ISSUE #112: Who's The ANTagonist Now?

#JeSuisCharlie  

THE "NO VARIANCE" PETITION 

You've probably heard - there's a major effort underway to get a ballot initiative in front of Aspen voters this spring that will strip city council of its ability to grant land-use variances.  A dedicated group (vociferously supported by Mick Ireland and other anti-development zealots and class warfare inciters like Marcella Larsen and Marcia Goshorn) is working to collect 300 signatures (5% of Aspen's registered voters) by February 4.  The idea stems from a recent action in Telluride where "a resident petition drive began over fears that big development was threatening town character," according to The Aspen Times.  Telluride's town council ultimately adopted the petition, stripping itself of the right to grant waivers to developers.  Of course, this has the anti-development crowd in Aspen salivating.

Aspen's version proposes that ANY council-approved variance on height, floor area, housing and parking be subject to a public vote, no exceptions.

The Red Ant has very mixed feelings on what I unfortunately see as a fait accompli.  I am a huge advocate of grassroots politicking and commend the petition organizers for their undertaking; I know all too well the work involved in a petition effort.  However, the law of unintended consequences - a frequent visitor to the city of Aspen - waits in the wings for yet another sojourn to our little town.  I believe variances should ALWAYS be a possibility, on a case-by-case basis however, not as a party favor.  To change the city charter restricting variances to those only approved by a public vote is simply too "mob-ocracy" for The Red Ant.

I also see this petition to change the city charter as Mick Ireland's tactic of hijacking the local democratic process and "schooling" the current city council simply because he can.  He knows more than all of them combined ever will about manipulating the public process to attain his selfish goals.  He is going to show them - and us - that he doesn't have to hold elected office in order to control this place his way.  Mick simply cannot handle the new level of civil discourse enabled by his departure 2 years ago.  Instead, he prefers an iron-fisted fiat.  This variance issue is one of land use, not something to be changed in our city charter!  (And this of course begs the inevitable question:  will the old dragon be announcing his candidacy for office this spring, using this issue as the platform?  Another story for another day....)

I saw one of the signature collectors at the market this week and learned that they have already collected well over 300 signatures.  Once something like this gets on the ballot, it's as good as won, given the "screw the rich," anti-development, bring-back-the-quiet-years activism that runs rampant in Aspen these days. 

Former mayoral candidate (oh, if only) Maurice Emmer recently outlined the pros and cons of the proposed amendment to the city charter.  He makes very good points.

Pros (arguments FOR removing council's variance-granting power):

• Councils inevitably devote too much time to variance requests while neglecting councils' more basic functions, such as supervising city management.  Removing this power would allow more time for other functions only councils can perform.
• Knowing that all councils inevitably grant major variances, developers over-invest in real estate, virtually requiring a variance bailout from councils.  If councils were powerless to grant variances, developers wouldn't over-invest and wouldn't require the variances.
• Fights over significant variance requests are unnecessarily divisive in the community.
• The variances inevitably granted can negatively impact the character that many locals prefer for our city.
• Significant variances would still be possible, but the case would have to be strong to win a public vote.

Cons (arguments AGAINST removing council's variance-granting power):

• Because variances have a widespread effect on the city, elected officials should make the call.  This is a representative democracy, after all.
• Because no two real estate developments are alike, the system should not be so restrictive as to prevent reasonable variances.
• It isn't necessary to repeal council's power; it's only necessary to elect different council members.

I absolutely understand the proponents' frustration - the variance shakedown game has truly gotten out of hand.  Current/recent councils have made some really bad decisions on granting waivers that have only encouraged more developers to ask for more exceptions.  But I truly lament the fact that council has not taken pro-active steps to avoid such a dramatic showdown.  They have only themselves to blame, I'm afraid.  It didn't have to be like this.  There has been plenty of opportunity for council to engage the "no variance" proponents as well as others in the community (like myself) who strongly and vociferously support much-needed changes to the city's land use code and have for a long time.  Instead, they are about to have their wings severely clipped for good, and have it written into the city charter!  Sadly, failing to have reformed the land use code or otherwise tackle this problem before activists seized the initiative is, itself, indicative of poor management by council and makes the case for curtailing council's powers.  (Imagine, for example, a relaxation of the land use and zoning codes so that rational rules apply to everyone.  This could alleviate the need for most all variances.)  By its own inaction, the current council (and its successors) is soon to be left powerless in the dust.

Since this "no variance" measure appears poised for success, there ARE several "companion" reforms that council should work to enact.  Pronto.

1. SIGNIFICANTLY reform the land use and zoning codes to make them more rational, easing pressure for needing variances for every development project.
2. Reform the subsidized housing program, emphasizing the management of current inventory instead of continuing to build more units.  This would result in less burdensome requirements for every new development to contribute to additional "housing" stock into perpetuity, therefore reducing the call for variances.

The measure is distinctly anti-development with heavy class warfare undertones.  Have the proponents determined that ALL development is bad?  I think they have.  It's in their DNA.  How a "no variance" measure will specifically and economically impact future development in Aspen is anyone's guess, but with NO POSSIBLE EXCEPTIONS to the current rules without a public vote, the environment for development has certainly just gotten a lot worse. 

BEFORE YOU SIGN THE PETITION:  Consider, this measure will take council's quasi-judicial role - where they act like a court, evaluating matters affecting individual property rights - and turn it over to the "mob-ocracy."  Land use decisions are NOT legislative decisions.  They are quasi-judicial because they impact individual rights, in this case property rights.  If this proposal were brought up anywhere but in a western mountain town, it would be challenged as unconstitutional because it delegates decisions on individual property rights to a popularity contest.  Additionally, how is the land use code to be updated in the future?  If only the voters can approve variances, how can the code be amended by council?  Must all land use code changes be put to a public vote as well?  Just imagine having to stage a campaign to assert your property rights.  That is precisely what this measure will require.  Any property owner wanting even the smallest, legitimate variance from the code would have to go through an election process - essentially a popularity contest - for approval.  And what of the slippery slope?  It gets truly terrifying.  What other individual rights might be trampled by a community electorate that is becoming a homogenized, subsidized housing plutocracy whose power arises not from their wealth or their contributions to the community but from their collective ignorance and narrow-mindedness?

NOTE:  At press time, council has directed city staff to craft some changes to the land use code that would limit council's ability to grant variances.  Perhaps this is a last-ditch effort to appease the "no variance" proponents?  I'm not sure.  My guess is that the "no variance" measure will be on that May ballot regardless of what council does at this late date.  Perhaps the hope is that voters might see council trying to self-police on variance granting and therefore decide that the "no variance" measure is too extreme and inflexible?  Good luck with that.  It's a day late and a dollar short.  Changes to the land use code by council should have been made long ago.  The chickens are finally coming home to roost.

And just today, a fabulous letter to the editor ran in the paper, courtesy of Neil Siegel.  When I can't say it better myself, I have no problem yielding the floor.  Here it is:

"Isn't it ironic that the biggest cheerleader for Bert Myrin's ill-conceived ballot initiative is our former mayor? Yep, the same guy who strong armed and proudly put his stamp of approval on the Aspen Art Museum among other skyline altering projects now wants to neuter council's authority and put the brakes on all development.

Make no mistake, this is every bit as much of a power play as if the former mayor still had the gavel in his hand. But, however meritorious the issue, the battle is being waged on the wrong terrain. The Home Rule Charter is no place for the bile and whims of those distrustful of elected officials (past and present according to Myrin) to spill out. Rather, it is the land use code itself that needs to be revised so that reasonable development can proceed apace without the requirement for wholesale variances, project after project.

Consider the just-approved Molly Gibson Lodge, a project all agreed had appeal and considerable merit as a step forward for the community. It was approved with multiple variances granted on allowable floor area and setback requirements. But, if Myrin's proposal was law today, council would be hog tied and the proposed project would have to go to the voters for approval, a costly waste of time and energy for everyone.

More properly, these issues are properly debated in the realm of the land use code itself. Today it is an entanglement of requirements worthy of Dickens' Jarndyce vs. Jarndyce in Bleak House. Why can't the protagonists here back off and focus their efforts and expertise on a revised, understandable and enforceable land use code that reflects a consistent and sustainable vision on the critical issues of mass and scale, parking and affordable housing requirements. Rather than tear the town apart, an unbiased and robust debate could yield positive results, and I do not mean another treatise of rules and regulations.

A revised code would have real teeth and put all developers on notice that the horse trading and Persian-rug-market environment we see today will simply not be allowed. A variance, by definition, is a departure from the rule, yet today we are upside down because it is the norm. Everyone agrees that needs to be fixed. For example, a revised land use code should set forth a very high threshold requiring a compelling showing that any variance by itself is clearly in the public interest - that is, not one justified as the result of bartering with the city. A very high bar would give council a substantive reason to say 'no' and at the same time build a record based on firm requirements embedded in the code."

Bravo, Neil.

HUNT'S "AFFORDABLE LODGE" UPDATE

Ask Mark Hunt about the development environment.  It's bad enough today, yet he still gets to negotiate civilly with council.  Sure, the guy is asking for some significant variances for the proposed "affordable lodge" developments he is willing to build in the downtown core.  After all, the community has long been bemoaning the loss of small lodges and affordable beds.  Think about it - as I've said before, why would Hunt build affordable lodges on the two valuable parcels he owns (730 E. Cooper where Domino's Pizza is located and the Conoco gas station at Main and Monarch) without some concessions from the city?  Affordable lodges are hardly the best economic use from a development standpoint, but he is willing to build what the city says it needs - if the city will play ball.  This is why variances are necessary!!  You don't get something for nothing in this world, folks.  City hall is going to learn this the hard way.

Late last week, Hunt "iced" the Main Street lodge (called "Base 2") proposal.  Council balked at the requested variances (off-premise parking, increased floor-area-ratio, a break on subsidized housing mitigation) because the parcel is across the street from the technical downtown core, so for now the project is on hold.  But don't hold your breath.  My bet is that Hunt maximizes his investment and builds a commercial project that meets the current zoning on the site.  Kiss 40 affordable lodge rooms goodbye.

The Cooper Street project (called "Base 1") is still deeply mired in the muck.  Within code at 17,000 sf, Hunt is requesting a waiver on 25 off-street parking places, $40,000 in impact fee waivers and a waiver on subsidized housing mitigation for 1.97 employees.  Hunt is negotiating with the city for 25-50 parking spaces nearby in the Rio Grande garage, but council is pretty dug in against this project with any of the requested waivers.  Simply put, they want an affordable lodge ($150-$200 a night) but don't want to give up anything to get it.  As if.

EMPLOYEE GENERATION SURVEY

It's been almost a year since city hall commissioned a survey to "determine" a scientific multiplier for the number of employees generated with each square foot of residential housing development.   It's bad enough that the city only looks at new development as rationale to build more subsidized housing instead of perhaps providing much-needed jobs for our under-employed-yet-living-in-subsidized-housing workforce.  But the reality, a year into the "study," is that there is no report.  Excuses are rampant, including "no draft yet" and "no survey results have been provided."  To this I say BS!  It has become clear that the survey results and the consultant on the project (and perhaps the staff over-seers as well) cannot support the conclusions the city desires so they are working on other ways to justify the proposed increased housing mitigation numbers.  The level of obfuscation is growing by the day.  And council has been silent.  The only pressure on the city to produce a report (for which taxpayers paid $33K) comes from concerned citizens.  I'm one.  Lifelong local Mike Maple is another.

If employee generation cannot be easily and logically proven, with a narrow range of deviation, it should not require mitigation.  Period.  Furthermore, any viable report must include an analysis and quantification of the multiple means by which Aspen property owners already pay for subsidized housing.  Isn't 2/3 of the RETT (1.5% of the purchase price of every Aspen property) enough subsidized housing mitigation? In my book, more mitigation sounds a lot like double taxation!  Furthermore, a resident-occupied dwelling likely already provides housing far in excess of its impacts.  This too should be given consideration in any analysis.

Sadly, I'm not holding my breath.  The city will go to great lengths to justify its desired mitigation numbers.  This will be yet another survey that uses too many "existing" data sources (census, Bureau of Labor, etc.) that have limited if any relevance to Aspen, and will inherently assume that every job created by residential development will go to a new employee who needs subsidized housing.  I have very little trust in this process - never have - and even less in the outcome of the survey, if we ever see it.

And at the risk of sounding like a broken record, as I've said numerous times before and will continue to say, how can we even begin to discuss subsidized housing NEEDS when we don't know what we have, who lives there and whether or not they're compliant?  This entire issue needs to be first addressed with a comprehensive subsidized housing audit.

NEW TENANT FOR THE OLD POWER HOUSE

A recent council meeting exposed the cluelessness of council and city staff when it comes to proper due diligence in evaluating "finalists" (that they've chosen) for tenancy at the Old Power House, recently vacated by the Aspen Art Museum.  The newly-added requirement that whichever entity "wins" provide a public food and beverage operation is nothing short of ridiculous.  Is the idea of this "café" to somehow drive traffic or to feed employees?

The 5 finalists for the city-owned 7200 sf space include four local non-profits:  Aspen Science Center, Powerhouse Performing Arts Center, The Power House Aspen (a community gathering place) and Aspen Media Powerhouse (a new studio and archive facility for GrassrootsTV).  The fifth finalist is a commercial tenant, Power Plant Brewery operated by the Aspen Brewery.  I wasn't originally aware that the city was considering a commercial lease for the property; I always thought that council was trying to "assist" a local non-profit with a public facility at a very favorable rate (the Aspen Art Museum paid $1 a year in rent to the city during its tenancy, 1979-2014).  And notably, quick research yielded the fact that the Old Power House site isn't even zoned for commercial use!  Council would have to amend the planned development uses (PUD) to ok the Brewery! It's pretty clear council doesn't really know what it's doing.

The rational and responsible thing to do would of course be for the city to utilize the Old Power House for its own needs, but let's face it, no city staff wants to be so far from Peach's!!  Staff wants to work "in town," preferably in the proposed new palace on Main Street!  By leaving the Old Power House out of the mix (for potential municipal uses, despite allegedly "needing" 70,000 sf more space), the city has concluded that there is no suitable public use for that building.  But, they are willing to spend money from the public coffers to upgrade it for a new tenant, including quite likely a commercial kitchen!  This, while looking to house a city function or two in the recently-vacated teeny tiny Mountain Rescue cabin on Main Street.  It simply defies common sense.

Council is currently situated to choose the least incompetent of this group in coming weeks.  Typical.  Yet another missed opportunity.  In its desire for a utopian "unique community asset," the upcoming decision will be a purely political one.  Best use for the space and what is authorized by law will have nothing to do with it.

Local resident and city watchdog Neil Siegel points out in a recent letter to the editor that it's not too late for council to "pull the plug" on this very flawed process, take a step back and evaluate the best potential uses for the valuable city-owned site and start anew.  Read it HERE.  I wholeheartedly agree.

Short of that, and short of a commercial lease (which should be put out into the competitive marketplace as opposed to being granted to a select for-profit tenant), the only reasonable choice is GRTV.  It's the only entity that has proven to be a sustainable community asset that can demonstrate funding and a solid record of operating a facility for over 40 years.  In fact, several of the other finalists are newcomers to scene and cannot demonstrate much!  Good grief.  (Besides, GRTV is dedicated to free speech.  And I like that.  A lot.)

For the highly curious and easily entertained, check out the original applications and council's (laughable) evaluation matrix HERE.

THE LATEST ON HYDRO - IT JUST WON'T GO AWAY, OR WILL IT?

The federal permit for the hydro plant on Castle Creek expires on February 28.  Phew, right?  Not so fast.  The preliminary permit, originally granted for 3 years in 2008 and renewed in 2012, should clearly be allowed to lapse, given council's direction to city staff to cease work on the hydro plant and pursue other renewable energy options last year.  "Should" is the operative word.  City staff filed a progress report with FERC last March stating that "The Aspen City Council has not abandoned the project.  The project remains a viable project at this juncture..." despite a November 2012 advisory vote that told the city to stop.  Then, council decided to pursue other renewable projects (not CCEC) in April and the city settled a lawsuit over water rights for the hydro plant in June.  Both the settlement and the subsequent council resolution specifically stated that "the city will not be pursuing or seeking to complete the CCEC hydroelectric project at this time."  But, in September, in defiance of council and the terms of both the settlement and resolution, city staff sent FERC a progress report that suggests the nail is not yet in the CCEC's coffin.  "In the event the city council decides to proceed with the CCEC project as a chosen alternative, the city will move forward as appropriate," according to the document.  What???

This says to me what I have long written here: city staff is hell-bent on completing the CCEC hydro plant and only plans to wait out the current council.  As soon as they have a hydro-favorable board seated, we'll quickly be back in the hydro business.  The good news is that FERC isn't real keen on granting 3^rd successive preliminary permits, however, the city continues to pay its outside water lawyer to keep the dream alive.

As recently as December, staff was still lying to council about the hydro plant.  City attorney Jim True/False told council in an open meeting on December 14 that in the June 2014 memo to FERC, he informed FERC that the city had determined not to pursue the CCEC but would be pursuing micro-hydro options.  In researching this June memo, there are indeed references to micro-hydro but not to CCEC.  There was only one small acknowledgment of CCEC's demise and that was in a deeply buried exhibit.  The letter itself bragged on and on about all the things the city continues to do to advance the CCEC hydro plant. 

Under the auspices of "pursuing micro-hydro" projects on Castle Creek, city staff desperately wants that permit renewed.  This is entirely unnecessary.  The city can let the current permit expire, as it should, and then apply for new permits for micro-hydro projects if and when these come to fruition.  But don't be fooled, city staff desperately still wants the CCEC hydro plant and until it's really dead, it remains alive.

NOTE:  At press time, council has directed staff to let the FERC permit expire.  In the reporting of the decision however, there is strategic use of the term "for now" when referring to the CCEC hydro plant being "dead in the water."  The next step for council is to direct staff to immediately sell the custom $1.7 million turbine it ordered as soon as the votes for the hydro plant were counted in 2007.  We'll only get pennies on the dollar for it, but at least it would be gone.  This would be a logical and responsible next step toward the final death knell for the hydro plant.  In the meantime, we watch and wait.

TOO MANY TOURISTS?

On a very different note, here's something that came across the transom that really, really disturbed me.  I got the following email from a concerned citizen (name withheld from this publication):

"I was told the environment in Aspen over Christmas was less than pleasant because the town was so incredibly crowded and the visitors were rude and obnoxious.  I wish council was capable of weighing the balance between opening the flood gates to increase profit versus being a good steward before all Aspen charm is lost.  Aspen has become too large both high season winter and high season summer.  Council is elected to PRESERVE Aspen and its charm, not make decisions based solely on profit and greed. God help us!"

This begs numerous questions.  Is COUNCIL responsible for controlling the "flood gates" that ostensibly "let" people in (or "keep" them out)?  Is anyone?  Who gets let in?  Who gets kept out?  What's the criteria?  Or, are we a resort destination whose economy is tourism based?  Really!!  I'm appalled.

As far as I'm concerned, we get to live in a world class resort that, as a result of its success, is able to sustain a diverse and vibrant local community.  Neither could exist without the other, but I think it's safe to say that without the tourists, Aspen would no longer be a resort.  We'd have no economy.  Some community THAT would be!

NOTABLE NEWS

• Mail-in Election in May:  All registered Aspen voters will receive a ballot in the mail for the municipal election on May 5.  Ballots will be mailed out on April 13.  Detailed info is not yet on the city's website, however if you are planning to leave Aspen for spring travels prior to April 13, I encourage you to contact the city clerk ASAP to work out how you can get a ballot and vote!!  Don't worry, I'll let you know what I'm thinking about candidates and the issues!  Clerk Linda Manning can be reached at linda.manning@cityofaspen.com and 970-429-2687

• Get Your Food Tax Refund:  HERE is the food tax refund application form.  If you are a registered Aspen voter (prior to January 1, 2014) who has lived in the city for all of 2014, you and your dependents qualify for $50 each.  The city created the food tax refund as an incentive to encourage voters to support a sales tax referendum.  It was intended to reimburse voters the approximate amount of sales tax that they would pay annually on groceries due to the 1% city sales tax.  More info HERE. Deadline is April 15 at 5pm.  Free money from the city.  Get yours.

• Repeal of Bag Ban in Huntington Beach, CA:  I have long opposed the City of Aspen's half-witted plastic grocery bag ban and "fee" (which I see as a tax).  HERE is an interesting piece on an Orange County community's decision to repeal their bag ban.  Theirs didn't have the fee/tax implications and controversy that ours does, but the situation raises some interesting points none-the-less.

Happy New Year from The Red Ant ... Just home from skiing in Austria.

ISSUE #111: A Holiday InformANT

"At The Red Ant, the fun never ends... Holiday blessings to you, your family and friends."

CITY HALL NEEDS MORE SPACE: THE ULTIMATE HYPOCRISY
While grappling with public outcry about the current construction boom in Aspen and working diligently to curb development in general, the city is readying to embark on the largest construction project in town in years -- for itself.  And I don't mean roads, bridges and infrastructure.  Ostensibly those things would be for us -- the taxpayers.  What they have in mind is nothing more than a massive monument to their own mediocrity.  Read on...

Yes, it's true that the Aspen Police Department is soon getting booted from the basement space in the county courthouse it has long shared with the Pitkin County Sheriff.  And it's also true that the city's building and engineering departments will need to relocate from their leased basement digs in the Aspen Daily News building by 2018.  But relocating these functions has created a tangled matrix of office space needs, wants and dreams for the city that, if left unchecked and unsupervised in their planning and funding, are currently approaching nearly 80,000 sf with cost estimates nearing $40 million.  The tab is not just for the 24,500 sf of space for the evicted departments, however; it also includes upgrades to bathrooms and hallways (per code) as well as larger meeting rooms and more offices, plus a to-be-constructed 45,000 sf facility long dreamed of for the Zupancis property, just east of the courthouse annex on Main St. across from St. Mary's Church.

Ever the sly one, city manager Steve Barwick knows better than to raise taxes or float a bond to cover this ridiculous expenditure, both of which would take a public vote.  (He has learned the hard way that the fiscal hawks in town are well organized and motivated!)  Instead, he plans to use the buckets of gold tucked under mattresses in various department accounts at city hall to fund the massive physical expansion.  And if he needs more money?  No problem. There's a financial tool called a "certificate of participation" which is a form of government debt similar to a bond.  Current estimates and cash reserve requirements project a $21 million debt issuance need, to be repaid at a 4% rate ($1.34 million a year -- for about 25 years). City officials are confident that "redirecting" funds currently spent on leased office space would contribute significantly to the debt service.  Isn't that confidence reassuring??

But please note, given the "independent" nature of the financing, the city is moving ahead with nary a public process.  They don't need to impress us, convince us or get us to approve anything at the polls so they are not even bothering to ask us.  It's kinda like the "remodel" of the Rubey Park bus station that is more of an expansion than any kind of remodel I've ever seen.  They did that without our input too because they managed to fund it -- with our money -- without us!!

We all know that City Hall, currently ensconced in the historic Armory building at the corner of Hopkins and Galena, is a crowded and tangled fire-trap of office space.  But given the commercial real estate already owned by the city (and located IN the city), doesn't it equally make sense that we consider using and maximizing what we have before hauling off and building something new just because we can??

From the standpoint of perspective, the projected space "needs" of the city are approximately the size of TWO Aspen Art Museums!  Councilman Adam Frisch recently asked the $40 million question, "How do you hide 70,000 sf?"  Exactly.  While some city functions should be readily and easily accessible to the public (and therefore justify a convenient location downtown), many others are invisible to the public and can be located ANYWHERE.  Just think for a moment about the EXISTING spaces owned by the city -- possibilities that include but are not limited to the vacant Mountain Rescue cabin next to the Hickory House, the ACRA offices below the parking garage on Rio Grande Park and the Aspen Youth Center space, currently utilized by several community groups for about 22 hours per week.  And don't forget the $18+ million paid by the city in 2008 for the BMC Lumberyard out by the airport.  Ever development-hungry when it comes to projects and expenditures that suit itself, the city is indeed dreaming BIG.  The wish list gratuitously includes an upgrade and addition to the current City Hall AND perhaps booting ACRA out of the Rio Grande building, but we know the city bureaucrats all too well, and they have long had their eyes on a shiny new edifice to themselves right on Main St.  This whole boondoggle begs the even bigger question .....

WHAT ABOUT THE OLD POWER HOUSE??
Long occupied by the Aspen Art Museum, the historic Old Power House building on the Roaring Fork River at the corner of North Mill St and Gibson is currently vacant.  Owned by the city, it was leased to the AAM for $1/year until the museum relocated to its new in-town space last summer.

Think about it.  At 7200 sf, the Old Power House represents a MAJOR SOLUTION to the city's office space needs.  Couldn't the IT department, human resources, engineering or environmental health, or all four, be located there?  Sure, it's a few blocks from the central core, but really.  Would that matter?  The space is there AND IT'S PAID FOR!  What about the Police Department?  I'm a neighbor and admit it wouldn't be ideal, but heck, if the space works, I would live with it.  As much as I respect the non-profit entities vying for the Old Power House space, I am sick of the subsidized culture that is out of control in this town.  When the municipality owns the space and needs the space, frankly, it should use the space.  This is not to imply that any of the potential lessees offer dubious benefits to the community (although in a couple of cases it might be argued).  The space should simply not be given away.  Not now.

However, in an ill-timed and mad rush to "fill" (read: give away) the clearly valuable space (although the AAM found it less than desirable as a tourist destination given its ~ 4+ block downhill distance from the Hotel Jerome), the city has been drumming up interest from community groups eager for cheap in-town real estate.  The recent application process drew interest from many viable and several not-so-viable parties that came to the table offering such "community benefits" as a homeless shelter, a youth hostel, a rehab center and a John Denver museum.  A community panel vetted the applications and came up with the finalists: a science center, a Red Brick Center for the Arts performance and events center and a new HQ for GrassRoots TV that would provide public access to its archives.  Ok, each of these has its appeal, some more than others.  (Personally, I think GRTV is best suited to inhabit the space because it's a proven long-term community organization that already serves a diverse group of organizations and individuals in the valley, and more importantly, its services and offerings will not significantly increase the intensity of activity in this transitional zone between downtown and one of Aspen's more densely populated residential neighborhoods.)  But in its inimitable fashion, city council took the recommendations and added two of their own: a "community gathering place" for locals and support groups, as well as a brewery.  The final decision will be made before the May municipal election.  Frankly, the city needs to look long and hard at just giving this space away, especially when its own "space needs" are front and center.  And ridiculously expensive.

A fascinating theory was presented to The Red Ant about this enormous development over-reach by the city.  Could it possibly be that the city (whose ineptitude led to the lawsuit settlement that brought us the new Aspen Art Museum with all of its waivers) is going to "show" the AAM who's boss in this town by building an EVEN BIGGER edifice to the "because we can" movement??

THE "MARK HUNT" OPPORTUNITY: THIS GENERATION'S "HADID" MOMENT?
A harbinger of things to come actually reads more like history repeating itself.  Remember Mohamed Hadid, the guy who bought 88 acres of primo Aspen real estate in 1986 where the St. Regis (nee Ritz-Carlton), Hyatt Grand Aspen and Silver Circle Ice Rink now stand? (He was also the one who incidentally gifted the Meadows property to the Aspen Institute, ensuring it would stay in Aspen.)  Hadid was a controversial guy at the time.  It was nothing personal, just that he had the land and the bucks to make some serious changes to the Aspen landscape.  How dare he, many cried at the time.  But today, with the St. Regis and Grand Hyatt serving as thriving additions to our bed base and tourist amenities, those criers have a new target.

Mark Hunt of Chicago and his investment group have snapped up numerous commercial properties in Aspen over the past couple of years.  Earmarked for redevelopment, such properties include the Conoco gas station on Main Street, the Crystal Palace building, the Bidwell Building (where Kemosabe currently resides), the Aspen Daily News building on Hopkins Street and the Buckhorn Arms building (where Johnny McGuire's and Domino's are located).  Hunt recently completed "Aspen One" at the corner of Hopkins and Galena where the Gap once stood.  High end retail fills the ground floor while a much-anticipated restaurant will soon open on the second floor.

The local papers enjoyed reporting on a "bro-mance" last summer between Mayor Skadron and Hunt after they met to discuss Hunt's vision for his properties.  With the city vociferously lamenting the loss of small lodges over the years, Hunt returned to city hall this fall with not one but two mid-priced lodge project concepts for the central core.  Two lodges with a total of 88 small rooms (under 200 sf) with price tags to match, and public amenities such as a bowling alley and rooftop deck were put forth.  Never understanding basic business concepts such as "gives and gets," anti-development naysayers and public officials went nuts when Hunt requested waivers on parking requirements for these two lodges and well as relief on subsidized housing mitigation.  They simply want what they want (cheap hotel rooms) and are unwilling to negotiate with the person willing to build such an economically poor use of very valuable real estate.  To this push back, Hunt said it is hard to hear some of the criticisms, especially when he designed the project at the request of city officials who have been clamoring for an affordable lodging development.  He said the concept wasn't his first choice for the lot and still isn't.  Of course it isn't!!  The city should be very careful here.  Mark Hunt is willing to build something no one else would even touch.  But that willingness obviously comes with a price.  Miss this opportunity now and Hunt will surely construct more high end ground floor retail space and perhaps even some very nice free market condos upstairs.  The unique lodging opportunity won't just be lost in the near term, it will be gone forever.

Besides, did you hear that commercial real estate is HOT HOT HOT??  Commercial leases are going for $250/sf in the core!  And even at this rate, vacancies are very hard to come by.  If the city squanders great opportunities to work with those who come to the table with unique solutions, skier visits (which are down 15-20% from the high in 1997-98) will never recover, commercial lease rates will continue their climb, and you know the rest. Now, no one is saying Hunt's affordable lodge proposals are any kind of "must do," but they most certainly are "must considers."  You don't get somethin' for nuthin' in this world.  (Well, unless you get subsidized housing, a free ski pass, free bus service, discounted/free access to cultural marvels, etc. as an Aspen local, that is.  But I digress.  However, now you can see how the mentality has gotten so unbelievably warped around here!!)

Mark Hunt is a businessman. My guess is this offer of his won't be on the table for long. Nor should it be.  Frankly, given the pushback and vitriol directed Hunt's way, I just don't see the proposed affordable lodge projects happening.

IS THE "AFFORDABLE LODGE" EVEN A POSSIBILITY IN ASPEN?
As a friend of The Red Ant is quick to point out, we have groceries and we have Gucci, and very little in between.  It's just the economic reality.  So when the city pushes for more "affordable" in-town lodging, is not the elephant in the room the inevitable question, "Once we get these people here and into 'budget' hotel rooms, what will they do when there is nothing else 'budget' that we offer?"  My guess is that the law of unintended consequences will once again answer that for us.  Aspen is NOT a budget destination.  Sorry folks, it just isn't.  To represent ourselves as such is disingenuous and will surely backfire.

BAD CAPTAIN RE-ARRANGES DECK CHAIRS ON THE TITANIC
We all knew that city manager Steve Barwick has an employment contract worth $170K per year.  As it turns out, according to our city charter (Section 6.1), the city manager is also appointed "without definite term."  It's been this way since 1970 when the charter was adopted.  Who knew!?! One of just two municipal employees overseen by council, the city manager currently rests easy with a fat contract into perpetuity.  This doesn't mean he can't be fired -- he most certainly can!  He can also be reviewed by his bosses -- city council -- but they don't seem to see the need for that, despite a long list of egregious offenses and outright dereliction of duty by this bureaucrat.  Why is this?  Nobody knows and council isn't talking.  It's actually as though they really don't know or understand how the system works!

In the wake recent "issues" (such as the parking meter scandal and lies to council about an unnecessary $750K drainline), Barwick, never one to accept responsibility, moved a few bureaucrats on his staff around and even demoted the parking director.  But no one was fired, and no further answers have been forthcoming on the independent audit and the enormous amount of missing money.  Barwick continues to deflect from his own poor management by trying to re-focus on the individuals who scammed the machines instead of his organization which ignored (at best) or (more likely) was complicit in raiding the coffers.  He also fabulously commented on his own failure(s), "Right now, departments pretty much go straight to city council with very little review by the city manager's office."  Now why is that, Steve?  If you were doing your job -- and that job is to manage your staff -- not one item should get before the council before its time.  And when something is finally presented to council, it should be with your full knowledge, approval and sign-off.  Anything short of this is simple dereliction and you ought to be formally reprimanded.

The latest Barwick oversight is spectacularly illustrative of the problems in city hall.  Over the summer, a $580K overhaul of the gondola plaza intersection at Durant and Hunter streets was completed.  The idea was to make the intersection safer for pedestrians.  Numerous citizens criticized the plan before its start, but the city dug it up anyway.  In the end, two large stormwater "rainfall pits" (now appropriately nicknamed "face planters") that jut out into traffic lanes await disembarking bus passengers and pedestrians like open mine shafts.  There have been several instances of people falling in already.  When brought to council's knowledge recently, the mayor called this situation to the attention of the relevant department head and assumed that matters would be quickly corrected.  But no.  The city charter PROHIBITS council (including the mayor) from directing staff.  No wonder staff doesn't do council's bidding nor do they tell council the truth.  These folks work for Barwick!  The responsibility for directing staff is the city manager's alone.  Instead, if council understood the basic workings of our government, they would direct the city manager to fix the problem.  That way, the responsibility would lie with Steve Barwick each and every time, 100% of the time.  And he would be solely responsible.  (Note: at press time and as a result of a letter to the paper from an out-of-town MD, the city has filled the "face planters" in with snow as a temporary fix.)

The management of Steve Barwick (as well as city attorney Jim True) is one KEY responsibility of council.  This responsibility is being grossly neglected and as a result, city hall is in disarray with a void of leadership, missing money, poor morale, zero accountability and a series of mishaps that continue to shock and awe the public.

And don't forget, while council fiddles, Barwick is surely fine-tuning his own "city-owned housing for life" plan, similar to the one he designed for and granted to former utilities director Phil Overeynder (see Issue #22).

Please contact city council and let them know that you would like better supervision of city manager Steve Barwick, including better oversight of our public funds: 

Steve.Skadron@cityofaspen.com          Adam.Frisch@cityofaspen.com

Ann.Mullins@cityofaspen.com                        Art.Daily@cityofaspen.com

Dwayne.Romero@cityofaspen.com

HOW TO BETTER ENABLE COUNCIL TO ACTUALLY GOVERN
In one of the best published columns of the year, Maurice Emmer presents a few very actionable changes that would enable council to better focus on their given responsibilities (supervision of the city manager and city attorney, enact laws, consider initiatives, appoint civic boards and hear land-use appeals).  In short, take away council's responsibility to hear land-use appeals.  Leave this in the hands of Planning & Zoning where conforming proposals will be approved and those non-conforming will be rejected.  It's very simple.  Same rules for everyone.  Council does not need to play "Super P&Z" with every application.  When truly compelling variances are requested, P&Z can refer these to a public vote.  The variance proposals that are indeed truly compelling will be approved by the voters.

Please take the time to read this piece, entitled "New Rules for the Monkey Cage."  It suggests such obvious things such as adopting a guideline that requires the city manager and attorney to do what the council instructs them to do.  Imagine that!?

Instead of coddling developers and doling out variances and waivers on an ad hoc basis, council should tend to its knitting.  And when our land-use code doesn't work, make the needed changes - for everybody.  With their new-found time, council can then get our "renegade government" back under control.

SUBSIDIZED PIZZA?
They can't manage their two employees but council CAN pick winners and losers! You like pizza -- I know you do.  And I do too!  Taster's makes a good pie and I've been known to order from them from time to time.  Taster's Pizza is currently located in the city-owned Rio Grande Place where the city is looking to move its operations amidst the planned municipal expansion.  Unlike its competitors (Ryno's, NY Pizza), Taster's pays below-market "subsidized" rent to the city.  The fine economists on council were in rare form when the issue of relocating Taster's came up recently.  It seems the Romero, Frisch and Daily families are regular customers of the eatery, therefore these councilmen are emotionally invested in keeping Taster's in its location, even if this means the city having to rent high-priced office space elsewhere in town.  Yep, in an effort to "prevent further erosion of affordable eateries in town," Dwayne Romero and the others seem willing to use taxpayer dollars to subsidize one local pizza joint and not the others.  The great irony?  It was Mayor Skadron, the council member with the least amount of business acumen, who actually raised the "subsidy" issue as a potential problem.  He predicts "complaints" if the city ends up paying market rent for office space so that Taster's can keep its subsidized tenancy.  Ya think?!?

AND ONE LAST UNBELIEVABLE UPDATE TO THE HYDRO PLANT SAGA
Busted in its attempt to snow council into approving $750K for a drainline that would complete the CCEC Hydro Plant despite council's decision to shelve the project, the city has been under public pressure to sell the custom $1.7 million turbine that it commissioned years ago, long before getting the approvals to build the hydro plant.  The sale of this albatross would signal the true "end" of the hydro plant and its archaic technology that was nearly employed on Castle Creek.  There isn't much of a market for this outdated technology so it's likely the city would only recoup pennies on the dollar for its premature expenditure, so what did they do?  I hope you're sitting down.

The mayor and city attorney recently approached a local water rights lawyer and several of his clients (who have actively opposed the CCEC and continue to monitor the city's hydro-on-Castle-Creek activities) with a proposal that is not to be believed.  Except that it happened.  The mayor and city attorney asked the water lawyer to ask his CCEC-opposing clients to pull together $2 million (TWO MILLION DOLLARS) that would be "donated" to a Peru-based non-profit (that the city attorney is involved with) so that the non-profit could buy the hydropower turbine and generator from Aspen and ship it down south where the Peruvian government can use it.  Yep.  City officials are asking local property owners along Castle Creek to pay for the city's mis-step of buying the turbine and generator in the first place.  Is this even legal?  Importantly, do not overlook the veiled threat in the proposal:  the city knows that as long as they are in possession of the turbine which is specifically designed for the 42", mile-long water pipe they have nearly completed, the very real prospect of resurrecting the CCEC hydro plant remains.

How disgraceful.  And at the same time, what a laugh. Can't make it up!

Meanwhile, the city continues its quest for hydro on Castle Creek and council does nothing to stop them.  (Staff does NOT follow council direction because they don't report to council.  Barwick simply ignores council direction because it is not firmly given, especially when it conflicts with staff's agenda.)  In the last quarter of the year, the city's independent water lawyer filed a report with the feds (FERC) to maintain the city's place in line in case it ever filed an application to build and operate the CCEC hydro plant.  The cover letter to the report additionally lists 16 activities by city staff during 2014 that are noted as "project-specific" to the CCEC.  It is unclear given council's lack of oversight what is going on and who is in charge.  But you can guess.  Hint: staff works for Barwick and Barwick only.

Several questions jump out:

1       City council issued a directive not to expend city resources on CCEC.  How is it consistent with that directive for city staff to be performing "project-specific" activities to advance the CCEC?

2       How is it consistent with the above-mentioned directive for the city to pay legal fees to prepare this filing?

3       Did staff inform council of its intent to file this report with FERC?  If not, why not, in view of the directive?  If so, how is council's involvement consistent with the directive?

It has become abundantly clear that the $70K study by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) that, by council's own determination, yielded renewable energy alternatives for Aspen to pursue that did not include the CCEC, is now being rejected by city staff.  The third part of the study, originally scheduled to be delivered in July 2014, has never been presented.  It seems that staff is now telling council that at least one of the NREL recommendations selected by council is "dubious" and that CCEC hydro should be reconsidered.  Really?  Whose recommendation is more dubious, city staff's or NREL's?  It's gotten ridiculous that council actually listens to these buffoons.  City staff must be told (via Steve Barwick) once and for all and in no uncertain terms that they ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT include the CCEC in their renewable energy plans.  Period.  And sell that turbine, legitimately.  Now.

ISSUE #110: Enjoy Your ThANTsgiving Weekend!

  "In Aspen, we have a strong city government, weak city council system."   

   -- Mayor Steve Skadron (October 27, 2014)

We have plenty to be thankful for this holiday weekend, not the least of which is abundant early season snow and an early opening on Ajax. Keep doing your snow dance, however. This weekend's warm temps make for great photos of the World Cup races but 'tis the season for snow, snow and more snow.

With our local government, the situation is not so rosy....

PARKING-GATE: CONSPIRACY THEORIES ABOUND 

Paid parking in Aspen was never about generating revenue for city coffers. It was simply a way to keep employees from driving into town and taking up parking spaces all day. Ostensibly, paid parking would be a disincentive for this behavior while enabling shoppers more opportunity to find a parking spot.

My how the times have changed! The local papers have gone quiet on the story for now, but the big mystery remains: How did the city of Aspen get bilked for what could amount to $800K+ over 4 years by scofflaws who exploited a widely-known fault in the parking meters -- using zeroed out debit cards as methods of payment for parking? And more importantly, how, despite this thievery, is parking fee revenue UP over 50% year-to-date over last? Yes, you're reading that right. The city LOST almost $700K in 2014 before the ruse was brought to light. Staff claims they didn't notice the theft because parking revenues have remained constant. Well, that's a load of horse puckey! In the timeframe when the city "lost" nearly $700K, parking revenues were still up $750K year-to-date. (Through August, parking fee revenue for 2014 was nearly $2.2 million when the first eight months of 2013 yielded just $1.4 million!)   You'd think, if you were rational, that given the theft of $700K, revenues would be off dramatically. Nope. In fact it's just the opposite. Hmmmmm...

Initially, to quell the public outcry (it certainly wasn't because city council was outraged - they actually defended staff), the city manager tried to hire the city's current auditor to audit the city's internal revenue collection and management systems. How convenient: the auditors who work at Barwick's behest would investigate themselves on issues they've "missed" over the past 4+ years!?! After loud public push-back, council finally opened their eyes and engaged, opting instead to hire a 3^rd party auditor. The search for this auditor is currently underway and being conducted by a citizens committee (unfortunately chosen by Barwick and city staff). It is yet to be seen where this is headed and whether or not this will be an objective process. Sadly, I am not optimistic. Despite the high moral character of a couple of the committee members, they were not chosen by the city manager because they have demonstrated any skepticism of city hall nor are known whistleblowers. And in some cases, the word "joiner" comes to mind, as in "city hall sycophant." I fear that the scope of the investigation will be broadened beyond parking (not necessarily a bad thing), but, in the process, watered down.

What really needs to be done is what they say on tv: bring in BDO. Whoever is hired for this investigation should look at parking revenues for at least four years to ensure that the money collected from parkers actually reached city bank accounts, and that these monies were then under the full control of the city finance department - not the parking department.

The wild swings in reported parking revenues over the past several years indicate to The Red Ant (an affirmed conspiracy theorist) that some of the actual receipts were skimmed off the top and diverted from city control. Yep, I'm saying it. I think money was being skimmed internally and the "debit card parking scam" was a red-herring, designed to exploit a known weakness in the system and thereby serve as rationale for lower parking revenues if the ruse was ever to be discovered. Sources tell The Red Ant that friends in the parking department told them how to scam the meters. But at some point someone on the inside, likely in the finance department, noted the crazy numbers and said something, perhaps at a staff meeting, at which point the internal theft quickly ceased. However, by this point in time, the debit card theft was in full swing (again, nearly $700K stolen this year). And in the absence of internal stealing, parking revenues soared.

It's just a theory. But it's what I believe. I do hope we find out. I'd love nothing more than to see a special prosecutor get ahold of this. What do you think?

DOUBLE-BASEMENT BAN: KNEE-JERK REACTION OF THE YEAR

Spurred by complaints from neighbors about several local residential projects, council quickly (and unanimously) passed a zoning change that prevents homeowners from building "double basements" for single family homes. Given the high value of Aspen real estate, there have recently been projects approved that had allowed 40 foot deep excavations for two sub-grade levels. Frankly, I see this as a unique solution to the mass, scale and FAR issues we face - by putting more square footage underground, it cannot be seen from the street. Council saw it otherwise. After publicly and emotionally extolling the time-honored "how much space do these people need" diatribe, the mayor attempted to soften his stance and deemed the zoning change more to lessen construction impacts than to control the size of basements. But then he said the ordinance doesn't go far enough. Next he wants to limit horizontal subgrade build-outs.

Even city staff acknowledges the concerns with such a regulation and its imperfect language. For example, imagine split-level homes and those that are constructed on a steep grade. The new 15 foot basement depth limit will quickly become a problem. But instead of being methodical and deliberate, council rushed ahead anyway. Even community development director Chris Bendon admits, "This is new territory so there's a pretty strong likelihood that we'll be back in front of you in a year or two, evolving it forward, based on that experience. Ready - Fire - Aim. Again.

HYDRO: THE PLANT THAT WILL NEVER DIE

In its review of the 2015 budget, council was enlightened by concerned citizens that $750K had been earmarked for the "Thomas Reservoir Outfall Drainline," city-speak for the tail-race that would all but complete the shelved Castle Creek Energy Center/Hydro Plant. Yep, despite no direction from council (quite the opposite -- council tabled the hydro plant in April), city staff and the water department continue to push forward with the project. This $750K expenditure was presented to council in late October as an emergency drainline with massive public safety implications. City utilities director Dave Hornbacher even went so far as to tell council that according to a state inspection, the reservoir as it stands today, presents a "significant hazard." And council fell for it. For a week or so, it seemed the shuttered hydro plant was effectively being brought back to life, with council's tacit yet ignorant approval.

Then, citizens again got involved, admonishing council for its lack of questioning staff's advocacy of this huge expenditure, its non-request of the referenced dam inspector's report and most importantly, its lack of basic curiosity about the "pro-hydro plant" advocacy it was spoon-fed by staff, which turned out to be a load of malarkey, or in other words, bold faced lies.

In the end, after more public outcry, council was "re-informed" by staff that the state is indeed NOT telling the city to complete its drainline (there actually already is one), nor is this drainline necessary for safe operations of the reservoir. Caught in a big lie, Hornbacher was forced to back-pedal to correct the record. He had initially been asked by council about other options but gave none, just an empassioned infomercial on the desperate need for this drainline. For now, it doesn't appear that the water department will get the big bucks from council for this particular project at this time, especially after the lies were revealed. But keep in mind, the completion of the hydro plant is a HUGE priority for city staff, as evidenced by the lengths they will go to keep this thing alive behind council's back and even by lying to their very faces. Remember, the city continues to store the $1.6 million custom turbine they commissioned for the hydro plant in 2007 instead of selling it.

The facts: Citizens have spoken, the NREL (National Renewable Energy Lab) has spoken, and council has voted, but Barwick and his staff continue unabated with efforts and expenditures to complete the hydro plant.

The Red Ant predicts that the green-at-any-cost zealots are gearing up for the May 2015 municipal election where they will go to great lengths to replace both Dwayne Romero and Adam Frisch on council, thereby paving the way to a council vote which will breathe life once again into the hydro plant. They're already writing to the papers, lobbying for another (presumably binding) vote. I'm afraid it's coming, folks.

RUBEY PARK: NO DIAMOND IN THE ROUGH

Did ya hear? We're getting a new bus station. A HUGE new bus station. Right smack dab in the center of town. Aspen's Rubey Park bus station is slated to undergo a massive overhaul in 2015 to the tune of nearly $8 million. (The funding sources: $3.9 million from the Elected Officials Transportation Committee of Aspen, Snowmass and Pitkin County, $2 million from a federal highway administration grant, $1 million from a Colorado Dept of Transportation grant, and $500K each from the city of Aspen and RFTA.)

With all this money, we'll get two new buildings on the existing site, a remodel of the current building, new bathrooms and RFTA offices, all connected by a single roof. Oh, and did I mention, parking for TWENTY-EIGHT buses. Yep, 28. As Aspen Times columnist Andy Stone calls it, "Aspen's Grand Central bus-a-palooza." (Read it HERE)

All of this ugliness will be right in the center of downtown -- with council's blessing! Stone correctly points out (because surely our elected officials have no clue) that most cities do not utilize prime real estate for the creation of "a pedestal in a place of honor so all can worship at the Shrine of Mass Transit." Rather, "buses should run through town, stop for passengers and then move on. The bus terminal - which is an industrial operation - gets tucked away somewhere convenient and, as much as possible, out of sight." Ya think?!

I almost forgot to mention that a massive snowmelt system has been deemed appropriate for the re-vamped Rubey Park bus station. Apparently, staff feels that a snowmelt system is more efficient that shoveling and plowing. If you are a homeowner in Aspen, you (and your developer) have been claiming this for years, however the city takes great glee in extracting punitive REMP (Renewable Energy Mitigation Program) fees for allowing you this luxury. Never mind that snowmelt systems easily reduce the energy consumed to remove snow. Consider: labor driving from down valley to shovel snow in Aspen all day, loading the snow into an idling dump truck which then goes out of town to a snow dump where it pays $7/cubic yard to dump the snow, and the labor/truck returns down valley). In contrast, snowmelt systems reduce the number of diesel-burning vehicles and associated traffic congestion, reduce CO emissions by employing a natural gas-burning boiler, and create a far longer lifecycles for the snow-melted concrete. Once again, for the city, it's green-at-any-cost for you, despite this making no common or financial sense. But while snowmelt's not ok for you, it's absolutely a-ok for the new Rubey Park!

(A Red Ant reader reports that his project requested a waiver on REMP fees for a building that cannot remove snow from a concrete mezzanine to either the alley or the sidewalk. The city said no dice. The bid for the snowmelt system was $35K, but the REMP fee would have been $180K. A $35K common sense solution quickly became a $215K cost and the project was abandoned. His snow still is being removed manually, then trucked away.)

I'm afraid this one is a fait accompli. And it's a glaring example of what happens, according to Stone, when a "part-time amateur council" bends powerless to the whims of Aspen's "full-time professional staff." I wholeheartedly agree. This is going to be BIG, UGLY and in the center of town for the next 30+ years. Swell. Nice legacy, council.

CLAPPER BEAYS ITTNER DESPITE RECORD OF ELDER ABUSE

The Red Ant was shocked and saddened when current county commissioner Rob Ittner was recently defeated in his re-election bid for county commissioner. Previous commissioner Patti Clapper is now back on the BOCC after a 4-year hiatus. Her re-election is not without controversy, however, and this illustrates just how Aspen evaluates its candidates for elected office. Clapper ran on a no-growth, anti-development platform, and added that, as a registered nurse, she was particularly focused on the community's mental health issues.

In an anonymous tip to The Red Ant (and to the local papers, it turns out), it seems that Clapper's career as an RN came to an abrupt halt in 1999 when she was suspended by the state board of nursing for 2 years. According to the disciplinary action, Clapper "willfully or negligently acted in a manner inconsistent with the health or safety of persons under her care" and "negligently or willfully practiced nursing in a manner which fails to meet generally accepted standards for such nursing practice" while caring for a local 83-year-old man in 1996 who later died. Clapper keeps her license current to this day, however, since she has never remedied the conditions set forth by the state, she cannot practice nursing, telling the Aspen Times recently "I've kept my license because I worked so hard to get it. To try and start all over again would be impossible." Now that's just silly. The probation and conditions are imminently do-able. But the accused infractions (such as not responding to her patient's pager calls, among others) are, according to sources, grossly understated. Is her work history doing 3-4 odd jobs simultaneously over the past 4 years when not on the BOCC because the small medical community in Aspen is aware of this mess and simply wouldn't hire her under any circumstances? (She admits that she will be a "full-time county commissioner" and that she needs the money: a $75K annual salary for Pitkin County commissioners.)

The Red Ant regrets receiving this information after sending out the election primer (however I did endorse Ittner), but it seems that Aspen voters do not care about character issues (as if we didn't already know this), and instead they react to party-line attacks in a specifically non-partisan election. Clapper supporters widely criticized Rob Ittner for holding - not hosting, but holding - candidate events for Republican candidates and officials over the years at his restaurant. Never mind that holding events at a restaurant is just plain good business, Rob also held events for, among other Dems, Bill Clinton and Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper at Rustique. But the Aspen voters said "no" to the well-liked community leader and businessman. It is such a shame to lose Rob's fair-minded and well-informed voice on the BOCC. Stop in and see Rob at Rustique, and thank him for his service. He did a very good job.

TO BE CONTINUED....Wow, it seems I have a lot to say in this issue and I'm not even close to being finished! Most of these sad tales wind their way back to one person: city manager Steve Barwick. I'll tie it all together, I promise! Go enjoy your turkey leftovers and your holiday weekend (especially the early-season skiing!!) and I will send part 2 sometime next week!

ISSUE #109: ANT Alert - Your November 4 Election Primer

  "Nobody will ever deprive the American people of the right to vote except the American people themselves, and the only way they could do this is by not voting."      -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

WATCH FOR YOUR MAIL-IN BALLOT

Ballots were sent out yesterday to all registered voters. Give it a day or two, but if you don't receive yours, contact the County Clerk at 970-429-2713. This year, the statewide election will be conducted via mail-in ballots only so be sure that yours is received by the clerk no later than 7pm on Tuesday, November 4.

For more information on the November election, visit www.PitkinVotes.com 

LOCAL RACES

In a break from Aspen tradition, we have very few issues to consider this round. This does not, however, mean that these issues are unimportant! Be sure to vote!!!

We have one competitive race, and that's for County Commissioner, District 1, between the incumbent and BOCC chair Rob Ittner and challenger Patti Clapper, who held the position until she was term-limited out in 2010. District 1 encompasses most of central Aspen, however the election is open to all county voters. This has been a quiet race thus far, in stark contrast to the battle for the seat between Ittner and Jack Johnson four years ago. Key issues have shaped up to primarily be on growth and development (what's new), but there are several other topics that differentiate the candidates.

According to Ittner, "The crucial needs on our agenda include a focus on the airport and developing a facilities plan with the county. The courthouse needs to be restructured as well as the county building. In effect, we run an organization with 250 employees - there's asset management, staff management, and an effort to keep county health insurance costs down. ... So, is there a new agenda? Not exactly."

Alternatively, Clapper sees the county budget as needing to be re-focused on "sustainability." She says, "Things have gotten busier in the valley, business is up, which is a great thing, and we have to make sure that our increased revenues are managed correctly. We need to better fund health and human services and address local mental health issues. We also need to address sustainable agriculture, protect our historic tradition of ranching, and look at the long-term impacts of drought. There's more and more pressure to take care of our watershed."

I have long been a supporter of Ittner's, based on his business and leadership skills. These have enabled him to find a balance when contemplating the complex and often divisive issues that come before the BOCC. He has a proven and successful record of working with his fellow commissioners to find common ground, despite not always agreeing with each of them on every issue. Ittner added, "It's interesting, I can't say that the major issues have changed. We not only have to protect the area from too much growth, but we also have to protect private property rights. ... Again it's a balance."

I also appreciate how he conducts his campaigns, most notably his personal commitment to interfacing with as many constituents as he possibly can (he's everywhere -- you've seen him, rain or shine, out there waving his signs). Sadly, the intentional non-partisan nature of the county commissioners race was recently injected with partisan vitriol by the challenger (read it HERE). It was so very unnecessary in an otherwise far-from-contentious race. It really turned me off.

The Red Ant says, without a doubt, re-elect:

X     Rob Ittner for County Commissioner, District 1

But don't just take my word for it, check out this letter to the editor HERE from a self-proclaimed "liberal democrat" who encourages voters to eschew "labels" and focus specifically on Ittner's very strong record.

Other races for local elected office include those for County Commissioner - District 2, Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, County Assessor and County Sheriff. None of these races are contested. What a shame. While I fundamentally don't have issues with several of these incumbents, it is always healthy for a democracy to have choices, if for no other reason than basic checks and balances, and to bring critical issues to the fore. In Aspen especially, the entrenched political class has managed to have a lock on several critical positions, year in and year out. Did I say "Rachel Richards"??

The Red Ant says, vote for:

X     Janice K. Vos Caudhill for Clerk and Recorder

X     Tom Isaac for County Assessor

As for "giving" a vote to unopposed incumbents Rachel Richards (County Commissioner, District 2) and Sheriff Joe DiSalvo, do what you will. Check the box or leave it blank. Your call.  It won't change the outcome.

PITKIN COUNTY MEASURES

Ballot Issue 1A: Aspen Ambulance District

This measure seeks to increase funding for the Aspen Ambulance District to build a new $5 million ambulance barn and staff headquarters facility and to fund its ongoing operations. The current mill levy for the district (boundaries: Aspen and unincorporated Pitkin County from Watson Divide to Aspen), formed in 1982, is .22. This measure seeks to more than double that to .501. The original 1982 mill levy was .82, but has gradually decreased as property values increased, per state law. The Aspen Ambulance District responded to 1156 calls in 2013.

The Red Ant says this is a very small property tax increase for a very valuable service that saves lives every day. It will fund much needed new equipment; imagine in this wireless era how critical it is that ambulances have real time connectivity to doctors and the ER. This is a matter of public safety.

X     Yes on 1A

Ballot Issue 1B: Citizens Boards Amendment

This question asks whether or not the County Charter be amended to remove the two-year term for members of citizens boards and instead enable the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to establish appropriate term durations for each of the citizen boards.

The Red Ant says this one just makes good administrative sense. There needs to be a balance between citizen participation and institutional memory. In some cases on some boards, the renewal exercise is a waste of time, especially when the county has trouble filling all board positions.

X     Yes on 1B

Ballot Issue 1C: Elimination of "Conflict of Interest Committee"

This question asks whether or not the County Charter be amended to eliminate the Conflict of Interest Committee. (And yes, there is one!)

The Red Ant says get rid of a committee that hardly anyone seems to have heard of that has been in existence for 20 years but has never met. Ideally, the committee would educate elected officials and key employees in spotting potential conflicts of interest and advising people to recuse themselves where appropriate. However, the proactive nature of the county attorney renders this group redundant. As a matter of housekeeping, abolish it.

X     YES on 1C

CITY OF ASPEN MEASURES

Referendum 2A:   Amendment to City Charter to Address a Vacancy in an Elected Office

This question seeks approval to provide the City Council with greater flexibility in filling council vacancies, including a provision to call a special election in the case of deadlock. It will eliminate a coin flip, roll of the dice or other game-of-chance solution to fill a vacancy.

The Red Ant says this is a great step toward improving governance and best practices by city council.

X     Yes on 2A

Referendum 2B: Amendment to City Charter regarding Term Limits

This question would impose term limits for cumulative years of service as a member of council and/or mayor. If approved, it will preclude the possibility of the same individual continuously circulating between the offices of council and mayor, election after election, without limitation.

The Red Ant says yes to term limits!

X     Yes on 2B

JUDGES

As I've said before, DO NOT skip this important part of the ballot, even if you neither know nor care about who they are or how they dispense justice. By not explicitly voting NO on each "shall [judge] be retained" question, you are implicitly voting YES to keep him/her on the bench. Unless you personally know a given judge to be honest and fair (ie. non-activist), vote NO on retention!

The Red Ant says:

Boatright    X     NO

Marquez     X     NO

Fox          X     NO

Loeb         X     NO

Lynch        X     NO

Fernandez-Ely      X     YES

OTHER BALLOT QUESTIONS

The Red Ant is specifically focused on Aspen political issues, however, please feel free to contact me regarding other races and ballot measures. Yes, I have opinions on those too!

IN THE NEXT ISSUE: BACK TO BUSINESS

• Aspen's "parking gate" scandal is not going away; Barwick in the hot seat
• How, given the escalating dollar amounts scammed from the parking meters, are parking revenues dramatically UP in 2014?  We're talking WAY UP, like 4 times over last year, and it's only October.  There's something very fishy with parking revenues!       
• Despite the scandal, the city contemplates raising parking fees
• The city's proposed 2015 $93.2 million budget includeds significant pay raises for employees     
• City greenies have not given up on Castle Creek Hydro

WATCH FOR YOUR MAIL-IN BALLOT

Ballots were sent out yesterday to all registered voters. Give it a day or two, but if you don't receive yours, contact the County Clerk at 970-429-2713. This year, the statewide election will be conducted via mail-in ballots only so be sure that yours is received by the clerk no later than 7pm on Tuesday, November 4.

For more information on the November election, visit www.PitkinVotes.com 

LOCAL RACES

In a break from Aspen tradition, we have very few issues to consider this round. This does not, however, mean that these issues are unimportant! Be sure to vote!!!

We have one competitive race, and that's for County Commissioner, District 1, between the incumbent and BOCC chair Rob Ittner and challenger Patti Clapper, who held the position until she was term-limited out in 2010. District 1 encompasses most of central Aspen, however the election is open to all county voters. This has been a quiet race thus far, in stark contrast to the battle for the seat between Ittner and Jack Johnson four years ago. Key issues have shaped up to primarily be on growth and development (what's new), but there are several other topics that differentiate the candidates.

According to Ittner, "The crucial needs on our agenda include a focus on the airport and developing a facilities plan with the county. The courthouse needs to be restructured as well as the county building. In effect, we run an organization with 250 employees - there's asset management, staff management, and an effort to keep county health insurance costs down. ... So, is there a new agenda? Not exactly."

Alternatively, Clapper sees the county budget as needing to be re-focused on "sustainability." She says, "Things have gotten busier in the valley, business is up, which is a great thing, and we have to make sure that our increased revenues are managed correctly. We need to better fund health and human services and address local mental health issues. We also need to address sustainable agriculture, protect our historic tradition of ranching, and look at the long-term impacts of drought. There's more and more pressure to take care of our watershed."

I have long been a supporter of Ittner's, based on his business and leadership skills. These have enabled him to find a balance when contemplating the complex and often divisive issues that come before the BOCC. He has a proven and successful record of working with his fellow commissioners to find common ground, despite not always agreeing with each of them on every issue. Ittner added, "It's interesting, I can't say that the major issues have changed. We not only have to protect the area from too much growth, but we also have to protect private property rights. ... Again it's a balance."

I also appreciate how he conducts his campaigns, most notably his personal commitment to interfacing with as many constituents as he possibly can (he's everywhere -- you've seen him, rain or shine, out there waving his signs). Sadly, the intentional non-partisan nature of the county commissioners race was recently injected with partisan vitriol by the challenger (read it HERE). It was so very unnecessary in an otherwise far-from-contentious race. It really turned me off.

The Red Ant says, without a doubt, re-elect:

X     Rob Ittner for County Commissioner, District 1

But don't just take my word for it, check out this letter to the editor HERE from a self-proclaimed "liberal democrat" who encourages voters to eschew "labels" and focus specifically on Ittner's very strong record.

Other races for local elected office include those for County Commissioner - District 2, Pitkin County Clerk and Recorder, County Assessor and County Sheriff. None of these races are contested. What a shame. While I fundamentally don't have issues with several of these incumbents, it is always healthy for a democracy to have choices, if for no other reason than basic checks and balances, and to bring critical issues to the fore. In Aspen especially, the entrenched political class has managed to have a lock on several critical positions, year in and year out. Did I say "Rachel Richards"??

The Red Ant says, vote for:

X     Janice K. Vos Caudhill for Clerk and Recorder

X     Tom Isaac for County Assessor

As for "giving" a vote to unopposed incumbents Rachel Richards (County Commissioner, District 2) and Sheriff Joe DiSalvo, do what you will. Check the box or leave it blank. Your call.  It won't change the outcome.

PITKIN COUNTY MEASURES

Ballot Issue 1A: Aspen Ambulance District

This measure seeks to increase funding for the Aspen Ambulance District to build a new $5 million ambulance barn and staff headquarters facility and to fund its ongoing operations. The current mill levy for the district (boundaries: Aspen and unincorporated Pitkin County from Watson Divide to Aspen), formed in 1982, is .22. This measure seeks to more than double that to .501. The original 1982 mill levy was .82, but has gradually decreased as property values increased, per state law. The Aspen Ambulance District responded to 1156 calls in 2013.

The Red Ant says this is a very small property tax increase for a very valuable service that saves lives every day. It will fund much needed new equipment; imagine in this wireless era how critical it is that ambulances have real time connectivity to doctors and the ER. This is a matter of public safety.

X     Yes on 1A

Ballot Issue 1B: Citizens Boards Amendment

This question asks whether or not the County Charter be amended to remove the two-year term for members of citizens boards and instead enable the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) to establish appropriate term durations for each of the citizen boards.

The Red Ant says this one just makes good administrative sense. There needs to be a balance between citizen participation and institutional memory. In some cases on some boards, the renewal exercise is a waste of time, especially when the county has trouble filling all board positions.

X     Yes on 1B

Ballot Issue 1C: Elimination of "Conflict of Interest Committee"

This question asks whether or not the County Charter be amended to eliminate the Conflict of Interest Committee. (And yes, there is one!)

The Red Ant says get rid of a committee that hardly anyone seems to have heard of that has been in existence for 20 years but has never met. Ideally, the committee would educate elected officials and key employees in spotting potential conflicts of interest and advising people to recuse themselves where appropriate. However, the proactive nature of the county attorney renders this group redundant. As a matter of housekeeping, abolish it.

X     YES on 1C

CITY OF ASPEN MEASURES

Referendum 2A:   Amendment to City Charter to Address a Vacancy in an Elected Office

This question seeks approval to provide the City Council with greater flexibility in filling council vacancies, including a provision to call a special election in the case of deadlock. It will eliminate a coin flip, roll of the dice or other game-of-chance solution to fill a vacancy.

The Red Ant says this is a great step toward improving governance and best practices by city council.

X     Yes on 2A

Referendum 2B: Amendment to City Charter regarding Term Limits

This question would impose term limits for cumulative years of service as a member of council and/or mayor. If approved, it will preclude the possibility of the same individual continuously circulating between the offices of council and mayor, election after election, without limitation.

The Red Ant says yes to term limits!

X     Yes on 2B

JUDGES

As I've said before, DO NOT skip this important part of the ballot, even if you neither know nor care about who they are or how they dispense justice. By not explicitly voting NO on each "shall [judge] be retained" question, you are implicitly voting YES to keep him/her on the bench. Unless you personally know a given judge to be honest and fair (ie. non-activist), vote NO on retention!

The Red Ant says:

Boatright    X     NO

Marquez     X     NO

Fox          X     NO

Loeb         X     NO

Lynch        X     NO

Fernandez-Ely      X     YES

OTHER BALLOT QUESTIONS

The Red Ant is specifically focused on Aspen political issues, however, please feel free to contact me regarding other races and ballot measures. Yes, I have opinions on those too!

IN THE NEXT ISSUE: BACK TO BUSINESS

·         Aspen's "parking gate" scandal is not going away; Barwick in the hot seat

·         How, given the escalating dollar amounts scammed from the parking meters, are parking revenues dramatically UP in 2014?  We're talking WAY UP, like 4 times over last year, and it's only October.  There's something very fishy with parking revenues!

·         Despite the scandal, the city contemplates raising parking fees

·         The city's proposed 2015 $93.2 million budget includes significant pay raises for employees

·         City greenies have not given up on Castle Creek Hydro

ISSUE #108: ANTipathy Abounds - Summer Musings

  "The hardest mistakes to learn from are those that lack consequence."   

   -- Jasper Sole 

Sometimes, all it takes is a little perspective.  Over the course of the summer, I monitored the goings-on in Aspen from my summer house on nANTucket.  I "read" the papers on most days and heard from many of you regularly -- thank you!! I was often entertained (who can believe some of this stuff??), frequently horrified, but more often than not, simply incredulous that this level of buffoonery continues, year-in and year-out, more or less unchecked.

The inmates are clearly running the asylum in the People's Republic of Aspen!

About 18 months ago, it seemed that we might be turning a corner, what with the "new" council and the absence of Mick.  But it was not to be.  At this stage, rumblings about the May 2015 municipal election are already heating up and I can't say I'm surprised.  I am far from impressed with any action by this council aside from the decision to shutter the hydro plant.  Best I can tell, they've become simple pawns, having abdicated their oversight role to our pal Steve Barwick and his roving band of buffoons. The remarkable thing is that they don't even realize it!

In short, here's what I'm talking about:

BIKES AND CARS: DIFFERENT LAWS IN ASPEN
Earlier this summer, council ok'd a change in the law whereby bicyclists no longer have to stop at city stop signs. City staff brought it to council's attention that bikers were ignoring stop signs throughout town anyway so this seemed like a logical way to go. Somehow, the city thinks this will encourage more people to ride bikes in Aspen! The new law of course furthers the city's war on cars. It's all fun and games until someone's kid gets hit. Not if, but when.

THE BAG TAX IS STILL A "FEE" -- FOR NOW

The Colorado Union of Taxpayers' (CUT) 2012 complaint against the city of Aspen argued that its $0.20 per single-use paper grocery bag fee is an unconstitutional tax. When finally heard by 9th Judicial District Court Judge John Neiley, he ruled in the city's favor, when in irrefutable fact the"fee" is not a fee, it is indeed a tax!

• Aspen's bag "fee" provides no individualized service but chips funds into a bucket for educational purposes aimed at reducing usage of "single use" items.  (A "fee" must specifically benefit the payer of the charge.)      
• Aspen's bag "fee" is a value-based, rather than cost-based, charge.  (Government charges against the value of privately sold goods are taxes, whereas fees pay for government services provided to those seeking a service.)        
• Aspen's bag "fee" is a mandatory government charge applied to the cost of privately provided services.  (The very definition of a tax.)      

Besides, and perhaps most notably, despite arguing that the bag tax is a fee, the city does not classify the funds garnered from the bag tax "fee" with other government fees, despite having a detailed "fee" report in its annual budget. Nope. The city spends many pages of its lengthy budget justifying that all fees are collected appropriately, but omits the bag tax "fee" every year. Why? Because it's not a fee.

As usual, the city can do no wrong in the eyes of the district court. The state constitution says that such matters, when close, are to be decided in favor of the taxpayer. Neiley's decision does just the opposite. It seems the judge relied at least in part on the intent of the "fee" to reduce the use of disposable plastic bags. This is an irrelevant legal consideration. The concept of "intent" in this matter pertains to whether the charge is intended to fund an activity that specifically benefits the payer of the charge. That the government imposing the charge doesn't even bother to evaluate the relationship between the charge and the costs of rendering a benefit seems to provide evidence of a lack of intent to connect the charge with the benefit.  But most notably, the judge got it wrong when he misapplied the import of the purpose being to reduce usage.  A general public policy like that is an indicium of a tax, not a fee.  But he (wrongly) said that was indicative of a fee.

Hopefully, the Colorado Union of Taxpayers expected this outcome and will appeal.

A 91-PAGE "LODGING INCENTIVE" PROGRAM?
In an effort to create incentives for the development and re-development of lodge rooms to increase the dwindling bed base in Aspen, city staff prepared a cumbersome 91-page manifesto for council's approval. The 17-step tome presented a 5-year plan that included allowances for 4-story buildings (upon council approval), more free-market residential unit components per project, development fee waivers, fewer subsidized housing requirements and other pro-development perks.  

It is widely acknowledged that we need more tourist accommodations in town. Statistics show that we've lost about 2700 "beds" and 20 small lodges in the past 20 years. SkiCo and ACRA both agree on and espouse the urgency of addressing reinvestment and modernization of our infrastructure. The incentive program narrowly passed council 3-2, only to be reversed shortly thereafter once an opposition group mounted an aggressive petition effort to overturn the ordinance. (Having been integrally involved in a citizen petition effort to nix the hydro plant, I am happy to see that council has learned that the power of the citizenry is indeed something to be reckoned with. However, it is widely known that this particular petition effort employed exaggerated fear-mongering a la "council has approved sky scrapers at the base of Aspen Mountain" in order to garner signatures.)

At this stage, it's back to the drawing board. But the facts remain: we need more beds. The answer? KISS. Keep It Simple, Stupid. And additionally, the historic hysterics need to kiss The Quiet Years goodbye. A small but angry, aggressive and loud faction of our populace is vehemently opposed to ANY development, especially development that might bring more people to our little town. They could not care less that Aspen is a tourism destination that depends economically on tourism dollars for its very survival. They have their piece of the Aspen pie so to heck with everyone else.

A 91-page ordinance is NOT the answer, but we do need a plan. We've already squandered a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for a second base area at Aspen Mountain. That ship has sailed, with Mick at the helm. (Recall how the then-mayor voted for the hotel project as part of a citizen's committee before he voted against it as mayor. It is his legacy.) Luxury townhomes are now pre-sold and slated for development on the 1A side of Ajax, forever ending the possibility of another ski-in, ski-out hotel in that primo location. Woulda, coulda, shoulda. New base areas don't grow on trees. 

Council never seems to get it that city staff works for them, not the other way around. Tell staff what we need and tell them to write it up! No grand manifesto, just a nuts and bolts solution. But make sure it's a solution! Like this:

• Roll back development fees, but don't give as much opportunity for height variances or free market residential components.  The city does not need the one-time development money; it needs the beds and the sales tax revenue from modern, competitive lodge year-over-year for the next 30 years.    
• Streamline the EXISTING code.  The solution should be the rule, not an exception in the form of an incentive plan.  (Check around.  Surely there are examples in use in other communities!)       
• Speed up the review process.  Set timelines where an applicant must be quickly granted a hearing in front of P&Z or council.  Limit the required public hearings to one or two, not an infinite number.  The current open-ended process, used punitively in the past, enables nay-sayers to use the public process to extend the debate and financially bleed applicants.       

THE WHEELER RETT?  THINK $26 MIL IS ENOUGH?
In 1979, Aspen voters approved a real estate transfer tax (RETT) of 1.5%, with funds going to subsidized housing (1%) and the Wheeler Opera House (.5%). The current tax sunsets in 2019 so city officials are FINALLY taking a look at the 35-year haul as it relates to maintaining one of Aspen's jewels into the future. The Wheeler received $3.1 million from the RETT in 2013 on top of a city subsidy for operations of $2.6 million. The current "Wheeler Fund" balance is $26.8 million. This slush fund is a frequent source for the city to dip into to entertain pet projects which in the past have included ridiculous real estate purchases at above-market valuations. Free money.

Some background: An endowment for the Wheeler was created in 2002 with the intent of growing it to $70 million over 17 years and then ending the tax. Then management of the Wheeler changed and operations of the facility began to cost the city more than $1 million more per year. There was no longer sufficient income to build the endowment fund to a level where it would be self-sustaining. Then, in 2008, the endowment was eyed as a source for a massive expansion. Again, looking at the fund as free money! Because the costs at the Wheeler are now so high, the concept of an endowment is no longer financially sustainable (there would need to be about $50 million in the fund to support the Wheeler's required subsidy).

While one would hope that a $26 million fund balance could establish an endowment for the facility, it is not to be. The current management of the Wheeler spends money like drunken sailors and the city continues to subsidize these follies. Yes, there are arguably many other pressing needs for that .5% RETT money. But the city will have to whip the Wheeler management into fiscal shape if we want to re-allocate the RETT funds. It will take voter approval to make such a change. But don't hold out hope that anything will change regarding funds for subsidized housing. It's Aspen! There can never be enough.

CHAIRMAN MAO'S DINER: A BAD IDEA THEN, WORSE NOW
In the earliest days of The Red Ant, I wrote about "Chairman Mao's Diner." Read it HERE. In an extortionist move against the developers of the building that now sits where the Cooper Street Pier once did, the city extracted a concession that an "affordable" restaurant be situated in the new building's basement. The new "people's restaurant" would be required by law to serve meals that are priced within the third lowest of all restaurants in town.

That was 2008. Today, council is all in a bother because the building developers have not yet found some poor sap who is willing to lease this dire space, finish it out (at a cost of about $1 million) so as to physically have a restaurant there, and be willing to serve legally-mandated cheap eats. Who would? It's ludicrous. And another example of the law of unintended consequences coming back to bite the city right you-know-where.

Look how stupid our city bureaucrats are! They don't even understand the most basic concept in private sector economics: supply and demand. When there is a supply of restaurant spaces that are NOT price-regulated by the government, why would there be any demand for the one space that IS price-regulated? It may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but economically it just doesn't pencil out. Never did.  Memo to the city: you tried. It didn't work. Give it up. Learn a lesson. Cut your losses. Walk away. It should not be incumbent upon the developer to solve this one. The space is there, as required. You're the ones who put the prohibitive stipulations in place.

ASPEN ART MUSEUM: LOVE IT OR HATE IT, IT'S HERE
No one, local or visitor alike, is without an opinion on this one. But wherever you stand, the reality is that it exists. Let's collectively hope that the cultural offerings of our newest "attraction" bring visitors to Aspen. Never mind they might not be able to find a place to park, the admission is always free. But it's in Aspen's best interest that the AAM succeed. It's also in our best interest that this be the last time something like this gets built under such extenuating circumstances.

If you want the real story on how the AAM came to be, the singular best piece on the subject is by Brent Gardner-Smith, published in the Aspen Daily News this summer. Read it HERE. It is by far the best example of investigative journalism of the year. (And yes, you CAN thank Mick for this too.)

My personal hope is that with all of the new gallery space in its new facility, the AAM will continue its support of the Roaring Fork Open, showcasing the works of local artists, as well as bring back the ever-popular Roaring Fork Valley Kids Show. A little goodwill never hurt.

On the "hot plate" and currently in the news....

HOUSING MITIGATION SURVEY
If you own property in Aspen, you've received THIS survey. It's the latest expenditure ($33K) by the city to "involve" property owners in pending punitive legislation to increase the costs of development so as to further pad the coffers for yet more subsidized housing. The current housing "mitigation" fee is $76 per square foot. The city certainly can't build subsidized housing for this so they think the number should be higher. As in A LOT higher - like $200+ per square foot. Of course they overlook the fact that a private property owner has already paid 1.5% of the purchase in RETT, with 1% already going to housing! And, there are evil undercurrents to charge second homeowners a different (and ostensibly even higher) rate!

In simple terms, picture a 20x20 addition to a house. 400 square feet. Currently, it would cost $30,400 in housing mitigation before you even buy a nail. The city wants this to go up to at least $80,000. Their thinking is that the larger your house is, the more local employees you need, measured in what they call "full-time equivalents" (FTE). So, the survey wants to know how many people you employ and how often. Clearly, that 400 sf addition creates some sort of dramatic need for more people to serve you that the community must provide housing for at a subsidized rate!

Of course, neglected in this model is the fact that you might not generate ANY new employee needs with your construction. And even if you did, perhaps it would be much needed and highly desired work for the many workers already living in subsidized housing who are under-employed and would welcome new clients! But that doesn't fit their narrative, does it? They want you to brag and tell them that you employ a small army. This will justify their flawed rationale for a huge mitigation fee increase. Please answer and submit the survey. (And you know the answers!)

PARKING SCANDAL

Parking-gate in Aspen. This one is CLASSIC. It seems that for the past four years, a merry band of local swindlers have "paid" for parking in Aspen with zeroed-out pre-paid debit cards, bilking the city of Aspen as much as $800,000 in uncollected parking revenues! Apparently our parking meters don't process transactions in real time, only in batches, so clever scofflaws figured out how to use empty gift cards in order to park for free. Then they told two friends who told two friends, who bought parking passes for their entire office or construction site all day every day, and a major scam was afoot. In 2010, losses from the scam amounted to $26,580. In 2011, it rose to $78,036. By 2012, $227,000. So far in 2014, it's already at $448,000. City officials say they had no clue because parking revenues were not affected. Right. Rumors abound that the city has long been aware but just didn't bother to do anything.

When pressed about this blatant negligence at a recent council meeting, our pal Steve Barwick got VERY defensive. He blames the scofflaws, the technology, credit card processing laws - anyone but city officials. A million here, a million there. To Barwick, it's all free money so who really cares! Also defensive about the matter is mayor Steve Skadron who got all teary and emotional when questioned by citizens about financial oversight in city hall. Clearly, in this case, there wasn't any, so the question was incredibly valid. In his defense of all things city, the mayor said it was "impossible" that this could happen in any other department. Sure, Steve. Where does your confidence come from? Is it because Steve Barwick told you so? Puh-lease. As if there haven't been MANY reasons to clamp down on and even fire Barwick over the years, once again council sits idly by. For shame!

But this isn't anything new. Parking in Aspen has a long history of misfeasance. In 2005, it was discovered that the city had over $1 million in unpaid parking fines that had not been turned over to collections. (See the pattern? A million here, a million there.) In 2009, it was revealed that the parking meters were accepting payments outside of paid parking hours. And parking department director Tim Ware knew about it but lied to cover his you-know-what. In 2011, the parking department was not following its own rules for carpool parking passes (requiring two DRIVERS in the car), electing to give passes to moms with an infant but not to commuters with a high school student of non-driving age. All of these issues can be neatly traced to Tim Ware, assistant city manager Randy Ready, and of course, Steve Barwick. How is it all three of these guys are still employed??

Furthermore, any sensible entity has a forecast of what its revenues should be. Did the city have a forecast? Did they ever once compare forecasts to actuals? Anyone with responsibility for revenue of any magnitude receives daily and weekly reports on actual vs expected revenues. They're called variance reports. A 5% variance is serious. A 30% variance is grounds for termination. Who is in charge over there??

For two weeks running, local columnist (who just so happens to be the former city finance director who knows where the bodies are buried) Paul Menter has been on the case. He wisely calls for an independent audit of the issue while pointing out how council, in their responsibility for overseeing city manager Steve Barwick, feebly questioned the bureaucrat and stood silently by as he took zero responsibility while criticizing citizens who dared question the city's integrity. Click through and check out Paul's comments from September 17HEREand September 24HERE. Simply put, he nails it.  Good job, Paul!

We'll be getting new and improved parking meters soon (to the tune of $600K) and the cops are investigating to see if they can determine who the bad guys are (good luck with that), but what about the oversight? The parking scam should never have become what it did. This should have quickly been nipped in the bud YEARS ago!  But no one was looking. Barwick is responsible for overseeing the parking department. And Barwick reports to council. The city finance director reports to Barwick but per the city charter has a fiduciary responsibility to council. Unfortunately, council is clueless and has likely never read the city charter. They ask all the wrong questions when they bother to ask any at all. And they certainly don't manage Barwick (he manages them). So, when the watchers stop watching, who's watching the city's millions? Just asking.

CLASS WARFARE IN ASPEN

In one of my favorite columns of the summer, Aspen Times columnist Glenn Beaton shares his thoughts on one of my favorite local topics - class warfare. You'll get a real kick out of it. I've read it several times and laugh out loud every time. HERE it is. Enjoy.

And one last quip that still has me snickering....

MICK GETS SMACKED DOWN (LITERALLY) BY AN OCTOGENARIAN
In August, our none-to-classy former mayor helped himself to food and drink at a private party. Yep, the grungy freeloader rode his bike up to a picnic and dove into the buffet. When asked to leave, he went nuts, screaming obscenities at women in the group. Misogyny. Who knew that this was yet another trait of our fine former dictator, although I can't say I'm surprised! In the end, Mick was "forcibly escorted" from the event by 84-year old Allen Mayfield, a retired US Air Force Colonel, who was in attendance. When Mick started swinging at Al, the octogenarian was forced to defend himself with a few pops to put Mick in his place. And thus, the quote of the summer from the Colonel, "I could have cold-cocked him if I had wanted to." You go, Al. Thanks for taking on this insipid bully. Your restraint is admirable. Many others would certainly have cold-cocked him if given the chance. I'm one.

ELECTION UPDATE: NOVEMBER 4

This general election will be administered by the Pitkin County Clerk and conducted by MAIL-IN BALLOTS. To be certain that you receive your mail-in ballot, go to www.PitkinVotes.org right now and verify your mailing address. I just did it and it's simple.

Ballots will be mailed to you on October 14. You can mail your ballot in or drop it off at the clerk's office - 530 E. Main Street, across from St. Mary's Church. And if you insist, you may also vote in person on election day or during the "early voting" period beginning October 20, 8:30a - 4:30p, Monday-Friday, and Saturdays 10/25 and 11/1 10a-2p.

On election day, "voting centers" will be open 7a - 7p at the clerk's office, Snowmass Town Hall and Grace Church in Basalt. Ballot drop off in Redstone is available 7a - 7p at the Church at Redstone on election day.

If you have questions or concerns, please contact elections@pitkincounty.com or 970-429-2713. And do yourself a favor. Don't wait until the last minute.

ISSUE # 107: ANT Alert - Celebrate Our Rivers!

  "Water is the driving force of all nature."   

-- Leonardo da Vinci

A DIFFERENT KIND OF "HYDRO HAPPENING!" I began to write about the city's Castle Creek Energy Center (CCEC) and hydro plant in 2010. My vehement opposition was initially focused on the abysmal financials of what I saw as a "trophy project," designed to stroke the egos of then-mayor Mick Ireland and our pal at the helm of the city, Steve Barwick, not to mention the myriad bureaucrats in the city's well-funded water department. By conducting the research for my first issue on the subject (see Issue #45), I began learning and caring deeply about the vast environmental implications of such an ill-conceived folly. Riparian habitats, in-stream flows, river diversions, minimum water levels - these phrases became rallying cries to motivate Aspen voters to learn about the previously-ignored environmental risks of building the CCEC/hydro plant and to reconsider and re-evaluate the beleaguered "green at any cost" project that had been initially approved in 2007. Responsible stewardship of these fragile rivers and streams in the arid Rocky Mountain west is not something that we can rely on the government to provide on our behalf. Obviously. However, as the recent decision to (finally!) shutter the CCEC demonstrates, we, the citizenry, can and must do our part to protect these valuable and irreplaceable natural assets. WILD RIVERS NIGHT AT THE WHEELER - PLAN TO ATTEND! Please join American Rivers (www.AmericanRivers.org ) for a unique event at the Wheeler Opera House on Thursday, June 5. Wild Rivers Night will feature Pete McBride and a private screening of DamNation. Highlighting McBride's stunning photography and insightful storytelling, American Rivers will present his short films I AM RED and Chasing Water, as well as a photo tour of his recent expedition down the Gulf of California following the pulse flow on the Colorado River. Following a brief panel discussion, the most recent film from Patagonia, DamNation, that has been winning acclaim at film festivals across the country, will be featured. Please RSVP to this special event at www.AmericanRivers.org/Wheeler . A $15 donation is suggested and would be greatly appreciated. All proceeds from this event will be dedicated to Saving Our Streams, a Colorado nonprofit based in Aspen, whose mission is to support local streams and riparian zones, and to ensure that any diversions of water and related development do not in any way compromise their health or increase the possibility of risk to their fragile ecosystems. SAVING OUR STREAMS: CASTLE CREEK FLOW MONITOR Installed in 2012 by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and funded by Saving Our Streams, a stream flow gage now monitors the water levels and discharge (in cubic feet per second) of Castle Creek. Considered the "gold standard," a USGS stream flow gage is highly reliable and provides continual monitoring in real time. The accumulated information will serve to educate the Aspen community so that we make informed decisions regarding our precious mountain streams. Visit www.SavingOurStreams.org and click on "Castle Creek Monitor" to see the stream flow data for yourself!  And if you cannot attend the event, please consider making a donation to this worthy organization.  They truly ARE "saving our streams." SEE YOU AT THE WHEELER! Wild Rivers Night Thursday, June 5 7pm

ISSUE #106: HydrANT - CCEC ALL Dried Up!

"We might need to sell our 'hydro mission accomplished' banner along with our turbine."   -- Adam Frisch, Aspen City Councilman, 4/21/14

CASTLE CREEK HYDRO: ADIOS, SAYONARA, AUF WIEDERSEHEN The last issue (#105) of The Red Ant left off with an impending presentation by the National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL) to city council with the four most viable renewable energy alternatives for Aspen. Given the priorities determined by council last fall in its quest to meet the city's goal of 100% renewable energy for its municipal portfolio (serving customers in the downtown core and West End) by the end of 2015, and in order to bridge the gap of 17K-24K MegaWatt hours/year (MWh/yr) of renewable energy production needed to meet this goal, NREL was charged with presenting detailed outlines of each opportunity, energy output estimates, lifecycle cost estimates, among other analyses. The evening's goal was to choose two options to pursue further with detailed "make this happen" plans from which one or possibly both will be implemented to meet the goal. It was no surprise that the beleaguered Hydro Plant (CCEC) made the initial top 4, given that the city already has $6.9 million sunk into the mess. (That's the city's number. My guess is the real expenditures on outside legal council, expenditures buried in the water department budget and staff time makes that number A LOT higher.) But whoa! An unanticipated surprise! By the end of the unbiased and professionally moderated meeting, 4 of 5 council members saw two renewable energy options that they clearly favored far more than the completion of the CCEC. Here's how it all played out: VOTERS RECEIVE MAILER As posted in Issue #105, a diverse group of local citizens signed on to a letter in continued opposition to the CCEC hydro plant. As expected, this created great controversy, especially since it highlighted several CCEC-damning remarks by Rocky Mountain Institute founder Amory Lovins. Mayor Skadron made his displeasure at this mailer well known, telling anyone who would listen that the mailer was just "propaganda" with shadowy financing. Conspiracy theorists railed to the local papers that the "Koch Brothers" and other outside anonymous interests had funded the effort. That was, until American Rivers (www.AmericanRivers.org) proudly stepped forward and claimed financial responsibility for the mailer's costs, supplemented by individual contributions from local hydro plant opponents. I recently deposited my $50 food tax refund check from the city and promptly mailed in a check to support the cause. So much for shadowy financing. And since when is an unsolicited report from world-renowned scientist Amory Lovins propaganda?!

COUNCIL'S RENEWABLE ENERGY PRIORITIES Last fall, in step 1 (of 3, part of the contract for analysis of the city's alternatives by NREL), council methodically studied and then voted on their official "decision criteria" for selecting Aspen's future renewable energy sources. These criteria are telling in and of themselves. Highest priority renewable energy sources would: Have community involvement and awareness. (That's nice and all, but if the renewable energy goal isn't something the community voted on or has any say in, what's the point?)     Be owned and/or controlled by the city of Aspen.  (Really?  As a national politician famously said, "What difference does it make?"  Clearly this is a sentiment left over from the prior Mick-led council where renewable energy opportunities such as down valley community solar arrays were eliminated from consideration after a diatribe from the former mayor who could not fathom supporting a privately held renewable energy source.  His belief is that nobody should profit from renewable energy production or distribution, and that the government does these things best.)        Provide the lowest MWh/yr lifecycle cost.  (Who can complain when these guys exercise a modicum of fiscal restraint?  Not The Red Ant!)       Secondary priorities included: Long term (20 - 50 years) rate stability.  (Sounds reasonable, to the degree that market forces can be predicted.  However, in the rapidly evolving renewable energy sector, the emergence of new and more reliable/affordable/accessible energy sources makes a 5 year projection nothing short of a pipe dream, never mind 20 - 50 years!)     The "visibility" of Aspen's renewable energy leadership.  (Isn't THIS something?!  Staff often touts how Aspen needs to be the example to the world to justify comically high costs for its "green" efforts, and clearly council has drunk the Kool-Aid!  Aspen should do what's appropriate and best for Aspen.  And economically feasible for its taxpayers.  Period.  To worry about what "other people" think is exactly what your mother told you not to do, remember?)       The tertiary priorities (clearly not very important to council) were: Ability to provide backup power at critical Aspen facilities.  (See "Markalunas" below.)   Proximity to Aspen.  (This should never EVER have been a consideration.  Another reason for not considering a deal for solar energy through Carbondale-based Clean Energy Collective in 2011 was because Mick determined that this source of renewable energy was "not local enough" and he didn't want "energy-hogging homeowners" to outsource their solar mitigation.  Good to see that this council has evolved beyond that utter foolishness!)        NOT a priority (these decision criteria did not garner ONE SINGLE VOTE among council): CO2 emission reduction.  (Yep, the stated goal of Aspen's Canary Initiative is NOT a council priority!)      Initiate/catalyze "new" renewable energy projects.  (Aspen's role in the renewable energy universe is NOT focused on developing new sources of energy, just converting our municipal portfolio to renewable sources.  Big difference.)    Meet the 2015 renewable energy goal timeline.  (Again no council respect for the Canary Initiative!)        "New" energy generation.  (Clearly, council has prioritized purchasing renewable energy from existing sources over investing to develop our own "new" sources.  Thank goodness!)      THE NREL FINAL FOUR In no particular order, NREL presented detailed the pros/cons for what it sees at the four most viable renewable energy sources to be evaluated for their potential to meet Aspen's lofty yet laudable goals. These included: Large-Scale Solar: This appealing option that Aspen would own and control, and could brag about across the airwaves, was hamstrung by costs associated with in-town land (8 dedicated acres) and a frighteningly low MWh/yr output limit (a result of the city's existing contract with MEAN - our energy supplier -- that caps our ability to generate energy from solar at 1500 MWh/yr, far short of what we need) kept this out of the finals. The estimated MWh cost was $130. CCEC Hydro: Our nightmare project of the moment would give the city the ownership and control it craves, but the financials appear to be questionable, especially given the impacts of uncertain future spring run-offs on rate stability. (NREL repeatedly stated that the numbers they were working from are city-generated at $63 MWh. Had they agreed with these, surely they would not have issued more than just a few disclaimers, including the city's sketchy assumption of a final $10.5 million cost!) Besides, the CCEC hydro would only produce 5500 MWh/yr, therefore it too would not meet our 17K-24K MWh/yr need! This low output notably seemed to come as a great surprise to council members. Never mind The Red Ant has been writing about this since June 2010!! Furthermore, the current and potential lawsuits associated with the CCEC all but guarantee that this project would not be completed for many, many years, if at all. New Wind Contracts: The city currently purchases over 20K MWh/yr of wind power through its MEAN contract. Increasing these purchases by quantities of 5K-20K MWh/yr through the Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), which is incidentally looking for buyers, or alternatively through Excel Energy in conjunction with MEAN, would immediately address Aspen's MWh/yr gap at an estimate of $90 per MWh. This option was very popular with council, making everyone's short list and advancing this option to the finals. Des Moines Landfill Methane Gas: The most popular choice by far (all four council members liked it best) was the purchase of energy from "harnessed" methane gas from a capped landfill in Iowa. The facility is already operational and in business with MEAN. Aspen could access up to 18K MWh/yr immediately at an estimated cost of $96 per MWh. Recall that despite council's non-priority of reducing CO2, methane gas is far worse than CO2 in the "green" realm, so purchasing this source of renewable energy has valuable offset benefits! This option was the evening's winner, advancing to the finals as well. Notable "other" Opportunities: NREL was certain to include other ideas that theoretically exist, but could not help Aspen meet its renewable energy goals by the 2015 deadline. These include projects still in the planning stage such as more wind power from WAPA, a hydro plant at Olmstead and additional hydro power from Ridgway (both hydro options are many years away). Additionally, NREL raised several "idea phase" concepts for the record, including gas fuel cell or micro-turbine using directed biogas, local coal mine methane waste recovery, new utility energy contracts, various local micro-hydro options, distributed biomass-anaerobic digestion, geothermal drilling, irrigation ditch hydro power and the conversion of local landfill gas to electricity. THE VOTE THAT KILLED THE HYDRO PLANT Each member of council got to vote for two options. Additional wind and the landfill/methane gas were the resounding hands-down winners. Dwayne, Adam, Ann and Art each voted for these two options. CCEC died a swift and painless (but long overdue) death, but not before Mayor Skadron emotionally called the CCEC's death knell "an unfortunate step." He went on to lament, "I think our hydro project is a well-conceived one, I think it's sensitive to the environment, and I believe it to be a financially sustainable project." The poor guy clearly didn't do his homework nor any of the past four years' reading from various experts, and seemingly ignored the evening's presentation at hand. He probably owed that pathetic speech to Mick who helped him get elected. The look of shock upon the NREL analysts' faces was priceless. They couldn't believe their ears. In any case, it was sad to witness such a foolish diatribe when the result was a foregone conclusion. Unlike his predecessor, however, Skadron was very gracious in defeat. CITY STAFF SQUIRMS / THE TRUTH COMES OUT The best part of the evening (aside from CCEC getting unequivocally axed) was when NREL explained to council that the Des Moines Landfill option could be implemented into Aspen's energy mix "tomorrow." Shocked, council asked for details on this opportunity for quick fulfillment. Turns out that MEAN and the Des Moines Landfill have had a contract out for Aspen's approval for months. Staff just hadn't bothered to mention it to council, lest they pivot away from throwing good money after bad at the CCEC hydro. Yep, MEAN has been waiting months for Aspen's answer on whether or not we want this power! For anyone who has ever doubted The Red Ant's insistence that city staff has been driving the CCEC hydro plant and only telling council what they felt was necessary to keep the project alive and funded, well here's your proof. The water weasels got caught. Additionally, as the vote was moving along among council members in overwhelming support of the landfill and additional wind, city manager Steve Barwick and a representative from the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) both chimed in during the proceedings to plea desperately for the life of the CCEC. It was comical, if not pathetic. And, wholly inappropriate, as this was a work session between council and NREL with no provision for comment, public or otherwise. In an obvious fluster at the impending loss of his (and Mick's) legacy project, Barwick rattled off a list of Mick-era renewable energy priorities, begging council to look at the four options under consideration through the lens of "CO2 reduction, 'new' proprietary projects and 'new' renewable energy generation." He, and the CORE official, both shamefully stated, "Renewable energy is not good energy unless it's new." Unbelievable. And palpable in its desperation. SKADRON: MEDVEDEV TO MICK'S PUTIN? OR WAR WITHIN THE PEOPLE'S PARTY? Has the love affair ended? Within days of the council vote that ended the CCEC, Mick turned on his protégé. Apparently the emotional pro-CCEC nonsense from Mayor Skadron as the votes were tallied was not enough to placate his mentor. In his whiny weekly column in the Aspen Daily News, our has-been former mayor ripped into Steve, accusing him of forging "bizarre relationships" and prioritizing being nice and attending social events over "standing up for the public interest." Mick is clearly unhinged at the realization that his pet project has just been euthanized. That he decided to dedicate his column to disparaging one of his last good soldiers was unexpected to say the least. And wholly inappropriate. It comes as no surprise that Mick disagrees with the decision to kill the CCEC hydro plant - it was his baby, after all - and he has every right to bemoan its loss.  But to peddle outright lies (council's vote to pursue wind power and the landfill options was based upon the "urging of anti-government ideologues" AND "abandoning hydro means abandoning water rights") and excoriate the current mayor for actually supporting the idiotic CCEC in the face of growing opposition among the populace and clearly at the council table is yet one more reason to thank our lucky stars that Mick was term-limited out of office a year ago. It will be interesting to see how much longer Steve will remain a loyal soldier of the increasingly irrelevant Mick regime of days gone by. POOR JIM MARKALUNAS A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away .... Or, more accurately, in 1961, former water department manager and steward of the old Castle Creek power plant Jim Markalunas scurried to the shuttered 1890's-era power house amidst an epic early-season blizzard and fired up the turbines. This heroic act provided an emergency source of power that effectively rescued Aspen from freezing in the dark. Now a regular writer to the local papers, Markalunas has been a staunch supporter of building the new CCEC hydro plant and bringing hydro power back to Aspen, if even just for emergency power. His letters have painted an idyllic picture of a bygone era, and regularly romanticized the archaic 1930's technology once employed here and ironically (foolishly?) proposed anew for the modern day CCEC. He laments the day that the old plant was shut down, "I wish I could still enjoy the benefits of Castle Creek Hydro. We cannot undo the poor decisions made long ago to scrap the turbines of the historic power house, but we can restore clean renewable energy for Aspen." Ahhh, glory days. It's understandable. But after the recent council vote that shut down the CCEC for good, Markalunas' tone changed dramatically. His personal sadness over the old plant's demise and his hopes dashed for a new 21st century version morphed into pure vitriol. "I must express my deep disappointment in the lack of fortitude by our Aspen City Council... our city council seems unable to stay the course against the false winds of misinformation and selfish 'NIMBY' interests," he wrote. Jim, you're a good man who has honorably served our community. This one was simply not to be. You fought the good fight. There are many viable and exciting renewable energy options on tap for Aspen that were not available in 1959 when the old hydro plant was decommissioned. As you learn more about these, my guess is that you'll like what you see. I don't always agree with city council and their decisions, but please, don't accuse them of "lack of fortitude." TRIUMPH OF CITIZEN OVERSIGHT No one is spiking the ball in the end zone, but the anti-CCEC folks are understandably pleased. When the facts became known and the ugly truth emerged, the "Yay, let's build a hydro plant because it's so green" giddy enthusiasm waned. Sadly, the misguided CCEC hydro plant has cost the taxpayers of Aspen well over $7 million. We may never know the full cost of this folly. But importantly, the decision to move on without the CCEC is significant beyond just the obvious financial and environmental aspects. City council took back its public policy responsibility, long ago hijacked by staff bureaucrats who pushed their own agendas. In a recent letter to city council that was published in the papers, Maurice Emmer summed it up perfectly: "You know I do not hesitate to criticize. I am equally willing to commend. Your decisions Monday night have pointed the Canary Initiative in a much more practical and successful direction. This is good not only for the Canary Initiative, which now has a chance of meeting its renewable energy goal on time. It is also an improvement in the relationship between city council and city staff. For years staff has spoon fed city councils only what staff wants the council to read or hear, unreasonably controlling the direction of public policy. Hopefully this city council will correct the relationship between council and staff. Last night's results are promising." Amen. WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? NREL will be back in July for phase 3, with detailed next steps for the wind and landfill energy acquisitions. They are also expected to present and discuss ways Aspen can reduce its power demand through efficiency measures designed to lower local power consumption. As for the CCEC, we're watching closely. This will not be an easy one for the bureaucrats to let go of. Time (and open records requests) will tell whether or not the city continues to throw money at the CCEC. There are a lot of idle hands in Aspen's water department these days. Hopefully they're looking at how to sell our $1.5 million custom turbine, commissioned merely hours after the original vote to raise $5.5 million for the CCEC hydro plant passed in 2007. The folks from NREL believe Aspen can sell the thing for 20 cents on the dollar. At press time, there has been nothing made public about the status of the water rights lawsuit that the city faces. The plaintiffs claim that by tearing out the old hydro plant infrastructure in the late 1950's, the city abandoned its water rights for hydro power. Use it or lose it. (Contrary to popular worry, however, no other water rights are in question, just the water rights for hydro power.) Frankly, I hope that the lawsuit presses on. I believe that the city DID abandon its water rights for hydro power and I'd like the idea of a hydro plant on Castle Creek denied for eternity. A RED ANT "THANK YOU" My dear friend, local environmentalist Connie Harvey and I thank you for your support of the anti-CCEC hydro plant efforts over the past 4 years.  It took a dedicated and diverse group of community members to fight this project, but none of it could have been accomplished without the interest and involvement of literally hundreds of citizens. Your varied contributions kept the drumbeat alive, and in the end, together we shut it down.  Cheers! Stay in touch. We'll let you know what we're up to next!

ISSUE # 105: City Hall Behavior - tANTamount to Tyranny

"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."                -- Edmund Burke

HYDRO HAPPENINGS

As the seemingly never-ending fight over the hydro plant heats up yet again, we all await the recommendations of the $90+K study commissioned by the city from National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL), expected this coming week. As expected, the narrow scope of the study ("home-grown renewable energy" -- recall that a Carbondale-based solar energy source was deemed by the prior council as being "not local enough") all but ensures that the Castle Creek Energy Center (CCEC) a.k.a. the hydro plant will make the list as a viable source of renewable energy to help the city meet its "canary initiative" goal of a 100% renewable portfolio by 2015. It doesn't take a market research specialist to recognize that the city's commissioned studies are always spec'd so as to justify a predetermined position already held by the local government. It's free money (yours and mine) so what's another $90+K when it enables the bureaucrats to wave a foregone conclusion in front of the local papers, "justifying" their latest ill-conceived desire!?

The NREL, a Golden, Colorado, division of the Department of Energy that serves as the DOE's primary laboratory for renewable energy and energy efficient research and development, has a 35-year track record in the field, not to mention $352 million in annual federal funding (2012). And word has it that they were wise enough to have spoken to Old Snowmass resident and internationally esteemed energy expert Amory Lovins (who also founded the Rocky Mountain Institute) about his in-depth, 33-page unsolicited-yet-scathing April 15, 2013, report to council (read it HERE, it's truly fascinating) that excoriates the CCEC in no uncertain terms, ripping the project itself, its premise, the decision-making process, as well as the city's sketchy and ever-changing project financials. In short, Lovins admonishes the city:

"The city's economic analysis of CCEC is flawed and unreliable."

"The CCEC has higher costs and risks than available, ample and suitable alternatives, even neglecting its sunk costs and counting only its to-go costs."

And my personal favorite? CCEC got into trouble because of "inadequate consideration of available alternatives and strategic risk management-caused bad decisions; input from council's technical advisors was either ill-informed or misinterpreted; and input from the public, which in this region includes world-class independent experts, was improperly solicited and inadequately considered."

While not expecting a miracle (it's not like we have enough wind in the city limits for this to become a new energy source in lieu of the CCEC, for example), opponents of the CCEC will be watching closely to see exactly how the NREL study nets out. (The NREL report is scheduled to be presented to council on Monday, April 21, however, at press time, the city has neglected to put anything on its website to confirm this and/or notify the public. Please check www.AspenPitkin.com on Monday for details and the meeting agenda.)

In the meantime, the final decision to proceed (or not) with the construction of the CCEC rests with council. Yes, they were "advised" by local voters in 2012 (2044 against continuing the project vs 1934 for), but Mayor Steve Skadron, Ann Mullins and Art Daily all rebuffed that outcome prior to being elected to mayor/council in 2013. All 3 went on record with The Red Ant and said in no uncertain terms that the vote was too close, the voters got it wrong and/or there could be reasons to ignore the outcome of the vote.

In their own words, in support of the hydro plant despite the November 2012 vote:

Mullins: "The vote last November was won by a very narrow margin so we are far from consensus on this project. I would like to see this issue come up before City Council again and rethink the process and outcome with the following four goals in mind. Arrive at a result that: 1. Supports healthy rivers and streams; 2. Produces clean renewable energy; 3. Retains our water rights; and 4. Makes economic sense. With these goals in mind and the willingness of those on both sides of the argument to discuss and/or accept some compromise we should be able to gain consensus on the outcome of this project." Looks like someone would benefit from reading the Lovins report!!!

Daily: "I support the hydro project, assuming the associated water rights are confirmed through the pending court action or otherwise. I believe the related science (minimum stream flows, etc.) and the economics of the project have been substantially addressed. It's another step in the provision of clean renewable energy for the City (the Ruedi hydro project, for example), and I believe it will reap long term benefits for our community and the generations to come." Someone else might benefit from reading the Lovins report too!!

Skadron: "My goal is to see Aspen's electric utility portfolio consist of 100% renewable sources. Today, the city is considering options to get us there, exclusive of hydro, that didn't previously exist. It's not my

intention to disregard the outcome of the advisory vote, but should all other options fail to satisfy our 100% goal, hydro should, at the very least, be re-considered." Steve, too, should read the Lovins report, which contains many viable options aside from the disastrous CCEC!! Or maybe, in order to get Mick's endorsement for mayor last year, he made a promise to see the CCEC through?? 

This community, in its desire to elect people who are "good guys" or have "compelling stories," often elects people who could not care less about the political desires of those they represent. Sometimes, these folks simply do not do their homework or even a modicum of independent reading/thinking on critical issues! In this case, just one year ago, we clearly elected three! It seems that Adam Frisch and Dwayne Romero see the idiocy of proceeding with the CCEC, but a 2-3 vote for fiscal and environmental sanity gets us nowhere good. Short of a council vote against CCEC, and in the absence of telling city staff "no," work (and especially spending) on the CCEC continues.

If you care and are so inclined, please reach out to Art, Steve and Ann (art.daily@cityofaspen.com, ann.mullins@cityofaspen.com, and steve.skadron@cityofaspen.com) and IMPLORE them to read Amory Lovins' report. They need to know that if you ignore the voters, that's one thing. But to ignore the counsel and recommendations of one of the world's renowned experts on energy is another thing entirely.

EFFORTS TO STOP CCEC AGAIN

Reuniting after the successful 2012 vote against the completion of the hydro plant, local business/community leaders and environmentalists Terry Paulson, Delia Malone, Connie Harvey, Mike Maple and Ken Neubecker have again assumed their advisory roles in the grassroots effort to continue the fight. Joined by local energy expert and consultant Dr. Phil Verleger (whose studies encompass the changing relationship between the energy and economic sectors, having served in the Johnson, Ford and Carter administrations in economic advisory and energy policy positions), the leadership and coalition to stop the hydro plant ONCE AND FOR ALL is back together again, organized, informed and raising funds. The group, which coordinated the petition effort in early 2012 that captured the signatures of 953 Aspen voters who oppose the hydro plant, is responsible for overturning the zoning ordinance for the CCEC facility on Power Plant Road and in turn getting the (sadly only advisory) question on the 2012 ballot. As a reader of The Red Ant, you are aware of the hydro shenanigans. Unfortunately, many others are not. Therefore, Aspen voters are currently receiving the following letter in their mailboxes, paid for and signed by the advisors listed above and dozens of concerned local citizens who are appalled that several members of council stand to defy the voters (and common environmental and fiscal sense) with their support of the beleaguered CCEC project:

"Dear Community Member

As you're aware, in November 2012, voters in Aspen rejected city efforts to continue seeking to develop a costly, environmentally damaging hydroelectric plant on Castle Creek (CCEC). They did so because it was evident that the hydropower project was not the right choice as Aspen looks to expand its renewable energy options.

However, the CCEC is now again on the table for consideration. Recently, the city of Aspen requested a study from the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to review possible future renewable energy alternatives for Aspen. NREL staff has indicated that a Castle Creek hydroelectric plant will be included among the list of recommendations. The city continues to spend thousands of dollars on the federal permitting process. This seems to be an end-run around the 2012 vote and a possible way for the city to move it forward despite voters' wishes.

Energy experts and environmentalists agree the CCEC is a bad idea. Recently, world-renowned energy expert Amory Lovins of the Rocky Mountain Institute issued a 33-page report to city leadership against the project. 'It's clear to me, as it has long seemed to many, that the Castle Creek Hydroelectric Plant is economically unsound,' Lovins said. 'The CCEC's total cost could make it the costliest hydro plant ever built. There are attractive opportunities to achieve your energy goals with less cost, risk, and controversy.'  

Environmental groups agree. American Rivers, the Sierra Club, Trout Unlimited, Western Resource Advocates and others have urged the city to consider the serious ecological harm that would be inflicted by the large-scale water diversion needed to operate the plant, which will divert more than half of Maroon and Castle creeks' flows for several months per year. The Maroon Creek diversions never will even return to Maroon Creek. Studies show that even a small change in flow will have serious ramifications for aquatic life on the vibrant creeks and the surrounding ecosystem. In short, addressing the crisis of climate change by pursuing renewables shouldn't come at the expense of the very environment we're seeking to protect.

We believe that continued efforts to promote the CCEC are misguided. The voters of Aspen have spoken and made their voice heard on this issue. The project should be taken off the table while the city pursues alternative forms of renewable energy, of which there are many."  

If you would like to support the effort to once again shut down the CCEC, even by simply lending your name, please reply to this email and I will get your info to the group. Financial contributions are additionally being sought to fund a community-wide effort to convince our elected representatives to say NO and end this nonsense. This is not a political campaign and therefore your name will not appear on any list or in any reporting without your permission. Every dollar counts. Please send your check made out to "No Castle Creek Hydro" to:

                                    No Castle Creek Hydro

                                    PO Box 167

                                    Aspen, CO 81612

The large and VERY diverse group of local hydro plant opponents is well aware of the city's misleading behavior and mishandling of the CCEC, and especially the fact that council has not unequivocally told staff "NO MORE." In the absence of "NO," all staff hears is "YES." Defying the will of the voters is never a wise practice for elected representatives!! FYI - there is no municipal election this spring (thank goodness), but Skadron, Romero and Frisch all must run again in 2015. The "No Castle Creek Hydro" effort is perhaps an early shot across the bow.

Other ideas, if you'd like to get involved:

Read the Amory Lovins report HERE.

Familiarize yourself with the letter above.

Write a letter to the local papers (rcarroll@aspentimes.com and sack@aspendailynews.com )

Write to and talk to members of city council.

Talk to your friends. Forward this issue of The Red Ant to those who might not receive it.

Attend city council meetings and make your views known during public comment.

Donate to the cause (info above). This is a GRASSROOTS effort and every dollar helps!

WASTE WATCH

Ahhhh, that nightmare of an intersection at Hunter and Durant Streets in front of Gondola Plaza: lots of people (often in ski boots), lots of cars, lots of buses, lots of ice - not a great combination. A fix is in: picture raised brick-colored paving (no step off the curb), with "rain gardens" to collect stormwater and "bulb-out" curb extensions to slow traffic and shorten crosswalks. But for $616K from the city coffers when just last year the price estimate was $413K?? What happened?? That's 50% cost increase!! Next week, the city will get busy on its spendy project, citing "higher materials and labor costs" as rationale for the escalated price increase. Really?? $203K worth?? Council "noticed" the cost increase, but simply approved it without argument. Again, when it's free money, the city (including council) is either pathetic at estimating costs (obviously) or indifferent (more likely). City engineers responsible for the project can't even speculate on whether the new set-up will enhance safety or prevent diagonal jay-walking. They merely "hope so." Swell.

Meanwhile, across town at Wagner Park, a $478K renovation has been approved by council that will provide a new irrigation system aimed at shortening the time the park is closed in the spring while the grass grows, as well as a re-graded turf surface with better drainage. These sound like good things, however, next year (2015), Wagner Park is slated for a "master plan" process which could dramatically alter the usage of the park, improvements, access, events, etc. Maybe the half-million in upgrades ought to be postponed until after the future of the park and its usage is discussed and determined? Nah, too rational. Instead, the city has committed another $338K to purchase temporary flooring to protect the park during special events. Gotta keep those Parks Department employees busy!

BIKE SHARING: WILL IT RIDE IN 2014?

Despite the bankruptcy of PBSC, the bike provider and software/management system used by Aspen's subsidized We-Cycle bike sharing program, word on the street is that the program is not in jeopardy. But this comes from the same program founder and director who chose to ignore hefty subsidies for the program as part of the annual financial statement. Before the 2014 season begins, $200K in sponsorship funding is additionally needed. With just 100 bikes in our inventory, that's $2000 per bike!

Daily News columnist Paul Menter recently reminded readers that We-Cycle incurred $65K in start-up capital costs in 2013 ($6500 per bike), part of which was covered by a state "congestion mitigation and air quality (CMAQ) grant. My favorite line of his recent column on bike sharing is, "Of course, the Chinese did the 'everybody rides bicycles' thing by necessity back in the '50's and '60's, so they are well-practiced. And, of course, they are communists, well versed in the art of doing what they are told to do to benefit someone else's idea of the collective good, just in case you may have forgotten who we are seeking to emulate here."  He concludes, "There just are not enough non-communists willing to pay even a small portion of the cost to ride someone else's bike. Can anyone say opportunity cost? There must be a better use for a $2000 subsidy, be it public or privately funded, than to pay the cost of an overpriced shared bicycle for six or seven months." Ya think?! The Red Ant will keep you posted on We-Cycle and its 2014 funding, including the source(s). Stay tuned.

FIRE DISTRICT BOARD ELECTION

The Aspen Fire Protection District is holding a mail-in ballot election to fill three openings on its 5-member board of directors. Fire district board directors oversee the financial management of their district. The Aspen Fire Protection District has an annual budget of approximately $2.9 million ($1.7 million in operational costs and $1.2 million in bond debt for the two fire stations). That's quite a fiduciary duty for a community of this size!

Check your mailbox for your ballot if you live within the Aspen Fire Protection District. The deadline for your vote to be counted is 7p on May 6. The Red Ant is not involved in this election in terms of interviewing/querying candidates, however, the volume of inquiries I have received about this election has motivated me to share the names of the candidates for whom I have cast my ballot:

X         D. Stone (Stoney) Davis

X         Steven Seyffert

X         Stefan Reveal

Please take 2 minutes and vote in this election. Voting in a city the size of Aspen is very important. Be a part of the process!

HOUSING HOMEWORK

You are all too aware that I have been cogitating on the future of our subsidized housing program for some time. Recent meetings with similarly interested citizens have yielded many new ideas about improving the program and restructuring it so that the program's future addresses the changing needs of our community while not ignoring the needs of its residents or the structural/maintenance needs of an aging physical plant.

Do you have an idea for maintaining the physical plant of our aging facilities that also provides work-able incentives for subsidized owners to down-size, sell or upgrade their units? I've been collecting several novel ideas and have to believe that there are more out there.

What are your thoughts (for and against) a comprehensive audit of our entire 2800 unit subsidized housing portfolio? Who lives there? Are they compliant? Where do they work?

What else is on your mind about APCHA and our subsidized housing program?

Please share your thoughts and ideas. I am contemplating how to get APCHA, its board, and the principals in our local government to responsibly address and re-assess the program. At this juncture, it seems that a compilation of well-developed options rather than just the obvious criticism might be a better way to approach the issue. Flies - honey, you know. Please weigh in and let me know what you're thinking. And if you know someone in subsidized housing who has an idea, please put them in touch. I'm listening. TheRedAntEM@comcast.net