HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.202008171
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
August 17, 2020
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
130 S Galena Street, Aspen
WEBEX
Go to: www.webex.com Click "Join" at the top right-hand corner
Enter Meeting Number 126 479 4673
Password provided 81611
Click "Join Meeting"
OR
Join by phone
Call: 1-408-418-9388
Meeting number (access code): 126 479 4673
Meeting password: 81611
I.WORK SESSION
I.A.De-Icing Considerations for Winter 2020
I.B.Goal #7 Update- Stormwater/Clean River Program Funding
1
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:April Long, P.E., Clean River Program Manager
Jerry Nye, Superintendent of Streets
THROUGH:Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
Scott Miller, Public Works Director
MEMO DATE:August 14, 2020
MEETING DATE:August 17, 2020
RE:Winter Snow Removal Operations and Deicer Use
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Request limited and strategic use of deicing materials to
monitor water quality impacts and vehicle and pedestrian safety improvements through
the winter of 2020.
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
The main winter-time goals for the City of Aspen Streets Department are to provide snow
and ice control and to keep the streets clear of dust and gravel in a professional and
proactive manner. Snow and ice can be managed through mechanical means, such as
plowing, and through chemical means, with the assistance of de-icing agents. The most
common de-icing agent, salt, is often used in snowy/icy climates to improve driver and
pedestrian safety. “Salting” roads works by altering the freezing point of water. Water
with a higher salt content has a lower freezing point than water with less salinity.
Therefore, when salt is applied to a surface, it leads to melting and prevents falling snow
or rain from being able to freeze on that surface.
While the application can improve driving conditions, salt and other chemical de-icing
agents can have serious negative effects on aquatic ecosystems. Like many other
communities, the City of Aspen (City) stopped using chemical de-icers, generally liquid
magnesium chloride, in 2002 due to concerns for the environment and water quality.
Since that time the City has used aggressive plowing and the application of 3/8” washed
rock chips (“sand”) as the only mechanisms to improve road traction and to minimize or
prevent sliding on snowy/icy roads. (Note: The City’s Parks Department currently uses
a magnesium chloride and sodium chloride blend called “Snow Plow” in limited locations
(areas of known hazards) throughout the core of the City, mostly sidewalks and alley
crossings).
2
Environmental Impacts of Sand - This “sand” presents its own environmental impacts,
especially as it is ground down to a finer particle that is more easily carried in snowmelt
into the City’s stormwater system and discharged into the Roaring Fork River (River) or
its tributaries. In fact, TSS (total suspended solids, fine particles, or “sediment”) is the
primary pollutant of concern for the City of Aspen’s Clean River Program.
Because sediment can degrade water quality, the City works diligently to reduce the
amount of road sand that reaches the Roaring Fork River. The Streets Department
estimates that half of the sand applied is later removed through the snow removal
process and winter street sweeping. Additionally, four of the City’s eight major outfalls
into the River have been armored with extensive pollutant removal facilities. These
facilities are performing excellently based on data gathered in summer months. Less is
known about the effectiveness of these facilities in winter months because monitoring
has only been conducted in summer months.
Traffic Impacts of Sand -The use of sand for traction has challenges, as well. Because
the sanding material consists of small, hard rock chips, it does not stick to the icy surface
of the street in the driving lanes - the material bounces away from where it is applied and
actually needs to be. Vehicles also kick the rock chips to the side of the roadway when
driving over them. Sand is easily covered up by very small snowfall amounts and is
picked up during plow operations causing the need for repeated application as the snow
accumulates during a storm. RFTA has had to stop service on numerous occasions until
enough sand can be reapplied to give buses adequate traction to continue their service.
Accident Information –
Figures 1 and 2 show the number of winter-season traffic accidents by street location,
with darker (redder) lines indicating more reported traffic accidents. Detailed research
would be required to determine how many traffic accidents that occur in the winter are
attributable to road conditions. However, several of the streets where numerous
accidents have occurred align with the streets that require heavy sand application by
the City’s Streets Department (blue under-laying lines).
RFTA Concerns –
RFTA operates about 700-800 bus trips a day during the winter season in and out of
Aspen. Icy streets greatly hampers their ability to operate safely and maintain a
schedule. At times during the winter RFTA has had to cease operations entirely due to
street conditions that are considered unsafe to operate transit operations.
One of the most critical areas that needs limited de-icing is the Durant Street area and
around the Rubey Park transit facility. All valley, BRT, local City and skier shuttle
operate through this area. The steep slope and crown of Durant street combined with
icy conditions greatly impacts transit operations and in turn impacts skiers, commuters,
workers and visitors using the transit system. A limited de-icing program could help to
resolve some of these problems. Additionally, RFTA regularly requests more extensive
snow and ice removal on Park Circle, Park Ave, Mountain Valley, Doolittle, Cemetery
Lane, Aspen Street, and Main Street, and at the intersections of Spring and Main and
Spring and Cooper.
3
Insurance on transit buses is expensive. The deductible on a $550,000 diesel bus is
$100,000. We are now introducing electric buses into the fleet at a cost of $1 million
per bus. It is important to try to protect these more expensive assets with a limited de-
icing program.
Current Winter Streets Operations –The Streets Department currently prioritizes
snow removal operations as follows:
Snow Removal / Control and Sanding Street Prioritization
Priority Location Treatment Level of Service
1 RFTA and school bus routes
and primary access routes for
emergency vehicles
Snow plowing /
Sanding
Removal when 3 inches of
snow is accumulated
2 Main Street and Commercial
Core
Snow plowing /
Sanding
Removal when 3 inches of
snow is accumulated
3 Residential Areas Snow plowing Plow when 3 inches of
snow is accumulated
A typical snow removal operation involves hauling an average of approximately 285
truckloads a night. The operation starts at midnight and ends when the priority routes for
transit and emergency vehicles, the downtown core, and Main Street are completed, with
every effort being made to have the core cleared before the increase in traffic at about
7am. The highest hauled load night was 365 loads in 10 hours.
The following equipment and personnel are necessary for effective snow and ice control
in an average winter season:
Amount Staff / Equipment / Resource
8 Heavy Equipment Operators
3 Motor Graders
2 Front end loaders
2 Sand trucks with attached plows
1 Snow blower attachment
20 Rental Trucks (for hauling to snow dump site)
Sand is applied for traction when any accumulation of snow or ice is present on roadways
and again after snow is plowed (which removes any previously-applied sand). Heavily
sanded locations, identified in blue in Figures 1 and 2 are in effort to reduce vehicle
accidents, address RFTA bus stops and concerns and in response to pedestrian
accidents. The Streets Department maintains storage and supply for approximately 180
tons (13 dump truck loads) of sand on site each winter, with an average application
volume of 477 tons (43 dump truck loads). Sand that remains on streets after snowstorm
events is removed by street sweeping.
4
All removed material, snow and sand, is transported to City’s snow-dump site located
near the airport and adjacent to the Aspen/Pitkin animal shelter. The snow dump site is
roughly 2.3 acres. Snow is left to melt naturally and the runoff water is captured onsite in
a retaining pond which infiltrates into the ground. The State of Colorado has released the
city of any testing requirements after ten years of successful soil and water monitoring
and test results.
Figure 1. Variations of red indicate number of winter-time accidents, with dark red
indicating more accidents. Blue dots and lines indicate areas of heavy sanding by Streets
Department.
5
Figure 2. Variations of red indicate number of winter-time accidents, with dark red
indicating more accidents. Blue dots and lines indicate areas of heavy sanding by Streets
Department.
DISCUSSION:
Due to traffic accidents in recent winter seasons, requests by RFTA, and the requirement
to evaluate impacts of alternative de-icers in the South Aspen Street Townhomes
approval ordinance (Ordinance #38-2018.**), staff was directed to evaluate the re-
introduction of chemical de-icing agents and the impact this might have on water quality
in the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries.
Proposed Streets Operations -
While the application of de-icing agents is supported by the Streets Department at all
intersections and streets, staff suggests a targeted application on Main Street for the 2020
season and the purposes of this limited-application test, with consideration of the high
sanding request areas that have been received since the cessation of deicer chemical
use in 2002.
Plan for Monitoring -While water quality monitoring has been conducted in the River by
several reporting agencies for many years, there has not been monitoring specific to
6
analyzing the amount of sand or salt in snowmelt runoff from City outfalls in the winter.
Nevertheless, there are multiple reports of high sediment levels in the River and reported
chloride (salt) values have been consistently below the instream standard of 250 mg/L.***
Because there is a known impact to River water quality from sediment and because there
are no known acute or chronic exceedances of chloride in this segment of the River, staff
believes that exploring alternatives to “sanding” might reduce sediment loads in
stormwater runoff and is therefore worth considering. Staff has researched various de-
icing agents and analyzed previously taken water samples but does not have enough
information to draw a conclusive picture of what the effects of de-icers are or might be on
rivers in this area. Therefore, staff plans to conduct additional testing to better monitor
direct impacts of de-icing agents downstream of application in a controlled monitoring
plan, as follows:
1.Fall 2020 and Winter and Spring 2021 – Determine baseline water chemistry
(salinity and chloride levels) using recently purchased chloride monitors
installed in targeted locations (shown on Figure 1).
2.Winter 2020 – Monitor City outfalls to determine winter TSS loads and
chloride levels with and without regional treatment facilities (such as Jennie
Adair wetlands).
3.Winter 2020 - Conduct site-specific applications, including but not limited to
those recommended by the Streets Department in Figure 1, of several
different de-icing alternatives to determine concentrations in City outfalls, the
Roaring Fork River, and its tributaries.
4.Spring 2021 – Estimate chemical load per application and likely dilution per
impervious area to assist in estimating effects of larger future applications.
5.Spring 2021 - Estimate the Roaring Fork River’s (and applicable tributaries’)
assimilative capacity (and ability to continue to meet state and/or federal
clean water standards***) for chloride and sediment during winter and early
spring months.
6.Early Summer 2021 – Based on the results of data collection, agent testing,
anticipated environmental impacts (specifically water quality), applicable
environmental standards, practicality and effectiveness (working with the
Streets Dept), make recommendations for de-icing alternatives.
7.Early Summer 2021 - Work with appropriate departments (Streets, Parks,
Environmental Health) and developments (South Aspen Street Townhomes,
Gorsuch Haus) to propose a Winter Road Ice Management Plan (specifying
when, where and how much de-icing agent(s) should be applied).
8.Summer 2021 - Prepare a Long-term Monitoring and Adaptive Management
Plan to allow early identification and application alterations to prevent
potential water quality impairments that are the result of the City’s winter
operations and use of de-icing agents.
9.Summer 2021 - Staff will return to Council with findings from this study. If
staff determines it is possible to introduce de-icing agents with minimal or
negligible impacts to water quality, staff will provide a technically-based
recommendation of potential de-icing agents and recommended limits for use
7
that does not does not adversely impact River water quality beyond State or
Federal clean water standards. In that work session, staff should be able to
present a rough estimate of the River’s capacity for de-icing chemicals and
sand, a Winter Road Ice Management Plan, and a Long-term Monitoring and
Adaptive Management Plan for the Mayor and Council to consider and
comment on.
Potential De-Icing Agents:
There are several products and approaches to consider when using chemical de-icing
agents in a winter road maintenance program. Most include one or a combination of the
products described in the table below. Different approaches range from anti-icing (ice
prevention by application before a snowfall event) to de-icing (application onto
accumulated snow and ice) and can vary depending on locations, expected temperatures,
products on hand, wet vs dry applications, etc. The table below summarizes the elements
found in most products and considerations for use in Aspen.
Product Description Advantages Disadvantages Storage
and
Application
Cost
Sodium
Chloride
(road / rock
salt)
Granular solid, can
be mixed, works to
15 - 20°F
Most inexpensive,
commonly used, no
residue on roads
Corrosive, harmful to
roadside vegetation,
leaves a white
residue. Additional
funding in Street
Department budget
to purchase this
chemical. Same
amount of sanding
material will be
required for traction
while we wait for this
chemical to perform.
Will require a
new vehicle
purchase.
Requires
inside storage,
which is not
available to us
at this time.
Low
Calcium
Chloride
Liquid can be
mixed, works to -
25°F
About 10-15% less
needed than rock
salt, works twice as
fast, less corrosive
Less damaging, If
too much is used it
leaves wet residue,
requires waterproof
storage. Additional
employee, additional
funding in street
Department budget
to purchase this
chemical. Same
amount of sanding
material will be
required for traction
while we wait for this
chemical to perform.
Will require a
new vehicle
purchase.
large storage
tank and
mixing pump
purchase so
this chemical
can perform at
lower
temperatures.
Requires
inside storage,
which is not
available to us
at this time.
Medium
Mag Chloride liquid, can be
mixed, works to -
15°F
About 10-15% less
needed than rock
salt, works twice as
fast, less corrosive
Less damaging for
vegetation, more
damaging for rivers,
If too much is used it
leaves wet residue,
requires waterproof.
Additional funding in
Street Department
Will require a
new vehicle
purchase.
Requires
inside storage,
which is not
Low
Cost:
$.80 cents
to $1.00 a
gallon.
8
budget to purchase
this chemical. Same
amount of sanding
material will be
required for traction
while we wait for this
chemical to perform.
available to us
at this time.
Calcium
Magnesium
Acetate
(CMA)
NOT salt
(dolomitic
limestone)
liquidified, can be
mixed, works to
+20°F
Salt free, Less
enviro harm, less
corrosive, effect
lasts longer (less
application
needed), much
breaks bond
making plowing
more effective
Works slower, much
more volume is
needed, if too much
is used it leaves wet
residue, too much
can affect DO in
water quality.
Additional funding in
Street Department
budget to purchase
this chemical. Same
amount of sanding
material will be
required for traction
while we wait for this
chemical to perform.
Will require a
new vehicle
purchase.
Requires
inside storage,
which is not
available to us
at this time.
High (10 –
30 times
rock salt)
Cost:
1 ton bag
runs from
$1,200.00
to
$1,600.00
per bag.
Beet juice An enhancer, must
be used in combo
with other agent,
-20°F
Helps salt stick to
surface, increasing
melt, dark color
helps melt in
sunlight, less
harmful
Different enviro
impacts. Requires a
new vehicle
purchase, additional
employee, additional
funding in Street
Department budget
to purchase this
chemical. Same
amount of sanding
material will be
required for traction
while we wait for this
chemical to perform.
Storage space for
this is not available
at this time.
Will require a
new vehicle
purchase.
Requires 2
tank storages.
1 Tank for
beet juice and
1 tank storage
for the other
chemical that
is needed to
be mixed with
this chemical.
which is not
available to us
at this time.
Unsure
Ice Slicer (chloride combo,
granular solid
Works faster and
longer, less amount
needed when being
applied, provides
traction when it’s
applied.
Storage area will not
be at our facility.
No storage
issues with
this chemical.
No new
vehicle
purchase,
additional
employee or
additional
funding.
Can be done
with existing
staff and
equipment.
Low
Cost
$14.00
more per
ton than
3/8”sanding
material we
currently
use.
Staff has not determined a clear winner in the de-icing world – there is not a product
that is effective, inexpensive, easy to store, and environmentally safe. If City Council
directs staff to conduct this limited application test of de-icing agents, the Clean River
Program will work with Streets Department staff, as well as utilizing the best-available
9
data from CDOT and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, to
select and test those de-icing agents that have the greatest potential for effectiveness
with the least environmental impacts prior to application this winter.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The budget impact depends upon the de-icing agent(s)
selected and costs associated with transport, storage, and application of that product.
Staff will factor those considerations into the selection and work within the existing 2020
budget allocated for the Streets Department unless directed otherwise.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: There are environmental trade-offs with regard to the
implementation of deicing chemicals versus sand. In this limited and strategic
application, environmental impacts would be minimal and closely monitored by staff. In
this testing scenario, staff would apply an adaptive management approach, and if
monitoring results indicated exceedances or near exceedances of any State or Federal
water quality standards, staff would alter the chemicals and/or application to reduce
impacts.
ALTERNATIVES:
RECOMMENDATIONS:
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
**Ordinance #38-2018, excerpt – “The City shall evaluate the general impacts and potential
effectiveness of alternative product applications that could provide increased traction on South Aspen
Street such as salt-based de-icers, use of Magnesium Chloride or other similar product, increase
application of sand or other similar material, or some combination of these alternatives. The City shall
also evaluate the potential of resurfacing South Aspen Street with a traction base material. These
evaluations shall include referral comments from the Environmental Health Department for environmental
impact consideration and the Engineering Department. Included in this evaluation will be a water quality
monitoring program (in coordination with the City Engineering Department subject to generally accepted
engineering standards) to establish a baseline water quality level and measurement of impacts of
implemented alternative maintenance strategies (including any salt-based de-icers and increased sanding
impacts). Once complete, the evaluation shall be released to the Applicant and the Gorsuch Haus Project
applicant.
***Water Quality Standards -As described in the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission’s (WQCC)
Regulation 33, the Roaring Fork River is assigned beneficial uses including Aquatic Life Cold-Class 1,
Recreation E, Water Supply and Agriculture. When the WQCC’s list of impaired waters was updated in
2012, the section of the Roaring Fork River that flows through Aspen was identified as having an impaired
aquatic life use, with an unidentified cause for impairment. Many other reports dating from the early 2000s
claim similar findings and list the likely cause for impairments to aquatic life as stressors associated with
“urbanization”, which can include altered hydrology, decreased riparian (streambank) vegetation, and
pollutants in stormwater runoff.
The WQCC does not have strict or clear guidance on sediment loads or chloride. The WQCC establishes
a chloride standard of 250 mg/L average over 30-days, but that is a drinking water standard, not an
aquatic life standard. As it relates to the application of sand to improve road traction, the WQCC has a
statewide narrative sediment standard which states that “state surface waters shall be free from
10
substances attributable to human-caused point source or nonpoint source discharge in amounts,
concentrations of combinations which…can settle to form bottom deposits detrimental to the beneficial
uses.”
The EPA sets the chronic chloride pollution standard at 230 mg/L over a 4-day average and the acute
standard at 860 mg/L. These limits are based on findings that chronic concentrations of 230 mg/L are
harmful to aquatic life, while concentrations above the acute standards are lethal and sub-lethal to aquatic
plants and invertebrates.
Harmful levels could look different here or in other parts of the country because of background, or
naturally-occurring, levels of chloride. It is important to distinguish background levels as they can vary
widely from watershed to watershed depending on geologic weathering and soils. Based on previous
monitoring in the Aspen area, the average chloride level of the Roaring Fork River is 1.5 mg/L for about
50 observations in the last 10 years.
There are no state standards for sodium, magnesium, calcium, or potassium as they are natural
components found in all surface water.
11
MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:April Long, P.E., Clean River Program Manager
THROUGH:Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer
Scott Miller, Public Works Director
MEMO DATE:August 14, 2020
MEETING DATE:August 17, 2020
RE:Council Goal #7 – Funding the Clean River Program
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Feedback and direction regarding investigation and
implementation of potential funding sources for capital projects in the Clean River
Program (Council Goal #7).
SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND:
In 2005 the City of Aspen studied stormwater management and river health needs and
funding options. Funding alternatives were identified and discussed by an advisory
committee, which made recommendations to City Council for a dedicated property tax.
In November, 2007 Aspen’s voters overwhelmingly approved a special ad-valorem
property tax mill levy of 0.65 mills for the specific purpose of increasing revenues to
fund the City’s Stormwater and Clean River Program, independent of TABOR limitation.
Revenues from this tax are the main source of funding for the current program and are
estimated to generate approximately $1.2 million in 2021.
In addition to the property tax, in 2008 City Council also instituted a development fee
based on impervious square footage that applied to all new and re-developments. The
combination of revenues from the fee and tax were intended to fund all operating and
capital costs associated with the Clean River Program (program). This fee was
removed by Council in 2010 to relieve the burden on development during the recession
of 2008, leaving a significant gap in funding for the program. While other fees, such as
development review fees and fees-in-lieu of detention, have been established since
then, they only fund a small portion of the needs of the program. Currently fees are
estimated to generate approximately $260,000 in 2021.
The primary objective of the Clean River Program for the City of Aspen is to prevent,
reduce, and mitigate the impacts of urbanization on the Roaring Fork River. The 160
Fund, established and dedicated to support this effort, funds programs or projects that
accomplish the following goals:
12
Operate a program that is comprehensive, cohesive, and consistent year-to-year
Protect human health, safety and property by reducing stormwater impacts and
installing and maintaining the City’s stormwater system
Improve and maintain watershed functions in the Roaring Fork Valley that protect
or improve the health of the Roaring Fork River in Aspen, including water quality,
riparian habitat, and hydrology
Involve stakeholders in the protection, maintenance and restoration of the Aspen
watershed
Practice stormwater management techniques that mimic natural hydrology
Reduce the amount of pollutants that have the potential to enter the Roaring Fork
River and its tributaries via stormwater runoff
Reduce impervious surfaces so stormwater can infiltrate to remove pollutants
and recharge groundwater
Reduce the demand on the City’s storm system and the cost of constructing
expensive pipe systems
Increase urban green space and areas for stormwater infiltration
Foster positive connections between people and stormwater
Address requirements of federal and state regulations to protect the public and
restore and protect watershed health
In the 12 years since the program began, much has been done to accomplish these
goals. Most notably, the completion of two regional water quality improvement projects
– Rio Grande Park and Procktor Open Space (Jenny Adair Wetlands were completed
prior to the establishment of the program and funding source) that, when combined,
treat over 40% of City’s polluted runoff; many small water quality improvements
throughout town; the enlargement of Mail Trail stormwater system and other pipe
replacements and repair; the development of several master plans that provide
guidance for river management, mudflow hazards, system needs in the
Smuggler/Hunter basin, and riparian area restoration and protection priorities.
The fund also provides for five full time employees whose work ranges from program
management, long-range planning, development review, inspection and enforcement,
system and parks maintenance and upkeep, monitoring, and education.
There are many outstanding projects identified in the original business plan and in more
recent master plans and new projects are identified each year as more information is
gained about City’s existing infrastructure, threats to public safety, and the health of the
river. Most recent review suggests the completion of currently identified or anticipated
projects will cost in the range of 13 – 20 million (Note: This is a rough estimate and
additional work should be done to better refine these numbers). Current operating costs
for the program are approximately $800,000 and transfers out of the fund are
approximately $330,000. With annual revenue estimates at $1.5 million, that leaves
13
only $370,000 each year for capital improvements. Accomplishing the backlog of
projects and meeting the goals of the program would take approximately 40-50 years at
that rate of funding and does very little to allow for proactive replacement of failing pipes
and infrastructure.
Recognizing this funding gap, Council directed staff, through Council Goal #7, to
“Identify and implement capital funding sources to address and expand the aging
stormwater system as well as finance projects focused on treating outfalls to the
Roaring Fork River.”
DISCUSSION:
Staff has identified a number of program funding options, with varying considerations for
effectiveness and viability. Some have sufficient potential revenue capacity and are free
of limitations that restrict their use or purpose. Others are more limited in application,
either because they have relatively little revenue capacity or because they are restricted
by legal standards or industry practice. Some revenue sources would require voter
approval.
The following is a brief review potential funding sources and important aspects for
Council to consider in determining if further investigation is desired.
User Fee/Utility
A stormwater user fee is similar to a water or wastewater fee – a charge is levied
based on “use” of the public drainage system and some measure of discharge to
it.
This is a very popular option across the nation - more than twelve-
hundred cities, counties, and districts in the United States have adopted
stormwater service fees, usually as a primary funding mechanism for
meeting the unfunded mandate of the EPA’s NPDES permit for municipal
stormwater systems.
Equitable approach as usually based on parameters that influence the
cost of services and facilities. For example, water rates are often based
on the quantity of water consumed (which influences supply source,
treatment, transmission, and other costs). Stormwater rate structures are
typically based on parameters such as impervious coverage, total
property area, and the percentage of impervious coverage, which
influence the burden (service demand) imposed on the stormwater
systems and programs.
Can be adopted by the City Council without voter approval. However,
these fees have been scrutinized and legally-challenged in Colorado and
across the nation as a hidden tax.
Offers substantial revenue potential.
Requires additional staff and operating funds to administer duties such as
a monthly billing system, customer questions, etc.
Provides easy opportunity to financially incentivize or reward stormwater
management and water quality improvements on individual properties.
14
Without careful crafting, it will place more burden on large impervious
areas such as schools, affordable housing, and city-owned properties.
It may difficult to explain, defend, and implement on top of the existing property
tax.
Special Assessments.
A special assessment is a special district in which a charge is levied to recover
the cost of special projects constructed to benefit specific properties within the
district in measurable or estimable ways. The cost of a regional detention,
upsized conveyance to solve a local flooding problem, or water quality control
serving a limited area might be apportioned through an assessment in a similar
manner.
Costs are apportioned based on benefit rather than the cost of providing services
and facilities, and assessment amounts may be ad-valorem (property value)
based or structured using other parameters.
It may difficult to explain, defend, and implement on top of the existing property
tax.
Generates appropriate revenue to accomplish specific project.
Requires voter approval.
Relies on recovery of costs post construction, so up-front funds must be made
available.
Miscellaneous/Other Surcharges or Fees
Staff has brainstormed other fees or surcharges that have a strong nexus to
stormwater management and river health that could provide some revenue.
Ideas include:
Parking fees. Much of the City’s paved (impervious) area is for the purpose of
public parking. Impervious area is the direct driver for stormwater management
and one of the direct drivers for water quality impairments. The City could
consider an increase in parking fees to fund “green streets” or water quality
improvement projects that reduce the impacts of impervious areas.
Recreational access or use of the Roaring Fork River. Commercial rafting
operations are already charged access fees along the river, and their customers
indirectly benefit from improved water quality resulting from the Clean River
Program.
Water rate increase or surcharge. In some cases, stormwater fees are a flat
charge or surcharge on a user’s water bill and there is a loser correlation to be
made on the relationship between water usage and stormwater/river system
demand and impact. For instance, snowmaking and over-irrigation of lawns can
result in inflated runoff events or dry-weather events that activate pollutants
outside of the natural storm event.
Development impact fee or system development fee could be charged for new
development based on the incremental increase in demand and use of the
system or contribution of pollutants.
15
It is yet to be determined how much revenue may be generated by such fees and
there could be associated collection costs that make these funding sources
inefficient.
Grants
Many organizations, from the local level to the federal government, offer grants and
assistance in the areas of watershed protection and water quality improvements.
Several City departments have been very successful in securing grants, especially for
the innovative projects the City of Aspen presents.
Grants are offered by various organizations to State Revolving Funds, CWCB
Watershed Protection, Colorado River Basin Roundtable, PitCo Healthy Rivers
and Streams Board.
Grants are a one-time allocation of funds therefore not stable or reliable.
More likely to fund water quality, riparian, river management, green streets
projects. Less likely to receive funding for infrastructure or pipes.
Not likely to receive grants from same funding organization regularly. Therefore
would need to be strategic is requests and apply to a wide variety of grant-
making organizations.
Grant application takes some staff time and administration and likely requires
matching funds.
Great for building support and partners for the program.
Economic downturn could result in less grants/funds available in the future.
General Fund
While staff understands that the City’s General Fund is already inadequate to fund all
projects needed and proposed each year, it is the typical source of funding for
stormwater management across the country, especially for stormwater infrastructure
installation, repair, and replacement.
Clean River capital projects could be evaluated individually against all other
competing projects or Council could elect for a dedicated contribution to the 160
Fund for some term to be used without restriction or used to fund a specific type
of project, such as pipe replacement.
Less stable or reliable, as priorities shift each year during the budget review.
Property Tax Increase
Revenue from the current dedicated property tax supplies the majority of funding for the
Clean River Program, at 0.65 mills and is de-Bruced from TABOR restrictions.
Increasing this tax by some amount would provide additional funding from an already
established source.
Taxes are very stable and reliable, once approved.
Requires voter approval.
Passed by more than 60% vote in 2007, before recession of 2008.
As indicated on the annual citizen survey, river health continues to be one of the
most important issues our citizens feel the City should address.
16
May see less support or prioritization fall after this year where public health,
economic stability, childcare, affordable housing, and transportation rise in
importance. Increased taxes generally not favored in economic downturn.
Requires at least one-year prior to election for preparation.
Bonds
Bonding is not a revenue source but a borrowing mechanism. Through the use of
bonds, funding of major capital improvements may be expedited relative to procuring
funds through the annual budget process. The debt would be secured either by the
general revenues of the city or by the dedicated revenue stream of the 160 fund from
property taxes.
Would incur long-term debt
Allows for spending sooner rather than later, allowing more proactive
replacement of pipes avoiding potential failures and emergency expenses.
Public Private Partnerships
Several Clean River Program projects have been completed as a partnership with
private development. These are most often sought when the project, due to the natural
direction and accumulation of flow, must be located on or adjacent to a private property
but greatly benefits the public. These projects generally involve collaboration in design,
construction, and funding by the City and the private land owner.
Limited in scope, geography, and time. Therefore more of an opportunity that
cannot be planned or relied upon.
Not always appealing for the private entity as it requires private to front money,
and City will refund after completion.
Mutually beneficial as it typically occurs on land not owned by the City.
As is evident in the descriptions above, each potential funding source presents its own
unique advantages and disadvantages in addressing the shortages faced by the Clean
River Program fund. Staff is seeking feedback and direction from Council for further
investigation into any and/or all of the identified potential sources to make progress
towards implementation in 2021.
FINANCIAL IMPACTS: No financial impacts at this time.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: No environmental impacts at this time.
ALTERNATIVES:None at this time.
RECOMMENDATIONS:None at this time.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
17