Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutagenda.council.worksession.20171212 CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION December 12, 2017 4:00 PM, City Council Chambers MEETING AGENDA I. Climate Action Plan Update II. Update on Mobility Lab III. Top Ten Goals Quarterly Update - no packet material IV. Food Tax Refund P1 Page 1 of 5 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Chris Menges, Data Research and Project Planner THROUGH: Ashley Perl, Climate Action Manager DATE OF MEMO: December 8, 2017 MEETING DATE: December 12, 2017 RE: Aspen’s Climate Action Plan REQUEST OF COUNCIL: 1. Approve and sign the letter from City Council introducing Aspen’s new Climate Action Plan (CAP). 2. Support the implementation of the CAP over the next three years. 3. Reaffirm Aspen’s long-term greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction goals of 30% below 2004 levels by 2020 and 80% below those levels by 2050. PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION: Since the inception of the Canary Initiative in 2005, Aspen’s City Councils have supported ambitious and effective action to both cut emissions and respond to the impacts of climate change. This legacy of leadership has set the stage for Aspen’s new CAP; which in turn provides a framework for continuing and expanding Aspen’s leadership on climate action. Attachment B provides a bulleted overview of previous Council actions related to climate change. BACKGROUND: The commitment to climate action in Aspen was born out of a community-wide recognition that climate change presents one of the foremost economic, social and environmental threats to global and local communities, including Aspen. Aspen was one of the first local governments to take the lead by creating the Canary Initiative (now the Climate Action department), and in crafting a comprehensive strategy for reducing GHG emissions. Since Aspen’s climate work began in 2005, significant progress has occurred in how the community’s energy is produced; the efficiency with which it is used; the way residents and visitors travel from origin to destination; and in the amount of waste going to the landfill. These outcomes were made possible by the work of many City of Aspen departments, local organizations and individuals, but all lead back to Council’s enduring commitment to climate action. In addition to this progress, the community’s understanding of the benefits of local climate action have evolved significantly. P2 I. Page 2 of 5 Aspen’s 10 years of climate leadership has delivered numerous benefits including: reduced GHG emissions, improvements to local quality of life, and an amplified voice in state and federal policy. Additionally, this early leadership helped give rise to the global phenomenon of local governments committing to and acting on climate. In 2005, only a handful of cities had adopted formal commitments. Today, 7,497 cities representing over 9% of global population, have committed to a climate action program similar to what Aspen has done for the past decade. Nationally, states cities and businesses representing more than half of the US economy and population have set GHG reduction targets and declared support for the Paris Climate Agreement. And in Colorado, 24 local governments have committed to climate action by joining the Compact of Colorado Communities, spearheaded by Mayor Skadron. Collectively, these commitments represent a step in the right direction for reducing global GHG emissions at the volumes necessary to maintain a livable planet. There remains much work to be done locally, nationally and globally. While Aspen’s GHG emissions have decreased, achieving the community’s 2020 and 2050 goals will require a significant uptick in efforts. Accordingly, Aspen has developed an updated Climate Action Plan to help usher in the next 3 years of local climate leadership. DISCUSSION: CAP Defined: Aspen’s new Climate Action Plan (CAP) (Attachment C) is the community’s roadmap for reducing local GHG emissions at the levels necessary to meet its 2050 goals and do its part to reduce global emissions. The CAP recommends 37 actions across six sectors for implementation beginning in 2018 and extending through 2020. The recommended actions were identified with an Advisory Committee of regional experts, and are both innovative and achievable. These actions also build on existing efforts and set the stage for future efforts. The CAP can be viewed as Aspen’s strategic next segment on the long road to reducing GHG emissions 80% by 2050. Having a CAP is a responsible approach to keeping Aspen’s commitments, and is a best practice of cities worldwide. Purpose and need: Aspen’s first Climate Action Plan (CAP) was published in May 2007, setting priorities for 2007 through 2009. Since 2009, Aspen’s climate work has continued at full speed, but outside of a formal planning framework. Progress in reducing GHG emissions has been realized, but not to the extent desired or at levels that would enable achieving the 2020 and 2050 goals. Between 2004 and 2014, Aspen reduced its GHG output by 7.4%, despite concurrent growth in population and economic activity. At the current rate of action, Aspen will have only reduced its GHGs 3.5% by 2050. Accordingly, a new CAP, defining specific measures that should be taken over the next 3 years is necessary to position the community for success. What is addressed: The CAP recommends actions that would reduce emissions stemming from Aspen’s six most significant GHG sectors: Energy Supply; Residential Energy; Commercial Energy; Vehicles and Transportation; Aviation and Airport; Waste and Landfill. Full descriptions of these sectors, and recommended actions in each, are provided in their respective chapters of the CAP (Attachment C. p.18 – p.45). Tracking and mitigating GHGs from these sectors aligns with national practices and protocols. P3 I. Page 3 of 5 CAP Process: The recommendations presented in the CAP culminate a year and a half of work by Climate Action staff and the Advisory Committee; a group of more than 40 community leaders and experts in energy, building science, transportation, waste, aviation, forestry, community development, public administration, business, climate science, and resilience. This committee represents the input of 15 organizations and 5 City of Aspen departments. A full list of members is available in Attachment C on p.48. The strength of the recommended actions in the CAP are a result of the robust process that produced them. Three concurrent tracks delivered a CAP that is innovative, implementable, and correlates with the community’s willingness to act. These tracks are: 1. Analysis and modeling: With the assistance of regional academic experts, staff completed various research projects (like GHG inventories and forecasts) to inform the Advisory Committee on how far Aspen has come and what the CAP would need to accomplish to achieve long-term goals. Further, staff reviewed Advisory Committee recommendations, conducted feasibility assessments to streamline the number of actions for consideration, and worked to align the CAP with existing community plans and City Council priorities. 2. Stakeholder engagement: Throughout the course of four, facilitated, in-person meetings centered around the analysis and modeling, the Advisory Committee identified a full spectrum of potential actions, and recommend a subset of specific actions for implementation over the next 3 years. The recommended actions build on current efforts, set the stage for the next generation of opportunities, and make tangible progress on reducing GHGs. Further, the recommended actions include some that could be led by the City and others that could be led by partners. 3. Community outreach: During the CAP process, three surveys were conducted to deepen the City’s understanding about the specific climate actions that community members, local businesses and visitors are most and least willing to take. Further, the surveys identified motivations for, and barriers to, taking action. Staff collected completed surveys from more than 250 community members, 30 businesses and 25 visitors. Conducting the surveys provided 6 months of continuous community engagement on climate action and sustainability. The collective information has been analyzed, and its insights will help inform the forthcoming implementation of CAP actions. Additional information about the CAP process and the four Advisory Committee meetings is available in Attachment C on p.7 and p.50. GHG Reduction Toolkit: Two unique documents came out of this process; Aspen’s Climate Action Plan and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Toolkit. While the CAP is an Aspen-specific strategy, the Toolkit is a resource that can be used by communities throughout the region, state and country. It provides a comprehensive menu of actions that communities can take to reduce GHG emissions, and is fundamentally a shortcut for building a climate action plan. One desired outcome is that the Toolkit facilitates greater regional collaboration around shared GHG sectors, increasing the likelihood of meeting reduction goals while making the process more efficient, collaborative, and multijurisdictional. Aspen’s CAP is built on actions drawn from the Toolkit and it is anticipated that future CAPs will continue drawing from it. The Toolkit is available at: https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/1705. P4 I. Page 4 of 5 Data Context and Implications: The CAP process included robust quantitative analysis to answer three key questions: how far has Aspen come; where will Aspen’s GHG emissions go if we move forward at the current rate of action (business as usual); and what Aspen could accomplish if it did everything that is currently known and possible. The answers are as follows: 1. Between 2004 and 2014, Aspen reduced community-wide GHG emissions by 7.4%. A detailed look at these trends is available in Attachment C on page 12. 2. If Aspen continues at its current rate of reduction, and if population trends continue growing at the rate that they grew between 2004 and 2014, the community will have reduced emissions 3.5% below 2004 levels by 2050. A visual look at the “business as usual forecast” is available in Attachment C on page 14. 3. If Aspen could successfully achieve all objectives identified in the Toolkit, it could reduce GHG emissions 71% by 2050, getting very close to its goal. This is a promising finding. More information and a visual representation of Aspen’s “GHG reduction potential” is available in Attachment C on page 15. Implementation of this CAP should begin to accelerate Aspen’s rate of reduction; a necessity if the community’s stated GHG reduction goals are to be accomplished. Next steps and CAP Implementation: The CAP proposes significantly ramping up efforts related to energy supply, energy and water efficiency, transportation and mobility, waste reduction and more. Its publication is a launch point for the real work of implementation, slated to begin in 2018. The actions listed in this CAP build on past and existing efforts while setting the groundwork for the mid- and long-term actions that will be necessary to achieve the Aspen community’s GHG reduction goals. The City of Aspen’s Climate Action Department proposes continuing a formal framework of Convening the Advisory Committee to foster successful implementation. A list of 9 specific implementation-related services the Department will provide is available in Attachment C on p. 45. Metrics of success: The primary measure of success is continued and accelerated reductions in community-wide GHG emissions. The Climate Action department will continue tracking community-wide GHG emissions and publishing GHG inventories. Success will be realized if Aspen’s GHG emissions decrease more between 2014 and 2020 than they did between 2004 and 2014. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: Implementation of the CAP would positively impact numerous measures from City Council’s Sustainability Dashboard: Environmental · Energy (all measures): Percentage of Energy from Renewable Sources, Community-Wide Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Energy Use from the Built Environment, Mass Transit Use. · Air: Levels of Particulate Matter Pollution (through reduced VMT), Castle Creek Bridge Traffic Counts, Ozone levels (reduced vehicle emissions). · Waste: Municipal Solid Waste Diversion Rate, Miles Waste Travels for Processing. P5 I. Page 5 of 5 Economic · Tourism, Lodging, & Mobility: Walkability, Bike-Ability, and Transit. · Workforce Supply & Match: Median Commuting Costs by Bus, Participation Rate of Employers in Subsided/Free Bus Pass Program. Social · Community Connections: Fostering a Sense of Place and Belonging. Participation & Engagement Opportunities. · Public Safety & Preparedness: Emergencies, Disasters, & Preparedness (various CAP actions contribute to resilience). RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. City Council approve and sign the letter included as Attachment A to introduce Aspen’s new CAP to the community. 2. City Council support implementation of the CAP over the next 3 years. 3. City Council reaffirm Aspen’s long-term GHG reduction goals of 30% below 2004 levels by 2020 and 80% below those levels by 2050. ALTERNATIVES: City Council could elect to not sign the letter introducing the CAP to the community and: 1. Ask for specific revisions that would lead to approval. 2. Decline to sign any letter introducing the CAP. Council could reject the final CAP as currently written to either: 1. Make specific revisions. 2. Continue the community’s climate action work without a formal planning framework. Council could elect not to reaffirm Aspen’s long-term GHG reduction goals and instead: 1. Change the goals, either tightening or relaxing them. 2. Eliminate specific GHG reduction goals entirely. Without Council’s endorsement and ownership of the new CAP, their support for a specific planning framework, and the maintenance of rigorous GHG reduction targets, it is unlikely that Aspen’s climate action work would be as effective and efficient as it could be. This would deprive the community of certain benefits and compromise Aspen’s legacy of leadership on the issue. ATTACHMENTS: · Attachment A: Letter from City Council introducing the CAP · Attachment B: Previous Council Action on Climate Change · Attachment C: Aspen’s Climate Action Plan P6 I. Attachment A: Letter from Council introducing the Climate Action Plan December 2017 To the Aspen community and our visitors, It is our pleasure to introduce Aspen’s new Climate Action Plan (CAP), which sets the stage for continuing and growing Aspen’s legacy of climate leadership. When Aspen released its first Climate Action Plan (CAP) in 2007, we became one of the first mountain communities in the United States to adopt ambitious climate goals. This commitment reflects the community’s understanding that a stable climate is foundational to the Aspen that we know and love, and that climate action delivers direct quality of life benefits. Opportunities to reduce emissions are more practical, abundant and economical than they ever have been; To accelerate our movement in the right direction, the CAP maintains Aspen’s ambitious greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets. We are confident that Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley community can rise to the challenge of meeting these goals, based on our past work and forward thinking, committed community, policy makers, and businesses. One of Aspen’s hopes in becoming an early leader was that other communities would take notice. Today, local governments acting on climate is a global phenomenon. In 2007, few cities had adopted formal commitments. Today, thousands of communities around the world, hundreds around the country and dozens in Colorado have committed to climate action. Collectively, these commitments embody the potential for reducing global GHG emissions at the volumes necessary to maintain a livable planet. There has never been a better time to turn commitment into action. As history has shown, Aspen has a civic responsibility to act on behalf of its constituents, a moral imperative to take the steps necessary to meet the challenge of climate change, and the potential to be a catalyst for meaningful and effective action around the state, country and world. Implementing this CAP refocuses Aspen’s commitment to its future and will usher in the next phase of local climate leadership. We urge all to join us. Together we can make a difference that benefits our beautiful region and has an impact far beyond it. Mayor Steve Skadron and City Council members Adam Frisch, Ann Mullins, Bert Myrin, and Ward Hauenstein. P7 I. Attachment B: PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE Since the inception of the Canary Initiative in 2005, Aspen’s City Councils have supported ambitious and effective action to both cut emissions and respond to the impacts of climate change. The following list is an overview of previous Council actions related to climate action. 1. 2005: Adopted the Canary Initiative with the goal of aggressively reducing Aspen’s carbon footprint to protect the community’s future. 2. 2006: Published Climate Change and Aspen: An Assessment of Impacts and Potential Responses to understand how anticipated changes are likely to affect key sectors and ecosystems. 3. 2007: Adopted the first Climate Action Plan, covering the years 2007 – 2009. The Plan specified GHG reduction goals of 30% below 2004 levels by 2020 and 80% below those levels by 2050. 4. 2012: Published an updated Aspen Area Community Plan prioritizing reductions in GHG emissions, energy use and traffic congestion. 5. 2004, 2007, 2011 and 2014: Published community–wide GHG inventories to better understand the Aspen community’s GHG sources, trends, and reduction opportunities. 6. 2014: Published Climate Change and Aspen 2014: An Update on Impacts to Guide Resiliency Planning and Stakeholder Engagement detailing likely climate impacts and providing adaptation strategies in key sectors. 7. 2014: Joined Climate Mayors, an association of United States mayors with the goal of reducing GHGs. The group represents 379 cities and nearly 20% of the U.S. population 8. 2015: Accomplished a key goal laid out in the CAP by achieving 100% renewable electricity for Aspen Electric and directed staff to maintain a 100% renewable portfolio. 9. 2016: Finalized a resilience strategy to prepare key sectors of the economy for the unavoidable impacts of climate change. 10. 2016: Adopted Resolution 11, Series 2016 urging the U.S. Congress to introduce and pass carbon fee and dividend legislation. 11. 2016: Joined the Global Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, an international alliance of local governments dedicated to affecting global scale emissions through local action. 12. 2016: Joined Colorado Communities for Climate Action (CC4CA), a coalition of local governments working to affect climate and energy policy at the state level. 13. 2017: Launched the Compact of Colorado Communities, to help build the necessary capacity for effective climate action in local governments throughout the state. 14. 2017: Adopted “Top Nine Goals” for 2017–2019, two of which are directly tied to local climate action. Goal number four (transforming the mobility landscape) and goal number seven (decreasing the carbon footprint of the community’s energy supplies). P8 I. ASPEN’S CLIMATE ACTION PLAN A Roadmap to Our Sustainable Future P9I. Letter from Aspen City Council INTRODUCTION [Intro letter from Council — witheld pending approval and signing at 12/12/17 work session] 2 Aspen’s 2017 City Council is proud to continue and expand the community’s legacy of climate leadership. From left: Bert Myrin, Ward Hauenstein, Mayor Steve Skadron, Ann Mullins, Adam Frisch P10I. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS 3 Residential Energy 22 Commercial Energy 26 Vehicles & Transportation 30 Waste & Landfill 35 Aviation & Airport 41 Considerations for Implementation 45 Organizational Capacity Recommendations 46 Conclusion 47 Acknowledgments 48 Appendix A: How the CAP was Developed 50 Appendix B: A Summary of Relevant Climate Science 51 Appendix C: Related Documents 54 Appendix D: Literature Cited 55 Climate Action Mitigates Risk and Creates Opportunities 9 High-Impact Sectors 8 Welcome to Aspen’s Climate Action Plan 6 Executive Summary 4 Letter from Aspen City Council 2 CAP and Toolkit: What’s the Difference?11 Aspen’s GHG Emissions 12 GHG Emissions Forecast 14 GHG Reduction Potential 15 Understanding the CAP’s Recommendations 16 Key & Definitions 17 Energy Supply 18 Climate Action is a Community Value 10 P11I. Executive Summary INTRODUCTION The Aspen community’s first Climate Action Plan was adopted in 2007 and set the stage for 10 years of targeted and effective programming. Originally written as a two-year strategy, decision-makers and community members have continued leveraging the framework and priorities, resulting in an Aspen that has been able to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions despite growth in population and economic activity (Figure 1). Successful implementation of and growth from the original plan also positioned Aspen as a community known for leadership in climate planning, policy, and action; a position that has provided City leaders with a credible voice in a variety of state, national and international climate-related initiatives. Given the success of the original Climate Action Plan, direction from community members and elected official to bolster efforts, a need to align climate planning with the current priorities and opportunities, and an accelerated impetus to reduce GHGs, this substantive update is timely. 4 Aspen’s new Climate Action Plan (CAP) identifies 37 actions to reduce GHG emissions in six sectors and recommends their implementation. Conceived as a roadmap for achieving the community’s long-term GHG reduction goals, this CAP is one segment on the longer journey to reducing emissions 80% by 2050. The CAP focuses on actions that can be taken beginning in 2018 and through 2020, setting the stage for the programs and initiatives of the future — those have been identified in the comprehensive GHG Reduction Toolkit1. Analysis and modeling were a key component of the CAP process and indicate that it is technologically possible to get very close to the near carbon-free Aspen that community members and leaders have long aspired to achieve. Unless local and regional climate action initiatives are significantly bolstered, GHGs will grow slightly by 2050, even if today’s level of commitment is maintained (Figure 2). Figure 1. GHGs decreased while population and economic activity grew, indicating that ongoing efforts to address climate change can complement a thriving and dynamic Aspen. Retail Sales Population GHG Emissions 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20%2004 2007 20142011 +54.5% +5.5% -7.4% 1 The GHG Reduction Toolkit is a companion document to the CAP, containing a comprehensive list of objectives and actions to reduce GHG emissions. It is available at: https:// www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/1705.P12I. Executive Summary (Continued) INTRODUCTION 5 Analysis and modeling were but one component of the CAP’s development: its greatest substance lies in the robust stakeholder process that identified many possibilities for reducing GHGs, and then prioritized a subset for implementation over the next three years. The selected actions create a CAP that is innovative but also implementable. The recommendations can be found in corresponding sector chapters, and are accompanied by rankings on how much each one could reduce GHG emissions and information on the co-benefits that might accompany implementation. The CAP was developed in collaboration with a diversity of partners representing all GHG sectors, which cultivated a spirit of shared ownership for the real work of moving from Plan development to actual implementation. This is the community’s CAP, and while specific organizations, entities or City departments may take the lead in implementing certain initiatives, success will require deliberate partnership and collaboration. In short, no single organization or department is solely responsible for full execution of the CAP. Success must be realized as an all hands-on deck effort. Figure 2. Community-wide GHGs are likely to grow between now and 2050 if the current level of climate action in Aspen continues. On the other hand, if efforts increase dramatically and all objectives in the GHG Reduction Toolkit are achieved, Aspen could get very close to reaching its 2050 goal. Increase Decrease 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0Metric Tons CO2eGHG 2014 BAU 2050LandfillAirportVehiclesCommercial EnergyResidential Energy2050 Goal Business as Usual Through 2050 with Change by Sector +0.6%+5.2%-8.3%+10%+0.5%450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0Metric Tons CO2ePossible GHG Reductions by Sector BAU 2050 GHG 2050 -26% -30.1% -10.3%-20.6% -14.5% 2050 GoalLandfillAirportVehicles Commercial EnergyResidential EnergyP13I. Welcome to Aspen’s Climate Action Plan INTRODUCTION A roadmap to our sustainable future: This Plan is the Aspen community’s roadmap for reducing GHG emissions and envisioning what a low-carbon Aspen and Roaring Fork Valley could look like. Intended for policy makers, citizens, planners, and others interested in reducing GHGs while enhancing quality of life, Aspen’s CAP sets immediate priorities while providing a comprehensive planning resource for the mid- and long-term future. Measurable and target-oriented: The CAP is a strategy to intentionally move toward achieving the community’s long-term GHG reduction goals. Aspen began measuring its community-wide GHG emissions in 2004 and is committed to reducing them 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050. The long- term target is consistent with what the international scientific community believes is necessary to constrain global warming to 2°Ci and is aligned with multinational commitments that uphold the Paris Climate Agreement. A three-year plan looking far beyond: While looking forward to 2050, Aspen’s CAP presents a three-year strategy focusing on innovative yet implementable steps that should be taken beginning in 2018 and maturing by the end of 2020. While directly reducing GHG emissions, the recommended actions also set the stage for continued and expanding reduction opportunities. A comprehensive list of strategies that could build on the CAP from 2020 onward have been identified and published in a companion document, the GHG Reduction Toolkit. The actions prioritized in the CAP, as well as those identified in the Toolkit, were developed over the course of four work sessions with a group of more than 40 regional experts known as the Advisory Committee2. The CAP pulls its priorities from the Toolkit, and the actions presented for implementation between 2018 and 2020 were selected by the Committee. Thus, this CAP considers a full spectrum of GHG reduction opportunities, reflecting and prioritizing those that regional experts agree merit focus over the next three years. Intended use: The CAP should be used as a roadmap and springboard for developing implementation strategies for each of the recommended actions, and then applying them. The implementation pathway for each CAP action will be unique, requiring stakeholder input and support, and relying on a variety of mechanisms to be effective. 6 2 A list of Advisory Committee members is available in the Acknowledgments section. Aspen’s Climate Action Plan is the community’s second CAP, and the first comprehensive update to the original, adopted by Aspen City Council in 2007.P14I. Welcome to Aspen’s Climate Action Plan (Continued) INTRODUCTION A comprehensive approach: This CAP is not simply a literature review of best practices and innovative ideas that might work in Aspen. The recommendations in each sector are based on extensive analysis, modeling, deliberation, stakeholder input, and community engagement3 to ensure buy-in and feasibility. Further, the CAP aims to complement the multitude of existing or developing plans and City-wide goals in related areas such as transportation, energy supply, and waste diversion. 7 3 The Climate Action Planning Outreach and Engagement Report is a companion document to the CAP and details community outreach, surveying and engagement efforts that occurred during the planning process to complement and inform CAP implementation. It is available at https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/ View/1783 or by emailing climate@cityofaspen.com. Figure 3. This comprehensive approach has produced a CAP that is innovative, implementable, and correlates with the community’s willingness to act. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT ANALYSIS & MODELING COMMUNITY OUTREACH • Community member and business surveys • Web presence • Tabling at local events • GHG inventory, forecast and reduction potential analysis • Feasibility assessments • Alignment with relevant plans • Providing expertise in all sectors • Identifying actions • Setting priorities P15I. High-Impact Sectors The CAP addresses emissions stemming from Aspen’s six most significant GHG sectors4. Full descriptions of these sectors are provided in their respective chapters. INTRODUCTION 8 4 Tracking and mitigating GHGs from these sectors aligns with national and international best practices as stipulated by both the US Community Protocol (ICLEI) and the Global Protocol for Communities (World Resources Institute). ENERGY SUPPLY VEHICLES & TRANSPORTATION How electricity powering the community is generated The on-road movement of people, goods and services in private, transit and fleet vehicles AVIATION & AIRPORT Aircraft operations as well as energy use and transportation directly attributable to airport operations and passengers COMMERCIAL ENERGY How energy of all types is used in commercial buildings RESIDENTIAL ENERGY How energy of all types is used in residential buildings WASTE & LANDFILL The solid waste generated by the community and how it is transported to the landfill P16I. Climate Action Mitigates Risk and Creates Opportunities INTRODUCTION Aspen has been a leader in local climate action for 15 years. During that time, the community’s resolve for reducing GHGs has strengthened. A wealth of scientific data, empirical local results, applied experience, and community sentiment indicate that: • The severity of climate change in Aspen is directly tied to global GHG emissions. • Cumulatively, local action provides a significant opportunity to affect global emissions. • Climate action in Aspen has and will continue to improve local quality of life. Examples include reduced traffic and congestion, improved air quality, stable and affordable electricity rates and a more comfortable and efficient built environment. • Reaching Aspen’s GHG reduction goals is a long-term process made up of incremental accomplishments made possible by a large variety of organizations and individuals. • Doing all we can in Aspen allows local governments and community groups to more credibly and effectively be a voice for favorable progress in state and federal policy. Now more than ever, Aspen faces unprecedented risk and opportunity related to climate change. But Aspen does not face this risk alone. Without substantial reductions in global GHG emissions, it is almost certain that this region will experience significant and damaging warming during the lifetimes of its residents and visitorsii. Aspen is poised to take advantage of opportunities to reduce its carbon output. There has never been such a diversity of locally-implementable solutions available, nor the ability to leverage local success stories to advance state and federal policy. 9 Aspen’s climate efforts include local action, in addition to multi-city efforts that leverage successes and commitments at the state, national and international level. These partnerships include: 1. Compact of Colorado Communities 2. Colorado Communities for Climate Action 3. Global Covenant of Mayors 4. America’s Pledge/We are Still In 5. Climate Mayors 6. CDP 7. ICLEI USA and Carbonn 8. Urban Sustainability Directors Network 9. Citizens’ Climate Lobby P17I. Climate Action is a Community Value INTRODUCTION Aspen and Pitkin County’s commitments to protecting the health, prosperity and safety of its residents by acting on climate are not new. Efforts date to the 1989 adoption of the Ecological Bill of Rights. This philosophy stipulates rights to clean air, healthy ecosystems, and renewable energy. The community has since advanced and maintained these values as an integral part of its fabric in a multitude of ways, which include: • Formation of the Canary Initiative (the original name for the City of Aspen’s Climate Action Department) and completion of the first GHG inventory in 2004. • Development of first the Climate Action Plan and adoption of GHG reduction targets (-30% by 2020, -80% by 2050) in 2007. • Prioritization to reduce GHGs, energy use, and traffic congestion in the 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan. • Updates to the community-wide GHG Inventory and affirmation of commitment to the reduction target in 2007, 2011, and 2014. • Publication of Aspen-specific climate change vulnerability and impact assessments in 2006 and 2014. • Achievement of the 100% renewable electricity target for Aspen Electric in 2015. • Creation of a resilience strategy in 2016. • Finalization of the Aspen Community Sustainability Report in 2017. • Implementation of an updated Climate Action Plan, beginning in 2018. 10Photo courtesy Aspen Chamber Resort Association, Jeremy Swanson Photography P18I. CAP and Toolkit: What’s the Difference? INTRODUCTION One process, two documents: The Climate Action Plan and GHG Reduction Toolkit are individual documents. Each is an output of Aspen’s most recent climate action planning process, during which the Advisory Committee identified more than 250 actions that could be taken to reduce GHGs in Aspen and throughout the region. The GHG Reduction Toolkit5 is the complete list of actions developed by the Advisory Committee throughout the CAP process. It has been published as a standalone resource for communities throughout the region, Colorado, and the United States. In addition to presenting the full list of actions and providing information about each one’s GHG reduction potential and co-benefits, it touches on best practices for climate action planning, defines how to use the Toolkit during that process, and provides considerations for community leaders. One desired outcome is that the Toolkit facilitates greater regional collaboration around shared GHG sectors, increasing the likelihood of meeting reduction goals while making the process more efficient, collaborative, and multijurisdictional. The Toolkit also informs Aspen’s CAP, and has been used according to its intent: to prioritize actions for near-term implementation without losing sight of the full range of possibilities. Fundamentally, the Toolkit provides Aspen and others with an immediate-, mid- and long- term planning resource. It is likely that future climate action plans will continue drawing from it. The Climate Action Plan is built on actions drawn from the Toolkit that have been selected for implementation over the next three years. These prioritized actions have been adapted from the Toolkit’s general language into more specific language that fits the Aspen community. The CAP prioritizes actions that both move the needle and establish building blocks for longer-term opportunities. 11 5 The GHG Reduction Toolkit is available at https://www.cityofaspen.com/ DocumentCenter/View/1705 or by emailing climate@cityofaspen.com. One desired outcome is that the Toolkit facilitates greater regional collaboration around shared GHG sectors.P19I. Aspen’s GHG Emissions INTRODUCTION Overview: Aspen conducts a community-wide GHG inventory every three years to measure progress towards the 2020 and 2050 reduction targets. Inventories have been published for calendar years 2004, 2007, 2011, and 20146 (a 2017 inventory is planned for 2018). As of 2014, the Aspen community had reduced GHG emissions by a total of 7.4%iii, with the largest decreases occurring in the Commercial Energy and Vehicles and Transportation sectors. Geographic Boundary: Aspen’s GHG analysis and planning work addresses emissions corresponding to sources and activities in the Emissions Inventory Boundary (EIB)7. GHG inventories will continue measuring progress based on this geographic boundary, and fundamentally, the CAP applies directly to the EIB. However, CAP initiatives should not be limited to sources and activities within the EIB. Successfully reducing GHG emissions at the scale necessary to achieve the 2050 goal will require action and policy at the local, regional, state, and federal levels. Sources of GHG emissions: By far, the largest source of Aspen’s GHG emissions is energy consumed in buildings, accounting for 56% of the total (31% of total emissions come from residential buildings and 25% from commercial buildings). Vehicles and transportation also represent a significant portion of Aspen’s GHGs, totaling 19% (Figure 4). These percentages are expected to shift somewhat over time. If the electricity supply continues to become more renewable, Residential and Commercial Energy may become smaller portions of the pie, magnifying the contributions of other sectors. 12 6 The 2014 Community-wide GHG Inventory is available at http://www.aspenpitkin.com/DocumentCenter/View/1795. 7 The EIB has been used since 2004 under the rationale that this geographic area represents Aspen’s core functionality, and assumes that the contiguous outlying areas included in the EIB would likely not exist in the same capacity were it not for the existence of the Aspen community. Residential Energy 31% Landfill 9% Vehicles 19%Commercial Energy 25% Figure 4: Aspen's GHG emissions by sec- tor in 2014. A large portion of Aspen’s GHGs come from energy consumed in buildings, followed by Vehicles and Transportation, Aviation and Airport, and Waste and Landfill. Airport 15% Wastewater 0.01% The EIB is nearly identical to the City of Aspen’s Urban Growth Boundary but also includes 1) the Starwood and the White Horse Springs section of the McLain Flats residential areas; 2) the residential areas within and contiguous to the Aspen city limits such as Red Mountain, Mountain Valley (on the southeastern edge of town), Highlands, Buttermilk West, the Aspen- Pitkin County Airport, the Aspen Airport Business Center, Burlingame and North Forty; and 3) the electricity and natural gas used to run ski lifts and facilities on Aspen Mountain, Aspen Highlands, and Buttermilk ski areas. P20I. Aspen’s GHG Emissions (Continued) Progress to date: Between 2004 and 2014, Aspen’s total emissions decreased by 7.4%. This net decline in emissions represents the combination of increases in some sectors with decreases in others (Figure 5). For example, while GHGs increased 5% in the Residential Energy sector, they dropped 26% in the Commercial Energy sector. Similarly, emissions associated with activities at the Aspen Pitkin County Airport rose 15% while GHGs from Vehicles and Transportation decreased by 13% (Figure 6). Aspen’s GHG inventories provide foundational information for climate action planning. Two conclusions emerging from the inventories that underscore this CAP are that: 1. Achieving the 2020 and 2050 goals requires dramatically accelerating the community’s rate of reduction; and 2. While the magnitude of achievable GHG reductions varies by sector, overall movement in the right direction relies heavily on maximizing reduction opportunities in each sector. Given the critical yet broad nature of the takeaways from the GHG inventories, the CAP process included GHG forecasting and mitigation potential modeling to further the understanding of what it would take to achieve the 2020 and 2050 targets. 13 Figure 5. Total community-wide GHGs declined by 7.4% over the first 10 years of measurement; a rate that must accelerate dramatically if Aspen’s targets can be met. Figure 6. Changes in total GHGs are driven by the trends in each sector; reductions in each are necessary to drive down the total to desired levels. 150,000 120,000 90,000 60,000 30,000 0Metric Tons CO2eResidential Energy Commercial Energy Vehicles & Transportation Aviation & Airport Waste & Landfill2004200720112014Aspen Community Annual Emissions by Sector, 2004–2014 500,000 400,000 300,000 200,000 100,000 0 Commercial Energy Aviation & Airport Waste & Landfill Residential Energy Vehicles & Transportation 2004 2007 2011 2014 Aspen Community Annual Net Emissions, 2004–2014 Metric Tons CO2e2004200720112014200420072011201420042007201120142004200720112014+5% -26% -13% +15% +2%P21I. GHG Emissions Forecast INTRODUCTION Aspen’s GHG emissions forecast provides a professionally- modeled estimate of how much emissions might increase or decrease through the year 2050. Forecasting possible future GHG emissions is a best practice for climate action planning and sets a context for the necessary scale of action to achieve desired targets. As an early step in the CAP process, Aspen completed a business-as-usual (BAU) forecast in partnership with Western State Colorado University. BAU in this case is defined as the continuation of existing mitigation efforts and population trends, illustrating what Aspen’s 2015–2050 GHGs could look like if current efforts are maintained but no additional action is taken. The BAU scenario considers population growth by projecting forward the 2004–2014 trend, and constrains per-capita and per-square foot energy consumption at 2014 levels. The forecast confirms that getting close to achieving the long-term GHG reduction goals will require a significant uptick in programming and impact. Further, the forecast results are striking given that they consider Aspen’s current level of climate action, which is already considered robust and ambitious. In effect, the BAU forecast indicates that significant change is necessary to achieve Aspen’s long-term GHG reduction goals. 14 Figure 7. Under business as usual, Aspen’s GHGs are likely to continue declining modestly until about 2024, and then slowly rise through 2050, ultimately resulting in a 3.5% decrease below 2004 levels. Accordingly, the CAP process aspired to identify ways to reduce GHGs an additional 76.5% by 2050. 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2004 2007 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 20472044204120382032202920262035 2050 Commercial EnergyMetric Tons CO2eAviation & Airport Waste & Landfill Residential Energy Business as Usual CO2 Emissions Forecast, 2014–2050 2050 Goal: -80% Actual 2014: -7%BAU 2020: -12% BAU 2050: -3.5% 2020 Goal: -30% Vehicles & Transportation 2020 Needed GHG Reductions 2050 Needed GHG Reductions P22I. GHG Reduction Potential INTRODUCTION The ‘GHG reduction potential’ of a specific action is a measurement of how much that action could reduce emissions. It is valuable to evaluate the GHG reduction potential of various actions being considered for inclusion in the CAP because it informs which individual actions could likely reduce GHGs the most and the scale of total community-wide reductions that might be achievable. By calculating the GHG reduction potential of the proposed actions and adding them together, the CAP estimates how far Aspen could go in its effort to reduce emissions. The CAP used a ‘reduction potential’ model designed by Western State Colorado University to evaluate how much the complete set of identified actions could reduce community-wide emissions through 2050. The modeling exercise revealed that if Aspen successfully implemented all objectives and actions presented in the GHG Reduction Toolkit, it could reduce its GHGs 71% by 20508 (Figure 8). The results of the modeling are encouraging in revealing that currently identified opportunities and technologies could likely get Aspen close to realizing its 2050 climate goal. 15 8 Modeling results inherently contain uncertainty. Assumptions built into the model are based on staff expertise and Advisory Committee deliberation. Figure 8. If Aspen can successfully implement every objective contained in the Toolkit by 2050, it could reduce GHGs 71% below 2004 levels — far greater than the forecasted BAU scenario. Successfully implementing this CAP continues building the foundation to move in that direction. 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 250,000 200,000 150,000 100,000 50,000 0 2004 2007 2011 2014 2017 2020 2023 20472044204120382032202920262035 2050 Commercial Energy Metric Tons CO2eBAU Forecast 2020 Goal: 298,235 MT (-30%) 2050 Goal: 85,210 MT (-80%) Aviation & Airport Waste & Landfill Residential Energy Reduction potential: -71% by 2050 Vehicles & Transportation GHG Reduction Potential by Sector, 2014–2050 P23I. Understanding the CAP’s Recommendations INTRODUCTION During the CAP process, the Advisory Committee identified over 250 potential actions for reducing the Aspen community’s GHG emissions. Through a deliberative process, the Committee prioritized 37 of those actions for implementation over the next three years. Several criteria guided that decision-making and yielded implementation priorities that: • Have the potential to significantly reduce GHGs • Are innovative yet feasible • Could create desirable co-benefits • Complement existing plans and priorities • Are positioned at the nexus of building on past efforts, while setting the groundwork for those that will be necessary in the future • Are generally aligned across sectors • Fully capitalize on the variety of opportunities in each sector to avoid overreliance on any one • Represent a consensus from stakeholders, who represent the full spectrum of sectors The following sections of the document address each GHG sector, presenting the actions that meet these criteria. 16 The CAP Advisory Committee is comprised of 40 community leaders representing 15 organizations and 5 City departments. Committee members provided expertise in energy, building science, transportation, waste, aviation, forestry, community development, public administration, business, climate science and resilience.P24I. Mandate decarbonization of energy supply ACTIONS Establish a collective of local governments, large consumers and utilities to drive regional clean energy transition OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS C C C C C C C C SECTOR PARTNERS SECTOR RELATED PLANS C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Key & Definitions KEY & DEFINITIONS Promotes Equity Fosters Economic Sustainability Improves Local Environmental Quality Enhances Public Health & Safety Builds Resilience 17 CO-BENEFITS: Co-benefits are the additional positive benefits related to the reduction of greenhouse gases. Nearly all of the Objectives and Actions in this toolkit have co-benefits that achieve at least one of these measures: C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C GHG REDUCTION POTENTIAL (BLUE): GHG reduction potential for each Objective represents how much it could reduce GHG emissions in the context of the sector it is a part of if fully and successfully implemented. These rankings were quantified using a proprietary model and simplified to a scale of 1 to 4: Reduces CO2e by 4 to 1,900 MT by 2050 Reduces CO2e by 1,900 to 3,200 MT by 2050 Reduces CO2e by 3,200 to 9,600 MT by 2050 Reduces CO2e by 9,600 to 46,000 MT by 2050 OBJECTIVE: The broad and big picture activities or changes that must occur to make significant progress in reducing community-wide and regional GHG emissions. ACTIONS: The programs, policies and steps that help achieve each Objective. GHG REDUCTION POTENTIAL (GREEN): GHG reduction potential for each Action represents how much it could reduce GHG emissions in the context of the Objective it is a part of. Reduction potential was approximated and is presented using a 1 to 4 scale: Marginal reduction Small reduction Medium reduction Large reduction Objective co-benefits: The primary co-benefits of accomplishing the Objective. Action co-benefits: The specific co-benefits of implementing the Action. PARTNERS: Describes which individuals, groups or organizations are leading and collaborating on implementation. RELATED PLANS: CAP recommendations align with key aspects of these relevant plans and community goals. In addition to presenting the recommendations to reduce GHG emissions in each sector, the CAP presents a ‘GHG reduction potential’ ranking and a list of potential co-benefits of each ‘Objective’ and ‘Action’. The schematic below explains the elements of the tables throughout the rest of the document.P25I. 18 ENERGY SUPPLY GHG emissions in the Energy Supply sector are associated with purchased electricity and the use of natural gas in residential and commercial buildings. Energy Supply is accounted for and embedded in both the Residential Energy and Commercial Energy sectors. During the CAP process, a decision was made to isolate Energy Supply as its own planning sector because changes to how energy is produced impacts GHGs in both residential and commercial buildings. Isolating Energy Supply actions into their own category brings focus to supply-side planning as its own, high-impact endeavor. The carbon intensity of Aspen’s electricity supply is the result of the resources used to generate the power (fossil resources are significantly more carbon-intensive than renewable energy sources) and locally-serving electric utilities have incrementally become more renewably powered in recent years. Electricity in the EIB comes from two utilities: Aspen Electric, which became 100% renewable in 2015, and Holy Cross Energy (HCE), which was 30% renewable in 2015. Given that more than half of electricity sales in the EIB come from HCE (70%), significant opportunity remains for moving to an Aspen predominantly powered by renewable electricity. Sector Overview P26I. 19 Electricity Portfolio Trends ENERGY SUPPLY Broadly, opportunities to reduce emissions in the Energy Supply sector range from shifting generation assets to fuel switching. The co-benefits of successfully reducing Energy Supply GHGs can include widespread improvements to environmental quality, increased resiliency, innovation and the creation of regional employment opportunities. In 2015, Aspen Electric became 100% renewable and represented 30% of the electricity consumed in the Aspen EIB. That same year, Holy Cross Energy was 30% renewable and represented 70% of the electricity consumed in the EIB. Taken together, electricity consumed in the Aspen EIB is 51% renewable. Significant opportunities remain to reduce GHGs in the Energy Supply sector. Coal Natural gas Wind SolarBiomass, LFG*, Mine Methane Hydro Fossil Fuels Renewables Hydro 46%Wind 53% LFG* 1% Aspen Electric (2015) Coal 61% Wind 23% Natural Gas 8% Hydro 3% Solar 2% Mine methane, Biomass 2% Holy Cross Energy (2015) Electricity purchased in Aspen (2015) (51% renewable) Hydro 16%Coal 43% Wind 32%Natural Gas 6% Biomass, LFG*, Mine Methane 2% * Landfill Gas Solar 1%P27I. 20 Energy Supply: Recommended Actions Promotes Equity Fosters Economic Sustainability Improves Local Environmental Quality Enhances Public Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential GHG Reduction During the CAP process, the Advisory Committee initially brainstormed over 20 potential actions for reducing GHG emissions in the Energy Supply sector. The CAP recommendation is to pursue implementation of the following seven actions over the next three years. These actions align with the criteria described in the ‘Understanding the CAP Recommendations’ section of this document. Energy Supply continues on the next page. ENERGY SUPPLY Decarbonize Aspen’s energy supply ACTIONS Establish a collective of local governments, large consumers and utilities to drive a regional clean energy transition Enable the regional production and consumption of more renewable energy ACTIONS Implement and expand Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) Support distributed energy storage to address the intermittency of wind and solar OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS C C C C C C C C C C C C Primary Co-Benefits: C C C C Primary Co-Benefits: C C C C Holy Cross Energy Aspen Skiing Company Pitkin County Community Development Department Community Office for Resource Efficiency Citizens’ Climate Lobby Colorado Communities for Climate Action* The Mountain Pact* * These organizations were not part of the CAP process but are key partners for state and federal policy work. ENERGY SUPPLY PARTNERS P28I. 21 Energy Supply: Recommended Actions (Continued) Promotes Equity Fosters Economic Sustainability Improves Local Environmental Quality Enhances Public Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential GHG Reduction ENERGY SUPPLY Maximize local and regional renewable energy generation ACTIONS Encourage regional solar development through supportive land use policies Streamline and incentivize rooftop solar installation process Incentivize both community- and utility-owned renewable generation Support relevant federal and state policies through active legislative and regulatory engagement ACTIONS Through continued engagement with community members, elected officials and partner organizations, Aspen will advance climate and energy policy to the benefit of the community. Given the dynamic nature of the policy landscape, Aspen will continue a formal process for prioritizing and advocating on key issues. OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS C C C C C C C C C C C C Primary Co-Benefits: C C C C Primary Co-Benefits: C C C C C C C C Aspen City Council Top 9 Goals (#7) 2017-2019: Decrease the carbon footprint of the community’s energy supplies Holy Cross Energy: 35% by 2025 renewable power supply goal ENERGY SUPPLY RELATED PLANS P29I. 22 RESIDENTIAL ENERGY GHG emissions in the Residential Energy sector are associated with the use of electricity and natural gas in residential spaces. Aspen’s residential community is comprised of free market and workforce housing rentals and ownership properties that vary in age, quality, size and occupancy, and include single family homes, multifamily properties, mobile homes, and residences in mixed-use buildings. The residents and visitors occupying these spaces are served by three energy utilities. Roughly 6,300 residential electric accounts in the Aspen EIB are served by the regional cooperative utility, Holy Cross Energy, while 2,000 are served by Aspen Electric (the City’s municipal electric utility). The 3,700 residential natural gas accounts in the EIB are served by the regional utility, Black Hills Energy. Opportunities to reduce GHG emissions are tied to making the supply of energy flowing to the unit more renewable and consuming less of it. The co-benefits of successfully reducing Residential Energy sector GHGs include direct consumer savings and improved dwelling safety and comfort. Sector Overview P30I. 23 Residential Energy GHG Trends RESIDENTIAL ENERGY If all objectives in the Toolkit are fully and successfully implemented, Residential Energy GHGs could be reduced 86% below 2004 levels by 2050. 2004–2014 Business as Usual Reduction Potential Sources of Residential Energy GHGs Holy Cross 55% Natural Gas 39% Aspen Electric 4%Propane 1% Residential Energy GHGs grew 5% between 2004 and 2014 despite active energy efficiency programming. A majority of GHGs come from use of electricity on the Holy Cross Energy grid and from natural gas. Under business as usual GHGs could decline 6% below 2004 levels by 2020 but then rise 7% above them by 2050. If, however, all objectives in the Toolkit are fully and successfully implemented, Residential Energy GHGs could be reduced 86% below 2004 levels by 2050. 150,000 120,000 90,000 60,000 30,000 0 2004 2014 2023 20412032 2050Metric Tons CO2eResidential Energy GHG Past and Possible Futures +7% BAU by 2050 -86% reduction potential by 2050 +5% 2004– 2014 Possible reduction pathway if all objectives in the Toolkit are achieved Likely GHG trend without additional action P31I. 24 Residential Energy: Recommended Actions Promotes Equity Fosters Economic Sustainability Improves Local Environmental Quality Enhances Public Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential GHG Reduction During the CAP process, the Advisory Committee initially brainstormed over 30 potential actions for reducing GHG emissions in the Residential Energy sector. The CAP recommendation is to pursue implementation of the following five actions over the next three years. These actions align with the criteria described in the ‘Understanding the CAP Recommendations’ section of this document. Residential Energy continues on the next page. RESIDENTIAL ENERGY Increase the efficiency of space and water heating with conversions and retrofits to high efficiency electric ACTIONS Integrate space and water heating equipment standards into building codes Improve the energy efficiency performance of existing residential buildings ACTIONS Facilitate education and accreditation for contractors, architects and property managers Implement sleep mode technology for second homes when unoccupied OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS C C C C C C C C Primary Co-Benefits: C C C C Primary Co-Benefits: C C C C C C C C Holy Cross Energy Pitkin County Building Department Community Office for Resource Efficiency Aspen Skiing Company RESIDENTIAL ENERGY PARTNERS P32I. 25 Residential Energy: Recommended Actions (Continued) Promotes Equity Fosters Economic Sustainability Improves Local Environmental Quality Enhances Public Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential GHG Reduction RESIDENTIAL ENERGY Reduce energy consumption in rentals, apartments and multifamily buildings ACTIONS Encourage and require energy efficiency upgrades for rental units Anticipate and mitigate likely expansion of air conditioning use in new & existing buildings ACTIONS Require high efficiency air conditioning systems as AC use becomes more prevalent OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS C C C C Primary Co-Benefits: Primary Co-Benefits: C C C C C C C C C C C C Aspen City Council Top 9 Goals (#7) 2017-2019: Decrease the carbon footprint of the community’s energy supplies 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan: Reduce our dependence on non- renewable energy sources and instill an ethic of energy accountability. By 2020, reduce electricity and natural gas consumption in the Urban Growth Boundary. Require new development and redevelopment to minimize their energy usage and use on-site renewable energies as the site allows. Existing development should minimize energy usage and use onsite renewable energies as the site allows. RESIDENTIAL ENERGY RELATED PLANS P33I. 26 COMMERCIAL ENERGY Aspen’s commercial building stock is made up of free market and subsidized properties that vary in age, quality, size and occupancy, and include owner-occupied and tenant- occupied businesses in single occupancy, condominiumized, and mixed-use buildings. GHG emissions in the Commercial Energy sector are associated with the use of electricity and natural gas in those spaces, and most are served by both types of utilities. Roughly 800 commercial electric accounts in the Aspen EIB are served by Holy Cross Energy, while 1,000 are served by Aspen Electric. The 900 commercial natural gas accounts in the EIB are served by Black Hills Energy. These commercial properties have a variety of utility metering configurations, from single common meters to individualized sub-metering. Opportunities to reduce GHGs include making the supply of energy flowing to commercial properties more renewable and consuming less energy in them. The co-benefits of successfully reducing Commercial Energy sector GHGs include direct financial savings for businesses and enhancing the health, safety, and comfort of the built environment. Sector Overview P34I. 27 Commercial Energy GHG Trends COMMERCIAL ENERGY If all objectives in the Toolkit are fully and successfully implemented, Commercial Energy GHGs could be reduced 80% below 2004 levels by 2050. 2004–2014 Business as Usual Reduction Potential Sources of Commercial Energy GHGs Holy Cross 43% Natural Gas 45% Aspen Electric 11% Propane 0.5% 150,000 120,000 90,000 60,000 30,000 0 2004 2014 2023 20412032 2050Metric Tons CO2eCommercial Energy GHG Past and Possible Futures +10% BAU by 2050 -80% reduction potential by 2050Possible reduction pathway if all objectives in the Toolkit are achieved Likely GHG trend without additional action Commercial Energy GHGs declined 26% between 2004 and 2014 thanks to increases in renewable electricity generation and active energy efficiency programming. A majority of GHGs come from use of natural gas and from electricity on the Holy Cross Energy grid. Under business as usual, GHGs could decline 31% below 2004 levels by 2020 but then rise 10% above them by 2050. If, however, all objectives in the Toolkit are fully and successfully implemented, Commercial Energy GHGs could be reduced 80% below 2004 levels by 2050. -26% 2004–2014 P35I. 28 Commercial Energy: Recommended Actions Promotes Equity Fosters Economic Sustainability Improves Local Environmental Quality Enhances Public Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential GHG Reduction During the CAP process, the Advisory Committee initially brainstormed over 38 potential actions for reducing GHG emissions in the Commercial Energy Sector. The CAP recommendation is to pursue implementation of the following seven actions over the next three years. These actions align with the criteria described in the ‘Understanding the CAP Recommendations’ section of this document. Commercial Energy continues on the next page. COMMERCIAL ENERGY Promote energy benchmarking and reporting in commercial buildings ACTIONS Support commercial energy benchmarking and incremental EE improvements through policy Enhance energy and resource efficiency in new commercial developments ACTIONS Provide incentives for new and remodeled buildings to build above code Limit GHG emissions from future development through the use of controlled growth and coordinated land use in and around the Urban Growth Boundary Delay the need for air conditioning via building design and management OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS C C C C Primary Co-Benefits: Primary Co-Benefits: C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Community Development Department Building Department Holy Cross Energy Aspen Skiing Company Aspen Chamber Resort Association COMMERCIAL ENERGY PARTNERS P36I. 29 Commercial Energy: Recommended Actions (Continued) Promotes Equity Fosters Economic Sustainability Improves Local Environmental Quality Enhances Public Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential GHG Reduction COMMERCIAL ENERGY Bring all commercial buildings up to current building codes or retrofit a majority of existing commercial buildings ACTIONS Establish new program to bring existing buildings to meet current energy codes Model best practices through energy retrofitting of government buildings and properties ACTIONS Retrofit government buildings, offices and facilities (including affordable housing units and complexes) to comply with current energy code Optimize utility rates ACTIONS Adapt utility rates as necessary to incentivize and balance current and future priorities (i.e. EVs, fuel switching, time of use, peak shaving, energy efficiency, DSM) OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS Primary Co-Benefits: Primary Co-Benefits: Primary Co-Benefits: C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Aspen City Council Top 10 Goals (#8) 2015-2017: Energy efficiency-related code changes to transform the energy use of buildings within the community 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan: Require new development and redevelopment to minimize their energy usage and use on-site renewable energies as the site allows. Existing development should minimize energy usage and use onsite renewable energies as the site allows. COMMERCIAL ENERGY RELATED PLANS P37I. 30 VEHICLES & TRANSPORTATION The Vehicles and Transportation sector encompasses the ground transportation of people and goods traveling within, to, from, and passing through Aspen. GHGs are caused by the combustion of liquid fuels in a wide range of vehicles and can be impacted by a variety of factors, including, but not limited to, consumer choices, business demand, urban design, housing and business density, transit corridors, commuter and visitor choices, and fuel type. Types of vehicles include but are not limited to gasoline and diesel personal vehicles, light trucks, transit buses, commercial transport vehicles, heavy duty vehicles, and motorcycles. Opportunities to reduce emissions in this sector are diverse, and include shifting transportation modes away from single occupancy vehicle use and transitioning personal and commercial vehicle fleets to low or zero-emission options like electric vehicles. Some of the co-benefits of successfully reducing Vehicles and Transportation GHGs include reduced congestion and improved air quality. Sector Overview P38I. 31 Vehicles & Transportation GHG Trends VEHICLES & TRANSPORTATION If all objectives in the Toolkit are fully and successfully implemented, Vehicles & Transportation GHGs could be reduced 80% below 2004 levels by 2050. 2004–2014 Business as Usual Reduction Potential Sources of Vehicles & Transportation GHGs Gasoline Vehicles 77% Diesel Vehicles 21% Electric Vehicles 0%RFTA Busses 2% Vehicles and Transportation emissions decreased 13% between 2004 and 2014, thanks to a decrease in overall vehicle miles traveled (VMT) coupled with an increase in fleet wide fuel economy. In the business-as-usual scenario, GHGs could decline 19% below 2004 levels by 2020 and 54% by 2050. If, however, all objectives in the Toolkit are fully and successfully implemented, GHGs could be reduced 80% below 2004 levels by 2050. 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 2004 2014 2023 20412032 2050Metric Tons CO2eVehicles & Transportation GHG Past and Possible Futures -54% BAU by 2050 -80% reduction potential by 2050 Possible reduction pathway if all objectives in the Toolkit are achieved Likely GHG trend without additional action -13% 2004–2014 P39I. 32 Vehicles & Transportation: Recommended Actions Promotes Equity Fosters Economic Sustainability Improves Local Environmental Quality Enhances Public Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential GHG Reduction During the CAP process, the Advisory Committee initially brainstormed over 50 potential actions for reducing GHG emissions in the Vehicles and Transportation sector. The CAP recommendation is to pursue implementation of the following ten actions over the next three years. These actions align with the criteria described in the ‘Understanding the CAP Recommendations’ section of this document. Vehicles & Transportation continues on the next page. VEHICLES & TRANSPORTATION Reduce VMT by promoting alternatives to single occupancy vehicles ACTIONS Collaborate with employers to subsidize transit and mobility options for employees Enhance first and last mile connectivity to transit ACTIONS Establish and expand feeder transit network to increase access to primary transit stops (e.g., circulators, mobility as a service) Expand bike and walk options between population and work centers to primary transit stops Support and expand mobility options for the first and last mile and/or full trips OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS Primary Co-Benefits: Primary Co-Benefits: C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Clean Energy Economy for the Region Transportation Department Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Aspen Skiing Company Roaring Fork Transportation Authority Aspen Chamber Resort Association Colorado Communities for Climate Action* T h e M o u n t a i n P a c t * * These organizations were not part of the CAP process but are key partners for state and federal policy work. VEHICLES & TRANSPORTATION PARTNERS C C C C C C C C P40I. 33 Vehicles & Transportation: Recommended Actions (Continued) Promotes Equity Fosters Economic Sustainability Improves Local Environmental Quality Enhances Public Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential GHG Reduction VEHICLES & TRANSPORTATION Vehicles & Transportation continues on the next page. Promote the adoption of alternate fuel vehicles for individuals and fleets ACTIONS Increase the ratio of electric vehicles in all fleets in the community (e.g., rental cars, hotel shuttles, private fleets, government fleets, personal vehicles) Redesign urban form and population density to reduce vehicle use ACTIONS Further develop bicycle infrastructure (i.e., missing connections system, more bike and share lanes in key locations, solutions to key locational conflict/hazard areas) Promote new mobility technologies and business models ACTIONS Support increased and targeted service during peak times on transit routes OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS Primary Co-Benefits: Primary Co-Benefits: Primary Co-Benefits: C C C C C C C C Aspen City Council Top 9 Goals (#4) 2017-2019: Mobility Lab Short Range Transit Plan EV Readiness Plan Integrated Transportation Systems Plan Upper Valley Mobility Study Upper Valley Mobility Report Bicycle Pedestrian Master Plan 2012 Aspen Area Community Plan VEHICLES & TRANSPORTATION RELATED PLANS C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P41I. 34 Vehicles & Transportation: Recommended Actions (Continued) Promotes Equity Fosters Economic Sustainability Improves Local Environmental Quality Enhances Public Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential GHG Reduction VEHICLES & TRANSPORTATION Increase the cost of driving in certain places ACTIONS Use parking policies and prices to disincentive single-occupancy vehicle travel Support and research regional road pricing (e.g., congestion fees, tolls, dynamic pricing) Support relevant federal and state policies through active legislative and regulatory engagement ACTIONS Through continued engagement with community members, elected officials and partner organizations, Aspen will advance transportation and clean fuels policy to the benefit of the community. Given the dynamic nature of the policy landscape, Aspen will continue a formal process for prioritizing and advocating on key issues. OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS Primary Co-Benefits: Primary Co-Benefits: C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P42I. 35 WASTE & LANDFILL Waste generation in Aspen, estimated at 11 pounds per person per dayiv, is above both the state and national average. The average for Colorado is 9 pounds, which is twice the national average of 4.5 pounds. Some of the factors driving Aspen’s higher numbers include the tourist population and the active development economy. GHG emissions in the Waste and Landfill sector come from waste generated within the Aspen EIB, then transported to, and processed at the Pitkin County Landfill. Organic components within the waste stream generate methane as they decompose9. Organic components flowing from Aspen to the Pitkin County Landfill include food waste, yard waste, drywall and wood. The drywall and wood are a part of the construction and demolition (C & D) waste category, which equates to 80% of the total waste sent to the landfill10. Heavy duty vehicles hauling waste to the landfill and processing it on site combust liquid fuels. Opportunities to reduce emissions in this sector include diverting or salvaging organic components of the waste stream and increasing the efficiency of hauling and processing. The co-benefits of successfully reducing Waste and Landfill sector GHGs include extending the life of local landfills and improving local environmental quality. Sector Overview 9 Organics like food scraps and wood in landfills are a major source of methane, a GHG with a global warming potential 84x more potent than carbon dioxide in the short term. Inversely, when converted into compost and applied to the land, compost sequesters carbon (Source: Institute for Local Self-Reliance, 2017). 10 Diverting C & D waste could extend the life of the landfill, lower energy consumption and carbon emissions, create new jobs with the reuse of construction materials and lower the cost of construction materials for projects. P43I. 36 Waste & Landfill GHG Trends WASTE & LANDFILL If all objectives in the Toolkit are fully and successfully implemented, Waste & Landfill GHGs could be reduced 54% below 2004 levels by 2050. 2004–2014 Business as Usual Reduction Potential Sources of Waste & Landfill GHGs Commercial Waste 58% C&D Waste 26% Onsite Electricity 0.34% Onsite Gas & Diesel 0.10% 70,000 40,000 30,000 20,000 10,000 0 2004 2014 2023 20412032 2050Metric Tons CO2eWaste & Landfill GHG Past and Possible Futures +7% BAU by 2050 -54% reduction potential by 2050Possible reduction pathway if all objectives in the Toolkit are achieved Likely GHG trend without additional action Waste and Landfill emissions increased 2% between 2004 and 2014, driven predominantly by significant increases in the volume of C&D waste. Under business as usual, GHGs could increase 2% above 2004 levels by 2020 and 7% above them by 2050. If, however, all objectives in the Toolkit are fully and successfully implemented, GHGs could be reduced 54% below 2004 levels by 2050. +2% 2004–2014 Residential Waste 16% 50,000 60,000 P44I. 37 Waste & Landfill: Recommended Actions Promotes Equity Fosters Economic Sustainability Improves Local Environmental Quality Enhances Public Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential GHG Reduction During the CAP process, the Advisory Committee initially brainstormed over 50 potential actions for reducing GHG emissions in the Waste and Landfill sector. The CAP recommendation is to pursue implementation of the following nine actions over the next three years. These actions align with the criteria described in the ‘Understanding the CAP Recommendations’ section of this document. Waste & Landfill continues on the next page. WASTE & LANDFILL Increase rates of, and participation in, composting and recycling ACTIONS Use codes and regulations to increase composting rates Maximize diversion of construction and demolition (C&D) waste ACTIONS Create a system for moving C&D waste to markets Adopt and enforce a requirements for C&D waste diversion Provide increased opportunities for deconstructed building materials to be salvaged and reused OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS Primary Co-Benefits: Primary Co-Benefits: C C C C C C C C Pitkin County Pitkin County Landfill Environmental Health and Sustainability Department Aspen Zero Impact Aspen Skiing Company Aspen Chamber Resort Association WASTE & LANDFILL PARTNERS C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P45I. 38 Waste & Landfill: Recommended Actions (Continued) Promotes Equity Fosters Economic Sustainability Improves Local Environmental Quality Enhances Public Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential GHG Reduction WASTE & LANDFILL Increase community compliance with waste diversion ordinances ACTIONS Create incentives for recycling and disincentives for contaminating recycling loads Align city, county and regional waste policies and codes Improve existing waste hauling practices ACTIONS Investigate haulers’ routes and look for opportunities to optimize route efficiency Encourage the use of cleaner vehicles for local waste haulers OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS Primary Co-Benefits: Primary Co-Benefits: Roaring Fork Valley Comprehensive Waste Diversion Plan Pitkin County Internal Climate Action Plan WASTE & LANDFILL RELATED PLANS C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Waste & Landfill continues on the next page.P46I. 39 Waste & Landfill: Recommended Actions (Continued) Promotes Equity Fosters Economic Sustainability Improves Local Environmental Quality Enhances Public Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential GHG Reduction WASTE & LANDFILL Support relevant federal and state policies through active legislative and regulatory engagement ACTIONS Through continued engagement with community members, elected officials and partner organizations, Aspen will actively engage in waste and waste-diversion policy to the benefit of the community. Given the dynamic nature of the policy landscape, Aspen will continue a formal process for prioritizing and engaging on key issues. OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS Primary Co-Benefits: C C C C C C C C P47I. 40 AVIATION & AIRPORT GHG emissions in the Aviation and Airport sector are associated with aircraft operations (primarily landings and takeoffs), ground support equipment, on-road vehicle use, and energy consumed in buildings (such as the terminal) at the Aspen/Pitkin County Airport (Airport, ASE). Opportunities to reduce emissions in this sector include increasing the operating efficiency of aircraft, electrifying ground support equipment and ground access vehicles and maximizing the energy efficiency and on-site energy production of airport buildings. It is likely that the Airport will undergo both a runway and terminal expansion in the coming years, and elements of the CAP have considered this while being developed alongside Airport officials. Only two percent of GHGs occurring at ASE are directly controlled by Pitkin County11, making this sector one of the most difficult to affect directly. While airlines have created voluntary targets to reduce GHGs related to aircraft operations, mandatory fuel economy requirements (which would need to be set by the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration) do not exist. Nonetheless, the difference between intentional local action and business as usual is substantial and a necessary component of the Aspen community’s climate action efforts. Specific actions recommended in this CAP involve both local action and pursuing more efficient or alternative fuel aircraft via engagement with airlines and federal regulators. The co-benefits of successfully reducing Aviation and Airport GHGs include improvements to both public health and environmental quality. Sector Overview 11 98% of ASE’s GHG emissions come from aircraft operations, which are regulated by the US Federal Aviation Administration. While local governments and airports cannot mandate aircraft fuel types or economy standards, they can partner with stakeholders to offer and incentivize cleaner fuels and to provide infrastructure for more fuel-efficient aircraft. Source on 98% statistic: Aspen/ Pitkin County Airport GHG Inventory, 2014.Photo: Gloria Bouillon P48I. 41 Aviation & Airport GHG Trends AVIATION & AIRPORT If all objectives in the Toolkit are fully and successfully implemented, Aviation & Airport GHGs could be reduced 8% below 2004 levels by 2050. 2004–2014 Business as Usual Reduction Potential Sources of Aviation & Airport GHGs Aircraft Operations 89% Ground Support Equipment & Access Vehicles 11% Aviation and Airport emissions increased by 15% between 2004 and 2014, driven predominantly by more passengers flying longer distances. Under business as usual, GHGs could increase 22% above 2004 levels by 2020 and 67% above them by 2050. If, however, all objectives in the Toolkit are fully and successfully implemented, GHGs could be reduced 8% below 2004 levels by 2050. 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 0 2004 2014 2023 20412032 2050Metric Tons CO2eAviation & Airport GHG Past and Possible Futures +67% BAU by 2050 -8% reduction potential by 2050 Possible reduction pathway if all objectives in the Toolkit are achieved Likely GHG trend without additional action+15% 2004–2014 Photo: Gloria Bouillon P49I. 42 Aviation & Airport: Recommended Actions Promotes Equity Fosters Economic Sustainability Improves Local Environmental Quality Enhances Public Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential GHG Reduction During the CAP process, the Advisory Committee initially brainstormed over 28 potential actions for reducing GHG emissions in the Aviation and Airport sector. The CAP recommendation is to pursue implementation of the following eight actions over the next three years. These actions align with the criteria described in the ‘Understanding the CAP Recommendations’ section of this document. Aviation & Airport continues on the next page. AVIATION & AIRPORT Reduce airport controlled GHGs ACTIONS Support the use of electric vehicles or other clean fuel vehicles for ground support vehicles and ground support equipment (GSE) Upgrade airfield lighting with LED lighting Encourage taxi and airport shuttles to achieve high fuel economy or clean-fuels standards Reduce aircraft and aviation related GHGs ACTIONS Promote and incentivize the use of aviation biofuels in aircraft servicing local airport OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS Primary Co-Benefits: Primary Co-Benefits: Aspen/Pitkin County Airport Pitkin County Aspen Chamber Resort Association Community Office for Resource Efficiency Aspen Zero Impact Aspen Skiing Company AVIATION & AIRPORT PARTNERS C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C P50I. 43 Aviation & Airport: Recommended Actions (Continued) Promotes Equity Fosters Economic Sustainability Improves Local Environmental Quality Enhances Public Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential GHG Reduction AVIATION & AIRPORT If a new terminal is developed, ensure that it represents the pinnacle of energy efficiency and sustainability ACTIONS Encourage and support new terminal or Airport building to be net-zero Encourage passengers to use transit and mobility services to access airport ACTIONS Encourage rental car companies to have electric vehicle (EV) options. Pursue EVs becoming a certain percentage of the rental fleet Provide transit service directly to and from Airport and/or wayfinding from terminal to existing transit OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS Primary Co-Benefits: Primary Co-Benefits: Pitkin County Internal Climate Action Plan AVIATION & AIRPORT RELATED PLANS C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Aviation & Airport continues on the next page.P51I. 44 Aviation & Airport: Recommended Actions (Continued) Promotes Equity Fosters Economic Sustainability Improves Local Environmental Quality Enhances Public Health & Safety Builds ResilienceCLevel of Potential GHG Reduction AVIATION & AIRPORT Support relevant federal and state policies through active legislative and regulatory engagement ACTIONS Through continued engagement with community members, elected officials and partner organizations, Aspen will advance relevant policy to the benefit of the community. Given the dynamic nature of the policy landscape, Aspen will continue a formal process for prioritizing and advocating on key issues. OBJECTIVE GHG REDUCTION POTENTIAL CO-BENEFITS Primary Co-Benefits: C C C C C C C C Photo: Gloria Bouillon P52I. Considerations for Implementation CONCLUSION The publication of this CAP is a launch point for the real work of implementation. It is the intent of the partners that developed this Plan to begin implementation in 2018 and make significant progress by the end of 2020. The actions listed in this CAP and slated for implementation over the next three years build on past and existing efforts in each sector while setting the groundwork for the mid- and long-term actions that will be necessary to achieve the Aspen community’s GHG reduction goals. One of the reasons for developing the CAP in collaboration with a diversity of partners representing all GHG sectors was to cultivate a spirit of shared ownership around both achieving community wide goals and by association, for implementing actions. This is the community’s plan — no single organization or department is solely responsible for full execution of the CAP. Rather, implementation is an all hands-on deck effort. To foster successful implementation, the City of Aspen’s Climate Action Department will: • Continue convening the Advisory Committee as it develops an implementation strategy for each recommended action • Provide research capacity and expertise to inform decision-making • Compile and formalize the Advisory Committee’s feedback into implementable strategies for execution • Support entities and organizations leading implementation on all actions • Assume a leadership role in implementing relevant and appropriate actions • Maintain implementation timelines • Establish necessary outreach efforts and engage entities and constituencies that can help guide and support successful implementation • Measure progress in both action implementation, GHG trends and progress towards reduction goals • Keep decision-makers, community members, and stakeholders informed on progress and results Most broadly, the CAP is but one of many current planning efforts that could affect GHG emissions in Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley. Accordingly, an underlying priority is coordination with those related efforts, plans, and priorities. Other key implementation principles are building on previous experiences and successes, remaining apprised of evolving best practices, maintaining a clear prioritization of actions, and regular evaluation and redesign once implementation begins. Linkages and overlap with priority actions in other sectors will also be addressed and leveraged. Successful implementation will be pursued using similar principles to how the CAP was developed: through collaborative development with stakeholders, by leveraging local expertise, building strong partnerships, employing capable staff, responding to supportive leaders, and actively engaging with community members. 45 P53I. Organizational Capacity Recommendations CONCLUSION The Advisory Committee’s engagement in developing the CAP demonstrates substantial capacity and support from regional leaders to advance climate action. Successfully moving Aspen along the path to its -80% GHG target is contingent on leaders and elected officials continuing to foster a supportive culture and providing adequate resources. The City’s Climate Action Department requests that Council help ensure success of CAP implementation by supporting staff to: Secure and prioritize the necessary organizational capacity. Ensure that stakeholders from all relevant sectors are included. Ensure that representatives of all impacted populations are included. Identify champions to take the lead on implementation. Identify and allocate funds for implementation. Continue enhancing technical capacity as necessary. Engage in relevant state and federal policy efforts. Often, local priorities can be bolstered by enabling legislation. Collaborate across jurisdictional boundaries. Regional collaboration in all sectors enhances efficiency and magnifies impact. Track performance, celebrate successes, and adjust course when necessary. 46 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Photo courtesy Aspen Chamber Resort Association, Jeremy Swanson Photography P54I. Conclusion CONCLUSION Aspen’s first decade of climate action has seen many successes in areas related to energy, transportation and waste, showing that it is possible to reduce emissions during times of population growth and heightened economic activity. Further, experience to date shows that bold actions to reduce GHGs improve quality of life and coincide with community values and priorities, such as those illustrated in the Aspen Area Community Plan. At the same time, Aspen’s forward momentum in reducing GHGs must ratchet up substantially if the community’s long- term reduction goals of 30% below 2004 levels by 2020 and 80% below those levels by 2050 are going to be met. To date, community-wide emissions have been reduced by 7% below 2004 levels, and business-as-usual forecasting indicates that without significant additional action, it would be reasonable to expect a 3% reduction below 2005 levels by 2050. Conversely, modeling indicates that on paper, it is possible for the community to get very close to achieving the long-term goals. If every objective in the GHG Reduction Toolkit is achieved, Aspen could plausibly reduce emissions 71% by 2050. Implementing the actions described in this Climate Action Plan is the community’s next step in that direction. These actions could offer immediate reductions in GHG emissions, create a variety of co-benefits for the community, and set the stage for building on successes to continue forward progress. An Aspen that has reduced its GHG emissions by 80% is one in which transformative change has occurred in the way community members produce and consume energy, travel to destinations, consume products, and dispose of waste. Many experts believe that these changes align closely with the type of community that residents want to live in and that guests hope to visit: An Aspen with clean air and water, accessible mobility that reduces congestion and promotes health, buildings that are safe and comfortable to occupy and affordable to power, and a waste stream where maximum diversion has been achieved. Thanks to the support of the Aspen community and their elected representatives on Aspen City Council, the diversity of experts and stakeholders that helped conceive this Plan will continue their momentum by getting down to the real work of implementation. Successful implementation will be contingent on collaboration and a diversity in the ownership of various initiatives. The authors of this document thank both Council and the community for their support and look forward to keeping all parties apprised of progress moving forward. 47 City of Aspen staff with Aspen Mayor Steve Skadron at the Compact of Colorado Communities kickoff event, May 2017 P55I. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 48 Aspen’s Climate Action Plan was prepared by the City of Aspen with extensive input from expert stakeholders representing all sectors. It would not be possible without the expertise, time, and dedication of this Advisory Committee. We would like to express our thanks to the following individuals and the organizations they represent: Person Title Organization Adam McCurdy Forest Programs Director Aspen Center for Environmental Studies Ashley Perl Director of Canary Initiative City of Aspen Auden Schendler Vice President of Sustainability Aspen Skiing Company Bert Myrin Council Member City of Aspen Chris Hildred Power Supply & Special Projects Supervisor Holy Cross Energy Chris Lane Chief Executive Officer Aspen Center for Environmental Studies Chris Menges Data Research and Project Planner City of Aspen Cindy Houben Director of Community Development Pitkin County Claire Sacco Member Services Coordinator Aspen Chamber Resort Association Clem Kopf Board Member Holy Cross Energy David Hornbacher Director of Utilities and Environmental Initiatives City of Aspen Ellen Sassano Long Range Planner Pitkin County Jack Johnson Executive Director Aspen Zero Impact Jamie Mandel Prinicipal Rocky Mountain Institute Jamie Werner Forest Programs Director (former)Aspen Center for Environmental Studies Jane Wilch Climate Outreach Coordinator City of Aspen Jannette Whitcomb Sr. Environmental Health Specialist – Air Quality City of Aspen Jed Miller Operations Foreman Pitkin County Landfill Jen Wolchansky Project Manager Mead & Hunt Jesse Morris Principal Rocky Mountain Institute Jessica Garrow Community Development Director City of Aspen John Katzenberger Executive Director Aspen Global Change Institute John Kinney Director of Aviation Aspen/Pitkin County Airport John Krueger Director of Transportation City of Aspen Kate Andrus Project Manager, Aviation Services Mead & Hunt Laura Armstrong Climate and Sustainability Programs Associate City of Aspen Liz Chapman Sr. Environmental Health Specialist – Waste City of Aspen Mary Vigilante President Synergy Consultants LLC Advisory Committee (AC):P56I. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 49 Preparer and contact information: City of Aspen Climate Action Department: climate@cityofaspen.com CAP author and project manager: Chris Menges, Data Research and Project Planner, City of Aspen. chris.menges@cityofaspen.com Project assistance and meeting facilitation: Larissa Read, Common Ground Environmental Consulting. larissa@commongroundenv.com Graphic design and layout: Kate Lohnes and Claire Lukens, Lilja Communications. kate@lilja.com, claire@lilja.com Icon illustration: Ellie Barber, Aspen Global Change Institute. ebarber@agci.org Forecasting and reduction potential models: Dr. Abel Chavez and Brandon McNamara, Western State Colorado University. achavez@western.edu, brandon_mcn@outlook.com Person Title Organization Matt Hamilton Sustainability Director Aspen Skiing Company Matthew Shmigelsky Energy Consultant Clean Energy Economy for the Region Michael Miracle Director of Community Engagement Aspen Skiing Company Mirte Mallory Executive Director We-Cycle Mona Newton Executive Director Community Office for Resource Efficiency Phillip Supino Long Range Planner City of Aspen Randy Ready Assistant City Manager (former)City of Aspen Richard Heede Director Climate Accountability Institute Robert Gardner Board Member Holy Cross Energy Ruth Brown Co-chair Aspen Chapter, Citizens Climate Lobby Ryk Dunkelberg Vice President of Aviation Services Mead & Hunt Ryland French Utilities Efficiency Specialist City of Aspen Sara Ott Assistant City Manager City of Aspen Sarah Gruen Community Sustainability Coordinator Community Office for Resource Efficiency Stephen Kanipe Chief Building Official City of Aspen Steve Child Commissioner Pitkin County (Cont.) Advisory Committee (AC): Person Title Organization CJ Oliver Director of Environmental Health and Sustainability City of Aspen Julia Farwell Sustainability Intern – Waste Reduction City of Aspen Larissa Read Principal Owner Common Ground Environmental Consulting Missy Stults Program Officer Climate Resilience Fund Mitzi Rapkin Community Relations Director City of Aspen Facilitation and meeting assistance:P57I. APPENDIX A: How the CAP was Developed APPENDIX 50 The recommendations presented in the CAP culminate a year and a half of work by the Advisory Committee including experts in energy, building science, transportation, waste, aviation, forestry, community development, public administration, business, climate science, and resilience. Throughout the course of four facilitated, in-person meetings centered around extensive analysis performed by the City of Aspen’s Climate Action Department, the Committee was able to select and recommend specific actions. Re-capping the four-meeting framework provides an overview about how the CAP was developed: • Reviewed GHG Inventory and GHG forecast to understand trends • Defined what a successful CAP looks like • Reviewed background information on each sector • Discussed GHG reduction objectives in each sector • Brainstormed list of 400+ possible actions Advisory Committee Meeting 1: • Reviewed refined list of possible actions (original list of 400 was refined to 250 “feasible” actions) • Identified co-benefits of the 250 actions • Developed modeling assumptions for each action (for reduction potential modeling) Meeting 2: • Reviewed GHG reduction potential related to successful implementation of all actions • Reviewed which actions have the highest reduction potential in each sector • Discussed Toolkit concept Meeting 3: • Reviewed draft Toolkit • Chose three to seven actions in each sector for implementation over next three years • Finalized list of 37 priority actions for the Aspen CAP Meeting 4: The stakeholder engagement process began with the Advisory Committee defining what a successful CAP would look like. Aspen’s CAP been designed around these measures of success: • Actionable • Implementable • Innovative • Integrated • Cross jurisdictional • Meets GHG reduction goals P58I. APPENDIX B: A Summary of Relevant Climate Science APPENDIX 51 Our climate is changing, and more rapidly than at any point on recordv. • “Every single year since 1977 has been warmer than the 20th century average, with 16 of the 17 warmest years on record occurring since 2001, and 2016 being the warmest year on recorded history.”vi • Global temperatures have risen by 1.5°F since 1880vii and national temperatures have increased 2°F since 1978viii. • In Colorado, average temperatures have risen by 2.5°F since the 1950six. • In Western Colorado, there are 23 fewer frost free days than there were before the 1980s, and annual snowfall has declined by 10 inchesx. While questions remain about the exact specifics of future climate conditions, the basic facts of climate science and solutions are well understood, and more relevant and accessible to local communities than they ever have been. The following insights have been compiled to provide accessible climate change information that is relevant to the Aspen community. Human activity, namely GHG emissions, is driving most of this change. • 97% of climate scientists agree that the warming over the past century is due to human activity. Most leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements affirming thisxi. • Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 have risen 40% since the industrial revolutionxii. Figure 9. Observational record of annual mean temperature: Global, U.S. and Colorado (Aspen Global Change Institutev) Figure 10. Evidence that atmospheric CO2 has increased since the Industrial Revolution (NASAvii)P59I. APPENDIX B: A Summary of Relevant Climate Science APPENDIX 52 The severity of future climate change is directly linked to GHG emission levels. • Current and future GHG emissions are the single most significant factor in the amount of future global temperature changexiii. • Currently, the world is on a high emissions trajectory. Unless GHGs are mitigated, this could lead to a 9.7°F increase in Western Colorado by 2100xiv. • The best available science indicates that the world, Colorado and communities should reduce GHGs 45% below 2005 levels by 2030 and 90% below 2005 levels by 2050, to limit warming to 1.5 to 2°C above preindustrial levelsxv. We know how to solve it. • Robust and effective climate solutions are developed and ready for implementation at the international, national, state and local levelxvi. Acting now is less expensive than inaction and can create healthy, thriving communities. • Dramatically reducing GHG emissions is much less expensive than the anticipated costs of dealing with the impacts of unchecked climate changexvii xviii. • Effectively addressing climate change at the scale necessary to solve the problem could be the largest wealth creation opportunity of our timexix. • In communities, climate action typically creates numerous co-benefits such as increased resilience and economic activity, healthier citizens and improved environmental quality. (The CAP and Toolkit define some of the co-benefits that are associated with various actions.) • Climate action is frequently complementary to existing priorities for communities and regions. Local action matters. • While future climate will be determined by global GHG emissions and levels, the cumulative impact of local action is significant and meaningful. • 78% of energy globally is consumed in citiesxx. Local action can significantly accelerate a transition away from fossil fuels. • Local governments in the US currently have some of the most ambitious climate action commitments. More than 350 US mayors have signed a pledge to uphold the Paris Climate Agreement through local action and necessary policy at the state, federal and international levelsxxi. Globally, over 7,500 cities representing over 700 million people have committed to climate actionxxii.P60I. APPENDIX C: Related Documents APPENDIX 53 The following documents provide additional context to the Climate Action Plan: 1. The Climate Action Planning Outreach and Engagement Report. During the CAP process, three surveys were conducted to deepen understanding about the willingness of community members, local businesses and visitors to act on reducing energy use, waste generation and vehicle miles traveled. Further, the surveys identified both motivations for, and barriers to, taking action in these areas. The Outreach and Engagement Report provides survey results, methodology and analysis, and is available at https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/1783. Survey insights will be used in developing implementation plans for CAP actions. 2. The GHG Reduction Toolkit is available at https://www.cityofaspen.com/DocumentCenter/View/1705. 3. The 2014 Community-wide GHG Inventory is available at http://www.aspenpitkin.com/DocumentCenter/View/1795. All related documents can also be obtained by emailing climate@cityofaspen.com. P61I. APPENDIX D: Literature Cited APPENDIX 54 i Climate Interactive. 2016. “Deeper, Earlier Emissions Cuts Needed to Reach Paris Goals.” Press release of May 18. https://www.climateinteractive.org/ wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Stronger-Pledges-May-2016.pdf. ii Aspen Global Change Institute. Climate Change and Aspen: 2006 study and 2014 report. http://www.agci.org/project/climate-change-and-aspen. iii City of Aspen, 2014. 2014 Aspen Community-Wide GHG Inventory. http://www.aspenpitkin.com/DocumentCenter/View/1795. iv Pitkin County and City of Aspen, 2016. Comprehensive Waste Diversion Plan Phase 1. http://www.aspencommunityvoice.com/245/documents/67. v American Meteorological Society, 2017. State of the Climate in 2016, https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.cfm/publications/bulletin-of-the- american-meteorological-society-bams/state-of-the-climate. vi NASA, 2017. Release 17-006. https://www.nasa.gov/press-release/nasa-noaa-data-show-2016-warmest-year-on-record-globally. Quotation from Union of Concerned Scientists: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/human-contribution-to-gw- faq.html#.WdvDKmhSzxU. vii IPCC, 2013. Summary for Policymakers. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution 12 of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. viii Aspen Global Change Institute, 2014. Climate Change and Aspen 2014, p.28. ix Aspen Global Change Institute, 2014. Climate Change and Aspen 2014, p.29. x Ibid p. 14. xi NASA, 2017. Climate change: How do we know? https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence. xii NOAA, 2014. Global Warming FAQ. https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/global-warming-frequently-asked- questions#hide7. xiii Aspen Global Change Institute, 2014. Climate Change and Aspen 2014, p.43. xiv Ibid p. 44. xv Western Resource Advocates, 2017. Colorado’s Climate Blueprint. https://westernresourceadvocates.org/publications/colorados-climate-blueprint. xvi Hawken, P., 2017. Drawdown: The Most Comprehensive Plan Ever Proposed to Reverse Global Warming. http://www.drawdown.org. xvii Universal Ecological Fund, 2017. The Economic Case for Climate Action in the US. https://feu-us.org/case-for-climate-action-us2. xviii American Security Project. http://www.americansecurityproject.org/resources/pnpl/Colorado%20FINAL.pdf. xix Shah, J., 2013. Creating Climate Wealth: Unlocking the Impact Economy. xx CDP Cities, 2015 report infographic. xxi https://www.wearestillin.com/cities-counties/initiatives. xxii Global Covenant of Mayors, 2017. http://www.globalcovenantofmayors.org.P62I. City of Aspen 130 South Galena Street Aspen, Colorado 81611 (970) 429-1798 Canary@CityofAspen.com www.CityofAspen.com The City of Aspen strives to be an environmental leader and to promote environmental stewardship throughout the Roaring Fork Valley, across the state of Colorado, and around the globe. We recognize Aspen’s dependence on climate and natural resources for a thriving economy, healthy ecosystems, and exceptional quality of life. In an effort to do our part to reduce the threat of climate change, Aspen’s City Council adopted the Canary Action Plan in 2007, which commits to reducing community-wide emissions 30% by 2020 and 80% by 2050, below 2004 levels. DECEMBER 2017 PARTNERS Cover photo courtesy Aspen Chamber Resort Association, C2 Photography P63I. Page 1 of 6 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Ashley Perl, Climate Action Manager THROUGH: Barry Crook, Assistant City Manager DATE OF MEMO: December 8, 2017 MEETING DATE: December 12, 2017 RE: Aspen Mobility Lab SUMMARY: This past summer, Mayor Skadron introduced the idea that the City of Aspen should conduct a large-scale, bold experiment that would increase mobility options while decreasing the reliance on the personal automobile in the Aspen community. After further consideration, City Council directed staff to create a project plan and scope. Since then, City of Aspen staff have partnered with consultants and regional groups to create a plan for the Aspen Mobility Lab. Staff is prepared to present a comprehensive plan for the Lab that will deliver transportation options that are competitive with the ease and speed of personal vehicles to all members of the Aspen community, revolutionizing the way people move within the boundary of the Intercept Lot to east of Aspen in June, July and August 2018. The Lab will be a community-wide initiative to increase convenient mobility options, environmental sustainability, safety and quality of life in the upper Roaring Fork Valley without a focus on adding lanes or parking spaces. REQUEST OF COUNCIL: Staff is presenting a detailed plan and scope for the Lab and requesting City Council’s feedback. BACKGROUND: Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley have a long history of leading the way with innovative transportation measures. These accomplishments and the services that are offered to the community are renowned across the country, particularly for a community as small as Aspen. Despite these aggressive actions, the community continues to be greatly impacted by traffic congestion and the absence of mobility services that are adequate to serve the unique needs of locals, commuters and visitors. Data and evidence from the community shows that the current mobility options are not convenient, inexpensive, or attractive enough for community members to leave their personal automobile and choose another way. There is a need for new approaches to Aspen’s transportation landscape, and those approaches must be innovative, creative and competitive. The Aspen Mobility Lab will provide a demonstration ground for the concepts that were put forward by the Community Forum on Transportation. P64 II. Page 2 of 6 DISCUSSION: The mission of the Aspen Mobility Lab is to provide community members, commuters and visitors with an improved quality of life and experience by delivering convenient alternatives to driving alone. If the Lab is successful, those who no longer desire to sit in traffic in their personal automobile will abandon their private vehicle for another way. The Lab will draw on lessons from select pilot programs in over 25 cities worldwide, and will be the most advanced community-wide pilot program executed to date. The lessons learned from the Lab will be actively disseminated to national partners, municipal leaders, and transportation directors across the US. The City of Aspen will seek out unique ways to share insights with others, starting with design and implementation, and concluding with a Summit in November 2018 to provide all interested parties an opportunity to connect and recap the Lab. Most importantly, the City of Aspen and regional partners will learn what modes are accepted and used by the community to inform responsible future investments and planning. The Lab will include four key elements: increased transit options, increased support for bicyclists, incentives to drive behavior change, and outreach to the community. Aspen Mobility Lab Guiding Principles: · Provide new transportation modes to encourage new users. The Lab will prioritize funding and resources towards deploying new technologies and new transportation modes over existing modes. The Lab seeks to change the behaviors of those who currently drive alone, and secondarily, to improve the experience for those already using mobility services. · Deliver a comprehensive mobility system. If full funding and support is not realized and Aspen decides to pursue a scaled-down Lab, all elements including new mobility, bike support, incentives, disincentives, and outreach must be included. · Provide real solutions to positively impact the local community. The Lab will first and foremost support the practical needs of locals, commuters and visitors and must inform the future of local transportation investment. It will favor these solutions over glitzy high- tech options that are not yet available in the market or that do not enhance the Aspen lifestyle. Opportunities: The Aspen Mobility Lab will provide ample opportunities to businesses, commuters, locals, visitors, and transportation planners. These opportunities may include: · Impacting real change in commuting patterns and modes · Creating new opportunities for existing businesses to attract customers · Increasing the vitality and connectedness of downtown · Supporting the goals of sustainability, quality of life, mobility and innovation · Improved convenience and experience Proposed Project: The Aspen Mobility Lab is proposed to run from approximately June 1- August 31, 2018 and would create a testing ground for addressing transportation and mobility needs in Aspen. This section details the specific components of the Lab. Mobility options. The Lab will provide new and expanded ways for people to move into and out of town from the Brush Creek Intercept Lot, the Buttermilk Parking Lot, and Aspen’s P65 II. Page 3 of 6 neighborhoods, as well as improved options for in-town movement. To do this, the City will partner with local and national mobility providers to bring new technologies to the community while expanding and supporting the existing modes. A Request for Proposals was recently released in the following categories of mobility: · Bicycles: o Dockless bike share program o Electric bike share program o Specialty bike share program (cargo bikes, etc.) o Electric bike lease program o Specialty bike lease program o Discounted electric bike sales program · Transit: o On-demand transit services o Specialty fixed route services o Microtransit services Incentives. To support the use of the new and existing mobility options, the Lab will provide incentives for those who participate. Some of those incentives may include: · Discounts at local businesses · Coupons or gift certificates to be used at local businesses · Prizes and rewards for long-term behavior changes · Recognition programs In addition, the City will strive to make as many services as possible free or inexpensive to the user. Parking Lots. One goal of the Lab is to encourage 600-800 drivers to park at the Brush Creek Intercept Lot instead of driving into town. To do this, the City will submit a permit to Pitkin County requesting permission to host a coffee cart at the Intercept Lot, as well as higher quality portable toilets and temporary improved seating to enhance the experience. Additionally, the City will encourage parking at the Buttermilk parking lot for those who wish to park and bike into town. The City will provide amenities to support bike commuting and will work with local bike shops to make Buttermilk a hub for bike commuting. Mobility Support. To support new users of mobility, the City must alter the downtown landscape to provide safer conditions for pedestrians, bicyclists and mobility technologies. To improve safety and wayfinding for bicyclists, the City will install protected bike ways on Hopkins, Galena and Cooper Streets. These bike lanes will allow bicyclists a safe and designated way to move about town while reducing bike/pedestrian and bike/car interactions. Although downtown Aspen currently supports biking through the use of ‘sharrows’ painted on the streets, a significant number of community members do not bike because of safety concerns. Data from the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan shows that designated and protected bike lanes would decrease the barrier to biking for much of the community, leading to an increased number of new bicyclists in Aspen, which is one of the goals of the Lab. It is anticipated that electric bikes will be a critical component of the Lab because e-bikes remove barriers for bike commuting and travel and could lead to a significant number of new bikers. P66 II. Page 4 of 6 In addition to protected bike lanes, the Lab will support new mobility by providing twelve designated locations for ride-shares, shuttles and others to drop off and pick up passengers, as well as increased valet services. Outreach. The key to successful behavior change is education, outreach and marketing to different community groups. It is also critical to provide messaging and program design that is uniquely designed to speak to each group’s values and address their challenges. A Request for Proposals has been issued to find a strategic outreach and marketing firm to oversee these aspects of the Lab and to ensure that the Lab is inclusive and equitable. Work accomplished to-date: The Mobility Lab project team is organized into working groups. Below is an update on recent accomplishments by each group. Fundraising Working Group · Created funding materials and funder communications · Developed list of possible funders · Facilitated initial meetings with funders · Currently: Conducting follow up meetings Downtown Design Working Group · Established parameters for downtown mobility support · Created detailed plan for bike routes, activation areas, bike storage, drop-off zones and parking · Developed initial plan for Brush Creek Intercept Lot and Buttermilk Parking Lot Bike Working Group · Identified existing barriers to biking · Recommended improvements to support biking · Conducted initial outreach to local bike shops to solicit involvement Data Working Group · Identified data currently available · Identified key measures of success · Established an approach to communicate data to the public through a dashboard · Created a data quality checklist and guidelines Outreach Working Group · Identified 20+ audiences and user groups · Developed and issued RFP for comprehensive outreach, education, promotion and incentive program · Finalized branding system Mobility Provider Group · Identified mobility services required · Assessed capacity of local providers · Issued RFI to solicit initial interest · Issued RFPs in two categories: Bikes and Transit Regional cooperation: The Mobility Lab has the support of the Aspen Community Foundation, the Aspen Community Forum, Core, Rocky Mountain Institute, SkiCo, the Association of P67 II. Page 5 of 6 Colorado Ski Towns, and CDOT'sRoadX, which supports the most innovative transportation projects in the state. There has been significant outreach to Pitkin County and Snowmass. Next Steps: The primary focus through the remainder of 2017 and into the first part of 2018 is fundraising. Staff will return to City Council on January 23rd to provide an update on funds raised. At that meeting, it is expected that the City will have soft funding commitments, but not contracts for funding or services. Depending on the success of fundraising efforts, staff will provide City Council with different levels of project design and scope and will ask City Council to determine a final direction and scope for the Lab. FINANCIAL/BUDGET IMPACTS: Bringing a truly innovative and comprehensive lab to Aspen will require funding most likely between $5 and $7 million. The City of Aspen cannot provide this level of funding and must create new partnerships and build upon existing ones to make the Mobility Lab a reality. It is expected that the City of Aspen will need to fund a percentage of the overall project, but the goal is to minimize the City’s contribution. Fundraising Developments: 1) Automotive, technology and telecom companies are proving to be the most likely partners and funders of the Lab. Additional meetings are scheduled between December 15 and January 15. 2) The City of Aspen is supported by mobility fundraising experts and specialists. 3) The Mobility Lab and the Aspen story has received positive responses so far. Some of the unique attractions to the sponsors include: the Aspen brand, the City's strong commitment, and the controlled environment for testing interaction between innovative options and real people. 4) Extrapolating from the first 10 meetings, there is adequate interest from funders to meet the City’s fundraising goals, however timing is the biggest challenge. Fundraising Challenges 1) The funding timeline has always been the biggest challenge in making the Lab a reality. 2) The fundraising goal has increased from $1.5mm to over $5.5mm, significantly increasing the challenge. 3) Companies are wary of short-term labs and experiments without ongoing opportunities to create a clear ROI for their investment. Staff is working on how to make the Lab attractive from an ROI perspective. City Council has approved $350,000 for use in 2017 and for the first part of 2018. Those funds are being used as follows: - Contract with Design Workshop for downtown and parking lot design - Contract with Fehr and Peers for mobility consulting - Contract with Alta Planning and Design for construction and engineering assistance - Project management and administration staff and consultant - Fundraising consultants and activities - Branding - App research and creation ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: P68 II. Page 6 of 6 The Aspen Mobility Lab positively impacts numerous measures from City Council’s Sustainability Dashboard including: Air Quality (PM levels, ozone levels); Greenhouse Gas Emissions; Castle Creek Bridge Counts; Acres of Trails; Mass Transit Use; Walkability and Bike-ability Rating; Health and Well Being; and Community Connections P69 II. Memorandum To: City Council From: Don Taylor, Finance Director Thru: Steve Barwick, City Manager Date: December 8, 2017 Re: Background on Sales Tax Refund The State of Colorado and many of its statutory cities (Cities without home rule charters) have long exempted food purchases from their sales tax. Many home rule cities charge sale tax on food however and apparently this was an issue when the city increa 1% in 1970. The city decided to leave the sales tax on food in place and then refund a fixed amount per person that lived in the city for the entire preceding year. In that way, it was still able to collect sales tax on the food purc purchased in the City and offset the impact to residents by making the refund. The refund given at that time was $7.00. In 1972 the City raised its sales tax by an additional 1% and the City stayed wit methodology and increased the amount of the refund to $21. In 1981, it was raised again to $39 and in 1998 it was raised again to $50. In addition, seniors receive an additional $100, the blind an additional $50. Interestingly, only $50 of th codified, yet it has been included each year in the refunds since about 1981. This is something we should correct in the near future. The food tax in its current form costs the city about $170,000 plus the cost of adm is required is that an affidavit be completed stating that the applicant lived in Aspen for all 12 months of the prior year and proof of that residency. Acceptable proof has been either registered to vote in the city of Aspen. This occasi not have ready documentation and creates ill will with the City. Issues related to partial residency, down valley residents who own property or businesses here, or others that feel that they are entitled puts the city in a conflict situation with these individuals. The food tax was implemented when the City was half the size it is now. As the city continues to grow, giving food tax refunds will become more and more problematic. Some better system of determining residency will be needed particularly if the amounts of the refund are continued to be increased. How much should the food tax refund be? It has always been a specified amount per person with additional amounts given to senior citizens. A $50 food tax $208 per month per person for food purchased in the city of Aspen. Most would consider this randum Don Taylor, Finance Director Steve Barwick, City Manager December 8, 2017 Background on Sales Tax Refund The State of Colorado and many of its statutory cities (Cities without home rule charters) have long exempted food purchases from their sales tax. Many home rule cities charge sale tax on food however and apparently this was an issue when the city increased its sales tax by 1% in 1970. The city decided to leave the sales tax on food in place and then refund a fixed amount per person that lived in the city for the entire preceding year. In that way, it was still able to collect sales tax on the food purchases of visitors, which is the majority of the food purchased in the City and offset the impact to residents by making the refund. The refund In 1972 the City raised its sales tax by an additional 1% and the City stayed with the same methodology and increased the amount of the refund to $21. In 1981, it was raised again to $39 and in 1998 it was raised again to $50. In addition, seniors receive an additional $100, the blind an additional $50. Interestingly, only $50 of the senior additional 100.00 was ever codified, yet it has been included each year in the refunds since about 1981. This is something we should correct in the near future. The food tax in its current form costs the city about $170,000 plus the cost of adm is required is that an affidavit be completed stating that the applicant lived in Aspen for all 12 months of the prior year and proof of that residency. Acceptable proof has been either registered to vote in the city of Aspen. This occasionally creates conflict with those who do not have ready documentation and creates ill will with the City. Issues related to partial residency, down valley residents who own property or businesses here, or others that feel city in a conflict situation with these individuals. The food tax was implemented when the City was half the size it is now. As the city continues to grow, giving food tax refunds will become more and more problematic. Some better system of residency will be needed particularly if the amounts of the refund are continued How much should the food tax refund be? It has always been a specified amount per person with additional amounts given to senior citizens. A $50 food tax refund translates to about $208 per month per person for food purchased in the city of Aspen. Most would consider this The State of Colorado and many of its statutory cities (Cities without home rule charters) have long exempted food purchases from their sales tax. Many home rule cities charge sale sed its sales tax by 1% in 1970. The city decided to leave the sales tax on food in place and then refund a fixed amount per person that lived in the city for the entire preceding year. In that way, it was still hases of visitors, which is the majority of the food purchased in the City and offset the impact to residents by making the refund. The refund h the same methodology and increased the amount of the refund to $21. In 1981, it was raised again to $39 and in 1998 it was raised again to $50. In addition, seniors receive an additional $100, e senior additional 100.00 was ever codified, yet it has been included each year in the refunds since about 1981. This is The food tax in its current form costs the city about $170,000 plus the cost of administration. It is required is that an affidavit be completed stating that the applicant lived in Aspen for all 12 months of the prior year and proof of that residency. Acceptable proof has been either onally creates conflict with those who do not have ready documentation and creates ill will with the City. Issues related to partial residency, down valley residents who own property or businesses here, or others that feel city in a conflict situation with these individuals. The food tax was implemented when the City was half the size it is now. As the city continues to grow, giving food tax refunds will become more and more problematic. Some better system of residency will be needed particularly if the amounts of the refund are continued How much should the food tax refund be? It has always been a specified amount per person refund translates to about $208 per month per person for food purchased in the city of Aspen. Most would consider this P70 IV. l Page 2 close to average for an individual. Factor in that economies of larger family units, $832 per month for a family of four, and we see that this refund is maybe on the high side. Throw in that most of us will stop at grocery stores outside the City of Aspen a few times per year or more and the $50 seems very reasonable. If council wishes to move forward with a higher food tax refund the code can be amended in January. P71 IV.