Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2011-06-14 WSB AGENDA
. I WATER & SEWER BOARD AGENDA Tuesday, June 14, 2011 5:00 P.M. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM ENGLEWOOD CITY HALL 1. MINUTES OF THE MAY 10 , 2011 MEETING. (ATT. 1) 2. GUEST: HOLLY HENDRYX -3537 S. MARION ST. RE: INSTEAD OF REPLACING A SEWER LINE UNDER A GARAGE, WANTS TO USE THE EXISTING SCHEDULE 30 SEWER LINE. (ATT. 2) 3. WATER RIGHTS UPDATE FROM DAVID HILLDATED MAY 9 , 2011 . INFORMATION ONLY. (ATT. 3) 4. MEMOFROMJOHNBOCKDATEDMAY25,2011 RE: RYAN LAIRD'S CONCERNS. (ATT. 4) 5. LETTER OF RECOGNITION. (ATT. 5) 6 . CITY DITCH AT OXFORD & HURON. (ATT. 6) 7. INFORMATIONAL ARTICLES: "CHATFIELD PROJECT TO NEARLY DOUBLE WATER STORAGE STIRS ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES," FROM THE MAY 23, 2011 DENVER POST. (ATT. 7) "MILLION" WATER PIPELINE PLAN SETS THE WRONG PRECEDENT," FROM THE MAY 22, 2011 DENVER POST. (ATT. 8) "THE BIG LOSERS: COLORADO RIVERS," FROM THE MAY 22, 2011 DENVER POST. (ATT . 9) "COLORADO SUPREME COURT AFFIRMS WATER COUR RULING," FROM THE MAY 31, 2011 9 NEWS ASSOCIATED PRESS. (ATT. 10) "ENGLEWOOD-ENDORSED WARRANTY FOR WATER-LINE BREAKS NO SCAM," FROM THE JUNE 1, 2011 DENVER POST. (ATT. 11) "JOPLIN PLANT WEATHERS STORM, CREWS SW ARM TO RESTORE SERVICE," FROM THE MAY 31, 2011 AWWA STREAMLINES. (ATT. 12) 8. OTHER. WATER AND SEWER BOARD MINUTES May 10, 2011 The meeting was called to order at 5 :06 p.m. Members present: Members absent: Also present: Clark, Wiggins, Woodward, McCaslin, Habenicht, Olson , Higday Bums, Cassidy, Wiggins Stewart Fonda, Director of Utilities John Bock, Admin. Manager ofUtil. Tom Brennan, Utilities Engineer Dennis Stowe, WWTP Manager Gary Sears, Englewood City Manager Dan Brotzman, Englewood City Attorney 1. MINUTES OF THE APRIL 12, 2011 MEETING. The Englewood Water and Sewer Board received the minutes of the April 12 , 2011 meeting. Ms . Olson noted a correction. Mr. Habenicht moved ; Mr. Clark seconded : Ayes: Nays: Absent: Motion carried . To approve the minutes of the April 12, 2011 meeting, as amended. Clark, Wiggins, Woodward, McCaslin, Habenicht, Olson, Higday None Bums, Cassidy EXECUTIVE SESSION WAS CALLED AT 5:10 P .M. AND ALL NON-ESSENTIAL PERSONNEL WERE REMOVED. 2 . GUEST : DA YID HILL & JOHN BANASHEK OF BERG HILL GREENLEAF & RUSCITTI, ATTYS . RE: WATER RIGHTS MATTER. A water rights matter was discussed per CRS 24-6-402 (b ). Present from the Englewood Water Board were Gray Clark, Linda Olson, Jim Higday, Jim Woodward , Bob McCaslin and Chuck Habenicht. Present from the Englewood City Council were Jim Woodward, Jill Wilson, Joe Jefferson, Bob McCaslin, Linda Olson and Randy Penn. THE REGULAR WATER BOARD MEETING RESUMED AT 6:30 P .M . 3. GUEST: RY AN LAIRD, 3032 S. CORONA ST. RE: SEWER RATE COMPUTATIONS. Mr. Ryan Laird of 3032 S . Corona St. appeared to discu ss the basis for his minimum quarterly sewer bill and the existing web site information. Mr. Laird discussed his concerns about the billing amounts coinciding with the rates on the Utilities web site. Providing web site information about water rate increases and information to prorate the rate changes was also discussed. Mr. Laird expressed his opinion that the bills and the web site should show how to read the bill and how to calculate, based on usage . Mr. Laird provided a copy of a Denver Water bill as an example of how Denver provides explanations of various billing features. Mr. Laird had questions regarding the administration fee on the water and sewer bills. Utilities staff had provided the Board and Mr. Laird with Resolution No. 78 -Series of 2008 , Resolution No. 93 -Series of 2004 and Resolution No. 40 -Series of 1996 to address the validity of these fees. John noted that the administration fees are included in the existing amount and not a line item. John noted changes that could be made on the web site for clarification. Councilperson Joe Jefferson and Mayor Woodward suggested Utilities staff work with the billing software company to provide billing clarification. Councilperson Linda Olson agreed that the website should be understandable and easy to calculate. Stu noted that staff is willing to review calculations and explain the bills to any customer who requests this service. Mr. Bock noted that there is limited space on the bills . He also noted that rates for a 5/8" and %'' tap are the same and could be in either column on the web site. Mr. Laird noted that the sewer rate is the more substantial charge and does not reflect his water usage. Mr. Gray Clark discussed that determining the division of sewer rates is a balancing act, and the Board has strived to make it as equitable as possible. There isn't a meter available to measure sewage. The cost of running a sewer plant is a fixed amount that must be ready to accommodate the number of taps connected. Mr. Laird discussed state conservation grants that he researched, and gave the Board a copy of, "Colorado Waterwise Guidebook of Best Practices for Municipal Water Conservation in Colorado," from Aquacraft Inc. Mr. Fonda discussed that Englewood customers have implemented water conservation measures without mandatory restrictions . Mr. Fonda reviewed the existing policy where homes on flat rate must go on meter when the property changes hands, for example in the case of a property selling. It was noted that Englewood would not qualify for certain grants because there are still some flat rate accounts. Mayor Woodward noted that staff would investigate making changes to clarify how the water and sewer bills are calculated and provide additional information on the line items. 4. WATER RIGHTS UPDATE FROM DAVID HILL DATED 4-11-11. The Board received an update from Mr. David Hill dated April 11, 2011 on developments in water litigation cases in which Englewood is involved. 5. WATER RELATED NEWSPAPER ARTICLES. The Board received the following articles discussing water related issues: "Colorado water officials announce proposed pact," from the April 29, 2011 Denver Post. The meeting adjourned at 7:43 p.m . The next Englewood Water Board meeting will be June 14, 2011 in the Community Development Conference Room . Respectfully submitted, Isl Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary 5/26/11 To: From: Topic: Home Details: Englewood Water & Sewer Board Holly Hendryx 3537 S Marion Street 720-530-0042, hhendryx@gmail.com At the 6/14/11 board meeting, please consider my request to keep the schedule 30 sewer line (versus schedule 40) during a carport to garage upgrade -an estimated $2,000 additional expense to replace the sewer line Tri-level duplex, Built 1984 Existing structure -20' x 20' carport, metal posts & roof, detached/on alley Purchased by Holly Hendryx on 12/31/09 Pictures will be provided at the meeting Contractor: Republic Garages, Jerry Krizek Permits have been pulled for project Points of Discussion: • The existing schedule 30 sewer line has maintained its integrity 6.5' below and directly in the middle of an existing concrete pad. I have had 2 sewer scopes completed, one during the purchase process of the home in Dec '09 and one this May for the garage build. • The additional weight of a garage structure (vs. carport) will be distributed onto caissons over the north and south walls of the structure • Duplex neighbor has an existing garage built prior to the code change, without sewer line problems • I am willing to sign a waiver that I will take full financial responsibility if anything were to occur to the sewer line under the garage • I bought the house in 2009 with the existing carport/concrete pad with scheduled 30 sewer line. In the future, I am willing to sell the house with a disclosure to potential homebuyers on this matter. • Financial status -this summer I have replaced my back deck (with permit), in the process of upgrading my carport to a garage (with permit), will be replacing my out dated front porch/deck (going through the proper city channels), installing a 4' fence (with permit) and desperately need to landscape. I could really use the $2,000 to complete these other projects and improve my over all property value and exterior aesthetics. I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter. I look forward to meeting the board to discuss my request in more detail. -END- Cathy Burrage From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: Jim Veryser Thursday, May 26, 2011 9 :30 AM Cathy Burrage John Bock 3537 S Marion St., proposed garage over an existing sewer service line . SPUBLIC WOR11052608240 .pdf Dear Englewood Water and Sewer Board, On May 11,20111 reviewed Building permit# BLD2011-00125. The building review involved the demolition of an existing carport and the construction of a new garage over the existing private sewer service line that connects to the City's public main in the alley . AS per Englewood municipal code 12-2-4-J, I accepted this proposed garage build under the condition that the existing sewer service line pipe material be replaced with pipe material suitable for building a structure over it.(please see attached ordinance) The purpose of this ordinance is to protect the current owner and all fu t ure owners from the having a potential pipe .. failure and incurring a substantial cost for future repair of the sewer line under the new structure . Thank you, Jim Veryser Public Utility Technician 303-762-2646 -----Original Message----- From : no_reply@englewoodgov.org [mailto:no_reply@englewoodgov .org] Sent: Thursday, May 26, 2011 9 :50 AM To: Jim Veryser Subject: Message from PUBLIC WORKS COPIER The following document has been scanned on the Fiery and attached to this email: SPUBLIC WOR11052608240.pdf 1 J. Nell' Construction Over Ex is rin g Sewer Serl' ice lines. If a property owner wishes to build a new, permanent structure over an existing sewer service I ine, whether the structure is attached to an existing structure or unattached , the sewer service line shall be relocated away from the new struct ure , or the service line will be rep laced with pipe material approved for use inside a building. If the location of an existing sewer service line is unknown, it shall be the property owner's responsibility to determine, by whatever means necessary, the location of the service line to the satisfaction of the City of Englewood . (Code l 985, § 12-2-4: Ord . 98-68; Ord. 00-7; Ord. 02-4; Ord. 02-5; Ord. 08-38, § I ; Ord. 09-6, § 4) BERG HILL GREENLEAF & RUSCITTI LLP David G. Hill Partner ATTORNEYS & COUNSELORS AT LAW 1712 Pearl Street • Boulder, Colorado 80302 Tel: 303.402.1600 • Fax: 303.402.1601 bhgrlaw.com dgh@bhgrlaw.com May 9, 2011 RECE\VEO Daniel L. Brotzman, Esq . City of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110-0110 Re: April Invoice DearDan: Enclosed please find our invoices for professional services on water matters for April 1, 2011, through April 30, 2011, in the amount of $41,256.31, with a total for the year of$309,703 .57 . The amount for this billing cycle on major cases of particular significance is listed below: I Name I Amount I No. I FRICO (02CW404 and 03CW442) Change $ 16,808.80 504 Denver (01 CW286) South IN orth Complex Reservoirs 13,026 .25 511 CCWCD (05CW331 & 03CW437) Conjunctive Use 3,288.76 671 Thornton-Aurora Effluent Trade 1,564 .00 734 Stu Fonda has asked us to provide brief descrip tions of the reasons for Englewood's involvement in all cases which appear on our bills each month, as well as a brief summary of the work performed by this finn during the month. The following paragraphs contain these descriptions with respect to the matters reflected on the enclosed invoices: Introduction. Please understand that this let ter is a confidential attorney-client communication. Please keep it confidential. The largest bill is for the final wrap-up of the FRI CO/United/East Cherry Creek case. As you will recall from prior letters , this case began with three principal problems for Englewood: First, an expansion of the diversions by Milton Reservoir, and consequent increased calls against Daniel L. Brotzman May 9, 2011 Page 2 Englewood's McLellan Reservoir right; second, a claim to divert an additional 100,000 acre feet from the river using storage in natural gravel aquifers; and 3) grossly erroneous computer models for calculating the amounts in underground storage, their locations, and the amount which could be removed. The case was set for trial, ultimately for five weeks, to c<_>mmence April 11. As of April 1, the claim for 100,000 acre feet had been reduced to about 3,600 acre feet, and that issue was essentially resolved. However, at that time there were still sticking points about the computer modeling to be used, and more importantly, major disagreements about the precise language of the Milton settlement. These issues had to be resolved among counsel and engineers for some nine active participants in the case. The old saw about the difficulty of "herding cats" does not come close to expressing the difficulty of getting nine lawyers and their clients and engineers to agree upon settlement language, even though there was general verbal agreement upon most of the issues . As of April 1, there were only eleven days left until trial was to start, and there were immediate deadlines for filing a number of documents, including trial briefs, exhibit lists and exhibits, lists of water rights, and more. Unfortunately, because of the time frame , those all had to be prepared and filed while intense discussions about language continued. There was indeed a settlement "at the courthouse steps," to use the old phrase. It is now incorporated in the final decree which was signed by the Water Judge. As noted in the previous letter, the settlement minimizes any expansion of the Milton diversions, reduces the claim for additional water to a very junior priority right to about 3,600 acre feet, and resolves the computer modeling issues. Unfortunately, as previously noted, the Milton settlement is an awkwardly worded compromise which may not last forever, and the decree allows the question to be reopened. But for as long as it lasts, the settlement is satisfactory. The next-largest bill is for the ongoing negotiations with Denver over 1) Denver's claim for increased exchanges to Chatfield, which injure Englewood's exchanges and close the Chatfield gates, and 2) Denver's new pump station on the river above Chatfield, which a lso keeps the Chatfield gates closed. When the Chatfield gates are closed, hardness soars at Englewood's Union Avenue diversion point. The Englewood exchanges provide water for sale to Centennial, which brings in significant sums, as well as providing water to the Allen/Fonda plant, via City Ditch, for hardness relief. The increased exchanges will result from releases of water from Denver's new gravel pit reservoirs near Brighton. An exchange works like this, in simplest terms: Assume a senior river call, e.g., an 1871 priority, from a ditch right below the gravel pits, demanding 100 cfs. Denver releases 100 cfs from its gravel pits to satisfy that call. Denver may then take the 100 cfs upstream Daniel L. Brotzman May 9, 2011 Page 3 from its gravel pits, if no intervening right in priority is shorted . Using the exchange mechanism, Denver can frequently store all of the native inflow into Chatfield, leaving the Chatfield outlet gates closed . Englewood exchanges from Bear Creek to Chatfield, using similar mechanics. Denver claims that its new exchanges from the gravel pits will be senior in priority to Englewood's exchange, so Denver would have "first grabs" on exchanging to the native flow in Chatfie ld. Thus Englewood might get nothing. More particularly, Denver claims that its gravel pit exchanges to Chatfield will have a 1977 priority date. The priority date for the Englewood exchange is 1990 . Englewood contends that the gravel pit exchange should have a 2001 priority date . Englewood has a good case in that regard . The Denver pump station at the Kassler flume appears to have been built without a proper permit under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act. Englewood has raised that issue in letters to Denver. Settlement negotiations with Denver have been ongoing for a long time, with only partial success to date. They will be explained at the upcomingj oint meeting of City Council and the Water and Sewer Board. However, a new element has just been cast into the negotiations. As you may know, Denver has just entered into an agreement with Grand County and the Colorado River District which will allow Denver to expand Gross Reservoir and take an additional 18,000 acre feet per annum of firm yield out of the Fraser and Williams Fork Rivers. As a trade, Denver agreed to deliver 1,000 acre feet of fish flow water into the Fraser River at Winter Park. The water is to be delivered during the low-flow season, generally mid-August to mid-September. The only way Denver can deliver water during that period is by releasing water stored in Meadow Creek Reservoir. (For those of you unfamiliar with Englewood's western slope system, Meadow Creek Reservoir is northeast of Fraser. From the reservoir, a series of conduits carries water to the Moffat Tunnel, at Winter Park, where water can be released to the Fraser or taken to Gross Reservoir via the Moffat Tunnel.) Denver takes that water and in return delivers water to Englewood at Chatfield Reservoir. Englewood still owns a fifty percent interest in Meadow Creek Reservoir and the conduit system leading southerly to Denver's conduit, even though operation of the system was turned over to Denver in an agreement made in 1995 . The Water Court decree for Meadow Creek Reservoir, unfortunately, does not allow use of the water for fish flows, and the State Engineer has said that he will therefore prevent use for that purpose. So Denver proposes to seek a new decree for Meadow Creek Reservoir for a 1,000 acre foot fish flow right, with a 2011 priority . Denver would continue to deliver the same amount of water Daniel L. Brotzman May 9, 2011 Page4 to Englewood at Chatfield. It appears likely that Englewood's consent is necessary if Denver is to obtain the new decree, both as a result of the 1995 Agreement and Englewood's ownership. That fact should seriously improve Englewood's bargaining position with respect to water to ameliorate Englewood's hardness issue, and preservation of Englewood's exchanges from Bear Creek to Chatfield. It is not clear, at present, whether Denver will combine the negotiations. Finally, as a somewhat related matter, Grand County and the Colorado River District are seeking to use the Meadow Creek conduit to deliver water for municipal purposes to the Winter Park/Fraser area. That issue too is unresolved, and it would appear that Englewood's consent is necessary. Again, this will be explained in more depth at the upcoming meeting. The remainder of the cases are described below. 1. General (#001): This matter is our general file for work not attributable to specific cases. In some instances, the work is not specific to a particular matter. In other instances, the time spent on any individual matter is not large enough to justify a separate bill, but the time on the group of matters is significant. This includes charges related to general calendaring, reviewing various daily incoming pleadings and correspondence, overall case management and other activities that are not case specific. It usually includes preparation of many statements of opposition. 2. Colorado Div. of Parks (98CW462) (#448): This case involves a change of its 1 cfs interest in the 4 cfs of the 1861 Gardeners' Ditch priority to Cherry Creek Reservoir to cover evaporation at the reservoir. This application was anticipated by Englewood for some time. Martin and Wood performed the historic use study for Parks. Englewood entered this case to ensure the final decree is proper since it diverts from the South Platte River below Union Avenue and above the Burlington Ditch. We reviewed a motion to approve stipulation with Westminster. 3. CAMAS Colorado, Inc. C99CW032) (#452): The Applicant seeks storage of 1,900 AF and 100 cfs of direct flow rights for a gravel pit that will divert out of the South Platte River from the Brantner Ditch and wells. Englewood entered this case because of its relationship to 91CW126 which is its gravel pit application. We prepared for and participated in a Referee status conference. 4. FRICO Change C02CW404 and 03CW442) (#504): See discussion above. Cathy Burrage From: Sent: To: Subject: Stu Fonda Thursday, June 02, 2011 12 : 14 PM Cathy Burrage; Gary Sears; John Bock FW: Constituent Concern --Ryan Laird From: Elizabeth Haskell [mailto:elizabeth.haskell@state.co.us] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:34 AM To: Stu Fonda Subject: Constituent Concern --Ryan Laird Dear Stu: Thanks for the call back. I have attached Mr. Laird's e-mail. I listened briefly to the Council meeting he attended. I would like to respond to Mr. Laird to encourage him to continue to work at the local level. Do you know if the city is addressing ,.,. any of his concerns at this time? If so, in what manner? Thanks . Sincerely, Elizabeth Haskell Constituent Services Colorado Legislative Council Staff 303-866-6264 Elizabeth. Haskell@state.co . us From: ryan laird <rlclimb @hotm ail.com> Date: May 17 , 2011 8:44:59 AM MDT To: <linda.newell.senate @ gmai 1. com> Subject: Englewood Utilities Senator Newell, I am writing to confirm that you've received my voicemail and my transcribed message taken by your support staff regarding an issue that is occurring within the district. As discussed in these messages , the problem is that the City of Englewood is knowingly breaking Colorado statutes concerning water conservation. This issue first started when I tried to find out how my water and sewer bills are calculated and why I'm paying the amounts shown on my bill . The Utility Department was less than helpful and so I got Mayor Jim Woodward involved. He submitted a council request to find out why the water and sewer bills were so vague and to try to clarify rate issues where the city's published water and sewer rates varied from how they were actually charging. On Tuesday, May 10 , I attended an Englewood Water and Sewer Board meeting and as a result the city is planning to make the bills less vague and to fix the published rates on the city's web site. I also asked the Englewood Water and Sewer Board if the city was planning to switch the remaining taps (around 2 ,000 of around 10,000 still unmetered) to a meter. When I informed the Water and Sewer Board (with 4 city council members attending) that they were violating CRS 37-97-103, the Utility Department director confirmed that he was aware of the violation, but stated that . they can get away with it because there is no penalty described by the statute. Then a city council member justified it by saying it was more economical to not follow the statute. No city council members or water and . ' 1 sewer board members objected to the city being in violation of the statute and promptly ended the meeting. It was very clear to me that noone in the room was surprised with this confirmation. After the meeting, another city council member said the original legislators of the law must not have wanted it to be followed since they did not detail any penalties . The first Colorado Revised Statute that Englewood is violating is CRS 37-97 titled "Title 37, Article 97, Water Metering Act." The state statute was passed sometime before the year 2000 and mandated that water taps on existing construction be phased in and that all taps be metered by January 1, 2009 . The second statute that the city is violating is CRS-60-126 regarding "water conservation and drought mitigation planning". Basically the City of Englewood has not created or submitted a water conservation plan. I confirmed with the section chief of the Office of Water Conservation and Drought Planning, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Veva Deheza that the City of Englewood is a "covered entity" under the law . , (supplying more than 2,000 acre-feet of water) and that the CWCB has not received a water conservation pla~ from the City of Englewood. She noted that the problem with the statue is that no state agency was assigned enforcement powers . In looking into the issue, the penalty that Englewood has been subjected to is that the ~ity cannot obtain State subsidized loans for water construction projects. · :, I also presented the issue at an Englewood Council Meeting on 5-16-11. The city attorney stated that the city has known about the statutes and that a previous city council discussed it and voted to violate the laws. The first state statute is shown here : http ://cwcb .state.co. us/legal/Pages/S tatutes .aspx and here: http://michie.lexisnexis.com!colorado/lpext.dll/cocode/1/5f856/63ala/63a52?f=templates&fn=document- frame.htm&2. O#JD t3 7 art97 The second state statute is shown here: http://cwcb.state.co .us/legal/Pages/Statutes.aspx , and here: · ,1 !' http://michie.lexisnexis.comJcolorado/lpext.dll/cocode/1/5f856/61e42 /61e44/61e46?f=templates&fn=document- frame.htm&2.0 ':' I find it ironic that the legislators for the City of Englewood create rules and ordinances for everyday people to follow, but have no problem knowingly breaking laws that the Colorado State legislators have passed to protect the state's natural resources . Not only have they broken the law, but they have actively hidden it from their constituents. Please let me know if you have any questions for me or advice on how we can get this issue resolved. Thanks, Ryan Laird . I - 2 MEMORANDUM To: Stu Fonda, Utilities Director M~ From: John Bock, Utilities Manager of Administration~ Date: May 25, 2011 Subject: Mr. Laird Concerns Mr. Ryan Laird appeared at the May 10 , 2011 meeting of the Water and Sewer Board to express his concerns. The Board suggested that staff address the following concerns: 1. The rates represented on the City's web site are incorrect. Response: The rates on the City 's web site have been checked and are correct. There were some one cent rounding differences that have been changed. The minimum water charges for 5/8" and %" meters have been moved to the column for administrative charges. 2. The units of measure for the water meter readings are not shown. Response: The future water bills will show the units of measure. 3. How the water and sewer charges are calculated is not clear. Response: To fully and adequately address this concern will require a sizable commitment of time and money. a. Teleworks, our current on-line and telephone bill payment system, may provide us a way to allow customers to log into their accounts and see the actual calculations. This saves us from having to print two page bills. b. In the GIS a map book project is currently under development that would allow a customer to point at where their home is on a map and see an informational page with the rates specific to their area. c. We are investigating how we can expand our web information with in- house help. Date of service request: Service requested: Was the employee: Fair Poor Prompt? Courteous? Knowledgeable? Helpful? Excel~! Good ltl I I I Were you satisfied with the results of the service request? @ NO If no, please explain : Comments: !1-af'S WAS fn?JoL.vTU-'/ /~rA-snc ! 1'-k::. 6t"f Ckctp W'T Ct./ A COLP Svwo,+ .. i wWt .A/(r 6(:.CAv~t w£ 1-tAv .4 l.A$4t ~ Vv-1_ 11.A J,.., s Hvr [!ff i ;.J vv""'-I~ v > (; /!JtJO /\/61--4 61' '17di::-w~ c,,f..f A'r (/d(: Name: )E:M l-/oU.A .> Address: )-101 f . 0.Art::rf'\vJll-f Ci ll, ~g.Co.foli7 ) Phone: )o 5 -7 )I -/ / lR ( ·------t/ µ{::-(-ovr.J~ (;VI'-~-WOt-vl" VN(A":A. (}V1 .. ~? fk:1o &rr T() WC'il..t . ,A('"'ff,t /iVt--MJl(r off 'list. vJ~ ktt fa/tr} [J-(~f'~:? Y..t f-itrV~~ (/tJ~ ·-f}-{M 51-htr 0T+ vM,µ11' f5y1._[j1lf.:;JI )V)"f" Af4U{ Lur;sr: _ W{S ·116·i.i'l(:f-!6f) ,Af\...t_ f>ltw (ft)OtJ 'TV 64 . t<ff.:. wAf .So /df-.)_PfvL. Mo f¥l ( f:JJOL---/ t-.vt G-\Jf"<'30 t3vr 1--tt r>auTt-vf o~c..u ./VEP fo MEMORANDUM TO: Englewood Water & Sewer Board FROM: Bill McCormick, Operations Supt. -Utilities DATE: May 31, 2011 RE: City Ditch at Oxford and Huron Attached are pictures of the City Ditch at Huron and Oxford after the ditch was piped. Mr. Norman Hemy has expressed interest in landscaping the easement area similar to what he is doing in his yard (second picture). Mr. Hemy has been informed of the process in obtaining a License Agreement for this project. A detailed plan of what exactly is proposed and who will maintain the landscaping needs to be submitted to the Utilities Department. The proposed project would have to be in compliance with the City's weed ordinance 15-6-1 stating that all weeds or grasses over 6" must be mowed or removed. The department will then send certified letters to the adjacent homeowners to see if they concur with the proposed project. A license agreement will be executed if it is determined that all adjacent homeowners are in agreement as to how the City's easement is to be used. Format Dynamics:: CleanPrint :: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_18118214?source... Page 1 of2 . . denverRost.com 11 112 DENVER .~-r storing water for suburbs Chatfield project to nearly double water storage stirs environmental issues By Bruce Finley The Denver Post Posted: 05/23/2011 01 :00:00 AM MDT A proposed $100 million project to nearly double the water stored in Chatfield Reservoir would inundate 10 percent of Colorado's premier state park, likely replacing cottonwood-studded shoreline with mud flats . Audubon Society members who oppose the project contend free-flowing stretches of river in Chatfield State Park also wil l be lost. "It now appears impacts of this project w ill be quite severe and cannot be mitigated," said Polly Reetz , conservat ion coordinator for the Audubon Society of Greater Denver. The new water that would be stored to sustain 15 south-metro suburbs "wouldn't be there all the time, and you can't get trees to grow back if you don't have water all the time .... What you'll have is a big , weedy mud flats ," Reetz said . "If it is a big mud flat, it 's not going to be nice for recreation or anything else ." Gov . John Hickenlooper and state water-supply planners support the Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation Project. Some conservationists are also supportive, saying the "reallocation" of Chatfield from flood control to holding up to 40,000 acre-feet of water is less harmful than other projects to supply suburbs . State environmental overseers acknowledged significant harm -including the reduction of rivers and the creation of mud flats . "One of the identified impacts w ill be a mud- flats area. We're working to determine what the best way to mitigate that will be," said Alex Davis , assistant director of the state Department of Natural Resources . The project would flood 587 acres of 5,400-acre Chatfield State Pa rk as water levels rise by up to 12 feet. More than 1 .6 million people visit the park each year, spending $9 .5 million in the process. Federal water eng ineers' proposals for mitigating damage, contained in an environmental-impact statement, have not been released. Details should be given by "late summer," said project manager Gwyn Jarrett of the Army Corps of Engineers. Possibilities include improvements inside the Mvertisement Print Powered By (B l Format Dynamics'") http://www.denverpost.com/fdcp ?unique= 130643 5263250 5/26/2011 Format Dynamic~:: CleanPrint :: http://www .denverpost.com/news/ci_18118214?source... Page 2of2 denver~ost.com 11"IE DENVER i:>rntJ' park or restoration of damaged land elsewhere, Jarrett said . Among parties affected are boaters and others who gather at a floating marina in a cove on the southwestern side of the reservoir. Rising water would remove the protection for boaters , Chatfield Marina Inc. owner Linda Perry said . Thunderstorm winds whip up waves 5 to 6 feet high, "which can be pretty damag ing to a boat sitting in the harbor," Perry said. Reshaping the south shoreline to ensure continued protection will cost millions , she said. State parks officials "would like to be able to have a replacement of the land acres," park manager Scott Roush said . "The main concern is to be able to get the park back so that it is usable for recreation -like it is now." Bruce Finley: 303-954 -1700 or bfinley@denverpost.com advertisement Pr i nt Powered By (rc.IFormatDynamics '") http://www .denverpost.com/fdcp ?unique= 130643 5263250 5/26/2011 Format Dynami~s :: CleanPrint :: http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_l8100053 Page 1of3 denverROSt.com .11 l E DENVER Prn,1 opinion "Million" water pipeline plan sets the wrong precedent By John Berggren Posted : 05/22/2011 01 :00 :00 AM MDT Colorado continues to be one of the fastest- growing states in the country . With this growth have come subsequent increases in demands for secure, reliable freshwater supplies. As water budgets tighten, municipalities and developers look to supply projects and agreements that were once considered all but impossible. A $2.8 billion pipeline that can pump 250,000 acre-feet annually for 578 miles across state lines seems logistically and financially prohibitive. A cooperative agreement between the Eastern and Western Slopes that both parties tout as beneficial, with compromises made by Denver Water and Western Slope entities, seems like a longshot at best. In reality, however, both are actual water-planning developments here in Colorado . The former is the RWSP, the Regional Watershed Supply Project (or the "Million" pipeline, after its chief proponent, Aaron Million) that is undergoing review under the National Environmental Policy Act to bring water from Flaming Gorge Reservoir in Wyoming to Front Range cities and farmers. The timeline for this project has water flowing as early as 2020. The latter is the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement that was announced at the end of last month . The agreement consists of concessions by all parties involved, and recognizes the needs of multiple stakeholders including wildlife , recreation and riparian habitats. At first glance, the RWSP pipeline does not seem like a big deal, and in fact may seem reasonable. There is no need for the "crazy" ideas of augmenting supplies -like pipelines from the Great Lakes or the swollen Mississippi River, or towing icebergs down the coast from Alaska - when you can pump water from an established reservoir in a neighboring state . Although no buyers have explicitly said they would purchase RWSP water, several municipalities have expressed interest in securing additional water supplies . This pipeline would secure those additional water supplies. Concerns about the pipeline go beyond the environment, rural communities, or even water rights . The real problem is this pipeline would simply set the wrong precedent. Instead, cooperative agreements that involve all stakeholders and recognize not only the multiple demands for water but also that there is an overall limit on water availability should be the model going forward . Although the Colorado River Cooperative Agreement still includes engineering trans-basin diversions (the expansion of Gross Reservoir), its recognition of advertisement Print Powered By ( i11I FormatDynamics '") http ://www.denverpost.com/fdcp?unique=1306435088328 5/26/2011 Format Dynamic.s :: CleanPrint :: http://www.denverpost.com/recommended/ci_l8100053 Page 2of3 denver~ost.com 1hE DENVER Posr the entire state's water needs is the right precedent. Diversion projects in the Colorado River Basin are nothing new . In fact, development of the Southwest would not be where it is today without the numerous canals, ditches, pipelines, dams and reservoirs . Agriculture in Southern California would not be able to supply a majority of the country's wintertime produce without the All- American Canal transporting Colorado River water to the Imperial Valley . Front Range cities such as Boulder, Denver and Colorado Springs would not thrive without the Colorado-Big Thompson project piping Colorado River wate r under the Continental Divide . Few can argue that the developers of these projects were not acting in the best interest of citizens of the Southwest when the projects were designed and built. What has changed and why the RWSP proposal is flawed is that there is no more Colorado River water left to develop . Looking at the basin's water budget as a whole and taking into account average supply and demand -including reservoir evaporation and treaty obligations to Mexico -there is only a 400,000 acre-feet difference between water that is available and water that is consumed every year . Taking an additional 250,000 acre-feet out of the basin for consumptive use in Colorado, like the RWSP proposes, takes the water budget from being on a knife's-edge to all but breaking down . In an era of constrained water supplies threatened further by climate change, the precedent should not be building more diversions or pipelines. It should be water governance that recognizes no more new water is available and limitless supply is a thing of the past. This is not an argument for limiting growth . In fact, some cities in the Southwest have shown the ability to reduce overall water consumption while adding population . It can be done . Instead, this is an argument that conservation, smart planning, and cooperation needs to be the first thought in water management, not diversions and pipelines . The Colorado River Cooperative Agreement is a step in this direction . The agreement includes increased conservation and reuse by Denver Water; water planning that includes environmental needs in a long-term, statewide framework ; and collaboration with entities on both sides of the divide . The agreement is not perfect, however, and leaves some possibility for additional development of trans-basin diversions across the Continental Divide . While the agreement includes provisions that restrict municipalities such as Castle Rock and Parker from diverting new water from the main stem of the Colorado River, parts of the Gunnison and Yampa rivers would still be available for diversion projects. The agreement also, quite notably, leaves the Green River and Flaming Gorge Reservoir in Wyoming open for additional development, exactly what the RWSP proposes to do . Rejecting the Regional Watershed Supply Project would continue the water-planning model initiated by the Colorado River Cooperative agreement, and set the right precedent for Colorado water. advertisement Print Powered By ( r.IFormatDynamics '·) http://www.denverpost.com/fdcp?unique=1306435088328 5/26/2011 Format ~ynami~s :: CleanPrint :: http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_18100051 Page 1 of 2 denver~ost.com 1) I E D ENVER Posr perspective The big losers: Colorado rivers By Kendrick Neubecker Posted: 05/22/2011 01 :00:00 AM MDT The rivers of the Western Slope , especially in the upper Colorado and Yampa basins, look like they will flow this spring as they haven't since 1984, more than 25 years ago. The snowpack water levels from the Roaring Fork up are near record levels. Throughout the northern mountains, the snowpack this year has been well above normal. Periodic high flows like this that can scour the river bed, flush away accumulated sediment and flood the adjacent riparian areas are essential for a healthy river ecosystem . Another big event this spring was the agreement between Denver Water and Western Slope stakeholders . For the first time, a truly collaborative agreement has been forged that benefits water supply needs on both sides of the Continental Divide . Working as partners for the good of all rather than just throwing lawyers at each other is indeed historic. It's an example that others would do well to follow. However, the agreement and continued project discussions still fall short. If anyone is a loser in this agreement, it is the river itself. Although the pact claims to have provisions that will help the rivers, that's not as accurate as it could be. Yes, lots of money, cooperation and a small amount of water for environmental "enhancement" are provided . But far more water will still be taken from the river than is left to flow in its starved channel. The agreement does not address or acknowledge that more than 60 percent of the Fraser and upper Colorado are already being diverted to the Front Range. The Moffat Expansion will take an additional 15 percent or more on top of that. With that much of the native flows removed, making about 1 percent available for "environmental enhancement" as this agreement does, won't go far to help the river, much less improve it. The agreement does not deal with the impacts from the Moffat and Windy Gap expansion. Future diversions by Denver Water and others are not ruled out. Even with cooperation, the upper Colorado and Fraser rivers could still be drained of their last drop . Neither this agreement nor the potential mitigations proposed to the Division of Wildlife deal with the damage already done from more t han 100 years of diversions. Yet everyone pats themselves on the back for a job well done , goes back to work, never really admitting what has been lost. The public is kept in the dark, thinking all is well. After all, wouldn't it be illegal to destroy a river? Not in Colorado. The environmental enhancements are nothing more than river hospice, making us more comfortable with the advancing stages of decay . 13dvertisement Print Powered By (BI Format Dynamics '") http://www.denverpost.com/fdcp?unique=1306434729515 5/26/2011 Format Dynami~s :: CleanPrint :: http ://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_18100051 Aldo Leopold wrote, "One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds." People don't see the damage that afflicts much of the Colorado and other rivers. There is water in the channel, so it's a "river," right? Interpretive signs at the Windy Gap reservoir tell how water is taken from the "Mighty Colorado" for the benefit of the cities and farms on the other side of the mountains. That the "Mighty Colorado" no longer exists, and hasn't for generations , is not explained. The true condition of the degraded stream now flowing below the reservoir is not mentioned . Even with the promise of a strong runoff this year , the upper Colorado has become mostly a shadow river . Nature may do something to help the ailing Colorado River in the next few weeks. We certainly aren't. Coloradans and much of the mainstream media assume all is in good order and the water wars are now over. We think we have negotiated a fair truce balancing healthy rivers, farms and growing cities . The Colorado River Cooperative Agreement is indeed historic in many ways, but not in our ability to manage or see rivers as rivers . Until we can do that, the rivers will continue to lose . So will the people of Colorado -on both sides of the divide. Kendrick Neubecker is director of the Western Rivers Institute in Carbondale. He is the environmental representative on the Colorado Basin Roundtable . advertisement Page 2 of2 Pr i nt Powered By (&IFormatDynamics") http ://www .denverpost.com/fdcp?unique=1306 434729515 5/26/2 011 Co lorad o Su pre me Court affirm s wate r court rulin g I 9news.com . ., _ ... ; ' . 9N ~.com -· _.--:.----___ <T • COLORADO'S News LEAOER ~ Colorado Supreme Court affirms water court ruling 7 55 PM , May 31 , 2011 I comments Written by Ass oc iate d Press FILED UNDER Local News News DENVER (AP) -The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday affirmed a water court's ruling over water rights being sought to serve about 50 ,000 people in Arapahoe County. As part of a project with the East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitat ion District , the United Water and Sanitation District had sought to acqu ire ag ricultural water rights held by Burlington Ditch Land and Reservoir Co. and the Farmers Reservoir and Irrigation Co. and change them to water rights for municipal uses. The East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitat ion District planned to use the water on the South Platte River so it wouldn't have to rely as much on groundwater as more people move in . Demand is curre ntly around 9 ,000 acre -feet per year , but the district projects that will grow to around 14 ,000 acre -feet annually within 20 years , according to court documents . On Tuesday , the Colorado Supreme Court agreed with a water court r uling that limited what could be considered the irrigation companies' historical consumptive use of their water , which helps determine how much water can be converted to municipal use. The water court had said it was trying to protect against harm to other water rights. East Cherry Creek Valley Water and Sanitation District manager David Kaunisto told The Denver Post the municipal water provider is st ill "very comfortable" that United can del iver the volume of water it has promised . The cities of Denver , Thornton , Brighton , Aurora and Englewood were among those with interests in the case . "The issue in these cases is what the histor ical use of water is ," said University of olorado Law School Dean David Getches , a water law expert and former director of natural resources for the state. "That 's a very difficult th i ng to prove . Old decrees Advertisement 6/1 /20 11 6:57:3 1 AM Print Powered By I FormatDynamics 1 Page I of2 Colorado Supreme Court affirms water court rulin g I 9news.com 9N ~.com -· ... ~ · · -_____ " CoLORADo's News LEADER ... -~ • ._-.. • were imprecise . Measurement was imprecise . As the value of water increases, the challenge of finding just how much a person's or district's water right might have been in the past is very difficult." (Copyright 2011 by The Associated Press . All Rights Reserved .) Selected for you by a sponsor : Backpacking T rip at the Grand Canyon of Pennsyl vania (USA Today) Advertisement 6/1 /2011 6 :57:31 AM Print Powered By I Forma Dynamics I Page 2 of2 Format D.Ynamics :: CleanPrint :: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_18178323 Page 1 of 2 denver1tq!l~£Om englewood warranty letters Englewood- endorsed warranty for water-line breaks no scam By Carlos Illescas The Denver Post Posted: 06/01 /2011 01 :00:00 AM MDT Englewood resident Mark McQuery was a little puzzled when he received a letter with the city's logo and the mayor's signature promoting water- line insurance from a private company . At first, he thought it was a scam , so he called Mayor Jim Woodward . Turns out, the city was endorsing Service Line Warranties of America, which is offering to insure up to $4,000 in water-and sewer-line repairs . "What bothers me is tha t elected officials and a government agency who are supposedly servicing us are recommending a private insurance," McQuery said. Englewood isn't accepting compensation for the endorsement, and so the insurance company is offering reduced premiums to its customers in the city . Sam Mamet, executive director of the Colorado Municipal League , said he couldn't recall any other city pitching a service on behalf of a private company , although he said some counties and the state do endorse such things as low-cost prescriptions from private companies. "There are gray areas here. I certainly don't dispute that," Mamet said . "I think from the standpoint of elected officials, they look at this and say, What's out there that can benefit their residents?" Woodward said the Englewood City Council approved the agreement, thinking residents whose homes have old water and sewer lines could benefit from a low-cost warranty in case a line blows or a sewer backs up. The city's backing, the mayor says, was intended to put potential customers more at ease. But little information went out before the letters were mailed . A notice was placed in the city newsletter . A press release that was supposed to be issued was never sent. So when resident Mary Marcus first saw it, she didn't know what to think . "As a new homeowner in Englewood, I never expected the mayor to try to sell me a private insurance plan," Marcus wrote in an e-mail to The Denver Post. "The direct-mail pitch , ostensibly from the mayor's office with Englewood logo , employs mildly deceptive sales tactics ." advertisement Print Powered By ( fj I FormatDynamics··) http://www.denverpost.com/fdcp ?unique= 130693 7885 328 6/1/2011 Format Dynarnic.s :: CleanPrint :: http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_18178323 denverRost.com • , TlrE DENVER Posr Brad Carmichael, vice president of business development for Utility Service Partners Inc., which does business as Service Line Warranties of America, said this is common practice in the mid-Atlantic states, where the company's focus primarily has been. Englewood is the first city in Colorado to participate . So far, more than 500 homeowners have purchased the warranties. The company is endorsed by the National League of Cities. In most cities, homeowners are responsible for maintaining the water lines between their property and the connection to the city main. Service Line's warranty premiums run $4. 75 a month for up to $4 ,000 in coverage for such repairs. The insurance is not mandatory. Carmichael said concerns from residents in new cities solicited by Service Line Warranties are not uncommon. But it still leaves people such as McQuery a little uneasy. "My concern is not whether the company is a scam," he said . "But what business do government officials have in recommending insurance policies for people who may or may not need them?" Carlos Illescas: 303-954-1175 or cillescas@denverpost.com advertisement Page 2 of2 Print Powered By (rc.IFormatDynamics '") http://www.denverpost.com/fdcp ?unique= 130693 7885 328 6/1/2011 Joplin pla.nt weathers storm, crews swarm to restore service -Streamlines -Publications -. .. Page 1 of 2 .~'9American Water Works Association The Authoritative Resource on Safe Water American Water Works Association ISSN 1946-7141 « Back to fro nt page IN THIS EDITION: HEADLINES » Jo plin plan t w eathers storm , crews sw arm to res tore service » Modern pressures push water sector toward innovation » Domino theory accounts for Boston main failure » USEPA launches searchable website of SOWA violations » Susquehanna tops endangered rivers list » Grant guidance released for security needs » Hot Topics -Arsenic, atrazine, biosolids. litigation » Legislative Wrapup - Chem security , small systems » In the News -Detroit, Los Angeles, Boston, Denver ... TECHNOLOGY & PRACTICE » Tuscaloosa utility finds GIS top tool after tornado » Utility Briefs -Reading, Kan., DC Water, Sydney . OUR COMMUNITY » ACE: Virtual experience »ACE: Partnering with service providers » ACE : Make the most of it » Bookshelf: Seawater desal manual » Standards: 1 new , 8 revised » Florida Section sends help to Alabama, Joplin Stre Water news, advancements and practice - con solidating /vtainStream and Waterweek HEADLINES May 31, 2011 Volume 3, Number 11 Joplin plant weathers storm, crews swarm to restore service Editor's note : See link below to comment on this article. Despite 200 mph (320 km/h) winds that destroyed a brick storage building behind Joplin 's water treatment plant May 22, the plant itself survived nearly unscathed. The EFS tornado destroyed more than a third of the Missouri city, leveling 2,000 homes and 100 businesses and damaging another 8,000 structures, killing at least 146 at last count. It is the deadliest single tornado in the United States s i nce 1947. The tornado took out power to the treatment plant and distribution system, which suffered a multitude of main and service line breaks. Trees uprooted by the vio lent storm took pieces of main lines with them when they overturned. The tornado also destroyed the uti lity 's service Missouri American 's water tower stands amid bark- stripped trees and rubble in Joplin. AP pho t o/Cha rlie Riedel center, which housed trucks and equipment . Al though the building was a total loss, uti l ity employees were ab le to safely remove most of t he vehicles . Because Joplin is part of the Missouri American Wate r system , crews and equipment were brought in from other service areas of the company to help restore service. Initially, the utility also brought in water tankers for residents to fill up containers. "While the plant remained operational through the event, the main problem at the treatment plant and wel ls was the lack of power immediately after the storm," said Missouri American spokeswoman Ann Dettmer. Missouri American brought in generators from St. Joseph and Warrensburg to bring back power to the ' treatment plant within 24 hours . The building that housed vehicles for Joplin's water system was destroyed by the May 22 tornado. Photo The uti l ity sent 35 people from its large St. Louis courtesy Missouri American Water County operations the day after the storm to he l p fix mains and service lines and restore system pressure. "Our main priority is now is getting service restored to customers whose homes are damaged but can still be l ived in," said Dettmer. Although the Joplin system had pipe, clamps and material on hand, the St. Louis crews brought additional materials, tools and equipment. At the end of the week with little rest, they all volunteered to work on through the weekend; however, they were sent home "for some much needed rest." On ly about a third of them were needed to return May 31 to help supp lem ent the Joplin employees. Missouri American Water President Frank Kartma nn said on his blog, "I am ve ry proud of and humbled by our employees' focus and dedication to the recovery of their water system and community -their p la cement of others before themse lves ." http://www.awwa.org/Publications/Streamlin esArticle.cfm?ItemNumber=56873 6/1/2011 Joplin plcint weaJhers storm, crews swarm to restore service -Streamlines -Publications -... Page 2of2 » Resesarch Foundation: Updating resi dential water use study » Membership Tip: Give yourself credit Follow us on ... ~I = The boil-water order issued Monday, May 23, was lifted on Saturday . May 28 . Only one Joplin employee lost her home, said Dettmer. Missouri American Water is now responding to the needs of its outreach partners and the Joplin community. A long-time partner 1 with the Joplin Schools, Missouri American employees will put together boxes of supplies for the three destroyed and six damaged schools and their students. The utility is aiding another of its outreach partners, the Community Action Agency, with financial donations from the company and its employees . CAA has administered a program for the utility to help low-income households needing help to pay their water b i lls. Finally, American Water, parent company of Missouri American workers Jeremy Bose (left) and Jacob Hobson turn off and mark a water service in the tornado-ravaged area of Joplin. Ph ot o co urtesy Missouri American Water Missouri American, has set up a special donation system for all American Water employees to donate through the American Red Cross . In evaluating the aftermath of the disaster, Dettmer reiterated the importance of a good emergency response plan and solid relationships with local emergency responders. She also gave kudos to the utility employees. "[The response] also illustrated the value of our ability to apply so many resources from other Missouri American Water ope r ations. Experienced crews were vital to our ability to repair all the main breaks and service line leaks so we could return to normal system operating pressures. Together, our teams worked around the clock, with the kind of dedication to customer service that is the hallmark of water service providers." Additional AWWA Resources • Emergencv Planning for Water Utilities (M19 ), Fourth Edition • AWWA Resources on Security/Disast ers • Security and Emergency Planning for Water and Was t e wa ter Utilities • Surviving Disasters in Water Utilities: Learn in g Fro m Expe rien ce Mary A. Parmelee, Editor Posted:OS/31/2011 Comments Log in to Dost a comment Print Page I Archives I About Streamline s I Co ntact the Edi to r I Advertising Copyright © 2011 American Water Works Association -6666 W. Quincy Ave., Den ver, CO 80235 Phone: 303.794 .7711 or 800.926.7337 -FAX: 303.347.0804 -Privacy Policy-Site Terms of Use http://www.awwa.org/Publications/StreamlinesArticle.cfm?ItemNumber=56873 6/1/2011 _. Cathy Burrage From: Sent: To: Subject: Stu Fonda Tuesday, June 07, 2011 4:20 PM Cathy Burrage FW : Constituent Concern --Ryan Laird From: Elizabeth Haskell [mailto:elizabeth.haskell@state.co.us] Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2011 9:34 AM To: Stu Fonda Subject: Constituent Concern --Ryan Laird Dear Stu : Thanks for the call back. I have attached Mr. Laird's e-mail. I listened briefly to the Council meeting he attended. I would like to respond to Mr. Laird to encourage him to continue to work at the local level. Do you know if the city is addressing •'"' any of his concerns at this time? If so , in what manner? Thanks . Sincerely, Elizabeth Haskell Constituent Services Colorado Legislative Council Staff 303-866-6264 Elizabeth .Haskel/@state .co .us From: ryan laird <rlclimb@hotmail.com> Date: May 17, 2011 8:44:59 AM MDT To.: <linda.newell.senate@gmail.com> Subject: Englewood Utilities Senator Newell , I am writing to confirm that you've received my v oicemail and my transcribed message taken by your support staff regarding an issue that is occurring within the district. As discussed in these messages, the problem is that the City of Englewood is knowingly breaking Colorado statutes concerning water conservation. This issue first started when I tried to find out how my water and sewer bills are calculated and why I'm paying the amounts shown on m y bill. The Utility Department was less than helpful and so I got Mayor Jim Woodward involved. He submitted a council request to find out why the water and sewer bills were so vague and to try to clarify rate issues where the city's published water and sewer rates varied from how they were actually charging. On Tuesday, May 10 , I attended an Englewood Water and Sewer Board meeting and as a result the city is planning to make the bills less vague and to fix the published rates on the city's web site. I also asked tl)e Englewood Water and Sewer Board ifthe city was planning to switch the remaining taps (around 2 ,000 of around 10,000 still unmetered) to a meter. When I informed the Water and Sewer Board (with 4 city council members attending) that they were violating CRS 3 7-97-103, the Utility Department director confirmed that he was aware of the violation, but stated that'".·' they can get away with it because there is no penalty described by the statute . Then a city council member ··'. .. justified it by saying it was more economical to not follow the statute . No city council members or water an~, 1 j ~ ' . . . sewer board members objected to the city being in violation of the statute and promptly ended the meeting. ·It was very clear to me that noone in the room was surprised with this confirmation. After the meeting, another city council member said the original legislators of the law must not have wanted it to be followed since they did not detail any penalties. The first Colorado Revised Statute that Englewood is violating is CRS 37-97 titled "Title 37, Article 97, Water . Metering Act." The state statute was passed sometime before the year 2000 and mandated that water taps on.· existing construction be phased in and that all taps be metered by January 1, 2009 . : The second statute that the city is violating is CRS-60-126 regarding "water conservation and drought mitigation planning". Basically the City of Englewood has not created or submitted a water conservation plan. I confirmed with the section chief of the Office of Water Conservation and Drought Planni.ng, Colorado Water Conservation Board, Veva Deheza that the City of Englew ood is a "covered entity" under the law . (supplying more than 2 ,000 acre-feet of water) and that the CWCB has not received a water conservation plan from the City of Englewood. She noted that the problem with the statue is that no state agency was assigned . enforcement powers. In looking into the issue, the penalty that Englewood has been subjected to is that the city cannot obtain State subsidized loans for water construction projects. . . :l.'j I also presented the issue at an Englewood Council Meeting on 5-16-11. The city attorney stated that the city has known about the statutes and that a previous city council discussed it and voted to violate the laws . The first state statute is shown here : http://cwcb.state.co. us/legal/Pages/Statutes .asp x and here: http://michie.lexisnexis.com/colorado/lpext.dll/cocode/1/5f856/63ala/63a52?f=templates&fu=document- frame .htm&2.0#JD t37art97 The second state statute is shown here: 0 1 1 ~'l _;._t http://cwcb .state.co .us/legal/Pages/Statutes.aspx .... and here : · " http://michie.lexisnexis.com/colorado/lpext.dll/cocode/1 /5f856 /61 e42 /61 e44/61 e46?f=templates&fu=docun:ient- frame.htm&2. 0 ;; · I fipd it ironic that the legislators for the City of Englewood create rules and ordinances for everyday people to foilow , but have no problem knowingly breaking laws that the Colorado State legislators have passed to protect the state's natural resources. Not only have they broken the law , but they hav e actively hidden it from their constituents . Please let me know if you have any questions for me or advice on how we can get this issue resolved. Thanks, Ryan Laird . '.i_/ 2 June 7, 2011 Jerry Krizek Republic Garages 2532 South Broadway Denver, CO 80210 Kim E. McLeod, P.E. Structural Engineer RE: Sewer Line Wall TI1ickness Job address: 3527 S Marion Street Mr. Krizek, You asked roe my opiillon on the serviceability of a Schedule 35 sanitary sewer line. Information provided to me is as folloVv-s: -The existing sewer runs from the back of the house to the city sewer line in the alley. The house is about 27 years old. built in 1984; apparently the sewer Hne was replaced about 12 years ago. There is a carport with posts at each comer supporting the roof and a 6" tbick slab that cars park on. The sewer runs approximately down the middle of the ca:rport, about 5' below the near edge, 6' below the far edge. The Schedule 35 pipe has a wall thickness of 0.120", 4.215" outside diameter, 3.975" inside diameter. The Schedule 40 pipe bas a wall thickness of0.154n, 4.500'' outside diameter, 4.192" inside diameter. The proposed 20' x 20' garage wiU be built in the same location as the carport using a 4'' thick monoslab, the roof will bear on the walls parallel to the sewer. In. my opinion, the Schedule 35 pipe will not collapse under the weight of the new garage. If there are other service problems with the sewer line it can be re-routed around the garage without disturbing the neighbor. In the event of problems with this sewer line, the city · sewer service should not be affected. Kim E. McLeod , P.E . Scottish Builders, LLC PO Box 740400 Arvada, CO 80006-0400 Job# J J-80 City of Englewood Water and Sewer Board Attn: Stu Fonda 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110 Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: June 1, 2011 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc . 538 Commons Drive , Golden, CO 80401 Phone : (303) 526-2600. Fax: (303) 526-2624 www.martinandwood.com Re: Martin and Wood Working for the Riverside Irrigation District Project No . 159 .1 Pursuant to a conversation that I had with Stu Fonda on May 31 , Martin and Wood will seek to become the water rights engineer for the Riverside Irrigation District and the Riverside Irrigation Company. This follows a conversation that I had with Don Chapman, superintendent of both of the Riverside entities, in which he expressed a desire for Martin and Wood to fill this role. · · The Riverside entities divert direct flow and storage rights , both having priorities between 1900 and 1910 , from the South Platte River east of Greeley to provide irrigation water to several thousand acres. The entities also have junior water rights from the river which are diverted to recharge structures so as to augment wells . As Stu requested , we shall inform Englewood of any potential conflicts with Englewood that we may have in performing our work for the Riverside entities , so that Englewood may , if need be , engage another consultant. We wish to than Englewood most sincerely for allowing us to take on another client on the river during these times . Very Truly Yours , MARTIN AND WOOD WATER CONSULTANTS, INC ~.~ Joe Tom Wood , P .E. President 2011 Sewer Rate Comparison (using information available on each city•s internet site) -- Base d on Single Family Home with a 3/4" Meter and one month typical winter water consumption. 2,000 I Per Month -r-F I ! ·-· I --2 I --t--·-'Typical · Normal Bill I -- 1 I Months in I MonthlyWinter (Monthly , Bi-i Billing Service Charge Per Average Monthly or Billing Period J Period 1 Charge 1000 Gallons I Minimums Consumption Annual) Monthly Bill mtr-= 1 i I Denver Inside .. ' Monthly 1 $ -$ · 5.34 I 2.0 I $ 3.90 $ 5.34 $ 5.34 Arvada Inside City. '. " ~Bi-Monthly 2 $ 2.44 '$ -2.0 -$ 16 .36 $ 16 .36 $ 8.18 Arvad.a _o. · u_tside .City ·, • ·Bi-MOnthly I 2 $ 2.4fj:f 3.48 $ :---+--2.0 ·=ti 16.36 $ 16 .36 $ _a.18 Golden; . ' Quarterly 3 $ -i $ 1.79 1 $ 24 ]ZL 2 .0 $ 10 .74 $ 24 .97 $ 8 .32 Wes~itlsterJnslde ,.. ..''.,. Monthly 1 1 $ -· $ 4 .19 , $ -+=2.0 1 $ 8 .38 $ ~~-l 8.38 Westi'nfnstt:!rShaW'Hts::: . Monthly 1 $ -$ 4 .19 1 $ -_ 2 .0 $ 8.38 $ 8.38 $ 8 .~~ Aurora ,· .. . ·: · ·.., ,, Monthly , 1 $ 3.09 $ 2 .84 $ -2 .0 I $ 8.77 $ 8.77 $ 8.77 Boulder . . ; i ' "~, rvfonthly ---r--· 1 I $ 1.00 3.9ii 0 2 .0 $ 8.84 $ 8.84 $ -8.84 Lak~ , :,_: . · :. :',', _§_i-Mont ~ 2 ; $ 7.70 $ 2 .53 $ -2.0 $ -17 .82 $ --17 .82 $ 8 .91 Northglenn : , , : Monthly 1 $ -: $ 3.31 $ 9.93 2.0 $ 6 .62 $ 9.93 $ 9.93 Westtninsfer OOtside'· · : Monthly 1 $ -: $ 5.23 $ -2.0 $ 10.46 -$ 10.46 $ 1 ·D.46 Thomton)nsid&~ f ~-. " Monthly 1 $ 6 .20 ~ 2 .35 $ -2.0 $ 10 .90 $ 10 .90 $ 10 .90 Broom~td · --: . · . : ·: .. MOOthly 1 $ -$ 2.76 $ 11 .04 2 .0 ~--5.52 $ 11 .04 $ {1-~64- BearCreekWater&san Annual 12 $ 0.95 $ 6 .3 5 .$ 60 .00 2 .0 1 $ 153 .35 $ 153.35 $ 12 .78 Longmoilt ·.· ·· --.. Monthly 1 '$ 7 .83 $ 2 .67 ; $ -2 .0 i $ 13 .17 · $-· 13 .17 $ 13 .17 Highl~s Rart<:h · ;. Bi-Monthly 2 $ 20 .06 $ 2 .52 i $ -2.0 I $ 30 .14 $ 30 .14 $ 15 .07 Greeley .. ., .. ~ • '. Monthly 1 $ 11 .55 I $ 1.86 $ -2.0 L $ 15 .27 $ 15.27 $ 15 .27 GreenMountainV\/&S·. Bi-Monthly + 2 $ 20 .00 1 $ 2 .75 $ 5.50 2.0 ··-* __ 31.00 $ 31.00 $ 15.50 TJ1omton Outside Monthly 1 1 $ 9.30 I $ 3.53 $ -i 2.0 $ 16 .36 $ 16.36 $ 16 .36 Englewood Outside · Annual 12 $ -$ 2.53 $ 212 .71 ·-2.0 $ 212.71 $ 212.71 $ -17.73 Englewood Inside Quarterly 3 $ -$ 2 .87 $ 54.76 : 2.0 $ 54 .76 $ 54 .76 $ -18.25 Littleton · ~ Annual 12 $ -$ -$ 228.45 1 · · 2.0 ' $ -I $ 228.45 $ 19 .04 Ft.Collin$·,:::·: .. :;:.-~. Monthly -·--1 --$ 13.95 $ ____ 2.71 _$ -_ 2.0 _ $ 19.371$ 19 .37 $ -19.37- Havana:Water&.Sar(:· '? Quarterly 3 . $ -$ -$ 60 .00 ' 2 .0 $ -I $ 60 .00 $ 20 .00 Castlerock . ' ~ . . . Monthly --. --1 · I $ 10.10 $ 5.70 I $. -2 .0 $ 21 .50 I $ illtit1 50 $. 21 .50 Parker .. ·' : ·· ,. Monthly !-1 $ 8.62 ' $ 8.00 $ -2.0 $ 24 .62 $ $ 24 .62 Erie ·· : ,, : Monthiy----r--1-· , $ 11 .84 $ 6.48 $ -2.0 $ 24.80 1 $ 24 .80 $ 24 .80 Castlewood w & s Bl=Allnual I 6 $ -=------$----_- 1 $ 52 .50 2.0·-: $ --$ 52.50 $ -·a·)s :. 2011 Sewer Rate Comparison (using information available on each c ity"s internet site) Based on S ingle Fami ly H o me with a 3/4 " Meter a nd on e month _typic al winter wate r consum ption. 4,000 I Per Month 4 Billing Period Months in Charge Per1000 Billing I Service Period Charge I Gallons I I Minimums Typical MonthlyWi nter Average Normal 81 11 (Monthly , Bi- Monthly or Annual) Monthly Bill Denverlnside ;: Y ,_,,-· ,~, Monthly I-1 l $ -I $ 1.95 $ 5 .34 i 4 .0 1 $ 7 .80 $ 7 .80 I $ 7 .80 Golden ; . :.•• :""·'· .°' Quarterly 3 $ -$ 1 .79 $ 24 .97 4 .0 $ 21.48 $ 24 .97 $ 8 .32 Broomfield .·. · ~·! -,,_·' Monthly 1 $ -I $ 2.76 $ 11 .04 4 .0 $ 11 .04 $ 11 .04 $ 11 .04 Northglen!l . · , 7 ---· . .:: f\J19.nth1y 1 __ _-=1--$_-· -i $ 3 .31 $ -9~9:f · 4 .0 $-~--fa :2{:$_ 13 .24 $ 13.241 Lakewo6d · i • ' '« . ,: ; Bi-Monthly 2 $ 7 .70 ! $ 2.53 ; $ -I 4 .0 I $ 27.94 $ 27 .94 $ 13 .97 -, Aurora . . . . . , .· r_vi_onthly 1 $ 3.09 I $ 2.84 I $ -I 4 .0 $ 14.45 $ 14.4~-~~---14.45 Arvada Inside City ' · 'i • -· Bi-Monthly 2 $ 2.44 $ 3.48 $ -1 4 .0 $ 30 .28 $ 30.28 $ 15 .14 Arvacta Outside City . . ~. ~· __ §!:Monthly 2 $ 2.4~--~---3.48 -$ -4 .0 1 $ 30 .28 , $ 30.28 $ 15 .14 I Thornton. Inside . : .. :: ,_· -· Monthly 1 $ 6 .20 $ 2.35 $ -4 .0 l $ 15 .60 i $ 15.60 I $ 15.60 Boulder ..... _ .. } ;:' ,·<·Monthly 1 $ 1.00 3 .92 o 4 .0 :$ 16 .68 $ 16 .68 1 $ 16 .68 •. ,. ,,, ' I . -I Westmil'fst6 ln$ide .-': · · ·• Monthly 1 $ -$ 4 .19 $ -4 .0 $ 16 .76 $ 16 .76 1 $ 16 .76 .YV~~tmin~ter shaw t.fts -Mo ~th1x . _. _ 1 -1 .. $ _:: $ 4 .19 _ $ -1 ~.o $ 1 ~.76 _ $ 16 .7~ r $ -· 16 .7~ Englewood Outside ~ Annual 12 $ -$ 2 .53 $ 212.71 4 .0 $ 212.71 $ 212 .71 $ 17.73 Englewood Inside ' " Quarterly 3 $ -$ 2 .87 $ 54 .76 4 .0 $ 54.76 $ 54.76 $ 18 .25 Longm. ont -· _. Monthly __ 1 i $ 7.83 $ 2 .67 $ -I 4 .g___+,$ 18 .51 I $ 18 .51 _L~ --18 .51 Greeley '-" . _ ,;.· " Monthly 1 $ 11 .55 $ 1 .86 $ -4 .0 , $ 18 .99 $ 18 .99-k$ 18 .99 Littleton . · ' ' · Annual , 1 i $ -$ -$ 228.45 4 .0 $ -$ 228.45 1 $ 19 .04 Havana Water & San . . ~ Quarterly ; 3 $ --$ -$ 60 .00 4 .0 $ -$ 60.00 1 $ 20 .00 Highlands Ranch : · · ·· ~ · Bi-Monthly 2 $ 20 .06 $ 2.52 : $ -4 .0 $ 40 .22 $ 40 .22 $ 20 .11 Westminster Outside .. :.. Monthly 1 $ -$ 5 .23 ' $ -4 .0 $ 20 .92 $ --20 .92 $ 20 .92 , ~--· ----· -----I Green Mquntain W &-.$ Bi-Monthly I 2 $ 20 .00 $ 2 .75 : $ 5 .50 4 .0 $ 42.00 I $ 42 .00 $ 21 .00 Thomton'Ou~ldt!:.· .;•: : . . , · Monthly 1 1 $ 9 .30 $ 3.53 1 $ -4 .0 --$ 23.42 $ 2 3.42 $ 23 .42 Ft. Collins : ·. · ·. ~ ·· · Monthly : 1 $ 13 .95 $---2.71 1 $ -4.0 $ 24 .79 $ 24 .79 $ -2~f"7 9-- Bearcreek Wat~r& ~~ !-.!:l_nual i 12 _ $ 0 .95 $ 6 .35 $ 60 .00 4 .0 $ 305.75 $ 305 .7~ $-_ 25.48 Castlerock '. · Monthly _ 1 $ 10 .10 $ 5 .70J _$ -4.0 $ ~_._90 1 $ 32 .90 $ 32 .90 1 Erie . -~-. , · . Monthly 1 $ 11 .84 $ 6.48 I $ -4 .0 $ 37.76 $ 37 .76 $ 37 .76 Monthly I 1 $ 8 .62 $ 8 .-00 I $ -4 .0 $ 40 .62 I $ 40 .62 $ 40 .62 Parker ,,_ 2011 Sewer Rate Comparison (using information available on each city's internet site) I ----·--------------- Based on Single Family Home with a 3/4" Meter and one month typical winter water consumption. 6,000 I Per Month ----I ----.. I I 1 I Typical I j Normar 8111 6 ! Months in [ Charge MonthlyWi I I (Monthly , Bi- l Billing !Service j Per 1000 nter I 1 Monthly or Billing Period Period !Charge i Gallons Minimums Average !Annual) !Monthly Bill I ----T I I I l I Denver Inside Golden Broomfield Monthly 1 -+--!--$ 1.95 $ 5.34 6.0 I $ 11 .70 $ 11 .70±$ 11 .70 I Ql!arterly -3----H---$ ___ ----~ 1.79 $ 24.97 6.0 I $ 32.22-$ ---32 .22 !_____ 10 .74 ~--...:..... JMonthly _ ·-1 1 $ _-$ 2.76 $ 11 .04 6.0 l $ 16.56 . $ 16 .56 I $ 16.56 17.73 18 .25 Englewood Outside · Annual 12 $ -$ 2 .53 $ 212 .71 6.0 $ 212.71 $ 212.71 $ Englewood Inside Quarterly . 3 $ -$ 2.87 $ 54.76 6.0 $ 54.76 $ 54.76 $ LakewOOd a " !Bi-Monthly I 2 $ 7 .70 I $ 2 .53 I $ -6 .0 $ 38 .06 I $ 38 .06 ! $ 19 .03 Annual 12 $ -$ -I $ 228.45 6.0 $ -I $ 228.45 i $ 19.04 Littleton Northglenn Havana Water & San Aurora Thornton tnsidt Arvad~lnside Citf. Anlada Ootside City Greeley · Longmont Boulder westmiilster ··inside Westminster Shaw Hts Highlands Ranch Green Mountain ·W & S Ft. co111ris Thormont>litside wes"tmiri;ster 'O'\Jt$lde Bear Creek Watet&:San Castlerock · Erie Parker Monthly 1 $ -$ 3.31 $ 9.93 6 .0 $ -19 .86 I $ 19 .86 ~ _ 19.86 Quarterly 3 $ -$ -$ 60 .00 6 .0 $ -$ 60 .00 $ 20 .00 Monthly _ 1 I $ 3 .09 $ 2 .84 $ -6 .0 $ 20 .13 $ 20.13 . $ 20 .131 Monthlx_ _ , 1 l $ 6.20 1 $ 2 .35 $ -6 .0 . $ 20.30 $ 20 .30 i $ _ 20 .30 J Bi-Monthly 2 i $ 2.44 ! $ 3.48 $ -6 .0 I $ 44 .20 $ 44.20 I $ 22.10 l ·----~ -I ~i =~onthly 2 _ I $ 2.4~ _ _:__~ __ 3.48 $ -6.0 1 $ 44.:.~Q_-~ 44.20 i $ 22.10 [Mont~ly 1 '$ 11 .55 $ 1.86 $ -6 .0 $ 22 .71 $ 22 .7 1 $ _22.7J__ Monthly 1 $ 7.83 $ 2 .67 $ -6 .0 $ 23 .85 $ 23 .85 $ 23.85 ·1 Monthly-· 1_ $ 1.00 3 .92 0 6 .0 $ 24 .~2 1 $ ?i:52 $ 24 .52 I Monthly 1 $ -$ 4.19 I $ -I 6 .0 $ 25 .14 ! $ 25 .14 $ 25 .14 [Monthly 1 $ -$ 4 .19 $ -___ 1 6 .o $ __ 25.14 1 $ 25 .14 $ 25 .14 __ Bi-Monthly 2 $ 20.06 $ 2 .52J $ -l 6 .0 $ 50 .30 _$ ___ 50.30 $ 25 .15 I Bi-Monthly 2 $ 20.00 $ 2 .75 I $ 5.5q__ 6 .0 $ 53 .00 $ 53.00 $ 2f?..:5Q Monthly 1 $ 13.95 $ 2 .71 1 $ -! 6 .0 $ 30 .21 1 $ 30.21 _$ 30 .21 Monthly 1 $ 9.30 $ 3.53 1 $ -I 6.0 $ 30.48 $ 30.48 $ 30.48 rrV1onthly f $ -$ 5 .23 I $ --6.0 $ 31.38 $ 31 .38 $ --·. 31 .38 (!.nnual 12 $ 0.95 $ 6 .35 $ 60.00 6.0 $ 458.15 , $ 458 .15 $ 3~_:__1_~ 1 Monthly 1 $ 10.10 I $ 5.70 $ -6 .0 $ 44.30 1 $ 44.30 $ 44.30 ·------I . ---------- Monthly _ 1 ; $ 11 .84 1 $ 6 .48 $ -6 .0 $ 50 .72 $ 50.72 $ 50 .72 Monthly . 1 I $ 8.62 I $ 8 .00 $ -6 .0 $ 56 .62 $ 56 .62 1 $ 56.62 77 Sewer Rate Comparison {µsing information available on each city's internet site) Based on Single Family Home with a 3/4" Meter and one mont8 typ~al v~ter water consumption . s,ooo Per Month ;t. ta.o ,~°',; ~i--.G;n .e_i quAf\'e,\~ (fb,.1~\~ Months in Charge MonthlyWinter (Monthly, ~ 6(!)(!) \ Billing Billing Service Per 1000 Average Bi -Monthly Monthly . I '.jO.. fl\,<>• ~yp ical ::i l> ~ormal Bill b \ \ \ .J(or Period Period Charge Gallons Minimums onsumption or Annual) Bill ~~11.~,~ •. ,~9..LL ... , ... ~ 1.q5' s.~c..t e 11 .'70 ...-~-5,~.- rorsyetttn~@~··.·'.~;L·.,~ '"~~~~:r . 1 1 2 .t ,.J ; ~.:~. ; Ai;:4 l~ .•.. ::~ ~ ~.~;:;~ .. : ; 1~};~;.;::~ ~~:~~ - 'J.'$1.j Monthly 1 $ $ 2 .76 $ 11.04 \ ~ 6.0 $ 16.56 $ 16.56 $ 16 .56 • Sewer Rate '.:;~·~Bi -Monthly 2 $ 7.40 $ 2.18 $ 6.0 $ 33 .56 $ 33.56 $ 16 .78 ~ .... : .. t:7~~,-· ~ · ~-5.85 : :.·;~ -~ 50.B9 tt\ · ::6 ~ ~::~: ~ ::.:~ ·,r i!:~~ ~J ''!Monthly 1 $ 2.97 $ 2.73 $ 6 .0 $ 19.35 $ 19.35 $ 19.35 dil{~ Monthly 1 $ $ 3.31 $ 9.93 'I 6.0 $ 19 .86 $ 19.86 $ 19.86 '1. q 3 Bi-Monthly 2 $ 19.28 $ 2.35 $ 4.5 $ 40.43 $ 40.43 $ 20.22 .:;l 3,'\~ Monthly 1 $ 7 .29 $ 2.46 $ 6 .0 $ 22.05 $ 22.05 $ 22 .05 \ ~ , ~ \ Bi-Monthly 2 $ 2.44 $ 3.48 $ 6.0 $ 44.20 $ 44.20 $ 22.10 ~,"'\Ci Bi-Monthly Monthly Monthly __ __, 2 $ 2.44 $ 3.48 $ 6 .0 $ 44 .20 $ 44.20 $ 22 .10 '\.I{ 0 1 s s 4 .o3 s 6 .o s 24 .rn s 24.18 s 24.18 a., O(c 1 s s 4.03 s 6.o s 24 .18 s 24 .18 s 24 .18 a. o le 1 $ 8.78 $ 3.33 $ 6.0 $ 28 .76 $ 28.76 $ 28 .76 15. ~ 1 $ $ 5.03 $ 6 .o $ 30 .18 $ 30.18 $ 30 .18 I 0, 0 ~ 1 s 7.04 $ 5.35 $ 6.o $ 39 .14 $ 39 .14 $ 39 .1 4 Ii• i Y 1 $ $ 56.93 $ 56.93? ~ 1.0 $ 56 .93 $ 56.93 $ 56.93 ~ 8.li>~ e.oD s-eo,/p".J. d.,li,b~ Comparison (using information available on each city's internet site) Based on Single Family Home with a 3/4" Meter and one month typical winter water consumption . 7,000 Per Month Typical Months in Charge Monthly Billing Bill i ng Service Per 1000 Winter Average Period Period Charge Gallons Minimums Consumption '{~{;~~~;~:;Ji ; ·.·. 2 1.95 $ 10.68 7 .0 $ 27.30 l}l, ,/·;t,.f'.4 >.,~.·. ·+~7:5~.,·. 7.() $ -~ .. &7,57 'g~f\;rr1¥' 3 .•. 2 :6$ ~ ~0 ,69 7:0 $ 5§'.'62 · ';7,e'.;" Bi-Monthly 2 $ 7.40 $ 2.18 $ 7.0 $ 37 .92 ,--.' 1 Monthly 1 $ $ 2 .76 $ 11.04 7 .0 $ 19 .32 .:__:.,,)l $ $ $ $ };,>«Monthly 1 5.85 2.22 7.0 21 .39 "·.,;Monthly 1 $ 2.97 $ 2.73 $ 7.0 $ 22.08 I -~~ Bi .. Monthly 2 $ 19 .28 $ 2.35 5.5 $ 45 .13 •+ J 1 $ $ 3.31 $ 9 .93 7.0 $ 23.17 f'f'l Monthly .:.;,;~ $ $ $ $ ; '""Monthly 1 7.29 2.46 7.0 24.51 ,,;J, •::~"'" $ $ $ $ ._,,,Bi -Monthly 2 2.44 3.48 7.0 51 .1 6 " "Bi -Monthly 2 $ 2.44 $ 3.48 $ 7.0 $ 51.16 Monthly 1 $ $ 4.03 $ 7 .0 $ 28.21 Monthly 1 $ $ 4.03 $ 7 .0 $ 28.21 '::5 Monthly 1 $ 8.78 $ 3.33 $ 7.0 $ 32 .09 , '''.Monthly 1 $ $ 5 .03 $ 7.0 $ 35 .21 1Monthly 1 $ 7.04 $ 5.35 $ 7.0 $ 44.49 1 $ $ 56.93 $ 56.93 1.0 $ 56 .93 * NOTE '. Why do inside Englewood customers pay more than outside Englewood customers? Inside customers pay for sewage treatment and sewer main cleaning and maintenance. Outsid e Englewood customers are charged for sewage treatment only, but are charged for sewer main cleaning and maintenance by the ir sanitation districts. Normal Bill (Monthly, Bi -Monthly Monthly or Annual) Bill $ 27.30 $ 13.65 ,f 'k ·1l~:~;,;.;· .. f:~l,~ $ 37.92 $ 18 .96 $ 19.32 $ 19 .32 $ 21.39 $ 21 .39 $ 22.08 $ 22.08 $ 45 .13 $ 22.57 $ 23.17 $ 23.17 $ $ 24.51 24 .51 \ $ $ 51 .16 25.58 $ 51 .16 $ 25 .58 $ 28.21 $ 28 .21 $ 28 .21 $ 28 .21 $ 32.09 $ 32 .09 $ 35.21 $ 35 .21 $ 44.49 $ 44.49 $ 56.93 $ 56.93 . ' colorado waterwise GUIDEBOOK OF BEST PR CTICES FOR MUNICIPAL W. TER CONSERVATIO IN OLORADO Prepared by Prepared with support from Copyright Guidebook of Best Practices for Municipal Water Conservation in Colorado is copyrighted © 2010 by Colorado WaterWise. 1st edition published in AUh'USt 2010. Disclaimer No representations are made with respect to the contents of the Guidebook of Bes I Practices jiir Mw1icipal Water Conservation in Colorado. Furthennore, Colorado WaterWise and Aquacraft, Inc. reserve the right to revise the document and make changes to the content from time to time without obligation to notify any person of such revision. THE INFORMATION CONTAJNED HEREIN IS PROVIDED ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF AJ\i'Y KIND, JNCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE ACCURACY, COMPLETENESS OR QUALITY OF SUCH INFORMATION AND ANY USE MADE OF IT IS ASSUMED BY THE USER. NEITHER COLORADO WATER WISE, AQUA CRAFT JNC ., NOR ANYONE ELSE WHO HAS BEEN INVOLVED fN THE CREATION, PRODUCTION OR DELIVERY OF THE INFORMATION SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ANY DJRECT, INTIIRECT, C'ONSEQOENTJAL, OR INCIDENT AL DAMAGES (INCLUDING PROPERTY DAMAGE, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, BUSINESS PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, AND THE LIKE) ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THE U\!FORMA TION, OR ANY OMISSION IN OR INACCURACY OF ANY INFORMATION EVEN IF COLORADO WATER WISE AND AQUACRAFT INC. HA VE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. Distribution Notice You may print copies and distribute this document in whole or in part provided that each part (or the whole) contains the above copyright and disclaimer notice. THE ENTIRE RISK AS TO THE ACCURACY, CO:MPLETENESS OR QUALITY OF SUCH INFORMATION AND ANY USE MADE OF IT REMAINS WITH THE USER. Incorporation of this document by reference is permissible with the following citation: Colorado WaterWise and Aqua craft, Inc . 20 l 0. Guidebook of Best Practices for lvfunicipal Water Conservalion in Colorado. Colorado WaterWise. Denver, CO. 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ......................................................................................................................................... I ! PREFACE .................................................................................................................................................................... 13 FOR\VARD ................................................................................................................................................................. 15 CHAPTER l. INTRO.DUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 17 PllRPOSE OF GmornooK ......................................................................................................................... , .................... J 7 WHAT ISA BEST PRACTICE? ......................................................................................................................................... 17 WHAT'SINCLUDEDINTHEGUIDEBOOK? ..................................................................................................................... 18 How WERE THE B EST PRAC11CES INTHTS GUIDEBOOK SELECTED? ............................................................................. J 8 Literature R evieHl ............................................................................................................................... : .................... 19 Selection of Best Practices ...................................................................................................................................... 19 Review of Draft Guidebook ..................................................................................................................................... 19 How TO usE nm G urnEBOOK ..................................................................................................................................... 20 FuND!NG FOR BEST PRACI1CES lJ...fPLEMENT ATION ....................................................................................................... 20 ABOUT COLORADO W ATERWISE ................................................................................................................................. 20 CH..4.PTER 2. BEST PRACTICE SUl\1J\1'ARY ............................................................................................................ 21 SUM.-...,fARY OF B EST PRACTICES .................................................................................................................................... 21 Water 5)'.stem and Utility Best Prac tices ................................................................................................................. 22 Outdoor Landscape and Irrigation B est Practices ................................................................................................. 24 Indoor Residential Best Practices ........................................................................................................................... 26 Indoor Non-Residential Bes t Practi ces ................................................................................................................... 27 CHAPTER 3. BEST PRi\CTICE SUITES FOR WATER PROVIDERS ................................................................. 28 SUITE l: FOUNDATION AI~ No-EXCUSE B EST PRACTI CES ............................................................................................. 28 SurrE 2: FOUNDATIONAL+ REGU[ATORY B EST PRACfICES ........................................................................................ 30 SUITE 3: COJvfPLETEPACKAGE OF B EST PRACTICES ..................................................................................................... 31 CHAPTER 4. DETAILED BEST PI{ACTICE DESCRIPTIONS ............................................................................. 32 BEST PRACTICE 1: M ETERING, CONSERVATION-O!UENTEDRATES AND TAP FEES, CUSTOMER CATEGO!UZATION WITHIN BILLING SYSTEM ............................................................................................................................................. 33 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................. 33 Implementation ........................................................................................................................................................ 35 Waier Savings and Other Benefits .......................................................................................................................... 41 Costs ........................................................................................................................................................................ 45 Examples ................................................................................................................................................................. 46 BEST PRACTICE 2 : INTEGRATED RESOURCES PLANN ING, GOAL S E1TJNG, AND DFJ\tAND MONITORING .................. 60 Oven1iew ................................................................................................................................................................. 60 Implementation ........................................................................................................................................................ 61 Co lorado fVater C..'o nservation Board Guidance ..................................................................................................... 64 Water Savings and Other Ben~fl ts .......................................................................................................................... 66 Cosis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 66 Resources and Examples ......................................................................................................................................... 67 BEST PRACTICE 3: SYsn:M W ATER Loss CONTROL. .............................................................................................. 68 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................. 68 Implementation ........................................................................................................................................................ 69 Water Savings and Other B enefits .......................................................................................................................... 71 Costs ........................................................................................................................................................................ 73 Resources and Examples ......................................................................................................................................... 73 BEST PRACTICE 4: CONSERVATION COORDINATOR ................................................................................................. 75 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................. 75 Implementation ........................................................................................................................................................ 76 Water Savings and Other Benefits .......................................................................................................................... i8 3 Costs ........................................................................................................................................................................ 78 Resources and Examples ......................................................................................................................................... 78 BEST PRACTICE 5 : WATER WASTE ORDINANCE ...................................................................................................... 80 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................. 80 Water Savings and Other Benefits .......................................................................................................................... 8 1 Costs ........................................................................................................................................................................ 82 Resources a nd Examples ......................................................................................................................................... 82 BEST PRACl'ICE 6: P L'BLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION .................................................................................... 87 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................. 87 Implemen tation ........................................................................................................................................................ 87 Water Savings and Other Benefits .......................................................................................................................... 90 Cos ts ........................................................................................................................................................................ 90 Resources and Examples ......................................................................................................................................... 91 BEST PRACTICE 7: LAJ"-.<DSCAPE WATER BUDGETS, l..NFORMAT!ON, AND CUSTOMER FEEDBACK ............................. 97 Overview ................................................................................................................................................................. 97 lmplementation ........................................................................................................................................................ 98 Water Savings and Other B enefits ........................................................................................................................ 103 Costs ...................................................................................................................................................................... 105 Resources and Examples ....................................................................................................................................... 105 BEST PRACTICE 8: R U1..ES A."·m REGULATIONS FOR L~1)SCAPE D ESIGN A1'1TJ lNSTALU\.TION AND CERTIFICATION OF L~TJSCAPE PROFESSIONALS ................................................... ············································ ............................. ·········· l 08 Oi'ervi ew ............................................................................................................................................................... 108 implem entation ...................................................................................................................................................... 109 Water Savi11gs and Other Benefits ........................................................................................................................ 110 Costs ...................................................................................................................................................................... 1J1 Resources and Examples ................................................................ .' ...................................................................... 112 BEST PRACTICE 9: WATER EFFICIENT DESIGN, lNSTAJ_LA TION, AND .MAINTENANCE PRACTICES FO R N EW AND EXISTING LANDSCAPES .............................................................................................................................................. 126 Overview ............................................................................................................................................................... !26 lmpleme11tation. ..................................................................................................................................................... J 27 Water Savings and Other Benefits ........................................................................................................................ 134 Costs ...................................................................................................................................................................... l 36 R esources a11d Examples ....................................................................................................................................... 13 7 BEST PRACTICE I 0 : lRRIGA TION EFFlCIENCY EVALUATIONS ................................................................................. 139 Overview ............................................................................................................................................................... 139 Implementation ...................................................................................................................................................... 140 Water Savings and Other Bemjits ........................................................................................................................ 144 Costs ................................................. ~ .................................................................................................................... J 46 Resources and Examples ....................................................................................................................................... 147 BEST PRACTlCE 11 : Rm.E S FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION ........................................................................................... 149 Overview ............................................................................................................................................................... 149 bnplementation ...................................................................................................................................................... J 50 Water Savings and Other Benefits ........................................................................................................................ 15 2 Costs ...................................................................................................................................................................... 15 4 R esources a nd Examples ....................................................................................................................................... J 55 BEST PRACTI CE 12 : HIGH-El-"FfCIENCY FL'\nJRE AND APPLIANCE R EPLACEMENT FOR R ESIDENTIAL A .. "ID NON- RESIDENTIAL SEGORS ............................................................................................................................................... 158 Ove11iiew ............................................................................................................................................................... 158 lmple men tation. ..................................................................................................................................................... 159 Wat er Savings and Othe r B e nefits ........................................................................................................................ 164 (osts ...................................................................................................................................................................... 165 R esources a nd E xamples ....................................................................................................................................... 166 BEST PRACTICE 13: RESIDEN TW. WATER S URVEYS, EvALUATIONS TARGETED AT HIGH D EMAND 0.JSTOMERS 170 Overview ............................................................................................................................................................... 170 Implementation. ..................................................................................................................................................... 171 Water Savings and Other Benefits ........................................................................................................................ 175 4 Costs ...................................................................................................................................................................... 175 Resources and Ewmples ....................................................................................................................................... 1 76 JNDOORRESIDENTl4LAUDJT FORM ............................................................................................................ 177 BEST PRACTICE 14 : SPECIALIZED NON-RESIDENTIAL SURVEYS, AUDlTS, AND EQUIPMENT EFFICTENCY lMPROVEM ENTS .......................................................................................................................................................... 180 Oven,iew ............................................................................................................................................................... 180 Implementation ...................................................................................................................................................... 181 Water Savings and Other Benefits ........................................................................................................................ Z 85 Costs ...................................................................................................................................................................... 188 Resources andExamples ....................................................................................................................................... 188 CHAPTER 5. LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................................... 19 1 Best Practices Ma~ter List .................................................................................................................................... 191 llRBAN WATER llSE ................................................................................................................................................... 191 Residen tial Water Use ........................................................................................................................................... 193 Non-Residential Water Use ................................................................................................................................... 194 COLORADO BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ............................................................................................................. 195 Me tro Mayors Cau cus mui Colorado WaterPVi se ................................................................................................. 195 OreenCO BJl'!Ps .................................................................................................................................................... 196 CALIFORN1ABEST [V{ANAGE.MENT PRACTICES ............................................................................................................ 197 Changes in the California BMPs .......................................................................................................................... 198 Content o/Calffomia B.MPs .................................................................................................................................. 199 TEXAS BES T MANAOE1vfENT PRACTICES ..................................................................................................................... 200 GEORGJA BEST .MANAGEMENT PRACTICES ................................................................................................................ 202 BEST PRAC TICE Ol'TLJNES ................................ -....................................................................................... -.. " ............ 207 CHAPTER 6. REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................................... 208 CllAPTER 7. APP EN DI CES ...................................................................................................................................... 223 APPENDIX A . CONSERVATION P RACTICES NOT SELECTED FOR THE BEST PRACTICES G UlDEBOOK ........................... 223 Water System and Utiliiy Best Practices Not Selected .......................................................................................... 2 23 Outdoor Landscap e and Irrigation Best Practices Not Selected .......................................................................... 223 Indoor Residential and Non Residential Bes t Practices Not Selected. .................................................................. 223 APPENDIXB. STATE OF CALIFOR..-...;-L\R.ETROFITONRECONNECT0RDINANCE ........................................................... 224 5 LIST OF TABLES Table 3-l: Foundational , no-excuse best practices ....................................................................... 29 Table 3-2 : Foundational + regulatory best practices .................................................................... 30 Table 3-3: Complete package of best practices ............................................................................ 31 Table 4-1 : 2009 water rates and rate structure for Glenwood Springs ........................................ 47 Table 4-2 : Fort Collins re sidential water mtes , 20 I 0 ................................................................... 48 Table 4-3 : Fort Collins multi-family seasonal water rates ............................................................ 48 Table 4-4: Aurora Water residential water rates and base charges .............................................. 49 Table 4-5: Aurora Water commercial water rate s ......................................................................... 49 Table 4-6: Centennial Water and Sanitation District wa ter rates ................................................. 50 Table 4-7: Town of Castle Rock 2010 resident ial wakr rates ...................................................... 50 Table 4-8 : Town of Castle Rock 2010 water service charges ...................................................... 50 Table 4-9 : Town of Ca stle Rock 2010 non-residential water r ates .............................................. 51 Table 4-10: City of Boulder water budget-based rates for 2009/2010 ......................................... 52 Table 4-11 : Key water lo ss audit implementation s tep s ............................................................... 71 Table 4-12 : Aurora water waste violation penalties ..................................................................... 85 Table 4-13 : Lands cape certification programs .......................................................................... 109 Table 4-14 : Wat er conservation rules for landscape-DOLA Model Green Building Program .. 11 3 Table 4-15: WaterSen se experience and exam requirements for certification programs ........... 118 Table 4-16: Certification types offered by the Irrigation Association ....................................... 119 Table 4-17 : Estimated water savi ngs from EPA WaterSense New Home Specification ........... 153 Table 4-1 8: Costs associated with EPA WaterSense New Home Specificat ion ........................ L55 Table 4-19 : Water conservation measures found in DOLA Model Gr een Building Program ... 156 Table 4-2 0: Indoor water conservation mea sure s in Telluride 's green building program .......... 157 Table 4-2 1: Site survey field kit items ........................................................................................ 176 Table 4-22 : Selected non-residential facilities and corresponding estimated water use ............ 18 2 Table 4-23: Wat er Sma rt Guide book -·efficiency recommendations for water-using practi c es .. 184 Table 4-24 : Benchmarks from A WW A Commerc ial End U se study ......................................... 187 Table 5-1 : Best practices from Metro Mayors ' Caucus and Colorado Water Wise .................... 196 Table 5-2 : Select ed water conservation practices from GreenCO B11Ps ................................... 197 T able 5-3 : Current be st management practices from CUWCC .................................................. 198 Table 5-4 : Comparison of Old and New California BMPs ......................................................... 199 Table 5-5: TWDB b est practices for municipal and industrial water users ................................ 201 Table 5-6 : BMP s fr om Georgia 's Water C onservation Implementation Plan ............................ 2 04 Table 5-7 : Pos sible templates: BMP outlines from other organizations ..................................... 2 07 7 LIST OF FIGURES Fi!:,l'l.ITe 4-t: Increasing bloc k rate stmctu re ........................................................................................ 37 Figur e 4-2: Water budg et-based rate structure ................................................................................... 37 Figure 4-3 : Seasonal ra te structure .................................................................................................... 38 Figure 4-4: Integrated resource planning process ............................................................ 63 Fi!:,'1.lre 4-5 : Screen capture of A WE conservation tracking tool. ....................................... ~ ............... 65 Figur e 4-6 : Water balance for water loss audit accounting ............................................................... 70 Figure 4-7 : Marketing piece, Denver Water's "Use Only \Vhat You Need" campaign ................ 91 F igure 4-8: ''Broken Sprinklers Waste Water" marketing piece from Denv er Water's "Use Only What You Nee<l " campaign ............................................................................................................... 92 Figure 4-9 : Denver Water 's famous running toilet. ......................................................... 92 Fi gure 4-10: A Denver Water billboard educates customers about permitted irrigation times ......... 93 Figu re 4-1.1 : One ofWWUC billboards designed to reduce water u s ed for irrigation .................. 93 Figure 4-12: A billboard used by WWUC reminding customers not to waste water ................... 94 Figure 4-13 : Marketing piece from Grnnd Junction 's campaign attributed with reduction in irrigation ............................................................................................................................................. 95 Fi!:,'1.lre 4-14 : Marketing piece placed on east bound l-70 targeting Front Range customers ............. 96 Figure 4-15: Thjs adverti s ement on bus benches in the Denver metro area ...................................... 96 Figure 4-16 : Landscape area calculation using GIS and available aerial imagery ............................ 99 Figure 4-17: GreenCO 's landscape budget calculator spreadsheet ................................................. 102 Fi6l'llre 4-18: Greeley "t oilet map " which identifies varying levels of indoor water use ................ 161. Figure 5-1: Water use by customer class in Boulder, CO ................................................................ 192 Figure 5-2 : Water use by customer class in Fort Morgan, CO ........................................................ 192 Figure 5-3 : Water use by customer class in Rifle, CO .................................................................... 19 3 Figure 5-4 : Indoor per cap ita use percent by fixture, 12 study sites ................................................ 194 Figure 5-5 : Drought i.n Georgia 2007 .............................................................................................. 203 9 BEST PRACTICE 1: Metering, Consetvation-Oriented Rates and Tap Fees, Customer Categorization Within Billing System • Foundational, Informational, Suppo11 , and Management best practice • Utility operations -implemented by water utilities • Customer participation -specific action by customers, not required for implementation Overview This multi-faceted best practice impacts the way utilities charge new customers when they join the system, bill their existing customers for the water they use, and understand who their customers are and which customers might best benefit targeted suggestions to improve their water efficiency. Metering -Measuring use and billing customers for what they use is fundamental to all water conservation efforts. Colorado already has a mandatory metering requirement for systems with more than 600 taps (CRS 37-97-103). Customers who pay for how much water the use consume less water. Adoption of smart meters, t at can e use to notify customers of leaks and prov1de real time consumption information, is also encouraged. Rate structure -A number of conservation-oriented pricing systems have been successfully implemented across the US including: water budget-based rates, increasing block rates, and seasonal rates. Utilities in Colorado that have implemented conservation-oriented rate structures include: Denver Water, Durango, Boulder, Fort Collins, Colorado Springs, Glenwood Springs, Aurora, and many others. Tap or connection fees -Tap fees (:an be developed based on anticipated future demand. By tying tap fees to more efficient fixtures, developers are encournged to implement water conserving fixtures and landscapes from the very beginning. Linking tap fees to water budgets will insure that the low demands projected when tap fees are paid \Vill actually be observed over time. Customer categorization and information -To effectively plan, implement and evaluate conservation more precise categorization of customers is highly encouraged. Residential customers can be categorized as single family or multi-family. Multi-family should include the number of units senred by each tap. Non-residential customers can be categorized based on North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes . Having this information in the utility billing and customer information system is tremendously useful. This is not a water saver by itself, but is a foundational improvement that benefits a program over the long haul, and makes planning and evaluation more effective. This is very important if water budgets are going to be used. Why a Best Practice? Metering --The cliche is true, we cannot manage what we do not measure. Numerous studies have documented the conserving impacts of metering. Meters enable utilities to bill customers based on their actual consumption and provide customers with direct feedback on their water 33 use. Likewise, submetering also provides valuable infonnation for customers about their water use. Smart meters, which report data at daily or even hourly intervals, can help detect leaks and enhance customer's ability to manage their water use. Conservation-oriented rate structure -How a utility bills its customers for water impacts utility revenue and demand. Conservation-oriented rate stmctures serve two fundamental purposes; one theoretical and one practical. Theoretically, conservation-oriented rates can link excess water use to the cost for new supplies (the marginal cost) which provides a strong price signal to the customer. Practically, conservation rates allow the utility to maintain revenue stabi lity even as they encourage conservation by recovering capital costs from heavy users. Tap or connection fees --An important goal of water conservation programs is to ensure that new buildings and new customers ad ded to a water system are efficient right from the start. Traditional tap fees base system connection charges on the size of the water meter -which may be a reasonable approach if peak demand is the only consideration. Conservation-oriented tap fees base part of the connection charge on the anticipated demand at the site. Developers typically do not w;e water once construction is complete and therefore they do not see a sa"ings from implementing conservation measures. However, if developers face tap fees based on anticipated water use , they do have an incentive to install conserving fixtures and landscapes. New customers that install water efficient fixtures and appliances will have smaller future demands and as a result should pay a lower connection fee . Under an equitable policy where new customers pay their fair share of water system development costs, anticipated demand is an important parameter to include in tap fee calculations which in turn encourages more efficient use. Linking tap fees to water budgets ensures that the demands used for calculation of the tap fees will be the demands used for future water billing on the property, and that water use over the budgets established in the tap fee process will include the appropriate capital cost for new water. Customer categorization and information --Targeting water conservation initiatives at the customers who have the greatest potential to save (i.e. to the least efficient users in a customer class) makes sense. But utilities often have precious little information about their customers, patticularly in the diverse CII category. Collecting and maintaining basic classification information on each customer served by a utility using the established North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) greatly enables targeting efforts and conservation program design . Coupling an understanding of who customers are (NAICS dassification) with measured consumption (metered billing) provides powerful tools for water utilities seeking to improve efficiency. Important customer information extends beyond categorization. Accurate contact infonnation is also critical customer information when communicating water savings suggestion<; to high water users. Geographic infonnation systems (GIS) are another important element of customer infonnation that can aid in identifying inefficient water use . The customer cate.gorization and information effort is not a water saver by itself, but represents a fundamental improvement in utility management that benefits a program over the long haul. State Statutory and Planning Requirements Metering -Metering of all customers is required in Colorado as of 2005 for all systems serving more than 600 taps . Colorado Revised Statutes 37-97-103 "Water Metering Act" has the following key provisions : 34 • "Every water senice supplier providing water in this state shall provide a metered water delivery and billing service to it<> customers ... " • "Billing of such water services ba5ed on the metered service shall begin no later than ninety days from the date of the installation of the meter." Conservation-oriented rate structure -Colorado statute requires that all covered entities (water prov1ders that deliver more than 2 ,000 acre-feet per year) file a water conservation plan with the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). Entities that do not have an approved plan on fiJe are not eligible to receive grant funding from the State. Under this statute, one of the water saving measures and programs that must be considered in a conservation plan is, "Water rate structures and billing systems designed to encourage water use efficiency in a fiscally responsible manner." [CRS 37-60-126 (4)(a)(VII)]. The statute goes on to state, ''The department of local affairs may provide technical assistance to covered entities that are local governments to implement water billing systems that show customer water usage and that implement tiered billing s ystems." [CRS 37-60-126 (4)(a)(VIII)]. Tap or connection fees -There are no Colorado statutory or planning requirements related to tap or com1ection fees. Customer categorization and information -There are no Colorado statutory or planning requirements related to customer categorization and infonnation . Applicability J\'Ietering -Universal metering as described in this best practice is implemented by water providers on the service lines of their customers. Water meters should be regularly read and maintained on a regular schedule by the water pro\'ider to ensure accuracy . Rate structure -Conservation-oriented rate structures are implemented by water providers. The regular bills sent by the provider are the most direct way in whfoh the provider communicates with its customers . The rate structure impacts both provider and customer directly . Revenues to the utility are determined via the rate structure as are fees paid by all customers. Tap or connection fees ·-Tap fees, a<; described in this best practice, are implemented by the water providers and apply to new customers joining the water system who are seeking a new connection(s ). Customer categorizatio n and information -Collecting customer information is a best practice implemented by the water provider, but one that requires contact with the customer in order to obtain categorical information. Implementation Metering --Selecting, installing, testing, and maintaining water meters is standard utility practice that has been implemented in some form since the earliest days of public water supply in 35 Egypt, China, Babylon, and Rome. The specific details of implementing this practice are beyond this scope of this best practices document. Those seeking to learn more about meters and metering should refer to the A WWA Manual of Water Supply Practice M6 --Water Meters -- Selection, Installation, Testing and Maintenance (A WWA 1999). Rate structure --Conservation -oriented rate structures are implemented by utility staff and their designated contractors. Utility rate structures are often formulated with multiple objectives including: revenue adequacy, fairness to customers, understandability, and demand reduction. Typically there is a structured public process whereby utility customers including citizens and businesses can have direct input into the selection and development of the rate structure. The utility billing system software and hardware must be able to accommodate the desired rate structure design. The following resources are recommended as a starting point for those seeking to implement or improve a conservation-oriented rate structure: • American Water Works Association. 2000 . Principles of Water Rates. Fees. and Charges. A WWA Manual Ml. Denver, Colorado. • Beecher, J.A. and P.C. Mann. 1991. Cost-Allocation and Rate Design/or lf'ater Uti/Wes. American Water Works Association Research Foundation. Denver, Colorado. • Mayer, P.W. et. al. 2008 . Water Budgets and Rate Structures : Innovative lvtanagement Tools. American Water Works Association . Denver, Colorado. • Raftelis, G.A . 2005 . Water and Wastewater Finance and Pricing: A Comprehensive Guide, 3"1 Edition . CRC Press . New York, New York. • Western Resource Advocates, et al. 2004. Water Rate Structures in Colorado: How Colorado Cities Compare in Using this Important Water Use Efficiency Tool. Western Resource Advocates. Boulder, Colorado. Traditional ratemaking for water utilities involves three discrete, logical steps (Beecher and Mann 1991; Raflelis 2005, Mayer et. al. 2008): Step 1: Identify costs and water agency revenue requirements. Step 2: Allocate costs to types of water usage . Step 3: Design rates for each type of water usage to recover costs from customers. Steps 1 and 2 combined account for the cost of service analysis portion of the rate process and will not be discussed further here. Step 3 is where the rate structure is selected and the actual rates and charges set. Ratemaking is an enonnous topic and is a more appropriate subject for a full length book rather than a brief description. A fow key concepts related to conservation-oriented rates are presented here. Rate structures, like utilities, are unique. lt is almost impossible to find t\.vo water utilities that have the exact same rate structure and pricing. This is because each utility has its own distinct revenue requirements and objectives for its rate structure. There are three primary varieties of conservation-oriented rate structure: 36 • Increasing block rates --higher prices are charged as consumption increases as shown in Figure 4-l. Block sizes are fixed for each customer class . For example a residential customer might pay $2 per 1,000 gallons (kgal) for the first 5 kgal each month, $4 per kgal for any usage between 5 and 15 kgal, and $8 per kgal for any usage above 15 kgal. Colorado utilities implementing increasing block rates include: Denver Water, Fort Collins Utilities, Colorado Springs Utilities, City of Glenwood Springs, City of Grand Junction, and many others. This is probably the most popular rate structure form in Colorado. Unit Price I I Consumption Volume Figure. 4-1: Increasing block rate structure • \Vater budget-based, individualized rates -a variation of increasing block rates ·where the block size is defined by an empi1ical detennination of efficient use for each customer using customer specific characteristics such as inigable area as shown in Figure 4-2. Colorado utilities implementing water budget-based rates include: Centennial Water and Sanitation District, City of Castle Rock, and City of Boulder. Unit Price Water budget -each indi- vidual v,,ater rate changes \\fl.en !hat customer exceeds budgeted use. C'-0nsurnption Volume Figure 4-2: Water budget-based rate structure • Seasonal rates -higher prices are charged during periods of scarcity (typically summer and fall to more efficiently allocate water in times or shortage and to encourage reduced demand) as shown in Figure 4-3. Denver Water, City of Castle Rock, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins, an d Durango are examples of utilities that have incorporated some element of seasonal rates into their increasing block rate structures. "''7 .)1 Unit Pt ice Summer/Seasonal Rate Winter/Non-Seasonal Rate Consumption Volume Figure 4-3: Seasonal rate structure Key Conservation Considerations When Selecting and Designing a Rate Structure -· Most of the literature on selecting and designing rates focuses on revenue requirements and cost of service evaluation. The following are important considerations related to water efficiency. • Sizing blocks appropriately -Increasing block rate structures will not achieve desired conservation results if the blocks are not properly sized (i.e. if the blocks are too large). For residential customers, the size of block 1 should be based on an efficient level of monthly (or bimonthly) indoor use. Rea<>onable block 1 sizes range from 3 to 8 kgal per month. The smaller the block size, the more potent the conservation price signal. The beauty of water-budget-based rates is that the blocks sizes are tailored to each customer in the system. \Vhen sizing blocks for an increasing block rate structure (without water budgets) it is more difficult to send a fair and effective conservation price sir.,rnal for individual customers . • Make block price differential meaningful -Many increasing block rate structures have very small differences in rate between each block. For example, a rate structure that charges $2 .20 per kgal in block 1 and $2.40 per kgal in block 2 will not send much of a price signal to customers since the difforence in rate is so small as to be trivial. A rate strncture such as the one in this example is little improvement (from a conservation standpoint) over a uniform rate . Setting the block rates is a complicated process that must by necessity include a cost of service analysis, but it should be possible to make the block price differentials significant enough to send a meaningful price signal to customers when their usage moves them into a higher rate block One measure of a meaningful price signal is a positive slope in the average price curve. The steeper the positive slope, the stronger the price signal. The average price curve should be examined for any rate structure under consideration. With a water budget-based system, where blocks are sized based on customer-specific infonnation, it is possible to employ more dramatic block price differentials in a more equitable manner since water use over the budgets is charged at marginal rates , or penalty rates for excess use, as specified in the water waste ordinance. Marginal rates are based on the cost of the most expensive i,.vater in the system, and penalty rates are fines for excess use, and are not linked to costs directly. Some utilities use revenue from high tiers to fund conservation programs 38 efforts directed at the customers who use water in the high tiers. The issue of revenue stability must also be carefolly considered when setting differential block prices. • High fixed service charges can ensure utility revenue, but may weaken intended conservation effects -Utilities that set a high fixed service charge each billing period will generally have a more stable revenue stream, however if more money is collected via fixed charges, less can be collected via the variable rate . Fixed service charges can offset the conservation incentives of increasing rates (Michaelson, et. al. 1998). • Billing cycles and the ability to track water use can influence customer rate response -Cu5tomers should be provided regular information on how much water they use as well as some context for understanding the relative efficiency of their usage through comparisons with historic use and established benchniarks (what they could or should be using). Bimontlily or quarterly billing cycles are far less successful at influencing customer behavior than monthly billing. Providing customers easy access to their account and consumption int(1rmation via regular billing, smart meters with remote readers, or even internet access will better encourage conservation behavior (\VRA 2004). Monthly billing with understandable billing documents that clearly show the volume consumed and, if possible, comparisons with previous usage and usage by other similar customers is ideal. Tap or connection fees ·-Connection fees are set by the water utility and apply to developers seeking new water service and occasionally to customers who intend to significantly change the usage patterns at an exist ing site. Utilities may have differing objectives when establishing their connection fee structure, but generally the idea is for new customers to pay the full buy-in costs associated with joining an existing water system. The buy-in costs should be thought of as covering both water resources and facilities costs. Water resources costs are nom1ally based on the annual volume of water required to serve the new customers and the value associated with that amount of water. These nonnally include water rights, raw water contracts, reservoir storage costs and other raw water facilities . The facilities costs are based on the percent of the treatment and distribution capacity of the system that will be required to serve the new customer. These are normally based on peak day use of the customer and peak day capacity of the system. In order to be both fair and accurate it is important for tap fees to consider both annual v olumes and peak demand for their new customers. If peak demands are the only factor used for setting tap fees then they provide no incentive for investing in efficiency. Obviously, customers with lower peak flow demands are less expensive for a utility to serve from a facilities perspective, but if only peak demand is used to set tap fees then inequitable situations will occur when customers This tap fee concept is essentially the same as requiring new customers to dedicate water rights to the utility based on anticipated future demand. with low peak demands but high volumetric usage pay smaller tap fees than customers with high peak demands and low volumetric use. Tap fees will incent developers to underestimate demands. Utilities should carefolly review anticipated demands before approving. Utilities have the opportunity to ensure that new buildings and new customers added to a water system are efficient right from the start by developing conservation-oriented tap fees where part of the connection charge is based on the anticipated annual water demand at the site. This 39 provides a built in incentive for new customers to equip their facilities with water efficient fixtures and appliances and landscaping so they can save money on their connection fee. Tap foes can be alternative to rebates and other incentives for ne\\! construction. If both types of programs are implemented by a utility, the programs must be designed to work in concert. Implementation of a tap fee structure that considers both anticipated peak flows and anticipated annual demands requires a utility to develop a methodology for estimating future demands for new customers . This is much the same as establishing a water budget for a site and utilities that have implemented water budget-based rates can link water budgeting for tap fees with establishing the water budget to be used for billing purposes. Water budgets also provide an impo1iant mechanism for insuring that low demands estimated for the tap fees carry over into actual low demands during nonnal use . The City of Westminster is a leader in the utilization of volumetiic and flow rate based tap fee structures. A copy of the tap fee ordinance from Westminster in included at the end of this best practice description . Customer categorizati.on and information -Many utilities already have basic customer classification iniormation. At the most basic level utilities distinguish between residential and non-residential customers. An improvement over the basic level is to distinguish betv.·een single- family residential , multi-famHy residential (with the number of units served per tap included), dedicated irrigation, commercial, industrial and municipal water users . To effectively benchmark and target water conservation to the customers with the greatest potential to conserve, more detailed classification is recommended, particularly in the non- residential sector. The established North American lndm;try Classification System (NAICS nee SIC) provides a tmiform numerical classification system that is ready for utilities to use. NAJCS offers several levels of specificity (for example --restaurants can be further subdivided into fast food restaurants, French Restaurants, Chinese Restaurants, etc.). NAlCS codes are created and maintained by the U.S. Census Bureau. References and files may be obtained through the Census Bureau website (www.census.gov/eos/wwvdnaics/). Adding a NAICS code classification, as appropriate for each customer requires the ability to add at least one new field to the utility customer database . Most importantly, this field must be populated. For residential and irrigation-only customers, the code assignment process can often be accomp11shed quickly because utilities already know who these customers are at the desired level of precision. For the commercial and municipal sectors, classifying each customer may require significant effort including surveys, telephone calls, site visits , and web research. Once established, the classification of new customers can be handled by customer service personnel when each account is set up. 40 Water Savings and Other Benefits Range of Likely Water Savings: Varies Metering --Studies on th e impacts of mete1ing have found significant water savings for metered customers vs . unmetered customers. Since metering in Colorado is required by statute these savings may have been fully realized already. Typical water savings achieved through metering are in the range of 10 -40% reduction in residential demand with more recent studies showing a 15% reduction (Mayer 2004, Porges 1957, Hanke and Flack 1968 , Hanke 1970, Flechas 1980). However, these savings will not be realized if customer meters are not being read and billed appropriately. Separate metering and billing of irrigation accounts and multi-family apartments has also been shown to be an effective conservation measure resulting in measurable water savings. Rate structure -The water savings achieved from implementing a new rate structure depend greatly upon the design and rates of both the new and the old rate structures. One key to detennining savings is that much of the excess water use in a system is associated with a small number of customers. Consequently, conservation based rate structures are able to reduce average water use while impacting a relatively small number of customers. However, utilities must be careful to ensure revenue stability when implementing rate structures. Utilities that implement water budget-based rate structures can anticipate demand reductions on the order of 10 ··· 30% based on the experience other utilities (Mayer, et. al. 2008). Tap or connection fees -Recent studies have found that water etlicient new buildings and landscapes can use 30 --70% less water than comparable standard buildings and landscapes constructed without conc ern for water efficiency. Conservation-oriented tap fees also have the benefit of equity and fairness to both new and existing customers in that they base charges on the anticipated demands of new customers and the burden of water service they place on a water system that has already b een bought and paid for by existing customers. Tap fees based solely on meter size or anticipated peak demand may achieve only a portion of this level of equity. Agencies must be aware that offering customers savings on their tap fees for conservation efforts can create an incentive to under-estimate demands. This is why if these types of incentives are offered for tap fees they should be linked to water budgets or some method to ensure that the promised reductions in demand actually occur. Customer categorization and information -Customer categotization by itself is not a water conservation measure. However, the ability to identify similar customers and to compare their water demands against each other and established benchmarks provides utilities with a powerful targeting tool for directing limited conservation resources to the customers who have the most potential to consenie. Utilities that have a better understanding of who their customers are and the nature of their water needs are better able to provide a high level of service . As water utilities evolve and adap t to the inevitable changes and challenges of the 21 51 century, customer level information will p lay an increasingly important role as utilities strive to meet the water needs of an ever changing customer base. 41 How to Determine Savings When examining changes in water use due to broad scale efforts such as metering or rate structure changes it is important to make corrections for changes in climate, population, and customer composition. Other factors such as special events that occur in one year but not another could also impact results . Metering -'Nater savings from metering can be measured by comparing treatment plant production records before and after metering is implemented, conected for changes in climate and population. Rate structure -Water savings from a change in rate structure can be measured by comparing demands before and after implementation of the rate structure . Ideally at least one foll year of data after the rate structure has gone into effect should be obtained, but comparisons of monthl y demands can be made. Conections for differences in climate, population, and possible other factors should be considered. Tap or connection fees --Conservation-oriented tap fees result in customers joining the water system with smaller water demands than they would have otherwise. Direct measurement of the impact of conservation-oriented tap fees is not feasible, but it is possible to compare demands against what might have happened without the conservation tap fee incentive. Customer categorization and information -No direct and measurable water savings are achieved through improved customer categorization, but thi s effort can greatly improve the efficacy of many other conservation efforts . Savings Assumptions and Caveats Lifespan of Best Practice • Metering -Meters must be regularly tested, maintained , and replaced. A meter in the field should last 15 years or more although automated meter reading (AJVIR) meters often have batteries that must be replaced every five years. Older meters tend to Jose accuracy. Under- reporting (particularly at low flows) is more common than over-reporting. • Rate structure -·Not applicable. A utility rate structure does not have a fixed lifespan . A rate structure stays in place until a utility decides to change or replace it. • Tap or connection foes --Not applicable. A utility tap fee structure does not have a fixed lifespan. A tap fee strncture stays in place until a utility decides to change or replace it . • Customer categorization and information -Customer categorization information must be maintained and updated, but does not have a set lifespan. Utility Savings Perspective • Metering -Metering reduces total water demand and makes customers accountable for their water use. Since all customers in Colorado who are part of a utility with 600 connections or more are supposed to be metered there should be little or no water savings available from metering at this time. However, there may be potential savings from individually metering 42 apartments and condo units, provided t.he installation costs do not outweigh the benefits for some utilities . • Rate structure/individualized rates ---A well designed conservation-oriented rate structure provides a utility with stable and sufficient revenue while helping to ensure that customers use water efficiently by charging them higher rates for higher use. Flat-rate stonn water fees may dampen the effects of rate strucnires . Utilities that implement water budget-based rate structures can anticipate demand reductions on the order of lO --30% bm;ed on the experience of other utilities (Mayer, et. al. 2008). A lot depends upon the circumstances of the utility and in particular the differences bet'.<veen the old and new rate structure may impact overall demand chan ges. Wastewater charges should also be considered, as in some cases they are higher than water rates and may be the real price driver for inefficient custom.ers. • Tap or connections fees --A conservation-oriented tap fee structure provides incentive for customers to join the water system at a better level of water efficiency and can result in 30 -- 70% less water use than in comparable buildings and landscapes constructed without concem for water efficiency . From the utility perspective this helps slow the growth of demand in the water system and c an result in reduced capital expenditures over time . · • Customer categorization and information -The measure does not save water by itself, but enables targeting of water conservation initiatives at the customers who have the greatest potential to save (i.e. to the least efficient users in their class). From the utility perspective, customer categorization can make other conservation efforts more cost effective. Customer Savings Pe r~pective • Metering -Metering provides customers essential infonnation about the amount of water they use each billing period. This helps customers to make rational water use behavioral decisions and may encourage physical efficiency improvements. However, in a number of cas es including many multi-family and commercial properties water bills are paid by an accountant or someone completely separate from the property itself. Jn these cases the people that actually use water on the site are not provided any infom1ation about their consumption patterns or the cost of that conswnption. This is an information gap that utilities and customers alike may seek to overcome in the future . • Rate structure --The rate stmcture directly impacts how much a customer pays each month for water and wastewater service and consequently may influence people to try and use less water in some circumstances. When customers use more water they pay more for the water they use. However, because tl1e water bill only arrives once a month the linkage between higher consumption and rates is not always obvious. Additional information, such as comparisons with previous consumption, neighboring properties, or established benchmarks (what a customer could or should be using) provides useful context. Research has shown that customers frequently respond to comparisons which show their consumption to be different from their neighbors or the "social norm" (Beckwith 2009). • Tap or connection fees -Customers can directly benefit from conservation-oriented tap fees. Conservation-oriented tap fees result in lower connection charges for developers who commit to installing water efficient fixtures and landscaping during the constmction process . This also results in lower water bills for eventual customers than they would have received with a less efficient property. The acnml cost savings to the customer is detennined by the specific tap fee structure and water rate structure in place. 43 • Customer categorization and information -No direct water savings for customers are associated with customer categorization. But if water agencies implement improved cust omer categorization and then utilize this information to better target water conservation programs , customers should realize benefits . Society Per5pective • Metering --Metering assures that all customers are responsible for the water they use, providing equity and accountability. • Rate structure ·-· A wt!ll-designed conservation-oriented rate structure accomplishes severaJ key societal goals: stable and sufficient revenue for the community water system; a fair and effective price signal that encourages conservation and ensures that those who use more water and thus place a higher cost burden on the system pay their fair share ; a mechanism for providing useful feedback to customers about their water demand patterns . • Tap or connection fees -Communities can benefit from the water savings achieved through conservation-oril;!Ilted tap fees. Conservation-oriented tap fees help ensure that new customers \vho join the water system pay their fair share of the system development charges based upon the real demands they will place upon the system. This encourages new customers to join the system at a greater level of efficiency. • Customer categorization and information -The societal benefits of improved customer categmization and information hinge on the utilization of this system to improve targeting of water conservation efforts . Goals and Benchmarks Metering --100% metering is the law in Colorado. As such. metering of all water use is the goal and the benchmark. Rate structure -The goal should be for every utility in Colorado to have a well designed conservation-oriented rate structure that provides stable and sufficient revenue.4 Tap or connection fees -Conservation-oriented tap fees are more important in f,>rowing communities where significant numbers of new customers are joining the water system each year. Colorado utilities should have the goal of developing fair and reasonable tap fees that encourage water efficiency during the construction process and which ensure that new customers pay their fair share of system and water resources development costs. Customer categorization and information -All water providers should know who their customers are and should understand what volume of water use constitutes "reasonable" or "typical" consumption for that type of customer. 4 Conservation-oriented mte structure =inclining block, water budget , or seasonal rate structure as described earlier in this best practice. 44 Costs Utility Costs Metering -Meters are part of a wat er ut il ity's in frastrucn1re and cost5 for installing, maintaining, repairing, and replacing meters are usually part of annual budgets which are in tum funded through water sal es to customers . Water meters themselves range in co st from under $50 to thousands of dollars depending upon the size, type, and quality of the met er . AJ.\.1R infrastructure is more expensive initially, but can be cost effective over time if meter reading costs can be reduced or eliminated . Rate structure --The cost of implementing a water conservation-01iented rate structure varies depending upon many fa ctors including: • Cost of service study that often precedes implementation of a new rate structUre . • Cus tomer information and billing system -· is new billing softwar e and/or hardware required to implement the proposed rate structure? Can the current billing system be adapted to incorporate proposed changes? • Data requirements -is additional data required to establish the new rate structure? Water budget-based rate structures can have significant one-time data development costs, although many utilities have found the data necessary to establish water budgets is cheaply (or freely) available from already existing geographic infonnation systems (GIS) coverage or county tax assessor records. • Customer in fo rmation -customers must be informed and educated about upcoming changes to water rates and charges and rate structures_ Utilities should budget staff time and money for the important task of infonning customers about any changes to the rate struct ure. • Customer service --some rate structures such as water budgets, may have ongoing customer service requirements . \Vben implementing water budget-based rates it is common fo r utilities to establish a review process whereby customers may request to have their as signed budget altered and can apply for a variance (because of errors, circumstances unforeseen by the utility, etc.). Many utilities that implement water budget-based rates experience a higher number of review requests dming the first year or two after implementation. Once customers become accustomed to the rate s1ructure requests for reviews stabilize at a minimal level. Water budget reviews are usually managed by customer service personnel and increased staffing levels may be required in the months following implementation. Most of the water budget-based rates have been implemented "in house" by utility staff with limited outside hired help, but some implementations are more expensive . Documented implementation costs ran ge from free (in-house development using existing hardware and software) to more than s everal million dollars (consultant developed cost of service analysis and rate structure and new billing hardware and software) (Mayer et. al. 2008). Tap or connection fees -Implementing a new tap fee strncture usually requires significant research and planning to ensure that the fees will cover all necessary costs and are equitable for both new and existing customers. A cost of service study often accompanies implementation of 45 a new tap fee strncture . The cost of implementing a conservation-oriented tap fee structure is difficult to predict and will vary depending upon the current structure and the significance of the changes proposed. Customer categorization and information --Categorizing customers using the NAICS should be relatively inexpensive for small utilities with few customers and limited categorization diversity. Large water utilities with a diverse customer base will likely find the process more expensive and time consuming particularly if a large survey or data collection effort must be undertaken . Utilizing existing data, such as county tax assessor records or commercially available databases of commercial enterprises, may expedite the process . The cost of adding additional fields to the billing database to accommodate customer categorical information should also be considered . Customer Costs Metering --Meter purchase and installation costs are not directly billed to customers except in rare circumstances. From the customer perspective the most significant impact of metering is that they are accountable to pay for the measured amount of water used rather than paying a fixed fee for an unlimited amount . I Rate structure --V.'hen a conservation-oriented rate stmcture is implemented, customers with lower water use will likely see their monthly bi11 5 decline, but high demand customers may experience a significant increase in water costs. This is exactly the intent of a conservation- oriented rate structure -to charge higher rates for higher use with the goal of incenting customers to adopt more water efficient behaviors and to install more efficient fixtures and appliances. Customer costs will of course vary depending upon the rate structure implemented an d all of the factors that go into determining the monthly bill for each specific customer. Tap or connection fees -The idea of conservation-oriented tap fees is for utilities to base connection charges on the anticipated future peak and total demand at the site. Developers wishing to pay a lower tap fee can agree to implement water efficiency measures as part of the building construction process . From the customer pers pective, this will reduce the initial cost of joining the water system (the tap fee), and the ongoing monthly cost of water service. Customer categorization and information -There are no customer costs associated with utility customer categorization. Examples Metering Colorado Revised Statutes 37-97-103 "Water Metering Act" requires all utilities in Colorado to be fully metered as of January 1, 2009. Exam ples of fully metered water utilities can be found all across Colorado. 5 Monthly billing is a best pra<.,1ice . Bimonthly or quarterly billing does noi convey a price signal as cUectively. 46 RESOLUTION NO. !Ji_ SERIES OF 1997 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE WATER CONSERVATION MASTER PLAN FOR THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO. WHEREAS, the City of Englewood Utilities Department recognizes state and federal mandates to reduce water demands in their service area; and WHEREAS, the City of Englewood evaluated the impacts of water conservation on water supply and resource planning; and WHEREAS, it was determined that it was more beneficial to the City of Englewood Utilities Department to positively direct water efficiency planning rather than react to lower water consumption; and WHEREAS, the proposed Water Conservation Master Plan outlines Englewood's existing water system, history, the community it services, the public in.formation program, the metering program, leak repair and maintenance as well as additional proposed water conservation measures; and WHEREAS, the Plan was reviewed by the Englewood Water and Sewer Board and was then submitted to the Office of Water Conservation, Water Conservation Board, Colorado Department of Natural Resources for approval; and WHEREAS, the Water Conservation Master Plan for the City of Englewood, Colorado will enable the City to apply for state loans and grants; and WHEREAS, The Englewood Water and Sewer Board recommended approval of The Water Conservation Master Plan for the City of Englewood at their regular meeting of March 11, 1997, after a public hearing was held regarding the Plan; NOW, THEREFORE , BE IT RESOL \t"ED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ENGLEWOOD, COLORADO, THAT: Section l. The City Council of the City of Englewood, Colorado having reviewed the Water Conservation Master Plan for the City of Englewood, hereby approves said Plan, attached hereto as Exhibit A ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 7th day of April, 1997. ~~UL Thomas J. Burns~yor Loucrishia A. Ellis, City Clerk I, Loucrishia A. Ellis, City ~lerk fol hfi.e Ci~ of Englewood, Colorado, hereby certify the above is a true copy ofResolution No.'tf'.:: Senes of 199~~dJ://J Loucrishia A. Ellis WATER CONSERVATION IY1ASTER PLAN City of En!!lewood Ap pro ved Bv Ci tv Co uncil Re so lu tion No . March 1997 Submi tt ed to Office of Water Con servation Water Con servation Board Department of Natura l R es ource s State of Co lorado • e >: .... ' c I , B ~ c·· v C . R (-) 1 '''< [) ' \ 1' J . .. . . Water Svstem llistorv Prior to 1952, Enc:lewood was served water bv the Denver Water Board. In 1948 however the .... _, ' ' citizens of Englewood voted to issue bonds to develop an independent water system. During this period between 1948 and 1952 the City acquired water rights and developed the physical plant to treat and distribute the water. The first water right purchased was the Atchinson Ranch rights, located on the present site of the Locheed-Martin complex near Ken-Caryl in the southwest Denver metropolitan area. Later in the mid-1950's, partly in response to drought conditions, additional investments were made in Bear Creek and the South Platte water rights . Also during the 1950's the City of Englewood purchased transmountain diversion water from the Blue River basin and Ranch Creek,·Meadow Creek rights near Fraser where water was delivered through the Moffat Tunnel. After securing the water rights, Englewood focused its efforu on constructing the necessary physical plant to deliver and treat the water. The intake structure, located at the headgate of the Petersburg Ditch near Union A venue and the South Platte River was one of tbe first structures built. The water was pumped from there to a 25 MGD treatment plant, located at South Windemere Street and West Layton Avenue. In 1952, when the City began operation of its water system, there were 6, l 85 taps on the system, including the Southeast Englewood Water District, which was located outside the City. By 1961 the number of taps had grown to 13,500. During the 1960's, as the vrnter system grew at a rather rapid rate , the City began experiencing operational problems. To address these problems the City consnucted its second water treatment plant, the 7 MGD capacity Bear Creek Treatment Plant. In 1965 , the City also constructed the 6,000 acre-foot Mclellan Reservoir near County Line Road and Santa Fe Drive. Also in 1965 the Southeast Englewood Water District terminated its contract with Englewood and agreed to a supply contract with the Denver Water Board. Southeast Englewood's decision constituted a loss of 4,700 taps from the system or about 35% of the total water taps at the time. This was a major financial challenge for EngJe,vood during a time of system expansion. To help pay for many of the system 's recent upgrades, the City entered into water supply agreements · w1th M1.AX, Thornton and Missi6n Viejo . · · To improve operational efficiency, the Allen Filter Plant was upgraded in 1977, and then again in 19 80 to 34 MGD . With the upgrade of the Allen Plant, the Bear Creek Plant's operation was suspended. The City has also commenced a program to systematically upgrade its water system to replace older pipe and facilities with new equipment , pipe and plant. Englewood has 800,000 feet of water pipe in the City serving 10,675 accounts. The accounts by customer category in Englewood is as follows: 8,610 Single-Family residential, 919 Multi- Family, 6 mobile home parks, 1,068 commercial, 11 industrial and 61 public. Presently, there are 4, 714 flat rate residential accounts. The City does not project any large growth in the near future with only SJ2,000 in water tap fees estimated for 1996. The City of Englewood's water rates are one of the lowest in the Denver Metropolitan area. The average water bill in Englewood is S65 per quarter with the rates averaging Sl.2711,000 gallons. The Ciry's water service goal is to provide reliable, high quality water at the most reasonable price possible. The City has no plans to serve large new areas of growth. The Citv The City of Englewood was incorporated in 1903 wi.th a land area of 4,41.0 acres. 58% of the land is residential, 35% industriaVcomrnercial and 7% public. The City is landlocked with no appreciable amount of land that can be annexed . During the past five years, the City of Englcvvood's population has hovered around 30,000. In 1994 the population reached as high as 3.3,000 and in 1996 the population is approximately 29,950. For purposes of this study, the City is using a baseline population of 30,000. Projections by City Staff indicate a slow growth rate with the City not expected to increase beyond 35,000 in the ne:-..'1 ten years. Thus, most of the City's land use policy is focused on in-fill and its utility policy is centered on upgrading existing facilities . Wirh the water system planning and construction accomplished during the 1950's, 60's and 70's the Ciry has linle need to expand its existing plant or water rights. De mographics indicate that a large portion of the City is more mature than most suburban metropolirnn area cities with a more diverse income range . The following facts about the City a.re provided based on the "National Decision Systems Report on Census '90 , Updates, and Projections For Englewood": ... average age is 3 8, with almost 7% of the population over 75 ... the median property value $100,000, 90% of the City was built before 1980, with over 50% of the City built before 1950, and ... a\·erage household income is approximately $49,000, \\-ith 65% of the household making less than S50,000 and 33% making less than $25,000. Englevv·ood, according to the City's Planning Department's projections, is not expected to increase its water demand through new growth. In the City's best judgement, conservation's contribution to the City is in regards to operational efficiency, with the benefit being less pumping and chemical treatment in both its water and wastewater plants . Water is also seen as a source of income for the City . With added efficiency, the City may have more water to allocate for le:1se outside_the City. In 1995, Englewood treated an average of 6.5 MGD at its Allen water treatment plant This is down from 7 .8 MGD in 1991. Average annual water consumption by account in thousand gallons is as follows : Single Family Multi Family Mobile Home Commercial Industrial Public 113 .13 620 .86 3482.00 1258 . .37 1 18200.44 1798.01 The estimated indoor water use was based on a study conducted by AquaSan in the older portion of Westminster (Pre-1977) which is similar to Englewood in demographics and physical construction (lot size, home size, age, etc . ) and water usage (average single-family 113,000 gallons ). The Westminster study was conducted using data loggers on a statistically representative sample population. The results of this analysis and the assumptions used by Englewood in developing this conservation plan are as follows: Residential per capita use in gallons summary: Baths 5 .73 Showers 9 .68 Toilets 16 .73 Faucets 6.10 C lothes Washers 16.09 Dish Washers 0 .89 Cooling 6 .93 Leaks 0.48 TOTAL 61.63 The average number of residents per home is assumed to be 2.5 persons, Vv'ith annual indoor water use being 50)00 gallons and outdoor 60 ,300 gallons and cooling 2,500 gallons. Total single-family residential use is estimated as 113,000 gallons (.35 acre-feet) annually. For multi-family, indoor water use is based upon an extrapolation of AquaSan 1s multi~family data base from Denver, Littleton, Westminster, and Jefferson County . Baths 5.50 Showers 9.80 To ile ts 15.75 Faucets 6.00 Clothes Washers 10.55 Dish Washers 0.85 Cooling 2.00 Leaks 3. 75 TOTAL 54.20 Averag e occupancy for multi-family according to the US Census is 1.8 persons per unit. Annual indoor water use for a multi-family unit is estimated then as 35,6 l 0 gallons. According to Denver Water data , th e av erage residential unit will use 50% of the ir water for outdoor iITigation, Based upon this assumption the estimated outdoor water use is 35,610 ga llons, or a total of 7L:?.20 ga ll o ns ( .22 acre-feet) per unit. For Co mmercial/Industrial, indoor water use is assumed to be 35 gallons per employe~: per day. Using this base data for purpo ses of evaluation, the City's conservation pl an includes the following current pro grams: Public Infonnation Metering Leak Detect i on Plumbing Code Nonpotable a nd Water Reuse CO .\-SERV.-\TI O:'\' \I E--\S l." RES Public Information Program Currently, the City has an annual newsletter called '.'The Pipeline" that is sent to all its water users. This newsletter is used to infonn the citizens of Englewood about various utility issues including water conservation ideas. In the last issue a xeriscape demonstration garden developed by Englewood Parks Department at Little Dry Creek Plaza was featured along with tips on how to convert existing landscaping to xeriscape. The last issue also provided outdoor and indoor water conservation tips. The City has also established a public bulletin board at City Hall for water conservation. This bulletin board provides brochures and information about xeriscape, retrofitting the home with low water using appliances, and otber educational materials about water conservation and its importance to the efficient operation of the City's water system. Metering Program The City of Englewood is committed in its effort to meter the entire city to provide an accurate measurement and record of water use which will aid in the promotion of water conservation. Metering has been effective in making customers more aware of how much water they are using and to equitably distribute the costs of the operation and maintenance of the water system . Presently 5:5% of the City's customers are metered. Tne metering program is enforced through the City Code which requires the installation of meters in flafrate homes when the property ownership or zoning use changes . On a weekly basis the City checks records of transactions in the City and if these transactions indicate that the ovmership of a flat rate account has changed the City immediately sends the owner a notice to install a meter. This Code was adopted in March 1987, and has been successful in converting approximately 300 flat rate to meter changes per year which has resulted in a 20% reduction in peak water use. To comply with CRS 37-97-103, which requires the entire city to be metered by the year 2009 , Englewood will review its present metering program in 2002 to determine a plan of action to assure compliance with State law. The City also has an ongoing program of meter repair, replacement and recalibration. The meter reading, repair/calibration and meter purchases are approximately 2% of the budget Leak Repair and Maintenance The City of Englewood is making a large effort to reduce the amount of leakage to 5%; however, the amount of leakage cam1ot be accurately detennined until the entire city is metered. To reduce leaks, the City has funded a work plan to upgrade and replace older deteriorated water mains. Th.is capital improvement work plan estimates the replacement of 500 feet of pipe per year with an investment of $500,000 during the next 10 years. Records indicate that In the past three years , the City averages about 4 50 feet of new water main installed. In addition, the City's leak repair and maintenance program includes the following: 1. The City water department performs leak surveys which include pressure drops, surface water complaints and investigation of dirty water complaints. 2. The City's maintenance crews respond as soon as possible to reports of actual or detected leaks. They assess each situation individually by making the appropriate shutoff to isolate the leak and reduce the volume oflost water. 3. Record keeping of all leak detections or repairs. In 1995 the record s indicated 16 water main breaks, 21 service line leaks or potential leaks det ected , and 3 7 leaks or potential leaks repaired. In the past five year s the repair history of the City has indi cated a steady improvement in reducing leaks. 1995 16 1994 18 1993 24 1992 20 1991 4. The City is replacing open ditches which ar e used for irrigation with pipe . The largest of the se projects is the piping of the City Ditch through Englewood. To date the City has completed 8,000 feet of the City Ditch with about 12,000 feet still to be completed. 5. The City is converting its sedimentation reservoirs to a covered floxed system. This greatly reduce s evaporation in the water treatment process saving 2% of the reservoirs 80 million gallons. Plumbing Code The City of Englewood's Plumbing Code requires water saving devices for all new construction. These water conserving devices include a maximum 1.6 gallon per flush toilets, 2.5 gpm faucets and 2.5 gpm shower heads . Water Reuse and Nonpotable Systems The City of Englewood presently has few options for using recycled wastewater from treatment facilities because of its location on the South Platte and its return Bow obligations for its water rights. The largest irrigator in the area, the City uses the non-potable water released from the plant for irrigating the turf around the treatment plant. As the Platte Valley continues to redevelop the City staff will continue to explore new sources for water reuse The City does, however, provide water for the City Ditch which is used to irrigate Washington Park ; City Park, and Denver Country Club. The City Ditch water is also used to irrigate cemeteries, arboretums and botanical gardens. ADDITIONA.l WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES Tailoring a water conservation program for Englewood has required an understanding of its demographics and water use to determine the benefits and economic feasibility of various conservation measures. Typically, the most important benefit of a water conservation program has been the deferral or downsizing of capital facilities and costs associa ted with growth. As the City has sufficient water and capacity to meet its projected future average day and peak demands, the benefits of water conservation are more associated with reduced operational costs, e.g., chemical provisions for water and wastewater treatment, through reduction of peak and average day demand. The City also believes that because of the age of most of the structures in the City that a large percentage of the inefficient appliances and fixtures will be replaced in the next 20 years by more water conserving appliances and fixtures through natural retrofit. The City does not presently see the efficacy of investing in replacing appliances and fixtures through a proactive program of rebates, subsidies or give aways . This policy however, will be reviewed periodically by the City to determine if direct invesunent is economicJlly beneficial to the city residents . The City also believes that coordinating its conservation efforts with other metropolitan cities that have significant investment in a.nd benefits from conservation efforts will help promote the City of Englewood's program. Thus, it is the initial intent of the Ciry's programs to reduce water use and leaks by encouraging voluntary water conservation through the ex.ample or installing water conserving measures on Citv owned facilities , and bv education, voluntarv action , and Cirv ass essment assistance. .. . "' .., Evaluation For each comervation measure considered, the City has estimated the affected population or number of accounts by multiplying total population of the service are::i (accounts) by the pro_iectecl population influenced by the measure. This factor is the market penetration times the installation rate. The market penetration is the percentage of the customer class that receives the measure. The installation rate is the percentage of those customers who actually install the device or implement the measure, The combi ned effect is attributable to who pays for the devices and to the measures design. promotion, current use, applicable regulations, incentives and acceptability . Costs for each measure are based on experience of other utilities and are estimated costs only and were developed through the use of the baseline data described above in the "Inventory" seen on. 1. Water Efficient Appliances and Fixtures Because of the average age oftbe homes in Englewood and the City's present belief that many of the older appliances and fixtures will be replaced with more water efficient appliances and fixtures through natural retrofit, the City's efforts for water efficient appliances and fixtures will be focused toward encouraging replacement of non-conserving toilets , clothes washers, faucets and shower heads through education/awareness programs, code adoption and coordinated efforts with surrounding municipalities . Total Estimated Cost of Program: Water Savings by 2027 Program Cost/AF Evaluation Program: s 5,0002 393 acre-feet/year3 Sl3 Distribution of 10,0(){1 brochures and information packets to city residents by July 1998. The City will adopt a plumbing code that requires all new buildings and remodelling to install 1.6 gallon toilets and :Z .5 gpm shower beads . This code ad option wi ll be complimented with the distribution of a brochure about the benefits of water efficient toilets , s howerheads and washing machines . Total Estimated Cost of Program: s 2.50D4 \\1ater Savings by 2027 Program Cost/ AF Evaluation Program: Savings included above 5 $ 9 Adoption of conservation code by Dec. 1997 and distribution of 5000 brochures by July 1998. In cooperation with Denver Water distribute brochures regarding the water, sewer, and energy savings of horizontal ax.is (front load) washers, and tag new clothes washers re: water use. Also work with Public Service Company with rebates for gas driers, to promote horizontal a.xis c loth es washers. Total Estimated Cost of Program: Water Savings by 2027 Program Cost/AF Evaluation Program: $ 2,500 6 Savings included above 7 $ 19 Distribution of 500-0 clothes washing brochures in cooperation with other utilities by July 1998. 2. Low Water Use Landscapes and Efficient Irrigation Encourage water efficient landscaping and irrigation design by working with local plrnnbing/warehouse stores and nurseries and through demonstration and publicizing of water conserving landscaping and irrigation designs in local papers and the "Pipeline". Total Estimated Cost of Program: Water Savings by 2027 Program CosUAF Evaluation Program: 3. Exnanded Public Education Program $ 2ooo8 190 acre-feet/year9 $11 Distribution of I 000 landscape/irrigation brochures to city landscape businesses by June 1999 and one outside water use efficiency article in the "Pipeline" per year. Public education is not antici pated to provide a direct water savings; however, the City does believe tha t through public education of demand issues that the penetration and con version rates will increase for other conservation measures .-To disseminate information, the following program has been de veloped: ... Additionally , the City's Parks Deparnnent will install xeriscape in sev eral of its parks for demonstration purposes . Total Cost of Program: $ 4,50{) Water Savings by 2027 0 acre-feet/year Program CosUAF SNA Evaluation Program: Installation completed by Dec. 1997 •· Develop strnng marketing plans to market water conservation for each main customer grn up , and elected and appointed officials that includes the following: 1. Make xeriscape videos available for check-out at the City Library. Cost S 200 2. Create a collection of information on the City's Web site and provide a mechanism for receiving feedback from water customers on the Web. Cost $450 3. Offer school program s on water resources and distribute the Colorado Water Education Foundation's water resource map to all classrooms in Englewood Schoo l District, distribute maps, and offering tours of water facilities and conserva tion demonstrations to teachers and sn1d cnts. Cost$ 7 ,200 10 4 . Use "Tbe Pipeline " to provide cle;ir \Nater use information and helpful comparisons and to advertise the water conservation custome r assistance program.Cost 5480 11 5. Include water conserving tips in the water bills for three years. Cost S.:1-,725.12 Total Estimated Cost of Program: $ 13,075 Water Savings by 2027 0 acre-feet/year Program C ostJ.-U' SNA Evaluation Program: Two "Pipeline" articles per year, distribution of CWEF maps by June, 1997, Web site established by June, 1998, videos in library by September 1997 ~ and conservation tips in bills by December 1997. .. Share information and work closely with other water providers on conservation plans through the City's membership in Metro Water Conservation Inc . Total Estimate<l Cost of Program: $100 Water Savings by 2027 0 acre-feet/year Program Cost/AF SNA Evaluation Program: MWCI dues paid by Jan. 1997 .. Make suggestions and contributions to the American Water Works Association Research Foundation for conservation research. Total Estimate<l Cost of Program: $ 1,00013 Water Savings by 2027 0 acre-feet/year Program CostJA.F SNA Evaluation Program: Contribution made by June, 97. 4. Regulatorv Measures: Ordinances and Codes .. Review City Operating Rules for opportunities to specify conservation requirements and amend as necessary . -TotaJ Estimated Cost of Program: Water Savings by 2027 Program Cost/AF Evaluation Program: 0 acre-feet!year15 $NA Submittal of a report to Utility Board by September 1998. ... Begin review process to establish a code requiring sub-metering in new multi-family housing. Total Estimated Cost of Program: Water Savings by 2027 Program Cost/AF Evaluation Program: $ 120 16 0 acre-feet!year S NA Submitta l of a report to Utility Board by September 1998. Develop "Conservation Guidelines and Standards" for incorporation into City Reso luti ons. Total Estimated Cost of Program: Water Sav in gs by 2027 Program Cost/AF Evaluation Program: s; 01 7 0 acre-feet/year S NA Submittal of conservation guidelines and goal for City Council approval by Jan. 1998. Presently, a large percent.age of the City remains flat rate. As the City moves toward universa l metering the City will consider rate structures which encourage water conservation. Total Estimated Cost of Program: $ 720 18 Water Savings by 2027 0 acre-feet/year Program C ostJ AF $NA Evaluation Program: Rate review bi-annually. 5. Commercial/Industrial Customer Assistance .. Encourage the 10 0 highest water using commercial and industrial customers to identify leaks , examine w ater use patterns and recommend water conservation measures to reduce water demand. Specifically for commercial/indusnial cuents encourage analysis of single pass cooling systems , water reuse applications , cooling tower modifications, cleaning processes , & laundry equipment. Total Estimated. Cost of Program: Water Savings by 2027 10 acre-feet/year2° Program Cost/AF $ 100-0 Evaluation Program: Perform 10 assessments/year Assist commercial/industrial users in developing or investigating alternatives to using treated water for their processing. Total Estimated Cost of Program: Water Savings by 2027 Program CostJAF Evaluation Program: $ 50,000-'1 386 acre-feet/year22 $130 Assess five C & I customers/ye ar PUBLIC PROCESS The City of Englewood recognizing state and federal mandates to reduce \'Yater demands in their service area, instructed its staff to evaluate the impacts of water conservation on water supply and resource planning. It was the City's determination that it was more beneficial to the City1s utilities to positively direct water efficiency planning rather than react to lower water consumption which is inevitable because of the federal mandates requiring the manufacture of water conserving fixtures and appliances . In an attempt to develop a positive , proactive image of the City's water conservation plan, the City has involved key community leaders to review the program. Public representatives, three council members and four volunteers, were selected by the City Council to oversee the City's utility activities. These public representatives known as the Englewood Utility Board reviewed the program detail by detail and provided valuable input into which water conservation methods would be most effective . After reviewing the preliminary plan, making amendments, the Utility Board then invited members of the public to review the plan and make comments. After public scrutiny of the plan, the Plan was submitted to the City Council for their review and approval. The following is a copy of the affidavit and public notice providing for a 60 day public comment period and where to inspect the plan: P.A.STE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT BERE PROGRAM II'vIPLEMENTATION Measure Appliances Landscapes Regulatory Public Customer Measures Education Assistance Background The assumed average Englewood The City has a The age of the Direct age of appliances consists of large older City and assistanc e to and fixtures in City mostly older population with a limited customer s, i s ten years old. The homes with wide opportunities specifically replacement with small yards, demographic/econ for growth comm/ind . newer appliances with relatively omic base. dictates that . customers, in and fixtures should large % using Changes to codes one of the addressing be effective. hoses. must take into most effective more efficient account these City means to use of their interests. reduce water water will be through resources. the use of public educario11. Material Co sts S9,,000 $2 ,000 $0 Sll,495 $1 ,000 Labor Costs $1, 000 $ 0 $ J ,:560 s 7,180 $60 ,000 !J ther Costs so $0 $0 so s 0 Water Savings 393 af 190 af 0 0 396 af ?ayback Period 5 years 3 years 1 year 3 vears 5 years Start Date December, 1997 June, 1999 June, 1998 February, 1997 June 1996 End Date July, 2000 Octobc'r, Bi-annual December, on-gorn g 2002 review 2002 .. . . -..... Date April 7, 1997 INITIATED BY Utilities Department COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Agenda Item 10 a iv Subject Water Conservation Master Plan STAFF SOURCE Stewart H. Fonda , Director of Utilities COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION A Public Hearing regarding the Water Conservation Plan was held March 11, 1997 in conjunction with the March Water Board meeting. Notices of the meeting were published in the Englewood Herald on January 23, 1997 and February 20, 1997. RECOMMENDED ACTION The Englewood Water and Sewer Board recommended Council approval at their March 11, 1997 meeting of the Water Conservation Master Plan . BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED The City of Englewood Utilities Department, recognizing state and federal mandates to reduce water demands in their service area, evaluated the impacts of water conservation on water supply and resource planning. It was determined that it was more beneficial to the City's utilities to positively direct water efficiency planning rather than react to lower water consumption. The proposed Water Conservation Master Plan outlines Englewood's existing water system, history, the community it serves, the public information program, the metering program, leak repair and maintenance and additional proposed water conservation measures. After reviewing the plan, the Water and Sewer Board then invited Englewood citizens to review the plan and make comments. The plan was submitted to the Office of Water Conservation, Water Conservation Board, Department of Natural Resources and approved with minor changes that have been incorporated in the final plan. FINANCIAL IMPACT The proposed plan would enable Englewood to apply for state loans and grants. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Resolution Water Conservation Master Plan 6149004 City of Englewood Water and Sewer Connection Fees May 18, 2011 Report Prepared By: . .. RED 1, / . . .. -' CON SULT IN G . . ' Table of Contents Contents 1. Executive Summary 1-1 1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 . Assumptions .................................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3. Proposed Water Connection Fees ................................................................................ 1-1 1.4. Proposed Sewer Collection System Connection Fees ................................................. 1-2 1.5 . Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fees ........................................... 1-3 1.6. Proposed Mix ed-Use Connection Fees ........................................................................ 1-3 2. Water Connection Fees 2-1 2.1. Methodology .................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 . Calculation Procedure ................................................................................................... 2-1 2.3. Water System Value ..................................................................................................... 2-1 2.4 . System Capacity ........................................................................................................... 2-2 2.5. Fee Calculation ............................................................................................................. 2-3 3. Sewer Collection System Connection Fee 3-1 3.1 . Methodology .................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.2. Calculation Procedure ................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3. Sewer Collection System Value .................................................................................... 3-1 3.4 . System Capacity ........................................................................................................... 3-2 3.5. Fee Calculation ............................................................................................................. 3-3 4. Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fee 4-1 4.1 . Methodology .................................................................................................................. 4-1 4 .2 . Calculation Procedure ................................................................................................... 4-1 4 .3. Wastewater Treatment Plant Value .............................................................................. 4-1 4.4 . System Capacity ........................................................................................................... 4-2 4.5 . Fee Calculation ............................................................................................................. 4-3 5. Mixed-Use Connection Fees 5-1 5.1 . Background ................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2. Proposed and Alternative Fees ..................................................................................... 5-1 : •. RID \ , '.: ·:. CONSULTING City of Englewood , Colorado 2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Table of Contents List of Tables Table 1-1 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Water Connection Fees .................................. 1-2 Table 1-2 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Sewer Collection System Connection Fees ... 1-2 Table 1-3 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Wastewater Treatment Connection Fees ....... 1-3 Table 2-1 Water System Value ..................................................................................................... 2-2 Table 2-2 Water Treatment Plant Capacity .................................................................................. 2-3 Table 2-3 Development of Water Connection Fee per Capacity Unit .......................................... 2-3 Table 2-4 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Single Family and Nonresidential Water Connection Fees ........................................................................................................................... 2-4 Table 2-5 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Multifamily Water Connection Fees ................ 2-4 Table 3-1 Sewer Collection System Value ................................................................................... 3-2 Table 3-2 Sewer Collection System Capacity .............................................................................. 3-3 Table 3-3 Development of Sewer Collection System Connection Fee per Capacity Unit... ......... 3-4 Table 3-4 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Sewer Collection System Connection Fees ... 3-4 Table 3-5 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Multifamily Sewer Collection System Connection Fees ........................................................................................................................... 3-5 Table 4-1 City Portion of Wastewater Treatment Plant Value ...................................................... 4-2 Table 4-2 Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity ......................................................................... 4-3 Table 4-3 Development of Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fee per Capacity Unit ...... 4-4 Table 4-4 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Single Family and Nonresidential Wastewater Treatment.Plant Connection Fees ................................................................................................ 4-4 Table 4-5 Comparison of Existing, Proposed and Alternative Multifamily Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fees ................................................................................................ 4-5 Table 5-1 Range of Un its Served By Meter Size .......................................................................... 5-1 Table 5-2 Comparison of Existing, Proposed and Alternative Multifamily Connection Fees ....... 5-2 Table 5-3 Comparison of Proposed and Alternative Commercial Mixed-Use Connection Fees . 5-3 Table 5-4 Mixed-Use Connection Fee Examples Proposed Fees ............................................... 5-4 Table 5-5 Mixed-Use Connection Fee Examples Proposed Fees ............................................... 5-4 Table 5-6 Mixed Use Connection Fee Examples Alternative Fees .............................................. 5-5 Table 5-7 Mixed Use Connection Fee Examples Alternative Fees .............................................. 5-5 Rf[!) I, CO N SULTIN G City of Englewood , Colorado 2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 1. Executive Summary 1.1. Introduction The City of Englewood, Colorado (City) provides water and sewer service to 8,400 and 43,000 customer accounts, respectively. About 75% of sewer accounts are located outside the City. The City's water and sewer utilities are funded primarily from rates and connection fees . The connection fee is a one-time charge that allows new users to pay for their proportionate share of capacity in the City's water treatment plant and distribution system, sewer collection system, and wastewater treatment plant. The City authorized Red Oak Consulting to update the City's water and sewer connection fees. This report summarizes study assumptions, procedures, findings and recommendations. 1.2. Assumptions This connection fee study is based on numerous assumptions. Changes in these assumptions could have a material effect on the study findings. Red Oak made the following assumptions in this study: • The buy-in methodology is the best method to calculate the connection fees Capacity requirements of a 3/4-inch meter represent the requirements of one capacity unit Water and sewer mains smaller than 12 inches are contributed by developers • Replacement cost of water and sewer mains are based on estimated rehabilitation cost • Replacement cost of water and wastewater treatment plants are based on original cost trended to current cost using the 20-city Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index · 1.3. Proposed Water Connection Fees • Red Oak calculated water connection fees using four standard valuation approaches : original cost, original cost less depreciation, replacement cost, and replacement cost less depreciation. • Table 1-1 compares existing and proposed inside City water connection fees. Existing fees have been in effect since 1982. Proposed connection fees for each meter size are the product of the connection fee per capacity unit (3/4-inch meter) multiplied by the meter capacity ratio . •• . RED , ... CONSULTING City of Englewood, Colorado 2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Meter Existing Size Fees 3/4" 1,000 1" 1,800 1W' 4,000 2" 7,200 3" 16,000 4" 28,800 6" 64,000 Section 1 Executive Summary Table 1-1 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Water Connection Fees AWWA Proposed Fees Meter Original Capacity Original Cost Less Replacement Ratios Cost Depreciation Cost 1.00 1,570 1, 120 4,360 1.67 2,620 1,870 7,270 3 .33 5,200 3,700 14,500 5.33 8,400 6,000 23,300 10.67 16,700 11 ,900 46,500 16.67 26,200 18,700 72,700 40 .00 62,800 44,800 174,400 Replacement Cost Less Depreciation 3,320 5,530 11, 100 17,700 35,400 55,300 132,800 1.4. Proposed Sewer Collection System Connection Fees • Red Oak calculated sewer collection system connection fees using four standard valuation approaches: original cost, original cost less depreciation, replacement cost, and replacement cost less depreciation . • Table 1-2 compares existing and proposed sewer collection system connection fees . Existing fees have been in effect since 1982. Meter Existing Size Fees 3/4" 500 1" 833 1 Yi" 1,677 2" 2,667 3" 5,333 4" 8,333 6" 16,667 •• RELY , CONSULTI NG Table 1-2 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Sewer Collection System Connection Fees AWWA Proposed Fees Meter Original Capacity Original Cost Less Ratios Cost Depreciation 1.00 170 70 1.67 280 120 3.33 600 200 5.33 900 400 10 .67 1,800 700 16.67 2,800 1,200 40 .00 6 ,800 2,800 City of Englewood , Colorado 2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Replacement Cost 1,200 2,000 4,000 6,400 12 ,800 20,000 48 ,000 Replacement Cost Less Depreciation 530 880 1,800 2,800 5,700 8,800 21,200 Section 1 Executive Summary 1.5. Proposed Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fees Red Oak calculated wastewater treatment plant connection fees using four standard valu ation approaches : original cost, original cost less depreciation, replacement cost, and replacement cost less depreciation. Table 1-3 compares existing and proposed wastewater treatment plant connection fees. Existing fees have been in effect since 1982. Table 1-3 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Wastewater Treatment Connection Fees AWWA Proposed Fees Meter Original Replacement Meter Existing Capacity Original Cost Less Replacement Cost Less Size Fees Ratios Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation 3/4" 1,400 1.00 890 730 1,140 860 1" 2,333 1.67 1,480 1,220 1,900 1,430 1W' 4,667 3.33 3,000 2,400 3,800 2,900 2" 7,467 5.33 4,700 3,900 6,100 4,600 3" 14,932 10.67 9,500 7,800 12,200 9,200 4" 23,332 16.67 14,800 12,200 19,000 14,300 6" 46,667 40.00 35,600 29,200 45,600 34,400 1.6. Proposed Mixed-Use Connection Fees Red Oak developed connection fees for developments that include a mix of multifamily and commercial establishments. Proposed mixed-use connection fees produce connection fees designed to approximate the proposed meter size-based connection fees for the midrange of the number of dwelling units or fixture units served by that meter size. Section 5 shows the proposed mixed use connection fees. : ·.· ' R.ED '.1, CONSULTING City of Englewood, Colorado 2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 2. Water Connection Fees 2.1. Methodology Connection fees are usually based on one of the following industry-standard evaluation methods: • Equity buy-in • Incremental cost Hybrid The equity buy-in method bases connection fees on the value and capacity of existing facilities . This method is best suited for existing facilities with excess capacity. The incremental cost method bases connection fees on the value and capacity of future facilities. This method is best suited for utilities that have limited unutilized capacity in and have prepared detailed growth-related capital project plans . The hybrid method bases the connection fee on the combination of the value and capacity of existing and future facilities. This method is appropriate for utilities that have some unused capacity in existing facilities and capacity expansion planned in the near future. Red Oak used the equi ty buy-in method to calculate the water connection fees. This is considered an appropriate method to use for the City's water utility since it has ample capacity in its existing facilities to serve future growth . 2.2. Calculation Procedure Red Oak calculated water connection fees using the following steps: • Identify water system assets • Estimate value of assets under four different valuation methods • Determine capacity requirements of one capacity unit • Determine number of capacity units that can be served by existing facilities • Calculate connection fee per capacity unit 2.3. Water System Value Red Oak Consulting calculated the value of the City water system for each of the following standard valuation approaches: ...... RED , · . CONSULTING City of Englewood , Colorado 2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 • Original Cost • Original Cost Less Depreciation ID Replacement Cost New • Replacement Cost Less Depreciation Section 2 Water Connection Fees Original cost values are historic costs of purchasing and installing assets . Original cost less depreciation values are the book value of the assets. Replacement cost values are present-day estimated costs to purchase and install existing assets. Replacement cost less depreciation takes into consideration physical depreciation and obsolescence of existing assets. Original cost and original cost less depreciation are values based on City asset records . Replacement cost values for water line assets are based on estimates by line size. Replacement cost values for all other assets are based on original costs trended to present day value using the 20-City ENR-CCI. Table 2-1 compares water system asset values for the four valuation approaches. Table 2-1 Water System Value Original Cost Replacement Line Less Replacement Cost Less No. Fixed Asset Original Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation 1 Treatment Plant $ 20,542,812 $ 15,300,384 $ 34,600,504 $ 24,284,849 2 Pumps and Storage 4,396,834 1,586,681 12 ,927,468 2,856,956 3 Mains 15,089,114 7,995,125 4,626,418 2,451,356 4 General Plant 11,551,563 9,884,451 62,161,229 57,413,563 5 Total System Value $ 51,580,323 $ 34,766,641 $ 114,315,619 $ 87,006,724 2.4. System Capacity Red Oak assumed the capacity requirements of a 3/4-inch meter represent the capacity requirements of one capacity unit. The 3/4-inch meter is commonly used for new single family residential conn ectors and represents the majority of water meters in service . Capacity units for all other meter sizes are a product of the number of customers for each meter size and capacity ratios of the respective meter sizes. The City's water treatment plant peak day capacity is 28 million gallons per day (mgd) and is sufficient to serve the projected build-out population of the water service area. Red Oak assumes the number of capacity units that can be served by the water system is commensurate with treatment plant capacity . .':_.~ RflJ)' .k · .··,".CONSULTING City of Englewood , Colorado 2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Section 2 Water Connection Fees Red Oak estimated peak day demand per capacity unit using City billing data and peak day demand data. The peak day demand per capacity unit of 1,070 gallons per day (gpd) is the product of 483 gpd average day demand for a 3/4-inch meter and the water system's peak day to average day demand ratio of 2.22. Table 2-2 shows the calculation of the number of capacity units of the water treatment plant. System capacity of 26,200 is the quotient of peak day capacity of the water treatment plant and peak day demand of one capacity unit. Table 2-2 Water Treatment Plant Capacity Line No. Description Calculation 1 Peak Day Capacity of Water Treatment Plant (GPO) 28,000,000 2 Peak Day Demand of One Capacity Unit (GPO) 1,070 3 Water System Capacity (Capacity Units) 26,200 2.5. Fee Calculation The proposed water connection fee for a capacity unit is the quotient of the total system value and the capacity units of the system. System value is the value of existing assets less developer contribution. Red Oak assumed water mains 12-inches and smaller were contributed by developers . Table 2-3 shows the water connection fee calculation for a capacity unit. Table 2-3 Development of Water Connection Fee per Capacity Unit Original Cost Replacement Line Less Replacement Cost Less No. Fixed Asset Original Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation 1 2 3 4 5 Existing Assets $ 51,580,323 $ 34,766,641 $ 114,315,619 $ 87,006,724 Less Contributions (10,321,094} (5,468,7 40) (O} (O} System Value $ 41,259,229 $ 29,297,901 $ 114,315,619 $ 87,006,724 System Capacity Units 26,200 26,200 26,200 26,200 Connection Fee, per $ 1,570 $ 1,120 $ 4,360 $ 3,320 Capacity Unit Table 2-4 compares existing and proposed single family and nonresidential water connection fees. Existing fees have been in effect since 1982. Proposed connection fees for each meter size are the product of the connection fee per capacity unit (3 /4-inch meter) and meter capacity ratio. :-. R.rn , ·.: . .-CON SULTING City of Englewood, Colorado 2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Table 2-4 Section 2 Water Connection Fees Comparison of Existing and Proposed Single Family and Nonresidential Water Connection Fees AWWA Proposed Fees Meter Original Replacement Meter Existing Capacity Original Cost Less Replacement Cost Less Size Fees Ratios Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation 3/4 " 1,000 1.00 1,570 1, 120 4,360 3,320 1" 1,800 1.67 2,620 1,870 7,270 5,530 1Yi" 4,000 3.33 5,200 3,700 14 ,500 11, 100 2 " 7,200 5.33 8,400 6,000 23,300 17,700 3" 16,000 10 .67 16,700 11,900 46,500 35,400 4" 28 ,800 16.67 26,200 18,700 72 ,700 55 ,300 6 " 64,000 40 .00 62,800 44,800 174,400 132,800 Table 2-5 compares ex isting and proposed multifamily water connection fees. Existing fees have been in effect since 1982 and consist of a $1,000 fee for the first unit and a $500 fee per unit for all additional units . Proposed multifamily connection fees use replacement cost asset values and consist of a base fee per connection and a three-tier dwelling unit fee. Table 2-5 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Multifamily Water Connection Fees Existing Proposed Fee Structure Fee Fee Base Fee (per connection) $0 $2 ,620 Dwelling Unit Fee (per dwelling unit) First unit $1,000 $580 Next 11 units 500 $580 Next 22 units 500 450 Over 34 units 500 275 Proposed multifamily fees produce connection fees designed to approximate the proposed meter size-based connection fee for the midrange of the number of dwelling units served by a particular meter si z e. For example , a 3/4-inch meter can serve two to four multifamily dwelling units . The proposed water connection fee for the midrange of this meter size (three dwelling units) is $4,360 which matches the proposed fee for the 3/4- inch meter. .'.·.·· RI D.' , · . .'.'.CO NSULTING City of Englewood , Colorado 2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Section 2 Water Connection Fees Red Oak recommends the City periodically review and adjust its water connection fees to reflect changes in cost inflation, system capacity, and capacity unit service characteristics. . . REID ,, CONSULTING City of Englewood, Colorado 2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 3 . Sewer Collection System Connection Fee 3.1. Methodology Connection fees are usually based on one of the following industry-standard evaluation methods: • Equity buy-in • Incremental cost • Hybrid The equity buy-in method bases connection fees on the value and capacity of existing facilities. This method is best suited for existing facilities with excess capacity. The incremental cost method bases connection fees on the value and capacity of future facilities . This method is best suited for utilities that have limited unutilized capacity in and have prepared detailed growth-related capital project plans. The hybrid method bases the connection fee on the combination of the value and capacity of existing and future facilities . This method is appropriate for utilities that have some unused capacity in existing facilities and capacity expansion planned in the near future. Red Oak used the equity buy-in method to calculate the sewer collection system connection fees. This is considered an appropriate method to use since it has ample capacity in its existing facilities to serve future growth. 3 .2 . Calculatio n Procedure Red Oak calculated sewer collection system connection fees using the following steps: • Identify sewer collection system assets • Estimate value of assets under four different valuation methods • Determine capacity requirements of one capacity unit • Determine number of capacity units that can be served by existing facilities Calculate connection fee per capacity unit 3.3. Sewer Collection System Value Red Oak calculated the value of the City sewer collection system for each of the following standard valuation approaches: ::.: RED ".,' .·CONSULTING City of Englewood, Colorado 2009 Water an d Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Section 3 Sewer Collection System Connection Fee • Original Cost • Original Cost Less Depreciation • Replacement Cost New • Replacement Cost Less Depreciation Original cost values are the historic costs of purchasing and installing assets. Original cost less depreciation is book value of assets. Replacement cost values are present-day estimated costs to purchase and install existing assets . Replacement cost less depreciation takes physical depreciation and obsolescence of existing assets into consideration . Original cost and original cost less depreciation values are based on City asset records. Replacement cost values for sewer collection main assets are based on estimates by main size . Replacement cost values for all other assets are based on original costs being trended to a present day value using the 20-City ENR-CCI. Table 3-1 compares sewer collection system asset values for the four valuation approaches. Table 3-1 Sewer Collection System Value Original Cost Replacement Line Less Replacement Cost Less No. Fixed Asset Original Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation 1 Sewer Mains $ 5,078,528 $ 2,327,874 $27,116,907 $ 9,234,583 2 General Plant 1,236,475 389,243 2,358,608 1,206,237 3 Total System Value $ 6,315,003 $ 2,717,117 $ 29,475,515 $ 13,009,236 3.4. System Capacity Red Oak assumed that the capacity requirements of a 3/4-inch meter represent the capacity requirements of one capacity unit. The 3/4-inch meter is commonly used for new single family residential connectors and represents the majority of water meters in service . Capacity units for all other meter sizes are the product of number of customers for each meter size multiplied by each meter size's respective capacity ratio. The existing collection system is sufficient to serve projected population at build-out without any additional expansions . Red Oak assumes the number of capacity units that can be served by the sewer 's collection system is commensurate with the wastewater treatment plant capacity to serve those inside city customers . The City owns 50 % (25 mgd) of the Littleton/Englewood wastewater treatment plant capacity. The City 's collection system serves only inside City customers and requires about 25 % (6.25 mgd) of the City 's treatment plant capacity. •; JH:o· '\ i; • • '-.L ;\f' · . .'.,'.CO NSULTING City of Englewood , Colorado 2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Section 3 Sewer Collect ion System Connection Fee Red Oak estimated wastewater flow per capacity unit using City planning data from the 2003 Wastewater Treatment Plant Utility Plan and Site Application Report. Wastewater flow per capacity unit of 255 gpd is the product of 85 gallons per capita per day for a 3/4- inch meter and 3 persons per household. Table 3-2 shows the calculation of the number of capacity units that can be served by the sewer collection system. The system capacity of 24,500 is the quotient of the capacity of the sewer collection system and the demand of one capacity unit. Table 3-2 Sewer Collection System Capacity Line No. Description Calculation 1 Capacity of Wastewater Treatment Plant Serving City Sewer Collection System (gpd) 6,250,000 2 Wastewater Flow per Capacity Unit (gpd) 255 3 Sewer Collection System Capacity (Capacity Units) 24,500 3.5. Fee Calculation The proposed sewer collection system connection fee for a capacity unit is the quotient of the total system value and the capacity units of the system. System value is the value of existing assets less developer contribution. Red Oak assumed sewer mains 12-inches and smaller were contributed by developers. Table 3-3 shows the sewer collection system connection fee calculation for a capacity unit. .'.·.:: RED · , ·.'·'.CONSULTING ' .. City of Englewood , Colorado 2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Section 3 Sewer Collection System Connection Fee Table 3-3 Development of Sewer Collection System Connection Fee per Capacity Unit Original Cost Replacement Line Less Replacement Cost Less No. Fixed Asset Original Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation 1 Existing Assets $ 6,315,003 $ 2,717,117 $ 29,475,515 $ 13,009,236 2 Less Developer (2,250.594) (928,732) (0) (0) Contributions 3 System Value $ 4,064,409 $ 1,788,385 $ 29,475,515 $ 13,009,236 4 System Capacity 24,500 24,500 24,500 24,500 Units 5 Connection Fee, $170 $ 70 $ 1,200 $ 530 per Capacity Unit Table 3-4 compares existing and proposed single family and nonresidential sewer collection system connection fees. Existing fees have been in effect since 1982. Proposed connection fees for each meter size are the product of the connection fee per capacity unit (3/4-inch meter) and meter capacity ratios . Meter Existing Size Fees 3/4" 500 1" 833 1W' 1,677 2" 2,667 3" 5,333 4" 8,333 6" 16,667 Table 3-4 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Sewer Collection System Connection Fees AWWA Proposed Fees Meter Original Capacity Original Cost Less Replacement Ratios Cost Depreciation Cost 1.00 170 70 1,200 1.67 280 120 2,000 3.33 600 200 4,000 5.33 900 400 6,400 10.67 1,800 700 12,800 16.67 2,800 1,200 20,000 40 .00 6,800 2,800 48,000 Replacement Cost Less Depreciation 530 880 1,800 2,800 5,700 8,800 21,200 Table 3-5 compares existing and proposed multifamily sewer collection system connection fees. Existing fees have been in effect since 1982 and are $500 per unit. Proposed multifamily connection fees use replacement cost asset values and consist of a base fee per connection and a three-tier dwelling unit fee. : .... REl:I .'( · .. ,_·. CONSULTING City of Englewood, Colorado 2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Section 3 Sewer Collection System Connection Fee Table 3-5 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Multifamily Sewer Collection System Connection Fees Existing Proposed Fee Structure Fee Fee Base Fee (per connection) $0 $720 Dwelling Unit Fee (per dwelling unit) First 12 units 500 160 Next 22 units 500 125 Over 34 units 500 75 Proposed multifamily fees produce connection fees designed to approximate the proposed meter size-based connection fee for the midrange of the number of dwelling units served by a particular meter size. For example, a 3/4-inch meter can serve two to four multifamily dwelling units . The proposed fee for the midrange of this meter size (three dwelling units) is $1,200 which matches the proposed sewer collection system connection fee for the 3/4-inch meter. Red Oak recommends the City periodically review and adjust its sewer collection system connection fees to reflect changes in cost inflation, system capacity, and capacity unit service characteristics . .':.·· RE D , , «. ,: CONSULTING City of Englewood, Colorado 2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 4. Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fee 4 .1. Method o logy Connection fees are usually based on one of the following industry-standard evaluation methods: • Equity buy-in • Incremental cost Hybrid The c:quity buy-in method bases the connection fee on the value and capacity of existing facilities . This method is best suited for existing facilities with excess capacity. The incremental cost method bases connection fees on the value and capacity of future facilities. This method is best suited for utilities that have limited unutilized capacity in and have prepared detailed growth-related capital project plans . The hybrid method bases the connection fee on the combination of the value and capacity of existing and future facilities. This method is appropriate for utilities that have some unused capacity in existing facilities and capacity expansion planned in the near future. Red Oak used the equity buy-in method to calculate the wastewater treatment plant connection fees. This is considered an appropriate method to use since there is ample capacity in existing facilities to serve future growth . 4.2 . Calculation Procedure Red Oak calculated wastewater treatment plant connection fees using the following steps : • Identify wastewater treatment plant assets • Estimate value of assets under four different valuation methods • Determine capacity requirements of one capacity unit • Determine number of capacity units that can be served by existing facilities • Calculate connection fee per capacity unit 4.3 . Wastewater Treatme nt Plant Value Red Oak calculated the value of the City wastewater treatment plant assets for each of the following standard valuation approaches: :.::· RED ,· •. · '. CON SULTING ... City of Englewood, Colorado 2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Section 4 Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection ·Fee • Original Cost • Original Cost Less Depreciation • Replacement Cost New • Replacement Cost Less Depreciation Original cost values are the historic costs of purchasing and installing assets. Original cost less depreciation values are the book value of assets. Replacement cost values are the present-day estimated costs to purchase and install existing assets. Replacement cost less depreciation takes into consideration physical depreciation and obsolescence of existing assets. Original cost and original cost less depreciation values are based on City asset records. Replacement cost values are based on original costs trended to present day value using the 20-City ENR-CCI. The City owns 50% of the Littleton/Englewood (LIE) wastewater treatment plant capacity. Table 4-1 compares the City portion of wastewater treatment plant asset values for the four valuation approaches . Table 4-1 City Portion of Wastewater Treatment Plant Value Original Cost Replacement Line Less Replacement Cost Less No. Fixed Asset Original Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation 1 L/EWWTP $ 43,629,042 $ 19,745,680 $ 87,829,825 $ 32,658,581 2 L/EWWTP Expansion 56,500,000 56,500,000 56,500,000 56,500,000 3 Subtotal $ 100,129,042 $ 76,245,680 $ 144,329 ,825 $ 89,158,581 4 Less WWTP Replacement ($11,871,209) ($11,871,209) ($11,871,209) ($11,871,209) 5 Less Grants (9,209,268) (721,000) (28,902,051) (721,000) 6 Total Value $ 79,048,565 $ 63,653,471 $ 103,556,565 $ 76,566,372 4.4. System Capacity Red Oak assumed the capacity requirements of a 3/4-inch meter represent the capacity requirements of one capacity unit. The 3/4-inch meter is commonly used for new single family residential connectors and represents the majority of water meters in service. Capacity units for all other meter sizes are the product of number of customers for each meter size and each meter size's respective capacity ratio. The wastewater treatment plant capacity is sufficient to serve projected population at build-out without any additional expansions. The City owns 50% (25 mgd) of the Littleton/Englewood wastewater treatment plant capacity . .' •• : RED..\,, · .. ~.CONSULTING City of Englewood , Colorado 2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Section 4 Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fee Red Oak estimated wastewater flow per capacity unit using City planning data from the 2003 Wastewater Treatment Plant Utility Plan and Site Application Report. The wastewater flow per capacity unit of 255 gpd is the product of 85 gallons per capita per day for a 3/4-inch meter and 3 persons per household . Table 4-2 shows the calculation of the number of capacity units that can be served by the wastewater treatment plant. System capacity of 98,000 is the quotient of the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant and the demand of one capacity unit. Table 4-2 Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity Line No. Description Calculation 1 Capacity (City portion) of Wastewater Treatment Plant(gpd) 25,000 ,000 2 Wastewater Flow per Capacity Unit (gpd) 255 3 Wastewater Treatment Plant Capacity (Capacity Units) 98,000 4.5. Fee Calculation The proposed wastewater treatment plant connection fee for a capacity unit is the quotient of the total system value and capacity units of the system. Financing costs are included in the total system value and are equal to the net present value of growth-related interest payments related to the 2004 CWRPDA loan. Table 4-3 shows the wastewater treatment plant connection fee calculation for a capacity unit. ::.:~ REL)).\,, ·.: :. CONSULTING City of Englewood , Colorado 2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Line No. 1 2 3 4 5 Section 4 Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fee Table 4-3 Development of Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fee per Capacity Unit Original Cost Replacement Less Replacement Cost Less Description Original Cost Depreciation Cost Depreciation Total WWTP Value $ 79,048,565 $ 63,653,471 $103,556,565 $76,566,372 NPV of Existing Debt Service 8,084,272 8,084,272 8,084,272 8,084,272 Interest Payments Total System Value $ 87, 132,837 $ 71,737,743 $111,640,837 $ 84,650,644 Existing System Capacity -Capacity 98,000 98,000 98,000 98,000 Units Connection Fee, $ 890 $ 730 $ 1,140 $ 860 per Capacity Unit Table 4-4 compares ex isting and proposed single family and nonresidential wastewater treatment plant connection fees. Existing fees have been in effect since 1982. Proposed connection fees for each meter size are the product of the connection fee per capacity unit (3 /4-inch meter) and the meter capacity ratio . Since the proposed fees are less than existing fees, consideration should be given to continuing the existing wastewater treatment plant connection fees at this time. Table 4-4 Comparison of Existing and Proposed Single Family and Nonresidential Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fees AWWA Proposed Fees Meter Original Meter Existing Capacity Original Cost Less Replacement Size Fees 3/4" 1,400 1" 2,333 1W' 4,667 2" 7,467 3" 14,932 4" 23,332 6" 46,667 .' · •. Rf[i)\,!, ·. ·.CO NSULTING Ratios Cost Depreciation 1.00 890 730 1.67 1,480 1,220 3.33 3,000 2,400 5.33 4,700 3,900 10.67 9,500 7 .. 800 16.67 14,800 12,200 40 .00 35,600 29,200 City of Englewood, Colorado 2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Cost 1,140 1,900 3,800 6,100 12 ,200 19,000 45,600 Replacement Cost Less Depreciation 860 1,430 2,900 4,600 9,200 14,300 34,400 Section 4 Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fee Proposed multifamily wastewater treatment plant connection fees use replacement cost asset values and consist of a base fee per connection and a three-tier dwelling unit fee . Proposed fees produce connection fees designed to approximate the proposed meter size- based connection fee for the midrange of the number of dwelling units served by a particular meter size. For example, a 3/4-inch meter can serve two to four multifamily dwelling units. The proposed wastewater treatment plant fee for the midrange of this meter size (three dwelling units) is $1, 140 which matches the proposed sewer collection system connection fee for the 3/4-inch meter. Red Oak also developed alternative multifamily wastewater treatment plant connection fees based on existing meter size-based fees. Alternative fees consist of a base fee per connection and a three-tier dwelling unit fee . The alternative fees produce connection fees designed to approximate the existing meter size-based connection fee for the midrange of the number of dwelling units served by a particular meter size. For example, a 3/4-inch meter can serve two to four multifamily dwelling units. The alternative wastewater treatment plant fee for the midrange of this meter size (three dwelling units) is $1 ,400 which matches the existing wastewater treatment plant connection fee for the 3/4-inch meter. Table 4-5 compares existing, proposed and alternative multifamily wastewater treatment plant connection fees. Existing fees have been in effect since 1982 and are $1,400 per unit. Both the proposed and alternative multifamily connection fees consist of a base fee per connection and a three-tier dwelling unit fee based on the number of dwelling units . T able 4-5 Comparison of Existing , Proposed and Alternative Multifam i ly Wastewater Treatment Plant Connection Fees Proposed Alternat ive Fee Struct u re Ex isting Fee Fee (a) Fee (bl B ase Fee (per connection) $0 $690 $845 Dwelling Unit Fee (per dwel/ing unit) First 12 units $1,400 $150 $185 Next 22 units 1,400 120 150 Over 34 units 1,400 70 85 (a) Consistent with proposed meter siz e-bas ed co nne cti on fees . (b) Consistent with existing meter size-based conn ecti on fees. Red Oak recommends the City periodically review and adjust its wastewater treatment plant connection fees to reflect changes in cost inflation , system capacity, and capacity unit service characteristics . .'.°.": RED \:'. · . CONSULTING City of Englewood, Colorado 2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 5. Mixed-Use Connection Fees 5.1. Background Mixed-use developments have multiple intended purposes within a single structure and typically include a combination of multifamily residential and commercial customers. Although the City presently has few mixed-use customers, future growth in this type of development is likely. The City 's current mixed-use connection fee structure is based on meter size, which may not equitably assess new mixed-use connectors for their capacity requirements. Table 5- 1 illustrates the ranges of multifamily dwelling units and commercial fixture units for each meter size which could produce a wide variety in capacity requirements within a given meter size. Table 5-1 Range of Units Served By Meter Size Multifamily Number of Meter Size Dwelling Units Fixture Units 3/4" 2 to 4 0 to 50 1" 5 to 12 51 to 125 1 Y:z" 13 to 34 126 to 375 2" 35 to 63 376 to 700 3" 64 to 203 701to2,225 4" 204 to 455 2,226 to 5,000 The mixed-use fees will equitably tailor the connection fee to the individual requirements of each new connector by using the combination of the number of multifamily dwelling units and commercial fixture units to represent the capacity required by mixed-use customers. 5.2. Proposed and Alternative Fees Proposed mixed-use fees use replacement cost asset values and produce connection fees that are in the midrange of the proposed meter size-based connection fees. Alternative mixed-use fees use replacement cost asset values and produce wastewater treatment connection fees that are in the midrange of the existing meter size-based wastewater treatment connection fees (Existing meter size-based wastewater treatment connection ·;:RED .I, . CONSULTING City of Englewood, Colorado 2009 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Section 5 Mixed Use Connection Fees fees are greater than proposed meter size-based wastewater treatment connection fees). The proposed and alternative mixed-use connection fees consist of three components: • Base fee per connection • Multifamily fee based on number of dwelling units • Commercial fee based on the number of fixture units Table 5-2 compares existing, proposed and alternative multifamily connection fees. Existing fees include a unit fee based on the number of dwelling units. Proposed and alternative fees consist of a base fee per connection and a three-tier dwelling unit fee based on the number of dwelling units. Table 5-2 Comparison of Existing, Proposed and Alternative Multifamily Connection Fees Fee Structure Dwelling Unit Fee (per dwelling unit) First unit Each Additional unit Base Fee (per connection) Dwelling Unit Fee (per dwelling unit) First 12 units Next 22 units Over 34 units Base Fee (per connection) Dwelling Unit Fee (per dwelling unit) First 12 units Next 22 units Over 34 units : 0 . RI D .\ ".,.:.CONSULTING Sewer Water Collection Existing Fees $1,000 $500 500 500 Proposed Fees $2,620 $720 $580 $160 450 125 275 75 Alternative Fees $2,620 $720 $580 $160 450 125 275 75 City of Englewood , Colorado 2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Wastewater Treatment $1,400 1,400 $690 $150 120 70 $845 $185 150 85 Total $2,900 2,400 $4,030 $890 695 420 $4,185 $925 725 435 Section 5 Mixed Use Connection Fees Table 5-3 shows proposed and alternative commercial mixed-use connection fees that consist of a three-tier fixture unit fee. Table 5-3 Comparison of Proposed and Alternative Commercial Mixed-Use Connection Fees Sewer Wastewater Fee Structure Water Collection Treatment per fixture unit per fixture unit per fixture unit Proposed Fees First 125 fixture units $83 $23 $22 Next 250 fixture units 35 10 9 Over 375 fixture units 26 7 7 Alternative Fees First 125 fixture units $83 $23 $27 Next 250 fixture units 35 10 11 Over 375 fixture units 26 7 9 Total per fixture unit $128 54 40 $133 56 42 Proposed and alternative mixed-use connection fees are the greater of the following: • Sum of calculated mixed-use multifamily and commercial connection fees or • Meter size based connection fee R_[lj) I CONSULTING City of Englewood , Colorado · 2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 Section 5 Mixed Use Connection Fees Tables , 5-4 and 5-5 shows examples of the proposed mixed-use connection fee calculation for typical small, medium , and large connectors. Table 5-4 shows the detailed calculations for multifamily and commercial mixed-use fees, and Table 5-5 summarizes the total fee amount. In all cases the sum of calculated mixed-use multifamily and commercial connection fees is greater than the meter size based connection fee. Mixed- Use Meter Customer Size Small 1" Medium 2" Large 3" Mixed- Use Meter Customer Size Small 1" Medium 2" Large 3" Mixed- Use Customer Small Medium Large .',;.:: REt:D V.f\. Table 5-4 Mixed-Use Connection Fee Examples Proposed Fees Mixed-Use Multifamily Fee Multifamily First 12 Next 22 Dwelling Base Dwelling Dwelling Units Charge Units Units $890 $695 per unit per unit 4 $ 4,030 $ 3,560 $ - 20 $ 4,030 $ 10 ,680 $ 5 ,5 60 60 $ 4,030 $ 10,680 $ 15,290 Mixed-Use Commercial Fee Commercial First 125 Next 250 Fixture Base Fixture Fixture Units Charge Units Units $128 $54 per unit per unit 40 $ -$ 5;120 $ - 200 $ -$ 16,000 $ 4,050 600 $ -$ 16,000 $ 13,500 Table 5-5 Mixed-Use Connection Fee Examples Proposed Fees Over 34 Dwelling Units Total $420 per unit $ -$ 7,590 $ -$ 20 ,2 70 $ 10,920 $ 40,920 Over 375 Dwelling Units Total $40 per unit $ -$ 5,120 $ -$ 20,050 $ 9,000 $ 38,500 Multifamily Commercial Total Calculated Proposed Meter Mixed-Use Mixed-Use Mixed-Use Meter Size Mixed-Use Size Fee Fee Fee Fee Fee 1" $ 7,590 $ 5,120 $ 12,710 $ 11, 170 $ 12,710 2" $ 20,270 $ 20,050 $ 40,320 $ 35,800 $ 40,320 3" $ 40,920 $ 38,500 $ 79,420 $ 71,500 $ 79,420 City of Englewood, Colorado · ' . CONSULTING 2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004 . ,. Section 5 Mixed Use Connection Fees Tables 5-6 and 5-7 shows examples of the alternative mixed-use connection fee calculation for typical small, medium, and large connectors. Table 5-6 shows the detailed calculations for multifamily and commercial mixed-use fees , and Table 5-7 summarizes the total fee amount. In all cases the sum of calculated mixed-use multifamily and commercial connection fees is greater than the meter size based connection fee. Mixed Use Meter Customer Size Small 1" Medium 2" Large 3" Mixed Use Meter Customer Size Small 1" Medium 2" Large 3" Mixed Use Customer Small Medium Large . • RED 1,,,, Table 5-6 Mixed Use Connection Fee Examples Alternative Fees Mixed Use Multifamily Fee Multifamily First 12 Next 22 Dwelling Base Dwelling Dwelling Units Charge Units Units $925 $725 per unit per unit Over34 Dwelling Units Total $435 per unit 4 $ 4,185 $ 3,700 $ -$ -$ 7,885 20 $ 4,185 $ 11, 100 $ 5,800 60 $ 4,185 $ 11, 100 $ 15,950 Mixed Use Commercial Fee Commercial First 125 Next 250 Fixture Base Fixture Fixture Units Charge Units Units $133 $56 per unit per unit 40 $ -$ 5,320 $ - 200 $ -$ 16,625 $ 4,200 600 $ -$ 16,625 $ 14,000 Table 5-7 Mixed Use Connection Fee Examples Alternative Fees $ -$ 21,085 $ 11,310 $ 42,545 Over 375 Dwelling Units Total $42 per unit $ -$ 5,320 $ -$ 20,825 $ 9,450 $ 40,075 Multifamily Commercial Total Calculated Proposed Meter Mixed Use Mixed Use Mixed Use Meter Size Mixed Use Size Fee Fee Fee Fee Fee 1" $ 7,885 $ 5,320 $ 13,205 $ 11,170 $ 13,205 2" $ 21,085 $ 20,825 $ 41,910 $ 35,800 $ 41,910 3" $ 42,545 $ 40,075 $ 82,620 $ 71,500 $ 82,620 City of Englewood, Colorado · . CONSULTI NG 2011 Water and Sewer Connection Fee Study 6149004