Snowmass Candidate: Incumbent Mayor Bill Madsen

Editor’s note: Due to limited editorial space, additional questions and answers about the Snowmass City Council race will be printed throughout the week.

Ahead of the Nov. 5 election, Snowmass City Councilwoman Alyssa Schenk and incumbent Mayor Bill Madsen are vying to become the city’s next mayor. The Aspen Times asked each candidate what their views were on key issues in Snowmass.

Madsen, who has served two terms so far, hopes to serve his third.

Why did you choose to serve the Snowmass community in the past and why do you seek to serve this community in the future?

I often tell people that Snowmass Village reminds me of Aspen when I was a kid. There’s nothing more rewarding than raising a family in a small town with a strong sense of community. In 2014, I was inspired to get involved in politics because I wanted to help improve the Village and represent my neighbors and friends. I am a strong believer in planning for the future and am proud to have helped develop the Snowmass Village Compression Plan, the Workforce Housing Master Plan and our Community Connection Plan. I am incredibly fortunate to live in employee housing and want to help people live in the area where they work. The Village of Snowmass Housing Department has done an incredible job developing and renovating our employee housing stock, but we can do more. We need to strive to develop pedestrian-friendly projects that prioritize walking, cycling and efficient public transport. I look forward to continuing this progress and working together to make Snowmass Village a model for sustainable living.

Are you for or against Snowmass Ballot Question 2D, which will determine funding for a proposed $86 million, 79-unit employee housing project on the lot lot adjacent to City Hall? Why?

I support Ballot Question 2D because we need to urgently solve the housing crisis. The Housing Master Plan has identified the draw site as one of the five locations with the greatest potential for workforce housing, but the draw site is the preferred location as it is not in the center of the village where the impact of development would be much greater and it does not displace residents. The project will be financed mainly by tourism taxes and rental income, so no new tax will be needed. It is important to understand that tourism taxes are limited to funding workforce housing and promoting Snowmass Village. The sweepstakes site will use $3 million annually from a fund that generates $15 million annually. The construction of housing on the lottery site will not limit our ability to fund other housing projects in the future. The land behind downtown Snowmass could provide another opportunity for the city to build housing, but that opportunity is still years away. The drawing site gives our community the opportunity to act now to provide homes for our essential workers so they can live in the city where they work.

Do you support or oppose Pitkin County Ballot Question 1A, which would increase county property taxes by $1.5 million over 25 years, providing approximately $8.5 million in additional funding per year for affordable housing but creating a proposed tax increase on real estate for $121 for private property? worth $1 million, and $435 for a commercial property worth $1 million? Why?

I am in favor of 1A because Pitkin County has not made a significant contribution to creating affordable housing in the county because they did not have a funding mechanism. We need to empower the county to address the housing crisis, and the Phillips Mobile Home Park is a great place to use those funds. In addition, the county plans to use the funds for a down payment assistance program for foreclosed homes, and the funds can be used by households in categories 1-4 to receive grants for safety and livability-related repairs to their homes. The county is also in desperate need of housing as 90% of our sheriff’s deputies, firefighters, EMTs, hospital workers and security personnel live outside of Pitkin County. The tax increase is relatively small: $121 per year for a $1 million property.

Do you support moving the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport runway 80 feet west and widening it from 100 to 150 feet? Why? Do you support Question 200 on the Pitkin County ballot, which would allow residents to vote on expanding or relocating a runway, or Question 1C on the Pitkin County ballot, which would affirm the ability of county officials to approve and make changes to the physical layout of the airport on behalf of the community ?

I support 1C and am against the 200th question. There is a unanimous opinion that the runway is collapsing and needs to be rebuilt. If we rebuild the runway using FAA funds, we can also build a new terminal, make airside improvements that will impact the future of air travel, and we can improve transit options to and from Snowmass Village and Aspen. If the runway is rebuilt in its current configuration without FAA funding, we will not be able to provide the new terminal and other improvements our airport needs. Extensive community outreach was carried out to develop general recommendations, which resulted in the airport layout plan. The ALP took years to develop, keeping the community’s interests in mind. Our county commissioners have spent years finding solutions, and they were elected to do the hard work of our representative government. We all have friends and family members who work at the airport. Let’s provide them with a safe, comfortable and efficient work environment. If we rebuild the runway without FAA funding, the status of our terminal will remain unchanged for decades.

Do you support or oppose building more accessible parking and RFTA transit options at Snowmass Mall? If so, how should the project be designed?

The West Village Transit Center, also known as The Mall, has been in the planning process since the 1990s. The Transportation Committee of Elected Officials began appropriating funds for the transit center in 1998. The City Council spent two years developing a project that would move RFTA buses and TOSV shuttles into one facility. The project also retains scheduled parking spaces in Lot 6. The problem with the design was that the deck was quite large and the planning commission recommended against it as it was not in keeping with the character of our community. My biggest concern with the original design was that the construction duration was set at 40 months. I firmly believe that disruption to our shopping centers for three and a half years is unacceptable. The currently proposed two-level structure has the same construction schedule, eliminates temporary parking on Lot 6, and is more expensive than the original design, so I am against it. I have directed our staff and consultants to come up with a less showy design that will maintain our scheduled parking, eliminate pedestrian-vehicle interactions in Lot 6, and consolidate RFTA buses and TOSV shuttles into the same location. Until this plan is developed, I will support the proposed incremental improvements.

Skyler Stark-Ragsdale can be reached at 970-429-9152 or email him at [email protected].