The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.regular.20100823CITY COUNCIL AGENDA August 23, 2010 5:00 P.M. I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances a) Proclamation — Augie Reno Architecture Day IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Deletions and Additions c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Resolution #69, 2010 - No Problem Joe Bridge Maintenance Contract b) Resolution # 2010 — CORE REMP Grants c) Environmental Health 2010 Supplemental Budget Composter Grant d) Minutes —August 2, 9, 2010 VII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #17, 2010 — Code Amendment — Signs Continue to 9127 b) Ordinance #20, 2010 — Charter Amendment — Elections — June Runoff 40% c) Ordinance #21, 2010 — Charter Amendment — Elections — No Runoff Vill. Action Items a) Aspen Skiing Company — Special Event — Wagner Park b) Resolution #65, 2010 - Appeal Amendment Rio Grande SPA c) Resolution #66, 2010 - Opposing Amendments 60, 61 and Proposition 101 d) Resolution #67, 2010 — Ballot Question — Lodging Tax e) Resolution #70, 2010 — Ballot Question — Charter Amendment June Runoff fl Resolution #71, 2010 — Ballot Question — Charter Amendment No Runoff g) Resolution #72, 2010 —Amending MOU with CU — Given Institute h) Resolution #73, 2010 — Ballot Question — Given Institute submitted at meeting i) Given Institute Ordinance #48 Negotiation IX. Executive Session X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting September 13, 2010 COUNCIL'S ADOPTED GUIDELINES ✓ Stick to top priorities ✓ Foster a safe, supportive, innovative environment that encourages creativity and acceptable risk - taking ✓ Create structure and allow adequate time & resources for citizen processes; demonstrate and invite active listening COUNCIL SCHEDULES A 15 MINUTE DINNER BREAK APPROXIMATELY 7 P.M. -40 TO: FROM: THRU: DATE OF MEMO MEETING DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Mayor and Council Tyler Christoff, Project Manager, Engineering. Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer. August 16, 2010 August 23, 2010 Neale Ave (No Problem Joe) Bridge Rail Replacement Project SUMMARY: Staff recommends council approve the additional scope items with Mueller Construction Services Inc. for the amount of $91,522.00. BACKGROUND: The Neale Avenue (No Problem Joe) Bridge has been classified as functionally obsolete. This designation describes the bridge as: structurally safe and geometrically deficient for current traffic volumes. This rating along with extremely degraded bridge components points to the need for replacement or renovation of this bridge. This includes, at a minimum, preventative maintenance to keep this bridge usable and safe for the public. The most pressing issue associated with the preventative maintenance for this bridge is the deficient guard rail system currently installed. This project will involve extending the guardrails with the appropriate transitions and end treatments. DISCUSSION: The No Problem Joe Bridge Guard Rail Replacement project involves the removal of the damaged and deficient guard rail system and replacing it with compliant hardware. This project aims to improve vehicular safety across the bridge by removing aging guardrail components and replacing them with components that conform to CDOT's M&S standards. The City currently has a contract with Mueller Construction Services, Inc for their bridge rail replacement services. Due to the emergency nature of these repairs staff has decided to retain Muller's services to perform this work in an expedient manner. The current guardrail configuration across the No Problem Joe bridge is non -compliant to CDOT specifications. Additionally, potential for significant damage to the bridge's structural elements may occur if the rail is impacted. The City intends to bring the guardrail system as close to compliance with CDOT specifications as practicable without necessitating total bridge replacement. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Sufficient funds have been allocated for this contract. Funding 2010 Bride Maintenance Fund $113,236.95 TOTAL $113,236.95 Expenditures Design $31,522.00 Construction $60,000.00 Staff Administration $ 11,000.00 Continaency $ 10,000.00 TOTAL $112,522.00 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve the additional scope items for $91,522.00 as mentioned above. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Resolution No., Series of 2010." CITY MANAGER Attachment (A) — CDOT Off -system Bridge Report Attachment (B) — Photographs of Neale Avenue Bridge Deficient Bridge Rail fun Celt%` RESOLUTION #V.I/ (Series of 2010) A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CHANGE ORDER TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND MUELLER CONSTRUCTION SERVICES, INC SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING NEALE AVENUE BRIDGE RAIL REPLACEMENT PROJECT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CHANGE ORDER TO THE CONTRACT WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council a change order to the contract between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Muller Construction Services Inc, 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 the change order to the contract between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Muller Construction Services, Inc regarding the Neale Avenue Bridge Rail Replacement Project, 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: Michael C. Ireland, 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 August 231h 2010 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Colorado Department of Transportation Highway Number (ON) 5D: NEALE UMile Post (ON)11: 0.000 mi Structure Inspection and Inventory Report (English Units) Bridge Key: ASP-NEALE AVE g. Sean 2E2M: 32 tans Re ion 2T 11 oun Code 3TI 097 P 14SPEN Rte. On/Under 5A: � ing— ignPrefixSa ,5r-- evel of Service SC: 11 irectional Suffix SE: 10 Feature Intersected 6: ROARING FORK RIVER acd' Carved 7: SALE AVE ias Str No.eA: SP-NEALE AVE lu 2,274 F40 30.00' 0 0 0 0 30 0"in" ns ettor Neme: CIOFFREDIN Inspection Date: 5/11/2010 1 6.0 ft a.e n Oft 0.0n ft 6.0 ft 7 1,596.2 sq. n 99.99 FN_ 0�0 ft P` _ 0.0 ft rN— 1 LF Loed Face 0.9 4.5 00��4 "ins� I�' � I�° — I�" 1' 1° 35 1' 6.0 ft Stantec ICIOFFREDIN 4 months r' Sufficiency Rating: 69.9 FO f I 236,072 23,607 259,879 2010 Tue 7/13/2010 09:00:18 Inspo0713Inspection_sla english Structure ID' ASP-NEALE AVE Page 1 of 5 Colorado Department of Transportation Highway Number (ON) 5D: NEALE U Structure Inspection and Inventory Report (English Units) Element Inspection Report Mile Post (ON)l1: 0.000 mi ElmlEn Description Units Total City In 1 CS 1 % In CS 2 In I CS 3 % In 4 CS 4 In I CS 6 1411 P Conc Deck/AC Ovly (SF) 1,596 100 OA 1,59 0 0 OA C 0 0 QA 0 109/1 /S Cone Open Girder (LF) 368 96 OA 35 4 If 0 9A C 0 0 0 1511 WConc Abutment (LF) 8C 88 GA 7C 13 1 C 0 0 0 0 08/1 onstr Non Exp Jt (LF) 138 99 13E 1 0 0 0 0 1011 Elastomeric Bearing (EA) 1 0 100 If 0 0 0 0 26/1 Bridge Wingwalls (EA) 4 100 OA 4L 0 0 0 0 OA 0 3111 Conc Bridge Railing (LF) 46 0 0 0 0 0 0 33/1 Other Bridge Railing (LF) 92 0 OA C 100 0 0 0 0 3811 Conc Curbs/SW (LF) 4e 100 0 0 0% C 0 0 111 Channel Cond (EA) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 211 hannProtMatCond (EA) 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 tankCond (EA) 1 D 1 0 C 0 0 0 9A 0 1011 Vaterway Adequ. (EA) 1 OOA 1 0 C 0 0 0 0 20/1 ppRdAIIgn (EA) 1100 OA 1 0 0 0 0 0 3011 pproach Guardrail A (EA) 1100 OA 1 0 0 0 C 0 OA 0 0011 enl Remarks (EA) 1 0 1 0 0 0 C 0 0 Iem/Env Description Element Notes 11411 P Conc Deck/AC Ovty Concrete. Surface: 3 112 Inches asphalt. 0911 PIS Cone Open Girder Prestressed concrete double tee girders - Hairline diagonal (shear) crack exists in Stems C, E, and G (obtuse angle side) at west abutment (At). Small spall at east end of third stem from north (Girder C). Small spalls at embedded plate for bottom races at each rail post. Small minor cracks and spalls with efflorescence exist at embedded bearing plates. 1511 Conc Abutment oncrete - Several vertical hairline cracks, some with light efflorescence, areas of inor honeycomb, minor abrasion at waterline on west abutment (Al). 0811 Constr Non Exp Jt Joints between double tee flanges - Light leaking with some efflorescence, small palls between Stems BC and FG near east end. 1011 Elastomerlc Bearing 3ouble tee girders bear on steel plates on elastomeric pads - Rust (R2) on steel, ads crushing. 2611 Bridge Wingwalls oncrete, flared - Northwest has severe spall with exposed rebar at comer with hutment above bearing, northeast has moderate spell at top comer at abutment. 3111 Conc Bridge Railing Concrete Jersey Barrier on south edge of roadway - Vertical hairline cracks and umerous minor scrapes/spalls. insp007b_Inspection _sia_english Tue 7113/2010 09:00:18 Structure ID: ASP-NEALE AVE Page 2 of 5 Colorado Department of Transportation Highway Number (ON) 513: NEALE U Mile Post (ON)11: 0.000 mi Structure Inspection and Inventory Report (English Units) lem/Env Description Element Notes 3311 other Bridge Railing Log pedestrian rails with galvanized W beam on steel wide flange posts with log cuss facade on south side. Top log rail new since 1999. Remaining log rails have minor to moderate rot. Galvanized W beam rail on painted steel wide flange posts attached to double tees with log truss facade on north side - Several areas of dents and scrapes. All steel posts have some light rust (Light RI) and south posts all have st (R1) around welded connections. The W-beam exhibits multiple locations of impact damage along with 1 1/2-foot tear near west abutment (Al). 3811 Conc Curbs/SW Sidewalk, asphalt over double tee flange at south side. 0111 hannel Cond 3oulders, cobbles and sand, good alignment. 0211 hannProtMatCond oulders and cobbles at comers of bridge - Provides adequate protection. 50411 ankCond rass, rocks and trees on banks. 1011 aterway Adequ. o evidence of recent overtopping. 2011 ppRdAlign harp curve at west approach, asphalt - Transverse cracks at abutments and 8 ft behind west abutment (At). , 30pr proach Guardrail A 3alvanized W beam rail on Vested timber posts, blocked out, flared with shielded reakaway end sections at northwest and southwest, flared end sections at northeast - Too short, not gradually stiffened, end treatment at northeast not hielded and breakaway. Al posts severely rotted, rail loose, ends damaged. The orthwest exhibits impact damage and the tat post is leaning/not attached. The ortheast has rotten posts and is flaredN+edged behind a boulder, posts are broken, eaning, W beam damaged at southwest, northwest, and northeast,. 00111 snl Remarks Several utility conduits under bridge at south side. Maintenance Activity Summary MMS Activity Descriation Recommended StatusYear Completed Est Cost 06.02 Railing 2012 19600 Install adequate bridge and approach rails. 306.08 Railing /30/2006 1 2012 1500 Replace rotted and damaged approach rail or replace per Activity 306.02. Tue 711312010 09:00:18 Insp007b_Inspeetion_sla english Structure ID: ASP-NEALE AVE Pane 3 of 5 Colorado Department of Transportation Highway Number (ON) 5D: NEALE U Structure Inspection and Inventory Report (English Units) Mile Post (ON)11:0.000mi Maintenance Activity Summary MMS Activity Description Recommended StatusYear Completed Est Cost 06.07 Railing /30/2006 � 2012 1200 Replace all rotted timber rails. 156.01 (Surface 1 /30/2006 -1 1 2012 175 Seal cracks in asphalt at ends of bridge and in sidewalk areas. Bridge Notes 1nsp007b_1nspect1on sia_english Structure ID: ASP-NEALE AVE Tue 7/13/2010 09:00:18 Page 4 of I Colorado Department of Transportation Highway Number (ON) 5D: NEALE U Structure Inspection and Inventory Report (English Units) Mile Post (ON)11: 0.000 mi Inspection Notes iDate 5-11-2010 - Temp: 58 Degrees Time: 3:40 PM Weather: Cloudy, breeze Scope: 7 NBI: Z Element: ❑Underwater: ❑Fracture Critical: ❑Other: Type: Regular NBl Inspector. CIOFFREDIN Inspection Date: 05/11/2010 Inspection Team: Inspector Inspector insp007b inspection sia_engiish Structure ID: ASP-N EALE AVE Tue 7/131201009:00:18 Pape 5 of 5 •"l��' � 1 i yam+,..". r. .��y1��'(��.��.-e'er) r/ice •.\ �.y�/.T�� ` tip 'J ['- � }T'W:•. x._ • Y / .' 3 ..' `lY Ill. �.+, �s`. 0 Vl b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Phil Overeynder, Public Works Director CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager CC: John Worcester, City Attorney DATE OF MEMO: August 16, 2010 MEETING DATE: August 23, 2010 RE: Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (REMP) Funding Request REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests approval of attached Resolution, as forwarded by the CORE Board, which authorizes spending of funds generated through the Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (REMP) for identified 2011 projects. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In January 2000 the Pitkin County Commissioners and the Aspen City Council adopted the Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (REMP). According to the REMP ordinance, the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) is responsible for developing proposals for spending funds collected by the REMP. Those proposals must be reviewed and approved by the CORE board. BACKGROUND: The CORE board is: Patti Clapper (Pitkin County), Steve Casey (Holy Cross Energy), Steve Skadron (Aspen), Bill Boineau (Snowmass), Phil Overeynder (Aspen), Ed Cortez (Carbondale), and Bill Stirling (Energy 2000 Committee). The attached Resolution contains projects recommended for approval by the CORE board. REMP funding procedures require approval by both Aspen City Council and Pitkin County Commissioners. The proposed expenditures total $195,000. DISCUSSION: The project funding requests were reviewed under a set of criteria adopted by the CORE Board. Refer to the "Green Key Grant Request Summaries" (attached) for a description of the project applications received by CORE and the recommended level of funding from the REMP program. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: Financial implications of this funding request are summarized above. Page 3 of 9 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The projects recommended for funding are designed to contribute to energy efficiency or reductions in carbon emissions. RECOMMENDED ACTION: CORE's Board recommends approval of Resolution # 2010, authorizing spending funds generated through the Renewable Energy Mitigation Program. ALTERNATIVES: If Council chooses not to approve the resolution the REMP funds would stay in the account and would be available for future renewable energy projects. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move the approval of Resolution # _, 2010, authorizing the proposed spending of funds generated through the Renewable Energy Mitigation Program." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: • Ordinance 55 of the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, Authorizing Spending of Funds Generated Through the Renewable Energy Mitigation Program • Green Key Grant Request Summaries The Board of Directors of the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) requests approval of the following funds for operational expenses, community and mini grants, appliance rebates and solar rebates for the 2011 calendar year. c REMP Management Fee - $90,000: These funds include support for REMP advertising and program outreach, REMP grant and program administration, and energy and carbon analysis and reporting. • Project Coordinator- $75,000: The Project Coordinator works on special projects associated with REMP and the reduction of greenhouse gases and serves as CORE's grant writer. This request will fund the position's salary and benefits during the 2011 calendar. • CORE / REMP Financial and Legal Review - $10,000: These funds will be used to complete tax work and financial oversight for CORE. • Community and Mini Grants - $50,000: Community and mini grants provide small scale support for renewable energy and green building projects in the Roaring Fork Valley. Mini grants fund projects up to $1,000, and Community grants fund projects up to $5,000. • Appliance Rebates - $35,000: These funds will continue to support CORE's appliance program. Currently, the program provides rebates for energy efficient clothes washers, dishwashers, refrigerators, programmable thermostats and low flow toilets. Page 4 of 9 • PV and Solar Thermal Rebates - $100,000: These funds will continue to support CORE's solar rebate program, including PV and solar thermal installations. Page 5 of 9 2010 Green Key Grant Summaries 1. AREday — recommended REMP award: $5,000 AREday's mission is to promote education and awareness for renewable energy and energy efficient technologies. Originally founded as a project of CORE, AREday is now in its seventh year and is featuring its most robust lineup of speakers. This award would support their ongoing work to promote sustainability and educational awareness in the Roaring Fork Valley. They anticipate roughly 2,500 participants this year. 2. Aspen Center for Environmental Studies — recommended REMP award: $15,000 ACES is moving into the second phase of its `net zero' carbon goal at all four of its educational sites. Having completed an energy retrofit of the Hallam Lake Nature Preserve site, they are now focusing on the Catto Center at Toklat. Specifically, ACES is requesting support for the installation of a micro -hydro facility. The facility is projected to provide all of Toklat's electricity needs and feed 2-8kW onto the grid per day. This award represents roughly 10% of the project cost. 3. Aspen Community School - recommended REMP award: $7,500 The Aspen Community School, a public charter school, is in the middle of a major fundraising effort to retrofit and rebuild its entire Woody Creek campus. Their grant requests support for design assistance and analysis funding. Their goal is to achieve CO- CHPS verification in order to create a demonstration/educational site and also reduce future energy costs. The requested funding will primarily address site design, lighting, and the HVAC systems. REG has been contracted to do the system's engineering for this project. ACS is currently awaiting response on a $6.2 million BEST grant from the State of Colorado. The BEST grant requires that new buildings be either LEED Gold or CO- CHPS certified. CORE's Board recommends providing $7,500 in design support should they meet their fundraising goals. 4. Aspen Deaf Camp - recommended REMP award: $15,000 The Aspen Deaf Camp is retrofitting its 40 year old campus for general upgrades and efficiency improvements. Their project includes increased insulation, lighting retrofits, water fixture replacement, and appliance replacement with Energy Star models. CORE's Board recommends funding their boiler replacement up to $15,000. Basalt Middle School - recommended REMP award: $10,000 The Town of Basalt's Green Team is applying for supplemental funding to install a PV system on the Basalt Middle School. This project was initiated when Basalt won the CAST Reusable Bag Challenge in 2009 and received $10,000 toward a PV system on an area school. The system will be 7.3kW, which will produce roughly 13,000 kWh per year. This will save about 22,5001bs of CO2 per year. The rest of their project funding has been secured. 6. Colorado Rocky Mountain School - recommended REMP award: $10,000 Page 6 of 9 CRMS is requesting funding to install solar hot water systems on three of its six dormitories. They estimate carbon savings of roughly 41,000 lbs per year. The systems will also reduce their energy costs. 7. Flux Farm - recommended REMP award: $7,300 Flux Farm, a project of the Manaus Fund, has secured substantial funding from the Colorado Natural Resources Conservation Service to aid ranchers in assessing and installing rural micro -hydro systems. Flux Farm has requested funds to support its ongoing hydro electric work with rural land owners. Specifically, these funds would support two outreach events and educational materials for farmers and ranchers. Topics covered would include funding opportunities, the feasibility and installation process, FERC, energy savings and financial payback. 8. Green Sprouts Foundation - recommended REMP award: $5,000 The Green Sprouts Foundation's goal is to help Valley schools go `green'. The recommended funding would support a portion of a new PV installation at the Marble Charter School. Roughly 60% of the Charter School's students live in Pitkin County. 9. Habitat for Humanity - recommended REMP award: $5,400 Habitat for Humanity -Roaring Fork is pursuing efficiency upgrades on many of its new building projects. These funds would support small solar installations on three new residential construction projects. They have partnered with Sunsense Solar, a local solar installer, to provide low cost materials and labor. 10. Roaring Fork High School Garden Project - recommended REMP award: $13,000 The Roaring Fork High School Garden Project represents a partnership between the RE-1 School District and a collection of local agricultural organizations, particularly Fat City Farms and the Colorado Rocky Mountain Permaculture Institute. The onsite greenhouse and garden will serve as a biology classroom during the school year and a farm school during the summer months. The food grown will be used in the school cafeteria and/or sold through the school's CSA. The model presented at the RFHS is an innovative approach to education and healthier living that is gaining rapid attention across the state. Their funding request would support the final installation and material purchase costs for the facility. 11. Solar Energy International - recommended REMP award: $5,000 SEI is an internationally respected solar and green building education provider. They have also been running a successful Solar in the Schools program throughout the Roaring Fork Valley. This grant would support the Solar in the Schools program, including the purchase of new education materials. 12. Third Street Non -Profit Center - recommended REMP award: $22,010 The Third St Center is a model for green building and includes such features as PV, solar hot water, extensive day lighting, a white roof, efficient lighting and much more. The Third St Center is now in its final phase of construction. This funding would support the Page 7 of 9 purchase and installation of a transpired solar collector, which would reduce heating and cooling costs. 13. Town of Snowmass Village - recommended REMP award: $7,500 The Town is replacing their boiler and clothes washers at the Mountain View affordable housing complex with more efficient models. As part of the project, they will also be installing a small solar hot water system to preheat the boiler. REMP's contribution represents about 40% of the project cost. These upgrades will save substantial amounts of water, energy and carbon, particularly due to their high volume of use. 14. City of Aspen — recommended REMP award: $156,858 • The Canary Initiative and the ZGreen Program ($112,200) The Canary Initiative provides a number of services to the community, including providing energy and emissions inventories and helping to manage the many Zgreen programs. This funding would supplement staffing costs and the Zgreen program, specifically business outreach. • The Car to Go program ($16,658) The $16,658 represents the cost difference between a standard light utility truck and a comparable hybrid vehicle. This purchase would complete their goal of becoming a 100% hybrid fleet. Retro-commissioning at Burlingame Phase I ($13,000) The City is requesting funds to assess and update its systems controls to allow for optimal performance and energy savings. • Burlingame Phase II design analysis ($15,000) The design phase is the most cost effective time to implement energy saving and efficiency measures. The City would like to contract with the Building Science Corporation, a nationally recognized firm, to provide oversight during the design phase. 15. Pitkin County — recommended REMP award: $130,282 • The Energy Smart Program through a revolving loan program ($100,000) This funding would provide integral short term loans to area contractors that are working with Energy Smart participants. As a loan program, this fund would be constantly replenished by repayment to serve future Energy Smart customers. • Audit incentives for Energy Smart participants ($8,500) This funding would provide financial audit incentives to Energy Smart participants, who will be required to complete and energy audit before being able to take advantage of Energy Smart funding. • Pitkin County's performance contracting program ($17,282) Pitkin County is prepared to move forward on a facility wide performance contracting program, which is estimated to save 15-30% of their current energy consumption. This funding would cover the upfront technical audit costs. • Efficiency upgrades to its new Data Center ($4,500) Pitkin County is building a new Data Center, which will replace the current departmental data facilities. By nature, data facilities use quite a bit of energy and produce substantial amounts of heat. Using one site, instead of many, will significantly Page 8 of 9 contribute to energy savings. This funding would allow for additional facility upgrades to optimize efficiency and heat recovery. Page 9 RESOLUTION #68 (Series of 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF APSEN, COLORADO AUTHROIZING SPENDING FUNDS GENERATED THROUGH THE RENEWABLE ENERGY MITIGATION PROGRAM WHEREAS, on December 13, 1999, City Council approved Ordinance No. 55 adopting the Aspen/Pitkin Energy Conservation Code, and WHEREAS, the Aspen/Pitkin Energy Conservation Code allows that the funds be spent in accordance with a joint resolution by the Aspen City Council and the Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement, the Board of the Community Office for Resource Efficiency approved a number of spending proposals, and WHEREAS, the spending proposals meet the screening criteria of affordable housing, cost-effectiveness, public visibility and education, environmental benefits, energy efficiency, leverage, unique opportunity, new technologies and green design. NOW, WHEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO that the Community Office for Resource Efficiency to negotiate and secure contracts and manage the installation and/or implementation of the following projects: 1. AREday — recommended REMP award: $5,000 AREday's mission is to promote education and awareness for renewable energy and energy efficient technologies. Originally founded as a project of CORE, AREday is now in its seventh year and is featuring its most robust lineup of speakers. This award would support their ongoing work to promote sustainability and educational awareness in the Roaring Fork Valley. They anticipate roughly 2,500 participants this year. 2. Aspen Center for Environmental Studies — recommended REMP award: $15,000 ACES is moving into the second phase of its `net zero' carbon goal at all four of its educational sites. Having completed an energy retrofit of the Hallam Lake Nature Preserve site, they are now focusing on the Catto Center at Toklat. Specifically, ACES is requesting support for the installation of a micro - hydro facility. The facility is projected to provide all of Toklat's electricity needs and feed 2-8kW onto the grid per day. This award represents roughly 10% of the project cost. 3. Aspen Community School - recommended REMP award: $7,500 The Aspen Community School, a public charter school, is in the middle of a major fundraising effort to retrofit and rebuild its entire Woody Creek campus. Their grant requests support for design assistance and analysis funding. Their goal is to achieve CO-CHPS verification in order to create a demonstration/educational site and also reduce future energy costs. The requested funding will primarily address site design, lighting, and the HVAC systems. REG has been contracted to do the system's engineering for this project. ACS is currently awaiting response on a $6.2 million BEST grant from the State of Colorado. The BEST grant requires that new buildings be either LEED Gold or CO-CHPS certified. CORE's Board recommends providing $7,500 in design support should they meet their fundraising goals. 4. Aspen Deaf Camp - recommended REMP award: $15,000 The Aspen Deaf Camp is retrofitting its 40 year old campus for general upgrades and efficiency improvements. Their project includes increased insulation, lighting retrofits, water fixture replacement, and appliance replacement with Energy Star models. CORE's Board recommends funding their boiler replacement up to $15,000. 5. Basalt Middle School - recommended REMP award: $10,000 The Town of Basalt's Green Team is applying for supplemental funding to install a PV system on the Basalt Middle School. This project was initiated when Basalt won the CAST Reusable Bag Challenge in 2009 and received $10,000 toward a PV system on an area school. The system will be 7.3kW, which will produce roughly 13,000 kWh per year. This will save about 22,500 lbs of CO2 per year. The rest of their project funding has been secured. 6. Colorado Rocky Mountain School - recommended REMP award: $10,000 CRMS is requesting funding to install solar hot water systems on three of its six dormitories. They estimate carbon savings of roughly 41,000 lbs per year. The systems will also reduce their energy costs. 7. Flux Farm - recommended REMP award: $7,300 Flux Farm, a project of the Manaus Fund, has secured substantial funding from the Colorado Natural Resources Conservation Service to aid ranchers in assessing and installing rural micro -hydro systems. Flux Farm has requested funds to support its ongoing hydro electric work with rural land owners. Specifically, these funds would support two outreach events and educational materials for farmers and ranchers. Topics covered would include funding opportunities, the feasibility and installation process, FERC, energy savings and financial payback. 8. Green Sprouts Foundation - recommended REMP award: $5,000 The Green Sprouts Foundation's goal is to help Valley schools go `green'. The recommended funding would support a portion of a new PV installation at the Marble Charter School. Roughly 60% of the Charter School's students live in Pitkin County. 9. Habitat for Humanity - recommended REMP award: $5,400 Habitat for Humanity -Roaring Fork is pursuing efficiency upgrades on many of its new building projects. These funds would support small solar installations on three new residential construction projects. They have partnered with Sunsense Solar, a local solar installer, to provide low cost materials and labor. 10. Roaring Fork High School Garden Project - recommended REMP award: $13,000 The Roaring Fork High School Garden Project represents a partnership between the RE-1 School District and a collection of local agricultural organizations, particularly Fat City Farms and the Colorado Rocky Mountain Permaculture Institute. The onsite greenhouse and garden will serve as a biology classroom during the school year and a farm school during the summer months. The food grown will be used in the school cafeteria and/or sold through the school's CSA. The model presented at the RFHS is an innovative approach to education and healthier living that is gaining rapid attention across the state. Their funding request would support the final installation and material purchase costs for the facility. 11. Solar Energy International - recommended REMP award: $5,000 SEI is an internationally respected solar and green building education provider. They have also been running a successful Solar in the Schools program throughout the Roaring Fork Valley. This grant would support the Solar in the Schools program, including the purchase of new education materials. 12. Third Street Non -Profit Center - recommended REMP award: $22,010 The Third St Center is a model for green building and includes such features as PV, solar hot water, extensive day lighting, a white roof, efficient lighting and much more. The Third St Center is now in its final phase of construction. This funding would support the purchase and installation of a transpired solar collector, which would reduce heating and cooling costs. 13. Town of Snowmass Village - recommended REMP award: $7,500 The Town is replacing their boiler and clothes washers at the Mountain View affordable housing complex with more efficient models. As part of the project, they will also be installing a small solar hot water system to preheat the boiler. REMP's contribution represents about 40% of the project cost. These upgrades will save substantial amounts of water, energy and carbon, particularly due to their high volume of use. 14. City of Aspen — recommended REMP award: $156,858 The Canary Initiative and the ZGreen Program ($112,200) The Canary Initiative provides a number of services to the community, including providing energy and emissions inventories and helping to manage the many ZGreen programs. This funding would supplement staffing costs and the ZGreen program, specifically business outreach. The Car to Go program ($16,658) The $16,658 represents the cost difference between a standard light utility truck and a comparable hybrid vehicle. This purchase would complete their goal of becoming a 100% hybrid fleet. Retro-commissioning at Burlingame Phase 1($13,000) The City is requesting funds to assess and update its systems controls to allow for optimal performance and energy savings. Burlingame Phase II design analysis ($15,000) The design phase is the most cost effective time to implement energy saving and efficiency measures. The City would like to contract with the Building Science Corporation, a nationally recognized firm, to provide oversight during the design phase. 15. Pitkin County — recommended REMP award: $130,282 The Energy Smart Program through a revolving loan program ($100,000) This funding would provide integral short term loans to area contractors that are working with Energy Smart participants. As a loan program, this fund would be constantly replenished by repayment to serve future Energy Smart customers. Audit incentives for Energy Smart participants ($8,500) This funding would provide financial audit incentives to Energy Smart participants, who will be required to complete and energy audit before being able to take advantage of Energy Smart funding. Pitkin County's performance contracting program ($17,282) Pitkin County is prepared to move forward on a facility wide performance contracting program, which is estimated to save 15-30% of their current energy consumption. This funding would cover the upfront technical audit costs. Efficiency upgrades to its new Data Center ($4,500) Pitkin County is building a new Data Center, which will replace the current departmental data facilities. By nature, data facilities use quite a bit of energy and produce substantial amounts of heat. Using one site, instead of many, will significantly contribute to energy savings. This funding would allow for additional facility upgrades to optimize efficiency and heat recovery. 16. CORE Board Funding Requests ($195,000) REMP Management Fee - $90,000: These funds include support for REMP advertising and program outreach, REMP grant and program administration, and energy and carbon analysis and reporting. Project Coordinator - $75,000: The Project Coordinator works on special projects associated with REMP and the reduction of greenhouse gases and serves as CORE's grant writer. This request will fund the position's salary and benefits during the 2011 calendar. CORE / REMP Financial and Legal Review - $10,000: These funds will be used to complete tax work and financial oversight for CORE. Community and Mini Grants - $50,000: Community and mini grants provide small scale support for renewable energy and green building projects in the Roaring Fork Valley. Mini grants fund projects up to $1,000, and Community grants fund projects up to $5,000. Appliance Rebates - $35,000: These funds will continue to support CORE's appliance program. Currently, the program provides rebates for energy efficient clothes washers, dishwashers, refrigerators, programmable thermostats and low flow toilets. PV and Solar Thermal Rebates - $100,000: These funds will continue to support CORE's solar rebate program, including PV and solar thermal installations. Dated: Michael C. Ireland, 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, Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Vic., MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ashley Cantrell, Environmental Health Specialist THRU: Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Director DATE OF MEMO: August 12, 2010 RE: 2010 Supplemental Budget Request — Compost Grant Budget Approval REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Environmental Health is seeking approval to spend $94,000 awarded by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) for a new compost grant. BACKGROUND: In the spring of 2010, Environmental Health and Pitkin County Solid Waste Center applied for a grant from the Pollution Prevention Advisory Board, part of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). In June of 2010, the CDPHE awarded the City of Aspen $94,000 to spend on collecting food and paper waste from local businesses for composting and to purchase food waste processing equipment to improve the existing compost operation at the Pitkin County Landfill. The focus of this project will be to successfully separate food and paper waste from the trash at local businesses and to work with waste haulers to deliver this material to the landfill, where it will be properly composted, using the new compost equipment. This is the first step towards establishing a permanent compost operation in the upper Roaring Fork Valley that could one day be used by all residents and businesses. This program will act as a great example for other communities to follow, and the partnership with Pitkin County will ensure success. DISCUSSION: Over the last year, nearly 20 businesses have expressed interest in composting. Currently, there are no resources available to a business that wishes to start composting food waste. The landfill does not have the necessary equipment to process compostable material on a regular basis, and businesses do not have the know-how or resources to properly separate and deliver this waste to the landfill. With funding from the CDPHE, the City and County will be able to assist businesses in composting by providing collection bins, signs, training, and ongoing support. In addition, the funding will be used to purchase a new piece of equipment that is needed at the landfill to correctly process food, paper and waxed cardboard. Without this grant project, Aspen businesses will continue to throw away food waste, a valuable commodity that can be made into useable soil. By moving ahead with this project, Aspen will be taking one more Page 1 of 2 step towards protecting our environment and leading the way in Colorado with our innovative environmental programs. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The $94,000 for new equipment at the landfill and resources for participating businesses will be 100% reimbursed by CDPHE such that this request is for spending approval only. Staff will include this in the 2010 fall supplemental request for revenue and expenditure budget authority. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: According to a waste composition study conducted in 2009, between 60-75% of Aspen's restaurant waste is compostable material. Thirty percent of all material that is landfilled in Pitkin County is compostable. Food and paper waste is the next category of waste that must be addressed to continue to preserve our landfill life and protect the Aspen environment. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council approve spending $94,000 for a compost pilot program for business. CITY MANAGER Page 2 of 2 Vit8. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Drew Alexander, Planner DA RE: Land Use Code Amendments — Ordinance No. 17, Series 2010 — Update Sign Code MEETING DATE: August 23`d, 2010 SUMMARY: Due to an issue with public noticing, Staff requests of Council to postpone Second Reading until September 27`h. Although unfortunate, Staff will use this additional time to continue work on the draft and further community outreach. In regards to the suggestions that were made on July 26`h (First Reading), Staff would like to update Council on the following items: • An additional open house was held on August 6th • Other sign codes have been examined, including Jackson, WY and Telluride, CO. • Staff has prepared a presentation for Council that includes visual representations of the major changes included with this draft. • As a supplement to the draft language, Staff will be providing several alternate options for Council to review. ��=l�t,E3r7�7 /�ci-�z,v .• �.l r7te,� � C'_n�-�s�u.tC., ��uc�c..�-e� �C.�� . ! � V11 b,c. The City of Cspen Memorandum City I iiernev`s office TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: John P. Worcester DATE: August 23, 2010 RE: Amendments to City Charter Relating to Voting Procedures There are two ordinances on your agenda for your consideration proposing amendments to the City Charter relating to changes to voting procedures. Ordinance No. 20 seeks to amend the City Charter so as to replace instant run-off voting procedures with a June run-off election of candidates that fail to receive at least 40% of the votes cast for the particular office. Ordinance No. 21 seeks to amend the City Charter so as to replace instant run-off voting procedures with a winner take all method for candidates for Mayor and Members of Council. There are also two resolutions that would refer to the voters the ballot questions needed to obtain voter approval for the above referenced ordinances. Please note the following contingencies. If a majority of the voters fail to vote in favor of either proposed ordinances, instant run-off voting procedures would remain in place in our Home Rule Charter. A "majority in favor" means more "Yes" votes than "No" votes for the particular ballot question. If one question receives a majority vote and the other does not, the instant ruin -off voting procedures currently in the Charter would be replaced by the voting method that received a majority vote. If both ballot questions receive a majority vote, then the ballot question that receives the greatest number of "Yes" votes (not the question that received the greatest percent of "Yes" votes) would be declared the winner and instant run-off voting procedures would be replaced by the winning procedure. If you decide to approve only one ordinance and one ballot question, the second paragraph of ballot questions referred to the voters should be deleted. CHANGES FROM FIRST READING: I made a few relatively minor changes to the ordinances since first reading based upon comments received from the Election Commission members who met on Friday, August, 13. 1) Ordinance No. 20: Page 3 of 5, the first paragraph on that page. The paragraph was amended as follows: As soon as the polls are closed after every run-off election, the judges of the election shall immediately lock and seal each voting machine or ballot box against further voting and each such machine of ballot box shall remain so locked unless as otherwise provided by law. 2) The title to both ballot questions has been changed to make clear that the ballot questions seek to replace instant run-off voting with a specific voting procedure. If you have any questions, please advise. cc: City Manager MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Election Commission DATE: August 16, 2010 RE: Charter Amendments — Ordinances #20 and 21, Series of 2010 At a meeting of the Election Commission August I P, the following motion was unanimously adopted: Both Ordinances #20 and 21 be included in the November election with the change made that "unless otherwise provided by law" be added to Ordinance #20, last paragraph 2.7; and that specific voter information be given that a No/No vote reaffirms IRV. Further motion made and unanimously adopted: The Election Commission recommends if Council only chooses to forward one amendment that it be the language of Ordinance #21 (winner take all). The commission indicated for a runoff question, they were comfortable with a 40% threshold to be elected. (June Run-off— 40%) N111 ORDINANCE NO. 20 (SERIES OF 2010) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE CITY CHARTER OF THE CITY OF ASPEN BY AMENDING SECTIONS 2.7, 3.2, AND 3.3, TO ELIMINATE INSTANT RUN-OFF VOTING PROCEDURES FOR THE ELECTION OF MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL; AND, TO RE -INSTATE THE JUNE RUN-OFF ELECTION PROCEDURES IF CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICES OF CITY COUNCIL OR MAYOR FAIL TO RECEIVE FORTY PERCENT (40%), OR MORE, OF THE VOTES CAST. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter to eliminate instant run off voting procedures and re -instate previously used run-off elections for the election of the offices of Mayor and members of Council, and; WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter to amend the requisite votes needed to be elected to the office of Mayor and member of Council; and WHEREAS, Article XX, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution authorizes home rule municipalities to amend their home rule charters through such procedures as may be enacted by the state general assembly; and WHEREAS, the state legislature has enacted Section 31-2-210, C.R.S., which section sets forth the procedures for amending a city's home rule charter requiring the adoption of an ordinance, including a ballot title for the proposed amendment, and submission of the proposed amendments to the electorate; and, WHEREAS, Section 13.10 of the City Charter of the City of Aspen authorizes amendments to the City Charter in the manner prescribed by the state constitution. Page 1 of 5 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THAT: Section 1 Section 2.7 of Article II of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Aspen is repealed in its entirety and readopted to read as follows: Section 2.7. Run-off elections In the event a run-off election is necessitated for the offices of mayor or member of Council, said election shall be held the first Tuesday in June following the municipal election. The run-off election shall be held in the same manner as the municipal election, except: (a) Certificate of candidates and publication of election notice shall be on or before the tenth (10a') day before the run-off election. (b) If a run-off for mayor is required, the two (2) persons with the highest number of votes for mayor in the municipal election shall appear on the ballot for mayor. (c) If a run-off election is required for two vacancies for City Council, then the four (4) persons with the highest number of votes for the office of member of Council in the municipal election shall appear on the ballot for members of Council. The two persons receiving the highest number of votes in the run-off election shall be elected for a four year term. In this event, each voter shall be allowed to cast two votes for the office of member of Council. (d) If a run-off election is required for one vacancy for the office of member of Council then the two (2) persons with the highest number of votes for that office in the municipal election shall appear on the ballot for member of Council. The person receiving the highest number of votes in the run-off election shall be elected for a four year term. In this event, each voter shall be allowed to cast one vote for the office of member of Council. (e) The names of candidates shall be arranged in the same order as they appeared in the municipal election. As soon as the polls are closed after every run-off election, the judges shall determine the number of votes cast for each candidate and make return thereof to the city clerk and the candidates receiving the greatest number of votes cast at said election shall be declared elected. Page 2 of 5 As soon as the polls are closed after every run-off election, the judges of election shall immediately lock and seal each voting machine or ballot box against further voting and each such machine or ballot box shall remain so locked unless as otherwise provided by law. Section 2: Section 3.2 of Article III of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Aspen is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 3.2 Terms of office for members of Council. The terms of office for members of Council shall be for four (4) years. Each voter shall be allowed to vote for two candidates for the office of member of Council. At all municipal elections, the two (2) candidates receiving the highest number of votes shall be elected for a four year term, provided that the candidate receives forty percent (401/6), or more, of the votes cast for the office ("votes cast for the office" shall be calculated by dividing the sum of all votes cast for all city council candidates by two (2).) In the event that the number of elected candidates shall be less than the number of vacancies following the municipal election, the run- off election shall be held in accordance with Section 2.7. Section 3• Section 3.3 of Article III of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Aspen is hereby amended to read as follows: Section 3.3 Mayor. The mayor shall be elected at large for the entire city for a term of two (2) years. The candidate receiving the highest number of votes shall be elected mayor, provided that the candidate receives forty percent (40%), or more, of the votes cast for the office of mayor. In the event that no candidate shall have received forty percent, or more, of the votes cast for the office of mayor, then a run-off election shall be held in accordance with Section 2.7. The mayor shall preside at meetings of the Council and shall exercise such powers and perform such other duties as are or may be conferred and imposed upon him or her by this Charter or the ordinances of the City. He or she shall have all of the powers, rights, privileges and obligations of a member of Council. He or she shall be recognized as the head of the government for all ceremonial and legal purposes and he or she shall execute and authenticate legal instruments requiring his or her signature as such official. Page 3 of 5 Section 4. 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 5. 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• This ordinance shall become effective only upon approval of the electorate of the City of Aspen at the special municipal election to be held on November 2, 2010, of a ballot question in substantially the form that follows: CITY OF ASPEN REFERENDUM NO. AMENDMENT TO CITY CHARTER — REPLACE IRV WITH JUNE RUN OFF VOTING PROCEDURES. Shall Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2010, be approved? Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2010, if approved, amends sections 2.7, 3.2 and 3.3 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter to eliminate instant run-off voting procedures and re -instate previously used run-off procedures in June for the election of mayor and members of Council if candidates for city council or the office of mayor do not receive forty -percent (40%), or more, of the total votes cast for the office. There are two ballot questions seeking to amend the City Charter to replace instant run-off voting procedures with alternative voting procedures. You may vote in favor of one or both questions. If more than one ballot question receives a majority of the votes cast, the question receiving the highest affirmative votes shall be deemed approved. Yes [ ] No [] Page 4 of 5 A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the. at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado Section 6• The City Clerk is directed, upon the adoption of this Ordinance, to publish a copy of this ordinance in a newspaper of general circulation within ten (1) days, or as soon as possible thereafter as possible. INTRODUCED, READ AND SCHEDULED FOR SECOND READING as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of , 2010. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk chartervamd-2010-=m ff-a.dm Michael C. Ireland, Mayor day of Michael C. Ireland, Mayor 2010. Page 5 of 5 \At cow (No run-off procedure) ORDINANCE NO. 21 (SERIES OF 2010) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE CITY OF ASPEN HOME RULE CHARTER BY REPEALING SECTION 2.7, AND AMENDING SECTIONS 3.2, AND 3.3, TO ELIMINATE ALL RUN- OFF PROCEDURES FOR THE OFFICES OF MEMBER OF COUNCIL AND MAYOR WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter to eliminate all types of run-off elections for the offices of Mayor and members of Council, and; WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the City of Aspen City Charter to amend the requisite votes needed to be elected to the office of Mayor and members of Council; and WHEREAS, Article XX, Section 10 of the Colorado Constitution authorizes home rule municipalities to amend their home rule charters through such procedures as may be enacted by the state general assembly; and WHEREAS, the state legislature has enacted Section 31-2-210, C.R.S., which section sets forth the procedures for amending a city's home rule charter requiring the adoption of an ordinance, including a ballot title for the proposed amendment, and submission of the proposed amendments to the electorate; and, WHEREAS, Section 13.10 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter authorizes amendments to the City Charter in the manner prescribed by the state constitution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL THAT: Page 1 of 4 Section 1• Section 2.7 of Article II of the Home Rule Charter of the City of Aspen is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 2• Section 3.2 of the Home Rule Charter shall be amended to read as follows: Section 3.2 Terms of office for members of Council. The term of office for members of Council shall be for four (4) years. At all municipal elections, the two (2) candidates receiving the highest number of votes shall be elected for a four year term. Each voter shall be allowed to vote for two candidates for the office of member of Council. Section 3• Section 3.3 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter shall be amended to read as follows: Section 3.3 Mayor The mayor shall be elected at large from the entire city for a term of two (2) years. The candidate receiving the highest number of votes shall be elected mayor. The mayor shall preside at meetings of the Council and shall exercise such powers and perform such other duties as are or may be conferred and imposed upon him or her by this Charter or the ordinances of the City. He or she shall have all of the powers, rights, privileges and obligations of a member of Council. He or she shall be recognized as the head of the government for all ceremonial and legal purposes and he or she shall execute and authenticate legal instruments requiring his or her signature as such official. Section 4: 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 5• 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 Page 2 of 4 separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 6: This ordinance shall become effective only upon approval of the electorate of the City of Aspen at the special municipal election to be held on November 2, 2010, of a ballot question that reads substantially as follows:: CITY OF ASPEN REFERENDUM NO. AMENDMENT TO CITY CHARTER — REPLACE IRV WITH WINNER TAKE ALL VOTING PROCEDURES. Shall Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2010, be approved? Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2010, if approved, would repeal Section 2.7 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter to eliminate all run-off voting procedures (including instant run-off voting procedures) for the election of mayor and members of Council; and to amend Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter to declare the candidates receiving the highest number of votes to be the winners of their respective election races. There are two ballot questions seeking to amend the City Charter to replace instant run-off voting procedures with alternative voting procedures. You may vote in favor of one or both questions. If more than one ballot question receives a majority of the votes cast, the question receiving the highest affirmative votes shall be deemed approved. Yes [ ] No [] A public hearing on this ordinance shall be held on the_, at a meeting of the Aspen City Council commencing at 5:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of 2010. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Page 3 of 4 FINALLY adopted, passed and approved this day of 2010. Attest: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor charter-arrd-20l0-runoff-b.dm Page 4 of 4 TO: FROM: DATE: RE: rkri F3►, rITIMENT11 am Mayor and City Council Kathryn Koch, City Clerk August 12, 2010 vn%a, Request to Use Wagner Park — Aspen Winter Music Festival REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council's direction on the Aspen Skiing Company's request to use Wagner Park for a three-day winter music festival in March 2011. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In September 2009, staff met with Council in a work session requesting guidance on allowing winter use of city parks — especially Wagner and Rio Grande (memorandum and matrix attached). Council agreed with staff that there should be no planned special events in Wagner and Rio Grande from November until early June except the grandfathered Snow Polo. Council reviewed an application for stimulus funding from the Aspen Skiing Company for a music festival. The Skiing Company withdrew the request for money in 2010 as they felt there was not enough time to put a festival together. DISCUSSION: The special events committee met with representatives of the Aspen Skiing Company July 29`h for a preliminary look at this special event request (application from Skiing Company attached). The 3 major issues for Council's direction are: 1. Use of Wagner Park during the winter 2. Impacts on Wheeler scheduling for 3 days in March 3. Noise variance for an event going over the noise level after 9 p.m. for 3 days Use of Wagner Park during the winter The Skiing Company met with parks department about using Wagner Park. Parks staff has the following comments: Parks staff realizes that this event is an exciting opportunity for the community and if directed by Council, feels this event is possible without causing irreparable damage to the turf. Staff has met with the Aspen Skiing Company staff on several different occasions and all parties agree that in order to protect the resources and mitigate the potential damage, the following plan was created. The guidelines are as follows, but are not limited to: Page I of 4 • Creating a base of manmade snow of at least 12' ; either trucked in or made on site as soon after World Cup as weather conditions permit • Snow cat track packing the field after significant snow falls to help create the best base layer possible. • No driving in the park for any set up • Site built stage, (not driven in on trailer) • Thorough clean up of all trash and litter immediately after the event with follow up assistance in the spring after all the snow has melted. • All parties agree that in order to create optimal conditions, care would have to be given all winter long, with particular emphasis on the damage created by the snow polo event. • If protection efforts fail, Aspen Skiing Company has agreed to be responsible for sodding damaged areas. By creating a true partnership with the Skiing Company to care for the park from the first snow fall to the last snow melt, utilizing equipment that previously has been unavailable to City staff, and relying on multiple experienced staffers, the Parks Department feels that they can support this event if Council is agreeable The city has experience in using Wagner Park for winter concerts. The Skiing Company used that venue twice during the X games. The differences are those concerts were free and during X- games. These proposed concerts would be ticketed with security at the entrance gates. Lessons learned from these two concerts were to require an absolute prohibition against glass in the park. Security and extra buses at Wagner park when the concerts let out. Impacts on Wheeler See attached memorandum from the Wheeler as well as Financial impacts below Noise variance for an event going over the noise level after 9 p.m. for 3 days Section 18.04.050. (B) of the Municipal Code states: (2) Special Events or other events to which the public is invited with the following conditions: (a) The maximum decibel level at the perimeter of the event does not exceed 100 decibels; and (b) Amplified noise shall be created only between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m.; and (c) Neighbors within two hundred fifty (250) feet of the site of the proposed sound source are notified. Such notification must be in writing and be done seven (7) days prior to the starting time of the event; and (d) The arrangement of loud speakers or the sound instruments must be such that it minimizes the disturbance to others resulting from the position or orientation of the speakers or from atmospherically or geographically caused dispersal of sound beyond the property lines; and (e) All reasonable measures are taken to baffle or reduce noise impacts on the neighbors; and Page 2 of 4 (f) Event organizers agree to cooperate with the Police Department in addressing noise complaints from neighbors, which may include the termination of the event. (g) Organizers of special events governed by the City of Aspen Special Event code (14.20.030(f)) may request a variance from noise restrictions to the City of Aspen Special Event Committee. (1) The variance request shall include reasons why the variance should be granted, how the public good will outweigh impacts on neighbors and other factors supporting the request. (2) If approved, the variance shall contain all conditions upon which said variance has been granted, including, but not limited to, the effective date(s), time(s) of day, location, sound pressure level, or equipment limitation. The Special Event Committee may prescribe any reasonable conditions or requirements deemed necessary to minimize adverse effects upon the community or the surrounding neighborhood. (3) Decisions on variances by the Special Event Committee may be appealed to the city council. An appeal shall be made by filing with the city clerk a signed statement that the appellant desires to appeal to the city council, along with a copy of the application and the written denial or the permit objected to. Each appeal shall be filed within two (2) days, Page 3 of 4 exclusive of Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, of the decision appealed from. The right to appeal to city council shall be contingent upon city council's regular meeting schedule. Noise variances may be granted by the special event committee (see (g) above). The special event committee did not address noise at their July 29`h meeting. Staff feels, generally, it is the Council that will get the noise complaints and you should be aware the concerts are planned to go until 10 p.m. in the downtown commercial core. The X-game concerts went past 10 p.m. and the applicants worked with surrounding property owners to mitigate the affects however they could. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: There will be costs to the city budget, like overtime in police and community safety. There is a financial impact to the Wheeler Opera House (see memorandum attached). There could also be positive financial impacts, like increased visitors and sales tax. The Skiing Company feels a package event which includes lift tickets and concert tickets will generate visit to Aspen. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: ALTERNATIVES: Other than recommending denial of the application, the Ski Company is only interested in Wagner Park as a venue for these proposed concerts so an alternate venue, like Rio Grande Park, did not interest them. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the Aspen Skiing Company going forward with their special event application for March 2010 to be located in Wagner Park and to grant a noise variance, in concept, for those 3 days. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Page 4 of 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and City Council FROM: Gram Slaton, Wheeler Executive Director THRU: ACM Randy Ready DATE: 29 July 2010 RE: Proposed Aspen Winter Music Festival SUMMARY: Aspen Skiing Company will be approaching City Council for permission (and possible funding) for a three-day Winter Music Festival in Wagner Park, March 3 — 5, 2011. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION AND BACKGROUND: None known. DISCUSSION: The Wheeler was made aware only this week that discussions had started about Aspen Skiing Company promoting a three-day continuous -action music festival for the first weekend of March 2011, to be located in Wagner Park, less than a hundred yards from the Wheeler Opera House. The proposed festival would promote ticketed (paid seating) attendance concert events from 4:OOpm until 11:OOpm on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday of that weekend. Because of the high -decibel level, crowd noise, and proximity to the venue, such a festival would effectively shut the Wheeler down for an entire 72-hour block of time, during one of its few high - profile weekends of the year. Thankfully, the weekend identified is the only uncommitted weekend in the Wheeler calendar for the entire January through mid -April period; if the Wheeler had executed contracts for any of those dates, the Wheeler would in effect be in violation of contract should the festival occur, as we would be unable to provide an unencumbered, unimpeded building for either artist or rentor. The Wheeler understands Aspen Skiing Company's motivations for advancing such a project and applauds its civic -mindedness, and should City Council approval going forward with this project the Wheeler will gladly cooperate in all ways to ensure that the Winter Music Festival is successful. However, it is important to bring the following points to City Council's attention: • The directive for the Wheeler Opera House since at least 2005 (the year of my arrival) has been to take the lead in promoting Aspen as a winter sport and cultural destination as the city's premier performance facility. Taking the Wheeler offline for a key weekend in that timeframe would be counter to that directive. • The Wheeler already has a number of inquiries and offers in circulation for that time period, as we are currently in the heart of the booking season for the first half of 2011. We have suspended making any commitments for the affected week until a decision can be made on this festival. Thus, there is some urgency to resolving the unsettled status of this time period for us. • There are only fourteen weeks in the winter season, and only nine of those are considered strong for attracting audiences to the Wheeler. [Early January, Winter X Games, Big Air Weekend, and early April are the affected periods.] Shutting down the Wheeler for the proposed festival would trim that an additional week, to eight. • Based on experiences that the Wheeler had during several years of free Winter X Games concerts in Wagner Park, we feel that there is legitimate concern about security and wear and tear on the exterior of the Wheeler, its loading dock, adjacent parcel, and alley area. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The financial impact is unknown at this time, as this weekend is currently undefined in terms of its bookings; however, there are a number of inquiries and offers in that time period that would likely fill the weekend with Wheeler Presents, co - promotions, or rental events. The weekend is the only uncommitted weekend during the 2011 winter period. Therefore, the financial impact could be a positive for the Wheeler's operating budget, or an anticipated negative, as Wheeler Presents programs typically operate at a loss (while promoting Aspen as the nation's premier resort destination). The Wheeler has proposed to Aspen Skiing Company that if they choose, or are allowed, to continue forward with this music festival for Wagner Park, that they should buy the Wheeler's dates out at the rate of $1,000 per day (exclusive of any attendant costs, such as for labor or services), which is a reasonable offer. This would also allow them to access the Wheeler's spaces for their backstage needs, such as for dressing rooms and catering, and prevent the need for short -lease trailers which would probably need to be located in on -street parking. The Wheeler has further suggested that Aspen Skiing Company could work with the Wheeler to have this be a non -cash buy-out, exchanging room credits for the Limelight Lodge or other ASC- owned facility for use of the hall. This would need to be a firm, non -revocable commitment executed as quickly as possible, as we would then be passing on a number of bookings of either a Presents or rental nature. ALTERNATIVES: The Wheeler (and other City departments) has suggested that Aspen Skiing Company consider the Rio Grande Park area for this purpose, although in many regards this only migrates many of the existing problems while alleviating some others and creating new ones. The increased distance would be a positive for the Wheeler, particularly as sound waves travel down as they broadcast and the Rio Grande Park area is lower in altitude than the Wagner Park location. SUMMARY: Wheeler staff and board want to emphasize that we wish to fully pursue whatever avenue City Council thinks is best in promoting tourism and driving traffic to Aspen; however, there are direct and indirect costs associated with proceeding with such a large-scale and high - impact event. We would fully support this project if that is the Council's directive, and would suggest that it is appropriate to have some sort of compensation offered should we be required to surrender more of our presenting season. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tom Rubel; Operations Manager, Parks Dept. THRU: Jeff Woods; Manager, Parks and Recreation DATE: September 9, 2009 MEETING DATE: September 15, 2009 RE: Special Event Opportunities Matrix CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager John Worcester, City Attorney REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Due to the renewed interest in p is11 E aiits within the City of Aspen, Staff created a matrix that shows which venues within the core are available during various months. This matrix is designed to help Staff, the outside event coordinator, the NOtift Committee, and even Council with guidelines to ensure that Parks, Streets and other named venues are not over -used, or to highlight those that are underused. Staff would like Council to approve this Matrix to be used to balance event impact with sustainability of the Parks. BACKGROUND: Presently, Wagner and Rio Grande are near capacity for event and athletic use as shown by former studies from turf consultants. (Attached with list of current uses.) Staff continually receives requests for the use of Wagner Park for erits The perception from the event coordinators is that Rio Grande is too far removed from the core, and their event will suffer from the distance. Staff works with every event request, through direct contact, or during the S,, E+rCommittee reviews, to accommodate all needs and requests; but it is not possible to have every event in Wagner Park. As Staff has mentioned to Council on numerous occasions, turf is more susceptible to damage during certain times of the year, which could result in the need for significant closure periods. DISCUSSION: After considerable review, Staff has created the attached Special Event Matrix. Wagner and Rio Grande are especially popular venues, and we reserve these parks for revenue -generating events that serve the community. As Council will note, there is room for one or two more low -to - Page I of 3 medium impact events in both Rio Grande and Wagner Parks, as well as Paepcke, with the caveat that weather could cause maximum damage if elements were extreme. Winter months of January and February might possibly be open to another one or two low impact events at each of these parks as well. Staff has further identified some alternate sites that would open up more opportunities for events to be held elsewhere, which would in turn allow increased use by the general public in both Wagner and Rio Grande. As with all sites, there are elements that need to be worked with. For example, using a street for an event will present challenges and concerns for the Fire Marshall and the public safety sector that need to be addressed. These are not insurmountable, as we have closed streets on previous occasions with various events. The goal of the matrix is to prevent the current trend of every event requesting Wagner Park for their event location. We could entertain perhaps one high impact event at Rio Grande or even Paepcke, but certainly not Wagner. Mid -March to late April and November/December are critical months where events cannot be scheduled in these parks as any activity could cause severe or irreparable damage to turf, resulting in long closures of these parks during high season. Staffs intention is that the Matrix would provide a positive experience for those hoping to schedule a new event in Aspen, allowing them to suggest a specific site that the Special Events Committee could approve. There are several locations where fewer events are held, such as Cozy Point and Koch Park. These could easily accommodate increased use. Again, Stan' hopes to give new and existing events options that may not have been realized by the event coordinator. Staff feels it is appropriate to have a standard policy to easily distinguish site availability and types of events allowed during specific times of the year. Therefore, this matrix shows available time slots for additional events. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: No budget increase expected. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Any increase in events will cause an increase in environmental impacts from vehicle and equipment emissions for set up, take down, and increased field maintenance. These all have to be considered in conjunction with increased tax revenues from events. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends approving the Special Events Matrix to encourage additional events in Aspen through opportunities in numerous venues at appropriate times. ALTERNATIVES: Continue reviewing events on a case by case basis to determine appropriate venues and times. PROPOSED MOTION: This should be a brief statement for a Council member to read such as "I move to approve Ordinance # ..." Page 2 of 3 OPPORTUNITIES FOR SPECIAL EVENTS Low Impact Mi4lum Impact I Closed Open to All Wagner Rio Grande Paepcke Streets Library Plaza Ice Garden Lewis Arena January Low Impact Low Impact Low Impact Medium impact Medium impact booked booked February Low Impact Low Impact Low Impact Medium impact Medium impact booked booked Early March Low Impact Low Impact Low Impact Medium impact Medium impact booked booked Mid -March Closed/weather Closed/weather Closed/weather Medium impact Medium impact booked booked End March Closed/weather Closed/weather Closed/weather Open to All Medium impact booked booked Early April Closed/weath - Closed/weather Open to All Medium impact Open to All booked Mid -April Closed/recov Soccer & Rugby .Closed/recovery Open to All Medium impact Open to All Open to All End April Closed/recove . Soccer & Rugby Closed/recovery Open to All Medium impact Open to All Open to All Early May Closed/recove Soccer & Rugby Low Impact Open to All Medium impact Open to All Open to All Mid -May Closed/recove Soccer &Rugby Closed Open to All Medium impact Open to All Open to All End May Soccer & Rugby Low Impact Open to All Medium impact Open to All Open to All Early June Food and Wine Soccer & Rugby Food and Wine Medium impact Medium impact Open to All Open to All Mid -June Food and Wine Medium impact Food and Wine Medium impact Medium impact Open to All Open to All End June Medium impact Closed/recovery Medium impact Medium impact Open to All Open to All Early July July 4th Medium impact Kids Carnival Medium impact Medium impact Open to All Open to All Mid -July Arts Fair Race for Cure Closed/recovery Medium impact Medium impact Open to All Open to All End July /recovery, Closed/recovery Medium impact Medium impact Medium impact Open to All Open to All Early August Low Impact Ducky Derby Medium impact Medium impact Medium impact Open to All Open to All Mid -August Low Impact Closed/recovery Medium impact Medium impact Medium impact Open to All Open to All End August Closed/recovery Soccer Starts Medium impact Medium impact Medium impact Open to All Open to All Early September Motherlode Motherlode Medium impact Medium impact Medium impact booked booked Late September Ruggerfest Ruggerfest Medium impact Open to All Open to All Open to All Open to All Medium impact booked booked October Soccer continues Soccer &Rugby Medium impact Medium impact booked booked November Closed/weather Closed/weather Closed/weather Medium impact booked booked December Closed/weather Closed/weather Closed/weather Medium impact booked booked Chiistmas Closed Snow Polo Closed Closed Medium impact booked booked NOTE: Low impact means 1-2 days, no tents, fences and the ability to continue to irrigate Medium impact means 2-4 days with some set up involved, unable to irrigate High impact means longer than 4 days with equipment or driving involved in set-up. Unable to waterfor more than three days. Special Events I City of Aspen and Pitkin County, Colorado Page 1 of 5 Special FVenls Pitkin County City of Aspen Snowmass Village All Jurisdictions Apply On-line Home I Shemap I Map of the Valley I Contact Us Who We Are 1-_,pluring the Valley Doing Business Lining in the Waller Hn90'4Whh' t X Are a All Departments w Special Events Aspen/Snowmass Music Festival Primary Jurisdiction: City of Aspen Overall Status: Not Yet Reviewed Event Category: Update Your Application Specific location(s): Wagner Park Staff Login DATES/TIMES: Set-up: 03101 /2011 08:00 AM Start: 03/04/2011 04:00 PM End: 03/06/2011 11:00 PM Dismantle: 03/08/2011 05:00 PM Department Info PRIMARY CONTACT: Pitkin County Deric Sherry Gunther Send e-mail Community Development Aspen Skiing Company Michael Kraemer PO BOX 1248 (970) 920-5482 Aspen, CO 81623 michaei.kraemer@co.pitkin.co.us -OR- Phone: (970) 379-0083 Can Anne Holcomb Work: (970) 300-7036 (970) 920-5092 canannenolcombipco.pAiumco.us OTHER CONTACTS: During event - contact names & phone numbers Primary: Deric Sherry Gunshor (970) 379-0083 City of Aspen City Clerk Kathryn Koch (970)920-5060 kathrynk@ci.aspen.co.us Snowmass Village _- - -- ----- Community Development DETAILS & DOCUMENTS: Chris Conrad Event Summary: (970)923-5524 x 637 This event is a three-day music festival that will feature concerts each day with three to five acts. There would cconrad@tosv.com be two or three acts on the main stage with potential for two acts on a secondary stage. ' Approximate expected attendance numbers each day: 3,000 - 5,000 ` Personnel numbers each day. to Staff: 4 Aspen Skiing Company o Volunteers: 12 o Independent contractors: 10 o Security: 20 o Vendors: 10 ` Is the event open to the public? Yes. ' Will a feels) be charged to participants? If yes, please list feels). Final cost is TBD. Approximately $50 per day. ' Will the number of participants be limited? If yes, how will the limit be maintained? Yes, it will be limited through ticket sales outlets. ' Advance training for volunteers? When? The day prior to the event. *Amplified music? Yes. Site Plan (and maps): WAGNER PARK A mobile 60' x 50' stage will be placed on Wagner Park at the North end. This stage is self contained within a semi trailer. It takes about 3 hours to set up and take down. The stage deck is about 5' high and there is a load bearing, hydraulic roof at about 30' high. The stage will play south towards Aspen Mountain. Behind the stage will be done 20x20 platform with a tent top attached to the back of the stage to serve as a loading dock. Power http://specialevents.aspenpitkin.com/details.cfm?eventID=547 8/11/2010 Special Events I City of Aspen and Pitkin County, Colorado Page 2 of 5 will be drawn from the existing power drop in the North East corner of the park and from generators placed on Monarch Street. The stage, trailers and other equipment will be placed in position starting Tuesday, March 1 beginning at 9 am. The tents will be erected on Wednesday and Thursday, Mar. 2, 3. The port -a -potties will be placed on the morning of Friday, March 4. The stage, trailers, tents and potties will be removed from the park by the end of the day March 8. The concert venue will include the entire park. The park will be fenced on all four sides with six foot high chain link panels pounded into the snow/ground. The fence will be grounded to insure safety for the spectators. On the west edge of the park (Monarch Street), about half way south from the stage, will be the Hospitality tent. This will be a 40'x 40' tent with a 20'x 60' patio area in front and lower viewing area surrounding the platform. This 60'x 60' area will be a 4' raised decking. In the north western and south eastern corners of the park will be clusters of 10-12 public port -a -potties. Along the south side of the park (Durant Street) will be a 20'x 60' tent for sponsor displays, which may include non-profit partners, static displays and other interactive sponsor displays within the tent. On the East side of the park there will be a 10'x20'tent for sale of band and Aspen/Snowmass merchandise. The venue would feature two concession tents with beer, water, soda, and basic food offerings. We will apply for a special events liqueur license through the Aspen Skiing Company Environment Foundation. There will be one main public entrances to the park. The entrance will be on the Mill Street Mall at the intersection of the Cooper Street Mall. Once the concert is over, additional exit points will be opened along the Mill Street Mall and alley on the North side of the park. Emergency exits are located all along the perimeter of the park. We are requesting the right to operate a free, open bar offering beer and mixed drinks inside the Hospitality tent. Bar service will only be available for properly credentialed guests. Alcohol will remain within the sponsor/press perimeter fence area. We will apply for a special events liqueur license through the Aspen Skiing Company Environment Foundation We are requesting to place Aspen/Snowmass and other sponsor banners within the park venue. Communication Plan: The staff, vendors and lead security personnel will be equipped with complete contact sheet including phone numbers and radio channels. The Aspen Skiing Company radio system will be the primary mode of communication. Additional radios will be available to be provided to law enforcement and/or emergency medical services. Public information will be distributed through email and text lists built from ticket purchasers as well as through social media outlets such as Twitter and Facebook. The efforts will compliment our traditional efforts of newspaper advertising and Aspen Skiing Company website. Security Plan: A professional security company will be hired for the event. They will manage the search at the entrance to the venue including all bags, jackets and other personal items to ensure that no alcohol, drugs, or other illegal items are brought to the event. The security will be placed throughout the venue, along the front of the stage, at the VIP area and roaming through the crowd. Security personnel from within the venue will be reallocated following the event to manage egress, dispersion of crowds and orderly loading of public transportation at Ruby Park. We will work with local law enforcement for presence where needed within the venue and during egress from the venue. Medical Plan: An AILS ambulance will be on site to handle any medical incidents. It will be positioned at the corner of Mill Street and Durant, across from McDonalds. It will act as both a first aid station and transport if needed. Staffing will be two Paramedic and one EMT. The ambulance will be on site from 3:30 pm until % hour after the concert is over. An aid station will be set-up inside the venue and staffed with Paramedic staff. Safety Plan: Event and security staff will be throughout the venue to be the first line of detection for any emergencies. Those personnel will be in communication with law enforcement and medical safety professionals. The venue will have four light plants with 4x1000 Watt bulbs on each. These lights will be used in the case of emergency and for egress from the venue. Emergency and regular exits will be marked and light. Transportation/Traffic Plan: The transportation objectives for this event will be focused on having the attendees not living or staying in Aspen to utilize public transportation. The existing RFTA downvalley and Snowmass service will be utilized for primary transportation. http://specialevents.asl)enpitkin.com/details.cfm?eventID=547 8/11/2010 Special Events I City of Aspen and Pitkin County, Colorado Page 3 of 5 Requested street and parking closures: -March 1 — 8 ALL DAY: Monarch Street closed to auto traffic and parking between Durant and Hyman. Cooper Avenue between Aspen and Monarch Street would have a soft closure allowing people to enter to park but no through traffic. Methods for mitigating traffic congestion: -Advertising and event notices will encourage the use of alternative transportation and announce the street and parking closures. Parking Plan: Requested No Parking notification signs -February 22-28: Signs notifying No Parking on both sides of Monarch St between Durant and Hyman from March. 1 - 8 Both sides of Monarch St. between Hyman and Cooper will be used for the parking, storage and operation of the following: 1 Storage Container 1 10'x32' Office Trailer 1 10'x42' Video Truck Delivery location Dumpsters Security Stand Down/Check-in Tent (15x15) w/Heat Heavy equipment parking (1 Forklift, light towers), Gator, Back up Genie for stage Propane Storage Tour bus Parking Generator location if deemed necessary Sponsor/Press/Staff(Volunteer Check -in Locations A 15' fire lane down the middle of the street will be kept open and Gear. The eastern half of Cooper St. would be used for sponsor/press parking during the shows. Sanitation/Recycling Plan: Number of trash cans with lids: 25 open boxes lined with bags, no lids Number of dumpsters with lids: 2large dumpsters on Monarch where all trash will be collected Number of recycling containers: 25 in the park and 1 dumpster on Monarch where all trash will be collected Sanitation company: TBD Please describe your plan: Cardboard trash box containers will be paired with recycle containers. Each will be lined with plastic trash bags and placed about every 100 feet on Wagner Park. These will be removed each night after the event. A crew will clean the park each night removing all trash and recycling. A larger crew will be hired following the final day and again after all tents, stages, and equipment has been removed from the park to ensure that nothing has been left behind. Do you plan to provide portable reslroom facilities at your event? Yes If yes, total number of portable toilets: 20-30 Number of ADA-accessible portable toilets: 3, one at each cluster of port -a -johns Handwashing station: 3 If these will be on City property, describe location: Ten at the Northwest end of the park near the corner of Monarch and Cooper. Ten at the Southeast end of the park at the corner of Mill and Durant. Additional restrooms will be placed behind each stage and within the VIP area. Restroom company: TBD Equipment setup Dale: March 4 Time: 9 am Equipment pickup Date: March 7 Time: 9 am Alcohol Mitigation Plan: The event will apply for a special event permit to sell and distribute alcoholic beverages. Beer will sold to the public from the time the venue opens until 30 minutes prior to the end of the event, approximately 10:30pm. All attendees wishing to purchase beer will be required to go through an id check station at the entrance to the venue and wear a non -transferable id blacelet at all times. TIPS trained servers will be hired. In addition to beer we will sell a variety of non-alcoholic beverages including water and soda. Food will be available at all times. Accessibility Plan: There will be a clear path of travel from the end of the Cooper St. mall to a reserved ADA only viewing area. Existing City of Aspen parking and RFTA public transportation include required services. There will be two disabled parking spots on Mill Street between the end of the Mill St. mall and Durant St. Will a minimum of 10% of portable restrooms at your event be accessible? Yes Will all food, beverage and vending areas be accessible? Yes Will all signage be placed so pedestrian flow will not obstruct its visibility? Yes Alcohol Permit & License: httD://SDeCialevents.aSDenDitkin.com/details.cfm?eventID=547 8/11/2010 Special Events I City of Aspen and Pitkin County, Colorado Page 4 of 5 An alcohol permit application will be filed. Food Permit: The food concessions have not been determined. We would like to permission to have food concessions and will apply for the required permits. Parks/Open Space Permit: This event will require permission to use Wagner Park. Reviewed and accepted: YES Sales Tax & Bus. License: Yes, merchandise for the performing bands will be sold at the event. Reviewed and accepted: NO Public Notification: A letter will be distributed to all lodges, businesses and residences surrounding the park at least 30 days prior to the event including details regarding noise, parking, traffic rerouting and include a contact for all questions. Liability Insurance: Aspen Skiing Company insurance is on -file with the City of Aspen. REVIEWING AGENCY COMMENTS/STATUS: Overall Status: Not Yet Reviewed Aspen Ambulance Service Send an email Status: • Aspen Building Department Send an email Status: • Aspen Community Relations/Communication Send an email Status: • Aspen Community Safety Send an email Status: • Aspen Engineering Send an email Status: • Approval Agency Request 108/0312010 10:18 AM] Applicant must provide safe travel for the general public around the entire event. this will include road closures with advanced warning signs, barricades if partial road closures are used, and the applicant is responsible for all snow removal around any encroachments. Aspen Environmental Health Send an email Status: • Aspen Fire District Send an email Status: • Aspen Parking Send an email Status: • Aspen Parks Send an email Status: • Aspen Police Department Send an email Status: • Aspen Recreation Send an email Status: • Aspen Right Door Send an email Status: • Aspen Risk Management Send an email Status: • Aspen Special Events Send an email Status: • Aspen Streets Send an email Status: • Aspen Transportation Send an email Status: • Aspen ZGreen Send an email Status: • Aspen Zoning Send an email Status: • RFTA Send an email Status: • Wheeler Opera House Send an email Status: • Approval Agency Request [0712812010 06:24 PMI I have spoken to Deric about this event, and how it would effectively shut down the Wheeler's ability to do programming of any kind in that weekend. While I support the idea, the proximity to the Wheeler and the limited number of weekends during the season that we have to do significant shows makes me unable to support this event, even as a working idea. The only solution I see for this is for Skioo to buy out the Wheeler for those three nights, which I would be open to if these concerts are seen to be in the best interest of the City. • = Not Yet Reviewed a = Need More Info • = Declined • = Approve Home I Who We Are I Exploring the Valley I Doing Business I Living in the Valley I What's New? City or Aspen Atkin County Stemap I Map of the Valley I Contact Us I Privacy I Disclaimer I Using this Site Gry nail Cuur:house Plaza Copyright 02002-2009 City of Aspen / Pitkin County. Colorado. all rights reservetl. 139 S. Galena St. 530 E. Main S`.. 31d Hoc, Site designed for IE7- Asaan CG31@11 Aspen, C081611 Fhane. (970) 9205000 Phone: (9'70) 920-5200 Aspen/Snowmass Music Festival March 4-6, 2010 Street Map Hard Closure Soft Closure x Security Staff Wagner Park East Durant Ave x Dancing Bear xI North Cooper Ave x East Hyman Ave r Opera Hous Limelight L MMAIIOY�z.'�i3,sM PAGRCA RESTAURANT Music Festival March 4-6, 2010 3-11pm Draft # 1 July 23, 2010 ■ Venue Entrance Hospitality/Sponsor/Media Check -in ■ Merchandise ® Concessions ADA Elevator/Ramp ® Dumpster ® Restrooms WOOD Watt Light Towers ........ Venue Fence Scale Ni"=64' Z 0' 3264' Annmu L TTORESTAURANT Mill Street Mall Ei 1A[NONALDS ,I I..t -u. OOL93 T.Indsg t secumya I RAHAH, i 2040 ___________________ __. Monarch Street stall.: Logisticspurs Vol check in Compound .................................. Hospiteltly/ateH shuttle Drop qJJl / t- l�,l'olice HALT FAA E $ �y 3 rc 1-1 0 C m m ASPEN (-jOSNOWMASS THE POWER OF FOUR Snow Beats Aspen Winter Music Festival , Event Idea Overview • Three day music festival • Proposed for March 4-6, 2011 • Downtown Aspen Core — Wagner Park • Draw 2,500 visitors • Daily attendance 3,000 — 5,000 • Community partnership • Marketing message "NOWMASS ASPEN MOUNTAIN ASPEN HIGHLANDS BUTTERMILK Stimulate Aspen Economy • Destination Visitor • Discretionary Spending �T- .�.. • Short-term Jobs Creation • Aspen/Snowmass Effect • Business Opportunity SNOWMASS ASPEN MOUNTAIN ASPEN HIGHLANDS BUTTERMILK ' Event Overview Main Stage in Wagner Park •Approximately three bands per day •Estimated shows from 5 — 10pm •Concessions •VIP Area •Event Infrastructure •Fence secure venue for ticket access � k • Potential Additional Venues a " •Free apres ski shows •Late night shows SNOWMASS I ASPEN MOUNTAIN 1 ASPEN HIGHLANDS BUTTERMILK Snow Beats Rpni ip-qtpcl Nimne ASPENq_ )SNOWMASS THE POWER OF FOUR MEMORANDUM V1%%jo TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Directo&S V, C V �- FROM: Drew Alexander, Planner iA RE: Appeal of Administrative Decision DATE: August 23`d, 2010 SUMMARY: This meeting was continued from the August 9`h City Council meeting. All materials included with the first packet have remained the same. If you need additional copies contact Community Development. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Drew Alexander, Planner RE: Appeal of Administrative Decision — Insubstantial SPA Amendment for the Rio Grande Subdivision/SPA DATE: August 9, 2010 APPLICANT /OWNER: Toni Kronberg °. j L�, LOCATION: $ ► r r y Rio Grander Subdivision/SPA, Lot 1. SUMMARY: P Q The Applicant is appealing an administrative decision issued by the Community Development Director,�� which approved anori "s+ Insubstantial SPA Y Amendment for improvements to the Rios r;- Grande SPA. ; Is, ,. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Figure 1: Vicinity Map of Rio Grande Recycle Center Staff recommends City Council uphold the Director's decision by adopting the proposed Resolution affirming the Insubstantial SPA Amendment. SUMMARY: One of the jobs assigned to the Community Development Director is to authorize Insubstantial Amendments for Specially Planned Areas (SPA) and the associated development order for the final development plan. This is an administrative process where an applicant may request approval of an Insubstantial Amendment if the proposed scope of work does not include any of the following: 1. A change in the use or character of the development. 2. An increase by greater than three (3) percent in the overall coverage of structures on the land. 3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development, or the demand for public facilities. 4. A reduction by greater than (3) percent of the approved open space. 5. A reduction by greater than one (1) percent of the off-street parking and loading space. 6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights -of -way for streets and easements. 7. An increase of greater than two (2) percent in the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings. 8. An increase by greater than one (1) percent in the approved residential density of the development. 9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting of a further variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements. Once made, the determination by the Community Development Director is subject to appeal. Toni Kronberg has appealed the determination. Section 26.316.030, Appeal Procedures, sets forth the applicable standards of review that Council should follow in these matters and the actions available to Council following the hearing on the appeal. STANDARDS OF REVIEW: Section 26.316.030(E) reads as follows: Standard of review. Unless otherwise specifically stated in this title, the decision - making body authorized to hear the appeal [City Council] shall decide the appeal based solely upon the record established by the body from which the appeal is taken [Community Development Director]. A decision or determination shall not be reversed or modified unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process, or the administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. The Applicant has submitted an appeal (Exhibit E) of the Insubstantial SPA Amendment granted; however, a reason for the basis of the appeal is not stated. Staff is assuming that the Applicant believes that it is not within the Community Development Director's authority to approve the proposed improvements for the recycling center. Staff s memo is written with that assumption in mind. 2 The Land Use Code does not define the terms: "a denial of due process", "exceeded its jurisdiction," or "abused its discretion" which are standards that Council weighs during the hearing. Court cases, however, have helped define these terms as follows and may be used by Council in its deliberation of the appeal: A denial of due process may be found if some procedural irregularity is determined to have occurred that affected a significant right of the appellant, or the administrative body otherwise acted in violation of the appellant's constitutional or statutory rights. Ad Hoc Executive Committee of Medical Staff of Memorial Hospital v Runyan, 716 P. 2d 465 (Colo. 1986.) A decision may be considered to be an abuse of discretion if the "decision of the administrative body is so devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority." Ross v Fire and Police Pension Ass'n., 713 P.2d 1304 (Colo. 1986); Marker v Colorado Springs, 336 P.2d 305 (Colo. 1959). A decision may be considered to be in excess of Jurisdiction if the decision being appealed from "is grounded in a misconstruction or misapplication of the law," City of Colorado Springs v Givan, 897 P.2d 753 (Colo. 1995); or, the decision being appealed from was not within the authority of the administrative body to make. City of Colorado Springs v SecureCare Self Storage, Inc., 10 P.3d 1244 (Colo. 2000). STAFF COMMENTS: 1. Due Process — Insubstantial Amendments are permitted under Chapter 26.440, Specially Planned Area and may be authorized by the Community Development Director if the request does not exceed nine standards as outlined on page 2 of this memo. Staff determined that the improvement to the recycling center did not exceed these standards and could be reviewed administratively and was subsequently approved. As required by section 26.304.070, Development orders, publication of the approval was provided in the Aspen Times. As required by the Land Use Code, the appellant was provided notice of tonight's meeting via mail and all other affected parties were noticed by publication in the newspaper, as required. (Please see Exhibit Q. Assuming tonight's meeting does not contain any procedural flaws staff believes that proper due process has been provided. 2. Discretion — With respect to abuse of the Director's discretion, the Director did need to use his discretion in determining whether the request to make certain improvements to the Rio Grande Recycling Center could or could not be considered an insubstantial amendment. The question is whether the Director abused that discretion. In considering the request, the Director evaluated the nine (9) criteria adopted to determine whether the review could be evaluated administratively or before a city board. 3. Jurisdiction — The Community Development Director's jurisdiction to grant administrative approvals is established in section 26.440.090 A, which note that an insubstantial amendment "may be authorized by the Community Development Director." K ACTIONS BY COUNCIL FOLLOWING APPEAL HEARING: Section 26.316.030(F) reads as follows: Action by the decision -making body hearing the anneal. The decision -making body hearing the appeal may reverse, affirm, or modify the decision or determination appealed from, and, if the decision is modified, shall be deemed to have all the powers of the officer, board or commission from whom the appeal is taken, including the power to impose reasonable conditions to be complied with by the appellant. The decision shall be approved by resolution. All appeals shall be public meetings. TWO RESOLUTIONS: Attached are two Resolutions. One finds that the Director acted correctly and affirms the interpretation. The second finds that the Director exceeded his jurisdiction, abused his authority, or failed to provide due process and reverses the interpretation. RECOMMENDATION: Staff believes the Director's decision was rendered ethically and that no abuse of authority or exceeding of jurisdiction occurred. Staff recommends City Council uphold the Director's decision by adopting the proposed Resolution affirming the approval for an insubstantial amendment to the Rio Grande SPA. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: (all motions must be made in the positive) "I move to approve Resolution No. 45 Series of 2010, [affirming or reversing] the Community Development Director's decision which approved an insubstantial amendment to Rio Grande SPA. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Notice of Approval, Development Order and Public Notice for SPA Amendment Exhibit B — Land Use Code criteria regarding Insubstantial SPA Amendments Exhibit C — Affidavit of notice Exhibit D — General background and History Report excerpt from the Rio Grande Master Plan Exhibit E — Applicant's appeal El RESOLUTION NO. �O J (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING AN ADMNISTRATIVE DECISION BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REGARDING AN INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE RIO GRANDE SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA. WHEREAS, the Community Development Director received a Land Use Application from the City of Aspen, requesting approval for an Insubstantial Special Planned Area (SPA) Amendment for the Rio Grande SPA, specifically the area containing the Rio Grande Recycle Center; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.440.090 — Amendment to development order, the Director rendered a decision of approval; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant, Toni Kronberg appealed the Directors decision; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, has the authority to affirm the decision of the Director or modify or reverse the decision upon a finding that there was a denial of due process, exceeding of jurisdiction, or abuse of authority in rendering the decision; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and oral argument from Applicant and the Community Development Director, and has found that the Director provided due process and neither exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his authority in rendering the Interpretation; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council affirms the Community Development Director's decision to approve and Insubstantial SPA Amendment for the Rio Grande SPA, specifically for the Rio Grande Recycle Center. 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 shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. 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. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on 2010 (Signatures on following page) Resolution No.--, Series of 2010. Page I ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Resolution No.--, Series of 2010. Page 2 RESOLUTION NO. _ (SERIES OF 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL REVERSING AN ADMNISTRATIVE DECISION BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REGARDING AN INSUBSTANTIAL AMENDMENT TO THE RIO GRANDE SPECIALLY PLANNED AREA. WHEREAS, the Community Development Director received a Land Use Application from the City of Aspen, requesting approval for an Insubstantial Special Planned Area (SPA) Amendment for the Rio Grande SPA, specifically the area containing the Rio Grande Recycle Center; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 26.440.090 — Amendment to development order, the Director rendered a decision of approval; and, WHEREAS, the Applicant, Toni Kronberg appealed the Directors decision; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, has the authority to affirm the decision of the Director or modify or reverse the decision upon a finding that there was a denial of due process, exceeding of jurisdiction, or abuse of authority in rendering the decision; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and oral argument from Applicant and the Community Development Director, and has found that the Director did not provide due process or either exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his authority in rendering the Decision; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council reverses the Community Development Director's decision to approve and Insubstantial SPA Amendment for the Rio Grande SPA, specifically for the Rio Grande Recycle Center. 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 shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. 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. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on 2010 (Signatures on following page) Resolution No.--, Series of 2010. Page I ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Resolution No.--, Series of 2010. Page 2 Exgir.�lr A NOTICE OF APPROVAL For an Insubstantial Specially Planned Area (SPA) Amendment for the Rio Grande Recycle Center, located within Lot I of the Rio Grande Subdivision/SPA Parcel ID No. 2737-07-3-06-851 APPLICANT: City of Aspen REPRESENTATIVE: Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Director SUBJECT & SITE OF AMENDMENT: Insubstantial SPA Amendment for the Rio Grande Recycle Center, located within Lot 1 of the Rio Grande Subdivision/SPA. The property lacks a physical address at this time. SUMMARY: The Applicant has requested an Insubstantial Amendment to the Rio Grande Recycle Center, a Specially Planned Area (SPA). The site that contains the Recycle Center has served a multitude of uses since the Rio Grande property received SPA approval in 1977. Some of these uses include a towed car impound lot, a snow retention and melting center, and the existing recycling center. For a more detailed history on the subject site, see Exhibit A. The Recycle Center is accessed off of Rio Grande Place and consists of a dirt parking and drop-off area. The site includes six large storage bins that the various recyclables are deposited into. Once full, these bins are loaded onto trucks and taken to the Pitkin County Landfill or a separate processing facility. The site also includes smaller drop-offs for yard waste and paper products. There is no sort of enclosed office space at the Recycle Center or an employee dedicated to facility upkeep. The Applicant has planned a number of changes to the Recycle Center to increase the overall performance of the site. Asphalt has been proposed for driving areas to assist with mud issues, drainage, and cleaning. Curb, gutter, and concrete bases for the bins are also included with this plan to assist with drainage and cleaning. Vegetative screening has been designated around the perimeter of the property to reduce visibility from neighboring properties (see Exhibit B). Smaller elements of the application include ADA accessible containers, designated snow storage, and a surveillance camera for security. STAFF EVALUATION: Staff supports the proposed SPA Amendment to the Rio Grande Recycle Center - a facility that has been a valuable community benefit since the 1980's. These changes address elements of the facility that have been a burden to both users and operators of the Recycle Center. Hardscaping will eliminate problems with mud and assist with the Page I of 4 cleaning of debris. Curb and gutter installation will aid site drainage. The landscaping and vegetative screening will reduce the facilities visibility from neighboring properties and enhance the appeal of the property. DECISION: The Community Development Director finds the Insubstantial SPA Amendment for the Rio Grande Recycle Center to be consistent with the review criteria (Exhibit C) and thereby, APPROVES the amendment as specified below. The approved Insubstantial SPA Amendment for the Rio Grande Recycle Center, Lot 1 of the Rio Grande Subdivision/SPA, allows for site improvements to the subject property. Community Development Director Attachments: Exhibit A — Site History Exhibit B — Site Plan Exhibit C — Review Standards Date Page 2of 4 S?50 SF. OF CONCRETE PAVING LOCATED UNDER RECTCLE BINS a STORT1 WATER PIPE TO BE °•{;, 1 -",/ INSTALLED ADA PP(dClNbl BINS � - � \_ \1 5iOR1 WATER SAIIFLER \ STOW WATER VAULT 11120 5F. CF ASPHALT PAVING I v ♦ a FORM WATER SANPLER I e 3� LL ►u zZ LM W U W Lwu I -j U p U ul V Q LANDSCAPE PLAN Ll DEVELOPMENT ORDER of the City of Aspen Community Development Department This Development Order, hereinafter "Order", is hereby issued pursuant to Section 26.304.070, "Development Orders", and Section 26.308.010, "Vested Property Rights", of the City of Aspen Municipal Code. This Order allows development of a site specific development plan pursuant to the provisions of the land use approvals, described herein. The effective date of this Order shall also be the initiation date of a three-year vested property right. The vested property right shall expire on the day after the third anniversary of the effective date of this Order, unless a building permit is approved pursuant to Section 26.304.075, or unless an exemption, extension, reinstatement, or a revocation is issued by City Council pursuant to Section 26.308.010. After Expiration of vested property rights, this Order shall remain in full force and effect, excluding any growth management allotments granted pursuant to Section 26.470, but shall be subject to any amendments to the Land Use Code adopted since the effective date of this Order. This Development Order is associated with the property noted below for the site specific development plan as described below. City of Aspen, 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, CO 81611 Property Owner's Name, Mailing Address Subdivision: Rio Grande Lot: 1, Rio Grande Park — Recycle Center (No physical address for this Legal Description and Street Address of Subject Property Site and operational improvements to the Recycle Center, including hardscaping, concrete bases for the recycling bins, and landscaping around the property. Written Description of the Site Specific Plan and/or Attachment Describing Plan Approval by the City of Aspen Community Development Director for an Insubstantial Specially Planned Area Amendment. Land Use Approval(s) Received and Dates (Attach Final Ordinances or Resolutions) Effective Date of Development Order (Same as date of publication of notice of approval.) Expiration Date of Development Order (The extension, reinstatement, exemption from expiration and revocation may be pursued in accordance with Section 26.308.010 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code) 2"d day fyf June, 2010, by the City of Aspen Community Development Director. Development Director AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.070 AND CHAPTER 26.306 ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: A I(a✓ Aspen, CO STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) 1, AjnaRAP'�, JCU`( (name, please print) being or represe ting an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) or Section 26.306.010 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fourteen (14) days after final approval of a site specific development plan. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fifteen (15) days after an Interpretation has been rendered. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Signature D The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this Itf day of4,yl R— 204L, by seeYY-9�� WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL My commission expires: (e,,, Q of Notary Public ATTACHMENTS: COPY OF THE PUBLICATION s' City of Aspen Publish in The Aspen Times Weekly on June 13, 2010 [51435591 - See. 26.440.090.Amendment to development order. A. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for a final development plan may be authorized by the Community Development Director. The following shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment: 1. A change in the use or character of the development. 2. An increase by greater than three percent (3%) in the overall coverage of structures on the land. 3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development or the demand for public facilities. 4. A reduction by greater than three percent (3%) of the approved open space. 5. A reduction by greater than one percent (1 %) of the off-street parking and loading space. 6. A reduction in required pavement widths or rights -of -way for streets and easements. An increase of greater than two percent (2%) in the approved gross leasable floor area of commercial buildings. 8. An increase by greater than one percent (1%) in the approved residential density of the development. 9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the projeefs original approval or which requires granting of a further variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements. B. All other modifications shall be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the Final Development Plan, provided that the proposed change is consistent with or an enhancement of the approved final plan. if the proposed change is not consistent with the approved Final Development Plan, the amendment shall be subject to both conceptual and the final development review and approval. C. During the review of the proposed amendment, the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council may require such conditions of approval as are necessary to insure that the development will be compatible with current community conditions. This shall include, but not be limited to, applying to the portions of the development which have not obtained building permits or are proposed to be amended to any new community policies or regulations which have been implemented since the original approval or taking into consideration changing community circumstances as they affect the project's original representations and commitments. The applicant may withdraw the proposed amendment at any time during the review process. City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 400, Page 94 �rc F,u ) Mineral Estate Owner Notice. By the certified mailing of notice, return receipt requested, to affected mineral estate owners by at least thirty (30) days prior to the date scheduled for the initial public hearing on the application of development. The names and addresses of mineral estate owners shall be those on the current tax records of Pitkin County. At a minimum, Subdivisions that create more than one lot, Planned Unit Developments, Specially Planned Areas, and COWAPs are subject to this notice requirement. Rezoning or text amendment. Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signature The fore oing "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledged before me this 19 day of 200L, by A'YrG) a — WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL FtY P(tB �.� My commission expires: (Li(16iln E "8 otary Public r Exoires ON2912014 qpenC�M181f ry ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE: 28besh0290'h- Aspen Times Weekly on July lO. DUBLICATION PHOTOGRAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) LIST OF THE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES NOTICED BY MAIL APPLICANT CERTIFICATION OF MINERAL ESTAE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24-65.5-103.3 Exhibit D BACKGROUND: As mentioned previously, this appeal is in response to an administrative decision which approved certain site improvements to the Rio Grande Recycle Center. The scope of work included landscaping around the site, an installation of a hard surface, and a reconfiguration of the recycling bins. The recycling center has been at this location for some time and in 1993 a Master Plan was ultimately developed and was intended to serve "as a tool to guide future development on the site," for the Rio Grande parcels. The Master Plan addressed two specific areas, referenced as Site A and Site B (see Figure 1 below). Site A included "the area between the river and bike path next to the snow melter" and Site B included "the recycle site (Old Impound lot) and the playing field." Site A I^ VMVOMIlW f .�.a.LTJi� f t Site B \ } \ Recycle Center site, Tr.mpoetuiaruAevnMen ` , called for "transportation or - . ., essential community bt'o� p services." Figure 1: Master Plan Site A and Site B 5 development. The Group concluded this level of review was necessary to ensure that future uses were not only appropriate but were compatible with each other. With development information provided by organizations, such as rail and trolley advocates who hope to utilize the property in the future, the Group was able to consider several land use scenarios. A phased build out of the property and two full build out programs identified the range of possibilities for the property. In order to preserve the Group's work, three different ,approaches to development are presented on the maps in Appendix A. Again these maps are to be used as guides and were not adopted as the land use maps for this master plan. Although the Group considered facility needs for specific projects, it was not their purpose to make recommendations on community -wide issues such as the valley -wide rail or across -town trolley system. There are other decision -making arenas that will decide the fate of those projects. The Rio Grande Group met approximately 16 times over an eight month period. one of the first tasks of the Rio Grande Group was to review existing and proposed land uses, for this vital piece of community property. Initial meetings were devoted to a presentation and discussion of particular land uses on each section of property. The property was divided into two manageable discussion sites for which primary land use goals and recommendations for development were made: Site A: the area between the river and bike path next to the snow melter (page 6); and Site B: the recycle site (Old Impound lot) and the playing field (page 13). MTORY This is a brief summary of the planning review history of the property. For a more thorough history refer to Appendix B. In 1967, the Denver Rio Grande Western Railroad began discussions with the City and County regarding redevelopment. of their property and right-of-way. Since those initial discussions there have been many plans regarding this 18 acre parcel: * 1973 - The City used 7th penny transportation funds to purchase a majority of the Rio Grande property. 3 1975 - A Performing Arts Center for the property was 1978 studied. * 1981 - A non -specified 1.5 acre site was set aside for a future Performing Arts/Conference Center and the City moved the snow dump from the Sanitation District property to the Rio Grande property.. * 1982 - The City and County exchanged the Aspen One, Oden and stable properties. * 1987 - The City installed the snow melter. * 1988 - A conceptual SPA master plan was adopted by Council identifying a parking garage, the library, the Spring Street extension, a snow melt facility and an arts usage area. * 1989 - A final SPA plan was approved by Council for the parking garage and the Pitkin County library. * 1990 - A final SPA plan was approved by Council for the Youth Center. * 1991 - Council denied conceptual SPA approval for the trolley, Theatre in the Park, recycle facility and snow melt operation and instead directed staff to prepare a master plan for the entire .site. ASSUMPTIONS The Group identified several assumptions with regard to the property. From the basis of these assumptions the Group began their review of existing land uses and proposed land uses. 1. Rather than completely replan the parcel, the Group began their review of the property from the perspective of existing uses and past plans. 2. The Group considered why and how the different pieces of property were purchased. Some of Site A and all of Site B were purchased with transportation funds and most of the river frontage was purchased with open space funds. 3. The extensive work on the whitewater course and initial regrading of Site A, has required adjustments to the traditional method of dumping snow on Site A. In 1991, the City Council 4 RECEIVED NOTICE OF APPEAL JUN 16 2010 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT According to Sec. 26.316.030. Appeal procedures. A. A notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director and with the City office or department rendering the decision or determination within 14 days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed. I, hereby, file this NOTICE of Appeal within the fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed regarding the Approval of a site -specific development plan and the Creation of a Vested property right by The community Development Director for an Insubstantial SPA Amendment for the following legally described property in Exhibit A Rio Grande Pubic Notice Public Notice Of Development Approval Notice is hereby given to the general public of the approval of a site -specific development plan, and the creation of a vested property right pursuant to the Land Use Code of the City of Aspen and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes, pertaining to the following legally described property: RECEIVED JUN 16 2010 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNTY DEVELOPMENT Subdivision: Rio Grande Lot: 1, Rio Grande Park, Recycle Center, Aspen, Colorado 81611, the property commonly known as the Rio Grande Recycle Center (no physical address for this property), by order of the City of Aspen Community Development Director on June 1, 2010. Parcel ID # 27-37-073-06-851. The Applicant received an administrative approval for an Insubstantial SPA Amendment. The approvals were granted for site and operational improvements to the recycle facility. For further information contact Drew Alexander, at the City of Aspen Community Development Dept. 130 S. Galena St., Aspen, Colorado (970) 429-2739. Published in the Aspen Times Weekly on June 13, 2010. (5143559) Refunds of unused hours shall be made at the rate of two hundred forty-five dollars ($245.00) per hour of time. UJ o �� 4. The Community Development Director shall establish appropriate guidelines for the s collection of additional billings as required. V05. This fee structure shall be reviewed annually as part of the City's budget hearing process and, should any adjustments be necessary, they shall be changed to become effective 5 on January 1. U 6. The Community Development Department shall identify, prior to or at the time of submission of a land use application, whether an application is to be referred to the Engineering, Housing or Environmental Health Department. The Community Development Department shall also identify whether an application constitutes a minor or a major referral, based on the number of hours that will be required to review the application, and charge the applicant for each referral accordingly. Additional billings and refunds shall not apply to the computation of referral fees. 7. Land use review fees may be waived or reduced in the discretion of the Community Development Director for projects serving a public purpose, proposed by a nonprofit 152 organization or in which the fee may be excessive for the work proposed. (Ord. No. 57-2000, §9; Ord. No. 47-2002, §8; Ord. No. 63-2003, §4; Ord. No. 38-2004, §7; Ord. No. 49-2005, §9; Ord. No. 48, 2006, § 13; Ord. 52-2007) Sec. 26.104.071.Historic preservation application fees. The types of applications and fees for the processing of historic preservation and applications shall be as follows (historic preservation review fees may be waived or reduced in the discretion of the Community Development Director for projects serving a public purpose, proposed by a nonprofit August 9, 2010 Appeal Hearing of Community Development Director's Administrative Approval for an Insubstantial Amendment to the Rio Grande SPA Approvals granted were for site & operational improvements to the recycle facility Appeal Standard of Review: Sec. 26.316.030.(E) A decision or determination shall not be reversed or modified unless there is a finding of: • Occurs when the correct law is not applied or if a decision is based on a clearly erroneous finding of a material fact. Also when the record contains no evidence to support its decision • Authority & power to approve Insubstantial SPA amendment? Site -specific development plan? Vested property right? Recycle center or improvements? Approved by Comm Dev. Director Discretion of Director Approved by Ordinance Adopted by City Council Established upon approval of a Site -specific development plan Is this "insubstantial amendment" the first approval for the recycle center within the Rio Grande Sub -division SPA? If so, then Chapter 26.440 Specially Planned Area (SPA) Sec. 26.440.040. Procedures for review. would apply Any development within a Specially Planned Area shall be reviewed pursuant to the procedures and standards in this Chapter and the Common Review Procedures set forth in Chapter 26.304 with public hearings before P & Z and City Council. What started this current process for the recycle center? City Council work session on April 27, 2010 Staff requested authorization from Council to proceed with maintenance improvements to the Rio Grande Recycling Center to improve the appearance and cleanliness of the facility 1. Paving 2. Grading 3. Landscaping Surveillance camera 4. ADA parking Council approved the request at work session Documents of Approval Issued by Director 1. NOTICE OF APPROVAL (issued by Com Dev) for an SPA Insubstantial Amendment for the Rio Grande Recycle Center, located within Lot 1 of the Rio Grande Subdivision/SPA asphalt, curb & gutter, landscaping with berm June 1, 2010 2. DEVELOPMENT ORDER (issued by Com Dev) for Vested Property Rights, site -specific development plan, for the Rio Grande Recycle Center including hardscaping, asphalt concrete bases, landscaping Approved by an Insubstantial SPA amendment June 13, 2010 3. PUBLISHED PUBLIC NOTICE of Development Approval Aspen Times, for a site -specific development plan and creation of a vested property right for the Rio Grande Recycle Center PURSUANT to Aspen's Land Use Code and Title 24, Article 68, Colorado Revised Statutes Applicant received administrative approval for an Insubstantial SPA amendment. Approvals were granted for site and operational improvements to the recycle facility June 13, 2010 Has the recycle center ever been approved for the Rio Grande property ? History of Rio Grande Property... approved subdivision (10 lots) Zoned Public with an SPA overlay, many SPA amendments *1967— Denver Rio Grande Western Railroad began discussions for rail with City of Aspen *1973— Th penny transportation funds used to purchase Rio Grande property for 1.75 million dollars. *19757 Transportation funds re -appropriated with 6th penny funds open space funds *1977— Ordinance #54 rezoning Rio Grande property (10 LOTS), according to an Specially Planned Area Master Plan, the elements of which Master Plan will constitute the development regulations for the area all as provided by Article VII, Chapter 24 of Aspen Muni Code *1977— Rio Grande Specially Planned Area Master plan & plat recorded with an interim SPA plan & plat also recorded schematically identifying land uses on the entire property recreation & parking key uses NO INCLUSION OF RECYCLE CENTER Conceptual plan expired as final not adopted *1987— Council adopted the Aspen Area Comprehensive Plan: Transportation Element which identified appropriate concepts for the Rio Grande property NO INCLUSION OF RECYCLE CENTER *1988— Resolution # 37 of City Council approving the Conceptual SPA Plan for Rio Grande Parcel NO INCLUSION OF RECYCLE CENTER *1989— Aspen City Council approved a temporary but indefinite exemption from the Special Use Review Process to allow the placement of recycling containers next to the Rio Grande Parking Lot/ Shortly thereafter, City Council passed a Resolution generally supporting recycling efforts but failed to commit to specific actions. Memo from Leslie Lamont to P & Z RE: Recycle Center —SPA amendment *1989— Final SPA plan approved for library and parking garage *1990— Final SPA approval for Youth Center *1991— Memo Request from staff for conceotual SPA review for the recycle center because the 1988 conceptual SPA plan approval did not address specific Proiects for the Rio Grande property. In addition the continuation and/or expansion of the recycle center is a revision of that original approval. Property Ownership: Since the 7u penny transportation funds which were used to purchase the Rio Grande property were reappropriated by the use of the 6TM penny open space funds the City staff is currently researching the issues involved with development of land that was purchased for a public purpose and the funds that were used for that purpose. A preliminary conclusion is that a change in use of land that is used for a public purpose would require VOTER APPROVAL. *1991— Rio Grande (Recycle Center)Materials Recovery Facility Conceptual SPA Application ..closed and staff directed to Master Plan for entire Rio Grande Property *1991— Council did not approve conceptual SPA approval for the Art Park/Theatre and Trolley Car Ram, snow dump/melter operation, recycle center, and, instead, directed staff to prepare a new conceptual SPA *1993- Ordinance #10 (recorded)granting subdivision forthe Rio Grande Property with CONDITIONS ... (#3) Any future development of the newly created parcels shall be reviewed by the Commission and Council *1993- Subdivision Statement (Agreement)and plats (recorded) of Subdivision Approval for Rio Grande Subdivision with CONDITIONS (#1) Any future development shall be reviewed and approved by the Commission and Council Recycle Center not included *1993- Resolution#42 approving Rio Grande Master Plan with a WHEREAS, development review for site specific projects for the Rio Grande parcels shall be reviewed through the SPA development review Has the recycle center ever been approved for the Rio Grande property? History of Rio Grande Property... approved subdivision (10 lots) Zoned Public with an SPA overlay, many SPA amendments *2000 — Ordinance #14, approving the Specially Planned Area Review to build a skateboard park and to relocate the existing basketball court REVIEW PROCEDURE outlined in memo for Ord. #14, 2000 This two step process requires approval of a development plan by the P & Z and CC, with public hearings occurring at both. The Rio Grande master plan was developed as a conceptual SPA plan. Following its adoption, new development or significant alterations must be consistent with this conceptual SPA plan and be reviewed pursuant to the final SPA development review process. *2002—Ordinance#26 approvingan Amendment to the Rio Grande Specially Planned area to install four parking spaces, landscaping, and a new curb cut off of East Bleeker St *200- Hauler Ordinance mandates haulers of trash also provide recycling service at curbside *200 - City Council approved Ordinance # , 200 approving a rezoning for the Rio Grande Park Recycle Center *200 - Referendum Vote repealed the Rio Grande Recycle Center rezoning *2010 Memo for joint BOCC & CC meeting With trash haulers providing these services at the curbside some for the free operations are redundant. Landfill fees can no longer support current level of recycling service in addition to other priorities. *2010 April 27 City Council work session approved "Maintenance Improvements" for Recycle Center 1993 Rio Grande Master Plan Page 14. 1. Existing Conditions The community's recycling drop-off center has temporarily occupied the eastern portion of Site B for several years. Other than the goal posts, and temporary recycle containers the parcel is void of any structural development. 2. Goals Because the site was purchased with 7th penny transportation funds the basis of future development goals is transportation oriented. Because of the close proximity to the SCI district and to downtown, a variety of land uses, including essential community services, are considered appropriate for this site. The Rio Grande has identified the following Goals for the redevelopment of Parcel B: a. Locate essential community services in eastern portion of Site B. b. Ensure that existing and future uses on the eastern portion of Site B are compatible with surrounding land uses because of this area's location and visibility. C. Satisfy transportation related needs first when considering the use of Site B. d. Retain and optimize park/recreational uses in this area and replace the active park and playfield only with a regional rail facility. e. Preserve view planes to the river and Independence Pass with low -profile development. III. Recommended Land Uses/Activities for Parcel B This parcel can be divided into several different elements for DISCUSSION purposes: 1. Recycle Center The recycling center is in critical need of an enclosed space for collection of material. Blowing trash has been a problem and inclement weather reduces the site to mud. Pitkin County Public Resources propose to construct a facility that is partially below grade. The upgrade of the recycle facility should consider relocation possibilities to City land across the street on the corner of Spring & East Bleeker. 0 1993 Rio Grande Master Plan 2. Trolley Barn 3. Access Road 4. New Walking Trail 5. Snow Melter 6. Additional Activities (page 16) In the event either the Trolley Barn, recycling center or the snow melter are not built on the eastern portion of the site, other essential community oriented services may be located on the site. A SPA review would be required. 7. Active Park Increased recreational activities should be installed on Site B... basketball court, skateboard ramp, rugby field Park and recreational uses should exist on this site only to be replaced by a regional rail facility. 8. Rail IV. Recommended Action Plan Summary for Site B To achieve the goals and proposed land uses for this site, the Rio Grande Group recommends the following actions for Site B: 5. Any development of the eastern portion of the Site B should not intrude into the Independence View Plane 6. The City and County should review the recommendations of the Roaring Fork Forum study relating to a regional -wide recycling program and other remedies that are being considered for the County recycling program. If this recycling operation is considered necessary at this location then the recycling site should be contained. io Jurisdiction of Community Development Director Sec. 26.440.090.Amendment to development order. A. An insubstantial amendment to an approved development order for a final development plan may be authorized by the Community Development Director. The following shall not be considered an insubstantial amendment: 3. Any amendment that substantially increases trip generation rates of the proposed development or the demand for public facilities. 9. Any change which is inconsistent with a condition or representation of the project's original approval or which requires granting of a further variation from the project's approved use or dimensional requirements. B. All other modifications shall be approved pursuant to the terms and procedures of the Final Development plan, provided that the proposed change is consistent with the approved .Final Development Plan, the amendment shall be subject to both conceptual and the final development review and approval. 11 Jurisdiction for approval of SPA amendments, site -specific development plans and creation of vested property rights. City of Aspen Land Use Code Part 300, D. Actions by decision -making bodies. Depending upon which decision -making body has final approval authority over a given development application, a site specific development plan may only be approved by written resolution of the planning and zoning commission or HPC or by ordinance adopted by the City Council. Any land use approval which places any burden upon or limits the use of private property shall be by ordinance. All resolutions and ordinances granting final approval for a site -specific development plan shall: 1. Be preceded by a public hearing following public notice..... Chapter 26.440 Specially Planned Area Sec. 26.440.040. Procedures for review. A. General. ...the procedure requires review and approval of a conceptual development plan and final development plan by the Planning & Zoning Commission and City Council. C. Steps required. Public notice and public hearing City of Aspen Land Use Chapter 26.208 Sec. 26.208.010. City Council Powers and Duties. E. To hear, review and adopt a conceptual development plan and a final development plan for specially planned areas (SPA), after recommendations of the Planning & Zoning Commission, pursuant to Chapter 26.445 12 DEFINITIONS City of Aspen Land Use Code, Part 100, Development. The use or alteration of land or land uses and improvements inclusive of, but not limited to: 1) the creation, division, alteration or elimination of lots; or 2) mining, drilling(excepting to obtain soil samples or to conduct tests) or the construction, erection, alteration or demolition of buildings or structure: 3) the grading, excavation, clearing of land or the deposit or fill in preparation or anticipation of future development, but excluding landscaping. Site Specific Development Plan (SSDP). A development plan that has obtained final approval from the City after review and evaluation as provided for in this Title, including notice and public hearing and which describes with reasonable certainty the type and intensity of use for a specific lot(s), parcel(s), site(s) or other area(s) of land and which incorporates all the terms and conditions of approval. A SSDP may include or take the form of a PUD, subdivision plat, development and/or subdivision improvement agreement, a use or activity permitted on review or such instrument or document as identified and agreed upon by the City and landowner or developer. A license, map, variance, easement or permit shall not constitute an SSDP. SUMMARY DUE PROCESS DISCRETION JURISDICTION 1993 Resolution #42 approving Rio Grande Master Plan with a WHEREAS, development review for site specific projects for the Rio Grande parcels shall be reviewed through the SPA development review VOTE necessary? TO: FROM: DATE OF MEMO: MEETING DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Mayor and City Council Don Taylor, Director of Finance August 16, 2010 August 23, 2010 Resolution opposing amendments 60, 61 and Proposition 101 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The City Council requested a resolution opposing the ballot measures regarding amendments to the State constitution. The proposed amendments to the state constitution, amendments 60 & 61 and Proposition 101 have been determined to have a deleterious effect on City finances. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Staff reviewed the impact of the amendments with City Council at a recent meeting. Council indicated that it may wish to take a formal position opposing the amendments. BACKGROUND: This matter has been discussed with City Council and governmental entities across the state are unified in their opposition to the proposed amendments and the proposition. DISCUSSION: In summary the ballot measures would have the following affects on the City o Amendment 60 Changes provisions related to property taxes that lower property taxes over time. It would require the City to pay property taxes on property owned by its enterprise funds. o Amendment 61 Bans borrowing by the state and imposes limitations on local government regarding debt issuance. Most notable is a requirement to require a vote on lease purchase agreements. o Proposition 101 Reduces State income taxes, Specific Ownership taxes and vehicle registration fees, eliminates telecommunication taxes, and limits 911 fees. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The City has completed a more detail analysis of the effect of the amendments on the City's revenues. The first year affect would be $865,000 rising to $1,659,000 by 2014. A copy of the summary is attached with your materials. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Council take a formal position opposing the amendments by resolution. Page t of 2 ALTERNATIVES: None provided. PROPOSED MOTION: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Page 2 of 2 Impacts of 60/61/101 2011 2012 2013 2014 General Fund Specific Ownership Revenues (Motor Vehicle Fees distributed by Counties) $44,154 $88,308 $132,463 $176,617 All registration, license & title fees combined to $10 yearly per vehicle $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Sales and Use Taxes - New Vehicle Sales (Remitted by Counties) $50,000 $100,000 $150,000 $200,000 Sales and use tax -vehicle rental and lease companies $2,500 $5,000 $7,500 $10,000 Sales Tax Revenue - telecommunication services (telephone, cable, cell phone, etc.) $45,000 $90,000 $135,000 $180,000 Franchise fee revenue- telephone and cable $293,500 $293,500 $293,500 $293,500 $465,154 $606,808 $748,463 $890,117 Parks Sales and Use Taxes - New Vehicle Sales (Remitted by Counties) $53,571 $107,143 $160,714 $214,286 Sales and use tax -vehicle rental and lease companies $2,679 $5,357 $8,036 $10,714 Sales Tax Revenue -telecommunication services (telephone, cable, cell phone, etc.) $195,000 $195,000 $195,000 $195,000 $251,250 $307,500 $363,750 $420,000 Housing Sales and Use Taxes - New Vehicle Sales (Remitted by Counties) $7,143 $14,286 $21,429 $28,571 Sales and use tax - vehicle rental and lease companies $357 $714 $1,071 $1,429 Sales Tax Revenue -telecommunication services (telephone, cable, cell phone, etc.) $26,000 $26,000 $26,000 $26,000 $33,500 $41,000 $48,500 $56,000 Daycare Sales and Use Taxes - New Vehicle Sales (Remitted by Counties) $8,929 $17,857 $26,786 $35,714 Sales and use tax - vehicle rental and lease companies $446 $893 $1,339 $1,786 Sales Tax Revenue - telecommunication services (telephone, cable, cell phone, etc.) $32,500 $32,500 $32,500 $32,500 $41,875 $51,250 $60,625 $70,000 Transportation Sales and Use Taxes - New Vehicle Sales (Remitted by Counties) $23,250 $46,500 $69,750 $93,000 Sales and use tax -vehicle rental and lease companies $4,650 $4,650 $4,650 $4,650 Sales Tax Revenue - telecommunication services (telephone, cable, cell phone, etc.) $20,925 $41,850 $62,775 $83,700 Sales and Use Taxes - New Vehicle Sales (Remitted by Counties) $5,357 $10,714 $16,071 $21,429 Sales and use tax - vehicle rental and lease companies $268 $536 $804 $1,071 Sales Tax Revenue - telecommunication services (telephone, cable, cell phone, etc.) $19,500 $19,500 $19,500 $19,500 $73,950 $123,750 $173,550 $223,350 Water Property Tax - Paying Tax on Currently Exempted Buildings and Land ? ? ? ? Electric Property Tax - Paying Tax on Currently Exempted Buildings and Land ? ? ? ? Renewable Property Tax - Paying Tax on Currently Exempted Buildings and Land ? ? ? ? Parking Property Tax - Paying Tax on Currently Exempted Buildings and Land ? ? ? ? Golf Property Tax - Paying Tax on Currently Exempted Buildings and Land ? ? ? ? Truscott Property Tax- Paying Tax on Currently Exempted Buildings and Land ? ? ? ? Marolt Property Tax - Paying Tax on Currently Exempted Buildings and Land ? ? ? ? Total $865,729 $1,130,308 $1,394,888 $1,659,467 Shaded indicates remitted from County RESOLUTION NO.66 SERIES OF 2010 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO EXPRESSING OPPOSITION TO STATEWIDE BALLOT QUESTIONS REGARDING AMENDMENT 60 AND AMENDMENT 61 TO THE STATE CONSTITUTION AND PROPOSITION 101. WHEREAS, state voters will have the opportunity at the November 2, 2010 statewide general election to protect the fiscal health of local government by defeating Proposition 101, Amendment 60, and Amendment 61; and WHEREAS, during this current economic downturn the City of Aspen has already cut services and budgets dramatically, including transportation services, affordable housing development, parks open space and recreation services and general governmental services; and WHEREAS, these measures, individually and collectively, significantly reduce or otherwise restrict both state and local revenues in a number of different ways including but not limited to: specific ownership taxes, telecommunication taxes, state income taxes, state -shared revenues to assist municipalities with local street and transit improvements, other state grants and loans to help local government, and property taxes; and WHEREAS, the ability to finance long-term capital improvements like water treatment plants, recreational projects, affordable housing, and other public facilities is dramatically impaired by the restrictions on debt financing as proposed by Amendment 61; and WHEREAS, the services and programs in the City of Aspen such as parks and recreation and various general governmental services, daycare services and affordable housing development will be reduced because of the numerous restrictions and revenue reductions proposed by these three measures ; and WHEREAS, a number of prominent individuals, newspapers, and organizations, including our own Colorado Municipal League, is voicing opposition to these measures as not being in the best interests of Colorado and of local communities; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IS RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN That the City Council opposes Proposition 101, Amendment 60, and Amendment 61 and urges our citizens to vote against all three ballot measures. Adopted this 23rtl day of August 2010 Michael C. Ireland, 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, August 23, 2010 Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk YIN a RESOLUTION NO. 67 (Series of 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORATE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN AT THE NOVEMBER 2, 2010, SPECIAL ELECTION, A QUESTION SEEKING AUTHORITY TO INCREASE THE TOURISM PROMOTION TAX BY THE LEVY OF AN ADITIONAL 1% TAX. WHEREAS, the City of Aspen is a world renowned tourist destination; and WHEREAS, the continuation of a healthy tourism industry is essential for the economic well-being of the City of Aspen and the general welfare of its citizens and such an industry requires a continuous investment in the planning, promotion, and development of the City of Aspen as a world renowned travel destination; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it should be the policy of the City to guide a sustainable and coordinated tourism industry in the City of Aspen; and WHERES, the electors of the City of Aspen have previously approved the imposition of a 1% "Visitor Benefit Tax" upon the leasing or renting of rooms or other accommodations in commercial lodging establishments by transient persons to fund tourism promotion and to partially defray the cost of regional transportation; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that tourism promotion should be further enhanced, in part, by the imposition of a Tourism Promotion tax upon the leasing or renting of rooms or other accommodations in commercial lodging accommodations by short term visitors and guests; and WHEREAS, in the event that the electorate authorizes the City Council to impose an additional 1 % Tourism Promotion tax, it is the intention of the City Council to adopt an ordinance imposing such a tax that (a) supplements the existing Tourism Promotion Fund that is separate and distinct from any other City funds or accounts used or maintained by the City for any other purposes; (b) requires the City Council to contract for promotional and marketing services with a professional entity specializing in the promotion, advertisement and marketing of tourism in the City of Aspen such as the Aspen Chamber Resort Association or other similar marketing entity; and, (c) provides for the specific procedures for collection, reporting, enforcement, violations, penalties, and other administrative matters incident to the administration of the Tourism Promotion tax; and WHEREAS, Article X, Section 20(4) of the Colorado Constitution requires municipalities to obtain voter approval in advance of the creation of any multiple fiscal year direct or indirect debt or in advance of increasing taxes; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1. The following question, seeking authorization to impose a Tourism Promotion tax, shall be placed on the ballot at the November 2, 2010 election: CITY OF ASPEN — REFERENDUM 1.0% TOURISM PROMOTION TAX. SHALL CITY OF ASPEN TAXES BE INCREASED UP TO $ 1,100,000 (FIRST FULL FISCAL YEAR DOLLAR INCREASE, NET OF ANY CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED TAX CUTS) ANNUALLY BY THE IMPOSITION OF AN INCREASE IN THE TOURISM PROMOTION TAX OF 1.0% UPON THE LEASING OR RENTING OF ROOMS OR OTHER ACCOMMODATIONS IN COMMERCIAL LODGING ESTABLISHMENTS BY TRANSIENT PERSONS, COMMENCING ON JANUARY 1, 2011, THE RECEIPTS OF WHICH TO BE DEPOSITIED IN THE EXISTING TOURISM PROMOTION FUND, TO PROVIDE THAT SAID FUND MAY BE EXPENDED ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF SPENDING 100% OF SAID TAX RECEIPTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROMOTING TOURISM IN THE CITY OF ASPEN THROUGH A CONTRACT WITH A PROFESSIONAL ENTITY SUCH AS THE ASPEN CHAMBER RESORT ASSOCIATION (ACRA) OR OTHER SIMILAR MARKETING ENTITY, AND SHALL ANY EARNINGS (REGARDLESS OF AMOUNT) FROM THE INVESTMENT OF 2 THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH TAX CONSTITUTE A VOTER APPROVED REVENUE CHANGE? [ ] YES []NO Section 2. The City Clerk of the City of Aspen shall take all steps necessary to conduct the election in accordance with the City of Aspen Municipal Code and Home Rule Charter of the City of Aspen. INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of 2010. Michael C. Ireland, 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 on the day hereinabove stated. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk JPW-R/16/2010-G:\j ohn\word\resos\bal lot 10-11-b. doc 3 [June Run-off— 40%] RESOLUTION NO. (Series of 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORATE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN A CERTAIN QUESTION SEEKING APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ASPEN HOME RULE CHARTER BY AMENDING SECTIONS 2.7, 3.2, AND 3.3 TO ELIMINATE INSTANT RUN-OFF VOTING PROCEDURES FOR THE ELECTION OF MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL; AND, TO REINSTATE THE JUNE RUN-OFF ELECTION PROCEDURES IF CANDIDATES FOR THE OFFICES OF MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FAIL TO RECEIVE FORTY PERCENT (40%), OR MORE, OF THE VOTES CAST. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to eliminate the instant run-off voting procedures for the offices of Mayor and City Council, and to amend the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter to reinstate the June run-off voting procedures if candidates fail to obtain at least 40% of the votes cast for the office; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ask the voters to approve the ordinance that seeks to amend the Aspen Home Rule Charter as herein proposed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: The following question shall be placed on the ballot at the November 2, 2010, election: CITY OF ASPEN REFERENDUM NO. _ AMENDMENT TO CITY CHARTER — REPLACE IRV WITH JUNE RUN OFF VOTING PROCEDURES. Shall Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2010, be approved? Ordinance No. 20, Series of 2010, if approved, amends sections 2.7, 3.2 and 3.3 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter to eliminate instant run-off voting procedures and re -instate previously used run-off procedures in June for the election of mayor and members of Council if candidates for city council or the office of mayor do not receive forty -percent (40%), or more, of the total votes cast for the office. There are two ballot questions seeking to amend the City Charter to replace instant run-off voting procedures with alternative voting procedures. You may vote in favor of one or both questions. If more than one ballot question receives a majority of the votes cast, the question receiving the highest affirmative votes shall be deemed approved. Yes [ ] No [ ] INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of 2010. Michael C. Ireland, 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 on the day hereinabove stated. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk JPW- saved: 8/16/2010-510-ballotl0-Nov-.hme mnoffAm V11 I fr [No run-off procedure] RESOLUTION NO. -31 (Series of 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORATE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN A CERTAIN QUESTION SEEKING APPROVAL OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ASPEN HOME RULE CHARTER BY REPEALING SECTION 2.7, AND AMENDING 3.2 AND 3.3 TO ELIMINATE ALL RUN-OFF VOTING PROCEDURES FOR THE OFFICES OF MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL. WHEREAS, the City Council desires to amend the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter to eliminate all types of run-off elections for the offices of Mayor and Members of Council, and to reinstate the previously used run-off procedures in June for the election of Mayor and Members of Council if the candidates for each office do not receive at least 40% of the votes cast, and; WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ask the voters to approve the ordinance that seeks to amend the Aspen Home Rule Charter as herein proposed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: The following question shall be placed on the ballot at the November 2, 2010, election: CITY OF ASPEN REFERENDUM NO. _ AMENDMENT TO CITY CHARTER — REPLACE IRV WITH WINNER TAKE ALL VOTING PROCEDURES. Shall Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2010, be approved? Ordinance No. 21, Series of 2010, if approved, would repeal Section 2.7 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter to eliminate all run-off voting procedures (including instant run-off voting procedures) for the election of mayor and members of Council; and to amend Sections 3.2 and 3.3 of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter to declare the candidates receiving the highest number of votes to be the winners of their respective election races. There are two ballot questions seeking to amend the City Charter to replace instant run-off voting procedures with alternative voting procedures. You may vote in favor of one or both questions. If more than one ballot question receives a majority of the votes cast, the question receiving the highest affirmative votes shall be deemed approved. Yes [ ] No [ ] INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of 2010. Michael C. Ireland, 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 on the day hereinabove stated. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk JPW-saved: 8/16/2010-510-ballotl0-Nov-no runoff N1111ft MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Taylor, Director of Finance THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager DATE OF MEMO: August 18, 2010 MEETING DATE: August 23, 2010 RE: Bond Issue for Acquisition of Given Property REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This ordinance would set a ballot question to issue debt for the purchase of the Given Institute property and allow for an increase in property taxes to pay the debt service on the bonds and for maintenance of the property. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council has discussed the acquisition of this property and directed staff to come up with a way to acquire the property. BACKGROUND: The property acquisition is proposed to avoid demolition of the Given Institute and to keep the property in the public domain. The purchase price for the property is $15,225,000. There are closing costs estimated at $75,000 included in the bond issuance amount plus $186,000 in issuance costs. DISCUSSION: In order to finance an acquisition this large, the city would have to issue bonds and pay for the debt service from a new revenue source. In order to issue bonds the city needs approval by the voters to issue the debt and to raise property taxes to pay for the debt service. It is estimated that a mill levy of.7 mills would service the debt (approximately 1,200,000 per year) and .15 mills for the $250,000 annual operating costs. These mill levies will likely increase after the 2012 reassessment but property assessed valuations would go down, thus yielding the same revenue stream. The mill levy is set each year in order to cover the debt service and the $250,000 maintenance fund. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The costs of the debt service and maintenance would be offset by new taxes. The City's exposure would be for maintenance costs that would exceed $250,000 per year. The taxes would expire when the debt is repaid in the case of the debt levy and when the city's maintenance responsibilities for the building expires in the case of the maintenance levy. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff has no recommendation. Page 1 ALTERNATIVES: The Council could choose to not to issue the bonds. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to adopt Resolution No.73: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. _J (Series of 2010) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORATE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN A CERTAIN QUESTION SEEKING AUTHORITY TO INCREASE CURRENT AN ADVALOREM PROPERTY TAXES AND FOR THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING, OPERATING AND MAINTAINING THE GIVEN INSTITUTE PROPERTY IN ASPEN, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the University of Colorado is the owner of the Given Institute, consisting of approximately 2.256 acres of land located within the municipal boundaries of the City of Aspen, and more particularly described on the attached Exhibit A (the "Given Institute Property"); and, WHEREAS, the Given Institute Property contains several existing structures (the "Institute Buildings"); and, WHEREAS, The University of Colorado is processing an application pursuant to the requirements of Section 26.415.025 of the Aspen Municipal Code ("Ordinance 48") of the City to obtain a demolition permit for the Institute Building; and, WHEREAS, Upon demolition of the Institute Building, the University of Colorado desires to sell the Given Institute Property to a private purchaser for the purpose of residential development in conformance with the current zoning for the Given Institute Property; and, WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Aspen desires to give the voters of Aspen an opportunity to preserve the Institute Buildings by purchasing the Given Institute Property by approving a ballot question seeking authorization to levy a property tax and the issuance of bonds for the purchase price, operation and maintenance of the Given Institute Property; and, WHEREAS, the University of Colorado has represented to the City of Aspen that it has received a bona fide offer from a private party to purchase the Given Institute Property for $15,225,000.00; and, WHEREAS, The University of Colorado is willing to sell the Given Institute Property to the City of Aspen for the same amount at the same terms and conditions of the private offer; and, WHEREAS the City of Aspen and the university of Colorado have entered into that certain memorandum of understanding approved by the City council in Resolution No. 51, Series of 2010; and, WHEREAS, Article X of the City of Aspen Home Rule Charter requires voter approval to increase City debt by the issuance of general obligation bonds or the levy of ad valorem property taxes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: The following question shall be placed on the ballot at the November 2, 2010, election: CITY OF ASPEN — REFERENDUM GIVEN INSTITUTE PROPERTY TAX INCREASE AND GENERAL OLIGATION BONDS. SHALL CITY OF ASPEN DEBT BE INCREASED BY UP TO $15,485,000, WITH A MAXIMUM REPAYMENT COST OF $23,550,000 BY THE ISSUANCE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASING THE GIVEN INSTITUTE PROPERTY CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 2.256 ACRES AND THE EXISTING STRUCTURES (PRIMARILY CONFERENCE FACILITIES) THEREON LOCATED IN ASPEN, COLORADO; SHALL CITY TAXES BE INCREASED BY UP TO $1,200,000 ANNUALLY IN ANY YEAR BY THE LEVY OF AD VALOREM PROPERTY TAXES, WITHOUT LIMITATION AS TO RATE OR AMOUNT OR ANY OTHER CONDITION, TO PAY THE PRINCIPAL OF, PREMIUM, IF ANY, AND INTEREST ON SUCH DEBT, TO OTHERWISE COMPLY WITH THE COVENANTS OF THE ORDINANCE OR OTHER INSTRUMENTS GOVERNING SUCH DEBT AND TO FUND UP TO $250,000 OF ANNUAL OPERATING AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES FOR SUCH PROPERTY; SHALL SUCH DEBT MATURE, BE SUBJECT TO REDEMPTION, WITH OR WITHOUT PREMIUM, AND BE ISSUED, DATED AND SOLD AT SUCH TIME OR TIMES, AT SUCH PRICES (AT, ABOVE OR BELOW PAR) AND IN SUCH MANNER AND WITH SUCH TERMS, NOT INCONSISTENT HEREWITH, AS THE CITY COUNCIL MAY DETERMINE; AND SHALL THE CITY BE AUTHORIZED TO COLLECT, RETAIN AND EXPEND ALL OF THE REVENUES OF SUCH TAXES, THE PROCEEDS OF SUCH BONDS AND THE EARNINGS THEREON IN 2011 AND EACH SUBSEQUENT YEAR, NOTWITHSTANDING THE LIMITATIONS OF ARTICLE X, SECTION 20 OF THE COLORADO CONSTITUTION (TABOR), SECTION 29-1-301, COLORADO REVISED STATUTES, OR ANY OTHER LAW? [ ] YES [ ] NO INTRODUCED, READ AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of 2010. Michael C. Ireland, 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 on the day hereinabove stated. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk JPW- saved: 08/17/2010 4:14:00 PM-510-G:\john\word\resos\ba11ot10-Nov-Given Instiwte.doc MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director 61 FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer RE: 100 E. Francis Street, The Given Institute, Ordinance #48 negotiation DATE: August 23, 2010 PROCESS: On August 9, 2010, City Council passed Resolution #64, Series of 2010, extending the Ordinance #48 negotiation period on the preservation of The Given Institute to September 22nd A noticed public hearing is in place, and Council is able, at this meeting or any time up until September 22nd, to offer incentives through an Ordinance that would secure landmark designation. However, the University of Colorado has never indicated any incentives are of interest. Staff has met with a citizen's committee who have brainstormed possible future tenants, and buyers of The Given Institute, as well as development options that might include subdividing just a portion of the property for residential use, or the creation and sale of TDRs. The committee also believes that it is important to communicate with the would-be buyer of the site, if an offer exists, to determine if any public/private partnership is possible. City participation in the purchase of the site must be authorized by the voters. This is the last regular Council meeting before ballot language is to be completed for the November election. Staff requests that Council provide direction to draft a ballot question, pursue partnership options, or suspend efforts.