Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutminutes.OSTB.20220317 MINUTES City of Aspen, Open Space and Trails Board Meeting Held on March 17, 2022 5:00pm at Pearl Pass Room, Aspen City Hall City OST Board Members Present: Julie Hardman, Ted Mahon, Howie Mallory, Adam McCurdy, Ann Mullins, Dan Perl City Staff Members Present: John Spiess & Matt Kuhn Adoption of the Agenda: Ann made a motion to approve the agenda; Julie seconded and the vote was unanimous. Public Comments, for topics not on the agenda: None. Approval of the Minutes: Dan made a motion to approve the minutes; Ted seconded and the vote was unanimous. Approval of the Joint City-County Minutes: Dan made a motion to approve the minutes; Julie seconded and the vote was unanimous. Staff Comments: John: A detour is in place for the trail to the north of the Roundabout during construction. Phase one: travel lanes will be replaced with concrete. Phase 2: repave H-82 between Roundabout and AABC. After Labor Day: replace bridge joint on western end of Castle Creek Bridge. Howie asked about AABC Trail impacts; Matt explained that a plan is in place to maintain trail access during the project. There is a replanting plan to address trees removed within CDOT right of way. Howie asked how the concrete pedestrian/bike path will be affected by the temporary travel lane. Matt explained that the travel lane that will go over the trail and the temporary trail will be constructed on the berm. Dan asked how much temporary trail will be built; John estimated 150 feet. Howie asked if information will be provided to the public. John explained that signage is currently in place and PSAs will go out soon; this is a project of the Engineering Dept. and Parks’ role is auxiliary. John also mentioned that summer Parks project updates will be presented at a future meeting. Matt: The Mayor pro tem of Dallas recently consulted with Trish, Austin and Matt to learn about Aspen’s successful pedestrian malls, bike-pedways, rain gardens, traffic-calming elements, etc. Matt also shared new information regarding a significant increase in construction costs for the Farm Collaborative’s learning center ($3.5 million budgeted, $4 million probable, $7 million new cost; provided per Howie’s question). The Collaborative is now exploring options including value engineering and phasing. Matt asked how the Board would like to be updated. Adam initiated a discussion in which questions and comments centered around the Collaborative’s time-dependent funding, contractor selection, and various scenarios for phasing and associated potential issues such as summer camp safety, aesthetics, and an extended construction timeline. Matt added that other considerations include the significant change from the original plan, Brush Creek Metro District’s potential concerns, impacts to staff time and budget, and whether Parks should consider a financial contribution. Adam expressed that he would like Eden to update this Board and Ann added that he should be open to suggestions as well as bringing his ideas. Howie commented that this situation could present new positive opportunities. John suggested that the Board be ready to set parameters around the new plan. Ted asked about potential for a total new approach. Adam commented on the high general costs related to the ranch property and whether public support would exist for helping to fund the learning center. Howie suggested revisiting the long-term vision for the property. Dan commented that local food production is an important community investment and worth supporting, but that the learning center, at this cost level, could be less important. New Business: None Old Business: Continuing from the February Board meeting, Matt presented on the Parks & Open Space capital budget with the goal of Board discussion, direction, and future considerations. This budget will be submitted next Tuesday. He mentioned that an outcome of the recent City- County joint meeting was direction to recommend to the EOTC that the Intercept Lot to AABC Trail should move into Phase Two (community engagement). He mentioned the $6 million place holder for this project in the current budget. Howie asked about the remaining funding for this project. Matt explained the funding vision is a 3-way split (among City, County, EOTC) along with potential grants. Dan asked if there are downsides to having the placeholder. Matt explained that the large cost and timing along with other expensive projects would take the fund balance down. Dan commented about placeholders having potential to take planned funding away from other projects. Matt explained considerations for prioritizing from staff and budget perspectives, including limiting project commitments for staff due to increased project complexity and time demands to executing two big projects per summer alongside planning two big projects for the following summer. He offered that if staff capacity could be increased, one additional large project per year could be added. Adam suggested discussing long-term project planning at the next Board retreat and expressed support for the idea of adding staff capacity. Matt suggested pushing the $6 million placeholder for the Intercept to AABC Trail from 2025 to 2026 and the Board agreed. Ann asked about EOTC’s response to this trail project and Dan asked what would happen if they do not support it. Matt explained that the EOTC will see this information on Tuesday, and that if they do not support the project concept, Parks would still like to conduct community engagement. John provided updates on water-related projects at Cozy Point Ranch: a water delivery state system and a wastewater treatment system. The plan had been to treat water from both wells, but the reverses osmosis system to address well #2’s sulfur would produce a large volume of waste water that would need to be hauled to a treatment center. A new plan for treating water is needed. For wastewater treatment, the idea was to consolidate various leach fields and release treated water back into Brush Creek. This plan is now unfeasible due to changes in state regulations for dilution rates and flow measurements. These challenges have resulted in a shift in goals and complexity as the overall water situation is tied to leasees and their plans. Water and wastewater is budgeted at $1.75 million; that number is in flux. Howie asked about connecting to Snowmass Water; this would require a new line. Matt said that connecting to Brush Creek Metro District is a possibility, but Parks is going to continue trying to work with well #1 first. Matt asked for Board input on the big picture budget for Cozy Point Ranch. Dan commented that while the ranch is an important facility, it doesn’t feel like a public facility; and he suggested revisiting the overall mission toward best serving the public. Matt explained that over a 10-year distribution of the capital budget, 22% of the funding goes to Cozy Point. Ann commented that the City will have to take care of whatever is built on the property and that if Eden value engineers his center too much, the City may have to compensate. She said she feels it is not seen as a public facility by the Aspen community; improvements that will truly benefit the people of Aspen are restoration of Brush Creek and improvements of Juniper Hill Road. Ann commented that the ranch needs to become a more publicly accessible facility or become a smaller part of the budget. Adam commented that if the property’s challenges present barriers that are too high, perhaps sustainable food production should be the primary way this property benefits the community. Ann commented on the value of the ranch as part of the entrance to Aspen. Ted asked what the City’s commitments to the leasees are and whether it is possible to pull back anywhere. Julie asked for a history of annual expenses, and whether there’s a way to cap annual spending on the facility. John explained that part of the property’s history has been discovering new needs/issues as various improvement work is carried out; the 2018 management plan approved by City Council explains the vision and plan, including Parks’ obligations. Matt said the plan will be sent to Board members tonight and that it will be important to become familiar with it before meeting with Eden. Matt explained that the two leases are 10-year leases; making changes to these arrangements is potentially possible and would be a significant project for staff. Ted expressed that this is not necessarily being suggested. Howie commented that he feels it is important to acknowledge where we started with the property and the vision going forward. Matt mentioned that to fully execute what is laid out in the management plan will cost 2 to 4-fold as much as what is in the capital budget. Matt acknowledged the Board’s general sense that 22% of the budget is high number and should perhaps be reduced over the next 10 years. He also explained that much of the budget is for facilities maintenance, which mirrors Parks’ overall pivot from building new facilities to maintaining existing infrastructure. Adam asked whether the plan itself is legally binding; the leases are binding and the plan is a guiding document. A discussion followed in which the Board expressed an emphasis on the importance of local food production, the potential to welcome non-equestrian visitors, and support for staff moving forward on the most critical infrastructure work while recognizing concerns for the proportion of the budget that goes to the ranch. Adam suggested continuing this conversation at the next meeting. Julie asked whether budget numbers are needed before then; Matt said numbers are needed prior. He suggested a potential approach may be to recognize Board concerns while supporting staff’s approach to addressing critical infrastructure in 2023, and then revisit ’24-’26 budget items. Matt brought wastewater/water treatment down to a $1 million place holder, and noted $1 million for grading, and planning costs for the arena’s roof replacement. Julie asked if the arena work could be pushed later; John said it could be pushed one more year. Howie asked about the roof solar item; Matt explained that a CORE assessment was done and that solar was planned to be added to the roof at the time of replacement for efficiency. Dan commented that maintaining the old arena building is simply a responsibility that must be carried out. Howie commented about the cost of the water treatment situation; Matt explained that cost is hard to know at this point because new plans are needed; the cost is likely to be lower unless connecting to Snowmass Water. John explained that the wastewater system is delayed by one year. Howie suggested a 20,000 gallon tank. Matt summarized the Board’s direction to keep the budget as stated, revisit the Cozy Point management plan, and have a big-picture discussion before meeting with Eden. Matt added that Parks is considering staff capacity, and that he will check in with the Board in May and June toward a motion for additional staff for specific projects. On the topic of price escalations and project timing shifts, Matt pointed out that there is $3.5 million in the budget for the Maroon Creek Multi-Use Trail, but this could become much higher. Matt said he should have budget numbers by June and will update the Board. Ann asked why Galena Plaza is indicated for 2024, and whether plans need to be re-thought with the change in ownership of the Gorsuch Haus property. Matt explained that the agreements and ordinances in place are still intact and moving forward. Dolensik Park work will proceed this summer. The City’s $4.1 million commitment to support the streetscape is a new point of contention because of the large profit margin from the sale of the Gorsuch Haus property. Ann commented that designing landscaping for Galana Plaza soon is important. Matt said that Parks has a draft design and will check with Council on timing for this project in June. If Council directs Parks to proceed, work will begin this fall. Howie asked about budgeting for potential acquisitions. Matt explained that the current strategy is to seek the authority for that purchase depending on fund balance and availability. Staff do not anticipate including bonding language in the Half Cent reauthorization. When an acquisition arises that requires bonding, staff would utilize those needs to propose a separate bond. Staff are currently thinking that simple reauthorization without bond language is best to ensure reauthorizing the Half Cent Tax. Howie asked whether a permanent Half Cent has been discussed; Matt said that Parks is still considering that, and is planning to begin a polling effort around May 10th to gather community sentiment. Matt asked whether the level of detail provided by this presentation was adequate. Ann mentioned she would like more details; the other Board members present expressed that the amount of information was fine. Board Comments: Ted: Agrees with obligations at Cozy Point Ranch, but also feels more clarity is needed. Ann: Looks forward to reviewing the Cozy Point Ranch Management Plan to prioritize what the property offers and how it interfaces with the open space system. Adam: Mentioned ice on the path paralleling Puppy Smith Street between the Rio Grande trailhead and the entrance to North Mill shops. Matt will follow up on this with staff. Julie: None. Dan: Would like to learn more about winter trail maintenance protocols/ goals and easements. Mentioned the Engineering Department’s $200 million placeholder for a highway through the Marolt Open Space, and the importance of beginning to discuss this. Matt suggested connecting directly with Brian on trail maintenance. Matt offered an informational presentation on easements and licenses at a future Board meeting. Howie: Looks forward to discussing the Cozy Point Ranch Management Plan. Next Meeting Date(s): April 21, 2022. Executive Session: N/A Adjourned: Howie made a motion to adjourn; Ann seconded and the vote was unanimous.