2-23-2015 Complete WRAB Packet
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
MEETING DATE: Monday, 23 February 2015
MEETING TIME: 7:00 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Municipal Services Center, 5050 Pearl St., Boulder, CO 80301
Agenda Highlights:
1.Call to Order (7:00 p.m.)
2.Approval of 26 January Meeting Minutes (7:01 p.m.)
3.*Public comment (7:05 p.m.)
4.Matters from the Board (7:15 p.m.)
5.Matters from Staff (7:25 p.m.)
a)2015 Flood Outreach Program (7:25 p.m.)
b)Update on National Flood Insurance Program - Community Rating System (7:45 p.m.)
c)Water Conservation Program (8:10 p.m.)
d)Update on South Boulder Creek Mitigation Study (8:30 p.m.)
e)Other matters (8:35 p.m.)
6.Discussion of Future Schedule (8:40 p.m.)
7.Adjournment (8:45 p.m.)
* Public Comment Item
Agenda item times are approximate.
Information:
Please contact the WRAB Secretary email group at:
WRABSecretary@bouldercolorado.gov
Packets are available on-line at: http://www.bouldercolorado.govA to ZWater
,
Resources Advisory Board (WRAB), Next Water Resources Advisory Board Meeting
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES
Name of Board / Commission:
Water Resources Advisory Board
Date of Meeting:
26 January 2015
Contact Information of Person Preparing Minutes:
Andrea Flanagan 303.413.7372
Board Members Present:
Vicki Scharnhorst, Mark Squillace, Dan Johnson, Lesley Smith
Board Members Absent:
Ed Clancy
Staff Present:
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bob Harberg, Principal Engineer, Utilities
Joe Taddeucci, Water Resources Manager
Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality and Environmental Services Manager
Ken Baird, Utilities Financial Manager
Tom Settle, Water Treatment Manager
Chris Douville, Wastewater Treatment Manager
Greg Izzo, Public Works Maintenance Manager
Eric M. Ameigh, Public Works Project Coordinator
Kim Hutton, Water Resources Specialist
Douglas Sullivan, Engineering Project Manager
Andrea Flanagan, Board Secretary
Additional Speakers Present:
Silvia Pettem
Carol Ellinghouse
Meeting Type:
Regular
Agenda Item 1 Call to Order [7:04 p.m.]
Agenda Item 2 Public Participation and Comment [7:05 p.m.]
Public Comment:
None
Board follow-up:
None
Agenda Item 3 Information Item [7:06 p.m.]
Presentation to the Board by Silvia Pettem and Carol Ellinghouse
No Board action was requested at this time.
Agenda Item 4 Approval of the 15 December 2014 Meeting Minutes: [7:48 p.m.]
Motion to approve minutes as amended from December 15 as presented.
Moved by:Seconded by:
Squillace; Smith
Vote: 3:0
(Ed Clancy absent; Dan Johnson abstaining)
Agenda Item 5 [7:49 p.m.]
Information Item 2014 Year in Review
Joe Taddeucci, Ken Baird, Kim Hutton and Eric Ameigh presented the item to the board
A significant portion of the work performed by the Utilities Division relates to the day-to-day operations
and maintenance of existing infrastructure. While the WRAB has a very limited role in these activities,
recommendations on capital improvements, master plans, and policy issues have a significant impact on
operations. This memorandum provides an overview of 2014 operations to provide the WRAB with
additional context for upcoming agenda items where the board will be asked to make recommendations
as well as highlights of the 2014 capital improvements program.
No Board action was requested at this time.
WRAB Discussion Included:
Question about if the ditch companies are supposed to maintain their own ditches?
Question about why the city continues to pay for assessments when the water is transferred out
of the ditches?
Question about how many shares the city owns in the ditch companies?
WRAB Minutes
26 January 2015
Page No. 1
Question about
Question about how much water is left in the ditches and whether we should be thinking long-
term about using the water in some other way?
Question about if farmers are the primary shareholders of these ditch companies? If not, can
the resources be better managed?
Question about how sewer pipe lining projects are affecting ground water levels.
Comment that the Year in Review was appreciated and will suggest to BVSD that they might
consider doing the same.
Requested clarification on the maintenance for the hydro systems and whether or not this is
going to be continuous, because there were times last year that they were not online.
Agenda Item 6 [8:50 p.m.]
Matters From the Board:
Board Member Johnson brought up the below matter(s):
Question about how the County taxes rate changes?
Question about if there has been a big issue for customers about recent rate changes and increases to
their utility bills?
Suggests conducting further research as to to Boulder
public and suggests looking at possible new ways for tweaking the intended rate changes.
Board member Scharnhorst brought up the below matter(s):
Questions about drought plan and levels of severity and whether or not these topics will be
discussed in future studies?
Questioned how many basins there are?
Questioned how many months are typically needed to complete a rate study?
Discussed precip data and asked whether the state and FEMA honor this data? Asked if city wants
to spend money to push this data?
Board Member Smith brought up the below matter(s):
Attended Watershed Forum
Questioned if the city is going to participate in the Climate Scenario Planning Forum in Denver?
Question about if there is there is any new water legislation?
Suggests additional overview on how utility bill rates are calculated.
Questions regarding selection process for forthcoming WRAB member.
Board Member Squillace brought up the below matter(s):
Discussed new innovations for water planning.
Discussed that the overarching goal of water conservation is inconsistent with trying to maximize
revenue goals to control cost. Suggests designing rate structure that is cognizant of this incongruity.
Suggests looking further at behavior economics to encourage people to use less water.
Suggests idea for city to organize a workshop to encourage more meaningful community
engagement on how to better improve the rate structure.
Questioned if there are other innovations being used by other municipalities that the city could
employ?
Matters From Staff: [9:45 p.m.]
Update on Colorado State Water Plan Kim Hutton
Utility Rate Study Kickoff Eric Ameigh
Jeff Arthur requested for additional feedback from Board about flood insurance/FEMA before
presenting to Council.
Update on Council retreat
Update on South Boulder Creek WRAB recommendation in May
Agenda Item 7 Future Schedule [10:09 p.m.]
Flood Safety Outreach
WRAB Minutes
26 January 2015
Page No. 2
City Council Retreat Update
National Flood Insurance Program Community Rating
Fluoride Memo
Rate Study Key Questions/Guiding Principles
Adjournment [10:13 p.m.]
There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, by motion regularly adopted, the
meeting was adjourned at 10:13 p.m.
Motion to adjourn by: ; Seconded by:
SmithSquillace
Motion Passes 4:0
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
Monday, 23 February 20157:00 p.m.,City's Municipal
The next WRAB meeting will be at at the
Services Center, 5050 Pearl St., Boulder, CO 80301
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.
https://bouldercolorado.gov/boards-commissions/water-resources-advisory-board-next-meeting-agenda-and-packet
WRAB Minutes
26 January 2015
Page No. 3
Update on National Flood Insurance Program - Community Rating System
,S[XLI'SQQYRMX]
6EXMRK7]WXIQ;SVOW
EGXMZMXMIWXLEXGERLIPTWEZIPMZIWERH
)ZIV]]IEVJPSSHMRKGEYWIWLYRHVIHW
TVSTIVX]MRXLIIZIRXSJEJPSSH
SJQMPPMSRWSJHSPPEVW¬[SVXLSJHEQ
EKIXSLSQIWERHFYWMRIWWIWEVSYRH
8STEVXMGMTEXIMRXLI'67]SYVGSQ
XLIGSYRXV]7XERHEVHLSQIS[RIVW
QYRMX]GERGLSSWIXSYRHIVXEOI
ERHGSQQIVGMEPTVSTIVX]TSPMGMIWHS
WSQISVEPPSJXLI TYFPMGMRJSV
RSXGSZIVJPSSHPSWWIW7SXSQIIX
QEXMSRERHJPSSHTPEMRQEREKIQIRX
XLIRIIHJSVXLMWZMXEPGSZIVEKIXLI
'67
EGXMZMXMIWHIWGVMFIHMRXLI
*IHIVEP)QIVKIRG]1EREKIQIRX
'SSVHMREXSV¬W1ERYEP
%KIRG]
*)1%
EHQMRMWXIVWXLI
2EXMSREP*PSSH-RWYVERGI4VSKVEQ
FP]EPVIEH]HSMRKQER]
=SY¬VITVSFE
2*-4
SJXLIWIEGXMZMXMIW8SKIXGVIHMX
GSQQYRMX]SJJMGMEPW[MPPRIIHXS
8LI2*-4SJJIVWVIEWSREFP]TVMGIH
TVITEVIERETTPMGEXMSRHSGYQIRXMRK
JPSSHMRWYVERGIMRGSQQYRMXMIWXLEX
XLIIJJSVXW
GSQTP][MXLQMRMQYQWXERHEVHWJSV
JPSSHTPEMRQEREKIQIRX
8LI'67EWWMKRWGVIHMXTSMRXWJSV
IEGLEGXMZMX]8EFPIPMWXWXLIEGXMZM
8LI2*-4¬W'SQQYRMX]6EXMRK
XMIWERHXLITSWWMFPIRYQFIVSJ
7]WXIQ
'67
VIGSKRM^IWGSQQYRMX]
GVIHMXTSMRXWJSVIEGLSRI8LIXEFPI
IJJSVXWFI]SRHXLSWIQMRMQYQWXER
EPWSWLS[WXLIEZIVEKIRYQFIVSJ
HEVHWF]VIHYGMRKJPSSHMRWYVERGI
GVIHMXTSMRXWGSQQYRMXMIWIEVRJSV
TVIQMYQWJSVXLIGSQQYRMX]¬W
IEGLEGXMZMX]8LIWIEZIVEKIWQE]KMZI
TVSTIVX]S[RIVW8LI'67MWWMQMPEV
EFIXXIVMRHMGEXMSRXLERXLIQE\M
XS¨FYXWITEVEXIJVSQ¨XLITVM
QYQWSJ[LEX]SYVGSQQYRMX]
ZEXIMRWYVERGIMRHYWXV]¬WTVSKVEQW
GERI\TIGX
XLEXKVEHIGSQQYRMXMIWSRXLIIJJIG
XMZIRIWWSJXLIMVJMVIWYTTVIWWMSRERH
8SFIIPMKMFPIJSVE'67HMWGSYRX
FYMPHMRKGSHIIRJSVGIQIRX
]SYVGSQQYRMX]QYWXHS%GXMZMX]
)PIZEXMSR'IVXMJMGEXIW-J]SY¬VI
'67HMWGSYRXWSRJPSSHMRWYVERGI
EHIWMKREXIHVITIXMXMZIPSWWGSQQY
TVIQMYQWVERKIJVSQ YTXS
RMX]]SYQYWXEPWSHS%GXMZMX]
8LSWIHMWGSYRXWTVSZMHIER
MRGIRXMZIJSVRI[JPSSHTVSXIGXMSR
Agenda Item V-B Page 1
Update on National Flood Insurance Program - Community Rating System
*PSSHTPEMR1EREKIQIRX4PERRMRK
MRXLIJPSSHTPEMRKIXE HMWGSYRX
%PPSXLIVEGXMZMXMIWEVISTXMSREP
-J]SYVGSQQYRMX]IEVRWEWPMXXPIEW
TSMRXWMX¬WMR'PEWW ERHTVST
&EWIHSRXLIXSXEPRYQFIVSJTSMRXW
IVX]S[RIVWMRXLIJPSSHTPEMRKIX
]SYVGSQQYRMX]IEVRWXLI'67
E HMWGSYRX-JEGSQQYRMX]HSIW
EWWMKRW]SYXSSRISJXIRGPEWWIW
RSXETTP]SVJEMPWXSVIGIMZIEXPIEWX
=SYVHMWGSYRXSRJPSSHMRWYVERGI
TSMRXWMX¬WMR'PEWWERH
TVIQMYQWMWFEWIHSR]SYVGPEWW
TVSTIVX]S[RIVWKIXRSHMWGSYRX
*SVI\EQTPIMJ]SYVGSQQYRMX]
8EFPIFIPS[WLS[WXLIRYQFIV
IEVRWTSMRXWSVQSVIMXUYEPM
SJTSMRXWVIUYMVIHJSVIEGLGPEWW
JMIWJSV'PEWWERHTVSTIVX]S[RIVW
ERHXLIGSVVIWTSRHMRKHMWGSYRX
8EFPI
,S[QYGLHMWGSYRXTVSTIVX]S[RIVWMR]SYVGSQQYRMX]GERKIX
(MWGSYRX
6EXI'PEWW7*,%2SR7*,%'VIHMX4SMRXW6IUYMVIH
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
7TIGMEP*PSSH,E^EVH%VIE
4VIJIVVIH6MWO4SPMGMIWEVIEZEMPEFPISRP]MR&'ERH<>SRIWJSVTVSTIVXMIWXLEXEVIWLS[RXS
LEZIEQMRMQEPVMWOSJJPSSHHEQEKI8LI4VIJIVVIH6MWO4SPMG]HSIWRSXVIGIMZITVIQMYQVEXI
GVIHMXWYRHIVXLI'67FIGEYWIMXEPVIEH]LEWEPS[IVTVIQMYQXLERSXLIVTSPMGMIW%PXLSYKLXLI]
EVIMR7*,%W>SRIW%6ERH% EVIPMQMXIHXSE HMWGSYRX4VIQMYQVIHYGXMSRWEVIWYFNIGX
XSGLERKI
Agenda Item V-B Page 2
CITY OF BOULDER
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
INFORMATION PACKET MEMORANDUM
To: Water Resources Advisory Board
From: Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality and Environmental Services Manager
Tom Settle, Water Treatment Manager
Michelle Wind, Drinking Water Program Supervisor
Date: February 23, 2015
Subject: Information Item: Update on Water Treatment Fluoride Addition
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Fluoride is a naturally occurring mineral that has been demonstrated to help prevent tooth decay.
If natural concentrations of fluoride in source waters are low, water providers can add fluoride to
recommended levels through a process known as fluoridation.
water in order to help reduce tooth decay. The 1969 ballot language stated that the City of
Boulder would introduce fluoride into the water supply to maintain a concentration of
approximately one part of fluoride to one million parts of waterfluoridation of
drinking water was endorsed by various health organizations, such as the U.S. Public Health
Service, American Public Health Association, American Dental Association, American Medical
Association, and various local civic groups and regional organizations.
Since 1969, the city has fluoridated its drinking water to a level that meets the recommendations
of various health organizations, as well as the requirements of the approved ballot language. The
city currently adds fluoride, in the form of fluorosilicic acid, to maintain a concentration of
approximately 0.9 parts per million, which is equivalent to 0.9 milligrams per liter (mg/L), in the
treated water distribution system. In 2014, the city spent approximately $60,000 on fluorosilicic
acid at the Betasso and Boulder Reservoir water treatment facilities.
Page 1
At this time, the city is not proposing any changes related to drinking water fluoridation, but the
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is considering recommending the optimal level
of fluoride be reduced to 0.7 mg/L. If the recommendation is formally proposed, and is
supported by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, the city intends to
reduce the amount of fluoride added to drinking water to maintain a concentration of 0.7 mg/L.
This memorandum is intended to be informational and does not require Water Resources
Advisory Board (WRAB) action. This item is not scheduled as an Agenda Item, but WRAB
members can ask questions or request that this item be scheduled as a future Agenda Item.
BACKGROUND
Fluoridation History and Purpose
Fluoridation is defined as the controlled addition of fluoride to a public water supply and
typically occurs where naturally occurring fluoride concentrations are below the levels
recommended to help prevent tooth decay. In some areas, defluoridation is required when the
naturally occurring fluoride level exceeds recommended or regulated levels of fluoride.
Fluoride acts on the tooth surface and reduces the rate at which tooth enamel demineralizes and
increases the rate at which it remineralizes in the early stages of cavities. In 1999, the U.S.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention listed water fluoridation as one of the ten great
th
public health achievements of the 20 century. In contrast, most European countries have
experienced substantial declines in tooth decay without water fluoridation, primarily due to the
introduction of fluoride toothpaste in the 1970s. Public water fluoridation was first practiced in
the United States and has since been introduced to many other countries to varying degrees, with
many countries having water that is naturally fluoridated to recommended levels, and others that
need to fluoridate their drinking water. On a more local level, the Colorado Department of Public
Health and Environment (CDPHE) has published a fluoride fact sheet for consumers.
Although there are dental benefits from the recommended levels of fluoridation, negative effects
from too much fluoride have also been identified. The most common negative effect of too much
fluoride is dental fluorosis (also termed mottling of tooth enamel), which is technically defined
as developmental disturbance of the tooth enamel. Dental fluorosis can occur at any age, but the
risk is higher at younger ages. Due to higher risk levels at younger ages, concerns have been
raised about infant ingestion of fluoride, especially when water with fluoride is used in infant
formula. Studies have shown that water with fluoride can safely be used for preparing infant
formula, but if the child is exclusively consuming infant formula reconstituted with fluoridated
water, there may be an increased chance for dental fluorosis. To lessen this chance, low-fluoride
bottled water can be used to mix infant formula. Typically, low-fluoride bottled water is labeled
as de-ionized, purified, demineralized or distilled. Additional information about this topic is
available on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Infant Formula and Fluorosis Web
page.
Page 2
Fluoride Regulation and Recommended Concentration Levels
A 1994 World Health Organization expert committee suggested a level of fluoride from 0.5 to
1.0 mg/L. Excessive fluoride from drinking water and other sources can cause dental fluorosis,
butdental fluorosisis not considered to be a public health concern, based on the National Health
and Medical Research Center research. There is information available that supports the benefits
of adding fluoride and also the potential negative impacts of fluoride, especially if provided in a
dose above regulated levels.
The CDPHE enforces the federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) and the Maximum
Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for fluoride in drinking water at 4.0 mg/L. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) defines the
that is allowed in drinking waterspecifies enforceable standards. MCLs are set as close to
MCLGs as feasible, using the best available treatment technology and taking cost into
consideration. The EPA defines the
below which there is no known or expected risk to health. MCLGs allow for a margin of safety
and are non-
The CDPHE sets the Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level (SMCL) for fluoride at 2.0 mg/L.
SMCLs are not enforceable and are intended as guidelines for chemicals that primarily affect the
aesthetic qualities of drinking water. When fluoride levels exceed the SMCL, public notification
is required. The CDPHE endorses fluoridating water at a concentration of 0.9 mg/L, which is the
level that the City of Boulder adds fluoride to comply with city Ordinance No. 3513 (Attachment
A).
Contaminant Regulation in Fluoride Additives
Depending on the type of fluoride additive, there can be concerns with contaminants being
present, typically at low levels. The CDPHEDesign Criteria for Potable Water Systems
or materials that come in contact with the water will be
certified under the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) standard 60 or 61,
ANSI accredits the National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) to develop
American National Standards. The NSF/ANSI Standard 60 covers chemicals that are used to
treat drinking water, and NSF/ANSI Standard 61 covers devices, components, and materials that
come into contact with drinking water.
For contaminants regulated by the U.S. EPA, the NSF/ANSI Standard 60 sets a single product
allowable concentration (the concentration of the contaminant present at the tap in any
) not to exceed 10 percent of the MCL. Thus, any fluoridation chemicals
meeting NSF/ANSI Standard 60 cannot add greater than one-tenth of the MCL of any
contaminant to finished water.
There are three fluoride-containing water treatment additives that are approved for use under the
NSF/ANSI Standard 60: Drinking Water Treatment Chemicals. These are fluorosilicic acid,
sodium silicofluoride, and sodium fluoride. The latter two chemicals are not currently available
for use with an NSF/ANSI Standard 60 classification, as the only current suppliers are in China
Page 3
and Belgium. The City of Boulder further specifies that the fluorosilicic acid supplied must
conform to American Water Works Association (AWWA) Standard B703-00, which provides
purchasers, manufacturers and suppliers with the minimum requirements for fluorosilicic acid,
including physical, chemical, packaging, shipping and testing requirements. AWWA has been
developing standards since 1908 that are used throughout the world, and although conformance
to AWWA standards is not mandatory, many utilities and regulatory agencies choose to enforce
these industry standards.
ANALYSIS
Historic and Current City of Boulder Fluoridation Process
levels to help reduce tooth decay. The ballot language stated that the city would introduce
approximately one part of
fluoride to one million parts of water
endorsed by various health organizations, such as the United States Public Health Service,
American Public Health Association, American Dental Association, American Medical
Association, and various local civic groups and regional organizations. The Boulder City Council
Since 1969, the city has fluoridated its drinking water to a level that meets the recommendations
of various health organizations, as well as the requirements of the approved ballot language.
0.1 mg/L,
so the addition of fluoride is necessary to meet the fluoride requirements of Ordinance
).
No. 3513 (Attachment A From 1969 to 1993, the chemical used for fluoridation was
sodium silicofluoride, a dry crystalline chemical supplied in 50-pound bags. The fluoride
feed system required the bags to be manually emptied into a hopper, which was labor-
intensive and potentially exposed staff to silicofluoride dust inhalation. Due to the
required labor, exposure potential, and inadequate ventilation in the feed room, it was
recommended that the existing fluoride feed system be replaced with a system utilizing a
bulk storage system with automatic feed.
In 1993, the city completed improvements at the Betasso water treatment facility (BWTF) that
allowed for bulk storage and automatic feeding of a liquid fluoride chemical known as
fluorosilicic acid (also called hydrofluorosilicic acid), which is the most common fluoride
additive in the United States. Similar improvements were also completed at the Boulder
Reservoir water treatment facility (BRWTF) in 1998. The city still uses fluorosilicic acid to
fluorosilicic acid at the BWTF and BRWTF.
Public Interest in Fluoride Addition
In 2006, a local ballot measure initiated by City of Boulder residents proposed eliminating the
addition of any substance to the drinking water unless it is uncontaminated and approved by the
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The ballot measure narrowly failed, with 48.2
Page 4
percent of voters supporting the measure and 51.8 percent of voters against the measure. The
2006 ballot measure was supported by the Clean Drinking Water Initiative, which was proposed
by a group of community members known as Clean Water Advocates of Boulder. The Clean
Water Initiative intended to
drinking water supply unless the substance was approved by the FDA and did not contain
e EPA MCLGs. Clean Water Advocates of Boulder also
expressed concern with the use fluorosilicic acid as a fluoride additive due to its potential to
contain trace contaminants such as lead and arsenic. Since the ballot initiative did not
specifically state that fluoride could not be added, if the ballot measure had passed, the city
would have been required to use another form of fluoride, or potentially not add fluoride if a
fluoride source could not be identified that met the intent of the ballot measure.
The city receives inquiries from Boulder residents about whether fluoride is added to drinking
water, the concentration of fluoride, and what can be done to stop the addition of fluoride. City
staff responds by recommending that residents review the information about fluoride on Inquire
Boulder website and mobile app, including responses to frequently asked questions, and discuss
fluoride at an upcoming Water Resources Advisory Board meeting.
Residents, and the city, also have the ability to initiate a ballot measure to change the ordinance
that requires fluoridation . Information on the process to change a
city ordinance is found in the Boulder Revised Code, Article IV. Direct Legislation, sections
37 through 42.
Potential Change in Recommended Fluoride Concentration
The city recognizes that additional research on fluoride has been completed in recent years by
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and the U.S. EPA, which could
lead to a new regulatory recommendation by the U.S. EPA. In 2012 the DHHS released a draft
While the DHHS has
recommended an optimal level of 0.7 mg/L, the U.S. EPA sets the regulatory maximum levels
for public drinking water supplies. A final DHHS optimal fluoride recommendation, and possible
regulatory recommendation by the EPA, is expected in 2015. The city continues to pay close
attention to scientific and regulatory developments and will comply with any regulatory changes.
If the final guidance from the DHHS is that 0.7 mg/L of fluoride is an optimal level, and the
CDPHE supports the recommendation, the city intends to reduce the amount of fluoride added to
drinking water to maintain a concentration of 0.7 mg/L. This approach is consistent with the
legislative intent of the 1969 ballot measure and Ordinance No. 3513 (Attachment A).
Evaluation and Elimination of Fluoride Addition
Water providers may consider recommendations from research entities such as the AWWA as to
whether or not they should fluoridate water or consider stopping fluoridation. The AWWA
supports the fluoride level recommendations from entities such as the World Health
Organization, American Medical Association, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and
American Dental Association. AWWA also supports the application of fluoride in a responsible,
Page 5
effective, and reliable manner, which includes monitoring and control of fluoride levels
mandated by provincial, state, and/or federal laws, and that is subject to community acceptance
through applicable local decision-making processes.
Even though the practice of fluoridation is supported by research entities such as AWWA, some
water providers have stopped adding fluoride. Public concerns about possible negative impacts
from fluoride, the addition of chemicals not required for water treatment, and the fact that
fluoride is present in many consumable products are the more common reasons for eliminating
fluoridation. Based on information from the Fluoride Action Network, the following Colorado
water providers have stopped adding fluoride to drinking water since 2000.
City of Colorado Springs - 2002
Town of Telluride 2004
Town of Pagosa Springs 2005
Town of Palisade 2012
Project 7 Gunnison Valley -2014
City of Montrose 2014
Although some Colorado water providers have stopped adding fluoride, approximately 72
percent of Coloradans still receive fluoridated drinking water through their community water
system (based on the CDPHE data).
NEXT STEPS
At this time, the city is not proposing any changes related to drinking water fluoridation. If the
U.S. DHHS finalizes the currently proposed recommended fluoride level of 0.7 mg/L, and the
CDPHE supports the recommendation, the city intends to reduce the amount of fluoride added to
drinking water to maintain a concentration of 0.7 mg/L.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A
Excerpts from Ordinance No. 3513 - Pertaining to Fluoridation of Drinking
Water in the City of Boulder.
Page 6
Attachment A
Excerpts from Ordinance No. 3513 -
Pertaining to Fluoridation of Drinking Water in the City of Boulder
ORDINANCE NO. 3513
AN ORDINANCE CONCERNING QUESTIONS TO BE SUB-
MITTED TO A VOTE OF THE QUALIFIED ELECTORS
OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, AT THE
GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
TUESDAY, THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1969;
DIRECTING THAT THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS BE
= SUBMITTED: THE QUESTION OF APPROVING OR
REJECTING A PROPOSED RE-ENACTMENT WITH
AMENDMENTS OF SECTION 84-A OF THE CHARTER
OF THE CITY OF BOULDER TO PERMIT THE CITY
COUNCIL TO HAVE GREATER POWER TO DETER-
MINE THE JURISDICTION, POWERS, AUTHORITY,
AND OTHER RELATED MATTERS OF THE BOARD
OF ZONING ADJUSTMENT; THE QUESTION OF
APPROVING OR REJECTING A PROPOSED RE-EN-
ACTMENT WITH AMENDMENTS OF SECTION 97 OF
THE CHARTER OF THE CITY OF BOULDER TO PER-
MIT ALL QUALIFIED ELECTORS OF THE CITY,
e NOT MERELY ELECTORS WHO HAVE PAID A
PROPERTY TAX IN THE PRECEDING YEAR, TO
VOTE ON BOND ISSUES, UNLESS THE CITY COUNCIL
` FOR SUFFICIENT REASON RESTRICTS OR LIMITS
Y. SUCH GROUP OF QUALIFIED ELECTORS, AND TO
STATE THAT ONLY THOSE BONDS AND OTHER IN-
DEBTEDNESS PAYABLE SOLELY FROM THE PRO-
CEEDS OF AD VALOREM TAXES ARE SUBJECT TO
THE INDEBTEDNESS LIMITATION OF THREE PER
CENT (3%) OF THE ASSESSED VALUE OF TAXABLE
PROPERTY WITHIN THE CITY, AND TO BROADEN
WHAT IS CLASSIFIED AS A "REVENUE" BOND, AND
TO PROVIDE FURTHER THAT SUCH BOND MAY BE
ADDITIONALLY SECURED BY A PLEDGE OF THE
FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF THE CITY WITHOUT
BEING INCLUDED FOR PURPOSES OF COMPUTATION
OF SAID THREE PER CENT (301o) LIMITATION; AND,
THE QUESTION OF APPROVING OR REJECTING A
PROPOSED ORDINANCE ENTITLED "AN ORDINANCE
AUTHORIZING THE INTRODUCTION OF FLUORIDE
INTO THE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM OF THE CITY
OF BOULDER, COLORADO; PROVIDING FOR THE
REGULATION OF SAID FLUORIDATION OF WATER;
MAKING OF REPORTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH;
AND, PRESCRIBING DETAILS IN RELATION TO THE
FOREGOING"; SETTING FORTH NOTICES TO BE
PUBLISHED, SETTING FORTH VOTING PRECINCTS
AND POLLING PLACES THEREIN; AND PRESCRIBING
AND SETTING FORTH OTHER DETAILS IN CONNEC-
TION WITH SAID ELECTION.
FLUORIDATION OF THE CITY'S WATER
Page 7
An ordinance entitled "An Ordinance authorizing the
Introduction of Fluoride into the Water Supply System of the
City of Boulder, Colorado; Providing for the Regulation of
Said Fluoridation of Water; Making of Reports in Connection
Therewith; and Prescribing Details in Relation to the Fore-
going. "
QUESTION IN 3
Shall the following ordinance be adopted:
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE INTRODUCTION
OF FLUORIDE INTO THE WATER SUPPLY SYSTEM
OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, BEING
ENTITLED ''FLUORIDATION OF WATER''; PRO-
VIDNG FOR THE REGULATION OF SAID FLUORI-
DATION OF WATER; AND THE MAKING OF RE-
PORTS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; AND,
PRESCRIBING DETAILS IN RELATION TO THE
FOREGOING.
i r.
WHEREAS, it appears to be the consensus of scientific,
medical, and dental opinion, that the presence of fluoride in
drinking water is a deterrent to tooth decay; and,
WHEREAS, such chemical element is not found in the
natural supply of water distributed to the citizens of the City of
Boulder, in sufficient quantities to reduce tooth decay; and,
WHEREAS, fluoridation of drinking water under such con-
ditions as exist in this municipality has been endorsed by such
groups as the United States Public Health Service, the American
Public Health Association, the American Dental Association,
the American Water Works Association, the American Medical
Association, various local civic groups and organizations, and
many citizens; and,
WHEREAS, it appears that fluoride can be introduced into
the drinking water supply of the City of Boulder, Colorado, as
a measure to promote the public health and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO, THAT:
Section 1. The Coordinator of Public Facilities, with the
cooperation of the Department of Public Health and the Director
of the Boulder City-County Health Department, and subject to
the supervision and control of the City Manager, is hereby
authorized and directed to provide a means and to proceed with
the introduction of the fluoride ion into the water supply furnished
is
this municipality in such quantities as are required to maintain
throughout the pipe distribution system a fluoride ion concen-
tration of approximately one part of fluoride to one million parts
of water.
Page 8
Section 2. The Coordinator of Public Facilities shall keep
an accurate record of the amount of fluoride-bearing chemical
applied, the quantities of water treated and cause such analyti-
cal tests to be made for fluoride in the untreated and treated
water as it shall be directed to do by the Department of Public
Health or as required by law.
Section 3. The Coordinator of Public Facilities is hereby
directed to make periodic reports to the City Council on the
fluoridation of the water supply of the City of Boulder.
i
Section 4. All sections, or parts of sections of the Revised
Code of the City of Boulder, 1965, as amended, or ordinances,
i
or parts of ordinances in conflict, or inconsistent herewith, are
hereby repealed, provided, however, that the repeal of any
section or parts of sections of the Revised Code of the City of
Boulder, 1965, as amended, or any ordinance or part thereof,
shall not revive any other section of said Code, ordinance, or
ordinances, heretofore repealed or superseded.
Page 9
CITY OF BOULDER
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
INFORMATION PACKET MEMORANDUM
To: Water Resources Advisory Board
From: Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Joe Taddeucci, Water Resources Manager
Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality Environmental Services Manager
Ken Baird, Utilities Financial Manager
Russ Sands, Watershed Sustainability and Outreach Supervisor
Joanna Bloom, Source Water Administrator
Bronwyn Weygandt, Billing Services Supervisor
Eric M. Ameigh, Public Works Project Coordinator
Date: February 23, 2015
Subject: Information Item: Background Information for Utility Rate Study
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this memo is to provide the board with background information on the current
structure for water and wastewater utility rates as well as an overview of issues that have arisen
that support a review of the rate structure. This information will help inform the WRAB
recommendation of key questions and guiding principles for the rate study at its meeting on
April 20, 2015. This memo covers water and wastewater rates. A second memo, to be included in
the packet for the March 16, 2015 meeting, will provide the background for stormwater rates.
II. WATER UTILITY RATES
Before 2007, the water rate had two main components:
1. Service Charge: A charge, based on meter size and location inside or outside of the city, to
recover fixed costs such as meter reading, maintenance, and billing and collection costs. A
portion of the service charge also was allocated to capital investments.
2. Quantity Charge: A charge for the amount of water used, designed to recover costs associated
with average and peak water usage requirements based on an Increasing Block Structure. The
block structure is a tiered pricing system where each gallon of water used becomes more
expensive at certain thresholds. Taverage usage
from December March, or average winter consumption (AWC). All consumption up to the
All consumption from 100 percent to 350 percent
of AWC was billed at the Block 2 rate. Any consumption above 350 percent of AWC was billed
at the Block 3 rate. There were some small nuances for different types of accounts (single-family
Page 1
residential, multi-family residential, trailer parks, commercial/industrial, irrigation, sprinkler) but
the 3 tiered block rate structure was in place for all accounts.
The increasing block structure assumed a basic level of consumption, as reflected by the AWC
which is assumed to be thindoor use for an average household or business. It
excluded outdoor watering because it was based on winter usage patterns. This AWC usage was
charged at the lowest rate/in Block 1. Water to be used for anything beyond those normal needs,
including irrigation or outdoor watering, would cost more (Blocks 2 and 3). The three tiered
system attempted to discourage wasteful irrigation outdoors and limit discretionary indoor uses
without punishing customers for normal indoor water use. However, the three tiered system had
limitations.
In late 2002, during council discussions related to the Drought Plan, staff was directed by council
to examine possibilities for further encouraging water conservation through the water rate
structure. Earlier that year during a drought, the city had implemented mandatory watering
conservation goals, it was suggested that water budgets might be a better mechanism for
managing consumption and could reduce the need for mandatory watering restrictions in periods
of drought. Council agreed that staff should explore water budgets.
In 2003 and 2004, WRAB, staff, and council engaged in a process to analyze the rate existing
structure, to to ultimately
choose a new approach. Staff, along with significant consulting assistance, developed and
analyzed over 20 alternatives for their ability to meet the following water utility goals, which
were developed as part of the process:
Discourage wasteful use, while promoting all justified types and amounts of use
Be effective in yielding total revenue requirements
Provide revenue stability and predictability
Fairly allocate the total cost of service across customer classes to attain equity
Be dynamic in its ability to respond to changing supply and demand conditions and/or
environmental concerns
Water Budgets
The option ultimately chosen is the water budget structure the city uses today. The current
structure works similarly to the old one, with a service charge based on meter size and a quantity
charge that features an increasing block system. However, water budgets are tied to a five tier
block rate structure rather than the previous three tiers. In general, blocks are determined by an
As a whole, the water budget system is more intelligent,
responsive, and customizable for allocating and pricing water.
Water Budget Methodologies by Customer Class
The water budget methodology varies by customer class and is described below.
Single-Family Residential Indoor Water Use: Residential water budgets consist of two parts: an
indoor allocation and an outdoor allocation. The indoor allocation is set at 7,000 gallons per
Page 2
month (for four people). Customers with larger families can apply to get an additional 1,000
gallons a month for each additional person in the home.
The outdoor allocation is based on customer-specific irrigable area as provided by the c
geographical information system (GIS) and changes monthly using historic evapotranspiration
(ET) rates which correlate with seasonal watering needs. The annual outdoor allocation is
calculated as follows:
The first 5,000 square feet of irrigable area gets 15 gallons of water per square foot (gpsf).
The next 9,000 square feet of irrigable area gets 12 gpsf.
All irrigable area in excess of 14,000 square feet gets 10 gpsf.
Multifamily Residential Indoor Water Use: Similar to single-family accounts, budgets for
multifamily residential accounts are calculated by adding both an indoor allocation and an
outdoor allocation. Multifamily residential accounts have a monthly indoor allocation of 4,000
gallons per living unit. For example, if an apartment complex has 10 apartments, its monthly
indoor allocation would be 40,000 gallons. In 2008, multifamily account budgets were further
enhanced by allowing customers to increase their water budget based on the number of
bedrooms. If an apartment has more than two bedrooms, an additional 1,000 gallons of water per
bedroom can be requested for up to three additional bedrooms for a maximum of 7,000 gallons
per living unit per month.
Commercial, Industrial, and Institutional (CII) Indoor Water Use: When water budgets were first
implemented in 2007, all CII customers were given a budget based on their historic average
monthly use (AMU) from 2005. In 2008, new options were offered. CII customers can choose to
stay with the AMU water budget or opt into one of the other four water budget options:
Average Monthly Use (AMU)
water use data divided by 12 and does not change year to year unless there is a business
need. If an increase in water use recently occurred due to a business change, the customer
could also apply for a more recent three-to-six month AMU. By having the AMU remain
constant, a customer is not penalized for conserving water. An AMU budget results in
monthly wastewater charges based on all water used, which could include water used for
irrigation.
Historical Monthly Use (HMU)
A customer may choose to select the HMU option
which is calculated using a rolling three-month average for each individual month. For
example, the January budget is calculated by averaging the three previous Januarys
water use. HMU will result in monthly wastewater charges based on all water used,
which could include water used for irrigation.
Indoor/Outdoor
This is similar to the single-family budget in that it is comprised of
both an indoor water allocation and an outdoor water allocation. The indoor allocation is
based on the most recent AWC. The outdoor allocation is calculated based on irrigable
area, including right of way, and seasonal watering needs. CII indoor/outdoor customers
will be billed wastewater charges on actual water used or their indoor budget allocation
Page 3
(AWC) whichever is lower for the billing period. A CII customer may not select this
option if there is no irrigable area associated with the account.
Efficiency Standard
Customer budgets are determined by a non-city Professional
Engineer, who does
reasonable and documented efficiency standards. Each month can be customized based
on the customers needs. The proposed budget must be approved by the city and the
customer is charged a fee for the city review. CII efficiency standard customers are
billed wastewater charges on actual water used or the indoor budget allocation,
whichever is lower for the billing period.
Plant Investment Fee (PIF)
NewCII customers or CII customers who are changing
business type or increasing their meter size are assigned a PIF water budget. The PIF
water budget is based on the PIF the customer chooses from the following options: 25
a
percent, 50 percent, or 85 percent of the customer class average for given meter size.
Each month can be customized based on the customers needs. Once a PIF Water Budget
is defined, the property is no longer eligible to switch to one of the other CII Water
Budget methods. If the PIF methodology does not work for the customer, they can elect
to establish an Efficiency Standard water budget.
CII Water Budget Study
For CII customers, the variability in the types of customers and their water use makes
establishing a single CII water budget impossible. In 2008, staff initiated a CII water budget
study to identify if there was a better way to establish CII water budgets using sector specific
benchmarks rather than historic use. Staff last reported to WRAB on the status of this project in
June of 2013 (memo begins on page 44), indicating that benchmarking could be used but might
not be the best choice for billing. Staff plans to provide WRAB with a final update on this
project in June of 2015.
Outdoor Water Budgets
As noted earlier, outdoor water budgets are established based on evapotranspiration (ET).
Instead of using higher ET rates which would result in lush lawns, the city of Boulder uses 15
gallons per square foot as the standard the minimum amount of water needed to keep Kentucky
bluegrass from going dormant. This helps incentivize either less turf installation (in favor of low-
water plants) and/or reduced outdoor lawn watering. With the exception of larger single family
lawns (over 5,000 square feet) and some municipal sites (e.g. sports fields), the 15 gallons per
square foot allotment is applied equally across customer classes.
This annual outdoor allocation is distributed throughout the year to meet monthly seasonal
outdoor watering needs. The table below shows the monthly percentages that are applied to the
annual outdoor allocation. These percentages were derived from historic data.
Page 4
Monthly Outdoor Allocation Distribution
Month Percent of Annual Outdoor Allocation
January 0%
February 0%
March 1%
April 7%
May 14%
June 20%
July 20%
August 18%
September 12%
October 7%
November 1%
December 0%
Total 100%
Single Meters for Outdoor and Indoor Water Use
When a single meter supplies a property, the monthly indoor allocation is added to the monthly
is
based on GIS data for a customer-specific irrigable area, using the application rate of 15 gallons
per square foot for all irrigated areas. The outdoor allocation is based on historic, seasonal
outdoor use patterns.
Metered Irrigation Accounts
When a property has a meter dedicated for irrigation use, an irrigation-only
water budget is established based solely on the outdoor allocation discussed above.
However, irrigation-only accounts receive an additional 1 percent of their outdoor allocation in
December, January and February to allow for some winter watering and a monthly water budget
greater than zero. In 2008, the irrigable area was increased to include right of way adjacent to the
property.
Water Budget Adjustments
Adjustments to water budgets can be made for a variety of reasons. In general, it is up to the
customer to request an adjustment. Information about seeking an adjustment can be found on the
and a customer. There have been times when staff has done mass mailings to specific classes of
customers to inform them of the opportunity to adjust their water budgets. For example, in 2008,
a new adjustment option was made available to multifamily residential customers who had units
with more than two bedrooms. In that case, staff sent letters to all 2,600 multifamily customers.
It is unknown; however, how many customers are aware of the opportunity to request an
adjustment.
Rate Structure with Increasing Blocks
Customers pay a fixed monthly service charge based on meter size and a quantity charge based
on the amount of water used. The table below shows the quantity charges and block breakpoints
used with water budgets.
Page 5
Quantity Charge 2015 Rates
Block (per 1,000 gal) (per 1,000 gal) Number of Gallons billed in each Block
Block 1 ¾ x Base Rate $ 2.55 0 to 60% of total monthly water budget
Block 2 Base Rate $ 3.40 61-100% of total monthly water budget
Block 3 2 x Base Rate $ 6.80 101-150% of total monthly water budget
Block 4 3 x Base Rate $10.20 151-200% of total monthly water budget
Block 5 5 x Base Rate $17.00 > 200% of total monthly water budget
Monitoring Budgets and Water Consumption
Because customers are on a water budget and exceeding the budget can be costly, there is a
desire on the part of many customers to monitor and understand their water consumption. The
city allows each customer one extra, complimentary meter reading every six months. Meter
technicians will read the meter and leave a door hanger with the information. If a customer
would like an additional reading within the six-month timeframe, a $35 fee is charged to recover
costs.
In the past, was used as a tool for customers to see their water use in
real-time. Due to a variety of problems with the manufacturer, this is not currently an option.
Customer Data
Boulder has approximately 28,900 water customers and four customer classes, as follows:
Customer Class Number of Accounts
Single Family Residential 22,800
Multi Family Residential 2,600
Commercial/Industrial 2,100
Irrigation Only 1,400
2014 BILLED REVENUE BY CUSTOMER CLASS
Single-
Family Multifamily Comm/Ind/ Irrigation
Residential Residential Institutional Only TOTAL
Service
Charge $2,700,628 $913,317 $844,386 $285,470 $4,743,801
Block 1 3,769,243 2,117,933 2,182,525 790,570 $8,860,271
Block 2 729,395 524,878 905,107 339,121 $2,498,501
Block 3 490,177 284,414 610,062 411,634 $1,796,287
Block 4 164,061 88,809 230,340 266,979 $750,188
Block 5 259,563 118,654 719,270 629,624 $1,727,111
Bill
Adjustments (85,450) (42,164) (53,388) (84,446) ($265,449)
TOTAL $8,027,616 $4,005,842 $5,438,302 $2,638,952 $20,110,712
Page 6
2014 BILLED WATER USE BY CUSTOMER CLASS (in thousand gallons)
Single-
Family Multifamily Comm/Ind/ Irrigation
Residential Residential Institutional Only TOTAL
Block 1 1,557,562 875,179 873,585 324,668 3,630,994
Block 2 225,858 162,501 280,538 104,056 772,953
Block 3 75,903 44,027 94,448 63,005 277,383
Block 4 16,931 9,165 23,771 27,119 76,986
Block 5 16,072 7,347 44,539 36,937 104,895
TOTAL 1,892,326 1,098,219 1,316,881 555,785 4,863,211
III. WASTEWATER UTILITY RATES
Wastewater rates are related to water rates but their calculation is much simpler. Like water,
wastewater rates have both a fixed service charge and a variable quantity charge. The service
charge is based on water meter size and the quantity charge is based on water use. There is no
block structure for wastewater however.
For residential accounts, quantity charges are billed using actual water use or AWC, whichever is
lower. The reason for this, and the reason wastewater quantity charges are based on water
consumption, is because of a logical assumption that during the months of December through
March, the only wastewater produced by a residence is the water that entered the building and
was used indoors. AWC is assumed to represent the amount of water used indoors (as described
above) and thus the amount of water that leaves as wastewater. If a customer uses less water than
AWC in a given month, then it saves on its wastewater quantity charge.
Non-residential customers are billed for wastewater quantity charges based on actual use or
indoor water budget allocation depending on their selected water budget option.
Wastewater Rate Issues
The wastewater service charge has remained low for some time. Meanwhile, the rate used to
determine quantity charges has continued to grow. Given the amount of time that has passed
since wastewater rates were last reviewed, it is not clear whether the relationship between the
service charge and the quantity charge is still accurate as it relates to the cost of providing
wastewater services.
IV. TRADITIONAL RATE STUDY
A traditional rate study is divided into three general areas of inquiry. The first deals with
to operating the utility, including operating, capital, debt service, and maintaining appropriate
reserve levels. The amount of revenue needed from rates is then calculated by taking the utility
costs and subtracting other anticipated revenue, such as plant investment fees, hydroelectric,
interest income, etc.
Once the revenue requirement is determined, the second step is to perform a cost of service
analysis. This study seeks to equitably allocate the revenue requirement between the various
Page 7
customer classes of service. For a major rate study the cost of service analysis is often performed
by consultants. The model can then be updated by staff in other years.
The third area of inquiry, called rate design, has to do with how the rate structure and the setting
of rates help to meet revenue requirements and also other goals, such as water conservation,
economic development, or local ideas of equity amongst customers. The evolution of water
budgets since their implementation in 2007, and the data that has been generated since that time,
provides a rich opportunity to assess whether and how water budgets have helped the city meets
its conservation and other goals.
V. NEXT STEPS
Feb. 23, 2015 WRAB Meeting Staff will be available to answer questions about the
information contained in this memo and receive feedback on additional information that could
help the board in providing input into the rate study. There will be no staff presentation of the
material at this meeting.
March 16, 2015 WRAB Meeting Staff will prepare a similar memo on stormwater fees for the
March 16 packet and be available to answer questions and receive feedback. There will be no
presentation of the material at this meeting.
April 20, 2015 WRAB Meeting The board will discuss and recommend key questions and
guiding principles for the rate study project. These questions and principles will inform the staff
scoping of the necessary analyses.
April/May 2015
questions and guiding principles prior to proceeding with the study.
Page 8