Burlingame could be headed towards a stalemate as the fallout from this summer’s events settles in and the prospect of increasing the density at the affordable housing project is debated.
Aspen City Council members are backing off from proceeding in November with a bond to finance the project’s completion. The city is still awaiting final word from a construction experts group that is recommending ways to lower total government subsidies at Burlingame, primarily by upping the density and using modular construction.
But these changes in the plan to build 236 units at the former ranch site — as many as 300 units are now being considered — are precisely the reason why some on the council are not comfortable with going forward in November. At least councilmen Jack Johnson and Steve Skadron are not certain a bigger and cheaper Burlingame is the proper direction for the community.
And for any density and massing changes from the 236-unit plan to go forward, two-thirds of the existing Burlingame homeowners must approve. Early indications are that such a vote will not be an easy get.
The city had envisioned a November bond question that would issue debt of at least $50 million to finance the final phases of Burlingame construction, and repay the city for its $30 million-plus in land banking efforts last year. There would also be questions about extending the Real Estate Transfer Tax, which finances affordable housing, and the affordable housing portion of the local sales tax.
But that was before a controversy exploded when a 2005 city-produced brochure recently unearthed was revealed to contain misinformation about Burlingame’s total costs. The brochure’s cost projections did not include infrastructure, engineering and soft costs in its accounting of the project’s total costs. The brochure is at the heart of an effort by City Hall critic Marilyn Marks to push the city to reexamine completion of Burlingame in light of subsidies that are projected to top $350,000 per unit.
The council will meet Tuesday for a work session to discuss policy related to a housing bond. It will be the council’s first public meeting on the topic. All ballot initiatives must be finalized and submitted by Sept. 5.
Councilman Johnson said the very future of the affordable housing program is at stake. While he does not think he would support a bond based on a higher-density Burlingame development plan, he thinks there ought to be something on the ballot related to affordable housing.
“I think there has been a sustained attack on the affordable housing program,” Johnson said. “Elected officials need to go to voters and affirm the direction that has been long established.”
Johnson outlined two possibilities for a November ballot question, with the caveat that he has not made up his mind about anything. He suggested that the city could ask voters to support a bond that would pay back the city for the $30-plus million spent on buying land for housing during 2007. He denied that the move would affirm a cart-before-the-horse effort on land banking, because council members are elected to make decisions on behalf of the community.
“We don’t ask voters for permission every time we fill a pothole or buy a new cop car,” he said.
Another idea is to go forward in November with the original Burlingame density plan, which would see 236 units built at the site. The city is considering more density in an effort to cut per-unit costs.
Overall, an education effort needs to be made on affordable housing subsidies, Johnson said: Given the expense of land and construction in Aspen, affordable housing subsides are high, and they won’t be coming down.
“To say you refuse to accept subsidies higher than X is the same thing as saying you no longer support the affordable housing program,” Johnson argued. “The subsidies are what they are.”
Councilman Skadron said any changes to the previously planned density at Burlingame will not be fully cooked in time for a November ballot question. He added that he has “mixed feelings” about any plan that increases density at Burlingame. The urbanization of former ranch land on the outskirts of town, after all, was the preeminent issue in both Burlingame votes, council members point out.
There is also fear in the community concerning the city’s ability to manage long-term projects, Skadron acknowledged, although he said the city has done an “excellent job producing the project.”
“Now we’re revising this,” Skadron said. “There are dynamics at play here that prevent me from feeling settled about the whole thing.”
Mayor Mick Ireland said via e-mail that he has not yet made up his mind about which direction to go with the bond question. He has expressed support for increasing Burlingame density, and has suggested that homeowners could be convinced it is the right thing to do.
Councilman Dwayne Romero has made no secret in the last few weeks of his desire to put off a bonding question until there is a firm development plan in place for Burlingame. With the construction experts group still in the process of devising a proposed plan, going to the voters would be irresponsible, he said. Speaking Thursday at a forum on Burlingame sponsored by Marks, Romero said it would be like trying to get a construction loan in the private sector without a fixed price contract.
“Amen,” Romero told the audience. “I’m not going to support it without those things.”
Marks has scored a victory in the apparent delay at Burlingame. She was preparing to lead a political action committee to campaign against the bond if it made it onto the November ballot.
“We didn’t even have to have a meeting or raise a dime,” Marks wrote in an e-mail.
curtis@aspendailynews.com
