ISSUE #160: Are Pet Projects and Punitive Priorities Principled Public Policy 2/16/20

"An oppressive government is more to be feared than a tiger."

                                                              - Confucius

Aspen's city council recently met to finalize their 2020 goals. The list shouldn't surprise anyone - it's a disturbing pattern of new taxes and regulations, as if we don't have enough already.  The "nanny city" lives on...

Read my column in today's Aspen Times HERE.

And for those who recently read my column "The Sheriff and Four Bureaucrats Walked into a Bar" - I am happy to report that the APCHA board voted 5-0 to continue with eviction proceedings in the Lee Mulcahy case. Read the Aspen Times coverage HERE.

*********

One year ago, it was the height of election season in Aspen. Our current city council took office in June and recently held its second retreat, finally setting goals for the term that will end in just over a year. According to councilwoman Ann Mullins, the group is “still learning to work together.” The delay in specifying priorities has even frustrated city manager Sara Ott, who admonished, “We are getting to the point where I need to know, because you’ve been in office for eight months now, what is it I need to get done for you by the end of the year?”

A revealing exercise at the retreat illustrated the individual personalities. Asked for a headline that reflects “their Aspen” in 2030, mayor Torre, a cheerleader for Aspen’s quality of life, replied, “Aspen named happiest and healthiest in U.S.” Ward Hauenstein, true to his environmental objectives, envisioned, “Aspen celebrates car-free downtown; residents divided, guests love it.” Rachel Richards, godmother of Aspen’s subsidized housing program, added, “Ribbon cutting for new senior housing today.” Ann Mullins idealistically remarked, “Aspen houses 70 percent of the workforce in housing program.” And Skippy Mesirow, the gift who keeps on giving, loquaciously pronounced, “Aspen, once known for Prada, now known for community, voted No. 1 in country for connection and kindness.”

At the end of the two-day confab, six directives emerged. Anticipate more development regulations such as increased fee-in-lieu, housing credits, employee generation and mitigation rates to benefit subsidized housing. These exactions are already prohibitively burdensome to development, and with further increases, will likely choke it to death, which is precisely the point. More worrisome is the city’s plan to address delayed subsidized housing maintenance and capital reserves policies. Much of our housing stock is in physical decline, primarily due to the lack of maintenance by individual HOAs that have additionally neglected their responsibilities to collect sufficient dues. However, a public bail-out of these HOAs will set a damning precedent throughout the housing program. Why would any HOA collect another cent if the public fixes what the owners never prepared for nor cared about? 

Next on the list is child care. The goal is to finance and expand local child care availability. Aspen’s shortage is not unique. Across America, working families grapple with the financial and logistical challenges of child care; it’s often why growing families move from more expensive urban areas to the suburbs. Surely this warrants a greater philosophical discussion. Is it the families’ responsibility or the community’s to provide child care? Memo to the local business community, mandates and fees are likely in your future because Aspen “the nanny city” says the responsibility is yours. 

There will be new capital expenditures and regulations to address environmental issues, specifically an underfunded expansion of the aging stormwater system and projects focused on treating outfalls to the Roaring Fork River. Additionally, the city will be implementing new requirements for energy use tracking and restrictive regulations to improve efficiency in commercial and multi-family buildings, with penalties for non-compliance.

And with characteristic hand-holding, group-hugging and kumbaya-singing, this notoriously indecisive council plans to add even more layers to its ineffective public policy decision-making. Anything for greater public participation and community engagement, including comical pet projects such as a 100% voter participation goal.

Two tax collection initiatives from last summer’s retreat are already underway, including the pursuit of sales tax remittance by internet retailers amidst the changing landscape of online shopping, and a further crackdown on short-term rentals that requires all owners to register as businesses and remit lodging taxes. And although not yet stated objectives, subsidized rent for local businesses along with a county-wide housing tax loiter in the shadows.

Notable, however, are the glaring omissions. Transportation didn’t make the cut, meaning the roundabout, given a “D” grade by the State of Colorado, and the Castle Creek Bridge, which is nearing the end of its lifespan, are not priorities this cycle.  Relegated to consultants, Galena Plaza, the public space adjacent to the new Taj Mahal city hall, has become a tragic missed opportunity that stands to impede connectivity between town, Rio Grande Park and the riverfront district. In the absence of prioritized financial oversight, construction delays, change orders and cost overruns already plague the Taj Mahal’s $50 million budget. Without clear council direction, preliminary proposals for new subsidized housing on the $29 million lumberyard parcel ignore what the community desperately needs, high density workforce housing. And lacking sufficient prioritization and proper funding, the recycling center on Rio Grande Place is in jeopardy, a glaring environmental misstep.

Universal community concerns like traffic and transportation, reliable infrastructure, basic recycling and fiscal discipline should be top priorities, especially given an annual budget of $112 million. If the stated goals are indeed actionable for 2020, Aspen faces numerous new taxes and regulations in an already overly-regulatory environment. Our glib council unequivocally derives great satisfaction from the power of its purse, enthusiastically creating new government programs and subsidies benefitting targeted segments of the populace, while implementing punitive regulations and bureaucratic hurdles at the supplemental expense of Aspen taxpayers, developers and business owners.

ISSUE #159: The Sheriff and Four Bureaucrats Walk into a Bar... 2/2/20

"The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: 'I'm from the government and I'm here to help.'"

                                                              - Ronald Reagan

The Sheriff and Four Bureaucrats Walk into a Bar.... in today's Aspen Times HERE.

**********

Except it’s not a joke. When the bureaucrats are none other than the city manager, the county manager, a county commissioner and the director of the APCHA board, it sounds like a happy hour I could skip.  But when subsidized housing scofflaw Lee Mulcahy walks out with as much as half a million dollars to leave town quietly, like Saturday night in a speakeasy, it’s time to eavesdrop on the nefarious dealings at the next table.    

Recall that Mulcahy is the owner of a home he built in the deed-restricted Burlingame housing development, who, for the past four years, has been fighting APCHA in court over its determination that he is out of compliance.  APCHA has prevailed in its legal case against Mulcahy, including rulings and rejections from five separate state and federal courts, including the Colorado Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court. During this period, Mulcahy has made numerous belligerent comments and stated that he will never leave on his own accord, alluding to his and his mother’s deaths should an eviction take place. References to Ruby Ridge have peppered his rhetoric. 

In this day and age, such threats must be taken seriously for the safety and welfare of the public.  Pitkin County Sheriff Joe DiSalvo has been following the case since the beginning, meeting with Mulcahy many times over the years while coordinating with the Aspen Police Department to avoid a worst case scenario.  Neither agency intends to escalate the situation, but when the eviction order comes down, it will fall to Joe and his deputies to peacefully remove the Mulcahys. 

Last summer, in spite of the legal victories, city manager Sara Ott indicated her willingness to additionally compensate Mulcahy in order to avoid violence, ridiculously suggesting that APCHA appease him by physically moving his house elsewhere. Then two weeks ago, Ott met with city council to discuss settlement options, confirming that city money would be used to make a deal happen.  Her involvement is especially curious because APCHA is not under the purview of the city manager.  Under Colorado law, APCHA, a multi-jurisdictional housing authority, is a political subdivision and a public corporation, just like Pitkin County and the City of Aspen.  APCHA is not a department of the city or county. 

Additionally, beginning in December, county commissioner Kelly McNicholas-Kury, an alternate on the APCHA board and a neighbor of Mulcahy’s, met with him to discuss favorable terms for a peaceful departure. With the blessing of the county commissioners, presumably because county funds would be used in any settlement, county manager Jon Peacock also met with Mulcahy.  Peacock, who rarely wades into political waters, neither informed the full APCHA board, nor did he consult the APCHA attorney (who had argued and won the cases against Mulcahy) about this ex-parte meeting. 

This high-level collusion recently came to APCHA’s attention when Mulcahy’s court-appointed receiver relayed Mulcahy’s claims that a deal was in the works. Only then did APCHA board chair John Ward come clean. He too met with Mulcahy against the specific direction of the APCHA attorney and in violation of the organization’s code of ethics.  Ward then shared with the bewildered APCHA board several options for Mulcahy’s quiet departure that the city and county have been discussing without the organization’s knowledge. Supported by McNicholas-Kury, Ward promoted increasing Mulcahy’s maximum sales price significantly over the established $995,000, enabling Mulcahy to recoup the foregone appreciation for the four years of non-compliance, and having APCHA waive the $75,000 in legal fees to which it is entitled. 

An affront to taxpayers, this shady plot undermines APCHA’s compliance and rules enforcement guidelines. The Mulcahy matter has already been resolved in the courts. Do these officials have so little faith in local law enforcement that they are willing to bow to extortion in order to avoid a court-ordered eviction? Or has law enforcement requested relief to protect itself from a potential public and political catastrophe?

Aspen’s nemesis, the law of unintended consequences, rears its ugly head yet again. These secret negotiations set a dangerous new precedent that APCHA’s rules and deed restrictions are now negotiable. And if you threaten violence, you will be richly rewarded.

Mulcahy, who has exhausted all court remedies, persists in his fight through extra-legal demands, enabled by bureaucrats and elected officials who are willing to defy the courts and the public’s trust. This crisis in governance reveals high-level government officials clandestinely negotiating with a defendant in a case they are not a party to, and offering up taxpayer dollars as a bribe to make an unpleasant situation go away. 

As APCHA works to rebuild public trust through efforts to digitize its records and provide transparent and accessible information, multiple public officials work behind the scenes to undermine it. Meanwhile, the Burlingame neighborhood is abuzz with speculation about a Mulcahy deal, and it’s all the scuttlebutt at the Elks Club bar. Will a government-negotiated buy-out be announced at this week’s APCHA board meeting? I certainly hope not. Acting outside of their jurisdictions, these bureaucrats have placed the resolution of one case above the integrity of the entire housing program.

ISSUE #158: "Grab 'em by the Skippy" 1/19/20

"In politics, stupidity is not a handicap." 

                                                              - Napolean Bonaparte

Politicians have an uncanny knack for saying things they regret forever.  In the age of the internet, quotable quotes and other outbursts never go away.

Aspen recently experienced its own social media screed against our holiday visitors, courtesy of city councilman Skippy Mesirow.  Unfortunately, it illustrated a disturbing pattern of divisive remarks by this young politician.

Read my column titled "Grab 'em by the Skippy" in today's Aspen Times HERE.

******

'Grab 'em by the Skippy!'

It didn’t start with the video.  

Young councilman Skippy Mesirow’s recent tirade on social media denigrating our holiday visitors was not, as he proclaimed, the result of gastrointestinal distress from steak with compound butter following a two-month cleanse.  As preposterous as that excuse was for the insult-ridden rant that he saw fit to post on the unforgiving and unforgetting internet, it was not a one-off, nor was it merely a moment of frustration as he later claimed. Sadly, it was evidence of what appears to be a troubling pattern of disingenuousness, targeting, profiling and divisiveness.

Recall last year when Skippy expressed his desire to drive retirees from their subsidized housing, going so far as to accuse APCHA of “red-lining”? Then, in early December, when meeting with the city’s event staff, Skippy provided a premonition of his future online diatribe by proclaiming, “I would rather take the approach of, who are the people that we really want to get to know, who we want to experience Aspen, and what are the events that would attract or service that type of person.” So which is it, inclusivity or highly targeted programs for “the right people,” Skippy?  

If you missed it, on December 29, at the height of peak holiday season, Skippy posted an expletive-laden screed on Instagram.  Doubling down on his earlier expressed desire to attract a certain element, with the inherent implication that we ought to exclude others, his invective began, “Driving today is a f-ing disaster...there are God d- people and things and accidents everywhere... I think it’s time we have the conversation about it’s too many people in town at peak season and they are not the right people and even if we have to take a little bit of a haircut on our income, which I certainly would, it’s worth it for quality of life and the character of our town.”  

A wise man once said, “When you find yourself in a hole, stop digging.”  But not Skippy. Cajoled to publicly apologize by blowback and a subsequent article in this paper, Skippy half-heartedly said he was sorry yet doubled down with excuses.  In addition to blaming his denunciation on digestive issues, Skippy added that he was speaking for the working man, our service industry employees who work long and tiresome hours during the busiest weeks of the year.  According to Skippy, someone had to speak out against these not “right people,” advocating for fewer visitors, less business and therefore less income all around. 

Service industry work can indeed be grueling, and it’s not unusual for local workers to put in ridiculous hours during the holidays for days and weeks on end. It’s also when the really good money is made.  But service industry work is not for everyone.  Another wise man added, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.” Being tired and frustrated never feels good, but we live in a tourism-driven economy and our mission is service.  Skippy, never mind no one really knows what you do for work, choosing which visitors should come here and mitigating their impacts on our economy are distinctly not your job.

And then last Tuesday at the first council meeting of the year when this chapter should have become a footnote in Aspen history, Skippy walked back his “mis-steak,” clarifying that he actually got sick four days after his incendiary post, but justifying it just the same with his stated right to have a moment of frustration. His feigned sorrow for “dividing people” was awkward, if not laughable.

What will Skippy’s colleagues on council do, aside from expressing surprise and shock? The specter of censure, a formal, and public, group condemnation of an individual, often a group member, whose actions run counter to the group’s acceptable standards for individual behavior, has surfaced. A little public shaming would certainly be appropriate. Skippy, who regularly yet clearly disingenuously extolls his mission to “heal partisan divides and bring people together,” has earned a public rebuke.  Besides, severe consequences for unacceptable personal behavior by an Aspen city councilman are not unprecedented. In 1990, then-councilman Steve Crockett passed a nasty caricature of a citizen to fellow-councilman Michael Gassman at the council table. Casually tossed into the trash, the note was later fished out and became the springboard for a contentious campaign to oust Crockett, as well as Gassman and two others.  In the end, in a public vote, Crockett was recalled from office.

Skippy’s immature tirade is disturbing on many levels.  On its face, it’s an embarrassment to Aspen.  As a member of city council, Skippy is part of the cabal that regularly sees fit to tax and regulate us as an example to the world, ostensibly because the world looks to Aspen as a shining example of all that is right and just.  His recurring theme of a desire for a preferred visitor at the exclusion of others is appalling.  Skippy, some in our community elected you to public office. No one elected you God.  You may have a role in the oversight of a $105 million annual city budget which provides for important engineering-driven responsibilities including the city waste water plant, stormwater drains, bridges and roads, but you have zero responsibility for social engineering. Your personal ideas about shaping our demographics are frightening.  Furthermore, this thinking has no role in 2020 society.

Politicians have an uncanny knack for saying things they regret forever. And the internet never forgets. A third wise man (these events occurred over the holidays so work with me) reminds, “If you don’t have something nice to say, say nothing at all.”

ISSUE #157: Hardly InsouciANT - More Like Psyched! 1/5/20

"A lot of guys kind of get complacent with how they do in one game, but I just want to compete. So every game I play in, it's a brand new beginning for me."

                                                              - Donte DiVincenzo

THIS IS COOL.

If you can imagine writing local political commentary - for better or for worse - in Aspen since 2008, just picture being contacted by THE venerable Aspen Times to convert this missive into a bi-monthly column!  Suffice it to say, it's what I've sought for quite a long time so I am unbelievably honored to have this opportunity. And ink. Today marks column #1. HERE is the link to my first contribution to The Aspen Times entitled "A Housing Solution for Aspen Straight from the NFL Playbook."  The Red Ant is and always will be your city hall watch-dog.  I do not and will never wade into national politics. As always, you can read my stuff here at TheRedAnt.com, and I will continue to share my future columns. In exchange, please be in touch. I am interested in your thoughts, questions and comments. Just reply to this email and I will get it in my inbox. Let's see where this goes. I'm psyched. Thanks to you and this loyal readership, I have this opportunity. EM A Housing Solution Straight from the NFL Playbook Twelve years in the making, the BMC Lumberyard and Aspen Mini Storage, purchased with $29 million from Aspen’s housing development fund, are slated to be redeveloped in the none-too-distant future. But before we decide how many units to build on that site and by whom, now is the time to look at subsidized housing differently. While we continually grapple with determining who actually resides in our existing inventory and if they qualify to live there, one truism endures: we are not efficiently developing or managing our stock in line with our actual needs. Many decry the perceived lack of subsidized housing for families, places where people can raise kids and dogs, but what we desperately need is employee housing for those who keep the lights on, the lifts running and the pancake griddles hot. This 10-acre parcel across from the airport presents a generational opportunity to address the conundrum of seasonal rental housing while changing the housing dynamic for local employers and service employees alike. Grab your binoculars and focus, it’s the NFL with the solution. Consider the Permanent Seat License (“PSL”). A PSL grants the bearer the right to purchase season tickets for a particular seat for the term of the license. PSL sales provide the sports franchise with an additional and ongoing revenue stream beyond just ticket sales. Whether it was the Panthers or the Cowboys who did it first, these NFL franchises employed some form of the PSL to fund franchise acquisition and stadium construction. To date, 19 teams in the NFL have utilized PSLs. Applied to the BMC West parcel, the PSL model closes Aspen’s workforce housing financing gap in a way that can actually pencil out in today’s real estate environment.  The PSL concept works particularly well for housing seasonal workers. The leases will run seasonally, November through April and May through October.  But local employers, not workers, vie for the units through a lottery. The selected employers pay a fee to license the units they “win.” The license then enables the employer to offer housing to attract and retain its own seasonal employees. The employer also pays the rent. Workers reimburse their employer for the rent up to the limits set by APCHA. While APCHA continues to qualify employees, it falls to the employers, the license holders, to pay the property’s management costs, and to ensure maintenance and compliance.  Given the ability, albeit at a cost, to offer proprietary seasonal rental housing to prospective employees, show me a local employer who isn’t interested. The actual licensing term and fee must be determined by those with sharper pencils than mine, but the idea is to create a fair market where the value to the employer drives the price of seasonal worker housing, rather than arbitrary rules imposed by a government bureau. The PSL approach leverages the inherent value for an employer to control and be able to offer housing without the prohibitive cost of purchasing employee housing units. From an economic perspective, even in the Aspen market, the numbers can now work for seasonal workforce rentals. The revenue stream to pay for the land, construction and ongoing management will, with the PSL model, be comprised of both rent payments and licensing revenue, on an ongoing basis for the development’s useful life. And the model’s short-term seasonal rental nature ensures a revolving door of license renewals according to employer need; a process that keeps compliance in check and provides for the development’s upkeep. The PSL model additionally lessens the APCHA’s burden. Beyond determining the qualification of employees, APCHA has no landlord role. The owner/developer/manager administers the licensing program and collects the fees and rents from the licensed employers.  APCHA of course caps the unit’s rental rates; this is subsidized housing after all.   With a healthy financial picture, just imagine how the development itself might be enhanced beyond what we’ve come to expect from seasonal rentals. Is that a bowling alley in the basement?  Shlomo, maybe this is where your morning-noon-night deli really belongs. Victoria and Aspen Brewing Company, how about outposts?   Utilizing the PSL model, we will no longer scare seasonal workers off with our dearth of short-term rental housing and the social pressure to purchase deed-restricted, hollow-door, plastic-insert-shower pieces of the Aspen dream. With RFTA service aligned to working hours, and perhaps a grocery store as part of the greater development, the PSL model sets the stage for a new kind of Aspen community that harkens back to the days when young wanna-be ski bums came to town seeking nothing but a job with a ski pass and the opportunity to live in Aspen for a season.  What’s old can indeed be new again. PSLs for the score.

ISSUE #156: CORRECTION - Aspen 2A Vote NO 10/19/19

"Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government."

                                                              - James Madison

Retention of Excess Tobacco Tax Revenue? VOTE NO.

In The Red Ant's enthusiasm for keeping excess tax revenue out of the hands of Aspen's government, it was suggested in ISSUE #155 that you vote YES to return the money.   However, the question is specifically one of whether or not the government can keep the money.  Obviously, that answer should be NO. NO on 2A. I regret the error.

ISSUE #155: Kinda PedANTic... but Elections 10/16/19

"Meet the new boss.

         Same as the old boss."

                                                              - The Who

Ben Franklin was clearly not in Aspen when he wrote, "In this world, nothing can be said to be certain except death and taxes."  Here in Aspen, one must always add "another mail-ballot election." Statewide election day is Tuesday, November 5.  You should be receiving your mail-ballot any day now.  Here's the lowdown.  (Questions about your ballot or voter registration? Call 970-429-2732.)   The 2019 ballot highlights:

Proposition CC:  Retain State Government Revenue

Vote NO. This is a high-stakes and shameless government money grab and an effort to overhaul TABOR, the taxpayers bill of rights, by permanently lifting TABOR's spending limits.  By voting NO, any money the state collects over its revenue limit must be returned to taxpayers, in accordance with current law.  FYI - In the next three fiscal years, Colorado is estimated to collect between $542 million and $1.7 billion in tax revenue above the cap.  DO NOT BE FOOLED.  Not only do proponents of CC want to keep the excess revenue (refunds of unknown amounts - forever) for "schools and transportation," expenditures that should be funded within the state budget or approved by voters on a case-by-case basis, this measure is a test case for a broader overhaul of how the state will levy taxes (including moving toward a progressive tax system) and spend money in the future.  It is also the first step toward the repeal of TABOR.  Vote NO.

Proposition DD:  Legalization and Taxation of Sports Betting to Fund Water Projects and Obligations

Vote NO. This is not in any way my judgment on water projects or sports betting.  This measure has absolutely ZERO plan or commitment whatsoever for what will actually be "built."  (If there was an actual tie to some required, beneficial or specific water project, it just might warrant some consideration, but there is none.)  The sports betting piece pays less than lip service to gambling addiction services - the dollar amount is a drop in the bucket.  This sounds a whole lot like a sports-betting industry advocacy bill, never mind the fact that sin taxes are notoriously regressive and expensive to administer.  With 95% of bets going to the winners, it's a hard bill to take seriously.  DD is NOT a serious public policy proposal.  It's an industry-specific bill that will dramatically increase gambling, which is good for that industry.  It's just not good for Colorado.  With no commitment to actually build ANY water system improvements, just VOTE NO.

Aspen School Board

Jonathan Nickell While we can vote for two, I am bullet-voting for Jonathan Nickell.  I am sure the other candidates are qualified, but I am a particular fan of Jonathan's from his run two years ago.  At the time, I endorsed Jonathan and Susan Zimet, who was resoundingly elected.  We need this team together on the school board. Period. We are at a critical crossroads and must move the district forward, work to fix the poor governance system, enhance BOE effectiveness, and improve the district culture and climate while working to better support the teachers. Jonathan is the candidate with the best professional experience to get this done. His tenure on the District Accountability Committee and subsequent role in the parent group that was key in bringing much needed change to the forefront prepare him to hit the ground running. The Aspen School District needs his leadership now more than ever.  If bullet-voting isn't your thing, cast your second vote for Katy Frisch.

Pitkin County 1A: Sales Tax on All Cigarettes, Tobacco and Nicotene Products

VOTE YES.   Another regressive tax, 1A echoes the sales tax on tobacco products that currently exists in the city of Aspen, which brings in significant revenue (see 2A below), but I have to believe has very little impact on behavior in general.  If the goal is to reduce teen smoking and vaping, I seriously doubt it will have much impact.  In Aspen, where kids have time and money, and already engage in risky behavior on a regular basis, this tax is not likely to change much.  That is, unless you count the embarrassingly good tax revenue source for the county.  But nobody is going to oppose a sin tax that targets a reduction in teen nicotene use no matter how ineffective it might be; there's too much value in jumping on the virtue-signaling bandwagon.  Since 1A is VERY targeted and does not affect taxpayers in general, go ahead and VOTE YES.  If you're a smoker or a vaper, you're already a pariah, so why not.

City of Aspen 2A:  Retention of Excess Initial Revenue Estimate of Tobacco Sales Tax

VOTE NO In the spirit of my analysis of Prop CC above, NO, the government should not get to keep the excess tobacco tax revenue beyond the defined limit!  The City of Aspen has a 2019 budget of $140 million.  Enough already!

Aspen Valley Hospital District 6A: Extension of AVH's existing 5.5 mills levy until 12/31/30

VOTE YES This is not a new tax, it's simply the extension of the current AVH mill levy at the same rate through 2030.  This is our hospital, and with the uncertain future of healthcare in this country, not to mention the demise of so many small, rural hospitals, we are extremely fortunate to have such a facility in our own backyard.  Let's continue this existing funding stream to keep AVH strong.

Colorado Mountain College District 7A:  Enlarge the CMC district to include property within the boundaries of the Salida School District

VOTE YES   CMC is a special tax district that provides education services to rural mountain towns, and the Salida school district wants to join.  By voting YES, it will not increase taxes on any existing taxpayer, but would open up Chaffee County to CMC.  Financially, Salida would be a net contributor to the CMC district for the foreseeable future.  (Salida is not the first community that has sought annexation into the CMC district; Steamboat Springs joined in 1982.)

********************** As summer colorfully becomes fall in the A-Town, it seems fitting to recap the first five months under our newly elected council.     Council Focus Areas and Priority Projects.

Council's retreat in early July could easily be summarized as "Kumbaya Camp."  Our esteemed electeds began with establishing the first rule of kindergarten, "Be nice to each other."  (No mention was made of how to treat constituents.)  And it progressed from there. Over the next 15 months, look for this group to govern from six subject areas: Smart, customer-focused government (A lofty goal, but with Barwick finally gone, this should actually be do-able.) Economic vitality (This has nothing to do with capitalism. Look for more chain store restrictions and government-funded rental subsidies, and Ann Mullins wants new policies that can restrict free market rents.) Fiscal health (Imagine that, given the $140 million annual budget!?) Safe & livable community (Government-funded childcare is a priority, and look for the bleeding hearts to compel taxpayers to bail out the mess at the Centennial subsidized housing project - God forbid subsidized housing residents be responsible for their neglect of the buildings we sold them at insanely subsidized prices.) Community engagement (This is an important and long-overdue priority in the post-Barwick era.  Now that the city has THREE professional communications employees, surely we can get this right. Right?) Protecting our environment (Deemed "our economic vitality," this, according to Ann Mullins, is even more important than housing.) **At press time, with budget talks looming, council has identified subsidized housing as a priority above everything else.  Look for a re-evaluation of the "employee generation" calculation, which will increase housing mitigation for development (driving development costs and therefore rents higher and higher).  Additionally worrisome is councilwoman Rachel Richards' idea for financing more subsidized housing.  She would like to see "a new tax" beyond just the RETT for housing. No details given, just "a new tax," because taxes are always the solution!

Skippy's 11 Points For Making Aspen a Utopian Progressive Paradise.

As a preliminary illustration of what we're in for, here is a gem from Skippy's facebook page that outlines HIS thoughts for the council term at hand.  He opens by stating, "Part of our job once we hire a new city manager is insisting on job performance and culture change.  Here are the 11 (non-policy) things I am asking this council to insist on and measure the new city manager against!"  He adds, "Feeling determined."   These 11 guidelines are directly quoted (parentheses are mine): 1.     Create a new public engagement process to take big projects from inception (initial staff or council idea) through delivery.  This process should be participatory and include experts and the public from day one.  It should too set expectations that those not participating cannot come in at the last minute to hijack the process, they will be left out. So basically, if you don't hear about a city program before it's already in the works, sorry, your input, opinions and expertise are no longer welcome. 2.     Create a new cross-department two-way communications protocol and best practice catalog to disseminate information to the public and receive public feedback in a measurable and actionable way, meeting people where they are in their need for location and type of content, prizing openness and creativity. Best practices should not be a novel new concept, although I am not entirely clear what he is saying. 3.     Restructure public meeting format to suit the needs of the council and the public.  This should include meeting times, locations, room-set, free childcare, digital engagement (live and not live), structure, and public input.  It should aim for openness, collaboration, creativity, and the acceptance of innovation and open debate.  It should not look at being right as the primary goal. Free childcare. Seriously? As if this is why people hate going to council meetings.  I am all for a cultural change toward more openness and creativity, but should this solely fall to the new city manager to implement? Shouldn't council have a role? 4.     Look at top-down organizational structure and re-structure as appropriate to reduce overlap, confusion, or siloed departments that don't speak to each other, are redundant, or disagree. This is fairly obvious.  The fact that we need this speaks volumes about the Barwick era and the city councils who retained him for 19 years. 5.     Create new ways to engage in RFP, RFQ, and sole-source processes to reduce the cost of projects, and reach smaller more innovative less government focused firms.  Cost reduction is another obvious goal.  What Skippy is trying to accomplish with smaller and "less government focused firms" is unclear. 6.     Foster a culture of radical honesty, transparency, collaboration, and innovation in city hall.  Reduce risk aversion through open upfront communications. Wow, since when is honesty, transparency collaboration and innovation "radical"?  I'm uncertain how risk is averted through upfront communications.  Risk of what exactly? 7.     Create regular council-to-council valley-wide regular meetings, and restart the "State of the Valley" annual gathering.  Sure, fine, another meeting, but for what purpose?  Perhaps to show the other "lesser" communities how it's done in the A-Town? 8.     Create a psychographic profile of the desired citizen of tomorrow and tourist of today - realign our event approval to these goals and actively pursue events that cater to these people.  Good grief, the government will be determining who is a "desired" citizen or tourist?  This is just plain creepy. 9.     Take active steps to increase tourist and structural diversity in our community through the intentional welcoming of non-white communities down valley, non-white tourists, and economic diversity and social equity.  This too must addressed in affordability and availability of housing. Ahhhh, diversity. You knew this was coming after #9.  Sounds like we're headed toward quotas and some social engineering and income equality mandates! 10.  Create a workflow that focuses on big-picture goals and innovation that aims to align our values with policy in a way that can transfer and inform other communities across the country.  Because of course "other communities across the country" are just dying to know how Aspen aligns its values with public policy. 11.  Focus on increasing enfranchisement, voter turn-out, citizen activation and involvement, and civic education from lower-school through seniors. Is it really the government's role to rile up the populace?  This is Aspen, not North Korea. Mayor Torre certainly has his hands full. On one hand, he is wrestling for power with former mayor and county commissioner Rachel Richards (who will surely challenge him for the role in 2021), and then he has to contend with Skippy's bold manifesto and push for what I would consider vast government over-reach. The Red Ant would really like to know what you think of all this! Just hit "reply" when you have finished reading this issue!!

The Taj Mahal Grow-eth.

Despite pleas from numerous citizens and the presentation of many rational design alternatives (see Issue #151), council presses on with construction of the hideous and uninspired  $50+ million, 37,500 sf behemoth on Rio Grande Place.  At press time, the programming for the building is still yet-to-be finalized, but it is indeed being built.  (Yes, they're building the airplane in the air.) And, alarmingly it WILL be three stories high, despite the massive wall this will create between town, Rio Grande Park and the riverfront district.  Citing a need for "efficiency," the new city hall is actually inefficient by design; building it larger than necessary will only create the incentive to hire more unneeded people. And mark my words, in the end this will be the worst decision by the city in the last 50 years.  Interestingly, the "go forward" is a 180-degree turn from Mayor Torre's campaign commitment to revisit the entire project. (Read it in Issue #152.)  Yep, right out of the gate, Torre caved. On another equally interesting note, Ward Hauenstein, ever proud of the prior council's work, refused to consider any changes to the proposed project because, in principle, he refused to "undo" a prior council's decision.  That is, until this council decided to undo the prior council's decision to keep the actual "seat" of Aspen's government in the Armory (at Galena and Hopkins).  Now the Taj Mahal really will be City Hall. Manifest destiny.  (See Issue #122 of 2016.) Torre and Skippy asked good questions and tried to hold accountable feet to the fire, but in the end, it was the epitome of freshman guidance of an unconscious staff and the controversial and unnecessary third floor was approved.  Quotable quotes regarding this approval: Rachel: "As a single mother, I bought my son's shoes 1.5 times bigger and wedged socks into the toebox. We need to grow into city (hall) offices." Ward: "I like the idea of an airy, third floor, glass-walled council chamber overlooking the plaza and Rio Grande Park." Ann: "I just want the project started to be completed. Jack Wheeler explained everything perfectly clear." Here's the monstrosity underway on October 9, 2019:

Barwick Banished.

He's outta here! Our fired-last-Christmas former city manager accepted a job as county administrator and started work in Mono County, CA on September 9.  Home to Mammoth Mountain ski area and an entrance to Yosemite National Park, the rural county spans 3,132 square miles, most of which is government land.  Home to 14,200 residents, Mono County employs 270 full-timers and has an annual budget of $101 million.  Our cast-off will be paid a $190,000 annual salary but the gig does not include housing, and like all personal income in California, his will be taxed at 13.3%. In a parting shot at the Aspen citizenry he served and who paid his undeserved paycheck for 19 years, Barwick told the Aspen Daily News that the rural areas of his new jurisdiction are "not under as much pressure in terms of 'extremely wealthy out of towners buy-ing up all the ranches and turning them into their own private horse farms.'" The Red Ant does not believe Barwick will last in the role.  He has never entered an organization at the top and has always had a protector.  Without someone flying high cover for him, he is simply too lazy and obtuse to learn and then navigate the politics.  Two years, tops.  At least he is finally vacating his city-owned housing on Cemetery Lane!

Barwick Replaced.  By His Own Hire.

Former assistant city manager Sara Ott, who also served as interim city manager after Steve Barwick's ouster, was named city manager by council in September. She starts with an annual salary of $203,000.  A Glenwood Springs-based search firm was retained to advertise the position.  Aspen's reputation in the city manager universe must be really awful - there were just 64 applicants, and once the final four were selected, one dropped out.  Surely there should have been hundreds of candidates for this job, especially given that Barwick's city-owned housing would have been available to attract and retain this new hire.  In the end, however, council passed on two well-qualified outside applicants and instead took the easy route and chose the known entity.  Is anyone surprised? While calling for cultural change in city hall, when presented with an opportunity for a new perspective and vastly different experience, council went with the familiar.  In the first few weeks officially on the job, Ott has vowed to listen to the community, and acknowledges that the city's organizational structure is less than ideal.  Let's hope that this generational opportunity was not squandered and that Sara Ott will redefine how Aspen's city manager runs our city.  Let's just hope we won't get fooled again.

The "Incubator" Rears Its Head.

If a bad idea dies in city hall, just wait for the make-up of council to change.  It'll be back and will likely be a priority.  Now that the Taj Mahal will be the actual seat of Aspen's government, our current group of electeds again want the government to provide subsidized "incubator" workspace for local businesses in the Armory (at Galena and Hopkins).  And when The Red Ant says "provide," it means just that. According to councilwoman Rachel Richards, "There seems to be emphasis on giving room to the next generation."  Yep, giving.  And that also includes "community space," because allegedly "we have more demand for community space than we have room for," despite empirical evidence to the contrary. In other words, aside from leasing the ground floor of the Armory to ACRA, look for heavily subsidized work and community spaces in our government buildings.  Of course there is no mention of how the winners and losers of this space will be determined. And never mind there are already privately-owned shared workspace businesses in town.

The Old Powerhouse Back in Play.

When ACRA eventually moves into the Armory from its temporary digs in the Old Power House, look for this city-owned property to find a new use.  Early betting has "subsidized childcare" slated for occupancy there.  Not surprisingly, given the high cost of living here, Aspen has a huge shortage of childcare options which is driving young families out of the community.  City council wants the government to solve this issue with your tax dollars and in publicly-owned buildings.

2008 Land Banking Parcel at the Lumberyard Grows to $29 Million. For the Dirt.

Council has recently agreed to put a 3-acre parcel at the ABC (currently home to Aspen Mini Storage) under contract for $11 million in cash.  The site is adjacent to the 7-acre BMC lumberyard, purchased for $18.25 million during Steve Barwick's 2008 "land-banking" spree.  The new property is cited as an "enhancement" to the lumberyard property that is currently eyed for subsidized housing development. According to the Aspen Daily News, "The additional property (storage facility) doesn't necessarily mean more buildings."  Apparently, the city is eyeing the $11 million acquisition for "traffic flow" and access off Hwy 82.  It is not entirely clear whether or not "better access" will translate into more units.  My guess is that somehow it will. It must. Steve Barwick notoriously did ZERO due diligence on the BMC purchase, so the new parcel is likely needed for more units in order for the overall project to begin to pencil out. Thankfully, this time the 120-day due diligence period will include an appraisal, unlike the BMC purchase, which was widely criticized for its lack thereof (and appalling over-spend). According to the Pitkin County Assessor, the storage facility property has an actual value of $7.9 million.   The combined 10-acre site will be the subject of upcoming roundtable discussions pertaining to use.  Early indications include a desire for subsidized for-sale and rental units, in addition to commercial and/or retail space, and potentially a portion of the current lumberyard.   The Red Ant has several ideas to be presented in a future edition.

Aspen: Where Vision Goes to Die.

In all the hoopla about combatting climate change through mandatory composting and promising housing to any and all comers (Aspen's version of open borders, I assume), we've effectively lost our way.  These are values, not vision.  Say what you will about these values, but today The Red Ant is talking about VISION. We have successfully (again) elected idealists who don't know the difference. Maybe it's because none of them have ever held significant leadership positions, nor made forward-thinking public policy decisions with generational impacts.  Not a one has had serious fiscal responsibility, managed staffs and payrolls, nor built anything of lasting impact or significance. Maybe it's because they ran for office to advance their own agendas. Maybe it's because they want power.  Maybe it's because they simply need a job to stay in subsidized housing.  For whatever reason, I am not convinced that any one of them has vision.  And certainly not a one has a vision for Aspen that can be attained in the current regulatory environment.   Despite this, council is currently responsible for a $140 million annual budget, a staff of 326, a $50+ million construction project underway (Taj Mahal city hall), and the responsibility for multiple significant land use decisions and developments that are coming online in the immediate term.  The Aspen Times recently summarized what's in the pipeline. The term "critical mass" comes to mind. Read it HERE.  The city's current taxes, regulations and fees, ostensibly designed to thwart development and soak the developers themselves, are actually backfiring, and stand to kill the town.   Case and point, let's look at the former Conoco station at Monarch and Main.  Remember "Base 2," the affordable lodge proposed by developer Mark Hunt that was rejected by voters in November 2015?  We can all personally thank councilman Ward Hauenstein for the soon-to-be built two-story JP Morgan Chase bank that will soon be built in 2020 on that site.  As a result of Ward's efforts to overturn the ordinance allowing for an affordable lodge there, the "box" is still being built, but instead of much-needed affordable hotel rooms and the vibrancy those would bring to our resort town, a national bank will be moving in with a 50-year lease.  Yuck, right?  Well, it gets even worse.  The disdain for and subsequent "no" vote against the proposed hotel now guarantees that the city will get exactly $0/year from this tenant for the life of the lease, when it would likely have garnered $700K/year in tax revenue from the lodge.  Do the math. That's a $35 million screw-up.  Aspen gets a bank, and leaves $35 million on the table. Don't blame the developer. He wanted to build a lodge.    In fact, he still does.  Across town at Cooper and Original, where Domino's pizza is located, is the site for Base 1, the sibling affordable lodge proposal to the erstwhile Base 2.   Council recently decided to allow Hunt to build this lodge with less parking than originally agreed upon (because this was where the parking for both hotels was to be), instead of doubling down in opposition.  It could easily have been another $35 million mistake (making it $70 million between the two), but there was a glimmer of vision.  National banks, pharmacies and jewelry stores are lining up for Aspen real estate, especially in shiny new buildings.  I for one think we already have plenty of those and we certainly don't need more. A fresh, new affordable lodge seems like a REALLY good - not to mention obvious - concept.    Throughout town, the issue at hand is a total lack of vision at the council table.  Remember, Walter Paepcke wasn't popular with his plans for Aspen back in the day, but today he's a hero.  Paepcke had vision.  He knew what Aspen could become.  He had guts, pushed for generational change, and persevered. Redevelopment is a reality. Today we have property owners and developers who want nothing more than to add to the vibrancy of Aspen.  They don't want to build banks! With all that's coming down the pike, I certainly hope our council members are making the time to have individual conversations with developer Mark Hunt, owner of nearly 20 downtown properties slated for redevelopment. I recently met with Mark to discuss his vision, and I learned a lot.  There are incredible opportunities for affordable hotels, diners, restaurants, local-serving shops, you name it.  But with punitive city ideologies, policies, regulations and fees that effectively say "screw the developer," only one thing will happen.  The developer won't get screwed, Aspen will.  If we truly want buildings and businesses built that fulfill our vision, we need to collectively look at how we approach development.  With the current regulations that aim to "soak" the developers, guess what - they will build anyway, and the outrageous city-imposed fees will be passed along. We'll price ourselves right out of pancakes.    With renewed talk about government subsidies for local businesses, we are actually talking about using taxpayer dollars to prop up services and businesses that we'd all like to see here but are prevented from gaining a toe-hold by the very same government policies and fees that punish developers and drive costs and therefore rents upward.  It's all intimately related.  And it's idiocy.  No one is asking for subsidies for developers, just some vision and guts at the council table. Besides, keep in mind that our resort economy is not bettered by more subsidized housing and a bigger city hall. People don't come to Aspen for those things. It's Aspen's mind-body-spirit offerings that attract tourists.  And never forget that Gucci, Prada and Bruno Cuccinelli bring in millions of dollars of tax revenue every year - dollars that fund all kinds of ridiculous city expenditures. In other words, these tenants contribute a great deal to our bottom line. If we want a wider variety of offerings, we need to find a way to efficiently redevelop in the future, where businesses that we need and use daily can afford to operate.  It can be done, but not in the current environment.  Let's have some vision and work with the developers to achieve our goals, not against them.   Council, how many more "Bank of Wards" do we need?  How many can we as a community afford? It's up to you. Have some guts and think outside the box.  And this time, YOU can be the heroes.

ISSUE #154: Hardly AberrANT Solutions 6/11/19

"Sometimes the hardest thing and the right thing are the same."

                                                                         - Unknown

FIRST UP FOR OUR NEW COUNCIL Last night, Torre was sworn in as Aspen's new mayor, along with Skippy Mesirow and Rachel Richards, who join Ann Mullins and Ward Hauenstein at the council table. Wasting no time, collaborators of The Red Ant made the following presentation to the new council during public comment, requesting two straightforward changes to the new city office building: to reduce its height and for the city to properly mitigate for housing.

THE 6/10/19 PUBLIC COMMENT INTRODUCING ACTIONABLE SOLUTIONS

I would like to commend Bill, Harry & Howie on their successful efforts that are positively impacting the landscaping of the new city office building.  These positive changes began with a committed group of citizens offering an actionable solution to improve the overall project that was graciously received and embraced by council. I am here representing a group of concerned citizens to offer another - different - solution that will: Improve the new city office building project Reduce the cost Better align the building with our community goals and values Notably, the solutions we propose will not open up Ordinance 4.   We suggest two straightforward adaptations to the current plans: 1) that the city reduce the height of the building, and 2) that the city properly mitigate for housing with NEW housing units.     HEIGHT Current plans call for a building over 40 feet tall, which is out of character with the core values of the community. The Aspen Area Community Plan, the Civic Master Plan, and the most recent 2016 moratorium have all illustrated the need to keep building heights lower to maintain our small town community character.  Reducing the new city offices building from three stories to two stories achieves a more appropriate scale, and avoids setting the precedent that the city doesn't need to abide by its own code. Eliminating the third story will not compromise the essential purpose of the building which was described on the November ballot as addressing city OFFICE space needs. Almost the entire third floor is programmed with meeting space and a lecture hall. This is redundant and unnecessary. The aggregate amount of public meeting space that's available in adjacent buildings and throughout the community is more than sufficient, including the Dunaway Room at the Library, conference rooms at the Fire Station, Police Station and the Red Brick, the Sister Cities Room and this room, Council Chambers.  The elimination of the entire 3rd floor of the building will double the size of Galena Plaza, trading costly and unnecessary meeting space for open space. The elimination of the entire 3rd floor of the building should result in a significant cost savings that can be applied to more pressing "essential" community needs such as affordable housing.  Reducing the building height will also allow for a stronger "mountain to riverfront" visual connection between Galena Plaza and Rio Grande Park, and will transform the oppressive building "wall" into a catalyst for pedestrian connectivity. HOUSING The current housing mitigation plan for this project does not result in ANY new affordable housing units.  The city is taking credit for existing housing it has built since the 1990s, claiming that these old units count toward its housing mitigation. These existing units are already occupied which means that new employees generated - workers either constructing the building, working inside it, or servicing it - are adding to the housing demand stress because no new units are being created.  As calculated by the city's own code, this building will generate 100 new full time equivalents. The city should set an example for other developers AND truly serve the interest of its citizens who desperately need more affordable housing.  The city should do its part to address the affordable housing crisis by properly mitigating for its own development. We are asking the city to fulfill its mitigation obligation by creating new units that adequately address the housing demand this project creates.  THE OPPORTUNITY   Mayor Torre, we request that we be added to the agenda of the June 25 work session to further discuss our Height & Housing solutions. We are prepared to present a very specific and actionable roadmap (with far greater background and detail that was impossible to include in a 3 minute public comment) for these two proposed solutions to improving the project.  We are confident that by reducing the height of the building and properly mitigating for housing, the new city office building can far better serve our community.   Thank you for listening.  We look forward to working with you.

HOW WE GOT HERE

As discussed in Issues #151 and #152, not to mention years of fighting what The Red Ant has long-deemed the Taj Mahal City Hall (Issues #122 and #141), following the November 2018 vote that approved the location for this monstrosity, the city is nearing vertical construction on a 37,000 sf behemoth, despite final drawings and internal programming not being complete. An appalling series of city staff and council (Skadron - Frisch - Mullins - Hauenstein - Myrin) mis-steps brought us to where we find ourselves today: FLAWED OUTREACH From February 2014 to September 2016, council was focused on the building's potential location, ultimately directing staff to pursue Galena Plaza.  The two required public open houses were attended by a total of 13 members of the public. Held on 12/13/16 and 1/23/17, according to the sign-in sheets, the first event was attended by 63 people - 10 citizens and 53 city employees.  At the second event, 29 people showed up, but just 3 were citizens.  The other 26 were city employees, consultants and members of the press.  Hmmm, just what is the city's benchmark for legitimate public outreach?  Is 13 citizens enough? When analyzing the 65 months the project has spent in planning, just 8 months (September 2016 to April 2017) were focused on the approval process for the location that was finalized via Ordinance 4. And during that time, just 5 citizens made public comments on the record.  Toni Kronberg, Junee Kirk, Marcia Goshorn and Torre spoke in opposition, while Adam Fortier was the only citizen to support it.   Years were spent on determining the building's location while the Civic Master Plan was ignored. There has been ZERO public outreach on the dismal architecture, despite several council members' promises to conduct it after the vote.  Even the architect admits to just following council's direction on the uninspired design. When questioned recently about when the public design process will occur, (now former) mayor Skadron had a full-blown tantrum, shrieking that any questions were meant to "stop the project," that the city has been working on this for 5 years so it's too late, and any changes would open up Ordinance 4 so what's done is done.  For a $50 million project (likely to be $100 million before we're through), does the city seriously consider this successful public outreach? I don't.  Not even close. In comparison, regarding the current Rio Grande Recycling Center outreach, in just a couple of weeks, the city has managed to engage 544 people. CITY PROPAGANDA INFLUENCED THE 2018 VOTE Desperate for their preferred Galena Plaza location to win at the November 2018 polls, the city campaigned for this location, citing a price tag of $42-52 million. The other option, developer Mark Hunt's 204 S. Galena/517 E. Hopkins location, was under contract to cost $45 million, fixed price/all-in, including the remodel of the Armory across the street. The city repeatedly and emphatically campaigned with the message to voters that they'd be "overpaying a developer" if they chose the Hunt option, and besides, that would also mean "putting money in Mark Hunt's pocket." Now that the $47-$49 million price tag has been deemed to be fluid, and does not include the elusive land cost (never did), Hunt's proposal will look like a bargain before we're through!! But for a moment, think if Hunt's proposal had won and he came back 8 months later needing, say, $10 million more. People would freak out. But the city can throw more and more money at this thing and just say that their "estimate" was too low. It's INSANE. (Did you know that when asked about the land cost of the Galena Plaza location, now former mayor Skadron, on numerous occasions, said that the land cost should not matter.  Why? "Because we already own the land." Seriously. You can't make this stuff up!) MISSED OPPORTUNITIES In the last year, while singularly focused on building an enormous new city office building, the city has passed on purchasing space in the 201 N. Mill building that it currently rents and occupies (and has spent close to $2 million building out), and could have acquired the Boomerang, the Smuggler Racquet Club and the 465 N. Mill property, each viable for either centrally-located city office space or subsidized housing development. ZERO ACCOUNTABILITY & TRANSPARENCY The project is entirely staff-driven, with no eye on the bottom line, no checks and balances, in an environment with no city manager and no assistant city manager. Council is ultimately responsible, but to-date, has relied solely on staff to manage programming, the construction schedule and the budget, none of which is final nor publicly available. Questions about the project directed to now-former mayor Skadron and his council were routinely routed to staff, who regularly replied that they "cannot speak for council." Meanwhile, council members have publicly stated that they're "too busy" to know all the information. Acting city manager Sara Ott, when questioned about the $42-52 million estimated project "cost" presented to voters in November 2018 when they were asked to decide on the building's location, says that those numbers are merely "advisory" and council has the authority to approve additional expenditures. And yes, they can do this without voter consent. (And don't forget, in the months leading up to the vote, much of the media coverage reported a $22.6 million "cost," further muddying the waters with this artificially low number. Some news reports even called this "the budget." But in typical city fashion, the $22.6 million only represented the "direct cost" of the construction itself, not the "indirect costs" of architects, permits, consultants, etc.  Yep, we've seen it before.  Remember Burlingame? The city puts dollar figures out to support ballot measures in order to advance their preferred choice, but when those dollar figures go up significantly, the city claims they were merely estimates. Here we go again. Furthermore, the city only provides vague details when pressed. Recent inquiries (in May) have led to the city website being updated, but here we are, a month later, and no updates.  The latest construction information is from April 25. And, now that Rio Grande Place (the street to the south of Rio Grande Park - where Taster's is located) is back in action, go take a look at the new orientation of this road! Did you have any idea how far it would be moved? Were you aware that parking has been all but eliminated in that area? When no scale model or final designs have been made public, just think, this is only the beginning. CONFLICT OF INTEREST Jack Wheeler, a former Shaw Construction employee before he became Capital Asset Director for the city (with specific oversight of this project), left his city role and has recently been hired back by the city as an outside "owner's representative" for three-times his city salary. He now has overall responsibility well beyond that of a "normal" owner's rep.  Wheeler now advises the city team on design decisions, strategy, public process and financial decisions, while supervising his former employer Shaw Construction. Who on earth lets this happen? And remember, since he's the "owner's rep," you and I pay Wheeler's now-inflated salary. CART-BEFORE-THE-HORSE DECISION-MAKING In the absence of a city manager, the acting city manager publicly advocated approving the project as-is, "before getting into design refinement." In other words, going forward with a project then designing it afterward. Yep, looks a lot like we're building an airplane that's already in the air. (And to think, Sara Ott wants the city manager job!) WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE BUILDING NOR WHY Based on a manufactured office space crisis, a 2011 study found the need for only 10,000 sf of new office space; by 2019 we are building over 37,000 sf. In other words, the underlying "office space crisis" of 5 to 10 years ago that this building was envisioned to address no longer exists. Our office space needs have not remained static.  There are numerous new ways for the city to address its office space needs, and existing space has become available with the county moving out of the Armory. The leadership and vision for how the city will be staffed in the future and how and where employees will work continues to evolve. Rather than rush a bloated and ill-conceived project forward, the city should acknowledge that the November 2018 vote was specifically about THE LOCATION of the building, and it should initiate true transparency and conduct legitimate public outreach to develop a vision and project for Galena Plaza that addresses more than just the creation of more office and public meeting space simply because it can. Again, I refer you to a quick 2 minute video that outlines how our office space needs have changed and continue to change.  Watch it HERE.

IF YOU HAVEN'T DONE SO, PLEASE SIGN THE PETITON!

With our new council now seated, please join me in supporting them. In that vein, The Red Ant says, "PLEASE sign the petition" HERE.  This is important. It's not a legal document nor is it binding, but it WILL show Torre and his new council that the community encourages them to give the new city office building a good hard look. Please add your name.  (You do not have to be an Aspen voter.) And yes, The Red Ant would ideally like to see wholesale changes to this building, and would cheer if the whole thing were scrapped. But being realistic, I believe that by addressing Height & Housing, we can make a significant difference. If you agree that Aspen can do SO MUCH BETTER, join us!  Let's work together to build the best building we can.  Let our new council know that their leadership can right this wayward ship!

AND A GOOD LAUGH OR TWO AS SKADRON DEPARTS ...

Check out the two exit interviews by our local papers, The Aspen Times and The Aspen Daily News. I cried with laughter at our now-former mayor's lists of accomplishments. Never have I seen such a list of abject failures be characterized as proud accomplishments. But my favorite? "I built my entire political success running against the infill code and saving small town character and reducing building sizes, which is one of my significant accomplishments." Never mind the questionable grammar, not a peep about the 37,000 sf new city office building, arguably the largest city development of his three terms in the mayor's office. Oh, and if you haven't heard, the Peter Principle is alive and well in Aspen. Skadron will remain on the public dole.  As of August 1, our former mayor will become the VP and campus dean of Colorado Mountain College in Aspen and Carbondale, where he has taken classes in guitar, mountain bike mechanics and Spanish. His $128K annual salary will be paid with your property taxes.   Seriously. The guy has zero educational bona fides. And to my knowledge, he hasn't been published. A reader emailed me: "What has he contributed to the pursuit of intellectual advancement? Veggie burgers at the community picnic? What has he ever created, or even just promoted, that's original and that actually worked? Uphill skiing as the great new economic development trend? The failed and unimplemented mobility lab (a.k.a. war on cars) as a way to fight climate change? Good grief. How many qualified candidates would give anything for a shot at that job and they give it to a guy who, if brains were dynamite, would be unable to blow his own nose.  Appointing him to a position of authority in an institute of higher education is tantamount to fraud." Only in Aspen.

ISSUE #153: Calling All AmeliorANTs 5/9/19

"It can be difficult to speak truth to power. Circumstances, however, have made doing so increasingly necessary."   -- Aberjhani

SHARE YOUR INPUT ON "DESIRED QUALITIES" FOR THE NEW CITY MGR

As the recruitment for Steve Barwick's replacement gets underway, the folks from Peckham & McKenney who are conducting the search want YOUR help in shaping a candidate profile. Three public engagement sessions have been scheduled: Monday, May 13 from 8-9a at the Pitkin County Library (Dunaway Room) Monday, May 13 from 5:30-6:30p at the Aspen Police Station  Tuesday, May 14 from 12:15-1:15p also at the Aspen Police Station Since we have not undertaken a search for a new city manager in more than two decades, now is the time to make your opinions known.  Discussion points for these outreach sessions include: The current and future challenges Aspen faces Service priorities Communication Management Leadership style and approach Community involvement philosophy Since the headhunters are ostensibly interested in specific "desired qualities" for this individual, The Red Ant would like to add: Experience initiating cultural change in organizations Appetite for questioning/challenging the status quo Experience with a $120 million annual municipal budget  Experience with a diverse, highly-educated, highly-engaged, politically active municipality  If you are unable to attend one of the sessions and would still like to participate, please send your thoughts in an email to Drew Gorgey at Peckham & McKenney: drew@peckhamandmckenney.com Time is distinctly of the essence as the consultants plan to provide feedback to council on Tuesday afternoon, following the third public session. For example, if you feel strongly (as I do) that Aspen would benefit from fresh blood and fresh thinking in order to dramatically change the culture of city hall, let that be known.  My greatest fear is that those making the decisions on the candidate profile (the current outgoing council, none of whom have ever even contemplated such high level hiring, yet alone ever met a payroll) don't have the knowledge or experience base to draw from to provide critical direction on what we really need. I particularly fear that we somehow limit the search and by default, simply hire from within.  THAT is no solution. We don't get opportunities to impact hiring matters at city hall very often.  And given what we endured in the Steve Barwick era, your thoughts CAN make a difference.  We need to replace Barwick AND hire an assistant city manager to replace aptly-named Barry Crook.  I know you have opinions.  I certainly do!  Please take a moment and send a quick email today.

MORE TO FOLLOW REGARDING THE NEW CITY OFFICE BUILDING

Oh, don't worry, this one isn't going away!  Look for sobering updates in future issues on the so-called "public process" (can you say "illegitimate"??) that got us where we are today, as well as the results of an extensive forensic accounting process that will reveal the REAL project costs, including expenditures to-date, cost estimates and funding sources the city doesn't want you to see.

PLEASE SIGN THE PETITION - YES, STILL COLLECTING SIGNATURES

With our new council named, it's not too early to support them. In that vein, The Red Ant says, "PLEASE sign the petition" HERE.  This is important. It's not a legal document nor is it binding, but it WILL show Torre and his new council that the community encourages them to give the new city office building a good hard look. Please add your name.  (You do not have to be an Aspen voter.) If you agree that Aspen can do SO MUCH BETTER, join us!  Let's work together to build the best building we can.