Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-10 WSB AGENDAWATER & SEWER BOARD AGENDA Tuesday, August 10, 2004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM 1. MINUTES OF THE JULY 13, 2004 MEETING. (ATT. 1) 2. JOHN BOCK-SUPPLEMENTAL SEWER BILLING. (ATT . 2). 3. KENT COUNTRY DAY SCHOOL. (ATT . 3) 4. LETTER FROM DAVID HILL DATED JULY 12, 2004 REGARDING JUNE BILLING. (ATT. 4) 5. DENVER WATER-SOUTH PLATTE PROTECTION PLAN (FORMERLY "WILD AND SCENIC"). (ATT. 5) 6. CDPS STORMWATERPERMIT. (ATT. 6) 7. ARTICLE FROM THE ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS, "TAPPING INTO WATER COSTS." ARTICLE FROM DENVER POST "DENVER WATER IS H20-RICH, REVENUE POOR." (ATT. 7) 8. SEPTEMBER MEETING -SEPTEMBER 9, 2004. 9. 31 METRO MAYORS CAUCUS . (ATT . 8) 10. BUDGET. (ATT. 9) 11. OTHER. WATER AND SEWER BOARD MINUTES July 13, 2004 A IT. 1 · The meeting was called to order at 5:04 p.m. Members present: Moore, Cassidy, Otis, Habenicht, Garrett Members absent: Clark, Higday, Burns, Bradshaw Also present: Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities 1. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 8, 2004 MEETING. The Englewood Water and Sewer Board approved the minutes from the June 8, 2004 meeting. Mr. Garrett moved; Mr . Habenicht seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried. To approve the minutes from the June 8, 2004 Englewood Water and Sewer Board Meeting. Moore, Cassidy, Otis, Habenicht, Garrett None Clark, Higday, Burns, Bradshaw 2. WATER QUALITY -COLIFORM SAMPLING. Joe Pershin appeared to discuss the water sampling process and State reporting procedures. Stu discussed with the Board a chronology of coliform sampling completed for June 2004 where one site tested positive. Mr. Pershin explained the sensitivity of the samples and various factors that contribute to contamination. Mayor Garrett recommended that the monthly samples be collected four days before the end of the month to allow time for evaluation, along with additional samples. The recommendations to collect extra samples and improve testing procedures to eliminate contamination will be implemented. 3. LICENSE AGREEMENT -3596 S. BANNOCK ST. Ms. Judith Harris submitted a License Agreement to maintain the City's easement along the City Ditch, which is an enclosed drainage way next to 3596 S. Bannock St. Englewood will maintain the use of the easement and the right to install, repair, remove or relocate the City Ditch at any time deemed necessary. The License Agreement will allow Ms. Harris to maintain the existing ditch easement for improved appearance and to minimize maintenance and safety concerns. Mr. Otis moved; Mr. Garrett seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried. To recommend Council approval o the License Agreement to Judith Harris to maintain a City Ditch easement adjacent to 3596 S. Bannock St. Moore, Cassidy, Otis, Habenicht, Garrett None Clark, Higday, Burns, Bradshaw 4. ENGINEERING FOR THE ALLEN FILTER PLANT WASHW ATER PUMP SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS . The washwater pumps at the Allen Filter Plant are 25 years old and can no longer be repaired. New pumps were required that can handle the settled solids of the pretreatment building and the. filter backwash water. CDM was selected from five engineering proposals to design and manage the construction phase of the electrical and associated piping for the replacement washwater pumps. CDM was selected because their proposal was the most conducive for replacement of this pumping system. CDM's bid was for $61,500. Mr. Otis moved; Mr. Garrett seconded: Ayes: Nays: Members absent: Motion carried. To approve CDM's bid for engineering services in the amount of $61,500 for design and construction management of the Allen Filter Plant replacement washwater pumps. Moore, Cassidy, Otis, Habenicht, Garrett None Clark, Higday, Burns, Bradshaw 5. DENVER WATER2003 DROUGHT AND WEATHERMODIF'ICATION PROGRAM -CLOUD SEEDING. The Board received a report from Denver Water's consultant, W estem Weather Consultants, recounting the impact of the November 2003 to March 2004 cloud seeding program. The total area seeded was 2,798 square miles with an estimated 136,500 acre- feet increase in water due to snowpack. 6. ARTICLE FROM FIREHOUSE, "FIRE AT WATER TREATMENT PLANT EVACUATES SUN LAKES, ARIZONA RESIDENTS." The Board received an article regarding a fire at the Mesa, Arizona water treatment plant. Due to potential hazardous chemicals, emergency crews evacuated homes within a half- mile of the plant. 7. ORDINANCE IMPOSING FINES FOR WATER WASTE. The Board discussed penalties for residents who continue to waste water after repeated warnings. The Board concurred with the following policy; in all cases a warning will first be issued, the next time a $25.00 fine will be charged to the customer's account. For the third offence, a $75.00 fine shall be charged and the water will be turned off and left off "" . . until the fine and turn-off charges are paid. If the offending customer is on a flat-rate billing schedule, at the second offence they shall be required to transfer to a water meter. Mr. Habenicht noted that time restrictions were not defined. Mayor Garrett recommended it be defined per calendar year, season-to-season and a new cycle begin when the property changes ownership. The motion was tabled. John Bock will incorporate the Board's recommendations and prepare a final ordinance for Council for "Municipal Code 12-IA-7: Unauthorized Use, Waste of Water," for the Board's approval at a future meeting. 6. LETTER TO SENATOR BEN NIGHTHORSE CAMPBELL REGARDING HOMELAND SECURITY APPROPRIATIONS BILL. Stu discussed a letter he is proposing to send as a Trustee of the American Water Works Association to Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell. The letter supports the public-private research partnership being proposed by the water supply community to identify and develop technologies to safeguard drinking water. The Board approved Stu sending the letter, subject to the City Attorney's approval. 7. WATER REVENUES . Stu reviewed upcoming capitol projects, increasing maintenance costs and decreasing water revenues . Possible water rate increases were discussed. Revenues and expenses will be monitored over the next few months and Mr. Fonda will update the Board at a future meeting. The meeting adjourned at 5:53 p .m. The next Water and Sewer Board meeting will be Tuesday, August 10, 2004 at 5:00 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room. Respectfully submitted, Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM To: Stu Fonda, Utilities Director From: John Bock, Utilities Manager of Administration &3 Date: August 2, 2004 Subject: Supplemental Billing --~_,_....,.~~~''""'' .. . A TT. 2 It has been discovered that the Al June and A2 July outside city, annual sewer bills were calculated using the 2003 per 1000 gallon sewer treatment rate, and not the 2004 rate. Of the 8000 or so accounts billed, most were charged the minimum rate, which was correct. Only about 1500 accounts, whose usage went above the minimum, were actually affected. A supplemental billing was sent out on July 22°d to correct the error. Printed on Recycled Paper.® MEMORANDUM To: Stu Fonda, Utilities Director From: John Bock, Utilities Manager of Administratio'3) Date: August 2, 2004 Subject: Kent Day School A TT. 3 During testing on the new billing software, it was discovered that Kent Country Day School has not been billed for sanitary sewage treatment service since 1993. Before that time, the school was billed on the basis of a 1.5" water meter. In 1993 they notified us that the meter was to be abandoned. A letter was sent to them approving the abandonment provided Englewood be notified of any new service connections. In the years since , there have been about I 0 new connections. Englewood was notified of none of these. On July 15th , we met with a representative from Kent school who came to collect facts and information to take back to their board. We are currently waiting for a reply from their board of directors. Pr inted on Recycled Paper.~ , . . · ~· .... :: BERG HILL GREENLEAF & R USCITTI LLP George V. Berg. Jr. David G. Hill Richard F. Greenleaf Giovanni M. Ruscitti ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW 1712 Pearl Street• Boulder, Colorado 80302 Tel: 303.402.1600 •Fax: 303.402.1601 Jwtin c. Berg M. Neal Hanna Meli ssa M. Hcidman Ike Krasniewia Kathle en M. Morgan Heidi C. Potter Susan Tyrrell Richards Julie S. Schoenfeld Shawn T. Stigler KimA. Tomey Michael H. Wussow Jon N. Banashek Josh A. Marks Thomas E. Merrigan John G. Neville Special Counsel: Neil C. King Daniel L. Brotzman City Attorney City of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110-0110 Re: Bill for June Dear Dan and Stu: bhgrlaw.com July 12, 2004 Stewart H. Fonda Director of Utilities City of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood , CO 80110-0110 With this letter you will find the monthly bill for June, which is higher than you or I would like. I have reviewed the situation with some care, and find that this is happening: The number of cases we are in has soared enormously, because of the new rules which require adequate augmentation of wells on the Lower South Platte River. Those rules have resulted in large numbers of well augmentation filings, and we still have the usual number of upstream filings in which the applicant is overreaching. The result is that we spend an inordinate amount of time (and fees ) just reviewing routine pleadings. My secretary, Pat, tells me that the number of routine pleadings has dropped sharply , so that the fees for monitoring them should drop and next month 's bill for re vi ewing routine pleadings should be a good deal lower. Furthermore, at this point many of the well cases are at last far enough along that we can tell whether other strong opponents will carry the ball , so that Englewood can get out. I have instructed Melissa Heidman to make a review of all the cases in which we are a party , in an effort to identify every case from which we could comfortably withdraw. I will keep you posted on this effort. It is important that we concentrate our efforts on the cases in which our efforts are seriously needed, and ignore the ones where others will do the heavy lifting. Please call with your questions . Sincerely , Y-. ~/ ,/,-J / c //7/2,1# ~~,., David G. Hill I I ,_ -· I ~' Denver Board of Water Commissioners July 13 , 2004 Mr. Stu Fonda Danie l E. Muse, President Richard A. Kirk. 1st Vice President William R. Roberts Denise S. Maes Andrew D. Wall ach Director of Utilities City of Englewood 3400 S. Elati Street Englewood, CO . 80110 Dear Stu : Hamlet J. Barry, Ill, Manager 1600 West 12th Avenue Denver, Colorado 80204-3412 303-628-600 0 Fax 303-628-6509 hjb@water.d enver.c o .gov www.d enverwater.o rg As I mentioned ov er the phone, a number of metro area w ater utilities have worked for the past se v en years to find an alternative to the U.S. Forest Service designating the Upper South Platte River as "wild and scenic ". As you know , were the Forest Service to place such a designat ion on the South Platte , the ri ver would be subject to very stringent federal regulation, to the detriment of Denv er area water suppliers who depend on the nver. A few weeks ago , the Forest Service in a final "Record of Decision" decided it would not mo v e forward with a "wild and scenic" designation . Instead, it endorsed a ''South Platte Protection Plan" on which local go v ernments , municipal water suppliers and en vironmental groups hav e worked for several years . However, one of the principal elements of that South Platte Plan is that water suppliers and local governments must come up with an "Endowment Fund" that will be used to protect the river values which the Forest Service sought to safeguard through the federal "Wild and Scenic Rivers" Act. The Endowment Fund is to total $1 million , which is to be created within three years starting at the end of 2004. Local go vernments have pledged 11 3 of the total for each of the com ing three ye ars. The amount each participant is being asked to pay is tied generally to the number of customers served by the water utility . For example , Denver Water has pledged $600 ,000 toward the total ($200 ,000 a year for each of three years ), while Aurora has committed $67 ,000 a year for each of the next three years . You indicated that you would be willing to approach the Englewood City Council for an amount proportionate to that of other parties , or $8,000 a year for each of the coming three years . The participants in the South Platte Protection Plan would truly welcome such a contribution so that the City of Englewood could be counted as a partner in this important effort . The Forest Service has also asked for a Council resolution of supp ort from each entity to ensure itself of the broad-bas ed nature of the South Platte coalition. CONSERVE l Mr. Fonda, p. 2 Stu, thank you for being so concerned and supportive on behalf of the city. As always, we welcome your participation. ar . okorney Director of Planning Denver Water EEP:vp ·-:.~ib~-~· AIT. ~-: ~-/r. ~.., . ·• ---·--- STATE OF COLORADG ~:~ Bill Owens, Governor Douglas H. Benevento, Executive Director Dedicated to protecting and improving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 Phone(303)692-2000 TDD Une (303) 691-7700 Located in Glendale, Colorado http ://www.cdphe.state.co.us July 29, 2004 Stewart H. Fonda City of Englewood Laboratory Services Division 8100 Lowry Blvd. Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 (303) 692-3090 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110 Re: CDPS Stormwater Management Program CDPS Permit No. COR-090056 -City of Englewood Arapahoe County Dear Mr. Fonda: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment The Water Quality Control Division (the Division) has received and reviewed the City of Englewood's (the City's) response to the Division's review of its CDPS Storrnwater Management Program. With the exception of the following comments, the City's response adequately addresses all of the Division's concerns at this time. The Division would like to thank the City of Englewood for its cooperation and hard work in the development of a comprehensive program to protect the water quality of the State of Colorado. For the following issues, additional clarification is still needed. 1. Program Area #1-Public Education, Overall Adequacy for the District-Posters The revised program description commits to providing posters to Arapahoe County School District No. 1 by March 10, 2006. This measurable goal does not include a commitment to display the posters, which is where the public education actually occurs, and therefore is not adequate. To expedite finalization of the program review process, the Division is at this time providing a measurable goal for displaying the poster. To adequately meet the Public Education permit requirements, the posters must be posted in at least two places at each permitted campus by March 10, 2006, or the City must provide an alternative proposal as discussed below. This measurable goal is consistent with what is included in the Colorado School Plant Managers Association's CDPS Stormwater Management Program template. 2. Program Area #5 -Post-Construction, Tracking System The City did not provide an enforceable measurable goal for development and implementation of procedures to track post-construction BMPs. The measurable goal provided in the revised program description states that a tracking system will be implemented "budget pending." July 29, 2004 Stewart H. Fonda Page 2 ; T ~_·:~.~~:~ .. ·.--~.~-:~"_·~.:.~~f ;~:~t-~~·~:I~~~~!r>c--. · -~,., ,~-·~~:t~~~~: · - -.!-:-~ ... ~·~·.· .~~ .( .,.~ To expedite finalization of the program review process, the Division is at this time providing a measurable goal for implementing procedures for post-construction B:MPs. To adequately meet the Post-Construction permit requirements, the City must implement either the tracking system discussed in the revised program description, or an alternative system that is adequate to allow the City to identify the location of any post-construction BMPs constructed through the City's completed post- construction program, by March 3, 2008 (the date for implementation of the completed post- construction program), or the City must provide an alternative proposal as discussed below. If the program modifications provided above are acceptable, the City must modify their CDPS stormwater management program to include the new measurable goals. In such case, it is not necessary for the City to respond to this letter. If the City would like to propose alternative approaches and/or schedules to comply with the permit requirements addressed, the City must provide a request to modify the program to the Division by August 31, 2004. The modifications must include measurable goals that include implementation dates for the program elements. If you have any questions, please give me a call at (303) 692-3555. Sincerely, -·---__, Nathan Moore Environmental Protection Specialist Permits U nit WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION Enclosure xc: Thomas J. Brennan , City of Englewood File copy :~ . l :::· ::· ~ . ~. ... ::· . ·> ::·. ::: ·.:· ;;:·· } .. :\: /,J,.'.1 .... ' . " ; 'i'f. ' "'·I•.~·· •1·• -•·6A··RockyMountainNews '"'"",.;" .tlou urni11NllwtTHtlllSDAl'l,1]UL · , . -·.·.-·5_. --h~,. appi -ng -into water cOS'tS ~ ,~.., cent of normal the first year B1ter the drought ends, wit}\. a ll.ve per- cent savings over several years, said LaFrance. Continued drought, conservation efforts may force rate hike By Deborah Frazier ROCKY M OUNT A IN N<WS Denver Water customers face a few unwelcome "rewards" for con- serving water -Including possible rate hikes -if the drought contin- ues, officials said Wednesday. As of July, Denver Water custom- ers have used 36 percent less water since May 1 than the historical aver- age, said Ed Pokorney, manager of planning. That water savings has meant less revenue for Denver Water, said David LaFrance, director of finance. In 2004, projected rev e nue from water sales will drop from from $155 million to $129 mllllon becau se of conservation efforts, La France said. "This is the first time we have three consecutive years when resi - dential consumption is below the historic average," said LaFrance. In 2003, consumption dropped 21 percent. "We 've d elayed capital con- struction and maintenance al- ready," he said . Denver Water on Wednesday post- poned expansion of a water recy - cling plant to transform wastewater Into a non-drinkable supply for lawn • Online extra: For th e latest information on w<1tc1ing rcstrktions, click on Today 's links at RockyMountalnNews.com. watering at the Lowry and Staple- ton redevelopment projects. Putting off the $14 million con- struction project until 2006 -07. origi- nally planned for2005 -2006, will help with the budget shortfall, said Jon Diebei, director of engine e ring. "You are not going to m ake up for these kind of losses by cutting your magazine subscriptions," said Chips Barry, Denver Water manag- er. The delay will cost those custom- ers more for a few years because drinking-quality water costs more than recycled water, said Barry. "You have to do something," he said . And, tfthe drought continues and customers keep conserving, Denver Water may have to tap the $125 mil- lion reserve account, ralse rates or boost surcharges, said Margaret Medellin, a water resources engi- n eer. Even if the drought ends, water us- age ls expected to remain below nor- mal because of the "shadow" effect where consumption remains low for about four years, s aid LaFrance. Water use should remain at 11 per- "How long?" sald LaFrance, smll- ing. "Only The Shadow knows." Mountain reservoir storage has peaked at 85 percent -far higher than expected after three consecu- tive years oflow snowfall, said Pokor- ney. "We are quite pleased that the demand, despite the hot, dry weath- er, has been very good," he said. "That could change because we are in a hot, dry period, but It won't take a huge percentage of our re- serves," said Pokorney. frazierd@RockyMountatnNews.com or 303-892-5308 'I ~-------------------C~O--. =-~--==--T"""'I"' ::: .~: .~ :~:' ... ~; .~(; ~' : ~: : . . •.· ·:r ;:.j . ., ·•·.· ..... . Pagel 9.f2 The Denver Post Denver Water is H20-rich, reven ue-poor Another rate hike is likely because customers-are conserving so well that little money is coming in. By Joey Bunch Denver Post Staff Writer Friday, August 06, 2004 - Denver Water officials are predicting that customers this fall will see the third hike in rates or charges in a year and the fourth hike since 2002. "It's not official, but it's likely," said Chips Barry, Denver Water's manager. The reason: Customers are buying too little water because of drought restrictions, conservation and a steady supply of rainfall. ' With water sales off by 19 percent from budget projections for the fi r st seven months of this year, the utility faces a $27 .7 million deficit this year, said finance director David Lafrance. Despite the three i ncreases, 56 percent of Denver Water's customers are paying lower bills than they did three years ago because they are using less water, he said. Denver Water is owned by the city and county of Denver, and the city charter restricts its prices to the cost of delivering the vital service. :d That means that when revenue flirts with dipping below costs, customers must help pick up the slack. ·: ~ i ' .\ ~ · .. ~:/' :; . ::j ··.·. :::·: At a meeting Wednesday, the board will vote on whether to do away with summertime watering restrictions, as we l l as surcharges on bills for those who use more than the drought limits allow. If the board votes to do away with restrictions, they will end on Aug . 31. The surcharges took effect July 1 and raised $5.3 million in a month. Lafrance expects that number to reach $10 million at the end of August. While the infusion of surcharge cash is helpful, La France said, rates and surcharges are separate issues; · keeping the surcharge would not rescue the budget. nlf the board opts to take the surcharges off, they would do that because they feel the conditions of the drought have changed enough that they no longer need the surcharges" to curb use, he said. "But the revenue the surcharges will generate this year really does not change Water storage the rate adjustments we need for next year." 0 w t · Lafrance will give the water board a 10-year financial outlook at its meeting Wednesday. Then, at the board's Aug. 25 meeting, he will make a specific request for an rate increase. enver a er reservows are a relatively healthy 85 percerrt full despite the drought While customers' conservation of water stretches out the supply during the drought. it puts a hard pinch on the nwe're evaluating all the financial resources we have at this moment, with an public utility's sales. eye toward keeping the rate increase to a minimum," Lafrance said. Percentofci!pClcityoo Aug.2 http ://www .denverpost.com/cda/article/print/0,1674,36%7E23447%7E2317227,00.html 8/6/2004 Page 2 of2 Last year's rate increase, which jumped the base rate for 1,000 gallons from $1.58 to $1.63 for Denver residents, increased bimonthly water bills by an average of $1.57. Denver Water's 1.2 million customers include smaller towns and other water providers, and those suburban customers pay more. The utility already has cut deep to keep its books from bleeding red due to lost water sales, Lafrance said. The utility has tapped $54 million from its savings since 2002. It also has saved $1.2 million by leaving 45 jobs unfilled in the past year, Lafrance said. RATE HIKES Denver Water customers interviewed on Colfax Avenue Thursday were not t--------------tpleased to hear higher prices were on the way. DENVER WATER June 2004: Approved an increase in the flat service charge paid by all customers, from $4 .91 to $8 .51 every two months. Business and government customers paid more, based on the size of their water meters . That i ncrease takes effect Sept . 7 . October 2003: Raised the base rate per 1,000 gallons from $1.58 to $1.63 for customers in the city and county of Denver. October 2002: Raised the base rate for 1,000 gallons from $1.53 to $1.58 for customers in the city and county of Denver. AURORA UTILITIES January 2004 : Raised the base rate per 1,000 gallons of water from $2 .34 to $2.69 . January 2003 : Raised the rate per 1,000 gallons from $2 .04 to $2.34. Sources: Denver Water, Aurora Utilities "So we did what they asked, and they're punishing us with higher prices?" said Debra Daniels, 37, a retail worker. "The drought is starting to sound like an excuse to jack up rates." Serena Blair, 23, a fitness trainer, prefers surcharges to higher rates. "Let the people wasting water pay for it," she said. "This way everybody pays, and I use very little water." Staff writer Joey Bunch can be reached at 303-820-1240 or ljbunch@denverpost.com . http://www.denverpost.com/cda/article/print/O, 1674,36% 7E2344 7% 7E2317227,00.html 8/6/2004 Aurora Boulder Brighton Broomfield Castle Rock Centennial Commerce City Denver Edgewater Englewood Erie Federal Heights Foxfield Glendale Golden Greenwood Village Lafayette Lakewood Littleton Lone Tree Longmont Louisville Morrison Northglenn Parker Sheridan Superior Thornton Westminster Wheat Ridge TO: FROM: RE: DATE: MEMORANDUM Metro Mayors Caucus MMC Water Committee -Mayors Kathie Novak and Chris Berry, Co-Chairs Review and Comments on DRAFT MOU Wednesday, July 28, 2004 Action Requested by August 6 Please read this memo, then review and provide comments on the attached revised draft Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). If there are concerns that you or your staff has regarding any provisions of the MOU, we need your specific suggestions of what changes would make the document acceptable to you, as opposed to what it is about the document that you take issue with. Please provide comments in writing to cekmarinell i@crna .net by August 6. This deadline will allow staff time to review and incorporate suggested revisions prior to our discussion of the MOU at the August 11 Full Caucus meeting . We would like to reach a consensus of support for the draft MOU at the August 11 meeting so that mayors may go back to their individual councils to ask for authority for the mayor to sign the MOU at a public ceremony in late September 2004 . This draft of the MOU reflects jurisdictions' suggested changes that have been reviewed and incorporated by water committee members including Mayors Novak, Fellman and Sullivan. Participation and revisions have also come from staff from Denver, Thornton, Lafayette, Aurora and Northglenn and Arvada. MOU Purpose and Content Following up on a recommendation made at the April Caucus meeting and using the Mile High Compact as a model, the Water Committee has developed the attached draft MOU. The purpose of the MOU is twofold . First, the MOU serves to express a common understanding among the elected leaders of our region and their jurisdictions of the importance of water to all aspects of life and commerce in Colorado . Second, and more importantly, the MOU expresses the intent of signers to strive to enhance the stewardship of the water resource within their jurisdictions in a number of ways. The commitments within the MOU are written to allow maximum flexibility to each jurisdiction in determining the best way for the jurisdiction to fulfill their commitment. c/o CRNA 1009 Grant Street, Suite 203 , Denver, CO 80203 (303) 477-8065 -Fax (303) 477-9986 www .metromayors.org A1MC Water MOU Memo 712812004 Page 2 o/2 The drafters on the Committee understand that there are regional and local differences in water quality, quantity and usage and that water efficiency programs need to be and should be tailored by each municipality or provider to address their specific circumstances. For example, in subsection 1 under Best Management Practices, signers would commit to, "use our best efforts to continue to identify and adopt, or urge the water utilities that serve us to adopt, best management practices that achieve efficient water use through conservation, reuse, and/or new technologies. " The MOU recognizes that many jurisdictions have already adopted BMPs and are already engaged in appropriate water conservation, management and development activities . Therefore, entering into this MOU does not necessarily commit any jurisdiction to do anything new. It does however, indicate our regional agreement to continue working together in these areas and to look for ways to expand and improve on what many of us are already doing. At the end of the day, this MOU is really a document to establish our role as leaders in the region, recognizing the importance of a cooperative approach on water, while allowing individual jurisdictions to address issues, as their local situations require . It will provide us with the credibility to respond to critics who allege that the metro area is not doing enough to efficiently manage water resources. The Water Committee has identified three additional components of its focus on water issues which are as follows: • Progress: There have been numerous efforts to reduce consumption and increase reuse in the metro area since 2002. The Water Committee would like to facilitate metro area collection of available data that will highlight what has been accomplished to date. Presentation of the data will be per capita for the metro area as a whole. This data will show the metro area's consumption trend over last few years and help identify realistic goals for farther reductions. The data will also demonstrate to the rest of the state that the metro area is serious about reducing consumption and the progress made to date . • Best Practices: The Water Committee staff will compile information on regional programs and initiatives elsewhere as well as cutting edge policies from municipal utilities for the review of the Water Committee. As part of the Committee's evaluation of other practices, metro area utilities will be invited to share information on policies or practices currently in place to reduce consumption or increase reuse. Examples from the Denver metro area and other regions will be used to identify areas of consensus among Committee members and serve as a starting point for the development of best practices. Best practices may also serve as a means to realize the Principles developed for a Mile High Water Compact. • Partners: MMC efforts will be shared with other groups focused on water supply issues including Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce and Colorado Green Industries . Select groups will be invited to comment on draft principles and best practices. Ultimately the goal would be for other groups to embrace the principles with the members of the Caucus. The principles will need to be developed in a way that promotes buy-in among these partners. Water Committee MOU DRAFT --July 19, 2004 THIS MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING is made and entered into this _ day of September 2004, by and among the local governments in the Denver, Colorado metropolitan area, bodies politic organized under and existing by virtue of the laws of the State of Colorado. Whereas, Colorado is a semi-arid climate where water is a finite and valuable resource; and Whereas, Water has important environmental, economic, political and social impacts; and Whereas, Historically, Colorado's precipitation patterns have included inevitable and cyclical periods of drought; and Whereas, Colorado's natural environment and recreational opportunities, a primary draw for visitors, new residents and relocating businesses, require a reasonable degree of minimum stream flows ; and Whereas, The Denver metropolitan area is Colorado's population center and economic "engine" and thus must reduce its potential vulnerability to drought through conservation and water supply projects; and Whereas, The elected officials in the Denver metropolitan area want to build on the spirit of consensus, cooperation and essential pragmatism about Colorado's water supply established by representatives of Colorado's 64 Counties in the 2003 "Colorado 64 Principles ;" and , Whereas, The Denver metropolitan area is projected to add an additional 1 million residents between 2000 and 2025 , primarily through births by existing residents and immigrants 1 ; and Whereas, Regional and local differences exist in water quality, quantity, and usage and each local government or water provider must tailor its water efficiency program to reach conservation goals; and Whereas , Many of the local governments in the Denver metropolitan area have developed extensive water wise management systems and practices; and Whereas, The local governments in the Denver metropolitan area have voluntarily and collaboratively set forth the principles defined herein that illustrate their commitment to address the wise management and stewardship of vital water resources within their individual and overlapping jurisdictions and in the region as a whole. NOW THEREFOR, the undersigned cities and towns (hereinafter referred to as we) agree as follows : 1. Intent of Agreement This agreement is intended to set forth principles that illustrate our commitment to address the wise management and stewardship of vital water resources and actions that we individually or collectively might take to carry out that stewardship . It is not intended to and shall not be deemed to confer rights to any persons or entities not named as parties hereto. 1 United States Census Bureau and Denver Regional Council of Governments 2025 population estimates :·--·-·-··------------------·-. Water Committee MOU DRAFT --July 19, 2004 2. Best Management Practices. Thoughtful modification of direct and indirect resource management practices can improve efficiency and reduce demand. Many communities have already adopted best management practices, some have not and some that have been adopted could be improved. Towards that end, we will use our best efforts to continue to identify and adopt, or urge the water utilities that serve us to adopt, best management practices that achieve efficient water use through conservation, reuse, and/or new technologies. 3. New Technologies. New technologies that have the potential to reduce demand for both potable and non-potable water are being developed every day . We will strive to implement new technologies whose benefits are demonstrable and cost effective . 4. Coordination. We acknowledge that as members of a region and of the State of Colorado, we share a common challenge in increasing our resilience to drought. We will use our best efforts to effectively utilize water resources at the regional and subregional levels through the coordination of our water systems where feasible . 5. Education. The consumer benefits from knowing how the public sector is working to reduce consumption and increase efficiency. Further, an educated consumer can make informed decisions about his or her own consumption . We will continue to work together to coordinate public education in the Denver metropolitan area to convey the importance of water and to increase awareness of the need to conserve, manage and plan for current and future water needs . 6 . Protect Providers. As consumers reduce consumption, this may have the unintended consequence of jeopardizing the current and future financial viability of water providers . We will continue to evaluate our fee structures to look for ways to deter wasteful use of water while still protecting the public's investment in water supplies and infrastructure . 7 . Address Impacts. Reducing consumption is only a partial answer to providing for the future needs of the growing Denver metropolitan area. In future water supply projects, we will work together to address the economic, environmental and social impacts of water projects and transfers between state water divisions . 8 . Lead by Example. We understand that individuals look to their community leaders to set an example for the public and that actions speak louder than words. We will continue to consider and encourage water conservation principles in our planning, construction, maintenance and redevelopment of public spaces . 9. Commit to Future Stewardship. Though upon signing we are entering our fifth year of · drought, we recognize that the current drought will come to an end. However, Colorado will continue to be a semi-arid climate, and our commitment to the wise stewardship of water is just as important in times of abundance . 10 . Execution in Counterparts. BUDGET ITEMS properties of the System nor such property items, including taxes and fuel, which are capitalized pursuant to the then existing accounting practice of the Governmental Agency. "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles" shall mean accounting principles , methods and terminology followed and construed for utilities and enterprises of governmental units, as established by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, as amended from time to time. (5) Rate Covenant The Governmental Agency shall establish and collect rates and charges for the use or the sale of the products and services ~f the System, which together with other moneys available therefor (exclusive of any unappropriated fund balances), are expected to produce Revenues (as defined in paragraph (4 ) of this Exhibit A to thi s Loan Agreement ) for each cal endar year which will be at least sufficient for such calendar year to pay the sum of: (a ) all amounts est i mated t o be required to pay Operating Expenses (as def i ned in paragraph (4 ) of this Exhibit A of this Loan Agreement ) during such calendar year; (b) a sum equal to 110% of the debt service due on the Governmental Agency Bond for such calendar year and debt service coming due during such ca l endar year on any indebtedness payable on a parity with the lien or charge of this Loan Agreement on the Pledged Property , i n each case computed as of the beginning of such cal endar year; (c ) the amount , if any , t o be pa i d during such calendar year into any debt service reserve acc o unt ; (d) a sum equal to the debt servi _e on any subordinated debt for such calendar year computed as of che beginning of such cal endar year; and (e ) amounts necessary to pay and discharge all charges and liens payable out of the Revenues during such calendar year. Notwithstanding anything contained above, amounts deposited in a rate stabilization account shall not be deemed Revenues (as defined in paragraph (4 ) of this Exhibit A to this Loan Agreement) in the calendar year deposited and amounts withdrawn from the rate stabilization account shall be deemed Revenues (as defined in paragraph (4 ) of this Exhibit A to this Loan Agreement) in the year withdrawn. ,_1 ----------., ., ., ., ::-i :- ··i _, I ::! (9) No other obligations of the Governmental Agency (1) are reasonably . expected to be paid out of substantially the same source of funds (or will have substantially the same claim to be paid out of substantially the same source of funds) as will be used to pay the Loans; and (2) are being sold at substantially the same time as the Loans ( i _ e. , less than 15 days apart); and (3) were sold pursuant to the same plan of financing with the Loan. (10) The Governmental Agency has neither received notice that its certifications as to expectations may not be relied upon with respect to its obligations nor has it been advised that any adverse action by the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue is contemplated. (11) To the best of the knowledge and belief of the undersigned officer of the Governmental Agency, the facts and estimates set forth in this subsection of the Loan Agreement on which the Go v ernmental Agency's expectations as to the application o f the proceeds of the Authority Bonds loaned to the Go v ernmental Agency are based, are reasonable. ( 12) None of the proceeds of the Authority Bonds l o aned to the Governmental Agency will be invested in inv estments hav ing a substantially guaranteed yield of f o ur years or mo re . ( f) Operation and Ma i ntenance of the System. The Governmental Agency covenants and agrees that it shall, in accordance with prudent water utility practice, (i) at all times operate the properties of the System and any business in connection therewith in an efficient manner , (ii) maintain the System in good repair, working order and operating condition, (iii ) from time to time make all necessary and proper repai rs, renewals, replacements , additions , betterments and improvements with respect to the System so that at a l l times the business carried on in connection therewith sha l l be properly and advantageously con~ucted; provided, however , this covenant shall not be construed as requiring the Governmental Agency to expend any funds which are derived from sources other than the operation of the System or other receipts of the System which are not Pledged Property, and provided further that nothing herein shall be construed as preventing the City or Governmental Agency from doing so. 14 October 8, 1997 ·.· .. · ·. ALLENPLANTPERSONNELSTATUS There are 15 full time individuals at the Allen Plant. During the summer, one temporary employee is hired to cut weeds and help the ditch riders. At this level three of the four night shifts have only one operator on duty. Due to increased vulnerability and employee safety concerns, it may become necessary to add three additional operators to insure two people are available on every shift. This would also provide needed flexibility when an "A" operator leaves the city or retires. Several operators and other key personnel will begin retiring in about five years, and provisions will need to be made to insure a smooth transition. About twenty years ago the graveyard shift was not staffed during the winter months. This was necessary at the time to allow for required vacations, sick leave, etc. This was an unacceptable condition, and two additional operators have since been added. With the current level of staffing, a significant amount of overtime must be paid to cover for illness , vacations , personal leave and other absences. While significant, the amount of overtime pay would not, by itself, justify hiring an additional operator. It should also be noted that plant personnel receive enough on the job cross-training to cover for each other. At the present time the operators double as maintenance personnel, lab techs, sample takers , water rights accountants , and equipment techs. This reduces the overall personnel requirements of the facility . s;~~~~-~7 -. ":· ' DISTRIBUTION/COLLECTION SYSTEM PERSONNEL STATUS The distribution/collection system divisions have a total of twelve employees including one supervisor who also manages repairs and cleaning of the stormwater system. The water distribution crew is defined by the number of personnel required to repair a main break -six if the excavation is shallow, seven if shoring is required. These six posi- tions are funded by the water fund as is the locate specialist. There are two Collection system crews, each with two utility technicians. These are funded by the sewer and storm water funds. In 2004 one utility technician position was added to begin a program of maintenance for valves and hydrants to assure they will be operable when needed. Employees are cross- trained in both divisions and can therefore, be available to cover for vacations, sick leave, etc. Overtime is paid out in cases of main breaks, sewer back-ups and maintenance in high traffic areas on weekends. A stand-alone water utility of this size would probably need several more crewmembers to make up for the backup provided by the sewer and stormsewer funds . Utilities Department Water Administration Personnel Staffing Level Of the fourteen employees in the Utilities Department Administration Division, four are paid for by the Water Enterprise Fund. The rest are paid for mainly by the Sewer Enterprise Fund. The number of Water Fund positions has remained constant even though the number of metered water accounts has increased since 1987 from about 2,800 to over 7,000 and continues to climb. We have a total ofl0,800 water accounts. These employees are responsible for meter reading , meter maintenance, conversion of meters to the new Itron system, the backflow prevention program, answering customer service calls, taking final meter readings, delinquent accounts collections and responding to emergency calls. At our present staffing levels, we are unable to establish a consistent, meaningful meter testing and replacement program. Most of the time , we simply wait for the meter to stop registering or start leaking, then replace it . Since meters always read slower as they age, some revenue is lost by not replacing them, especially large meters, when they begin to slow down. To reduce manpower here would jeopardize the Department's obligation to accurately meter water usage and collect on unpaid accounts. :i 2005~'Aep 7/20/2004 9:50 rfllt ! 2005 CAPITAL ITEMS ACCOUNT PROJECT Amount YEAR Major Routine Distribution 1601-61201 Major McCellan 8' Fence -COMPLETED $ 43,000 2004 1601-61261 Routine Chipper $ 2,000.00 . 2004 1601-61252 Major PAC $ 50,793 2004 1601-61301 Routine Tank and Dock $ 7 ,008.00 2004 1601-61301 Routine Weed eater (2) $ 1,000.00 2004 1601-61301 Major Marcy Gulch $ 68,993 2004 1601-61261 Major Deep Wells $ 143,736 2004 1602-61301 Major Generator for 250 h.p. Zone II $ 57,000 2004 1602-61301 Major VFD for Zone I $ 45,000 2004 1603-61101 Routine Bear Creek Fence $ 500.00 2004 1603-61301 Routine Replace 7 ea . Filter Valves $ 40 ,000.00 2004 1603-61301 Routine Misc . Equipment Replacement $ 50 .000.00 2004 1603-61251 Major Replace Overhaed Storage Valves & Vaults $ 210,000 2004 1603-61401 Routine Forklift for Union Av . PAC $ 16.000.00 2004 1604-61401 Routine pgrade or ave $ 15,000.00 2004 1604-16301 Routine $ 5,000.00 2004 1607-61201 Routine $ 10,000 1607-61502 Major $ 166,000 1604-61263 Distribution Routine Water Main Replacememt I $ ALL Routine Routine Capital Replacement .. 1601-61262 Major City Ditch Piping at Belleview $ 100,000 1602-61301 Major Replacement of Parco Valves $ 250,000 2005 1602-61301 Routine Replace VFD for Zone II #4 $ 40,000.00 . 2005 1603-61301 Major Solar Bee for North Reservoir $ 40,0®: 2005 1603-61301 Major East 3 mg Overhead Reservoir Rehab. $ 150,0®. 2005 1603-61301 Major Solar Bee for West 3 mg tank $ 17,000 2005 1603-61301 Major Washwater Pump Station Rehab. $ 300,QOO 2005 1603-61262 Major Sherman Tank Painting & Repair $ 111,000 2005 1603-61262 Major Zuni Tank Painting & Repair $ 190,000 2005 1603-61301 Routin e Replacement Blower for Sludge $ 2 ,500.00 2005 1603-61301 Routine Landscaping for Generator $ 10 ,000.00 2005 1603-61301 Routine Sludge Pump for Belt Press $ 3,500.00 2005 1603-61301 Routine Upgrades for Vul nerabili Assessment $ 25 ,000.00 I 2005 1604-61263 Distribution Water Main replacement $ 100,000.00 2005 1604-61301 Routine Handheld Hydarlic Valve Maching $ 7,000.00 2005 1604-61401 Routine Sa lvage Value i or #1334 Holdover $ 10.000.00 2005 1604-61501 Routin e New Chairs fo r Lunch Room (1/2) I S 1,500.00 · 2005 1607-61251 Major 2 -Automatic Fill Stations $ 50,000 2005 1607-61502 Routine IT Related Improvements $ 16,400.00. 2005 1607-61251 Routine Repairs to Mclellan House $ 50 ,000.00 2005 1607 -61302 Routine Large Meter Replacements $130,000.00 2005 1607-61302 Routine Mclellan House -New Tractor $ 15,000.00 2005 1607-61502 Routine GIS improvements $ 2 ,800.00 · 2005 1607-61301 Routine Office Furniture Replacement $ 5 ,000.00 2005 1607-61301 Routine GIS Printer Replacement $ 2,000.00 1607-61502 Routine Printer ( 1 /2) $ 1,000.00 1607-61302 Routine Water Feature (1/2) $ 10,000 .00 1604-61263 Distribution Distribution Ma in Replacements $ 100,000.00 2006 MYCP 1604-61263 Major Replace Union Ave Water Main 16" $ 500,000.00 2006 1607-61301 Routine IT Related Improvements $ 17,000.00 2006 MYCP 1607-61302 Routine Large Meter Replacement $100,000.00 2006 MYCP 1603-61262 Routine Valve and Pump Replace Allen Plant $100,000.00 2006 MYCP 1607-61301 IT Related Improvements 2007 1604-61262 Distribution Distribution Main Replacements 2007 Page 1 CAPITAL 2005 . ,..,_"""' 2005~~ 7/20/2004 9:50 ,,.flit ,~~· Spr. Fl 2005 CAPITAL ITEMS Sht. Shts City M ACCOUNT PROJECT Amount YEAR Major Routine Distribution 1607~1302 Routine Large Meter Replacement $ 85 ,000 2007 MYCP 1601-61262 Major Pipe City Ditch $ 100,000 2007 MYCP 1603-61262 Routine Storage Tank Repairs $ 50,000 2007 ., 1603-61301 Routine Allen Plant Repairs $ 150,000 2007 111•11111 I .. I 1604-61262 Distribution Distribution Main Replacements $ 100,000 2008 MYCP 1607~1301 Routine IT Related Improvements $ 18,200 2008 MYCP 1601-61262 Major Pipe City Ditch $ 100,000 2008 1603-61262 Routine Storage Tank Repairs $ 50 ,000 2008 1603-61262 Routine Allen Plant Repairs 150000 2008 111•11111•111 . 111•111--·111•1r111u11 1604-61262 Distribution Distribution Main Replacements $ 1 00' 000. 00 2009 1603-61262 Routine Allen Plant Repairs $150,000.00 2009 1603-61262 Routine Storage Tank Repairs $ 50 ,000 .00 2009 1601-61262 Major Pipe City Ditch $ 100,000.00 2009 '"••lll•••lm i-·•ll•llll••llm ... jllffiljlljT1 Distribution System 2004 $ 100,000 Distribution System 2005 $ 100,000 Distribution System 2006 $ 100,000 Distribution System 2007 $ 100,000 Distribution System 2008 $ 100,000 Distribution System 2009 $ 100,000 Total Routine Capital Replacement 2004 $ 146,508 Total Routine Capital Replacement 2005 $ 331,700 Total Routine Capital Replacement 2006 $ 217 ,000 Total Routine Capital Replacement 2007 $ 302 ,500 Total Routine Capital Replacement 2008 $ 218 ,200 Total Routine Capital Replacement 2009 $ 200 ,000 Total Major Capital 2004 $ 784,522 Total Major Capital 2005 $ 1,208,000 Total Major Capital 2006 $ 500 ,000 Total Ma jor Capital 2007 $ 100 ,000 Total Ma jor Capital 2008 $ 100,000 .00 Total Ma jor Capital 2009 $ 100,000.00 ~ $ 2,792 ,522 $ 1,415,908 $ 600,000 Page 2 CAPITAL 2005 ENGLEWOOD UTILITIES ADMINISTRATION DIVISION JUSTIFICATION FOR CAPITAL REQUESTS REPAIRS TO MCLELLAN HOUSE: 40-1607-61251 $50,000. The McLellan Reservoir caretaker's house serves the function of keeping a Water Department presence at McLellan Reservoir all the time. The caretaker's duties include patrolling the reservoir for trespassers, repairing the fences, keeping the weeds mowed to maintain visibility, and communicating with the Littleton Police Department regarding reservoir security issues. Were we to eliminate this facility and function, the Water Department would have to look into alternate means of providing security patrols and maintenance for McLellan Reservoir. We currently have no normal workday staff time or equipment allocated for this function . LARGE METER REPLACEMENT: 40-1607-61302. 2005 = $130 ,000 2006 = $100 ,000 2007 = $ 85 ,000 The Water Department presently has an inventory of 528 -1. 5" to 10" meters, the majority of them past their prime. Because they are our cash registers, the American Water Works Association recommends that meters of this size be tested annually or every two years, depending on size. The Water Department has never had enough staff to establish that kind of aggressive meter testing program. Instead, we have elected to let the meters run until their age requires that they be replaced. Were we to not replace these meters, our revenues will be slowly eroded by their gradual slowing down. CAPITAL PROJECTS JUSTIFICATION 2005 WATER 1601-61262 City Ditch reline of 58" corrugated pipe beneath Belleview Avenue. Old corrugated pipe is rusting away. Reline with 48" plastic pipe and fill voids with sand± 200 lineal feet. Replace 75 lineal feet of 36" corrugated pipe that is failing with 48" plastic pipe at Pren- tice and Prescott. Pipe failure would cause Belleview A venue to collapse and the repair would then cost significantly more money. Total -$100,000 1602-61301 Replacement of Parco valve system on seven clearwell pumps. 25-year-old system is used to close valves slowly to prevent distribution water from flowing into clearwell. System is used to prevent water hammer on water mains. Water hammer from pumps this large could cause significant damage to plumbing in houses some distance from the plant. It can also cause main breaks. Hydraulic controls are leaking hydraulic oil, which could contaminate drinking water clearwell supply and valves are not seating, which causes pumps to turn backwards . Total Estimated Costs -$250,000 1602-61301 Replace variable frequency (VFD) drive on Zone II #4 clearwell pump. This VFD is 15 years old and obsolete, and parts can no longer be purchased for repairs. The VFDs are used to control motor speeds on pumps, and without this feature pumps cycle on and off more often, causing larger fluctuations in pressure at residences. This feature also saves significantly on electrical costs. Total Estimated cost -$40,000 1603-61301 Install Solar Bee circulating system on North Reservoir. Dr. Bill Lewis has recom- mended a second Solar Bee be installed on the 80 million-gallon reservoir. This would ·. . .. ~ -· -~. better distribute the settled solids and prevent algal blooms, which cause taste and odor problems. It would also prevent manganese that is present in the settled solids from get- ting into the distribution system. Manganese causes brown water complaints and black spots on laundry. Estimated cost for large Solar Bee -$40,000 1603-61301 Rehabilitation of the east 3 million-gallon overhead storage reservoir. 50-year-old con- crete storage tank has had several concrete repairs over the past 20 years. A thorough engineering review was completed, and it is recommended that extensive concrete repairs be completed as well as access hatch replacements, be done to prevent storm water infil- tration along with security upgrades. If the tank is not repaired, approximately 1/3 of the City's fire fighting reserve would be lo st. To replace this tank would cost approximately 3 million dollars. Estimated work is $15 0,0 00 1603-61301 W ashwater pump station rehabilitation. The two existing vertical turbine washwater pumps were designed to pump backwash water from filter washing. With the installation of the new settling system in 2000, these existing pumps are now pumping heavier solids than w as intended for their design. Numerous repairs of the existing pumps are no longer feasible . Consultants have recommended the existing units be replaced with submersible pumps that are designed to handle the heav ier solids. If these pumps are not replaced, pump fa i lure could c ause illegal discharges that would result in fines up to $32 ,000 per day. Intentionally i gnoring the problem could also result in criminal prosecution by State or Federal agencies. Estimated cost -$300 ,000 1603-61262 Sherman tank painting and repair. Investigations indicate that painting and corrosion control are needed on the 200 ,000-gallon Sherman elevated storage tank. The tank is es- sential to provide pressure in the southeast area of Englewood. Routine maintenance has occurred every three to five years , but more extensive repairs are now needed on the 25- year-old tank. If the tank is not repaired, leakage could cause the tank to be inactivated resulting in low-pressure complaints. Delaying the work could result in more deteriora- tion and much high repair costs. Estimated cost -$111,000 ·:j .·: . ·: 1603-61262 The same investigation as the Sherman Tank has indicated that the 500,000-gallon Zuni elevated storage tank needs repairs and painting. Routine maintenance also has occurred every three to five years, but more extensive painting and repairs are now needed. If this tank needed emergency repairs during the summer, low pressure would occur in the highly industrialized northwest area near W. Bates and S. Zuni. Delays could result in more damage and much higher costs . Approximate estimated costs -$190,000 1603-613 01 Upgrades of the water system security have been identified by the EPA mandated Vul- nerability Assessment. Water providers are required to insure water systems are secure and that monitoring devices are adequate. The Utilities Department will be installing various devices to meet these requirements in the next few years. Estimated cost for several years -$25 ,000 1607-61251 Automated fill stations. Two fill stations will be installed to allow contractors to obtain water for construction and water tank filling. The Vulnerability Assessment recom- mended that non-City personnel hydrant use be restricted and using fill stations will de- crease this access to fire hydrants . Estimated cost -$50 ,000 1604-61263 Water main replacement will be needed for water mains that are cleaned and found to be unaccep table for water transmission. Approximately 25 % of the mains cleaned are found to be in need to replacement. Approximately three blocks could be replaced each year. If mains are not replaced, low flows to the customers or numerous mains breaks could oc- cur. Appro ximate yearly cost -$100,000 CAPITAL PROJECTS JUSTIFICATI ON 2006 1604-61263 Water main replacement as described in 2005 will continue. Approximate cost -$100,000 1604-61263 Replacement of 16-inch water main on West Union Avenue from South Santa Fe to South Federal. The 16-inch steel water main is beginning to fail and numerous corrosion areas are being discovered. To insure reliable service to the customers in the southwest area, this main needs to be replaced. Numerous leaks and repairs could cause low pres- sure. Resulting street and sidewalk repairs will be required. The remainder of the money will be used to install a 36" sleeve and replace the 24" main on So uth Clarkson where it crosses beneath Hwy. 285. The main is 25' deep and would result in a major excavation under Hw y. 285, causing significant traffic problems until the main was replaced. Estimated cost if both mains are replaced -$500,000 1603-61262 Allen Plant equipment is over 25 years old. Valves and pumps are beginning to need re- placement. Clear well pumps that provide water to the customers are very expensive and need to be replaced on a yearly basis. Without the proper operation of these pumps and valves , potable water cannot be provided to customers. Estimated cost per year -$100 ,000 . -:~?t~~'!f;~ -. . ;,~.;~~}'" - \}J .·:. ·.··· ·.• :;.:· CAPITAL PROJECTS JUSTIFICATION 2007 1604-61263 Water main replacement projects described in 2005 will continue. Estimated cost -$100,000 1601-61263 Piping of City Ditch south of the Allen Filter Plant uses City Ditch water in the winter to reduce the hardness of the water being delivered to our customers. Piping the City Ditch allow s flows to continue when freezing occurs. This also protects the water supply from contamination. Estimated cost -$100,000 1603-61262 Overh ead Storage Tank or Clearwell Tank concrete repairs. Yearly upkeep of storage tanks to prev ent concrete deterioration of treated water storage tanks . Estimated cost -$50 ,000 1603-61301 Allen Plant repairs. Replacement of pumps, valves and equipment as explained in 2006. Estimated costs -$150,000 ,_ . >s"f 1~~~-~1=;:~~,· '"'·<;7~;~, ;;: CAPITAL PROJECTS JUSTIFICATION 2008 1604-61262 Distribution main replacement. Continuation of program explained in 2005. Estimated costs -$100,000. 1601-61262 Continuation of City Ditch piping program as explained in 2007. Estimated costs -$100,000 1603-61262 Continuation of concrete storage tank repairs as explained in 2007. Estimated cost -$50,000 1603-61301 Continuation ofrepairs to pumps, valves and equipment at Allen Plant Filter Plant as ex- plained in 2006. . ~~.1~··:·. .. ~~:r-- ~~:~ · ... :=::. CAPITAL PROJECTS JUSTIFICATION 2009 1604-61262 Continu ation of distribution water main replacement program as explained in 2006 . Estimated cost -$100,000 1603-61262 Continuation of Allen Plant equipment replacement as explained in 2006. Estimated costs -$150,000 1603-6 1262 Continuation of concrete storage tank repairs as explained in 2007. Estimated cost -$50,000 1601-61262 Continuation of City Ditch piping project as explained in 2007. Estimated costs $100,000 ALLEN FILTER PLANT TREATED GALLONS USED AND RAINFALL uanuarx February Mar~.,." Apri!_ .~':':,~-.om ..... ¥ay .. :· 25 t _.·1'. June 403 TREATED MILLION GALLONS ~uly . ._...,.,.,.,......,._,,..,.,.........,_ .. ...,._. Augu~ 395 381 Septembe ~-· . · ·33(f ...,,.., """"';!""'!'~""'~ 243 ·~ .... ~··.:-i" . :;·-< 255 October 223 177 236 ~qy~_n:}beC: ~-· i 13 ......,...,.,.,..,,,_...,.. 153 145 - Decembe1 156 159 138 TOTALS 3010 2949 2726 Thru July 1725 1855 1571 RAINFALL IN INCHES 2001 2002 2003 January 0.78 0 .1 0.07 ~ebruary 0.64 0 .1 8 1.03 March 1.18 0.49 2.65 April 1.28 0.07 2.18 May 3.77 0.52 0 June 1.52 0.31 2.26 -· ~ ... -~: <:'"'I' ~,.;"", July 1 .39 0.62 1.31_.·~ ;pn.~-' August 0.71 0.89 2.27 se ptembe~:: -;: 1.87 0 ':· 9.... ·~ .J. "" - October 0.63 0.02 _ o.1s ~·;. Decembe1 0.17 TOTALS 5.96 Thru July 2.29 9.5 Ra infall vs . treated.xis 1322 1322 2004 I o.~1 J 0.93 ~ 0.49 3.02 1.33'. 2.2 . .., 1.74 .. ','" :': 10.02 . ·---:J 10 .02 j l i ., ~ial Security Online History Social Security benefit increases, also known as cost-of-living adjustments or COLAs, have been in effect since 1975. The 1975- 82 COLAs were effective with Social Security benefits payable for June in each of those years ; thereafter C OLAs have been effective w ith benefits payable for December. Prior to 1975, Social Security benefit increases were set by legislation . Basis for COLAs Detailed information on how the latest COLA was calculated is available . SSI COLAs l'age 1~r1 Automatic Increases ~ Cost-of-Living Adjustments '!tt Updated March 4, 2004 Social Security Cost-Of-Living Adjustments Year COLA Year COLA Year COLA 1975 8.0% 1985 3.1% 1995 2.6% 1976 6.4% 1986 1.3% 1996 2.9% 1977 5.9% 1987 4.2% 1997 2.1% 1978 6 .5% 1988 4.0% 1998 1.3% 1979 9.9% 1989 4.7% 1999 3 2.5% 1980 14.3% 1990 5.4% 2000 3.5% 1981 11 .2% 1991 3.7% 2001 2.6% I J / 1982 7.4% 1992 3.0% 2002 1.4% 1983 3.5% 1993 2.6% 2003 2.1% 1984 3.5% 1994 2.8% zoc,<-f: z~O ~ ,..___ ;l,»(}~ z -'-I --) a The COLA for December 1999 was originally determined as 2 .4 percent based on CPls published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics . Pursuant to Public Law 106-554, however, this COLA is effectively now 2.5 percent. The first automatic COLA, for June 1975, was based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPl- W) from the second quarter of 197 4 to the first quarter of 1975 . The 1976- 83 COLAs were based on increases in the CPl-W from the first quarter of the prior year to the corresponding quarter of the current year in which the COLA became effective. After 1983 , COLAs have been based on increases in the CPl-W from the third quarter of the prior year to the corresponding quarter of the current year in which the COLA became effective. COLAs for the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program are generally the same as those for the Social Security program . However, COLAs for SSI have generally been effective for the month following the effective month of Social Security benefit increases . See SSI historical payment standards for more detail. http://www.ssagov/OACT/COLA/colaseries.html 7/29/2004 ·~-------- FORECAST June2004 •Note: CONSUMER PRICE INDEX -AU ITEMS (CPl-U) (1982-84:100) CALENDAR YEAR Denver-Boulder-Denver-Boulder- Inflation Rate Greeley Greeley Inflation 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 1970 1971 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 U.S . 31.0 31.5 32.4 33.4 34.8 36.7 38.8 40.5 41.8 44.4 49.3 53.8 56.9 60.6 65 .2 72.6 82.4 90.9 96.5 99.6 103.9 107.6 109.6 113.6 118.3 124.0 130.7 136.2 140.3 144 .5 148.2 152.4 156.9 160.5 163.0 1.3 % 1.6 2.9 3 .1 4 .2 5.5 5.7 4.4 3.2 6.2 11.0 9.1 5.8 6.5 7.6 11.3 13 .5 10.3 62 3.2 4.3 3.6 1.9 3.6 4 .1 4.8 5 .4 4.2 3.0 3 .0 2 .6 2.8 3 .0 2.3 1.6 CMsA· Rate 28.3 28.8 29.7 30.0 30.8 32.0 34.5 35.9 37.0 39.6 43 .9 48.4 51.1 55.4 60.6 70 .0 78.4 87.2 95.1 100.5 104.3 107.1 107.9 110.8 113.7 115.8 120 .9 125.6 130.3 135.8 141 .8 147.9 153.1 158.1 161.9 N/A 1.7 % 3.0 1.1 2.5 4.2 7.6 4.1 3.1 7.0 10 .9 10.3 5.6 8.4 9.4 15.5 12.0 11 .2 9.1 5.7 3 .8 2.7 0.7 2.7 2 .6 1.8 4.4 3.9 3.7 4.2 4 .4 4.3 3 .5 3.3 2.4 1999 166.6 2.2 166.6 2 ,~9 !r r ')7- 2000 172.2 3.4 173.2 4. · l / ? 2001 177.1 2.8 181.3 4.7 ~ 2002 179.9 1.6 184.8 1.9 ---';'"'-:"'-"';'---~-!s-4:-~---";=:~~----1"'"'1:0;.;;.6'"":~-----~-'-:0-7---/ .,"/ 7 b 2; 2005 194.1 2.8 195.1 2.4· -//ADif) 2006 198.9 2.5 200.6 2.8 A Consumer Price Index (C Pl-U) is not calculated for the State of Colorado. The CPl-U for the Denver-Boulder-Greeley CMSA is often used as a proxy for the inflati on rate of Colorado. (It is calculated semiannually .) '' . City of Englewood Water Fund Various Water Rate Scenarios Scenario 1: Annual Average Annual Average compouded compouded Rate · Cumulative Compounded rate increase Rate Cumulative Compounded rate increase Increase Rate Increase Rate Increase from 1999 Increase Rate Increase Rate Increase from 1999 1999 1.00 1.00 2004 1.16 16% 1.16 1.03010 1.08 8% 1.08 1.01550 2005 1.14 30% 1.32 1.04770 1.14 22% 1.23 1.03530 2006 1.08 38% 1.43 1.05220 1.08 30% 1.33 1.04150 2007 1.05 43% 1.50 1.05200 1.05 35% 1.40 1.04260 2008 1.04 47 % 1.56 1.05060 1.04 39% 1.45 1.04230 2009 1.04 51% 1.62 1.04960 1.04 43% 1.51 1.04210 Scenario 2: Annual Average Annual Average compouded compouded Rate Cumulative Compounded rate increase Rate Cumulative Compounded rate increase Increase Rate Increase Rate Increase from 1999 Increase Rate Increase Rate Increase from 1999 1999 1.00 1.00 2004 1.16 16% 1.1 6 1.03010 1.08 8% 1.08 1.01550 2005 1.16 32 % 1.35 1.05070 1.16 24% 1.25 1.03830 2006 1.08 40% 1.4 5 1.05490 1.08 32 % 1.35 1.04410 2007 1.05 45 % 1.53 1.05420 1.0 5 37 % 1.42 1.044 90 2008 1.04 49% 1.59 1.05270 1.04 41% 1.48 1.04430 2009 1.04 53 % 1.65 1.05140 1.04 45% 1.54 1.04390 Scenario 3: Annual Average Annual Average compouded compouded Rate Cumulative Compounded rate increase Rate Cumulative Compounded rate increase Increase Rate Increase Rate Increase from 1999 Increase Rate Increase Rate Increase from 1999 1999 1.00 1.00 2004 1.16 16% 1.16 1.03010 1.08 8% 1.08 1.01550 2005 1.35 51 % 1.57 1.07760 1.35 43 % 1.46 1.06490 2006 1.10 61% 1.72 1.08080 1.10 53% 1.60 1.06980 2007 1.05 66 % 1.81 1.07690 1.05 58 % 1.68 1.06730 2008 1.05 71% 1.90 1.07390 1.05 63 % 1.77 1.06540 2009 1.05 76 % 1.99 1.07150 1.05 68 % 1.86 1.06380 Water Rate Scenarios .xis 8/6/2004 8:23 AM I I ALLEN FILTER PLANT TREATED GALLONS USED AND RAINFALL TREATED PUMPED TO DISTRIBUTION MAINS IN MILLION GALLONS 221.122 __........,_.171.173 December TOTALS Thru July ~an.~ary ~eb .ruary March April May June .[u_ly . August 154.054 2985.202 1710.738 2001 0.78 0.64 1.19 1.28 3.74 1.53 4.41 0.71 383.194 '~~--,,.-.., ~-~6.213 "''"""""· ,..._...,........,..__,_ .. ·· ... - ' . 359.394 -. 241.337 174.982 150.464'~""'""·"''' 158.101 . 2920.646 1836.368 RAINFALL IN INCHES 2002 0.1 0.18 0.49 0.07 0.52 0.31 0.62 ' 0.89 Septembe..L_~. -,,..,.. '"""'.v•" " 1.8f 0.99 ¥ . "" . . ..: . . .... ' "-'' October 0.08 0.63 '0.12 ;> h ~· ,...tJ:;~ .'.~-. ~ 0.28. c' ..... :: ·.ll.,, -. '"' .... .. ......... ~~.-.;;.,:.... December 0.14 0 TOTALS ; . 16.21 ~ 5.96 "' Thru July 13 .57 2.29 Rainfall vs . treatedA.xls 2003 2004 0.01 o.~) 1.03 0.93 2.65 0.49 2.18 3.02 0 .: 1.3~j 2.26 2.2 1.31 '··'"I:: ... , ,._ . · 1.741 -_ ..... .., ·--.... ..._~ "" -:::iJ 2.27 -0 ......... "1"":; ..... ; ·"':'" ""·"' ..,,._.........,... 0.02 -0.18 ~. 0.17 . ' 2005 BUDGET PREP 7/30/2004 4:46 PM 7/30!2004 16:45 .. L_ D Major Capital for 2004: Mclellan Fence -$43 ,00D Marcy Gulch= $68,993 Generator = $57,000 VFD Zone I= $45,000 P AC = $50, 793 Overhead Storage= $210 ,000 CIS Infinity= $166 ,000 Deep Wells= $143 ,736 Distribution Items for 2004: M isc. W ater Main Replacements =$100,000 Major Capital for 2005: City Ditch@ Belleview= $100.000 Parco Valves= $250,000 Solar Bee N Res = $40,000 Eas t Overhead Re s = $150,000 Sola r Bee W #mg = $17 ,000 Wash Water Pump Station= $300,000 2 -Auto Fill Stations -@50 ,000 Sherman Tan k Re hab= $111 ,000 Zuni Tank Rehab -$190000 Distribution Items for 2005: Misc. W ate r Main Replacements -$100,000 THIS CASH FLOW MODEL ATTEMPTS TO REMOVE ALL CONTINGENCY MONEY. O&MINCR 4 .00% INTEREST 2 .00% INTERIM FINANCING IN 1997; GO BOND REFINANCE IN 1998 I 2002 Actuals 2003 Ac tu a Is 2003 Actuals 2004 2005 / 2006 2007 2008 2009 Cash Method Accrual Method Cash Method Estimated Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected REVENUE: WATER SALES 4,074 ,276 .$ 3,653,571 $ 3,678,368 $ 4,267,000 $ 4 ,267,000 $ 4,864 ,380 $ 5,253,530 $ 5,516 ,207 $ 5,736,655 RATE INCREASE 597 ,380 389 ,150 $ 262,677 220 ,648 229,474 4,074,276 3,653,571 3,678,368 4 ,267,000 4,864 ,380 5,253,530 5,516,207 5,736 ,855 5,966,329 RAW WATER 1,177,820 1,610,620 1,640,290 1,610,620 1,610 ,620 1,610,620 1,610,620 1,610,620 1,610,620 CITY DITCH 139,034 84,576 84,576 84 ,576 64 ,576 64 ,5 76 84 ,576 64 ,576 84 ,576 OTHER 146,103 206,770 219,363 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 TOTAL REVENUE 5,537,233 5,555,537 5,622,597 6,112,196 6 ,709,576 7,098,728 7,361,404 7,582 ,053 7,811,527 O&M (NO DEPR) (4 ,419,517) (4,426,027) (4,574,676) (5 ,008 ,521) (5 ,208,862) (5,417,216) (5 ,633,905) (5,859,261) (6 ,093,632) FRANCHISE TAX (121,394) (109,607) (109,607) (138,720) (147,043) (1 57 ,606) (165,486) (172 ,106) (178 ,990) NET OPERATING REVENUE 996,322 1,019,903 938,314 964 ,955 1,353,671 1,523,905 1,562 ,013 1,550 ,686 1,538,905 DEBT SERVICE (current): PRINCIPAL (640,623) (655,712) (655,712) (668,058) (684 ,520) (700 ,981) (717 ,442) (735,276) (755 ,852) INTERE ST (487,033) (473,453) (473,453) (458,757) (443 ,230) (427,0 10) (410,083) (392,266) (372 ,978) FUTIJRE DEBT SERVICE (150,000) (300,000) (300,000) (300,000) (300,000) ROUTINE CAPITAL REPLACE (1 28,747) (343,9631 (343,963) (146 ,508) (331,700) (217 ,000) (302 ,500) (218,200) (200 ,000) AVAILABLE REVENUE (260,081) (453,225} (534 ,814) (308,368) (255,779) (121 ,086) (168 ,012) (95 ,056) (89,925) .. INTEREST INCOME 165,168 59,35()' 82,975 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 I I BALANCE FORWARD 5,596,706 5,002,244 ' li,002,244 3,422 ,277 2,299 ,387 3,805,608 3, 154 ,522 2 ,856,510 2 ,631 ,454 TRANSFER TO BOND FUND " ---- ' .. LOAN -GENERAL FUND ''· --. 1, r<,, NEW DEBT PROCEEDS --3,000,000 -- AVAILABLE FUNDS 5,501,793 4,608,369 4,550,405 3, 173,909 5, 103 ,608 3,744 ,522 3,046,510 2 ,82 1,454 2,601 ,529 I CAPITAL PROJECTS (513,374) (1 ,1 83,321) (1,183,321) (764 ,522) (1 ,208 ,000) (500 ,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM (100,000) (100,000) (100 ,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) -- CONNECTION FEES 13,825 10,896 10,896 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 ENDING CASH BALANCE 5,002,244 $ 3,435,944 $ 3,377,980 $ 2 ,2 99,387 $ 3,805 ,608 $ 3 .1 ~_ $ 2 ,856,510 $ 2,631,454 $ 2,411 ,529 DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUND (1,189,000) $ (1,189,000) $ (1 ,250,000) $ ( 1,250,000) $ (1 ,250 ,000) $ (1 .250,000) $ (1 ,250,000) $ (1 ,250,000) $ (1 ,250 ,000) TOTAL CAS H Unrestricted 3,813,244 $ 2,246,944 $ 2,127,980 $ 1,049,387 $ 2,555,608 $ 1,904 ,522 $ 1,606 ,510 $ 1 ,381,454 $ 1,161 ,529 Reconciliation Adju stments from Ac 5,002,244 NREC(ca) -11860 NP -71868 Contra labor/Equipment on In-House Capital Projects 128021 .72 Ending Cash Balance 3422273 .83 Ending Cash Balance Per CAFR 3422277 Difference -3 .169999999 cash percafr 4380706 3422277 -dirr --------- f TOTAL REVENUE 5,7 16,226 5,625,783 5,716,468 6 ,182 ,196 9 ,779 ,576 7,168,728 7 ,431 ,404 7,652 ,053 7,881 ,527 TOTALEXPENDnuRES (6 ,3 10,688) ~' (7 ,192,083) (7 ,340, 732) (7 ,305,086) (8 ,273 ,355) (7,819 ,813) (7 ,729 ,416) (7 ,877 , 109) (8 ,101 ,452) DEBT COVERAGE RATI_O ___ 1.04 ...,,_....J.._-""·· 0.97 . 0.91 0.92 1.11 1.12 1.14 1.14 1.13 Rate Increase Year Annual Cumut. - 2004 16.00% 0.16 2005 1400% 2006 800% 2007 500% 2008 4.00% 2009 400% 2010 0.00% Stu's O&M model 1.xls NO CONTINGENCY MODEL WATER FUND • 2005 BUDGET PREP 7/30/2004 4:45 PM 7/30/2004 16:43 --~ D Major Capital for 2004 : Mclellan Fence= $43 ,000 Marcy Gulc h = $68 ,993 Generator= $57 ,000 VFD Zone I = $45 ,000 PAC= $50 ,793 Overhead Storage= $210,000 CIS Infinity= $166 ,000 Deep W ells = $143 ,736 Distribution Items for 2004 : Misc. Water Main Replacements =$100,000 Major Capital for 2005: City Ditch@ Belleview= $100,000 Parco Valve s = $250,000 Solar Bee N Res= $40 ,000 East Overhea d Res. -$150,000 Solar Bee W #mg = $17 ,000 Wash Water Pump Station= $300 ,000 2 -Auto Fill Stations = @50,000 Sherman Tank Rehab= $111 ,000 Zuni Tank Rehab= $190000 Distribution Items for 2005: Misc. Water Main Re placements = $100 ,000 THIS CASH FLOW MODEL ATTEMPTS TO REMOVE ALL CONTINGENCY MONEY. O&MINCR 4 .00% INTEREST 2.00'4 INTERIM FINANCING IN 1997; GO BOND REFINANCE IN 1998 I 2002 Actuals 2003 Actuals 2003 Actuals 2004 2006 2006 2007 2008 2009 Cash Method Accrual Method Cash Method Estimated Budget Projecied Projected Projected Projected REVENUE : WATER SALES 4,074,276 $ 3,653,571 $ 3,678,368 s 4,267 ,000 $ 4,267 ,000 $ 4 ,949,720 $ 5,345,698 $ 5,612 ,982 $ 5,837 ,502 RATE INCREASE 682 ,720 395,978 $ 267 ,285 224,519 233,500 4 ,074,276 3 ,653,571 3,678,368 4 ,267,000 4,949,72 0 5,345,698 5 ,612 ,982 5,837 ,502 6 ,071 ,002 RAW WATER 1,177,820 1,610,620 1,640,290 1,610,620 1,610 ,620 1,610,620 1,610,620 1,6 10,620 1,610,620 CITY DITCH 139,034 84,576 84,576 84 ,576 84 ,576 84 ,576 84 ,576 84 ,576 84 ,576 OTHER 146,103 206 ,no 219,363 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 ___ L -----TOTAL REVENUE 5,537 ,233 5,555,537 5,622,597 6,112,196 6 ,794 ,916 7, 190,895 7,458,180 7 ,682 ,699 7,916,199 O&M (NO DEPR) (4,419,517) (4,426,027) (4 ,574,676) (5 ,008 ,521) (5,208,862) (5,417 ,216) (5.633,905) (5 ,859,261) (6,093,632) FRANCHISE TAX (1 21,394) (109,607) (109,607) (138 ,720 ) (147 ,04 3) (160,371) (168,389) (175 ,125) (182,130) NET OPERATING REVENUE 996,322 1,019,903 938,314 964,955 1,439,011 1,6 13,307 1,655,885 1,648,313 1,640,437 DEBT SERVICE (current)· PRINCIPAL (640,623) (655,712) (655,712) (668.058) (684 ,520) (700 ,981) (717 ,44 2) (735,276) (755,852) INTEREST (487 ,033) (473,453) (473,453) (458,757) (443 ,230) (427 ,010) (410,083) (392 ,266) (372,978) FUTURE DEBT SERVICE . . (100,000) (200,000) (200,000) (200,000) (200,000) ROUTINE CAPITAL REPLACE (128 ,747) (343.~ (343 ,963) (1 46,508) (331 ,700) (217,000) (302 ,500) (218,200) (200,000 AVAILABLE REVENUE (260,081) (453,225) (534,814) (308 ,368) (120,439) 68,316 25,860 102,571 111 ,607 I INTEREST INCOME 165,168 59,350 82,975 60,000 60,000 60,000 60 ,000 60 ,000 60,000 BALANCE FORWARD 5,596,706 5,002,244 5,002,244 3,422,277 2,299,387 2,940,948 2,479,264 2,375 ,125 2,347,695 ' TRANSFER TO BOND FUND . . . -. - i LOAN -GENERAL FUND . ' --- NEW DEBT PROCEEDS -2 ,000,000 --- AVAILABLE FUNDS 5,501,793 4,608,369 4,550,405 3,173,909 4 ,238 ,948 3 ,069 ,264 2,565,125 2,537,695 2 ,519,303 CAPITAL PROJECTS (5 13,374) (1 ,183,321) (1 ,183,321) (784,522) (1.208 ,000) (500 ,000) (100,000) (100 ,000) (100,000) DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM -(100,000) (100,000) (100 ,000) (100,000) (100,000) (100,000) CONNECTION FEES 13,825 10,896 10,896 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 ENDING CASH BALANCE 5,002,244 s 3,435,944 $ 3,377 ,980 $ 2,299 ,387 $ 2 ,940 ,948 $ 2,479,264 $ 2,375,125 $ 2,347,695 $ 2,329 ,303 DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUND (1 , 189,000) $ (1 ,189,000) $ (1,250,000) $ (1.250,000) $ (1 ,250 ,000) $ (1 ,250,000) $ (1,250 ,000) $ (1,250 ,000) s (1 ,250,000) -· TOTAL CASH Unrestricted 3,813,244 $ 2,246,944 $ 2,127,980 $ 1,049 ,387 $ 1,690 ,948 $ 1,229,264 $ 1,125,125 $ 1,097,695 $ 1,079 ,303 Reconciliation Adjustments from Ac 5,002,244 A/REC (ca) -11860 A/P -7 1868 Contra Labor/Equipment on In-House Capital Projects 128021 .72 Ending Cash Balance 3422273 .83 Ending Cash Balance Per CAFR 3422277 Difference -3 . 169999999 cash per cafr 4380706 3422277 dirr TOTAL REVENUE 5,716,226 5,625,763 5,7 16,468 ____ 6 ,182 ,19?_ >----8 ,864 ,~ 7,260,895 7 ,528 ,180 7,752 ,699 7 ,986 ,199 f--- TOTAL EXPENDITURES (6,310,688) (7,192,083) (7,340,732) (1,305,086) (8 ,223 ,355~ (7 ,722,578 ) (7 ,632 ,320) (7,780 , 128) (8 ,004 ,592) -----DEBT COVERAGE RATIO 1.04 ......... -··--· 0 .97 0.91 ____ o_.~ f---~~. 1.27 1.30 1.29 1.29 ------------ ·------------·------------------------------------ Rate -Increase Year Annual Cumul. ---------2004 16.00% 0 .16 --2005 16.00lb 2006 8 .00% 2007 5.00% 2008 4.00% 2009 4.00% 2010 0.00% Stu's O&M model 2.xls NO CONTINGENCY MODEL WATER FUND .. . . . 2005 BUDGET PREP 8/5/2004 11:42AM 81512004 11 :42 ,._L_ Major Capital for 2004: Mclell a n Fe nce -$43,000 M arcy Gulc h = $68,9 93 Gene rato r = $57,000 VFD Zone I -$4 5 ,000 P A C -$50 ,793 Overhead Sto rage -$2 10,000 C IS Infinity= $166,000 Deep W ells = $143,736 Distribution Items for 2004 : M isc Water M ain Rep lacem ents =$10 0 ,000 Major Capital tor 2005 : City Ditch @ Belleview = $1CJO ,OOO Parco Valves= $250,000 Solar Bee N Res = $4 0,000 Eas t Ove rhead Res = $150,000 So lar Bee W #mg= $17 ,000 Wash Water Pump Stati on = $300,000 2 -Au to Fill Stations = @50,000 Sherma n Tank Reh ab = $111 ,000 Zu ni Tank Rehab -$190000 Di stribution Items tor 2005: Misc Water Ma m Replacements = $1 00,000 THIS CASH FLOW MODEL ATTEMPTS TO REMOVE ALL CONTINGENCY MONEY. O&MINCR 4.00'h INTEREST 2.00'.4 INTERIM FINANCING IN 1997; GO BOND REFINANCE IN 1998 ' 2002 Actuals 2003 Actuals 2003 Actuals 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Cash Method Accrual Method Cash Method Estimated Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected REVENUE WATER SALES 4,074,276 $ 3,653,571 $ 3,676,368 $ 3,&oo.ooo $ 3,600,000 $ 4,860,000 $ 5 ,346 ,000 $ 5,613,300 $ 5,893 ,965 RATE INCREASE -1,260,000 486,000 $ 267 ,300 280,665 294,698 4,074,276 3,653,571 3678,368 3,600,000 4,860,000 5,346,000 5,613,300 5,893,965 6,188,663 RAW WATER 1 ,177,820 1,610,620 1,640,290 1,610,620 1,610,620 1,610,620 1 ,610 ,620 1,610,620 1,610,620 CITY DITCH 139,034 64,576 84 ,576 64 ,576 64 ,576 64 ,576 64 ,576 64 ,576 64 ,576 OTHER 146,103 206,770 219,363 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 TOTAL REVENUE 5,537,233 5,555,537 5,622,597 5,445, 196 6 ,705,196 7,191 ,197 7,458,498 7,739 ,163 8,033,861 O&M (NO DEPR) (4,419,517) (4,426,027) (4 ,574,676) (5 ,008,521) (5,208 ,862) (5 ,417 ,216) (5 ,633,905) (5 ,859 ,261) (6,093,632) FRANCHISE TAX (121 ,394) 1109,6071 (109 ,607) (138,720) (147 ,043) (160,380) (168,399) (1 76,819 (185,660) NET OPERA TING REVENUE 996,322 1,019,903 938,314 297,955 1,349,291 1,613,601 1,656 ,193 1,7 03,082 1,754 ,569 DEBT SERVICE (current): PRINCIPAL (640,623) (665,712) (655,712) (668,058) (684 ,520) (700,981 ) (717 ,442) (735,276) (755,852) INTEREST (487 ,033) (473,453) (473,453) (458 ,757) (44 3,230) (427,010) (410,083) (392 ,266) (372 ,978) FUTURE DEBT SERVICE (150,000) (300,000 ) (300,000) (300,000) (300,000) ROUTINE CAPITAL REPLACE (1 28 ,747) 1343,963) (343963) (146 ,508) (33 1,700) (2 17,000 ) (302 ,500) 1218 ,200 (200,000) AVAILABLE REVENUE (260,081) (453,225) (534 ,814) (975,368) (260,159) (31,390 ) (73 ,832) 57,340 125,739 INTEREST INCOME 165,188 59,350 82,975 60 ,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60 ,000 BALANCE FORWARD 5,596,706 ll.002.244 5.002,244 3,422.277 1,632,387 3,134,2 28 2,572,838 2 ,369,006 2,296,347 TRANSFER TO BOND FUND . . . LOAN · GENERAL FUND . . . NEW DEBT PROCEEDS I . . 3,000,000 . . . AVAILABLE FUNDS 5,501 ,793 . 4,608,369 4,550,405 2,506,909 4,432 ,228 3,162,838 2 ,559,006 2,486 ,347 2,482 ,086 CAPITAL PROJECTS (513,374) ({183,321) (1 ,183,321) (764 ,522) (1 ,208 ,000) (500,000) (100,000) (100 ,000) (100,000) DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM . (100,000) (100 ,000) (100 ,000) (100,000) (100 ,000) (100,000) CONNECTION FEES 13,825 10,696 10,696 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 ENDING CASH BALANCE 5,002,244 $ 3,435,944 $ 3,377,980 $ 1,632 ,387 $ 3, 134 ,228 $ 2,572 ,838 $ 2,369,006 $ 2,296 ,347 $ 2,292 ,086 DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUND (1 ,189,000) $ (1 , 189,000) $ (1 ,2 50,000) $ (1 ,250,000) $ (1 ,250,000) $ (1,250,000) $ (1 ,250,000) $ (1 ,250,000) $ (1,250 ,000) TOTAL CASH Unrestricted 3,813,244 $ 2,246,944 $ 2,127,980 $ 382,387 $ -~.864 .22 8 $ 1,322 ,838 $ 1,119,006 $ 1,046 ,347 $ 1,042 ,086 Reconciliation Adjustments from Ac 5,002,244 -NREC(ca) ·11860 NP -71868 Contra LaOO</Equ ipment on In -House Capital Projects 128021.72 Ending Cash Balance 34 22273.83 Ending Cash Balance Per CAFR 34 222 77 Difference -3 .1699999 99 cesh per catr 4380706 3422277 dirr TOTAL REVENUE 5,716 ,226 5,625,783 5,716,468 5,515,196 9 ,7 75, 196 7,261 ,197 7 ,528 ,498 7,809,163 8,103,861 TOTAL EXPENDITURES (6 ,310,688) (7 ,192,063) (7 ,340,732) (7,305,086) (8 ,273 ,355 ) (7 ,822 ,58 7) (7,732 ,329) (7 ,881 ,822) (8, 108, 122) DEBT COVERAGE RA TIO 1.04 --l-~ 0.97 . 0.91 0.33 1.11 1.18 1.21 1.24 1.28 Rate Increase Year Annual Cumul. 2004 16.00% 0 .16 --wos ~ 35 00% 2006 10.00% 2007 500% -2008 5 00% 2009 5.00% 2010 0.00% Stu's O&M model 3 .xls NO CONTINGENCY MODEL WATER FUND Water Rate Comparison (using information available on each city's internet site) Based on Single Family H~me with a 3/4 " Meter and one month high usage summer i rrigation consu mpti on (35 ,000 pe r month ) I Municipality Denver Inside Denver Inside Post 9/7 /04 Englewood Arvada Lakewood Broomfield Denver Outside Denver Outside Post 917104 Longmont Inside Westminster Ins ide Thornton Inside Westminster Shaw Hts Northglenn Westm inster Outside Boulder Inside Boulder Outside Longmont Outs ide Thornton Outside Aurora Service Bill ing Cycle Charges Service Charge Converted to Monthly Bimonthly $ 4 .91 I$ 2 .46 Bimonthly $ 8.51 I$ 4 .26 Quarterly $ 5.21 I$ 1.74 Bimonthly $ 5 .45 I$ 2.73 Bimonthly $ 14.40 I$ 7.20 Monthly $ 9.90 I$ 9.90 Bimonthly $ 4 .91 I$ 2 .46 Bimonthly $ 8 .51 I$ 4 .26 Monthly $ 2 .30 I$ 2.30 Monthly $ 4 .70 I$ 4 .70 Monthly $ 2.88 I$ 2 .88 Monthly $ 5 .17 I$ 5 .17 Monthly none? I $ Monthly $ 5.88 I$ 5 .88 Monthly $ 8 .12 t $ 8 .12 Monthly $ 12 .18 I $ 12.18 Monthly $ 3 .45 I$ 3 .45 Monthly $ 4.32 I$ 4 .32 Monthly $ 3 .79 I$ 3 .79 Tier One Rate Per Tier One Consumption 1000 Example Charge 1to22,000 $ 1 .63 I$ 35 .86 1to22,000 $ 1.63 I$ 35 .86 1 to400.000 $ 1.87 I $ 65.45 1to30,000 $ 2 .14 I $ 64.20 1lo22,000 $ 2 .24 I$ 49 .28 1000 and UP $ 2 .45 I$ 85.75 1to22,000 $ 2 .54 I$ 55 .88 1to22,000 $ 2 .54 I$ 55.88 1 -10,000 $ 2 .53 I$ 25 .30 1to4000 $ 1.951$ 7 .80 AWCor5000 $ 3 .00 I$ 15.00 1to4000 $ 2 .15 I $ 8 .60 1to3,000 9.45 Flat I $ 9.45 1to4000 $ 2 .44 I $ 9 .76 AWC or5000 $ 1.65 I $ 8 .25 AWCor5000 $ 1.65 I$ 8 .25 1 -10 ,000 $ 3 .80 I$ 38.00 AWCor5000 $ 4.50 I$ 22 .50 Up To Budi:iet (12 ,000 $ 3.34 I$ 40.08 Tier Two Consumptions Tier Two Rate per 1000 22 to 60 ,000 I $ 1.96 22 to 60 .000 I $ 1.96 over 400,000 I $ 1.16 30 to 60 ,000 I $ 2.68 22 ,001 to 60,000 I $ 2.69 22 to 60,000 I $ 3.05 22 to 60 ,000 I $ 3.05 11 to 20 .000 I $ 2 .91 5 ,000 to 20 .000 I $ 2.95 AWC + OA (20 ,000) I $ 3.00 5 ,000 to 20,000 I $ 3 .25 3 ,001 to 15,000 I $ 3 .15 5 ,ooo to 20.000 I $ 3.69 Up to 2X AWC (12.500) I $ 3.30 Up to 2X AWC (12 ,500) I $ 3.30 11to20,000 I$ 4.37 AWC + OA (20 ,000) I $ 4 .50 Up To Ave . Hist. (18 ,000)1 $ 5.01 Water Rate Comparison (using information available on each city's internet site) Based on Single Family Home w ith a 3/4 " Meter and one month high usage summe r irrigation consumption (12,000 per month) Municipality Denver Inside Denver Inside Post 917/04 Englewood Arvada Denver Outside Longmont Inside Lakewood Denver Outside Post 9/7/04 Westminster Inside Northglenn Thornton Inside Broomfield Boulder Inside Westminster Shaw Hts Boulder Outside Aurora Westminster Outside Longmont Outside Thomton Outside Service Billing Cycle Charges Service Charge Converted to Monthly Bimonthly $ 4.91 t $ 2 .46 Bimonthly $ 8 .51 I$ 4.26 Quarterly $ 5.21 I$ 1.74 Bimonthly $ 5.45 I$ 2 .73 Bimonthly $ 4 .91 t $ 2 .46 Monthly $ 2 .30 I$ 2.30 Bimonthly $ 14.40 I$ 7.20 Bimonthly $ 8 .51 I$ 4 .26 Monthly $ 4 .70 I$ 4 .70 Monthly none? I $ Monthly $ 2 .88 I$ 2 .88 Monthly $ 9 .90 I$ 9.90 Monthly $ 8 .12 I$ 8 .12 Monthly $ 5 .17 I$ 5 .17 Monthly $ 12 .18 I $ 12 .18 Monthly $ 3.79 I$ 3.79 Monthly $ 5 .88 I$ 5.88 Monthly $ 3 .45 I$ 3 .45 Monthly $ 4.32 I$ 4.32 Tier One Rate Per Tier One Consumption 1000 Example Charge 1to22,000 $ 1.631$ 19.56 1to22,000 $ 1.63 I s 19.56 1 to400,000 $ 1 .87 I $ 22.44 1to30,000 $ 2.14($ 25.68 1to22,000 s 2 .54 I$ 30 .48 1 -10,000 $ 2 .53 I$ 25.30 1 to 22,000 $ 2 .24 I$ 26 .88 1to22,000 $ 2.54 I$ 30 .48 1to4000 $ 1.951$ 7.80 1to3,000 9.45 Flat I$ 9.45 AWCor5000 $ 3 .oo I$ 15.00 1000and UP $ 2 .45 I$ 29.40 AWCorSOOO $ 1.65 I$ 8.25 1to4000 $ 2 .151$ 8 .60 AWCorSOOO $ 1.65 I $ 8.25 Uo To Budaet (12 ,000' $ 3.34 I$ 40.08 1to4000 $ 2 .44 I$ 9.76 1 • 10 ,000 $ 3 .80 I$ 38.00 AWCor5000 $ 4 .50 I$ 22 .50 Tier Two Consumptions Tier Two Rate per 1000 22 to 60,ooo I $ 1.96 22 to 60 ,000 I $ 1.96 Over 400,000 I $ 1 .16 30 to 60 ,000 I s 2 .68 22 to 60,ooo I $ 3.05 11to20,000 I$ 2.91 22 .001 to 60.000 I $ 2 .69 22 to 60 ,000 I $ 3 .05 5 ,ooo to 20,000 I $ 2 .95 3 ,001 to 15,000 I $ 3 .15 AWC + OA (20 ,000) I $ 3 .00 Up to 2X AWC (12 ,500) I $ 3.30 5 ,000 to 20.000 I $ 3 .25 lJp to 2:X AWC (12 ,500} I$ 3.30 Up To Ave . Hist. (18,000)1 $ 5.01 5 ,000 to 20.000 I $ 3 .69 11to20,000 I$ 4 .37 AWC + OA (20 ,000) I $ 4 .50 I Example Charge $ 25.48 $ 25.48 $ - $ 13.40 $ 34 .97 $ 39 .65 $ 39.65 $ 29 .10 $ 44 .25 $ 60 .00 $ 48 .75 $ 37 .80 $ 55 .35 $ 39.60 $ 39.60 $ 43 .70 $ 90 .00 $ 30 .06 Example Tier Three Consumptions Over60,000 Over60,000 All over60,000 Above 60 ,000 Over60 ,000 Over60,000 All ove r 20,000 21 ,000 and Up AWC+OA+V..OA (45,000) 21,000 and Up 15,001 to 23 ,000 21,000 and Up Over 17,500 Over 17,500 All over 20 ,000 AWC+OA+2XOA (45 ,000) Above Historical (18,000) Charge Tier Three Consumptions $ -Over60,000 $ -Over60,000 $ - $ • All over 60,000 $ -Over60,000 $ 5 .82 All over 20 .000 $ -Above 60,000 $ -Over60 ,000 $ 23.60 21 ,000 and Up $ 28.35 15,001to23,000 $ 21 .00 AWC+OA+2Y..OA(45,000} $ 23 .10 Over17,500 $ 26 .00 21 ,000 and Up $ 23 .10 Over 17,500 $ -Above Historical (18 ,000} $ 29 .52 21 ,000 and Up $ 8 .74 All over 20,000 $ 31.50 AWC+OA+2XOA (45.0001 I Tier Three Rate Per 1000 I f · ._, ~-~'?~::;~:~r_-,1~c~~;i~t~ Example Tier Four, .. :,~,,,, · <;• .'Rate.Per ~m~. Test Charge Consumptibris.:§ict· •. ~t" '.IOOOJ 'i.-. Chargep Consumpt ion :.~,:5'~;;,~,P~~~­ l . .,~f\::t-.~~4· • . >-= ~. $ 2 .45 I$ -35 ,000 $ 63 .80 $ 2.45 I$ -.• ~~ :-"·' t ,,,..::-.: t :;d..;.J:'.-?,.::.. 35 ,000 $ 65 .60 35 ,000 $ 67 .19 $ 5.36 ;.~;;:.· ~·:·. ""'· .;.;-, I -~ ~.., __ -~ 35 ,000 $ 80 .33 $ 3.37 '· r,, I ~:~~.~~' 35 ,000 $ 91 .45 -.\.?' :-w: 35 ,000 $ 95 .65 $ 3 .81 .n·.:~,:.i .~::-, .. ,,. I . ~c{ • .. -. 35 ,000 $ 97 .99 $ 3.81 ~.;..;.~ ~ ... % ..... 35 ,000 $ 99 .79 $ 3 .41 I$ 51 .15 _,__. ;,.~ 35 ,000 $ 107 .85 $ 4 .25 I $ 63.75 ;..: -~--·~'iJ. 35 ,000 $ 120 .50 $ 4 .50 I $ 45 .oo All over that "(65,000) f-$ 9,00 I •.. ·!if(., 35 ,000 $ 122 .88 $ 4 .68 I $ 10.20 ·-.,,.,, ;. ,.. ~ .;~ ,, J .• ,., '-'.·""'" 35 ,000 $ 132 .72 $ 3 .70 I $ 29 .60 23,001 and Up I $ 5 .00 l $ 60.00 35 ,000 $ 136 .85 $ 5 .31 I $ 79 .65 ·"" "" ·J . .• '-·~ '< 't"Z' 35 ,000 $ 150.64 $ 5.50 I $ 99 .00 ·--'.,~~\-_,. .,.,::, ~ 1 _.:'i':<.._:;.ji~: 35 ,000 $ 154 .97 $ 5 .50 I $ 99.oo ,<;.:.:;~,;; _-il;qt:J) ~->,;,<~-;tl ,...:;.:. -... ~~:~~~:~:·-_ .t i ,-.:,:-~1. ~ -).@" 35 ,000 $ 159 .03 $ 5 .12 I$ 76 .80 :.'/, ~ .. v""~"' -~.;.~·~'..;.G~• ~ :4-,•· ~.:.· .::.;:!-·~:~~:?· 35 ,000 $ 161 .95 $ 6.75 I $ 67 .50 All over that (65,000) I l 13.50 I · •<,,: · 35 ,000 $ 184 .32 $ 6.68 I $113 .56 ,t'·••' .Y.-:.~,.·:''-,...,,. l '·.\,.'•;.:t;: .:;':·"'!"$"~~-35 ,000 $ 187.49 Tier Three Rate Per 1000 E.ompO T.,;:~:~~i Eri ~! '"' Charge ·Consumptions ?;<:!'<~"'~-~ ·tooo'; · Cha'rge ";[ Consumption $ 2 .45 I$ h "''tti'¥:~~~._:~"' ~~~~ ;~ rS'NC'W ·J ~,e;•;.t'.'.f b <"'..<i<:f'C'' i 12 ,000 $ 22 .02 $ 2 .45 I$ ·•'•· ...... '>-'· ;.f .... ,,, I :co:q,:''•v I 12 ,000 I $ 23 .82 ,,.-,,_ ~-"~-~! -.~>11;.,,,-;,-~·"~""''·»"'! 12 .000 I s 24 .18 $ 5 .36 · ~ · .'~;"·"'"· · '>'cl-:-f-'h '"""<1':2 • .'· 4 ,~"'~"-* I 12 ,000 I s 28 .41 $ 3.81 ,.·. "~~,,.,,_,.,,;;_;~c:.,:,0_,,.iJ ""'-1'<1':;.<·f7l"'~.,.,:.:&~I 12 ,000 I s 32.94 $ 3.41 I$ °:!''' ... ·.,•">"""';;'#"'-T:~,~>:';:H :.'91:~*-'·I 12 ,000 I $ 33 .42 $ 3 .37 .,,_,,,,. f'"t-""""'§ ~/'l-'''4 ~"""'"'i¥' ·l ~.i.."~"'I 12 ,000 I s 34 .08 $ 3.81 '"-'"" 'r ""' ~''""-"-1 · ,, ;:r,~, J '"'-"t;~"'.?;1 12 .ooo I s 34 . 14 $ 4 .25 I$ '.i'\~'""''~l?~~;-~~~~"';l"io -,~,.~~;-'l~Y~~~I 12 ,000 I $ 36 .10 $ 3 .70 I$ 23;001 andJ.tp 'if~.i'<li4 4 5.t>Ol$i~'ii~I 12 ,000 I s 37 .80 $ 4 .50 I$ All over fhlit{SS,000)\~ l -, 9 .oo+ .. J..~~$1 12 .000 I $ 38 .88 ;.<:;;t,-0:~1.,,w.m!t~~~~,'<f-'*~~ 12 ,000 I s 39 .30 $ 5 .50 I$ '"-~"*""*' .• .,.:,..-~~~.¥i<~f'-:J~'~~,::f'~;:~~Jl 12 .000 I $ 39.47 $ 4.68 I$ '-'>:·~~:,;,.+'*'~~·~l'lr~~' JI '>~"*"'~ 12 ,000 I $ 39 .77 $ 5 .50 I$ '"""':,:,_-..,~~"""''~-,;:!1-,p-,r?'efi~oiii.-'ll~i~~;;<I 12,000 I $ 43 .53 $ 6 .68 I$ ~~~~~~.l!i~~i' .. ~~ 12 ,000 I $ 43.87 $ 5.31 I$ 1 .i.-~;;·:¢$"~"'r::l~~?i~~ 12 ,000 I s 45 .16 $ 5.12 I$ ·t'.@;.? ~·e~~~'-}fi~i~~:-J~~J 12 ,000 I $ 50 .19 $ 6 .75 I$ All over-that'(6S;tloOY~""f~3so 1 .i¥~~:1i"I 12 .000 I $ 58 .32 .. II II II II • CDNI CONFIE>ENTIAL ,INFORMATION FURTHER DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED Appendix F Personnel Assets F.1 Summary of Findings and Observations Table F-1 summarizes findings for the Personnel Assets category. Information from personnel interviews and recommendations to improve personnel policies have also been included. F.2 Personnel Interviews On February 5 and 11, 2004, personnel from the Englewood Utilities Department were interviewed to discuss the security and vulnerability of their assets. Personnel interviewed included employees from all positions related to water supply, treatment, distribution, and management. During the interviews, personnel were advised that the interviews were confidential in nature, and that points discussed would not be directed back to any one individual. The following lists the concerns pertaining to the security of Englewood assets, categorized by the Water Treatment Plant, Source of Supply and Distribution System Operations, and General security matters. Water Treatment Plant • The constructed generator will provide required backup to stay in service. • Doors to the plant should be locked at all times. • Install key pads or card readers on the WTP's doors for added convenience, which would ensure all doors would remain locked at all times. • Have two people at the plant at all times. Does not necessarily ave to be two operators. • Require WTP employees to wear City uniforms for identification purposes. • The camera at the gate to the plant does not allow for identification of features. There is even less visibility from the camera at night. • Have a camera capable of_ getting photographs of the vehicles coming in. • The electric gate should be disarmed after hours. • When the gate is locked, the call button does not work, and should be fixed so that it does. F-1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CDM CONFIDE:NTIAL INFORMATION FURTHER DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AppendixF Personnel Assets • The security codes for the gate need to be changed and old ones removed. Personnel should have their own code for access. • An alarm/sensor at the gate could notify operators that the gate has been opened and someone is entering the facility. • Operators cannot be confined to the control room, consequently any alarms need to enunciate or turn on a light in other areas of the plant. The alarm horn in place is not used as it is too loud and always turned off. • Phones are needed in the flocculation/sedimentation building. • Phones are needed in the downstairs pump room of the plant. • During filter backwash, the phone in the filter area cannot be heard. • Place a guard shack near the gate of plant for deterrence affect. Could be unmanned with dark windows. • Have a radio log at control room, require periodic contact with control room, especially after hours, and log in contacts. • Visitors to the treatment plant should sign in. • Computers at the plant are susceptible to intrusions such as spy web. • A Nextel phone for the on-call employee, supervisor, and operator on duty would increase communications and security. • The clearwell at the plant needs a surveillance camera focused on it, and alarms. • Install surveillance cameras at all vulnerable areas of the WTP . Source of Supply and Distribution System Operations • Secure water rights contracts are a critical asset. Englewood has senior water rights in a diverse and extensive portfolio. • Locks for the distribution system have been in use for at least 30 years, and consequently keys for the locks are unaccounted for. Acquire new locks for the entire district. • Have 3 or 4 sets of padlocks-and rotate locks periodically, collecting and redistributing all keys each time. • Use separate padlocks for contractors as a gang lock during construction. • Due to many false alarms, the motion detector alarms in place are usually ignored. F-3 I 071<M14111\R'f.T3.VA\FINALW'P F.OOC lllol/04 qe I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CDM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FURTHER DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AppendixF Personnel Assets -.;:.· c~ ... , • All vault covers should be alarmed to -~~~,~~tion. . ;I;.·.-. • •. .., ':. "...• ~"'..° • ·.-_":;-..,..-,; ;:;:-.. r•-~~ :-,:;.;a;:.,~-1'- • Prior to adding alarms, the hatch covers thei:ilSelves .Should be updated (in design for overheads). • Alarms coming from tanks (assuming contact alarms that rarely have false alarms) should be on a separate system from other alarms for increased alert. • Loss of the Zuni tower would cripple communications for the fire and police. • When standby personnel are called out, they should check in with the control room, advise their location, and when they finish. The control room should periodically check on them. • The overhead tanks are the most vulnerable asset. • Try downward lights at the overheads instead of flooding lights to increase security and appease neighborhood complaints about lighting. • A lighting survey should be made of all assets to determine adequacy. • Alarms throughout the sy stem need to be tested periodically to determine proper operation and emergency response time. • Personnel are often vulnerable when responding alone to customers during the day and during after hours emergencies. Increase personnel safety and security by hav ing employees travel in pairs to unsafe or uncertain situations. • Contamination from a s ubstance such as diesel fuel or gasoline, would be easier, more probable, initiate fear in customers, and potentially be difficult to clean / remov e than chemical/ poison contamination. • The h ydrant fill stations will reduce v ulnerability from hydrant damage and accidental or intentional contamination. • Install surveillance cameras at all vulnerable areas of the WTP . General • One of the most efficient and effectiv e ways to increase Englewood's security is increased awareness on communication. • The utility should limit the information that it provides to the general public. • Provide education to personnel on what to do if a threat, contamination, or other emergency occurs. • The Englewood Police will support security efforts of the water utility. F-4 · 1 0710\4141MT·T3.VA'#lw.t.IAPP F.OOC 1114'04 c:jt I ., • • • • • ! • • • • • • !- .. :·- CDM CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION FURTHER DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED AppendixF Personnel Assets • Contact the Englewood Police to set up a·sho~ andten at critical assets for police to • • ···~-.. "~"'1.~·~ .. become familiar with the assets. . .. : c~;~'f.;·\.;t _: -·~ ............ )" ,,~~, ......... -.. ... :..!. ---~·-..,._. ~- • Many assets have citizens in the area that call in when problems arise. • Liaison needs to occur with all the police deparbnents that respond to Englewood's Utilities assets, not just Englewood Police . • Reporting protocol with police should be established when they respond to alarms or calls. _.. • In general, personnel were receptive to increased security measures even if it increases inconvenience . F.3 Procedure and Policy Improvements After r eviewing the procedures, policies, and other security documentation described in Appendix B, it was determined that adding the following suggestions could improv e the existing policies . While these recommendations might not physically improv e the w orkplace s afe ty or security, if implemented these issues should intangibly reduce potential threats. Job Descriptions • Include security related responsibilities in each employee's job description and the procedures for providing a more secure District. • Include training requirements for offsite personnel that interact w ith customers, vendors, contractors, or other non-Englewood personnel to recognize and respond to threats . Procedures • Develop procedures for employees to report suspicious incidents that occur. Neighborhood Water Watch Program • Consider dev eloping a formal Neighborhood Water Watch Program for citizens living near critical assets . F-5 071°'414111\RT.~VAIFINALIAPP F.OOC e.o.wc cjo