HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting Packet - 5/20/2013
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
MEETING DATE: Monday, 20 May 2013
7:00 p.m.
1777 West Conference Room
1777 Broadway
Agenda Highlights:
L Call to order. (7:00 p.m.)
11. Approval of minutes from the April 15 meeting (7:01 p.m.)
111. *Public Comment Period. (7:05 p.m.)
IV. Information Item - Update on Civic Area (7:10 p.m.)
V. * Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion regarding the Two Mile Creek and
Upper Goose Creek Flood Mapping Study (7:25 p.m.)
VI. Information Item - 2014 Capital Utilities Capital Improvement Program (8:10 p.m.)
VII. Matters
• From the Board (8:55 p.m.)
o Information Item - 2014 Greenways Capital Improvement
Program
• From Staff (9:10 p.m.)
V111. Discussion about Future Schedule (9:15 p.m.)
IX. Adjournment. (9:20 p.m.)
* Public Comment Item
Information: Contact the WRAB Secretary, Angela D Reese at (303) 441-3266 or
reesea( ).bouldcrcolorado.gov . Packets are available in the reference section of the Main
Library and on-line at http://www.l)ouldercolorado.gov, Departments, Public Works,
Utilities, Water Resources Advisory Board. Agenda item times are approximate.
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
Upcoming Agenda Items - All Items Tentative
Revised 4-23-2013
May 20, 2013
• Information Item - 2014 Capital Improvements Program (Baird/Harberg)
• Information Item/Matters from Board - Greenways CIP (Noble/Scharnhorst)
• In formation Item - Civic Area Update (Ellis)
• Action Item - Twomile Canyon Creek and Upper Goose Creek Flood Mapping Study
(Bauer)
June 17,2013
• Action Item - Recommendation on 2014 Capital Improvements Program
• Information Item - Water Conservation Futures Study (Sands)
• Information Item - E. coli TMDL (Taylor/Linenfelser)
July 15, 2013
• Action Item - Twomile Canyon Creek and Upper Goose Creek Flood Mapping Study
(Bauer)
• Information Item - South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Study (Bauer)
• Information Item - Skunk Creek, Bluebell reek and King's Gulch Flood Mapping Study
(Coleman)
• Information Item - Hydroelectric Program Operations/Opportunities (Taddeucci)
August 19, 2013
• Action Item Skunk Creek, Bluebell reek and King's Gulch Flood Mapping Study
(Coleman)
• Action Item - South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Study (Bauer)
September 16, 2013
• Action Item - Water Conservation Futures Study
October 21, 2013
November 18, 2013
• Discussion Item - Recommendation to City Council on 2014 Priorities
December 16, 2013
• Action Item - Recommendation to City Council on 2014 Priorities
Upcoming Items/Not Scheduled
• Fluoride in drinking water (Linenfelser/Crittenden)
• Public Works Design and Construction Standards (Schum)
• Update on Partnership for Clean Water (Emarine)
• Boulder Slough Flood Mapping Update (Coleman)
• Backflow Prevention Program (Leoni)
• Utility Revenue Stabilization (Baird/Sands)
• Technology and Benchmarks (Crittenden/Douville/Crean/Harberg/Gallo)
• Water Supply/Climate Change (Taddeucci)
• WWTF Activated Sludge Upgrade/Removal of Emerging Contaminants
(Linenfelser/Douville)
• Update on Civic Area Planning Process
• WWTF - Tour of facility upgrades - May 2013 (Douville)
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES
Name of Board /Commission: Water Resources Advisory Board
Date of Meeting: 15 April 2013
Contact Information of Person Preparing Minutes: Kaaren Davis; 303-441-32;3
Board Members Present: Chuck Howe, Dan Johnson, Vicki Scharnhorst, Mark Squillace, Ed Clancy
Board Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bob Harberg, Engineering Project Management Coordinator
Bret Linenfclser, Water Quality and Environmental Services Coordinator
Joe Taddeucci, Water Resources Coordinator
Craig Skeie, Water Resources Facilities Manager
Russ Sands, Water Conservation Manager
Eric Johnson, Water Source Operations Manager
Kim Mutton, Water Resources Specialist
Ken Baird; Financial Manager
Kaaren Davis, Board Secretary
Meeting Type: Regular
Agenda Item I - Call to Order 17:05 p.m.]
This meeting was called to order at 7:05 p.m.
Agenda Item 2 - Approval of the 18 March 2013 Meeting Minutes: [7:06 p.m.]
Motion to approve the 18 March minutes with requested corrections by: Scharnhorst; Seconded by:
Johnson
Motion Passes; 3:0
Agenda Item 3 - Public Participation and Comment 17:09 p.m.]
Public Comment: None
Agenda Item 4 - Swearing in of new WRAB members: [7:10 p.m.]
Ed Clancy and Mark Squillace were sworn in.
Agenda Item 5 - Election of Officers: 17:12 p.m.]
Chair: Howe nominated by Squillace; Seconded by Clancy
Vote: 5-0, Howe elected Chair
Vice Chair: Scharnhorst nominated by Johnson; Seconded by Howe
Vote: 4-0-1 (Scharnhorst abstains). Sebarnborst elected Chair
Secretary: Johnson nominated by Scharnhorst; Seconded by Squillace
Vote: 4-0-1 (Johnson abstains) Johnson elected Secretary.
Agenda Item 6 - Information Item - 2014 Budget Process Overview. [7:17p.m.]
Ken Baird and Bob Harbcrg presented the item.
Executive Summary from Packet Materials:
As part ofthc city's annual budget process, Utilities develops a six-year planning budget, this year for the
time period of 2014 through 2019. Within this process, funds are appropriated for the first year, 2014. The
Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) role in this process is defined in the Boulder Revised Code; .
. to review all environmental assessments and capital improvements conducted or proposed by the utilities
division." This agenda item is intended to initiate this process by providing:
Background information
WRAB Minutes
15 April 2013
Page No. 1
Fund updates
Budget Outlook
o Update on Bonds
Schedule of key milestones
This packet contains information concerning the updated 2013 Utilities Budget and the 2013-2018 Utilities
Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The attached fund financials and CIP spreadsheets (Attachment A -
Water Utility, Attachment B - Wastewater Utility and Attachment C -Stormwater / Flood Management
Utility) reflect actual revenues and expenditures for 2012.
Staff will return to the May 20, 2013 meeting with the updated 2014 proposed budget incorporating
personnel and other costs based on the budget guidelines. The CIP for each fund will also be updated to
reflect recommended changes, and recommended revenue increases may be adjusted to assure fund
sustainability.
No formal action by the WRAB is requested at this time. WRAB action will be scheduled for the June 18
meeting. A public hearing will be scheduled for both the May 20 and June [7 budget discussions.
WRAB Discussion Included:
• Clarifying questions regarding sources ofrevenue and how that revenue is distributed to
Utilities expenditures.
• Potential upcoming infrastructure/hydro projects.
• Status of negotiations with Xcel on hydro plant power generation rates.
• Clarifying questions on Capital Projects projected expenditures.
• Clarifying questions on the process fbr approving projects.
This item was an information item only. No board action requested at this time.
Agenda Item 7 - Information item - Drought Response Overview and Water Supply Update.
[8:16 p.m.]
Joe Taddeucci, Craig Skeie, Russ Sands, Bret Linenfclscr, Kim Hutton, F,ric Johnson and Jeff Arthur
presented item to the board.
Executive Summary from Packet Materials:
During the January 28, 2013 Water Resources Advisory Board meeting, staff provided a
summary of the 2012 water year (Attachment 1) with emphasis on how the city managed water
supply during dry conditions. During the associated discussion; WRAB expressed interest in
discussing the drought plan in more detail at a subsequent meeting. This memo provides an
update on 2013 water supply conditions and the city's drought stage determination procedures as
set forth in the Drought Plan (Attachment 2).
WRAB Discussion Included:
• Questions about water allotments varying by year and drought conditions.
• Status of" snowpack and water storage to date.
• Requests from nearby water districts for supply assistance in the upcoming year.
• The relation between water supply and the water budget program.
This agenda item was an informational item only. No board action requested at this time.
Agenda Item 8 - Matters [9:03 p.m.]
From the Board: (8:39 p.m.)
• Johnson: Storage rights are junior- Any opportunity to purchase other rights? Staff: The City's
Lxchange arrangement covers needs well. Anything we change is going to be subordinate to
what we already have.
• Clancy: Open space land leasing to organic farms. Is there any effort to teach them how to save
water? Staff : Council recently identified local food production as a priority issue for next
year. That larger discussion will encompass these opportunities.
From Staff: [9:18 p.m.[
• Thunderbird Lake: Council heard from Parks & Recreation, which proposes a lake level they
WRAB Minutes
15 April 2013
Page No. 2
feel they can sustain without regularly adding potable water. Council approved the suggestion
with guidelines regarding frequency of potable water use and take level to be maintained. I1"
water additions become necessary regularly, Council would like to take another look at the
issue.
• South Boulder Creek: Pushing the time frame for this item out a bit to do some additional
work. Update in July. Action in August. CDOT's work on US 36 required some re-evaluation
of the floodplain modeling.
• Wastewater Treatment Upgrades: Staff is still working to get things wrapped up. Ribbon
cutting possibly in May.
• Randy Crittenden is planning to retire in June. Hiring for a replacement should take place in
May.
Agenda Item 9 - Discussion on Future Schedule 19:21 p.m.]
• May- Part I I of the Cl P
• May- Civic Area Plan update
• May -E. Coli TMDL Update (information item)
• June-Final CIP recommendation
• June- Water Conservation future study.
• June- Flood mapping for Two Mile Canyon Creek and Upper goose
• November Priorities discussion for Council
• `1'131) (December?) - Retreat (perhaps move to later in the year
Agenda Item T0- Adjournment 19:24 p.m.]
There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, by motion regularly adopted; the
meeting was adjourned at 9:32 p.m_
Motion to adjourn by: Scharnhorst; Seconded by: Squillace
Motion Passes 5:0
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next WRAB meeting will be May 20, 2013 at 7:00 p.m., in the 1777 West Conference Room of the
city Municipal Building located at 1777 Broadway, unless otherwise decided by staff and the Board.
APPROVED BY: ATTESTED BY:
Board Chair Board Secretary
Date Date
An audio recording of the full meeting for which these minutes are a summary, is available on the Water
Resources Advisory Board web page.
WRAB Minutes
15 April 2013
Page No. 3
CITY OF BOULDER
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
AGENDA ITEM
MEE'T'ING DATE: May 20, 201.3
AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City
Council to adopt the Upper Goose Creek and Twomile Canyon Creek floodplain
remapping study
PRESENTERS:
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bob Harberg, Principal Engineer - Utilities
Annie Noble, Greenways Program Coordinator
Kurt Bauer, Engineering Project Manager
EXECU'T'IVE SUMMARY:
The city has a comprehensive floodplain management program designed to identify flood
risks, mitigate the risks of flooding, minimize loss of life and property damage and
support recovery following a major flood event. Floodplain mapping provides the basis
for the city's floodplain management prograin by identifying the areas subject to
flooding. Changes in land use, updated topographic mapping and upgrades to hydrologic
and hydraulic models warrant periodic mapping updates. In addition, the city's
Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan and the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan
state the city should work to update floodplain mapping on a ten-year cycle. This
memorandum presents a proposed mapping update to the Upper Goose Creek and
Twomile Canyon Creek west of Folsom Street. This memorandum also provides a brief
summary of the other important components of the city's comprehensive floodplain
management program including mitigation master planning and property acquisition,
flood insurance, protection land use regulations and flood preparedness.
The existing Upper Goose Creek and Twomile Canyon Creek floodplain maps date back
to 1991 and shows one main flow path for the 100-year flood event along each creek. The
limited size of the creek system and documentation of past flood events, indicate that
Twomile Canyon Creek did, and would again, overtop during even a minor storm event
and spill downstream along several flow paths. The updated mapping study used a
combination of modeling techniques to identify and define these overflow paths along
Twomile Canyon Creels. The resulting proposed updated floodplain mapping therefore
differs significantly from the 1991 mapping for Twomile Canyon Creek but remains
relatively similar for Upper Goose Creek.
Agenda # 5 Page 1
The proposed mapping for both creeks would result in a net increase of 19 structures in
the 100-year floodplain, but a net reduction of 43 structures in the conveyance zone and
net reduction 35 structures in the high hazard zone. Following input from W RAB, the
mapping study will be presented to Planning Board in mid-summer 2013 and City
Council in the fall of 2013. WRAB acceptance of the study does not require board
members to verify the analysis and calculations, but indicates the overall study process
and results are reasonable and acceptable.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests Water Resources Advisory Board consideration of this matter and action in
the form of the following motion:
Motion to recommend that City Council adopt the Upper Goose Creek and
Twomile Canyon Creek floodplain remapping study
COUNCIL FILTER IMPACTS:
• Economic: Flood insurance is required for properties located in the 100-year
floodplain if they are financed by a federally-backed mortgage. Flood insurance
rates are set by FEMA based on the flood risk. The average annual rate for flood
insurance within the city in 2012 was $733 (3,189 policies). Flood protection land
use regulations also create costs for the property owners in the form of permit
fees, increased costs of remodeling and restrictions on development. Flood
insurance and land use regulations do, however, provide protection from
potentially catastrophic losses due to floods.
• Environmental: Flood events can result in damage or destruction to buildings and
corresponding release of man-made contaminants. Flood waters can also cause
erosion and damage to areas of the natural environment that are not capable of
conveying high-velocity stormwater. A flood mitigation study will be developed
for Upper Goose Creel, and Twomile Canyon Creek following adoption of the
revised mapping. The updated mapping will provide a framework for the
development of flood mitigation measures designed to reduce environmental
damage that can be caused by a large flood event.
• Social: Floodplain mapping provides the basis for flood management by
identifying the areas subject to flooding. This information is essential for
determining areas where life safety is threatened and property damage is likely.
Land use regulations help reduce risks to people and property in these high flood-
risk areas. Accurate mapping of flood risks also helps implement effective flood
preparedness and response programs, thereby increasing the safety of people
living, working or visiting the City of Boulder.
OTHER IMPACTS:
• Fiscal: Funding for this study is provided by the Urban Drainage and Flood
Control District and the Department of Public Works Utilities Division.
• Staff Time: Time for completing the study is included in existing work plans.
Agenda 9 5 Page 2
BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK:
The Upper Goose Creek and Twomile Canyon Creek remapping study has not been
brought to any Boards or Commissions prior to WRAB. Following input from WRAB,
the mapping study will be presented to Planning Board in mid-summer 2013 and City
Council in the fall of 2013.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK:
A public open house was conducted on March 20, 2013. Sixty people attended the open
house and the city received 1 I written comments (Attachment A). Post cards were
mailed to owners and residents of every parcel located within the existing and proposed
100-year floodplain notifying them of the proposed changes, specifics of the open house
and the WRAB public hearing. In addition, letters were mailed to properties impacted by
the high hazard zone, notifying them that the proposed flood mapping identifies their
property as being impacted by the high hazard zone and indicating how to get more
information to prepare themselves or their fancily for a flood event.
BACKGROUND:
The risk of flash flooding is an important issue for the City of Boulder primarily due to
its location at the mouth of Boulder Canyon and other canyon creeks. Approximately 13
percent of the city is located within the 100-year floodplains of Boulder Creek and its 14
tributaries. Nearly 2,600 individual structures are located within this flood zone.
The city has a comprehensive floodplain management program designed to identify and
mitigate the risks of flooding, minimize loss of life and property damage, and support
recovery following a major flood event. Major components of the city's floodplain
management program include mapping, mitigation master planning and construction,
property acquisition and flood protection through land use regulations and flood
preparedness. The following provides a brief summary of each of the city's floodplain
management program elements along with a summary of the National Flood Insurance
Program. Additional information on the city's floodplain management program is
presented in Attachment B.
Floodplain Mapping
Floodplain mapping provides the basis for the city's floodplain management program by
identifying the areas subject to flooding. Changes in land use, updated topographic
mapping and upgrades to hydrologic and hydraulic models warrant periodic mapping
updates. The city has recently updated or is in the process of updating all of its floodplain
mapping. Current mapping studies include Upper Goose Creek and Twomile Canyon
Creek, Skunk Creek, Boulder Slough, Kings Gulch and Bluebell Canyon Creek. The city
delineates four flood zones:
1) 500-year floodplain
2) 100-year floodplain
3) Conveyance zone
4) High hazard zone
Agenda # 5 Page 3
The 500-year floodplain delineates the flood limits resulting from a storm that has a 0.2
percent chance of occurring in any given year. The l 00-year floodplain delineates the
flood limits resulting from a storm that has a one percent chance of occurring in any
given year (26 percent chance over a 30-year mortgage). The conveyance zone is defined
as the areas in the floodplain that are reserved for the main passage of the entire 100-year
flood flow when the 100-year floodplain is artificially narrowed until a maximum six-
inch increase in flood water depth is created. This zone is delineated to allow
development to occur up to the narrowed floodplain and still provide passage of 100-year
storm flows. The high hazard zone defines the area of the floodplain where water depth
and velocity pose a threat to life and safety. This area is delineated for areas in the
floodplain where water velocity multiplied by water depth equals or exceeds the number
four.
Flood Mitigation and Property Acquisitions
Flood mitigation master planning is scheduled to follow each mapping study update. The
following presents a schedule of upcoming flood mitigation studies:
• South Boulder Creek (in process)
• Boulder Creek (2014)
• Skunk Creek, Bluebell Canyon Creek and Kings Gulch (2015)
• Upper Goose Creek and Twomile Canyon Creek (2016)
• Boulder Slough (2018)
In addition to funding the planning and construction of flood mitigation projects, the
Stormwater and Flood Management Utility Capital Improvement Program allocates
$500,000 each year for property acquisition. This provides funds for the purchase of
properties in areas prone to flooding, especially in the city's high hazard regulatory area.
The city has purchased I I properties since 2001 and will continue to purchase properties
as opportunities arise.
Flood Insurance and Regulations
The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) was established in 1968 to enable
property owners in participating communities to purchase flood insurance. Flood
insurance through the NFIP provides coverage for loss up to $250,000 for residential
structures and $500,000 for commercial properties. Flood insurance is required for
structures located in the 100-year flood zone that have a federally-backed mortgage.
Flood insurance is available for all properties within Boulder, whether or not they are
located in the 100-year floodplain. While not mandated by law, a lender may also require
a flood insurance policy as a condition of a loan for a property in any zone on a Flood
Insurance Rate Map. The city does not require flood insurance but does encourage
property owners to consider purchasing a policy. The average annual rate in 201.2 for
flood insurance within the city was $733 (3,189 policies). This rate reflects a 20 percent
discount based on the city's participation in the National Flood Insurance Program
(NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS). The CRS is a voluntary incentive program that
recognizes and encourages community floodplain management activities that exceed the
minimum NFIP requirements. Flood insurance premium rates are discounted five percent
for every CRS class reduction. The city joined the CRS in 1992 as a Class 8 community,
Agenda # 5 Page 4
improved to a Class 7 in 2008 and a Class 6 in 2012. The city was awarded a Class 5 in
early 2013. As a result, policy holders will now receive a 25 percent discount on flood
insurance with anticipated city-wide annual savings of over half a million dollars.
Floodplain regulations are land use regulations intended to reduce risks to people and
property in areas along rivers and streams that are prone to flooding. A floodplain
development permit is required for all development activities in the 100-year floodplain.
Development within the 100-year floodplain is permitted, subject to the provision of
flood protection measures to mitigate the risk of property loss or damage. The
conveyance zone represents a preservation zone for passing flood flows along the creek
corridor without increasing flood depths, redirecting flood waters or adversely impacting
land areas. Proposed development must demonstrate that improvements will not result in
a rise in the conveyance zone water surface. The high hazard zone is the area of the
floodplain where there is the greatest risk of loss of life. Development in the high hazard
zone is the most restricted due to life safety concerns. Regulations for the 100-year
floodplain also apply in the high hazard zone and conveyance zone. It should be noted
that the city does not currently regulate within the 500-year floodplain. A Critical
Facilities Ordinance is, however, being drafted for board and Council consideration. The
ordinance proposes regulations for critical facilities located in the 100- and 500-year
floodplains. The city's current floodplain regulations can be reviewed using the following
link: Boulder Revised Code.
Flood Preparedness
Flood preparedness is a critical element in the city's floodplain management program.
The more prepared the community can be with pre-flood readiness, ongoing monitoring,
effective warning systems, trained response, and post-flood recovery, the better chance
the impacts of flooding can be managed. During the peak flood season, the Urban
Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) contracts to have 24-hour meteorologist
coverage for the Denvcr metro area. The UDFCD meteorologists forward daily forecasts
to the city and the Boulder Office of Emergency Management (Boulder OEM).The
UDFCD also operates and maintains a network of stream and rainfall gauges in and
around the city. This information provides real-time data that is monitored by city staff
and the Boulder OEM during the flood season. Information relating to the city's flood
risks and ways to prepare for flooding can be found on the city's website: Boulder Flood
In F6.
ANALYSIS:
The study area includes Upper Goose Creek and Twomile Canyon Creek west of Folsom
Street. The area was last mapped in 1987 and updated in 1989 to include conveyance and
high hazard delineations. While the land use has not changed significantly in the 25 years
since the original mapping, the hydrologic and hydraulic modeling capabilities have
changed dramatically. In addition, the city's topographic mapping has been updated to an
increased accuracy that provides one-foot contours. The city hired ICON Engineering in
2011 to conduct an updated study. The study, co-funded by the Urban Drainage and
Flood Control District (UFCD), was conducted in the following three phases:
Agenda # 5 Page 5
I . Hydrologic analysis
2. Field survey and investigation
3. Hydraulic analysis
The following briefly summarizes each of these project phases along with a description
of the peer review for the study. Additional background information for this study can be
Found on the project web site: Upper Goose Creek and Two. mile Canyon Creek
Floodplain Mapping Update.
Hydrologic Analysis
A hydrologic analysis was conducted in late 2011 using updated land use, topographic
mapping and current modeling software-The updated analysis refined the area of land
tributary to the study creeks, resulting in a slightly smaller watershed area (a portion of
land located east of Broadway and north of Iris Avenue was determined to be tributary to
Elmers Twomile Canyon Creek and therefore excluded from the study area). Results
from the updated analysis were compared to the 1987 study results, regional regression
equations and comparisons to similar Front Range drainage basins. The average 100-year
peak flows from the updated hydrology are approximately two percent lower than those
in the 1987 study. The hydrologic analysis was documented in a report that can be
reviewed using the following link: Hydrologic Verification Report.
Field Survey and Investigation
ICON Engineering conducted a field survey in late 201 Ito document existing conditions
within the study area. This information was used to:
• Identify sizes and characteristics of existing culverts and other creek crossings
• Assign hydraulic model parameters (roughness coefficients, debris blockage
values and contraction and expansion values)
• Collect select topographic survey information to supplement the one-foot contour
mapping
The field investigation was documented in a report that can be reviewed using the
following link: Field Documentation Memorandum.
Hydraulic Analysis
The 1987 floodplain maps show one major flow path along Twomile Canyon Creek.
Findings from the field survey and documentation of historic flood events, however,
indicated that even relatively minor storm events would cause Twomile Canyon Creek to
overtop with flood waters flowing downstream along several paths. It was therefore
decided early in the study process to develop two hydraulic models for the study area. A
separate 2-dimensional model was developed for just Twomile Canyon Creek. This
model served as a `roadmap' for determining the major Floodplain flow paths. A
traditional 1-dimensional hydraulic model was then developed for the entire creek system
(both Twomile Canyon Creek and Upper Goose Creek) with channel alignments
mimicking the major flow paths identified by the 2-dimensional model. Floodplains were
delineated for the 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, and 500-year events. The hydraulic analysis was
documented in a report that can be reviewed using the following link: Hydraulic Report.
Agenda;/ 5 Page 6
Peer Review
Anderson Consulting Engineers was hired to perform a peer review of ICON Engineers
work. The peer review was conducted on the model parameters, hydrologic analysis,
hydraulic modeling and proposed mapping delineations. Review comments were
addressed by ICON Engineering and approved by the city and IJDFCD.
Results
Table 1 below presents a summary of the changes between the existing and proposed
floodplains. The proposed updated floodplain mapping differs significantly from the
previous mapping for Twomile Canyon Creek, but remains relatively similar for Upper
Goose Creek. Unlike the original mapping that shows one flow path for "Twomile Canyon
Creek, the proposed mapping shows several flow paths. This new flow pattern results in
shallower flooding and lower velocities. As a result, there are slightly more structures
located in the 100-year floodplain, but fewer structures in the conveyance and high
hazard zones. In addition, the conveyance zone impacts were reduced by maximizing the
use of eity-owned right-of-way to define this zone.
Attachments C, D and F. present figures showing a comparison between existing and
proposed 100-year floodplains, conveyance zones and high hazard zones for both creeks.
Table 1: Summary of Proposed Changes
Number of Structures 100-Year Floodplain Conveyance Zone High Hazard Zone
Existing Floodplain 414 154 66
Proposed Floodplain 433 109 31
Change +19 -43 -35
No Longer Affected 258 105 62
Newly Affected 277 60 27
No Change 156 49 4
NEXT STEPS:
Following input from WRAB, the mapping study will be presented to Planning Board in
mid-summer 2013 and City Council in the fall of 2013. If City Council adopts the study,
the city will forward the mapping to FEMA for review and begin to regulate to the more
restrictive of the existing and new mapping. Following formal adoption by FEMA, the
city will regulate solely based on the new mapping. A finding from FEMA is anticipated
in mid to late 2014.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Summary of Public Comments
B. May 29, 2012 City Council Floodplain Management Study Session Memorandum
C. Existing and Proposed I00-Year Floodplain
D. Existing and Proposed Conveyance Lone
E. Existing and Proposed High Hazard Lone
Agenda It 5 Page 7
Attachment A: Summary of Public Comments
i ~
Upper Goose Creek / Twomile Canyon Creek Remapping Study
Open House Wednesday March 20, 2013.
COMMENTS
r
r
7-0
Attachment A
Bauer, Kurt
From, Bauer, Kurt
Sent: Friday, April 12, 2013 3:07 PM
To: Vanci 1969@gmail.com'
Subject: 1600 Alpine
I
Dear Mr. Silberman:
Thanks for attending the Upper Goose / Twomile Canyon Creek remapping study open house and providing comments.
The structure located on 1600 Alpine was incorrectly shown on the open house graphic as still being located in the
conveyance flood zone. The revised mapping indicates that the conveyance zone comes very close to, but does not
include the structure. Sorry for the misrepresentation on the graphic.
Sincerely,
Kurt Bauer, P.E. C.F.M.
Engineering Project Manager
City of Boulder
Public Works Department - Utilities Division
P.O. Box 791
Boulder, CO 80306
303-441-4232
BauerK@bouldercolorado.gov
3
Attachment A
Upper Goose Creek / T'womile Canyon Creek Remapping Study
Open House Wednesday March 20, 2013.
i
COMMENTS
H
01
-
ALLachaienL A
Upper Goose Creek / Twomile Canyon Creek Rem apping Study
Open House Wednesday March 20, 2013 .
COMMENTS
L-C
C
i
Attachment A
Upper Goose Creek / Twomile Canyon Creek Remapping Study
Open House Wednesday March 20, 2013 .
COMMENTS
7
Attachment A
Upper Goose Creek / Twomile Canyon Creek Remapping Study
Open House Wednesday March 20, 2013 .
COMMENTS
v~ t n~ rf~~ U
2 / Awe- 9w -I"- /0,1161//
fin"" 7
r
J ,
"Lo
Attachment A
Upper Goose Creek / Twomile Canyon Creek Remapping Study
Open House Wednesday March 20, 2013
COMMENTS
J
Attachment A
Upper Goose Creek / Twornile Canyon Creek Remapping Study
Open House Wednesday March 20, 2013 .
COMMENTS -
j f( ~ t
3
1~4v
Attachment A
Upper Goose Creek / Twomile Canyon Creek Remapping Study
Open House Wednesday March 20, 2013,
COMMENTS
fix.-~~(v
z~- .
,Lei-r L7
Attachment A
Upper Goose Creek / Twomile Canyon Creek Remapping Study
Open House Wednesday March 20, 2013.
COMMENTS
Attachment A
• I
i
Upper loose Creek 0 Tvvomile Canyon Creek Remapping Study
f
Open House Wednesday March 20, 2013. ►
I
I
COMMENTS
f
i
I
i
I
Attachment A
I
Upper Goose Creek / Twomile Canyon Creek Remapping Study
Open House Wednesday March 20, 2013 .
COMMENTS
C~
r • ~ C_: ~ r ~
I
Attachment B: City Council Floodplain Management Study Session Memorandum
TO: Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM: Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Paul J. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager
Maureen Rait, EXCCUtive Director of Public Works
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bob Harberg, Utilities Engineering Project Management Coordinator
Annie Noble, Grcenways Coordinator
Kurt Bauer, Engineering Project Manager
Christie Coleman, Engineering Project Manager
Katie Knapp, Floodplain & Wetlands Administrator
DATE: May 29, 2012
SUBJECT: Floodplain Management Study Session
1. PURPOSE
The risk of flash flooding is an important issue for the City of Boulder primarily due to
its location at the mouth of Boulder Canyon and other canyon creeks. The city has a
comprehensive floodplain management program designed to mitigate the risks of
flooding, minimize loss of life and property damage, and support recovery following a
major flood event. City Council is regularly asked to take action on measures to support
these efforts, including consideration of capital projects, floodplain mapping studies and
ordinance changes. Some key projects scheduled for City Council consideration in the
next year include updating mapping of the Boulder Creek floodplain, a mitigation plan
for the South Boulder Creek floodplain, and additional regulations related to critical
facilities. The purpose of this study session is to provide City Council with background
on the city's flood risks and upcoming floodplain management agenda items. The study
session will also provide an opportunity for council members to ask questions and
provide input prior to formal consideration of those items.
11. QUESTIONS FOR COUNCIL:
1. Does City Council have any questions about the city's flood risk or its existing
floodplain regulations?
2. Does City Council have any questions about the city's proposed floodplain
regulations involving critical facilities and mobile populations?
3. Does City Council have any questions about the Boulder Creek floodplain
mapping study, South Boulder Creek mitigation study, or the planning effort for
the civic center area?
1
Attachment B: City Council Floodplain Management Study Session Memorandum
111. BACKGROUND
Flood Risks
Approximately 13 percent of the city is located within the 100-year floodplains of the 14
tributaries to Boulder Creek (Attachment A). Nearly 2,600 individual structures are
located within this flood zone.
The greatest flash flood risk is generally considered to be between April 15 and Sept. 15,
but flooding can occur at any time. Flash floods along the city's creeks can occur very
quickly with little or no warning. The greatest threat is from thunderstorms that produce
high intensity rainfall in short periods of time.
The city has had several major flood events in the past. In 1894, up to six inches of rain
fell west of the city, resulting in 100-year event flows in Boulder Creek, extensive
flooding up to one mile wide and the loss ofone life. Boulder Creek flooded again in
both 1914 and 1929. South Boulder Creek flooded in 1938 and again in 1969, causing
extensive damage in Eldorado Springs and within the city limits.
The city has also had minor flood events in recent years. A flash flood event in 2007
along Bear Canyon Creek resulted in roadway overtopping at Table Mesa Drive.
Fourmile Canyon Creek overtopped its banks in summer 2011, producing minor flooding
within the city and greater flooding upstream in Boulder County.
On Sept. 6, 2010, a wildfire started that eventually burned nearly 6,200 acres of the steep,
forested Fourmile Canyon area just west of Boulder. Approximately 60 percent of the
area was severely or moderately burned. Approximately 80 percent of the burn area is
located on land that is tributary to Fourmile Creek, which is a tributary to Boulder Creek
(approximately two miles west of Boulder). Approximately 20 percent of the burn area is
located in the Fourmile Canyon Creek watershed. Fourmile Canyon Creek flows through
north Boulder and is also tributary to Boulder Creek, with a confluence downstream of
the Boulder city limits.
As a result of the burn, there is an increased flood risk for approximately the next eight
years along Boulder Creek and Fourmile Canyon Creek as vegetation gradually re-
establishes. A hydrologic model has been developed for the burn area and calibrated
based on the runoff observed from rainfall events in 2011. Based on this model, rainfall
thresholds and inundation maps have been created to help identify flood threats to the
city.
Flood Emergency Preparedness
Flood preparedness is a critical element in the city's floodplain management program.
The more prepared the community can be with pre-flood readiness, ongoing monitoring,
effective warning systems, trained response, and post-flood recovery, the better chance
the impacts of flooding may be managed.
2
Attachment I3: City Council Floodplain Management Study Session Memorandum
During the peals flood season, the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDI'CD)
contracts to have 24-hour meteorologist coverage for the Denver metro area. The
UDFCD meteorologists forward daily forecasts to the city and the Boulder Office of
Emergency Management (Boulder OEM). The UDFCDD also operates and maintains a
network of stream and rainfall gauges in and around the city. This information provides
real-time data that is monitored by city staff and the Boulder OEM during the flood
season.
Due to the very short time frame in which flooding can occur, there is often limited time
available to provide adequate warning. This is particularly true for some of the city's
smaller creek systems, which lack stream gauges. In addition, thunderstorm cells can
move and intensify very rapidly and often unpredictably. Flood education, regulations
and ordinances are therefore critical components of the city's flood emergency
preparedness program.
Floodplain Mapping Updates
Floodplain mapping provides the basis for flood management by identifying the areas
subject to flooding. This information is essential for determining areas where life safety
is threatened and property damage is likely. The city's floodplain maps need to be
periodically updated to reflect changes in the floodplain resulting from land development,
flood mitigation improvements, new survey information and new study technologies.
Floodplain mapping updates are currently being completed for Boulder Creek (see
discussion in analysis section below) Skunk Creek, Boulder Slough, Kings Gulch,
Bluebell Canyon Creek, Upper Goose Creek and `hwomile Canyon Creek.
Flood Mitigation and Property Acquisition
The city has been working to reduce the flood threat by increasing the conveyance
capacity of the creek systems. The most recently-completed flood mitigation project was
along Elmer's Twomile Creek. This project increased the capacity of the creek to convey
100-year flows, thereby reducing the flood risk and removing numerous structures from
the 100-year floodplain designation. The city is currently designing a flood mitigation
project along Wonderland Creek from Foothills Parkway to 30th Street and will begin
design of the next upstream reach to 28th Street. The projects are based on a master
flood mitigation plan for Founnile Canyon Creek and Wonderland Creek that was
accepted by City Council in 2009. The city has leveraged funding available through the
State of Colorado and the UDFCD for these projects. A flood mitigation plan is also
being developed for South Boulder Creek, as discussed in the Analysis section below.
In addition to funding the construction of flood mitigation projects, the Stormwater and
Flood Management Utility Capital Improvement Program allocates $500,000 each year
for property acquisition. This provides funds for the purchase of properties in areas
prone to flooding, especially in the city's high hazard regulatory area. High risk
properties have been identified and prioritized for purchase along each of the city's major
drainageways. This program has been "opportunity based," working with willing sellers
and relying on properties that become available on the real estate market. The table below
presents the properties that have been purchased using this fund over the past 11 years.
3
Attachment B: City Council Floodplain Management Study Session Memorandum
Properties Acquired Using Pre-flood Property Acquisition Funds
Property Address Stream Year
3115 Iris Ave. Wonderland Creek 2010
2727 Valmont Road Elmer's Two-Mile Creek 2007
2400 Topaz St. Fourmile Canvon Creek 2006
2490 Topaz St. Fourmile Canvon Creek 2005
2435 Topaz St. Fourmile Canyon Creek 2004
1228 17th St. Boulder Creek 2004
1230 17th St. Boulder Creek 2003
2650 13th St. Goose Creek 2002
299 Arapahoe Ave. Boulder Creek 2001
Significant flood mitigation improvements to Boulder Creek were implemented as part of
a joint use project with the Boulder Valley School District. Thirteen multi-family
structures (169 units) near Boulder High School were purchased. The structures were
removed and the overbank area on the north side of the creek south of Arapahoe was
excavated and graded to provide for additional flood conveyance and the construction of
park and athletic fields. This work was completed in 1993.
Floodplain Regulations
Floodplain regulations are land use regulations intended to reduce risks to people and
property in areas along rivers and streams that are prone to flooding. The City of Boulder
adopted its first floodplain regulations in 1969, in response to flooding along the Front
Range of Colorado.
The city's "Floodplain Regulations" are contained in Chapter 9-3-2, Boulder Revised
Code (B.R.C.) 1981. Regulated flood areas are the: 1) 100-year floodplain 2)
conveyance zone and 3) high hazard zone.
100 year floodplain: defined as all land areas subject to inundation by flood waters in a
storm event having a one percent chance of being equaled or exceed in any given year.
A floodplain development permit is required for all development activities in the 100-
year floodplain. Development within the 100-year floodplain is permitted, subject to the
provision of flood protection measures to mitigate the risk of property loss or damage. In
residential applications, this requires that the lowest floor of any new structure or addition
be elevated above the flood protection elevation (which is two feet above the flood
elevation). Basements are not permitted for residential structures.
4
Attachment B: City Council Floodplain Management Study Session Memorandum
In non-residential applications, the lowest floor of any new structure or addition must be
elevated above the flood protection elevation or be flood proofed to ensure that the
structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of flood
waters below the protection elevation. 1~loodprool-mg of structures must be provided in
an automatic manner and not require any human intervention to be effective. This is
often accomplished through the use of flood gates that will automatically raise during a
flooding event, such as the flood gates at the Municipal Building, the St. Julien or
Alfalfa's.
New parking lots are not permitted in the 100-year floodplain where flood depths would
exceed 18 inches, since automobiles are buoyant and become flood debris at these depths.
Hazardous materials may not be stored below the flood protection elevation (except for
existing gasoline storage tanks that were in place prior to 1989). Mobile homes placed
after July 1, 1989, must be elevated on a permanent foundation, and new structures are to
be oriented to minimize flood flow obstruction.
Conveyance zone: represents a preservation zone for passing flood flows along the creek
corridor without increasing flood depths, redirecting flood waters or adversely impacting
land areas. The establishment of a conveyance zone recognizes that development
activities are expected to occur in the 100-year floodplain, but places a limit on these
activities to prevent adverse impacts to the floodplain.
Development in the conveyance zone typically requires an analysis to ensure that
flooding conditions are not worsened. Flood mitigation measures are sometimes required
to offset the development and keep the floodplain from expanding or floodwaters from
getting deeper. Regulations for the 100-year floodplain also apply to the conveyance
zone. If the area is also located in the high hazard zone, then high hazard zone
regulations apply.
Nigh hazard zone: This area of the floodplain is where there is the greatest risk of loss of
life. The area should not be occupied by people during a flooding event. The high
hazard zone represents those areas in the 100-year floodplain where an unacceptably high
hazard to human safety exists and where there is the potential for flood waters to sweep
people off of their feet and wash them downstream.
Research was conducted to determine the flood depths and velocities that were most
likely to sweep people off of their feet. As a result of the research, the high hazard zone
is defined as all areas in the floodplain where the flood water velocity (feet per second)
multiplied by the flood water depth (measured in feet) would equal or exceed four or
where flood water depth alone would equal or exceed four feet. An example would be a
flood depth of three feet with the water only moving 1'h feet per second, which would
result in a product number of 4'/z , thus placing the area within the high hazard zone.
Development in the high hazard zone is most restricted due to life safety concerns. No
new structures or additions to existing structures intended for human occupancy are
permitted in the high hazard zone. It is anticipated that most of the structures within the
5
Attachment B: City Council Floodplain Management Study Session Memorandum
high hazard zone will require evacuation during a major flooding event due to structural
failure or potential issues with fire, sanitation, electric hazards, broken utilities, or debris.
Additionally, no new parking lots and no change of use of an existing non-residential
structure to a residential use is permitted. Regulations for the 100-year floodplain also
apply to the high hazard zone and conveyance zone.
Flood Insurance and the Community Rating System (CRS)
National Flood Insurance Program: The City of Boulder participates in the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by adopting and enforcing floodplain management
ordinances to reduce future flood damage. In exchange, the NFIP makes Federal
government-backed flood insurance available to homeowners, renters and business
owners, whether or not their properties are in a floodplain. Flood insurance covers direct
losses caused by surface flooding, including a river overflowing its banks, a lake or ocean
storm, and local drainage problems. The NFIP insures buildings with two types of
coverage: structural and contents. Structural coverage is for the walls, floors, insulation,
furnace, and other items permanently attached to the structure.
Mandatory Purchase Requirement: There is a mandatory flood insurance purchase
requirement that applies to all forms of federal or federally-related financial assistance
(such as mortgages) For buildings located in the 100-year floodplain. This requirement
affects loans and grants for the purchase, construction, repair, or improvement of any
publicly or privately owned building.
Before a person can receive a loan or other financial assistance from a federally-backed
agency or lender, there must be a check to see if the building is in a Special Flood Hazard
Area (SFHA). The SFHA is the base (100-year) floodplain mapped on a Flood Insurance
Rate Map (FIRM).
If the building is in a SF1IA, the agency or lender is required by law to require the
recipient to purchase a flood insurance policy on the building. The requirement is for
structural coverage equal to the amount of the loan (or other financial assistance) or the
maximum amount available, whichever is less. The maximum amount available for a
single-family house is $250,000. While not mandated by law, a lender may also require a
flood insurance policy as a condition of a loan for a property in any zone on a Flood
Insurance Rate Map.
The Community Rating System: The NFIP's Community Rating System (CRS) is a
voluntary incentive program that recognizes and encourages community floodplain
management activities that exceed the minimum NFIP requirements.
As a result, flood insurance premium rates are discounted to reflect the reduced flood risk
resulting from community actions that meet the three goals of the CRS:
1. Reduce flood losses;
2. Facilitate accurate insurance rating; and
3. Promote the awareness of flood insurance.
6
Attachment B: City Council Floodplain Management Study Session Memorandum
For CRS participating communities, flood insurance premium rates are discounted in
increments of five percent; i.e., a Class 9 community would receive a five percent
premium discount, while a Class 8 community would receive a 10 percent discount.
The CRS classes for local communities are based on 18 creditable activities, organized
under four categories:
1. Public Information,
2. Mapping and Regulations,
3. Flood Damage Reduction, and
4. Flood Preparedness.
The City of Boulder joined the CRS in 1992 as a Class 8 community and improved to a
Class 7 in 2008. In 2011, the city applied for additional CRS credit for the Mufti-I Lazard
Mitigation Plan, f7oodplain mapping studies, community outreach, the flood warning
program, stormwater management and other efforts. The city was notified in March
2012 that it had achieved enough credit to become a Class 6 rating, which provides a 20
percent discount on flood insurance premiums. This new rating is currently being
processed through the NFTP. The NFIP also informed the city that it is close to becoming
a Class 5 community. Public Works staff is currently pursuing different options to
achieve enough CRS credit to become a Class 5 community.
The total annual savings on flood insurance premiums available through the CRS for
property owners within the City of Boulder are shown below:
Class Discount Total Annual
Savings
9 5% $117,953
8 10% $219,179
7 15% $320.407
6 20% $438,359
5 25% $539,585
4 30% $640,811
3 35% $742,038
2 40% $843,264
1 45% $944,490
Nationally, there are 1 192 communities that currently participate in the CRS program. In
Colorado, the City of Fort Collins (a Class 4 community) has the best CRS rating due to
their floodplain management efforts. The graph below illustrates the ratings of the
participating communities:
7
Attachment B: City Council Floodplain Management Study Session Memorandum
National Flood Insurance Program (NF1P)
Community Rating Systom (CRS) Communities by Class
(Classes effective October 1. 2011)
Sao - -
450
1192 Communities
400
350
I
213
2no
150 I-
100 66
I '
50
1 ' .t
C1ass9 Class 3 z ,s 6 Class 5 Class 7 Glass 3 Class 2 Class 1
This year, FEMA is adopting a new CRS manual, which will change the way that
communities are scored. Public Works staff is reviewing the program to determine how
to achieve the best rating within the new system.
IV. ANALYSIS
Proposed Critical Facilities and Mobile Populations Ordinance
Recent and historical flood events have demonstrated that flood damage to certain critical
facilities can significantly delay and increase the costs of flood recovery. By requiring
protection of critical facilities, local governments can help support economic and social
recovery and decrease the risk of deaths or injuries from flooding.
During a flood event, it will be critical for "essential services" Like fire stations, police
stations and hospitals to remain operational. The Hurricane Katrina disaster highlighted
the threat to "at-risk populations" like child day care facilities, schools and nursing homes
located in flood prone areas. In addition, appropriate flood response information should
be available to people at hotels, theaters, restaurants and other "mobile population"
facilities to help them understand what to do while an event is occurring. Finally, large
stockpiles of hazardous materials should be contained in order to minimize
environmental damage during a flood event. Protecting at-risk populations, essential
services, hazardous materials and mobile populations increases the community's ability
to recover from flooding.
To begin addressing this issue, City Council endorsed the development of a critical
facilities and mobile populations ordinance as part of its April 28, 2009, study session.
The city's 2004 Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan and 2011 Multi-
Hazard Mitigation Plan also call for identification and protection of critical facilities
located in the city's 500-year floodplain.
8
Attachment B: City Council Floodplain Management Study Session Memorandum
Public Engagement
An open house was held on Aug. 24, 2010, to inform the public of the proposed
ordinance and input was received on three initial proposed management strategies. Since
then, staff has continued to engage stakeholders through a variety of methods, including
the development of a project website, postcard invitations to public hearings, newspaper
articles in the Daily Camera, emails to listserv subscribers, two meetings with the Local
Emergency Planning Committee, a presentation to the Boulder Chamber's Community
Affairs Council in October 2010, a February 2011 spot on "Controversy and Consensus"
that aired on Channel 8, and phone calls to hazardous materials facility managers.
Community feedback has been collected and is being considered as the city continues to
refine the ordinance.
The Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) reviewed and provided input on the draft
ordinance at its Jan. 20, 2011, and March 28, 2011, meetings. The WRAB voted 5-0 to
recommend approval of the ordinance. The Planning Board reviewed the draft ordinance
at its Aug. 4, 2011, meeting and voted to recommend approval of the ordinance in a 6-0
vote.
Proposed Ordinance Requirements
The draft ordinance currently proposes requiring new flood protection measures for some
facilities in the 500-year floodplain. It would also require some facility and business
owners in the 500- and 100-year floodplains to develop emergency management plans.
The concept of protecting critical facilities and mobile populations is based on direction
from the NFIP's Community Rating System (CRS). The CRS recommends the protection
of critical facilities in the 500-year floodplain to reduce damage to those facilities that, in
turn, will improve a local government's ability to respond to the needs of the community
during a disaster. Other Front Range communities have implemented this concept. In
1995, the City of Fort Collins implemented regulations to protect critical facilities in the
500-year floodplain of the Poudre River.
Proposed Structural Flood Protection Requirements:
Structural flood protection measures either elevate a building above flood levels or
protect the structure from the impacts of flood waters.
• New and existing at-risk populations and essential service sites in the 500-year
floodplain would be required to floodproof or elevate the building above
floodwaters when building new structures or making significant increases in the
building's value or size.
• New and existing hazardous materials facilities in the 500-year floodplain would
be required to contain the hazardous materials, floodproof or elevate the buildings
within 10 years of building a new structure, proposing improvements leading to a
significant increase in the building's value, or completing floodplain related
improvements.
• In the 100-year floodplain, no new structural flood protection measures are
currently proposed.
9
Attachment B: City Council Floodplain Management Study Session Memorandum
Proposed Emergency Management Plan Requirements:
Emergency management plans would need to include either a shelter-in-place plan or an
evacuation plan for employees, patrons and residents. Evacuation routes or sheltering
locations would have to be posted in the buildings (similar to a fire exit route map in
hotels).
New and existing at-risk populations, essential services, mobile populations, and
hazardous materials sites in the 100 or 500-year floodpla.in would be required to develop
an emergency plan within 10 years of building a new structure, increasing the size of a
building, completing a floodplain related improvement, or proposing improvements
leading to a significant increase in the building's value.
A summary of the proposed ordinance requirements is presented below:
Proposed Ordinance Requirements
100-Year Flood lain 500-Year Flood lain
Essential Service Facilities
Structural Flood
Examples: Emergency Protection &
Police and Fire .Stations, Management Plan Emergency
Hospitals, Utilities, Emergency Management Plan
Shelters
Number of Facilities 17 38
At-Risk Populations Facilities Structural Flood
Examples: Emergency Protection &
Schools, Childcare Centers, Management Plan Emergency
Nursing Homes Management Plan
Number of Facilities 11 29
Hazardous Materials Facilities Contain Hazardous
Examples: Emergency Materials &
Large pharmaceutical Plants, Management Plan Emergency
Utilities Management Plan
Number of Facilities 2 3
Mobile Populations Facilities
Examples: Emergency Emergency
Hotels, Theaters, Restaurants Management Plan Management Plan
Number of Facilities 79 112
Staff is continuing to work with affected property owners and other community
stakeholders to incorporate additional feedback into the proposed ordinance provisions.
This is expected to come to City Council for further consideration in the fourth quarter of
2012.
10
Attachment B: City Council Floodplain Management Study Session Memorandum
Boulder Creek Floodplain Mapping Update
An engineering evaluation for the Boulder Creek floodplain mapping update has been
completed and the proposed floodplain mapping is being presented though a series of
public meetings. The Boulder Creek study area extends from approximately three-
quarters of a mile east of 61st Street upstream to the mouth of Boulder Canyon, west of
Boulder's city limits.
In a comparison of the proposed mapping to the existing floodplain mapping, 107
buildings will no longer be identified as in the 100-year floodplain; 72 buildings will be
newly identified as being in the floodplain; and there will be no change in the status of
574 buildings already identified as in the floodp lain. The draft study results can be
viewed in the Study Results - Impacts to Structures section of the Boulder Creek
Floodplain Mapping Study webpage.
The new study represents the best available information and is superior to the existing
information used for regulatory and insurance purposes. The study results were formally
considered by the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB), which voted 4-0 to
recommend approval on Feb. 27, 2012 (one member absent), and Planning Board, which
voted 4-0 (3 members absent) to recommend approval on March 15, 2012.
Staff is currently working with Boulder County staff and property owners located outside
of the city limits to evaluate information regarding the proposed flood hazard zone
designations. Staff will work to determine if alternative flood hazard zone designations
are appropriate. If agreement cannot be reached, then staff would recommend that the
flood mapping be truncated at or near the city limits, allowing Boulder County to contend
with flood mapping issues within their jurisdiction and providing for the timely
processing of the updated mapping within the city's jurisdiction. This approach was
supported by the Planning Board as part of their March 15, 2012, motion to recommend
approval of the study.
The mapping update is expected to be presented to City Council in June or July 2012. If
City Council adopts the new floodplain study results, the updated maps would then be
submitted to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for review and
adoption. During the FEMA review period, the city would use the more restrictive of the
existing and proposed mapping in the regulation of all annexations and development
proposals. If approved, the new floodplain maps would form the basis of the Flood
Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) along Boulder Creek. The proposed flood maps would also
provide the basis for land use permit applications and flood insurance requirements for
properties impacted by the 100-year flood. Study results may also provide the basis for
land use and building permits in the 500-year floodplain if City Council adopts a critical
facilities ordinance.
11
Attachment B: City Council ~Floodplain Management Study Session Memorandum
South )Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Plan
A flood mitigation plan is currently being prepared for South Boulder Creek. South
Boulder Creek overtops U.S. 36 near Table Mesa [give during major storm events. A
risk assessment estimates over $200 million in damages would result should a 100-year
event occur along South Boulder Creek. The study has identified five alternatives
through an extensive evaluation and public process. These live alternatives have been
refined and a recommendation will be developed. It is anticipated the recommendation
will be presented to the public and to the Water Resources Advisory Board later this year
prior to City Council consideration in late 2012 or early 2013.
Civic Center Plan
The Civic Center Plan project will develop a comprehensive vision for the area from 9"
to 17`x' streets and Canyon Boulevard to Arapahoe Avenue. The plan will guide future
land use decisions and develop an urban design vision for public and private property. A
Civic Center I'lan Study Session packet was recently presented to the council on April
10, 2012.
The planning area is located in the Boulder Creek 100-year floodplain. Additionally,
most of the study area west of Broadway is also located in the Conveyance and High
Hazard Zones. As part of the Civic Center Plan process, an engineering analysis was
undertaken to develop and evaluate potential mitigation measures, which could reduce
the extent of the flood hazard areas. Flood hazard mitigation scenarios arc available in
Attachment 1 of Attachment A of the April 10, 2012, study session packet.
The analysis assumes that large scale excavation or channelization of Boulder Creek and
the surrounding riparian environment would not be used to reduce flood hazards in the
Civic Center area and that no new structures intended for human occupancy and parking
would be located in the high hazard zone. New development would be considered within
the conveyance zone and 100-year floodplain, provided it meets existing flood regulatory
requirements.
The analysis also considers existing critical facilities located within the flood hazard
areas mentioned above. The proposed critical facilities and mobile populations ordinance
will not have a dramatic affect on the Civic Center planning since the area is located
within flood hazard areas (100-year floodplain, conveyance and high hazard zones)
already regulated by the city. The only affect of the proposed ordinance requirements in
this area would be that critical facilities and mobile populations facilities would be
required to develop emergency management plans that include either a shelter-in-place
plan or an evacuation plan for employees, patrons and residents.
Additional discussion of Civic Center flood hazard issues may occur at the June 12, 2012
study session.
12
Attachment B: City Council Floodplain Management Study Session Memorandum
V. NEXT STEPS
Depending on feedback provided by City Council during the study session, possible next
steps include the scheduling of public hearings and City Council consideration of the
following:
1. Floodplain regulation amendments addressing flood hazard issues related to
critical facilities and mobile populations; (3`d quarter 2012)
2. Updated information regarding Boulder Creek flood mapping; (3`d quarter 2012)
3. South Boulder Creek flood mitigation planning and alternatives analysis (4th
quarter 2012 or 2013)
4. Additional analysis of Civic Center flood hazard issues and potential mitigation
measures for plan options (late 2012 or 2013).
13
Attachment C: Existing and Proposed 100-'Year [=loodplaiil
+~",t _Y ,0.l ~"r~~~ 1 yf \5~r 4}'~ r,.9 ~ t~~.~`~Y:.r t'!+. L. r~~•^• f.~M~ ,rt!°_f S ~i~'".~ "r.::' { ~~t lSFiF Vi :...!'rlk ,•a.'r',
•k F. ^,1
y ~.i t x z r; s w t i .,•.a - { ' 1;.• r+r r. {,r t h r +~'r. ~':l
r -J~ i • -r~, tr7 ,r ti4 p. y~ t i - r-i yi.`..{~J °"`Yfti $ - 1 +•.'ff "tl. - ;tt _ f rt .iei
~1__r- - •i r:L tr e'$' t!~!''x~, rte, ',,yr,s r- s '~l. y•+; i.i. 'L ! 7IF. i, rs9 tirl + l+ 1- 71 s
tr,( r r- a'11.ti ^}y~~' 'r"~ +t f ~•i: } + L f"'Y r . ...5 a-;
_ n-t t t' i- - yj ~i' qtr r.
- 'r ,'t•{ .7j r5,'~ r~~ ~,r- .'t'; ~r : F -'i t~'• 1~cti ``a ''.•i~ '•r h:~. 'f f.,,r t ,
_
J
Fnp x y~,P~~a,.~ 4•~•. l>1 n-r ~~w ~'r- e•
h 4, - C •rl tit ~ i..r ~ i ~rn.e•} 7
`'t ..t r} f ~ ar t xO'.rr. [ • btu Fr'
n r '.CsrR:•'? . - i'"• - v +c gar<.:.x ~X~ f r ~ z• ~f r~ Y -7'. ~ e ~ ~fw ] `T N' t
f / r '1. , f a. . 1•n Y3 1.i; `•i,f - 1 a
e~ v 1+ - - wq , L _ ~d $,.r C t. t j,11 4 - • tI¢ 'a- -
r~ J .x S ~ 1 -h.. F 1 - 1 a. ~r t ' r.,~ r- .r-x
hi l- - t a ' Y,alrn'i;i AV y ~,Yl _{','~"4'" t1 1 r►, r. 1;
'.1t - •F-~ } • s- ° ~ - ~ ,y , i. C v k ~.v `rlNt " t _4
T?t _PnJ RST _ ` ° j y, •1._ -`4:," f 0. r•j h1i ,Wt~a y r @_~tt t7'0~ { 1i a~~..•°7 •r' r;~
~ ,rr':- rr „ `pr r.r (!~+~-r7•x• r _ 1 _ r ~ } `sue Y tir,..,l.'. ; ?s
A V r~ a f'~ .,r 1' 'r n - t ~.L. ~h~-?tip lt.-~
$e"~n'r v f y ~ {t~M "''r . t i j~ 't' f _ n _ - ~ ~ , r - t ° ~ t
_1 Y ir~.:y+~r il.~ W,.f 7r a r, Y tiff a ~ ~ r I - ~:r_.~i~, f i`,~ t ~ 'a ~1 q _ _•M1 ry
~,.-~r!Yta • 1 f 7 R` t4 R.;-..wf ..~.+•wr ~ k
.r~~ '1•.••y `5'+t CY ~:j! w l~J 1_ rv+fi...j ! ~ . Y 6 , y
Y.~•, - t- c, g. ,~S ~e'~ ~J'il ~'i~.rwnnrn'Av fe ~ - - ~ ~ a ~•y r ti ~ ~ r ~
XsFf .r^ ...t``'.r•'~ ,F ;~t,}.r,~h}. i.. _ - y 1 i' „r `r i.'~. !i°.61 r• _.r S §.L
.r--. l ~ •~lt~ qtr....- 3 v~j r tk' 4 s~. .1 r. • ~ ;F h r,:
• ,
r ~Yx } r fft,„i ',e 4-ar „-Y - _ '4.ti•'. -
n•§0' rr - ~45~- • fi t :1t v - rc•. _,r 1.1t t,. _ r`l.
~+'~+4 i x• r y' ~ ~ 7 y :7r° b•~ t ti5 ~ ~~1•y :r;_ r i
~t 4 { 1 / J ~l r' •i "r t ~?a ~ ~ ~.r ~,+,••,•,sJ a~ ~ l1, in s-
br j p ~t f ~ ~ hl . 1 Lrlal~ _
'~f 4J '.e+ ' ~ Sts 4 ~ h K T ~'~4 r~ _
M V !y 1"P" 1
i;r j'' s°.'a'• - ~~ur i.-•-,S t` t~~:~R fi~,. ~a.45-a r ti _ _
CC I.•~-w• ~.r ~r. -'A: s ! •!r a~-, ?Z.5~. Varmv„t Gr
1•f r f • J r t
art j r
P 1 11- , jet ~-r f 2 S." t r w.., r sr i ~a`ri Ws pl;h, a~L'~'•er~ti.~ P~}sr _ - y'4'e•wYJ. $r.^-ra ~X- ~ ,I-
_
AT
r t _
rt t'~~l rr f :,y f - - r ~ ' u _ .._14 ~,~y-~ r~~; 1, 0.M1. p ~ i
# v^`c h: ~•A lp nc AV _ r~.l _ - _ _ _ tip t.. -_r Y ~1~
h. 6.~ ~`'•cZ 1Fi•^ F::... - - 'W Jy ti, _ $ ~r :f
_ r
i ~f°r I~'~•~ X91 ~
~i.~'-. _t ~k'i K•tlaL { •1••n. t.q 1 ~ ' 'r . -l. ~ t '>..rr ~ Y . l; t~
f .•r..n. E.-,.,•uµ.. w+nMrRtoraVw 0 250 500 1L~j0 150 7WLI 253r
;~.,A...ft•... W.,~nt•r. Twomile Canyon & Upper Goose Creek
Q7 ~2,- r.~.~c..~.,itao-. a•n~rarnwrnro'n 1 .200
d_~J e,+.. , n o.• n.•.a.r. ~toYw •ooowr•,~ ssa ..r•~+-..rr r..«~
M ~ Structures Affected by Proposed
a,~f w~
100 Year Floodplain
Attachment D: Existing and Proposed Conveyance Zone
I 'v F atit a r•rv."r ~~tt"~.~ w h_.. "r t ~ .r - S _ r-
D. a - i-- ~ ~ °ir .F a ~ i„y.~' Y } ? f}!ti~ 7• j ,f i -~'f'+•gdr4 A4 eta-al .T 'a-'fy ~ 'ti L,(. '+f. °:,j ~ r\ 4k /
• '~h r"r"' ...,x"` ~y'rj•"'~ w - -Jf y 1\ j ti S^ - y sb r:: -tit n. ~ J.
r
d+r+nf~ `T~.t~•:it Ss 4,. }+C:. }„ti w r
~t+~' r1~'y„~l { Ya~4.: ~+t L~ ~ ?rf' i ``•f 1. ~ ~ ~r fPS- Mr + " w i
y. ~ Y ~ r • n ' L _ i'•-'~.~ - . ti,4 r e ~ Y ?s Yti'~-r r ~ ~ ! r:~-5. w' a , I'~ xer''/,,,~.
r a;}• '~(!l s ~r - X57. ; , v:, ~J y 1-. rs,. ,r~ - - e ! :✓u 1
s1~y ':f•' . ` t { rr'r Lir,:f a ri Av t Wit` r T -i5 r § f, r ~s' , Y ~ ~ ~ t , * , - nr / , ~ f t~
-_4 T .r 1 r~~.:r 1 is k- wJ.~R f l•° t i ~ A ! •z ~ f ~~Y~ ~~s: 3~
c ~ r t J•~~++1,..* :r ~~v ~i~ f,' . a.~'.r.{ ~ r~r,~ ~ry ~ ~~t ~ rA ,,'Ir ~ ~ i r I~.
• f _t jr1 ~,r ~ 34 ~f _ 'R i.' M1 y- •b y i! ^~""o••~~' A-i
- +i..l" s _ ~f~-{fi(r ~ yy 1 F.. 'vt r E R. r.. ~y ~ 1. ' N,~t~ r~ y...
t f P _y I ~ 1' ~ - t _ Kll,n'il A'Y ti ti L+y; K,.(y~{r - fi ~ ~
Y', - ti,y + - ,d+F < r r - a f } F r3 r ♦ r ' 1 '
~3f \ SAY - • $^~~'fiW ~,;^tii,>'~L.i r ~ i+ Q
%t'I
~f .~,~h+ -.l LY+ fit''.- t^~~ '~/Y .Z3;,'.l ~1,'r -CJ 1 17 L~ r r 4\
LQI + r+,te f '1. ~e } +v.< , t T-- Y ar,~„ ii 9 t 1`" t e ' j',.'
++r'~1'•.r . J i d 1 I. .a .~J S 1 a+ 7!i r.~ s~ L ~ hl n r.T'. r r,
n;1 +9~ L r i_ liii " Fri R, i s r n•
l._F f . ! f\.1. f'r+.. r r L a ~ ~ ;SS y r~ 1 t ~ ~ ._'e•~``~.~_~' _ i f •'7 (t - . ~ { 1~ - In, 1r
rte. ~ ae~.i■ 1,1f~ ` `-h ~ ' +.Y'C 1 ;.~.~w. t it r;~k s~":a'd r'~ c '
. , d , ..rte ..sd•, 1' I _ i _ ,,~.r-D Vii, -'R r + S'{• ti q-f i
` f-fi•_ ~ i~ .r ]f°eI ~ Ila•n:iwrn`,4v " .
i . \ °r J ~i~~~ -~~a - yt r,TMt Sy ~.n;. .r ~ = ~>4r r
M~. , ! t: ..j•j- -hr{j is - ~.t . v',~.+ f.-•,~ti ',~;k. •.4S tl J _ i •1 t ' 1 ~J :4e :1 , w r
Y + i« rir " V 'J d,, ytx - h,~Q.s Mr ".Y~'„xe i„~'•7~fi '+n. +4.Fr IM -s.. a
Y~r~ Y'-~v.~y~~ .i~ _.:?.'~•F,T r~ia.~~°~. - r a_./ fje, -r ,t t+~,:.- r
r + J. t. xTj ~l v,f+ ~A' ~ir~~,' _ ~ '+3i~,t ~ _ ``'Y~ t'~~ f .4„~''~. 3y~~ •a _
wi,~• s r nr f _ _ i l - / fst K,l fal Me 3_ f t a-~ - - r ?
r 4 : t-t .i a s r. ~ ~ n, ~ t J~ r< r[ y~i"~,, "1~' . ~
4 1, t s- a s r ti. C i t r f / f ,~i v t / r n\• i.
-r ,r,r _ 'a, 1 i r'~ + 4. s r• Y7} ~ 'ii ~ ~ :Y"
r. ""i. + •c"S _e. ;t' As + - is>I * ` t . R 1 , ~+v,J+ -elr~4 i~ `w v~ t'r.a 1
1
1 , r ~ ,r . a r^,~ I ~ 1 a • { e { x' rn ;f ' s t_r. t 1.., 1 t
1i1'Jl
r, fir t.> y1X .aka + -re ~ -{r ~ / y. .,e f r f r : y / .3~. .Z A•-
ti
rr S '"a; ~tbi.t~~i•~ s}--'.•.d t:.s.'r +.d 3at ~,~t ~ ~,-,t i Ftit~?~' - p t:.lmo„~lJ,
r~
i} 1 Fs~~ ".','r`.'r
`.tR .j t.+ " +r Y s+N S`+t. `f1 +iy. -f f,. - lr r.1~ l.k eT.Tj Lc' 4
,~f~~'r ryk. , ~ ,1 L~{~ ~ ~ .r t~ ~ ~ f P': • w" r~._ 1 ~ ±Y~ - - fu• r tti, .:yam .,P~
r \ r y.rl r•.~ a.•' ~`~~Yi 5,~ CJ' ~,1 -
fr' ' F't y 1 4 ri..e.. t~ }_1 .x"~q r. v l!t p
L
_ ti • ~I i
✓ J r r r v 'n' .,f '~'^~•',•~v-~-, 0,h-, A.
%
it s ~ ti "y ° ~ _ ~ I , : a -s
r r a r5{ se y T i ? r
' trR ~ i ''t'1~ t iZ ~ ti ,r , . r q:t. ,a kl a• rh 4 ~ + '
%
Y. {.r } ` .9 Alryl na Rv{!~ .Jas{.r.l r` r 1 : l f ' ~ - ~ 'i 1 ~s a1_ jm ~+Y'i
r., } 7 C J,:i' : ti r - 111 ~ t: r'':. r ~ y
%
i; ~G - r t•. f - '-,r- t -*5y u• ~r, rf T: t r
ti~i ,cam §79 - Twomile Canyon & Upper Goose Creek
o
< G w µ Structures Affected by Proposed
I~~ h,. N Conveyance Flood Zone
Attachment E: Existing and Proposed High Hazard Zone
• J x!'r,{ .r'b t f j 4 J a - d ~ . ty g ~ ~ t a•• -+f ~ j r. " i-e
~ ~ •n~ ~ a 1 ca( J f~, ~ } f J 1 {1 L f ~ r'r
mod. ~ il. 4',
r•-~, r ~.y ~-r_g 'i ` ~ fI r Y, L°~ g ~1~~+i r`'~'~ i ...7 i ,7; , ..r•I .C - ~rl
y+~.~/ .+t r + r4 ~ }"i:i f'~" r 'v r. t I ! got
-~y?~ 1in\ 'f'. rt .L~'r ,,~h.`~ 8 .'~ttr ~ ~ r+_'T T ~ ,yi t .r r S~"°' s"+ h r _r
1 • { _ rf'f "r+ L t S,±Y ':fo.r ,~a-'^•''S fi_~{ Y7-V 1ftrY~ ~,Y ,t{. i.''• p.r .n: 1, i''y; r ''.~Y rr~1 'i1T,i.
x r~ r ~ •tkJ~ !.4 - ~ . n ~ Qrt ~ , ^ 1-` 1L~ 'cf 1 ; l ° ..rl ..i.' ~
rl <:r .)Y>/ • ''M' rrr/:,. UJ dun Jiv 7 i p' u i •?r'' c r Ayr 'F' Y" • r Y : J! i fi ! Y f'Ki
r~
Y_`*.J r:•r tfCP.rr - _ ~.+7 t!''t~ir "c""~ a~»~i JSh'>: r! wI. 4 •S '7 r r r r it 4+,.ra
y ~ rr r ! y ~ ~1► ? 9 p '~~Jyr.' ~1 i t J` ti- r -7 r '+7 c J ~ ^7 _4
c a 'ti jt ! ~ 1 ~ , vx :lL. ti"'' i "1~ s.r j ~ w•r4 3 -+,r Yj S s~ r =.1`: ~ i
r -~y. f v - - t.j ~ Kat~n~a n.. ,ti. St'J'J' •t.l J'.a ':.7a• ~a ~ r i
rY"{y v rj ' i •.•>t -ti,.. y , r j} Er.{ t t r h Pc'.` ~r« ~ ~l'15~. r _ >i-s` ~i'• '.i 1 •r '
f i r , T+ Si+F" „o ~~rti~ c _ 3s ti h''•7~ Il~ °4,5, _ _ _ r 3. 7('S~~f ~ + .1•'~t~ ~ u 7 i i.{M j' . ry ,r ? r
} Yti
"~~•lr--p, ,4 ....I ''`R ?4 i1.r _ _ '-1 7 S,..r y. J' 1"} 9' r J. ` SG 3a- 1 '
~'S. °✓.J" J'1~~ . .~.•A' Y'J 1", F J ~i i rte, 1*.,. _ _ C_ 1Ah M1 `r }
I's 4 t'.
! tir'r Kra f-; G. sx~-r,7 t. - '-s 1 ~ - sa a a_ ' s, 7 rr - f r
Ir 4A"
I., frj ~'t rr r
x ~F.-••+-~ t ~'r ~ C~ ~ 7r' ' r . 1 _ f i° t {I c-Fi~ r . f.J r'
1r - ~ l ti. Hnvnhmn a;~ . c' - r . a ;p r a 1
a
S
7: P,! ~ ~~YY rc
S F' 'Z~f ' i
4- .it-: r ~SSj~.~ r '
~r'r 'r' - •4Rt re' f.. y Y !'t y , ! - r • ~ d~.
F`•... r. r, r /s ~ 4 F i. _ .r r •JC r / c •.r ~ r r
J /r ' h~ ..y, c~ F f'•1 v (.''J • x},..21f s.~' 4,: Jt
Sr• . r - _ f. f: t I v r 1 c`c - 'i a E: # _ti 17 c
f r ;(71'dff + 'y f, `'yr T V",,'s r5 rt
i c r s. -d'~ •r r ~ ~ti 1`}. ~ 1 5~~ ~ 1 r ` ~ f J'• y o
r" i c!Y r4 r y r., s
},r. ,np~,5~ r; ' ,fTV± c c' ' ?F r 7 1 } >f l"
JL-
~ T~"~~1 • } lr e'.l %j -cal+f -r Tc -d Can r ~ _JI/r_ _ 3 t, ~.4 - t' +t wi. r ti' .
rLV ~ f 4' r ra. y i. c .-'i r+rLZ -a "tit t5 f 1 it 'r ~0• « ~f: +
r J + ' J ql e 'Ira„ p kr+ / ' ar Ir r 'n 'a ?i, g
~v
~ ~rrf { A > , r i~~ + aY = r a F. +A
S*r1r ~ r J J r 'j~ ! Ny- . s r r - a - .n. :1 r _ -
_y ~J. yl`'h rt_a~~-+~1. } ~ry..f J Ti-i~~~~'~='r; ~c~ v. r~-r~ / r .'±t - 1 ; f'Y+ ~t I
r + ~ N- t c Valmont Dr
ai e' ` r ^s.Y Y fly t+S d-~ - . . ~ r } 'd. ~ - - - -
r{l 'Jr i li.. t~_'4 ~ fT °i~Y~ ~r•'a i3 Y,'' r r6C 1"F=c~ir a I*I eJ - r r - - ~ -
yfgr r y~`+ .si^~' °'cl 1 .:f=e ~'w ~ ~j S.~ i?r~~. r a~ygn 'S ~ti.
r-?~rft;~$ j' ~ 'fv 3r~~~~r}t +3ic~ -R i'ir-}. - - - - I',•:.~45 ".r'- ~•`•~•liPn.ti . -
.y., ~ - 0 I-s ~Ri A'✓ f
5 i RYn R' r~yf N I..~~?ry[1 . NIL
Ar _ r r av r.~ I~CC ate' 3r - E.'
tY'f1., cr `Alplrn AV', tr L _ _ sr... .r y f t
`r
Twomile Canyon & Upper Goose Creek
Structures Affected by Proposed
L , ww a.,,~ High Hazard Flood Zone
A
CITY OF BOULDER
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: May 20, 2013
AGENDA TITLE: Information Item Preliminary 2014 Utilities Budget (Water, Wastewater
and Stormwaterl Flood Management) including the 6-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP).
PRESENTERS:
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bob Harberg, Principal Engineer - Utilities
Ken Baird, Utilities Financial Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
As part of the city's annual budget process, Utilities develops a six-year planning budget, this
year for the time period of 2014 through 2019. The Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB)
role in this process is defined in Boulder Revised Code: to review all environmental
assessments and capital improvements conducted or proposed by the utilities division." Utilities
staff has formulated initial revenue and expenditure projections for each of the three utility funds
through the year 2019. Within the budget process, City Council approves and appropriates funds
only for the first year, 2014.
At the April 15, 2013 WRAB meeting, staff presented the preliminary 2014 Utilities budget
including the six-year capital improvement program. Since that time, the revenue forecasts have
been updated and incorporated into the fund financials. The operating budget (i.e. personnel
costs, chemicals, energy, etc.), transfers and budget supplementals have been updated and
incorporated into the fund financials. Updates to the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) have
also been made and are described below.
This packet contains information concerning the Preliminary 2014 Utilities Budget and the draft
2014-2019 Utilities CIP. The fund financials (Attachment A) have been updated to reflect
actual revenues and expenditures for 2012, and the recommended budget for 2014.
Staff will return to WRAB on June 17, 2013 for a final recommendation on the CIP. The
Planning Board hearing on the CIP will be on August 1, 2013. City Council study sessions are
scheduled for August 13, 2013 concerning the proposed city-wide 2014-2019 CIP and on
September 10, 2013 on the 2014 city-wide budget.
Fiscal Impacts: The following percentage increases in additional revenue from the monthly
utility fees are currently being considered by staff for 2014 to fund the preliminary Utilities
budget and capital improvements program.
Page I
Water 4%
Wastewater 5%
Stormwater/ Flood Management 3%
Public Feedback: A public hearing and recommendation is scheduled for the June 17, 2013
meeting. At that time, staff will request that the WRAB provide a final recommendation on the
proposed 2014-2019 CIP to City Council.
BACKGROUND and ANALYSIS:
The Utilities Division's primary focus is to provide quality water services, as desired by the
community, in a manner which emphasizes efficient management of fiscal and natural resources,
and protects human and environmental health. Each of the city's three utilities (water,
wastewater and stormwater/flood management) is a separate enterprise fund established to
finance and account for the acquisition, operation and maintenance of each utility's facilities and
services while maintaining designated reserves and meeting debt service requirements.
Revenues generated from monthly utility bills are the largest source of revenue for each utility,
accounting for about 80% of revenues in the Water Fund, 95% in the Wastewater Fund, and 85%
in the Stormwater/Flood Management. Other significant sources of funds include development
fees (Plant Investment Fees), hydroelectric revenues, funding from the Urban Drainage and Flood
Control District (UDFCD) and interest earnings.
Approximately forty percent of the Utilities expenditures are for rehabilitating and improving the
capital infrastructure either through the capital improvements program (cash financed) or through
annual debt payments for revenue bonds that have been issued to fund capital improvements.
The infrastructure is key to delivering safe and reliable services to our customers. Investment
into maintenance of existing infrastructure is less costly in the long run. Other significant uses of
funds include water treatment operations, wastewater treatment operations, system maintenance
and water quality operations.
Priority-based Bud -etrng
Similar to the 2013 budget process, the city-wide 2014 budget is being developed using the
Priority-based Budgeting (PBB) approach. The end result is to align the community Results (or
goals) that the city wishes to achieve with the allocation of resources made throughout the budget
process. Each program receives a score related to how critical the program is to achieving each
result. These Result categories are:
I . Accessible and Connected Community
2. Economically Vital Community
3. Environmentally Sustainable Community
4. Healthy and Socially Thriving Community
5. Safe Community
In addition, all city programs and services are scored relative to Basic Program Attributes,
Page 2
which are additional characteristics of programs that could increase their overall relevance. The
attributes selected by the city to assist in the Program Prioritization Scoring process are:
• Mandated to Provide Service
• Change in Demand for Service
• Reliance on City to Provide Service
• Self-sufficiency/Cost Recovery
When all programs within the city are scored, they are compared to each other and placed into
quartile priority rankings, with quartile one being the programs most critical to achieving city
goals. Most Utilities programs have scored in the top two quartiles, such as those related to
maintenance of infrastructure, water and wastewater treatment, and water, wastewater, and
stormwater quality operations. Programs in the third quartile include billing and meter
operations, hydroelectric operations, water conservation and Marshall Landfill operations. No
Utilities programs scored in the fourth quartile. Applying these rankings to the budget process
confirms the importance of investment into existing infrastructure and meeting customer
demands and regulations for quality water, wastewater, and stormwater services.
Revenues
The revenue forecasts have been updated and incorporated into the fund financials. Forecasted
revenues from Plant Investment Fees (PIFs) have been adjusted up in the Water Fund to reflect
recent private development activity, including the 3100 Pearl project at Boulder Junction.
Hydroelectric revenues have also been adjusted with the current estimates based on projected
generation and energy sales.
The preliminary 2014 budget reflects the following billed revenue increases: 4% Water, 5%
Wastewater, and 3% Stormwater/Flood Management. The following table summarizes the 2013
adopted increase and preliminary projections for 2014-2016. The preliminary 2014 increases are
in bold.
Table 1 - Proposed Rate Increases
2013 2014 2015 2016
Water 3% 4% 4% 4%
Wastewater 5% 5% 5% 5%
Stormwater/Flood Management 30/. 3% 3% 3%
The revenue increase represents the amount of additional revenue to be generated from the
monthly utility charges. The actual rate increase (e.g. $ per 1,000 gallons) may or may not be
equal to the revenue increase depending on whether any changes in consumption or use are
factored in when calculating the actual rates. For example, if there were a projected decrease in
consumption, in order to generate 3% more revenue from last year's budget, monthly rates may
need to increase greater than 3% to generate the needed revenue requirements.
Uldity Bill Comparisons
Page 3
Estimated annual bills for the City's current and proposed rates are compared with other
Colorado communities. Attachment B shows the combined water and wastewater charges, and
Boulder has the fourth lowest (of fifteen) for single-family residential bills. Since 2014 rate
proposals are not yet available for the other cities, the survey uses their 2013 rates. Based on rate
projections previously published by other utilities, it is expected that the City's relative position
will be similar once all 2014 rates are known.
A comparison of the charges to support the Stormwater/Flood Management utility is provided in
Attachment C. Boulder's Storn-►water/k loud Managemcnt fee is above average among the peer
cities. The City of Boulder is widely considered the number one flash flood risk in Colorado due
to its location at the mouth of Boulder Canyon and other canyon creeks. As a result, the city
devotes substantial resources to understanding, managing, and mitigating flood hazards. It
should also be noted that three other peer communities do not have a separate Stormwater utility
or associated fee.
A third chart in Attachment D shows the annual bill comparison when all three utility fees are
included. Of the fifteen communities in the survey, Boulder's combined rates are approximately
in the middle at number eight.
Information from an annual water rate survey published by the website Circle of Blue is helpful
to see how the City water charges compare with other Utilities nationally. Attachment E shows
the results of the survey's estimated water bills, and the City's estimated monthly bill has also
been included. Compared to these cities, Boulder is on the lower end of water charges.
Along with the overall Consumer Price Index (CPI), the Bureau of Labor Statistic also has data
available for specific costs the make up the overall CPI, including Water and Sewer charges.
Attachment F shows various indexes since 2007-. This is compared to the billed water and
wastewater charges for Boulder single family residential accounts. While Boulder's charges
increased around 15% from 2007 to 2012, the national CPI for water and sewer increased 37% in
the same time period.
Construction Cost Inflation
Construction cost inflation is tracked using the Engineering News Record (ENR) Cost Index for
Denver and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Colorado Construction Cost
Index. The ENR index is a composite index based on costs for: 1) local portland cement, 2) local
2x4 lumber, 3) national structural steel, and 4) local union wages plus fringes for carpenters,
bricklayers and iron workers. The CDOT index is a composite index based on costs for 1)
unclassified excavation, 2) hot bituminous pavement 3) concrete pavement, 4) structural steel
and 5) reinforcing steel. The ENR index is more reflective of equipment and building
construction such as projects that occur at the treatment plants. The Colorado Construction Cost
Index is more reflective of heavy civil construction such as roadway and major drainageway
work. The following table presents information concerning these indices through December
2012:
Page 4
2012 Running Average Yearly Change
Table 2 -Inflation Indexes Change 5 years 1 0 years
F,NR Construction Cost Index for 1.35% 3.96% 394%
Denver
CDOT Colorado Construction Cost 16.55% 4.07% 8.84%
Index
Based on this information it is recommended that capital improvement construction costs
continue at a rate of 4% during the planning period. Using an average inflation calculation is in
keeping with the principle of consistent rate increases over time rather than large rate increases
every number of years.
Customer Bill Impact
The proposed 2014 revenue increases (4%-5%-31/o) would increase a typical residential
customer's monthly utility bill by $2.64, or an increase of approximately $32.00 annually. The
following table provides a breakdown of the proposed increases by utility.
Table 3 - Average Monthly Bill Impacts
Monthly Bill Monthly Bill Monthly
2013 Rates 2014 Rates Difference
Water $33.64 $34.96 $1.32
Wastewater $22.15 $23.25 $1.10
Stormwater/ Flood M mt $7.47 $7.69 $.22
Total $63.26 $65.90 $2.64
Financial Options if Smaller Revenue Increases are Approved
A description of financial options has been developed to solicit WRAB feedback on possible
budget reductions, should City Council approve a budget that includes smaller revenue increases
than what is currently proposed (2013 is Water 4%; Wastewater 5%; and Stormwater/Flood
Management 3%).
To reduce annual revenue in each fund results in the following:
Table 4-Rate Reduction Impact 1% 2% 3%
Water $220,000 $440,000 $660,000
Wastewater $140,000 $280,000 $420,000
Stormwater / Flood M mt $ 55,000 $110,000 $165,000
For example, if the Water Utility was approved for a 2% revenue increase in 2014 instead of the
proposed 3% increase, the annual Water Utility budget would need to be reduced by $220,000 in
2013.
Page 5
In considering budget reductions, staft'would suggest the following examples in guiding the
recommendations for reductions:
• Utilize results of Priority-based Budgeting by reducing budgets in lower quartile
programs more than programs in the upper quartile.
• Consider delaying by 1-3 years various maintenance and rehabilitation projects that are
important to service delivery, but that could be delayed without significant customer
service impacts. Delays may result in higher future capital costs and higher maintenance
costs in the short term.
Also, as a point of reference, $100,000 provides for debt service coverage on a bond of
approximately $1,000,000. So a revenue reduction of $100,000 could mean reduced funding for
a one-time capital expense or capital bond project by $1,000,000.
ANTICPATED REVENUE BONDS:
The current 2014-2019 utility fund financials reflect several bond issuances (and associated debt
payments) to fund the following capital projects:
Water:
1. Betasso Water Treatment Plant Improvements ($12 million in 2016) to fund
improvements to maintain compliance with federal Safe Drinking Water Act regulations.
2. Barker Dam Improvements ($11.3 million in 2018) to fund repairs to the outlet works and
construct a new hydroelectric facility
3. Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District (NCWCD) Conveyance (Carter Lake
Pipeline) ($27.4 million in 2018)
Wastewater:
1. No bonds are anticipated in the 2014-2019 planning period.
Stormwater and Flood Management:
1. South Boulder Creek Improvements ($4.5 million in 2017) to fund improvements
designed to mitigate flood hazards in the South Boulder Creek West Valley area.
The following table summarizes the debt obligations of the utilities, the year the debt is retired
and the average annual debt payment. Items shown in italics are projects that are anticipated to
be funded by issuing bonds.
Page 6
Table 5 -Debt Obliaations
Year Debt Approximate Annual
Utility Projects is Retired Debt Payment
Water Boulder Reservoir WTF 2016 $858,000
Improvements
Multiple Projects including Silver 2019 $2,522,000
Lake Pi eline_. Barker Purchase
Lakewood Pipeline 2021 $2,066,000
Belasso WTP 7m . (2016) 2036 $1,123, 000
Barker Dam Improvements 2038 31, 046, 000
(2018)
Carter Lake Pipeline (2018) 2038 $2,601,000
Wastewater Marshall Landfill 2012 $170,000
WWTP Improvements 2025 $3,500,000
WWTP Improvements 2030 $674,000
Storm/Flood Multiple projects including Goose 2018 $385,000
Creek Improvements
South Boulder Creek lm . (2017) 2037 $437.000
The Water Utility also pays a portion of the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District's
debt related to the Windy Gap project. This debt will be retired in 2017 and Boulder's annual
debt payment is approximately $1,650,000.
In 2012, the city was successful in refunding (or `refinancing') the Wastewater Bonds scheduled
to be retired in 2025 due to favorable bond rates. This results in savings to the fund of around
$80,000 per year through 2015, then over $300,000 per year through 2025. The utility continues
to maintain a high credit rating through Moody's (Aal) and Standard and Poor's (AAA). This is
due to sound financial practices, one of the most important of which is maintaining sufficient
reserves.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
See Attachment G for the proposed 2014-2019 CIP.
Water Utility
2012 Accomplishments'
I . Almost 15,000 feet of old deteriorated water pipe was replaced. Pipe is being
systematically replaced based on information from the asset management system that
considers factors such as pipe age, material, break history, type of break, diameter, system
pressure and soil type.
2. The roof of the Chautauqua Water Storage Tank was replaced and work completed in
April 2012.
3. A construction contract for the Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric Modernization Project was
Page 7
executed in 201 1 and work has now been completed.
4. Construction was completed on a stability berm and toe drain project at Kossler Reservoir
in 2012.
5. Three Boulder Creek transmission line water crossings were replaced in Boulder Canyon.
6. A permit for the Carter Lake Pipeline was secured from Boulder County and the pipeline
ROW along the existing pipe alignment was purchased. An agreement with Northern
Water provides for the preliminary design and ROW acquisition along the newly
designated alignment in Boulder County.
Projects Anticipated for Completion in 2013
1. Phase 1 of the Sunshine Pipeline Inspection
2. Kossler Reservoir Concrete Facing Rehabilitation
3. Barker Gravity Pipeline Repairs - ongoing repairs in order of priority and availability.
4. Barker Dam Outlet Gate Test
5. Green Lake No. 2 Assessment and Rehabilitation Study
6. Replacement of approximately 20;000 feet of water main
7. Mixing improvements at Devil's Thumb storage tank
I&ghli hts of'2014-2019 Pro]ects
1. Annual funding for waterline replacement of $3,000,000 is proposed in order to provide
for the replacement of additional waterlines located in residential streets scheduled to be
reconstructed by the city's Transportation Division as part of the Capital Investment Bond
Program. Completing water main replacement just ahead of street resurfacing results in
significant savings since pavement restoration costs can be eliminated. Coordination also
reduces the risk that the useful life of a newly reconstructed street wi ll be impacted by a
main break.
2. It is recommended that the city continue its annual maintenance program of the Barker
Gravity Line by prioritizing pipeline repair projects based on the most critical needs,
providing enough earthen cover to protect the pipeline, and anchoring the pipeline in
areas prone to landslides. Replacement or lining of pipe sections are options that may be
used in different parts of the pipeline.
3. It is recommended that capital funding be allocated in the 2015-2016 time period to
address issues related to aging equipment and underperforming treatment processes at the
Betasso Water Treatment Facility.
4. Funding for the final design of the Carter Lake Pipeline is allocated in 2017 and
construction is funded in 2018. The pipeline is considered the best long-term solution to
water quality, operational and security vulnerability issues related to drawing water
directly from either the Boulder Feeder Canal or Boulder Reservoir. The pipeline would
provide an opportunity to develop a new hydroelectric facility and funding for
construction of this facility is allocated in 2019.
5. The Barker Dam outlet facilities are over 100-years old and in need of significant
rehabilitation. Funding for the final design is allocated in 2017 and construction funding
allocated in 2018. The outlet facilities would provide an opportunity to develop a new
hydroelectric facility and funding for construction of this facility is allocated in 2018.
Page 8
6. The 2013-2014 assessment of rehabilitation options for Green Lake No. 2 and Albion
dams will confirm the path forward on re-establishing operational levels of storage on
these dams.
Wastewater Utility
2012 Accoinplishments
1. The city is finishing a major rehabilitation/improvement project at the 75'h St. Wastewater
Treatment Facility (WWTF). The project replaced the existing chlorine disinfection
system with an ultraviolet (UV) disinfection system, improved the biosolids digesters,
and upgraded the headworks.
2. A new discharge permit was issued to the City by the State of Colorado in May 2011
which included more restrictive effluent limits for various water quality parameters. In
2012, City staff commissioned an engineering analysis called the Nutrient Compliance
Study (NCS) which was completed in December 2012. The NCS included a list of
recommendations and associated costs for additional capital projects to be completed to
improve the WWTF capability to meet the new regulations. For more information and
next steps, see the highlights section below.
3. City staff hired an engineer to complete a Levee Certification for the berm that surrounds
and protects the WWTF. This certification was submitted to the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) in late 2011. The City completed various best management
practices (BMP's) around the facility as part of the certification in 2012.
4. An inflow and infiltration (1&1) study of the wastewater collection system tributary to the
IBM Lift Station was completed in 2012. The purpose of this study was to quantify the
rainfall induced I&I component entering the wastewater collection system. This I&I study
was scheduled in preparation for the design and construction improvements at the lift
station which will be necessary to meet the CDPHE permit regulations. For more
information and next steps, see the highlights section below.
Projects Anticipated for Completion in 2013
1. IBM Lift Station Design Improvements
2. WW IT Process Optimization System Strategic Plan
3. WWTF Transfer Pump Station Improvements
Highlights of 2014-2019 Projects
1. Funding for the annual Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation projects continues at of rate of
$500,000 in 2014 escalating at 4% annually to over $600,000 in 2019.
2. The city received a new discharge permit for the 75th Street wastewater treatment facility
(WWTF) with an effective date of May 1, 2011. The city was successful in negotiating
an extended schedule which provides for compliance by December 1, 2017. This will
require relatively minor modifications to the WWTF that arc funded in the proposed CIP.
3. New CDPHE regulations concerning nutrient criteria, specifically Regulation #85 and
Regulation #31, were adopted by the Colorado Department of Public Health and
Environment (CDPHE) in March 2012. The criteria will pose serious treatment
Page 9
challenges for the W WT and will have significant financial impacts. Approximately
$18.5 million of funding has been allocated in 2020 (outside of this year's budget
planning horizon) to address Regulation 485. Regulation #31 contains much more
stringent provisions and funding for this regulation is identified in the 20-year CIP with
$11 million in 2029.
4. A comprehensive list of WWTF rehabilitation projects has been identified from the
Wastewater Utility Fund Asset Management tool, and included in the 20-year CIP based
on staff input; engineering studies and the asset management database. For the current 6-
year CIP, funding for the rehabilitation projects has been allocated to various WWTF
components as shown in the detailed C1P list.
Stormwater and Flood Management Utility
2012 Accomplishments
1. Flood mitigation and path improvements were completed in conjunction with the Violet
Crossing development, which was partially funded through the city's CIP.
2. A high hazard flood property was purchased and the structures were demolished at 810
Marine Street.
3. A flood mapping update for Boulder Creek was accepted by City Council in September,
and is currently being reviewed by FEMA.
4. Flood mapping updates are currently underway for Skunk Creek, Bluebell Creek, King's
Gulch, Upper Goose Creek, Twomile Creek and Boulder Slough. Once these mapping
updates have been adopted, flood mitigation plans will be developed to evaluate feasible
capital improvements for reducing the flood risk along these creeks and tributaries.
Proiects Completed or Anticipated for Completion in 2013
1. Wonderland Creek Diagonal to Winding Trail CEAP was completed in early 2013.
2. Fourmile Canyon Creek Upland to Violet CEAP is anticipated to be completed by the end of
2013.
Highlights of 2014-2019 Proiects
1. Flood mitigation improvements in the 2014-2019 CIP focus on Wonderland and Fourmile
Canyon Creeks. The Wonderland Creek Foothills to 30th Street project is proposed to
implement flood mitigation measures along Wonderland Creek from just upstream of Iris
Avenue to Foothills Parkway and extend the multi-use trail from Foothills Parkway to the
intersection of Iris Avenue and 30th Street. This project will include a bicycle and
pedestrian underpass under the Burlington Northern Railroad. The Wonderland Creek at
28th Street project (Diagonal to Winding Trail) is the next upstream reach and will also
include flood mitigation and path improvements, including bicycle and pedestrian
underpasses at 28th Street and Kalmia Avenue.
2. Improvements along Fourmile Canyon Creek, 19th to 22°d Streets include 100 year flood
mitigation at 19th Street, a multi-use path and an emergency access connection from 19th
Street to Tamarack Avenue and a bicycle and pedestrian underpass at 19th Street.
3. Major drainage-way improvements for the Upper Goose Creek drainage area in the next
Page 10
six years. This project will address potential flooding issues in the area bounded on the
west and cast by 9th Street and I9"' Street respectively; and on the north and south by
Balsam Avenue and North Street respectively.
BUDGET SUPPLEMENTAL REQUESTS, CIIANGES
WRAB's role is to formally recommend the 6-year CIP to City Council. All appropriations
including operating and Capital are ultimately approved by Council. The following operating
adjustments are being considered for recommendation to Council:
• An additional $89,000 in one-time cost is being proposed in the Water Fund for
additional outside legal services.
• Still under consideration for the 2014 budget are operating increases or reallocations
related to requests for increased funding in Water Resources, specifically for consulting
and water accounting support.
BUDGET SCHEDULE:
The current schedule of major budget milestones is provided below. Elements involving the
WRAB are highlighted in bold italics.
Milestone Date
WRAB meeting - review updated CIP May 20, 2013
Proposed Budget Submittal to City Manager May 31, 2013
WRAB Recommendation on CIP/Budget June 17, 2013
Departmental Budget Review by City Manager May 30-June 28, 2013
Planning Board CIP Hearing Aug 1, 2013
City Council Study Session on Budget (CIP) Aug. 13, 2013
City Council Study Session on Budget Sept. 10, 2013
City Council Consideration/Adoption of Budget Oct. 1 and Oct. 15, 2013
NEXT STEPS:
Staff is seeking feedback on the CIP and the updated financial information. At the June 17, 2013
WRAB meeting, staff will request that WRAB provide a final recommendation concerning the
proposed 2014-2019 CIP to Planning Board and City Council.
Attachments:
A: Water - Fund Financials - Water, Wastewater, Stormwater/Flood Management
B: Colorado Utility Bill Comparison - Water, Wastewater
C: Colorado Utility Bill Comparison - Stormwater/Flood Management
D: Colorado Utility Bill Comparison - Water, Wastewater, Stormwater/Flood Management
E: National Utility Bill Comparison - Water
F: Consumer Price Index Comparison
G: Proposed 2014-2019 CIP, Water, Wastewater, Stormwater/Flood Management
Page 11
Attachment A CITY OF BOULDER
2013 FUND FINANCIAL
A B C E G I K M O Q
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Actual Revised Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Beginning of Year Fund Balance $ 37.315.810 $ 35,375,682 5 30,747,256 $ 32,370,518 5 34,589,641 3 32,596,731 S 31,267,926 S 34,694,141
Sources of Funds
Operating- 3% 3% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4% 4°i::
Sale of Water to General Cust $ 22,627,963 S 20,794,356 $ 21,46C,807 5 22,363,662 5 23,304,508 $ 24,284,946 $ 25,306,641 5 26,371,328
Projected Rate Increase - 623,631 858,432 894,5466 932,180 971,398 1,012,266 1,054,853
BuR lrrigation Water Sales 235,072 150,050 141,050 143,050 143,050 143,050 143,050 143,050
Hydroelectric Revenue 1,610,906 2,006,925 2,405,978 2,395,484 2,404,812 2,449,120 2,508,586 2,558.724
Miscellaneous Operating Revenues 7,476 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
Plant Investment Fees 2,591,327 2,000,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Ccrnnection Charges 135,667 130,000 13C,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000
Soecial Assessments 77,450 50,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5 000
State & Federal Grants 436,620 - 194,000 - -
Interest on Investments 353,205 439,066 461,209 647,410 864,741 814,918 938,638 1,C40,824
Rent, assessments and other misc revenues 144,875 19,500 20,000 20,500 20,500 20,500 20,500 20,500
Sale of Real Estate - Yards Masterplan 283,511 - - 714,750 -
Transfer from General Fund - Fire Training Center 92,785 92,765 92,785 92,785 92,785 92,765 92,785 92,785
Projected Bond Proceeds - 12,910,000 - 40,780,000 5.565 000
J Total Sources of Funds $28,596,856 $26,331,515 $ 27,994,261 $ 29,632,187 $ 43,032,577 $ 31,136,717 $ 72,962,465 5 39,007,065
Uses of Funds
37 Operating-
Administration ti 897,008 S 856,126 5 892,521 5 919,297 5 946,876 S 975,282 $ 1,004,540 3 1,034,676
Planning and Project Management 550,681 598,131 606,641 624,840 643,585 662,893 682,780 703,263
/ Water Resources and Hydroelectric Operations 2,169,830 2,072,539 2,04`.,838 2,103,093 2,166,186 2,231,172 2,296,107 2,367,050
73- Water Treatment 4,491,011 4,542,312 4,589,124 4,726,798 4,868,602 5,014,660 5,165,099 5,320,052
3 Water Quality and Environmental Svcs 945,635 966,796 1,002,555 1,032,632 1,063,611 1,095,519 1,128,384 162,236
_TT Water Conservation 361,555 461,996 408,813 421,077 433,710 446,721 460,123 473926
System Maintenance 3,076,609 3,233,373 3,166,431 3,261,424 3,359,267 3,460,045 3,563,846 3.670,761
-4 Z_ Windy Gap Payment 2,340,042 2,556,836 2,633,250 2,714,004 2,776.959 2,396,581 336,000 341,0110
5 Proposed Additions - 199,000 113,300 116,699 120,200 123,806 127,520
-77 Sick and Vacation Accrual 41,602 100,000 100,000 1113 000 106.090 1.09,273 112.551 115,927
47
Debt-
BRWTP 1996 Revenue Bond; Refunding in 2006 855,357 854,438 856,594 857,706 858,531
5T
Refunding of the 1999 and 2000 Revenue Bonds 2,506,755 2,511,421 2,523,521 2,522,054 2,517,388 2,524,233 2,524,650 1,375, 102
Lakewood 2001 Rev Bond; Refunded in 2012 2,053,275 2,057,650 2,057,000 2,065,733 2,065 950 2,065,333 2,072,083 2,080,817
Projected Bond-Betasso WTP Improvements - - - 1,139.643 1,139,643 1,139.643 1,139,643
Projected Bond-NCWCD Conveyance Line - - - - - 2,600,596 2,600,596
/ Projected Bond-Carter Lake Hydro 485,205
5 Projected Bond - Barker Dam 710,445 710,445
_FT Projected Bond-Barker Dam Hydro Facility 335,250 336,250
I
b Transfers-
Cost Allocation 1,180,551 1,208,285 1,268,699 1,332,134 1,398.741 1,468,678 1,542,112 1,619,217
b Planning & Development Services 200,362 206,373 212,564 218,941 225,509 232,274 239,243 246,420
b Energy Performance Contract Transfer 104,200 104,600 104,600 104,600 104,600 104.600 -04,600
General Fund-City Attorney 31,893 32,850 33,635 34.850 35,896 36.973 38,082
Attachment A CITY OF BOULDER
2013 FUND FINANCIAL
A B C E G I K M O Q
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Actual Revised Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
! Capital $8,908,314 5,469,598 3,775,000 4,361,595 8,183,536 8,471,793 4,423,683 9,288,527
!
Projected Bond - Betasso WTP IMP - 11,996,245
( Projected Bond - NCWCD Conveyance - $27.374,690
Projected Bond - Carter Lake Hydro - - 2,500,000
(Projected Bond - Barker Dam - 7,725,138
Projected Bond - Barker Dam Hydro Facility - 3,613,459
Projected Bond - Issuance Costs - $125,000 $350,000
Encumbrances, Carryover and Adjustments to Base 3,227,971
77 Total Uses of Funds $ 30,578,787 S 31,059,938 $ 26,47'.,001 S 27,516,065 $45,131,577 $ 32,554,795 $69,668,801 $ 37,S41.318
Sick'VacationAccrual Adjustment $ 41,802 S 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 103,000 $ 106,090 $ 109,273 $ 112,551 $ 115,927
Ending Fund Balance Before Reserves $ 35,375,682 $ 30,747,258 $ 32,370,518 5 34,589.641 $ 32,596,731 $ 31,287,92E $ 34,694,141 $ 35,875,816
EF-
Reserves
Bond Reserve $ 2,934,796 $ 2,934,796 $ 2,934,796 $ 2,934,796 $ 4,074,439 $ 3,221,072 S 6,868,373 $ 71353,578
Lakewood Pipeline Remediation Reserve 14,039,542 14,932,560 15,588,815 16,528,955 17,497,690 18,495,894 19,524,451 20,263,193
Sick)Vacation(Bonus Reserve 557,494 574,219 591,445 609,189 627,464 646,238 665,677 685,647
Pay Period 27 Reserve 287,947 112,400 163,400 214,400 265,400 316,400 367,400 415,400
Operating Reserve 4,063,772 4,234,715 4,314,722 4,427,244 4,561,321 4,588,448 4,199,541 4,331,183
Capital Reserve 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,400 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Total Reserves $ 23,983,551 $ 24,788,689 $ 25,593,177 5 26,714.583 S 29,026 314 $ 29,268,098 $ 33,626,442 $ 35,052,002
823.614
rU3 Ending Fund Balance After Reserves 11.392.131 6.95a.569 6,777,341 $ ,87 ,058 5 3.570.417 2,019.W 1.068.699
Note:
TTU Ooeratira reserve levels are based on industry standards and are maintained for revenue bonds, revenue fluctuations Iwea".her and water usaoe impacts`. and the caoital intensive
nature of the utility.
ATTACHMENT A CITY OF BOULDER
2014 FUND FINANCIAL
A B G I K M O Q S U
1 ~~?'~,•-tea 7~~i I~:aap` s,. _ ~r s° - . - - - -
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Actual Revised Projected Projected Projected Projected Pr9jected Projected
Beginning Fund Balance $ 20,374,795 $ 13,034,309 $ 9,360,603 $ 8,340,654 S 6,700,005 $ 7,322,730 $ 6,741,989 S 6,831,902
Sources of Funds
0 U
Operating- 3a -5 l0 51,E 5C! 0 5flh 5J/ n
77 Sewer Charges to General Customers $ 12,851,662 $ 12,761,728 $ 13,426,614 $ 14,126,140 $ 14,862,112 $ 15,636,428 $ 16,451,086 $
17.308,186
Projected Rate Increase - 638,086 671,331 706,307 743,106 781,821 622,554 865,409
Surchargel Pretreatment Fees 126,173 118,000 118,000 118,000 116,000 118,000 118,000 118,000
Non-Operating-
-TF Investment Fees 738,113 560,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,030
77 Connection Charges 7,214 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Special Assessments 74,246 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
77 Federal & State Grants - - - - - -
Interest on Investments 183,139 203,141 234,015 250,220 201,000 219,882 202,260 205,137
Rent and other miscellaneous revenue 52,116 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1 .500
Sale of Real Estate - Yards Masterplan 141,755 - 357,375 - -
Transfer from Other Funds 567,318
Bond Proceeds 30,914,785
Total Sources of Funds $ 45,656,522 S 14,297,455 $ 14,916,459 5 16,024,542 $ 16,390,716 $ 17,222,431 $ 18,060.400 $ 16,963,234
79- Uses of Funds
Operating-
Adminlstration S 477,956 5 535,433 5 568,430 5 585,483 S 603,047 $ 621,139 5 639.773 S 653,966
S Planning and Project Management 382,651 351,533 354,340 364,970 375,919 367,197 398,813 410,777
Wastewater Quality & Environmental Svcs 1,062,557 1,113,978 1,135,056 1,169,108 1,204,181 1,240,305 1,277,516 1,315,641
System Maintenance 1,705,054 1,752,316 1,697,976 1,748,915 1,801,383 1,855,424 1,911,087 1,968,420
Wastewater Treatment 4,645,480 5,300,593 5,034,123 5,185,147 5,340,701 5,500,922 5,665,950 5,835,928
Sick/Vacation Accrual (15,153) 75,000 75,000 77,250 79,568 81,955 84,413 86,946
-77 Debt-
4Z
2012 Refunding of the WW7P 2005 Revenue Bond 34,388,927 3,544,883 3,463,046 3,439,463 3,199,450 3,177,125 3,153,292 3,145,375
-TT 2006 Refunding of the 1992 Marshall Landfill Bond 175,454 -
WWlP UV1 Digester, Headworks Imp 2010 Rev Bond 771,559 673,963 670,854 672,638 673,863 670,938 672,700 674,013
J
5 Transfers- 424,714
J Cost Allocation 870,993 866,761 900,430 945,452 992,725 1,042,361 1,094,479 1,149,203
Planning & Development Services 200,971 207,000 213,210 219,606 226,194 232,980 239,969 247,158
EPC Transfer 93,879 93,994 93,994 93,994 93,994 93,994 93,994
General Fund - Utilities Attorney 10,631 10,950 11,279 11,617 11,966 12.325 12, 695
1 -
Capital Improvement Program $1,395.130 943,155 1.794.0G0 3,229,135 1,244.918 2,968,819 2.804.590 4,588.799
67-
ATTACHMENT A CITY OF BOULDER
2014 FUND FINANCIAL
A B G I K M O Q S U
1117 ~Irfi 7"
MIMi
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019
Actual Revised Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
152 2011 Bond-UV, Digester, Headworks IMP $6,720,076 506,845 - - - - -
Carryover, Encumbrances and Adjustments to Base 2,070,190
t7 n
b! Total Uses of Funds $ 52,980,655 $ 18,046,160 $ 16,011,409 $ 17,742,441 $ 15.847,560 S 7,885,126 S 18,048,900 $ 20,081,436
WJ SickNacationAccrual Adjustment $ (16,153) $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 77,250 $ 79,568 5 81,955 S 84,413 $ 86,946
-77 Ending Fund Balance Before Reserves $ 13,034,309 $ 9,36D,603 $ 8,340,654 $ 6,700,005 5 7,322,730 S 6.741,989 5 6,837,902 $ 5,806,646
J Reserves
! Bond Reserves $ 840,389 $ 670,139 $ 670,139 $ 670,139 $ 670,139 $ 670,139 $ 670.139 $ 670 139
! SickNacation/Bonus Reserve 567,498 584,523 602,059 620,120 638,724 657,886 677.622 697,951
Pay Period 27 Reserve 237,891 103,480 142,480 181,480 220,480 259.480 298.480 337,480
Operating Reserve 2,382,427 2,576,781 2,520,877 2,600,301 2,682,332 2,767.061 2,854,580 2.918.312
Capital Reserve 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500.000 500.000 500.000
Total Reserves S 4,528,205 $ 4,434,923 $ 4,435,555 $ 4,572,040 S 4,711,675 $ 4,654,565 S 5,000,821 $ 5,123,BB2
Ending Fund Balance After Reserves 8,506,103 4,925,680 3,905,099 $ 2,127,964 2,611,054 $ 1,887,424 $ 1,837,081 $ 682,764
-37
97- Note -
Oneralin reserve levels are based on industry standards and are maintained for revenue bonds, revenue fluctuations (weather and water usage impactsi and the capital intensive
nature of the utility
Attachment A CITY OF BOULDER
2014 FUND FINANCIAL
A B C E G I K M O Q
J
2012 2M W4 2015 2016 2017 20`18 2019
Actual Revised Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Beginning Fund Balance $ 13,589,968 S 15,373,639 $ 8,930,569 S 3,557,520 $ 4,731,665 $ 5,064,331 $ 4,089,491 $ 3,908.527
Sources of Funds
Operating- 3% 3% 3`70 3% 3Y) 3"!
Service Charge Fees S 5,132,602 $ 5,146,715 S 5,311,719 S 5,482,012 $ 5,657,766 S 5,839,154 9 6,026,357 3 6,219,562
Projected Rate Increases 154,401 159.352 164,460 169,733 175,175 180,791 186.587
Non-Operating-
Planl Investment Fees 533,062 500,000 500.000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500.000
715- Uroan Drainage District Funds 192,635 1,867,979 75,000 275,000 425,000 400.000 412,000 424.360
Slate and Federal Grants 1,750 900,000 2,000,000 - - - -
10 Interest on Investments 142,715 307,473 223,264 106,726 141,951 151,930 122,685 117, 259
Intergovernmental Transfers (KICP Program) 179,724 154,500 159,135 163,909 166,826 173,891 179,108 164,481
Rent and other miscellaneous revenue 43,815 40,000 40,000 40.00D 40,000 5,000 5.000 5,GC0
Miscellaneous nonrecurring revenue - - - -
Sale of Real Estate - Yards Masterplan 141,755
ZIT Projected Bonds - - - - 5,015,000
zu- Total Sources of Funds 6,368,060 $ 9.071,068 $ 8,466,469 $ 6,732,107 $7,103,275 $ 12,260,149 $ 7.425.940 S 7,637,249
zu- Uses of Funds
Operating-
Administration $ 363,673 $ 409,197 S 402,417 5 414,490 3 426,924 5 439,732 5 452,924 5 466,512
.37- Planning and Project Management 970,946 1,069,829 1,049,815 1,081,309 1,113,749 1,147,161 1,181.576 1,217.023
SlormwaterContract Management 38,433 49,442 49,442 50,925 52,453 54,027 55,647 67,317
J SlormwaterQuality and Education 818,690 938,603 955,127 983,781 1,013,294 1,043,693 1,075,004 1,107,254
System Maintenance 716,707 826,512 620,263 844,871 870,217 896,324 923,213 950,910
137- i-r Sick/Vacation Accrual (6,308) 50,000 50,000 51,500 53,045 54,636 56,275 57,964
Debt--
47- Gcase Greek 1998 Revenue Bond - - - _ - -
Refunding of the Goose Creek 1998 Revenue Bonc 388,058 390,742 384,042 387,038 381,675 386,138 380,175 -
415 Projected Bond - South Boulder Creek - - - - - 437,065 437,065 437,065
-4717- Projected Bond - Boulder Transit Village _
Transfers-
_717- Cost Allocation 212,931 211,245 219,451 230,424 241,945 254,042 266.744 280.08`
Planning & Development Services 121,134 124,768 128,511 132,366 136,337 140,428 144,640 148,960
General Fund - Utilities Attorney - 10,631 10,950 11,278 11,617 11,965 12,324 12,694
Capital $953.617 3,347,500 9,821,500 1,421,460 2.522,418 3.849,415 2.677.492 2.739.35,
Projected Bond - South Boulder Creek - - - - - 4,500,000 -
1 Projected Bond Issuance Costs - - - - 75,000 - -
56- Encumbrances. Carryover and Adjustments to Base - 8.135,669 - -
_57- 1
Total Uses of Funds 4 578 081 $ 15,564,138 $ 1 3.891,518 $ ,609,442 $ 6,823,674 $ 13,289,626 $ 7P33,080 S ' 47 5,i5~~'
Attachment A CITY OF BOULDER
2014 FUND FINANCIAL
A 8 C E G I K M 0 0
3- 2012 2013 2014 ;M3 201 G 2017 2018 20is
Actual Revised Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Sick and Vacation Accrual Adjustment $ (6,306) 5 50,000 5 50,000 5 51.500 S 53,045 S 54.63fS $ 56.2++"5 f 57,964
-537
Ending Fund Balance Before Reserves 5 i5.373,63 $ 8,9 0,569 $ 3.557,520 $ 4 .731,685 S 5.D64.331 $ 4,089,491 S 3,908,627 S 4,128,689
Reserves
Bond Reserves 5 324.934 S 324,984 S 324.984 $ 762.419 5 762.019 S 1.132054 $ 874.070 874,070
Post Flood Property Acquisition 1,050,000 1,050,000 1.050,000 1.050,060 050.000 1,050.000 4,050.000 1,050,000
$;6kNarahonlBonus Reserve 65.991 67,971 70.014 72.110 74,274 76,502 78,797 81,161
-77 Pay Period 27 Reserve 65,317 21,480 34,480 47.480 60.480 73.480 86.46C 99,705
Operating Reserve 809.102 922,557 921.494 950,236 979 895 1,010,502 1.042 467 '.,074,683
f Capital Reserve 200.000 200,000 200.000 20,000 200.000 200.000 20.000 200,000
1-17 Total Reserves S 2.515.394 S 2.586,952 S 2. 00.168 5 3.031.845 S 21266F6 5 3.609.53' S 3,331.434 3,379,620
1 Z5 Ending Fund Balance After Reserves $12,868,245 $6.343,577 $956,552 $1,649,844 1,937,464 $479,954 $577,193 $74S,069
Note'
Operating reserve levels are based on industry standards and are maintained for revenue bonds, revenue fluctuations (weather and water usage impacts) and the capital intensive
nature of the utility.
AttachmentB 2013 Water and Wastewater Rates
$1,600
$1,400 -
$1,200 -
$1,000
$800 -
$600
$400
$200 -
0
~oC'
4e
bp 0
oN°`° ~o
G
Attachment C 2013 Flood/Stormwater Rates
$180
$160
$140
$120 -
$100
$80 - - - - - - - -
$60 `
$40
$20
$0 '
0 le
G Q` ' o~ 5 ooh
0 N"
~0 v NQ
Go
Attachment D 2013 Utility Rates
$1,800
I
$1,600 =
$1,400 i Water A Wastewater _ 5tormwater
$1,200
$1,000 -
A-i
$800 - - -
$600 - - ;
Yi
$400-- h -
$200 sd•~ ' .Jj I ,
14~ Lb~~ 41 yb~~' ~ofi~ aaa \~~a cwo",
f `aa 5Q P 10 ~
e
~o ao <ta
`o
Attachment E
2012 Average Monthly Water Bill
Circle of Blue
$160 - - - - - - - -
$140 -
$120 -I -
I
$100 -
$80 - - -
$60 - - -~'j- - - i
$40 - - -
- -
$20 -
5~0 q-
'C~O r~5 C.`~ ado ~Ze °4~ c, ~¢t sQC ~Q~ ~~ay ~~~e a~ Q~~e ~~r ono o`'w o~ 4~,y ~a~ v~oy 5~~~ ~o•~ .`~~o e` o ~`~e ~~a a e
~gy44~~c;2P
Attachment F
Consumer Price Index Comparison
(local is Denver-Boulder-Greeley)
i
$800 - -
$750 Water and Sewer CPI
r
$700 Electricity - -
$650 Sewer
Boulder Water an
$600 ° CPI -
$550
F"I
$500 - -
Piped Gas
$450
$400
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
---Boulder - Water Sewer CPI - Water Sewer Electric Local CPI -Piped Gas Local CPI CPI Local
Attachment G
T1
I citY OF BOULDER - 1S 61ayt3
2014.2019 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
}
44A1 ER UTILITY F V N D
AS 'Qd Ynflalmn Rate 1 4.00%. 2012 2017 2014 2015 _ 2036 2017 1 2019 201'1
ACI UAL REVISED PROJECTED PROJECTED
PROJECT NAME PRUJECTEO~PRUJECTED PROJECTED PF?tl.iF±: +>.Ir
Treated Water Pressure Reducing and _Hyd{oelectrc Facililres _ _ 't_._
I— I k I + iirlro++ IJ i nnliry 1 l i&. s0 : Sso'ctao 50 t So SO SO _S4 t _
_!.larualllf)•droFfRVFaciliiy la.~ 50S50 004 SD 30 SD M 39_-
V 611 11 ityrlrofP'tV f'r•a4ty_ - 411'331` 50.1._517 $O.L 50 $0 ff_P_I SQ
Swmhme l_IydroJARV FSChty 1t4113.4.7! 50 s0 so I SO SO I 52r Il87s 1 _S'o I :
F- •ad S6cel I•I dro1PRV Fau1d I I 501 50 s0 . S0 SO . SD r 324,333 1 I:A.v.,i.
subtotal - Treated Water PRV and Hydro I___ I- so $100.000 59 $0 $0 $271,875 1 524,333 l G^~3.3
1 ' Water Treatment Facilltles l
t, -~e„a.,so',TF 1411947 $163.2131 5376,069 - 53,500,0301 SO so -
_LL Bntnsso WTF - Rand Proceeds SO SO SO SD 511.090,245 SO s0
wand 155.an.e ~:osts SD $0 50 $0 5125.000 50 5350.D00
OaulderVa servpu WTF 1 4116521 $30,393 1 S159,933 1 $82,000 So I 5164,000 I s0 50
Rouldcr Res INTp -fled Proceeds so 54 SO So so so SO
r Subtotal- Water Treatment Facditles 5193.606 5530,602 55620, OD I 51.049.628 1 $15.785,275 50 $350,000 i
Treated Water Pump Slaflens
_i;n rt~v4•.PUmp Station 1 1010 SO SO i 59 $0 SO _ _
a eIderRowrwirWTFHtg_hServieeF'umpSYai 11011;_ 50 5162,600 Sit S0~_St) 54 50 _
Ins Puma Slalions i 4110121 50 30 SO s0 50 SD s4 -
Subtotat•Trealc+d Water Pump Stations S0 $162.800 5o s0 50 s0 SO
Treated Water SloragC Tnks_1 _
G.. nLVr S+oratse rank t, 41.1670 s0 5265.798 s0 50 Sfl SO 50 _
M n, IlStoranrTrnk 1411873 SO_ S0 SO 50 SO St] SOT
_Gnvtvn_SI- Ta,,4 f 50 50 50 SO 50 So 50. - -
De 1'3 Trume, Stxana Tank. 411074. So so 5o I S4 SO SO So I f.'~
ho I~r y or e T ua< 411071 SO 50 SO 1 5103457 151 034 575 SD 50
Cnar to a ag r lank 115 7 51.3,1.70- 5278692 501!~50 _ 50_ sot 50 _
Rua o StO:aue lank - $0' 50 SO I S0o S_0' 52112.465-~ so
- ~ BoVid rF?eseni+Stora c Iink so I so I Sol $D 50 S o
1 Subtotal •Treated Water 5teragoTanks I I 5103,070 5544490 SO S1D3487 51,034875-~ 5292,.65 501_
Treated Water Distribution System - - - - - - - _ - -
' i Zone Isalauorr Valves 41139050 I SU 0 n0 I_ SO I _ S4 I so I _
'.1 Cathodic Pro "Iron 411387 F10'J 364 I SU 90 SO 50 50, 50
tti M. at_ninO Replrcbnre»t 14113691 5721185.7 $3.0,3935 5$,104 0001 $7.2713601 52,362.2141 52455709! $2,554971 1 -
Subtotal rn_3_?2. . •r,9'ti. v__t°,.404 S?.271 350 Sr''r2.7?•f "s?.5557.3 Stl 554.971
- Tr_alcel VJalor Distribution System 241 3
a,. Treated Water 7r.n 5 mrs 51 an.$y5fem
Sunshmerlran n is ien•Pipe li YL>0;' SO I SFsrJ'a00. ! SO SD SO 50 SO
fiU - _ P~urd~r Canyon Orew_ Il to FoumuW Plpe__ 111007. _S387L543 559,367 50 so 50 SO-
Mountain Tr_ansmiss.on Pipes 41 IIJ07', SO 50 s0 s0 50 SO 54_ s0
orn 1 r ransnns>run Piper
_ .11 1,002, SO 50 SO SU 50 50 5
n Tranemiss~an FipE3_ it 1034. 50 50 S0 I 50_ $0 I 54 S
Zone,3 Transmission Pipes { 411005' _ $0 SO SO I S4 So so I 50 5'5 - rc
Subtotal - Treated Water Transmission S_vstern_ I_ j 5382.543 5859381 F S0- SD SO S2-50_.0001 3250.0X0 $211:1-; : 0:J
17 S_o_urae Water Tmnsmis_slun System
L3 c ~J?iF tit•- 1117BDI So 1-so 1 S_2.60'OW_1_ SD SO 30 _ S9
H Sii c u o F' pct e 150 $0 • $0 50 Sou,. .VnierTransmiwonPi etns ecti ons ,414775 SO S800~ 50 5. So 54_ SO
r, Subtotal-Sourc^Water Transmigslo.n Systcm _SD SBD.WOI 52GOC0Lo so so 50 _ SO
i + Barker Water System _ _ _
+ ilarke ranty 1 DM+n Re~arr 1100. _ _ 5J2fi $73 5411 376 $364,000 5376,560 5687 7,416
$613,436 5636,933- `n5 -
t R+korXo slrr en tnc Repair 111107 s0_ SO 50 SD _SO 511698fi 50 °
r i. Barks.. D..1 Qull'i 411109' SO S0 5o 50 $75,000 $772,514 50 -
r,-i earKrsr Gan, Cc4101 - Bontl Praceods SO $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $7,725,138
r.ci Barker Dam and Rescrvon _ 14111101 _ 50 _5119.1440 SO 5378.550 SO 5. 30
tier _ Baker HyAf~5ysl2m inte)tati6n r411111~! $0 s0 $0- $0 5o so SO
711 - Llsrtrer l2ellwrising _ ; 4111121 5140,245 5149,234 50 s0 So 50 S6 a r
7'. 9arker Insrraam Ficw Release 1 4111141, S37.133 SSG 287.3 SO SD 50 50 50 5r11
0j- Pon stcck 1.411940 52_,357 _ $0 1 $0 SP 50 $0_ so I s~
77 Kos Ier Paw - - - 1411119, S275.643 5227-995 I S4 54 SO I EO - - SD ty
7; Subtotal- Barker Water System I S_781.951 }1 51.203.9221 5364.000 S757.120 $742,416__51.501,935 58.362.1377 Y1=24y7
ii, Raw Water 51cra o Reservafm
_Hie.on Darn $0 50 :,8' SO $O 50 SO -
IK Silver Lake Dam SD SO 5. 54 50 34 _ SO S`
7=s _ Wand Lake Dam 411626 535.4.90 50 SO S9 50 1 SO SD S:i
Itr' _Gr en Lnk.! 1 Dorn 50 $0 $0 SD $0 54 _Stl S+Y
77 ~Grecn Laken Dm 41162i so S7S 000 _ 54 _ 54 5450 5432,739 i,.2Z' _ 4 t
P7 Grocn Lake 3 Dam s0 50 50 $0 $0 I SO 50
HH3 GoaSe Lake Dsm 411612 SO $0 $0 s0 $0 _ $4 50
' _
, 16merf2eservmr 50 50 54 54 SO- SO SO
7
F7 La i&c,,,d U5 m 411967 SP So $0 SQ $0 $0 $124107 -
_777, svys rer Dam _ S0F_ 50 $0 _50_ So Sfl_ SO so
77 Ndt In erPencis so • 54 S4 54 SO I 3 ~'~j:i+J? 4471 e3'7
`'r Subtotal • RawV7ater 5loq9a ReseNolr6 535,490 I 575,000 ' 5$0.000 5o 50 I S0 %57,446 x.e +1 126
l-
1+C OI her Ra w Wa ter Fa c llltt e s _
7i l Fauni-rs ':tco 1 4115501 So I $6 _ $0 s0 $0 $0 50 b.; C!`
_
randersan Dncn _ - _ dt-18331 SO I Sc t S. 54 SO so 50 1 -
' 'f 1 r hod lm ro m. nos - 41177D S7,705
1 dt~a X701 ;rtn ^t:7 &n Q??0 `27 fY+v7 S0 50
: N r -rL i:d YS"NTY . ...,41E >SS•.. _ S.~ 537J,C00 ' _ _ - $0.71 _ -Sb _ 50 $0 S4 ,1
Ir a am Flo.v 5truuures and Ga inu 1 Y 1.r _ 5532 1 5 9 E8 50 so 50 J _80
i. .4-.
r. N DY; env ~ncc-Dc Idcr FeuderC nal 11 to 6 591 so $0 1 so ~0
So
N O
c rrt0 Convelance • Caner Lake Npelina 41 154T $615,150 5336,024 1 $4 56 51Ub,OO. 52 737,564 SD
++'NCW'CI)Convuonce-BundProceeds so 50 50 5o 54 SO 527,374490
+ SublotaF Other Raw Waicr Facilittos $61$871 5975,9281 580,0001 5'.00001, $180.0001 $2,731 •160 527.37.1 65011 -
- i
77
SourceVlalor Pressure Reducing, Pumping and Hydroelectric I I _
Lak...voad H tlroelecln UPRV 4110011 59 1 50 ' ,`.'G, Ci:rr I 50 SO 0 Sy.
Attachment G
H 1< n
CITY OF BOULDER 13-May-13
201_A_-2.01 B CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
'/A7 ER UTILITY FUND As9urn_ed ln"ation_Rate 4001/p, 2012 1 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 I 2016 _-1~^ir7t1
PROJECT NAME ACTUAL I REVISEp PROJECTED*PROJECTEU PROJECTEU~P ROJECTED1 1 PROJECTEDi Pt1UJi ' 1•.-.
Silver I. ake I lydroelectjLJPRV 411970'. _ 592.304 i 5`_+.339 _ _ SU $0 50 So 55 G
Boulder Reservoir Intake and Pum ttng 411655 $41,586 $19 661 50 SO_ 50 So SO
iPl Betos.Hydroe ectnc /Pressure Redua'ny Fad' 411974 SO 86 i 50 $0 { 5100_000 _ 50 $0
'I Barker Dam Hydrnelectric SDI $0 $01 $0 $5000D1 $361,346 SO
Barker Dam Hydro- Bond Proceeds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,613,459
Bout der Canyon-t dy roeleclric _ 41_19751 53,247,525 f $103363 Si?S. $0 So : SO SO
I Boulder Canytxl sidro - Grant 411970 $153.320 3.778 $0 SO SO ~ SD_ SO
e i3oulder Canyon I-lyoro- Grant a11975234,15I _ Sa 237 SO _ $D 50 SO
Carter Lake Hydroelectric J SO SO SO 50 $0 $50,000 5250,000 I
Carter Lake Hydro - Bond Proceeds $0 50 SO So $0 $0 SO _ G}(~
11 ii Source Water Pressure Reducing, Pumping and H droei $o $0 I $0 I SO SO I SO I SO I
Subtotal - Source Water PR.VPum-ping and H Oro 53.768 686 3136.396 512a 000 SIMO 0 S150,000 I 5411 346_1 $3.863,459
1 1 Vh10r DlslribuI ys Expansion
Rel1a Pd Water St s rterion
1 ti Annra aurrl .n FxpanSi4f1 411433 SO ~Sp I SO 50 50 SO I $0
1 -%I Subtotal - Water Distribution System Expansion SO SO $0 So $O _I so $0 -
1 Water System Monitoring and Metering _
1 )4 Automated Meter Reading 1.411454 _ 5562.754 5450.000 $0 SO $0 $0
1 't 3kr SvSfem Sec
$Oerf Water u Mondron ity UE,7radn s 411440 $0 $54.305 $45,694 SO SO $0 $o $0 $0 $0
1 f. ng _ 50
~
1 D stlr b ommSystem s t,. iOwahty 4114251
4351 S217~58 $45.056 50 $0 i T' , :r 50 l s0 S"J so so $D so
1 Y1r ! 1srar f'f rn 1mnlcmOnlaOan _ .111030 5126 599,875 SO So SO ; 50
I utility Billing Computer Sy -1
,t^m Re locem. nl 4114531 Sd1 515.390 1 50 $0 5D $500 D00 . SO
Subtotal - Water System Monitoring and Moterirt$641.954 15 I 5o 80 S50000 1 $550 000_. 550 000 1 _
ii TOTAL CAPITAL USES OF FUNDS 58.6480281 58368.6.."+3 53.7'1 1,000 S,t, 36159515?111 1 oi.781 S3,471,793 $43486,970
1 3 + ,~ssel Vawe Re lacemenl Percentane 75%
Attachment G
A B F
CITY OF BOULDER 13-May-13 Y-
_ 2014 - 2019 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM _ I
_L-- WASTEWATER UTILITY FUND !
Assumed Inllatian Rata 4.00% ! 2012 _ 2073 2014 j_ _ 2015 , 2014 2017,___ - j 2018 20t>
PROJECT NAME I ACTUAL REVISED •PROJECTED PROJECTED I PROJECTED i PROJECTED PROJECTED Pkiji i--i
Wastewater Treatment I 1 1I _
C- _ WWTF Pum s 421339 $142.9_96 S5,117 1_31 50 000 SO $150 OOD 1 _ 50
WW
- TF Permit Improvements 1 421617 5754,579 5307,615! , C;, 1
_ ~ -5 C.c t~
WWTF Permit Improvements - Proj Bond 426xxx $0 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0
I W W IF Lab orals 421010 $19,042 S30,958 s0 _'.;.i;f„• $0 $0
Lc r-r Boulder Creek Enhancement 4216rs1 So $4 So -^Sfl SO
WWTF Headworks j 421003 1 $0 I- 5132,474 1 $0 so I s0 I so
WWTF Headworks- Proj- Bond $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $D
_ _WWTF Instrumentation/Control 421437 ' $14-823 $160,17! 1 5`2-_ ~ 00 3540 ^00 $0 1 4" S )
rvl>-Elect teal 14'.59 SD_ 50 51001.1#00 $0 S120,222 $1.20D,000 $a
nt 42
Tr .+liv,7 d 9179C___ 1, SO s0 J $o :3 so -52 So _
A ! F Prill C.la Biers 421005_ L _SO _$300 000y s0 SO SO ~ so S9
_ '.V IF Scwi rry Cla~iFiers_ 421096 $Q $0 $0 SO f_ $0 $0 SO
WWYF UV Disinfection 421110 $78,396 $53,676 j $0 SO $0 SO j 50 =u
77 WWTF UV Disinfection - Proj Bond $0 so $0 $0 so 5o so
WWTF Permit Improvements-2010 Bond 424901 $6,120,076 $506,845 $0 so s0 $0 $0 S!
7, WWTF Rehabilitation $0 $0 I $0 _ 50 S4 S0 50 6G
77 V 1 nl Ruth,. _421675 _1- $348734[ 501 $0I So_I $a $0 _ So
7/ Ri ogoliAS Pmressing $ 4evealfriog 42167_0 1 _ $0 $0__5.150000 1_ $0 $0 So
_ 'MNTF Uiosolids Digester 421671 $0 I $0 1 s0 So7 s0 s0 s0
?a WWTF Biosolids Digester - Proj Bond 424xxx $0 $0 $0 s0 s0 $0 $0
I1 _ WWTF Cogeneration _ 1329 $0 l_ S150,.OOo ] $0 $0 I 50 $0 1t $0
1 WATI' D,ge tar Cw.pIax ]-142 1407 ~ 5o I SO 50 S4 SO 50 ! S9
+7 WVVTF Digester Cleaning 421360 1 $0 1 so $0 s0 $0 1 $0 so f -
±.i Hord Issuance Costs 423998 $0 $o $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
''4 Subtotal- Wastewater Treatment Plant 57,478,646 $1647,162 151.120.000 $2580.176 $4700 $1,933,411 $1,451,915 S2,22-1. 91~
_-r, Marshal; Landfill
Marshall Landfill 421078 $tl so 1 SD 501- $1000,0 $0 $0
Subultl :lrt,vsttau ✓_~i,dfiii - _ $Ot saj sa..~_SoJ St~ooo $a $o _t
1
+l- Wastewater System Monitoring and Metering
yards Master Plan lmVerr m;t,e, 4750391 SO .5500001 501 SO s0 SOI SD S^,
- Aui m l,.d M rReadmp _ 421.546 I 50 $n 5a _SO 50 50 50 SO
IID ty Billing Computer Sy. tem r?gpl~rernvnl_ _421_453 SO S17,51)6 s0 1 $0 56 5250 000 so I
Subtotal -Monitoring and Meterin SO 1 $67.596 s0 SO $0 $250,000 s0 ,0
s Collection and GonveYance System Rehabilitation S47,OS2 _3 _ 1 50
-
_
i; CollectionSysiemMOnllonn 421450 $0 550000 SO SO 558 49
ri - S larv Sewer Rehah,IrM,M _421002 $470,520 ` $524,307 i $520000 $540,800 $562 2,432 X584,929 !36083213
San lacy Sewer Manhole Re ha hi l i tali on 421454 $79,068 $120 932 $104,000 $108,160 5112,486 $116,986 S121,665
x6 IBM Pump Station I 421521 $86.972 Y $938,648 $0 $0 _ so $0 $0
41 Tar 1 Bnulder Creek 7 Master Plan Projrp SO so $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 _
T pr 1 Goose Creek 111A Master Plan Pmiecl - $D SO $0 $0 $0 $0 _s0
53 Tier 1 Goose Creek 3 Master Plan Pot 'i _ s0 s0 $o $0 SO s0 $0
- Tier 1 Goose C c 'K,-, MI of Plaf Prof q $0 $0 $0 $0 SO 525,000 5622 683_
TI3 ? Boulder Creek 1 yaSt r flan Pf Li $0 so 1 $0 $0 50 SO ~$D
'v TIer 2 Boulder Creek 3-Master Plan p~eG $4 s0 SO $0 501 50 50
- TIer F Eouiaer Creek A Master ~1an ProaU $o $0 $o $o $D $o $o _
T,r 2 Gft+ sL Creek 4 Mamer,'Ilan Project I $0 $D $0 SD- So so _ _50 _
TI r 2 r wirA arrc1 I Mas!cr l l 1, Floj_•ct $0 $0 50 s0_ SD S0 1- $0
-T ,w-, 2 Oi inonrnl ; M.aslar Pun Frc?ject _ $D SO 50 $o- $0 5a 1 $0
tit Ti_r2 S,uth R Idesrrae.k f Masrerelan_Pr. . to S4 $0 $n I s0 So I $a
r1 Subtotal-Sevmr System RehabflilaUon $638560 $1.634007 5674.000 5648 stl1 S574,918 $785.4081 $1.352,675
Wastewater System Expansion 1 - -Y
Anne,atmn Relnted WW Syst- Expansion 421436 $0 s0 $0 $0 1 50 . s0 5o
5u6tataI- Waste Wale r S yst0 m E ip a nsion $0 So soI SoSD So 50
79 TOTAL CAPITAL USES OF FUNDS I 58,115.206 $3.348,845 $1,794.000 $3,229,136 SL244 918 $2.968,819 S2,804,590
70 Assel. Value Replacement Percentage 1 75% I
Attachment G
t_: I I< i
_ CITY OF BOULDER_
13-P,7a v-13
201 - - - I
4.2019 CAPITAL. IMPROVFMENT PROGRAM . Drak
.f STORMWATER AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT UTILITY FUND 1
As5mne[1 lnttationRate 4.00% ESTIMATED 2012 2013. _ 2014 2015 2016 1 _2017 - _201_$ 20,
t PROJECT NAME 2013 COST ACTUAL REVISED 1PROJECTEDIPR6JECTEdPROJECTE PROJECTEDPROJECTEDr -k0 JECTE C!
I' ! i I- 1 I
Major Draina ewa s
ttrners Twornite Creek 1431332 r $0 1 SQ co $0 SO i 50 I $0
1 1 Goose Creek 431710 $0 SO CO $0-$0 I_ SO ~0
t;•' South Boulder Creek 431202 1 $18,917 $305,466-$o r $0 I $0 -J2 $0 i
i 3 South Boulder Creek - Bond Proceeds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 . 4,51: b ; $0 _
Bond Issuance Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 C75 -60C $0 _
ti Skunk Canyon Creek I 1 $0 1 $0 I $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sunshire Creek $0 $0 $0 $0 , $o : So $0
1'7 Twomile Canyon Creek I $0 50 $0 $0 $0 11 $0 ter'
S Bluebell Canyon Crook - Kirds Gulch $0 _ SO $0 _ $0 50 G 50 - $0 ~_0_
I>r' Viela Channel I $0 $0 j _ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- - - l
Four Mlle Ganyon Greek 471729 $3,500,.000 $101,333 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
21 Four Mile Canyon Creek- Upland to Violel . 431729: _ $U $0-$0 $0') $500000
77 Four Mile Canyon Creek - 19th to 72nd _ .431729
431730 $63167 $769,967 : $o $0 $0 $0
Bear Canyon Creek 431010 $0 $0 I $0 so $0 $0 $0 _
C'reaorv Canyon Creek 471 /07 $14,965 I $0 1 $0 $0 to $0 $o
_B_oulderCreek 491015 $22.329f $100.000 $0 $0 $0 $D $0
_Bourd-r ,SIoli _ 431016. $U $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $01
7,7 Wonderland Creek 431003 j $7,5100 .000 $28 $0 $0 $0 $0 _ iq $0
-.FZi Wonderland Creek - Foothills to 30th 431011 j $227,486 $3,515,760 I -7~ $o j $h $0 $o -
rb0 WondedandCreek at 281hSt . 431012-1 $0 31,350,0001 aCr r $n_f .$n .$n 1 $01
}!l PreOOOd Acslur5 rqn_ 431522_1 L $346.27.3 1 32,ti56, 8866 $500.000 $500,000 j $500 OOO $550 000. $600 000 ] S- '
1 Greenways Program Cransfer 4316301 S61.13h l $540,68! $9f 500 J$97. SOU ! S91510 39l 500 ! S9 LbU0
37 Subtotal . Major Drainageway leepraiwniaw is l 1 1 $876233 1 S+JJ 41,006 . S9.197 500 $597 500 $1.097.600 $6]22,500 I $1.197.500
Miscellaneous _
1 Yards Master Plan Irririe nc 1t ion 431039 $0 550000 I $0 $0 $0 $0 I $0
CU B!kelPed Bridge Peplnc-e.,it 1 431054 $0 S?570000-~-$0 $0 $0 $0
7.! UtLtyEilnnjCoo,.cuter5 tarnRepl3cri~nt1431453 $D s9,'r0-l $0' $0 $0 S2"0000 $0
•S Subtotal - Miscellaneous Drainage ImProyements $0 S266 107 j - $0 $0 $0 S250001)
$0
Stormwlt rManagernent I
- - - -
>r i _ Up` oer Goose Creek_ 431459 $10,70Q000 ,c0 f ! _0 I -so $175,000 ~ $7u
• _ 0 000 5750.000 $750,000
4! Sr titern ablylmprovrments 4 1775 $e SIso. OD 5 1 7`
_ ..770 400 $201 21 6 520'14II
4 Storm Sewer RehabLlitalron 431760 -$589301 51 I Oe01 5260000 c'. 51 $304,1631 E
11 TP3R°PG n'tl++r r p l:n~hOn 431 780 $19464 s7 1 $?60000 I__ 0070,10C $281 21r,' ! $292,4G5 $304163
i i SuhtataI • Localized Drainage 1Tpr0?V0rn0ntS $77 384 7,056.75A f 5624 00Q 5873 dfi i $1,424 918 !:1,45'.915 '9.992 75, e1
41 TOTAL CAPITAL USER OF FUNDS l $953 5 17 S) l 057 467 1 $9 821 500 1 $1 421 460 $2 522 418 SB 424 415 $2 677 49J 1
CITY OF BOULDER
INFORMATION ITEM FOR:
ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY BOARD - June 5, 2013
PLANNING BOARD - June 6, 2013
TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD - June 10, 2013
OPEN SPACE BOARD OF TRUSTEES - May 8, 2013
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD - May 20, 2013
PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD - May 20, 2013
GREENWAYS ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: June 13, 2013
SUBJECT:
2014-2019 Greenways Capital Improvement Program
REQUESTING DEPARTMENT:
Anne Noble Greenways Coordinator
PURPOSE: The 2014-2019 Greenways Capital Improvement Program is being provided to
board members as an information item. If you have any comments or concerns regarding the
2014-2019 Greenways Capital Improvement Program, please pass them along to your
Greenways Advisory Committee representative. If you have questions on this material, please
contact Annie Noble at 303-441-3242 or noblea z bouldercolorado. ov
GREENWAYS ADVISORY COMMITTEE ACTION REQUESTED:
A recommendation from the Greenways Advisory Committee to the City's Planning Board
and City Council concerning the proposed Greenways Capital Improvement Program is
requested.
Attached is information concerning the proposed 2014-2019 Greenways Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) for review and consideration. A recommendation by the Greenways Advisory
Committee to the city's Planning Board and Council will be requested at the June 13, 2013 GAC
meeting.
Attachment A: Greenways 2014-2019 Capital Improvement Program Overview
Attachment B: Greenways 2014-2019 Capital Improvement Program Summary Spreadsheet
Attachment C: Greenways Program CIP Map
I
Attachment A
Greenways 2014-2019 CIP Program Overview
GREENWAYS
2014 - 2019 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
The city of Boulder Greenways System is comprised of a series of corridors along riparian areas
including Boulder Creek and its 14 tributaries, which provide an opportunity to integrate
multiple objectives, including habitat protection, water duality enhancement, storm drainage and
floodplain management, alternative transportation routes for pedestrians and bicyclists,
recreation and cultural resources. In order to maximize the overlap of objectives and to
coordinate projects along the Greenways, identification of projects for the 2014-2019 Greenways
Capital Improvement Program was done as a team effort, combining input from Flood Utilities,
Transportation, Parks and Recreation, Water Quality and Environmental Services, Planning and
Open Space and Mountain Parks.
The Greenways CIP follows an opportunistic approach, contributing funding toward projects that
are being completed by other departments or private development in order to meet the various
objectives of the Greenways Program. The Greenways CIP also looks to leverage funds with
outside agencies in order to move projects forward that meet more than one objective of the
Greenways Program, but may not be the highest priority when evaluating any one particular
objective. Projects included in the Greenways CIP are typically called out in the Greenways
Master Plan and are projects that Greenways staff can take the lead in coordinating.
Funding Overview
The total 2014 Greenways capital budget is $345,000, with $105,000 in the operating budget.
Greenways projects are funded from the Transportation Fund, Stormwater and Flood
Management Utility Fund, and the Lottery Fund. Annual funding distribution for the Greenways
Capital Program for 2014 is as follows:
Transportation - $97,500
Flood Utility - $97,500
Lottery Fund - $150,000
Starting in 2015, the Lottery contribution is expected to be reduced to $125,441, based on
Greenways receiving 15% of the city's funding allocation, with a projection of total Lottery
proceeds being $836,275.
Accomplishments and Highlights
During 2012, flood mitigation and path improvements were completed in conjunction with the
Violet Crossing development, which was partially funded through the city's CIP. A path
connection was constructed along Fourmile Canyon Creek through the Elks Park. A flood
mapping update for Boulder Creek was accepted by City Council in September, and is currently
being reviewed by 1~EMA. Flood mapping updates are currently underway for Skunk Creek,
Bluebell Creek, King's Gulch, Upper Goose Creek, Twomile Creek and Boulder Slough. Once
these mapping updates have been adopted, flood mitigation plans will be developed to evaluate
feasible capital improvements for reducing the flood risk along these creeks and tributaries.
I
Attachment A
Projects Completed in 2013
• Wonderland Creek Diagonal to Winding Trail
CEAP was completed in early 2013.
• Fourmile Canyon Creek Upland to Violet
CEAP is anticipated to be completed by the end of 2013.
Projects Expected for Completion in 2014
• Goose Creek Restoration Project
Restoration improvements along Goose Creek between Foothills Ilighway and 55th Street
are expected to be completed in 2014. This project is primarily being funded through a
Section 206 Restoration grant through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The city's
35% funding match is being met mostly through credits from city owned real estate.
Projects Starting in 2014, but Not Completed
• Wonderland Creek Foothills to 30`}' construction is anticipated to begin in 2014
• Wonderland Creek (28`h Street) Diagonal to Winding Trail construction is anticipated to
begin in 2014
• Fourmile Canyon Creek at 19th Street construction is anticipated to begin in 2014
All of these projects include flood mitigation, multi-use paths and bicycle and pedestrian
underpasses.
Highlights of 2014-2019 Projects
• The focus of the 2014-2019 Greenways ClP is on flood mitigation, bicycle and pedestrian
multi-use paths and underpasses, and habitat and water quality improvements along the
Fourmile and Wonderland Creek corridors.
In addition to the projects along Fourmile Canyon Creek and Wonderland Creek, possible habitat
restoration projects during the next few years include:
• Stream bank restoration along Boulder Creek at Eben Fine Park
• Confluence of Bear Creek and Boulder Creek at Foothills Community Hospital
• Dry Creek habitat improvements through Flatirons Golf Course
• Goose Creek, railroad to 47`h Street tree plantings
• Fish Passage enhancement projects in association with Fishing is Fun grants
• South Boulder Creek minimum stream flow
• Removal of Russian Olive trees east of 75t" Street along Boulder Creek
The Urban Drainage and Flood Control District also completes maintenance projects along the
major drainageways. In 2013 this includes the construction of a sediment trap along Fourmile
Canyon Creek upstream of Broadway.
Relationship to Guiding Principles and Master Plan and Prioritization
Greenways projects address many of the CIP guiding principles. Greenways projects are
identified in multiple master plans and meet the community sustainability goals. Most of the
2
Attachment A
Greenways projects leverage outside or interdepartmental funding. Greenways habitat
improvements seek to be sustainable and are intended to reduce the future maintenance required.
The Greenways CIP has been developed within the context of and is consistent with the Boulder
Valley Comprehensive Plan (BVCP), the Transportation Master Plan (TMP), the major
drainageway plans, the Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Master Plan and the Greenways
Master Plan. The Greenways Master Plan was updated in 2011 to reflect improvements that had
been completed, and adopted changes that have been made in other master plans, city policies
and ordinances that affect the Greenways Program since the last Master Plan update in 2001.
Information from other existing master plans for seven additional tributaries was also
incorporated into the Greenways Master Plan update. Future opportunities will also be
coordinated with the Open Space and Mountain Park's Grassland Plan and Visitor Master Plan
and Trail Study Area plans where appropriate.
Transportation and flood utility projects were identified from the Transportation Master Plan,
and the major drainageway plans, and intra-departmental meetings were held to determine
project priorities and timing. Private development activities were also evaluated. Many of the
Greenways projects shown in the CIP are being designed and constructed in coordination with
major flood or transportation improvements. The Greenways funding associated with these
projects focuses on habitat restoration, water quality improvements and trail connections- In
addition to leveraging funding with the Transportation and Flood Utilities budgets, funding for
Greenways projects is also available through the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District and
Federal Transportation funds.
New Projects
The 2014-2019 CIP continues to focus on Fourmile Canyon and Wonderland Creeks. The Flood
Utility is currently updating the flood mapping for the following creeks and tributaries: Boulder
Creek, Boulder Slough, Upper Goose Creek, Twomile Creek, Skunk Creek, Bluebell Creek and
King's Gulch. Once the new mapping has been approved by F'EMA, a flood mitigation analysis
will be completed for each of these tributaries to determine if it is economically feasible to
reduce the flood risk through construction of capital improvements. These studies, along with
the Transportation Master Plan update will help inform future Greenways CIP projects.
Operation and Maintenance Impacts
$105,000 is budgeted each year for Greenways operations and maintenance. $80,000 of the
operating budget is dedicated to habitat maintenance. The Greenways habitat crew works
closely with Parks and Open Space maintenance staff to provide on-going maintenance, as well
as on collaborative projects as part of the operations budget. Major drainageway improvements
are maintained by the flood maintenance staff and multi-use paths and underpasses are
maintained by either Transportation or Parks maintenance, depending upon jurisdiction.
Deferred Projects, Changes and Unfunded Needs
Since the Greenways Program is opportunistic, taking advantage of projects that are funded
through other departments, there are no unfunded needs.
The Wonderland Creek from Foothills to 30`t' Street was granted Federal Transportation
Attachinc►it A
Improvement Program (ill}) funds in the anunmt or $2 million (2012-201-1). !Additional TH'
fundin<u was granted for the Wonilcrland Creek at 28111 Street pro.JW it1 tite 91110 rnt of $900,000
(2011-2014
Enzcrrinc, Deeds
None
BOARD ACTION
The Grcenways Advisory Committee will review the Gruenways CIP un June I3, 2013 and will
be asked to make a recommendation fior approval to the Planning Board and City Council.
\ftach nlcnt 6 ~ I ( I ~ I I
CITY OF HOULIDER - - -
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM
1 2014-2019 Overs o 202 to 2013
Total Exhcndcd in tarn 2013 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 21119
Greenways Prior Years i Oycr Budvet Proposed Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
CAPITAL RIPROVEMENTS PROGRAM J
tircanxays I'nrlra Admimsuattnu 537;142
I (,;oosc C:rcck KeAtlntIt'll S1 20,W0 5818 519,182 $119,182
founnjk Bruadi, ayto Violet w8 louj 557,1001 S62 )W 1 SO
v
}-•(rurnlilc?Gthto2&d1 S1 5.004 $15.000 so
41R'uudctl,nxl i4t~-!lulls to 3Udt Sireef 4391?IG 518,1(,21 1336,312 ! S373,554 ! -
\4ondctl(utd 28111 Slicel 1fudlvx ass 5565.441 5295,000 S2! 70.4.11
6 Founn(le 19dtlo'_'_ad 5"17,9001 S2671 5389,733 S?95,fit111! 5747,633 I
Frunlnlc (IPL;nd to Vu4cl 51,081.764 5270,441 5270,441 S270,441 5270,441
i{cxlnnltna,W.1Ur(;ua11ty and I rad ltnprm'crnrnl SIGi,288, S5t1,0001 5114,288 MUJ)00'i S50 01)0! 55o'coo .£50.000 5501100 S5O-000
Lih(:a fine ltestuf;dton
Dn CretF: ihroup11 Golf l7vorso 1 1
(-l'i9tkv'1'cJ NvIdgc Rtll"c,tl It $290,000 S200.00t11, 5200.000 - -
'101ALGRVLN'b1'AlSWJD(;PA _ I 51.209.657 5345.000 5345,1100 !5320441 63211,1111 1320,441 $321),44i 53211,441
E I
TOTAL FUNDING
All cars 01 HLIZ V1, NUIN(; SOURCES - - -
Grecnwavs P,e-flood Flood Tlauslmrt:atinu TIP Developer Other Llufutdcd Total
l'ialcc( ~ - - I - -
I Goose C1'eek ltestom[ion SI20,040 3120•(!(10
2'.FcunnilcBroadwayloViolcl _ L.. 587.Itit1 SI01,;~~ 5155,•133
3 Pounni[c _Gth to 28th 3?i,000 575,v0u
\4'ondetland FoothiLsto30thStreet 53+51 ']ti 11,822,601 $?,K)<16- S?RO,A 511)1111),:84
5 \Vonderlond28d)StreetUndetpass SSG~~.11 S•1 i;r,buD SkuJ,1N)u S .'i1:.'`II
7711 FootmIIe 19th to 22nd 5?•7;!)(?t1 51,4 <2~~ 53 ~Zo
? I-nunnllc U)Lu1d W Violel $1 (131.764 51,7110jlull 57.a1I '(t4
1
FLOOD FUNDING BY YEAR
2011 2615 2016 2017 2018 )O'.9 -
Expended it Carry _2013 Proiccted Projected Proiected Proiccteal Pto'eca•J Projected "Cotai dc:litable _
Prior Years Over Budge[
• iio=Cdeck R"tofalion
Pnnmtjk nrom twa% to Violet I'll SI(I ;33
Fanrnule 26th to 28th 90
- 1V'undudaud Fo afitl s m 3Dth 5424,022; S2671.145j S2,St1(1p($1 ( $5,895.1((11
Wimilcdaad 23111 5trccl Judel 51,250,000 S3,'t1tl,Dp S4,:150,000
_ Fin(mukl9thIv ?2nd 'S2u`I4e60 Va,i,cf, t $w1wn11!1
SI.1?J,;'_o
Foku tik Upbad 1r ViOu $50(),0110 5500,ODu 5500,006 S150,o01 5(),l 00
Iatal I
1
~ I
a
It r4r~ 'zF ~ t' • a X81. Y Y y
RRyyti'~l h ~'~T. N.~ G .idlk.,`4'• ! 1 4: r-' f
N dt, p } -i •.1~; 4`1 r ~~•-.y n,~ - ~~yEEEEE~,~,n x1c'-F
i- '17
Lee Hill li
~E 1Yldlet N
m 4 Jay Rd-
Fourmile i
Creek
Wonderland
41 T
Creek x ~hO M~ r a.. 1.
3a
'Linde'n Av x;
Independence Rd f .
ElmerS
Iris Av Ot°~
2 . SIf1111 ' ' , r cl7
,Y
k
T'-1 I
01
fid - ~laltn !f' -
- fr - 111 c'v M ; a Val~noni
Y
u
4 ' + f 6 Isam Av
C
r GOOSE? Qo2s j
Mapleton Av P~n~ `5t _ t I FI;,
ea r ti
Ara h06 A
P Boulder pa
}
7777-
- Creek , w • , ' i,,'
r } ~ r olle a V_ j r oloracfo laV f E y w k , 4~1 ks
r ef~ N gear Creek it K.
d r~ r
Y
,
~~ffRd ga cline o, asefine R
Ala ~ , -
Projects 2014 - 2019 N
1 Goose Creek Restoration
2 Wonderland Foothills to the Diagonal
w E
3 Wonderland 28th Street Greesways Program C I P
4 Fourmile - 19th to 22nd
5 Fourmile - Upland to Violet S