Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20180220 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION February 20, 2018 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Planning & Zoning Board Interviews II. Human Services Grants Update III. Wheeler Restaurant Lease Update P1 P2 I. P3 I. P4 I. P5 I. P6 I. P7 I. P8 I. P9 I. P10 I. P11 I. P12 I. P13 I. P14 I. P15 I. 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Karen Harrington, Director of Quality THROUGH: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: February 16, 2018 MEETING DATE: February 20, 2018 RE: Options for City Human Services Grant-making, Part 1 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is seeking decisions regarding the following for the Health and Human Services (HHS) Grant program: · Granting efficiency: whether to provide multi-year grants, instead of or in addition to, single-year grants · Grant accountability: whether and how to collect better evidence of the impact of our grants PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council previously called for development of environmental, economic, and social sustainability dashboards. Staff developed sustainability outcomes and key performance measures with input from subject matter experts and stakeholders. Subsequently, Council reviewed and approved the community-based outcome statements and measures. Staff previously presented the Environmental Sustainability Dashboard measures to City Council on December 3, 2013; the Economic Sustainability Dashboard measures to City Council on November 2, 2015; and the Social Sustainability Dashboard measures to City Council on March 20, 2017. On July 17, 2017, staff presented the report and recommendations derived from the data. Council subsequently selected two issues – decarbonization (expressed as carbon footprint) and investments in APCHA modernization, for incorporation in to Top Ten goals. On September 26, 2017, the Council reviewed and discussed options for Human Services Grant focus areas, based on gaps identified in the Sustainability Report. Council directed staff to look more closely at the following as potential grant focus areas: Housing programs Programs to address gaps in 3rd grade reading proficiency Programs to reduce suicide rates Early prevention programs to reduce harmful behaviors in teens Programs to address needs associated with homeless persons Programs to prevent obesity and improve nutrition were removed as a potential focus area. Council also asked staff to provide options regarding other aspects of HHS grants management. Those items can be organized under the following goals: · Improve granting efficiency o Should we shift to multiple year grants, and if so how and to what extent? P16 II. 2 · Enhance grant accountability: o How can we collect better evidence of the impact of our grants? · Incorporate appropriate regionality: o Whom should the grants serve, from a geographic perspective? · Improve alignment: o How can we better focus our grant dollars to meet identified needs? o How strongly should we weight such focus areas, if at all? This memo addresses the first two goal areas above. The other two will be addressed at a work session in March. BACKGROUND: Since the September 2017 presentation, staff have met with representatives from the County, the school district, POD and the Aspen Homeless Shelter. Staff sought more information regarding the issues associated with each of the potential focus areas, and solicited feedback on the pro’s, con’s and challenges associated with each of the other areas of interest brought forth by Council (grant longevity, assessing success, and geographic area of influence). Of significance, since the prior presentation the City has entered an IGA for mental health and substance abuse services. The City has committed $70,500 of the HHS Grant funding to provide more coordinated and effective services. The IGA is renewable on an annual basis and has four signatories, known collectively as the Mental Health Strategic Funding Advisory Committee. The Committee includes the City, Pitkin County, Aspen Valley Hospital and the Aspen School District. The contract funds services through Mountain Family Health Centers and Mind Springs Health. After the new commitment of funds for mental health and substance abuse is considered, and adding in existing IGA commitments for the Detox Center and the Senior Center, approximately $219,000 in City HHS Grant funding is available for other grant allocations. While this amount is relatively modest, it is believed to assist local non-profits in securing additional funds from other sources, since City grants represent a commitment to and confidence in such non-profits. DISCUSSION Some basic facts about the City’s HHS grants are provided here, as background for Council’s consideration of the options for selecting grant terms and assessing grant success. Currently, the City only funds human services grants on a one-year basis. Each year, organizations request funding and go through an evaluation process, wherein it is determined whether they should be funded again. While a few new organizations request funding, most of those funded each year were also funded in the prior year. The City grant process goes hand-in-hand with the County’s Healthy Community Fund grant process, and no changes with respect to that partnership are proposed. The amount of funding provided per organization varies, but in most instances, is less than $10,000. In a City analysis done in 2013, City grant funds represented over 10% of the recipient organization’s funding in only 2 of 20 situations. More than half received less than 3% of their funding from the City grant program. P17 II. 3 Currently, only those grantees receiving over $10,000 have a requirement to provide measures of performance. In 2018, those grantees include: · Detox: $ 123,165 · Mindsprings, via PC Public Health $ 70,500 · Community Health Services: $ 61,000 · Pitkin County Senior Services: $ 42,500 · Hospice of the Valley: $ 20,000 · Response: $ 20,000 · Aspen Family Connections: $ 16,000 · Aspen Family ISST: $ 16,000 · Buddy Program: $ 15,000 · Family Visitor Program: $ 10,000 These organizations present 87% of the grant funding ($394,165 out of $455,165). Seventeen additional organizations received the remaining funds, and do not have a requirement to track or report performance metrics. As a final note, the options described below in this memo may have applicability to the City’s other grant programs as well. Council may want to explore the goals and questions considered here with other City grant programs at a future point in time. Options for Improving Grantmaking Efficiency through Grant Longevity In thinking about whether to fund grants on a one-year or multi-year basis, staff suggest Council consider the points in Table 1. Based on staff and stakeholder feedback, these represent the primary forces for and against multi-year grant funding. A sample of potential options to mitigate forces against multi-year funding is also provided for Council’s consideration. Table 1: Key Forces For and Against Shifting to Multi-year Grants Forces FOR Multi-Year Funding Forces AGAINST Multi-Year Funding · Lower administrative burden for applicants and the City, important given the small size of most City grants · Organizations would have a more stable funding source, and therefore the opportunity to plan and budget their programs more effectively · Organizations would have a stronger case for community support when applying for funds from others, since they would receive larger grant amounts. · Allows for focused attention on an interest area for a longer time, which may be more in alignment with the time required to achieve a successful outcome · If all grant funds are multi-year, it could present a barrier to entry for new organizations. · Organizations could become complacent in their performance unless check-in’s or triggers are built in during the interim · Organizations might have less of an ability to adjust to emerging needs (less flexibility) · As with all grant funding, does not necessarily address what happens if/when the grant term ends (organizational sustainability) · Could entrench dependency and/or an expectation of long-term funding P18 II. 4 A Sample of Potential Options to Mitigate Forces Against Multi-Year Funding · To reduce barriers to entry: o Phase-in multi-year grants o Award multi-year grants on a rolling basis o Limit the proportion of grants that will be awarded on a multi-year basis · To offset the possibility of complacency: o Require a simple interim progress report prior to releasing all funds (example: wildfire grant) o Require a minimum of data reported to assure evidence of effectiveness o Require minimum organizational criteria for multi-year applicants (for example: have received grants before; have proven track record of results; have demonstrated responsible use/tracking of grant funds; are willing and have the ability to track a small set of key metrics) · To allow flexibility: o Allow for a one-time adjustment request during the term of the grant, at the end of the first year during the normal grant cycle. o Offer multi-year grants on a voluntary basis · To manage expectations regarding long-term, repeated multi-year funding: o Clarify whether long-term, repeated grants are available or not, and under what circumstances o Set “term limits” for multi-year grants (only two sequentially, for instance, with a break before re- applying) o Clarify the purpose of the HHS grants: stability/improvement of existing services vs seed funding Options for Improving Accountability through Evidence As mentioned earlier, only those grantees receiving over $10,000 annually are currently required to gather and report metrics, that is, direct evidence, of their operations and impact. Council has expressed interest in enhancing accountability, however. Table 2 summarizes key forces acting for and against gathering more evidence of good operations and grant success. It also provides potential options for reducing barriers to gathering and using such information. Table 2: Key Forces For and Against Gathering Evidence of Grant Success Forces FOR Gathering Evidence Forces AGAINST Gathering Evidence · Basic accountability for taxpayer dollars is strengthened: what did we fund, how well was it done, and what difference did it make · If a choice is made to allow for multi-year grants, the lower level of administration associated with applying for grants, along with the higher level of funding and the ability to focus attention on an interest area for an extended time, may better provide a framework to allow for collection of · Organizations, particularly small ones, may not have the resources, time or systems needed to collect and manage data effectively · Organizations, particularly small ones, may not understand how to gather and manage data · If we collect it, we are obligated to consider it, which increases either internal or contracted resource needs P19 II. 5 good data · Should be possible to identify and have organizations report on communitywide priorities. This, in turn, helps assure that important issues are focused on jointly. · Existing metrics are in place, both locally and nationally, that could be translated to our grant programs. Some are specific to programs, others are indicative of whether an organization is well- run in general · In general, it can sometimes be difficult to quantify benefits in the domain of human services · Particularly for outcome measures, it can be hard to isolate the effects of one organization’s efforts vs. another organization’s efforts · Particularly for outcome measures, the transient nature of a high proportion of the client population makes it challenging or impossible to gather longitudinal (before and after) data · If grants funds are all awarded up front, it minimizes the incentive to collect data if it has not been gathered historically A Sample of Potential Options to Mitigate Forces Against Gathering Evidence of Success • To enhance organizational capacity and competency for measurement: • Provide technical assistance with selecting data and establishing measurement methods, including one-on-one support and workshops to educate and train grantees on measures • Have an organization that is dedicated to collecting the data (central data aggregation) • To keep administrative review time effective and limited: • Craft a standard, online metric reporting form and tool • Limit the data collected and model measurement and reviews on the Building on the Best program in Kids First. This is currently used with small grantees in the childcare business. • To address challenges associated with outcome measures and “soft” HHS metrics • Focus primarily on outcomes at the community, not the individual non-profit level. Use the Sustainability Report to communicate on these outcomes. • At the individual grantee level, focus on a very few key metrics focused on: • whether organizations are implementing evidence-based practices well • whether organizations are well-run from a management standpoint • To address resistance to change in data gathering practices: • Model grant awards on the Building on the Best (Kid’s First) where funding, or a portion of the funding, is provided after the fact (move toward performance-based granting) • Provide the technical assistance described above under “enhance organizational capacity for measurement” RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff are presenting options for Council, rather than specific recommendations. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: No requests for additional social services funding are being made. Recommendation are for how best to administer the current HHS grant program P20 II. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: These recommendations focus on social sustainability. They are not anticipated to influence environmental impacts. ALTERNATIVES: Council could elect to forego or modify the ideas presented here. PROPOSED MOTION: No motion is proposed; however, Council is requested to provide guidance or decisions regarding administrative changes to the HHS grant program in the areas of grant longevity and assessment of grant success. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ________________________ ________________________ P21 II. Page 1 of 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Sara Ott, Assistant City Manager, on behalf of the Wheeler Restaurant Space Selection Committee DATE OF MEMO: February 16, 2018 MEETING DATE: February 20, 2018 RE: Selection Committee Recommendation for Tenant at City- Owned Restaurant Real-Estate within the Wheeler Opera House REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This work session is to update City Council regarding the selection committee’s recommendation for city-owned restaurant space within the Wheeler Opera House and to provide City Council an opportunity to inquire regarding the selection process. A recommended lease is scheduled for City Council’s consideration at the February 26, 2018 regular meeting. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Approval of lease for Fiercely Local, LLC, d/b/a Justice Snow’s in May 2011 and approval of lease extension on November 13, 2017. The lease extension will expire on April 15, 2018. Further City Council reviewed and authorized the selection process and timeline at its work session on November 28, 2017. At this work session, City Council affirmed its desire for an expedited process in order to ensure a restaurant tenant is operating by June 15, 2018. BACKGROUND: The City currently leases space to three restaurants within Aspen: Justice Snow’s located in the Wheeler Opera House, Taster’s Pizza located within the Rio Grande Office Building and Red Mountain Grill at the Aspen Golf Club. The restaurant space within the Wheeler Opera House and surrounding outdoor dining area are key parts in the activation of the Wheeler Opera House space. In addition to meeting the demand for restaurants, the tenant provides key catering services for Wheeler presented and private events. The current lease was awarded in May 2011 after a comprehensive year-long request for proposal process and lease negotiations. During these lease negotiations, City Council had in- depth discussion about whether: to subsidize the rent below market, to ensure the restaurant was open during slow seasons, to influence the price points of menu and drink offerings, and to determine the coordination and financial responsibilities for tenant finishes. The revenue generated by the Wheeler lease is the key revenue source for a competitive grant process that awards nearly $400,000 each year to Roaring Fork Valley arts oriented non-profit organizations. P22 III. Page 2 of 6 Selection Committee: Proposals were reviewed by an administrative team including - Richard Stettner, Wheeler Advisory Board representative and Limelight Hotels Brand Manager - Tom Engleman, a La Car, Restaurant Industry Partner, 20 years of Aspen experience - Sara Ott, Assistant City Manager - Gena Buhler, Wheeler Executive Director - Jeff Pendarvis, Capital Asset Assistant Director - Rebecca Hodgson, Purchasing Officer, ex officio Community Input: City staff published questions about local serving restaurant space and arts grant funding on the AspenCommunityVoice.com site for community input. There are notices of the availability of this forum through Wheeler Wins members, social media, and traditional media. The RFP encouraged proposers to read this input. Further, selection committee members reviewed and considered this input in the review of proposals. PROCESS: The RFP was released on December 1, 2017 and twelve (12) proposals were received by the January 12, 2018 deadline. Eleven (11) proposals were found to be substantially compliant by the City’s Purchasing Officer. 1. Fiercely Local LLC 2. Hayden’s/1Kenichi of Aspen Partners LTD 3. Jimmy Yeager 4. Mr. Grey LLC 5. Platinum Productions 6. Shlomo’s at the Nell 7. Aspen Wienerstube 8. Green Cuisine Aspen 9. Highlands Restaurant Group 10. Elk Mountain Ventures Inc 11. Mladen Todorovic – Aspen Over Easy First Round Review: The eleven substantially compliant proposals were reviewed by the selection committee based upon the following criteria: · Concept & Menu Offerings (40%) o Bar Offering o Menu o Overall Concept · Ability to Collaborate with Wheeler Programs (10%) · Qualifications and Business Model (25%) P23 III. Page 3 of 6 o Experience o Operation in Aspen or another Resort Community o Overall Business Plan o Personnel, their experience and roles · Approach to Shoulder Seasons (15%) o Financial Structure/Proforma o How Closures are addressed · Lease Rate (10%) The selection committee met on January 19, 2018. The first round of review required each selection committee member to independently review and score the proposals. The individual scores of the selection committee members were combined to develop a composite score for each proposer (Attachment #1). The selection committee then reviewed all proposals, discussing the responsiveness, articulating differences in scoring, pros and cons of the proposals, as well as identifying additional questions for proposers. The committee members also individually articulated their top choices. When combining the discussion with the composite scoring, four (4) proposals rose to the top as having the highest responsiveness to the evaluation criteria, scoring over 4,000 points. These proposals were: Hayden’s LTD by Kenichi of Aspen Partners LTD, Beck & Bishop by Mr. Grey LLC, The Wheelhouse by Highlands Restaurant Group, and Aspen Public House by Elk Mountain Ventures. One proposal, submitted by Anita Thompson, requested an extension of the deadline in order to find additional partners, namely a restaurant operator. This proposal was made available to the selection committee as part of the first round of review. The selection committee concurred with the City’s Purchasing Officer that the proposal was substantially incomplete and would not be further considered. Second Round: The four (4) top proposers were invited to interviews on January 24 and 25, 2018. The proposers were provided a list of questions related to their proposal, business proforma, ability to meet the June 15, 2018 opening and operations in the space. Proposers were encouraged to bring as many members of their management/controlling interest representatives to the interviews so the team could most fully answer all questions. The interviews lasted between 60-90 minutes per proposer. Immediately after the interviews concluded, the selection committee discussed the merits of each and provided their perspective on the proposals based upon their overall confidence of success of the proposal, with emphasis on the evaluation criteria, predictability of success, best fit for the space, affordability for locals, and community focus. At this point, Tom Engelman, was excused from the committee, as there were no additional work requiring his expertise. P24 III. Page 4 of 6 During this discussion, two proposals rose to the top as the most likely – Hayden’s, LTD and Elk Mountain Ventures, LLC, however the committee was not prepared to make a recommendation and members requested the weekend to consider the pros and cons of each proposer. Third Round: The committee reconvened on January 29, 2018. The selection committee eliminated Highlands Restaurant Group and Mr. Grey LLC, noting higher confidence levels in the other proposals. A few additional questions arose for Hayden’s LTD and Elk Mountain Ventures, LLC regarding breakfast offerings, executive chefs, rent projections and restaurant themes. The Assistant City Manager and Purchasing Officer met with the controlling partner behind each proposer to obtain answers and reported them back to the selection committee. The selection committee then finalized its recommendation via majority opinion to recommend Elk Mountain Ventures, LLC. RECOMMENDATION: After reviewing all the information gleaned from the proposals and the interviews, a majority of the committee determined that the Elk Mountain Ventures, LLC proposal most closely met the proposal criteria with high likelihood of success in the space. The rationale for this recommendation includes: Concept and Menu - Developed concept of Aspen Public House with menu offerings that reflected value, family oriented dining experience, providing classic Colorado-inspired comfort food with the return of a community table - Proposes to experiment with breakfast offerings, focusing on coffee and ‘grab and go’ breakfast items and future expansion into sit down breakfast offerings Collaboration with Wheeler - Management team has experience with catering and banquet operations and an ability to use the Willits location as prep kitchen for larger events - Expressed no desire in providing live entertainment, which members of the selection committee found desirable - Seeks minor interior adjustments to the restaurant space for new décor, but does not anticipate major remodeling - Anticipates using a reservation system and Wheeler Wins membership benefits Qualifications and Business Model - The proforma communicates thorough approach to the business strategy. This was evidenced by the detail in the proforma that evaluated staffing, table turnover, front of house and back of house operations, menu point and seasonality of the business - The proposal clearly articulated a team with a diverse set of restaurant experience in the Aspen market since 2007. Team includes members already P25 III. Page 5 of 6 familiar with the Wheeler’s catering and banquet needs. Mr. Johnson has 9 years of experience being an owner/operator in the Aspen Highlands area, including dealing with seasonality and ‘grab and go’ food concept. He also has experience opening in May 2017 and settling in with the Capitol Creek Brewery in Willits. Further he has utilized his background in Finance to support his business operations - Elk Mountain also has displayed a willingness to bring on assistance from industry experts as needed to ensure profitability, and has current relationships that are intended to assist with the Aspen Public House concept Approach to Shoulder Season - Elk Mountain proposes to stay open year around for breakfast, lunch and dinner, with approximately 30% reduction in menu offering and hours during shoulder seasons for the first year. After collecting a year’s worth of data, Elk Mountain proposes a review with the City to seek input on if hours adjustment are needed. - Elk Mountain indicates confidence that concept and menu will allow restaurant to sustain with support of locals during shoulder seasons. - Lease Rate: - Annual base rent rate of $125,664 plus 8% above the natural break point of $1,570,800. - Elk Mountain proposes year one gross revenue in excess of $2.36 million. - Therefore, rent revenues are estimated to be $188,800 in year one. - Rent for years 2-15 are under negotiation, but assumes that base rent will increase annually at an agreed upon rate. This lease rate is one of the more favorable offers towards the City in the proposals. Reference Checks - City staff followed up on six references provided by Elk Mountain. The references include suppliers, consultants and a former landlord. The references indicated on time payments and positive working relationships. In summary, Mr. Johnson displayed himself as a one owner/operator who showed humble confidence, experience, a willingness to collaborate and desire to be a good fit for the community. He has complimented this with a solid team with a variety of experience in the restaurant industry. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The City of Aspen will have responsibilities as landlord to prepare the space for a new tenant. These costs include ensuring the current tenant leaves the space in a clean and orderly fashion, transferring the City’s liquor license and making any repairs within the space. While lease negotiations are still underway, the City’s estimate for annual rent is $188,800. This is consistent with providing a major contribution to the Wheeler’s non-profit arts grant program. P26 III. Page 6 of 6 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Attachment #1 – Round One Composite Scoring Sheet P27 III. Attachment #1EVALUATION CRITERIACRITERIA WEIGHTResponsiveness ScoreSCOREResponsiveness ScoreSCOREResponsiveness ScoreSCOREResponsiveness ScoreSCOREResponsiveness ScoreSCOREResponsiveness ScoreSCOREResponsiveness ScoreSCOREResponsiveness ScoreSCOREResponsiveness ScoreSCOREResponsiveness ScoreSCOREResponsiveness ScoreSCOREConcept & Menu Offerings4031 1240 45 1800 34 1360 23 920 43 1720 36 1440 44 1760 42 1680 34 1360 29 1160 34 1360Bar OfferingMenuOverall ConceptCollaboration with Wheeler Programs Willingness to collaborate stated1029 290 39 390 34 340 20 200 37 370 36 360 42 420 38 380 32 320 31 310 35 350Qualifications and Business Model2531 775 45 1125 34 850 22 550 44 1100 41 1025 44 1100 43 1075 32 800 34 850 35 875Experience Operation in Aspen or resort communityMladen Todorovic "The Vault"Wheeler Opera House Restaurant Rental Space Kevin Joseph "Wheelhouse"Jimmy Yeager "Mill St Saloon"Shlomo's at the NellPlatinum Productions "Smuggler & Co"Mr Grey "Beck & Bishop"Green Cuisine "Wheeler Café" Hayden's PROPOSAL EVALUATED BY: Responsiveness Scores Added Together from All Evaluators then inserted into the Responsiveness Score Line.Aspen WienerstubeVentures dba Capital Creek Brewery "Aspen Public House"Fiercely Local "Justice Snow's"communityOverall business planPersonnel, their experience, rolesApproach to Shoulder Seasons1531 465 45 675 35 525 9 135 46 690 39 585 44 660 39 585 36 540 34 510 39 585Financial StructureHow closures are addressedLease Rate1030 300 38 380 27 270 16 160 41 410 40 400 39 390 31 310 27 270 31 310 30 300 3070 4370 3345 1965 4290 3810 4330 4030 3290 3140 3470RESPONSIVENESSExcellent = 9 to 10Very Good = 7 to 8Good = 5 to 6Not so Good = 3 to 4Unacceptable = 1 to 2Inresponsive = 0Capital Creek BreweryHayden's Kevin Joseph Mr GreyTOTAL SCOREP28III.