Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2013 Ordinance No. 050
.. t-• • • • ORDINANCE NO . 6"!J SERIES OF 2013 BY AUTHORITY COUNCIL BILL NO. 47 INTRODUCED BY COUNCIL MEMBER WOODWARD AN ORDINANCE APPROVING THE "ENGLEWOOD UTILITIES DEPARTMENT 2013 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN." WHEREAS , State and federal mandates require the City to review ways to reduce water demands in its service area; and WHEREAS, the Colorado Water Conservation Board requires a water conservation plan, approved by the State as a condition of eligibility for a water efficiency grant to implement the City's Plan; and WHEREAS, the City has evaluated the impacts of water conservation on the water supply; and WHEREAS, every seven years Colorado requires an updating of the City's Water Conservation Plan and Englewood City Council approved a prior Water Conservation Plan on March 11, 1997 ; and WHEREAS, the proposed Water Conservation Plan outlines Englewood's existing water system, its history, the community it serves, the public information program, the metering program, leak repair as well as maintenance and additional proposed water conservation measures; and WHEREAS , after the planning process, which included public comment, the Englewood Water and Sewer Board recommended Council approval at their July 9, 2013 meeting; and WHEREAS , the plan, once approved by the City Council, will be submitted to the Office of Water Conservation, The Water Conservation Board and the Department of Natural Resources for their approval; and WHEREAS, State approval of the proposed plan will enable Englewood to apply for future state loans, grants and water/wastewater revolving funds . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO , THAT: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Englewood hereby approves the "City of Englewood Utilities Department 2013 Water Conservation Plan", attached hereto as Exhibit A. 9 b iv Introduced, read in full , and passed on first reading on the 3rd day of September, 2013 . Published by Title as a Bill for an Ordinance in the'City's official newspaper on the 6th day of September, 2013 . Published as a Bill for an Ordinance on the City 's official website beginning on the 4th day of September, 2013 for thirty (30) days. Read by title and passed on final reading on the 16th day of September, 2013. Published by title in the City 's official newspaper as Ordinance No .~, Series of 2013 , on the 20th day of September 2013 . Published by title on the City 's official website beginning on the 18th day of September, 2013 for thirty (30) days. -r1~~-~ P. Penn, Mayor I, Loucrishia A. Ellis , City Clerk of the City of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify that the above and foregoing is ~e copy of the Ordinance passed on final reading and published by title as Ordinance No.6_V.,: Series of 2013. Ii • f • • • • • CITY OF ENGLEWOOD Utilities Department 2013 WATER CONSERVATION PLAN • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ..................................................................................... . Chapter 1 -Introduction ............................................................................... . Chapter 2 -Profile Existing Water System ....................................................... . Characteristics of Englewood's Water Supply System ..................................... . System Limitations ................................................................................... . Water Costs and Pricing ........................................................................... . Policies and Planning Initiatives Affecting Water Use ...................................... . Current Water Conservation Activities ................................................................... . Chapter 3 -Water Use and Demand Forecast.. ............................................... . Use by Customer Category ....................................................................... . Taps and Water Use Summary .................................................................. . Demand Forecast. ................................................................................... . Chapter 4 -Water Conservation Goals ........................................................... . Goal Development Process ........................................................................ . Water Conservation Goals ............................................................................. . Chapter 5 -Conservation Measures and Programs ........................................... . Water Conservation Measures and Programs ............................................... . Screening Criteria ...................................................................................... . Screening of Conservation Measures and Programs ...................................... . Chapter 6 -Evaluation and Selection ............................................................... . Costs and Water Savings of Conservation Options ......................................... . Comparison of Benefits and Costs ................................................................... . Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................................ . Selected Conservation Measures and Programs .............................................. . Chapter 7 -Integrate Resources and Modify Forecasts .................................... . Implementation Schedule .................................................................................. . Modified Demand Forecast.. ............................................................................. . Benefits of Water Conservation .......................................................................... . Chapter 8 -Plan of Implementation and Monitoring ......................................... . Public Participation ............................................................................................. . Monitoring and Evaluation .................................................................................. . Plan Updates and Revisions .............................................................................. . Plan Adoption and Approval ............................................................................... . References ............................................................................................................ .. © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan ES-1 1 2 2 10 11 14 14 18 18 18 21 22 22 22 25 25 25 25 29 29 32 32 33 37 37 39 39 4 0 40 40 40 41 43 LIST OF TABLES Table ES-1 -Water Conservation Goals ............................................................. . Table ES-2 - Table 2.1 - Table 2.2 - Table 2.3 - Table 2.4 - Table 2.5 - Table 2.6 - Table 2.7 - Table 2.8 - Table 3 .1 - Table 3.2 - Table 3.3- Table 3.4 - Table 3.5 - Table 3.6 - Table 4.1 - Table 5.1 - Table 6.1 - Table 6.2 - Table 6 .3 - Table 6.4 - Table 7.1 - Table 8.1 - Implementation Plan for Englewood's Water Conservation Plan ... .. City of Englewood Historical Population ........................................ . Annual Water Delivered & Associated Rainfall. .............................. .. Firm Source Water Owned by the City of Englewood .................. . City of Englewood 2012 Metered Rates Inside City ..................... . City of Englewood 2012 Metered Rates Outside City .................. . Single-Use Water System Connection Charges ......................... .. Multi-Family Residential Water System Connection Charges ........ . Commercial Mixed Use Water Connection Charges .................... . City of Englewood Water Use ................................................... . City of Englewood Metered Taps by Customer Category ................ .. City of Englewood Non-Metered Taps by Customer Category ........ . City of Englewood Total Taps by Customer Category ................. .. City of Englewood Water Use per Tap (metered customers) .......... . City of Englewood Per Capita Water Use ................................. .. Englewood Water Conservation Goals ..................................... .. Universal List of Conservation Measures and Programs .................. . Cost/Savings Analysis of Conservation Measures and Programs .. . Cost-Benefit Ranking ..................................................................... .. Combined Water Savings of Selected Conservation Measures and Programs ........................................................................................... . Water Conservation Goals and Comparison .............................. . City of Englewood Water Conservation Plan Implementation Schedule ..................................................................................... . Tracking Matrix for Monitoring Water Conservation Measures ......... . ES-3 ES-4 2 8 9 12 12 13 13 13 18 19 19 19 20 20 23 26 31 32 33 35 38 42 © Clear Water Solutions , Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan ii • 'I • • • • • • • LIST OF FIGURES Figure 2.1 -Englewood Water Service Area...................................................... 3 Figure 2.2 -Englewood Water Distribution System.......................................... 4 Figure 2.3 -Percentage of Taps per Customer Category........................................ 7 Figure 2.4 -Percentage of Water Use per Category....................................... 7 Figure 2.5 -Annual Water Delivered.................................................................... 8 Figure 2.6 -EMAP Details.................................................................................... 16 © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan iii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Englewood, Colorado ("City" or "Englewood ") is a suburban metropolitan community located south of Denver in Arapahoe County. During the past five years, the City of Englewood's population has hovered around 30,000. Englewood has developed a Water Conservation Plan in accordance with the Water Conservation Act of 2004 and to meet the provisions of Colorado Revised Statute section 37-60-126. As part of CRS 37-60-126, a State-approved Plan w ill qualify Englewood for funding from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority for water supply and delivery projects . In 2011 , Englewood 's water customers used approximate ly 5,606 acre-feet. The City, according to the Planning Department's projection, is not expected to increase its water demand through new growth. Water savings from this water conservation planning effort is estimated to save the 6,721 acre-feet over the planning period of 2013 to 2022 . For some of the selected water conservation measures and programs , estimated • -C • savings over the planning period is calculated by compounding the estimated • annual water savings per the total number of annual participants. The savings from this planning effort will make a considerable contribution toward the water supplies needed to serve the 2022 demand. This report documents Englewood 's water system, past and future water use and the water conservation planning process used in accordance with CWCB's Water Conservation Plan guidelines and policies . Water Conservation Goals Englewood has considered water conservation in its planning for many years and has developed a number of measures to promote efficient water use. The City has instituted the following water conservation measures and programs: • Public Information • Meter Replacement o Englewood Meter Assistance Program (EMAP) -This program helps water customers install meters in homes by allocating a portion of their water bill payment towards the cost of a meter. • Leak Detection • Plumbing Code • Nonpotable and Water Reuse © Clear Water Solutions , Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan ES -1 • • • • The City is uncertain of the reduction in water use attributable to the existing water conservation efforts. However, over the ten-year planning period (2013 to 2022), tracking efforts will be implemented to quantify water savings and costs to operate this Water Conservation Plan. Water savings goals were established for this Water Conservation Plan by completing the following steps: • Establishing an initial water savings goal estimate • Selecting water conservation measures or programs to meet those goals • Comparing the expected water savings to the original goals In order to select water conservation measures and programs to meet the water savings goals, a universal list of measures and programs were subject to an initial screening, cost-benefit analysis and final screening. This process pared the universal list down to the final selection of measures/programs that Englewood will implement. The screening criteria used consisted of the following: 1 . Staff Time 2 . Financial implications 3. Political ramifications The goal for this Water Conservation Plan is to reduce the overall water use by ten percent or 6,721 AF over a ten-year planning period . This savings will come from water use categories that were identified through the planning process for potential water savings: • Single-Family • Multi-Family • Commercial • Industrial • Municipal • Non-Metered Customers -Meter Replacement and EMAP • Unaccounted-For Losses The City's water conservation goals are shown in Table ES-1 . © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan ES-2 Table ES-1 -Water Conservation Goals Total Projected Water Use Adjusted Reduction Goals for Water Use Categories: (2013 to 2022) Planning Horizon (AF) (%) (AF) Single-Family 19,642 6.5% 1,277 Multi-Family 11,602 11.0% 1,276 Commercial 10,387 5.5% 571 Industrial 4,778 7.<Y/4 334 Municipal 225 0.5% 1 Non-Metered Customers - Meter Replacement and EMAP 18,207 14.4% 2,613 Unaccounted-for Losses (currently 9%) 5,836 8.0% 648 Total Water Production: 70,677 Total Demand Reduction: 6,721 Total Percent Reduct i on : 10% Im p lementation Plan All of the proposed water conservation measures and programs chosen will require staff and financial resources for implementation . This will require some strategy in implementing the most beneficial measures first. For illustrative purposes, a three-year schedule has been proposed and should be interpreted that Year 1 is the City's first priority of projects followed by Year 2 and then Year 3 and will not be within three years exactly. The proposed implementation of this Water Conservation Plan will occur as the necessary resources become available. Englewood is committed to implementing the selected water conservation programs and will budget money and pursue CWCB water-efficiency grant money to accomplish this goal. Table ES -2 shows the implementation schedule of the selected measures/programs. Monitoring of the Plan will be completed on an annual basis and a formal update is required by CWCB within seven years. Public feedback is an integral part of this Plan and comments were solicited and incorporated into the final Plan . © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan ES-3 -:r • • • • • • Table ES-2 -Implementation Plan for Englewood's Water Conservation Plan Measure/Program YEAR 1 (1ST PRIORITY) Utlflty Maintenance Programs Englewood Meter Assistance Program (EMAP) General Evaluation of Policies that Encourage Water Regulatory Standards Program Educational Programs Regulatory Standard Programs Educational Programs Rebate and Incentive Programs Utility Maintenance Programs Educational Programs Rebate and Incentive Programs Regulatory Standard Programs © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood Savings Water Waste Ordinance School Education Program (K-12 Education) Online Access to Water Bill and History YEAR 2 (2ND PRIORITY) Drought Mitigation Plan Public Education -Newsletter, Bill Stuffers, Website Distribute ET Irrigation Scheduling in Water Bill Residential water audits YEAR 3 (3RD PRIORITY) Leak Detection & Repair Educational Kits Commercial & Industrial water aud i ts Water Rates that Encourage Water Savings Implementation Considerations Staff Time& Funding Staff Ti me Staff Time & Governmental Action Staff Ti me & Funding Staff Time Funding & StaffTime Staff Time, Funding & Procurement of Materials Staff Time, Funding & Procurement of Materials Staff Time, Funding & Procurement of Materials Funding & Staff Ti me Staff Ti me, Funding & Procurement of Materials Staff Time Funding & Staff Ti me 2013 Water Conservation Plan ES-4 CHAPTER 1 -INTRODUCTION The City of Englewood, Colorado ("City" or "Englewood") is a suburban metropolitan community located south of Denver in Arapahoe County. Englewood's beginnings are traced to gold. In the mid-1800s, prospectors on their way to California stopped in Colorado to pan its streams. One of these prospectors was a man from Georgia named William Green Russell. He and 12 other miners found gold in the South Platte River and established a Placer Camp near the confluence of Little Dry Creek and the South Platte River in an area that would eventually become Englewood. Today's Englewood is a distinct reflection of its colorful history. There is still a focus on transportation, education, and the arts, and Englewood boasts more jobs and businesses per square mile than any other city in the Rocky Mountain region. Englewood is located west of the Denver Tech Center, north of Littleton and south of Denver, which gives it its strong employment base. While Englewood, according to the Planning Department's projection, is not expected to increase its water demand through new growth, a number of multi- family housing projects are being planned. The City of Englewood was incorporated in 1903 with a land area of 4,410 acres . Fifty-eight percent of the land is residential, 35 percent industrial/commercial and seven percent public. -i • The City is landlocked with no appreciable amount of land that can be annexed. • During the past five years, the City of Englewood's population has hovered around 30,000. Englewood has developed this Water Conservation Plan in accordance with the Water Conservation Act of 2004 and to meet the provisions of Colorado Revised Statute section 37-60-126. As part of CRS 37-60-126, a State-approved Plan will qualify Englewood for funding from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority for water supply and delivery projects. Englewood is committed to optimizing its water supplies and system through practical water conservation practices. Englewood has also been able to provide water to neighboring communities in need. With added efficiency, the City may have more water to allocate for lease (sale of raw water) outside the City. The planning horizon for this plan is ten years, from 2013 to 2022. © Clear Water Solutions , Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 1 • • • • CHAPTER 2 -PROFILE EXISTING WATER SYSTEM Characteristics of Englewood's Water Supply System Population and Service Area The 2010 Census data for Englewood shows a population of 30,255 people. The following table shows Englewood's population for the last six years. Table 2.1 -City of Englewood Historical Population Vear Population 2007 32,191 2008 32,191 2009 32,191 2010 30,255 2011 30,255 2012 30,255 Average 31,223 Source: Englewood's comprehensive planning process and document, Roadmap Englewood: Englewood Comprehensive Plan . Prior to 1952, the City of Englewood was provided water service by the Denver Water Board. In response to new water meter requirements and proposed higher rates for water service, the citizens of Englewood voted in September 1948 to issue bonds to develop an independent water system to serve the City. Attorney Marcus Shivers and Charles Allen, the mayor during this period, were the guiding forces in the development of Englewood's water system. Their task was not only to build a water treatment and pump facility to distribute the treated water but also to acquire an adequate raw water supply. Having secured water rights, the necessary facilities to deliver raw water for treatment and distribution to the City were built. An intake facility to pump raw water was constructed at Union Avenue along the side of the South Platte River. The intake facility consisted of a diversion dam, intake gate, a small reservoir and a pump station. A pipeline was then constructed from the facility to the new treatment plant located at S . Windermere Street and W. Layton Avenue . The treatment plant had a capacity of 25 million gallons per day (MGD) and began operation in April 1952. Two 3-MG reservoirs were also constructed during the fifties to supplement the distribution system supply . © Clear Water Solutions , Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 2 Over the following years, many improvements were made to the system to meet water use demands, pressure problems, and to enhance treatment. The following figures show Englewood's service area and distribution system . Figure 2.1 -Englewood Water Service Area Englewood Water Service Area f N © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 3 • • • • • • Figure 2.2 -Englewood Water Distribution System Englewood Water Over 8 Inches in Diameter t_,..-J-\."t -", .. 1 , .... _.,.~ •0 1.; © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood t..111nd ., -, .. ..,. .... ( I ' . .,.,. ,;--' ,., - 1 48 .000 2013 Water Conservation Plan 4 To meet future demand, the raw water supply system was supplemented with several major supply and storage projects to increase the yield of Englewood 's water resources. The City constructed Mclellan Reservoir on Dad Clark Gulch located near County Line Road and S . Santa Fe . The 6,000 acre-foot reservoir was constructed to provide storage to augment the raw water supply in dry years . Other projects included the piping of the City Ditch and McBroom Ditch, the rehabilitation of the Boreas Pass Ditch, and upgrades to the Union Avenue pumping facilities and associated piping. Also, the City constructed three deep wells to augment the raw water supply. The City was plagued with water pressure problems during the sixties and seventies as Englewood's population grew. There was insufficient water pressure at several points in the system and the quantities of available water were less than adequate. Several studies were performed during this period with the intent of solving the pressure and supply problem. Several improvements were constructed including the 500 ,000 gallon Zun i tank, a 6-MG reservoir, and several pump stations in the distribution system . In 1977, the City, still plagued with water pressure problems, adopted a multi-pressure zone system. The water distribution system was segmented into three separate and independent pressure zones . Several large transmission mains were installed to deliver a water supply to the separate zones . Along with the large transmission ma ins, a 200 ,000 gallon elevated tank was constructed on Sherman Street south of Belleview. This zoned system proved to finally resolve the pressure supply problem. • The quality of the South Platte River at the Union Avenue Diversion pump station was excellent when the City system was in itiated in 1952 . The original plant was a softening • plant. That was abandoned when the City went to coagulation/filtration. Over the last few decades, several conditions on the South Platte River upstream of Union Avenue led to the degradation of the water. The treatment plant was therefore partially upgraded in 1977, and then more completely so in 1980. The upgrade increased the treatment capacity to 34 MGD; added new chemical coagulation and a multimedia filtration system . By the mid -nineties, the increased nutrients and algae in the South Platte River once again triggered improvements . To meet the challenges, the treatment plant was converted from a direct filtration process to a conventional treatment process . Using plate settlers , new flocculation and sedimentation facilities were incorporated into the existing plant site. In addition , the existing filters were retrofitted with granular activated carbon to improve taste and odor. The new plant addition was online in 2000 with a treatment capacity of 28 MGD . The treatment capacity was lowered due to reduced water demand. The reduced water demand was due to required metering of residential property at the time the property changed hands . Water Demand Based on the City 's billing system , average water use for the last five years is: • Total: 171 Gallons Per Capita Per Day (GPCD) system-wide • Residential: 89 GPCD for single-and multi-family homes © Clear Water Solutions , Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 5 • • • • In 1987, the Englewood City Council passed an ordinance requiring the installation of water meters (and switching to consumption-based rate) at properties receiving flat rates, upon transfer of ownership. An average of 220 meters have been installed annually for the past 25 years, and an associated 30 percent reduction in water use has taken place. By the end of 2011, Englewood was serving 10,670 taps including 8,596 variable rate customers (metered taps) and 2,074 fixed rate customers (non-metered taps). The tap categories include the following: • Single-Family • Multi-Family o Includes Mobile Home Parks • Commercial o Includes Schools • Industrial • Municipal • Non-Metered Taps Each of the customer categories are shown in Figure 2.3 below with the coinciding percentage of total taps (metered and non-metered). The water use distribution for the same customer categories looks a little different than the tap distribution and is shown below in Figure 2.4. While Single-Family water users consist of 80 percent of the taps, they only contribute 43 percent of the water use . Conversely, while Industrial and Commercial taps only consist of ten percent of the taps, they contribute 31 percent of the water use. This is helpful to consider when selecting conservation measures to target certain categories . © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 6 Figure 2.3 -Percentage of Taps per Customer Category 2011 Total Taps Industrial 0.13 % Figure 2.4 -Percentage of Water Use per Category 2011 Water Use (metered customers) Municipal 0 .02 % © Clear Water Solutions , Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 7 -.J • • • • • • The following table shows Englewood 's overall production for each of the past ten years . Table 2.2 -Annual Water Delivered (Overall Production) & Associated Precip. YEAR Annual Water Annual Water Delivery Precipitation Delivery (Inches) (MG) (AF) 2002 2,920.65 8 ,963 5 .96 2003 2 ,647 .29 8,124 13.92 2004 2 ,273 .17 6 ,976 18.47 2005 2 ,559 .70 7,855 13.54 2006 2 ,589 .76 7,948 11 .19 2007 2,070 .91 6,355 16.33 2008 2 ,224.46 6,827 11.15 2009 1,851 .71 5 ,683 24 .7 2010 2,040 .89 6,263 9 .9 2011 1,863.22 5,718 13.4 Notes: MG -Million Go/Ions, AF-Acre-Feet. Precipitation accounts for roinfo/1 ond snowfall Table 2.2 and Figure 2.5 shows steady decline in overall water consumption. Figure 2.5 -Annual Water Delivered (Overall Production) I Annual Water Delivery (Millions of Gallons) I 3,500.000 ~--------- 1 ' I 3,000.000 I f 2,000.000 +-------------- I I 1,soo.000 i i 1,000.000 +------------ 500.000 +------------ 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 200l 200l 20102011 -Anooal Water Delvery (Mili ons of Gaioll5 ) © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 8 Sources of Water Supply The water supplies owned by the City are shown in Table 2.3 along with their firm yield. Table 2.3 -Firm Source Water Owned by the City of Englewood Decreed Amounts -acre- Water Source feet/yr Consumptive Single-Use Use Nevada Ditch #4 6,078 Nevada Ditch #19 3,827 Platte Canyon Ditch #14 724 Petersburg Ditch #6 927 Nevada Ditch #4 409 856 Nevada Ditch #19 105 198 McBroom Ditch #1 227 442 Ranch Creek 928 Boreas Ditch 175 Brown Ditch #9 41 81 Guiraud Ditch #6 85 City Ditch #1 1,363 Aurora Delivery Obligation 339 509 Total 1,296 16,018 Water Stored* North Res. 245 WWRes 43 Mclellan 2,000 Total 2,28B *Amounts show for stored water are not firm yields During the late forties to mid-fifties, Englewood acquired senior water rights from five ditches, which were then transferred in water court to Englewood's South Platte River intake located at Union Avenue. In addition, Englewood acquired rights on two ditches located on Bear Creek and rights on the City Ditch. The City Ditch rights are the number one priority in the South Platte River Basin. The rights to two transmountain diversion projects were also acquired by the City in the fifties. The first was Boreas Ditch located on the continental divide between Como and Breckenridge, which diverts water from the Blue River drainage basin to the South Park area in the South Platte River Basin. The second transmountain diversion rights which the City acquired were the Ranch Creek/Meadow Creek rights, which were the right to collect , store , and divert Fraser River Basin water through Denver's Moffat Tunnel system . © Clear Water Solutions , Inc . City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 9 • • • • • • System Limitations Along with areas of high water use, system limitations can provide insight into how and where to set water conservation goals . Discussions here will include both current and potential system limitations. Ideally, conservation can help mitigate a portion of the limitations and improve the reliability and efficiency of the system. Statewide Water Supply Initiative In 2003, the Colorado General Assembly authorized CWCB to implement the Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI) as a result of growing pressure on water supplies in Colorado and the 2002 drought. The study identified current and future water demands, available water supplies, and existing and planned water supply projects in eight major river basins in the State . SWSI was recently updated to SWSI 2010, which projects demands to 2050 and includes passive water conservation savings. Passive savings includes such things as future development using more efficient water fixtures in their building process. The City of Englewood is located in the Metro Basin where SWSI 2010 identified a 57 percent gap between water needs and water supplies in the Basin by 2050. Water conservation is one method the SWSI report identified for meeting this gap. Dry-Year Water Supply Englewood owns several very senior water rights that divert from the South Platte River at Union Avenue. While these water rights provide the City with an ample supply of water, in dry years, such as 2002 and 2012, the low streamflow in the river, together with the demands for water from other senior rights, may result in the City's senior river rights not being able to provide the City with all of the water needed. Unaccounted-for Water Use There are two types of water losses that occur in water utilities, apparent losses and real losses. Apparent losses are paper losses that can be caused by customer meter inaccuracies, billing system data errors or unauthorized consumptions. Real losses are those that are physically lost within the distribution system, including the water treatment process. Englewood staff estimates that system losses have averaged nine percent for the last few years . Even though unaccounted-for water loss ratios of less than ten percent are considered good by industry standards, the City desires to reduce those losses to eight percent. The City does not have any notable limitation beyond the limitations listed above. Because the City was proactive in their infrastructure planning and construction, © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 10 Englewood's water treatment and storage facilities are more than adequate to accommodate their water supplies. Water Costs and Pricing Water Fund The Englewood Utilities Water Fund accounts for revenues and expenses associated with providing water services to City of Englewood residents. The Water Fund is one of the City's Enterprise Funds , which account for operations that: (a) are financed and operated in a manner similar to private business enterprises where the intent of the governing body is that the costs of providing goods or services to the general public on a continuing basis be financed or recovered primarily through user charges, or (b) where the City Council has decided that periodic determination of revenue earned, expenses incurred and/or net income is appropriate for capital maintenance, public policy, management controls, accountability or other purposes. The Water and Sewe r Board provides guidance and oversees the Water and Sewer Enterprise Funds and related activities . Charges for Water Service The City of Englewood sets its water and sewer rates based upon cost-of-service principles. Englewood charges only enough to cover the cost of its operations and to maintain a reasonable contingency for emergencies . All Englewood water and sewer customers are grouped into one of two customer classes (residential or commercial) and by whether they live inside or outside of Englewood . Cost-of-service rates recover costs from each customer class in proportion to the cost of providing the service to each class. The rates for the Englewood water and sewer service area are approved by the Englewood Water and Sewer Board and the Englewood City Council after a review of the revenue requirements and costs underlying any rate proposal. There is a public comment period (thirty days) prior to the Council's voting on the proposed rates. New rates become effective thirty days after Council approval. There are two components to Englewood's metered water rates : a per 1,000 ga ll ons consumption charge, and an administrative charge to cover such things as the cost of meter reading and billing . For residences or businesses with water meters larger than 3/4" there is a minimum charge based on the size of the water meter. All customers are billed on a quarterly basis. © Clear Water Solutions , Inc . City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 11 . I • • • • • • Table 2.4-City of Englewood 2012 Metered Rates Inside City Quarterly Consumption (per 1,000 gallons) First 400,000 gallons $3 .29 All Consumption over 400,000 gallons $2.04 Inside City Minimum Charge Consumption Total Included in Quarterly Minimum Minimum Meter Size Charge Admin Fee Charge (Gallons) 5/8" $8.51 $8.51 N/A None 3/4" $9.71 $9.71 N/A None 1" $83 .10 $10 .74 $72.36 22,000 1-1/4" $104.25 $12 .16 $92 .09 28,000 1-1/2" $158.82 $10.81 $148.01 45,000 2" $249 .66 $12.85 $236.81 72,000 3" $461.66 $17.64 $444.02 135,000 4" $764.51 $24.48 $740.03 225 ,000 6 " $1,457.91 $40.41 $1,417.50 450,000 '' Note : The minimum cha rge plus the administrative fee equals the Total Quarterly Charge Table 2.5-City of Englewood 2012 Metered Rates Outside City Quarterly Consumption (per 1,000 gallons) First 400,000 gal Ions $4.61 All Consumption over 400,000 gallons $3.29 Outside City Minimum Charge Consumption Total Included in Quarterly Minimum Minimum Meter Size Charge AdminFee Charge (Gallons) 5/8" $8.58 $8.58 N/A None 3/4" $9 .22 $9.22 N/A None 1" $112.80 $11.36 $101.44 22,000 1-1/4" $142.26 $13.15 $129.11 28,000 1-1/2" $218.12 $10.62 $207 .50 45,000 2" $344.59 $12.60 $331.99 72,000 3" $639 .62 $17.14 $622.49 135,000 4" $1,057.04 $19.57 $1,037.48 225,000 6" $2,049.42 $40.52 $2,008.90 450,000 '' '' Note : The minimum charge plus the admm1strat1ve fee equals the Total Quarterly Charge © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 12 Englewood's water connection fees are based on the size of the tap, or a combination of multi-family residential units and commercial fixture units. The following tables detail the water system connection charges. Table 2.6 -Single-Use Water System Connection Charges Inside City Outside City Meter Size Connection Fee Connection Fee 5/8" or 3/4" $4,360.00 $6,540.00 1" $7,270.00 $10,905 .00 1-1/2" $14,500.00 $21,750.00 2" $23,300.00 $34,950.00 3" $46,500.00 $69,750.00 4" $72,700.00 $109,050.00 6" $174,400.00 $261,600.00 The multi-family residential water system connection charge is the total of the base fee plus the per-dwelling unit fee. For multi-family water connections, fees shall be the greater of 1) the sum of the multi-family connection fees or 2) the meter sized based connection fee per the Single-Use Water Connection Fee schedule above. Table 2.7 -Multi-Family Residential Water System Connection Charges Inside City Outside City Base Fee $2,620.00 $3,930 .00 Dwelling Unit Fees (per dwelling unit) First 12 units $580.00 $870.00 Next 22 units $450.00 $675.00 Over 3 units $275.00 $412.0C The Water System Connection Charge for Mixed Use Residential and Commercial properties is the combination of the Multi-Family Residential Connection Charge and the Commercial Mixed Use Water Connection Charge . Table 2.8 -Commercial Mixed Use Water Connection Charges First 125 Fixture Units Next 250 Fixture Units Over 375 Fixture Units © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood Inside City $83.00 $35.00 $25.00 Outside City $124.50 $52.50 $26.00 2013 Water Conservation Plan 13 -r • • • • • • Policies and Planning Initiatives Affecting Water Use Municipal Code Englewood's municipal code includes an ordinance in which water shall be used only for beneficial purposes and shall never be wasted. The ordinance specifically prohibits water from being wasted by watering public walks, driveways or streets while irrigating adjacent areas. Current Water Conservation Activities The City has instituted the following water conservation measures and programs: • Public Information • Meter Replacement o Englewood Meter Assistance Program (EMAP) • Leak Detection • Plumbing Code • Non-potable and Water Reuse Public Information Currently, the City has an annual newsletter called "The Pipeline" that is sent to all its water users . This newsletter is used to inform the citizens of Englewood about various utility issues including water conservation ideas. Additionally, brochures and information regarding water conservation is readily available at City Hall. Meter Replacement The City of Englewood is committed in its effort to meter the entire City to provide an accurate measurement and record of water use to aid in the promotion of water conservation. Metering has been used to make customers more aware of how much water they are using and to equitably distribute the costs of the operation and maintenance of the water system. Presently the City has 80 percent of their customers metered. The metering program is enforced through the City Code which requires the installation of meters in flat rate homes when the property ownership changes. On a weekly basis the City checks records of transactions in the City and if these transactions indicate that the ownership of a flat-rate account has changed the City immediately sends the owner a notice to install a meter. This requirement was adopted in the Code March 1987, and has been successful in converting approximately 220 flat rate to metered water per year, which has resulted in a 50 percent reduction in peak water use. © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservat ion Plan 14 The City also has an on-going program of meter repair, replacement and recalibration. The meter reading, repair/calibration and meter purchase are approximately two percent of the budget. Englewood Meter Assistance Program -Help with switching from flat rate to metered water If an Englewood water customer is interested in switching from flat rate to a water meter, the Utilities Department has a program that helps manage the expense of switching called the Englewood Meter Assistance Program (EMAP). Under the flat rate plan (non-metered customers), small families typically pay for more water than they actually use, especially during the winter months. The EMAP program takes the difference between what customers pay for the flat rate and what customers would pay for the metered rate and uses that money to help pay the cost of installing the water meter. The cost of the meter, yoke and installation is about $500. The yoke is designed to be easy for a homeowner to install, but the Utilities Department will include the cost of a plumber to complete installation in the EMAP program. Details are included in Figure 2.6 below. Leak Repair & Maintenance The City of Englewood is making a large effort to reduce the amount of leakage to zero. The City has funded the upgrading and replacement of older deteriorated water mains. This is possible through a capital improvement program, which during the next ten years is expected to spend $500,000 on water system upgrades. 1. The City water department performs leak surveys which include pressure drops, surface water complaints and investigation of dirty water complaints. 2. The City's maintenance crews respond as soon as possible to a report of actual or detected leaks. They assess each situation individually by making the appropriate shutoff to isolate the leak and reduce the volume of lost water. The City has adopted a systematic repair and replacement program to upgrade its water system and avoid leaks. © Clear Water Solutions , Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 15 • • • • • • Figure 2.6 -EMAP Details \V ATF.R i\lETER ASSISTANCE AGREE'1ENT , "h ,.,._-r r"1.h.~·u,i..-, ... 1f t!I ,h~ C •t~ 1 I j ·1:..:1~ \h i l\~ \\tlfHI \ 1 -.1\a-,,;-..,_rl.\ lf ,1t:JJ1t1~~ 11,.,.,1 U1~ .. l ... J :11 1h .·t •t\ t I ·,i:ki,,;,,l l .•.\.1 :~·• d1•,t ''' 1:,,1 ,~·•h'll, .w1f • ti 11.:d 11•1 \\,lk q11 ,l..'r 1ft. ll ti l ,d l" ,:.I 'l hi\· · 1•t \l 11•.1.:r h; li11~. ,111 .I \\111 IH \',, lt·,~t\l'\\hl• •'!lh·••\\:lUl'l••'-4.1.1r ,t·,•,, llu, ~1 JJ1 1..'-· ._•h.J.1h,,,t.·ti, 11111.t n '1 U}\' ~,1·1, 1'1' '°'h.,d 1·1.: , ; ~-. .. 11...r hi ••\.·'· .111 \\ltf RI \'t lh,:,,\\')L'i\r,"!i._'\,.'df',tl ~l lfl 1hi,,·rr.•;',,'I:, ,k'•H 11.·~1•n.u .. ·,1 l~P •l ',,Ji ,'-1,, l ,t ,11 ... p,11 ,h,1 ,1.:,111,l .,1 ·n•,l.d ,11 i.,i11 r 111" \\ tin 1m·h1 '.c 1\\ 1111 kl 11 If{! I h,: """''' ..i th : l''"I ,c, I ·,t,·d .,r.,"' 11, ,,., ••• 111 i, 11 1,t .. ,•r,,•-, , (fll h:nt•, ·•t 1!11, ,J:fn.mL·nt ,1-. ,u '-·r1H t•n•· lh1·. pl 111 .1·,.• w ,..♦• a '11~h:r 11.1 11 .0 .. ~ '111 1h.11 1 J rpc:L·r1.·~: ..,,,,1 I · ,,,,h,· I' ,~11 ,llli ·. :1 1\ 1u \.:\:t n • .1 ~m !-! .ind t-,J1 ing p • .111 rrr1•, d1.0 1th•n•.11,1~"··· 111k d 1:·,·1.-1,.t ,r 1 • ·r-l·h.·r ... · t '-~.lfL',', :~rt· hh.'hL·: th,!a 111,· tl.111.1 :\·, .ill 1'1";1 .llll "-•'·~t·. \\ II :1-.. .1tldcd ,., :hl' d\1. ·.111 .111,t 1.••,li..·1..ll·d ·,-.,tt 1h , 11,·,t nnn,a!. q11~1n1.~rh hd hl'~' l'-lt, 1f \ \\ II ·, t•I., Ilic •,.,J ·,u f:d••h · 1.,~111~, :h i-. ,1 • 11••11 n•" 11,."-idcr t ,1,J II li ,1\\' ~h .. r1·,1.t1.'J r:~u l flu V,ilh,•t.,t ;1.1, ·-~· 11•1 ,11 .tl\.'l!,.l ,1 1 ;.\•l, t 1.••~·•·, ,1 1 (1'l l 'i'~k 1\! tll",l.1 fl,tll11fl I h..: h:-.1,kc 1 ,f1.dl ._:.,n(ll\ ... l" I,· t..'-~·1, ~ 1l1 ,r 11 , , 1111.il. I l,•t K.,h: ~~.II ~ t'l t1 ,l l t ,ih.: \\.tl i 11 1~ ... :1 •• ,w, 1mkq ~11\' t'•l·~,-, ~,h""" IJ'-t.:1,,· 1111.·, .......... , I lliL I 1· :•-· :li;1 l I.,,· ~111,11,,.r I:\.· 11:1,,11:r ·,1t.1II h ... n:.iU. ,.lhl 1h. •l.11 r.1h .. 1.h ,111·.·. 1•qr1 .1:l·d ., ~.1111 -.r ·,d·.,1 f';l" \\,,1h:1 .,,11 \,h 111 'i-'\..,., l li i.. li d! \1.1.: h.,·t.~d Ii 1h1.· ;11 d1,1 1 ... 11111;. \1· .... t''\ .. i.,•, ,1h ,,\,' ,•,f u t !ht. :11..:ll'tlil 11111 • .... 11 1,I hr H I ·,t ·•rr l 1..·,! ,,, 1h · ~ ·, ... I ,, "1 1,' 111 ..:1 1..·· .11,~f 1 ·1 ~.ii .1'.1 ••1 i· ·h,· ·i t'lt.:1 1..,J h , , h1c 1,,;r 1!1,u 1 tit... t1Jt tJlL , II. ui.: v ,J 1 •J , ·; •.Ii d : I' b t ,,. l11 ~h1.1 .m·, .wt lt11 ... r1 ,.r.,111 •.-. 11 \ •\t f II •-:,~ .1 , I ,J,\··••l•11·r 1111: ... · ... ·d i11l ,,,II""\.' \1 11r 1L1.dt, rr,)\ 1d .; t.1 t11 .. 11 1,i .t!L111, ·II ., 11!~ II l'\\11 ,, ·l,1.:_\ ,u .:. 11'1J 1lrL I I I l I ,.•. r l!tl Ill I', , 1 \ \:r 1ha1 ~. ·,! .d· ,, 11 Pw I'' 1p• ,1 . h 1 1-:~--• l wd, ..,, · h:, nd...z ,. l'f• l'L1z.1 .d l h : ,111.1t .. ,1'" • IIIIHl'..:-di.11 d·. f't..\. ,. ·:t.. Jll ... Jl l\.l I ,!\ .,lik !'1 1.'.11,.'I..' •·.al'•,, I · .• \t ... ! ··f,,,rL"ril H,,:.1\• ,. ,1n_,1 1.,::_~ ··1, 11!.1' 11 1 •,! 1, .. 1pi1,n·• ill P,l· I"'% ·.:.-Hl •i . I he :1pplic.11ii111 of tla1 rate m,•11te) tn the "'"t .. r the meter" ill ,>n l) h:tpp,:n "hen the normal. 4u:1rtcrl) hill "raiJ in litll. \lo trans li.:r 111' munC) "ill haprcn ,111 Jc! in,1uent an:1111111,. Io . I he Ct>st ,,f 1hc meter and ,.,r ins1allation mu,t he p:1id ,,ff 111 J4 111,•nth,. Al 1h:u time."") unpaid ha lance I\ ill he aJdcJ c,, Che \\:tier !,ill . 11 . If lhc aprlirn111 is an on:urnnt. and 1wc the 111\n,·r. the m,ncr mu,t co,ign 1hi, ap1>licati11n . Plumbing Code The City of Englewood's Plumbing Code requires water-saving devices for all new construction . These water-conserving devices include maximum 1.6 gallon-per-flush toilets, 2.5 gallons-per-minute (gpm) faucets and 2.5 gpm showerheads . © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 16 Water Reuse and Non-potable Systems At the present time, the only reusable or fully consumable water rights that Englewood owns are the consumptive use entitlements decreed for the changes of Englewood's interests in the Nevada Ditch, the McBroom Ditch and the Brown Ditch, as well as the Aurora Delivery Obligation and Boreas No. 2 Ditch. However, because Englewood's practice has been to lease these fully reusable entitlements to Centennial Water and Sanitation District, there has been little opportunity for Englewood's actual reuse of these sources. Currently, 100 percent of the backwash at the City water treatment plant is recycled back into the treatment process. The City uses the non-potable water released from the plant for irrigating the turf around the treatment plant. The City does, however, provide water from the senior, 1860 City Ditch water right which is used to irrigate the Cherry Hills Country Club in Cherry Hills Village and several small customers along the ditch. © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 17 , i • • • • • • CHAPTER 3 -WATER USE AND DEMAND FORECAST Use by Customer Category In 2011, Englewood's total water production for both metered and non-metered customers was estimated to be 5,606 acre-feet. Non-metered water use was estimated based on the total water production, the known water use for metered customers and the nine percent system loss estimate provided by Englewood staff. Table 3.1 summarizes water use per customer category from 2005 through 2011. Table 3.1 -City of Englewood Water Use Metered Non-Metered Total Estimated Water Total Single Multi-Commercial Industrial Municipal Metered Use of Non-Metered Water Year Family Family Water Use Customers Use acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet acre-feet 2005 1,832 994 1,307 420 62 4,615 2,949 7,564 2006 2,162 1,149 1,314 547 27 5,199 2,502 7,700 2007 1,921 1,178 966 545 21 4,630 1,570 6,200 2008 2,233 1,058 1,051 419 0 4,761 1,880 6,641 2009 1,703 1,419 884 434 14 4,454 1,118 5,572 2010 1,971 1,176 867 473 20 4,507 1,598 6,105 2011 1,928 1,147 882 sos 14 4,4n 1,129 5,606 Average 1,964 1,160 1,039 478 23 4,663 1,821 6,484 Notes: Non-metered water use is estimated by subtracting the total metered water use from the total overall water production. less 9% for system losses Taps and Water Use Summary The total number of metered and non-metered taps per customer category is shown in Table 3.2 through Table 3.4. Table 3.5 shows the estimated metered water use per tap for each customer category from 2005 through 2011 . © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 18 Table 3.2 -City of Englewood Metered Taps by Customer Category Total Year Single Multi-Variable Family Family Commercial Industrial Municipal Rate Taps taps taps taps taps taps 2005 5,308 650 959 13 7 6,937 2006 5,989 740 1,022 12 3 7,765 2007 6,088 748 1,017 12 3 7,867 2008 6,221 759 1,013 12 3 8,008 2009 6,336 766 1,013 12 3 8,129 2010 6,572 792 1,063 13 3 8,442 2011 6,715 788 1,078 12 3 8,596 Table 3.3 -City of Englewood Non-Metered Taps by Customer Category Total Year Single Multi-Fixed Family Family Commercial Industrial Municipal Rate Taps taps taps taps taps taps 2005 2,601 225 8 2 0 2,836 2006 2362 201 8 2 0 2,573 2007 2,249 188 8 2 0 2,447 2008 2,146 177 7 2 0 2,332 2009 2,047 175 7 2 0 2,231 2010 1,983 169 7 2 0 2,161 2011 1,897 168 7 2 0 2,074 Table 3.4-City of Englewood Total Taps by Customer Category Year Single Multi-Total Family Family Commercial Industrial Municipal Taps taps taps taps taps taps 2005 7,909 875 967 15 7 9,n3 2006 8,351 941 1,030 14 3 10,338 2007 8,337 936 1,025 14 3 10,314 2008 8,367 936 1,020 14 3 10,340 2009 8,383 941 1,020 14 3 10,360 2010 8,555 961 1,070 15 3 10,603 2011 8,612 956 1,085 14 3 10,670 © Clear Water Solutions , Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 19 • • • • • • Table 3.5-City of Englewood Water Use per Tap (metered customers) Single Multi- Year Family Family Commercial Industrial Municipal acre-acre-acre-acre-acre- feet/tap feet/tap feet/tap feet/tap feet/tap 2005 0.23 1.14 1.35 28.02 9.20 2006 0.26 1.22 1.28 39.08 10.63 2007 0.23 1.26 0.94 38.95 7.58 2008 0.27 1.13 1.03 29 .95 0.00 2009 0.20 1.51 0.87 30.98 5.43 2010 0.23 1.22 0.81 31 .55 8.05 2011 0.22 1.20 0.81 36.09 5.75 Average 0.24 1.24 1.01 33.52 6.66 Per Capita Water Use Per capita water use, both system-wide and residential only, is a commonly used way to gage an entity's water use habits. System-wide per capita use can vary significantly between entities depending on the type of non-residential customers within the system . Englewood averages 171 GPCD system-wide with an estimated 89 GPCD for residential uses from 2007 to 2011 as shown in Table 3.6. Due to lack of specific residential water use and population for non-metered customers, the residential GPCD may be skewed. Table 3.6 -City of Englewood Per Capita Water Use Total Water Year Use (Metered and Non- Metered acre-feet 2007 6,200 2008 6,641 2009 5,572 2010 6,105 2011 5,606 Average 6,025 © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood Metered Residential Water Use (Single and Multi Family) acre-feet 3,098 3,291 3,123 3,147 3,075 3,147 Population System Residential WideGPCD GPCD 32,191 172 86 32,191 184 91 32,191 155 87 30,255 180 93 30,255 165 91 31,417 171 89 2013 Water Conservation Plan 20 Indoor vs . Outdoor Use In Colorado, a significant portion of water use typically occurs outdoors for irrigation. To determine Englewood's average outdoor use, we assumed the average residential unit would use 50 percent of their water for outdoor irrigation 1 . Demand Forecast The majority of Englewood 's land area was developed during the post World War 11 era , between 1945 and 1960. As is evident by the population data presented in Table 2.1, Englewood's population growth is limited and not expected to increase during the planning period. Therefore, average water use (See Table 3.1) and average water use per tap figures (See Table 3 .5) for the period of 2005 -2011 are used to forecast future water use . 1 According to Denver Water data © Clear Water Solutions , Inc . City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 21 -,i • • • ' • • • CHAPTER 4 -WATER CONSERVATION GOALS Goal Development Process The development of water-savings goals for Englewood was a collaborative process involving Clear Water Solutions and City staff. Information was gathered from billing records and existing planning documents to properly characterize the system, resources and water use. Development of this data showed the City's largest water use customer categories, seasonal usage, system limitations and losses, and outlined the City's existing conservation efforts and their estimated effectiveness. We met with staff to discuss water-savings goals and the potential methods to reach those goals. Initial reduction percentages were established and a universal list of measures and programs were compiled for consideration. The goals focused on the water use areas that could be successfully impacted considering factors such as water savings potential, costs, control, and public acceptance. Water Conservation Goals Establishing water conservation goals is an iterative process that begins with quantifying the future demand for water based on current water-use habits and identifying areas water use can feasibly and effectively be reduced . Englewood, according to the Planning Department's projection, is not expected to increase its water demand through new growth. However, the City would still like to reduce overall demand by ten percent in the next ten years. Discussions with City staff focused on the desire to continue and expand Englewood's EMAP. EMAP takes the difference between what the customer pays for the non-metered rate and what the customer would pay for the metered rate and uses that money to help pay the cost of installing the water meter. Participation in EMAP is optional. If provided a grant by the CWCB, Englewood would like to expand upon their current program by providing 50 to 100 meters at no cost to the customer while the customer continues to pay the flat rate charges, as further incentive for meter replacement. If the customer converts, the money received by the City would go to providing a meter for another flat rate customer. In addition to the EMAP expansion, City staff discussed possibly expanding educational programs that encourage residential category (Single-Family and Multi-Family water users) water conservation and may also impact the Commercial and Industrial customers as well. City staff discussed the desire to explore performing a water rate study, which would ensure that the City has a fair rate structure that could provide incentives for customers to save water . © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 22 In setting initial water savings goals for the City, we looked at the current water use per customer category and the limitations of the water supply system. Table 4.1 shows initial goals established for each customer category. Table 4.1 -Englewood Water Conservation Goals Total Projected Water Use Water Use Categories: (2013 to 2022) Reduction Goals for Planning Horizon {AF) {%) {AF) Single-Family 19,642 5.0% 982 Multi-Family 11,602 5.0% 580 Commercial 10,387 2.5% 260 Industrial 4,778 2.5% 119 Municipal 225 0.5% 1.13 Non-Metered Customers - Meter Replacement and EMAP 18,207 15.0% 2,731 Unaccounted-for Losses (currently 9%) 5,836 8.0% 648 Total Water Production: 70,677 Total Demand Reduction: 5,322 Total Percent Reduction: 8% Notes : Unaccounted-For Loss (UL) equals loss rate (above= 9%) times estimated projected water use. Reduction Goal for UL equals the difference between ULs at 9% and the ULs at the reduced rate goal (8.0%). Non-Metered Customers include Residential, Commercial and Industrial water users Single-Family and Multi-Family Conservation Goals The per-capita water use in Englewood is comparable to the average in Colorado. Considering that there are a number of existing measures that can be improved and new measures that can be introduced, the reduction goal was set at five percent for Single-Family and Multi-Family categories. Commercial and Industrial Conservation Goals The Commercial category includes but is not limited to hospitality, restaurants, retail, healthcare, car washes, and schools. Because there are many types of Commercial © Clear Water Solutions , Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 23 ,- • • • • • • and Industrial customers, actual savings are difficult to predict. For now, a goal of 2.5 percent is estimated for the Commercial and Industrial categories. Municipal Conservation Goals Englewood tracks water use in and surrounding City-owned properties. We estimate that a 0.5 percent savings can be achieved through water conservation measures targeting this category. Non-Metered Customer Conservation Goals Eventually, all non-metered customers will be converted to metered customers. We estimate that with the meter replacement and EMAP programs, a 15 percent savings can be achieved through water conservation measures targeting this category. Unaccounted-for Losses The average loss in the system due to leaks, record keeping errors, theft, or lack of measurement (non-metered customers) is estimated at about nine percent of the water production . The goal for the City is to reduce the system losses by one percent bringing them to eight percent. © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 24 CHAPTER 5-CONSERVATION MEASURES AND PROGRAMS Water Conservation Measures and Programs We developed a universal list of conservation measures and programs . The measures and programs were placed into five major categories : Utility Maintenance Programs, Regulatory Controls and Standards, Educational Programs, Rebates and Incentive Programs, and Audit Programs. The universal list is shown in Table 5.1 with existing measures highlighted in green. Screening Criteria The following screening criteria were compiled based on discussions with staff. The criteria were chosen as a general screening to pare down the universal list to a list of measures and programs to evaluate further, including reviewing costs to implement, expected water savings, and loss of revenue from the water savings . Each measure and program in Table 5.1 was screened with the following criteria. 1 . Staff Time 2. Financial implications 3 . Political ramifications Screening of Conservation Measures and Programs The purpose of the initial screening was to create a list of measures and programs that would be evaluated further in the planning process via a cost- benefit analysis. A meeting was held with City staff and Water Board to discuss each measure/program on the universal list and eliminate ones that were not feasible using the established screening criteria. The list of measures was also evaluated to determine if the CWCB Minimum Required Water Conservation Plan Elements were addressed. The required CWCB elements include: • Water-efficient fixtures and appliances, including toilets, showerheads, and faucets • Low water use landscapes, drought resistant vegetation, removal of phreatophytes (a deep rooted plant that obtains water from the water table or the layer of soil just above it. Includes cottonwoods, tamarisk, etc.), and efficient irrigation • Water-efficient industrial and commercial water use processes • Water reuse systems • Distribution system leak identification and repair © Clear Water Solutions , Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 25 • • • • • • • Dissemination of information regarding water use efficiency measures, including by public education, customer water use audits, and water-saving demonstrations • Water rate structures and billing systems designed to encourage water use efficiency in a fiscally responsible manner • Regulatory measures designed to encourage water conservation • Incentives to implement water conservation techniques, including rebates to customers The screening was completed on October 31, 2012 and November 13, 2012. The resulting decisions are noted on Table 5.1 . Table 5.1 -Universal List of Conservation Measures and Programs Further Conservation Measure or Program Existing Evaluation Comment Supply side Utility Maintenance Programs measures Water Meter Conversion The City would like to conti nue the current & Program Yes Yes I pr ogram programs Englewood Meter Assistance ProR:ram Yes Yes Englewood would like to expand this program Meter Testing and Replacement Program Sub-Meter Mobile Home Parks Require sub-metering in new multi-fa mi Iv housing Installing Meters in the Distribution System to Leak Detection & Repair Program Leak Detection for Master Meter Communities Leak Detection in Mobile Home Parks Billing Software Upgrades Water provider fac i lity fixture upgrades (indoor and outdoor) RecyclingWTP Filter Backwash Water Reuse System © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood Yes No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes When they have an issue with a bill, then they No check and replace meter No No No Yes Rely on a local company to complete No No Yes Just uoe:raded -will upgrade every 3 to 5 vears Already have newe r efficient fixtures in City No facilities Englewood recycles 100% of the backwash Yes water Yes See Recycling WTP Filter Backwash 2013 Water Conservation Plan 26 Conservation Measure or Program Existing Demand Regulatory Controls and Standards side measures Water Waste Ordinance & Remova I of Phreatophytes programs e.g . Cottonwoods Drought Mitigation Plan Turf and Landscape Restrictions/Standards for New Construction Irrigation System Requirements/Standards for New Construction Water Rate Structure Changes Genera I Eva I ua ti on of Policies that Encourage Water Savings Educational Programs Bi 11 i ng Statements that Encourage Water Savings Children's Water Festival Xeriscape Garden Demonstration Xeriscape Gardening Classes Xeriscape Program for Commercial Xeriscape Program for Open Scace (HOAsl School Education Program (K- 12 Education) Post BMPs on Website or as Bi 11 Stutters Online Access to Water Bill and History Educational Kits Property Manager/HOA Education and Training Public Education -Bill Stutters & Website Send ET Irrigation Scheduling in Water Bill © Clear Water Solutions , Inc . City of Englewood Yes No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No Further • Evaluation Comment The City would like to explore expanding Yes ordinances that pro hi bit water waste City does this but it is not required of the No genera I public The City will pursue drought mitigation planning separately from this conservation Yes planning effort. No Re-evaluate with future planning efforts. No Re-evaluate with future planning efforts . A rate study may be conducted to determine a fair structure that will help maximize water Yes savings. Yes City staff would Ii ke to evaluate further . Program to be combine with ET Scheduling in Yes Water Bill. No • No No Refer to Denver Water's Xeriscape Programs No No Each year, Englewood hosts school children at Yes the water treatment plant for water dav. Combined with Public Education -Bill Stutters Yes & Website Measure below Beginning in 2013, Englewood water customers wi II be able to access the water bill Yes online Yes Will evaluate further No Staff Ii mitations. Yes Combined with BMP Measure above. Combined with Billing Statement Measure Yes above. 2013 Water Conservation Plan • 27 • • • Conservation Measure or Program Existing Rebates and Incentive Pro rams Distribute Pre-rinse Spray Heads to Restaurants & Institutions No Rebate Programs for Toilets, Clothes Washers, Dishwashers, Faucets and Showerheads No Rebates for ET (SMART) Sori nkler System Controllers No Zero Interest Loans for Washers No Water Conservation Upgrades for City Facilities- Outdoor No Water Conservation Upgrades for City Facilities- Indoor No Xeriscape Incentives for all customer categories No Irrigation System Efficiency Device Rebates No Wind and/or Rain Sensor Rebates for Residential or Commercial No Low Income Retrofit Program No Commercial Water Audits No Residential Audit Kit No Sprinkler System Audit Kit and Instructions No Irrigation Audit of City Parks and Properties No * Shaded cells represent existing measures . © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood Further Evaluation Comment No Staff limitations No Staff limitations No No Not interested for financial reasons . No Re-evaluate with future ola nning efforts. No No No Re-evaluate with future planning efforts . No No Re-evaluate with future planning efforts. Yes Citv staff would like to evaluate further. Yes City staff would Ii ke to evaluate further. No No Re-evaluate with future planning efforts. 2013 Water Conservation Plan 28 CHAPTER 6 -EVALUATION AND SELECTION The initial screening of the measures and programs with City staff resulted in selecting 15 measures for further evaluation. Englewood would like to evaluate many of the eliminated measures with future planning efforts. Some of the measures have been combined as noted in Table 5.1. The benefits and costs of the selected measures and programs are shown in Table 6.1. The grouping of the measures enabled us to consider like measures and avoid double counting savings. Details about the cost-benefit evaluation and information about each measure can be found in Appendix A. Costs and Water Savings of Conservation Options Prior to evaluating the potential cost effectiveness of the measures/programs , it is important to understand the magnitude of typical indoor and outdoor uses and the contribution of each to total demand. There is a wide range of use related to each indoor and outdoor measure that can affect the potential water savings and cost effectiveness accordingly. The assumptions for calculating water savings used for this analysis were on the conservative end of the ranges found in the available water conservation research to avoid overestimating savings. Many resources were used to estimate water savings including Amy Vickers Handbook of Water Use and Conservation , studies and papers from California and Arizona , local stud ies available from the American Water Resources Association, the Environmental Protection Agency, Western Resource Advocates , information from other Colorado municipalities, and the CWCB website. Table 6.1 provides a cost-benefit analysis for all of the measures and programs previously identified to be evaluated further. A planning horizon of ten years is used to quantify the full benefit of these measures and programs . The costs and water savings over the planning period are calculated assuming the measures/programs all start in Year One. This provides an equitable ranking of the measures , so they can be compared on an apples-to-apples basis. In reality, the measures and programs will be implemented according to the implementation schedule developed in Chapters 7 and 8. The first four columns (Columns A-D) of Table 6.1 identify the conservation measure or program and quantify the costs to the City . These costs include annual costs for materials , staff time, and one-time start up costs . The table then quantifies water savings annually and for the entire ten-year planning horizon . Annual water savings and projected lost revenue are based on full © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 29 • • • • • • implementation. This gives the City an idea of the anticipated water savings and estimated revenue impacts after full implementation. The cost per 1,000 gallons of water saved is found by dividing the total cost by the total water savings for the entire ten-year period. The measures and programs are then ranked by cost per 1,000 gallons saved. This ranking helps to determine which measures will be more effective and to suggest a useful order of implementation . © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 30 Supply side measures& procrams Demand side measures & programs • Table 6.1 -Cost/Savings Analysis of Conservation Measures and Programs Conservation Measure or Program (A) utUtty Maintenance Proerams Water Meter Replacement Proeram En1lewood Meter As si stance Proaram {EMAP) Billina Softwar e Upgrades Recyclinc WTP Filter Ba ckwash l eak Detection & Repair Ruulatorv Controls and Standa'ds Ge ner a l Eva luation of Poli cies that Encourage Water Savi ngs Water Was te Ordinance Water Rates that Encourage Water Savings EducatJonal Protrams School Education Proiram(K-12 Education) Educational Kits Public Education -Newsletter, BIii Stutters, Websi te Online Access to Water Bill and Historv Distribute fT lrri eation Sc hedulin1 In Water Bill Rebate and lnantive Procr1111 s Commercial & Indus tr ial water audits Residential water audits Column Explanati ons : © Clear Water Solutions, Inc . City of Eng lewood Estimated Total Total Cost to Water Provider #of Estimated On etime Participants Annual Water Water Savln1s Labor and per Vear Sa vin,s {MG) over Planning Material Annual Annual p.,fod (MG) Cost llibor Materials (Bl !Cl (01 (El (F) (G) so 5.1 278.9 sso.ooo 100 10.1 557.8 $110,000 $11 000 5.8 28.8 23.0 230.3 $109.362 23.0 230.3 $750 0.037 0.37 $500 5.3 52 .6 540,000 30.2 302.4 $800 $500 4.1 41.S $59 ,900 3.2 175.6 $2 ,000 $7,757 10,342 13.6 135.7 15.1 1S1.2 $400 $7,757 10.342 6 .8 67 .8 $400 $10,500 21 1.8 96 .3 $1,000 186 2.7 148.0 (A) Name of oonse rvation measure or program (B) One time labor and material oosts involved In set up program or measure (CJ labor in volved each year for operati on of measure or program Annual Revenue I.Dss Related t.o Water Savings (HJ $17,318 $99,505 $13,638 $21,497 $44,630 $49,752 $22,315 $12,181 51.447 (D) Materials needed each year for each unit if listed or for the whole measure or program (E) Number of participants expected to participate and re sulti ng units or audits needed (F) Total water savings see n i n a yea r from the measure or program (in million gal lons MG) Estimated Total Estimated Rank Annual Cost over Cost per 1000 Cost Planning Period Gallons Sa ved lncludln1 Set-up (I) IJl (Kl Ill $0.00 1 $50.000 $500.000 $0.90 4 $3 08,000 $308,000 $10.70 15 $0.00 2 $109,362 $218,72 4 $0.95 5 $750 $2.05 7 $17,318 $173,678 $3.30 10 $99,505 $1,035 ,046 $3.42 11 $14,938 $149,382 $3.60 1 $21,49 7 $274,873 $1.57 6 $54,387 $543,869 $4.01 13 $49,752 $497,523 $3 .29 • $30,472 $304,717 $4.49 14 $23,081 $230.812 $2.40 8 $2.447 $24,468 $0.17 3 (G) Total water savings seen over entire ten year plann i ng period; could be ba se d on increasing water demand or a fixed use per aax,unt (in MG) (H) Revenue the water provide r will not be pa i d if the water sav ings occur. (I) Total annual cost to water provider plu s the annual reve nue loss. (J) Total cost to implement and operate measure or program over entire planning period, including annual operation, one time set up costs (K) and annual revenue lost due to water sav i ngs (L) Cost per lCXXJgal/ons saved= total cost over planning peri od divided by total water saved over planning pe riod Ranks the measures and programs accordi ng to the pri ce per lCXXJ gallons of water saved , lowest to highest 2013 Water Conservation Plan 31 • • • • Comparison of Benefits and Costs The resulting rank of measures by cost-benefit is shown in Table 6.2 below. The cost per 1,000 gallons saved ranges from $0 .00 to $10. 70. The measures are ranked fairly evenly throughout the five categories. For the $0.00 per 1,000 gallon saved measures, we did not consider the costs to the City, as the City will continue these measures regardless of cost. The rankings are a result of the ratio of cost, including lost revenue, to water savings. For instance, billing software upgrades help Englewood save a fair amount of water. However, the cost relative to the water savings is high , so it ranks lower than one might expect. This is only a cost per water saved ranking. There are other factors to consider, which will be accomplished in a second screening. Table 6.2 -Cost-Benefit Ranking Rank Conservation Measures and Programs 1 Water Meter Replacement Program 2 Recycling WTP Filter Backwash 3 Residential water audits 4 Englewood Meter Assistance Program (EMAP) 5 Leak Detection & Repair 6 Educational Kits 7 General Evaluation of Policies that Encourage Water Savings 8 Commercial & Industrial water audits 9 Online Access to Water Bill and History 10 Water Waste Ordinance 11 Water Rates that Encourage Water Savings 12 School Education Program (K-12 Education) 13 Public Education -Newsletter, Bill Stuffers, Website 14 Distribute ET Irrigation Scheduling in Water Bill 15 Billing Software Upgrades Evaluation Criteria After each of the conservation measures and programs were ranked by cost per 1,000 gallons saved, as shown in Table 6.2, the next step was to select conservation measures and programs for implementation. The criteria used for selection are as follows: 1 . Staff Time 2. Financial implications 3 . Political ramifications © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 32 Selected Conservation Measures and Programs The second screening was accomplished by evaluating each measure/program based on the screening criteria and Englewood's overall goal for this Water Conservation Plan. As mentioned previously, further detail on the conservation measures and programs chosen in the final selection are found in Appendix A. Even though the EMAP measure was not the highest ranked measure in the cost- benefit analysis, Englewood would like to make this program a top priority. The City would like to expand upon their current program by providing 50 to 100 meters, at no cost to the customer, as further incentive for meter replacement. The City hopes to significantly increase the meter conversion rate for their non-metered customers. In Chapter 4, conservation goals were established for eight customer categories: • Single-Family: 5% -982 AF • Multi-Family: 5% -580 AF • Commercial : 2.5% -260 AF • Industrial: 2 .5% -119 AF • Municipal: 0.5% -1.13 AF • Non-Metered Customers: 15% -2,731 AF • Unaccounted-for Losses: 8% -648 AF (of savings) • The selected conservation measures/programs and associated water savings were • arranged within the targeted customer categories to more easily compare the anticipated savings to the original goals. Some of the measures contribute savings to more than one category. Table 6.3 shows the water savings for the selected measures, sub-totaled for each category. Table 6.3 -Combined Water Savings of Selected Conservation Measures and Programs Conservation Measures and Programs System Losses Billing Software Upgrades Recycling WTP Filter Backwash Leak Detection & Repair © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood Subtotal -MG Acre-Feet Estimated Annual Estimated Total Water Savings Water Savings after full over Planning Implementation Period {MG) (MG) 5.8 28.8 23.0 230.3 23.0 230.3 51 .8 489.4 159 1,502 2013 Water Conservation Plan 33 • • • • Conservation Measures and Programs Non-Metered Customer -Meter Replacement and EMAP Water Meter Replacement Englewood Meter Assistance Program (EMAP) Water Waste Ordinance Single-Family Water Waste Ordinance Water Rates that Encourage Water savings School Education Educational Kits Public Education Online Access to Water Bill and History Distribute ET Irrigation Scheduling in Water Bill Residential Water Audits Multi-Family Water Waste Ordinance Water Rates that Encourage Water savings School Education Educational Kits Public Education Online Access to Water Bill and History Distribute ET Irrigation Scheduling in Water Bill Residential Water Audits Commercial Water Waste Ordinance Water Rates that Encourage Water savings Public Education Online Access to Water Bill and History Distribute ET Irrigation Scheduling in Water Bill Commercial and Industrial Water Audits Industrial Water Waste Ordinance Water Rates that Encourage Water savings Online Access to Water Bill and History Commercial and Industrial Water Audits © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood Subtotal -MG Acre-Feet Subtotal -MG Acre-Feet Subtotal -MG Acre-Feet Subtotal -MG Acre-Feet Subtotal -MG Acre-Feet Estimated Annual Estimated Total Water Savings Water Savings afterfull over Planning Implementation Period (MG) (MG) 5.1 278.9 10.1 557.8 1.5 14.8 16.7 851.5 51 2,613 1.6 16.0 12 .8 128.0 3.2 32.0 3.2 64.5 6.4 64.0 6.4 64.0 3.2 32.0 0.08 24.0 36.9 424.5 113 1,303 0.9 9.5 7.6 75.6 0.9 9.5 2.0 111.1 3.8 37.8 3.8 37.8 1.9 18.9 0.39 124.0 21 .3 424.1 65 1302 0.8 8.5 6.8 67.7 3.4 33.8 3.4 33.8 1.7 16.9 0.7 36.2 16.7 197.0 51 604 0.4 3.9 3.1 31.1 1.6 15.6 1.1 60.1 6 111 19 340 2013 Water Conservation Plan 34 Estimated Annual Estimated Total Water Savings Water Savings Conservation Measures and Programs afterfull over Planning Implementation Period (MG) (MG) Municipal Evaluation of Policies to Encourage Water Savings 0.04 0.37 Subtotal -MG 0.04 0.37 Acre-Feet 0.11 1.13 Grand Total -(MG) 150 2,498 Acre-Feet 459 7,665 Grand Total Savings from Existing Measures (Acre-Feet) 164 3,651 These savings were compared to the original goals set in Chapter 4 . As mentioned earlier, water conservation goal setting is an iterative process; original goals are established, conservation measures are evaluated and selected based on appropriate criteria, and the resulting water savings are compared to the original goals . In this case, the resulting water savings are close to the original goals. Table 6.4 compares the anticipated water savings from the selected measures with the original goals and then adjusts the water-saving goals for this plan. Table 6.4 -Water Conservation Goals Comparison Total Projected Water Use Water Use Categories: (2013 to 2022) Single-Family Multi-Family Commercial Industrial Municipal Non-Metered Customers - Meter Replacement and EMAP Unaccounted-for Losses (currently 9%) Total Water Production : Total Demand Reduction: Total Percent Reduction : © Clear Water Solutions , Inc . City of Englewood (AF} 19,642 11,602 10,387 4,778 225 18,207 5,836 70,677 Reduction Goals for Planning Horizon (%) (AF) 5.0% 982 5.0% 580 2.5% 260 2.5% 119 0.5% 1 15.Cf'/o 2,731 8.0% 648 5,322 8% Total Water Savings from Adjusted Reduction Selected Resulting Goals for Planning Programs Reduction Horizon (AF} (%} (%) (AF) 1,303 6.6% 6.5% 1,277 1,302 11.2% 11.0% 1,276 604 5.8% 5.5% 571 340 7.1% 7.Cf'/o 334 1 0.5% 0.5% 1 2,613 14.4% 14.4% 2,613 1,502 6.7% 8.0% 648 7,665 6,721 11% 10% 2013 Water Conservation Plan 35 • • • • • • Over the ten-year planning period, the selected measures/programs provide an overall estimated water savings of 7,665 acre-feet. This is higher than the initial water savings goals set in Chapter 4 . The Non-Metered Customer category goal was adjusted down to 14.4 percent from the initial goal of 15 percent, to reflect the estimated savings from the selected Non-Metered Customer program. Goals for all other categories, with the exception of the Municipal category, were adjusted up from the original City goals . The adjusted goals reflect the goals believed to be obtainable by City staff. After the goals were adjusted to better reflect the expected water savings, the estimated water use reduction is 6,721 acre-feet or ten percent. Therefore, Englewood will target a reduction in its water use by ten percent over the next ten years because of implementation of this plan . © Clear Water Solutions , Inc . City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 36 CHAPTER 7 -INTEGRATE RESOURCES AND MODIFY FORECASTS Englewood operates in a manner to make the most efficient use of its resources. Each year, a budget is carefully developed with the given funding and personnel available. While water conservation has been an effort that has been gradually incorporated, implementation of the measures and programs selected in this plan will require reevaluation of staff resources and pursuit of additional funding in the form of grants . Implementation Schedule Water savings resulting from implementation of this Water Conservation Plan will occur gradually as the City has the resources to implement each selected measure and program and the water users respond to that implementation. Grant availability will be crucial in the timing of implementation. The following table proposes a schedule of implementation . For illustrative purposes, a three-year schedule has been proposed and should be interpreted that Year 1 is the City's first priority of projects followed by Year 2 and then Year 3 and will not be within three years exactly. The proposed implementation of this Water Conservation Plan will occur as the necessary resources become available. This table does not include existing measures that are already implemented and are not scheduled for expansion and improvements. Those measures include recycling WTP filter backwash and billing software upgrades. The City will continue these programs as is . However, the City would like to expand upon EMAP, water waste ordinances and the school education program, so these measures are included in the implementation schedule. © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 37 • • • • • • Table 7.1 -City of Englewood Water Conservation Plan Implementation Schedule Utility Maintenance Programs Regulatory Standards Program Educational Programs Regulatory Standard Programs Educational Programs Rebate and Incentive Programs Utility Maintenance Programs Educational Programs Rebate and Incentive Programs Regulatoty Standard Programs © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood Measure/Program .. YEAR 1 (1ST PRIORITY) Englewood Meter Assistance Program (EMAP) General Evaluation of Policies that Encourage Water Savings Water Waste Ordinance School Educati on Program (K-12 Education) Online Access to Water Bill and History YEAR 2 (2ND PRIORITY) Drought Mitigation Plan Public Education -Newsletter, Bill Stuffers , Website Distribute ET Irrigation Scheduling i n Water Bill Residential water audits YEAR 3 (3RD PRIORITY) Leak Detection & Repa i r Educational Kits Commercial & Industrial water audits Water Rates that Encourage Water Savings Implementation Considerations Staff Time& Funding Staff Time Staff Ti me & Governmental Action Staff Tl me & Funding Staff Time Funding & Staff Ti me Staff Time, Funding & Procurement of Materials Staff Time, Funding& Procurement of Materials Staff Time, Funding & Procurement of Materials Funding & Staff Ti me Staff Tl me, Funding & Procurement of Materials Staff Time Funding & Staff Time 2013 Water Conservation Plan 38 The total cost to implement the conservation plan is $291,625 (this figure includes the costs for the initial year of operation). The implementation schedule will be most affected by available staff time and funding. While this schedule may be optimistic, the goal is to allow time for researching and obtaining grants to develop sound programs for a higher probability of success. It should be noted that the implementation costs include both cost to implement the water conservation measure/program and staff time associated with the implementation and is not necessarily representative of the capital outlay requirement. Please refer to Appendix A for the detailed breakdown of costs for each measure/program. Modified Demand Forecast and Benefits of Conservation As mentioned previously, the total projected annual water demand (without water conservation) for Englewood is estimated at 6,484 acre-feet. The anticipated annual savings, after full implementation is approximately 460 acre-feet, reducing the annual demand to 6,024 acre-feet annually. Benefits of Water Conservation • Because Englewood has sufficient water supply and treatment capacity, this planning effort will not delay any future improvement projects or put off water supply acquisition. However, Englewood is still committed to conserving their water supply for the benefit of their customers and the broader region. • © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 39 • • • • CHAPTER 8-PLAN OF IMPLEMENTATION AND MONITORING The schedule for implementation is presented in Table 7 .1 in Chapter 7. The process for implementing the plan and monitoring its success is outlined in this chapter. Public Participation One of CWCB's requirements for a State-approved Water Conservation Plan is to solicit public comments on the draft plan for not less than a 60-day period unless otherwise specified by City policy. Through this water conservation planning process, the public was notified and given 60 days to comment. Appendix B includes affidavits from the local newspaper and Englewood's Citizen Newsletter that legal notice was published. The plan was available on Englewood's website and at the Utilities Department for review. Written comments and responses to those comments are included in Appendix C. Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring the success of this Water Conservation Plan includes measuring water use as well as money spent on the selected conservation measures and programs. Customer class water use will be monitored for programs such as a water rate study. Table 8.1 presents the information that will be tracked for each measure proposed by the City. More specific monitoring information will be developed as each measure is implemented . Many of the costs evaluated in the cost-benefit analysis include annual costs for follow up. This will allow staff to specifically set aside time to monitor and evaluate the success of the conservation measures and programs. Expenditures for conservation will be documented by staff and reported to City Council on a regular basis. This will be valuable information in evaluating the cost-benefit ratio and to validate the success of implementing the selected conservation measures and programs. Since the programs will be implemented in phases, there will be time to evaluate and establish the appropriate method to monitor success of each program and measure. Plan Updates and Revisions The required schedule for updating the Water Conservation Plan is seven years. The progress towards achieving the water-savings goals will be monitored on an annual basis by Englewood. The City may choose to update this plan prior to seven years if implementation and actual water savings deviate too much from these projections. This deviation may be caused by several factors including © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 40 less than anticipated participation and the inability to implement the plan due to lack of staff availability or funding . Plan Adoption and Approval After the public comment period, the comments were incorporated into the plan. The Englewood City Council formally adopted the plan prior to submittal to CWCB for final approval. The resolution is attached as Appendix D. Implementation will begin after CWCB approval is received. It is only after final CWCB approval that Englewood will be eligible for a water-efficiency grant through CWCB for plan implementation. © Clear Water Solutions , Inc. City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 41 • • • • • • Table 8.1 -Tracking Matrix for Monitoring Water Conservation Measures Conservation Measures and Programs Water Meter Replacement Program Recycling WTP Fi lter Backwash Residential water audits En•lewood Meter Assistance Program (EMAP) Leak Detection & Repair Educati onal Kits General Evaluation of Polic ies that Encoura2e Water Savin2S Commercial & Industrial water audits Online Acce ss to Water Bill and History Water Waste Ord i nance Water Rates that EncouraR:e Water Savinirs School Education Pro2ram (K-12 Education) Public Education -Newsletter, Bill Stuffers, Website Distribute ET Irrigation Scheduling in Water Bill Billin,software Up,rades © Clear Water Solutions, Inc. City of Englewood Number of Rebates/ Giveaways IAI ✓ Individual Customer Customer Class Water Water use Use /Bl IC) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Per Capita Unaccounted water use for Water ID) (El ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ Peak & Annual Treated & Total Water Demand (F) ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓ (A) NOTES : The number of rebate s and /or giveaways will be tracked for those installations that have been proven . (B) Water use prior and post installation will be tracked to determine if a saving s ha s occurred . (C) The se measures affect specific customer classe s that can be tracked to determine savings. (D) A reduction i n the Gallons per capita Water Use will show an ove ral I savings (E) These measures track uses that are not billed but are supply-side related. (F) Reductions in peak and annual water use will show an overall savings. 2013 Water Conservation Plan 42 REFERENCES: American Water Works Association, 2006. Water Conservation Programs -A Planning Manual, Manual of Water Supply Practices M52. The Brendle Group, June 2006. Northern Colorado Action Plan for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional (ICI) Water Conservation. City of Englewood, 2008 Budget V3, July 15, 2008. City of Englewood Comprehensive Plan. May 2002. City of Englewood Municipal Code, Section 13.04.080, Newly Adopted Water Rates Effective June Billing Cycle, June 2006. City of Englewood Water Supply and Demand, for Windy Gap Firming, October 13, 2004. Englewood Drought Response Plan, December 2007. Harvey Economics, Water Supplies and Demands for Participants in the Northern Integrated Supply Project. 2004. HOR Engineering, Inc. Water/Wastewater Master Plan, 1996. HOR Engineering, Inc. Water Master Plan Updated, May 2005. Klien, Bobbie, Kenney, Doug, Lowrey, Jessica, and Goemans, Chris. Factors Influencing Residential Water Demand : A Review of the Literature (Updated 1/12/07). U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2007. Cases in Water Conservation: How Efficiency Programs Help Water Utilities Save Water and Avoid Costs. U.S . Environmental Protection Agency , August 6, 1998. WATER CONSERVATION PLAN GUIDELINES , Appendix B. Tetra Tech RMC, Memorandum from Doug Seeley regarding Water Demand Projections, September 8, 2003 . Vickers, Amy, 2001. Handbook of Water Use and Conservation: Home, Landscapes, Business, Industries, Farms. WaterPlow Press, Amherst, MA. Water Conservation Alliance of Southern Arizona, 2003. Evaluation and Cost Benefit Analysis of Municipal Water Conservation Programs. Western Resource Advocates, 2006 . Water in the Urban Southwest. © Clear Water Solutions, Inc . City of Englewood 2013 Water Conservation Plan 43 • • • • • APPENDIX A • Water Conservation Measures Englewood Meter Replacement Program -Existing Measure The City is working to convert the flat rate customers to variable rate customers as accounts change owners. Planning Period LI _____ 20_1_3_t_o_20_2_2 ___ __. Years in Planning Period _______ 1_0 _____ _ Program LengthLl ______ 1_0 _____ __. Estimated Water Savings Estimated Annual Water Savings ____ S._l ___ MG/yr Est imated Savings over Planning Period 278.9 MG Costs Total Cost to Water Provider Materials Costs Un it Co st I $0.001/year Number of Participants._ ______ S_0..,_lyear Annual Materials $0.00 /year Notes : Englewood has saved an average 12.8 MG/year for an average of 127 taps/year from 2006-2011 (a savings rate of about 101,411 gal/tap/year). Estimated Savings over Planning Period is calculated by compounding the estimated annual water savings per the total number of participants for each given year. For this program, material costs are the responsibility of the customer. Labor costs are not considered. The replacement rate is expected to be lower than average, at approximately 50 taps/year. Estimated Annual Cost $0.00 /year Estimated Total Cost over Planning Period Including Set-up ____ S_o_.oo_ Cost per 1000 Gallons Saved $0.00 • • • • • • Englewood Meter Assistance Program {EMAP) -Existing Measure The EMAP program takes the difference between what the customer pays for the non-metered rate and what the customer would pay for the metered rate and uses that money to help pay the cost of installing the water meter. Englewood would like to expand upon their current program by providing 50 to 100 meters, at no cost to the customer, as further incentive for meter replacement. Planning Period,_l _____ 20_1_3_t_o_2_0_2_2 ___ ___. Years in Planning Period ...... ______ 1_0 _____ __, Program Length,_l ______ l_O _____ ___. Estimated Water Savings Estimated Annual Water Savings ____ 1_0 ___ MG/yr Estimated Savings over Planning Period 557.8 MG Costs Total Cost to Water Provider Materials Costs Unit Cost $500.00 /unit Number of Participants,__ _____ 100__./year Annual Materials $50,000.00 /year Notes : Englewood has saved an average 12.8 MG/year for an average of 127 taps/year from 2006-2011 (a savings rate of about 101,411 gal/tap/year). The annual savings reflect the replacement of 100 meters. Estimated Savings over Planning Period is calculated by compounding the estimated annual water savings per the total number of participants for each given year. For this program, Englewood would pay the cost to replace the meter. As with the Meter Replacement Program, labor costs are not considered. This program is anticipated to increase the number of meter conversion too total of 120-150 meters replaced/year combined with the Meter Replacement Program . Estimated Annual Cost Estimated Total Cost over Planning Period Including Set-up Cost per 1000 Gallons Saved $50,000.00 /year $500,000.00 $0.90 Leak Detection and Repair Program This measure would include electronic leak detection by a third party consultant every 5 years. Planning Period._l ____ 2_0_1_3_t_o_2_0_2_2 __ ___, Years in Planning Period.--_____ 1_0 _____ ...., Program Frequency! 2 IYears Estimated Water Savings Annual Estimated Savings Rate._l ___ 1_.0_'¾_o __ _. Annual Estimated Water Production without Savings 2,303 MG/yr Estimated Water Production over Planning1---------1 Period without Savings,__ __ 23~,_0_30 __ _.MG Estimated Annual Water Savings 23 MG/yr Estimated Savings over Planning Period 230 MG Costs Notes : Current system leakage/loss rate is estimated at 9%. The estimated production (without savings) equals the projected water usage plus9%. Total Cost to Water Provider Labor Costs Notes : Third Party Costs (Leak Detection Consult) $109,362.00 /year The City may evaluate approximately 50% of their system (water mains) every 5 years. Cost estimate for an outside consultant to perform electronic leak detection is $0.25 per foot. Therefore, a 165.7 mile system of pipeline would total $109,362.00. Estimated Annual Cost Estimated Total Cost over Planning Period Including Set-up Cost per 1000 Gallons Saved $109,362.00 /year $218,724.00 $0.95 • • • • • • Billing Software Upgrades -Existing Measure Software upgrades allow water providers to quickly and easily retrieve water usage data and relay that data to their customers, helping customers to monitor their water usage and conseNation. Software upgrades help staff to identify system problems, faulty meters and distinguish between customer categories. The City upgrades their billing system every three to five years. Planning Periodl._ ____ 2_0_13_to_20_2_2 ___ __. Years in Planning Period.--______ 10 _____ __, Program Length! 5 !vea rs Estimated Water Savings Annual Estimated Savings Ratel ___ o_._2_5% __ _ Estimated Annual Water Savings ___ s_.8 ___ MG/yr Estimated Savings over Planning Period 28.8 MG Costs Notes : Current system leakage/loss rate is estimated at 9%. Software upgrades are estimated to reduce apparent losses that occur due to billing system errors by a quarter of percent. The estimated production (without savings) equals the projected water usage plus9%. Total Cost to Water Provider Annual Materials Costs Annual Materials $11,000.00 /year Annual maintenance cost is 10% of upgrade fee. 2011-2012 upgrade fee was approximately $110,000. One Time Labor and Material Costs Software Upgrade ___ $1_1_0 __ ,oo_o._oo_ Estimated Annual Cost Estimated Total Cost over Planning Period Including Set-up Cost per 1000 Gallons Saved $308,000.00 /year $308,000.00 $10.70 Recycling WTP Filter Backwash -Existing Measure Currently, 100 percent of the backwash at the City waste water treatment plant is recycled back into the treatment process. Planning Period.._l ____ 2_0_1_3_to_2_02_2 ___ _ Years in Planning Period..--______ 10 _____ __,, Program Length.._l ______ 10 _____ _ Estimated Water Savings Planning Period Sav ings Rate ___ l_.O_o/c_o __ _ Estimated Annual Water Savings 23 .0 MG/yr Estimated Savings over Planning Period 230.3 MG Costs Total Cost to Water Provider Materials Costs Unit Cost I $0.001/unit Number of Part ic ipants.._ ______ O..,_lyear Annual Materia ls $0.00 /year Notes : Englewood estimates that 1% of the total treated water is recycled. Estimated Annual Cost $0.00 /year Estimated Total Cost over Planning Period Including Set-up ____ $0_._00_ Cost per 1000 Gallons Saved $0.00 • • • • • • General Evaluation of Policies that Encourage Water Savings The City would like to evaluate policies that would encourage Municipal water savings. Planning Period~l _____ 2_o_B_t_o_20_2_2 ____ _ Years in Planning Period.--______ 1_0 ______ ., Program Length I 10 lvears Estimated Water Savings Annual Estimated Savings Ratel ~-------0.5% Estimated Average Water Use Annual Water MG Savings Customer Category gallons/yr Municipal 7 36 ,674 .29 Estimated Annual Water Savings ____ 0._0_3_7 ___ MG/yr Estimated Savings over Planning Period 0.367 MG Costs Total Cost to Water Provider One Time Labor and Material Costs One Time Materials Cost ______ $o_.oo_ One Time Staff Costs...._ ___ __;,$_7_50_.o_o_. One Time Labor/Material Cost _____ $:....7_5_0_.0_0 Notes : This measure affects only the Municipal category. Assume a conservative reduction of 0.25% of projected annual water use. Estimated one time staff costs for Staff to spend approximately 15 hours at $50.00/hour to evaluate current policies within the City. Estimated Annual Cost $0.00 /year Estimated Total Cost over Planning Period Including Set-up ___ -"$_7_50_._oo_ Cost per 1000 Gallons Saved $2.05 Water Waste Ordinance -Existing Measure Planning Period .._I _____ 20_1_3_t_o_2_0_2_2 _____ _. Years in Planning Period ..... _______ 1_0 _____ .,,___, Program Length ________ l ______ ~years Estimated Water Savings Annual Estimated Savings Rate._l ___ o_._25_%_o __ _. Average Annual Estimated Annual Water Savings Water Use (MG/yr) MG/yr Customer Category Single-Family 640 1.6 Multi-Family 378 0.9 Commercial 338 0.8 Industrial 156 0.4 Non-Metered Customers (all categories) 593 1.5 Estimated Annual Water Savings ____ 5 ____ MG/yr Estimated Savings over Planning Period 53 MG Costs Total Cost to Water Provider One Time Labor and Material Costs One Time Staff Labor Costs _____ $_s_oo_.OO--t One Time Material Costs..._ ____ $~0_.o_o_ One Time Labor/Material Cost _____ $_5_00_.o_o Water Rates Current Rates Rate Category (per 1000 gallons) Base Fee for First 400,000 gallons $3 .29 Notes: This measure affects all customer categories with the exception of the Municipal category. Estimated one time staff costs for Staff to spend approximately 10 hours at $50. DO/hour to evaluate current policies within the City. Notes : The annual revenue loss was estimated based an current in -city rates for all City customers . Estimated Revenue assumes that the current rates will not change over the planning period. Estimated Average Annual Revenue without Water Savings $6,927,128.80 /year Estimated Average Annual Revenue with Water Savings $6,909,810.98 /year Estimated Annual Revenue Loss Related to Water Savings $17,317.82 /year Estimated Annual Cost $17,317.82 /year Est. Cost over Planning Period not including Lost Revenue $500.00 Est. Cost over Planning Period Including Set-up and lost Revenue_......;.$_1_7""3,'--6_7_8_.2_2 __ Cost per 1000 Gallons Saved $3.30 • • • • • • Water Rate Structure Changes Based on many water conseNation studies, an inclining block water rate design most effectively encourages efficient water use. A rate study may be necessary to ensure maximum water conseNation savings. Planning Period~l _____ 2_0_13_to_2_02_2 _____ _ Yea rs in Planning Period _______ 1_0 ______ _ Program Length._l _______ 1_0 ______ __. Estimated Water Savings Annual Estimated Saving s Ratel~ ___ 2_._0_% __ __. Estimated Annual Water Use Water Savings Customer Category MG/yr MG/yr Single-Family 640 13 Multi-Family 378 8 Commerc ial 338 7 Industrial 156 3 Estimated Annual Water Savings ____ 3_0 ___ MG/yr Estimated Savings over Planning Period 302 MG Costs Total Cost to Water Provider One Time Labor and Material Costs One Time City Staff Labori--____ $_10....;,_0_00_._00-1 Rate Study performed by Consultants.._ __ ....;$'--3_0.;..,o_o_o_.oo__, One nme Labor/Material Cost $40,000.00 ------- Water Rates Rate Category Current Rates/Fees Base Fee for First 400,000 gallons $3 .29 Notes : Assume o conservative reduction of 2 % af projected total billed water. Rate change studies have shown a greater savings {Southwest Florida Water Management District study -13%). This measure does not affect non- metered customers Notes : Labor costs include estimated staff ti me for researching water rate options and implementing those options (~200 hours at $SO/hour). Costs also include water rate study completed by a Consultant. Before a new rate structure is adopted, a rate study would need to be completed by an outside consulting firm. The annual revenue loss was estimated based on current rates for all Town customers. Estimated Revenue assumes that the current rates will not change over the planning period. Estimated Average Annual Revenue without Water Savings Estimated Average Annual Revenue with Water Savings Annual Revenue Loss Related to Water Savings $4 ,975,229 .18 /year Estimated Annual Cost Estimated Cost over Planning Period not including Lost Revenue Estimated Total Cost over Planning Period Including Set-up and Lost $4 ,875,724.60 /year $99,504.58 /year $99,504.58 /year $40,000.00 ------- Revenue_--'$_1.;..,0_3_5.;..,0_4_5_.8_4 Cost per 1000 Gallons Saved $3.42 Educational Kits Self-guided residential educational kits can be designed to include items such as leak detection tablets, surveys, and water saving fixtures. Instructions for conducting the audit and evaluating the results can give residential customers insight and direction on how they can save water and money. The guidance offered in the instructions could lead the customer to take part in other conservation programs offered. Planning Periodl,__ ____ 2_0_1_3_t_o_2_0_2_2 _____ _, Years in Planning Period~ _______ l_O ______ _ Program Lengthl._ _______ 1_0 ______ _.... Estimated Water Savings Annual Est i mated Savings Ratel._ ___ 2_.00_% __ _ Water Use Annual Program Estimated Annual Water Savings (gallons/yr) (gallons/tap) Participants Single-Family 78,204 750 1,173,064 Multi-Family 404,055 250 2,020,276 Estimated Annual Water Savings ____ 3_._2 ___ MG/yr Estimated Savings over Planning Period 175 .6 MG Notes : Estimated Savings over Planning Period is calculated by compounding the estimated annual water savings per the total number of participants for each given year. Estimated Water Use is based on the following 2005-2011 average : Single Family= 0.24 at/tap Potable Multi-Family= 1.24 af/tap Costs Total Cost to Water Provider Labor Costs Staff Hours (Website updates, etc.) Hourly Cost Annual Staff Costs Evaluation and Follow up Costs Annual Labor One Material Costs One Time Materials Cost (Bulk Purchase of 10000 0 $50.00 $0 .00 /year /hour $0.00 /year $0.00 /year Audit Kits) ___ -'-$_5-'9,'--9_00_._oo_ Water Rates Rate Category Current Rates/Fees Base Fee for First 400,000 gallons $3.29 Notes : Online instruction can be set up on City Website. Residential water conservation educational kits are available at wholesalers like AM Conservation Group, Inc. for $5.99 per unit for a bulk purchase of 10000 uni ts. Kits can be customized to include the Englewood's logo. Notes : The annual revenue loss was estimated based on current rates for all Town customers. Estimated Revenue assumes that the current rates will not change over the planning period. Estimated Average Annual Revenue without Water Savings $1,119,059.82 /year Estimated Average Annual Revenue with Water Savings $1 ,097,562 .52 /year Annual Revenue Loss Related to Water Savings $21,497.29 /year Estimated Annual Cost $21,497.29 /year Estimated Cost over Planning Period not Including Lost Revenue_---'$_S_9.;..,9_o_o_.o_o __ Estimated Total Cost over Planning Period Including Set-up and Lost Revenue __ $.;..2_7~4.;..,8_7_2_.9_S __ Cost per 1000 Gallons Saved $1.57 • • • • • • Public Education -bill stuffers and website Water providers may periodically provide customers with water conservation tips in water bills, on their website , and at the front desk of their office. Planning Peri od !.__ ____ 2_0_1_3_to_2_0_2_2 ___ __, Years in Planning Period,--______ 1_0 ______ .., Program Length!~ _____ l_O _____ ___, Estimated Water Savings Annual Estimated Savings Rate._! ___ 1_._00_%_. __ __, Estimated Average Annual Annual Water Water Use Savings Customer Category MG MG/yr Sinl!le-Family 640 6.4 Multi-Family 378 3 .8 Commercial 338 3.4 Estimated Annual Water Savlngs ____ 13_._6 ___ MG/yr Estimated Savings over Planning Period 136 MG costs Total Cost to Water Provider Water Rates labor Costs Staff Hoursl Hourly Co st. Annual Labor Materials Costs 40,/year $50.00/hour $2,000.00 /year Unit Cost (cost of Bill Stuffers) ______ $_0_.7--iS /participant Number of Participants 10,342 /year Annual Materials $7,756.50 /year 1.urrent Kates Rate Category (per 1000 gallons) Base Fee for First 400,000 gallons $3 .29 Notes: Estimated saving for bill stuffers and website education is 1%. Notes : Staff hours include time spent preparing and updating website, and preparing bill stuffers . Average 10,342 tap accounts The AWWA has bill stutfers available for purchase. Average cost per bill stuffer ranged from $0.50 to $0. 75 per item . The City may also purchase bi-lingual bill stutters and offer bi-lingual information on their website . Notes : The annual revenue Joss was estimated based on current rates for all Town customers. Estimated Revenue assumes that the current rates will not change over the planning period. Est i mated Average Annual Revenue without Water Savings $4,463,035 .40 /year Estimated Average Annual Revenue with Water Savings $4 ,418,405.05 /year Estimated Annual Revenue Loss Related to Water Savings $44,630.35 /year Estimated Annual Cost $54,386.85 /year Estimated Cost over Planning Period not including Lost Revenue $97,565 .00 Revenue $543,868.54 Cost per 1000 Gallons Saved $4.01 Online Access to Water Bill & History Beginning in 2013, Englewood will be able to allow customers to access their water bill history Planning Period l.__ ____ 20_1_3_t_o_20_2_2 ____ _, Year s in Plannin g Period..--______ 1_0 ______ _, Program Len gth I 10 I Years Estimated Water Savings Annual Estimated Savings Ratel,___ __ 1_.0_%_. __ ,.. Estimated Annual Average Water Use Water Savi ngs MG Customer Category MG/yr Single-Fami ly 640 6.4 Multi-Family 378 3 .8 Commercial 338 3.4 Industrial 156 1.6 Est imated Annual Water Savings ___ 1_s_.1 ___ MG/yr Estimated Savings over Planning Period 151 MG Costs Total Cost to Water Provider Water Rates Labor Costs Staff Hoursl 01/year Hourly Cost i------$-50-.-00--t/hour Annual Labor $0.00 /year Materials Costs Unit Cost I $0.001/participant Number of Participants1----------o""',1year Annual Materials $0.00 /year Rate Category Current Rates/Fees Base Fee for First 400,000 gallons $3 .29 Notes: This meosure was analyzed for meter ed customers only. Notes: Notes: The annual revenue loss was estimated based on current rates for o/1 Town customers. Estimated Revenue assumes that the current rates will not change over the planning period. Estimated Average Annual Revenue without Water Savings Estimated Average Annual Revenue with Water Savings Estimated Annual Revenue Loss Related to Water Savings $4,975,229.18 /year $4,925,476.89 /year $49,752.29 /year Estimated Annual Cost $49,752.29 /year Estimated Cost over Planning Period not including Lost Revenue $0.00 -------Estimated Total Cost over Planning Period Including Set-up and Lost Revenue $497,522 .92 ------- Cost per 1000 Gallons Saved $3.29 • • • • • • Post or Distribute ET Irrigation Scheduling ET irrigation schedules using historical averages of weather data can be prepared by the City prior to the irrigation season and sent out to all customer categories to reference when programming their irrigation systems. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District has tools on their website that can aid with this calculation. The schedule could be printed on the bill or posted on the web at the beginning or for the duration of the irrigation season. Planning Period~j _____ 2_0_1_3_to_2_0_2_2 ____ _. Years in Planning Period ..... ______ 1_0 ______ _, Program Length j 10 I years Estimated Water Savings Annual Estimated Savings Rate~j ___ 1_.0_% __ _, Estimated Average Outdoor Annual Water Water Use MG Savings Customer Category MG/yr Single-Family 320 3.2 Multi-Family 189 1.9 Commercial 169 1.7 Estimated Annual Water Savings ____ 6_.s ____ gallons/yr Estimated Savings over Planning Period 68 gallons Costs Total Cost to Water Provider Water Rates Labor Costs Staff Hours I Hourly Cost Annual Labor Materials Costs 81/year $50.00/hour $400.00 /year Unit Cost (cost of Bill Stuffers) ______ $0_._7"""5 /participant Number of Participants 10,342 /year Annual Materials $7,756.50 /year Rate Category Current Rates/Fees Base Fee for First 400,000 gallons $3 .29 Notes : This measure affects projected outdoor water usage for the customer categories shown . Estimate that approximately 50% of use is used outdoors. Notes : Staff hours include time spent preparing schedules. Send out a schedule one time per year. One time costs include schedule program set up. Average 10,342 tap accounts Notes : The annual revenue loss was estimated based on current rates for all Town customers. Estimated Revenue assumes that the current rates will not change over the planning period. Estimated Average Annual Revenue without Water Savings $2,231,517.70 /year Estimated Average Annual Revenue with Water Savings $2,209,202 .52 /year Estimated Annual Revenue Loss Related to Water Savings $22,315.18 /year Estimated Annual Cost $30,471.68 /year Estimated Cost over Planning Period not including Lost Revenue __ $;...8_1...;.,5_6_S_._oo __ Estimated Total Cost over Planning Period Including Set-up and Lost Revenue $304,716.77 Cost per 1000 Gallons Saved $4.49 School Education Program -Existing Each year, Englewood hosts school children at the water treatment plant for water day. Planning Period ... I _____ 2_0_1_3_to_2_0_2_2 ___ __. Years in Planning Period _______ 10 ______ ...., Program Length! 10 lyears Estimated Water Savings Annual Estimated Savings Ratel ... ___ o_.5_% __ __. Estimated Average Water Use Annual Water MG Savings Customer Category MG/yr Single-Family 640 3.2 Multi-Family 189 0.9 Estimated Annual Water Savings ____ 4_.l ____ gallons/yr Estimated Savings over Planning Period 41.5 gallons Costs Total Cost to Water Provider Water Rates Labor Costs Staff Hours I Hourly Cost Annual Labor Materials Costs Annual Materials Budget! Annual Materials Rate Category Base Fee for First 400,000 gallons 161/year $50.00 /hour $800.00 /year $5ool1year $500.00 /year Current Rates/Fees $3 .29 Notes: This measure only affects Single-Family and Multi-Family metered water usage. Assume 0.25% savings of projected water usage. Notes: Staff hours include time preparing for and participating in water day {16 hours). Material costs include an annual budget for education materials costs. Notes: The annual revenue loss was estimated based on current rates for all Town customers. Estimated Revenue assumes that the current rates will not change over the planning period. Estimated Average Annual Revenue without Water Savings Estimated Average Annual Revenue with Water Savings Annual Revenue Loss Related to Water Savings $621,873 .21 /year $608,235.05 /year $13,638.15 /year Estimated Annual Cost $14,938.15 /year Estimated Cost over Planning Period not including Lost Revenue $13,000.00 Estimated Total Cost over Planning Period Including Set-up and Lost Revenue Cost per 1000 Gallons Saved $149,381.54 $3.60 • • • • • • Residential Water Audits The City envisions a residential audit program in which local plumbers may be utilized to perform water audits for customers. Planning Period!,__ ____ 2_0_13_t_o_20_2_2 _____ _. Years in Planning Period _______ 1_0 ______ _ Program Length _______ 1_0 ______ _ Estimated Water Savings Annual Estimated Residential Water Use Per Tap without Savings Single-Family 78,204 Multi-Family 404,055 Total 482 ,259 Annual Estimated Savings Rate! ____ 3%_. __ _ gallons/tap gallons/tap gallons/tap Annual Program Participantsl ___ 1_8_6 __ __.l/year Maximum No. of Participants over Planning Period. 1860 Annual Estimated Residential Water Use Per Tap with Savings Costs Single-Family 75,858 gallons/tap Multi-Family.__ __ 3_9_1..:.,9_3_4 __ _.gallons/tap Estimated Annual Water Savings 2.7 gallons/yr Estimated Savings over Planning Period 148 gallons Total Cost to Water Provider Labor Costs Staff Hours (Website updates, etc.)1--------2-10 /year Hourly Cost $50.00 /hour Annual Labor $1,000.00 /year Materials Costs Unit Cost _______ $0_._00-1/participant Number of Participants 186 /year Annual Materials $0.00 /year Water Rates (2012) Rate Category Current Rates/Fees Base Fee for First 400,000 gallons $3.29 Notes: Estimated Water Use is based on the following 2005-2011 average: Single Family= 0.24 af/tap Potable Multi- Family = 1.24 af/tap Estimate that by 2022, 20% of residential accounts (total taps avg 9,294 taps) will have participated (approx. 1860 participants). Assume annual participation of 186 and 3% savings of average household use . Estimated Savings over Planning Period is calculated by compounding the estimated annual water savings per the total number of audit participants for each given year. Notes: The City may help put plumbers in touch with interested customers. Notes : The annual revenue loss was estimated based on current rates for all Town customers. Estimated Revenue assumes that the current rates will not change over the planning period. Estimated Average Annual Revenue without Water Savings _ ...... $4_8_2 __ ,2_5_9_.4_8 __ /year Estimated Average Annual Revenue with Water Savings $480,812.70 /year Annual Revenue Loss Related to Water Savings $1,446.78 /year Estimated Annual Cost __ $;..2..:.,44_6_.7_8 __ /year Estimated Cost over Planning Period not including Lost Revenue _ ...... $_1_0,_000_._o_o __ Estimated Total Cost over Planning Period Including Set-up and Lost Revenue_ ...... $_2_4,~4_6_7._7_8 __ Cost per 1000 Gallons Saved $0.17 Commercial and Industrial Water Audits Commercial and Industrial customers are often the highest water users and have been an area of increasing focus for water conservation. Commercial and Industrial customers who participate in a water audit could identify ways to reduce their operating costs over the long term. Water audits can be performed by a third party consultant and is an effective way to educate businesses on how they can save water. Planning Period ._I _____ 20_1_3_t_o_2_0_2_2 ______ ...., Years in Planning Period ________ 1_0 _______ _ Program Length ________ 1_0 _______ _ Estimated Water Savings Annual Estimated Savings Rate._l ___ 1_0% ___ - Water Use Per Tap Annua1 nogram tsr1marea Annua, warer :,avmgs Customer Category g~llnnd•~n Participants gallons/yr Commercial 329,110 20 658,219 Industrial 10,922,526 1 1,092,2 53 Estimated Annual Water Savings ____ l_.s ____ gallons/yr Estimated Savings over Planning Period 96 gallons Notes: Estimated Water Use is based on a 1.01 AF/tap use for Commercial taps and 33.52 AF/tap Indu strial taps . This is the overage tap use for 2006 through 2011 . Estimated Savings aver Planning Period is calculated by compounding the estimated annual water savings per the total number of audit participants for each given year. For example, in the first year of the program, there are 20 participants . In the second year of the program, there are water savings from the 20 participants from last year's program, and new participants thereby compounding the savings . Costs Total Cost to Water Provider Labor Costs Staff Hoursl Hourly Cost Annual Labor Materials Costs 81/year $50.00 /hour $400.00 /year Unit Costl $500.001/participant Number of Participants,_ _______ 2....,1 _!year Annual Materials $10,500.00 /year Water Rates (2012} Rate category Current Rates/Fees Base Fee for First 400,000 gallons $3.29 Notes : Staff hours include time for coordination with third party consultants. Consultants may be hired ta perform audits at an average cost of approximately $500.00 per audit. Notes : The annual revenue loss was estimated based on current rates for all Town customers. Estimated Revenue assumes that the current rates will not change over the planning period. Estimated Average Annual Revenue without Water Savings ___ $_1_7_6_,8_3_5_.2_5 ___ /year Estimated Average Annual Revenue with Water Savings $164,654.07 /yea r Annual Revenue Loss Related to Water Savings $12,181 .18 /year Estimated Annual Cost __ .....;.$_2-'3,'--0_8_1._1_8 ___ /yea r Estimated Cost over Planning Period not including Lost Revenue ___ $'-1_0_9.:..,00_0_.oo __ _ Estimated Total Cost over Planning Period Including Set-up and Lost Revenue $230,811.82 ---------Cost per 1000 Gallons Saved $2 .40 • • • • • APPENDIX B Public-Review Process • Ad# Legal Publication Invoice Cal11y BurragP C,ty nf EnqlPwood Util1t1es DPJ ,,;ir 171Pnt · · 1000 Enylewooct Pkwy Englewood CO 8011f Text 000l1986 No 4211 .YAffR Paylllent Terms Net 30 Affidavits will be sent upon ,ece,µl of pay111ent Start U4 26 <'01'.s Colorado Community Media • lotor ut <)"37 ~ Q •rt' 1Jf 1 \,J 1 U"lt" •(; • '11(, I f ,-1 • URL wwv... ourcolorac!u11ews c,olll Arct ri 00029448 Pl1une 11 Post Date 04 27201 J Due Date 05127 20 I~ Stop Ins. Amount Prepaid Due ,)4 262013 .!CJ HlJ (t uo Ill 8( 1 • Total Due 20.80 • • C,)!l,nllli111V t\1ed1c1 r f Colorad() Pl1011e (31):l) 566--1 08<.J f' 111,111 v_Q®~.LQ!Qli'!\JQnews 1.,,rn State of Colorado County o f Arapahoe AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION JSS This Affidavit o f Publi ca ti on for the Englewood Herald. a weekly newspape1 printed and published for tt1e County of Arapahoe. State of Colorado. l1ereby certifies th a t the attached legc11 notice was rubl1shed 1n said newspaper once in each wee!\. for 1 sucress1ve wee kt:; 1 thE, l;:ist of which µubl1cat1011 was made the 26th day of Apnl A. D . 2013 and that copies of eact1 numher of said paper 111 which sa id Public Notice w;:is ruhl1s t1 ecJ were <iel1vered by earners or tran sm itt ed by mail lo each of the subscribe rs of said paper according to the ir accustomed mode of business in • th1sofflce • for the Englewood Herald Slate of Colorado J County of Arapahoe )SS TtiP ;:ihnvP Aff1<i;:iv1t a11d Cert ificate of Publi cation was subscribed and sworn to before me by tt1 e above named Gerard Healey . publisher o f said newspaper who 1s personally known to me to be th e identical person 1n the above cert1f1cate on tt11s 26 th day of Apnl AD .. 2013 Notary Public . f'LJl'si I NI) l lLf 'll IHL dlJNATU,,,;fJN ~l:H 1\11'.,Jl"Ll,N , 1 r , ()~ ENGi E\<'10<1ri r rn ORM••., l'UHI I(' ( nr .. lldf-N r PF-RII ,r, Ul\'r hi JULY hi 211L N1111r t• , ... ht"'lf1 h\ 4 1 ':'I 1:1 II f!H:' Cll} r ! r nul1 .•,, if1,1 , 1, ,..., u1•ddtm,i 1t, i'lt..i-1.·vr11,:.1 \...,ni,.:.~•i ·11 ,11 i>1.tr1 1.-1u .... 11.;111 h ,1.11, .. 1.i\·. 1111 .. c,,,( 1....., -:t-f'.'~11,l, ~-11!d,, •11111\t"'fll (.)\,..I 1'1t-:' Ill JC1 (, I drl:-c l ht• ( 1tyc _J(1JJ \/V 1:••r l_1111:,.eruH1t1I f'I 1111:-- lf~--.HjlH--d k, fHl•lllnl,· !tit· ,·fflr.1r,1,1 c ,,n· .... 111 11p111_111 nl .di ~\idlt.,, ll~dqt.~ l,y 11;=~,rffnl !iu.:..1n(•','.°it.~ dfltl ha.,11 (J1l\1Hr1!11lf:"•f)I '-I ll 1)1/_llt.: t1t.;'l1t-::'1tt.kllly ll~I:-' l•lll \\rllt·'.'1 I•"" 1Uf1 ('~ rlllfi 111<.tllf"' .1 fultllt' ~oldf:-qUdlt7 \'\rift·! '-:,lli1fdy li tt' _1111·( V\'dl>:.•1 C<•ll~Prv,illcHl PL111 ,..., cl\.,-ttlril·le 1, 1 IP\lf••A.• ~v flu-~ 11uhllr 4ftf-f ~.1(iy i .' 11 di lltP f nqlf:'Wlh)d C.1v11 c,, ... ,df-'I 11 11 (1E:11ql~•w111d r,11l._\\1lw f 1111l,..\\<nn•1 C'O h11nh1 ,,-~11111:l! t,u-..u,~._..., t1(11u~ .111•! ,.._,,,-;It-f <,ri ll1t-· ~11·, ,\,••t)...,llt· )I wwv-. t"'n4lt:''-v1_1nrlqi1. nr,1 PP<,1,I~ v\•1 .... 111111: , •• \ l11llfllt--ltl 1111 lht' 111.lfl r ,ill :--llfllflll \\'Ill!••!\ .ll/'li'lt"lf._, ti, Y -p.,'-,p1 At,uu,--n':->h 111 ttu ... U1'll11t-''-, Ut'J•'"'rt1111::11 t ,t i,,1 1v ~All or pt)Sl rn1 til t--C,11,, v.-d,1J,h.lt--rtn Int~, lh,H• r, 1111 r, 111 1111 Mond;ay Ju>, 1 .'01'1 l 111' pntrtl pf ( onta .! 11il !lit ~III:~ V\.tlf-'r Conf:.t:I vat101, Pl,.1n 1s Y .-1~,.:,e:1 Abuud1~11 I:: r 1~lt-wo1 }(j 111,lillt"~ D~parlmenl .-'II 1CU-/n2-2b 1)~ I ~c,dl N ol11 t, Ne, •i 11 r HSI Put,11ra110n Ai1fll .,:h ! ) 1 ~~ l ,.:i .... 1 Put 1hr a t1011 Ap11; .. •, . 1r t l ' Pul)ll'-f1r>r fli t-E-rililt-",.,.t,1 .. 1 t-,.;,'.r:111 ◄ APPENDIX C Public Comments and Response -. . • • • . . .. -•· • • • 2013 ENGLEWOOD WATER CONSERVATION PLAN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The City of Englewood has completed its 60-day public review period for the Water Conservation Plan that began on May 1, 2013 through July 1, 2013. Official notification was posted in the Englewood Herald (copy attached). A complete copy of the Plan was available at Englewood Civic Center and on the City's website. During the public-review period, the City received eight comments on the Plan. Complete copies of the public comments are found at the end of this Appendix. The following is a summary of the core issues conveyed in the public comments, and Englewood's response. Xeriscape Programs and Measures A couple of comments requested the incorporation of Xeriscape programs and incentives. The City did consider Xeriscape programs during the initial screening of potential conservation measures and programs. Based on the City's screening criteria (1. staff time, 2. financial implications and 3. political ramifications), the City does not currently have the staff resources to implement Xeriscape programs and did not feel the programs merited putting money into it. The City will re-evaluate Xeriscape measures and programs with future water conservation planning efforts. Englewood residents are encouraged to utilize Xeriscape landscape. Turf and Landscape Restrictions/Standards for New Construction One comment requested that Englewood limit the amount of grass for new homes and businesses and require the use of low water usage grasses. Englewood staff considered turf and landscape restrictions/standards for new construction. Based on the City's screening criteria (1. staff time, 2. financial implications and 3. political ramifications), the City decided to re-evaluate new constructions restrictions and standards with future water conservation planning efforts. Mandatory Watering Schedule A resident requested that Englewood go to a mandatory three-day-a-week watering schedule on a permanent basis . While this may be necessary during a water shortage or drought, the City felt that a mandatory three-day-a-week watering schedule is not necessary to reach its water conservation goals. Water Rates There were several comments provided regarding water rates. One comment suggested that the City should use a base rate which accounts for the cost of the system operations, plus a reasonable amount of water for household use and landscaping; (with an allowance for trees and gardens) and then have a surcharge for excessive use , and an even higher rate for usage that is clearly wasteful or abusive. Incorporated into the Conservation Plan is a water rate study . The study will consider all of the elements of this comment and determine if any changes need to be made to Englewood's current water rate structure . One resident was concerned that the City Code regarding the conversion of flat-rate customers to metered customers was changing to require flat-rate customers to install meters . The City Code is not changing. The Englewood Meter Replacement Program (EMAP) discussed in the Plan is voluntary. EMAP takes the difference between what the customer pays for the non-metered rate and what the customer would pay for the metered rate and uses that money to help pay the cost of installing the water meter. If provided a grant by the CWCB, Englewood would like to expand upon their current program by providing 50 to 100 meters at no cost to the customer while the customer continues to pay the flat rate charges, as further incentive for meter replacement. If the customer converts, the money received by the City would go to providing a meter for another flat rate customer. .. • The City would like to respond to an inaccuracy regarding Englewood's water rates as compared to Denver 's water rates. The comment states that Denver rates are $2.59/1000 gallons plus $6.33 ad min fee; Englewood's rate is $3 .29/1000 gallons plus a $9 . 71 ad min fee. According to the resident , if you use 10,000 gallons in a billing period you pay $4 .26/1000 gallons in Englewood , vs $3 .22/1000 gallons in Denver . However, the calculat ion did not consider that Denver Water bills monthly while Englewood bills • on a quarterly basis . If we examine a scenario in which one uses 10 ,000 gallons per month for a three-month period, an Englewood resident would pay $3.61/1,000 gallons as compared to $3.22/1,000 gallons in Denver. A comment was made regarding the fact that Englewood's current rate structure charges less per 1,000 gallons for water consumption over 400,000 gallons. The current rate structure is an incentive for industry and large water users and it is unlikely that residents will reach the 400 ,000 gallon threshold . As mentioned previously, a water rate study will evaluate the current water rates and determine if any changes need to be made to Englewood 's current water rate structure . Rainwater Harvesting and Graywater Reuse There were a couple of comments made regarding rainwater harvesting and incorporating the practice into this Plan. Capturing rainwater is an ongoing issue in Colorado , and it is not allowed if it will injure vested water rights . For the most part, Colorado law does not allow homeowner to collect or use rainwater runoff from roof unless their only source of water is a well on the property. In 2009 , however, the Colorado State Legislature passed two laws that carve out exemptions from the general rule -The first law says that if you are not served by a domestic water system and you are located in a designated ground water basin or your collection system qualifies as exempt from 37-92-602(1 )(g)(I), you are allowed to • • capture rainwater for household, fire protection, stock watering and irrigation of up to one acre of lawns and gardens as long as it is applied to uses specified in the well permit that applies to your property. The second law allows the State to participate in a study of 10 new developments to determine the impact of capturing rainwater on streams, rivers and tributary groundwater. Additionally a couple of comments were made regarding graywater reuse. The term "graywater" means discharges from bathroom and laundry room sinks, bathtubs, showers, laundry machines and other sources authorized by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. In May 2013, the Colorado General Assembly passed House Bill 1044, which authorized the use of graywater. The majority of Englewood's water rights do not allow for reuse, particularly if that reuse involves further consumption of the water. Public Education A couple of comments were provided regarding public education. Based on the City's screening criteria (1. staff time, 2. financial implications and 3. political ramifications), the City does not currently have the staff resources to devote to educational classes. However, the Plan includes educational kits, public education through newsletter, bill stutters and the City Website, online access to water bill and history and distribution of ET irrigation scheduling in water bill. The City will re-evaluate education measures and programs with future water conservation planning efforts. • City Building Fixtures • A comment was made that every toilet that is in an Englewood controlled building should be modified or replaced with low usage toilets. Currently, as new toilets and fixtures are needed in City buildings, low water use fixtures are used as a replacement. Comment 1 : / strongly recommend that everyone involved with the water conservation plan be required to read "Rainwater Harvesting for Dry/ands and Beyond Vol. 1-3" by Brad Landcaster. I would also like to see the city use more xeriscaping around city facilities. It's baffling why you have lawn around places like the WTP, city maintenance facility, Police station, etc. The only person who ever sets foot on those expanses of grass are the people who mow them, truly a waste of water and maintenance. Allow and implement the use of greywater. Give incentives for xeriscaping. Limit the amount of grass for new homes and businesses and require the use of low water usage grasses. Go to a mandatory 3 day a week watering schedule all of the time. Comment 2: Water is the staff of life ..... we all know that. We cannot do without it and our quality of life, particularly here in the dry Western Desert, depends upon the availability of good, clean water. I am sure that is why our civic leaders in Englewood worked so hard to obtain water rights for Englewood-to insure that our quality of life would remain high because we had enough water. In the 1970's, Englewood had a "flat rate" water billing system. We paid in advance, and the city had a stable, absolutely predictable fund to pay the cost of providing water. Our lawns and neighborhoods were green and inviting. The name "Englewood" seemed to describe our green urban forest . Now we have water meters and we sell our "excess" water to more affluent neighborhoods. The rationale for this was that by selling our excess water, Englewood would have plenty and our rates would stay lower than surrounding cities. Unfortunately, this hasn't worked out. Denver rates right now are $2. 59/1000 gallons plus $6.33 admin fee; Englewood's rate is $3.2911000 gallons plus a $9. 71 admin fee. If you use 10,000 gallons in a billing period you pay $4.26/1000 gallons in Englewood, vs $3. 22/1000 gallons in Denver. As just a side note, if you are one of Englewood's "out of city" metered customers, you only pay an admin fee of $9. 22. So much for the theory of "sell off our water and pay less for the water we use." Over the past several decades, as Englewood's water policy has moved from a flat rate, predictable cost to a metered cost, Englewood's neighborhoods have consistently declined in appearance. Certainly a big part of that has been the fact that bluegrass lawns are water guzzlers and have become very expensive to maintain under the current water pricing system, and as you drive through the city you can see numerous homes with dead or abandoned lawns, but also fewer gardens and more neglected trees. No rational person is going to suggest that we encourage bluegrass lawns, or running water in the gutter. But our policies are not encouraging APPROPRIATE WATER USE to Keep Englewood Beautiful. As the appearance of our neighborhoods continues its decline, so does the desire to live here, raise a family, participate in civic affairs, and so forth. Our water policies have contributed to this decline even though we seem to have enough water to take a more enlightened approach, saving water appropriately, but encouraging water use that keeps Englewood an attractive, livable city. It is vexing to me that Englewood's neighborhoods can't afford the water that we are selling to other, more affluent metro neighborhoods to waste on THEIR lawns and green space, which they seem to do with reckless abandon, even to the point, in Highlands Ranch, of penalizing homeowners who do not use enough water on their lawns. Obviously, they have recognized that people want to live and do business in a city which has visually appealing trees, landscaping, and so forth. We apparently haven't figured that out, even though we already have the water resources. Obviously, the cost of water is a much small part of a family's budget in a more affluent community than it is in less affluent Englewood. So I see nothing in the proposed Water Conservation Plan to encourage the APPROPRIATE USE of the water Englewood owns to improve the quality of the appearance and livability of the City of Englewood, taking into account that our city is not as affluent as some of our Southern neighbors. For instance, Englewood's development guidelines require trees, and our Concrete Replacement plan requires replacement trees when a tree is removed next to a sidewalk. But our water conservation plan gives no thought to the cost or effort involved in owning a tree, or the water required. Trees are an expensive addition to a homeowner's landscape . They require watering, maintenance, insurance, trimming, and probably eventual expensive removal. I guess a "conservation minded" citizen should simply do without trees. But can you imagine Englewood without trees? Certainly the "wood" part refers to our attractive urban forest. I imagine the growing number of apartment dwellers in Englewood feel that their water rate should be lower, after all they don't have trees, or grass or gardens, or flowers to tend, water and maintain. So it seems to me that Englewood homeowners should not be disadvantaged when compared to apartment dwellers, or to homeowners in more affluent areas to whom • • • • • • Englewood sells water. While a homeowner will probably use more water, much of that will to enhance the urban landscape, providing trees and landscaping which enhances all of our quality of life. There is clearly a benefit to the community provided by homeowners who invest in trees and appropriate landscaping, and a water conservation program should recognize this benefit and encourage trees through water pricing. Tree ownership should not be mandated by the City, and then immediately penalized by Englewood's water pricing policy. Similarly, some thought should be given to the social and community benefit provided by a homeowner who has a flower or vegetable garden, enhancing the beauty of the neighborhood and the livability of the urban landscape . These gardens should be encouraged, not penalized by water pricing when compared to the person who only plants a water guzzling bluegrass lawn. Again, isn't it curious that the City of Englewood is now subsidizing a community garden for people (apartment dwellers) who cannot have their own garden, but gives no break to the homeowner who owns, pays taxes on, and provides his own garden area. Additionally, it is curious that this "Conservation Plan" doesn't seem to encourage, or even to allow some innovative conservation techniques, such as grey water systems, rain barrels, low flow toilets, and so forth. Grey water systems should be encouraged when appropriately designed and installed. There is no good reason why bathing or hand washing water cannot be used again for toilet flushing before it passes back into the sanitary sewer system. This does not affect the amount of water available for re-introduction back into the river as treated effluent, but will reduce the amount needed to operate a household. Similarly, cisterns designed to catch and use rainwater for garden or lawn, or household use should be encouraged and allowed. It is curious that Englewood "claims" that runoff rain water creates a storm drainage burden that must be remediated through a tax, but will not allow a homeowner to catch and use that rainwater, thereby eliminating this storm drainage burden. Homeowners should be encouraged to use low flow toilets, low flow showerheads, drip irrigation for flowerbeds and gardens; if not through a rebate program then at least through an education program, classes, product recommendations, and so forth. Some considerable thought should be given to the problems faced by a family trying to plan a family budget and the effects of a constantly changing water bill which seems to be out of their control. A family should be able to predict its water bill with some certainty, even through periods of drought. I suggest that the city should use a base rate which completely accounts for the cost of the system operations, plus a reasonable amount of water for household use and landscaping; (with an allowance for trees and gardens, as mentioned earlier) and then have a surcharge for excessive use, and an even higher rate for usage that is clearly wasteful or abusive. Under this scenario, a family could reasonably plan and know its costs, and would be encouraged to not abuse or waste this water resource, but would be encouraged to have trees, a garden, flowers and so forth. The rate paid by apartment dwellers should take into account that someone else, i.e. homeowners and the City through its parks, is paying the cost of the landscaping amenities, trees, lawns, and so forth which we all enjoy in this SUBURBAN environment In Summary, we all know that waste is bad. Now we need to recognize that the quality of life in Eng/wood, in the future, will be determined by how we allow and encourage appropriate use of the water resources we own, and which we are constantly reminded that are more than adequate . Our Conservation Plan should plan for not just water conservation , but should embrace innovative water saving technologies to "stretch " the water we can use, and should ENCOURAGE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF WATER, using our pricing mechanism to insure that we have the kind of landscaping, trees, gardens, flowers and water efficient landscaping that will "Keep Englewood Beautiful" and provide a high quality of life for our residents and businesses. Comment 3: Page ES-1. Paragraph 3; table ES1 would seem to indicate that water used should be 70 ,677 AF (or are you referring to a savings?). Page 12, reference to fig 2.4 ; do we really charge less for more consumption? $2 .04 for heavier users vs. $3 . 29 for lighter users ... That would seem to discourage conservation. Page 15, reference to fig 2.5 should be 2.6 (or vice versa). Comment 4: Table 2.2 . Where are the Rainfall numbers from? Englewood, Watershed from where we get our water, snowpack, does it exclude our snowfall, etc.? .... I 'd like to see a reference. Figure 2. 5. on the Y axis it is really easy to (mentally) put a comma where there is a period in the Y values ; I would recommend using the number without decimals (e.g.1000) or with only one decimal (e.g . 1000.0) ..... or just use billion gallons with one decimal. Pretty amazing how water use has gone down (3 billion to 2 billion) .... Something was really done right to get this to happen! Figures 2. 1 and 2. 2 need to be readable (higher resolution?). Figure 2.2. Englewood Water (Mains/Lines?) over 8 inches in Diameter. I know what you mean but citizens might not. • Comment 5: I've attached a brochure from the City of Calgary, Alberta, that encourages • residents to collect rainwater for their landscape watering . I suggest that Englewood consider this practice. Ottawa, Ontario, Convention Centre collects rainwater for toilet and urinal flushing saving 359,000 gallons per year--another practical conservation approach. I appreciate that this is a Water Conservation Plan but I think it concentrates too much on reducing water use including punitive measures, and not enough on efficient use of the resource. I believe the plan should discuss collaboration with other City departments to achieve some of the goals. For instance working with Parks and Recreation for educational seminars and even gardens and alternative grasses for lawns, or Community Development to achieve a balance between landscaping requirements and water use. Englewood participates in the Arbor Day Foundations Tree City program promoting a healthy urban forest. Water plays an essential part in maintaining that urban forest. The only mention of trees in the entire plan is on page 25 where it talks about removing native tree species as a way of conserving water! EMC 16-6-7 details required landscaping standards for new development and again this plan doesn 't really address the water use issues presented by these City requirements . Public education is an essential element if this plan is to succeed, but aside from the Pipeline publication, while widely distributed I suspect isn 't widely read, there seems to • • • • be little else . In fact, according to Page 27 Xeriscape education is left to Denver Water. While the Water Day for school children is a laudable program, it is the parents who make most of the water use decisions I would hate to see Englewood buried in mountains of crushed rock simply because it requires less water. Comment 6: Every toilet that is in an Englewood controlled building should be modified or replaced with low usage ones,,,fire stations, police buildings , court houses ,,,,Englewood. Public buildings,etc ,,all! Comment 7: "Water Conservation Plan" Will we keep the code below? It does not require all flat rate customers to be updated. Is that correct? "The Englewood Municipal Code includes a requirement for all flat-rate customers to install approved water meters when they sell or transfer their property. The Code states: ''All owners of property having unmetered water service shall be required to install approved water meter within ninety (90) days after the sale or transfer of the property or change in property use from residential to commercial or industrial. Whenever a meter is to be installed, it shall be supplied by the Englewood Utilities Department at the owners cost." Comment 8 : After reading Mr. Woullard's article in the Hub regarding water conservation , it really peaked my interest as I am one of the 10,00{0] plus homes on a water meter . I understand there are 2,074 single family dwellings under the flat rate system, and I am sure several of these homeowners are trying to conserve water. However, there are a percentage of these homes that are taking advantage of this system. I have a neighbor that will use one of the fountain type sprinklers. They will set it in one spot in the morning and it will still be in the same spot in the afternoon. When confronted as to why they would do such a thing there comment is "we don't care we don't pay for water." In addition I drive S. Logan to Belleview to and from work every week . There are a few houses where the water is on in the afternoons prior to 6:00 pm. I do not know whether these homes are metered or on the flat rate system, either way they should not be watering during the heat of the day. My opinion is that all single family dwellings should have a meter installed sooner than later . 2013 ENGLEWOOD WATER CONSERVATION PLAN COMMENTS AND RESPONSES The City of Englewood has completed its 60-day public review period for the water conservation plan that began on May 1, 2013 through July 1, 2013. Official notification was posted in the Englewood Herald (copy attached). During the pre- approval period, three newspaper articles were published ; an article in the Denver Post, Your Hub dated May 29, 2013, "Englewood creates water conservation plan, seeks input," an article in the Coyote Gulch dated May 1, 2013, "Englewood rolls out draft water conservation plan #CO drought," and an article in the Englewood Herald dated April 26, 2013, "Water plan awaits comment." A complete copy of the plan was available at Englewood Civic Center and on the City 's website. During the public-review period, the City received eight comments on the plan. • The following is a list of the comments , summary of the core issues conveyed in • the public comments, and Englewood's response . COMMENTS: Comment 1 : / strongly recommend that everyone involved with the water conservation plan be required to read "Rainwater Harvesting for Dry/ands and Beyond Vol. 1-3" by Brad Landcaster. I would also like to see the city use more xeriscaping around city facilities. It's baffling why you have lawn around places like the WTP, city maintenance facility, Police station, etc. The only person who ever sets foot on those expanses of grass are the people who mow them, truly a waste of water and maintenance. Allow and implement the use of greywater. Give incentives for xeriscaping. Limit the amount of grass for new homes and businesses and require the use of low water usage grasses. Go to a mandatory 3 day a week watering schedule all of the time. RESPONSE: Xeriscape Programs and Measures Several comments requested the incorporation of xeriscape programs and incentives. The City did consider xeriscape programs during the initial screening of potential conservation measures and programs. Based on the City's screening criteria ( 1. staff time, 2 . financial implications and 3 . political ramifications), the City does not currently • • • • have the staff resources to implement xeriscape programs and d id not feel the programs merited putting money into it. The City will re-evaluate xeriscape measures and programs with future water conservation planning efforts. Englewood res idents are encouraged to utilize xeriscape landscape. Comment 2: Water is the staff of life ..... we all know that. We cannot do without it and our quality of life , particularly here in the dry Western Desert, depends upon the availability of good, clean water. I am sure that is why our civic leaders in Englewood worked so hard to obtain water rights for Englewood-to insure that our quality of life would remain high because we had enough water. In the 1970 's, Englewood had a ''flat rate " water billing system. We paid in advance, and the city had a stable , absolutely predictable fund to pay the cost of providing water. Our lawns and neighborhoods were green and inviting . The name "Englewood " seemed to describe our green urban forest. Now we have water meters and we sell our "excess " water to more affluent neighborhoods. The rationale for this was that by selling our excess water, Englewood would have plenty and our rates would stay lower than surrounding cities. Unfortunately, this hasn 't worked out. Denver rates right now are $2 . 59/1000 gallons plus $6.33 admin fee ; Englewood 's rate is $3.29/1000 gallons plus a $9. 71 admin fee . If you use 10,000 gallons in a billing period you pay $4 .26/1000 gallons in Englewood, vs $3. 22/1000 gallons in Denver. As just a side note, if you are one of Englewood 's "out of city" metered customers, you only pay an admin fee of $9.22. So much for the theory of "sell off our water and pay less for the water we use ." Over the past several decades, as Englewood 's water policy has moved from a flat rate , predictable cost to a metered cost, Englewood 's neighborhoods have consistently declined in appearance . Certainly a big part of that has been the fact that bluegrass lawns are water guzzlers and have become very expensive to maintain under the current water pricing system, and as you drive through the city you can see numerous homes with dead or abandoned lawns, but also fewer gardens and more neglected trees. No rational person is going to suggest that we encourage bluegrass lawns, or running water in the gutter. But our policies are not encouraging APPROPRIATE WATER USE to Keep Englewood Beautiful. As the appearance of our neighborhoods continues its decline, so does the desire to live here, raise a family, participate in civic affairs, and so forth. Our water policies have contributed to this decline even though we seem to have enough water to take a more enlightened approach, saving water appropriately, but encouraging water use that keeps Englewood an attractive, livable city. It is vexing to me that Englewood 's neighborhoods can 't afford the water that we are selling to other, more affluent metro neighborhoods to waste on THEIR lawns and green space, which they seem to do with reckless abandon, even to the point, in Highlands Ranch, of penalizing homeowners who do not use enough water on their lawns. Obviously, they have recognized that people want to Jive and do business in a city which has visually appealing trees, landscaping, and so forth . We apparently haven 't figured that out, even though we already have the water resources. Obviously, the cost of water is a much small part of a family 's budget in a more affluent community than it is in less affluent Englewood. So I see nothing in the proposed Water Conservation Plan to encourage the APPROPRIATE USE of the water Englewood owns to improve the quality of the appearance and livability of the City of Englewood, taking into account that our city is not as affluent as some of our Southern neighbors . For instance, Englewood 's development guidelines require trees, and our Concrete Replacement plan requires replacement trees when a tree is removed next to a sidewalk. But our water conservation plan gives no thought to the cost or effort involved in owning a tree, or the water required. Trees are an expensive addition to a homeowner's landscape . They require watering, maintenance, insurance, trimming, and probably eventual expensive removal. I guess a "conservation minded" citizen should simply do without trees. But can you imagine Englewood without trees? Certainly the "wood" part refers to our attractive urban forest. I imagine the growing number of apartment dwellers in Englewood feel that their water rate should be lower, after all they don't have trees, or grass or gardens, or flowers to tend, water and maintain. So it seems to me that Englewood homeowners should not be disadvantaged when compared to apartment dwellers, or to homeowners in more affluent areas to whom Englewood sells water. While a homeowner will probably use more water, much of that will to enhance the urban landscape, providing trees and landscaping which enhances all of our quality of life. There is clearly a benefit to the community provided by homeowners who invest in trees and appropriate landscaping, and a water conservation program should recognize this benefit and encourage trees through water pricing. Tree ownership should not be mandated by the City, and then immediately penalized by Englewood's water pricing policy. Similarly, some thought should be given to the social and community benefit provided by a homeowner who has a flower or vegetable garden, enhancing the beauty of the neighborhood and the livability of the urban landscape. These gardens should be encouraged, not penalized by water pricing when compared to the person who only plants a water guzzling bluegrass lawn. Again, isn 't it curious that the City of Englewood is now subsidizing a community garden for people (apartment dwellers) who cannot have their own garden, but gives no break to the homeowner who owns, pays taxes on, and provides his own garden area. Additionally, it is curious that this "Conservation Plan" doesn't seem to encourage, or even to allow some innovative conservation techniques, such as grey water systems, rain barrels, low flow toilets, and so forth. Grey water systems should be encouraged when appropriately designed and installed. There is no good reason why bathing or hand washing water cannot be used again for toilet flushing before it passes back into the sanitary sewer system. This does not affect the amount of water available for re-introduction back into the river as treated effluent, but will reduce the amount needed to operate a household. Similarly, cisterns designed to catch and use rainwater for garden or lawn, or household use should be encouraged and allowed. It is curious that Englewood "claims" that runoff rain water creates a storm drainage burden that must be remediated through a tax, but will not allow a homeowner to catch and use that rainwater, thereby eliminating this storm drainage burden. Homeowners should be encouraged to use low flow toilets, low flow showerheads, drip irrigation for flowerbeds and gardens; if not through a rebate program then at least through an education program, classes, product recommendations, and so forth . Some considerable thought should be given to the problems faced by a family trying to plan a family budget and the effects of a constantly • • • • • • changing water bill which seems to be out of their control. A family should be able to predict its water bill with some certainty, even through periods of drought. I suggest that the city should use a base rate which completely accounts for the cost of the system operations, plus a reasonable amount of water for household use and landscaping; (with an allowance for trees and gardens, as mentioned earlier) and then have a surcharge for excessive use, and an even higher rate for usage that is clearly wasteful or abusive . Under this scenario, a family could reasonably plan and know its costs, and would be encouraged to not abuse or waste this water resource, but would be encouraged to have trees, a garden, flowers and so forth. The rate paid by apartment dwellers should take into account that someone else, i.e. homeowners and the City through its parks, is paying the cost of the landscaping amenities, trees, lawns, and so forth which we all enjoy in this SUBURBAN environment In Summary, we all know that waste is bad. Now we need to recognize that the quality of life in Eng/wood, in the future, will be determined by how we allow and encourage appropriate use of the water resources we own, and which we are constantly reminded that are more than adequate. Our Conservation Plan should plan for not just water conservation, but should embrace innovative water saving technologies to "stretch" the water we can use, and should ENCOURAGE THE APPROPRIATE USE OF WATER, using our pricing mechanism to insure that we have the kind of landscaping, trees, gardens, flowers and water efficient landscaping that will "Keep Englewood Beautiful" and provide a high quality of life for our residents and businesses. RESPONSE: See prior response on "Xeriscape Programs and Measures". Water Rates There were several comments provided regarding water rates. One comment suggested that the City should use a base rate which accounts for the cost of the system operations, plus a reasonable amount of water for household use and landscaping; (with an allowance for trees and gardens) and then have a surcharge for excessive use, and an even higher rate for usage that is clearly wasteful or abusive. Incorporated into the conservation plan is a future water rate study. The study will consider all of the elements of this comment and determine if any changes need to be made to Englewood's current water rate structure. Public Education A couple of comments were provided regarding public education. Based on the City's screening criteria (1. staff time, 2. financial implications and 3. political ramifications), the City does not currently have the staff or financial resources to devote to educational classes. However, the plan includes educational kits, public education through newsletter, bill stuffers and the city website, online access to water bill and history and distribution of ET irrigation scheduling in water bill. The City will re-evaluate education measures and programs with future water conservation planning efforts . Comment 3: Page ES-1. Paragraph 3; table ES1 would seem to indicate that water used should be 70,677 AF (or are you referring to a savings?). Page 12, reference to fig 2.4; do we really charge less for more consumption? $2.04 for heavier users vs. $3. 29 for lighter users ... That would seem to discourage conservation . Page 15, reference to fig 2.5 should be 2.6 (or vice versa). RESPONSE: A comment was made regarding the fact that Englewood's current rate structure charges less per 1,000 gallons for water consumption over 400 ,000 gallons. The current rate structure recognizes that large users, as a class. do not contribute to the peaking cost of the system as much as the smaller users . It is unlikely that residents will reach the 400,000 gallon threshold. As mentioned previously, a future water rate study will evaluate the current water rates and determine if any changes need to be made to Englewood's current water rate structure . Comment 4: Table 2.2 . Where are the Rainfall numbers from? Englewood, Watershed from where we get our water, snowpack, does it exclude our snowfall, etc.? .... I'd like to see a reference. Figure 2. 5. on the Y axis it is really easy to (mentally) put a comma where there is a period in the Y values; I would recommend using the number without decimals (e.g.1000) or with only one decimal (e.g. 1000.0) ..... or just use billion gallons with one decimal. Pretty amazing how water use has gone down (3 billion to 2 billion) .... Something was really done right to get this to happen! Figures 2.1 and 2.2 need to be readable (higher resolution?). Figure 2.2. Englewood Water (Mains/Lines?) over 8 inches in Diameter. I know what you mean but citizens might not. RESPONSE: The rainfall numbers come from the National Weather Service out of Denver International Airport. Other recommended corrections are being taken into consideration . Comment 5: I've attached a brochure from the City of Calgary, Alberta, that encourages residents to collect rainwater for their landscape watering. I suggest that Englewood consider this practice. Ottawa, Ontario, Convention Centre collects rainwater for toilet and urinal flushing saving 359,000 gallons per year--another practical conservation approach. • • • • • • I appreciate that this is a Water Conservation Plan but I think it concentrates too much on reducing water use including punitive measures, and not enough on efficient use of the resource . I believe the plan should discuss collaboration with other City departments to achieve some of the goals. For instance working with Parks and Recreation for educational seminars and even gardens and alternative grasses for lawns, or Community Development to achieve a balance between landscaping requirements and water use . Englewood participates in the Arbor Day Foundations Tree City program promoting a healthy urban forest. Water plays an essential part in maintaining that urban forest. The only mention of trees in the entire plan is on page 25 where it talks about removing native tree species as a way of conserving water! EMC 16-6-7 details required landscaping standards for new development and again this plan doesn't really address the water use issues presented by these City requirements . Public education is an essential element if this plan is to succeed, but aside from the Pipeline publication, while widely distributed I suspect isn't widely read, there seems to be little else . In fact, according to Page 27 Xeriscape education is left to Denver Water. While the Water Day for school children is a laudable program, it is the parents who make most of the water use decisions I would hate to see Englewood buried in mountains of crushed rock simply because it requires less water. RESPONSE: Rainwater Harvesting and Graywater Reuse There were a couple of comments made regarding rainwater harvesting and incorporating the practice into this plan. Capturing rainwater is an ongoing issue in Colorado, and it is not allowed if it will injure vested water rights. For the most part. Colorado law does not allow homeowner to collect or use rainwater runoff from roofs unless their only source of water is a well on the property. In 2009, however, the Colorado State Legislature passed two laws that carve out exemptions from the general rule. The first law says that if you are not served by a domestic water system and you are located in a designated ground water basin or your collection system qualifies as exempt from 37-92-602(1 )(g)(I), you are allowed to capture rainwater for household, fire protection, stock watering and irrigation of up to one acre of lawns and gardens as long as it is applied to uses specified in the well permit that applies to your property. The second law allows the State to participate in a study of 1 0 new developments to determine the impact of capturing rainwater on streams, rivers and tributary groundwater. Additionally a couple of comments were made regarding graywater reuse. The term "graywater" means discharges from bathroom and laundry room sinks, bathtubs, showers, laundry machines and other sources authorized by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. In May 2013, the Colorado General Assembly passed House Bill 1044, which authorized the use of graywater. The majority of Englewood's water rights do not allow for reuse, particularly if that reuse involves further consumption of the water. See prior response, "Xeriscape Programs and Measures." Comment 6: Every toilet that is in an Englewood controlled building should be modified or replaced with low usage ones fire stations, police buildings, court houses Englewood Public buildings, etc . all ! RESPONSE: City Building Fixtures A comment was made that every toilet that is in an Englewood controlled building should be modified or replaced with low usage toilets. Currently, as new toilets and fixtures are needed in City buildings, low water use fixtures are used as a replacement. • Comment 7: "Water Conservation Plan" Will we keep the code below? It does not • require all flat rate customers to be updated. Is that correct? RESPONSE: Metering The Englewood Municipal Code includes a requirement for all flat-rate customers to install approved water meters when they sell or transfer their property. The Code states : All owners of property having unmetered water service shall be required to install approved water meter within ninety (90) days after the sale or transfer of the property or change in property use from residential to commercial or industrial. Whenever a meter is to be installed, it shall be supplied by the Englewood Utilities Department at the owners cost. Comment 8: After reading Mr. Woullard's article in the Hub regarding water conservation, it really peaked my interest as I am one of the 10,00[0] plus homes on a water meter. I understand there are 2,074 single family dwellings under the flat rate system, and I am sure several of these homeowners are trying to conserve water. However, there are a percentage of these homes that are taking advantage of this system. I have a neighbor that will use one of the fountain type sprinklers. They will set it in one spot in the • • • • morning and it will still be in the same spot in the afternoon . When confronted as to why they would do such a thing there comment is "we don't care we don't pay for water." In addition I drive S. Logan to Belleview to and from work every week. There are a few houses where the water is on in the afternoons prior to 6:00 pm . I do not know whether these homes are metered or on the flat rate system, either way they should not be watering during the heat of the day. My opinion is that all single family dwellings should have a meter installed sooner than later. RESPONSE: See prior response, "Metering." Mandatory Watering Schedule A resident requested that Englewood go to a mandatory three-day-a-week watering schedule on a permanent basis . While this may be necessary during a water shortage or drought, the City felt that a mandatory three-day-a-week watering schedule is not necessary to reach its water conservation goals. Xeriscape Programs and Measures A couple of comments requested the incorporation of Xeriscape programs and incentives. The City did consider Xeriscape programs during the initial screening of potential conservation measures and programs. Based on the City's screening criteria (1 . staff time, 2. financial implications and 3 . political ramifications), the City does not currently have the staff resources to implement Xeriscape programs and did not feel the programs merited putting money into it. The City will re-evaluate Xeriscape measures and programs with future water conservation planning efforts. Englewood residents are encouraged to utilize Xeriscape landscape. . -.- 'I • Turf and Landscape Restrictions/Standards for New Construction • One comment requested that Englewood limit the amount of grass for new homes and businesses and require the use of low water usage grasses. Englewood staff considered turf and landscape restrictions/standards for new construction. Based on the City's screening criteria ( 1. staff time, 2. financial implications and 3. political ramifications), the City decided to re-evaluate new constructions restrictions and standards with future water conservation planning efforts . Mandatory Watering Schedule A resident requested that Englewood go to a mandatory three-day-a-week watering schedule on a permanent basis. While this may be necessary during a water shortage or drought, the City felt that a mandatory three-day-a-week watering schedule is not necessary to reach its water conservation goals. Water Rates There were several comments provided regarding water rates. One comment suggested that the City should use a base rate which accounts for the cost of the system operations, plus a reasonable amount of water for household use and landscaping; (with an allowance for trees and gardens) and then have a surcharge for excessive use, and an even higher rate for usage that is clearly wasteful or abusive. Incorporated into the Conservation Plan is a water rate study. The study will consider all of the elements of this comment and determine if any changes need to be made to Englewood's current water rate structure . • .,. . (' • One resident was concerned that the City Code regarding the conversion of flat-rate customers to metered customers was changing to require flat-rate customers to install meters. The City Code is not changing. The Englewood Meter Replacement Program (EMAP) discussed in the Plan is voluntary. EMAP takes the difference between what the customer pays for the non-metered rate and what the customer would pay for the metered rate and uses that money to help pay the cost of installing the water meter. If provided a grant by the CWCB, Englewood would like to expand upon their current program by providing 50 to 100 meters at no cost to the customer while the customer continues to pay the flat rate charges, as further incentive for meter replacement. If the customer converts, the money received by the City would go to providing a meter for another flat rate customer. The City would like to respond to an inaccuracy regarding Englewood's water rates as compared to Denver's water rates. The comment states that Denver rates are $2.59/1000 gallons plus $6.33 ad min fee; Englewood's rate is $3.29/1000 gallons plus a $9. 71 ad min fee. According to the resident, if you use 10,000 gallons in a billing period you pay $4.26/1000 gallons in Englewood, vs $3.22/1000 gallons in Denver. However, the calculation did not consider that Denver Water bills monthly while Englewood bills on a quarterly basis. If we examine a scenario in which one uses 10,000 gallons per month for a three-month period, an Englewood resident would pay $3.61/1,000 gallons as compared to $3.22/1,000 gallons in Denver. • A comment was made regarding the fact that Englewood's current rate structure charges less per 1,000 gallons for water consumption over 400,000 gallons. The current rate structure is an incentive for industry and large water users and it is unlikely that residents will reach the 400,000 gallon threshold. As mentioned previously, a water rate study will evaluate the current water rates and determine if any changes need to be made to Englewood's current water rate structure. • Rainwater Harvesting and Graywater Reuse There were a couple of comments made regarding rainwater harvesting and incorporating the practice into this Plan. Capturing rainwater is an ongoing issue in Colorado, and it is not allowed if it will injure vested water rights. For the most part, Colorado law does not allow homeowner to collect or use rainwater runoff from roof unless their only source of water is a well on the property. In 2009, however, the Colorado State Legislature passed two laws that carve out exemptions from the general rule -The first law says that if you are not served by a domestic water system and you are located in a designated ground water basin or your collection system qualifies as exempt from 37-92-602(1 )(g)(I), you are allowed to capture rainwater for household, fire protection, stock watering and irrigation of up to one acre of lawns and gardens as long as it is applied to uses specified in the well permit that applies to your property. The second law allows the State to participate in a study of 10 new developments to determine the impact of capturing rainwater on streams, rivers and tributary groundwater . Additionally a couple of comments were made regarding graywater reuse. The term "graywater" means discharges from bathroom and laundry room sinks, bathtubs, showers, laundry machines and other sources authorized by the Colorado Water Quality Control Commission. In May 2013, the Colorado General Assembly passed House Bill 1044, which authorized the use of graywater. The majority of Englewood's water rights do not allow for reuse, particularly if that reuse involves further consumption of the water . Public Education A couple of comments were provided regarding public education. Based on the City's screening criteria (1 . staff time, 2. financial implications and 3. political ramifications), the City does not currently have the staff resources to devote to educational classes . However, the Plan includes educational kits, public education through newsletter, bill stuffers and the City Website, online access to water bill and history and distribution of ET irrigation scheduling in water bill. The City will re-evaluate education measures and programs with future water conservation planning efforts . City Building Fixtures A comment was made that every toilet that is in an Englewood controlled building should be modified or replaced with low usage toilets. Currently, as new toilets and fixtures are needed in City buildings, low water use fixtures are used as a replacement. ,, \ • • • • • • Water Rate Comparison* Englewood Vs. Denver *Based on: • Single-family residential • Size ¾ inch meter Assumptions: • 120,000 Gal Total Annual Consumption • 8,000 Gal per month for 9 months • 16,000 Gal per month for 3 months (Summer) Category (Average Month) ENGLEWOOD DENVER (Inside) Service Charge $ 3.24 $ 6.33 Consumption Cost $32.90 $29.14 Total monthly Bill $36.14 $35.47 • $0.67 diff. Assumptions: • 150,000 Gal Total Annual Consumption • 10,000 Gal per month for 9 months • 20,000 Gal per month for 3 months (Summer) Category (Average Month) ENGLEWOOD l)ENVER (Inside) Service Charge $ 3.24 $ 6.33 Consumption Cost $41.12 $38.20 Total monthly Bill $44.36 $44.53 + $0.17 diff. DENVER (Outside) $ 6.33 $32.96 $39.29 + $3.15 diff. DENVER (Outside) $ 6.33 $43.22 $49.55 + $5.19 diff . APPENDIX D Englewood City Council Adoption • • • • • Date September 3, 2013 COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Agenda Item 11 a ii STAFF SOURCE Subject 2013 Englewood Water Conservation Plan INITIATED BY Utilities Department Stewart H . Fonda, Director of Utilities COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION Council approved a prior Water Conservation Plan on March 11 , 199 7. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Englewood Water and Sewer Board recommended Council approval of the 2013 Water Conservation Plan at their July 9, 2013 meeting. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The City of Englewood Utilities Department, recognizing state and federal mandates to reduce water demands in their service area, evaluated the impacts of water conservation on water supply and resource planning. The proposed Water Conservation Plan outlines Englewood's existing water system, history, the community it serves, the public information program, the metering program, leak repair and maintenance and additional proposed water conservation measures . After reviewing the plan , the Water and Sewer Board then invited Englewood citizens to review the plan and make comments, with a deadline of Jul y 1, 2013. Articles regarding the Conservation Plan and request for comments appeared in the Denver Post "Yo ur Hub" on May 29, 2013, the Englewood Herald in April, 2013 and the Englewood Citizen in the May-June, 2013 issue. The information was also posted on the City of Englewood website and the Utilities webpage from May 1 to July 1, 2013 Comments received were regarding xeriscaping and maintaining an urban forest, encouraging appropriate and efficient use of water resources, using increased rates for heavier users , using rain barrels and graywater, using water efficient toilets in city buildings and implementing a strong incentive program for flat rate accounts to convert to meter. All public comments received were addressed and a summary is included in the Plan Appendix. After Council approval, the plan will be submitted to the Office of Water Conservation, the Water Conservation Board and the Department of Natural Resources. FINANCIAL IMPACT The Utilities Department received a Water Conservation Plann i ng Grant in the amount of $48,000, with the City matching $20,000 with in-kind services for implementation of a ten -y ear plan from 2013 to 2022. Approval of the proposed plan would enable Englewood to apply for future state loans, grants and water/wastewater revolving funds . LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Proposed Bill for Ordinance