Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20130401 THE CITY OF ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION April 01, 2013 5:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Wheeler Balcony and Technology Upgrade Project II. 2013 Energy Conservation and Efficiency Program Update III. Energy Use Trends IV. Regional Water Conservation Plan i MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Ireland and Council FROM: Wheeler Executive Director Gram Slaton THRU: Assistant City Manager Randy Ready DATE OF MEMO: 16 March 2013 DATE Of MEETING: 1 April 2013 RE: Wheeler Balcony and Technology Upgrade Project SUMMARY: Wheeler staff and board seek direction from City Council on a preferred design option for the joint balcony/media technology remodel for the Wheeler Opera House. The recommended design comes at the end of full consideration of several design options, and after presentation to and feedback from such stakeholders as the Aspen Music Festival and School, Aspen Film, the Wheeler Film Society and the Wheeler Board. The construction project is scheduled to begin on Tuesday, September 3, 2013, with a completion date not later than December 18, 2013, in order to proceed with a full slate of winter programming at the Wheeler. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: At the June 5, 2012, work session with Wheeler staff, Council gave approval for a comprehensive study of the Wheeler balcony and its theatre technology in order to assess the feasibility and financial impact of a possible public space/media technology remodel. On September 4, 2012, Council gave approval to budget $2.9 million as a capital project amount for the 2013 budget for this joint project, and to proceed to the next stage of development. After a competitive bid process, Council approved a design contract with the team headed by Mills and Schnoering Architects. The design and technology team has been busy since that time in working with staff and stakeholders on design alternatives. BACKGROUND: The balcony and technology remodel is intended to deal with some longstanding comfort and safety issues associated with the balcony’s public area, as well as to address the immediate challenge of upgrading the Wheeler’s media (centered in its balcony booth) in order to stay current with present media needs and demands, including the film industry’s fast-tracked changeover from 35mm to digital cinema projection (DCP). The film industry will be totally converted to digital projection by December of this year. Because these two projects are so closely connected, it is most cost- and time- effective to undertake these projects jointly within a compressed timeframe that would limit Wheeler downtime and take advantage of the fall off-season. DISCUSSION: Michael Schnoering from Mills + Schnoering Architects LLC (MSa) worked with Wheeler staff to develop four very different design options for the Wheeler balcony and its technical needs, based on fulfilling a short list of requirements that staff had developed, including maintaining seat count, switching from 35mm to DCP technology, and introduction of a video desk for non-DCP media and live-production P1 I. editing. Technical booth positions were considered for the southeast balcony corner, the extreme house-right audience area, and an expanded tech footprint in the rear orchestra level for light and media tech, while maintaining a fixed center-rear balcony position for the DCP and non-DCP projectors. However, each of these alternatives is problematic in itself (sightlines, noise levels, etc.) and forces a reduced seat count. Scheme 4, which was presented in two iterations, quickly became the preferred option, with a two-level booth area at the center-rear position. The design iteration that limits expansion of the center of the balcony bow to six inches (6”) still causes a reduced seat count but fixes concerns created by the other design options. An alternate Scheme 4 that moves the center of the balcony bow out to a maximum of twenty-four inches (24”) allows a third row of premium center-front seating in front of the tech booth and restores the balcony’s 137-count for seating. It also appears to best integrate itself into the 19th Century design of the balcony. Wheeler board, staff, and user groups reviewed the impact of the change of the balcony bow with the 24” alteration and find it fundamentally imperceptible. It is important to note also that MSa’s engineering studies of the balcony structure revealed that construction of the front third of the balcony area is below standard and has actually caused sagging at the extreme house-right seating area of half a foot or more. This is because the ribbing structure radiating from the central support beam is undersized and was not installed with modern engineering standards with regard to cantilever design. This explains the “bounce” that audience members have experienced for years (as well as a certain amount of bounce of movie images during the full house for film). It also helps explain why another balcony support post was added sometime in the 1960s. However, that post actually does not properly carry weight load but only serves as a protective brace. Because of this, MSa is proposing dismantling the entire front third of the balcony and correctly engineering and constructing it for this remodel. The new balcony construction will meet current codes for floor loading in an assembly (theater) use, and will allow the removal of the post that was added, along with eliminating the space and sightline constraints that it has caused over the years. The proposed technical booth, which would be considerably smaller than the present “Whale,” would have sufficient room for two to three tech personnel, and would position the DCP/non-DCP projectors at an acceptable height and angle for non-distorted film projection. One design change that user groups strongly suggested was to have some non-sealed access to the upper DCP chamber, which the design team has been able to provide. Two questions have been raised in terms of the filmic element of this joint project: Does the removal of the 35mm projects compromise movie programming? And should the new projection system include 3- D capability? It is important to understand that what is being replaced is the method of displaying film content; the majority of movies, especially classics, have long been switched over to a digital form, whether that be DVD, Blu-Ray, or purely digital for download and display. The Wheeler Film Society will still have the ability to run classic movies such as “Lost Horizon” or “Dr. Zhivago,” but they would be in restored digital format, not 35mm or 70mm form. This is akin to the switchover from vinyl to CD to digital download for music that occurred over the past thirty years. While there are some music purists who believe classic albums can only be heard played on a turntable, the majority of music lovers made the switch away from vinyl quite successfully and very quickly. As for 3-D, the rationale for not including this media option at this time was made primarily based on additional cost, including ongoing costs, as well as a firm belief among industry professionals that Wheeler staff has interviewed that future enhancements of movie technology will remove 3-D’s reason P2 I. for being through the tremendous gains in depth of field associated with moving the frames-per-second (fps) rate from the current standard of 24fps, to 40fps, to 60fps, and ultimately 120fps, all of which is in rapid development now. The recommended projection equipment will be capable of being readily upgraded to take advantage of the anticipated increases in frames per second display technology. Furthermore, 3-D requires additional display equipment as well as special glasses that must be worn by the movie public and then must be recaptured at the end of the screening. There is also an ongoing debate within the industry about whether a traditional roll-up screen is acceptable, or whether 3-D should only be displayed on a fixed, rough-glass surface, which is something the Wheeler cannot successfully introduce due to stagehouse constraints. The current mini-era of 3-D popularity appears to have ebbed as the introduction of 40fps (as used recently in “The Hobbit”) shows the promise of the new DCP technology. The final elements of the balcony/technology project center on improvements to the audience chamber, particularly in terms of improved sound under the balcony and greatly improved general and safety lighting for the audience. Again, several options were considered and the Wheeler staff, board, and select user groups indicated that the one that intruded least upon the historic design of the ceiling was most preferable. Staff looks forward to Council’s direction on that as well as the other design issues outlined above. BUDGET IMPACT: The September 2012 study by Quinn Evans Architects suggested a budget of $2.9 million for the project, which includes contingencies built within the individual construction division lines for the project, a 20% design contingency, plus a 10% Owner Contingency and 5% City Asset Management Cost (about $350,000). That amount was previously approved by City Council and included in the 2013 capital projects budget. The design team, Wheeler staff and City of Aspen Asset Management staff anticipate that the project will remain within budget. The addition of a contractor-at-risk and the development of a Guaranteed Maximum Price over the next several weeks will allow staff to return to Council with refined budget figures for approval to proceed with the next stages of the project. Staff is also actively applying for certain energy-efficiency grants, and looking into the possibility of equipment underwriting grants from arts enthusiasts. ALTERNATIVES: Council’s direction on the major design issues outlined above is welcome and timely. Should City Council not approve of proceeding with the next phase of the remodel project at this time, the Wheeler could instead purchase the DCP equipment and adapt it to its present projection options in order to continue film programming into late 2013 and beyond, if necessary. The expected cost of this partial upgrade is approximately $100,000 for the DCP unit and its peripheral equipment, plus about $50,000 for infrastructure remodeling and adaptation (which would become redundant upon approval of another balcony-remodel design). Another location within the audience chamber would need to be identified for the media desk, with remodeling and adaptation costs then associated with that compromise as well. The balcony design and seating could continue as it is, at no cost. RECOMMENDATION/COMMENT: Wheeler staff and board recommend that City Council approve the preferred design and technology recommendations, which will allow the project to stay current with its aggressive construction timeline and be successfully completed by December 2013. P3 I. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: P4 I. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jeff Rice, Utilities Energy Efficiency Manager THRU: David Hornbacher, Director of Utilities & Environmental Initiatives DATE OF MEMO: March 28, 2013 MEETING DATE: April 1, 2013 RE: City of Aspen Utility Energy Efficiency REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff will present Aspen’s Municipal Electric Utility Efficiency programs from inception to current status to update Council. The overall objective of this work session is to provide Council with the understanding and knowledge of these efficiency programs and the utility’s dedication to energy efficiency as a whole. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In 2005, the City adopted the innovative Canary Initiative, identifying Aspen and other mountain communities as the “canaries in the coal mine,” representing our heightened sensitivity to the deleterious effects of climate change. The overall goal of the Canary Initiative is to aggressively reduce Aspen’s carbon footprint and contribution to climate change pollution. In the fall budget process of 2005, $300,000 in annual electric and water efficiency and conservation funding was approved for programs supporting water and electric efficiency that benefit rate payers. In May of 2007, City Council adopted the Climate Action Plan. A central component of the Climate Action Plan is to “Meet all growth in electricity demand since 2004 with new, zero- carbon dioxide sources of electricity with an end goal of 100% renewable energy by 2015.”1 Energy efficiency, also known as Demand Side Management (DSM), is not only a key strategy in reaching this goal, but also a key component in resource management. BACKGROUND: January of 2006 the City of Aspen Utilities created a Utilities Efficiency Division and hired a Utilities Efficiency Manager (UEM) to plan, design and implement electric and water efficiency and conservation programs. At its inception only 50 percent of the UEM’s time was focused on efficiency and conservation. In July of 2007 this position evolved into a full-time, dedicated efficiency and conservation manager, working collaboratively with local 1 City of Aspen Canary Initiative, Climate Action Plan, 2007, Introduction (p. 28) P5 II. sustainable non-profits (CORE and ACES), sister utilities (Holy Cross Energy and SourceGas), and with an advisory and consulting presence at the regional and state level. In 2007 Utilities Efficiency (UE) founded the annual Rocky Mountain Utility Efficiency Exchange to share and promote efficiency knowledge, programs, and technologies. In 2008 the Environmental Initiatives team was formed, combining the resources and staff expertise of the Canary Initiative, Environmental Health, Renewables, and Utilities Efficiency teams. In 2009, UE helped bring the Building Performance Institute (BPI) existing home energy assessment model to Colorado, partnering with Colorado Mountain College to train and certify local contractors, contributing to the growth of the green economy during the recession. This was a turnkey program contributing to the successful launching of Energy Smart Colorado in Pitkin, Gunnison, and Eagle Counties in the late fall of 2010. In 2011 the Environmental Initiatives Team reorganized, paring down to the combined staff resources of Utility Efficiency division and the Canary Initiative to focus on high priority, impactful and innovative efficiency, renewable, and carbon reducing projects. Efficiency staff has a continuing presence at a myriad of City events—i.e. Saturday Markets, ARE Day, Earth Day, Community Picnic, Arbor Day, and more. We continue to collaborate with our local partners to bring increased efficiency programing and outreach to all of our citizens. DISCUSSION: The City of Aspen Utilities provides electric and water efficiency programs, projects, and outreach to benefit both our utility customers and our utility resources. Through DSM we work with our customers to reduce their electric consumption, use energy more efficiently without sacrificing quality and comfort, and reduce their carbon footprint. Efficiency is a Resource Side Management (RSM) strategy that in the long term can extend resources and lead to savings through avoided costs of additional higher cost purchase power supplies. Similar to our utilities, efficiency is a key DSM/RSM strategy tool in the mass majority of utilities across the state and country. The benefits of efficiency programs extends beyond the utility and its customers, contributing to the growth of the local and regional economy through job creation, dollar savings and local reinvestment of those dollar savings in the community, and the advancement of technologies such as solar PV, automated controls, smart grid, advanced appliances, and efficient lighting. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Increasing and successful energy efficiency programs and projects reduce energy consumption and directly impact utility revenue. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Achieving energy reduction through efficiency and conservation will bring us closer to the goal of a 100 percent carbon neutral electric utility and further establish the City as an environmental leader. Moreover, it will contribute to reducing our contribution to global GHG emissions, as well as provide an example for other cities and utilities to follow. P6 II. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff welcomes Council’s thoughts on progress to date, as well as questions and recommendations for ongoing efforts to increase effectiveness. ALTERNATIVES: Council may request additional discussions concerning future scope of efficiency programing and implementation. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: N/A P7 II. Page 1 of 2 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Lee Ledesma, Utility Operations Manager THRU: Dave Hornbacher, Director of Utilities & Environmental Initiatives THRU: Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: March 28, 2012 MEETING DATE: April 1, 2013 RE: Energy Use Trends REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests City Council become aware of a steady decline in electric energy use of approximately 1.3 percent annually since 2008 even though the number of electric accounts has increased 2 percent annually during this same period of time. This local trend exceeds the experience associated with national consumption trends, where efficiency programs are at best offsetting growth in the utilities’ customer base. Because declining electric sales have occurred at a rate that has exceeded the expected effect of conservation programs (i.e. that growth would offset the decline in usage per customer) and because these assumptions were included in the last rate revisions, it will require a rate discussion later this year to address current challenges for Aspen Electric in order to achieve recovery of costs through its’ rate program. As stated by American Public Power Association in a report titled The Effect of Energy Efficiency Programs on Electric Utility Revenue Requirements, “Successful conservation and energy efficiency programs decrease sales, and since electric utility rates typically are based on sales volume, also decrease utility revenues.” PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: In September of 2011 City Council approved rate adjustments that became effective November 1, 2011 and also included annual rate adjustments starting January 1, 2013 through January 1, 2015. BACKGROUND: During summer of 2011, city staff presented various rate adjustment options to City Council over the course of three months. Council’s final direction involved a multi-year transition to cost-of-service rates to mitigate customer bill impacts. During this transition, it was projected that class cost of service will be met in 2017 and availability charge transition will occur in approximately 2022. DISCUSSION: The City of Aspen Electric utility develops its rate formula based on historical consumption trends with a particular emphasis on how usage is divided between the various tiers applicable to each customer class. Recent data shows that more of the conservation is occurring for those customers who have usage in the higher priced tiers, thereby disproportionately affecting revenue (rates for the 4th tier can be as much as 4 times as expensive as base tier usage). Taking P9 III. Page 2 of 2 into account that revenue needs to cover operating expenses and infrastructure and capital improvements, it is apparent that the unexpected levels of conservation in the upper tier usage requires a reevaluation of the rate system. We now need to add in variables that will address how investments in energy efficiency will affect sales. If energy efficiency programs are resulting in greater revenue losses than expected and continue to affect the utility’s financial health, it is now necessary to readdress current efficiency trends, the progress of our transition to cost of service rates, changes in purchased power costs, and what can be done to maintain a healthy Electric Fund in 2013 and beyond. The effect of future rate adjustments should be minimal compared to the benefits from reduced usage. Customers who receive energy efficiency services will use less and the net effect should still be lower bills even with anticipated rate adjustments. Rates and costs of customers who do not receive the direct benefits of efficiency programs may increase more than the projected median increases. Additional benefits of energy efficiency programs are the providing of jobs in the area of weather- proofing, energy audits, and the installation of new technology and upgraded equipment. Over the long term, it can also lead to lower total costs because it will lower the city’s reliance on higher-cost purchase power supplies. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: The Electric utility realized a significant revenue shortfall in 2012 of approximately 5 percent or $370,000. City staff plans to do a thorough analysis of economic and consumption trends affecting the Electric utility and provide a full presentation of these results this summer. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The beneficial results of successful conservation and efficiency programs is that they help manage energy load, especially peak loads, they defer the need to build new infrastructure, they help manage resource adequacy, and they reduce customers’ bills. RECOMMENDED ACTION: None at this time. Staff plans a more complete presentation to City Council on Electric utility revenue, purchased power costs and rate adjustment recommendations in mid-summer 2013. ALTERNATIVES: Council could request addressing Electric utility revenue concerns with city staff prior to mid-summer. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A – Trend in Electric Utility Energy Use Exhibit B – Trend in Electric Utility Customer Accounts Exhibit C – Summary of Electric Utility Billing Data P10 III.  No t e s : 1.  El e c t r i c a l  en e r g y  us e  ha s  de c r e a s e d  ab o u t  1. 3 %  an n u a l l y  si n c e  20 0 8 . Tr e n d  in  El e c t r i c  Ut i l i t y  En e r g y  Us e 2.  AR C  (s t a r t e d  Fe b r u a r y  20 1 2 ) ,  Pa r k s  El e c t r i c  (s t a r t e d  No v e m b e r  20 1 1  an d  Ap r i l  20 1 2 ) ,  an d  tw o  recent  co n s t r u c t i o n  pr o j e c t s  (s t a r t e d  Ma y  20 1 2  an d  Se p t e m b e r  20 1 2 )  ar e  no t  in c l u d e d  in  or d e r  to  be t t e r  portray the  fi v e  ye a r  tr e n d . 0 10 , 0 0 0 20 , 0 0 0 30 , 0 0 0 40 , 0 0 0 50 , 0 0 0 60 , 0 0 0 70 , 0 0 0 80 , 0 0 0 20 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 1,000 kWh RE S I D E N T I A L CO M M E R C I A L TO T A L Pr e p a r e d  by  Re d  Oa k  Co n s u l t i n g March 26, 2013P11III.  No t e :   1.  Th e  nu m b e r  of  el e c t r i c a l  cu s t o m e r  ac c o u n t s  ha s  in c r e a s e d  ab o u t  2%  an n u a l l y  si n c e  20 0 8 . Tr e n d  in  El e c t r i c  Ut i l i t y  Cu s t o m e r  Ac c o u n t s 0 50 0 1, 0 0 0 1, 5 0 0 2, 0 0 0 2, 5 0 0 3, 0 0 0 3, 5 0 0 20 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 2 0 1 3 2 0 1 4 2 0 1 5 2 0 1 6 2 0 1 7 No. of Accounts RE S I D E N T I A L CO M M E R C I A L TO T A L Pr e p a r e d  by  Re d  Oa k  Co n s u l t i n g March 26, 2013P12III. 20 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 AV G RE S I D E N T I A L 1 6 9 2 5 1 6 5 5 9 1 5 8 1 6 1 7 8 1 5 1 5 8 2 5 1 6 5 8 8 MU L T I ‐FA M ( 2 ‐4) 2 3 4 0 2 4 6 4 2 4 3 5 2 5 4 6 2 2 2 6 2 4 0 2 MU L T I ‐FA M ( 5 + ) 3 2 3 1 3 2 2 2 3 3 8 7 3 6 9 1 3 3 0 2 3 3 6 7 CO M M E R C I A L 4 1 0 6 0 3 9 5 2 6 3 9 6 6 1 3 6 7 3 4 3 8 5 4 4 3 9 1 0 5 CI T Y 3 1 6 0 2 7 5 1 2 9 9 5 2 8 9 3 3 1 6 8 2 9 9 4 IR R I G A T I O N 1 1 0 7 2 5 0 7 6 8 7 7 9 TO T A L 6 6 , 8 2 6                                64 , 5 9 4                              64 , 3 4 3                            63 , 7 5 5                                63 , 1 5 3                              64,534                      20 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 AV G RE S I D E N T I A L 1 4 , 5 0 9                                13 , 5 4 3                              14 , 6 6 8                            14 , 7 1 8                                14 , 8 0 2                              14,448                      MU L T I ‐FA M ( 2 ‐4) 2 , 0 4 7                                      2, 5 0 7                                    2, 3 4 0                                2, 3 4 4                                      2, 3 5 9                                    2,319                          MU L T I ‐FA M ( 5 + ) 5 , 2 0 9                                      5, 7 9 2                                    5, 4 1 6                                5, 4 3 8                                      5, 5 5 4                                    5,482                          CO M M E R C I A L 1 0 , 6 1 5                                9, 7 4 4                                    10 , 9 5 9                            11 , 2 6 0                                11 , 7 7 7                              10,871                      CI T Y 3 1 6                                            29 4                                          32 8                                        32 0                                            39 1                                          330                                IR R I G A T I O N 8 4                                                74                                              72                                            72                                              72                                              75                                      TO T A L 3 2 , 7 8 0                                31 , 9 5 4                              33 , 7 8 3                            34 , 1 5 2                                34 , 9 5 5                              33,525                      20 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 AV G RE S I D E N T I A L 1 2 0 9 1 1 2 9 1 2 2 2 1 2 2 7 1 2 3 4 1 2 0 4 MU L T I ‐FA M ( 2 ‐4) 1 7 1 2 0 9 1 9 5 1 9 5 1 9 7 1 9 3 MU L T I ‐FA M ( 5 + ) 4 3 4 4 8 3 4 5 1 4 5 3 4 6 3 4 5 7 CO M M E R C I A L 8 8 5 8 1 2 9 1 3 9 3 8 9 8 1 9 0 6 CI T Y 2 6 2 5 2 7 2 7 3 3 2 7 IRRIGATION 7 6 6 6 6 6 TO T A L 2 , 7 3 2                                      2, 6 6 3                                    2, 8 1 5                                2, 8 4 6                                      2, 9 1 3                                    2,794                          20 0 8 2 0 0 9 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 1 2 0 1 2 AV G RE S I D E N T I A L 1 , 1 6 6                                      1, 2 2 3                                    1, 0 7 8                                1, 2 1 0                                      1, 0 6 9                                    1,149                          MU L T I ‐FA M ( 2 ‐4) 1 , 1 4 3                                      98 3                                          1, 0 4 0                                1, 0 8 6                                      94 4                                          1,039                          MU L T I ‐FA M ( 5 + ) 6 2 0                                            55 6                                          62 5                                        67 9                                            59 5                                          615                                CO M M E R C I A L 3 , 8 6 8                                      4, 0 5 6                                    3, 6 1 9                                3, 2 6 2                                      3, 2 7 3                                    3,616                          CI T Y 1 0 , 0 0 0                                9, 3 5 8                                    9, 1 3 2                                9, 0 4 1                                      8, 1 0 2                                    9,127                          IR R I G A T I O N 1 , 3 0 9                                      96 8                                          69 6                                        1, 0 5 1                                      1, 2 0 4                                    1,045                          Su m m a r y  of  El e c t r i c  Ut i l i t y  Bi l l i n g  Da t a (t a b l e s  ex c l u d e  AR C ,  pa r k s  el e c t r i c ,  an d  co n s t r u c t i o n  pr o j e c t  da t a ) 1, 0 0 0  kW h kW h / B i l l # of  Mo n t h l y  Bi l l s # of  Ac c o u n t s  (#  of  Mo n t h l y  Bi l l s  / 12  mo n t h s ) Pr e p a r e d  by  Re d  Oa k  Co n s u l t i n g March 26, 2013P13III. MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Jason Haber, Community Office for Resource Efficiency (CORE) CC: Steve Barwick, City Manager Jim True, City Attorney DATE OF MEMO: March 28, 2013 MEETING DATE: April 1, 2013 SUBJECT: Roaring Fork Watershed – Regional Water Efficiency Plan REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff requests Council direction concerning the City’s participation in creating a regional water efficiency plan, and the attached draft Memorandum of Understanding. BACKGROUND: The 2004 Colorado Water Conservation Act (HB 04-1365) requires that covered entities (water providers that sell 2,000+ Acre Feet per year) have a state-approved water efficiency plan. The Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) is the state’s designated approving body. The City of Aspen Water Department is a covered entity; however a state-approved plan has not been completed to date. In the Roaring Fork Watershed, Glenwood Springs is the only other covered entity. Their water efficiency plan was approved in 2009. Snowmass Water and Sanitation District, the Town of Basalt, and Town of Carbondale are not covered entities, although they are also considering participation in the regional plan. In March 2012, the Roaring Fork Conservancy (RFC), Reudi Water and Power Authority (RWAPA), and numerous other partners operating within the Roaring Fork Watershed finished a comprehensive Roaring Fork Watershed Management Plan. The Watershed Plan assessed the conditions of the watershed and local water resources and recommended actions to preserve and improve those resources. Among the Watershed Plan’s 200+ recommendations were 10 urgent actions, including the creation of: 1) a water conservation plan to increase in-stream flows and aquatic/riparian ecosystem health; and, 2) a water conservation education campaign geared towards major water consuming sectors, such as agriculture, to encourage water use efficiency. DISCUSSION: An emerging strategy in water resource management is regional water conservation planning. While there are still relatively few regional water conservation plans being implemented, they are becoming more common as a water management tool in watersheds that span multiple jurisdictions because they work to bring together stakeholders within the entire watershed. CORE, RFC, RWAPA, and P15 IV. other partners operating in the watershed have begun the process to develop a regional water conservation plan for the Roaring Fork. CORE recently received a small grant from the CWCB to conduct an outreach effort to build consensus and buy-in to the regional planning effort among municipal water providers throughout the valley. Meeting with the Aspen City Council is one of the first steps in that effort. Following our work session, similar discussions will be conducted with the boards of each of the remaining partner water providers. As outlined in the attached DRAFT Memorandum of Understanding there are several benefits associated with adoption of a water efficiency plan, which can be leveraged by taking a more regional approach. In the end, it is envisioned that each water provider, including the City, would have its own plan, documenting the specific conditions and conservation strategies most appropriate to your community. However, these plans would also be included under a Roaring Fork Watershed umbrella plan that would identify shared goals and collaborative opportunities to enhance conservation at the Watershed level. In creating a regional water conservation plan, it will be a benefit to understand the processes by which other regional water conservation plans have been developed, what successes and complications they have encountered, and, moreover, the specific objectives and strategies embodied in these plans. We would also seek to understand what conservation education programs have been used elsewhere to effectively influence conservation behavior. To that end, a group of students from the University of Michigan’s School of Natural Resources and Environment (SNRE) have been engaged to assist in several tasks that will better inform our effort. As part of their graduate studies, this group will conduct research activities that: 1. Assess the Roaring Fork Watershed, its resources and community characteristics, identifying key planning partners, and documenting historic and existing water conservation policies and processes. An analysis of the political landscape and legal context concerning water conservation planning in Colorado and the Roaring Fork Watershed will also be presented. 2. Analyze the current and future ecological and hydrologic conditions of the Crystal River near Carbondale. This will consider causes and ecological implications of stream dewatering, as well as flow changes that could result from implementation of a water conservation plan. 3. Review existing Colorado regional water conservation plan models. This will cover aspects of plan development, adoption, and implementation, plan effectiveness, and cost/benefit considerations. Energy savings derived from water conservation will also be examined. 4. Analyze public outreach and education strategies concerning water conservation, including successful and unsuccessful efforts implemented in the Roaring Fork Watershed, those associated with other regional conservation planning efforts, and in Colorado generally. Next steps will include: 1. Meetings with the remaining regional water providers. 2. Determine whether there is adequate support for participation in a regional planning effort. 3. Execute an MOU to memorialize commitment to regional collaboration and planning. 4. Pursue CWCB planning grant to fund plan development P16 IV. Aspen’s Prior Water Conservation and Efficiency Actions: The City of Aspen has previously committed significant resources to water conservation and has made significant progress towards water conservation goals in the context of its’ own Water Management Program. Aspen has implemented a number of specific measures designed to reduce water usage and to address potential water shortages during drought conditions. Notable among these are leak detection and correction programs, eliminating the practice of allowing customers to bleed lines during the winter to avoid freeze ups, adoption of an inverted block rate program to encourage efficient water use and an aggressive public education program that allows customers access to efficient fixtures and appliances. The net effect of these combined programs is that Aspen’s potable water use has been reduced by approximately 55% on an annual basis since reaching a high point in 1994 and actually uses about the same quantity of water as it did in 1967 when the water plant first went on line, despite more than a 250% increase in the number of customers. Aspen has been actively involved in drought response programs, implementing water use restrictions through its drought contingency program in 2002 and again in 2012. It’s likely that Aspen’s drought response will continue and intensify throughout 2013. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Limiting cost considerations to regional plan preparation and adoption (and not including plan implementation), we are assuming a total cost of approximately $100K. If we are successful in receiving a state planning grant for $75K, then the local match would require a collective contribution of $25K. Dividing this amount equally among the five municipal water providers in the Roaring Fork Watershed, would require a $5,000 contribution from each entity. It would be proposed to budget this amount from the Water Department’s unappropriated fund balance. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The Roaring Fork River is the second largest tributary within Colorado of the Colorado River. Due to diversions and the hot and dry summer of 2012, sections of the Roaring Fork have recently been running significantly below the levels that are necessary to maintain ecosystem health. Diversions depleted incoming stream flows in some segments by 80 percent. In the watershed, almost 140 of the 185 miles of streams surveyed in 2012 have moderately modified to severely degraded riparian habitat. Development and implementation of the proposed plan would aim to establish effective strategies for improving these impacts. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that Council support participation in the regional planning effort, and direct staff to place consideration of the draft MOU on an upcoming Council agenda. ALTERNATIVES: In lieu of participating in the regional planning effort, the City could pursue the creation and adoption of a stand-alone water efficiency plan, pursuant to the requirements of state law. It is anticipated that the City would incur higher costs in preparing a stand-alone plan. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ____________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ _____________________________________________________________________________________ ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A -- DRAFT Memorandum of Understanding – Concerning the Preparation of a Roaring Fork Watershed Regional Water Conservation Plan P17 IV.