HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20130115
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
January 15, 2013
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Galena Street Plaza
II. Joint Housing Work Session Follow Up
Page 1 of 4
MEMORANDUM
__________________________________________
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: John Laatsch –Project Manager, Capital Asset
Scott Chism – Planning and Construction Operations Manager, Parks
THRU: Randy Ready – Assistant City Manager
Scott Miller – Capital Asset Director
Jeff Woods – Manager of Parks and Recreation
DATE OF MEMO: January 10, 2013
MEETING DATE: January 15, 2013
RE: Galena Plaza Design Direction from City Council
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: We request that City Council authorize the continuation of design
work to complete 50% of Detail Design efforts. Staff believes that the refined Galena Plaza
design represents the stated priorities of City Council and looks forward to continuing, with
Council priorities in mind.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Staff and the Design Team received direction from City
Council at the September 18, 2012 work session to address the project priorities that Council
expressed:
• More/better utilization of the space;
• Create a strong connectivity between Rio Grande Park and the Aspen Downtown Core;
• Simplify and provide flexibility--Open Park Plan;
• Enhance Pedestrian Experience;
• Humble and Organic in its creation; “Less is More”;
Council approval and “check-in” has occurred on the following dates:
• September 18, 2012: City Council work session identified the project priorities from each
Council member
• August 13, 2012: City Council authorized the Design Service Contract with S.A. Miro,
Inc.
• June 18, 2012: City Council work session presented an update on the project status and
the elements of the Criteria Design;
• October 25, 2011: City Council work session direction to continue with Project Detailed
Design and develop an Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) process for the project;
• July 19, 2011 City Council Work Session direction to continue with Criteria Design
Plans;
• February 1, 2011 Joint City Council/BOCC direction to continue design development of
plaza concepts
P1
I.
Page 2 of 4
BACKGROUND: Capital Asset and Parks Department staff has conducted Community Open
Houses to solicit public input on proposed design elements. Community Open Houses were held
at the Rio Grande building on May 20, 2010 and September 15, 2011, both dates with 12:00 pm
and 5:30 pm sessions. The Community Open Houses provided useful design direction to the
design team.
Following the City Council direction from October 25, 2011, the design team further developed
the Galena Plaza design in greater detail in order to provide a more complete foundation on
which to solicit professional engineering and design services associated with the Galena Plaza
project. An extensive Request for Proposal (RFP) process soliciting potential Integrated Project
Delivery (IPD) engineering consultant teams was conducted from November 2011 through June
2012. City Council approved a Design Service Contract on August 13, 2012 following the RFP
process.
The November 2012 ballot issue to fund a proposed Library Expansion was turned down by the
voters and therefore staff and the Design Team have proceeded to refine the plaza design void of
any Library Expansion.
DISCUSSION: The IPD design process that is being followed for the Galena Plaza project
includes the following ‘milestones’ that allow continued refinement and modification to the
design to achieve desired goals:
• Conceptualization
• Criteria Design
• Detailed Design
50%
100%
• Implementation Documents (Construction Plans)
As a result of the priority direction provided by City Council the following revisions have been
made to the Galena Plaza Design: (Refer Attachment A)
• Refined/simplified pedestrian circulation walkways;
• Reduced scale of stairway while maintaining strong pedestrian connection between Rio
Grande Park and the Aspen Downtown Core;
• Reduced scope of garage roof expansion to the eastern side of the north elevation while
still providing additional public Open Space, Stairway and Overlook areas;
• Expanded Central Lawn open space for Special Events, both large and small;
• Provision of amphitheatre-like seating for performance and community flexibility;
Design elements that were proposed in the Criteria Design plan which have been eliminated:
• Elevator observation Tower;
• Children’s Play Area;
• Canopied Sitting Area;
• ‘Grand’ Stairway;
• Sheriff/Police Parking on the Galena Street termination;
• Library Expansion Considerations;
P2
I.
Page 3 of 4
While the first priority of the project is to repair waterproofing and structural deficiencies
associated with the existing garage roof, the resulting public space must be flexible enough to
provide a variety of programmatic uses while providing a vibrant and successful community
space.
The proposed design is not a new design but a simplified version of what has been previously
presented to Council and generated from public input. The design seeks to embrace Aspen’s
natural and cultural context; sophisticated while casual and inviting; urban yet soft, organic and
naturalistic; programmed while remaining informal and flexible. The design provides
approximately 4,000 square feet of additional lawn area and nearly twice the amount of informal
seating appropriate for performances than the Criteria Design plan. Two informal performance
spaces are oriented to maximize views to both the north and the south. The alley corridor known
as Library Walk will integrate lighting and banners to promote an inviting pedestrian
environment with grading and surface materials designed to mitigate stormwater quality.
Library Walk is still proposed to become a one-way vehicular route exiting onto Main Street to
accommodate service, Courthouse access and special event vehicular access. Vehicular parking
at the terminus of North Galena has been reduced to two spaces for handicap parking and vehicle
inspections. All Sheriff and Police vehicle parking is proposed to be relocated to other areas in
close proximity to Sheriff and Police office space, out of the North Galena Street termination
area, in order to promote “pedestrian friendliness” along the Galena Connector.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: A comprehensive project budget range of $4.0- $4.3
million for the proposed Criteria Design was established in 2011 and approved by City Council.
The budget range for the proposed Criteria Design was discussed during the July 19, 2011 and
October 25, 2011 Council work sessions. At present, the budget is funded from numerous
department sources and has the remaining allocations as follows:
2012 Appropriations: $ 906,346.90
2013 Budget: $1,950,000.00
2014 Budget: $1,150,000.00
Galena Plaza comprehensive budget $4,006,346.90
As the Detailed Design phase of this comprehensive project is developed, the IPD Engineering
Consultant Team of S.A. Miro, Inc./Studio-Insite/Studio B Architects will work with staff to
evaluate the magnitude of value for the proposed design elements within alternative construction
scenarios. Professional engineering and design services are necessary to assist staff to provide
City Council the comprehensive project cost information that will be required for decision
making relative to this project as the project continues to develop.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The environmental impacts are generally positive.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that City Council direct staff and the Design
Team to continue with design efforts to reach 50% complete Detail Design; meet with Project
Stakeholders and to hold a Community Open House to communicate the design progress of the
project to date.
P3
I.
Page 4 of 4
ALTERNATIVES: Council could choose not to approve continuation of the project design
effort to achieve 50% of Detail Design.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
______
______________________________________________________________________________
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Galena Plaza Design Plan & Diagrams (6 pages)
P4
I.
Ga
l
e
n
a
P
l
a
z
a
1
As
p
e
n
,
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
IS
S
U
E
D
A
T
E
1.
1
5
.
1
3
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
10
’
20
’
40
’
6
0
’
N
PI
T
K
I
N
C
O
U
N
T
Y
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
CI
T
Y
OF
F
I
C
E
S
PI
T
K
I
N
C
O
U
N
T
Y
JA
I
L
CO
U
R
T
H
O
U
S
E
E .
M
A
I
N
S
T
.
N . M I
L
L
S
T
.
R I O G R A N D E P L A C EATTACHMENT AATTACHMENT A P5I.
Ga
l
e
n
a
P
l
a
z
a
1
As
p
e
n
,
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
IS
S
U
E
D
A
T
E
1.
1
5
.
1
3
SI
T
E
P
L
A
N
10
’
20
’
40
’
6
0
’
N
PI
T
K
I
N
C
O
U
N
T
Y
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
CI
T
Y
OF
F
I
C
E
S
PI
T
K
I
N
C
O
U
N
T
Y
JA
I
L
CO
U
R
T
H
O
U
S
E
E .
M
A
I
N
S
T
.
N . M I
L
L
S
T
.
R I O G R A N D E P L A C E
TH
E
PE
R
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
GR
E
E
N
TH
E
OV
E
R
L
O
O
K
GA
L
E
N
A
CO
N
N
E
C
T
O
R
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
WA
L
K
ATTACHMENT AATTACHMENT A P6I.
Ga
l
e
n
a
P
l
a
z
a
3
As
p
e
n
,
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
IS
S
U
E
D
A
T
E
1.
1
5
.
1
3
SP
A
T
I
A
L
D
I
A
G
R
A
M
10
’
20
’
40
’
6
0
’
N
PIT
K
I
N
CO
U
NT
Y
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
CIT
Y
OFF
I
CES
PIT
K
I
N
CO
U
NTY
JA
I
L
CO
UR
T
H
OU
SE
E .
M A
I
N
S
T .
N . M I
L
L
S
T
.
TH
E
P
E
R
F
O
R
M
A
N
C
E
G
R
E
E
N
•
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
n
o
p
e
n
s
p
a
c
e
t
h
a
t
i
s
c
a
p
a
b
l
e
o
f
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
o
f
u
s
e
s
an
d
a
c
t
i
v
i
t
i
e
s
a
n
d
h
a
s
a
p
a
r
k
l
i
k
e
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
t
h
a
t
i
s
c
o
m
f
o
r
t
a
b
l
e
an
d
i
n
v
i
t
i
n
g
•
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
o
f
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
g
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
g
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
th
a
t
e
n
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s
s
o
c
i
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
•
P
l
a
n
t
i
n
g
i
s
s
t
r
a
t
e
g
i
c
a
l
l
y
p
l
a
c
e
d
t
o
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
a
s
e
n
s
e
o
f
pl
a
c
e
,
s
c
r
e
e
n
i
n
g
,
a
n
d
e
n
c
l
o
s
u
r
e
R I O G R A N D E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEATTACHMENT AATTACHMENT A P7I.
Ga
l
e
n
a
P
l
a
z
a
4
As
p
e
n
,
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
IS
S
U
E
D
A
T
E
1.
1
5
.
1
3
SP
A
T
I
A
L
D
I
A
G
R
A
M
10
’
20
’
40
’
6
0
’
N
PIT
K
I
N
CO
U
NT
Y
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
CIT
Y
OFF
I
CES
PIT
K
I
N
CO
U
NTY
JA
I
L
CO
UR
T
H
OU
SE
E .
M A
I
N
S
T .
N . M I
L
L
S
T
.
TH
E
O
V
E
R
L
O
O
K
•
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
d
r
a
m
a
t
i
c
p
u
b
l
i
c
g
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
f
o
r
v
a
r
i
o
u
s
in
f
o
r
m
a
l
a
n
d
p
l
a
n
n
e
d
e
v
e
n
t
s
•
C
a
p
i
t
a
l
i
z
e
s
o
n
t
h
e
v
i
e
w
s
t
o
b
o
t
h
R
e
d
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
a
n
d
A
s
p
e
n
Sk
i
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
•
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
n
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
d
a
n
d
i
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
co
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
t
o
a
n
d
f
r
o
m
R
i
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
P
a
r
k
R I O G R A N D E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEATTACHMENT AATTACHMENT A P8I.
Ga
l
e
n
a
P
l
a
z
a
5
As
p
e
n
,
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
IS
S
U
E
D
A
T
E
1.
1
5
.
1
3
SP
A
T
I
A
L
D
I
A
G
R
A
M
10
’
20
’
40
’
6
0
’
N
PIT
K
I
N
CO
U
NT
Y
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
CIT
Y
OFF
I
CES
PIT
K
I
N
CO
U
NTY
JA
I
L
CO
UR
T
H
OU
SE
E .
M A
I
N
S
T .
N . M I
L
L
S
T
.
GA
L
E
N
A
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
O
R
•
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
n
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
/
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
R
i
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
P
a
r
k
t
o
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
•
A
v
i
b
r
a
n
t
a
n
d
a
c
t
i
v
e
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
e
x
p
e
r
i
e
n
c
e
t
h
a
t
i
s
o
r
g
a
n
i
c
an
d
f
r
e
e
fl o
w
i
n
g
a
n
d
r
e
fl e
c
t
i
v
e
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
’
s
n
a
t
u
r
a
l
a
n
d
cu
l
t
u
r
a
l
c
o
n
t
e
x
t
•
O
f
f
e
r
s
a
v
a
r
i
e
t
y
o
f
s
e
a
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
g
a
t
h
e
r
i
n
g
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
t
h
a
t
en
c
o
u
r
a
g
e
s
o
c
i
a
l
i
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
o
n
•
I
n
t
e
g
r
a
t
e
d
w
a
y
fi n
d
i
n
g
a
n
d
s
i
g
n
a
g
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
e
s
a
s
e
n
s
e
o
f
pl
a
c
e
a
n
d
a
r
r
i
v
a
l
R I O G R A N D E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEATTACHMENT AATTACHMENT A P9I.
R I O G R A N D E EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE PPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPPLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Ga
l
e
n
a
P
l
a
z
a
6
As
p
e
n
,
C
o
l
o
r
a
d
o
IS
S
U
E
D
A
T
E
1.
1
5
.
1
3
SP
A
T
I
A
L
D
I
A
G
R
A
M
10
’
20
’
40
’
6
0
’
N
PIT
K
I
N
CO
U
NT
Y
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
CIT
Y
OFF
I
CES
PIT
K
I
N
CO
U
NTY
JA
I
L
CO
UR
T
H
OU
SE
E .
M A
I
N
S
T .
N . M I
L
L
S
T
.
LI
B
R
A
R
Y
W
A
L
K
•
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
a
s
a
f
e
a
n
d
e
n
h
a
n
c
e
d
p
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
c
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
fr
o
m
M
i
l
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
t
o
G
a
l
e
n
a
P
l
a
z
a
•
H
a
s
i
n
f
r
a
s
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
i
n
p
l
a
c
e
c
a
p
a
b
l
e
o
f
s
u
p
p
o
r
t
i
n
g
a
s
t
r
e
e
t
fa
i
r
e
n
v
i
r
o
n
m
e
n
t
•
B
u
f
f
e
r
s
b
a
c
k
o
f
h
o
u
s
e
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
t
o
t
h
e
n
o
r
t
h
•
M
a
i
n
t
a
i
n
s
fi r
e
t
r
u
c
k
a
c
c
e
s
s
•
P
r
o
v
i
d
e
s
o
p
p
o
r
t
u
n
i
t
i
e
s
f
o
r
s
t
o
r
m
w
a
t
e
r
q
u
a
l
i
t
y
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
ATTACHMENT AATTACHMENT A P10I.
Page 1
CITY COUNCIL WORKSESSION
FOLLOW-UP MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
DATE OF MEMO: November 19, 2012
UPDATED: December 26, 2012
MEETING DATES: September 27, 2012 and October 11, 2012
RE: Joint Housing Worksessions
On September 27th and October 11th the City Council, the BOCC and the APCHA Board met in a
joint worksession to discuss housing issues. At those meetings four major topics were covered:
1. The Demand and Supply for Housing over the next 10 years
2. Capital Reserves in our Existing Housing and how to set up owners of that housing for
success in maintaining their investment
3. Expanding the role of the housing program
4. Governance
The next sections outline the direction we understand you have given to staff from those
worksessions.
From September 27th Worksession
Consensus Next Steps for Housing Demand Working Group (Staff):
Generally, stay the course on the housing demand assumptions. We need 657 over the next ten
years and community has land to make 377 a reality (these numbers assumed no increase in
program scope to allow for units needed to meet “community housing” needs – it is for
workforce needs only).
● Need to do additional research to better understand Category 1 unit need.
● Explore possibilities of standardizing construction guidelines for unit categories 5, 6,
and 7. Although is helpful to have some different sale prices in each category, the cost
savings of standardization of units can be significant. Consider changes within quality
of life considerations and lifecycle use of units. Conduct a lifecycle analysis for
category units.
● Gather exit (seller) interview information conducted by Housing Authority.
P11
II.
Page 2
● Retirement Issues: Look at the following to incentivize efficiency of use
What is a retiree? Do current definitions get adjusted? (65 or four years of
work history)
Three versus six-month absence change for seniors
Downsizing incentives (look at the housing frontiers group analysis)
● Other property ownership – although the elected officials are open to the idea of
people buying units down valley, there is concern about timing (if you can buy a
downvalley property should you be in AH in Aspen?) Maybe look into a senior housing
option like CCR in Basalt also potentially look at asset changes especially if you're
moving between units as opposed to purchasing a AH unit for the first time.
Consensus Next Steps for Capital Reserve Working Group (Staff):
New housing and deed restrictions
● Explore new policies that require a percentage in capital replacement funds for
receiving appreciation related to their unit. If you don't contribute to the capital fund,
you don't see the appreciation. Or two investments -unit and capital fund [refer to
Mick’s and the Frontiers group ideas].
Old Deed Restrictions
● Explore deed restriction change mechanisms that may be possible at the sale of unit.
Look at incentives.
● Role of local governments will be limited in relation to HOA Capital Replacement
Funds. Local governments will focus on education related to capital reserve studies;
researching financing options for capital replacement funds, but may include a
revolving loan fund.
● In looking for financing mechanisms for capital replacement detail the pros and cons
for each of the private and the public side recognizing that one size doesn't fit all.
There may be creative ways to incentivize homeowners to change their deed
restrictions - i.e. increased appreciation. (See Frontier group) The finance
departments from the City of Aspen and Pitkin County should be involved in this
effort.
● Want to preserve the deed restrictions as a community asset.
From October 11th Worksession
September 27 Summary of Next Steps – Items to remember:
Need a pro con analysis of buying downvalley property as a possible retirement
option/strategy for some in affordable housing. At what age could people employ this
strategy?
Need to include questions on retirement age (stilll working? how many hours?) in
housing surveys.
P12
II.
Page 3
Need to better understand interior versus exterior Cap reserve needs. Consensus Next
Steps for Housing Demand Working Group (Staff)
Consensus Next Steps for Community Housing Demand Working Group (Staff):
● Clarifying special need housing demand (see September 27 numbers)
● Detail guideline tweaks for APCHA to consider - Note: changes in guidelines will impact
demand.
● Detail opportunities for additional funding (Share examples of solutions and expertise
about attracting additional resources).
● Ensure community wide discussion on how to address special needs issue
comprehensively.
● Special needs people are here; need to make sure they can stay.
Consensus Next Steps for Governance Working Group (Staff):
● Add affordable housing as standing item to quarterly City/County joint meetings. Add
more time as well.
● APCHA agendas and minutes need to be sent to all elected officials on Council and the
BOCC to help understand the issues APCHA is facing better.
● Continue discussion of whether to add elected officials or staff to the APCHA board.
Review if needed with quarterly meetings and new guideline change process. Key
question - how to best integrate /complement City and County housing efforts?
● APCHA and City / County Staff to craft a call up and pro/con memo process for
guideline changes:
Simple guidelines – on a consent agenda
Policy changes – part of discussion at quarterly meetings with standard pro/con
memo to all boards
● Housing ideas all need to be vetted by APCHA board then pro/con change memo sent
from APCHA to both boards either on consent or quarterly meeting agenda.
● Housing Frontiers Group is an ad hoc committee to APCHA. It’s existence may indicate
APCHA needs more resources to enable housing policy / guidelines discussions at the
APCHA board level.
Next Steps:
The city council held out one of their Top Ten Goals to be determined as a Housing Goal after
the joint worksessions were concluded. I would propose the following next steps:
1. Establish as your TBD Top Ten Goal a goal around dealing with the issue of Capital
Reserves – we need to help existing HOAs to understand the limitations as to the help
they can expect to receive from their government, but to also begin to help them create
realistic plans to deal with their capital reserve needs. This should include some
P13
II.
Page 4
education, a reference to lenders willing to help them, and a menu of options for them
to consider. This goal should also include a range of options for Council to consider in
terms of changes to deed restrictions and guidelines that would provide the financial
incentives for owners to deal with this on their own.
Proposed Goal:
“Work with HOAs to develop a plan to fully fund their individual capital reserve
requirements, using a tool kit of possible actions that can respond to the needs of
current and future owners of affordable housing units without direct taxpayer funding.”
2. Task the County government with all follow-up relative to expanding the role of the
housing program into “community housing” or social service arenas. I believe a
commitment from the City to maintain its traditional focus on workforce housing will
send the signal that new assets and new funding streams must be found to provide for
this expansion of effort – and that task should fall on the County government.
3. Governance direction can be handled as routine changes to current practice and should
not entail much additional effort. If you want to continue the conversation about
putting elected officials on the APCHA Board, you can do that at your quarterly meetings
with the BOCC, which will now include the APCHA Board for a portion of those
meetings.
4. Those follow-up items regarding Demand/Supply should be tasked as follows:
a) Need to do additional research to better understand Category 1 unit need.
DEFER THIS EFFORT – as the possibility of developing new units arises, decisions
about category mix can be made then. Category 1 units should be rental only
and the number can be determined as rental units are poised for construction.
b) Explore possibilities of standardizing construction guidelines for unit categories
5, 6, and 7. Although is helpful to have some different sale prices in each
category, the cost savings of standardization of units can be significant. REJECT
IN PART and DO NOT ASSIGN. Our current approach is to standardize design for
all categories – this approach should be maintained by the city as it develops
new units. What we should do is to issue a set of construction standard
guidelines that indicates minimum levels of livability/quality standards for AH
projects – this would be assigned to the Affordable Housing Project Manager,
APCHA staff and the Asset Department.
c) Consider changes within quality of life considerations and lifecycle use of units.
ASSIGN to APCHA/Housing Frontiers Group
d) Conduct a lifecycle analysis for category units. Hire a consultant to do this work
under the direction of the City’s Affordable Housing Project Manager.
P14
II.
Page 5
e) Gather exit (seller) interview information conducted by Housing Authority.
ASSIGN to APCHA and incorporate into their standard business practice.
f) Retirement Issues: Look at the following to incentivize efficiency of use
What is a retiree? Do current definitions get adjusted? (65 or four years of
work history)
Three versus six-month absence change for seniors
Downsizing incentives (look at the housing frontiers group analysis)
ASSIGN to APCHA Board and the Frontiers Group for analysis and
recommendation.
g) Other property ownership – although the elected officials are open to the idea of
people buying units down valley, there is concern about timing (if you can buy a
downvalley property should you be in AH in Aspen?) REJECT and do not explore
as a policy option – the current policy of owning only a deed restricted unit
within the current exclusion zone is appropriate and should be followed.
h) Maybe look into a senior housing option like CCR in Basalt. ASSIGN to Pitkin
County as part of their expansion effort review.
i) Also potentially look at asset changes especially if you're moving between units
as opposed to purchasing a AH unit for the first time. ASSIGN to APCHA Board
and Frontiers Group to analyze and make recommendation.
Taking on the effort to work with HOAs and to develop some policy options for the Council to
consider as ways of helping HOAs and existing owners solve their own problems will be a very
staff-intensive effort. Minimizing additional tasks is a necessary choice to make as other
housing issues are also dealt with (Burlingame IIa construction, potential partnerships for rental
housing development on the city’s other/land-banked properties, renegotiation of the Marolt
agreement with the MAA) – the limits of staff work are being approached even before we start
down the path of taking on all the work contemplated by the Joint Housing Worksessions. It is
imperative that priorities be set and the County government take on the issues that they have
raised and championed.
Housing Office staff availability for additional work is extremely limited and should be focused
on helping the APCHA Board and the Housing Frontiers group deal with the analysis and
recommendation areas suggested as their assignments. I believe they will have to be
augmented by assistance from the City Manager’s Office (Assistant City Manager and
Affordable Housing Project Manager) even though those resources already have assignments
made and the ongoing tasks outlined above.
Expectations will have to be managed or additional resources will be needed if Council desires
all of these tasks to be short-term completion areas.
P15
II.
Page 6
One Additional Recommendation
I would also suggest that an effort be made to explore how to free up more of the APCHA
Board’s time to engage in policy-level discussions – and that the most obvious way to do this is
to delegate much of the rule-enforcement activity that now constitutes the bulk of their board
meetings to the APCHA staff. If the APCHA Board is to function as a body for policy
considerations, its role as an enforcement entity needs to be curtailed. That function can, and
should, be relegated to the staff of the Authority. The Board is ready and willing to take up
more of the “forward looking”, policy-making role that is necessary – and their agenda should
reflect that priority.
P16
II.