HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20160201
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
February 01, 2016
4:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Board Interviews - P&Z, HPC, Housing Authority
II. Joint Work Session with ARC Advisory Board
III. Energy Efficiency Code Changes Goal Update
IV. Uphill Goal Update
P1
City Council Board Interviews - Monday, February 1, 2016
4:00 pm – CITY COUNCIL
MEETING ROOM
Board Applicants
Planning & Zoning
1 regular opening Keith Goode - reapplying
Historic Preservation Commission
1 regular opening – 2 applicants Nora Berko - reapplying
Rally Dupps
Housing Authority
1 City Director Open Rally Dupps
P2
I.
P3
I.
P4
I.
P5
I.
P6
I.
P7
I.
P8
I.
P9
I.
P10
I.
P11
I.
1
MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TIM ANDERSON, PARKS AND RECREATION
RECREATION DIRECTOR
JEFF ALDEN, PARKS AND RECREATION
FINANCIAL ANALYST
THRU: JEFF WOODS, PARKS AND RECREATION
MANAGER
DATE OF MEMO: JANUARY 25, 2016
MEETING DATE: FEBRUARY 1, 2016
RE: ASPEN RECREATION CENTER – ADDITION OF
A NEW FITNESS CENTER
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: The Aspen Recreation Center’s (ARC) Citizen Advisory
Committee is requesting that Council support and fund the initial conceptual design of a fitness
center addition to the ARC. Design should be completed through the City’s RFP process and
proposals will include a detailed breakdown of each phase of the design process and all
associated costs. This request is limited to only design cost.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council has supported and funded the actions, studies, and
reports related to the addition of a fitness area at the ARC shown in [Figure 1]. Each report
listed has demonstrated a need for additional fitness and Council has adopted these reports and
their findings. The ARC Citizen’s Advisory Committee and staff met with Council at the ARC
on May 18th, 2010 in a work session to discuss these studies. While Council saw the potential,
no action was taken due to financial constraints.
P12
II.
2
[Figure 1]
BACKGROUND: When the ARC was originally designed, the Mayor and Council did not want
to include fitness in the facility due to concerns of competing with local private clubs. Upon
opening the ARC in 2003, the ARC Citizen’s Advisory Committee heard from the community
that fitness was needed. Based on those comments, staff retrofit two areas of the ARC to provide
cardio, resistance equipment, and fitness class space. With the introduction of the new fitness
areas, Recreation saw an immediate 24 percent increase in pass sales.
Aspen has had a long standing tradition dating back to the 1800s of having a “Community
Center” or local gathering place for citizens to congregate. The Armory, now City Hall, was
such a place where community dances, local meetings, and socializing with friends and guests
took place. Today, the Aspen Recreation Center is a modern version of such a “Community
Center” and it is a place where people meet, families enjoy time together, athletic competitions
happen, and where the community as a whole comes together over local hockey game. The ARC
is also a place where guests that visit to feel at home in Aspen. The Aspen Recreation Center has
found a unique niche within the community by serving locals, guests, and hosting special events
and competitions.
DISCUSSION: Each independent report referenced previously has advocated for the need of
additional fitness space. The 2005 Aspen Recreation Center Business Plan used the first
community survey related to recreation to show that a majority of citizens felt the addition of
fitness was needed.
2004 •ARC retrofit to include fitness areas
2005
•1st Aspen Recreation Center Business Plan
•Identified a need for additional fitness
2008
•Tim Hagman Architects Conceptual Plan and Study
•Developed initial drawings and cost
2009
•Ballard*King Weight/Cardio Assessment
•Showed need, developed operational costs
2010
•Council Work Session at the ARC
•Toured the proposed area and reviewed previous study findings
2015
•2nd Aspen Recreation Center Business Plan
•Community Survey to show need, agreed with previous studies
P13
II.
3
Following the adoption of the 2005 Business Plan by Council, funding was provided in 2008 to
hire Tim Hagman Architects to develop a conceptual plan and feasibility study for a fitness
center addition to the ARC. Hagman’s original drawings showed an additional 5,500 square feet
to be located above the pool. These conceptual drawings showed a preferred size for weight and
cardio equipment without increasing the building’s footprint.
In 2009, taking the next step in Hagman’s plan, Council supported the hiring of consultant
Ballard*King to accurately access the communities desires and needs for a fitness center
addition. The Ballard*King study came up with the following size recommendation: “The size of
weight/cardio spaces in public recreation centers have been steadily increasing over the last ten
years. The absolute minimum size recommended is 3,000 square feet with a preferred size of
5,000 to 6,000 square feet and a high end of as much as 8,000 square feet or more.”
Ballard*King also developed the first operational cost and revenue estimates (Attachment “B”).
Ballard*King projected a positive net revenue for fitness that could improve Recreations
recovery rate five to seven percent. Ballard*King noted, “Weight/cardio equipment areas
consistently are one of the most highly utilized spaces in a public recreation center and generate
the most revenue per square foot of any space in the building.” Operationally, based other
recreation centers experience and consultants recommendations, the Citizen’s Advisory
Committee agrees that additional operational costs will be covered by additional revenues. At a
minimum fitness is breakeven. According to both Ballard*King and the 2015 Business Plan, the
revenues generated in the operation of an improved fitness center will exceed expenditures,
improving the Recreation Division’s subsidy.
[Figure 2]
Finally, the 2015 update to the Business Plan by PROS Consulting strongly advocated for
additional fitness space. Their community survey showed that adding ‘weight training space and
equipment’ was the highest priority for Aspen citizens, with 61 percent saying it was either ‘very
important’ or ‘important’ [Figure 2]. PROS also reviewed the feasibility information from all
prior studies and was in agreement with all recommendations and findings. PROS concluded,
“It is recommended that if the Aspen City Council approves the project, additional feasibility
needs to be conducted that includes the full cost of ownership over a 10-year period. The study
needs to include repair, maintenance, and the lifecycle replacement of fitness equipment and
P14
II.
4
facility systems.” PROS presented their findings to Council and Council was in general
agreement with PROS’ overall findings. Council requested further follow up at a later date.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Staff estimates initial design costs of up to $75,000; this
would include public process, conceptual drawings, and identification of estimated construction
costs at each phase.
Pinpointing a total construction cost estimate is difficult without a complete understanding of the
components in the current construction economy. The 2008 Hagman Architects study estimated
a build cost of $3.5 Million. Thus, it is the ARC Citizen’s Advisory Committee’s request is to
use this process to develop design plans for the facility with costs for each phase.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: While energy consumption will increase due to the
additional square footage (about a six percent increase of the total current square footage),
utilities may increase by approximately four percent. This is due to the mechanical systems
serving this space being less sophisticated compared to the rest of the facility.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: The ARC Citizen’s Advisory Committee is seeking approval to
fund initial conceptual design of a fitness center to the ARC. Anticipated conceptual design cost
estimates, including citizen’s public input, would cost up to $75,000. As requested above,
proposals will include full design plans for the facility and a detailed breakdown of each phase of
the design process and all associated costs. Part of the RFP agreement will include contractors
acknowledging that Council and the City will move forward only as funding becomes available.
This requirement will allow the design process to move forward as Council sees fit and as
funding becomes available.
Staff and the ARC Citizen’s Advisory Committee understand that there are many City
constuction priorities and projects at this time. As a result, this request is limited to design.
With a design and vision completed, the ARC Citizen’s Advisory Committee can seek private
partnerships for funding. Additionally, when construction slows and funding available, plans
will be available to advance construction. Thus, the ARC Citizen’s Advisory Committee’s
recommended action is to approve up to $75,000 only for initial conceptual design of a fitness
center to the ARC.
ALTERNATIVES: If Council chooses not to fund design costs then no further action is needed.
An alternative is to have the ARC Citizen’s Advisory Committee bring this request back in the
future.
P15
II.
5
PROPOSED MOTION: “I move to approve the ARC Citizen’s Advisory Committee request
for funding in the amount of $75,000 to fund conceptual design process for the addition of a new
fitness center at the Aspen Recreation Center (ARC).”
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment “A” Conceptual Drawing
Attachment “B” Estimated Operational Payback (Ballard*King report)
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P16
II.
6
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
“
A
”
P17II.
7
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
“
B
”
[A
]
[
B
]
[
C
]
20
1
3
B
a
l
l
a
r
d
*
K
i
n
g
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
Lo
w
H
i
g
h
[a
]
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
$9
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
3
0
,
0
0
0
[b
]
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
$2
5
3
,
0
0
0
$
3
6
0
,
0
0
0
[c
]
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
N
e
t
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
$
1
6
3
,
0
0
0
$
2
3
0
,
0
0
0
[d
]
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
R
a
t
e
2
8
1
%
2
7
7
%
[e
]
T
o
t
a
l
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
W
i
t
h
O
u
t
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
$4
,
2
6
6
,
3
1
3
$
4
,
2
6
6
,
3
1
3
[f
]
T
o
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
W
i
t
h
O
u
t
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
$2
,
0
6
6
,
0
6
5
$
2
,
0
6
6
,
0
6
5
[g
]
N
e
t
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
W
i
t
h
O
u
t
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
-
$
2
,
2
0
0
,
2
4
7
-
$
2
,
2
0
0
,
2
4
7
[h
]
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
R
a
t
e
W
i
t
h
O
u
t
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
4
8
%
4
8
%
[i
]
T
o
t
a
l
E
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
W
i
t
h
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
$
4
,
3
5
6
,
3
1
3
$
4
,
3
9
6
,
3
1
3
[j
]
T
o
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
W
i
t
h
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
$
2
,
3
1
9
,
0
6
5
$
2
,
4
2
6
,
0
6
5
[k
]
N
e
t
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
W
i
t
h
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
-
$
2
,
0
3
7
,
2
4
7
-
$
1
,
9
7
0
,
2
4
7
[l
]
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
R
a
t
e
W
i
t
h
F
i
t
n
e
s
s
5
3
%
5
5
%
[m
]
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
T
o
S
u
b
s
i
d
y
$
1
6
3
,
0
0
0
$
2
3
0
,
0
0
0
[n
]
I
m
p
r
o
v
e
m
e
n
t
t
o
R
e
c
o
v
e
r
y
R
a
t
e
5
%
7
%
[o
]
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
t
o
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
1
2
%
1
7
%
So
u
r
c
e
s
&
N
o
t
e
s
:
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
e
l
l
s
:
[
B
a
]
t
o
[
C
b
]
f
r
o
m
2
0
0
9
B
a
l
l
a
r
d
*
K
i
n
g
r
e
p
o
r
t
'
R
E
V
I
SE
D
A
s
p
e
n
R
e
c
r
e
a
t
i
o
n
C
e
n
t
e
r
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
R
e
p
o
r
t
.
d
o
c
'
,
p
a
g
e
4
o
f
5
No
t
e
:
O
n
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
c
o
s
t
s
,
B
a
l
l
a
r
d
*
K
i
n
g
s
t
a
t
e
s
,
"
W
i
t
h
t
h
e
e
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
c
e
n
t
e
r
,
i
t
i
s
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
t
h
a
t
t
h
e
r
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
a
n
i
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
c
o
s
t
s
t
o
c
o
v
e
r
a
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
u
t
i
l
i
t
y
c
o
s
t
s
,
e
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
r
e
p
a
i
r
,
s
t
a
f
f
i
n
g
(
p
a
r
t
-
t
i
m
e
w
e
i
g
h
t
/
c
a
r
d
i
o
a
r
e
a
s
u
p
e
r
v
i
s
o
r
)
,
c
u
s
t
o
d
i
a
l
/
m
a
i
n
t
en
a
n
c
e
c
o
s
t
s
,
a
s
w
e
l
l
a
s
o
t
h
e
r
m
i
s
c
.
e
x
p
e
n
s
e
s
.
"
No
t
e
:
O
n
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
,
B
a
l
l
a
r
d
*
K
i
n
g
s
t
a
t
e
s
,
"
W
i
t
h
t
h
e
a
d
d
i
ti
o
n
a
l
w
e
i
g
h
t
/
c
a
r
d
i
o
s
p
a
c
e
,
t
h
e
r
e
s
h
o
u
l
d
b
e
a
s
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
i
n
c
r
e
as
e
i
n
o
v
e
r
a
l
l
c
e
n
t
e
r
u
s
e
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
a
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
a
n
e
x
p
a
n
d
e
d
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
,
t
h
e
i
n
c
r
e
as
i
n
g
f
e
e
s
t
o
a
c
c
e
s
s
p
r
i
v
a
t
e
c
l
u
b
s
,
a
n
d
g
r
o
w
t
h
i
n
t
h
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
p
opulation."
No
t
e
:
F
i
n
a
l
l
y
B
a
l
l
a
r
d
*
K
i
n
g
n
o
t
e
s
:
"
T
h
e
s
e
a
r
e
g
e
n
e
r
a
l
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
e
s
on
l
y
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
b
a
s
i
c
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
f
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
.
Th
e
s
e
a
r
e
r
e
l
a
t
i
v
e
l
y
c
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
v
e
n
u
m
b
e
r
s
f
o
r
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
.
"
So
u
r
c
e
:
C
e
l
l
s
:
[
B
e
]
t
o
[
C
f
]
f
r
o
m
2
0
1
3
E
d
e
n
f
i
n
a
n
c
i
a
l
d
a
t
a
No
t
e
:
S
o
u
r
c
e
d
a
t
a
i
s
h
a
r
d
c
o
d
e
d
i
n
b
l
u
e
,
s
t
a
f
f
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
r
e
s
h
o
w
n
i
n
b
l
a
c
k
P18II.
Page 1 of 7
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Ashley Perl, Climate Action Manager, Canary Initiative
THRU: CJ Oliver, Environmental Health and Sustainability Director
DATE OF MEMO: January 29, 2016
MEETING DATE: February 1, 2016
RE: City Council Goal #8 – Energy Efficiency Codes and Programs
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This worksession is the first update from staff to City Council
regarding City Council’s Top Ten Goal #8, related to energy efficiency. Staff requests feedback
from the Council on the direction of the goal and future projects that will help achieve the goal.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At City Council’s most recent annual retreat in 2015, the
Mayor and City Council members set a goal to pursue energy efficiency-related code changes
and complementary programs that will transform the energy use of buildings within the
community.
BACKGROUND:
The Aspen community and the City of Aspen have a long history of environmental stewardship
and the pursuit of an environmentally sustainable community. In today’s worksession, members
of City Council will hear details on the history of energy efficiency codes and programing in
Aspen. It is important to remember that these energy efficiency programs and codes are part of a
larger commitment to environmental protection that is rooted deep in Aspen’s values and
traditions. Aspen has not only been recognized for environmental protection measures occurring
locally, but has also received awards for its role as a national and international leader, setting the
standards for what is possible in other communities around the world.
Leadership in Energy Efficiency:
In the field of energy efficiency, Aspen has also spearheaded new and innovative approaches.
This section of the memo is intended to remind staff, the public, and City Council members of
where Aspen has been, so that our decisions for the future are informed and deliberate.
Energy efficient building practices and retrofits are important because they influence utility bill
savings, deliver environmental benefits, and improve occupant comfort, health, and safety. For
these reasons and more, Aspen has chosen to increase the focus of efforts that increase the energy
efficiency of all buildings as a Top Ten Goal through 2017.
For the purpose of clarity, staff has divided this goal into two pieces: codes and programing.
P19
III.
Page 2 of 7
Codes refers to building codes, as well as land use codes. Programing refers to both required and
voluntary programs that incentivize homeowners, renters, and commercial building owners and
tenants to reduce energy consumption.
History of EE Codes:
Aspen has a history of leading the way and setting a high standard for energy efficiency in
buildings. This work has been primarily led by the City of Aspen building department and the
building codes and policies overseen by that department. Energy efficiency was first mentioned
in the City of Aspen building codes in 1994, when the first green building code was passed and
implemented. Aspen went on to enact numerous other iterations of this code and ‘above code’
programs, but it is important to note that the code adopted by Aspen in 1995 helped inform the
International Energy Conservation Code that was eventually adopted, 14 years later, far behind
Aspen.
Building codes set the standard for how a building should perform, while policies that are
considered ‘above code’ set a much higher example. In the case of the City of Aspen, the
Renewable Energy Mitigation Program (REMP) is an aggressive and impactful ‘above code’
program. The REMP policy was designed to offset the energy and environmental impacts and
greenhouse gas emissions produced by new homes and commercial buildings exceeding the
square footage threshold and non-complying exterior snowmelt, pools and spa systems.
The REMP program was enacted in 2000 for residential buildings and in 2008 for commercial
buildings. If a homeowner or building owner chooses not to mitigate energy use onsite through
options like geothermal or solar, fees are collected and given back to the community in the form
of grants that allow other homeowners and businesses to reduce energy use and increase energy
efficiency. REMP has been recognized around the world for its impact and design. It is important
to note that most well-known above code programs, such as LEED or Passive House
certifications, are voluntary and thus only reach a specific, interested population. REMP on the
other hand is mandatory for noncompliant buildings.
REMP is the first energy mitigation program of its kind and has received accolades from the
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment and the Harvard University Ash
Institute for Democratic Governance and Innovation. Attachment A provides a full list of
communities that have adopted REMP, following Aspen’s lead.
Because not all development goes through a land use review process, energy efficiency
requirements have been purposely located within the city’s building codes, rather than the land
use code. Many projects that are subject to a land use review are required to indicate how they
will develop as energy efficiently as possible, but the real teeth come through the building codes.
History of EE Programs:
While codes and policies are an effective way to change behavior and have led to significant
energy savings and avoided energy costs, it is important to pair codes and policies with incentive-
based programs that provide resources to businesses and residents. Pairing codes and programs
together incentivizes community members to both comply with the rules, and also to strive for
P20
III.
Page 3 of 7
further action through the resources and added incentives made available to them through energy
efficiency programming. Aspen residents and businesses have access to programs that provide
technical expertise, subsidized energy assessments, rebates, and grants for renewable energy and
energy efficiency improvements. The history of these programs is outlined in Attachment B.
Over the last twenty-plus years, CORE and local utilities and governments have been a source of
energy efficiency expertise in our region and have helped thousands of community members save
energy and improve their quality of life.
DISCUSSION:
With the history noted above, City Council and the community are now in a better position to
make decisions that will help Aspen to continue to lead the way in energy efficiency. Again, the
discussion has been split between codes and programing.
Future of EE Codes:
The above code programs mentioned above, including REMP, continue to this day. Aspen’s
original energy conservation code has been continually advanced to enhance the efficiency of our
buildings. With every updated building code, efficiency improves in Aspen. To continue
transforming the community’s energy use, the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code
building code will be unveiled later this spring, with requirements for approximately 15% higher
efficiency in residential and commercial buildings.
Energy Benchmarking:
Building and land use codes are important and impactful, but the impact only extends to new and
remodeled buildings in the community. To increase energy efficiency in existing buildings in
Aspen, additional policies are needed. To fill this need, staff suggests City Council consider
required energy benchmarking for commercial buildings.
Benchmarking Defined:
If the City of Aspen were to pursue a benchmarking program, the City would enact an ordinance
requiring buildings of a certain type and size to track their annual gas and electric usage and
report that usage using an online tool. Benchmarking empowers owners, tenants, and
governments to measure how their buildings use energy and identify opportunities to make smart,
economic improvements that save energy and money. Building managers enter monthly natural
gas and electricity data into Portfolio Manager, a free online software developed by the EPA.
Information is then sent back to managers so that they can compare energy use with buildings of
similar size, year, and use in the US, creating the potential for sector-specific improvement and
savings. The City of Aspen can then use data to better inform programs and provide specific
resources to meet the needs of building managers.
Why Benchmark?
Thoughtful research has been put into this staff recommendation, beginning in 2014 when City
Council was introduced to the concept of energy benchmarking at a worksession with the
National Renewable Energy Lab (NREL). NREL was hired by the City of Aspen to evaluate the
P21
III.
Page 4 of 7
best ways for Aspen Electric to achieve 100% renewable electricity, a goal which has since been
achieved. In addition to evaluating Aspen’s options for procuring more renewable energy, NREL
recognized that no amount of renewable energy is sufficient unless it is paired with an aggressive
approach to increasing energy efficiency. At the time, NREL stated that in other cities with
benchmarking ordinances, the building owners and tenants were experiencing a 2.4% annual
savings, simply by increasing awareness of their energy use.
Energy benchmarking, although a new idea in Aspen, has been tested by other communities, both
in the US and across the globe. Attachment C shows a list of cities in the US and countries that
have adopted an energy benchmarking program. With these cities taking the lead, energy
benchmarking has become a best practice among environmentally sustainable cities like Aspen.
Aspen is working towards an adopted goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by the
year 2050, and a short-term goal of 30% by 2020. Half of Aspen’s current greenhouse gas
emissions come from homes and businesses in the community. The remaining emissions come
from the airport, the landfill and transportation, showing very clearly that Aspen must act now to
reduce energy in our buildings to have any hope of achieving our climate action goals. For these
reasons and more, it is time for Aspen to pursue an energy benchmarking program.
To understand the impact that an ordinance like this could have on the community, staff has met
with representatives from the community, including real estate agents and commercial building
owners. General reactions to the idea were positive, with all agreeing that competition has the
potential to lead to action and could be healthy for the community. It was recommended that the
City pursue a phased approach, possibly starting with public buildings in the first year and then
requiring that private buildings comply in later years. There were also requests for a test case to
show business owners what to expect and what benefits they would receive. Staff also received
feedback that resources would be needed to help building managers use the online tracking tool.
Business owners noted that utility bills are a significant cost to tenants, but still do not receive
adequate attention or prioritization. An energy benchmarking program could incentivize building
managers to give needed attention to the details of their energy use and take action to reduce
energy and save money. Managers are already aware of how energy efficiency can positively
affect the comfort and satisfaction of guests and said they would appreciate additional motivation
and resources to improve energy efficiency.
Prior to returning to City Council with a more thorough recommendation for Aspen’s
benchmarking program, further and significant research is needed, and at this time, staff is
requesting permission to conduct this research and community outreach. A short list of items that
still need to be researched and considered include: the role of historic buildings, the size and type
thresholds, the role of water tracking, the process and approach, incentives available, and a
timeline of a phased approach.
To summarize the code improvements, staff is proposing two actions to move this City
Council goal forward in 2016:
- Research and present a draft benchmarking program to City Council for comments
- Present the 2015 International Energy Conservation Code building code to City
Council for approval
P22
III.
Page 5 of 7
Future EE Programing:
To achieve the end result that is desired by City Council’s goal, staff will continue to deliver and
support existing energy efficiency programs described above, and also proposes a new program
that focuses on the affordable housing sector.
Aspen Energy Challenge:
Aspen Energy Challenge is a program that started in 2015 and will run through the end of 2016.
The Aspen Energy Challenge is a collaboration between the City of Aspen, CORE, Holy Cross
Energy, and SourceGas to lead our community’s effort to win the $5,000,000 Georgetown
University Energy Prize. Aspen is one of fifty communities across the nation competing from
2015 through 2016 to save the most electricity and natural gas in our homes, schools and
municipal buildings through innovative, replicable, and equitable approaches. To bolster Aspen’s
effort in the competition, the Aspen Energy Challenge team has developed programs designed to
meet the energy efficiency needs of individual community segments, and to engage the
community at large in specific energy efficiency practices.
In addition to focusing energy efficiency programming on the residential sector, the City of
Aspen and CORE continue to offer incentives and rebates to commercial properties.
Attachments D and E provide a full listing of rebates available in 2016. The programs
highlighted here will continue through 2016, with added impact, and will make funds available to
the community for energy improvements.
One sector of the community that holds the potential for significant benefits from energy
efficiency improvements is the affordable housing sector. To date, there has not been
programming aimed specifically at improving energy efficiency in Aspen’s affordable housing
stock. The full details of this new program will be presented at a joint worksession of the City
Council and the Board of County Commissioners on February 16th. At that time, the local
governing bodies will have the opportunity to provide feedback on the program design. For the
purpose of today’s discussion, basics of the program are explained below.
Affordable Housing Focus:
Staff proposes the implementation of a Phase 1, with Phase 1a and Phase 1b portions. These
phases of the program will deliver energy efficiency improvements to affordable housing rental
units owned and/or managed by the Affordable Housing Office, as well as Burlingame seasonal
rentals, for a total of 447 units, or 21%, of the total 2163 affordable housing units in Aspen.
Phase 1a will address energy efficiency upgrades at Marolt Seasonal Housing, Burlingame
Seasonal Housing, and Truscott Housing. Phase 1b will address energy efficiency upgrades at
Smuggler Mountain Apartments and the Aspen Country Inn. In December 2015, the board of
directors of the Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) passed a motion to approve
a ‘supplemental budget of $500,000 from the REMP fund to support the Aspen Energy
Challenge, specifically in improving energy efficiency in affordable housing in the upper valley,
starting with rentals, as phase one of this program.’ Funding from Energy Outreach Colorado
(through SourceGas and Holy Cross Energy) and additional local utility rebates will also be
pursued. The proposed timeline includes culmination of Phase 1a work by August 2016, and
culmination of Phase 1b work by December 2016. With approval from the Board of County
P23
III.
Page 6 of 7
Commissioners and the Aspen City Council, CORE and City of Aspen staff will be able to
accomplish a program that will yield significant energy savings for those community members
living in rented affordable housing.
To summarize the programming improvements, staff is proposing three actions to move
this City Council goal forward in 2016:
- Request REMP funding be dedicated to an Affordable Housing efficiency program
- Continue to expand and improve upon the Aspen Energy Challenge program, aimed
at residential buildings
- Support existing commercial rebates and incentives, including the Small Lodge
Preservation Program
Goal Status and Future Meetings:
In addition to pursuing the codes and programming discussed above, the team of staff dedicated
to this City Council goal will research other programs and codes and present a recommendation
to City Council in mid-2016. This BYY City Council goal is on-schedule. The anticipated
completion of the goal is the end of 2016.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The effort to benchmark the energy of buildings and
update the building code will not require additional funding. However, additional efforts to
expand the Aspen Energy Challenge may require additional funding. Staff will have further
conversations with partners to identify funding options, and will look at existing department
budgets to understand what level of expansion of the Aspen Energy Challenge is possible. If
sufficient funds are not found, staff may return to City Council to request supplemental funding.
This supplemental funding request would allow the Canary Initiative to continue to provide the
current standard of service and rebates to commercial and residential customers while at the same
time, expanding programming and incentives in specific sectors of the community that are
essential to the success of the Aspen Energy Challenge.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Energy efficiency improvements to existing and new
buildings could impact Aspen’s local environment significantly as well as lead to greenhouse gas
emission reductions that would help Aspen meet the long term climate goals of the community.
As shown by City Council’s Environmental Sustainability Dashboard, it is a critical measure of
success that the ‘Aspen community effectively manage its energy needs while minimizing
adverse environmental impacts’. With a focus on new buildings as well as existing buildings in
both the residential and commercial sectors, Aspen has a real opportunity to continue being a
leader in environmental sustainability and energy efficiency.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends City Council and the Mayor give staff
permission to further research and pursue an energy benchmarking ordinance.
ALTERNATIVES: City Council and the Mayor may choose not to support an energy
benchmarking ordinance and expanded energy efficiency programming and codes. Without any
type of further codes and programming it will be challenging to reach City Council’s goal of
P24
III.
Page 7 of 7
‘transforming the energy use of buildings in the community.’ City Council may choose to
recommend that staff pursue other types of codes and programs to meet this goal.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: List of communities with policies similar to REMP
Attachment B: History of EE Programming in Aspen
Attachment C: List of Cities with Benchmarking Policies + Maps
Attachment D: Residential rebates available in 2016
Attachment E: Commercial rebates available in 2016
P25
III.
Attachment A: Communities with Similar Policies to REMP
Communities with Similar Policies to REMPCommunities with Similar Policies to REMP
P26
III.
Attachment B: History of EE Programming in Aspen
• 1970’s: Holy Cross Energy offers complimentary energy assessments to members
• 1991: Aspen Mayor Bill Stirling launches the Energy 2000 Committee, the precursor
entity
to CORE
• 1994: Local governments, utilities and citizens contribute to the founding of CORE
• 1995: The City of Aspen and Holy Cross Energy receive an award from the Western Area
Power Administration for creating CORE
• 1999: The Solar Pioneers Program kicks off: CORE provides rebates for solar, the first of
its kind in the nation
• 2004: Holy Cross Energy WE CARE (With Efficiency, Conservation, and Renewable
Energy,
we can make a world of difference) program created, including energy efficiency
rebates
• 2006: City of Aspen Utilities Efficiency Manager position created, City of Aspen
residential
energy efficiency rebates offered
• 2007: City of Aspen commercial rebates offered
• 2007: Rocky Mountain Utility Efficiency Exchange founded, a networking and
professional
development conference for energy efficiency and renewable energy staff
representatives of energy utilities serving Colorado and neighboring states,
hosted in Aspen.
• 2008: CORE administers City of Aspen, Holy Cross Energy, and Source Gas rebates,
Aspen
residents can complete one application to receive funds from all entities
• 2009: Regional workforce development support from CORE and utilities
• 2009: Home energy assessments available throughout Aspen Urban Growth Boundary –
a $400 value subsidized to $100 to the resident, providing installed quick-fix
efficiency upgrades and recommendations for further improvements
• 2009: In depth energy assessments and efficiency upgrades in City of Aspen buildings
• 2009: SourceGas energy efficiency programs in Colorado launched – rebates now
available to Aspen residents and businesses from CORE and all local utilities
Attachment D lists the residential rebates available in Aspen in 2016
Attachment E lists the commercial rebates available to Aspen Electric
customers 2016
• 2010: Energy Smart Colorado created in Pitkin, Gunnison and Eagle counties with $4.9
Department of Energy grant
• 2013: Online energy use tracker available to Aspen Electric customers
• 2013: Holy Cross Energy 5 year energy efficiency plan implemented, with a goal of
saving
2.5% of forecast retail sales in 2017
P27
III.
• 2014: Energy Smart Colorado grows from three counties to six (Pitkin, Eagle, Gunnison,
Lake, Summit, Garfield)
• 2014: Energy Smart Colorado partners with Colorado Natural Gas, Atmos Energy and
SourceGas to administer the Excess is Out program, making home energy
assessments available statewide
• 2014: Recommendations for future City of Aspen efficiency programs from National
Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL)
• 2014: Aspen accepted into Georgetown University Energy Prize (GUEP)
• 2015: Aspen Energy Challenge launched by City of Aspen, CORE, and local utilities to
lead
Aspen’s effort in the GUEP
• 2015: City of Aspen and CORE’s Small Lodges Energy Efficiency Program provides
technical
expertise and grant funds to small lodges for efficiency improvements
• 2015: Aspen ranked 3rd of 50 in interim GUEP rankings
P28
III.
Attachment C: Benchmarking on a Global
China
Brazil
Australia
Finland
Sweden
Norway
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Denmark
Countries
Benchmarking on a Global and US
Germany
Netherlands
Belgium
Switzerland
UK
Ireland
Czech Republic
Slovakia
Austria
Hungary
Slovenia
Romania
Bulgaria
Greece
Cyprus
Italy
Spain
Portugal
Luxembourg
Malta
Countries with Benchmarking Ordinances
and US Scale
Romania
Bulgaria
Greece
Cyprus
Italy
Spain
Portugal
Luxembourg
Malta
P29
III.
Location
Washington DC
Austin, TX
Washington State
New York, NY
Seattle, WA
San Francisco, CA
Minneapolis, MN
Boston, MA
Philadelphia, PA
Chicago, IL
Montgomery County, MD
Kansas City, MO
Cambridge, MA
California
Berkeley, CA
Portland, OR
Atlanta, GA
Boulder, CO
U.S. Jurisdictions with Benchmarking Ordinances
Location Date Passed
Washington DC Jul-08
Austin, TX Nov-08
Washington State May-09
New York, NY Dec-09
Seattle, WA Jan- 10
San Francisco, CA Feb-11
Minneapolis, MN Jan-13
Boston, MA Feb-13
Philadelphia, PA Jun-13
Chicago, IL Sep-13
Montgomery County, MD May- 14
Kansas City, MO Jun-14
Cambridge, MA Jul-14
California Sep-14
Berkeley, CA Mar-15
Portland, OR May- 15
Atlanta, GA Jul- 15
Boulder, CO Oct-15
U.S. Jurisdictions with Benchmarking Ordinances
P30
III.
P31
III.
City of Aspen Utilities
RenewAbles wAteR eleCtRiC
RECEIVE UP TO $5,000 TO INCREASE ENERGY EFFICIENCY
IN YOUR FOOD SERVICE OPERATION
We Can Help
The City of Aspen Utilities Department wants to help our customers save money and increase comfort,
reduce Aspen’s carbon footprint, and maintain our utility’s reliable infrastructure.
Three Simple Steps to Saving Energy & Money
Contact our local partner, Energy Smart Colorado
EnergySmartColorado.com
970.925.9775
Get a Site Visit & Energy Coaching
An energy site-visit is a free walk through in your business with
an Energy Smart teammember, including:
- An examination of your business’s lighting
- A brief evaluation of your equipment and mechanical systems
- Follow up materialsto outline the next steps to start saving energy
- Complimentary energy coaching to develop a plan of action to fit your unique needs and long term goals
Take Action & Save
After the walk through, energy coaches will help you implement the projects that fit your budget
- Finding qualified contractors
- Securing the best rebates and incentives
- Applying for loans and other financing
- Tracking your savings as you make improvements
Major Sources of Food Service Energy Cost
• Food Preparation: 35%
• Heating, Ventilation & Cooling (HVAC): 28%
• Sanitation: 18%
• Lighting: 13%
• Refrigeration: 6%
Opportunities for Savings
• Cooking Appliances
• HVAC and Building Envelope Retrofits
• Water and Waste Management
• Lighting Retrofits
• Refrigeration Systems and Ice Machines
Your Partners in Energy Efficiency
Take Action
P32
III.
“We even installed LEDs on our patio!” -Brad Smith, manager
Local Case Study: Red Onion
Energy Efficiency Rebates
One application gets you 50% of project cost up to $5,000 between City of Aspen and Energy Smart
Lighting
LEDs, CFLs, Fluorescent Tube Upgrades, Occupancy
Sensors and Controls
Office Equipment
Server Consolidations, Energy Star Servers, Energy
Star Vending Machines, Network Computer Power
Management Software
Building Envelope
Air Sealing, Insulation, Energy Efficient Windows and
Doors, Window Film, Window Re Glazing
Heating and Cooling (HVAC)
Controls, Re-Commissioning, Hot Water Boilers, Roof
Top AC Units, Split AC Systems, Furnaces, Entry Door
Air Curtains, Evaporative Cooling, Direct Outside Air
Exchanger
Water Use Equipment
Low Flow Toilets, Low Flow Showerheads, Low
Flow Fixtures, Washing Machines, Waterless Urinals,
Graywater Systems, Irrigation Systems Controls
Food and Drink Equipment
• Energy Star Appliances: Ice Machines,
Dishwashers, Refrigerators and Freezers, Hot
Food Holding Cabinets, Steam Cookers, Fryers,
Griddles, Convection Ovens
• Refrigerator and Freezer Door Gaskets, Strip
Curtains, Open or Reach In Display Cases, Auto
Closers for Walk In and Reach In Doors, Rotary
Type VFD Compressors, No Loss Air Drains, VFD
Motors
• Evaporator Fan EC Motors, Proper Hood
Balancing
Other Measures
Electric Outlet Occupancy Sensors, Energy
Monitoring Equipment, Sub Metering Equipment for
Tenant Spaces
Additional Rebates
Solar PV Installation
City of Aspen offers $1 per installed watt, up to $3,000 (Energy Smart rebate also available)
Ground Source Heat Pump
City of Aspen offers 25% of project cost up to $3,000
Energy Assessment
City of Aspen & Energy Smart offer a combined 50% of project cost, up to $2,000
Re-Commissioning
City of Aspen offers 50% of project cost, up to $1,000
• Monthly Electric Savings: $86.21
• Reduction in Monthly Electric Bill: 49%
• LED Lighting Retrofit
• Project Cost: $2,800
• Rebate Received: $700
• Pay Back Period: 24 months
• Bulb Lifetime: 25,000 hours
• Return On Investment (over bulb lifetime): 242%
• Lifetime Greenhouse Gas Reduction: 49,732 lbs CO2e
P33
III.
Make your home Energy Smart.
Call us today!
3 EASY STEPS
TO A SAFE + COMFORTABLE +
EFFICIENT HOME
A low-interest loan can help make
your energy improvements a reality.
Sign up today!
• Rebates available in addition to fi nancing!
• $1000-$25,000 loan amount
• 5, 7 or 10 Year loan terms
Holy Cross Energy and the City of Aspen
also have fi nancing available.
ROARING FORK VALLEY GUIDE TO ENERGY EFFICIENCYFINANCING
Loans
Repay
with Utility
Savings
1
2
3
Get an Assessment
A $400 value for only $100 cost, the Home
Energy Assessment includes:
• Testing for carbon monoxide and radon
• Blower door analysis and infrared
imaging to identify air leaks
• $100 worth of on-the-spot energy
installations including effi cient bulbs
and pipe wrap
• List of recommended improvements
Get Advice
After your assessment, we will help you
implement projects that fi t your budget. Our
Energy Advisers can assist with:
• Finding contractors
• Securing rebates and incentives
• Applying for loans and fi nancing
• Tracking your savings
Get Rebates
We have rebates available to help with all
your energy upgrades. See backside for more.
It’s So Easy. Sign Up Today!
Visit www.energysmartcolorado.com
Energy Smartt/CORE rebates are funded by the REMP program of Pitkin CountyThe blower door analysis identifi es air leakage and inadequate insulation.
(970) 925-9775 ext 502
for your Pitkin County Energy Resource Center
(970) 704-9200
for your Garfi eld County Energy Resource Center
Visit: www.energysmartcolorado.com
MAKING ENERGY IMPROVEMENTS
SIMPLE AND AFFORDABLE
RENEWABLES WATER ELECTRIC UTILITY BILLING
UTILITIES
THE CITY OF ASPEN
P
3
4
I
I
I
.
EFFICIENCY MEASURE ENERGY SMART/CORE
(Aspen » Glenwood Springs)
HOLY CROSS ENERGY GLENWOOD SPRINGS
ELECTRIC
SOURCEGAS CITY OF ASPEN ELECTRIC XCEL ENERGY
Air Sealing 25% up to $500*30% up to $400
(elect. only)
25% up to $500
(up to $1,000 for elect.)
30% up to $300**25% up to $500 (elect. only)*
Insulation 25% up to $500*30% up to $700
(elect. only)
25% up to $500
(up to $1,000 for elect.)
30% up to $300**25% up to $500 (elect. only)*30% up to $500
Duct Sealing & Insulation 25% up to $500*
Windows 25% up to $1,000*$2/sq. ft. up to $600
(elect. only)
25% up to $500 (elect. only)*
Toilet 50% up to $75/toilet
Clothes Washer $75
Dishwasher $50
Refrigerator Rebate & Recycling $100 $75 for recycling $100 $100 $50 for recycling (elect. only)
Programmable Thermostat 25% up to $500 $20 - $50 $50 (elect. only)$25 25% up to $100 $50/smart thermostat
Gas Furnace 25% up to $500 25% up to $500
(elect. only)
$300 + $50 for proper
sizing**
$120 (gas only)
Gas Boiler 25% up to $500 $100 - $300 + $50
for proper sizing**
Boiler/Furnace Maint. & Tune Up 25% up to $500 $40 (furnace only)
Air Conditioner $500 - $1,150 (elect. only)
Evaporative Cooler (Swamp Cooler)$150 25% up to $500 $200 - $1,200
House Fan/Ventilation 25% up to $500
Ductless Heat Pump (Mini-Split)25% up to $500 $650
Indirect Water Heater 25% up to $500
Tankless Water Heater 25% up to $500 $300 $100 (gas only)
High Efficiency Tank Heater 25% up to $500 25% up to $100 (elect. only)$70 (gas only)
Electric Heat Pump Water Heater 25% up to $500 30% up to $300
(elect. only)
25% up to $500 25% up to $500 (elect. only)$450 (elect. only)
Solar Thermal / Solar Hot Water $1,500/panel up to $3,000 $20/1,000 BTU up to
$3,000 (elect. only)
Solar Photovoltaic (PV)$1/watt up to 3 kW $0.20 - 0.75/watt
up to 25 kW
$0.75/watt up to 6 kW $1/watt up to 3 kW Solar Rewards Program
Microhydro 25% up to $3,000
Ground Source Heat Pump
(Geothermal)
25% up to $3,000 25% up to $3,000 $300/ton up to $1,500
Lighting 25% up to $500 50% up to $5/LED 50% up to $200 25% up to $500 Discounted LEDs & CFLs
Heat Tape Controls 25% up to $500 50% up to $100 25% up to $200 25% up to $200
Other Controls 25% up to $500
25% up to $2,500 Prescriptive & custom
rebates available
Custom rebates max.
25% up to $5,000
25% up to $2,500
REBATES ARE CONTINGENT UPON ELIGIBILITY AND CRITERIA
Please consult each entity’s website to learn if your home improvement project qualifies. Call our Energy Advisers at (970) 925-9775 to find out more.
*Indicates an Energy Smart Home Energy Assessment is required for eligibility. Call (970) 925-9775 to sign up. **Extra $100 available if a Home Energy Assessment has been performed.
For Glenwood Springs Electric rebates, administered by CLEER, visit www.garfieldcleanenergy.org or call (970) 704-9200. Rebates based on electrical savings.
HE
A
T
I
N
G
&
C
O
O
L
I
N
G
AP
P
L
I
A
N
C
E
S
HO
T
W
A
T
E
R
EL
E
C
T
R
I
C
I
T
Y
COMMERCIAL REBATES
MULTI-FAMILY REBATES
HO
M
E
E
N
V
E
L
O
P
E
RE
N
E
W
A
B
L
E
rev. 1.5.16
Rebates are available from Energy Smart Colorado for up to $10,000 for multi-family units and HOAs. Please visit www.EnergySmartColorado.com or give us
a call to discuss your project ideas.
P
3
5
I
I
I
.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Jessica Garrow, Long Range Planner
Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager
Don Taylor, Finance Director
Pete Strecker, Assistant Finance Director
Hillary Seminick, Planner
MEETING DATE: February 1, 2016
RE: Uphill Economy Update and Funding Request
REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council provide guidance on moving forward with
work related to the Uphill Economy.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The Council selected the following as a Top 10 Goal in
August 2015: “Identify and pursue economic opportunities that diversify Aspen’s economy
without relying on physical development.” This is a continuation of a previous 2014 Council
goal.
BACKGROUND: Part of this goal focuses on the “uphill economy” as a way to build on
Aspen’s existing small town mountaineering and skiing culture. The work in 2014 involved the
creation of an Uphill Festival at the base of Aspen Mountain that included a vendor village
which enabled event visitors to learn about uphilling and even test equipment. While that was a
successful event, staff believes the next step to move this effort forward is an economic
development plan to outline how Aspen can build on our existing skiing and uphilling profile to
capture additional economic activity that does not rely on physical development. Conversations
with representatives from the uphill industry and the Colorado Office of Economic Development
have confirmed that a short and long term vision is needed.
SUMMARY:
City Special Events staff is working with the Aspen Skiing Company to put on another Uphill
Festival. It is scheduled for February 27th at the base of Aspen Mountain, to coincide with the
end of the Power of Four Race. This event is anticipated to build off the success of the 2015
inaugural event, and will include a vendor village as well as demos from local operators.
Staff has been working with consultant Bob Schultz to draft an RFP requesting professional
services for the creation of an “Uphill Economy Economic Development and Recruitment Plan,”
which is intended to identify a strategic pathway and critical actions that the City can implement,
either alone or in cooperation with other actors, to position Aspen as a home for research and
P36
IV.
development and manufacturing of uphill athletic gear and associated businesses. The
overarching goal is to build on Aspen’s existing skiing and small town character by attracting
businesses, events, and visitors that focus on our mountain character and past, rather than on
development. This effort supports the AACP goal of reducing the “boom – bust” nature of the
development industry.
The deliverables for the plan include a detailed analysis of the existing uphill market, how Aspen
is currently positioned relative to the overall industry, key trends in the industry, and how Aspen
can improve its market position. The plan would outline a short and long term strategy for
building on Aspen’s mountaineering and uphill reputation with an ultimate goal of creating a
local economic engine unrelated to real estate and development. Without this plan staff does not
believe any additional work beyond putting on uphill events is likely to occur. There are no
economic development experts currently on city staff, so a consultant team is needed to create
this plan.
FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Should the Council determine to move forward with an
RFP, a project budget will need to be determined and a budget supplemental requested. The size
of the supplemental will be dependent on responses to the RFPs. Staff anticipates this work will
be $15,000 - $35,000.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends moving forward with an RFP in order to
move this overall effort forward.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P37
IV.