Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20140707 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION July 07, 2014 5:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Sustainability Dashboard Update 1 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ashley Perl, CJ Oliver, and Karen Harrington DATE OF MEMO: July 3, 2014 MEETING DATE: July 7, 2014 RE: Environmental Sustainability Dashboard REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council’s comments on the environmental sustainability dashboard and approval for future development of the dashboard. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 2011, City Council set a goal, as part of the Best Year Yet process, to create a definition of sustainable Aspen. While this definition provided a starting point, in 2012 staff committed to creating an environmental sustainability dashboard to serve as a more useful document that Council could use to accurately gauge the results of the City’s and community’s environmental efforts. City Council reviewed the draft dashboard in November of 2013 and approved staff to continue developing the dashboard. BACKGROUND: Reasoning: In 2012, the Aspen City Council directed staff to develop a new tool to assist in understanding Aspen’s environmental sustainability: a dashboard. The dashboard is included as Attachment A. The dashboard has several purposes: • To define what it means to be environmentally sustainable • To help Council assess whether the City is making progress toward environmental sustainability • To guide Council decision-making regarding initiatives proposed to enhance environmental sustainability Defining Environmental Sustainability: Outcomes and Measures of Success The dashboard defines what it means to be environmentally sustainable through a combination of outcome statements and associated measures of success across five areas of environmental sustainability: • Air • Parks, Trails and Open Space • Energy • Waste • Water P1 I. 2 These five topics, and the outcome statements created for them, were drawn from a review of existing City documents (such as the Aspen Area Community Plan) and sustainability plans and dashboards from other jurisdictions. The intent was to maintain consistency with existing, adopted policies while also being more explicit about the environment Aspen is seeking to create for now and the future. The outcome statements included in the dashboard act as descriptive statements that show the long term picture of what Aspen will be once sustainability is achieved. For this reason, outcome statements do not contain targets or numbers and do not focus on actions. Outcome statements tell the story of where Aspen wants to go, or in some cases, where Aspen is currently and would like to remain. Outcomes should be referenced regularly to ensure Aspen is on the right track and doesn’t stray away from the larger priorities for the community. They are the end results we want. While the outcomes are descriptive, the measures of success for each outcome provide the hard data needed to understand whether the outcome has been achieved, or if progress is being made. As progress is made on the individual measure(s), advancement is also being made towards the overall outcome. As Aspen moves the needle on the measures, the end outcome comes closer to reality. Future and current projects can be analyzed using the measures by asking the question “does this project or action move one of these measures?” When selecting the measures to include in the dashboard, staff used a specific set of criteria. The measures needed to be relevant to the outcome statement and the data needed to be available to track the measure. The measures were also selected based on the quality of the measure and the ability of the City or community to take action to affect the measure. Measures may be added or removed as the City moves forward. Staff intentionally did not take the next step of setting targets for each measure. Prior to moving forward with further development of the dashboard, staff wanted to check-in with City Council. Staff wanted to focus the attention of the community and the larger group on the greater vision for sustainable Aspen prior to setting numerical goals. Attachments B and C show what the dashboard might look like with the addition of targets. DISCUSSION: Final Measures: The dashboard now contains nineteen measures in total. All measures have been finalized using available information. The City partnered with the Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES) to use their newly launched Forest Health Index as one of the measures in the Open Space, Parks and Trails section of the dashboard. This provides a truly unique opportunity to include an index as one of the measures without the challenge of creating an index from scratch, a complicated and difficult task. In addition to adding the Forest Health Index, staff also clarified other measures to ensure they are meaningful and relevant to Aspen. Staff feels P2 I. 3 the final measures presented to Council at this time represent a comprehensive set of environmental values for the Aspen community. Options for the Use of the Dashboard: For the purpose of the worksession discussion, staff is requesting guidance from Council on how to update and use the dashboard. First, should staff produce a dashboard report for Council? Although staff plans to update the dashboard with new data on an annual basis, it has yet to be discussed if and how often staff will share the updated dashboard with City Council. Staff suggests that a report on progress toward the environmental outcomes described in the dashboard be produced on an annual basis for Council. Second, staff would like Council to decide whether and how to trigger action steps by the City in response to the annual dashboard report. Several options are available, and one or more could be pursued: a) City Agencies/Departments could provide recommendations to Council, based on the dashboard report, for new potential BYY goals. If Council agrees with this approach, staff would review the report prior to the annual BYY meeting, and would arrive to the BYY meeting prepared with suggestions for City Council. b) Departments could consider the dashboard report in their annual work planning, budget requests, and Goal and Outcome plans. This approach would again require departments to become familiar with the dashboard and use it as a guiding document during annual work planning, goal setting and budgeting. Lastly, staff would like for Council to determine whether Council memos and other forms of on- going communication should provide space for staff to identify whether or not the discussion item or proposed action will impact a dashboard measure. Currently, Council memos include a section where staff is encouraged to comment on the environmental effects of the topic or proposal. Council can choose to replace this section with space for specific measures to be discussed or Council could add a new section to memos where staff can detail how a particular proposal would move specific measures from the dashboard. Sharing the Dashboard with Others: Staff has not yet shared the dashboard with members of the public or with organizational partners. Following this meeting with Council, staff plans to make the dashboard available on the City’s website for those interested in learning more. In an effort to engage key stakeholders and partners, staff would like to share the dashboard with those organizations that may have the ability to affect the dashboard measures. In 2015, staff could reach out to key partners and encourage them to either adopt sections of the dashboard into their organizational goals or to set goals to move certain measures in their control. P3 I. 4 Aside from these steps, staff would prefer to focus outreach efforts internally, encouraging departments and Council to use the dashboard, cementing the dashboard as a regularly used document in City functions and decision making. Next Steps: Setting Targets As noted previously, the dashboard in its current form only contains outcome statements and measures, but does not include targets for those measures. Targets are the numerical values applied to each measure that show where each measure should be in order for the City to achieve the overarching outcome statement. Once finalized, targets will allow the City to grade each measure good, bad or otherwise, using stoplight colors, based on where the data shows we are currently in comparison to the target. Staff plans on using the next year (2015) to set targets for each measure and then check back with City Council to review and approve the targets. There are a number of different approaches for setting targets. These different approaches are described in detail in Attachment D. Staff will use all of these approaches, depending on the specific measure and targets that may already exist in the community. Once staff has set preliminary targets for each measure, we will share the methodology for setting targets for each measure and Council will have the opportunity to suggest changes or edits to that methodology. Below is a list of the five different approaches that will be used to set targets, depending on the need of the measure. 1. State and federal minimum standards 2. City policy targets 3. Targets recommended by others 4. Continuous improvement over a historical value 5. Comparative data from other organizations FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: While no funding is currently requested for the further development of the dashboard, it is possible that funding will be needed in the future. Budget discussion and amounts will depend on how Council chooses to use the dashboard and how fully the dashboard needs to be developed. If, for example, City Council chooses to use the dashboard on a broader community level, it is possible that funding could be used to engage the community in larger target setting. Once developed, the dashboard may be used by Council to analyze budget requests from an environmental standpoint. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The environmental impacts of the dashboard are far reaching and numerous. Although the creation of the actual dashboard does not contribute to Aspen's environmental quality, the sole purpose of the dashboard is to protect Aspen's environment while enjoying the surrounding environment in a responsible way. The dashboard can help the P4 I. 5 Aspen community to ensure our contribution to the environment is a positive one. This tool provides a reference point for knowing where we are with respect to environmental sustainability, discussing where we want to be, and deciding what actions are required to get there. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: City of Aspen Environmental Sustainability Dashboard Attachment B: Sample of Aspen’s Dashboard with Targets Attachment C: Example of Targets and Trends for One Measure Attachment D: Approach to Setting Targets P5 I. Environmental Sustainability Dashboard City of Aspen P6 I. 1  Air The Aspen community enjoys clean healthy air. Aspen’s air quality is one of the factors that distinguish it from other places. Residents and visitors alike expect and value clear skies and unpolluted indoor and outdoor air. Because Aspen has clean healthy air, residents can fully enjoy indoor and outdoor activities with reduced concern for their respiratory health, including reduced incidence of respiratory illness and irritation. Levels of small particulate matter pollution Importance: Aspen’s small particulate matter can cause respiratory irritation and also has an impact on visibility conditions. Data Collection: The City of Aspen currently measures PM10 pollution (particulate matter smaller than 10 microns in size) and has plans to begin measuring PM2.5 levels. Data will be reported as a daily 24 hour average throughout the year, highlighting instances of levels above the standard set in the AACP of 35 parts per million for PM10. Most Recent Data: In 2012, there were 7 instances of PM10 levels above the AACP standard, 2 of which were caused by exceptional weather events. Castle Creek Bridge traffic counts Importance: Castle Creek Bridge traffic counts are used to determine the success of traffic reduction measures which reduce the impact of transportation on Aspen’s air quality. Data Collection: The City of Aspen currently measures the number and type of vehicles on Castle Creek Bridge. These numbers are reported as an average monthly count over the year in comparison to the baseline traffic count from 1993 when the average monthly count was 23,670 vehicles. Most Recent Data: The 2012 traffic count was 21,917/month. Radon levels and mitigation Importance: Radon is the second leading cause of lung cancer and the number one cause among non-smokers. Radon remediation is relatively affordable to homeowners and is a major step individuals can take to lower their cancer risk if high levels are discovered. Data Collection: The City of Aspen currently keeps track of the total number of homes tested for radon levels and those with high radon levels as well as those homes that remediate to reduce radon levels. Data is reported as the percentage of homes with current radon levels above the federal action level of 4pc/L. P7 I. 2  Most Recent Data: In 2012 57% (n.53) of homes tested had levels of radon above the recommended action level. Thirteen percent of that group mitigated for the elevated levels of radon. Ozone Levels Importance: Ground level ozone is a respiratory irritant and illness promoter. High levels of ground level ozone reduce visibility. High levels of ozone can often be caused by regional activity including traffic, oil and gas development and other causes. Data Collection: The City of Aspen currently monitors ozone levels at the intersection of Hwy 82 and Cemetery Lane. Ozone levels are reported in 8 hour average concentrations. The 8 hour averages are then evaluated against the low end of the national health standard set by the EPA. Most Recent Data: In 2012 there were 29 days with 8 hour average concentrations over the standard of 60 ppb. P8 I. 3  Energy The Aspen community effectively manages its energy needs while minimizing adverse environmental impacts. Energy generation and consumption, while integral to a prosperous economy, can result in the emission of greenhouse gases and pollutants that contaminate land, air and water. By replacing fossil fuel-based energy with renewable resources – and maximizing energy efficiency across all sectors – Aspen meets its energy demands in an efficient, clean and affordable manner. In doing so, Aspen maintains a thriving economy while reducing the adverse environmental impacts of its energy needs. Percentage of electrical energy from renewable sources Importance: By moving towards renewable energy production, Aspen can reduce the pollution and greenhouse gas generation associated with traditional energy production. Renewable energy also reduces the use of resources that cannot be replaced and are finite. Data Collection: The City of Aspen Utility Department and Holy Cross both measure the percent of renewable energy in their portfolios, reported as renewable energy consumed as a percentage of total community energy consumption. Most Recent Data: In 2011, 33% of community electrical energy was from renewable sources. 75% percent of the City of Aspen’s electricity portfolio was renewable, while 13% of Holy Cross’ portfolio was renewable. Greenhouse gas emissions from buildings Importance: As a location that will be greatly affected by climate change, Aspen takes interest in reducing greenhouse gas emissions and the potential for climate change. Data Collection: Data will be reported as total tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emitted, and will include emissions from Aspen Electric, Holy Cross and Source Gas for residential and commercial accounts within the urban growth boundary. The City of Aspen Canary Initiative currently collects this community greenhouse gas data. Most Recent Data: In 2011, the total greenhouse gas emissions for buildings were 214,718 tons of CO2 equivalent. Of note, the City’s Parks Department estimates that public trees sequester (remove) a net of 147.8 tons of CO2 equivalent per year, reduce energy use by 193.9 tons per year, and store approximately 3,411.5 tons of CO2 in the form of biomass. P9 I. 4  Energy efficiency Importance: By increasing efficiencies, the Aspen community can reduce the total demand for energy and reduce the associated environmental impacts of producing energy. One way to measure energy efficiency is to calculate deemed energy savings each year, which is the amount of energy saved due to known implementation of practices that reduce energy use (for instance, replacement of incandescent with fluorescent bulbs). This measure provides a conservative estimate of energy conservation efforts that impact electricity demand. Data Collection: The data below is reflective of all accounts for Aspen Electric and most Holy Cross accounts. It includes deemed savings from activities of the city and others for those accounts. Most Recent Data: For 1/1/12-12/31/12: Total Residential Savings: 60,395 kWh. Total Commercial Savings: 1,093,502 kWh. Mass transit use Importance: Vehicle transportation in Aspen is responsible for adverse environmental impacts including air pollution and the creation of greenhouse gases. By using mass transportation, visitors and residents can reduce the number of vehicles on Aspen’s roads, reduce the environmental effects of those vehicles, and reduce energy use. Data Collection: Data will be reported as the total number of one way bus rides per year within Aspen. Most Recent Data: In 2012, there were 1.064 million rides. Through April of 2013 there were .465 million rides. P10 I. 5  Open Space, Parks, Trails Aspen’s unique blend of natural resources provides wide-ranging habitats, recreation opportunities and connected, accessible places. A myriad of natural resources contribute to Aspen’s singularity as a place. High levels of biodiversity, native ecosystems, extensive fish and wildlife habitat, and a diverse urban forest provide ecosystem functions that benefit the community (such as absorbing water runoff and filtering water for quality, for example), and provide for extensive active and passive recreational pursuits and personal renewal. Access to nearby parks and open spaces via walkable connections is an integral part of the city’s appeal. Acres of parks, trails and open space Importance: The community greatly benefits from these kinds of areas being kept open and accessible for a number of reasons including the preservation of natural habitat, areas for outdoor recreation, and protection of lands from future development. Data Collection: The City of Aspen Parks Departments has the ability to measure this data with existing software where they track parks and open space parcels. The data will be reported as the total acres of parks and open space within Aspen and the adjacent area. Most Recent Data: There are currently 1961.5 acres of open space in the current inventory. Community forest coverage Importance: Aspen has been named “Tree City USA.” Keeping the community forest healthy and vibrant is critical from an environmental standpoint as well as from a user experience point of view. Data Collection: This data is not currently available; however there is interest in collecting and measuring this data if appropriate time and budget are made available. The City of Aspen could gather this information by conducting a canopy cover study. The data would be reported as total acreage of the City of Aspen that is covered by the community forest canopy. Most Recent Data: No data is currently available. P11 I. 6  Forest Health Index (ACES) Importance: Forest Health is comprised of a variety of factors relating to the long term health and sustainability of the natural environment. The Aspen Center for Environmental Studies (ACES) has developed a comprehensive index which measures a wide variety of individual indicators combined into an overall forest health index rating that includes ecological integrity, public health and safety, ecosystem services, as well as sustainable use and management. Data Collection: Data collection is currently under way on dozens of individual indicators that make up the overall forest health index. Some factors have many years of historical data and others offer somewhat limited historical range for the data. All indicators are scientifically reviewed for relevance and accuracy to help ensure the most accurate information is provided. Most Recent Data: The current forest health index score is 78 on a scale of 1-100. P12 I. 7  Waste The amount of waste is minimal, and waste management choices protect the environment. The consumption of material resources and the waste generation that accompanies it can result in contamination of our air, land and water. Wastes are minimized through diversion and reuse whenever possible, which maximizes the life of the current landfill while avoiding pollution. When waste must be disposed, it is done so responsibly. Levels of water and air pollution at landfill Importance: Processing Aspen’s waste has potential negative effects on the surrounding environment. By measuring the levels of air and water pollution at the Pitkin County Landfill, Aspen can better manage waste to reduce those impacts on the environment. Data Collection: Pitkin County Landfill currently measures water discharged from the landfill for a variety of pollutants. This data will be reported as an index that includes water and air quality sampling, highlighted instances of non-compliance with state and federal pollution standards. Most Recent Data: The landfill reported greenhouse gases 40% below the threshold required for EPA reporting in 2012. There were 3 instances of pollutant detection in the 2012 groundwater monitoring. Vinyl chloride levels are above the statistical minimum. Chloride was detected above minimum levels in one instance. Arsenic was detected, but in levels below statistical limits. Waste diversion rate Importance: For Aspen to responsibly manage waste, the community must move toward zero waste by burying the minimal amount of waste in the landfill. Recycling, composting and reuse rates show Aspen’s progress towards achieving minimal waste burial. Data Collection: The City of Aspen currently collects data from waste haulers and the Pitkin County Landfill. This data will be reported as a percentage of the total waste stream that is diverted for reuse, compost, or recycling. Aspen’s data can be compared to national and state averages. Most Recent Data: The 2012 waste diversion rate for the City of Aspen was 30% (29% recycling 1% compost). P13 I. 8  Amount of landfill space available Importance: The Pitkin County Landfill is a finite space. Once the space is full, Aspen will be forced to transport trash to neighboring landfills. By measuring the years of life remaining on the landfill lifespan, Aspen can gauge the success of diversion efforts and plan for the future. Data Collection: The Pitkin County Landfill conducts an aerial survey every three years to calculate the fill rate of the landfill space. Data will be reported as the number of years of life remaining on the landfill at the current fill rate. Most Recent Data: In 2013 the Pitkin County Landfill had 25 years until full. Number of miles waste travels for processing Importance: Managing Aspen’s waste has associated environmental costs, and many of these costs are associated with the transportation of waste, including fuel consumption, road traffic, and air pollution. By measuring the transportation miles of waste within Colorado associated with waste management, Aspen can better manage waste to reduce the environmental consequences. Data Collection: Data will be reported by calculating the average number of miles that trash, recycling and compost are moved weekly. All data will be reported for one-way transportation of materials. Most Recent Data: In 2012 trash was shipped an average of 144 miles. Recycling was shipped an average of 774 miles for processing (Ewaste travels twice a year to be recycled for 200 miles each time). Compost was shipped an average of 24 miles to its final destination. P14 I. 9  Water The Aspen community has a sufficient supply of safe, clean water to satisfy a full range of municipal and other purposes while maintaining healthy streams and rivers. Resources such as the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries are essential to the vitality of the Aspen area, providing high-quality water for a variety of purposes. Because of its heavy dependence on this limited resource, it is important for the City to have minimal negative impacts on water quality and quantity. Only if Aspen has a sufficient supply of clean water for drinking and recreation, will residents and visitors be able to continue enjoying the life and natural amenities for which the area is known. Aspen takes responsibility for and minimizes pollutants entering waterways through storm water and waste water pollution prevention. Gallons of water consumed Importance: Aspen has a finite amount of water available for irrigation, drinking and sustaining life. By measuring the total gallons of water consumed, the City can better understand current usage and future needs. Data Collection: The City of Aspen Water Department has measured treated water since 1967 and continues to do so today. Measurements for untreated water are available since 2010. Data will be reported as millions of gallons of treated and untreated water distributed by the City of Aspen Water Department per year. Most Recent Data: In 2012, the City of Aspen Water Department distributed 1,182,331,000 gallons of water. Flow rate in rivers and streams Importance: The rivers and streams in and around Aspen are healthiest when the flow rates are kept above the minimum that is tolerable and when those rates fluctuate with the seasons, providing peak flows. Data Collection: The City of Aspen currently measures flow rates on the Roaring Fork River, downstream of the Salvation Ditch, on Castle Creek at the Marolt Open Space, and at the mouth of Hunter Creek. In addition, daily values are available for Maroon Creek, read every two weeks. Data would be reported as a separate flow rate for each gauge and compared to a 30 year average. Most Recent Data: 2012 data is not currently available at time of publishing. P15 I. 10  Water availability (% of available water supply that is used at peak usage) Importance: This measure tells Aspen how much water is used compared to how much water is available for use during peak use times. This allows the City of Aspen to gauge if adequate water supply is available for Aspen’s use levels and for future growth in usage. Data Collection: The City of Aspen does not currently publish this information, but can calculate the percentage for a given year in the past. Most Recent Data: In 2012 Aspen reached 95% of availability in one weekend. Mixed Invertebrate Population in Rivers and Streams Importance: The health of macro invertebrates in Aspen’s rivers and streams acts as an indicator of overall stream and river health. The presence of healthy stream life shows that adequate nutrients are present and also speaks to stream levels and water quality. Data Collection: The Roaring Fork Conservancy tracks insect life using a scale called the Pollution Tolerance Index. The data will be reported as a number on the index. Most Recent Data: 2012 data is not currently available at the time of publishing. P16 I. Attachment B City of Aspen Environmental Sustainability Dashboard *Please note that all color grades are for demonstration purposes only and do not reflect actual current conditions* Air Energy The Aspen community effectively manages its energy needs while minimizing adverse environmental impacts P Parks, Trails and Open Space Aspen’s unique blend of natural resources provides wide-ranging habitats, recreation opportunities and connected, accessible places Waste The amount of waste is minimal, and waste management choices protect the environment The Aspen community has a sufficient supply of safe, clean water to satisfy a full range of municipal and other purposes while maintaining healthy streams and rivers • % of parks, trails and open space in total land mass • Community forest coverage The Aspen community enjoys clean healthy air Levels of small particulate matter pollution Ozone levels Radon levels and mitigation Castle Creek Bridge traffic counts • Percent of energy from renewable sources • Energy efficiency • Greenhouse gas emissions from buildings • Mass transit use • Forest Health Index (ACES) • Levels of air and water pollution at landfill • Waste diversion rate • Amount of landfill space available • Average transportation miles for processing • Gallons of water consumed • Mixed invertebrate population • Water availability at peak times • Flow rate in rivers and streams Waste Water P17 I. Attachment C Particulate Matter Pollution TARGET: PM 10 levels shall not exceed 35 ug/m3 except during exceptional events such as wildfires and high wind advisories. Current Status: Current Trend: Aspen has had steadily declining levels of PM10 pollution over the past decade as we continue to increase our control measures surrounding coarse particulate matter pollution. These measures include increased street sweeping practices during the winter and spring, tighter management of run-off and debris carryout from construction sites, and industry improvements such as cleaner running diesel engines. The only readings over 100 ug/m3 we have seen in the past 10 years have been from exceptional events such as spring dust storms and summer wildfires. The EPA sets a maximum allowable limit of 150 ug/m3 for pm10, though consistent levels at or near 150 would greatly diminish the high quality natural environment that our citizens and visitors expect in our community. The AACP sets forth a very stringent target level of 35ug/m3 which truly embraces the idea of a clean sustainable environment that Aspen strives for. In 2013 there were no 24 hr. average readings that exceeded 35 ug/m3 which is a great reflection on the success of our current efforts to control pm10. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 20 0 9 20 0 9 20 0 9 20 0 9 20 0 9 20 0 9 20 1 0 20 1 0 20 1 0 20 1 0 20 1 0 20 1 1 20 1 1 20 1 1 20 1 1 20 1 1 20 1 1 20 1 2 20 1 2 20 1 2 20 1 2 20 1 2 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 20 1 3 Highest ten 24 hr. PM10 levels by year from 2009- 2013. 5 year trend line is shown in RED City of Aspen PM 10 Levels P18 I. Attachment D Options for Setting Dashboard Targets While dashboards provide data on key results, their value is limited if the data does not have the context provided by targets. Without targets, it can be difficult to know if a measurement value or a trend in one direction or another represents real, positive progress or not. Identifying targets for each measure makes it possible to more easily understand whether progress toward sustainability is being made. In selecting targets, it’s important to think through 1) the rational basis for making the decision on a target and 2) considerations for selecting a particular target value, given that rational basis. Rationales for Target Setting Different rationales can be used as the basis for selecting targets. The most commonly used include: 1. State and federal minimum standards 2. City policy targets 3. Targets recommended by others 4. Continuous improvement over a historical value 5. Comparative data from other organizations Table 1 summarizes some of the pros and cons of each rationale. Table 1. Pros and Cons of Rationales for Setting Targets Basis for Selecting Targets Pros Cons State and federal minimum standards • Target and data already exist • Represent some level of consensus • Measure definition more standardized • Comparative data likely to be available • Data collection practices more standardized • Carry the force of law • May represent a minimum standard (local preferences may be more stringent) • May represent a high standard that is unrealistic • May not be available for measures of interest to Aspen • Typically static and unresponsive to changing conditions and needs City policy targets • Keeps a focus on the desired end value and result • Doesn’t require a historical baseline value • May require developing agreements on some targets • May be discouraging if targets are set too high or if no recognition is given for intermediate achievements Targets recommended others (ex: STAR) • Targets and data already exist • Represent some level of consensus • Measure definition may be more standardized • Comparative data may be available • Data collection practices may be more standardized • Provides the opportunity to compare with/learn from others • May require coordination with others • May not capture the level of performance desired in Aspen • May not be available for measures of importance to Aspen • May be static and unresponsive to changing conditions and needs • May not be consistently defined and measured P19 I. Table 1. Pros and Cons of Rationales for Setting Targets Basis for Selecting Targets Pros Cons Continuous improvement over a historical value • Can start with current state and focus on on-going improvement • Target can be dynamic over time (eg: % improvement year over year) • Relatively easy to set up • If target is dynamic (changes from year to year), it can be confusing • Requires developing agreement on the acceptable level of improvement • If historical values are too low, may not encourage progress quickly enough • Some measures may not have a historical baseline • The definition of the measure, and how it is collected, may change over time, affecting comparability year to year Comparative data from other organizations • Can encourage improvements by comparing with and learning from best- in-class organizations • Set targets based on values that are known to be achievable by others • Can be dynamic, as the comparative entities become better over time • Require developing agreement on who to include in the comparative data set • Require development agreement on how to use the data (averages, high, median, range, etc.) • If best- in- class organizations are not included, can impede improvements since targets will be more modest • May not be defined or collected in the same manner across organizations • Additional Considerations in Selecting Specific Targets In addition to selecting a general basis for establishing targets, other considerations include:  Purpose of targets: Aside from providing a reference point for understanding the data values, is the primary purpose of the targets aspirational, to identify realistic changes in measure values or to demonstrate compliance?  Role of stakeholders: Who should be involved with setting the target? Do we want to set provisional targets internally the first year, and adjust them after learning and stakeholder input in the second year?  Correlation of data value with impact: Is there a known level of performance, such that if it is reached, there will be a clear success? Conversely, is there a known level of performance, such that if it is NOT reached, there will be clear harm? What evidence do we have that helps us know what an acceptable data value is?  Data variability: How variable is the data for this measure likely to be from one measurement period to the next? If it is highly variable, is a target band better than a single target value?  Static vs dynamic targets: How will or should our choice of targets change over time? Will we be satisfied once a particular target is achieved, or will we want to strive for on-going improvement? P20 I.  Multiple thresholds: Is there value in having more than one target or target range: does not meet expectations, meets expectations, exceeds expectations?  Data subsets: Are there subsets of data for which we may want to develop or retain the ability to breakout of the main dataset? What breakouts in results might we want? Are the target values the same for each of the breakout groups? P21 I.