HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20080401MEETING AGENDA
April 1, 2008
4:OOpm Red Brick Meeting Room
QUARTERLY JOINT WORK SESSION
OF CITY COUNCIL & BOCC
4:OOpm BRT -Bus Rapid Transit Update
4:45pm Housing Bond Initiative Overview
5:30pm Zupancis Property Negotiation Process
6:OOpm Pitkin County Financial Strategies
6:30pm Adjourn
Update to Aspen City Council and Pitkin County Commissioners
March 25, 2008
Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Project Development Progress
At their Mazch 13th Retreat, the RFTA Boazd of Directors reviewed initial recommendations and
cost estimates for the Bus Rapid Transit project and associated improvements. Also, the RFTA
Boazd started discussing options for funding the implementation of the improvements. It is likely
that the improvements would be implemented in phases, according to funds available and the
priorities of local agencies and RFTA.
RFTA staff will present an overview of the preliminary recommendations and cost estimates to
the Pitkin County Commissioners and Aspen City Council on April 1st for questions and
comments and for feedback on funding ideas and priorities. Most notably, comments related to a
potential November ballot question would be helpful.
RFTA staff and consultants will be refming the cost estimates and funding options over the next
month and will present for discussion at the April 10th Board meeting. Staff will also present
comments received from elected officials for the RFTA Board to consider in their decision
making. The RFTA Boazd will discuss vazious options for funding the project, while considering
the need to balance regional and local needs and equity.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Bentley Henderson
THRU:
DATE OF MEMO: 03-26-08
MEETING DATE: 04-O1-08
RE: Affordable Housing Financing Presentation
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Informational item only.
BACKGROUND: Pursuant to direction provided at the 2007 Affordable Housing Summit, City
staff has prepared a body of information that restates the conclusions reached at the summit and
offers some suggestions as to a means by which the affordable housing situation can be
addressed.
DISCUSSION: Provided for your consideration are the results of the work done by city staff to
provide some alternatives as they relate to the provision of affordable housing. At the September
Housing Summit, the upper valley's affordable housing situation was deemed to be in a crisis
situation. Following the Summit, the City Council directed staff to begin preparation of a
comprehensive affordable housing options analysis. The information provided is being utilized
to make the determination as to whether the City council will choose to move forward to seek
voter approval to issue bonds for the next round of affordable housing.
Per the request of the County Commissioners, we are providing an abbreviated version of the
original presentation.
Page 1 of I
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
WORK SESSION MEETING DATE: April 1, 2008
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Joint Meeting with City Council
Pitkin County Financial Strategies
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Hilary Fletcher, County Manager
Tom Oken, County Treasurer & CFO
SUMMARY OF ISSUE: Maintaining county roads, securing water rights and
improving government facilities surfaced as top funding priorities for the Boazd of
County Commissioners during atwo-day Financial Summit "retreat" held in eazly
February 2008.
Commissioners reviewed a list of nine unfunded or underfunded priorities including:
roads, water, energy, bus rapid transit, the entrance to Aspen, workforce housing, county
facilities, government worker compensation, and technology. Each of the topics
discussed during the Financial Summit aze found in the Pitkin County Strategic Plan - a
document designed to identify what is important in our community, both in terms of
challenges and opportunities.
The County's alternatives to increase funding aze limited by state law to property. tax,
sales and use tax (for limited purposes) and fees. Any tax increase would require voter
approval. Feedback from City Council is requested on the BOCC's top three funding
priorities that would require voter approval.
BACKGROUND:
1. ROADS
Concern: A recent comprehensive road study concluded that on average the County's
111 miles of paved roads aze currently in fair condition. Because of the rising cost of
construction, sharply increasing asphalt prices, and competing public service needs,
current funding levels will not allow us to keep our roads from seriously deteriorating
over time.
Funding Needed: Approximately $7.9 million annually is needed over the next 20 yeazs
in order to complete 14 safety and capacity road improvements, timely road resurfacing,
and slope stabilization to prevent rock fall. A property tax increase of approximately
$23.10 per $100,000 of residential property value is the only alternative available to
provide this level of funding.
A lower level of funding, approximately $5.4 million annually ($15.80 per $100,000 of
residential property value), would complete the safety and capacity road improvements
[L
0
0'
G y
P3
~
O
N
N
~
00
~
O
~
,
1 o
~ F- j ~
1
1
4
.o
~ i ~ ~ '.
IL O
O "
'-
l1 O O 0 0 0 0 -
o I I
I
i
Q
ti ~
~
' ~
0
0
0
0
0
0 ~
~ '.
.
U o t..) ~
~ ~
i
r_
[G
-~
~
Y
O
O
N
M
">
O
O
I I
i
I
U ~, V
I i
:,
, ..~ ~
.e _.
~, ~ I ~ I I
is
~
~
~ o
~
~
c _, _ ._._
~ M ~ j
ti ~ ~ ;= m o ~n ~ iv o ~ 1
.~
N
-
I
o I
O
O N
'~
O
O',
Q', ~
M
V
SG
N M
M
N
~ _
O
0
cG N m e-
; l4 O M cD c5J O r ~ ~
N tfi ~ LLO") 0
0 ti ~
U ri
~- r, ~
~. V ..,
~ ..
~ tD
`f'j
d9 o
EA 0
N
H9
C.
~
~,
OD
[
l
ti
M
~
~ C
O N
G
[0 O -
QJ `7 .
-.
lp O Y~ ~ it O M ~ V ~ ~
V N
M N CC;
c~ ~ V ~
',
f N
4/f M
{ q
.
I~
-
K
.~- ..
-.
I l
~
N
_ e
'`
~
~
~
~
N
D ~ ~
I
~_
_ o
o
=°
-~
o
e
~
[0
U N
M
~ CCI `r
- CJ
V O M c.e N O
~ I C
7 O ti; Ca
M t0
N c!5
of
[v
+-~
c i I
i
'
1
,
~
U _ .
_
'.
~
°' o ar E ~, ~, ~ E
-° C O ~- O N ~ ~ O O O N
R
V ~ .~ ~ ~.
C 0
~"~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 O'O
~ _
~
E
"'
°J (~ V V
E
O A (fi ~ C - O
0 O O -
! ffl
-o r ~ r M
_~_ N r fA
~ i II '. II II II
rn ' «y~
C
C
O ' ' ' '
C
d
'O
7 I ~'
~~ •w,
D ~, O
CI ~!~~I O O i
V y
-
'~ Y O
J
? N ;,
''m _ •, O~ ~ C
o~ ~ f..)
c 0
E 7
; N
c 0
" U
~
~
,,
C
~ ~ N
y
I y , ff jQ O V +
+ C y
I N~ _ ~. O~i w~
~ C W N V
i~ ~ ~ °a ~ of
I- m
E c
~ ~ ~
v ~
,j I '~I i ~ ~, a °
) i ~ W .0., Q' d' CC ~ y J O
~
jl W V to m m m ~ ~ _ :- ~ ~
i
'
N
C
.~
tQ
L
Q
C
.N
W
00
O Op
O O
O O
O
~
O Op
O O
O O
O
O ~ ~ ~
~} ~}} Ef3
~`o
9~
O~
S~
O~
~!
O~
~'!
O~
~~
O~
<<
p~
O~
O~
SO
O~
'~a6
~0~
,O p°''~~7~~pp~
ff}
~`
pp~
W
O
c
.~
0
2
0
(~
N
N
t~
o N
to ~
~ U
O ~
' O
N ~
~ ~
C ~
N ~
W N
N ~
m C
O •~
N ~
~ ~
and the slope stabilization but would not resurface the roads as timely. As a result the
overall condition of county roads would decline from "fair" to "poor" in thirteen yeazs
based on the road study.
Status Quo: If county roads are maintained at current funding levels, only four safety
and capacity improvement road projects will be able to be completed over the next 20
yeazs. Also, the average condition of our roads will decline to "poor" within eight yeazs.
2. WATER
Concern: Due to upstream diversions, stream flow is frequently less than desired for
environmental and recreational purposes in the upper Roazing Fork River, particulazly
upstream and through the City of Aspen.
Funding Needed: $150,000 annually is needed for technical and legal services to verify
and enforce water rights and to negotiate water rights acquisitions and donations. A lazge
water acquisition to implement an exchange to reduce trans-mountain diversions could
cost $40 million. A 0.1% sales and use tax would generate approximately $1 million per
yeaz fora "County Water Fund" to address these needs.
Status Quo: If action to protect and enhance in-stream flows is not undertaken, further
decrease in local watershed stream flows is likely with detrimental impacts on water
quality, ripazian/stream habitat and fisheries.
3. GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
Concern: There is inadequate space in county buildings for the court system and for
Boazd of County Commissioner and other public meetings. Law enforcement and
community development staff work in very cramped quarters. Existing county buildings
aze not energy efficient. It is inefficient for county staff to work from several dispersed
facilities rather than a centralized facility.
Funding Needed: Phase 1 of the 20-Yeaz Facilities Master Plan would require
approximately $47 million to acquire land and construct a new administrative building
adjacent to the courthouse along with required parking facilities and employee housing.
The County currently has $16 million for these needs. $18 million for public safety
facilities could be raised by issuing debt to be repaid from a new 0.3% sales tax. General
obligation bonds could fund the remaining $13 million and would be repaid from an
increase in property taxes of approximately $3.20 per $100,000 of residential property
value.
Status Quo: Public service levels will decline if Pitkin County continues to operate from
inefficient, congested facilities.
KEY DISCUSSION ITEMS (ALTERNATIVES):
PROPERTY TAX FOR ROADS
If the property tax for roads is levied for the Road and Bridge Fund instead of the General
Fund then state law requires that one-half of the tax amount generated from property
within municipalities be shazed with the municipalities to fund streets. As shown in the
table below, the County would need to levy approximately 1.5 times the amount it needs
in order to share with the municipalities. Consequently the Commissioners prefer the
lower General Fund levy unless the municipalities have a need for this level of additional
funding for streets.
$7.9 million alternative $5.4 million altemative
residential tax per residential tax per
tax amount 100.000 actual value tax amount 100.000 actual value
Gross levy 11,760,947 $34.33 8,039,129 $23.47
Aspen shaze (2,654,270) (1,814,312)
Basalt shaze (113,055) (77,278)
Snowmass
share (1,093,622) (747,539)
county shaze 7,900,000 $23.10 5,400,000 $15.80
SALES AND USE TAX
The following table illustrates the aggregate sales and use tax rates in Aspen and
Snowmass if the water and public safety taxes were approved.
current rates
Sales Tax Rates
Aspen Snowmass
8.60% 9.90%
0.10% 0.10%
0.30% 0.30%
Use Tax Rates
Aspen Snowmass
2.60% 0.50%
0.10% 0.10%
0.1 % water
0.3% public safety
resulting rates 9.00% 10.30% 2.70% 0.60%
For comparison, here are the aggregate sales tax rates in some other communities:
7.8% Basalt (Eagle))
7.4% Cazbondale
8.2% Glenwood Springs
10.7% at Glenwood Meadows including public improvement fee
8.4% Vail
8.4% Avon
9.95% Beaver Creek
8.15% Breckenridge
7.65% Dillon
8.4% Steamboat
8.4% Telluride
RECOMMENDED ACTION: None; for discussion and feedback.