The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutordinance.council.014-04ORDINANCE NO. i~ (Series of 2004) AN ORDINANCE APPROPRIATING AN INCREASE IN ASSET MANAGEMENT FUND OF $56,368, AN INCREASE IN THEGENERAL FUND EXPENDITURES OF $105,170, AN INCREASE IN THE PARKS FUND OF $201,819, AN INCREASE IN THE WHEELER FUND OF $602,462, AN INCREASE IN THE PARKING IMPROVEMENT FUND OF $220,073, AN INCREASE IN THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND OF $9~016,554, AN INCREASE IN THE KIDS FIRST FUND OF $44,000, AN INCREASE IN THE PARKS CAPITAL FUND OF $2,247,337, AN INCREASE IN THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND OF $226,115, AN INCREASE IN THE WATER FUND OF $481,328, AN INCREASE IN THE ELECTRIC FUND OF $143,933, AN INCREASE IN THE RUEDI FUND OF $90,157, AN INCREASE INTHE TRANSPORTATION FUND OF $947,714, AN INCREASE IN THE GOLF FUND OF $61,726, AND AN INCREASE IN THE HOUSING AUTHORITY FUND OF $10,425. WHEREAS, by virtue of Section 9.12 of the Home Rule Charter, the City Council may make supplemental appropriations; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has certified that the City has unappropriated current year revenues and/or unappropriated prior year fund balance available for appropriations in the following funds: ASSET MANAGEMENT FUND, GENERAL FUND, PARKS FUND, WHEELER FUND, PARKING IMPROVEMENT FUND, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND, KIDS FIRST FUND, PARKS CAPITAL FUND, THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND, WATER FUND, ELECTRIC FUND, RUEDI FUND, TRANSPORTATION FUND, GOLF FUND, AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY FUND. WHEREAS, the City Council is advised that certain expenditures, revenue and transfers must be approved. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ASPEN, COLORADO: Section 1 Upon the City Manager's certification that there are current year revenues and/or prior year fund balances available for appropriation in the: GENERAL FUND, PARKS ' FUND, WHEELER FUND, PARKING IMPROVEMENT FUND, HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FUND, KIDS FIRST FUND, PARKS CAPITAL FUND, THE, CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND, WATER FUND, ELECTRIC FUND, RUEDI FUND, TRANSPORTATION FUND, GOLF FUND, AND THE HOUSING AUTHORITY FUND: the City Council hereby makes supplemental appropriations as itemized in the Attachment A. Section 2 If any section, subdivision, sentence, clause, phrase, or portion of this ordinance is for any reason invalid or unconstitutional by any court or competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion thereof. INTRODUCED, READ, APPROVED AND ORDERED POSTED ON FIRST READING on the /{~ day of 2004. PUBLISHED AND/OR ATTEST: · ~-~ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk H , Mayor FIN~I~L~Y ADOPTED AFTER PUBLIC HEARING on the ~3--'~ day of ' ~ ~/ ,2'004. ATTEST: ~,~ Kathryn S. Koch, City Clerk Approved as to Form: Jo~n Worc~stor, ([(ty Attorney A Total ,City of Aspen 2004 Expenditures - 2004 Fund # Fund Name 2004 Budget Supplemental i 2004 Amended General Government Funds 000 Asset Management Plan $3,492,120 $56,368 $3,548,489 001 General Fund $18,530,779 $105,170 ..$18,635,94,q Subtotal General Gov't Funds: ___ $22,022,899 $161,538 $22,184,437 Special Revenue Funds -4re $0 100 Parks and Open Space $6,251,021 $201,819 $6,452,840 120 Wheeler ~ $2 132,787 $602,462 $2,735,249 130 Lodging Tax Fund $1,179,092 $0 $1,179,092 140 Parking Improvement Fund $1,545,294 $220 073 $1,765,367 1'50.23 Housing $20,444,614 $8,878,038 $29,322,653 150.24 Kids First $1,241,779 $138,515 $1,380,294 Total Housing Day Care Fund $21,686,393 $9,016,554 $30,702,947 151.24 Early Childhood Educ. Initiative - AVCF $155,425. $44,000 $199,425 Subtotal, Special Rev. Funds: $32,950,012 $10,084,907 $43,034,919 Debt Service Funds $0 220 1995 Parking Facilities COP $693,088 $693,088 222 1994 Cemetery Lane SlD' $49,390 $0 $49,390 223 1992 Red Brick G.O. Bonds $361,760 $0 $361,760 225 Cozy Point COP $359,840 $0 $359,840 226 1999 Sales Tax Revenue Bonds $1,118,780 $0 $1,118,780 2001 Parks & Open Space Sales Tax 228 Rev. Bonds $860,368 $0 $860,368 229 Bond $353,000 $0 $353,000 Subtotal, Debt Service Funds: $3,796,226 $0 $3,796.~:)~ $0 340 Parks Capital Improvement Fund $8,018,295 $2,247,337i $10,265,63') 363 Capital Fund $0 $~96,115 $226,115 Enterprise Funds 421 Water Utility $5,080,999 $481,328 $5,562,327 431 Electric Utility $4,372,653 $143,933 $4,516,580 444 Ruedi Hydroelectri.c Facility $361,084 $90,157 $451,241 450 · Transportation Fund $2,850,914 $947,714 $3,798,628 471 Municipal Golf Course $1,272,137 $61,726 $1,333,863 491 Truscott Housing $1,984,182 $0 $1,984,187 a,92 Marolt Housing . $909,644 $0 $909,644 Subtotal, Enterprise Funds: $16,831,613 $1,724,858 $18,556,470 501 Health Ins. Internal Service Fund $2,268,000 $0 $2,268,000 Trust & Agency Funds 620 620 Housing Authority $911,484 $10,425 $921,909 622 622 Smuggler Mountain Fund $41,015 $0 $41,01~ Subtotal, Trust & Agency Funds: $952,499 $10,425 $962,924 ALL FUNDS: $86,839,5441 $14,455,1801 $101,294,724 100% carry forward p_r-oject'T~-- *' proved in 2003: Request is to reappropria~e in 2004 P~k. ,$56 368 ".~ Nordic snowmobile $26,614 P.k. Work station $9,491 .~-~. Equip Main Repair P=~ PC $17 098 .~ __ Ca~ fo~a~ $2.416 ~., Reo Smith Armhitrchs $10,099 ~.~ Work s~tlon $3,000 ~'~ ~ $701 ~,~ $1~,928 ~,0~ ~ $10,506 P~ ~* Parki~im $32,050 ~,~ =~ Work s~tion ~-- $100,00~ ..~.~ ~.~. _ ~ "~.==.,~. -__ PC $21,115 P~";=-~. ~ ~ fo~ard $2,151 "~ ~-~ _ Pa~i~rovement $38,58~ ~ ~.~t $7,421,693 ~,~ ~.,~ ~ame Bad X ~,n; ~.~=p~.~ ~~ 82 Redevelo~ $1.3~2,049 *=~ 'Work s~tion $115,~ ~d. ;;=t -~ ~ fo~ard K~ ~t ~ ~ $3~,582 ~= ~-~ -~ elks ~. r,=t other contributions $16,~61 ~= ~;=~ other materials ~~ $10.000 ~ ~ CDE Grant $1,142_ ,~ C.p,.~ Tree Enhancement ~ ~ ~1,670 ..~ c~. ~ ~e Bins ~ c.~. ~ Wetlands/Natu~l Areas $36,582 =.~ c~ __ Pedestrian T~II Dev~nt $8,981 ~.~ c~t~ Nordic T~nt $2,927 .~ c~ Marolt Master P~n ~ $4.987 P~ c~ Gene~l P~rovement P~ c~te Com~ste~ $1,535 ,.~c~., Ce~ ~ne Phase 2 $685 ~.~ c~,~ ~r Mountain Pu~hase $9~1.374 .~ c~.. ~ Trail --~-- $34,487 .~ c~,~ Shadow Mtn - Ho~ , $682,551 =~ c~ Post ~ce T~ll ~ -- $~24~123 ~ ~ ~men~MainURe~ ~=" __ ~lacement $60,01~ '~., ~ Savln~ fo~ard water $5,881 w.~ Sav~ fo~ard ~= Wo~ s~tion end of 2003 ~.= ~menUMalnURe~ir end o~03 $1,56~ a~.= PC r~lace~nt end of 2003 [~ __ $~2,107 ~'~= ~ ~ fo~ard water end of 2003 $740 __ ;r~= __ ~vin.= ca ~o~a~ ~na[er end of 2003 $113,9~9 E,~.= Less Saint rr~ -- R~A ~brJd Bus r,~ ; EEDAR ShuEles $30~,418 rr~ ~l~Rube~ Pa~ r~ WO~ s~tlon $13,00~ ;~ ~aln[ ;~ PC $15,724 m,~.r~ ca ~ fo~ard $15,890 ~.~ ~er CF ~ $145,914 ;=..~r~ Meter Malntanence $32,522 ~; hole 15 $150,34. 6_ $~,487 ~ WO~ s~tion $39,000 =~ --- PC $2,800 =~ ~ Savings Ca~y fo~ard $6,~55 ~=rr Manager Savings $24,368 $3,422 ($16,119) . . $12 589 2~. __ Page 1 of 1 Thru: From: Cc: Date: I~e: Aspen City Council Steve Barwick, City Manager Paul Menter, Director of Finance and Administrative Services Rebecca Doane, Human Resources Director 4/19/04 Investment Portfolio Management Strategy Summary Concurrent with the Finance Department's request for Council approval of a revised investment policy, staff also request budget authority for a new Investment Analyst position in the Finance Department. This position will be funded through savings from the elimination of the Financial Advisor relationship between the City of Aspen and Institutional Capital Management. While this request requires additional budget authority, it will have only a negligible impact of the cost of financial management to the City, as elimination of the City's external financial advisory relationship will result in increased investment earnings to the City, offsetting this recommended expense. Creation of this new position represents the best use of City resources to meet the operational demands of the Finance department. This position will manage the City's investment portfolio under the supervision of the Finance Director, provide expertise in the management of the City's debt portfolio, and add depth to the City's financial analysis capacity that does not currently exist. Since 1999, the City's investment portfolio has been managed by Institutional Capital Management, a brokerage and Investment Advisory firm located in Lafayette Colorado. In early March, I informed ICM president Robert Moore of my decision seek competitive proposals for investment services. Upon receiving this information, Mr. Moore unilaterally terminated his services to the City of Aspen. Currently the City has a passively managed investment portfolio consisting of Treasury and Federal Agency securities and cash. In total, cash and securities of the City total approximately $40 million. April 19, 2004 Analysis: For the last five years, Institutional Capital Management has provided investment advisory and brokerage services for all of the City's investment needs. While there was never a written agreement for these services, ICM essentially served as the City's exclusive investment advisor and broker. The cost of these services was approximately $80,000 per year. ICM applied a monthly fee to the City's investment portfolio which was calibrated against the total value of investments under management. On a basis point (one basis point is 1/100th of one percent) basis, this fee amounted to 20 basis points. For a $40 million investment portfolio, this fee comes to $80,000 per year. A cursory review of other Cities utilizing investment advisory services resulted in a conclusion that this fee was twice to three times the industry average for such services, leading to my decision to seek proposals for this service. This fee was never disclosed on the City's books, as it was paid to ICM as a "net of fees" transaction. In other words, ICM reduced the City's investment earnings by an amount equal to 20 basis points, and paid itself a fee prior to distributing interest earnings to the City. This is a practice that is perfectly legitimate in the investment management world, but resulted in an $80,000 cost to the City that fell outside of the Council's budget review and approval process, and represented a cost that was offset only by those services related the management of the City's passively managed investment portfolio. In an effort to make the best use of City resources, rather than seek bids for investment advisory services, I now wish to request authorization from the City Council to bring the City's investment management services "in house". This involves the creation of a new position, to be funded from the savings accrued to the City from no longer paying an outside investment advisor what amounts to a full time salary for a part time job. By hiring an individual experienced in institutional investment management who also has financial analysis skills, the City can make better use of the funds that have historically been used to fund only the investment advisory services of an outside consultant. Bringing management of the investment portfolio "in house" is not unusual in local government. This approach allows the City to seek the most cost effective options for investing its funds from broker/dealers, allowing the City to benefit from their expertise while at the same time eliminating the cost of an outside investment advisor. It also allows the City to bring a staff'member on board who can manage the City's investments, provide analysis of debt issuance opportunities, and also provide in-depth financial analysis of major policy issues. Given the size and complexity of the financial issues faced by the City, this last benefit is the one that clearly makes the recommended approach the best use of City funds at this time, and constitutes the basis for this recommendation. Specifically, the kinds of policy issues for which this position will provide support include: · Benefit/Cost analysis for major policy issues, including annexation proposals, and projects requiring financing, · Timeshare mitigation fee analysis, 2 MEMORANDUM TO: THR U: FROM: DATE: RE: MA YOR & CITY COUNCIL MICHAEL PHILLIPS, FINANCE DEPARTMENT STEVE B A R I/YI CK, CI T Y MA NA G E R TIM ANDERSON, RECREATION DIRECTOR FEBRUARY18, 2004 ARC CAPITAL FUND Summary: Staff has recently presented Council with several options addressing additional Capital needs for the ARC. A funding appropriation is necessary to properly fund these items. At this tim~ the following list represents the items verbally approved by Council in meetings with staff. We have identified the funding amounts presented to Council in previous work sessions. Staff is recommending an appropriation to the ARC Capital Reserve Fund in the amount of $226,115 for the following items: · Lighting of Bridge from High School · Fitness Equipment · Acoustical Baffling · Mirror at top of pool slide · Replacement Locking Hardware · Turnstiles · Vision Screening in Locker Room · Level 300 Study on Cooling · Supplemental Signage · Disco Lighting Package · Single Man Lift · Snack Bar Improvements · Spare Pumps · Pool Timing System Total $10,000 $68,000 $75,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,500 $11,000 $ 3,500 $ 7,820 $ 6,295 $10,000 $ 6,000 $ 4,000 $15,000 $ 6,000 $226,113 Several of these items are moving forward at this time in order to enhance and/or create efficiencies in the operations of the ARC. Staff is continuing to seek further information for Council as to energy efficient possibilities. MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: RE: Paul Menter, Finance Director Michael Phillips, Budget Analyst Karma Borgquist, Administrative Assistant March 4, 2003 2003 Carry Forward to 2004 The Parks Department is requesting the following funds be carried forward to the 2004 budget. GENERAL OPERATING EXPENDITURE,~ NORDIC TRAILS (10055-555523-xxxxx) $26,614 Please carry forward the remaining balance in this account. This program is governed by an IGA between the City, County and Snowmass Village for operating the nordic program. The savings in this program need to be rolled'over for either future needs for the program or refunded equally between each government in the IGA. To: michaelp~ci.aspen.co.us, tonyp@ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Storage Bins Cc: stephene~ci.aspen, co.us Hi Michael, Just a reminder that we need to add the Storage Bins to our 2003 carry forward: $39,161 100.94.82033.86000 Also, we will need new codes for 2004: 340.94.82033.86000 340.94.82033.80012 340.94.82033.80030 340.94.82033.80099 Please name this line" ' ,, Storage Bins Thank you! Karma Borgquist Parks Department x5120 Page 1 ofl Printed for Michael Phillips <michaelp@ci.aspen.co.us> 5/2/2004 TO: TI[ROUGH: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Mayor Klanderud and Council Steve Barwick, City Manager Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager Paul Menter, Finance Director Nida Tautvydas, Executive Director Wheeler Opera House April 30, 2004 Wheeler Opera House First Floor Master Plan(FFMP) Supplemental Funding Request SUMMARY: Request is for approval of a supplemental funding request in the amount of $221,000.00. PREVIOUS' COUNCIL ACTION: Council approved proceeding with the First Floor Master Plan (FFMP) as discussed at a work session on Tuesday, March 2, 2004. Additionally, Council approved the Design - Phase I agreement on March 22, 2004 and the. Construction - Phase II on April 19, 2004. DISCUSSION: The'scope of work for Phase I includes design development and preparation of all documents for the construction. This portion is complete. As outlined in the original RFP, the scope of work includes improvements to the Box Office, Visitors Center and Bentleys addressing code issues and improvements. Phase II is currently underway. Construction I. sestimated to be complete by the end of June, although preliminary estimates completion prior to Food and Wine, roughly June 16, 2004. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The Total cost of the FFMP project is not to exceed $221,000. Part 1, the design phase, is not to exceed $30,000 and Part II, the construction phase, is estimated at $1191,000. A supplemental request in the amount of $221,000.00 has been made to appropriate additional funds for this project. Funding for the project is available from Wheeler operating reserves. ALTERNATIVES: If the Wheeler Opera House budget is not increased, then other cuts in services and operations will need to be made in order to fund the improv, ements through the Wheeler Opera Hosue First Floor Master Plan. RECOMMENDATION: The Wheeler Opera House Board and staff recommend approval of supplemental funding for the Wheeler Opera Houser Master Plan. PROPOSED MOTION: I, , move to approve the budget increase of $221,000 for the Wheeler Opera House First Floor Master Plan. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: TO: THROUGH: FROM: DATE: RE: MEMORANDUM Mayor Klanderud and Council Steve Barwick, City Manager Randy Ready, Assistant City Manager Paul Menter, Finance Director Nida Tautvydas, Executive Director Wheeler Opera House April 30, 2004 Wheeler Opera House 21 st Century Master Plan(WOH21CMP) Supplemental Funding Request SUMMARY: Request is for approval of a supplemental funding request in the amount of $30,000.00 to initiate Phase I of the Wheeler Opera House 21 st Century Master Plan. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Council recommended that the Wheeler staff and Board proceed with the Wheeler Opera House 21 st Century Master Plan (WOH21CMP)as discussed at a work session on Tuesday, .March 2, 2004. DISCUSSION: At the direction of the City Council, the WOH Board and staff are undertaking a planning process' for the Hi storic Wheeler Opera House. It is estimated that the comprehensive master. planning process will have 4 Phases: Concept, Design Objectives, City Planning Process and Implementation. The goals of the WOH21CMP are: · To maintain the historic integrity of the Wheeler Opera House; · To address current and future needs of the Wheeler Opera House; and · To be responsive to the community. The importance of the Wheeler Opera House cannot be overstated, it is the "jewel" of the community. The WOH21CMP process recognizes this fact and will be open to exploring many purposes, both current and future. Our desire with this WOH21CMP is to allow the Wheeler to fulfill its potential to the community. Phase I - Concept - is dominated by small group meetings and conversations with community members, stakeholders, Wheeler users, etc. Our goal is to understand what is important to people about the community, the Wheeler, and how the Wheeler can add value to their life in Aspen. Individual Board members will participate in small group discussions and the entire Board will act as a review and reflection body to synthesize and summarize these discussions. At the end of the Concept phase the Board will hold a large community meeting(s) to report the findings. The Board will also meet with City Council to discuss how the City Planning Process will be applied to this master plan. It is expected that the Concept phase will be complete by December 2004 ' The direction determined through the Concept phase of the WOH21CMP will determine the scope and time frame for the Design Objectives, City Planning Process and Implementation Phases. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The estimated costs for Phase I - Concept is not to exceed $30,000. This budget includes profesSional services ($17,000 - $23,000), and support services and operational expenses ($7,000 - $13,000). Funding for the project is available from Wheeler operating reserves. ALTERNATIVES: If the Wheeler Opera House budget is not increased, then.either the project will need to be . abandoned or other cuts in services and operations will need to be made in order to fund the first pahse of the WOH21CMP. RECOMMENDATION: The Wheeler Opera House Board and staff recommend approval of supplemental funding for the Wheeler Opera House 21 st Century Master Plan. PROPOSED MOTION: I, , move to approve the budget increase of $30,000 for the Wheeler Opera House 21st Century Master Plan. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: THRU: THRU: Mayor and Council Tom Rubel JeffWoods Steve Barwick DATE: 04/22/04 Mowing Equipment Upgrade SUMMARY: Parks and Recreation is in the process of upgrading our mowing equipment from large area turf mowers to large area turf mowers that Stripe the grass to make it look like a professional field. Funds are available now through the sale of one mower and the trade-in of a second mower. Staff recommends purchasing this equipment. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: N/A DISCUSSION: We purchased large turf mowers in 1997 when we started the Campus Project. This was done in order to be more efficient and mow large areas without increasing staff. Thbse mowers work well, but they do not stripe. Recent innovations in mowing technology now allow striping with large turf mowers. We sold one of our Toro 580D's to the City of Grand Junction earlier this spring. With the funds from the sale and the trade value of the other Toro 580D we would be able to purchase a new striping turf mower. There would be little or no cost to the City. We would be able to use the new mower in most of our smaller parks as well as the athletic fields. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Most or all of the cost of the new striping mower will be covered by the funds from the sale of the Toro 580D and the trade in value of the other 580D. If any additional funds are needed, they will be taken from either savings in our Fleet fund or Ballfield Capital Maintenance Funds. This piece of equipment will then go into our fleet plan for regularly scheduled replacement. Maintenance costs will not change. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends purchasing a new striping mower in order to be more efficient and produce a more professional product. ALTERNATIVES: Continue maintenance with current equipment and change mowers when it is currently scheduled in two years. We would be either less efficient or the ballfields would not be as aesthetically pleasing. The cost to switch over would be more in two years. PROPOSED MOTION: This should be a brief statement for a Council member to read such as "I move to approve Ordinance #..." CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: To: City Council From: Ed Sadler, Asset Manager Subject: Parks Mower Date: April 26, 2004 I recommend approval of the attached request from the Parks Department to purchase a new large turf mower with the proceeds from two used mowers. I believe that in the long run, the City will save money as the new type mowers actually cost less for their initial purchase by about $20,000 each. This request should also .reduce the fleet request for Parks in 2006 by the cost of the one mower purchased this year. MEMORANDUM TO: MAYOR AND COUNCIL FROM: THROUGH: MARK O'MEARA, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR .//,...cd PHIL OVEREYNDER, UTILITY DIRECTOR~~ THROUGH: STEVE BARWlCK, CITY MANAGER DATE: MARCH 2, 2004 HYDRAULIC ACTUATOR REPLACEMENT AND SUPPLEMENTAL REQUEST RESOLUTION #(S) SUMMARY: Repairs and renovation work on the rate of flow control valves located in both the east and west water treatment plants are necessary to provide for equipment that is serviceable. In addkion, improved met. ering of the finished water production rates is necessary to increase the accuracy of water utilized by the City. The scope of work describes replacement of the hydraulic valve operators and replacement of flow metering for the water treatment processes. The low bid for' this work is $206,950 submitted by Velocity Constructors for the mechanical portion of the work; the control and electrical portion of the work is proposed at $115,203 submitted by Timberline Electric and Control. The total budget for both required contracts, including engineering and contingency is $360,000. BACKGROUND: The valve actuators and meters to be replaced for the treatment plants are original equipment and have surpassed their operational life. West Treatment Plant.actuators were first installed in 1966 and 1969. The East Plant operators and meters were installed in 1985. Metering accuracy of the raw and finished water is also at an unacceptable level, since in some years the total water sales volume exceeds the amount measured at the plant production meters. DISCUSSION: The actuators are water hydraulic operators that operate with water pressure and electric solenoid valves. The actuators open and close valves on the filters rate of flow, filter isolation, basin drain, filter backwash, and raw water intake. Repair parts for the actuators are becoming difficult to obtain and have increasingly become inefficient for operations. Many of the mechanisms are worn to a non-repairable state, thus replacement is necessary. The meters are propeller type meters and differential pressure. These are located on the two discharge sides of the 2 million gallon clear well, and on the .raw water intake of the East plant. These meters have been considered inaccurate and are essential to proper operation of the treatment facility and water inventory. With the increased scope of the surface water treatment regulations, this work should not be postponed. Approval of the action to replace these mechanisms will provide the Water Department with the necessary tools to keep within the State and Federal regulations for surface water treatment and allow for improved water production measurement. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The 2004 Asset Management Plan (AMP) provides $116,000 of funding for replacement of these appurtenances. The sum of the two low bids for replacement (mechanical plus electrical work) is $322,153. Providing for 10%' contingency and expected engineering costs brings the total project cost to $360,000. Additional project costs of $244,000 are available from the anticipated 2003 AMP budget savings of $418,000 which has been returned to the Water Fund. RECOMMENDATON: Staff recommends award of the contract for the Aspen 'project # 2004-023 to Velocity Constructors and Timberline Electric and Control in the amounts of $206,950 and $115,203 respectively. Two separate contracts are recommended to provide for the two specialties required to complete the mechanical and electrical control work required for completion of the project. Staff recommends that $244,000 (total cost $360,000 minus $116,000 2004 budget) be appropriated in 2004 for completion of this project. ALTERNATIVES: Rejecting the awards for this project will result in continuing with existing conditions. Eventual failure of the actuators will occur and replacement will be on an emergency basis. The meters will continue to misrepresent plant flows. Partial replacement would allow for objectives to be met, although it would possibly conflict with other furore projects. PROPOSED MOTION: I move to appropriate $244,000 from the Water Fund for the completion of project # 2004-023, and to adopt Resolution Numbers __ and approving the contract with Velocity Constructors and with Timberline Electric and Control Corporation for renovation of the treatment plant actuators and metering. City Manager Comments: Phil Overeynder, 08:33 AM 4/30/2004, SupPlemental Budget Request--Water Electric Fu... Page 1 of 1 X-Sender: philo~water X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Verslon 4.2.0.58 Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 08:33:50 -0600 To: randyr@ci.aspen, co.us, michaelp~ci.aspen.co.us From: Phil Overeynder <philo~ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Supplemental Budget Request--Water & Electric Funds Cc: leel~ci.aspen.co.us, marko~ci.aspen.co.us, kareng@ci.aspen.co.us, paulm@ci.aspen.co.us, edwards@ci.aspen.co.us X-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-MailScanner: Found to be clean Randy and Michael, Now that we have selected a consultant to prepare the business plan, it's time to put together the supplemental budget request that will pay for this work. As you recall we didn't budget for this work since we didn't know the anticipated cost. However, Council is aware that this is a priority project to be completed this year and should be expecting a supplemental request. Here is what I have: Black and Veatch base proposal--S48,000 Add "Contingency" for B&V to cover customer meetings--S3400 (~ approx 7% of base proposal) MEAN Participation--S3500 McLaughlin Rincon Proposal to update Capital Expenses--S9000 Total Expenditures: $63,900 Past practice has been to allocate expenditures for billing system and rate related issues on a 50:50 basis to the Water and Electric Funds. The supplemental request would therefore be $31,950 from the Water Fund and $31,950 from the Electri6 Fund. All of this work is expected to be completed in 2004 and paid out of 2004 appropriations. I will prepare the Council memo to include this information outlining the supplemental request in the budget implications (contract award memo for Black & Veatch). I am hopeful that the supplemental request can be approved at first reading at the same meeting (May 10). Please let me know what other information you will need to complete the supplemental request. Thanks, Phil Printed for Michael Phillips <michaelp~ci.aspen.co.us> 4/30/2004 TH~ CITY oF ASPEN Memorandum To: City Council members Thru: Paul Menter, Director of Finance and Administrative Services From: Michael Phillips, Budget Analysts Date: 11/6/2003 C: Steve Barwick, Phil O. Re: "Colorado Big Country" Stream Health Initiative budget. Attached please find a copy of the above captioned packet of information for the "Colorado big Country" Stream ,Health Initiative grant request. FYI, the $15,000, which ,was requested for the Stream Health Initiative on Monday November 3, has been budgeted in the Ruedi fund. Thank you, and please feel free to contact me, or Finance Director Paul Menter if you have questions regarding the2004 budget process. Stream Health Initiative Physical Habitat Assessment for Roaring Fork Watershed the Presented To: City of Aspen November 6, 2'003 Contacts: Willa Holgate Project Director 945-0727 ext. 4 ~ate~co.usda.x9Z Paul Hempel 'Communications Director 922-0264 paulhempel~hotmail, corn Stream Health Initiative: P_hysical Habitat Assessment for the R~ Fork Watershed ~Proj ect Overview Need: Stream and riparian ecosystems in the west comprise less than one percent of the landscape and' yet are integral to water conservation and critical to greater: than 80 percent of wildlife species. Human alteration of stream systems has impacted the physical characteristi cs and consequently the health and function of river systems. Riparian habitat is one of the most endangered - reported estimates indicate that '10 to 90 percent of this habitat has been lost due to human activities. Water conservati on in the west is inherently linked to properly functioning river systems which in turn are dependent on functioning riparian systems. Restoration of riparian values, including hydrologic, water quality and habitat functions will enable healthy, functioning, streams. Riparian ecosystems are pan of surface and subsurface 'hydrologic systems which supply streams with water from remote sources, in excess of that available from precipitation (Windell 1 ~92). This additional water helps to maintain flows during Iow water months. The interaction between riparian habitats 'and the physical habitat and structure of the river determine river characteristics. The physical habitat and structure of the fiver (channel shape, sinuosity, floodplain, bank materials, riffle-pool ratio, and substrate) determine the personality of the river. For instance, an active floodplain; where floodwaters periodically overbank next to a river, enables flood waters to spread out, slow down, replenish groundwater and deposit sediment to build fertile soil; without an active floodplain the streams energy is concentrated in the channel during flooding and results in downcutting and.bank erosion. Healthy riparian habitat helps to protect banks from erosion and downcutting and consequently enables an active floodplain to occur. Overbank flow supplies water and nutrients to the adjacent floodplain and replenishes . gr6undwater and underlying aquifers. Lateral migration that results in a meandering stream maintains a constant overall channel shape and size which is also important for the slowing of flood waters and decrease in downcutting and er0si,on; healthy riparian vegetation enables meandering by stabilizing banks. A dynamic equilibrium exists between river and floodplain; the river both builds the floodplain by deposition of sediment hnd removes the floodPlain by downcutting of surface geology. So long as deposition is balanced by removal a dynamic.steady state can exist. O. verbank flow/deposition and lateral migration are the most significant forces in the formation of a floodplain (Windell 1992). When rivers are altered, byfor instance chann elization or removal of vegetation, the dynamic equilibrium may be shifted to disequilibrium. The newly created stream characteristics are often inappropriate to the environmental situation and the potential effects .devastating to the stream ecosystem. Impacts from channelization and other alterations can have negative ~mpacts on other aspects of th~ stream ecosystem and include bank erosion, downstream flooding, upstream aggradation, increased water velocity, and c~ecreased water quality (Windell 1992). The river is critically important to the floodplain and the floodplain is critically important to the river (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000). If either is altered the other will change as they are fundamentally connected. Wildlife habitat is greatly enhanced by healthy riparian and in stream habitat. Riparian vegetation interacts with the stream habitat to create meanders which results in the creation of pools and riffles. These physical and biological habitat characteristics Produc~ a healthy environment for fish and protect water quality There is a significant and positive.relationship between channel sinuosity and stream habitat diversity; as habitat diversity increases the abundance of macroinvertebrates increases; there is a consequent increase in the diversity ~offish communities (Windell 1992). . A sci ence-based inventory of the physical habitat of our river and riparian ecosystems is needed to establish baseline conditions for monitoring and to effectively prioritize conservation efforts and resources. Currently, habitats. A large portion of th e Roaring Fork Watershed has undergone significant alteration in the Roaring Fork watershed.there is neither a comprehensive inventory of the problem areas nor of healthy . from various forms of human development and activities. These alterations have the potential to impact stream health and the health of the surrounding upland and riparian ecosystems. Goals and Objectives: Protection and restoration of the physical habitat of the Roaring Fork River and its major tributaries is the ultimate goal of this project. We seek to accomplish this goal by first identifying and categorizing the characteristics of stream and riparian physical habitat on the Roaring Fork and its major tributaries. Stream reaches will be categorized according to habitat quality, and will be mapped.and referenced in a catalog with description of stream habitat and management recommendations for restoration or protection. This baseline information will then be used to prioritize stream segments to begin a program °fprotection and restoration. The physical characteristics ora stream ecosystem reflect the geologic processes that occur w/thin the watershed. The coalescing network of streams creates a physical structure that interacts with the water cycle to 6i:eate a template for biological responses whi ch result in patterns of community structure and function. Healthy stream systems depend on appropriate and intact physical structure and habitat to protect water quality, conserve water quantity and support native wildlife species. Components of a healthy stream system include a stable stream channel, an active floodplain, healthy riparian vegetation, and high quality water. An evaluation of these components is essential to any assessment of ecological integrity. Habitat quality can be evaluated by a 1) characterization of selected physicochemical parameters, and 2) with a systematic habitat assessment. Objective ].. Describe stream habitat along the Roaring Fork and its major tributaries. Objecth,e 2: Categorize stream segments by habitat quality. Objective 3: Develop amap of the Roaring Fork Watershed showing the location and extent of stream reaches in each habitat quality Category. Objective 4: Create a catalog of stream habitat quality for the Roaring Fork Watershed;; a description of habitat quality category for each reach or stream segment visited ~n,,,udeu will be Exl°ectedDeliverables: 1) A narrative description of each stream habitat quality category and a catalog of stream segments; 2) maps showing locations of all reaches classified in the watershed; 3) electronic fi'les of the maps, ARC Info or ARCVIEW format; and 4) establishment of baseline conditions for evaluating remediation effectiveness. Project Description Introduction: This study will focus on the Roaring Fork Watershed on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains of Colorado. A variety of streams flow through the diverse ecosystems of this watershed; as streams move through the watershed their characteristics change as the landscape and geology changes. Headwater streams that begin in the tundra have a steep gradient and flow straight and fast down the mountains of the Sawatch, and Elk ranges, eroding boulders and scouring out pools. Upon reaching the valley floor these streams begin slowly meandeving across the wider, flatter valleys. Here wetlands and riparian areas have developed along the banks and floodplains. Overbanking has deposited finer textured soils onto these floodplains. These soils hold more water than the soils of high-gradient mountain stream habitat and may thUs support a greater diversity and abundance of vegetation. A variety of disturbances from human activities have affected streams in the watershed to various degrees. Historically, mining, and ranching,' have variably affected different areas 0fthe watershed. Ranching has occurred for many years, especially on lower reaches of the Roaring Fork and on lands surrounding some of the major tributaries such as Cattle Creek. Many of these areas have poor bank stability and degraded riparian habitat. Mining on the upper reaches of the Crystal River has degraded stream habitat. In recent history the Roaring Fork Watershed has seen rapid human population growth due, in part, to the area's popularity as a recreational mecca. Impacts from develc)pment and urbanization have been enabled by extensive road building - current expansion of Colorado highway 82 has the potential to exacerbate urbanization . impacts. Run off from roads, which run adja~cent to almost every major stream, and urban development deliver sediment and pollutants into the entire stream system. Housing development along the Roaring Fork has degraded riparian areas while associated golf course development contributes to nutrient and pesticide runoff. Increased recreation on the .river, including fly-fishing, kayaking, and river rafting, has resulted in trampling of riparian vegetation with consequent bank instability and erosion. Rapidly increasing demands on the river's water from urban growth, irrigation and recreational amenities such as golf courses and snowmaking is one of the greatest threats to healthy stream ecosystems. Reduced flows can impair habitat quality and result in fundamental changes can occur that diminish the ability of the system to function properly. Reduction in flow results in a decrease in the amount of habitat available for wildlife; water temperatures increase and oxygen decreases ,.both factors can be lethal to native wildlife species; and nutrients are not as readily flushed', leading to eutrophication of the aquatic system with potential die-off offish species that require high concentrations of oxygen Healthy riparian systems mitigate decreased flows and degraded water quality. Many of the degraded stream segments are amenable to adoption and restoration by community watershed groups. Other areas may only require altered management prescriptions. Pristine areas require management that ensures protection so that they will continue to function as Scope: We will focus on the main stem of the Roaring Fork River, major tributaries and other smaller tributaries if they have been affected by human impacts or if there is p0tential that they may be impacted by future development. Tributaries to be included are Castle Creek upstream from its confluence with the Roaring Fork to mile 5, Maroon Creek upstream to mile 4, Brush Creek up to Snowmass Village, Snowmass Creek up to Snowmass ski area, Crystal River up to the town of Marble, Cattle Creek and the Fryingpan River. Other tributaries may be included after an initial reconnaissance of the watershed. Goals and Objectives: The goal of this study is to create a comprehensive baseline inventory and assessment of the Roaring Fork River main stem and major tributari es for the purpose of identifying stream segments in need of restoration and protection. Then, from this inventory, develop a prioritized list for restoration and conservation projects with which to enlist support for proposed projects. Objectives and tasks in support of this goal include: Objective j: Describe stream habitat along the Roaring Fork and its major tributaries. Task JA: Acquire existing information on the Roaring Fork habitat quality from literature, government agencies, and other sources; identify information gaps. Task ~tB: Conduct reconnaissance of watershed and identification of probable reference reaches. Task 1C: Survey the Roaring Fork where access is permitted; conduct physical habitat assessment using methods based on Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for use in Streams and Rivers (EPA/440/4-89/001) and on BLM's Proper Functioning Condition assessment (BLM Tech Ref PR1737-15 ~998). Objective 2: Categorize stream segments by habitat quality Task 221' Develop criteria based on information acquired from tasks under objective one, and classify stream segments into the following scheme: ~- relatively pristine areas, with little evidence of disturbance; physical habitat provides excellent opportunity for aquatic life; acquired information or survey data indicates aquatic life present and in excellent condition; these areas warrant strong protection measures. .Slightly Modified - areas that show signs of disturbance, however, physical habitat still provides good opportunity for aquatic life; aquatic life present and in moderate to good condition; these areas should be protected from further degradation; in-stream rehabilitation measures not necessary, although stronger measures to control sediment loads and other contaminants are likely to improve habitat quality in these areas. Management actions are recommended. Moderately Modified - stream habitat has been noticeably altered. Physical habitat still provides good opportunity for aquatic life. Habitat quality is likely to be improved by instream and or riparian restoration. Management actions and or restoration are recommended. Heavily modified - disturbed segments that have poor physical habitat due to chann.elization, excessive sedimentation, bank instability and limited riparian vegetation or other problems; aquatic life nor indicative ora healthy stream; some in-stream and/or riparian restoration measures are likely to result in a cost effective benefit to stream habitat quality. .Severely degraded- highly disturbed segments, aquatic life reduced or absent. Restoration is likely only by intensive and expensive in-stream and streambank control measures. Task 2~: Develop watershed maps of stream habitat quality. Task 2C: Prepare catalog of reaches described by study. Objective 3: Develop a map of the Roaring Fork Watershed, showing the location and extent of stream reaches in each habitat quality category. Task 321: Construct a watershed map showing all classified stream segments, based on the survey information from Objective 1 and catalog information from Objective 2. Task 3B: Develop restoration/protection strategies for stream segments in consultation with partnering organizations. Task 3C: Final preparation and dissemination of catalog and maps. evaluate:Study Design.. EPA Rapid Bioassessment and BLM Proper Functioning. Condition p~'otocols will be used to 1) Physicochemical parameters Physical Characterization: estimates of general land use and physical stream characteristics including predominant surrounding land use, local erosion, local nonpoint-source pollution, width, depth, flow, channelization, canopy cover, sediment deposits and substrate. The evaluation is based on ten parameters (see below). Physical habitat information provides insights regarding what organisms are expected to be present and to the presence of stream impacts. Water Quality: water quality data will be obtained from existing data sources (in cooperation with the Roaring Fork Conservancy) and Mil include temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, stream type, water odors, water surface oils, and turbidity. 2) Habitat assessment The habitat assessment is intended to assess the suitability of the habitat to support aquatic life. Thus the assessment is weighted to emphasize the most biologically significant parameters. Ail parameters are evaluated at each reach stuclied. The ratings are totaled and compared to the reference to provide a final habitat quality ranking. Parameters include characterization of the bottom substrate, available cover, embeddedness, and velocity and depth regime. ' Secondary parameters measure large-scale habitat characteristics including channel alteration, bottom scouring and deposition, and stream sinuosity. Tertiary parameters evaluate riparian and bank structure by assessing bank stability, bank vegetation, and .streamside cover. Habitat evaluations are first made on instream habitat, followed by channel morphology, and finally on structural features of the bank and riparian vegetation. Length of the reach surveyed will vary with each site. Primary parameters will be evaluated within the first riffle/pool sequence. Secondary and tertiary parameters are evaluated over a wider area and in the upstream direction where conditions will have the greatest impact on the reach being assessed. A percent comparability evaluation will be used to account for regional and stream-size differences that affect flow, substrate' and channel morphology. A reference reach, which is characteristic ora region and is in pristine condition, is established against which other reaches in the region are compared. Project Schedule Year 1: Planning and implementation Objective 1: Description of stream habitat Task lA: · Acquire existing information · Contact land owners · Coordinate with government agencies Task lB: Establish reference reaches; used to normalize the assessment to the "best attainable" situation. Task lC: Roaring Fork survey and physical habitat assessment Year 2: Complete descripti'on of stream habitat and develop catalog Objective 2: Categorize stream segments by habitat quality Task 2A: Classify segments Task 2B: Develop description of stream segments Objective 3: Degelop final catalog Task 3A: Construct maps of Roaring Fork and tributaries Task 3B: Develop restoration strategies for segments Year 3: Final preparation of catalog Expected Results in Year One: · Identify reference reaches · Refine protocol for Roaring Fork watershed ·andIdentifyto seekland°wnerSaccess to alongthe riverthe' Roaring Fork and major tributaries to develop cooperative relationships · Coordinate with government agencies to gather existing data and enlist cooperation · Comprehensive baseline survey and assessment of physical habitat of Roaring Fork River Expected Results after Years Two and Three · ForkC°mprehensiveRiver baseline survey and assessment of physical habitat of major tributaries to the Roaring · Development of catalog of stream habitat quality · Identification and prioritization of stream segments in need of restoration and protection · Setting restoration goals Project Evaluation and Oversight A scientific program committee will provide ongoing guidance for this project. A technical advisory committee, comprised of individuals from outside of the organizations, will evaluate the final product. Project Partners Colorado Big Country, Resource Conservation and Development (RC&D) Colorado River Water Conservation District Colorado Riparian Cadre The NatUre Conservancy Primary Staff t~roject Director.. Willa F. H01gate. Ms. Holgate holds two Bachelors degrees in Communications and Agronomy. As the Coordinator for Colorado Big Country RC&D working with an elected Board of Directors, she manages a diverse program of community development/natural resources conservation projects. Currently, the RC&D has 10 active projects valued at. $1,099,766. Projects include the Colorado Weed Calendar, NW Colorado water resources Guide, Tamarisk Inventory Pilot, NW Colorado Riparian Stream Assessment, and Agriculture/Conservation/Environment Education Project. t>rimary Ivestigator.. Delia G. Malone. Ms. Malone holds a Masters of Science degree in Environmental Science and a Bachelors of Science degree in Biology. She has conducted habitat assessments and biological surveys in the Roaring Fork Watershed for 8 years and has an excellent understanding of the landscape, geology, and vegetative and animal species that comprise the diverse ecosystems in the watershed. Additionally Ms. Malone is experienced in conducting risk assessments and environmental analyses. Co-?rimary Investigator: Dr. John C. Emeri'ck. Professor emeritus, Colorado School o£Mines, Department of Environmental Science and Engineering. Dr. Emerick has over 25 years of experience in teaching, research and consulting in ecology and related environmental sciences, with specialties in analysis o£water qualitY and aquatic ecosystems, land planning, management and restoration and design and construction of wetland-based water treatment systems. Communications Director}' Paul Hempel. Mr. Hempel has a Bachelors Degree in Enoironmental Biology and a Masters Degree in Environmental Administration. He worked for two years at the Colorado Division o£Wildlife within the River Watch Program and for two and a half years at the Roaring Fork Conservancy as Water Quality Coordinator. Additionally, he has with the RC&D to develop web based Water resources Directory. 2004 ACCOUNTING OF FUND EXPE! IDITURES MATCH TOTAL TOTAL AMOUNT ACTIVITY Cash In-kind 2004 'NEEDED REQUESTED Biological Inventory $0.00 $3,840.00 $3~,840.00 $1,000.00 Catalog Development $21,600.00, $24,720.00 $3,120.00 $1,000.00 Data Collection $0.00 $27,000.00 $27,000.00 $4,000.00 Data Analysis $0.00 $24,720.00 $24,720.00 $4,000.00 Data Ent'ry $0.00 $1,800.00 $1,800.00 Equipment $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Fiscal Management $0.00 $9,648.00 $9,648..00 GIS Development ' $0.00 $3,456.00 $3,456.00 Grant.Development $27,264.00 $31,584.00 $4,320.00 Landowner Outreach $0.00 $3,168.00 $3,168.00 Mngt. Team (CRWCD & $1 800.00 $1,800.00. $0.00 TNC) , Meeting Space $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $0.00 Organizational $6,912.00 $9,216.00 $2,304.00 Professional Meetings $6,912.00 $8,064.00 $1,152.00 'Project Coordination $2,784.00 $2,784.00 $0.00 Proper Func. Cond. $5,100.00 $5,100.00 $0.00 Dupe Assess. Technical Oversight $0.00 $3,120.00 $3,120.00 Public Ed & Outreach $5,568.00 $24,048.00 $18,480.00 $5,000.00 Web Site Dev. & Maint. $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 (CRWCD) Web Hosting (CRWCD $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 "~'OTAL t 140.00 $188,268.00 $106,128.00. $15,000.00 $82, TRANSPORTATION BUDGET ,2003 CARRY FORWARDS 1. 450.9483021.86000 RFTA Buses 1 RFTA Hybrid Bus 2 EEDAR Shuttles TOTAL Bus and shuttles will not be purchased until 2004/05 450.94.81043.86000 Restroom Remodel-Rubey Park Need to continue remodel of Ruby Park Unable to finish remodel in 2003 450.32.32100.82000 Professional Fees SH HWY 82 Access Plan Study IGA with Pitkin County Study did not begin in 2003 and will begin in 2004 450:32.32100.82810 Grounds Maintenance l'x 13 foot bus shelter and installation ~ Aspen High School Need to order one shelter for 2004 $306,418 $153_00Q $459,418 $10,500 $13,000 $9,000 TO: michaelp~ci.aspen.co.us Subject: Fwd: Re: Spring Golf Course Improvment Page 1 of 2 Michael, The funds for the spring project are discussed below. If you need explanation or other information to assist in carrying forward these funds please let me know. Thanks Steve Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2004 10:37:00 -0700 To: Stephen Ellsperman <stephene@ci.aspen.co.us> From: Steve Aitken <stevea@ci.aspen.co.us> Subject: Re: Spring Golf Course Improvment Steve, thanks for the update. I am forwarding this on to Michael in finance so that he can make sure these funds are carried forward. Thanks Steve At 09:45 AM 01/12/2004 -0700, you wrote: Steve: I did not mean to concern you that we were not planning on doing the project. We just have not heard confirmation on the dollars to do the project, the progress of the planning, or any sort of dates. We look forward to completing the project and just needed the conf'mnation that it was fully funded and a "go". I think it would help to schedule another coordination meeting which would both address the closeout of the Hole #15 project and the Putting Green Project. On another very important budgeting note. I have left $15,000 in the Golf Improvement Fund account to complete the Hole #15 landscaping in the spring. In addition - you have around $24,000 left in the fund balance in your Eden Report. The combination of these monies should be enough for us to complete the project in the spring. It is really important that in your year end closeourthat you ear mark these funds for carryforward for this specific project. When we begin the completion of the project in the spring, we are relying on these monies to complete the project. If you have any questions - please do not hesitate to contact me. At 09:55 AM 1/9/2004, you wrote: All, Stephen mentioned yesterday at the Parks and Recreation monthly meeting that we are not in Parks schedule for improvements in 2004. Golf has scheduled a Chipping/putting green project in coordination with Parks in Spring of 2004. ~ ~ Let me know if this is incorrect so we will have time to schedule a contractor if needed. Thanks file ://C :kDOCUME~ 1 knichaelp\LOCALS_ 1 \Temp\eud4.htm 1/12/2004 No Recipient, No Subject F~om: Michael Phillips <michaelp@ci.aspen.co. us> Subject: Cc: Bcc: Attached: Steve aike. Q is requesting 1500 in additional budget authority for golf offset by 2320 in additional revenues due to an early opening. Printed for Michael Phillips <michaelp@ci.aspen. Co.us> Housing Office City of Aspen/Pitkin County 530 East Main Street, lower level Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 920-5050 Fax: (970) 920-5580 www. aspenhousingoffice.com March 16, 2004 To: From: Re: City Council, City of Aspen Dobson, Executive Director APCHA ~~.~ Maureen Supplemental Budget 2004 This supplemental budget request for $10,425 will appropropriate funds to pay for the Housing Office's 2-day Process Re-engineering activity provided by' Orion Development Group. The activity was provided on March 8th and 9th. Pre-approval for this consultant activity was obtained from Aspen City Council through Steve Barwick and from Pitkin County Board of County Commissioners through Hilary Smith, in 2003. The source of funds is from excess funding in 2001, which both City Council and BOCC approved for one-time and capital purposes for the Housing Office. Including this supplemental request, $85,425 of the original $160,000 has been used for'the stated authorized purposes. Cc: Hilary Smith Steve Barwick Paul Menter TO: Mayor and City Council THRU: Steve Barwick, City Manager THRU: Tim Anderson, Jeff Woods, Ed Sadler, and Paul Menter FROM: Shirley Ritter, Director, Kids First DATE: May 4, 2004 RE: Request for appropriation for Yellow brick building asbestos removal SUMMARY: Council approval sought for appropriations to remove asbestos fi.om the Yellow brick building in the amount of $8,625. Staff is recommending that the funds be appropriated from. the childcare fund. Memo fi.om Environmental Health Department, including scope of work and bid proposal is attached. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION( ' ' Kids First and City Management has determined that before other necessary improvements can be made to the yellow brick building, such as heat delivery and control, and to prevent any future unexpected problems, that asbestos in the utilities tunnel must be' removed. This is for the safety and consideration of the children in this city facility. A contract, with much higher licensing and safety levels, has been found by Environmental Health Department. Adams Environmental Architecture has agreed to the terms, scope of work, and total cost of $8,625. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Financial cost to the City of Aspen will be $8,625. ALTERNATIVES: Alternatives include: 1. Use money fi.om the yellow brick building capital reserve fund, except that according to The Aspen Snowmass Council for the Arts, which manages the building, due to emergency heating costs last month, has no reserve funds at this time. 2. · Use money from dedicated childcare fund to pay for thisrePair. 3. Delay this asbestos repair, and consider it at a later date, possibly with other improvement projects, possibly also With a higher cOst. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve $8,625 from the childcare fund to pay for asbestos removal at the yellow brick· building. This funding to be used only because the property management team for the building cannot allocate funds from the capital reserve fund for the building to make these necessary repairs. C:kHomekKids First\administration\city updateskmemo-asbestosl.doc 85/63/2884 11:5G 9705444137 ASPEN REC .CENTER PAGE 82 'Ms.~anne~eVv'hitcomb Page2 Post' Supervisor (OSHA Competent Person) and all employee CDPH&B c~'tificates and other re4uired postings in thc clean room. Follow all req~ents For P~mit Required Confl~ecI Spaces, including gas mctar monitoring, as put forth in 29 CFR i9i0. i'46. Noti_~ the Aspen Fire D~artment of intent to conduct confined space work, with dates and times, and prepare an emergency evacuation plan - send copy to Fire D~partment. Per 29 CFR 1926,110], produce au Initial Exposure Assessment and background air samples. Additionally, ii' the Contractor can produce Negative Exposure Assessment data. on jobs of a simiIar scope within the. past 12 months,' no p~mefer air m~uitoring will bi required. If Negative Exposure Assessments cannot be produced, follow all OSHA air monitoring re4uircanents for multi-employar work sites. Set up the standard 3-compartment decontaminaZion unit and 22comparlEent waste load-out h. stan ~tical Bsta~lish negative air £1tra~.on (~ a minimum of .02" of air pressure differential, per 29 CFR 1926[1101. Record continuous air pressure rcadings on a continuous manometer strip chart, to . be submittecI wi~ the closeout package at the end of the proj~:t. Pre-clean the ~ntire tmmel area. M~intain good hOusekeeping procedures for the duration of the work. Perform glove bag removal of all pipe fitt/ngs. SeaI'cnds of fiberglass insul~iom Fiu~l clean and enc~.psulate the entire tunnel work srea. Call AEAPC for a final visual inspection and aggressive air clcarancc sampting. Sincerely yours, Jane H. Adams ADAMS ENV~O~~ ARCHITECTURE, P.C. 05/03/2004 11:56 9785444137 ASPEN REC CENTER PAGE 01 ADAMS ENVIRONMENTAL.ARCHITECTURE, P.C. Jane H. Adams AIA CDPH&E Project Designer #588 3535 Silver Plume Court Boulder, CO 80305~7212 (303)-499-?022 jhadamsaia(~aoi.com · April 6, ~004 Ms. Jannette Whitcomb, Senior Environmental Health Specialist Cityof Aspen, Colorado Environmental Health Department 130 South Galena Aspen, CO 81611-1975 .RE: YELLOW BP./CK PRE$CI~OOL RI~QLql~M:F~TS FOR ~BlgSTOS REMOVAL IN TIlE TUNNELS Dear 1an~tett¢: L~ accorclancc with your request, A.ER.PC would like to suggest, the folloWing outline for regulatory compliance and air pollution control on the referenced asbestos removal project. General Sceoe of the_ Prelect: The General Abatement Contractor (GAC) shall remove appro~dr~ately 110 mudded asbestos fittings from the entire steam tunnel area. The GAC shall file's formal (I0) day Notification w~th the State of Colorado Department o£ Public Health & Environment Air Pollution Control Unit. This will be a Notification of the intent to remove the asbestos, as specified above. When issued, post original Notification in the Clean Room area. The City of A~.pen or th.e OAC will then perform the followimz tasks; ]For the safety ofth~ project, the City of Aspen will need lock out and tag out all energy sources, including the hcaKng system, gas, thc hot water ayatem and electrical, for the duration of thc work. NotifY all b~lding occupants of times, dates, and extent of ail asbestos removal work, per 29 CFR 1926.1101. (NOte: ]V/ainten~cc sta~ for'the City of Aspen as well as for Yellow Brick proper~ managcrnent needs to be notified,) The (]AC will mobilke and set up an attached ($) compartment decontamination unit 05/03/2004 11:56 9705444137 ASPEN REC CENTER PAGE 03