Monday
Oct192009
Issue #37 ------More Ant Bytes
October 19 "Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." --Ronald Reagan, 1986
INVEST 61 CENTS IN DEMOCRACY!
If you are reading The Red Ant, you care about local government. Don't fail to exercise your democratic right to vote in the Pitkin County election before November 3rd with your mail-in ballot, which you should have in your mailbox by now. Call the County Clerk at 920-5180 if you haven't received yours yet. Remember that the materials don't tell you that it takes 61 cents postage to mail back your ballot!
MICK MAKES DREARY PREDICTIONS
He's an adjustment hearing officer, working for Pitkin County to evaluate your property valuation challenges. (This, despite his duty to the City of Aspen to ensure that tax revenues cover expenses.) Now Mayor Mick the economist declares emphatically that the boom days in real estate and construction in Aspen are over - never to return. Having run for Mayor in 2007 promoting the idea that "an economic downturn would be good for Aspen," we ponder the basis for Mayor Mick's dark contribution to ACRA's recent board meeting. Does he know what he's talking about, or have his dreams merely come true?
The Red Ant additionally notes that at a September Council session, Mick and Councilman Skadron were concerned about curbing any excessive economic exuberance in case of a recovery. They spent more time discussing how to control potential future growth than they did on the current operating losses being incurred by the City. Or on programs that would help local businesses survive.
Does Mayor Mick see this declaration of the changed economic landscape as a basis for his notion of "rebranding Aspen" as "affordable?" The Mayor is still promoting his concept of marketing Aspen as an affordable "everyman's resort," going so far as planning to ask that $200K be carved out of the City's 2010 operational budget in these tight economic times to "fund ideas" to promote Aspen as such! Council is actually considering this?? (The Red Ant loved the quick quip about such rebranding by a candidate in May's election, "Aspen -- the new Breckenridge, only harder to get to.") We think the City should let the real marketers and business owners in Aspen call the shots! The Red Ant also suggests that Mick focus his economic considerations on leading City Council toward a responsible and BALANCED budget for 2010! (So far, we are very concerned, as we see a lower general fund balance as of January 1 than the City seems to be projecting....)
THE WHEELER EXPANSION - A WOBBLY CART BEFORE THE HORSE
If you are reading The Red Ant, you care about local government. Don't fail to exercise your democratic right to vote in the Pitkin County election before November 3rd with your mail-in ballot, which you should have in your mailbox by now. Call the County Clerk at 920-5180 if you haven't received yours yet. Remember that the materials don't tell you that it takes 61 cents postage to mail back your ballot! MICK MAKES DREARY PREDICTIONS
He's an adjustment hearing officer, working for Pitkin County to evaluate your property valuation challenges. (This, despite his duty to the City of Aspen to ensure that tax revenues cover expenses.) Now Mayor Mick the economist declares emphatically that the boom days in real estate and construction in Aspen are over - never to return. Having run for Mayor in 2007 promoting the idea that "an economic downturn would be good for Aspen," we ponder the basis for Mayor Mick's dark contribution to ACRA's recent board meeting. Does he know what he's talking about, or have his dreams merely come true?
The Red Ant additionally notes that at a September Council session, Mick and Councilman Skadron were concerned about curbing any excessive economic exuberance in case of a recovery. They spent more time discussing how to control potential future growth than they did on the current operating losses being incurred by the City. Or on programs that would help local businesses survive.
Does Mayor Mick see this declaration of the changed economic landscape as a basis for his notion of "rebranding Aspen" as "affordable?" The Mayor is still promoting his concept of marketing Aspen as an affordable "everyman's resort," going so far as planning to ask that $200K be carved out of the City's 2010 operational budget in these tight economic times to "fund ideas" to promote Aspen as such! Council is actually considering this?? (The Red Ant loved the quick quip about such rebranding by a candidate in May's election, "Aspen -- the new Breckenridge, only harder to get to.") We think the City should let the real marketers and business owners in Aspen call the shots! The Red Ant also suggests that Mick focus his economic considerations on leading City Council toward a responsible and BALANCED budget for 2010! (So far, we are very concerned, as we see a lower general fund balance as of January 1 than the City seems to be projecting....)THE WHEELER EXPANSION - A WOBBLY CART BEFORE THE HORSE
Council recently sent the Wheeler expansion project back to staff for more documentation of "need" and a more robust financial plan -- declining to grant the preliminary approval of the project that City staff had requested. Until these basic requirements are well-documented and judged to be realistic, we hope that Council willl keep in mind the lukewarm results from the community survey on the Wheeler expansion project.
The Red Ant commends Council for its scrutiny of the Wheeler request, however, it appears that they are on a slippery, uncertain slope -- likely getting pressure to move forward.
Jumping ahead and spending public funds, City Council did approve the expenditure of $100K for an "owner's representative" for the Wheeler Opera House expansion. Yes, having an owner's rep to oversee the hiring of a contractor and management of the design team was one of the recommendations following the Burlingame housing project fiasco, but there's one key difference: the 32,000 sf addition to the city-owned historic Wheeler has yet to receive public approval, which it must. It's still just an exploratory concept, subject to lots of questions and dialogue.
The original 2009 budget for the Wheeler expansion project was $660K. As of August, $342K has already been spent on designers, architects, planning and consultants. A city official anticipates amounts in excess of $660K this year for this early stage of the project. And, City Council is currently considering a $3M capital improvement line item in the 2010 budget to fund "the next phase" of the expansion when conceptual approval is granted. The Red Ant says WHOA to the cart -- Get behind the horse!!
The original 2009 budget for the Wheeler expansion project was $660K. As of August, $342K has already been spent on designers, architects, planning and consultants. A city official anticipates amounts in excess of $660K this year for this early stage of the project. And, City Council is currently considering a $3M capital improvement line item in the 2010 budget to fund "the next phase" of the expansion when conceptual approval is granted. The Red Ant says WHOA to the cart -- Get behind the horse!!
We can find no evidence of a recent existing facility utilization study, needs analysis or meaningful financial projections. Apparently, neither could Council. One troubling example of the argument for expansion at any cost comes from a long-time Wheeler supporter who wrote that finances should not be the determining factor because the Wheeler is one of those rare instances where "other things" are more important than finances. 
It's thinking like this that makes these early and costly expenditures especially worrisome.
It's thinking like this that makes these early and costly expenditures especially worrisome. The Ant is calling on Council to continue to insist on realistic projections, a clear and demonstrated need, considerable public input, and holding the line on planning expenses until there is a clear path for an economically sustainable Wheeler. A solid financial plan for this project is critical if it is to be seriously considered!
COUNCIL ASKS THE RIGHT QUESTIONS ABOUT CITY HOUSING PLANS
The Red Ant's ANTennae were up recently, noting a report of City staff's recommendation for immediate use of funds for planning the construction of housing specifically to house City employees. The funding for this future housing comes from a "pool" of monies contributed by each City department. In 2008, the fund received about $1 million from City department budgets and the City's general fund, which kicked in $529K. In 2009, about $735K was contributed, including $200K from the general fund. For 2010, it's proposed that the housing fund will get about $558K.
COUNCIL ASKS THE RIGHT QUESTIONS ABOUT CITY HOUSING PLANS
The Red Ant's ANTennae were up recently, noting a report of City staff's recommendation for immediate use of funds for planning the construction of housing specifically to house City employees. The funding for this future housing comes from a "pool" of monies contributed by each City department. In 2008, the fund received about $1 million from City department budgets and the City's general fund, which kicked in $529K. In 2009, about $735K was contributed, including $200K from the general fund. For 2010, it's proposed that the housing fund will get about $558K.
The Red Ant asks, how/why is it that while the City is down-sizing (as most municipalities are) and tightening its budget, why are scarce public funds being allocated to subsidized housing dedicated exclusively to City employees? (Yes, this is entirely different from the Real Estate Transfer Tax that funds construction of employee housing that's available to all of Aspen/Pitkin County's workers.)So, as the City faces tough choices in its ability to merely maintain employment and service levels, individual City departments are eyeing projects for their own housing needs. In fact, on Tuesday, staff proposed a $2.8M project for immediate approval at the ABC: four 1-BR units and a studio specifically for city workers. The Red Ant has researched this project to find that the SUBSIDIES on the 1-BR units were estimated to be $457K each, and $251K for the studio! (View City staff's recent memo recommending this project to Council by clicking here.)
Thanks to Council for expressing their dismay at the costs and holding up this project, sending it back to the drawing board while maintaining vested rights. But we do wonder why Council was forced to ask the obvious questions. How did the project get to the Council table with such an outlandish budget in tough times?
Did staff believe that Council had forgotten about the $400K/unit subsidies at Burlingame, and the public's reaction? Council clearly had not. We don't expect to see Council prioritize the use of such funds for City employee housing while City employment numbers and the City's financial flexibility are shrinking.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING - IS MORE ALWAYS BETTER?
Always looking to build more affordable housing, the City might want to take note that some of the housing we currently have in inventory is vacant. Seasonal housing at Burlingame, for example, was just 54% full two weeks ago. In 2008, the 92-unit complex sold out in four hours! It's even slower at the Marolt Ranch where 17 of 100 seasonal units have been rented. Of course, by ski season, these will surely fill up, but perhaps this should make us rethink how much housing is needed and what can be realistically provided by government.
Last week, the City struck its deal with the Burlingame Ranch residents to arm-twist them into allowing 258 units to be built there instead of 236. Never mind that voters were promised up to 330 units there when asked to approve the project in 2005. (However, apparently unbeknownst to Council or taxpayers, city staff legally committed a 236 unit limit to the homeowners. While The Red Ant agrees that once committed, the Burlingame homeowners' property rights should be honored, it does astound us that this $15+ million future cost and loss of up to 72 units continues to be swept under the rug by the City and the press.) And recall, the City never had a comprehensive budget for the Burlingame project, resulting in an estimated fully-phased cost over-run of $75+ million vs. what voters were told.
To get the HOA's approval for the additional 22 units, the City will now build 28 new parking spaces for residents, fund at $60K/year a collection of transportation amenities that residents previously paid $60/mo for, retroactively forgive $105,000 in "mobility fees" to the HOA, contribute $25,000 to finish the HOA community room, and relinquish all future revenue from parking space rentals, among other concessions.
Residents have lived at Burlingame (Phase I) for over two years now, and life there still begs more questions than answers. The Red Ant will continue to pursue answers to the on-going issues from the City. In the meantime, our elected leadership intends to put a big bond issue on the 2010 ballot to fund further construction at Burlingame.
Thanks to Council for expressing their dismay at the costs and holding up this project, sending it back to the drawing board while maintaining vested rights. But we do wonder why Council was forced to ask the obvious questions. How did the project get to the Council table with such an outlandish budget in tough times?
Did staff believe that Council had forgotten about the $400K/unit subsidies at Burlingame, and the public's reaction? Council clearly had not. We don't expect to see Council prioritize the use of such funds for City employee housing while City employment numbers and the City's financial flexibility are shrinking.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING - IS MORE ALWAYS BETTER?
Always looking to build more affordable housing, the City might want to take note that some of the housing we currently have in inventory is vacant. Seasonal housing at Burlingame, for example, was just 54% full two weeks ago. In 2008, the 92-unit complex sold out in four hours! It's even slower at the Marolt Ranch where 17 of 100 seasonal units have been rented. Of course, by ski season, these will surely fill up, but perhaps this should make us rethink how much housing is needed and what can be realistically provided by government.
Last week, the City struck its deal with the Burlingame Ranch residents to arm-twist them into allowing 258 units to be built there instead of 236. Never mind that voters were promised up to 330 units there when asked to approve the project in 2005. (However, apparently unbeknownst to Council or taxpayers, city staff legally committed a 236 unit limit to the homeowners. While The Red Ant agrees that once committed, the Burlingame homeowners' property rights should be honored, it does astound us that this $15+ million future cost and loss of up to 72 units continues to be swept under the rug by the City and the press.) And recall, the City never had a comprehensive budget for the Burlingame project, resulting in an estimated fully-phased cost over-run of $75+ million vs. what voters were told.
To get the HOA's approval for the additional 22 units, the City will now build 28 new parking spaces for residents, fund at $60K/year a collection of transportation amenities that residents previously paid $60/mo for, retroactively forgive $105,000 in "mobility fees" to the HOA, contribute $25,000 to finish the HOA community room, and relinquish all future revenue from parking space rentals, among other concessions.
Residents have lived at Burlingame (Phase I) for over two years now, and life there still begs more questions than answers. The Red Ant will continue to pursue answers to the on-going issues from the City. In the meantime, our elected leadership intends to put a big bond issue on the 2010 ballot to fund further construction at Burlingame.
WHEELER BOARD MAKES ADJUSTMENTS
To follow up on a recent Ant Byte, The Red Ant reports that the Wheeler Board has recently posted TWO openings. We were anticipating an application period to fill the board position recently vacated when board member Barbara Conviser resigned (see The Red Ant issue # 35 - Unrest and Family Ties on the Wheeler Board),
but were surprised to learn Board president Ron Erickson's term is up as well. Will Council take this opportunity to address the perceptions of conflict of interest resulting from Council's recent appointment of Erickson's son to the 7-member Board? The Red Ant encourages City Council to take the upcoming Wheeler expansion matter seriously when evaluating Board applications and seek applicants with deep financial skills, especially given the $30 million project that is under consideration! In the meantime, The Red Ant encourages interested readers to apply for a position on this important Board. Applications can be found here and are due on November 1.
WASN'T IRV SUPPOSED TO REDUCE TRIPS TO THE POLLS?
The November 2009 Pitkin County election is by mail-in ballot only. While there are several important issues on this ballot, The Red Ant is primarily focused on an advisory question that asks Aspen voters whether or not they want to keep or get rid of Instant Run-Off Voting (IRV), the controversial voting method employed in the May 2009 Aspen City election.
The Red Ant is ARDENTLY opposed to IRV. We question its legality (at the local, state and federal level) and we've implored the City to allow the Election Commission to engage independent auditors for a review (to no avail). There are a host of practical, legal, procedural and computer software problems that have already been discovered with our recent IRV election. In short, IRV is a mess, and Aspen can do far better without it!
Vote NO on Referendum 2A! Sadly, despite great effort, The Red Ant was unable to convince City Council to make this a binding vote. Instead it's just a litmus test - thumbs up or thumbs down on IRV. Depending on the outcome, Council will have to place a binding issue on a future ballot and we'll have to vote again. Even if voters want to keep IRV, we likely have to vote again on getting it to comply with the law! The rather ironic - and somewhat comical -- thing about this is that IRV was intended to reduce trips to the polls. At this rate, we will have to vote on IRV a minimum of three times!
If you are unsure about IRV, there are some rather entertaining You Tube videos on the vagaries of IRV. (Watch to see what happens when a candidate gets too much support. Or why showing up to vote can work against you.)
WHAT HAVE THE WORKER ANTS BEEN DOING LATELY?
The Red Ant has heard many a complaint about the lack of Ant news recently. We've been busy:
Elizabeth as an Aspen Election Commissioner and Marilyn as a citizen activist who has challenged the City to support a professional audit/review of the May 2009 election under the guidance of the Election Commission. As you can imagine, some officials are none-too-fond of our ongoing involvements to resolve issues with the recent election and advocate for reforms. However, Elizabeth was appointed to her role by Council, and Marilyn's Colorado Open Records Act (CORA) requests are a fundamental right of all citizens to access public information. It is enormously important to maintain and exercise the rights of citizen oversight of elections.
The Election Commission (EC) is currently "on hold," preventing its ability to hear and resolve citizen complaints about the election. While the EC gets the necessary legal input to clarify its authority and jurisdiction, (including its ability to obtain independent counsel), multiple citizen complaints and requests languish in a holding pattern. Needless to say, the City argues that the EC is merely "ceremonial" and therefore in no position to address or resolve issues stemming from the May election for purposes of future process improvement. The City wants to "resolve" these issues themselves. Stay tuned. This one isn't over.
On October 8, Marilyn was forced to litigate against the City (click here for press release) to ask the court to compel the City to preserve and release a CD of images of the scanned ballots from the May election. These are the same images projected on big screens and broadcast on Grassroots TV on election night. Now the City says they are "private" records. Go figure.
On Friday, the court ruled that the City should preserve these files. This was critical as we await the hearing on the release of the records in late January. We are confident the court will order the City to release these images, which will then be used to test and evaluate the complex IRV process that was employed. Until Aspen's voting method is legally changed by the voters we are stuck with IRV. The only way to conduct better and more accurate elections in the future is to study the May 2009 case and make improvements.
Please note: this legal measure was far more important than just accessing a CD of Aspen's ballot images. It was an action on principle to ensure that all Colorado citizens maintain the unfettered right to access public information, whether the records are city finances or election records.
And, despite these remaining issues from the May 2009 election, it's once again election season in Aspen. We're studying the mail-in ballot process as well as Referendum 1A, the "smart energy" tax. And of course, we're campaigning against IRV!! Please be in touch if we can clarify any of your November 3 election questions!
Reader Comments