Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Energy Performance Contract topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Arapahoe County moves ahead with energy-performance audit, seeks $330,000 from capital fund

Arapahoe County Board of County Commissioners Study Session · November 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Facilities & Fleet staff told commissioners an investment‑grade audit could cost about $330,000 for roughly 1.6 million square feet of county buildings and recommended signing a nonbinding MOU with the Colorado Energy Office to solicit an ESCO-led audit; commissioners gave informal unanimous consent to proceed.

Arapahoe County’s facilities team told the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday that it will pursue an investment‑grade energy audit under Colorado’s energy performance contract (EPC) program and asked the board to set aside capital expenditure funds to cover the estimated audit cost.

Cedar Blazer, the county’s energy manager, said the county would first sign a no‑cost, nonbinding memorandum of understanding with the Colorado Energy Office and then advertise the audit to prequalified energy service companies on the state list. Blazer said Colorado’s EPC guidance requires projects be cash‑flow positive and include three years of measurement and verification to confirm guaranteed savings.

Blazer provided an example using the county’s current utility expenses: "Right now, our annual utility costs are about $2,200,000. If we can reduce our energy usage by 20%, that's gonna be about $440,000 a year," she said, adding that those savings could support multi‑year financing for capital projects.

Staff estimated the investment‑grade audit would cost approximately $330,000 to cover the county’s ~1.6 million square feet of facilities. The audit is structured so the ESCO (energy service company) performs a deep assessment and presents a menu of measures; the county may choose which measures to pursue. If the audit finds no viable projects, the county is not charged beyond the audit fee allocation arrangements described.

Commissioners discussed financing options, including wrapping the audit and implementation costs into third‑party financing or paying upfront from the capital expenditure fund (CEF). Michelle Halsted of the commissioner’s office and other staff noted roughly $659,000 remained available from a prior CEF allocation (Centerpoint) that could be earmarked for the audit.

Chair called for consensus to proceed with the EPC plan and to use CEF balance to cover the audit cost; commissioners indicated a five‑member thumbs‑up, an informal board consensus to move forward. Staff said next steps are to sign the MOU with the Colorado Energy Office, release the RFP for the investment‑grade audit (anticipated solicitation this month with a January contractor selection), begin the audit in February, and return next summer with audit findings and implementation options.

The county has completed two prior EPCs (2006 and 2014), covering measures such as lighting, HVAC controls and water reductions. Commissioners asked staff to report actual savings alongside projections when the audit returns.