The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutagenda.council.regular.20110509 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA May 9, 2011 5:00 P.M. 4:45 Housing Board Interview I. Call to Order II. Roll Call III. Scheduled Public Appearances a) Proclamation — Month of the Young Child b) Proclamation — Arbor Day c) Proclamation — Aspen Police Week d) Outstanding Employee Bonus Award IV. Citizens Comments & Petitions (Time for any citizen to address Council on issues NOT on the agenda. Please limit your comments to 3 minutes) V. Special Orders of the Day a) Councilmembers' and Mayor's Comments b) Agenda Deletions and Additions c) City Manager's Comments d) Board Reports VI. Consent Calendar (These matters may be adopted together by a single motion) a) Minutes — April 25, 2011 b) Resolution #32, 2011 - Phase I Construction Contract Wheeler Remodel VII. First Reading of Ordinances a) Ordinance #17, 2011 — Code Amendment — Solid Waste P.H. 5/23 b) Ordinance #18, 2011 — Supplemental Appropriations P.H. 5/23 VIII. Public Hearings a) Ordinance #15, 2011 — Stormwater Fee in Lieu of Detention b) Ordinance #16, 2011 — Amendment to Urban Runoff Management Plan IX. Action Items a) Resolution #31, 2011 — Appeal of Code Interpretation — Floor Area X. Adjournment Next Regular Meeting May 23, 2011 COUNCIL'S ADOPTED GUIDELINES ✓ Stick to top priorities ✓ Foster a safe, supportive, innovative environment that encourages creativity and acceptable risk - taking ✓ Create structure and allow adequate time & resources for citizen processes. Demonstrate and invite active listening MEMORANDUM VI to TO: Mayor and Council FROM : Steve Bossart, Capital Asset Project Manager THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director DATE: May 3, 2011 RE: Wheeler Opera House 2011 Remodel - CM /GC Contract SUMMARY: The Wheeler remodel work construction phase is scheduled to begin as soon as possible. Wheeler staff has moved to their interim office space at 517 East Hopkins. The demolition phase of work in the basement must commence without delay if the completion date of November 30 is to be realized with Wheeler, restaurant, and retail operations in place. The Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) approach is the end result of the 2009 Construction Experts /Citizen Task Force /Staff recommendations, where the constructor is selected through an early competitive bid process coinciding with conceptual design. Benefits are added value to the City through the professional contractor recommendations on methods and means, consequential cost reductions, and reduction in construction period change orders. Aspen Constructors Inc. was selected for preconstruction design services, and provided competitive bidding on all phases of work. Postponed selection of the restaurant operator pushed mechanical design back so we do not have a final GMP (Guaranteed Maximum Price) for the complete work. We are presenting the construction contract with a gross project cost containing numerous allowances, but with a Phase 1 GMP to allow work to commence and continue from May 16 through July 1S`. Final construction documents will provide final gross GMP figures at that time. The City will monitor progress and have the ability to reevaluate work scope at that time. Meanwhile demolition of basement walls and removal of the concrete slab will be completed before summer activities begin in the downtown core. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In January 2009, City Council directed Wheeler and Capital Asset staff to continue conceptual planning for a proposed addition to the historic theater. Farewell Mills Gatsch Architects LLC was contracted to produce preliminary designs based on programming needs determined by earlier research. At the December 7, 2009 meeting of City Council, this work was suspended and Council directed Wheeler and City staff to conduct an updated comprehensive, third -party needs assessment at the earliest opportunity. 1 In September 2010, Wheeler and Capital Asset staff and Webb Management Services delivered the final report on the needs assessment study. Council subsequently recommended that staff continue the evaluation of future alternate sites, but proceed immediately with design and planning of remodel work to the existing Wheeler basement office, shop, and storage spaces, and to the first floor restaurant and retail space. Council approved a continuation of the existing design team contract, and the addition of a CM /GC at Risk (Construction Manager /General Contractor) to the design and planning effort. An RFP for the CM /GC was issued; a number of candidates were reviewed for proposed fees and qualifications. Aspen Constructors Incorporated (ACI) was selected based on a combination of fees, experience in the downtown core, experience with core historical buildings and retail and restaurant work, and references. Since then ACI has been an integral team member as design proceeded, providing the cost and time saving recommendations the IPD (Integrated Project Delivery) method intends. The CM /GC concept is similar to the Council and community recommended IPD (Integrated Project Delivery) program in that it recognizes the positive contributions of professional construction input and estimating early in design. This concept has been in use in various versions and descriptions for many years, and is a desirable approach in identifying problems, solutions, and alternative methods long before commencement of construction work. City of Aspen experience has proven this method valuable in reducing construction period changes and cost increases. The selection process considered the contractor's experience and capabilities, evaluated fee structure, with the intent to roll the selected CM /GC directly into the construction contract. BACKGROUND: ACI has worked with the design team at length, providing recommendations and methods to improve efficiency and costs. ACI together with the architects, Wheeler staff, and Asset staff, has provided its own extensive subcontractor review and competitive bid process. As a result we now have a strong owner /user /design/construction team ready to move forward in the permitting, and demolition. The target completion date for the work is late November 2011 to allow the tenants and the Wheeler staff time to move and open for the holidays. The schedule is challenging, working within the central core, through tight reserved entertainment programs, and Food and Wine. The extended selection period for the restaurant operator added some time but we feel we're back on track. DISCUSSION: Aspen Constructors Incorporated was the unanimous selection by the evaluation team based on their approach, fee structure, Aspen core area experience, and historical buildings. Their efforts to date during the preconstruction design work have convinced us we made a good selection and we need to execute the next stage construction contract. The contract format is the AIA A195 Owner Contractor Integrated Project Delivery. We have worked with outside counsel as well as the City attorney in developing this procurement methodology, and have experienced superior results. 2 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The overall targeted budget for the renovation, including design, staff costs, and other expenses was $2.4 million. The proposed overall GMP (Guaranteed Maximum Price) contract of $1,995,734.47 has met our budgetary expectations thus far, and is expected to be further perfected with the completion of mechanical design. The Phase 1 demolition GMP scope is $278,568.48. RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS: Proceeding with the CM /GC IPD process and executing the proposed contract saves time and money by moving the competitive process to the front of the delivery process. It also adds the contractor /builder expertise in developing more efficient means and methods. Phasing the work scope in the proposed fashion allows work to commence and occupancy to occur meeting the seasonal schedule. Postponement would increase alternate office rental expenses and eliminate rental revenues on the restaurant and retail spaces during most if not all of the 2011/2012 winter season. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the AIA A195 Owner Contractor Integrated Project Delivery contract for the Wheeler CM /GC for Phase 1 scope. ALTERNATIVES: The proposed CM /GC IPD project delivery approach is the only alternative to accomplishing the project goals on time. WSoLULTLc 32 PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve the proposed AIA A195 Owner Contractor Integrated Project Delivery contract with Aspen Constructors Inc. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ale.e,s11144,624,..Q v ryvtQ ➢�A e Ge ` 1 c .�� C U c.t.1 -t � ! w Ltr ZJY ck�2lt 7S?n G/?/ • Attachments: i A- Copy of signed contract 3 RESOLUTION # 32-- (Series of 2011) A RESOLUTION APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AND ASPEN CONSTRUCTORS INC SETTING FORTH THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS REGARDING THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE REMODEL AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE SAID CONTRACT WHEREAS, there has been submitted to the City Council an agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Aspen Constructors Inc. the, a copy of which agreement is annexed hereto and made a part thereof. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 That the City Council of the City of Aspen hereby approves that agreement between the City of Aspen, Colorado, and Aspen Constructors Inc. regarding the Wheeler Opera House remodel for the city of Aspen, a copy of which is annexed hereto and incorporated herein, and does hereby authorize the City Manager of the City of Aspen to execute said contract on behalf of the City of Aspen. Dated: Michael C. Ireland, Mayor I, Kathryn S. Koch, duly appointed and acting City Clerk do certify that the foregoing is a true and accurate copy of that resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Aspen, Colorado, at a meeting held, May 9, 2011. Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk t-t Document AI95TM — 2008 Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Contractor for Integrated Project Delivery 1 AGREEMENT made as of the 4th day of May in the year 2011 ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS: BETWEEN the Owner: The author of this document has added information needed for its City of Aspen completion. The author may also 130 South Galena Street have revised the text of the original Aspen, Colorado 81611 AIA standard form. An Additions and Deletions Report that notes added and the Contractor: information as well as revisions to the standard form text is available from Aspen Constructors, Inc. the author and should be reviewed. A 309 A.A.B.C., Unit G vertical line in the left margin of this Aspen, Colorado 81611 document indicates where the author has added necessary information and where the author has added to or for the following Project: deleted from the original AIA text. Wheeler Opera House 2011 Remodel This document has important legal consequences. Consultation with an The Architect: attorney is encouraged with respect to its completion or modification. Mills + Schnoerberg Architects, LLC This document is not intended for 200 Forrestal Road use in competitive bidding. Princeton, NJ 08540 AIA Document A295T"" -2008, and General Conditions of the Agreement Rowland + Broughton for Integrated Project Delivery, is adopted in this document by 117 S. Monarch Street reference. Do not use with other Aspen, Colorado 81611 general conditions unless this document is modified. The Owner and Contractor agree as follows. Init. AIA Document Al95TM — 2008. Copyright © 2008 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 11:16:32 on 05/04/2011 under Order No.2898613965_1 which expires on 04/11/2012, and is not for resale. User Notes: (2020301398) TABLE OF ARTICLES 1 THE WORK OF THIS CONTRACT 2 OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES 3 COPYRIGHTS AND LICENSES 4 COMPENSATION 5 PAYMENTS 6 DISPUTE RESOLUTION 7 TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION 8 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 9 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS 10 SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT EXHIBIT A GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE AMENDMENT ARTICLE 1 THE WORK OF THIS CONTRACT § 1.1 The Contractor shall fully execute the Work described in the GMP Documents, except as specifically indicated in the GMP Documents to be the responsibility of others. The GMP Documents are defined in Article 1 of AIA Document A295TM -2008, General Conditions Document of the Contract for Integrated Project Delivery, as modified, which is incorporated herein by reference. § 1.2 The Contractor shall purchase and maintain insurance and provide bonds as set forth in Article 11 of AIA Document A295 -2008, as modified. (Paragraph deleted) § 1.3 SERVICES PRIOR TO THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE § 1.3.1 Prior to the establishment of the Initial Guaranteed Maximum Price, the Contractor may provide pre- construction services pursuant to a separate agreement with the Owner. (Paragraphs deleted) ARTICLE 2 OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITIES The Owner's responsibilities are as set forth in the accompanying A295 - 2008, as modified. ARTICLE 3 COPYRIGHTS AND LICENSES § 3.1 The Contractor and the Owner warrant that in transmitting Instruments of Service, or any other information, the Owner is the copyright owner of such information for its use on the Project. If the Owner and Contractor intend to transmit Instruments of Service or any other information or documentation in digital form, they shall endeavor to establish necessary protocols governing such transmissions. § 3.2 The Owner shall be deemed the owner of the Contractor's and the Contractor's Subcontractors respective Instruments of Service, including but not limited to the Drawings and Specifications, estimates and schedules, and shall retain all common law, statutory and other reserved rights, including copyrights. Submission or distribution of Instruments of Service to meet official regulatory requirements or for similar purposes in connection with the Project is not to be construed as publication in derogation of the reserved rights of the Owner. § 3.3 Upon execution of this Agreement, the Owner grants to the Contractor a nonexclusive license to use the Instruments of Service solely and exclusively for the Project. The Owner shall grant similar nonexclusive licenses to Init. AIA Document A196" 2008. Copyright ®2008 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AlA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of thls AIA Document, or any portion of it, may result In 2 severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 11:16:32 on 05/04/2011 under Order No.2898613965_1 which expires on 04/11/2012, and is not for resale. User Notes: (2020301398) > + E the Contractor's Subcontractors consistent with this Agreement. The license granted under this section permits the Contractor, Architect and the Architect's consultants, as well as the Owner's consultants and separate contractors, to reproduce applicable portions of the Instruments of Service solely and exclusively for use in performing services for the Project. If the Owner rightfully terminates this Agreement for cause as provided in Section 7.1.4, the license granted in this Section 3.3 shall terminate. § 3.3.1 In the event the Owner uses the Instruments of Service without retaining the author of the Instruments of Service, the Owner releases the Contractor and Subcontractor(s) from all claims and causes of action arising from such uses. The Terms of this Section 3.3.1 shall not apply if the Owner rightfully terminates this Agreement for cause under Article 7. § 3.4 Except for the licenses granted in this Article 3, no other license or right shall be deemed granted or implied under this Agreement. The Contractor shall not assign, delegate, sublicense, pledge or otherwise transfer any license - granted herein to another party without the prior written agreement of the Owner. Any use of the Instruments of Service without retaining the author of the Instruments of Service shall be without liability to the Contractor and Contractor's Subcontractors and consultants. ARTICLE 4 COMPENSATION § 4.1 Not used. (Paragraphs deleted) (Table deleted) (Paragraphs deleted) § 4.2 SERVICES PROVIDED AFTER ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GMP § 4.2.1 For the Contractor's performance of the Work after establishment of the Guaranteed Maximum Price, the Owner shall pay to the Contractor the Contract Sum in current funds. The Contract Sum consists of the Contractor's Fee plus the Cost of the Work as that term is defined in the A195 -2008 Guaranteed Maximum Price Amendment to the Standard Form Agreement Between the Owner and Contractor for Integrated Project Delivery (GMP Amendment), the form of which is attached as Exhibit A. § 4.2.1.1 Contractor's Fee shall be determined as follows: (Paragraph deleted) The Contractor's Fee for the Work will be 8.5% of the Cost of the Work. The Contractor's Fee on Changes in the Work shall be 8.5% of the net Cost of the Changes. § 4.2.2 Following the Owner and Contractor's acceptance of an Initial Guaranteed Maximum Price pursuant to Section 7.10 of A295 -2008, the Owner and Contractor shall execute the GMP Amendment amending this Agreement - and setting forth the agreed upon Initial Guaranteed Maximum Price with the information and assumptions upon which it is based. Upon the execution of the GMP Amendment, the Contractor guarantees that the Contract Sum shall not to exceed the Guaranteed Maximum Price, as it is amended from time to time. To the extent the Cost of the Work exceeds the Guaranteed Maximum Price, the Contractor shall bear such costs in excess of the Guaranteed Maximum Price without reimbursement or additional compensation from the Owner. The Initial Guaranteed Maximum Price shall be further refined as Allowance items are defined and converted to firm estimates. (Paragraphs deleted) ARTICLE 5 PAYMENTS § 5.1 Not Used. (Paragraphs deleted) § 5.2 PROGRESS PAYMENTS FOR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AFTER GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE ESTABLISHED § 5.2.1 Based upon Applications for Payment submitted to the Architect by the Contractor and Certificates for Payment issued by the Architect, the Owner shall make progress payments on account of the Contract Sum to the Contractor as provided below and elsewhere in the GMP Documents. § 5.2.2 The period covered by each Application for Payment shall be one calendar month ending on the last day of the month. Init AIA Document A198TM 2008. Copyright ®2008 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA Document. or any portion of it, may result in 3 severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 11:16:32 on 05/04/2011 under Order No.2898613965_1 which expires on 04/11/2012, and is not for resale. User Notes: (2020301398) § 5.2.3 Provided that an Application for Payment is received by the Architect not later than the Fifth day of a month, the Owner shall make payment of the certified amount to the Contractor not later than the Fifth day of the following month. If an Application for Payment is received by the Architect after the application date fixed above, payment shall be made by the Owner not later than Thirty ( 30 ) days after the Architect receives the Application for Payment. § 5.2.4 With each Application for Payment, the Contractor shall submit payrolls, petty cash accounts, receipted invoices or invoices with check vouchers attached, and any other evidence required by the Owner or Architect to demonstrate that cash disbursements already made by the Contractor on account of the Cost of the Work equal or exceed (1) progress payments already received by the Contractor; less (2) that portion of those payments attributable to the Contractor's Fee; plus (3) payrolls for the period covered by the present Application for Payment. § 5.2.5 Each Application for Payment shall be based on the most recent schedule of values submitted by the Contractor in accordance with the GMP Documents. The schedule of values shall allocate the entire Guaranteed Maximum Price among the various portions of the Work, except that the Contractor's Fee shall be shown as a single separate item. The schedule of values shall be prepared in such form and supported by such data to substantiate its accuracy as the Architect may require. This schedule, unless objected to by the Owner or Architect, shall be used as a basis for reviewing the Contractor's Applications for Payment. § 5.2.6 Applications for Payment shall show the percentage of completion of each portion of the Work as of the end of the period covered by the Application for Payment. The percentage of completion shall be the lesser of (1) the percentage of that portion of the Work which has actually been completed; or (2) the percentage obtained by dividing (a) the expense that has actually been incurred by the Contractor on account of that portion of the Work for which the Contractor has made or intends to make actual payment prior to the next Application for Payment by (b) the share of the Guaranteed Maximum Price allocated to that portion of the Work in the schedule of values. § 5.2.7 The amount of each progress payment shall be computed as follows: .1 Take that portion of the Guaranteed Maximum Price properly allocable to completed Work as determined by multiplying the percentage of completion of each portion of the Work by the share of the Guaranteed Maximum Price allocated to that portion of the Work in the schedule of values. Pending final determination of cost to the Owner of changes in the Work, amounts not in dispute shall be included as provided in Section 9.21.3.9 of AIA Document A295 -2008; .2 Add that portion of the Guaranteed Maximum Price properly allocable to materials and equipment delivered and suitably stored at the site for subsequent incorporation in the Work, or if approved in advance by the Owner, suitably stored off the site at a location agreed upon in writing; .3 Add the Contractor's Fee, Tess retainage of Ten percent ( 10% ). The Contractor's Fee shall be computed upon the Cost of the Work at the rate stated in Section 4.2.1.1 or, if the Contractor's Fee is stated as a fixed sum in that Section, shall be an amount that bears the same ratio to that fixed -sum fee as the Cost of the Work bears to a reasonable estimate of the probable Cost of the Work upon its completion; .4 Subtract retainage in accordance with Section 9.23.44 of AIA Document A295 -2008; from that portion of the Work that the Contractor self - performs; and the portion of the Work in paragraphs .1 and .2 above; .5 Subtract the aggregate of previous payments made by the Owner; .6 Subtract the shortfall, if any, indicated by the Contractor in the documentation required by Section 5.2.4 to substantiate prior Applications for Payment, or resulting from errors subsequently discovered by the Owner's auditors in such documentation; and .7 Subtract amounts, if any, for which the Architect has withheld or nullified a Certificate for Payment as provided in Section 9.23.5 of AIA Document A295 -2008. § 5.2.8 The Architect and the Contractor shall review and approve Applications of Payment submitted by Subcontractors. The percentage of retainage held on subcontracts shall be ten percent (10 %) until the Subcontractor is fifty percent (50 %) completed with the Work in the Subcontract. Thereafter no additional retainage will be held if the Subcontractor's Work is acceptable upon application by the Contractor, or recommendation by the Program Manager, and certification by the Architect.. Init. AIA Document A195"' 2008. Copyright ®2008 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: ThisAIA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this Ale Document, or any portion of it, may result in 4 severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 11:16:32 on 05/04/2011 under Order No.2898613965_1 which expires on 04/11/2012, and is not for resale. User Notes: (2020301398) § 5.2.9 In taking action on the Contractor's Applications for Payment, the Architect shall be entitled to rely on the accuracy and completeness of the information furnished by the Contractor and shall not be deemed to represent that the Architect has made a detailed examination, audit or arithmetic verification of the documentation submitted in accordance with Section 5.2.4 or other supporting data that the Architect has made exhaustive or continuous on -site inspections; or that the Architect has made examinations to ascertain how or for what purposes the Contractor has used amounts previously paid on account of the Contract. Such examinations, audits and verifications, if required by the Owner, will be performed by the Owner's auditors acting in the sole interest of the Owner. § 5.3 FINAL PAYMENT § 5.3.1 Final payment, constituting the entire unpaid balance of the Contract Sum, shall be made by the Owner to the Contractor when .1 the Contractor has fully performed the Contract except for the Contractor's responsibility to correct Work as provided in Section 9.25.2.2 of AIA Document A295 -2008, and to satisfy other requirements, if any, which extend beyond final payment; . 2 the Contractor has submitted a final accounting for the Cost of the Work and a final Application for Payment; and . 3 a final Certificate for Payment has been issued by the Architect. § 5.3.2 The Owner's auditors will review and report in writing on the Contractor's final accounting within 30 days after delivery of the final accounting to the Architect by the Contractor. Based upon such Cost of the Work as the Owner's auditors report to be substantiated by the Contractor's final accounting, and provided the other conditions of Section 5.3.1 have been met, the Architect will, within seven days after receipt of the written report of the Owner's auditors, either issue to the Owner a final Certificate for Payment with a copy to the Contractor, or notify the Contractor and Owner in writing of the Architect's reasons for withholding a certificate as provided in Section 9.23.5.1 of the AIA Document A295 -2008. The time periods stated in this Section 5.3.2 supersede those stated in Section 9.23.4.1 of the AIA Document A295 -2008. The Architect is not responsible for verifying the accuracy of the Contractor's final accounting. § 5.3.3 If the Owner's auditors report the Cost of the Work as substantiated by the Contractor's final accounting to be less than claimed by the Contractor, the Contractor shall be entitled to request mediation of the disputed amount without seeking an initial decision pursuant to Section 13.2 of A295 -2008. A request for mediation shall be made by the Contractor within 30 days after the Contractor's receipt of a copy of the Architect's final Certificate for Payment. Failure to request mediation within this 30 -day period shall result in the substantiated amount reported by the Owner's auditors becoming binding on the Contractor. Pending a final resolution of the disputed amount, the Owner shall pay the Contractor the amount certified in the Architect's final Certificate for Payment. § 5.3.4 The Owner's final payment to the Contractor shall be made no later than 30 days after the issuance of the Architect's final Certificate for Payment. § 5.3.5 If, subsequent to final payment and at the Owner's request, the Contractor incurs reimbursable costs to correct defective or nonconforming Work, the Owner shall reimburse the Contractor such costs and the Contractor's Fee applicable thereto on the same basis as if such costs had been incurred prior to final payment, but not in excess of the Guaranteed Maximum Price. ARTICLE 6 DISPUTE RESOLUTION § 6.1 Not Used. § 6.2 AFTER ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE § 6.2.1 Any Claim arising out of or relating to the Project after establishment of the Guaranteed Maximum Price shall be subject to the terms and conditions set forth in Article 13 of the A295 -2008, as modified, in its entirety. § 6.2.2 INITIAL DECISION MAKER The Architect will serve as Initial Decision Maker pursuant to Section 13.2 of AIA Document A295 -2008, unless the parties appoint below another individual, not a party to this Agreement, to serve as Initial Decision Maker. (Paragraphs deleted) ARTICLE 7 TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION 1 § 7.1 Not Used. Init. AIA Document A195"'- 2008. Copyright ®2008 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA Document, or any portion of it, may result in 5 severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at / 11:16:32 on 05/04/2011 under Order No.2898613965_1 which expires on 04/11/2012, and is not for resale. User Notes: (2020301398) (Paragraphs deleted) § 7.2 TERMINATION OR SUSPENSION AFTER ESTABLISHMENT OF THE GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE § 7.2.1 TERMINATION BY THE CONTRACTOR § 7.2.1.1 The Contractor may terminate the Contract if the Work is stopped for a period of 60 consecutive days through no act or fault of the Contractor or a Subcontractor, sub - Subcontractor or their agents or employees or any other persons or entities performing portions of the Work under direct or indirect contract with the Contractor, for any of the following reasons: .1 Issuance of an order of a court or other public authority having jurisdiction that requires all Work to be stopped; .2 An act of government, such as a declaration of national emergency that requires all Work to be stopped; .3 Because the Architect has not issued a Certificate for Payment and has not notified the Contractor of the reason for withholding certification as provided in Section 9.23.4.1 of A295 -2008, or because the Owner has not made payment on a Certificate for Payment within the time stated in the Contract Documents; or .4 The Owner has failed to furnish to the Contractor promptly, upon the Contractor's request, reasonable evidence as required by Section 2.2.2 of A295 -2008. § 7.2.1.2 The Contractor may terminate the Contract if, through no act or fault of the Contractor or a Subcontractor, sub - Subcontractor or their agents or employees or any other persons or entities under direct or indirect contract with the Contractor, the Owner causes repeated suspensions, delays or interruptions of the entire Work by the Owner as described in Section 7.2.3 constitute in the aggregate more than 100 percent of the total number of days scheduled for completion, or 120 days in any 365 -day period, whichever is less. § 7.2.1.3 If one of the reasons described in Section 7.2.1.1 or 7.2.1.2 exists, the Contractor may, upon seven days' written notice to the Owner and Architect, terminate the Contract and recover from the Owner payment for Work executed, including reasonable overhead and profit on the Work executed. § 7.2.1.4 if the Work is stopped for a period of 60 consecutive days through no act or fault of the Contractor or a Subcontractor or their agents or employees or any other persons under contract with the Contractor because the Owner has repeatedly failed to fulfill the Owner's obligations as set forth herein and A295 -2008 with respect to matters important to the progress of the Work, the Contractor may, upon seven additional days' written notice to the Owner and the Architect, terminate this Agreement and recover from the Owner as provided in Section 7.2.1.3. § 7.2.2 TERMINATION BY THE OWNER FOR CAUSE § 7.2.2.1 The Owner may terminate the Contract if the Contractor .1 repeatedly refuses or fails to supply enough properly skilled workers or proper materials; .2 fails to make payment to Subcontractors for materials or labor in accordance with the respective agreements between the Contractor and the Subcontractors; .3 repeatedly disregards applicable laws, statutes, ordinances, codes, rules and regulations, or lawful orders of a public authority; or .4 otherwise is guilty of substantial breach of a provision of the GMP Documents. § 7.2.2.2 When any of the above reasons exist, the Owner, upon certification by the Initial Decision Maker that sufficient cause exists to justify such action, may without prejudice to any other rights or remedies of the Owner and after giving the Contractor and the Contractor's surety, if any, seven days' written notice, terminate employment of the Contractor and may, subject to any prior rights of the surety: .1 Exclude the Contractor from the site and take possession of all materials, equipment, tools, and construction equipment and machinery thereon owned by the Contractor; .2 Accept assignment of subcontracts; and .3 Finish the Work by whatever reasonable method the Owner may deem expedient. Upon written request of the Contractor, the Owner shall furnish to the Contractor a detailed accounting of the costs incurred by the Owner in finishing the Work. § 7.2.2.3 When the Owner terminates the Contract for one of the reasons stated in Section 7.2.2.1, the Contractor shall not be entitled to receive further payment until the Work is finished. Init. AIA Document A195" — 2008. Copyright 2008 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA'' Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA Document, or any portion of it, may result in 6 severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 11:16:32 on 05/04/2011 under Order No.2898613965_1 which expires on 04/11/2012, and is not for resale. User Notes: (2020301398) § 7.2.2.4 If the unpaid balance of the Contract Sum exceeds costs of finishing the Work, including compensation for the Architect's services and expenses made necessary thereby, and other damages incurred by the Owner and not expressly waived, such excess shall be paid to the Contractor. If such costs and damages exceed the unpaid balance, the Contractor shall pay the difference to the Owner. The amount to be paid to the Contractor or Owner, as the case may be, shall be certified by the Initial Decision Maker, upon application, and this obligation for payment shall survive termination of the Contract. § 7.2.2.4.1 If the Owner terminates the Contract for cause, the amount, if any, to be paid to the Contractor under Section 7.2.2.4 shall not cause the Guaranteed Maximum Price to be exceeded, nor shall it exceed an amount calculated as follows: .1 Take the Cost of the Work incurred by the Contractor to the date of termination; .2 Add the Contractor's Fee computed upon the Cost of the Work to the date of termination at the rate stated in Section 4.2.1.1 or, if the Contractor's Fee is stated as a fixed sum in that Section, an amount that bears the same ratio to that fixed -sum Fee as the Cost of the Work at the time of termination bears to a reasonable estimate of the probable Cost of the Work upon its completion; and .3 Subtract the aggregate of previous payments made by the Owner. § 7.2.3 SUSPENSION BY THE OWNER FOR CONVENIENCE § 7.2.3.1 The Owner may, without cause, order the Contractor in writing to suspend, delay or interrupt the Work in whole or in part for such period of time as the Owner may determine. § 7.2.3.2 The Contract Sum and Contract Time shall be adjusted for increases in the cost and time caused by suspension, delay or interruption as described in Section 7.2.3.1. Adjustment of the Contract Sum shall include profit on the actual Cost of the Work, however the adjustment shall not include anticipated or lost profits. No adjustment shall be made to the extent .1 that performance is, was or would have been so suspended, delayed or interrupted by another cause for which the Contractor is responsible; or .2 that an equitable adjustment is made or denied under another provision of the Contract. § 7.2.4 TERMINATION BY THE OWNER FOR CONVENIENCE § 7.2.4.1 The Owner may, at any time, terminate the Contract for the Owner's convenience and without cause. Any termination by the Owner for cause in accordance with Section 7.2.2 above which is later determined to be wrongful shall automatically be converted into a termination for the Owner's convenience pursuant to this Section. § 7.2.4.2 Upon receipt of written notice from the Owner of such termination for the Owner's convenience, the Contractor shall .1 cease operations as directed by the Owner in the notice; .2 take actions necessary, or that the Owner may direct, for the protection and preservation of the Work; and .3 except for Work directed to be performed prior to the effective date of termination stated in the notice, terminate all existing subcontracts and purchase orders and enter into no further subcontracts and purchase orders. § 7.2.4.3 In case of such termination for the Owner's convenience, the Contractor shall be entitled to receive payment for Work executed, and costs incurred by reason of such termination, along with reasonable overhead and profit on the Work executed. § 7.2.5 In the event of any termination by the Owner, the Owner shall also pay the Contractor fair compensation, either by purchase or rental at the election of the Owner, for any equipment owned by the Contractor that the Owner elects to retain and that is not otherwise included in the Cost of the Work. To the extent that the Owner elects to take legal assignment of subcontracts and purchase orders (including rental agreements), the Contractor shall, as a condition of receiving the payments referred to in this Article 7, execute and deliver all such papers and take all such steps, including the legal assignment of such subcontracts and other contractual rights of the Contractor, as the Owner may require for the purpose of fully vesting in the Owner the rights and benefits of the Contractor under such subcontracts or purchase orders. Init AIA Document A195 2008. Copyright ® 2008 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA' Document, or any portion of it, may result in 7 severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 11:16:32 on 05/04/2011 under Order No.2898613965_1 which expires on 04/11/2012, and is not for resale. User Notes: (2020301398) ARTICLE 8 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 1 § 8.1 This Agreement shall be governed by the law of the place where the Project is located. § 8.2 Terms in this Agreement shall have the same meaning as those in A295 -2008. § 8.3 The Owner and Contractor, respectively, bind themselves, their agents, successors, assigns and legal representatives to this Agreement. Neither the Owner nor the Contractor shall assign this Agreement without the written consent of the other. § 8.4 Nothing contained in this Agreement shall create a contractual relationship with or a cause of action i n favor of a third party against either the Owner or Contractor. § 8.5 If the Contractor or Owner receives information specifically designated by the other party as "confidential" or "business proprietary," the receiving party shall keep such information strictly confidential and shall not disclose it to any other person except to (1) its employees, (2) those who need to know the content of such information in order to perform services or construction solely and exclusively for the Project, or (3) its consultants and contractors whose contracts include similar restrictions on the use of confidential information. ARTICLE 9 SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS Special terms and conditions that modify this Agreement are as follows: § 9.1 Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an employment relationship. Contractor shall be, and shall perform as, an Independent Contractor who agrees to use its best efforts to provide services on behalf of the Owner. No agent, employee, or servant of Contractor shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or servant of the Owner. Owner is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The means and methods of conducting the work are under the sole control of Contractor. None of the benefits provided by Owner to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and unemployment insurance, are available from Owner to the employees, agents or servants of Contractor. Contractor shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of Contractor's agents, employees, servants and consultants during the performance of this contract. Contractor shall indemnify Owner against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to Contractor and/or Contractor's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to herein. § 9.2 Non - Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status, affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract. Contractor agrees to meet all of the requirements of Owner's municipal code, Section 13 -98, pertaining to non - discrimination in employment. § 9.3 Waiver. The waiver by the Owner of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not operate as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or condition of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the Owner. Forbearance or indulgence by the Owner in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant, or condition to be performed by Contractor to which the same may apply and, until complete performance by Contractor of said term, covenant or condition, the Owner shall be entitled to invoke any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or indulgence. § 9.4 Execution of Agreement by Owner. This agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained herein, this Agreement in excess of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) shall not be binding upon the Owner unless duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen, or a duly authorized official in his absence, following approval of City Council. § 9.5 It is agreed that neither this agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions, representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived, superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the parties. Ink AIA Document Al 95T`' — 2008. Copyright 02008 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA Document, or any portion of it, may result in 8 severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 11:16:32 on 05/04/2011 under Order No. 2898613965_1 which expires on 04/11/2012, and is not for resale. User Notes: (2020301398) § 9.6 If any of the provisions of this agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other provision. ARTICLE 10 SCOPE OF THE AGREEMENT § 10.1 This Agreement represents the entire and integrated agreement between the Owner and the Contractor and supersedes all prior negotiations, representations or agreements, either written or oral. This Agreement may be amended only by written instrument signed by both Owner and Contractor. § 10.2 The following documents comprise the Agreement: .1 AIA Document A 195 -2008, Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Contractor for Integrated Project Delivery, as modified .2 AIA Document A295 -2008, General Conditions of the Contract for Integrated Project Delivery, as modified .3 AIA Document E201TM -2007, Digital Data Protocol Exhibit, if completed, or the following: .4 Other documents: AIA Document E202 -2008 Building Information Modeling Protocol Exhibit AIA Document A195-2008, Exhibit A Guaranteed Price Amendment, as modified Aspen Fire Protection District Aspen — Pitkin Efficient Building Program Pitkin County Drainage and Erosion Control Plan Aspen Engineering Department Construction Management Plan This Agreement entered into as of the day and year first written above. • CITY OF ASPEN . OWNER (Signature) CONTRACTORW=rrutmtt Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Michael Tanguay, President (Row deleted) Approved as to form: City Attorney's Office Init. AIA Document A195T" — 2008. Copyrig�tt 0 2008 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This Ale Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA Document, or any portion of it, may result in 9 severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 11:16:32 on 05/04/2011 under Order No.2898613965_1 which expires on 04/11/2012, and is not for resale. User Notes: (2020301398) PAIA Document AI95TM - 2008 Exhibit A Guaranteed Maximum Price Amendment This Exhibit is incorporated into the accompanying Agreement dated the 4th day of May in the year 2011. for the following PROJECT: ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS: Wheeler Opera House 2011 Remodel The author of this document has Aspen, Colorado added information needed for its completion. The author may also ARTICLE A.1 have revised the text of the original AIA standard form. An Additions and § A.1.1 INITIAL GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE Deletions Report that notes added Pursuant to Section 4.2.2 of the Agreement, the Owner and Contractor hereby amend the information as well as revisions to the Agreement to establish an Initial Guaranteed Maximum Price. As agreed by the Owner standard form text is available from and Contractor, the Initial Guaranteed Maximum Price is an amount that the Contract Sum the author and should be reviewed. A shall not exceed. The Contract Sum consists of the Contractor's Fee plus the Cost of the vertical line in the left margin of this Work, as that term is defined in Article A.3 of this Amendment. The Initial Guaranteed document indicates where the author Maximum Price is expected to be refined and reduced as Allowances are defined and has added necessary information converted to firm estimates. and where the author has added to or deleted from the original AIA text. § A.1.1.1 The Contract Sum is guaranteed by the Contractor not to exceed One Million, This document has important legal Nine Hundred Ninety-Five Thousand, Seven Hundred Thirty-Four ($ 1,995,734.00 ), consequences. Consultation with an subject to additions and deductions by Change Order as provided in the GMP Documents. attorney is encouraged with respect (Paragraphs deleted) to its completion or modification. § A.1.1.2 ITEMIZED STATEMENT OF THE INITIAL GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE This document is not intended for Attached as Exhibit 1 is an itemized statement of the Initial Guaranteed Maximum Price use in competitive bidding. organized by trade categories, allowances, contingencies, alternates, the Contractor's Fee, AIA Document A295" —2008, and other items that comprise the Guaranteed Maximum Price. General Conditions of the Agreement The Work shall be performed in two Phases: for Integrated Project Delivery, is Phase 1 — Demolition adopted in this document by Phase 2 - Construction reference. Do not use with other general conditions unless this § A.1.1.3 The Initial Guaranteed Maximum Price is based on the following alternates, if document is modified. any, which are described in the GMP Documents and are hereby accepted by the Owner: See Exhibit 1, attached, Wheeler Opera House TI Project, Budget Estimate 4/18/11. § A.1.1.4 Allowances included in the Guaranteed Maximum Price, if any: (Paragraph deleted) (Table deleted) See Exhibit 1, attached, Wheeler Opera House TI Project, Budget Estimate 4/18/11. § A.1.1.5 Assumptions, if any, on which the Guaranteed Maximum Price is based: See Exhibit 1, attached, Wheeler Opera House TI Project, Budget Estimate 4/18/11. § A.1.1.6 To the extent that the GMP Documents require further development by the Architect and Contractor, the Contractor has provided in the Guaranteed Maximum Price for such further development consistent with the GMP Documents and reasonably inferable therefrom. Such further development does not include such things as changes in scope, systems, kinds and quality of materials, finishes or equipment, all of which, if required, shall be incorporated by Change Order. AIA Document A195TM — 2008 Exhibit A. Copyright C 2008 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA® Document is Init. protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA Document, or any portion of it, may result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 14:47:48 on 05/04/2011 under Order No.2898613965_1 which expires on 04/11/2012, and is not for resale. User Notes: (892429897) § A.1.1.7 The Guaranteed Maximum Price is based upon the following Supplementary and other Conditions of the Contract: N/A (Table deleted) § A.1.1.8 The Guaranteed Maximum Price is based upon the following Specifications: (Paragraphs deleted) N/A (Table deleted) § A.1.1.9 The Initial Guaranteed Maximum Price is based upon the following Drawings: (Paragraphs deleted) Number Title Date Wheeler Opera House - Tenant Schematic Design Drawings February 23, 2011 Improvement Basement Level ARTICLE A.2 § A.2.1 The anticipated dates of Substantial and Final Completion established by this Amendment: The Date of Substantial Completion for the Basement Area shall be December 1, 2011. The Date of Substantial for the leased spaces will determined at a later time and added by Change Order. The Date of Final Completion shall be no later than 60 days after the Date of Substantial Completion. § A.2.2 The issuance dates for the Implementation Documents upon which the anticipated Substantial Completion date relies are as follows: Document Issuance Date Wheeler Opera House - Tenant Improvement Construction Drawings, May 3, 2011 Basement Level ARTICLE A.3 § A.3.1 COST OF THE WORK § A.3.1.1 The term Cost of the Work shall mean costs necessarily incurred by the Contractor in the proper performance of the Work. Such costs shall be at rates not higher than the standard paid at the place of the Project except with prior consent of the Owner. The Cost of the Work shall include only the items set forth in this Section A.3.1. § A.3.1.2 Where any cost is subject to the Owner's prior approval, the Contractor shall obtain this approval prior to incurring the cost. The parties shall endeavor to identify any such costs prior to executing this Agreement. § A.3.1.3 LABOR COSTS § A.3.1.3.1 Wages of construction workers directly employed by the Contractor to perform the construction of the Work at the site or, with the Owner's prior approval, at off -site workshops. § A.3.1.3.2 Wages or salaries of the Contractor's supervisory and administrative personnel when stationed at the site with the Owner's prior approval. 1 (Table deleted)(Paragraph deleted) § A.3.1.3.3 Wages and salaries of the Contractor's supervisory or administrative personnel engaged at factories, workshops or on the road, in expediting the production or transportation of materials or equipment required for the Work, but only for that portion of their time required for the Work. § A.3.1.3.4 Labor costs shall be charged at the rates included in Exhibit 1, Wheeler Opera House TI Project, Budget Estimate 4/18/11, provided such costs are based on wages and salaries included in the Cost of the Work under Sections A.3.1.3.1 through A.3.1.3.3. § A.3.1.3.5 Not used. § A.3.1.4 SUBCONTRACT COSTS Payments made by the Contractor to Subcontractors in accordance with the requirements of the subcontracts. AIA Document A195TM — 2008 Exhibit A. Copyright ® 2008 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA Document is Init. protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA Document, or any portion of it, may 2 result In severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA software at 14:47:48 on 05/04/2011 under Order No.2898613965_1 which expires on 04/11/2012, and is not for resale. User Notes: (892429897) § A.3.1.5 COSTS OF MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT INCORPORATED IN THE COMPLETED CONSTRUCTION § A.3.1.5.1 Costs, including transportation and storage, of materials and equipment incorporated or to be incorporated in the completed construction. § A.3.1.5.2 Costs of materials described in the preceding Section A.3.1.5.1 in excess of those actually installed to allow for reasonable waste and spoilage. Unused excess materials, if any, shall become the Owner's property at the completion of the Work or, at the Owner's option, shall be sold by the Contractor. Any amounts realized from such sales shall be credited to the Owner as a deduction from the Cost of the Work. § A.3.1.6 COSTS OF OTHER MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT, TEMPORARY FACILITIES AND RELATED ITEMS § A.3.1.6.1 Costs of transportation, storage, installation, maintenance, dismantling and removal of materials, supplies, temporary facilities, machinery, equipment and hand tools not customarily owned by construction workers that are provided by the Contractor at the site and fully consumed in the performance of the Work. Costs of materials, supplies, temporary facilities, machinery, equipment and tools that are not fully consumed shall be based on the cost or value of the item at the time it is first used on the Project site less the value of the item when it is no longer used at the Project site. Costs for items not fully consumed by the Contractor shall mean fair market value. § A.3.1.6.2 Rental charges for temporary facilities, machinery, equipment and hand tools not customarily owned by construction workers that are provided by the Contractor at the site and costs of transportation, installation, minor repairs, dismantling and removal. The total rental cost of any Contractor -owned item may not exceed the purchase price of any comparable item. Rates of Contractor -owned equipment and quantities of equipment shall be subject to the Owner's prior approval. § A.3.1.6.3 Costs of removal of debris from the site of the Work and its proper and legal disposal. § A.3.1.6.4 Costs of document reproductions, facsimile transmissions and long - distance telephone calls, postage and parcel delivery charges, telephone service at the site and reasonable petty cash expenses of the site office. § A.3.1.6.5 Costs of materials and equipment suitably stored off the site at a mutually acceptable location, subject to the Owner's prior approval. § A.3.1.7 MISCELLANEOUS COSTS § A.3.1.7.1 Premiums for that portion of insurance and bonds required by the GMP Documents that can be directly attributed to this Contract. Self - insurance for either full or partial amounts of the coverages required by the GMP Documents, with the Owner's prior approval. § A.3.1.7.2 Sales, use or similar taxes imposed by a governmental authority that are related to the Work and for which the Contractor is liable which are not covered by the Tax Exemption. § A.3.1.7.3 Fees and assessments for the building permit and for other permits, licenses and inspections for which the Contractor is required by the GMP Documents to pay. § A.3.1.7.4 Fees of laboratories for tests required by the GMP Documents, except those related to defective or nonconforming Work for which reimbursement is excluded by Section 12.4.3 of AIA Document A295T or by other provisions of the GMP Documents, and which do not fall within the scope of Section A.3.1.8.3. § A.3.1.7.5 Royalties and license fees paid for the use of a particular design, process or product required by the GMP Documents; the cost of defending suits or claims for infringement of patent rights arising from such requirement of the GMP Documents; and payments made in accordance with legal judgments against the Contractor resulting from such suits or claims and payments of settlements made with the Owner's consent. However, such costs of legal defenses, judgments and settlements shall not be included in the calculation of the Contractor's Fee or subject to the Guaranteed Maximum Price. If such royalties, fees and costs are excluded by the last sentence of Section 9.17 of A295TM -2008 or other provisions of the GMP Documents, then they shall not be included in the Cost of the Work. § A.3.1.7.6 Costs for electronic equipment and software, directly related to the Work with the Owner's prior approval. AIA Document A196 — 2008 Exhibit A. Copyright © 2008 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA Document is Init. protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA Document, or any portion of it, may 3 result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law_ This document was produced by AIA I software at 14:47:48 on 05/04/2011 under Order No. 2898613965_1 which expires on 04/11/2012, and is not for resale. User Notes: (892429897) r § A.3.1.7.7 Deposits lost for causes other than the Contractor's negligence or failure to fulfill a specific responsibility in the GMP Documents. § A.3.1.7.8 Legal, mediation and arbitration costs, including attorneys' fees, other than those arising from disputes between the Owner and Contractor, reasonably incurred by the Contractor after the execution of this Agreement in the performance of the Work and with the Owner's prior approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. 1 § A.3.1.7.9 Not used. 1 § A.3.1.7.10 Subject to the Owner's prior written approval, that portion of the reasonable expenses of the Contractor's supervisory or administrative personnel incurred while traveling in discharge of duties connected with the Work. I § A.3.1.8 OTHER COSTS AND EMERGENCIES § A.3.1.8.1 Other costs incurred in the performance of the Work if and to the extent, approved in advance in writing by the Owner. § A.3.1.8.2 Costs incurred in taking action to prevent threatened damage, injury or loss in case of an emergency affecting the safety of persons and property, as provided in Section 9.24.4 of A295 -2008. § A.3.1.8.3 Costs of repairing or correcting damaged or nonconforming Work executed by the Contractor, Subcontractors or suppliers, provided that such damaged or nonconforming Work was not caused by negligence or failure to fulfill a specific responsibility of the Contractor and only to the extent that the cost of repair or correction is not recovered by the Contractor from insurance, sureties, Subcontractors, suppliers, or others. § A.3.1.9 RELATED PARTY TRANSACTIONS § A.3.1.9.1 For purposes of this Section A.3.1.9, the term "related party" shall mean a parent, subsidiary, affiliate or other entity having common ownership or management with the Contractor; any entity in which any stockholder in, or management employee of, the Contractor owns any interest in excess often percent in the aggregate; or any person or entity which has the right to control the business or affairs of the Contractor. The term "related party" includes any member of the immediate family of any person identified above. § A.3.1.9.2 If any of the costs to be reimbursed arise from a transaction between the Contractor and a related party, the Contractor shall notify the Owner of the specific nature of the contemplated transaction, including the identity of the related party and the anticipated cost to be incurred, before any such transaction is consummated or cost incurred. If the Owner, after such notification, authorizes the proposed transaction, then the cost incurred shall be included as a cost to be reimbursed, and the Contractor shall procure the Work, equipment, goods or service from the related party, as a Subcontractor, according to the terms of Section A.3.4. If the Owner fails to authorize the transaction, the Contractor shall procure the Work, equipment, goods or service from some person or entity other than a related party according to the terms of Section A.3.4. § A.3.2 COSTS NOT INCLUDED IN THE COST OF THE WORK § A.3.2.1 The Cost of the Work shall not include the items listed below: .1 Salaries and other compensation of the Contractor's personnel stationed at the Contractor's principal office or offices other than the site office, except as specifically provided in Section A.3.1.3. or as may otherwise be provided; .2 Expenses of the Contractor's principal office and offices other than the site office; .3 Overhead and general expenses, except as may be expressly included in Section A.3.1; .4 The Contractor's capital expenses, including interest on the Contractor's capital employed for the I Work; .5 Except as provided in Section A.3.1.8.3 of this Agreement, costs due to the negligence or failure of the Contractor, Subcontractors and suppliers or anyone directly or indirectly employed by any of them or for whose acts any of them may be liable to fulfill a specific responsibility of the Contract; .6 Any cost not specifically and expressly described in Section A.3.1; and .7 Bonuses, profit sharing, incentive compensation and any other discretionary payments paid to anyone I hired by the Contractor or paid to any Subcontractor or vendor; and .8 Costs, other than costs included in Change Orders approved by the Owner, that would cause the Guaranteed Maximum Price to be exceeded. 1 Init. AIA Document A195TM' — 2008 Exhibit A. Copyright ® 2008 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This AIA Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA Document, or any portion of it, may 4 result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the law. This document was produced by AIA i software at 14:47:48 on 05/04/2011 under Order No.2898613965_1 which expires on 04/11/2012, and is not for resale. User Notes: (892429897) t § A.3.3 DISCOUNTS, REBATES AND REFUNDS § A.3.3.1 Cash discounts obtained on payments made by the Contractor shall accrue to the Owner if (1) before making t he payment, the Contractor included them in an Application for Payment and received payment from the Owner, or (2) the Owner has deposited funds with the Contractor with which to make payments; otherwise, cash discounts shall accrue to the Contractor. Trade discounts, rebates, refunds and amounts received from sales of surplus materials and equipment shall accrue to the Owner, and the Contractor shall make provisions so that they can be obtained. § A.3.3.2 Amounts that accrue to the Owner in accordance with the provisions of Section A.3.3.1 shall be credited to the Owner as a deduction from the Cost of the Work. 1 § A.3.4 SUBCONTRACTS AND OTHER AGREEMENTS § A.3.4.1 Those portions of the Work that the Contractor does not customarily perform with the Contractor's own personnel shall be performed under subcontracts or by other appropriate agreements with the Contractor. The Owner may designate specific persons from whom, or entities from which, the Contractor shall obtain bids. The Contractor shall obtain bids from Subcontractors and from suppliers of materials or equipment fabricated especially for the Work 4 and shall deliver such bids to the other Project Participants. The Project Participants shall then determine which bids will be accepted. The Contractor shall not be required to contract with anyone to whom the Contractor has reasonable objection. § A.3.4.2 When a specific bidder (1) is recommended to the Owner by the Contractor; (2) is qualified to perform that portion of the Work; and (3) has submitted a bid that conforms to the requirements of the GMP Documents without reservations or exceptions, but the Owner requires that another bid be accepted, then the Contractor may require that a Change Order be issued to adjust the Guaranteed Maximum Price by the difference between the bid of the person or entity recommended to the Owner by the Contractor and the amount of the subcontract or other agreement actually signed with the person or entity designated by the Owner. § A.3.4.3 Subcontracts or other agreements shall conform to the applicable payment provisions of this Agreement, and shall not be awarded on the basis of cost plus a fee without the prior consent of the Owner. If the Subcontract is awarded on a cost -plus a fee basis, the Contractor shall provide in the Subcontract for the Owner to receive the same audit rights with regard to the Subcontractor as the Owner receives with regard to the Contractor in Section A.3.5, below. § A.3.5 ACCOUNTING RECORDS The Contractor shall keep full and detailed records and accounts related to the cost of the Work and exercise such controls as may be necessary for proper financial management under this Contract and to substantiate all costs incurred. The accounting and control systems shall be satisfactory to the Owner. The Owner and the Owner's auditors shall, during regular business hours and upon reasonable notice, be afforded access to, and shall be permitted to audit and copy, the Contractor's records and accounts, including complete documentation supporting accounting entries, books, correspondence, instructions, drawings, receipts, subcontracts, Subcontractor's proposals, purchase orders, vouchers, memoranda and other data relating to this Contract. The Contractor shall preserve these records for a period of three years after final payment, or for such longer period as may be required by law. This Agreement entered into as of the day and year first written above. 1 CITY OF ASPEN �AEATCONSTR NS, INC. OWNER (Signature) CONTRACTOR (Signature) Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Michael Tanguay, President (Row deleted) Approved as to form: City Attorney's Office init. AIA Document A195"' — 2008 Exhibit A. Copyright 0 2008 by The American Institute of Architects. All rights reserved. WARNING: This Ale Document is protected by U.S. Copyright Law and International Treaties. Unauthorized reproduction or distribution of this AIA Document, or any portion of it, may 5 result in severe civil and criminal penalties, and will be prosecuted to the maximum extent possible under the taw. This document was produced by AIA i software at 14:47:48 on 05/04/2011 under Order No. 2898613965_1 which expires on 04/11/2012, and is not for resale. User Notes: (892429897) II Wheeler Opera House TI Project 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 ASPEN Schematic Design Package from R +B Architects dated 02.23.2011 - Budget Estimate REV 04/18/11 CONSTHHCTON ••• NOTE . Budget based on known and assumed Information as of 04 /18/2011. Unless explicitly described below, assume NOT INCLUDED. -- Division 1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 01 -120 Architects NIC. 0.00 01 -130 Architectural Drawings Allowance. Plans reproductions, shop drawings, misc. printing 500.00 01 -150 Carpet Cleaning 0.00 01 -160 Client Meetings 0.00 01 -200 Contingency 0.00 01 -260 Engineers BY OTHERS 0.00 01 -270 Estimating Complimentary 0.00 Allowance. Final cleaning following construction completion, Touch -up cleaning after install of FF &E, window detail cleaning + pre- Tenant turnover cleaning/prep for Fiercely Local /Valley 01 -250 Final Cleanup fine Art. 3,000.00 01 -285 Finance Charges 0.00 01 -290 Food & Beverages 0.00 Allowance. ACI Foreman Labor as required during Finish Stages. 01 -300 Foreman 275MH @ $60 /hr. 16,500.00 Allowance. ACI Field Management (Currently planned as Mike Bassi). Responsible for all plan /shop drawing review and related pre - planning, layout, construction systems fabrication, surveyor coordination /layout, subcontractor layout /scheduling/management ,Quality Control, Building Department coordination, Site Safety, ACI Labor management, Delivery receipt /check -In /inspection, Field Daily Reporting, Design issue clarification, Systems implementation. 880MH @ $65 /hr. = $57,200 + estimated 225MH OT Labor @ $97.50/hr. to meet schedule milestones (Includes estimate of 2hrs OT/day + 01 -310 Senior Superintendent /Owner Saturdays) = $21,937.50 79.13/.50 Allowance. ACI Labor for General Cleanup, Procurement, Trash Hauling, misc. hand - excavations, jobsite safety material installation and maintenance, site dust control, concrete labor assistance, finish protection materials installation. 2men, limos. 01 -320 General Laborers = 2320MH @ $22.50 /hr. 52.200.00 Allowance. per Ned- Garing Insurance (GW5), assume 5800 /mo. forjoisted masonry-type construction coverage. A 7mo. Global Construction Timetable is planned + allowance add per R +B. • • "NOTE: Builder's Risk allowances for Fiercely Local and Valley 01 -340 Insurance (Builders Risk) Art NOT Included in this budget 6,600.00 01 -360 Land Planning Services 0.00 01 -380 Legal 0.00 Allowance. 45MH @ $45 /hr. (15hrs Setup, Insurance, Use Tax, 01 -410 Office Administration /Data Entry Administration 4 lMH /week for 30 weeks) 2,025.00 Allowance. Per R +8, Building Dept. and P&Z Permits are assumed to be $30k + allowance for unforeseen per R+8 @ $5000; Individual Trade - related permits are INCLUDED for Fire Suppression, Mechanical, Plumbing and Electrical by 01 -420 Permits & Fees SUBCONTRACTOR 35,000.00 01 -440 Photographic Documentation Complimentary 0.00 01 -460 Pickup & Delivery Allowance. Samples shipping, FedEx as needed 500.00 01-480 Postage & Freight 0.0 01 -530 Progressive Cleanup Incl. in 01-320 0.00 Allowance. 1040MH @ 510 /hr. = 5 /2,80 + 420MH 01 Labor (2hrs /day each week + some Saturdays) @ $105 /hr. = $44,100. Includes Project planning, Buyout, Administration, QC, CMP Creation /implementation, Procurement, Public /Neighbor Relations, Design Team /Owner coordination, Subcontractor 01 -540 Project Manager Management, Close -out. 116,900.00 01 -560 Sample Preparation Allowance. Miscellaneous samples as needed. 800.00 01 -585 Sub- Contractor Meetings 0.00 01 -660 Telephones (Mobile) Complimentary 0.00 Allowance. Job Trailer rental NOT anticipated for this project due to onsite -office capabilities. Includes Office supplies, fax /scanner /copier + misc. job safety equipment (Ear plugs, fire 01 -700 Temporary Office, Telephone, Supplies extinguishers, First -aid, etc.) @ $2,000 2,000.00 01 -720 Temporary Power 0.00 01 -740 Temporary Services 0 Allowance. (2) Porta -jons with once weekly service. 01 -760 Temporary Toilet $130 /unit /week for 30weeks 7,800.00 Allowance. $800k out -of -City materials estimate; Less $50k 01-820 Use Tax Exemption = $750k x 2.1% 2011 Rate 15,750.00 01 -830 Vehicle Expenses /Fuel, etc. Complimentary 0.00 Allowance. Fuel as needed for dump trucks for trash 01- 830 -01 Gas /Diesel - Dump Trucks hauling/materials procurement. 700.00 Allowance. Fuel as needed for gas saws, bobcats, mini - 01- 830 -02 Gas - Construction Equipment excavator, compactors, etc. 850.00 Division 1 Total 340,262.50 TOTAL Division Percentage of Grand Total 17.05% Division Percentage of Grand Total LESS Permits, Fees and Insurance - $57,350 14.18% Permits, Fees and Insurance Percentage of Grand Total 2.87% Wheeler Opera House TI Project 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 ASPEN Schematic Design Package from R +B Architects dated 02.23.2011- Budget Estimate REV 04 /18/11 CONSTRUCTORS • “NOTE - Budget based on known and assumed .nformatlon as of 04 /18/2011. Unless explicitly described below, assume NOT INCLUDED. - — Division 2 SITEWORK Allowance. Structural Fill /Gravel backfill at Demo'd Basement SOG areas to reset FFE after Radon system /MEP elements 02 -100 Backfill installation and prior to replacement of concrete. 2,000.00 Allowance. Temporary site barricades for Pedestrian safety as needed + temporary "Pardon the Dust" and Project Info - related 02 -150 Barricades signage. 2,250.00 02 -175 Blasting/Explosives Demolition NIC 0.00 ACI -owned "lumping jack" and plate tamper - COMPLIMENTARY. 32MH @ $22.50/hr. for Basement SOG backfill compaction following Radon system /MEP elements 02 -200 Compaction installation and prior to replacement of concrete 720.00 02 -255 Crane 0.00 Allowance. Minor sidewalk /paver repairs at Wheeler Box Office Entry at south facade to repair current negative drainage issues causing water intrusion into WOH Office space at Lower 02 - 260 Curb & Sidewalk Level 2,500.00 02 - 300 Decking 0.00 Allowances. Removal of Construction Zone trees @ $1000 ($0 if City- performed) + Removal /relocation /storage of Construction Zone newspaper boxes, benches and misc. - 16MH @ $22.50/hr. (2 men, 1 day) = $360 (NOTE: Possible Tree Removal and Related is based on feedback from Wheeler Board per R +B email meeting notes dated 04 /13/11. Actual scope TBD - budget provided per notes below.) + Wheeler Office /Storage non - structural walls, ACT ceiling tiles and grids, MEP components, existing doors /hardware, misc. - 320MH @ $22.50/hr. (5 men, 8 days) = $7,200 "'NOTE - Potential slab demo options for floor leveling, underground MEP work and radon system installation Included below. "Safe -Off" of MEP items to be demo'd provided in DIVs 15 and 16. + Demo of Valley Fine Art and related Mechanical Mezzanine and Demo of current Bentley's space - 320MH @ $22.50 /hr. = (5 men, 10 02 -350 Demolition /Clearing days) = $7,200 + Slab Demo Allowance described below, left. 23,320.00 o Existing Lower Level Slab Demo. To include removal ro 0 o of existing SOG to achieve flat, true surface for E m m acoustic assembly performance /finish quality, 0 0 handicap ramp installation at south end, sub -slab MEP o v systems routing ( Underslab Ductwork NOT Included at o N this time - pending Engineering), proper Radon mitigation system installation - assumed to include a o typical perforated / "sock" pipe at perimeter /transition E w areas of slab removal, UL- certified membrane and in- n - 3 line fan for exterior relief venting. Slab removal • 0 Z' 3 • includes all areas LESS Boiler Room to remain, NE -o = � Stairwell /Dead Space, NW and SW Stairwells and g 3 3 Closets, Freight and Passenger Elevator shafts, Elevator o < Machine Room, MCC Closet, northern half of west W « „ corridor, water main /fire riser area, or possible slabs at v � exterior window wells. + /• 4200sf x 4" assumed slab • v N thickness = 52cu.yds = Estimate of 336MH @ ■ $22.50/hr. (7 men, 6 days) ••"NOTE • possible O z v existing "skinny slab" demo at Bentley's floor or Valley Fine Art NOT anticipated at this time. 7,560.00 02 - 355 Dewatering NIC Not anticipated 0.00 ACI - owned Skid steer and Mint Excavator for materials handling in Construction Zone. 4MH @ $65 /hr. (CDL License required to haul equipment. Mobilization performed by ACI 02 -400 Equipment Mobilization Superintendent) 260.00 Allowance. Hand excavation of Basement underslab MEP trenches. 64MH @ $22.50/hr. (4 men, 2 days) - •••NOTE - includes potential plumbing, electrical and radon system runs ONLY. Possible sub -slab Ductwork NOT Included - Pending Engineering and will be a post -demo determination. + sidewalk drainage /Bentley's entry stone stair repairs @ $1500 + allowance to clean out and re- establish gravel at WOH Light 02 - 450 Excavation Wells (QTY. 2) - 32MH @ $22.50 /hr (2 men, 2 days) 3,660.00 Allowance. +1- BOIL Construction Zone chain -link fencing/tennis screening, (2) Vehicle gates on rollers, Gate locks /chains •••NOTE - Temp fencing/tennis screening at south lawn /sidewalk transition at west Expansion Parcel preferred per 02 -500 Fencing Wheeler Board. 3,000.00 02 -550 Final Grade 0.00 Allowance. Minor hauling of non - concrete related Basement 02 - 600 Haul Spoils spoils /debris. 10cu.yds material + PitCo Landfill fee 500.00 02 -610 Temporary Heaters Not anticipated 0.00 02 -625 House Moving/Jacking 0.00 02 -650 Landscaping Allowance. Minor remediation to West Lot. Seed /straw 400.00 02 - 675 Moving & Storage By Wheeler Staff 0.00 NIC. Possible re paving operations for /related to potential new fiber optic line, potential sanitary/storm sewer related issues, 02 -700 Paving existing grease -trap, etc. NOT included. 0.00 02 -710 Propane Delivery 0.00 Wheeler Opera House TI Project 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 ASPEN Schematic Design Package from R +B Architects dated 02.23.2011 - Budget Estimate REV 04/18/11 01S?HUC?011S '•' NOTE • Budget based on known and assumed information as of 04/18 /2011. Unless explicitly described below, assume NOT INCLUDED. Allowance. REG-supplied allowance provided during 04/14/11 REG /R +B /ACI Conference Call. REG to supply typical details /routing info - minimally in writing for inclusion with R +B Building Permit submittal docs. ACI to subcontract Radon Mitigation - specific subcontractor for installation of typical pipe/ membrane /exhaust /blower fan system. Performance Testing to be included. Allowance based on similar square footage and anticipated system elements by Radon Engineering 02 - 725 Radon Mitigation Consultants (GWS). 8,500.00 02 -730 Retaining Wall 0.00 02 -750 Rough Grade 0 02 -800 Septic System 0.00 02 -825 Shoring Allowance. Misc. temp shoring at Lower Level as needed 1,500.00 Allowance. Dust /Noise Control materials, Pedestrian/ Patron Safety- related materials, Finish Materials protection. Install of 02 -955 Site Protection 02 -955 elements included in 01 -320 4,500.00 02 -956 Sitework Layout Included In 06 -110 0.00 02 -960 Snow Removal 0.00 02 -961 Storm Drain /Drywells 0.00 02 -965 Survey 0.00 02 -970 Temporary Fencing Included in 02 -500 0.00 02 -980 Testing & Inspections f:IC 0.00 Allowance. Demo material disposal, site trash disposal - PitCo Landfill (Assumes full slab demo), Bentley's and Valley Fine Art demo'd materials "'NOTE -All recycleable materials 02 -982 Trash Removal generated will be recycled. 10,000.00 02 -984 Underground Utility NIC 0.00 NOTE - Exterior work to existing NW electrical transformer N.0 02 -985 Utilities at this time as necessity is NOT anticipated 0.00 02 -990 Weather Protection 0.00 Division 2 Total 63,110.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total 3.16' Wheeler Opera House TI Project 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 ASPEN Schematic Design Package from R +B Architects dated 02.23.2011 - Budget Estimate REV 04/18/11 CONSTRUCTORS "• NOTE - Budget based on known and assumed information as of 04 /18/ 2011. Unless explicitly described below, assume NOT INCLUDED. - - -- Division 3 CONCRETE 03 -025 Accessories 0.00 03 -150 Cementitious Decks Incl. in 03-600 0.00 Allowance. Assumes pour -back of 4 Casement SW demo areas as described in DIV 2 - 'Existing Slab Demo' to achieve level floor, U/G MEP, and functional Radon Mitigation system. +/- 4200sf @ $8.20 /sf. Includes rebar, forms as needed, placement (including pump), finish, strip, seal. "'NOTE - Structural Engineer pre -, during -, and post - operation to be 03 -200 Concrete REQUIRED. 34,440.00 Allowance. Miscellaneous concrete cutting as required. '•'NOTE - allowance for slab- sawing only. Exterior slabs, wall slabs, brick cutting NOT included. Brick cutting may be required per REG for make -up air louver /duct penetrations at north Alley facade that may be required NOT included - pending 03 -250 Concrete Cutting Engineering. Bricked Doorway at WOH INCLUDED in DIV 4 1,000.00 03 -300 Concrete Forms Incl. in 03 -200 0.00 03 -350 Cure Incl. in 03 -200 0.00 03 -400 Finish Incl. in 03 -200 0.00 03 -450 Flatwork Incl. in 03 -200 0.00 03 -500 Foundation 0.00 Allowance. Misc. wall penetration grouting, door threshold 03 -550 Grout packing, handrail baluster /newel penetrations. 500.00 NOft- skinny -slab related work at Bentley's /Valley Fine Art NOT anticipated at this time - removal of existing carpet and tile materials and subsequent protection of existing sub -floor currently expected. If required, Cost estimated to be +/- 03 -600 Gyperete /Lightweight Concrete $2.50 /ft for 3500sf = $8,750. 0.00 03 -625 Layout Incl. in 06 -110 0.00 03 -650 Place Incl. in 03 -500 and 03 -600 0.00 • 03 -700 Precast 0.00 03 -750 Pumping Incl. in 03 -200 0.00 03.8(00 Reinforcing Incl. in 03 -200 0.00 03 -850 Restore & Clean 0.00 • 03 -900 Retaining Walls 0.00 Division 3 Total 35,940.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total 2.5O% • • 1 1 • 1 Wheeler Opera House TI Project 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 AMU Schematic Design Package from R +B Architects dated 02.23.2011 - Budget Estimate REV 04/18/11 CONSTRUCTORS ••• NOTE - Budget based on known and assumed Information as of 04f18f2011. Unless explicitly described below, assume NOT INCLUDED. - Division 4 MASONRY Allowance. Per R +B, potential brick repairs /replacement should be anticipated at brick interior demising wall and Bentley's storage space. •••NOTE - potential exterior brickwork to address new louver /make -up air ducting at north Alley facade ALLOWANCE _ $8000 (Included on 04 -100) - pending engineering. Allowance for rework at existing "Bart Simpson" Closet door = $2000 (Included on 04 -100). TOTAL 04 -100 Brickwork Extent of brickwork required UNKNOWN at this time. 18,000.00 04 -200 Concrete Block 0.00 04 -300 Fireplace Masonry 0.00 Allowance. Miscellaneous patchwork as needed + allowance to reset current Bentley's entrance stone stair assembly at SE 04 -400 Masonry Labor corner to ID and recitify water intrusion into Lower Level. 5,000.00 04 -410 Masonry Layout Incl. in 06 -110 0.00 Allowance. Corn - blasting of Basement Foundation Walls. 120MH @ $40 /hr. for Forrest Painting + blasting medium 04 -500 Restore & Clean estimate @ $2500 (Hoppers, blasters by FP) 7,300.00 04 -600 Stone & Gravel 0.00 04 -800 Tile, Ceramic & Quarry 0.00 Division 4 Total 30,300.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total 1.52% Wheeler Opera House TI Project 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 ASPS' Schematic Design Package from R +B Architects dated 02.23.2011 - Budget Estimate REV 04/18/11 CONSTRUCTORS ••• NOTE - Budget based on known and assumed Information as of 04 /1812011. Unless explicitly described below, assume NOT INCLUDED. - Division 5 METALS wnawance. Inter for rat auona ac new neateuram /neten.t - - 1401f fp $50/1f + tall wall estimate for Restaurant/Retail party wall @ $2500. "'NOTE - Interior partition framing at WOH Lower Level per R +B Floorplan A2.0 included In DIV 9; Exact proposal for new fiercely LocalNalley Fine Art spaces, rated Structural column wraps, Bentley's ceiling and wall design 05 - 100 Cold Formed Framing requirements T8D and NOT included. 9,500.00 05 - 200 Expansion Control 0.00 05 -300 Flashing Incl. in 07 -225 0.00 05 -400 Metal Decking 0.00 05 -500 Metal Fastening 0.00 05 -600 Metal Joists 0.00 05 -650 Metal Layout Incl. in 06 - 110 0.00 05 -700 Metals 0.00 05 -700.L Metals Installation Labor 0.00 05 -750 Ornamental Ironwork 0.00 Allowance. Based on Artistic Ironworks pricing for similar assumed pipe -rail at Ramp. Interior railings ( +/- 501f @ $125 /If( + Allowance for "antique" bronze handrail at Fiercely Local 05 - 800 Railings sandstone Entry Stairs @ $2000 Installed 8,250.00 Allowance. ACI General Labor for Materials handling, welding protection, racking, plumbing, leveling, misc. cleanup. 32MH @ 05 - 800.L Railing Installation Supplementary Labor $22.50/hr 720.00 New Kitchen backsplashes assumed included In Kitchen 05 - 900 Sheet Metal Equipment Budget by Fiercely Local 0.00 Allowance. MI - ler{Llts, HvAL. tqulpment Hangers as needed + allowance for possible structural clips for new Mechanical Mezzanine deck construction • • •NOTE - possible structural steel elements required for new ducting/louvers at north Alley facade, Bentley's hot water system NOT included - pending 05 - 950 Structural Steel Engineering. 2,850.00 Allowance. ACI Skilled Labor for install of misc. lentils, HVAC Equipment hangers, etc. + possible installation for Mechanical Mezzanine structural elements 45MH @ $35 /hr. ***NOTE - possible structural steel elements required for new ducting/louvers at north Alley facade NOT Included - pending Engineering. Structural steel requirements at Fiercely 05 - 950.L Structural Steel Supplementary Labor Local/Valley Fine Art unknown and NOT Included. 1,51'_.80 ._ .. 5 Total 22,895.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total 1.15% 1 1 1 Wheeler Opera House TI Project r,*•• 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 AMI Schematic Design Package from R +B Architects dated 02.23.2011- Budget Estimate REV 04/18/11 • • •NOTE - Budget based on known and assumed information as of 04 /18/2011. Unless explicitly described below, assume NOT INCLUDED. Division 6 WOOD & PLASTICS 06 -025 Custom Ceilings 0.00 Allowance. Based on recent historical pricing on similar scoped project. Includes bits, saw blades, drill /gun tips, planer knives, scrapers, specialty cutters, HILTI core rig bits, safety glasses /ear 06 -030 Disposable Tools plugs, face masks /filters, gloves, brooms, rakes, shovels, etc. 8,500.00 06 -035 Exterior Deck 0.00 06 -038 Exterior Walls 0.00 Allowance. Based on recent historical pricing on similar scoped project. Includes glues, tapes, mastics, velcros, epoxies, nails, screws, rivets, bolts /washers /nuts, powder- actuated fasteners, staples, pins, Simpson connectors, hangers, clips, z- hangers, 06 -040 Fasteners & Adhesives etc. 5,800.00 Allowance. ACI Carpentry Labor for Office Layout Space /Shelving installation, miscellaneous running trim install, window /door casing, MEP access panel installation, specialty projects as needed. 240MH @ $45 /hr. + Allowance for Fiercely 06-045 Finish Carpentry Local window and window trim issues - 200MH @ $45 /hr 19,800.00 06-055 Finish Lumber Incl. in 06 -060 0.00 Allowance. Office Layout Space /Shelving - 3 units @ $2500 /per = $7500, Office Equipment Shelving @ $400, Kitchenette @ 5600, Lobby Shelving/Counter @ 53000, Central Storage unit @ $500, Knee -wall caps @ $500 - paint -grade assumed + base /case allowance (1x4 poplar assumed) - 56000; + $2000 06 -060 Finish Millwork Allowance per R +B for misc. 20,500.00 Allowance. Bentley's/Valley Fine Art Acoustic Floor Systems per Jaffe Holden details dated 03/24/11. 'Impacta'- manufactured underlayment systems for laminate and engineered wood floors (assumed finish material) - Materials pricing per Valley Lumber email 3/29/11. 87sf /carton @ $98 /carton for 4500sf. • ••NOTE - potential tile /stone flooring locations per Fiercely Local/Valley Fine Art design UNKNOWN - soundboard underlayment for under -tile /stone locations is +/- $1/sf. - NOT Irctuded pending design finalization /flooring plan /spec. + Labor to install system - 128MH @ $45 /hr. (2 Men, 1.5 Weeks) • ••NOTE - at Main Level, demo of existing finish floor materials and subsequent installation of soundboard as "final subfloor" finish for tenant assumed. 3/4' 06 -065 Floor Systems ply subflooring NOT Included. 10,790.00 06 -075 Interior Partitions /Framing Incl. in DIV 5 0.00 Allowance. ACI Carpentry Labor for blocking, wood door bucks, 06 -100 Labor Rough Carpentry ramp framing, MEP - related carpentry work. 16OMH @ 45 /hr. 7,200.00 Allowance. ACI Carpentry Labor for blocking, wood door bucks, MEP - related carpentry work. 300MH @$45 /hr. Design elements TBD. + allowance to increase footprint of Mechanical Mezzanine and reconstruction of existing- 120MFI @ $45 /hr. (3 06 -1008 Labor Rough Carpentry men, 1 week) 18,900.00 06 -110 Working Superintendent 0.00 06-120 Logwork/Timbers 0.00 06 -125 Roof Systems 0.00 Allowance. Rough lumber materials for blocking, wood door bucks, misc. + allowance for stair reframing/lift issues at Fiercely Local, + allowance for floor in -fill at current Bentley's stairs to Lower Level + allowance for Mechanical Mezzanine 06 -150 Rough Lumber reconstruction /size increase and decking. 32,500.00 NOTE - Possible existing floor system modifications following demo of WOH Office ceiling TBD by Structural Engineer. Possible costs associated with remedation to existing floor 06 -155 Screws, Clips & Fasteners system NOT Included. 0.00 06 -200 Siding 0.00 06 -250 Siding Labor 0.00 06 -300 Wood Paneling 0.00 Division 6 Total 123,990.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total 6.21% • • Wheeler Opera House TI Project �..K 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 alt genyaggis Schematic Design Package from R +B Architects dated 02.23.2011 - Budget Estimate REV 04/18/11 "' NOTE - Budget based on known and assumed information as of 04 /18/2011. Unless explicitly described below, assume NOT INCLUDED. Division 7 THERMAL & MOISTURE PROTECTION Allowance. Miscellaneous batt insulation as needed at equipment cavities, niches, etc. Material allowance @ $500. ••'NOTE - Acoustic system Rock -wool batt ceiling/wall requirements at WOH Offices, Bentley's and Valley Fine Art TBD - fire - proofing spray system requirements TBD; Fire Separation 07 -050 Batt Insulation Design TBD - Estimate +/- $50000 50,500.00 Allowance. ACI General Labor to install miscellaneous batt insulation described in 07 -050. 16MH @ $22.50/hr. •••NOTE - 07 -050.L Batt Insulation Installation Labor Install of acoustic - related batts by SUB. 360.00 07 -100 Damproofing 0.00 NOTE - Potential HVAC - related fire damper requirements for floor /space separations conceptually discussed during 04/14/11 REG /ACI /R +B Conference call likley to be required - pending Engineering. Allowance provided though system requirements 07 -125 Fireproofing and related pricing unknown at this time. 5,500.00 Allowance. Miscellaneous MEP vent /intake flashings. •" "NOTE - potential required louvers, frames, flashing etc. for north Alley mechanical systems NOT included - pending 07 -225 Flashing & Sheet Metal Engineering. 1,400.00 Allowance. Skilled Labor to install items described in 07 -255. 07 -225.L Flashing & Sheet Metal Installation Labor RMH @ $35 /hr. 280.00 07 -275 Flat Roofing 0.00 07 -325 Gutters /Snow Retention /Heat Tape 0.00 Allowance. Misc. sealants, caulks, etc. ***NOTE - Acoustic wall 07 -445 Joint Sealers finish - related caulking Included In DIV. 13 250.00 07 -475 Rigid /Spray Foam Insulation 0.00 07 -525 Roofing 0.00 07 -675 Super Insulated Roof 0.00 UNKNOWN. Leaching at existing Bentley's Entry steps into Wheeler Office space to be investigated upon interior and stair assembly demo for repair /remediation options. Budget 07 -910 Waterproofing TBD. 0.00 Allowance. uoor weatnerstnpping, winnow searing at WUH Basement @ $2500 + Allowance for specialty- window repairs for existing operable Bentley's windows (Qty. 5) @ $2000 /per = 07 -925 Weatherseal/lnsulate $10,000 12,500.00 Division 7 Total 70,790.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total 3.55% Wheeler Opera House TI Project 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 Schematic Design Package from R +B Architects dat 02.23.2011 - Budget Estimate REV 04/18/11 ••• NOTE - Budget based on known and assumed information as of 04/18/201 Unless explicitly described below, assume NOT INCLUDED. .. Division 8 DOORS & WINDOWS 08 -100 Curtain Walls 0.00 Allowance. Levers /Locksets - (5) @ $200 /per = $1000 + (1) Pocket Door set (Hafele or similar) @ $850 + (1) Barn -door track @ $500 + (5) Glass door sets @ $400 /per = $2000 + (9) Auto - closures @ $250 /per = $2250. "`NOTE - Existing Doors to remain NOT included. •••NOTE - hardware for Fiercely 08 -150 Door Hardware Local/Valley Fine Art assumed to be By Tenant - NOT Included. 6,600.00 Allowance. ACI Carpenter Labor to install hardware for (6) Interior Doors (pockets /swing) - Avg. of 3MH /per = 18MH @ $45 /hr. • • 'NOTE - Glass door hardware by Glass Supplier /Installer. • "NOTE - Doors at Fiercely Local/Valley Fine Art quantity unknown - Allowance of (6) assumed - 08-150.L Door /Window Hardware Installation Labor 3MH /per = 18MH @ $45 /hr. 1,620.00 Allowance. AE-I tarpenrerso perrorm assessment aria minor repair work to existing Bentley's entry doors (south and east facades) and Valley Fine Art Entry - 32MH @ $45 /hr (1 man, 4 days) Condition /operation of exisitng door into Valley Fine Art at north alley unknown - 4MH @ $45 /hr. allowed to perform minor repairs. ANSI - compliant threshold work and related 08 -200 Entrance Doors weather - stripping included. 1,620.00 08 -250 Exit Devices 0.00 08 -300 Exterior Doors 0.00 08 -350 Finish Hardware Incl. in 08 -150 0.00 08 -400 Garage Doors 0.00 Allowance. Executive Office "storefront" type assembly with glass panels, doors, transoms and related frames, glass and 08 -450 Glazing components + transom window at Lauren's Office 22,500.00 Allowance. ACI Carpenter Labor to install Interior Doors @ (6) Leafs - Avg. 4MH /per = 24MH @ $45 /hr. + Fiercely Local/Valley Fine Art door allowance - ACI Carpenter Labor to install Interior Doors @ (6) Leafs - Avg. 4MH /per = 24MH @ $45 /hr. ***NOTE following initial installation of pre -hung doors, door slabs will be removed and protected pending re- installation during Finish Stage. • ••NOTE - modifications to existing plate glass window at Fiercely Local Lower Dining Area and /or Valley Fine Art NOT 08 -500 Hang Doors /Windows Included. 2,160.00 Allowance. (6) Hollow -metal doors ) 5750 /per. + Fire Door Allowance (TBD per comment /approval from Fire Marshall) @ $3000 ***NOTE - Glass door estimate included in 08 -450. •••NOTE - Interior Doors for Fiercely Local/Valley Fine Art 08 -550 Interior Doors assumed to be By Tenant - NOT Included. 7,500.00 08 -560 Layout Incl. in 06 -110 0.00 08 -575 Mortise Doors Incl. in 08.150.1 0.00 08 -600 Skylights 0.00 08 -650 Windows 0.00 Division 8 Total 42,000.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total 2.10% Wheeler Opera House TI Project 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 ASPU Schematic Design Package from R +B Architects dated 02.23.2011 - Budget Estimate REV 04/18/11 CONSTRUCTORS • •••NOTE • Budget based on known and assumed information as of 04 /18/2011. Unless explicitly described below, assume NOT INCLUDED. -- Division 9 FINISHES 09 -100 Acoustical Ceiling Incl. In 09 -250 17,015.46 Allowance. DG Construction, Inc. Pricing. Washable ACT grid ceiling system at Restaurant Kitchen and Baths /Retail Bath. 09 -100FL Acoustical Ceiling 970sf @ $7.62/sf (includes M +L) 7.391 4C Allowance - Wheeler Offices and Common Halls - 250sq.yds @ $31 /yd. ••• NOTE - 19.7" x 19.7" modular glue -down carpet 09 -200 Carpeting tiles by 'FLOR' assumed - "Fez" collection = $30.36 /sq. yd. 7,750.00 Proposal. DC, Construction Bid dated 04/0/111. Includes WOH ceiling/wall assemblies for fire /acoustic separation and standard walls as shown + Allowance for Fiercely Local/Valley Fine Art ceiling/wall assemblies including Mechanical 09250 Drywall Mezzanine fire separation as required (TBD) 121,622.00 09 -300 Epoxy Flooring Assumed By Tenant as needed at Kitchen /Baths 0.00 09 -350 Exterior Painting NIC 0.00 Allowance. Forrest Painting and uecorating, Inc. Includes finishing of Doors, Door jambs and casing, Interior surfaces of windows (frames, sills, casing), Baseboards, Drywall where scheduled, wood wall caps. Estimate for 1000MH @ $40 /hr. •••NOTE - WOH Lower Level /box Office Workspace ONLY. + 09 -400 Interior Painting Materials Allowance - $10,000 50,000.00 09 -425 Layout Incl. in 06 -110 0.00 Assumed By Tenants as needed at Main Level Baths; possible 09 -450 Mirrors mirror for WOH Office Powder Bath NOT Included. 0.00 09 -500 Plaster 0.00 09 -525 Sandblasting Incl. in DIV 4 0.00 09 -550 Shower & Tub Enclosures 0.00 09 -600 Slabwork 0.00 09 -600.L Slabwork Supplementary Labor 0.00 09 -650 Specialty Painting 0.00 09 -680 Stairway 0.00 09 -685 Stone Flooring 0.00 09 -700 Stucco 0.00 09 -800 Tile Allowance. Possible Powder Room at WOH Office Lower Level 5,000.00 09 -900 Wood Flooring 0.00 09 -950 Vinyl Base 0.00 09 -950.L Vinyl Base Installation Labor 0.00 09 -975 Vinyl Flooring 0.00 09 -980 Wallpaper 0.00 Division 9 Total 208,778.66 Division Percentage of Grand Total 10.46!, Wheeler Opera House TI Project 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 ASPEN CONSTRUCTORS Schematic Design Package from R +B Architects dated 02.23.2011- Budget Estimate REV 04/18/11 �.._ ... •••NOTE - Budget based on known and assumed Information as of 00 /18/ 2011. Unless explicitly described below, assume NOT INCLUDED. Division 10 SPECIALTIES 10 -100 Compartments 0.00 10 -200 Fireplace & Stoves 0.00 10 -300 I.D. Devices 0.00 10 -350 Layout 0.00 10-400 Partitions 0.00 10 -500 Prefab Exteriors 0.00 10 -600 Service Walls 0.00 10 -650 Solar Control 0.00 10-750 Specialties 0.00 Allowance. (1) Baths = (1) TPs @ $30 /per, (2) Towel Bars/rings @ $45 /per, (1) towel dispensers @ $200 /per for potential WOH 10 -850 Toilet & Bath Accessories Lower Level Powder Rm. 320.00 Allowance. ACI Labor to Layout, unpack, plumb, level, mount, 10 -850.L _Toilet & Bath Accessory Installation Labor protect (4) units - Avg. of 0.75MH /unit = 3MH @ $55 /hr. = $165 165.00 Division 10 Total 485.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total 0 02% Wheeler Opera House TI Project 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 a3M1 Schematic Design Package from R +B Architects dated 02.23.2011 - Budget Estimate REV 04/18/11 CONSTRUCTORS ••• NOTE • Budget based on known and assumed information as of 04 /18/ 2011. Unless explicitly described below, assume NOT INCLUDED. • Division 11 EQUIPMENT Allowance. Office Kitchenette. (1) DW @ $400 "'NOTE - 11 -100 Appliances Existing refrigerator to be stored and re -used per 5 +13 400.00 Allowance. ACI Skilled Labor to assist with move -in, protection of finish materials during installation, protection of appliances 11 -100.L Appliance Supplementary Labor following installation, testing. 2MH @ $35 /hr. estimated 70.00 11 -150 Appliance Installation 0.00 Allowance. Proposal from Decypher Technologies 04/1 / /11. Wire Infrastructure included in DIV 16; temporary relocation work, trimout, testing and certification by Decypher. "'NOTE - possible new Single -Mode Fiber Optic cable from City Hall to 11 -200 Audio - Visual Wheeler NOT Included. 19,248.49 Allowance. spec rental equipment - needs sucn as rnu rrype chipping /rotary hammers, core rigs, hoisting, etc. @ $2000 + WOH Lower Level Slab demo equipment - (1) towed air compressor @ $128 /day for 6 days = $768 + (3) 601b. Demo Hammers @ $50 /day /hammer for 6 days = $900 + Exhaust /Dust Control Fan and 100' ducting @ $80 /day for 10 days (includes 11 -300 Equipment Rental time for corn blasting) = $800 4,468.00 Allowance. Minor repairs to hand power tools, compressors, 11 -400 Equipment Repairs nailers, etc. 200.01 11.450 Layout Incl. In 06 -110 0.00 11 -500 Loading Dock Equipment 0.00 11 -600 Misc. Small Tools 0.00 "Roll- back" of Simplex - Grinell components and re- 11 -650 Security Systems wiring/mounting as needed BY WHEELER, NOT Included. 0.00 Telephone System Infrastructure estimates included in MEP 11 -700 Telephone Systems Budgets (Trimout, devices by OTHERS) 0.00 11 -900 Vending 0.00 Division 11 Total 24386.49 Division Percentage of Grand Total 1.22% Wheeler Opera House TI Project 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 ASPEN Schematic Design Package from R +B Architects dated 02.23.2011 - Budget Estimate REV 04/18/11 CONS ?H6CtO ••• NOTE - Budget based on known and assumed information as of 04/18/2011. Unless explicitly described below, assume NOT INCLUDED. Division 12 FURNISHINGS Allowance. Blackout shades for Executive Offices and Conference Rm. (9) Units @ $250 /per. Hand - operated Roller - 12 -100 Blinds & Curtains style assumed 2,250.00 12 -200 Cabinetry Incl. in DIV 6 0.00 12 -250 Cabinetry (Built -In) 0.00 12 -300 Cabinetry Finishing 0.00 12 -400 Cabinetry Hardware Allowance. Pulls /knobs at Kitchenette 200.00 12 -500 Carpets Incl. in DIV 9 0.00 Allowance. Kitchenette top - materials TBD ('Zodiaq' assumed 12 -600 Counter Tops per 8 +13) 1,250.00 12 -650 Furniture 0.00 12 -675 layout 0.00 12 -700 Rugs & Mats 0.00 12 -800 Shelving Incl. in DIV 6 0,00 12 -900 Tapestry/Picture Framing By Others 0.00 Division 12 Total 3,700.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total 0.19% Wheeler Opera House TI Project "` "" �• 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 aSPv Schematic Design Package from R +B Architects dated 02.23.2011 - Budget Estimate REV 04/18/11 COS3T38CTOH3 ••• NOTE . Budget based on known and assumed information as of 04/18/2011. Unless explicitly described below, assume NOT INCLUDED. Division 13 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION 13 -100 Fire Suppression Allowance. FlameOut, Inc. Bid detailed in MEP Sub Evaluations 47,350.00 Allowance. AO Carpentry Labor for layout, framing modification as needed for Fire Riser installation, carpentry related to riser modifications, Temp Systems, sprinkler head placement (beam /floor joist modifications), and related 13 -100.L Fire Suppression Supplementary Labor blocking. 40MH @ $55 /hr estimated. 2,200.00 13 -200 Incinerators 0.00 13 -250 layout Incl. in 06 -110 0.00 Allowance. Sound caulking. Drywall /drywall isolation systems 13 -300 Sound & Vibration for Ceiling and Wall sound atenuation assemblies Incl. in DIV. 9 2,000.00 13 -400 Spa /Hot Tub 0.00 Division 13 Total 51,550.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total 2.58% Wheeler Opera House TI Project 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 ASPEN Schematic Design Package from R +B Architects dated 02.23.2011- Budget Estimate REV 04/18/11 C9 aSraecros5 "' NOTE - Budget based on known and assumed information as 004/18/2011. Unless explicitly described below, assume NOT INCLUDED. - Division 14 CONVEYING SYSTEMS Allowance. Colorado Custom Lift model 'National Wheel -O- Vator NBC 60 (Hydraulic Basic Commercial) innon - enclosure application. Color to be black or dark brown powder coating which includes Main unit, Upper Landing gate and Platform gate. Includes estimate for inspections and taxes. Supplier award to be dependent on ability to provide on -going 14 -100 Elevators service /maintenance. 16,000.00 14 -350 Layout Incl. in 06 -110 0.00 14 -375 Lift/Crane 0.00 14 -375.L Lift/Crane Labor 0.00 14 -400 Scaffolding ACI Owned. Complimentary 0.00 Allowance. ACI General Labor for erection /break -down of 14 -400.L Scaffolding Labor scaffolding. 20MH @ $22.50/hr. estimated 450.00 Division 14 Total 16,450.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total 0.82% • Wheeler Opera House TI Project 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 Schematic Design Package from R +B Architects dated 02.23.2011 - Budget Estimate REV 04/18/11 •••NOTE - Budget based on known and assumed Information as of 04 /18/ 2011. Unless explicitly described below, assume NOT INCLUDED. _. Division 15 MECHANICAL Per REG /R +B /ACI COnference call on 04/14/2011, a 15% Design Contingency for MEP Systems should be included. 15 -000 Design Contingency (Extrapolated) 67,500.00 15 -100 Fire Protection ***NOTE - Fire Sprinkler System budget included in DIV 13 0.00 Allowance. Kitchenette Sink, Floor sinks, vanity at Lower Level 15 -200 Fixtures Powder, Misc. 10,000.00 15 -275 Radiant Heating System 0.00 15 -300 Humidification System 0.00 Allowance. Pacific Sheet Metal, Inc. Bid. • "NOTE - Engineering Finalization PENDING. Per direction from REG, current PSM, Inc. baseline estimate of $453,445 should be increased for certain elements by 25 -30% (27.5% used for Budget) to address probable uptick for Trane- specified equipment in lieu of MagicAire- manufactured as currently priced. Calculated possible increase = $60,121.13. • "NOTE - Potential north and west facade rework for increased make -up air TBD, NOT Included. Fiercely Local 20'If hood requirements (including welded duct sizing TBD, Not included). Possible northfacade exterior duct runs possible yet NOT 15 -400 HVAC engineered /approved atthis time, Not Included. 513,566.13 Allowance. ACI Labor for layout, vent /register /component mounting /installation and related post - installation protection, blocking, duct - support framing/hangers, structural (wood /steel) drilling/modification for duct /wiring runs, 15 -400.L HVAC Supplementary Labor cleaning. 60MH @ $55 /hr. 3,300.00 15 -400.1 HVAC Controls Incl. in 15 -400 0.00 15 -450 Layout Incl. in 06 -110 0.00 Allowance. Access panels for MEP valves, boxes, equipment, 15 -475 Mechanical Access Fan coils, humidification units, etc. Spec TBD 1,000.00 Allowance. ACI Labor to layout, pre - block, and install access 15 -475.L Mechanical Access Installation panels as needed. 20MH @ $55 /hr. 1,100.00 15 -500 Mechanical Insulation Incl. In 15 -400 0.00 Allowance. Superior Plumbing and Heating, Inc. Bid detailed in 15 -600 Plumbing MEP Sub Evaluations 71,884.00 15 -700 Snowmelt 0.00 15 -800 Vent Incl. in 15 -600 0.00 15 -900 Water Purification 0.00 Division 15 Total 668,350.13 Division Percentage of Grand Total 33.49% Wheeler Opera House TI Project 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 ASPEI Schematic Design Package from R +B Architects dated 02.23.2011 - Budget Estimate REV 04/18/11 CONSTRUCTORS "'NOTE • Budget based on known and assumed information an of 04 /18/2011. Unless explicitly deuribed berow, assume NOT INCLUDED. wcs,s.. Division 16 ELECTRICAL Allowance. Lassiter Electric, Inc. Bid REV 3 dated 04/07/2011. WObl Scope @ $104,868.49 + Retail @ $5,250+ Fiercely Local @ 59,483 + Panel Relocation (temp) at Proposed Data Closet demo'd door @ 58,490 + 10% contingency • "NOTE - Retail /Fiercely Local spaces include panels and disconnects ONLY. Power /Lighting systems and related requirements for Fiercely Local/Valley Fine Art TBD, Not Included. All services to 16 -100 Electrical- 120/240 Volt be run in copper wire materials. 140,891.49 16 -300 Fixtures Estimate Incl. in 16 -100 0.00 16 -300.L Fixture Labor Estimate incl. in 16 -100 0.00 16 -350 Layout Incl. in 06 -110 0.00 Not anticipated at this time per City Electrical Inspector verbal OK of (2) disconnects - one at transformer at NW corner and 16 -400 New Electrical Service one at Boiler Room below. 0.00 16 -400.L New Electrical Service Supplementary Labor 0.00 16 -500 Specialty Lighting Systems TBD. Not included in Global Budget 0.00 Division 16 Total 140,891.49 Division Percentage of Grand Total 7.06% Wheeler Opera House TI Project 320 East Hyman Avenue, Aspen, CO 81611 ASPEN Schematic Design Package from R +B Architects dated 02.23.2011 - Budget Estimate REV 04/18/11 CONSTRUCT ............ ••• NOTE - Budget based on known and assumed information as of 04 /18/2011. Unless explicitly described below, assume NOT INCLUDED. — – TOTAL SUMMARY (WOH Offices /Storage, Main Level Tenants) Division 1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS Division 1 Total 340,262.50 Division Percentage of Grand Total 17.05% Division 2 SITEWORK Division 2 Total 63,110.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total 3.16% Division 3 CONCRETE Division 3 Total 35,940.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total 254% Division 4 MASONRY 1 Division 4 Total 30,300.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total 1.52% Division 5 METALS Division 5 Total! 22,895.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total! 1.15% Division 6 WOOD & PLASTICS 1 Division 6 Total' 123,990.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total 6.21% Division 7 THERMAL & MOISTURE PROTECTION Division 7 Total 70,790.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total 3.55% Division 8 DOORS & WINDOWS Division 8 Total 42,000.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total 2.10% Division 9 FINISHES Division 9 Total! 208,778.86 Division Percentage of Grand Total 10.46% Division 10 SPECIALTIES Division 10 Total 485.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total 0.02% Division 11 EQUIPMENT Division 11 Total 24,386.49 Division Percentage of Grand Total 1.22% Division 12 FURNISHINGS Division 12 Total 3,700.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total 0.19% Division 13 SPECIAL CONSTRUCTION Division 13 Total! 51,550.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total 2.58% Division 14 CONVEYING SYSTEMS Division 14 Total 16,450.00 Division Percentage of Grand Total 0.82% Division 15 MECHANICAL Division 15 Total 668,350.13 Division Percentage of Grand Total 33.49% Division 16 ELECTRICAL Division 16 Total 140,891.49 Division Percentage of Grand Total 7.06% SUBTOTAL 1,843, 879.47 PROFIT AND OVERHEAD @ 8.5% 156,729.75 Less 8.5% Markup on Insurance, Permits and Use Taxes (4,874.75) ESTIMATE GRAND TOTAL 1,995,734.47 ' IIla. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ashley Cantrell, Environmental Health Department THRU: Lee Cassin, Environmental Health Director tSt C . Cer-4 \- DATE OF MEMO: May 2, 2011 MEETING DATE: May 9, 2011 RE: Ordinance to edit the waste reduction ordinance to allow for composting REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests that City Council pass this ordinance on first reading to edit the existing waste reduction ordinance to allow for compost collection and hauling. DISCUSSION: The City has had a waste reduction ordinance since 2005 that sets regulations for waste haulers and trash and recycling generation in the community. When the ordinance was originally written, there were no existing options to allow residents or businesses to collect compostable materials and have that material hauled away for processing. In the last year, City staff has worked in partnership with the Pitkin County landfill to develop a compost program that is now available to all residents and businesses. With this new program, it is necessary to update the waste reduction ordinance to allow for new programs to take shape. This compost program allows restaurants and residents to separate all food and paper waste into a separate bin, and then to work with a local waste hauler to haul this material to the landfill, where it will be processed and sold back to the community as usable soil. This program also creates opportunities for local businesses. In the past, one of the largest barriers to composting has been the absence of a company that hauls compostable material. Now that that Pitkin County Landfill is accepting compostables regularly, numerous customers are in need of a waste hauler that can pick up compost at homes and businesses and deliver it to the landfill for processing. City staff is aware of four different compost companies that have either expanded their operations or started a new business just to address the compost hauling needs of our community. The Environmental Health Department feels the entire community would benefit from having multiple compost haulers conducting business as soon as this coming summer. The existing waste reduction ordinance does not define compost, nor does it allow for a hauler to haul exclusively compost, separate from recycling and trash. The existing ordinance includes `compost' in the definition of garbage. This currently prohibits small compost collection 1 businesses from starting a hauling service because it would require they also pick up recycling along with compost. Staff recommends these changes to the ordinance; - Add a definition of compost; - Allow yard waste to be collected with compost; - Allow a hauler to pick up only compost, instead of requiring that all haulers pick up all commodities; and - Require that compost haulers comply with all applicable waste reduction and wildlife codes. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The compost haulers will be required to have a City of Aspen business license. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: With advanced commercial and residential recycling ordinances, the City of Aspen is a leader in waste reduction practices. However, the Iifespan of the Pitkin County Landfill is limited, and it is important to continuously strive to reduce Aspen's waste footprint each year. Thirty percent (30 %) or more of what Aspen throws away could be composted. It is crucial that the City of Aspen continue to offer waste reduction options, including composting, to the community. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the City approve the ordinance with the recommended changes. ALTERNATIVES: City Council can choose to leave the ordinance as is, in which case compost would remain undefined and those haulers wishing to collect compost would be required to also collect all other types of trash. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to adopt Ordinance No. Series of 2011 editing the waste reduction ordinance to allow for compost hauling and collection. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: t kmat4 + ti - P 2 ORDINANCE NO. (Series of 2011) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING CHAPTER 12.06 OF THE ASPEN MUNICIPAL CODE, SOLID WASTE, WASTE REDUCTION. WHEREAS, Section 12.06 sets forth the requirements for waste reduction and waste hauling practices in the City of Aspen; and WHEREAS, since the initial adoption of this code section the City of Aspen has created a compost program to better serve the community's waste reduction needs; and WHEREAS, the existing code does not define the term `compost' nor does it contain the ability to regulate hauling companies that wish to haul compostable material; and WHEREAS, the Environmental Health Department would like to encourage composting at businesses and residences to fiuther pursue the community's goals of reducing waste and reducing Aspen's environmental footprint; and WHEREAS, the intent of the Waste Reduction code is to encourage fiirther efforts by the community to move towards zero waste practices; and, WHEREAS, the amendments to the Code are delineated as follows: • Text being removed is delineated with strikethrough. Text being removed looks like this. • Text being added is bold and underline. Text being added looks like this. • Text which is not highlighted is not affected; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that this Ordinance furthers and is necessary for the promotion of waste reduction and environmental stewardship. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, THAT: Section 1: The City Council hereby amends Chapter 12.06 to read as follows: Sec. 12.06.010. Definitions. For purposes of this Section- Chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them: Ashes. The term ashes shall mean the solid residue left when material is burned. Audit Card shall mean a card that waste Haulers give to customers who have included banned Yard Waste in their garbage or who have failed to properly sort their Recyclable Materials. Commercial Customer shall mean any premises utilizing collection service where a commercial, industrial or institutional enterprise is carried on, including, without limitation, retail establishments, restaurants, hospitals, schools, day care centers, offices, nursing homes, clubs, churches and public facilities. Compostable material or compostables shall mean any organic material that will naturally degrade and that has been designated as compostable by City Manager regulation in the "Compostable Materials List" which may include, but is not limited to 1) Animal or vegetable based food scraps resulting from the preparation, cooking and serving of food; 2 Organic materials, including paper products and products designed to completely break down in a commercial composting facility; 3) Organic material that has been completely segregated from trash by the generator for the purpose of being composted or otherwise processed through natural degradation into soil . amendment, fertilizer or mulch. Garbage The term garbage shall mean all wastes from the preparation and consumption of food, condemned food products and all refuse and waste from the handling, storage, preparation and sale of produce. The term garbage shall include compostable material and compostables. Hauler means any person in the business of collecting, transporting or disposing of garbage or trash for another, for a fee, in the City. Multi - Family Customer means the occupants, taken together, of a residential building or set of residential buildings who use a collective, common system for the collection of garbage generated by the occupants. Recyclable Materials means any materials that are designated by the City Manager in the "Recyclable Materials List" which may include, but are not limited to, newspaper, office paper, cardboard, glass containers, plastic containers, steel cans and aluminum cans. Residential Customer means every occupant of a residential building or set of residential buildings who receives periodic garbage collection service, and who does not use a collective, common system for the collection of garbage generated by the occupants. Trash. The term trash shall mean all substances, which are neither ashes nor garbage, discarded from dwellings, rooming houses, hotels, clubs, restaurants, boardinghouses, eating places, shops, stores or other places of business. Yard Waste shall mean materials generated from the maintenance of the vegetation on a property that have been designated by the City Manager in the "Banned Yard Waste List" which may include, but are not limited to, grass clippings, leaves, weeds, holiday trees and other plant materials. (Ord. No. 26, 2005, §1) Sec. 12.06.020. Exemptions. The following persons are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter: (A) Any person or agent thereof who transports to the landfill only the garbage that person generates. (B) Any person who transports only liquid wastes (such as restaurant grease), discarded or abandoned vehicles or parts thereof, discarded home or industrial appliances, household hazardous wastes or hazardous materials as defined in the rules and regulations adopted by the United States Hazardous Materials Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. §5101 et seq. (C) Any Commercial Customer who has received an exemption pursuant of this chapter may continue to be exempt provided he or she proves he or she transports his or her cardboard recycling to the Rio Grande Recycling Center or Pitkin County Materials Recovery Facility. Such exemption shall be granted upon satisfactory demonstration to the Environmental Health Department that said customer: (i) Is taking his or her recyclable cardboard to the Rio Grande Recycling Center or Pitkin County Materials Recovery Facility; (ii) Is not allowing recyclable cardboard to be placed in trash containers; and (iii) Complying with the requirements of section 12.06.030 would be unduly burdensome to the applicant. Sec. 12.06.030. Hauler requirements. (A) No person shall operate as a solid waste Hauler within the city limits without first obtaining a business license from the City. In order to receive a City business license, a solid waste Hauler must comply with the requirements of this Chapter. (B) Except for customers exempt from the provision pursuant to Section 12.06.020 above, Haulers providing trash service in the City shall include in the base rate for trash pickup service the pickup of Recyclable Materials as designated by the City Manager in the Recyclable Materials List. It shall be unlawful for Haulers to provide a separate line item for the cost of recycling services on any invoice, contract, or other document that is delivered to the customer, or to deduct any amount from a customer's rate if the recycling services are not used unless the customer has received an exemption from the Environmental Health Department. (C) The collection of recyclable materials for residential customers shall be provided on the same day and upon the same frequency as trash pickup. (D) Haulers shall provide collection of recyclable materials for multi - family and commercial customers as often as necessary to prevent the overflow of the recycling containers and to permit the customer to use the recycling containers without causing an overflow. (E) Any person licensed to operate as a solid waste Hauler within the City shall charge all Residential Customers on the basis of volume of trash collected, which shall be measured by the volume capacity of the container used by the customer. All charges shall be based upon units of volume no greater than thirty-two (32) gallons. The charge for the second unit shall be no less than the charge for the first unit of volume. The charge for each subsequent unit of volume shall be no less than the charge for the first unit of volume. (F) In offering or arranging for services, a Hauler shall provide reasonable notice of the full range of container sizes or levels of services offered by the Hauler, and shall provide to each customer that customer's requested container size or level of service. (G) Each Hauler shall submit a bi- annual report to the city manager of the weight in tons of garbage, trash, Recyclable Materials (as determined by the City Manager in the Recyclable Materials List pursuant to 12.06.040), Compostables and Yard Waste materials collected within the limits of the City. For loads that contain garbage or Recyclable Materials originating in part from within the limits of the City, and in part from outside the limits of the City, the reported quantity may be estimated by the Hauler but must use the standardized formula provided by the City of Aspen which shall include the use of both the scale tickets and customer route sheets, and reported as an estimate. Bi -annual reports shall be submitted by January 31 and July 31 using a form or forms provided by the Environmental Health Director. Included in this form shall be a standardized formula for volume estimations, a description of the approved data collection methods and a section for the hauler to describe any assumptions used in the data collection process. All reports shall be treated as confidential commercial documents under the provisions of the Colorado Open Records Act. (H) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as prohibiting any Hauler from providing separate pricing for special collection of bulky items, Compostables, Yard Waste, contaminated recyclables, unscheduled pick -up of trash, extra volumes of trash, such as bags, boxes or bundles, or more than what was subscribed with a Hauler for trash. (I) Except for materials that customers have not properly prepared for recycling and so are grossly contaminated (fifteen percent [15 %] or more of trash), Haulers may not dispose of Recyclable Materials set out by recycling customers by any means other than at a recycling facility that sorts, packages and otherwise prepares Recyclable Materials for sale. (i) Haulers must notify customers of any grossly contaminated Recyclable Material with an Audit Card with wording provided by the Environmental Health Department. The Environmental Health Department, once notified by the customer, will determine if recyclable material may be cleaned and picked up as recycling, or determined to be trash, and then contact the Hauler to approve the collection, which the Hauler may choose to pick up at the next scheduled pickup and which may incur a charge for an extra trash pickup. (J) Haulers shall notify customers of the provisions of this Chapter by a letter reasonably acceptable by the City of Aspen: (i) Upon the initial provision of solid waste collection services to new customers, (ii) Ninety days prior to any deadline such as the date for existing customers to notify the hauler if they wish to opt out, and (iii) On or before December 31 of each year for existing customers Haulers will also provide within the above reference letter information on the materials designated for recycling collection pursuant to 12.06.040 and such rules and regulations as established by the Hauler for the orderly collection of Recyclable Materials as authorized pursuant to 12.06.050(6). Such notice shall further include for Residential Customers the notification of the variable rate system employed by the Hauler, and shall be in a form reasonably acceptable to the City to ensure that customers are fully informed of the availability of recycling and level of service options. For group accounts, the notices required herein may be sent to the group representative for said account, provided that such notice shall further notify said representative of its obligation to notify all individual customers or users of the service within the group of the availability of recycling services. On or before January 31 of each year, the Hauler shall deliver to the Environmental Health Director a true and correct copy of the notification sent to each customer type, i.e. Residential, Multi- family or Commercial, on or before December 31 of the previous year. (K) Haulers shall not pick up trash that contains banned Yard Waste materials. Haulers shall notify customers of the ban with an Audit Card with wording provided by the Environmental Health Department. The Environmental Health Department, once notified by the customer, will determine when the customer has removed the contaminating materials and then contact the Hauler to approve the collection of the trash, which the Hauler may choose to pick up at the next scheduled pickup or which may incur a charge for an extra pickup. (Ord. No. 26, 2005, §1) (L) A hauler that exclusively hauls compostable material, no trash or recycling, that has been prepared by the generator for the purpose of separate collection and that is collected in a separate vehicle or compartment of a vehicle than that used for trash collection, is exempt from the above provisions of Section 12.06.030, except that all compost haulers shall comply with subsections (A), (G) and (111) of this Section 12.06.030. Sec. 12.06.040. Designation of Recyclable Materials, and Banned Yard Waste Materials and Compostable Materials List. (A) The Recyclable Materials that haulers are required to pick up shall be set forth in the City's "Recyclable Materials List," which shall be prepared and amended from time to time by the City Manager. The Recyclable Materials List shall be developed after consultation with the Pitkin County Landfill Director/Manager, the Environmental Health Director and representatives of the licensed Haulers operating within the City, as well as the public, and shall be available for review on the City's Environmental Health Department website. (B) The Yard Waste material that is required to be separated from trash shall be set forth in the City's "Banned Yard Waste List," which shall be prepared and amended from time to time by the City Manager. The Banned Yard Waste List shall be developed after consultation with the Pitkin County Landfill Manager, the Environmental Health Director and licensed Haulers operating within the City, as well as the public, and shall be available for review on the City's Environmental Health Department website. (Ord. No. 26, 2005, §1) (C) The "Compostable Material List" shall be developed after consultation with the Pitkin County Landfill Manager, the Environmental Health Director and licensed Haulers operating within the City, as well as the public, and shall be available for review on the City's Environmental Health Department website. Sec. 12.06.050. Placement of Recyclable Materials, Compost and Yard Waste for pickup. (A) All recyclables, compostables and Yard Waste accumulated on any premises shall be placed in a container separate from garbage, or in a suitable manner such as cardboard broken down and placed on a shelf. (B) Recycling containers for storing and setting out Recyclable Materials may be of any color or design as long as they do not interfere with industry- accepted requirements for the preparation of materials for recycling that are necessary to provide for the orderly collection of Recyclable Materials. (Ord. No. 26, 2005, §1) (C) Composting containers for storing and setting out Compostable Materials may be of any color or design so long as the container complies with all other requirements of the Aspen Municipal Code, including but not limited to the provisions of Chapter 12.08, Wildlife Protection. (D) Yard Waste may be included for pick up with Compostable material in the Compostable Material bin or placed next to the Compostable Material bin in preparation for pick up by a hauler. Sec. 12.06.060. Educational materials. (A) The Environmental Health Department shall provide an annual summary of waste and recycled material totals collected in the City, and shall report on other measures of success and aspects of this Chapter. This annual summary shall be provided to the City Council and the Commercial Core and Lodging Commission. (B) The City will provide wording for Audit Cards that the Haulers must use to notify their customers of contamination of Yard Waste in trash and contamination of trash in recyclables. In addition, the City will produce an educational flyer, not to exceed one (1) sheet of paper in length. Haulers shall distribute this educational flyer at least once a year to all their customers, that may be at the same time as materials sent out under Subsection 12.06.0300) above. The City will consult with the Haulers about the educational flyer prior to distributing it to the Haulers. (Ord. No. 26, 2005, §1) Sec. 12.06.070. Audits and violations. (A) Each Hauler licensed pursuant to this Chapter shall maintain accurate and complete records of the services provided to all customers, the charges to such customers and payments received, the form and recipients of any notice required pursuant to this Chapter, and any underlying records, including any books, accounts, contracts for services, written records of individual level of service requests, invoices, route sheets or other records necessary to verify the accuracy and completeness of such records. It shall be the duty of each Hauler to keep and preserve all such documents and records, including any electronic information, for a period of three (3) years from the end of the calendar year of such records, except for paper records of route sheets, which may be discarded one (1) year after the end of the calendar year of such route sheets. (B) If requested, each Hauler shall make its records available for audit by the City Manager during regular business hours in order for the City to verify Hauler compliance with the provisions of this Chapter. All such information shall be treated as confidential commercial documents under the provisions of the Colorado Open Records Act. (C) Violation of any provision of this Chapter by any person, firm or corporation, whether as Hauler, owner or occupant, shall be unlawful and subject to the penalty provisions in Section 1.04.080 of this Code. Each violation shall constitute a separate offense. (Ord. No. 26, 2005, §1) Sec. 12.06.080. Sunset provision This Chapter shall remain in effect until five (5) years from the date of adoption of the ordinance codified herein, at which time the City Council shall amend, expand or repeal this Chapter. . (Ord. No. 26, 2005, §1; Ord. No. 17 -2008) Section 2: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. Section 3. Existing Litigation. This ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. Section 4. Notice A public hearing on the ordinance will be held the day of 2011, in the city Council chambers, 130 S. Galena at 5 PM. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of May, 2011 Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of May, 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk John Worcester, City Attorney 1 : 4 st t • .„ •• `q ►� S V-11 '' •3 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor & City Council THRU: Don Taylor, Finance Director FROM: Don Pergande, Budget Officer DATE: May 2, 2011 RE: First Reading: Adoption of Budget Supplemental — Ordinance No. 1 8(Series 2011) this item will be discussed on Monday, May 9, 2011 Staff is requesting an amendment to the City's 2011 budget that increases the city -wide total expenditure appropriation from $84.8 to $103.5 million, (See Attachment A). Net of inter fund transfers, budget authority increases from $66.2 to $84.2 million. Interfund transfers are required appropriations between City funds that do not reflect the true cost of operations. Attachment F provides a detailed listing of budgeted 2011 interfund transfers. The exhibit below outlines the supplemental requests impact on the City's overall appropriation authority. The reference attachments provide itemized listings of requested supplemental budget authority. Gulf QF ASPEN 2O11SUPPLEMENTALBUDGET Description Amount Location 2011 Adopted Budget: $84,837,680 See Attachment A Total New Requests: $2,468,649 See Attachment B Total Manager Savings: $428,070 See Attachment C Total Carry Forward Savings: $2,657,150 See Attachment C Total 100% Carry Forwards: $12,697,830 See Attachment D Technical Adjustments: $416,170 See Attachment E Total Budget Requests: $18,667,869 See Attachment A TOTAL ORDINANCE: $103,505,549 See Attachment A Less Interfund Transfers $19,316,100 See Attachment F NET APPROPRIATIONS: $84,189,449 See Attachment A City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 1 As noted in the chart above, this supplemental is mostly comprised of annual capital carry - forward appropriations. These requests are for projects previously appropriated and for which cash reserves exist. Different categories of requests include: • Attachment B: "New Requests" of $2,468,649 include requests for formal appropriation of funding issues previously reviewed by Council during this fiscal year and new requests. Narrative justification of each new request is provided as part of this memorandum below as well as in the memorandums at the end of this packet provided by departmental staff. • Attachment C: "Manager 10% Carry Forward Savings" of $428,070 represents 10% of operating budget savings from all departments of the City in previous years. These one -time appropriations are allocated to the City Manager's office for use in addressing mid -year issues with citywide implications. • Attachment C: "Departmental 50% Carry Forward Savings" of $2,657,150 represents 50% of previous years operating budget savings for individual departments. Departments are allocated these amounts as a reward to finding efficiencies in their operations that allow them to meet their operating goals while spending less than their total appropriations. These one -time appropriations can be spent on items related to the department's mission. • Attachment D: "Departmental 100% Carry Forward Requests" are for operating items and capital improvement projects budgeted in 2010 that require completion in 2011. These requests total $12,697,830. This category also includes the City's personal computer and workstation replacement programs which keeps the City's computer technology new and efficient. Attachment D details these requests by department. • Attachment E: This attachment details all of the technical adjustments in 2011, totaling $416,170. Technical adjustments include accounting transactions needed to administer decisions made by City Council or City policy, formal appropriations of previously approved projects and oversights in budget entry. • Attachment F: This attachment details interfund transfers for 2011, totaling $19,316,100. Interfund transfers are required appropriations that do not reflect the cost of operations. New Requests General Fund Planning Department - The Planning Department request totals $810. This funding request is for education and outreach programs funded by the sale of the Deep Powder Cabin sales. See the memo at the back of this packet for additional details on the above request. Building Department- The Building Department requests total $133,610. $83,610 is for funding contracted plans review for the Aspen Valley Hospital (AVH) project. This request is funded by the AVH project and has no impact to the General Fund cash reserves. See the memo at the back of this packet for additional details on the above request. $50,000 funds continuing legal counsel for the defense of a former inspector of the Community Development Department. This request will be funded from the General Fund cash reserves. Special Events- The Special Events Department request totals $82,500. Staff was directed by Council on March 1 to appropriate $92,500 in stimulus funding to fund the approved proposals City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 2 generated from Mining for Ideas. $82,500 of this request will be funded from the General Fund cash reserves. See the memo at the back of this packet for additional details on the above request. New Requests All Other Funds Parks and Open Space Fund- The Parks and Open Space Fund request total $10,000. Staff was directed by Council on March 1 to appropriate $92,500 in stimulus funding to fund the approved proposals generated from Mining for Ideas. $10,000 is funded from the Parks and Open Space Fund for the Vince Gill and Amy Grant Golf Classic. This request will be funded from the Parks and Open Space Fund cash reserves. See the memo at the back of this packet for additional details on the above request. Wheeler Fund- The Wheeler Fund requests total $143,230. $121,230 is requested to repair the chiller system located on the roof of the Wheeler Opera House. $22,000 is requested for the sound proofing and insulation of the audience chamber. These requests will be funded from Wheeler Fund's cash reserves. See the memo at the back of this packet for additional details on the above requests. City Tourism Promotion Fund- The City Tourism Promotion Fund requests total $115,360. $57,680 is to make a partial repayment to the City of Aspen for a $80,000 loan given to ACRA. $57,680 is to pay transportation expenses in 2011. These requests are funded by the lodging tax collection being higher than the budgeted amount in 2010. Transportation Fund- The Transportation Fund requests total $171,670. $160,500 is to purchase three replacement hybrid battery packs funded by the Faster Fund grant. $11,170 is to use the remaining grant funding from the CMAQ grant to purchase insurance on the CMAQ funded hybrid truck. See the memo at the back of this packet for additional details on the above requests. Housing Development Fund- The Housing Development Fund request totals $6,500. This is to pay the carrying costs of the housing unit at 910 W. Hallam. This request is funded by Housing Development's cash reserves. See the memo at the back of this packet for additional details on the above request. Kid's First Fund- The Kid's First Fund requests total $379,250. $60,000 is to fund additional financial aid to families in 2011. This was directed by Council in February 2011. This request will be funded by the Kid's First cash reserves. $293,200 is requested for the distribution of the accumulated fund balance for the "Early Childhood Network" (ENC) Fund to the new 501(c)3. $26,050 is for contracts made on behalf of the ECN with the City of Aspen. The City of Aspen will collect these grants and pass them to the ECN. See the memo at the back of this packet for additional details on the above requests. Parks and Open Space Capital Fund- The Parks and Open Space Capital Fund requests total $260,000. $200,000 is the formal appropriation of the environmental enhancements to the storm water ponds proposed at Rio Grande Park in association with planned improvements by Theatre Aspen in 2011. This project was approved by Council in February of 2011. $100,000 is funded from the Parks and Open Space Fund and $100,000 will be funded from the Stormwater Fund. $35,000 is for the purpose of completing a large scale wildlife and vegetation study of the open spaces located within the Brush Creek Valley. $25,000 is appropriating yearly funding for the major capital maintenance at Cozy City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 3 Point. This program was inadvertently deleted from the asset management plan in the transition to the new CIPAce software. These additional funding requests will be funded from the Parks and Open Space Fund's cash reserves. See the memo at the back of this packet for additional details on the above requests. Water Utility Fund- The Water Utility Fund request totals $200,000. This funding is needed to complete the Thomas Reservoir Spillway in 2011. This request will be funded by the Water Fund's cash reserves. See the memo at the back of this packet for additional details on the above request. Electric Utility Fund- The Electric Utility Fund request totals $200,000. This funding is needed to complete the ARC's portion of the new electric distribution system in 2011. See the memo at the back of this packet for additional details on the above request. Renewable Energy Fund- The Renewable Energy Fund requests total $50,000. The funding is for drilling of a geothermal test well to gather additional data on feasibility for a geothermal district heating and cooling system. This request is offset by the GEO grant awarded to the City of Aspen in 2010. See the memo at the back of this packet for additional details on the above request. Employee Housing Fund- The Employee Housing Fund request totals $322,329. The $2,500 request funds the commercial appraisal of the 212 AABC property conducted prior to sale. See the memo at the back of this packet for additional details on the above request. The $319,829 funds the purchase of Water Place 1, 2 and 12 which are to be sold in 2011. Information Technology Fund- The Information Technology Fund request totals $25,830. The Street's department is accelerating a technology project that is scheduled to be completed in 2012. The computerized fleet analysis system has not been functioning properly and the project can take advantage of the vendor work upgrading the fuel tanks in 2011. The Street's Department will fund this project from their departmental savings. Asset Management Fund- The Asset Management Fund request totals $367,560. Staff is seeking approval from Council for an increase of $367,560 for funding of the compressor and refrigeration replacement projects at the Aspen Ice Garden. Initially, funding was only identified for the compressor replacement with the refrigerant switch slated for completion in 2014. For efficiency and due to federal mandates, staff is recommending the completion of the projects concurrently. There are sufficient cash reserves in the AMP Fund to fund this request. See the memo at the back of this packet for additional details on the above request. Technical Adiustment Technical adjustments include accounting transactions needed to administer decisions made by City Council or City policy, formal appropriations of previously approved projects and oversights in budget entry. The technical adjustments in this packet total $416,170. The details related to these adjustments can be found on attachment E of this packet. City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 4 ORDINANCE NO. it (Series of 2011) AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING AN INCREASE IN THE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND EXPENDITURES OF $2,917,400, AN INCREASE IN THE GENERAL FUND OF $2,878,040 AN INCREASE IN THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUND OF $285,580, AN INCREASE IN THE WHEELER OPERA HOUSE FUND OF $614,590, AN INCREASE IN THE CITY TOURISM PROMOTION FUND OF $115,360, AN INCREASE IN THE TRANSPORTATION FUND OF $456,770, AN INCREASE IN THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND OF $2,745,670, AN INCREASE IN THE KIDS FIRST FUND OF $558,560, AN INCREASE IN THE STORMWATER FUND OF $541,680, AN INCREASE IN THE PARKS AND OPEN SPACE CAPITAL FUND OF $785,890, AN INCREASE IN THE WATER FUND OF $2,359,410, AN INCREASE IN THE ELECTRIC FUND OF 902,360, AN INCREASE IN THE RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND OF $2,350,860, AN INCREASE IN THE PARKING FUND OF $503,180, AN INCREASE IN THE GOLF COURSE FUND OF 97,820, AN INCREASE IN THE TRUSCOTT FUND OF $273,510, A INCREASE IN THE MAROLT FUND OF $5,150, AN INCREASE IN THE EMPLOYEE HOUSING FUND OF $322,329, AN INCREASE IN THE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND OF $440,410, A INCREASE IN THE HOUSING ADMINASTRITION FUND OF $103,300 AND AN INCREASE IN THE SMUGGLER FUND OF $70,000. WHEREAS, by virtue of Section 9.12 of the Home Rule Charter, the City Council may make supplemental appropriations; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has certified that the City has unappropriated current year revenues and /or unappropriated prior year fund balance available for appropriations in the following funds: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND, GENERAL FUND, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUND, WHEELER OPERA HOUSE FUND, CITY TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND, TRANSPORTATION FUND, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND, KIDS FIRST FUND, STORMWATER FUND, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE CAPITAL FUND, WATER UTILITY FUND, ELECTRIC UTILITY FUND, RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND, PARKING FUND, GOLF COURSE FUND, TRUSCOTT HOUSING FUND, MAROLT HOUSING FUND, EMPLOYEE HOUSING FUND, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND, HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FUND AND SMUGGLER HOUSING FUND. WHEREAS, the City Council is advised that certain expenditures, revenue and transfers must be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 Upon the City Manager's certification that there are current year revenues and /or prior year fund balances available for appropriation in the: ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN FUND, GENERAL FUND, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE FUND, WHEELER OPERA HOUSE FUND, CITY TOURISM PROMOTIONAL FUND, TRANSPORTATION FUND, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND, KIDS FIRST FUND, STORMWATER FUND, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE CAPITAL FUND, WATER UTILITY FUND, ELECTRIC UTILITY FUND, RENEWABLE ENERGY FUND, PARKING FUND, GOLF COURSE FUND, TRUSCOTT HOUSING FUND, MAROLT HOUSING FUND, EMPLOYEE HOUSING FUND, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY FUND, HOUSING ADMINISTRATION FUND AND SMUGGLER HOUSING FUND: the City Council hereby makes supplemental appropriations as itemized in the Attachment A. Section 2 If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason invalid or unconstitutional by any court or competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion thereof. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ORDERED PUBLISHED AND /OR POSTED ON FIRST READING on the 12th day of April, 2010. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor FINALLY ADOPTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING on the 26th day of April, 2010. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor Approved as to Form: John Worcester, City Attorney Q E 0 E _c . U N Q 'n N '^ m O M n b n y m N m^ N m n N $ O N 0 Q n w 01 o C �' p T r N P b - b T b N A V C V O _ N P O • v p N N e0 p N • ° V m N P m N to m . T n 0 �p N m M N ▪ V O ti N N b w m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ,, N N N N N N CO N p m m O O O p O O O O 0 ^ O O m O N O T m O O a CO ▪ 9 o m b_ M 30 IN O m P T m b N O CO N V: 0 T N - .-1 P • V el 03 C 16 m` g P p N N N N y 7 CO e o ° p m N '� m ^ p P a 3 • 0 C - n w N ,n CO a 01 - t ry N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N H N N N N M v N N 1-1 GO N N N N p N N IN y O y O O O W O N N O T T O O v p i p O O m O m O p 01 P T P CI O O M O �p P N a N N . N < N O C T b C c 00 00 co w N n m b b T v co n N b O b N O N CO N P tin W N N T N N N N N K Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 6 w p 7 yy yy O p p p O V O O O N 0 cc O b N N 9 W N N n m n � N V , n O N N n N N 0 m " 'i n : P O. M ri Le (G T P T co N en T m co to r co N v co N N . O LP N 1/4c, CI b 00 2.2 3 N 00i y j N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N � y N N ra CO N N N N te 4. 4 n y h N N N ' d ✓ e -1a Z . •C V O p O O O u p O M T O N N O N m p O 6 S O m b O O O Ob m P a1 8 w w r. C}' V m d O O P ? O O O . O N vl w N W V N 0 q vc. _ E u 4c m a b m ( ` T • N CO N N N b N N N o N N u '" m m i. oc 0: - g N o N N N N N N N N N N N N H N N N N ry N H • N • N CO N cc w g N N m N N N C M Of N 4 e OD. N N O O O N N O N N O O O O N a N O N g e O N N p O O 'L y . N N ' N 0 o S N 0 C N N m m N V T a w N N b O N y C N P y E tn. N N N N N N N e N N N 2 N N N C C 6 Y N ,, 7 O O O 0 0 0 0 b - Y O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 O N O O 8 P P O N W m m T O C M 4 - ry 0 h q V . c N ° c N .. o; m ^ $ v . N CO m to' N M m to a m o m T P m O nl 1 � m b T N b N b m n p • N N P 0 T V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N P N CO N N F V N N N N C J C N ° y N N $ O q O M b m ti N m T N N N m m i V C N b V C N N N C m T M O N C 03- V 0 m N W ti n N m 01 • - O O m ' O N - O O` b re, CO N T 03 '� O P N rei O V , N < T P N I co p C N N p N N C O CV `p ° N N N N N N N p N N K n n N N N N N N N N N P N N N N N C u ° C 6 Li. C — a a c c V 9 14 LL ° O ° M 4 LL U' u 4 . . c c v a 0 ° T Q e c y u c c a u u C o • c i `g' w u o_ 4 i E ° e n LLc u 3 o e n? i w Z i� n 'o E 3 a e v '2 c c 5 n n i v c '- a n= m c `^ S m a G c c V ' c q . LL ° c y o a a' n u c t n a a u c c m Z i$ C o a ° 2 ° a d c u o u LL v u o LL c a c u - c n n E s. c ° m oC - e c u v c o u a n n u y . L m u H c u u F E c N O t m E V d -a ° E m « a "E y p a ` c O y x 7 a C 2 i o b S n p 72 m h 'g d t 2 ` LL ., B „,_„ ‘ „,„ y Y °' ' 3 x h Q n f v Q u° ° o� a Q ;. Q ¢ c Q 2 . d u ° 3r u Q a u 1- c '^ E E y .. Q .•= Q Q • m W 32- ° c o b iflig= Q . N LL V' 'U M y V Y Q V nN . O. W m • . 6 O , s. w w s 0 2 2 H J j W . V1 6 3 r n V H S LL N N N U Q n N 3 u C V 'V F N N H N Q 2 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 5 City of Aspen Attachment B 2011 Supplemental Budget New Funding Requests All Requests are one - time unless otherwise noted. Department / Fund New Request Description Amount Subtotal by Dept. GeneratFUnd' .. _. .. _.. Planning Deep Powder Cabin sales revenue will be redirected to historic preservation $810 education and outreach. See memo for additional details. Subtotal, Planning $810 Building Hospital contracted plans review. See memo for additional details. $83,610 On August 3rd of 2010, at an executive session, Council approved funding for $50,000 legal counsel for the criminal defense of farmer inspector Erik Peltonen. The initial funding has been used. Additional funding is required for continuing legal council. Subtotal, Building $133,610 Special Events 001.70.71729.82999 Stimulus funding approved by Council in the March 1, 2011 work session. See $82,500 memo for additional details. Subtotal, Special Events $82,500 Subtotal, General Fund $216,920 Parks and Open Space Fund? ' 100.55.55000.82999 Stimulus funding approved by Council in the March 1, 2011 work session. See $10,000 memo for additional details. Subtotal, Parks and Open Space Fund $10,000 Wheeteropera House Fund:. Repair of the chiller system located on the roof of the Wheeler Opera House. $121,230 See memo for additional details. Sound proofing and insulation of the audience chamber. See memo for $22,000 additional details. Subtotal, Wheeler Opera House Fund $143,230 City Tourism Promotion Fund . -... . Appropriation of the 2010 fund balance in 2011 to be used for repayment of the $57,680 ACRA loon. This fund balance was created by the lodging tax collection corning in higher than the budgeted expense amount in 2010. Appropriation of the 2010 fund balance in 2011 for transportation expenses in $57,680 2011. This fund balance was created by the lodging tax collection coming in higher than the budgeted expense amount in 2010. .,.__ Subtotal, City Tourism Promotion Fund $115,360 TtiWpprtatiGfl FlmfF C .: .. .; 141.94.94403.86105 Funding for three hybrid bus battery pack replacement in 2011. This request is $160,500 offset by the Foster Fund grant. See memo for additional details. 141.34.34000.82915 CMAQ funding was awarded to purchase a hybrid truck. This request is to use $11,170 the remaining grunt funding to pay insurance on the CMAQ funded hybrid truck. This request is offset by the CMAQ grant. See memo for additional details. Subtotal, Transportation Fund $171,670 Housin Develo 910 W Hallam Unit 1111 was purchased by the COA and converted from deed $6,500 restricted to free market, remodeled and put up for sale in 2009. The COA will have to pay HOA and other fees associated with ownership of the unit. See memo for additional details. Subtotal, Housing Development Fund $6,500 LUdsFhstFUed $60,000 of additional financial aid to families in 2011. This is per direction of $60,000 City Council in February of 2011. See memo for additional details. The Early Childhood Network is now its own 501(c)3. This request is the $293,200 distribution of the fund balance that has accumulated. See memo for additional details. Contracts were mode on behalf of the Early Childhood Network with the City of $26,050 Aspen. These contracts run through 6/30/2011. The City of Aspen will collect these grants and puss them on to the Early Childhood Network to complete the contract. See memo for additional details. Subtotal, Kids First Fund: $379,250 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 6 City of Aspen Attachment B 2011 Supplemental Budget New Funding Requests All Requests are one - time unless otherwise noted. Department / Fund New Request Description Amount Subtotal by Dept• ParksaddOpen$ EspJtaUluul ..; 340.94.xxxxx.86001 Environmental enhancements to the storm water ponds including constructed $200,000 wetlands proposed at Rio Grande Park in association with planned improvements by Theatre Aspen in 2011. $100,000 will be funded from the Stormwater Fund. See memo for additional details. Allocation of 535,000 for the purpose of completing a large scale wildlife and $35,000 vegetation study of the open spaces located within the Brush Creek Valley. See memo for additional details. Funds for major capital maintenance at Cozy Point. The program was 525,000 inadvertently deleted from the asset management plan in the transition to the new CIPAce software. This is an ongoing request. Subtotal, Parks and Open Space Capital Fund $260,000 Wateriit11121fi Fund C _ , 421.94.xxNew.86001 Funding to complete the Thomas Reservoir Spillway in 2011. See memo for 5200,000 additional details. Subtotal, Water Fund $200,000 431.94.46207.86001 Additional funds to complete the ARC's portion of the new electric distribution 5200,000 system project in 2011. See memo for additional details. Subtotal, Electric Fund 5200,000 444.94.43576.86001 Funding drilling of a geothermal test well to gather additional data on feasibility $50,000 for a geothermal district heating and cooling system. This request is offset by the GEO grant awarded to the City of Aspen in 2010. See memo for additional details. Subtotal, Renewable Energy Fund $50,000 EmPIOYeeHoustng Fund .. 505.94.82054.86001 Funding for the commercial appraisal of 212 ABC. This appraisal was conducted $2,500 prior to sale of this property. Funding for the purchase of employee housing units which are resold. $319,829 Subtotal, Employee Housing Fund $322,329 ... Fund .. n .: °. _: _..... :P ..,... t .. :.:: .._ 510.94.94149.86001 Move $20,000 for the Computerized fleet analysis system /Gasboy project up $25,830 from the 2012 budget year to 2011. This system is used to monitor the maintenance of the fleet. This system has not been functioning properly for some time. The vendor has agreed to move forward with the replacement of the program this year during the fuel tank upgrades. This project is paid for by the Street Departments operational savings. Subtotal, Information Technology Fund $25,830 ri Fund .....: ......... :: ......:.... : .,._ _,. ,. - ._ ... : . - . „ 000.74.94119.86001 Funding for the Aspen Ice Garden new compressor project. See memo for $367,560 additional details Subtotal, Asset Management Plan Fund $367,560 Total New Requests All Funds: $2,468,649 Total New Requests After Offsetting Funding Source: $1,282,288 * Italics Indicates offsetting funding source City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 7 Attachment C City of Aspen 2011 Supplemental Budget Request 10% and 50% Carryforward Requests Department Central Savings "10 %" Operating Budget Savings "50 %" Council $45,920 City Manager $347,620 $91,320 Human Resources /Risk (at 15% max) $94,990 City Clerk $90,110 Finance 5159,500 Planning 517,300 Engineering $87,670 Building $13,550 Environmental Health 511,830 Police $447,580 Streets 5310,380 Special Events $30,570 Asset Management $4,920 General Fund Subtotal Departmental Savings $347,620 $1,405,640 Parks and Open Space Fund $6,970 580,770 Wheeler Opera House Fund $8,970 5196,370 Transportation Fund , 57,190 5162,110 Kids First Fund (at 15% max) $3,430 5105,270 Stormwater Fund $12,670 $63,370 Water Utility Fund $26,470 5263,390 Electric Utility Fund $6,350 $43,430 Parking Fund $3,040 $240,440 Golf Fund $2,480 $12,400 Information Technology Fund $2,880 $83,960 All Other Funds Subtotal Departmental Savings $80,450 $1,251,510 'Total Savings $428,070 $2,657,150$ City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 8 City of Aspen All Requests are one - time ATTACHMENT D 2011 Supplemental Budget 100% Carry Forward Appropriation Request Subtotal by Department / Fund Description Amount Department Gen ra Fund City Manager 001.05.05000.83625 Workstation Replacement 53,310 001.05.05000.83655 PC Replacement 513,580 Subtotal, City Manager 516,890 HR / Risk Management 001.06.06000.83625 Workstation Replacement $12,080 001.06.06000.83655 PC Replacement $5,790 Subtotal, Human Resources 517,870 City Clerk 001.07.07000.83625 Workstation Replacement 54,170 001.07.07000.83655 PC Replacement 519,850 Subtotal, City Clerk 524,020 City Attorney 001.09.09000.83625 Workstation Replacement $1,940 001.09.09000.83655 PC Replacement 51,470 Subtotal, City Attorney 53,410 Finance 001.11.11000.83625 Workstation Replacement $21,540 001.11.11000.83655 PC Replacement $11,390 Subtotal, Finance Department 532,930 Planning 001.13.13200.83625 Workstation Replacement 515,800 001.13.13200.83635 Equipment Maintenance and Repair 5410 001.13.13200.83655 PC Replacement $13,100 001.13.47501.82900 Aspen Area Community Plan 519,480 Subtotal, Planning 548,790 Engineering 001.15.15000.83625 Workstation Replacement Carry forward 57,410 001.15.15000.83655 PC Replacement Carry forward: 54,180 Subtotal, Engineering 511,590 Building 001.21.21000.83625 Workstation Replacement 56,290 001.21.21000.83655 PC Replacement 514,810 001.21.21000.82999 Defense Funding for Former Building Inspector $19,620 Subtotal, Building 540,720 Environmental Health 001.25.25500.83625 Workstation Replacement $7,580 001.25.25500.83655 PC Replacement $4,330 001.25.25500.82800 Environmental Impacts of Development 520,000 001.25.25500.82105 Compost Program 527,140 Subtotal, Environmental Health 559,050 Police 001.31.31000.83625 Workstation Replacement 534,160 001.31.31000.83635 Equipment Maintenance and Repair 566,760 001.31.31000.83655 PC Replacement $36,660 Subtotal, Police 5137,580 Streets 001.41.41000.83625 Workstation Replacement 59,610 001.41.41000.83635 Equipment Maintenance and Repair 5118,170 001.41.41000.83655 PC Replacement 57,010 Subtotal, Streets $134,790 Special Events 001.70.71000.83625 Workstation Replacement 52,500 001.70.71000.83655 PC Replacement 53,680 Subtotal, Special Events 56,180 Recreation 001.71.71000.83625 Workstation Replacement $6,330 001.71.71000.83655 PC Replacement $2,950 001.71.71000.84133 Max Marolt Scholarship $4,030 Subtotal, Recreation 513,310 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 9 City of Aspen All Requests are one -time ATTACHMENT D 2011 Supplemental Budget 100% Carry Forward Appropriation Request Subtotal by Department / Fund Description Amount Department Aspen Recreation Center 001.72.72000.83625 Workstation Replacement 514,290 001.72.72000.83655 PC Replacement $4,140 001.72.72700.83625 Workstation Replacement $320 001.72.72700.83655 PC Replacement $4,080 Subtotal, Aspen Recreation Center $22,830 Ice Garden 001.74.74000.83625 Workstation Replacement $6,960 001.74.74000.83655 PC Replacement 59,110 Subtotal, Aspen Ice Garden 516,070 Asset Management 001.91.05000.83625 Workstation Replacement $7,590 001.91.05000.83655 PC Replacement 510,580 Subtotal, Asset Management 518,170 Subtotal, General Fund 5604,200 Park* and Open Space Fund ? 100.55.55000.83625 Workstation Replacement $0 100.55.55000.83655 PC Replacement $0 Subtotal, Parks and Open Space Fund 50 Wheeler Opera House Fund ... - 120.93.93000.83625 Workstation Replacement 59,370 120.93.93000.83635 Equipment Maintenance and Repair $15,370 120.93.93000.83655 PC Replacement 528,010 120.94.94239 Hot Water Heaters 511,000 120.94.94292 Lease Spaces /Basement Renovation 5202,270 Subtotal, Wheeler Opera House Fund 5266,020 Transportation Fund r - ... `.. .: . . 141.34.34000.83625 Workstation Replacement 514,530 141.34.34000.83635 Equipment Maintenance and Repair $30,620 141.34.34000.83655 PC Replacement $9,930 141.34.34000.82180 TDM Measures Handbook 55,000 141.34.34000.82999 Entrance to Aspen Survey 520,000 141.94.81141 CMAQ Grant 522,200 141.94.83055 Ruby Park Facility Improvements $22,770 141.94.94127 Rubey Park Repair And Maintenance 510,000 Subtotal, Transportation Fund 5135,050 Hotting Development Fund 150.23.23000.83625 Workstation Replacement $180 150.23.23000.83655 PC Replacement 5370 150.23.23010 Centennial Investigation $42,220 150.23.23120 Annie Mitchell Housing $10,000 150.23.23121 Housing - Burlingame AH 536,170 150.23.23150 Burlingame Delivery SF Lot Subsidies 5459,920 150.67.23700 Burlingame Phase II - Design 52,190,310 Subtotal, Housing Development Fund 52,739,170 Ktds Ftrst ;, ... ' . - ... 152.24.24000.83625 Workstation Replacement $5,270 152.24.24000.83655 PC Replacement 52,950 152.24.24100.81999 Training And Facilitation 54,800 152.24.24100.82911 Grant Funding Distributed In 2010 515,000 152.24.24100.84031 Professional Development 55,000 152.94.81022 Roof Repair /Replacement $37,590 Subtotal, Kids First Fund 570,610 +. • .., ..:: .. . r. stormwaterFund. " ` 160.42.16300.83625 Workstation Replacement $360 160.42.16300.83655 PC Replacement $740 160.94.81115 Rio Grande Design Project 567,320 160.94.81116 Drainage Criteria Manual Project 51,220 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 10 City of Aspen All Requests are one - time ATTACHMENT D 2011 Supplemental Budget 100% Carry Forward Appropriation Request Subtotal by Department / Fund Description Amount Department 160.94.94112 Stormwater Master Plan - Smuggler And Hunter Creek $200,000 160.94.94115 Francis Street Stormwater Improvements 590,000 160.94.94409 Recycle Center - Stormwater $6,000 _ .: Subtotal, Stormwater Fund $365,640 PaiksandOpenSpaceGapital1Fund .- ... ._ : 340.94.81015 Mall Bricks 58,730 340.94.81155 Deer Hill Interpretation Trail 532,760 340.94.81156 East Of Aspen Trail Phase II $128,550 340.94.81157 No Problem Joe Trail 518,500 340.94.82008 Misc Trail Overlays $12,610 340.94.82099 Smuggler Mountain Reclamation And Restoration $107,130 340.94.82126 Flower Fence Replacement 510,000 340.94.83010 Comp Irrigation System 59,850 340.94.83044 Trailers $9,710 340.94.94043 Infield Renovation $5,000 340.94.94048 Galena St Mall Stormwater Improvement $20,000 340.94.94055 Newbury Park Wall Replacement $25,000 340.94.94063 DEPP Outlets Replacement $8,050 340.94.94089 Marolt Nordic Trail improvements $9,120 340.94.94114 Smuggler Mountain Open Space Management 58,530 340.94.94169 Cozy Point Brush Creek Restoration Project $45,000 340.94.94170 Entrance To Aspen Landscaping Project $14,620 340.94.94197 Computer Peripherals - City $1,500 340.94.94228 Capital Payroll - Parks 58,860 340.94.94246 West End Sidewalk Treatments $42,370 Subtotal, Parks and Open Space Capital Fund 5525,890 Water D %f0 FunQ - :: 421.43.43000.83625 Workstation Replacement $7,900 421.43.43000.83635 Equipment Maintenance and Repair 512,580 421.43.43000.83655 PC Replacement 51,210 421.94.44101 Site Improvements - Infrastructure $1,400 421.94.44104 West Treatment Plant $65,770 421.94.44105 Administration Building 5222,050 421.94.44108 Backwash Pond $4,290 421.94.44110 Storage Shed 520,000 421.94.44202 Hunter Creek Plant $2,270 421.94.44407 Gauging Stations 58,160 421.94.44408 Reclamation Project 5292,560 421.94.44415 PV Project - Water Plant Site $87,520 421.94.44501 Raw Water Distribution $4,960 421.94.44603 Meter Program 54,050 421.94.44605 Iselin/Tiehack Waterline Across Maroon 5400,000 421.94.44614 Highlands Upgrades & Interconnect $345,000 421.94.44901 Little Nell Well $3,720 421.94.44903 Rio Grande Well $4,070 421.94.44907 General Groundwater Facilities $3,510 421.94.82057 Network Systems 515,000 421.94.83005 Fleet 518,880 421.94.93909 Castle Creek Pipeline $16,350 421.94.93916 Raw Water Distribution Ditch Management $2,710 421.94.93928 Smart Meter Program $12,000 421.94.93958 Ute Avenue Steel Line Replacement $25,000 421.94.93962 Pump Stations 57,600 421.94.93981 Gauging Stations $10,000 421.94.94008 General Groundwater Facilities 540,000 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 11 City of Aspen All Requests are one -time ATTACHMENT D 2011 Supplemental Budget 100% Carry Forward Appropriation Request Subtotal by Department / Fund Description Amount Department 421.94.94016 Work Equipment - Water Utility Locating Equipment 510,000 421.94.94022 Site Improvement - Security And Access 2 $30,000 421.94.94033 East Water Treatment Plant Improvements 526,090 421.94.94034 West Water Treatment Plant Improvements $22,180 421.94.94035 Administration Building 512,000 421.94.94036 Disinfection Building Maintenance $5,000 421.94.94042 Backwash Pond $10,000 421.94.94044 Clearwell Improvements 55,000 421.94.94051 Storage Shed 510,000 421.94.94095 Castle Creek Dam And Headgate $4,670 421.94.94099 Conservation Programs 539,840 421.94.94149 Workgroup Applications (City) $38,240 421.94.94197 Computer Peripherals - City 53,000 421.94.94373 Leonard Thomas Reservoir Safety Of Dams 514,970 Subtotal, Water Utility Fund 51,869,550 Electric Utility Fund .. . z ; ... 431.45.45000.83625 Workstation Replacement 51,800 431.45.45000.83635 Equipment Maintenance and Repair 54,320 431.45.45000.83655 PC Replacement $2,350 431.45.45000.82900 Aspen Energy Assurance Plan - DOE Grant $42,400 431.45.45000.81900 Aspen Energy Assurance Plan - DOE Grant $14,130 431.94.44413 Utility Business Plan 52,300 431.94.46103 Expand Electrical Storage Building 511,120 431.94.46203 Golf Course East Distribution System 588,610 431.94.46206 ACSD Distribution System $109,790 431.94.46207 ARC Distribution System 52,280 431.94.46401 Meter Replacement 52,350 431.94.93904 Plug -In Hybrid Program $40,000 431.94.93905 Streets Conduit Program 515,000 431.94.93907 Energy Conservation Programs 574,260 431.94.94162 Utility Business Plan -Rate Study 525,400 431.94.94175 Electric Administration Building Bi- Annual Maintenance $10,000 431.94.94201 Smart Meter Replacement Program 52,140 431.94.94203 Electric System Telemetry 510,000 431.94.94238 Ridgway Hydroelectric Facility 54,530 Subtotal, Electric Utility Fund $462,780 444.94.43503 System Telemetry 510,000 444.94.43504 Ruedi Maintenance 5173,160 444.94.43505 Ruedi Site Improvements 511,180 444.94.43560 Maroon Creek Hydro Electric Facility $9,270 444.94.43571 Castle Creek Hydro Penstock $476,530 444.94.43573 Castle Creek Hydro Facility Construction 51,186,520 444.94.43576 Geothermal Project 5150,000 444.94.94178 System Telemetry For Hydros 510,000 444.94.94179 Ruedi Hydro Facility Improvements $49,200 444.94.94217 Maroon Creek Hydro Micro Turbine /Facility 5225,000 Subtotal, Renewable Energy Fund $2,300,860 Parking Eund . ... ... .. .. . , .. .. 451.32.32000.83625 Workstation Replacement 518,650 451.32.32000.83635 Equipment Maintenance and Repair 544,470 451.32.32000.83655 PC Replacement 515,600 451.32.54000.83635 Equipment Maintenance and Repair $71,710 451.94.81153 Plaza Replacement $94,390 451.94.94060 Revenue Control Equipment 511,150 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 12 City of Aspen All Requests are one - time ATTACHMENT D 2011 Supplemental Budget 100% Carry Forward Appropriation Request Subtotal by Department / Fund Description Amount Department 451.94.94197 Computer Peripherals - City $3,000 451.94.94424 Front Parking Office Remodel 5730 Subtotal, Parking Fund $259,700 471.73.73000.83625 Workstation Replacement 51,980 471.73.73000.83655. PC Replacement $2,960 471.94.83005 Fleet 55,000 471.94.94149 Workgroup Applications (City) 52,370 471.94.94161 Golf Carts And Equipment 59,130 471.94.94197 Computer Peripherals - City $1,500 Subtotal, Golf Course Fund $22,940 TrusmtgFiouitng6wrd... 491.01.45044.83625 Workstation Replacement 54,630 491.01.45044.83655 PC Replacement $7,600 491.94.81145 Truscott Master Plan $29,830 491.94.81202 Video Surveillance System 515,000 491.94.82061 Energy Efficiency - Priority 1 58,000 491.94.82112 Appliance Replacement $6,520 491.94.82113 Trash Compactor 525,900 491.94.82117 Building Door Replacement 51,030 491.94.94219 Truscott 100 Deck Support $30,000 491.94.94220 Truscott 400- 1000 Plumbing Repairs 510,000 491.94.94221 Truscott Cement Stair Renovations 5100,000 491.94.94225 Truscott Laundry Hot Water Heater Replacement 515,000 491.94.94226 Truscott Exterior Painting 520,000 Subtotal, Truscott Housing Fund 5273,510 Maroft Housing'Furtd , 'f ._ ...... .. 492.01.45043.83625 Workstation Replacement 51,810 492.01.45043.83655 PC Replacement $3,340 Subtotal, Marolt Housing Fund 55,150 lnfionnazonTechnolog - 510.60.60000.83625 Workstation Replacement $4,300 510.60.60000.83655 PC Replacement $5,120 510.61.61000.83625 Workstation Replacement $12,480 510.61.61000.83655 PC Replacement $6,590 510.94.82057 Network Systems $18,000 510.94.94139 Website Development (City) $22,320 510.94.94143 Website Development (County 100% Reimbursement) $25,090 510.94.94147 Network Services (City) $26,790 510.94.94148 Network Services (County 100% Reimbursement) $41,190 510.94.94150 Virtualization (City) $7,330 510.94.94151 Virtualization (County 100% Reimbursement) $7,340 Subtotal, Information Technology Fund 5176,550 Horrsing'Admfrrfstratfot `' .r r 3 1 ,.` 620.23.45002.83625 Workstation Replacement 58,880 620.23.45002.83655 PC Replacement $0 620.23.45044.8299 Capital Reserve Study $94,420 Subtotal, Housing Administration Fund 5103,300 Smuggler;Housin Fund L i _ .; 4 ,_. .� 622.94.94233 Smuggler Water Heater Replacement 510,000 622.94.94234 Smuggler Exterior Painting 540,000 622.94.94235 Smuggler Appliance Replacement 520,000 Subtotal, Smuggler Housing Fund $70,000 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 13 City of Aspen All Requests are one -time ATTACHMENT D 2011 Supplemental Budget 100% Carry Forward Appropriation Request Subtotal by Department / Fund Description Amount Department :._ .. .. AssaTManageritem .:.. . 000.07.82134 Scanner For Optical Imaging System 510,000 000.11.94245 Electronic Time Keeping System 57,200 000.15.81197 Main Street Streetscape 553,350 000.15.82022 Survey Monuments 53,970 000.15.83075 Bridge Replacement Program 557,010 000.15.94061 Park Ave /Midland Ave Pedestrian Improve $49,000 000.15.94066 2010 Bridge Rail Replacement 545,000 000.15.94075 2010 Curb And Gutter Replacement 5204,420 000.15.94077 Mill Street Pedestrian Improvements $38,660 000.15.94082 Comprehensive Transportation Plan $30,390 000.15.94111 Main St Alternative Material Crosswalk 546,210 000.15.94118 Gondola Plaza Pedestrian Crossings 543,710 000.15.94423 8th /Route82 Intersection Pedestrian Improvements 520,000 000.25.93911 Rio Grande Recycle Center Pavement 523,120 000.25.94418 Compost Project $35,670 000.31.31200 Patrol 537,230 000.41.81090 Efficiency Measures $16,170 000.41.81140 Paint Gun 510,000 000.41.93913 Street Improvement Project 5385,260 000.41.94417 Exterior Facility Repairs $16,840 000.61.94156 Core Network 512,000 000.61.94149 Workgroup Applications (City) 520,590 000.61.94158 Public Safety Mobile Data (City) 528,770 000.61.94197 Computer Peripherals - City 528,100 000.71.93951 Gymnastics Mats $8,760 000.72.72106 Building Controls 524,000 000.72.72900 ARC Capital $7,000 000.72.81021 Compressor 513,770 000.72.81118 ARC Switch To City Electric 526,120 000.72.81126 Garage Door 529,000 000.72.93931 HVACs Zone Modifications 522,240 000.72.93934 Duct Insulation And Vapor Barriers $36,970 000.72.93936 Snow Louver Installation 540,000 000.72.94186 VDFs On Pool Pumps - McKinstry 51,500 000.72.94187 Waste Heat Recovery - McKinstry $257,230 000.74.81038 Locker Replacement 57,830 000.74.94119 Compressor Replacement 589,290 000.90.82076 City Sidewalk - ADA - Improvements 5446,060 000.90.82151 City Sidewalk - Lone Pine Pedestrian Improvements 552,140 000.90.82152 City Sidewalk - Main Street Pedestrian Improvements $7,080 000.91.93963 City Hall Fire Alarm Upgrade 558,060 000.91.93964 City Hall Fire Sprinkler Upgrade 595,420 000.91.93990 RIO Grande Soffit Repair 5630 000.91.94144 Animal Shelter Snow Fence 51,140 Subtotal, Asset Management Plan Fund $2,446,910 Total 100 % Carry forward Supplemental Requests $12,697,830 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 14 City Of Aspen Attachment E 2011 Technical Adjustments Department /Fund Technical Adjustment Description Amount Subtotal Oenetaf l utrd s 001.71172174191.31072.82955 Staff is requesting the funding of the McKinstry lease $36,700 ry purchase agreement in 2011. This amount was left out of the 2011 budget in the budget development process. This corrects this oversight. This is an ongoing request. 001.71172174. *. *.80* Accounting change in the allocation of Recreation Staff $76,720 time in 2011. This will not change the total payroll budget for Recreation staff it only changes where staff time will be coded. This is an ongoing request. Transfer to the Information Technology Fund to fund the $83,960 Departmental savings that has accumulated through the end of 2010. Transfer to the Information Technology Fund to fund the $25,830 Streets Department's project in 2011 from their operational savings in 2010. Subtotal, General Fund $223,210 Parks and4pgn 5paceFund 100.55.55000.88901 Transfer to Central Savings $6,970 100.95.00000.95340 Transfer to Parks and Open Space Capital Fund to fund $27,840 carry forward project requests that exceeded the forecast during the 2011 budget development process. 100.95.00000.95340 Transfer to Parks and Open Space Capital Fund to fund the $160,000 new capital project requests. Subtotal, Parks Fund $194,810 Wheeier QperaHouse';Fund .';... - 120.93.93000.88901 Transfer to Central Savings $8,970 Subtotal, Wheeler Opera House Fund $8,970 Transportation Fund .': 141.34.34000.88901 Transfer to Central Savings $7,190 141.34.34000.88901 Temporary reduction transfer to the General Fund for the ($19,250) use tax position, reduction to 30 hours a week in 2011. Subtotal, Transportation Fund ($12,060) Kids first Fund , 152.24.24000.88901 Transfer to Central Savings $3,430 Subtotal, Kids First Fund $3,430 Stdrmwater Fund Transfer to Central Savings $12,670 160.95.xxxxx.95340 The Stormwater Fund is funding 50% of the $100,000 environmental enhancements to the stormwater ponds including constructed wetlands proposed at Rio Grande Park in association with planned improvements by Theatre Aspen in 2011. Phase 1 of this project was approved in the February 22, 2011 work session. This funding will be transferred to the Parks and Open Space Fund where the project is appropriated in total. Subtotal, Stormwater Fund $112,670 421.43.43000.88901 Transfer to Central Savings $26,470 Subtotal, Water Fund $26,470 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 15 City Of Aspen Attachment E 2011 Technical Adjustments Department /Fund Technical Adiustment Description Amount Subtotal 'Etectrk'Fpndc_lmm:._. ;. . E a 431.45.45000.88901 Transfer to Central Savings $6,350 431.94.94182.86001 Starting the Second Feed project was accelerated to 2010; ($410,200) therefore, the budget authority that was appropriated in 2011 for this project is reduced proportionately to what was spent in 2010. Subtotal, Electric Fund ($403,850) Parking Fund 451.32.32000.88901 Transfer to Central Savings $3,040 Subtotal, Parking Fund $3,040 Golf Course Fund . 471.73.73000.88901 Transfer to Central Savings $2,480 Subtotal, Golf Course Fund $2,480 Information Technology Fund 510.94.61000 This budget authority is needed to exercise an account $89,460 entry to capture all of the information technology expenses in the IT Fund. City IT projects budgeted in the 510.94.61000 This budget authority is needed to exercise an account $64,610 entry to capture all of the information technology expenses in the IT Fund. City IT projects budgeted in all other City Funds. Subtotal, Information Technology Fund $154,070 A sset Manage Fund 5 .. ._....,ter:. , .... , .__ _ m 000.95.00000.95510 Transfer to the Information Technology Fund to fund $102,930 capital projects that were approved and funded in the Asset Management Fund in 2010. Subtotal, Asset Management Fund $102,930 Total Technical Adjustment All Funds: $416,170 City of Aspen -1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 16 Attachment == r 4417NT*PtiQTRANSrEf0 ,,,, „ __.._it - fit .__.._zi. Transfer F rom Transfer To Transfer Amount Purpose of interfnnd Transfer 000 +':AsaeiM ®diNaaFund ': F "tea - rs. mom- ". Wheeler Opera House Fund 588,490 Red Brick West End Project 10 Yr IF Loan Information Technology Fund 2 ;$3G2 930 yam „' Fund Capital Projects Transferred to Fund Debt Service Fund $93,640 Series 2005 -STRR -AMP'S Portion Subtotal, Transfers 5285,060 Got- 'Geaeta Fum( :` r . .., .,s.. ;_ - . .. "` Information Technology Fund 5849,040 IT Overhead Payment Information Technology Fund :e,;$$3,96 'i Fund IT Accumulated Departmental Savings Information Technology Fund $25.83¢ Departmental Savings to Pay for Capital Project Parks and Open Space Fund 557,540 Partial Subsidy of Food Tax Refund Employee Housing Fund 5240,000 City of Aspen Affordable Housing Subtotal, Transfers $1256,370 YOd- Hae Oppn!9paeq Fund a :', s . ..:. .; ......;.., .. ,.,... ..:.. • Parks and Open Space Capital Fund ' ie _ Capital Projects Debt Service Fund 5837,400 Parks 2005 Open Space Bonds Debt Service Fund 5537,130 2001 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds Debt Service Fund 5290,690 2009 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds (Refunding '01) Debt Service Fund 5950,730 Series 2005- STRR - Park's Portion Golf Course Fund 5146,020 Series 2005 - STRR - Golf's Portion General Fund ';56,976 . Central Savings General Fund 5884,110 Overhead Payment Information Technology Fund 5100,840 IT Overhead Payment Employee Housing Fund 563,860 City of Aspen Affordable Housing Subtotal, Transfers $5,433,070 320= t6Tealetopenh$F vlaiubd :_ .:. mm Employee Housing Fund 573,120 City of Aspen Affordable Housing General Fund D e,38,97G 5. Central Savings General Fund 5353,960 Overhead Payment Information Technology Fund 568,790 IT Overhead Payment Subtotal, Transfers 5504,840 141:TwnsPprtaFatFOnd _- .... . ` '° ___. Employee Housing Fund 58,440 City of Aspen Affordable Housing General Fund $7,290 Central Savings General Fund $73$80 ", Use Tax Positions General Fund 5164,030 Overhead Payment Information Technology Fund $24,720 IT Overhead Payment Subtotal, Transfers $278,360 160- Ii000C oeiieiginmt Fund.,'; ' � � .!. .. ' , = i"_ ............... Housing Administration Fund 5188,940 Operations Subsidy (50% of total) General Fund 5355,740 Overhead Payment Information Technology Fund 516,480 IT Overhead Payment Truscott Housing Fund 5709,590 Truscott 1, 2001 Housing Bonds Subsidy Parks and Open Space Fund 514,410 Percentage of Food Tax Refund Subtotal, Transfers $1,285,160 1sr- ' IOdeFhapFmRg%6L.. .... ..( ..... .......... . ::. ::... it General Fund 5117,480 Overhead Payment General Fund , -1 Central Savings Information Technology Fund 530,300 IT Overhead Payment Employee Housing Fund 515,440 City of Aspen Affordable Housing Parks and Open Space Fund 517,610 Percentage of Food Tax Refund Subtotal Transfers $184260 General Fund 5145,970 Overhead Payment General Fund $1 570 Central Savings Parks and Open Space Capital Fund $306A40 "loin[Capi[al Project - Stormwater Ponds Information Technology Fund 53,790 IT Overhead Payment Employee Housing Fund 59,160 City of Aspen Affordable Housing Water Utility Fund $45,000 Payback Start Up Costs Subtotal, Transfers 5316,590 423 • t0 (ter 1.0114:604, .. .: , .. • ;: General Fund $524,970 Overhead Payment ........ ...... . ._ General Fund „ .[$26,414 jt Central Savings Information Technology Fund 5139,800 IT Overhead Payment General Fund 51,000,000 Operations Facilities Land Employee Housing Fund 5128,550 City of Aspen Affordable Housing City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 17 Attachment F .. :2011I1SET'ERFU,N0 , ' .,, ... ...... .... Transfer From Transfer To Transfer Amount purpose ofinterfund Transfer Parks and Open Space Fund $150,000 Water Usage Conservation Program Subtotal, Transfers 51,969,790 133- I¢feadc wady Fund .. .':I ', I m,. ;? : . ..... ... .. , Renewable Energy Fund 5426,640 Purchase of Hydroelectric Power Renewable Energy Fund 5110,000 Purchase of Hydroelectric Power General Fund 5223,090 Overhead Payment General Fund $6,350 . Central Savings Information Technology Fund 510,040 IT Overhead Payment Water Utility Fund 5302,500 Electric Utility portion of Utility Billing Services Water Utility Fund 5116,480 1/2 of Global Warming Program Employee Housing Fund 515,440 City of Aspen Affordable Housing General Fund 5450,000 Franchise Fee Subtotal, Transfers $1,660,540 -. ........ ... ....._....... .......... .......... 444- RlpeWall4 Energy Fund .. , ... , General Fund 533,910 Overhead Payment Employee Housing Fund 54,580 City of Aspen Affordable Housing Subtotal, Transfers 538,490 45I - Parking Fund : ° ' .. General Fund 5345,030 Overhead Payment General Fund : 53,040 ; Central Savings Information Technology Fund 554,730 IT Overhead Payment Employee Housing Fund 540,520 Cty of Aspen Affordable Housing Transportation Fund 5550,000 Transportation Fund Subsidy Subtotal, Transfers 5993,320 471 GONCoinic Fund - m . ° ' . .. ' � General Fund 5169,850 Overhead Payment General Fund :$2,4800 - Central Savings Information Technology Fund 528,980 IT Overhead Payment Parks and Open Space Fund 524,660 Repayment of Golf Start Up Funding - IF loan Employee Housing Fund 521,680 City of Aspen Affordable Housing Subtotal, Transfers 5247,650 491 - Trunsotg aoeslAg•FOpd. . .. .. ...... . Housing Administration Fund 549,230 Overhead Payment General Fund 558,500 Overhead Payment Employee Housing Fund $5,520 City of Aspen Affordable Housing Subtotal, Transfers 5113,250 492- btareh k ousognund .. ......... General Fund 549,870 Overhead Payment Information Technology Fund 53,790 IT Overhead Payment Housing Administration Fund 531,850 Overhead Payment Employee Housing Fund 4520 City of Aspen Affordable Housing Subtotal, Transfers 590,020 510 - Mformatlon Yecbnotogy Fund ..... ... General Fund 5260,590 Overhead Payment Funds 5 729,870 Capital Projects- Double Budgeted Funds $64,510 - Ceptal Projects- Double Budgeted - 1st Ord. AMP Fund r. 589,460 : Capital Projects- Double Budgeted - 1st Ord. Employee Housing Fund 533,770 City of Aspen Affordable Housing Subtotal, Transfers 51,178,300 620- Administration fund ..... General Fund 573,760 Overhead Payment Employee Housing Fund 547,920 City of Aspen Affordable Housing Subtotal, Transfers $121,680 622 • Smuggler housing Fund .. Housing Administration Fund 52,390 Overhead Payment General Fund 515,470 Overhead Payment Subtotal, Transfers 517,860 Sin- ankh Insnrausofiand Employee Health Insurance Fund 53,341,490 Employee Health Insurance Premiums Subtotal, Transfers 53,341,490 2011 TOTAL INTERFUND TRANSFERS $19,316,100 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 18 City of Aspen Departmental Memos 1 Reading of Supplemental Ordinance City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 19 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Finance Department FROM: Johannah Richards, Administrative Manager RE: 2011 Supplemental and Carry Forward Requests DATE: May 2, 2011 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is requesting the following new monies for the 2011 budget year. • $810 / Deep Powder Cabins - The City -owned Deep Powder cabins that have been temporarily stored at the base of Lift 1 were sold to private entities for $810. All of the funds from the sale were to be allocated toward historic preservation education and outreach. • $83,610 / Hospital Contract Plan Review - Staff is requesting $83,610 for contract structural, mechanical, plumbing and electrical plan review for the hospital. The Building Department staff will still review the plans for building and energy code compliance. The funds requested will be a pass through paid out of the plan check fees that have been received for the permit. City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 20 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: R. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager' DATE OF MEMO: March 17, 2011 MEETING DATE: April 11, 2011 RE: Supplemental Request for Stimulus Funding REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Amend the 2011 Approved Budget to appropriate funds in accordance with your decisions on Stimulus Funding. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council had indicated in their 2011 budget approval meetings a desire to provide another round of stimulus funding — and that you would approve "as much as $100,000" for that purpose. At a worksession on March 1 you received the recommendations from the Review Committee and you made your decisions about 2011 allocations. A total of $82,500 from the General Fund and $10,000 from the Parks and Open Space Fund was allocated, with two event proposals "pending" while the proposers revise their ideas and return to the City Council. BACKGROUND: City Council, during its budget deliberations in November, indicated a willingness to consider another round of stimulus funding for FY 2011. City Council did not yet appropriate any funding, but directed staff to solicit ideas for funding and to vette those ideas through the Stimulus Review Committee established last year. We advertised for submission of proposals in December and early January, the committee met on four occasions to discuss the proposals received. There were a total of 34 proposals received and reviewed by the committee. DISCUSSION: As part of its Top Ten goals for the year, Council retained the following goal: "Encourage and support local investment initiatives and programs that stimulate a prosperous, diverse and sustainable Aspen economy and build upon the innovation and creativity that exist in town." During the adoption of the 2011 Budget, the City Council indicated they might appropriate as much as another $100,000 in the General Fund for the purposes of "marketing, stimulus, and special events" and directed the staff to seek ideas from the general public. That campaign — "Mining Aspen for Ideas" — was conducted and concluded on January 10th. In this round of the Mining for Ideas campaign there were 34 ideas submitted, with total requests of $593,179. After reviewing the materials submitted, the group reduced that number to 11 ideas we were interested in looking at further — and issued invitations to those proposers to come and meet with us to discuss their idea in greater detail. Page 1 of 2 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 21 • Adopt -a- Tourist • Aspen Tuesday Block • Summer Snow • AVSC Presents: the US Party • Aspen Fashion Week Alpine Championships • Quiznos Pro Challenge • Challenge Aspen 8 • American Jr. Golf Bike Race Annual Vince Gill / Amy Association Tournament • Search Party Grant Golf Classic • Aspen International • Aspen EcoFest Mountain Forum' Council chose to allocate funding for 5 events, and place on a "pending" status two other events, subject to the proposers returning with revised plans. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: Funding will be allocated as follows: General Fund (4 events): $82,500 Parks and Open Space Fund (1 event): $10,000 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Appropriate the $92,500 for the five events from the two funds listed. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Council Worksession of March 1 Follow -up memo Page 2 of 2 City of Aspen - t st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 22 Arrhaima THE Crry OF ASPEN MEMORANDUM : ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION MEETING NOTES TO: Mayor and City Council PRESENTED BY: R. Barry Crook MEETING DATE: March 1, 2011 COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: Mick Ireland, Derek Johnson, Steve Skadron, Torre AGENDA TOPIC: 2011 Stimulus Funding REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Funding decisions for 2011 Stimulus Funding requests SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION: City Council, during its budget deliberations in November, indicated a willingness to consider another round of stimulus funding for FY 2011. City Council did not yet appropriate any funding, but directed staff to solicit ideas for funding and to vette those ideas through the Stimulus Review Committee established last year. We advertised for submission of proposals in December and early January, the committee met on four occasions to discuss the proposals received. There were a total of 34 proposals received and reviewed by the committee. We have recommendations to the City Council for an allocation of $37,500 for four events from the City's General Fund, $10,000 from the City's Parks and Open Space Fund, and $15,000 from ACRA's funding source. We also have two proposals we are favorably inclined toward that are labeled "pending" — we have asked the proposers to refine their proposals and come back to the committee when they have done so. In addition, we are passing the Quiznos Bike Race request for $60,000 onto the City Council for you to consider — the committee is generally supportive of the request, but felt the Council had already indicated a need/desire to allocate some funding for this signature event. Recommended for Funding Reauest Rec Council American Junior Golf Association Tournament 7,500 7,500 7,500 Aspen Eco Fest 5,000 5,000 5,000 Aspen Tuesday Block Party 5,382 Pending Pending Quiznos Pro Challenge Bike Race 60,000 Council 60,000 Search Party 30,000 Pending Pending Challenge Aspen 8th Annual Vince from P &OS from P&OS Gill /Amy Grant Golf Classic 10,000 Fund Fund Aspen Big Mountain BBQ 15,000 15,000 # 0 Aspen International Mountain Forum 18,000 10,000 * 10,000 * Total 150,882 37,500 82,500 City of Aspen - 1st SuppiJi ffa /Alnance of 2011- Page 23 THE CITY OF ASPEN * Funding is recommended for the addition of a Western Slope BBQ Cook -Off to the proposed event, additional funding would also come from the Destination Marketing budget of the ACRA # Funding is recommended for an event to be planned for in 2012, not 2011 as proposed. Other Notes ➢ Funding for the Big Aspen Mt. BBQ will come from ACRA's Destination Marketing budget, the Western Slope BBQ Cook -Off will be planned for 2012. ➢ Funding for the Challenge Aspen 8 Annual Vince Gill/ Amy Grant Golf Classic will come from the Parks and Open Space Fund. ➢ Aspen Tuesday Block Party: The event as proposed would be a weekly "block party" held on the Hopkins block between Galena and Hunter. It would feature live music and refreshments with proceeds going to a local charity. The Committee asked the event sponsor to return with some alternative ideas — including perhaps reducing the event to once a month, consider other locations, how to hold it in conjunction with other events, and how to create a more amenable space for participants. Council agreed to this approach. ➢ Search Party: The event as proposed is a community art project, asking locals and visitors to decipher clues in a geocaching adventure using digital imagery to document their quest in search of a party. It was proposed to start on April 1st and conclude on May 29th. We have asked the sponsor to re -visit the idea, looking instead to a series of 3 -day weekend events that could coincide with other events /special times in the community. For instance, one Search Party could coincide with the last weekend of skiing, asking participants to move about the ski mountains in search of their clues. Another possible idea is to partner a Search Party with the local art galleries and move participants from gallery to gallery in search of their clues and towards a final destination. Other ideas would partner with bike races, running events, the turning of leaf color, etc. We would recommend funding at a much lower amount if the sponsor returns with viable ideas that we are comfortable recommending to Council for. Council agreed with this approach. NEXT STEPS: Council will appropriate the funds in the next supplemental budget request round. Funding agreements will be drawn up for signatures and allotments made in accordance with Council decisions. The two "Pending" event sponsors will return with their revised proposals. Page 2 of 2 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 24 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Randy Ready, Scott Miller and Scott Wilson THRU: Rebecca Hodgson DATE OF MEMO: April 11, 2011 MEETING DATE: RE: Emergency Procurement of HVAC Chiller at Wheeler Opera House REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This memo is to serve as notice to the Mayor and Council that an emergency procurement is underway to replace the failing HVAC chiller at the Wheeler Opera House. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: None. BACKGROUND: The chiller for the Wheeler's HVAC was installed in 2001. This equipment was expected to have a working life of 25 — 30 years; however, problems with the equipment indicate that the chiller unit was faulty from early on and has been a source of recurring problems and repairs. In 2010, in the City's first supplemental request the Wheeler requested and received permission to purchase items associated with repair to its chiller, which serves to cool the entire building. However, on closer inspection it was determined that such repairs would not be monies well spent and that in fact the existing equipment was failing as a whole and would eventually require replacement. Therefore, these expenditures were shelved and the situation watched, with the hope that the chiller would last until the 2012 budgeting cycle. On closer inspection in recent weeks it has become clear that replacement is necessary as soon as soon as possible. DISCUSSION: A small window of opportunity was recognized from May 16 thru May 28 With this drop dead date in mind we secured an engineering firm, Resource Engineering Group, to specify a replacement. We solicited two bids from trusted contractors and developed a budget that was submitted for supplemental approval; however, the delay of the supplemental review by City Council until April 11 meant that the project would be impossible to complete prior to spring activity in the Wheeler, particularly the residency by the Aspen Music Festival and School. Having these specifications and approved bidder in place, it was imperative that we Page 1 of 2 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 25 move forward immediately with procurement in order to ensure that materials be available for the time frame identified earlier. At the time of this writing, those orders are taking place. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Due to an oversight on the part of our engineering firm, that there has been a substantial change in the specifications to replace our failing chiller. The first specs, which were used by our chosen contractor to generate the initial estimate and subsequent supplemental, were missing essential components that have since been added to make for a complete, working chiller replacement. The total costs for this project (equipment and installation) are not to exceed $121,226.39. This is up from our previous bid of $94,836.00. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The failing units are leaking an unacceptable and unsustainable quantity of ozone - depleting freon into the atmosphere. Replacement will ensure our continued compliance with federal clean air mandates. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff is proceeding with emergency procurement of this equipment unless council voices an objection to this course of action by Tuesday, April 12, at 5:00 PM. ALTERNATIVES: City staff sees no other viable alternatives to replacement as soon as possible. PROPOSED MOTION: None. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Page 2 of 2 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 26 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Council FROM: Wheeler Executive Director Gram Slaton THRU: Assistant City Manager Randy Ready DATE OF MEMO: 11 March 2011 RE: First Supplemental Request Items SUMMARY: Approval is requested for two items that are not part of the 2011 operating budget, but are requested due to emergency situations beyond the control of Wheeler management. The total amount of the supplemental request items included in this memo amounts to $143,226.39. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: None. BACKGROUND: None. DISCUSSION: The Wheeler Opera House requests that the below lines be granted supplemental approval, both of which are necessary for the Wheeler to operate to capacity in the 2011 year. 1. Replace building chillers $121,226.39 In 2010, in its first supplemental request the Wheeler asked for and received permission to purchase a variety of items associated with repair to its two rooftop chillers, which are used year -round but are particularly noticeable in their functionality during the warm season (June — October); however, on closer inspection it was determined that such repairs would not be monies well spent, and that in fact the existing equipment was failing so rapidly that even with a fix in place it would require replacement in very short order. Therefore, these expenditures were not made. It was felt that the work may be folded into the larger project of the basement /first floor remodel, but later thinking determined that that was neither appropriate nor would there be sufficient guarantee of funds available from that project for this work. Therefore, and upon completion of engineering work by Resource Engineering Group in order to determine the correct and most cost - efficient replacement equipment, we request that the above amount be provided so that we can execute this work in the spring off- season and better ensure no interruption or failure of service to our summer client. City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 27 2. Soundproofing \Insulation for the Wheeler audience chamber $22,000.00 (Labor: $3,500 Materials: $18,500) This project is necessary for completion in the fall of 2011 for several reasons. First is the continued encroachment of events and special projects in the downtown core, particularly Wagner Park and the Hyman Avenue Mall, that are putting the Wheeler in a constant conflict situation with not only outside parties but also departments of the City of Aspen. Of most pressing need is the remediation of concern for New Year's Eve 2011, when the Wheeler has The David Bromberg Band contracted to appear at the same time that City departments will be holding a free bonfire - and -DJ event in Wagner Park. The porous nature of the Wheeler building, and particularly its audience chamber, means that its existing situation will not keep this significant noise from disrupting the performance for patrons of this important holiday event. The soundproofing will also provide the Wheeler with significant insulation on the inside of its historic windows, thereby providing appreciable energy savings for both the heating and cooling seasons. RECOMMENDATION: Wheeler staff recommends approval of these increases. ALTERNATIVES: Item #1 is without an alternative and deferring to take action on it will run a large risk of not having air conditioning during the Aspen Music Festival and School's Opera Theatre season this coming summer. Item #2 may be deferred or refused, but will greatly impact the Wheeler's ability to provide a satisfactory audience chamber for its artists and guests due to outside noise filtering into the building from Wagner Park and the downtown walking mall, particularly on New Year's Eve 2011. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 28 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jeff Pendants THRU: Scott Miller DATE OF MEMO: March 10, 2011 MEETING DATE: April 11, 2011 RE: 910 West Hallam Unit # 11 REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Funds for holding costs associated with ownership of 910 W Hallam Unit # 11. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 2009 Council approved the purchase and remodel of the unit. BACKGROUND: 910 W Hallam Unit # 11 was purchased by the COA and converted from deed restricted to free market in 2009, remodeled and put up for sale in 2010. DISCUSSION: It seems likely with the still sluggish real estate market that the unit might not sell for some time and the COA will have to pay HOA and other fees associated with ownership of the unit. The request of $6,500 is for HOA dues, utilities and cleaning. HOA dues are $5,300 a year and utilities and miscellaneous cleaning is approximately $100 a month. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The funds will come out of the 150 Housing Fund. Subsequent proceeds from the sale of this property will go back into the fund once it sells. The total request is $6,500. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends Council approve the request. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve Ordinance # ..." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page I of 1 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 29 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: John D. Krueger, Director of Transportation THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: March 24, 2011 MEETING DATE: April 11, 2011 • RE: Transportation Department - Supplemental Budget Requests 2010 Carry Forward & 2011 New Requests REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Transportation Department is requesting approval for supplemental budget requests for 2010 carry forward items and several new items for 2011. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved the 2010 carry forward budget items as part of the 2010 budget. The transportation Department is requesting approval to carry forward these items to 2011. DISCUSSION: The Transportation Department is requesting supplementary budget approval of the following: • 2010 Supplemental Cary Forward Budget Requests o $20,000 Entrance to Aspen Survey • 2011 New Supplemental Budget Requests o $160, 500 Four Hybrid Bus Battery Replacements 2010 Supplemental Cary Forward Budget Requests $20,000 Entrance to Aspen Survey In 2010, City Council approved a supplemental budget request in the amount of $24,000 for the creation of a citizen survey on the Entrance to Aspen (ETA). This survey has been supplied to random Aspen and Pitkin County residents. Some of the funding was spent in 2010 and $20,000 needs to be carried forward into 2011 to pay the other costs of the survey. Page 1 of 4 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 30 2011 New Supplemental Budget Requests $160, 500 Four Hybrid Bus Battery Replacements The four hybrid buses that the City purchased will need the battery packs replaced. These replacements are in the Transportation Department capital plan over a two year period. The Transportation Depaitulent applied for and will receive Funding Advancement for Surface Transportation and Economic Recovery (FASTER) grant funds in 2011 to replace all four battery packs. The City will receive $169,600 in FASTER funds with a local match of $42,400 for a total of $212,000 for the four battery packs. The replacement of the battery packs were programmed into the City's capital plan at a total cost of $210,635. Through the FASTER grant program, the City will now have to spend the local match or $ $42,400 for the batteries. This is a savings of $168,235 for the four battery packs. The battery packs have an average life of 5 -6 years and several of them are reaching the end of their useful life. The battery packs will only be replaced as needed. The 2011 capital budget only has the replacement of one battery pack in the amount of $51,500. The Transportation Department is seeking supplemental budget expenditure approval for $160,500 so, that it can use the FASTER funds to replace all four battery packs. The cost of the battery packs will be offset by the FASTER grant fund revenue of $169,600. The net cost of the battery packs to the Transportation fund is only the local match of $42,400. $11,166 Insurance and miscellaneous costs for new car share vehicle In 2011, the city will be purchasing a new car share vehicle (hybrid truck) with Congestion Mitigation Air Quality (CMAQ) grant funding in the amount of $48,000. The Transportation Department is seeking supplemental budget approval in 2011 in the amount of $11,166 to cover insurance and miscellaneous operating costs associated with the new vehicle. These additional costs will also be reimbursed with the same CMAQ grant used to purchase the truck. The purchase of hybrid vehicles in the past for the carshare program has been a critical element in getting approval for CMAQ grant funding. Previously, the car share program has received CMAQ funding for four hybrid car share vehicles (2 ford fusion hybrids and 2 ford escape hybrids). We have received approval from CDOT for the hybrid truck and are awaiting final approval from the FTA on our request. One the key points and criteria that has allowed the City to get CMAQ funding for the four previous vehicle and preliminary approval for the truck is that we will have an all hybrid fleet of vehicles in the car share program. This is a unique distinction, and will make the City's CAR TO GO program one of the few 100% hybrid programs in the nation. The CMAQ funding will significantly reduce the cost of replacing the truck in the car share fleet. The City will only be responsible for the local match or 20% of the total cost of the vehicle. The Page 2 of 4 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 31 total cost will be offset by the CMAQ funding revenue that the City will receive of 80 %. The net cost will only be 20% allowing the City to save funds for other uses. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The Transportation Department is making a request for approval of the following $171,666 in supplemental budget requests: • 2010 Supplemental Cary Forward Budget Requests o $20,000 Entrance to Aspen Survey • 2011 New Supplemental Budget Requests o $160, 500 Four Hybrid Bus Battery Replacements o $11,166 Insurance and miscellaneous costs for new car share vehicle o $171,166 Total 2011 New Requests ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Transportation Department programs such as those discussed in this memo typically reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Transportation Department recommends approval of the supplemental budget requests as stated in the memo. • 2010 Supplemental Cary Forward Budget Requests o $20,000 Entrance to Aspen Survey • 2011 New Supplemental Budget Requests o $160, 500 Four Hybrid Bus Battery Replacements o $11,166 Insurance and miscellaneous costs for new car share vehicle o $171,166 Total 2011 New Requests ALTERNATIVES: Council could decide not to approve these supplemental budget requests. If Council does not approve these requests, the ETA survey will have to be stopped before it is completed and more costs are incurred. If Council does not approve the use of FASTER funds for the replacement of the four hybrid bus batteries the City will have to pay the full cost out of the Transportation department Fund and the funding will be reprogrammed to another agency and lost to the City. The same holds true for the CMAQ grant funding of the hybrid truck for the car share program. If the CMAQ funds are not approved for use the City would have to pay for the replacement truck out of the Transportation fund at 100 %. PROPOSED MOTION: I recommend approval of the Transportation Department supplemental budget requests as stated. Page 3 of 4 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 32 MEMORANDUM TO: Aspen City Council and Steve Barwick, City Manager FROM: Kids First Advisory Board and Shirley Ritter THRU: Barry Crook SUBJECT: 2011 Supplemental Request DATE: March 11, 2011 SUMMARY: The purpose of this memo is to provide background to Aspen City Council 2011 budget supplemental request. Request #1 — Financial aid to families — one time request - $60,000 In response to the community need and direction from Aspen City Council 2 /1/2011 regarding Pitkin County CCCAP and Kids First financial aid needs and budget, Kids First Advisory Board and staff is requesting $60,000 to support the anticipated number of families seeking help to pay for childcare. This amount would support 4 families in the 185% to 225% Federal Poverty Guidelines that Pitkin County no longer is funding and/or the families currently served by CCCAP in Pitkin County that will transition off and turn to Kids First for help. Kids First Advisory Board discussed many ways to reduce the financial aid budget including: increasing the % families are expected to pay, different qualifications depending on whether a family lives inside or outside the City of Aspen, and further reduction of the maximum income to qualify. The recommendation at this time was to increase the % families are expected to pay for childcare, request a onetime supplemental, and write to the BOCC with a request to increase their funding levels for childcare for low- income families. Kids First Advisory Board is concerned about the impact this continued need could have on the Long Range Plan and sustainability of this program. They strongly urge council to retain the capital reserve fund to have the ability to meet the community needs for access to childcare programs. They will continue to meet and evaluate this program with the intention of operating without having to use the reserve fund every year to meet the demand that is relegated to the City of Aspen and Kids First. After our May 1 financial aid deadline for all families in this program and the payment of the second quarter funding amount to childcare programs 011 behalf of these families, we will re- examine the expenditures and determine if we need to make additional reductions of some sort, change qualifications, or ask for another supplemental in 2011. We will also begin work in the 2012 budget process to keep these costs within the budget to preserve the capital reserve fund and be able to operate within a balanced budget. City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 33 Request #2 — Fund balance pay -out to the Early Childhood Network, formerly the Kids First Glenwood Springs office — one time request - $293,202 Aspen City Council approved resolution # 2011 -4 to establish a MOU between the City of Aspen (Kids First), and the Early Childhood Network, including payment of the fund balance to Early Childhood Network. Throughout the past eight years Kids First has been able to attract additional funding through Qualistar Early Learning, Garfield County, Eagle County and the Town of Basalt to supplement and/or replace the original funding from the Aspen Community Foundation. We have in fact been able to increase this funding substantially in that time. Additionally Kids First staff wrote a grants resulting in new funding from the Temple Hoyne Buell Foundation, the Tony Grampsas Youth Services (TGYS), Daniels Fund, and the Anschutz Family Fund for the services provided through the Kids First Glenwood Springs office. All funding that is referred to in the resolution is outside funding that has supported operations and services through the Kids First Glenwood Springs office. This fund balance will be paid now to the new organization, the Early Childhood Network, to continue that work. All staff and associated operating costs have also been shifted to the new organization. Request #3 — Contract payment for professional services with the Early Childhood Network one time request - $26,050 Contracts with Qualistar and Tony Grampsas Youth Services (TGYS) provide funds for services performed out of the Early Childhood Network - formerly Kids First Glenwood Springs. These contracts are from 7 -1 -2010 to 6 -30 -2011. As these payments are received, funds will be paid to Early Childhood Network, with a net $0 cost to Kids First. July 1, 2011 the ECN will contract directly with these fenders. The fenders are agreeable to this situation in the interim. Attachment A — Recap of Aspen City Council joint worksession with BOCC February 1 Attachment B — Resolution Aspen City Council 2011 -4 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 34 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM : Stephen Ellsperman, Director of Parks and Open Space Jeff Woods, Manager Parks and Recreation CC: Tricia Aragon, City Engineer April Long, Storm Water Manager Scott Chism, Parks Planner DATE OF MEMO: February 15, 2011 MEETING DATE: February 22, 2011 RE: Rio Grande Park Storm Water Ponds Improvement SUMMARY: At this time we are requesting you to approve environmental enhancements to the storm , water ponds including constructed wetlands proposed at Rio Grande Park in association with planned improvements by Theatre Aspen in 2011. This request includes the phased funding for improvements,` including $200,000 for Phase 1 as outlined in this memorandum. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION The last Council Action specific to Rio Grande Park was the authorization to approve a renewable 10 -year lease agreement between the City of Aspen and Theatre Aspen that occurred at a January 3, 2011 work session. During that work session City Council directed staff to develop an improved solution to the storm water ponds at Rio Grande Park that would complement the John Denver Sanctuary and planned Theatre Aspen tent improvements. City Council also reviewed proposed storm water improvements to Rio Grande Park at a July 7, 2003 work session and May 4, 2004 work session. During both work sessions, City Council determined that the development of storm water environmental improvements at Rio Grande Park and Jennie Adair Wetlands were worthwhile to pursue. BACKGROUND: The City of Aspen has made a strong commitment to environmental initiatives, including managing storm water. City Council has directed staff to implement long -term solutions to ensure that the community is responsible for clean storm water discharge into the Roaring Fork Watershed. An equally important goal is to enhance the ecological integrity of areas where stormwater improvements are proposed. Storm water from the central core of the city and Aspen Mountain currently discharges into the Roaring Fork River from three major drainages. One of the three drainages (`East Drainage') flows from the street gutters and into Rio Grande Park near the Rio Grande Recycle Center before reaching the river. Another of the three drainages (`Central Drainage') flows under Mill Street to directly discharge into the river. The third major drainage ('West Drainage') flows into the Jennie Adair Wetlands to allow for water quality enhancement and flood control before discharging into the river. Page 1 of 4 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 35 The existing basins at Rio Grande Park that comprise the basic outfall of the East Drainage do not function adequately to mitigate storm water flow to the river but have tremendous potential to improve water quality (Attachment A). DISCUSSION: Rio Grande Park is a truly special park within the greater Aspen parks and open space system. It is one of the largest open green spaces within city limits along the Roaring Fork River and is the location for a wide variety of passive and active recreational opportunities. Much of the recreational use of Rio Grande Park is already programmed: Primary uses include a rugby /soccer field that exists in the southwest corner of the park, the popular skateboard park in the southeast comer of the park, and the spiritual John Denver Sanctuary area in the northern region of the park. Theatre Aspen utilizes a central space in the park for a tent structure that is erected approximately 4 months annually for the purposes of theatre performances. The Rio Grande Recycle Center is also located within the limits of Rio Grande Park (Attachment A). With the planned and privately funded redevelopment of the Theatre Aspen site, an opportunity exists to pursue the vision of enhanced park beauty and storm water improvements at Rio Grande Park within the John Denver Sanctuary. The John Denver Sanctuary officially became a `Specially Designated Space' by public vote in 2001, which protects and solidifies the sanctuary's passive park characteristics. The design and intent for the John Denver Sanctuary includes the Theatre Aspen Tent as an important component to the space, restoration of wetlands and habitat enhancements, improvements to storm water t quality systems, and other improvements designed to be consistent with the original design of the Sanctuary that was connected to John Denver's legacy (Attachment B). The proposed improvements would have a similar design character to what was created at the Jennie Adair Wetlands. A new sequence of storm water wetland ponds within the John Denver Sanctuary would function as both a filter to cleanse storm water before it reaches the Roaring Fork River and as a recreational hub with improved park beauty (Attachment C). The proposed improvements would occur in fall 2011 and spring/summer 2012 to work around Theatre Aspen seasons and accommodate funding availability (Attachment D). A major outcome goal for Rio Grande Park is the improvement of pedestrian access to the river and overall improvement to the pedestrian experience throughout the park. Staff at the Parks Department and Engineering Department led a park and storm water master planning effort that occurred in 2003- 2004 to plan for future integrated storm water infrastructure into the greater Rio Grande Park environment and nearby Jennie Adair Wetlands /Stormwater Project. That planning effort led to numerous exciting design innovations that had development potential in Rio Grande Park and were implemented at the Jennie Adair Wetlands in 2006. Funding for the scale of park and storm water improvements envisioned in 2004 -2006 at Rio Grande Park has not been available. Smaller scale incremental funding has provided a storm water `interceptor vault' installation at the Rio Grande Recycle Center in 2005 and a renovation of the recycle center itself in 2010. The positive environmental influences to water quality, wildlife habitat, and improvements to the John Denver Sanctuary and Rio Grande Park align this proposed project with the multiple stated environmental goals of the overall community and City Council's goals related to environmental stewardship. Projects that have been completed with these same goals such as the Maroon Creek Wetlands and the Jennie Adair Wetlands /Stormwater Project have been successful in achieving the same goals stated and have made the community a model for these stewardship activities. Proof of the positive influences these projects have had on the ecology of these sites comes in continuously. This month staff received important documentation from the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies that the ecological enhancments made to the area surrounding Hallam Lake (Jennie Adair Wetlands) have Page 2 of 4 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 36 improved wildlife habitat and water quality so much that new keystone species are beginning to be sighted on the property. Staff have developed a plan (refer Attachment C) that will meet the goal of improving pedestrian access to the river, increase passive recreational opportunities, and significantly improve the function and aesthetics of storm water conveyance of the `East Drainage' through Rio Grande Park. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: In order to fund the proposed improvements, staff has worked together collaboratively to find the most appropriate sources of funding and bring them together to complete the project. The proposed funding for the project will be sourced from both the Parks and Open Space Fund (100 Fund) and the Stormwater Fund (160 Fund). All project elements are closely intertwined with the individual missions of these two funds and by combining funding sources, the project can be viable. In addition, staff has been proactive in the design and proposed implementation, and will utilize in -house planning, design, and construction teams to accomplish the bulk of the project. A project budget has been crafted that is very cognizant of current fund balances and provides significant project savings from the once estimated price tag of over $3 million (2004 -2005) for the Rio Grande Park Master Plan. This approach is the same that was utilized on the recently completed Rio Grande Recycle Center, which has become an award winning facility that was constructed and budgeted in much the same way as this project is proposed. Both the Parks and Open Space Fund (100 Fund) and the Stormwater Fund (160 Fund) are financially healthy. Utilization of the proposed funding does not degrade fund balances significantly, leaving funding for future projects and initiatives. The specific funding breakdown for the Rio Grande Park Storm Water Improvements Project includes the following financial breakdown and phasing (Attachment E): Phase 1 East Drainage -2011- $200,000 • Parks and Open Space Fund (100 Fund) = $100,000 • Stormwater Fund (160 Fund) = $100,000 Phase 2 Central Drainage (Mill St.) – 2012- $350,000 • Parks and Open Space Fund (100 Fund) = $100,000 • Stormwater Fund (160 Fund) = $250,000 Total 2011-2012 Funding Allocation = $550,000 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS: The environmental implications of this project are significant. The development of this project will have multiple environmental benefits including: • Significant cleansing of major amounts of storm water through the park; • Establishment and restoration of critical riparian and wetland habitat along an impacted section of the Roaring Fork River corridor; • Provision of storm water retention • Important environmental education opportunities RECOMMENDATION: Staff suggests City Council recommendation for staff to proceed with proposed redevelopment plans to improve and enhance the configuration of storm water ponds at Rio Page 3 of 4 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 37 Grande Park within the John Denver Sanctuary in association with planned improvements by Theatre Aspen in Rio Grande Park for 2011. ALTERNATIVES: Council could choose not to provide direction to staff to proceed with proposed storm water improvements at Rio Grande Park in 2011. Some efficiencies of construction would likely be lost as the Theatre Aspen tent reconstruction project proceeds this spring and improvement to the storm water quality discharge into the river would not occur. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: A. Rio Grande Park/John Denver Sanctuary Existing Conditions Aerial Photograph B. John Denver Sanctuary Design Plan July 1998 C. Rio Grande Park Master Plan February 2011 D. Theatre Aspen Proposed Sketch (2) E. Rio Grande Park Stormwater Improvements Phasing Plan Page4of4 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 38 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Brian Flynn, Open Space and Special Projects Manager THRU: Stephen Ellsperman, Director of Parks and Open Space DATE OF MEMO: March 8, 2011 MEETING DATE: April 11, 2011 RE: Brush Creek Valley Open Space Biological Study REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The City of Aspen Open Space Staff and Open Space and Trails • Board request the allocation of $35,000 for the purpose completing a large scale wildlife and vegetation study of the open spaces located within the Brush Creek Valley. BACKGROUND: In December 2010, the Pitkin County Open Space Program closed on the 800 acre Droste Property. The acquisition of the property was completed through a multi - jurisdictional partnership, which included the Town of Snowmass Village and The City of Aspen. The acquisition of the Droste property when combined with existing neighboring open space parcels created over 2,500 acres of open space available for wildlife, recreation and visual enjoyment. DISCUSSION: Appropriate planning of the parcels is necessary to identify the opportunities and constraints of each possible use on the properties. The three governmental partners are embarking upon a planning process to formulate a long -term management plan for the entire 2,500 acres of open space. It is important to study the open spaces as a single unit to better understand how the wildlife, vegetation and recreation exist today and how they can be combined for maximum use or protection. Accomplishing this planning effort will be a major achievement by the municipal and county governments. Planning on this scale will allow miles of new trail connections, identify additional recreational opportunities and provide the opportunity to enhance and protect significant wildlife habitat. This could be accomplished individually but the value of understanding how each parcel interacts with the other would be lost and the overall benefit to the public would not be realized. The City of Aspen is a financial partner in the Droste purchase and now will be a significant partner in the planning process. The City of Aspen owns and manages 400 acres contiguous to the Droste property. It is to the best interest of the City of Aspen Staff and Open space and Page 1 of 2 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 39 Trails Board to participate in the biological study. The study will provide critical information on the wildlife, vegetation and recreation of the City owned parcels. The City owned parcels identified for the study are Cozy Point Ranch, Aspen Mass, Mills Open Space, Burlingame East and West (including Deer Hill). FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: The total cost for this study covering the entire planning area, 2,500 acres, is estimated to be approximately $100,000. The City owned lands combined with the jointly owned lands and our staff participation represents a little over one third (1/3) of the protected acres and time. City Staff is requesting $35,000 to contribute to the cost of the biological study. The Town of Snowmass Village and Pitkin County will also be contributing equal or greater amounts as participants in the larger planning effort. On February 23, 2011 during a regular City of Aspen Open Space and Trails Board meeting the Board unanimously supported the approval of the City's financial contribution towards the completion of the biological study for the combined 2,500 acres of open space. PROPOSED MOTION: "Move to approve the request for $35,000 out of the Parks and Open Space Capital Fund for the purpose of acquiring a biological study on the properties identified within the Brush Creek Valley Open Space Area. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: A — Map of study area, City of Aspen Parcels shaded in red. Page 2 of 2 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 40 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Robert Covington, Raw Water Supervisor THRU: David Hornbacher, Acting Director of Utilities and Environmental Initiatives DATE OF MEMO: May 2, 2011 MEETING DATE: May 9, 2011 RE: Spring Supplemental Budget Request — 2011 Request for Thomas Reservoir Spillway REQUEST OF COUNCIL: City Council is asked to approve a supplemental budget request in the amount of $200,000 to create the Thomas Reservoir spillway, intake, valve structure. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: N/A BACKGROUND: Over time, significant property development has occurred below the Thomas Reservoir increasing the risk of potentially millions of dollars in property damage in the event of an overflow or breach of the reservoir dam. The completion of a spillway on the Thomas Reservoir is necessary to comply with the current standards set forth by the State of Colorado. Staff recommends extending the work scope of the current contractor building the emergency penstock and drain line to include the spillway. The construction work in progress will resume and be completed this year. The addition of the Spillway project through a change order would reduce additional mobilization and other one -time charges that would otherwise likely be incurred by using another contractor. DISCUSSION: During the course of construction of the emergency penstock and drain line, the State of Colorado, Division of Water Resources Safety of Dams, identified additional permitting and other improvements at Thomas Reservoir that are required for compliance with current standards. The addition of a spillway establishes an unmanned, mitigated route for safety in the event of an overflow or breach of the dam. The requested budget authority is a supplemental appropriation for the cost of this additional spillway project work scope. FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: Water Fund has sufficient fund balance to cover this additional budget authority request. Page 1 of 2 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 41 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Completion of the Spillway and Intake structures in conjunction with the Emergency Drain line and Penstock creates a pathway to safely evacuate Thomas Reservoir in an emergency situation. These improvements substantially reduce the risk of damage to properties situated below the reservoir. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff requests City Council approve the supplemental budget request of $200,000. ALTERNATIVES: This is a requirement by the State of Colorado for safety of the reservoir. Not approving this request will constitute lack of compliance with State of Colorado dam safety regulations. Page 2 of 2 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 42 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Andy Rossello, Utilities Engineer THRU: David Hornbacher, Interim Director of Utilities and Environmental Initiatives DATE OF MEMO: April 12, 2011 MEETING DATE: April 25, 2011 RE: Spring Supplemental Budget Request — 2011 Request for ARC Electric Distribution System REQUEST OF COUNCIL: City Council is asked to approve a supplemental budget request of $200,000 to complete the City's Aspen Recreation Center (ARC) portion of the new Electric Distribution System. Original project budget authority is $363,904. This request will increase budget authority for the section of the new electric system to $563,904. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council has already approved Resolution #75 of 2009 for Sturgeon Electric to install the ARC portion of the Electric Distribution System and Express Feed line. BACKGROUND: Switching from Holy Cross Energy, (HCE) electric power facilities to municipal electric facilities has three main benefits. Greenhouse gas emissions attributable to energy use by City facilities will be substantially reduced. City facilities will also have direct access to renewable energy sources. One other benefit to making this switch will be more flexibility in serving the City of Aspen's electrical needs. This portion of the project is for the installation and construction of the Electric Feed Line. The materials have been purchased and engineering design has been completed for this installation. DISCUSSION: During construction of the ARC portion of the new Electric Distribution System and Express Feeder several issues resulted in substantial change orders. Among these were additional paving requirements, unplanned field conditions (large rocks), as well as collapsed conduit and easement issues. As of the fall 2010, the City's referral Engineer confirmed that barring further construction issues the project should be able to be completed for the funds specified above. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The additional revenue generated by finishing this section of the new Electric Distribution system and tying in the ARC electric account is estimated at Page 1 of 2 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 43 $33,000 in 2011 (one -third of the year) and $110,000 in 2012 (full year) and future years. The cost to generate $110,000 of revenue is $49,500. The annual $60,500 in profit will be used to offset the capital costs associated with this project and in future years provide profit to the Electric Fund. This project has a payback of just over nine years. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The net reduction in carbon dioxide emissions will be 1,125 tons /year for the combined elements of the new ARC portion of Electric Distribution system and the Express Feeder circuit due to the increase in renewable energy available to customers on the City municipal system. A direct comparison of CO2 levels is: 0.53 lbs CO2/kwh for the City vs. 1.78 lbs CO2/kwh for HCE. RECOMMENDED ACTION: We request council approve the additional budget authority and expenditure of $200,000 to complete the ARC Electric Distribution System. ALTERNATIVES: The alternatives would be for the City's loads to continue being served by Holy Cross Electric Association, and to remain limited to one primary feeder serving the City Municipal Electric System. This alternative would also result in the continued production of elevated greenhouse gases as shown in the above `Environmental Impacts' paragraph. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to approve Resolution # CITY MANAGER COMVIENTS: Page 2 of 2 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 44 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Lauren McDonell, Environmental Initiatives Program Mgr THRU: David Hornbacher, Interim Director of Public Works and Environmental Initiatives DATE OF MEMO: April 13, 2011 MEETING DATE: April 25, 2011 RE: Spring Supplemental Budget Request — 2011 Budget Authority to spend 2010 GEO Funding REQUEST OF COUNCIL: City Council is asked to approve a supplemental budget request in the amount of $50,000 for the Geothermal Project bringing the total budget authority to $200,000. The $150,000 of authority will be carried forward from 2010. The additional $50,000 of expense is offset with funds from a 2010 Colorado Governor's Energy Office (GEO) grant awarded to the City. BACKGROUND: In 2010, the City of Aspen submitted a grant proposal to the GEO to compete for a Geothermal Power and Direct -use (GPD) grant. The GEO awarded the City of Aspen $50,000 for the GPD grant. DISCUSSION: The drilling of a geothermal test well to gather additional data on feasibility for a geothermal district heating and cooling system will cost $200,000. The City plans to develop geothermal resources for heating and cooling purposes and other potential energy uses. The project will involve drilling a small - diameter test well into the geothermal aquifer to ascertain specific hydrologic temperature information about the geothermal resource prior to production drilling and well construction. $150,000 of this project is already in the existing budget authority of $500,000 for the Geothermal Project. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The approval of this budget request will allow the City to spend $50,000 from grant funds that have already been awarded from GEO. As funds are spent, staff can invoice the GEO for reimbursement. Expenses for this work will match the revenue. In the unlikely event that revenues exceed the expenses, the excess funds will be returned to the GEO. All of these funds are expected to be expensed by the end of 2011. Page 1 of 2 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 45 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Expenditure of these funds will help advance the exploration of geothermal resources to determine if it will be possible to provide a carbon -free heating, cooling, and other potential energy services to certain areas of Aspen. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council approve this budget request of $50,000 to allow for the expenditure of these GEO grant funds. ALTERNATIVES: Council can direct staff not to proceed with the geothermal project. Under that scenario, the City would forgo the grant funds from GEO. PROPOSED MOTION: "I move to approve a supplemental budget request in the amount of $50,000 to provide for implementation of the project proposed herein." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page 2 of 2 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 46 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Steve Bossart THRU: Scott Miller DATE OF MEMO: April 7, 2011 MEETING DATE: RE: 212 AABC Appraisal REQUEST OF COUNCIL: $2,500 to pay the Appraisal Office — Aspen Ltd. for the appraisal of 212 ABC. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In the fall of 2010 staff brought a proposed offer to purchase the property. Council requested an appraisal of the property. BACKGROUND: The property was the site of the old animal shelter. When the new animal shelter was conceived, Council requested a 505 Fund housing project be planned and built on this City owned site. Staff commissioned plans and rezoning of the property from B -2 to AH. Over several years staff and the project developer /designer revised the plans in several versions to evaluate cost differences between standard construction techniques and modular techniques. Staff evaluated costs compared to recent costs of other similar affordable housing costs in the valley. The results were virtually identical regardless of the project or technique. Council fmally agreed to not construct the project. In March 2011 Council accepted the contract to sell the property. DISCUSSION: The Appraisal Office — Aspen, Ltd. was selected based on commercial property experience and specific recent experience with property valueas within the AABC. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The subject property had no other possible use to the City and required staff time to manage. The net proceeds from the sale will presumably be placed back into the 505 Fund. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: None. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the supplemental request. ALTERNATIVES: None. Page 1 of 2 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 47 MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL FROM: TIM ANDERSON, RECREATION DIRECTOR TIRU: JEFF WOODS, MANAGER OF PARKS & RECREATION DON PERGANDE, CITY FINANCE DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: APRIL 11 2011 RE: CONTRACT FOR ASPEN ICE GARDEN COMPRESSOR AND REFRIGERANT REPLACEMENT REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is seeking approval from Council for an increase of $367,560 for funding of the compressor and refrigeration replacement projects at the Aspen Ice Garden. Current funding for the compressor project is $110,000. Total project costs will be $527,560. Initially, funding was only identified for the compressor replacement with the refrigerant switch slated for completion in 2014. For efficiency and due to federal mandates, staff is recommending the completion of the projects concurrently. If the funding is approved, staff will return to council with the contracts associated with these renovations. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In the 2010 budget, $110,000 was allocated for the compressor replacement. To date Council has approved a design contract with Rocky Mountain Mechanical in the amount of $39,500 for the purpose of replacing the compressors and associated components (Attachment A). This contract , included a review of building code and the identification of safety issues or code upgrades that might be necessary in the renovation of the Ice Garden's mechanical spaces. No consideration for the switch of refrigerants was included in the design contract approved in late 2010. At this time staff feels it would be in the best interest of the City to switch to anunonia as our refrigerant in order to consolidate the compressor replacement with the refrigerant replacement to achieve savings on mobilization costs. Additionally this would be a onetime impact to users at the Ice Garden. The construction/installation timeline for both the compressor replacement and the refrigerant switch would be approximately four weeks. DISCUSSION: The two compressors at the Ice Garden are over 40 years old and parts are hard to locate leading to costly repairs. The company which previously worked on the compressors will no longer service them due to the scarcity of parts. While funding was allocated for the replacement of two compressors at the Aspen Ice Garden in 2010, the funding did not include the cost of ancillary parts and retrofits necessary to accommodate the new compressors. Additional components which must be replaced when installing the new compressors can be found in Attachment A and include motor starters, super separators with new valves, oil cooling and pumps, controls and electrical upgrades. City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 48 These additional components increased the project from $110,000 to $333,860. Due to the increased cost for these ancillary components, staff brought in an owner's representative /engineer to assure all improvements were necessary. While pursuing the replacement of compressors, staff learned that the R22 (Freon) refrigerant used by the Ice Garden was being phased out by the EPA (Attachment B). This mandate by the EPA further prompted the need for an owner's representative. Following the selection of a mechanical contractor through an RFP process, staff and the engineer began work on identifying the best equipment for the Ice Garden, the refrigerant and associated equipment and upgrades necessary for the replacement of existing systems. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Total cost to replace the compressors, the refrigerant, and all ancillary components associated with this project will be $527,560. The compressor and components cost is $333,860 and the refrigerant cost is $193,700. Funding for the project is in Attachment C: • 2010 funding $110,000 • 2011 Recreation AMP decrease $ 50,000 • Additional Funding Request $ 367,560 Total: $527,560 There will be future cost savings as preventative maintenance costs of the new systems are 50% less expensive than existing equipment. In addition, while it is not necessary to replace the R22 for many more years, costs might increase as the deadline approaches. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The Environmental Impacts are positive. R22 or Freon is hazardous to the earth's atmosphere and therefore is being phased out by the EPA. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends funding of both the compressor and refrigerant replacement at this time. If the Ice Garden is down for major mechanical upgrades it is best for the users to do it all at once. ALTERNATIVES: The alternative it to spend $50,000 in 2011 and do a re -haul of the existing compressors which as previously mentioned are hard to service. The $527,560 would be proposed for 2012, increasing total project cost by $50,000. PROPOSOSED MOTION: I, , move to approve an increase in funding to replace the compressors and refrigerant along with all associated components at the Aspen Ice Garden. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: "A" Proposal for replacement of compressors and ancillary parts "B" Federal Government/EPA phasing out of R22/Freon "C" Financial breakdown of costs and funding sources City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 49 ROCKY RIOU firm R Afecba„ica/ Systems . � 951 VALLEJO STREET JP ROP ©SAL DENVER CO 80204 -3842 Ph: 303 573.1223 Fax: 303.573 7905 www.rockvmech,com January 25, 2011 Mr. Tim Anderson - Recreation Director City of Aspen, Colorado Aspen Ice Garden Mechanical /Electrical Upgrades 233 W. Hyman Avenue Aspen, CO 81611 Thank you for selecting Rocky Mountain Mechanical Systems, Inc. for the above referenced project. We are pleased to provide you with the following mechanical and electrical design and turnkey proposal to implement refrigeration system improvements at the Aspen Ice Garden. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Provide specified equipment and systems to convert the Aspen Ice Garden ice rink refrigeration system from the existing York compressors to Vilter 450 series compressors, improve energy efficiency, and upgrade existing controls. PRICE: $290,650 USD (Two Hundred Ninety Thousand, Six Hundred Fifty Dollars) inclusive of equipment, materials, freight, labor, rentals, fees, and expenses. This project's main features will include replacement and /or retrofit of: • Compressors and motors. • Discharge line oil separators. • Closed loop glycol cooling for compressor heads and oil coolers capture additional waste heat. • Dedicated snow melt pit heat exchanger. • Digital control system for independent ice rink operation consistent with Aspen's goal of uniformity and interlink ability for status and alarms within the city's network of Johnson Controls building automation system. • Code upgrades to the engine room including constant purge ventilation, make -up air ducting, replacement of leak detection, remote e-stop and ventilation controls. • Replacement of two electrical breaker panels. DESIGN, INSTALLATION, AND SERVICE OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL REFRIGERATION, COOLING AND HEATING SYSTEMS City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 50 Aspen Ice Garden ME Upgrades Rocky Mountain Mechanical Systems, Inc. January 25, 2011 - Page 2 of 4 In detail, the retrofit will: 1. Replace the existing (2) original York compressors with (2) reduced speed (900 rpm) Vilter 450 series; four cylinder belt drive compressors each with fifty percent capacity reduction. These compressors will have approximately 34 tons refrigeration (Tr) capacity each versus 38 Tr of the existing York compressors. The new compressors will be matched with new 60 HP 1800 rpm ODP ultra efficient motors to provide 95 percent full load efficiency versus approximately 85 percent for the existing motors. Totally enclosed OSHA belt guards and power band drive belts included. Solid state, NEMA 1 'Soft' starter with adjustable magnetic circuit breaker included. 2. Replace existing discharge oil separators with Vilter 'Super Separator' coalescing (replaceable element) style separators. These separators provide 98 -99 percent separation efficiency versus the existing separator 80 to 85 percent recovery. Separators will use field serviceable float valves and will include isolation and service valves. Three way valves will be supplied with new relief valves. 3. Install dedicated tube and shell (carbon steel — Standard) desuperheating heat exchanger for heat reclaim to capture heat dedicated for the snow melt pit (extra set of gaskets included). 4. Install a dedicated, glycol based, cooling loop for the compressor oil and head cooling. A shell and tube (carbon steel) heat exchanger, circulation pumps and poly tank reservoir will be provided. Cooling will be supplied and piped to the return brine line from the underfloor warming loop. 5. Install VFD control and compatible condenser fan drive motor to enable floating head pressure control of refrigeration system and interface to new digital control system. 6. Replace existing rink control system with a new CIMCO 6000E Controller per specification below: • Supply new IBM PC with Windows XP Professional and 24" LCD Monitor • Load runtime software and configure PC security • Ultra VNC preloaded on PC for remote access • Ethernet switch located In DDC panel • Delta Controls software and runtime key for 6000E -SC • Native BACnet controllers • New Delta malnboard controller and expansion boards as required • New IRC Camera • New brine Supply /Return sensors with wells • OAT /OAH outdoor transducer for floating head capabilities • DDC drawings • Electrical panel drawing modification • All programming required to form a complete refrigeration system DESIGN, INSTALLATION, AND SERVICE OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL REFRIGERATION, COOLING AND HEATING SYSTEMS City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 51 Aspen Ice Garden ME Upgrades Rocky Mountain Mechanical Systems, Inc. January 25, 2011 - Page 3 of 4 • Standard CIMCO 3 -D graphics • Control of 2 cold floor pump • Control of 2 reciprocating compressors • Control of 1 snow pit pump • • Control of under floor pump • Control of evaporative condenser pump and fan • Start-up will be by Cimco Mechanic. • Features include: • 3 -D animated graphics specific to your Installation • Reliable control strategies designed to maximize system efficiency • Sensor failure protections • Flexible user - adjustable parameters allowing a high degree of control • Long -term trending • As -built DDC drawings • Remote access ready (high speed connection by customer) • Runtimes for all monitored equipment • Database automatically saved daily to flash memory for reliable backups. • Expandable for future use • Automatic equipment rotation where applicable • Local alarm notification • Game, Day and Night setpoints • Compressor demand limiting • Flexible compressor rotation options • 24/7 remote tech support for warranty related items • Remote alarming to pager, e-mail (requires local a -mall account for controller). 7. The existing CIMCO electrical panel will be re -used based on positive report by the consulting electrical engineer. 8. Replace Qty (1) 400 amp circuit breaker panel and Qty (1)100 amp circuit breaker panel with new NEMA 1 and 3R panels respectively. 9. Construct plexiglass and aluminum frame clear wall in front of electrical panels for spash protection. Component Equipment Cost Installation Total Vilter 454 Belt Drive Compressors (qty 2) $59,050 $65,000 $124,050 w/ 60 HP Ultra Efficient Motors. Solid State "Soft" Motor Starters 6,400 3,500 9,900 8" Super Separators w/ valves and reliefs 9,200 3,800 13,000 Dedicated Olt Cooling w/ Heat Exchanger 9,700 11,000 20,700 and Pumps Snow Melt Heat Exchanger 4,300 5,500 • 9,800 CIMCO 6000E Control System and 44,000 28,000 72,000 • Integration DESIGN, INSTALLATION, AND SERVICE OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL REFRIGERATION, COOLING AND HEATING SYSTEMS City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 52 Aspen Ice Garden ME Upgrades Rocky Mountain Mechanical Systems, Inc. January 25, 2011 - Page 4 of 4 Install VFD on Condenser Fan 2,200 2,500 4,700 Mechanical Room Code Upgrades: Ventilation, Make -up Air, Refrigeration 10,300 12,500 22,800 Detection, Emergency Controls • Replace Electrical Panels and Construct 9,200 4,500 13,700 "Clear" Protection Wall One Year Warranty on Labor. - Manufacturer's Warranty on Equipment /Materials. Permits and Fees Included. Taxes are Included. Freight is Included. Travel and Per Diem Expenses Included. Work will be performed during normal business hours (between 6 to 6, Monday through Friday). This proposal's price Is firm for 60 days from date above. Please call if you have any questions. Thank you for the opportunity to perform this work for The city of Aspen. We look forward to working with you. Sincerely, r 7 Mark Dawson C4 Vice President Rocky Mountain Mechanical Systems, Inc. 303 - 785 -6543 mdawson(rockymech.com CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT: All information included within this proposal Including engineering, design, and pricing Is considered confidential. The information may not be disseminated, copied, emailed, or used for competitive information purposes without the express written consent of an officer of Rocky Mountain Mechanical Systems, Inc. wkh the knowledge that the City of Aspen must be able to comply with the Colorado Open Records Act. Thank you. All work to be completed In a workman -like manner according to standard practices. Any alteration or deviation from above specifications Involving extra costs will be executed only upon written orders and will become an extra charge over and above the estimate. All performance contingent upon strikes, accidents or delays beyond our control. Prices do not include taxes, permits or freight to location unless otherwise specified. Our workers are fully covered by Workmen Compensations Insurance, and the Company Is Insured for a maximum liability of $5,000,000. Payment terms are net 10 days unless otherwise specified below. Rocky Mountain Mechanical Systems, Inc. will levy and customer agrees to pay a 1.5% per month finance charge on past due or late payments. By signature below the customer agrees to pay Rocky Mountain Mechanical Systems, Inc. all reasonable costs of collection including attorney fees. DESIGN, INSTALLATION, AND SERVICE OF COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL REFRIGERATION, COOLING AND HEATING SYSTEMS City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 53 What You Should Know about Refrigerants When Purchasing or Repairing a Residential ... Page 1 of 4 AkItuniA )11 le:/ e20Garden /compressor %2Orebulld / What %20You %20Should % % 20Know 20about% 0• -�:: gera '^ % 20When% 2DPUrchasing %20or %20Repairing %20a %4Ag$j es ° lv 4R�s°1:emyeaS'fh 1 -at � u j ,,•°20 o M n ega rial tectte°.fu RegP OrlBe' t °20USd /o fs p o� qt pro You are here: EPA Home Ozone Laver Protection Regulatory Programs Phaseout What You Should Know about Refrigerants When Purchasing or Repairing a Residential A/C System or Heat Pump What You Should Know about Refrigerants When Purchasing or Repairing a Residential A/C System or Heat Pump Background 1 Phaseout Schedule 1 Consumers 1 Alternatives 1 Servicing_Your System Purchasing New Systems DISCLAIMER: EPA seeks to promote energy efficiency and the safe use of ozone- friendly substances, and does not endorse any particular company or its j products. Background: Ban on Production and Imports of Ozone - Depleting Refrigerants In 1987 the Montreal Protocol, an international environmental agreement, established requirements that began the worldwide phaseout of ozone - depleting CFCs (chlorofluorocarbons). These requirements were later modified, leading to the phaseout in 1996 of CFC production in all developed nations. In 1992 the Montreal Protocol was amended to establish a schedule for the phaseout of HCFCs (hydrochlorofiuorocarbons): HCFCs are less " damaging to the ozone layer than CFCs, but still contain ozone - destroying chlorine. The Montreal Protocol as amended is carried out in the U.S. through Title VI of the Clean Air Act, which is implemented by EPA. HCFC -22 (also known as R -22) has been the refrigerant of choice for residential heat pump and air - conditioning systems for more than four decades. Unfortunately for the environment, releases of R -22, such as those from leaks, contribute to ozone depletion. In addition, R -22 is a greenhouse gas and the manufacture of R -22 results in a by- product (HFC -23) that contributes significantly to global warming. As the manufacture of R -22 is phased out over the coming years as part of the agreement to end production of HCFCs, manufacturers of residential air conditioning systems are offering equipment that uses ozone - friendly refrigerants. Many homeowners may be misinformed about how much longer R -22 will be available to service their central A/C systems and heat pumps. This fact sheet provides information about the transition away from R -22, the future availability of R -22, and the new refrigerants that are replacing R -22. This document also assists consumers in deciding what to consider when purchasing a new A/C system or heat pump, or when having an existing system repaired. Phaseout Schedule for HCFCs Including R -22 Under the terms of the Montreal Protocol, the U.S. agreed to meet certain obligations by specific dates that will affect the residential heat pump and air - conditioning industry: ,,,l,t,,,l•f;lA• //LI• \TrP \Tr ClarrIFAYAMIRIZZAVAARIPMF Qt4rQltij 1 Rc°4en i ahnnt R efrianr l/99/9n11 What You Should Know about Refrigerants When Purchasing or Repairing a Residential ... Page 2 of 4 January 1, 2004: The Montreal Protocol required the U.S. to reduce its consumption of HCFCs by 35% below the U.S. baseline cap. As of January 1, 2003, EPA banned production and Import of HCFC -141b, the most ozone- destructive HCFC. This action allowed the United States to meet Its obligations under the Montreal Protocol. EPA was able to issue 100% of company baseline allowances for production and import of HCFC -22 and HCFC -142b. January 1, 2010: The Montreal Protocol requires the U.S. to reduce its consumption of HCFCs by 75% below the U.S. baseline. Allowance holders may only produce or import HCFC -22 to service existing equipment. Virgin R -22 may not be used In new equipment. As a result, heating, ventilation and air - conditioning (HVAC) system manufacturers may not produce new air conditioners and heat pumps containing R -22. January 1, 2015: The Montreal Protocol requires the U.S. to reduce its consumption of HCFCs by 90% below the U.S. baseline. January 1, 2020: The Montreal Protocol requires the U.S. to reduce its consumption of HCFCs by 99.5% below the U.S. baseline. Refrigerant that has been recovered and recycled /reclaimed will be allowed beyond 2020 to service existing systems, but chemical manufacturers will no longer be able to produce R -22 to service existing air conditioners and heat pumps. For more information about this phaseout, see fact sheets about the HCFC Phaseout Schedule and Frequently Asked Questions on the HCFC Phaseout. What Does the HCFC -22 Phaseout Mean for Consumers? Availability of R -22 The Air Act does not allow any refrigerant to be vented into the atmosphere during Installation, service, or retirement of equipment. Therefore, R -22 must be recovered and recycled (for reuse in the same system), reclaimed (reprocessed to the same purity standard as new R -22), or destroyed. After 2020, the servicing of R -22 -based systems will rely solely on recycled or reclaimed refrigerants. It is expected that reclamation and recycling will ensure that existing supplies of R -22 will last longer and be available to service a greater number of systems. As noted above, chemical manufacturers will no longer be able to produce, and companies will no longer be able to import, R -22 for use In new A/C equipment after 2010, but they can continue production and import of R -22 until 2020 for use In servicing existing equipment. Given thls schedule, which was established In 1993, the transition away from R -22 to the use of ozone - friendly refrigerants should be smooth. For the next 10 years or more, R -22 should continue to be available for all systems that require R -22 for servicing. Alternatives to R -22 in Residential Air Conditioning As R -22 is gradually phased out, non - ozone - depleting alternative refrigerants are being introduced. Under the Clean Air Act, EPA reviews alternatives to ozone - depleting substances to evaluate their effects on human health and the environment. EPA has reviewed several alternatives to R -22 for household and light commercial air conditioning and has compiled a list of substitutes that EPA has determined are acceptable. One of these substitutes Is R- 410A, a blend of hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) that does not contribute to depletion of the ozone layer, but, like R -22, contributes to global warming. R -410A is manufactured and sold under various trade names, Including GENETRON AZ -20 ®, SUVA 410A ®, Forane® 410A, and Puron ®. An additional refrigerant on the list of acceptable substitutes for R -22 in residential air conditioners and other products Is R -407C. Residential air conditioners and heat pumps ,nhtt,1 •files• //T-T• \Tres \ Trp f;arrleT San4A0*RINtt W4 WffC iQi WAIT glint P efri uer 3/99/9011 What You Should Know about Refrigerants When Purchasing or Repairing a Residential ... Page 3 of 4 using R -407C are not available in the U.S., but are commonly found in Europe. EPA will continue to review new non - ozone - depleting refrigerants as they are developed. Servicing existing units Existing units using R -22 can continue to be serviced with R -22. There is no EPA requirement to change or convert R -22 units for use with a non - ozone - depleting substitute refrigerant. Such changes, called "retrofits," are allowed if the alternative has been found acceptable for that type of use. R -407C Is allowed for retrofits but R -410A is not allowed in retrofits due to its higher working pressures. In addition, the new substitute refrigerants would not work well without making some changes to system components. As a result, service technicians who repair leaks to the system will most often continue to charge R -22 Into the system as part of that repair. Installing new units The transition away from ozone - depleting R -22 to systems that rely on replacement refrigerants like R -410A has required redesign of heat pump and air conditioning systems. New systems incorporate compressors and other components specifically designed for use with specific replacement refrigerants. For instance, if a new outdoor unit (typically called a "condensing unit," containing the condenser and compressor) Is Installed, It is likely that a new indoor unit (typically called an "evaporator ") will also be required. With these significant product and production process changes, testing and training must also change. Consumers should be aware that dealers of systems that use substitute refrigerants should be schooled in installation and service techniques required for use of that substitute refrigerant, A Common Sense Approach To Servicing Your System Along with prohibiting the production of ozone - depleting refrigerants, the Clean Air Act also mandates the use of common sense In handling refrigerants. By containing and using refrigerants responsibly -- that is, by recovering, recycling, and reclaiming, and by reducing leaks -- their ozone depletion and global warming consequences are reduced. The Clean Air Act outlines specific refrigerant containment and management practices for HVAC manufacturers, distributors, dealers and technicians. Properly Installed home comfort systems rarely develop major refrigerant leaks, and with proper servicing, a system using R- 22, R -410A, or another refrigerant will reduce its Impact on the environment. While EPA does not mandate repairing or replacing small systems because of leaks, system leaks can not only harm the environment, but also result In Increased operation and maintenance costs. One important thing a homeowner can do for the environment, regardless of the refrigerant used, is to select a reputable dealer that employs service technicians who are EPA - certified to handle refrigerants. Technicians often call this certification "Section 608 certification," referring to the part of the Clean Air Act that requires minimizing releases of ozone - depleting chemicals from HVAC equipment. A Common Sense Approach To Purchasing New Systems Another Important thing a homeowner can do for the environment is to purchase a highly energy- efficient system. Energy - efficient systems result in cost savings for the homeowner. Today's best air conditioners use much less energy to produce the same amount of cooling as air conditioners made in the mid- 1970s. Even if your air conditioner Is only 10 years old, you may save significantly on your cooling energy costs by replacing it with a newer, more rnhtml :file: //H:�Ice�Ice GardeiA'bldl4ii §sditr%4 11PIV9Aci hi?flffd Pfi6h# about Refri¢er_.. 3 /29/2011 What You Should Know about Refrigerants When Purchasing or Repairing a Residential ... Page 4 of 4 efficient model. Products with EPA's Energy Star® label can save homeowners 10% to 40% on their heating and cooling bills every year. These products are made by most major manufacturers and have the same features as standard products but also incorporate energy saving technology. Both R -22 and R -410A systems may have the Energy Star@ label. Equipment that displays the Energy Star@ label must have a minimum seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER). The higher the SEER specification, the more efficient the equipment. You should consider energy efficiency, along with performance, reliability, and cost, in making your decision. More information on Energy Star and energy- efficient air conditioning can be found through the following links: • Information on EPA's Energy Star program for heating and cooling equipment • Energy Star Guide to Energy Efficient Heating and Cooling (PDF, 10 pp, 708 KB) • Home Improvement Energy Yardstick with Energy Star • Information from the Department of Energy on energy - efficient air conditioning • Energy Solutions for Heating and Cooling Your Home mhtml• file• //FTATre \Ire ClardetriA0 fltPAQ4rlf�r�!1NA41SRVS fthir 15i?AU ct ttaAPPtd about Refrirer... 3 /29/2011 HCFC Phaseout Schedule 1 Ozone Layer Protection - Regulatory Programs 1 US EPA Page 1 of 2 /1/ °o20Garden/ compressor %20rebuild / HCFC% 20Phaseout %20Schedule %20 %200zone %20Layer% r. $ on °o ' o20Regulatory% 20Prog %% rams 20 20US %20EPA.mhtast u dated on Tuesday, March 29, 2011 ' rq Ozone Layer Protection - Regulatory Programs a° s (IN PNa b You are here: EPA Home Ozone Laver Protection Regulatory Programs Phaseout HCFC dc Phaseout Schedule HCFC Phaseout Schedule All developed (i.e., non - Article 5) countries are subject to caps For more information on their consumption and production of To learn more about the HCFC hydrochlorofluorocarbons ( HCFCs), according to the terms of phaseout, including frequently the Montreal Protocol and its amendments. Under the asked questions, please visit Montreal Protocol, the U.S. and other developed nations must thls link. achieve a certain percentage of progress towards the total phaseout of production and consumption of HCFCs, by certain dates. Consumption is calculated by the following formula: consumption = production plus imports minus exports. The cap for developed countries is set at 2.8% of that country's 1989 chlorofluorocarbon consumption + 100% of that country's 1989 HCFC consumption, The cap on production is set at the average of a) 1989 HCFC production + 2.8% of 1989 CFC production and b) 1989 HCFC consumption + 2.8% of 1989 CFC consumption. (Quantities of chemicals measured under the cap are ODP- weighted, which means that each chemical's relative contribution to ozone depletion is taken into account.) At the 19th Meeting of the Parties to the Montreal Protocol in September 2007, the Parties agreed to a more aggressive Dhasedown of HCFCs In both developing and developed countries. More details about the September 2007 adjustments to the Montreal Protocol are available here (PDF) (4 pp, 38K, About PDF). In addition, a_graphical representation of the reductions for developing countries is found here, The following table shows the U.S. schedule for phasing out Its production and consumption of HCFCs in accordance with the terms of the Protocol. The third and fourth columns of the table show how the U.S. is meeting the international obligations described in the first two columns. Comparison of the Montreal Protocol and United States Phaseout Schedules Montreal Protocol United States Reduction In Implementation of Year to be Consumption and Year to be HCFC Phaseout Implemented Production, Using Im through Clean Air the Cap as a Act Regulations Baseline No production and no 2004 35.0% 2003 importing of HCFC- 141b No production and no importing of HCFC - 142b and HCFC -22, except for use in mhtm1• file• //FTATre \Tee ('rarrlel?141R# fir, .?;chSitPA'R4191PVItne"P1Q 9hPlV fle Ozone Lave_ 3/29/2011 HCFC Phaseout Schedule I Ozone Layer Protection - Regulatory Programs 1 US EPA Page 2 of 2 equipment manufactured before 1 1/1/2010 (so no 2010 75.0% 2010 production or Importing for NEW equipment that uses 1 these compounds) No production and no 1 importing of any HCFCs, except for 1 2015 90.0% 2015 use as refrigerants in equipment manufactured before 1/1/2020 I No c no .._ _ i 2020 ;Importing 99.5% � 2020 of HCFC _ - - - - - - - -_ 1 _ -- --- - - - - - -- 1 , 142b and HCFC 2 No production and no • 2030 100.0% 2030 i importing of any HCFCs I • mhtm1•fila•//14ATrr\Tre Pi U'AS MINA99WF 'V!"nFX r a fl7n T. aver 3/79/7f111 m ov u N 1 , 5 L r C } g: P• rt p x si t. . '- a m s AI Id t • N .3 a c o o ns °o s_ g m -2°1 i s : IA� Pee 0. 0000000 ° C MUM O O ei O "O o . � n N O m o n n m o n p n m ' o D o n c 0 p N ry pN ti NN N TTMO Nmm O MO in ,L O _ H NN N NNN i NNVFN N .N OON 1 f 1 I�� m � O O F N NN N NN ,, N g° 0 2F 25 8 g o 0 0 0 pp Human 0 0 0 o p p H .1 V mi n n o I� 25 N n N b m O S o o O O N O O O 0 0 0 0 m O O ` P N H O OI N ..1 O ` „ o` O N VI ti Yf 1y�1 m O f''� N NNe1NNn ei NQ N .a nm C II g i N y N .4.1,' N N N N m H N N LI V ry� :011!!!!!: p NNN N NyI NN W ', �' pp 8 pp pp H N 01 n n O N m 0 1 0 111 SINS O NN O 0 0 0 0N§ N e~1 t g i K [ o , m o u S - A ui .. - e N ` 1F� R .qaqTT iyy= � 1 NNN NN N N .. N N N N ti H U. Mg." N i VR . e. m N N � O p n O 1 v NN N i�` qm 01 Omi pi 7.4 pp pp .a? O oO 0O oO !Zoe m m Omi o 0 N fl Ny�8SOS §S8ON2 80 N m :yam 1 .4 . .4 . ss 8 1 a�- N ' y N { r NN .4 t ; £' V' V' o22o Q 4: - aa IP c k i o 2 8 °` 8 s. w P"m W O 1 S n V1 LS N - e S -a 11;1 El w h '.+ ' F - iSt P �if 4 Q O _ O s a d m w *-c t a 1 T R 6 o g 0 ;0 ti m c C 2 ;' Y $ C t 5— ; A '41 %, N S. } N a C ,u W U, E j L N O 9 % = > m 1 5 IrL F o 0 w g u „ r j -2 a g 20 C 4 m t s u o`oC3g ` 2 i to ° N o of c c E ' o u E al n b� E vi } ! ° c o .uat88 a , . t i c C u i s E ¢ a5 0 0 $4 ' ° mg e.0«w o V 4- m 1 = - ., F n mx a a tt $'y vz o e" t + e"t i 0 � 2 ' ^ 9 w °� w o 4 'ai ._ o m m K- 2 E w y 1 c_ A .n nTf o> m e a y u u n c . O a P l a (atyw 0 { o g°.'n° � «w n °' f u o2 �o y '"ebE .a 0 L°? " Io o o E 2 3 G - S.°n �a m voi u= EC C O :!m c w o O _c f O?u. 1 p um r City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 60 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner RE: Supplemental Request: Aspen Area Community Plan Update DATE: March 9, 2011 SUMMARY: The City and County have been jointly working on an update to the Aspen Area Community Plan. City and County staff anticipates a revised timeline will take adoption into the fall of 2011. Staff is requesting a total of $19,477.32 in this supplemental request. This is divided as follows: 1. Staff is requesting that the remaining amount in the 2010 AACP budget of $19,477.32 be rolled -over to the 2011 budget. This money will be used to pay ' the remainder of the original contract with Design Workshop. Design Workshop is a professional planning firm working with City and County staff to update the AACP. o The remainder of the contract that this money will be used for includes: • Technical work during the adoption process, including assistance in additional community meeting organization and facilitation. • Finalizing the 2011 Survey. 1 City of Aspen - 1st Supplemental Ordinance of 2011 - Page 61 � b MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: April Lon , ormwater Manager, Engineering Department THRU: Scott Miller, Capital Asset Director Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer DATE OF MEMO: May 2, 2011 MEETING DATE: May 9, 2011 RE: Stormwater Fee -In -Lieu of Detention, Second Reading and Public Hearing REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Adoption of Ordinance 15, Attachment A, which repeals the existing stormwater system development fee and establishes a fee -in -lieu of detention; and adoption of Ordinance 16, Attachment B, which modifies the Urban Runoff Management Plan to include changes to the detention standards that support a fee -in -lieu of detention approach. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: First Reading was held April 25, 2011. BACKGROUND: In May 2007, Council passed an ordinance that implemented a $2.88 fee to be charged to each square foot of a site's entire impervious area, at the time of development or redevelopment exceeding 500 square feet of impervious area. In the fall of 2009, Council directed staff to examine the equity of the fee as it applies to development and redevelopment, particularly how it applies to existing development at the time of additions to or redevelopment of any portion of the site, and to analyze other applications of the fee to improve equity. Council also directed staff to evaluate how changes to the amount and application of the fee would change revenues for the stormwater fund. The needs of the stormwater program were analyzed by staff, consultants, and Citizens' Review Committee (CRC) in 2006, resulting in a Stormwater Utility Business Plan and Supplement. This Plan was presented to Council and recommended program improvements and capital improvement projects totaling $31 million. The group also reviewed and recommended funding mechanisms to generate revenue for the improved stormwater program. In May 2007, Council approved a system development fee, estimated to generate $19 million over 15 years (or $1.27 million annually), to be assessed against development and redevelopment. In November 2007, voters approved a mil levy of 0.65 mills that would generate $12 million over 15 years (or $860,000 on average annually). Page 1 of 3 The approved mil rate of the tax is 0.65. However, due to recent high property valuations, Council has limited the mil to 0.527. The mil was applied to property tax bills beginning in 2008 and has generated approximately $860,000 annually. The stormwater system development fee (SDF) is defined and codified in the City of Aspen Municipal Code Chapter 25.18. A fee of $2.88 per square foot of total impervious area is assessed against all properties that develop or redevelop more than 500 square feet of impervious area. The purpose of the fee was to provide funding necessary to construct, maintain and improve the City's stormwater facilities. The fee has been assessed to development and redevelopment projects since November 2007. Revenues from the fee that have been collected from November 2007 to August 2010 equal approximately $1.8 million or $600,000 annually. Council has discussed the equity in applying the fee to existing and undisturbed impervious areas at the time of an addition to the property. For example, if an existing 1000 sq ft home (footprint) added a 500 sq ft impervious driveway, the system development fee assessed for the property would be $2.88 x 1500 sq ft = $4,320.00. The question of concern was the appropriateness of applying the fee to the existing impervious area (in the example above, the 1000 sq ft). In November 2010, staff presented several different fee applications that could resolve the equity problem of the system development fee while still meeting the stormwater management needs of the City. Council favored dropping the system development fee and adopting a new detention requirement that had the option of a voluntary fee -in -lieu of detention. Council directed staff to return with more details of the fee -in -lieu of detention approach (FIL). It should be noted that, while the FIL will be viewed as more equitable than our current system development fee approach, implementation of the FIL is not expected generate the revenue needed to implement the stormwater program as it was planned in 2006. It might be necessary to investigate replacement or supplementary forms of funding for the capital program in the future. DISCUSSION: Staff has developed a fee -in -lieu of detention program that allows development and redevelopment projects to either provide detention to historic rates or pay a fee, based on the cost of providing that detention, to the City's stormwater fund. More information about the development, basis, and application of fee are explained in Attachment C — Frequently Asked Questions and Attachment D — Fee -In -Lieu of Detention Analysis Report. A spreadsheet comparing the current system development fee to the option fee -in -lieu of detention for several example development and redevelopment projects has been included as Attachment E. During First Reading, Council had a question about the water quality benefits that detention provides. A brief explanation of the water quality impacts of detention has been provided as Attachment F. Council also wanted more information regarding the appeal policies and process for the new detention standards and the fee. Clarification was added in Ordinance 15 and an explanation of this process is provided as Attachment G. Page 2 of 3 FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: Implementation of a FIL is expected to generate less than $500,000 per year in revenue for the stormwater fund. In 2010, the current system development fee generated approximately $512,000. In order to fully fund the stormwater program as intended in 2006, $1.2 million is needed annually in fees in addition to $860,000 in tax revenue. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: If the stormwater program cannot fund capital projects planned to upgrade the capacity of the stormwater system, development and redevelopment projects will be required to detain stormwater runoff on their sites, releasing it at a rate that the current stormwater system can handle without flooding downstream properties. If the stormwater program cannot fund capital projects planned to improve the quality of runoff discharged into the Roaring Fork River sediment loads from the City will be about 2,480 tons per year. This is about 16.5 times the natural load of about 150 tons of sediment per year. At this rate the Roaring Fork River will likely remain categorized as "severely degraded" and will likely continue to experience changes in river bed, river flow, and river temperature; decreases in riparian habitat and species; and decreases in trout populations. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council adopt Ordinance 15 and Ordinance 16. ALTERNATIVES: Council has the option to not adopt Ordinance 15 and /or Ordinance 16. PROPOSED MOTION: I motion to adopt Ordinance 15 which repeals the existing stormwater system development fee and establishes the option for a fee -in -lieu of detention. I motion to adopt Ordinance 16 which modifies the Urban Runoff Management Plan to include changes to the detention standards that support a fee -in -lieu of detention approach. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Attachments: Attachment A — Ordinance 15 Attachment B — Ordinance 16 Attachment C — FIL Frequently Asked Questions Attachment D — FIL Detention Analysis Report Attachment E — Cost Comparison Attachment F — Water Quality Benefits of Detention Attachment G — Appeal Process for Fee -In -Lieu of Detention Page 3 of 3 ORDINANCE NO. 15 (Series of 2011) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF ASPEN FOR THE DELETION OF THE STORMWATER SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT FEE AND ADDITION OF A STORMWATER FEE -IN -LIEU OF DETENTION WHEREAS the City's Surface Drainage Master Plan identifies deficiencies in the condition and capacity of its existing drainage system, and WHEREAS it is in the City's interest to protect its infrastructure, the environment, and the ecology of the Roaring Fork River from the effects of stormwater runoff, and WHEREAS a combination of enhanced stormwater detention standards and implementation of a voluntary fee -in -lieu of the improved detention requirement will both reduce flooding and generate funds for improving the City's drainage system related to development and redevelopment of property within the boundaries of the City of Aspen. NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO; Section 1. That Chapter 25.18 of Title 25 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen is hereby repealed in its entirety. Section 2. That a new Section 2.12.140 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby added to read as follows: Sec. 2.12.140. Stormwater fees. This Section of the Code sets forth certain fees related to stormwater management as follows: Fee -in -Lieu of Detention: Fee = $70.00 per cubic foot of detention required (a) The fee is based on 100 percent of the estimated cost of constructing a detention facility on -site. The City Engineer at his/her sole discretion may require a certified cost estimate for construction of detention meeting the standards contained in the Urban Runoff Management Plan (Manual) established in Sec 28.02.010 and may accept at his/her sole discretion this amount to be paid in- lieu -of detention. Any appeal to decisions made by the City Engineer should follow the appeal process outlined in the Manual. (b) Required detention storage shall be calculated at the rate of 6.20 cubic feet per 100 square feet of impervious area. The City Engineer at his/her sole discretion may require a certified storage volume estimate for construction of detention meeting the standards contained in the Urban Runoff Management Plan (Manual) established in Sec 28.02.010 and may accept at his/her sole discretion this amount to be used for detention volume storage requirements. Any appeal to decisions made by the City Engineer should follow the appeal process outlined in the Manual. Section 3. That the following new Chapter 28.03 of Title 28 of the Municipal Code of the City of Aspen, Colorado, is hereby adopted: Chapter 28.03 Stormwater Fees Sec. 28.03.010. Definitions. For the purposes of this Chapter, certain words or phrases are defined as follows: (a) Development. The proposed development creates at least one - thousand (1000) square feet of new impervious area. (b) Redevelopment. The proposed development disturbs at least one - thousand (1000) square feet of the existing impervious area. Sec. 28.03.020. Fee -in -Lieu of Detention. (a) A stormwater fee -in -lieu of detention shall be established which shall be applied and available as an alternative to the construction of on -site detention as required by Sec. 28.02.010 to all properties within the boundaries of the City of Aspen at the time of development or redevelopment of the property. The basis of this fee is set forth in Section 2.12.140. (b) A developer will not have the option to pay a fee -in -lieu of constructing a stormwater detention facility if, in the opinion of the City Engineer, undetained runoff from the development may materially adversely exacerbate an existing problem or may adversely impact a downstream property. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk John Worcester, City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 16 (Series of 2011) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO, AMENDING THE URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT PLAN WHEREAS the City's Surface Drainage Master Plan identifies deficiencies in the condition and capacity of its existing drainage system, and WHEREAS it is in the City's interest to protect its infrastructure, the environment, and the ecology of the Roaring Fork River from the effects of stormwater runoff, and WHEREAS the city of Aspen has adopted the Urban Runoff Management Plan (Manual) under Chapter 28.02 Title 28 of the Aspen Municipal Code which states, in part, that the aforementioned Manual may be amended from time to time by the City Engineer and/or City Council, and WHEREAS amendment of the Manual to change and enhance the stormwater detention standards will increase the requirements upon certain properties for the detention of rainfall runoff, and WHEREAS a combination of enhanced stormwater detention standards and implementation of a voluntary fee -in -lieu of the improved detention requirement will both reduce flooding and generate funds for improving the City's existing drainage system related to development and redevelopment of property within the boundaries of the City of Aspen. WHEREAS the amendments to the Manual are delineated as follows: • Text being removed is delineated with strikethrough. Text being removed looks like this. • Text being added is bold and underline. Text being added looks like this. • Text which is not mentioned in this Ordinance is not affected; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO; Section 1. That Chapter 1 of Urban Runoff Management Plan of the City of Aspen is hereby amended as follows: Table 1.1 General Requirements for Minor and Major Projects d `X = - $ x ki r 1 < 200 square feet No requirements 200 - 1000 square feet •' Water quality improvements for the 2 Drains to Green Minor (green) disturbed /added area Infrastructure Detention not required Does not require a Professional Engineer 200 — 1000 square feet WQCV for the disturbed or added area 3 Drains To Hard Infrastructure Minor (urban) Detention above WQCV not required Does not require a Professional Engineer WQCV for the disturbed or added area > 1000 square feet and Detention to the p,.. lev.eleeed historic 4 '-- ite Major undeveloped rate or FIL for the entire site c 25% of the site disturbed or added area Requires Professional Engineer > 1000 square feet, and WQCV for the entire site >--50% of site Detention to the pre- develepment 5 > 25% of the site or Major historic undeveloped rate or FIL for the > 50% of existing structure or entire site more Requires Professional Engineer Section 2. That Chapter 5 of Urban Runoff Management Plan of the City of Aspen is hereby amended as follows: The City of Aspen's stormwater management goal is to mimic Aspen's natural hydrology to the maximum extent practicable. By requiring treatment of the water quality capture volume, discussed in Chapter 8 — Water Quality, it, in effect, provides infiltration or detention for many very small events (on the order of a 6 -month to 1 -yr event), approximately 80% of the storms in Aspen. For the remaining 20% of storms, the larger events, a small portion of the runoff will be detained in the water quality treatment areas. The remaining runoff must be conveyed to the river safely and in a manner that doesn't increase the flooding potential of downstream properties. • .. - - - - . - - • - conditions. Given these observations, the City's detention policy is as follows, by area: 1. Commercial Core /Downtown and Sub -urban Areas Draining to the Sewer System These drainage areas are highly impervious and are served by the City of Aspen stormwater infrastructure. In general, the minor, 10 -year, event in this area is handled by storm sewers and the major, 100 -year, event is accommodated by a combination of storm sewers and street flow. Currently, there are portions of the commercial core where storm sewer capacity is less than the 10 -year event and areas where the storm sewer plus streets do not have adequate capacity for the 100 - year event; • : - - - - - - . • _ . - .. - - to 10 year capacity. Detention(above the WQCV)) to the historic peak flow rates for the 10- and 100 -year events is net-required for development or redevelopment activities that do-net year events is required. disturb or add more than 1.000 square feet of impervious area. If the disturbed or added impervious area is less than 25% of the total site then only the new area must be so treated. If the disturbed or added impervious area is more than 25% of the total site then the site shall be treated as a new development and the total site shall meet detention requirements to the historic peak flow rates. A project has the option to pay a fee - in -lieu of providing the required detention (see Section 2.12.140 of the Municipal Code). 2. - _ - - -. - • 3. Sub -urban Areas not Served by Public Storm Sewer .. _ - - _ _ • _ . _ • _ -- - - - - - - -, Detention (above the WQCV) to the historic peak flow rates for the 5- and 100 -year events is required for new development and redevelopment. e - - . • - ' ' • • - ' - • _ ... activities that disturb or add more than 1.000 square feet of impervious area. If the disturbed or added impervious area is less than 25% of the total site then only the new area must be so treated. If the disturbed or added impervious area is more than 25% of the total site then the site shall be treated as a new development and the total site shall meet detention requirements to the historic peak flow rates. A project has the option to pay a fee -in -lieu of providing the required detention (see Section 2.12.140 of the Municipal Code). Section 3 That if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. - Section 4 That this ordinance shall not have any effect on existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances amended as herein provided, and the same shall be construed and concluded under such prior ordinances. A public hearing on the ordinance shall be held on the 9 day May, 2011, in the City Council Chambers, Aspen City Hall, Aspen, Colorado. INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the 25 day of April 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 1 Kathryn Koch, City Clerk John Worcester, City Attorney INTRODUCED, READ AND ORDERED PUBLISHED as provided by law, by the City Council of the City of Aspen on the day of 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk FINALLY, adopted, passed and approved this day of 2011. Michael C. Ireland, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Kathryn Koch, City Clerk John Worcester, City Attorney A4H G Frequently Asked Questions: Aspen's Stormwater Fee -In -Lieu What is the problem we are solving? Aspen's stormwater infrastructure is aging and significantly undersized. Many of the downtown pipe systems cannot carry even a moderate storm's runoff. Therefore, during most intense rain events, water runs dangerously in streets which can cause damage to buildings and threaten the safety of the public. Additionally, the Roaring Fork River is impacted by these damaging flows. Stormwater runoff from urban areas increases pollutant load, causes erosion, damages stream habitat and increases flooding risks along the river. How are we solving the problem? Aspen is addressing the problem in two ways. First, a capital construction plan has been developed and is being updated. The capital plan estimates that over $15 million must be spent on repairing or enlarging pipes and drains, and in protecting the Roaring Fork from the pollution that stormwater runoff carries. Second, Aspen has upgraded its design requirements for new development and redevelopment from one of allowing developments to increase flooding and pollution downstream to a more modern standard of reducing those flows to something that more closely mimics the natural flow and reduces the impact of development. What are the particulars of the new standard? Impervious area increases the volume and timing of stormwater runoff (Le. rain runs off of hard surfaces harder and faster than it runs off of grassy fields). The new standard requires development and redevelopment to manage and control stormwater so that it leaves the site at the same rate it would leave the site if it were covered with grasses. This management of stormwater is typically referred to as detention — capturing runoff, holding it for some period of time, and then releasing it at a controlled rate. The goal is to mimic nature and trick the river into thinking Aspen is a natural area rather than an urban area. What projects will this new standard apply to? The new standard will be applied to all new developments and redevelopments that add or disturb and replace 1,000 square feet of impervious area or more. If the disturbed or added T impervious area is less than 25% of the total area of the site, then only the new area must be so treated. If the disturbed or added impervious area is more than 25% of the total area of the site, then the site shall be treated as a new development and the total site shall meet the new detention requirements. This 25% trigger is based on studies that show that once an area is 25% developed, the receiving stream becomes significantly impaired. If the site disturbs more than 1000 square feet and more than 50% of the structure, then the entire site will be treated as a new development and the total site shall meet the new detention requirements. What if a site cannot meet these standards? Is there an alternative? The City recognizes that this requirement may be difficult or costly to meet on any particular site. So the City has provided the option of payment of a voluntary fee -in -lieu of detention. The amount of the fee is based on an estimate of the cost of providing detention in Aspen. However, if a developer can show that their own cost of detention is less than the City estimate, the City has the option of accepting this lesser amount or asking the developer to go ahead and build detention on -site. THE crnv a ASPEN • How much is the fee and how was the fee calculated? The Urban Runoff Management Plan approach for detention sizing was used to determine storage requirements for a range of typical site sizes in Aspen. The average calculation showed that the volume of detention needed is approximately 6.20 cubic feet of rainwater runoff per 100 square feet of impervious area for the maximum design storm. The City requested cost estimates from local design engineers and contractors which determined that it costs approximately $70.00 per cubic foot of detention in Aspen. The fee -in -lieu then works out to be $434 per 100 square feet of impervious area added or redeveloped. For a 6000 square foot lot- line -to -lot- line development, approximately 372 cubic feet of detention volt- vska required OR the site can pay a $26,040 fee -in -lieu of detention to the City. �M ..x Do I still have to pay the Stormwater System Development Fee? ) No. The stormwater system development fee will no longer ++ be collected by the City. There is no mandatory stormwater fee now, only the optional fee -in -lieu of detention that will only be paid in cases where the project does not want to provide detention on -site. How will the revenue from the Fee -In -Lieu be used by the City? The fees collected through the fee -in -lieu program will be used to improve conveyance and detention throughout the City and reduce the impacts of urban runoff on the river. The concept behind the optional fee is that detention must be provided somehow, someway. Sites can provide the required detention themselves, or the City can improve conveyance and detention downstream so that individual sites don't have to worry about it. In most cases regional (City - provided) detention is ideal, because the City can maintain it and it provides economies of scale. However, in Aspen, where land value is expensive and the funding is short, the City is not able to provide all of the detention needed to support the urban landscape. Therefore, some detention will be handled site by site and some will be handled regionally. Will my project still be required to detain the water quality capture volume? Yes. The quality of stormwater is improved every time it is treated. Therefore, the City is working toward a "treatment train" approach. This is similar to primary, secondary, and tertiary treatment at wastewater treatment plants. Each development and redevelopment in Aspen is required to provide primary treatment. The City's Clean River Initiative builds regional water quality treatment facilities that function as secondary treatment facilities. So, yes, each project will still be required to detain and treat the water quality capture volume calculated for the site. The calculation of the fee took into account that some detention would be provided in the treatment of the water quality capture volume. Are there any exceptions? Can 1 apply for a variance? Yes. Some lots in town are part of a larger development, such as Burlingame, and the detention for the entire development was provided in the master plan and has already been built Additionally any development can apply for a variance by following the variance procedures outlined in the Urban Runoff Management Plan. I can think of a lot more questions - are there answers? This voluntary fee is a new idea developed to assist developers in meeting detention requirements. There will be many site specific questions, and answers will be developed, vetted, and placed in a policy document. Every attempt will be made to provide fair and impartial policies. However, in the end, developments must meet applicable modern standards in all aspects of development: electrical, plumbing, concrete mix... and stormwater runoff. These standards are there to protect all City residents and visitors, and to promote safety and preserve and enhance the quality of the City that makes Aspen an attractive place to live and recreate. 2 A4 . 1 7 t 011 MC IA { - 15 aam Fee -in -Lieu of Detention Analysis Report Overview . The purpose of this memorandum is to lay out background and application of a Fee - in -Lieu of Detention (FIL) approach for the City of Aspen, CO. AMEC was asked to look into the feasibility and advisability of instituting such a fee. During the course of the study AMEC solicited the input of prominent Colorado water attorney Ed Krisor. . Previously AMEC had looked at four other approaches for the generation of revenue to support a planned capital improvement program to increase the conveyance of downtown pipe systems, and the protection of streams from runoff pollution. These other approaches were rejected for various reasons and focus turned to a FIL approach. The four are summarized below. } Current Dedicated Tax The dedicated property tax approach was discussed and the following decisions or points of information developed ✓ The approved mil rate maximum is 0.65. The currently applied mil rate is 0.527. The intent is to keep the revenue constant by changing the applied mil rate to reflect changing property valuations. x ✓ There is no desire to increase taxes at this time. ✓ This tax was initially targeted to help support both capital improvements and operations. Over time due to it's stability, it will shift to support only j operations which are best matched to a stable revenue source. 'r ,I =ti System Development Fee (SDF) ,,. ., : , ,; � � system development fee approach has been used in Aspen to support ,_. .,. T he s capital needs. However several concerns have been expressed about the fee. The following summary points describe its makeup and current concerns: µ ;. '� ✓ The purpose of the existing System Development Fee was to fund the €�' CIP portions of the Aspen program of an estimated $19.2M over 15 years, or $1,279,533/year. The current impervious area of the City was estimated to be 11,100,000 sq ft based on sampling and extrapolation. It was then assumed that parcels containing an average of four percent of this impervious area would develop /redevelop per year based on historic rates of 3% to 5% per year. Then: $1,279,533/(4% x 11,100,000 sq ft) = $2.88/sq ft ✓ The SDF has faced perception of equity issues in that it charges parcels for their total impervious area rather than only the additional amount in the redevelopment at a very low trigger point. This approach is unusual , •- among SDF type fees and could face a challenge, though Aspens home rule charter may give it flexibility not afforded other municipal entities in Colorado. ✓ In discussions with AMEC staff after the meeting the suggestion was made that a higher trigger point could be used with the SDF. a ✓ However, the drawback for the SDF is that the capital plan is a moving target, and some of the construction for one sub -basin (e.g. Jenny Adair 4,J Page 1of10 ame treatment Area) has already taken place and was funded from general revenues rather than from SDF fees. Stormwater User Fee Many Colorado communities charge a stormwater user fee based on the existing impervious area on a parcel. This has the advantage of generating revenue from all parcels that use the current drainage system and is well tested in the courts. However, there was little interest in pursuing another generally applicable fee at this time, and the discussion was not further pursued. Special Improvement District Within Colorado there is special authority to establish a district for the purpose of funding local improvements called Special Improvement Districts (SIDs) in municipalities and Local Improvement Districts (LIDS) in counties. These districts exist only as geographic areas within which improvements are constructed and as administrative subdivisions of the county or municipality. Having no board of directors, they do not operate in any capacity as an independent governmental entity. The Aspen city council would make all decisions on behalf of this administrative entity. Both assessment entity types may have their boundaries overlap the land of other jurisdictions with approval from those jurisdictions. The SID is formed to assess the costs of public improvements to those who are specially "benefited" by the improvements. "Benefit" includes, but is not f ` limited to, any increase in property value, alleviations of health and sanitation hazards, adaptability of the property to a superior or more profitable use, etc. The costs are payable from assessments. Costs are assessed on an equitable and rational basis of determining benefit (e.g., impervious area or gross area). The benefit must be at least equal to the cost imposed. ' ' ` Assessments can be paid in one full payment or in installment payments over � ` a specified period of time, for example, ten years. Assessment payments are not deductible from individual income taxes. Similar to the Stormwater User Fee there was little interest at this time in the concept and further investigation was suspended. New Detention Standard The Need to Change Detention Criteria Aspen is facing significant flooding problems in its downtown core area. Many of the • downtown pipe systems cannot carry even a moderate storm's runoff, meaning water runs in streets during intense rain events causing damage to buildings and potentially threatening safety. Aspen is addressing the problem in two ways — keeping water from the overwhelmed ~~ a;< system and improving the system. A stormwater master plan was developed in 2001 n that analyzed the capacity of the City's system as well as the costs for upgrading the system to several different levels of service. Council at that time decided to develop Page 2of10 amec capital plan for improvements that would upgrade the stormwater pipe system in r,t town to handle the 10 year event. Larger events would be passes through City streets. At that time it was estimated that over $15 million must be spent on enlarging, repairing, replacing, and constructing pipes and drains, and in protecting the Roaring Fork from the pollution that this runoff carries. This plan will increase the ability of the drainage system to convey flood waters safely. The cost estimate will change in light of new studies and information and inflation's effects on cost estimates. Secondly, Aspen is upgrading its design requirements for new development and redevelopment from one of allowing developments to send more water than historic levels of flooding downstream (i.e. continue flooding downstream) to a more modern s., standard of keeping floodwaters from increasing over historic levels. That is, reduction of flood levels the system has to carry. These new design requirements, although typical of industry standards and reflective of a "no adverse impact" approach to flood control, will impose more stringent demands on properties that develop or redevelop in downtown Aspen. To accommodate those properties for which the new standard may impose prohibitive design and feasibility hurdles the City will institute a voluntary fee -in -lieu of detention option wherein a developer or redeveloper may avoid building detention and pay a typical or customized detention cost fee which can then be sued to make downstream improvements intended to accommodate the increased runoff from the site instead. In the end, the City must balance the need to address this flooding, to which all upstream and urban core properties contribute, and which specifically benefits downstream properties and to properly recognize and apportion the costs of so doing. Drainage design standards are part of a set of development standards that new developments or redevelopments must meet. These include fire codes, electric codes, parking lob design standards, etc. Each of these codes has been upgraded from time to time in recognition of the inadequacies of the old standard. Building or rebuilding to an inferior or outdated code or standard known to cause or exacerbate damages to others or to perpetuate a safety hazard is neither in the City of Aspen's nor it its citizens' and visitors' best interests. New Detention Standard Particulars ' The revised detention standard targets reducing peak flow discharges throughout Aspen to historic levels. It should be noted that this "new" standard is the current 3 * requirement in all parts of Aspen that require detention and do not drain to the downtown piped drainage system. The new standard will require that rainfall runoff peak flows are reduced to the equivalent of an undeveloped condition (that is, the natural background runoff rate) for all new developments and redevelopments that add or disturb and replace 1,000 square feet of impervious area or more (the equivalent of a 15' wide driveway 67' long or a 30' by 30' pad). If the disturbed or added impervious area is less than 25% of the total parcel area ' then only the new area must be so treated. If the disturbed or added impervious area is equal to or more than 25% of the total parcel area then the site shall be treated as a new development and the total site shall meet detention requirements to the • historic peak flow rates. The 25% trigger point was chosen based on extensive Page 3 of 10 amec national data demonstrating that this total site imperviousness serves as a "threshold" beyond which development permanently impacts streams. If an existing structure is remodeled or altered in such a way that more than 50% of the structure is considered "new" then the entire structure must be brought "up to code ", and this includes current stormwater regulations. , Fee -In -Lieu (FIL) of Detention FIL Overview An in -lieu of construction fee allows developers to participate in the cost of regional stormwater facilities rather than requiring that each development include on -site stormwater detention systems. • FIL Specifics The FIL was divided for consideration into two different components: peak flow .. control to solve flooding and erosion problems, and water quality control to help clean the Roaring Fork River. They are to be handled differently. Details on development of fee and storage amounts are contained in Appendix A. ✓ Peak flow control is an option for a property. They can either provide detention on -site or pay a fee to the City equal to the estimated per unit cost times estimated storage. ,;. ✓ Water quality control is a requirement of each property and takes place in two stages (similar to a wastewater pre- treatment program). Every site must ,, provide water quality control on site and the City of Aspen stormwater program plans to construct regional treatment facilities throughout the City. The table below shows this policy. V Impervious area added Project a Case OR disturbed Classification General Requirements " ; a ,; 1 < 200 square feet No requirements " 200 'u 0 - 1000 square feet Water quality improvements for the 2 Drains to Green Minor (green) disturbed /added area r / - Detention not required Infrastructure Does not require a Professional Engineer j '4 < 200 — 1000 square feet WQCV for the disturbed or added area ` 3 Drains To Hard Minor (urban) Detention above the WQCV not required ',':-, :: Infrastructure Does not require a Professional Engineer WQCV for the disturbed or added area > 1000 square feet and Detention to the historic undeveloped rate 4 < 25% of the site Major or FIL for the disturbed or added area " v. Requires Professional Engineer ;', > 1000 square feet and WQCV for the entire site ° Detention to the historic undeveloped rate 5 > 25/° of the site or Major or FIL for the entire site 109' °' >50% of existing structur Requires Professional Engineer a " " - Page 4 of 10 • ame The Peak Flow requirements and discussion are summarized below: ✓ For peak flow control individual sites that disturb or develop more than 1,000 square feet in aggregate will be given the option to put in on -site detention or to pay a fee. ✓ The Aspen design manual approach for detention pond design was used to size detention ponds and determine storage requirements for a range of site sizes. Based on an analysis of the historical development project parcel size a representative sized parcel was chosen. The calculation shows that the volume of needed detention storage is 6.20 cubic feet of rainwater per 100 j square feet of impervious area for the maximum design storm. ` ✓ Cost estimates suggested by design engineers and verified by City staff assigned a cost of $70.00 per cubic foot of required storage. ✓ The fee then is calculated to be 6.20 * $70 = $434 per 100 square feet of impervious area added or redeveloped. ✓ If a developer can show that their own cost of detention is less than the City estimate, the City has the option of accepting this lesser amount or asking the developer to go ahead and build detention on -site based on the needs of the downstream drainage system. The Water Quality requirements and discussion are summarized below: ✓ Each site must provide water quality controls based on the guidance in the City of Aspen design criteria manual as shown in the modified table above. ✓ In addition the City of Aspen will undertake projects to protect the Roaring Fork at a higher standard than is considered achievable on -site. L L �33 A4 . x r t a t,. Q e ha� Page 5of10 a / e Appendix A - Technical Background on Fee -in -Lieu Calculation Applicable Design Criteria The Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan provides the necessary technical and policy background to construct a FIL framework. Table 1.1 provides the basis for application of the FIL and is shown below. Table Al. Table 1.1 From the Aspen Urban Runoff Management Plan Table 1.1 General Requirements for Miner and Major Projeots IO f¢R{ jdds o R r 1tsg111ram eb . X200 square feet No requirements 200 1000 square feet ° Minor (g Water quality improvements for the dsturbed/added area Drams to green infrastructure Does not require Professional Engineer Tx 200 — 1000 square feet " Minor (urban) WQCV for the disturbed or added area y " Drains to hard infrastructure Does rot require Professional Engineer r >1000 square feet and WQCV for the disturbed or added area, , <50Yo of ste Major etenr to the. pre. - development rate for Me entire site R 3 yr ? 1 ^ Requires es Professional Engineer WQCV for entire site, >50% of site or 00% of eristine , Major Detention to the pre - development rate for the entire site structure, or Wore Requires Professional Engineer Exception: Nina projects located In Envlroranentay Sensitive Areas. geologic hazard seas. or In INlsditlbna '. a non- jurisdictional loodplains may be rep:ter b do a mom detailed dralnaje analysis and deslgr. The de minima threshold for moor projects applies only n a singe aidtior on a given piece et progeny d uarWativr addnons m pnpeny over time baease die bpervbn area by nave tan Imo aquaria fen, 'maim' proles requirements and avail:fir s MI app to a all impervious areas that are on addition to de *baseliine' imperviousness determined from me 2009 aerial ptotgrapsy nti � It states that all developments that disturb more than 1,000 SF of impervious area in redevelopment or development are considered major projects and must provide up i N � ;. to 100 -year stormwater detention for the total site and water quality control volume ,,H r,, for the disturbed area. Sites that disturb between 200 and 1,000 SF of impervious area are considered minor projects and only have to provide water quality control volume facilities. The water quality control volume (WQCV) for a 100% impervious site is 0.26 inches of depth over the impervious area. This volume is considered to be part of the detention volume should detention be required and thus either one or the other would be counted. The estimation of detention volume follows the approach described in chapter 5, v' Section 5.6 of the Plan: Initial Design Detention Volumes. This approach uses the Rational Volume Method to estimate inflow volume, outflow volume, and the required storage volume. It is considered appropriate for small highly developed sites. The allowable pre - development release rate discharge is the 100 -year pre - development discharge peak flow. Page 6of10 m " " "e Fee Estimation Protocol The following assumptions have been made in application of this method: Table A2. Protocol Assumptions Parameter Parameter Value • Predevelopment (0% imperviousness) 0.35 Discharge Coefficient — B Soil (Figure 3.2 *) 100 -yr Post Development (100% imperviousness) 0.96 Discharge Coefficient - B Soil (Figure 3.2) 100 -yr Predevelopment (0% imperviousness) 0.15 Discharge Coefficient — B Soil (Figure 3.2) 10 -yr Post Development (60% imperviousness) 0.46 Discharge Coefficient - B Soil (Figure 3.2) 10 -yr Rainfall Equation P1 in/hr — Equation 2 -1, 100 -year 1.69 storm Sinuosity of channel flow on site 1.1 Pre- development maximum overland flow length — ft 300 Post development maximum overland flow length 25 ,'. 100% impervious — ft Site slope feet per ft 0.005 `Referenced figures a located in the Urban Runoff Management Plan One important aspect of this approach is that the intensity of discharge per unit of area varies considerable from small sites to larger sites. Larger sites are more efficient in delivering discharge to the outlet. Using these assumptions, a spreadsheet was developed to calculate a general rule for detention volume required. The input for this spreadsheet is explained below. A "` screenshot of the spreadsheet is shown in Table A3. Column Explanation 1 Impervious area acres /square feet 2 Pre - development flow length sheet and channel (300 foot maximum) Post- development flow length sheet and channel (25 foot 3 maximum sheet flow) 4 Pre- and Post - development times of concentration (min) based on equation 3 -4 and 3 -5 and associated rainfall rates (in /hr) 5 Duration of rainfall (trial and error) to maximize volume tb5 6 Rainfall rate (in /hr) based on equation 5 -1 7 Inflow volume (cf) based on equation 5 -2 Water Quality Control Volume (WQCV) based on 0.26 inches — 1,,. 8 assumed it is contained within the detention pond where both are re. uired and is subtracted from the detention volume Page 7of10 amec 9 Detention release rate equal to pre - development peak runoff flow rate (cfs) using the Rational Method 10 Outflow volume (cf) based on equation 5 -3 11 Required total storage volume = inflow volume - outflow volume (cf) 12 Storage volume per acre of impervious area (storage intensity) (cf /acre) 13 Detention volume above the WQCV = Storage volume - WQCV ° Storage volume per acre above WQCV (storage intensity) 14 (cf/acre) y rt, Table A3 shows the calculations for various sized parcels. While a variable rate was considered, in the end it was felt it was too complex given the level of unknowns in detention cost and that use of a representative size would suffice. An analysis of 63 development sites showed a 1.85 acre average size and a 0.36 median size. After removing the anomalies, those sites over 1.5 acres in size, an analysis of 55 sites x {° showed a 0.35 acres average size and a median of 0.26 acre median size. The median impervious area was 6200 square feet. This is the highlighted row in Table A3 r.. and shows a required storage volume of 2697 cf per acre. A value of 2700 was chosen for ease in calculation. The green blocks in the table show the actual calculated detention volume for the square footage shown in column one (note that the very last column shows the volume required per acre after the WQCV is accounted for). Table A3. Fee Development Calculations $ time of conc (min) duration at inflow required ABOVE . t-devflow length rain at Td WQCV release rate outflow w1 storage w1 •.� rain (in /hr) max Vd vs! WQCV -nd Chan! Tcpre Tcpost Td 1 VI Qa Vo Vd Vol /AC e, ft ft min min min in /hr cf cf cfs cf cf cf /ac V -WQCV Vol /AC 12.1 5.0 45 ' 2.08 125 22 0.03 51 73 3189 52 2246 4.26 5.79 18.1 5.0 55 1.82 667 108 0.14 255 412 3592 304 2648 66010 r 3.52 5.79 0.14 79 0 25 54 19.1 5.0 60 1.72 851 134 0.17 333 518 3641 384 2697 6200 143 5.79 21.6 5.0 60 1.72 1373 217 026 504 869 3784 652 2840 3.22 5.79 0.26 1 e'�;e,k; , ; ,. sir 5 81 22.2 5.0 60 1.72 1548 244 0.29 559 989 3820 745 2876 3.17 5.79 0.5 148 SOf 25 123 26.2 60 65 1.63 3067 472 0.51 1061 2006 4012 1534 3069 21780 2.89 679 1 209 2l_ ( 25 205 31.9 5.0 75 1.47 6413 944 0.90 2163 4250 4250 3306 3306 2.57 5.79 2 ' r 'i 25 300 38.2 5.7 80 1.41 13078 1888 1.61 4146 8931 4466 7044 3522 67120 tmm "",°. -- 2.30 5.58 51.7 10.4 98 122 69369 9438 6.64 21583 47787 4779 38349 3835 1.90 4.54 25 300 848 ' 25 1123 65.9 15.4 117 1.07 182195 23595 14.09 55948 128247 5050 102652 4106 1089000 a 1.61 182 Page 8of10 amec 25% Trigger Point The trigger point requirements and discussion are summarized below: It is permissible to charge a site for the total imperviousness on the site but with a trigger point. The following discussion describes the logic behind the trigger points for the FIL determination: ✓ All redevelopment within Aspen must use the currently applicable codes. This is true for electric, plumbing, fire codes, water supply, wastewater, etc. This is also true for stormwater. ✓ These codes generally have a trigger point for partial redevelopment wherein the whole of the development must be brought up to current codes as if the development were starting from scratch. ✓ A large number of studies have all indicated that there is a strong positive correlation between the intensity of impervious cover within a watershed and „. the degree of impact of the stream. These studies have covered nearly every conceivable measure of negative stream impact including: stream stability, fish, benthic macro invertebrates, habitat, and chemical water quality. Sensitive Impeded - f Excellent I rFa a + ;s g Good a + to Fair t rn t r . Poor 1 5% 10% 20% 25% 40% 60% 80% 100% Watershed Impervious Cover ✓ The figure below shows a summary diagram based on an aggregate of the findings. From this figure it can be seen that a generally accepted threshold for impervious area beyond which streams are generally non - supporting of their designated function is 25% total site imperviousness. <e Figure Al The Impervious Cover Model It was decided to use disturbance of 25% of the total site area as the trigger point for application of the detention and water quality criteria to the whole site. Below that 1 and down to the 1,000 square foot major project trigger only the newly disturbed area must be treated for peak flow reduction and water quality. Detention Cost Estimates Several developers' engineers were polled to determine typical cost estimates for �.. detention. There was a wide range of estimates, especially for commercial situations. a I From Schueler, T. et al, "Is Impervious Cover Still Important? Review of Recent Research" ASCE J of Hydrologic Engineering, Vol. 14 No. 4, April, 1, 2009, pp. 309 -316. Page 9 of 10 ame The cost estimate for dry wells for residential application was fairly well established but considerably higher than commercial unit costs per cubic foot of storage (perhaps because of the smaller size generally). In the end, given the fact that a developer can bring in their own professional estimate it was felt that choosing a value on the low end of the range would be most acceptable. A value of $70.00 per cubic foot was chosen. is a - k a y t r r1 aa`"4v4�.: s^ % x wry. . 2yi t Page 10 of 10 ■ Cf a; m 3 - • d u, a m T a o 0 o C N C 0 d N W 4 O a c a w o `a � /P ..0 LL a a « a P '" m pc n c 4 - a c a ; 4- 0 - a 8 c Y e. o O v Q o N O a ° •- n • a o « 0 O� a « a y L ft m Y O m O ` o c a a m o w o m a N .3 . N a ° o a m Q 8 ti aP N$ 0 s- r E fj /P P/ � vs i ° n ro m m LD el 4 o P y m o 00 010 m f f0' m m se' o 0; (.4 o O u m a y a 4.4 P 4 6 of in of v1 in .n an en / a 7f /a '6 . m ° O 0 a o 0 '6a �a "2-r ry co n N l0 Lo ,' O N N N M W b ( M rl P 0 P a 9 .n o n. t . +n V) Vn o an C es � � /S U) in 8 0 m O o O .2 f00 fO m M 0 0 0 0 0 O c ya 4 ri se N .ti N ri a 4 ,r O a6 f 0 w ao P /O J O C y 0 b m ° o o 0 o O I, / p / P ,6 m m 8 o m ° 0 8 o O� f 00 R b m Lei N N N N c O 6 0 9 o W • 4 o a 0 O 8 r0 ° o 0 O /P 7 00 00 O 0 N . O 0 L 44 ri m 6 6 of ri o 0 1 M r- n1 n N M OI a o Vl V N a .i 0 a LL c N V1 V, N V). V1 In 4n E n o E w 0 E o ° .K L L Q E .... N Q N a 0 ° y N a N U O C O ei V1 N ° s- C N r0 a R us a O O O O "4 0J a C - o a a o e .? a P 0 a vs O c m a m c E r g 0 m T. H a 0 u 01 N Q Q G d E u W N c 0 m O K o 8 1 U a a N o m a £ s 0 ' 'C ' IN DI N m a • o • > 2 2 0 o '.-, o 0 o W C u i E E E -° 'a o u w a H LL LL u c < < ut z E `v a a a m m n m m N 00 00 00 'u 'u t 3 0 0 C c c c a a N E in ■H in a 0) 2 v E E « y 3 3 3 E E a u) Z Z z cc cc cc u u Attachment F Water Quality Benefits of Detention Facilities Detention is the process of capturing and holding stormwater runoff for a brief period, then releasing the flow over a period of time. Essentially, the purpose of detention is to reduce the rate of runoff after development to the rate seen by the site prior to development — to mimic natural runoff patterns. Methods of achieving detention include ponds, underground tanks, drywells, and other containment structures. The ponds are generally earthen structures constructed either by impoundment of a natural depression or excavation of existing soil to provide a depressed area. Traditional detention ponds are designed to completely drain following a storm and do not allow for permanent pooling of water. Captured runoff is released through multi -level outlet structures consisting of weirs, risers, orifices or pipes, which provide for increased discharge as water levels in the basin increase. Pollution removal through detention can vary greatly depending on the type of detention provided as well as the duration of detention. Traditional detention facilities have limited sediment removal capabilities because they do not provide adequate holding time for solids to settle before water is released into a stream or storm sewer system. And these facilities do not provide removal of soluble pollutants such as metals and nitrogen. For this reason, traditional detention facilities are intended for water quantity control and are not intended for water quality benefits. Traditional detention facilities can remove approximately 40 — 60% of suspended solids. However, extending the detention time of the basin, creating a "wet pond ", and /or including a forebay upstream of the basin can enhance water quality benefits. Detention facilities also work well in a "treatment train" approach. Alternative detention methods can provide a significant reduction in sediment, as well as a partial reduction in nutrients, toxic materials, heavy metals, floatable materials, oxygen demanding substances, and oil and grease. These alternative detention designs are encouraged in Aspen through the requirements of the new Urban Runoff Management Plan (Manual). The Manual requires site to reach a water quality standard — removal of 90% of particles greater than 60 microns in size — but does not prescribe how that goal is to be met. The goal can be met through these alternative forms of detention or through other practices that work well in line with or stacked onto detention. There are three common types of detention used in Aspen — traditional dry detention (the large depressed grassy area in Burlingame Phase I), drywelis (underground perforated vaults placed in gravel), and underground tanks (concrete boxes placed underground, stored water is pumped to subsurface infrastructure). Through the requirements of the new Manual, we expect to see more use of the alternative detention designs. Traditional dry detention ponds: • Reduces peak rate of runoff • Alleviates downstream flooding • Prevents channel erosion and increased sedimentation • Provides infiltration to groundwater, thus a more natural water balance • Provides a recreation area between storm events • Removal of floatable materials • 40 — 60% removal of TSS Drywells: • Reduces volume of runoff • Reduces peak rate of runoff • Alleviates downstream flooding • Prevents channel erosion and increased sedimentation • Provides infiltration to groundwater, thus a more natural water balance • Does not require much space • Cannot receive runoff that may contain floatables, metals, or oil and grease • Meets new standards for water quality • Difficult to maintain Attachment F Underground tanks /systems: • Reduces peak rate of runoff • Alleviates downstream flooding • Good option for high density or urban areas with limited available space or unusual shapes or where land is expensive. • Durability and long life (50 years plus for most systems). • Insulation from freezing • No pollutant removal ability • Re- suspension of sediment following storms • Frequent maintenance required Attachment G Appeal Process for Fee -In -Lieu of Detention The variance and appeal process for the fee -in -lieu of detention (FIL) is described in the proposed Ordinance 15, Section 2 (a) and (b). In general, a project could propose an alternate cost for providing detention or an alternate volume of detention required. These proposals would be reviewed by the City Engineer. The City Engineer would have the opportunity to accept a FIL based on the proposed calculations. If he /she does not accept payment of an FIL based on the proposed calculations, the project would have three options: 1. Pay the FIL based on the stipulations outlined in Ordinance 15. 2. Provide the required amount of detention for the site. 3. Appeal the City Engineer's decision through the appeal process outlined in the Urban Runoff Management Plan. The sections of the Urban Runoff Management Plan that pertain to the variance and appeal procedures have been copied below. 1.2.7 Variances Requests for variances from the standards, policies or submittal requirements of this document shall be submitted in writing with appropriate documentation and justification to the City Engineer. Variance requests must, at a minimum, contain the following information: • Criteria from which the applicant seeks a variance. • Justification for not complying with the criteria. • Alternate criteria or standard that is proposed to comply with the intent of the criteria. • Supporting documentation, including necessary calculations, etc. • Potential adverse impacts of the proposed variance and alternate criteria on downstream water bodies and public and private property. • An analysis of the variance request must be signed and stamped by a Professional Engineer licensed in the state of Colorado. Upon receipt of a complete application for a variance, the City Engineer shall prepare a statement, based on the ability of the proposed project to meet the standards and goals of the City's stormwater management criteria, recommending approval or disapproval or requesting modifications of the proposed variance. 1.2.8 Appeals Any appeal from an order, requirement, decision, or determination of the City Engineer made pursuant to this Urban Runoff Management Plan shall be taken within fifteen (15) days following the date of such order, requirement, decision, or determination by the filing of a written notice of appeal with the Administrative Hearing Officer. The notice of appeal shall state in detail the action appealed from, the grounds for the appeal, and the relief sought. The Administrative Hearing Officer shall, within thirty (30) days following the filing of the notice of appeal, review the record of the action taken by the City Engineer, and provide a decision to the Applicant in writing. The Administrative Hearing Officer may reverse or affirm wholly or partly the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and shall enter such order as it deems appropriate under the circumstance. ( X a. e Ala ; �;,, The City of Aspen Memorandum City Attorney's Office TO: Mayor and Members of Council FROM: John P. Worcester DATE: May 9, 2011 RE: Appeal of Code Interpretation On your agenda for your May 9, 2011, meeting is an appeal from Code Interpretations authored by the Community Development Department. This memo is to clarify your role as the "decision - making body hearing the appeal." Section 26.316.030 of the Aspen Land Use Code sets forth the applicable standard of review that Council should follow in these matters and the actions available to Council following the hearings on the appeals. Standard of Review: Section 26.316.030(E) reads as follows: Standard of review. Unless otherwise specifically stated in this title, the decision - making body authorized to hear the appeal [City Council] shall decide the appeal based solely upon the record established by the body from which the appeal is taken [Community Development Director]. A decision or determination shall not be reversed or modified unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process, or the administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. The Land Use Code does not define the terms: "a denial of due process ", "exceeded its jurisdiction," or "abused its discretion." Court cases, however, have helped define these terms as follows and may be used by Council in its deliberation of the appeal: A denial of due process may be found if some procedural irregularity is determined to have occurred that affected a significant right of the appellant, or the administrative body otherwise acted in violation of the appellant's constitutional or statutory rights. Ad Hoc Executive Committee of Medical Staff of Memorial Hospital v Runyan, 716 P. 2d 465 (Colo. 1986.) A decision may be considered to be an abuse of discretion if the "decision of the administrative body is so devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority." Ross v Fire and Police Pension Ass 'n., 713 P.2d 1304 (Colo. 1986); Marker v Colorado Springs, 336 P.2d 305 (Colo. 1959). A decision may be considered to be in excess of jurisdiction if the decision being appealed from "is grounded in a misconstruction or misapplication of the law," City of Colorado Springs v Givan, 897 P.2d 753 (Colo. 1995); or, the decision being appealed from was not within the authority of the administrative body to make. City of Colorado Springs v SecureCare Self Storage, Inc., 10 P.3d 1244 (Colo. 2000). • Actions by Council following Appeal Hearing: Section 26.316.030(F) reads as follows: Action by the decision - making body hearing the appeal. The decision - making body hearing the appeal may reverse, affirm, or modify the decision or determination appealed from, and, if the decision is modified, shall be deemed to have all the powers of the officer, board or commission from whom the appeal is taken, including the power to impose reasonable conditions to be complied with by the appellant. The decision shall be approved by resolution. All appeals shall be public meetings not public hearings]. If you have any questions regarding the process, please let me know. cc: Community Development Director City Manager JP W- saved: 5/3/11-appeals doc MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Aspen City Council COPY: John Worcester, City Attorney FROM: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director t RE: Appeal of Land Use Code Interpretation — Floor Area DATE: May 9, 2011 (continued from April 25 SUMMARY: One of the jobs assigned to the Community Development Director is to provide interpretations of the text of the City's Land Use Code. This is a formal process in which an applicant requests the Director provide a written interpretation and affords an applicant the right to appeal the decision to the City Council. There are three criteria upon which the City Council has to decide an appeal of a code interpretation. Based solely upon the record established by the original decision, the City Council shall consider whether: 1) There was a denial of due process; 2) The administrative body exceeded its jurisdiction; or, 3) The administrative body abused its discretion. These standards ask whether the Director's actions were ethical. The City's code states that the decision or determination made by the administrative officer shall not be reversed or modified unless there is a positive finding on one of these criteria. (Please see Exhibit D for the entire code section.) Staff believes the Director's interpretation was rendered ethically and that an abuse of discretion did not occur. Staff recommends City Council uphold the Director's interpretation by adopting the proposed Resolution affirming the interpretation. If the Council finds the Director abused his discretion in rending this interpretation, the Council may remand the interpretation back to the Director for reconsideration (with or without direction) or may reverse the interpretation in a manner that cures the abuse. CODE INTERPRETATION VS. CODE AMENDMENT: The question in a code interpretation is what does the code say? On occasion, applicants seek a code interpretation because they believe the code should say something else. The code amendment process is the proper venue for the question what should the code say? 1 BACKGROUND: Some background on the properties is helpful in understanding the code interpretation. Lots 1 and 2 of the Hill House condominiums appear on a condo plat as two distinct separate fee simple parcels. These parcels in fact are owned in a condominium form of ownership possibly requiring the condominium association be the applicant for any land use application. The 707 Associates property is a fee simple property separate from the Hill House Condominiums. Several years ago a lot line adjustment plat was submitted by the owner of Hill House Lot 2 and the owner of 707. This is an administrative process allowing staff to approve minor changes to lot boundaries. The application was accepted and eventually approved by the City Community Development Department. This moved the lot boundary between these two properties. The owner of Lot 2 then 14 kxo expanded his house by \ 1441 using land recently acquired -� from the 707 parcel. The �`t owner of Hill House Lot 1 -------, ' a Gr later sued the owner of Lot ,-. �'y 2 over the lot line — - i 7,,e adjustment and prevailed in S tr s 1 court. , a The Court determined that -- / • u h f �y . • I • the City should not have . \ i / \ \ ' accepted the lot line , y e tf application as it did not w f ' include the owner of Hill , v�Rm e• ,.rt:°Fa , a . ° „E. House Lot 1 and approval ^• c° ° ” or consent from the Hill p� 4 , House home owners - - -- - - .l association was not Figure 1: Hill House Condominiums represented. CYCLAyQyq fun ADDITI The District Court vacated the lot line adjustment plat returning the lot boundaries to where they were previously. The recently expanded house on Lot 2 now straddles the lot line and is partially on the 707 property. This obviously presents some ownership and physical trespass issues between the owners of Lot 2 and 707. This also presents a floor area question as a portion of the Lot 2 house falls on the 707 parcel. 2 INTERPRETATION: This interpretation addresses how Floor Area is attributed when a structure spans a lot boundary. The language of the code under discussion is as follows: D. Measuring Floor Area. In measuring floor areas for floor area ratio and allowable floor area, the following applies: 1. General. Floor area shall be attributed to the lot or parcel upon which it is developed. In measuring a building for the purposes of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area, there shall be included all areas within the surrounding exterior walls of the building or portion thereof. When measuring from the exterior walls, the measurement shall be taken from the exterior face of framing, exterior face of structural block, exterior face of straw bale, or similar exterior surface of the nominal structure excluding sheathing, vapor barrier, weatherproofing membrane, exterior- mounted insulation systems, and excluding all exterior veneer and surface treatments such as stone, stucco, bricks, shingles, clapboards or other similar exterior veneer treatments. (Also, see setbacks.) [emphasis added] Staff's interpretation of the language finds that the floor area of a structure is attributed to the parcel upon which it physically exists. In this case, the portion of the Lot 2 house that physically exists on the 707 parcel is counted as floor area for the 707 parcel. The interpretation provided by staff is attached as Exhibit A. The appellant would like the above language to result in the City assessing the floor area of the encroachment to the parcel upon which the majority of the encroaching house exists, not where it physically rests. Alternatively, the appellant requested some administrative swap of development rights. A more detailed explanation from the appellant is in Exhibits B & C. STANDARDS OF REVIEW: 1. Due Process — With respect to due process, staff of the Community Development Department responded to the interpretation request in accordance with the procedure outlined in the Land Use Code. There were some preliminary conversations, as typical with any discussion of the meaning of the Land Use Code. A written interpretation was provided after staff received a formal written request in a compete application. Some delay in issuing the interpretation occurred to accommodate the applicant's request to discuss the matter with staff. As required by the Land Use Code, the appellant was provided notice of tonight's meeting via registered mail and all other affected parties were noticed by publication in the newspaper, as required. Staff believes that proper due process has been provided to the appellant. The appellant is not claiming a procedural defect with the interpretation. 3 2. Jurisdiction — The Director's jurisdiction to interpret the Land Use Code is established in Chapter 26.210 of the City of Aspen Land Use Code. This Chapter outlines the jurisdiction, authority, and duties allocated to the Community Development Director. One of the Director's duties outlined in the Chapter reads: "To render interpretations of this Title or the boundaries of the Official Zone District Map pursuant to Chapter 26306." Staff believes this Language is clear and it does not appear that the applicant is questioning this provision of the code or the Director's jurisdiction. 3. Discretion — With respect to abuse of the Director's discretion, the Director did need to use his discretion in rendering the interpretation. The question is whether the Director abused that discretion. The appellant is claiming the Director abused his discretion. [Note: it's helpful to read the staff interpretation, the letter requesting the interpretation, and the appeal letter to provide context to the following discussion — Exhibits A, B, & C.] A decision may be considered an abuse of discretion if the decision of the administrative body is so devoid of evidentiary support that it can only be explained as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of authority. In other words, when a decision is so baseless that it can only be described as random or made -up. The staff interpretation highlights the first sentence of the Floor Area section of the code — Floor area shall be attributed to the lot or parcel upon which it is developed. The appellant's argument pivots on the word `developed,' implying that this term is in the past tense and floor area should be attributed to the parcel upon which it was developed. Staff's interpretation explains that floor area depends on where a structure is developed — in the present tense. The appellant highlights this point on page three of the appeal letter: Mr. Haas states, "The code actually says that the floor area shall be attributed to the lot or parcel upon which it is developed. When Mr. Weiner built that addition to his home, all of the floor area was developed on what was then considered his lot/parcel. Due to a Court decision, a portion of Mr. Wiener's house now `rests' on the adjacent property, but it was not developed on that property." [emphasis added by staff] Staff believes the calculation of floor area is a matter of what is and not about what was. The amount of floor area built on these parcels used to be something other than what it is today. The court returning the lot line to its previous location changed the situation. And, the floor area of the parcels today is what it is today, not what it was in the past. The appellant takes issue with staff using the word "rests," stating that using this word was an abuse of discretion. "Rests" was used to help clarify the meaning of the provision in question. Staff used "where it rests" as an equivalent to "where it is developed." 4 The Director considered the meaning of the phrase "where it is developed" within the context of the City's Land Use Code and more specifically within the context of the section of the code that explains how floor area is measured. This section includes the phrase "the building or portion thereof' indicating that a fraction of a building can be measured as floor area. These phrases are cited in the interpretation as foundation. Staff believes "Where it rests" is a suitable approximation of "where it is developed" that addresses any ambiguity of tense. Staff could have also used where it exists, where it sits, where it lies, or where it is situated to illustrate "where it is developed" as a physical position in the present tense. Staff believes this provides a basis in reason. The appeal letter speaks to adversity these neighbors have experienced, the history of the lot line, etc. Again while staff is sympathetic to the situation, staff does not believe the meaning of the Land Use Code is affected or should be changed through interpretation to accommodate a specific situation. If anything, basing a decision on sympathy for this situation could be considered an abuse of discretion. Likewise, the appeal letter goes on about other odd situations that could occur with buildings partially in alleyways, etc. This is fundamentally an argument about how the code should say something different than it does today. While staff may agree, an interpretation of the code is about what the code actually says, not what it should say. There can be simultaneous agreement on what a code says and that it should be changed. But basing an interpretation on a desire to change the code is tantamount to amending the code through interpretation — something staff believes would be improper and potentially in excess of the Director's j urisdiction. Lastly, the appeal letter raises a new issue — that the interpretation effects a change in the development rights of these two properties. It does not. This is a strange argument in that the applicant originally requested the Director decree a transfer of development rights between the properties by virtue of a structure spanning the lot line. The Director's interpretation provided that an intervening structure does not change the development rights of the properties. The interpretation that the development rights are not affected by a building encroachment generated the appeal. As this is a new issue, staff does not believe the interpretation represents an abuse of discretion on this point. RECOMMENDATION: The background of this situation is unfortunate and staff sympathizes with the parties. Fundamentally, staff sees this as an issue of trespass between two neighbors. This is relatively common in Aspen and a matter for the neighbors to resolve. There are existing systems to resolve the financial impact of the trespass such as the City's TDR program or a simple monetary exchange. As one of the properties is owned as a condominium, the resolution may require the consent of the condominium association. 5 To the extent the property owners cannot agree on a resolution it could become a civil matter for the Courts to resolve. To the extent that a resolution requires a land use application be submitted to the City, the City will require all affected parties be active applicants — namely the owners of Hill House Lot 1, Hill House Lot 2, and 707 Associates. Furthermore, staff does not support a code amendment to resolve trespass issues. Staff believes private agreements are more effective at resolving these issues than government could ever be. But, to the extent that the code is amended in the future to permit an exchange of development rights between adjacent properties, staff strongly believes the City should require all affected parties be active applicants to ensure rights are observed and due process is provided to the parties affected by such an application. Staff believes the Director's interpretation was rendered ethically and that an abuse of discretion did not occur. Staff recommends City Council uphold the Director's interpretation by adopting the proposed Resolution affirming the interpretation. If the Council finds the Director abused his discretion in rending this interpretation, the Council may remand the interpretation back to the Director for reconsideration (with or without direction) or may reverse the interpretation in a manner that cures the abuse. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: RECOMMENDED MOTION: (all motions should be made in the positive) "I move to approve Resolution No. , Series of 2011, affirming the Community Development Director's interpretation of the Land Use Code regarding floor area." ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A — Interpretation dated March 9, 2011 Exhibit B — Request for Code interpretation from Mitch Haas dated February 1, 2011 Exhibit C — Appeal letter from Mitch Haas dated March 28, 2011 Exhibit D — Land Use Code Section Regarding Appeals Exhibit E — Affidavit of notice 6 RESOLUTION NO. 31 (SERIES OF 2011) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL AFFIRMING AN INTERPRETATION OF THE LAND USE CODE MADE BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR REGARDING FLOOR AREA OF A STRUCTURE SPANNING A PROPERTY BOUNDARY. WHEREAS, the Community Development Director received a request for a interpretation of the Land Use Code regarding the calculation of floor area for a structure spanning a property boundary from the owner of 707 Gibson Avenue represented by Mitch Haas; and, WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 26.306 — Interpretations of Title, the Director rendered a decision on March 9, 2011, and the applicant sought an appeal; and, WHEREAS, the City Council, pursuant to Chapter 26.316, may affirm the Interpretation of the Director or modify or reverse the Interpretation upon a finding that there was a denial of due process, exceeding of jurisdiction, or abuse of authority in rendering the interpretation; and, WHEREAS, the City Council has taken and considered written and verbal testimony from the appellant, the Community Development Director, and has found that the Director provided due process and neither exceeded his jurisdiction or abused his authority in rendering the Interpretation; and, WHEREAS, the City of Aspen City Council finds that this Resolution furthers and is necessary for the promotion of public health, safety, and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council affirms the Community Development Director's Interpretation of the Land Use Code regarding Floor Area of a structure spanning a property boundary issued March 9, 2011. This Resolution shall not affect any existing litigation and shall not operate as an abatement of any action or proceeding now pending under or by virtue of the ordinances repealed or amended as herein provided, and the same shall be conducted and concluded under such prior ordinances. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional in a court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. APPROVED by the Aspen City Council at its regular meeting on , 2011. ATTEST: Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Michael C. Ireland, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: John Worcester, City Attorney Resolution No. , Series of 2011. Page 1 CITY OF ASPEN WA,* A COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT LAND USE CODE INTERPRETATION JURISDICTION: City of Aspen APPLICABLE CODE SECTION: 26.575.020.D — Floor Area for a building spanning two lots. EFFECTIVE DATE: March 9, 2011 WRITTEN BY: Chris Bendon, , Community Development Director APPROVED BY: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director Section 26.575.020 of the City's Land Use Code describes the methodology for measuring various aspects of development within the City. You have requested an interpretation regarding a house that is built partially onto an adjoining lot and the way the City calculates Floor Area in such a situation. Subsection D describes the way floor area is measured and reads as follows: D. Measuring Floor Area. In measuring floor areas for floor area ratio and allowable floor area, the following applies: 1. General. Floor area shall be attributed to the lot or parcel upon which it is developed. In measuring a building for the purposes of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area, there shall be included all areas within the surrounding exterior walls of the building or portion thereof. When measuring from the exterior walls, the measurement shall be taken from the exterior face of framing, exterior face of structural block, exterior face of straw bale, or similar exterior surface of the nominal structure excluding sheathing, vapor barrier, weatherproofing membrane, exterior- mounted insulation systems, and excluding all exterior veneer and surface treatments such as stone, stucco, bricks, shingles, clapboards or other similar exterior veneer treatments. (Also, see setbacks.) (emphasis added) There are several additional subsections (2 -15) under "measuring floor area," but none of them speak to a building spanning a lot boundary. According to the cited language, the floor area of a structure is attributed to the parcel on which it rests. If only a portion of a structure rests on a property, then that portion is attributed to that lot. This does present some logistical issues for measuring the improvements. I suggest you use the property boundary as an "exterior wall" to determine the portion of the building lying on each lot. • In your letter, you cite various historical issues with the properties owned by Young and Weiner. I understand the ramifications the court decision to vacate the lot line adjustment had on the properties. While I'm sympathetic to the situation, it doesn't effect a change in the meaning of the Land Use Code. Your core request seems to be for the City to permit a swap of development rights between these two properties. While I understand the request, there is no code provision or process that permits such a swap. You also cite various theoretical situations that could occur regarding buildings built partially within rights -of- way. Again, while I understand your points, I don't see how these potential situations change the meaning of the Land Use Code. My approach to the boundary issue is to encourage all owners (including the other condominium owner of the Hill House Condominiums property) to resolve the lot boundary and/or encroachment issue in a manner that all owners can agree to. This may or may not result in a boundary adjustment application to the City or other land use requests. I realize this may be overly simplistic and that all parties seeing eye -to -eye on this issue is a challenge. LIMITATIONS OF DECISION: This interpretation relies on the City's Land Use Code currently in effect, which is subject to change. This interpretation shall be valid until such time as the Land Use Code is amended. This interpretation does not create a vested right. This interpretation will be maintained in the official record of all interpretations as provided under Section 26.306.O10.E. APPEAL OF DECISION: Any person who has requested an interpretation may initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development Director. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision being appealed. Failure to file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any rights to appeal the decision. Note: The issuance of this interpretation was delayed beyond the normal 15 -day response at the request of the applicant to allow additional time for discussion between the applicant, the Community Development Director, and the City Attorney. EXHIBITS: A — Request for Code Interpretation from Mitch Haas. HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLC R 4.a =VE February 1, 2011b at 2011 Mr. Chris Bendon, Director r RSt cha Aspen Community Development Department CC '. EVELOP 1�« 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Request for an Interpretation of Title Regarding the Floor Area of a Home Encroaching onto a Neighboring Lot Dear Chris: This letter is a request for a formal Interpretation of Title, pursuant to Section 26.306.010 of the Land Use Code, clarifying the definitions of Floor Area and Floor Area Ratio (FAR). The clarification is sought as a means of determining which lot is assessed the floor area of a home that encroaches onto a neighboring lot. The applicant, Dennis Young, owns a home at 707 Gibson Avenue in the City of Aspen. William B. Wiener owns the property known as Hill House, Unit C, which is contiguous to Mr. Young's home. Approximately 250 square feet of Floor Area from within Mr. Wiener's home encroaches onto Mr. Young's property. The applicant would like to either remodel or tear down and rebuild his existing home at some time in the future, and needs to know the allowable floor area effective for his lot. Mr. Young can calculate his lot area pursuant to the Code and determine the resulting allowable floor area, but remains unclear as to the effect of his neighbor's encroaching structure. While spawned by a specific instance, this request for interpretation is meant to be general in nature and not limited to the case of Mr. Wiener's house and Mr. Young's lot. In 1998, Mr. Wiener bought his property with the notion of expanding the then existing home. Mr. Wiener conferred with the Aspen Community Development Department about the expansion, and it was suggested that he consider a lot line adjustment with his neighbor. The previous owner of Mr. Young's lot and Mr. Wiener subsequently agreed to a lot line adjustment, and said adjustment was approved by the City. The house expansion was then completed within Mr. Wiener's adjusted lot boundaries. A suit was later filed by Mr. Wiener's neighbor who owns the other Hill House condominium unit. The Court sided with the plaintiff and voided the City - approved lot line adjustment. Because of this court judgment, a portion of Mr. Wiener's home now encroaches onto Mr. Young's lot, although at the time of the expansion that land area was considered to be Mr. Wiener's property. As such, the encroachment was developed pursuant to a duly issued building permit and in conformance with City approvals and zoning requirements. Further, due to the court's decision, Mr. Weiner cannot rectify the current encroachment issue by adjusting the lot line. • 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 • ASPEN, COLORADO • 81 61 1 • • PHONE: (970) 925 -7819 • FAX: (970) 925 -7395 • RECEIVED (I I 2011 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT With the background having been provided above, the code sections requiring interpretation can now be explained. Floor area is defined in the City of Aspen Municipal Code (the "Code ") in Section 26.104.100 and further outlined in Section 26.575.020(A). Per Section 26.104.100, Floor Area is defined as, "the sum total of the gross horizontal areas of each story of the building measured from the exterior walls from the center line of the party walls." Similarly, Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is defined as, "the total floor area of all structures on a lot divided by the lot area." Section 26.575.020(A)(1), Calculations and Measurements further explains that, "in measuring floor area for the purposes of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area, there shall be included that floor area within the surrounding exterior walls (measured from their exterior surface) of a building or a portion thereof. When measuring from exterior walls, the veneer and all exterior treatments shall be included... " However, the. Code does not contain any specific text that addresses the floor area of a home that encroaches onto a neighboring lot, especially when the encroachment is not enclosed within exterior walls on all sides. Does the portion of the floor area that encroaches, count against the lot on which it sits or against the encroaching homeowner's lot? If it is to count against the lot on which it sits, which we feel would be an erroneous interpretation, how /to what wall is it measured? It seems illogical and patently unfair to the property owner who already has been burdened - -- by his/her neighbor's home encroaching onto his/her property - -- to have that encroaching floor area count against what he /she is allowed to build. And how would one actually calculate the amount of floor area that is encroaching onto the neighboring property when the floor area is measured to the outside walls? In order to determine the amount of floor area that encroaches onto Mr. Young' s lot, we would need to draw an imaginary wall along the property line and calculate the floor area on either side of this imaginary wall. It would be more logical and appropriate to assess the FAR of the encroaching building to the owner of the building (the encroacher), and not the property owner whose lot is being encroached upon, through no fault of his own. Penalizing the person whose lot is being encroached upon by taking away some of that person's allowable floor area, in turn, serves to reward the encroacher by allowing more floor area on the encroacher's lot. That is, if some portion of an encroacher's home does not count against his/her allowable floor area, then the encroacher would, by default, be rewarded for his/her error by now being allowed that much (i.e., amount of encroaching floor area) more floor area for additional development elsewhere within his/her lot. To allow such a result makes no sense, and has the potential to create unnecessary litigation amongst neighbors, with the possibility of the City being dragged into such litigation. By the same token, what if a house encroaches into City Right -of -Way? Does the owner of that house not have to count the encroaching space against his/her allowable FAR? And since it is in the City right -of -way, does that portion of the structure's floor area not count against anyone's limit? Under such a scenario, the encroaching homeowner would then get to again build that amount of floor area encroaching into the City ROW within his/her lot for a "conforming" house that actually contains more floor area than allowed. That does not sound like something the City of Aspen would look favorably upon, and it would actually serve to encourage the "Oops, well it's already there now" approach to construction. 2 While usually the result of an error, encroaching structures are relatively common throughout the City of Aspen, particularly with historic buildings and outbuildings. The applicant can point to several other encroaching structures without even giving it much thought, or actually reviewing the City parcel maps. With an interpretation holding that an owner of a non - historic property loses allowable /otherwise available FAR due to the next door neighbor's encroaching structure, the owner of such non - historic property - -- who is neither under designation nor Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) purview - -- would be encouraged to simply demolish the encroaching portion of the structure in order to "get his/her floor area back." After all, it is more often than not the property itself that is historically designated and not necessarily the individual structures, leaving at risk that portion of a structure encroaching onto a non - historic lot. Surely, such partial demolitions are not something the City would want to encourage or see happen. Instead, the owner and user of the floor area should have the floor area/space they rightfully own count against what they are entitled to build, and not against their neighbor's allowable FAR. The wrongdoer, even when inadvertent, should not be rewarded. Although in some situations where a home encroaches onto a neighboring lot the parties involved could consider a lot line adjustment to solve the problem, that is not so in this or many other instances. In fact, the lot line adjustment that was approved by the City and later undone by the Court's order actually caused the encroachment. In closing, given the ambiguous and open -to- interpretation language of the Code as it might apply to the situations described above coupled with the likelihood of issues that could arise from a different interpretation, it is respectfully requested that a formal interpretation be provided confirming that the floor area from that portion of a structure encroaching onto a neighboring property counts against the lot of the encroacher and not against the property that it encroaches on. To hold differently is to unnecessarily open a proverbial can of worms, issues and disputes. If you should have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Haas Land Planning, LLC I MitcHaas Owner /Manager cc: John Worcester and Jim True, City Attorneys c:/My Documents /City Applications/Bill Wiener- Dennis Young/Code Interpretation Request 3 HAAS LAND PLANNING, LLD •55(1Aii C. March 28, 2011 °' Mayor Mick Ireland and Aspen City Council ` f" t `� 1 c/o Mr. Chris Bendon, Director ASPEN Aspen Community Development Department C0.; ._ : )EVELOP ?. ? 130 South Galena Street Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Appeal from an Interpretation of Title Regarding the Floor Area Allocation of a Home Encroaching onto a Neighboring Property Dear Council: The applicant is hereby appealing the Interpretation of Title made by the Community Development Director, pursuant to Section 26.306.010(F) of the Land Use Code. Section 26.316.020(B)(1) of the Code gives City Council the authority to hear and decide an appeal to an interpretation of title at a public meeting. The appeal was filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of the Interpretation, as required by Section 26.316.030(A) of the Code. The Community Development Director rendered his decision on March 9, 2011, and the notice of appeal was filed on March 23, 2011. This is a follow up to the notice of appeal in order to provide the necessary background information for Council to make an informed decision on this matter. The Interpretation of Title involved clarifying the definitions of "Floor Area" and "Floor Area Ratio (FAR)." The clarification was sought as a means to determine which lot is assessed the Floor Area of a home (or portion thereof) that encroaches onto a neighboring lot. The applicant, Young Family Trust 50% Int., owns a home at 707 Gibson Avenue in the City of Aspen. William B. Wiener owns the next -door property to the west, which is known as Hill House, Unit C, and is contiguous to Mr. Young's home. As a result of a lawsuit that nullified a previously approved lot line adjustment, somewhere in the neighborhood of 200 square feet of Floor Area from within Mr. Wiener's home now encroaches onto Mr. Young's property. The Community Development Director (CDD) found that this floor area "is attributed to the parcel on which it now rests." We believe the CDD has made an error and in doing so has, pursuant to Code Section 26.316.030(E), "abused his discretion." The applicant would like to either remodel or tear down and rebuild his existing home at some time in the future, and needs to know the allowable Floor Area effective for his lot. Mr. Young can calculate his lot area pursuant to the Code and determine the resulting allowable Floor Area, but needs to know the effect of his neighbor's encroaching structure. • 201 N. MILL STREET, SUITE 108 • ASPEN, COLORADO • 81611 • • PHONE: (970) 925 -7819 • FAX: (970) 925 -7395 • The following timeline of the events provide necessary background for understanding the current situation: • Mr. Wiener bought his property in 1998 with the notion of expanding the existing home. • Mr. Wiener conferred with the Community Development Department about the expansion, and it was suggested by City staff that he consider a lot line adjustment with his neighbor. • The previous owner of the Young Family Trust lot and Mr. Wiener subsequently agreed to a lot line adjustment, swapping an even amount of lot area. This adjustment was duly approved by the City • The house expansion was then completed within Mr. Weiner's adjusted lot boundaries and in conformance with all applicable City regulations. • The Young Family Trust purchased their "adjusted" lot. • A suit was later filed by another neighbor of Mr. Wiener's, namely the owner of the other Hill House condominium unit to the West. • The Court sided with the plaintiff and voided the City- approved lot line adjustment. Because of this subsequent court decision voiding the lot line adjustment, a portion of Mr. Wiener's home (somewhere around 200 square feet of FAR) now encroaches onto Mr. Young's lot, although at the time of the expansion that land area was considered to be Mr. Wiener's property. As such, the expansion was developed pursuant to a duly issued building permit, in conformance with City approvals and zoning requirements, and the floor area was developed on what was considered, at the time of the development, Mr. Wiener's lot. As a result of the court's decision, Mr. Wiener cannot rectify the current encroachment issue by seeking a new lot line adjustment, and some of the Floor Area he developed on his parcel now resides on his neighbor's lot. Mr. Wiener developed the Floor Area in question on his own parcel. Section 26.575.020 of the Code describes how the City measures various aspects of development. Subsection D describes the way floor area is measured and reads as follows: D. Measuring Floor Area. In measuring floor areas for floor area ratio and allowable floor area, the following applies: 1. General. Floor area shall be attributed to the lot or parcel upon which it is developed. In measuring a building for the purposes of calculating floor area ratio and allowable floor area, there shall be included all areas within the surrounding exterior walls of the building or portion thereof. When measuring from the exterior walls, the measurement shall be taken from the exterior face of framing, exterior face of structural block, exterior 2 face of straw bale, or similar exterior surface of the nominal structure excluding sheathing, vapor barrier, weatherproofing membrane, exterior - mounted insulation systems, and excluding all exterior veneer and surface treatments such as stone, stucco, bricks, shingles, clapboards or other similar exterior veneer treatments. (Also, see setbacks.) [emphasis added] This Code Section is relevant to the question posed in the applicant's request for an interpretation. In his Interpretation, the CDD says the following: "According to the cited language, the floor area of a structure is attributed to the parcel on which it rests. "[emphasis added] The Code does not, in fact, say that. The Code actually says that the floor area shall be attributed to the lot or parcel upon which it is "developed." When Mr. Wiener built the addition to his home, all of the Floor Area was developed on what was then considered his lot/parcel. Due to a Court decision, a portion of Mr. Wiener's house now "rests" on the adjacent property, but it was not "developed" on that property. Since the approximately 200 square feet of Floor Area that now rests on the applicant's lot was not developed on the applicant's lot, said floor area should be attributed to Mr. Wiener's lot (and not the applicant's). There is another fundamental problem with the Interpretation as it relates to this particular set of circumstances: it is contrary to the City's codified land use regulations governing lot line adjustments. Code Section 26.480.030(A)(1)(d) provides that lot line adjustments are exempt from the subdivision requirements of the Code if "it is demonstrated that the lot line adjustment will not affect development rights, including any increase in FAR..." When Mr. Wiener received approval from the City for his lot line adjustment, neither of the lots' development rights were affected. As an effect of the Court's decision, another lot line adjustment occurred. The above -cited Code section makes it clear that a lot line adjustment cannot affect development rights, including any increase in FAR. The CDD's Interpretation holding that the portion of Mr. Wiener's home that now rests on the applicant's lot counts against the applicant's allowable FAR affects the development rights of both parcels: it effectively increases Mr. Wiener's development rights and proportionately decreases the applicant's development rights. Therefore, the Interpretation is contrary to the regulations applicable to a lot line adjustment, and a lot line adjustment is exactly the effect of the Court decision. Although it is the applicant's position that, in this particular situation, the wording of the Code supports applying the now encroaching Floor Area to Mr. Wiener's lot, there is an underlying problem with this Code section in general. It seems illogical and patently unfair to a property owner who already has been burdened - -- by his/her neighbor's home encroaching onto his/her property - -- to have that encroaching Floor Area count against what he /she is allowed to build. It would be more logical and appropriate to assess the FAR of the encroaching building to the owner of the building (the encroacher), and not to the property owner whose lot is being encroached upon, through no fault of his/her own. Penalizing the person whose lot is being encroached 3 upon by taking away some of that persott'4allowable Floor Area, in turn, serves to reward the encroacher by allowing more Floor Area on the encroacher's lot. That is, if some portion of an encroacher's home does not count against his/her allowable Floor Area, then the encroacher would, by default, be rewarded for his/her error by now being allowed that much (i.e., amount of encroaching Floor Area) more Floor Area for additional development elsewhere within his/her lot. To allow such a result makes no sense, and has the potential to create unnecessary litigation amongst neighbors, with the possibility of the City being dragged into such litigation. By the same token, what if a house encroaches into City Right -of -Way? Does the owner of that house not have to count the encroaching space against his/her allowable FAR? Under such a scenario, the encroaching homeowner would then get to again build that amount of Floor Area encroaching into the City ROW within his/her lot for a "conforming" house that actually contains more Floor Area than allowed. That does not sound like something the City of Aspen would look favorably upon, and it would actually serve to encourage the "Oops, well it's already there now" approach to construction. While usually the result of an error, encroaching structures are relatively common throughout the City of Aspen, particularly with historic buildings and outbuildings. The applicant can point to at least four other encroaching structures without even giving it much thought, or actually reviewing the City parcel maps. With an interpretation holding that an owner of a non - historic property loses allowable /otherwise available FAR due to the next door neighbor's encroaching structure, the owner of such non - historic property -- - who is neither under designation nor Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) purview - -- would be encouraged to simply demolish the encroaching portion of the structure in order to "get his/her floor area back." After all, it is more often than not the property itself that is historically designated and not necessarily the individual structures, leaving the portion of the structure encroaching onto a non - historic lot at risk. Surely, such partial demolitions are not something the City would want to encourage or see happen. Instead, the owner and user of the Floor Area should have the Floor Area/space they rightfully own count against what they are entitled to build, and not against their neighbor's allowable FAR. The wrongdoer, even when inadvertent, should not be rewarded, nor should an innocent bystander be penalized. In the Interpretation, the CDD suggests that all of the owners (including the other Hill House Condominium owner) resolve the lot boundary and/or encroachment issue in a manner that all can agree to. Although in some situations where a home encroaches onto a neighboring lot the parties involved could consider a lot line adjustment to solve the problem, that is not so in this instance. Mr. Wiener has already received a lot line adjustment from the City which was reversed by the Court's decision on the lawsuit filed by the other owner. In fact, the lot line adjustment that was approved by the City and later undone /re- adjusted by the Court's order actually caused the encroachment. 4 In closing, given that the language of the Code specifically states that "Floor Area shall be attributed to the lot or parcel upon which it is developed," and not upon which it "rests," the applicant's property should not be assessed that portion of Mr. Wiener's home that now rests on his lot. When said floor area was developed it was on Mr. Wiener's lot. Furthermore, the Interpretation runs contrary to the lot line adjustment regulations of the Code by affecting the development rights of both of these lots. The applicant respectfully requests that the City Council reverse the CDD's Interpretation and attribute all of the Floor Area of Mr. Wiener's home to the lot that it was developed on (Mr. Wiener's). Furthermore, Council may wish to go even further and make the finding that the Floor Area from any encroaching structure be attributed to the encroacher, and not against the property that it encroaches upon. To hold differently may open a proverbial "can of worms ", and create more issues and disputes among property owners. However, this finding is not necessary in order to reverse the Interpretation as it applies to this specific instance. If you should have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours truly, Haas Land Planning, LLC M it h aas Own r/Manager cc: John Worcester and Jim True, City Attorneys 5 • Chapter26.306 Isara I anlit NTERPRETATIONS OF TITLE Sections: 26.306.010 Interpretation. 26.306.010 Interpretation. A. Authority. The Community Development Director shall have the authority to make all interpretations of the text of this Title and the boundaries of the zone district map. B. Initiation. An interpretation may be requested by any affected person, any resident or real property owner in the City of Aspen, or any person having a contractual interest in real property in the City of Aspen. The Community Development Director shall have the authority to initiate interpretations of Title 26. C. Procedures. 1. Submission of request for interpretation. Before an interpretation shall be provided by the Community Development Director, a request for interpretation shall be submitted to the Community Development Director. 2. Determination of completeness. Within fifteen (15) days after a request for interpretation has been received, the Community Development Director shall determine whether the request is complete. If the Community Development Director determines the request is not complete, he shall serve a written notice on the applicant specifying the deficiencies. The Community Development Director shall take no further action on the request for interpretation until the deficiencies are remedied. 3. Rendering of interpretation. After the request for interpretation has been determined complete, the Community Development Director shall render an interpretation within fifteen (15) days. The Community Development Director may consult with the City Attorney and review this Title and the zone district map, whichever is applicable, before rendering an interpretation. D. Form. The interpretation shall be in writing and shall be sent to the applicant by certified mail. E. Official record. The Community Development Director shall maintain an official record of all interpretations in the Community Development Department, which shall be available for public inspection during normal business hours. Once an interpretation is rendered, public notice describing the interpretation shall be published in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen. Such notice shall be provided within fifteen (15) days of the interpretation being rendered, and shall be substantially in the following form: "A code interpretation to City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 300, Page 17 Section 26.xx.xx of the City of Aspen Land Use Code , requested by xx, was rendered on xx/xx/xx and is available for public inspection in the Community Development Department." F. Appeal. Any person who has made a request for interpretation may appeal the interpretation ofithe Community Development Director to the City Council in accordance with the appeal procedures set forth at Chapter 26.316. (Ord. No. 12 -2007) City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 300, Page 18 Chapter 26316 APPEALS Sections: 26.316.010 Appeals, purpose statement. 26.316.020 Authority. 26.316.030 Appeal procedures. 26.316.010 Appeals, purpose statement. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish the authority of the Board of Adjustment, Growth Management Commission, the Planning and Zoning Commission, and City Council to hear and decide certain appeals and to set forth the procedures for said appeals. (Ord. No. 17 -2002 § 2 (part), 2002) 26.316.020 Authority. A. Board of Adjustment. The Board of Adjustment shall have the authority to hear and decide the following appeals: 1. The denial of a variance pursuant to Chapter 26.314 by the Planning and Zoning Commission or Historic Preservation Commission. B. City Council The City Council shall have the authority to hear and decide the following appeals: 1. An interpretation to the text of this title or the boundaries of the zone district map by the Community Development Director in accordance with Chapter 26.306. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 2. Any action by the Historic Preservation Commission in approving, approving with conditions, or disapproving a development application for development in an "H, ", Historic Overlay District pursuant to Chapter 26.415. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 3. The scoring determination of the Community Development Director pursuant to Chapter 26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 4. The allocation of Growth Management Allotments by the Planning and Zoning Commission pursuant to Chapter 26.470. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. 5. Any other appeal for which specific authority is not granted to another board or commission as established by this title. An appeal of this nature shall be a public meeting. C. Planning and Zoning Commission. The Planning and Zoning Commission shall have the authority to hear and decide an appeal from an adverse determination by the Community Development Director on an application for exemption pursuant to the growth management quota system in accordance with Section 26.470.060(D). City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007. Part 300, Page 35 D. Administrative Hearing Officer. The Administrative Hearing Officer shall have the authority to hear an appeal from any decision or determination made by an administrative official unless otherwise specifically stated in this title. (Ord. No. 17 -2002 § 2 (part), 2002; Ord. No. 27 -2002 § 23, Ord. No. 12 -2007; 2002) 26.316.030 Appeal procedures. A. Initiation. Any person with a right to appeal an adverse decision or determination shall initiate an appeal by filing a notice of appeal on a form prescribed by the Community Development Director. The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Community Development Director and with the city office or department rendering the decision or determination within fourteen (14) days of the date of the decision or determination being appealed. Failure to file such notice of appeal within the prescribed time shall constitute a waiver of any rights under this title to appeal any decision or determination. B. Effect of filing an appeal The filing of a notice of appeal shall stay any proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from unless the Community Development Director certifies in writing to the chairperson of the decision - making body authorized to hear the appeal that a stay poses an imminent peril to life or property, in which case the appeal shall not stay further proceedings. The chairperson of the decision making body with authority to hear the appeal may review such certification and grant or deny a stay of the proceedings. C. Timing of appeal. The decision - making body authorized to hear the appeal shall consider the appeal within thirty (30) days of the date of filing the notice of appeal or as soon thereafter as is practical under the circumstances. D. Notice requirements. Notice of the appeal shall be provided by mailing to the appellant and by publication to all other affected parties. (See section 26304.060(E)). E. Standard of review. Unless otherwise specifically stated in this title, the decision - making body authorized to hear the appeal shall decide the appeal based solely upon the record established by the body from which the appeal is taken. A decision or determination shall be not be reversed or modified unless there is a finding that there was a denial of due process, or the administrative body has exceeded its jurisdiction or abused its discretion. F. Action by the decision- making body hearing the appeal. The decision - making body hearing the appeal may reverse, affirm, or modify the decision or determination appealed from, and, if the decision is modified, shall be deemed to have all the powers of the officer, board or commission from whom the appeal is taken, including the power to impose reasonable conditions to be complied with by the appellant. The decision - making body may also elect to remand an appeal to the body that originally heard the matter for further proceedings consistent with that body's jurisdiction and directions given, if any, by the body hearing the appeal. The decision shall be approved by written resolution. All appeals shall be public meetings. (Ord. No. 55 -2000, §§ 4, 5; Ord. No. 27 -2002 § 24, Ord. No. 12 -2007, 2002) City of Aspen Land Use Code. August, 2007 Part 300, Page 36 e ash bA41— AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.070 AND CHAPTER 26.306 ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: ! U/R Aspen, CO STATE OF COLORADO ) ) ss. County of Pitkin ) I 4(o S C tN. ICi (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant _ v1 to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) or Section 26.306.010 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fourteen (14) days after final approval of a site specific development plan. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official Paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen no later than fifteen (15) days after an Interpretation has been rendered. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. . A - c C o..—e---41 Signature The foregoin "Affidavit of Notice" was acknowledned before me this Z2 day of _1 �G-, , 20 11, by LA ° r yte_ cr . �� PU NOTIC RE: CI 'Y OF ASPEN LAND USE CODE INTERPR TION WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN Go a interpretation iss on of the 2f f , re Land and Use Carlo was Issued ed -Floor March 9, regarding w a 26be ed b. 0. D D H Are 11 rse. The interpretation was e fhatl s 3 L- V by 2 _"79 ^ 2 \1 C( Mitch Haas of Haas Land Planning nu on behalf of My mmission expire Dennis Young t o ]0] Gibson aspen. oor 81611. The interpretation clarifies that the floor to area of a structure, cture, portion ion or which thereof. is te to the panel t upon whib it t physically ll rests. e interpretation oleuylicinspecti The MO-1(4t thh City of is City Aspen yn Commr pu Sy Development Asp , n CO 116 Hall; 130 So. GalGalena a Street; otary PuPublic Aspenn, CO 81611. contact Chris Bendon at the I _ fir` ".,`NS Ci of Aspen Community �Y PU�ttt City ar Aspen 0) De v9lopment p� .' er O arile n . ( 9]0) 920-5090 or at a f %t1 , a s .e �m 4 ; Zo i ATTACHMENTS: Community B ty Dev i • , Communlry Development Director C OPY OF THE PUBLICATION '-;'tiS:A City of Aspen • Published the Aspen Times Weekly on March f 1n 2q 20111, 162938761 f l f {J if 11 ry ,„> ,- My Commission Expires 0012912014 n AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLIC NOTICE REQUIRED BY SECTION 26.304.060 (E), ASPEN LAND USE CODE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 707 Ci, b5v , Aspen, CO SCHEDULED P BLIC HEARING DATE: f 4fti 35 ( S: 6 011 , 20 ff STATE OF COLORADO ) ss. Countt'y of Pitkin ) pJ� $ (name, please print) being or representing an Applicant to the City of Aspen, Colorado, hereby personally certify that I have complied with the public notice requirements of Section 26.304.060 (E) of the Aspen Land Use Code in the following manner: Publication of notice: By the publication in the legal notice section of an official paper or a paper of general circulation in the City of Aspen at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing. A copy of the publication is attached hereto. Posting of notice: By posting of notice, which form was obtained from the Community Development Department, which was made of suitable, waterproof materials, which was not less than twenty -two (22) inches wide and twenty -six (26) inches high, and which was composed of letters not less than one inch in height. Said notice was posted at least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing and was continuously visible from the day of , 20 , to and including the date and time of the public hearing. A photograph of the posted notice (sign) is attached hereto. Mailing of notice. By the mailing of a notice obtained from the Community Development Department, which contains the information described in Section 26.304.060(E)(2) of the Aspen Land Use Code. At least fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing, notice was hand delivered or mailed by first class postage prepaid U.S. mail to all owners of property within three hundred (300) feet of the property subject to the development application. The names and addresses of property owners shall be those on the cun•ent tax records of Pa_ in County as they appeared no more than sixty (60) days prior to the date of the public hearing. A copy of the owners and governmental agencies so noticed is attached hereto. (Continued on next page) Rezoning or text amendment: Whenever the official zoning district map is in any way to be changed or amended incidental to or as part of a general revision of this Title, or whenever the text of this Title is to be amended, whether such revision be made by repeal of this Title and enactment of a new land use regulation, or otherwise, the requirement of an accurate survey map or other sufficient legal description of, and the notice to and listing of names and addresses of owners of real property in the area of the proposed change shall be waived. However, the proposed zoning map shall be available for public inspection in the planning agency during all business hours for fifteen (15) days prior to the public hearing on such amendments. Signatur`�? Yc . ry The foregoing "Affidavit of Notice" was cknowled,ged before me this 1 day of , 20 , by eF C"Cc - ' —� . I J P F LA WITNESS MY HAND AND OFFICIAL SEAL RE. APPS 1 -FLOOR AREAUSE COLE INTERPRETAnOU - NOTICE IS HER dY GIVEN that an appeal o ffJ w ill b rconsmeretl by the t Aspen tv o oAPe° f an Cay / ��/ (g 21 t1. memeeuny begina atg . My commission expires: o�- oZ Council °n Apnl25, 130 So p.m. In City Hall Council C s / 8 G al ena S hambers, 1 treet{ Aspen, March 0. Thd / i gardstSecti was Isaued on March 9. 2911, The r W , . i `_ and pd by S M h Haas a Naas tl Lan ' � 1 ��' appeal is submitted Planning on behalf of Dennis Young 1oi, Gi at= N o y Public 7-(k PUB . ` Avenue, Aspen, CO rim clarified that the floor area o %• . .. . ..... .` C ` 1 11 f parceltupon wtchh thereof, Is attributed parcel Si �' is ava illly rests. The , to the nterpretation and the appeal ,"� / Aspeo' OO m mu%ty Development DeP n ment City �(' PQT" \P � • ' i i Hall; 130 So. Galena Street; Aspen, CO 61611. • 0 7 I i For further 0f Asp Cie mn O S ven0 or : C , i 3 y a r As en Community _ �, ' City Departmen (9]0) 920 -5 090 or at „ •-- •....: O � � .9 M1 ^�' °s ATTACHMENTS AS APPLICABLE. STgTE OF C. rM h l G 1 I d Mav°r s Dl " "A '"`" THE PUBLICATION Published in the Aspen ]I/n95 wee" ° iceP 1 LAPH OF THE POSTED NOTICE (SIGN) 2011. HE OWNERS AND GOVERNMENT AGENGIES NOTIED ... ......rii1T CERTICICATION OF MINERAL ESTATE OWNERS NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY C.R.S. §24- 65.5 -103.3 l e 411 • l t ® ® (I NV w - 3 3 m Y H o O 1 y" H o trl o trl s n 4 i n K o L] o m O o a °'> a F Y In D Ill Za 4 ,.., rHr - UJ Ul i + I . W W �, w ■• al. r w W I ^ • ��VV a' Slim �" D !..a D 5 m ru �� 3-. I 1 = m w 0 4 ti . . 4 I k e ' "*' Iv... TJ , *. C.:74 3' 0 o UNS D ° o U yo O ST F. 3t. s1 9 .� • fa; 9 �^2A S � rn n 111 a z w � , o ".I A w i O ON I o f 3 °' 3 AY °' �c�dY j j N t A� 9 0 oa0; t 141 m N J ° m ?As O " „ o SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete A. Signature item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. a ' " 0 Agent • Print your name and address on the reverse X J I� U -' 0 Addressee so that we can return the card to you. f3. Received by(! Printeq Name) C., • • = oelivery • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, V -�- or on the front if space permits. D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes 1. Article Addressed to: If YES, enter delivery address below: 0 NO 1 D - em % 1 ""_ r c]o Ki ktr\ 1 1 5 61ctc.s tcutAct r-pL91,(NA 1 c Viva), - I Os �Certified Mail 0 Express Mao _ . 0 0 Regi stered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise A JW _ _ \ CO $ 1 0 Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. I 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. Article Number 9 7108 2133 3934 3805 8273 (Transfer from service IaM9 _ ---- - - -_ -- PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595-024.4-1540 SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. Also complete item 4 if Restricted Delivery is desired. L' - El Addressee • Agent your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. b C. Dab .f Delivery • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, 111:;;" or on the front if space permits. � A 9 D. delivery address . • 1? 0 Yes • 1. Article Addressed to: If YES, enter delive address bel -w: 0 No X 1 01, • CAlos A> /J I tb L I 3. service Type Mail 0 Express Mall 0 Registered 0 Return Receipt for Merchandise 0 Insured Mail 0 C.O.D. 4. Restricted Delivery! (Extra Fee) 0 Yes 2. (Transfer from 91 7108 2133 3934 3805 8280 (Transfer /rum service label) PS Form 3811, February 2004 Domestic Return Receipt 102595o2- M-1540 •