HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.joint.20161115
JOINT WORK SESSION OF THE
ASPEN CITY COUCIL AND BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
November 15, 2016
4:00pm, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
Recommendations of Valley Marijuana Council
Housing Capital Reserves Update
Housing Guidelines Update
Open Discussion and Future Topics
1
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
JOINT MEETING DATE: November 15, 2016
AGENDA ITEM TITLE: Review of Valley Marijuana Council Policy
Recommendations Brief – Edible marijuana
STAFF RESPONSIBLE: Jon Peacock, County Manager
BACKGROUND: In April of 2016, members of the Valley Marijuana Council presented an
update to the BOCC on recreational marijuana use in Pitkin County. In the discussion that
ensued the Board of Commissioners requested that the Valley Marijuana Council review issues
related to edible marijuana products, and make policy recommendations for consideration by the
Board of County Commissioners, and as appropriate municipalities within Pitkin County. The
Coalition completed its study in September, and the report will be discussed at the Joint Meeting
with City Council and the Board of County Commissioners on November 15. Staff has attached
the report for the Board’s review.
BUDGETARY IMPACT: None at this time
ATTACHMENTS: “Valley Marijuana Council Policy Recommendations Brief – Edible
Marijuana.”
LINK TO STRATEGIC PLAN: Livable and Supportive Community
Valley Marijuana Council
Policy Recommendations Brief – Edible Marijuana
To
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners;
Aspen City Council
9/15/2016
For questions or further information, please contact VMC Coordinator
Brad Stevenson
brad@alignedinsight.com or 970 618 2806
Introduction and Context:
In late April of 2016 members of the Valley Marijuana Council (VMC) presented an update on aspects of
recreational marijuana in the community during a county work session. The presentations were timely to
multiple licensing requests for unique edible marijuana products businesses – some of the edible
marijuana products, such as popcorn, bubble gum and beef jerky, gave the Commissioners pause.
Commissioners felt uncertain about aspects of this fast moving new industry and its evolving products for
local communities, particularly the health, safety and responsibility implications of edible marijuana.
While various areas of potential concern were voiced by elected officials during work sessions and license
hearings, primary fears related to accidental ingestion (human and animal), youth consumption, and the
potential for users to overdose. The BOCC asked the VMC to evaluate and make recommendations
related to local edible marijuana policy. In further discussions, the City of Aspen asked to be included in
the considerations and presentation of the recommendations.
The VMC developed a process for problem definition, policy option development, deliberation and
prioritization of recommendations to the BOCC. The process included a working subgroup, a VMC survey,
multiple facilitated VMC deliberation sessions and email response opportunities. This document is the
summarized result and output of that process, also including an appendix with the broader menu of
policies considered and notes associated with the deliberations.
Included in this brief are a few data points associated with edibles and their use. That said, it is important
to note in general that we are still in early times related to legalized recreational marijuana, and while
rates of study are increasing, little reference data exists at this time… and perhaps none that critics would
consistently agree is credible, benchmarked or trend conclusive. The following bullets,
excerpted/adapted from the disclaimer in Colorado’s recently released “Early Findings” report effectively
express the context: (http://cdpsdocs.state.co.us/ors/docs/reports/2016-SB13-283-Rpt.pdf)
• The majority of the information presented here should be considered pre‐commercialization,
baseline data because much of the information is available only through 2014, and data sources
vary considerably in terms of what exists historically
• Consequently, it is too early to draw any conclusions about the potential effects of marijuana
legalization or commercialization on public safety, public health, or youth outcomes, and this may
always be difficult due to the lack of historical data
• Information presented here should be interpreted with caution - The lack of
pre‐commercialization data, the decreasing social stigma, and challenges to law enforcement
combine to make it difficult to translate these early findings into definitive statements of
outcomes
• Decreasing social stigma regarding marijuana use could lead individuals to report more
use now than previously
• Law enforcement officials and prosecuting attorneys continue to struggle with
enforcement of complex and sometimes conflicting laws
While insufficient data exists for us to clarify the existence or magnitude of a current problem with edible
marijuana, should officials want to take a stand on issues to create a point of local differentiation, it could
support future efforts to define population differences between areas with/without those progressive
policies. For example, very recent data referenced below shows a decline nationally for teen marijuana
use, but an increase in overall marijuana use and a decrease in perception of harm from using marijuana.
It seems common sense that an increase in youth use would occur with increased cultural acceptance,
increased availability and decreased perception of harm unless public education keeps pace. (i.e. we just
legalized the product so it is more accepted and widely available, but we don’t have the public
information programs to increase perception of harm for kids… these concepts are indirectly correlated
with alcohol and tobacco, so we infer kids use would begin to increase). A proactive stance that guides
anticipatory policy intervention could serve to inform future policy by creating “experimental” vs. control
groups within the state. That is not posed as a reason to act, or a recommendation by the VMC to act
based on this rationale, but offered as a point of context as you deliberate.
The request, and resulting policy focus for the VMC was “edible marijuana.” That term is challenging to
define given it includes (by industry analysts) a variety of other orally ingested products. The VMC
focused on the expressed concerns of the elected officials, and discussions conceptually centered around
more typical products associated with recent licensing or accidental ingestion – products like gummy
bears, brownies, cookies and other foods etc.
In talking to educators, edible products are more difficult to differentiate from non-marijuana
foods/candies, but they are less focused on the risk of edibles and more concerned in general about the
increase in acceptance of marijuana in our adult culture without commensurate increases in education
about the risks and issues for kids – they worry both about a kid going to their car and vaping at lunch as
well as passing an edible MJ snack (for example). In context, edibles are a form of marijuana included in
the “non-smokable” forms reported by the state of Colorado in 2014 to be “slowly but steadily” growing,
but edible products still represent a relatively small fraction of reported youth use (91% smoked vs. 28%
eaten - see Data & Background).
It was challenging to align around a clear definition of the “problem” of edibles as a current dilemma.
Like other cannabis related questions, there is a lack of definitive data and consistent evidence about the
presence of a current population level issue. Increasing calls to poison control and ER visits do appear to
be occurring (from the Colorado Early Findings Report cited below), but the overall magnitude is small
and the implications unclear. Strong retail or product enforcement or regulatory interventions, in the
opinion of VMC members, aren’t warranted. That said, strong recommendations are made by the group
for policy action related to education, awareness, monitoring and local adaptation/application of state
rules.
Members also feel that monitoring (beyond edibles) of evolving needs & policy opportunities for
community health, safety and responsibility are warranted, given the fast changing landscape and relative
lack of clear community impact data. For example, implications of increased potency of products in
general, ensuring communities have updated awareness on health/safety risks and benefits in proportion
to changes in culture and product availability, supporting healthy life choices for kids in the context of
legalization, etc. As more conclusive research and data provide insight to these and other dimensions of
the evolving landscape, other needs and opportunities are likely to surface.
Data and Background:
In addition to the studies cited below, the group gathered data through conversations with educators and
other community members. That said, the VMC members themselves represent a very broad cross-
section of the community – many whose daily work provides them a close vantage on changes or issues
within the community. The individuals involved in the policy recommendations process include:
Joe DiSalvo – Pitkin Sheriff
Richard Pryor - Aspen Police Chief
Greg Knott - Basalt Police Chief
Brian Olson - Snowmass Village Police
Chief
Jeanette Jones (observed & answered
technical questions)
David Clark – Chief Counsel, Aspen
Skiing Company
Mike Woods - SilverPeak Apothecary Co-
Owner
Debbie Quinn – Assistant City Attorney
Lori Mueller – YouthZone
Gretchen Brogdon – Aspen Community
Foundation, Positive Youth
Development Task Force
Jordana Sabella – Pitkin County Public
Health Planner
Shelley Evans – Executive Director,
Colorado Health Initiatives; Prevention
Specialist
Erik Klanderud – Director, Aspen
Chamber Resort Association
Dr. William Mitchell – Pediatrician,
Aspen Valley Hospital
Hilary Duchein – Certified Responsible
Vendor Trainer
Tom Heald – Assistant Superintendent,
Aspen School District
Qualitative Input
While interviews, conversations and focus groups are not statistically valid data points, individual insights
and perspectives may help lend color to the edible marijuana discussion. A few perspectives across those
contacts is summarized below – these are opinions from a range of individuals over the past months,
from recent students to educators and others working closely with youth – the following represent beliefs
and opinions from community members in the region:
Marijuana, in general, is more ambiguous and difficult for educators to manage
o Tough to know if a kid is stoned, or to identify evidence of use or possession
o The many forms of marijuana make it very difficult to monitor or find
o Even School Resource Officers cannot easily identify and confirm marijuana impairment
in students
o With legalized recreational marijuana many educators feel a bit helpless, unable to
effectively monitor or control
As with alcohol, some kids will experiment - for most, that experimentation won’t meaningfully
impact their trajectories
Most frequent users (kids) smoke it, not eat it
While legalization may not change life for most students, it may have a major impact for those
who are on the margins/at risk or predisposed to mental health challenges
The causes for a kid to abuse marijuana are similar to those that would lead to abuse of any
substance, or other issues, including alcohol
We could use a better way to assess risks/opportunities for kids, and then more strategically
deploy resources to proactively support their success & positive development
There is a sense that in many cases, kids who are frequently using marijuana are getting it
(knowingly or otherwise) from their parents
Quantitative References
While kids are not the only area of concern related to edible marijuana, use by youth is the highest and
most aligned objective in the community and across all VMC members. There is also a concerted effort
by the state to increase the scope and rigor of data related to cannabis and youth. In 2015 Colorado
conducted the second Healthy Kids Colorado Survey since legalization. Below are overview highlights for
context. Some individuals knowledgeable about the survey and methodology feel the survey will be
increasingly valid in the future, but the survey methodology has changed during recent years and
trends/benchmarks aren’t fully dependable – also note the survey collects anonymous, but self-reported
data:
The journal Lancet Psychiatry, study published online Wednesday, August 31, 2016
Marijuana use and use disorders in adults in the USA, 2002–14: analysis of annual cross-sectional surveys
Authors: Dr Wilson M Compton, MD; Beth Han, MD; Christopher M Jones, PharmD; Carlos Blanco, MD;
Arthur Hughes, MS; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S2215-0366(16)30208-5
Background
The study of marijuana use disorders is urgently needed because of increasing marijuana legalisation
in multiple jurisdictions, the effect of marijuana use on future risk of psychiatric disorders, and
deleterious effects of marijuana exposure. Thus, understanding trends of marijuana use and use
disorders and examining factors that might drive these trends (eg, perceptions of harms from
marijuana use) is essential.
Methods
We analysed data from US civilians aged 18 years or older who participated in annual, cross-sectional
US National Surveys on Drug Use and Health from 2002 to 2014. The sample in each US state was
designed to be approximately equally distributed between participants aged 12–17 years, 18–25
years, and 26 years or older. For each survey year, we estimated prevalence of marijuana use and use
disorders, initiation of marijuana use, daily or near daily use, perception of great or no risk of harm
from smoking marijuana, perception of state legalisation of medical marijuana use, and mean number
of days of marijuana use in the previous year. Descriptive analyses, multivariable logistic regressions,
and zero-truncated negative binomial regressions were applied.
Findings
596 500 adults participated in the 2002–14 surveys. Marijuana use increased from 10·4% (95% CI
9·97–10·82) to 13·3% (12·84–13·70) in adults in the USA from 2002 to 2014 (β=0·0252, p<0·0001),
and the prevalence of perceiving great risk of harm from smoking marijuana once or twice a week
decreased from 50·4% (49·60–51·25) to 33·3% (32·64–33·96; β=–0·0625, p<0·0001). Changes in
marijuana use and risk perception generally began in 2006–07. After adjusting for all covariates,
changes in risk perceptions were associated with changes in prevalence of marijuana use, as seen in
the lower prevalence of marijuana use each year during 2006–14 than in 2002 when perceiving risk
of harm from smoking marijuana was included in models. However, marijuana use disorders in adults
remained stable at about 1·5% between 2002 and 2014 (β=–0·0042, p=0·22).
Interpretation
Prevalence and frequency of marijuana use increased in adults in the USA starting in approximately
2007 and showing significantly higher results in multivariable models during 2011–14 (compared with
2002). The associations between increases in marijuana use and decreases in perceiving great risk of
harm from smoking marijuana suggest the need for education regarding the risk of smoking
marijuana and prevention messages.
Excerpted from Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration (SAMSHA) report released September 1, 2016:
o Report: (http://www.samhsa.gov/newsroom/press-announcements/201609010100-1)
o Study: http://www.samhsa.gov/atod/marijuana
The surveillance report finds that there has been a significant rise in the current use (past month)
of marijuana among people aged 12 and older -- from 6.2 percent in 2002 to 8.4 percent in 2014 (an
increase of 35 percent). The highest increase reported was among people aged 26 and older with a 65
percent increase from 2002 to 2014. During this same period, the percentage of people aged 12 or older
perceiving great risk from smoking marijuana once or twice a week dropped from 51.3 percent in 2002 to
34.3 percent in 2014 (a decrease of 33 percent).
The surveillance report also noted that in 2014, 2.5 million Americans aged 12 or older reported
using marijuana for the first time – an average of 7,000 new users each day. This initiation rate represents
approximately 1,000 more new users each day compared to 2002. The percentage of past year initiation
of marijuana use shifted from a 1.5 percent in 2002 to a 1.7 percent in 2014 (an increase of 13 percent).
Despite the overall rise in marijuana use in the older population (people aged 26 and older),
current past month marijuana use rates have been dropping during the last 13 years among people aged
12 to 17 – from 8.2 percent in 2002 to 7.4 percent in 2014 (a decrease of 10 percent). Similarly, the
percentage of past year initiation of marijuana use among this age group decreased from 6.5 percent in
2002 to 5.5 percent in 2014. These decreases occurred despite the fact that the perception of great risk
from smoking marijuana once or twice a week has also dropped among adolescents – from 51.5 percent
in 2002 to 37.4 in 2014 (a decrease of 27 percent).
“This national surveillance report provides an exceptional analysis of how marijuana use and
perceptions have changed over the past decade in American society,” said SAMHSA’s Principal Deputy
Administrator Kana Enomoto. “It is important that we use this type of data to enhance public health
educational efforts and prevention activities at all levels – especially those geared toward reaching youth.
This report also reminds us of the need to inform the public that marijuana use may lead to both
addiction and other health consequences if used at early stages of life when the brain is still developing.”
BDS Analytics – Sales Data by Category; 2015 January – June vs. 2016 January – June
o Edibles are 12-14% of the total recreational marijuana sales in Colorado
o The Edibles category grew 2% from the same period 2015 to 2016
o Candy and Chocolate are the fastest growing subcategories of edibles
o Flower and Concentrates are the fastest growing, and largest category (from this period)
2015
2016
Recommendations:
The following edible marijuana policy recommendations appear in priority order, based on the degree to
which the option was deemed appropriate, effective and achievable. These recommendations were
prioritized from a list of roughly 30 formal policy options. Those options were assembled as examples of
evidence-based/practiced policies from the closest available analogs to legalized recreational marijuana.
All of the following items were unanimously supported by participating VMC members:
Priority# Priority Policy Recommendation Deliberation Notes
1 Retail establishments maintain an
approved point of sale consumer
education program (including elements
such as: training salespersons on educating
customers; signage and posters; cards in
carry out packages - topics such as laws
associated with public safety & health (i.e.
resale/transfer to minors); safe handling,
storage, disposal; consumption
recommendations & potency information)
The VMC has established a cross-functional
team (including the retail cannabis industry)
and is developing a program
(curriculum/approach) for this item
2 Through existing tax revenues, temporary
or permanent additional excise taxes,
dedicate ongoing funds to education,
prevention and treatment related to
marijuana edibles (or other marijuana
products/issues based on evolving
priorities/needs)
This recommendation is strongly supported,
with a caveat that one member would want
to evaluate based on a better understanding
of the details of proposed programming to
assess the impacts and benefits - for example,
how much revenue is needed, how would it
be spent, what are the implications for the
industry based on amount of any additional
tax to be levied (if any), etc.
3 Education of parents on their actions that
can prevent youth access/use to marijuana
(funding campaigns)
Would require school participation to get
parents in the room for education;
Schools identified a parallel process related to
how they currently support parents in
managing for healthy student use of
electronics
4 Fund/Support education of youth on edible
marijuana impacts and healthy life choices
(or other evidence based prevention
education)
School policy already in place; Zero tolerance
was a part of the original policy description
but was removed as VMC members
overwhelmingly don't support zero tolerance
policies as a concept and feel such policies
are not appropriate in this community;
Educating children is a high priority, and a
strong recommendation
5 Educate the public, event coordinators,
retailers of civil and criminal consequences
and enforcement policy concerning sale or
transfer of marijuana products, including
edibles, to youth/minors
Removed zero tolerance aspect that was in
original language per group decision (see
above)
Noted that partnership between schools and
law enforcement is critical to success
6 Create a mechanism & expectations to use
a formal non-criminal referral process that
allows for the avoidance of arrest record
assuming compliance with screening/
targeted intervention (i.e. major issues vs.
experimenters) to improve parental
engagement, support and positive impact
of intervention when warranted
Facilitator Note: This item intends to focus on
youth, was discussed by the group as such,
but could also be applied to adult issues
where mental health / substance abuse is a
significant factor
7 Locally regulate/monitor marijuana edibles
to at least updated state regulations, for
example ensuring child resistant
packaging, inclusion of instruction and
warning labels, monitoring of sales
practices, THC content by sealed portion,
advertising not targeting/attractive to kids
etc.; Create or enforce appropriate local
sanctions/administrative penalties for
violations
Strong support for locally monitoring/assuring
compliance with State regulations - important
that people understand the context... an
ability to enforce locally as we feel is
appropriate for the community - not intended
as a police action; likely licensing related
enforcement; Local regulatory provisions
would also help in situations where the state
lags or fails to enforce existing state level
regulations
VMC members overall don't feel that the
current level of evidence showing a problem
with accidental ingestion is sufficient to
warrant new additional restrictions related to
product or packaging beyond the state's
rules. Also feel there isn't a clear additional
packaging regulation that is appropriate/
would be effective at this time
8 Fund community education on driving
high, monitor developments in effective
enforcement of marijuana impaired driving
and take early action on promising
approaches
(i.e. Promising approach example: swab
testing is growing in larger jurisdictions);
Monitoring and Early Action likely defined as
a direction to monitor and/or stay abreast of
developments as well as funding/resourcing
of early adoption and evaluation
Appendix Materials, included as separate documents in policy brief packet:
Original responses from Google Docs survey
Master Sheet from Deliberation Sessions
Policy Survey Respondent Q&A
Denver Post September 8, 2016 story – New Study Reveals What Makes Marijuana Edibles Most
Attractive to Young Kids
JAMA Pediatrics Study Abstract, July 25, 2016 - Unintentional Pediatric Exposures to Marijuana in
Colorado, 2009-2015
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey VMC Google Forms
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVl31J8XUeXLq_REfnNymvGVlLNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 1/20
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible: 1 8 88.9%
2 1 11.1%
3 0 0%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 0 0%
9 responses
View all responses Publish analytics
Summary
Retail establishments maintain an approved point of sale consumer education
program (including elements such as: training salespersons on educating customers;
signage and posters; cards in carry out packages topics such as laws associated
with public safety & health (ie. resale/transfer to minors); safe handling, storage,
disposal; consumption recommendations & potency information)
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Point of sale engages the industry
Even 2.5 years into recreational MJ, and despite the CDPHE's campaigns, people still don't
understand edibles and overconsumption is a big concern. I support the POS education, but the
retailer should have some discretion as to how they handle each customer, and have the
opportunity to custom tailor the education experience depending on the customer's existing
knowledge. The program should focus on tourists and inexperienced users and not create a
hassle for regular customers who are already familiar with the content.
This is the point where the consumer is the most interested, most accessible and the impact is
oneonone which seems like a powerful position to be in. Also, this policy actually reaches the
target audience 100%. The scope and depth of information can send a strong message that the
industry is supporting responsible use. Downside...who monitors this?
Guaranteed way to contact/educate those legally purchasing/using
Edit this form
1 2 3 4
0
2
4
6
8
brad@alignedinsight.com
1g
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey VMC Google Forms
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVl31J8XUeXLq_REfnNymvGVlLNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 2/20
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible: 1 0 0%
2 3 33.3%
3 2 22.2%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 4 44.4%
Feels good but no teeth. No real info on risk
Limit the number of retail outlets that can sell edible products, and/or tie ability to sell
edibles only with a higherlevel license with more advanced requirements (ie.
maintain an approved pointofsale education program)
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
This would add workload to the municipalities and counties where staffing is limited and already
impacted by the stores we currently have.
Not sure this will make a difference
I don't believe limiting the number of outlets that can sell edibles would be an effective solution,
but I do agree with the advanced requirements
This feels like it will need a lot of system and legislative management. Not sure it makes sense
and the consumer will find the product they want.
don't agree with limiting # of outlets (leave to the market). Do agree with some kind of increased
licensing requirement for edibles
restriction of trade
Educate the public, event coordinators, retailers of punishing consequences and a
zero tolerance enforcement policy concerning sale or transfer of marijuana products,
including edibles, to youth/minors ((ZEROTOLERANCE POLICY DEFINITION: A
“zero tolerance policy” is a school or district policy that mandates predetermined
consequences or punishments for specific offenses that are intended to be applied
regardless of the seriousness of the behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational
context.[1] American Psychological Association, Zero Tolerance Task Force Report,
“Are Zero Tolerance Policies Effective in the Schools? An Evidentiary Review and
Recommendations (2006), p. 2, 26. Online: FURTHER CONTEXT: http://legal
dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/zero+tolerance))
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
2g
1r
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey VMC Google Forms
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVl31J8XUeXLq_REfnNymvGVlLNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 3/20
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 5 55.6%
2 4 44.4%
3 0 0%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 0 0%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
I don't think we should ever have a zero tollerance enforcement policy
The focus shouldn't solely be on edibles here, but MJ in general. Edibles are more expensive
and probably not the primary form of consumption among youth. According to the CDPHE and
Healthy Kids Colorado 2015 survey, 91% of Colorado high school students who used MJ in the
last 30 days smoked, 28% dabbed, 21% vaped, and 28% ate it.
When done really well, this could be effective but I've seen too many poorly done/poorly funded
public outreach campaigns around public health issues. It has to be a long term commitment,
wide scope and smart about the youth component without making adults feel guilty about their
use. That is a tricky line and there is often not enough money to hire quality marketing talent.
When the health and human service professionals try to create public outreach campaigns
without paying for marketing talent, it is a waste of money.
0 tolerance ok so long as: the follow through is there; it is a clearly understood expectation; all
partners buy in to support policy (i.e. event managers actively support the policy... provide
staffing to patrol events)
Education of parents on their actions that can prevent youth access to marijuana
through social channels
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
3g
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey VMC Google Forms
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVl31J8XUeXLq_REfnNymvGVlLNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 4/20
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 6 66.7%
2 1 11.1%
3 2 22.2%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 0 0%
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible: 1 5 55.6%
2 2 22.2%
3 1 11.1%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 1 11.1%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Parents should take the lead on raising their children, not schools or government
The parents who need to hear it will not be the parents who hear it
Social channels rely on selfparticipation and sharing. I'm not confident we will get people to
engage. Will individuals repost or share information with others about how to prevent access to
the products they are purchasing thereby revealing they may be purchasers of marijuana
products?
message to youth should be coming primarily from families, as with any other safety/health
message that parents educate kids on. This may provide the parent with the resources to do so.
important to give parents more info re risk for adolescent use is different from adult use
Educate youth and strictly enforce with zerotolerance laws prohibiting minor’s
possession or use of marijuana edibles, including advocating for school district
adoption of policy prohibiting possession/use on campus (if not already in place)
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
I disagree with mandating zerotolerance laws when dealing with minor's and young adults.
Educate youth, yes. zero tolerance laws have proven to be ineffective. This is a criminal
response to a health issue. Accountability yes, identifying intoxication yes, but zero tolerance
will have long term impact on youth success and can actually increase use. And there will
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
1y
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey VMC Google Forms
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVl31J8XUeXLq_REfnNymvGVlLNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 5/20
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 4 44.4%
2 3 33.3%
3 1 11.1%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 1 11.1%
always be youth use. Problematic youth use is often associated with other mental or physical
issues. Let's make getting to these root causes more important that criminalizing youth use.
unsure on the 0 tolerance stance for youth. However pro advocating for school district/campus
use limitation policy
No brainer. No use on campus
Media/social channel messages to inform public (kids; adults) on edible safety and in
particular risks to youth of marijuana consumption
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
I don't think kids or parents can ever have too much information on marijuana
The CDPHE's Good to Know Colorado and Protect What's Next campaigns are already doing
this. Would this be duplicating efforts?
If we pay for quality marketing talent to design these messages. AND messages to kids and
adults should be VERY different. Even so, not sure this is the best place to look for short term
impact. Public health campaigns require long term commitment and wide scope before impact.
impactful if the messaging comes from peers.
Has been tried and no effect
Locally regulate packaging of marijuana edibles to at least updated state regulations,
for example ensuring child proof, inclusion of instruction and warning labels, THC
content by sealed portion, etc
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
2y
3y
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey VMC Google Forms
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVl31J8XUeXLq_REfnNymvGVlLNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 6/20
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 5 55.6%
2 1 11.1%
3 3 33.3%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 0 0%
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 1 11.1%
2 5 55.6%
3 3 33.3%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 0 0%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
I feel this is the responsibility of the State and their rule making/enforcement divisions. We do
not have available staff to inspect facilities, their products or their packaging.
I like the idea but is this possible? Who is monitoring? Is this an action that local shop owners
will have to pay for and can they?
not sure this would change access. may reduce some accidental consumption.
good safety policy
Edibles for sale in Pitkin County have supplementary labels informing purchasers of
potency and effects
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Im not sure you could quantify effects, its different for all users
The state's labeling rules have so many required statements and the text is so small that most
consumers don't bother to read them, and if they do, the important information gets lost. House
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
1or
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey VMC Google Forms
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVl31J8XUeXLq_REfnNymvGVlLNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 7/20
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 4 44.4%
2 4 44.4%
3 0 0%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 1 11.1%
Bill 121261 reduced the label content and requires potency be highlighted on the label, but not
sure when the MED will amend their rules to have these go into effect. If Pitkin County goes
forward with this, it should be short and sweet, easy to understand and highlight only the really
important points.
Sure, again, who pays for it and who monitors?
difficult to define effects as they may differ by user. how effective has generic messaging on
health effects of other products been? (tobacco)
need to be easily read
Revoke retail licenses of establishments who violate zero tolerance laws concerning
edibles and/or Impose “harsh administrative penalties” for owners of retail
establishments whose employees violate regulations on sales of marijuana edibles
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Revocation may be a little harsh (depending on violation), but I support administrative penalties
(fines, suspension, etc.).
Definitely...although we need to be realistic about how much this will impact illegal use or
irresponsible use.
don't like the word harsh. does this approach match the scale of the general problem? perhaps
applicable in relation to youth sales?
Word gets out to teens that this place overlooks fake IDs
Through existing tax revenues, temporary or permanent additional excise taxes,
allocate ongoing funds to education, prevention and treatment related to marijuana
edibles (or other marijuana products/issues based on defined needs)
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
4g
4y
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey VMC Google Forms
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVl31J8XUeXLq_REfnNymvGVlLNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 8/20
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 6 66.7%
2 2 22.2%
3 1 11.1%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 0 0%
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 1 11.1%
2 2 22.2%
3 4 44.4%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 2 22.2%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
This funds may already be available through conventional taxes, Im not sure we need an
additional tax base.
Definitely, any policy needs dedicated longterm funding to support the ongoing education,
prevention and treatment needs that will always be present.
enough taxes already
Establish and support a committee with annual CityCounty funding that advises
social and recreational leaders of steps they can take to protect people from the
misuse of substances, particularly marijuana edibles
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Who are "social and recreational leaders"? How is this different from any other outreach
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
2r
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey VMC Google Forms
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVl31J8XUeXLq_REfnNymvGVlLNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 9/20
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 3 33.3%
2 4 44.4%
3 1 11.1%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 1 11.1%
campaign? Is this a "preaching" agenda?
wondering if a forum already exists.
Weak policy
Engage public media in announcing prohibitions against use of marijuana at public
events and then report on effective enforcement at events when the events have
concluded
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Could be a good way to monitor how effective strategies can be. Feels like a data collection
effort, not a policy.
could be quite simple??? matter of resources and reliance on private security? pre "PD/SO
going to be focusing on underage use of MJ at ??? event" post PD/SO made 50 MJ contacts
and issued 12 tickets for underage consumption at ??? event. All youth involved have been
referred to Youthzone for follow up. message "MJ & adolescent brain don't mix.""
People enjoy MJ at events and we are back to making in a criminal case
Increase retailers’ legal liability if an uninformed customer resells or transfers
purchased edibles to a minor
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
2or
3r
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey VMC Google Forms
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVl31J8XUeXLq_REfnNymvGVlLNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 10/20
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 1 11.1%
2 4 44.4%
3 2 22.2%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 2 22.2%
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 4 44.4%
2 3 33.3%
3 2 22.2%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 0 0%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
this is already done on the state level.
How do you defined what an uniformed customer is? How is that proven?
Good idea in theory, but not sure how it can be proven and enforced.
No...no way to determine uninformed customer and we don't need to isolate retailers by putting
this type of pressure on them when some are willing to be at the table right now.
interesting idea.
If certain people regularly buy unusual quantities this would be suspicious
Events set a visible standard for the public on marijuana access, particularly minors’
access to marijuana and its products
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
yes and no and I don't understand the policy question here. However, there is also an
assumption that events come with pot these days from adults and youth just like they come
with consumption and overconsumption of alcohol.
not entirely sure what this means
Edibles would be so hard to "see". No smoke no odor and people eat "candy" and stuff at
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
5y
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey VMC Google Forms
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVl31J8XUeXLq_REfnNymvGVlLNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 11/20
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 5 55.6%
2 2 22.2%
3 0 0%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 2 22.2%
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 6 66.7%
2 0 0%
events
Media advertising for marijuana edibles is prohibited
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
I don't think we should have restrictions on advertising
YES! We do not need to add the highly developed advertising industry to aid in the desire for
edibles. No tobacco ads have helped.
We know this has worked to reduce underage use of tobacco.
users know it is there and available. Lets not get into who makes the best "brownies.
Prohibit and enforce edible marijuana “sales” and “giveaways” ((MED Rule R 402.I
states:Free Product Prohibited. A Retail Marijuana Store may not give away Retail
Marijuana or Retail Marijuana Product to a consumer for any reason))
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
6y
7y
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey VMC Google Forms
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVl31J8XUeXLq_REfnNymvGVlLNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 12/20
3 1 11.1%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 2 22.2%
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 4 44.4%
2 0 0%
3 3 33.3%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 2 22.2%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
This would be overly prohibitive for businesses. In addition, these products expire (some have
very short shelf lives, others longer) and putting them on sale is an effective way to move
product prior to expiration. Once they expire, they must be destroyed/wasted.
PLEASE!!! I don't know if this policy is possible but making "giveaways" seems like we are
minimizing the potential harm. Are liquor stores able to do "giveaways"?
a matter of prioritization relative to other policing issues
We know this is an effective strategy for tobacco.
Not a good a good idea
Monitor media advertising for misleading messages
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Not sure. Who monitors? what do we do about it?
gate horses bolted stable, resources
Lower the THC content in for sale edibles
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
3or
4r
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey VMC Google Forms
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVl31J8XUeXLq_REfnNymvGVlLNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 13/20
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 2 22.2%
2 1 11.1%
3 4 44.4%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 2 22.2%
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 1 11.1%
2 4 44.4%
3 4 44.4%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 0 0%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
I rate this as strongly agree but also need additional information regarding State plans and
proposed laws.
I believe the 10 mg THC serving size/100 mg max per Container is sufficient.
Is this possible? of course, this feels like a nobrainer based on the information I have now
about the unregulation and the potential for overdose
huge regulatory/testing component, resources
I need more information
Double the rate of compliance checks at retail establishments
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
don't know what it is now and if this is feasible
helpful, but lack of resources, priorities
Compliance of what?
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
4or
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey VMC Google Forms
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVl31J8XUeXLq_REfnNymvGVlLNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 14/20
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 7 77.8%
2 2 22.2%
3 0 0%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 0 0%
Investigate the source when youth possession of marijuana and edibles are
discovered
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Any data points that can be collected should be like this!
should be doing this already.
Who is providing it is important. Vagrants, older friends, parents?
Twice annually, announce that “party patrols” and “shoulder tap” actions will be
taken, to affirm existing laws and to strengthen the public perception that City and
County elected representatives and administrators support resident safety with edible
marijuana ((PARTY PATROLS DEFINITION
https://ndspfsig.wikispaces.com/file/view/8A+Party+Patrols.pdf Party Patrols, often
referred to as Controlled Party Dispersal Plans, are systematic, comprehensive plans
that are designed to dedicate appropriate resources (manpower) to: Contain
underage drinking participants in party situations (homes, fields, campgrounds etc);
Administer preliminary breathalyzer tests and photograph all underage participants;
Process citations (if issued); Identify adult providers of alcohol; Arrange for safe
transportation of youth. Party Patrols utilize ZeroTolerance laws and education to
safely and efficiently secure underage drinking parties. (see link above for context)))
((SHOULDER TAP DEFINITION– https://localwiki.org/davis/Shoulder_Tapping
Shoulder tapping refers to the illegal process where a person who is not of age asks
someone who is of age to buy them cigarettes or, more commonly, Alcohol.
SHOULDER TAP CONTEXT/EXAMPLE
http://www.abc.ca.gov/programs/shoulder_tap.html))
1 2 3 4
0.0
1.5
3.0
4.5
6.0
5g
5r
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey VMC Google Forms
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVl31J8XUeXLq_REfnNymvGVlLNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 15/20
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 1 11.1%
2 2 22.2%
3 4 44.4%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 2 22.2%
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 2 22.2%
2 2 22.2%
3 4 44.4%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 1 11.1%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
I do not understand what Party Patrols and Shoulder Taps are?
Are we announcing when the enforcement actions will occur? If so, then not in support.
Not sure I fully understand this statement
I don't know what this is but seems like a good idea if its about targeted contact
some components could be used, however this approach does not fit philosophically with hoe
we operate (essentially a raid) nor do staff exist to execute.
This says we take youth use as a serious issue
Develop a “marijuana unit” in local law enforcement that monitors sources informed
about use of marijuana edibles by youth
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
We cannot look to law enforcement for the solution
How does this get funded? We currently do not have extra staff to devote personnel.
Not in Pitkin County or Aspen; down valley yes
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
5or
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey VMC Google Forms
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVl31J8XUeXLq_REfnNymvGVlLNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 16/20
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 7 77.8%
2 1 11.1%
3 1 11.1%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 0 0%
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 3 33.3%
2 1 11.1%
3 3 33.3%
Not sure we need this. Public health does this to a degree that we probably need.
could develop existing resources/SROs/detectives/ etc. priorities again.
probably a good idea
Monitor developments in effective enforcement of marijuana impaired driving and
take early action on promising approaches
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Absolutely, seems like an easy thing to do and stay out front of learning
I have seen evidence that makes me think impaired driving is problem. I don't know the level
Conduct a 24month enforcement pilot study to determine if a zerotolerance policy of
Minor in Possession of edibles protects minors from use of edibles
1 2 3 4
0.0
1.5
3.0
4.5
6.0
1 2 3 4
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
6g
6or
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey VMC Google Forms
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVl31J8XUeXLq_REfnNymvGVlLNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 17/20
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 2 22.2%
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 6 66.7%
2 1 11.1%
3 1 11.1%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 1 11.1%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
I cannot give a higher rating until "zerotolerance" is defined. If it is defined to mean that minors
will be charged, every time, with a criminal offense for possession I do not support.
Don't waste our money or the impact on youth to further criminalize youth when we have
decades of research showing zerotolerance of substance use doesn't work.
interesting idea. Would need a lot of PR & multiple agency buy in. Not sure of community
response due to current perceptions of lack of harm as demonstrated by parents making MJ
available.
give it a try
Create a formal referral process that avoids arrest record assuming compliance with
referral to screening and then targeted intervention (ie. major issues vs.
experimenters) to improve parental engagement, support and positive impact of
intervention when warranted
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
In order to get a minor into a program, as suggested, they must be criminally charged. I do not
support charging of all minors. I would like to see a program that minors can be referred to
without criminal charging. This program could also work with minors who are criminally charged.
YEs please...Restorative Justice, maintain accountability but provide screening to determine
intervention need.
restorative justice approach
I like not making it a crime but a health/mental health issue
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7g
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey VMC Google Forms
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVl31J8XUeXLq_REfnNymvGVlLNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 18/20
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 5 55.6%
2 1 11.1%
3 0 0%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 3 33.3%
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 3 33.3%
Define acceptable public venues and/or designated sections at events, for legal
supervised consumption, similar to the treatment of alcohol consumptions or
tobacco smoking (bars; smoking sections; over 21 areas)
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Until state law allows this I do not support open public use or legalizing smoke shops.
Finding a legal place to consume is a real challenge for tourists. This one is a little tricky,
because state law makes it illegal to provide public premises, or any portion thereof, for the
purpose on consumption of MJ or MJ products in any form. It would basically have to be a
private club.
sure. maybe norming adult use within similar boundaries as alcohol and cigarettes will help get it
all out in the open instead of maintaining the secret use.
interesting idea, but illegal at the moment.
Regulate the form(s) or ingredients of edible marijuana products to reduce potential
confusion with nonmarijuana products and potential attractiveness to kids
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
5
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
7or
8y
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Survey VMC Google Forms
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com/forms/d/1EmH5XZJVl31J8XUeXLq_REfnNymvGVlLNwE3xe4Wxk/viewanalytics 19/20
2 4 44.4%
3 2 22.2%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 0 0%
Strongly Agree; Highly Impactful and Feasible : 1 0 0%
2 4 44.4%
3 4 44.4%
Strongly Disagree; Not Impactful or Feasible: 4 1 11.1%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
difficult to implement/regulate
Don't make it in the image of children's favorite treats.
Consideration of zoning and/or density limits associated with the production of
compliant edible products
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Our municipality does not allow commercial production or cultivation of marijuana products
within Town boundaries.
not sure. Feels like a big effort for little population impact
I don;t know enough about current zoning limitations to comment
need more information
Ban sale of edibles, allow consumable marijuana only in pill format
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
6r
7r
7/14/2016 Edible Marijuana Policy Rating Sur vey VMC Google Form s
https://docs.google.com/a/alignedinsight.com /for m s/d/1EmH5XZJVl31J8XUeXLq_REfnNym vGVlLNwE3xe4W xk/viewanalytics 20/20
Strongly Agree; Highly Impac t ful and Feas ible : 1 2 22.2%
2 1 11.1%
3 2 22.2%
Strongly Dis agree; Not I mpac tful or Feasible: 4 4 44.4%
Why did you rate the prior policy item as you did?
Feels lik e a public nightmare. Banning anyt hing will lose any s upport f rom us ers we might
currently hav e.
worth inv es tigating as an option. Howev er, mark etplace has c learly dic tat ed t he v ery wide
variety of produc ts that c ons umers want to s ee, s o ex pect big pus h bac k
Sounds great. Users are not taking edibles for t he nutritional v alue
Other policy recommendations that should be considered, and why?
none
None
NA
None that I c an currently think of
no thank s
To me t he idea of a pill ins tead of a "food" is the best idea.
Number of daily responses
1 2 3 4
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
2
3
4
#Policy Recommendation
Original
Poll
Average
Score
Deliberation Notes
1g
Retail establishments maintain an approved point of sale consumer education
program (including elements such as: training salespersons on educating
customers; signage and posters; cards in carry out packages - topics such as laws
associated with public safety & health (ie. resale/transfer to minors); safe
handling, storage, disposal; consumption recommendations & potency
information)
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1.1 13 (all)The VMC is in process of putting together a cross-functional team (including the retail cannabis industry) and
developing a curriculum/approach to this item
2g
Educate the public, event coordinators, retailers of civil and criminal
consequences and enforcement policy concerning sale or transfer of marijuana
products, including edibles, to youth/minors
2 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 2 1.4 13 (all)
Removed zero tolerance aspect per group decision;
Noted that partnership between schools and law enforcement critical to success
3g Education of parents on their actions that can prevent youth access/use to
marijuana (funding campaigns)1 1 3 1 1 3 1 1 2 1.6 13 (all)
Would require school participation to get parents in the room for education;
Schools identified a parallel process related to how they currently support parents in managing for healthy
student use of electronics
4g
Through existing tax revenues, temporary or permanent additional excise taxes,
dedicate ongoing funds to education, prevention and treatment related to
marijuana edibles (or other marijuana products/issues based on defined needs)
1 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 1.4 13 1
(new arrival, now 14 participants total (not including facilitator, not polled)
Yellow (1) response context - wants to better understand how much is needed, how it would be spent,
implications for industry based on amount of additional tax to be levied (if any)
5g Investigate the source when youth possession of marijuana and edibles are
discovered 1 1 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1.2 14
Group voted to remove this item because it is already being done - not appropriate as a policy recommendation;
While not suitable as a policy recommendation, this item could be addressed by the planned VMC initiative to
involve kids (ongoing) in VMC type discussions;
Group also supported the idea of kids panel discussion at schools for kids/parents etc
Consider additional dis-incentives for individuals that distribute illegally (beyond the point of legal retail sale)
6g
Fund community education on driving high, monitor developments in effective
enforcement of marijuana impaired driving and take early action on promising
approaches
1 1 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1.3 14
(ie. Promising approach example: swab testing is growing in larger jurisdictions);
Monitoring and Early Action defined as a direction to monitor and/or stay abreast of developments as well as
funding/resourcing of early adoption and evaluation
7g
Create a mechanism & expectations to use a formal non-criminal referral process
that allows for the avoidance of arrest record assuming compliance with
screening/targeted intervention (ie. major issues vs. experimenters) to improve
parental engagement, support and positive impact of intervention when
warranted
1 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1.7 14 Facilitator Note: This item intends to focus on youth, was discussed by the group as such, but could also be
applied to adult issues where mental health / substance abuse is a significant factor
1y Fund/Suppport education of youth on edible marijuana impacts and healthy life
choices (or other evidence based prevention education)
2 4 1 1 1 3 1 2 1 1.8 10 (all voting participants)
school policy already in place; zero tolerance deliberated previously and not appropriate/desirable in this
community;
Educating children is a high priority, and a strong recommendation
2y Media/social channel messages to inform public (kids; adults) on edible safety and
in particular risks to youth of marijuana consumption 1 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 4 1.9 10
This is covered on prior options, just deals with the HOW that would be a part of the implementation process
Remove this option/item, it is redundant
3y
Locally regulate/monitor marijuana edibles to at least updated state regulations,
for example ensuring child resistant packaging, inclusion of instruction and
warning labels, monitoring of sales practices, THC content by sealed portion,
advertising not targeting/attractive to kids etc; Create or enforce appropriate local
sanctions/administrative penalties for violations
1 3 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 1.8 10
strong support for locally monitoring/assuring compliance with State regulations is supported - important that
people understand the context... an ability to enforce locally as we feel is appropriate for community - not
intended as a police action; Likely licensing related; Also helps when state lags too long to enforce existing regs
current level of problem with accidental ingestion does not seem warrant / there isn't a clear additional packaging
reg that is appropriate/ apparent would be effective
This should be addressed in 1g, 2g, 3g
4y Impose escalating penalties for establishments who violate regulations
concerning edibles marijuana sales, up to and including revocation of licenses 1 2 1 2 2 1 4 2 1 1.8
This is best addressed by increased monitoring of existing state regulations and their corresponding penalties
(prior item 3y), as well as licensing at a local level
Cannot back a local licensing authority into a corner with zero tolerance revocation of licenses
remove this item - replaced by 3y
5y Events set a visible standard for the public on marijuana access, particularly
minors access to marijuana and its products 1 1 1 3 2 2 3 1 2 1.8 1 5 4
This is about implementing specific expectations for event licensing that support prevention at events (ie. media
messaging; event design; signage/notification) with the degree of effort predicated on projected event size and
discretionary likelihood of substance use at the event
Focus on larger events more likely to be an issue
Original Poll Individual Responses (Appropriate; Effective;
Achievable: 1 strongest; 4 weakest)
In-Meeting Deliberation and
Re-Poll
6y Media advertising for marijuana edibles is prohibited 4 1 2 4 2 1 1 1 1 1.9 10
Edibles, specifically, aren't the primary issue associated with community marijuana concerns
Edibles already (by state law) can't target kids… but not really monitored
More concerned about ads that might appeal to kids; health and benefit claims
Current licensing implies the ability to advertise, and this is important to business
Support for improved monitoring of advertising that doesn't attract kids (see 3y), but not to prohibit advertising
for edibles
7y
Prohibit and enforce edible marijuana sales and give-a-ways ((MED Rule R 402.I
states:Free Product Prohibited. A Retail Marijuana Store may not give away Retail
Marijuana or Retail Marijuana Product to a consumer for any reason))
4 1 1 4 3 1 1 1 1 1.9 1 9 State law covers give-aways; there isn't an appetite to impose a stronger local restriction
8y
Regulate the form(s) or ingredients of edible marijuana products to reduce
potential confusion with non-marijuana products and potential attractiveness to
kids
1 2 2 3 1 2 2 3 1 1.9 2 3 5
1or Edibles for sale in Pitkin County have supplementary labels informing purchasers
of potency and effects
2 2 1 3 2 2 3 3 2 2.2
2or
Engage public media in announcing prohibitions against use of marijuana at public
events and then report on effective enforcement at events when the events have
concluded
2 1 1 2 3 2 1 2 4 2.0
3or Monitor media advertising for misleading messages 4 1 1 4 1 3 3 3 1 2.3
4or Double the rate of compliance checks at retail establishments 2 2 3 3 1 3 2 2 3 2.3
5or Develop a marijuana unit in local law enforcement that monitors sources
informed about use of marijuana edibles by youth 4 3 3 3 1 3 2 2 1 2.4
6or Conduct a 24-month enforcement pilot study to determine if a zero-tolerance
policy of Minor in Possession of edibles protects minors from use of edibles
3 4 3 3 1 4 1 2 1 2.4
7or
Define acceptable public venues and/or designated sections at events, for legal
supervised consumption, similar to the treatment of alcohol consumptions or
tobacco smoking (bars; smoking sections; over 21 areas)
1 4 4 1 1 2 1 4 1 2.1
1r
Limit the number of retail outlets that can sell edible products, and/or tie ability to
sell edibles only with a higher-level license with more advanced requirements (ie.
maintain an approved point-of-sale education program)
3 4 2 4 3 4 2 2 4 3.1
2r
Establish and support a committee with annual City-County funding that advises
social and recreational leaders of steps they can take to protect people from the
misuse of substances, particularly marijuana edibles
1 2 3 2 3 3 4 3 4 2.8
3r Increase retailers legal liability if an uninformed customer resells or transfers
purchased edibles to a minor
2 4 1 3 2 4 2 2 3 2.6
4r Lower the THC content in for sale edibles 3 1 2 4 4 1 3 3 3 2.7
5r
Twice annually, announce that party patrols• and shoulder tap actions will be
taken, to affirm existing laws and to strengthen the public perception that City
and County elected representatives and administrators support resident safety
with edible marijuana
4 4 3 2 3 2 3 3 1 2.8
6r Consideration of zoning and/or density limits associated with the production of
compliant edible products 2 2 4 2 3 3 3 2 3 2.7
Items that scored 1.9 or higher on the survey (lacked even 50% of respondent support) were not deliberated as
individual policy options
7r Ban sale of edibles, allow consumable marijuana only in pill format 4 4 1 4 3 4 2 3 1 2.9
Items that scored 1.9 or higher on the survey (lacked even 50% of respondent support) were not deliberated as individual policy options
Zero Tolerance Policy Definition - http://www.mentalhealthamerica.net/positions/zero-tolerance
A “zero tolerance policy” is a school or district policy that mandates predetermined
consequences or punishments for specific offenses that are intended to be applied regardless of
the seriousness of the behavior, mitigating circumstances, or situational context.
[1] American Psychological Association, Zero Tolerance Task Force Report, “Are Zero Tolerance
Policies Effective in the Schools? An Evidentiary Review and Recommendations (2006), p. 2, 26.
Online:
Legal definition & broader context: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/zero+tolerance
The policy of applying laws or penalties to even minor infringements of a code in order to
reinforce its overall importance and enhance deterrence.
Since the 1980s the phrase zero tolerance has signified a philosophy toward illegal conduct that
favors strict imposition ofpenalties regardless of the individual circumstances of each case. Zero
tolerance policies deal primarily with drugs andweapons and have been implemented by most
school districts in the United States. Two federal laws have driven zerotolerance but state
legislatures have also been willing to mandate similar policies. Supporters of zero tolerance
policies contend that they promote the safety and wellbeing of school children and send a
powerful message of deterrence. In addition, supporters believe strict adherence to these
policies ensure that school officials do not treat individual children differently. Critics of zero
tolerance believe that inflexible discipline policies produce harmful results. Moreover, school
administrators have failed to use common sense in applying zero tolerance, leading to the
expulsion of children for bringingto school such items as an aspirin or a plastic knife.
The term zero tolerance was first employed by President RONALD REAGAN's administration when it
launched its War on Drugsinitiative in the early 1980s. Some school districts embraced the
initiative in an attempt to eradicate drug possession anddrug use on school property. The policy
became law, however, when Congress passed the Drug-Free Schools andCampuses Act of 1989
(Pub.L. 101-226, December 12, 1989, 103 Stat. 1928). The act banned the unlawful use,
possession, or distribution of drugs and alcohol by students and employees on school grounds
and college campuses. It required educational agencies and institutions of higher learning to
establish disciplinary sanctions for violations or risklosing federal aid. As a result, the majority of
schools and colleges immediately began to adopt zero tolerance polices tosafeguard their
federal funding.
Congress legislated zero tolerance polices toward weapons on school grounds when it passed
the Gun-Free Schools Act of1994 (Pub. L. 103-
382, Title I, § 101, October 20, 1994, 198 Stat. 3907). According to the act, every state had to
pass a law
requiring educational agencies to expel from school, for not less than one year, any student
found in possession of a gun.Students with disabilities under either the Individuals with
Disabilities Act (IDEA) (Pub.L. 91-230, Title VI, April 13, 1970, 84Stat. 175 to 188) or Section 504
of the Rehabilitation Act (Pub.L. 93-112, September 26, 1973, 87 Stat. 355) could beexpelled for
only 45 days. Despite these strict provisions, the act permitted school superintendents to modify
the expulsion requirement on a case-by-case basis.
This federal law was the catalyst for school zero tolerance policies that soon went beyond drugs
and weapons to includehate speech, harassment, fighting, and dress codes. School principals,
who must administer zero tolerance policies, beganto suspend and expel students for seemingly
trivial offenses. Students have been suspended or expelled for a host ofrelatively minor
incidents, including possession of nail files, paper clips, organic cough drops, a model rocket, a
five-inch plastic ax as part of a Halloween costume, an inhaler for asthma, and a kitchen
knife in a lunch box to cut chicken.Outraged parents of children disciplined by zero tolerance
policies protested to school boards, publicized their cases withthe news media, and sometimes
filed lawsuits in court seeking the overturning of the discipline. Courts generally have
rejected such lawsuits, concluding that school administrators must have the ability to exercise
their judgment in maintaining school safety.
One study, however, issued by the Advancement Project in 2000, suggested that zero tolerance,
while supposedly a neutralpolicy, was applied disproportionately to students of color. Such
concerns led the American Bar Association (ABA) in 2001to pass a resolution opposing, in
principle, zero tolerance policies that (1) have a discriminatory effect, or (2) set forth
mandatory punishment without regard to the circumstances or nature of the offense, or the
student's history. The ABAconcluded that such "one-size-fits-all" policies violate students'
DUE PROCESS rights. Although the organization urged schoolsto maintain strong prevention
policies, it also wanted to ensure that students' rights were protected when they were
disciplined.
Despite the backlash, zero tolerance has remained a central part of school administration. In
particular, zero tolerance forweapons has been a top priority due, in part, to a string of school
shootings, which culminated in the 1999 tragedy at
Columbine High School in Colorado. Some school administrators have turned to zero tolerance
policies because they needto respond swiftly and decisively in order to maintain control and
discipline. They contend that such polices can becommunicated clearly and forcefully to students
so they understand that discipline will be immediate and predictable.Finally, another reason for
school administrators to embrace zero tolerance policies is legal liability. A school that does note
nforce a zero tolerance policy risks a civil lawsuit by victims of school violence.
Shoulder Tap Definition – https://localwiki.org/davis/Shoulder_Tapping
Shoulder tapping refers to the illegal process where a person who is not of age asks someone
who is of age to buy them cigarettes or, more commonly,Alcohol. [For example,] those who are
shoulder tapped [to buy alcohol for minors] should be careful as the DPD occasionally runs sting
operations targeting those willing to buy Alcohol for those who are not of age.
Shoulder Tap Program Example/Context - http://www.abc.ca.gov/programs/shoulder_tap.html
When the California Supreme Court ruled in 1994 that minor decoys could be used by law
enforcement to check whether stores were selling alcohol to minors (persons under age 21), the
violation rate was nearly 50 percent. In some cities, almost one out of every two stores failed to
check a minor's age and sold them alcohol. In 1997 the violation rate had dropped to less than
10 percent in those cities that used the Minor Decoy Program on a regular basis. Minors then
turned to the "shoulder tap" method of getting alcohol by standing outside of a liquor store or
market and asking adults to buy them alcohol. A recent survey conducted by the Los Angeles
Police Department indicated that as much as 46 percent of all minors who attempt to acquire
alcohol use this method.
The Decoy Shoulder Tap Program is a newly-created enforcement program that ABC and local
law enforcement agencies use to detect and deter shoulder tap activity. During the program, a
minor decoy, under the direct supervision of law enforcement officers, solicits adults outside
ABC licensed stores to buy the minor decoy alcohol. Any person seen furnishing alcohol to the
minor decoy is arrested (either cited or booked) for furnishing alcohol to a minor (a violation of
Section 25658(a) Business and Professions Code).
Goals and Objectives
The goals of the program are to: (1) Reduce underage consumption of, and access to, alcohol by
deterring adults from furnishing to them outside of licensed premises; (2) Expand the
involvement of local law enforcement in enforcing underage drinking laws; and (3) Raise public
awareness about the problem.
Program objectives are to: (a) Provide mini grants to local law enforcement agencies to run the
program; (b) Develop a public awareness campaign; and (c) Target communities for grants that
have a high incidence of alcohol-related traffic crashes and injuries involving those under age 21.
To achieve its objectives, the Decoy Shoulder Tap Program relies on the sworn staff members of
ABC and the local law enforcement agency.
Program components include the following:
o IDENTIFY LOCATIONS OF ACTIVITY.
Officers collect and review complaints and information provided by citizens, parents, school
officials, patrol/campus police officers, community groups, and special event organizers who
cater to high school age students. Officers review all data and evidence to help plan the
program.
o GAIN PROGRAM SUPPORT.
In addition to needing support from the community as described above, the program needs
strong support by the local prosecutor. Therefore, law enforcement agencies are encouraged to
discuss the benefits of the program with their city attorney or county district attorney.
o COORDINATE THE INVESTIGATION.
The Decoy Shoulder Tap Program initially can be conducted as a joint operation between ABC
and the local law enforcement agency. After the initial training by ABC, the program is normally
used by the local law enforcement agency.
o MEDIA INVOLVEMENT.
One of the most effective uses of the media is to publicize enforcement. Therefore, a press
release announcing the program and its goals and objectives is issued to the local news media.
Since many adults are not aware of the seriousness of the offense, the publicity of those
arrested sends a strong message to those who may be inclined to assist a minor in getting
alcohol.
o DECOY SELECTION.
Selection of the minor decoy is critical. Desirable qualifications include being: under 20 years of
age (and appearing that age); truthful; willing to work undercover, wear a radio transmitter and
have their conversations recorded; comfortable making a face-to-face identification of the
suspect after the violation and to have their photograph taken with the suspect; able to prepare
a written report; willing to testify in court; and willing to undergo media attention.
Party Patrols Definition - https://ndspfsig.wikispaces.com/file/view/8A+Party+Patrols.pdf
Party Patrols, often referred to as Controlled Party Dispersal Plans, are systematic, comprehensive plans that
are designed to dedicate appropriate resources (manpower) to:
Contain underage drinking participants in party situations (homes, fields, campgrounds etc)
Administer preliminary breathalyzer tests and photograph all underage participants
Process citations (if issued)
Identify adult providers of alcohol
Arrange for safe transportation of youth
Party Patrols utilize Zero-Tolerance laws and education to safely and efficiently secure underage drinking
parties. (see link above for broader context and explanation)
9/8/2016 New study reveals what makes marijuana edibles most attractive to young kids – The Denver Post
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/08/marijuanaediblesattractivekids/1/3
NEWSMARIJUANA
New study reveals what makes
marijuana edibles most
attractive to young kids
Colorado’s new rules for edibles prohibit animal or fruit
shapes
By JOHN INGOLD | jingold@denverpost.com
PUBLISHED: September 8, 2016 at 1:35 pm | UPDATED: September 8, 2016 at
4:58 pm
Anya Semeno
9/8/2016 New study reveals what makes marijuana edibles most attractive to young kids – The Denver Post
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/08/marijuanaediblesattractivekids/2/3
A0er legalization in Colorado, emergency room visits for kids who
accidentally consumed marijuana roughly doubled, though the numbers
are still small compared with ingestions of pharmaceuticals or household
products. Marijuana-infused edibles accounted for about half all
cannabis ingestion cases.
Colorado’s new rules for marijuana-infused edibles take important steps to
keep the products from being attractive to young children but also may not
go far enough, a recently released study suggests.
The rules — which are being ᠴnalized and take effect in 2017 — prohibit
edible pot products from being made in animal or fruit shapes. That is
important because playful shapes are one of the key things that makes
food alluring to kids, said Sam Méndez, the executive director of the
University of Washington’s Cannabis Law and Policy Project and the author
of the new report.
But Méndez’s research identiᠴed other elements — such as color, smell and
taste — that also make food attractive. And those are things that Colorado’s
new rules do not regulate.
Méndez’s study was commissioned by Washington state’s Liquor and
Cannabis Board, the organization that oversees marijuana businesses in
that state. The goal was to learn more about a problem that has dogged pot
businesses in both Washington and Colorado: How do you keep kids from
accidentally eating marijuana edibles that look similar to noninfused
treats?
Because Méndez couldn’t entice kids with actual marijuana-infused
products, he instead studied what makes food appealing to young children
in general. He found that color, shape, smell and taste all play a part — in
ways that are entirely expected.
Children are attracted to foods in interesting shapes, such as stars or
animals, more so than foods in blocky geometric shapes. They prefer foods
that are red, orange, yellow or green. They like foods that smell and taste
sweet. They are also most attracted to packaging with bright colors and
cartoon ᠴgures.
Most important, Méndez found that eliminating just one attractive element
was unlikely to eliminate the food’s appeal to kids.
“No single factor was exactly proof positive,” he said.
For that reason, he said the best approach for states looking to keep kids
from accidentally eating pot is to have regulators look at a variety of
elements to decide whether a product is too appealing to children.
9/8/2016 New study reveals what makes marijuana edibles most attractive to young kids – The Denver Post
http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/08/marijuanaediblesattractivekids/3/3
DIGITAL & DRIVEWAY
DELIVERY - 50% OFF
TAGS: MARIJUANA EDIBLES, MARIJUANA SALES
Colorado’s rules for marijuana edibles already do that — to an extent. In
addition to the new rules on edible shapes, the rules also prohibit
packaging and food additives designed to appeal to kids. The rules, for
instance, speciᠴcally single out the word “candy” as something that should
not go on an edible’s label. But the rules do not regulate color or smell.
Rep. Jonathan Singer, a Longmont Democrat who has taken on edibles
regulation in past legislative sessions, said the research shows Colorado is
on the right track. But, he said, the state needs to know more — such as
whether even stricter regulations can be shown to reduce hospital visits
because of accidental ingestions — before deciding whether to further
tweak the rules.
“We still have many questions to answer,” he wrote in an e-mail.
Méndez, too, said it is uncertain how much extra regulation of edibles can
eliminate the problem.
“The primary responsibility,” he said, “falls on parents to keep these things
away from kids.”
John
Ingold of
The
Denver
Post
John Ingold
John Ingold has been a Denver Post reporter since 2000
and has covered crime, courts, local government, the
state legislature, marijuana legalization and, now,
health and medicine. Follow John Ingold @johningold
Unintentional Pediatric Exposures to
Marijuana in Colorado, 2009-2015
George Sam Wang, MD1,2; Marie-Claire Le Lait, MS2; Sara J. Deakyne, MPH3; Alvin C. Bronstein, MD2; Lalit Bajaj, MD, MPH1;
Genie Roosevelt, MD, MPH4
JAMA Pediatr. 2016;170(9):e160971. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2016.0971.
ABSTRACT
ABSTRACT | INTRODUCTION | METHODS | RESULTS | DISCUSSION | CONCLUSIONS |ARTICLE
INFORMATION | REFERENCES
Importance As of 2015, almost half of US states allow medical marijuana, and 4 states allow recreational
marijuana. To our knowledge, the effect of recreational marijuana on the pediatric population has not been
evaluated.
Objective To compare the incidence of pediatric marijuana exposures evaluated at a children’s hospital and
regional poison center (RPC) in Colorado before and after recreational marijuana legalization and to compare
population rate trends of RPC cases for marijuana exposures with the rest of the United States.
Design, Setting, and Participants Retrospective cohort study of hospital admissions and RPC cases between
January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2015, at Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, a tertiary care children’s
hospital. Participants included patients 0 to 9 years of age evaluated at the hospital’s emergency department, urgent
care centers, or inpatient unit and RPC cases from Colorado for single-substance marijuana exposures.
Exposure Marijuana.
Main Outcomes and Measures Marijuana exposure visits and RPC cases, marijuana source and type, clinical
effects, scenarios, disposition, and length of stay.
Results Eighty-one patients were evaluated at the children’s hospital, and Colorado’s RPC received 163 marijuana
exposure cases between January 1, 2009, and December 31, 2015, for children younger than 10 years of age. The
median age of children’s hospital visits was 2.4 years (IQR, 1.4-3.4); 25 were girls (40%) . The median age of RPC
marijuana exposures was 2 years (IQR, 1.3-4.0), and 85 patients were girls (52%). The mean rate of marijuana-
related visits to the children's hospital increased from 1.2 per 100 000 population 2 years prior to legalization to 2.3
per 100,000 population 2 years after legalization (P = .02). Known marijuana products involved in the exposure
included 30 infused edibles (48%). Median length of stay was 11 hours (interquartile range [IQR], 6-19) and 26
hours (IQR, 19-38) for admitted patients. Annual RPC pediatric marijuana cases increased more than 5-fold from
2009 (9) to 2015 (47). Colorado had an average increase in RPC cases of 34% (P < .001) per year while the
remainder of the United States had an increase of 19% (P < .001). For 10 exposure scenarios (9%), the product was
not in a child-resistant container; for an additional 40 scenarios (34%), poor child supervision or product storage was
reported. Edible products were responsible for 51 exposures (52%).
Conclusions and Relevance Colorado RPC cases for pediatric marijuana increased significantly and at a higher
rate than the rest of the United States. The number of children’s hospital visits and RPC case rates for marijuana
exposures increased between the 2 years prior to and the 2 years after legalization. Almost half of the patients seen
in the children’s hospital in the 2 years after legalization had exposures from recreational marijuana, suggesting that
legalization did affect the incidence of exposures.
Page 1 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council and Pitkin County Commissioners
FROM: Mike Kosdrosky, APCHA Executive Director
DATE OF MEMO: November 9, 2016
MEETING DATE: November 15, 2016
RE: Update on Deed Restricted Housing Capital Reserve Policy
Team
REQUEST OF COUNCIL AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS:
At the request of City Council and the Board of County Commissioners, an Affordable Housing
Capital Reserve Policy Team (Policy Team) was created to study and reach consensus on how
best to address the issue of deferred maintenance (i.e. inadequate HOA capital reserve funds)
within the deed restricted affordable housing inventory. The Housing Capital Reserve Policy
Team includes two elected and appointed members from the County, City, and the APCHA
Board of Directors. It also includes representatives from the City Manager’s and County
Manager’s Offices, along with the Executive Director of APCHA and staff.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL AND BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ACTION:
No official action to date. The Policy Team has met on several occasions since July with the goal
of meeting once a month. The next meeting of the Policy Team is scheduled for Friday,
December 9, 2016.
BACKGROUND:
For several years local elected and appointed officials have recognized the need for an affordable
housing policy that addresses the understood deferred maintenance and related shortfall in capital
reserve funds across the deed-restricted Home Owners Association (HOA) inventory.
Over this time, both the Aspen Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA), the Housing
Frontiers Group (HFG), and Aspen City Manager’s Office have researched policy ideas and
recommendations to address these issues.
At two separate joint work sessions in late 2015, the City Council and Board of County
Commissioners reviewed general terms of a proposed policy framework to address deferred
maintenance and insufficient capital reserves within deed restricted and subsidized housing.
DISCUSSION:
The current prevalence of deferred maintenance issues within APCHA’s affordable housing
inventory suggests that HOAs may not have the financial resources to adequately maintain their
common elements, resulting in a devaluation of affordable housing assets and diminishing the
Page 2 of 2
housing affordability for future buyers. One commonly used approach for addressing deferred
maintenance is through a capital reserve fund.
The Affordable Housing Capital Reserve Policy Team has met several times since July for the
purpose of 1) defining the problem; 2) establishing clear goals and outcomes; 3) setting
milestones; and 4) recommending a decision-making policy approach to elected officials and the
community.
To date, the group has formed its ground rules, goals, principles and outcomes associated with a
capital reserve policy formation. In addition, research on the following has been reviewed:
• % cost burden by category, occupancy and size of unit
• 2012 capital reserve study
• HOAs affected by policy
• Housing Frontiers ideas – pro’s and con’s of policy options
• Impact of adjustments on monthly fees and need for special assessments
The group identified and discussed the following as root causes of the gaps:
• Accountability Issues
• Program/Legal Structural Issues
• Education/Knowledge Issues
• Economic Issues
The group has had an initial discussion of policy tools:
• Assumptions and Thresholds
Any policy should adhere to the principles.
Any policy should help achieve the outcomes.
Any policy should address root causes for lasting improvement.
This group should select the overarching policy direction and tools.
• Major questions include:
Whether and how to reduce the current gap in existing reserve funding.
Whether and how to assure sufficient funding into the future.
Legal authority available to effect change.
The next meeting is set with several expert attorneys to review the legal authority available to
policy makers and the pros/cons of various policy pathways to be considered.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Allow the Affordable Housing Capital Reserve Policy Team to continue its work toward
reaching a consensus and making policy recommendation in 2017 to the APCHA Board of
Directors, the Aspen City Council and the BOCC on how to address deferred maintenance and
insufficient capital reserves within the deed restricted HOA inventory.
Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen City Council and Pitkin County Commissioners
FROM: Mike Kosdrosky, APCHA Executive Director
DATE OF MEMO: November 9, 2016
MEETING DATE: November 15, 2016
RE: Proposed Housing Guideline Changes Update
The Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority (APCHA) updates Affordable Workforce Housing
Guidelines (Guidelines) periodically to govern the deed restricted housing inventory for the City
of Aspen and Pitkin County. The last comprehensive update of the Guidelines was in 1999, with
subsequent changes to eligibility criteria during the early 2000s.
In 2015/16 a consultant team spent months gathering, surveying, studying and evaluating
APCHA’s affordable housing program and Guidelines, including analyzing:
• Income, Assets, and Categories;
• Affordability;
• Household size and Qualifications;
• Similar housing programs in four high-cost mountain communities; and
• APCHA’s overall effectiveness, key issues, and challenges.
The consultant team presented their findings and recommendations to a joint work session of
Aspen City Council and Pitkin County Board of Commissioners on February 16, 2016, with
APCHA Board members present.
The APCHA Board has discussed many of the findings and recommendations throughout 2016
without taking official action, including: existing affordability and unaffordability issues;
creating an affordability standard; income/asset qualification standards; and existing income
qualification methodology.
At the request of the APCHA Board, staff is working on key Guideline recommendations and
will present its strategy and timeframe for public input, adoption and implementation by end of
year.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: No recommended action at this time.