Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutInformation Update 0111221 AGENDA INFORMATION UPDATE January 11, 2022 5:00 PM, I.INFORMATION UPDATE I.A.Lake Avenue Ped-Bikeway I.B.Winter Snow Removal Operations and De-icer Use I.C.2022 Golf Membership Pass Local Qualification Process and Rates I.D.Building IQ 1 1 INFO MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM : Carly McGowan, Engineering Department, Project Manager Brian Long, Parks Department, Trails Manager THRU: Pete Rice P.E., Engineering Division Manager Trish Aragon P.E., City Engineer John Spiess, Open Space and Natural Resource Manager Austin Weiss, Parks and Open Space Director Bill Linn, Assistant Police Chief DATE OF MEMO: December 13th, 2021 RE: Lake Avenue Ped-Bikeway SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: On September 24, 1990, the City of Aspen created a Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan with several goals. Those goals included reducing use of automobiles downtown, increasing use of pedestrian and bicycle routes for commuting, and providing recreational opportunities, increased safety for users throughout the system, and enhanced year- round use. In 2014 and 2015, staff worked to create an updated Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan. Staff assembled an existing conditions map and undertook a comprehensive public survey process that resulted in over 100 potential improvement projects within the community. This information was distilled down to a final map and a set of proposed improvements to the bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. During this master planning, staff reviewed documents such as the Aspen Area Community Plan, Aging Well in Pitkin County, and City of Aspen Civic Master Plan to help ensure these proposed improvements were in-line with the community vision. The final Master Plan map, which came to fruition based on public outreach and community vision, shows the key connections that the City can implement to strengthen the bike-ped system throughout town. One of these key connections is the Lake Avenue Ped-Bikeway, which would act as a north-south bicycle and pedestrian corridor in the West End. Since the completion of the Masterplan, the City has been implementing the execution of the plan in phases. As a result, the City reached the goal of becoming a gold member 2 2 of the Bicycle Friendly Community in 2018. The implementation of the north-south connection will help improve the ratings for this national designation. Staff is proceeding with the permanent dedication of the Lake Ave Ped-Bikeway in the orientation discussed in the following section. DISCUSSION: Previously, the West End lacked a network of bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure. Figure 1 below shows the existing facilities overlaid on top of the Master Plan excerpt. The facilities include the Hallam St ped-bikeway, the Hopkins St ped-bikeway, and the Fourth St pedway. While the east-west connection for bikers is strong, the north-south connection is needed. In addition to the current network being incomplete, it is also inconsistent. The map shown in Figure 2 depicts the ‘Pedestrian Zone’ signage that has been implemented in years past. While the zone is well-intentioned, it lacks clear delineation and a mechanism for enforcement. Figure 1. Excerpt of Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan shows existing pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the West End. 3 3 The City is continually working on improving the safe, interconnected network for bikers and pedestrians based on the Masterplan. The next step in the process is the inclusion of a north-south connection within the West End. This ped-bikeway, referred to as the Lake Ave Ped-Bikeway, serves as a connection for bikers and pedestrians to the Music Tent, Physics Center, and Triangle Park. This important north-south connection ties into the greater ped-bike network, therefore increasing the number of destinations that can be reached via bicycle or foot in the West End of Aspen safely. The proposed ped-bikeway is currently implemented as a Living Lab. It was implemented in June and will remain in place until October, based on previous Council direction. The goal of the Living Lab was two-fold: 1. To obtain community input and feedback on the Lake Ave Ped-Bikeway 2. To test the route prior to permanent adoption Community Input During the Living Lab this summer, Staff conducted extensive community outreach that included three pop-up events, two online surveys, a booth at the Saturday Market, and a variety of social media posts. The outreach summary is located in Appendix A. In general, supportive feedback from the community was that people feel safer when travelling on Figure 2. Excerpt of Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan shows existing "Pedestrian Zone" signage. 4 4 foot or bike through this corridor. Triangle Park neighbors were supportive and felt the park is safer for children and dogs thanks to the new ped-bikeway segment. Negative feedback was primarily regarding confusing signage and concerns about traffic being pushing onto other streets. It should be noted that many members of the West End Pedestrian Safety Group used the feedback outlets provided by the Lake Ave Ped- Bikeway team to provide input regarding traffic concerns on West Smuggler St. In September, the implementation of the Lake Ave Ped-Bikeway was brought to the Open Space and Trails Board. The Board provided staff with formal support of the ped-bikeway installation. Route Experimentation One goal of the Living Lab was to test the exact routing of the ped-bikeway prior to permanent adoption. The original route for the Lake Ave Ped-Bikeway was determined in the Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan and is shown below in Figure 3. Unlike the other ped-bikeways in the network, the Lake Ave ped-bikeway is not linear. It’s route was determined in the Master Plan based on community input and theoretical routing of pedestrians, bikes, and vehicles based on destinations. The route begins at the intersection of Hallam St and Garmisch St near the Red Brick and terminates at the intersection of North St and Fourth St at the existing multi-use paved trail that runs along Fourth. To facilitate connection with the Music Tent with this alignment, staff implemented sharrows along Gillepsie St, which was also included in the Master Plan. Figure 3. Excerpt of Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan shows proposed pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure in the West End. 5 5 Over the course of the past three months, staff has been utilizing and observing the route, as well as gathering feedback from bikers, pedestrians, neighbors, and other stakeholders. Staff has determined that the route in the Master Plan could be slightly modified to improve the user experience for bikers, pedestrians, and vehicles, alike. The re-aligned route is shown in Figure 4. Instead of requiring a left turn onto North St when heading north, the ped-bikeway continues straight onto Gillespie St. It will terminate at 3rd St in order to avoid conflict with the bus route that serves the West End and Music Tent. Figure 4 Alternate Lake Ave Ped-Bikeway route. The “stair steps” on Garmisch, Francis, and First St, which are on the east end of the Lake Ave ped-bikeway route are proposed to remain as they were proposed in the Master Plan. The pedestrian and bicycle safety team (PABST) reviewed the route of the ped- bikeway and discussed whether the “stair steps” should be eliminated and replaced with a more direct route. Ultimately, Staff believes that the connection to the Post Office Trail at the intersection of Garmisch and Francis and the eventual connection to the Paepke Transit Hub are crucial. Both of these connections would be lost if a straightened alignment on First St (omitting Francis and Garmisch) was adopted. To combat the confusion that the “stair steps” may cause, Staff is exploring alternative language for the signage that delineates the ped-bikeway route. Enforcement Stance 1. Staff is utilizing a collaborative approach to find a pedestrian and bike solution that is satisfactory to all departments involved. In the process of doing so, engineering has been working with Aspen Police Department (APD) to ensure an aligned approach to ped-bike infrastructure enforcement. Philosophically, APD fully 6 6 supports ped-bikeways. When it comes to enforcement, the police department is not equipped for a robust enforcement program. This past season, the enforcement approach was as follows:Responding to complaints along the ped- bikeway if/when they are received 2. Stationing an officer on a ped-bikeway when time allows, which is not daily Moving forward, the same approach will be utilized. More consistent enforcement would require funding for additional staffing. ALTERNATIVES: Ped-bikeways are a low impact way to create a safe network for pedestrians and bikers to travel through Aspen because they utilize existing infrastructure. Therefore, they don’t require additional concrete or asphalt and the construction impacts that are associated. If Council directs Staff not to implement the Lake Ave Ped-Bikeway, additional infrastructure (bike lanes, sidewalks, multi-use paths) could be explored. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The financial impacts of implementing a ped-bikeway include the installation and maintenance of the signage and paint, in addition to the enforcement and monitoring of the Ped Bikeway. No additional funding authority is needed to add signage, and the costs for painting are covered by existing project budget authority. If council desires additional enforcement along the ped-bikeways, funding would be needed for additional staffing. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The City of Aspen is continuously working towards a more sustainable, environmentally- friendly city, and the pedestrian and bikeway system supports that initiative. By installing infrastructure for community members and visitors to comfortably and efficiently walk and bike around town, vehicle trips are reduced. The environmental impact of the new segment of proposed ped-bikeway is positive. CONCLUSION: Based on community feedback, staff is proceeding with the permanent dedication of the Lake Ave Ped-Bikeway in the alternate orientation discussed above. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: APPENDIX A – Community Outreach Summary 7 August 31, 202121 8 9 OUTREACH SUMMARY Overview of Outreach Efforts Submitted: August 24, 2021 Lake Avenue is a popular vehicular passage out of Aspen via the West End and a key corridor for bike and pedestrian commuters. After identifying the area in the Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan as among the key links in the overall system that have the potential to contribute to improved safety throughout Aspen, the Lake Avenue Ped-Bike Living Lab aimed to test the efficacy of limiting vehicular movement northwest of Triangle Park. With no sidewalks in the West End, the Lake Avenue project prioritizes creating a safer environment for residents, workers and visitors traveling by foot and bicycle. The City of Aspen Engineering Department was directed by Aspen City Council to engage and collect feedback from West End neighbors and the surrounding community regarding the Lake Avenue Ped-Bike Living Lab that was installed this summer. Communication materials: - Door hangers in neighborhood - Aspen Community Voice webpage - Project map area - Baseline survey - Sidewalk surveys Direct engagement: - Neighbors - Local area non-profits - Online survey - City of Aspen Facebook page The outreach efforts focused on raising awareness about the installation of the Living Lab and aimed to collect direct feedback from all user groups: residents, visitors, pedestrians, motorists, and local organizations in the West End. The outreach timeline began at the beginning of June and concludes at the end of the summer. The Living Lab installation will remain in place until the end of October. The feedback regarding the benefit of the Living Lab is mixed. During the pop-up events, participants surveyed who were on a bicycle or walking liked the ped-bike lanes and generally were in favor of the safety improvements. Motorists observed in the area and motorists who stopped to connect with the team pointed out the increase in traffic in and around West 10 OUTREACH SUMMARY Smuggler. There are multiple challenges with addressing the needs of all user groups affected by the new pedestrian-bike lanes. Outreach efforts provided the project team with overall insights on whether the Living Lab area on Lake Avenue should be considered for a permanent (seasonal) installation. While there was not overwhelming support for or against the project, feedback largely came in the form of comments from residents of and near West Smuggler. Most of the online survey participants appeared to come directly from West Smuggler residents, while the pop-up events gave a wider audience the opportunity to offer feedback. Observations The Lake Avenue Living Lab is an excellent candidate for permanent safety improvements such as a ped-bikeway. However, serious consideration should also be given to the impact the redirection of traffic from Lake Avenue has on West Smuggler, the residents of which are already feeling overwhelmed and overburdened with cars trying to avoid Main Street during the afternoon rush hour. 11 Summary of Feedback from West End neighborhood groups August 11, 2021 “From a business perspective it doesn’t affect us. However, it’s a little confusing going from the Physics Center into town. On the West Hopkins ped/bikeway, it’s really obvious where you shouldn’t go. In the West End cars are definitely going more than one block when they’re not supposed to in part because it’s confusing which blocks are one-block only.” Aspen Center for Physics Amanda Jenkins Administrative Vice President “Our staff who drive the area daily feel no negative impact from this.” Aspen Music Festival & School Jennifer White Vice President for School and Festival Operations “I have not heard anything from patrons or tenants. (Construction dominated outside of the Red Brick to the right of the driveway, so I cannot say one way or the other if the ped/bike had an impact on traffic as it always seemed busy with cars.)” Sarah Roy Director Red Brick Center for the Arts “We haven’t noticed any impacts because of the Lake Ave. ped/bikeway.” Yellow Brick School administration 12  ǣƒ‡˜‡—‡‡†Ǧ‹‡‹˜‹‰ƒ„ —–”‡ƒ…Š‘‰ Date Activity Reach June 8, 2021 Door Hangers in West End 200 June 14, 2021 Email – to West End Pedestrian Safety Group 20+ June 8, 2021 ACV webpage launch 248 Total Visits June 8 – July 8, 2021 Baseline Survey Responses 14 responses June 8 Comments on ACV Current: 132 Contributions June 15, 2021 Pop-Up Event 1 + Sidewalk Surveys 100 June 14, 2021 Media Relations – Aspen Times June 30, 2021 Aspen Chamber Newsletter English and Spanish July 7, 2021 Pop-Up Event 2 + Sidewalk Surveys 170 Jul 8, 2021 Progress Survey Current: 27 paper responses, 0 ACV responses August 11, 2021 Pop Up Event 3 + Sidewalk Surveys 50 June 20 – August 20 Online Survey 5 13 Social Media Engagement Data DATE FACEBOOK INSTAGRAM TWITTER June 15 x 125 Reach x 1 Engagement (Photo Click) x 400 Accounts Reached x 427 Impressions x 11 Likes x 0 Actions Taken x 289 Impressions x 4 Engagements o 3 Media Engagements (Photo Click) o 1 Detail Expands x 1.4% Engagement Rate (# of engagements/impressions) July 6 x 146 Reach x 1 Engagement (Link Click) x 305 Accounts Reached x 327 Impressions x 5 Likes x 0 Actions Taken x 276 Impressions x 3 Engagements o 2 Media Engagements (Photo Click) o 3 Link Clicks x 1.1% Engagement Rate August 3 x 470 Reach x 11 Engagements o 5 Likes o 2 Shares o 1 Photo Click o 2 Link Clicks o 1 Other Click x 1 Negative Feedback (Hide all posts x 380 Accounts Reached x 398 Impressions x 5 Likes x 2 Actions Taken o 1 Profile Visit o 1 Website Tap x 404 Impressions x 7 Engagements o 3 Media Engagements (Photo Click) o 3 Detail Expands o 1 Like x 1.7% Engagement Rate 14 1 Online Comment Summary and Pop Ups Likes the safety improvements and wants to keep the Lake Avenue ped-bike lanes Does not like the Lake Avenue ped-bike lanes West Smuggle concerns General traffic concerns Number of passers-by from three lab pop-ups on 6/16 + 7/7 + 8/11 Car 206 Bike 44 Ped 52 Motorcycle 11 What is your primary connection to the Lake Avenue Living Lab? I live in the West End 29 I work in the West End 10 I own a business in the West End 1 I commute through the West End 8 I recreate in the West End 5 Other 1 How do you primarily travel through the West End? Bicycle 25 Pedestrian 21 Vehicle 19 Other 2 15 2 Have you experienced safety improvements since the installation of the Lake Avenue Ped- Bike Living Lab? Yes 17 No 2 Other 2 Do you have any concerns with the installation of the Lake Avenue Ped-Bike Living Lab? No. I like it. No concerns. Been seeing more bikers. Don’t understand why it’s here; why isn’t it in the east end? More privileges for bikers, one of whom hit me on the Rio Grande Trail and caused a skull fracture. I feel safer on this street. I work with kids and have noticed traffic driving slower. Wish this was everywhere. No one uses rules. I’m concerned with cars actually following the rules. It’s imperfect. Can you enforce it? It’s challenging from a property manager perspective who has to travel through (the West End). More police enforcement; more education. Push more traffic. No, could go without cars in Aspen. No, signs cause moving with parking. The whole thing is awful and pushes traffic to North Street and West Smuggler. Too many installed; speed bumps work better. Metaphor: growth on the face, but looking at a pimple. It’s unfair to West Smuggler. Biking with kids is hard in the West End. 16 3 What is your preference for the future of the Lake Avenue Ped-Bikeway in the West End? Convert to a ped-bikeway every year 17 Keep it open to vehicular traffic, no ped-bikeway 6 Other 1 In what ways will the Lake Avenue Ped-Bike Living Lab impact your usage? Anything will help. It is dangerous here. Only bikes feel protected now. With Lake Ave., cars go too fast. Great idea, thumbs up! Live here and think it’s nice to have us here. We are visitors to the area and love it. Safer usage for bikes with groceries Will use it walking the dog (but) cars don’t comply I work at a bike shop, so the more the merrier Safer walking to East end. Love it! Hope it stays. Love it! Safer commute to work. Safer It just makes me go around the main areas. People cutting through the other areas to get around it makes me worry. Lots of traffic on Smuggler. Find a way to keep cars out of the West End; want to see an increase in the Aspen Idea, i.e. walking on the street; traffic will still get blocked further out of town 17 4 Tell us what pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements you would like to see in this area. Lorenzo Semple's article was on point. I live on Cemetery Lane. It is ATROCIOUS to see the cars as I stand and wait for the bus. Until people start to carpool or take mass transit again or live closer to where they work or don't come and stay longer in their 2nd and 3rd homes we are not going to improve pedestrian and bicycle safety. I have witnessed multiple police directing traffic during rush hour on the west end sneak as I was heading home from taking my child to climbing class. The madness is just not this Lake Avenue area, rather it is the entire town + Cemetery Lane too. "living" lab is an oxymoron at this point. I agree that this living lab will only add to the dangers that currently exist on other routes. It will remove a safer route from the mix and not help at all. Hello – I am a concerned Aspen citizen living on Hopkins. I often use West Smuggler to commute through West End on my bicycle. I agree with the comments that have been made on this forum. The traffic there from 3pm to 6pm is extremely dangerous. I read a recent report that shows 1,100 cars and trucks pass through West Smuggler each weekday from 3pm to 6pm. That works out to 12 cars and trucks per minute during this 3-hour time. Seems inexcusable that the City would allow this to happen. I recall the new Mayor specifically running on traffic reform as part of his campaign. He needs to make good on his promise and fix this issue. The visual each day: watching the procession of cars and trucks barreling through a neighborhood street is horrible. Someone is bound to get hurt. I rarely ride my bike through West Smuggler during 3pm to 6pm because of this safety concern (Main Street might be safer) – it is a real shame I should not have to avoid neighborhood streets for fear of my safety. The traffic now between 8-10 and 4-6pm on Smugglers is dangerous - people running stop signs, coming in way too quickly - saw multiple people almost hit, dogs nearly hit by cars - needs to stop immediately. I don't understand how the City states on the one hand they are all about safety and protecting the environment when the issue on West Smuggler completely contradicts these statements. It is an accident waiting to happen. Sad that the City can't understand the magnitude of the issue. I am glad to see other people speaking up about the serious issue on West Smuggler. I estimate between 1,500 to 2,000 cars/trucks pass through on West Smuggler each day. A neighborhood street. Main Street is designed for this load of traffic. West Smuggler is not. Children, adults, bikers, pedestrians are all threatened by this traffic issue. The city claims to maintain safety as its primary focus for the City yet they let this issue simply pass. Really unbelievable. Not sure what it will take for the City Council to wake up and fully understand the magnitude of the issue on West Smuggler. It also creates a serious environmental issue - by allowing the traffic of cars/trucks to use West Smuggler as an exit - the City is enabling more cars/trucks into and out of Aspen on a 18 5 daily basis. Something the City Council has also stated is something they are trying to curb. But they are actually fostering this type of environmental problem. I live in the area and also agree that the problem on West Smuggler is the single biggest issue that the City needs to address. As mentioned below, I simply cannot understand why at least a police car is not placed on West Smuggler on each weekday 4pm to 6pm. Every day there is a bumper to bumper car/truck jam. None of them follow the traffic laws. Stop signs are run, speeding, etc. - the City really should do something to address this issue. It is not safe for pedestrians, bikers, joggers, anyone wanting to use the neighborhood street. I agree that turning West Smuggler into a pedestrian/biker corridor will fix the problem. For those of you who remember, West Hopkins used to have the same bumper to bumper car/traffic jams. Those cars/trucks used West Hopkins to cut Main Street. One the City made West Hopkins a bike/pedestrian corridor - it solved the problem. Why can't the same solution be applied to West Smuggler? I live on West Smuggler. I agree with many of the points being made. I think the idea of having a police officer stationed on West Smuggler and 6th is a great one. None of the cars / trucks stop at the stop sign. In fact, most cars trucks zoom through the neighborhood and rarely even slow down at stop signs. This is an obvious violation of the law. I don't recall the last time I even saw a police car in the West End. At a minimum, this would address the safety issue in the near term and hopefully the City will figure out a more long term solution. I would support turning West Smuggler into a bike/pedestrian corridor. This is a great idea. West Smuggler traffic has become a serious safety issue for the citizens of West End (or visitors passing through either on foot or by bike). I think putting a police officer there each weekday between 4pm and 6pm would help a lot. None of the cars/trucks stop at stop signs. They speed if given the opportunity. Most are quite noisy too. This all seems to be creating a very environmentally unfriendly neighborhood in a neighborhood that is one of Aspen's greatest assets. All people love to bike, walk, and run through the West End. With West Smuggler the way it is - this is impossible. The street to completely unusable from 4pm to 6pm each weekday. I like the proposal to fix the situation by making West Smuggler a bike/pedestrian corridor like on West Hallam and on West Hopkins. This would fix it. In the meantime, at a minimum, getting a police officer there to ticket violators of the law would seem like an obvious short term solution. It would cut the traffic way back and generate revenue for the City. We live on W. Smuggler … By creating the Ped/Bikeway on Lake, the current traffic problems are going to be increased for the other streets in the West End. Although this may help the traffic problem for the children and homeowners by Triangle Park, it is increasing the traffic and safety issues for the rest of the neighbors in the West End. It seems like we need to put our heads together and come up with a better solution for the traffic congestion in town. The City should focus on fixing the traffic problem on West Smuggler - the Lake Avenue project will only make matters worse. 19 6 I live in the West End - not on West Smuggler. What surprises me is that the City has not or does not at least place a police officer on West Smuggler and Gillespie or 6th Street. I have never seen a police officer in the area. None of the cars or trucks stop at the stop signs - they all speed if given the chance. At a minimum shouldn't the city be enforcing the laws? I agree that placing a bike/pedestrian corridor on West Smuggler would fix the issue but in the meantime at least placing a police officer there and having them enforce the laws like stopping at stop signs and not speeding would be a substantial improvement. This enforcement might cut down the traffic some and would generate revenue for the city by way of traffic tickets. My comment will likely be a bit repetitive, but feel it is necessary to voice yet another opinion. I also live on West Smuggler. I beg the City to fix the issue of the traffic as others have outlined below. It is a huge problem and poses a substantial safety risk for people and children who want to use a neighborhood street. West Smuggler becomes effectively a second Main Street every day from 4pm to 6pm on weekdays. However, it is a neighborhood street not designed like Main Street to handle such high traffic loads. How is it that this is not the City's top priority? It is a glaring and obvious issue. Someone, perhaps a little one, might get injured due to this issue when the safety issue not exist. I have seen several close calls. Making West Smuggler a bike/pedestrian corridor seems to make the most sense if the City truly wants to cut down traffic volume in the City. It would make public transportation a much better alternative versus individuals driving in each day. AS correctly pointed out below, the City has created an additional exit point for cars/trucks leaving Aspen. Makes no sense. I live on West Smuggler in the West End. The traffic from 4pm to 6pm has become a critical issue for children, pedestrians, bikers, virtually anyone wanting to use the road. I have now seen several video's online which highlight the bumper to bumper situation. What is happening appears to be in direct contrast with what the City has stated is their main objective for the citizens of Aspen: keeping children and pedestrians safe while promoting an environmentally safe place. The City by allowing all the cars and trucks to cut through the West End on West Smuggler every day is enabling more cars, trucks and traffic in and out of Aspen on a daily basis. There is absolutely no deterrence. It increases the total volume of traffic for all Aspen citizens. This traffic also creates a substantial safety issue for children and adults walking and riding bikes through the West End and specifically on West Smuggler. The videos that people have posted make this point very clear. Why is the City not consider making West Smuggler a bike/pedestrian corridor? This would seem to make the most sense if the City truly wants to positively impact the Aspen in general and the West End. The City has effectively enabled a second exit point for cars/trucks leaving Aspen. This increases the total volume of car/truck traffic in the city. I believe West Hopkins Ave was turned into a bike/pedestrian corridor because cars/trucks were using it to cut the traffic on Main Street. Now West Smuggler receives the brunt of all this traffic. Someone from the City just needs to come by West Smuggler at 4:30pm on any weekday and see for themselves. Unsafe, bad for the environment - why is this problem not being addressed? Seems like the obvious biggest issue. 20 7 I live on West Smuggler in the West End. The City has allowed this street to become virtually unlivable. Between 4pm to 6pm every week day, the street is bumper to bumper with cars. It is hard for me to understand why the City allows this to happen. This is the street the City should focus on - in my opinion. When the street is bumper to bumper with cars - the line goes the whole length of West Smuggler. The street is not usable during this time. Children can't walk it or ride their bikes. No one can for that matter. What the City has enabled is essentially a second exit point for cars and trucks exiting Aspen - through a neighborhood. I can't figure how this is rationalized and why nothing is being done to fix the issue. I live on West Smuggler and have formed the following group: https://www.westendpedestriansafetygroup.org/ The objective of this work group is to work with the City to help alleviate the traffic issues in the West End. I urge everyone to join who cares about this topic (safety and environmental are top of mind). It costs nothing to join and we are doing fact based survey's around the traffic (gathering real data) which I think help build the neighborhood's case for further change by the City regarding traffic. All the West Pedestrian Safety Group has to prove is that the carbon monoxide is greater than 34 parts per million on average for an hour. Based on the videos I have seen and based on the number of trucks and size of the road, this will likely happen. Once this gets established, the EPA will come in and mandate a traffic configuration change. Having the EPA mandate this - as a result of the City Council violating a federal environmental standard - none of them will get re- elected to City Council. It will be great irony. I am an avid bike rider and find no problem riding through town on city streets but I prefer to ride on bike paths. I find the bike signs on the roads confusing and unnecessary as bikers don't stay in bike lanes and can't ride were the bike signs are (ex. Durant Ave.). I live on W Hopkins bikeway and find e-bikes and e-motorized devices speeding faster than the traffic on the highway and not stopping at stop signs and riding the wrong way and not obeying basic rules of the road. There is no police enforcement and community enforcement is a joke. E-bikes are gone in a minute and have no license plate numbers for identification. If you want to make the West End part of town safer for bicycles then have the police enforce the speed limit on the side streets in town on e-bikes and cars. Have the police enforce the rules of the road (Stopping at stop signs) and the parking department enforce all the parking rules. If you don't enforce the rules of the road making new rules will not help. Out for a walk in the West End this morning I noticed that every corner between Lake and Fourth Street already has a stop sign. Where is the safety issue and the need to protect walkers and bikers under these circumstances. This is a solution in search of a problem or just an insatiable desire to rid every street of automobiles without considering the consequences. Sharing streets with good signs and traffic calming measures seems to be a better solution. 21 8 First, I know your job to try to create a safer environment here in the West End and I do appreciate the efforts by all staff. However, as I sit here in my home in the West End, I watch literally hundreds of cars speeding through our street and right through the stop signs, at significant speeds. I then watch, knowing what I know about how fast the traffic flows, small children on bikes and other people on e-bikes, etc., going down these same streets and through the very same intersection, within seconds of each other! Its very scary to watch. I am very, very thankful that nothing tragic has happened. I rarely reach out like this, but I can't not stay quiet on this. I feel very strongly that, all be it, staff and all involved with this new ped lane is being installed this summer, I absolutely know, with 100% certainty, the flow on the other streets, including mine, will just increase, and therefore increase the danger. I feel by creating this ped lane, it may help for that immediate street, but from what I have witnessed over the years, ped/bike traffic is everywhere and will only increase the dangers elsewhere throughout the West End. It is of my opinion, and the opinion of others that witness this same danger on these streets, staff along with the City of Aspen should stand up and take control of this out of control traffic situation that speeds past my house and the children of the neighborhood. I do realize, the traffic congestion on Main St is an overwhelming problem, but it should not be allowed to continue this pattern until tragedy strikes to force the City to take the proper action to control it. Thank you for your time and all of the staff efforts. I only hope this does not fall on deaf ears. 22           ! "#  $#" %"& 23           24 ' ()* + , - .+.*+*+*)"#  $#" %"&/ 01234 50234 02534 0234 0234 0234  ! "## " $% ! $! !  ' *++,*+   5  6  1 7 8                             25 ' 9+:$+ + , -  *  *) + %)*)(*$/ 017234 7061234 02534 0234 &% "  ' *++,*+   5  6  1 7 8                             5 26 " '  ()*+)+,+*,( -./ $$#!  $0  "  !! "1!% 0 !#!   ! $"$!"##   !%0 %2#0  1    $3 $ !%0 # ()*4)+,+*,* *,/ #  !  0&# &#" #-# (#% )$%)5  0 "! ()*()+,+*,4 ,6/ %7%8 9&% 77!#"! " " "" "  0 " "7%$# "#1$"  !!#99  : #9$ "#" 0 5%# ()*;)+,+*,; +68/ #9$#% $0 $ ()*;)+,+*,; 648/  "< #0 ! ! 9 80 5"  "!$#% #$0 /"= ()*;)+,+*,. +>8/ #""!$.9*,  69(9   '' # ? '"<#0  '5 ;:)*: :*)"#  $#" %"&-,.* +  %/         27 ()*;)+,+*,. 468/@A! 0 7%85" $#%#$0 B== ()*;)+,+**, +48/ @ "< "!##9 7%85"$#% #$ " ()*;)+,+*** *>8/ #! @0 7%85" $#%$0  ""!  8 ! ! #"$ "0 " ()*;)+,+**+ ,4/ $#%"$ #0  0  # #0 5! ()+,)+,+*,4 ,4/ $ #%!# ##"$0 @   #  !#0 # " 5"$##" #  #0 5?$* ()+6)+,+*,6 4>/ @ " #0 ! 0$"0  0 0+,,, ")"% ##6#(#0 $ . ;),;)+,+*** 6+8/ 2C #"" 8 "?2%0  #"##  #!""0 $ "##!#  #0 "# -#(#<# 0  "$ **,," "% #"$% # -#(#0 $%*+ " "%#         6 28 -#0#<"! @$ $ 0 "$/ """# "#02  #% # < 0 "  $""" "%! ! !0 #! 0  #!% # -#(# !"""D/ #!EC #   ! # 0 " ;),.)+,+*,; 6,8/   ,*+< *+D*6DE1,% E ' *+* ,!         29             !" # $   %&#  $ ' ()  *+,!(+ +-.-   ** / 01** !2 3 ,4 5** ,  ,55! **  *,(0! **  4 ** 66    $ 7  .8     30     "  9           ! "##"$ %& "$ '" ,55!**,   3           %)$ 9 %     ' % (     %$    ' % , 79 %    %:# ..   % 5  ' #   ' %    # %:    . % .    ' % *%               # $   %&#  $;< /=>? <>?               "##"$ %& "$ '" *,(0!**,    3          7 %$%  7 % - ! 7. % %%    % - @ !    %(:.   %*   %0.  .  A      ' %  .<  %?             # $   %&#  $;B</=C>? <>?               "##"$ %& "$ '" ((4**, 66      % .                     # $   %&#  $; 66          931 %& &   !& ( %& &  )"$ & &)& "!  !& ( "! )"$ & &)&     "  9        "##" " &&*  ! ()0*  )2  ,4(!  :)*@   5)&@  *  :D8    (      '  6  '    ..7-  %  % '. 9   $     7 .%.#    -    '  $  3   '  3 '  & . $     '  $  6   '   ( 932 $&  "& ( $&  " )"$ & $&'*&$ +&&& ( +&& )"$ & "' ,"! $"& ( ,"! $" )"$ & "'     "  9        %& & '$#"  ! 6 !)0, 3 +  *!  (: @2! 6 !      ! 7. % # $   %&#  $ '0 3 ! 7. % & . $      6 ! 7. % % . %F%    ! 7. % 3 -    B  7 # $  B  7 % . %F - 6  7 4=+.. =D5- = 6  7 @ !  3   / 7 # $   %&#  $ ' /  7   933 ()   777= . = B 777=   = 6 777='= 6 .=9 ' #=   -=- =  =9 ' #=  = 777= -=  777= . = =.     "  9        %% & " &""' 34   9 *  4 *,(0! ,55! # $   %&#  $ ' 66       "  9        "*" "$ &"  - %** *   935 INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: April Long, P.E., Clean River Program Manager THROUGH: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer Jerry Nye, Streets Superintendent Scott Miller, Public Works Director MEMO DATE: December 15, 2021 RE: Information Only: Results from Deicer Use Study of 2020-2021 and Next Steps Background: In the summer of 2020, Council directed staff to study the water quality and safety impacts of the limited application of deicing materials to several City streets through the winter of 2020-2021. The memo leading to that decision has been included here as Attachment B. Discussion - Analysis and Results: In the fall of 2020, and after staff consideration and discussion, the deicing agent IceSlicer was chosen for this seasonal test because of its ease in transport, storage, and application technique; it did not require the purchase of additional equipment; it is a recommended de-icing agent by CDOT; and it has been used successfully by the Streets Department in the past. IceSlicer is a granular blend of chlorides, which has the ability to lower the freezing point of water, therefore accelerating the melt of snow and ice. Its granular nature also provides some traction, like sand, which can also improve road conditions for vehicles. The Streets Department applied IceSlicer to targeted locations throughout town (see Figure 1) in the Mill Street drainage sub-basin. These areas were chosen because of significant winter traffic accident counts and RFTA requests. Streets applied 58.3 tons of IceSlicer from November – March, which saw 53 days with snow accumulation. 36 Figure 1: De-Icing Application and Monitoring Locations One of the reasons for exploring the application of a de-icing agent was to equally reduce the amount of sand applied through the winter. Sand – actually 3/8” rock - presents its own environmental impacts, especially as it is ground down to a finer particle that is more easily carried in snowmelt into the City’s stormwater system and discharged into the Roaring Fork River (River) or its tributaries. Therefore, the City is trying to determine if there is a potential water quality improvement by reducing sand applications through the introduction of an alternative winter street treatment (i.e. de-icing agent such as salt). In the ten winter seasons prior to 2020-2021, the City applied on average 392 tons of sand per season, ranging from 155 tons in 2016-2017 and 586 tons in 2010 – 2011 (a very high snow year). In 2020-2021, during the period of testing de-icing agent application, the City applied only 131 tons of sand. See Figure 2 below. 37 Figure 2: Sand Application Amounts The application of chlorides, and therefore IceSlicer, can have negative impacts for water quality and aquatic ecosystems. Chloride (salt) in water bodies is naturally occurring and differs from watershed to watershed depending on the geologic weathering, soils, local land use, and atmospheric depositions. Chloride affects the water body’s conductivity, salinity, and TDS (total dissolved solids) levels. Most aquatic species have adapted to specific salinity levels. However, when conductivity and salinity values extend too far from their normal range, it can be detrimental to the aquatic life living there. The State of Colorado does not currently have an aquatic life standard for chloride. However, it does have a drinking water chloride standard of 250 mg/L average over 30- days. The EPA sets the chronic chloride pollution standard at 230 mg/L over a 4-day average and the acute standard at 860 mg/L. These limits are based on findings that in general, chronic concentrations of 230 mg/L are harmful to aquatic life, while concentrations above the acute standard are lethal and sub-lethal to aquatic plants and invertebrates. It is necessary to explain that chloride levels are difficult to measure – samples must be hand-collected and sent to a lab for analysis. The labor and time intensiveness of this exercise led staff to use a different method for collecting data – conductivity probes. Conductivity is directly impacted by changes in chloride levels and salinity. However, it’s important to keep in mind that conductivity is also related to water temperature and flow. As a result, increases in chloride and/or temperature will result in higher conductivity in 586 431 373 423 439 478 155 296 477 265 131 Sand Application - Total Tons Applied Each Season 38 the water. Increases in flow will decrease the conductivity of water. By measuring conductivity and comparing it with temperature and flow, staff anticipated the ability to indicate if chloride levels were affecting the river. In order to monitor changes in conductivity and temperature, Clean Water Program staff placed conductivity probes in three locations:  Roaring Fork River near Stillwater Bridge. This location is upstream of any winter road treatment in Aspen and therefore serves a control point and point for determining baseline conditions in the river.  Rio Grande Park bioswale between Mill Street and rugby field. This location receives runoff from the Mill Street basin where the Streets department applied IceSlicer. It serves to measure conductivity in snowmelt prior to reaching the river.  Roaring Fork River just below the Rio Grande Park outfall. This location is downstream of the outfall where IceSlicer-laden runoff enters the river. It serves to measure increased conductivity in the river due to the City’s application of IceSlicer. The probes were installed on November 20, 2021 and collected data every 15 minutes until March 29, 2021. Staff compared the daily maximum conductivity with the daily average water temperature and the daily average flow in that location, as well as dates of snow accumulation and heavy IceSlicer application by the Streets Department. Table 1 below summarizes the data collected and Attachment A show the data in graphed form. At the two in-river locations, conductivity generally increased as water temperature increased (as expected). Additionally, the conductivity in these locations stayed within a small range. At the Stillwater location conductivity ranged from 0 – 65 uS/cm and at the Mill Street location conductivity ranged from 100 – 220 uS/cm. At the Mill Street bioswale, however, conductivity was much higher, ranging from 750 – 7000 uS/cm, and fluctuated quite a bit, decreasing significantly in March when the Streets Department stopped applying IceSlicer – indicating that the probes picked up the increases in chloride in snowmelt runoff from streets when IceSlicer had been applied. Because the bioswale showed extremely high levels of conductivity, but the river just downstream of this outfall did not follow those fluctuations and did not record those same high conductivity levels, staff believes that the flow and temperature of the river assimilated the conductivity levels in this location. 39 Table 1 – Summary of Monitoring Data Location Flow Range cfs Avg Temp, degrees F Conductivity micro siemens/cm Notes Median Range Median Range RF River - upstream, Stillwater 14 - 19 31 30 - 53 16 0 - 65 Upstream of City streets, no salt Lowest temps Lowest conductivity levels Fluctuations in conductivity generally follow temperatures Bioswale - Mill St/Rio Grande Not measured, estimated < 3 35 33 - 55 2220 710 - 7090 Salted area runoff Highest temps Lowest flows Spikes correlate with snow days Declines in late Feb, early March when there were fewer snow days Biggest spike occurs following largest snow day of the season RF River - downstream, Mill St. 14 - 19 33 32 - 46 165 100 - 212 Salted area runoff plus river flow Middle temps Conductivity increases through winter, drops just before early February storm (maybe because water temp and river flows dropped?), then completely follows water temp for remainder of season As mentioned above, conductivity is only indicative of chloride levels and a not a measure of chloride itself. And, as can be seen in the data, the Roaring Fork River has fluctuating conductivity, most likely related to flows and temperatures. Because conductivity is impacted by natural factors, state and federal standards have not been set. To provide some relativity and to determine if the conductivity levels in the Roaring Fork may threaten aquatic life, see the table below. Table 2 – Expected Conductivity Ranges for Differing Water Sources Water source Expected Conductivity Microsiemens/cm Potable water 30 - 1500 Tap water 50 - 800 Melted snow 2 - 42 Freshwater streams, nationwide 100 - 2000 Freshwater streams, Colorado River watershed 300 - 700 Staff was not able to determine if the application of Ice-Slicer decreased winter traffic accidents. The police department does not collect the information necessary to determine if road conditions were the cause of the accident in their accident reports. However, anecdotal information from RFTA noted improved road conditions and driver comfort last winter. 40 Discussion - Conclusions and Next Steps: The Roaring Fork River above Aspen carries cold, clean water – mostly groundwater and snowmelt – and the conductivity data collected in the winter of 2020-2021 fits within an expected range. While staff did not collect data to determine if chloride levels were exceeded, analysis of the conductivity data suggests that chloride levels in the river also did not fluctuate beyond a normal range. However, some data was difficult to understand and assign cause. Additionally, chloride, for which there is a state standard (although it more related to drinking water aesthetics and not aquatic life health) was not measured directly. Therefore, staff will continue conducting this study – with the same limited application locations and product - for another season for several reasons:  To collect more data in different winter conditions (hopefully more moisture, more snow events!)  To determine if there is a method for converting or parsing chloride levels based on conductivity with known temperatures and flows  To collect samples and conduct lab analysis for chloride  To further test hypothesis for river assimilation  To isolate one storm, one area, and one application of IceSlicer for help in determining load per application, dilution per impervious area to assist in estimating effects of larger future applications  and potential carrying capacity  Estimate the Roaring Fork River’s (and applicable tributaries’) assimilative capacity (and ability to continue to meet state and/or federal clean water standards***) for chloride and during winter and early spring months. Staff will return to Council in the summer of 2022 with a proposed Winter Road Ice Management Plan (specifying when, where and how much de-icing agent(s) should be applied) and Long-term Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan to allow early identification and application alterations to prevent potential water quality impairments that are the result of the City’s winter operations and use of de-icing agents. ATTACHMENT A – Conductivity Monitoring Data, 2020-2021 ATTACHMENT B – Winter Snow Removal Operations and Deicer Use Memo, August 2020 41 Attachment A – Conductivity Monitoring Data, 2020-2021 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 11/10/202011/15/202011/20/202011/25/202011/30/202012/5/202012/10/202012/15/202012/20/202012/25/202012/30/20201/4/20211/9/20211/14/20211/19/20211/24/20211/29/20212/3/20212/8/20212/13/20212/18/20212/23/20212/28/20213/5/20213/10/20213/15/20213/20/20213/25/20213/30/20214/4/20214/9/2021Baseflow (cfs) and Temp (F)Conductivity (μS/cm) Date Stillwater #1 Daily Max Conductivity and Temp #1 Conductivity #1 Temp Baseflow 42 Attachment A – Conductivity Monitoring Data, 2020-2021 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 0 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 1750 2000 2250 2500 2750 3000 3250 3500 3750 4000 4250 4500 4750 5000 5250 5500 5750 6000 6250 6500 6750 7000 7250 7500 11/10/202011/15/202011/20/202011/25/202011/30/202012/5/202012/10/202012/15/202012/20/202012/25/202012/30/20201/4/20211/9/20211/14/20211/19/20211/24/20211/29/20212/3/20212/8/20212/13/20212/18/20212/23/20212/28/20213/5/20213/10/20213/15/20213/20/20213/25/20213/30/20214/4/20214/9/2021Baseflow (cfs) and Temp (F)Conductivity (μS/cm) Date Mill St Bio Pond #2 Daily Max Conductivity and Temp #2 Conductivity #2 Temp 43 Attachment A – Conductivity Monitoring Data, 2020-2021 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 11/10/202011/15/202011/20/202011/25/202011/30/202012/5/202012/10/202012/15/202012/20/202012/25/202012/30/20201/4/20211/9/20211/14/20211/19/20211/24/20211/29/20212/3/20212/8/20212/13/20212/18/20212/23/20212/28/20213/5/20213/10/20213/15/20213/20/20213/25/20213/30/20214/4/20214/9/2021Baseflow (cfs) and Temp (F)Conductivity (μS/cm) Date RF River DS of Rio Grande Outfall #3 Daily Max Conductivity and Temp #3 Conductivity #3 Temp Baseflow 44 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: April Long, P.E., Clean River Program Manager Jerry Nye, Superintendent of Streets THROUGH: Trish Aragon, P.E., City Engineer Scott Miller, Public Works Director MEMO DATE: August 14, 2020 MEETING DATE: August 17, 2020 RE: Winter Snow Removal Operations and Deicer Use REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Request limited and strategic use of deicing materials to monitor water quality impacts and vehicle and pedestrian safety improvements through the winter of 2020. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: The main winter-time goals for the City of Aspen Streets Department are to provide snow and ice control and to keep the streets clear of dust and gravel in a professional and proactive manner. Snow and ice can be managed through mechanical means, such as plowing, and through chemical means, with the assistance of de-icing agents. The most common de-icing agent, salt, is often used in snowy/icy climates to improve driver and pedestrian safety. “Salting” roads works by altering the freezing point of water. Water with a higher salt content has a lower freezing point than water with less salinity. Therefore, when salt is applied to a surface, it leads to melting and prevents falling snow or rain from being able to freeze on that surface. While the application can improve driving conditions, salt and other chemical de-icing agents can have serious negative effects on aquatic ecosystems. Like many other communities, the City of Aspen (City) stopped using chemical de-icers, generally liquid magnesium chloride, in 2002 due to concerns for the environment and water quality. Since that time the City has used aggressive plowing and the application of 3/8” washed rock chips (“sand”) as the only mechanisms to improve road traction and to minimize or prevent sliding on snowy/icy roads. (Note: The City’s Parks Department currently uses a magnesium chloride and sodium chloride blend called “Snow Plow” in limited locations (areas of known hazards) throughout the core of the City, mostly sidewalks and alley crossings). 45 Environmental Impacts of Sand - This “sand” presents its own environmental impacts, especially as it is ground down to a finer particle that is more easily carried in snowmelt into the City’s stormwater system and discharged into the Roaring Fork River (River) or its tributaries. In fact, TSS (total suspended solids, fine particles, or “sediment”) is the primary pollutant of concern for the City of Aspen’s Clean River Program. Because sediment can degrade water quality, the City works diligently to reduce the amount of road sand that reaches the Roaring Fork River. The Streets Department estimates that half of the sand applied is later removed through the snow removal process and winter street sweeping. Additionally, four of the City’s eight major outfalls into the River have been armored with extensive pollutant removal facilities. These facilities are performing excellently based on data gathered in summer months. Less is known about the effectiveness of these facilities in winter months because monitoring has only been conducted in summer months. Traffic Impacts of Sand - The use of sand for traction has challenges, as well. Because the sanding material consists of small, hard rock chips, it does not stick to the icy surface of the street in the driving lanes - the material bounces away from where it is applied and actually needs to be. Vehicles also kick the rock chips to the side of the roadway when driving over them. Sand is easily covered up by very small snowfall amounts and is picked up during plow operations causing the need for repeated application as the snow accumulates during a storm. RFTA has had to stop service on numerous occasions until enough sand can be reapplied to give buses adequate traction to continue their service. Accident Information – Figures 1 and 2 show the number of winter-season traffic accidents by street location, with darker (redder) lines indicating more reported traffic accidents. Detailed research would be required to determine how many traffic accidents that occur in the winter are attributable to road conditions. However, several of the streets where numerous accidents have occurred align with the streets that require heavy sand application by the City’s Streets Department (blue under-laying lines). RFTA Concerns – RFTA operates about 700-800 bus trips a day during the winter season in and out of Aspen. Icy streets greatly hampers their ability to operate safely and maintain a schedule. At times during the winter RFTA has had to cease operations entirely due to street conditions that are considered unsafe to operate transit operations. One of the most critical areas that needs limited de-icing is the Durant Street area and around the Rubey Park transit facility. All valley, BRT, local City and skier shuttle operate through this area. The steep slope and crown of Durant street combined with icy conditions greatly impacts transit operations and in turn impacts skiers, commuters, workers and visitors using the transit system. A limited de-icing program could help to resolve some of these problems. Additionally, RFTA regularly requests more extensive snow and ice removal on Park Circle, Park Ave, Mountain Valley, Doolittle, Cemetery Lane, Aspen Street, and Main Street, and at the intersections of Spring and Main and Spring and Cooper. 46 Insurance on transit buses is expensive. The deductible on a $550,000 diesel bus is $100,000. We are now introducing electric buses into the fleet at a cost of $1 million per bus. It is important to try to protect these more expensive assets with a limited de- icing program. Current Winter Streets Operations –The Streets Department currently prioritizes snow removal operations as follows: Snow Removal / Control and Sanding Street Prioritization Priority Location Treatment Level of Service 1 RFTA and school bus routes and primary access routes for emergency vehicles Snow plowing / Sanding Removal when 3 inches of snow is accumulated 2 Main Street and Commercial Core Snow plowing / Sanding Removal when 3 inches of snow is accumulated 3 Residential Areas Snow plowing Plow when 3 inches of snow is accumulated A typical snow removal operation involves hauling an average of approximately 285 truckloads a night. The operation starts at midnight and ends when the priority routes for transit and emergency vehicles, the downtown core, and Main Street are completed, with every effort being made to have the core cleared before the increase in traffic at about 7am. The highest hauled load night was 365 loads in 10 hours. The following equipment and personnel are necessary for effective snow and ice control in an average winter season: Amount Staff / Equipment / Resource 8 Heavy Equipment Operators 3 Motor Graders 2 Front end loaders 2 Sand trucks with attached plows 1 Snow blower attachment 20 Rental Trucks (for hauling to snow dump site) Sand is applied for traction when any accumulation of snow or ice is present on roadways and again after snow is plowed (which removes any previously-applied sand). Heavily sanded locations, identified in blue in Figures 1 and 2 are in effort to reduce vehicle accidents, address RFTA bus stops and concerns and in response to pedestrian accidents. The Streets Department maintains storage and supply for approximately 180 tons (13 dump truck loads) of sand on site each winter, with an average application volume of 477 tons (43 dump truck loads). Sand that remains on streets after snowstorm events is removed by street sweeping. 47 All removed material, snow and sand, is transported to City’s snow-dump site located near the airport and adjacent to the Aspen/Pitkin animal shelter. The snow dump site is roughly 2.3 acres. Snow is left to melt naturally and the runoff water is captured onsite in a retaining pond which infiltrates into the ground. The State of Colorado has released the city of any testing requirements after ten years of successful soil and water monitoring and test results. Figure 1. Variations of red indicate number of winter-time accidents, with dark red indicating more accidents. Blue dots and lines indicate areas of heavy sanding by Streets Department. 48 Figure 2. Variations of red indicate number of winter-time accidents, with dark red indicating more accidents. Blue dots and lines indicate areas of heavy sanding by Streets Department. DISCUSSION: Due to traffic accidents in recent winter seasons, requests by RFTA, and the requirement to evaluate impacts of alternative de-icers in the South Aspen Street Townhomes approval ordinance (Ordinance #38-2018.**), staff was directed to evaluate the re- introduction of chemical de-icing agents and the impact this might have on water quality in the Roaring Fork River and its tributaries. Proposed Streets Operations - While the application of de-icing agents is supported by the Streets Department at all intersections and streets, staff suggests a targeted application on Main Street for the 2020 season and the purposes of this limited-application test, with consideration of the high sanding request areas that have been received since the cessation of deicer chemical use in 2002. Plan for Monitoring - While water quality monitoring has been conducted in the River by several reporting agencies for many years, there has not been monitoring specific to 49 analyzing the amount of sand or salt in snowmelt runoff from City outfalls in the winter. Nevertheless, there are multiple reports of high sediment levels in the River and reported chloride (salt) values have been consistently below the instream standard of 250 mg/L.*** Because there is a known impact to River water quality from sediment and because there are no known acute or chronic exceedances of chloride in this segment of the River, staff believes that exploring alternatives to “sanding” might reduce sediment loads in stormwater runoff and is therefore worth considering. Staff has researched various de- icing agents and analyzed previously taken water samples but does not have enough information to draw a conclusive picture of what the effects of de-icers are or might be on rivers in this area. Therefore, staff plans to conduct additional testing to better monitor direct impacts of de-icing agents downstream of application in a controlled monitoring plan, as follows: 1. Fall 2020 and Winter and Spring 2021 – Determine baseline water chemistry (salinity and chloride levels) using recently purchased chloride monitors installed in targeted locations (shown on Figure 1). 2. Winter 2020 – Monitor City outfalls to determine winter TSS loads and chloride levels with and without regional treatment facilities (such as Jennie Adair wetlands). 3. Winter 2020 - Conduct site-specific applications, including but not limited to those recommended by the Streets Department in Figure 1, of several different de-icing alternatives to determine concentrations in City outfalls, the Roaring Fork River, and its tributaries. 4. Spring 2021 – Estimate chemical load per application and likely dilution per impervious area to assist in estimating effects of larger future applications. 5. Spring 2021 - Estimate the Roaring Fork River’s (and applicable tributaries’) assimilative capacity (and ability to continue to meet state and/or federal clean water standards***) for chloride and sediment during winter and early spring months. 6. Early Summer 2021 – Based on the results of data collection, agent testing, anticipated environmental impacts (specifically water quality), applicable environmental standards, practicality and effectiveness (working with the Streets Dept), make recommendations for de-icing alternatives. 7. Early Summer 2021 - Work with appropriate departments (Streets, Parks, Environmental Health) and developments (South Aspen Street Townhomes, Gorsuch Haus) to propose a Winter Road Ice Management Plan (specifying when, where and how much de-icing agent(s) should be applied). 8. Summer 2021 - Prepare a Long-term Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan to allow early identification and application alterations to prevent potential water quality impairments that are the result of the City’s winter operations and use of de-icing agents. 9. Summer 2021 - Staff will return to Council with findings from this study. If staff determines it is possible to introduce de-icing agents with minimal or negligible impacts to water quality, staff will provide a technically-based recommendation of potential de-icing agents and recommended limits for use 50 that does not does not adversely impact River water quality beyond State or Federal clean water standards. In that work session, staff should be able to present a rough estimate of the River’s capacity for de-icing chemicals and sand, a Winter Road Ice Management Plan, and a Long-term Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan for the Mayor and Council to consider and comment on. Potential De-Icing Agents: There are several products and approaches to consider when using chemical de-icing agents in a winter road maintenance program. Most include one or a combination of the products described in the table below. Different approaches range from anti-icing (ice prevention by application before a snowfall event) to de-icing (application onto accumulated snow and ice) and can vary depending on locations, expected temperatures, products on hand, wet vs dry applications, etc. The table below summarizes the elements found in most products and considerations for use in Aspen. Product Description Advantages Disadvantages Storage and Application Cost Sodium Chloride (road / rock salt) Granular solid, can be mixed, works to 15 - 20°F Most inexpensive, commonly used, no residue on roads Corrosive, harmful to roadside vegetation, leaves a white residue. Additional funding in Street Department budget to purchase this chemical. Same amount of sanding material will be required for traction while we wait for this chemical to perform. Will require a new vehicle purchase. Requires inside storage, which is not available to us at this time. Low Calcium Chloride Liquid can be mixed, works to - 25°F About 10-15% less needed than rock salt, works twice as fast, less corrosive Less damaging, If too much is used it leaves wet residue, requires waterproof storage. Additional employee, additional funding in street Department budget to purchase this chemical. Same amount of sanding material will be required for traction while we wait for this chemical to perform. Will require a new vehicle purchase. large storage tank and mixing pump purchase so this chemical can perform at lower temperatures. Requires inside storage, which is not available to us at this time. Medium Mag Chloride liquid, can be mixed, works to - 15°F About 10-15% less needed than rock salt, works twice as fast, less corrosive Less damaging for vegetation, more damaging for rivers, If too much is used it leaves wet residue, requires waterproof. Additional funding in Street Department Will require a new vehicle purchase. Requires inside storage, which is not Low Cost: $.80 cents to $1.00 a gallon. 51 budget to purchase this chemical. Same amount of sanding material will be required for traction while we wait for this chemical to perform. available to us at this time. Calcium Magnesium Acetate (CMA) NOT salt (dolomitic limestone) liquidified, can be mixed, works to +20°F Salt free, Less enviro harm, less corrosive, effect lasts longer (less application needed), much breaks bond making plowing more effective Works slower, much more volume is needed, if too much is used it leaves wet residue, too much can affect DO in water quality. Additional funding in Street Department budget to purchase this chemical. Same amount of sanding material will be required for traction while we wait for this chemical to perform. Will require a new vehicle purchase. Requires inside storage, which is not available to us at this time. High (10 – 30 times rock salt) Cost: 1 ton bag runs from $1,200.00 to $1,600.00 per bag. Beet juice An enhancer, must be used in combo with other agent, -20°F Helps salt stick to surface, increasing melt, dark color helps melt in sunlight, less harmful Different enviro impacts. Requires a new vehicle purchase, additional employee, additional funding in Street Department budget to purchase this chemical. Same amount of sanding material will be required for traction while we wait for this chemical to perform. Storage space for this is not available at this time. Will require a new vehicle purchase. Requires 2 tank storages. 1 Tank for beet juice and 1 tank storage for the other chemical that is needed to be mixed with this chemical. which is not available to us at this time. Unsure Ice Slicer (chloride combo, granular solid Works faster and longer, less amount needed when being applied, provides traction when it’s applied. Storage area will not be at our facility. No storage issues with this chemical. No new vehicle purchase, additional employee or additional funding. Can be done with existing staff and equipment. Low Cost $14.00 more per ton than 3/8”sanding material we currently use. Staff has not determined a clear winner in the de-icing world – there is not a product that is effective, inexpensive, easy to store, and environmentally safe. If City Council directs staff to conduct this limited application test of de-icing agents, the Clean River Program will work with Streets Department staff, as well as utilizing the best-available 52 data from CDOT and the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, to select and test those de-icing agents that have the greatest potential for effectiveness with the least environmental impacts prior to application this winter. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: The budget impact depends upon the de-icing agent(s) selected and costs associated with transport, storage, and application of that product. Staff will factor those considerations into the selection and work within the existing 2020 budget allocated for the Streets Department unless directed otherwise. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: There are environmental trade-offs with regard to the implementation of deicing chemicals versus sand. In this limited and strategic application, environmental impacts would be minimal and closely monitored by staff. In this testing scenario, staff would apply an adaptive management approach, and if monitoring results indicated exceedances or near exceedances of any State or Federal water quality standards, staff would alter the chemicals and/or application to reduce impacts. ALTERNATIVES: RECOMMENDATIONS: CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: **Ordinance #38-2018, excerpt – “The City shall evaluate the general impacts and potential effectiveness of alternative product applications that could provide increased traction on South Aspen Street such as salt-based de-icers, use of Magnesium Chloride or other similar product, increase application of sand or other similar material, or some combination of these alternatives. The City shall also evaluate the potential of resurfacing South Aspen Street with a traction base material. These evaluations shall include referral comments from the Environmental Health Department for environmental impact consideration and the Engineering Department. Included in this evaluation will be a water quality monitoring program (in coordination with the City Engineering Department subject to generally accepted engineering standards) to establish a baseline water quality level and measurement of impacts of implemented alternative maintenance strategies (including any salt-based de-icers and increased sanding impacts). Once complete, the evaluation shall be released to the Applicant and the Gorsuch Haus Project applicant. ***Water Quality Standards - As described in the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission’s (WQCC) Regulation 33, the Roaring Fork River is assigned beneficial uses including Aquatic Life Cold-Class 1, Recreation E, Water Supply and Agriculture. When the WQCC’s list of impaired waters was updated in 2012, the section of the Roaring Fork River that flows through Aspen was identified as having an impaired aquatic life use, with an unidentified cause for impairment. Many other reports dating from the early 2000s claim similar findings and list the likely cause for impairments to aquatic life as stressors associated with “urbanization”, which can include altered hydrology, decreased riparian (streambank) vegetation, and pollutants in stormwater runoff. The WQCC does not have strict or clear guidance on sediment loads or chloride. The WQCC establishes a chloride standard of 250 mg/L average over 30-days, but that is a drinking water standard, not an aquatic life standard. As it relates to the application of sand to improve road traction, the WQCC has a statewide narrative sediment standard which states that “state surface waters shall be free from 53 substances attributable to human-caused point source or nonpoint source discharge in amounts, concentrations of combinations which…can settle to form bottom deposits detrimental to the beneficial uses.” The EPA sets the chronic chloride pollution standard at 230 mg/L over a 4-day average and the acute standard at 860 mg/L. These limits are based on findings that chronic concentrations of 230 mg/L are harmful to aquatic life, while concentrations above the acute standards are lethal and sub-lethal to aquatic plants and invertebrates. Harmful levels could look different here or in other parts of the country because of background, or naturally-occurring, levels of chloride. It is important to distinguish background levels as they can vary widely from watershed to watershed depending on geologic weathering and soils. Based on previous monitoring in the Aspen area, the average chloride level of the Roaring Fork River is 1.5 mg/L for about 50 observations in the last 10 years. There are no state standards for sodium, magnesium, calcium, or potassium as they are natural components found in all surface water. 54 INFORMATION ONLY MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Steve Aitken, Director of Golf THRU: Austin Weiss, Director of Parks and Recreation Diane Foster, Assistant City Manager MEMO DATE: January 3, 2022 MEETING DATE: January 11, 2022 RE: 2022 Golf Membership Pass Local Qualification Process and Rates SUMMARY: Golf staff wishes to provide an update to the Mayor and City Council with the proposed 2022 Golf Pass Local Qualification Process and Rates. A task committee, comprised of staff along with members of the Golf Community and Golf Advisory Board, has worked together to refine the 2022 season golf pass qualification structure and policies to create a process to offer advance sales to local g olfers. The proposed membership pass structure has been developed to address the challenges that were encountered during the past two golf seasons that were brought on by the increased demand for use of the Aspen Golf Course. These proposed pass qualifications have been reviewed and recommended by the Golf Advisory Board and staff and represents a significant change in our sales process in order to prioritize local players. BACKGROUND HISTORY:  In 2021 we capped pass sales to provide adequate access to the golf course for our pass holders. In 2021 golf passes were available for purchase March 1 and sold out in 20 minutes. The capping of passes (42 fewer passes than 2020) worked well, and all of our pass holders were able to access the golf course. Unfortunately, there were over 130 people, many who are considered local, who were unable to purchase a pass before they sold out. DISCUSSION: Staff worked with a committee of golfers and Golf Advisory Board Members to create priority for a local golf pass sale. The definition of a local is defined by zip codes on their driver’s license that represent a significant amount of people who have bought golf passes in recent years and/or work in the City of Aspen and Pitkin County. These zip codes include: Aspen, Snowmass Village, Old Snowmass, Woody Creek, Basalt, Meredith, Marble, Redstone, and Carbondale. The recommendations from the committee were presented to the Golf Advisory Board at their December 13 Advisory Board Meeting and received unanimous approval. Golf pass purchases and local senior qualifications and golf pass rates for 2022 are as follows: 55 o A total of 865 Passes will be available for purchase for the 2022 season . o The first opportunity for golf pass purchases will be given to those who qualify residency by driver’s license in zip codes: 81611, 81615, 81621, 81623, 81642, 81654, 81656 or military driver’s license with local utility bill with that individual’s name. o To receive the daily local senior rate, individuals must provide a driver’s license with the same qualifying zip codes. The City Attorney’s office has confirmed that staff can collect the driver’s license information either in person or electronically. Procedures and dates for qualifying for the 2022 golf passes are as follows: January 12-31 Present your driver’s license in person at designated times at the Red Brick or digitally to qualify for sale. February 1 – 13 Golf staff organizing data and preparation for sale. February 14-18 Local pass sales dates. February 19-28 Verification of local passes to ensure all sales went to pre -qualified individuals. March 1 Online public sale for remaining passes. Rates for golf passes in 2022 will be similar to 2021 with only inflationary increases: Platinum Pass $2,250 Capped at 95 Gold Pass $1,330 Capped at 180 Silver Pass $920 Capped at 205 Twilight Pass $630 Capped at 130 10 18 Hole Punch Pass $690 Capped at 130 College Pass $445 Capped at 35 Junior Pass $210 Capped at 90 New Passes: Individual Person All Season Carts Pass $750 Individual Person All Season Range Pass $350 (limited to 2 buckets per day) The marketing for the local pass sale will be an essential component that will include (but not limited to): email to all pass holders, Aspen Golf newsletter, ACRA newsletter, radio advertising, social media, media alters and updates on Aspen Golf, Aspen Recreation, and City of Aspen websites. FINANCIAL IMPACTS: Revenues from golf pass sales are expected to be at or near the same as 2021, and meet overall forecasted revenues for 2022. 56 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: 57 INFORMATION ONLY MEMORANDUM TO:Mayor and City Council FROM:Tessa Schreiner, Sustainability Programs Administrator THROUGH:Ashley Perl, Climate Action Manager; CJ Oliver, Director of Environmental Health and Sustainability; Diane Foster, Assistant City Manager; and Scott Miller, Director of Public Works MEMO DATE:December 16, 2021 MEETING DATE:January 11, 2022 RE:Benchmarking and BPS: Insights from Other Communities PURPOSE:No action is being requested of Council. This informational memo provides follow up from the December 13, 2021 work session on Building IQ. SUMMARY AND BACKGROUND: At the December 13, 2021 work session, staff provided Council with an update on the Building IQ policy and requested Council’s feedback on key policy elements. Councilmembers had several questions and asked for more information about specific elements of the proposed policy. Building IQ has two phases: Benchmarking and a building performance standard. Benchmarking means measuring a building’s energy use and then comparing it to the average for similar buildings. It allows owners and occupants to understand their building’s relative energy performance and helps identify opportunities to cut energy waste.Building performance standards (BPS) are energy targets that existing buildings must meet over time to improve energy efficiency and reduce climate impacts. Building IQ remains the highest impact action that Aspen must take to move towards achieving climate goals. If City Council adopts the Building IQ policy, Aspen will be the 40th city in the US to require buildings to benchmark. Being that Aspen is not leading the way with benchmarking, staff is confident that Aspen can and should follow the recommendations from other cities. If Council adopts a building performance standard, Aspen will join 8 other cities and states in leading the way in tackling climate change. Staff will work in close partnership with these other leading entities to ensure that BPS is alignment with national best practices while still meeting the unique needs of Aspen. Staff has conducted extensive research of other communities’ benchmarking and building performance standards (BPS) policies and programs. The following trends and key takeaways are what staff finds most relevant; however, Attachment A contains additional links and information. DISCUSSION: 58 Trend 1: BPS is the leading policy tool to reduce emissions from the buildings sector A building performance standard is the highest impact policy the city could implement, and without it, the City of Aspen will not have a chance to reach the community’s climate goals. Eight cities and states in the US have passed building performance standard ordinances (including Denver and the state of Colorado). In addition, the federal government is developing a building performance standard for federal buildings. Many of the nation’s leading sustainability organizations support building performance standards, including American Council for Energy-Efficiency Economy (ACEEE), Institute for Market Transformation, Urban Sustainability Directors Network, and the New Buildings Institute. The City of Aspen has accepted an invitation from the White House Council on Environmental Quality to participate in a National BPS (Building Performance Standard) Coalition (Attachment B). Following the recommendation of experts and the lead of the federal and state government and other leading cities, staff is confident that Aspen can and should establish a building performance standard. Trend 2: Energy and water benchmarking is foundational The Institute for Market Transformation (IMT) a non-partisan nonprofit organization that works to advance adoption of and access to high-performing buildings in the United States, asserts that the benchmarking and transparency of buildings’ energy use is the core energy efficiency policy that IMT supports. Benchmarking has multiple benefits to the building owner and the community (see more in Attachment C). There are dozens of resources online that detail how to benchmark a property; two examples can be found here (Portfolio Manager) and here (Denver). For two years, energy and water benchmarking has been voluntary in the City of Aspen. While multiple privately-owned properties within the city have completed benchmarking through Portfolio Manager, their information has not been shared publicly or with the City of Aspen and therefore has limited community benefit. Making energy and water benchmarking mandatory would provide multiple benefits that include a) ensuring that more buildings are actively tracking energy and water use, b) the City of Aspen, local utilities, and partner organizations receive local property benchmarking data to help enhance programming and better serve property owners, and c) the City can create a plan for managing greenhouse gas emissions reductions that begins with measuring building resource consumption. Trend 3: Benchmarking without transparency is not as impactful IMT strongly believes that sharing benchmarking data can also drive the market to recognize and reward energy efficiency and create a continuous cycle of improvement and demand for high-performing buildings. The organization also believes that climate transparency is the key ingredient for city climate action. 59 According to IMT, all cities that have implemented benchmarking ordinances have some level of data transparency. IMT does not know of any city or state that does not publicly disclose some benchmarking data at the property level. Only one city is known to have any pushback on sharing this data, Atlanta,and their compromise was to disclose property-level data, but only share a property’s Energy Star score if it is above 55. An example of addressing benchmarking disclosure can be found on California’s Energy Commission website. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Building IQ (benchmarking and building performance standards) will drive environmental impact at scale because it provides tools for energy management and consumption reduction for the majority of Aspen’s commercial and multifamily square footage. It enables future CAP actions and empowers building owners to understand their opportunity for reducing utility bills. *Note: The links in this document can also be found on the City of Aspen’s Building IQ website (www.cityofaspen.com/1245/Building-IQ) by clicking on “Informational Attachment”) CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Additional benchmarking and building performance standards resources Attachment B – Council on Environmental Quality BPS Letter (signed by Mayor Torre) Attachment C – IMT Benchmarking and Transparency 60 Attachment A: Additional benchmarking and building performance standards resources *Note: The links in this document can also be found on the City of Aspen’s Building IQ website (www.cityofaspen.com/1245/Building-IQ) by clicking on “Informational Attachment”) List of cities, counties, and states with benchmarking requirements or ordinances: There are 39 cities and four states with benchmarking ordinances. The ordinances have many similarities in that nearly all include public buildings, commercial, and multi-family over a certain square footage, require annual reporting, and have data transpa rency. 60% of the benchmarking ordinances include water benchmarking in addition to energy. The bullets below contain more information about these ordinances and their requirements. • EPA list (updated July 2021; contains links to ordinances): https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/tools/Benchmarking%20Programs %20and%20Policies%20Factsheet_Q2-2021v5.pdf • IMT comparison matrix (updated October 2021): https://www.imt.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/09/Comparison-of-Benchmarking-Policies_October- 2021.pdf • IMT map (updated November 2021): https://www.imt.org/wp- content/uploads/2021/11/IMT-Benchmarking-Map-11222021-CURRENT.pdf How-to benchmarking guides: There are dozens of guides for how to benchmark a property in Portfolio Manager available to the public, and Aspen will create its own. All of these guides show that benchmarking takes an average of 2-8 hours once a year. Nearly 25% of the commercial space in the United States is actively benchmarking in Portfolio Manager. Below are six examples of how-to benchmarking guides: three from Energy Star and three from cities. • Portfolio Manager starter kit: https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/benchmark/get_started • Portfolio Manager training: https://www.energystar.gov/buildings/training • Portfolio Manager how-to guide: https://www.energystar.gov/sites/default/files/tools/Portfolio%20Manager%20Qui ck%20Start%20Guide_May%202021_FINAL_508.pdf • Boulder: https://bouldercolorado.gov/media/4322/download?inline • Los Angeles: https://www.betterbuildingsla.com/_images/content/Los_Angeles_Benchmarking _Guide.pdf 61 • Seattle, WA: https://www.seattle.gov/documents/departments/ose/benchm ark/ebr%20how%20 to%20guide%202019.pdf • Denver, CO: https://www.denvergov.org/files/assets/public/climate- action/documents/hpbh/energize-denver/benchmarking/2021-checklist- benchmarking-for-the-first-time.pdf • Minneapolis, MN: https://www2.minneapolismn.gov/media/content-assets/www2- documents/business/How-to-Benchmark-Guide.pdf How-to videos: In addition to how-to guides for benchmarking, there are dozens of videos online that can walk a property owner through the steps of how to benchmark. Below are four examples of these videos. • Portfolio Manager: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUT3Tpjc3rw&t=420s • Green Building Alliance: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PNaEEr5gs4&t=853s • Southface: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qK2382VZCGg • Denver: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO0o1YpIHWONMLEUmGnet6w Examples of states’ and cities’ benchmarking transparency/disclosure websites: According to IMT, there are no known cities or states with benchmarking ordinances who do not currently disclose (or plan to disclose at a future date) property -level benchmarking data to the public. Below are 15 examples of data disclosure website s, portals, and maps from cities and states around the country. • California: o Property-level data portal: https://tableau.cnra.ca.gov/t/CNRA_CEC/views/EnergyEfficiencyBenchma rkingDashboard/BenchmarkingDashboard?iframeSizedToWindow=true& %3Aembed=y&%3AshowAppBanner=false&%3Adisplay_count=no&%3As howVizHome=no&%3AshowShareOptions=false • Washington: o Aggregated and property-level report: https://des.wa.gov/sites/default/files/public/documents/Facilities/Energy /Po rtfolio_Website/2020- Reporting/2020PortfolioManagerBenchmarkingReport.pdf?=2ee59 • Atlanta, GA: o Property-level data portal: https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/office.of.resilience/viz/shared/42RQ M3P4X 62 • Austin, TX: o Property-level data portal: https://data.austintexas.gov/Utilities-and-City- Services/2016-ECAD-Commercial-Reported-Data/rhug-fur8/data • Boston, MA: o Property-level data portal: https://data.boston.gov/dataset/building-energy- reporting-and-disclosure-ordinance/resource/a7b155de-10ee-48fc-bd89- fc8e31134913 o Property-level data map: https://boston.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b3ea9 b33314541c6a2663732698fd92a • Boulder, CO: o Property-level data map: https://maps.touchstonebenchmarking.com/boulder/ • Chicago, IL: o Property-level data portal: https://data.cityofchicago.org/Environment- Sustainable-Development/Chicago-Energy-Benchmarking-2019-Data- Reported-in-/jn94-it7m o Infographic (aggregated report): https://www.chicago.gov/content/dam/city/progs/env/EnergyBenchmark/20 15_Chicago_Energy_Benchmarking_At-A-Glance.pdf • Denver, CO: o Property-level data map: https://energizedenver.org/ • Ft. Collins, CO: o Property-level data map: https://maps.touchstonebenchmarking.com/fortcollins/ • Kansas City, MO o Property-level data portal: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16w47CVBXwjc1nzoKOOFz6udH Laf8-hwZ/edit#gid=1210390168 o Aggregated community report: https://www.kcmo.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/7541 • Montgomery County, MD: o Property-level data report: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/green/Resources/Files/energy/CY 2020BenchmarkingData_AllCoveredBuildings.xlsx o Aggregated community report: https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/green/Resources/Files/energy/202 0-Benchmarking-Annual-Report.pdf • Orlando, FL: o Property-level data portal: https://data.cityoforlando.net/dataset/BEWES- Building-Data/f63n-kp6t?_ga=2.150870065.641477979.1641173346- 1148535833.1640905327 • New York City, NY: 63 o Property-level data portal: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/finance/downloads/pdf/19pdf/2018-annual- municipal-report.pdf o Required window label for all properties: https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/buildings/pdf/bldgs_ee_rating.pdf • Philadelphia, PA: o Property-level data map: http://visualization.phillybuildingbenchmarking.com/#!/ o Aggregated community report: https://www.phila.gov/media/20191210092812/2019-Citywide-Energy- Benchmarking-Report.pdf • Seattle, WA: o Property-level map data: http://www.seattle.gov/energybenchmarkingmap/#seattle/2019?layer=ener gy_star_score&sort=energy_star_score&order=desc&lat=47.61&lng=- 122.33&zoom=14 o Aggregated community report: http://www.seattle.gov/energybenchmarkingmap/#seattle/2019?layer=ener gy_star_score&sort=energy_star_score&order=desc&lat=47.61&lng=- 122.33&zoom=14 Additional resources: There are hundreds of publicly available resources, articles, and guides about benchmarking and building performance standards. The following list are several examples of these resources. • IMT Comparison of U.S. Benchmarking Policies: https://www.imt.org/wp- content/uploads/2015/09/Comparison-of-Benchmarking-Policies_October- 2021.pdf • IMT Comparison of U.S. Building Performance Standards: https://www.imt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/IMT-Matrix-Comparison-of- Building-Performance-Standards-Nov-2021.pdf • Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy; benchmarking: https://www.energy.gov/eere/slsc/building-energy-use-benchmarking • Equity in benchmarking ordinances: https://kresge.org/news-views/how-cities- are-centering-equity-in-energy-benchmarking-policies-to-address-climate- change/ • Smart Buildings Center; benchmarking benefits: https://www.smartbuildingscenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/SBC-Benefits- of-Benchmarking-web.pdf 64 • EPA Benchmarking and BPS Policy Toolkit: https://www.epa.gov/statelocalenergy/benchmarking -and-building-performance- standards-policy-toolkit • Federal Fact Sheet – Sustainability: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing- room/statements-releases/2021/12/08/fact-sheet-president-biden-signs- executive-order-catalyzing-americas-clean-energy-economy-through-federal- sustainability/ • Federal Sustainability Plan: https://www.sustainability.gov/pdfs/federal- sustainability-plan.pdf 65 AMERICA’S STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS COMMIT TO DRIVE EQUITABLE BUILDING ENERGY AND CLIMATE POLICY GOVERNMENTS ACROSS THE NATION LAUNCH EFFORTS TO INCLUSIVELY DESIGN AND IMPLEMENT BUILDING PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND COMPLEMENTARY PROGRAMS AND POLICIES As mayors, governors, county executives, and tribal leaders, we are joining in Coalition, with a heightened ambition to unlock the full human and climate potential of our built environment. Aligning our emissions reduction and equity goals with building upgrade and retrofit programs, we commit to lead the effort to decarbonize America’s building sector. We will identify and act on the pre-requisites for building performance standards or other complementary policies, and will work to advance legislation with a goal of adoption by Earth Day, 2024. In doing so, we will work with stakeholders, especially frontline communities, to design and implement programs and policies that will address our health, energy, housing affordability, and climate needs in buildings. Forging a community of practice in policy innovation, we commit to sharing our results and best practices with one another. The time for action is here, and we invite our peers nation-wide to partner with us. Signed, Mayor, City of Aspen 66 Benchmarking and Transparency December,2021 67 Benchmarking is the on-going review of building energy and water performance compared to itself, as well as other buildings of similar size, to ensure a building is using energy and water as anticipated over time and relative to peers. A fast and straightforward process, taking on average 4-8 hours once per year. Uses the free, web-based ENERGY STAR Portfolio Manager tool to report data, meaning that there are no out of pocket expenses to comply with the policy. What is Benchmarking? 2 68 Benchmarking process 3 Compare your building to a national sample of similar buildings Compare your buildings of a similar type to each other Identify underperformers in your portfolio & set priorities for staff time & investment capital 73 88 21 $ 69 Benchmarking Associated with Reduced Energy Consumption 4 4.4% Chicago 12.7M Energy consumption in properties reporting for 4 consecutive years Bill savings/ year 3.4% Minneapolis 21 M Energy Consumption from 2014- 2016 Cumulative bill savings 6% New York City Cumulative reduction over three years 7.9% San Francisco Cumulative reduction over three years3% Seattle Reduction in properties reporting for three or more years 70 Elements of a Benchmarking Policy 5 71 Transparency is the public disclosure of specific pieces of the benchmarking data Metrics typically made public: •Property Name •Address •Property Type •Year Constructed •Buillding IDs •ENERGY STAR Score •Site Energy Use Intensity (EUI) •Weather-normalized Site EUI •Greenhouse Gas Emissions •Annual Energy & Water Use by Source •Property-supplied Notes What is Transparency? 6 72 7 •Bring to bear the power of the market •Promote Tenant Engagement •Job Creation & Economic Growth •Direct resources to those most in need •Collecting and sharing the data can help advance equity goals in tandem with climate goals Benefits of Transparency 73 Sharing Data Transparency 8 74 Data Transparency 9 Visualizations for the Cities of Philadelphia, New York, and Boston (top to bottom) City of Seattle City of Philadelphia ScorecardsVisualizations Infographics City of Chicago 75