HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20121204
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
December 04, 2012
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Quarterly Board of Health Report
II. Pesticide Regulation
III. Greenhouse Gas Inventory
IV. Smuggler/Hunter Master Plan (Plan submitted to your box)
Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: Aspen Board of Health
FROM: CJ Oliver, Public Health Agency Director
DATE OF MEMO: November 29, 2012
MEETING DATE: December 4, 2012
RE: Fourth Quarterly Board of Health Meeting 2012
Local Public and Environmental Health Improvement Plan
The five year, radon based public health improvement plan is attached in draft form for Board of
Health review. The plan will be presented and discussed at a meeting of regional public health
agencies from Eagle, Garfield, and Pitkin Counties as well as the City of Aspen. Each of the
public health agencies in the valley plan to have radon as a component of their public health
improvement plans although Aspen’s is the most developed and will serve as a guide/template
for the other agencies. Pitkin County plans to adopt the City of Aspen’s plan in its entirety.
The plan is designed to serve as a 5 year guidance document for the jurisdiction to follow and is
intended to make a significant, measurable improvement to public environmental health. The
document is meant to be a living document which can and should be changed if designed efforts
prove ineffective at addressing their intended target. Likewise, successes will be shared and
replicated between agencies to maximize effectiveness of shared programs. The City of Aspen is
in the fortunate position of having multiple neighboring agencies all working on radon as part of
this process.
Medical Officer’s Update
Dr. Morris Cohen will provide an update on local, state, and national conditions pertaining to
infectious disease and updates on other relevant health and medical topics.
Attachments
1. Radon Public Health Improvement Plan Document
P1
I.
P2
I.
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jannette Whitcomb, Environmental Health Program Coordinator
CJ Oliver, Environmental Health Director
DATE OF MEMO: November 27, 2012
MEETING DATE: December 4, 2012
RE: Council update on Pesticide Program
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff would like to update City Council about the change in direction
from a pesticide notification ordinance to a pesticide program for the City of Aspen. Staff believes that
the community will benefit more from a pesticide program than an ordinance. The proposed program is
designed to build community awareness on pesticides and their alternatives as well as raise the bar for
commercial application of pesticides through a partnership with the Colorado Department of
Agriculture.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: A group of citizens presented Council with a proposed pesticide
ordinance that they asked Council to adopt. At the November 29, 2011 work session Council directed
staff to return with an ordinance that included pre-notification, making sure it was effective but not too
cumbersome. Council also directed staff to include ordinance language that encouraged all property
owners and managers to use integrated pest management techniques to minimize pesticide use.
Council did not want to challenge the state pre-emption law regulating pesticide applications. They
wanted a stick and carrot approach, and to be a leader as a community.
BACKGROUND:
The American Medical Association recommends reducing exposure to pesticides. Studies have shown
pesticide exposure to increase the risk of Parkinson’s disease, birth defects, other neurological
diseases, and some cancers. Colorado state law (Title 35 Article 10) currently limits local
governments’ abilities to regulate pesticides through a state uniformity provision in the law. Local
governments cannot directly regulate commercial pesticide applicators; they can regulate actions of
homeowners with reference to pesticide use. Regulating, licensing, and enforcement of the Pesticide
Applicators Act are done by the Department of Agriculture. The state law does have a pre-notification
provision through the Pesticide Sensitivity Registry.
DISCUSSION:
Since the November 2011 work session, the Environmental Health Department has interviewed many
interested parties (citizen champion, licensed pesticide applicator, Department of Agriculture official,
City of Boulder official, and Parks Department’s licensed pesticide applicator) about a pesticide pre-
notification ordinance for Aspen. The goals of the interviews were to learn if and how a pesticide pre-
notification ordinance would protect the community from pesticide exposure and build awareness on
the less toxic alternatives in lawn and tree care.
P3
II.
Page 2 of 3
Through these interviews, staff determined that a local pesticide pre-notification ordinance regulating
the home owner would not be the most effective approach in protecting the community. Staff found
the following challenges if Aspen were to adopt a pesticide pre-notification ordinance.
• Local governments cannot directly or indirectly regulate commercial pesticide applicators; they
can regulate actions of homeowners with reference to pesticide use.
• A large proportion of homeowners hiring pesticide applicators are seasonal residents of Aspen
and may not be in town when applications are done.
• A significant portion of Aspen residents are unaware of the need for pre-notification to protect
themselves against pesticides.
• A failure to pre-notify a neighbor of a pesticide application is difficult to prove and would
require record keeping by a homeowner.
• A proper pesticide application requires weather conditions that are hard to determine in enough
advanced notice for a homeowner to pre-notify their neighbors; this is also encumbered by the
limited communication between the contracted applicator and the homeowner.
Without community awareness or the ability to locally regulate the pesticide applicators, staff believes
an ordinance would provide a false sense of protection. However, from the information gathered
during the interviews staff determined there were multiple resources available to elevate community
awareness and protect against pesticide exposures. Instead of the City imposing an ordinance on the
homeowner, staff proposes a program that promotes the use existing resources. Staff developed an
alternative multi-pronged approach to meet the goals of protection and awareness around the use of
pesticides. This program has the support of the interested parties staff has worked with over the past
year.
MULTI-PRONGED APPROACH
Residential Education: Run a monthly topic for March/April about pesticides and what people can do
to protect themselves against pesticide exposure. Direct interested people to the new EH Departments
pesticide webpage which will encourage them to hire only licensed pesticide applicators. The Dept. of
Ag will also run ads about pesticides and proper pesticide applications.
Pesticide Applicator Education: Staff will educate Aspen business license holders of the state law
requiring a state license to apply pesticides; this will include all types of lawn/plant/tree care
professionals, property managers, and caretakers. Information will be added to the new EH pesticide
webpage on how to obtain the proper licensing.
Sensitive Population List: Staff will promote the option of the pesticide sensitive registry for those
that want pre-notification. Staff will determine the steps necessary for people to get on this list and add
tips to the new EH pesticide webpage.
Liaison to Dept. of Agriculture (Education, Enforcement by State): Staff will build a relationship
with the Department of Agriculture such that the city is a liaison for residents and pesticide applicators
with the State. Staff will work with Dept. of Agriculture staff to ensure that our community gets the
fullest protection from the state laws on pesticide application.
(Future) Voluntary Standard for Applicators: A future option is to create a program such that
applicators voluntarily agree to pre-notification. This could include maintaining a list of licensed
P4
II.
Page 3 of 3
applicators and list what level of pesticide sensitive practices they follow. A minimum threshold to be
on the list would be voluntary pre-notification.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The proposed pesticide program was designed to exist within
the confines of the current budget for the Environmental Health Department. With limited staff
resources to add additional programs, staff believes time spent on this multi-pronged approach will be
effective and efficient in improving the protection against pesticides. By opening communications with
the Department of Agriculture, staff can lean on state resources for outreach and enforcement. Staff is
successful in other environmental programs where staff plays the role of liaison and the State provides
the enforcement.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Raising community awareness around the issues of pesticide use
can reduce the risk of pesticide exposure as well as the use of cancer causing agents. The same is true
on educating lawn and tree care professionals on the regulations governing the use of pesticides as well
as increased enforcement by state officials.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends implementing the multi-pronged approach outlined
in this memo. Staff can provide progress reports at the quarterly Board of Health meetings.
ALTERNATIVES: Council could direct staff to not implement an active pesticide program and
continue with its current level of service of answering inquiries as they arise. Council could also direct
staff to return with a pesticide pre-notification ordinance that puts the onus on the homeowner to notify
neighbors before their lawns and trees are being sprayed with pesticides.
PROPOSED MOTION: No motion is necessary. Staff is seeking Council approval to change course
and implement a multi-pronged pesticide program instead of adopting a pesticide pre-notification
ordinance.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P5
II.
Page 1 of 3
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
CC: Steve Barwick, Randy Ready
FROM: Elyse Hottel, Environmental Initiatives Project Coordinator
THRU: Lauren McDonell, Canary Initiative Director
Dave Hornbacher, Director of Utilities and Environmental Initiatives
DATE OF MEMO: 11/28/12
MEETING DATE: 12/4/12
RE: 2011 City of Aspen Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory
REQUEST OF COUNCIL:
The purpose of this memo is to present the results of the 2011 Community-wide Greenhouse Gas
Inventory and the 2011-2012 City of Aspen Internal Greenhouse Gas Inventory. Staff requests Council’s
support to compile a list of high-priority policy and program options with significant potential impact on
reducing emissions for a follow-up discussion at a subsequent work session. Please refer to Attachment
A – Executive Summary in the Council packet for more information. The complete 2011 Community-
wide Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report will be available on December 4th at
http://aspenpitkin.com/GHGinventories.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION:
Council has received yearly updates on City internal reductions in tandem with full community-wide
updates every three to four years.
BACKGROUND:
In 2005, Council adopted Resolution 18, officially creating the Canary Initiative to guide Aspen’s climate
change awareness and emissions reduction efforts. In 2007, Council adopted the Canary Action Plan
which outlined a course of action to reduce Aspen’s emissions as an organization and a community. The
Plan included aggressive goals to reduce community emissions 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050 below a
2004 baseline. One of the Canary Initiative’s main roles has been to track community-wide emissions
every three to four years, starting with a retroactive 2004 baseline inventory published in early 2006. To
this end, an inventory was performed for 2007 and 2011. In an effort to support the Canary Action Plan
reduction goals, the City of Aspen as an organization committed to the same reduction goals as the
community, and the Canary Initiative measures the City’s progress on a yearly basis.
The community-wide inventory calculates emissions by converting energy use from buildings,
transportation and other sources into carbon dioxide equivalent. Generally speaking, the inventory’s
P6
III.
Page 2 of 3
geographical boundary is the City of Aspen urban growth boundary (see Attachment B). There are two
exceptions to this, commuter traffic on Highway 82 and air travel at the Pitkin County Airport.
A change in the 2011 Community-wide Inventory is the inclusion of the Pitkin County Airport’s
greenhouse gas inventory results, rather than an independent City analysis of airport emissions. Also,
with the Local Governments for Sustainability (ICLEI) introduction of a standard for community
inventories this fall, the U.S. Community Protocol, some modifications to methodology and report
organization have been made for consistency with other communities’ inventories. Staff informed
Council of these proposed changes over the summer.
DISCUSSION:
The results of the community-wide and internal inventories are provided in the executive summary
(Attachment A). The following is intended to relay high-level inventory findings.
Community-wide: Emissions from 2007 to 2011 increased 1% to 541,644 from 537,589 tons CO2e.
However, as emissions between 2004 and 2007 went down 2%, the community is at a net reduction
of 1% from the 2004 baseline of 547,257. In order to be on track for the 2020 reduction goal,
emissions would need to be 11% lower. While the actual reduction is not on track to meet our 2020
target, there is still merit in the reduction as numbers alone do not tell the story. It is worth noting
that emissions have held steady, despite an increase in population of about 17% since the 2004
baseline. An overall decrease in emissions of 1% with a 17% increase in population growth is
commendable but also represents one of the biggest challenges of the stringent goal set forth for
the community. Reductions in emissions coupled with population growth means the program must
be even more vigilant and work harder to achieve its goals. On the positive side, emissions per
MWH of power provided by Aspen Electric continue to decrease. Conversely, the continued growth
of stationary combustion (natural gas and propane) and ground transportation emissions since 2007
remain as challenges.
Internal operations: The City of Aspen reduced its building and operations emissions to 6,438 tons
CO2 this year, a 22% decrease from last year with a cumulative reduction to date of 33% from the
2004 internal baseline of 9,619. Gains were made in the building sector but, like the community
inventory, there remains room for improvement in the area of transportation.
Although the City of Aspen buildings and operations are a subset of the community-wide inventory,
gains made in the former are not sufficient to significantly impact the latter. Good work is being done by
many organizations, non-profits and individuals in the valley, and effective voluntary programs and
policies exist but more needs to be done. In order for the community to reach its goals, swift and
strategic measures are needed.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS:
The results of these analyses have no direct financial impacts; however the potential financial impacts of
unabated climate change to the community are significant. Aspen’s tourism economy, as well as the
quality of life for its residents depend on its climate and natural resources. Global emissions will affect
Aspen’s climate regardless of its local efforts but these efforts represent an important opportunity for
Aspen to do its part and influence other communities around the globe.
P7
III.
Page 3 of 3
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Tracking and analyzing Aspen’s community-wide greenhouse gas emissions informs Council, staff and
the community of what progress has been made to date and whether the community is on track to meet
stated greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals. At its current trajectory, the community will not meet
the goal to reduce emissions 30 percent over the 2004 baseline by 2020.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff views the community-wide inventory results as a warning that larger-scale efforts are needed in
order to meet the community-wide goals. Staff requests Council’s support to compile a list of high-
priority policy and program options with significant potential impact on reducing emissions for a follow-
up discussion at a subsequent work session.
ALTERNATIVES:
N/A
PROPOSED MOTION:
N/A
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
A – Executive Summary of 2011 Community-wide Greenhouse Gas Inventory
B – GHG Emissions Urban Growth Boundary Map
P8
III.
ATTACHMENT A – EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF THE 2011 CITY OF ASPEN COMMUNITY-WIDE
GREENHOUSE GAS INVENTORY
Introduction
In 2005, the City of Aspen created the Canary Initiative, which identifies Aspen and other mountain
communities as “canaries in the coal mine” as applied to recognizing the initial effects of climate change.
The Canary Initiative works to reduce and adapt to the threat of climate change through research,
programs and policy. Aspen relies on a stable climate and thriving natural resources for its economic
viability and exceptional quality of life.
The Canary Action Plan, a component of the Canary Initiative that was formally adopted by Council in
2007, commits the community to a 30% reduction of greenhouse gas emissions (GHG) below 2004 levels
by 2020 and 80% below 2004 levels by 2050. In addition, the Canary Action Plan suggests actions the City
of Aspen and the community at large can take to reach these reduction goals. A 2004 greenhouse gas
inventory was conducted to provide a baseline for these goals and a 2007 inventory update measured
progress to date. As inventories are performed every three to four years, the inventory referenced in this
memo reflects the 2011 update. Since the 2004 baseline inventory, Aspen’s population has grown from
about 5,820 to 6,640 full-time residents and its population can more than double seasonally with the
influx of visitors and part-time residents.
Scope of Inventory
The geographic scope of the community-wide inventory corresponds roughly to Aspen’s urban growth
boundary (see Attachment B). There are two exceptions which include commuter traffic on the Highway
82 corridor and air travel to the first stop or last leg of any itinerary (e.g. Aspen to Denver or Denver to
Aspen where the origin is Chicago). These sources are included in the inventory as they play essential
roles in Aspen’s economy. Below is a breakdown of emission types included in both the community-wide
inventory and the internal inventory that is performed for City of Aspen facilities and operations. The latter
inventory is conducted every year to ensure that the City is leading the charge to fulfill community goals.
Emission Type Community-wide City of Aspen Internal
Buildings Aspen Electric
Holy Cross Energy
SourceGas
Propane
Aspen Electric
Holy Cross Energy
SourceGas
Transportation Tourist vehicles
Local vehicles
Commuter vehicles
RFTA buses
School buses
Airport ground support
Off-road vehicles
Ski Co Equipment
Fleet vehicles (gasoline,
diesel)
Department travel (gasoline,
diesel, jet fuel)
Other Sources Fertilizer
Landfill methane
Coal mine fugitive methane
P9
III.
Results
Based on this analysis, the total amount of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) attributable to the
community of Aspen in 2011 is 541,644 tons, up 1% from the 2007 Inventory total (537,589 tons). Overall,
community emissions are down 1% from the 2004 baseline total (547,257 tons), representing a reduction
of 5,613 tons CO2e. In order to be on track for the 2020 reduction goal, emissions would need to be 11%
lower by 2011 as shown below.
Reductions in stationary combustion (natural gas and propane, primarily for heating), which contributes
19% of Aspen’s overall emissions, and mobile combustion ground, which account for 40% of emissions,
continue to elude reduction efforts. Small reductions in building electricity and airport operations have
been achieved.
P10
III.
Changes in Methodology
In 2004, there were no accepted standards for community inventories. Aspen’s was cutting-edge,
including efforts to calculate some emission types not captured by other communities. The quality of data
available and methodologies for GHG accounting have evolved over time. With each new iteration,
Aspen’s community-wide inventory transforms to increase accuracy and adhere to industry protocols.
Since 2004, the field of carbon accounting has expanded considerably and standards, such as the ICLEI
U.S. Community Protocol, have emerged. Aspen has chosen to adopt this protocol for the 2011 Inventory
and forward.
In addition to adopting the Protocol, two major changes have been made in approaches to the 2011
Inventory. First, data from the Pitkin County Airport’s Greenhouse Gas Inventory for 2011 was introduced
and incorporated for 2007 and 2004 to maintain consistency. This improved the efficiency of the
community-wide inventory process by reducing redundancy. The Pitkin County Airport follows the Airport
Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) guidance document for calculating its airport emissions
calculations. This recommends including airport facilities, operations and emissions from all flights from
approach and landing/taxi, through takeoff and climbout. These emissions are included in the
community-wide totals and have had little impact on overall results.
The second change in methodology was the separation of air travel emissions from the community-wide
totals, in keeping with the ICLEI U.S. Community Protocol. Air travel represents emissions from flights to
the first stop or last leg of any itinerary. However, the City recognizes that Aspen’s economy and identity
are intertwined with its tourism industry and in past inventories air travel emissions were imbedded in the
totals. Since airports are federally regulated, there is very little Aspen can do to influence air traffic
emissions. As such, the City will continue to track and report on estimates for these air travel emissions,
but they have been removed from total emissions. This will make it simpler to visualize progress in more
actionable sectors. This change has significantly reduced the emission totals overall, as well as our
progress to date. Since much of the progress seen from 2004 to 2007 resulted from the two-month
closure of the airport, this change in methods results in a smaller reduction for this timespan.
Changes in Air Travel Emissions
Emission
Type
2004
(tons CO2e)
2007
(tons CO2e)
2011
(tons CO2e)
%
Change
2004-
2007
%
Change
2007-
2011
% Change Over
Baseline
2004-2011
Air Travel 84,372,324 85,977,270 99,812,936 2% 16% 18%
City of Aspen Internal Inventory
The City of Aspen tracks internal emissions on an annual basis. The amount of greenhouse gas emissions
attributed to the City of Aspen through the 2012 internal inventory is 6,438 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2),
down 21.6 % from the 2011 inventory total (8,213 tons). Overall, the City is down33 % from the 2004
baseline total (9,619 tons) for an emissions decrease of 3,180 tons CO2 (see graph, page 4). Thus, the City
of Aspen organization has realized the 2020 goal of a 30% reduction over the 2004 baseline nearly 8 years
early.
These 2012 emission reductions can be credited to a number of different factors this year. As mentioned
above, the small gains made in carbon-free energy by both electricity utilities contributed to the decrease.
P11
III.
The Aspen Recreation Center and several of the Parks Department administrative buildings were switched
from Holy Cross Energy to Aspen Electric. With Aspen Electric’s renewable portfolio at 75%, this change
created a significant carbon reduction. Another contributing factor was the shift from City-paid utilities to
tenant-paid utilities at Truscott to encourage energy efficient behavior among residents. Additionally, the
last of the McKinstry Performance Contract energy efficiency projects were completed and departments
themselves contributed through innovative energy reduction strategies, from online paperless forms and
server virtualization to anti-idling stickers for vehicles as part of department Climate Action Plans.
Conclusion
While maintaining GHG emissions at 2004 levels in a growing community is significant and the City of
Aspen organizational reductions are impressive, they are not enough. For years, Aspen has been a leader
in renewable energy and environmental initiatives. Thus far, the main driver in emission reductions has
been the increase in Aspen Electric’s renewable portfolio. Swift and strategic large-scale measures are now
needed in addition to Aspen Electric reaching its 100% renewable goal. There has never been a more
important time to push the envelope with investments in far-reaching and innovative programs and
policies to reduce community emissions.
The full 2011 inventory will be released on December 4th at http://aspenpitkin.com/GHGinventories.
P12
III.
ATTACHMENT B – GHG EMISSIONS URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY
P13
III.
Parks and Recreation
Department
Memorandum
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Stephen Ellsperman, Parks and Open Space Director
Date: 11/29/12
CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager - Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager
Re: Hunter Creek – Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background:
The Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan (Hunter-Smuggler Plan) is a
culmination of efforts across many agencies, organizations, stakeholders, and the
Aspen community. This plan, which is unique in scale, scope, and community
involvement, relies on cooperation and partnerships to define the long-term vision
for the area consisting of 4,681 acres adjacent to the Smuggler Mountain Open
Space. These areas, administered by the United States Forest Service, are the
scenic backdrop and “backyard” for the community of Aspen. The Hunter
Smuggler Plan has the potential to improve hundreds of acres of forest and wildlife
habitat, enhance the overall experience and sustainability of trails systems, and
lead to a wealth of reciprocal benefits including economic development, education,
and infrastructure.
At the December 4th, 2012 scheduled City Council work-session, members of the
planning team and the Open Space and Trails Board (OST) will present the
Hunter-Smuggler Plan to City Council, including the process and key tenants of
the plan. The planning team, members of the OST, and staff are excited to
present the plan to City Council for consideration of conceptual approval.
Attachment A: Hunter Creek-Smuggler Mountain Cooperative Plan (Placed in
Council Members Inbox/City Hall)
P14
IV.
November 29, 2012
2
Discussion:
Smuggler Mountain and the Hunter Creek Valley contain some of the most heavily
used trails in Aspen, as well as important wildlife habitat and stunning scenic
beauty. However, the area has lacked cohesive management and vision, and thus,
is now seeing degradation of trails, wildlife, and forest health. With multiple
jurisdictions overseeing this land, seamless management is critical for the public’s
enjoyment and protection of the natural resources for the future. This area also
includes Aspen’s wildland/urban interface, which relies on interagency
cooperation for planning and how the community can coexist with the potential
hazards of interface zones, including wildfire. The City of Aspen and Pitkin
County have established an excellent management plan for the locally owned
Smuggler Mountain Open Space, and management activities that have come from
that plan have been well received and continue to be implemented. The Smuggler-
Hunter Plan is similar in depth, yet reaches out to all lands in the Hunter-
Smuggler Area, making cohesive management possible. This cohesive
management serves and protects both the resource, as well as the people using
this vital resource.
Planning Process:
The planning process for the Hunter-Smuggler Plan has been carried out over 18
months, between June 2011 and November 2012. The planning team consisted of
staff from the USFS, City of Aspen, Pitkin County, and Aspen Center for
Environmental Studies (ACES). The process was initiated by this planning team,
with the non-profit organization For the Forest (now part of ACES), taking the lead
in organizing and funding major portions of the plan. Beyond the planning team,
a wide range of focus group participants and stakeholder groups were highly
engaged in plan development. These included a wide range of groups which are
documented on page three (3) of the attached plan set.
P15
IV.
November 29, 2012
3
The plan creation included multiple phases to the overall process. The first phase
included visioning, and involved extensive effort to answer the questions of why
here, why now? This included extensive outreach to stakeholders and the general
public in many forums. To further engage the public, a project website was
created to provide interested individuals a portal to learn about the process
(www.hunter-smugglerplan.com). The next step of the plan included the
Opportunities Phase, which is what led to the completion of the plan. During this
phase, important documentation of all the resources was completed, including
extensive documentation of all natural resources within the planning area. This
process included specific specialist’s reports that provided specific baseline
condition identification, including a vegetation management plan, wildlife baseline
report, cultural resources report, recreation baseline report, and others. A
synopsis of these baseline conditions can be found with the attached plan
(Attachment A).
Plan Vision:
The planning effort moved into a vision to convey the over-arching values and
intentions that the Aspen community has for the Hunter-Smuggler Mountain
planning area. Vision statements and guiding principles for each vision were far-
reaching, multi-disciplinary, and comprehensive. The vision forms a foundation
from which to base the identification of opportunities and ultimately, planning
decisions for the area. The specific planning topics identified that were combined
with guiding principles for each include the following:
- Recreation - Education
- Wildlife - Forest Health
- Fire Management - Infrastructure
- Economic Development
The guiding principles for each of these core areas were specific and included the
basis for recommendations within the plan.
P16
IV.
November 29, 2012
4
Recommendations:
In order to make recommendations more specific, the planning area was broken
up into twelve (12) specific zones. The zone approach was the most appropriate
for this planning area because of the sheer scale and size. Out of the vision and
guiding principle process, specific recommendations were made for each of these
key zones within the planning area. The recommendations are specific to each
zone and will be reviewed specifically with City Council at the December 4th work-
session. Key indicators of recommendations include the following:
o Up to 836 acres of potential forest health restoration and
improvements.
o Trail system improvements will lead to approximately 1.7 fewer miles
of trail, but, a much better system with key improvements to
connections, multiple experiences, and net gain in wildlife habitat
values.
o 3,845 acres free from mechanical treatments to protect high value
resources and encourage natural processes to complement vegetation
treatments.
Next Steps:
The cooperative plan is the precursor to an environmental review under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), which is required for all projects
proposed on Federal land. Some or all of the projects recommended in this
document will be evaluated under that law prior to implementation. During the
future NEPA process, the public will continue to be involved and will be
encouraged to provide further feedback.
The Hunter-Smuggler Plan is founded upon partnerships. Implementing projects
in this plan will require a sharing of costs, time, and commitments across many
agencies and organizations. This plan will be presented to the Aspen City Council,
Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners, Pitkin County Open Space and
Trails for their review and conceptual approval of the plan. The City of Aspen
Open Space and Trails Board and Aspen Center for Environmental Studies have
reviewed the plan and highly recommend conceptual approval of the document.
The planning team, including the combination of private and public agencies, will
make decisions on partnership, including financial partnerships, in the future to
accomplish objectives set forth in the plan.
P17
IV.
November 29, 2012
5
P18
IV.
MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Phil Overeynder, Utility Engineer, Special Projects
Through: David Hornbacher, Utilities and Environmental Initiatives Director
Date of Memo: November 30,2012
Date of Meeting: December 3,2012
Re: Responses to Questions Regarding Ruedi Water Acquisition
The following are responses to questions raised by Council members during the November 26 City
Council Meeting. It is intended to supplement the information presented in the November 14,2012
Council memo. Also included is an update regarding the contractual arrangements necessary if council
elects to move forward with the purchase.
Section 1. Answers to questions raised by City Council
1. Question.What are the possibilities for selling Ruedi water if, as a result of further study,the City
determines that none of the longer term water development projects will be necessary in response to
future changes in climate and the occurrence of earlier runoff? In other words, if it turns out that a water
supply hedge against future changes in climate is unnecessary,is it possible to resell any interest obtained
through the proposed agreement?
Answer.The Colorado River Water Conservation District(River District)is working with the USBR to
develop a brokerage arrangement to address these types of situations which may occur in the future.The
USBR would permit the assignment of the rights to the River District. The River District would then act
as a broker to locate and arrange for a transfer of either a part or the entire amount of water purchased by
the City to another buyer.A caveat is that it may be necessary to prepare an additional Environmental
Assessment if the type of use and timing of the water releases differ from the uses anticipated and studied
with the initial purchase. (document anticipated to be prepared by USBR. ) Federal law does not allow
any seller to profit from the sale,but it would allow for recovery of the funds invested in the Ruedi
project.There are no guarantees that there will be willing buyers in the future. However, since this is the
last large quantity of unobligated water to be marketed from a west slope reservoir,it is anticipated that
future demand for water will continue at or above present levels.As noted under the discussion of
alternatives,alternative purchases come with a higher price tag when considering long term costs of the
proposed water purchase.
2. Question. When not required for the purposes described in the staff report, is it possible to utilize the
water for other purposes such as in stream flow enhancement?
Answer. Generally it is possible to do so through an agreement with the Colorado Water Conservation
Board(CWCB).However,if the City intends to do so, it would be wise to signal this to the USBR prior
to preparation of the Environmental Assessment, in order for this type of use to be considered in the
assessment. This would be the basis upon which USBR could find that the proposed uses are consistent
with the environmental documents and it could therefore allow the release from Ruedi for this purpose.
Potentially these releases could be timed to also benefit energy production from the Ruedi hydroelectric
plant and the City could recover a small portion of its investment in this water supply through increased
energy production.Alternatively, if the City does not request releases for the purpose of"augmenting"
new uses or for enhancement of fisheries,water could be left in Ruedi Reservoir to improve water
recreation values.
3. Question. Is water conservation an alternative to purchasing additional Ruedi water?
Answer.The primary goal of the Ruedi water purchase is augmentation. Augmentation allows a water
user to divert and use water under a junior water right even if a downstream senior right has placed a call.
The augmentation water is used to offset the water lost to the stream from the junior right, so the
downstream senior right gets its full entitlement. The big irrigation and power rights near Grand
Junction(the"Cameo'rights)are very senior, and place calls that require curtailment of upstream junior
water rights,even on the Roaring Fork, Castle, Hunter and Maroon Creeks. However, a junior water
right could continue to take water if an offsetting amount is released from Ruedi, because the Cameo
rights will get their full entitlement.
To the extent water conservation results in less water being diverted from the stream in the first place,
more water is available to other water rights. Those water rights may or may not need more water,
depending on the stream flows. If the other water rights are fulfilled, water not diverted as a result of
conservation measures remains in the stream.
The City has an aggressive water conservation program and has achieved significant results. This
includes a reduction in water consumption(on the basis of the number of gallons used per fixtures
connected)by over two thirds over the last 19 years. Nineteen years ago,potable water usage was at a
maximum. However, in calculating the"water savings"that result from reducing water usage,the
Colorado Division of Water Resources looks only at"consumptive use." "Consumptive use"is the
amount of water that is"used up"after it is diverted from a stream, and does not return to the stream
system.
A relatively small amount of water delivered for indoor uses is consumed(10-15%); most of it returns to
the stream system from the wastewater treatment plant. Efficiencies in delivery and use of treated water-
such as repair of leaky pipelines,and installation of water-conserving household fixtures, can reduce the
amount of water that is taken from the streams somewhat. Aspen has significantly increased its
efficiencies in these areas. The result is that it has reduced its diversions from Maroon and Castle Creek
for treated water uses. Most of the water that is diverted returns to the Roaring Fork River at the
wastewater plant.
More water is consumed by irrigation uses,as most irrigation water is taken up by the crops,parks or
other lands that are irrigated. Therefore,most of the water diverted from the streams for irrigation does
not return to the stream system. Colorado water law allows water that is consumed by crops or
landscaping("consumptive use water")to be used for other purposes if irrigation is stopped. For
example, if irrigation ceases on an agricultural parcel of land,the water that was historically used by the
crops could be used for other purposes, including municipal uses or instream flow enhancement by the
Colorado Water Conservation Board. In order to receive consumptive use credits and use them for other
purposes,including augmentation or instream flow protection, it is usually necessary to"dry up"land and
to go through a legal process that recognizes that land is no longer irrigated,and determines how much
"consumptive use"water is available. While Aspen has improved water use efficiency(for instance
through improved irrigation practices on the golf course and elimination of leaky pipes)it has expanded
the area that is irrigated through its parks and open space program and through projects such as the
"parkway"along Highway 82. Aspen therefore has no significant"consumptive use credits"that could
be used for augmentation as a result of its current conservation programs and is unlikely to develop a
significant balance through future water conservation efforts. Therefore,water conservation is not an
alternative means of augmenting water supply in this circumstance.
4. Question. What are the priorities for the City's use of water and how does this relate to the proposed
Ruedi water acquisition?
Answer. Although the City must provide a legal,reliable treated water supply to its customers,all
alternatives for use of the City's water rights first consider maintenance of in-stream flow requirements
for protection of aquatic habitat. For example, if the instream flow is not met on Maroon Creek,Aspen
diverts water for its treated water supply from Castle Creek. Only in emergency conditions,such as an
extreme drought which brings water shortages to all of Aspen's water supply sources,does the City
consider provision of potable water supply as a priority over instream flow maintenance. After
maintenance of in-stream flows,the priority of water uses in order are: 1)potable supplies 2)raw water
uses for irrigation,wetlands,aesthetic purposes(on golf course and open space lands)and snowmaking.
("Raw water"includes the Thomas Raw Water system and the system of ditches located throughout the
City);3)reclaimed water; and last,4)hydroelectric power generation.Note that snowmaking on Aspen
Mountain is from the potable supply while snowmaking on Highlands is from raw water.
An emerging water use is the need to provide for the augmentation requirements for stormwater treatment
ponds. To protect water quality in Aspen's streams,the City captures stormwater in treatment ponds,
which detain the stormwater to allow sediment to settle out before the water is released to the stream.
Water evaporates from these ponds. At times,augmentation supplies must be provided to offset
evaporative losses of water that would otherwise have returned directly to the streams,to be diverted by
senior water rights. Existing policy advice from Council currently doesn't cover stormwater treatment
uses since stormwater treatment was only recently recognized as a byproduct of the need to treat high
concentrations of sediment laden water before discharge to the streams to improve aquatic habitat and
aesthetic values.
5. Question. Can staff provide a more thorough basis of estimated needs for Ruedi water? Can this
estimate include water potentially needed for short term needs as well as for long term water development
needs?Council understands that the longer term projects may only become necessary in the event of the
climate change scenario described during the City Council meeting.
Answer. There are two parts(short and long term water needs)to this question,which taken together,
support the recommended action of acquiring 400 acre feet of water from Ruedi.
a) Short Term augmentation needs. Immediate short term water needs from Ruedi are estimated at
40 acre feet. A 2012 memo from Grand River Consulting indicates that during the short term(the
period covered by the Asset Management Plan),municipal water use could increase by 20%. The
memo from Grand River Consulting estimates the following potential augmentation needs based
on this increased usage: ponds and recreational facilities are estimated to need 0-25 acre feet;the
reclaimed water system is estimated at 30 acre feet for minimal irrigation and up to 200 acre feet
for maximum irrigation.Because the maximum irrigation scenario would be primarily associated
with long term water needs,staff assigned the low end of the estimate to short term projects.Thus
the estimated short term needs range from 30-55 acre feet annually. Staff's recommendation is to
use a value near the midpoint of that range,or 40 acre feet annually. Note that the estimated
evaporation from ponds includes the following:Aspen golf course ponds, Marolt wetlands,
Maroon Creek wetlands,Jenny Adair ponds(stormwater treatment),Rio Grande ponds(also
stormwater treatment),Glory Hole Pond, Snyder ponds,and Burlingame ponds.
b) Long term needs. The 2012 memo from Grand River Consulting estimates longer term needs for
the following: groundwater wells at 50 acre feet per year; and reclaimed water system(long term
component)0-170 acre feet per year. Although not estimated in Grand River Consulting's 2012
memo,staff estimated a Salvation Ditch pumpback alternative would require augmentation of
approximately 180 acre feet annually. This was based on a 90 day period of use at an average 4
cfs diversion rate(the potable supply component for this alternative)and a consumptive use
factor of 25%(i.e. while 4 cfs is diverted, 3 cfs of this diversion finds its way back to the stream
system through wastewater discharge or groundwater flow).The total expected needs for water
supply augmentation for longterm projects therefore range from 230-400 acre feet annually. Staff
utilized a value of 360 acre feet per year, near the upper end of this range. Staff believes that the
Salvation Ditch alternative is the most probable means to improve water supply in the event that
climate change shifts peak runoff to occur earlier in the year,but other alternatives cannot be
ruled out until detailed feasibility studies are completed and required agreements are executed.
Staff chose the higher end of the range because of the uncertainty that the City may need to utilize
another option that could require a higher level of water augmentation.
6. Question. Can City practices regarding use of ponds and resulting evaporation be modified to
reduce the amount of water needed?
Answer.Note the listing of ponds and water features in 5a)above.All the above were constructed as
"flow through ponds"which means that water flows into the ponds and back out again on its way to
the river. The ponds were constructed in this manner to optimize aesthetic values. If these and future
ponds were modified to allow water to be stored in those ponds only when the rights are in priority,
that part of the estimated water need from Ruedi could be reduced accordingly because water would
simply not flow through the ponds when the water rights were out of priority. There would be no out
of priority evaporation to be augmented. Rather,the level of water in the ponds would drop at times
when the storage rights were out of priority,because no new water would flow into the ponds. This
would reduce short term water needs by up to 25 acre feet annually, but would not affect the longer
term water needs addressed in answer 5b)above. Reconstructing the ponds to allow the"flow
through"to be stopped(rather than augmenting the evaporation)when the storage rights are out of
priority would result in aesthetic changes that may not be acceptable to golf and park users since it's
possible that the ponds would sit nearly empty for a significant portion of the summer use season.
(The water"calls"that would prevent storage in the ponds typically occur in dry years during July
and August).Also note that for effective treatment of stormwater,the ponds at Jenny Adair and Rio
Grande parks need to be maintained at a normal operating level. Reducing the water level in those
ponds compromises treatment efficiency and may be inconsistent with the City's adopted policy on
stormwater treatment outlined on page 49 of the Aspen Area Community Plan(AACP).
7. Question. What alternatives to purchasing water from Ruedi are available?
Answer. Both the River District and the Basalt Water Conservancy District have similar sources of
water for augmentation purposes. Both programs are offered on a lease basis,which requires a
perpetual payment. For example the River District's program requires an annual lease payment of
$159/acre foot with an annual COLA adjustment. If one of the alternative lease options were chosen,
the City's payment would continue beyond the date when the USBR would have fully amortized the
capital investment.The USBR purchase is a significantly lower cost over the long term,equivalent to
7-8 years of lease payments under the alternative programs.
8. Question. How would the fund balance for the Water Utility be affected by the proposed water
purchase?
Answer. Refer to Attachment 1, which shows a graph of the fund balance for three alternatives long
range plan scenarios: 1)status quo(no water purchase);2)up-front payment of full capital cost; 3)
eight year amortization of capital costs at approximately 3% interest. For reference we have shown
the fund reserve requirement. All alternatives are expected to maintain the required reserve balance
without affecting adopted water rates.
Part 2. Update to Contractual Approvals Needed to Implement Water Purchase
The November 14,2012 Council memo anticipated a two part process for approval of a water
purchase: 1)a resolution indicating the City's intent to purchase; and 2)approval of the financial
agreement. If Council wishes to approve a purchase of 400 acre feet of Ruedi water from USBR,the
attached financial agreement would need to be approved through adoption of the amended resolution
(also attached)by the end of the year. In 2012, a payment of$30,748 would be due.This includes a
cost share for preparation of the environmental documents.
Attachments: .
Exhibit A: Graph of Expected Fund Balance for 3 Alternatives
Exhibit B: Financial Agreement
Exhibit C: West Slope Cost Share Agreement
Exhibit D: Resolution xx, Series of 2012
Ruedi Water Purchase-Financial Comparison
$11,000,000
$10,500,000 --- -
$10,000,000 ----- ——
$9,500,000 ----- -- -- —Ending Balance-No Water
$9,000,000 Purchase
$8,500,000
$8,000,000 Ending Balance-Lump Sum
$7,500,000 —_ Payment
$7,000,000
$6,500,000 --Ending Balance-Eight Year
N $6,000,000 Payment Plan
0
$5,500,000
$5,000,000 —Fund Reserve
$4,500,000
$4,000,000
$3,500,000
$3,000,000
$2,500,000
$2,000,000
$1,500,000 - -
w
$1,000,000 �� --- - - -
$500,000 - - -
$0
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Loyal E. Leavenworth, P.C.
Attorneys at Law
lel@lellaw.net
326 Hwy 133, Suite 210 Telephone (970) 963-6200
P.O. Box 1530 Facsimile(970) 963-6201
Carbondale, CO 81623 Cell(970) 948-2261
November 29, 2012
Debbie Quinn, Esq.
Assistant City Attorney,Cit7 of Aspen
130 South Galena Street, 2" Floor
Aspen CO 81611
RE: Financial Agreement for City of Aspen with Bureau of Reclamation regarding
Ruedi Reservoir
Dear Debbie:
Attached are a cover letter and two original Financial Agreements for signature by the
appropriate person for your client's entity. Both of the attached original Financial Agreements
need to be approved, executed and sent directly to the Bureau of Reclamation, with a check in
the total amount of$30,748.00 payable to the US Bureau of Reclamation. Both originals should
be signed and sent to the address.below with the check payable to the Bureau via a delivery
method that will ensure delivery by December 31,2012:
Tara Kinsey, Lead Repayment Specialist
GP-4100
316 North 261h Street
PO Box 36900
Billings,MT 59107-6900
If not received by the Bureau by December 31, the price will increase. Send me a copy
(email is fine) so I know it got done.
Please send me an email to confirm receipt of this package. Feel free to call if you have
any questions.
Very Truly Yours,
Loyal E. Leavenworth,P.C.
Loya E. eavenworth
cc: Colorado River Conservation District(via email)
Cindy Covell,Esq.
David Hornbacher
Financial Agreement Number 13XX6C0042
U.S. Department of the Interior
Bureau of Reclamation
Great Plains Region
FINANCIAL AGREEMENT
Between the
CITY OF ASPEN
and the
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
for the
Outstanding West Slope Costs of Ruedi Dam and Reservoir
Fryingpan-Arkansas Project, Colorado
1. INTRODUCTION
This Financial Agreement is entered into between Reclamation and the City of Aspen (herein
Signatory) for the limited purpose of establishing the cost of water at Ruedi Reservoir should
Reclamation, in its discretion, contract for the sale of water to the Signatory at a future time.
As such, this Financial Agreement is not a repayment contract, does not obligate
Reclamation to deliver water, and does not create any rights or interests to the Signatory in
water at Ruedi Reservoir.
2. AUTHORITY
Reclamation's authority for entering into this Financial Agreement includes but is not limited
to the following: the Act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat. 388), and acts amendatory thereof and Al
supplementary thereto, more particularly Section 9(c)(1) of the Reclamation Project Act of
August 4, 1939 (53 Stat. 1187), Title III of the Act of July 3, 1958 (72 Stat. 320) and the Act
of August 16, 1962 (76 Stat. 389) (Fry-Ark Act), as amended and supplemented, all
collectively referred to as Reclamation law.
3. TERM OF FINANCIAL AGREEMENT
This Financial Agreement will become effective upon execution, and shall remain in effect
until either a repayment/water delivery contract("contract") is executed or termination of this
Financial Agreement occurs by written notification by either Party.
4. SIGNATORY'S FINANCIAL OBLIGATION
A. During the term of this Financial Agreement the Signatory agrees to annually pay a
nonrefundable payment of$71.90 per acre-foot(AF) and agrees to pay for an amount
equivalent to 400 AF for an annual payment of$28,760.00 by December 31 of each year.
B. After full compliance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act,
the Endangered Species Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, and other environmental
compliance laws and regulations, if Reclamation determines in its discretion to enter into a
contract and determines applicable conditions of such contract,the payment of$71.90 per
1
4
Financial Agreement Number 13XX6C0042
AF required in 4.A. above would be applied as appropriate to the repayment obligation
established in any contract with the Signatory.
If a contract is not executed in the future with the Signatory, these annual payments will be
credited to the outstanding cost of Ruedi Reservoir and the remaining outstanding balance for
Ruedi Reservoir will accrue interest including deficit interest and future deficit costs at the
applicable annual Water Supply Act interest rate. In no event, will any payments made under
this Financial Agreement or any portion thereof be refunded to the Signatory.
C. This Financial Agreement acknowledges that the cost of water at Ruedi Reservoir will be
$1,289.90 per AF should Reclamation, in its discretion, enter into a contract with the
Signatory prior to December 2019. It is understood that the repayment rate of$1,289.90 per
AF is in 2012 dollars and will be indexed to current year dollars annually at 1.79% less the
sum of the annual payment of$71.90 per AF. This Financial Agreement also acknowledges
that if a future contract is executed, the Signatory would have the option to pay the remaining
outstanding balance at that time upfront or annually through 2019 with interest at the Fry-Ark
Project interest rate of 3.046%. All repayment terms will end in 2019.
To illustrate how the repayment schedule will work if Reclamation elects to execute a
contract with the Signatory for I AF of water out of Ruedi Reservoir in 2014. The repayment
rate in 2012 is$1,289.90 per AF. The Signatory makes a payment pursuant to this Financial
Agreement due and payable by December 31, 2012 for$71.90 per AF, leaving a remaining
outstanding balance of$1,218 per AF in 2013. The $1,218 per AF is then inflated to 2013
dollars by an annual increase of 1.79% ([($1,218 X 1.79%) + $1,2181 = $1,239.80). Then
by December 31, 2013, the Signatory pays another annual payment of$71.90 per AF
pursuant to this Financial Agreement, leaving the remaining outstanding balance in 2014 as
$1,167.90 per AF. As the contract would be executed in 2014, the Signatory would be given
the option to upfront pay the remaining outstanding balance of$1,167.90 per AF or make
annual payments with interest at 3.046% (Fry-Ark Project interest rate) through 2019. If the
Signatory chooses to make annual payments the annual payment would be $215.92 per AF.
If the contract is not executed by 2014, the Signatory would continue to annually pay$71.90
per AF until the execution of the contract and the remaining outstanding balance per AF
would continue to inflate at 1.79%.
The table below illustrates the above example with the assumption that the Signatory chooses
to make annual payments through 2019 once the contract is executed.
2
Financial Agreement Number 13XX6C0042
Beginning Balance in December 31, 2012 = $1,289.90 per AF
ANNUAL OUTSTANDING
PAYMENT PAYMENT PRINCIPAL INTEREST BALANCE
2012 $ 71.90 $ 71.90 $ 0.00 $1,218.00
2013 $ 71.90 $ 50.10 $21.80 $1,167.90
2014 $215.92 $180.35 $35.57 $ 987.56
2015 $215.92 $185.84 $30.08 $ 801.72
2016 $215.92 $191.50 $24.42 $ 610.22 A
2017 $215.92 $197.33 $18.59 $ 412.88
2018 $215.92 $203.34 $12.58 $ 209.54
2019 $215.92 $209.54 $ 6.38 $ 0.00
5. OPERATION, MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT (OM&R)
In addition to the above payments,the Signatory will also pay, pursuant to this Financial
Agreement, an estimated pro rata share of the OM&R each year per AF which will be
adjusted to actual OM&R in the following year. For the year 2012, the Signatory shall pay
$2.45 per AF based on actual OM&R for year 2012, and shall pay$2.52 per AF based on the
estimated OM&R for year 2013.
6. KEY OR RESPONSIBLE PERSONNEL
The following points of contact will be the representatives for this Financial Agreement.
Reclamation's Representative:
Eastern Colorado Area Office
Bob Rice, Water Rights &Repayment Specialist, (970) 962-4396
Bureau of Reclamation, Eastern Colorado Area Office
11056 West County Road 18E
Loveland, CO 80537
rrice @usbr.gov
Signatory's Representative:
Dave Hornbacher, Director of Utilities and Environmental Initiatives, (970) 920-5110
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
7. SIGNATURE PARTIES
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Financial Agreement and agree to
the terms and conditions on the date and the year written below.
3
Financial Agreement Number 13XX6C0042
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
BUREAU OF RECLAMATION
GREAT PLAINS REGION
By:
Michael J. Ryan
Regional Director, Great Plains Regional Office
Date:
SIGNATORY
By:
Printed Name:
Title:
Date:
4
WEST SLOPE COST-SHARE AGREEMENT
FOR
RUEDI RESERVOIR REPAYMENT CONTRACTS
This West Slope Cost-Share Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into as of
,2012,by and between the following entities:
Basalt Water Conservancy District, c/o David Hallford, Balcomb & Green, P.C., P.O. Drawer
790, Glenwood Springs,Colorado 81602,(970)945-6546.
Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District, c/o Tom Zancanella/Matt Dalton, Zancanella &
Associates, P.O.Box 1908,Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602, (970)945-5700.
City of Aspen, acting by and through its water utility enterprise,c/o Debbie Quinn,Assistant City
Attorney, 130 South Galena,Aspen,CO 81611,(970)920-5057.
City of Glenwood Springs, c/o Jeff Hecksel, City Manager, P.O. Box 974, Glenwood Springs,
Colorado 81601,(970)384-6408.
City of Rifle, c/o James S.Neu,City Attorney, PO Drawer 2030,Glenwood Springs,CO 81602.
Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District, c/o Loyal E. Leavenworth, P.O. Box 1530,
Carbondale,Colorado 81623,(970)963-6200.
Colorado River Water Conservation District, acting by and through its Colorado River Water
Projects Enterprise ("River District"), whose address is P.O. Box 1120, Glenwood Springs, Colorado
81602,(970)945-8522.
Elk Meadows Properties, LLC, c/o Sara Dunn, Balcomb & Green, P.C., P.O. Drawer 790,
Glenwood Springs,Colorado 81602,(970)945-6546.
Encana Oil & Gas (USA) Inc., c/o Chris Durrant, P.E., Group Lead -S.R.B.U. Water
Management, Encana Oil &Gas (USA) Inc. 370 17th Street, Suite 1700, Denver, Colorado 80202, (303)
895-0748.
Exxon Mobil Corporation ("ExxonMobil"), Kristin H. Moseley, Special Water Counsel for
ExxonMobil, Porzak Browning & Bushong LLP, 929 Pearl Street, Suite 300, Boulder, Colorado 80302,
(303)443-6800.
Garfield County, c/o Andrew Gorgey, County Manager, 109 8th Street, Suite 219, Glenwood
Springs,CO 81601,(970)384-5000.
Mid Valley Metropolitan District, c/o Loyal E. Leavenworth, P.O. Box 1530, Carbondale,
Colorado 81623,(970)963-6200.
Owl Creek Meadows LLC, c/o Kristin H. Moseley, Porzak Browning&Bushong LLP, 929 Pearl
Street, Suite 300,Boulder,Colorado 80302, (303)443-6800.
Owl Creek Ranch Homeowners Association, c/o Rhonda Bazil, Rhonda J. Bazil, P.C., 230 East
Hopkins Avenue,Aspen, Colorado 81611, (970)925-7171.
WEST SLOPE COST-SHARE AGREEMENT FOR RUEDI RESERVOIR REPAYMENT CONTRACTS
PAGE 2
Petroleum Development Corp., c/o Ramsey L. Kropf, Patrick, Miller & Kropf, P.C., 730 E.
Durant Avenue, Suite 200,Aspen,Colorado 81611,(970)920-1028.
Ruedi Water and Power Authority, c/o Mark Fuller, Executive Director, 0238 Fawn Drive,
Carbondale,Colorado 81623,(970)963-4959.
Snowmass Water& Sanitation District, c/o Mark Hamilton, Holland&Hart, LLP, 600 East Main
Street, Suite 104,Aspen,Colorado 81611,(970)925-3476.
Starwood Metropolitan District, Attention: Executive Director/Manager, 121 Stewart Drive,
Aspen,Colorado 81611,(970)925-8939.
Ted and Hilda Vaughn, 259 C.R. 320,Rifle,CO 81650-9606(970)625-3362.
Thomas H. Bailey, c/o Glenn Porzak, Porzak Browning&Bushong, LLP, 929 Pearl Street, Suite
300, Boulder, Colorado 80302,(303)443-6800.
Town of Basalt, Attention: Bentley Henderson, Public Works Director, 101 Midland Avenue,
Basalt, Colorado 81621, (970)927-4701.
Town of Carbondale, Colorado, c/o Mark Hamilton, Holland&Hart, LLP, 600 East Main Street,
Suite 104,Aspen, Colorado 81611,(970)925-3476.
Town of DeBeque, c/o Mark Hamilton, Holland & Hart, LLP, 600 East Main Street, Suite 104,
Aspen,Colorado 81611, (970)925-3476.
Town of New Castle, Attention Town Manager, P.O. Box 90, New Castle, Colorado 81647,
(970)984-2311.
Town of Palisade, c/o Mary Elizabeth Geiger, Sherry A. Caloia, LLC, 1204 Grand Avenue,
Glenwood Springs,Colorado 81611,(970)945-6067.
Town of Parachute, Attention: Robert Knight, Town Administrator, P.O. Box 100, Parachute,
Colorado 81635, (970)285-7630.
Town of Silt, c/o Pamela Woods,Town Administrator, P.O. Box 70, Silt, Colorado 81652, (970)
876-2353.
Ute Water Conservancy District, acting by and through the Ute Water Activity Enterprise, c/o
Larry Clever,Manager,P.O. Box 460, Grand Junction, Colorado 81502-0460. (970)242-7491.
W/J Metropolitan District, c/o Tom Zancanella/Matt Dalton, Zancanella & Associates, P.O. Box
1908,Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81602,(970)945-5700.
Westbank Ranch Homeowners Association, c/o John Haines, President, Board of Directors, 28
Fairway Lane,Glenwood Springs, Colorado 81601, (970)945-9392.
West Divide Water Conservancy District, c/o Samuel B. Potter, President, P.O. Box 1478, Rifle,
Colorado 81650, (970)625-5421.
WEST SLOPE COST-SHARE AGREEMENT FOR RUEDI RESERVOIR REPAYMENT CONTRACTS
PAGE 3
Wildcat Ranch Association, c/o Kristin Moseley, Porzak Browning & Bushong LLP, 929 Pearl
Street, Suite 300,Boulder,Colorado 80302,(303)443-6800.
The foregoing entities are referred to herein individually as a Party and collectively as the Parties.
RECITALS
A. The River District has entered an agreement with the United States, Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Reclamation("Reclamation"), pursuant to the Sundry Civil Expenses Appropriations
Act for 1922 (43 U.S.C. § 395) (the "Contributed Funds Act Agreement" or "CFAA"). A copy of the
CFAA is attached hereto as Exhibit A.
B. One of the purposes of the CFAA is to assign to the River District the role of a
clearinghouse to compile funds collected from the Parties hereto, and to provide those funds to
Reclamation for costs associated with Reclamation's environmental compliance review of the Parties'
respective contract requests for a total of 19,589.5 acre feet of Ruedi Reservoir water repayment
contracts, and costs attributable to clarification or amendment of existing Ruedi Reservoir Round I and
Round II contracts(all tasks,together referred to as the"Ruedi Reservoir Water Contracts").
C. Another purpose of the CFAA is to assign to the River District the task of compiling
information and facilitating the exchange of information between the Parties and Reclamation that is
necessary for environmental compliance review of the Ruedi Reservoir Water Contracts.
D. The Parties desire to establish the mechanism for the River District to compile funds
provided by the Parties necessary to complete the tasks specified in,and to establish responsibilities in the
exchange of information in furtherance of,the CFAA.
The Parties therefore agree as follows:
1. The Parties consent to the River District acting on behalf of, and as the clearinghouse for
information between the Parties and Reclamation, in order to facilitate the tasks specified in the CFAA.
The Parties agree to provide the River District on a timely basis with the information that is necessary for
the River District to facilitate environmental compliance review of the Ruedi Reservoir Water Contracts.
2. Costs attributable to the CFAA will be allocated as described in this Agreement.
3. The Parties authorize the River District to enter into-appropriate professional-services
agreement(s) with third-party contractors to perform analyses required by and under the direction of
Reclamation for the purpose of analyzing the effects of the actions related to the Ruedi Reservoir Water
Contracts. Additionally, the Parties recognize the River District has contracted with Lee Leavenworth
(Loyal E. Leavenworth, P.C.) and Bill McDonald (Water Policy Consulting, LLC) to provide as needed
and as requested assistance with the CFAA matters and related Reclamation contracting matters, and that
the River District may seek contributions to partially offset the River District's costs attributable to the
Leavenworth and McDonald work that benefits the Parties.
4. The initial contribution under the CFAA is $100,000 (the "Initial Funds"). Additional
contributions are required whenever expenditures leave a balance in the contribution fund of less than
$50,000 (the "Additional Contributions"). This Agreement obligates the Parties to contribute their
WEST SLOPE COST-SHARE AGREEMENT FOR RUEDI RESERVOIR REPAYMENT CONTRACTS
PAGE 4
respective share of the Initial Funds plus any required Additional Contributions (together referred to as
the"Obligated Funds")in the proportions described in paragraph 8 below.
5. The River District entered into the CFAA on behalf of the Parties and will perform the
tasks specified therein in good faith, provided adequate funding for the CFAA is provided by the Parties
pursuant to this Agreement. The River District will provide the Parties with periodic and timely
information regarding the status of the work conducted and fund balance under the CFAA.
6. The River District will seek advice and guidance from Executive Committee of the
Parties in the management of actions under the CFAA. The Executive Committee shall consist of one
representative of each of the following Parties:
a. River District
b. Ute
C. Encana
d. One representative selected by Aspen, Carbondale, the Snowmass Water & Sanitation
District,and the Basalt Water Conservancy District
e. One representative selected by Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District, West Divide
Water Conservancy District, and Garfield County
The Executive Committee shall meet in person or by telephone as often as necessary to conduct
necessary business. All actions and approvals by the Executive Committee shall be made by unanimous
agreement, with one vote for each Party that is a member of the Executive Committee. Each Party shall
pay the cost of its representative participating in the Executive Committee.
7. The Parties shall reimburse the River District for all professional fees and costs incurred
under the CFAA upon receipt of an invoice from the River District. The River District shall invoice each
Party once per month for such professional fees and costs in arrears,which invoice shall include a copy of
the invoice or other payment documentation received by the River District for the professional fees and
costs billed. Each Party shall pay such invoice within 30 days after receipt. Absent a subsequent written
agreement of the River District, failure to timely pay an invoice by any Party shall terminate that Party's
participation in this Agreement and shall operate as a withdraw of that Party's request for environmental
compliance review for a Ruedi Reservoir water supply contract from Reclamation as part of this joint
cooperative request.
8. The Obligated Funds will be allocated to and paid to the River District in accordance
with the following percentages (subject to future reallocation if one or more Parties withdraws from this
Agreement). The Initial Funds will be paid by the Parties to the River District as follows:
Parties requesting new contracts Amount
(responsible for 90%of$100K): AF % Due
Basalt Water Conservancy District 300 1.53 $1,377.00
Battlement Mesa Metropolitan District 500 2.55 $2,295.00
City of Aspen 400 2.04 $1,836.00
Crown Mountain Park and Recreation District 62 0.32 $288.00
Colorado River Water Conservation District 2,666 13.61 $12,249.00
Elk Meadows Properties,LLC 70 0.36 $324.00
Encana 3,998 20.41 $18,369.00
WEST SLOPE COST-SHARE AGREEMENT FOR RUEDI RESERVOIR REPAYMENT CONTRACTS
PAGE 5
Parties requesting new contracts Amount
(responsible for 90%of$I OOK): AF % Due
Garfield County 889 4.54 $4,086.00
Mid Valley Metropolitan District 100 0.51 $459.00
Owl Creek Ranch Homeowners Association 15 0.08 $72.00
Petroleum Development Corporation 500 2.55 $2,295.00
Snowmass Water& Sanitation District 500 2.55 $2,295.00
Town of Carbondale 250 1.28 $1,152.00
Town of DeBe ue 100 0.51 $459.00
Town of Palisade 200 1.02 $918.00
Ute Water Conservancy District 8,885 45.37 $40,833.00
Wildcat Ranch Association 50 0.26 $234.00
W/J Metro District 100 0.51 $459.00
Total 19,585 100% $90,000.00
Parties not requesting new contracts Amount
(responsible for 10%of$I OOK): AF % Due
City of Glenwood Springs 500 0.54 $540.89
City of Rifle 350 0.38 $378.62
City of Rifle 200 0.22 $216.36
ExxonMobil 6,000 6.49 $6,490.70
Owl Creek Meadows LLC 21 0.02 $22.72
Ruedi Water&Power Authority 185 0.20 $200.13
Starwood Metropolitan District 43 0.05 $46.52
Ted and Hilda Vaughn 15 0.02 $16.23
Thomas H.Bailey 35 0.04 $37.86
Town of Basalt 200 0.22 $216.36
Town of Basalt 300 0.32 $324.53
Town of New Castle 400 0.43 $432.71
Town of Parachute 75 0.08 $81.13
Town of Silt 217 0.23 $234.75
Town of Silt 83 0.09 $89.79
West Divide Water Conservancy District 500 0.54 $540.89
West Divide Water Conservancy District 100 0.11 $108.18
Westbank Ranch Homeowners Association 20 0.02 $21.64
Total 9,223 100% $10,000.00
9. The River District shall not be obligated to pay professional fees and costs under the
CFAA on behalf of the Parties in any calendar year in an amount that exceeds the sum total of the funds
available from all of the Parties in that calendar year. In addition,the River District shall have the right to
terminate the CFAA in the event that one or more Parties does not timely pay the invoices provided under
this Agreement or if there are insufficient funds available from the Parties to fund the CFAA during a
calendar year.
WEST SLOPE COST-SHARE AGREEMENT FOR RUEDI RESERVOIR REPAYMENT CONTRACTS
PAGE 6
10. No Party shall be responsible for payment of the obligations of any other Party under this
Agreement. The River District will return to the Parties their pro rata amount (without interest) of any
funds refunded to the River District by Reclamation pursuant to the CFAA.
11. Each Party shall have the right to terminate its participation in this Agreement at any time
by giving 30 days advance written notice of termination to all other Parties. In the event of such
termination, the terminating Party shall pay the River District for all professional fees and costs incurred
under the CFAA up to the time of the termination, upon receipt of invoices from the River District. After
such termination, the terminating Party shall have no further rights or obligations under this Agreement.
Unless otherwise agreed by all Parties,termination of this Agreement by one Party shall not terminate the
Agreement as to all other Parties.
12. The Parties' obligation to pay the River District their respective costs of all professional
fees and costs incurred under the CFAA shall survive termination of the Agreement.
13. This Agreement is the entire agreement between the Parties regarding the subject matter
hereof and shall be modified by the Parties only by a duly executed written instrument approved by all
Parties.
14. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts. All executed
counterparts showing execution by all parties shall together be considered as one original.
BASALT WATER CONSERVANCY
DISTRICT CITY OF RIFLE
By By
Don Boyer, President John Hier,City Manager
CROWN MOUNTAIN PARK&
BATTLEMENT MESA METROPOLITAN RECREATION DISTRICT
DISTRICT, a quasi-municipal corporation and
political subdivision of the State of Colorado By
Chris Woods,Executive Director
By
President and Authorized Signatory
COLORADO RIVER WATER
[print name] CONSERVATION DISTRICT, acting by and
through its Colorado River Water Projects
CITY OF ASPEN, acting by and through its Enterprise("River District")
water utility enterprise
By
By Eric R. Kuhn, General Manager
Michael C. Ireland,Mayor
ELK MEADOWS PROPERTIES,LLC
CITY OF GLENWOOD SPRINGS A Michigan corporation
By By
Jeff Hecksel,City Manager Bruce Seyburn,Manager
WEST SLOPE COST-SHARE AGREEMENT FOR RUEDI RESERVOIR REPAYMENT CONTRACTS
PAGE 7
ENCANA OIL&GAS(USA)INC. SNOWMASS WATER&SANITATION
DISTRICT,a Colorado Special District
By
Attorney In Fact By
Kit Hamby, District Manager
EXXON MOBIL CORPORATION
STARWOOD METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
By
Name/Title: By
Executive Director/Manager
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS,
GARFIELD COUNTY, COLORADO [print name]
By TED AND HILDA VAUGHN
John Martin, Chair
By
MID VALLEY METROPOLITAN DISTRICT Ted Vaughn
By
By Hilda Vaughn
William R. Reynolds,
Executive Director THOMAS H. BAILEY
OWL CREEK MEADOWS LLC By
Name/Title:
By
Name/Title: TOWN OF BASALT
OWL CREEK RANCH HOMEOWNERS By
ASSOCIATION, a Colorado not-for-profit Name/Title:
corporation
By TOWN OF CARBONDALE, a Colorado home
Larry Marx, President rule municipal corporation
PETROLEUM DEVELOPMENT CORP. By
Stacey Patch Bernot,Mayor
By
Authorized Signatory TOWN OF DEBEQUE
Name/Title:
By
RUEDI WATER AND POWER AUTHORITY Wayne Klahn,Mayor
By TOWN OF NEW CASTLE
Name/Title:
By
Frank Breslin,Mayor
WEST SLOPE COST-SHARE AGREEMENT FOR RUEDI RESERVOIR REPAYMENT CONTRACTS
PAGE 8
WESTBANK RANCH HOMEOWNERS
TOWN OF PALISADE ASSOCIATION
By By
Roger L. Grant, Mayor Name/Title:
TOWN OF PARACHUTE WEST DIVIDE WATER CONSERVANCY
DISTRICT
By
Name/Title: By
Name/Title:
TOWN OF SILT
By WILDCAT RANCH ASSOCICATION,
Name/Title: a Colorado nonprofit corporation
UTE WATER CONSERVANCY DISTRICT, By
acting by and through the Ute Water Activity William R. Hegberg, President
Enterprise
W/J METROPOLITAN DISTRICT
By
Melvin D. Rettig, President
By
Rebecca Gilbert,President