HomeMy WebLinkAboutWRAB 2016-6-20 Complete PacketWATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
MEETING DATE: Monday, 20 June 2016
MEETING TIME: 7:30 p.m.
MEETING LOCATION: Municipal Services Center, 5050 E. Pearl St., Boulder, CO 80301
Agenda Highlights:
Bear Canyon Creek Flood Mitigation Study Open House 6 – 7:30 p.m.
1. Call to Order (7:30 p.m.)
2. Approval of May 16, 2016 Meeting Minutes (7:31 p.m.)
3. *Public Comment (7:35 p.m.)
4. Information Item – Bear Canyon Creek Flood Mitigation Study (7:45 p.m.)
5. *Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation regarding the 2017 Utilities (Water,
Wastewater and Stormwater/ Flood Management) 6-year Capital Improvement Program (8:10
p.m.)
6. Information Item – Update on Rate Study and Background for July 2016 WRAB Discussion
(8:30 p.m.)
7. Matters from Board (8:45 p.m.)
8. Matters from Staff (8:50 p.m.)
9. Discussion of Future Schedule (8:55 p.m.)
10. Adjournment (9:00 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.gov – A to Z, Water
Resources Advisory Board (WRAB), Next Water Resources Advisory Board Meeting
WRAB Minutes
16 May 2016
Page No. 1
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES
Name of Board / Commission: Water Resources Advisory Board
Date of Meeting: 16 May 2016
Contact Information of Person Preparing Minutes: Rene Lopez 303-413-7149
Board Members Present: Mark Squillace, Lesley Smith, Mike Barnes, Kirk Vincent
Board Members Absent: Dan Johnson
Staff Present: Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Greg Guibert, Chief Resilience Officer
Joe Taddeucci, Water Resources Manager
Douglas Sullivan, Acting Principal Engineer for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater
Ken Baird, Utilities Financial Manager
Annie Noble, Acting Principle Engineer for Flood and Greenways
Pieter Beyer, Civil Engineer
Christin Shepherd, Civil Engineer
Ward Bauscher, Engineering Project Manager
Russ Sands, Water Sustainability and Outreach Supervisor
Brett Linenfelser, Water Quality & Environmental Services Manager
Candace Owen, Stormwater Quality Engineer
Chris Douville, Wastewater Treatment Manager
Rene Lopez, Board Secretary
Consultants Present: None
Meeting Type: Regular
Agenda Item 1 – Call to Order [7:01 p.m.]
Agenda Item 2 – Approval of the 18 April 2016 Meeting Minutes [7:03 p.m.]
Motion to approve minutes from 18 April 2016 as amended.
Moved by: Smith Seconded by: Barnes
Vote: 4:0
Agenda Item 3– Public Participation and Comment [7:05 p.m.]
Public Comment:
Elizabeth Black
• Concerns with Fourmile Canyon Creek and GAC item
• Cost benefit analysis grossly underestimate the benefits
• The original 50 year flood channel improvements were changed to high hazard containment
and flood proofing
• Restore borrow ditches
Agenda Item 4 - Information Item – City Resilience Strategy [7:50 p.m.]
Presentation by Chief Resilience Officer, Greg Guibert
Executive Summary from the Packet Materials:
100 Resilient Cities (100RC) is a global network pioneered by the Rockefeller Foundation to help cities
around the world become more resilient to the physical, social, and economic challenges that are a
growing part of the 21st century. Boulder joined the network as part of its first wave in 2013 and
through its participation, is committed to demonstrating leadership in resilience as well as take
advantage of the resources and opportunities it presents. 100RC supports the adoption and incorporation
of a view of resilience that includes not just the shocks – floods, wildfires, violence, and other acute
events – but also the stresses that weaken the fabric of a city on a day to day or cyclical basis, such as
economic hardship or social inequality. By addressing both the shocks and the stresses in a holistic
manner, a city becomes more able to respond to adverse events, and is better able to deliver basic
functions in both good times and bad, to all populations.
The 100RC program supports resilience building activities at the city level along four pathways:
• Financial support for the creation of a new position in the government who will lead the effort,
the Chief Resilience Officer (CRO)
• Technical and logistical support for the development of a resilience strategy that will serve as
the city’s roadmap to resilience activities and priorities
WRAB Minutes
16 May 2016
Page No. 2
• Access to tools and specialized partnerships to help developed a sophisticated understanding
the city’s risks, assets, weaknesses, and opportunities and how they interlink in unanticipated
ways
• Inclusion into a network of 99 other cities from which best practices, innovation, and peer-to-peer
learning can advance the practice of resilience globally.
The objective of the City Resilience Strategy is to provide a roadmap for building resilience in the city.
The strategy should trigger action, investment, and support within city government and from outside
groups. Rather than a static road map, the resilience strategy should be a living document to be
continuously fine-tuned as priorities are addressed and initiatives get implemented.
WRAB Discussion Included:
• Discussions on resiliency as it relates to utilities and flood capacities
• Comments regarding resiliency with regard to utilities meaning redundancy of systems
• Comments that mountain roadways are not resilient
• Discussions about individual responsibility not government
• Comments on choosing an appropriate level of resiliency
• Discussions about working outside of the City of Boulder
Agenda Item 5 –Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion Recommending [7:10 p.m.]
that City Council accept the Wastewater Collection System Master Plan
Pieter Beyer presented this item.
Executive Summary from the Packet Materials:
The purpose of this agenda item is to request a Water Resources Advisory Board recommendation to
City Council regarding acceptance of the 2016 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan (WWCSMP)
The document replaces the existing 2009 WWCSMP. The 2016 WWCSMP was undertaken to revise the
sanitary sewer system hydraulic model, to include recently acquired flow monitoring data, and to
incorporate inspection information regarding flow diversion structures in the upstream collection
system. The 2016 update also considers the collection system performance during and since the 2013
flooding. The 2016 WWCSMP is included as Attachment A. The 2016 WWCSMP recommendations
include a total of 11 CIP projects – four high priority Tier 1 projects, and seven medium priority Tier 2
projects.
WRAB Discussion Included:
• Floods impacts provided additional funding for the wastewater master plan for monitoring
• Previous master plans data
Public Comment:
Carl Norby – Water flooding from the creeks into open man holes – the sewer system will block
quickly. Wastewater and Storm water are interrelated, Mr. Norby does not feel they are considered
together. Creeks and trees are also a major contributor to sewer backups.
The Water Resources Advisory Board makes a motion to recommend that City Council accept the
2016 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan including the identified project
recommendations.
Moved by: Smith Seconded by: Barnes
Vote: 4:0
Agenda Item 6 – Public Hearing and Consideration of a Motion Recommending [7:32 p.m.]
that City Council accept the Stormwater Collection System Master Plan
Pieter Beyer presented this item.
Executive Summary from the Packet Materials:
The purpose of this agenda item is to request a Water Resources Advisory Board recommendation to
City Council regarding acceptance of the 2016 Stormwater Master Plan (SMP). The new Stormwater
Master Plan will replace the existing 2007 SMP. The 2016 SMP was undertaken to review the need for
improvements in the smaller diameter storm sewers as well as the need to expand the storm sewer
system into areas that are currently not served or are underserved by storm sewer infrastructure. The
WRAB Minutes
16 May 2016
Page No. 3
2016 SMP represents an evolution in the City’s approach to master planning by considering expansion
of the storm sewer system in addition to addressing existing assets. The 2016 SMP attempts to integrate
the flood inundation data received following the September 2013 flood event and the May 2015
significant rainfall event. The 2016 SMP is included as Attachment A.
The 2016 SMP also includes recommendations for required steps to ensure compliance with the City’s
revised CDPHE municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) permit which authorizes the City to
discharge stormwater from storm sewers and City facilities. The revised MS4 permit was reissued in
2016 with significantly expanded regulatory requirements.
The 2016 SMP storm sewer project recommendations are organized in two categories. The first category
summarizes the existing system improvements and the second summarizes the expansion system
improvements. The existing system recommendations include three Tier 1 projects that were previously
identified as high priority projects in the 2007 SMP. The expansion system recommendations include a
total of 35 storm sewer projects. These projects include 10 Tier 1 high priority projects, 11 Tier 2
medium priority projects, and 14 lower priority Tier 3 projects. These localized drainage projects were
not identified in the 2007 SMP because the previous master plan did not address storm sewer expansion.
Table 1 provides a summary of the existing system Tier 1 projects identified. Table 2 provides a
summary of the expansion system Tier 1 projects.
WRAB Discussion Included:
• Level of service for the 100 year event
• Flash flooding and its impacts on planning
• Channels along Bear Creek have improved post flood
Public Comment:
Elizabeth Black
• Project at Violet and Broadway – happy to see that project a priority
Carl Norby
• Back-ups in neighborhoods was localized, due to various blockages in the neighborhoods.
Sanitary sewer overflows can be a cheap way to prevent back-ups in homes. Ask that you
consider the idea of recommending the idea of the overflow channels. 1,500 basements flooded
with raw sewage during the floods.
The Water Resources Advisory Board makes a motion to recommend that City Council accept the
2016 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan including the identified project
recommendations.
Moved by: Barnes Seconded by: Vincent
Vote: 4:0
Agenda Item 7 – Information Item – Capital Improvements Program [8:10 p.m.]
Ken Baird presented this item.
Executive Summary from the Packet Materials:
As part of the city’s annual budget process, Utilities develops a six-year planning budget, this year for
the time period of 2017 through 2022. 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.” Utilities staff has formulated
initial revenue and expenditure projections for each of the three utility funds through the year 2022.
Within the budget process, City Council approves and appropriates funds only for the first year, 2017.
WRAB will be asked to make a recommendation to City Council regarding the 2017-2022 CIP at its
June meeting. The Planning Board will review the complete city CIP, including utilities, in
July. City Council will discuss the CIP in August at a study session, and the overall budget is scheduled
to be adopted by City Council in October. This packet contains the draft proposed 2017 Utilities Budget
and 2017-2022 Utilities CIP. The fund financials (Attachment A) have been updated to reflect actual
revenues and expenditures for 2015, and the revised budget for 2016. At this point 2015 financial
information is unaudited and may have what are expected to be small adjustments. The operating budget
development is in the early stages of development and may have further revisions. The draft proposed
CIP spreadsheets for Water, Wastewater and Stormwater/Flood Management are included in
WRAB Minutes
16 May 2016
Page No. 4
Attachment B.
WRAB Discussion Included:
• Comments requesting additional study ways to generate revenue with our water resources
• Discussions regarding neighboring communities utilities
• Cater Lake pipeline discussions
• Comments on price increases for projections
Agenda Item 8 - Matters from Board: [8:35 p.m.]
• Squillace
o Rate Study
• Smith – GAC Representative
o 2017-2022 Greenways Capital Improvement Program
o Draft CEAP for Fourmile Canyon Creek Greenways Improvements from Upland
Avenue to West of Broadway
Agenda Item 9 – Matters from Staff: [8:59 p.m.]
• Council pulled water main break claims from agenda tomorrow
• Proposal for a study session style meeting for Rate Study items in July
Agenda Item 10 – Future Schedule [9:10 p.m.]
• Bear Canyon creek mitigation study update for next month
• CIP next month
Adjournment [9:10p.m.]
There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, by motion regularly adopted, the
meeting was adjourned at 9:10 p.m.
Motion to adjourn by: Smith Seconded by: Barnes
Motion Passes 4:0
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next WRAB meeting will be Monday, June 20th 2016 at 7:00 p.m., at the City's Municipal
Services Center, 5050 East 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
C I T Y O F B O U L D E R
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: June 20, 2016
AGENDA TITLE: Information Item - Update on the Bear Canyon Creek Flood
Mitigation Plan
PRESENTERS:
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Annie Noble, Acting Principal Engineer for Flood and Greenways
Ward Bauscher, Engineering Project Manager
Christin Shepherd, Flood and Greenways Engineer
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an update on the progress and current
status of the Bear Canyon Creek Flood Mitigation Plan. Over time, flood improvements
have been made at various locations along this drainageway, but the September 2013
flood highlighted areas of hydraulic limitation that prompted the public to request
additional flood mitigation. Bear Canyon Creek was analyzed with several modeling
techniques and mitigation opportunities were identified.
Staff has established several recommended improvements and is seeking input and
feedback before completing a benefit cost analysis and finalizing the recommended
alternative to be presented to the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) in October
of 2016. Pending acceptance of the mitigation plan and the plan’s recommended
alternative in October, staff will submit the final mitigation plan for acceptance by City
Council. The study area for this mitigation plan is shown in Attachment A.
BOARD AND PUBLIC FEEDBACK
Information items providing status updates of the Bear Canyon Creek Mitigation Plan
were submitted to WRAB in April and November of 2015. There have been three open
houses for the Bear Canyon Creek Mitigation Plan held on July 1, April 27, and August
20 of 2015. An additional open house will be held prior to the WRAB meeting on June
20, 2016. Notification postcards were mailed to property owners in the study area,
emails were sent to parents of children attending elementary schools in the study area,
and a project web site has been developed to provide information
(https://bouldercolorado.gov/flood/bear-canyon-creek-flood-mitigation-project).
Agenda Item IV Page: 1
Forty-eight comments have been received via the website comment tool to date.
Generally, the public supported potential mitigation alternatives and sought their
implementation. Other general themes that appeared are listed and addressed below:
General Theme Response
Remove steel culvert
at Ithaca Drive
Included in recommended alternative
Do not decrease
traffic lanes on
Table Mesa Drive
The recommended alternative increases capacity at the
Lehigh Street and Harvard Lane culverts without altering the
number of traffic lanes on Table Mesa Drive. This approach
reduces flows in the roadway and would not increase
vehicular congestion to and from Bear Creek Elementary
School.
Increase capacity at
Saint Andrew
Church driveway
Included in recommended alternative
Do not remove
habitat, vegetation
and trees
Increased channel capacity can sometimes require removal
of vegetation and trees, but it is also essential to the success
of the recommended alternative. Every effort will be made
to protect the natural habitat during design and construction
of the recommended alternative. Remove trees and
vegetation
Deepen the channel
Provide a concrete
lined channel
Concrete lined channels technically stabilize against erosion,
but would not work to create natural streams and well-
vegetated floodplains that are physically and biologically
healthy. Concrete lined channels remove vegetation and
habitat, increase flow velocity and can create negative
impacts to property and habitat downstream.
BACKGROUND
Since initial development, Bear Canyon Creek has undergone numerous improvements
and continues to benefit from good maintenance within the improved reaches. The
flooding of September 2013 brought to light some key issues which contributed to
property damage and safety concerns. In general, problems stemmed from areas of
hydraulic limitation where the creek experiences limited conveyance capabilities, debris
blockage or lack of effective flow return zones. These points of hydraulic limitation are
illustrated in Attachment B and are the main focus of this mitigation plan’s alternative
analysis.
After the 2013 flood, the community expressed a strong desire for flood mitigation
improvements along Bear Canyon Creek. AMEC Foster Wheeler (AMEC) was selected
as the engineering consultant team to help develop flood mitigation alternatives and the
Agenda Item IV Page: 2
mitigation plan. In order to fully analyze flows and potential improvements in the area of
Bear Canyon Creek, a complete model of the entire drainageway was needed.
During a major storm event, Bear Canyon Creek overtops at several major crossings,
most notably Broadway and Baseline Road. Spills from these areas become hydraulically
disconnected from the main channel, flow overland through streets and neighborhoods
and then rejoin the floodplain downstream. It was determined that the city’s current two-
dimensional model (FLO-2D) approach would be used to define these major flow paths
and spill flows. Traditionally, regulatory models are developed in HEC-RAS, which is a
one dimensional model that analyzes flow only in the longitudinal direction and
represents the terrain in a sequence of cross sections. In two dimensional models, such as
FLO-2D, flows are allowed to move in both the longitudinal and lateral directions. FLO-
2D utilizes the latest technology to measure and incorporate real-world topography that
makes it ideal for identifying flow paths that split away from the main channel.
In general, the FLO-2D model confirmed regulatory model flood extents while
identifying spill flows similar to what was observed during the September 2013 storm
event. The FLO-2D model also confirmed the areas to focus efforts for the mitigation
plan. Development of the HEC-RAS and FLO-2D models is outlined in Attachment C.
ANALYSIS
Typically, flood mitigation plans are developed with the intent to adequately convey a
100-year storm event, consistent with the policies of the Boulder Valley Comprehensive
Plan, the Comprehensive Flood and Stormwater Utility Master Plan and the Urban
Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) Drainage Criteria Manual. However,
100-year capacities for culverts and channels are not always economically feasible. Staff
and AMEC analyzed alternatives based on a bookend approach, evaluating the least
costly mitigation (maintenance) and the most costly (a capital improvement alternative
selectively increasing culvert capacity at major intersections to accommodate the 100-
year storm).
The maintenance alternative analyzed sediment and debris removal within all culverts,
invasive species removal at various locations along the channel and improving culvert
inlet/outlet conditions by grading and clearing. It did not include any structural
modifications to the channel or increases in culvert capacity. The maintenance
alternative would not convey the 100-year storm throughout the channel and key
hydraulic limitation points and spill areas would remain.
Within the study reaches, a capital improvement alternative, which increased culvert and
channel capacity to pass the 100-year storm event, was created and analyzed. It was
discovered that the Baseline Road and Gilpin Drive culverts were the primary hydraulic
limitation points for Bear Canyon Creek north of US 36. Improvements at these two
culverts and surrounding channel area need to be combined with improvements in Reach
3A (between US 36 and Baseline Road) in order to provide a 100-year flood mitigation
benefit.
Agenda Item IV Page: 3
The recommended alternative is a combination of the maintenance and capital
improvement alternatives and includes sediment and debris removal, channel grading and
increasing culvert capacity as described in the following table:
Study
Reach
Improvement
Location Recommendation
Reach
1
Wildwood Road Remove sediment in culvert, including gravel bars and vegetation
blocking inlet and outlet
Wildwood Road Grade channel and widen floodplain downstream of culvert
Ithaca Drive Remove steel culvert and grade channel in conjunction with
stormwater improvement project at Ithaca Drive
Reach
2A
Lehigh Street Increase culvert size to 7.5ft x 28ft concrete box
Lehigh Street Increase channel capacity upstream and downstream of culvert
Table Mesa Drive Remove sediment in culverts at Ithaca Drive, Yale Road and
Gillaspie Drive, including gravel bars and vegetation blocking inlet
and outlet
Stanford Avenue Continue good maintenance
Stanford Avenue Increase channel capacity from Stanford Avenue to Harvard Lane
Harvard Lane Increase culvert size to (2) 7.5ft x 10ft concrete boxes
Reach
2B
Broadway Increase culvert size to 8.6ft x 23ft concrete box
Broadway Sediment and debris removal from Broadway to Martin Drive
Martin Drive Continue good maintenance
Reach
3A
Moorhead Avenue Continue good maintenance
US 36 Reconfigure pedestrian separator wall in underpass and grade multi-
use path and channel downstream to improve the inlet and outlet
condition
University of Colorado Increase channel capacity in conjunction with CU Master Plan
Saint Andrew Church Replace culverts with 24ft wide driveway bridge
Reach
3B
Baseline Road Increase culvert size to 7.5ft x 28ft concrete box
Baseline Road Increase channel capacity from Baseline Road to Gilpin Drive
Gilpin Drive Increase capacity and improve outlet condition
A map outlining the Recommended Alternative can be found in Attachment D.
NEXT STEPS:
Staff and AMEC will continue to prepare a draft mitigation plan. Next steps include:
• Gather input from the public and the WRAB about the recommended alternative.
• Create a benefit cost analysis (BCA) for all alternatives.
• Refine and prepare the mitigation plan.
• Present the mitigation plan to the WRAB for consideration in October, 2016.
Agenda Item IV Page: 4
• If recommended by WRAB, the mitigation plan will be presented to City Council
for acceptance.
• Once accepted by City Council, recommended alternatives in the Bear Canyon
Creek Mitigation Plan will be programmed as capital improvements for
construction as funding is available.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Study Area
Attachment B: Locations of Hydraulic Limitation
Attachment C: Development of Models
Attachment D: Recommended Alternative Figure
Agenda Item IV Page: 5
ATTACHMENT A: Study Area
Attachment A: Study Area
ATTACHMENT B: Locations of Hydraulic Limitation
Attachment B: Locations of Hydraulic Limitation
ATTACHMENT C: Development of Models
In April of 1985, a Flood Insurance Study (FIS) was conducted that produced detailed
hydrologic and hydraulic information for the City of Boulder and its vicinity. In May of
1987, Greenhorne & O’Mara, Inc. developed a final Hydrologic Analysis Report that
developed and delineated flood hazard areas for Bear Canyon Creek. These reports did
not result in a complete hydraulic model for the entire stretch of Bear Canyon Creek
(from City Limits to its confluence with Boulder Creek). Smaller hydraulic models had
been developed for segments of Bear Canyon Creek, but did not seamlessly connect as
one cohesive model. In order to fully analyze flows and potential improvements in the
area of Bear Canyon Creek, a hydraulic model of the entire drainageway was needed.
The city and the Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UDFCD) transferred all
available modeling data to AMEC who developed a “Best Available Information”
existing conditions model. UDFCD has informed the city that, when no complete model
exists, a Best Available Information model is acceptable to use for planning and
mitigation purposes.
While refining the Best Available Information model and comparing it to actual
inundation areas from 2013, AMEC and city staff noted the need for further refinement in
areas where spill flows occur. During a major storm event, overtopping of Bear Canyon
Creek is present at several major crossings along this creek, most notably Broadway and
Baseline Road. Spills from these areas become hydraulically disconnected from the main
channel, flow overland through streets and neighborhoods and then rejoin the floodplain
downstream. It was determined that the city’s current two-dimensional model (FLO-2D)
approach to define major flow paths and spill flows should be used. FLO-2D utilizes the
latest technology to measure and incorporate real-world topography that makes it ideal
for identifying flow paths that split away from the main channel.
Flood mitigation master plans rely on sound hydrologic analysis and hydraulic modeling
to identify and evaluate flood mitigation measures. The Greenhorne & O’Mara analysis
applied hydrographs at design points along the drainageway itself, but the first iteration
of FLO-2D output did not reflect spill flow paths observed during the September 2013
flood. Adjustments were made to two hydrological design points:
• Design Point 402: peak discharge for this design point (1,600cfs) was originally
applied at the upstream limit of the Flood Insurance Study (FIS), which yielded
highly conservative flows upstream of Lehigh. In the Best Available Information
model, Design Point 402 was applied at Table Mesa Drive and Yale Road,
assigning the corrected flow of 1,063cfs at the upstream limit.
• Design Point 405: peak discharge for this design point (540cfs) is applied near
Moorhead Avenue along Bear Canyon Creek and represents of a 240-acre sub-
basin near Baseline and Dartmouth. In the Best Available Information model,
Design Point 405 was applied at the outlet of its sub-basin.
Staff also questioned whether flows from Skunk Creek, located north and west from Bear
Canyon Creek, had any effect on Bear Canyon Creek flows. The effective 100-year flood
Attachment C: Development of Models
mapping for these two drainageways shows a branch of Skunk Creek that extends into
Bear Canyon Creek along US 36 and Moorhead Avenue. The topography in this area,
however, creates a high point between the two creeks, indicating that this connection arm
is not caused by overflow of either drainageway. The flooding experienced in this area is
most likely due to surface runoff from Design Point 405 (mentioned above), located near
Dartmouth Avenue and indicated on the figure below. In addition, Bear Canyon Creek
and Skunk Creek experience peak runoff events that occur approximately one hour apart.
In general, the FLO-2D model confirmed regulatory model flood extents while
identifying spill flows similar to what was observed during the September 2013 storm
event. The FLO-2D model also confirmed the areas to focus efforts for the mitigation
plan.
Attachment C: Development of Models
Attachment C: Development of Models
Bike Path UnderpassRec : Maintenance
Exst : Pedestrian Bridge
Exst : 7.5 x 23 box
Rec : 8.6 x 23 box
Exst : (2) 4.5 x 8 box
Rec : (2) 7.5 x 10 box
Exst: Pedestrian Bridge
Exst : (2) 4 x 8 box
Rec : 7.5 x 28 box
Exst : Pedestrian Bridge
Exst : 2ft Diameter Steel Pipe
Rec : Remove
Exst : (2) 7 x 12 box
Rec : MaintenanceBear Canyon Creek Exst : (2) 4 x 8 box
Rec : Maintenance
Exst : (2) 4 x 8 box
Rec : Maintenance
Ithaca DrLehigh StB
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
Dartmouth Av
Darley Av
Vassar Dr
Yale RdGi
l
l
a
s
p
i
e
D
r
Kohler Dr
Emerson Av
Stanford Av
Judson DrDover
D
r
Ta
b
l
e
M
e
s
a
D
r
Hartford DrHeidelberg Dr
Iliff St
Martin Dr
Edinboro DrS 35th StBe
a
r
M
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
D
r Drexel StBerea DrRegis Dr
Juilliard StS 38th StEndicott DrS 33rd StKenwood Dr S 32nd StWildwood RdFindlay WyS 31st StS 34th StCu
r
i
e
C
r
Stephens Rd
Kendall DrFairfield DrNorton StS 36th StClaremont DrArmer Av
Everett DrGeorgetown RdGoddard PlBritting AvEmporia RdAlbion WyHi
l
l
s
d
a
l
e
C
r
Hillsdale WyMiam
i
WyCarlock DrDrake StLoyola CtOverlook DrHoward Pl Dennison LnYale CrFurman WySand
s
t
o
n
e
C
t
Lan
e
C
t
Va
s
s
a
r
C
r
B
r
o
a
d
w
a
y
Hartford Dr
Gillaspie Dr³
Legend
Creek
Ditch
City Limits
Channel Maintenance
Channel Grading
Culvert Analyzed
0 500 1,000250 Feet
Bear Canyon Creek Mitigation PlanAttachment D : Recommended AlternativeMap 1 of 2
Culvert Size in Feet
Height x Width
Attachment D: Recommended Alternative Figure
Exst : 20 x 7 box
Rec : Remove
Exst : (2) 7 x 12 box
Rec : 7.5 x 28 box
Exst : (2) 4 x 6 elliptical
Rec : 24ft Bridge
Exst : Pedestrian BridgeExst : (2) 7 x 14 box
Rec : Remove Pedestrian
Separator Wall
Exst : 7.5 x 24 box
Rec : Maintenance
Bike Path Underpass
Rec : Maintenance Bear Canyon CreekSkunk Creek30th StUS
H
w
y
3
6
Baseline Rd
E Aurora Av
Colorado Av
Mo
o
r
h
e
a
d
A
v35th StMar
t
i
n
D
r36th St37th St34th StInca PyAsh Av Hopi PlFox DrS 35th St31st StMohawk DrLipan WyApa
c
h
e
R
dErie Dr38th St33rd StCh
i
p
p
e
w
a
D
r
Madison Av
39th St32nd StGilpin DrFoothills PyKiowa PlEvans DrS 31st St29th StS 32nd StDiscovery Dr
E Euclid Av
Eut
a
w
D
r
S 33rd StInca PkHarrison AvS 38th StCa
d
d
o
P
y
Mo
n
r
o
e
D
r
S 34th StBixby Av
La
g
u
n
a
P
l
Co
m
a
n
c
h
e
D
r
S 36th StKent StQuinn StO
r
m
a
n
D
rPitkin DrSioux Dr
Denton Av
M
o
r
g
a
n
D
r
E College Av
Shadow Creek Dr
Fuller CtPennsylvania Av
Adams Cr Innovation DrChase CtDavidson PlTalbot DrThomas DrFox Ct
Canyon Creek Rd
Apache C
tHolly PlDallas Pl
30th StF
o
o
t
h
i
l
l
s
P
y
M
o
h
a
w
k
D
r38th StCaddo Py31st St38th St32nd StInca PyDiscove
ry
D
r
³
Legend
Creek
Ditch
City Limits
Channel Maintenance
Channel Grading
Culvert Analyzed
0 500 1,000250 Feet
Bear Canyon Creek Mitigation PlanAttachment D : Recommended AlternativeMap 2 of 2
Culvert Size in Feet
Height x Width
Attachment D: Recommended Alternative Figure
Page 1
CITY OF BOULDER
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: June 20, 2016
AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation regarding the 2017
Utilities (Water, Wastewater and Stormwater/ Flood Management) 6-year Capital Improvement
Program (CIP)
PRESENTERS:
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Ken Baird, Utilities Financial Manager
Douglas Sullivan, Acting Principal Engineer – Water, Wastewater, and Stormwater
Annie Noble, Acting Principal Engineer – Flood and Greenways
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
As part of the city’s annual budget process, Utilities staff develops a six-year planning budget,
this year for the time period of 2017 through 2022. 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.” Utilities staff has formulated revenue and expenditure projections for each of the three
utility funds through the year 2022. Within the budget process council approves and
appropriates funds only for the first year, 2017.
At the April 18 and May 16, 2016 WRAB meetings, staff presented the preliminary 2017
Utilities budget including the six-year capital improvement program. Since the May 16 meeting
there have been no changes in projects in the proposed CIP.
This packet contains information concerning the Recommended 2017 Utilities Budget and the
2017-2022 Utilities 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 2015, updated revenue
projections/rate increases for the planning period and updated CIP.
Staff requests a recommendation from the WRAB concerning the 2017 Utilities Budget
including the 6-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) and associated Monthly Utility Rates.
Staff will submit the CIP to the Planning Board which will meet to discuss the citywide CIP and
make a recommendation to City Council on July 28. City Council study sessions are scheduled
for August 9, 2016 concerning the proposed city-wide 2017-2022 CIP and on September 13 and
September 27 on the preliminary 2017 city-wide budget. City Council is scheduled to hold first
and second readings on adoption of the budget on October 4 and October 18 respectively.
Agenda Item V
Page 2
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that WRAB make the following motion related to the 2017-2022 CIP:
The Water Resources Advisory Board recommends approval of the 2017-2022 CIP for the
Water, Wastewater, and Flood/Stormwater Utilities including proposed rate adjustments to
support 2017 revenue increases of 8% in the water utility, 5% in the wastewater utility, and 8%
in the stormwater and flood control utility.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The following percentage increases in additional revenue from the monthly utility fees are
currently being recommended by Utilities staff for 2017 to fund the preliminary Utilities budget
and capital improvements program. These increases are consistent with projections provided
during the budget process in 2015.
Water 8%
Wastewater 5%
Stormwater/ Flood Management 8%
BOARD FEEDBACK:
The preliminary 2017 Utilities budget and 2017-2022 CIP were presented to the WRAB on April
18 and May 16, 2016. The Board provided comments as documented in the meeting minutes
including discussion of rates, key projects, and questions regarding alternative sources of
revenue.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK:
Board input and a public hearing is scheduled for this meeting.
BACKGROUND:
The Utilities Division provides 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 revenue source for each utility.
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.
The majority 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.
Agenda Item V
Page 3
ANALYSIS:
The preliminary draft 2017 budget provided with this memorandum reflects the following billed
revenue increases: 8% Water, 5% Wastewater, and 8% Stormwater/Flood Management. The
following table summarizes the 2016 adopted, the 2017 proposed, and 2018 and 2019 projected
increases.
Table 1 – Proposed Rate Increases
2016 2017 2018 2019
Water 8% 8% 8% 7%
Wastewater 5% 5% 6% 6%
Stormwater/Flood Management 4% 8% 8% 8%
Single Family Residential Customer Bill Impact
The proposed preliminary 2017 revenue increases (8%-5%-8%) would increase a typical
residential customer’s monthly utility bill by $5.90 or an increase of $70.80 annually. Table 2
provides a breakdown of the potential increases by utility, and Table 3 shows commercial
customer impacts.
Table 2 – Sample Residential Monthly Bill Impacts
Monthly Bill
2016 Rates
Monthly Bill
2017 Rates
Monthly
Difference
Water $39.57 $42.73 $3.16
Wastewater $31.75 $33.37 $1.62
Stormwater/ Flood Mgmt $14.00 $15.12 $1.12
Total $85.32 $91.22 $5.90
Table 3 – Sample Commercial Monthly Bill Impacts
CUSTOMER
Combined
Monthly
Bill 2016
Rates
Combined
Monthly Bill
2017 Rates
Monthly
Difference
Hotel $5,091 $5,419 $328
Grocery Store $10,543 $11,261 $718
Large Format Retailer $3,307 $3,546 $239
Pearl Street Retail $157 $167 $10
Industrial/Institutional $59,461 $63,672 $4,211
Downtown Restaurant $160 $170 $10
Downtown
Restaurant/Brewery $999 $1,059 $61
Agenda Item V
Page 4
Impact of Rate Changes
The impact of a 1% increase in revenue varies substantially across the three funds:
Table 4–Rate Impact 1% 2% 3%
Water $250,000 $500,000 $750,000
Wastewater $200,000 $400,000 $600,000
Stormwater / Flood Mgmt $100,000 $200,000 $300,000
Additional information about other customer classes and cost comparisons will be provided as
part of the staff presentation. As a point of reference, $100,000 provides for debt service
coverage on a bond of approximately $1,000,000.
Rate Inflation Comparisons
It can be helpful to understand the City’s proposed rate increases in the context of historical rate
increases and relative to utilities in the Front Range and nationally. Attachment D shows the
history of rate increases in the three utilities since 1990, and also the average rate increase for the
whole period and by decade. In the water utility, the rate by decade has declined to where the
average for this decade is 4% (including the 2017 proposed increases). Between 2010 and 2013,
relatively low rate increases were adopted primarily due to citywide budget pressures felt
because of the last economic downturn.
A comparison of the Boulder and Front Range average water/wastewater bill history is included
in attachment E. This graph reflects an increasing gap between 2010 and 2014, and then the gap
was narrowed due to the 30% Wastewater increase in 2015, but Boulder’s Water and Wastewater
annual bill of $860 remains below the Front Range average of $940.
A broader comparison graph is found in Attachment F which shows cost changes since 2007 in
different indexed utilities. Since 2007 the national index for Water and Sewer has increased at
around 6% annually and Boulder has increased nearly 5%.
NEXT STEPS:
The current schedule of major budget milestones is provided below. Elements involving the
WRAB are highlighted in bold italics.
Milestone Date
WRAB Recommendation on CIP/Budget June 22, 2015
Planning Board CIP Hearing July 28, 2016
City Council Study Session on Budget (CIP) Aug. 9, 2016
City Council Study Session on Budget Sept. 13, 2016
City Council Study Session on Budget (if needed) Sept. 27, 2016
City Council Consideration/Adoption of Budget Oct. 4 and Oct. 18, 2016
Agenda Item V
Page 5
Attachments:
A: Water - Fund Financial and Capital Improvement Program
B: Wastewater - Fund Financial and Capital Improvement Program
C: Stormwater/ Flood Management - Fund Financial and Capital Improvement Program
D: Boulder Rate Increase History
E: Water and Wastewater Bill Comparison History
F: Consumer Price Index Comparison
Agenda Item V
Attachment A RECOMMENDED
CITY OF BOULDER
2017 FUND FINANCIAL
135678910
11121314151619202122232425262728303132333435363738394041444546
A B D F H J L N P R
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Actual Revised Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Beginning of Year Fund Balance 38,113,847$ 38,793,330$ 29,709,371$ 27,769,214$ 31,335,815$ 29,875,557$ 29,636,657$ 29,244,607$
Sources of Funds
Operating-5.0%8.0%8.0%8.0%7.0%7.0%7.0%5.0%
Sale of Water to General Cust 22,384,650$ 23,528,592$ 25,461,486$ 27,553,185$ 29,816,739$ 31,967,502$ 34,273,422$ 36,745,691$
Projected Rate Increase 1,882,287 2,036,919 2,204,255 2,087,172 2,237,725 2,399,140 1,837,285
Bulk/Irrigation Water Sales 155,674 143,050 143,050 143,050 143,050 143,050 143,050 143,050
Hydroelectric Revenue 2,009,491 1,760,609 1,711,739 1,847,009 1,847,009 1,847,009 1,847,009 1,847,009
Miscellaneous Operating Revenues - 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
Non-Operating--
Plant Investment Fees 6,273,744 2,500,000 2,500,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Connection Charges 213,763 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000 130,000
Special Assessments (27,039) 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000
Federal, State, County Grants 395,910 919,121 - - - - - -
Interest on Investments 274,483 252,605 297,094 347,115 391,698 448,133 444,550 438,669
Rent, assessments and other misc revenues 88,253 20,500 20,500 20,500 20,500 20,500 20,500 20,500
Sale of Real Estate 606,989 - - - - - - -
Transfer from General Fund - Fire Training Center 92,785 92,785 92,785 92,785 92,785 92,785 92,785 92,785
Projected Bond Proceeds - 35,350,000 - 35,676,562 - 8,455,509 - -
Total Sources of Funds $32,468,703 $66,609,549 32,423,572$ 70,244,461$ 36,758,952$ 47,372,214$ 41,380,455$ 43,284,988$
Uses of Funds
Operating-
Administration 991,100$ 1,003,052$ 1,232,338$ 1,300,310$ 1,307,387$ 1,346,609$ 1,387,007$ 1,428,617$
Planning and Project Management 452,937 611,220 640,338 674,305 679,335 699,715 720,706 742,327
Water Resources and Hydroelectric Operations 2,649,972 2,754,443 2,897,848 3,099,848 3,182,827 3,342,312 3,513,581 3,618,989
Water Treatment 4,827,057 4,766,150 4,775,882 5,029,221 5,066,733 5,218,735 5,375,297 5,536,556
Water Quality and Environmental Svcs 1,326,270 1,415,513 1,330,384 1,400,955 1,411,404 1,453,747 1,497,359 1,542,280
System Maintenance 3,106,612 3,227,533 3,192,093 3,361,419 3,386,491 3,488,086 3,592,729 3,700,511
Windy Gap Payment 2,275,501 2,618,958 2,314,181 251,200 258,736 266,498 274,493 282,728
Sick and Vacation Accrual - 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
TOTAL OPERATING USES OF FUNDS 15,629,449$ 16,496,869$ 16,483,064$ $15,217,258 $15,392,914 $15,915,701 $16,461,172 $16,952,008
WATER UTILITY
A: Water - Fund Financial and Capital Improvement Program
Attachment A RECOMMENDED
CITY OF BOULDER
2017 FUND FINANCIAL
1356
A B D F H J L N P R
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Actual Revised Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
WATER UTILITY
47484950515253555657585961626364656668707273747576777879808182838485868788899091929394
Debt-
BRWTP 1996 Revenue Bond; Refunding in 2006 857,708 858,531 - - - - - -
Refunding of the 1999 and 2000 Revenue Bonds 2,522,054 2,517,388 2,524,233 2,524,650 1,375,102 - - -
Lakewood 2001 Rev Bond; Refunded in 2012 2,065,733 2,065,950 2,065,333 2,072,083 2,080,817 2,081,367 2,088,883 -
Projected Bond-Betasso WTP Improvements - 1,090,143 2,259,081 2,260,181 2,255,681 2,260,681 2,259,981 2,258,681
Projected Bond-NCWCD Conveyance Line - - - 3,356,023 3,356,023 3,356,023 3,356,023 3,356,023
Projected Bond - Barker Dam - - - - - 793,773 793,773 793,773
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE $5,445,495 6,532,012 6,848,647 10,212,937 9,067,623 8,491,845 $8,498,661 $6,408,478
Transfers -
Cost Allocation 1,080,393 1,248,290 1,533,813 1,687,194 1,855,914 2,041,505 2,245,656 2,470,221
Planning & Development Services 218,941 225,509 267,989 276,029 284,310 292,839 301,624 310,673
TOTAL TRANSFERS OUT $1,299,334 $1,473,799 $1,801,802 $1,963,223 $2,140,223 $2,334,344 $2,547,280 $2,780,894
Capital 9,414,942 $10,313,251 9,330,215 3,707,880 11,718,449 12,513,715 14,365,392 15,628,528
Projected Bond - Betasso WTP IMP - $35,000,000 - - - - - -
Projected Bond - NCWCD Conveyance & Distributions Mains - - - $35,326,562 - - - -
Projected Bond - Barker Dam/Boulder Reservoir WTP - - - - - $8,355,509 - -
Projected Bond - Issuance Costs - $350,000 - $350,000 - $100,000 - -
Encumbrances, Carryover and Adjustments to Base - 5,627,577 - - - - - -
Total Uses of Funds 31,789,220$ $75,793,508 $34,463,728 $66,777,861 38,319,209$ $47,711,114 41,872,505$ 41,769,908$
Sick/Vacation Accrual Adjustment -$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$
Ending Fund Balance Before Reserves 38,793,330$ 29,709,371$ 27,769,214$ 31,335,815$ 29,875,557$ 29,636,657$ 29,244,607$ 30,859,688$
Reserves
Bond Reserve 3,034,796$ 3,034,796$ 2,181,429$ 2,181,429$ 2,181,429$ 1,600,100$ 1,600,100$ 1,600,100$
Lakewood Pipeline Remediation Reserve 15,218,434 15,837,309 16,582,687 17,468,028 18,055,455 18,978,041 19,923,957 20,427,803
FEMA Deobligation Reserve 87,951 87,951 87,951 87,951 87,951 87,951 87,951 87,951
Sick/Vacation/Bonus Reserve 530,852 546,778 563,181 580,076 597,479 615,403 633,865 652,881
Pay Period 27 Reserve 235,109 265,109 295,109 - - - - -
Operating Reserve 4,232,196 4,492,667 4,571,217 4,295,120 4,383,284 4,562,511 4,752,113 4,933,225
Capital Reserve 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000
Total Reserves 25,339,337$ 26,264,609$ 26,281,573$ 26,612,605$ 27,305,598$ 27,844,006$ 28,997,987$ 29,701,961$
Ending Fund Balance After Reserves 13,453,993$ 3,444,762$ 1,487,641$ 4,723,209$ 2,569,960$ 1,792,651$ 246,621$ 1,157,727$
Note:2,569,960$
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.
A: Water - Fund Financial and Capital Improvement Program
Attachment A - RECOMMENDED WATER CIP
12345678913141516171821222425313236383941424346474849535455565758596263646566676869757677
78798081838486878889909192
9394959697104105106
107
108109110112113114116119120121122
123
128130131136137138139
A L M N O P Q
CITY OF BOULDER
RECOMMENDED 2017-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WATER UTILITY FUND
Assumed Inflation Rate 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
PROJECT NAME RECOMMENDED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
Treated Water Pressure Reducing and Hydroelectric Facilities
Sunshine Hydro/PRV Facility $271,875 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Pearl Street Hydro/PRV Facility $0 $24,333 $243,331 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal - Treated Water PRV and Hydro $271,875 $24,333 $243,331 $0 $0 $0
Water Treatment Facilities
Equipment Replacement $127,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $50,000 $52,000
Bond Issuance Costs $0 $350,000 $0 $100,000 $0 $0
Boulder Reservoir WTF $200,000 $200,000 $0 $600,000 $0 $0
Subtotal - Water Treatment Facilities $327,000 $650,000 $100,000 $800,000 $50,000 $52,000
Treated Water Storage Tanks
Devil's Thumb Storage Tank $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,486,874
Chautauqua Storage Tank $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Betasso Storage Tank $292,465 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal - Treated Water Storage Tanks $292,465 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,486,874
Treated Water Distribution System
Waterline Replacement $3,487,078 $3,626,562 $3,771,624 $3,922,489 $4,079,389 $4,242,564
Subtotal - Treated Water Distribution System $3,487,078 $3,626,562 $3,771,624 $3,922,489 $4,079,389 $4,242,564
Treated Water Transmission System
Zone 1 Transmission Pipes $0 $0 $0 $626,601 $651,665 $677,732
Zone 2 Transmission Pipes $0 $0 $0 $909,016 $945,377 $983,192
Zone 3 Transmission Pipes $0 $0 0 $467,460 $486,158 $505,605
Subtotal - Treated Water Transmission System $0 $0 $0 $2,003,077 $2,083,200 $2,166,528
Source Water Transmission System
Lakewood Pipeline $0 $0 $316,330 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal - Source Water Transmission System $0 $0 $316,330 $0 $0 $0
Barker Water System
Barker Gravity Pipeline Repair $1,559,811 $1,622,204 $1,687,092 $2,083,559 $2,166,901 $2,253,577
Barker-Kossler Penstock Repair $116,986 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Barker Dam Outlet $175,000 $0 $835,551 $0 $0 $0
Barker Dam Outlet - Bond Proceeds $0 $0 $0 $8,355,509 $0 $0
Barker Dam and Reservoir $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Kossler Dam $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000
Subtotal - Barker Water System $1,901,797 $1,622,204 $2,522,643 $10,439,067 $2,166,901 $2,353,577
Raw Water Storage Reservoirs
Albion Dam $0 $341,636 $3,416,361 $0 $0 $0
Silver Lake Dam $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Island Lake Dam $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Green Lake 2 Dam $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,867,726
Green Lake 2 Dam $0 $0 $0 $75,000 $486,773 $0
Goose Lake Dam $0 $75,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Boulder Reservoir $0 $0 $0 $118,434 $0 $0
Lakewood Dam $0 $124,707 $0 $0 $0 $0
Skyscraper Dam $0 $0 $0 $0 $171,071 $0
Wittemyer Ponds $0 $0 $100,000 $492,685 $4,926,849 $0
Subtotal - Raw Water Storage Reservoirs $0 $691,343 $3,516,361 $686,119 $5,584,692 $4,867,726
Other Raw Water Facilities
Farmer's Ditch $0 $0 $108,160 $0 $0 $0
Anderson Ditch $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Source Water Facilities Rehab Program $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
Watershed Improvements $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0
NCWCD Conveyance - Carter Lake Pipeline $2,150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NCWCD Conveyance/Waterline replacement - Bond Proceeds $0 $31,700,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal - Other Raw Water Facilities $2,300,000 $31,850,000 $258,160 $250,000 $150,000 $150,000
Source Water Pressure Reducing, Pumping and Hydroelectric
Lakewood Hydroelectric/PRV $0 $0 $300,000 $0 $0 $0
Silver Lake Hydroelectric/PRV $50,000 $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0
Hydroelectric Facilities Rehabilitiation Program $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
Betasso Hydroelectric / Pressure Reducing Facility $400,000 $480,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Barker Dam Hydroelectric $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000
Boulder Canyon Hydroelectric $0 $90,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Carter Lake Hydroelectric $0 $50,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0
Carter Lake Hydro $0 $0 $0 $2,500,000 $0 $0
Source Water Pressure Reducing, Pumping and Hydroelectric Facility Rehabilitation$0 $0 $0 $193,472 $201,210 $209,259
Subtotal - Source Water PRV, Pumping and Hydro $500,000 $670,000 $800,000 $2,743,472 $251,210 $309,259
Water System Monitoring and Metering
Water System Security/Quality Improvements $150,000 $150,000 $90,000 $0 $0 $0
Source Water Monitoring and Protection $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0
Utility Billing Computer System $0 $0 $0 $125,000 $0 $0
Subtotal - Water System Monitoring and Metering $250,000 $250,000 $190,000 $125,000 $0 $0
TOTAL CAPITAL USES OF FUNDS $9,330,215 $39,384,442 $11,718,449 $20,969,224 $14,365,392 $15,628,528
A: Water - Fund Financial and Capital Improvement Program
Attachment B RECOMMENDED
CITY OF BOULDER
2017 FUND FINANCIAL
12345678
910111315161718192021222325272829303132333435363940414243444546475051
A B M O Q S U W Y AA
WASTEWATER UTILITY
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Actual Revised Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Beginning Fund Balance 13,503,763$ 27,766,746$ 8,170,139$ 6,282,350$ 6,810,789$ 5,046,986$ 5,510,614$ 5,225,087$
Sources of Funds
Operating-30.0%5.0%5.0%6.0%6.0%6.0%5.0%5.0%
Sewer Charges to General Customers 17,527,761$ 18,400,711$ 19,320,746$ 20,327,357$ 21,590,092$ 22,931,269$ 24,355,759$ 25,624,694$
Projected Rate Increase 920,036 966,037 1,219,641 1,295,406 1,375,876 1,217,788 1,281,235
Surcharge/ Pretreatment Fees 142,353 142,353 142,353 142,353 142,353 142,353 142,353 142,353
Non-Operating-
Plant Investment Fees 2,097,795 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000 750,000
Connection Charges 10,196 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000
Special Assessments 23,051 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000
Federal & State Grants 1,037,585 1,182,850 - - - - - -
Interest on Investments 110,154 277,667 204,253 188,470 204,324 151,410 165,318 156,753
Rent and other miscellaneous revenue 657 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Sale of Real Estate 303,495 - - - - - - -
Bond Proceeds 10,257,039 - - 13,681,920 - 28,375,000 - -
Total Sources of Funds 31,510,086$ 21,709,618$ 21,419,390$ 36,345,742$ 24,018,175$ 53,761,908$ 26,667,219$ 27,991,035$
Uses of Funds
Operating-
Administration 634,766$ 632,454$ 757,043$ 802,443$ 803,828$ 827,942$ 852,781$ 878,364$
Planning and Project Management 209,775 404,733 406,008 429,165 442,040 455,301 468,960 483,029
Wastewater Quality & Environmental Svcs 1,153,057 1,393,904 1,478,361 1,562,680 1,598,584 1,646,542 1,695,938 1,746,816
System Maintenance 1,868,158 1,681,345 1,672,825 1,768,236 1,776,057 1,829,339 1,884,219 1,940,745
Wastewater Treatment 4,566,122 5,113,656 5,095,324 5,385,939 5,409,762 5,572,055 5,739,216 5,911,393
Sick/Vacation Accrual - 75,000 77,250 79,568 81,955 84,413 86,946 89,554
TOTAL OPERATING USES OF FUNDS 8,431,878 9,301,092 9,486,811 10,028,031 10,112,225 10,415,591 10,728,059 11,049,901
Debt-
2012 Refunding of the WWTP 2005 Revenue Bond 3,439,462 3,199,450 3,177,125 3,153,292 3,145,375 3,132,458 3,124,750 3,124,750
WWTP UV, Digester, Headworks Imp 2010 Rev Bond 672,638 673,863 670,938 672,700 674,013 669,888 670,450 670,563
WWTP Nutrient Compliance Bond 2020 - - - - - 2,683,750 2,683,750 2,683,750
Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation Bond 2015 192,373 678,631 675,065 677,048 678,831 675,423 676,906 677,819
Sanitary Sewer Interceptor Bond 2018 - - - 1,084,554 1,084,554 1,084,554 1,084,554 1,084,554
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE 4,304,473 4,551,944 4,523,128 5,587,594 5,582,773 8,246,073 8,240,410 8,241,436
B: Wastewater - Fund Financial and Capital Improvement Program
Attachment B RECOMMENDED
CITY OF BOULDER
2017 FUND FINANCIAL
1234
A B M O Q S U W Y AA
WASTEWATER UTILITY
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Actual Revised Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected5253545556596064656667686970717273747576777879838485868791
Transfers-
Cost Allocation 756,671 879,372 919,556 965,534 1,013,811 1,064,502 1,117,727 1,173,613
Planning & Development Services 219,607 226,195 265,746 273,718 281,930 290,388 299,100 308,073
General Fund - Utilities Attorney 19,888 19,646 20,676 21,503 22,363 23,258 23,955 24,674
TOTAL TRANSFERS OUT 996,166 1,125,213 1,205,978 1,260,755 1,318,104 1,378,148 1,440,782 1,506,360
Capital Improvement Program 3,514,586 4,355,600 8,168,512 5,338,571 8,850,831 4,967,880 6,630,441 5,483,327
Projected Bond-WWTP Improvements - - - - - $28,250,000 - -
Projected Bond-Sanitary Sewer Rehab - - - $13,556,920 - -
Bond Issuance Costs - - - 125,000 - 125,000 - -
Carryover, Encumbrances and Adjustments to Base - 22,047,376 - - - - - -
Total Uses of Funds 17,247,103$ 41,381,225$ 23,384,429$ 35,896,870$ 25,863,932$ 53,382,692$ 27,039,691$ 26,281,024$
Sick/Vacation Accrual Adjustment -$ 75,000$ 77,250$ 79,568$ 81,955$ 84,413$ 86,946$ 89,554$
Ending Fund Balance Before Reserves 27,766,746$ 8,170,139$ 6,282,350$ 6,810,789$ 5,046,986$ 5,510,614$ 5,225,087$ 7,024,652$
Reserves
Bond Reserves 670,139$ 670,139$ 670,139$ 670,139$ 670,139$ 670,139$ 670,139$ 670,139$
FEMA Deobligation Reserve 36,445$ 36,445$ 36,445$ 36,445$ 36,445$ 36,445$ 36,445$ 36,445$
Sick/Vacation/Bonus Reserve 620,120 638,724 657,886 677,622 697,951 718,890 740,456 762,670
Pay Period 27 Reserve 204,141 219,141 234,141 249,141 - - - -
Operating Reserve 2,357,011 2,606,576 2,673,197 2,822,196 2,857,582 2,948,435 3,042,210 3,139,065
Capital Reserve 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000
Total Reserves 4,351,411$ 4,634,580$ 4,735,363$ 4,919,099$ 4,725,672$ 4,837,463$ 4,952,806$ 5,071,874$
Ending Fund Balance After Reserves 23,415,335$ 3,535,558$ 1,546,987$ 1,891,690$ 321,313$ 673,151$ 272,281$ 1,952,778$
B: Wastewater - Fund Financial and Capital Improvement Program
Attachment B
1
2
3456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313536394041424344454850515253545960
A L M N O P Q
CITY OF BOULDER
RECOMMENDED 2017 - 2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WASTEWATER UTILITY FUND
Assumed Inflation Rate 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
PROJECT NAME RECOMMENDED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
Wastewater Treatment
WWTF Pumps $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $0 $150,000
WWTF Permit Improvements $0 $862,500 $1,725,000 $0 $136,857 $0
WWTF Nutrient Management Grant
WWTF Permit Improvements - Proj. Bond $0 $0 $0 $17,250,000 $0 $0
WWTF Laboratory $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WWTF Headworks $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WWTF Instrumentation/Control $0 $0 $1,265,319 $0 $0 $0
WWTF Electrical $1,400,000 $210,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
WWTF Activated Sludge $0 $0 $189,798 $0 $0 $0
WWTF Primary Clarifiers $0 $0 $900,000 $9,000,000 $1,350,000 $0
WWTF Secondary Clarifiers $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WWTF UV Disinfection $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WWTF Rehabilitation $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
Biosolids Processing & Dewatering $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WWTF Cogeneration $400,000 $0 $0 $184,481 $0 $0
WWTF Digester Complex $0 $0 $200,000 $2,000,000 $0 $0
September 2013 Flood Disaster Recovery $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WWTF Sediment Removal - FEMA Grant
WWTF Digester Cleaning $0 $0 $0 $136,857 $0 $0
Bond Issuance Costs $0 $125,000 $0 $125,000 $0 $0
Subtotal - Wastewater Treatment Plant $2,050,000 $1,447,500 $4,680,117 $28,946,338 $1,736,857 $400,000
Wastewater System Monitoring and Metering
Utility Billing Computer System $0 $0 $0 $65,000 $0 $0
Subtotal - Monitoring and Metering $0 $0 $0 $65,000 $0 $0
Collection and Conveyance System Rehabilitation
Collection System Monitoring $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000
Condition Assessment Program $0 $648,960 $674,918 $701,915 $729,992 $759,191
Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation $1,743,539 $2,983,139 $3,102,465 $3,226,563 $3,355,626 $3,489,851
Sanitary Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation $224,973 $233,972 $243,331 $253,064 $657,966 $684,285
Main Interceptor Realignment $0 $10,059,920 $0 $0 $0 $0
Lower Goose Creek Trunk Sewer Replacement $4,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Foothills & Baseline Trunk Sewer Replacement $0 $3,497,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Arapahoe Trunk Sewer Replacement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal - Sewer System Rehabilitation $6,118,512 $17,572,991 $4,170,714 $4,331,542 $4,893,584 $5,083,327
TOTAL CAPITAL USES OF FUNDS $8,168,512 $19,020,491 $8,850,831 $33,342,880 $6,630,441 $5,483,327
B: Wastewater - Fund Financial and Capital Improvement Program
Attachment C RECOMMENDED
CITY OF BOULDER
2017 FUND FINANCIAL
1234567891011151617181920212324262728293031323334353839404143444547484950515253
A B I K M O Q S U W
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Actual Revised Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
Beginning Fund Balance 15,483,367$ 42,731,212$ 11,622,466$ 10,155,715$ 7,073,635$ 8,398,790$ 9,525,627$ 7,224,023$
Sources of Funds
Operating-4%8%8%8%8%5%5%
Service Charge Fees 9,508,240$ 9,612,708$ 9,997,216$ 10,818,587$ 11,707,442$ 12,669,326$ 13,710,238$ 14,424,541$
Projected Rate Increases 384,508 799,777 865,487 936,595 1,013,546 685,512 721,227
Non-Operating--
Plant Investment Fees 1,543,366 500,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,000
Urban Drainage District Funds 475,932 960,873 254,997 947,940 1,000,000 400,000 400,000 400,000
State and Federal Grants 895,690 4,824,498 - -
Interest on Investments 198,247 427,312 129,626 203,114 141,473 167,976 190,513 144,480
Intergovernmental Transfers (KICP Program)58,295 60,044 148,526 152,982 157,571 162,298 167,167 172,182
Rent and other miscellaneous revenue 16,326 18,126 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000
Sale of Real Estate - Yards Masterplan 303,495 - - - - - - -
Projected Bonds 23,317,855 - - 25,325,000 - - - -
Total Sources of Funds 36,317,446$ $16,788,069 11,689,142$ 38,672,110$ 14,302,082$ 14,772,146$ 15,512,429$ 16,221,431$
Uses of Funds
Operating-
Administration 449,760$ 475,855$ 495,434$ 523,529$ 525,606$ 541,374$ 557,615$ 574,344$
Planning and Project Management 1,037,520 1,289,877 1,277,608 1,345,961 1,355,414 1,396,077 1,437,959 1,481,098
Stormwater Contract Management 62,778 49,442 96,775 99,678 102,669 105,749 108,921 112,189
Stormwater Quality and Education 931,174 1,060,346 1,075,713 1,132,666 1,141,224 1,175,461 1,210,724 1,247,046
System Maintenance 1,509,120 1,343,771 1,480,396 1,556,087 1,570,552 1,617,669 1,666,199 1,716,185
Sick/Vacation Accrual - 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000
TOTAL OPERATING USES OF FUNDS 3,990,352 4,269,291 4,475,926 4,707,922 4,745,465 4,886,329 5,031,419 5,180,861
Debt--
Refunding of the Goose Creek 1998 Revenue Bond 387,038 381,675 386,138 380,175 - - - -
Projected Bond - South Boulder Creek - - - 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000 2,200,000
Projected Bond - Wonderland Creek 820,377 1,589,188 1,590,025 1,587,213 1,588,638 1,591,688 1,591,388 1,591,388
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE 1,207,415 1,970,863 1,976,163 4,167,388 3,788,638 3,791,688 3,791,388 3,791,388
Transfers-
Cost Allocation 246,288 248,170 327,410 360,151 396,166 435,783 479,361 527,297
Planning & Development Services 132,367 136,338 161,235 166,072 171,054 176,186 181,471 186,916
General Fund - Utilities Attorney 19,986 19,646 20,676 21,503 22,363 23,034 23,725 24,437
TOTAL TRANSFERS OUT 398,641 404,154 509,321 547,726 589,583 635,003 684,557 738,649
STORMWATER/FLOOD MANAGEMENT UTILITY
C: Stormwater/ Flood Management - Fund Financial and Capital Improvement Program
Attachment C RECOMMENDED
CITY OF BOULDER
2017 FUND FINANCIAL
1234
A B I K M O Q S U W
2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Actual Revised Recommended Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected
STORMWATER/FLOOD MANAGEMENT UTILITY
54555658606162636465666768697071727374757980818283849394
Capital $3,473,193 $5,084,480 6,244,483 $7,056,155 3,903,241 $4,382,290 8,356,670 4,250,710
Projected Bond - South Boulder Creek - - - $25,000,000 - - - -
Projected Bond Issuance Costs - - - 325,000 - - - -
Encumbrances, Carryover and Adjustments to Base - 36,218,027 - - - - - -
Total Uses of Funds 9,069,601$ 47,946,815$ 13,205,893$ 41,804,190$ 13,026,927$ 13,695,309$ 17,864,033$ 13,961,608$
Sick and Vacation Accrual Adjustment -$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$ 50,000$
Ending Fund Balance Before Reserves 42,731,212$ 11,622,466$ 10,155,715$ 7,073,635$ 8,398,790$ 9,525,627$ 7,224,023$ 9,533,845$
Reserves
Bond Reserves 2,312,552$ 2,312,552$ 2,312,552$ 4,187,568$ 4,187,568$ 4,187,568$ 4,187,568$ 4,187,568$
Post Flood Property Acquisition 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000 1,050,000
FEMA Deobligation Reserve 41,750 41,750 41,750 41,750 41,750 41,750 41,750 41,750
Sick/Vacation/Bonus Reserve 59,401 61,183 63,019 64,909 66,856 68,862 70,928 73,056
Pay Period 27 Reserve 54,218 69,218 84,218 99,218 113,218 127,218 141,218 144,099
Operating Reserve 1,097,248 1,168,361 1,246,312 1,313,912 1,333,762 1,380,333 1,428,994 1,479,878
Capital Reserve 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000
Total Reserves 4,815,169$ 4,903,064$ 4,997,850$ 6,957,357$ 6,993,155$ 7,055,731$ 7,120,458$ 7,176,351$
Ending Fund Balance After Reserves $37,916,042 $6,719,402 $5,157,865 $116,278 $1,405,635 $2,469,896 103,565$ $2,357,495
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.
C: Stormwater/ Flood Management - Fund Financial and Capital Improvement Program
Attachment C
1
2
345678910111213141516171819202122232425313233343536424344454652535459606162636465
A J K L M N O
CITY OF BOULDER
RECOMMENDED 2017-2022 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
STORMWATER AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT UTILITY FUND
2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
PROJECT NAME RECOMMENDED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
Major Drainageways
Elmer's Twomile Creek $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Goose Creek $0 $0 $1,500,000 $1,250,000 $500,000 $800,000
South Boulder Creek $750,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
South Boulder Creek - Bond Proceeds $0 $25,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Bond Issuance Costs $0 $325,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Skunk Canyon Creek $200,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sunshine Creek $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Twomile Canyon Creek $100,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Bluebell Canyon Creek - King's Gulch $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Viele Channel $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Four Mile Canyon Creek $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Four Mile Canyon Creek - Upland to Violet $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Four Mile Canyon Creek - 19th to 22nd - Bond $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Bear Canyon Creek $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Gregory Canyon Creek $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
Boulder Creek $0 $1,250,000 $0 $0 $0
Bond Issuance Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Preflood Acquisition $550,000 $600,000 $633,000 $660,000 $684,285 $711,656
Greenways Program Transfer $97,500 $97,500 $97,500 97,500 97,500 138,773
Subtotal - Major Drainageway Improvements $4,697,500 $30,772,500 $2,230,500 $2,007,500 $1,281,785 $1,650,429
Miscellaneous
Utility Billing Computer System $0 $0 $0 $65,000 $0 $0
Subtotal - Miscellaneous Drainage Improvements $0 $0 $0 $65,000 $0 $0
Stormwater Management
2007 Master Plan - Upper Goose Creek $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
2016 Master Plan - Middle Boulder Creek - 2 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,862,873 $0
2016 Master Plan - Wonderland Creek - 1 $0 $0 $0 $0 $386,896 $0
2016 Master Plan - Bear Canyon Creek - 5 $0 $0 $0 $0 $324,846 $0
Local Drainage Improvements $759,283 $789,655 $821,241 $854,090 $986,949 $1,026,427
Stormwater Quality Improvements $169,000 $175,500 $182,500 $190,000 $197,390 $205,285
Storm Sewer Rehabilitation $281,200 $292,500 $304,000 $632,700 $657,966 $684,285
Transportation Coordination $337,500 $351,000 $365,000 $633,000 $657,966 $684,285
Subtotal - Localized Drainage Improvements $1,546,983 $1,608,655 $1,672,741 $2,309,790 $7,074,885 $2,600,281
TOTAL CAPITAL USES OF FUNDS $6,244,483 $32,381,155 $3,903,241 $4,382,290 $8,356,670 $4,250,710
C: Stormwater/ Flood Management - Fund Financial and Capital Improvement Program
Attachment D CITY OF BOULDER
RATE INCREASE HISTORY
Water Wastewater Stormwater
Year Increase Increase Increase
1990 0%12%34%
1991 0%0%0%
1992 11%14%0%
1993 14%12%0%
1994 0%12%9%
1995 5%10%0%
1996 6%6%6%
1997 13%4%5%
1998 8%9%0%
1999 5%4%6%
2000 3%3%3%
2001 10%6%4%
2002 9%12%8%
2003 3%12%6%
2004 0%6%3%
2005 3%20%3%
2006 3%20%3%
2007 4%6%3%
2008 4%3%3%
2009 8%5%3%
2010 0%0%0%
2011 3%3%0%
2012 3%3%3%
2013 3%5%3%
2014 4%5%3%
2015 5%30%75%
2016 8%5%4%
2017 8%5%8%
Decade Averages
1990's 6%8%6%
2000's 5%9%4%
2010's 4%7%12%
1990-2017 5%8%7%
D: Boulder Rate Increase History
Attachment E Annual Water/ Wastewater Bill Comparison
500.00
550.00
600.00
650.00
700.00
750.00
800.00
850.00
900.00
950.00
1,000.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Boulder
Average Front Range
E: Water and Wastewater Bill Comparison History
Attachment F
80
90
100
110
120
130
140
150
160
170
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Boulder - Water Sewer CPI - Water Sewer
Electric Local CPI Natural Gas Local CPI
CPI Local
Consumer Price Index Comparison
(local is Denver-Boulder-Greeley)
CPI
Natural Gas
F: Consumer Price Index Comparison
Agenda Item VI Page: 1
C I T Y O F B O U L D E R
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
INFORMATION ITEM
MEETING DATE: June 20, 2016
AGENDA TITLE: Information Item – Update on Rate Study and Background for July
2016 WRAB Discussion
PRESENTER/S:
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Ken Baird, Utilities Financial Manager
Eric M. Ameigh, Public Works Project Coordinator
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of this memo is to provide the board with information relevant to its upcoming July
2016 meeting on the Utility Rate Study. The July meeting will focus on the findings from the
first phase of the Rate Study and staff will seek WRAB feedback on potential directions for
updating the rate structures in the water, wastewater, and stormwater/flood management utilities.
II. BACKGROUND
In late 2014, Utilities Division staff met with customers to better understand the impacts of
utility rate increases approved by council in fall 2014. Many customers indicated they did not
understand utility rate structures and/or had questions and concerns about the calculation of the
charges on their utility bills.
The Utilities Division periodically reviews its rate setting methodology to assure that utility rates
are meeting community goals and are aligned with fee-based principles. These findings led staff
to propose an evaluation of the rate structure and associated calculations for water, wastewater,
and stormwater/flood management utilities as part of the 2015 work plan. As a first step, a public
engagement process was implemented to solicit broader feedback across all customer classes.
The initial public engagement process took place in April and May 2015 and consisted of three
open houses and an online survey. More than 26,000 postcards were mailed to utilities customers
to notify them about the engagement opportunities.
In June 2015, staff presented to WRAB the results of the public engagement process, as well as
options for the Utility Rate Study’s guiding principles and its areas of study. Guiding principles
are high-level goals and speak to what the rate structures should be designed to accomplish. The
public engagement process did not indicate a strong need or desire to change the five existing
guiding principles for the water rate structure. WRAB recommended that the guiding principles
should apply not only to water but also to the other two utilities. In addition, it was determined
that the stormwater/flood management utility should have a guiding principle specifically
encouraging development that minimizes stormwater impacts. These discussions resulted in
Agenda Item VI Page: 2
recommended guiding principles and their application across the three utilities, as shown in the
following table.
Principle Water
Utility
Wastewater
Utility
Stormwater/Flood
Management Utility
Discourage wasteful use, while promoting all justified types
and amounts of use. X
Be effective in yielding total revenue requirements. X X X
Provide revenue stability and predictability for the utilities. X X X
Fairly allocate the total cost of service across customer classes
to attain equity. X X X
Be dynamic and proactive to address changing supply and
demand conditions, as well as the city’s sustainability and
resilience goals.
X
Encourage low-impact development to decrease stormwater
impacts. X
Based on WRAB feedback and guidance related to guiding principles and areas of study, staff
developed a scope of work for the analysis phase of the project. The scope of work informed a
request for consultant proposals (RFP) which was issued in early November 2015. Staff received
four complete proposals and selected Denver-based Raftelis Financial Consultants (RFC) to
assist with the project.
The project is roughly divided into three phases, as follows:
Phase 1 – Investigation and Assessment (February – June)
RFC will assist the staff in comprehensively understanding what is happening within the rate
structures and the pros and cons of the current systems. The consultant team and staff will
present these preliminary findings to WRAB at the July meeting. WRAB’s feedback will help
determine which identified issues require a new approach within the rate structures.
Phase 2 – Analysis of Potential Alternatives (July – September)
Based on WRAB feedback at the July meeting, and staff direction, RFC will develop and
analyze options to address issues identified in the first phase. Alternatives will be developed and
tested across all three utilities and all customer classes and bill impacts will be calculated. Staff
and RFC will present the results of the options analysis at the September meeting and offer draft
recommendations as appropriate. Depending on the results of this phase, staff may update
council within the context of the 2017 budget process and, if feasible, any simple and/or non-
controversial changes may be recommended for adoption in the budget.
Phase 3 – Recommendations (October – December)
Agenda Item VI Page: 3
Based on the results of the second phase and WRAB discussion in September, staff and RFC will
refine the analysis and draft recommendations and present a final report for WRAB’s acceptance
and recommendation to council.
III. NEXT STEPS
Staff and RFC will present preliminary findings and seek WRAB feedback at the July18
meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
A – Water Budget Rules
B – Rate Structure Informational Handouts
C – 2016 Rates and Fees
Page 1
RULE ESTABLISHING THE METHODOLOGY TO BE UTILIZED IN DETERMINING THE
MONTHLY WATER BUDGET FOR THE COMPONENT OF THE MONTHLY WATER
USER CHARGES KNOWN AS THE TREATED WATER QUANTITY CHARGE, AND FOR
DETERMINING THE MONTHLY WASTEWATER USER CHARGES.
AMENDED – EFFECTIVE AUGUST 1, 2009
1. Authority.
These rules are issued pursuant to Section 11-1-3, “Rules and Regulations,” B.R.C. 1981 to
implement the provisions of Sections 11-1-44, “Water User Charges,” 4-20-25(b), “Monthly
Water Service Charges – Treated Water Quantity Charges,” B.R.C. 1981, and 4-2-28, “Monthly
Wastewater User Charges”, B.R.C. 1981.
2. Purpose and Applicability.
The monthly water user charges set forth in Section 4-20-25, B.R.C. 1981, identify two
components for the monthly charges that are billed to consumers. Section 4-20-25(a), B.R.C.
1981, sets forth the treated water monthly service charge which is a fixed amount based on the
meter size. Section 4-20-25(b) sets forth the treated water quantity charges which vary
depending on use. Beginning in January 2007, the treated water quantity charge portion of
water bills were calculated using a water budget block rate structure such that the price of water
increases as more water is used, particularly when the amount of water used exceeds the
customer’s water budget. The increasing price is necessary not only to promote water
conservation, but also is related to the additional marginal cost associated with water
development and water conservation. Effective August 1, 2009, water budget methodology
enhancements have been made to multifamily, commercial/industrial/institutional, and metered
irrigation accounts.
The purpose of this rule is to establish a methodology that shall be utilized to determine the
monthly water budget for the treated water quantity charge, and for determining the monthly
wastewater user charges. This rule establishes a system whereby the revenue produced will meet
the treated water quantity charge portion of the revenue requirements for the water utility. This
rule does not include or apply to the treated water monthly service charges set forth at Section 4-
20-25(a), B.R.C. 1981.
It is also the purpose of this rule to establish a rate structure that will promote water conservation
and the efficient use of water, support community goals, reflect the value of water, send a price
signal to customers who waste water, and avoid the costs of new water development and
expanded water treatment.
3. Definitions and Abbreviations.
“AMU” means average monthly use.
Attachment A: Water Budget Rules
Page 2
“AWC” means the average monthly water consumption as reflected on a customer’s bill from
December through March.
“CII” means Commercial/Industrial/Institutional.
“ET” means evapotranspiration (also, see ET Rate).
“ET rate” means the amount of water (in inches) a lawn will use on any specific day through the
natural processes of surface evaporation and plant transpiration (loss of water through the
leaves). The historic monthly ET rate is specifically defined in the following chart:
Historic Monthly ET Rate
Month ET
(inches)
Share of Annual
Outdoor
Allocation
January 0.00 0%
February 0.00 0%
March 0.40 1%
April 2.72 7%
May 5.10 14%
June 7.52 20%
July 7.60 20%
August 6.67 18%
September 4.43 12%
October 2.92 7%
November 0.32 1%
December 0.00 0%
Total 37.68 100%
“GPSF” means gallons per square foot.
“HMU” means historical monthly use.
“Irrigable area” means the area (in square feet) that a customer is required to maintain pursuant
to Title 6, Title 8 and Title 9, B.R.C. 1981, is not covered by a hard surface (such as a roof,
driveway, patio or sidewalk) and that may require some outdoor watering. Right-of-way may be
included as part of a customer’s irrigable area but the city’s geographical information system
(“GIS system”) may not automatically include city right-of-way. Customers may seek inclusion
of right-of-way pursuant to paragraph 7 below.
“Kgal” means thousand gallons.
“Monthly water budget” means the amount of water allocated to the water utility customer to
meet that customer’s anticipated water needs for the month. The monthly water budget shall be
the sum of the indoor and/or outdoor allocation for each water utility customer. The allocation
Attachment A: Water Budget Rules
Page 3
shall be based on reasonable and necessary indoor and/or outdoor use, water conservation, and
other relevant factors associated with water use in the city.
“Public ROW” means public right-of-way.
4. Block Rate Structure for Treated Water Quantity Charges.
The block rate structure established in Section 4-20-25(b)(1), B.R.C. 1981, is utilized in
conjunction with the monthly water budget in order to determine the bill for each customer on a
monthly basis. The monthly water budget represents the amount of water allocated to a customer
to meet the anticipated watering needs for the month. Customers are billed for the amount of
water they use each month, not for their budgeted amount of water. The amount billed per Kgal
increases as customers use more water. (See table below.)
Block Rate
(per Kgal) Rate
(per Kgal)
Block Size
(% of water budget)
Block 1 ¾ Base Rate 0 – 60%
Block 2 Base Rate 61 – 100%
Block 3 2 x Base Rate 101 – 150%
Block 4 3 x Base Rate 151 – 200%
Block 5
Each Block Rate will
be as reflected in
Section 4-20-25
(b)(1), B.R.C. 1981
5 x Base Rate Greater than 200%
Some customers have a “looped” water system in which multiple water meters are used in an
effort to increase reliability and to provide redundancy to their water system. In these “looped”
water systems, water meter accounts will be combined for budgeting and billing purposes.
5. Customer Classes.
This rule establishes four different customer classes: single-family residential, multifamily
residential, CII and metered irrigation. CII will have four sub-customer classes: 1) CII AMU
(default option); 2) CII HMU; 3) CII indoor/outdoor, and 4) CII efficiency standard. The
method used to calculate the water budget for each of these classes and sub-customer classes is
described below. The bills for all customer classes utilize the customer’s water budget amount
which is then applied to the block rates to determine the monthly water bill.
a. Single-Family Residential
The single-family residential customer’s budget shall consist of indoor and outdoor
allocations for water. The indoor allocation for each customer with a household size of up to
four people shall be set at 7,000 gallons per month. The outdoor allocation shall be based on
customer-specific irrigable area as determined by the city’s GIS system. This system maps and
calculates areas within defined property boundaries and hard surface boundaries. The total
annual outdoor allocation shall be based on the following application rates:
Attachment A: Water Budget Rules
Page 4
• For the first 5,000 square feet of irrigable area: 15 gpsf
• For the next 9,000 square feet of irrigable area: 12 gpsf
• For irrigable area in excess of 14,000 square feet: 10 gpsf.
In order to reflect varying seasonal outdoor monthly watering requirements, the total annual
allocation of water for irrigable area shall be distributed to each month based upon that month’s
annual outdoor amount as described by the historic monthly ET rate.
Customers are able to base their budget on an amount less than their total irrigable area.
Single-family residential customers may seek water budget adjustments pursuant to
paragraph 7 below.
b. Multifamily Residential
The multifamily residential customer’s budget shall consist of indoor and outdoor
allocations. The indoor allocation for each residential dwelling unit shall be set at 4,000 gallons
per month. The outdoor allocation shall be based on customer-specific irrigable area as
determined by the city’s GIS system and a total annual application rate of 15 gpsf. In order to
reflect varying seasonal outdoor monthly watering requirements, the total annual allocation of
water for irrigable area shall be distributed to each month based upon that month’s annual
outdoor amount as described by the historic monthly ET rate.
Customers are able to base their budget on an amount less than their total irrigable area and
will be allocated 15 gpsf for the total amount of the reduced area.
Multifamily residential customers may seek water budget adjustments pursuant to
paragraph 7 below.
c. Commercial/Industrial/Institutional (Non-residential)
1. CII Customer Budgets - Existing
1) CII AMU customer budgets shall be based on 100% of historical AMU for
the 12-month period in 2005. This AMU amount will be fixed as the
monthly budget until another AMU period is defined. Customers may
apply for a CII AMU adjustment (see paragraph 7 below) based on actual
water usage in years subsequent to 2005. CII AMU (2005) is the default
methodology unless customers apply for a water budget adjustment by
selecting one of the other options listed below. AMU will result in
monthly wastewater charges based on all water used which could include
water used for irrigation. Customers may choose a different CII option
only one time per year.
Attachment A: Water Budget Rules
Page 5
2) CII HMU customer budgets shall be based on the most recent three-year
historical average for water use for each month and recalculated every
year. January three-year historical average would become the January
water budget, February three-year historical average would become the
February water budget, etc. HMU will result in monthly wastewater
charges based on all water used, which could include water used for
irrigation.
3) CII indoor/outdoor customer budgets shall be based on an indoor
allocation as determined by the customer’s most recent average winter
consumption (AWC) and an outdoor allocation based on the irrigable area
(including public ROW), using an application rate of 15 GPSF and
apportioned monthly using the historical monthly ET rate. Public ROW
will automatically be included in the irrigable area for CII indoor/outdoor
customers. CII indoor/outdoor customers will be billed wastewater
charges on actual water used or indoor budget allocation (AWC)
whichever is lower, for the billing period. A customer may not select the
CII indoor/outdoor option if there is not any irrigable area (therefore, no
outdoor allocation) associated with the account.
4) CII efficiency standard customer budgets shall be determined by a specific
review of the customer’s indoor and outdoor uses based on reasonable and
documented efficiency standards as determined in the methodology
described in paragraph 6 below. CII efficiency standard customers will be
billed wastewater charges on actual water used or indoor budget
allocation, whichever is lower, for the billing period.
2. CII PIF Custom Customer Budgets - New or Redevelopment
1) New or existing CII customers who are placing an increased demand
on the city’s water system must determine the appropriate meter size
and select an annual budget. These customers will use the CII Plant
Investment Fee (PIF) custom annual budget which is based on 25, 50
or 85 percent of the AWC for a specified meter size (see table below).
The CII PIF customer may then select how this annual water budget is
distributed throughout the twelve months. This annual budget
distribution may be specified by the CII PIF customer once per year.
TABLE: Annual Water Budget Based on AWC (gallons)
Meter Size 25% AWC 50% AWC 85% AWC
¾” N/A 30,000 165,000
1” 42,000 108,000 503,000
1-1/2” 99,000 228,000 924,000
2” 183,000 483,000 1,941,000
Attachment A: Water Budget Rules
Page 6
2) Mixed-use properties water budget will be calculated based on a
combination of the amount they have purchased based on the meter
size for the CII portion of the building, and the number of dwelling
units and bedrooms for the multifamily portion of the building, as
described in these rules.
3) New CII customers that have water meter(s) larger than 2” will be
allocated an efficiency standard custom budget as indicated in
paragraph 6 below.
4) CII customers may seek water budget adjustments pursuant to
paragraph 7 below.
d. Metered Irrigation
Metered irrigation customer budgets shall be based on customer-specific irrigable area as
determined by the city’s GIS system, and an annual application rate of 15 gpsf. The budget shall
change each month based upon that month’s share of annual outdoor allocation described by the
historic ET rates, except that metered irrigation accounts will be given an additional 1% of their
annual outdoor watering budget for each month in December, January and February. The
purpose of this additional 1% is to establish a monthly water budget that is greater than zero and
allows for some limited outdoor watering. Public ROW will automatically be included and
added to the irrigable area for all metered irrigation accounts.
Customers are able to base their budget on an amount less than their total irrigable area and
will be allocated 15 gpsf for the total amount of the reduced area.
Metered irrigation customers may seek water budget adjustments pursuant to paragraph 7
below.
6. Standards and Practices Regarding Water Audits for CII Customers That Request the
Efficiency Standard Water Budget Option.
The CII efficiency standard water budget option is intended to provide a customer-specific water
budget (indoor allocation and outdoor allocation) that is determined by a specific review of the
customer’s indoor and outdoor uses, needs and facilities, by a Colorado registered professional
engineer with a focus on various components, including without limitation:
• industrial or production processes,
• bathroom and locker rooms,
• kitchen and food preparation areas,
• cooling and heating facilities,
• humidity control, and
• aquatics or pool needs.
Attachment A: Water Budget Rules
Page 7
The purpose of the customer-specific review is to develop a monthly indoor water allocation
based on reasonable and documented efficiency standards and, if needed, a monthly outdoor
allocation. If a customer has any irrigable area that is not included in a separate metered
irrigation-only account, the irrigable area size should be included for use in the CII Efficiency
Standard option. The monthly outdoor allocation shall be based on the irrigable area (including
public ROW), an application rate of 15 GPSF and apportioned monthly using the historical
monthly ET rate. Because plant materials, irrigation systems components, weather, soil
conditions, etc, are not needed in determining the outdoor allocation, it is not necessary to have a
landscape architect or a certified landscape irrigation auditor involved in the audit unless there is
an indoor garden or horticulture need.
The indoor water audit and evaluation shall consider the following, if applicable:
• The City is a partner with the EPA WaterSense program and information is available on
the EPA WaterSense web site. Standards related to high-efficiency plumbing fixtures
will be used for the audit. For example, while a 1.6 gallon/flush toilet is today’s regulated
standard, a high-efficiency toilet, as promoted by WaterSense, uses 1.28 gallon/flush or
less and should be used in the audit and development of the indoor budget allocation.
• Data for high-efficient, front loading clothes washers.
• Recycle and reuse process water.
• Limited or no humidification: requires documented need for equipment or medical
reasons.
• Use of automatic on/off sensors on faucets in restrooms in larger facilities.
• High-efficiency dishwashers in kitchen areas, especially in restaurants and catering
facilities.
• Use of a cover in facilities that have large, open vessels of water.
• Efficient operation of cooling towers.
• Sanitation and cleaning practices in office buildings. Use of high-efficient plumbing
fixtures and appliances. Use of sensor activated or timed faucets.
• Use of plumbing fixtures, dishwashers and ice machines in restaurants. Servers offering
a glass of water on request, but not as an automatic service. Use sensor activated or
timed faucets. Reduce water in food preparation activities.
• Efficiencies for cooling water, food preparation, boilers and chillers in supermarkets.
• Plumbing fixtures, laundry facilities and ice machines in hotels and motels. Request
guests to reuse their towels and linens to reduce laundry needs.
• Efficiencies in cafeteria food preparation, plumbing fixtures, restrooms and locker rooms
in schools.
The report shall include a recommendation for each month’s indoor water budget allocation,
based on the audit and evaluation. In addition, effective June 1, 2008, the wastewater charge for
a customer who uses the CII efficiency standard water budget option will be based on each
accounts indoor water budget allocation or actual water used, whichever is lower, for the billing
period. If an account does not have an outdoor water budget allocation, wastewater charges will
be based on actual water used as measured by the water meter.
Attachment A: Water Budget Rules
Page 8
Requests by CII customers for a water budget adjustment application requesting use of the
efficiency standard water budget option, shall include a report prepared by a Colorado registered
professional engineer which documents and describes the evaluation and audit, including a
recommendation for the CII efficiency standard monthly water budget. The city manager or
his/her delegate will review and approve, revise or deny the water budget adjustment request
prior to its implementation and use. A fee will be charged to review the CII efficiency standard
water budget option request and its associated report pursuant to Section 4-20-43(c)(7) B.R.C.
1981, which establishes a technical document review fee for a miscellaneous plan review.
7. Water Budget Adjustments.
Water budget adjustments may be granted by the city manager or his/her delegate to insure that
the needs of the water utility customer are reasonably balanced against the purposes for this rule
in paragraph 2 above. The city manager or his/her delegate may consider the following:
• Number of people in household (more than four people may receive 1,000 gallons per
month per person) (single family accounts only and is renewable on an annual basis)
• Irrigable area square footage (landscaping area)
• Irrigable area of public ROW that customers are required to care for and maintain
• Number of dwelling units (multifamily accounts only)
• Number of bedrooms in a dwelling unit (multifamily accounts only). Dwelling units that
have more than two bedrooms may receive an additional 1,000 gallons per month, but the
total indoor allocation per dwelling unit may not exceed 7,000 gallons per month, which
is the equivalent of five bedrooms..
• Average Monthly Use (CII accounts only)
• Historical Monthly Use (CII accounts only)
• Indoor/Outdoor (CII accounts only)
• Efficiency Standard (CII accounts only)
• Licensed in-home childcare or eldercare facility
• Other (medical needs, etc.).
• Monthly budget allocation (CII PIF Custom accounts only)*
Customers shall submit a water budget adjustment application in order to have their request
considered by the city manager or his/her delegate. Information contained on the application
may be subject to an audit and, if necessary, additional documentation may be required in order
to substantiate the requested adjustment. This information is outlined on the water budget
adjustment application.
*Customers who have a PIF budget must submit their budget change request to Planning &
Development Services for approval.
When reviewing the water budget adjustment application, the city manager or his/her delegate
may consider the following information:
• Completeness of required documentation submitted with the Application
• Authenticity of supporting documents
Attachment A: Water Budget Rules
Page 9
• Duration of household size or medical need
• Historic water usage information for property
• Correct errors or changed circumstances
• Other factors relevant to making a determination, provided that the needs of the water
utility customer are balanced against the purposes for this rule in paragraph 2 above.
Water budgets will not be adjusted to accommodate:
• Pools, spas, or hot tubs
• In-home businesses or hobbies that use an increased amount of water
• Gardens (gardens are included in the initial calculation of irrigable area and will not be
the basis for additional water budget adjustments).
8. Water Budget Calculation Example – Single-Family Residential.
The single family residential water budget is the sum of an indoor and outdoor allocation. The
indoor allocation is 7,000 gallons per month.
The outdoor allocation is based on customer-specific irrigable area as provided by the city’s
geographical information system. This allocation changes monthly based on seasonal watering
needs. The annual outdoor allocation is calculated as follows:
• The first 5,000 square feet of irrigable area is allocated15 gallons of water per square foot
(gpsf)
• The next 9,000 square feet of irrigable area is allocated 12 gpsf
• All excess irrigable area gets 10 gpsf.
A customer with 14,400 square feet of irrigable area would have the following annual outdoor
allocation:
Irrigable Area (square feet) Gallons per Square Foot Total
Gallons
5,000 15 75,000
9,000 12 108,000
400 10 4,000
Annual Outdoor Allocation 187,000
The annual outdoor allocation is distributed throughout the year to meet changing monthly
seasonal outdoor watering needs. The table below shows the percentages by month that will be
applied to the annual outdoor allocation. These percentages were derived from historic ET data
(as displayed in paragraph 3, above).
Attachment A: Water Budget Rules
Page 10
Historic ET Rate
Month Share 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%
A customer with an annual outdoor allocation of 187,000 gallons would receive 20% (37,400
gallons) in June. This number will be rounded up to the nearest 1,000 gallon; therefore, this
customer would receive 38,000 gallons in June.
In June, this customer’s monthly water budget would be 45,000 gallons: the sum of the indoor
allocation (7,000 gallons) plus the outdoor allocation (38,000 gallons) 45,000 gallons.
If this customer used 70,000 gallons in June (budget is 45,000 gallons), the water usage would be
billed as follows:
Rate Block % of Budget Gallons per Rate Block Billed Water
Usage (gallons)
Block 1 0-60% of budget 0 – 27,000 27,000
Block 2 61-100% of budget 27,001 – 45,000 18,000
Block 3 101-150% of budget 45,001 – 68,000 23,000
Block 4 151-200% of budget 68,001 – 90,000 2,000
Block 5 over 201% of budget Over 90,000 0
The customer’s monthly bill uses the volume of water used in each rate block multiplied by the
rate ($) for each billing block to determine the treated water quantity charge component of the
monthly water bill.
Attachment A: Water Budget Rules
City of Boulder Public Works/Utilities
www.boulderwater.net
Water Budgets
Single Family Residential
Residential water budgets consist of two parts: an indoor allocation and an outdoor allocation. The
indoor allocation is set at 7,000 gallons per 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. As
customers use more water in relation to their water budgets, consumption moves up into higher
“blocks” as outlined below.
The outdoor allocation is based on customer-specific irrigable area as provided by the city’s
geographic 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.
Customers also pay a fixed service charge based on meter size. The service charge is based on the
size of the water meter, which varies based on the amount of water required at the location. For
example, most single family residential dwellings have a ¾ inch meter. Commercial or industrial
facilities may have a larger meter size depending on their water need.
Block
Quantity Charge
(per 1,000 gal)
2015 Rates
(per 1,000 gal)
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
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%
Service Charges
Meter Size
(Inches)
Inside
City
Outside
City
¾ $9.67 $14.51
1 $16.27 $24.40
1 ½ $35.04 $52.27
2 $61.38 $92.08
3 $136.54 $204.81
4 $241.76 $362.63
6 $542.52 $813.78
8 $963.56 $1,445.34
Attachement B: Rate Structure Informational Handouts
City of Boulder Public Works/Utilities
www.boulderwater.net
Water Budgets
Multifamily Residential
Residential water budgets consist of two parts: an indoor allocation and an outdoor allocation.
Multifamily residential accounts have a monthly indoor allocation of 4,000 gallons per dwelling unit. 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. As customers use more water in relation to their water budgets, consumption moves up into
higher “blocks” as outlined below.
The outdoor allocation is based on customer-specific irrigable area as provided by the city’s
geographic information system (GIS) and changes monthly using historic evapotranspiration (ET)
rates which correlate with seasonal watering needs. All irrigable area gets 15 gallons of water per
square foot.
Customers also pay a fixed service charge based on meter size. The service charge is based on the
size of the water meter, which varies based on the amount of water required at the location. For
example, most single family residential dwellings have a ¾ inch meter. Commercial or industrial
facilities may have a larger meter size depending on their water need.
Block
Quantity Charge
(per 1,000 gal)
2015 Rates
(per 1,000 gal)
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
Service Charges
Meter Size
(Inches)
Inside
City
Outside
City
¾ $9.67 $14.51
1 $16.27 $24.40
1 ½ $35.04 $52.27
2 $61.38 $92.08
3 $136.54 $204.81
4 $241.76 $362.63
6 $542.52 $813.78
8 $963.56 $1,445.34
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%
Attachement B: Rate Structure Informational Handouts
City of Boulder Public Works/Utilities
www.boulderwater.net
Water Budgets
Commercial/Industrial/Institutional (CII)
CII customers can choose from four different water budget options.
The four budget options are:
Average Monthly Use (AMU) - This is the default option. The AMU budget is calculated using
the historical average of 12 consecutive months of water use for that account, so that every
month's water budget is the same. Customers can now apply to change the timeframe used for
the 12-month average. (The default timeframe is January through December 2005.) If you feel
that the AMU used in calculating your water budget is incorrect, you can apply for an
adjustment. Please provide information explaining the reason for an adjustment along with a
new estimated AMU. This information will be used in conjunction with historical water usage in
reviewing the adjustment application. Budget adjustments for AMU do not expire.
Historical Monthly Use (HMU) - The HMU budget is calculated using a rolling three-month
average for each individual month. For example, the average of the past three Januarys’ use
would be next year's January budget.
Indoor/Outdoor - The Indoor/Outdoor budget 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 Average Winter Consumption (AWC), which is the
average water use for that account for December through March. The outdoor allocation is
calculated based on irrigable area, including right of way, and seasonal watering needs.
Efficiency-Standard - This option allows for a specific customized water budget. The
customer must hire a professional engineer to evaluate and recommend a personalized indoor
budget, which then must be reviewed and approved by the city. The customer will be charged
a fee for the city review.
As customers use more water in relation to their water budgets, consumption moves up into higher
“blocks” as outlined below.
Customers also pay a fixed service charge based on meter size.
Block
Quantity Charge
(per 1,000 gal)
2015 Rates
(per 1,000 gal)
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
Attachement B: Rate Structure Informational Handouts
City of Boulder Public Works/Utilities
www.boulderwater.net
Wastewater Charges
Wastewater charges are based on the quantity of indoor water use and a monthly service charge.
The quantity charge is based on Average Winter Consumption (AWC) of water, which is defined as
the average monthly amount of water used during the winter months of December through March.
Each month the wastewater quantity charge is billed based on your AWC or actual water use,
whichever is less.
Quantity charges are based on the following rate per 1,000 gallons of wastewater.
Inside City Outside City
$5.76 $8.64
Service charges are based on water meter size, which varies based on the amount of water required
at the location. For example, most single family residential dwellings have a ¾ inch meter.
Commercial or industrial facilities may have a larger meter size depending on their water need.
Meter Size (Inches) Inside City Outside City
¾ $1.43 $2.15
1 $2.51 $3.76
1 ½ $5.73 $8.60
2 $10.10 $15.15
3 $22.71 $34.07
4 $40.42 $60.63
6 $90.94 $136.40
8 $161.67 $242.50
Attachement B: Rate Structure Informational Handouts
City of Boulder Public Works/Utilities
www.boulderwater.net
Stormwater
& Flood Management Fees
The single family residential fee varies on the basis of parcel size as follows.
Parcel Size Monthly Fee
0- 15,000 square feet $13.46
15,000-30,000 square feet $16.82
30,000 or more square feet $20.20
The fees for all properties that are not single family residential are individually calculated. The formula
is constructed to be in proportion to the base rate assessed to single-family dwellings. The fee is
equal to the following.
(Total Site Area in square feet)(Runoff Coefficient)(Base Rate)
(7,000 square feet)(0.43)
A property’s runoff coefficient, for the purposes of the fee, is equal to the following:
(Total Impervious Area in square feet)(0.9) + (Total Pervious Area in square feet)(0.2)
Total Area
For example, a commercial property with a total area of 40,000 square feet, of which 20,000 square
feet are impervious and 20,000 square feet are pervious, would have a runoff coefficient of 0.55 and
would pay $98.38 per month, calculated as follows:
(40,000 square feet)(0.55)($13.46) = $98.38
(7,000 square feet)(0.43)
The 0.55 runoff coefficient in the above example is calculated as follows:
(20,000 sq. feet impervious area)(0.9)+(20,000 sq. feet pervious area)(0.2) = 0.55
(40,000 square feet total area)
Attachement B: Rate Structure Informational Handouts
City of Boulder
2016 Monthly Utility Charges and Water Service Fees
Service Charges Bulk Water & Metered Hydrant Rate
Meter Inside Outside $8.00 per 1000 gallons
Size City City
3/4"$10.44 $15.67
1"$17.57 $26.36
1 1/2"$37.84 $56.76
2"$66.29 $99.44
3"$147.46 $221.19
4"$261.10 $391.65
6"$585.92 $878.88
8"$1,040.64 $1,560.97
Quantity Charges/ 1000 gallons
Block 1 $2.76 Water usage up to 60% of monthly water budget
Block 2 $3.68 Water usage between 61-100% of monthly water budget
Block 3 $7.36 Water usage over monthly water budget up to 150% of monthly water budget
Block 4 $11.04 Water usage between 150-200% of monthly water budget
Block 5 $18.40 Water usage over 200% monthly water budget
Miscellaneous Charges
To terminate water service $33.00
To mail water service termination notice $14.00
To remove water meter $63.00
To reset water meter $55.00
To resume water service $31.00
To resume water service after 3:00 p.m.,$61.00
weekends or holidays
Special meter read $39.00
To test meter and meter tests accurate $50.00
To purchase water monitor $110.00
Service Charges Quantity Charges/ 1000 Gallons
Meter Inside Outside Inside Outside
Size City City City City
3/4"$1.50 $2.25 $6.05 $9.07
1"$2.64 $3.95
1 1/2"$6.02 $9.02
2"$10.61 $15.91
3"$23.85 $35.77
4"$42.44 $63.66
6"$95.49 $143.23
8"$169.75 $254.63
Monthly Water Charges
Monthly Wastewater Charges
Attachment C: 2016 Rates and Fees
Owners of single family dwellings within the city limits will pay the following stormwater charges:
Size of Parcel
up to 15,000 sq. ft.$14.00
15,000 to 30,000 sq.ft.$17.49
30,000 sq. ft. and up $21.01
The fee for all non-single family dwellings is individually calculated.
Monthly Stormwater and Flood Management Charges
Attachment C: 2016 Rates and Fees