
(1) See Exhibit VI- 1. School District
Assets.
100%
N/A
Source:
City of Aspen, Colorado Department
of local Affairs, State Demography
Office, Estimates of Population and
Households for Colorado Counties and
Municipalities: 2004, Table prepared
October 2005 and B8C Research and
Consulting.
$105,276,398
N/A
29,259
N/A
$3,598
N/A
I
Fee-payers would not be eligible for a credit based on the property taxes paid to the District, if such taxes were used to
finance bonds for operating and maintenance and repair and replacement of infrastructure. Impacr fees, however, pay for
new growth-related capital projects.
BBC RESEARCH &: CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 25
SECTION VII.
School Lands Dedication
Per the City of Aspen's Land Use Code in Secrion 26.630.010,
The Aspen School District requires land jOr necessary school fUnctions, which may include, but is
not limited to, school buildings, support facilities, open space and recreation areas and housingjOr
employees and their immediate families. The purpose of this provision is to ensure that as
development occurs and enrollment in the schools grows, the current level of service provided to
students can be maintained This is accomplished by the adoption of standards jOr new
development to provide land, or cash-in-lieu thereof to the City, jOr use by the Aspen School
District. The standards are based on the number of students the development generates and the
current level of service standard within the Aspen School District jOr land area provided per
student.
City Code specifies that rhe land dedication standards be updated evety 3 years. However, the
standards have nor been updated since 1995 so this updare is particularly timely. This section updares
the two key components of the land dedication standard:
. Land area per student; and
. Student generation rates.
Land Area per Student
The current land area per student calculation involves two steps:
. QuantifYing the School District's current land inventoty; and
. Determining the current student capacity.
The Aspen School District provided BBC wirh the total acreage of school land. The school campus
includes the elementaty school, middle school, high school and theatre totaling 28.870 acres. In
addition, essential to maintaining the current level of service as specified in the City's land use code is
preserving employee housing for School District staff. This land is required for "necessary school
functions," 1 that being the retention and also recruitment of staff members. Therefore, an additional
1.99 acres of employee housing have been added to rotal30.86 acres (1.3 million square feet) of
school land. 2
I
City of Aspens Land Use Code, Section 26.630.010.
,
1.99 acres of employee housing = .543 acres ofCiry of Aspen standalone units + .427 acres ofCiry of Aspen condominium
units + 1.02 acres of Pitkin County (Woody Creek) employee housing.
BBC RESEARCH &: CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT- PAGE 26
Exhibit VII-l summarizes the school land inventory in acres and square feet.
Exhibit VU-l.
Aspen School District Land Inventory
Acrl!s::' .' Square feet
School Campus
Employee Housing - City of Aspen Standalone Units
Employee Housing - City of Aspen Condominium Units
Employee Housing - Pitkin County (yVoody Creek)
Total
28.87
0.543
0.427
lJl.2
30.86
1.257,577
23,653
18,600
~
, ,344,262
Source: Aspen School District and BBC Research & Consulting.
Including employee housing, the Aspen School Disrrict currently operates using 30.86 acres, or 1.3
million square feet ofland.
According to alanuaty 2005 report entitled Impact Fee Report: A Research Paper Preparedfor the City
of Aspen, the current estimate of student capacity at all three schools is 1,500 students.
Exhibir VII-2 below calculates the resultant land area per student in acres and square feet.
Exhibit VII-2.
Calculation of Land Area
per Student
Source:
Aspen School District, City of Aspen
Impact Fee Report and BBC Research
& Consulting.
Square Feet At~
Total School District Land 1,344.262 30.86
divided by
Student Capacity 1,SOO 1,500
equals
Land Area per Student 896 0.021
As of 2005, the land area per student was a rounded 896 square feet, or .021 acres rounded to the
neatest thousandth.
Student Generation Rates
Student generation rates are the other essential component of determining a school lands dedication.
The students generated from residential units vary based on the number of bedrooms in the home.
BBC analyzed the U.S. Census' 5 percent Public Use Microdata Sample (PUMS) to obtain student
generarion rates rhat can be applied to the City of Aspen. PUMS data contain the individual Census
records for a 5 percent sample. The smallest geographic level for which PUMS data are available is
called a PUMA (Public Use Microdata Area). PUMAs are geographic areas determined by the Census
and can srretch across city and county boundaries. The advantage of PUMS data, even though the
data are not available at the City level, is that it allows the user to construct specialized cross tabs not
provided by the Census through the regular summaty files.
sse RESEARCH & CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 27
PUMS data are current as of the 2000 Census. These data, although several years old, are a valid
source for student generation calculations; the data are utilized, not for the actual numbers, but to
observe trends (i.e., student generation rates by unit bedroom size). These rates and trends are likely
to remain consistent over time. The City of Aspen is a pan of PUMA 07000, which encompasses
several Colorado mountain resort communities.
BBC conducted cross tabs on PUMS household and population data. BBC marched household
records by bedroom size to the corresponding population records by age group. Student generation
rates were calculated for elementary, middle and high school based on the age of children in rhe
household. Exhibit VII-3 displays the srudent generation rates for PUMA 07000, of which Aspen is a
parr.
Exhibit VII-3.
Student Generation
Rates
;~<~i)';;;:::~ ~;<;;
,,'-~':"~~
: ..<.. ,'Ct. .__.... ../~-;.''-'' ,C ,.\, ,_~/..-.,.' '-, _:.. ,'_' -,
. .....8
High .. T(ltaI
0.010 0.049
0.014 0.062
0.031 0.115
0.076 0.310
0.115 0.452
Source:
u.s. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, 5
percent Public Use Microdata Sample
(PUMS) and BBC Research &:
Consulting.
No bedrooms 0.023 0.016
1 bedroom 0.042 0.006
2 bedrooms 0.059 0.025
3 bedrooms 0.167 0.067
4+ bedrooms 0.220 0.117
Note:
Elementary students "" 5-.1 1 years of
age; middle school student = 12- 1 4
years of age; and high school
students = , 5-18 years of age.
As expecred, Exhibit VII-3 reveals that 4+ bedroom residences generare the most students-
specifically elementary age students. Studio units generate the fewest number of students regardless of
the age of the child.
sse RESEARCH & CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 28
Sample Calculation
Based on the land area per student and the student generation rates discussed in Exhibit VII-2 and
VII-3, the School District can now calculate the land acreage to be dedicated. The following rext
provides an example of how the land area per student and the student generation rates interact to
determine the total acreage to be dedicated.
· Developer XYZ has been approved to develop 50 acres ofland.
· There will be 25-four bedroom homes and 25-three bedroom homes built on the 50
acres.
Exhibit VII-4 below shows the steps in determining the total acreage to be dedicated, based
on the above information.
Exhibit VII-4.
Sample Land Dedication Calculation
B.!lItOOms
..... ..~~~~~i:;;j:;:;,:.:.....
Elemel'itil~::'tj"ddle.. "'1!"'i tOtal.'
3 bedroom (25 homes * student generation rate)
4 bedroom (25 homes * student generation rate)
Total
4.2
.u
9.7
1.7
L9.
4.6
1.9
L9.
4.8
7.8
lL.3.
19.1
LaN.t~.ti~tl':~lgO" )j\'.;
Land Area per Student Standard (acres)
0.021
times
Total Students Generated (from above calculation) 19.1
equals
Total Acres to be Dedicated
0.39
Source: SSC Research & Consulting.
To determine the total number of students to be generated from the 50 homes, BBC multiplied the
number of homes per bedroom size by the corresponding student generation rates in Exhibit VII-3.
For example. to determine how many elementary age children will be living in the 2S-three bedroom
homes, BBe multiplied the 25 homes by the student generation rate for three bedroom units with
elementary age children (25' .167) equaling approximarely 4.2 elementaty age students. This same
process was completed for all ages and bedroom sizes for a total of 19 school-aged children in the
XYZ development.
After calculating the number of students to be generated from developer XYZ's project, the next step
is to calculate the total acres to be dedicated. BBC multiplied the land area per student standard from
Exhibit VII-2 by the total number of students (.021' 19) equaling .39 acres. Under this scenario,
developer XYZ will be required to dedicate .39 acres to the School District.
Bse RESEARCH & CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT- PAGE 29
Cash In-Lieu Value
Another option a developer has, aside from land dedication, is to pay the School District for the value
of this land, i.e., the cash in-lieu option. Using the above scenario, developer XYZ can choose to pay
the School Districr for the monetary value of the .39 acres instead of dedicating rhe raw land.
There are three generally accepted approaches rhe School District can use to determine the value of
the land. The District can employ an assumed price for all land, employ an average value of land
within the School District boundaries from the County Assessor's database. or determine the value of
the land on a case-hy-case basis using appraisals.
If the District chooses to use an assumed price, the District could use the median value of the parks
land per acre, calculared in Section III ($256,890). Using rhe assumed value of $256,890 per acre,
developer XYZ would owe the Disrrict $100,187 (.39 acres * $256,890/acre). The calcularion would
be similar if the District chose to employ the average value of land from the Assessor's database.
These first two methods have the advantage of simplicity and ease of administration.
Alternatively, the District could value land on a case-hy-case basis utilizing the appraised value ofland
parcels. This method may produce a more accurate land value on a case-by-case basis, but has the
drawback of being more difficult to administer.
SSC RE5EARCH &: CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 30
SECTION VIII.
Summary
Exhibit VIII-1 below summarizes the maximum allowable impact fees in Aspen by residential and
nonresidential development. For residential development, the fee would be $4,927 per bedroom plus
$0.92 per impervious square foot including single &mily, multifamily, affordable and lodging units.
It should be noted that the City will only charge studio units 80 percent of the per bedroom fee.
Therefore, if the City adopts the maximum per bedroom fee, studio apartments/condominiums will
only be charged $3,942 (e.g., $4,927/unit * .80/unit). Likewise, if the City adopts the maximum fee
per impervious square foot, studio units will only be charged $0.74 (e.g., $O.92/square foot *
.80/square foot).
The cost for nonresidential development would be $4.56 per net leasable square foot plus $0.92 per
impervious square foot.
Exhibit VIII-t.
City of Aspen Impact Fee Summary
Fee Category
Impact Fee
Park Development Fees
Residential (per bedroom)
Nonresidential (per net leasable square foot)
TOM/Air Quality Fees
Residential (per bedroom)
Nonresidential (per net leasable square foot)
Storm Drainage Fees
Per impervious square foot
Total Fees
Residential
$4,429
$4.10
$498
$0.46
$0.92
Nonresidential
S4,927/bedroom +
$O.92/impervious square foot
$4.56 per net leasable square foot +
$0.92 per impervious square foot
Source: City of Aspen and BBC Research &: Consulting.
Developers also have the option of voluntarily paying $3,598 per bedroom in school capital cost
recovery fees, as described in Section VII.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 31
Section VII details the update of the school lands dedicarion. The current land area per student
equals a rounded 896 square feet, or .021 acres rounded to the nearest rhousandrh. Exhibir VIII-2
reproduces the student generation rates from Section VII.
Exhibit VIII-2.
Student Generation
Rates
,:,-:-,: (~~]i\::_>}~<!X;~#;;c::i;<:>,f~>;~j-~:K~ i~'.l).- .'...\ ;'
'~. ...."',.fti!j.h,... .~,.
>: .- ';c.. ,-.,:,.., .-..,'~'.it,.-,~,\.,.- '"'-,;
1 _.- ,,'j':~...'d'.- ,;: ;'-';~'f':..' . <, ': ,: _ .- ".: ,.;,., -.- '....~:.'::.,.;,.- ','-' ._~.;', -',: /..'
Note:
Elementary students = 5-11 years of
age; middle school student = , 2-14
years of age; and high school
students = , 5-18 years of age.
Source:
U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 Census, 5
percent Public Use Microdata Sample
(PUMS) and BBC Research &:
Consulting.
No bedrooms
1 bedroom
2 bedrooms
3 bedrooms
4+ bedrooms
0.023
0.042
0.059
0.167
0.220
0.016 0.010 0.049
0.006 0.014 0.062
0.025 0.031 0.115
0.067 0.076 0.310
0.117 0.115 0.452
The above exhibit shows that 4+ bedroom residences generate the most students - specifically
elementary age students. Studio units generate the fewest number of students regardless of the age of
the child.
Recommendations
The City could implement rhe impact fees at or below the maximum calculated fees described on rhe
previous page. We make the following recommendation:
. Impact fee accounting. The City should maintain an "Impacr Fee Fund" separate
and apart from rhe General Fund. All current and future impacr fee revenue should be
immediately deposired into this account and withdrawn only to pay for growth-related
infrasttucture. The City's General Fund should be reserved solely for the receipt of tax
revenues, grants, user fees and associated interest earnings, and ongoing operational
expenses including the repair and replacement of existing infrastructure not related to
growth.
. Impact fee credits. If a developer constructs all or parr of growth-related
infrastructure that would otherwise be financed by impact fees, that developer should
receive a "credit" against the total amount of fees owed to prevent "double dipping."
. General Fund subsidy. If the City chooses to implemenr fees below the values listed
in Exhibir VIII-I, the City must make up the difference by using General Fund monies,
otherwise service levels will drop below current standards.
. Affordable housing. The City may choose to waive all impacr fees for affordable
housing, decide fee amounts on a case-by-case basis, or assess fees based on a sliding
scale. The City should consider "keeping rhe impact fee fund whole" by transferring
revenue from the General Fund to offset any waivers or reductions for affordable
housing. That same practice is sometimes employed for economic development-related
fee waivers or reductions as well.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT- PAGE 32
· School lands dedication. The School District should choose whether to value land
for the cash in-lieu option based on an assumed price or based on the appraised value of
the land. The assumed value approach has the advantage of simplicity and ease of
administration. On the other hand, using the appraised value of land has the advantage
of higher accuracy in land valuation but less ease of administration.
· Periodic updates. The City should update these impact fees annually based on an
index of infrastructure cost inflation, such as the Engineering News Record. A complete
update is warranted every three to five years or earlier if demographic projections and/or
CIPs change substantially.
BBe RESEARCH &: CONSULTING
FINAL REPORT - PAGE 33
APPENDIX A.
Affordable Housing Demographic Data
This appendix describes in detail the assumptions and calculations performed to arrive at the current
and projected affordable housing units and square footages.
Single family/multifamily determination. The City's affordable housing data were provided
by the Community Development Department and designate units by tenure (renter/owner), number
of bedrooms and income category. The only units considered single family in nature were the units
designated as such in the owner database; the "other units" were all considered multifamily units.
Exhibit 1 below shows the affordable housing data for ownership units within the City of Aspen by
income category and number of bedrooms. In sum, there were 764 affordable housing units that were
owned.
Exhibit 1.
Employee Ownership
Housing within the City
of Aspen
Note:
(l) RO == resident occupied.
(2) Single family == total of single
family line item.
(3) Multifamily == total of all studio, 1_
bedroom, 2-bedroom, 3-bedroom
and 4-bedroom units.
Source:
City of Aspen Community
Development Department and the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority.
.....
"c-
Categoty
~,
Il\iiii~~~.
',,'
',',~i';&:,;,:'
'~I~I"s
... ...
2 3
4 RO(l)
1.
Studio
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedrooms
Three-Bedrooms
Four-Bedrooms
Single Family
Total by Category
2
9
3
1
o
1
16
10 14 17 0
58 51 72 0
19 32 150 1
7 44 60 8
4 1 19 5
Q2()'I.21U
98 162 363 125
43
190
205
120
29
177
764
Total Single Family (2) 177
Total Multifamily (3) .5..BZ
Grand Total 764
Exhibit 2 lists affordable housing units in the City of Aspen that were rental units. BBC has assumed
that because unspecified, none of the units fall into the single family category. Information on
income category for all units was not available.
Exhibit 2.
Employee Rental
Housing within the City
of Aspen
Note:
(1) Not Sorted by Type are rental
units for which unit type is not
specified.
Source:
City of Aspen Community
Development Department and the
Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Authority.
Bedrooms
Units
Studio
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Four-Bedroom
Dormitory
Not Sorted by Type (1)
Total
247
217
412
39
1
176
132
1,224
Altogether, there were 177 single family affordable housing units and 1,81 I multifamily units (587
owner occupied multifamily units and 1,224 renter occupied units) in the City.
BSC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
ApPENDIX A - PAGE 1
Current affordable housing square footage. The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines
served as the basis for information~on the square footage of affordable housing units. Affordable
housing developments were divided into 7 categories designating specific minimum net livable square
feet for units and income requirements for residents. Exhibit 3 lists the minimum net livable square
feer by income caregoty per rhe Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines.
Exhibit 3.
Minimum Net Uvable Square Feet by Income Category
Studio
One-Bedroom
Two-Bedroom
Three-Bedroom
Single Family Detached
400
600
850
1,000
1,100
500
700
950
1,200
1,400
600
800
1,000
1,300
1,700
700
900
1,100
1,400
1,900
Source: Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines.
The affordable housing data supplied by the Community Developmenr Department not only listed
housing units by tenure and bedroom size as mentioned above, but also by the above listed income
categories.
BBC tallied the single family and multifamily unirs by income categoty and mulriplied rhe unit
counts by the corresponding minimum net livable square feer. Exhibit 4 on the following page
illustrates the square footage calculations for owner occupied units.
BBC RESEARCH &: CONSULTING
ApPENDIX A - PAGE 2
c
c
-=
~
-;
~
;;
v
~
'"
~
..
c
c
...
~
~
~
"
...
'"
II.
:c
~
~
~
c
~
o
~ ~
;:>.
....2
-II.
~E
....
I
lit;!
s!t
-~
~
'"
g
~
o
S
~:t::
'5
c :;r...
~ 8-
.I!
I
.
u
I
OJ
- Bit:
~Jt
I
"
s
oJ .~
~ c
,g.~
~ -
.
~
'E~
-~Jt
1
(l
a
"'::1::
&5
~ .
.
~
.
~BHH
!!-~
~5
'"'" 0 V'I 0 0\
'<T Q\ ~ N "'I
!ri
{!.Jt
~~. ~:
'" '"
o
o
o 0
g g g
~ ~
000
000
"<1", \O~ 0>,
.;
c
=>
:j ~
o 0 ~ 00 V'I ~ ..
]jri
~:t
g ~ ~ g R ~ 8
~ ~- r:i ~- ~~ :a ~
.
"':.:t::
~ c
-6-::
~ .
~
o 0
o 0
~ ~
000
~ ~ ~ ~.
.~
c
=>
t-..~Q~~~~
Bit
~~-
o 0 0 0 ~ 0
~,;.~.~.~.~~
s
~!i=,
.~ c
,,=>
~ .
:!.
o 0
o 0
~ ~
000
o 0 ~, 0
~ "t :.
~
c
=>
't :n ~ ~ ~ fl ~
o g s:: 0 0 S;
g 00 g ~ 01 ,.,
..,''$,' \0' r-,' '<1" ::g'
000
o 0 ~
. ~ ro
000
000
~,
.!!
c
=>
:::: .::=: ~ r-. v 01 ~
000
g ~ :::: 8.0
00 ...,' N'
o 0
o 0
. ~
000
s:: 000
ro 0,
.!!
c
=>
N 0\ "" .... 0 ...., ~
E
~
""
.
~
E E E E
o 0 2 g b
o e "U .... "E
] ]' ~ ] J:
:5i:6~~~E
a 6 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~
o
3~
g ~ R
~. ~ ~.
~
i ~
a-ti-
b~
.~ 2-
., E
~ ;; E
a..=: 0
~ ~ !;
7; "';:j: C
~ ~ 5
""
o
.
-.
>
-"
.
E
8
E
o
o
Q.
~
~
m
-"
~
.
~
c
o
""
.
c.
o
o
o
.
""
.
.
~
.;
.
o
-.
"
s
"
'"
.~
o
o
'"
c-
o
o
8
c
:s
0:
"
.
"-
-<
.
E
.E
""
.
~
.0
.
~~
..... "c
t 0
';;~
:; '"
o 0
~m
. .
~3
.-
~ 0
vc
E E
o ,
E'S
- ~
"g ~
.
. m
. ~
> 0
1..2
- .
o .
c ~
o ~
"" .
:~ 1;
5 g
"" .
.S! ~
~.
o .
u~
au
-~
o~
-8 fT
";;; 0
~~
.
G=
2
o
Z
.c
o
E
o
E
""
.
~
..
.E
.
c
-.
"
s
"
'"
~
o
o
'"
~
t
o
o
u
c
~
0:
"
Ie
-<
.; .
.s -=
~ ~
s .
" ""
\J1 "S:
.g e
o Q.
o "0
'" 0
.c ~
'i .
8 .
~ f
Q: $.
~ QJ
- :;
El- 0
~ ~
-= :c
;1
o "
'U c
o
u
u
.
.
i
"
s
"
'"
.~
o
o
'"
c-
c
o
8
~ i
.~ Ii:
E l
o "-
~ ~
~ ,~
-9 0
0; ~
.2. '5
"" -<
o m
. 0
E ..
o g
E I
a; ~
~ 0
. 0
. 0
-E ~
E' ~
E 0 ~
::I 1: c
E 1] ~
'l.I"c; ..00,"
~ ~ .....
~.-i ~ ~
~ % E E' E
OJ .~ .~ g ;
::c _, ILl -U g.
1 ~ ,.; 1i: CI
~:f~~
E F ~ o~ g-
E 0 ~ '5 "ij
- .g c .@ t
'c ~"Y:; 0
'E :; 0 jij ;:;.
-5 g- fij 0 .~
.- E :s ]" E
'c 0 II B E
~jfi~
a. :; ~ ~ a.
u.. .g ~:,::; <
c :; 0
Vi ~
$
!::!.. '"" ~ 0: Ci
t<e
c,
c
~
,
c
o
U
OJ
~
"
.
.
~
~
u
~
~
""
c
.
.
g
M
o
""
.
""
o
.
E
-<
o
o
c:.
N
N
'"
-0
"
~
M
W
L?
-<
"'-
I
<(
x
5
~
~
~
<(
i'l
'"
::l
~
's
o.J:J
v
Oh
"
.;;;
-0
v
a
."
~
"
o
u
..c:
u
:;;
~
c..,
o
o
o
c:.
'"
o
'"
I
~
0;
~
~
v
~
v
~
~
::l
0"'
~
o
o
c:.
'"
N
00
>-
OJ
~
~
E
.~
o
~
Cl.
Cl.
~
"1l
-;;
"
~
i'l
'2 ri
::l ._
M"
" ::l
or;:; >...
::1:-::::
o E
..c: ~
IIJ ~
:::C...=;
~ ::l
l:! E
tE~
~ ~
-0 Z
v .-
00.. tl
::l "
e 8
o ..c:
~ u
~ ~
~ ~
0'0
L?
Z
;::
:5
~
z
o
U
0<1
I
U
~
:5
~
w
'"
U
'"
'"
Exhibit 5 below portrays rhe calculation of square feer for mulrifumily affordable housing units.
Exhibit 5.
Employee Rental Housing Square Footage Calculation
;~~~\~~~~~~..'
Studio 247 500 123,500
One-Bedroom 217 700 151,900
Two-Bedroom 412 950 391,400
Three-Bedroom 39 1,200 46,800
Four-Bedroom (2) 1 1,300 1,300
Dormitory (3) 176 500 88,000
Not 50rted by Type (4) ill 858 J..1UQQ
Total 1,224 916,200
Note: (1) Square Feet per Unit is the minimum net livable square feet according to the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines.
However, there is limited income category information on rental data. Most available inputs are category 3. Therefore, BBe is
assuming category 3 square footages for all bedroom types.
(2) All four-bedroom square footages are estimates. Minimum net livable square footages are not provided in the Aspen/Pitkin
County Housing Guidelines for 4-bedroom units.
(3) Dormitories are not a specified unit type in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Guidelines. BBC is assuming dormitory square
footage per unit to be equal to a studio unit.
(4) Not Sorted by Type are rental units for which unit type is not specified. BBC took an average of the category 3 square
footages to use as unit square footages for Not Sorted by Type units.
Source: City of Aspen Community Development Department, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority, Aspen/Pitkin County Housing
Guidelines, Amended 03/04 and BSC Research &: Consulting.
The 1,224 multifamily rental units accounted for 916,200 square feet. Exhibir 6 combines rhe
ownership and renral data to summarize the overall single family and mulrifamily allocarion of
affordable housing units and square footages.
Exhibit 6.
Summary of Single
Family and Multifamily
Affordable Housing Units
Note:
<ll The average square feet figures
are used for affordable housing
square footage projections in 2015.
Source:
City of Aspen and BSC Research &:
Consulting.
'-.,
., .j....,.
\, ~F<<t..'
\,.;,1,,'''~,..
sqUare Feet(1)
..:.::.."".:-"":'.-".
~;:r~::>fg~~:
Single Family 177 303,000
Multifamily
Studio 290 143,800
One-Bedroom 407 278,200
Two-Bedrooms 617 S84,100
Three-Bedrooms 159 190,800
Four-Bedrooms 30 39,700
Dormitory 176 88,000
Not Specified by Type 132 113,300
Subtotal Multifamily Ull 1 437900
Total 1,988 1,740,900
1,712
794
Of the approximately 2,000 affordable housing units in 2005, 9 percenr were single family unirs and
91 percent were multifamily residences. The average square foot figures were used to calculate square
foorage projections in 2015.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
ApPENDIX A - PAGE 4
APPENDIX B.
Parks and Recreation Assets
Exhibit 1.
Parks and Recreation Assets
"~.-""'m__."""___'.'" ^.,-~_.,.._,_.~._...',-.-"
Open Space
Anderson Property
landI')
1.5 Acres
Infrastructure
Cabin #1 -leased
Cabin#l-Ieased
Cabin #3 -leased
Cabin #4 Building - leased
Cabin #4 Contents
Main House - leased
$133,875
$6,121
$6,238
$6,121
$4,356
$1,560
$123,802
Aley Property
Land (2)
.3 Acres
$210,648
A5pen Mass
land (2)(l)
35 Acres
$1,600,000
Axtell & Protection Lodes
Land(')
30 Acres
$2,677,500
Barbee
Land(1)
13.5 Acres
$1,204,875
Burlingame
Land (1)
202 Acres
$18,028,500
Cozy Point
land(l)
205 Acres
Infrastructure
Stable
Barn
Residence-leased
Residence-leased
$3,223,941
$1,364,505
$85,216
$91,045
$67,730
Cozy Point South
Land/J)(l)
129 Acres
$100,000
Garnish
Land(!)
.5 Acres
$44,625
Holy (ron Property
Land (2)
1 Acre
$228,094
100%
100%
100%
$133,875
100% 0%
100% 0%
100% 0%
100% 0%
100% 100%
100% 0%
Irotal Anderson Property
100% 100%
Irota! Aley Property
100% 4%
1r0talAspen Mass
100%
100%
0%
0%
0%
0%
100%
0%
$0
$0
$0
$0
$1,560
1Q
$135,4351
Total Axtel &: Protection Lodes
100% 100%
lrotal8arbee
100% 100%
lrotalBurlinClame
100%
100%
100%
~
$210,64BI
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 0%
100% 0%
Irotal Cozy Point
100% 4%
hotal Co~ Point South
100% 100%
hotalGarnish
100% 100%
hotal Holy Cross Property
4%
>ZMQO
$70.4001
100%
$2,677,500
100%
~, 704 &7<;
$1,204,B751
100%
11807& <;00
$18,028,5001
100%
$3,223,941
100%
100%
0%
0%
$1,364,505
$85,216
$0
1Q
$4,673,6621
4%
H.ilil
$4,4001
100%
ill.&'
$44,6251
100%
1778094
$228,0941
(1) Purchase price of land not available. Assumes a cost of $89,250 per open space acre (the median of known open space cost
per acre).
(2) Land cost is based on the actual purchase price updated to 2005 dollars using a 3 percent annual inflation rate.
(3) Equity percentage reflects land financed through a 2005 bond purchase.
Source: City of Aspen Parks Recreation Department Capita/Inventory, City of Aspen Risk Management 2006 Property Schedule and
BBC Research &: Consulting.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
ApPENDIX B - PAGE 1
Exhibit 1. (continued)
Parks and Recreation Assets
Open Space (continued)
Hummingbird
land (2)
14 Acres
$1,249,552
Hunter Valley Way
Land(T)
lOAcres
$892,500
James H. Smith Open Space
Land (2) (4)
71 Acres
$3,897,953
Jenny Adair
Land (2)
1.1 Acres
$297,062
little Ajax
Land (2) (l)
, Acre
$1,081,500
Little Cloud
Land (2)
2.2 Acres
$217,353
Marlot Ranch Property
Land(T)
35 Acres
Infrastructure
Barn-leased
$3,123,750
$172,330
Maroon Creek Wetlands
land(!)
6 Acres
$535,500
Mascotte99
Land (2)
9 Acres
$455,310
Meadows lands Open Space - Lot 4
land (2)
25 Acres
$2,717,404
Mills Property Open Space
Land (1)
31 Acres
$2,766,750
Procktor Parcel
Land (2)
A Acres
$253,354
li~~~~.
100% 100%
ITotal HumminQbird
100%
-
.rgr'~::}/'
~2
$1,249,5521
$897 ~oo
$892.5001
$15S91A
$155.9181
$]9706]
$297,0621
ill..I8<
$47,5861
~]17 'i51
$217,3531
$3,123,750
10
$3,123,7501
1lli.>QQ
$535.5001
$455110
$455,3101
$2717404
$2,717,4041
$' 766 750
$2,766,7501
lli.u><
$253,3541
(1) Purchase price of land not available. Assumes a cost of $89,250 per open space acre (the median of known open space cost
per acre).
(2) Land cost is based on the actual purchase price updated to 2005 dollars using a 3 percent annual inflation rate.
(3) Equity percentage reflects land financed through a 2005 bond purchase.
(4) Equity percentage reflects land financed through a 2001 bond purchase.
Source: City of Aspen Parks Recreation Department Capita/Inventory, City of Aspen Risk Management 2006 Property Schedule and
BBC Research & Consulting.
BBe RESEARCH &: CONSULTING
100% 100%
ITotal HunterVallevWav
100%
100% 4% 4%
Irotal James H Smith Open Space
100% 100%
hotal Jenny Adair
100%
100% 4%
hotalLittleAiax
4%
100% 100%
Irotal Little Cloud
100%
100%
100%
100%
100% 0%
ITotal Marlot Ranch Property
0%
100% 100% 100%
ITotal Maroon Creek Wetland5
100% 100%
hotalMascotte99
100%
100% 100% 100%
hotal MeadOW5 Land Open Space
100% 100% 100%
Irotal Mills Property Open Space
100% 100%
Irotal ProcktorParcel
100%
ApPENDIX B - PAGE 2
Exhibit 1" (continued)
Parks and Recreation Assets
Open Space (continued)
Red Butte
Land (1)
lOOAcres
Ute Cemetery
land (2)
1 Acres
$8,925,000 100% 100% 100% ~R 9'~ 000
ITotal Red Butte $8,925,0001
$35,700 100% 100% 100% lli.ZOll
hotal Reeder Open Space $35,7001
$4,194,750 100% 100% 100% \4 194 7~O
ITotal Thomas Ranch Property 14,194,7501
'27 100% 100% 100% ill
hotal Ute Cemetery $271
$1,796,444 100% 100% 100% 11796444
ITotal Zotine Property Open Space $1,796,4441
Reeder Open Space
Land(')
.4 Acres
Thomas Ranch Property
land (1)
47 Acres
Zollne Property Open Space
Land{2)
45 Acres
P.'"
Ajax PArk
Landes)
l.6Acres
$411,024
100% 100%
!Total Aiax Park
100%
ill.L02.4
$411,0241
Anderson Park
Land (5)
1.5 Acres
$,385,335
100% 100%
!rotalAnderson Park
100%
=
$385,3351
Aspen Art Museum
land(2)
.7 Acres
$235,657
100% 100% 100%
Irotal Aspen Art Mu~eum
lli.5Ml
$235,6571
Aspen Art Park
Land (2)
3.6Acre~
$235,657
100% 100% 100%
ITotal Aspen Art Park
llillSZ
$235.6571
Aspen Pedestrian Mall
Land(S)
2 Acres
$513,780
100% 100% 100%
ITotal Aspen Pedestrian Mall
l5ll.ZOQ
$513.7801
Bugsy Bunard Park
Land(S)
2 Acres
$513,780
100% 100% 100%
ITotal BuClsy Barnard Park
l5ll.ZOQ
$513,7801
Clapper Park
Land(S)
.05 Acres
$12,845
100% 100% 100%
ITotalClapperPark
"17 R4'i
$12,8451
Conner Park
Land (2)
.2 Acres
$51,377
100% 100%
Irotal Conner Park
100%
lli.lli'
$51,3771
(1) Purchase price of land not available. Assumes a cost of $89,250 per open space acre (the median of known open space cost
per acre).
(2) Land cost is based on the actual purchase price updated to 2005 dollars using a 3 percent annual inflation rate.
(5) Purchase price of land not available. Assumes a cost of $256,890 per park acre (the median of known park cost per acre).
Source: City of Aspen Parks Recreation Department Capital Inventory, City of Aspen Risk Management 2006 Property Schedule and
BBC Research &: Consulting.
BBC RESEARCH &: CONSULTING
ApPENDIX B - PAGE 3
Exhibit 1. (continued)
Parks and Recreation Assets
Parks (continued)
Crash Point
land (5)
.03 Acre
$7,707
Francis Whitaker Park
land (5)
A Acres
$102,756
Freddie Fisher Pilrk
Land(S)
.13 Acres
$33,396
Glory Hole Park
land (5)
1.5 Acres
$385,335
Henry Stein Park
land (5)
2 Acres
$513,780
Herron Park
land (5)
3 Acres
Infrastructure
FibarSystem
Playground
$770,670
$5,200
$65,520
Hillyard Park
land (S)
.3 Anes
$77,067
John Denver Sanctuary
land (5)
4 Aues
$1,027,560
Koch Park
Land(S)
1 Acres
$642,225
Library Plaza
Land(S}
.SAcre,
$128,445
Mollie Gibson Park
Land (5)
1 Acre
$256,890
Newbury Park
Land(S)
1.5 Acres
$385,335
100% 100%
Irotal Crash Point
100%
17707
$7,7071
100% 100% 100%
hotalFrancisWhitakerPark
~10J 756
$102,7561
100%
n~ ~96
$33.3961
100% 100%
ITotal Freddy Fisher Park
100% 100%
ITotal Glory Hole Park
100% 100%
Irotal Henry Stein Park
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
ITotal Herron Park
100% 100%
Irotal Hillyard Park
100%
1385HS,
$385,33sl
100%
lli.USQ
$513.7801
100%
$770,670
100%
100%
$S,200
~
$841,3901
100%
ill,QOZ
$77,0671
100% 100% 100%
Irotaljohn Denver Sanctuary
11077 560
$1,027,5601
100%
1O<Ul>
$642,2251
100% 100%
jTotal Koch Park
100% 100%
ITotallibraryPlaza
100% 100%
Irotal Mollie Gib50n Park
100% 100%
Irotal Newbury Park
100%
11'R445
$128,4451
100%
1'SIi R90
$256,8901
100%
1385335
$385,3351
(5) Purchase price of land not available. Assumes a cost of $256,890 per park acre (the median of known park cost per acre).
Source: City of Aspen Parks Recreation Department Capital Inventory, City of Aspen Ri5k Management 2006 Property Schedule and
SSC Research &: Consulting.
BBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
ApPENDIX B - PAGE 4
Exhibit 1. (continued)
Parks and Recreation Assets
_. ....."....~.~~""',_"'_'.~<o,,'____.""'.~.,...,,.._~.,'__....,~.~_w,"o__',~.~.,~
Pam (continued)
Pillepke Park
land (1)
2.5 Acres
Infrastructure
Gazebo - Building
Gazebo. Contents
$1,197
$53,274
$10,400
Pioneer P.rk
Land (2)
.1 Acres
5106,932
Rotary Park
Land(S)
7 Anes
$1,798,230
Shillw Triangle Park
landIS)
1.7 Acres
$436,713
WlllaP.,k
Land (5)
.25 Acres
$64,223
Synder Park
Land (2)
1 Acre
$351,270
Tot Lot ',!Irk
Land(S)
2 Anes
Infrastructure
Playground
$513,780
$65,520
Triangle Park
Land (5)
1.7 Acres
Infrastructure
Playground
$436,713
$46,800
UtePillrk
landIS)
3 Anes
Infrastructure
Playground
$770,670
$65,520
Waite/Robinson Park
Land (2)
1.1 Acres
$15,547
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
ITotal PaepkePark
100% 100%
hotal Pioneer Park
100% 100%
hotalRotaryPark
100% 100%
hotal Shaw TrianQle Park
100% 100%
hotalWillaPark
100% 100%
ITotal Synder Park
100% 100%
100% 100%
hotal Tot Lot Park
100% 100%
100% 100%
hotalTrianQle Park
100% 100%
100% 100%
hotalUtePark
100%
100%
100%
$1,197
Total Waite/Robinson Park
100%
100%
$53,274
$10400
$64,8711
100%
~106 932
$106,9321
100%
$179RnO
$1,798,2301
100%
illt.Zll
$436,7131
100%
$64 )]1
$64,2231
100%
$1~1 770
$351,2701
100%
$513,780
100%
1<.I.lli
$579,3001
100%
$436,713
100%
i<UOO
$483,5131
100%
$770,670
100%
1<.I.lli
$836,1901
100%
$15,547
(2) Land cost is based on the actual purchase price updated to 2005 dollars using a 3 percent annual inflation rate.
(5) Purchase price of land not available. Assumes a cost of $256,890 per park acre (the median of known park cost per acre).
Source: City of Aspen Parks Recreatian Department Capita/Inventory, City of Aspen Risk Management 2006 Property Schedule and
SSC Research &: Consulting.
BBC RE.SE.ARCH &: CONSULTING
ApPENDIX B - PAGE 5
Exhibit 1. (continued)
Parks and Recreation Assets
...'.'~'\~~l";;H"\l'"
;'-' '~,"'. ':!t, '1' - - .,. - - - " - ,',:>1~ I"f,." - - "~i;'~1m'~,t,~};:;'",},;:
';',;;-;<t'?:r,'~%, ',_, ;"\"':<O'<'}~;:'YJ: ." " ,_ ,':'/.''.i:,}", _ . _ _ - '~'</-'_:_" ,,' _ .,tIffiIieS
Parks (continued)
Wheeler Park
land(S)
.1 Acres
,\IHut 4
;/'....'I1'..: ",':" kl:i
,*.. .
Willoughby Park/lift 1
Land (5)
.8 Acres
$25,689 100% 100% 100% $256&9
ITotal Wheeler Park $25,6891
$205,512 100% 100% 100% =-'12
Irotal Willouqhby Park/Lift 1 $205,5121
Fields and Courts
Wagner Park
Land (5)
2.5 Acres
Infrastructure
Playground
FibarSystem
Climbing Wall - Building
Restroom_ Building
Restroom -Contents
$642,225
$130,000
$5,200
$129,100
$193,098
$85,176
Yellowbrick Park
Land (5)(6)
2.5 Acres
$205,512
Rio Grande
land (S)
.75 Acres
$192,668
15ellne & Rotitry Field5
land (5)(~)
21 Acres
Infrastructure
Storage Shed _ Building
Storage Shed-Contents
$5,394,690
$15,600
$52,000
Moore B.II Fields
Land (S)(~)
10Acres
$2,568,900
Truscott Tennis Courts
land (S)(~)
1.75 Acres
Infrastructure
Courb
$449,558
$575,000
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
21%
100%
21%
21%
21%
21%
21%
21%
$642,225
$130,000
$5,200
$129,100
$193,098
185176
$1,184,7991
=
$42,9521
1l22Ma
$192,6681
$1,127,490
$3,260
1:l.O.lli
$1,141,6191
illUQQ
$536,9001
$93,958
117017';
$214,1331
(5) Purchase price of land not available. Assumes a cost of $256,890 per park acre (the median of known park cost per acre).
(6) Equity percentage reflects land financed through a 1999 bond purchase.
Source: City of Aspen Parks Recreation Department Capita/Inventory, City of Aspen Risk Management 2006 Property Schedule and
BBC Research &. Consulting.
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
100% 100%
jTotalWaqnerPark
100% 21%
!Total Yellowbrick Park
100% 100%
Irotal Rio Grande Park
100%
21%
SBC RESEARCH & CONSULTING
ApPENDIX B - PAGE 6
100% 21%
100% 21%
Irotallseline lit Rotary Fields
100% 21%
ITotal Moore Ball Fields
100%
21%
100% 21%
Irotal Truscott Tennis Courts
Exhibit 1. (continued)
Parks and Recreation Assets
Trails (7)
Nordic Trails
44.1 Miles of Nordic Trails
Hiking/Biking Trails Natural
6.81 Miles of Dirt Trails
Hiking/Biking Trails Improved
5.23 Miles of Concrete Trails
7.32 Miles of Asphalt Trails
1.01 Miles of Crusher Fines Trails
$441,000 100% 100% 100% $441,000
$68,100 100% 100% 100% $68,100
$784,500 100% 100% 100% $784,500
$732,000 100% 100% 100% $732,000
$35,350 100% 100% 100% ==
ITotalTrails $2,060,9501
Recreation Center and Other
Aspen Recreation Center
land (2)(S)
18Acres
Infrastructure
Building
Contents
$307,478
100%
21%
21%
$64,263
$19,985,338
$936,000
100%
100%
21%
21%
21%
21%
$4,176,936
$195,624
Aspen Ice Garden
Land (2)
.75 Acres
Infrastructure
Building
Contents
$679,982
100%
100%
100%
$679,982
$2,164,906
$198,744
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
$2,164,906
$198,744
Rio Grande Skate Park
Land(S)
.5 Acre5
Infra5tructure
Skateboard Park Building
Fee Study
$128,445 100% 100% 100% $128,445
$386,880 100% 100% 100% $386,880
$873.426 100% 100% 100% $873.426
$ 1 ,600,000 100% 100% 100% 11600 000
Total Recreation Center and Other S 10,469,205
$0 100% 100% $0
$0 100% 100% $0
$0 100% 100% ill
$0
$36,500 25% 100% $9,125
$82.523,778
P.uks Maintenance Facility
landlSl
3.4 Acres
Infrastructure
Building
Plw Impact Fee Fund Balance (a)
Uncommitted October 2005
btimated FY05/06 Revenue
btimated FY05/06 Expenditures
Total Fund8alance
C;randT~
(2) Land cost is based on the actual purchase price updated to 2005 dollars using a 3 percent annual inflation rate.
(5) Purchase price of land not available. A5sumes a cost of $256,890 per park acre (the median of known park cost per acre).
(7) C05t per mile of Nordic trail == $10,000; cost per mile of dirt trail == $10,000; cost per mile for concrete trail == $150,000; cost
per mile of asphalt trail == $100,000; cost per mile of crusherfines trail == $35,000.
(8) Pending City of Aspen accounting research to determine fund balance.
Source: City of Aspen Parks Recreation Department Capita/Inventory, City of Aspen Risk Management 2006 Property Schedule and
SSC Research &: Consulting.
BBC RESEARCH'" CONSULTING
ApPENDIX B - PAGE 7
\1111 b
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Mayor Helen Klanderud and Aspen City Council
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~
Extension of Moratorium
Ist Reading of Ordinance N 038, Series of 2006
Second reading scheduled for September 25, 2006.
FROM:
RE:
DATE:
September II, 2006
SUMMARY:
On April 25, 2006, City Council adopted Ordinance No. 19, Series of 2006, implementing a
6-month moratorium on new land use applications in the City's multi-family, commercial,
mixed-use, and lodging zone districts. Ordinance 19 provided a termination date for the
Moratorium of October 31, 2006, and a process to extend the deadline. Staff is
recommending a 4-month extension of the moratorium in order to complete the analysis and
code changes.
The City Council and staff of the Community Development Department have made progress
towards identifYing policy direction and the portions of the Land Use Code needing
amendment to implement such policy. Council has given staff direction on a majority of the
residential development issues and is scheduled to provide direction on commercial issues.
Council has also discussed possible amendments to the growth management system.
The scope and complexity of the issues has increased over that originally expected. The
discussions so far on residential and commercial development have revealed numerous
policies needing analysis, debate, and direction. Staff expects the same level of complexity
with lodging and growth management topics. As several Council members have expressed,
what was originally thought to merely require "tweaking" is now thought to require major
substantive amendment. (Staff would like to point-out that this is a common phenomenon
for moratoriums. This is not a unique-to-Aspen situation.)
The policy direction necessitates elaborate amendments to the code. The Commercial Design
Standards, for example, have been identified as needing substantial amendment and staff has
recommended this task be done, in large part, by a consultant who specializes in urban design
issues and the development of design guidelines. The time needed to complete these
revisions will exceed the current termination date of October 31 sl and staff strongly
recommends that these changes to the code be accomplished prior to the expiration of the
moratorium. In the alternative, staff foresees additional applications being submitted and the
City not having the proper tools in place to review the applications.
I
Finally, there is a finite capacity for work sessions and the ability of staff and consultants to
provide analysis for each work session. There's also an inability to suspend other
responsibilities of City Council during this process. Community Development staff will be
developing a revised schedule over the next week (to be ready for the September 11 th
meeting) that accounts for Council's 2007 budget schedule, holidays, the remaining land use
sessions, and an adoption time frame.
Staff believes the moratorium should be extended by four months to expire on February
28th and is recommending adoption of Ordinance No~, Series of 2006, upon first
reading.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
a,.. .~--__I.. i 7r~-.rv.-R ') rei -1-~
+t-u . ~/"1--
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"1 move to approve Ordinance No:f:b, Series of2006, on first reading."
A TT ACHMENTS:
Exhibit A - Ordinance 19, Series of 2006. (moratorium ordinance)
Exhibit B - Ordinance 23, Series of2006. (amendment to moratorium ordinance)
2
ORDINANCE NO. ~<g
(Series of 2006)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO,
EXTENDING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
ORDINANCE NUMBER 19, SERIES OF 2006, AND AS AMEDED PURSUANT TO
ORDINANCE NO. 23, SERIES OF 2006.
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen (the "City") is a legally and regularly created, established,
organized and existing municipal corporation under the provisions of Article XX of the
Constitution of the State of Colorado and the home rule charter of the City (the "Charter"); and
WHEREAS, Section 4.11 of the Charter authorizes the City Council to enact emergency
ordinances for the preservation of public property, health, peace, or safety upon the unanimous vote
of City Council members present or upon a vote of four (4) Council members; and
WHEREAS, the City of Aspen currently regulates land uses within the City limits in
accordance with Chapter 26.104 et seq. of the Aspen Municipal Code pursuant to its Home Rule
Constitutional authority and the Local Government Land Use Control Enabling Act of 1974, as
amended, ~~29-20-101, et seq. C.R.S; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen enacted a temporary moratorium
pursuant to Ordinance Number 19, Series of 2006, as amended pursuant to Ordinance Number 23,
Series of 2006; and,
WHEREAS, Section 7 of Ordinance Number 19, Series of 2006, allows for the termination
date of the moratorium to be extended by City Council through the adoption of an ordinance; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council reaffirms the reasons for implementing the moratorium,
specifically that recent land use applications seeking Development Orders in various City Zone
Districts do not appear to be consistent with the goals and vision as expressed by the 2000 Aspen
Area Community Plan and are having the following negative effects upon the community:
. The pace of construction in the community is far too great for the community to
properly absorb and for the City to properly service; and
. The pace of construction is having deleterious impacts upon the City's resort
economy; and
. The community is not achieving the affordable housing goals as set forth in the
Aspen Area Community Plan; and
. The recently enacted amendments to the Land Use Code commonly referred to as
the "infill code amendments" are not having the desired effects upon development
activity in the community; and
. Recent development activity indicates that locally serving businesses are being
negatively impacted thereby losing an essential character to the City's retail
economy; and
. Construction traffic and activity within the City has had, and will continue to have, a
deleterious impact upon the health, safety and wellbeing of the City's residents and
guests;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Community Development Department require an
additional period of time in which to review all existing land use codes and regulations as they
affect land use development in certain Zone Districts within the City of Aspen to ensure that all
land use development proceeds in a manner that is consistent with the Aspen Area Community
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Community Development Department require an
additional period of time in which to conduct a thorough analysis and assessment of the Land Use
Code and regulations affecting the development of land within certain Zone Districts of the City of
Aspen with particular attention to those recent Land Use Code amendments commonly referred to
as "inti II code amendments;" and
WHEREAS, the City Council and the Community Development Department require an
additional period of time in which to investigate methods and procedures to better pace the
construction activity in the City including, but not limited to, the implementation of a system by the
City's Building Department to control the issuance of building permits; and
WHEREAS, an extension of the moratorium termination date will enable a reasoned
discussion of the desired character and rate of development and redevelopment and consideration of
amendments to the Land Use Code without creating a rush of development applications and the
related impacts upon the community.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1 - Extension of Moratorium Termination Date:
The termination date of the temporary moratorium enacted through the adoption of Ordinance
Number 19, Series of 2006, as amended pursuant to Ordinance Number 23, Series of 2006, is
hereby extended to terminate on February 28, 2007.
Section 2 - No Chanl!:es to Moratorium:
Ordinance Number 19, Series of 2006, as amended pursuant to Ordinance Number 23, Series of
2006, shall continue in its full force and effect and nothing in this Ordinance shall be construed to
alter the substantive content of Ordinances 19 and 23, except to the extension of the termination
date as described in Section I, above.
Section 3:
This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any
action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as
herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
Section 4:
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any reason
held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions thereof.
The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to record a copy of this ordinance in
the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 5:
A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the 25th day of September 2006, at a meeting of
the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall,
Aspen, Colorado, fifteen days prior to which hearing a public notice of the same shall be published
in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council
of the City of Aspen on the 11th day of September, 2006.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor
FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this ~ day of
,2006
Attest:
Helen K. Klanderud, Mayor
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
\ta
MEMORANDUM
RE:
Mayor Klanderud and City Council
Chris Bendon, Community Development Director ~
J ames Lindt, Senior Planner J L--
Resolution No16, Series of 2006, ACES/Puppy Smith II COWOP,
Determination of Eligibility as a Development Reasonably Necessary for
the Convenience and Welfare of the Public (COWOP) Review Process-
Public Hearinl!
To:
Thru:
From:
Date:
September II, 2006
BACKGROUND:
In 2003, the City initiated a COWOP review process to develop several affordable
housing units on the "Puppy Smith" parcel (located at 220 Puppy Smith Street) and to
construct drainage retention improvements in Jenny Adair Park. Please see the map
below for the location of the "Puppy Smith" parcel:
r-
Parking Lot Parcel
The COWOP task force that was assembled in 2003 conducted several meetings and
developed a plan for the site. However, during the entitlement hearings, the then City
Council did not adopt the necessary land use entitlements and directed the Staff to enter
into negotiations with the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES) to see if the
City could do a land swap to use the ACES' parking lot for the development of the
affordable housing units. Through these negotiations, the City and ACES have come to
an agreement, whereby the City is to lease the ACES' parking lot area for the
~
development of three (3) affordable housing units and ACES is to lease the "Puppy
Smith" parcel. As part of the agreement, a gravel parking lot is to be constructed on the
"Puppy Smith" property to replace the existing ACES' parking that would be eliminated
for the construction of the affordable housing.
Since this agreement has been hammered out, the City of Aspen Asset Management
Department is requesting eligibility to initiate a new COWOP review process to come up
with a development plan for affordable housing on the ACES' parking lot and to entitle
the construction of a gravel parking lot on the Puppy Smith Parcel.
REQUEST SUMMARY:
On behalf of the City of Aspen, the Asset Management Department has provided a letter
of request for Determination of COWOP Eligibility for the redevelopment of three (3)
affordable housing units on the ACES' parking lot that the City is to lease from ACES.
ACES has also provided a letter of consent allowing for the City to submit a COWOP
eligibility application on their property. In conjunction with the request to construct
several affordable housing units on the ACES' parking lot, the City of Aspen Parks
Department has also made a request to construct the eighteen (18) space parking lot for
use by ACES that is required to meet the terms of the agreement that was negotiated on
the land lease transfer.
This application is before City Council as the first step in the COWOP process based
upon the following excerpt from the Land Use Code.
Land Use Code Section 26.500.040, Standards for Determination.
A development may be determined to be reasonably necessary for the convenience or
welfare of the public if the applicant for development is the City of Aspen, an agent of the
City of Aspen authorized by the City Council to proceed under this Chapter of the Land
Use Code, or the City of Aspen or agent of the City of Aspen is a co-applicant with a
private party for the development of land which constitutes an essential public facility,
provides essential services to the public, and which is in the best interests of the City of
Aspen to be completed.
Community Development Staff believes that the proposal should be found eligible for the
COWOP process for the following reasons:
. The project would provide new affordable housing in a location that is close to the
core of town and that would be proposed on a site that is no longer directly
adjacent to the Rio Grande Trail and the Jenny Adair wetlands as was a primary
concern of the previous Puppy Smith COWOP Task Force and City Council in
2003;
. The City of Aspen is the Applicant;
. The project stands to be of higher quality through utilizing an interactive and
multidisciplinary approach with a diverse COWOP task force team, including
2
neighbors of the project, and persons with special interest in the property and its
development.
Staff recommends that the City Council find that the ACES' parking lot/Puppy
Smith II proposal be determined reasonably necessary for the Convenience and
Welfare of the Public and approve Resolution No. , Series of 2006.
STAFF COMMENTS:
As originally conceived, the COWOP process was established to ensure a public or
public/private project benefits from citizen participation, interested parties and the
involvement by citizen boards and commissions early in the creation of a development
plan. Stafffeels that the proposed ACES' parking lot/Puppy Smith project would benefit
from the COWOP process and notes that the standards of review are those contained
within the Land Use Code. Staff also notes that the process utilizing the COWOP task
force will need to be efficiently organized and facilitated.
Should the ACES' parking lot/Puppy Smith II project be found eligible for COWOP, the
next step would include convening the COWOP task force for a series of public hearings
to develop a preliminary development program and site plan. The task force's work
culminates in a formal recommendation to Council and a development analysis and
findings in accordance with the Land Use Code prepared by the Community
Development Staff. Legal notice of the entitlement hearing, including mailing to
neighbors and posting the property is required as part of this process.
The envisioned role of the ACES' parking lot/Puppy Smith II COWOP Task Force Team
will be to focus on the following tasks:
. Determine and evaluate site opportunities and constraints.
. Evaluate different development options for three (3) affordable housing units
to be constructed on the site.
. Finalize specific conceptual elements of the development program, including
program elements that satisfy City Council's goals for the property.
. Prepare a sample site plan including development layout, access, parking and
other pertinent site components.
. Prepare conceptual architectural parameters indicating typical design.
. Prepare a formal recommendation to the City Council regarding the above
tasks.
The anticipated timeline for the project would have the Task Force Team meet three (3)
to four (4) times between receiving COWOP eligibility and the end of October. At the
conclusion of the COWOP Task Force Team meetings, an entitlement application would
be prepared by the Applicant's representatives, the Elk Mountains Planning Group, Inc.
and Willis Pember Architects, Inc. This entitlement application would then require
review by City Council as an ordinance and if approved would grant all of the necessary
land use approvals to develop the site with the program established in the COWOP Task
Force meetings. The timeline for the COWOP review is primarily driven by the time
3
schedule that was negotiated with ACES and IS incorporated in the lease agreement
(attached as Exhibit "G).
Staff recommends that a diverse group of interests be represented within the Task Force
Team, including representatives from the Planning and Zoning Commission and ACES.
The following is a list of organizations and entities that Staff believes should be
represented on the Task Force Team.
I. City Council Representative - To be determined at the eligibility hearing.
2. City P & Z Rep. - To be determined at the eligibility hearing.
3. ACES Representative- Tom Cardamone
4. ACES Representative- To be selected by ACES
5. Post Office Representative- Mike Wiemer
6. Sanitation District Representative- Tom Bracewell
7. Electric Department Representative- Phil Overeynder
8. SCI Area Representative- John Provine
9. Citizen- To be determined at the eligibility hearing.
10. Citizen- To be determined at the eligibility hearing.
Staff has advertised for citizen volunteers (the ad soliciting citizen volunteers is attached
as Exhibit "E"). The list of citizens that have expressed interest is attached as
Exhibit "H". Staff would recommend using an anonymous ballot system as we have
used in the past in selecting citizens for COWOP task forces. Staff will have the
ballots available at the meeting.
City Staff assigned to the project to assist the Task Force Team include, Joyce Allgaier as
the Task Force Team Chairperson and James Lindt as a Community Development
Department Planner. Julie Ann Woods of the Elk Mountains Planning Group Inc. and
Wil\is Pember Architects Inc. have been hired by the Asset Management Department to
assist the Task Force Team and Staff.
IMPORTANT ISSUES:
There are several important issues that Staff believes City Council needs to be aware of
from the outset of the COWOP, which are described in the following paragraphs.
Parking Lot on Open Space Parcel:
The Puppy Smith property was purchased with open space funds in 1983. The gravel
parking lot that would be constructed on the "Puppy Smith" parcel as a result of the lease
agreement has been determined to be accessory to the open space use on the
ACES/Hallam Lake site in that visitors and employees of ACES would use the new
parking lot under the lease agreement. Therefore, Staff does not believe that the
proposal to build a gravel parking lot on the open space parcel would require a
public vote because it is accessory to the originally intended open space use of the
parcel. Staff does want City Council to express a comfort level with this
interpretation by Staff before we proceed in the COWOP process.
4
ACES Incomplete Entitlements:
Another issue that has been identified prior to the eligibility hearing is that the ACES'
development approvals that were granted in the mid-1990s were never memorialized by
recording an SPA plat and agreement. Therefore, all the development that was
constructed by ACES was done without their land use entitlements being perfected as
was required by Ordinance No.6, Series of 1997. Ordinance No.6 further established
that if the plat and agreement were not recorded within 180 days from the date of
approval of the SPA, a new review process would need to be completed to reinstate their
approvals. Staff believes that it would be appropriate and efficient to wrap a new
entitlement review to perfect ACES' entitlements (that were already built in 1998) into
the COWOP process for the City's affordable housing to clean up the land use
entitlement situation on the properties subject to the COWOP. Staff has included all of
ACES' property in the COWOP eligibility resolution.
ApPLICANT:
City of Aspen.
LOCATION:
The subject properties are commonly known as the Aspen Center for Environmental
Studies and the Puppy Smith parcels and are shown on Exhibit "A".
CURRENT LAND USE:
The Puppy Smith parcel currently contains a somewhat dilapidated residence that is used
by the City as affordable housing and the ACES' parking lot that is a parking lot for use
by employees and visitors of ACES.
PROPOSED LAND USE:
The ACES' parking lot parcel is proposed to be developed with three (3) units of
affordable housing. In conjunction with the development of affordable housing on the
ACES' parking lot, the Puppy Smith parcel is to be developed with a gravel parking lot
for use by ACES to replace their parking that would displaced by the development of
affordable housing on the current ACES' parking lot.
PREVIOUS ACTIONS:
The City Asset Manager has authorized the Applicant to proceed with submitting the
necessary application for COWOP Eligibility Review for Council action.
REVIEW PROCEDURE:
The step of "determination of eligibility" is the first step in the COWOP process. The
City Council conducts a public hearing and considers a recommendation from the
Community Development Director as to whether the contemplated development proposal
qualifies as a COWOP project under Land Use Code Section 26.500.040, Standards for
Determination. If the City Council determines that it is eligible, then Council should
approve a resolution that states its determination regarding eligibility, the process for
5
COWOP review, membership of the COWOP Task Force Team and a time frame for
completing the process.
REVIEW COSTS:
The City will pay for the costs associated with the development and review of the
COWOP application, the development of the affordable housing, and the construction of
the IS-space, gravel parking lot on the "Puppy Smith" parcel. ACES will pay to have
their SPA plat and agreement updated and recorded at the conclusion of the COWOP
review process. The proposed resolution reflects this agreement.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: .
Staff recommends City Council approve Resolution No:15, Series of 2006, approving the
ACES/Puppy Smith II COWOP Eligibility request.
CITY MA~GER'S COMMENTS:
tX~~dt
__n~ . . " ().
d-. e:tc' :Av.-~ -&j ~-
~t9, fC fU~,
RECOMMENDED MOTION:
"I move to approve Resolution No.]5, Series of 2006, finding the proposed
ACES/Puppy Smith II redevelopment project meets the standards to qualify for review as
a project that is reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public and
therefore, shall be eligible to utilize the COWOP process."
~ ~()f~l"fr,~~
~~-o~~ ~ot'
EXHIBITS:
Exhibit A- Vicinity Map
Exhibit B- COWOP Eligibility Application
Exhibit C- Property Area Map
Exhibit D- Projected COWOP Timcline
Exhibit E- Newspaper Ad Soliciting Citizen Involvement
Exhibit F - Ordinance No.6, Series of 1997 - Approving ACES SPA
Exhibit G- Lease Agreement
Exhibit H- List of Interested Citizens
6
RESOLUTION NO. 3:-~
(SERIES OF 2006)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ASPEN CITY COUNCIL DETERMINING THE
ELIGIBILITY OF DEVELOPMENT REASONABLY NECESSARY FOR THE
CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE OF THE PUBLIC (COWOP) FOR THE ASPEN
CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES (ACES)/PUPPY SMITH II
DEVELOPMENT, LOTS 1-3, BLOCK 4, LAKEVIEW ADDITION AND THE
ACES' PROPERTY, CITY AND TOWNSITE OF ASPEN.
Parcel No. 2737-073-03-851
Parcel No. 2737-073-00-801
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department received an application
from the City of Aspen Asset Management Department for a determination of eligibility
for development reasonably necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public
(COWOP) for the redevelopment of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES)
Parking Lot with a three (3) unit affordable housing project, the construction of a gravel
parking lot to contain eighteen (18) parking spaces on the City owned "Puppy Smith"
parcel (Lots 1-3, Block 4, Lakeview Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen), and the
reinstatement of the entitlements granted for the ACES' Specially Planned Area in
Ordinance No.6, Series of 1997; and.
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.500.050 of the Land Use Code, the City
Council may make a determination whether a proposed development is reasonably
necessary for the convenience and welfare of the public by applying the standards of
Section 26.500.040 during a duly noticed public hearing after taking and considering
comments from the general public. and a recommendation from the Community
Development Director; and,
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director determined that the proposed
development may be eligible for consideration as a project reasonably necessary for the
convenience or welfare of the public, and notified in writing the Planning and Zoning
Commission, the date of the public hearing before the City Council at which time a
determination is to be made concerning eligibility of the proposed development; and,
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the COWOP
proposal under the applicable provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has
reviewed and considered the recommendation of the Community Development Director,
and has taken and considered public comment at a public hearing; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the development proposal meets or exceeds
the Standards for Determination, Section 26.500.040, for the following reasons:
I
I. The project would provide new affordable housing in a location that is close to the
core of town and that would be proposed on a site that is no longer directly
adjacent to the Rio Grande Trail and the Jenny Adair wetlands as was a primary
concern of the previous Puppy Smith COWOP Task Force and City Council in
2003;
2. The City of Aspen is the Applicant;
3. The project stands to be of higher quality through utilizing an interactive and
multidisciplinary approach with a diverse COWOP task force team, including
neighbors of the project, and persons with special interest in the property and its
development.
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary
for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare.
WHEREAS, the City Council approved, by a vote of _ to ~ L-~
Resolution No. _' Series of2006, on September 11,2006.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO THAT:
Section 1
Pursuant to Section 26.500.040 of the Land Use Code, the proposed redevelopment of the
Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES) Parking Lot with a three (3) unit
affordable housing project, the construction of a gravel parking lot to contain eighteen
(18) parking spaces on the City owned "Puppy Smith" parcel (Lots 1-3, Block 4,
Lakeview Addition, City and Townsite of Aspen), and the reinstatement of the
entitlements granted for the ACES' Specially Planned Area in Ordinance No.6, Series of
1997, are hereby determined to be development that is eligible to be reviewed through the
COWOP review process.
Section 2
Pursuant to Section 26.500.050(B)(b), the procedure and standards for review of the project
shall be:
Process:
I. Task Force Team convenes and establishes its role, meeting schedule, meeting
procedural protocol and meeting rules for the conduct of business of the Aspen
Center for Environmental Studies (ACES)/Puppy Smith COWOP Task Force
Team. A site visit is then conducted.
2. Task Force Team Chair shall be the City's Deputy Director of Community
Development, or their designated representative.
2
3. Meetings shall be legally noticed as a public meeting and may be continued to
additional meetings.
4. Task Force Team responsibilities shall include the following:
. Determine and evaluate site opportunities and constraints.
. Evaluate different development options for three (3) affordable housing units
to be constructed on the site.
. Finalize specific conceptual elements of the development program, including
program elements that satisfy City Council's goals for the property.
. Prepare a sample site plan including development layout, floor plans, access,
parking, and other pertinent site components.
. Prepare conceptual architectural parameters indicating typical design.
. Prepare a formal recommendation to the City Council regarding the above
tasks.
5. Community Development and Interdepartmental Technical Staff Review shall be
completed.
6. Task Force Team develops and formulates recommendation to City Council.
7. Formal review and action by City Council (in public hearing).
8. City Council reviews final development plan for the project.
Standards of Review and Analvsis:
I. Section 26.310, Amendments to the Land Use Code and Official Zone District
Map.
2. Section 26.410, Residential Design Standards.
3. Section 26.425, Conditional Uses.
4. Section 26.445.050, Review Standards: Planned Unit Development.
5. Section 26.470, Growth Management Review.
6. Section 26.480, Subdivision.
7. Section 26.515, Off-Street Parking.
8. Section 26.710.110, Affordable Housing/PUD Zone District.
9. Any necessary technical design standards of utility providers shall be considered
and the COWOP decision shall not supercede any non-city utility provider.
10. The Aspen Area Community Plan shall be considered a policy guide and the final
recommendation shall include an analysis of conformance with this adopted plan.
11. Asset Management Division "Affordable Housing Development Guidelines".
Section 3
Pursuant to Section 26.500.050(B)(c), the Task Force Team shall be assigned by City
Council no later than September 11, 2006.
Section 4
Pursuant to Section 26.500.050(B)(d), the timeframe for the procedures to accomplish the
tasks of the Task Force Team shall be the end of November for a presentation of the initial
3
findings and December for a final recommendation from the task force team to City
Council.
Section 5
The City shall pay for the cost of the COWOP task force review. ACES shall pay the cost
of updating their plat and agreement to perfect their land use entitlements that were granted
in Ordinance No.6, Series of 1997.
RESOLVED, passed and approved this II th day of September, 2006.
Attest:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Helen Kalin K1anderud, Mayor
Approved as to form:
John Worcester, City Attorney
4
Exhibit "A"
ACES/Puppy Smith Vicinity Map
~ ACES/Hallam Lake I
Post Office
I ACES' Parking Lot
"
o
95 190
380
Puppy Smith Parcel
..".
N
570
760
Feet
THE ELK MOUNTAINS PLANNING GROUP, INC.
~Xh.I'k ,'f ''f~/
Mr. James Lindt, Senior Planner
Community Development Dept.
City of Aspen
130 S. Galena St.
Aspen, CO 81611
P. O. Box 11891
Aspen, CO 81612
P.O. Box 2799
Crested Butte, CO 81224
T/Fax: 970-923-9485 (Aspen)
T/Fax: 970-349-6236 (CB)
Cell: 970-948-0802
E.mail: elkmtnplan@aol.com
August 16,2006
RE: Eligibility application to establish the Puppy Smith II COWOP
Dear James:
Please let this letter serve as an application for eligibility to authorize the establishment of
a COWOP for the City of Aspen employee housing project located on the ACES parking
lot site. For ease of reference, I will be referring to this COWOP as the Puppy Smith II
COWOP.
I am submitting this application for eligibility on behalf of the City of Aspen Asset
Department. As required under Chapter 26.500 Development Reasonably Necessary
for the Convenience and Welfare of the Public, Section 26.500.040 Standards for
determination. the City of Aspen is the applicant in this case. Further, the City is
proposing to develop an affordable housing project by itself, which is a recognized type
of development that may be determined to be reasonably necessary for the convenience
and welfare of the public. The subject property for the COWOP process would be the
entire ACES property (only to allow ACES to resubmit an SPA for recordation to entitle
their property), including the ACES parking lot (which will be leased to the City for the
subject housing site), and the City-owned parcel known as 200 Puppy Smith St. Tom
Cardamone, on behalf of ACES, will provide authorization as owner's agent of the ACES
property to allow the City to proceed with the COWOP process. Bentley Henderson of
the City of Aspen has provided authorization on behalf of the City (Exhibit A).
In working closely with you, we have agreed that the following are the key issues that
will be discussed and determined as part of this COWOP process:
Conditional use for 18 space parking lot accessory to ACES, indicating as
a condition that said lot cannot be sublet, assigned or transferred without city approval.
Task Force Team will not review this parking area, but will be informed about it and
asked to include recommendation on Conditional Use.
Zoning to allow approval of 3 Affordable Housing (AH) units for City
employees as part of the Specially Planned Area (SPA). This parcel will have a separate
SPA from ACES entire property SPA; final COWOP ordinance will authorize ACES to
have an extended time frame for recording of their SPA.
Subdivision plat approved (required per Long Term Lease Agreement)
. ________ _ .... _______ __ _ _ __".__ __ 1
PLANNING'HISTORlC PRESERVATION' LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTlJRE'COMMlINITY DECISION-MAKING
Recordation of Final COWOP documents, including AH SPA and
Subdivision Plat (ACES SPA would be authorized, but entitlements won't be granted
until ACES records SPA)
In order to assist Community Development and the City Council in their determination of
eligibility, I have taken the liberty of responding to each of the required findings in
Section 26.500.050 (B) City Council Determination of Eligibility:
a) Make a determination that the proposed development is reasonably necessary for
the convenience and welfare of the public by applying the standards of 26.500.040.
The City of Aspen is the applicant, working with the Aspen Center for Environmental
Studies (ACES) for the development of affordable housing on a portion of ACES land
which constitutes an essential public facility. The City of Aspen will be the sole party
responsible for developing the three (3) proposed affordable housing units, along with a
gravel parking area for ACES' use on the former 220 Puppy Smith St. site. This'
development program is what has been set forth in the Agreement for Long Term Leases
recently signed by both parties.
b) Establish a procedure for review of the proposed project to include standards of
review;
It is anticipated that through a COWOP process, a total of three to four Task Force Team
(TFT) meetings will take place. It is expected that they will generally follow this format:
o COWOP Group Meeting #1- discuss ground rules and responsibilities;
have an overview presentation of the subject properties involved, project
history, proposed development application and site model; review
property constraints and opportunities; establish project goals; and conduct
a site visit.
o COWOP Group Meeting #2- review conceptual site plan options;
discuss alternatives for the floor plans, scale, and massing for the
affordable housing; select preferred alternatives.
o COWOP Group Meeting #3- review refined site plan and building
elevations of preferred alternative; other miscellaneous items, and
formulate recommendation to City Council.
As specified in the Agreement for Long Term Leases, the project team will strive to make
the proposed affordable housing units as "green" and efficient as reasonably possible,
consistent with the Building Department's requirements.
c) Establish a Task Force Team to review the development proposal and identify
members of City Boards, Commissions and other interested parties (including at
least two members of the public at large) to be included as members of the Task
Force Team;
Staff and the applicant have discussed what the Task Force Team representation should
consist of, and have come up with the following recommendation:
.__._.___.. .._ 2
PLANNING-HISTORIC PRESERVATION-LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE-COMMUNITY DECISION-MAKING
I Council Person
I P & Z member
I USPS Representative
I SCI Area Representative
I Aspen Sanitation District Representative
1- Electric Dep!. Employee
2 General Public members
2 ACES representatives: Administrator and Employee in adjacent housing
10 Total members of COWOP
d) Establish a timeframe for the procedures to be used to review the proposed
development.
The timeframe for the proposed COWOP will correlate with the deadlines specified in
the Agreementfor Long Term Leases. That agreement requires that the subdivision of the
affordable housing parcel occur prior to December 31, 2006. The COWOP meetings are
expected to be completed by late October in order for City Council to consider the
recommendations and allow the final filing of the subdivision in accordance with the
Agreementfor Long Term Leases.
James, please let me know ifthere is any other information you will need in order for this
application to be complete. We look forward to working with you and other staff
members to ensure that three additional housing units are created for City of Aspen
employees.
Sincerely,
Julie Ann Woods
Julie Ann Woods, AICP/ASLA
President
Elk Mountains Planning Group, Inc.
Cc: Troy Rayburn, Asset Dep!.
_....___.....__________._... ._..___ ..__ . _ 3
PLANNlNG.HISTORIC PRESERV ATION.LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE.COMMUNITY DECISION-MAKING
j~ ~
~ "
~ 0
"
, "
~~ ~
c;~ ~
~~ ~
c
~ "
~ "
.
c c
" "
~ "
~
~ ~.
-.
~d3 , ~n;
,,' ~ :;t
~~ ~
I~ ~ ~~
t:J "
t "
~~
~~~ ~ ~~
~8~ S ~~
~~~ ~ t~
~h~
~o:t ~ ~ "~
C " h
~~~ "
. ~
Z
riI
P...
[fJ
-<
~r..,
[:-fo
p;;~
Wt;)
" Zo
- ""q
o 0-<
('Y' E-< ~
~ qO
P-, :z. >-1
.. -<8
o
~ >-<r..,
~ t:o
~E-- u
i3~~ ILl
~~ ~~
..e; E-< E-<
8UJ [fJ
" 0_
~s: ~~~~..
~~ t;P... c<
~~ ~~ ~
15"
"r->-1 "" f:
j rilZ
o ~>-,
....:i, >~
!2Z"; fXJ8
Sj r~, ::<:
f;'~ jz'
~p.., ,fl;
~cn 'i'[fJ
~ ::<:-<
ur..,
00
~ii3>-<
o ,t;
C0U
":
~ q
:z.
[:-f -<
~
U 01
, ~
T-J ~
[fJ 0;
'.
E-< "~
0 ~~
>-1
\ .
1 \
/ 1
/ -- ~ -- -- ,.~------- ~._ _' ,I
/ /' ~
'- ./
/ ,/ --------
/~ . \ .~j.........~ S"'''' '"
. A'+i ./ "i'l:l .... ~ ~...._ Ou.- .F.:.>...~
/// - ' 'Fi;-~ __~q "_ _
/lj' t~ \ - -- ~~ ;'fr;--Z" '-','___.
/ #~ ~~ ~ ~: ~~ 1/' / -.;;--.... ~--.,....~__
I' .t " ^ "-"i ~fj I ~~ - ----- " "
/ !'i ~~~ 1ll~ . OJ,"-", ,/ I ~:>:t..... .....,
h, ~~~ !~ jij- -#-~ ,I ~~~ - _____ _ --'/
/ /(" ~i~.'\'-~-d'--~-~ffl!~~"! ij~i~ . /-----/
I~ ~--;;;--:o~- I'/kp!~ '-"--,~!~ ~~~! /
\~~ \ 1'RCfEAlAf/CN.f!'ffff:%/irSlON ~~ ~..) .~\ d~
~" \ coWE OK5 PACE" ,__ ~~t ~^ '\ ~ j ~ '"
'; (" iLnl "ill II ~~/// ; ~ei,
/ \ ~~ ~~(( "'.~ - '/: ~ "- ", eg~ ~~_, ~~ "' ;ot;;3J
!il~ - "'!'i 4I~" . --'/"'10'1 i:il [1)"'-100
' '~~'" ..:'---,' "'~, "'. - / ~-.I Z Zp::u[~
/ I :; !r-~~~-ji}~:~:J$," .X ~~ ! ~;~~
,~.----:.~'-- / f' 1]1' !..+~q- '~~~~~....~i~(...' )~.l/ II, i' ",i
'" / r- -< "~.iJ .-'f., ~I~~~ 0
/~/~~/~ ' - ~ ~ ", /- -"-"\-j --- -- 'L:, \ m: J~! tlm rn
-:/ /,,",---.f . / :~~ ~~'
'--- i / ~~~ ,.8
~ I ~~~
~~~ /
~~~ //
l\;~~
",J
- - -----
~,
t3 I-
V> '
.
~
i~
"
Iii.
~ !
l'.l !
I
.
..
-,;
", \
'<l
~
~~ . l~
"~ "
~'li ::1u
~~ ~~
/
~
~
n
~ ~
~ ~
~ -
, ~
B ~
~ ~
'"i ,
~ ~
~ ~
;lj ~ '1
~::;. ~ ~
~
, ~~~ ~~
" ~'\i~!~~~1,j~
~ ~~~~~~~~.'
~~~~~~"~"
~,,~.~,~"~
,,~~~~, ~~~
~~b~Iq~~~~
~,~w~~ ~
~~~~.~~~:;~
~~ ~ ~ "'~~ t:, ~
:~,~~rl~~~~
~"~- ~."~
~~"~~,~~,~~
~~h~~~v~~
M;.~~t~,
'1'~,~'1,,~,~~
~ ~~'"i
Irq t.;:::;~
~~~*
~~~~~~
, ~--'~
~~~~~~
~~~~~~
~ ~~,~
~~~~~"
~~~~~~
"~'~~~
f;~:S~~~
~~h~~
~~~~t1!.1
~~.~'~~
~ "~"
~~~ ~~.J
~~~~~~~
~ ,~
~. ~ ~
~~~~~~
~"~~~~
~~ ~~~"~
'"~ "~~
~~~1!~~~i~
~~~h~~~
h~~~~~'1
MI"~~~~
~~~ ~"~~
~~~ ,~H~
~!J tS~a: "i
~~~~~~~~
~"~~"~~ '
~I~~h~
~,~~~~~~
R"l~'.::"'i""'J
~ ~~~ ~
~~ ~~ ~ ~
~~M~ ~
~,,~~~~
~~~ ~ ~
~'1~~~~ . ~
~~~~~~~ ~
~~~~~~~ ~ ~
'~~~b~' "
~~h~"I"~ " ~
t::l.; ~~ tJ ~ ~
~~~~~~'\i~
~i!;N..., ~ ~
~~t\~~ "," ~ ~~
~~~,~~~~ ~ ~~
~~~~a~~ ~ ~~
"~~~~~~ ~ ,~
~~~~~,~ ~ h
----
/)
~
""", /
--------------- /
'1 /../
l/
)
/
/, /
/ v
/
v
~
'"
~ ~
~ i!.~
~~h
\!~;
i..
Ii!!l
.' ,
'I".,i
f ]!;~~
-It"
~;~a~
~ii/i~l'
~iiP,;re
I'll!;
,1"
'II!
11m
""
()
.-'
I-
-
CD
-
I:
><
w
S3UflWllJ3BI'f3l'lONnOH>;l>l30Nfl
.ol~g'1t%~J;li;~\!.%1.j1b"l'a1fl
3:JN"^a"'NlSJ:"a5S3NI5nll~T7V~
..MN3(]0>ll3WN'OOLOO_....gYO
L861"C:Z6-o0S"l
OOY1ol<Y10::ldO>l3.lN3:J
NOlJ.1(:JL.,jUON ,uXllUl-nv:l
E--<
>--<
IX)
>--<
:I::
N
I:.L1
:I::
E--<
H
;2:
[/)
>--
p"
~
:=>
~
o
q
"""
~
o
,...:)
o
u
r:,..
o
'1O'r
E-<
"""
f-<
(fl
z
~
;y:
E-<
~
~
r:,..
o
:>-<
E-<
Z
;::,
o
u
"
w
00
~~
~~
N OT2.0'2~ W
00il1'91
"'
H
SWN
""''''''.....
l'loo'...nOH-MMM
SG9i:'-S"S [Ot.&) XV.... 9.t:.98S1'5 (OL6IlJNOHd
109190;) 'S9NIUdS OOOh'lN.:n9 '!OI,U.s ':!InN3f>'t :El:>lYlB Lilli
LtrlilHli!:6 (EOE:) XV"I ""S:Oili!:6 fEO€) lJNOHd
E'II09 0:) 'OOOM3"l9N)J 'Oi!:l-"j;US '.1SV'3 3All::la SS3m1:lMNI 10'1
NOISII\3H
"va
ON
s '
'"
u
"'
'"
..., .
'"
'"
i
"
. .
:! I
!
i~ ~ ~
.~ .
"-
,; - I
t"
~~ ! ,
~~ .
" I .~
". .,
~l .,
, ';
H - ~B
. c-
o ~ "
~
.
~:
':i
1
~
-Q
s,
~
,
I
Q
Q
i'O
~
>-
"-
"-
co
"-
....
'-
o
~
;:/J;.,
':;;;'l)::';:.,.,
,:.J.;.;-.,.~.',:.,.:.:./
",
, ....-
ffiO^~
n.~j:::'F
",uJf<
<;jlnti;
ffi
.00001
~ '.(0
; .9~?l' N
'(ID
.Oo?:b,
.
704-.~1l
.ao~Z"j
il~J!
~. g t;
;:; ..."
; ~;>-
. ~:,
u _ '"
; "'i:'
U :~~:
~"'~;
<.~
:I~~
tli:I"'!:!
~!~~
;cltl:
wd~
u~'_ '"
~8S'"
'~B:i
. .e
~r.=:l:'
~~~;;;ri
l.l8~~j
~~~~5
~f5~~;
;cl~go
~~~~~
h"'r-'"
;g~~~
:~t<~1:!
oSlf",,,,
~~!:t(\2
i5.;!;~i
:t~...~~
~; ;~~E8
l'l~ ~:~~g
~: ~~~;~
..~ ~~~~~
"
,
u
..
e<
-"
Uo
""
~~
-,
.'
~~
:i~
~:
,~
i~
!;
,:
t~
".,
~~
;ts
iij3
."
"
'!:~
B~
~g
;,;;;;:
}.
.3'<{:6,1
-6/ N
----
oaVl::Io,o:J 'N3dSV
. ~n ~
GYHO'O:J 'A.lNno::> NI>I.lld 'N3dSV ;10 A.l1 ~ ~N 0
.l18IHX3 n.
~t "'~~I?"" !;!~
i'C-I l;1''';i'' tl ~ .-
~ ~~~~~~~@~ g:@
u !1~~~9~;~:il:~
~ ;~~~~~~~~~=~
; i ~~~~~~ f~!~~
~ ! i~;~i~:~j;!.I'
f~ ~~~~~2S~~~~t~a
g~ ~~:5!:l'll:'a~5;~:
C,!'"o' "l"u-
r..: ..~~~g~~~~~~~~
5~ ::'S~c~!':l'ii!:":~2l';5
~5 ~~~:~~~~~3:w~1?
:'."~ :!~h!~~e~~3~~B
'" -. ...o_oL ~..,..8'L
~~~pg~~~afi~o::g
.~~ :d~~tl~~~~~~;~i
~ 0 !;! "'''';;;w'''~;:::.,t;;...
~ -E-"~" i ~..u
" ~e'~~.""g. "..
'_ " ego'"',I.'"
~~".iif~~~'lIl:ki5 -.'i! "-~;
~~ ;~~~~~~~~g~~~~
f~ t':~'~:!,~i:'~r~
'-tt p~o",l'5"'t! "~-~>-o.",
~~ :~tl-tl9"'~ :i~~~~
"- "':!I.li':i"'<1i...",!i___w",,,
~~ w~~~~ ~jiO-~,,-i
"' ~"~o~',j!.'~"l
... rl<..:...... b'
:~ ~!:1i':~~~~ ~~~
~~ ,J~,~~n5~;~>
;;is ;::!"~~~;::-~':;j:~5&'ii!",
;5 ~~~...~~~~~~ti;~~~
~~ 91~~ ""~~~I-i~3
~~ ~z~~~~~~~~"-~"'~...
"~ ,;.~I'.."e..~~
..:= .~o~~~~-~~~u ~'"
?~ '--w wg~ w...wio...
~~ ~g:gg~~~ffi;~~~~~
" .u,..<,~ .1....
~ ~a~8...o~~ ~ ...-~
--'t '-z", _15.... ...~'" u'i.
,~~'" '" w~ "'__
~~ ~~b~~~g;i~g ~~~
~<<~i ~.::!~~"h~~h' ~~
'0 '!;"~"':.'l ,.
8~",,,,~,,,l!'o'-o,,, ~u
~
.
V
"
@
"
'u
m~
~~
~5
u_
~a
;;;:i
u.
..
'"
"
ri
~tlwli!
"''''ZO
~~;t~.
~1~8
, u_
~ ~~
;, ~;
. .
- .-
1:" ,,\I
. <,'~
1;0' :>~.
w .-ow
". >-- w
-ill"'''
ilit/u..:;;
~~g~~
~~i:'~'t;:
~~5S:"
... wo:t
" -"
......n;j'~
::'~-<:~o
g~".<
..;xl';:!
:llffiwE~
l'5d~u.,"
"~~;~
'u <
~~:tl~
~~~~\Il
-ii!o.
..,,'_,~o,
~;g3ri~
1.l"'''5~
fi;~~tl
~~~~i
~","''''~
~.~.!.
"i!:~
!ill'" It
",,,S"
llj,,-!;i....,
",~&!l!
:("'~'-;:"
~~af?:::
l'5"'",w'"
- ,.
~~>.~~
~~~~~
w,~.... ..,
",,"'....
: ~:-~
~~e'?
z,,-:i.,_
ii"'..,i!'g
~~g"
S~~-i~
'::JNI 'SNI~33NmN3 A~J.Nno:::> HSIH
c
u
"
n
~
<-
"
~g
H
."
8~
-.
~~
".
,.'
~~
""
~:
":
i~
@;;;
;g
0'
f
e'
,:~
..
~I!
~:
~~
:~
:.
!
"
,
~ '1 ~ ~ ~ 1l!
~~ ofE~l;;:~!- ~~G
d ~ ~ i ~ ; i ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~
i I ~ ~ ~ ; ~ i i ! ~ i ~ i ~ i ~
* ~ ~ ~ ~ B . c 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ i
p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I ! ! ! ~ ~ ~ B B B ~ B
IT! /:\ 13 13 13 "
"I
~
~
F
~
I j j j ! 1 Q @@ 0, tl'B 0 D.
! I j!! j
I! 111 r
" " .
.
~ " a ,
p ~ e ~
z ^
i!i ~ i ~ ~
"I ~ 0
o , ,
~ ~ " c
Z . ;
0 B B ,
E
0 I I
z (9.
0
"
"
z
F
~ "
i3 x
,
, r
I I - ~
"
,
,
x
,
~
,
1.1
l:
C
~
-"
,-
?
~ .
u ~
: ~~
51 ~1
':( ,-
'"
eo
-
-
a
..
c
<
u
---
s~...... /
.... // ../ -- --~=~~~-:~E=====::---
,/ ./" .-- -- --- 1aS'3.01l-' ~
./ - ------------ ---------- -- -------- ~
/ F ___ ~ _ ""'"
- ./ - --- /' ~
-- ,,~--------- ,//
.-/ -.-------
/
".
.-
'.
..
,
~
i'
',../.
.. .
"',-
~
~
~
~
Il.
o
p::;
~
.;
o
~~
mE-<
~~
E~
p ,=..,
8CfJ
,
:~ ',-'
, "', - , " - "
' x' ..: .. ':'" '~~~, li~
--," 7B5500,_~""'- ",' \,,~~
- - xc - _. . (j----- ", , ~l'
.~~ - ._-..:~-~--~-~._. ~ ~~;-<,~ '~,
---- ----. -?:L:., "
~~--===-'----~-=-==-==--'--=-~'~-'-" '-
'.
- .
.." ~
"
'-
- ';
~
-,
,
......,... ,"
'",
,
\
i '
. .
". l!j":
~~,,~
!~!~
6b~
\!
,'~ 1
~!~ I
~~i" ;
-I~ .,./
It- '.
.
;
~~~'" I
<"";
~ ." "1'.
~ -, "
>.!
~" "
~~5 ti" '\,
~j "
'-
-,.~~
~~~
'!
'- ~, ~~~
.!ij .' \ "~~
I~_~ = - - ."
o
I
~ l.
0
'.
,
;>-; r=I
z i\-=
~ ~
- .
U N I !~
rl , u~
(f] ~,.
E--> oj
0
H
~
u
::3 (')Kj
"':':
I p,JlO
;i' ~~g~
H ~ _~o
&5 5~3~
~ ~~8R
f-l 8~ .___
~ ,"i"i~~
Pi! ~;j~'-'
rn u .'0
~ rurIl
p.. ~~
o
[I)
':3
~.
I
j
,
('v J.
r",-)H~ \ ,/,:i >'2
__;1 ("--;?
C Il frJ
'\~ ~)
~~!:
~~~'"
Iii
II!!.'
..>!
~P!h
/"'1
-"I
~~~~~
li!!1
(I"'
~~ s:
II,,;
lid!
11m
~XM)b,} \J)'
ACES/Puppv Smith COWOP Tentative Schedule
· September]], 2006- COWOP Eligibility Hearing before City Council.
· Late September- COWOP Group Meeting #1- discuss ground rules and
responsibilities; have an overview presentation of the subject properties involved,
project history, proposed development application and site model; review
property constraints and opportunities; establish project goals; and conduct a site
visit.
· Mid-October-COWOP Group Meeting #2- review conceptual site plan options;
discuss alternatives for the floor plans, scale, and massing for the affordable
housing; select preferred alternatives.
· Late October- COWOP Group Meeting #3- review refined site plan and
building elevations of preferred alternative; other miscellaneous items, and
formulate recommendation to City Council.
· Early November- City Council first reading of entitlement ordinance.
· Late November to Early December- City Council 2nd reading of entitlement
ordinance.
",
\
~::'
.~' It
[::i/ l/!J/ \ ~-rJ
Friday, September 1, 2006. The Aspen Times A15
~
1iIE CITY OF AsPEN
City of Aspen Land Use Process
for City Employee Housing
The City of Aspen is advertising for two local citizens to participate on
a task force to assist in a land use requirement to develop three (3) City
of Aspen employee housing units on the current ACES parking lot.
,
,
The selected citizens will serve in an at-large capacity and assist in
developing basic project elements. such as: . i~f'i~~p
.....:,,-;.,je..:-t'.- ._'
. review and confirm. Community Development recorriiri:~nded zoD'ing;
. basic site plan elements;
. basic exterior archi~ecture. scale and massing or grouping of units;
. basic floor plan livability;
. landscaping; and
. parking.
-\.
r-
.
As a task force member, one should be prepared to work, as a team
member and conduct him or herself in a professional and respectful
manner at all times.' _
The task force will be convened if City Council deems the redeve]-
opment of the ACES parking lot eligible for a land use requirement
referred to. as For the Convenience or Welfare of the Public (CO-
WOP), at its September]] public hearing. Interested citizens should
anticipate no more than three (3) task force meetings if the eligibility
application is approved by council. Task force members will need
. to be -available to attend meetings on September 28, October ] 9 and
October 26 from approximateIy]:OO pm to 4:00 pm.
If you are interested in serving on this task force, pI"llsee~mail Troy
R>lyburn, project manager, at the City of Aspen by September 6.
Troy's e-mail addr~ss istrovr@ci.asDen~c~~us-;~A~stion~1ho~~
also bee-mailed. .. -. ..
,
r;;y~ J~J') iJ{'(/
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO
APPROVE THE CONCEPTUAUFINAL SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA (SPA)
DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TO REZONE THE ASPEN CENTER FOR ENVIRONMENTAL
STUDIES (ACES) TO THE ACADEMIC ZONE DISTRICT, TO AMEND CHAPTER 26 OF THE
ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE TO WIT SECTION 26.28.230(C)(1), CONDITIONAL USES IN THE
ACADEMIC ZONE DISTRICT, AND TO APPROVE AGMQS EXEMPTION FOR
AFFORDABLE HOUSING
ORDINANCE No.6, SERIES OF 1997
WHEREAS, the Trustees of the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (hereafter "Applicant")
submitted an application (hereafter "Plan") to the Community Development Department to rezone to the
Academic zone district and to designate the property as a Speci811y Planned Area (SPA); and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has also requested approval of a text amendment to allow "attached
residential dwellings" as a conditional use in the Academic 20ne district; and
WHEREAS, the Applicant has also requested a GMQS Exemption to construct five deed-
restricted affordable housing units for ACES employees in two new structures: a straw bale structure
containing two one-bedroom units and a "treehouse" structure containing three studio units. The structures
are also intended to serve as a model for the community of environmentally sensitive employee housing;
and
WHEREAS, approximately 4 acres of ACES is located within the City of Aspen and the remaining
21.5 acres are located immediately adjacent to the City of Aspen in the AFR-l 0 zone district; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, by Ordinance No.7, Series of 1997, at its regular meeting on
February 24,1997, did approve the Hallam Lake Annexation.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Plan in accordance with those
procedures set forth at Sections 26.80.040(A) and 26.92.030 of the Municipal Code and did conduct a
public hearing thereon on January 7, 1997; and
WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the Plan, agency and public comment thereon, and
those applicable standards as contained in Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code, to wit, Section 26.92.020
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the Plan in accordance with those
procedures set forth at Sections 26.80.040(A) and 26.92.030 of the Municipal Code and did conduct a
public hearing thereon on January 7, 1997; and
WHEREAS, upon review and consideration of the Plan, agency and public comment thereon, and
those applicable standards as contained in Chapter 26 of the Municipal Code, to wit, Section 26.92.020
(Text and Map Amendments) and Section 26.80.040(B) (Development in a Specially Planned Area), the
Planning and Zoning Commission has recommended approval of the Final SPA Development Plan and the
proposed map and text amendment by a vote of 6-0; and
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission further granted Special Review approval for
parking and Conditional Use Review approval for attached residential units; and
WHEREAS, the Aspen City Council has reviewed and considered the Plan under the applicable
provisions of the Municipal Code as identified herein, has reviewed and considered those recommendations
- and approvals as granted by the Planning and Zoning Commission, and has taken and considered public
comment at a public hearing; 8nd
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that ACES is a very unique institution which enhances our
community by maintaining the Hallam Lake Nature Preserve and providing environmental education, and
that designating the property as a Specially Planned Area benefits the city's residents and visitors by
allowing flexibility to accommodate the variety of uses which currently exist; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the existing and proposed uses at ACES are consistent
with the purpose of the Academic zone district "to establish lands for education and cultural activities with
attendant research, housing and administrative facilities"; and
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that proposed housing units will be deed-restricted in
accordance with the housing guidelines, are compatible with surrounding uses and will have a minimal
impact on the land; and
2
~
WHEREAS, the City Council finds that the Plan is consistent with the goals and elements of the
Aspen Area Community Plan and with the public welfare and the purposes and intent of Chapter 26 of the
Municipal Code; and
WHEREAS, the approvals granted herein are specifically conditioned upon City Council approval
of said Petition for Annexation by Ordinance duly adopted.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section I: Pursuant to Section 26.92.020 (Standards of Review) of the Municipal Code, the City Council
finds as follows in regard to the proposed map and text amendments:
I. The proposed amendments are not in conflict with the provisions of Chapter 26 of the Municipal
Code or the Aspen Area Community Plan.
2. The proposed amendments are compatible with surrounding zone districts and land uses, and will
....-.. have a minimal impact on the natural environment.
3. The proposed amendments will promote the public interest and character of the City of Aspen.
Section 2: Pursuant to Section 26.92 of the Aspen Municipal Code, the City of Aspen Zone District Map is
hereby amended to rezone the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies to the Academic zone district with a
Specially Planned Area (SPA) Overlay. The legal description is attached as Exhibit A.
Section 3: Section 26.28.230(C)(l), conditional uses in the Academic zone district, is hereby amended,
which text shall read as follows:
Boardinghouse, dormi/ory, and altached residenrial dwellings for housing s/udenrs and facully
of schools and a/her academic ins/i/u/ions.
Section 4: Pursuant to the findings set forth in Section I above, the City Council's approval of the Plan
is subject to the tenus and conditions of said Annexation Agreement and upon adoption by the City
Council of an Annexation Ordinance annexing the subject property to the City of Aspen; and subject to
the following conditions:
3
I. The applicant and the City Council shall enter into an SPA agreement binding the real property
to any conditions placed on the development order approving the final development plan.
2. The final development plan, which shall consist of the site plan of the entire site; site
improvement survey of the area being developed, including building footprints, utilities,
easements, and landscaping; building elevations; and the Specially Planned Area (SPA)
agreement, shall be recorded in the office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, and shall be
binding upon the property owners subject to the development order, their successors and assigns,
and shall constitute the development regulations for the property. Development of the property
shall be limited to the uses, density, configuration, and all other elements and conditions set forth
on the final development plan and SPA agreement. Failure on the part of the applicant to record
the final development plan and SPA agreement within a period of one hundred and eighty (180)
days following its approval by city council shall render the plan invalid. Reconsideration of the
final development plan and SPA agreement by the commission and city council will be required
before its acceptance and recording.
3. The final development plan shall be recorded prior to submission of any building permits for the
proposed housing units.
4. The applicant shall construct sidewalk, curb and gutter along the portion of Puppy Smith Street
adjacent to the property, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the new dwelling
units, or shall enter into an agreement with the City Engineer to construct sidewalk, curb and
gutter, or appropriate alternate facilities, at such time in the future as deemed appropriate by the
City Engineer.
5. At building permit submittal, the applicant shall provide a letter from an engineer registered in
the State of Colorado stating that the property can absorb all additional drainage created by the
new development without undue impact on the municipal storm sewer system.
6. The applicant shall join any improvement districts that are formed for the pUrpose of
constructing improvements in 8djacent public rights-of-way.
7. Prior to the issuance of any building permits, the applicant shall deed restrict the units to the
Category 2 guidelines. ACES shall have first choice to rent the units to their employees.
8. A tree removal and mitigation plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Parks
Department, prior to issuance of any building permits.
9. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, Community Development and Housing staff shall
inspect the units to ensure compliance with the conditions of approval.
10. All material representations made by the applicant in the application and during public hearings
shall be adhered to and considered conditions of approval, unless otherwise amended.
Section 5: This Ordinance shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of
any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein
provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances.
4
----- -
Section 6: If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phtase, or portion of this Ordinance is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shaJJ be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and shaJJ not affect the validity of the remaining portions
thereof.
Section 7: A public hearing on the Ordinance shall be held on the 24th day of February, 1997 ,at 5;00 in
the City Council Chambers, Aspen City HaJJ, Aspen Colorado, fifteen (15) days prior to which hearing a
public notice of the same shaJJ be published in a newspaper of general circulation within the City of Aspen.
Section 8: This Ordinance shaJJ not become effective unless and until the City Council approves the
Petition for Annexation by duly enacted Ordinance annexing the subject property to the City of Aspen.
. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the 27th day of January, 1997.
Attest:
~ '?<-)"d~ P.,
Kathryn S. ~, City Clerk
~Ma~P--w~
FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this 24th day of February, 1997.
~/3~
John B nett, Mayor
Attest:
~Ie!~
suzannew\aspenlcaseslspalaceslord.dOc
5
Puppy Smith II/ACES COWOP List of Interested Citizens
Tim Semrau- Fonner Councilman/Citizen
Jason Lasser- HPC Member/Citizen
Bill Wiener Architect/Citizen
David Pizzuti- Citizen
Jason Beavers- Citizen
Johnathan Lewis- Citizen
Sarah Chase Shaw- Citizen
Gi1\~lf (\I-liI
\~b
TO:
Mayor & City Council
MEMORANDUM
FROM
Paul Menter, Finance Direct
Don Pergande, Budget Ma
DATE:
September 11th, 2006
SECOND READING: Adoption of Budget Supplemental - Ordinance NO~ (Series 2006)
This item will be discussed on Monday, September 11'h, 2006
RE:
SUMMARY:
Staff is requesting an amendment to the City's 2006 budget that increases the city-wide total expenditure
appropriation from $132.3 million to 137.2 million, (See Attachment A). Net of inter fund transfers, budget
authority increases from $114.3 million to $116.2 million.
Interfund transfers are required reallocations of City resources between funds. Interfund transfers are not
expenditures, and should therefore not be included in an analysis of the true cost of City operations. Transfers do,
however, require appropriation authority from Council. Attachment C provides a detailed listing of budgeted 2006
interfund transfers.
The exhibit below outlines the supplemental request's impact on the City's overall appropriation authority. The
referenced attachments provide itemized listings of requested supplemental budget authority.
CITY OF ASPEN - 2006 SUPPLEMENTAL BUDGET
Description Amount Reference
2006 Adopted Budget: $132,317,815 See Attachment A
Total New Requests: $4,906,884 See Attachment B
Total Supplemental See Attachment B
Reauests: $4 906 884
TOTAL ORDINANCE: $137,224,699 See Attachment A
Less Interfund Transfers: ($21.021.661\ See Attachment C
NET APPROPRIATIONS: $116,203,038 See Attachment A
As noted in the chart above, this supplemental is comprised almost entirely of appropriation requests considered
and approved incrementally by Council between April 14'h, 2006 (the date of the last supplemental) and now.
Cash exists in the form of unreserved fund balance or current year revenues to fund all requested appropriations.
These requests are described individually below:
. Attachment B: "New Requests" of $4,891 ,884 are split between requests for interfund transfers of
$3,039,820 and $1,852,064 of formal appropriation, in total change of authority, for issues/projects
previously reviewed by Council during this fiscal year.
. Attachment C: This attachment details all budgeted interfund transfers of the City for 2006 including this
supplemental, which requests approval of $3,039,820 in interfund transfers (also detailed as part of
Attachment A). Pending approval of this supplemental ordinance appropriated interfund transfers total
$21,011,661
New Reauests:
In the General Fund, new requests to be reviewed by City Council, total $471,267. These requests are
made up of the following:
City Manager, $73,500: Two supplemental requests provide for the event and facilitator costs associated
with the recently held Core Values community meetings ($46,000) and the Entrance to Aspen Re-Evaluation
process, scheduled to occur later this year (27,500). Both of these are one-time appropriation requests from
General fund cash reserves.
Finance Department, 6,800: This is a supplemental request for necessary software to manage the debt
and investment portfolios due to the increasing complexity and size. This is an on-going request. This request
will be funded from the General fund cash reserves.
Community Deve/opment, $235,800: $138,800 in one time requests for contractual services, travel, and
other miscellaneous costs associated with the land use review efforts currently under way in response to the
construction permit moratorium approved by Council in April (see attached memo). $47,000 is requested for
relocation of the Deep Powder cabins, and $50,000 is for two previously approved historic preservation zero
interest loans, which will be repaid over a ten year period. These are all one time appropriation requests from
General fund cash reserves.
Environmental Health, $40,667: Requests include funding for the City's yard waste drop off program,
$5,800, a City-wide lighting audit to evaluate the efficiency of the City's electrical lighting systems and recommend
improvements, $2,000, increased costs for the City's greenhouse gas inventory analysis, $4,200, City Hall energy
efficiently improvements, $25,000, and one third of the cost of the $11,000 Colorado climate. $3,667 is funded
from the general fund with the remaining 2/3rds funded from the water and electric utilities through existing
appropriations.
Recreation Department: $3,500: This request is for an appropriation increase due to higher than expected
sales of tennis merchandise. Expenditures are offset by sales revenue.
Interfund Transfers, $111,000: $45,000 of this request is to transfer funds to the Asset Management fund
curb and gutter improvements (described below), $31,000 for the remainder of the contract to complete the third
floor remodel, $15,000 is for the free bus service from the intercept lot into Aspen, and $20,000 is to transfer
funds to the Asset Management fund for the initial planning efforts necessary to develop a master plan for the
Aspen Recreation Center.
Parks and Open Space Fund, $2,896,688: $47,600 is for final payment to the contractor for repainting of
the Aspen Recreation Center, which occurred in 2004. Close out has been delayed on this project for several
reasons, and therefore the final payment must be re-appropriated as part of the current year budget. Cash
remaining from the original project appropriation exists in the Parks and Open space fund to pay for this one time
appropriation request. $3,908 is for a technical adjustment for the manager's savings calculated for the April 24th
adopted resolution, however, this amount did not get included in the total; this will correct the oversight. $11,360
is for Pioneer Park renovation approved in the June 13th work session.
$2,833,820 is requested for interfund transfers necessary to payoff two interfund loans. These two loans,
approve by City Council in 2002, financed approximately $6 million of the Aspen Recreation Center construction
in 2002, bridging the gap between the total project cost and committed, but not received donations from SPARC
for the Lewis Ice Arena. These transfers pay remaining loan balances due to the Wheeler Opera House and the
Housing Development fund, and close out the Parks Capital fund with a zero fund balance.
Wheeler Opera House Fund, $160,831: This request provides formal funding approval for two projects
previously approved by Council; the Auditorium seat replacement project, $149,000, and the Pit Replacement
project, $80,000. As well as, for a reduction in the City I AABC housing project due to a change in design
($68,169).
Parking Improvement Fund, $1,604: This supplemental request is for a technical adjustment for the
manager's savings calculated for the April 24th adopted resolution, however, this amount did not get included in
the total; this will correct the oversight.
Housing Development Fund, $754,534: Appropriations for repairs at 7th and Main, $12,000, Truscott I
Elevator, $25,000, re-keying Aspen County Inn, $8,941, greening of the Burlingame Project, $658,593 this
includes an interfund transfer of $45,000 to the Parking and Transportation fund for the car share vehicle hybrid
upgrade, interfund transfer to the Parks Capital fund for landscaping improvements at Truscott, $50,000, are
requested. All items have been previously reviewed by Council.
Kids First Fund, $2,387: This supplemental request is for a technical adjustment for the manager's savings
calculated for the April 24th adopted resolution, however, this amount did not get included in the total; this will
correct the oversight.
Parks & Open Space Capital Fund, $656,576: Funding requests provide for formal approval of funding
authority for the Aspen Mass open space purchase, $601,400, landscaping improvement at Truscott, $50,000,
reduction in the City I AABC housing project due to a change in design ($29,824), and the City's 50% of the
$70,000 contract to remove debris and rubbish (phase 1- see attached memo) from recently acquired parcels
on Smuggler Mountain, $35,000.
Water Utility, $412,094: Appropriation requests provide funding for phase II of the Storm water business
plan, approve by Council in March and currently in its public involvement phase, $80,000, reduction in the City I
AABC housing project due to a change in design ($110,775), and $437,869 for increased capital project costs for
the Si Johnson ditch repair, the Castle Creek Hydro plant, the East Plant Sedimentation Basin upgrade, and the
Reclaimed Water line project. $5,000 for RWAPA Watershed plan funding. Per RWAPA funding plan. From Water
utility reserves
Parking and Transportation, $68,035: Appropriation request of $45,000 for the Burlingame car share
vehicle hybrid upgrade. This request will be funded from an interfund transfer from the Housing Development
Fund. Council has reviewed this request during the March 14th work session. Appropriation request of $8,035 is
for a technical adjustment for the manager's savings calculated for the April 24th adopted resolution, however, this
amount did not get included in the total; this will correct the oversight. Appropriation request of $15,000 is for the
free bus service from the intercept lot into Aspen. This request will be funded by a transfer from the General fund.
Asset Management Fund, -$527, 132: This request includes $45,000 for work at the Aspen Square and for
engineering of a new side walk on Main Street between 5th and 7th. This is funded from an interfund transfer from
the General fund as describe above. $96,112 and $56,492 for Pitkin County's share of capital improvement and
maintenance costs to the City's computer system and telephone and fiber networks respectively. This request is
100% reimbursed by the County. $10,000 for purchase of a backup switch for the CitylCounty network to permit
IS to replace the switch immediately when it goes down - reducing network downtime - funded from the general
fund. $20,000 is requested to fund the initial planning for an ARC Master plan, funded through an interfund
transfer from the General fund as described above. $31,000 is for the completion of the third floor remodel funded
through an interfund transfer from the General fund as described above. ($785,736) is a reduction in the City I
AABC housing project due to a change in design.
Please feel free to contact either Don Pergande or Paul Menter with questions regarding any of the appropriation
requests included in this ordinance.
~~~OJye5~
~~.,.. ~_ ~"h~~~
4iz~ r~cu;~~~
~ -ti1 j 2f~ err ~~<-I<- ~,
ORDINANCE NO. 34
(Series of 2006)
AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING A DECREASE IN THE ASSET
MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND EXPENDITURES OF ($527,132), AN INCREASE
IN THE GENERAL FUND OF $481,267, AN INCREASE IN THE PARKS FUND
OF $2,896,688, AN INCREASE IN THE WHEELER FUND OF $160,831, AN
INCREASE IN THE PARKING IMPROVEMENT FUND OF $1,604, AN
INCREASE IN THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND OF $754,534, AN
INCREASE IN THE KIDS FIRST FUND OF $2,387, AN INCREASE IN THE
PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND OF $656,576, AN INCREASE IN THE
WATER FUND OF $412,094, AN INCREASE IN THE TRANSPORTATION AND
PARKING FUND OF $68,035.
WHEREAS, by virtue of Section 9.12 of the Home Rule Charter, the City Council may
make supplemental appropriations; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has certified that the City has unappropriated current year
revenues and/or unappropriated prior year fund balance available for appropriations in
the following fund: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND, GENERAL FUND,
PARKS FUND, WHEELER FUND, PARKING IMPROVEMENT FUND, HOUSING
DEVELOPMENT FUND, KIDS FIRST FUND, PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT
FUND, WATER FUND, TRANSPORT A nON AND PARKING FUND.
WHEREAS, the City Council is advised that certain expenditures, revenue and transfers
must be approved.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
Section 1
Upon the City Manager's certification that there are current year revenues and/or prior
year fund balances available for appropriation in the: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN
FUND, GENERAL FUND, PARKS FUND, WHEELER FUND, PARKING
IMPROVEMENT FUND, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND, KIDS FIRST FUND,
PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FUND, WATER FUND, TRANSPORT AnON
AND PARKING FUND: the City Council hereby makes supplemental appropriations as
itemized in the Attachment A.
Section 2
If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for
any reason invalid or unconstitutional by any court or competent jurisdiction, such
portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding
shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion thereof.
INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED AND/OR
POSTED ON FIRST READING on the day of
2006.
A TrEST:
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALLY ADOPTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING on the _ day of
,2006.
ATTEST:
Helen Kalin K1anderud, Mayor
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
John Worcestor, City Attorney
A
Total City of Aspen 2006 Appropriations by Fund - Appendix A
-- .----- r
Fund #
-
Fund Name
2006 Amended
Expenditure
Budget
~uuo ' 2006 Amended
Supplemental # Expenditure
3 Budget
General Government Funds
000_ !-sset Management Plan
_ $6,689,270
-$5.27,132
$6,162~
001
, General Fund
- -I---- ---
$22871.372
$481 267
$23.352639
----f-
$29,560,642
-$45,865 $29,514,7Il'
__ !u_btotal General Gov't Funds:
Soecial Revenue Funds
100
120
130
140
150
151
152
250
340
-
-
$8,86~ _ ---.E,896,613l.le.-$11 ,762..168
$4,095,330 $160,831 $4,256,161
-$995,087 __ $0_$995,~~
$2,050,966 $1,604 $2,052~57.Q
_ $39,309c80~':::___ $754,534 .. $40,064~
Parl<s and Open Space
Wheeler Opera-Rouse -- n____
Lodgingnix Fund --- ---
Parking Im-provement Fur;cr- - --
Housing Develop-ment- -- ----
Early Childhood Educ. Initiative - -- --
AVCF
Kids First I YeilowBric~- ___
Subtotal, Special Rev. Funds:
Debt Service "FUnds
DebfService Fund
Subtotal, D8bt Service FuriilS:-
$3 853 247
$3,853,247
_~.29,2~.2.
$1546.124
$60,905,668
--
~ - $3853.247
$0 $3,853,247
$229,222
$1 543.737
$57,089,624
$0
$2 387
n----s3,S16,044
Parks Capital Improvement Fund
$10,052,061
$656,576
$10,708,637
-- -EnterpnseFuilds-- .- -- -- - ---
--- --- --- -- -=
~21 _~rUtility__ ___ $9,895,~_ $412,094 ----.!~0,307,500
431 . _ !!"ctric Utility _ _$7,128,34,8 __$0 _ $7,128,348
441 S!orrTlwater _____ _ $12,908 . $0 $12,908
444 Ruedi Hydroelectric Facility $293,610 ---==-$0 _ $2.93.610
450 = TranSpOrtation Ftiiid-- .~ ~- $6,134,336__$68,()~~ _ _$6,202,371
471 Municipal Golf Course ___ _$1,149,059 $0 $1,149,059
~ Truscott Housing . ____ $2.079,445 $0 - $2.079,445
~ _M~~tHousing.. . ____ _I- . $f1s!f298- -@ $1.168298
Subtotal, Enterprise Funds: $27,861,410 $480,129 $28,341,539
501 Health Ins. Internal Service Fund $2,875,000 - $0 -$2,875,000
- Trl.lsf& Agency Funds - - - -- - -
-
620_ ~~O Housin9.Authonty _ __ $944,870
622_ 622 Smuggler Mountain FuncJ......_e.-_ $86-:-960
- -- --- ,-~
_ __ $0 _$_944,870
~_ - $80.960
Subtotal, Trust & Agency Funds:
$1,025,830
$0
$1,025,830
- ALL FUNDS: - - $132,317,815 ~,906,88-4 $137,224,699
- -- - -- - --I- - - ---
. -- - -f-. --
Less Interfund Transfers - $17,971,841 $3,049,820 $21,021,661
- --- - - -- -
- - -- -- - - ---- -. - -
EQUALS NET ALL FUNDS
APPROPRIA nONS:
$114,345,974
$1,857,064 $116,203,038
City of Aspen
~lJllplemental Bud~e.!___
New Fun~lng R~quests
Deoartment_
Attachment B
New~eaLlest DescriDtiol)
-~- --
--~ Amount lSubtOlal bv DeDt.
- - --
-- I $46,000 -
_ _ _ - '~i7,500 -_
Subtotal, City Manger Department - $73,500
001.0~(;Ity Man~ _
001.05 Core Values Event Costs
------001.05 Entr~l1ce to-Aspe-n re-:evah.:!ation
001.11 : finance .Departlne'."t _
- 001.11.11000.82999 NeCessary software to manage the Debtand -Investrnent Portfolios -- $6,800
- - - - -- ----subtotal, Finance-Departrnent $6,800
001.13: Community Devel
_ ~- OO~ 13 xxxxx.~ Relocate Deep Powder cabin relocation -----=-- - -----=- :r $47,000 - -- -
Hlstonc PreselVatlon Loan 616 Malo. Street (WIll be repaid over 20 years
001 131340082999 at $2.500_per year. Previously approved by Council _ ~,OOO
Historic Preservation Loan for 1295 Riverside Drive. This loan was t
. 001.13.1_3400.82999 approved at the October 24, 2005 Council Meeting . .. $25.000
- - iMoratorium Agreemen-ts - Clarion, Richman, Work session costs, - -- ---r---
__~_1.1~~133_~6.829~9 Commercial~esigrl_' Travel and incidl:mtals, data g_~therin~, col1!ingenc~ _ $138,800__
Subtotal. Com Dev Departmenf $235,800
$5.80~' _ _ -
~OOO _ _
~,20.o _
$25,000
p,S67
001.25: Environmental Health
00U5.25500.82999 Yard wiiste Drop off Program- ----
_Og1.2j)5502.B2999 City-wide lighting Audif~_ ---==-----==-
001.25.25502.82999 Greenhouse gas emission inventory overage
_ oo"f"ii;-:-i5502.82999 CityH,iirEnergy Efficiency Improvements
u_ _00f"i5.25502.829_9_9, Colorado ClimateP~OJect -
-Subtotal, Environmental Health:
$40,667
001.71 Recreation
Appropriation increase - Tennis Merchandise for resale. Offset by revenue
001.71.76635.83800 from merchandise sales
Subtotal, Recreation:
------ - -- -- --+.-
Transfer to AMP - Drain. age impro.vements. (See AMP Fund for Project
_ Approp~ n _ _ _ $45,000
~Transferto AMP - 311~(forthe variance in_ the 3rd floor remodel ~- ~ $31,000 I -===-
1Transfer to the Parking' Transportalion fund for bus service from theJ
_ _I Intercept lot to encourage parking your car and taking the bus Into Aspen ~QOO _ _
Transfer to AMP for Backup IS SWitch I $10,000
Transfer to AMP - funding for thefirst step in- the ARC Capital Plan (See - i - ------;---- ---
i\MP forProject Apprep.) $20,000
-;~'5001=-- .
- . - $3,500
001.95 Interfund Transfers
Subtotal, Transfers
SUBTOTAL, GENERAL FUND:
100: J'~rks and Open Space Fund _ __ _ ___ _ __ ~
]Technical adjustment for the manager savings calculated for th; Apnl24th -
adopted resolution however thiS amount did not get included in the total -
.1.0055 55000 8890~th1S corrects this OVersi9ht _ _ _ $3,908
100 55.72605.839.99 ARC Pool Repainting - Final pay",ent --- ~ $47'601
Pioneer Park Renovation - Improvement of irrigation system approved
---..100555520083999 June13.th.."'orksesSlon___ _ __ _ _ $11,360 _ _
_ 100Jj5,00000.95120 Transfer to Wheeler Fund ~ Payoff 20.02 ARC Interfund Loan _ $1,722,201 __ _
__1.00.95.00000.95120 Transfer to Housln_Q.flJnd - Payoff 20ll.2ARC Interfund Loan_ $462,000 I
100.95.00000.95363 Transfer to Parks Facilities Fund 36:J.:.F'ay off 2002 ARC Interfund-Loan _$649.619-
$0
Suototal, Parks Fund:
120:Whe~I~~Q.peraHou~_eFun.!L_____ __ __ _ _________ _ ____ -' --
fAuditorium Seat Replacement - Previously approved by Council. Thi~ ::
_ 120,9~Jl1 061.86000 action provides formai ap.!'ropriation of funds_ _ _ $149,000
120.94.82054. .86000 Reduction in the City '.AABGhOUSing proi.ect - change in desig.n . ($68,169.)
- -- -- --- Pit Replacement - per bid award previously approved by Council. T~
__ 12p.94.xxxxx.86000 action prov[des forma~ appropriation offun~_ _ $80,QOO
Subtotal, Wheeler Opera House:
$121,000
$481,267
$2,896,688
$160,831
140: Parking Improv_eme_nt
Technical adjustment for the manager savings calculated for the April 24th
adopted resolution however this amount did not get included in the total -
140.54.54000.88_901 this corrects this o_versight
Subtotal, Parking Improvement Fund'
All B. New Requests
$1 604
Page 1
City of ~_spen Attachment B
~~:~~~~~I:::uge~ts +--- - -- 1- a
Deoartment-=-=--- -__..[.--=_=___ __ New ~~auest O_escriotio.n ---=-- -----=-_ CAmount Subtotal bv Oeot.
150: Housing oevelopmentt ~' I
-- - -1502323107.82900 7th@MalnHouslng Repairs - -- - -- $12.000 -
- - Greening of Burling game project approved by City Council mMarch - ThIs - :r -----
amount Includes a 45K Transfer to the Parking I Transportation fund for
_15023 XXXXX 86000 the car share_hyilr'd vehicle upgrade _ _ _ $658,593
Transfer to the Parks CapItal Fund. for landscaping improvements at - - .~-
_150.98.XXXXX.95340 Trusco.tt_ _ _ $50.000
_~0.23..4511 0.86000 Truscott Elevator Repairs_ $25,000 -
_1i9.23.~3300.83999 R~-Key Aspe!l ~ountry Inn ~ __ _== ==- $8,941
Subtotal, Housing Development Fund: $754,534
152: Kids First
Technical adjustment for the manager savings calculated for the April 24th
adopted resolution however this amount did not get included in the total M '
152.24.24000.88901 this corrects this oversight __ _ _ ~2,387
Subtotal, Kids First Fund: $2,387
340: ParKs Capital ~
- 340.94 82073 86000 Aspen Mass Purchase :Payment to Pitkin County - - 1 $60-' ,400 --
-=-34_~9~ 82054 86000 Reduction In the City I AABC housing prolecf- change in design --=- ~29.824) =- -=
Truscott Landscaping - this is funded from an lnterfund transfer from the I
340 94 XXXXX 8600~USlng Development Fund 150 $50,000 1
-- 340"}l4 82099 829991~uggler Mtn Debn~ Removal - c:~tiare (50% w/Plt~'" County) _1== $35.000 . - __
Subtotal, Parks and Open Space Capital Fund+- ' $656,576
421: Water Utility ~
._~~421 :94.44414.860QO Storm water Busl"ess Plan phas"I~-per Council Approval March 6, 2006. $80.000
'Si Johnson Ditch repair, increase t.o existing b. Ud9. et of $33k to cover total. 4
__421.94.44501.a600(j $50kcostperbidresults_ __ _ __ $17,000
Castle Creek Hydro Plant Project Planning Contract w/Smart Mahoney I- ,,'-
421.94,44302.86000 Assoc. Total project cost $44k $31,175 I
- n___' ,---' East Plant S-edimentation' BaSin LJpgrade, increase in project costs based \ --- --r--
_ 421.94_,'14103.86000 upon bidaward to Goul~Constructlon. Total Project cost$462,04~ 1_ $195,694'
_ 421.94.82054.86000 Reduction in the CitY-'-AilBC housing !"oje.ct ~ change in design -- ($110.,775) r.. = =
__ __ RWAPA Mid-Year Funding Request __ _ _ _ $5,000
Reclaimed Water Main Cross Maroon Creek Bridge, Increased costs per - -- -
421.94.44615.86000 COOT. Total project cost $414,257. ___ ---.!!94,000 _ . _
Subtotal, Water Utility: $412,094
450: Parkl_ng I Iransportation Techrlical adjustment"for the manager savings Calculated for the April 24~- II--
adopted resolution however this amount did not get included in the total_U1 I
450 32 32000 88901 this corrects this oversight $8.035
- __450 94 830~ 86000 45K transfer from the 15~~und for Upgrade-:- car share_vehicles to hYb:r $45'000~ _ _
ITran.sferfrom General Fund. for the freeserv.ice from. the. Interce pt lot to ~aT-
encourage parking your car at the intercept lot and taking the bus into
450.32.XXXXX.XXXXX Aspen _ $15,000
- - -- - - I - ---- - ---- - -- Subtotal, ParkingTTransportation-- $68.035
,
OOO:Ass~_~JYI--.!~ag_ementCap!~I_ _ ________ _ _____ __
[Work at Aspen Square and C & G of a new sidewalk on Main Street--
000.15.82(j02.86000 between 5th and 7thStreet improvements. _ __ _---.145,000
000.61.61500.86000 County IS-AMP Costs -100% reimbursed from Pitkin County__ -. $96,112
-- __ u__ -q'tyTS- Backup ~Y/ltch- for on~siterepl~~menr-- --- -----r-- $10,000
000.13.XXxxx.86000 Third floor remodeGemainder of the contract -- -- -p$31 ,000-
000.91.82054.86000 -Reduction in the City I !\ABC-housing project - change in design ---. ($785,736)
-------- --- County Share ot"Telephone and-Fiber network maintenance. 100%-- - --
0i)O.61.61500.82221 reimbursed b~ Pitkin County___ _ ____ _ __ t-- $56,492
ARC Advisory committee is requesting formal appropriation of funding for I
000.72.72601.86000 the first step in the ARC's Capital Improvement Plan - Master Planning , $20.000
--- --- - --- ---- - Subtotal, As:set Managem'entCapital Fund: -
Total New Requests All Funds: $4,906,884
$527,132
$4,906,884
Att B. New Requests
Page 2
CITY OF ASPEN Attachment C
~Q6 In~rfund Transf~_ ___________n__ _"'_0'____- - - ----- ___n_
r-----E Transfer To Fund Amount of Transfer Pumose of Interfund Trans!l!!r
___ Transfer From Fund_ _ u_ _ ___
Parks and Open Space Capital FUfld Overhead Payment - General Government
,
I General Fund $29 367 Sunnort of fund Qnerations
Water Utility Fund
Return on Investment Payme-nt, General Fund
Sale of land to Water Utility for Operations
-- General Fund ----------- .. f. $1,000,000 Facilities
General Fund j~~!~7 1/~ gl,l?bCJI warmino-EH
-- --------- __ ~ar~~_9~Qi~tf!J!l_~______ $770,000 Water Reclaim Proiect
Parks and Open Space Fund u_~~ Water usage ConservatIon-Programs
Overhead Payment. General Government
------- ------- GeneralJ:!!.1!9__ $614189 SuPP/?rt _or~~~~_qperations
Subtotal Water Utilitv Fund:: $2 626 756
~~ric Utility Fund General Fund $364,000 Franchise Fee -Tra-nsfer to General Fund
----------------- ----- Overhead Payment - General Govemm~
General Fund $296,536 Support of Fund Operations
Parks Capital Fund ... - $130,000 Water Reclaim Project
Purctlase of Hydroelectric power from City-
---- --- ~~_~9l':lydiQ.~!.~t_~~ ~~r:!~__ ------ ... f $406,000 owned Generating Facility_
-- --- G_~n~_~L~_"_C!_________ . $92,567 1/3 Global Warming-EH_
Water Utility Fund -,- - -- ----- _$1_48.3Jl!! ~c Utility portion of Uti!Lty 8ill_i~9~~rvices
Subtotal, Electric Utilitv Fund: , $1437412
I
Reudi Hydroelectric Fund ! I Overhead Paymenf=-t;,inerlli-Govemmen1
I
------------ General Fund $10,760 Support of Fund Operations
,
I ,
:rra-'"!~_POr~~ti~!1 F_~nd _ I :
Overhead- Payment - General Government
--- --------------- ~~@!-~~!. ------ -- $351,266 Support of Fund Operations
Contribution for Mall Rubey Park Mall
Pa~!l:~_rl_C2t9..Ren Space Fund ---- _1318.!Q~ Maintenance -
Subtotal Transnnrtatlon Fund $669 320
~~f Course Fund I - Overhead Payment - General Governmen-f
- :General Fund I $115,721 Support of Fund Operations
-iParksal1dQ~n Space Fund ___$~~_9QQ GroundsMaintenance Services
- iSubtotal Golf Course Fund: -- ----------------
$125721
Truscott Rental Housing Fund
, Overhead Payment. General Government
,
-- n _ __n___-----,_GeneraIIlJ.!!Q._______ $35,054 Support of Fund Operations
Overhead Payment ~ Housing Operations
___J HO!J_!l:L'!IiQ~r~!jon~_y~~_C!____ $48,849 Support of Fund Operations
i Subtotal Truscott Housina Fund: $83 903
Marolt Ranch Seasonal Housing Fund - ___n __
I Overhead--Payment - General Government-
I General Fund ----- - _n _ _________~~6,71_6 Support of Fund Operations -
Overhead - Paymeni--=-Housmg- Operations
Hou.~lllg Operations F:l,lM______ ----------- -- ______ _____ $~4!..~59 ~~pp5?.rLl?iE~nd Qe!'l!~~!'_~_ -----
Subtotal Marolt Ranch Fund: $41 366
Housing OffIce operati~ns Fund -- ___n___ Overhead Payment = General Government
General Fund: $49 880 Sunnort of Fund OnPrations
Smuggler Housln9..f!l_n~ ------------ ----
Overhead Payment - General Govemment
- General Fund ----------- _$3,382 ~':lPJl.~~_()fE':lnd Operations
Housing_Q~rations--Fund $3315 Housing Overhead n__ ----
Subtotal Smuaaler Fund $6 697
2005 TOTALINTERFUND TRANSFERS $21 021,661
I......,._--~_.
MEMORANDUM
IXe..
TO:
Mayor and Council
FROM:
Bentley Henderson
THRU:
Steve Barwick
DATE OF MEMO:
8-15-06
MEETING DATE:
9-11-06
RE:
Dean Street Vacation
SUMMARY: For your consideration is a request from Paul Taddune on behalf of the Lift One
Condominium Association for the vacation of a portion of Dean Street where it abuts the Lift
One and Timber Ridge condominium properties. This request represents one portion of a greater
vacation request that will be made when the Lodge at Aspen comes before you for development
consideration. As represented in the request letter submitted by Mr. Taddune, staff has
considered the request and recommends approval.
BACKGROUND: In late June staff was approached by Paul Taddune representing the Lift One
Condominium Association, with a request to vacate Dean Street where it abutted both his client's
property and that of the Timber Ridge Condominiums.
The east end of Dean Street, between South Aspen and Garmisch was partially vacated in 1969
as the result of a civil action. Consequently Dean Street, since 1969 has not been a through
street. The east end of the street has been landscaped by the lift one condominium owners, and
the west end of the right-of-way has been utilized by the Timber Ridge Condominium owners,
while still within the public domain, as parking.
Upon receipt of the request staff proceeded with the standard internal notification process. This
notification resulted in several concerns being raised which culminated in the convening of the
meeting as described in Mr. Taddune's letter. Stafffurther reviewed the request against a policy
that had been developed and deemed that the request met the standards necessary for vacation as
outlined in the policy.
,.
DISCUSSION: As you will see from the attached letter and accompanying surveys, this is a two
part application, identified as vacation parcel A, and vacation parcel B. During our discussions
with the applicant staff expressed some reluctance in granting a right-of-way vacation adjacent to
a property for which a development application was forthcoming. It was at this point that the
applicant along with representatives ofthe Lodge at Aspen agreed to move forward with a two
part request structured such that the largest portion of the vacation coincided with the land use
application of the Lodge at Aspen.
As evidenced by the site plan, vacation parcel A merely "cleans up" the unique circumstance that
was residual to the original civil action which was actually a portion of the old Midland Railroad
right-of-way. It is staff's opinion that a more detailed analysis of vacation parcel B will be
necessary as the Lodge at Aspen pursues its development entitlements.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: None
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: None
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the Dean Street Right-of-Way vacation
identified on the Proposed Dean Street Vacation survey done by Sopris Engineering dated
February 2006 further identified as vacation parcel A. Staff further recommends that the
applicant be required to provide to the City, for its review and approval, a revised vacation plat
identifying all parcels, and owners, with general easement rights reserved. At the City Council's
direction an additional condition could be defined that would preclude any development on the
property outside of surface non-covered parking facilities and or landscaping.
ALTERNATIVES: Clearly, if the Council should choose, the entire right of way vacation issue
could be considered at the time of the Lodge at Aspen discussion. The desire to complete this
section is the fact that Lift One Condominiums have under review certain items and
improvements that they would like to affect, the vacation of this property being one of those
items.
PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve the First Reading of Ordinance #~i:T- vacating that
portion of Dean Street as described as vacation parcel A, on the Proposed Dean Street Vacation
Plat prepared by Sopris Engineering dated February 2006."
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
6?~.~ ~
Attachments:
A - Letter (s) of request
B - Vacation Plats
C - Evaluation Matrix
ORDINANCE NO. ~
(Series of 2(06)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, TO
VACATE A PORTION OF DEAN STREET IN THE CITY OF ASPEN, PITKIN COUNTY,
COLORADO.
WHEREAS, the Lift One Condominium Association have petitioned the City of Aspen to
vacate a portion of Dean Street between E. Durant and Juan Streets between Block 4 and 6 in the
City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the right-of-ways or portions thereof proposed to be vacated are located
entirely within the corporate limits of the City of Aspen; and
WHEREAS, the Right-of-Way Vacation Plat and legal description, appended hereto as
Exhibit A has been reviewed by the Community Development Department and City Engineer and
they have made a determination that the exhibit complies in all respects with the City's Public
Rights-of-ways Vacation Policies and the land proposed to be vacated is eligible for vacation
pursuant to said policies; and
WHEREAS, the proposed vacation will not leave any land adjoining the same without a
means of access over an established public right-of-way connecting such lands to an established
public street.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF ASPEN, COLORADO:
'^~v..I.__
Section 1.
That the portion of Dean Street between E. Durant and Juan Streets between Blocks 4 and
6 described and depicted on Exhibit A appended hereto and by this reference incorporated herein,
shall be, and the same hereby is vacated subject to the conditions set forth below.
Section 2.
That ownership and title to the lands so vacated shall vest as provided in and by Section
43-2-302. C.R.S.
Section 3.
That the City Clerk be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to
record a copy of this ordinance in the Office of the Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder.
Section 4.
That the City Engineer be and hereby is directed, upon the adoption of this ordinance, to
make all corrections necessary to the Official Map of the City of Aspen.
Section 5.
That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for
any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall
be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the
remaining portions thereof.
Section 6.
That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as
an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances
2
amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior
ordinances.
A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the _ day of
in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado.
,2006,
INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law by the City
Council of the City of Aspen on the
day of
,2006.
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
ATTEST:
Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk
FINALL Y adopted, passed and approved this _ day of
,2006.
ATTEST:
Helen Kalin Klanderud, Mayor
JPW. saved: 8/22/2006-508-G:\iohn\word\ords\vacation-Dean Street. doc
3
LAW OFFICES OF
PAUL]. TADDUNE, P.e.
A
PAUL]. TADDUNE
323 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 301
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE (970) 925-9190
TELEFAX (970) 925-9199
I."JTERNET: taddune@compuserve.com
AFFILIATED OFFICE
FOWLER, SCI-tIMBERG & FLANAGAN, P.c.
1640 GRANT STREET, SUITE 300
DENVER, COLORADO 80203
TELEPHONE (303) 298-8603
TELEFAX (303) 298-8748
WILLIAM GUEST, OF COUNSEL
August 8, 2006
Bentley Henderson, Assistant City Manager
City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611-1975
Re: Vacation of Dean Street
Dear Bentley:
In follow up to our meeting on July 28, 2006, this letter is a supplement to my June
26 letter to the City Council requesting the vacation of Dean Street. That meeting was
attended by John Sarpa and Sunny Vann on behalf of Centurion Partners (i.e. "The Lodge
at Aspen"), Bart Johnson, attorney for Timber Ridge Condominiums, James Lindt, John
Worcester, Chris Bendon and you on behalf of the City, and myself and Seth Hmielowski
on behalf of Lift One.
At the July 28 meeting we discussed that the subject portion of Dean Street as it
abuts Lift One and Timber Ridge has never been utilized as a thoroughfare and that the
curved remnant of Dean Street adjacent to Lift One at one time was a part ofthe Midland
right-of-way. This pOliion of Dean Street has not been used as a thoroughfare a11east since
1969. No improvements other than parking are intended for the vacated right-of-way.
Therefore, Lift One and Timber Ridge do not object to the City reserving easements for
underground utilities.
Mild concern was raised by Chris Bendon over access alternatives in connection
with The Lodge at Aspen until such time as that project is approved. These concerns do
not pertain to the small unvacated triangle portion of Dean Street abutting the Lift One.
Therefore, the City staff will recommend that the vacation proceed in two stages. First, the
vacation of that triangular portion that abuts Lift One and then, at the appropriate time in
the context of The Lodge at Aspen application, vacate the remaining portion abutting
Timber Ridge. As requested by John Worcester, attached is a rough revised vacation map
until more fonnal revisions can be made by the surveyor. The vacation of
Bentley Henderson
August 8, 2006
Page 2
Dean Street abutting Lift One is identified as the "Vacation Property-A". Centurion
Partners will convey its portion of this parcel (i.e. Parcel 2) to Lift One and Lift One will
adjust the boundary between Lift One, Timber Ridge and Centurion Partners. The actual
line between Lift One and Timber Ridge is in the process of being agreed upon. Upon the
completion of the vacation of the remaining portion of Dean Street identified as "Vacation
Property-B," Centurion Partners will convey its interest in this parcel (i.e. Parcel A) to
Timber Ridge and the boundary lines between Timber Ridge and Centurion Partners will
be adjusted. As was seen at the meeting, what might be difficult to describe in a letter can
be easily understood by references to the vacation map as marked up by John Worcester.
I am providing ten copies of this letter, together with a check in the amount of
$300.00, and request that this matter be presented to the City Council at its August 28,
2006 meeting.
Thank you in advance for your attention to this matter and assistance thus far.
Very truly yours,
PAUL J. TADDUNE, P.c.
"
-- .
~
-,
Paul J. Taddune
PJT:nwt
cc: John Sarpa
Arthur C. Daily, Esq.
J. Bart Johnson, Esq.
Larry Mages
C:\wpIPJTILettcrs\Lift Ollc,Ltr to Bentley Henderson.8.1.06.wpd
'-~."_.""-_'" --I ~..____
LAW OFFICES OF
PAUL]. TAD DUNE, P.e.
PAUL}, TADDUNE
AFFILIATED OFFICE
323 WEST MAIN STREET, SUITE 301
ASPEN, COLORADO 81611
TELEPHONE (970) 925-9190
TELEFAX (970) 925-9199
INTERNET: taddune@compuserve.com
FOWLER, SCHJMBERG & FLANAGAN, P.c.
1640 GRANT STREET, SUITE 300
DENVER, COLORADO 80203
TELEPHONE (303) 298-8603
TELEFAX (303) 298-8748
WILLIAI\-J GUEST, OF COUNSEL
June 26, 2006
Mayor Helen Klanderud and Members of the City Council
City Hall, City of Aspen
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
Re: Lift One Condominiums - Dean Street Vacation
Dear Mayor Klanderud and Members of the City Council:
Please consider this letter as an application to vacate that portion of Dean Street, as
appears on the enclosed Dean Street Vacation Map prepared by Sopris Engineering. This
application is submitted on behalf of my client, Lift One Condominium Association, Inc.,
as well as Centurion Partners GS, LLC and Timber Ridge Corporation, the owners of all
adjacent properties. A boundary adjustment agreement has been tentatively agreed upon
and is being circulated that will result in the vacated portion accruing to the Timberline
Condominiums and the Lift One Condominiums as generally appears on the Exhibit which
is also attached. This will result in a portion of the vacated Dean Street remaining as
parking for Timber Ridge Condominiums, as used for many years, and the triangle portion
to become a paIi of Lift One Condominiums.
The unvacated portion of Dean Street has not been utilized for slreet purposes since
approximately 1969. The vacation of Dean Street as appears on the map is compatible
with existing uses and the proposed Centurion Partners project.
We would appreciate your prompt attention to this request. Please let us know if
any addi1ional information is required.
Very truly yours,
~'P.C~
Paul J. Taddune
~
PJT:nwt
cc: Lift One Condominium Association
John Worcester, Esq., Aspen City Attorney
James Lindt, Senior Planner
Chris Benden, Planning Office
City Engineer
Enclosures
C:i\vp/P JTiLetters/Lift One.Ltr to Mayor and CounciI.4.5.06
c
CRITERIA FINDING RA TIONALE
Circulation - The proposed Affirmative I. The adjoining land will not be left without access to a
vacation: public road. The property can be accessed from
I. should not cause a Garmisch.
potential problem 2. The request will not hinder area circulation, the
with regard to original right of way (ROW) was intended for vehicular
accessing property access, but the east end of Dean Street, between South
in the area; Aspen and Garmisch was partially vacated in 1969 as
2. should not hinder the result of a civil action. Consequently Dean Street,
area circulation or since 1969 has not been a through street. The east end
prevent service ofthe street has been landscaped by the lift one
vehicles; condominium owners, and the west end ofthe right-of-
3. should not hinder way has been utilized by the Timber Ridge
utility companies Condominium owners, while still within the public
from accessing domain, as parking.
facilities or other 3. Through the internal review process it was
structures. determined that there are no utilities in the area of the
vacation. Additionally general easement rights will be
reserved for the vacation in the event future utilities
may need to use the vacation area for future facilities.
Streets Maintenance - The Affirmative Refer to circulation rationale no. 2.
proposed vacation should
not create a possible
problem or street
maintenance or snow
removal operations.
Utilities - The proposed Affirmative Refer to circulation rationale no. 3.
vacation should not interfere
with existing or future utility
needs for the area.
Enforcement - The Affirmative Staff finds that the vacation will not create or compound
proposed vacation should issues as it relates to traffic control. Refer to circulation
not create or compound an rationale no. 2.
existing "issue" for traffic
control, City police or fire
department personnel. Through the internal review process, the City police and
fire department personnel determined that the vacation
will not create or compound issues as it relates to their
departments.
CRITERIA FINDING RATIONALE
Expansion - The proposed Affirmative Upon request, staff could provide language defining those
vacation should not provide uses that would be permitted, (ie. open parking, carport
the opportunity for type covered parking).
expanding the floor area of
structures. Such expansion
may require Growth
Management approval?
(Vacated streets may not be
included in determining
floor area ratios on a given
ownership, they may
however, be built on.)
Income space - Is the Affirmative Staff recommends that a condition be placed on the
encroaching space (vacated property precluding its use for any type of income
parcel) intended for generation.
commercial or other income
- producing space. If so, it
may require a rental
agreement with the City
Adopted plans - The Affirmative Staff finds that the proposed vacation is consistent with
proposed vacation should be adopted master plans.
consistent with an adopted
plan (ie trails, malls,
improvement district, etc.)
Benefit - The encroachment Neutral As a general policy, it is not in the City's interest to grant
or vacation should be vacations, thereby giving public property to private use.
beneficial to the City. However, the City has not used this ROW historically for
roadway, utility, or other purposes. Refer to circulation
rational no. 2 & 3. Additionally all affected utilities and
governmental agencies do not anticipate a reasonable
future need for the ROW. Refer to circulation rationale
no. 3.