SNOWMASS VILLAGE — At its fourth public discussion on whether or not to join a local program that assesses fees for non-energy efficient building, the Snowmass Village Town Council once again changed its mind on Monday.
Citing a need to get more public input and to further evaluate the option of doing a similar program on its own, the council voted to table an ordinance for six weeks that would have established the Renewable Energy Mitigation Program in Snowmass Village.
The Community Office for Resource Efficiency administers REMP for Aspen and Pitkin County, and doles out grants valleywide from the fees that are generated. Snowmass Village has been the beneficiary of some of those grants — and is a CORE member — but has not joined REMP since the program was established eight years ago.
Councilwoman Sally Sparhawk made the motion to table the ordinance for six weeks, rather than vote it down, and commented that, “One of the things this discussion has done is driven this (idea) forward. I’m afraid to stop this to discuss a broad thing that may never happen.”
The REMP program as proposed would have triggered certain energy-efficiency standards for any building or remodeling project greater than 1,000 square feet or valued at $300,000. If a building project doesn’t meet that standard, it would have to pay $5-$7 per square foot. The proposed program also taxes snowmelt systems, hot tubs and pools.
But town staff and council members speculated that the requirement would be too stiff and costly for small-business owners and the few remaining local free-market homeowners.
Town staff suggested that a solution might be increasing the minimum size of the project, and exempting things like replacing windows and roofs, public facilities projects, and employee housing.
But Mayor Doug “Merc” Mercatoris said he had “a hard time holding ourselves to a different standard than the private sector,” and, echoing his colleagues’ sentiments, said that some of the formulas in the suggested REMP program need to be further refined.
“There might be more flaws in the formula out there,” said Mercatoris.
Council members were also troubled by a finding that most large homes choose to pay a REMP fee rather than install energy efficiencies.
“If everybody did the right thing we wouldn’t have a need for this,” said Sparhawk. “Particularly the people with the huge homes aren’t interested in mitigating.”
Council members said they’d prefer to take a carrot approach than a stick approach. The “punitive nature” of the measure was something objected to by people attending a recent community meeting on the topic, said town staffer Jason Haber.
On Monday, locals pointed out some of the program’s flaws.
Jim “Gus” Gustafson, representing the Snowmass Homeowners Association’s design committee, said that his board is “ambivalent” about the program and wants the town to further explore unintended consequences. For example, the association requires many homes in Snowmass with steep access to have snowmelted driveways, which under REMP would be charged $14 per square foot.
Spec-home builder Jim Benson called the snowmelt fee “a slap in the face for second-home owners.”
Pointing out that shoveling driveways may take more labor and energy use than having a snowmelted one, Benson said, “I think it’s the wrong way to go about it. We’re strangling the golden goose and getting the last egg out of it before it dies. Slapping someone in face for a snowmelt driveway to the tune of $70,000 to $80,000 is ridiculous.”
Homeowner Tom Yocum said the permitting process in Snowmass is already “very arduous, and we’re adding another layer to it which is a detriment to the single-family homeowner. We’re also adding another layer of government which is an expense. There’s a much gentler, kinder way to do this.”
Another hang-up for some council members and public was having CORE — whose board is multi-jurisdictional — administer the program. They want to control their own destiny, so to speak.
At the last council meeting on this topic, town staff reported that administering REMP in house would cost $100,000 per year, versus $20,000 per year or 5 percent of REMP revenues to hand the reins to CORE.
“Snowmass has enough smart people that we can figure this out on our own without getting hooked up with Pitkin County and Aspen,” said Benson.
In the end, council members wanted to explore the idea of incorporating some of the energy-savings measures into the town’s land-use code, and perhaps craft a REMP-like program out of whatever cannot be codified, a kind of “REMP junior,” as Councilman John Wilkinson put it.
lutz@aspendailynews.com
