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

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

                                                                         - Unknown

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

THE 6/10/19 PUBLIC COMMENT INTRODUCING ACTIONABLE SOLUTIONS

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

HOW WE GOT HERE

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

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

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

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

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