HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20170515
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
May 15, 2017
5:00 PM, City Council Chambers
MEETING AGENDA
I. Aspen's Water Future - work plan and public process update
P1
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Margaret Medellin, Utilities Portfolio Manager
THRU: Scott Miller, Director of Public Works;
Dave Hornbacher, Director, Utilities and Environmental Initiatives;
DATE OF MEMO: May 11, 2017
MEETING DATE: May 15, 2017
RE: Resolution 141, Series 2016 Quarterly Progress Update
SUMMARY: On October 10, 2016, Council passed Resolution #141, Series of 2016 directing staff to
implement certain water management measures to improve resiliency against future climate change
impacts and other system changes while continuing efforts to maintain diligence for two conditional water
storage rights on Castle and Maroon Creeks. During today’s work session, staff will provide Council
progress updates on the four (4) identified tasks and seek Council feedback to refine this community-
based approach to securing Aspen’s water future.
BACKGROUND: The City Utilities and Environmental Initiatives Department is responsible for
assuring Aspen has a safe, legal and reliable water supply, now and into the future. To this end, the City
has developed an integrated water supply. As a part of this integrated water supply, since 1965 the City of
Aspen has held and maintained conditional water rights for reservoirs on Maroon and Castle Creeks.
Today, the City’s primary source of stored water is snowpack, which varies significantly from year to
year. Aspen uses direct flow rights from Maroon and Castle Creeks, which are diverted to the Leonard
Thomas Reservoir located at Aspen’s Water Treatment Facility, treated, and then delivered to Aspen
customers. The Leonard Thomas Reservoir is an operational reservoir with a capacity of 9 acre-feet,
which is less than a day of storage during peak summer use. The Aspen community will face significant
challenges maintaining its water supply as we experience changing precipitation and runoff patterns, and
possible increased fire, drought, change in runoff timing and lower snowpack levels due to climate
change. Storage reservoirs, however, can retain water from season to season and year to year, and can
provide water supplies even during times of shortage Without water storage, Aspen’s water supply for
households and businesses will be threatened. There will be no meaningful back up if surface supplies
are greatly reduced. This is a risk the City considers when making long-range plans.
Science confirms that Aspen’s climate is already changing and will continue to do so. Aspen now sees
23 fewer winter days than in the years before 1980. This trend is projected to continue and Aspen’s
current water storage – our snowpack - will diminish. In addition, it is of significant concern that the
current storage is less than a day’s worth, which means in an emergency, supplies are limited.
P2
I.
PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: The last Council work session to discuss the Maroon Creek and
Castle Creek conditional storage rights was held on March 20, 2017. City staff provided to Council an
update on its workplan. Dr. George Oamek, consultant with Headwaters Corporation, was introduced to
City Council and discussed the risk analysis that he is conducting for the City on its water supply and
demand projections.
DISCUSSION: Resolution #141 directed staff to pursue actions in four (4) task areas. A substantial
multi-year effort is being undertaken to implement these tasks, and will require concurrent processes:
legal proceedings, on-going integrated water system development and operation, refinement of future
water demand, collaborative process to identify system needs and potential solutions, and investigation of
reservoir resizing and/or relocation.
Staff will provide quarterly updates on work progress, and will check-in regularly to update Council on
significant work items, decision points and to provide timely information. Monthly reports are prepared to
keep Council apprised of progress on the work plan (See Attachment A for the March 2017 Monthly
update and Attachment B for the April 2017 Monthly update). The goal of this work session is to update
Council on significant work accomplished since the last quarterly update.
Following is an update of significant work performed during this Quarter for each of the four (4)
Resolution tasks:
1) On-going Integrated Water System Development and Operation
Continue development and implementation of the City’s integrated water supply system, including water
conservation measures (including, but not limited to, rate revisions and new landscape ordinance), the
reuse project, and other current plans for development of water supplies, as well as further refinement of
climate change impacts on supply and demand patterns.
· Water Conservation Measures
o A Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance was presented to Council. First reading was
approved on May 8, 2017. Public Hearing is scheduled for May 22, 2017.
· Re-use Water System
o Carollo and City staff met with CDPHE to discuss the next steps for securing a permit for
applying reuse water on the golf course.
· Alternative underground storage resources
o The potential to use mine tunnels for water storage has been evaluated by Deere and Ault
Consultants, Inc. The results of this evaluation are included in the Mine Storage
Evaluation Report (Attachment C) and will be presented by Deere and Ault at this Work
Session.
· Refinement of Future Water Supply and Demand Scenarios
o Work with Headwaters Inc. to perform a preliminary review of risks in Aspen’s demand
and supply through 2065 is on-going.
o COA staff and Headwater’s Corp. staff met with NCAR scientist, Dr. Julie Vano, to
discuss a partnership for incorporating best practices for consideration of climate change
impacts into supply and demand projections.
P3
I.
2) Collaborative Community-Based Process to identify system needs and potential solutions
Initiate a collaborative process to evaluate existing and identify new alternatives and any other
necessary actions to fill the currently projected and updated anticipated water supply and demand gap
· Contracted with Consensus Building Institute (CBI) to perform a convening assessment. The
results of this assessment are discussed in the Convening Assessment Report, which was shared
with all participants.
· Released RFP for Public Outreach effort. This RFP will close on May 30, 2017 and staff
anticipate bringing a contract for this work to the June 26, 2017 City Council meeting. The RFP
is included as attachment D.
3) Legal Proceedings
File and pursue an application for finding of reasonable diligence in the development of the Castle and
Maroon Creek conditional water rights on or before October 31, 2016.
· Telephone conferences with the water referee and opposers occurred February 9, 2017 and May
9, 2017.
· A facilitated meeting was held with 9 of the 10 opposers on March 21, 2017.
4) Investigation of reservoir resizing and/or relocation
Enhance and increase the City’s efforts to investigate alternative locations and sizing requirements of the
Maroon Creek Reservoir and/or Castle Creek Reservoir, and to report findings back to City Council for
further consideration and action as appropriate.
· Deere and Ault Consultants have identified in-situ reservoir as a potential method for storing
water in the Aspen area. This concept will be presented by Deere and Ault during this work
session.
COUNCIL DIRECTION REQUESTED: This presentation is intended to be informational and no
formal action is requested of Council.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: The City is committed to reducing its footprint (carbon and water)
and fighting climate change, but even with this effort and action the City recognizes that it is best practice
to plan for a future that looks very different than today. The City’s efforts to refine its demand and supply
projections, along with undertaking a collaborative effort to identify new water infrastructure and
management options is necessary to ensure the City’s resiliency.
BUDGET IMPACT: Funds to support the work associated with Aspen’s Water Future was included in
the recently adopted spring supplemental budget.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Aspen Water Future – March Monthly Report
P4
I.
Attachment B – Aspen Water Future – April Monthly Report
Attachment C – Mine Tunnel Storage Evaluation, Deere and Ault Consultants Inc.
Attachment D – Public Outreach RFP
P5
I.
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
MARCH STATUS REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Margaret Medellin, Utilities Portfolio Manager
THRU: Scott Miller, Director of Public Works;
Dave Hornbacher, Director, Utilities and Environmental Initiatives;
DATE OF MEMO: March 24, 2017
RE: Resolution 141, Series 2016 Monthly Progress Update – March 2017
SUMMARY: On October 10, 2016, Council passed Resolution #141, Series of 2016 directing staff to
implement certain water management measures to improve resiliency against future climate change
impacts and other system changes while continuing efforts to maintain diligence for two conditional water
storage rights on Castle and Maroon Creeks. Staff will provide quarterly updates on work progress, and
provide monthly status reports to Council.
BACKGROUND: The City Utilities and Environmental Initiatives Department is responsible for
assuring Aspen has a safe, legal and reliable water supply, now and into the future. To this end, the City
has developed an integrated water supply. As a part of this integrated water supply, since 1965 the City of
Aspen has held and maintained conditional water rights for reservoirs on Maroon and Castle Creeks.
Today, the City’s primary source of stored water is snowpack, which varies significantly from year to
year. Aspen uses direct flow rights from Maroon and Castle Creeks, which are diverted to the Leonard
Thomas Reservoir located at Aspen’s Water Treatment Facility, treated, and then delivered to Aspen
customers. The Leonard Thomas Reservoir is an operational reservoir with a capacity of 9 acre-feet,
which is less than a day of storage during peak summer use. Storage reservoirs, however, can retain water
from season to season and year to year, and can provide water supplies even during times of shortage.
The Aspen community will face significant challenges maintaining its water supply as we experience
changing precipitation and runoff patterns, and possible increased fire, drought, change in runoff timing
and lower snowpack levels due to climate change. Without water storage, Aspen’s water supply for
households and businesses will be threatened. There will be no meaningful back up if surface supplies
are greatly reduced. This is a risk the City considers when making long-range plans.
Science confirms that Aspen’s climate is already changing and will continue to do so. Aspen now sees
23 fewer winter days than in the years before 1980. This trend is projected to continue and Aspen’s
current water storage – our snowpack - will diminish.
Resolution #141 directed staff to pursue actions in four (4) task areas. A substantial multi-year effort is
being undertaken to implement these tasks, and will require concurrent processes: legal proceedings, on-
going integrated water system development and operation, refinement of future water demand,
collaborative process to identify system needs and potential solutions, and investigation of reservoir
resizing and/or relocation. This monthly report will provide updates on staff’s progress towards meeting
these resolution directives.
P6
I.
KEY ACTIONS SINCE LAST REPORT: Staff has prepared a Work Plan to structure work towards
Resolution 141 (2016) goals. Following is an update of items on the Work Plan accomplished since the
last status report, dated 1/31/2017.
Risk-based analysis of demand and supply variables: Two contracts were entered into on March 6,
2017 with Headwaters Corporation to create tools for incorporating a risk component into Aspen’s water
supply and demand projections. Dr. George Oamek visited Aspen to meet with City staff to begin
compiling data for the risk tools. Dr. Oamek was introduced to City Council at its March 20, 2017 work
session and presented an overview of risk analysis. Dr. Oamek also presented his presentation to the
group of opposers to the Maroon and Castle Creek Conditional Storage Water Rights on March 21, 2017.
Conservation Efforts: Staff is working with stakeholders to develop a Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance to further encourage efficient use of water in the Aspen service area.
Investigation of Groundwater: Staff is working with HRS Engineers determine the augmentation needs
of Aspen area wells.
Permitting of Reuse System: Staff is working with Carollo Engineers to permit a system that would use
wastewater effluent to supplement potable water used for irrigation in the Aspen service area.
Develop framework for collaborative process: the services of CBI were contracted to conduct a
convening assessment to interview stakeholders about their preference for engaging with the City about
its water future. CBI consultants were in Aspen for the week of February 6, 2017 to conduct in-person
interviews. A public meeting was held on February 6, 2017. A draft Convening Assessment Report was
sent to participants on March 16, 2017 and feedback was requested by March 23, 2017.
Alternatives Analysis: Deere and Ault Engineers were contracted to provide a feasibility level analysis
of the use of local mine tunnels for water storage. Consultants conducted a tour of local mines on January
26, 2017.
Staff have prepared a contract with Deere and Ault Engineers for consideration at the March 27, 2017
City Council meeting to analyze the potential of in-situ reservoirs.
Date Past Meetings to discuss Aspen's CSWR Details Document
7/25/2016 Constituent Meeting NexGen Meeting
8/3/2016 Constituent Meeting Stakeholder Meeting
8/4/2016 Constituent Meeting Public Open House
8/18/2016 Constituent Meeting Pitkin County,
Healthy Streams and
Rivers Board
9/12/2016 City Council Regular Meeting Memo
9/20/2016 City Council Work Session Memo
9/26/2016 City Council Executive Session
9/27/2016 City Council Work Session Memo
P7
I.
10/4/2016 Constituent Meeting Marcella Larsen and
Bert Myrin
10/5/2016 Councilmember Meeting Bert Myrin
discussion about
demand assumptions
10/10/2016 City Council Regular Meeting Passed Resolution
141
Memo,
Resolution
11/28/2016 Constituent Meeting Meeting with Will
Roush
11/28/2016 City Council Regular Meeting
1/31/2017 City Council Work Session Status update Memo
2/6-10/2017 Convening Assessment Interviews draft report
3/6/2017 City Council Regular Meeting Risk Analysis
Contracts
Memo,
Resolution
3/16/2017 Constituent Meeting Pitkin County,
Healthy Streams and
Rivers Board
3/20/2017 City Council Work Session Risk Analysis
discussion
3/20/2017 City Council Executive Session
3/21/2017 Constituent Meeting Status meeting with
opposers
KEY ACTIONS PLANNED: During the next month, staff anticipate actions in the following areas:
Risk-based analysis of demand and supply variables: collection of data, development of risk-based
tool, and conversations with the Canary Initiative and climate change experts to identify best models for
this analysis.
Conservation Efforts: City Council Work Session is scheduled for April 14, 2017 to discuss the
proposed Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance to further encourage efficient use of water in the Aspen
service area.
Develop framework for collaborative process: A final Convening Assessment Report is anticipated in
April 2017. Staff will use the results of this Report to develop an RFP for facilitation consultants to assist
with the community-based collaborative process.
Alternatives Analysis: As a result of the March 21, 2017 meeting with the Opposers Group, a list of
supply and storage alternatives proposed by this group is anticipated.
These following meetings are anticipated to take place in the near term.
Date Upcoming Meetings to discuss Aspen's
CSWR
Details Document
3/27/2017 City Council Regular Meeting In-situ reservoir
contracts
Memo,
Resolution
5/15/2017 City Council Work Session Quarterly update Memo
P8
I.
CONTRACTS: Following are contracts associated with this work:
Description Summary
of Approved contracts Amount
Headwaters Corp.
demand analysis $45,000
Headwaters Corp.
supply analysis $45,000
Deere and Ault mine
water storage analysis $15,000
CBI Convening
Assessment $23,000
$128,000
Description Summary
of contracts Awaiting
Approval Amount
Deere and Ault in-situ
reservoir analysis $53,000
$53,000
SCHEDULE: The Work Plan is divided into four categories: diligence filing, collaboration, technical
analysis and operations. This schedule will be updated as work items progress. The following table lists
major work items and estimated schedule of each work item.
P9
I.
Start Date End Date Category Item
10/31/2016 10/31/2016 Diligence Filing File due diligence
12/31/2016 12/31/2016 Diligence Filing Statement of opposition due
2/9/2017 2/9/2017 Diligence Filing Conference Call with
Referee
2/21/2017 2/21/2017 Diligence Filing Facilitated meeting with
opposers
5/9/2017 5/9/2017 Diligence Filing Conference Call with
Referee
1/16/2017 4/7/2017 Collaboration Convening Assessment
5/15/2017 5/15/2017 Collaboration Release RFP for facilitators
6/12/2017 6/12/2017 Collaboration Select Facilitation Team
7/1/2017 7/1/2018 Collaboration Community-based Process
9/29/2017 12/1/2018 Technical Analysis Water Future Plan - based on
Collaborative Process
3/6/2017 12/30/2017 Technical Analysis Risk analysis for supply and
demand
10/31/2016 4/1/2018 Technical Analysis Develop groundwater
strategy
3/27/2017 6/30/2017 Technical Analysis Investigate in-situ reservoir
potential
1/27/2017 7/31/2017 Technical Analysis Investigate mine tunnel
storage potential
3/6/2017 12/30/2017 Technical Analysis Update climate change
models
10/30/2016 4/1/2018 Technical Analysis Optimize Reuse System
On-going Operations Conservation Efforts
On-going Operations Integrated water system
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: City Council is asked to provide feedback on this monthly status report
and suggest additional information to be shared in subsequent reports.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P10
I.
ASPEN CITY COUNCIL
APRIL STATUS REPORT
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Margaret Medellin, Utilities Portfolio Manager
THRU: Scott Miller, Director of Public Works;
Dave Hornbacher, Director, Utilities and Environmental Initiatives;
DATE OF MEMO: April 28, 2017
RE: Resolution 141, Series 2016 Monthly Progress Update – April 2017
SUMMARY: On October 10, 2016, Council passed Resolution #141, Series of 2016 directing staff to
implement certain water management measures to improve resiliency against future climate change
impacts and other system changes while continuing efforts to maintain diligence for two conditional water
storage rights on Castle and Maroon Creeks. Staff will provide quarterly updates on work progress, and
provide monthly status reports to Council.
BACKGROUND: The City Utilities and Environmental Initiatives Department is responsible for
assuring Aspen has a safe, legal and reliable water supply, now and into the future. To this end, the City
has developed an integrated water supply. As a part of this integrated water supply, since 1965 the City of
Aspen has held and maintained conditional water rights for reservoirs on Maroon and Castle Creeks.
Today, the City’s primary source of stored water is snowpack, which varies significantly from year to
year. Aspen uses direct flow rights from Maroon and Castle Creeks, which are diverted to the Leonard
Thomas Reservoir located at Aspen’s Water Treatment Facility, treated, and then delivered to Aspen
customers. The Leonard Thomas Reservoir is an operational reservoir with a capacity of 9 acre-feet,
which is less than a day of storage during peak summer use. Storage reservoirs, however, can retain water
from season to season and year to year, and can provide water supplies even during times of
shortage. The Aspen community will face significant challenges maintaining its water supply as we
experience changing precipitation and runoff patterns, and possible increased fire, drought, change in
runoff timing and lower snowpack levels due to climate change. Without water storage, Aspen’s water
supply for households and businesses will be threatened. There will be no meaningful back up if surface
supplies are greatly reduced. This is a risk the City considers when making long-range plans.
Science confirms that Aspen’s climate is already changing and will continue to do so. Aspen now sees
23 fewer winter days than in the years before 1980. This trend is projected to continue and Aspen’s
current water storage – our snowpack - will diminish.
Resolution #141 directed staff to pursue actions in four (4) task areas. A substantial multi-year effort is
being undertaken to implement these tasks, and will require concurrent processes: legal proceedings, on-
going integrated water system development and operation, refinement of future water demand,
collaborative process to identify system needs and potential solutions, and investigation of reservoir
resizing and/or relocation. This monthly report will provide updates on staff’s progress towards meeting
these resolution directives.
P11
I.
KEY ACTIONS SINCE LAST REPORT: Staff has prepared a Work Plan to structure work towards
Resolution 141 (2016) goals. Following is an update of items on the Work Plan accomplished since the
last status report, dated 3/24/2017.
Risk-based analysis of demand and supply variables: Headwaters Corporation continues its work on
developing a risk assessment tool to determine Aspen’s vulnerability associated with its water supply and
demand.
Conservation Efforts: Aspen’s water supply is most vulnerable from the late summer into fall when
vegetation is thirsty and resulting landscape irrigation demands are still high while stream flow from
melted snow pack is diminishing. Staff presented a proposed Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance to
City Council at its 4/18/2017 Work Session. The ordinance is intended to reduce water demand during
this vulnerable time.
Investigation of Groundwater: Staff continues its work with HRS Engineers to determine the
augmentation needs of Aspen area wells.
Permitting of Reuse System: Staff and Carollo Engineers met with Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment (CDPHE) on 4/21/2017 to review Aspen’s plans for a system that would use
wastewater effluent to supplement water used for irrigation in the Aspen service area. CDPHE provided
guidance and Carollo is proceeding with preparing permit application documents.
Develop framework for collaborative process: CBI completed its Convening Assessment and
distributed its final report to all participants. Staff is incorporating CBI’s findings in its RFP development.
Alternatives Analysis: Deere and Ault Engineers continue their investigation of the use of local mine
tunnels and in-situ reservoirs for water storage.
Date April Meetings to discuss Aspen's CSWR Details Document
4/6/2017 Constituent Meeting Staff presented
Water Topics at
ACRA’s breakfast
4/18/2017 City Council Work Session Presentation of
proposed landscape
ordinance
Memo,
Ordinance
4/21/2017 Meeting with Regulators Staff met with
CDPHE to discuss
reuse system
KEY ACTIONS PLANNED: During the next month, staff anticipate actions in the following areas:
Risk-based analysis of demand and supply variables: collection of data, development of risk-based
tool, and conversations with climate change experts to identify best models for this analysis.
P12
I.
Conservation Efforts: Based on the 4/21/2017 Council Work Session, staff will be presenting the Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance at the 5/8/2017 Regular Council Meeting.
Develop framework for collaborative process: Staff is developing a Request for Proposal (RFP) for
public outreach services for a robust and transparent community-based collaborative process to discuss
Aspen’s water supply. Release of RFP is anticipated in early May.
Alternatives Analysis: Continue work on on-going efforts to identify and review alternatives.
The following meetings are anticipated to take place in the near term.
Date Upcoming Meetings to discuss Aspen's
CSWR
Details Document
5/9/2017 Water Court – conference call with referee Meeting with
opposers to discuss
case status
5/15/2017 City Council Work Session Quarterly update Memo
CONTRACTS: Following are contracts associated with this work:
Description Summary of Approved contracts Amount
Headwaters Corp. demand analysis $45,000
Headwaters Corp. supply analysis $45,000
Deere and Ault mine water storage analysis $15,000
CBI Convening Assessment $23,000
Deere and Ault in situ reservoir analysis $53,000
$181,000
SCHEDULE: The Work Plan is divided into four categories: diligence filing, collaboration, technical
analysis and operations. This schedule will be updated as work items progress. The following table lists
major work items and estimated schedule of each work item.
Start Date End Date Category Item
10/31/2016 10/31/2016 Diligence Filing File due diligence
12/31/2016 12/31/2016 Diligence Filing Statement of opposition due
2/9/2017 2/9/2017 Diligence Filing Conference Call with
Referee
2/21/2017 2/21/2017 Diligence Filing Facilitated meeting with
opposers
5/9/2017 5/9/2017 Diligence Filing Conference Call with
Referee
1/16/2017 4/7/2017 Collaboration Convening Assessment
5/3/2017 5/3/2017 Collaboration Release RFP for facilitators
P13
I.
6/24/2017 6/24/2017 Collaboration Select Facilitation Team
7/1/2017 2/1/2018 Collaboration Community-based Process
2/1/2018 4/1/2018 Collaboration Present recommendations to
City Council
3/6/2017 12/31/2017 Technical Analysis Risk analysis for supply and
demand
10/31/2016 12/31/2017 Technical Analysis Develop groundwater
strategy
3/27/2017 7/31/2017 Technical Analysis Investigate in-situ reservoir
potential
1/27/2017 7/31/2017 Technical Analysis Investigate mine tunnel
storage potential
3/6/2017 12/31/2017 Technical Analysis Update climate change
models
10/31/2016 4/1/2018 Technical Analysis Optimize Reuse System
On-going Operations Conservation Efforts
On-going Operations Integrated water system
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION: City Council is asked to provide feedback on this monthly status report
and suggest additional information to be shared in subsequent reports.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
P14
I.
600 S. Airport Road, Building A, Suite 205
Longmont, CO 80503
Phone: 303-651-1468 ● Fax: 303-651-1469
May 11, 2017
Ms. Margaret Medellin, P.E.
Utilities Portfolio Manager
City of Aspen Utilities
130 South Galena
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Re: Mine Storage Evaluation in Aspen, Colorado; D&A Job No. CG-0687.001.00
Dear Ms. Medellin:
This letter report describes our evaluation of the potential to store raw water in the Smuggler Mine
and Aspen Mountain Mines in Aspen, Colorado. Per your request, we performed a scoping meeting
with the City Manager and other planning personnel on January 25, 2017, and then conducted a site
visit to the Smuggler Mine and other sites the following day. The approximate extent of the mine
workings in the Leadville Limestone is shown on Figure 1 along with our site visit points of
interest and locations of potential geothermal wells tapping into the Leadville Limestone. A mine
section is presented on Figure 2 showing the extents of the mines in Smuggler Mountain, Aspen
Mountain, and beneath the Roaring Fork River Valley. To understand the extent of the mine
workings and to further inform the evaluation, we reviewed available geologic and mine
information in the vicinity. This document summarizes the data review, the observations made
during our site visit, and our analysis on the potential to store water underground mine workings,
focusing on the pros and cons. Our conclusion is that the cons generally outweigh the pros,
primarily due to problems and/or costs of maintaining dominion and control over water stored in the
mine workings.
DATA REVIEW
We obtained published geologic and topographic data, as well as mining maps and reports available
at the Colorado School of Mines. In addition to these documents, we also reviewed the City’s
geothermal investigations and water quality data collected by the City from select mines. A list of
these references follows below:
Bryant, B., 1971, Geologic Map of the Aspen Quadrangle, Pitkin County, Colorado, U.S.
Geological Survey Map GQ-933, Department of the Interior, Scale 1:24,000.
Colorado Division of Water Resources, State Engineer’s Office (SEO), 2013, Well
Construction and Test Report for Well Permit No. 50240-MH (Geothermal Test Well),
Submitted by Anna Nahlik, Dans’s Water Well & Pump Service to SEO on September 2,
2013.
P15
I.
Ms. Margaret Medellin, P.E.
May 11, 2017
Page 2
Rocky Mountain Water Consultants, LLC. (RMWC), 2010, Conceptual Model of Aspen
Geothermal Resources, March 2010.
Rocky Mountain Water Consultants, LLC. (RMWC), 2015, City of Aspen Geothermal Test
Well Drilling Construction and Geophysical Logging, March 2015.
SGS Accutest, 2016, Technical Report for City of Aspen Mine Sampling, Data Report,
Submitted by Scott Heideman to the City of Aspen on November 2, 2016.
Smuggler and Aspen Mountain Mine maps and sections of various dates obtained from the
Colorado School of Mines Arthur Lakes Library. These resources, including Volin and Hild
have been provided to the City in digital format.
Spurr, J.E., 1898, Geology of the Aspen Mining District, Colorado, U.S. Geological Survey
Monograph 31, Department of the Interior, 260 p. plus plates.
U.S. EPA, 2017, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, Available at
https://www.epa.gov/ground-water-and-drinking-water/national-primary-drinking-water-
regulations, Accessed on 4/26/2017.
Volin, M.E. and Hild, J.H., 1950, Investigation of Smuggler Lead-Zinc Mine, Aspen, Pitkin
County, Colorado, U.S. Bureau of Mines Report of Investigation 4696, Department of the
Interior, 47p.
GEOLOGIC SETTING
The geologic setting in Aspen is complex, but well studied. The outcrop patterns described below
are well mapped by Bryant (1971) and by Spurr (1898). Bryant’s map and parts of sections B and
C are included as Figure 3. Also shown on Figure 3, are our select points of interest described in
the site visit summary and the approximate extent of the mines. The City is located within the
Roaring Fork River valley where Hunter Creek, Castle Creek, and Maroon Creek confluence with
the Roaring Fork River. The Roaring Fork valley contains thick alluvial deposits (Qal), as well as
glacial moraines (Qma, Qmb, Qmc) and glacial outwash terraces (Qga, Qgb). Smuggler Mountain,
composed of Precambrian aged granitic rocks (pCq), rises east of Aspen in the Sawatch uplift. Per
RMWC (2015), the Sawatch Shear Zone was encountered while drilling the City’s geothermal test
well. Sedimentary rocks representing Cambrian through Cretaceous time are intensely folded and
faulted up against the Sawatch uplift. The outcropping sedimentary strata on Aspen Mountain,
south of the City, represent a tight syncline that plunges to the north (see Section C on Figure 3).
Indeed, this structure has resulted in numerous landslides that have affected the City in the past.
North of Aspen is Red Mountain, so named because of the red colored sedimentary rocks of the
Pennsylvanian/Permian aged Maroon Formation (PPm). Due to the steep northward plunge of the
Aspen Syncline, the Paleozoic sedimentary rocks exposed on Aspen Mountain are buried thousands
of feet below Red Mountain. The western part of Aspen is underlain by the Castle Creek Fault
Zone where vertical to overturned Permian through Cretaceous sedimentary rocks make up the
P16
I.
Ms. Margaret Medellin, P.E.
May 11, 2017
Page 3
bedrock. The youngest sedimentary rock in the area is the Mancos Shale (Kmu, Kmf, Kml)
cropping out as overturned beds in the Castle Creek Fault Zone and in areas to the west of Maroon
Creek.
The geothermal conceptual model by RMWC (2010) provides a thorough description of the
geologic and mining history in the Aspen area in addition to laying out a conceptual geothermal
resources program from the Paleozoic Carbonate Aquifer. This aquifer includes the Mississippian
Leadville Limestone (Ml) and the dolomitic Devonian Chafee Formation (Dcd, Dcp). It dips about
55 degrees to the west into the Aspen Syncline, where it becomes confined by thousands of feet of
lower permeability sediments of the Pennsylvanian and Permian Gothic (Pg), Belden (Pb), and
Maroon (PPm) Formations. During drilling of the City’s geothermal test well, the Sawatch Shear
Zone was encountered within the Belden Formation. Because the limestones outcrop in the eastern
part of Aspen, this unique structure provides the geometry for the carbonate aquifer to be recharged
by precipitation and alluvial groundwater. The seven sites that would be involved in the geothermal
resources concept either as pumping wells or injection wells are shown on Figure 1.
The Leadville Limestone also hosts the famous silver and zinc sulfide mines in the Aspen Mining
District, which includes mines both on Smuggler Mountain and on Aspen Mountain. The
approximate extent of the mines shown on Figure 1 is based on Spurr (1898) and several mine
plans reviewed from the Colorado School of Mines. A longitudinal section of the mine workings
between Smuggler Mountain and Aspen Mountain is shown on Figure 2 along with projections of
select points of interest and an estimated potentiometric surface of the groundwater within the
Leadville Limestone. The dark hachured areas on the section represent the stopes of mined ore.
Note the complexity of the mine workings, stopes and faults on the section. Also, note that the
main contact fault runs parallel to and along the entire mine section. The sulfide ore was deposited
in the brecciated (or broken) parts of the limestone, primarily occurring along a contact fault
between the Leadville Limestone and the overlying shales of the Pennsylvanian Belden (or Weber)
Formation. Cross-cutting faults through the limestone also formed breccia. After the limestone was
broken by faulting, the intruding mineral-rich hydrothermal fluids deposited the sulfide ore in the
voids between the limestone clasts. Depending on the intersection of the various faults, the ore
bodies would have different shapes, but generally, they trend along the stratigraphic top of the
Leadville Limestone, and within limestone cut by the east-west cross-cutting faults. The ore was
accessed by both tunnels and shafts, and employed stope mining methods. A “stope” is an open
void within a rock formation from which ore has been extracted. In Aspen’s case, tunnels were
driven at different levels and the ore was stoped upward so that ore could be removed via the
tunnels below. As a result, the various levels of the mines are complexly interconnected by shafts,
tunnels, stopes, and likely exploration bore holes. During mining, much of the waste rock was
simply dumped back into the lower levels of the mined-out stopes.
Because the rich sulfide ore is located within the Leadville Limestone, the mine workings on
Smuggler Mountain are connected to those on Aspen Mountain underneath the Roaring Fork Valley
(Figure 2). The deepest workings are about 2,700 feet below Smuggler Mountain. During the
early 1900s, when silver mining was near its peak in Aspen, it is reported that 3,250 gallons per
minute (gpm) were being pumped from the mine workings beneath the City (Volin and Hild, 1950).
P17
I.
Ms. Margaret Medellin, P.E.
May 11, 2017
Page 4
In 1918, a dispute between the two principal miners resulted in shutdown of the pumps and flooding
of the mines by groundwater. Since then, the water levels in the mines have risen and are assumed
to be in equilibrium. Therefore, this evaluation considers groundwater in the mines to be
hydraulically connected to the groundwater in the Roaring Fork alluvial aquifer.
SITE VISIT
On January 25, 2017, we met with City staff to discuss the study and its potential alternatives of
storing water in the Smuggler Mine, in the Aspen Mountain mines. We outlined how mine
bulkheads are generally designed and installed as reclamation alternatives in mine adits to back
water up in abandoned mines. Bulkheads are essentially cork-shaped reinforced concrete plugs
installed in sound quality rock, with ring grouting of the surrounding rock mass. The size of a
bulkhead depends on anticipated water pressures that could build up behind it. Often times several
bulkheads are used in different adits at various elevations in attempt to maximize the volume of
stored water in abandoned mines. We noted that there is no real precedence in Colorado for storing
raw water in underground hard rock mines for municipal use.
The location and use of some of the City’s water rights were also discussed. We understand the
City has a direct flow water right amounting to about three cubic feet per second (cfs) from the
Durant Mine portal. Finally, we discussed the recent installation of a geothermal test well for the
City, as well as the State Engineer’s Office (SEO) rules requiring augmentation of tributary
groundwater.
On January 26 we accompanied City staff into the Smuggler Mine to gain an understanding of the
conditions of the mine, its stopes, and tunnels. Following the mine tour, we also were shown the
locations of the Mollie Gibson Shaft, the Cowenhoven Tunnel alignment, the Salvation Canal, the
City’s geothermal test well, Glory Hole Park, the Durant Tunnel portal, and the water treatment
plant. These sites are shown as points of interest on Figures 1 and 2 along with the approximate
extent of the mines in the Leadville Limestone subject to this evaluation.
Smuggler Mine
At the Smuggler Mine we toured Tunnel No. 2, the Clark Tunnel, and even accessed Tunnel No. 1
using a large open stope. We observed the rock mass and structure, ore shoots, large open stopes
with waste piles in them, and smaller open stopes extending hundreds of vertical feet above the
tunnels. A photograph of Tunnel No. 2 is shown below:
P18
I.
Ms. Margaret Medellin, P.E.
May 11, 2017
Page 5
Photo 1 – Tunnel No. 2 leading into the Smuggler Mine. Note the character of the limestone breccia on the left.
The stopes seem to form a labyrinth of open voids within the mine. Some are a mere three feet
wide, but extend for hundreds of feet up and along the fault structures. Others are about 100 feet
wide and 100 feet high, partially filled with rock from mining operations. Examples of the types of
stopes we observed are shown in the following photographs:
Photo 2 – Open stope extending from Tunnel No. 2 down towards Tunnel No. 1. Note ladders for scale.
P19
I.
Ms. Margaret Medellin, P.E.
May 11, 2017
Page 6
Photo 3 – A large open stope with an extensive waste pile used to access Tunnel No. 1 during our site visit.
Photo 4 – Open stopes supported by timbers extending up hundreds of feet above Tunnel No. 2.
Again, note the ladders for scale.
P20
I.
Ms. Margaret Medellin, P.E.
May 11, 2017
Page 7
In addition, we observed some of the mineralization within the rock mass. This included barite,
realgar, and orpiment. Barite is barium sulfate, realgar and orpiment are arsenic sulfides. Barite is
white, realgar is generally red, and orpiment is orange. These are the minerals that can leach
barium and arsenic into the groundwater when they are oxidized by water and oxygen. Photographs
of these minerals are included on the following page.
Photos 5 and 6 – Localized barite mineralization (left) and realgar and orpiment mineralization (right) in the rock mass.
When similarly oxidized, other sulfide minerals in the rock mass including galena (lead sulfide) and
sphalerite (zinc-iron sulfide) can also leach their heavy metals into the groundwater, and create
acidic water conditions as the free sulphur goes into an aqueous solution.
Mollie Gibson Shaft, Cowenhoven Tunnel and Salvation Canal
We briefly visited the location of the Mollie Gibson Shaft and looked at the area where the
Cowenhoven Tunnel is located. We also saw the Salvation Canal roughly where it crosses the
Cowenhoven Tunnel alignment. These features are important when considering storing water in the
Aspen mines.
P21
I.
Ms. Margaret Medellin, P.E.
May 11, 2017
Page 8
The Mollie Gibson Shaft is located below the Tunnel No. 2 access. It is 1,200 feet deep and would
need to be completely rehabilitated to access the lower levels of the mines. It apparently leaks
groundwater from its collar, suggesting the groundwater level in the mine is higher than the
elevation of the top of its collar. As part of the geothermal resources concept, the shaft would be
retrofitted to be an injection well for return water from the City’s proposed geothermal resources
(RMWC, 2010).
The Cowenhoven Tunnel is a roughly 10-foot diameter, approximately three-mile-long drainage
and haulage tunnel driven between 1889 and 1892. Its vertical position lies just below Tunnel No. 1
(see Figure 2). We understand that it is collapsed near its portal and that it drains some water into
lower Hunter Creek. As shown on Figure 1, the approximate location of the portal is about 1,500
feet from the main mine workings. This is because it was driven through the Gothic and Belden
(Weber) Formations. The tunnel would have to be reopened, supported and a bulkhead would have
to be installed in it to allow water storage in the Smuggler Mine.
The Salvation Canal takes water off the Roaring Fork River, just east of Aspen, and delivers it to
irrigated lands on the north side of the valley between Aspen and Woody Creek. Because the canal
crosses over the mine workings, it could be a potential source of water to fill a storage vessel in the
mines. For example, it could potentially deliver water by gravity into the Mollie Gibson Shaft.
This delivery method would only work if water is stored below the level of the canal.
Aspen Geothermal Test Well, Glory Hole Park and Durant Portal
We also briefly visited the site of the City’s geothermal test well, Glory Hole Park, and the Durant
Portal. These are other important features in the City that could affect how potentially stored water
is withdrawn from the mine workings.
The geothermal test well was installed in July 2013 and is 1,532 feet deep. It encountered 256 feet
of alluvium in the Roaring Fork valley, 1,226 feet of Belden shale, and taps into 38 feet of the
Leadville Limestone at the bottom. At about 600 feet deep, the well encountered the Sawatch Shear
Zone (RMWC, 2015), which produced about 1,000 gpm of water from the well. The water pressure
in the limestone was artesian, equilibrating at 16 feet above the ground. Following completion, the
artesian flow was measured at 10 gpm from the limestone. The test well is permitted as a
monitoring well through a Notice of Intent with the SEO, so it does not have any associated water
rights, and cannot be converted to a production well. Nevertheless, a larger well of this type of well
would be one way that water could be withdrawn from storage in the Leadville Limestone. Based
on its proximity to the Roaring Fork River and the fact that it subcrops below the alluvium, the
limestone is in hydraulic connection with the river. Therefore, an approved augmentation plan
would be required to pump stored water from the mines.
Glory Hole Park is located between Aspen Mountain and the Roaring Fork River. It is so named
because during the mining boom a sinkhole opened-up at that location and swallowed a locomotive
and two box cars. The locomotive was apparently never removed.
P22
I.
Ms. Margaret Medellin, P.E.
May 11, 2017
Page 9
We visited the Durant Portal at the base of Aspen Mountain. Presently about 0.5 cfs of water flows
out of the portal, under a large house with a glass floor and into a swale that runs through the City.
The City owns about 3 cfs of water rights from the portal. If water could be stored in the mines, this
water right would represent another means of withdrawing it from storage.
ANALYSIS
Our analytical work included an estimate of the volume of water that could be stored in the mines,
as well as identification of the pros and cons to storing water in old mine workings. We focused on
the potential of the mines to maintain control and dominion over any raw water stored in them,
possible geologic hazards, environmental effects, and water quality.
Storage Volume Estimate
We performed a cursory analysis to estimate the volume of water that could potentially be stored in
the Smuggler and Aspen Mines. To do this, we simply measured the approximate dimensions of
the mine workings shown on Figure 2 and assumed an average stope width of 10 feet. Considering
potential karst voids, waste piles and rock mass storage, we estimate the mines to yield a volume of
approximately 1,000 to 2,000 acre-feet if every void was filled, both above and below the water
table. By preliminary inspection of Figure 2, approximately one-third of that volume could be
stored in the workings above the water table.
Pros of Raw Water Storage in the Mines
The pros of storing raw water in the mines include the following:
1. Proximity to useful water rights and infrastructure
2. Ability to withdraw water using deep wells during drought conditions
3. Good baseline water quality
4. May reduce the need for above grade storage or other water supply resources
The proximity of the Smuggler and Aspen Mountain mines to existing water rights and
infrastructure is good. Water could potentially be diverted by the Salvation Canal and gravity fed
into the Mollie Gibson Shaft (Figure 1), as long as the water storage was below that level.
Additionally, bulkheads could be installed deep within Aspen Mountain to raise water levels and
ensure longer term and potentially larger flows from the Durant Portal. Alternatively, a horizontal
boring could be drilled into the Durant Tunnel to allow larger flows to be discharged from the mine.
These infrastructure concepts could optimize the use of the City’s Durant Mine water right. If water
can be stored above the groundwater level, discharges to the Roaring Fork River could be good
augmentation sources. Pipelines would be needed to deliver water roughly three miles across town
to the water treatment facility.
P23
I.
Ms. Margaret Medellin, P.E.
May 11, 2017
Page 10
Assuming water could be stored in the mine workings below the groundwater level, relatively deep
wells, or pumping from the 1,200-foot deep Mollie Gibson Shaft, would allow water to be diverted
during virtually any drought condition. Although the geothermal well concept would be to circulate
the water without consumption, if those pumping wells could be added to an augmentation plan, the
water may be able to be used as a domestic supply after its thermal energy has been consumed.
Acid mine drainage and mine water quality does not currently appear to be a major problem for the
Aspen mines because they exist within a carbonate (limestone) formation, which buffers the
production of acidic water. We reviewed some water quality data provided by the City taken from
the Durant Mine, the Mocklin Mine, and the Rio Grande Mine. These samples were tested for
general water chemistry, including calcium, alkalinity, corrosivity, hardness, total dissolved solids,
pH, and temperature. Additionally, inorganic constituents were found including fluoride, sulfate,
nitrate, and metals such as arsenic, barium, nickel, sodium and thallium. Uranium was the only
radionuclide measured in the waters. The sample from the Rio Grande Mine had some chloroform
and trihalomethanes. In general, the waters have neutral pH values, and are representative of hard,
alkaline water from a carbonate aquifer. None of the inorganic constituents appear to be above
published U.S. EPA maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for drinking water (EPA, 2017). The
concentration of uranium appears closest to the 0.030 milligrams/liter (mg/L) MCL, with values of
0.026 and 0.020 mg/L in the Mocklin and Rio Grande mines, respectively. This baseline water
quality could likely be maintained if storage in the mines was limited to that below the groundwater
table.
Finally, storing water in the underground mine workings may reduce the need for above grade
storage or development of other water supply sources, such as new deep wells.
Cons of Raw Water Storage in the Mines
The cons of storing raw water in the mines include:
1. Maintaining dominion and control of the water
2. Potential for other geologic hazards
3. Low storage volume and high cost infrastructure
4. Augmentation requirements
5. Potentially poor water quality
6. Mine ownership and operation status
Maintaining dominion and control over water stored in the mines would be incredibly challenging,
if not impossible. Many bulkheads would have to be installed at virtually every level in the mines,
and the water could still potentially leak out through the natural faults, shear zones and fracture
zones, especially if these features subcrop beneath the alluvial aquifer. Further, because the stopes
are aligned with the stratigraphy of the rock, water could bypass bulkheads by flowing through open
stopes in higher levels. Water lost to seepage out of the mine would be even more likely if stored
above the natural groundwater table, especially upon first filling. In the case of Aspen Mountain,
many other tunnels and adits enter more mine workings above Castle Creek. These “back doors”
P24
I.
Ms. Margaret Medellin, P.E.
May 11, 2017
Page 11
would likely need to be closed as well. An extensive network of monitoring equipment would
likely need to be installed in order to understand how much water is being lost to seepage.
Storing water in the mines could also have the potential to cause other geologic hazards, such as
shallow groundwater, landslides and land subsidence. These hazards would have an increased
likelihood of occurrence if water is stored in the mine workings above the natural groundwater
table. Rising groundwater to shallow depths can cause basement flooding, differential settlement of
foundations, increase river flooding hazards, and increase the available habitat for mosquitos.
Where unstable or over-steepened slopes exist, higher groundwater levels almost always result in
additional slope instability. Aspen has plenty of steep slopes with homes built on them and has
historically had landslide problems on Aspen Mountain. Storing additional water could easily
exacerbate existing landslide hazards and potentially create new ones. Land subsidence is another
potential geologic hazard that could result during pumping the water out of the mines. As
evidenced by Glory Hole Park, the potential exists for additional sinkholes to open if alluvial or
other soil materials inadvertently cave into open mine workings while water is being extracted.
Because the host rock is limestone, there is the potential for karst solution cavities and associated
sinkhole hazards. There is evidence of paleokarst features in the limestone on Aspen Mountain
(RMWC, 2010). Finally, higher water levels would almost certainly result in more widespread
damage due to liquefaction during an earthquake. This is because previously dry sediments would
be saturated, and then densify during shaking. All these geologic hazards already exist in Aspen,
and have differing but relatively low likelihoods of occurrence. Higher groundwater levels would
simply increase their likelihood.
Although we have not estimated the costs of infrastructure required to store water in the mines, they
are likely to be high. Construction costs would include construction dewatering, which historically
required around 3,250 gpm of pumping, excavation and disposal of mine waste from the lower
levels, installation of bulkheads, rock support and rock mass grouting. The project would also
require capital investment into water delivery infrastructure, including diversion structures,
pumping wells or pumping stations, pipelines to the water treatment plant and into the upper levels
of the mines. Additional water treatment methods may need to be implemented to remove certain
metals and other inorganic constituents resulting in higher treatment costs. The risk of losing
dominion and control of water pumped into the mines should also be considered a capital cost. In
the context of the relatively low storage volume, the unit costs per acre-foot foot of storage are
likely to be very high.
Another problem with storing water in the mines is that they are likely hydraulically connected to
the alluvial aquifer and the Roaring Fork River. Therefore, any pumping required to withdraw
water from the mines (even during construction) may require an augmentation plan.
Although the limited water quality testing shows that the existing raw water is of decent quality, if
water is to be stored above the groundwater table, its presence would leach additional metals out of
the oxidized rock and make the water more acidic. Under a storage scenario above the exiting
water table, fluctuating water levels in the mine during withdrawal and recharge operations may
exacerbate metal leaching and acidification. Because of the difficulties associated with dominion
P25
I.
Ms. Margaret Medellin, P.E.
May 11, 2017
Page 12
and control of water storage in the mine, the potential may exist for metal-laden acid mine drainage
to affect alluvial groundwater and/or surface water in Hunter Creek, Castle Creek or the Roaring
Fork River. This scenario could have adverse environmental effects to any aquatic life or riparian
areas of these streams. The extent of the buffering capacity of the limestone to keep the water
neutral during storage operations is unknown. If water levels are raised well above the existing
groundwater table, the best practice may be to allow them to equilibrate before drawing them back
down. This equilibration would give the limestone more time to buffer the degrading water quality.
CONCLUSIONS
The potential to store raw water in the Smuggler and Aspen Mountain Mines was evaluated through
discussions with the City of Aspen, performing a site inspection, reviewing available data, and
performing a cursory analysis focusing on the pros and cons of such a project. Based on our
analysis it appears that the cons generally outweigh the pros. In our opinion, the problems with
maintaining dominion and control of the City’s raw water, the potential for multiple adverse effects
to the City, and high costs associated with mine storage infrastructure make mine storage a high-
risk alternative.
Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
DEERE & AULT CONSULTANTS, INC.
Victor G. deWolfe, P.E., P.G. Don W. Deere, P.E.
Associate Principal
VGD:sp DWD:sp
Attachments
U:\0687 City Of Aspen\0687.001 Mine Storage Evaluation\Report\Mine Storage Evaluation.Rpt.Docx
P26
I.
Mine Section(Figure 2)
Mine Section(Figure 2)
Smuggler Mine
Aspen Mountain Mines
Herron Park
Wagner Park
Rio Grande Park
Cowenhoven Vent
Millionaire Mine
RoaringForkRiver
SalvationCanal
H u n t e r Creek
CastleCreekMeroltDitch
8100
8200
8
3
0
0
8400
8 5 0 0
8
6
0
0
8700
8800
8 9 0 090009100
9 2 0 0
9300940095008000960097007
9
0
0
98009
9
0
0
10000101007800
1
0
2
0
0
1
0
3
0
010400
10
50
010600107001
0
8
0
0
1090011000
111009
5
0
0
109008700102009
1
0
0
9
2
0
0
8 1 0 0
9300101008
8
0
0
9
7
0
09900
9
0
0
091008
2
0
0 9800940096008200
8
9
0
0 10000Durant Portal
Glory Hole Park
Cowenhoven Tunnel
Mollie Gibson Shaft
Geothermal Test Well
Smuggler Tunnel No. 2
Water Treatment Facility
C o l o r a d o I n d e x M a pColorado I n d e x M a p
AspenPitkin County, Colorado
¥0 2,000 4,000Feet
U:\0687 City of Aspen\0687.001 Mine Storage Evaluation\GIS\Mine Eval Fig 1 - Site Plan.mxd Tuesday, May 09, 2017 09:39 AMTopography from USGS DEM, C.I. = 100 feetAerial Image from NAIP (2015)
Legend
Geothermal Well Sites
Points of Interest
State Highway 82
Streams and Canals
Approximate Extent of Mine Workings
Mine Workings Under Roaring Fork Valley
ASPEN UTILITIES FIGURE NO.
1JOB NO:SCALE:
Mine Storage Site Plan
0687.001.00 1 inch=2,000 feet
P27
I.
Estimated Potentiometric Surfacein the Leadville Limestone
Northeast Southwest
Smuggler Mountain
Aspen Mountain
Roaring Fork Valley
Durant Portal
Glory Hole ParkCowenhovenTunnel
Mollie Gibson Shaft (1200')
GeothermalTest Well (1520')
SmugglerTunnel No. 2
ASPEN UTILITIES
FIGURE NO.2
DATE:SCALE:
Smuggler and Aspen Mountain Mine Section
MAY 2017
JOB NO. 0687.001.00
U:\0687 City of Aspen\0687.001 Mine Storage Evaluation\GIS\Mine Eval Fig 2 - Mine Section.mxd Monday, May 08, 2017 01:31 PM1 inch=1,000 feetP28I.
Section B
Section C
Qgb
ASPEN
Durant Portal
Glory Hole Park
Cowenhoven Tunnel
Mollie Gibson Shaft
Geothermal Test Well
Smuggler Tunnel No. 2
Water Treatment Facility
Sources: Esri, USGS, NOAA
U:\0687 City of Aspen\0687.001 Mine Storage Evaluation\GIS\Mine Eval Fig 3 - Geologic Map and Sections.mxd Tuesday, May 09, 2017 02:58 PMSection B (Scale 1"=3000')
Sect ion C(Scale 1"=3000')
ASPEN UTILITIES
FIGURE NO.3
DATE:SCALE:
Geologic Map and Sections
MAY 2017
JOB NO. 0687.001.00µ0 2,000 4,000
Feet
Geology from Bryant (1971)Hillshade from USGS DEM
1 inch=2,000 feet
Legend
Points of Interest
Approximate Extent of Mine Workings
Mine Workings Under Roaring Fork Valley
P29I.
Request for Proposals
Project Number 2017-063
Public Outreach Services associated with
Improving Resiliency of Aspen’s Integrated
Water System
Due Date: 2 PM, May 30, 2017
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, CO 81611
(970)920-5079
www.aspenpitkin.com
Rebecca.Hodgson@cityofaspen.com
P30
I.
City of Aspen
Request for Proposals
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
Sealed proposals will be received by the City of Aspen Purchasing Department through the Bidnet
Direct website, www.bidnetdirect.com, until 2:00p.m., May 30, 2017, at which time the proposals
will be opened and reviewed, for the following City of Aspen project:
Public Outreach Services associated with Improving Resiliency of Aspen’s Integrated
Water System.
The project will include, but is not limited to: professional public outreach services to discuss
alternatives for improving Aspen’s water resiliency. The City of Aspen is seeking professional
services by a consultant or consultant team (referred to herein as Vendor) to assist in gathering
public input and disseminating information about Aspen’s integrated water system. This effort
will utilize a Technical Advisory Work Group (TAWG), and will include extensive public outreach
and input.
Complete proposal packages are available to download or from www.bidnetdirect.com Vendors
must be registered to view the bid packages. There is no charge to register. Call 1-800-835-4603
if you need assistance registering.
To submit, an electronic copy of the Proposal as a PDF or Word file, must uploaded to the Bidnet
Direct website, www.bidnetdirect.com. The file name must include the City’s project number and
offeror’s name.
The City reserves the right to reject any or all Proposals or accept what is, in its judgment, the
Proposal which is in the City's best interest. The City further reserves the right, in the best interests
of the City, to accept a late submittal or to waive any technical defects or irregularities in any and all
Proposals submitted.
Pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, C.R.S. Section 24-72-200.1 (CORA), any and all of
the documents that are submitted to the City of Aspen may be deemed public records subject to
examination and inspection by third parties. The City of Aspen reserves the right, at its sole
discretion, to release for inspection or copying any document, plan, specification, proposal or other
writing submitted pursuant to this request.
Discussion may be conducted with responsible Offerors who submit Proposals determined to be
reasonably susceptible to be selected for award for purpose of clarification to assure full
understanding of, and responsiveness to the solicitation requirements.
In addition to price, the criteria set forth in the Instruction to Offerors and any specific criteria listed
below, may be considered in judging which Proposal is in the best interests of the City: Related
experience; project understanding; overall effectiveness of proposal; and ability to meet
timeline.
BY ORDER OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO
Rebecca Hodgson, Purchasing
P31
I.
City of Aspen
Request for Proposals
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 4
1.1 Project Description and Background .................................................................................................. 4
2.0 RFP Process ........................................................................................................................................ 5
2.1 Communication ................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Proposal Submission ........................................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Schedule .............................................................................................................................................. 6
2.4 Selection Criteria ................................................................................................................................. 6
3.0 Scope of Work ...................................................................................................................................... 7
4.0 Proposal Format .................................................................................................................................. 8
5.0 Legal ...................................................................................................................................................... 9
6.0 Exhibits ................................................................................................................................................ 10
P32
I.
City of Aspen
Request for Proposals
1.0 Introduction
The purpose of this Request for Proposals (RFP) is to solicit professional public outreach
services associated with improving the resiliency of Aspen’s integrated water system. The City
of Aspen is seeking professional services by a consultant or consultant team (referred to herein
as Vendor) to assist in gathering public input and disseminating information about Aspen’s
integrated water system. This effort will utilize a Technical Advisory Work Group (TAWG), and
will include extensive public outreach and input. Work associated with this RFP is desired to be
completed by February 1, 2018.
1.1 Project Description and Background
Aspen’s Water Utility is charged with ensuring the City has a legal, safe and reliable water
system to meet all of its customers indoor and outdoor uses, now and in the future. Since 1965,
Aspen’s integrated water system has included water rights for reservoirs on Maroon and Castle
Creeks. The lack of raw water storage has long been recognized as a system vulnerability. The
City of Aspen has a responsibility to identify and mitigate this known risk by implementing a
long-term water plan that ensures sufficient water for a reasonable range of possible futures
facing Aspen. At this time, reservoirs on Maroon and Castle Creek are identified in Aspen’s
long-range planning as necessary system improvements to meet water management
requirements. Because these reservoirs would likely have large social and environmental
impacts, Aspen City Council would like to explore other alternatives to increase the resiliency of
the integrated water system. City Council directed Staff to engage citizens and stakeholders in
discussing alternatives for meeting Aspen’s long-range water needs (see Attachment C for
Resolution 141 Series of 2016).
Aspen retained the services of the Consensus Building Institute (CBI) to engage the community
and stakeholders about concerns that they would like to discuss and ways in which they would
like to engage with the City. CBI’s report is attached to this RFP as Attachment D.
CBI recommended a collaborative process that includes a Technical Advisory Working Group
(TAWG) to assist the City in an effective outreach program. In addition, they recommended a
robust public process to engage the community. It is noted that CBI recommended a 1-year
engagement process for the TAWG. Work associated with this RFP is desired to be
completed by February 1, 2018. If it is determined that additional input is required
through the collaborative process, then an additional SOW will be developed.
In its assessment, CBI recommended that the collaborative process include 1) a Technical
Advisory Working Group (TAWG) and 2) a robust, topic-driven public engagement.
The Technical Advisory Working Group will consist of stakeholders appointed by the City
Council. The role of the TAWG will be to engage with the City in detailed discussions and
provide input on technical aspects of the City’s integrated water system.
In addition, the City wishes to engage the public through many venues to solicit the community’s
concerns about its water future, gather ideas for inclusion in the integrated water system, and
educate the public on the issues being studied. It is desired that the public process be designed
so that participants can focus on specific issues in an organized and efficient manner.
P33
I.
City of Aspen
Request for Proposals
This effort to gather information for the update of the Water Plan will require discussion of the
following proposed topics:
Water System Demand
This topic focuses on refining the projection of the future water requirements of the
community. Input will be needed on specific topics, such as: Population Trends,
Conservation, Environmental Considerations, Economic Impacts, Climate Change, Natural
Disasters and System Operations
Water Availability and Risk
The City will discuss levels of risk as identified by its consultant, Headwaters Corporation.
Headwaters Corporation is currently developing a tool using probability distributions to
determine the City’s greatest areas of vulnerability. It is anticipated that this tool will be used
to discuss risk mitigation with the TAWG and the general public.
Water Supply Alternatives
A large outreach effort will be undertaken to collect alternatives for securing Aspen’s water
future. Interested parties will be invited to submit ideas. This is an opportunity to think in
and out of the box for solutions. Creative, innovative, industry trending and implementable
concepts are encouraged.
Alternative Reservoir Locations
A large outreach effort will be undertaken to identify alternative locations for the Maroon
Creek Reservoir and Castle Creek Reservoir. Interested parties will be invited to submit
ideas.
Alternatives Evaluation and Development
It is anticipated that the TAWG will provide input on criteria, constraints and weighting
factors to use when selecting the best alternative, or group of alternatives, to meet the
needed water system improvements identified during the risk analysis. A screening matrix
will be developed to determine which alternatives are viable. Viable alternatives will be
identified and ranked according to weighted scores.
2.0 RFP Process
2.1 Communication
Questions must be posted on the Bidnet Direct website, www.bidnetdirect.com. Answers are
posted online for all Offerors to review and consider. It is the Vendor’s responsibility to check
the website for Q&As, addendums, and other important information.
Vendors may contact Rebecca Hodgson at Rebecca.Hodgson@cityofaspen.com or 970-920-
5079 for questions regarding the procurement process or uploading proposals.
2.2 Proposal Submission
Electronic submission is to be uploaded on the Bidnet Direct website, www.bidnetdirect.com. The
electronic submission must be compiled into a single pdf or Word document. The name of the
document must contain the City project number and firm’s name.
The deadline for submitting responses to this RFP is 2:00pm, May 30, 2017.
P34
I.
City of Aspen
Request for Proposals
2.3 Schedule
The proposal, evaluation and selection schedule is as follows:
Item Milestone Dates
Final Questions Due 05/17/2017
Proposals Packages Due by 2:00 PM 05/30/2017
Interviews (if necessary) 06/06/2017
Notification of Selection 06/09/2017
Signed Contract Due 06/16/2017
City Council Approval 06/26/2017
TAWG and public meetings 07/01/2017 – 12/31/2017
City Council Presentation(s) TBD
Final Recommendations and next steps 2/01/2018
2.4 Selection Criteria
The criteria for selection shall include but may not be limited to the following:
Team Experience: 35%
Team organization
Team experience (public processes)
Team experience (water related experience, especially Colorado municipal water
issues)
Project understanding: 25%
Understanding of Project Scope
Sensitivity to local water issues
Local connection and responsiveness, especially for meeting facilitator
Overall effectiveness of process: 25%
Robust engagement strategy
Creative and innovative forms of engagement
Clarity of process design
Communication tools
Ability to meet timeline: 5%
Demonstration of team commitment to project
Ability to provide appropriate resources to meet project timeline
Price: 10%
The City reserves the right to reject any or all Proposals or accept what is, in its judgment, the
Proposal which is in the City's best interest. The City further reserves the right, in the best interests
of the City, to accept a late submittal or to waive any technical defects or irregularities in any and all
Proposals submitted.
Discussion may be conducted with responsible offerors who submit Proposals determined to be
reasonably susceptible to be selected for award for purpose of clarification to assure full
understanding of, and responsiveness to the solicitation requirements.
P35
I.
City of Aspen
Request for Proposals
3.0 Scope of Work
The Scope of Work associated with this RFP includes the Public Outreach component desired
to solicit input and promote collaboration and transparency as the City develops innovative
strategies for increasing the resiliency of its integrated water system. The City of Aspen requires
a Vendor to assist in the development of its collaborative process, implementation of the
process and development of recommendations. Work Items will include:
Task 1: Process Design – Vendor will offer support and expertise in creating a public
participation process that will involve the community, interested parties, staff and other technical
consultants. The assessment provided by CBI (attached) should be used as a starting point.
Task 1 Deliverables:
Help Staff identify important community groups (Rotary, etc.) so Staff and Vendor
can do direct outreach with them in the form of a speakers series.
Help Staff identify groups to reach-out to for public process education who may not
seek out involvement in the update. When these groups are identified, the Vendor
should help Staff provide educational components tailored specifically for these
groups.
Work with City Council, staff and project participants to build consensus around best
alternatives for improving Aspen’s water resiliency.
Task 2: Call to Participate: The Vendor will assist Staff in a “call to participate” to parties
interested in collaborating with the City to increase the resiliency of its integrated water system.
Generate interest and promote community participation. Develop methods to facilitate the
effectiveness of the Technical Advisory Working Group(TAWG). Develop and launch a project
website that provides transparency in the process, encourages broad public participation,
archives files, and shares project milestones and updates
Task 2 Deliverables:
News releases, email alerts, social media and other methods of communication
Facilitate formation of the TAWG
Develop and launch a website for participation, communication and process updates
Implement process for engaging the public
Task 3: Meeting Facilitation – Vendor will facilitate TAWG meetings and other meetings as
identified during the Process Design. Aspen reserves the ability to select a local facilitator
to assist with meeting facilitation. Address in your proposal how a local facilitator could
best be integrated into your project team and the associated cost implications.
Task 3 Deliverables:
Work with staff to design a structured process to include timelines, meeting agendas
and specific outcomes for each meeting.
In-person facilitation of meetings
Development and procurement of materials, exhibits, etc. for meetings
Summary memos for each meeting
Update website and outward communication of TAWG progress
P36
I.
City of Aspen
Request for Proposals
Task 4: Communications – Vendor will prepare outreach materials for participants,
stakeholders, policy makers and media.
Task 4 Deliverables:
Vendor will create formats for public outreach, including design of interactive website
and other online formats, invitations to participate, surveys and media alerts.
Creative ideas are encouraged for the engagement of a diverse group of community
members and stakeholders.
System for tracking participant responses and participation.
At least three in-person meetings with City Council to present recommendations and
findings.
Task 5: Public Relations Expertise – Vendor will provide team member(s) with deep
experience in advising staff and policy makers on presenting technical information to the public
in a relatable manner. It is preferable that this experience include discussion of municipal water
topics.
Task 5 Deliverables:
Provide input into the process design and implementation
Guide project messaging
On-going support, to include meetings with City staff and policy-makers
Task 6: Recommendations and Findings – Vendor will prepare three reports throughout the
project
Task 5 Deliverables:
Report One: Summary of TAWG Findings and Public Process
Report Two: Summary of Alternatives Analysis
Report Three: Final Recommendation at the end of the project summarizing key
issues, items of consensus and policy recommendations.
4.0 Proposal Format
All proposals will follow the format as outlined below. Failure to do so may result in
disqualification.
Section 1 - Introduction Introduce companies and staff to be
included as the project team. Include
resumes, certifications, awards, and
education. Include contact person name,
phone number and email address for
purposes of this procurement process
Section 2 - Qualifications List previous experience of project team
members for this specific type of work. List
previous experience of project team
P37
I.
City of Aspen
Request for Proposals
members with Colorado specific water
projects.
Section 3 - Proposal
Explain proposed Approach and Process
to be used to attain the objectives of this
request in depth. Include any additional
steps or services you would propose to
make this a more comprehensive process,
or a more useful final deliverable.
Deviations from the Scope of Work
outlined above are acceptable if they will
produce a more effective, innovative,
and/or engaging process.
Section 4 - Timeline Completion schedule including milestones
and deliverable submission dates.
Demonstration of team’s commitment to
the project and ability to provide resources
to meet project timeline.
Section 5 – Fee Proposal Outline the estimated total budget based
on the proposed scope of services,
detailing the budget for each portion of the
project, and specifying rates for various
individuals and/or entities. Also include the
fee schedule for completion of additional
services if additional services were to be
requested.
Section 6 – References Include a minimum of five references that
include project name, year work
completed, contact name, phone number
and email address.
5.0 Legal
5.1 The City reserves the right to reject any or all Proposals or accept what is, in its judgment, the
Proposal which is in the City's best interest. The City further reserves the right, in the best interests
of the City, to accept a late submittal or to waive any technical defects or irregularities in any and all
Proposals submitted.
5.2 Pursuant to the Colorado Open Records Act, C.R.S. Section 24-72-200.1 (CORA), any and all
of the documents that are submitted to the City of Aspen may be deemed public records subject to
examination and inspection by third parties. The City of Aspen reserves the right, at its sole
discretion, to release for inspection or copying any document, plan, specification, proposal or other
writing submitted pursuant to this request.
5.3 In order to fully understand the legal parameters of the City’s procurement process and
contractual requirements, Respondents must review Exhibit A Instructions for Offerors of
Professional Services and Exhibit B Professional Services Agreement.
P38
I.
City of Aspen
Request for Proposals
5.4 By participating in the City’s procurement process, you are agreeing to the terms and
conditions of the procurement process and the legal parameters of doing business with the City
without change.
6.0 Exhibits
The following files are attached for your use and reference as needed to properly respond to the
RFP request:
Exhibit A – Instructions to Offerors of Professional Services
Exhibit B – Professional Services Agreement
Exhibit C – City of Aspen Resolution 141, Series of 2016
Exhibit D – CBI Consensus Assessment
P39
I.
1
THE CITY OF ASPEN
INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFERORS
OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
1. The City of Aspen has advertised to invite Professionals to submit sealed Proposals as more
fully described in the Request for Proposals. The following instructions have been prepared
to assist Offerors in the preparation of their Proposals. These instructions may be altered by
the City whenever it is deemed necessary in the best interests of the City.
2. The Contract Documents for this project shall consist of the following documents:
A. Request for Proposals (Public Notice and Letters to Potential Offerors).
B. Instructions to Offerors.
C. Addenda, if any.
D. Proposal submitted by Offeror.
E. Proposal Bond Forms, if any.
F. Qualification Form, if any.
G. Notice of Award.
H. Agreement.
I. Scope of Work, if not set forth in the Request for Proposals.
J. Notice to Proceed.
3. Information contained in the Contract Documents, as completed during the contract award
process, shall be the basis for the Proposals, and nothing shall be deemed to change or
supplement this basis except for written revisions to the above documents issued by the City
of Aspen.
4. The City reserves the right to reject any or all Proposals or accept what is, in its judgment,
the Proposal which is in the best interest of the City’s. The City further reserves the right, in
the best interests of the City, to waive any technical defects or irregularities in any and all
Proposals submitted, and to negotiate contract terms with the Successful Offeror, and the
right to disregard all nonconforming, nonresponsive or conditional Proposals. Discrepancies
between words and figures will be resolved in favor of words. Discrepancies between the
indicated sum of any column of figures and the correct sum thereof will be resolved in favor
of the correct sum.
5. The cost of proposal preparation shall be borne solely by the persons or entities submitting
proposals.
6. The following procedures or steps shall be followed after the issuance or publication of
Request for Proposals:
P40
I.
2
A. Reference is made to the Request for Proposals to determine if a pre-Proposal
conference will be scheduled, and if so, where and when. If a pre-Proposal
conference is scheduled, attendance at the pre-Proposal conference is
mandatory unless prior authorization is given by the City. The costs of
attendance at a pre-Proposal conference shall be borne entirely by the
Offeror.
B. Reference is made to the Request for Proposals to determine how complete
Proposal Packages may be obtained.
C. Before submitting a Proposal, each Offeror must (a) examine the Contract
Documents thoroughly, (b) visit the site, if any, to familiarize her/himself
with local conditions that may in any manner affect cost, progress or
performance of the Work, (c) familiarize her/himself with federal, state and
local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations that may in any manner affect
costs, progress or performance of the Work; (d) familiarize her/himself with
the unique weather conditions of the City of Aspen and surrounding area that
may affect costs, progress or performance of Work; and (e) study and
carefully correlate Offeror's observations with the Contract Documents.
D. Reference is made to the Request for Proposals for the identification of those
reports of investigations and tests of subsurface and latent physical
conditions at the site or otherwise affecting cost, progress or performance of
the Work which have been relied upon by the City of Aspen or a consultant
in preparing any Drawings or Specifications. These reports are not
guaranteed as to accuracy or completeness, nor are they part of the Contract
Documents. Before submitting her/his Proposal each Offeror will, at her/his
own expense, make such additional investigations and tests as the Offeror
may deem necessary to determine her/his Proposal for performance of the
Work in accordance with the time, price and other terms and conditions of
the Contract Documents.
E. Reference is made to the Request for Proposals to determine the place, date,
and time for delivering sealed Proposals for this project.
F. Proposals shall be submitted at the time and place indicated in the Request
for Proposals and shall be included in an opaque sealed envelope, marked
with the Project title and name and address of the Offeror and accompanied
by the Proposal Security referenced below and other required documents. If
the Proposal is sent through the mail or other delivery system the sealed
envelope shall be enclosed in a seperate envelope with the notation
"PROPOSAL ENCLOSED" on the face thereof. Proposals submitted by
P41
I.
3
facsimile machine (FAX) or email shall not be accepted or considered.
G. Reference is made to the Request for Proposals to determine if Proposal
Security shall be required for this project. If a Proposal Security is required
then each proposal must be accompanied by Proposal Security made payable
to the City of Aspen, in an amount of five percent (5%) of the maximum
Proposal price and in the form of a certified or bank check or a Proposal
Bond (on form attached, if a form is prescribed) issued by a Surety.
The Proposal Security of the Successful Offeror will be retained until such
Offeror has executed the Agreement and furnished the required Payment and
Performance Bonds, if any are required by the Supplemental General
Conditions, whereupon it will be returned; if the Successful Offeror fails to
execute and deliver the Agreement and furnish the require Performance and
Payment Bonds, if any are required, within fifteen (15) days of the Notice of
Award, the City of Aspen may annul the Notice of Award and the Proposal
Security of that Offeror shall be forfeited. The Proposal Security of any
Offeror whom the City of Aspen believes to have a chance of receiving the
award may be retained by the City of Aspen until the earlier of the seventh
day after the "effective date of the Agreement" (which term is defined in the
General Conditions) or the sixty first (61) day after the Proposal opening.
Proposal Security of other Offerors will be returned within seven (7) days of
the Proposal opening.
H. Reference is made to the Request for Proposals for any Proposal Forms that
may be required to be completed as part of the Proposal. Proposal Forms, if
any are required, must be completed in ink or by a printer/typewriter. The
Proposal price must be stated in words and numerals; in case of a conflict,
words will take precedence. Proposals by corporations must be executed in
the corporate name by the president or a vice-president (or other corporate
officer accompanied by evidence of authority to sign) and the corporate seal
must be affixed and attested by the secretary or an assistant secretary. The
corporate address and state of incorporation shall be shown below the
signature. Proposals by partnerships must be executed in the partnership
named and signed by a partner, whose title must appear under the signature
and the official address of the partnership must be shown below the
signature.
I. Proposals may be modified or withdrawn by an appropriate document duly
executed (in the manner that a Proposal must be executed) and delivered to
the place where Proposals are to be submitted at any time prior to the
opening of Proposals. If, within twenty four (24) hours after Proposals are
opened, any Offeror files a duly signed written notice with the City of Aspen
P42
I.
4
and promptly thereafter demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of the
City of Aspen that there was a material and substantial mistake in the
preparation of her/his Proposal, that the Offeror may withdraw her/his
Proposal and the Proposal Security will be returned. Thereafter that Offeror
shall be disqualified from submitting a Proposal.
J. At the place, date and time fixed for opening Proposals, all Proposals
received prior to that time shall be opened and reviewed. All Proposals shall
remain open for a period of thirty (30) days, but the City may, in its sole
discretion, release any Proposal and return the Proposal Security prior to that
date.
K. The City shall then evaluate each Proposal in the best interests of the City of
Aspen. The proposals shall be evaluated to determine which are the most
advantageous to the City of Aspen taking into consideration price, the
evaluation factors set forth at Section 3-14(f) of the Aspen Municipal Code,
and any factors set forth in the Request for Proposals.
L. Prior to accepting a Proposal, the City may decide to interview one or more
Offerors to negotiate final contract terms for inclusion in the Agreement.
M. To demonstrate qualifications to perform the Work, each Offeror must be
prepared to submit within five (5) days of a request, financial data, previous
experience or evidence of authority to conduct business in the state of
Colorado. Notwithstanding any language to the contrary contained in any
Request for Proposals, professionals shall not be required to divulge any
information they deem to be confidential regarding previous clients, work
performed, or cost of said previous work. The request, if any, for financial
data is intended solely to help assess the professional’s capacity and
qualifications to work for the City.
N. Upon determining the successful Offeror, the City of Aspen shall send to the
Successful Offeror a Notice of Award notifying the recipient of the City's
acceptance of the Offeror's Proposal, subject to the City Manager or City
Council approval of the Contract Documents. The Notice of Award shall also
forward to the presumptive Successful Offeror three (3) unexecuted copies of
the Agreement with instructions to execute and return the same to the City
within ten (10) days or risk having their Proposal declared abandoned. If the
proposed Agreement shall be for an amount in excess of $25,000.00, the City
Council at its next regularly scheduled meeting following receipt by the City
of the duly executed copies of the Agreement shall be asked to consider
approval of the Agreement and authorize the Mayor of the City of Aspen to
execute the same. If the proposed Agreement shall be in an amount equal to
P43
I.
5
or less than $25,000.00 the City Manager shall be asked to consider approval
of the Agreement by executing the same.
O. Upon receipt of all documents required by the Notice of Award and upon
approval of the Agreement by the City Council or City Manager, the
Successful Offeror shall be sent a Notice to Proceed along with a copy of the
Agreement duly executed by the City Manager or Mayor of the City of
Aspen.
7. All purchases of supplies, construction or building materials shall not include Federal Excise
Taxes or Colorado State or local sales or use taxes. The City of Aspen's State of Colorado
tax identification number is 98-04557. The City of Aspen's Federal Tax Identification
Number is 84-6000563.
8. There are specific indemnity and insurance requirements which the Successful Offeror must
comply with prior to the start of Work for this project. These requirements are set forth in
detail in the Agreement.
9. The submission of a Proposal will constitute an incontrovertible representation by the
Offeror that he has complied with every requirement of these instructions and that the
Contract Documents are sufficient in scope and detail to indicate and convey understanding
of all terms and conditions for performance of the Work.
10. Reference is made to the Request for Proposals for the identity of the City of Aspen's project
manager(s) who will coordinate all aspects of the selection process. All questions about the
meaning or intent of the Contract Documents shall be submitted to the project manager(s) in
writing. Replies will be issued by Addenda mailed or delivered to all parties recorded by the
project manager(s) as having received a Proposal Package. Questions received less than ten
(10) days prior to the date of Proposal openings may not be answered. Only questions
answered by formal written Addenda will be binding. Oral and other interpretations or
clarifications will be without legal effect.
11.. By submitting an offer or bid, Professional certifies and represents that at this time:
(i) Professional shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who
are newly hired for employment in the United States; and
(ii) Professional has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Pilot
Program in order to verify that it does not employ illegal aliens.
instruc3.bid – version 6/07
P44
I.
Agreement Professional Services Page 0
CITY OF ASPEN STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT V 2009
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
City of Aspen Project No.: ____________.
AGREEMENT made as of _____ day of _____________, in the year _______
BETWEEN the City:
Contract Amount:
The City of Aspen
c/o ________________
130 South Galena Street
Aspen, Colorado 81611
Phone: (970) 920-5079
And the Professional:
_________________________
c/o _______________________
__________________________
__________________________
Phone: ____________________
For the Following Project:
___________________________________________________________
Exhibits appended and made a part of this Agreement:
If this Agreement requires the City to pay
an amount of money in excess of
$25,000.00 it shall not be deemed valid
until it has been approved by the City
Council of the City of Aspen.
City Council Approval:
Date: ___________________________
Resolution No.:___________________
Exhibit A: Scope of Work.
Exhibit B: Fee Schedule.
Total: $____________
P45
I.
Agreement Professional Services Page 1
The City and Professional agree as set forth below.
1. Scope of Work. Professional shall perform in a competent and professional manner the
Scope of Work as set forth at Exhibit A attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein.
2. Completion. Professional shall commence Work immediately upon receipt of a written Notice
to Proceed from the City and complete all phases of the Scope of Work as expeditiously as is
consistent with professional skill and care and the orderly progress of the Work in a timely manner.
The parties anticipate that all Work pursuant to this Agreement shall be completed no later than
__________________. Upon request of the City, Professional shall submit, for the City's approval, a
schedule for the performance of Professional's services which shall be adjusted as required as the
project proceeds, and which shall include allowances for periods of time required by the City's
project engineer for review and approval of submissions and for approvals of authorities having
jurisdiction over the project. This schedule, when approved by the City, shall not, except for
reasonable cause, be exceeded by the Professional.
3. Payment. In consideration of the work performed, City shall pay Professional on a time and
expense basis for all work performed. The hourly rates for work performed by Professional shall not
exceed those hourly rates set forth at Exhibit B appended hereto. Except as otherwise mutually
agreed to by the parties the payments made to Professional shall not initially exceed the amount set
forth above. Professional shall submit, in timely fashion, invoices for work performed. The City
shall review such invoices and, if they are considered incorrect or untimely, the City shall review the
matter with Professional within ten days from receipt of the Professional's bill.
4. Non-Assignability. Both parties recognize that this Agreement is one for personal services
and cannot be transferred, assigned, or sublet by either party without prior written consent of the
other. Sub-Contracting, if authorized, shall not relieve the Professional of any of the responsibilities
or obligations under this Agreement. Professional shall be and remain solely responsible to the City
for the acts, errors, omissions or neglect of any subcontractors’ officers, agents and employees, each
of whom shall, for this purpose be deemed to be an agent or employee of the Professional to the
extent of the subcontract. The City shall not be obligated to pay or be liable for payment of any sums
due which may be due to any sub-contractor.
5. Termination of Procurement. The sale contemplated by this Agreement may be
canceled by the City prior to acceptance by the City whenever for any reason and in its sole
discretion the City shall determine that such cancellation is in its best interests and convenience.
6. Termination of Professional Services. The Professional or the City may terminate the
Professional Services component of this Agreement, without specifying the reason therefor, by
giving notice, in writing, addressed to the other party, specifying the effective date of the
termination. No fees shall be earned after the effective date of the termination. Upon any
termination, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models,
photographs, reports or other material prepared by the Professional pursuant to this Agreement shall
become the property of the City. Notwithstanding the above, Professional shall not be relieved of
any liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by virtue of any breach of this
P46
I.
Agreement Professional Services Page 2
Agreement by the Professional, and the City may withhold any payments to the Professional for the
purposes of set-off until such time as the exact amount of damages due the City from the
Professional may be determined.
7. Independent Contractor Status. It is expressly acknowledged and understood by the parties
that nothing contained in this agreement shall result in, or be construed as establishing an
employment relationship. Professional shall be, and shall perform as, an independent Contractor
who agrees to use his or her best efforts to provide the said services on behalf of the City. No agent,
employee, or servant of Professional shall be, or shall be deemed to be, the employee, agent or
servant of the City. City is interested only in the results obtained under this contract. The manner
and means of conducting the work are under the sole control of Professional. None of the benefits
provided by City to its employees including, but not limited to, workers' compensation insurance and
unemployment insurance, are available from City to the employees, agents or servants of
Professional. Professional shall be solely and entirely responsible for its acts and for the acts of
Professional's agents, employees, servants and subcontractors during the performance of this
contract. Professional shall indemnify City against all liability and loss in connection with, and shall
assume full responsibility for payment of all federal, state and local taxes or contributions imposed
or required under unemployment insurance, social security and income tax law, with respect to
Professional and/or Professional's employees engaged in the performance of the services agreed to
herein.
8. Indemnification. Professional agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City, its officers,
employees, insurers, and self-insurance pool, from and against all liability, claims, and demands, on
account of injury, loss, or damage, including without limitation claims arising from bodily injury,
personal injury, sickness, disease, death, property loss or damage, or any other loss of any kind
whatsoever, which arise out of or are in any manner connected with this contract, to the extent and
for an amount represented by the degree or percentage such injury, loss, or damage is caused in
whole or in part by, or is claimed to be caused in whole or in part by, the wrongful act, omission,
error, professional error, mistake, negligence, or other fault of the Professional, any subcontractor of
the Professional, or any officer, employee, representative, or agent of the Professional or of any
subcontractor of the Professional, or which arises out of any workmen's compensation claim of any
employee of the Professional or of any employee of any subcontractor of the Professional. The
Professional agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, and to provide defense for and defend against,
any such liability, claims or demands at the sole expense of the Professional, or at the option of the
City, agrees to pay the City or reimburse the City for the defense costs incurred by the City in
connection with, any such liability, claims, or demands. If it is determined by the final judgment of a
court of competent jurisdiction that such injury, loss, or damage was caused in whole or in part by
the act, omission, or other fault of the City, its officers, or its employees, the City shall reimburse the
Professional for the portion of the judgment attributable to such act, omission, or other fault of the
City, its officers, or employees.
9. Professional's Insurance.
(a) Professional agrees to procure and maintain, at its own expense, a policy or policies
of insurance sufficient to insure against all liability, claims, demands, and other obligations
P47
I.
Agreement Professional Services Page 3
assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. Such insurance shall be in addition
to any other insurance requirements imposed by this contract or by law. The Professional
shall not be relieved of any liability, claims, demands, or other obligations assumed pursuant
to Section 8 above by reason of its failure to procure or maintain insurance, or by reason of
its failure to procure or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types.
(b) Professional shall procure and maintain, and shall cause any subcontractor of the
Professional to procure and maintain, the minimum insurance coverages listed below. Such
coverages shall be procured and maintained with forms and insurance acceptable to the City.
All coverages shall be continuously maintained to cover all liability, claims, demands, and
other obligations assumed by the Professional pursuant to Section 8 above. In the case of any
claims-made policy, the necessary retroactive dates and extended reporting periods shall be
procured to maintain such continuous coverage.
(i) Workers’ Compensation insurance to cover obligations imposed by
applicable laws for any employee engaged in the performance of work under this
contract, and Employers' Liability insurance with minimum limits of FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) for each accident, FIVE
HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - policy limit, and
FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS ($500,000.00) disease - each
employee. Evidence of qualified self-insured status may be substituted for the
Workers' Compensation requirements of this paragraph.
(ii) Commercial General Liability insurance with minimum combined single
limits of ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE
MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) aggregate. The policy shall be applicable to
all premises and operations. The policy shall include coverage for bodily injury,
broad form property damage (including completed operations), personal injury
(including coverage for contractual and employee acts), blanket contractual,
independent contractors, products, and completed operations. The policy shall
contain a severability of interests provision.
(iii) Comprehensive Automobile Liability insurance with minimum combined
single limits for bodily injury and property damage of not less than ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000.00) each occurrence and ONE MILLION DOLLARS
($1,000,000.00) aggregate with respect to each Professional's owned, hired and non-
owned vehicles assigned to or used in performance of the Scope of Work. The policy
shall contain a severability of interests provision. If the Professional has no owned
automobiles, the requirements of this Section shall be met by each employee of the
Professional providing services to the City under this contract.
(iv) Professional Liability insurance with the minimum limits of ONE MILLION
DOLLARS ($1,000,000) each claim and ONE MILLION DOLLARS ($1,000,000)
aggregate.
P48
I.
Agreement Professional Services Page 4
(c) The policy or policies required above shall be endorsed to include the City and the City's
officers and employees as additional insureds. Every policy required above shall be primary
insurance, and any insurance carried by the City, its officers or employees, or carried by or
provided through any insurance pool of the City, shall be excess and not contributory
insurance to that provided by Professional. No additional insured endorsement to the policy
required above shall contain any exclusion for bodily injury or property damage arising from
completed operations. The Professional shall be solely responsible for any deductible losses
under any policy required above.
(d) The certificate of insurance provided to the City shall be completed by the Professional's
insurance agent as evidence that policies providing the required coverages, conditions, and
minimum limits are in full force and effect, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City
prior to commencement of the contract. No other form of certificate shall be used. The
certificate shall identify this contract and shall provide that the coverages afforded under the
policies shall not be canceled, terminated or materially changed until at least thirty (30) days
prior written notice has been given to the City.
(e) Failure on the part of the Professional to procure or maintain policies providing the
required coverages, conditions, and minimum limits shall constitute a material breach of
contract upon which City may immediately terminate this contract, or at its discretion City
may procure or renew any such policy or any extended reporting period thereto and may pay
any and all premiums in connection therewith, and all monies so paid by City shall be repaid
by Professional to City upon demand, or City may offset the cost of the premiums against
monies due to Professional from City.
(f) City reserves the right to request and receive a certified copy of any policy and any
endorsement thereto.
(g) The parties hereto understand and agree that City is relying on, and does not waive or
intend to waive by any provision of this contract, the monetary limitations (presently
$350,000.00 per person and $990,000 per occurrence) or any other rights, immunities, and
protections provided by the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act, Section 24-10-101 et
seq., C.R.S., as from time to time amended, or otherwise available to City, its officers, or its
employees.
10. City's Insurance. The parties hereto understand that the City is a member of the Colorado
Intergovernmental Risk Sharing Agency (CIRSA) and as such participates in the CIRSA Proper-
ty/Casualty Pool. Copies of the CIRSA policies and manual are kept at the City of Aspen Risk
Management Department and are available to Professional for inspection during normal business
hours. City makes no representations whatsoever with respect to specific coverages offered by
CIRSA. City shall provide Professional reasonable notice of any changes in its membership or
participation in CIRSA.
11. Completeness of Agreement. It is expressly agreed that this agreement contains the entire
undertaking of the parties relevant to the subject matter thereof and there are no verbal or written
P49
I.
Agreement Professional Services Page 5
representations, agreements, warranties or promises pertaining to the project matter thereof not
expressly incorporated in this writing.
12. Notice. Any written notices as called for herein may be hand delivered or mailed by
certified mail return receipt requested to the respective persons and/or addresses listed above.
13. Non-Discrimination. No discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, marital status,
affectional or sexual orientation, family responsibility, national origin, ancestry, handicap, or
religion shall be made in the employment of persons to perform services under this contract.
Professional agrees to meet all of the requirements of City's municipal code, Section 13-98,
pertaining to non-discrimination in employment.
14. Waiver. The waiver by the City of any term, covenant, or condition hereof shall not operate
as a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or any other term. No term, covenant, or condition
of this Agreement can be waived except by the written consent of the City, and forbearance or
indulgence by the City in any regard whatsoever shall not constitute a waiver of any term, covenant,
or condition to be performed by Professional to which the same may apply and, until complete
performance by Professional of said term, covenant or condition, the City shall be entitled to invoke
any remedy available to it under this Agreement or by law despite any such forbearance or
indulgence.
15. Execution of Agreement by City. This Agreement shall be binding upon all parties hereto
and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. Notwithstanding
anything to the contrary contained herein, this Agreement shall not be binding upon the City unless
duly executed by the Mayor of the City of Aspen (or a duly authorized official in his absence)
following a Motion or Resolution of the Council of the City of Aspen authorizing the Mayor (or a
duly authorized official in his absence) to execute the same.
16. Illegal Aliens – CRS 8-17.5-101 & 24-76.5-101.
(a) Purpose. During the 2006 Colorado legislative session, the Legislature passed
House Bills 06-1343 (subsequently amended by HB 07-1073) and 06-1023 that added
new statutes relating to the employment of and contracting with illegal aliens. These new
laws prohibit all state agencies and political subdivisions, including the City of Aspen,
from knowingly hiring an illegal alien to perform work under a contract, or to knowingly
contract with a subcontractor who knowingly hires with an illegal alien to perform work
under the contract. The new laws also require that all contracts for services include
certain specific language as set forth in the statutes. The following terms and conditions
have been designed to comply with the requirements of this new law.
(b) Definitions. The following terms are defined in the new law and by this reference
are incorporated herein and in any contract for services entered into with the City of
Aspen.
“Basic Pilot Program” means the basic pilot employment verification program
created in Public Law 208, 104th Congress, as amended, and expanded in Public
P50
I.
Agreement Professional Services Page 6
Law 156, 108th Congress, as amended, that is administered by the United States
Department of Homeland Security.
“Public Contract for Services” means this Agreement.
“Services” means the furnishing of labor, time, or effort by a Contractor or a
subcontractor not involving the delivery of a specific end product other than
reports that are merely incidental to the required performance.
(c) By signing this document, Professional certifies and represents that at this time:
(i) Professional shall confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who
are newly hired for employment in the United States; and
(ii) Professional has participated or attempted to participate in the Basic Pilot
Program in order to verify that new employees are not illegal aliens.
(d) Professional hereby confirms that:
(i) Professional shall not knowingly employ or contract new employees
without confirming the employment eligibility of all such employees hired for
employment in the United States under the Public Contract for Services.
(ii) Professional shall not enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails
to confirm to the Professional that the subcontractor shall not knowingly hire new
employees without confirming their employment eligibility for employment in the
United States under the Public Contract for Services.
(iii) Professional has verified or has attempted to verify through participation
in the Federal Basic Pilot Program that Professional does not employ any new
employees who are not eligible for employment in the United States; and if
Professional has not been accepted into the Federal Basic Pilot Program prior to
entering into the Public Contract for Services, Professional shall forthwith apply
to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall in writing verify such
application within five (5) days of the date of the Public Contract. Professional
shall continue to apply to participate in the Federal Basic Pilot Program and shall
in writing verify same every three (3) calendar months thereafter, until
Professional is accepted or the public contract for services has been completed,
whichever is earlier. The requirements of this section shall not be required or
effective if the Federal Basic Pilot Program is discontinued.
(iv) Professional shall not use the Basic Pilot Program procedures to undertake
pre-employment screening of job applicants while the Public Contract for
Services is being performed.
P51
I.
Agreement Professional Services Page 7
(v) If Professional obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing
work under the Public Contract for Services knowingly employs or contracts with
a new employee who is an illegal alien, Professional shall:
(1) Notify such subcontractor and the City of Aspen within three days
that Professional has actual knowledge that the subcontractor has newly
employed or contracted with an illegal alien; and
(2) Terminate the subcontract with the subcontractor if within three
days of receiving the notice required pursuant to this section the
subcontractor does not cease employing or contracting with the new
employee who is an illegal alien; except that Professional shall not
terminate the Public Contract for Services with the subcontractor if during
such three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that
the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an
illegal alien.
(vi) Professional shall comply with any reasonable request by the Colorado
Department of Labor and Employment made in the course of an investigation that
the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment undertakes or is undertaking
pursuant to the authority established in Subsection 8-17.5-102 (5), C.R.S.
(vii) If Professional violates any provision of the Public Contract for Services
pertaining to the duties imposed by Subsection 8-17.5-102, C.R.S. the City of
Aspen may terminate the Public Contract for Services. If the Public Contract for
Services is so terminated, Contractor shall be liable for actual and consequential
damages to the City of Aspen arising out of Professional’s violation of Subsection
8-17.5-102, C.R.S.
(ix) If Professional operates as a sole proprietor, Professional hereby swears or
affirms under penalty of perjury that the Professional (1) is a citizen of the United
States or otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law,
(2) shall comply with the provisions of CRS 24-76.5-101 et seq., and (3) shall
produce one of the forms of identification required by CRS 24-76.5-103 prior to
the effective date of this Agreement.
16. Warranties Against Contingent Fees, Gratuities, Kickbacks and Conflicts of Interest.
(a) Professional warrants that no person or selling agency has been employed or
retained to solicit or secure this Contract upon an agreement or understanding for a
commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, excepting bona fide employees or
bona fide established commercial or selling agencies maintained by the Professional for
the purpose of securing business.
(b) Professional agrees not to give any employee of the City a gratuity or any offer of
employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation,
P52
I.
Agreement Professional Services Page 8
preparation of any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the
content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering advice, investigation,
auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any proceeding or application, request for
ruling, determination, claim or controversy, or other particular matter, pertaining to this
Agreement, or to any solicitation or proposal therefore.
(c) Professional represents that no official, officer, employee or representative of the
City during the term of this Agreement has or one (1) year thereafter shall have any
interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof, except those that
may have been disclosed at the time City Council approved the execution of this
Agreement.
(d) In addition to other remedies it may have for breach of the prohibitions against
contingent fees, gratuities, kickbacks and conflict of interest, the City shall have the right
to:
1. Cancel this Purchase Agreement without any liability by the City;
2. Debar or suspend the offending parties from being a Professional, contractor or
subcontractor under City contracts;
3. Deduct from the contract price or consideration, or otherwise recover, the value of
anything transferred or received by the Professional; and
4. Recover such value from the offending parties.
17. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the City payable after the current fiscal year
are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made
available. If this Agreement contemplates the City utilizing state or federal funds to meet its
obligations herein, this Agreement shall be contingent upon the availability of those funds for
payment pursuant to the terms of this Agreement.
18. General Terms.
(a) It is agreed that neither this Agreement nor any of its terms, provisions, conditions,
representations or covenants can be modified, changed, terminated or amended, waived,
superseded or extended except by appropriate written instrument fully executed by the
parties.
(b) If any of the provisions of this Agreement shall be held invalid, illegal or
unenforceable it shall not affect or impair the validity, legality or enforceability of any other
provision.
(c) The parties acknowledge and understand that there are no conditions or limitations to
this understanding except those as contained herein at the time of the execution hereof and
that after execution no alteration, change or modification shall be made except upon a
writing signed by the parties.
P53
I.
Agreement Professional Services Page 9
(d) This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Colorado as from time
to time in effect.
19. Electronic Signatures and Electronic Records This Agreement and any
amendments hereto may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an
original, and all of which together shall constitute one agreement binding on the Parties,
notwithstanding the possible event that all Parties may not have signed the same counterpart.
Furthermore, each Party consents to the use of electronic signatures by either Party. The Scope
of Work, and any other documents requiring a signature hereunder, may be signed electronically
in the manner agreed to by the Parties. The Parties agree not to deny the legal effect or
enforceability of the Agreement solely because it is in electronic form or because an electronic
record was used in its formation. The Parties agree not to object to the admissibility of the
Agreement in the form of an electronic record, or a paper copy of an electronic documents, or a
paper copy of a document bearing an electronic signature, on the ground that it is an electronic
record or electronic signature or that it is not in its original form or is not an original.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed, or caused to be executed by their duly
authorized officials, this Agreement in three copies each of which shall be deemed an original on the
date first written above.
CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: PROFESSIONAL:
________________________________ ______________________________ [Signature] [Signature]
By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________ [Name] [Name]
Title: ____________________________ Title: ____________________________
Date: ___________________ Date: ___________________
Approved as to form:
_______________________________
City Attorney’s Office
P54
I.
Agreement Professional Services Page 10
EXHIBIT A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
P55
I.
Agreement Professional Services Page 11
EXHIBIT B PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
Fee Schedule
P56
I.