Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20100518MEMORANDUM TO: City of Aspen Board of Health FROM: Lee Cassin, Aspen Public Health Agency Director MEETING DATE: May 18, 2010 RE: Quarterly Board of Health Meeting PURPOSE OF MEETING: This is the quarterly Board of Health meeting required by the Colorado Public Health Revitalization Act, at which staff provides updates and seeks input from the Board of Health on upcoming issues. This material is divided into two sections: informational updates and discussion items. Information Updates • Medical Updates - Recommendations for mammograms and cervical cancer screening (Attachment A). • Radon grant and remediation program (Attachment B) • Clean Air excellence Award to be presented at Council meeting in June (received by Environmental Health and Canary Initiative for Zgreen program that helps businesses and events reduce their environmental impact) • We have completed all work for the stormwater grant that Environmental Health received. It paid for the sediment removal vault and monitoring system at the Rio Grande Recycle Center • Update from Community Health Services: (Attachment C) • Restaurant plan review update (handed out at meeting) Agenda Discussion Items • H1N1 Swine Flu - Dr. Cohen • EPA's new ozone standard, to be announced August 2010 • Needs assessment - next steps Public health revitalization act Page 1 of 1 -A. 4 a J.) vy, tti +- A of Panel Backs Use of Second HPV Vaccine BY HEIDI SPLETE ATLANTA — The Centersfor Disease Control and Preven- tion's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices issued two recommendations at its an- nual fail meeting regarding the use of umae a illomavirus vaccines in males and ken es aged 9-. years. ACID recommended the re- cently approvedbivalent human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine as an alterna ' valmt vaccine for the prevention cer- vical cancer and related pretan- cerous conditions in women and girls aged 9-26 years. In a separate vote, the com- mittee declined to recommend routine use of the quadrivalent HPV vaccine in males ageds-26 }ors, anowing'nlwiirianc to de- cide whether to use the vaccine. Approved by the Food and Drug Administration, the biva- lent HPV vaccine (Glaxo- Smithlbine's Ceomd42rovides clinicians with another option to vaccinate adolescent girls ant young women against discase: caused by HPV um 1616 and I a Unlike the previously approvec quadrivalent vaccine, the biva lent vaccine is not designed tc protect against tEMW warts noted Dr. Lauri Markowi¢ o the CDC, who presented the ACIP recommendations re garding the bivalent vaccine. The quadrivalent vaccine (Merck's Gardasil) protect: against genital warts that are associated with HPV types 6 and i 1, in addition to protecting against diseases that are caused by HPV types 16 and IS. After a lively debate, ACID rec- ommended against a statement of no preference between the bi- valent and quadrivalent vaccines for adolescent girls and young women- Instead, the recom- mendations will present the inr formation about the two vac. cines without a statement of preference or a statement of nonpreference. The recommen- See HPV Vaccines page a I u 1 E R III Z bb V 4n C yy 0 e m O s C 5 £X�'0 ccev T> u nG .A lib apD �V G.4 s� E B r ;E< O °E 8 kdaa �p�xuS V,.on� V 'CO ' J u r ;a O w ["ILU m p y •� M Y m m 0 L-•v m u `• E 7 u u u �$OaFj.MBkD'iE V o V eay=v is .g v 0 5 M cn O '0 m� it 'S s 40 u r s O u 0 e a C C � 3H.Q u � m r u 00 - to.mv •a E N0VEMBER 15, 2009 • INTERNAL MEDICINE NEWS rently a contraindication for the vaccine. physicians to decide whether to offer But Dc Frank DeStefano of the CDC's such vaccination. immunization safety office said that post- The Food and Drug Administration re- marketing safety surveillance studies cendy approved Gardasil for use in boys would be conducted on the bivalent HPV and men aged 9-26 years to prevent gen- vaccine using the Vk=e A ftSe EEvent ital warts associated with HPV. Repgrcina Svstem NAERS) including a ACID also ap a statemem that study ro look at pSgpaacv outcomes a€ the quadrivalent HPV vacrdne would be ter vaccination with the bivalent vaccine. most effective. in ydueg men if given be• Turning to the quadrivalent HPV vac- fore they become sexually active. Re- cine (Gardasil), ACIP voted in favor of a "permissive" seams has suggested that the vaccine recommendation to vacci- ... ^would be most effective if given prior to d 9 nate malts a -26 ears. This m� sexual debut," said the CDC's Dr. Eileen that the committee did not endorse Y 7Dunne, who presented background data tine use of the vaccine, thus all and considerations for the quadrivalent HPV vaccine in males, Studies have shown that men have a similar prevalence of HPV compared wi women, and tha[ approxim' ly 70% en true had vaginal sex by _I 19yeaie of a r �3X. Dunne said. In clinical trials, the vaccine showed a 93 efficacy against HPV type 11 and Studies have shown that men have a similar prevalence of HPV compared with women, and that approximately 70% of men will have had vaginal sex by 19 years of age. 8% fficacy again56, the two types of virus that have been associated with more than 90% of cases of genital warts in men. Dr. Dunne said. The CDC's Harrell Chesson, Ph.D., presented cost-effectiveness data on male HPV vaccination, which'suggested that vaccinating males would be most cost- effective if HPV vaccination coverage in females was relatively low. In Dr. Ches- sotis mode, the incremental cost per quality -of -life year gamed was $47,500 for all outcomes, including cervical cancer a iAiiaLg^yrrc if frmale vacthe cov- CRge was 45% vs. $161,500 if coverage m women was MY% Adverse events were similar in the vac- cine group vs. the placebo group The most common adverse eventwas pain at the injection site, reported in 6Z% of the vaEgpe�roup and 53% of the placebo The committee also voted in favor of adding both HPV vaccines to the CDC's Vaccines for Children program. 0 only ciao that ide's Auld iver- sur- st if mrs Jurs :sue fig- ver- • of red, ige It. late me ion re- xs- :m me lth k- Cervical -Cancer Screening — New Guidelines and the Balance between Benefits and Harms George F. Sawaya, M.D. One of the greatest challeng- es in developing cancer - screening guidelines is devising strategies that maximize screen- ing benefits and - minimize screening harms. The benefits of cancer screening — decreased cancer -related morbidity and mortality — are well (mown and widely promoted; the harms of cancer screening receive less at- tention and can take marry forms: direct complications from screening and confirmatory tests; the expense, anxiety, and life disruptions incurred with new diagnoses with unclear clinical significance; and the prolonged surveillance endured by patients with positive tests but no evidence of disease. Whereas benefits can be maxi- mized by initiating screening eady and repeating testing fre- quently over a person's entire life span; harms can be minimized by adopting a more focused scope for screening. The tension be- tween these two screening goals is apparent and often leads to controversies regarding the OF at which to begin cancer screening, the age at which to end screen- ing, and the appropriate screen- ing interval New guidelines for cervical - cancer screening issued on No- vember 2() by the American College of obstetricians and Gy- necologists (ACGG)' address all these controversies (see table). Three major changes Have been made that are designed to min) mize screening bums while prr serving high benefit. The approach is in sync with contemporary evi Bence -based guideline develop meat, which gives equal atten lion to screening benefits ant harms and makes transpamn judgments about the balance be tween the two.= The first major change, au perhaps the moststrikiug, imolm the age at which ro begin oervir, gwlog)c screening (with the PaF anicolaou, or pap, smear} The w guidelines state that screenin should begin at 21 years of of and that screening "should t NENOEJMED361-,16 NEJM.OEG DEGEMEEE2`l,10" 2.S03 PERSPECTIVE Age Under 21 yr 21 to 29 yr 30 to 65 or 70 yr Between 65 and 70 yr 0 CERVICAL -CANCER SCREENING — NEW GUIDELINES Recommendation for Cybbgic Screening Avoid sneering: Screen every 2 yr - May screen every 3 yr* May discontinue screening] • This recommendstim applies only to women with three consecutive negative cy- tologic tests: exceptions include women with human immunodeficiency virus in- fection, Compromised immunity, a history of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grade 2 or 3, or exposure to diethylstilbestrol in utero. j This recommendation applies only to women with three or more consecutive negative cytologic tests and no abnormal tests in the preceding 30 years; excep- lions include women with multiple sexual partners. avoided" before that age. The evi- dence supporting this recommen- dation is compelling. Although cervical canter is rare before the age of 21, cytologic abnormali- ties are common and can lead to labeling, anxiety, extended sur- veillance, and invasive procedures, such as colposcopy. If colposcopy is performed, the ACOG guide- lines devoted to the management of histologic abnormalities rec- ommend restraint in the treat- ment of most biopsy -confirmed precancerous lesions identified in young women, For example, the most common type of cervical le- sion, cervical intraepithelial neo- plasia grade I (CIN 1), is consid- ered a manifestation of acute human papillomavirus (HFV) in- fection, and treatment is discour- aged. For young women with CIN 2, surveillance rather than treatment can be offered, since spontaneous regression of this le- sion is common. The most prox- imal cervical -cancer precursor, CIN 3, is rare and may persist for a decade before becoming in- vasive. If CIN 3 develops before a woman is 21 years old, screen- ing after that age affords multi- ple opportunities for such lesions to be detected and treated. Pre - cancerous lesions am often treat- ed with excision] procedures; ob- servatiorial studies have shown consistent associations between these treatments and adverse pregnancy outcomes, including preterm delivery and low -birth - weight infants.' Since most women under the age of 21 have not yet begun or completed child- bearing, these adverse effects were weighted heavily in balanc- ing benefits with harms, thereby prompting this unprecedented recommendation. The second major change in- volves screening intervals. Where- as annual screening has been standard practice for many de- cades, the new guidelines state that women with an average level of risk do not require such &I - quent testing. Spectrally, th guidelines recommend testing ev- ery 2 years for women 21 to 2 years of age. Thereafter, screen may be performed every 3 ye among women who have ha three consecutive negative cym logic tests. This recommendation is based on evidence showing tha among women in this age group as the number of previous norm tests increases, the likelihood underlying cervical ncoplasia d screening e 9 d creases substantially; continued frequent screening of these low - risk women is associated with many positive tests and needless interventions but has little effect on the overall incidence of cervi- cal cancers The third major change involves the age atwhicb screening should end. Previously, the ACOG had de- termined that the evidence was in- conclusive and so was not useful in establishing an age at which testing should stop. The new guide- lines state that it is now "reason- able" to discontinue screening in women between 65 and 70 years of age who have had three or more consecutive normal tests and no abnormal results within the pre- ceding 10 years. This conclusion reiterates that of an ACOG Com- mittee opinion issued in May 2009 and is in agreement with current guidelines published by the Amer- ican Cancer Society and the U.S. preventive Services Task Force. The factors supporting this recom- mendation are familiar-. screening benefits are small in women at low risk, and harms are incurred when tests are positive. Moreover, coexisting medical conditions that become more common with ad- vancing age may increase the risks associated with surgical treat- ments. Important areas of uncertain- ty remain. The effects that HPV vaccination will have on screen- ing initiation and screening in- tervals are unknown; immunized women should therefore continue curs to be screened in the same way that nonimmunized women are screened. It is also unclear what appropriate care consists of for t women ore 65 who are deemed to be at low risk for cervical neo- al, plasia because of previous normal of cytologic test results but who have e. multiple sexual partners (and pre- 2504 N ENGLi MEa 361;e6 NE/M.oaa GECEM91124, 2009 :inued a low - with edless effect cervi- 7olves hould id de - as in- tseful vhich uide- lson- 7g in years more d no Pre- ision ;om- =9 "rent ner- U.S. The em- ting t at .red ,Yet, :hat ad- slts Mt- dn- IPV en- in- ted lue lay ire lat br ed '0- tal ve sumablymew sexual exposures); given the current uncertainties, the new recommendations call for continued routine screening in such Women. It is now also sug- gested that women with a history of CIN 2 or 3 who have under- gone hysterectomy with removal of the cervix continue to be screened — a modification of the recommendation put forth in the previous guidelines. A lack of high -quality evidence to support the previous recommendation to discontinue screening after three normal cytologic tests is cited as the basis for this new recommen- dation. Modeling studies and in- dividual risk calculators may be useful in determining whether the presence of certain risk fac- tors increases the risk of cervical neoplasia to a level that justifies continued screening. Although annual cytologic testing is no longer recommended fbr most women, the guidelines state that physicians should inform women that an annual gynecologic ex- amination "may still be appro- priate." The precise content of this examination is undefined, and more evidence regarding the benefits and harms of this wide- spread practice is needed. How should dinicians discuss these changes with patients? Guidelines promoting a recom- mendation to do less are often viewed with suspicion; individu- al women may feel as if they are being asked to accept greater personal risk as part of an over- all effort to contain Costs and con- serve resources. Clinicians should inform women that the changes in the guidelines have not been prompted by financial consider- ations but by careful consideration of the estimated balance between benefits and harms. Women should be made aware that health recommendations ate updated pe- riodically as newer, more robust evidence becomes available. Changes are expected to occur over time. Women should also be aware of components of peri- odic health examinations that have been identified as providing greater benefits than harms, such as those actively promoted by the U.S. preventive Services Task Force. Clinicians can have the greatest effect on minimiz- ing,the harms of screening by taking seriously the recommenda- tions to do less screening among women in low -risk groups, espe- cially young women. Finally, in terms of screening, dinicians should seek out and offer screen- ing to unscreened and poorly screened Women, a group that accounts for at least half of the estimated 11,000 cases of cervi- cal cancer that occur annually in the United States. Fimacial and other disclosures provided by the autbor an available with the full test of this article at MEJM.org. From the Department of Obstetrics, Gyne- cotogy, and Reproductive Sciences, the De. partmem of Epidemiology and Bioslatistics, and the Helen Diller Family Comprehensive Cancer Center— aA at the University of Gall. fomia. San Francisco. This article (10.IM6fNFJMp09ll390) was published on November 2S, 2009. at NEJM .org. L American College of Obstetricians and Gyrhecologists.A000 Practice Bulletin num. bar 109, December 2009: cervical cytology screening. Obstet Gynecol 2009;114:1409. 20. L Savaya GF, Guvguls-Blake J, LeFevre M, Harris R. Pstltt D. Updateon the methods of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: esti- matrhg wrtaimy and magnitude of net ben- efit. Ann Imem Lied 2007;147:Vl.S. . 3. American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. AGOG Practice Bulletin num- ber 99, December 2.001 management of ab- normal cervical cytology and histology. Ob- stet Gynewl 20M;1121419.44. 4. Kyr&u M, KaRopoules G. Martia-Hinch P, Arbyn M. Preadiville W. Panskevaidn E. Obstetric outcomes after comervatie treat- ment for intraepithow or early b"51 a cer- vical lesions: systematic review and meta - analysis. Lancet 2M:%7:41119.96. S. Sawaya GF, McConnell I(l, Kulasingam St, at al. Risk of cervical canon associated with extending the interval between cervical - cancer screanings. N Engl J Mod Z003;349: 1S01-9. O"Mit o nor M®dMMm Merkel sedgy. N tMCLJ MED 36r26 NEJMAac DECtMara 24, a0n9 2s0s REFORM I PERSPECTIVE GETTING THE FACTS STRAIGHT ON HEALTH CARE REFORM a, and It from it Em- s will IF their e6aive- teased )I the :art us nental 'educe g run. how- 't do This tental I par- four - care ix on that land hf in - :ring le to Ide.4 tad a ffec- pro- ym I to - way 1, it Eory area ,ote too in- en - aid ol- m- sal rut he cal Di. .re rk in It - gall' a care These changes can't work 1 ever-growing propor- tion of ourFNpulation lacks in- surance. Mor as we have seen in Massachus dealing with the problem oft nin- sured allows politymakers ro cus more single-mindedly on cost control: after our universal -cov- erage law passed, the state moved aggressively to set up a cost -con- trol commission that recommend- ed important changes in provider reimbursements The current bills are not per- fect The Senate bill has a man- date that's too weak and doesn't provide generous enough insur- ance to low-income individuals, and the House bill doesn't do, enougb to control costs. Never - as, passage of a hybrid of these bills would lah or ac- momplisbment and point for our dysfunctiocan system. We shouldctive- ly support Congrerts to a combi 1, rather than le�bs dated criticisms from th es. Faaarcui sad diac=1 yes provided by the audlota mile with the fall test Of this article NEJM.org. From the Missachusetts Institu Tech. This ar' (]0.1036/NEJMp0911715) wai PUNW# on Deember 7,2009, atNEJM.urg. letter of October 29. 2009, to Rep. B. Range[ (Aaessed December 1, Ines in perspective: a campariwn of 2009 health reform legislation and other laws in the last 15 rears. (Accessed December 1, 2009, at http://www.kforVhmlthm(ormi upload/7963.pdf.) 3. CBO letter of November 30, 2009, In Sen. a1w Evan Bayh. (Accessed December 1, 2009, at http:f/wwN.cbo.gov.) 4. Gruber). Impacts of the Senate high cost IIMYrinCe exist 4a On wages: updated. Cambridge, MA: Mrr Department of Em. nomics, November 20, 2DD9. (Accessed De. eember 1. 2009, at http://econ• ,mitedu/ fdes/4111954 S. Ofaa of Health and Human Services. Remmmendatlem, of the Spedal Commis• shun on the Health Care payment System. (Accessed December 1, 2DO9, at hnp:flwww. 2, Raiser Famhly Foundation. Medicare saw uppya, p On Mammography — More Agreement Than Disagreement Ann H. Partridge, M.D., M.P.H., and Eric P. Winer, M.D.' yeast cancer is the most common cancer in women in the United States, with more than 190,000 women receiving a diagnosis of invasive disease an- nually' and more than 40,000 dying of breast cancer each year. Worldwide, more than 1 million women are diagnosed with breast cancer and more than 500,0D0 die from it each yc2r.2 During the past two decades, there have been modest but real decreases in breast -cancer mortality that have been attributed to improvements in early detection and treatment. It is in this context that the re- cent controversy surrounding the optimal approach to breast -cancer screening should be considered. On November 16, 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) released updated rec- ommendations for breast -cancer screening,' informed by addition- al follow-up from previous studies and a new study focused on sta- tistical modeling.4.5 The two most substantive and controversial rec- ommendations were that mam- mography be eliminated as a "standard test" for women 40 to 49 years of age and that m2ni raphy be performed biennially rather than annually in women from 50 to 74 years of age. The rationale for the changes was clearly delineated by the task force. Although mammography decreases breast -cancer mortality among women in their 40s, the absolute bencftt is smaller than among older women, because the disease is less common in the Younger age group. Younger women are also more likely to have false positive results, which lead to additional testing, anxiety, and psychological distress. For women in their 40s who are not at in- creased risk for breast cancer, the USPSTF recommends that the her, efits of mammography be care- fully weighed against the poten- tial adverse consequences. The recommendation for bien- nial rather than anneal screen- ing was based on the modeling study and moss -study comparisons suggesting that more frequent screening is not associated with better outcomes. Moreover, the panel concluded that the rate of false positive results appears to be much lower with biennial mam- mography. The updated recommendations sparked substantial controversy and have had a polarizing effect in the breast -cancer community. There has been confusion, fear, and anger on the part of patients with breast cancer, their families, and women's health advocates. The intensity of the controversy N ENGLI M1G 361;Z6 "VU.ORG DECEMOER E4, 2009 24" MCI is unfortunate, because there is far more agreement than disagreement about breast -cancer screening. Fuss, there is a consensus that mammographic screening leads to a reduction in breast cancer mor- tality among women 40 to 74 years of age- Second, experts agree that the failure of one third of Ames ican women to have regular screen- ing is a travesty and probably re- sults from disparities in health care and inadequate education about the benefits of screening, Third, it is widely recognized that mam. mography is a highly imperfect test Mammograms fail to reveal an unacceptable number of can- cers, particularly those that am estrogen -receptor -negative and pose the greatest threat to surviv- al. At the same time, false posi- tives are too common, and mam- mography leads to overdiagoosis, particularly of noninvasive cancers. Some mammographieaily detect ed noninvasive lesions, as well as some invasive cancers, might nev- er have caused any difficulty. But despite overdetection and under- �N MAMMOGRAPHY - MORE AGREEMENT THAN DISAGREEMENT detection, mammography remains our best breast -cancer screening tool for the general population.. How do we interpret the USPSTF's new recommendations, reconcile the divergent opinions, and advise patiems? First, we need to reassure our colleagues, our pa- tients, and the public that the task force did not suddenly turn the long -debated topic of breast -can- cer screening upside down. There has long been controversy about screening for women in their 40s, and in our view, these recommen- dations represent a modest ad- justment. Second, the task force is nei. ther prohibiting mammography for women in their 40s nor deem- ing it of no value Instead, they have acknowledged what we have known for many years: the ben- efits of mammography are more limited in younger women than in older women, and women at av- erage risk should make a decision with their health care providers about the screening program best suited to their personal prefer- ences and physical condition. When women in their 40s learn that the absolute benefit of mam- mographic screening is quite lim- ited — more than 1900 women must be screened for 10 years to prevent 1 death from breast can- cer, and there are approximately 60% more false positive results and unnecessary biopsies than there would be if screening be- gan at 50 years of ages — some younger women will choose to forgo mammograms, though oth. ers will still choose to have reg. ular screening. Third, the recommendations should be viewed as a step toward more personalized cancer screen- ing. Some may argue that we do not know enough about breast - cancer risk to opermionalize these new recommendations, but dearly Personalized risk assessment and screening tailored to risk are our goals for the future. Advances in molecular tools such as getome- wide association studies, which identify common genetic factors influencing health and disease, are likely to lead to a better un- derstanding of bream -cancer risk, causation, and biology and will most likely improve our ability to Predict the risk of the disease and optimize the risk -benefit ratio Of screening options for each in- dividual woman. Fourth, we must be camfig not to send a message that screening and early detection are of no val- ue: there is no doubt that early detection of breast cancer can save lives. We are particularly concerned about the perceptions of women who are members of disadvan- taged minority groups and those who lack education and health in- surance. It would be lamentable if progress made in breast cancer awareness were reversed as a re- sult of this debate. Efforts to ed- NENDIJMED361;26 NFJM,ORG DECEMRE0242009 PERSPECTt uc ce so sh ag Al erg Pr. fw Po co on ab SO gn ga inI art brr to ea res gn co: nog rec scr 74 pri del h2% wit ne< ina wo Screeni Robert D.Tn A VICE lire nev anc istr -HAN DISAGREEMENT lysical condition. in their 40s learn n benefit of mam- ening is quite lim- ban 1900 women ed for 10 years to h from breast can. are approximately ,e positive results :ry biopsies than e if screening be- ; of ages — some n will choose to rams, though oth- oose to have reg- recommendations d as a step toward ted Cancer screen - argue that we do hgh about breast 3erationalize these iations, but dearly & assessment and ed to risk are our core. Advances in such as genome- in studies, which m genetic factors llth and disease, id to a better un- breast-cancer risk, biology and will rove our ability to of the disease and -isk--benefit ratio lions for each in- 1. cost be careful not ige that screening ion are of no val- doubt that early Ist cancer can save iculady concerned ptions of women iers of disadvan- groups and those ion and health in - Id be lamentable c in breast -cancer reversed as a re- ue. Efforts to ed- PERSPECTIVE ucate the public about breast can- cer must be maintained and, in some areas, increased. Fifth, no woman in her 40s should be denied insurance cover- age for screening mammography, Although decisions about cover- age may change in the future, at present there is no justification for a change in reimbursement policies. Any decision to limit coverage should be implemented only if there is broad consensus about the risks and benefits of screening in well-defined sub- groups. The task force's decision re- garding the frequency of screen- ing has generated more limited attention. In many countries with breast -cancer outcomes similar to those in the United States, bi- ennial screening is standard.' In response to the concern that these guidelines primarily represent a cost-cutting measure, it is worth noting the less -controversial new recommendation that routine scorning be extended from 70 to 74 years of age — a change based primarily on new benefit estimates derived from statistical models. The USPSTF recommendations have not changed substantially with regard to the lack of useful- ness of routine breast self-exam- ination or recommendations for women undo 40 or older than ON MAMMOGRAPHY— MORE AGREEMENT THAN DISAGREEMENT 74 — age groups in which ben- efits of routine mammography are unproven and unlikely, though more research is needed. The fail- ure of breast self-examinations to improve outcomes does not mean that women should not examine themselves. In fact, they may ex- tend their lives by bringing wor- risome breast findings to medi- cal attention. However, a regular and core monthly self -exam ap- pears to offer no distinct advan- tage. Instead of teaching women to do self -exams, most cancer ex- perts and advocacy groups encour- age women to be aware of their breasts and to bring worrisome findings to the attention of their health care providers. The role of breast self -exams in women at markedly increased risk for breast cancer, such as women with a BRCA mutation or a history of breast cancer, has not been stud- ied adequately. As we move forward, we must remember that mammography may be our best tool for breast -cancer screening, but we urgently need more accurate and cost-effective screening methods to decrease the burden of breast cancer. Our understanding of the molecular basis of breast cancer continues to evolve, and we now view it as a family of distinct disease Sub- types — which may well require Screening Mammography and the "R" Word Robert D. Truog, M.D. T1 he new recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Se - vices Task Fora on screening for breast cancer' were front-page news for several consecutive days, and they sent the Obama admin- istration scrambling to,reassure their own screening tools. More- over, the evolution of breast can- cer treatment is likely to have a profound effect on the way we conceptualize scremitt& Them may be room for debate about the op- timal age at which to begin saem- ing and the optimal frequency of screening; but there is no debate that technical advances will make these controversies fade. Although we must opturliZe what is available today, we must also promote far better approaches for tomorrow. Financial Rod other disclosures provided by the authors are nallable with the full teat of this article at NEJM.org. From the Dana -Farber Cancer Institute, Boston. Thisarticle {10.1056/NFJMp09112W was pub• 0shed on November 25, 2D09, atNgM.org. 1. Jamul A, Siegel R. ward E, Hao Y, Xu J, Thun MJ. Cann statistics, 20D9. CA Cancer J cin 2D09;59225.49. 2. Woad Health organization web site. (Ac- ressed November 24, 20D9, at Intp4jwww .who.ice/mediamntre4factsbeets/fs297/en/ indmhtmL) L Preventive Services Task Force.Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Fora recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;151:716-26. 4. Nelson HD, Tyne K, Noik A, Bougatsos C, Chan SK, Humphrey L. Screening for beast cancer: an update for the U.S. Prwentive Services Task Fora, Ann Intern Med 2009; 15k727-37. S. MandelblattJS, Cronin KA, Bailer S. et al. Effects of mammography screening under different screening schedules: model est6 mates of potential benefits and harms. Ann Intern Med 2009;15L•736.47. cao,.ea. 0 2aos M MrFarl sacq. is to delay the onset of routine screening mammography from 40 to 50 years of age. Malty ob- servers were concerned that this move away from intensive screen- ing might signal a shift away from the war on cancer, posing a r3 N ENGtI Mto 361;26 NEJM.oRG DECEMRER 24, 2Dc9 2 the public that these guidelines were not a prelude to the ration- ing of health care, notwithstand- ing Republican critics' assertions to the contrary. The most controversial rec- ommendation of the Task Force t. PERSPECTIVE to advocacy organizations such as the American Cancer Society. But at a deeper level, the recommen- dations raise concerns about ac- cess to potentially lifesaving care. In the days after the report was released, supporters of the rec- ommendations were challenged to justify the shift m more limit ed screening. For example, Susan Love, an internationally renowned breast cancer expert and women's health. advocate, said, "I really don't think we should be routinely saeeningwomen under 5o. There's no data showing it works." Examination of the available data, however, suggests otherwtsa The Task Force concluded that among women between 39 and 49 years of age, screening main- ! mography results in a 15% re- duction in the risk of death from breast cancer, with the preven- tion of a single death from breast cancer requiring the screening of 1 1904 women. Clearly, screening mammography does offer an iden- tifiable survival benefit to women in this age group. But what about the risks as- sociated with screening? They include a very low risk from the radiation exposure, along with #1- pain, anxiety, and psychological distress related to the procedure. t . False positive results are partic- ularly problematic in this age group, with one study suggest- ing that for every case of breast cancer detected in women 40 ;. 49 years of age, 556 women have mammography, 47 have addition al imaging, and 5 have biopsies Even so, one can argue that th magnitude of the harms associated withscreening seems to be mo j est, particularly in compariso with the benefit of a life saved. In the days following the pit Nation of the Task Force repo the airwaves were flooded wi h SCREENING MAMMOGRAPHY AND THE "R" WORD the personal stories of women who had breast cancer that was diag- nosed with screening mammog- raphy when they were in their 40L It seems undeniable that at least some of these women are alive today because they had access to this procedure. Although the out- cry cry over President Barack Obaa's purported "death squads' reflect- ed nothing more than political grandstanding, the new rernm- mendation is a concrete example Of a proposal that could, if it be- came policy, lead to the deaths of some women who would other- wise have survived. It is interesting to compare these proposed guidelines with those that have been suggested for the prostate -specific antigen (PSN test, another screening meth- od for another cancm In the case of PSA testing, a credible argu- ment can be made that the test is often harmful for the individ- ual patient False positive results often lead to biopsies (whirls are themselves often unreliable) and then to invasive procedures such as surgery and radiotherapy that can leave patients impotent or incontinent, often to treat a pros- tate condition that never would have threatened their life. Mam- mography is different. Although abnormalities found on raphy generally necessitate addi- tional imaging or a biopsy, th e (c a now t—a • from d that` :warn dr ra- four- Sys- g our easily alth less ere is ea of and y for ffeP ecent that tide- ncer ',000 year ing a false choice. The choice is not between beakh care ration- ing and some undefined alterna- tive, since there is no alternative. Rather, the choice concerns what principles we will use to ration health care. In the United States, we have traditionally rationed health care in the same way we ration expensive cars: those who can afford to pay for them are those who an have them. The al- ternative currently being consid- ered in health care reform would involve a shift to other principles, such as those rooted in consid- Ca[iOffi of fairness, effkiem7, and efficacy. Unfortunately, many support- ers of the new mammography guidelines have been reluctant to call a spade a spade. Efforts to disguise the guidelines under the cloak of false reassurances that mammographic screening for women in their 40s "does not work" only fuels suspicions that these experts are being evasive, or even misleading. In a Novem- ber 18 interview on the NBC NW* ly News, Susan Love candidly ac- knowledged, "This is ratiODirtg — but it's rationing of the best kind., If the debate about health care reform is going to Progress with clarity, transparency, and honesty, we must bee our far of the "R" word and discuss how, not whether, we should ration health care. FwneW and other disclosums provided by the aocbom see available with the hB aw of this article at N1111toeis. From the Departments of Anesthesla and of Global Health and Social Medicine, Her- vard Medical School; and the Division of Critical Care Medicine, Children's Hospital Boston — both In Boston. This article (10.1056/NE)Mp0911447) was published on November 25, 2009, at NEJM.org. L Peve, ve Services Task Force.Screening, for breast cancer: U.S. Preventiae Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2009;1SLn6.26. L Grady 0. Second Opinion — quandary with mammogrems: get a screening, or just skip kT New York TYnes. November 3, 2009. L Nelson HD, Tyner. Nara A, Bwptsos C. Chan K Humphrey L Screening for breast arrcar. an updaw for the U.S. Preventive Service Task Force. Arm Intern Med 2009;151:72737. a Ahern CH, Shen Y. Cost-effectiveness "4%isofmammographrmdcli iol breast examination strategies: a compmison with current guWdbms. Cancer Epidemiol No- markus Prev 200 A7134S. S. CrewdsonJ. Rethinking the mammogram pirdeRnes.TlxAdanlic November 19, 2009. (Accessed November 23, 2009. at http.,// www.theaWntiecom/docfi009llu/ mammogrems.) cWAVra O mace ArwswMM sin" sue, A4aCA,1V*A&,V1i- 6 RADON TESTING AND ASSISTANCE PROGRAM Jannette Whitcomb The Aspen Environmental Health Department was able to expand its Radon Awareness program this year due to a $1900 grant with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). In December of 2009, the Aspen Environmental Health Department sent out over 500 letters offering free radon test kits to owners of housing units in the Aspen/Pitkin County Housing Authority inventory within City limits. The outcome of over 500 letters, dozens of emails and many person to person contacts was 151 affordable housing households who picked up a free test kit. In January 2010, press releases, radio announcements, utility bill inserts and a public proclamation of Radon Action Month spread the word to all Aspen residents of the availability of free radon test kits. This campaign led to the remainder of the 500 radon tests getting distributed. A side benefit of this program was that when residents came to the Environmental Health Department to pick up a radon test kit, we also gave them free CFLs (Holy Cross members) or information on the energy audit rebate program (customers of City Electric). Radon is the leading cause of lung cancer in non-smokers, estimated to cause 25,000 lung cancer deaths each year in the United States. EPA's recommended "action level" to fix a home is 4 pCi/L and EPA encourages action when results are between 2 to 4 pCi/L. EPA believes that any radon exposure carries some risk. Radon is a significant risk that can be eliminated fairly easily. The following is a summary of this year's radon program: • Only 50% of the test kits picked up by people have been successfully used to date • Forty-seven percent (47%) were above 4 pCi/L • An additional 17% were in the 2 to 4 pCi/L range • At least 12 homeowners are investigating radon remediation in their homes. From these results we know that residents of Aspen (like much of the country) have a high chance of finding high radon levels in their home. We also know that additional efforts need to take place to get people to successfully test their homes (11 % of the test kits were done incorrectly). Next year's program will continue to promote radon testing but will also have a focus on fixing homes that have high levels of radon (greater than 4 pCi/L). Staff will apply for another grant with CDPHE to fund this program. A+4aCkr,AeA - L COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES UPDATES PRENATAL UPDATE: The Eagle County prenatal program is evolving. Since January 1, 2010, CHS has taken in 22 Eagle County women and 13 Pitkin County women for a total of 35 prenatal intakes. This is equal to the total number for 2008 (34), which was the busiest year for prenatal and we are not quite half way through the year yet. Our Prenatal Nurse Case Manager is spending 60% of her time in this program now. The rest of her time is spent managing the Family Planning program, which is the largest program that the agency runs. The impact on other programs and staff is evident and therefore we continually evaluate the impact of this pilot project and make adjustments weekly. We have agreements in place with Aspen Valley Hospital and Aspen Valley Medical Foundation which provide financial support for the project. Coordination with All Valley Women's Care is going very well. They have provided additional resources in the way of a staff nurse 8 hours per week and access to their electronic medical records. Communication with Eagle County is on -going at the staff level as well as monthly updates between the Directors. The regional picture of prenatal care for low-income women is still tenuous. This pilot project with Eagle County may not be the long term solution for solving the issue for Eagle and Pitkin counties due to many factors including CHS's capacity. More conversations need to take place with key stakeholders in the region to find a more permanent and realistic solution. PUBLIC HEALTH ACT: Staff from Pitkin County Environmental Health, City of Aspen Environmental Health and the Community Health Services Director attended the Northwest Regional Public Health meeting in April. This meeting used to be the forum for public health nurses in the Northwest region but is now being used as a way to bring together all public health professionals. It was hosted by Kathleen Matthews from the Office of Planning and Partnerships (OPP) at the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). Updates were provided about the Public Health Act and the Colorado Public Health Improvement Plan. You may recall from my last memo that Public Health Agencies were asked to complete a capacity survey regarding a community health assessment. Both CHS and the City of Aspen collaborated in completing the survey. The OPP is currently analyzing data from that survey. They are also working on templates for the health assessment to streamline the process across the state. There are several counties that will pilot the process in the fall of 2010. We indicated we would be willing to start our assessment in 2011, at the earliest. As part of their quality improvement process that was outlined in the Improvement Plan, the OPP is forming multiple taskforces. EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS and RESPONSE/ H1N1 PLANNING: CHS continues to work on the Project Public Health Ready (PPHR) application to NACCHO for Emergency Preparedness and Response recognition. Mesa County has provided an amazing amount of support throughout this process. Once the application is submitted to CDPHE in June, we expect to be working with them to refine the application and get it ready for submission to NACCHO in November 2010. The ESF 8 P.roup met this week for the H1N1 After Action.Review. Ellen Anderson facilitated the discussion and will have a final report ready within 1-2 weeks. Overall, it was felt that the response to HIM was successful. Areas of improvement include volunteer management, vaccine allocation and distribution, and incident command staff role clarification in a Public Health emergency. Things that went well include the public information campaign and the activation of the Incident Command team and health care volunteers. DENTAL INITUTWE: The Dental Coalition hired Kelly Keeffe, Registered Dental Hygienist, as the Regional Oral Health Consultant on April 1 a Her first tasks include contacting local dentists and stakeholders to inform them about the position, meeting with the Oral Health Unit at CDPHE and coordinating activities with Dental Aid, the non-profit clinic hired to plan the dental clinic. Dental Aid is well on their way to creating a preliminary set-up and operating budget. They have plans to meet with potential local fenders and key local dentists this month. MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR & CITY COUNCIL THRU: STEVE BARWICK, CITY MANAGER RANDY READY, ASST. CITY MANAGER JEFF WOODS, MANAGER OF PARKS & RECREATION FROM: TIM ANDERSON, RECREATION DIRECTOR MEETING DATE: MAY 18, 2010 RE: POTENTIAL FOR EXPANSION OF ARC FITNESS FACILITIES Summary: During the 2010 budget process, the ARC Advisory Committee addressed City Council with the need to explore the potential for expanding fitness facilities at the ARC due to growth, overcrowding at times, and user requests to improve fitness spaces. In 2004 when the current fitness areas were added to the ARC due to a plea from users, the first 4 months of operations following the introduction of cardio and resistance equipment revenues from pass sales increased from just over $27,000 to $56,000 in sales; a 107% increase in sales. Council agreed that the fitness spaces were tight, crowded at times and needed to be looked at, but at the same time the reality of these economic times would dictate how a potential expansion of fitness space would move forward. Staff has identified a space on top of the family pool of the ARC which could host close to 5,500 square feet of fitness equipment and programming which per attachment "D" (the Demographic study by Ballard*King) is ideal. This space is accessible with building modifications and provides views while working out that would be second to none. In the following pages staff has addressed many points regarding the potential expansion on a surface level. Staff worked with Hagman Architects in drawing up conceptual plans for the fitness expansion and the housing element, Bob Pattillo to obtain structural information, Schmueser Gordon Meyer for a parking/traffic study, Ballard*King and Associates for the demographic and growth information, and staff identified potential uses for vacated spaces. In your packet you will find: • Bullet Points to focus on today, Sketches identifying the location of the expanded space; building site lines, and housing mitigation. (attachment "A") • Structural Upgrade information (attachment "B") • Parking study and Plan (attachment "C") • Demographics and the potential for growth if the fitness expansion is realized (attachment "D") • Potential uses of vacated space if the fitness expansion were to happen (see future opportunities section) • Pro Forma identifying financial situation for expansion (attachment "E") • Subsidy level of ARC in past years (attachment "F") *Key Points Staff have identified at this time are: • The Design Works (5,500 sq. ft. perfect); added upgrades to structural components necessary • No major changes to the profile of the building • Housing Mitigation may be accomplished on site • Demographic Reports show an increase in users by approximately 255 additional passes sold annually • Parking works with Scheduling and/or compensation for enforcement by users • Funding is not available at this time without an added revenue stream • Iselin Covenants don't allow changes to the original building footprint until 2013 The cost of this project to include construction and structural improvements is estimated to be in the range of $400 to $500 per square foot. Then you would need to add in 12% or so for design costs and a 10% contingency, along with funding for the remodel of vacated spaces and you are upwards towards $3 Million and $3.7 million. The costs associated with the housing element are not identified in this number. Staff is simply providing information to Council at this time as there are no current funding sources for this project to move forward. Backeround Information: At the time the ARC was being designed the Council was concerned about competing with the local fitness clubs. Since that time several clubs have chased a higher end client, increased pricing, or changed ownership and the market they are catering to. This has driven many new users to the ARC and at times overcrowding is occurring due to the current fitness space being an afterthought. Following the opening of the ARC in April of 2003, staff immediately began hearing complaints regarding the fact that there was a lack of fitness facilities in the building. Within 6 months staff identified a space which could become the cardio room (formally a meeting room which was unused), and took some locker room space in the lower level of the facility, due to low use, for the purpose of locating resistance equipment. About 2 years later additional locker room space was taken from the lower level to create a fitness classroom for yoga, Pilates and spin classes. All of these were afterthoughts and space was utilized as best as possible to fill the need and requests of the community. As mentioned previously, in 2004 when the current fitness areas were added to the ARC due to a plea from users, the first 4 months of operations following the introduction of cardio and resistance equipment saw revenues from pass sales increase from just over $27,000 to $56,000 in sales; a 107% increase in sales. Current Issues/Information: Currently the ARC offers a cardio room with 15 pieces of equipment in about 750 Square feet of space. There is a room of about 650 square feet hosting 14 pieces of resistance equipment and free weights that borders on unsafe due to the tight quarters, and another room of 650 square feet which serves as a multipurpose room providing spinning classes, martial arts classes, aerobic classes and other fitness programs as scheduled. Each of these spaces are limited to the amount of patrons it can handle at one time and many times classes and other uses exceed the limit of the room and patrons are turned away or forced to wait until equipment frees up. The current fitness spaces are located in various areas of the building and not in a location where they may be monitored. This creates some safety hazards, but additionally due to the almost hidden location of these rooms we find that pirating of the use of facilities is somewhat prevalent as friends open the door for a friend to get in free, when the doors are left open we have found people walking in without checking in. properly. Staff estimates that some $12,000 to $15,000 in revenue is lost annually due to the theft of services. The following are very surface level and conceptual ideas, information and numbers based upon third party investigations of the space being identified. Please refer to the attached reports for more detail. • Design: Staff had Hagman Architects take a look at the footprint of the building and opportunities to expand fitness. You will find in the report from Ballard*King that the ideal size for a fitness center in a community of our size is between 5,000 and 6,000 sq. ft. The space identified in drawings provided by Hagman is 5,500 sq. ft.; perfect for our community s needs. The space is accessible and would provide views for patrons working out that are second to none. Access can be achieved to the space and an upgrade to the elevator would be necessary. • Structural: • Pattillo and Associates took a look at the structural needs of placing a fitness center on top of the building. While it is not without its challenges, as you can see in the report provided it can be accomplished. • Building Profile: The building profile and roof lines don't change with the addition of fitness space on top. They fit in nicely as a matter of fact and no higher than any other point on the building. This holds true for housing possibilities as well. • Housing: Staff looked at opportunities as well to mitigate for housing on site. A two bedroom unit would be needed to mitigate housing and Hagman Architects have identified that a unit of two bedrooms could sit on top of the current two bedroom unit without significantly changing the profile or height of the building. • Demographics: Ballard*King; who have extensive experience in reviewing community demographics and Recreation Center construction and expansion, took a look at population projects for the upper valley in the next 3 to 5 years and identified a 20% increase in pass revenue or about 255 additional passes being sold. The report also identifies other opportunities for revenue generation if the new fitness space is designed properly and the backfill of existing space is utilized to its fullest extent. While Ballard*King identifies a 20% increase in revenues, and recommends a 10%fee increase for the amenities patrons are receiving, this added revenue stream; while it covers increased operational costs, won't serve to fund the cost of the expansion. • Parking. Schmueser Gordon Meyer conducted a parking study for the ARC in order to identify if current parking is sufficient to provide for the ARC and surrounding facilities or if with the increase in use by expanding the fitness areas additional parking would be necessary. Council will find in the summary and recommendations of the parking study that sufficient parking is found to be available with the joint use agreement between the ARC and the Aspen School District. The problem as identified in the study is the overlapping of scheduling, education as to overflow parking located on the School District Campus, and the need for enforcement such that people use the parking available across the street. • Pro Forma: Staff has provided a pro forma with several scenarios for funding this expansion. As Council can see the increased revenues are insufficient to fund the expansion. Alternative funding sources would be necessary to cover the cost of such an expansion. In the surface level research provided by architects, engineers and consultants, no fatal flaws have been identified in the ability to expand fitness facilities at the ARC above the pools. However, funding is not available at this time to move forward with the project. In addition there are covenants on the Iselin Park Site and the ARC footprint that don't allow additions/changes in the footprint until the year 2013. Future Opportunities: Staff has taken snapshot looks at what opportunities might be created by vacating the existing fitness rooms. 0 Racquet Ball Court (serving racquet ball, handball, wallyball, % court basketball, spin classes) • Art & Crafts room • Child Care/Babysitting room for patrons while they workout • Physical Therapy • Personal Training • Massage Therapy • Educational Classes Some modifications would be necessary for the Racquetball court and to create a comfortable atmosphere for child care and other programs. With 2,000 square feet of space to renovate at $100 - $150/sq. ft. we would need $200,000 to $300,000 for renovations of existing spaces. Ballard*King has identified a 10% increase to fees at the ARC with these improvements coming on line. At first glance that seems to be high, but if you consider the installation of a racquetball court that can be multi -functional, improved fitness space, programs and equipment, and an added babysitting service as part of your membership, you would get all this for an additional $7.00/month on your current monthly pass and even less for your annual pass; all those added amenities and improvements at a bargain. Financial Impact: The estimated cost of this project is between $3 million and $3.7 million to include design, construction, structural upgrades, contingency and renovation of vacated spaces. Please refer to attachment "E" in your packet as this identifies the pro forma for the added fitness space, the increased revenue vs. cost stream, and the shortfall that ensues to fund this project. Council will find that additional revenue streams will be needed for the construction of this addition. Operationally the added revenues are expected to cover the added costs to operate, but insufficient revenues will be realized to offset construction of 5,500 of fitness space. Please note that the recommendation in the Ballard*King demographics study identifies a 10%fee increase and based upon valley projections to population growth a 20% increase in users for the ARC to achieve the identified revenue streams. Note: Also included in Council's packet is identification of the ARC's agreed upon subsidy level upon opening in 2003 (attachment "F"). Staff has shown how at first the subsidy was difficult to achieve and with adjustments, improvements, and operational efficiencies the subsidy with a CPI inflationary adjustment has been met in recent years and would continue to do so if the numbers in the Ballard*King report are achieved. Environmental Considerations: Because the 5,500 of additional space is being considered between areas which already exist at the ARC, and roof surfaces area would not increase as the expansion would take place over an existing roof, it is felt that the energy consumption will be close to a wash as to the building envelope. Where increased energy use will be realized is in the additional 255 pass holders who will take showers and use hot water. Thanks to the retro-fit of mechanical systems, high efficiency boilers, waste heat recovery plans from the ice rinks, and a switch of the ARC to the City Electrical grid, energy consumption continues to be lower than previous years. Staff and the design team would obviously look at all available technologies available in the design of the space if it were to be added. There are many opportunities for the use of solar energy for example. Alternatives: Due to the fact that the ARC is locked in to is current footprint due to Maroon Creek Road to the east, private property to the north, an old landfill and needed playing fields to the south and needed playing fields to the west, going on top of the building is the best recommendation. Alternatives are limited to use of existing spaces or adding the 5,500 sq. ft. on top as suggested. Another alternative would be to expand the ARC into the playing fields and replace the fields with another location, but this would most likely be more expensive due to the cost of land if we can find it. Furthermore the Community Campus; of which the ARC is an integral part of, was design to focus and direct recreation to this site such that bus service was available, people could walk or bike on the trail system and it's located close to the schools where many of the users come from. To relocate playing fields would increase auto traffic most likely to another location. Recommendation: Staff is not providing a formal recommendation at this time as we realize there are no available funding sources for the expansion of the Aspen Recreation Center. Staff suggests that this information be kept handy for such time that funding might be available. There is no sense in moving forward with design if the project is going to fall short of funding. Staff feels that the project should move forward at such time full funding is in place and the project may continue a seamless planning process. Manager's Comments: Attachments: "A" — Packet of points today; expansion sketches; building profiles and site lines, housing possibilities "B" — Structural information "C" — Parking Study "D" — Demographics & Growth Potential "E" — Pro Forma for potential funding of expansion "F" —ARC subsidy over the years AfPEN RECREATION CENTER �,;�ri;737J?J ��! �?J 'J JJ�1� �►J1�� �J� � • THE DESIGN WORKS (5,500 SQ. FT. PERFECT),- ADDED UPGRADES TO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS NECESSARY • NO MAJOR CHANGES TO THE PROFILE OF THE BUILDING • HOUSING MITIGATION MAY BE ACCOMPLISHED ON SITE • DEMOGRAPHIC REPORTS SHOW AN INCREASE IN USERS BY APPROXIMATELY 255 ADDITIONAL PASSES • PARKING WORKS WITH SCHEDULING ANDIOR COMPENSATION FOR ENFORCEMENT BY USERS • FUNDING IS NOT AVAILABLE AT THIS TIME WITHOUT AN ADDED REVENUE STREAM • ISELIN COVENANTS DON'T ALLOW CHANGES TO THE ORIGINAL BUILDING FOOTPRINT UNTIL 2013 Cal ARC EXPANSION trl-eVA7rA • ADO/5m" n;c�vse + /r- AYe_ EX/T s7M/R /ADD / 46YEL. �'/TiYE55 Np6^'IAN A,scNiTr�7's `Qi ` [.1P P»OL A6�oW AM M EXPANSION AN 4ARC EX(ic� ��Cvy Lo�f3�` Sits /VFW 14�*4�/p - 5/ye 7 5 0 u � H ------------- �6//Iv root. t#+ A -KC EcwArvsIeaN I -AN V _ _ _ 4-^11V rcom/. J F�T�y �R.lv6E r 6 Cq7— PA77l (s A, 4", - ' EXPNSIo/y Tie 06'14-0 Pt1 i rYEw u Fl77YF5S c� EX N� coiY�/��Tl� � N10vE 5771h< i M p©c� IN I oiloil 11 is 11 A-ft-C EXPANSION P"N.. r", other. fly t >a. r� ►Z ��.\t all Z, �• uy y n tnnu a J to k «G 0— NOKM • g O I- 1 ■ i KEYNOTES__—_�_- a , I • __-'. .. _ _ � � I I I v1M16 4,[ MFiYNL AI VYANNS YC(Al1D k i OMA rY.tl p )MEN. lOpi4,4 flE rIM01f5 _ _ _ V1, NM r APR.CNf W q)f C01tIMD p iNS `IQI. ��, .. _ 1 � , I � 0 NIOMd ,ou rNm r/ r rvrx • nxx -- • I I 1 I I I pq@ili4 PAi1F.N} _ � O FIDOSFO rOGEGR fbV.E,F MFYA). _ O MPRdi4 WRYA191[IY fNk. MSI U2 nRl _ _ I I I I O1 MO)Nm SA'Awf SW VA. 1O(ME. _ _ _ _ a ,a I ) Y Wkpx xipflMl) SK,d NKtlED 1vN[ • ••• .. -r '-• -' 'r) NpGk Y[IM C043 MTLp �_- -• _ _ a M I� wFY� Q M4L f� ,IN,� YFt4 aYpAl r/ Y l0/A2 V[4l .. Olw,m ,[i sOXICM' _7 t ' A .. � A • (bIM U.OI Dur fvo t- dll t 1 uoen n w�..m cWakmr Yy peAn (YXIAILTNC Wpnu N• t'pN5{A IMI Px.ul S,u X.X Mt... p)aIYKM X.,/a.X.• SnNcnM. Iknpl C= R^AIE wn). iOx b p> k � mn7 c-� pFlC oXA,M k• cMtwcp , r =- 41EfT CM XOXM A . y.-_.. .---'-- -'q ..--�'---•-t- -- x o- I noXC Avrrw rlakr. A •±. , • m Y I ©r rY,nlonk / k)tlY' oc YWf 3E I )p • roynln.r,ta ac nu • a.tx CONS�R t/nY. Yk.l N(7RT'H ELEVATION ...... �' . ,_. .SRC EXPANSION ItAN-iiiii- PY 4 EC 0 �LLgq I S1o����� moss//�/ - fir- u7 xr."PG�7lGEfvT TL �lfi°� F»YlR' AAOr Gait uP '� OffiRIM ARC EXPANSION P"N, MarAcr. ks *a roO GROW G K I'WS S WC DLNrµr � n Mcommm �,u� =2 for gmnOJ 9 A Mp V*MO. O C Ygwr ml ARCHITECT' Durranl CONSULTING A Vic D"es Arc CONSULTING A Hagman Archit CONSUL -WC E. Durront Sports MECHANICAL f Keen Engineers ELECTRICAL E^ KBA/Durront STRUCTURAL - Durrant ISSUE. No. Dote 1 02/27/01 2 03/OB/01 3 03/30/01 Q 07/13/01 PROJECT NO 11 DAT1: PA. c ..x ^ 9 rsa Ys#xa,Ler ✓Y' f14.6 ARC ExPANSION PLAN_ IIy 01, l�f Aan\ A-�WtiV,414 t� et( PATTILLO ASSOCIATES ENGINEERS, INC. STRUCTURAL CONSULTANT S 1215 grand avenue, post office box 751 glenwood springs, colomdo 91602 phone (970) 945-9695 fax (970) 945.4921 e-mail: pac@sopris.net May 4, 2010 City of Aspen Recreation Department 110 E. Hallam Aspen, CO 81611 Attn: Tim Anderson, Recreation Director Re: Aspen Recreation Center Proposed Fitness Center Addition Ladies and Gentlemen: As requested by Mr. Tim Anderson and in accordance with our Agreement for Professional Services, personnel of Pattillo Associates Engineers have completed a preliminary evaluation of the structural implications to add a Fitness Center room above the Family Pool area in the Aspen Recreation Center (ARC), as depicted in the conceptual drawings provided by Hagman Architects, LTD. Our observations and conclusions regarding gravity support of the proposed addition are presented herein. The floor for the future Fitness Center would comprise the trapezoidal area of the current flat -roofed section of roof that lies between the multi -story "core" ARC building and the sloping roof above the main pool facility. The elevation of new floor would be at approximately 126-0" (original drawing reference), adjacent the fourth level Mechanical Penthouse in the core building. Facts about the existing framing in this area are as follows: 1. Primary support for the roof and adjacent floor consists of large steel beams and steel columns that are founded on shallow concrete pads. The beams and columns occur along Grid Lines IA, 2A, and 4. 2. Secondary framing for the roof consists of steel bar joists with depths up to 48 inches, spaced at approximately 5'-0" on center. The overlying roof deck is 20 gage Type B metal decking that is 1.5 inches in depth. Roof joists span up to about 68 feet. 3. Secondary framing for the floor systems in the core building is of composite wide flange floor beams 14 inches to 24 inches in depth, spaced up to about 12 feet on center and spanning up to 24 feet. The floor consists of 18 gage, 3 inch deep composite steel decking filled with concrete to an overall depth of 6 inches. 4. The loads used for design of the roof were 83 pounds per square foot (psf) snow load plus 25 psf dead load. Snow loads were increased for drifting adjacent to walls. 5. The design loads used for floors were 100 psf live load (reducible for larger supported areas) plus 75 psf dead load (to include the weight of the concrete slab). ARC Proposed Fitness Room Addition May 4, 2010 Page two 6. It is of special interest that although a closure wall exists along Grid 5 both above and below the existing Family Pool roof adjacent to the core building, it is not load -bearing at either level. A primary element to resist lateral wind and seismic forces exists along Grid 2A. It consists of an X-braced frame with heavy -wall pipe columns. Based on our review of the proposed Fitness Room addition, we have made the following conclusions: A. The new floor should consist of a concrete slab 5 to 6 inches in thickness. The existing roof decking is not suitable for support of a concrete floor slab and must be replaced. B. The existing bar joists were designed for a total load of approximately 108 psf. They are not sufficient in strength or deflection performance for support of 175 psf floor loads. Extensive strengthening modifications would be required and are likely economically infeasible in comparison to replacement with new structural floor members. C. The primary steel girders will likely be sufficient to support the new floor loads, considering they could be readily modified to act in a composite manner with the concrete floor slab. D. Steel pipe columns along Grids IA and 2A (in the pool area) will probably need to be strengthened by welding additional steel plates or shapes to their exterior circumferences. It is unknown whether the affected wide - flange columns along Grid 4 (in the core building) will need to be strengthened without further analysis. E. It is likely that column and bracing members for the x-braced lateral force frame on Grid 2A will need to be modified, because the wind profile in the north -south direction will increase due to the addition of another story and seismic forces will increase due to the added floor dead load. Further analysis would be required to'ascertain lateral force affects. Lateral analysis is beyond the scope of presently contracted services, but will be necessary to completely understand the structural effects of the proposed addition. F. In order to keep the roof framing for the Fitness Center relatively simple, it would be best to mimic the existing roof framing. This would include matching or extending columns vertically at Grid intersections IA -AA and IA -BB. It may also allow the re -use of existing bar joists at the new roof level. ARC Proposed Fitness Room Addition May 4, 2010 Page three G. If the exterior wall along Grid 5 above the existing roof were to remain in place, shoring of the wall during construction would be required. From a structural view, the upper wall could be relocated to Grid 4, 8'-3" farther to the west, with no consequence, allowing additional area for the proposed Fitness Room and eliminating the complications of construction around the wall. Of course, if mechanical equipment on the Penthouse floor were adversely affected, shifting the wall may be infeasible. In summary, the addition of the proposed Fitness Center would require significant modification of the existing structure, including removal of the existing roof decking and bar joists and installation of new steel floor beams, metal decking and a concrete floor slab. Other strengthening measures would likely be required for existing columns and lateral load resisting frames. It maybe feasible to re -use the existing bar joists at the new roof level. Construction costs associated with the aforementioned structural modifications are difficult to determine at this stage of review. Considering the various complexities associated with typical remodeling projects, we would expect that structure costs would likely be double to triple those of new construction. In this case, the cost per square foot of floor area maybe on the order of $100 to $150, ignoring all other collateral costs (such as mechanical equipment relocations, electrical work, insulation, sprinklers, waterproofing, finishes, stairs, etc.). This completes our preliminary findings report. We intend to proceed with the remainder of our work to complete the gravity analysis investigation. Please contact me if you have any questions or require further information. Sincerely,�U 0 t 1 v Robert M. Pattillo, P. �'•, 5 /0 Principal Engineer t L,� ,. •.•' RMP/mms f il(S'A — email copies: Tim Anderson (tima(a&asuen.w.usl Tim Hagman (thaemanamhitects.coml a L �rre ni I, c d 6 SCHMUESER I GORDON I MEYER E N G I N E E R S I S U R V E Y O R 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Tim Anderson, Aspen Recreation Center Director Tim Ware, Aspen Parking Director CC: Dan Cokley, PE, SGM FROM: Lee Barger, SGM DATE: April 19, 2010 RE: Parking and Trip Generation Analysis for Proposed Aspen Recreation Center Expansion The Aspen Recreation Center (ARC) is proposing an approximately 5,000 square foot addition to the fitness room, which houses treadmills, stationary bikes, and other cardio and weight training equipment. The purpose of this memo is to determine if adequate parking capacity exists for the proposed fitness room expansion. To accomplish this assessment, this memo also analyzes the current parking demand at the Aspen Community Campus, which includes the ARC, Aspen Middle School, and Aspen High School parking lots along Maroon Creek Road, to determine if sufficient parking capacity exists throughout a typical day and when multiple events are ongoing at these locations. Observations were made in February of 2010, on a Thursday and on a Friday to capture "typical" weekday parking demand (Thursday) and "peak" parking demand (Friday) at the ARC. On Friday February 12, Aspen High School had basketball games going on at the school and a hockey game going on at the ARC. Additionally, an Aspen District Theatre event was scheduled at the Middle School during Friday evening, and the ARC hosted a typical busy Friday night schedule (in addition to the HS hockey game). Existing Parking Inventory and Uses When observations were made, approximately 8 — 10 existing parking spaces in the ARC lot were unusable because they were occupied by plowed snow. The ARC parking lot has a summer -time capacity of 120 spaces (not including handicap spaces). The High School lot has a capacity of 100 spaces, although a few spaces were occupied by plowed snow and several others that were unusable due to icy conditions. The Middle School lot was generally well plowed with approximately 250 available parking spaces. No parking is allowed along Maroon Creek Road within the City limits, which include Maroon Creek Road to the ARC and schools. South of the ARC driveway, Maroon Creek becomes a county road; and Glen Eagle Drive and Moore Drive are both maintained by the County. Below is a map showing the parking lots and buildings it relation to each other, created from a GoogleEarth image. Page 2 of 8 The map also shows the Maroon Creek Road pedestrian overpass (in blue) that connects pedestrian facilities between the High School and the ARC, as well as the two RFTA bus stops that serve this area. The parking lots at the ARC, High School, and Middle School have various users throughout the day and evenings. In general, parking in the school lots is for school uses and parking in the ARC lot is for ARC uses. The ARC parking lot has a fairly common problem of being used by employees or skiers at Aspen Highlands, but only on unusually busy (powder) days at the resort. Occasionally, teachers and students of the high school have been observed to park in the ARC lot when the high school lot is full. Other users of the ARC parking spaces include parks and open space users (cross- country skiing, sledding, hiking, etc) as well as ARC and Youth Center employees, although they are urged to use public transportation. According to the ARC director and the City of Aspen's Parking director, overlapping events at the school and ARC where parking becomes challenging occur approximately ten to twelve times per year. The Friday when observations were collected is a perfect example of this type of overlapping event. Other peaking events throughout the year include overlapping soccer and football practices and games while a swim meet occurs, 118 W. 8'", SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81502 970-945-1004 Fn : 970-945-5948 Page 3 of 8 for instance. It is during these times when parking demand can exceed the available supply provided in any of the three lots, and parking management and enforcement becomes more critical. The City of Aspen Parking Department manages the parking during these peaking events by patrolling the lots, closing lots when full, and updating messages to the traveling public regarding where to park by Variable Message Signs (VMS) located along Maroon Creek Road. Typically two parking officers are required to manage these events, and sometimes a third is necessary. The officers cannot, however, enforce parking regulations in the school lots or along any stretches of Pitkin County roads. This presents difficult enforcement issues when the County or school district will not enforce parking restrictions along their roads (which is common). Existing "Typical" Demand Thursday February 11 represented a fairly typical midweek day for ARC operations. Activities included children's hockey practices, normal gym and pool activity schedules, a children's book author's book signing, and other typical uses by residents and guests. There were no high school or middle school sports events and Highlands had typical weekday business for the day (it was not a powder day). The following figures chart the hourly parking demand at the three lots observed on Thursday. DemandARC Parking Thursday February 11, 2010 120 ry 10 t s :1 • 60 , Q. 40 1� r� l I 1 gg . 11 11 1 11 1/ 11 11 11 11 Time of Ie As the ARC graph shows, parking demand in the ARC parking lot on a typical weekday is well below 50% for the majority of the day, with the lot filling to about 80%D capacity during the afternoon and evening hours (4 PM — 7 PM). Data was not collected after 7PM, but can be assumed to have continued in the downward trend for the final two hours that the ARC was open. 1 18 W. 67, Sum 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 51602 970-945-1004 Fn : 970-945-5948 Page 4 of S .. MIMI -. 1 1 `z - ppI 4 1 . 11 It 1 11 11 It � 11 t1 11 As the High School graph shows, parking demand on a typical weekday is about 80% - 90% while school is in session, with the lot emptying to about 35% or less after 3 PM. Data was not collected after 713M, but can be assumed to have continued in the downward trend for the final two hours. .. -. 1 1 F77 I t h 11 - f ! 7, p � �Y f 11 i 1 .' I 1 . 11 11 1 11 It 11 Ii 11 11 1 1 8 W. &". SLIM 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81502 970-945- 1 004 Fn : 970-945-5948 Page 5 of 8 The Middle School graph shows similar activity and demand as the High School lot where parking demand is about 75% of capacity while school is in session, and drops to about 35% or less after 3 PM. Data was not collected after 7PM, but can be assumed to have continued in the downward trend for the final two hours. Based on the observations made on Thursday, parking capacity at the ARC, High School, and Middle School generally appears sufficient to meet the parking demand of these facilities on a typical weekday when no special events are occurring. Existing "Peak" Demand On Friday February 12, four high school basketball games occurred between 4 PM — 9 PM, a high school hockey game occurred at the ARC at 6 PM, and the Aspen District Theatre had a performance at the Middle School auditorium at 7 PM. There were no special events held at the ARC (aside from the high school hockey), but the ARC reported average occupancy numbers for the day. These conditions are representative of a peak event that occurs ten — twelve times per year. The following figures chart the hourly parking demand at the three lots observed on Friday February 12, 2010. Data was not collected before 2 PM or after 8PM, because we just wanted to observe the busiest part of the day in these parking lots. ARC Parking Demand Friday February 12, 010 120 11 3 ' :1 E • 60 1CL 1 9 , 1 1 . 11 11 1 11 11 11 0 11 11 AM AM AM PM PM PM PIVI PM Time of 1. As the ARC graph shows for Friday, parking demand peaked about an hour to two hours later than the night before. The parking officers noted that the lot filled briefly between 6 PM and 7 PM. I 1 8 W. 67". SURE 200 GLENWOOD SPRIN05, CO 81 502 970-945- 1004 FAX: 970945-5945 Page 6 of 8 .. • .- t • 1 �i �-h 1 i ' 3 As the High School parking lot graph shows, parking demand rose after 3 PM as the basketball games began. The lot slowly filled as the junior varsity basketball games began after school, followed by the girls varsity and boys varsity games, which lasted until about 9 PM. 118 W. 67, Sum 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 970-945-1004 F": 970-945-5948 Page 7 of 8 The Middle School graph shows the effect of the District Theater crowd arriving in the evening. It could be assumed that this graph would look similar as the day before prior to 2 PM when school was in session. Other times of the year (that were not observed) when parking overflow conditions exist at the ARC and High School lots include various AVSC events, fall after -school programs utilizing the multi -purpose playing fields, and powder days and special events occurring at Highlands, such as closing day. Better enforcement during these times will force people to use the overflow lots at the high school and middle school lots. Further observations of parking utilization during these times is recommended to understand other seasonal peaking tendencies. Trip Generation Calculation Using the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, a Edition, the nationally accepted standard for generating traffic from various land uses, estimates of daily and peak hour traffic generated by the proposed expansion were calculated. Using Land Use Code #492 for Health/Fitness Center and assuming 5,000 square feet of additional fitness room space, the expansion will generate approximately 165 additional trips on a typical weekday. Of this, 7 trips (3 entering/4 exiting) may be generated in the AM peak hour and 18 trips (10 entering/8 exiting) may be generated in the PM peak hour. A trip is considered as either having an origin or destination at the ARC, so a person coming to the ARC will make two trips (not considering carpool or other modal choice besides driving alone). This roughly equates to a need for 4 parking spaces in the AM and 10 spaces in the PM (if each new trip drives separately) to provide parking for the new fitness space. It is likely that some users may arrive by carpool, bus, bike, or other mode reducing the overall number of additional parking spaces needed. Based on the observations collected in February, even during a peak event, up to 15 unused parking spaces exist in the ARC lot that could fulfill the demand created by the additional fitness space. There will likely be several occurrences during the year when parking may not be provided for this additional use; however, that is more a function of the overall scheduling of the area facilities and should not be attributed to additional fitness space. In general, the existing parking supply provided at the ARC is adequate for this 5,000 square foot fitness room expansion. Summary and Recommendations The ARC has a variety of uses including an ice rink, workout facilities, swimming pool, outdoor playing fields, climbing wall, and space for many other activities. Through the seasons of the year, various overlapping events are scheduled to maximize the use of the area's facilities. Although observations were conducted in February, similar results may be found in spring and fall when school is in session and other sports schedules and activities fill the ARC and the playing fields. When the school district or district theatre events overlap with a busy event at the ARC (or in some cases share the ARC facilities), parking demand can exceed the supply provided by these lots. From the information I received, event scheduling coordination between the ARC, schools, and District Theater is not kept updated and seems to be the primary source of the occasional parking overload. Initial scheduling occurs early in the year, but as events change and get added or cancelled, the "coordinated calendar' does not get 1 18 W. 6'". Sui E 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 8 1502 970-945-1004 F": 970-945-5948 Page 8 of 8 updated, and all parties are not aware of the types and times of events scheduled. If the coordinated calendar were constantly updated, better management of resources could be maintained and peak events could be known well in advance. In fact, a perfect example of this scheduling conflict occurred the day before we planned the "peak" data collection effort. This effort was meant to observe overlapping high school events occurring at the HS and the ARC, but on the day prior, the parking director was informed that the District Theater event would also be occurring. Consequently, this conflict produced a great event to observe for the study. A critical threshold of events based on available parking needs to be established by all parties contributing to the parking generation to provide some boundaries for future scheduling conflicts. SGM has several recommendations to maximize the utilization of the parking supply in this area. • Better schedule coordination among school district, ARC, and district theatre with a "dynamic" calendar, that all parties routinely update (in Outlook, for example) • Plow all parking spaces in the ARC and other lots (school district's responsibility) and make plowing more of a priority to maintain the ultimate parking lot capacities throughout the year • Consolidate or change the three Parks Department spaces at the southwest end of the lot to general parking spaces • Amend agreements between County, School District, District Theater, and City to address mutual scheduling, management, and/or enforcement • Install removable foul -ball fences along ARC parking lot (west side) for better baseball season utilization of 10 —15 spaces. • Coordinate a Demand Management Plan for peak events that utilizes better area signage, VMS operations, and overflow areas such as the Tiehack lot to meet parking needs. • Potential use of Maroon Creek Road for overflow on critical event days. • Continued active enforcement of likely overflow events. • Advanced notification by user groups hosting out of town guests of available parking lots. • Expectation of user groups to cover the cost of the parking enforcement by either increased fees or to be responsible directly for the hiring of such staff. Based on observations conducted, discussions with ARC staff and City Parking officials, and general understanding of the ARC and school parking lot utilization, the existing ARC parking lot has the capacity to provide parking for the additional users associated with the 5,000 square foot proposed expansion to the ARC facility on a typical daily basis. When parking supply is exceeded by the occasional overlapping event, better scheduling of events and management of parking lots will prevent this heavy demand event from occurring or will provide a responsive plan to mitigate the parking demand with plenty of lead-time. If there were no influences from the school or other overlapping users, the 120-space ARC parking lot would provide more than adequate parking for activities held exclusively at the ARC on a daily basis. 118 W. 67", SUITE 200 GLENWOOD SPRINGS, CO 81602 970-945-1004 Fn : 970-945-5948 f Aspen Recreation Center Weight/Cardio Expansion Assessment Introduction: The following is a brief analysis of the possible expansion of the Aspen Recreation Center to include a new 5,000 square foot fitness area. It should be noted that this is a very basic analysis of the possible operational impact of adding this amenity to the center. 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. Also, weight/cardio equipment areas are usually the first area that is expanded in a public recreation center to deal with the overwhelming demand for this type of use. It is also critical to understand that use of a weight/cardio area tends to peak load during certain times of the day (early morning and late afternoon to early evening) and seasonally (higher use in the winter than summer). As a result of these facts, the size of weight/cardio spaces in public recreation centers have been steadily increasing over the last ten years. The absolute minimum size is now 3,000 SF with a preferred size of 5,000 to 6,000 and a high end of as much as 8,000 SF or more. This situation has held true for public recreation centers in mountain resort communities with Breckenridge expanding its weight/cardio area twice and Park City preparing to more than double the size of their current fitness area in their new center. Market Review: An important aspect in determining the possible financial impact of expanding the weight/cardio area in the Aspen Recreation Center, is understanding the market realities that will impact use and fees. Demographic Characteristics • It is estimated by ESRI (a national demographic firm) that the population of Aspen was 6,347 in 2009 with projections of a population of 6,513 in 2014. The median age in 2009 was 40 which is considerably higher than the national population. There are estimated to be 3,113 households with a household size of 1.97 (which is much smaller than the national statistics). The median household income was $77,998. • The Aspen market area (basically the Highway 82 corridor from Basalt south through Aspen) has similar demographic characteristics. There were estimated to be 12,642 residents in this area in 2009 with projections of 12,900 by 2014. The median age in 2009 was 40, and there were 5,882 households with a household size of 2.10. The median household income was $78,269. bk _ BALLARD*KING& ASSOCIATES LTD Page 1 of 5 Aspen Recreation Center Weight/Cardio Expansion Assessment Current Use/Membership Figures 2009 Numbers 2009 Revenue Daily Guest 6,344 $100,129 Daily Resident 16,995 $143,990 Other Daily 3,226 $22,724 Daily Total 26,565 $266,843 Punch Admissions (10-20) 1,313 $206,748 1 Month Pass 633 $54,474 6 Month Pass 329 $101,014 Annual Pass 127 $84,940 Pass Total 1,089 $240,428 Operational Impact of the Planned Expansion: The operational budget figures noted below are based on the following project assumptions: • The center will add approximately 5,000 SF of weight/cardio equipment. • The existing weight/cardio space in the center will be converted to other active uses such as spinning, yoga, and personal training. • The expansion will be open sometime in the next 3-5 years. • There will be an across the board fee increase of approximately 10%. Ballard*King & Associates recommends strongly that when the expanded center opens that the 10% fee increase should be implemented. With the addition of a significant weight/cardio area, the value of the facility will be much higher and the rates for use of other similar facilities are considerably more. • An increase in use and revenue for all forms of admission of at least 20%. Expense Increases With the expansion of the center, it is projected that there will be an increase in operational costs to cover additional utility costs, equipment repair, staffing (part-time weight/cardio area supervisor), custodial/maintenance costs, as well as other misc. expenses. $AT,T,AR *KING Page 3 of 5 bk & ASSOCIATES LTD Aspen Recreation Center Weight/Cardio Expansion Assessment expansion should not have a negative impact on other existing fitness providers due to the difference in market focus. Beyond the increase in the fitness areas themselves it should not be necessary to add more locker room or other support space to the building as these areas are adequately sized to handle an increase in center use. 7� BALLARD*KING Page 5 of 5 K & ASSOCIATES LTD Aspen Recreation Center Weight/Cardio Expansion Assessment • In addition to the permanent residents, the visitors to the area also provide an important market for the Aspen Recreation Center. Based on information derived from the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District, the average monthly population (visitors and full-time) in Aspen during 2008 was 15,299. If the permanent population of 6,513 is factored out this puts the monthly average of visitors at 8,786. This estimate is recognized as being very conservative and it is highly likely that the actual number of visitors is significantly higher. Other Providers • There are a number of other private fitness providers as well as several other public facilities in the southern portion of the Roaring Fork Valley that have an impact on the market for an expanded weight/cardio area at the Aspen Recreation Center. Some of these facilities include: o Aspen Club & Spa o Aspen Athletic Club o Jean Roberts Gym o Bleeker Street Gym o Aspen Meadows o Snowmass Club o Maroon Creek Club o Snowmass Recreation Center There are also a number of smaller fitness studios and personal trainers in the Aspen area. • Many of these facilities over the last several years have significantly increased their membership fees resulting in more exclusive use clubs with less availability to the average person in Aspen. This creates a unique market niche for a public focused recreation center with a significant weight/cardio area. It is also important to realize that the Snowmass Recreation Center, another public recreation facility, has higher fees for a facility that is much smaller and has fewer amenities than the Aspen Recreation Center. Aspen Recreation Center Current Operations: The center was not designed to include a weight/cardio fitness area when it first opened. However, due to high demand from recreation center patrons, existing areas of the building were converted to fitness uses. This has resulted in two different areas for fitness equipment on two different levels of the building as well as spaces that are way too small to service the demand. BA LARD*KING Page 2of5 bk & ASSOCIATES LTD Aspen Recreation Center Weight/Cardio Expansion Assessment Operational Cost Estimate $90,000 to $130,000 Revenue Increases With the additional weight/cardio space, there should be a significant increase in overall center use due to the appeal of an expanded facility, the increasing fees to access private clubs, and growth in the general population. Revenue sources include the following areas (these figures include the recommended 10% increase in fees): Daily Punch/Passes Other Personal Training Other Fitness Programs Concession/Pro-shop Operational Revenue Estimate New Projected Budget Figures $80,000 to $120,000 $135,000 to $175,000 $30,000 to $45,000 (net to center) $5,000 to $10,000 $5,000 to $10,000 $253,000 to $360,000 2013 New Expenses $90,000 to $130,000 Revenues $253,000 to $360,000 Difference $163,000 to $230,000 Note: These are general estimates only based on basic operations and facility information. These are relatively conservative numbers for revenues. Project Recommendations: Based on the information presented above, it is the professional opinion of Ballard* King & Associates that the City of Aspen should pursue the expansion of the Aspen Recreation Center with the addition of weight/cardio space. The current operating subsidy that is required for the center will be reduced, additional patrons will be served, and this BALT,A *KING Page 4 of 5 �� & ASSOCIATES LTD Aspen Parks and Recreation WP-ARC Expansion-09 TOG Scenario 1 - Additional Contribution - $0 and 20 Year Repayment May 12, 2010 [A] [B] [C] IN [E] IF] [GI [H] W 1.11 Cos wllnteres Years Out Year I and Public Contrlbutior [a] 1 2013 $3,554,77E [b] 2 2014 $3,732,51, [c] _ 3 2015 $3,919,13f [d] 4 2016 $4,115,09( [e] 5 2017 $4,320,85- [f] 6 2018 $4,536,89, [91 7 2019 $4,763,73t In) 8 2020 $5,001,92! [i] 9 2021 $5,252,OZ U1 10 2022 $5,514,62: [k] 11 2023 $5,790,35, If] 12 2024 $6,079,87; (m] 13 2025 $6,383,86: In] 14 2026 $8,703,051 [01 15 2027 $7,038,21 IPI 16 2028 $7,360,125 [q] 17 2029 $7,759.621 [r] 18 2030 $8,147.601 [a] 19 2031 $8,554,991 It) 20 2032 $8,982,731 Ix] IL1 IM] IN] [ol Additional Funds Need Additional Funds Needed For Bond Surplus Above Sehedualed Bond to Repay Additional Net Rev Bond Payment Repayment Bond in Full Total Bond Repayment Repayment (w/Prior Low High Mean Schadual Surplus) Low High Mean Low High Mean Mean $165,000 $230,000 $197,500 $449,137 $449,137 $284,137 $219,137 $251,637 $0 $0 $0 $3,105,638 $167,937 $234,094 $201,016 $449,137 $898,274 $281,200 $215,043 $248,121 $0 $0 $0 $2,834,240 $170,926 $238,261 $204,594 S449,137 $1,347,411 $278,211 $210,876 $244.543 $0 $0 $0 $2,571,729 $173,969 $242,502 $208,235 $449.137 $1,796.548 $275,168 $206.635 $240,902 $0 $0 $0 $2,318,549 $177,065 $246.818 $211,942 $449,137 $2,245,685 $272,072 $202,319 $237,195 _ $0 $0 $0 $2.075,166 E180,217 $251,212 $215,714 $449 137 $2,694,822 .$268,920 $197,925 E233,422 $0 EO $0 $1,842,072 $183,425 $255,683 $219,554 $449,137 $3,143,959 $265,712 $193,454 $229,583 $0 $0 $0 $1,619,780 $186,690 $260,235 $223,462 $449,137 $3,593,096 $262.447 $188,902 $225,675 $0 $0 $0 $1.408,830 $190,013 $264,867 $227.440 $449,137 $4,042,233 $259,124 $184,270 $221,697 $0 $0 $0 $1,209.789 $193,395 $269,581 $231,488 $449.137 $4,491,370 $255,742 $179,556 $217,649 $0 $0 $0 $1,023,253 $198,838 $274,380 _ _ $235,809 $449,137 $4,940,507 $252,299 $174,757 $213,528 $0 $0 $0 $849,847 $200,341 $279,264 $239,803 $449,137 $5,389,644 $248,795 $169,873 $209,334 $0 $0 $0 $690,228 $203,908 $284,235 $244,071 $449,137 $5,838,781 $245,229 $164,902 $205,066 $0 $0 $0 $546,065 $207,537 $289,294 $248:416 $449,137 $6,287,918 $241.600 $159,843 $200,721 $0 $0 $0 $415,141 $211,231 $294,1 $252,837 $449,137 $6,737,055 $237,906 $154,693 $196,300 $0 $0 $0 $301,157 $234,146 E149,452 $214,9.1 $299,685 $257,338 $449,137 $7,186,192 $191,799 $0 $0 $0 E203,930 $218,818 $305,019 $281,919 $449,137 $7,635.328 $230.319 $144,118 $187,218 $0 $0 $0 $124.300 $222,7131 $310,448 $266,581 $449,137 $8.084.465 $226,424 $138,689 $182,556 $0 $0 $0 $63,144 $226,677 $315,974 $271,328 $449,137 $8.533,602 $222,460 $133,163 $177,811 $0 $0 ED $21,387 1 $230,712 $321,599 $276,155 $449.137 $8,982,739 $218.4251 $127,538 $172,982 $0 $0 so SO Print Date: S/13/2010 For Aspen City Council Work Session (S/18/10) Page: 1 of 1 Aspen Parks and Recreation WP-ARC Expansion-10 TOC Scenario 2 - Additional Contribution - $1,500,000 and 20 Year Repayment May 12, 2010 [A] IB] [C] [D] [E] [F] [O] [H] in P1 1K] Years Out (al � Ib] 2 (c] 3 Idl 4 [a] 5 Ifl 6 Jill 7 In) 8 [i] 9 G] 10 [k) 11 [I] 12 [m] 13 In] 14 [01 15 [p] 16 (9] 17 [r] 18 [a] 19 It] 20 Cos w1interes' and Public Contributior $2,078,7& $2,182,703 $2,291,837 $2,406,42£ $2.626.751 82,653,08E $2,785,74, $2,925,02£ $3,071,281 $3,224,84- $3,386,087 $3,555,391 $3,733,161 $3,919,81£ $4,115,81C $4,321,601 $4.537,681 $4,764,56E $5,002,793 IL1 IM1 IN1 [O] Additional Funds Need Additional Funds Needed For Bond Surplus Above Schedualed Bond to Repay Additional Net Rev Bond Payment Repayment Bond in Full Total Bond Repayment Repayment (wlPrior Low High Mean Schedual Surplus) Low High Mean Low High Mean Mean $165,000 $230,000 $197,500 $250.140 $250.140 $65,140 $20,140 $52,640 $0 $0 $0 $1,729,635 $187,937 $234,094 $201,016 $250,140 $500,279 $82,203 $16,046 $49,124 $0 $0 $0 $1.578.484 $170,926 $238,261 $204,594 $250,140 $750,419 $79,213 $11,879 $45,546 $0 $0 $0 $1,432,283 $173,969 $242,502 $208,235 $250,140 $1,000,559 $76,171 $7,638 $41.904 $0 $0 $0 $1,291,278 $177,065 $246,818 $211,942 $250,140 $1,260,698 $73,074 $3,321 $38,198 $0 $0 $0 $1,155,731 E780,217 $251,212 $215,714 $250,140 $1,500,838 $69,922 EO $34,425 $0 $1,072 $0 $1,025,912 $183,425 $255,683 $219,554 $250,140 $1.750.977 $66,715 $0 $30,585 $0 $5,544 $0 $902,110 $186,690 $260,235 $223,462 $250,140 $2,001,117 $63,450 $0 $26.677 $0 $10.095 $0 $784,625 $190.013 $264,867 $227,440 $250,140 $2,251,257 $60.127 $0 $22.700 $0 $14,727 $0 $673,773 $193.395 $269,581 $231,488 $250,140 $2,501,396 $56,744 $0 $18.651 $0 $19,442 $0 $569,884 $198,838 $274,380 $235,608 $250,140 $2,751,536 $53,302 $0 $14,531 $0 $24,240 $0 S473,309 $200,341 $279.264 $239,803 $250,140 $3,001,676 $49.798 $0 $10,337 $0 $29,124 $0 $384,411 $203,908 $284,235 $244.071 $250,140 $3,251,815 $46,232 $0 $6,068 $0 $34.095 so $303,576 $207,537 $289,294 $248,416 $250,140 $3,501,955 $42,603 $0 $1,724 $0 $39,155 $0 $231,206 $211,231 - $294,444 -. $252,837 $250,140 $3,754,792 $38,908 $0 $9 $0 $44,304 $2,698 $165,027 _ $257,338 _-._. $0 E214,991 E299,685 _..._--__ $250,140 E4,012,130 -- $35,148 EO _ _-_ EO - E49,545 E7,198 _-_. $103,880 $218,8181 $305,019 $261,919 $250,140 $4.274.049 $31,322 $0 $0 $0 $54,879 $11,779 $47,552 $222,7131 $310,448 $266,581 $250,140 $4.540.630 $27,427 $0 $0 $0 $60,309 $16,441 -$2,949 $226,6771 $315,974 $271.326 $250,140 $4,811,955 $23,462 $0 $0 $0 $65,835 $21,186 -$47,391 $230,712 $321.599 $276,155 $250,140 $5,088,111 $19,428 $0 $0 $0 $71,459 $26,016 -$85,318 Print Date: 5/13/2010 For Aspen City Council Work Session (5/18/10) Page: 1 of 1 Aspen Parks and Recreation WP-ARC Expansion-111 roc Scenario 3 - Additional Contribution - $2,500,000 and 20 Year Repayment May 12, 2010 [A] IS] [rl [0] [E1 [F] [0] [H1 19 1-11 Cos w1interes Years Out Year and Publb Contdbutioi [a] 1 2013 $929,7T, [b] 2 2014 $976.26, [c] 3 2015 $1,025,0T, [d] 4 2016 $1,076,33' [a) 5 2017 $1,130.14' --$1,186,651 [f] 6 2018-- [g] 7 2019 $1,245,98' [h1 8 2020 $1,308,28' 111 9 2021 $1,373.70 p] 10 _ - 2022 $1,442,38, Ikl 11- 2023 $1,514.50 111 12 2024 $1,590.23 (m] 13 2025 $1,669,74. In] 14 2026 $1,753,22 101 15 2027 $1,840,89 [p] 16 _ 2028 _ $1,932,93 [q] 17 2029 $2,029,58 (r] 18 2030 $2,131,06 [$1 19 2031 $2,237,61 it] 20 2032 $2,349,49 [Kl 0.] [Ml IN] 101 Additional Funds Need Additional Funds Needed For Bond Surplus Above Schedualed Bond to Repay Additional Net Rev Bond Payment Repayment Bond In Full Total Bond Repayment Low High Mean Repayment Schedual (wlPrlor Surplus) Low High Mean Low Nigh Mean Mean $165,000 $230,000 $197,500 $117,475 $197.500 $0 $0 $0 $47,525 $112,525 $80,025 $732,275 $167,937 $234,094 $201,016 $117,475 $398,516 $0 $0 $0 $50,462 $116,619 $83,541 $577,748 $170,926 $238,261 $204.594 $117,475 $603,109 $0 $0 $0 $53,452 $120,786 $87,119 $421,968 $173,969 $242,502 $208,235 $117,475 $811,344 $0 $0 $0 $56,494 $125,027 $90.761 $264,986 $177,065 $246,818 $211,942 $117,475 $1,023,286 $0 $0 $0 $59,591 $129,344 $94,467 $106,861 _ $180,217 -- _ _--- $251,212 _ $215,714 $117,475 $1,239,001 $0 $0 $0 E82,742 $133,737 $98,240 -$52,346 $183,425 $255,683 $219,554 $117.475 $1,458,555 $0 $0 $0 $65.950 $138,209 $102,079 -$212,568 $186,690 $260,235 $223,462 $117,475 $1,682,017 $0 $0 $0 $69,215 $142,760 $105,988 -$373,731 $190,013 $264,867 $227,440 $117,475 $1,909,457 $0 $0 $0 $72.538 $147,392 $109,965 -$535,756 $193,395 $269,581 $231,488 $117,475 $2,140.946 $0 $0 $0 $75,921 $152,107 $114,014 -$698,559 EO $0 _- $79,363 E756,905 E118,1 134 -$8882,049 __38 E796,8274,380 $__ $ $235,809 $117,475 $2,376,554 $0 $200,341 $279,264 $239,803 $117,475 $2,616,357 $0 $0 $0 $82,867 $161,789 $122,328 -$1,026,126 $203,908 $284,235 $244,071 $117,475 $2,860,428 $0 $0 $0 $86,433 $166,760 $126,596 -$1,190,686 $207,537 $289,294 $248,416 $117,475 $3,108,844 $0 $0 $0 $90,062 $171,819 $130,941 -$1,355,614 $211,231 $294,444 $252,837 $117.475 $3.361,681 $0 $0 $0 $93,757 $176,969 $135,363 -$1,520,790 i $214,991 $299,685 $3,619,019 $0 $0 $0 $97,516 $182,210 $139,883 -$1,686,084 E257,338 - $117,475 $218,818 $305,019 $261,919 $117,475 $3,880,938 $0 $0 $0 $101.343 $187,544 $144,444 -$1,851,356 $222,713 $310,448 $266,581 $117,475 $4,147,518 $0 EO $0 $105,238 $192,974 $149,106 -$2,016,457 I $226,677 $315,974 $271,326 $117,475 $4,418,844 $0 $0 $0 $109,203 $198,500 $153,851 -$2,181,230 i $230,712 $321,599 $276,155 $117.476 $4,695,000 $0 $0 $0 $113,237 $204.1241 $158,681 -$2,345,505 Print Date: 5/13/2010 For Aspen City Council Work Session (5/18/10) Page: 1 of 1 Aspen Parks and Recreation ARC Expansion Historical Recreation Subsidy Levels by Year May 13, 2010 Year Expenditure Revenue Actual Subsidy -Allowable Subsidy Recovery Rate Dlff to Allowable Subsidy X Diff to Allowable Subsidy Notes 2001 $1,433,924 $553,485 $880,439 n/a 38.60% n/a n/a 2002 $1,847,699 $801,521 $1.046.178 $1,384,179 43.38% -$338,001 We An additional $300,000 approved due to the addition of the ARC 2003 $3.366.179 $1,486,326 $1,879,853 $1,425,704 44.15% $454,149 24.16% 2004 $3,572.480 $1,818,484 $1,753,997 $1,468.475 50.90% $285,522 16,28% 2005 $3,504,170 $1,853,109 $1,651,061 $1.512,529 52.88% $138,532 8.39% 2006 $3,760,637 $2.044,500 $1,716,137 $1,573030 54.37% $143,107 8.34% 2007 $3,982,994 $2.206.502 $1,776,492 $1,620:221 55.40% $156,271 8.80% 2008 $4,124.565 $2,256,695 $1.667,870 $1,668.828 54.71% $199,042 10.66% 2009 $3,817,557 $2,051,840 $1,766,717 $1,718,893 53.75% $46,824 2.65% 2010 $3,589,920 $2.138,670 $1,451,350 $1,718,893 59.57% -$267,543 -18.43-% 2010 Assume holding fees and expenditures gat II Council approved an additional $300,000 subsidy upon opening the ARC and asked that subsidy levels not grow by more than allowable operational Increases annua y. Year Expenditure Revenue 'Allowable Actual Subsidy Subsidy. Recovery Rate DNf to Allowable Subsidy % Diff to Allowable Subsidy Notes 2001 $1,433,924 $553,485 $880,439 n/a 38.60% n/a n/a $0 In additional in kind gifts In Reveune 2002 $1,847.699 $801,521 $1,046,178 $1,364.179 43.38% -$338,001 We $0 in additional in kind gifts in Reveune 2003 $3,366,179 $1,512,926 $1,853,253 $1.425,704 44.94% $427,549 23.07% $26,600In additional in kind gifts In Reveune 2004 $3.572,480 $1,887,869 $1,6a4,511 $1,468,475 52.84% $216,136 12.83% $69,385 In additional in kind gifts in Reveune 2005 $3,504,170 $1,924.380 $1.579,790 $1,512,529 54.92% $67.261 4.26% $71,271 in additional in kind gifts in Reveune 2006 $3,760,637 $2,117,657 $1.642,979 $1,573.030 56.31% $69949 4.26% $73,167 in additional in kind gifts in Reveune 2007 $3.982,994 $2,281,545 $1,701,449 $1.620.221 57.28% $81:228 4.77% $75.042 in additional in kind gifts in Reveune 2008 $4.124,565 $2,333,624 $1,790,941 $1,668,828 56.58% $122,113 6.82% $76,928 In additional in kind gifts in Reveune 2009 $3,817,557 $2,150,655 $1,666,903 $1,718,893 56.34% 451,990 .3.12% $9 AU in additional in kind gifts in Revaune 2010 1 $3,589,9201 2,237.670 $1,352,250 $1,718,893 62.339/6 -$366,643 -27.11% $99, 100 in additional in kind gifts In Reveune Council approved an additional $3W,000 subsidy upon opening me rm. a,— _^ _ mow•--• - Print Date: 5/1312010 For Aspen City Council Work Session (5118/10) Page: 1 of 1 Jackie Lothian From: Rebecca Hodgson Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 1:13 PM To: City_Council; Public Comment Subject: FW: Question about letter to city council From: Timothy Reed [mailto:timreedpt@comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 12:09 PM To: Rebecca Hodgson Subject: Re: Question about letter to city council Dear City Council, I was very disheartened to read the newspaper accounts of the council's discussion concerning the proposed improvements to the ARC. Since 2006, we have listened to the debate as to whether or not the Aspen Club International LLC proposal for development should take place. At the heart of that debate is the "exceptional community benefit" that must be derived from such a development in order for an exemption to be allowed to the city ordinance. I personally do not agree that the benefit to the community is exceptional when I consider that the cost ofjoining the club, maintaining a membership, etc is beyond my means and beyond the means of all but the members of the club and the few employees who do live in Aspen. Having said that, I had a discussion with Michael Fox and realize that his heart IS in the right place. I promised him I would not go to a council meeting and voice my strong opinion on the matter because I had written to you and that was enough. When I read about concerns that the ARC proposal were being considered for denial, I could no longer contain myself. If EVER there was an entity in this town that offers community benefit, it is the ARC. The cost must be minimized and the expansion must demonstrate the most efficient use of taxpayer money: I AGREE. But the comments that the ARC expansion might hurt private business misses the point of the concept of a COMMUNITY recreation center. The ARC offers a place to maintain health and fitness for those of us who cannot afford the Aspen Club, Maroon Creek Club, Snowmass Club, or IR's gym. Its expansion only furthers the implication that Aspen is a city that values the health of its citizens. It is a way of life for many of us. I IMPLORE you to consider the expansion of the ARC. I know that all of you have very busy lives and business interests, etc. But please contact me, if you like, to discuss. Respectfully yours, Tim Reed 970-618-5559 Sent from my iPhone On May 20, 2010, at 11:11, "Rebecca Hodgson" <Rebecca.Hod son e,ci.aspen.co.us> wrote: I'll send it for you and put it into the public record. -----Original Message ----- From: Timothy Reed [mailto:timreedpt@comeast.net] Sent: Thursday, May 20, 2010 11:11 AM To: Rebecca Hodgson Subject: Question about letter to city council Dear Rebecca, If I send you a letter that I have written to council (and sent to Sally Spaulding), would you be able to forward it on to the council members? Or should I just send it myself? Thanks, Tim Reed Sent from my Whone MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor, City Council and City Manager FROM: Assistant Chief Bill Linn and Community Safety Supervisor Gretchen Born THRU: Richard Pryor DATE OF MEMO: Thursday, May 13, 2010 RE: Options for Subsidizing the Cost of Wildlife -Resistant Containers PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: On March 2010 the Aspen City Council approved changes to Chapter 12.08 of The Aspen Municipal Code, Solid Wastes, Wildlife Protection. The approved ordinance changes include: • All refuse containers placed outside for day of pickup service must be wildlife resistant. Wildlife resistant refuse containers may be placed outside between the hours of 6AM and 7PM. • Haulers operating within the city limits are required to identify each refuse container. The refuse container identification must relate back to the current client responsible for the container. • Must have a wildlife -proof refuse container in conjunction with on -site roll -off construction dumpsters. This ordinance also clears up some other minor inconsistencies that existed in the Code. DISCUSSION: In response to Aspen City Council and City Manager request to subsidize the cost of containers or "see if there is a way the city can do a mass purchase to lower the costs of the containers," the Aspen Police Department has identified several options to consider. The police department desires to minimize its direct involvement with providing containers or offering financial incentives. As a law enforcement and public safety entity, the police department does not want to create a conflict of interest pertaining to subsidized containers. In the event a subsidized or rebated container is damaged, intruded upon, or becomes non- compliant, responding officers do not want to face complications in issuing appropriate violation warnings or tickets. Also, the police department cannot be responsible for replacing a subsidized container. Option 1: Take no action. Aspen is a thoughtful, courageous, and intelligent community. As proof, prior to the 2010 Wildlife Protection ordinance changes, the majority of our citizens were already using bear - resistant or bear -proof trash containers. And though local trash haulers indicate there are Page I of 5 approximately 1,100 residential trash customers, the Aspen Police indicated roughly 70% of customers are in compliance. This data comes from a survey conducted of residential trash pickup customers on Cemetery Lane and in the West End on May 12, 2010. The new ordinance will target those households that have not been responsible in restricting access to their waste products. By providing financial incentive, in an effort to gain compliance, we will be rewarding the 30% of the community who have continued to contribute to the attraction of bears into Aspen by leaving their unsecured trash at curbside. Pros: • Eliminates the conflict of interest for the Aspen Police. • Does not reward those members of the community that have not exhibited personal responsibility in management of their trash. • Acknowledges the citizens that have been courageous in taking steps to secure their trash without being forced to do so, by city ordinance. • Keeps the City of Aspen out of the trash business. • Protects the City from liability and exposure, by not taking responsibility for trash receptacles. • City of Aspen staff, including the police department, saves approximately 90 to 250 employee hours. This is important as many departments are already working with reduced staffing levels. • Public will continue to perceive the Aspen Police as a public safety agency. • The city of Aspen saves approximately $14,000 to $19,000. Cons: • Financial burden of ordinance change belongs to each household. • Citizens may perceive the new ordinance as government interference. Option 2: Rebate City of Aspen could offer a rebate program to community members who have purchased compliant wildlife -resistant or wildlife -proof containers within the last year. Community members, through September 30, 2010, with a receipt establishing proof of compliancy, per household, will receive a rebate. The number of rebates issued and dollar amount of each rebate will depend on the funds allocated for this program. The program should be advertised through the city of Aspen's Community Relations office and rebates processed through the Finance Department. Proof of compliance with the Wildlife Ordinance may be completed in two ways, 1) a citizen has a receipt proving they purchased a product already recognized and approved by the Aspen Police or 2) an Aspen police representative can arrange to inspect the container and provide direct certification of compliance. Presenting a receipt or certification to finance would result in the rebate payment. Pros: Page 2 of 5 • Citizens have the option to select a trash receptacle the meets their needs and removes the necessity for the city of Aspen to purchase containers or broker a deal with retailers at discount prices. • Removes the conflict of interest for the Aspen Police. • Provides many opportunities for the Aspen Police to have face-to-face time regarding compliance issues and distributing educational information. • Citizens perceive the City is responsible for offering monetary compensation during an economic hardship. Cons: • Places responsibility of inspection on the Aspen Police, which is a time -intensive project. Department staff estimates that they already spend 1,100 hours on bear -related issues from April through September prior to bear incidents, rebate programs, or extended bear seasons. • Creates an expectation from the community for future subsidy programs for any ordinance changes that require a household investment. • Rewards those members of the community that have not exhibited personal responsibility in management of their trash. • City employees will spend approximately: ✓ 200 hours on bear -resistant receptacle inspections and education through the Aspen Police Department. ✓ 10 hours creating and organizing advertising through the Community Relations Department. ✓ 40 hours issuing rebates through the Finance Department. • Will cost the city of Aspen approximately $18,250: ✓ Rebates - $10,000 ✓ Advertising - $2,000 ✓ Hourly wage - $6250 (averaging $251hour) Option 3: Trash sales event hosted by the city City of Aspen hosts a "Bear Aware" event in which bear -resistant -container retailers are invited to display and sell City of Aspen ordinance -approved products. Prior to the event the City of Aspen could offer subsidies, per unit, directly to the retailers thereby discounting the cost to the consumer. Pros: • "One -stop -shopping" for the community. • Community members do not have to provide proof of compliancy, as all products would be approved at the event. • Protects the city from liability and exposure, by not taking responsibility for trash receptacles. • Citizens perceive the city is responsible for offering monetary compensation during an economic hardship. • Removes the conflict of interest for the Aspen Police. Page 3 of 5 Cons: • Products are only available one day and many citizens may not be able to attend the event. • Anticipated difficulty getting retailers and businesses to attend an event in Aspen, as many are out-of-state and do not have Colorado sales representatives. • Negotiating with businesses directly may create friction with any business not able to attend. • City employees will spend approximately: ✓ 100 hours on event planning through the Aspen Police Department. ✓ 100 hours on the day of the actual event through the Police, Parks, Parking, Finance, Environmental Health, and Community Relations departments. ✓ 40 hours with face-to-face education with the public through the Aspen Police Department. • Will cost the city of Aspen approximately $18,000: ✓ Subsidized Bear -Resistant Trash Receptacles - $10,000 ✓ Advertising - $2,000 ✓ Hourly wage - $6000 (averaging $251hour) Option 4: Local Supply The City of Aspen brokers an agreement with a single local retailer to purchase a quantity of wildlife -resistant containers with a direct subsidy to the retailers from the city. The retailer would then be responsible for ordering, storing, and selling the approved product to community members. Subsidized containers would be available on a first -come, first -serve basis. Both hardware stores in Aspen have indicated their willingness to consider participating in such a program. Pros: • Community members do not have to provide proof of compliancy, as all products would be pre -approved. • Supports local business and makes the product accessible locally. • Reduces the amount of time required by city staff members. • Citizens perceive the city is responsible for offering monetary compensation during an economic hardship. • Removes the conflict of interest for the Aspen Police. Cons: • Places responsibility of inspection on the Aspen Police, which is a time intensive project. Department staff estimates that they already spend 1,100 hours on bear -related issues from April through September prior to bear incidents, organizing local suppliers to offer discounts, or extended bear seasons. • Negotiating with a single retailer to provide a local supply may create friction with local trash haulers or other competing businesses. And may be perceived as a monopoly or favoritism. • Limits consumer selection to products available at a single source. • City employees will spend approximately: Page 4 of 5 ✓ 40 hours on organizing subsidized containers with a local retailers through the Aspen Police Department. ✓ 10 hours creating and organizing advertising through the Community Relations Department. ✓ 40 hours with face-to-face education with the public through the Aspen Police Department. • Will cost the city of Aspen approximately $14,250: ✓ Subsidized Bear -Resistant Trash Receptacles - $10,000 ✓ Advertising - $2,000 ✓ Hourly wage - $2250 (averaging $25/hour) FINANCIALBUDGET IMPACTS: Any of these programs, except "Take no action", will cost the city of Aspen over $12,000 out of departmental savings: • Subsidized Bear -Resistant Trash Receptacles - $10,000 • Advertising - $2,000 • Hourly wages - $2250 - $6250 RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Aspen Police recommends the "Take no action" option. Taking no action in subsidizing the cost of bear -resistant trash receptacles will: • Eliminate the conflict of interest for the Aspen Police. • Does not reward those members of the community that have not exhibited personal responsibility in management of their trash. • Acknowledges the citizens that have been courageous in taking steps to secure their trash without being forced to do so, by city ordinance. • Keeps the city of Aspen out of the trash business. • Protects the city from liability and exposure, by not taking responsibility for trash receptacles. • City of Aspen staff, including the police department, save approximately 90 to 250 employee hours, which is important since many departments are already working with reduced staffing levels. • Public will continue to perceive the Aspen Police as a public safety agency. • The city of Aspen saves approximately $14,000 to $19,000. Page 5 of 5 THE CITY of ASPEN MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and Council FROM: R. Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager DATE: May 14, 2010 MEETING DATE: May 18, 2010 RE: Procurement Policies Summary: During the City Council's decision -making on the make-up of the Burlingame Phase II IPD Team, the issue of "local preference" in the City's procurement efforts came up and was discussed. Council indicated a desire to re -visit the current practices in a worksession, so this memo will provide some background information on two aspects of our procurement policies: (1) local preference and (2) threshold limits for the various ways we seek potential contracts and the approvals necessary at each level. Current Practice: Local Preference "Preference shall be given in the procurement of supplies and services produced, manufactured, sold, distributed, offered or grown in the City, if such preference is not for supplies or services of inferior quality to those offered by competitors outside of the City; and, in the procurement of services and construction contracts to bidders with offices or a place of business located within the City if all other evaluation criteria set forth herein or in the invitation for bids or request for proposals are equal to bidders with offices located outside of the City. Secondary preference may be given by the City in procurement of supplies and services produced, manufactured, sold, distributed or grown in the Roaring Fork River valley if such preference is not for supplies or services of inferior quality to those offered by competitors outside of said valley; and, in the procurement of services and construction contracts to bidders located in the Roaring Fork River valley if all other evaluation criteria set forth herein, or in the invitation for bids or requests for proposals, are equal to bidders located outside of said valley. For any procurement not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) the preference given pursuant to this Subsection 4.12.010(b)(1) may be in an amount not to exceed five percent (5%) of the total price. (2) Preference shall be given in the procurement of supplies, services and construction to minority- and women -owned businesses provided all other evaluation criteria set forth herein, or in the Invitation for bids or Request for Proposals, are equal to other bids or proposals received." Page 1 Threshold Limits Our current practice is to get competitive quotes on purchases between $5,000 and $10,000, use the competitive bid or RFP process on purchases between $10,000 and $25,000, and use the competitive bid or RFP process plus Council approval on purchases over $25,000. Previous Council Action: Current purchasing practices have remained unchanged since the adoption of Ordinance 46-1991 in 1991. Background/Discussion: "Local Preferences" Councils have historically been interested in using the City's procurement dollars to "keep the money local" if at all possible. The argument has been made that even when paying more to buy local, it will benefit the local economy more than the increase in cost. This comes from the application of what economists call the "multiplier effect." Multiplier Effect What is the "multiplier effect?" It is an effect in economics in which an increase in spending produces an increase in income and consumption greater than the initial amount spent. For example, if a corporation builds a factory, it will employ construction workers and their suppliers as well as those who work in the factory. Indirectly, the new factory will stimulate employment in laundries, restaurants, and service industries in the factory's vicinity. There are at least three key concepts that must be understood to understand what lies behind the use of most multipliers. The first is the concept of an economic stimulus through a change in final demand. The second is the notion of a chain of spending and respending that is set into motion by an initial economic stimulus. The third is the notion of "leakage" from a local economy. Multiplier The 'snowballing' of economic activity. e.g. If new jobs are created, people who take them have money to spend in the shops, which means that more shop workers are needed. The shop workers pay their taxes and spend their new-found money, creating yet more jobs in industries as diverse as transport and education. The multiplier effect describes how an increase in some economic activity starts a chain reaction that generates more activity than the original increase. "Final demand" refers to the sales of economic goods and services to purchasers who are the ultimate users or consumers of these products. The demand is "final" as opposed to Page 2 "intermediate". In other words, the goods and services are valued in and of themselves rather than for their usefulness in the economic production of new goods and services. When final demand increases, a kind of chain reaction of economic events is triggered. The initial stimulus of new spending sets into motion a series of additional spending and respending activities. Most multipliers are used with the presumption that, in a precise mirror image of an increase, any decrease in existing final demand sets into motion a whole series of spending contractions. The best way to explain this may be to give an example (using a spending increase). Example of how Multiplier Effect works using a Hotel Assume the overall final demand for locally made ice cream increases significantly, say boosting sales by $100,000 because of a successful non -local advertising campaign. The local ice-cream manufacturer's receipts then increase, but that is not the end of the money trail. In order to meet the increased demand, the manufacturer will typically respond by increasing production. To do this, the firm will use some portion of the $100,000 to buy more inputs in the form of additional goods and services. The additional inputs for new ice cream production will include ingredients like cream, sugar, fruits, and chocolate; paper and ink for more containers; more electricity and water; more labor; perhaps even new equipment; and so on. But again, this is not the end of the money trail. Each of the ice-cream manufacturer's suppliers will respond in similar fashion. As demand for their products increase, so they too will increase their purchases of all the inputs they Page 3 require for their production processes. Ultimately, the chain of input purchases is likely to reach far beyond the sectors of the economy that are most obviously linked to ice cream production. Increased purchases of inputs by business firms are not the only way in which the economic stimulus of increased final demand diffuses throughout the economy. People also benefit from increased demand as workers or business owners earn more. They are very unlikely to stash all of their increased revenues unproductively in a cookie jar. More likely, they willspend some or all of that money on a wide variety of new consumer goods and services, not to mention new investments. Depending on their income classes, purchasers of new consumer goods will likely spend across the full spectrum from cookies to cars to piano lessons. Next, as the grocery stores, car dealers, and piano teachers respond to this increased demand, they will in turn increase their own purchases of inputs to their businesses. Moreover, any owners and employees in these businesses will have additional income or profit to spend on still other goods and services. At first glance, this cycle of spending and respending seems like it might continue without end. However, this is not the case. The reason can be summarized in the term "leakage". Leakage represents the dollars that are withdrawn from the respending cycle. 1 Multiplier Effect in Aspen Insofar as they are not respent, the withdrawn dollars cannot stimulate further purchases. Starting right at the very first round of spending associated with an increase in final demand, and continuing in all subsequent rounds, a certain portion of the dollars will "leak" out of the economy. Because of leakage, at each round of spending and respending, the dollar amount re -spent diminishes. The amount that it diminishes is usually averaged across the entire process and summarized in percentage terms. A small amount of leakage may indeed end up in a cookie jar or under someone's mattress. However, leakage more importantly is associated with other sources including: • other forms of long term saving and nonlocal investment Retail sales leakage and low multiplier effect: The 2002 ad -hoc Aspen Economic Sustainability Committee found that the Aspen/Pitkin County economy "has a low multiplier effect, with income flowing out quickly because we lack a broad -based and complete range of economic sectors ... There are several factors that cause the leakage of sales out of our local market area and diminish the recirculation of dollars spent in the economy. These include the downvalley location of construction companies/contractors and consumer shopping opportunities, the fact that a significant number of employees do not live and spend money in Aspen, and the presence of corporate owned retail facilities whose profits are extracted from the local economy." While leakage of sales and business activity downvalley is undoubtedly still occurring, the nature and extent of the outflow, and the degree to which Aspen can or might even want to host new locally serving commercial infrastructure, have not been systematically studied. Page 4 • increased tax payments • spending on goods and services that are not produced locally, (e.g. domestic and foreign imports) — the cost of goods sold is almost all leakage as we produce almost no primary goods locally While it is true that some of what is termed leakage here may eventually be re -spent locally, this is not likely to be immediate or automatic. If such spending does occur, it would generally be considered a new increase in final demand. A single city or county, especially in a rural area, is much more likely to experience high levels of leakage. This is because, compared to a state or nation, most "small" economies are more dependent on the need to buy many goods and services produced outside its boundaries. For this reason, it is nearly always true that multipliers for small geographic areas are smaller than for larger ones. Studies have shown that for resort economies the multiplier effect is in a range of 1.35 to 2.60 — depending on the size of the `local" area and the ability of that area to avoid leakage. What is Local? Central to the application of the multiplier effect to the local economy is the definition of `local." In our case it may be more important than in other locations as it can be assumed that the pattern of leakage in our immediately local economy is that money that leaves Aspen proper has a harder time finding its way back into the local economy than in other places. If money is spent downvalley, it is more likely to stay downvalley than come back to our end of the valley. So if "local" includes Basalt, Carbondale or Glenwood firms, you have to consider how likely those firms and their employees (living not in Aspen) would be in Aspen spending their dollars on Aspen goods and services. Certainly they might come to Aspen to ski or recreate, to eat in our restaurants and occasionally purchase goods in our retail establishments. But it wouldn't be hard to assume that most purchases will find their way into downvalley establishments — groceries, hardware goods, household appliances, cars, rent, etc. And to the extent is leaves the downvalley communities, it is much more likely to leave the area and not to re-emerge in Aspen economic activity. If you accept that understanding of spending patterns, you might think about setting up a tiered system of what is "local" — that is, to give a larger preference to firms who have a physical presence (and not just a mailing address) in Aspen/AABC and a lesser preference to those in the rest of the valley. On the other hand, if you think of `local" as being the entire Roaring Fork Valley (or for that matter, segments of the Colorado River Valley east and west of Glenwood) — then your interest in helping the entire economy of this area through the multiplier effect would argue for the same local preference no matter the differences between Aspen/AABC and the rest of the `local valley community." So defining what you mean by `local" is a central decision that must be made. Page 5 In either case, we can acknowledge that there is no end to the good things a City Council can spend its funds on. There are always alternatives that cause a balancing of "this good idea" against "that good idea" — there are choices you have to make and opportunities to understand and weigh against each other. In economic terms there is an "opportunity cost" to every spending decision you make. Opportunity Cost All decisions about how to spend money inevitably generate another conversation around "what else could we do with the same dollars." That is certainly true if you are spending a "premium" in order to purchase goods or services from a local vendor. You could spend that "premium" dong something else — presumably with another local vendor. So you might get the good or service from a non -local vendor, save the premium and spend that premium getting something else. Thus the Opportunity Cost is invariably part of your decision -making considerations. So what is an "Opportunity Cost?" A person who has $15 can either buy a CD or a shirt. If he buys the shirt the opportunity cost is the CD and if he buys the CD the opportunity cost is the shirt. If there are more choices than two, the opportunity cost is still only one item, never all of them. A person who invests $10,000 in a stock denies herself or himself the interest that could have accrued by leaving the $10,000 in a bank account instead. The opportunity cost of the decision to invest in stock is the value of the interest. A person who sells stock for $10,000 denies himself or herself the opportunity to sell the stock for a higher price (say $12,000) in the future, inheriting an opportunity cost equal to the future price of $12,000 (and not the future price minus the sale price). Opportunity Cost Opportunity cost is the next -best choice available to someone who has picked between several mutually exclusive choices?l It is a key concept in economics. It has been described as expressing "the basic relationship between scarcity and choice."I'I The notion of opportunity cost plays a crucial part in ensuring that scarce resources are used efficiently I3i Thus, opportunity costs are not restricted to monetary or financial costs: the real cost of output forgone, lost time, swag, pleasure or any other benefit that provides utility should also be considered opportunity costs. The opportunity cost of a decision is based on what must be given up (the next best alternative) as a result of the decision. Any decision that involves a An organization that invests $1 million in choice between two or more options has acquiring a new asset instead of spending that an opportunity cost. II money on maintaining its existing asset portfolio II incurs the increased risk of failure of its existing assets. The opportunity cost of the decision to acquire a new asset is the financial security that comes from the organization's spending the money on maintaining its existing asset portfolio. Page 6 If a city decides to build a hospital on vacant land it owns, the opportunity cost is the value of the benefits forgone of the next best thing that might have been done with the land and construction funds instead. In building the hospital, the city has forgone the opportunity to build a sports center on that land, or a parking lot, or the ability to sell the land to reduce the city's debt, since those uses tend to be mutually exclusive. Also included in the opportunity cost would be what investments or purchases the private sector would have voluntarily made if it had not been taxed to build the hospital. The total opportunity costs of such an action can never be known with certainty, and are sometimes called "hidden costs" or "hidden losses" as what has been prevented from being produced cannot be seen or known. Even the possibility of inaction is a lost opportunity. In this example, to preserve the scenery as -is for neighboring areas, perhaps including areas that it itself owns. In making spending decisions you need to consider both the multiplier effect on the local economy from the original spending decision and also consider the alternatives — the opportunity to do something else with the premium and how those dollars might generate a multiplier of their own. What happens in the local marketplace when a local preference is enshrined in policy? Does the existence of a known premium have an impact on the prices you end up paying for local labor? What is the experience of other jurisdictions and what does the science of economic say about this? Economic Rent Economists have a term for the situation where the rational market clearing price for a good or service is higher than the intersection of the demand and supply curve suggests it should be — it is a transfer (usually from consumers to producers) referred to as "economic rent." Economic rent, is a measure of market power: the difference between what a factor of production is paid and how much it would need to be paid to remain in its current use. A soccer star may be paid $50,000 a week to play for his team when he would be willing to turn out for only $10,000, so his economic rent is $40,000 a week. In perfect competition, there are no economic rents, as new firms enter a market and compete until prices fall and all rent is eliminated. In the example of architectural/design services for Burlingame Phase II, the additional $1 million that was contemplated being spent in order to utilize a local firm, it was above and beyond what was necessary to secure architectural services (assuming that all things were comparable in terms of services Page 7 Economic Rent Economic rent is defined as an excess distribution to any factor in a production process above the amount required to draw the factor into the process or to sustain the current use of the factor. The return on a productive resource, as land or labor, that is greater than the amount necessary to keep the resource producing or on a product in excess of what would have been the return except for some unique factor. proposed) and would have been a form of economic rent available to the "local architecture firm" due to the market power not available to the "non local" firm. The effort is referred to as rent -seeking and can be thought of as "cutting yourself a bigger slice of the cake rather than making the cake bigger" and trying to make more money without producing more for customers. Classic examples of rent -seeking, a phrase coined by an economist, Gordon Tullock, include: • a protection racket, in which the gang takes a cut from the shopkeeper's profit; • a cartel of firms agreeing to raise prices; • a union demanding higher wages without offering any increase in productivity; • lobbying the government for tax, spending or regulatory policies that benefit the lobbyists at the expense of taxpayers or consumers or some other rivals. Whether legal or illegal, as they do not create any value, rent -seeking activities can impose large costs on an economy. The advantages of opening our procurement efforts to firms that are not necessarily "local" is that it reduces the market power of local firms and reduces their availability to be rent -seeking players. It produces competition and induces more efficiencies in both the local fine and the non -local firm. It drives down the cost to us as consumers of services. The National Institute of Governmental Purchasing, Inc. recommends against local preferences because it distorts the marketplace for goods and services, often creating situations where local vendors simply raise their prices in order to take advantage of the difference provided with local preferences and discourages outside vendors from participating in bidding for government contracts — resulting in the same increases in prices (and some quality concerns as competition lessens) asthe preference differential provided. What is the practice in other jurisdictions? We have surveyed 15 other jurisdictions as to their practice in the area of local preference and have found that: • 9 of those jurisdictions do not give any local preference, • 5 provide some level of local preference, and • I does it on a "sometimes" basis (meaning that if there were "tied" bids the local wins out or if there are "low" dollar purchases and the dollar amount differential is "really close" then the local bidder wins out). Of those jurisdictions indicating some level of preference given to local vendors, that preference is: • 5% with a $5,000 maximum • If the bids are "comparable" the local preference is a tie breaker • If the bids are "tied" — tie goes to the local vendor • Only as a "tie breaker" • Only as a "tie breaker" Glenwood Springs has a well -thought out policy and is in the process of revising its local preference practices — the previous policy and contemplated changes are: Page 8 "Local" businesses must be designated as such in advance of submitting a bid, and to qualify as local they must meet the following conditions • The business must be located and primarily doing business in Garfield, Eagle, or Pitkin County. In the event the business is incorporated (or registered), it must be incorporated (or registered) in Colorado. The business must have its main or principal office located within this three -county area. (Revision proposed: headquarters located within a 45-mile radius of the intersection of 8th and Grand) • At least seventy-five percent (75%) of its project/job site work force must reside within the three -county area and, when subcontract work is involved, at least seventy-five percent (75%) of this aggregate contract amount must be completed by the local business and subcontractors who meet the local business criteria of having seventy-five percent (75%) of its project/job site work force residing in this three -county area. (Revision proposed: within a 45-mile radius of the intersection of Bch and Grand) • The business shall have at least seventy-five percent (750/0) of its business vehicles or its subcontractor business vehicles on the project/job site registered in Garfield, Pitkin, and Eagle Counties. (Revision proposed: within a 45-mile radius of the intersection of 8t° and Grand) • For any business located outside the corporate limits of the City, but within the tri-county area described hereinabove, the municipality or county in which the business is located must provide the same or similar local business preference to any business located in the City and bidding upon a project to be awarded by that municipality or county. (Reciprocity rule) (Revision proposed: to be eliminated) Local preference: In the event that a determination is made that a submitted bid is from a responsible and responsive bidder and that the business submitting the bid meets all criteria for local preference, such business shall be awarded the contract if its bid is within five percent (5%) of, but, in any event no more than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) higher than, the lowest responsible bidder which does not have the local business designation for contracts over twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). In the event the two (2) lowest responsible and responsive bidders each have the local business designation, the lowest responsible bidder shall be awarded the contract. (5% with a dollar limitation) (Revision proposed: All portions of the submitted bid attributable to a Local Business shall be aggregated for application of the local preference as follows: if the aggregate Local Business portion of the submitted bid contract amount is equal to or less than Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), the Local Business preference will be five percent (5%); if the aggregate Local Business portion of the submitted bid contract amount is more than Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00), the Local Business preference will be Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000.00) plus two and one-half percent (2.5%) of the aggregate Local Business portion in excess of Two Hundred Thousand Dollars ($200,000.00); no Local Business preference, in any event, shall exceed One Hundred Thirty -Five Thousand Dollars ($135,000.00). Determination of the lowest responsible and responsive bidder shall be made after any appropriate Local Business preference amount is applied to the submitted full bid contract amount.) Page 9 What is our current practice? While the code suggests that a 5% local preference is available only "for any procurement not exceeding $10,000" in practice consideration of a 5% local preference is occasionally invoked and given for other situations and higher procurement amounts. Irony no matter what you do? Finally, we should acknowledge what is obvious about our local economy — we depend on people NOT buying local, but instead spending their recreational/cultural dollars with us — often far from their home. Ours is a tourist -based economy that competes across the globe to bring people to our valley in the hopes that we will satisfy their demand for recreation and culture — we expect that they will NOT buy locally, but buy from us instead. We think our product satisfies their consumer demand and optimizes their search for value and a recreational/cultural product. Thus we would not advance the "buy local" theory as an operating theory for everyone, that is to say as a generic strategic approach to economic choice, but instead would want that we should be buying local, but that others would see fit not to follow that dictate — otherwise our resort guests should go back home and buy their recreation/culture from a local provider. We depend on interregional, interstate and international trade decisions being made by others who are not driven solely by the buy local movement. Likewise, we would not want other local governments to inordinately shun or otherwise discriminate against our local firms in their buying decisions. We would not want Basalt, Carbondale, Glenwood Springs, Denver or Boulder to deny our home grown businesses the opportunity to compete on a level playing field for THEIR business ... how should we be prepared to reciprocate and set an example? At what level does a "buy local" effort become something others would retaliate against and have more negative impact than positive? Being judicious about such an approach and being careful about the "ground rules" established seems to be the prudent way to approach this delicate balance between helping the local economy and depriving ourselves of the benefits from trade and competition. We depend on others operating under the freedom to spend their dollars as they see fit — to seek out an optimal solution for their needs without artificial constraints. Surely some consideration must be given to this irony and how we react to it. Page 10 "Threshold Limits" What is our current practice? What do we recommend for changes? Our current practice is to get competitive quotes on purchases between $5,000 and $10,000, use the competitive bid or RFP process on purchases between $10,000 and $25,000, and use the competitive bid or RFP process plus Council approval on purchases over $25,000. We recommend the following changes in order to improve procurement practices: a. Department heads are free to make purchases under $10,000 if budget is available b. Competitive quotes on purchases between $10,000 and $25,000 c. Formal bids through the Purchasing Officer for purchases between $25,000 and $50,000 d. Formal bids and Council approval for purchases greater than $50,000 What is the practice in other iurisdictions? We have two surveys of threshold and approval practices that have been conducted over time and by different organizations. (NOTE: the surveys often overlap in terms of jurisdictions surveyed) In one survey, 25 organizations were surveyed and the following results were discovered: • In 9 jurisdictions, governing body approvals were required at the $50,000 level • In 6 jurisdictions, governing body approvals were required at the $25,000 level • In 2 jurisdictions, governing body approvals were required at the $500,000 level • In I jurisdictions, governing body approval was required at the $ I0,000 level • In 4 jurisdictions, no governing body approval was ever required In the other survey, 16 jurisdictions were surveyed and the following results were discovered: • In 6 jurisdictions, governing body approvals were required at the $50,000 level • In 4 jurisdictions, governing body approvals were required at the $25,000 level • In I jurisdiction, governing body approvals were required at the $500,000 level • In 5 jurisdictions, no governing body approval was ever required Page 11 Impact from making the recommended changes to policy: Making the changes to the threshold limits suggested would have resulted in the following contracts not coming before Council for approval in 2009 (the column listed as $25K to $50K) — although you would have seen them as part of capital project deliberations in the adoption process for the 2009 budget: 2009 Contracts that went to CityCouncil' for Approval $25k to $50K ' Over $5_OK Charging receptacles in garage, $27k Wheeler architectural team, $280,450 Bgame storm drainage, $44k Parking garage roof, $85k Wheeler pit replacement, $35k Capital project planning software, $160k Skid Loader, $33k Engineering services for East of Aspen Trail, $119k SCADA system, $53k Concrete replacement, $229k Sealant for ARC penthouse, $45k Castle Creek underpass, $365k Ozone monitoring system, $45k Affordable housing roof repairs/replacement $125k Ice Gardens improvements, $37k Asphalt, $652k Architectural services for Castle Creek Energy Center, $81k 8 Total Relocation of 20" water line, $93k Lone Pine improvements, $118k Harmony Park playground, $89k Transformers, $64k Pad -mount switchgear, $304k Underground primary cable, $467k Bgame irrigation ditch, $113k Water treatment plant media replacement, $424K Concrete vaults, $72k Yellow Brick roof replacement, $224k Electric feeder construction, $725k Electric feeder supplies, $107k Guardrails for Power Plant Road, $76k Wheeler program manager services, $259k Caterpillar motor grader, $252k 24 Total Page 12 Recommendation: Preferences: 1. Adopt a Local Preference policy that requires a physical address in the city/valley and not simply a mailing address. Establish thresholds for percentage of employees required to live in city/valley in order to meet a definition of "local" 2. Establish a tiered approach to preference — with higher percentages available to Aspen/AABC businesses than for Roaring Fork Valley/IH 70 corridor businesses. 3. Establish a dollar limit on what those percentages can provide in terms of preference. The guidelines in Glenwood Springs may be a model you would consider in developing our own guidelines. Thresholds: 2. Change the dollar thresholds to the following: a. Department heads are free to make purchases under $10,000 if budget is available b. Competitive quotes on purchases between $10,OOO and $25,000 c. Formal bids through the Purchasing Officer for purchases between $25,000 and $50,000 d. Formal bids and Council approval for purchases greater than $50,000 e. All thresholds will be adjusted annually by the Denver/Boulder CPI to the nearest thousand increase. Request of Council: 1. Determine if you want to retain some form of local preference. 2. Define what you mean by "local." 3. Define the local preference and the scope of its application (are there any dollar limits on a percentage preference, for example?) 4. Direct staff to amend the purchasing policies (ordinance) as recommended or by your direction and bring back for your approval. Attachments: Attachment A: Title 4: Procurement Code Attachment B: Procurement Process Flow Chart Attachment C: Preference Comparisons Attachment D: Purchasing Thresholds Comparisons (2 documents) Page 13 Attachment B: Procurement Process Flow Chart Up to $5,000 PurchaieProduct or Service Procurement Process Flow Chart Department Need of Products or Services Budget Authority Confirmation $5,000 to $10,000 Complete Contract Routing Sheet & Obtain Project Number Sole Source Send Contract Routing Sheet & Smpeof Workto Purchasing Purchasing Propmea Contracts, Routes to Attorney far Approval 'erchming Routes to City Manager Purchasing sends three 3 copta, of contract to Vendor to Sign Vendor returns three (3) signed copier oflhe contras Purchasing attach. Routing Sheet gives to City Manager to Sign (Sty Manager gives In Clerk to Attest Clerk film am copy, send other two to Dept Head Purchasing sends Notice to Proceed to Vendor Competitive Quotes Obtni. a mint... oftwo (2) written quotes Send Cootrmt Routing sheet and Quotes to Purchasing Purchasing Prepares Contracts, routes to Attorney for approval Purchasing sends three copies of cantraet to Vendor to Sign Vendor returns three (3) signed copies of the contract Purchasing attaches Routing Short gives to City Manager to Sips City Managergives to Cierk to Attest Clerk files one copy, send other two to Dept Head Purchasing sands Notice to Proceed to Vendor Over $10,000 D -1. 1 0... S10,oeo I oepL xeg GwN4n awlii,g Sek 3ourte b>r4kOPlrinrPrain.M DeN. HuRGnpMn G,nn4 I oepL Mna CawNemaeouq SLMiOedlmP,ycr. SoNRmXgbYenk3nPvof Wd1,YPuehdR ISAllxrq PoMnM RvrmY Pwshnh,gRwnio Ciy M.r.gvmApym.l AXrnpferAPPmni Pw.NtlrL&Nrlespimd GeYFId VY/pI (wbipndn VnWRmrm Ym pl&prd PorthoiR M®muLW M Capin4 W Cwbw leY,nM Vm1an Prrrhoiq Pn.b CaYnebd CbMv4rrbrBlLr.dn Dep.HW Tryr,r MrrioY G°°Nk Pwrnr6dParrbYrg Clry M.erp•Rer1a C®Ir.elrb Prn{YYggrlm Rewl.eprk CkrYYAXaI FXWvr MembGxv.rb CYh8rr43C.Nw4'G.bztlo P.rdNq Cirn MV Qveh Me Rot He! Cs.hMRe61MG.uRGum1 PwMvgegbeeY Kelm YPranMw PPrPNlrub Yr Myar,'LSlpwmNu MCmlrtb toBW Kalk. Y Praneemar PutlrYegAemmYAY Quwfan4 Aw�na PmaeulY Drroerr buenllbk . 8ime91rnp PortM1MRRwwS.e,Nmka Dept HM Depe.Nud PvWambaenMdk PrgnroMwbrAWKa ppt MneiuNMY,irk D.wr N Yer.ar etlmrJ Y PertkYiq PortLvkg CanPmnCMreeb t➢wmYAtlnrryfx poNelg8eb VUCrrJ 6pm rfCrnlnetmSpn.,u Vesd.rA4am Cwbwbl. Predwbg Mo.eoorousoae o.wa.,om Porth.11,�Rwm Gsoneb6 CY3 Mwrprf.r813rvbn DepLNw3 Preprre Planrb Guulk Purnndrb PrrNw1R Gry Mrw3erawm Cnl.unn PxeM1MR WVIm BavlWeei Cmhb11m1 Mdea. mwwbG.o-sbr Ckrt5Mv3GwnofGrtrmb P.rtlrneg Glrwtle CwAlee ReN.HeY Gm.wPulaPm CP.or: C.ue.l PUNWg9eW Kotlm YP,amL G5NAp w.l d Voew CIVA Rarm G.h.eY kr Mrryr k OyMvuLvfr3¢.Mem CYN9erM3 Gp1ua3GrmnY RePLtlW Punb W.g Srnb Ne@r d ProrM b VeKw Mgm Attachment C: Preference Comparisons Preference Research Aurora Michelle Ratcliff Procurement Agent 0 WiM 4 'gign"o, F 111so-tz (303) 739-7344 No ��g 'm 1.1MIr 14 ANNE MINOR Brighton Sharon Williams (303) 655-2001 Yes Local In those circumstances where a bid from a Procurement Manager (Written Policy) business located within the corporate limits of the City of Brighton is as acceptable to the City as a bid of other vendors, special consideration may be given to awarding the contract to the Brighton business; the consideration will be in the form of a five - percent (5%) reduction in the total bid amount when compared with other bids submitted, or a maximum of five thousand dollars ($5,000) per total bid, whichever is less. A business located within the corporate limits of the City of Brighton must operate a business inside the City limits that is on the City property tax rolls or must lease or rent a property for their business which is on the property tax rolls of the City, and which has a current city business license and is collecting and remitting sales tax for the City, if applicable. Note: Used to be 5% 1 unlimited amount until vendors began to figure out the local preference and work the system in their favor (police cars, for example). Due to these factors the $5,000 cap was enacted. r— Page 1 of 7 Preference Research Additional studies on expansion of the program were done based upon specific mile radiuses beyond the City limits (5, 10, 15 Miles,etc). A presentation of the findings is available. The outcome determined that this was not feasible due to administration costs and just the logistics of managing such a program. Broomfield Pat Soderberg (303) 438-6368 Sometimes Might apply in circumstances when there are Finance Director (No written policy) tied bids. If one is a local vendor they may be awarded the contract... Might apply in situations where there are low dollar purchases (smaller bid threshold) or the total amounts are really close (no specific % amount). Denver Jim McIntyre (720) 913-8121 No fr ' Does not support local preferences at this Director' gF=-y��tt;�t�r��N time. J $J?tY 5:�vaLO i Y Englewood Alicia Stutz (303) 762-2412 Yes Local Whenever a product not subject to Procurement Specialist (Written Policy) competitive bidding is available by specification, quantity and quality within the City, and the price is comparable with outside suppliers, the purchase shall be made from local sources. Fort Collins Jim O'Neal (970) 221-6779 No Local/WMBE They try to give local businesses every Director of Purchasing opportunity to bid. WMBE only if Federal and Risk transportation $$ because of the requirement for disadvantaged businesses. C� Page 2 of 7 Preference Research Grand Junction Susan Hyatt (970) 244-1613 No, however the City will be The City of Grand Junction does not Senior Buyer revisiting this given the subscribe to or apply any preferential for economy and pressure; H� o; local vendors. All bidders are treated from local vendors. ' ;'y; k ; a equally, based on the conditions of the unique solicitation. Preference will not be to bidders within Grand Junction, .given Mesa County or the State of Colorado over bidders outside the local community or State. ME Loveland Cindy Scymanski (970) 962-2696 No rt 6 Buyer fi li lr :S .� k'+G k1f✓K' N"�6i Mi i.i�. "w.� iIt. S C Longmont Danielle Hinz (303) 651-8494 No, however, the City of f` $ . ; The City does not have a local percentage Purchasing Manager Longmont will be y G preference policy. They strongly encourage discussing local M ; staff to include local businesses for the preferences in a study purchase of goods and services. session scheduled for ¢a 7/21109. The information Local Preference has been a topic of City can be found by clicking on Council discussion on October 21, 2008, the following link: a"' November 4, 2008 and February 3, 2009 http://ci. iongmont.co.us/city council/agendas/2009/doc uments/072109 8.pdf Lakewood Terri Kindsfather (303) 987-7673 Yes Local Applies only in circumstances when there Purchasing Manager (Not a written policy) are tied bids. If one is a local vendor they are awarded the contract. Northglenn Kathy Kvasicka (303) 280-7819 Yes Local CB-1670 passed on September 11, 2008 Risk Manager/Buyer (Written Policy) stated the following: If two or more bids received are competitive in amount or unit rice and the quality and service is Page 3 of 7 Preference Research determined to be equal, the contract shall be awarded to a bidder having a place of business in the City of Northglenn. If all bids received are for the same total amount or unit price and the quality and service is determined to be equal, and none of the tie bidders has a place of business in the City of Northglenn, the awarding authority may award the contract to one of the tie bidders by drawing lots in public. The city may however, negotiate with either or both such be bidders for a reduction of price in the best interests of the city. Per Kathy: Not much guidance here. It has not been a big issue because there are so few businesses in Northglenn that would be able to meet the needs. Not sure I agree but they didn't ask me. Parker Ann Stoyle (303) 805-3188 Yes Local The Town of Parker is committed to doing Purchasing Agent business locally whenever possible. Whenever products and services subject to competition are available from local sources, it is the policy of the Town to ensure that those sources are provided with notice of the Town's requirements, that they are given every opportunity to compete on a fair and level playing field, and that they are awarded the contract if all factors, including price, quality, terms, and delivery, are determined to be equal. Whenever products and services not subject to competition are available from local C,. Page 4 of 7 Preference Research sources and these factors are comparable to outside suppliers', it is desired that purchases are made from local sources. To maximize value for all taxpayers, no provision is made in these policies for dollar percentage. Thornton Charlie Geanetta (303) 538-7466 No Local Applies only in circumstances when there Purchasing Agent are tied bids. if one is a local vendor they are awarded the contract. v�t �F .zMh-k{ ) W'.""�y41` s ssd Yu` i Wheatridge Bruce Roome Purchasing Technician (303)235-2885 No az t -ice � � �S ¢� F �� E � k 3l P JY l •-�g++dW hY Westminster Joe Lachermeier (303)658-2048 No Local In 1989, the existing informal policy that all (New employee that is departments should "Buy Westminster" not aware of the whenever feasible, was formalized as an references Administrative Memorandum. This policy is Administrative important to Westminster because of the memorandum) amount of purchasing the City does and the many positive impacts that "Buying Westminster" has on the local business community. The City's policy is to purchase commodities and capital outlay items locally within the following parameters: Items which cost $1,000 or more will be purchased from the lowest qualified bidder, .taking into consideration both direct and indirect costs to the City. Every effort should be made to assure that all quality G. Page 5 of 7 Preference Research Westminster vendors are provided an opportunity to bid on capital outlay and commodity items. Items which cost less than $1,000 will be purchased through Westminster vendors unless it is not cost effective to do so. Every effort should be made to locate available Westminster vendors who can sell and deliver commodities which meet City specifications. Setting an automatic "Buy Westminster" policy for the purchase of contractual services is more difficult. Numerous intangible factors such as the knowledge, skills, and experience of the provider should be considered in addition to the overall effectiveness of local vendors. A concerted effort shall be made to contract for services from Westminster providers without comprising the quality, depth or timeliness of the requested services. The increasing diversity of businesses located in Westminster offers numerous opportunities for the City organization to purchase locally. The benefits to the City of the "Buy Westminster" philosophy are considerable. We, as employees, have an opportunity to boost the City's economy through a proactive approach to "Buy Westminster." And, by boosting the City's economy, we in turn boost the financial stability of the City government. G Page 6 of 7 Preference Research ......................... John Utterback (303) 866-6181 Yes Local (in State) The State of Colorado employs preference State Purchasing (Written Policy) for in -state bidders when there is a low, tie Director bid situation pursuant to C. R.S. 24-103- 202.5. The statute also provides that this procedure will be suspended if it were inconsistent with a federal law and would result in denial of federal funds. The State maximizes opportunities for WMBE WMBE providers for non-competitive purchases Up to 5% for environmentally -preferred Environmental products. 'Purchasing Director is not supportive of .............. State preferences**""* C. Page 7 of 7 Attachment D: Purchasing Thresholds Comparisons (2 documents) Puw1 iia lfig l}iresfiOlds - 4ivade' Sts er' tries j CIIYNAME(L5of2O MINIMUM dollarmaount- MINIMUM number of bids- INFORMAL B[US-bid Approval authority -.SOLE MINIMUMdollaramout- MINIMUM amount Innovation or creadVe cities responded) competitive bidding required? ATTEMPT to obtain? responses maintained flow? SOURCE? FORMAL bids (written, more -council, or equal. muaaures re. complex, termalcoMiNore, approval? aidding/purchase Arvada (Punch. Ord. $2000 [Sec. 82-331 3, if available [Sec. 82-33] By department (°appointing Punch. Mgr. - Less than Not spauTioOy gated in $50,000 [Sec. 82-71 By Purchasing: Expanded ret in [ ) where aud",W) [Sees 82-801 $15,000; City Mgr. - $15,000 ordnance. Pureh. Mgr. has use of RFPs (allows available) or moss, after Purch. Mgr. advised departments that its clients more ladtde In review [Sec 82-361 implied for Council approval ® award selection); $5D,000 [Sec. 82-71 & that E rpanded RFQ's for 'appointing authority° can choose professbeal services; Informal bid, instead 1Sec82-331 Addition of brides Risk Assesanent as evakation onerbn; value-added component applied sbarbegicaty: leverage brig -term contacts & volumes; P-Card Access erpansi m, natiorel public sector core Guide PD Uvu Federal 1122 Program for GSA "Schedules" (contracts); Regional Woperarve pureaskg: Sid -Net (Rocky Mtn. E- Brighton $2S,000 1 At this point documents are $25,00) to S50K City M3n3W; $25,000 $50,000 None attached to the PO. $50K+ CRy Council Northgimm $2S,000 - 1 Departments keep These on file It goes to the buyer and than $25,000 $25,000 Rocky Mtn. E-Purchasing the City Manager systan (Birl has streamlined our process Lakewood $2500 2 In bid files, or with the PO. Kept Purchasing Manager $251000 - $2S,000 - City Mgr.; Redky Mm. E-Purchasing for 6 years + cument after the $90,000 - Council, K system (Schet) Wheat Ridge $10,000 goods; $25,000 services; 3 All quotes are attached to the PO. Purchasing Agent $10AW goods; $25,000 servIces; $25,000 None Thornton $21SM 3 We require a signed copy, which Puniwsing Supervbar, $25,000 NO Council approval Cooperative purchasing, could be faxed, enrolled, m Cnnbacts and Purchasing required. When budget is State awards, WSCA malled. Admin Staff maintains the Manager, Support Services approved by Council, (Western motes hard copies in a central filing area Director, Management Services enpendfiam , considered Contracting Alliance), for the retention period. Deputy City Manager, arc City complete. Only go back MAPO (cooperative Manager for all amounts. with budget amendments purchasing group), US Steamboat Springs $20,000 One - we prefer more but will Attached to the Purchase order Only We City Manager can $,SI700 Noe. Contracts and Try to use cooperative award with just one K necessary approve sole source p rdeses Department heads to $29,999 purchases approved by bids (slate, WSCA, MAPO, Loveland $5,000 3 In department 30000 Multi level RIF for CAy Manager above $30,000 technical (Water and Wastewater constnuctah) ABC bkkang on up conning .P-1 Englewood $25,000 General Fund; $50,000 1 All bids can be sub nkted Empbyees overseang the $25,000 General Fund $50,0W $10,000 City Mgr.; Bids coordinated through Enterprise Funds electronically accept prc}ec m varbus departments Enterprise Funds $25,000 G/F, $50,000 Purchasing. Wine SidNet Construction Bids. Depending on (projeu managers) can submit Enterprise Council appal to 5treamGrc Process. the requesting Department tiaY reasons for sole source Pueblo $1,000 At least 3 We maimain an mf 1 bid Director a Purchase g or City $10,000 Depends W project Marne to go by City for each department. Whether w Manage are the only positions Charts. Nat allowed W do an iNonnal or the depa that can give approval for sole get too creative. Most get three bids, we make sure source. creatveweve9o�n- get copies of the quotes and kee put as myrrh info as them an together (or fuose possible on Purchasing reference. We also nave a web page w chat public daabase for mfurnak that fists can get ado withaR the department, what was caging. Have very small purchased, how many ids staff. obtained, and the amount of the Littleton $10,000 3 The requesting department is Department Directors $5,000 for Formal Quotes and Mayor signs all contracts Use Rocky Mtn. E- required to maintain for 1 year. $10,000 for Comptebtive Bids Purchasing (RMEPS) However, if they are requesbg a PO che quote is also kept with the 2'1Fort Collies Less than $5K, no Olds, demoted M WAh simple "jusmfi abon', We have an tlecronb donment DlretbX of Purdesirg and Rick $60,000 If by competitive process, Enhanced use of P-card. (ea dralfzed departments. $5K to less than Purchasing can award w/ less than management system. Informal Management $60,000 authority Is delegated W Small order limit is now purchasing (goods, $60,000 Purchasing has "deuretion' 3 bids. bids are &ssodated with a City Manager a delegate Div. of Purchasing and Risk $5,000. Bids/Proposak, savics & eamst) w/ to competehe bid, or award without Purchase Order. (currently delegated to Director Mgmt No additional irdndm9 construction, authortity delegated bidding. Of Purchasing) $60,000- council approval needed. distributed electronically. to dept$.) 200,000 Implemented BuySPeed CM Cowml Greater than automated vendor/self $200,DDO registration system. Increased bid threshold to $60,000. Council only . approves e»tlons over Aurora (bentraFaed Less than $5k no bids, dept. Attempt to get 3 bids. If only 2 Elecbalcally b the Rocky Purchasing Manager, accept all Formal bids are required over Single Sole Solace over Oo-Gne Willing through purchasign [goods, Processes. $5K to less than 125K bids must submit for fug Camcil Mountain E-Puchasirg system over $SOk must alw be $25k $SOIL campettwe ova Rocky Mtn. E-Purchasing services &=st] w/ Purchasing bids, informally. If a approval over $50k. library approved by Council $SOOK, if 3 hick rewrmd: 9 system (Skillet) autllo ty delegated to least 3 pods eprst under Mk, cart only 2 bids must approve depls.) use an "abbredeetl report process' at$SOK (e-mail to Goun d notifying of intent to award [default], unless Council Glenwood Springs $2,SW �2(do not consider'no Nd' a ..I Purchasing files bid responses in dept files Dept heads $2,500-$4,999; $25,000 $25,000 None Greeley $1,000 3 Assign file folder foe each bid anti Purchasing Manages $25,000 None. Went to BidNet which put on BldNet Print info that we helped trove dopy complete, kuludbg Mbuatbn, m file wesbninsw Granter than $S,WO 3 Info is made rote of on P.O. De oeMalized purchasing, w $30,000 $50,000 Hob reguar tramkg Mat (decentralized) attachment Sole Source decision k made sbAcan participate in, f at department head level. they like D^Z Competitive Bid Level Survey - Results AGENCY NGs Gt�Y Yr nF cttjej / dhysF� frj"r�I...(� peuLhB944rtl%n)s, F�ieyld-v. -_Y AP ° - L t.YLi * ^B`*n t SmA.�b 3J"L;T ,iENNt4° x+ iTnfimg3 ,F..o, r City of Arvada $2000 and up. When due to nature of When not informal (see When not informal Field OrderAuthomation Goods & Nam•professional servs. <$15K Dept Dir. or Deagnee' good/serv. Dept. Dir, previous info under (see previous into Card (FOAC) for 42K Goods & Ngn-professionsl serve. $15K to MOK: City Mgr. or Designee detemlines sealed bid is not Infarmsl Duoles), and under Informal purchases (iMemal'card" Construction & Professional serve. to <$50K Dept. Dir. or Designate' practicall advantageous when (by precetlerd) owl"), and when type sy& that replaces Goods, IMiu-professional & Professional serve., & Construction 450K & +: Council (no slated It threshold). Council approves (by p eoedem) field order forms.) Sole Source: <$15K approved by Purchasing Mgr. (S50K and up). Council approves No PCard Wffendy, but $15K & + approved by City Mgr. w/ Purch. Mgr. recommendation ($50K and up). its an optional component Emergency Purcf : Per Ordinance, to be approved by City Mgr. M for Professional of our new Bank Sews. PO"s & mod's in Oracle sys. $5OK & r Purchasing Mgr. a desgn". Servs. Contract w/ Bank One. ' Approval delegation is supposed to be in written form. - .af^�lirorg $5000'0'1 0111 t�� n'�' `Kn Y i�Z'a�ul."`J1S'w'tYPRtuAr.+. �av' 1}�` '=✓(tr. �TrvY FRIfek_,�s_.i City of Boulder $1000 . $1999 $2000 . $4999 Written $5.000 $5,000 $1000 - $4999 Purchasing, but depts can initiate & conclude purchase it policies ITelephone followed. Purchasim checks to assure connDilwnce with S. r000%- �."� a7 pfibfre> 0� $f0�N 0:1r� - � ��. � 2%s� s ���4 �✓�� ., _ aur`4.. 3'�e N K 522.5amf r�uatdsl $ rierl c: ,n^"'+rcFY y i i, x4ri-. B..N. 8A"a as •SY 4^'e.'M4i '4' ,e�+. `dam "+n ?H a Jr_ �' . �. +Lr €J m xe➢,..ri 'A.�`. �` - ..{` City/County of $1000 - $10,000 informal >$10,000; pudic notice >$10,000; public ' $50, petty cash<$1000 >$10,000; City Manager approval required. Broomfield bids, oral or written and City Manager notice and City Purchasing card, check >$50,000; City Council approval required. approval Manager approval requests required.>550,000; required. public notice and City >$50,000; pubic Council approval notice and City required. Managerapproval required. p� yp ' A f7�� ' •` yev .,, � ..t. F ' y -x�ti ez.�5. kFit!„+5.if kL. + •x _lna�. - _,' d h..��M� p,3 Competitive Bid Level Survey- Results AGF.Ni+Y f '^na���3 + aTlhuhi3TQu P '.JnfoPl.tasr itlsc '`*: "F anal "Heri�B,ylt'�l,;; 'ap,Fi )c,y:` � WC ^� Or-RFYS Pttlat1ye11Ye5tt Y F'2wdf a'nG 11�- .eg0i sSl f'L'gi ^is 3- >rtw ::F� �"w r i,T< .tar"'*%R.°eA �S 4s*:ly r wA,dr .ntf LL .ss;'d.'r,t fh. (_vY)�fa..+ _'�*✓i'y.1. e+t +-A�i.*5i�u.an'W „F - .-�a'h-^e,.., 'eY'.x sr 2>fm"T. City of $5000 - $24,999 two De -centralized, $25.000 and over $25,000 and over (Wells Fargo Vise) Most The City uses Oracle software with approval levels based on hierarchy. All purchases Englewood or more quotes on Departments can send General Fund, $50,000 General Furl, $50,000 Purchasing cards are set over $1 OK require City Manager's approval. Counal approval on amounts over company letterhead request to purchasing for Enterprise Fund. Enterprise Finds up with a $250 per $25,000 General fund/$50,000 Enterprise fund (even if budgeter!). We source quotes/ proposals on any Construction bids are transaction limit and a requires justification. Capital equipment amount is $501)D/over 1 year life. Purchasing dollar amount, but usually advertised in Daily $5000 per cycle omit. reviews all purchases, however Accounting also creates "cash disbursamatir type amounts over $5000. The Journal and Englewood Amount varies based on purchase orders that don't require Purchasing intervention other than review. City posts bids/ quotes/ Herald. Department. Large proposals via Rocky purchasers $5,000/day & Mountain E Purchasing $25,000hnonth limit Mega - System cards Purchasing/Aocounfing �t1 p1 u `�C' Pr Jtl.�sn _ s$$0" : U 1 $D ,_� 4P �"" " . rid b'Verrs - gv'ta ''' P x t�' br1 ache! 5C " r 6�8rs$ OK/ azs�ObeIN Uirecfdf a n 4wom t `ill�i.'(•1 �n'1In,?.,A City of Grand $5000 up to $9999 $10,000 ant over- Division approval to Departmental approval to City Manager approval to $49,999- Junaion (documented phone, $10,000- $24,999- fax or written). Can be done by the Division if individual has altei mandatory annual purchasing training. Public opening not required. C-.. 6 Sa, ,tiak,.wrtttd'n W -1 t S25040OMW1 . wji� 5S25006 ' p bard 7G1ta1Jarl�f✓3d' 'y-" 'tfla)'(>hYe _ � U':. ttt . w"7w"w7R f Titt7K.+s't�S�`z l,f ^'7i q�.r"a .4sz"^e,A'S+lr,a�e✓#k) F�-Abf� n 3ft, � f Y �r /tr yt'y ft � a f'e'�gr��,, r s� �r� ''✓�^ I ' kal r City of $1000 - S15.000 N/A $15,000 ant over $15,000 and over $10001imit per frensaction. $1000 and below decentralized: end using dept. Ievel.Purchasing Division approves Longmont Varying monthly gmits, a0 contracts/PO's over the $1000.00 decentralized limit. There Is no governing body established by Department approval requirement. Heads. 0'9'9 ... s!?.i zk 25I717 .' „:� .., .. _. . - s �'�: - 16'99b Y"- x —+ CompetlUve Bid Level Survey- Results AGENCY Z fAI�1mE� awole, tl. - In ' dg 4 hFd` I A `e a mrt,5� N h '�'%T .. T'4 1-`v :1 .� iPv �'•. vP 3 .i' il' .vt ,l _ y `S��ya. I, a �. VW"" City of $5000 - $25,000.00 $5000 - $25,000.00 $25.000.00 and over $25,000.00 and over Pro cards Multiple limits - Bids/Proposals for engineering or archilectural services are provisionally Northglenn oral by Dept Head exempted from the formal bid process. CM approval to $50K Above $50K require FPOs-to$1500 Petty Council approval. - cash check to $25D �i�'DiY�� p�ny'SOQ aar�d-aY69Tkt¢1�, �DtYa4adE �ib G� t �.�2.• ., iy t � arasi �py1J+,% Nell & Si��'=�' f:`e � tC%C'�.?rF•Ska, .Zn. •k -Y ^.t"�, k„�. P. B 3v l�1 'y-� 2v8 4+¢.^': Col of $5000 and over $5001 - $30,000 ,,-i,�i- .�w� $30,000 mid over $30,000 and over -s P cards Most 1 K per $1 K - $51K: Department Desigirtee Westminster transaction 3K bar month $5K- $15K Division Head Pettycash $200 month $15K - $30K: Division Head and Purchasi Office $30K - $50K Department Head and Purchasing Office Over $50K City Council rr�� Tra�a.- -' S70j _ .= 5 (p13 D O:r250f10Yor Cam(` 1} _ } k $1,0000 andoverfor �.5 �p �,M�-. £"i Brld P.?�, $2S000 anll bveY ToF �a (qd e3. � �Y3 -Y R' 1i81`IPCaB y F''e<(1W°Fy�t P-ca u�Co S10(Ml pat y:� 'l�u 1 fyy) i : Dray}/ ' �Ilf g 'ro9'u 3000 LL.----3�- M ,d @1��t,. 6yy^ 5 �rl. H$R7YH}�Wae X . ie'ya z ". ,.- $2.500 - $25,000 $2500 - $25,000 $25,000 and over $25,000 and over --Cards for purchases $10,000 and less. Department Head approval Adams County 12500 and less;$10,000 $10,000-$25,000: Department Head and Purchasing Managerapproval per month $25,000 and over: County Administrator or Board approval Middatl " N N ' rjda(,.942r$g0 arm�1�; f - S 1 P4! nQcon4adis)rLa7 r ldlVr#re Vi `�s A' n Y�} pn ` ro -'$Y+r'.. t,,�' ; a tti 3 `� fix=' U tyNya e +.53.7 a t+�; -• r" t tiro?i�Lzn - i f'f,' A M. . aV-5 ,.., :',;+'1 � sN A d ._ E ....'.�, ,.. w r""_, a aiP*� �, a. ik ., .. T... Jefferson $5000 and over No dollar limit used when No dollar Ikrit used No dollar Iimit.Used P-Card: Typical user limit: Purchasing Director: -Up to $25K - Includes execution of standard form vendor County phone or fax specs are straightforward when specs are complex when user needs to 112500 per transaction - contracts for routine services -Unlimited $ for consumawes and wear items if Coff-theshelf item'), i.e, or project a labor- establish qualifications Purchasing Staff: No $ limit previously approved in budget vehicles, andfior if rush intensive (Buyer of firms prior to price 'd all approvals in order- County Administrator->$251< up to $501K (includes contract signature authorization) order (Buyer discretion) discretion). Public negotiations or Directors up to $25,000 if Board of County Commissioner:-450K Works, Head Start & issuance of request for desired -Some specialty FAA projects must be cost proposals. cards at higher Emits - advertised. Restrictions set by each division. FP(Ys: Used by divisions that operate on a 24hour basis- DolUr Emil up to $25,000 - Shouk) use existing avrards if available. w.Sjk5 z z` - S5D$g1,d.6?Sr600:,,, '+- ., .. . D mNr Pw QDf roCahes h -` "�y,r',� ip C(y .�,'� G A.".. v trx S . P � 3 � As r c, -S ar':>rsR1 Sr a¢?i fA-M'.' . a--,-. ,+''� ,R-. r .1L,: 3i'w fir'v3{s e.,. o..., '/ ^57 Competitive Bid Level Survey- Results +�'G - i ...... 3 4 1u.MEs l Bids Formal'(WhfBiGg :1.FArib'il Ibsals' el Proyptir!®nT CaMsd�Fla " c �'t ' „3, -1 al'.. '= 'r C 'b Y 1..d+a w1..o vfiy �p4.' •ix Y 3 �vE, n..a `h... 1 °.t�s',t.v. 3rY} <' f n .k-v'zi'm , ".'e�i,�, �e..�, >tr dau..� ...�.rn+?"�Tl ._ .e, 4 Cherry Creek $500 $500 - $20,000 $20,000 and over $20,000 and over No Pro Card Over $20,000 requires Board approval FJected Officials: - No $ limit unless withheld by BCC during budget approval process ,dbflc $5� 44�a � tl'0`OOb i� $tp OQOn9 r'i a.3.rF �j0t00�k � �v�1r:. Picard $SOOT I.y: � Ei2de�fftfr ..,,'�(I(r}+ �,��� I,'i(t� L§>➢.r.,- `!'���� �,S.y._ '✓t f`24`���. '�" ��£ "abal�"�i� P,py,^Ir K P � ,. �u „�^��'6 {�q'yLI.Y t ,.« � %� 2' !':�v j.F 4.�y��',,�� � �+�r cLu. y rb'zas 3 � � ix �' - f � p�.,�tww a 1<dE ��l�!"�" 4 Y tx i -e a✓,Y � —T1* u - R T XaG.�'5 deYv Y iE-i.`Sl y y'5`F f Yh. i+ R b IA'fry0.leHb RA 'u'ws °a1 + f ...i 'r'Pry !£'liu & A e -v - y�j�isi ➢'•p a n yxi� �m - 3t d 'i."a Y E/n W C5II f4 w�rac'fk S^ tc c' ✓e t 6.ZM,'Myvis�if ne�"4,T w 1 �Wy�#„'x.fi ,'S 3 . exSR "sEik ,OCi$�SQO x�rEwa.nrVl�ypho ; Y..' St ?a r $ Y f 4 .. Y' Y f Vyu hbd+ r=, n? { SY b'!"Ekj,. .,1, rs ,E Y 2" Y }IFS SN' �p Dadd4r'�.�Ad 'MAnnGr(+ry'�i�xlii�8q '� � tl - F i(•, n3SK Y- � � �NTrp �,�N S" .Y PX i'fiK U �t • I �t p�`'dUrerne�l,o-$dSellydrv(dedte,�d@.pro'LI bya�iiafe ,: �� Jil��' ���13� ��cx/ S� 'Y � d$5fiifk`.i. t✓sY Ck 3hm Cg-"ik} � ' 4 �,£` �SNY��'✓}* h��i.`�, R{M�i���';Yi 8a 4;tla � 1 S MFM^✓J>.}T,y: EltlffM: `xc Zr. -µ � ��-� Littleton Public $1,000 $1000-$5000 $5000 and over $10,000 and over Procard -PVS NetBank- All orders over$600.00 am a r approved by Purchasing Over Schools One $1000 Limit most $10K required Board approval unless previously approved in budget Schools and Departments with exceptions approved by Purchasing �SveT500D "e` wC pz 03rtr650 OOD "� >t-� v _il n'r'x �rr'tY tlep Pp�: la Y �°fi� i ,� �ye�t} it,� ... �a t3y ➢FidrY ba11s t4us mr.^r �Ia .ty�#,..,a�� ^lY k�ua Services $25,000 to Goods or Services over over $50,000 �L.r Pro -card up to $5000 z +�.w Up to $100K may be approved by Purchasing Agent Cob Dept of Services $5000 to Transportation $25,000 $50,000 and Goods $5000 $50,000 require IFB or Over $100K must be approved by Procurement Manager (COO) to $50,000 Require Quotes RFB on CO BIDS on CO BIDS system system r2--t,,-, Attachment A: Title 4: Procurement Code TITLE 4 PROCUREMENT CODE' Chapter 4.04 General Provisions Sec.4.04.010 Purposes, interpretation of rules Sec. 4.04.020 Procurement contrary to this Title Sec. 4.04.030 Requirement of good faith Sec. 4.04.040 Application of this Title See.4.04.050 Definitions Sec. 4.04.060 Public access to procurement information See.4.04.070 Specifications Chapter 4.08 Procurement Organization and Authority Sec. 4.08.010 Authority and duties of the Finance Department Sec. 4.08.020 Duties of department heads and procurement officers Sec. 4.09,030 Authority of City Attorney Sec.4.08.040 Approvals Sec. 4.08.050 Formal contract procedure Chapter 4.12 Source Selection and Contract Formation Sec. 4.12.010 Methods of source selection; affirmative action goals Sec.4.12.020 Competitive sealed bidding - Sec. 4.12.030 Competitive sealed proposals Sec. 4.12.040 Small purchases Sec, 4.12.050 Miscellaneous exemptions Sec.4.12.060 Emergency procurement Sec.4.12.070 State bid Sec. 4.12,080 Cancellation of invitations for bids or requests for proposals Sec. 4.12.090 Responsibility of bidders and offerors Sec. 4.12.100 Pre -qualifications of suppliers Sec. 4.12.110 Bid security Sec. 4.12.120 Contract performance and payment bonds Sec. 4.12.130 Bond forms and copies Sec. 4.12.140 Type of contracts Sec. 4.12.150 Multi -term contracts Sec.4.12.160 Contract clauses Sec. 4.12.170 Contract modifications and change orders; Fiscal responsibility Sec. 4.12.180 Right to inspect plant Sec. 4.12.190 Right to audit records Sec. 4.12.200 Finality of determinations Sec. 4.12.210 Reporting of anti -competitive practices Sec. 4.12.220 Retention of procurement records Sec. 4.12.230 Record of procurement actions taken under Sections 4.12.050 (Miscellaneous exemptions) and 4.12.060 (Emergency procurement) Chapter 4.16 Legal and Contractual Remedies Sec. 4.16.010 Authority to resolve protested solicitations and awards Sec. 4.16.020 Authority to debar or suspend Sec. 4.16.030 Authority to resolve contract and breach of contract controversies Sec. 4.16.040 Applicability of this Chapter Sec. 4.16.050 Remedies prior to award Sec. 4.16.060 Remedies after an award Sec. 4.16.070 Interest Sec. 4.16.080 Creation of the Procurement Appeals Board Sec. 4.16.090 Decision of the Procurement Appeals Board Sec. 4.16.100 Jurisdiction of the Procurement Appeals Board Sec. 4.16.110 Protest of solicitations or awards Sec. 4.16.120 Suspension or debarment proceedings Sec. 4.16.130 Contract and breach of contract controversies Sec. 4.16.140 Finality of a decision on an issue of law Sec. 4.16.150 Appeal and review of Procurement Appeals Board decisions Sec. 4.16.160 Discontinuance of contractor's appeal Chapter 4.20 Ethics in Public Contracting Sec. 4.20.010 Definitions of terms used in this Chapter Sec. 4.20.020 Statement of policy Sec. 4,20.030 General standards of ethical conduct Sec. 4.20.040 Employee conflict of interest Sec. 4.20.050 Employee disclosure requirements Sec. 4.20.060 Gratuities and kickbacks Sec. 4.20.070 Prohibition against contingent fees Sec. 4.20.080 Restrictions on employment of present and former employees Sec. 4.20.090 Use of confidential information Sec. 4.20.100 Civil and administrative remedies against employees who breach ethical standards Sec. 4.20.110 Civil and administrative remedies against nonemployees who breach ethical standards Sec. 4.20.120 Recovery of value transferred or received in breach of ethical standards Sec. 4.20.130 Opinions and waivers Chapter 4214 Supply Management Sec. 4.24.010 Supply management regulations required Charter reference —City finances, An. IX. Chapter 4.04 GENERAL PROVISIONS Sec. 4.04.010. Purposes, interpretation of rules. (a) Interpretation. This Title shall be construed and applied to promote its underlying purposes and policies. (b) Purposes and policies. The underlying purposes and policies of this Title are: (1) To simplify, clarify and standardize the law governing procurement by this City; (2) To permit the continued development of procurement policies and practices; (3) To provide for increased public confidence in the procedures followed in public procurement; (4) To ensure the fair and equitable treatment of all persons who deal with the procurement system of this City; (5) To provide increased economy in City procurement activities and to maximize to the fullest extent practicable the purchasing value of public funds of the City; (6) To foster effective broad -based competition within the free enterprise system; and (7) To provide safeguards for the maintenance of a procurement system of quality and integrity. (Code 1971, § 3-1; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.04.020. Procurement contrary to this Title. Except as otherwise may be provided by law, it shall be unlawful for any City officer or employee to order a procurement contrary to the provisions of this Title. Any procurement or contract so made shall be void and wholly without effect and shall not be binding upon the City in any manner. (Code 1971, § 3-2; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.04.030. Requirement of good faith. This Title requires all parties involved in the negotiation, performance, or administration of City contracts to act in good faith. (Code 1971, § 3-3; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.04.040. Application of this Title. This Title shall apply to every expenditure of public funds irrespective of their source, including federal assistance monies, by this City, acting through a governmental body as defined herein, under any contract, except that this Title shall not apply to either grants or contracts between the City and other governments. Nothing in this Title or in regulations promulgated hereunder shall prevent any governmental body from complying with the terms and conditions of any grant, gift, bequest or cooperative agreement. (Code 1971, § 3-4; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec.4.04.050. Definitions. The words defined in this Section shall have the meanings set forth below whenever they appear in this Title, unless: (1) the context in which they are used clearly requires a different meaning; or (2) a different definition is prescribed for a particular chapter or provision. (a) Brand name means a specification limited to one (1) or more items by manufacturer's name or catalog number. (b) Business means any corporation, partnership, individual, sole proprietorship, joint stock company, joint venture or any other private legal entity. (c) Change order means a written order signed by a procurement officer, modifying an existing contract to authorize changes within the scope of work, additions or deletions to the work or an adjustment to any other provision of the contract. (d) Construction means the process of building, altering, repairing, improving or demolishing any public structure or building, or other public improvements of any kind to any public real property. It does not include the routine operations, routine repair, or routine maintenance of existing structures, buildings or real property. (e) Contract means any agreement enforceable by law between the City and one (1) or more outside parties, regardless of form or title, for procurement of supplies, services or construction, (f) Contract modification means any written alteration in specifications, delivery point, rate of delivery, period of performance, price, quantity or other provisions of any contract accomplished by mutual action of the parties to the contract. Before a contract is executed, modifications are typically processed as an addenda to the invitation for bids or Request for Proposals; after the contract is executed, modifications are processed as change orders. (g) Contractor means any person having a contract with a governmental body. (h) Cost -reimbursement contract means a contract under which a contractor is reimbursed for costs which are allowable and allocable in accordance with the contract terms and the provisions of this Title and a fee, if any. (i) Data means recorded information, regardless of form or characteristic. Q) Department head means the person in charge of each major administrative division of the City who has overall management responsibility for an operation or a group of related operations within a functional area, as determined by the City Manager. Any authority for procuring supplies, services or construction granted to department heads pursuant to this Chapter are intended to be granted similarly to agency heads and assistant city managers. (k) Designee means a duty authorized representative of a person holding a superior position. (I) Employee means an individual drawing a salary from a governmental body. (m) Established catalog price means the price included in a catalog, price list, schedule or other form that: (1) Is regularly maintained by a manufacturer or contractor; (2) Is either published or otherwise available for inspection by customers; and (3) States prices at which sales are currently or were last made to a significant number of any category of buyers constituting the general buying public for the supplies or services involved. (n) Governmental body means any department, commission, council, board, bureau, committee, institution, legislative body, agency, government corporation or other establishment or official of the executive, legislative or judicial branch of this City. (o) Grant means the furnishing by the City of assistance, whether financial or otherwise to any person to support a program authorized by law. It does not include an award whose primary purpose is to procure an end product, whether in the form of supplies, services or construction; a contract resulting from such an award is not a grant but a procurement contract. (p) Invitation for bids means all documents, whether attached or incorporated by reference utilized for soliciting bids. (q) Legal services means the advice, representation, document preparation or related services of an attorney as special counsel provided to the City upon the request of the City Attorney. (r) Litigation services means professional or other services procured by the City Attorney for the purpose of evaluating, preparing, providing or presenting evidence at the trial of any lawsuit to which the City is a party. Litigation services shall not include legal services. (s) May denotes the permissive. (t) Person means any business, individual, union, committee, club, other organization or group of individuals. (u) Procurement means buying, purchasing, renting, leasing or otherwise acquiring any supplies, services or construction. It also includes all functions that pertain to the obtaining of any supply, service or construction, including description of requirements, selection and solicitation of sources, preparation and award of contract and all phases of contract administration. Procurement shall not include the buying, purchasing, renting or leasing of real property. (v) Public notice shall mean any publication reasonably calculated to inform responsible bidders or offerors. Public notice shall occur for a reasonable time and may be disseminated through any means of mass communication including but not limited to, newspapers, other written publications, posting, television, radio, other broadcasting media and electronic billboards. (w) Procurement officer means any Department head, agency head, Assistant City Manager, or the City Attorney whenever such person undertakes the duties set forth herein by approving source selection and contract formation for the procurement of any supply, service or construction on behalf of the City. (x) Professional services means the furnishing of labor, time, effort or expertise by a contractor with specialized knowledge in a field including but not limited to architecture, engineering, medicine, finance, accounting, appraisal and land surveying. (y) Purchase description means the words used in a solicitation to describe the supplies, services or construction to be purchased and includes specifications attached to or made part of, the solicitation. (z) Regulation means a governmental body's statement, having general or particular applicability and future effect, designed to implement, interpret or prescribe law or policy, or describing organization, procedure or practice requirements. (aa) Request for Proposals means all documents, whether attached or incorporated by reference, utilized for soliciting proposals. (bb) Responsible bidder or offeror means a person who has the capability in all respects to perform fully the contract requirements and the integrity and reliability which will assure good faith performance. (cc) Responsive bidder means a person who has submitted a bid which confirms in all material respects to the invitation for bids or request for proposals. (dd) Services means the performance of maintenance or the furnishing of labor, time or effort which does not involve the delivery of a specific end product other than a report or other item which is merely incidental to the performance of the service. Services shall not include services rendered under an employment agreement nor shall it include professional services as that term is defined in this Section. (ee) Shall denotes the imperative. (ff) Specification shall mean any description of the physical or functional characteristics of or the nature of the supply, service or construction item. It may include a description of any requirement for inspecting, testing or preparing a supply, service or construction item for delivery or a procedure for determining whether the requirements are satisfied. (gg) Supplies means all property, including but not limited to equipment, materials, printing, insurance and leases of real property, excluding land or permanent interest in land. (hh) Surplus supplies means any supplies no longer having any use to the City. This includes obsolete supplies, scrap materials and non -expendable supplies that no longer have a useful life or purpose (ii) Using agency means any governmental body of the City which utilizes any supplies, services, or construction procured under this Code. (Code 1971, § 3-5; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.04.060. Public access to procurement information. Procurement information shall be a public record to the extent provided by law and shall be available to the public as provided by law. (Code 1971, § 3-6; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec.4.04.070. Specifications. (a) Intent. All specifications, including but not limited to design, performance and brand name specifications, shall be drafted so as to provide a clear and concise description of the supply, service or construction desired. (b) Preparation. Before appropriate approvals are obtained in accordance with Section 4.08.040 above, for a procurement in excess of one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), the Procurement Officer shall cause to be prepared written specifications detailing the City's requirements for the supplies, services or construction. (c) Brand name specifications. A brand name specification may be used when the Procurement Officer has determined that sufficient sources for competition exist for the procurement of the supply and that the use of the brand name specification is not intended to limit or restrict competition. A brand name specification may also be used to describe the standard of quality, performance and other salient characteristics. In such cases, the solicitation shall contain explanatory language that the use of a brand name is for the purpose of describing the standard desired and that the substitution of equivalent supplies is permitted. (Code 1971, § 3-7; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Chapter 4.08 PROCUREMENT ORGANIZATION AND AUTHORITY Sec. 4.08.010. Authority and duties of the Finance Department. (a) The City Manager shall appoint, with the prior consultation of the director of the finance department, procurement officers who, because of their particular knowledge and expertise, shall serve as principal procurement officials for the City and perform those duties set forth in this Chapter with respect to the procurement of specialized supply, service or construction items. (By way of example and not as limitation upon this authority, the specialized supply, service or construction items delegated to a special procurement officer may include data processing equipment, motor vehicles, insurance policies, office supplies and furniture and City construction projects.) (b) Except as otherwise provided in this Title, the Finance Department shall have the authority and responsibility to promulgate regulations with the written approval of the City Manager, consistent with this Title, governing the procurement, management, control and disposal of any and all supplies, services and construction to be procured by the City. Said regulations shall include, but not necessarily be limited to the following subject matters: (1) City owned vehicles; (2) A city-wide system for utilizing purchase orders for all procurements; (3) Travel by employees and elected officials on City business; (4) The establishment and use of petty cash funds; (5) The appointment and utilization of special procurement officers for the procurement of specialized supplies, services or construction items pursuant to Subsection 4.08.010(a) above; and (6) Supply management systems, including the disposition of surplus supplies and inventory maintenance of capital supplies. (c) No regulation shall change any commitment, right or obligation of the City or of a contractor under a contract in existence on the effective date of such regulation. The Finance Department shall consider and decide matters of policy within the provisions of this Title including those referred to it by department heads. The Finance Department shall have the power to audit and monitor the implementation of its regulations and the requirements of this Title, but shall not exercise authority over the award or administration of any particular contract or over any dispute, claim, or litigation pertaining thereto. (Code 1971, § 3-8; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.08.020. Duties of department heads and procurement officers. (a) Duties of department heads. Department heads shall, in accordance with regulations which may be promulgated by the finance department, work closely with special procurement officers appointed for the procurement of specialized supplies, services or construction pursuant to Section 4.08.010(a) herein, the City Manager and other department heads to ensure compliance by all employees and departments of the City with the provisions of this Chapter and any regulations which may be promulgated pursuant thereto. (b) Duties of procurement officers. Except as otherwise provided in this title, procurement officers shall, in accordance with regulations which may be promulgated by the finance department: (1) Act to procure for the City the highest quality in supplies, services and construction at the least expense to the City consistent with the provisions of this Title and regulations promulgated pursuant to this Title by the finance department; (2) Discourage uniform bidding and endeavor to obtain as full and open competition as possible on all purchases and sales; (3) Establish and maintain programs for the inspection, testing and acceptance of supplies, services and construction; (4) Explore the possibilities of "bulk purchasing" so as to take full advantage of discounts; (5) Act so as to procure for the City all federal and state tax exemptions to which it might be entitled; (6) Cooperate with the finance department, with other department heads and other governmental bodies, so as to secure for the City the maximum efficiency in budgeting and accounting; (7) Have the authority, upon approval of the City Manager, to identify vendors who default on their quotations, to identify irresponsible bidders and to begin disqualification proceedings against them in accordance with this Title; and (8) Endeavor to make purchases of recycled materials and other supplies that preserve, to the maximum extent possible, the environment and minimize energy consumption for their production or use. (9) Make a special effort to solicit and encourage local, minority and women -owned businesses and suppliers to participate in the City's procurement process. (Code 1971, § 3-9; Ord. No.46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.08.030. Authority of City Attorney. The City Attorney shall have the same authority with respect to procurements for the City Attorney's office as set forth herein for the City Manager. Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in this Title relating to competition or otherwise, the City Attorney shall have the authority to contract for litigation services, as defined herein, by any method that the City Attorney believes is in the City's best interests. (Code 1971, § 3-10; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec.4.08.040. Approvals. No procurement shall be made without the prior written approvals required to be made in accordance with this section. (a) City Council. All procurements subject to the terms of this Chapter in excess of twenty- five thousand dollars ($25,000.00) shall be approved by City Council by motion or resolution. (b) City Manager. All procurements subject to the terms of this Chapter in excess of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) shall be approved by the City Manager. (c) Department heads. Department heads shall have the authority to approve procurements in an amount which does not exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000.00), without the prior approval of the City Manager or City Council; provided, however that sufficient funds are available in the department head's department budget for the item(s) purchased. No procurement shall be divided so as to avoid the approvals that would otherwise be required by the above. (Code 1971, § 3-11; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.08.050, Formal contract procedure. Except as otherwise provided herein, all procurement in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), or whenever a department head or City Manager requests the same, shall be purchased by a formal written contract approved as to form by the City Attorney. Unless the department head seeking approval from the City Manager explains the lack of a need for same, all procurement in excess of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) shall be purchased by formal written contract approved as to form by the City Attorney and executed by the City Manager. (Code 1971, § 3-12; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Chapter 4.12 SOURCE SELECTION AND CONTRACT FORMATION Sec. 4.12.010. Methods of source selection; affirmative action goals. (a) Unless otherwise authorized by law, all City contracts shall be awarded by competitive sealed bidding, pursuant to Section 4.12.020, (Competitive sealed bidding), except as provided in: (1) Section 4.12.030 (Competitive sealed proposals); (2) Section 4.12.040 (Small purchases); (3) Section 4.12.050 (Miscellaneous exemptions); (4) Section 4.12.060 (Emergency procurement); (5) Section 4.12.070 (State bid). (b) The following preferences shall be considered in source selection for all City contracts as part of the City's affirmative action goals relating to local, women- and minority -owned businesses: (1) Preference shall be given in the procurement of supplies and services produced, manufactured, sold, distributed, offered or grown in the City, if such preference is not for supplies or services of inferior quality to those offered by competitors outside of the City; and, in the procurement of services and construction contracts to bidders with offices or a place of business located within the City if all other evaluation criteria set forth herein or in the invitation for bids or request for proposals are equal to bidders with offices located outside of the City. Secondary preference may be given by the City in procurement of supplies and services produced, manufactured, sold, distributed or grown in the Roaring Fork River valley if such preference is not for supplies or services of inferior quality to those offered by competitors outside of said valley; and, in the procurement of services and construction contracts to bidders located in the Roaring Fork River valley if all other evaluation criteria set forth herein, or in the invitation for bids or requests for proposals, are equal to bidders located outside of said valley. For any procurement not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) the preference given pursuant to this Subsection 4.12.010(b)(1) may be in an amount not to exceed five percent (5%) of the total price. (2) Preference shall be given in the procurement of supplies, services and construction to minority- and women -owned businesses provided all other evaluation criteria set forth herein, or in the Invitation for bids or Request for Proposals, are equal to other bids or proposals received. (Code 1971, § 3-13; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.12.020. Competitive sealed bidding. (a) Conditions for use. Contracts shall be awarded by competitive sealed bidding except as otherwise provided in Section 4.12.010 (Methods of source selection). (b) Invitation for bids. An invitation for bids shall be issued and shall include a purchase description and all contractual terms and conditions applicable to the procurement. The purchase description shall seek to promote overall economy for the purposes intended and encourage competition in satisfying the City's needs and it shall not be unduly restrictive. (c) Public notice. Adequate public notice of the Invitation for bids shall be given a reasonable time prior to the date set forth therein for the opening of bids. If a state or federal law or regulation controls the procurement process for any particular purchase, adequate public notice may be mandated by applicable state or federal laws or regulations. In the absence of exigent or emergency circumstances described in Section 4.12.060 (Emergency procurement), adequate notice shall mean publication of a public notice which summarizes the Invitation for bids in a newspaper of general circulation for two (2) consecutive weeks with the last publication being not more than one (1) week prior to the date set forth therein for the opening of bids. (d) Bid opening. Bids shall be opened publicly in the presence of one (1) or more witnesses at the time and place designated in the invitation for bids. The amount of each bid and such other relevant information as may be specified by regulation, together with the name of each bidder shall be recorded; the record and each bid shall be open to public inspection. (e) Facsimile transmissions. Facsimile transmissions shall not be accepted for either bids or corrections to previously submitted bids. The City by receiving facsimile transmissions makes no representation with respect to its ability to maintain the confidentiality of the contents of such transmissions. (f) Bid acceptance and bid evaluation. Bids shall be unconditionally accepted without alteration or correction, except as authorized in this Code. Bids shall be evaluated based on the requirements set forth in the invitation for bids, which may include criteria to determine acceptability such as inspection, . testing, quality, workmanship, delivery and suitability for a particular purpose. Those criteria that will affect the bid price and be considered in evaluation for award shall be objectively measurable, such as discounts, transportation costs and total or life cycle costs. The invitation for bids shall set forth the evaluation criteria to be used. In addition to the evaluation criteria set forth in the invitation to bid, the following criteria may be considered, in addition to price: (1) The ability, capacity and skill of the bidder to perform the contract or provide the service or construction required; (2) Whether the bidder can perform the contract or provide the service or construction promptly or within the time specified, without delay or interference; (3) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience and efficiency of the bidder; (4) The quality of performance of previous contracts or services; (5) The previous and existing compliance by the bidder with laws and ordinances relating to the contract or service; (6) The sufficiency of the financial resources and ability of the bidder to perform the contract or provide the service or construction; (7) The quality, availability and adaptability of the supplies, services or construction to the particular use required; and (8) The ability of the bidder to provide future maintenance and service for the use of the subject of the contract. (9) The affirmative action goal preferences set forth at Section 4.12.010(b) herein. (g) Correction or withdrawal of bids; cancellation of awards. Correction or withdrawal of inadvertently erroneous bids before or after award or cancellation of awards or contracts based on such bid mistakes, shall be permitted. After bid opening no changes in bid prices or other provisions of bids prejudicial to the interest of the City or fair competition shall be permitted. Except as otherwise provided by regulation, all decisions to permit the correction or withdrawal of bids or to cancel awards or contracts based on bid mistakes, shall be supported by a written determination made by the department head and approved by the City Attorney. (h) Award. The contract shall be awarded with reasonable promptness by written notice to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder whose bid meets the requirements and criteria set forth at Subsection (f) herein and in the invitation for bids or request for proposals. In the event all bids for a construction project exceed available funds as certified by the appropriate fiscal officer and the low responsive and responsible bid does not exceed such funds by more than ten percent (10%), the Procurement Officer is authorized in situations where time or economic considerations preclude re - solicitation of work of a reduced scope to negotiate an adjustment of the bid price, including changes in the bid requirements with the low responsive and responsible bidder, in order to bring the bid within the amount of available funds. If the low bid exceeds available funds by ten percent (10%)or more, the City Manager may authorize the Procurement Officer to negotiate an adjustment of the bid price after determining in writing that such action is in the best interests of the City. Even if the lowest bid does not exceed available funds, a procurement officer, with the City Manager's prior approval, shall have the authority, consistent with the general underlying purposes and policies of this title as set forth in Subsection 4.04.010(b) herein and in the best interests of the City, to negotiate with the lowest responsible and responsive bidder to adjust the bid price, alter the quantity or quality of supplies to be procured or alter the scope of services or construction to be provided. If the procurement is subject to City Council approval pursuant to Section 4.08.040 herein, the written notice shall indicate that the award is subject to City Council approval. (i) Multi -step sealed bidding. When it is considered impractical to initially prepare a purchase description to support an award based on price, an invitation for bids may be issued requesting the submission of unpriced offers to be followed by an invitation for bids limited to those bidders whose offers have been qualified under the criteria set forth in the first solicitation. (Code 1971, § 3-14; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) See. 4.12.030. Competitive sealed proposals. (a) Conditions for use. Procurement for the following are eligible for award by competitive sealed proposals: (1) When the Procurement Officer determines in writing that the use of competitive sealed bidding is either not practicable or not advantageous to the City, a contract may be entered into by competitive sealed proposals. The Finance Department may provide by regulation that it is either not practicable or not advantageous to the City to procure specified types of supplies, services or construction by competitive sealed bidding; or (2) For professional services. (b) Requests for proposals. Proposals shall be solicited through a Request for Proposals. The Request for Proposals shall seek to promote overall economy for the purposes intended and encourage competition in satisfying the City's needs and it shall not be unduly restrictive. (c) Public notice. Adequate public notice of the Request for Proposals shall be given in a reasonable time prior to the date set forth therein for the receipt of proposals. If a state or federal law or regulation controls the procurement process for any particular purchase, adequate public notice may be mandated by applicable state or federal laws or regulations. In the absence of exigent or emergency circumstances described in Section 4.12.060, (Emergency procurement), adequate notice shall mean publication of a public notice which summarizes the Request for Proposals in a newspaper of general circulation for two (2) consecutive weeks with the last publication being not more than one (1) week prior to the date set forth therein for the opening of bids. (d) Receipt of proposals. Proposals shall be opened so as to avoid disclosure of contents to competing offerors during the process of negotiation. A list of proposals received shall be prepared and shall be open for public inspection after contract award. (e) Evaluation factors. The Request for Proposals shall state the relative importance of price and other evaluation factors. (f) Discussion with responsible offerors and revisions to proposals. As provided in the Request for Proposals, discussions may be conducted with responsible offerors who submit proposals determined to be reasonably susceptible of being selected for award for the purpose of clarification to assure full understanding of and responsiveness to, the solicitation requirements. Offerors shall be accorded fair and equal treatment with respect to any opportunity for discussion and revision of proposals and such revisions may be permitted after submission and prior to award for the purpose of obtaining best and final offers. In conducting discussions, there shall be no disclosure of any information derived from proposals submitted by competing offerors. (g) Award. Award shall be made to the responsible offeror whose proposal is determined in writing to be the most advantageous to the City taking into consideration price and the evaluation factors set forth in the Request for Proposals and the additional criteria set forth at Subsection 4.12.020(f) above. No other factors or criteria shall be used in the evaluation. The contract file shall contain the basis on which the award is made. (Code 1971, § 3-15; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.12.040. Small purchases. (a) Small purchases. Any procurement not exceeding ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) may be made by the Procurement Officer by negotiation without formal competition for the purchase of supplies, services or construction; subject, however, to the approval process required by Section 4.08.040. (b) Negotiated procurement. Negotiated procurement shall be made on the open market, but whenever practical or advantageous, the Procurement Officer shall obtain quotes from at least two (2) suppliers or vendors. Negotiated procurement shall be awarded to the person supplying the lowest responsible bid or offer. (c) Division of procurement. No contract shall be divided so as to constitute a small purchase under this Section. (Code 1971, § 3-16; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.12.050. Miscellaneous exemptions. (a) A contract may be awarded for a supply, service or construction item without competition when the Procurement Officer determines in writing that one (1) or more of the following conditions exist: (1) There exists only one (1) responsible source; (2) Although there exists more than one (1) responsible source, a competitive process cannot reasonably be used or, if used, will result in a substantially higher cost to the City, will otherwise injure the City's financial interests or will substantially impede the City's administrative functions or the delivery of services to the public or to provide uniform and economical repair and maintenance; (3) A particular supply or service is required in order to standardize or maintain standardization for the purpose of reducing financial investment or simplifying administration; (4) The supply is perishable; (5) The supply qualifies as an object of fine art; (6) A particular supply is required to match supplies in use; (7) A particular supply is required to enable use by a specific individual; (8) A particular supply is prescribed by a professional advisor; (9) The supply, service or construction is the subject of a change order to an existing contract for construction which does not exceed a cumulative cost of fifteen percent (15%) of the original contract awarded pursuant to an invitation for bids. (10) In any case where the City has, within the preceding two (2) years, pursuant to an invitation to bid, awarded a contract for the procurement of any supply, service or construction on a unit price basis, the Procurement Officer may negotiate with the successful bidder for the purchase of additional quantities of the supply, units of service or construction. No such procurement shall be made at a price higher than the previous award. (b) The Procurement Officer shall submit each determination made under this Section to the City Manager for prior approval. (Code 1971, § 3-17; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.12.060. Emergency procurement. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Title, in the case of an apparent emergency which threatens the public health, welfare or safety requiring the immediate purchase of a supply, service or construction, the City Manager shall have the power to authorize the Procurement Officer to secure the necessary items in the open market without competition regardless of the amount of the expenditure. (b) In no event shall the contract price exceed commercially reasonable prices. (c) A full written report of the circumstances of all emergency purchases over ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) shall be made by the City Manager to the City Council. The report shall be received by the City Council at a regular meeting and such report shall be open to public inspection. (Code 1971, § 3.18; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.12.070. State bid. A contract may be awarded for a supply, service or construction item on the terms and to the contractors that have been selected under the State's competitive bid system for use by local government. (Code 1971, § 3-19; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.12.080. Cancellation of invitations for bids or requests for proposals. An invitation for bids, a Request for Proposals or other solicitation may be canceled or any or all bids or proposals may be rejected in whole or in part as may be specified in the solicitation. The reasons therefor shall be made a part of the contract file. (Code 1971, § 3-20; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.12.090. Responsibility of bidders and offerors. (a) Determination of nonresponsibility. A written determination of nomesponsibility of a bidder or offeror may be made by the Procurement Officer upon reasonable grounds. The unreasonable failure of a bidder or offeror to promptly supply information in connection with an inquiry with respect to responsibility may be grounds for a determination of nonresponsibility with respect to such bidder or offeror. (b) Right of nondisclosure. Information fumished by a bidder or offeror pursuant to this Section shall not be disclosed outside of the City Manager's office, the City Attorney's office, the Finance Department or the Procurement Officer without prior written consent by the bidder or offeror. (Code 1971, § 3-21; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.12.100. Pre -qualifications of suppliers. Prospective suppliers may be pre -qualified for particular types of supplies, services and construction. Solicitation mailing lists of potential contractors shall include but shall not be limited to such pre -qualified suppliers. (Code 1971, § 3-22; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.12.110. Bid security. (a) Requirement for bid security. When deemed necessary by a department head or the Procurement Officer, bid bonds or other equivalent security shall be required and the invitation for bids or Request for Proposals shall describe the requirements. Bid security shall be a bond provided by a surety company authorized to do business in this state or the equivalent in cash or some other instrument in a form satisfactory to the City. (b) Amount of security bid. Bid security shall he in an amount equal to at least five percent (5%) of the amount of the bid. (c) Rejection of bids for noncompliance with bid security requirements. When the invitation for bids requires security, noncompliance requires that the bid be rejected unless it is determined that the bid fails to comply in a nonsubstantial manner with the security requirements. (d) Withdrawal of bids. After the bids are opened, they shall be irrevocable for the period specified in the invitation for bids, except as provided in Subsection 4.12.020(f) (Competitive sealed bidding, correction or withdrawal of bids; cancellation of awards). If a bidder is permitted to withdraw its bid before award, no action shall be had against the bidder or the bid security. (e) Forfeiture of security. Unsuccessful bidders or offerors shall be entitled to the return of any cash deposit following the execution of an agreement with the successful bidder. Unless a specific extension is granted in writing, a successful bidder or offeror shall forfeit any bid bond or equivalent security required by the procurement officer upon its failure to enter into a contract within fifteen (15) days after the award. (Code 1971, § 3-23; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.12.120. Contract performance and payment bonds. (a) When required; amounts. When a construction contract is awarded in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00) or it is deemed necessary by the Procurement Officer or the City Manager, the following bonds or security shall be delivered to the City and shall become binding on the parties upon the execution of the contract: (1) A performance bond or other security satisfactory to the City, executed by a surety company authorized to do business in this state or otherwise secured in a manner satisfactory to the City; and (2) A payment bond or other security satisfactory to the City, executed by a surety company authorized to do business in this state or otherwise secured in a manner satisfactory to the City, for the protection of all persons supplying labor and material to the contractor or its subcontractors for the performance of the work provided for in the contract. (b) Amount of bonds or other security. The amount of the performance and payment bonds or other security specified in Subsection (a) above shall be determined by the City Manager. In determining the amounts required, the City Manager shall weigh the following policy considerations: (1) The Colorado State Legislature has determined that for construction contracts in excess of fifty thousand dollars ($50,000.00), it is prudent to obtain performance and payment bonds in amounts equal to fifty percent (50%) of the price specified in the contract. (See Sections 24-105- 202 and 38-26-106, C.R.S.) (2) The City has a policy of encouraging local, minority- and women -owned businesses to participate in the City's procurement process. (See Section 4.08.020(b)(9) herein.) The cost of obtaining performance and payment bonds may discourage local, minority- and women -owned businesses from bidding on City construction projects. (3) It is in the City's interest to ensure that construction projects will be completed according to the contract documents without the City having to expend more than the contract amount. (4) It is in the City's interest to ensure that payment is made for all labor and materials supplied to City construction projects by contractors and subcontractors. (5) Certain construction projects may be required by state or federal law to be bonded in a particular manner or in a certain amount. (See Section 31-25-516, C.R.S., special improvement districts.) (6) Phasing of bond amounts should be considered, when appropriate, for projects that are constructed in discrete and identifiable phases. (Code 1971, § 3-24; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.12.130. Bond forms and copies. (a) Bond forms. The City Attorney may determine the form of the bonds required by this Title. (b) Certified copies of bonds. Any person may request and obtain from the City a certified copy of a bond upon payment of the cost of reproduction of the bond and postage, if any. A certified copy of a bond shall be prima facie evidence of the contents, execution and delivery of the original. (Code 1971, § 3-25; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) See. 4.12.140. Type of contracts. Subject to the limitations of this Section, any type of contract which will promote the best interests of the City may be used; provided that the use of a cost -plus -a -percentage -of -cost contract is prohibited. A cost -reimbursement contract may be used only when a determination is made in writing that such a contract is likely to be less costly to the City than any other type or that it is impracticable to obtain the supplies, services or construction required except under such a contract. (Code 1971, § 3-26; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.12.150. Multi -term contracts. (a) Specified period. No contract for supplies, services or construction, including all renewals, shall be made by the City for a period longer than five (5) years, unless authorized by resolution. All contracts extending beyond one (1) year in duration shall be contingent upon and subject to duly enacted appropriations of the City. (b) Determination prior to use. Prior to the utilization of a multi -year contract, it shall be determined in writing: (1) That estimated requirements cover the period of the contract and are reasonably firm and continuing; (2) That such a contract will serve the best interests of the City by encouraging effective competition or otherwise promoting economies in City procurement; (3) That the contract beyond the first fiscal year shall be expressly contingent upon the annual budgeting and appropriation of sufficient funds on an annual basis or by nonlapsing appropriations; and (4) That the contract clearly states that when funds are not appropriated or otherwise made available to support the continuation of the City's performance or obligations in a subsequent fiscal period, the contract shall be canceled. (Code 1971, § 3-27; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) See. 4.12.160. Contract clauses. The City Attorney may require the inclusion in City contracts of clauses providing for adjustments in prices, time of performance or other contract provisions, as deemed appropriate by the City Attorney and covering the following subjects: (1) Liquidated damages as appropriate; (2) Specified excuses for delay or nonperformance; (3) Termination of the contract for default; (4) Termination of the contract in whole or part for the convenience of the City; (5) Non-discrimination; (6) Insurance and indemnification requirements; (7) Notice of the applicability of the City Procurement Code. (Code 1971, § 3-28; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.12.170. Contract modifications and change orders; fiscal responsibility. Every contract modification, change order or contract price adjustment under a contract with the City shall be subject to prior written certification by the Finance Department as to the effect of the contract modification, change order or adjustment in contract price on the total project budget or the total contract budget. In the event that the certification discloses a resulting increase in the total project budget and/or the total contract budget, the Procurement Officer shall not execute or make such contract modification, change order or adjustment in contract price unless sufficient funds are available therefor or the scope of the project or contract is adjusted so as to permit the degree of completion that is feasible within the total project budget and/or total contract budget as it existed prior to the contract modification, change order or adjustment in contract price under consideration. (Code 1971, § 3-29; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.12.180. Right to inspect plant. The City may at reasonable times, inspect the part of the plant or place of business of a contractor or any subcontractor which is related to the performance of any contract awarded or to be awarded by the City. (Code 1971, § 3-30; Ord. No, 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.12.190. Right to audit records. The City shall be entitled to audit the books and records of a contractor or any subcontractor under any negotiated contract or subcontract other than a firm fixed -price contract to the extent that such books and records relate to the performance of such contact or subcontract. Such books and records shall be maintained by the contractor for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under the prime contract and by the subcontractor for a period of three (3) years from the date of final payment under the subcontract, unless a shorter period is otherwise authorized in writing. (Code 1971, § 3-3 1; Ord. No. 46- 1991, § 1) Sec. 4.12.200. Finality of determinations. The determinations required by Subsections 4.12.020(f) (Competitive sealed bidding, correction or withdrawal of bids; cancellation of awards), 4.12.030(a) (Competitive sealed proposals, conditions for use), 4.12.030(g) (Competitive sealed proposals, award), Sections 4.12.050 (Miscellaneous exemption), 4.12.060 (Emergency procurement), Subsections 4.12.090(a) (Responsibility of bidders and offerors, determination of nonresponsibility), 4.12.020(g) (Competitive sealed bidding, award), Sections 4.12.140 (Types of contracts) and 4.12.150 (Multi -term contracts determination prior to use) are final and conclusive unless they are clearly erroneous, arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law as determined by a court of competent jurisdiction. (Code 1971, § 3-32; Ord, No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.12.210. Reporting of anti -competitive practices. When for any reason collusion or other anti -competitive practices are suspected among any bidders or offerors, a notice of the relevant facts shall be transmitted to the City Attorney. (Code 1971, § 3-33; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.12.220. Retention of procurement records. All procurement records shall be retained and disposed of in accordance with records retention guidelines and schedules approved by the law. All retained documents shall be made available to the City Attorney or a designee upon request and proper receipt therefor. (Code 1971, § 3.34; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.12.230. Record of procurement actions taken under Sections 4.12.050 (Miscellaneous exemptions) and 4.12.060 (Emergency procurement). The Finance Department and City Clerk shall maintain a record listing all contracts made under Section 4.12.050, (Miscellaneous exemption) or Section 4.12.060 (Emergency procurement) for a minimum of three (3) years. The record shall contain: (1) Each contractor's name; (2) The amount and type of each contract; and (3) A listing of the supplies, services or construction procured under each contract. (Code 1971, § 3-35; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Chapter 4.16 LEGAL AND CONTRACTUAL REMEDIES Sec. 4.16.010. Authority to resolve protested solicitations and awards. (a) Right to protest. Any actual or prospective bidder, offeror or contractor who is aggrieved in connection with the solicitation or award of a contract may protest to the City Manager. The protest shall be submitted in writing within fourteen (14) days after such aggrieved person knows or should have known of the facts giving rise thereto. (b) Authority to resolve protests. The City Manager or his or her designee shall have the authority, prior to the commencement of an action in court concerning the controversy, to settle and resolve a protest of an aggrieved bidder, offeror or contractor, actual or prospective, concerning the solicitation or award of a contract. (c) Decision. If the protest is not resolved by mutual agreement, the City Manager or hid or her designee shall promptly issue a decision in writing. The decision shall: (1) State the reason for the action taken; and (2) Inform the protestant of its right to administrative review as provided in this Chapter. (d) Notice of decision. A copy of the decision under Subsection (c) above shall be mailed or otherwise furnished immediately to the protestant and any other party intervening. (e) Finality of decision. A decision under Subsection (c) of this Section shall be final and conclusive, unless the protestant appeals administratively to City Council acting as the Procurement Appeals Board. (Code 1971, § 3-36; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.16.020. Authority to debar or suspend. (a) Authority. After reasonable notice to the person involved and reasonable opportunity for that person to be heard, the City Manager, after consultation with the City Attorney, shall have the authority to debar a person for cause from consideration for award of contracts. The debarment shall not be for a period of more than three (3) years. The City Manager, after consultation with the City Attorney, shall also have authority to suspend a person from consideration for award of contracts if there is probable cause for debarment. The suspension shall not be for a period exceeding three (3) months. (b) Causes for debarment or suspension. The causes for debarment or suspension include the following: shall: (1) Conviction for commission of a criminal offense as an incident to obtaining or attempting to obtain a public or private contract or subcontract or in the performance of such contract or subcontract; (2) Conviction under state or federal statutes of embezzlement, tbeft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, receiving stolen property or any other offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty which currently, seriously and directly affects responsibility as a City contractor; (3) Conviction under state or federal antitrust statutes arising out of the submission of bids or proposals; (4) Violation of contract provisions, as set forth below, of a character which is regarded by the City Manager to be so serious as to justify debarment action: (A) Deliberate failure without good cause to perform in accordance with the specifications or within the time limit provided in the contract; or (B) A recent record of failure to perform or of unsatisfactory performance in accordance with the terms of one (1) or more contracts; provided that failure to perform or unsatisfactory performance caused by acts beyond the control of the contractor shall not be considered to be a basis for debarment; (5) Any other cause the City Manager determines to be so serious and compelling as to affect responsibility as a City contractor, including debarment by another governmental entity or failure to pay any municipal fine, fee, business license or permit; and (6) For violation of the ethical standards set forth in Chapter 4.20 (Ethics in Public Contracting). (c) Decision. The City Manager shall issue a written decision to debar or suspend. The decision (1) State the reasons for the action taken; and (2) Inform the debarred or suspended person involved of its right to administrative review as provided in this Code. (d) Notice of decision. A copy of the decision under Subsection (c) above shall be mailed or otherwise furnished immediately to the debarred or suspended person and any other party intervening. (e) Finality of decision. A decision under Subsection (c) above shall be final and conclusive, unless the debarred or suspended person appeals administratively to City Council acting as the Procurement Appeals Board. (Code 1971, § 3-37; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) See. 4.16.030. Authority to resolve contract and breach of contract controversies. (a) Applicability. This Section applies to controversies between the City and a contractor and which arise under or by virtue of, a contract between them. This includes, without limitation, controversies based upon breach of contract, mistake, misrepresentation or other cause for contract modification or rescission. (b) Authority. The City Manager or his or her designee is authorized, prior to commencement of an action in a court concerning the controversy, to settle and resolve a controversy described in Subsection (a) above. (c) Decision. If such a controversy is not resolved by mutual agreement, the City Manager or his or her designee shall promptly issue a decision in writing. The decision shall: (1) State the reason for the action taken; and (2) Inform the contractor of its right to administrative review as provided in this code. (d) Notice of decision. A copy of the decision under Subsection (c) above shall be mailed or otherwise furnished immediately to the contractor. (e) Finality of decision. The decision under Subsection (c) above shall be final and conclusive, unless the contractor appeals administratively to City Council acting as the Procurement Appeals Board. (f) Failure to render timely decisions. If the City Manager or his or her designee does not issue the written decision required under Subsection (c) above within one hundred twenty (120) days after written request for a final decision or within such longer period as may be agreed upon by the parties, then the contractor may proceed as if an adverse decision had been received. (Code 1971, § 3-38; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.16.040. Applicability of this Chapter. The provisions of this Chapter apply where it is determined administratively or upon administrative or judicial review, that a solicitation or award of a contract is in violation of law. (Code 1971, § 3-39; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) See. 4.16.050. Remedies prior to award. If prior to an award it is determined that a solicitation or proposed award of a contract is in violation of law, then the solicitation or proposed award shall be: (a) Canceled; or (b) Revised to comply with the law. (Code 1971, § 3-40; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.16.060. Remedies after an award. then: If after an award it is determined that a solicitation or award of a contract is in violation of the law, (a) If the person awarded the contract has not acted fraudulently or in bad faith: (1) The contract may be ratified and affirmed, provided it is determined that doing so is in the best interests of the City; or (2) The contract may be terminated upon payment of a reasonable profit to the,person awarded a contract. (b) If the person awarded the contract has acted fraudulently or in bad faith: (1) The contract may be declared null and void; or (2) The contract may be ratified and affirmed if such action is in the best interests of the City, without prejudice to the City's rights to such damages as may be appropriate. (Code 1971, § 3-41; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.16.070. Interest. Interest on amounts ultimately determined to be due to a contractor or the City shall be payable at the statutory rate applicable to judgments from the date the claim arose through the date of decision or judgment, whichever is later. (Code 1971, § 3-42; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.16.080. Creation of the Procurement Appeals Board. The City Council shall act as the Procurement Appeals Board. (Code 1971, § 3-43; Ord. No. 46- 1991, § 1) Sec. 4.16.090. Decision of the Procurement Appeals Board. Acting by one (1) or more of its members and with the assistance of the City Attorney, the Procurement Appeals Board shall issue a decision in writing or take other appropriate action on each appeal submitted. A copy of any decision shall be provided to all parties and the City Manager. (Code 1971, § 3-44; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.16.100. Jurisdiction of the Procurement Appeals Board. Unless an action has been initiated previously in court for essentially the same cause of action or unless within fifteen (15) days after the action is brought before the Procurement Appeals Board, written objection is made by either the aggrieved bidder, offeror or contractor, prospective or actual, the board shall have jurisdiction to review and determine de nova (a) Any protest of a solicitation or award of a contract addressed to the board by an aggrieved actual or prospective bidder or offeror or a contractor; and (b) Any appeal by an aggrieved party from a determination by the City Manager or a designee which is authorized by: (1) Section 4.16,010 (Authority to resolve protested solicitations and awards); (2) Section 4.16.020 (Authority to debar or suspend); and (3) Section 4.16.030 (Authority to resolve contracts and breach of contract controversies). (Code 1971, § 3-45; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.16.110. Protest of solicitations or awards. (a) Scope. This Section applies to: (1) A protest of solicitation or award of a contract addressed to the Procurement Appeals Board by an aggrieved actual or prospective bidder or offeror or a contractor; and (2) An appeal addressed to the board of a decision under Subsection 4.16.010(c) below (Authority to resolve protested solicitations and awards, decision). (b) Time limitations on filing a protest or an appeal. (1) For a protest under this Subsection (1), the aggrieved person shall file a protest with the board within fourteen (14) days after the aggrieved person knew or should have known of the facts and circumstances upon which the protest is based. (2) For an appeal under this Subsection (2), the aggrieved person shall file an appeal within seven (7) days of the receipt of a decision under Subsection 4,16.010(c) below (Authority to resolve protested solicitations and awards, decision). (c) Decision. On any direct protest under Subsection (a)(1) above or appeal under Subsection (ax2) above, the Board shall promptly decide whether the solicitation or award was in accordance with the Constitution, statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the solicitation. The proceedings shall be de novo. Any prior determinations by administrative officials shall not be final or conclusive. (d) Standard of review for factual issues. A determination of an issue of fact by the board under Subsection (c) above shall be final and conclusive. (Code 1971, § 3-46; Ord, No. 46.1991, § 1) Sec. 4.16.120. Suspension or debarment proceedings. (a) Scope. This Section applies to a review by the Procurement Appeals Board of a decision under Section 4.16.020, (Authority to debar or suspend). (b) Time limitation on filing an appeal. The aggrieved person shall file its appeal with the board within thirty (30) days of the receipt of a decision under Subsection 4.16.020(c) (Authority to debar or suspend, decision). (c) Decision. The board shall promptly decide whether or the extent to which, the debarment or suspension was in accordance with the constitution and statutes of the State and the ordinances and best interests of the City and was fair. The proceedings shall be de nova. Any prior determinations by administrative officials shall not be final or conclusive. (d) Standard of review for factual issues. A determination of an issue of fact by the board under Subsection (c) above shall be final and conclusive. (Code 1971, § 3-47; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.16.130. Contract and breach of contract controversies. (a) Scope. This Section applies to a review by the Procurement Appeals Board of a decision under Section 4.16.030 (Authority to resolve contract and breach of contract controversies). (b) Time limitation on filing an appeal. The aggrieved contractor shall file its appeal with the board within thirty (30) days of the receipt of the decision under Subsection 4.16.030(c) (Authority to resolve contract and breach of contract controversies, decision). (c) Decision. The board shall promptly decide the contract or breach of contract controversy. The proceedings shall be de novo. Any prior determination by administrative officials shall not be final or conclusive. (d) Standard of review for factual issues. A determination of an issue of fact by the board under Subsection (c) above shall be final and conclusive. (Code 1971, § 3-48; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.16.140. Finality of a decision on an issue of law. A determination by the Procurement Appeals Board on an issue of law shall be final and conclusive. (Code 1971, § 349; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.16.150. Appeal and review of Procurement Appeals Board decisions. Any person receiving an adverse decision from the Procurement Appeals Board may initiate an appeal to the courts. (Code 1971, § 3-50; Ord. No. 46.1991, § 1) Sec. 4.16.160. Discontinuance of contractor's appeal. After notice of an appeal to the Procurement Appeals Board has been filed, a contractor may not discontinue such appeal without prejudice, except as authorized by the board. (Code 1971, § 3-5 1; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Chapter 4.20 ETHICS IN PUBLIC CONTRACTING Sec. 4.20.010. Definitions of terms used in this Chapter. (a) Confidential information means any information which is available to an employee only because of the employee's status as an employee of this City and is not a matter of public knowledge or available to the public on request. (b) Conspicuously means written in such special or distinctive format, print or manner that a reasonable person against whom it is to operate ought to have noticed it. (c) Direct or indirect participation means involvement through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering of advice, investigation, auditing or in any other advisory capacity. (d) Financial interest means: (1) Ownership of any interest or involvement in any relationship from which or as a result of which, a person within the past year has received or is presently or in the future entitled to receive, more than one dollar ($1.00) per year or its equivalent; (2) Ownership of such interest in any property or any business as may be specified by the City Council; or (3) Holding a position in a business such as an officer, director, trustee, partner, employee or the like or holding any position of management. (e) Gratuity means a payment, loan, subscription, advance deposit of money, services or anything of more than nominal value, present or promised, unless consideration of substantially equal or greater value is received. (f) Immediate family means a spouse, children, parents, brothers or sisters. (g) Official responsibility means direct administrative or operating authority, whether intermediate or final, either exercisable alone or with others, either personally or through subordinates, to approve, disapprove or otherwise direct City action. (h) Purchase request means the document whereby a using agency requests that a contract be entered into for a specified need and may include, but is not limited to, the technical description of the requested item, delivery schedule, transportation, criteria for evaluation, suggested sources of supply and information supplied for the making of any written determination required by this Code. (Code 1971, § 3-52; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.20.020. Statement of policy. Public employment is a public trust. It is the policy of the City to promote and balance the objective of protecting government integrity and the objective of facilitating the recruitment and retention of personnel needed by the City. Such policy is implemented by prescribing essential standards of ethical conduct without creating unnecessary obstacles to entering public service. Public employees must discharge their duties impartially so as to assure fair, competitive access to governmental procurement by responsible contractors. Moreover, they should conduct themselves in such a manner as to foster public confidence in the integrity of the City procurement organization. To achieve the purpose of this Chapter, it is essential that those doing business with the City also observe the ethical standards prescribed herein. (Code 1971, § 3-53; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.20.030. General standards of ethical conduct. (a) General ethical standards for employees. Any attempt to realize personal gain through public employment by conduct inconsistent with the proper discharge of the employee's duties is a breach of a public trust. In order to fulfill this general prescribed standard, employees must also meet the specific standards set forth in: Sections 4.20,040 (Employee conflict of interest); 4.20.050 (Employee disclosure requirements); 4.20.060 (Gratuities and kickbacks); 4.20.070 (Prohibition against contingent fees); 4.20.080 (Restrictions on employment of present and former employees); and 4.20.090 (Use of confidential information). . (b) General ethical standards for nonemployees. Any effort to influence any public employee to breach the standards of ethical conduct set forth in this Section and in Sections 4.20.050 through 4.20.090 of this Chapter is also a breach of ethical standards. (Code 1971, § 3-54; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.20.040. Employee conflict of interest. (a) Conflict of interest. Unless a specific exemption is obtained pursuant to Subsection 4.20.080(a) below, it shall be a breach of ethical standards for any employee to participate directly or indirectly in drafting or preparing specifications, obtaining or processing approvals, participating in source selection or contract formation or granting approval for any procurement when the employee knows that: (1) The employee or any member of the employee's immediate family has a financial interest pertaining to the procurement; (2) A business or organization in which the employee or any member of the employee's immediate family, has a financial interest pertaining to the procurement; or (3) Any other person, business or organization with whom the employee or any member of the employee's immediate family is negotiating or has an arrangement concerning prospective employment is involved in the procurement. (b) Discovery of actual or potential conflict of interest, disqualification and waiver. Upon the discovery of an actual or potential conflict of interest, an employee shall promptly file a written statement of disqualification and shall withdraw from further participation in the transaction involved. The employee may, at the same time, apply to the City Attorney in accordance with Subsection 4.20.130(a) for an advisory opinion as to what further participation, if any, the employee may have in the transaction. (c) Notice. Notice of this prohibition shall be provided in accordance with regulations promulgated by the finance department. (Code 1971, § 3-55; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.20.050. Employee disclosure requirements. (a) Disclosure of benefit received from contract. Any employee who has or obtains any benefit from, any City contract with a business in which the employee has a financial interest shall report such benefit to the City Attorney; provided, however, this Section shall not apply to a contract with a business where the employee's interest in the business has been placed in a disclosed blind trust. (b) Failure to disclose benefit received. Any employee who knows or should have known of such benefit and fails to report such benefit to the City Attorney, is in breach of the ethical standards of this section. (c) Notice. Notice of this requirement shall be provided in accordance with regulations promulgated by the finance department. (Code 1971, § 3-56; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.20.060. Gratuities and kickbacks. (a) Gratuities. It shall be a breach of ethical standards for any person to offer, give or agree to give any employee or former employee or for any employee or former employee to solicit, demand, accept or agree to accept from another person, a gratuity or an offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering of advice, investigation, auditing or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for ruling, determination, claim or controversy or other particular matter pertaining to any program requirement or a contract or subcontract or to any solicitation or proposal therefor. (b) Kickbacks. It shall be a breach of ethical standards for any payment, gratuity or offer of employment to be made by or on behalf of a subcontractor under a contract to the prime contractor or higher tier subcontractor or any person associated therewith, as an inducement for the award of a subcontract or order. (c) Contract clause. The prohibition against gratuities and kickbacks prescribed in this Section shall be conspicuously set forth in every contract and solicitation therefor. (Code 1971, § 3-57; Ord. No. 46-1991, § I) Sec. 4.20,070, Prohibition against contingent fees. (a) Contingent fees. It shall be a breach of ethical standards for a person to be retained or to retain a person, to solicit or secure a City contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, except for retention of a bona fide employee, bona fide established commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business or a contract for legal services. (b) Representation of contractor. Every person, before being awarded a City contract, shall represent in writing, that such person has not retained anyone in violation of Subsection (a) above. Failure to do so constitutes a breach of ethical standards. (c) Contract clause. The representation prescribed in Subsection (b) above shall be conspicuously set forth in every contract and solicitation therefor. (Code 1971, § 3-58; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.20.080. Restrictions on employment of present and former employees. Disqualification of business when an employee has a financial interest. It shall be a breach of ethical standards for a business in which an employee has a financial interest knowingly to act as a principal or as an agent for anyone other than the City, in connection with any: (1) Judicial or other proceeding, application, request for a ruling or other determination; (2) Contract; (3) Claim; or (4) Charge or controversy, in which the employee either participates personally and substantially through decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, the rendering of advice, investigation or otherwise under the provisions of this code or which is the subject of the employee's official responsibility under the provisions of this code, where the City is a party or has direct or substantial interest. (Code 1971, § 3-59; Ord. No. 46-1991, § l; Ord. No. 19-2003, § 2) Sec. 4.20.090. Use of confidential information. It shall be a breach of ethical standards for any employee or former employee knowingly to use confidential information for actual or anticipated personal gain or for the actual or anticipated personal gain of another person. (Code 1971, § 3-60; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.20.100. Civil and administrative remedies against employees who breach ethical standards. (a) Existing remedies not impaired. Civil and administrative remedies against employees which are in existence on the effective date of this Code shall not be impaired. (b) Supplemental remedies. In addition to existing remedies for breach of the ethical standards of this article or regulations promulgated hereunder, the City Manager may impose any one (1) or more of the following: (1) Oral or written warnings or reprimands; (2) Suspension with or without pay for a specified period of time; and (3) Termination of employment. (c) Right to recover from employee value received in breach of ethical standards. The value of anything received by an employee in breach of the ethical standards of this article or regulations promulgated hereunder shall be recoverable by the City as provided in Section 4.20.120 (Recovery of value transferred or received in breach of ethical standards). (d) Due process. All procedures under this Section shall be in accordance with due process requirements and existing law In addition, notice and an opportunity for a hearing shall be provided prior to imposition of any suspension or termination of employment. (Code 1971, § 3-61; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.20.110. Civil and administrative remedies against nonemployees who breach ethical standards. (a) Existing remedies not impaired. Civil and administrative remedies against nonemployees which are in existence on the effective date of this Code shall not be impaired. (b) Supplemental remedies. In addition to existing remedies for breach of the ethical standards of this article or regulations promulgated hereunder, the City Manager may impose any one (1) or more of the following: (1) Written warnings or reprimands; (2) Termination of transactions; and (3) Debarment or suspension from being a contractor or subcontractor under City contracts. (c) Right to recover from nonemployee value transferred in breach of ethical standards. The value of anything transferred in a breach of ethical standards of this article or regulations promulgated hereunder by a nonemployee shall be recoverable by the City as provided in Section 4.20.120 (Recovery of value transferred or received in breach of ethical standards). (d) Right of the City to debar or suspend. Debarment or suspension may be imposed in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 4.16.020 (Authority to debar or suspend) for breach of the ethical standards of this article, provided that such action may not be taken without the concurrence of the City Attorney. (e) Due process. All procedures under this Section shall be in accordance with due process requirements, including but not limited to, a right to notice and an opportunity for a hearing prior to imposition of any termination, debarment or suspension from being a contractor or subcontractor under a City contract. (Code 1971, § 3-62; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.20.120. Recovery of value transferred or received in breach of ethical standards. (a) General provisions. The value of anything transferred or received in breach of the ethical standards of this Chapter or regulations promulgated hereunder by an employee or a nonemployee may be recovered from both the employee and nonemployee. (b) Recovery of kickbacks by the City. Upon a showing that a subcontractor made a kickback to a prime contractor or a higher tier subcontractor in connection with the award of a subcontract or order thereunder, it shall be conclusively presumed that the amount thereof was included in the price of the subcontract or order and ultimately borne by the City and will be recoverable hereunder from the recipient. In addition, said value may also be recovered from the subcontractor making such kickbacks. Recovery from one (1) offending party shall not preclude recovery from the other offending parties. (Code 1971, § 3-63; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Sec. 4.20.130. Opinions and waivers. (a) Advisory opinions. On written request of employees, the City Manager or City Council, the City Attorney may render advisory opinions regarding the appropriateness of the course of conduct to be followed in proposed transactions. Compliance with requirements of a duly promulgated advisory opinion of the City Attomey shall be deemed to constitute compliance with the ethical standards of this Chapter. (b) Waiver. On written request of an employee, with the prior concurrence of the City Manager, the City Council may grant an employee a written waiver from the application of Section 4.20.040 (Employee conflict of interest) and grant permission to proceed with the transaction to such extent and upon such terms and conditions as may be specified. Such waiver and permission may be granted when the interests of the City so require or when the ethical conflict is insubstantial or remote. (Code 1971, § 3-64; Ord. No. 46-1991, § 1) Chapter 4.24 SUPPLY MANAGEMENT Sec. 4.24.010. Supply management regulations required. The Finance Department, with the prior written approval of the City Manager, shall promulgate regulations governing: (a) The management and inventory of supplies during their entire useful life; and (b) The sale, lease or disposal of surplus supplies by public auction, competitive sealed bidding or other appropriate method designated by regulation. (Code 1971, § 3-65; Ord. No. 46- 1991, § 1)