HomeMy WebLinkAbout7 - Final recommendation of the Utilities 2008 Budget and CIPCITY OF BOULDER
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA 1TEM
MEETING DATE: June 28, 2007
AGENDA TITLE: Staff Presentation regarding the 2008 Proposed Utilities (Water, Wastewater
and Stormwater/ Flood Management) Budget including the 5-year Capital Improvement Program
(CIP) and the Monthly Ut~lity Rates and a Board Recommendation regarding the five-year CIP.
PRESENTERS:
Ned Williams, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bob Harberg, Utilities Planning & Project Management Coordinator
Carol Linn, Utilities Financial Manager
BOARD ACTION REQUESTED: A recommendaYion ta the C~ty's Planning Board and City
Council is requested concerning the Proposed Utilities Division 2008-2013 Capital Iinprovement
Program (CIP).
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
At the May 21, 2007 WRAB meeting, Staffpresented tbe preliminary 2008 proposed utilities
bud~et mcluding the five-year capital ~mprovement program and the projected increases for
monthly utility rates. Since that time, the operating budget (e.g. personnel costs) and transfers
have been updated and incorporated into the fund financials per tbe mty's budget guidelmes and
minor inodifications have been made to the 2008-2013 capital improvement program (CIP).
W~th these changes, the proposed rate mcreases for 2008 have re~nained the satne for wastewater
and stonnwater and the proposed rate inerease for water has been adjusted from 5°/o to 4%.
Attached is information conceming the Proposed 2008 Utilities Budget and the 2008-2013
Utilities Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Attachments A through C are the fund fiuancials
and CIP for each utility (Water, Wastewater and Storinwater and Flood Management).
Attachmcnt D in an overv~ew memo of the Utihties CIP and Attachment E shows the staffing
]evels for Utilities prograins.
Fiscal Impacts: The followmg percentage increases in additional revenue from inonthly utility
fees are recommended for 2008 to fund the proposed budget and caprtal improvements program.
Page 1
Water 4%
Wastewater 3%
Stormwater/ Flood Management 3%
Board Feedback: The preliminary 2008 Utilities budget and 2008-2013 CIP were presented to
the WRAB on May 21, 2007. Staff is asking that WRAB review the proposed 2008-2013 CIP
and to provide a board recommendation on the proposed plan.
Public Feedback: No one from the public spoke at the May 21 meeting on this item. A public
hearing is scheduled for the June 28 meeting.
Staff Recommendation: Approva] of a motion for tbe proposed 2008-2013 CIP that can be
forwarded to the Planning Board and City Council.
2008 PROPOSED BUDGET HIGHLIGHTS:
Monthlv Utilitv Rates
The Urilities Division's mission is to provide quality water services, as desired by the
community, in a manner which emphasizes efficient management of fiscal and natural resources,
and protects human and environmental health. Each of the city's three utilities (water,
wastewater and stormwater/flood management) is a separate enterprise fund established to
finance and account for the acquisition, operation and mamtenance of each utiliry's facilities and
services while maintaining designated reserves and meeting debt servtce requirements.
The utiliry funds receive the ma~onty of their revenues from monthly utiliry charges. The 2008
proposed budget reflects the following rate increases (last year's estimate for 2008 are included
in parenthesis):
Water 4% (10%)
Wastewater 3% (4%)
Stormwater/ Flood Management 3% (3%)
The proposed increascs would increase the annual utiliry bill for a rypical residentia] custoiner
by about $23.00 or $1.92 per ~nonth. The increase for water was able to be reduced from 10%
to 4% pr~marily because of the collection of about $3 million in excess revenue in 2006,
reduction of the undesignated reserve level and the recent refunding of two bond issues which
resulted m lower annual debt payments.
Potential Chanees in the Water Rate Structure
During 2007, potential changes to the water rate structure will be considered and include:
I. Evaluate if outdoor water allocations are needed for tl~e winter inonths (Dec, Jan and
Feb) for single-family residential customers.
Pagc 2
2. Evaluate if changes to the indoor allocat~on for single-family residential customers (7,000
gallons/month) are needed.
3. Evaluate if changes to the indoor allocation for multi-family residential customers (4,000
gallons/month/unit) are needed.
4. Evaluate changes to commercial/industr~al water budgets.
Any changes to the water rate structure would also include an analysis on the impacts to
water revenues, monthly utility rates and the proposed 2008 rate increase.
Additions to Operatina Budeet
In addition to a 2 percent inflationary increase for nonpersonnel expenditures (per the city
budget guidelines), the following operating budget additions are being proposed for the 2008
budget.
Add. Stormwater/
Empl Water Wastewater Flood Mngtnnt Total
WaterResources-Platte n/a $71,000 $71,000
River Endangered Species
Assessment
Water Treatment - Energy n/a 35,000 35,000
Costs
Windy Gap Payments - n/a 240,000 240,000
Add( Operating
Assessment
Wastewater Treatment n/a 506,000 506,000
Plant Improvements -
Ener and Chemical costs
Total n/a $346,000 $506,000 $0 $852,000
All of these additions are ongoing that would increase the annual operating expenditures for the
associated utility on an ongoing basis. These additions are currently incorporated into tbe fund
financials and woufd be funded as part of the proposed revenue inereases. At tl~e May WRAB
meeting two other additions had been identified: utiliry maintenance fuel costs in the Water fimd
($ I 1,000 ongoing) and an EPA Data Collection effort in the Stonnwater/Flood Manageinent
fund ($60,000 one-time). Staff has since determined that these can be funded within the base
budget and ~s no longer proposing these be budget additions.
Reserves
Late in 2006, the city had contracted with Red Oak Consultmg to conduct a review of the various
financial reserves and reserve levels for each of the city's three utilities. This included a survey
of the reserve policies of ten other utilities. The findings of the study were presented Yo the
WRAB in January 2007. Based on the study fiudmgs, consultanYs recommendation and the
WRAB's mput, staff has modified the reserve practices of each urility. The 2008-2013 fund
Page 3
financial for each utility shows a 25% operating reserve (increased from 20%) and a separate
capital reserve. The capital reserve is set based on the minimum annual renewal and
replacement capital costs. The capital reserves are initially established at: Water -$2,000,000;
Wastewater - $500,000 and Stormwater/Flood Management - $200,000.
CapiCal Improvement Proeram
Please refer to Attachment D, the CIP Overview Memo, for summary information regarding the
Urilities CIP.
Schedule
The current schedule of major budget milestones is provided below. Elements involving the
WRAB are highlighted in bold italics.
Milestone
Date
Public Hearing/ WRAB Recommendation on CIP June 28, 2007
Deparhnental Budget Review by City Manager June 25-July 20, 2007
CIP Submitted to Planning Board July 7, 2007
Planning Board CIP Hearing July 19, 2007
Check in w/City Council on Budget (if needed) July 31, 2007
City Council Study Session on Budget August 28, 2007
City Council Study Session on Budget (if needed) Sep[. ll, 200 %
City Council Consideration/Adoption of Budget October 2007
Attachment A: Water - Fund Financial and Capital Improvement Program
Attachment B: Wastewater - Fund Financial Capital Improvement Program
Attachment C: Stormwater/ Flood Management - Fund Financial and Capital Improvement
Program
Attachment D: C1P Overview Memo
Attachment E: Utiliry Staffing Levels
Page 4
Attachment A
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R
CITY OF BOULDE R 19-Jun-07 i
200 8 FUND FINANC IAL -Draft-
WA TER UTILITY FU ND
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
ACTUAL REVISED RECOMMENDED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
UNAPPROPRIATED FUND BALANCE
Beginning of Year Fund Balance $31,414,234 $52,157,441 $37,753,947 $33,674,021 $26,984,167 $25,637,785 $26,300,240 $25,628,362
SOURCES OF FUNDS
O eratin -
Sale of Water to General Cust $19.087,162 J $19,890,200 $21,922,829 $24,163,192 $27,116,750 $27,714,254
Proected Rate Increase $763,486 4% $1,989,02D 10% $2,192,283 10% $2,899,583 12% $542,335 2% $554,285 2%
Bulk/lrri ation Water Sales $97,500 $99,500 $100,000 I $102.000 $103,000 $103,000
H droeiectric Revenue $2,000,000 $1,895,000 $1,790,000 i $1,790,000 $1,790,000 $1,790,000
Miscellaneous O ratin Revenues $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 i $25,000 ~ $25,000 $25,000
TOTA~ OPERATING SOURCES OF FUNOS $21,973,149 $23,898,720 $26,030,112 $28,979,775 $29,577,085 $30,186,539
I
Non-Operatin - ' i
Plant Investment Fees $2.500,000 , $2,500,000 I __ $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000
Connection Cha es $165,000 $165,000 $165,000 $165,000 $165,000 $165,000
S cial Assessments $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
State & Federal Grants $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Interest on Investments $1,755.559 , $1,346,961 $1,079,367 $1,025,511 $1,052,010 $1,025,134
Rent, assessments and other misc revenues $17,500 $17,500 $17,500 $18,500 $18,500 $18,500 '
Sale of Real Estate - Yards Maste lan $0 $D $D $0 $0 $0
Transfer from the General Fund - Fire Trainin Cent $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 $130,000 5130,000 $130,000
Extraordina Revenues - Lakewood Settiement $0 $D $0 $0 $0 $0
Projected Bond Proceeds $0 $28,235,000 $0 $0 I $5,085,000 $0
TOTAL NON-OPERATING SOURCES OF FUNDS $4,573,059 $32,399,461 $3,896,867 $3,844,011 $8,955,510 $3,843,634
~
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS E48,006,004 E51,133,54fi 526,546,207 556,298,181 i29,926,978 532,823,T86 538,532,595 ' i34,~30,173
USES OF FUNDS
O~ratin Ex nditures-- ~ ~
~
.
_
.
.-
-
--
Administration $543,361 $881,926 $856,607 $882,305 $908,774 ; $936,038 -
_
$964,119 .
.
-
$993,042
Ptannin ag nd Pro'ect Mana ement $454,175 I $560,345 $577,890 $595,227 i $613,084 ! $631,476 $650,420 $669,933
Water Resources and H droelectric O eretions $1,913,030 $1,788,269 $1,863,384 $1,919,286 I $1,976,864 ~ $2,036,170 $2,097,255 $2,160,173
WaterTreatment $3,805,353 $3,922,548 $4,021,000 $4,141,630 $4,265,879 , $4,393,855 $4,525,677 $4,661,441
Water Quali & Environmental Svcs $751,442 $752,691 $785,509 $809,074 $833,346 ~ $858,347 $8&4,097 $910,620
WaterConservation $376,393 5446,648 $453,100 $466,693 $480,694' $495,115 $509,968 $525,267
S stem Maintenance $2,252,557 $2,859,246 $3,006,434 $3,096,627 $3,189,526' $3,285,212
~ $3,383,768 $3,485,281
Com ensation Ad'ustment $0 $0 $48,028 $49,589 $51,201 $52,86 $54,583 $56,357
Wind Ga Pa ment $2,118,387 $2,108,314 $2,198,779 ' $2,210,367 $2,224,916 $2,238,285 $2,253,788 $2,268,610
Pro osed Action Plan Ad'ustments
I
Wind Ga Pa ment $0 $0 $240,000 $247,200 $254,616
, ' $262,254 $270,122 $278,226
PlatteRiverAssessments $0 $0 $71,000 $73,13o $75,324 ~ $77,584 $79,911 $82,308 ,
Water Treatment Ener Costs $0 $0 $35,000 $36,050 $37,132 $38,245 $39,393 $40,575 ~
Emer~e~_Reseroe $0 $330,000 $360;000 $370,800 ' _ $381,924 $393,382 $405,183 $417,339
SickNacation Accrual $93,512 $100,000 $100,000 $703,OOD $106,090 $109,273 $112,551 $1'15,927
TOTAL OPERATING l1SES OF FUNDS $12,121,126 $13,749,987 $14,616.731 i $15,000,978 $15,399,369 $15,808,099 $16,230,829 $16,665,099
Debt--
BRWTP 1 996 Revenue Bond; Refundin in 2005 $850,713 $851,520 $845,302 $843,810 $844,505 ~ $848,752 $854,690 $854,438
Silver Lake 1999 Revenue Bond $1,238,170 $232,330 ' $0 _ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Barked AMR/ Caribou 2000 Revenue 8ond $2,273,436 $396,999 $0 ~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Refundin of the 1999 and 2000 Revenue Bonds $0 $31,893,155 I $3,258,354 $3,257,654 $3,253,354 $2.507,921 $2,5o6,088 $2,511,421
Lakewood Pi eline 2001 Revenue Bond $2,181,069 $2,180,919 $2,178,969 $2,180,202 $2,174,452 $2,171,885 i $2,172,302 $2,175,502
ArbiVa e Payment $0 $0 i $13,352 $0 $0 ~ $0 ~ $0 $0
Projected Bond-Boulder Res WTP Improvements $0 $0 $0 $285,000 $285,000 $285,000 $285,D00 $285,000
Pro'ectl ed Bond-NCWCD Conveyance Line $0 $0 $0 $2,285,000 $2,285,000 $2,285,000 $2,285,000 $2,285,000
Pro ected Bond-Betasso WTP Im rovements $0 $Q $0 $0 $0 $0 $465,000 $465,000
TOTAL OEBT SERVICE $6,543,328 $35,554,923 $6,295,977 $8,851,666 $8,842,311 $8,098.558 $8,568,080 8,576,361
Transfers Out-
CostAllocation $1,043,443 $1,105,108 $1,149,406 $1,195,382 $1,314,920 ' $1,446,412 $1,591,053 $1,750,159
68 Plannin & Develo ment Services $167,800 $172,834 i $178,019 $183,360 $188,860 I $194,526 $200,362 $206,373
OtherTransfers $10,000 . $10,000 i $15,000 $15,450 $15,914 ! $16,391 $16,883 $17,389
TOTAL TRANSFERS OUT $1,221,243 i $1,287,942 $1,342,425 $7,394,192 $1,519,694 $1,657,329 $1,H08,298 $1,973,921
Ca ital Im rovements Pro ram-
TOTAL CAPITAL USES OF FUNDS $6,041,221 $5,950,000 $8,775,000 $9,980,000 $6,000,000 $7,100,000 $8,030,000 $6,400,000
LAKEWOOD PIPELINE - 60ND $1,242,367 $0 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0
PROJECTED BOND - BRWTP IMP $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
PROJECTED BOND - NCWCD CONVEYANCE $0 $0 $0 $25,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0
PROJECTED BOND - BETAS50 WTP IMP $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000,000 $0
PROJECTED BONDS - ISSUANCE COSTS $0 $0 $0 $235,000 $0 $0 $85,000 $0
ENCUMBRANCES, CARRYOVERS & MID-YRATB's $0 $9,424,188 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS 527,169,285 565,967,040 E31,030,133 563,461,835 a31,761,374 532,663,986 539,722,207 ;33,615,381
Eme en ReserveAd'ustment $0 $330,000 $304,000 $370,800 $381,924 $393,382 $405,183 $41T,339
SicklVacation Accrual Ad ustment $93,512 $100,000 $100,00o $103,000 $1o6,09D $109,273 $112,551 $115,927
FUND BALANCE - END OF YEAR ;52,157,441 537,753,947 $33,6T4,021 ;26,984,1B7 525,637,785 526,300,240 525,628,362 526,576,420
i
Desi nated Reserves - i
Bond Reserves $6,270,103 $3,068,830 'i $3,068,830 $3,068,830 $3,068,830 $3,068,830 $3,068,830 $3,068,830
Lakewood Pi line Remediation Reserve $15,283,877 $14,891,793 ~ $15,473,648 $14,036,810 $14,681,658 $15,356,131 $12,993,453 $13,590,370 ~
Lakewood/USFS Damage Claims Reserve $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 I $100,000 $100,000
Vacation/Sick/Bonus Liabili $588,974 $606,643 $624,843 $643,588 $662,895 $682,782 $703,266 $724,364
Pay Period 27 - 2013 Reserve $0 $40,280 $80,560 $111,560 $142,560 $173,560 $204,560 $235,564
TOTAL RESERVES $22,242,954 $18,707,546 ', $19,347,88~ $17,960,788 $18,655,943 $19,381,303 $17,070,109 $17,719,124
SURPLUS! DEFICIT vs. DESIGNATED RESERV 529,914,487 519,046,401 E14,326,141 59,023,379 j6,981,842 56,918,936 I 58,558,253 $8,857,296
OPERATING RESERVE~GoaL• 25% of 0 eraGn 53,335,592 E3,759,482 53,989,789 54,098,792 ;4,229,766 54,366,357 E4,509,782 ¢~,659,755
CAPITAL RESERVE (GoaL y2,000,000) 52,000,000 SZ,000,000 SZ,000,000 52,OOD,DDO S2,OOD,ODO ' S2,000,000 ~ 52,000,000 . 52 000,000
SURPWS!(DEFICIT) vs. ALL RESERVES 524,578,895 513,286,918
- _ $8,336,352 52,924,587 5752,076 5552,579 5~,048,471 52,197,541
-- _.. -' __ _
-~ .
- - - -
" Reserve levels are based on indust standards and are maintained for revenue bonds, revenue fluctuations weather and water usa e i m ac ---
ts and the ca ital intensive nature of the uti lit .
$21.263,897 $18,311,744
$0 3% $732,470 4%
$122,533 $72,100
$2,130,770 $2,000,000
$30,676 $47,500
$23,547,876 $21,163,814
I
$2,743,297 $2,500,000
$179,853 $150,000
$5,706 $10,000
$4,035 $11,924
$2,011,351 i $850,000
$13,886 I $16,500
$0 $250,000
$0 $130,000
$19,500,000 I $0
$0 $26,051,308
$24,458,128 $29,969,732
Attachment A
A B C D E F G H I J K
CITY OF BOULDER 19Jun-07
_
2008 - 2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
WATER UTILITY FUND
PROJECT NAME 2006
ACTUAL 2007
REVISED 2008
RECOMMENDED 2609 2010
PROJECTED I PROJECTED 2011
PROJECTED 2012
PROJECTED 2013
PROJECTED
TOTAL
Treated Water Pressure Reducin and H droele ctric Facilities
Maxwell H dro/PRV Station 411342 i $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Kohler H dro/PRV Station 411376 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sunshine Hydro/PRV Station 411328 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Orodell H dro/PRV Station 411331 $6,116 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,116
Sunshine H dro/PRV Station 411347 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $D
Peart Street H drolPRV Station $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
Subtotal - Treated Water PRV and H dro $6,116 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $0 $0 I $0 $206,116
_
I
Water Treatment Facilities
Betasso WTP 411947 $702.608 $4,537,660 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $6,040,268
Betasso WTP - Bond Proceeds $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000,000 $0 $5,000,000
Bond Issuance Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $85,0~0 $0 $85,000
Boulder Reservoir WTP 411652 $69,108 $245,294 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $614,402
Boulder Res WTP - Bond Proceeds $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000
Subtotal - Water Treatment Facilities $771.716 $4,782,954 $400,000 $3,100,D00 $100,000 $500,000 $5,085,000 $0 $14,739,670
25 Treated Water Pum Stations
Cher ale Pum Station 411010 $0 $0 $50,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $550,000
Boulder Reservoir Hi h Service Pum Station 411011 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $D $0
Iris Pum Station 411012 $0 $0 $100,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,100,000
Subtotal -Treated Water Pum Stations $0 $0 $150,000 $1,500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,650,000
Treated Water Stora e Tanks '
Kohler Stora e Tank 411671 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000
Chautauqua Stora e Tank 411672 $0 $2D0,000 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $U $0 $700,000
Maxwell Stora e Tank 411673 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Betasso Stora e Tank $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $250,000
Gun6arrel Stora e Tank 411670 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000
Devil's Thumb Storage Tank 411674 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $D $0 $0
Boulder Reservoir Stora e Tank ~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000
Booten Stora e Tank $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal - Treated Water Store e Tanks ~ $0 $400,000 $500,000 $0 $250,000 $0 $0 $100,000 $1,250,000
Distribution S stem RehabilitaUon I
Zone Isolation Valves 411390 $124,565 $5,184 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $129,749'
Cathodic Pro;ection $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000
Waterline Re lacement 411389 $1,789,517 ~ $2,650,247 $3 000,000 53,000,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 S3,500,000 I ~3,500,000 $23,939,764
Subtotal - Distribution S stem $1,914,082 $2,655,431 $3,100,D00 $3,100,000 $3,000,000 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $3,500,000 $24,269,513
Treated Water Transmission S stem
I
Boulder Can on - Fourmile to Pearl 411666 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Sunshine Transmission Pi e $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $500,~00 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000
Betasso to Orodell Transmission Pi I $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $250,000
Zone 1 Transmission Facilities 411002 $5,356 $0 $0 $0 $0 ~ $0 $0 $500,000 $505,3561
Zone 2 Transmission Faciiities 411004 $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000
Zone 3 Transmission Facilities 411005 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000
Boulder Can on - Orodell to Fourmile $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $500,000 $0 $0 I $550,000
Zone 2 / Zone 3 Pressure Modifications 411003 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal - Treated Water Transmission S stem $5,356 $0 $500,000 $750,000 $1,050,000 $500,000 $0 $500,000 $3,305,356
i
Source Water Trensmission S stem I
Lakewood Pi eline 411780 $93,745 $149,373 $100,000 52,100,000 $0 $0 $3,000,000 $0 $5,443,118
Lakewood Pi eline - Non-Conformin Pi e Ca 411788 $53,958 $7,080 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61,038
Lakewood Pi eline - Non-Conformin Pi
Ope 411790 $388,717 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $388,717
_
Lakewood Pi eline Welds 411792 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Lakewood Pi eline SettlemenV Liti atlon 411795 $1,237,493 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,237,493
Lakewood Pi eline - Bond Proceeds 2001 415790 ' $1,242,367 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,242,367
Silver Lake Pi eline 411640 $U $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Source Water Transmission Pi e Ins ections $0 $0 $0 $80,000 $0 $0 $80,000 $0 $160,000'
Subtotal-SourceWaterTransmissionS stem $3,016,280 $1,156,453 $100,000 $2,180,000 $0 $0 $3,080,000 $0 $9,532,733
Barker Water S stem
Barker Gravi Pi eline Re air 411106 $491,207 $928,334 $750,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $7,169,541
Barker-Kossler Penstock Re air 411107 $343,751 $619,407 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $963,158
Barker Dam Outlet 411109 $48,523 $145,422 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,193,945
Barker Dam Outlet - Bond Proceeds $0 $0 $0 $0 30 $0 $0 $0 $0
Barker Dam Resurface 411110 $6,055~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,055
Barker H dro S stem Inte ration 411111 $171,354 ~ $1,122,354 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $1,493,708
Barker Relicensin 411112 $81,867 $391,020 $1,800,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,272,887
Barker Instream Flow Release 411114 $8,067 $66,933 $0 30 $0 $0 $0 $0 $75,000
Boulder Can on to Betasso Pi eline I $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Barker Source Water Protection $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal - Barker Water S stem $1,150,824 $3,273,470 $2,550,000 $2,000,000 $1,050,000 $1,050,000 $1,050,000 $2,050,000 $14,174,294
83 Raw Water Stora e Reservoirs
Albion Dam $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $150,000
Silver Lake Dam $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Island Lake Dam $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Green Lake 1 Dam $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Green Lake 2 Dam 411627 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,D00 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $1,100,000
Green Lake 3 Dam $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Goose Lake Dam 411612 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Boulder Reservoir Dam $0 $0 $Q $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Lakewood Reservoir Dam 411981 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 $0 $0 $250,000
Subtotal - Raw Water Stora e Reservoirs $0 $0 $0 ! $0 $100,000 $1,250,000 $150,000 $0 $1,500,000
95 Other Raw Water Facllities
Farmer's Ditch 411550 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Anderson Ditch 411883 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Instream Flow Structures and Ga in 411549 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $0 $0 $50,000
Como Creek Diversion Structure 411548 $4,689 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,689
Lakewood Diversion Structure $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Silver Lake Diversion Structure $0 $0 j $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
NCWCD Conve ance - Boulder Feeder Canal 411546 $82,565 $439,388 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $356,823
NCWCD Conve ance - Carter Lake Pi eline 411547 $0 $250,000 ~1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $U $0 $1,250,000
Bond Issuance Costs i $0 $0 $0 $235,000 ~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $235,000
NCWCD Conve ance - Bond Proceeds
Subtotal - Other Raw Water Facilities $0
$77,876 $0
$689,388 $0
$1,000,000 $25.OQ0,000
$25,235,000 $0
$0 $0
$50,000 $0
$0 $0
$0 $25,000,000
$26,896,512
108 Source Water Pressure Reducin , Pum in and H droelectric
Lakewood H droelectric 411801 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Silver Lake H_ydroelectric 411970 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Boulder Reservoir Intake and Pum in 411655 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 ~ $100,000
Betasso H dro PRV Station 411974 $0 $215,826 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $215,826
Subtotal - Source Water PRV, Pum in and H d ro $0 $215,826 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $315,826
115 Water Distribution System Ex ansion
Annexation Related Water S stem Ex ansion 411433 $0 $525,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $525,000
Subtotal - Water Distribution S stem Expansion $0 $525,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $525,000
119 Water S stem Monitorin and Meterin
Automated Meter Readin 411454 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Water S stem Securi U rades 411440 $88,291 $209,265 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100.oo0 $897,556
Distribution S stem Water Quali 411425 $66,347 $260,935 $150,000 $150,D00 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $1,227,282
Data Communications S stem 411435, $0 i $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $D $0 $0
Yards Master Plan Implementation 411039 $723 $499,278 $225,000 I $0 $0 $0 $~ $0 $725,001
Utili Billin Com uter S stem Re lacemenl 411453 $341,728 $197.380 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $539,108
Subtotal - Water S stem Monitorin and Meterin $497,089 $1,166,858_ $475,000 $250,000 $25~,000 $250,000 $250,D00 $250,000 $3,388,947
~
TOTAL CAPITAL USES OF FUNDS $7,283,587 $14,865,380 $8,775,000 ~38,215,000 $6,000,000 $7,100,000 $13,115,000 $6,400,D00 $101,753,967
Attachment B
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R
~ CITY OF BOULDER 19Jun-07
i 2008 FUND FINANCIAL - Draft-
WASTEWATER FUND
2006
ACTUAL 2007
REVISED 2008
RECOMMENDED 2009
PROJECTED 2010
PROJECTED 2011
PROJECTED 2012
PROJECTED 2013
PROJECTED
UNAPPROP RIATEU FUND BALANCE
Beginning of Year Fund Balance $58,066,163 $44,101,976 $10,992,065 $9.631,352 $8,040,045 $4,720,970 $4,763,259 $4,695,T78
SOURCES OF FUNDS
O eratin - _ --
Sewer Char es to General Customers $11,886,243 $11,775,070 $12,506,537 $12,907,497 $13,321,311 $74,682,749 $15,889,084 i $16,876,714
Pro ected Rate Increase $0 20°~ $706,504 ~ 6% $375,196 3% $387,225 3% $1,332,131 10% $1,174,620 8% $953,345 6% $506,283 3%
Surchar el Pretreatment Fees $127,243 $120,500 $131,000 $137,000 $131,000 $131,000 $131,000 $131,000
Co eneration Revenues $78,128 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $50,000 $80,000 $80.000 $50,000
TOTAL OPERATING SOURCES OF FUNDS $12,091,614 $12,682,074 $13,092,733
- $13,505,722 $14,864,442 $16,068,369 $17,053,429 $17,593,397
•
-
Non-0 eratin -
Plant Investment Fees $491,189 $420,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000 $450,000
Connection Char es $15,977 $11,500 $11,500 $11,500 $11,500 $11,500 ~ $11,500 $11,500
S cial Assessments
Interest on Investments
Rent and other miscellaneous revenue $4,220
$2,254,268
$26,603 1 $20,000
$380,000
$27,500 $5,000
$511,131
$28,500 $5,000
$385,254
$29,500 $5,000
$321,602
_ $31,500 $5,000
$188,839
$32,500 $5,000
$190,530
$34,5Q0 $5,000
$187,831
$36,500
Sale of Real Estate - Yards Maste lan $0 $125,000 $0 $0 SO $0 $0 $0
Pro'ected Bond - VWVfP Imp! Biosolids Di ester
TOTAL NON-OPERATING SOURCES OF FUNDS $0
$2,792,257 $0
$984,000 $0
$1,006,131 I $0
$881,254 $13,205,000
$14,024,602 $0
$687,839 $0
$691,530 $0
$690,831
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS 314,883,871 573,666,074 514,098,865 S14,386,976 SZ8~889~044 516,756,208 $17,744,959 578,284,228
USES OF FUNDS
0 eratin Ex nditures-
Administration
Plannin andProectMana emeM $351,803
$200,556 $505,244
$323,974 $465,237
$331,248 $479,194
$341,186 $493,570
$351,422 $508,377
$361,965 $523,628
$372,824 $539,337
$384,008
Wastewater Qualit & Environmental Svcs $810,675 ~ $833,738 $862,119 $887,983 $914,622 $942,061 $970,323 $999,432
S stem Maintenance $1,257,647 ~ $1,529,994 $1,602,495 $1,650,570 $1,700,087 $1,751,090 $1,803,622 $1,857,731
WastewaterTreatment $3,979,521 ' $4,445,351 $4,720,982 $4,862,611 $5,008,490 $5,158,744 $5,313,507 $5,472,912
Com nsation Ad'ustment $0 $0 $29,084 $30,029 $31,005 $32,013 $33,053 $34,127
Pro osed Action Plan Ad ustments- '
WVYfP Im rovements
WVVfP Im rovements - 2010 Im rovements $0
$U $0
$0 $506,000
$0 $521,180
$0 $536,815
$0 $552,920
$210,000
~_ $569,507
$216,300 $586,593
$222,789
WWTP Biosolids Di ester $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $65,000 $66,950 $68,959
Emer enc Reserve $0 $240,000 $250,000 $257,500 I $265,225 , $273,182 $281,377 $289,819
SickNacation Accrual $53,260 $75,000 $75,000 $77,250 $79,568 i $81,955 $84.413 $86,946
TOTAL OPERATING USES OF FUNDS $6,653,462 $7,953,301 $8,842,166 $9,107,504 $9,380,804 ' i $9,937,306 $10,235,505 $70,542,652
Debt-
VJWTP Im rovements 2005 Revenue Bond
2005 Refundin of the 1992 Marshall Landfill Bonc
Arbitra e Pa ment
Pro ected Bond - WWTP Biosolids Di ester
Pro ected Bond - VWVfP Improvements $3,504,466
$168,713
$0
$0
$0
I $3,574,833
$169,621
$0
$0
$0 $3,565,944
$170,057
$30,583
$0
$0 $3,557,523
$170,331
$0
$0
$0 $3,556,583
$165,456
$0
$285,000
$920,000 $3,550,367
_ _ $165,568
$0
$285,000
$920,000 $3,546,533
$175,454
$0
$285,000
$920,000 $3,544,883
$0
$0
5285,000
5920,000
~
' _
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE $3,673,179 $3,744,454 $3,766,5&4 $3,727,854 $4,927,039 $4,920,935 $4,926,987 $4,749,883
Transfers Out- '
CostAllocation $736,024 $756,926 $787,268 $818,758 $900,634 $990,697 $1,089,767 $1,198,744
Plannin & Develo ment Services $168,310 $173,360 $178.560 $183,917 $189,435 $195,118 $200,972 $207,001
TOTAL TRANSFERS OUT $904,334 $930,286
~ $965,828 $1,002,675 $1,090.069 $1,185,815 i $1,290,739 $1,405,745
I -- j -
Ca ital Im rovements Pro ram- ~
TOTAL CAPITAL USES OF FUNDS $1,124,219 $950,000 $2,210,000 $2.475,000 $3,950,000 $1,025,000 $1,725,000 $1,375,000
BOND-WWTP IMPROVEMENTS $16,546,124 $29,669,048 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
PROJECTED BOND-BIOSOLIDS DIGESTER $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $0
PROJECTED BOND-W1NTP IMPROVEMENTS $0 $0 30 $0 $10,000,000 $0 $0 $0
BOND - ISSUANCE COSTS $0 $0 $0 $0 $205,000 $0 $0 $0
CARRYOVERS, ENCUMBRANCES & MID-YR ATBs $0 $3,843,896 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
- I
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS 528,901,318 547,090,985 515,784,578 516,313,033 532,552,912 517,069,056 518,178,231 518,073,280
Emer enc ReserveAd'ustment
SickNacation Accrual Ad'ustment $0
$53.260 $240,000
$75,000 $250,000
$75,000 $257,500
$77,250 $265,225
$79.568 $273,182
$81,955 $281,377
$84,413 $289,819
$86,946
FUND BALANCE - END OF YEAR 344,101,976 S10,992,065 $9,631,352 i8,040,Od5 54,720,970 54,763,259 54,695,7T8 55,283,490
--
Designated Reserves - I
Bond Reserves $170,250 j $170,250 $170,250 $170,250 $170,250 $170,250 $170,250 $170,250
SickNacation/Bonus Liabili $623,645 $642,354 $661,625 $681,474 $701,918 $722,975 $744,665 $767,005
Pa Period 27 - 2013 Reserve $0 $29,580 $59,160 $83J60 $108,360 ~ $132,960 $157,560 $182,160
TOTAL RESERVES $793,895 $842,184 , $891,035 $935,484 $980,528 ' i $1,026,185 $1,072,475 $1,119,415
---
L
~ -- ,
I - - -- --
.
_
I -
SURPLUS! DEFICIT~s. DESIGNATED RESERVE 343,308,081 $10,149,881 58,740,377 E7,104,561 $3,740,442 $3,737,073 53,623,303 $4,164,075
OPERATING RESERVE (Goal:25% of Operating) "; $1,889,449 ~ $2,220,897 g2,451,999 $2,527,545 52,617,718 52,780,780 52,881,561 =2,987,099
CAPITAL RESERVE (Goal: $500,000) I $500,000 i $500,000 5500,000 S500,000 5500,000 5500,000 $500,000 $500,000
SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) vs. ALL RESERVES b40,918,632 $7,428,984 55,788,318 54,077,017 $622,724 5456,293 5241,742 E676,976
I
' Reserve levels are based on indust standards and are maintained for revenue bonds, revenue fluctuations weather and water usa e im acts and the ca ital intensive nature of the utilit~
Attachment B
A B C D E F G H I J K
~ CI7'Y OF BOULDER , _ _ 19JunA7 {
Q 2008 - 2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM i
3 WASTEWATER UTILITY FUND __ I
~
2006 2007 2008 20D9 2010 2011 2012
I 2013
PROJECT NAME ACTUAL ! RECOMMENDED, PROJECTE~ PROJECTED I
REVISED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED TOTAL
I
WastewaterTreatment '
-
WWTP Pum s 421339 $0 I
- --; -
$0 $0 $0 $0
-
$~00,000 $0 _ ___ _ _
-----
$0 $~00,000
WNlfP Permit Impravements 421617 , $0 $154,341 $200,OU0 $1.000,~00 ~ $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $1,554,341
Lower Boulder Creek Enhancement 421661 $0 $~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 __ 50
VNNfP Headworks 421U03 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 ' $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000
WWTP Instrumentation/Control 421437 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
WWTP Electrical 421439 $0 $0 i $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,600 $100,000
WWTP Tricklin Filters 421001 I $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 _
$0 $0 $0 $0
WW iP Solids Contact 42135T i $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000
W1ArfP Primary Clarifiers 421005 $0 $0 $0 _
~
$0 I $0 $0 $300,000 $0 $300,000
WWTP Secondary Clarifiers 421006 $170,837
VWVfP Effluent Outfall Relocation I 421441 $0 _ $0 $0
$0 $0 $150,000
$0 $0
$0 $0 $0
$0 $0 _ $0 $320,837
$0 50
WWfP Permit Improvements - Projected Bond 425xxx $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000,000 $0 ! $0 $0 $10,000,000
WWTP Permit Improvements - Bond Proceeds 423900 $16,546,124
Bond Issuance Costs ~ 423998 ! $0
Subtotal - Wastewater Treatment Plant $16,716,961 ~
$29,669,048 $0
$0 $0
$30,023,389 $260,000 $0
$0
$1,150,000 $D
$205,000
$10,205,000 $0 ~ $0
$0 $0
$100,000 $300,000 $0 $46,215,172
$0 I $205,000
$3~0,000 I $58,995,350
Marshall Landfill I I
Marshall Landfill $0 $0 $0 $0 ! $100.000 ' $0 I $0 $0 $100,000
Subtotal - Marshall Landflll $0 $0 $0 $0 i $10Q000 $0 I $0 $0 $100,DD0
Biosolids Recyclin
-
--
- -
Biosalids Compostin~ ~ 421675 $0 $716,334 ~ $U $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $716,334
- - - - -
Biosolids Handlin 8 Dewaterin I 421670 $0 -
$985,654 $1,200,000 -
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,185,654
WV~ffP Biosolids Digester 421671 ' $85,090 $164,910 $5~,000 $600.000 $3,000,000 $0 ~ $D $0 ~ $3,900,000
VW+lTP Biosolids Di ester - Band Proceeds 424xxx $0 _
$0 $0 $0 ~ $3,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000
WWTP Cogeneration 421329 $0 $0 $0 $75.000 $0 $0 $125,000 $0 $200,000
WWTP Di ester Com lex ! _
421007 $0 $0 ~ $0 $0 i $0 $0 $0 $0 ~ $0
WWTPDi~esterCleanin~ 421360 $0 $0 $0 _ $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $150,000
Bond Issuance Costs ~' 424rocx; $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Subtotal - Biosolids Recycling ~ $85,090 $1,866,898 $1,250,000 $675,000 $6,OOU,000 $0 $275,000 $0 $10,151,988
-- -- - -- -
--- - -- - ---
Wastewater System Monitoring and Metering __ _ ~
Yards Master Plan Implementation 421039 $0 $250,000 $110,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 i $36o,040
Automated Meter Readin~ 421548 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $U $0 I $0
_
Utfli Billin Com uter S stem Re lacement 421453 $351,2Q0 $191,849 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ' $543,049
Subtotal - Monltorin~ and Metering $351,260 $441,849 $170,OU~ $0
$0 $0 $0 $903,049
$0
_
- _ _ _ _
--
Collection and Conve~ance System Rehabiliqtion f
Collection S stem Monitorin 421450 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 5150,000 $0 ! $150,000
3anit~ Sewers ~
~ 421002 $267,374 $813,132 $550,000 $550,000 , $750,000
~ S825,000 5900,000 $975,000 ' $5,630,506
Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation 421454 $242,611 $157,201 ~ $100,000 $100,000
$100,~00 i $100,000 I $100,000 $100,000 $999,812
Broadway Sanitary Sewer 421004 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
IBM Pum Station 421521 $0 r $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 50
Subtotal - Sewer System Rehabilitation $509,985 $970,333 $650,OOU $650,DQ0 $850,OD0 $925,000 $1,150,000 $1,075,000 $6,780,318
~ I _ - - -
Wastewater System Expansion
Annexation Related WW S stem Expansion
421436 -
$7,107 !
$717,893 $0
$0 $0
$0 , $0
$0 i $725,000
Subtotal - Wastewater System Expansion
I $7,107 ' $717,893 $0 $0 $0 $0 I $0 $0 $725,000
- I ___ _
TOTAL CAPITAL USES OF FUNDS $17,670,343 $34,020,362 $2,210,000 $2,475,000 $17.155,000 $1,025,000 $1,725,000 $1,375,000 $77,655,705
Attachment C
q B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R
CITY OF BOULDER ~ 19Jun-07
- 2008 FUND FINANCIAL
STORMWATER AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT UTILI
- -
TY F
UND -Draft-
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
i ACTUAL REVISED R ECOMMENDED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED
UNAPPROP RIATED FUND BALANCE
BeginningofYearFundBa~ance $9,361,428 $9,121,411 $5,770,442 $3,428.055 $3,396,132 $3,359,236 $3,352,977 $3,368,041 ,
SOURCES OF FUNDS
O ratin --
I
Service Char e Fees $4,588,721 $4,518,297 $4,663,154 $4,812,654 $4,966,948 $5,175,957 $5,341,898 $5,513,160
Pro'ected Rate Increases $0 3°k $135,549 39'0 $139,895 3% $144,380 3% $198,678 4% $~55,279 3°/, $160,257 I 3% $165,395 i 3%
TOTAL OPERATING SOURCES OF FUNDS $4,588,721 $4,653,846 $4,803,048 $4.957,034 _ 55,165,626 $5,331,236 i $5,502,155 $5,678,555 i, _
Non-O eratin --
PlantlnvestmentFees $497,558 $540,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000
Urban Draina e District Funds
Colorado De i of Trans ortaion Funds $860,229
$0 $485,000
$1,722,000 $500,000
$1,529,000 $500,000 $500,000
$0 $0 $500,000
$0 i 5500,000
$0 $500,000
$0
Scate 8 Federal Grants $10,080 ~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Interest on Investments $404,063 $225,000 $240,426 $137,122 $135,845 $134,369 $134,119 $134,722
Inte ovemmental Transfers WASH Pro ram $126,023 $~09,252 $123,600 $127,308 $131,127 $135,061 $139,113 I $143,286
Rent and other miscellaneous revenue $50,094 $17,000 $31,000 $31,o00 $31,000 $31,0o0 $1,000 i $1,000
Sale of Real Estate - Yards Maste lan $0 $125,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4 $0
Proiected Bond - South Boulder Creek
TOTAL NON-OPERATING SOURCES OF FUNDS $0
$1,948,047 $0
$3,183,252 $0
$2,924,026 $0
$1,295,430 $3 085,000
$4,382,973 $0
$1,300,430 $0
$1,274,232 $0
$1.279,008
TOTAL SOURCES OF FUNDS 56,536,T68 57.837,098 57,727.074 56,252,464 58,548,599 ~,631,666 56,776,387 S6,9S7,562
USES OF FUNDS I . .
O eratin Ex enditures-
Administration $260,879 $384,150 $362,204 $383,370 $394,871 $406,717 $418,919 $431,486
Plannin and Pro'ect Mana ement $1,174,407 $943,800 $953,114 $981,707 $1,011,159 $1,041,493 ' $1,072,738 $1,104,920
StormwaterConVactMana ement $53,849 $46,129 $47,052 $48,464 $49,917 $51,415 $52,957 $54,546
StormwaterQuali andEducatlon $761,544 $795,950 $891,462 $871,856 $898,012 $924,952 $952,700 $981,281 I
~
S stem Maintenance $605,843 $688,754 $724,625 $746,364 $768,755 $791,817 ' $815,572 $840,039
Com ensation Ad'ustment $0 $0 $18,244 $18,837 $19,449 $20,081 $20,734 $21,408 j
Emer enc Reserve $0 $84,000 $90,000 $92,700 $95,481 $98,345 $101,296 $104,335
SickNacation Accrual
TOTAL OPERATING USES OF FUNDS $42,408
$2,814,114 $40,000
$2,982,783 $50,000
$3,136,701 $51,500
$3,194,798 $53,045
$3,290,689 $54,636
$3,389,458 $56,275
$3,491,192 $57,964
$3,595,979
Debt--
Goose Creek/BVRC 1998 Revenue Bond $805,158 ~ $806,309 $806,273 $870,029 $1,126,036 ! $493,531 $491,872 $494,288
Pro'ected Bond - South Boulder Creek $0 $0 ~ $0 $0 $285,000 ' $285,000 $285,000 $285,000
Crawford Pro rty Ac uisiGOn $'114,539 $0 I $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL DEBT SERVICE $919,697 $806,309 $806,273 $81D,029 $1,411,036 $778,531 $776,872 $779,288
I
Transfers Out-- I
CostAllocation $156,776 $182,544 $189,861; $197,456 $217,2D2 $238,922 $262,814 $289,095
Plannin &Develo mentServices $101,448 $104,49'I $107,626 $110,855 $114,180 $117,606 $121,134 $124,768
OtherTransfers $10,000 $10,000 $~S,ODD $15,450 $15,914 $16,391 $16,883 $17,389
TOTAL TRANSFERS OUT $268,224 $297,035 $312,487 $323,761 $347,296 $372,919 $400,831 $431,252
Ca ital Im rovements P rem-
TOTAL CAPITAL USES OF FUNDS $2,732,342 $2,150,000 $5,354,000 $2,100,000 $1,600,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000
PROJECTED BOND - SOUTH BOULDER CREEK $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,000,000 $0 $0 $0
PROJECTED BOND - ISSUANCE COSTS $0 $0 $0 $0 $85,000 $0 $0 $0
ENCUMBRANCES, CARRYOVERS & MID-YR ATBS $0 $5,675,940 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
TOTAL USES OF FUNDS 56,734,377 511,912,067 ;9,608,461 56,428,587 59,734,020 56,790,907 Sg.918,894 57,056,520
Emer enc Reserve Ad'ustment
Sick/Vacation Accrual Ad'ustment $0
$42,408 $84,000
$40,000 $90,000
$50,000 $92,700
$51,500 i $95,481 ,
$53,045 ~ $98,345
$54,636 $101,296
$56,275 $104,335
$57,964
I
FUND BALANCE - END OF YEAR 59,121,411 55,170,442 ZS,428,055 53,386,132 E3,359,236 $3,352,977 53,368,041 53,431,382
I
Desi nated Reserves -
Bond Reserves $824,7'IS ~ $824,715 $824,715 $824,715 $824,715 $824,715 $824,715 $824,T15
Post Flood Pro e Ac uisition $1,050,000 $1,050,000 $1,050,000 $1,050,000 $1,050,000 $1,050,000 $1,050,000 $1,050,000
SickNacation/Bonus Liabilit $127,049 $130,860 $134,786 $138,830 $142,995 $147,285
_ $151,703 $156,254
Pa Period 27 - 2013 Reserve $0 $9,230 $18,460 $25,660 $32,860 $40,060 I $47,260 554,460
TOTAL RESERVES $2,001,764 $2,014,805 $2,027,961 ~
: $2,039,205 $2,050,570 $2,062.060
- $2,073,678 $2,085,429
-- .
~ - --- -
- _ _
SURPLUS!(DEFICIT) vs. DESIGNATED RESERVE 57,119,647
E3,155,637
5~,400,094 , •
57,356,927 -
S'1,308,666 -- _
$1,29Q917 .
_ b1,294,363
~ 51,345,953
OPERATING RESERVE ~Goal: 25°h of Operetingp 5770,585 ~ 19,955
SS b862,297 _
5879,640 5909,496 5940,594 5973,006 51,006,808
CAPITAL RESERVE (Goal: 5200,000) i 5200,000 _
I _
5200,000 520Q000 5200,000 5200,000 ' S200,000 , E200,000 5200,000
SURPLUS!(DEFICIT) vs. ALL RESERVES 56,149,063 SZ,135,682 b337,79T 5277,287 5199,170 __ 5150,323 i 5121,357 5739,145
~ ~
' Reserve levels are based on indust standards and are maintained f or re venue bonds an _
d the ca ital intensive n ature of the utilit .
Attachment C
A B C D E F G H I J K
~
~ CITY OF BOULDER I 19-Jun-07
2 j 2008-2013 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM - Draft -
-
3 STDRMWATER AND FLOOD MANAGEMENT UTILITY FUND I _
_ - --
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2073
PROJECT NAME ACTUAL REVISED RECOMMENDEC PROJECTED I PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED PROJECTED TOTAL
MajorDrainageways_
Elmer's Two-mile Creek
_
431332
$19,436 I ~
_~
$1,833,541 I _-
_
53,529,000 ~
I
SO '
$0
__ _
$0 ~
__
$0 I
_ $0
$5,381,977
Goose Creek 431710 $0' $0 _ $0 $0 $0 $Oj $0 $0 $0
South Boulder Creek
- 431202
_ $74,981 $128,779
-- $150,000
- - $300,000 , ~u0 $0
- --- $0 $0
-- - $653,760
-
South Boulder Creek - Bond Proceeds $0 $0 $0
' ~ $0 j $3,000,000 $0 _$0 $0 $3,000,000
Bond Issuance Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $85,000 $0 $0 _ $0 _ $85,000
Four Mile Canyon Creek 431729 $149,404 $921,560 ~232,500 $250,000 $250,OC0 $250.000 $250,000 , $250,000 $2,553,464
BearCreek 431010 $0 I $0 $0 $0 $0 _ $0 $0 $0 $0
Gregory Creek 431702 ~ $0 ~
- - $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ~ $0 _ $0 $0
Boulder Creek 431015 $0 ~
-~- $100,000 $100,000
- - $0
- $0 $0
- $0
-- - $0
- - $200,000
Wonderland Creek 421003 $0 , $350 000 $232,500 I $250,000 i 525~.000 $500,000 ~500,000 $500 000 $2,582,500
431009
Wonderland Creek - Dia onal Hi hwa Under
9 9 Y - -- $100,615
' $D $0
~ $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
' $100,615
Y
.
Preflood Acqwsition 1 431622 $1,045,012 $500 000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 ! $500,000 ' $540,000 $4,545,012
~
Greenwa s Pro ram 431630 $73,045 $595,121 $150,00~ $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $150,000 $1,568.166
Subtotai - Major Drainageway Im~rovements $1,462,493 $4,429,001 $4,894,000 $1,450,000 $4,235,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $1,400,000 $20,670,494
~ - -
Miscellaneous
Yards Master Pian Implementation 431039 ' $11,000~ $239,000 $110,000 $0 $0 $0
~ $0 $0 $360,000
Utility Billing Computer System Replacement 1431453 $182,236 $99,695 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ! $0 $281,931
Subtotal - Miscellaneous Drainage Improvements $193,236 $338,695 $110,000 $0 _ $0 $0 $0 $0 $641,931
Stormwater Management
Upper Goose Creek Drainage _
431459
$0 i
$0
$0
~
$0
$100,000 i
$500,000
$500,000
$500,000
$1,600,000
_
y p
Stormwater Qualit Im rovements 431775
~ $0I $100,000 _ $50,000 $50,000 $50,000
~ $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $400,000
Broadway Storm Sewer __
S;om~ Sewer Rehabilrtation 431013 $0_
$0 $0
$0 $0
$50,000 ; $300.000 j
350.000 I
~ $0
I
$50,000 I $0
550,000 I $0
$50,000 $OJ
550,000 f_ $300,000
_ $300,000
Bouider Transit Villac~e
BVRC Redevelopment
431704 $0 '
$964,613 ~ $0
_$331,783 $0
$0 $0 ~
~ $0 $0 I
$0 ~ __ _ $0
$0 , $0 ,
$0 $0
$0~
~ $0
$1,296,396
Transportation Coordination 431780 $112,000 $388,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 I $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $2,000,000
Subtotal - Localized Drainage Improvements $1,076,613 $819,783 _ $350,000 $650,000 _ _ $450,000 $850,000 __ $850,000 $850,000 $5,896,396
TOTAL CAPITAL USES OF FUNDS
- $2,732,342 $5,587,479 $5,354,000
- -- ; $2,100,000 $4,685,000
- - ~ $2,250,000 $2,250,000
-- $2,250,000 $27,208,821
-
Attachment D
SUMMARY OF THE 2008-2013
UTILITIES DNISION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
June 13, 2007
OVERVIEW
The overall program and funding priorities are reflected in the staging and timing of projects
over the 6 year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) time period. The following primary factors
were considered in determining the overall program and funding priorities:
Water and Wastewater Utility
1. Reliabiltty of water and wastewater collection, delivery and treatinent
2. Water quality and other environmental regulations
3. Worker health and safety
4. Opportunity to collaborate with other city projects, i.e., transportation
5. PotenYial for operation and maintenance cost savings
6. Accommodating new growth and development
Stormwater and Flood ManaQement Utilitv
1. Property damage or safety hazard mitigation
2. Water quality and other env~ronmental regulations
3. Worker health and safery
4. Opportuniry to collaborate with other city projects, i.e., transportation
5. Potential for operation and maintenance cost savings
6. Accommodating new growth and development
No effart has been made in developing the CIP to target improvements in a certain geographic
area.
POLICY ISSUES
There are no policy issues related to the CIP this year.
HIGHLIGHTS
Highlights of the proposed CIP are as follows:
Water UhhtyProjects
Contmued emphasis on the rehabilitation and iinprovement of the city's existing water
system infrastructure continues, especially in the area of the city's deteriorated water
distribution systetn. This is reflected in the significant fundmg for on-going waterline
replacement that has been increased in 2008 as well as several other rehabilitation
projects for various water system facilities.
2. Additional funds have been allocated for repair and rehabilitation of the Lakewood
Pipeline. Staff is planning to inspect the existing pipe this fall and evaluate various repair
and rehabilitation alternatives.
Additional funding for the Barker Water Systein has been allocated. Repa~rs to this water
system are necessary to assure safe and reliable water deliveries to the Betasso Water
Treahnent Plant (WTP) from Barker Reservoir. Priority work includes 1) repairs to the
Barker Gravity Pipeline including potential slip linmg or portions of the pipe, 2) repairs
and further integration of the Barker hydro equipment and appurtenances and 3) working
with the Federal Emergency Regulatory Commission (FERC) to convert the cunently
licensed project to a license exempt project by submitting an application that will require
much technical and legal analysis and supporting documentation.
4. Funding has been allocated for improvements to the Boulder Reservoir WTP. This work
~s necessary to expand the treatment capaciry and comply with federal Safe Drinking
Water Act regulations. Work at the Boulder Reservoir WTP (and Boulder Reservoir
Intake and Pumping, Iris Pump Station and Cherryvale Pump Station) currently
scheduled in 2009, was prompted by staff review of the city's water delivery system in
light of the 2002-2004 drought. Water from the Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
District (NCWCD) Colorado Big-Thompson Project will play an increasingly important
role in the city's overall water system deliveries. This water is treated and delivered
through these facilities and expansion of the treatment capacity is necessary due to this
situation.
5. Funding has been allocated far the next phase of iinprovements to the Betasso WTP and
major improvements are anticipated in 2012. A recent analysis indicates that existmg
treatment processes will be adequate to meet water demands in compliance with federal
Safe Drinking Water Act regulations until that time.
6. Funding has been aliocated far the NCWCD Conveyance - Carter Lake Pipeline project
in 2009. Whercas water conveyed by the Boulder Feeder Canal is subject to water quality
concerns, water c~nveyed by a pipeline would be protected from contaminant risk. The
NCWCD completed a feasibility study for a new pipeline from Carter Lake m 2006. The
city is currently participatmg in the NCWCD sponsored permitting process along with
other water providers. Staff initiated an evaluation of various water source protection and
treatment alternatives and this is currently being rev~ewed by the WRAB. The City is
also pursuing Federal funding for this project.
Wastewater Utilitv
It is anticipated the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment will issue a
revised discharge permit in 2008 for tl~e city's Wastewater Treahnent Plant. The new
discharge pennit may include more restrict~ve limits for aminonia and other nitrogen
based compounds_ Fundmg has been allocated in 2007-2010 for additional treaunent
improvements.
Additional funding is recommended m 2008 for the Biosolids Handing and Dewatering
project. Staff recently completed a study of the centrifuge return water (centrate) after
problems with existing piping. The study recommends that the existing piping be
abandoned and the centrate stored and redirected to the plant headworks.
3. Funding far the Biosolids Digester project has been reduced because recent analysis
suggests that a new smaller digester in combination with the existing digesters will
adequately meet the biosolids stabilization criteria needed for land application.
Stormwater and Flood Manageinent Utility
Additional funding for Elmer's Two-mile Creek is recommended in 2008 and a previous
funding allocation in 2009 has been eliminated. Recent appraisals for property
acquisition are higher tban originally expected and staff believes it will be more efficient
to construct the improvements as one large project rather than in pbases as originally
planned. Utilities funds will be leveraged with Federal Transportation Improvement
Project (TIP) funds and it is important that this project be completed m a timely manner
so that the TIP funding is not jeopardized. TIP funding in the amount of $1,529,000 is
included in the 2008 Stormwater and Flood Management CIP. This project is being
coordinated by the city's Greenways Program.
2. Money allocated for flood mitigation work along Fourmile Canyon Creek and
Wonderland Creek has been reduced and/or delayed. This money will be used for
property acquisition and l~mited construction projects until decisions are reached through
the on-going flood mitigation planning process. It is anticipated the results of this
planning process w~ll be available in the fall of 2007. All projects are being closely
coordinated with the city's Greenways Program and Transportation Division.
The South Boulder Creek Flood Mapping Study is complete and will be submitted to
FEMA in the near future. The mapping study results will become the basis for future
floodplain inanagement, initigation plannmg, regulatory restrict~ons and flood insurance
requirements for the South Boulder Creek corridor. FEMA review will take nine to12
months.
Funding for flood mitigation plannmg is recommended m 2008_ It is anticipated the
mitigation planning will be completed in 2009 and construction of mitigation
improveinents will begin in 2010. It is anticipated that the focus of these efforts would be
to primarily mitigaYe the impacts of flooding in the West Valley, where flood impacts
were previously not identified and substantial urban development has smce occurred. It
is also important that flood mitigation planning be coordinated with the U.S. 36 Conidor
Improvements-EnvironmenYal Impact Statement. The ciry is also pursuing Federal
funding for this project.
4. Staff recently comp(eted work on the Stormwater Master Plan (SMP). The SMP focused
on localized drainage and water quality problems. Numerous deficiencies and potential
solutions were idenhfied, the highest prionty being Upper Goose Creek Drainage.
Funding allocarions in 2010-2013 have been increased for the project, although
additional benefit-cost analysis will be performed before a decision is made to move
forward with the construction.
MASTER PLANNING
Master Planning is an element of the decision making process for proposed CIP projects.
H~storically, master plans focused on service area growth and its impact on related utility
infrastructure needs. At this point in time, growth is not as ~mportant an issue as the need to
rehabilitate and address deficiencies in the existing infrastructure. Identification of these issues
occurs on an on-going basis and is documented in the Utilities Division Annual Reports as well
as on-going studies and reports.
Master plan summaries are provided in the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan and were
recently updated. At this point in time ex~sting master plans provide an adequate basis from
which to formulate the CIP in conjunction with other information. The Treated Water Master
Plan was updated in 2000 and Wastewater Collection System Master Plan in 2003. An update to
the Wastewater Treatment Master Plan was recently completed. The Comprehensive Flood and
Stormwater (CFS) Master Plan was updated in 2004 and the Stormwater Master Plan was
recently completed. The relationship of each CIP project to the master plans and studies is
presented in the detailed project descriptions.
The Utiliries Division will update these master plans consistent with the city's Business Plan
over the next several years. The Business Plan calls for a separate master plan for each of the
Utilities Division three restricted funds. It is anticipated the current Wastewater Treatment
Master Plan and Wastewater Collection System Master Plan will be merged as the Wastewater
Utility Master Plan and work on this will begin in 2007. The Water Utiliry Master P(an and
Stormwater and Flood Management Utility Master Plan will follow.
Recent changes to the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan including land use des~gnations are
not extensive and so no major changes to exisring Utilities Dtvision master plans are required.
Aspects that are inore important to the Utilities Division CIP planning include the rate of
deterioration of existing infrastructure as well as changes tn water related regulations and
technologies.
FINANCING
Each of the ciry's utiliry funds is established as a separate enterprise fund designed to finance
and account for each utility's facilities and services. Funding for the Urilities Division capital
improvement program is derived primarily from monthly utiliry fees. In addition to the monthly
urility fees, significant revenue sources include Plant Investment Fees (PIFs), from new
development or redevelopment and hydroelectric sales to Xcel Energy. Sales from monthly
utility fees are variable and reflect the overall growth of the service area and yearly weather
fluctuations.
Other revenue sources mclude reimbursements from the Urban Dramage & Flood Control
District (for stonnwater/ flood management projects), state and federal grants, and revobmg
loans from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (none anticipated at this
time). These revenues are project specific and are highly variable depending on the external
agency's funding situation and priorities. Currently, the following projects are anticipated to
qualify for such revenues:
Stormwater and Flood Management - Elmer's Two-mile Creek
Stormwater and Flood Management - Preflood Acquisition
If the above mentioned funds are insufficient, projects will be funded by issuing revenue bonds
with the debt service financed by general utility charges. For the years 2008-2013, it is
anticipated that new bonds will be issued for the following projects:
• Water - Boulder Reservoir WTP (2009)
• Water - NCWCD Conveyance - Carter Lake Pipeline (2009)
• Water - Betasso WTP (2012)
• Wastewater - Biosolids Digester (2010)
• Wastewater - WWTP Improvements (2010)
• Stormwater and Flood Management - South Boulder Creek (2010)
Utilities Division staff will complete the evaluation of the proposed CIP on rates in conjunction
with the development of the 2008 operating budget. Rate increases are cunently projected as
follows:
• Water Utility: 2007 - 4 percent
• Wastewater Utility: 2007 - 3 percent
• Stonnwater and Flood Management Utility: 2007 - 3 percent
CONSTRUCTION INFLATION
Construction inflation is tracked using the Engineering News Record (ENR) Cost Index for
Denver and the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Colorado Construction Cost
Index. The ENR index is a composite index based on costs for: 1) local portland cement, 2) local
2x4 lumber, 3) national structural steel, and 4) local union wages plus fringes for carpenters,
bricklayers and iron workers. The CDOT index is a composite index based on costs for 1)
unclassified excavation, 2) hot bituminous paveinent 3) concrete pavelnent, 4) stnictural steel
and 5) reinforcing steel.
The ENR index indicates construction costs have increased 22.5 percent during the past five
years; the CDOT index indicates an increase of almost 50 percent during the same period of
time. The ENR index is more reflective of equipment and building construction such as at the
treat~nent plants. The Colorado cost index is more reflective of heavy civil construction such as
roadway and major drainageway work. The following graphs depict the cumulative percent
change in these indices.
Cummulative Percent Chenge In CDOT Colorado Constructlon Cost Index
eooo~ ~ _
so.oo~
40 00%
0
g
~ ao a
~
E p~
~
u
Y 10.00%
8
0 oox
,o oox
zo oox
Year
Cummuiative Percenl Change in ENR Cost h~dex fw Oemer
~
c"
v
3
~
e
E
~
~
~
100Q 1W3 ZUD~ 200.5 1000
Ver
PUBLIC PROCESS AND ADVISORY BOARD ACTION
The preliminary CIP was discussed at the Water Resource Advisory Board (WRAB) on May 21,
2007. A public hearing with the WRAB is scheduled for June 18, 2007.
Attachment E
2008 Utility Staffing Levels
Pro ram ! Water
Wastewater Stormwaterl
Flood
Total
Administration
Division Administration 2.50 1.35 1.15 5.00
Billing Services 2.85 1.66 124 5.75
Support Services 0.66 0.42 ' 0.44 1.52
subtotal 6.01 ; 3.43 2.83 12.27
Planning and Project Management
Planning and Project Management 5.92 ', 226 3.48 11.66
Flood Management 0.75 _ 0.75
subtotal 5.92 2.26 4.23 12.41
Water Resources
Water Resources Operations 2.00 2.00
Watershed Operations 2.00 ' 2.00
Hydroelectric Operations 3.00 3.00
subtotal 7.00 7.00
Water Treatment
- - -
- -
-
---
--
Betasso WTP Operations 13.75 I
- -
- - -
- 13 75
-
Bldr Res WTP Operations
- -
925 9.25
-
System Controls 3.00 __ __ _ _ ~ 3.00
subtotal 26.00 26.00
Water Quality Environmental Svcs
Water Quality Operations
6.83 I
-- ------
-- --
6.83
Water Conservation 1.66 1.66
Wastewater Quality Operations
- -
Industrial Pretreatment
--- 4.12
-
3.66
-
--- - 4.12
- ---
3.66
-- ------
Stormwater Quality Operations
- -
- - - - 3.72
-- -- I 3.72
----
Stormwater Permit Com liance
p subtotal
- -
System Maintenance
- --
i
8.49
7.78
- -~ 1.76
__
5.48 ~ 1.76
21J5
- -
Distribution System Maintenance
Meter Operations 14.95 ', i
7.36 0 64 14.95
8.00
Collection System Maintenance 13 95 13.95
Storm Sewer Maintenance
- ----- -
Flood Channel Maintenance
---- - ---
- - ~
- 4.75
--- -
2.05
- 4.75
-
2.05
subtotal~ 22.31 14.59 6.80 43.70
Wastewater Treatment
Wastewater Operations
--- I 16.00
-- 16.00
WWTP Maintenance
Cogeneration
- --- - - T
9.00
- 1 1.00 I
- ----
9.00
1.00
Biosolids Rec clin
Y 9 --- - --
1.25 125
--
Biosolids Processing_ ____ - h
I 3.75
3 75
subtotal
- --
Total ~ 31.00 31.00
~ -
-- ~ -
75.73 ', 59.06 19.34 154.13
The Boulder Water Budget Program
MAKING IT WORK WELL
14 June '07, by Jim Knopf
There have been a lot of reactions to the water budget
program since it started on January First, and it's clear
that there are a number of relatively small things that
will help it go more smoothly. The following concerns and
requests come from an array of sources including WRAB
members, irrigation professionals, Boulder Tomorrow
representatives, and more.
1. Budget Adjustments...
A. City R.O.W. landscaping. ..People need to be
notified that the initial budgets did NOT include an
allocation for the city right of way that adjacent property
owners are required to maintain. There should be some
public information (especially on water bills) that
encourages people to request adjustments to provide for
maintaining these landscapes, which include nearly all the
street trees in the city.
B. Refunds for incorrect bi11s...The current city
policy of NOT refunding money collected from adjusted
inaccurate water budgets, should be corrected immediately.
All collections based on adjusted water budgets should be
retroactive to 1 January '07, when the program started.
C. Timely Adjustments...Boulder Tomorrow reported at
the May WRAB meeting, that it was taking too long to get
appropriate adjustments to water budgets. This needs
immediate attention.
2. Commercial -Industrial Customers...
A. 12 identical monthly budgets vs. historic use...In
Dec 2004, WRAB encouraged a so-called "classic water budget
program" which included use of historic water consumption
as the basis for commercial-industrial customers, including
Page 1
those doing limited outdoor irrigation via the same meter
used for indoor water.
The current policy of dividing the total annual water use
by 12, totally ignores the reality of legitimately using
some water outside to maintain landscaping, including some
on city ROW property.
To force smaller businesses to spend thousands of dollars
to install outside meters for very small landscapes is
completely unreasonable.
As soon as possible, this policy of 12 equal water budgets
needs to be changed to reflect historic use patterns more
accurately.
B. Problems with change in occupancy, vacant space,
etc...
Boulder Tomorrow reported a number of situations where
budgets were based on a time when properties were not fully
occupied. This needs to be considered, and timely
adjustments made.
3. Multi-family -HOA issues...
A. Indoor laundry & other common indoor
facilities...There need to be timely adjustments for
problems related to legitimate use of water in common
indoor facilities. Appropriate parties need to be notified
that such adjustments are available.
B. Inaccurate counts of unit occupancy, single-family
vs. duplexes, etc...
Boulder Tomorrow reported the need to make timely
adjustments with these problems.
C. Tennant/Owner/ City communications...TOO often the
wrong party is getting the information from the city. This
needs to be consciously addressed.
4. Budget Number Confusion...Water budget numbers on the
monthly bills never exactly match the budget numbers based
on each month's percent of the annual total, or the amount
predicted the previous month. Apparently, this happens
because meters are often measured on a different day each
Page 2
month, resulting in a fewer or more days in the billing
period, and rarely match the calendar month.
It would help to explain this to customers in a water
budget "fact sheet" (possibly included in the water bill
mailings), and on the website.
5. Required landscapes that waste water...It has been
reported that some city regulations require landscapes that
cannot be maintained on the assigned water budgets. This
should be reviewed, and corrected if true. We would like
to see examples of cases where this was found to occur.
6. Parks and Transportation...There should be a report on
how both parks and transportation are doing regarding their
water budgets. Undeveloped park land and medians should
NOT be included, because it will "mask" whether irrigated
areas are being over-watered.
Four parks were studied last year, and it was found that
rotor heads were given the same time as spray heads. This
means the spray areas got too much water, and the rotor
areas got too little. This can easily be corrected by
adjusting the controllers, but it has been reported that no
controller reprogramming has been done.
Baseline median irrigation from 30th to Foothills Parkway
was redone last year, but there appears to be no irrigation
this year so far.
7. Need for "current" meter readings ...Brent Mecham
(NOrthern Water Conservation District) recently wrote in
Colorado Green, that in order for water budget programs to
work smoothly, everyone needs to be able to read their
meters. This is true. The Badger Orion remote readers are
ideally suited to providing this information, but few
people are aware that they exist.
A. Meter reading policy...Boulder needs to review its
policies about meter reading, and like most cities, it
should encourage meter reading to detect leaks, and
irrigate efficiently.
B. Remote meter readers...free remote meter readers
should be provided to all WRAB, Planning Board, Parks
Page 3
Board, and City council members so they can become fully
aware of how this technology works. Each reader should
include a table that people can use to record their water
use and compare it to their monthly water budgets.
8. Conservation budget Line Item...There should be a
clearly identifiable line item in the annual utilities
budget for water conservation, so that it is easy to track
what is being done. Water conservation should logically be
moved to the water resources portion of the budget rather
than water quality.
9. Solicit Customer Suggestions...there should be an
initiative to solicit suggestions from customers asking for
ideas that will help make the program go better, and help
customers use water more wisely. This should NOT be worded
as "what's wrong". It should be aimed at getting helpful
suggestions for improvements.
10. Report on computer program capabilities...There has
been a request for WRAB to get a report on the capabilities
of the new billing system. Among other things, there is
interest in how we can get regular reports on how various
customer categories are doing, etc.
il. Water Bi11s...It would be very good to include the
price of water in all blocks on the bill, so that people
can be aware of the higher costs for excessive use, BEFORE
they use too much.
12. Water Budget "Fact Sheet", "Information Notes",
Newsletter, or something similar...Regular communication
via inserts in the bills and on the website can help keep
customers informed, especially as new considerations
emerge. This will be especially helpful if always available
for easy access in the same format and in the same places.
WRAB Water Budget Study Session...
Several WRAB members have suggested a study session focused
entirely on the water budget program...as soon as possible.
Page 4
Review of WRAB agenda item
Evaluation of Water Treatment Fluoridation Chemrcals
By Richard Knaub, Ph.D.
First I think that the city staff should be commended for providing a thorough practical
evaluation of the fluoridation options.
Issues
The original concern which brought this to the attention of the Board was the issue of
heavy metal contamination. There are, in addition, the issue of increased sodium with its
potential health effects and then finally the cost of changing systems.
Heavy Metal Coniamination
A number of experts have expressed concern with the addition of heavy metals to the
drinking water and it is generally agreed that the less added, the better. What was at issue
in the election was if the risk from the small amount which was added during fluoridation
was worth the benefits provided by the fluoride. The public, by a narrow margin, voted
that they were. The narrow margin could be taken as an indication that the public, like
the experts, believe that the less added the better.
Of the three standard treatments only one does not have AWWA standards for heavy
metal contamination. That is Hydrofluorosilicic Acid, the one currently used by the city
of Boulder (and 59% of the country). The manufacturer has promised that the
concentrations will never exceed 200 mg/1, although with 50% of the product coming
from China there appears to be little regulatory reinforcement of this promise.
The other two standard treatments Sodium Silicofluoride and Sodium Fluoride do have
AWWA standards attached to their heavy metal contaminations levels. Those are less
tban 500 mg/1 and less than 400 mg/1 respectively. While it would appear that Sodium
Fluoride is the cleaner of the two, there is no actual analysis data available from the
manufacturer, even for pharmaceutical grade. In practice, Sodium Silicofluoride is the
cleaner product and the data showing its contamination level is readily available.
SUMMARY: With Arsenic levels at only 2% those of Hydrofluorosilicic Acid and lead
concentrations at only 6% Sodium Silicofluoride is a clear improvement in
fluaridation treatment.
Increased Sodium Health Effects
Both lead and sodium increase hypertension, so the issue of lowering lead while
increasing sodium is a balancing act. The EPA says that the amount on increased sodium
would be in the "very low sodium" content category if Sodium Silicofluoride replaced
Hydrofluorosilicic Acid in Boulder's water. For practical purposes, this means that
anyone able to drink the water now, based on the sodium content, would be able to
continue drinking the water.
The small amount of lead provided by the addition Hydrofluorosilicic Acid does have a
small effect on hypertension according to the WHO Food Additives Series: 44. So the
reduction of lead would most likely compensate for any additional increase caused by the
sodium, if Sodium Silicofluoride became the fluoridation method. However, the
considerable reduction in lead contamination would significantly benefit the infants and
children, by reducing developmental disorders caused by low level lead exposure.
SUMMARY: The effects of increased Sodium would be mitigated by the decrease in
lead concentrations for those with hypertension, while decrease in lead
concentration would have a positive effect on the development of infants and
children, so Sodium Silicofluoride is a clear improvement in fluoridation
treatment.
Cost
It has already been noted that there is a chemical savings for Sodium Silicofluoride over
Hydrofluorosilicic Acid. It has also been noted that there is a significant capital cost in
switching over to Sodium Silicofluoride rather than replacing the Hydrofluorosilicic Acid
system when it becomes necessary.
Traditional cost projection techniques do not generally consider the issues of energy and
carbon foot print. However, it is worth noting the differences in sources for
Hydrofluorosilicic Acid and Sodium Silicofluoride. According to the summary table in
Appendix A, Hydrofluorosilicic Acid is 50% domestically produced 50% imported from
China, while Sodium Silicofluoride is 90% domestically produced with the other 10% is
produced in North America.
The cost of Hydrofluorosilicic Acid needs to include the cost of shipping half of the
volume used from China, which means energy is a larger percentage of the cost per ton.
The cost increase from 2004-2006 is very close to the increase in oil prices for the same
period. The increase for 2007 would fit the projected oil price increase. Because there is
a smaller percentage of energy cost per ton for the Sodium Silicofluoride, it is reasonable
to believe that price increases tied to energy costs would be smaller. Based on the energy
projected costs, the $156 price difference per ton in 2007 would fall to $82.00 per ton in
2008 and by 2009 Sodium Silicofluoride would be the almost $25/ton cheaper than the
Hydrofluorosilicic Acid. Since there is more fluoride in the Sodium Silicofluoride
resulting in a chemical cost savings at 2007 prices, this is likely in increase significantly
in the near future. If these projections are correct, the chemical cost savings from 2009-
2013 ($872,000) would cover the projected costs of converting to a Sodium
Silicofluoride bag system.
In addition, since Boulder is trying to reduce its carbon foot print, the carbon savings of
using a mostly domestically produced product over partly domestically produced product
are significant This is particularly true since the domestically produced product is more
concentrated and the city uses less weight. Moving less weight shorter distances reduces
carbon emissions.
SUMMARY: The projected savings in chemical costs from 2009-2013, figuring in
likely increases for higher energy prices will likely exceed the capital expenses of
converting over to a Sodium Silicofluoride bag system. In addition tbere is a
considerable reduction in carbon emission for the transportation of chemical.