HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20150623
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
June 23, 2015
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. School District Sales Tax - No Packet Material
II. Cash in Lieu of Housing
III. Civic Space Relocation Project Conceptual Design
Page 1 of 6
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and Council
THROUGH: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
FROM Mike Kosdrosky, APCHA Executive Director
Chris Everson, Affordable Housing Project Manager
DATE: June 17, 2015
MEETING DATE: June 23, 2015
RE: Fee-In-Lieu (FIL) Mitigation Methodology/Models
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff seeks a final decision by Council regarding Fee-in-Lieu (FIL)
methodology/models for affordable housing (AH) mitigation. The goal is not to establish a specific
fee, but to develop a reliable, defensible, predictable, and updatable methodology/mode upon
which a fee can be calculated and the ordinance that established that fee can be amended .
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council generally agreed FIL should eventually be phased out
as an AH mitigation option, but also agreed it should remain an option for the present. Council
directed staff to investigate and advance the following methodologies/models:
Explore and refine Option No. 4 (below) – a new methodology using assessor actual
land value and prevailing construction cost; and
Some combination of Option No. 5 and Option No. 6 (below) – historical cost to
develop plus estimated future development costs.
BACKGROUND: At the March 31, 2015 work session City Council reviewed seven AH mitigation
options:
1) Continue current methodology used in APCHA Guidelines;
2) Market affordability gap method proposed by RRC/Rees Consulting in 2012;
3) Staff-modified market affordability gap method;
4) New gap methodology separating land cost from construction cost;
5) Historical cost to develop method;
6) Estimated future development cost method; and/or
7) Remove FIL as an AH mitigation option altogether.
P1
II.
Page 2 of 6
Council directed APCHA and City staff to recommend a methodology to calculate fee-in-lieu (FIL)
mitigation rates. Aspen’s fee-in-lieu mitigation option has long been in place as one of several
available to offset the employee housing impacts resulting from development or re-development
of commercial and residential property. Some consider the City’s current FIL rate so low that it
is, for all but fractional mitigation purposes, an unreliable mitigation tool. The concern being that
FIL may not generate enough revenue to offset the cost of providing additional employee
housing.
DISCUSSION: The assigned task was not to establish a specific fee, but to recommend a FIL
methodology/model based on the criteria that it be reliable, predictable, updatable, and
defensible.
Staff has come up with the two FIL methodologies/models per City Council’s request plus an
alternative to Option #4 (above) based on average, not actual, assessor land value.
1. Fee-in-Lieu Model #1A: 2015 Average Assessor Land Value with Future Estimated
Development Cost Based on Recent Construction Cost.
2. Fee-in-Lieu Model #1B: 2015 Actual Assessor Land Value with Future Estimated
Development Cost Based on Recent Construction Cost.
3. Fee-in-Lieu Model #2: Combination of Historical and Future Estimated Development
Cost with Historical Land Cost.
Density projections for each project are based on assumptions we have been using for some
time now, and cost projections follow using escalation assumptions as listed in the tables.
Fee-in-Lieu Model #1A
This proposed methodology estimates future AH project costs based on recent construction
cost experience and an average 2015 land value calculated from Pitkin County assessor data.
This removes any specific land from the subsequent calculations and provides a kind of “land
gap cost” approach to establishing the cost of land in any model to construct affordable
housing.
Average land value was calculated using assessor data with corresponding neighborhood
codes from assessor’s office and by omitting the top and bottom 10% of values. This is done
to address the concerns that very high property values – which we would not target for a
building program – would not be part of the cost calculation. It also removes properties from
the lower end of the cost spectrum and focuses the cost calculation on the “middle” portion
of the available land in the UGB. With a resulting sample size of 1,474 parcels within the
Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), the average land value was calculated to be $8.6 million per
acre. This value is then prorated to the size of each parcel for each project shown. Density
projections for each project are based on assumptions shown and development parameters,
and cost projections follow using escalation assumptions.
P2
II.
Page 3 of 6
RESULT: This methodology results in an average 21% increase over the existing fee-in-lieu
subsidies per Full-Time Employee (FTE).
AH Existing Model #1A
Category Subsidy/FTE Subsidy/FTE $ Change % Change
Cat 1 $295,077 $351,670 $56,593 19%
Cat 2 $246,881 $290,269 $43,388 18%
Cat 3 $232,946 $258,197 $25,251 11%
Cat 4 $144,393 $199,545 $55,152 38%
Fee-in-Lieu Model #1B
This proposed methodology estimates future AH project costs based on recent construction
cost experience and actual 2015 Pitkin County assessor land values for each parcel in the city
inventory. In this approach, those critics who say our embedded cost includes land we
purchased at the height of the boom period should not be used to calculate costs going
forward. In some cases where actual 2015 Pitkin County assessor land values were not readily
available, values for comparable properties were prorated.
RESULT: This methodology results in an average 18% decrease from the existing fee-in-lieu
subsidies per FTE.
AH Existing Model #1B
Category Subsidy/FTE Subsidy/FTE $ Change % Change
Cat 1 $295,077 $252,944 -$42,133 -14%
Cat 2 $246,881 $207,997 -$38,884 -16%
Cat 3 $232,946 $175,926 -$57,020 -24%
Cat 4 $144,393 $117,274 -$27,119 -19%
Fee-in-Lieu Model #2
This proposed model uses a combination of historical projects and future estimated projects.
In each case, historical land costs are used. This model represents our best estimates as to
the actual total cost of our developing housing on the parcels we currently own.
RESULT: This methodology results in an average 6% decrease from the existing fee-in-lieu
subsidies per FTE.
AH Existing Model #2
Category Subsidy/FTE Subsidy/FTE $ Change % Change
Cat 1 $295,077 $284,483 -$10,594 - 4%
Cat 2 $246,881 $234,280 -$12,601 - 5%
Cat 3 $232,946 $202,208 -$30,738 -13%
Cat 4 $144,393 $143,556 -$ 837 - 1%
P3
II.
Page 4 of 6
Conclusions
The criteria to evaluate each methodology/model are:
Is it reliable, predictable, updatable, and defensible?
For context, Reliable means that something is consistently good in quality or performance;
able to be trusted. Predictable means that something is expected, especially on the basis of
previous or known behavior. Updatable means that something can be brought up to date by
adding new information or making corrections. Defensible means that something can be
defended in argument and is justifiable.
The sources of data used to construct each methodology/model include:
the 2015 Pitkin County Assessor,
the Burlingame Phase 2A actual project costs, and
the parcel/property information for each land-banked project site.
Each methodology/model’s future project costs estimates are based on verifiable – and
therefore more reliable, predictable, updatable and justifiable - information using these three
sources.
The more unpredictable variables affecting each methodology/model’s FIL subsidy/FTE
calculation include:
density;
inflation (land and construction costs);
revenue escalation;
Floor Area Ratio (FAR) at each property;
the number of units built; and
the type of category(ies) built.
These variables are often more unpredictable because they are based on assumptions, which
can vary widely depending upon future economic conditions and changing
political/regulatory circumstances and priorities.
Higher densities make the resulting calculations for fees lower. More efficient use of the land
spreads the per FTE costs across high land values with more units – thus creating lower values.
For example, if the densities at 488 Castle Creek and the Lumber yard were reduced by a third,
then the resulting percentage change for each methodology would become +30 percent, -16
percent and +2 percent, respectively.
The impact of density change is less on Model #1B and Model #2 than on Model #1A because
#1B and #2 result in much lower total land cost and thus land becomes less of a percentage of
the overall subsidy. In fact, #1B and #2 both result in roughly the same in total land cost.
P4
II.
Page 5 of 6
To help illustrate the impact on the models of density decisions – but not to force Council to
make premature decisions about density on any of the properties – we show below the impact
of a 25% reduction in density on the three models.
Fee-in-Lieu Model #1A
Instead of in an average 21% increase over the existing fee-in-lieu subsidies per Full-Time
Employee (FTE), a 25% reduction in density of future projects results in an additional 14%
change on average, for a total average 35% increase.
Fee-in-Lieu Model #1B
Instead of an average 18% decrease from the existing fee-in-lieu subsidies per FTE, a 25%
reduction in density of future projects results in an additional 7% change on average, for a
total average 11% decrease.
Fee-in-Lieu Model #2
Instead of an average 6% decrease from the existing fee-in-lieu subsidies per FTE, a 25%
reduction in density of future projects results in an additional 13% change on average, for a
total average 7% increase.
To help put this in perspective, the 25% density reduction increases land cost per unit from about
$150K to about $200K.
1A 1A 1B 1B 2 2
Sensitivity 100% 75% 100% 75% 100% 75%
Cat1 % Change 19% 31% -14% -8% -4% 7%
Cat2 % Change 18% 29% -16% -10% -5% 6%
Cat3 % Change 11% 23% -24% -18% -13% -2%
Cat4 % Change 38% 58% -19% -9% -1% 18%
AVG % Change 21% 35% -18% -11% -6% 7%
Diff + 14% Diff + 7% Diff + 13%
# Units @100% /acre @75% /acre
802 West Main St 12 57 9 43
517 Park Circle 15 45 12 36
488 Castle Creek 33 40 25 30
Bgame Ph2B 79 376 N/A N/A
Lumber Yrd 150 21 113 16
P5
II.
Page 6 of 6
The only methodology/model option that results in an increase in the existing FIL subsidy per
employee is Model #1A with an average increase of 21 percent across Categories 1-4. Models
#1B and #2 actually result in decreasing the existing FIL subsidies per employee, with an
average decrease across Categories 1-4 of 18 percent and 6 percent, respectively.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Based on the fact that the Pitkin County Assessor’s office does
not use average land values in their practice and cautioned against such a practice in this
case, and based on the impacts of changes to the density variable and the resulting very high
cost of land in Model #1, staff recommends Council discard Methodology/Model #1A and
choose between Methodology/Model #1B and #2.
If Fee-in-Lieu is supposed to recover the cost of the government developing mitigation housing on
behalf of those who have a mitigation requirement, and because Methodology/Model #2 best
represents the real cost to the city to develop housing over the next 10-15 years, we recommend
Council adopt Model #2. As staff moves forward with community outreach for potential housing
development on land which the City owns, the density part of th e equation can be further honed.
When that occurs, the calculated values for Fee-in-Lieu under the chosen methodology will be
subject to change by some amount, but will likely remain near the ranges described above.
ALTERNATIVES: Discontinue FIL as an AH mitigation option – thus depending more on the AH
certificate program to provide for fractional and small unit number requirements, and on those
with mitigation requirements actually building more housing themselves .
ATTACHMENTS: FIL Models #1A, #1B, and #2 worksheets
P6
II.
FEE In Lieu Model #1A: 2015 Average Assessor Land Value with Future Estimated Development Cost Based on Recent Construction Cost 6/5/2015
Projects Burlingame Ph2A 802 West Main 517 Park Circle 488 Castle Creek Bgame2B Lumber Yard AVERAGE EXISTING CHANGE % Change
Actual Projected Future Projected Future Projected Future Projected Future Projected Future
Project Parameters:
Year Occupied:2014.5 2017 2018 2019 2021 2025
Land acres:7.00 0.21 0.33 0.82 7.00 7.20
Land Sq Ft 304920 9000 14458 35895 304920 313632
FAR / Land Sq Ft 28%90%75%65%28%40.5%
FAR:85600 8100 10844 23332 85790 127021
Net Area:86312 8100 10844 23332 84940 127021
FTE:195.75 20.3 27.1 58.3 193.0 317.6
Units:82 12 15 33 79 150
Bedrooms:$172 $12 $15 $33 170 263
Units/acre:11.7 56.0 46.7 40.4 11.3 20.9
FTE/Acre 28.0 98.0 81.7 70.8 27.6 44.1
Avg Category:2.94 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
Gross Area:94631 8881 11889 25581 93670 139264
Vertical Const Only / Net Area $342 $368 $379 $390 $414 $466
Total Cost / Net Area $514 $707 $766 $821 $1,258 $1,105
$226,850.76
Cost Historical $Assessor $Future $Total Assessor $Future $Total Assessor $Future $Total Assessor $Future $Total Assessor $Future $Total
Land $485,594 $1,778,288 $1,778,288 $2,856,721 $2,856,721 $7,092,406 $7,092,406 $60,248,405 $60,248,405 $61,969,788 $61,969,788
Soft Costs $6,993,065 $469,466 $469,466 $647,330 $647,330 $1,434,633 $1,434,633 $5,540,898 $5,540,898 $9,325,930 $9,325,930
Construction: Offsite Infrastructure $2,093,538 $140,546 $140,546 $193,793 $193,793 $429,491 $429,491 $1,658,798 $1,658,798 $2,791,936 $2,791,936
Construction: Onsite Infrastructure $3,301,154 $221,617 $221,617 $305,579 $305,579 $677,234 $677,234 $2,615,642 $2,615,642 $4,402,409 $4,402,409
Construction: Buildings/Landscape $29,503,361 $2,981,113 $2,981,113 $4,110,551 $4,110,551 $9,109,932 $9,109,932 $35,184,755 $35,184,755 $59,219,749 $59,219,749
Construction: Other/Mitigation $2,029,323 $136,235 $136,235 $187,849 $187,849 $416,317 $416,317 $1,607,917 $1,607,917 $2,706,299 $2,706,299
Total Development $44,406,036 $1,778,288 $3,948,975 $5,727,264 $2,856,721 $5,445,103 $8,301,824 $7,092,406 $12,067,607 $19,160,013 $60,248,405 $46,608,010 $106,856,415 $61,969,788 $78,446,323 $140,416,111
Average Existing
Subsidy/FTE Revenues Subsidy Subsidy/FTE Revenues Subsidy Subsidy/FTE Revenues Subsidy Subsidy/FTE Revenues Subsidy Subsidy/FTE Revenues Subsidy Subsidy/FTE Subsidy/FTE Subsidy/FTE Change % Change
Category 1 Subsidy per FTE N/A $618,450 $5,108,814 $252,287 $844,480 $7,457,345 $275,090 $1,853,391 $17,306,622 $296,705 $5,889,396 $100,967,018 $523,145 $9,863,580 $130,552,531 $411,121 $351,670 $295,077 $56,593 19%
Category 2 Subsidy per FTE $164,721 $1,320,153 $4,407,111 $217,635 $1,802,639 $6,499,185 $239,745 $3,956,278 $15,203,736 $260,653 $13,101,545 $93,754,870 $485,777 $21,942,509 $118,473,602 $373,084 $290,269 $246,881 $43,388 18%
Category 3 Subsidy per FTE $138,118 $2,009,962 $3,717,301 $183,570 $2,744,559 $5,557,266 $204,999 $6,023,522 $13,136,491 $225,212 $18,990,941 $87,865,474 $455,262 $31,806,088 $108,610,022 $342,022 $258,197 $232,946 $25,251 11%
Category 4 Subsidy per FTE $95,044 $3,330,115 $2,397,149 $118,378 $4,547,198 $3,754,627 $138,502 $9,979,800 $9,180,214 $157,386 $29,446,981 $77,409,433 $401,085 $49,317,898 $91,098,213 $286,876 $199,545 $144,393 $55,152 38%
Assumptions:
Annual Cost Escalation 1.03
Annual Revenue Escalation 1.02
Net Area / FAR 100%
Net Area / FTE 400
2015 AVERAGE Assessor land value calculation:
total parcels.. 8162
parcels with neighborhood code.. 2177
exclude types exempt, mine, housing auth.. 1858
exclude parcels with no land value assigned.. 1842
exclude highest and lowest 10% in value/acre.. 1474
avg = $8,606,915 per acre
$8,606,915.00
This proposed model estimates future projects based on recent construction cost experience and using an average 2015 land value calculated from Pitkin County assessor data. Density projections are based on assumptions
shown. Steps in the calculations are as follows: 1) Establish Land Area; 2) FAR per land area assumption at each property; 3) Net area is a function of FAR; 4) FTEs and Units based upon net area; 5) Land Cost based upon per
acre average 2015 assessor land value; 6) Future development costs based on escalation of recent construction cost experience; 7) Sales revenues at each income level based on assumed escalation shown.
P
7
I
I
.
FEE In Lieu Model #1B: 2015 Actual Assessor Land Value with Future Estimated Development Cost Based on Recent Construction Cost 6/5/2015
Projects Burlingame Ph2A 802 West Main 517 Park Circle 488 Castle Creek Bgame2B Lumber Yard AVERAGE EXISTING CHANGE % Change
Actual Projected Future Projected Future Projected Future Projected Future Projected Future
Project Parameters:
Year Occupied:2014.5 2017 2018 2019 2021 2025
Land acres:7.00 0.21 0.33 0.82 7.00 7.20
Land Sq Ft 304920 9000 14458 35895 304920 313632
FAR / Land Sq Ft 28%90%75%65%28%40.5%
FAR:85600 8100 10844 23332 85790 127021
Net Area:86312 8100 10844 23332 84940 127021
FTE:195.75 20.3 27.1 58.3 193.0 317.6
Units:82 12 15 33 79 150
Bedrooms:$172 $12 $15 $33 170 263
Units/acre:11.7 56.0 46.7 40.4 11.3 20.9
FTE/Acre 28.0 98.0 81.7 70.8 27.6 44.1
Avg Category:2.94 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
Gross Area:94631 8881 11889 25581 93670 139264
Vertical Const Only / Net Area $342 $368 $379 $390 $414 $466
Total Cost / Net Area $514 $736 $742 $582 $699 $721
$226,850.76
Cost Historical $Assessor $Future $Total Assessor $Future $Total Assessor $Future $Total Assessor $Future $Total Assessor $Future $Total
Land $485,594 $2,016,000 $2,016,000 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $1,500,000 $1,500,000 $12,742,165 $12,742,165 $13,106,226 $13,106,226
Soft Costs $6,993,065 $469,466 $469,466 $647,330 $647,330 $1,434,633 $1,434,633 $5,540,898 $5,540,898 $9,325,930 $9,325,930
Construction: Offsite Infrastructure $2,093,538 $140,546 $140,546 $193,793 $193,793 $429,491 $429,491 $1,658,798 $1,658,798 $2,791,936 $2,791,936
Construction: Onsite Infrastructure $3,301,154 $221,617 $221,617 $305,579 $305,579 $677,234 $677,234 $2,615,642 $2,615,642 $4,402,409 $4,402,409
Construction: Buildings/Landscape $29,503,361 $2,981,113 $2,981,113 $4,110,551 $4,110,551 $9,109,932 $9,109,932 $35,184,755 $35,184,755 $59,219,749 $59,219,749
Construction: Other/Mitigation $2,029,323 $136,235 $136,235 $187,849 $187,849 $416,317 $416,317 $1,607,917 $1,607,917 $2,706,299 $2,706,299
Total Development $44,406,036 $2,016,000 $3,948,975 $5,964,975 $2,600,000 $5,445,103 $8,045,103 $1,500,000 $12,067,607 $13,567,607 $12,742,165 $46,608,010 $59,350,174 $13,106,226 $78,446,323 $91,552,549
Average Existing
Subsidy/FTE Revenues Subsidy Subsidy/FTE Revenues Subsidy Subsidy/FTE Revenues Subsidy Subsidy/FTE Revenues Subsidy Subsidy/FTE Revenues Subsidy Subsidy/FTE Subsidy/FTE Subsidy/FTE Change % Change
Category 1 Subsidy per FTE N/A $618,450 $5,346,525 $264,026 $844,480 $7,200,624 $265,620 $1,853,391 $11,714,216 $200,829 $5,889,396 $53,460,778 $276,999 $9,863,580 $81,688,970 $257,246 $252,944 $295,077 -$42,133 -14%
Category 2 Subsidy per FTE $164,721 $1,320,153 $4,644,823 $229,374 $1,802,639 $6,242,464 $230,275 $3,956,278 $9,611,329 $164,777 $13,101,545 $46,248,630 $239,630 $21,942,509 $69,610,041 $219,208 $207,997 $246,881 -$38,884 -16%
Category 3 Subsidy per FTE $138,118 $2,009,962 $3,955,013 $195,309 $2,744,559 $5,300,545 $195,529 $6,023,522 $7,544,085 $129,336 $18,990,941 $40,359,233 $209,115 $31,806,088 $59,746,461 $188,147 $175,926 $232,946 -$57,020 -24%
Category 4 Subsidy per FTE $95,044 $3,330,115 $2,634,861 $130,117 $4,547,198 $3,497,906 $129,032 $9,979,800 $3,587,807 $61,509 $29,446,981 $29,903,193 $154,939 $49,317,898 $42,234,651 $133,001 $117,274 $144,393 -$27,119 -19%
Assumptions:
Annual Cost Escalation 1.03
Annual Revenue Escalation 1.02
Net Area / FAR 100%
Net Area / FTE 400
This proposed model estimates future projects based on recent construction cost experience and using actual 2015 Pitkin County assessor land values for each parcel. Density projections are based on assumptions shown.
Steps in the calculations are as follows: 1) Establish Land Area; 2) FAR per land area assumption at each property; 3) Net area is a function of FAR; 4) FTEs and Units based upon net area; 5) Land Cost based upon per acre
average 2015 assessor land value; 6) Future development costs based on escalation of recent construction cost experience; 7) Sales revenues at each income level based on assumed escalation shown.
P
8
I
I
.
FEE In Lieu Model #2: Combination of Historical and Future Estimated Development Cost with Historical Land Cost 6/5/2015
Projects Burlingame Ph2A 802 West Main 517 Park Circle 488 Castle Creek Bgame2B Lumber Yard AVERAGE EXISTING CHANGE % Change
Actual Projected Future Projected Future Projected Future Projected Future Projected Future
Project Parameters:
Year Occupied:2014.5 2017 2018 2019 2021 2025
Land acres:7.00 0.21 0.33 0.82 7.00 7.20
Land Sq Ft 304920 9000 14458 35895 304920 313632
FAR / Land Sq Ft 28%90%75%65%28%40.5%
FAR:85600 8100 10844 23332 85790 127021
Net Area:86312 8100 10844 23332 84940 127021
FTE:195.75 20.3 27.1 58.3 193.0 317.6
Units:82 12 15 33 79 150
Bedrooms:172 12 15 33 170 263
Units/acre:11.7 56.0 46.7 40.4 11.3 20.9
FTE/Acre 28.0 98.0 81.7 70.8 27.6 44.1
Avg Category:2.94 TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD
Gross Area:94631 8881 11889 25581 93670 139264
Vertical Const Only / Net Area $342 $368 $379 $390 $414 $466
Total Cost / Net Area $514 $943 $881 $749 $554 $761
Cost Historical $Historical $Future $Total Historical $Future $Total Historical $Future $Total Historical $Future $Total Historical $Future $Total
Land $485,594 $3,690,000 $3,690,000 $4,105,000 $4,105,000 $5,400,000 $5,400,000 $477,507 $477,507 $18,250,000 $18,250,000
Soft Costs $6,993,065 $469,466 $469,466 $647,330 $647,330 $1,434,633 $1,434,633 $5,540,898 $5,540,898 $9,325,930 $9,325,930
Construction: Offsite Infrastructure $2,093,538 $140,546 $140,546 $193,793 $193,793 $429,491 $429,491 $1,658,798 $1,658,798 $2,791,936 $2,791,936
Construction: Onsite Infrastructure $3,301,154 $221,617 $221,617 $305,579 $305,579 $677,234 $677,234 $2,615,642 $2,615,642 $4,402,409 $4,402,409
Construction: Buildings/Landscape $29,503,361 $2,981,113 $2,981,113 $4,110,551 $4,110,551 $9,109,932 $9,109,932 $35,184,755 $35,184,755 $59,219,749 $59,219,749
Construction: Other/Mitigation $2,029,323 $136,235 $136,235 $187,849 $187,849 $416,317 $416,317 $1,607,917 $1,607,917 $2,706,299 $2,706,299
Total Development $44,406,036 $3,690,000 $3,948,975 $7,638,975 $4,105,000 $5,445,103 $9,550,103 $5,400,000 $12,067,607 $17,467,607 $477,507 $46,608,010 $47,085,516 $18,250,000 $78,446,323 $96,696,323
Average Existing
Subsidy/FTE Revenues Subsidy Subsidy/FTE Revenues Subsidy Subsidy/FTE Revenues Subsidy Subsidy/FTE Revenues Subsidy Subsidy/FTE Revenues Subsidy Subsidy/FTE Subsidy/FTE Subsidy/FTE Change % Change
Category 1 Subsidy per FTE N/A $618,450 $7,020,525 $346,693 $844,480 $8,705,624 $321,137 $1,853,391 $15,614,216 $267,690 $5,889,396 $41,196,120 $213,451 $9,863,580 $86,832,743 $273,444 $284,483 $295,077 -$10,594 -4%
Category 2 Subsidy per FTE $164,721 $1,320,153 $6,318,823 $312,041 $1,802,639 $7,747,464 $285,792 $3,956,278 $13,511,329 $231,639 $13,101,545 $33,983,972 $176,083 $21,942,509 $74,753,814 $235,406 $234,280 $246,881 -$12,601 -5%
Category 3 Subsidy per FTE $138,118 $2,009,962 $5,629,013 $277,976 $2,744,559 $6,805,545 $251,046 $6,023,522 $11,444,085 $196,198 $18,990,941 $28,094,575 $145,568 $31,806,088 $64,890,234 $204,345 $202,208 $232,946 -$30,738 -13%
Category 4 Subsidy per FTE $95,044 $3,330,115 $4,308,861 $212,783 $4,547,198 $5,002,906 $184,549 $9,979,800 $7,487,807 $128,371 $29,446,981 $17,638,535 $91,391 $49,317,898 $47,378,425 $149,199 $143,556 $144,393 -$837 -1%
Assumptions:
Annual Cost Escalation 1.03
Annual Revenue Escalation 1.02
Net Area / FAR 100%
Net Area / FTE 400
This proposed model uses a combination of historical projects and future estimated projects. In each case, historical land costs are used. Density projections are based on assumptions shown. Steps in the calculations are as
follows: 1) Establish Land Area; 2) FAR per land area assumption at each property; 3) Net area is a function of FAR; 4) FTEs and Units based upon net area; 5) Land Cost based upon historical actual; 6) Future development
costs based on escalation of recent actual experience; 7) Sales revenues at each income level based on assumed escalation shown.
P
9
I
I
.
Page 1 of 9
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jack Wheeler, Capital Asset Manager
Jeff Pendarvis, Capital Asset Project Manager
Thru: Scott Miller, Public Works Director
DATE OF MEMO: June 18, 2015
MEETING DATE: June 23, 2015
RE: Civic Space Relocation Project (CSRP) – Conceptual Design
Presentation
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests City Council select one of the options to
move forward into schematic design and ongoing public process.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In a worksession on November 17, 2014, staff
presented the four leading location options for the CSRP project. These options were
developed from direction and information received in three other Council work sessions
and several public open houses that were done in 2014. Council gave direction in this
work session to advertise the Architectural Design and Program Management/Owners
Representative Request for Proposals for this important civic project. Council also
agreed the first major milestone for the new team would be to return to Council with the
two Council preferred options developed to conceptual level for a decision on the final
location for the team to take to construction documents.
The two selected options were Option One and Option Four described below which will
be referred to as the Armory Option (Option One) and the Galena Plaza Option (Option
Four) moving forward.
In a regular Council meeting on March 9, 2015 Council approved the design contract for
Charles Cunniffe Architects (CCA) to provide design services through Construction
Documents and a Program Manager/ Owners Representation Contract for Rider Levett
Bucknall (RLB) for the project.
BACKGROUND: Finding a solution to the loss of downtown leases is a top priority for
City Council and is articulated in one of its top ten goals.
Goal 8 - Achieve direction from city council on a solution for the loss of
downtown Police and municipal office spaces. Champion: Scott Miller
Staff received direction From Council, as part of the Facility Master Plan Project,
in November 2014 to issue Request for Proposals (RFP) for Architectural Design
teams and Program Manager/ Owners Agent for the “Aspen Building
P10
III.
Page 2 of 9
Replacement Project”. The Aspen Building Replacement Projects Main Goal is to
provide a comprehensive solution for the Police and Municipal Facility by mid-
year 2018. The RFP will close on February 5, 2015 at which point the team will
make a recommendation to select the design team and the PM/OA, these
contracts will be on consent agenda late February 2015. The first milestone of
that team will be to work closely with staff and the steering committee to
develop and present, to Council in the first quarter 2015, two conceptual level
plans for selection of the preferred option. Staff will check in with Council
throughout the year to keep them informed of the progress of the project as well
as review all decision points. Staff and the team will continue to do public
outreach at all phases of this project to keep the public informed. The preferred
option will be taken to design development level drawing and be submitted into
the Planning and Zoning approval process by September 2015, this will give us a
clear direction, cost information and schedule for a solution to our Police and
Municipal facilities by end of year 2015. The team is targeting mid 2018 for
completion of a solution.
Staff started the Facility Master Plan Process in early 2014. As part of the project our
team inventoried all of the City facilities and carried out an overall space analysis. During
this, the need for space in the downtown core became apparent. Prior to and during this
effort several things happened that have made the downtown core need for office space
more crucial than ever:
• The City and County executed an agreement that the Police would move out of the
County owned space at the Courthouse and County Community Development
would move out of the City owned Armory sometime in 2018. Eventually, this
building is going to be for exclusive court use.
• The Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority would move out of the County
owned Courthouse Plaza Building. The County is preparing to renovate this
building to accommodate their increasing space needs.
• The Aspen Daily News Building (City Hall Annex) was sold and the new owner
asked that the Building, Engineering, City Manager, and Canary initiative relocate
by the end of 2015 to allow for redevelopment.
• The team identified the inappropriate use of the basement of the Yellow Brick as
City offices due to access and security concerns in a child care facility.
This equals a loss of about 24,000 gross square feet (gsf) of the overall 50,000 gross
square feet that the City presently operates out of in the downtown core.
In early 2015 the team verified all programing for building design criteria and assessed
space needs. After careful consideration with the staff, City Manager’s office and Human
Resources, the team dialed back its space assumptions to be more appropriate for our
unique Aspen market. This led us to a reduced standard, about 30% smaller than common
P11
III.
Page 3 of 9
office space planning standards used in the US. This “Verified Program” (attached) is the
space plan we are using for design which includes 14,900 gsf for Police and 51,900 gsf
for City office program. The team has challenged themselves through careful, efficient,
design to reduce this by another 5%.
During the fall of 2014 the team held several open houses and presented various options
to the public and Council on how to use all of our currently held assets to come with a
space needs solution. This process started with identification of a “kit of parts” then
development of four option that programed all of our needs into solutions utilizing these
assets. In this process we reached out to the staff, public, and Council to find out what the
important values we needed to bring forward in solutions. We found the following:
• Plan City Hall under one roof
• Utilize all of our currently owned assets
• Must be a sustainable solution, we should be leaders in this area
• No tax increase
• Far reaching
• Police should have an appropriate facility
• Police facility should be planned at 540 Main
• City should own not lease facilities as there is a major cost advantage
The program design team took all of the criteria and presented four options to Council in
November 2014 and the request of council was to select two preferred options to form the
basis of design moving forward. This meeting set the first milestone as conceptual level
design on the two selected options along with more public outreach followed by a
presentation to council for selection of the preferred solution to move into schematic
level design.
During the open houses the following core values featured as a common thread in both
internal and external outreach:
• A minimum of a LEED Gold certification; the City should be leaders in
sustainable practices.
• Humble yet exemplary solution is very important to the community
• The Police facility should be at 540 Main St. and we should work collaboratively
with Pitkin County to maximize efficiency with the development of their public
safety building.
• We should be innovative and creative to produce the best result in the smallest
box.
• We should be collaborative with the community
• We should solve the problem with our currently held assets
• We should own not lease
• Most participants preferred Galena Plaza Option
• Some people felt sentiment to the Armory Option and felt that it spoke to who we
are.
P12
III.
Page 4 of 9
• There is momentum in the community to return the Armory to its historic
configuration for community benefit.
Below is an outline of the options:
P13
III.
Page 5 of 9
P14
III.
Page 6 of 9
DISCUSSION:
The common theme we have heard through the public outreach and internal process has
been the solution needs to be forward thinking and far reaching. We believe the solutions
that we have presented reach out 50 years and are flexible and have the ability to either
expand or contract our facilities. There is total of 3000 gsf planned for growth through
the year 2030. We are facing a loss of space for several of our busiest departments and
our Police department, and it is clear that doing nothing is not an option. To try to lease
space (if it is available) would cost more in lease costs and tenant improvements in 10 –
15 years than the cost to responsibly invest our dollars in owned facilities, utilizing all of
our currently held real estate assets in the downtown core area.
There a pros and cons outlined on the assessment criteria. Staff recognizes that the single
biggest detriment to any plan that includes use of the Armory in a configuration for
municipal offices would be the disruption of City operations and service for a period of
one to three years as we moved the operations out of the building, leased temporary
office space and remodeled the building and then moved everyone back in. Based on the
availability of space this would likely be in 6 – 10 locations throughout town. Staff feels
this is an unneeded burden on the community considering that we can accommodate a
P15
III.
Page 7 of 9
solution that meets more of the core values on our other currently held land assets with
the added benefit of returning the Armory to its historic configuration. If the Galena
Plaza option is selected, the team will bring the issue of restoring the Armory to its
historic configuration for community benefit back to council in work sessions in July and
August to determine what this process would be.
This is a very important decision. The solution that staff has determined meets our needs
in the best way, delivering the most core values, with the least risk, and the most
efficiency’s for public benefit is the Galena Option. The assessment criteria below used
for scoring does not weight the categories i.e. the two year construction impacts to the
community are weighted the same as construction cost, yet it is a simple way for us to
gauge the values presented by internal and community stakeholders. Based on this
criteria as well as weighing what we heard in the process we have gone through to date,
we feel the Galena option presents the best solution for the community.
If council agrees, this option would be taken to the next phase of design which includes
by year end 2015, as outlined in our schedule, three public open houses, four stakeholder
meetings, and three more work session presentations to Council. We will also engage
Design Workshops facilitation group out of their Austin office to help us run two
community meetings in a meaningful way.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
P16
III.
Page 8 of 9
Armory Option Galena Option Galena Alternate
Construction $48.4 mil $45.8 mil $40.6 mil
Risk Contingency $3.0 mil $0.5 mil $0.7 mil
Owner Costs $5.9 mil $2.0 mil $3.7 mil
TOTAL $57.3 mil $48.3 mil $45.0 mil
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council approval of the Galena
Plaza Option as the primary solution. Selection of this option includes returning the
Armory to historic configuration for community benefit, with the notion that the process,
P17
III.
Page 9 of 9
cost and specifics of this need to be decided in the future. A work session in July is
already scheduled for Council to hear from a community group advocating for reuse of
the Armory. Staff would follow this up with a work session to discuss Council’s vision
on this in August. We have time to develop this process as the city offices can remain in
the Armory while the Galena option is designed and built. This recommendation includes
the decision to have the Police facility at 540 Main to allow collaboration and efficiencies
with the County public safety facility at the adjoining location. Once we set the additional
programing in schematic design on the site, the Police facility will move to its own track
for completion of design and construction.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit I: Presentation slides
Exhibit II: Verif ied Program
Exhibit III: Criteria definitions
P18
III.
CITY OF ASPEN
CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT
POLICE AND CITY OFFICES
P
1
9
I
I
I
.
WORK SESSION TOPIC:
PRESENT THE CONCEPTUAL LEVEL DESIGN OF THE ‘ARMORY’ AND
‘GALENA’ OPTIONS, AS PREVIOUSLY SELECTED BY CITY COUNCIL.
GOAL:
STAFF REQUESTS COUNCIL TO SELECT ONE OF THE OPTIONS TO MOVE
FORWARD INTO SCHEMATIC DESIGN AND ONGOING PUBLIC PROCESS.
P
2
0
I
I
I
.
PROBLEM STATEMENT/CURRENT NEEDS
• CITY HAS IMMEDIATE NEED FOR REPLACEMENT SPACE
• NEED TO IMPROVE CUSTOMER SERVICES & PUBLIC
INTERACTION IN ALL CITY BUILDINGS.
• THE CITY NEEDS TO OPERATE OUT OF OWNED FACILITIES
P
2
1
I
I
I
.
Police evidence
Security conflictsYellowbrick offices Inadequate storageHousing access
Police inadequate interview space Police evidence storage
PREVIOUS SITE ASSESSEMENTS
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT P
2
2
I
I
I
.
EXISTING CONDITIONS
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT
Today, the City of Aspen operates from 50,000 square feet of space.
Lost lease area and unsuitable space totals 24,000 gross square feet.
property owned
property leased Yellow Brick
(incompatible use with office space)
Housing Department
Annex
City Hall
Zupancis
Police
Police
(Truscott)
Police
ACRA
Rio Grande
Wheeler Opera House
E M
a
i
n
S
t
E Ho
p
k
i
n
s
A
v
e
E Bl
e
e
k
e
r
S
t
E Ha
l
l
a
m
S
t
W Fr
a
n
c
i
s
S
t
To T
r
u
s
c
o
t
t
N 1st St
N Garmisch St
N Aspen St
N Monarch St
N Mill St
N Galena St
Wagner Park
Wagner Park
47,300
P
2
3
I
I
I
.
CORE SITE LOCATIONS
P
2
4
I
I
I
.
SITE KEY MAP
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT
1inch=50feet´0408020
Feet
1inch=50feet´0408020
Feet
Galena
Site
540 E.
Main
Site
Armory
Site
P
2
5
I
I
I
.
ARMORY OPTION
P
2
6
I
I
I
.
ARMORY OPTION** Remodel and Expansion of City Hall Some City Services at 540 East Main StreetSome City Services at existing ACRA BuildingSome City Services at existing Rio Grande BuildingPolice at 540 East Main Street
BUDGET CONSTRUCTION COST* = $48 mil.RISK & OWNER COST = $9 mil.
REMODEL EXISTING BUILDING = 22,000 SFNEW ADDITION = 10,600 SF540 E. MAIN CITY OFFICES = 10,800 SFREUSE ACRA BLDG = 4,500 SFREUSE RIO GRANDE BLDG = 4,000 SFTOTAL = 51,900 SFPOLICE PROGRAM 540 E. MAIN = 14,900 SF
*Costs subject to change based on progress of conceptual design.
** Square footage excludes ACRA replacement space, parking structures, & site.
1 inch =50 feet´0 40 8020
Feet
1 inch =50 feet´0 40 8020
Feet
540 E.
Main Site
Armory
Site
ACRA
Rio
G
r
a
n
d
e
Use/Reuse
P
2
7
I
I
I
.
ARMORY OPTION - MASSING IMAGE FROM GALENA STREET
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT P
2
8
I
I
I
.
ARMORY OPTION - MASSING IMAGE FROM HOPKINS AVENUE
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT P
2
9
I
I
I
.
ARMORY OPTION - CITY HALL SITE PLAN
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT
Roof top terrace
E Hopkins Avenue
Renovated City Hall
City Hall Addition
Conner Park
Alley
Parking
Entry
Conner
Lofts
Church
Lower Level
S
G
a
l
e
n
a
S
t
r
e
e
t
P
3
0
I
I
I
.
ARMORY OPTION - SITE/ MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECTARMORY OPTION - SITE/MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECTCONCEPTUAL DESIGNJUNE 2015
P
3
1
I
I
I
.
ARMORY OPTION - POLICE MASSING IMAGE MAIN STREET
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT
CON
C
E
P
T
6
0
0
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
P
3
2
I
I
I
.
ARMORY OPTION - POLICE MASSING IMAGE FROM MAIN STREET
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT
CONCEPT 600
P
3
3
I
I
I
.
ARMORY OPTION - CITY OFFICES MASSING IMAGE FROM RIO GRANDE STREET
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT
COUNTY
JAIL
P
3
4
I
I
I
.
ARMORY OPTION - 540 MAIN STREET SITE PLAN
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT
New City Offices
Courthouse
Plaza Building
Concept 600
Building
Obermeyer
O
n
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
New Police Station
Underground
parking access
Courtyard
Historic Structures (3)
Pitkin County JailPitkin County
Expansion
Site
P
3
5
I
I
I
.
ARMORY OPTION - POLICE & CITY OFFICES FLOOR PLANS
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT
UPUP
VEST.
FRONT DESK
I.T.
REPORT
?
INT. WORK AREA
WC
WC WCSTAIR 1
STAIR 2
INTERV.OVERNIGHTLOUNGE
LINE OF OPENING ABOVE
PATROL STOR.
COPY
CONF.SARG.
HISTORIC HOUSE
CITY OFFICES
POLICE DEPT.
HISTORIC
SHED
HISTORIC
BARN
CONFERENCE
VEST.OP SM HQ SB H. DIR.
REC. ASS. ADM. ADM. STOR.
STAIR WC WC
CAD
INTERN & JAPLANS
PM PM PM
H. CONF.
E
ARMORY OPTION - SITE PLAN
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
JUNE 2015
1" = 10'-0"1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN N
O
R
T
H
P
3
6
I
I
I
.
ARMORY OPTION - ADDITIONAL CITY OFFICE FLOOR PLANS
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT
STAIR
WC
WC
BR
LOCKER
DP PPM POM LPO CS
SIGN REPAIR
VEST.
SHOP SEC. STOR.WR
CONF.
BREAK RM
COLL. B
ELEV.VPE. ASSIST.
DIR
CONF.
VP
LOBBY
ACRA
PARKING DEPARTMENT
CONF.
SEC
SMC
DIR.
ELEV.
ADMIN.
PC
COLL A
WC
WC
SPECIAL
EVENTS
ARMORY OPTION - ACRA/RIO GRANDE FLOOR PLANS
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
JUNE 2015
1/8" = 1'-0"2 MAIN LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
NORTH
0 4 8 16
1/8" = 1'-0"1 UPPER LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
EXISTING ACRA SPACE
EXISTING RIO GRANDE BUILDING
EXISTING ACRA BUILDING
EXISTING RIO GRANDE BUILDING
P
3
7
I
I
I
.
GALENA OPTION
P
3
8
I
I
I
.
GALENA OPTION
City services at Galena Site Police at 540 East Main Street Employee Housing at 540 Main Street Re-purpose City Hall (Armory Site)
BUDGET CONSTRUCTION COST* = $46 mil.RISK & OWNER COSTS = $2.5 mil.
GALENA PROGRAM** = 51,900 SFNEW PLAZA BUILDING NEW RIO GRANDE BUILDING POLICE PROGRAM = 14,900 SF POTENTIAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING 12 UNITS
*Costs subject to change based on progress of conceptual design.
**Square footage excludes ACRA replacement space, parking structures, & site.
1 inch =50 feet´0 40 8020
Feet
1 inch =50 feet´0 40 8020
Feet
540 E.
Main Site
Armory
Site
Galena Site
P
3
9
I
I
I
.
GALENA OPTION - VIEW FROM MAIN STREET
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT P
4
0
I
I
I
.
GALENA OPTION - VIEW INSIDE GALENA PLAZA
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT P
4
1
I
I
I
.
GALENA OPTION - VIEW FROM RIO GRANDE PARK
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT P
4
2
I
I
I
.
GALENA OPTION - AIRIEL VIEW
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT P
4
3
I
I
I
.
GALENA CIVIC CAMPUS - SITE MAP
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT
Rio
G
r
a
n
d
e
P
l
Rio Grande Park
New Rio
Grande
Office
New
Police
Station
H
o
u
s
i
n
g
Historic
Structures
New
City
Office
Galena
Plaza Under
Construction
Main St
N
o
r
t
h
M
i
l
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
N
o
r
t
h
G
a
l
e
n
a
S
t
P
4
4
I
I
I
.
GALENA OPTION - SITE PLAN
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT
New City Office
Plaza
Existing Parking
Parking
Pitkin
County
JailPitkin County
Library and
Expansion
Galena
Plaza Under
Construction
Rio Grande Park
Parking
Garage
Entrance
Elevator
Rio
G
r
a
n
d
e
P
l
N
o
r
t
h
M
i
l
l
S
t
r
e
e
t
Mill Street
Buildings
Short-term Parking
New Rio
Grande
Office
P
4
5
I
I
I
.
GALENA OPTION - SECOND LEVEL FLOOR PLAN
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT P
4
6
I
I
I
.
GALENA OPTION - POLICE MASSING FROM MAIN STREET
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT
COURTHOUSE
PLAZA BLDG CONCEPT
600
P
4
7
I
I
I
.
GALENA OPTION - EMPLOYEE HOUSING MASSING FROM RIO GRANDE PLACE
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT
COUNTY JAIL
P
4
8
I
I
I
.
GALENA OPTION - POLICE AND EMPLOYEE HOUSING SITE PLAN
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT
New Employee Housing
Pitkin County Jail
Courthouse
Plaza Building
Concept 600
Building
Obermeyer
O
n
-
s
t
r
e
e
t
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
New Police Station
Underground
parking access
Historic Structures (3)
Courtyard
Pitkin County
Expansion
Site
P
4
9
I
I
I
.
GALENA OPTION - POLICE AND EMPLOYEE HOUSING FLOOR PLAN
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT
UPUP
VEST.
FRONT DESK
I.T.
REPORT
?
INT. WORK AREA
WC
WC WCSTAIR 1
STAIR 2
INTERV.OVERNIGHTLOUNGE
LINE OF OPENING ABOVE
PATROL STOR.
COPY
CONF.SARG.
HISTORIC HOUSE
HOUSING
POLICE DEPT.
HISTORIC
SHED
HISTORIC
BARN
GALENA OPTION - SITE PLAN
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT
CONCEPTUAL DESIGN
JUNE 2015
1" = 10'-0"1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN N
O
R
T
H
P
5
0
I
I
I
.
GALENA/ARMORY OPTION
P
5
1
I
I
I
.
GALENA/ ARMORY OPTION - ALTERNATE
Remodel City Hall (Armory Site) Police at 540 East Main Street Employee Housing at 540 Main Street City services at Galena Site (smaller)
BUDGET CONSTRUCTION COST* = $40 mil.RISK & OWNER COST = $4.4 MIL.
ARMORY REUSE PROGRAM** = 17,100 SF
GALENA PROGRAM (REDUCED) = 23,600 SFREMODEL ACRA/RIO GRANDE BLDG’S = 11,200 SFTOTAL = 51,900 SF
POLICE PROGRAM = 14,900 SF
POTENTIAL EMPLOYEE HOUSING 12 UNITS
*Costs subject to change based on progress of conceptual design.
**Square footage excludes ACRA replacement space, parking structures, & site.
1 inch =50 feet´0 40 8020
Feet
1 inch =50 feet´0 40 8020
Feet
540 E.
Main Site
Armory
Site
Galena Site
P
5
2
I
I
I
.
RIO
G
R
A
N
D
E
P
L
A
C
E
GALENA/ ARMORY OPTION - GALENA PLAZA PLAN
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT
LIBRARY
RIO GRANDE PLAZA
COURTHOUSE
NEW GALENA
BUILDING
RIO
G
R
A
N
D
E
P
L
A
C
E
REMODEL EXISTING RIO
GRANDE BUILDING
P
5
3
I
I
I
.
SCHEDULE OVERVIEW
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT
February
2016
March
2015
STAKEHOLDER
MEETING 1
April 2
April
2015
May
2015
June
2015
July
2015
August
2015 September
2015
October
2015
November
2015
December
2015
March
2016
April
2016
June
2016
July
2016
August
2016
September
2016
October
2016
November
2016
December
2016 2017
COUNCIL 7
May 16
Worksession
COUNCIL 1April 6
Worksession
COUNCIL 2
June 23
Worksession
COUNCIL 3
August 11
Worksession
PUBLIC OPEN
HOUSE 3
September 30
PUBLIC OPEN
HOUSE 4
December 1
COUNCIL 5
December 8
Worksession
PUBLIC OPEN
HOUSE 2
August 3
PUBLIC OPEN
HOUSE 1
April 2
STAKEHOLDER
MEETING 3
November 20
STAKEHOLDER
MEETING 2
September 25
STAKEHOLDER
MEETING 4
January 26
STAKEHOLDER
MEETING 5
May 2
COUNCIL 4October 5
Worksession
COUNCIL 6
March 22
Worksession
COUNCIL 8
September 15
Worksession
COUNCIL 9
December 15
Worksession
SUBMIT PERMIT DRAWINGS CONST.
N
O
V
E
M
B
E
R
2
0
1
5
C
R
I
T
I
C
A
L
S
C
H
E
D
U
L
E
M
I
L
E
S
T
O
N
E
T
O
D
A
Y
M
A
Y
2
0
1
6
N
O
V
E
M
B
E
R
2
0
1
6
SUBMIT LAND USE APPLICATION
2016
PUBLIC OUTREACH PROCESS
NEXT STEPS IN PUBLIC PROCESS
CITY COUNCIL INVOLVEMENT
PREPARATION OF LAND USE APPLICATION
CONCEPT SCHEMATIC DESIGN DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS
May
2016
CONST.
P
5
4
I
I
I
.
BUDGET COSTS
ASPEN CIVIC SPACE RELOCATION PROJECT P
5
5
I
I
I
.
ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
P
5
6
I
I
I
.
P
5
7
I
I
I
.
P
5
8
I
I
I
.
P
5
9
I
I
I
.
OPTION ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
ARMORY OPTION GALENA OPTION GALENA + ARMORY DO NOTHING
Customer and Public Service
Operational Efficiency
Organizational Adjacencies
Ease of Community Access
(Armory) Opportunity for a New
Community Benefit
Environmental Sustainability
Public and Employee Safety
Opportunity for Housing
Construction Costs
Logistic and Moving Costs
Long-term Lease Costs
Reduction of Risk
Construction Impact to Community
TOTAL RATING SCORE 10 24 15 5
Development Rating According to Criteria
(2 Points) Favorable
(1 Point) Compromised
(0 Points) Unfavorable
P
6
0
I
I
I
.
RECOMMENDATION
GALENA OPTION
• FAR REACHING - 50 YEARS
• SEAMLESS TRANSITION
• COMMUNITY BENEFIT
• BEST PUBLIC SERVICE
• POLICE MOVE FORWARD WITH COUNTY ADJACENCIES
P
6
1
I
I
I
.
SP
A
C
E
N
E
E
D
S
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
m
i
n
g
S
p
a
c
e
S
t
a
n
d
a
r
d
s
(
P
S
S
)
GR
O
U
P
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Ac
t
u
a
l
N
S
F
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
N
S
F
Sh
o
r
t
f
a
l
l
Ba
s
e
d
o
n
P
S
S
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
G
S
F
Sh
o
r
t
f
a
l
l
Ba
s
e
d
o
n
P
S
S
Lo
c
a
t
i
o
n
O
c
c
u
p
.
T
o
d
a
y
-#
=
e
x
c
e
s
s
S
F
-
#
=
e
x
c
e
s
s
S
F
Se
a
t
s
N
S
F
G
S
F
S
e
a
t
s
N
S
F
G
S
F
S
e
a
t
s
N
S
F
G
S
F
S
e
a
t
s
N
S
F
G
S
F
DO
W
N
T
O
W
N
PO
L
I
C
E
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
Co
u
r
t
h
o
u
s
e
3,
9
4
3
6
,
2
0
0
8
,
0
4
6
1
0
,
4
6
0
3
9
1
1
,
9
8
9
1
4
,
3
8
7
4
0
1
2
,
0
7
0
1
4
,
4
8
4
4
2
1
2
,
2
3
3
1
4
,
6
8
0
4
4
1
2
,
3
9
6
1
4
,
8
7
5
CA
P
I
T
A
L
A
S
S
E
T
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
Rio
G
r
a
n
d
e
1,
3
3
0
1
,
7
2
9
-
5
0
6
-
6
5
8
7
8
2
4
1
,
0
7
1
9
8
9
3
1
,
1
6
1
1
0
9
1
6
1
,
1
9
1
1
2
9
6
3
1
,
2
5
2
CI
T
Y
C
L
E
R
K
/
M
U
N
I
C
I
P
A
L
C
O
U
R
T
S
Cit
y
H
a
l
l
2,
1
7
8
2
,
8
3
1
-
4
4
8
-
5
8
2
5
1
,
7
3
0
2
,
2
4
9
6
1
,
8
1
1
2
,
3
5
5
6
1
,
8
1
1
2
,
3
5
5
6
1
,
8
1
1
2
,
3
5
5
CI
T
Y
M
A
N
A
G
E
R
Cit
y
H
a
l
l
1,
5
9
2
2
,
0
7
0
6
0
3
7
8
4
1
1
2
,
1
9
5
2
,
8
5
4
1
2
2
,
2
4
2
2
,
9
1
4
1
3
2
,
3
7
2
3
,
0
8
4
1
3
2
,
3
7
2
3
,
0
8
4
CO
M
M
U
N
I
T
Y
D
E
V
E
L
O
P
M
E
N
T
Ci
t
y
H
a
l
l
/
A
n
n
e
x
4,
7
5
4
6
,
1
8
0
7
4
2
9
6
4
2
7
5
,
4
9
6
7
,
1
4
4
2
9
5
,
8
1
2
7
,
5
5
5
2
9
5
,
8
1
2
7
,
5
5
5
2
9
5
,
8
1
2
7
,
5
5
5
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
An
n
e
x
3,
0
5
5
3
,
9
7
2
1
5
8
2
0
6
2
0
3
,
2
1
3
4
,
1
7
7
2
1
3
,
3
4
4
4
,
3
4
7
2
3
3
,
4
8
3
4
,
5
2
8
2
3
3
,
4
8
3
4
,
5
2
8
EN
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
H
E
A
L
T
H
&
S
U
S
T
A
I
N
Cit
y
H
a
l
l
73
5
9
5
6
6
4
0
8
3
1
1
0
1
,
3
7
5
1
,
7
8
7
1
1
1
,
4
2
1
1
,
8
4
7
1
2
1
,
5
5
2
2
,
0
1
7
1
2
1
,
5
5
2
2
,
0
1
7
Cit y
FI
N
A
N
C
E
Cit
y
H
a
l
l
2,
0
0
9
2
,
6
1
2
3
6
4
6
1
5
2
,
0
4
5
2
,
6
5
8
1
6
2
,
1
2
6
2
,
7
6
3
1
7
2
,
2
0
7
2
,
8
6
9
1
7
2
,
2
0
7
2
,
8
6
9
A dministrativ e
Functions
HO
U
S
I
N
G
-
D
O
W
N
T
O
W
N
Le
a
s
e
d
1,
2
3
6
1
,
6
0
7
4
3
4
5
6
5
6
1
,
6
7
0
2
,
1
7
2
8
1
,
8
4
4
2
,
3
9
8
9
1
,
9
2
6
2
,
5
0
3
1
0
2
,
0
5
6
2
,
6
7
3
5
1
,
8
9
4
GSF
HU
M
A
N
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
Cit
y
H
a
l
l
1,
2
1
6
1
,
5
8
1
3
8
8
5
0
4
7
1
,
6
0
4
2
,
0
8
5
8
1
,
6
8
5
2
,
1
9
0
8
1
,
6
8
5
2
,
1
9
0
8
1
,
6
8
5
2
,
1
9
0
IN
F
O
R
M
A
T
I
O
N
T
E
C
H
N
O
L
O
G
Y
Cit
y
H
a
l
l
1,
0
0
4
1
,
3
0
5
-
1
6
3
-
2
1
2
5
8
4
1
1
,
0
9
3
5
8
4
1
1
,
0
9
3
6
9
2
2
1
,
1
9
9
6
9
2
2
1
,
1
9
9
LE
G
A
L
Cit
y
H
a
l
l
49
7
6
4
6
8
3
1
0
8
3
5
8
0
7
5
4
3
7
5
4
9
8
0
3
7
5
4
9
8
0
4
8
8
5
1
,
1
5
0
PA
R
K
I
N
G
Zu
p
a
n
c
i
s
4,
0
0
0
5
,
2
0
0
-
1
,
8
5
4
-
2
,
4
1
0
1
0
2
,
1
4
6
2
,
7
9
0
1
1
2
,
1
9
2
2
,
8
5
0
1
2
2
,
2
3
9
2
,
9
1
0
1
2
2
,
2
3
9
2
,
9
1
0
SP
E
C
I
A
L
E
V
E
N
T
S
Ye
l
l
o
w
B
r
i
c
k
2,
2
1
6
2
,
8
8
1
-
8
6
5
-
1
,
1
2
4
5
1
,
3
5
1
1
,
7
5
7
6
1
,
4
3
3
1
,
8
6
2
6
1
,
4
3
3
1
,
8
6
2
6
1
,
4
3
3
1
,
8
6
2
TR
A
N
S
P
O
R
T
A
T
I
O
N
Ye
l
l
o
w
B
r
i
c
k
1,
1
6
4
1
,
5
1
3
-
1
2
0
-
1
5
6
5
1
,
0
4
4
1
,
3
5
7
6
1
,
1
2
5
1
,
4
6
3
6
1
,
1
2
5
1
,
4
6
3
7
1
,
2
1
8
1
,
5
8
3
BL
D
G
C
O
M
M
O
N
(Ci
t
y H
a
l
l
&
R
i
o
G
r
a
n
d
e
&
A
n
n
e
x
)
4,
6
3
6
6
,
0
2
7
6
,
6
4
7
8
,
6
4
0
1
1
,
2
8
3
1
4
,
6
6
7
1
1
,
2
8
3
1
4
,
6
6
7
1
1
,
2
8
3
1
4
,
6
6
7
1
1
,
2
8
3
1
4
,
6
6
7
TO
T
A
L
S
E
A
T
C
O
U
N
T
17
5
1
9
1
2
0
2
2
0
9
TO
T
A
L
S
F
3
5
,
5
6
5
4
7
,
3
0
9
1
3
,
8
2
0
1
7
,
9
6
6
4
9
,
3
8
5
6
3
,
0
0
1
5
0
,
8
7
5
6
4
,
9
3
1
5
1
,
7
5
2
6
6
,
0
5
4
5
2
,
3
1
5
6
6
,
7
7
0
SF
/
P
P
2
7
0
3
6
0
3
4
0
3
2
7
3
1
9
GS
F
i
s
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
t
h
e
N
S
F
s
u
b
t
o
t
a
l
x
1
.
3
0
; i
e
.
3
0
%
g ro
s
s
i
n
g f
a
c
t
o
r
AC
R
A
A CR
A
2 ,06
8
2
,68
8
7
8
0
1
,01
4
1
4
2
,84
8
3
,70
2
1
4
2
,84
8
3
,70
2
1
4
2
,84
8
3
,702 14 2 ,848 3 ,702
NS
F
G
S
F
N
S
F
G
S
F
N
S
F
G
S
F
N
S
F
G
S
F
Po
l
i
c
e
S
e
m
i
-
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
a
t
P
D
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
1,
4
6
6
1
,
6
8
6
1
,
4
6
6
1
,
6
8
6
1
,
4
6
6
1
,
6
8
6
1
,
4
6
6
1
,
6
8
6
AC
R
A
S
e
m
i
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
20
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
2
0
0
Ca
p
i
t
a
l
A
s
s
e
t
S
e
m
i
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
50
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
Cit
y
C
l
e
r
k
S
e
m
i
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
25
0
2
5
0
2
5
0
2
5
0
2
5
0
2
5
0
2
5
0
2
5
0
Cit
y
M
a
n
a
g
e
r
S
e
m
i
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
35
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
En
g
i
n
e
e
r
i
n
g
S
e
m
i
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
35
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
3
5
0
EH
S
S
e
m
i
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
25
0
2
5
0
2
5
0
2
5
0
2
5
0
2
5
0
2
5
0
2
5
0
Fi
n
a
n
c
e
S
e
m
i
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
50
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
Pa
r
k
i
n
g
S
e
m
i
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
1,
0
0
0
1
,
0
0
0
1
,
0
0
0
1
,
0
0
0
1
,
0
0
0
1
,
0
0
0
1
,
0
0
0
1
,
0
0
0
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
E
v
e
n
t
s
S
e
m
i
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
1
,
4
5
6
1
,
4
5
6
1
,
4
5
6
1
,
4
5
6
1
,
4
5
6
1
,
4
5
6
1
,
4
5
6
1
,
4
5
6
Tr
a
n
s
p
o
r
t
a
t
i
o
n
S
e
m
i
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
5
0
0
T
o
t
a
l
s
6,
8
2
2
7
,
0
4
2
6
,
8
2
2
7
,
0
4
2
6
,
8
2
2
7
,
0
4
2
6
,
8
2
2
7
,
0
4
2
As
s
u
m
i
n
g
S
e
m
i
-
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
s
p
a
c
e
s
w
i
l
l
b
e
l
o
c
a
t
e
d
i
n
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
b
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
s
,
t
h
e
g
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
f
a
c
t
o
r
h
a
s
b
e
e
n
r
e
m
o
v
e
d
,
a
n
d
i
s
n
o
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
ab
l
e
.
Se
m
i
-
C
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
e
d
S
p
a
c
e
s
t
o
b
e
a
c
c
o
m
m
o
d
a
t
e
d
i
n
s
t
o
r
a
g
e
,
l
i
k
e
l
y
o
f
f
-
s
i
t
e
a
t
T
r
u
s
c
o
t
t
o
r
Y
e
l
l
o
w
B
r
i
c
k
u
n
l
e
s
s
n
o
t
e
d
o
t
h
e
r
w
i
s
e
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
-
C
i
v
i
c
R
e
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
-
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
V
e
r
i
f
i
e
d
Ac
t
u
a
l
G
S
F
Oc
c
u
p
.
T
o
d
a
y
Pr
o
g
r
a
m
V
e
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Ne
e
d
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
V
e
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
2
0
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
V
e
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
2
5
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
V
e
r
i
f
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
2
0
3
0
Sp
a
c
e
t
h
a
t
n
e
e
d
s
t
o
b
e
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
,
e
i
t
h
e
r
o
w
n
e
d
o
r
l
e
a
s
e
d
Ci
t
y
o
f
A
s
p
e
n
Civ
i
c
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
-
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
V
e
r
i
f
i
e
d
06
-
0
4
-
2
0
1
5
P62III.
Customer service – Customer service is the ability to provide the most positive and efficient services to our
customers, and promotes the ability to interact with the community in the most straight forward way. Is the
option far reaching for seamless long term operations for the community?
Operation efficiency – The option allows employees adequate work spaces to carry out job tasks with
meaning and productivity. Is the option far reaching for seamless long term operations for the community?
Organizational adjacencies – The option provides space which promotes synergy with internal operations
and public service.
Ease of community access – The option provides a recognizable and accessible public space to interact with
the City of Aspen.
(Armory) Opportunity for a new community benefit – The Galena Option has the opportunity to re‐purpose
the Armory Building for some other community use. (This will be a separate project/ work session to
evaluate.)
Environmental sustainability – Environmental sustainability considers energy, air quality, water use, health,
and site accessibility.
Public and employee safety – The option promotes modern security measures related to front of house and
back of house functions, consolidated interaction with city infrastructure and services, ( i.e. traffic and
transportation) and building systems (electrical, HVAC, asbestos, plumbing) have the opportunity for
improvement.
Opportunity for housing – Depending on the options, 540 east Main has the opportunity for employee
housing (505 program funding). The options vary in their capacity for units.
Construction cost – Construction costs include built form and conceptual project costs.
Logistic and moving costs – All departments in the Armory will have to be relocated while the Armory is
being renovated, disrupting operations and public accessibility for 2‐3 years. In the Galena Option, ACRA and
the Rio Grande will be disrupted for 2‐3 years.
Armory Option Galena Option Galena Alternative
Construction Only Costs 48 Million 46 Million 41 Million
All Costs (moving/ logistics) 57 Million 48 Million 45 Million
Long‐term lease costs ‐ Long‐term leased spaces cost more than City owned spaces.
Reduction of risk – Unforeseen conditions in terms of building construction, leases, historic preservation and
the entitlement issues of Connor Park.
Construction impact to community – While all options have a construction impact to the community of 2‐3
years, additional impacts are incurred in the Armory Option with the disruption of public services.
P63
III.