Pitkin County candidates differ on office space

The Question

Editor’s note: This is the fourth installment of a five-part questionnaire with the six candidates seeking three spots on the Pitkin Board of County Commissioners in the November election.

Today’s question: Where do you think the county's offices and other facilities should be located, if not in the existing county buildings in downtown Aspen, and why?

Michael M. Owsley

I believe it is absolutely necessary for all the departments of government to be in close proximity to each other. The city of Aspen, with 60 percent of Pitkin County’s population, is the seat of our government. It’s where the sheriff, police department, joint communications, and jail are positioned; the courts, the county clerk, and all the administrative services; and where the assessor, community development departments, and the county commissioner offices are all located.

These departments represent a civic presence that is a hallmark of a democratic civil society, in plain view of, and with easy access for, its citizens. It was by design that the community of the 1880s knew that a mix of government and civic activity would define a great town, one that would represent a solid future.

They created the core of the city with architectural hallmarks: The Pitkin County Courthouse, the Hotel Jerome, the Wheeler Opera House, and St. Mary’s. Arguably the four weightiest buildings of the historic core, they are still used today for precisely the same purposes that the pioneers of this town assigned to them.

Placing parts of our services in remote locations will not solve the city’s problems with transportation or parking, issues which must be addressed on their own. It makes sense to put the sewage treatment plant, the landfill, and the bus operations outside of town. It makes sense to keep together, in some harmony, all the parts of governance and community that the Founders of Aspen saw were so necessary.

Shellie Roy

The county will always maintain a downtown Aspen presence in the two buildings the county owns. Several county services really are best operated downtown. But I believe the county should use land it owns near the airport for necessary future expansion for four reasons — growth, access, cost and control.

Growth: The city and county would become the largest Aspen developers and will consume the most office space in an already growth weary Aspen.

Access: Aspen is working hard to discourage car travel and doesn’t need more traffic generated by county expansion. It would be easier for employees and especially customers of department like building for instance, to not have to deal with Aspen’s parking issues and S-curve congestion.

Cost and Control: Building on land the county owns will cost taxpayers less. Not having to go through Aspen’s approval process will cost less and allows the county to avoid entanglement in a complex project that isn’t about county mandates.

Some county facilities, especially the courts do need to expand. Though the ZG Project isn’t a current voter issue, how each candidate would handle the issue is. My opponent waxes eloquent but his answers are not concrete. County commissioners are most effective when they combine vision with solid and well reasoned direction.

Bruce Anderson

Both as a user of government services and as a candidate actively involved in discussions with many county employees, it is apparent to me the current hodgepodge of office locations contributes to lower productivity, increased stress for all, and, inevitably, higher costs. As an example, for something as seemingly straightforward as a single-family residential building permit one might have to visit as many as four different locations, some in downtown Aspen, others past the roundabout near the hospital. Consolidation of the services in a central location will increase productivity, decrease costs, and make accessing government services considerably easier for citizens.

Our city and county governments interact by necessity, and this speaks to developing common space in Aspen. Many to whom I've spoken feel strongly the county government needs to continue to be in the county seat, meaning downtown Aspen.

Both for reasons of preserving culture and encouraging efficiency, I am inclined to agree. There is no doubt the campus proposal put forth to address this received widespread support but that when the price tag came out, a significant majority was opposed. This is our process at work. The approach to achieving synergies can be reduced in scope, adjusted as to funding sources, and refined in light of community concerns. If elected, I'll work hard to solve this conundrum, keeping the county offices in the county seat at a price that the voters can support.

Jack Hatfield

Pitkin County facilities should continue to be located in Aspen, the county seat. Survey results, public feedback, the Board of County Commissioners’ preference, a center of economic and cultural activity … all these qualities that support this position.

Exceptions outside the county seat include the public works complex at the bus barn, and the Health and Human Service and Senior Centers, due to space and cost considerations. The landfill and airport sites wouldn't be under consideration for “other” uses due to environmental and federal limitations,

Being sensitive to the challenges of providing services in the unique geographical setting that is Pitkin County (driving distances), I have previously proposed that we investigate the possibility of exercising the counties option to build up to 5,000 square feet at the tree farm in Eagle County. The potential availability of land, increased services, as well as the possibility of relieving pressure on existing space in Aspen must be balanced with the fact that we would be locating services outside county boundaries. We have, in the past, had a service center in Basalt. Although this idea could result in a true service benefit to our down valley constituents, much discussion, analysis and public feedback is required before moving forward with this out-of-the- box-idea.

Finally, though the county faces realistic space constraints in its Aspen facilities, the results from a recent “ballot” survey show little support (57-59 percent against) for funding new and improved facilities, a position I have been aware of for years. If the county is to move forward with re-development of its in-town facilities at some point in the future, we must purchase adjoining land and engage the public in a serious informal land-use process in order to gauge support, before moving forward.

Dee Malone

I believe that efficiency in government is not necessarily dependent on new buildings. I strongly disagree with the idea that we need to build more government facilities in Aspen or anywhere else. I believe that county offices should be located in existing county buildings in downtown Aspen as well as in “satellite” offices in strategically located (existing) buildings in outlying areas of the county.

Building construction is economically and environmentally expensive. Construction consumes tax dollars, natural resources and land that could be better used for purposes such as affordable housing. Buildings currently used by county staff may be energy-inefficient. However, if they can be successfully renovated to be energy efficient and retrofitted to be run by alternative energy, land, construction and environmental cost savings could be substantial.

Staff crowding and inefficiency problems can be resolved without having to build more offices by creatively integrating current technology with flexible and alternative work schedules. For instance, creating at-home work schedules for those staff living in outlying areas of the county or outside of Pitkin County saves both staff transportation time and fuel and helps alleviate traffic congestion. Additionally a survey conducted by the U.S. General Accounting Office found that alternative work schedules helped employees better deal with family/work concerns and improved employee retention, recruitment and productivity.

Many communities in Pitkin County are located far from the county administrative offices in Aspen. The creation of “satellite offices” where basic county services could be provided would reduce the number of trips to Aspen thereby saving fuel and reducing air and water pollution and traffic congestion.

By integrating technology with flexible work schedules and “satellite” offices, I believe the county could be more environmentally and economically sustainable and provide staff with a better work environment and citizens with better service.

George Newman

A community survey in 2001 found that “civic uses belong in the heart of town.” This enhances our community character and distinguishes Aspen as more than just a resort. The county is in dire need of office and meeting space. Due to increased judicial needs, the assessor and treasurer will soon be forced out of the courthouse.

Meanwhile, the sheriff's department has run out room while the community development office is crammed into City Hall. It makes sense for certain departments to remain in town as they share dual functions with their related city services (such as the sheriff/police, and the city/county planning/building departments). Citizens often visit more than one jurisdiction at a time for permitting functions, etc.

Estimates to retrofit the courthouse annex building to meet handicapped access codes, as well as to upgrade for more efficient use of space and energy, are cost prohibitive. The ZG master plan task force seeks to create a civic campus near the courthouse, which would be the dominant feature of the area. This affords many positive aspects from “one-stop shopping” to pedestrian open space, underground parking and affordable housing. However, the purchase price to participate with the city on this venture will ultimately determine the economic feasibility of pursuing this plan. In any case, the high costs of building in the downtown area along with attendant construction impacts present problems.

The county has land at the public works facility just past the Airport Business Center. Moving some departments out there could prove more cost effective while offering shorter and easier commutes for county employees. I believe there may be an opportunity to utilize both locations, saving the downtown locale for walk-in traffic and using the out of town location for those offices/staff that do not need to be as accessible to the public. As your county commissioner, I will examine a cost analysis benefit along with community input as we proceed to consider these options.