Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20180320 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION March 20, 2018 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Human Services Grants Update II. Pedestrian Mall Update P1 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Karen Harrington, Director of Quality THROUGH: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: March 16, 2018 MEETING DATE: March 20, 2018 RE: Options for City Human Services Grant-making, Part 2 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is seeking decisions regarding the following for the Health and Human Services (HHS) Grant program: · Grant alignment: Should we focus the HHS grant dollars on specific needs? If so, which and why? · Grant regionality: Should a proportion of grantee funds be allocated to clients that live or work in Aspen? PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: 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: Programs to reduce suicide rates Programs to address gaps in 3rd grade reading proficiency Early prevention programs to reduce harmful behaviors in teens Programs to address needs associated with homeless persons Housing programs Council also asked staff to provide options regarding other aspects of HHS grants management, including: · Improve granting efficiency: Should we shift to multiple year grants, and if so how and to what extent? · Enhance grant accountability: How can we collect better evidence of the impact of our grants? · Improve grant alignment: Should we focus the HHS grant dollars on specific needs? If so, which? · Establish appropriate grant regionality: Should a proportion of grantee funds be allocated to clients that live or work in Aspen? On February 20, 2018, the Council considered the first two goals. Council decided to allow for two-year grants to increase grant efficiency. In addition, Council determined to wait on any decision regarding requiring additional evidence of grant impacts. Council discussed, but made no decision, on whether or how to approach discussion of these goals for all City grant programs. This memo focuses on the last two goals: · Improve grant alignment: Should we focus the HHS grant dollars on specific needs? If so, which? · Establish appropriate grant regionality: Should a proportion of grantee funds be allocated to clients that live or work in Aspen? P2 I. 2 DISCUSSION Alignment of HHS grants with City priorities Mental health and substance abuse (including suicide rates): Assuming that dollars are a proxy indicator of our grant focus, then Health and Well-being is the primary current funding focus. Within Health and Well-being, the primary focus is mental health and substance abuse. The largest single grant is for the Detox Center ($123,165), which is controlled under an IGA. In late 2017, the City entered an IGA for mental health and substance abuse services. The City has committed an additional $70,500 of the HHS grant funds to provide more coordinated and effective mental health and substance abuse services. This alignment is in keeping with focus areas within both the Sustainability Report and the AACP. Staff recommends that Council’s focus on reducing the suicide rate continue, with suicide prevention to be further incorporated into existing mental health and substance abuse IGAs. Community and family connections appears to be a reasonable additional focus area for Council consideration. Grants for programs that get at the root causes of third-grade reading score problems and an increased likelihood of risky behaviors in teens would further align the grants with City priorities and identified gaps. Stakeholders have indicated that the greatest need related to 3rd grade reading proficiency isn’t direct reading- related services, but is support of families more broadly. This is because challenges at home are a primary cause of what subsequently shows up as problems with reading proficiency. Similarly, reducing harmful behaviors in teens can also be impacted via family supports. Staff recommends that Council place an enhanced focus on grants that fall into the category of community and family connections. This can be accomplished simply by using this topical area as a “first filter” – a first consideration – in making grant decisions. This would be a “soft” requirement rather than a “hard” requirement, leaving grant reviewers free to consider other bases for their decision-making should other priorities or needs emerge. Housing and education services per se are not currently a focus of HHS grants. However, substantial City funds from other programs and sources (such as APCHA) support housing and education outside of the grants program. Staff recommend that affordable housing, support for additional homeless facilities, and school education programs continue to be addressed via conversations outside of the HHS grants. The County has brought up concerns regarding needs for emergency housing, supportive housing, and transitional housing. While acknowledging that these topics merit attention, staff recommends that the conversation and any funding for these housing issues also be addressed outside the HHS grant program. Should Council want to discuss the forces for and against the use of focus areas further, the items in Table 1 in Attachment A provide a starting place, and are based on stakeholder input. Alignment of HHS funds with geographic priorities At this time, staff does not have specific information on the numbers or proportion of clients living or working in Aspen and served by grantees. However, grantees who serve more than just the City of Aspen per se are the norm. No guideline currently exists regarding what proportion of a grantee’s funds should be geared toward services to those who live or work within the City. A meeting and survey of POD stakeholders, however, acknowledges that it would be reasonable to have such a guideline in place. Staff recommends, again as a “first filter”, that Council support the use of a guideline that 60% of a grant recipient’s anticipated clients either work or live in Aspen. P3 I. 3 Should Council wish to discuss the pros and cons of using a geographic focus, Table 2 in Attachment B provides insights from stakeholder conversations and a stakeholder survey. RECOMMENDATIONS: Alignment of HHS grants with City priorities: 1. Enhance a focus on reducing suicides via existing IGAs on mental health and substance abuse 2. Incorporate a new non-binding “first filter” focus area (Community and Family Connections) to address root causes of gaps associated with reading scores and to reduce risky teen behaviors 3. Drop housing and direct education services as focus areas for the HHS grants. Address these instead through other existing programs. Alignment of HHS grants with geographic priorities: 1. Support the use of a new non-binding “first filter” guideline of 60% of service recipients to be located within or working within Aspen 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 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: ________________________ ________________________ P4 I. 4 Attachment A Table1: Key Forces For and Against Using “First Filter” Focus Areas Forces FOR Focus Areas Forces AGAINST Focus Areas · Allows city to intentionally align funding with stated priorities · Provides clarity regarding why the city is providing funding · Involves identifying and addressing (ideally through data) the greatest needs · Bigger impact, greater chance of achieving priority goals and outcomes · Moves community jointly and strategically forward in one or more key areas (supports collective efforts) · May reduce the number of grants that need to be administered or otherwise simplify administration · Money goes further to resolve a problem · Less “pasta on the wall” · Shows accountability to taxpayers by focusing funds where most appropriate · Some problems may not be fully solvable, even with more funding (persistent baseline need) · Having a diversity of services may be more effective in maintaining a vibrant community · The relatively modest amount of city funds may limit its ability to focus successfully · Need to be careful not to have “blinders” on regarding current and emerging needs · May exclude some organizations previously funded, who may be deserving and who provide important niche services so a smaller clientele base · May narrow overall community support · Focus areas themselves may be contentious · If focus areas change too frequently, it could result in more system disruption and lower impacts · Changes at the federal level may impact where we need to focus · P5 I. 5 Attachment B Table 2: Key Forces For and Against Weighting Applicants Based on Aspen-centric Services Forces FOR an Aspen-centric Preference Forces AGAINST an Aspen-centric Preference · Equity - funds generated in Aspen are used by those who directly participate in the Aspen economy, either by living or working here · It is fair on its face, providing a clear link between the source of funds and who benefits · Recognizes that Aspen cannot take care of the entire valley · Helps Aspen thrive, and taking care of Aspen has positive secondary impacts on the rest of the valley (A strong Aspen contributes substantially to a strong valley) · We are a connected region: Aspen relies on a workforce and contributions from throughout the valley · Supporting the valley more broadly helps maintain a sense of valley community and cohesion · Low income families, who may be more in need of services, are less likely to live in Aspen · Funds spent down-valley trickle up: o A larger, better-equipped workforce o Stronger families of workers o Greater worker retention o Greater safety o Support for those in the service industry · Can be difficult to track information on where people live and/or work · Overall impact may be greater with a broader geographic focus than Aspen only P6 I. Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Director Darla Callaway, Design Workshop, Associate THRU: Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Director DATE OF MEMO: March 18, 2018 MEETING DATE: March 20, 2018 RE: Aspen Pedestrian Mall Project – Refined Conceptual design REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Discuss the refined conceptual design alternatives for the Aspen Pedestrian Mall Redevelopment Project and approve next steps. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Previous, a presentation was made to Council about the project inventory, analysis, design criteria, and previous community outreach. In November we presented the three concepts and received comments and incorporated the comments into this refined conceptual design. DISCUSSION AND HISTORY: The Aspen Pedestrian Mall surface is more than forty years old, and some of the underground infrastructure has not been upgraded in sixty years. Not only are the bricks reaching the end of their lives, but the surface is uneven and is not compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) regulations. Most of the mall trees are reaching maturity, and their size and confined growing space creates challenges for their health. The goals of the Pedestrian Mall Redevelopment Project are: · Maintain historical integrity and character of the Malls while upgrading infrastructure and access. · Explore innovative ways to improve the storm water infrastructure systems to further protect the Roaring Fork watershed. · Replace aging utilities to serve customer needs for the next 50 years. · Retain the Malls as an urban park with a strong forestry program that promotes best practices for the continued health of the urban forest. · Increase mall accessibility to meet modern code. · Engage the public and business owners to explore the best ways to enhance the Mall experience. Aspen Pedestrian Mall Redevelopment Project includes Hyman, Mill, Cooper and Galena streets. Significant utility upgrades are necessary to anticipate the next 50 years in downtown Aspen. The project’s scope emphasizes achieving those utility upgrades while preserving the underlying character, historic integrity, and businesses within the Mall for future generations. The project will be implemented in five phases, each involving public input. P7 II. Page 2 of 2 DISCUSSION: The recommended actions that we heard from P&Z and HPC have been incorporated into the conceptual design. Does council approve moving this concepts to the next steps? Including the following items · Snowmelt · Relocation of the rest room facility · Stronger connection to Galena at two locations · Stronger connection to Durant at two locations · ADA accessibility in most locations · Brick reuse and succession plan · Area to gather around Ki Davis Fountain FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The Next steps include a construction feasibility analysis and phasing study based on this design. We hope to have this info in the next two – three months at which time we will schedule a worksession to come back to council with the information including costs to take the project to final construction documents. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Comment on and approve next steps. CITY MANGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit I – Design Workshop Design Presentation P8 II. REFINED CONCEPTUAL DESIGN S GALENA STREETWAGNER PARK HYMAN AVENUE COOPER AVENUE S MILL STREETDURANT AVENUE REMOVE TWO PARKING SPACES FOR BIKE RACKS AND WASTE RECEPTACLES OVER CONCRETE SURFACE. scale 1” = 30’ 0’15’30’60’ N EXTEND APRON AROUND KI DAVIS FOUNTAIN REMOVE ONE PARKING SPACE FOR BIKE RACKS AND WASTE RECEPTACLES OVER CONCRETE SURFACE. ALIGN TO AISLE DANCING FOUNTAIN REPAIRED BRICK PAVING TO MATCH EXISTING PATTERN AND FORM STREET TREE PATTERN IS REPLACED WITH ADDITIONAL BOSQUE ROW. OUTDOOR DINING NEW BOSQUE OF ORNAMENTAL, NON-FRUIT BEARING TREES. CURB RAMP FLUSH WITH STREET. EXISTING PAVING TO BE REBUILT WITH CUSTOM BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING BRICK COLOR, TEXTURE, SIZE AND PATTERN. FINISHED SURFACE AND GRADE CONFORM TO ADA DESIGN CRITERIA. (TYPICAL) EXTEND CURB TO NARROW PEDESTRIAN CROSSING DISTANCE. ALLEY BPEDESTRIAN ALLEY CONCRETE INTERSECTION COLORED CONCRETE CROSSWALKS ALIGN TO AISLE PROTECT EXISTING LANDSCAPE AREAS IN PLACE. (TYPICAL) REBUILD GUTTER AND ROLLED CURB TO MATCH EXISTING DETAIL. (TYPICAL) CONCRETE BANDING EDGE (TYPICAL) REBUILD BRIDGES TO CONFORM TO ADA DESIGN CRITERIA. (TYPICAL) OUTDOOR DINING OUTDOOR DINING REPAIR EXISTING BENCH FINISH. RETURN TO EXISTING LOCATIONS. (TYPICAL) NEW KIOSK IN EXISTING LOCATION (8.5’ X 8.5’) REMOVE ONE PARKING SPACE FOR BIKE RACKS AND WASTE RECEPTACLES OVER CONCRETE SURFACE. REBUILD GUTTER AND ROLLED CURB TO MATCH EXISTING DETAIL. (TYPICAL) EXISTING PAVING TO BE REBUILT WITH CUSTOM BRICK TO MATCH EXISTING BRICK COLOR, TEXTURE, SIZE AND PATTERN. FINISHED SURFACE AND GRADE CONFORM TO ADA DESIGN CRITERIA. (TYPICAL) CURB RAMP FLUSH WITH STREET REPLACE SHADE TREES IN BOSQUE FORM. OUTDOOR DINING OUTDOOR DINING NEW MISTING WATER FEATURE WITH SISTER CITIES MARBLE BANDS. PROTECT EXISTING LANDSCAPE AREAS IN PLACE. (TYPICAL) REPAIR EXISTING BENCH FINISH. RETURN TO EXISTING LOCATIONS. (TYPICAL) BRICK PAVING TO MATCH EXISTING PATTERN AND FORM (TYPICAL)REBUILD WAGNER PARK EDGE WITH 6” CONCRETE BAND.PERGOLA SHADE STRUCTURE RESTROOMS 1850 sf NATURE PLAYGROUND FLEXIBLE SEATING WITHIN CRABAPPLES CONCRETE INTERSECTION EXTEND CURB TO NARROW PEDESTRIAN CROSSING DISTANCE. REBUILD BRIDGES TO CONFORM TO ADA DESIGN CRITERIA. (TYPICAL) OUTDOOR DINING OUTDOOR DINING EXISTING TREES PRESERVED RUBEY PARK TRANSIT CENTER NEW STREET TREES AND ORNAMENTAL PLANTINGS. MAINTAIN MUSIC VENUE BUS PARKING BIKE AND SKI SHELTER CRABAPPLES MARK ENTRANCE TO MALL WAGNER PARK EDGE CONTINUES TOWARDS DURANT.WATER TABLEVIEWSHED PROTECTIONSIDEWALK CONNECTING MILL + GALENA FLEXIBLE SEATING WITHIN CRABAPPLES PLANTING STRIP RETAINING WALL P9II. CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ALTERNATIVES PUBLIC FEEDBACK P10II. DURANT CONNECTION ACETO EXISTING CONDITIONS P11II. VIEW TO WAGNER PARK ACETO EXISTING CONDITIONS P12II. GALENA PLAZA ACETO EXISTING CONDITIONS P13II.