Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20171106 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION November 06, 2017 5:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. SkiCo Annual Business Update II. CMP update and discussion III. Financial oversight and tools for grantees P1 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM : Tony Kornasiewicz, Construction Mitigation Officer, City of Aspen Peter Rice, P.E. Senior Project Manager, City of Aspen THRU: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer, City of Aspen DATE OF MEMO: November 02, 2017 MEETING DATE: November 06, 2017 RE: Revisions to the Construction Management Plan Requirements Manual SUMMARY: City staff seeks input from Council regarding modifications to the Construction Management Plan Requirements Manual (CMP). The modifications include the following: · Establish updated City standard for construction signage · Modification to CMP standard for construction fencing or wrap · Relocating Title 8.56 “Construction Management Plan” to Title 29 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code · Adoption of violations and penalties language to City of Aspen Municipal Code BACKGROUND HISTORY: During Council’s review of the Mandatory Reed Compliant Sign Code Update (approved by Ordinance 22, Series of 2017), discussion included requirements for signage on construction sites. A portion of the updated sign code includes updated requirements for construction signs. During the sign code review meetings, Council favored the creation of a policy covering the signing and screening of construction sites with recommendations pertaining to patterned screening and limitations on promotions appearing on site screening. Because these requirements are more fully outlined in the City’s Construction Management Plan Requirements, Council directed the Community Development Department to work with the Engineering Department on updates to reflect direction given during the sign code review. Council discussed changes to the requirements and allowances for construction screening, specifically regarding images that could be placed on the construction site barriers such as fencing or sound barriers. During the sign code amendment process, Council indicated that images of mountains and trees, as well as plain green or plain brown fencing, were potential options. DISCUSSION: Construction signage: Construction signage was updated in the sign code amendments to require a single site project sign, which would replace the multiple signs previously seen on construction sites. To fully implement this change, staff recommends adjusting Section 3.3 of the CMP manual to the following: P2 II. 2 3.3 PROJECT SIGN A project sign shall be constructed and posted on any construction site that will exceed 30 days in duration. No other signage, other than required safety signs as outlined in Aspen Municipal Code Section 26.510.040(B)(2), is permitted to face the street / right of way. The following must be listed on the signage: Project Name Project Address Permit Number General Contractor Name and Contact Numbers Emergency Name and Contact Numbers Please refer to Appendix A: Required Construction Sign for an example of signage. The sign shall be posted in a location where it is readable from the street or driveway and shall meet the criteria in City Municipal Code 26.510.040(B), Signs not needing a Permit, Temporary or Wall Signs During Construction. P3 II. 3 Appendix A Decision Point #1: Construction Sign Does Council support the recommended changes proposed by staff to the CMP requirements for construction signage? Construction screening: Council provided general direction during the sign code updates to allow certain visuals on construction screening. The current CMP guidelines do not speak to graphics, so proposed changes would address the size and type of graphics that could be allowed. Construction fencing currently varies from plain green or brown, to images or graphic design. During the sign code amendment process, Council indicated that images of mountains and trees, as well as plain green or plain brown fencing, were potential options. Because “trees and mountains” can be widely interpreted, staff requests additional direction on this issue. P4 II. 4 Below are three images, each showing how trees can be designed into construction fencing. Image 1, shows the current fencing at the Hotel Jerome. The fencing includes a background of aspen trees in the fall, with graphic representations of the project under construction. Images 2 and 3 are a modern graphic design interpretation of mountains and trees recently proposed by the W Aspen (Sky Hotel) construction team. Image 1: Current Hotel Jerome Construction Fencing Image 2: Proposed W Aspen Construction Fencing, Trees Image 3: Proposed W Aspen Construction Fencing, Mountains P5 II. 5 While the images above look very different, they all technically show trees and mountains. It would be difficult for staff to administer the CMP program if staff is in the position to determine graphic design or image quality. For that reason, engineering staff recommends more specifically calling out that pictures of aspen trees, the Maroon Bells, or other natural areas surrounding aspen be used as the standard. Staff recommends adjusting Section 11.2 of the CMP manual to the following: 11.2 NOISE SUPPRESSION PLAN Temporary barriers recommended in Appendix C: Suggested Noise Blocking Methods All temporary barriers or curtains implemented for noise suppression will utilize a durable wrap material rated for outdoor use in all areas that are visible from the City Right-of-Way or Open Space. The pictures for the wrap will include either a solid color or will be a picture that represents the heritage of the City of Aspen or the natural environment that surrounds the area. This may include pictures depicting aspen trees, the Maroon Bells area or other areas around the City of Aspen that are considered public spaces or National Forest. Pictures of the proposed development, advertisements for developers or other entities associated with the project will not be acceptable. Refer to Section 13 for exemptions and Section 14 for the appeal process. Note: Section 13 CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION COMMITTEE will be modified to “project seeking exemptions may seek an exemption from project durations, visual screening or number of encroachments.” P6 II. 6 Decision Point #2: Construction screening Does Council support the recommended changes proposed by staff to the CMP requirements for construction screening? P7 II. 7 Relocating Title 8.56 “Construction Management Plan” to Title 29 of the City of Aspen Municipal Code: Staff recommends modifying the City Municipal Code to relocate the section pertaining to all CMP standards and requirements. Title 8 (Buildings and Building Regulations *1*2) of the City Municipal Code incorporates building requirements and currently includes Section 8.56 Construction Management Plan. For clarity, staff recommends relocating the CMP regulations to Title 29 (Engineering Design Standards) to maintain consistency and to capture all related Engineering standards in one title. Engineering will present final modifications for a Council decision a later date. Adoption of enforcement code for CMP: It has been recommended by the City Attorney’s Office to adopt the Engineering Department’s CMP enforcement policies into the City Municipal Codes. Currently, enforcement is addressed in Section 12.0 of the CMP manual. It was recommended that the violations and penalties language be adopted into the enforcement mechanisms already in place in Title 29 of the Municipal Code. Engineering will present final modifications for a Council decision at a later date. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: At this time, there are no financial decisions that need to be made. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENT A: Construction Sign Example P8 II. Page 1 of 3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Don Taylor, Director of Finance DATE OF MEMO: November 3rd, 2017 MEETING DATE: November 6th, 2017 RE: Grantee Financial Management Requirements/Assistance REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is looking for City Council to provide direction as to the level of Financial Oversight that might be exercised by the City over grants or programmatic contracts with/to Non-Profits. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: BACKGROUND: Each year the city makes grants about 100 grants to non-profit organizations totaling about $1,500,000. These grant awards range from $500 to $140,000 and can be for specific projects or purposes or just as general organizational support. The organizational and financial management of these various non- profits run the gamut from cursory to sophisticated. There are four types of non-profits from the City’s grant making perspective. They are Arts organizations which are funded from the Wheeler Opera House Fund, Health and Human services which are funded from the General Fund and augment the County’s Social service responsibilities and community non-profits. Additionally, there are other Non-profits that are serve certain programmatic purposes and relate to specific City missions. Some examples of this are ACRA, CORE, Aspen Education Foundation, Red Brick Center and WE Cycle. These amounts are not included in the totals in the preceding paragraph. DISCUSSION: If the Council would like to assure financial and organizational minimum standards there are many things that the City could do to achieve this. Since the non-profit entities are so diverse, the Council may wish to layer the requirements in tiers based on the size of the organization or other factors. A suggested tier of requirements is provided later in the memo. Additionally, this is not an exhaustive list, it is a quick list to initiate the discussion. Other requirements will depend on how much the City Council wants to direct the operations of these organizations. One of the most efficient methods to assure that appropriate financial management is occurring in entities that the city is granting or contracting with is to require some level of independent review. This could take the form of an independent audit with an opinion by a CPA or a P9 III. Page 2 of 3 financial statement review by a CPA or accounting firm with no opinion. (much less expensive), No independent financial review should be an option for the smallest non-profits that also have minimum city funds at risk. Another level of financial review would be to have the City, in addition to the independent financial review, review financial statements and management letters of certain organizations to assess their financial position and to be aware of any weaknesses that the auditing firm may be advising management of. Another tactic would be to contact CMC and see if there would be any interest in setting up a program related to organization and financial management for non-profits in the valley. There many hundreds of non-profits in the valley many which could probably benefit from a series of courses related to financial and organizational management. An additional step for the City could be to require these courses in certain circumstances. It should be noted that the Pitkin County spends a significant amount in grants, mostly in the Health and Human Services area. Is this an opportunity to work together on a curriculum or a set of minimum standards that would be beneficial to both entities? Any system the City employs should have some flexibility given the diversity of organizations that the City deals with. Listed below is a matrix of when certain requirements might be required for certain sized grants. Chart of Alternatives Size of Grant Less than $1,000 $1,000- $5,000 $5,000- $25,000 $25,000- $100,000 $100,000- $250,000 over $250,000 Tactic Independent Financial Review Not Required Not Required Professional financial review Professional financial review Audited Financial statements Internal Control Audit City Review of Financials Not Required Not Required Not Required Not Required Not Required City Review required Class or Curriculum at CMC optional optional Depends on size of organization Depends on size of organization Depends on size of organization Depends on size of organization P10 III. Page 3 of 3 FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Financial impacts will depend on the scope of oversight that the council decides to exercise over the organizations and the grants that they awarded. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None ALTERNATIVES: PROPOSED MOTION: Staff is looking for direction as to how proceed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: P11 III.