Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20080722~~ RE PARKS MEMORANDUM DATE: July 9, 2008 TO: Mayor and Council THRU: Stephen Ellsperman, Director Parks and Open Space FROM: Brian Flynn, Open Space and Special Projects Manager CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager RE: Small Dog Park Summary During the June 24, 2008 Council work session, Staff received direction from City Council to explore possible locations for an experimental small dog park. The Parks and Recreation Department has completed an analysis of the opportunities and constraints within our system. We have three recommended sites identified, one which is preferred for an experiment this year. In addition, Staff is seeking public feedback via a paper survey; this is a critical part of our planning to better understand the current uses on the public spaces we manage. Staff is prepared to discuss these locations with City Council during the upcoming July 22ntl work session. We have included for your review a detailed packet of information; maps of the locations proposed by Staff, a 30 page paper provided by a member of the public on the public value of the proposed dog run, the original 2000 dog proposal from Aspen Canine Friends and will have photos and dog park information available during the meeting. Background In 1999, the Parks Department embarked on a mission to identify and develop Aspen's first park dedicated to dogs. The process spearheaded by the Environmental Ranger and a group of citizens, called Aspen Canine Friends, researched, studied and proposed the concept to City Council. The two year process included citizen surveys, field trips to existing dog parks and the development of a dog park proposal. The original proposal from 2000 is attached for your review. During a 2000 work session with the Council it was decided to keep with status quo and support the more dog friendly approach to enforcement. City Council, at that time, did not support a dog park or dog run. City Council gave direction to staff to continue to loosely enforce the leash law so that the parks throughout town would be able to provide a similar experience as would a dog park. City Council at the time felt this direction of status quo did not require an investment in infrastructure and staff time and more closely represented the desires of the citizens in Aspen. Since that time, Staff and Enforcement personnel have always maintained a relaxed approach to dogs recreating in parks. This means that a responsible dog owner recreating in a city park will not receive a dog at large ticket. The City of Aspen Municipal code requires dogs to be leashed except when on the owner's private property. The leash is required to be less than 10 feet in length and able to control the animal. Based on the previous Council direction, Staff and Enforcement personnel consider a responsible dog owner to be one that carries a leash (to be used in areas that require leash) and the ability to pick up after the animal. This approach has been supported and welcomed by the dog community. At a regular City Council meeting held May 2008, a citizen made a public presentation to request that City Council install an experimental small dog park in Koch Lumber Park. The citizen presentation focused on the perceived need for a small dog park and it's ability to curb attacks on small dogs from large dogs. The citizen suggested a simple fenced area could be used to allow small dogs to run free of a leash and more importantly prevent attacks from large dogs. City Council thanked the citizen and suggested they would discuss the proposal with staff. During the June 24, 2008 City Council work session, Parks and Recreation Department staff asked for specific direction and clarification from Council. City Council asked that staff research the feasibility of installing a small dog run within the current park system and to report back to Council via a memo. In the three weeks since Staff received direction from the City Council about moving forward with exploring passible locations for a small dog park, the Parks and Recreation Department has completed an analysis of the opportunities and constraints within our system. Staff has accepted and reviewed all of the documentation provided by citizens which includes petitions and research items. Staff is also collecting public comments via a paper survey asking for feedback from the general public. Staff created a matrix of the parks system utilizing key characteristics needed for a dog park, which included the following: shade, grass, parking, adjacent neighborhood concerns, current dominant park uses, and aesthetics. An analysis of this matrix provided a list of the three potential properties that met the highest number of these characteristics. Finally, staff field researched the locations and these will be discussed in further detail below. Discussion In order to provide City Council with accurate information to make a decision on an experimental small dog run. Parks and Recreation Staff feel a critical discussion point is to determine the actual need for the small dog park. It is the opinion of the Parks Department that the recent issues which have surfaced about large and small dogs are valid but do not constitute the need for the development, the enforcement and the financial outlay of a small dog park. Staff feels strongly that with over 35 parks of varying sizes, shapes, and infrastructure there is adequate room available for any type of dog recreation. To date the Parks Department has not had any complaints about the conflicts between small and large dog interfaces within the parks system. Staff recognizes that attacks on small dogs have occurred, however, the connection to the city of aspen parks system is unknown. Although small dogs utilizing a small dog run would have protection, it is certain that there will always be small dogs utilizing the parks system as they always have. An extensive body of research has examined the causes of dog/human and dog/dog interactions and shown that the dog handler, lack of control and training is the number one factor in dog problems. Regardless of the location; trail, park, mall or sidewalk the responsibility of the attacks still falls on the person in charge of the dogs at the time it occurred. If it is determined that the need for a small dog park is warranted, then the discussion should focus on the location which fits a specific criteria of safety, parking and impact. The Parks Department has identified several areas that would facilitate the development of a dog run which closely meet these criteria. Each will be outlined below with both the advantages and constraints present for each location and in order of Staffs preference for the experimental use. 1) Marolt Open Space: this 80-acre open space offers a wide variety of features which make it staff's preferred experimental site. • The site does not conflict with any other existing uses, the property already serves multiple different users and the addition of an experimental park will not deter from these uses. • Staff will be able to provide cost free parking for five or more vehicles. • There is an abundance of shade and there is the possibility of a water feature. • The area is accessible for maintenance, mowing and trash remove. • Public access will be both walking and vehicular via the West Hopkins Trail and Bike/fed Way provides non-motorized access to the site and the Marolt farm road, used to access the Community Garden provides motorized access. • The site can accommodate a picnic table and other amenities for the use by dog owners. Neighborhood issues are anon-issue. • The area impacted is made up of old pasture grasses which are more durable then blue grass and can be restored at minimal cost. 2) Rio Grande Park: this centrally located space offers a wide variety of features which make a viable candidate for the experimental site. • The proposed site is located within the northeast side of the park. The portion of the park which staff has identified for use as the dog park may conflict with the other uses and special events. Staff feels the dog run could be closed during the conflicts. • Parking is available on Rio Grande Place or in the parking garage. • The area is accessible for maintenance which includes the need to mow the area within the fenced area. • Public access will be both walking and vehicular. • There are benches and other park amenities near the site but the area proposed fro the park is not able to accommodate any additional amenities. • Neighborhood issues are of concern due to the increased traffic and the possibility barking. • The area impacted is made up of old pasture grasses which are more durable then blue grass and can be restored at minimal cost. • The area impacted is made up of old pasture grasses which are more durable then blue grass and can be restored at minimal cost. 3) Aiax Park: This 1-acre parcel is located off of Ute Ave at the base of Aspen Mountain. The park does not serve any one specific user group and acts as a passive park available for rest and contemplation. • The area is easily accessible for maintenance, mowing and trash. • Public access will be both walking and vehicular. • There are benches and other park amenities in the park and would accommodate use by the dog owners. • Parking is free and able to be met with the use of the on-site parking lot. • The site does meet requirements for shade but is lacking in water. • Increased traffic on Ute Ave might bean issue but could be addressed with routine patrols. Neighborhood issues are of concern due to the increased traffic and the possibility barking. • Damage to the park turf area is also a concern and will be able to be addressed with periodic closures and maintenance of the park surface similar to that of a major event. If City Council supports moving forward with the experimental dog run, staff is recommending Council's support for the Marolt Open Space site. Based on the criteria stated above staff feels this will be the best location for success of the experiment. Financial Impacts In each of these locations the development of the dog park requires the construction of a fenced area, gated access, signage and some form of parking. Each of these requires the purchase of materials for fence posts, fencing materials, sign posts, trash cans, waste bags and staff time to install and secure the gated entry. Depending on the location some of the characteristics will be met with the inclusion of shade trees located on site, maintenance from the mowing crews and enforcement of the park by our enforcement personnel. The initial installation and set up is a one-time estimated cost, which could be absorbed within the 2008 budget out of the Department's carry forward savings. Staff estimates the immediate costs of the experimental small dog park to be $2,500. This includes: dog bag box, trash can, post and rules and use signs, as well as fence materials and staff time to install. The installation of this facility at any of the above locations will require ongoing costs for the monitoring, mowing, enforcement and general management of the experimental park. These costs are unknown, but will be documented over the experimental period for budgeting purposes. Environmental Impacts Like any of the parks in Aspen, use of the area by dogs will cause noise and odor issues as well as degradation of the grass surface. Most of the turf issues can be addressed with periodic closures and regular maintenance of the area. High, concentrated activity in one place, like a fenced in area, will cause the loss of any grasses which will need to be addressed by shifting the fenced area. Barking will also bean issue. Areas located within close proximity to developments or housing should be avoided in order to limit this impact. Odor is addressed through the immediate actions of responsible dog owners. Dog waste will be required to be removed from the site and placed within a trash can. Waste left on the site will increase impacts to turf and increase soil contamination. The fact that this use will be heavily concentrated within any one specific area should be strongly considered as to the impending impacts this will undoubtedly cause. Attachments: A) 2000 Dog Proposal B) 30-page position paper C) Marolt Site D) Rio Grande Site E) Ajax Park Site MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Amy Guthrie, Historic Preservation Officer ~~ RE: Historic Preservation Task Force Update DATE: July 21, 2008 SUMMARY: This worksession is an update to City Council on the progress of the Historic Preservation Task Force. The only action needed relates to a budget request detailed below. Ordinance #48, Series of 2007 called for the establishment of a Historic Preservation Task Force. Council appointed members in February, and the group has met nine times. They have adopted by-laws for decision-making, elected a Chair and Vice-Chair, heard several educational sessions presented by excellent speakers from around the country, viewed the new preservation documentary, and taken a bus tour of past projects and postwar resources. At the last two meetings, the group undertook a brainstorming exercise facilitated by Barry Crook, to develop their work plan. Over the next few months, subcommittees will prepare an analysis of each of the selected topics. The subcommittees are to report the full spectrum of facts (all sides of the issue) to the Task Force, synthesize the information, provide "pro's and con's" and possible benefits and detriments of different options. If desired, the subcommittee can make a recommendation or advocate a position. Their work will be used to facilitate recommendations that will ultimately be forwarded to Council, ideally in January 2009. The work plan and schedule are: Philosophy of Aspen Historic Preservation/Character- Full Task Force, July 24'h Criteria for Designation- August 14th Architecture & Context/Commercial Concerns & Codes/HPC Guidelines -Design Criteria/Interiors/Landscapes/Environmental Issues/Misc: August 28th Incentives and Economics of Historic Preservation- Sept. 11th Voluntary vs. Involuntary/Listing Practices- Sept. 25th Historic Districts/District Boundaries- Oct. 9`h Community Input/Public Participation/Education & Survey- Oct. 23rd Summarize and Draft Final comments- Nov. 13th Adopt Final comments- Dec. 11th 1 BUDGET The Task Force has a budget of $90,000. The table on the right indicates expenditures to date. $25,248 is available. Staff expects to spend approximately $5,000 of this on meeting venues and lunches. The remaining funds need to be reserved for additional resources the group may request, such as speakers. In addition, to facilitate the work of the subcommittees, Community Development will produce a reference manual on each of the policy topics being discussed. The manuals will include background information on the topic, state of the art practices from around the country, and suggestions of where to go for more information. This is to get the groups started, not to limit any ideas. Staff is unable to take on the additional workload, therefore we are in the process of hiring topic experts to produce each book immediately. One of the important areas being discussed by the Task Force is the Economics of Historic Preservation. It is a long standing debate as to how historic designation affects property values in Aspen. Staff considers it urgent to secure a factual analysis of this issue. We have contacted Economic Research Associates, a firm that is producing a history of Aspen's economy as part of the AACP. They are prepared to provide a report that considers a statistically significant sample of transactions for both landmarked and un- landmarked properties. This quantitative analysis would be supplemented with an inspection and inventory of both the buildings and site conditions to gather the kind of information that will support the report's conclusions and allow us to move forward with confidence. ERA can complete this work in four weeks, which is critical to the Task Force schedule. To complete this report, staff requests additional funding of $40,000 for the economists and $10,000 for a research assistant to gather local data as needed. HP Task Force Bud et Total Cost Leslie Lamont- Facilitation 25000.00 Grassroots 7000.00 Ads 3000.00 Creation of to 0 2310.00 Creation of website 3000.00 Jour de Fete 3/13 lunch 400.00 Hickor House 4/10 lunch 552.50 Taster's 4/21 lunch 307.67 Given 5/12 rental fee 900.00 Conundrum 5/121unch 600.00 NTHP hotel (4) 800.94 NTHP dinner inc. staf 192.90 Bus rental 325.00 Butcher's Block- tour lunch 499.00 Bus tour uidebooks 580.00 Institute rental and lunch 3250.00 Junes Bakers' hotel 4 876.00 Junes Bakers airfare 1148.00 Junes Bakers fees 1280.00 Jour de Fete 6/261unch 330.00 As en S uare 7/10 rental 150.00 Bi Wra 7/lOlunch 250.00 Documentary HD and B- roll 12000.00 Total: 64752.01 Bud et 90000.00 Total available 25247.99 Attachment: New Logo for Aspen Historic Preservation 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ben Gagnon, Special Projects Planner ~ `r' THRU: Chris Bendon, Director, Community Development DATE OF MEMO: July IS, 2005 MEETING DATE: N/A RE; Screenings and other uses for documentary: "A Fragile Heritage: Aspen's Historic Preservation Debate," and efficacy of using documentary video for public outreach REQUEST OF COUNCIL: There is no request of Council. This is a report on the initial screening of -- and future uses for -- "A Fragile Heritage: Aspen's Historic Preservation Debate," aCity-produced documentary on historic preservation issues. This memo also reflects staff's belief that continuing to produce documentary-style videos should be a critical part of the City's strategy to raise public awazeness and inspire informed civic dialogue on critical issues. BACKGROUND: The intent of "A Fragile Heritage" was to widen the civic dialogue regazding historic preservation. Staff believes that using a journalistic approach to documentary production, including a "point-counterpoint" style -- along with educational information -- is a productive method of reaching a broad range of citizens, and stimulating discussion. Staff believes that the City-produced documentary, "The Entrance to Aspen: How Did We Get Here?" in 2006 was a substantial success as part of a larger public process on the issue. A substantial amount of information contained in that documentary is currently part of the six-month exhibit on transportation at the Aspen Historical Society. With regazd to the Entrance to Aspen documentary, Assistant City Manager Randy Ready said, "It was extraordinazily worthwhile to document the history and frame the debate with a common understanding of where we've been before we got into the `Where do we go from here?' question. It's also extremely worthwhile to have that piece of documentation in place for people moving into the community or who aze new to the debate to serve as a primer to bring them up to speed in 35 minutes. It's good information for new reporters, for new residents and for people who've been here but haven't engaged in the debate. They can review that and understand where we've been before they enter the fray so to speak." For better or for worse, staff believes people are more likely to watch awell-produced documentary and debate its contents with friends and family than they are to read a 20- page hand-out. Other municipalities and government districts are also adopting this technique, but often using a somewhat amateurish approach. Staff here in Aspen believes the quality of the product must at least rival the quality typically seen on television or elsewhere for people to watch and absorb it. In some ways, other governments aze ahead of Aspen, in that they stream informational videos on their websites. The City/County website is not currently capable of streaming video, but staff expects that the capability will be in place this fall, at which time the "Fragile Heritage" video will be made available on the website. Staff explored placing the video on YouTube, but the 28-minute length of the documentazy meant it would need to be split into 3 pieces, and staff opted not to do that. GrassrootsTV Channel 11 began broadcasting the documentary extensively starting the week of July 14 (schedules are available at www.grassrootstv.org). Using print advertising, media articles and the City's listserv to draw an audience, staff screened "A Fragile Heritage" for 7 days (July 2-3, July 7-I 1) in the Council Chambers at noon, providing refreshments. More than 100 people attended the screenings and about 80 people filled out surveys. The surveys listed 14 quotes from the interview subjects in the documentary and asked the respondent to agree or disagree. Results aze attached as Exhibit A, including unsolicited comments. More than 20 people provided their a-mail addresses so they can receive updates on the work of the Historic Preservation Task Force. The informal response from people who viewed the documentary was positive, with many saying it was even-handed, showing multiple perspectives on the issue. Only two people at the City Hall screenings had anything negative to say about the documentary. Staff has received 300 copies of the DVD this week, and plans to disseminate them at no charge to the public. Many requests for the DVD came from attendees at the screenings, and staff will continue to look for opportunities (including the Wheeler this fall) to screen the documentary and/or provide copies to the public. The cost of printing DVDs is minimal, at $462 for 300 copies. The City's production partner, Cinema Vertige, is exploring possibilities for broadcast at KBDI-12 in Denver - (this option is available only because of the high quality of the production). FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The original cost estimate approved by City Council on Oct. 29, 2007, for this documentary was $40,000. In January 2008, staff found that because the documentary is focused largely on visual images of architecture, and because staff believed it should be accessible to future generations aswell - a contract addendum was drafted so the production was taped in High Definition (HD). The addendum relied on funds from the Historic Preservation Task Force account: $5,328.59 to use HD tape stock for the project, and $7,200 to edit 10 HD tapes to create a 75-minute record of dozens of historic homes as part of the City's official record (in addition to the documentary itself). There was no cost associated with using the Council Chambers to screen the documentary, but print advertising cost approximately $971.73; advertising design cost $162.50 and approximately $100 was spent on popcorn, soda, organic juice and edamame over seven screenings. Staff would not normally add up the hours that staff spent on a project like this, and the rate of pay for staff -- but a public request was made by local resident Bert Myrin for this calculation at the same time this memo was being drafred. The best estimate is 105 hours for Ben Gagnon, 11 hours for Amy Guthrie and 10 hours for Sara Adams; for a total of $4,396.45. Because the expenditure of funds on this method of public outreach is the focus of at least some public concern, and because staff believes this method of outreach should be continued in the future -- staff would also like to outline the costs of the "Entrance to Aspen: How Did We Get Here?" The City co-produced the documentary with GrassRootsTV, which agreed to a substantially discounted cost (about half of their actual cost) as part of GrassRootsTV's effort to launch CGTV Channel 11. GrassRootsTV charged only $14,675 for 40 hours of "shooting," and 156 hours of editing. However, City staff time cost taxpayers at least $20,000 for Ben Gagnon; the graphic special effects cost approximately $3,000, and the narration cost about $900. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A: "A Fragile Heritage" Survey Results G~ 7~ Yl I ~3 I "A Fragile Herita~pen's Historic Preservation Debate" Historic Preservation Survey Results: Agree/Disagree with quotes from the documentary 1) Aspenites don't like to be told what to do. Strongly Agree 29 /Agree 45 /Not Sure 3 /Disagree 1 / Strongly Disagree 0 2) The recent controversy is really about other things in town. The zeitgeist is that we are afraid of change. There's been a lot of homes demolished and replaced in the last few years and the current govenunent is trying to do something about it. Strongly Agree 10 / Agee 46 /Not Sure 11 / Disagree 9 /Strongly Disagree 4 3) My greatest concern is that the attempt to preserve properties is going to accelerate the demise of buildings from the 1960's and 70s era that aze not of historic value. People look at uncertainty and say if I don't act today I may not be able to act tomorrow so rather than live in my 1968 box, I better teaz it down. Strongly Agree 13 /Agree 30 /Not Sure 12 /Disagree 17 / Stronely Disagree 6 4) Those ordinances were enacted correctly because of emergency situations. There aze speculators and developers and contractors, attorneys and power broker money people who want to tear down whatever they can to get at those single-family lots. Strongly Agee 20 / Agree 33 /Not Sure 5 /Disagree 13 /Stronely Disagree 5 5) The Aspen idea is about balancing body, mind and spirit - I don't think net profit is in the definition anywhere. Strongl~gree 30 / Agee 20 /Not Sure 9 /Disagree 22 / Strongly Disagree 4 6) Historic preservation is not the result of preservation policies -preservation starts with something interesting being built - if a building is of high quality, the community and the owners will preserve it. The Jerome is an example; it's been here since the 1880s, but preservation policies didn't stazt until the 1970s; so why is it still here? Strongly Agree 17 /Agree 23 /Not Sure 13 /Disagree 18 / Strongly Disagree 6 7) If we had the luxury of time, we would take it, but we don't -the development process in Aspen happens fast and people want a piece of it - we will lose important parts of our history without effective historic preservation policies. Strongly Agree 27 /Agree 39 /Not Sure 1 /Disagree 7 / Strongly Disagree 2 8) The idea of modernism is worth preserving -- particular what we have in Aspen -- we really have some of the only buildings done by architects of Bauhaus in Aspen and nowhere else. Walter Paepcke was visionary enough to bring designers to town to create his vision that's key to part of our history that we easily neglect. Stronglv Agee 27 /Agree 34 /Not Sure 5 /Disagree 6 /Strongly Disaeree 3 9) There was an era that we had in the 1950s when a lot of people came over from Europe and wanted to replicated their buildings their chalet styles and right now I see we're trying to save those .... At first I thought it was ridiculous, but it is a piece of our history and it should be preserved. Stronglv Agree 16 /Agree 47 /Not Sure 2 /Disagree 7 /Stronglv Disagree 5 10) In 2022, it will be the 75 the anniversary of Aspen Idea. My concern is, will there be enough evidence of the Aspen Idea when it comes time to celebrate. Stronglv Agree 19 /Agree 25 /Not Sure 9 /Disagree 14 /Stronglv Disagree 5 11) Not everything is worth saving but we need to have a conversation as a community about what we want to carry forward. Stronglv Agree 45 /Agree 30 /Not Sure 0 /Disaeree 0 / Stronglv Disagree 1 12) If there's one thing I can say about the debate now, it's to keep civility about the debate. If there's one thing Ilearned - we need to walk away and be friends and not enemies -- afrer all, we live in a small community and it's good to hear all sides. Stronglv Aeree 51 /Agree 20 /Not Sure 0 /Disagree 3 /Stronglv Disaeree 1 13) I'm not comfortable with a "should" statement on what people should value, but I'm happy to suggest that what we get to do as a community is create a culture where history is valued rather than legislating the value of history. Stronglv Agree 27 /Aeree 30 /Not Sure 14 / Disa ree 5 /Stronglv Disaeree 0 14) There's a tremendous correlation between historic buildings, Victorian character, miner era character, ski era character and modernism to the value of the town - it's a very important part of what identifies Aspen as one of the top two or three ski resorts on the planet. If we continue to keep teazing things down we'll lose. Stronglv Agree 38 /Agree 29 /Not Sure 5 /Disagree 5 /Stronglv Disagree 0 Unsolicited Written Comments, listed by survey question 2) It's about $, it's about losing historically valuable assets. 3) I witnessed this on my street. 3) But I hope it's not the case. 3) Buildings built in the `60s and `70s aren't important to me. 4) So many are locals, notjust out-of-towners. 5) This is what the movie says, but money is always part of the definition. 5) But the Aspen Idea seems very distorted judging by today's Aspen. 5) It's there somewhere. 5) But profits are part of a vital community. 5) I think net profit is the only thing in the mind of developers. I do not believe developers are concerned about the Aspen Idea. 6) The owners can be counted on to preserve it, if it's not as profitable. 7) I wouldn't deem 30 years old as historic, why not 70-100 years? 8) Very few cut the mustard. Keep them! 9) Some were very shoddily and cheaply built. 14) Just keep the good stuff. Most modernism is bereft of the human spirit; that's why it did not survive. Sounded like a good idea at the time! I liked the point made in the movie that there must be an incentive for owners to preserve historic places. I have visited many preserved buildings in Newport RI and they have an extremely successful Historic Preservation Society. Does Aspen's situation compare? [The emergency ordinances] were a good idea. The process was so fast and too secret. Just a little notice could have made a big difference. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Stephen Kanipe, Chief Building Official THRU: Chris Bendon, Community Development Director THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager DATE OF MEMO: July 16, 2008 MEETING DATE: July 22, 2008 RE: Request of Council to create a Commercial REMP Code REQUEST OF COUNCIL: This memo updates Council on staff's progress in development of a commercial Renewable Energy Mitigation Program to complement our very successful residential REMP code. The new program, presently called AP2030C (Aspen Pitkin 2030 Commercial) incorporates minimum energy use modeling that meets the 2030 Challenge. Building staff is looking for direction from Council to proceed or not with writing a more comprehensive commercial energy and sustainable code. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In December 2007 Council held a Public Hearing on the Lodge at Aspen Mountain and energy use in commercial buildings was discussed at length. It was the information presented at the hearing and insightful questions of council that is the framework for the energy requirements in AP2030C. BACKGROUND: The Aspen/ Pitkin County Energy Conservation Code, Renewable Energy Mitigation Program and Efficient Building Program are innovative public policies that promote the use of renewable energy, energy efficiency, sustainable technologies and better indoor air quality. Our community benefits from the reduction in the amount of fossil fuel energy used in exterior applications such as snowmelt, pools and spas, better building enclosures, fewer material resources used in construction and Page 1 of 4 healthier homes to live in. There are four key elements in the current codes to achieve these goals: Larger homes (buildings) have higher performance standards. In APECC, REMP and the Efficient Building Program, larger houses have higher performance goals for energy efficiency, on-site renewable energy requirements and points required for "green' standards. Computer modeling shows our current residential energy code is 40% better than the national standard IECC 2003. A limit on the amount of exterior energy. An energy limit for fossil fuels used. for exterior energy applications (i.e. snowmelt, pools and spas) has been set at 240,000,000 BTU's per year for residential buildings. The code also provides a free amount of exterior energy if there is energy "surplus' in the house. In our climate, the typical amount of exterior energy consumed and offset is enough to heat a 4,800 square foot home for one year. A renewable energy requirement. Since 1996 homeowners with snowmelt, pools or spas have been required to provide at least 50% of the energy from renewable energy sources. In 2000 the City Council and County Commissioners adopted the Renewable Energy Mitigation Program. REMP provides an option for offsite mitigation (instead of installing on site renewable energy) through a payment of up to $100,000. Those funds are used to reduce energy use elsewhere. Minimum efficient building program points. In 2003 the City Council and County Commissioners adopted the Efficient Building Program. This is the "green' element of our residential building codes. The program requires a minimum number of points, based on house size, to be scored on the checklist. Point categories include deconstruction and construction debris recycling, resource efficient materials, water conservation, advanced energy measures, innovative insulation materials and techniques, solar design and indoor air quality. It is staff's thirteen years of experience in administering and enforcing these residential energy and sustainable codes that is transferred to essential elements of AP2030C. DISCUSSION: The development of Aspen Pitkin 2030 Commercial or AP2030C began in earnest on August 21, 2007 with an Energy Update meeting. About sixteen engineers, contractors and material suppliers met to review our energy use assumptions for residential snowmelt, pools and spas and establish consumption figures for commercial Page 2 of 4 systems. These numbers for exterior energy consumption are used in a simple formula to establish the total amount of annual energy use and required onsite renewable installations or calculate the REMP option payment. We will walk through an example of a typical commercial installation -in Attachment 1 and demonstrate how this program will leverage the design and installation of commercial building renewable energy systems. This Commercial REMP program will be one tool to help meet the 2030 Challenge goals. The 2030 Challenge is met by computer modeling that demonstrates a 50% reduction in total energy consumption. This is an attainable goal as new local commercial buildings with energy savings in mind have closely modeled such savings. The Doerr-Hosier Center at the Aspen Institute exceeds the code by 50% and the Burlingame housing units perform at 45% better than code. AP2030C can be adopted whether the Council joins the 2030 Challenge or not. Our proposed AP2030C code also incorporates "green and sustainable' sections of the proposed ASHRAE Standard 189. This code is emerging as the proposed national standard for high performance green commercial buildings. Staff feels it is important to move toward a nationally recognized and supported standard, as it is familiar to design firms across the country, those often doing the design and engineering work on the large projects that are built in Aspen. This has the potential to change the behavior of any design team (planners, architects, engineers and designers) doing business here. AP2030C is applicable to all new commercial buildings, additions to commercial buildings and major interior remodels that require a building permit. Commercial buildings are those other than single-family residences, duplexes or townhomes. Staff also suggests afive-year audit requirement for buildings greater than 25,000 sq ft be required. The energy use data taken directly from the gas and electric bills will compare the performance and management of the building to the energy modeling. If the building uses less energy than the performance target, the owners would have "energy credits' to bank or sell. Conversely, if the energy use were greater than the target the building owner would have to buy REMP energy credits or "Canary Tags" to make up the difference. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The proposed AP2030C code has energy code requirements that meet the 2030 Challenge, requires mitigation for exterior energy uses and adopts important sections of the latest national standard for sustainable, green and efficient building. We can measure the gas and electric energy saved in building Page 3 of 4 operation. The community-wide effects of a comprehensive sustainable commercial building and energy conservation code provide a significant environmental benefit. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends the following: 1. That Council direct staff to move forward with the final version of AP2030C, continue peer review and program testing, and to return to Council with a final version in approximately two months. ALTERNATIVES: Council could choose not to adopt the proposed AP2030C and continue to use the current commercial building energy code and have no sustainable or efficient building standards for such construction, or could direct staff to pursue stricter or more lenient standards. PROPOSED MOTION: Council can direct staff to bring forth an Ordinance adopting the AP2030C. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Page 4 of 4 ATTACHMENT 1 Commercial Snowmelt Example (Snowmelt area 1,500 sq. ft.) (150,000 BTU per sq. ft. per year) / .95 (efficiency rating of boiler))*1,500 (snowmelt area= (236,842,090 BTU/yr) / 3412 (BTU per kWh)= 69,414 (kWh/yr)* 20 (years)* .07/kWh =$97,180.22 REMP payment option will be $97,180.22 WITH A 15kW PV SYSTEM INSTALLED 65,943 - (22,029*3) _ (-144) kWh/yr REMP option with 15 kW PV system will be $0 ALINE-BY-LINE EXPLANATION FOR REMP CALCULATION: 1. 150,000 BTU per sq. ft. per year is a result of the meeting referenced is the first sentence of the discussion section of this memo. It was established, by consensus, that commercial snowmelt systems use 150,000 BTU/SQFT/YR. Installation and operation of the lazge systems in Vail and Snowmass Village were used to derive the commercial snowmelt use number. 2. .95 is the percentage of maximum efficiency of the boiler chosen for this example -100% would mean that there would be no loss in output of BTU energy for every BTU of gas burned. Commercial boilers vary from 82% to 97% efficient. 3. 1,500 square feet is the size of the snow melted area in this example. 4. 236,842,090 BTUs per year is the result of dividing the amount of energy it takes to melt snow in our climate by the efficiency of the boiler to provide the hot water to melt the snow times -the snow melt area. 5. 3412 is the conversion constant for BTUs to a kilowatt-hour. 6. 69,414 kWh/yr is the amount of energy, expressed in kilowatt- hours, required to offset operating the snow melt system for one year. Our existing REMP formula requires the offset be calculated for the next 20 years and 7 cents per kilowatt is the average cost of electricity from Aspen Electric. This allows us to attach a dollar amount to the REMP offset purchase. A LINE-BY-LINE EXPLANATION FOR REMP CALCULATION WITH A 15kW PV SYSTEM INSTALLED: 65,943 - (22,029*3) _ (-144) kWh/yr 1. 65,943 are the number of kilowatts per year required for the offset at 100% efficiency. 2. 22,029 are the number of kilowatts per year a 15-kilowatt photovoltaic system is generating here. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) PV Calculator on line was used to derive the number. 3. Times three or 300%- this is the incentive to install a photovoltaic system that will change the way commercial building owners think about energy use. It supports an original thought of the 2000 REMP code philosophy "that every building has an obligation to produce some of it's own energy'. Currently, the REMP formula for onsite renewable energy installations (PV and solar hot water) is credited/incentivized at 200%. PV is a proven and emerging technology that has no moving parts and requires very little maintenance. Conversely, solar hot water systems have pump motors, valves and control systems that require skilled technicians to service and monitor. 4. A 15-kilowatt photovoltaic system was chosen for this example because it costs about $120,000. This is before any rebates, tax credits or money saved by the building owner in lower electric bills.