Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-08-14 WSB AGENDAWATER & SEWER BOARD AGENDA TUESDAY, AUGUST 14, 2012 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM 1. MINUTES OF THE JULY 17, 2012 WATER BOARD MEETING. (ATT. 1) 2. GUEST: MIKE DRAW -6836 S. BROADWAY. REQUESTING LA TE FEE WAIVED. (A TT. 2) 3 . WATER CONSERVATION PLANNING GRANT. (ATT. 3) 4. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OF POSITIVE TOTAL COLIFORM RES UL TS ON W. HILLSIDE A VE. (A TT. 4) 5. LETTER FROM SOUTH PLATTE RIVERWORKING GROUP . (ATT. 5) 6. MUNICIPAL SEPARATE STORM SEWER SYSTEMS (MS4) PERMIT- T ARGETED PERMIT QUESTIONNAIRE . 7. BUDGET. (ENCLOSED) 8. OTHER. .. WATER & SEWER BOARD MEETING TUESDAY, JULY 17, 2012 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE ROOM. Present: Wiggins, Waggoner, Lay, Oakley, Penn, Bums, Woodward , Olson Absent: Habenicht , Moore Also present: Jason Clark, Chong Woo, Tom Brennan, The meeting was called to order at 5:00 p.m. MINUTES OF THE JUNE 12, 2012 WATER BOARD MEETING. APPROVED BY PRIOR PHONE VOTE. The Minutes of the June 12, 2012 Water Board meeting were approved by phone vote on June 13 , 2012. l(1I 2. 2013 UTILITIES BUDGET. Stu reviewed proposed capital items in the 2013, 2014 and 2015 budgets. Preliminary cash flows and a general direction for future rate increases were discussed with the Board receiving various incremental options . The Board unanimously recommended Option #2 where rate increases would be 2% in 2013, 2.5 in 2014 and 3% in 2015. Mayor Penn also favored option #10, with rate increases being 3% in 2013, 3.5 in 2014 and 4% in 2015. The issue will be discussed at a future meeting with a fonnal motion forthcoming to Council to be effective January, 2013. Tom Bums left at 5:45 p.m . ~ 3. OTHER. A reminder that the Board Appreciation Night will be Monday, July 27, 2012 at 6:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 6: 10 p.m. The next Water and Sewer Board meeting will be August 14 , 2012 at 5:00 p.m. in the Community Development Conference Room . Respectfully submitted, Cathy Burrage Recording Secretary MEMORANDUM To: Stu Fonda, Utilities Director D . From: John Bock , Utilities Manager of Administratio 1~ Date: August 6 , 2012 Subject: 6836 S Broadway Late Fee for Annual Sewer Bill Michael Graw has protested the late fees that were applied to his account in accordance with EMC 12-2-3G: Delinquency and Collection : 1. Fees and charges levied in accordance with this Chapter shall be paid within thirty (30) days from the date of billing to the City. ff the bill is not paid within thirty (30) days after billing, it shall be deemed delinquent, whereupon a delinquency charge not to exceed the amount of fifteen dollars ($15.00) or up to five percent (5%) per month, or fraction thereof, not to exceed a total of twenty-five percent (25%) of the amount due, whichever is greater shall be imposed for collection services. Interest in the amount of eighteen percent (18%) per year shall be charged on the amount due only. In 2011 Mr. Graw 's late fee was waived apparently because , up until that point, he had had no other late fees. The current bill was mailed the first of July, 2011 , a past due notice was sent the middle of August, 2011 , and a letter of Final Notice was sent October 17 , 2011. Mr. Graw called July 25 , 2012 to request that his new late fee be waived. Created Date/Time: 08/06/2012 03:51:52 PM Customer Number: 00011120 Account Number: 30000068362 Service Address: 6836 S BROADWAY Mailing Address: MICHAEL L GRAW 6836 S BROADWAY CENTENNIAL CO 80122-1010 Customer/ Account Transaction History Trans Date Transaction 8/3/2012 0:00 Payment 7 /1/2012 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 08/15/2012 12/1/2011 0:00 Sewer Balance Late Fee 7 /6/2011 0:00 Transfer Balance 7 /1/2011 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 08/14/2011 9/1/2010 0 :00 Payment 8/31/2010 0:00 Sewer Balance Late Fee 7 /12/2010 0 :00 Cycle Billing Due: 08/25/2010 5/4/2010 0:00 Sewer Balance Late Fee 9/8/2009 0 :00 Payment 6/11/2009 0 :00 Cycle Billing Due : 07 /11/2009 5/12/2009 0:00 Sewer Charge Recover 09 rates 8/15/2008 0:00 Payment 6/4/2008 0:00 Cycle Billing Due: 07 /19/2008 10/3/2007 0:00 Payment 8/16/2007 0:00 Payment 7 /12/2007 0:00 Cycle Billing Due : 08/26/2007 9/6/2006 0:00 Payment 6/29/2006 0:00 Cycle Billing Due : 07 /29/2006 7 /12/2005 0 :00 Payment 6/1/2005 0 :00 Cycle Billing Due : 07 /01/2005 3/16/2005 0 :00 Payment 6/3/2004 0 :00 Regular Billing -Sewer 7 /8/2003 0 :00 Payment -Sewer 6/10/2003 0 :00 Regular Billing -Sewer 6/20/2002 0:00 Payment -Sewer 6/7 /2002 0 :00 Regular Billing -Sewer Description Payment -Thank You Cycle Billing Due : 08/15/2012 Outstanding Sewer Balance Late Fee A/R Reconciliation Cycle Billing Due: 08/14/2011 Payment -Thank You Outstanding Sewer Balance Late Fee Cycle Billing Due : 08/25/2010 Outstanding Sewer Balance Late Fee Payment -Thank You Cycle Billing Due : 07 /11/2009 Sewer Cycle Billing for 2009 rates recov Payment -Thank You Cycle Billing Due: 07 /19/2008 Payment -Thank You Payment -Thank You Cycle Billing Due : 08/26/2007 Payment -Thank You Cycle Billing Due : 07 /29/2006 Payment -Thank You Cycle Billing Due: 07 /01/2005 Payment -Thank You Regular Billing -Sewe r Payment -Sewer Regular Billing -Sewe r Payment -Sewer Regular Billing -Sewer Amount Balance ($488.61) $0 .00 $222.47 $488.61 $53.23 $266.14 ($9.56) $212 .91 $222.47 $222.47 ($258.40) $0 .00 ($11.40) $258.40 $212 .81 $269 .80 $11.40 $56.99 ($157.30) $45 .59 $197 .05 $202.89 $5 .84 $5 .84 ($176.60) $0 .00 $176 .60 $176 .60 ($37 .67) $0 .00 ($141.21) $37 .67 $178.88 $178 .88 ($143.05) $0 .00 $143.05 $143 .05 ($124.40) $0 .00 $124.40 $124.40 ($108.21) $0.00 $108.21 $108 .21 ($88.56) $0.00 $88 .56 $88.56 ($73.80) $0 .00 $73 .80 $73.80 Date September 4, 2012 INITIATED BY Utilities Department COUNCIL COMMUNICATION Agenda Item Subject Water Conservation Planning Grant STAFF SOURCE Stewart H. Fonda, Director of Utilities COUNCIL GOAL AND PREVIOUS COUNCIL ACTION None . RECOMMENDED ACTION The Water and Sewer Board, at their August 14, 2012 meeting, recommended Council approval of a Bill for an Ordinance approving the acceptance of the planning grant for the Englewood Water Conservation Plan. BACKGROUND, ANALYSIS, AND ALTERNATIVES IDENTIFIED Water conservation plans are required under the Water Conservation Act of 2004 for entities that seek financial assistance from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). The water conservation plan provides a profile of the existing water supply system, identifies water sources and limitations, outlines water costs and pricing structures, reviews existing policies and reviews water conservation activities. The proposed grant funds will be used to profile the existing water system, identify water use and demand, identify conservation goals, measures and programs, develop and integrate plans and modify forecasts. The water conservation plan will then be monitored, evaluated and revised, as necessary. FINANCIAL IMPACT The City of Englewood submitted a planning grant application to the CWCB for the amount of $68,000. The City would receive $48,000 from CWCB, with the City matching $20,000 with in- kind services, which is 30% of the total project. This covers implementation of Englewood's water conservation plant spanning ten years from 2012 to 2021. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS Bill for Ordin a nc e Water Conservation Grant CC .doc STATE OF COLORADO Colorado Water Conservation Board Department of Natural Resources 1580 Logan Street, Suite 600 Denver, Colorado 80203 Phone : (303) 866-3441 Fax : (303) 894-2578 www .cwcb .state .co.us July 21, 2012 Mr. Stewart Fonda Utilities Director City of Englewood l 000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110 Dear Mr. Fonda: John W. Hickenlooper Governor Mike King DNR Executive Director Jennifer L. Gimbel CWCB Director This letter is to inform you that the Office of Water Conservation Drought and Planning (OWCDP), has reviewed your grant application to develop a Water Conservation Plan. The OWCDP has determined that the application meets the Colorado Water Conservation Board Guidelines for reviewing grant proposals. The OW CDP staff is pleased to award the City of Englewood a grant in the amount of $46,316 for a Water Conservation Planning Grant. Please allow for the purchase order (P.O.) to be completed by our Accounting Department, before starting on proposed scope of work. Should you have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Ben Wade at 303-866-3441 ext. 3238 or email at ben.wade@state.co.us. Thank you for your interest in and support of water conservation. I look forward to working with you in the near future. ~s::D~ Veva Dehe:za Office of Water Conservation & Drought Planning cc: Vasser Abouaish, City of Englewood Steve Nguyen, Clear Water Solutions Interstate Compact Compliance• Watershed Protection • Flood Planning & Mitigation •Stream & Lake Protection Water Project Loans & Grants• Water Modeling• Conservation & Drought Planning• Water Supply Planning c T y () F ENGL EWOOD ------------------------------------------- May 24 , 2012 Mr . Ben Wade Water Conservation and Grants Coordinator Colorado Water Conservation Board Office of Water Conservation and Drought Planning 1313 Sherman Street, Room 721 Denve r , CO 80203 RE : City of Englewood Water Conservation Planning Grant Application Dear Mr . Wade : The City of Englewood is interested in developing a Water Conservation Plan to guide the effective a nd responsible use of their wa ter resources . The City Council understands that , in accordance with HB04 -1365 , having a State-approved Water Conserva tion Plan is prerequisite to obta ining financ ial assistance from the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) and the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority . On behalf of the City , we are submitting the attached planning grant application for a Water Conservation Plan. The total cost to complete the plan is $68,000 . The City proposes to match $20 ,000 with in -kind services , which is 30% of the total project. The City requests a grant for $48 ,000 from CWCB to complete the plan. which will cover a ten -yea r planning horizon from 2012 to 2021 . As you will see in the attached revised planning grant application . the C ity is committed to implementing effective long -term water savings and efficiency measures and programs . The City wishes to do its part in saving water for the region and a Water Conservation Plan will go a long way in helping to meet this commitment. Pl ease let me know if you have any quest io ns or need additiona l information . Respectfully, c )i(J, - Stewart Fonda. Director Englewood Utilities -------------·--·--·----_J I OUO I 11glP\\Oo d 1'.irkw.1v I nglP\\Oo d ( o lo r.ido 80110 1'ho11l' l0.l·7(>.! .!f) 1r, \\ W\\ l'r\glt>\\ ood gO\ org A. The name and contact information of the entity seeking the grant. CONTACT: Vasser Abouaish Utilities Engineer City of Englewood 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 8011 O 303-762-2652 B. Individuals from the City of Englewood who will be involved in the project include: Vasser Abouaish is a professional engineer registered in several states and has twenty- five years of experience in water resources planning and management. His role will include reviewing demand projections, establishing water savings goals, brainstorming water conservation measures and screening through the final list. He will serve as the project manager and primary contact for completion of the Water Conservation Plan. Tom Brennan is a professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado. He has over twenty years of experience in water rights and water planning arena. Tom will serve as the technical advisor for completion of the Water Conservation Plan. He will assist with the identification and quantification of conservation measures, associated water savings, and overall plan development. John Bock is the Utilities Department's Manager of Administration. He oversees the operation of the CIS Infinity customer information and billing system and the Department's GIS system and will coordinate technical assistance for this project. Amy Church is one of the Utilities Department's two system support specialists. She possesses expertise in the operations of the CIS Infinity Billing System. She will support the project in the extraction of necessary information from the billing system. Paul Rodeck is the Utilities Department's GIS Analyst. He will furnish the project with information it may need from the GIS system. Cathy Burrage is the Department's Executive Assistant. She will support the clerical needs of the project. Stewart Fonda is a professional engineer registered in the State of Colorado and has over thirty years of experience in water resources planning and management. Stewart is the Utilities Director for the City of Englewood. He will advise and provide general direction on all aspects of the project. He will also be paramount in the development of conservation measures that the City Council will ultimately adopt and implement. His role will include final review of plan, and presentation to the City Council. The City of Englewood will take the lead in the plan development. Mr. Vasser Abouaish, Utilities Engineer. will be responsible for this project. In addition, the City will utilize the services of specialized outside expert (Clear Water Solutions, Inc.) to provide technical assistance and participate in the various tasks of the plan -Please ref er to the attachment. 1 The CWCB grant will cover Consultant's fee and to partially offset the City's staff cost. Finally , the Water and Sewer Board and Englewood City Council will be involved in the project, by providing discussion forums, policy guidance and public participation platforms throughout the Plan development and approval stages. C . Englewood retail water delivery for each of the past ten years Table 1 -Annual Water Delivered (Overall Production) & Associated Rainfall YEAR Annual Water Delivery Rainfall (Inches) (Million Gallons) 2011 1 ,863.217 13.40 2010 2,040.886 9.90 2009 1 ,851.714 24.70 2008 2 ,224.461 11.15 2007 2,070.913 16.33 2006 2 ,589 .758 11.03 2005 2 ,559.701 13.54 2004 2 ,273.170 18.47 2003 2 ,647 .287 12 .14 2002 2 ,920.646 5.96 Table 1 shows steady decline in overall water consumptions (see notes below) • Annual average of approx. 2 ,000 MG for the past 5 years • Annual average of approx. 2 ,600 MG for the previous 5 years 2 NOTES: o In 1987 the Englewood City Council passed an ordinance requiring the installation of water meters (and switching to consumption-based rate) at properties receiving flat rate upon transfer of ownership o An average of 220 meters has been installed annually for the past 25 years, and o An associated 30% reduction in water use has taken place. Annual Water Delivered --------------- Annual Water Delivery Annual Water Delivery (Millions of Gallons) Year (Milli ons of Gallons) 3,500.000 -·--- 2002 2,920.646 2003 2,647.287 3,000.000 2004 2,273.170 2005 2,559 .701 2,500.000 2006 2,589.758 2007 2,070.913 2,000.000 2008 2,224.461 -Annual Water De iv err (Milions 2009 1,851.714 1.500.000 ----------------of Ga~ons ) 2010 2,040.886 2011 1,863.217 1,000.000 500.000 .;----------- 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 ------ 3 D. Englewood population has been stable (approx. 31,000**) for the past 10 years • 1990 Population 29,918 • 2000 Population 31, 727 • 201 O Population 30,525 • 2011 Population {estimate will be available in June 2012) •• Source: U.S. Census Bureau: State and County QuickFacts. Data derived from Population Estimates, American Community Survey, Census of Population and Housing. E. Englewood water system characteristics and pertinent growth issues are as follows : • Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Water Quality Control Division conducted its Source Water Assessment of Englewood Water System in 2004 , which rendered the following results; the water supply consists of: • 3 active surface water sources • 0 active ground water sources under the influence of surface water • O active , purchased surface water sources and/or purchased ground water sources under the influence of surface water • Based on the City's billing system. average water use for the last 5 years is: o TOTAL: 174 Gallons Per Capita Per Day (GPCPD) system-wide o RESIDENTAIL: 104 GPCPD for single family homes (Only) • The system-wide (total) per capita water use for the past five years is listed below: Year GPCPD 2007 186 2008 199 2009 166 2010 183 2011 167 • Estimated annual water saving to be achieved through implementation of the plan is 12.5%, which equals approximately 250 MG (767 acre-feet) • The US Census Bureau predicts Englewood's population to remain the same for the next five (5) years. • Englewood water system stability and reliability are adequate based on its location and availability of multiple sources (compared to areas of current and future water needs as identified by the Statewide Water Supply Initiative (SWSI). 4 The City of Englewood Water Conservation Plan Scope of Work: This scope of work describes the work to be performed by the City of Englewood . The scope outlines the tasks required to successfully complete a water conservation plan in accordance with CWCB's Water Conservation Plan guidelines and policies. Water conservation plans are required under the Water Conservation Act of 2004 for covered entities that seek financial assistance from the CWCB or the Colorado Water Resources and Power Development Authority. The objective of this task is to develop a plan that meets the CWCB requirements, makes beneficial and responsible use of the City's water supplies, and ultimately enables the City to apply for state financial assistance for subsequent projects. The Water Conservation Plan will be developed following CWCB's Water Conservation Plan Development Guidance Document. Public-review comments will be incorporated prior to submitting the plan to the City Council for final approval and adoption. The information characterizing past water use by sector (residential, commercial. industrial, etc.) and per capita use (residential and total) is not readily available due to the current water billing system's reporting limitations (since 2004). Englewood Utilities has recently contracted with the billing system software developer in order to be able to generate the needed reports during the course of developing its conservation plan (June 2012 to January 2013). The development of the plan is divided into the following tasks (similar to what is indicated in the CWCB Model Plan Template): Task 1. Profile the Existing Water System The activities described under this task will provide information on the City's existing water supply system. 1.1 Profile physical characteristics of the existing water supply system: Will describe the physical characteristics of the water system. Included in the summary will be key system characteristics, geographic area served, population and connections served, types of key water users, existing facilities and demand. 1.2 Identify all water sources: Identify and describe all of the system's water supply sources including attributes, age, seniority and conditions of its use. Estimates will be made for any missing information. 1.3 Identify system limitations: Describe the City's water system limitations. 1.4 Characterize water costs and pricing structures: Document past and current history of water sales. 1.5 Review current policies and planning initiatives: Discuss major policies the City has in place that affect water use under normal and drought conditions, and summarize major planning efforts to date. 1 .6 Summarize current water conservation activities: Estimate water savings from previously implemented conservation measures 5 Task 2. Characterize Water Use and Demand Forecast The activities described under this task will provide information on the City's existing and projected water use. 2 .1 Characterize current water use: Review billing records to summarize current water use. Included will be detailed customer sector data. quantifications of indoor vs. outdoor use and potable vs. non-potable use, and examination of historical water use by tap size. 2.2 Select forecasting method: A demand forecasting method will be selected and described. 2.3 Prepare demand forecast: Estimate future water demand by tap size or customer category according to the selected forecasting method. Task 3. Profile Proposed Facilities The activities described under this task will identify and describe planned improvements based on the results from step two and estimate the associated costs. 3.1 Estimate supply costs based on the demand forecast: Prepare incremental and total costs for water supplies that are appropriate. 3.2 Identify and describe anticipated capital facility improvements and additions: Summarize facility needs over a similar time horizon used for demand forecasting. 3.3 Estimate total, annual and unit cost of the improvements: Develop cost estimates of improvements. Worksheet will be used as a guide. 3.4 Develop a water supply capacity forecast: Provide a summarized supply capacity forecast. Task 4. Identify Conservation Goals The activities described under this task will identify conservation goals for the City . 4.1 Develop water conservation goals: Develop water conservation goals in collaboration with the City Council. Areas for water conservation will be identified based on results from Tasks 2 and 3. A specific water-savings target, as well as how the savings will be measured, will be identified. 4.2 Document the goals development process: Document the process used to develop the water conservation goals. Task 5. Identify Water Conservation Measures and Programs The activities described under this task will identify conservation measures and programs the City may implement to reach the conservation goals identified in Task 4. 6 5.1 Identify conservation measures and programs: Develop water conservation measures. 5.2 Develop and define screening criteria: Describe the screening criteria used to evaluate and eliminate some of the water conservation measures and programs. 5.3 Screen conservation measures and programs: The screening criteria will be applied to the "universal" list of conservation measures and programs to determine which ones will be further evaluated in the planning process. Task 6 Evaluate and Select Conservation Measures and Programs The activities described under this task are intended to evaluate and select the optimal conservation measures and programs the City may implement. 6.1 Create combinations of measures and programs: Review all conservation measures and programs that passed the screening criteria and group them, so similar measures and associated water-savings are not double counted. 6.2 Estimate costs and water savings of conservation options: Estimate the cost of each conservation measure/program and the associated water savings using Worksheet 6-1 as a guide. A cost/benefit analysis will also be included. 6.3 Compare benefits and costs: Summarize conservation measure costs and water savings, including a net benefit from all suggested measures. 6.4 Define evaluation criteria: Develop criteria used to select the conservation measures/programs for implementation. Key criteria will be cost for implementation and potential water savings. 6.5 Select conservation measures and programs: Summarize the evaluation of each measure/program based on the evaluation criteria and indicate, with Council input, which measures/programs will be implemented. The water savings from the implementation will be estimated. Task 7 Integrate Resources and Modify Forecasts The activities described under this task will modify the supply and demand forecasts to account for water savings from the selected conservation measure and program. The benefits of conservation as well as revenue effects will also be addressed. 7.1 Revise demand forecast: Revise the demand forecast prepared in Task 2 to account for the water savings of the measures/programs from Task 6. 7 7.2 Identify project-specific savings: Determine the effect of water savings from conservation on the timing and capacity of facility improvement projects and quantify savings. 7.3 Revise supply-specific savings: Determine the effect of water savings from conservation on the timing and capacity of facility improvement project and quantify savings. 7.4 Revise supply-capacity forecast: Revise the supply capacity forecast based on findings from Task 7.2 7.5 Summarize forecast modifications and benefits of conservation: Develop a graph showing demand and supply with and without conservation. 7.6 Consider revenue effects: Quantify impacts to revenues from implementation of water conservation. Savings in capital improvement projects or delayed water acquisition will be presented against loss in sales revenue. Strategies to address this issue will be discussed. Task 8. Develop Implementation Plan The activities described under this task will present a strategy for implementing the selected conservation measures and describe methods for monitoring the plan's success. 8.1 Develop implementation schedule: Discuss significant implementation actions and obstacles for implementing the selected conservation measures. Will develop a reasonable implementation schedule and timetable to follow. 8.2 Develop plan for public participation in implementation: Describe how to involve the public in the implementation process. 8.3 Develop plan for monitoring and evaluation progress: Determine and describe how the Water Conservation Plan will be measured for effectiveness . 8.4 Develop plan for updating and revising the plan: Describe when it intends to update the Water Conservation Plan. 8.5 Define plan adoption date/plan completed date/plan approved date: A copy of the approval resolution adopting the final Water Conservation Plan will be included . Will also develop a schedule for City Council adoption & adoption. Task 9 -Monitor, Evaluate and Revise Conservation Activities and the Plan. The plan w ill be implemented and monitored based on the schedule developed from Task 8. Will also commit to monitor the performance of the plan including updating the plan as required. 8 Task 10. Public Outreach and Participation The draft conservation plan will be available for review and public comment for 60 days. During the public comment period two informational presentations will be made; at the Water & Sewer Board meeting and at the City Council meeting. The public is welcome to attend these meetings and comment on the plan; in addition, written input and suggestions will be encouraged. 9 Project Schedule Table 2 -Proposed Schedule Deliverable Grant application submitted to CWCB CWCB approves grant and P.O. issued Meeting with Consultant to coordinate task delivery Submit 50 % progress report to CWCB Submit 75% progress report to CWCB Submit final draft to Water & Sewer Board and City Council for review Collect Water & Sewer Board and City Council Comments Notify public of draft plan in official newspaper Public review period (60 days) Council formally adopts final draft Submit final plan to CWCB CWCB approves plan (60 days) Date 07/9/2012 8/03/2012 08/06/2012 09/30/2012 10/30/2012 11/30/2012 12/15/2012 12/30/2012 02/30/2013 03/15/2013 03/20/2013 05/30/2013 PROJECT COST Table 3 -Budget ITEMIZED CONSULTANT Additional GRANT CITY STAFF TOTAL WORK SCOPE *** CITY STAFF REQUES (in-kind) COST Hrs. Cost Hrs. Cost T Hrs. Cost Task 1. Profile Existing Water 18 $2,340 10 $1,000 $3,340 10 $1,000 $4,340 System Task 2. Characterize Use and 8 $1 ,050 15 $1,500 $2,550 15 $1,500 $4,050 Demand Forecast Task 3. Profile Proposed Facilities 12 $1,620 15 $1,500 $3,120 20 $2 ,000 $5,120 Task 4. Identify Conservation Goals 15 $1,950 15 $1,500 $3,450 20 $2,000 $5,450 Task 5. Identify Conservation 19 $2,460 10 $1,000 $3,460 20 $2,000 $5,460 Programs Task 6. Evalu. & Select 58 $7 ,110 30 $3,000 $10 ,110 30 $3,000 $13,110 Conservation Measures Task 7. Integrate Resources 9 $1,200 20 $2,000 $3,200 15 $1,500 $4,700 Task 8. Develop Implementation 9 $1,140 65 $6,500 $7,640 15 $1 ,500 $9 ,140 Plans Task 9. Monitor, Evaluate and 2 $270 10 $1,000 $1,270 15 $1 ,500 $2,770 Revise the Plan Task 10. Public Outreach .. ** 36 $4,860 20 $2,000 $6,860 40 $4,000 $10,860 Travel Expenses -7 meetings x $506 $506 $0.55/mi x 130mi Phone Conference with CWCB after 6 $810 $810 $810 final review & incorporate comments TOTAL COST 192 $25,316 210 $21,000 $46,316 200 $20,000 $66,316 ***Consultant Fee is calculated as an average of $150 hourly rate (See Attachment) 1 NOTES : • The above Project Budget is based on a joint-effort approach. with City of Englewood staff leading and fully participating in all tasks in order to build in-house expertise that will regularly review and update it. • City Staff Cost is calculated as an average of $100 per hour (including salary, all benefits overhead and indirect cost, etc.) based on: Utilities Director $130 Administration Manager $110 Utili ties Engineers $90 Sys . Support Specialists $85 Includes report preparation , general project cost , meetings , etc. 2 ATTACHMENT C Project Fee Estimate City of Englewood Water Conservation Plan ITEMS OF WORK TASK A • Develop Water Conservation Plan Step 1 • Profile of Existing Water System 1.1 Profile Existing Water Sy stem 1.2 Identify Sources of Water 1.3 Identify System Limitations 1.4 Characterize Water Costs and Pricing 1.5 Review Current Policies and Planning Initiatives 1.6 Summarize Current Waler Conservation Activities Sub-Total Step 2 • Characterize Water Use and Forecast Demand 2 .1 Characterize Current Water Use 2 .2 Select Forecasting Method 2 .3 Prepare Demand Forecast Sub-Total Step 3 -Profile Proposed Facilities 3.1 Identify and Cost Potential Facility Needs 3.2 Prepare an Incremental Cost Analysis 3.3 Develop Preliminary Capacity and Costs Forecasts Sub-Total Step 4 -Identify Conservation Goals 4 .1 Develop Water Conservation Goals 4 .2 Document the Goal Development Process Sub-Total Step 5 -Identify Conservation Measures and Programs 5 .1 Identify Conservation Measures and Programs 5.2 Develop and Define Screening Criteria 5.3 Screen Conservation Measures and Programs Sub-Total Step 6 -Evaluate and Select Conservation Measures and Programs 6 .1 Create Combinations of Measures and Programs 6 .2 Estimate Costs and Water Savings of Conservation Options 6 .3 Compare Benefits and Costs 6.4 Define Evaluation Criteria 6 .5 Select Conservation Measures and Programs Sub-Total Step 7 -Integrate Resources and Modify Forecasts 7 .1 Revise Demand Forecasts 7 .2 Identify Project Speci fic Savings 7 .3 Revise Supply-Capacity Forecasts 7 .4 Summarize Forecast Modifications and Benefits of Conservation 7 .5 Consider Revenue Effects Sub-Total Step 8 -Develop Implementation Plan 8 .1 Develop Implementation Schedule 8 .2 Develop Plan for Public Participation in Implementation 8 .3 Develop Plan for Monitoring and Evaluation Processes 8.4 Develop Plan for Updating and Revising the Conservation Plan 8 .5 Define Plan Adoption Date/Plan Completed Date/Plan Approved Date Sub-Total Step 9 -Monitor, Evaluate, and Revise Conservation Activities 9 .1 Implement the Plan Sub-Total TASK A TOTAL TASK B. Public Outreach Meeting w/W&S Board and City Council to discuss potential measures/programs Public meetinQ to solicit feedback TASKS TOTAL General Project Expenses Travel -7 meetings x $0 .556 /mi x 130 mi Phone conference w ith CWCB after final review and incorporate comments GENERAL PROJECT EXPENSES TOTAL TOTAL FEE Notes : Assumes Englewood staff will prepare report and CWS will complete a final review cws cws Michelle Hatcher Steve Nguyen HOURS SUB HOURS SUB $120 TOTAL $150 TOTAL 2 $240 1 $150 2 $240 1 $150 2 $240 1 $150 2 $240 1 $150 2 $240 1 $150 2 $240 1 $150 12 $1,440 6 $900 2 $240 1 $150 1 $120 $0 2 $240 2 $300 5 $600 3 $450 2 $240 2 $300 2 $240 2 $300 2 $240 2 $300 6 $720 6 $900 8 $960 4 $600 2 $240 1 $150 10 $1,200 5 $750 4 $480 4 $600 1 $120 1 $150 8 $960 1 $150 13 $1,560 6 $900 4 $480 1 $150 28 $3 ,360 1 $150 16 $1 ,920 1 $150 1 $120 1 $150 4 $480 1 $150 53 $6,360 5 $750 1 $120 1 $150 1 $120 1 $150 1 $120 1 $150 1 $120 $0 1 $120 1 $150 5 $600 4 $600 2 $240 2 $300 1 $120 $0 2 $240 $0 1 $120 $0 1 $120 $0 7 $840 2 $300 1 $120 1 $150 1 $120 1 $150 112 $13,440 38 $5,700 12 $1 ,440 12 $1,800 6 $720 6 $900 18 $2, 160 18 $2,700 3 $360 3 $450 3 $360 3 $450 133 $15,960 59 $8,850 Fee estimate is primarily for technical assistance and to attend W&S Board and Council meetings to answer questions Water savings calculations of selected measures and programs is the largest portion of Consultant's fee Labor Expense Total Total Total $390 $390 $390 $390 $390 $390 $390 $390 $390 $390 $390 $390 $2,340 $2,340 $390 $390 $120 $120 $540 $540 $1,050 $1,050 $540 $540 $540 $540 $540 $540 $1,620 $1 ,620 $1 ,560 $1 ,560 $390 $390 $1,950 $1,950 $1 ,080 $1,080 $270 $270 $1,110 $1,110 $2,460 $2,460 $630 $630 $3 ,510 $3 ,510 $2 ,070 $2,070 $270 $270 $630 $630 $7, 110 $7, 110 $270 $270 $270 $270 $270 $270 $120 $120 $270 $270 $1,200 $1,200 $540 $540 $120 $120 $240 $240 $120 $120 $120 $120 $1,140 $1, 140 $270 $270 $270 $270 $19,140 $19 ,140 $3,240 $3 ,240 $1 ,620 $1 ,620 $4,860 $4,860 $506 $506 $810 $810 $810 $506 $1,316 $24,810 $506 $25,316 STATE OF COLOMDO John W. Hickenlooper, Governor Chris topher E. Urbina , MD , MPH Executive Director and Ch ief Medical Officer Dedicated to protecting and imp roving the health and environment of the people of Colorado 4300 Cherry Creek Dr. S. Laboratory Services Division Denver , Colorado 80246-1530 8100 Lowry Blvd . Phone (303) 692-2000 Denver, Colorado 80230-6928 Located in Glendale , Colorado (303) 692 -3090 http ://www.cdphe .state .co .us July 26, 2012 Jason Clark City of Englewood PWSID # C00103045 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, CO 80110 RE: Compliance Advisory -Non-Acute MCL Violation Total Coliform Bacteria Dear Mr. Clark: Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment Pursuant to Article 5 of the Colorado Primary Drinking Water Regulations (the "Regulations"), drinking water systems that are required to collect 40 or more total coliform bacteria samples per month are in violation of the maximum contaminant level (MCL) if more than five percent of the samples collected during a month is total coliform-positive. Water Quality Control Division (the "Division") records show that five (5) samples collected at the City of Englewood (the "System") in June 2012 had results showing total coliform present and no E. coli detected, which constitutes a non-acute violation of the MCL for total coliform bacteria. Due to the total coliform bacteria MCL violation, the System is required to issue a Tier 2 public notice to each of the potential water users of the System pursuant to Article 9 of the Regulations. Copies of all public notices issued must be furnished to the Division along with the Tier 2 Drinking Water Public Notification Certificate of Delivery Form (enclosed) to the Division within ten (10) days of completion. Please refer to the enclosed instructions for issuing public notification. This Compliance Advisory is intended to advise you of possible violations of the Regulations , so that you may take appropriate steps to avoid or mitigate formal enforcement action . This Compliance Advisory does not constitute an Enforcement Order and is not subject to appeal. However, the issuance ohhis Compliance Advisory does not limit or preclude the Division from pursuing its enforcement options concerning the above violation(s). The Division is currently evalu~ting the facts associated with the above-described violation(s) and if a formal enforcement action is deemed necessary, you may be issued an Enforcement Order that may include the assessment of penalties. If you have any questions .about this violation or the public notice requirements you may contact me by e-mail at melissa.mcclain@ state.co.us , or you can call me at (303) 692-3445. Sincerely, ~r{l(!__~~- Melissa McClain, MPH Drinking Water Compliance Specialist Water Quality Control Division Enclosure cc : ec: DW File C00103045 Hope Dalton, Water Specialist, Tri-County Health Department (via email to hdalton @tchd.org) Clayton Moores , Engineering Section, CDPHE-WQCD action is deemed necessary, you may be issued an Enforcement Order that may include the assessment of penalties . If you have any questions about this violation or the public notice requirements you may contact me by e-mail at melissa.mcclain@state.co.us, or you can call me at (303) 692-3445. Sincerely, ~f{ll~Vt- Melissa McClain, MPH Drinking Water Compliance Specialist Water Quality Control Division Enclosure cc : ec: OW File C00103045 Hope Dalton, Water Specialist, Tri-County Health Department (via email to hdal ton @ tchd.o rg) Clayton Moores, Engineering Section, CDPHE-WQCD C IT Y 0 F ENGLEWOOD MEMORANDUM TO: Englewood City Council FROM: Stu Fonda, Director of Utilities DATE: August 15, 2012 RE: Public Notification of Positive Total Coliform Result on W . Hillside Ave. In the course of our monthly monitoring of the drinking water quality in Englewood's distribution system, positive samples can occasionally occur. Fifty routine samples were collected during the month of June, 2012 of which more than the accepted 5% standard coliform bacteria was detected in the Hillside area at Hillside Ave. and Tejon St. Coliforms are bacteria which are naturally present in the environment and are used as an indicator that other, potentially hannful bacteria may be present. Contributing factors unique to this area are low usage, dead ends and higher water temperatures. Weather conditions and bad sample bottles can also affect samples . Since this event, new policies have been implemented for monitoring and procedures if an indicator is detected. Although this is not a health emergency and was limited to a small localized area , all Englewood water customers will be receiving a public notice mandated by the Safe Drinking Water Act and the State describing what occurred , if any action is necessary and corrective action being taken . The notice is being mailed to all Englewood water customers 1000 Eng lewood Pa rkway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Phone 303-762-2635 www.englewoodgov.org c T y 0 F ENGLEWOOD IMPORTANT INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR DRINKING WATER We routinely monitor for the presence of drinking water contaminants throughout the entire Englewood Utilities service area . Fifty routine samples were collected during the month of June 2012 , of which no more than 10 % showed positive presence of coliform bacteria . This exceeded the 5% acceptable standard . Although this is not an emergency and was limited to a very small localized area (Hillside Ave . and Tejon St.}, as our customers , you have the right to know what happened, what you should do, and what we are doing to correct this situation . What does this mean? This is not an emergency. If it had been, you would have been notified immediately. Total coliform bacteria are generally not harmful in themselves . Coliforms are bacteria which are naturally present in the environment and are used as an indicator that other, potentially-harmful bacteria may be present. Coliforms were found in more samples than allowed and this was a warning of potential problems . Usually coliforms are a sign that there could be a problem with the source water , treatment process or distribution system (pipes or storage tanks). Whenever detected in any sample, we do follow-up testing to see if other bacteria of greater concern, such as fecal coliform or E. coli, are present. We did not find any of these more- harmful bacteria in our subsequent testing. If we had, we would have notified you immediately. Since we continuously disinfect, the chlorine residual was always maintained throughout the entire distribution system. Furthermore, the water leaving the treatment plant surpassed all water quality requirements. What have we done? We immediately collected repeat samples and did not find any of these bacteria in our subsequent testing . Subsequent testing showed that this problem has been resolved . The following are additional preventative and precautionary measures that are also being taken : 1. We are conducting an investigation to determine the cause for the presence of total coliforms. There could be many causes, including, but not limited to, an improper sampling method, a contaminated bottle or cap , sanitary conditions or any recent repair work. 2. We increased monitoring, strengthened our emergency procedures and are implementing additional measures to eliminate similar problems in the future . 3. We are in contact with the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). They are evaluating the effectiveness of the steps taken to see if any further action is required. What should you do? YOU DO NOT NEED TO BOIL YOUR WATER OR TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTIONS. However, if you have specific health concerns, consult your doctor . People with severely compromised immune systems , infants , and some elderly should always seek advice about drinking water from their health care providers . General guidelines on ways to lessen the risk of infection by microbes are available from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1 (800) 426-4791. For more information regarding this notice, please contact Englewood Utilities at (303) 762-2650 Please share this information with all the other people who drink this water, especially those who may not have received this notice directly (for example , people in apartments, nursing homes, schools, and businesses). You can do this by posting this notice in a public place or distributing copies by hand or mail. State Water System ID# C00103045 Date Distributed: August 24, 2012 1000 Englewood Parkway Englewood, Colorado 80110 Phone 303-762-2635 www.englewoodgov.org DRAFT Do not distribute. Not for quotation. SOUTH PLATTE II WORKING GROUP August XX, 2012 Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha Distr ict CENWO-PM-AA ATIN: Chatfield Reservoir Storage Reallocation FR/EIS 1616 Capitol Avenue Omaha, NE 68102-4901 To Whom It May Concern: We are writing as the municipal and county members of the South Platte Working Group: a collaborative, multijurisdictional working group convened to maximize recreational opportunities along and adjacent to the South Platte River in Arapahoe County. In this working group we are partnering with the Colorado Water Conservation Board and Urban Drainage and Flood Control District to restore riparian habitat and make the river a more vital part of our communities. We are supportive of the goal of the Chatfield Reallocation Project, which is to provide additional water storage for the project proponents. We also agree that expanding Chatfield Reservoir seems like an important, cost-effective and less environmentally impactful solution to water storage needs than building new reservoirs to store the same amount of water. Our chief concern with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is that information on the likely flows from Chatfield Dam downstream through the cities of Metro Denver is not included in the body of the report (although it is included in Appendix H) and seems to be underemphasized as an integral part of the study's analysis. Additionally, "adaptive management" is cited almost 200 times in the DEIS but it is not clear how an adaptive management process might be used to address potential impacts related to downstream flows. Our expectation is that an adaptive management process would include the affected communities downstream in Arapahoe County with necessary financial support to conduct an effective, thorough and fair process. Our working group is focusing on maximizing the potential of the South Platte River to preserve habitat and provide recreational opportunities for the citizens of Arapahoe County and other Metro Denver residents. Additionally, the cities along the river are already struggling to meet water quality requirements under tight budgetary constraints. A further reduction in flows in the South Platte would seriously and negatively impact our ability to improve and share this important amenity as well as the cities' ability to provide safe drinking water to their residents. More information on expected flows from the expanded reservoir would help us plan for our priorities and outline an action plan for addressing the negative impacts of decreased flows should they occur. Because of the importance of the South Platte to our communities, we strongly urge the Corps to: • Revisit the flow information in the DEIS; August 6, 2012 Draft DRAFT Do not distribute. Not for quotation. • Provide and document additional information about anticipated flows and any expected changes to the current annual hydrograph in the South Platte going through Arapahoe County; • Provide for more effective measurement of flows through Arapahoe County rather than depending on Denver and Chatfield gages; • Provide such flow information in the body of the Final EIS rather than in an appendix to ensure that the importance of and potential impacts to flows are clear to all who read the final EIS; and • Explicitly discuss how adaptive management will be applied to understanding the impacts of and adjusting any changes to flow levels from Chatfield Reservoir. Additionally, we would be very interested in engaging in dialogue with the participants {upstream and downstream users) and sponsors of the study to determine the possibility of maximizing the benefits of releases from the reservoir to maintain flows that are good for recreation, habitat and water quality. We anticipate initiating such dialogue later this year, and we strongly hope that the Corps will support and participate in the process and encourage the project proponents to do so as well. We encourage the Corps to consider these discussions as an essential part of any adaptive management and/or mitigation process. We welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues directly with the leads of the study and its proponents. Our working group meets monthly. For more information, please contact Will Singleton, Singleton Strategies LLC at will@singletonstrategies.com. Sincerely, Susan Beckman, Commissioner Arapahoe County Randy Penn, Mayor City of Englewood Debbie Brinkman, Mayor City of Littleton Cliff Mueller, Council Member City of Sheridan Sue Rosser, Board Member South Suburban Parks & Recreation District Gale Christy, Mayor Town of Columbine Valley August 6, 2012 Draft Shannon Carter, Director Open Spaces and Intergovernmental Relations Arapahoe County Gary Sears, City Manager City of Englewood Michael Penny, City Manager City of Littleton Devin Granbery, City Manager City of Sheridan Dave Lorenz, Executive Director South Suburban Parks & Recreation District TARGETED PERMIT QUESTIONNAIRE -Due October 15, 2012 Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) Permits COR-090000 and COR-080000 COLORADO DEPT. OF PUBLIC HEALTH & ENVIRONMENT Water Quality Control Division WQCD-P-B2 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South Denver, Colorado 80246-1530 This form is intended to be filled out electronically and then printed for the signature and submittal. One original copy (no faxes or e-mails) of the completed Targeted Permit Questionnaire, including attachments as appropriate, must be submitted to the Water Quality Control Division by October 15, 2012. This questionnaire targets specific program elements and is not a full audit. The questions are based on the common findings that were identified during permit audits conducted by the Division in 2010 and 2011. The questions will help the Permittee determine compliance with the current permit. Answering "yes" or "no" to a question does not automatically make the Perrnittee in or out of compliance. The Permittee must carefully read the Required Action section to determine if a notice of noncompliance must be submitted. The Permittee is also welcome to include any additional information that the Division should consider when determining compliance with the permit. All sections of the form must be filled out. Some sections have a Recommended Action sub-section following the Required Action sub-section, to provide the Permittee with compliance assistance. The Division will notify specific permittees in writing that they do not have to complete this questionnaire based on the occurrence of a recent Division audit. The Division recommends that these previously audited permittees review the information provided in this questionnaire. The question format includes a Summary of the common finding, examples of compliant and non-compliant programs and the Compliance Goal followed by Questions and the Required Actions . By answering the yes/no questions , the Permittee determines compliance for the specific permit element. If the Permittee cannot certify compliance by the response date of October 15, 2012, the Permittee must submit a Non-compliance notification with the Targeted Permit Questionnaire response form. In accordance with Part II.A.8 of the Permit, all MS4 permittees covered under the above referenced MS4 permits must comply with this requirement and, unless excluded in writing as addressed above, submit the completed self-audit report by October 15, 2012 . All answers must reflect conditions and compliance status on the date of submittal. Some of the items in Part 3, Program Area Assessment, include the potential for identification and required reporting of permit noncompliance. The Permittee is strongly encouraged to contact the Division prior to formal submittal of this form if it is unclear to the Permittee why the associated conditions are resulting in a condition of noncompliance or how corrections can be implemented to return to compliance. PART 1: PERMITTEE INFORMATION Permittee (Agency name): Mailing Address: City and Zip Code: Permit Certification No: COR- 1of20 PART 2: CERTIFICATION I certify under penalty of law that this document and all attachments were prepared und er my direction or supervi sion in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate th e information submitte d. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or tho se persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the be st of my knowledge and be lief, true , accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and impri so nment for knowing violations." x Signature of Permi ttee (legally responsible perso n) Date Signed PART 3: PROGRAM AREA ASSESSMENT A. IJiicit Discharge Detection and Elimination: NOTE: The term "Illicit Discharge" as used in the this section shall be defined in accordance with the responders MS4 permit and shall NOT include those discharges not required to be prohibited by the MS4 Permittee in accordance with Part I.B.3(a)(5) and (6) of the Permit. 1. Regulatory Mechanism for Enforceability a. Summary: Part I.B.3(a)(2) of the Permit, requires a regulatory mechanism to prohibit illicit discharges into the sto rm sewer sys tem and the authority to implement appropriate enforcement procedures and actions. The Permittee may provide a timeframe to eliminate an illicit discharge (i.e., the illicit discharge is no longer occurring and therefore has been effectively prohibited); however the timeframe to eliminate an illicit di scharge cannot be a "grace period" from potential enforcement for the period it takes to eliminate the illicit discharge. For permit compliance purposes, a "timeframe to eliminate" an illicit discharge is the timeframe that is provided in a regulatory mechanism or at the discretion of the Perrnittee; and "grace period" is when an illicit discharge is identified and the regulatory mechanism lacks the authority for the Permittee to conduct enforcement for the occurrence of the illicit discharge if it is eliminated within a "timeframe to eliminate," thereby allowing a time of non-compliance-or a "grace period" from enforcement. The Permittee's procedures and rules must result in an illicit discharge being subject to enforcement procedures for both the original finding of violation, as well as during any provided timeframe to eliminate the illicit discharge. Alternatively, the Permittee may require that an illicit discharge be eliminated "immediately" or "without delay," and the Permittee clearly informs the owner or operator responsible for the illicit discharge that the illicit di sc harge is considered an enforceable violation from the moment it is identified to the moment it is coITected. In such case, no timeframe to eliminate has been authorized and no grace period from potential enforcement has occurred. The Permittee's procedures for enforcement, as required by Part I.B .3(a)(2) of the Permit, must fully address, and be fully enforceable and defendable in court, for all illicit discharges, from the time the Permittee identifies the illicit discharge regardless of if the violation is corrected within a prescribed timeframe. Note that the Permit does not require that the Permittee actually pursue enforcement for all illicit di sc harge s that occur and are eliminated. The Permit requires that the regulatory mechani sm provide the Permittee the legal ability and authority to pursue enforcement for all illicit discharges that occur even if they are eliminated; in addition to the legal ability and authority to escalate enforcement for illicit discharges that the owner or operator does not eliminate upon initial notification by the Permittee. Also, note that the Permit does not require, and it is not the Division's intent to imply through this summary, that the enforcement mechanism rely on a per-day-of-violation monetary penalty calculation methodology, as long as all illicit discharges identified by the Permittee are subject to appropriate enforcement procedures and actions mechanisms, 2 of20 regardless of when or if the illicit discharge is eliminated. b. Examples of compliant regulatory mechanisms: • An illicit discharge is documented as beginning on April 1 si. The inspector provides a notice of violation to the property owner for the illicit discharge and documents that the illicit discharge must be eliminated by April 11th, which is the 10 days stated in the regulatory mechanism. The inspector also documents that even if the illicit discharge is eliminated by April 11th, the property owner is subject to enforcement for the illicit discharge and for the days that the illicit discharge occurred from when it was identified to when the illicit discharge was eliminated. The inspector further clarifies that if the illicit discharge is not corrected by April 11th, that the response to the violation may be escalated and the original date of April 1 si can be used as the reference date to mark the start of the violation. The Permittee must have the authority to implement appropriate enforcement procedures and actions, even if the correction occurs within the time frame to eliminate the illicit discharge. • An illicit discharge is documented as beginning on April 1 si. The inspector provides a notice of violation to the property owner for the illicit discharge and documents that the illicit discharge must be corrected immediately because the illicit discharge condition is a violation that is enforceable from the original date of violation (Apri 1 1 s1 ). The Permittee may have target tirneframes for follow up (e.g., 1 day, 10 days, 2 weeks) to confirm that the illicit discharge has been eliminated or to escalate the enforcement process. The Permittee must have the authority to implement appropriate enforcement procedures and actions, even if the correction occurs within the target time frames to eliminate the illicit discharge c. Example of a non-compliant regulatory mechanism: • An illicit discharge is documented as beginning on April 151 • The permittee informs the owner or operator that the illicit discharge must be eliminated by April 11th. The regulatory mechanism doe s not allow the permittee to implement appropriate enforcement procedures and actions if the illicit discharge is eliminated prior to April 11th. The regulatory mechanism therefore allows the owner/ operator to have an illicit discharge and to continue the illicit discharge until April 11th without enforcement, and therefore permittee has not effectively prohibited that illicit discharge. d. Information for Counties that rely on the capabilities of C.R.S. 30-28-124.5 to implement permit requirements: C.R.S. 30-28-124 .5 does not allow enforcement for findings corrected within I 0 days of discovery. This statute does not authorize county rules that would meet the terms of the permit, as discussed above, if implemented as the only mechanism to effectively prohibit an illicit discharge. However, section 35- 15-401(11 )(a)(I), C.R.S., provides counties with broad authority to adopt stormwater ordinances that "develop, implement, and enforce the stormwater management program required by the permit." Under section 35-15-404(11), C.R.S., counties have the authority to adopt ordinances that implement these requirements as well as enforce against and penalize individuals that violate these requirements . To be con sistent with MS4 permit terms that are written pursuant to section 61 .8(1 l)(a)(ii), county ordinances must provide the authority to bring enforcement actions and issue penalties upon the discovery of a violation. Therefore, a county relying on C.R.S. 30-28-124.5 must provide additional mechanisms to provide for the authority to prohibit a violation upon discovery, which likely would require the county to adopt new ordinances under C.R.S . 35-15-401, or through an alternative legal mechanism if identified . e. Compliance Goal: Confirm that the Permittee has a compliant regulatory mechanism that can effectively prohibit all illicit discharges, including those eliminated within a set time period after identification . A Permittee that lacks authority to enforce against identified illicit discharges upon discovery would not be capable of implementing a preventative program to prohibit discharges, and would only have a responsive program. 3of20 f. Questions: Answering 'yes' or 'no' is not automatically associated with compliance or non-Mark the response compliance. that matches the Permittee's program 1. Does the Permittee' s regulatory mechanism prohibit an illicit discharge, as defined in its Yes No permit, into the Permittee's MS4? ---- 2. Does the Permittee' s regulatory mechanism used for illicit discharges allow for or Yes No require a timeframe to eliminate an illicit discharge? (E.g., the nuisance code is used as ---- the regulatory mechanism and states that an illicit discharge or nuisance violation must be corrected within 10 days, as soon as possible, or similar language.) 3. If question 2 was answered "Yes": Does the regulatory mechanism allow enforcement Yes No for the occurrence of an illicit discharge, even if an illicit discharge is eliminated prior ---- to the end of the timeframe provided in the regulatory mechanism or by the Permittees' program implementation? (I.e., can the enforcement process and potential penalties reference the date that the illicit discharge was identified?) If enforcement can only begin if the illicit discharge is not eliminated within the timeframe to eliminate an illicit discharge provided in the regulatory mechanism or by the Permittees' program implementation , mark "no." g. Required Submittal: If question 1 was answered "yes", the Permittee must provide a citation and a link (if available online) to the pertinent section of the Permittee's regulatory mechanism for prohibiting illicit discharges. h. Required Action: Check the following that best represents your program status at the time of the October 15, 2012 response date. 1. __ Questions 1, 2, and 3 answered "yes." This represents a program that prohibits an iJlicit discharge into the Permittee' s MS4 and considers any illicit discharge an enforceable violation from the date that the illicit discharge was identified. The illicit discharge is an enforceable violation during the time it takes to correct the violation. 11. __ Question 1 answered "yes" and Question 2 answered "no." This represents a program that prohibits an illicit discharge into the Permittee's MS4 and considers any illicit discharge an enforceable violation from the date that the illicit discharge was identified and does not provide a timeframe to eliminate an illicit discharge. The regulatory mechanism clearly states that an illicit discharge must be eliminated immediately or without delay. 111. __ Option i. or ii. cannot be accurately checked, but the Permittee has complied with the permit through implementation of a program not addressed in this questionnaire . If this option is checked, the Permittee must still answer the above questions for this Section, and must attach a detailed explanation of how its program meets the permit requirements addressed in this Section, including attaching: (1) All regulations that prohibit illicit discharges and authoiize enforcement with direct reference to those applicable sections; (2) All w1itten procedures that address implementation of enforcement relevant to illicit discharges with direct reference to those applicable sections. A permittee checking this Option m u st contact the Division by phone or email by July 15, 2012, prior to submitting this form to discuss this conclusion and ensure that the proper information is provided to expedite this process and avoid unnecessary compliance coJTespondence for both parties. 4 of20 lf option i., ii. or iii cannot be accurately checked, then check iv, and follow the instructions. iv. __ Submit a Non-compliance notification and a program modification according to Part 11.B.l(a)(l-3) and Part I.E.2(a) of the Permit detailing how the Permittee's program will be modified to match one of the compliant options represented by i. or ii., above. i. Recommended Action: Review the program documentation (e.g., illicit discharge manual, Standard Operating Procedure (SOP), Program Description Document, inspection form) to determine if there are inconsistencies. For example, the regulatory mechanism requires an illicit discharge to be eliminated in 7 days, but a procedure states that 10 days is the timeframe provided to eliminate an illicit discharge? 2. Regulatory Mechanism Process a. Summary: Part I.B.3(a)(2) of the Permit, requires a regulatory mechanism to prohibit illicit discharges into the storm sewer system and to implement appropriate enforcement procedures and actions. The Division observed during program audits that some permittees have a regulatory mechanism (e.g., code or ordinance language) regarding the enforcement process that does not match the enforcement process detailed in the Permittee's program documents (e.g., Program description document, IDDE manual, SOPs, inspector training documents). To be clear, the Permit does not require that the regulatory mechanism include the exact enforcement steps . However, the Division noted during audits that some ordinances provided exact enforcement steps that must be followed in a specific order (e.g., written notice to the owner/operator, administrative citation, court summons) but the Permittee's internal program documents and/or implementation did not follow the process stated in the ordinance. Other programs listed enforcement tools that may be used by the Permittee to gain compliance. b. Examples of compliant regulatory mechanisms: • The regulatory mechanism lists several enforcement tools that CAN BE used when responding to an illicit discharge. The permittee's SOPs for responding to an illicit discharge include the option for issuing a verbal warning if the illicit discharge does not pose any immediate harm to life or the environment. • The regulatory mechanism states that all responses to an illicit discharge MUST include a written notice of violation to the owner/operator. The permittee's SOPs for responding to an illicit discharge are consistent with the regulatory mechanism and all illicit discharges are responded to with a written notice of violation. c. Examples of a non-compliant regulatory mechanism: • Permittee has procedures in both the regulatory mechanism AND in separate written procedures (e.g., SOPs) that conflict: The regulatory mechanism states that all responses to an illicit discharge MUST include a written notice of violation to the owner. The perrnittee's procedure for responding to an illicit discharge allows for issuing a verbal warning without a written notification being issued, therefore the two procedures conflict. • Permittee has procedures that are not being followed: The regulatory mechanism and/or written procedures state that all responses to an illicit discharge MUST include a written notice of violation to the owner. All illicit discharges meeting the conditions in the procedures are NOT responded to with a written notice of violation. d. Compliance Goal: Confirm that enforcement aspect of the regulatory mechanism, program documents, written procedures and implementation do not conflict and are being implemented. Conflicts in procedures could result in lack of enforceability, confusion, and failure to implement procedures. 5of20 e. Questions: Answering 'yes' or 'no' is not automatically associated with compliance or non-Mark the response compliance. that matches the 1. 2. 3. Permittee's program Does the Permittee's regulatory mechanism specify any exact enforcement process( es) Yes or step(s) that must be followed by the Permittee for violations? E.g., code requires a ---- written notice to the owner/operator, administrative citation, and/or court summons. If yes, answer question 2. If no, skip to question 3 Do the Permittee's program documents (e.g., Program description document, IDDE Yes manual, SOPs, inspector training documents) include the exact required enforcement ---- process( es) or step(s) specified in the Permittee's regulatory mechanism? Are all enforcement process( es) or step(s) in the Permittee's program documents Yes authorized in the Permittee's regulatory mechanism? (The Permittee must have the ---- authority to implement all of the enforcement procedures and tools.) f. Required Action: Check the following that best represents your program status at the time of the October 15, 2012 response date: 1. __ Questions 2 was answered yes, or skipped in accordance with the directions, AND Question 3 was answered yes. If option i. cannot be accurately checked, then check ii. and follow the instructions. No No No 11. __ Submit a Non-compliance notification and a program modification according to Part 11.B.l(a)(l-3) and Part I.E.2(a) of the Permit detailing how the Permittee's program will be modified to match one of the compliant options represented by i. or ii., above. 3. Categories of Non-stormwater discharges a. Summary: In accordance with the Colorado Water Quality Control Act, consistent with the federal Clean Water Act, requires that no person shall discharge any pollutant into any state water from a point source without first having obtained a permit from the Division. However, the Division has developed the Low Risk Policy, WQP-27, to address discharges with the lowest potential risk to water quality and additional permit language to provide a mechanism for the Permittee to assess the potential for certain discharges to contain pollutants. Discharges associated with Snow melting, swimming pools, potable water, uncontaminated groundwater to land, and surface cosmetic power washing operations to land are currently addressed by guidance under the Division's Low Risk Discharges. hllp://www .cdphe.slate.co.us/wg/Permi LsU nit/ guidanceandpol icyne wpage.hlml Part I.B.3(a)(5) of the Permit provides the following categories of non-stormwater discharges that the Permittee must address only if the Permittee identifies them as significant contributors of pollutants to the Permittee's MS4: landscape irrigation, lawn watering, diverted stream flows, irrigation return flow, rising ground waters, uncontaminated ground water infiltration (as defined at 40 CPR 35.2005(20)), uncontaminated pumped ground water, springs, flows from riparian habitats and wetlands, water line flushing, discharges from potable water sources, foundation drains, air conditioning condensation, water from crawl space pumps, footing drains, individual residential car washing, dechlorinated swimming pool discharges, and water incidental to street sweeping (including associated sidewalks and medians) and that is not associated with construction. Part I.B .3(a)(6) of the Permit also excludes the Permittee from having to address discharges resulting from emergency fire fighting activities and discharges specifically authorized by a separate CDPS permit. The Permit allows the Permittee to add other occasional, incidental non-stormwater discharges to this list if the Permittee has determined that additional non-stormwater discharges are not reasonably expected (based on information available to the permittee) to be significant sources of pollutants to the MS4, because of either the 6 of20 nature of the discharges or conditions the Permjttee has established for allowing these discharges to the MS4. The Division has specifically authorized all MS4 permittees to include those di sc harges covered by guidance under the Low Ri sk Discharge Policy, WQP-27. b. Example of a non-compliant regulatory mechanism: During permit audits , Division staff have noted that the wording and re sulting definition of some categories li sted in Part I.B.3(a)(5) of th e Permit have been altered and other categories of discharges have been added to the permittee's regulatory mech a ni sm . In many of these cases, the di sc harges addressed by the se modified and new allowances do not meet the sta ndard of not being reasonably expected to be sign ificant so urc es of pollutants to the MS4 and the perrruttees have not documented local controls or conditions placed on the di sc harges, as re quired by Part I.B.3(a)(5) of the Perrrilt. Examples of such discharges include: • Discharges to protect life and property • Any di sc harge allowed by the city manager (or designee) • Discharges from activities conducted by fire department other than emergency fire fighting, or discharges directly listed in I.B .3(a)(5) or covered by a Low Ri sk Policy guidance c. Compliance Goal: To determine if the Permittee's illicit discharges program consistently allows or prohibits tho se di sc harges addressed by Part I.B.3(a)(5) of the Permit, Part I.B.3(a)(6) of the Permit, and the Division's Low Ri sk Di sc harges . Note that the Perrruttee is not required to authorize all discharges allowed for by the perrrut and Low Ri sk Policy guidance; howeve r what is authorized in the Permittees' regulatory mechani sm mu st be consistent by what is authorized by the Permittees' procedures and implementation. For example, if the Perrillttee chooses not to authorize certain discharges, then the Permittee must respond to the unauthori zed di scharge s accord ing to the Permittee ' s IDDE program requirements . d. Questions: Answering 'yes' or 'no' is not automatically associated with compliance or non-Mark the response compliance. that matches the Permittee's program 1. Does the Permittee' s regulatory mechani sm authorize discharges to the MS4 of all of the Yes No "allowable non-stormwater discharges" that are directly listed in Parts I.B .3(a)(5) and (6) ---- of the Perrrut? If the answer is yes, skip to question 3. 2. If question 1 was answered "No": For any of the "allowable non-stormwater Yes No discharges" that are directly listed in Part I.B.3(a)(5) and (6) of the Perrrut that are not ---- authorized to be discharged to the MS4 in the Permittee's regulatory mechani s m, do es the Permittee's program documentation and implementation effectively prohibit the discharge(s)? E.g., if the Pennittee 's ordinance does not authorize "dechlorinated swimming pool di sc harges", is th e Permittee's program documentation and impleme ntation consistent in not allowing this di sc harge(s)? 3. Has the Perrrilttee de ve loped a li st of occasional incidental non-stormwater di sc harge s, in Yes No addition to the list provided in Part I.B.3(a)(5) and (6) of the Perrrilt, which are ---- authorized to discharge to th e MS4 and not addressed as an illicit discharge? If the answer is no, skip to question 5 . 4. Does the Permittee's regu latory mechanism authorize discharges to the MS4 of all th e Yes No discharges addressed in the Divi s ion 's Low Ri sk Policy guidance documents (e.g., Low ---- Ri sk Di sc harges of Potable Water)? If the answer is yes, skip to Part e. 5. If Q:uestion 3 was answered "No": For any of the discharges addressed in the Yes No ·Division's Low Ri sk Policy that are not authorized to be di sc harged to the MS4 in th e ---- Permittee's regulatory mec hanism, does the Perrruttee's program documentation and impl e me ntation effectively prohibit the discharge(s)? E.g., If the Pennittee's ordinance 7 of20 does not exclude discharges of potable water that are in accordance with the Low Risk Policy guidance from prohibitions on illicit discharges, is the Permittee's program documentation and implementation consistent in not allowing the discharge(s)? e. Required Submittals: 1. List as a separate attachment, all non-stormwater discharges for which the Permittee is not effectively prohibiting through regulatory mechanism(s). Provide the exact language used to identify the discharge in the regulatory mechanism(s). 2. Provide the following information as a separate attachment for any discharges that the Permittee's regulatory mechanism does not address as illicit discharges (i.e., are authorized to discharge to the MS4) and that are not specifically listed in Part I.B.3(a)(5) or (6). a. Any information used by the Permittee to evaluate or document that the discharge is not a significant source of pollutants to the MS4, because of either the nature of the discharges or conditions the Permittee has established for allowing these discharges to the MS4 (e.g., a charity car wash with appropriate controls on frequency, proximity to sensitive waterbodies, BMPs, etc.). b. All documentation included in the Permittee's program documentation or regulatory mechanism that identifies the local controls or conditions placed on the discharges. Note that the goal of Part e.2, above, is to collect information on the Permittee's decision making process. The Division is not necessarily collecting all information that inay be needed to fully evaluate if any added discharges meet the standard of not being reasonably expected to be significant sources of pollutants to the MS4. Following the Division review of responses provided by Permittees, such evaluation and determination may occur in the future consistent with the third paragraph of Part I.B.3(a)(5) of the Permit or throu gh the public process during permit renewal. f. Required Actions: Check the following that best represents your program status at the time of the October 15, 2012 response date. 1. __ Questions 2 and 5 were either answered "yes", or did not require a response (i.e., the questions were skipped in accordance with the directions). If option i. cannot be accurately checked, then check ii. and follow the instructions. 11. __ Submit a Non-compliance notification and a program modification according to Part II.B.l(a)(l-3) and Part I.E.2(a) of the Permit detailing how the Permittee's program will be modified to match the compliant option represented by i., above. 4. Emergency Fire fighting Discharges a. Summary: Part I.B.3(a)(6)(i) of the Permit allows discharges from emergency fire fighting activities to be excluded from the prohibitions against non-stormwater discharges. The Division has observed during program audits that permittees may not have the word "emergency" included with firefighting discharges. If not limited to "emergency firefighting" the definition of "firefighting" may include maintenance of fire suppression systems, and training, which may be reasonably expected to be significant sources of pollutants to the MS4. b. Compliance Goal: Determine if only "emergency" fire fighting discharges are excluded from the prohibitions against non-stormwater discharges and to collect information on any other fire fighting related discharges for Division to fully evaluate if any added discharges meet the standard of not being reasonably expected to be significant sources of pollutants to the MS4. 8 of20 c. Questions: Mark the response that matches the Permittee's program 1. Does the Permittee's regulatory language authorize discharges to the MS4 from Yes No firefighting activities that are not from "emergency firefighting?" Note that the exact ---- language used to identify the di sc harge in the regulatory mechanism(s) must be provided with the Required Submittal in A.3.e.1, and if the authorization is not limited to "emerge ncy firefighting." If the answer is "No," skip the Required Submittal section below and proceed to Part B, Construction Sites Program. d. Required Submittal: ]f the answer to question I, above, was yes, the following information must be provided as a separate attachment. Note that this information is in addition to the information required in Part A.3.e.2 of this questionnaire. The Permjttee must provide documentation or further study of any category of fire-fighting related discharges that are not directly associated with "emergency firefighting" that provide a reasonable basis for allowing the non-stormwater discharge . The Division will evaluate the information to determine if the discharge must be required to be prohibited, in accordance with the third paragraph of Part I.B .3(a)(5) of the Permit. Specifically, the Permittee must submit information for the discharges that would meet the standard of not being reasonably expected to be significant sources of pollutants to the MS4. R. Construction Sites Program 1. Waivers, exemptions, exclusions from construction site program requirements a. Summary: Part I.B.4(a)(l) of the Permit requires the Permittee to develop, implement and enforce a program to reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff to the MS4 from construction activities that disturb one or more acres; or less than one acre if pait of a larger common plan of development. The Division has observed during program audits that specific construction activities are listed in the Permittee's program documentation (e.g., codes, ordinance, program manuals) as exempt from the Permittee's construction site program. Specific activities have been listed without considering or referencing the area of disturbance. Some activities have been listed with the goal of allowing the applicant to avoid obtaining multiple permits, however the language was not made clear that if a construction activity is exempted from local permh requirements, it is still covered by the Permittee's construction sites program for any site plan, inspection and enforcement requirements. b. Projects on State land: In accordance with the MS4 regulations and permits, if an MS4 permjttee does not have the authority under State or local law to require a facility operating on State land to comply with the conditions of its Construction Sites ordinances, then the MS4 permittee is not liable under the permit to do so. c. Examples of a compliant program: • The permittee' s regulatory mechanism and program documentation includes all construction activities that disturb one or more acres; or less than one acre if part of a larger common plan of development in its Construction sites Program. • The permittee' s construction sites program requires a review of the construction site's storm water management plan for single famj]y development and issuance of a local stormwater permit. For types of projects that are not issued a local stormwater permit (e.g., utility work), the pennittee implements procedures for compliance assessment and compliance assurance so that all construction activities that disturb one or more acres; or less than one acre if part of a larger common plan of development are in the permjttee's Construction Sites Program. d. Example of a non-compliant program: The permittee's regulatory mechanism correctly states that all construction activities that disturb one or 9 of20 more acres; or less than one acre if part of a larger common plan of development are covered by its Construction sites Program. However the program documentation (e.g., program manual) or separate sections of the permittee' s rules allows for waivers, exemptions, or exclusions from program requirements for projects such as: • Utility work • Driveway s • Single family lots • Activities exempted by the public works director based on site considerations Note that no Program Descriptions submitted by permittees during the 2008 MS4 permit renewal process acknowledged the existence of waivers, exemptions or exclusions that have been subsequently found during program audits. e. Compliance Goal: To have the Permittee confirm the presence or absence of waiver language. If waiver language is included, then the Permittee must have documentation to explain and limit how the waiver can be applied, as necessary to ensure that the waiver will not be applied in a manner that allows a construction site that di sturbs one or more acres or less than one acre when part of a larger common plan of development to not be s ubject to the Permittee 's construction sites program for the required site plan review, inspection and enforcement. Note it is not a violation to have a waiver as long as it is clear that the construction site will receive the required oversight. f. Questions: Answering 'yes' or 'no' is not automaticalJy associated with compliance or non-Mark the response compliance. that matches the Permittee's program 1. Are there any waivers, exemptions, exclusions, or similar allowances in program regulations, code, or policies regarding the following elements of the Permittee' s construction sites oversight program for any sites that disturb one or more acres or less than one acre when part of a larger common plan of development (excluding sites that qualify for a R-Factor waiver)? Requirements to implement appropriate erosion and sediment control BMPs --Yes --No • Requirements to implement appropriate waste control BMPs --Yes --No • --Yes --No • Compliance assessment procedures --Yes --No • Enforcement procedures 2. If any subpart(s) of question 1 were answered "Yes": Is the program Yes No documentation clear or is there supplemental program documentation (e.g., SOP) to ---- define the Permittee's program implementation for the activity and to clarify that the waivers cannot be applied in a manner that would avoid all BMP requirements and oversight (site inspection and/or enforcement) for any construction sites that disturb one or more acres; or le ss than one acre if part of a larger common plan of development (excluding si tes that qualify for a R-Factor waiver)? E.g., there may be a waiver from local fees and/or permitting, while clearly stating the mechanism and procedures for the required construction site BMP requirements and oversight. 10of20 g. Required Submittal: 1. If the answer to any subpart(s) in Question 1, above, was "yes," provide as an attachment the specific waiver language, including a reference to where the waiver is located (e.g., cite the section of code or the document). 2. If the answer to Question 2, above, was "yes," provide the program documentation language that clarifies the waiver implementation, including a reference to where it is located (e.g., cite the section of code or the document). h. Required Actions : Check the following that best represents your program status at the time of the October JS, 2012 response date. 1. __ All subparts of Question 1 were answered "No" 11. --·Any subpai1(s) of Question 1 was answered "Yes" and Question 2 was an swered "yes" If option i. o r ii. cannot be accurately checked, then check iii. and follow the instructions. 111. __ Submit a Non-compliance notification and a program modification according to Part II.B.l(a)(l-3) and Part I.E.2(a) of the Permit detailing how the Permittee's program will be modified to match one of the compliant options represented by i. or ii., above. i. Recommended Actions: • The Division recommends that permittees conduct a word search in program documentation for "waivers", "exemptions", and "exclusions" to determine if these potentially non-compliant elements exist. • Permittees permitted under the COR-080000 general permit are encouraged to review the additional requirements detailed in Part I.B.4(a)(3) of the Permit and compare the requirements to the Permittee's program docu mentation and implementation of the construction sites program for Cherry Creek Reservoir Basin discharges. 2. Construction Stages O versight a. Summary: Part I. B.4(a)(2)(i)(A) of the Permit requires that the Permittee have the regulatory mechanism to ensure compliance, and follow an oversight process to manage construction site erosion and sediment control for all stages of construction, including individual lot construction regardless of who owns the lot, to final stabilization. The D ivision observed during program audits and construction site screenings that some permittees are not implementing the construction sites oversight program for all stages of construction . In some jurisdictions , the regulatory mechanism did not clearly state that construction sites oversight is required for sites that disturb one or more acres or Jess than one acre when part of a larger common plan of development. In some jurisdictions, the regulatory mechanism limited construction sites oversight to the overlot grading an d public improvement stages and did not require oversight of individual lots in a subdivision once t e Jots were sold to builders. b. Examples of com p liant regulatory mechanisms: • The permittee has one working group and set of rules that covers all construction activities that disturb one or more acres or less than one acre when part of a larger common plan of development from the time activities begin until the site is finally stabilized. • The permittee has two different departments that manage construction sites-the engineering department manages the public improvements, and the building department manages individual lot construction. Both depat1ments have developed, implemented, and documented procedures for comp li ance assessment and assurance . • The permittee's construction sites program manages the public improvement and development stages of construction ; and the illicit discharge detection a nd elimination program would provide compliance assessment and assurance for lot level construction. 11 of 20 c. Example of a non-compliant regulatory mechanism: • The permittee has a program for site assessment and assurance for the public improvement and development stage of construction, but has no oversight of the Jot-level construction. d. Compliance Goal : Confirm that the regulatory mechanism and the program documentation clearly require the Permittee to implement an oversight process to manage construction site erosion and sediment control for all stages of construction, including individual lot construction regardless of who owns the lot, to final stabilization. e. Questions: Mark the response that matches the Permittee's oroi?ram 1. Does the Permittee have the regulatory mechanism and program documentation to implement the construction sites program for all stages of construction from the Yes No time activities begin until final stabilization for projects that disturb one or more ---- acres; or less than one acre if part of a larger common plan of development? Oversight can be provided by either the construction sites program or the JDDE program. However the 1DDE program implementation must still meet the compliance oversight and assurance requirements for construction activities in Pa1ts J.B.4(a)(2)(ii) and (iii) of the Permit. 2. Confirm that the following specific activities are covered by the requirements addressed in Question 1: a. Site grading a. --Yes --No b. Public improvements b. --Yes --No c. Individual lots (developer owned) c. --Yes --No d. Individual lots (builder owned) d. --Yes --No e. Individual Jots (homeowner owned) e. --Yes --No f. Bank/FDIC owned property f. --Yes --No f. Required Action: Check the following that best represents your program status at the time of the October 15, 2012 response date. i. __ Q uestions I and all subparts of Question 2 were answered "yes." If option i. cannot be accurately checked, then check ii. and follow the instructions. 11. __ Submit a Non-compliance notification and a program modification according to Part JI.B.l(a)(l-3) and Part I.E.2(a) of the Permit detailing how the Permittee's program will be modified to match the compliant option represented by i. above. 3. Construction Site Erosion, Sediment and Waste Control requirements a. Summary: Paits I.B.4(a)(2)(i)(B) and (C) of the Permjt require the Permjttee develop, implement and document requirem e nts for construction site operators to implement appropriate erosion, sediment and waste control BMPs. The Division has observed during program audits that some permittees have Jacked the regulatory mechani s m and/or or program documentation to indicate that waste control BMPs were required on construction sites and compliance assurance elements to address pollutant discharges associated with waste. 12 of 20 b. Examples of a compliant program: • The permittee's regulatory mechanism states that erosion, sediment and waste control BMPs are required to be documented on site plans and implemented. • The permittee' s program documentation states that erosion, sediment and waste control BMPs are required to b e implemented and the inspection form includes categories of these required BMPs for inspectors t o document during compliance assessment activities. c. Example of a non-compliant program: • The permittee's program documentation (regulatory mechanism, program manual, inspection form , approved site plans) provide no, or inadequate, record of waste control BMPs being required on con struction sites. d. Compliance Goal : Confirm that the Permittee has developed, implemented, and documented requirements and compliance a ssurance for erosion, sediment and waste control BMPs on construction sites. e. Questions: Mark the response that matches the Permittee's program I. Does the Permittee 's regulatory mechanism and program documentation clearly Yes No require erosion and sediment control BMPs to be implemented on construction sites? ---- 2. Does the Permittee 's regulatory mechanism and program documentation clearly Yes No require waste control BMPs to be implemented on construction sites? ---- 3 . Do the Permittee's compliance assessment procedures (site plan review and Yes No inspection) include sediment and erosion control BMPs? ---- 4. Do the Permittee's compliance assessment procedures (site plan review and Yes No inspection) includ e waste control BMPs? ---- 5 . Do the Permittee's compliance assurance procedures allow processes and sanctions Yes No to address noncompliance with sediment and erosion control BMP requirements? ---- 6 . Do the Permittee's compliance assurance procedures allow processes and sanctions Yes No to address noncompliance with waste control BMP requirements? ---- f. Required Action: Check the following that best represents your program status at the time of the October 15, 2012 response date. i. __ Questions l through 6 were answered "Yes." If option i. cannot be accurately checked, then check ii. and follow the instructions. 11. __ Submit a Non-compliance notification and a program modification according to Part 11.B.l (a)(l-3) and Part I.E.2(a) of the Permit detailing how the Permittee's program will be modified to match one of the compliant options represented by i. above. g. Recommended Actions: The Division recommends that the Permittee review program documents (e.g., construction site manual, inspector manual, site plan checklist, inspection form) and training information to confirm that information and procedures are consistent. The Division has often discovered during audits that internal documenta tion and procedures are not consistent and this has resulted in audit findings. Examples include: • A construction site program manual may provide a list of the elements or a checklist of items that are required for a site plan submittal; and the permittee does not consistently confirm that the required site plan elements are submitted and reviewed. 13 of 20 • A site inspection frequency is referenced in a manual or SOP, and inspections records indicate that construction sites are not inspected according to the frequency documented in the Program Description. • Program documentation states that site plans will be reviewed and approved and any changes require approval of the public works engineer. Yet in practice, the site inspector allows changes to the approved plan. The Division recommends differentiating between how major and rrilnor modifications to the approved plan will be approved by the permittee and classify the types of changes that are considered minor and major modifications, such as equivalent or improved BMP changes versus changes in hydrology. The Division recommends that the permittee consider and define the "Approved Site Plan" as the initial plan that is approved by the permittee including changes to the approved plan that are made within the parameters of Minor Modifications. Minor modifications can be defined as BMP substitutions that are equivalent in performance or more suitable to the specific site conditions. Major modifications can consist of changes in hydrology to the approved plan, which require reapproval. This process allows minor modifications to be made during the operation of the site, and avoids an administrative burden for minor site plan modifications. 4. Regulatory Mechanism for Enforceability a. Summary: Part I.B.4(a)(2) of the Permit requires the Permittee to develop and implement a program to assure adequate design, implementation and maintenance of BMPs at construction sites. The Division observed that construction site operators are often provided a time frame to maintain, repair or modify BMPs (i.e, correct a "BMP violation"). The Permittee may provide a timeframe to correct a BMP violation; and have procedures to further escalate enforcement when it is determined that corrections to noncompliance are not made immediately. However, the timeframe to correct a BMP violation cannot be a "grace period" from potential enforcement for the period it takes to correct the deficiency. For permit compliance purposes, a "timeframe" to maintain, repair or modify a BMP is the timeframe that is provided in a regulatory mechanism or at the discretion of the Perrrilttee; and "grace period" is when a BMP violation is identified and the regulatory mechanism lacks the authority for the Perrrilttee to conduct enforcement for the occurrence of the BMP violation if corrected within a "timeframe to correct" period, and thereby allowing a time of non- compliance -or a "grace period" from enforcement. The Permittee's procedures and rules must result in a BMP violation being subject to enforcement procedures for both the original finding of the violation, as well as during any provided timeframe to correct the violation. Alternatively, the Permittee may require that a BMP violation be corrected "immediately" or "without delay," and clearly informs the owner or operator responsible for the BMP violation that the BMP violation is considered an enforceable violation from the moment it is identified to the moment it is corrected. In such case, no "timeframe to correct" has been authorized and no "grace period" from potential enforcement has occurred. Note that the Permit does not require that the Permittee actually pursue enforcement for all BMP violations that occur and are corrected. The Permit requires that the regulatory mechanism provide the Permittee the legal ability and authority to pursue enforcement for all BMP violations that occur even if they are corrected; in addition to the legal ability and authority to escalate enforcement for BMP violations that the owner or operator does not correct upon initial notification by the Permittee. Also, note that the Permit does not require, and it is not the Division's intent to imply through this summary, that the enforcement mechani s m rely on a per-day-of-violation monetary penalty calculation methodology, as long as all BMP violations identified by the Permittee are subject to procedures for enforcement of control measures, regardless of when or if the BMP violation is elirninated. b. Examples of compliant regulatory mechanisms: • A construction site BMP violation is documented as beginning on April 151 . The inspector notifies the owner/operator and documents that the BMP violation must be corrected by April I 1th' which is the 1 O days stated in the regulatory mechanism. The inspector also documents that even if the BMP violation is corrected (e.g., BMP is fixed or installed) by April 11th' the property owner is subject to enforcement for the BMP violation and for the days that the BMP violation occurred from when it was identified to 14 of 20 when the BMP violation was corrected. The inspector fu1ther clarifies that if the BMP is not maintained by Ap1il 11 tli' that the response to the violation may be escalated and the original date of April 1st can be used as the reference date to mark the start of the violation. The Permittee must have the authority to implement appropriate enforcement procedures and actions, and can determine if such actions will be pursued in accordance with the permittee's procedures, even if the correction occurs within the time frame to correct the BMP violation. • A BMP violation is documented as beginning on April 1st. The inspector provides notification to the owner/operator and documents that the BMP violation must be corrected immediately because the BMP violation is enforceable from the original date of violation (April 1st). The Permittee may have target timeframes for follow up (e.g., 1 day, 10 days, 2 weeks) to confirm that the BMP has been maintained or to escalate the enforcement process. The Permittee must have the authority to implement appropriate enforcement procedures and actions, and can determine if such actions will be pursued in accordance with the permittee's procedures, even if the correction occurs within the target time frames to eliminate the BMP violation. c. Example of a non-compliant regulatory mechanism: • A BMP violation is documented as beginning on April I st. The permittee informs the owner or operator that the BMP must be maintained by April 11th. The regulatory mechanism does not allow the permittee to implement procedures for enforcement of control measures if the BMP violation is corrected prior to April I I th. The regulatory mechanism therefore allows the owner/operator to have a BMP violation and to continue the BMP violation until April 11th without enforcement, and therefore Permittee has not effectively prohibited that BMP violation. d. Information for Counties that rely on the capabilities of C.R.S. 30-28-124.5 to implement permit requirements: C.R.S. 30-28-124.5 provides a prohibition from enforcement for findings corrected within 10 days, which does not authorize county rules that would meet the terms of the permit as discussed above if implemented as the only mechanism to effectively prohibit a BMP violation. However, section 35-15- 401 (I l)(a)(J), C.R.S., provides counties with broad authority to adopt stormwater ordinances that "develop, implement, and enforce the stormwater management program required by the permit." Under section 35-15- 404(11), C.R.S., counties have the authority to adopt ordinances that implement these requirements as well as enforce against and penalize individuals that violate these requirements. To be consistent with MS4 permit terms that are written pursuant to section 61.8(1 l)(a)(ii), county ordinances must provide the authority to bring enforcement actions and issue penalties upon the discovery of a violation. Therefore, a county relying on C.R.S. 30-28-124.5 must provide additional mechanisms to provide for the authority to prohibit a violation upon discovery, which likely would require the county to adopt new ordinances under C.R.S. 35-15-401, or through an alternative legal mechanism if identified. g. Compliance Goal: Confirm that the Permittee has a compliant regulatory mechanism that can effectively prohibit all BMP violations, including those corrected within a set time period after identification. A Permittee that lacks authority to enforce against identified BMP violations upon discovery would not be capable of implementing a preventative program to prohibit BMP violations, and would only have a responsive program. Note that the Division is confirming the capabilities of the regulatory mechanism, not the actual inspection and enforcement implementation. h. Questions: Answering 'yes' or 'no' is not automatically associated with compliance or non-Mark the response compliance. that matches the Permittee's program 1. Does the Permittee's regulatory mechanism clearly require that construction site BMPs Yes No be implemented and maintained in operable condition? ---- . 2. Does the Permittee's regulatory mechanism used for BMP design, implementation, and maintenance requirements allow for or require a timeframe to correct the failure to --Yes --No 15 of 20 implement or maintain a BMP in operational condition? E.g., a permittee's Stormwater ordinance states that BMP violations are considered nuisances and will be enforced through the Nuisance ordinance; and the Nuisance ordinance states that a nuisance must be corrected within I 0 days, as soon as possible, or similar lanJ?uage? 3. If question 2 was answered "Yes": Does the Permittee's regulatory mechanism allow Yes No enforcement to occur even if a failure to adequately design, implement, or maintain a ---- BMP in operational condition is coJTected prior to the end of the timeframe provided in the regulatory mechanism or by the Permittee's program implementation? (I.e., can enforcement/penalties begin on the date that the Permittee has evidence that the failure to implement or maintain a BMP in operational condition began?) If enforcement can only begin if the BMP violation is not corrected within the timeframe to correct a BMP violation provided in the regulatory mechanism or by the Permittee's program implementation, mark "no." 1. Required Submittal: If question 1 was answered "yes", the Perrnittee must provide a citation and a link (if available online) to the pertinent section of the Permittee's regulatory mechanism that requires construction site BMPs to be implemented and maintained in operable condition. j. Required Action: Check the following that best represents your program status at the time of the October 15, 2012 response date. 1. __ Questions 1, 2 and 3 were answered "Yes." 11. __ Question 1 is answered "yes," question 2 is "No." This represents a program that prohibits a BMP violation and considers any BMP violation an enforceable violation from the date that the BMP violation began and does not provide a timeframe to eliminate a BMP violation. The regulatory mechanism clearly states that BMP violation must be eliminated immediately or without delay. 111. Option i. or ii. cannot be accurately checked, but the Perrnittee has complied with the Permit through implementation of a program not addressed in this questionnaire. If this option is checked, the Permittee must sti11 answer the above questions for this Section, and must attach a detailed explanation of how its program meets the permit requirements addressed in this Section, including attaching: (1) All regulations that prohibit BMP violation and authorize enforcement with direct reference to those applicable sections; (2) All written procedures that address implementation of enforcement relevant to BMP violations with direct reference to those applicable sections. A perrnittee checking this Option must contact the Division by July 15, 2012 prior to submittal of this form to discuss this conclusion and ensure that the proper information is provided to expedite this process and avoid unnecessary compliance correspondence for both parties. If option i., ii. or iii. cannot be accurately checked, then check iv. and follow the instructions. 1v. __ Submit a Non-compliance notification and a program modification according to Part II.B.l(a)(l-3) and Part I.E.2(a) of the Permit detailing how the Permittee's program will be modified to match one of the compliant options represented by i., ii. or iii., above. C. Post Construction 1. Regulatory Mechanism .a. Summary: Part I.B.5(a) of the Permit requires the Permittee to ensure that controls are in place to prevent or minimize water quality impacts from stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment projects that disturb greater than or equal to one acre, including projects less than one acre that are part of a larger 16 of 20 1. common plan of development or sale, that discharge into the MS4. The Division has observed during permit audits that some permittees do not have the required regulatory mechanism. b. Example of compliant regulatory mechanisms: • The permittee's regulatory mechanism clearly states that new development and redevelopment projects that disturb greater than or equal to one acre, including projects less than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale are required to have permanent water quality BMPs. • The permittee's regulatory mechanism requires all new development and redevelopment projects to comply with a design standards manual for stormwater drainage. The referenced design standards manual requires new development and redevelopment projects that disturb greater than or equal to one acre, including projects less than one acre that are pait of a larger common plan of development or sale, are required to have permanent water quality BMPs c. Examples of non-compliant regulatory mechanisms: • The permittee requires that a permanent water quality BMP must be maintained by the prope1ty owner, however there is no companion requirement to construct the permanent water quality BMP. • The permittee provides a flow chart based on types of development activities and provides an exclusion from permanent water quality BMPs for redevelopment projects that decrease existing impervious area. d. Compliance Goal: To confirm that Permittee' shave the required regulatory authority to implement the post construction water quality BMP program. e. Question: Mark the response that matches the Permittee's program Does the Permittee' s regulatory mechanism clearly convey that permanent water quality Yes No BMPs are required for new or redevelopment projects (that disturb greater than or equal ---- to one acre, including projects less than one acre that are part of a larger common plan of development or sale? Note that the response to this question does not need to address roadway projects described on the Division memo dated 1120112. f. Required Submittal If the answer to Question I above was "yes," provide the regulatory language and reference section in applicable rule addressed in Question I. If the rule references other sections or manuals which contain the permanent water quality BMP requirements, include the applicable language and references from those documents. g. Required Action: Check the following that best represents your program status at the time of the October 15, 2012 response date. i. __ Question I was answered "Yes." If option i. cannot be accurately checked, then check ii. and follow the instructions. 11. __ Submit a Non-compliance notification and a program modification according to Part ll.B.l(a)(l-3) and Part J.E.2(a) of the Permit detailing how the Permittee's program will be modified to match one of the compliant options represented by i., above. 17 of 20 - 2. Water Quality Strategy 1. a. Summary: Part I.B .5(a)( 1) of the Permit re quires a strategy for permane nt water quality water quality BMPs. A design standard (e.g., UDFCD Volume 3 -Water Quality Capture Volume) is an exa mple of a water quality strategy. b. Example of a compliant program: •The permittee's program manual states that water quality capture volume (WQCV) and structural BMPs from UDFCD Technical Criteria manual have been adopted as a design standard for all developme nt projects. • The permittee's program manual states that water quality capture volume and structural BMPs from UDFCD Technical Criteria manual have been adopted as a design standard for new development projects; and states that structural and non structural BMPs will be implemented for redevelopment projects to achieve 80% TSS removal. The permittee' s program documentation includes pe rformance documentation of the nonstructural BMPs details how the penruttee determines if the requirements for permanent water quality BMPs have been met. c. Example of a non-compliant program: • The permittee's program manual state s that water quality capture volume and structura l BMPs from UDFCD Technical Criteria manual have been adopted as a design standard. However redevelopment projects are provided waivers from impleme nting water quality BMPs designed in accordance UDFCD Volume 3. • The permittee' s program has not established a design standard or water quality strate gy. d. Compliance Goal: The Divi sion would like to confirm the Permittee's strategy for permanent water quality water quality BMPs . e. Question: Mark the response that matches the Permittee's program Does the Permittee's water quality strategy for permanent water quality BMPs submitted --Yes --No in the Program Description Document include a design standard (e.g., Volume 3 WQCV) for permanent water quality BMPs implemented for all required projects? f. Required Submittal: 1. Provide the following information as a separate attachment a. If the Answer to Question 1, above was "yes," provide a copy of the design standard addre ssed by Question 1, or cite a third party design standard(s) (e.g., UDFCD Vol. 3 or CDOT). b. If the Answer to Question I, above was "no," provide : 1. A summary of the water quality strategy for permanent water quality BMPs 11. A discussion of the standard or process for how the Permittee detenrunes if the require ments for permanent water quality BMPs have been met. The discussion must address how this determination is enforceable by the Permittee if it is determined the requirements were not met. g. Required Action: Check the following that best represents your program status at the time of the October 15, 2012 response date. 1. __ Question I was answered "yes." 11. __ Question 1 was a nswered "no," and the supporting docume ntation required by Required Submittal 1 .b. id e ntifie s the strategy and how the strategy is enforceable, as required by Parts 18 of 20 \ T.B.S(a)(l) and (5). If option i. or ii. cannot be accurately checked, then check iii. and follow the instructions. iii. __ Submit a Non-compliance notification and a program modification according to Part JI.BJ (a)(l-3) and Part I.E.2(a) of the Permit detailing how the Permittee's program will be modified to match one of the compliant options represented by i. or ii., above. 3. Waivers, exemptions, exclusions from post-construction si te program requirements . a. Summary: Part I.B.S(a) of the Permit requires the Permittee to develop, implement and enforce a program to address stormwater runoff from new development and redevelopment projects that disturb one or more acres; or less than one acre if part of a larger common plan of development. The Division has observed during program audits that specific projects are listed in the Perrrtittee's program documentation (e.g., codes, ordinance, program manuals) as exempt from the Permittee's post-construction site program . b. Projects on State land: In accordance with the MS4 regulations and permits, if an MS4 permittee does not have the authority under State or local law to require a facility operating on State land to comply with the conditions of its New-Development/Redevelopment ordinances, then the MS4 pemiittee is not liable und er th e permit to do so c. Example of a compliant program: • The permittee's regulatory mechanism and program documentation states that permanent water qu ality BMPs designed in accordance with UDFCD Volume 3, or other adopted specifications, are required for projects that disturb one or more acres; or less than one acre if part of a larger common plan of development . d. Example of a non-compliant program: • The perrnittee's program manual li sts activities that are not required to implement permanent water quality BMPs without considering or referencing the area of disturbance. Examples of waivers, exemptions, exclusions include: o Single family lots o Project exempted by the public works director o Projects exempted based on geologic conditions o Redevelopment projects that decrease impervious area Note that no Program Descriptions submitted by permittees during the 2008 MS4 permit renewal process acknowledged the existence of waivers, exemptions or exclusions that have been subsequently found during program audits. e . Com pliance Goal: To have the Permittee confirm the presence or absence of waiver language. If waiver language is included, then the Permittee must have additional documentation to explain how the waiver can be appli ed and that the waiver will not be applied in a manner that allows a project that disturbs one or more acres or less than one acre when pait of a larger common plan of development to avoid implem e nting a permanent water quality BMP and being part of the Permittee's po st-construction sites program for the required site plan review, inspection and enforcement. Note it is not a violation to have a waiver as long as it is clear that the waiver will not be applied in a manner that will res ult in failure to implement BMPs, as required by the Permit or meet other Permit conditions. f. Questions: Answering 'yes' or 'no' is not automatically associated with compliance or non-Mark the response compliance. that matches the Permittee's program 1. Are there any waivers, exemptions, exclusions, or similar allowances in program Yes No regulations, code, or policies from requirements to implement permanent water ---- 19 of 20 ·..--· quality BMPs? (E.g., redevelopment projects that decrease impervious area are exempt from water quality BMPs.) Note that the response to this question does not need to address roadway projects described on the Division memo dated 1 /20/12. 2. If question 1 was answered "Yes": Is there program documentation (e.g., in the Yes No regulatory mechanism or in separate procedures) to clarify that the waivers cannot be ---- applied in a manner that would avoid implementing water quality BMPs for a new development or redevelopment project that meets the Permittee's stated water quality standard for any site that disturbs one or more acres; or Jess than one acre if part of a larger common plan of development? g. Required Submittal: 1. If the answer to Question 1, above, was "yes," provide as an attachment the specific waiver language, including a reference to where the waiver is located (e.g., cite the section of code or the document). 2. If the answer to Question 2, above, was "yes," provide the program documentation language that clarifies the waiver implementation, including a reference to where it is located (e .g., cite the section of code or the document). h. Required Action: Check the following that best represents your program status at the time of the October 15, 2012 response date. 1. __ Question 1 was answered "no." 11. __ Question 1 was answered "yes," and Question 2 was answered "yes." If option i. or ii. cannot be accurately checked, then check iii. and follow the instructions. u1. __ Submit a Non-compliance notification and a program modification according to Part JI.B.l(a)(l-3) and Part I .E.2(a) of the Permit detailing how the Permittee's program will be modified to match one of the compliant options represented by i. or ii. above. i. Recommended Action: • The Division recommends that permittees conduct a word search in program documentation for "waivers", "exemptions", and "exclusions" to determine if these potentially non-compliant elements exist. Permittees permitted under the COR-080000 general permit are encouraged to review the additional requirements detailed in part I.B.5.b and compare the requirements to the Permittee's program documentation and implementation of the post-construction sites program for the part of the Permittee' s MS4 that drains into the Cherry Creek Reservoir Basin. The Permittee is encouraged to contact the Division prior to submittal of this form, if there is uncertain compliance with this element. 20of20 Cl) CD I- R69W D2 -Brown Ditch D3 -City Ditch D6 -High Line Canal DB -Last Chance (Platte Canyon) ---D9 -McBroom Ditch Job No.: 159.1 Date: 11-Apr-2007 Drawn: KRG Checked: JTW S:\\ ... \Local Dltches.mxd City of Englewood Water Rights D 10 -Nevada Ditch D11 -Olsen & Bell D12 -Petersburg Ditch D12 -Union Avenue Intake Local Ditches Figure 2 R68W R67W 0 0.5 2 3 ---- NOT SHOWN: D1 -Boreas Pass Ditch #2 D4 -Dunbar #3 Dtich D5 -Guiraud Ditch D7 -J .D. Brown Ditch MARTIN AND WOOD WATER CONSULTANTS, INC. 602 Park Point Drive Suite 275 Golden, CO 80401 Phone: (303) 526-2600 mwi@martinandwood.com Miles Copyright 2007 Martin and Wood Water Consultants, Inc. All Rights Reserved. CA H Ft;OW MODEL I FOR BUDGET YEAR 2013 I NO DtJGT:c ~ '"r::, BUDGET REQUESTS FOR SUBMITTAL TO C WATER ENTERPRISE FUND 8/3/12 2:52 PM Major Capital for 2012: Zuni Tank Caihopic $ 16,925 Rehabilitate City Ditch Flumes -Done $ 50,000 Replace 300 feet of 30" Mclellan Pipe -On Going $ 100,000 -..n~ "',, ll II Piping City Ditch -Done $ 100,000 1-1r. 1in r IVI UV Disinfection System plan for 2012 constructio $ 2,700,000 ----- Water Quality Monitor in Pre-Treat-On Going $ 35,000 Teleworks Web Base Information System $ 22,238 Distri bution Items for 2012 : Water Main Replacements = $150,00 0 Union Ave Lining = $500,000 Major Capital for 2013: Pipe City Ditch $ 100,000 Repairs of East and West 3mg Roofs $ 800,000 City Ditch New 4' flume and recorder at Mineral A1 $ 25,000 Union Ave Install aerator in Union Ave R $ 25,000 City Ditch Replace flume at Dad Clark $ 30,000 UV Disinfection System plan for 2012 cc $1,800,000 Mclellan Pump #1 -Upgrade to VFD $ 40,000 Mclellan Pump #1 -High Effeciency Motor $ 25,000 Distribution Items for 2013: Water Main Replacements -$150 ,000 U&M INCREASE 2.UU7o interest Kate 1 .0U 7o .<uu8 Actuals .<uu" Actuals .<u10 i<Ul i Actuals 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Cash Method Cash Method Cash Method Cash Method Estimate Budget Projected Projected Projected Projected REV ENU E: WATER SALES $ 5,93 8,441 $ 5,554,560 $ 6 ,335,747 $ 6,493,738 $ 6 ,493,738 $ 6,493,73 8 $ 6,493 ,738 $ 6,493,738 $ 6,493 ,738 $ 6,493 ,738 RATE INCRE ASE --$ ----- 5,938,441 5,554,560 6,335,747 6 ,493,738 6,493 ,73 8 6,4 93,738 6,493 ,738 6,493,738 6,493,738 6,493,738 RAW WA TER 2,001,227 2,075 ,708 2,028 ,566 2 ,088,330 1,850 ,000 1,850 ,000 1,850 ,000 1,850 ,000 1,850 ,000 1,850 ,000 CITY DITCH 51,038 54,465 38,914 34,1 12 69 ,28 8 40 ,000 40 ,000 40,000 40 ,000 40,000 OT HER 481,058 11 2 ,037 103,031 180,1 19 131 ,000 131,00 0 131,000 131 ,000 131 ,0 00 13 1,000 _, TOTAL RE VENUE 8,471,764 7,796 ,770 8 ,506,258 8 ,796 ,299 8,544,026 8,51 4,738 8,514 ,738 8,514,738 8,514,738 8,514,738 O&M (N O DEPR ) (5,867,380) (5,505,292 ) (5,573,909) (5 ,492 ,989) (6,0 32,059 ) (6 ,292 ,923) (6,41 8 ,781 (6 ,5 47 ,157 ) (6,6 78 , 100 ) (6,8 11 ,6 62) AD MN FE ES (473,340) (46 1,585) (461 ,585) (461 ,585) (4 70 ,000 ) (47 0,000 ) (5 00,000 ) (500 ,0 00 ) (5 00 ,000 ) (5 00 ,000) FRANCH ISE T AX ~ (169,061) (158 ,881) (184 ,732) (188,490) (19 4,812 (19 4,812 (1 94,812 (1 94,812) (194,8 12 (194 ,81 2 ' NET OPERATIN G REV ENU E 1,96 1,983 1,671 ,0 12 2,286 ,032 2,653,235 1,847,155 1,557,003 1,401 ,144 1,272 ,769 1,1 41 ,826 1,008,2 64 I! DEBT SERVI CE (c urrent): TOTAL DEBT SERVI CE (845,276) (865,852) (898,687) (920 ,634) (958,954) (968,954) (9 95 ,018 ) (1,033,339) (1,055 ,774) (1,098,300 ) INTE REST (509,816) (486 ,816) (577 ,563) (553 ,529) (5 21 ,077 ) (690 ,067) (666,717 ) (633,810 ) (604 ,122 ) (558,2 55 ) FUTURE DEBT SERV ICE ------ ROUTIN E CAPITA L REPLACE (64,533) (1 03 ,327) (82,291) (104,783 (93,500 (215,050 (100 ,000 (100,000 (10 0 ,000 (100 ,000 j AVA ILABLE REVE NUE 542,358 215 ,017 727,491 1,074,289 273,624 (3 17,068) (36 0,591) (494,380) (6 18,070) (748,291) INTEREST IN COME 148,543 82,897 51 ,338 55,273 126,1 88 128,562 89,359 68,012 56,41 4 43,487 BALA NCE FOR WARD 3,685 ,455 3,871,023 5,925,314 6,235,331 6 ,736 ,1 10 10,215 ,159 7,055 ,053 4,9 48,822 4,187,454 3,390 ,797 \Ii TRANSFER TO BOND FU ND -------- I LOAN -GEN ERALFU N D 8 -' ----- NE W DEB T PROCEED S ;;] -2,615,000 . 6,730,000 -- AVAI LABLE FU NDS ~ 4,376,440 6 ,680 ,610 6 ,621,852 7,364 ,893 13 ,865 ,922 10 ,026,653 6,783,822 4 ,522 ,454 3,625 ,797 2 ,685,993 CAPITAL PROJECTS {180,639) (249,300) (235,1 98) (260 ,904) (3 ,024,163 (2,845 ,000) (1,700 ,000 (200 ,000) (100,000 (100 ,000 ) DIS T RIBU T IO N SYSTE M (315,454) (515,252) (1 68 ,283) (390,658\ (650 ,000 (150 ,000 ) (150,000 ) (150,000 (150 ,000 (150 ,000 ) CONN EC T IO N FEES 55,293 9 ,256 16 ,960 22 ,779 23,400 23,400 15,000 15 ,000 15 ,000 15,000 ENDING CASH BALA NCE $ 3,935,640 $ 5,925,314 $ 6 ,235 ,331 $ 6,736,110 $ 10 ,215,1 59 $ 7,055,053 $ 4,948 ,82 2 $ 4,187,454 $ 3,390 ,797 $ 2,450,993 DEBT SERVI CE RESER VE FU ND $ (1,250,000 $ (1 ,250 ,000 $ (1,250 000 $ (1 250 ,000 $ (1 ,250 ,000 $ (1,250 ,000 $ (1,25 0,000 $ (1,2 50 ,000 $ (1,250 ,000 $ (1,249 ,999 TOTAL UNRE STRI CTED CASH :i; £,000 ,0'<U :i; 4 ,010 ,.>l '< :i; 4,985,331 :i; 5,486,110 !Ii 0,'100 ,1 59 I !Ii O,l'iU :J,LJ =>-' :jj J ,0'1 0,0LL !Ii £,'1.>l ,'<0'< ~ L 0 ""tV 0 -.:)( ~ 1,L UU,'1'1'< Ending Cas h Balance Per CAF R $ 3,871 ,023 $ 5,925 ,314 $ 6 ,235 ,331 $ 6,736,110 Ad justme nts from Cas h to Accrual Receiva bl es $ 1,008 ,853 $ 1,060 ,418 $ 1,231 ,836 Payab les $ (538 ,083) $ (645,080 ) $ (631 ,114) Inven tory $ 125,731 $ 166,769 $ 209 ,841 Total Adju st ments from Cas h to Acc ru a l $ 596,501 .00 582 107 810563 FUNDS AVAILABL E.* $ 4 ,467 ,524.00 6,507 ,421 7,045,894 TOTAL REVENUE 8,675,600 10,503,923 8 ,743,689 8,874,351 15 ,423 ,614 8,666 ,700 8,619 ,097 8 ,597,750 8,586,1 52 8,573,225 TOTA L EXPE ND ITURE S (8,425,499) (8,346,305) (6,204 , 170) (8,373,572) (1 1,944,565 (11,8 26 ,806) (10 ,725 ,329 ) (9,359, 118) (9,382,808) (9,513,029) DE BT COVERAGE RATIO 1.66 1 .30 2 .26 1.85 1.35 1.03 0 .91 0 .81 0.73 0.64 .<U 11 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 • 20 10 IN FO FRO M, CAFR page 124 Rate Increase Year Annua l Cumul. 2008 7.00 % 7.00% 2009 7.00 % 14 .49% 2010 7.00% 22 .50% 2011 6 .00 % 29 .85% 2012 0.00 % 29.8 5% 2013 0.00 % 29 .85% 2014 0.00 % 29 .85% 20 15 0 .00 % 29 .85 % 2016 0 .00 % 29 .8 5% 2017 0 .00 % 29 .85% This Cash Flow Shows Full Funding and 2°/o Annual Increase to Operations and Maintenance --· ..... ~~su;. ;;;;;_:,,. ... --:nf BUDGET REQUESTS FOR SUBMITTAL TO ( .. ;_. ~ ,_. .,, ... • .-_,,.,. ·:· ., ',,:_. . .. .,";" WATER ENTERPRISE FUND 8/3/12252 PM -I I Major Capital for 2012: Zuni Tank Caihopic $ 16,925 Rehabilitate City Ditch Flumes -Done $ 50,000 Replace 300 feet of 30" Mclellan Pipe -On Going $ 100,000 -.nJ" "',, . ,. Piping City Ditch -Done $ 100,000 I 16' .. itn r IVI I UV Disinfection System plan for 2012 constructio $ 2 ,700,000 ----- Water Quality Monitor in Pre-Treat -On Going $ 35,000 Teleworks Web Base Information System $ 22,238 I I I Distribution Items for 2012 : Water Main Replacements= :i;150,000 Uni on Ave Lin i ng = $500,000 Major Capital for 2013: Pipe City Ditch $ 100,000 Repairs of East and West 3mg Roofs $ 800,000 City Ditch New 4' flume and recorder at Mineral A• $ 25,000 Union Ave Install aerator in Union Ave R $ 25,000 City Ditch Replace flume at Dad Clark $ 30 ,000 UV Disinfection System plan for 2012 c• $1,800,000 Mclellan Pump #1 -Upgrade to VFD $ 40,000 Mclellan Pump #1 -High Effeciency Motor $ 25,000 Distribution Items for 2013: Water Main Replacements= $150,000 IO&M IN CREASE 2 .UU 7o 11nte rest Rate 11.50 % .<uuo Actuals .<uu" Actuals .<UIU .<uil ..... uais 2012 20 13 2014 2015 20 16 20 17 Cash Method Cash Method Cash Method Cash Method Es timate Budget Proj ected Proj ected Proj ected Proj ected REVENUE : WATER SALES $ 5,938,441 $ 5,554 ,560 $ 6 ,335 ,74 7 $ 6,493,738 $ 6 ,493 ,738 $ 6 ,493,738 $ 6,493,738 $ 6,493 ,738 $ 6,493 ,738 $ 6,493 ,738 RATE INCREASE --$ ----- -5,938,441 5,554,560 6 ,335 ,747 6,493 ,738 6 ,493 ,738 6,493 ,738 6 ,493 ,738 6 ,4 93,7 38 6,493 ,738 6,493 ,738 RAW WATER 2,001,227 2,075 ,708 2,028 ,566 2,088,330 1,850 ,000 1,850 ,000 1,850 ,000 1,850,000 1,850 ,00 0 1,850 ,000 CITY DITCH 51 ,038 54,465 38,914 34,112 69 ,288 40 ,000 40 ,000 40,00 0 40 ,000 40 ,000 OTHER 481 ,058 11 2,0 37 103,031 180,119 131,000 13 1,000 131 ,00 0 131,000 131 ,000 131 ,000 ·~ TOTA L REV ENU E ~ 8,471,764 7 ,7 96 ,770 8 ,506 ,258 8 ,796,299 8,5 44 ,02 6 8 ,514,73 8 8 ,514 ,738 8,514 ,738 8 ,514 ,738 8 ,514 ,73 8 O&M (NO DEPR ) (5 ,867 ,380) (5,505 ,292 ) (5 ,573 ,909) (5 ,492,989) (6 ,032 ,059) {6 ,292 ,923 (6 ,418 ,781 ) (6,54 7,157 (6 ,678 ,1 00 (6 ,811 ,662 ) ADMN FEES (473 ,340) (461 ,585 ) (461 ,585) (461,585) (470 ,000 (470 ,000 (500 ,000 ) (500 ,000 ) (500 ,000 ) (500,000 ) FRANCH ISE TAX :l1 (169,061) {158 ,88 1) {184,732 (188,490 (194,812 (194,812 (194,812 (194 ,812 ) (194,812 ) (194,812 ) NET OPERAT ING REVENUE 1,961,983 1,671 ,0 12 2,286 ,032 2,653,235 1,847 ,155 1,557 ,003 1,4 01 , 144 1,272 ,769 1,141,826 1,008 ,264 DEBT SERV ICE (c urrent): I TOTAL DEBT SERVICE (845,276) (865 ,852) (898 ,687) (920,634) (958 ,954) (968 ,954) (995,01 8) (1,033,339) (1 ,055 ,774 ) (1,098 ,300 ) INTEREST (509,816) (486 ,8 16) (577 ,563) (553,529) (521 ,077 ) (690 ,06 7) (666,71 7) (633 ,810) (604 ,122 ) (558 ,255 ) ~ FU T URE DE BT SERVIC E ~ " ------ ROUTINE CA PI TAL REPLAC E ' 'iJ (6 4,533 (103,327 ' (82 ,291) (104,783 (93 ,500 {215 ,050) {100 ,000 {10 0,00 0 {100,000 (100 ,000 ~~ AVAILA BLE REVENU E 542 ,358 215,0 17 727 ,4 91 1,074,289 273 ,624 (317 ,068 ) (360 ,591 ) (494 ,380) (6 18,070 ) (748 ,291 ) ~ , IN TERES T INCOME 148 ,543 82 ,897 51 ,338 55,273 126,188 128 ,562 89,359 68 ,012 56 ,414 43 ,487 BALANCE FORWARD 3,685 ,455 3,871 ,023 5,925,314 6,235,331 6,736 ,110 10 ,215 ,159 7 ,055 ,05 3 4,948 ,822 4,187,454 3,390 ,797 TRANSFER TO BOND FUND ------- LO AN -GENERALFUND ------- NEW DEB T PROCEEDS -2,615,000 -6 ,730,000 --- ::.Cl AVAILA BLE FUNDS I ~ 4,376 ,440 6,680 ,61 0 6 ,621 ,852 7,364,893 13 ,865 ,922 10 ,026 ,653 6,783 ,822 4,522,454 3,625 ,797 2,685,993 CAPITAL PR OJ ECTS I ~ (1 80 ,639) (249,300 ) (235 ,198) {260.904 ) (3 ,024, 163) (2,845 ,000 (1 ,700 ,000 (200,000 (100 ,000 ) (100 ,000 ) DISTRI BUTION SYSTEM (315,454 ) (515.252 ) (168,283) (390,6581 (650 ,000 ) (150,000 (150 ,000 ) (150,000 (150 ,000 (150 ,000 CONNECTION FEES , 55 ,293 9 ,256 16 ,960 22 ,779 23,400 23 ,400 15 ,000 15,000 15 ,000 15,000 ENDING CASH BALANCE $ 3,935 ,640 $ 5,925 ,314 $ 6 ,235 ,331 $ 6,736,110 $ 10 ,215 ,159 $ 7,055 ,05 3 $ 4,948 ,822 $ 4,187,454 $ 3,390 ,79 7 $ 2,450 ,99 3 DEBT SERV ICE RESERVE FUND $ (1,250 ,000) $ (1,250 ,000) $ (1 ,250 ,000 $ (1,250,000 $ (1 ,250 ,000 $ (1 ,25 0 ,000 $ (1 ,250 ,000 $ (1 ,250 ,000 $ (1,250 ,000 $ (1,2 49 ,999 TOTAL UNR ESTR ICT ED CASH $ 2,685 ,640 $ 4,675,314 $ 4,985 ,33 1 ~ 5,4lSt>, 110 $ 8,9 65 ,159 $ 5,805 ,05 3 $ 3,698,82 2 $ 2,937,4 54 $ 2,140,797 $ 1,200 ,994 End ing Cas h Bala nce Per CAFR $ 3,87 1,023 $ 5,9 25 ,3 14 $ 6 ,235 ,331 $ 6,736,110 Adj ustments from Ca sh to Accrual Receivable s $ 1,008 ,853 $ 1,060 ,418 $ 1,231 ,836 Payables $ (538 ,083) $ (645 ,080) $ (63 1,114) lnventorv $ 125,731 $ 166,769 $ 209 ,841 Tota l Adjustments fro m Cash to Accrual $ 596,5 01 .00 582107 810563 FUNDS AVAILABLE .* $ 4,467 ,524.00 6,507 ,421 7,045 ,894 TOTAL REVEN UE 8,675 ,600 10,503 ,923 8,743 ,689 8,874,351 15 ,423 ,614 8,666 ,700 8 ,619 ,097 8 ,597 ,750 8,586 ,152 8 ,573 ,225 TOTAL EXPEN DITURE S (8,425,499) (8 ,346 ,30 5) (6 ,204 , 170) (8 ,373,572) (11 ,944 ,565 ) (11 ,826 ,806 (1 0,725 ,329) (9,359 , 118 ) (9,382 ,808 ) (9 ,51 3,029 ) - DEB T COVERA GE RATIO ~ 1.66 1.30 2.26 1.85 1.35 1.03 0.91 0 .81 0 .73 0 .64 :lU11 20 12 20 13 20 14 2015 2016 20 17 • 2010 IN FO FROM, CAFR page 124 Rate Increase Yea r Annua l Cumu l. 2008 7 .00 % 7 .00 % 2009 7 .00 % 14.49 % 2010 7 .00 % 22 .50% 2011 6 .00 % 29 .85 % 2012 0.00 % 29 .85 % 2013 0 .00 % 29 .85 % 2014 0.00 % 29 .85 % 2015 0 .00 % 29 .85 % 2016 0.00% 29 .85 % 2017 0 .00 % 29 .85% This Cash Flow Shows Full Funding and 2% Annual Increase to Operations and Maintenance C~-~~~ MODEL I FOR BUDGET YEAR 20~3 / ~~·REDUCiTIQff :J: :~ BUDGET REQUESTS FOR SUBMITTAL TO C _.:,. __ ,. :-.. _.. ,. ---WATER ENTERPRISE FUND 8/3/12 2:52 PM Major Capital for 2012: Zuni Tank Caihopic $ 16,925 Rehabilitate City Ditch Flumes -Done $ 50,000 Replace 300 feet of 30" Mclellan Pipe -On Going $ 100,000 -.nJ' ".., ll II Piping City Ditch -Done $ 100,000 I 7, I. in r IVI UV Disinfection System plan for 2012 constructio $ 2,700,000 -------- Water Quality Monitor in Pre-Treat -On Going $ 35,000 Teleworks Web Base Information System $ 22,238 Distribution Items for 2012 : I Water Main Replacements= $150 ,000 Unio n Ave Li n i ng = $500 ,000 Major Capital for 2013: Pipe City Ditch $ 100,000 Repairs of East and West 3mg Roofs $ 800,000 City Ditch New 4' flume and recorder at Mineral A1 $ 25,000 Union Ave Install aerator in Union Ave R $ 25,000 City Ditch Replace flume at Dad Clark $ 30,000 UV Disinfection System plan for 2012 cc $1,800,000 Mclellan Pump #1 -Upgrade to VFD $ 40 ,000 Mclellan Pump #1 -High Effeciency Motor $ 25,000 Distribution Items for 2013: Water Main Replacements = $150 ,000 IU&M .~~~ L.UU 7o !Interest Kate 11.:>U "'lo .lU\JB Actua ls .luu11 Actuals 2010 .lu1 i Actuals 2012 20 13 2014 2015 2016 20 17 Cash Method Cash Method Cash Method Cash Method Estimate Budget Projected Project ed Proj ected Proj ect ed REVENUE : WATER SALES $ 5,938,441 $ 5,554 ,560 $ 6 ,335,747 $ 6,493,738 $ 6,493 ,738 $ 6,493 ,738 $ 6 ,493,738 $ 6,493,738 $ 6 ,493,738 $ 6,493 ,738 RATE INCREASE --$ -' ---- 5,938,441 5,554 ,560 6 ,335,747 6 ,493,738 6,493,738 6,493,738 6 ,493,738 6,493,738 6 ,493 ,738 6,493 ,738 ~ RAW WATER 2,001,22 7 2,075 ,708 2,028,566 2,088,330 1,8 50 ,000 1,850 ,000 1,850 ,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 1,850 ,0 00 CITY DITC H 51,038 54,465 38,914 34,112 69,288 40 ,000 40 ,00 0 40,00 0 40,000 40,0 00 OTHER 481 ,058 112 ,037 103,031 180,119 131,00 0 131 ,000 131,000 131 ,000 131,000 131,000 ,, TOTAL R EVENUE ""Ci 8,4 71 ,764 7,796 ,770 8,506 ,258 8 ,796,299 8,544 ,026 8,514,738 8,514,738 8 ,514,738 8 ,514 ,7 38 8,514,738 ~ O&M !NO DE PR) ~ (5 ,867 ,380) (5,505 ,292) (5 ,573 ,909) (5,492,989) (6 ,032 ,059 (6 ,292,923) (6 ,418,781) (6,547, 157) (6 ,678,100 (6 ,811 ,662) A DM N FE ES !J5::;.l (473,340) (461 ,585) (461 ,585) (461,585) (47 0 ,000 ) (4 70,000 (50 0 ,0 00 ) (500 ,000 {500 ,000 (500,000) FRA NCHISE TAX (169,061' (158,881' (184 ,732) 1188,490 (194,81 2 (1 94,812 (194,812) (194,812) (194,812 (194 ,812) NET OPERATING REVE NUE ~~ 1,961,983 1,671 ,012 2,286 ,032 2,653,235 1,847,155 1,557,003 1,401 ,144 1,272,769 1,141,826 1,008 ,264 DE BT SERVICE (curre nt): TOTAL DEBT SERV ICE (845,276) (865 ,852) (898 ,687 ) (920,634) (958 ,954) (9 68,954) (995,018) (1 ,033 ,339) (1 ,055 ,774) (1,098,300 ) IN T EREST I ~ (509 ,816) (486 ,816 ) (577 ,563) (553,529) (52 1,077) (690,067) (666,717) (633,8 10 ) (6 04 ,122) (558,255) FUTURE DE BT SE RVI CE ------ ROU TINE CA PITAL REP LACE '\Ii (6 4 ,533) {1 03,327) {82 ,291) (104,783) (93,500 ) (21 5,050 (1 00,000 (1 00 ,0 00 (10 0 ,000 (10 0 ,0 00 ;-,;i AVA ILA BLE RE V ENUE 542 ,358 215 ,017 727 ,491 1,074,289 273,624 <317,068 (3 60 ,591 (49 4,38 0) (618,070) (748,291) l ~:.G.' INTE REST INC OME 148,543 82 ,897 51 ,338 55,273 126,188 128,562 89 ,359 68 ,012 56,414 43,48 7 I BALANCE FORWARD 3,685 ,455 3,871,023 5,925,314 6 ,235,331 6,736 ,110 10 ,215,159 7,055 ,053 4,948 ,822 4,187,454 3,390,797 TRANSFER TO BO ND FUN D -------- LOAN-GENE RAL FUND ------ NEW DEBT PRO CE ED S -2,615,000 -6,730 ,000 ---- AVAI LA BLE FU NDS 4,376,440 6,680 ,610 6,621 ,852 7,364,893 13 ,86 5,922 10,026,653 6,783,822 4,522 ,454 3,625,797 2,685,993 CAPITAL PROJE CTS (180 ,639) (249,300) (235 ,198) (260 go4i (3 ,024, 163) (2 ,845 ,000 (1 ,700,000) (200,000 (100 ,000) (100,000 DISTR IB UTI ON SYSTE M (315,454) (51 5.252) (168,283) (390,658) (650 ,000 ) (150 ,000 ) (150 ,000 ) (150 ,000 ) (150 ,000 ) (150 ,000 ) CONNECTION FE ES 55 ,293 9 ,256 16,960 22,779 23,400 23 ,400 15 ,000 15 ,000 15,000 15,000 END ING CASH BA LA NCE $ 3,935,640 $ 5,925,314 $ 6 ,235,331 s 6 ,736,110 $ 10 ,215 ,159 $ 7,055,053 $ 4,948,822 $ 4,187,454 $ 3 ,390,797 $ 2,450,993 DEBT SERV ICE RE S ERV E FUN D $ {1 250 ,000 $ {1,250 ,000 $ {1,250 ,000 $ {1,250,000 $ (1,2 50 000 $ (1 ,250 ,000 $ (1,250,000) $ (1 ,250 ,00 0 $ (1,250,000 $ {1 ,249 ,999 TOTAL UN RESTRICTED CASH $ 2,000,0'IU $ 4,0f:>,314 $ 4 ,llOO ,.l.l1 $ 5,400 ,110 $ 8 ,ll0:>,159 $ 5, .p .J ,O~ll,llLL $ 2 ,!,J;j 7 ·""" $ 2,14U ,t>1t $ 1,LLI U.'1'1 4 Ending Cash Balance Pe r CAFR $ 3,871 ,023 $ 5,925,314 $ 6 ,235 ,331 $ 6 ,736 ,110 Adjustments from Cash to Accrual Receivab les $ 1,008,853 $ 1,060 ,418 s 1,231,836 Payables $ (538 ,083) $ (645,080) $ (631,114) Invento ry $ 125,731 $ 166,769 $ 209,841 Tota l Adjustme nts fro m Cas h to Accrual $ 596 ,501 .0 0 582107 810563 FUNDS AVAILABLE .* $ 4 ,467 ,524 .00 6,507,421 7,045,894 TOTA L REV ENUE 8,675,600 10 ,503 ,923 8 ,743 ,689 8,874,351 15,423 ,614 8 ,666,700 8,619 ,097 8,59 7,750 8 ,586 ,152 8 ,573 ,225 TOTAL EX PEND ITURE S (8,425,499) (8 ,346 ,305) (6 ,204, 170 ) (8,373,572) (11,944,565) (11,826,806) (10,725,329) (9,359, 118) (9 ,382 ,808) (9,513 ,029) - DEBT COVERA GE RATI O Eg:. 1.66 1.30 2 .26 1.85 1.35 1 .03 0.91 0 .81 0.73 0 .64 .<U 11 2012 2013 2014 2015 20 16 2017 * 201 0 INF O FROM, CAFR page 124 Rate Increase Yea r Annual Cumul. 2008 7.00 % 7 .00 % 2009 7 .00 % 14.49% I 2010 7.00 % 22 .50% 2011 6.00 % 29 .85% 2012 0 .00 % 29 .85% 2013 0.00 % 29 .85% 2014 0 .00 % 29 .85% 201 5 0 .00 % 29 .85% 20 16 0.00 % 29 .85 % 2017 0 .00% 29 .85% This Cash Flow Shows Full Funding and 2% Annual Increase to Operations and Maintenance ~ -------,,,.l :·i;ORSUQGET y::.!.-: --·.£-... & -.;;: .. -., •. _,"_ ..,--~ -.-:-_l .( _ •. -•::: _;.;· ~'..'~:::"c-BUDGET REQUESTS FOR SUBMITTAL TO< WATER ENTERPRISE FUND 8/3/12 2:52 PM Major Capital for 2012: Zuni Tank Caihopic $ 16,925 Rehabilitate City Ditch Flumes -Done $ 50,000 Replace 300 feet of 30" Mclellan Pipe -On Going $ 100,000 -..n J' "'., ll II Piping City Ditch -Done $ 100,000 l7t I. in 'IVI UV Disinfection System plan for 2012 constructio $ 2 ,700 ,000 ----- Water Quality Monitor in Pre-Treat-On Going $ 35,000 Teleworks Web Base Information System $ 22,238 I Distribution Items for 2012 : Water Main Replacements= $150,000 Union Ave Lining = $500,000 I Major t;apital tor ..:u13 : Pipe City Ditch $ 100,000 Repa i rs of East and West 3mg Roofs $ 800,000 City Ditch New 4' flume and recorder at Mineral Ai $ 25,000 Union Ave Install aerator in Union Ave R $ 25,000 City Ditch Replace flume at Dad Clark $ 30 ,000 UV Disinfection System plan for 2012 cc $1,800,000 Mclellan Pump #1 -Upgrade to VFD $ 40,000 Mclellan Pump #1 -High Effeciency Motor $ 25,000 Distribution Items for 2013: Water Main Replacements= $150,000 IU&M INL;Kt:A:St: Z .UU7o !Interest Kate 1 1 .~U"/o zuu11 Act uals zuu11 Actuals Z Ul U zu11 Actu11s 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Cash Method Cash Method Cash Method C11hMethod Estimate B udget Projected Projected Projected Projected REVENUE : WATER SALES $ 5,938,441 $ 5,554,560 $ 6,335 ,747 s 6 ,493,738 $ 6,493,738 $ 6,4 93 ,738 $ 6,493,738 $ 6,493,738 $ 6 ,493,738 $ 6,493 ,738 RATE INCREASE --$ ----- 5,938 ,441 5 ,554 ,560 6,335,747 6,493,738 6 ,493 ,738 6,493 ,738 6,493,738 6,493,738 6,493,738 6 ,4 93,738 RAW WATER 2,001 ,227 2,0 75,708 2,028,566 2,088,330 1,850 ,000 1,850 ,000 1,850 ,000 1,8 50 ,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 CITY DITCH 51,038 54,465 38 ,914 34,112 69 ,288 40 ,000 40 ,000 40,000 40 ,000 40,000 OTHER 48 1,058 112,037 103,0 3 1 180,119 131 ,000 131 ,000 131,000 131,000 131,000 131,000 TOTAL REVENUE 8,471 ,764 7 ,796 ,770 8,506 ,258 8 ,796,299 8,544 ,026 8,514,738 8 ,514 ,738 8,514 ,738 8,514 ,738 8,514,738 O&M (NO DEPR) (5 ,867 ,3 80 ) (5,505 ,292 ) (5,573 ,909) (5,492,989) (6,032,059 (6 ,292 ,923) (6,418,781) (6,547, 157) (6,678,100 (6,811,662) ADMN FEES (473 ,340 ) (46 1,585 ) (461 ,585 ) (461,585) (470,000) (470 ,000 (500,000 (500,000 (500,000 (50 0 ,000 FRANCHISE TAX n (169,061 ) (158 ,88 1) (1 84,732 (188 ,490 (194,812 (194,812) (194,812 (194,812 (194 ,812 (194,812) - NET OPERATING REVENUE 1,961 ,983 1,67 1,012 2,286,032 2,653,235 1,847,155 1,557,003 1,401 ,144 1,272 ,769 1,141,826 1,008,264 DEBT SERVICE (current): I I TOTAL DEBT SERVICE ~ (845 ,276 ) (865 ,852 ) (898 ,687) (920 ,634) (958,954) (968 ,954) (995 ,018) (1,033,339) (1,055,774) (1 ,098,300) INTEREST (509 ,816 ) (486,81 6) (577,56 3) (553,529) (521,077) (690,067) (666,717) (633,810) (604,122) (558 ,255) ~ FUTURE DEBT SERVICE --- ROUTINE CAPITAL REPLACE (64 ,533 ' (10 3,327 ' (82 ,29 1) (104,783) (93,500 (215,050 (100,000 (100,000 (100,000 (100,000 AVAILABLE REVENUE t::;i - 542 ,358 215 ,0 17 727,49 1 1,074,289 273 ,624 (317 ,068) (360,591) (494,380 (618 ,070 (748 ,291) - INTEREST INCOME 6 148,543 82 ,897 51,338 55 ,273 126,188 128,562 89,359 68 ,012 56,414 43,487 BALANCE FORWARD -3,685 ,455 3,871 ,023 5,92 5,314 6,235,331 6 ,736 ,110 10 ,215,159 7 ,055 ,053 4,948 ,822 4,187,454 3,390 ,797 TRANSFER TO BOND FUND ------ LOAN-GENERALFUND ------ NEW DEBT PROCEEDS -2,615,000 -6,730 ,000 ---- ~ AVAILABLE FUNDS 4,376 ,440 6,680 ,610 6 ,621 ,852 7,364,893 13,865,922 10 ,026,653 6,783 ,822 4,522 ,454 3,625 ,797 2,685,993 I ~ CAPITAL PROJECTS (180,639) (249 ,300 ) (235,198) 260,9041 (3,024, 163) (2,845 ,000 (1 ,700,000) (200 ,000 (100 ,000 (100 ,000 ) DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM l::f'. (3 15,454) (515 .252 ) (168 ,283) (390,658) (650 ,00 0) (150 ,000 (150,000 ) (150 ,000 (150 ,000 (150 ,000) CONNECTION FEES 55 ,29 3 9,256 16 ,960 22,779 23 ,400 23,400 15 ,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 ENDING CASH BALANCE $ 3,935,640 $ 5,92 5 ,3 14 $ 6,235,33 1 $ 6,736,110 $ 10 ,2 15 ,159 $ 7,055 ,053 $ 4,948,822 $ 4,187,454 $ 3,390,797 $ 2,450,993 DEBT SERVICE RESERVE FUND $ (1,250 ,000 $ (1,250 ,000 $ (1,2 50 ,000 $ (1,250 ,000 $ (1,250,000 $ (1,250,000 $ (1,250,000 $ (1 ,250 ,000 $ 11,250 ,000 $ (1,249,999 TOTAL UNRESTRICTED CASH $ 2,685 ,640 $ 4,675 ,314 $ 4,985,331 $ 5,400,110 $ 8,965,159 $ 5,805,053 $ 3,698,822 $ 2,937 ,454 $ 2,140,797 $ 1,200,994 Ending Cash Balance Per CAFR $ 3,871 ,023 $ 5,925,31 4 $ 6 ,23 5,331 $ 6 ,736 ,110 Adiustments from Cash to Accrual Receivables $ 1,008 ,853 $ 1,060 ,41 8 $ 1,231 ,836 Payables $ (538 ,083) $ (645 ,080) $ (63 1,114) Inventory $ 125 ,731 $ 166,769 $ 20 9 ,841 Total Adjustments from Cash to Accrual $ 596 ,50 1.00 582107 8 10563 FUNDS AVAILAB LE.* $ 4,467 ,524.00 6,507,421 7,045,894 TOTAL REVENUE 8 ,675 ,600 10 ,50 3 ,923 8 ,743,68g 8,874,351 15,423 ,614 8,6 66 ,700 8 ,6 19 ,097 8,597,750 8,586,152 8 ,573 ,225 TOTAL EXPENDITURES (8,425 ,499) (8 ,346 ,305 ) (6,2 04, 170 ) (8,373,572) (11 ,944,565 ) (11,826 ,806) (10,725,329) (9,359, 118) (9,382,808) (9 ,513 ,029) - DEBT COVERAGE RATIO ~ 1.66 1.30 2.26 1.85 1.35 1.03 0.91 0 .81 0 .73 0 .64 L U 1 l 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 * 2010 INFO FROM , CAFR page 124 Rate Increase Year Annual Cumu l. 2008 7.00 % 7.00 % 2009 7.00 % 14 .49 % 2010 7.00 % 22 .50 % 20 11 6 .00 % 29 .85 % 2012 0.00 % 29.85% 2013 0.00% 29 .8 5% 2014 0.00 % 29 .8 5% 2015 0 .00 % 29 .85 % 2016 0 .00% 29 .85 % 2017 0 .00 % 29 .8 5% This Cash Flow Shows Full Funding and 2o/o Annual Increase to Operat ions and Maintenance ------· IFq.~BUDGETV.~;;-·-., ... _____ ~ "\,.~J ·~:,, .. ,_., " : , •?·Wx' ··:;-:.:c-./~' :• ;r ~-~::.:;.; . BUDGET REQUESTS FOR SUBMITTAL TO< WATER ENTERPRISE FUND I 8/3/12 2:52 PM Major Capital for 2012: Zuni Tank Caihopic ~ 16,925 Rehabilitate City Ditch Flumes -Done $ 50,000 Replace 300 feet of 30" Mclellan Pipe -On Going $ 100,000 ~n/ "n ll ,. Piping City Ditch -Done $ 100,000 I ~I' le J C'llla 'IVI UV Disinfection System plan for 2012 constructio $ 2,700,000 --------- Water Quality Monitor in Pre-Treat -On Going $ 35,000 Teleworks Web Base Information System $ 22,238 Distribution Items for 2012 : Water Main Replacements= $150,000 Union Ave Lining = $500 ,000 Major Capital for 2013: Pipe City Ditch $ 100,000 Repairs of East and West 3mg Roofs $ 800,000 City Ditch New 4' flume and recorder at Mineral A' $ 25,000 Union Ave Install aerator in Union Ave A $ 25,000 City Ditch Replace flume at Dad Clark $ 30,000 UV Disinfection System plan for 2012 c1 $1,800,000 Mclellan Pump #1 -Upgrade to VFD $ 40,000 Mclellan Pump #1 -High Effeciency Motor $ 25,000 Distribution Items for 2013: Water Main Replacements= $150 ,000 IU6M INCREASE 2.u u-10 11 nte rest Kate 1.0U 7o LUUO Actuals ..:uu" Actuals LU I U ..:un Actuals 2012 20 13 2014 20 15 2016 20 17 Cash Method Cash Method Cash Method Cas h Method Estimate Budget Projected Projected Proj ected 1 Projected REV ENUE: WATER SAL ES $ 5 ,938,441 $ 5 ,554,560 $ 6 ,335 ,747 s 6,493,738 $ 6,493,738 $ 6,493 ,738 $ 6,493,738 $ 6,493 ,738 $ 6 ,4 93 ,738 $ 6,493 ,738 RATE INCREASE --$ ----- 5,938,441 5 ,554,560 6 ,335,747 6 ,493,738 6,493,738 6,493 ,738 6,493,738 6,493,738 6,493,738 6,493 ,738 ~ RAW WAT ER 2,001,227 2,075,7 08 2,028 ,566 2,088,330 1,850,000 1,850,000 1,850 ,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 1,850,000 CITY DI TC H 51 ,038 54,465 38 ,914 34,112 69,288 40,00 0 40 ,000 40,00 0 40 ,000 40,00 0 OT HER 48 1,058 112,037 103,031 180,119 13 1,000 131,00 0 131,000 13 1,00 0 13 1,000 131,00 0 [,J TOTAL REV ENU E 8,471,764 7,7 96 ,770 8 ,506 ,2 58 8 ,796 ,299 8,544,02 6 8,5 14,738 8 ,514,738 8,5 14,738 8,514,738 8,514,738 O&M (NO DE PR) (5,867,380) (5 ,505 ,292) (5,573 ,909) (5,492 ,989) (6,032,05 9) (6 ,292 ,923) (6,418 ,781) (6,547,157) (6,678, 100) (6,811,66 2) ADMN FEES (473 ,340) (461 ,585) (461 ,585) (461 ,585) (47 0,00 0) (470 ,000) (500,000 (500 ,000) (50 0 ,000) (5 00 ,000) FRA NC HI SE TAX (169,061) (158 ,881) (184,732 ) (188,490) (194,812 (194 ,812 (194,812) (194,812 (194,812 (194 ,812 NET OPERATING RE VENUE 1,961 ,983 1,67 1,012 2,286 ,032 2,653,235 1,84 7,155 1,55 7,003 1,40 1,144 1,272,769 1,141 ,826 1,008 ,264 11 DEB T SER VIC E (cu rrent): TOTAL DEBT SERV ICE (845 ,276) (865,852 ) (898 ,687 ) (920,634) (9 58 ,954) (968,954) (995,0 18) (1,033,339) (1,055, 77 4) (1,098 ,300) INTEREST (509 ,816) (486 ,8 16 ) (577 ,563 ) (553 ,529) (521,077) (69 0 ,067) (666,71 7) (63 3,810) (604 ,122) (558,255) FUTURE DEBT SERVICE ------ ROUTI NE CAP IT AL REPLAC E D (64,533) (1 03 ,327 ) (82 ,291 ' (104,783 (93,50 0 (215,050 (100 ,000 (1 00,000 (1 00,0 00 (100 ,000 AV AI LA BLE REVENU E s' 542 ,358 21 5 ,017 727,49 1 1,074 ,289 273,6 24 (317 ,068) (360 ,591 (494,380) (618,070) (748,291) IN TERE ST IN COME 148,543 82,89 7 51,338 55,273 126 ,188 128,562 89 ,359 68 ,012 56,414 43 ,487 ,':JI BALANCE FO RWAR D I ""~ 3,685 ,455 3,871 ,023 5,925 ,314 6,235,331 6,736 ,11 0 10,215,159 7,055,053 4,948 ,822 4,187,454 3,390 ,797 ~ I TRAN SFER TO BO ND FUN D -------- ~ LOAN -GE NER ALFUND ------- NEW DEBT PRO CEED S -2,615 ,000 -6,73 0,000 ---- } AVAILAB LE FU NDS 4,376 ,440 6 ,680 ,610 6 ,621 ,852 7,364,893 13,865,922 10,026,653 6,783,822 4,522,454 3,625 ,797 2,685,993 CAPITAL PROJECTS 1;?1¥ (180 ,63 9) (249,300) (235 ,198) (260 ,9041 (3,024, 163) (2,845,000 (1,700,000 (200,000 (100,000 (100 ,000) DISTRIBUTION SYS TE M (31 5,454) (515 .2 52 ) (168,283) (390 ,658 1 (650 ,000 ) (150 ,000 (150 ,000 ) (150,000 (150 ,000 (150 ,000) CONN ECT ION FE ES 55 ,293 9 ,256 16,960 22 ,779 23 ,40 0 23,400 15 ,000 15 ,000 15,000 15,000 EN DING CASH BALA NC E $ 3,935 ,640 $ 5,92 5,314 $ 6 ,235 ,331 s 6,736,11 0 $ 10 ,215,159 $ 7,055,053 $ 4,948 ,822 $ 4,187 ,454 $ 3,390 ,797 $ 2,4 50,993 DEBT SERV ICE RESERV E FUND $ (1 ,250 ,000) $ (1,250 ,000 $ (1,250 ,000 $ (1,250 ,000 $ (1,250 ,000 $ (1 ,250 ,000 $ (1 ,250,000 $ (1 ,250,000 $ (1 ,250 ,000 $ (1 ,249,999 TOTA L UN RES TR IC TED CASH $ 2,685 ,640 $ 4,675 ,31 4 ~ 4,!185 ,33 1 ~ 5,'I00,1 10 ~ 8,965,1 59 $ 5,805,053 $ 3,698,822 $ 2,937 ,454 $ 2,140,797 $ 1,2 00,994 Ending Cash Ba lance Per CAFR $ 3,871,023 $ 5,925 ,3 14 $ 6 ,235 ,33 1 s 6 ,736 ,110 Adjustments from Cash to Accrual Receivables $ 1,008,853 $ 1,060 ,41 8 $ 1,231 ,836 Pay ables $ (538 ,083) $ (645 ,080) $ (631 ,114) lnve ntorv $ 125,731 $ 166,769 $ 209 ,841 Tota l Adl ustme nts fro m Cash to Accrual $ 596,5 0 1.00 58 2107 810563 FUNDS AVAILABLE.* $ 4,467 ,524 .00 6,507 ,421 7,045,894 TOTAL REVE NUE 8,6 75,600 10,503 ,923 8 ,743 ,689 8 ,874 ,351 15,423,6 14 8,666,700 8 ,619,097 8,597,750 8,586 ,152 8,573,225 TOTAL EX PEN DITUR ES (8,42 5,499) (8,346 ,305) (6 ,20 4, 170 ) (8,373 ,572) (11,944,565) (11,826,806 (10 ,725 ,329) (9,359, 118) (9,382,808) (9,513,029) - DEBT COVERA GE RAT IO ~ 1.66 1.30 2.26 1.85 1.35 1.03 0 .91 0 .8 1 0 .73 0 .64 LU11 2012 20 13 2014 2015 2016 2017 • 2010 INF O FR OM, CA FR page 124 Rate Increase I Year Annual Cumu l. 2008 7.00 % 7.00 % 2009 7.00 % 14.49% 2010 7.00 % 22 .50 % 2011 6.00 % 29.85% 2012 0 .00 % 29 .85 % I 2013 0 .00 % 29 .85% 2014 0 .00 % 29 .85% 2015 0 .00% 29 .85% 20 16 0.00% 29 .85% 2017 0 .00% 29 .85% This Cash Flow Shows Full Funding and 2% Annual Increase to Operations and Maintenance ,~::-.., .. .-~Dlat.·;I FOR BUDGET YEA~: -. -- ,. --~BUDGET REQUESTS FOR SUBMITTAL TO C ''f' ~" .~:·"· "' ' .. WATER ENTERPRISE FUND 8/3/12 2 :52 PM I I I Major Capital for 2012: Zuni Tank Caihopic $ 16,925 Rehabilitate City Ditch Flumes -Done $ 50,000 Replace 300 feet of 30" Mclellan Pipe -On Going $ 100,000 _,. nJ' "., ll " Piping City Ditch -Done $ 100,000 I 7r I. in 'IVI UV Disinfection System plan for 2012 constructio $ 2,700,000 ---------I Water Quality Monitor in Pre-Treat -On Going $ 35,000 Teleworks Web Base Information System $ 22,238 Distribution Items for 2012 : Water Main Replacements= $150 ,000 Union Ave Lining = $500,000 Major Capital for 2013: Pipe City Ditch $ 100,000 Repairs of East and West 3mg Roofs $ 800,000 City Ditch New 4' flume and recorder at Mineral A1 $ 25,000 Union Ave Install aerator in Union Ave R $ 25,000 City Ditch Replace flume at Dad Clark $ 30,000 UV Disinfection System plan for 2012 cc $1,800,000 Mclellan Pump #1 -Upgrade to VFD $ 40,000 Mclellan Pump #1 -High Effeciency Motor $ 25,000 Distribution Items for 2013 : Water Main Replacements= $150 ,000 O&M•N• ·~· 2.UU "/o Interest Rate 11 .::>U"/o 2008 Actuals .<uu11 Actuals .<UlU .<u1 i Actuals 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 20 17 Cash Method Cash Method Cash Met hod Cash Method Estimate Budget Proj ected Proj ec ted Projected Proj ected REV EN UE: WAT ER SALES $ 5,938,441 $ 5 ,554 ,560 $ 6 ,335 ,747 s 6,493,738 $ 6,493,738 $ 6,493,738 $ 6 ,493,738 $ 6,493,738 $ 6,493,738 $ 6,493 ,738 RATE INC REASE --$ ----- ' 5 ,938,441 5 ,554,560 6,335,747 6,493,738 6,493 ,738 6,493 ,738 6,493 ,738 6,493 ,738 6,493,738 6,493 ,738 ~ RAW WATER 2,001 ,227 2,075,708 2 ,028,566 2,088,330 1,850 ,000 1,850 ,000 1,850 ,000 1,85 0,000 1,850,000 1,850 ,000 CITY DITCH 51 ,038 54,465 38 ,914 34,112 69,288 40 ,000 40 ,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 OTHE R 481 ,058 112,037 103,03 1 180,119 131 ,000 131,000 131 ,000 131,000 131 ,000 131 ,000 TOTAL REVEN UE ~ 8,471 ,764 7,796 ,770 8 ,506 ,258 8,796,299 8,544,026 8,514,738 8,514,738 8 ,514 ,738 8,514 ,738 8,514,738 O&M (N O DEPRJ ~ (5,867,380) (5 ,505 ,292) (5,573,909) (5,492,989) (6,032,059) (6 ,292 ,923) (6 ,418 ,781 (6,547,157) (6 ,678 , 100) (6 ,811 ,662) ADMN FEES (473,340) (461 ,585) (461 ,585) (461,585) (470,000 (470 ,000) (500 ,000) (500 ,000) (500,000) (500 ,000) FRA NCHISE TAX I (169,061) (158,881) (184,732 ) (188,490) (194 ,812 (194 ,812) (194,812 (194,812 (194,812 (194 ,8 12 NE T OPERAT ING REVENUE 1,961 ,983 1,671 ,012 2 ,286,032 2,653,235 1,847 ,155 1,557,003 1 ,401 ,144 1,272 ,769 1,141 ,826 1,008,264 DE BT SE RVICE (cu rrent): •' I TOTA L DEBT SERV ICE (845,276) (865 ,852) (898 ,687 ) (920,634) (958,954) (968,954) (995,01 8) (1,033,339) (1 ,055 ,774) (1,098,300) INTER EST (509,8 16) (486 ,816 ) (577 ,563 ) (553,529) (521,077) (690,067) (666,717) (633,81 0) (604 ,122) (558,2 55 ) -~ FUTURE DEBT SE RVIC E -. ---. . RO UTINE CAP ITAL REPLAC E (64,533) (103,327) (82 ,291 ) (104,783) (93 ,500) (215 ,050 (100 ,000) (100,000 (100 ,000 (100 ,000) AVAILA BLE RE VEN UE ~ 542 ,358 215,017 727 ,49 1 1,074,289 273 ,624 (3 17,068) (360 ,591 (494,380) (618,070 (7 48,291) INTE RES T IN CO ME 1 ~-~ 148,543 82 ,897 51 ,338 55,273 126,188 128,562 89,359 68 ,0 12 56 ,414 43,487 J BALANCE FOR WAR D -3,685,455 3,871,023 5,925,314 6,235,331 6 ,736 ,11 0 10,2 15,159 7,05 5,053 4 ,948,822 4 ,187,454 3,390 ,797 TR AN SF ER TO BO ND FUND --. ----- LOAN-GE NERA L FUND ~ ~ --. . . - NEW DEB T PRO CEEDS ~ -2,615,000 -6,730 ,000 . --. ;: AVAI LABLE FU NDS 4,376,440 6 ,680 ,610 6,621 ,652 7,364,893 13,665,922 10,026,653 6,763,622 4,522 ,454 3,625,797 2,665,993 ~ CAPITAL PROJECTS ~ --(180 ,639) (249,300) (235,196) (260,904) (3,024, 163) (2,8 45 ,000 (1 ,700,000) (200,000 (100 ,000) (1 00 ,000) DISTR IBU TI ON SYSTEM (3 15,454) (515 ,252) (168,283) (390 ,658) (650 ,000 ) (150,000 (150,000 ) (1 50 ,000 ) (150 ,000 ) (150,000 ) CONNECTI ON FEE S 55,293 9 ,256 16,960 22,779 23,400 23 ,400 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 ENDING CASH BALANCE $ 3,935 ,640 $ 5 ,925,314 $ 6 ,235,331 $ 6,736,110 $ 10,215,159 $ 7,055,053 $ 4 ,946 ,622 $ 4 ,187 ,454 $ 3,390 ,797 $ 2,450 ,993 DEBT SER VIC E RESE RV E FUND $ (1 ,250 ,000' $ (1 ,250 ,000 ' $ (1 ,250,000 $ (1,250,000 $ (1,250,000 $ (1 ,250 ,000 $ (1,250 ,000) $ (1,250 ,00 0 $ (1,250 ,000 $ (1 ,249 ,999 TOT AL UNR ESTR ICTE D CASH $ 2,685,640 $ 4,675 ,314 $ 4,985,33 1 $ 5,486,110 $ 8 ,965,159 $ 5,805,053 $ 3,698 ,822 $ 2,937 ,454 $ 2,140,797 $ 1,200,994 Endi ng Cash Bala nce Per CAFR $ 3,871,023 $ 5,925,314 $ 6 ,235,331 $ 6,736,110 Adjustme nts from Cash to Accrual Receivab les $ 1,008,853 $ 1,060,416 $ 1,231 ,836 Payab les $ (538,083) $ (645 ,080) $ (631 ,1 14) In vento ry $ 125,731 $ 166,769 $ 209,641 Tota l Adj ustments fro m Cas h to Accrual $ 596,501.00 582107 810563 FUNDS AVAILABLE .* $ 4,467,524.00 6,507,421 7,045,894 TOTAL RE VENUE 8,675 ,600 10,503 ,923 8 ,743 ,689 8,874,351 15,423 ,614 8,666 ,700 6,619,097 6,597 ,75 0 6,586 ,152 8,573,225 TOTA L EXPE NDITUR ES (8,425,499) (6 ,346 ,305) (6 ,204, 170) (6,373,572) (11,944,565) (11 ,826,806) (10 ,725,329) (9 ,359 , 118) (9,382 ,808 (9 ,513,029) - DEBT COVER AGE RATI O . 1.66 1.30 2.26 1.85 1.35 1.03 0 .91 0.81 0 .73 0 .64 .<U 11 2012 2013 2014 2015 20 16 2017 * 2010 INF O FR OM, CAF R page 124 Kate Increase Year Annua l Cumu l. 2008 7.00 % 7.00% 2009 7.00 % 14.49% 2010 7.00 % 22 .50 % 2011 6 .00 % 29 .65% 2012 0 .00 % 29 .85% 2013 0.00 % 29.85% 2014 0 .00 % 29 .85% 20 15 0.0 0% 29 .85 % 2016 0 .00 % 29 .85% 2017 0 .00 % 29 .85% This Cash Flow Shows Full Funding and 2% Annual Increase to Operations and Maintenance 'R""4d 7/ 2/ 2012 at tJ :01 ,47/t Fund Div Cash 2013 APITAL ITEM Sheets Fl Shts MY CAP " - ACCOU NT PROJ ECT Major Routine YEAR Capital Repai rs Di stribution 40-1801-61261 ,......,.. Zuni Tn cathoplc ' $ 111,925 2012 40-1801-61262 Major Rehllbllltatll City DHch Flumes • Done $ 50,000 2012 40-1801-61262 Melot' Replllce 300 feet of 30• Mcl.ellan Pipe ·On Going $ 100,000 2012 40-1801-61262 Mlljor Piping City Ditch • Done $ 100,000 2012 40-1802-55401 Mlljor Zone 113 pump Rehllbllltdon 1 ... 55401) • Pending 2012 40-1603-61 154 Routine Plant Light Upgrade -On Going $ 25,000 2012 40-1803-61262 Major UV Disinfection System plan for 2012 construction· On Going $ 2,700,000 2012 40-1603-61301 Routine Sed Basin Foot Valve Stems -On Going $ 8 ,500 2012 40-1603-61301 Routine Alum Room/Dewateri ng Heaters -Done $ 20,000 2012 40-1 603-61301 Routine Sludge Pump/VFO for Dewaterlng • On Going $ 25,000 2012 40-1603-61301 Routine Various Chemical line Replacements -On Go ing $ 15,000 2012 40-1803-61301 Mlljor Wmr Qulllty Monitor In ,,.. Trut -On Going $ 35,000 2012 40-1604-61262 Distribution Distribution onaolna Main Reolacernents $ 150,000 2012 40-1604-61262 Distribution Union Ave. llnlng of main/valves -In Design $ 500,000 2012 40-1807-61502 Major Teleworb Web e ... Information System $ 22,238 2012 ••M•· '" .. " 40-1801-61262 Mlljor Pipe City Ditch $ 100,000 2013 40-1601-61261 Major City Ditch New .t' ftLBM 8lld recorder at Mlnenil Ave $ 25,000 2013 40-1601-61261 Major City Ditch Replace flume at Dael Clark $ 30,000 2013 40 -1601 -61201 Routine Citv Ditch Replace and Install new fence around Lee Gulch $ 15 ,00 0 2013 40-1602-61301 Mlljor Mclellan Pump 11 • Upgr8de to VFD $ 40,000 2013 40-1602-61301 Mlljor Mcl.elt.n Pump 11 • High Efhclency Motor $ 25,000 2013 40-1603-61 301 Routi ne General Routine Capital Items Ub /d $ 100,000 2013 40-1803-61251 Mlljor 1RePlllra of East-West 3mg Roofs $ llOU,000 2013 40-1603-61301 Major Union Ave inst.II Mfator In Union Ave Rnervolr $ 25.000 2013 40-1803-61262 Major UV Disinfection System plan for 2012 construction • On uoing $ 1,BOU,000 2013 40-1603-61301 Routine Allen Plant North Pipe Gallerv liahtina UP!lrade $ 25,000 2013 40-1603-61301 Routin e Allen Plant Replace chemical feed line s $ 15 ,000 2013 ,· 40-1603-61301 Routine All en Pl ant Sodium Perm . Feed pump (backup polv oumpl $ 12,500 2013 40-1603-61502 Routine All.en Plant Reolace 2 Comouters on SCADA $ 15,000 2013 40-1604-61262 Distribution Dl strl buUon Onaoll'l!I Main Reolacernents $ 150,000 2013 ......; 40-1607-61301 Routine Hvdrant Meters $ 2,550 2013 ~ 40-1607-61502 Routi ne lb·on Ha nd held meter readina devices $ 30,000 2013 :• ..... llL.,I 40-1801-61262 Mlljor Pipe City Ditch $ 100,000 2014 40-1803-61251 l lblnr R-ra of East Ind West~ Roofs s 800,000 2014 ' 40-1803-61251 Allen War Treatment Plant Roof Replacement $ 800,000 201.t - M8IOI' Routi ne General Routi ne Ca pital Items t/b/d $ 100,000 20 14 40-1604-61262 Distribution Distribution Main Replacements $ 150,000 201 4 .... ,, I l•t I I ..... I 111•111 40-1801-61262 l lblnr pine CliV Ditch $ 100,000 2015 40-1803-61251 MlllOr Replacement of Tine Chemlcal Storage Tanks $ 100,000 2015 - 40-1603-61301 Routi ne Ge nera l Routine Ca pital Items t/b/d $ 100,000 2015 ' 40-1604-61262 DlstrlbuUon Distribution Main Replacements $ 150,000 2015 .... 2015 2015 I t•l t I 1•111 ••••• I 1 tn•t I 40-1801-61262 Mlljor PIH CHY DHch $ 100,000 2018 40-1604-61262 Distribution Distribution Main Reolacements $ 150,000 2016 40-1603-61301 Routine General Routine Capital Items Ub/d $ 100,000 2016 -2016 2016 2016 2016 ,,.,,,, I II ,.,,' I jlj11•111 40-1801-61262 Mlljor Pipe CHY Ditch $ 100,000 2017 40-1604-61262 Distribution Distribution Main Replacements $ 150,000 2017 40-1603-61301 Routine Ge neral Routi ne Capital Items t/b/d $ 100,000 2017 ~ 2017 2017 2017 I t•trnt 1•11 I , ..... I II I IDlstr1h1111nn "'""tern 201 2 B5Cl ,111n1 Distribution Svstem 20 13 150,000 Distribution Svstem 2014 150,000 DlstrlbuUon Svstem 201 5 150,000 Distribution Svstem 2016 150 ,000 Distribution Svstem 201 7 150 ,000 Routi ne Capi tal Reoai rs 2012 $ 93,500 Routi ne Capi tal Repairs 2013 $ 215,050 Routine Caoital Re pairs 2014 $ 100,000 Routine Capital Re oai rs 2015 $ 100,000 Routine Capi tal Repai rs 2016 $ 100,000 Routi ne Ca oital RePairs 2017 $ 100,000 Total Ma ttCan "'I 2012 $ 3,024,163 Total Ma 0rCar 1111 2013 $ 2845,000 Total Ma a Cat !al 2014 $ 1,700000 Tnho l Ma ttCan ""' 2015 $ 200.000 Total Ma ttCao tal 2016 '. $ 100000 Total Ma kV Canlllll 2017 $ 100000 ·-~ • ' I ~ I I Page l CAPITAL 2011 Class -!Account Collection 41-1605-61263 Kep1acement 100,000 I 2012 Collection 41-1605-61402 10.000 I 2012 Collection 41-1605-61502 2012 Major 41-1607-61502 2012 Collection 41-1605-61263 Replacement 100,000 2013 Collection 41-1605-61301 25,ooo I 2013 . 15,000 2013 41-1605:61301 Collection Littleton I Englewood Wastewater Treatment Plant Ca-pTtal Costs 50% Year 2012 20f3 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Major Capital 1,000,000 50,000 3,500,000 18,500,000 16,500,000 Routine Capital $ Englewood Share Englewood Share of Major of,Ro~ ! Total Englewood $ 1,650,000 1,800,-000 1,950,000 1~600,000 $ 1,550,000 $ 1,550,000 $ 1,700,000 $ $ 25,000 1,750,000 9,250,000 8,250,000 825,000 1,350,000 975,000 825,000 2,525,000 10,025,000 9,200,000 .. Littleton/Englewood Cost Ratios -Priority/ Reduced Cost Proposal 2013 2012 Budget 2013 Budget % Change Environmental Compliance (170 Personnel v 203,039 218,283 7.51% Commodities F 12,000 11,000 -8.33% Contractual F 570,685 570,018 -0.12% .;-.''JI 0 0 0.00% Subtotal 785,724 799,301 1.73% Beneficial Use (1702) Personnel v 377,905 380,030 0.56% Commodities v 124,800 134,300 7.61% Contractual v 321,130 265,659 -17.27% Capital F 8,000 13,000 62.50% Subtotal $831,835 $792,989 -4.67% Engineering/Maintenance (1703) Personnel v 1,624,697 1,680,413 3.43% Commodities v 290,200 414,700 42.90% Contractual v 760,800 571,300 -24.91% Capital F 18,000 40,000 N/A Subtotal $2,693,697 $2,706,413 0.47% Treatment (1704) Personnel v 2,062,007 2,223,628 7.84% Commodities v 1,236,800 1,178,400 -4.72% Contractual v 2,799,860 2,297,552 -17.94% Capital F 122,500 117,500 -4.08% Subtotal $6,221,167 $5,817,080 -6.50% Laboratory (1705) Personnel v 546,055 541,643 -0.81% Commodities F 143,300 144,000 0.49% Contractual F 172,152 203,052 17.95% Capital F 35,000 10,000 -71.43% Subtotal $896,507 $898,695 0.24% Business Services (1706) Personnel v 950,417 945,570 -0.51% Commodities F 183,625 189,824 3.38% Contractual F 829,976 867,959 4.58% Capital F 137,000 130,740 -4.57% Subtotal $2,101,018 $2,134,093 1.57% Pretreatment (1707) Personnel v 534,275 578,730 8.32% Commodities v 9,800 12,800 30.61% Contractual v 61,790 56,730 -8.19% Capital F 54,000 0 N/A Subtotal $659,865 $648,260 -1.76% O&M Total $14,189,813 $13,796,831 -2.77% Facility Construction c Construction in Progress $800,000 $1 ,000,000 Infrastructure Projects $400,000 $1 ,500,000 275.00% Professional Services $250,000 Proiect Taxes & Fees $50000 Capital Total $1 500 000 $2 500 000 66.67% GRAND TOTAL $15 689 813 ~16 296 831 3.87% C-2 COST RATIOS BETWEEN THE CITIES OF LITTLETON & ENGLEWOOD CATEGORY FACTOR ALLOCATION ENGLEWOOD LITTLETON TOTAL Variable Costs '00 avg (V) 53 .9/46.1 $11,499,738 $6,324,856 $5,634,872 Fixed Costs (F) 50/50 $2,297,093 $1,148,547 $1 ,148,547 Capital Costs © 50/50 $2,500,000 $1,250,000 $725,000* Total Allocation $16,296,831 $8,723,402 $7 ,725,871 * Cities' Total C-2 TABLE 1 LITILETON/ENGLEWOOD WWfP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM UE WWfP (FUND 90) Date: 6/27/2012 Line No. Description Budget ($1 Projected ($) Projected ($) Projected ($) Year 2013 2014 2015 2016 ROUTINE 1 Geographical Information System 50,000 200,000 100,000 50 ,000 2 Long Range Plan I Facility Plan 150,000 3 Building #2 Old Solids 4 Biosolids Farm Improvements 250,000 5 Infrastructure Annual Program 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500 ,000 Sub-Total 1,700,000 1,950,000 1,600,000 1,550,000 Englewood's 50% Share -$ 850,000 $ 975,000 $ 800,000 $ 775,000 MAJOR 6 Land Purchases Major Capital 50 ,000 7 Building #1 Service Support Major Capital 8 UV Disinfection Major Capital 1,000,000 0 Projected ($) Projected ($) 2017 2018 50,000 50,000 150,000 200,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,550,000 1,900,000 $ 775,000 $ 950,000 3,000,000 Projected ($) Projected ($) Projected ($) Projected ($) Projected ($) 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 50 ,000 100,000 50 ,000 50 ,000 50 ,000 1,500 ,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,550,000 1,600,000 1,550,000 1,550,000 1,550,000 $ 775,000 $ 800,000 s 775,000 $ 775,000 $ 775,000 500,000 YEARS 2013 TO 202~ CAPITAL SUMS($) 800,00( 300,00( 200,00( 250,00C 16,500,00C 9 Headworks Bldg · Major Capital 500 ,000 1,500,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 3,050,00C 500,00C 1,000,000 22,000,000 45,500,000 10 Phosphorus/Nitrogen (Nutrient) Removal Major Capital 3 ,500,000 15,000,000 15;000,000 2 ,000,000 10,000,000 Sub-Total 1,000,000 0 50,000 3,500,000 18,500,000 16,500,000 10,000,000 10,000,000 0 2,500,000 10,000,000 Englewood's 50% Share $ 500,000 $ s 25,000 s 1,750,000 s 9,250,000 $ 8,250,000 $ 5,000,000 s 5,000,000 $ $ 1,250,000 $ 5,000,000 Englewood's Total ~:QQ.so • .-i"'";l~./~-$ 1,350,000 $ 975,000 $ 825,000 $ 2,525,000 $ 10,025,000 $ 9,200,000 $ 5,775,000 $ 5,800,000 $ 775,000 $ 2,025,000 $ 5,775,000 TOTALS 2,700,000 1,950,000 1,650,000 5,050,000 20,050,000 18,400,000 11,550,000 11,600,000 1,550,000 4,050,000 11,550,000 90,100,000 General Note : Amounts shown are for total UE WWfP estimated capital expenditures , each City pays 50% for capital Note for Item 1. Note for Item 2 . Note for Item 3. Note for Item 4 . Note for Item 5. Note for Item 6 . Note for Item 7 . Note for Item 8 . Note for Item 9. Note fo r Item 10. Continued service-area GIS implementation, update, expansion, software upgrade, and maintenance. For 2014-15 Implement GIS for WWfP site . Long Range Master Plan update, Facility Planning and Maintenance Management Plan development. Bldg #2 to be remodeled or demolished as part of Bldg #1 project. This project placed ON HOLD. Needs further review as Bldg #1 Expansion Project has been disapproved by SC. 2018 consists of exterior repair or renovation . Upkeep and maintenance of storage pad , roadways and barn structure. Infrastructure stabilization/rehabilitation program was approved and funded up to $2M per year prior to Phase 2 project. Includes Bldg structures , painting/coating , roofs, streets, site yard piping , site electrical , lighting , process equipment, and other replacements , upgrades and repairs. Land purchase for new property acquisition for new Headworks Bldg. Bldg #1 Needs Assessment and Construction . This project placed ON HOLD. Needs further review as Bldg #1 Expansion Project has been disapproved by SC. 2022 consists of exterior bldg repair. UV Project placed ON HOLD; was disapproved by City Councils. Review implementation of CH2MHill recommendations on existing liquid chlorine disinfection system, however WWfP may choose not to pursue . 10-Year life for existing Headworks Bldg after Phase 2. Land Acquisition in 2017; Pre-Design in 2017; New Land demo in 2018; Construction in 2019-20. A Watershed Plan and Total Max Daily Load study for Barr Lake and Milton Reservoir is scheduled for completion In June 2011 . End of 2011, Nutrients Regulation 31 and new Regulation 85 to be public noticed and filed . March 2012, Commission preliminarily approved permit limits for both Regulation 85 and 31 for TIN and TP. H:\U T ILITY\Utiliti es Budget Folders\2013 Budget\Sewer 2013\2013-2023_budget projection for LEWWfP _6-27-12 .xls - · Engineering/Maintenance Division 3-Year Capital Improvement Project Budget (2013-15) Line No. Description Budget 1 Geographical Information System (GIS) -150,000 • Maintain service-area GIS system. Provide service/support, training, data management, and web hosting of the GIS site. • Provide additional functionality and applications as needed to support service area customers. • Evaluate needs to implement GIS to WWTP site . 2 Long Range Plan I Facility Plan -150,000 • Provide long term guidance and planning for future capital improvements needed to comply with regulatory requirements, maintain facility reliability, and accommodate future growth. • Provide facility planning and guidance for the routine renewal and replacement of existing assets, ongoing operations and maintenance of process equipment, and sustaining our major plant assets over the long term. 5 Infrastructure Annual Program -1,500,000 I. Plant access security expansion to chemical storage bldgs (Odor 250,000 Control, Ferric Chloride, Disinfection, Sodium Bisulfite, and Methanol). • Provides safety/security against unauthorized entry . 11. Add additional access stairways at Denite, Primary Pump Station 100,000 No. 2, Secondary Sludge Pump Station, NTF Pump Station, and DAFTs. • Improves staff efficiencies . • Provides safety egress from basement areas with only one exit. ... Annual Bldg Exterior Maintenance (structure repair, crack m. sealing, coating/sealing, concrete repair, roofing, etc.). 300,000 • Extends life of buildings and structures . • Defrays major structural and rehab projects . IV. Lighting Replacement Project. • Provides energy efficiency . 150,000 • Reduces annual utility expenses . V. Administration HV AC Replacement Project. • The Administration HV AC systems are under capacity or 500,000 deficient. • Equipment are also past or nearing the end of their service lives in accordance with ASHRAE. • Based on capacitv issues, deficiencies, and service lives, - three (3) phased projects are recommended. The 1st phase to be implemented in 2013, with the 2nd and 3rd in 2015 and 2017 respectively. • Phase 1 -replace constant volume reheat zones with variable zones and replace control system. • Existing reheat systems are past useful life. Variable reheat zones w/ a new control system will provide increased capacity to the existing HV AC units. Variable reheat systems also provide energy efficiency and cost savings in utility expenses. Vl. Headworks Gates Replacement Project. • Replace original 1977 gates. 13 total ranging from 48" to 200,000 66". • Gates are damaged, difficult to operate, and in need of replacement. • Gates are essential to provide isolation of channels , barscreens and raw sewage pumps. • Without isolation gates cannot perform maintenance on equipment and risk permit violations. 8 UV Disinfection 1,000,000 ' • City of Littleton contracted with CH2MHILL to perform evaluation of the existing Sodium Hypochlorite Disinfection System. • Based on CH2MHILL Report, City of Littleton Council chose not to pursue the UV Disinfection Project. • City of Englewood Council concurred with Littleton Council. • UV Project is placed ON HOLD pending Nutrient Regulations . • CH2MHILL Report recommended improvements with current Sodium Hypochlorite Disinfection System. Improvements included: a. Control system improvements. b. Replacement of ammonia bypassing pumps. c. Providing an off-line Denitrification filter backwash water supply. d. Continuous centrate return. e. New flowmeter for the Chlorine Contact Tank influent. • Budget is placeholder for possible implementation of CH2MHILL recommendations. TOTAL 2,800,000 Line No. Description Budget 1 Geographical Information System (GIS) -200,000 • Maintain service-area GIS system. Provide service/support, training, data management, and web hosting of the GIS site. • Implement WWTP site GIS. Integrate with Facility Plan and Asset Management Plan. GIS will provide tools to make good decisions to manage equipment and facilities to operate effectively and efficiently in the most economic manner. 4 Biosolids Farm Improvements -250,000 • Provide rehabilitation and improvements to the Biolsolids Farm Building . Repairs to the structure, roof, etc. • Provide repair and improvements to the Farm Building access roadways and Storage Pad site access . 5 Infrastructure Annual Program -1,500,000 1. Annual Bldg Exterior Maintenance (structure repair, crack 300,000 sealing, coating/sealing, concrete repair, roofing, etc.). a. Extends life of buildings and structures. b. Defrays major structural and rehab projects. 11 . Lighting Replacement Project. 150,000 a. Provides energy efficiency. b. Reduces annual utility expenses. 111. Headworks Screenings System Improvements Project. 300,000 a. Existing Screenings System to be evaluated; existing process is not efficient, creates equipment maintenance problems, and backup system is a safety hazard. b. Provide new Screenings System. IV. Littleton Interceptor Pipe Lining Project. 600,000 a. The Littleton Interceptor from the Siphon Structure to the Headworks Influent is in need of rehabilitation. b . Existing concrete pipe shows signs of rebar corrosion (from 2008 TV inspection report). c. 1000 total linear foot. d. Use recent City of Littleton budgetary estimate of $700 /lf. e . Project to be conducted in two phases. f. 1st phase is 700 linear feet; from Siphon to MH-2 (inside LIE fenceline ). v. Solids Contact Tank Drain Line Replacement Project. 150,000 a. The existing 14-inch drain line has deteriorated. b. Pipe requires in place repair or replacement. c. Approximately 150 linear feet. TOTAL 1,950,000 Line No. Description Budget 1 Geographical Information System (GIS) -100,000 • Maintain service-area GIS system. Provide service/support, training, data management, and web hosting of the GIS site. 5 Infrastructure Annual Program -1,500,000 1. Annual Bldg Exterior Maintenance (structure repair, crack 300,000 sealing, coating/sealing, concrete repair, roofing, etc.). a. Extends life of buildings and structures. b. Defrays major structural and rehab projects. 11. Lighting Replacement Project. 100,000 a. Provides energy efficiency and reduces utility expenses. b. Completes remaining portion of plant lighting upgrades. c. Include street lighting. ... Administration HV AC Replacement Project. 600,000 111. a. Phase 2 -replace chiller system, boiler system, and rooftop unit over south west wing. b. Existing chiller and boiler at the end of service lives. Also requires separation of the two to meet code requirements. c. Replace rooftop unit to accept the hydronic system of the existing HV AC units. d. With replacement of chillers and boilers, and replacement of systems in Phase 1, we can extend the hydronic system throughout the Admin Bldg. This provides efficiency and energy savings. lV. Polymer Replacement Project. 250,000 a. The existing polymer batch system has become antiquated and requires replacement. b. New tanks, piping and polymer conveyance system. V. Littleton Interceptor Pipe Lining Project. 250,000 a. 2"ct Phase to consist of 300 linear feet; from MH-2 to the Headworks influent structure. 6 Land Purchases 50,000 • Begin planning and procurement procedures to purchase additional land for New Headworks Bldg. • New Headworks Bldg planned for construction in 2017-20 . TOTAL 1,650,000 ---------: Case# 1 5 9 2 3 7 6 8 10 11 12 Income 13,537,441 13,537,441 13,537,441 13,837,441 13,837,441 13,837,441 13,837,441 13,837,441 13,837,441 13,837,441 13,837,441 Borrow 3,000,000 0 2,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2015 balance 2,593,828 2,521,147 2,558,580 2,586,048 2,575,203 2,567,765 2,542,631 2,523,147 2,554,976 2,542,947 2,554,976 Rates 2013 4 7 5 2 0 0 4.7 5 3 0 3 Rates 2014 4 7 5 2.5 3 2 6 6 3 .5 5 3.5 --,_ -- Rates 2015 3 6 4 3 8 10 6 5 4 10 4 <----- c-- - ' - ------ ~---------- -- II •, DRAFT Do not distribute. Not for quotation. SOUTH PLATTE II WORKING GROUP August XX, 2012 Department of the Army Corps of Engineers, Omaha District CENWO-PM -AA ATTN : Chatfield Reservoir Storage Reallocation FR/EIS 1616 Capitol Avenue Omaha , NE 68102-4901 To Whom It May Concern : We are writing as the municipal and county members of the South Platte Working Group: a collaborative, multijurisdictional working group convened to maximize recreational opportunities along and adjacent to the South Platte River in Arapahoe County. In this working group we are partnering with the Colorado Water Conservation Board and Urban Drainage and Flood Control District to restore riparian habitat and make the river a more vital part of our communities. We are supportive of the goal of the Chatfield Reallocation Project, which is to provide additional water storage for the project proponents. We also agree that expanding Chatfield Reservoir seems like an important, cost-effective and less environmentally impactful solution to water storage needs than building new reservoirs to store the same amount of water. Our chief concern with the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) is that information on the likely flows from Chatfield Dam downstream through the cities of Metro Denver is not included in the body of the report (although it is included in Appendix H) and seems to be underemphasized as an integral part of the study's analysis. Additionally, "adaptive management" is cited almost 200 times in the DEIS but it is not clear how an adaptive management process might be used to address potential impacts related to downstream flows. Our expectation is that an adaptive management process would include the affected communities downstream in Arapahoe County with necessary financial support to conduct an effective, thorough and fair process . Our working group is focusing on maximizing the potential of the South Platte River to preserve habitat and provide recreational opportunities for the citizens of Arapahoe County and other Metro Denver residents. Additionally, the cities along the river are already struggling to meet water quality requirements under tight budgetary constraints. A further reduction in flows in the South Platte would seriously and negatively impact our ability to improve and share this important amenity as well as the cities' ability to provide safe drinking water to their residents. More information on expected flows from the expanded reservoir would help us plan for our priorities and outline an action plan for addressing the negative impacts of decreased flows should they occur. Because of the importance of the South Platte to our communities, we strongly urge the Corps to : • Revisit the flow information in the DEIS; August 6, 2012 Draft DRAFT Do not distribute. Not for quotation. • Provide and document additional information about anticipated flows and any expected changes to the current annual hydrograph in the South Platte going through Arapahoe County; • Provide for more effective measurement of flows through Arapahoe County rather than depending on Denver and Cha t field gages; • Provide such flow information in the body of the Final EIS rather than in an appendix to ensure that the importance of and potential impacts to flows are clear to all who read the final EIS; and • Explicitly discuss how adaptive management will be applied to understanding the impacts of and adjusting any changes to flow levels from Chatfield Reservoir. Additionally, we would be very interested in engaging in dialogue with the participants (upstream and downstream users) and sponsors of the study to determine the possibility of maximizing the benefits of releases from the reservo i r to maintain flows that are good for recreation, habitat and water quality. We anticipate initiating such dialogue later this year, and we strongly hope that the Corps will support and participate in the process and encourage the project proponents to do so as well. We encourage the Corps to consider these discussions as an essential part of any adaptive management and/or mitigation process . We welcome the opportunity to discuss these issues directly with the leads of the study and its proponents. Our working group meets monthly. For more information, please contact Will Si ngleton, Singleton Strategies LLC at will@singletonstrategies.com. Sincerely, Susan Beckman, Commissioner Arapahoe County Randy Penn, Mayor City of Englewood Debbie Brinkman, Mayor City of Littleton Cliff Mueller, Council Member City of Sheridan Sue Rosser, Board Member South Suburban Parks & Recreation District Gale Christy, Mayor Town of Columbine Valley August 6, 2012 Draft Shannon Carter, Director Open Spaces and Intergovernmental Relations Arapahoe County Gary Sears, City Manager City of Englewood Michael Penny, City Manager City of Littleton Devin Granbery, City Manager City of Sheridan Dave Lorenz, Executive Director South Suburban Parks & Recreation District -- ..r W Bowles Ave Phase 1 Stream Work ~ §' :iii:. ,f <..,;-, Redtail Lake ::r ~ Wetland Work ,,; Ken Carvl Ave La ke&river a cce ss Chatfield State Park Littleton Blvd W. Carson Dr. S Platte River Pkwy ns ~ -a ns 0 a. al "' W Mineral Ave .,,, South Suburban PARKS AND RECREATION Phase 1 Bank Stabilization '• ;l • '!l' z I OJ 0 ,..+ c .., n ro n OJ ro :J r+ ,..+ -• ro .., 0 :J 0 I 1 -:J V> r+ ., ro OJ 3 ~ 0 ., ~ .., ,..+ ::T J Location of Bank Stabilization and Redtail Lake Wetland Work -\ \ \ '\ .,. ' '\ ~ ~""' J Bank Stabilization -Preserve Existing Vegetation Maintain existin bank habitat (K _g upper cut mg Fisher). ) \,-" ' ·-., ~1 --1 ··· .111..--lffl=.··· -. JlU-----·~· ~:ntingpocket ~ ilfri!l jJ_["'~ll!""'-~ · =- """'hrub). "'-I :wt~, 1\T1 ~~-~~B]tl~~~ '<" ¥''.\~ ~ 1~1-I ~lE°\ ~--.1 -11-J~Sll!E- -. .,... --m_fil~= ~~1TF-111:::J111 , -, llF-\~1 ~11· --\I' . -~-* .. : . I 1--'fil~:fil~!~lll I' ~ ~ . . -• 1 9( l~1\) \ \::::.2j \I ! ~\\ !§' \I \I I I -~~\10\n~t\if,ifll~~/ -I \~! I \I I\ N"'ve Mat.,,. 1 \l\S -1 ~'1 ~'\tailWJ!~~-l!l =:-/~I rfill ~J1Fi11~wm11§11§11~- -- Chatfield Reservoir~RP~JIOCation Project: \ " . -~­~- Conceptua~ Rey~?~f -r~te~tial Downst~eam ~ydrolog~~'-, .. :~;~ Water Qua h !~t .~.-~?1.,.~~f~~~,i~ft~}'!l~f~~~cre~~·.~~~l. l;~t!;-~ts ~, ~' ' "'· _: \ ./ , ... .,,. ;}.;~, :.7,f1r i JJ:'Jl',,·llt1._.r-°"' 1·>\.t. -· .. _, t ~ .. f~t·:t~ . .oil -~ I ~ 1.1. t. j~ .I " •• ,, ····· '-~ .• £ .•. r,.. · J ,If. ff• .t~~..l'~~ "" 111 ~ Prepared for South Platte-working Group and Urban Drainage and Flood Control District \, .... Prepared by Wright Water Engineers, Inc. Jonathan E. Jones, P.E., D.WRE Denver, Colorado 303-480-1700 .. .. ~ -- Purpose of WWE Review Independently evaluate downstream effects of proposed Chatfield Reservoir Reallocation (20,600 AF) at conceptual level, relying on existing analysis, primarily in Draft FR/EIS. Focus on reach between Chatfield Dam and Oxford, for these subjects: • Hydrology • Water quality • Aquatic life • Public recreation •, ·. -- WWEScope For this review, WWE was instructed by UDFCD to: 1. Address the reach of the South Platte River from Oxford upstream to the Chatfield Dam. 2. Focus on changes in hydrology, water quality, aquatic life and recreation. 3. Base our analysis primarily on the Draft FR/EIS. 4. Conceptually review potential downstream adverse impacts and identify monitoring and mitigation approaches and statements which indicate a desire on the part of project proponents to work with downstream interests in the river to mitigate potential adverse effects. CHATFIELD RESERVOIR STORAGE REALLOCATION Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement June 2012 US Army Corps of Engineers ® Draft FR/EIS Planning Objectives • Increase availability and reliability of water supply by providing an additional average annual yield of up to 8,500 acre-feet of M & I water, sustainable over a 50-year period, to contribute towards meeting a water supply shortfall projected to be 100,000 acre-feet per year by 2050 for the service by 2050 for the service area of the 15 study sponsors. • Provide water supply of equivalent quality. • Maintain adequate levels of downstream flood control. . · Draft FR/EIS Planning Objectives (Cont.) • Ensure the provision of in-kind recreation facilities and experiences, to the extent possible. • Ensure maintenance of environmental benefits by minimizing environmental impacts. • Become less reliant on non-renewable groundwater. • Be as consistent as possible with the USACE Environmental Operating Principles. • Find collaborative solutions to future Denver Metro Area water supply needs . -- Alternatives Considered in Detail (after many more conceptual alternatives had first been evaluated) 1. No Action. 2. Least Cost Alternative to Chatfield Reservoir storage reallocation- Nontributary Groundwater (NTGW) Combined with Gravel Pit Storage. 3. Reallocation to allow an additional 20,600 acre-feet of Water Supply Storage. 4. Reallocation to allow an additional 7,700 acre-feet of Water Supply Storage combined with NTGW and Gravel Pit Storage. Downstream Water Providers (Stored Water Discharged Downstream and Rediverted) ~ City of Aurora ~ City of Brighton ~ Central Colorado Water Conservancy District ~ Western Mutual Ditch Company ~ Colorado Division of Parks and Outdoor Recreation ~ Denver Botanic Gardens Upstream Water Providers (Water diverted upstream or out of Chatfield and not routed downstream) ./ South Metro Water Supply Authority ./ Parker Water and Sanitation District ./ Centennial Water and Sanitation District ./ Town of Castle Rock ./ Roxborough Metropolitan District ./ Castle Pines North Metropolitan District ./ Castle Pines Metropolitan District ./ Hock Hocking LLC ./ Perry Park Country Club ./ Central Colorado Water Conservancy District Major Sections in the Draft FR/EIS • Alternatives • Affected Environment • Environmental Consequences • Economic Analysis, Comparison of Alternatives, and Selected Plan • Public Involvement, Review, and Consultation .· .· .· .- Legend 5.432 Ft. Inundation 5,437 Ft Inundation ..... · ·· 5,444 Ft . Inundation c:J Project Area 0 Miles Chatfield Resevoir Storage Reallocation FR/EIS U S Army Corps of Engineers , Omaha District Figure 4-1 Pool Levels [-n:) TETRA TECH EC 2 .· .· 5440.0 """"""' -~ 5437.5 d:: """" c .2 5435.0 .... ta > .Si LI.I -5432.5 0 i. 5430.0 0 17 41 I _ .A4 I I ........ -" I • Alts 1&2 J. Ji. ~ I !:::,. A It 3 66,....-1 .... ,., I • Alt4 ~•A··· :.&,a..... I .____ __ _ ..e.+.,..,--I .._. ~ I . ~·······A+• ._. Growing Season • I I I~. I •••• ?' A I ~·••• I ~_..•._. I lkrlJt. I ~~•••••·••+& I I A..... •• I I 10 20 30 40 so Week of Year Figure 4-17 Weekly Mean Pool Elevations for the Entire Year for All Alternatives .· LOP.D FRC::tu1 l!UA TE R3HED rm ...___ 2 A Tiu10SPHERJC DEPOSITION -----~------------------------------------ 2 = I~ _/.........__.VEGETP.TICNl301L BASELINE • ,O.NP.EROBIC ANAEROBIC ,OJ PROPOSED POC:l Figure 4-10 INlNDA TED .0. REA P.E ROB(: ,OJ PROPOSED POU. Phosphorus Sources to the Chatfield Reservoir Considered in the Nutrient Analysis Resource Area Geology and Soils Hydrology Water Quality Draft Chapter 2 Table 2-9 Summary Comparison of Env ironme ntal Impacts of Alternatives Alterna tiv e 1: No Ac tion Low potentia l for soi l erosion . Best management practices (BMPs ) wou ld reduce potential for soil erosion during construction of Penley Reservoir and pipelines . 155 acres inundated al Penley Reservoir No change from current conditions at Chatfiel d: 9 feet of pool fluctuat ions . Maximum pool elevation (5,432 feet msl ) reached 31 percent of years . Continued nonrenewable NTGW use until Penley Reservoir is completed . No anticipated impact BMPs would reduce potential water qual ity impacts during construction of Penley and pipelines . Alternati ve Alte rn at iv e 2: NTGW/O ownstream Gravel Pits1 Low potentia l for soi l erosion : impacts wou ld be less than Alternative 1 because of sma ll er construction area. No change from current conditions at Chatfield Would contribute to reg ional prob lems with NTGW . Approximately 1,364 new we lls needed to meet regional water demands with NTGW . Loss of production in Arapahoe Aqwfer up to 85 percent by 2050 . With BMPs , short-term impacts from we ll construction and convers ion of gravel pits to water storage reservoirs not anticipated to be significant. 2-67 Al ternat iv e 4: 7,7 00 Acre -Foot Alternat iv e 3: 20 ,600 Ac re-Foot Reallocat ion/N TGW/ Reallocation Dow nstream Gra vel Pits Low potentia l for soil erosion Low potential for soil erosion . Moderate to moderately high nsk for Moderate to moderately high risk for wind eros ion if vegetation is removed . wind erosion if vegetation is Relatively high runoff po!enbal. removed , but less than Alternative 3. BMPs would reduce potentia l for soil Relatively high runoff potential erosion dunng construction . BMPs wou ld reduce potentia l for soil No immed iate dam safely concerns erosion during construction . identified , Footprints from grave l pits and infrastructure would be less than Alternatives 1 and 2. No immed iate darn safety concerns identified , 587 acres inundated beyond current 215 acres inundated beyond current opera!Jons at top of conservation poo l. I operations at top of conservation 21 feet of pool fluctuations . I pool. Target pool elevation (5.444 feet msl) 14 feet of pool fluctuations . reached 18 percent of years. Target poo l elevation (5,437 feet ms l) No effect on nonrenewable NTGW . reached 25 percent of years . Adaptive management would m1nim1ze Minimum effect on nonrenewable impacts using operation strategies once NTGW . reallocation beg ins . Adaptive management would min imize impacts using operation strategies once rea ll ocation beg ins . - Poss ible eutrophica!Jon and algae in Possible eutrophicabon and algae in Chatfie ld Rese rvoi r and South Platte Chatfield Reservoir and South Platte River downstream . Riv er downstream . Worst-case , localized model pred icts · Total phosphorus . chlorophyll-a . and 0.037 to 0.071 mg/L instantaneous metals mterrned iate between maximum total phosphorus in short Alternatives 1 and 2 and Alternativ e term , 0.055 to 0.050 mglL 3. No impact to E. coli . instantaneous maximum total Removal of vegetation before phosphorus in long term . inundation could reduce nutrient Regional statistical model shows loads . minimal chanoe !slight decrease) in Chatfield Reservoir Storage Rea/location FR/EIS June 2012 -0 0 ,... (t) ::s ,... -· Q) c 0 ~ ::s CJ) ,... .., (t) Q) 3 -3 \J Q) (') ,... CJ) 0 ~ ~ (t) Q) --0 (') Q) ,... -· 0 ::s .. ·. •, -· < (1) ..., ~ '< a. a -0 cc '< ·. '• ·. ::c CD 0 -, CD ~ -· 0 ~ ·. ·. (") c -0 en -0 CD .., 3 -· r+ (") 0 :J C/J -· a. CD .., m r+ -· 0 :J C/J ,· WWE's General Observations Regarding Draft FR/EIS • DRAFT Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement (Draft FR/EIS)* dated June 2012 prepared by U.S. Corps of Engineers (USACE) in cooperation with Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB). • Draft FR/EIS is well written and was prepared by qualified and credible public and private sector entities. Technical analyses are based on accepted engineering and scientific methods. *Chatfield Reservoir Storage Reallocation Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement, June 2012 . · WWE's Overall Findings Regarding Potential Downstream Effects of Reallocation • Draft FR/EIS indicates that there are various potential negative effects related to flows, water quality, aquatic life and public recreation in reach of South Platte River of interest to Working Group/UDFCD. • Draft FR/EIS contains multiple statements which indicate that project proponents could work with downstream interests to monitor and mitigate potential impacts to flow, water quality, aquatic life and recreation . .· Caveat Regarding Colorado Water Law The Colorado water rights (water law) aspects of the statements from the Draft FR/EIS regarding mitigation and adaptive management have not been evaluated by WWE. WWE strongly recommends that the South Platte Working Group conduct such a legal review if negotiations with project proponents occur, including Case No. 94 CW 273, regarding a recreational water right for boat chutes for 100 cubic feet per second ( cfs) by Littleton and South Suburban Parks and Recreation District. .· WWE Summary Tables A and B WWE has prepared two summary tables: • Table A: Data Interpretation and Quotations Regarding Potential Downstream Impacts from June 2012 Draft FR/EIS • Table B: Statements in June 2012 Draft FR/EIS Regarding Mitigating Downstream Impacts That the South Platte Work Group May Elect to Raise with Project Proponents .· Table A: General Statement Regarding Changed River Flow Page 6 of Appendix CC: "Impact Issue: Increased storage of water in Chatfield Reservoir could result in loss of stream habitat below Chatfield Reservoir due to additional zero and low flow days." Table A: General Statement Regarding Changed River Flow Section 4, page 4-93: "Downstream impacts-Specifics of utilization of additional conservation storage capacity would determine the effect on flows below Chatfield Reservoir. Capture of up to 20,600 acre-feet appears to have the potential to decrease existing releases and alter timing of flows downstream. However, water stored and later released to downstream providers has potential to temporarily augment flows." .· 1200 T 1000 -~ aoo r (.) -3: 0 -LL. ~ :c 600 ..... c: 0 ~ c: R'S C1> 400 - :E 20 J I 0 Jan Feb POR 1942-2000 Mar Gage S ite : Denver Gage Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month ~-~---:~=~!~~-:--~---=-!i_(~an i~-n-~!i~ Figure 4-12 Percent Change in Flow from Baseline in the South Platte River Below Chatfield Reservoir if Alternative 3 Were Implemented -,-35 + 30 I + 25 I 20 -~ 0 -15 -3: 0 10 -LL. c: ·-5 C1> Cl c: 0 R'S .c: (.) -5 -c: i -10 ~ a.. _.._ -1 5 ("') .:!::: <( -20 -25 -30 -35 . · .· Table 8 Chatfield Reservoir Annual Duration Relationships Base and With Project Conditions Percent of Time Chatfield Reservoir Pool Elevation (ft msl) Chatfield Reservoir Outflow (cfs) Equaled or Base wl Project wl Project Base wl Project wl Project Exceeded (5432.0)' (5437.0)' (5444.0)' (5432.0)' (5437.0)' (5444.0)1 0.01 5458 .5 5458 .4 5465.3 5000 5000 5000 0.05 5455 .7 5456 .0 5461.8 5000 5000 5000 0.1 5452 .9 5454.3 5459.4 5000 5000 5000 0.2 5447.9 5451.3 5456 .5 4496 4289 4734 0.5 5434.1 5437 .6 5444 .6 2799 2849 2763 1 5432 .1 5437 .1 5444.1 2259 2240 2208 2 5432 .1 5437 .1 5444 .1 1741 1721 1700 5 5432 .1 5437.0 5444 .0 958 942 910 10 5432.0 5437.0 5444 .0 508 505 488 15 5432 .0 5437 .0 5444 .0 354 349 342 20 5432 .0 5437 .0 5443.8 271 266 262 30 5432 .0 5436 .7 5442 .7 175 170 165 40 5431 .5 5435.8 5441.2 117 113 109 50 5430 .5 5434 .6 5439.9 83 80 79 60 5429 .6 5433.5 5438.3 64 62 60 70 5428.4 5432.1 5436 .5 51 48 44 80 5427.0 5429 .7 5432 .9 37 32 23 85 5426.3 5427.1 5429 .1 25 20 11 .6 90 5425 .3 5426 .0 5427.3 11 8.7 4.4 95 5424 .0 5424 .1 5425 .5 2.4 1.5 0 .9 98 5423.3 5423.7 5424 .6 0 .8 0.8 0 .7 99 5423.0 5423.6 5424.3 0 .7 0.7 0.6 99.5 5423.0 5423.4 5424 .0 0.6 0.6 0 .5 99.8 5423 .0 5423 .3 5423 .8 0 .5 0.4 0 .4 99.9 5423 .0 5423 .2 5423 .6 0 .4 0.4 0.3 Note: 'Elevation at Chatfield Reservoir top of conservation pool . TableA-1 Comparison of Values for 80th and 90th Percentile Flows from Tables in Appendix H 80th Percentile1 Flow (cfs) 90th Percentile2 Flow (cfs) Month With 20,600 AF With 20,600 AF or Season Baseline Reallocation Baseline Reallocation Annual 37 23 11 4.4 January 7 5.0 3.6 2.1 February 11 2.2 2.5 0.8 March 35 1.0 5.8 0.8 April 51 6.0 17 0.9 May 108 91 71 44 June 140 121 79 71 July 137 146 93 92 August 103 117 71 83 September 51 62 42 46 October 39 38 30 28 November 21 12 11 5.3 December 11 8.5 5.5 2.5 Jan -March 11 3.3 3.3 0.9 Apr-June 85 64 47 13.2 July-Sept 69 80 52 61 Oct-Dec 21 14 11 6.4 1. This flow is exceeded 80% of the time on an average annual basis . 2. This flow is exceeded 90% of the time on an average annual basis. c 0 ~ :l "' r+ ~ CD m 3 -I ~ -· CT c: s- ~ ~Ci)" c "' s. )> n a. :::r a. () r+ ~ 0 CD II CD -'A 0 ._. ~ :::0 CD -CD m "' CD a. ...., a 3 c m 3 Table 2-9: Summary Comparison of Environmental Impacts of Alternatives • "Possible eutrophication and algae in Chatfield Reservoir and South Platte River downstream." • "Operating the reservoir to manage the outflow (e.g., increasing the retention time) could reduce nutrient concentrations, but may not be implementable given the timing and objectives of water uses." Section 4, Page 4-50 "Prolonged low pool levels after drawdown or during drought under Alternative 3 could increase temperatures in the bottom of the reservoir. This creates possible eutrophication and algal issues in Chatfield Reservoir and also in downstream sections of the South Platte River." Location Bear Creek Cherry Creek Sout h Platte River Table 4-6 Water Surface Profiles • South Platte River Basin, Colorado Comparison of Baseline and With Reallocation Conditions Chatfield Average Difference in Water Surface Elev. (feet) Conservation Pool (feet msl) 2-Year 10-Year 50-Year 100-Year 5437 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5444 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 5437 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 5444 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 5437 0.0 -0.1 0.0 0.0 5444 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Large Peak Flows Will Not Be Affected by Reallocation 500-Year 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 II :l Q) II :=tJ ........ m -"' ..-.. en CJ =r 0 0 Q) c: r+ -0 a. =r Q) c: a. r+CD Q. .., :l CD CD en m en .., a. co :l ~ -· :l o en :l r+ )> .., < CD CD Q> :l 3 c: C"' CD O ._. Q) r+ -· :l cc CD ~ CD 0 r+ en • .. "Adaptive Management" Appendix CC, Items of Federal Non-Federal Cooperation, page CC-6: "Through the adaptive management process, a Coordinated Reservoir Operations Plan would be developed in which those water providers that release their stored water through the Chatfield Outlet Manifold and then subsequently divert it at a downstream location would use their individual and collective 'best efforts' to coordinate their releases in a strategic manner that would assist in reaching stated water flow goals in the South Platte River below Chatfield Reservoir, to assist in the flow requirements at the Chatfield State Fish Unit and to minimize the potential for increased low-flow or zero flow days." "' Table 2-9, "Summary Comparison of Environmental Impact of Alternatives" • "Adaptive management would minimize impacts using operation strategies once reallocation begins." • "Aeration or mixing of Chatfield Reservoir to limit anaerobic conditions would reduce potential impacts." • "Increased monitoring and adaptive management would be used to address uncertainty in impacts to water quality." • "Maintaining instream flow on South Platte downstream, and to Chatfield State Fish Unit, by adaptive management would mitigate adverse effects." .· Table 4-1 Summary of Adaptive Management Measures to Address Potential .Impacts and Uncertainty • "Altered management of inflows and outflows to manage flushing and hydraulic residence time." • "Managing the release of water from Chatfield Reservoir." • "Distributing water releases from the reservoir more evenly throughout the year." • "Keeping instream flow rates high on the South Platte River below the reservoir during times of low flow and higher temperature." • "Preservation/enhancement of riparian and adjoining upland habitats in nearby off site areas." .... WWE Recommendation • Arapahoe County, the cities of Littleton, Englewood and Sheridan, and UDFCD should meet with representatives of the USACE, CWCB, upstream and downstream water users of the reallocated storage, and other project proponents to expand upon and develop details for the monitoring, mitigation and "adaptive management" in the Draft FR/EIS, eventually culminating in written agreements which will suitably mitigate potential adverse downstream impacts to stream flow, water quality, aquatic life and recreation . ALL RECYCLING SITE N Legend Englewood, Colorado 0 Sewer Manholes Water Main ATTACHMENT A Sewer Main Fire Service Line Sewer Service Line Water Service Line ~ ~ City of Englewood • Fire Hydrant ~ Utilities Department June 2012 0 125 250 500 NOTE: THIS MAP IS NOT A LEGAL DOCUMENT. IT IS INTENDED Feet TO SERVE AS AN AID IN GRAPHIC REPRESENTATION ONLY Englewood Utilities Dept., June, 2012 Supplemental Water Availability Analysis for Case Nos. 01CW285, 01CW286, and 01CW287 Figure 1-1 Location of Burlington Ditch Headgate , Metro Pump Station, Recycling Plant Pump Station and South Reservoir Complex Denver Water 5 December 22, 2010 DW-010576 Supplemental Water Availability Analysis for Case Nos. 01CW285, 01CW286, and 01CW287 Figure 1-2 Location of Fulton Ditch Headgate and North Reservoir Complex Denver Water 6 December 22, 2010 DW-010577 Supplemental Water Availability Analysis for Case Nos. 01CW285, 01CW286, and 01CW287 Figure 1-3 General Location of South and North Reservoir Complexes Denver Water 7 December 22, 2010 DW-010578 South Platte River Dad Clark Gulch Denver Basin Wells 0 .......... a Release Release Treatment i..-----1 Union Ave PS 0 Englewood Facilities Centennial W&SD Facilities 8 Denver Basin Wells Boreas Pass Ditch Englewood Source Water System Nevada Ditch Last Chance Ditch Bear Creek Park McBroom Ditch T abernash/F rasier Ranch Creek Collection System 7 , 1 2 3 4 Drought Category Stage I MILD (Drought Watch) MODERATE (Voluntary Reductions ) SEVERE (Mandatory Restrictions) CRITICAL/EXTREME (Rati oning ) Targeted Incremental & (Usage ) Reduction 5%(50/o) 100/o {150/o) 150/o {300/o) 5 6