HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting Packet - Water Resources - 11/21/2011
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
Monday, 21 November 2011
7:00 p.m.
13th Street Conference Room
1720 13th Street
Agenda Highlights:
I. Call to order. (7:00 p.m.)
II. Approval of minutes from the 17 October 2011 meeting (7:01 p.m.)
III. * Public Comment Period. (7:10 p.m.)
IV. Matters from Board/Staff. (7:15 p.m.)
V. *Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council regarding
acceptance of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan (7:30 p.m.)
VI. *Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to the City Manager to proceed with
developing new Commercial, Industrial and Institutional (CII) water budgets using a revised
approach and purpose statement (8:15 p.m.)
VII. Discussion about Future Schedule (9:15 p.m.)
VIII. Adjournment. (9:20 p.m.)
* Public Comment Item
Information: Contact the WRAB Secretary, Laurel Olsen-Horen at (303) 441-3203 or
olsenI a-)bouldercolorado.gov . Packets are available in the reference section of the Main
Library and on-line at http:/hvww.bouldercolorado.gov, Departments, Public Works,
Utilities, Water Resources Advisory Board. Agenda item times are approximate.
CITY OF BOULDER, COLORADO
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS MEETING MINUTES
Name of Board / Commission: Water Resources Advisory Board
Date of Meeting: 17 October 2011
Contact Information of Person Preparing Minutes: Laurel Olsen-Horen: 303-441-3203
Board Members Present: Bill DeOreo, Chuck Howe, Susan Iott, Kate Ryan, Vicki Scharnhorst
Board Members Absent: None
Staff Present: Ned Williams, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Jeff Arthur, Engineering Review Manager
Bob Harberg, Engineering Project Management Coordinator
Bret Lmenfelser, Water Quality Coordinator
Liz Campbell, Transportation Program Administration Manager
Meeting Type: Regular
Agenda Item 1- Call to Order [7:00 p.m.]
This meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m.
Agenda Item 2 - Approval of the 19 September Minutes:
The 19 September meeting minutes were approved as amended; moved by: Ryan, seconded by: DeOreo
Vote: 4:0 Board member Scharnhorst abstained.
Agenda Item 3 - Public Participation and Comment [7:03 p.m.]
Public Comment:
None
Agenda Item 4 - Matters from Board and Staff [7:08 p.m.]
Matters from Board:
Board member Iott brought up the below matter(s):
• The article in today's paper about municipalization and how the city's utilities have increased by
159% over the last 20 years. (if you consider in the increased rate of inflation; it's closer to 85%)
The article claimed that rates would increase more if municipalization were to happen.
Board member Howe brought up the below matter(s):
• Howe gave an update on the University's discussions on water re-use
Matters from Staff:
Williams brought up the below matters:
• There is additional work that needs to be done on the MOU with the University as staff reviews
their report on water re-use.
• At tomorrow's City Council meeting, there is a consent agenda item on the third reading of water
and ditch rights. There is also the second reading of the 2012 budget including utility rates. Staff
anticipates the budget to be approved.
• The 2012 WRAB applications; feedback is requested from the board to review the questions.
Agenda Item 5 - Update on Water Monitors / Water Meter Technology [7:21 p.m.]
Liz Campbell presented item to the board
Executive Summary from Packet Materials:
At the Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) meeting on September 19, WRAB member DeOreo
requested an agenda item to discuss water monitors, transponders technology and the topic of getting real-
time water usage data into the customer's hands. DeOreo provided a list of questions and issues to which
staff has provided a response.
DeOreo also requested that this item be scheduled as a public hearing in the event that WRAB would like
to consider making a recommendation to the city manager or city council.
WRAB discussion included: [7:30 p.m.]
• There are meter models available that can transmit data via Wi-Fi networks, are those more
expensive? Staff response: those are a different technology than the meters the city uses. The
city's meters use a basic transponder that "shouts" out the water use to a receiver every four
WRAB Minutes
17 October 2011
Page No. 1
seconds (current register reading). The transponders do have the ability to track by the gallon,
even though the city only bills per every 1,000 gallons.
• The current meters the city uses have a life span of around 20 years. The city is about 4/5 complete
with replacing meters throughout the city, and anticipates completion by the end of the summer
2012.
• The competition between private enterprises may also be an issue in terms of the fiber optic
infrastructure that would be required for the use of Wi-Fi readers. Once you start offering service
to the public, then you start getting regulated by the PUC which adds an additional layer of
complexity.
• Would the city consider loaning out water meters for residents to be able to use them for a while to
allow for them to better understand their water bill? Staff response: The city of Aurora has a
similar program. The city's intent is to both sell them and loan them.
• How many monitors would the city have to purchase to get them in the hands of account holders
in blocks III, IV, and V? Or could the city require account holders in blocks IV and V to purchase
water meters? This may allow for those users to find ways to work towards the city's water
conservation goals. Staff response: staff would not wish to exclude account holders in blocks I and
II from having access to potential budget savings which the meters could provide.
Public Comment [8:07 p.m.]
None
WRAB recommendation: WRAB would like staff to discuss further how to get water monitors in more
account holder's hands, with an emphasis on the higher block users, possibly through the CRC's audit
process. Additionally, the city would need to add additional funding to the audit budget so sufficient audits
are available for account holders in all blocks.
Agenda Item 6 - Discussion on Future Schedule [8:21 p.m.]
The November meeting will have an update on the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan, an update on the CII
water budget options and tentatively a recommendation on the MOU with CU on recirculation of water.
Agenda Item 7 -Adjournment [8:24 p.m.]
There being no further business to come before the Board at this time, by motion regularly adopted, the
meeting was adjourned at 8:24 p.m.
Date, Time, and Location of Next Meeting:
The next regular WRAB meeting will be 21 November at 7:00 p.m., at the 13t1' Street Conference Room
located at 1720 13t1i Street, unless otherwise decided by staff and the Board.
APPROVED BY: ATTESTED BY:
Board Chair Board Secretary
Date Date
An audio recording of the full meeting for which these minutes are a summary is available on the Water
Resources Advisory Board web page.
WRAB Minutes
17 October 2011
Page No. 2
CITY OF BOULDER
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: November 21, 2011
AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation to City Council
regarding acceptance of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan.
PRESENTERS:
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Kirk Kincannon, Director of Parks and Recreation
Michelle Wind, Drinking Water Program Supervisor
Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality and Environmental Services Coordinator
Keith Walzak, Parks Planning Manager
Kim Hutton, Water Resources Specialist
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan (BRMP) is to establish management goals and
objectives for Parks and Recreation Department land and activities at the Boulder Reservoir
(including Coot Lake) that will guide long-term investment strategies and programs. While it is
not specifically a Utilities master plan, the policies and regulations do involve Utilities facilities
and the plan is being referred for WRAB consideration and recommendation to City Council on
that basis. WRAB's recommendation will be considered by the Parks and Recreation Advisory
Board (PRAB) at the November 28, 2011 meeting and by City Council at the January 17, 2012
meeting. The BRMP is available at www.boulderrez.org.
Since the BRMP was developed to address a wide range of Parks and Recreation Department
management responsibilities at Boulder Reservoir some aspects of the BRMP are not directly
related to Utilities. The focus of this Agenda Item is on aspects of the BRMP that have the
potential to affect Boulder Reservoir water quality, treatment of water at the 63'd Street water
treatment facility and Utilities staff involvement in future activities being recommended.
A BRMP update was last provided to WRAB at the November 15, 2010, meeting which focused
on water quality concerns related to recreational activities at Boulder Reservoir and boating
options. Primary water quality concerns related to current and future proposed recreational
activities include: potential release of gasoline from motorized water craft and fueling station;
emissions from motorized water craft; introduction of aquatic nuisance species, including zebra
and quagga mussels and Milfoil; human and dog water contact; and, compliance with state and
federal water quality standards. At the meeting, staff requested WRAB recommend a boating
policy option for PRAB and City Council consideration. Five boating policy options were
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 1
discussed at the meeting (see Attachment A) and WRAB moved to support the staff
recommendation of boating policy Option 2 - Motorboat Standards, with modifications, as
follows:
Parks and Recreation staff continue the current management practices to control ANS
[aquatic nuisance species] or Milfoil supported by an annual report that evaluates staters
ofANS and Milfoil in other water sources throughout CO, and bring new, up to date
methods to the board as they become available. The board's number one priority is to
maintain the water quality of the reservoir, and there was considerable amount of
concern about the potential loss to the water resources of the city should Boulder
Reservoir be infested with ANS.
WRAB's recommendation was presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) at
the November 22, 2010 meeting and to City Council at the December 7, 2010 meeting and public
hearing.
Since the November 2010 WRAB meeting PRAB and City Council provided recommendations
on the BRMP. Both PRAB and City Council support the need to protect Boulder Reservoir
water quality and recognize that the reservoirs primary purpose is a water supply reservoir.
PRAB supported boating policy Option 2 with an additional requirement that boats must remain
on Boulder Reservoir only. City Council recommended Option 1 with modifications to enhance
water quality protection for motorized water craft. Other PRAB and City Council
recommendations are provided in Attachments B and C.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff request WRAB consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following motion:
Motion to recommend City Council acceptance of the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan.
PUBLIC PROCESS AND COMMENT:
In addition to PRAB, WRAB and City Council public meetings, several independent public
meetings have been held at various stages of the BRMP development process. The next public
meeting will be held on November 16, 2011 to collect feedback on the draft BRMP. Public
comment received over the past six months (on all of the policy issues) can be found on the
project web site at www.boulderrez.org
BACKGROUND
Boulder Reservoir is one of the city's primary water supply reservoirs but has also become a
popular venue for recreational activities including motorized and non-motorized boating.
Boulder Reservoir remains, first and foremost, a valuable drinking water supply facility for the
City, and secondly a valuable recreational resource for city residents and the region. Water
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 2
supply management is conducted by Northern Water and the City's Utilities Division, while
recreational activities at Boulder Reservoir are supported and managed by the Parks and
Recreation Department in a manner that is currently compatible with the protection and
management of the water supply.
The purpose of the BRMP is to establish management goals and objectives for the Parks and
Recreation Department managed land and activities at the Boulder Reservoir, which will guide
long-term facility investment strategies. The BRMP was developed in three phases:
I: Vision, Goals and Issues (May 2009 -January 2010)
II: Policy Options (January -December 2010)
III: Draft and Final Master Plan (January 2011 - January 2012)
Staff completed Phase I of the project in January 2010 after providing several opportunities for
public input. These included two public meetings, a user survey and three focus group
discussions.
Phase II of the project involved drafting of preliminary options for the following key policy
areas:
• Boating
• South Shore/North Shore/West Shore use
• Coot Lake use
• Special events
Many of the facilities and services provided on the South Shore of Boulder Reservoir support
boating and other water-based activities. Several concerns with motorized boating on the
reservoir have been raised by some community members and city staff over the past couple of
years. Concerns include the potential impacts of fuel-powered boats on water quality, the
potential risk of ANS infestation, ambient noise impacts from the number of boats on the
reservoir during some busy periods, and water safety among the multiple uses on the water. To
address water quality concerns, Parks and Recreation and Utilities staff proposed changes to the
boating policy to minimize the potential for water quality impacts from motorized and non-
motorized water craft. These changes were reflected in the boating policy options discussed
below.
Staff completed Phase II of the project in late 2010 and included input from the April 7, 2010
public meeting, which was held to collect feedback on the preliminary options and policies. The
PRAB and City Council reviewed the options at study sessions in April and May of 2010, prior
to the evaluation. A list of the five boating options is provided below and detail on each boating
policy option is provided in Attachment A.
Boating Policy Option 1. Status quo
Boating Policy Option 2. Motorboat standards
Boating Policy Option 3. Rental and programmatic motorboats only
Boating Policy Option 4. Small watercraft only (no motorboats or sailboats with
ballast tanks)
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 3
Boating Policy Option 5. No watercraft
Public input throughout the BRMP development process highlighted the broad spectrum of
interests in the community regarding use of the reservoir and the need to maintain as much of the
current diversity of water-based recreational uses at the reservoir as practicable. Dozens of
comments were received in support of the various types of boating that occur on the reservoir as
well as support for eliminating motorboats altogether. Focus groups and user surveys conducted
in fall 2009 indicated an overwhelming support for continuing motorboat use of the reservoir.
However, there was also indication that more time is needed on the reservoir for non-motorized
boating and the quiet enjoyment of the park. Boating policy Option 2 maintains the current
diversity while providing more balance among motorized and non-motorized boating uses than
the status quo by expanding the number of "no-wake" hours to two full days per week.
WRAB 2010 Boating Option Recommendation
At the November 15, 2010, WRAB meeting staff provided WRAB with an update on the BRMP
which focused on water quality concerns boating policy options. Primary water quality concerns
related to current and future proposed recreational activities include: potential release of gasoline
from motorized water craft and fueling station; emissions from motorized water craft;
introduction of aquatic nuisance species, including zebra and quagga mussels and Milfoil; human
and dog water contact; and, compliance with state and federal water quality standards. Five
boating policy options (see Attachment A) were discussed at the meeting and WRAB moved to
support the staff recommendation of boating policy Option 2 - Motorboat Standards, with the
following modification.
Parks and Recreation staff continue the current management practices to control ANS or
Milfoil supported by an annual report that evaluates status ofANS and Milfoil in other
water sources throughout CO, and bring new, up to date methods to the board as they
become available. The board's number one priority is to maintain the water quality of
the reservoir, and there was considerable amount of concern about the potential loss to
the water resources of the city should Boulder Reservoir be infested with ANS.
WRAB's recommendation was presented to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board (PRAB) at
the November 22, 2010 meeting and to City Council at the December 7, 2010 meeting and public
hearing. At the November 22, 2010 PRAB meeting, staff recommended PRAB consider a
recommendation to City Council to support the selection of boating policy Option 2, and also
requested staff recommendations on other aspects of the BRMP policy options related to shore
use around the reservoir and special events. At the December 7, 2010 meeting, City Council was
asked to provide direction to staff on the preferred policy options for boating as well as the West
Shore use, North Shore and Coot Lake use, and the special events policies at the Boulder
Reservoir. A summary of the PRAB and City Council BRMP recommendations, with respect to
boating policy options, is provided below.
PRAB Boating Options Recommendation Summary
PRAB moved to adopt boating policy Option 2, with the following modification:
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 4
• Trailered boats must remain in the Boulder Reservoir once in and cannot return once
out, on a seasonal basis with the exception of human powered watercraft such as canoes,
kayaks, windsrufers and paddle boards.
City Council Boating Options Recommendation Summary
City Council directed staff to move forward with boating Option 1 - Maintain Status Quo, with
the following modifications:
• Eliminate personal watercraft except for water safety purposes and any craft used for
department approved or managed programs
• Phase out two-stroke engines that do not meet EPA exhaust emission standards (two
stroke engines that meet current emission standards would be allowed)
• No fueling on water
• All watercraft must launch from designated areas on the south shore
• No watercraft allowed in Coot Lake (including belly boats)
• Eliminate "Jet Ski Cove " and expand the "no wake " zone at the Dry Creek inlet to
protect aquatic and wetland habitat and;
• Include the provision from Option 2 to set limitations on the size (500 horsepower
maximum)
Other PRAB and City Council recommendations are provided in Attachments B and C.
ANALYSIS:
A draft of the BRMP was completed in November 2011 and only portions of the master plan
were available to WRAB at previous meetings. Chapters of the BRMP which are new, and most
pertinent to Utilities and WRAB, are Chapter 5, Water Resources, and Chapter 8,
Implementation Plan. Chapter 5 provides background on the function of Boulder Reservoir as a
water resource, identifies areas of concern with respect to water quality and discusses the
relationship between water resources and recreation. Chapter 8 provides detail on the goals and
objectives of the BRMP, implementation strategies, funding responsibilities and policies and
regulations. Key policies and regulations that support Utilities interests and help to support the
protection of Boulder Reservoir water quality and operations of the 63rd Street water treatment
facility are provided below. WRAB should consider if the existing policies and regulations are
sufficient to protect Boulder Reservoir as a primary water resource for the city or if other options
should be recommended for consideration by PRAB and City Council.
Boating Regulations
• All personal watercraft (PWC) shall be eliminated from the Reservoir with the exception
for u,,ater safety purposes and any craft used for the department approved or managed
programs which may include but is not limited to the Parks and Recreation Department
EXPAND Program.
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 5
• Motorized boat use will set limitations on the size of the engine to 500 horsepower
maximum.
• A phase-out of all t vo-strokes engines that do not meet EPA exhaust emission standards
will be implemented by 2013.
• Refueling of motorized boats while in the water shall be eliminated.
• A11 watercraft shall be launched from a designated area on the South Shore only.
• No watercraft shall be allowed in Coot Lake (including belly boats).
• Eliminate Jet Ski Cove' and expand a `no wake' zone at the Dry Creek inlet to protect
aquatic and wetland habitat.
• A `no wake' restriction, equivalent to 2 full days each week, shall be implemented.
• Implement a full cost-recovery and fee program addressing Aquatic Nuisance Species
regulations, inspections and ongoing monitoring.
• Annual reporting shall be developed for the Aquatic Nuisance Species status and
prevention program.
North Shore and Coot Lake Use Regulations
• Continue to manage and maintain the passive recreational uses of the area.
• Allow voice and sight management for dogs on the trail and institute regulations that
prohibit dogs and people from accessing established wetland areas including installation
of new fencing and signage to educate the public and report back to City Council in 2012
outlining results of the programs as described.
• Current voice and sight rules shall remain for all other areas of the North Shore and
Coot Lake area.
• Dogs are allowed to swim on the South and East Shores of Coot Lake and North Shore.
Special Events
• Develop a cumulative analysis and impact report, as well as standards and tiered
approach to event permitting to be aligned with the Boulder Reservoir vision and
purpose.
• A maximum number of special events allowed at the Reservoir include;
High Season: Two special events per day and twenty per month maximum
Low Season: One special event per day and ten per month maximum
The next phase of the BRMP includes the development of a detailed capital improvement
program and operations plan as part of the upcoming Site Management Plan. The Parks and
Recreation Department will also produce an annual report evaluating accomplishments and
deficiencies in context to the goals and recommendations as outlined in the BRMP. The annual
report will be linked to the department's ongoing budget, capital improvement program,
refurbishment and repair and operating programs and will be used to address future BRMP
updates, as required
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 6
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Boating Policy Options
B. December 7, 2010 City Council Meeting Minutes
C. PRAB November 22, 2010 Meeting Minutes
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 7
ATTACHMENT A.
Evaluation of Boating Policy Options
Proposed Changes Under All Options:
• No personal watercraft (e.g. Jet Skis) (Would impact approximately seven users and result in $4,000 less in revenue from PWC permits and moorings)
• Phase out two-stroke engines that do not meet current EPA exhaust emission standards. (Two-stroke engines that meet EPA standards would be allowed.)
• No fueling on water
• All watercraft must launch from designated areas on the South Shore.
• No watercraft allowed in Coot Lake (including belly boats).
• Eliminate "Jet Ski Cove" and expand "no wake" zone at the Dry Creek inlet to protect aquatic and wetland habitat.
Water Quality Monitoring Under All Options:
• Conventional water treatment required under all options
• Continue swim beach bacteria monitoring
• Continue baseline water quality monitoring
• For option 1-3, define baseline fuel-related concentrations in water column and sediment and review trends over time. If concentrations increase, revisit boating options.
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
Maintain Status Quo Motorboat Standards Rental and Programmatic Small Watercraft Only No Watercraft
(To maintain the diversity and flexibility of (To balance uses and promote safety on the Motorboats Only (No Motorboats or Sailboats) (To reduce the risk
of aquatic nuisance
boating uses on the reservoir) water) (To reduce the potential for fuel-related (To reduce the potential for fuel-related species infestation and fuel-related
contaminants and the risk of aquatic contaminants and the risk of aquatic contaminants and improve wildlife habitat)
nuisance species infestation) nuisance species infestation; providing more
opportunity for swimming and non-motorized
boating)
Description • Maintain the current status quo; no • Set limitations on the size, type and • Prohibit privately-owned motorboats. • Prohibit all motorboats (fuel-powered
or • Prohibit all boats (motorized or non-
limitations on type or size of boats allowed number of motorboats allowed on the e Continue to allow privately-owned non- electric) on the reservoir except for
water motorized) on the reservoir except for water
on the reservoir. reservoir. motorized boats. safety. safety.
• Continue the current number of 11.5 no- • Establish two full "no-wake" days per week. • Establish a city rental program for small • Prohibit sailboats with ballast
tanks. • Continue swimming, special events and
wake hours/week. . Continue swimming, special events and non-motorized watercraft. • Small watercraft would be allowed. other non-boating-related activities
on the
• Continue swimming, special events and other non-boating-related activities on the • Provide city motorboats for programs, • Increase non-motorized boat rental
South Shore.
other non-boating-related activities on the South Shore. classes and lake patrol. operations.
South Shore. . Establish two full "no-wake" days per • Continue swimming, special events and
week. other non-boating-related activities on the
• Continue swimming, special events and South Shore.
other non-boating-related activities on the
South Shore.
Key Pros and Option 1 maintains the most flexibility and Option 2 provides a balance between Option 3 reduces the risk of fuel-related Option 4 more substantially
decreases the Option 5 eliminates the risk of fuel-related
Cons provides for a wide range of water-based motorized and non-motorized boating uses. It contaminants while still supporting a wide potential for fuel-related contaminants
and pollutants from boats and significantly
recreational uses while generating the most also promotes water safety by setting range of water-based uses. This option has reduces the risk of ANS infestation
relative to reduces the risk of ANS infestation. It also
boating-related revenue for the department. capacity and engine size limitations. It does the highest capital investment cost of all the options 1 and 2. This
option has the highest provides the most benefit to wetlands and
It does not reduce the current risk of fuel- not reduce the risk level of ANS infestation or options and less revenue than options 1 and operational costs and reduces
departmental wildlife habitat. Although it requires no
related contaminants in the water. fuel-related contaminants. Reduction in 2. It does not significantly reduce the risk revenue. Similar to Option 3, it could impact
boating-related capital investment, it results in
motorboat permits would have some impact level of ANS infestation relative to the status air quality and resource consumption as a decrease in revenue. The
changes would
on departmental revenue. quo. It could impact air quality and resource boaters could end up driving greater impact more visitors to the reservoir than
the
consumption as motorized boaters in the distances to access other reservoirs. other options and reduce recreational
county could end up driving greater distances opportunities in the community. It could
to access other reservoirs. impact air quality and resource consumption
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 8
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
Maintain Status Quo Motorboat Standards Rental and Programmatic Small Watercraft Only No Watercraft
(To maintain the diversity and flexibility of (To balance uses and promote safety on the Motorboats Only (No Motorboats or Sailboats) (To reduce the risk
of aquatic nuisance
boating uses on the reservoir) water) (To reduce the potential for fuel-related (To reduce the potential for fuel-related species infestation and fuel-related
contaminants and the risk of aquatic contaminants and the risk of aquatic contaminants and improve wildlife habitat)
nuisance species infestation) nuisance species infestation; providing more
opportunity for swimming and non-motorized
boating)
as boaters could end up driving greater
distances to access other reservoirs.
No Personal Watercraft (e.g. Jet Skis) other Class A' and Class I only (no Class 2 or No private fuel-powered watercraft permitted No fuel-powered watercraft or boats with
No watercraft permitted (including belly-
Types of than for water safety and programmatic use. Class 3 boats allowed). except city-owned or sponsored (rentals, ballast tanks permitted except for non-
boats) except for city water safety.
watercraft programs, classes, water safety). motorized boats related to special events and
a motorized boat for city water safety.
No limitations 500 hp maximum Same as Option 2 n. a. n.a.
Engine type (except for phase out two-stroke engines that (to eliminate high speed boats such
and size do not meet EPA standards) "cigarette" boats)
Number of At discretion of staff Maximum of 202 Class I watercraft3 Same as Option 2 No limitations n.a.
watercraft on (based on observations of boating activity at (No limitations on the number of all other
water a given time) watercraft)
11.5 total "no-wake" hours per week Two full "no-wake" days per week Same as Option 2 No motorboats allowed. n. a.
Tuesdays, 5:30 am-10:00 am Alternates: Two full "no-motorboat" days or
Motorboat Wednesdays, 5:30 am - 9:00 am four "no-wake" days
restrictions Thursdays, 5:30 pm - 9:00 pm
Note:
Weekdays are recommended since weekend use
is currently impacted by special event use.
CAPITAL (Unfunded): $1,200,000 CAPITAL (Unfunded): $1,200,000 CAPITAL (Unfunded): $1,445,000 CAPITAL (Unfunded): $810,000 (no CAPITAL: $0
(boat storage, new marina building, lighting (Same as Option 1) (larger marina building, addition boat storage, improved storage lots)
and security, decontamination station) rental fleet)
ANNUAL OPERATIONAL: $320,000 (Option ANNUAL OPERATIONAL: $418,000 (Option ANNUAL OPERATIONAL: $15,000 (water
Estimated ANNUAL OPERATIONAL: $305,000 (boat 1 plus additional water safety staff) ANNUAL OPERATIONAL: $403,000 3 plus additional water safety staff) safety staff)
Costs4 inspection, maintenance, water safety staff (Option 2 plus additional marina and water
(includes unmet and NPE) safety staff)
needs)
Note:
Current operational cost does not include costs for
general facility operations and maintenance of the
reservoir or costs of non-boating-related services.
' Class A: Vessels less than 16 ft. in length
2 Roughly equivalent to one boat per 15 acres of surface water
3 Class I: Vessels 16 to 25 ft. (less than 26 ft.) in length
4 Cost and revenue estimates are based on a year-round operation.
AGENDA ITEM 4 PAGE 9
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
Maintain Status Quo Motorboat Standards Rental and Programmatic Small Watercraft Only No Watercraft
(To maintain the diversity and flexibility of (To balance uses and promote safety on the Motorboats Only (No Motorboats or Sailboats) (To reduce the risk
of aquatic nuisance
boating uses on the reservoir) water) (To reduce the potential for fuel-related (To reduce the potential for fuel-related species infestation and fuel-related
contaminants and the risk of aquatic contaminants and the risk of aquatic contaminants and improve wildlife habitat)
nuisance species infestation) nuisance species infestation; providing more
opportunity for swimming and non-motorized
boating)
Boating Programs: $103,000 Boating Programs: $103,000 Boating Programs: $103,000 Boating Programs: $89,000 TOTAL: $0/year
Estimated Permits, Storage and Rentals: $260,000 Permits, Storage and Rentals: $220,000 Permits, Storage and Rentals: $95,000 Permits, Storage and Rentals: $70,000/year
NET: -$15,000
Annual
Revenue4 TOTAL: $363,0001year TOTAL: $323,000/year TOTAL: $198,0001year TOTAL: $159,0001year
(based on 2009 NET (Total revenue less annual operational NET (Total revenue less annual operational NET (Total revenue less annual operational NET (Total revenue
less annual operational
revenue) cost : +$58,000 cost : +$3,000 cost): •$205,000 cost): •$259,000
• Elimination of Jet Ski Cove will improve • Elimination of Jet Ski Cove will improve • Elimination of Jet Ski Cove will improve • Elimination of Jet Ski Cove will improve Reduced
impacts to aquatic and wetland
aquatic habitat conditions in the Dry Creek aquatic habitat conditions in the Dry Creek aquatic habitat conditions in the Dry Creek aquatic habitat conditions in the Dry
habitat from boater access to shoreline.
Wetlands and inlet. inlet. inlet. Creek inlet.
• Minimal impacts to aquatic habitat from • An increase in no-wake periods may • An increase in no-wake periods may • May increase impacts to wetlands and
Wildlife boating-related turbidity in other areas of increase wildlife use of the area on those increase wildlife use of the area on those shoreline due to potential increase
in
the reservoir (wind is the primary source of days. days. boater access (since non-motorized boats
turbidity in the reservoir). can more easily approach the shorelines).
• Based on available data, current fuel- Same as Option 1. . Slight decrease in risk of fuel-related • Significant reduction in risk of fuel-related •
Significant reduction in risk of fuel
related contamination is generally less contaminants. contaminants (minimal risk from water contaminants from boats (minimal risk
than laboratory detection limits that are . No change in contaminant risk due to safety boats). from water safety boats).
also significantly less than drinking water swimming (body contact). • Elimination of any motorboat-related • Elimination of any motorboat-related
standards. turbidity (wind will continue to be major turbidity (wind will continue to be major
Water Quality • There are risks for fuel-related spills from source of turbidity). source of turbidity).
boating accidents and contaminants due . Potential increase in contaminants related • Potential increase in contaminants related
to swimming and body contact. to swimming (body contact). to swimming (body contact) because of
• There is minimal turbidity from wave expanded swimming area.
action of motorboats (wind is primary
source of turbidity in the reservoir).
• Currently zebra and quagga mussels and Same as Option 1. Same as Option 1 in terms of state risk Reduces risk level from medium/high to low . Significantly
decreases risk of ANS
Eurasian milfoil have not been detected in levels however, fewer high risk boats because of the removal of motorboats and infestation relative to all other
options.
Aquatic the reservoir or in Coot Lake. (motorboats) would be on the reservoir. sailboats with ballast tanks. . Some remaining risk from boats
• There is a medium to high biological risk accessing Sixmile Reservoir
Nuisance of infestation based on state risk level Note:
Species All trailered boats with ballast tanks, and/or motors,
Standards. including sailboats, present a medium to high biological
• Curly-leafed pondweed is currently found. risk for ANS based on state risk level standards.
The city does not collect data on air quality Relatively small improvement to carbon . Same as Option 2 • Could impact regional air quality since local • Could
impact regional air quality since local
impacts of boat engines on the reservoir dioxide emissions relative to Option 1 with . Could impact regional air quality since motorized boaters might drive longer
boaters (motorized and non-motorized)
Air Quality however, new EPA low exhaust emission the elimination of large boats and the local motorized boaters might drive longer distances to access other reservoirs.
might drive longer distances to access
standards for marine engines apply to all additional no-wake periods. distances to access other reservoirs. other reservoirs.
newly manufactured motors. Carbon dioxide
emissions, however, are not regulated.
AGENDA ITEM # PAGE 10
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4 Option 5
Maintain Status Quo Motorboat Standards Rental and Programmatic Small Watercraft Only No Watercraft
(To maintain the diversity and flexibility of (To balance uses and promote safety on the Motorboats Only (No Motorboats or Sailboats) (To reduce the risk
of aquatic nuisance
boating uses on the reservoir) water) (To reduce the potential for fuel-related (To reduce the potential for fuel-related species infestation and fuel-related
contaminants and the risk of aquatic contaminants and the risk of aquatic contaminants and improve wildlife habitat)
nuisance species infestation) nuisance species infestation; providing more
opportunity for swimming and non-motorized
boating)
• Noise levels from the South Shore are Same as Option 1. Same as Option 1. Noise levels would likely be reduced (on non- Noise levels would likely be reduced
(on non-
currently within city permitted decibel special event days) due to lower motorboat special event days) due to lower boating use
Noise limits. use levels. and reduction in traffic to the reservoir.
• Motorized boating may minimally
contribute to noise levels at the reservoir.
• The reservoir contributes to the diversity of Same as Option 1 plus: Same as Option 1 plus: . Impacts approximately 250 boaters by • Impacts approximately
3,000 boaters and
recreational activities available to the • Provides more quiet time (no wake days) • Impacts approximately 250 boaters (based eliminating fuel-powered motorboat
use. participants in boating-related camps, clubs
community. for all boaters, swimmers and other on current number of pass holders) by . Could enhance the experience of and other programs.
• Boating traffic along 51St Street accounts visitors of the park. eliminating private fuel-powered motorboat swimmers and other passive recreation • Impacts
some special events.
Social Impacts for roughly 30 percent (staff estimate) of • Reduces the amount of time allowed for use. users with decreased noise and wake . Enhances the
experience of swimmers and
summer traffic and may minimally water skiing and other speed-related • Provides more quiet time (no wake days) levels. other passive recreation users.
contribute to noise levels outside of park. boating activities. for all boaters, swimmers and other visitors . Decreases number of water-based . Results
in a reduction in traffic and noise
of the park. recreational opportunities available to the levels related to boating-related uses.
community. . Loss of community and regional venue for
recreational boating.
City Utilities - Continued need for baseline Same as Option 1. Same as Option 1. . City Utilities - Reduced need for fuel- • City Utilities - Reduced monitoring
and special water quality monitoring (e.g. related monitoring. requirements relative to all options.
fuel-related analysis of water column and . Police and Fire - Potential increase in • County Transportation - Reduced impact to
Impacts to sediment) demand for emergency services since most county roads by reducing use of the
Other boating-related accidents occur with non- reservoir.
motorized boating. . State Division of Wildlife - Reduces state-
Departments • County Transportation - Reduced impact to wide fishing opportunities.
and Agencies county roads by reducing use of the
reservoir.
• State Division of Wildlife - Reduces state-
wide fishing opportunities.
The trend in some regions is to minimize • Consistent with a general trend to manage Same as Option 2. . The emerging trend is to promote • Emerging trend
is to promote sustainable
Comparison motorized boating use on drinking water boating on reservoirs by identifying sustainable practices in parks and reduce practices in parks and reduce
use of fossil
to Best reservoirs. recreational carrying capacity standards use of fossil fuel-burning engines. fuel-burning engines.
Practices and and minimizing fuel-related contaminant • May increase body contact and • Consistent with trend to protect source
risk. associated contaminants (e.g. water quality from fuel-related
Emerging • Addresses a growing demand to provide sunscreens, hair products, hormones, contaminants and reduce body contact
Trends more access and a venue for non- bacteria) in the water since non-motorized resulting from boating.
motorized watercraft activities. boaters generally
**Evaluation is based on a year-round boating operation.
AGENDA ITEM # PAGE 11
Attachment B:
December 7, 2010
City Council Meeting Minutes
CITY COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS
December 7, 2010
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Mayor Osborne called the regular December 7, 2010 council meeting to order at 6:05
p.m. in the council chambers.
Those present were: Mayor Osborne, Deputy Mayor Wilson and Council Members
Ageton, Appelbaum, Becker, Cowles, Gray, Karakehian and Morzel.
A. Lhasa, Tibet Sister City Award Presentation. 6:07 p.m.
Bill Warnock, Chair of the Boulder Lhasa Sister City Project, presented an award given to
the City of Boulder and the Lhasa Sister City Project by the Chinese People's Association
for Friendships with Foreign Countries in honor of sustainability and humanitarian
projects.
Mayor Osborne announced that the regular December 21, 2010 business meeting would
begin early at 5 p.m. A study session on clean energy would begin at 7 p.m. or
immediately following the business meeting.
2. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION and COUNCIL/STAFF RESPONSE - 6:12 p.m.
1. Seth Brigham objected to the lack of public process regarding the council rules of decorum
and wanted council to incorporate state statutes around free speech. He also objected to the
practice of reducing speakers' time from 3 to 2 minutes. He then spoke to the outdoor policy
on the Pearl Street mall and urged businesses to close their doors to conserve energy.
2. Cosima Krueger-Cunningham spoke to the impacts of off leash dogs to individuals noting
the potential health impacts, particularly to seniors, and the liability that dog owners could
face. She suggested dogs should be under complete physical control and the Humane Society
was clearly under budgeted and under staffed.
3. Kathy Wellman, a 45 year resident, spoke to the council benefits issue noting that not a
single dime of taxpayer money would be spent and she supported council's access to health
insurance. However, she believed that access to this privilege should be voted upon by the
residents, or the vote should be to allow future council's to access this benefit.
4. Elizabeth Allen spoke to the South of Downtown area project and asked council to steer
away from urban design. Regarding the Diagonal Plaza, she spoke in opposition to a big box
store and supported businesses that would pay a higher wage. She suggested council tax
single occupancy vehicles coming into Boulder.
5. Terri Sternberg thanked council on behalf of the entire homeless community for approving
funding for BOHO for the winter. She noted a group had been discussing healthcare and a
respite care center for the homeless. They would also like to see a bus stop at the Library
from the shelter.
6. Craig Eicher with Xcel Energy spoke to consent agenda item 3 G regarding the right-of-way
permits. Xcel did not feel the amendment was necessary and the Xcel legal team had been
communicating with the City Attorney's office. He respectfully asked council to table the
item and indicated Xcel would like to continue its work with City staff.
City Manager Response: - 6:30 p.m.
None.
City Attorney Response:
City Attorney Tom Carr confirmed there were ongoing discussions with Xcel which were not as
far along two weeks ago when the agenda memo was due. He thought the ordinance was a good
one but no harm would come if council were to delay the item while permit negotiations with
Xcel continued.
City Council Response:
None.
3. CONSENT AGENDA: - 6:35 p.m.
A. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 3,
2010 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES.
B. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 16,
2010 COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES.
C. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE NOVEMBER 9, 2010
STUDY SESSION SUMMARY ON TRANSPORTATION FINANCE.
CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADJOURN FROM CITY COUNCIL
AND CONVENE AS THE UNIVERSITY HILL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT
BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND;
D. CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2010
UNIVERSITY HILL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT FUND (FORMERLY
UHGID FUND) BUDGET.
CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADJOURN FROM THE UNIVERSITY
HILL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND
RECONVENE AS CITY COUNCIL.
E. THIRD READING AND CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT
ORDINANCE NO. 7768 PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO TITLE 9,
"LAND USE CODE" B.R.C. 1981 RELATED TO SECTION 9-7-7,
"BUILDING HEIGHT, APPURTENANCES," B.R.C. 1981.
F. SECOND READING AND CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 7769 CODIFYING THE UTILITY
OCCUPATION TAX ON PUBLIC UTILITY COMPANIES THAT DELIVER
ENERGY TO CUSTOMERS IN THE FORM OF ELECTRICITY AND GAS
APPROVED BY THE VOTERS IN THE NOVEMBER 2, 2010 GENERAL,
ELECTION BY THE ADDITION OF A NF.w TITLE 3, CHAPTER 13,
B.R.C. 1981, AND SETTING FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
G. SECOND READING AND CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT
ORDINANCE NO. 7770 AMENDING SECTION 8-6-6, B.R.C. 1981, TO
REQUIRE PERMITS OR LEASES FOR ENCROACHMENTS IN PUBLIC
RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC EASEMENTS, AND SETTING FORTH
RELATED DETAILS.
H. SECOND READING AND CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT
EMERGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 7771 CONCERNING THE PUBLIC
ACCOMMODATIONS TAX., INCREASING THE TAX RATE AND MAKING
THE FUNDS AVAILABLE TO PAY FOR THE GENERAL EXPENSES OF
GOVERNMENT, AS APPROVED BY THE VOTERS IN THE NOVEMBER 2,
2010 GENERAL ELECTION BY THE REVISION OF CHAPTER 3-3,
"PUBLIC ACCOMMODATIONS TAX," B.R.C. 1981, AND SETTING
FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
L SECOND READING AND CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT
ORDINANCE No. 7772 AMENDING CHAPTERS 4-20, "RENTAL
LICENSE FEE," 10-2 "HOUSING CODE," WHICH INCORPORATES THE
INTERNATIONAL PROPERTY MAINTENANCE CODE (IPMC), AND 10-
3, "RENTAL LICENSE," ALL OF WHICH ARE CORRECTIONS TO
ORDINANCE NOS. 7724, 7725, AND 7726 AND SETTING FORTH
RELATED DETAILS.
J. SECOND READING AND CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT
ORDINANCE No. 7773 APPROVING SUPPLEMENTAL
APPROPRIATIONS TO THE 2010 BUDGET.
K. CONSIDERATION OF THE FOLLOWING ITEMS RELATED TO A
DEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROPOSED FOR A BOULDER COUNTY
PROPERTY IDENTIFIED AS 1000 ROSEWOOD AVENUE AND AN
ASSOCIATED CITY OWNED PARCEL/RIGHT-OF-WAY IMMEDIATELY
NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY:
1. A RESOLUTION FINDING THE ANNEXATION PETITION IN COMPLIANCE WITH
STATE STATUTES AND ESTABLISHING JAN. 18, 2011 AS THE DATE FOR A
PUBLIC HEARING.
2. INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING AND CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO
ORDER PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY, AN ORDINANCE ANNEXING 2.26 ACRES OF
LAND GENERALLY LOCATED AT 1000 ROSEWOOD AVENUE WITH AN INITIAL
ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM - 1 (RM-1). THE
ANNEXATION IS PROPOSED WITH A 7.4% OPEN SPACE REDUCTION.
3. INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING AND CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO
ORDER PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY, AN ORDINANCE VACATING AN
APPROXIMATELY 0.06 ACRE PORTION OF RIGHT-OF WAY NORTH OF 1000
ROSEWOOD AVENUE AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
DEED OF VACATION AND QUITCLAIM DEED PURSUANT TO SECTION 2-2-8,
"CONVEYANCE OF CITY REAL PROPERTY INTEREST," B.R.C. 1981.
4. INTRODUCTION, FIRST READING AND CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO
ORDER PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY, AN ORDINANCE REZONING AN
APPROXIMATELY 0.06 ACRE PORTION OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH
OF 1000 ROSEWOOD AVENUE FROM INDUSTRIAL- MIXED SERVICE (IMS)
TO RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM - I (RM-1) ZONING CLASSIFICATION.
(##LUR2010-00033) APPLICANT: COBURN DEVELOPMENT, INC.
PROPERTY OWNER: DK DEVELOPMENT, LLC
Council Member Karakehian recused himself from consent agenda item 3K.
Council Member Gray moved, seconded by Becker to approve consent items
3A through 3K. The motion carried unanimously,
4. CALL- UP CHECK IN: - 6:37 p.m.
No interest was expressed.
ORDER OF BUSINESS
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION PROVIDING DIRECTION ON THE FOLLOWING KEY
POLICY AREAS FOR THE BOULDER RESERVOIR MASTER PLAN: - 6:38 P.M.
1. BOATING
2. WEST SHORE USE
3. NORTH SHORE AND COOT LAKE USE
4. SPECIAL EVENTS
Parks and Recreation Director Kirk Kincannon provided the introduction on the item. The
master plan would identify goals and objectives of the Reservoir, establish policies and guide
long term investment.
Bev Johnson then reviewed what was accomplished in Phase 1. Phase 11 preliminary options
were developed early in 2010. Refinement and evaluation of the options took place and options
were posted online in October and a public meeting was held. Two study sessions with the Parks
and Recreation Advisory Board were held in October. The staff recommendation was available
in early November. The Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) and Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board (DRAB) recommendations were available in November.
Boating Options:
She then reviewed the boating options and indicated that staff recommended option 2. The
WRAB supported option 2 with annual reports on the aquatic nuisance species status and
prevention. PRAB also supported option 2 with an amendment that motorboats and large
sailboats (all trailered boats) remain on site throughout the season.
West Shore Use:
Staff supported option 3 for the west shore use policy. The option allowed low impact use with
the development of a multi-use trail along the east side of the 51" Street right-of-way,
designation of the wetland and prairie dog habitat as a Habitat Conservation Area and
continuation of the aeromodeling use at its current location.
North Shore and Coot Lake Use:
A combination of Options 1 and 2 were recommended which continued passive uses of the area
and maintained the 55th Street parking lot. It also included a dogs on-leasb requirement on the
pedestrian only trail around the Coot Lake wetlands. Current voice and sight rules would remain
for the other areas of the North Shore and Coot Lake. Dogs could still swim on the south and
east shores of Coot Lake and North Shore.
Special Events:
The special event policy sets a maximum for the number of events that would be allowed at the
reservoir. The policy would allow up to two special events per day and 20 per month in the high
season and one per day and ten per month in the low season.
Pete Webber, Chair of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and speaking on behalf of the
Board, noted that some compromises were forged on split votes as an even number of members
were in attendance at the meeting.
Council Member Appelbaum raised concern that there was not 100% cost recovery on the boat
inspection program. Mr. Kinkannon indicated that a small fee was implemented that recovered a
small portion of the overall costs.
Deputy Mayor Wilson commented on the PRAB recommendation that larger boats remain on site
and he asked Mr. Webber to explain that recommendation. Mr. Webber commented that the
Board was trying to minimize ANS (aquatic nuisance species) introduction into the Reservoir.
Some members supported a total ban on motorized boating and sail boats. The recommendation
was a compromise between the two sides of the argument. Mr. Wilson then asked why phasing
out aeromodeling was recommended. Mr. Webber commented that the recommendation was to
protect wildlife, particularly birds in the area. There was no quantifiable evidence that wildlife
was negatively impacted.
Council Member Morzel asked about the timeline for phasing out aeromodeling. Mr. Webber
commented that those details were not discussed as the plan itself was yet to be written and the
Board was asked to keep its discussion at a higher level. She then asked about on site boats and
asked if an analysis had been done on the costs and revenues that could result from a boat rental
program. No analysis had been completed yet.
Council Member Ageton was interested in hearing more about deterring illegal boat launches
from the north shore. She asked if the PRAB master plan defined and refered to habitat
conservation areas. Staff was looking at the existing Open Space Mountain Parks protocol.
Parks staff had not looked at other sites in terms of habitat conservation areas.
Council Member Karakehian raised concern about how eliminating motorized boating and/or
personal watercraft would affect the EXPAND program.
Michelle Estrella, PRAB Board member, then spoke and provided her opinion from the minority
side that she did not feel adequate conversation had taken place among the Board or the public
about the impacts of requiring dogs on leash and eliminating the voice and sight control.
The public hearing was opened: - 8:00 p.m.
1. Ruth Schrock, Boulder resident, argued against leash laws on Coot Lake as Parks
and Recreation had established no need for it and she felt residents were truly the
owners of the lake.
2. Clifford Bogenschatz, Lafayette resident, had enjoyed boating on the reservoir for
over thirty years but did not support the requirement to store his boat at the lake.
3. Seth Brigham suggested extending the fence and a higher penalty for dogs in the
wetlands. Regarding boats he urged council to eliminate all motorized boats.
4. Julianne McCabe supported option 2 on the west shore area. The City hadn't
given the fence enough time to work.
5. A.D. Chesley, Boulder resident, representing the Boulder County Nature
Association, expressed concern about the western shore and wetlands area of Coot
Lake. She urged council to designate the area as a habitat conservation area and
contain the habitat area. Breeding bird time should be a key consideration.
6. Elizabeth Allen supported Rob Smoke's continued efforts on this issue and
supported banning motorized boating.
7. Andy Malkiel pooling time with Rebecca Bavkhom and Kitty Bradley, spoke in
support of maintaining voice and site control around Coot Lake. He had collected
over 400 signatures that he presented to Council. He requested more reasonable
measures and more opportunity for the fence to work. Coot Lake was also the
only handicap accessible, voice and site control area in Boulder.
8. Ed Mills with Fidos indicated that Fidos opposed the removal of sight and voice
control at Coot Lake.
9. Dave Locke, a boater, agreed that ANS was a threat but the current process of
inspections was working quite well. The inlet of water from Carter Lake posed a
far greater concern. It was not an option to mandate that boats cannot leave the
reservoir.
10. August J. Bruno, a member of the airomodel club noted this was the only
sanctioned location in Boulder County and was a 75 year old tradition.
11. Deborah Flick supported comments from FIDOS and other dog advocates for
Coot Lake.
12. Lorena Kauffman supported allowing motorized boating on the reservoir.
13. Dan Sukle with Fidos raised concern that not enough public notice was given for
the voice and sight control issue. More time was needed to see if the fence could
be effective.
14. Mary Hiatt, Boulder County resident, spoke in support of voice and sight control
for dogs.
15. Karen Zupko, Jamestown resident and frequenter of Coot Lake, noted many
seniors use the trail and she would like to see voice and sight control maintained.
She also emailed council a study done by OSMP on the flushing response of
birds/dogs. Please consider some more scientific information.
16. Cathy Comstock, Boulder resident, spoke to the damage that had already been
done to the Coot Lake area and supported the leash law and protecting the west
shore. She also raised concern about increasing the number of special events
during May and June breeding seasons.
17. John Sandhu, Boulder resident, spoke to the valuable family time gained from
boating on Boulder Reservoir. Please don't make unnecessary rules.
18. Neil Sandhu expressed that the tagging system in Boulder was sufficient. Please
don't ban motorized boating.
19. Alex Cosman, Boulder resident, disagreed that boats disturbed the wildlife and
indicated he was in favor of the status quo on boating.
20. Susan Graber, Longmont resident and regular Coot Lake user, noted she had seen
a handful of dogs in the habitat area and generally those people were unaware.
She didn't feel there was quantitative evidence to support a change in the wildlife
in the animal area. There was evidence of a large wildlife predator in the area.
Please do a more scientific study.
21. Fran Blum expressed that voice and sight control was adequate. She raised
concern about due public process related to dogs on trails. She asked for
council's closer scrutiny and management of the public process. Please consider
the review and reversal of the ordinance around dry creek.
22. John Wyss, Boulder County resident, felt there was a lot of support at six public
meetings for the status quo option 1. He was surprised and concerned about
where the restrictions came from. A limitation of 20 boats on the Reservoir at one
time was too extreme. He also spoke to someone at Pueblo Reservoir regarding
ANS noting that no major environmental impacts were found.
23. Kent Sherer, Boulder resident, noted he had never seen any altercations between
dogs and wildlife. Urged council to maintain the voice and sight requirements.
24. Doug Cosman, Boulder resident and boater, spoke to the family time he spends at
the Reservoir and supported option 1 to maintain the status quo on boating.
Boulder is getting too restrictive.
25. Rodger Stewart, Boulder resident and member of EXPAND, a program that runs a
handicap water skiing program, noted the EXPAND program would not survive,
particularly if boats were required to stay on the reservoir. He supported the
status quo option. The tagging system now was effective.
26. Sam Vance, Boulder resident and environmental scientist with the Environmental
Protection Agency, noted that no solid data had been provided. No exceedances
of the healthy parameters of a reservoir had been presented. Boating was a family
pursuit that needs maintained. Forcing boat owners to store their boats there
would not work. Use the data you have or need to make the decision.
27. Dean Ehn an aeromodeler and bird watcher had not seen any effect on the wildlife
from his airplanes. There really was no physical contact with the wildlife habitat
area and the airplanes. It's the only flying field in Boulder County.
28. Kate Barberis, unincorporate Boulder County resident and property owner, spoke
in support of motorized boating. Perhaps regulating clean running boat engines
would be better. The inspection system was effective.
29. Christie Smith, Boulder County resident who frequented Coot Lake, suggested the
lake was important to all users. Horsetooth Reservoir also had an efficient
system.
30. Les Smith expressed that the inspection and tagging was a proven winner
throughout the entire state. He also supported voice and sight control.
31. Dennis Bashline noted that his two dogs had no interest in going into the wetland
area and needed to run.
32. Kathy Moren, Lafayette resident, agreed that the status quo for boating would be
preferred. The City should look at the revenue including the picnic areas, gate
fees etc... that could be lost. Staff should also do further analysis on the mud
snail issue. Partial containment would not accomplish anything.
33. Bob Mcintosh indicated nothing was broken, so don't fix it.
34. Skip Miller, 41 year resident and Chair of the Boulder Aeromodeling Society
which was 75 years old, spoke to the superior status of the aeromodeling field
which they support with their own funding based on the agreement with the City.
He supported option 1, status quo.
35. Kristine Grosland, Boulder resident, supported maintaining the voice and sight
control at Coot Lake. After the fencing, sufficient time had not been given for
appropriate data. This is more of a human problem than a dog problem.
36. Bill Hayes, Longmont resident and local business owner, spoke to the adaptive
water skiing program. He commended the reservoir staff and agreed with a
previous speaker that the EXPAND program would die if restrictions were put
into effect.
37. Renee St. Aubin thanked council for the green tag program and supported
maintaining voice and sight control. She also supported maintaining horse access
on the trails.
38. Alan Ward, President of Boulder Community Rowing, supported the current boat
inspection program and felt there was insufficient evidence in staff's data. Ile
also indicated it wasn't clear how a trailered boat was defined. In addition,
rowing events with boats from across the country could not take place nor could
those people travel to compete elsewhere.
39. David Hofmann, Boulder County resident and boater at the Reservoir, felt the
reservoir was extremely well run and there was little conflict. He raised concern
that renting boats created a liability. Please support the status quo.
40. Tim Dooley, resident, a boater and single dad, spoke to the important family value
boating brings. He agreed the inspection system worked well. The number of
boats on the lake was self regulating.
41. Steve Peterson, Boulder resident, expressed that he taught about 30 kids a year
how to wakeboard or ski. Boats take a tremendous amount of maintenance and he
would not be comfortable leaving them at the reservoir. Also consider
grandfathering in any changes.
42. Dr. Jim Paul brought his service dog and spoke on behalf of the disabled
population. Coot Lake was one of the last places disabled could take their dogs
without having to try and keep up with them. The North Shore is also where low
income folks go who can't afford to use the beach.
There being no further speakers the public hearing was closed at 9:40 p.m.
Mayor Osborne raised concern about cost recovery on the inspection and fees. Alice Guthrie
responded that the goal was to have a self supporting program within three years. Costs of the
programs had also decreased as staff became more efficient at running the program.
Deputy Mayor Wilson asked about the limit on engine size. He asked how many boats were
more than 500 horsepower. Kirk Kincannon responded there were only one or two. Mr.
Kinkannon also noted there was only about 300 acres of boatable water.
Council Member Gray suggested perhaps an option could be provided to exempt the EXPAND
program and their equipment. The only way she would support removing the aeromodeling field
from the reservoir area would be if another piece of land was found.
I
i
i
9:57 p.m.
Boating:
Council Member Karakehian moved, seconded by Morzel to direct staff to move I01-ward with
option 1 as listed on page 21 of the agenda memo:
• Eliminating; the "no personal watercraft provision" from option 1
• Phase out two-stroke engines that do not meet EPA exhaust emission standards. (two-
stroke engines that meet current emission standards would be allowed..)
• No fuelling on water
• All watercraft must launch from designated areas on the South Shore
• No watercraft allowed in Coot Lake (including belly boats).
• Eliminate "Jet Ski Cove" and expand "no wake" zone at the Dry Creek inlet to protect
aquatic and wetland habitat and;
0 illdUdlrl', OIe provision from option 2 to set limitations on the size (5500 horsepower
maximum).
The motion carried 6:3; Cowles, Morzel and Osborne opposed. Time of vote 10:25 p.m.
Council Member Gray moved, seconded by Morzel to suspend the rules and continue the
meeting at 10:23 p.m. The motion carried 9:0 at 10:23 p.m.
Council Member Appelbaum offered a friendly amendment to direct staff to establish up to two
full no wake days per week at the reservoir. The friendly amendment was accepted.
Deputy Mayor Wilson offered a friendly amendment to eliminate PWC. craft except for water
safety purposes and any craft used for department approved or managed programs. The friendly
amendment was accepted.
Council Member Cowles moved, seconded by Morzel to direct staff to set the fees on the
inspection program for roll cost recovery starting in 2011. The motion carried 6:3, Ageton,
Karakehian and Wilson opposed. 10:24 p.m.
Coot Lake:
Council Member Morzel moved. seconded by Ageton to allow voice and sight on the trail and
instituting regulations that would prohibit dogs and people from going, into the wetlands; to
reinforce the fencing, and provide better signage to educate the public, and report back to Council
in I year on the results of the vilot program. The motion carried 9:0; 10:34 p.m.
West Shore Use:
Council Member Appelbaum moved, seconded by Wilson to approve the staff recommended
Option 3 on page 13 of the agenda memo to:
1. Develop a city-initiated and funded soft-surficree, multi-use trail along the case side of the
51st Street right-of=way to connect the North Shore trail system to the main entry gate
area of the Boulder Reservoir.
2. Continue the current aeromodelin , use with seasonal wildlife closures as needed.
3. Require that dogs be on-leash along the trail
4. and amending 94 to designate the wetland and shoreline as a protected area.
The motion carried 9:0 10:50 p.m.
i
Special Events:
Council Member Cowles moved. seconded by Gray to approve the staff recommendation and
include the PRAB recommendation as outlined on page 5 of the agenda memo and to include
,more detailed cumulative impact standards aligned with the vision for the reservoir and a more
tiered approach to event permitting. The motion carried 9:0. 10:55 p.m.
Council Member Morzel moved, seconded by Wilson to suspend the rules and continue the
meeting at 10:58 p.m. The motion carried 8:0; Karakehian opposed.
B. SECOND READING AND CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO ADOPT ORDINANCE
No. 7753 AMENDING TITLE 2, GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION, CHAPTER 1, CITY
COUNCIL, B.R.C. 1981, TO ADD A NEW SECTION ON COUNCIL MEMBER
BENEFITS.
City Manager Brautigam provided a brief introduction to the item.
The public hearing was opened at 10:59 p.m.
1. Seth Brigham commented that a prior committee on council compensation
disagreed with providing council member benefits. He thought it was self serving
and council members were volunteers that should not receive health insurance.
There being no further speakers the public hearing was closed at 11:02 p.m.
Deputy Mayor Wilson moved, seconded by Appelbaum to:
1. Amend Ordinance No. 7753 to delete, from proposed paragraph 2-2-3(c)(2),
B.R.C. 1981, the word "generally" immediately belore "available" to the
City of Boulder Officers and Employees."
2. Adopt, as amended, Ordinance Number 7753 amending Title 2. Government
Orkanization. Chapter 1, City Council. B.R.C. 1981, to add a new section on
council member benefits.
3. Approve the following benefits and amenities, as of the effective date of
Ordinance No. 7753 and as permitted by Section 2-2-3 "Council Member
Benefits," B.R.C. 1981:
• Denver Regional Transportation District (RTD) FeoPasses, provided to
council members since the early 1990s;
• City provided cellular telephones and related services for conducting city
business, provided to council members since 2008;
• Passes to the citv's Parks and Recreation facilities. provided to council
members since 2005; and
• Participation in retirement programs of the Colorado Public lmployees
Retirement Association or the International City Management Association
Retirement Corporation, provided to council members since 1991.
The motion carried 8:1; Ageton opposed. 11:20 p.m.
6. MATTERS FROM THE CITY MANAGER:
None.
7. MATTERS FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY:
None.
8. MATTERS FROM MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: - 11:21 p.m.
A. POTENTIAL CALL-UPS:
1. SITE REVIEW FOR 4474 BROADWAY. INFORMATION PACKET DATE:
DECEMBER 1, 2010. LAST OPPORTUNITY FOR CALL-UP IS DECEMBER 7,
2010. APPROVED BY PLANNING BOARD 6-0, JOHNSON ABSENT.)
No action was taken on the item.
B. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION REGARDING 2010 PERFORMANCE EVALUATIONS,
AND PERFORMANCE BASED SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR THE CITY MANAGER
AND MUNICIPAL JUDGE.
Deputy Mayor Wilson moved, seconded byppelbaum to award apay increase of
$7,308 (4%0 of base salary) to the City Manager's base salary and a pay increase of
$4.751 (4% of base salary) to the Municipal Judge's base salary and that the
increases be retroactive to June 28, 2010.
C. CONSIDERATION OF A MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDMENTS COUNCIL RULES OF
PROCEDURE, INCORPORATING RULES OF DECORUM.
Council Member Appelbaum suggested the word "shall" be replaced by the word
"may" in section c. on page 8 of the agenda item.
Deputy mayor Wilson suggested section g. on page 9 be amended to read that a
Board and Commission member whose board voted on a matter under
consideration will be allowed to speak during the staff presentation at the
beginning of the public hearing.
Council Member Appelbaum suggested the words "any of be added to the last
sentence of section g. on page 9 between "during" and "the" so that the sentence
reads "The sign-up forms shall have a place for each speaker to indicate whether
or not they have addressed council during public participation during any of the
previous four meetings.
Council Member Ageton suggested the second and third sentences in Section A.
on page 18 were redundant. Perhaps public participation could be changed to
open comment. She also suggested a number 10 be added that is a reflection that
we should have a safe and secure meeting setting.
Council Member Cowles suggested there was no procedure for barring someone
from a meeting. Perhaps an automatic three month period when a disruptive
person could be barred from the meeting.
No action was taken on the item. An amended version would return to council at
a future council meeting.
9. PUBLIC COMMENT ON MATTERS:
I . Seth Brigham again voiced his opposition to the rules of decorum.
10. FINAL DECISIONS ON MATTERS:
Vote was taken on the motion to award a pay increase of $7,308 (4% of base salary) to the City
Manager's base salary and a pay increase of $4.751 (4% of base salary to the Municipal Judge's base
salary and that the increases be retroactive to June 28. 2010. The motion carried 9:0.
11. ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business to come before Council at this time, BY MOTION
REGULARLY ADOPTED, THE MEETING WAS ADJOURNED AT 12:15 P.M.
AP ROVED Y:
Susan Osborne,
ATTEST: Mayor
Alisa D. Lewis,
City Clerk
Attachment C:
November 22, 2010
PRAB Meeting Minutes
City of Boulder
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board
Council Chambers
1777 Broadway
November 22, 2010
Action Meeting Minutes
To listen to the Parks and Recreation Advisory Board meetings in their entirety,
please go to the following link: www.boulderparks-rec.org
Board Present:
Todd Bryan, Pete Webber, Marcelee Gralapp, Michelle Estrella, Myriah Conroy,
Rick Thayer
Board Absent: Bob Yates
Staff Present:
Kirk Kincannon, Sarah DeSouza, Sally Dieterich, Bev Johnson, Steve Whipple,
Matt Claussen, Stacy Cole
The meeting was called to order at 6:02 p.m.
1. APPROVAL OF AGENDA
The agenda was approved.
II. FUTURE BOARD ITEMS AND TOURS
Kincannon provided a timeline update on future items:
• 12/7 - City Council meeting - Public hearing on the adoption of the
Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Policy Options
• 12/13 - PRAB meeting - Discussion on PRAB 2011 Goals for City
Council
• 12/13 - Next PRAB meeting - West Senior Center
III. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Public participation was opened.
No one spoke.
Public participation was closed.
IV. CONSENT AGENDA
V. ITEMS FOR ACTION
A. Public Hearing and Consideration of a Recommendation to City Council
Regarding the Policy Options for the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan
Johnson provided a brief verbal update on this item, including the following
timeline:
Phase 2 near completion
1
• Boulder Reservoir Master Plan PRAB study sessions were held on
10/18/10 and 10/25/10
• Received several hundred public comments on preferred options
• Staff recommendations:
o Boating -Option 2
o West Shore - Option 3
o North Shore and Coot Lake Use - Elements of Option 1 and 2
o Special Events - Policy as recommended by staff
• Boating Options presented to the Water Resources Advisory Board
(WRAB) 11/15/10 for recommendation
o WRAB supported boating options (4-1 vote)
o Due to ANS (Aquatic Nuisance Species) risk concerns, requesting
annual report from staff on ANS status
0 12/7/10 -City Council public hearing on the Boulder Reservoir Master
Plan Policy Options
Public participation was opened.
Linda Andes-Georges, non-resident, spoke in support of Option 3, providing
a multi use trail system around the Boulder Reservoir while minimizing impacts
to wetlands and wildlife.
Paul DiMarchi, resident, spoke as one of seven pass holders who pay fees for
putting PWC's (personalized water craft) on the Boulder Reservoir. He proposed
that banning PWC's would have a minimal impact on air, water and noise, but a
significant negative impact on PWC enthusiasts who enjoy the Boulder
Reservoir.
Petrea Mah, resident, representing Boulder County Audubon, spoke of the
disappearance of bitterns from the West Shore area. She asked that the most
conservative of options be adopted.
Cathy Comstock, resident, representing Boulder County Nature Association,
spoke on the negative impact of dogs in the North Shore area of Coot Lake. She
asked that a fence be installed at the North Shore to protect the area and nesting
birds. She also asked that special events be limited to ten with no events to be
scheduled when raptors are nesting.
Andy Malkiel, resident, spoke in opposition to instituting a leash requirement and
the addition of wire to the fencing on the west side of Coot Lake. He feels this
deters handicapped visitors from walking their dogs in that area.
Public participation was closed.
2
Motion 1- Special Events
Webber made the following, _motion:
The PRAB supports the special events policy as recommended by staff. PRAB
also requests that in the Boulder Reservoir Master Plan, staff develops more
detailed cumulative impact standards aligned with the vision for the Reservoir,
does support a tiered approach to event permitting.
Conroy seconded the motion.
The motion passed 6-0 with Yates absent.
Motion 2 - North Shore and Coot Lake Use
Webber made the following motion:
I move that the PRAB supports the North Shore and Coot Lake Use option as
recommended by staff.
Conroy seconded the motion.
The vote was as follows:
Bryan yea
Webber yea
Gralapp yea
Thayer yea
Estrella nay
Conroy nay
Yates absent
The motion passed 4-2.
Estrella requested that the PRAB re-open the vote on the dogs on leash
requirement and re-consider a friendly amendment to test the fencing of the trail
north and west of Coot Lake. The PRAB took a straw poll to re-open the vote and
it failed by a vote of 4-2. Affirming votes were cast by Estrella and Bryan.
Estrella asked that her minority position be noted regarding Motion 2, the North
Shore and Coot Lake Use option. She felt that the dogs on leash requirement on
the trail north and west of Coot Lake should not be mandatory if the fencing
is sufficient.
Motion 3 - West Shore Option
Webber made the following motion:
I move that the PRAB supports Option 3 and request a detailed plan to be
presented for additional approval and aeromodeling be phased out.
Estrella seconded the motion.
3
The vote was as follows:
Bryan yea
Webber yea
Thayer yea
Estrella yea
Gralapp nay
Conroy nay
Yates absent
The motion passed 4-2.
Motion 4 - Boating Options
Webber made the following motion:
I move that the PRAB adopt Option 2B with the amendment that trailered boats
must remain in the Boulder Reservoir once in and cannot return once out, on a
seasonal basis with the exception of human powered watercraft such as canoes,
kayaks, windsurfers and paddle boards.
Gralapp seconded the motion.
The vote was as follows:
Bryan yea
Webber yea
Gralapp yea
Thayer yea
Conroy yea
Estrella nay
Yates absent
The motion passed 5-1.
VI. ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION/INFORMATION
There were no Items for Discussion/Information.
VII. MATTERS FROM THE DEPARTMENT
A. Park Development Updpite
Kincannon said the Department has initiated the planning process for
development of Elks Park. He added that staff has conducted two public meetings
and solicited community input regarding design of the park.
B. Budget Update
Kincannon indicated that the proposed Parks and Recreation Department budget
was approved as proposed. He added that the City of Boulder budget was also
approved with no major changes.
4
C. Pottery Lab Update
Regarding the Pottery Lab Request for Proposal (RFP), Kincannon said that City
Manager Jane Brautigam has chosen not to award the Pottery Lab RFP contract at
this time. He added that the Department will move towards making the Pottery
Lab a sustainable, in-house operation. Sometime during the first quarter 2011
the Department will return to the PRAB with an Information Item on how the
Department will proceed.
VIII. MA'T'TERS FROM BOARD MEMBERS
A. PRAB Goals for City Council 2011
Board Chair Bryan deferred this item to the December 13, 2010 PRAB meeting.
IX. NEXT BOARD MEETING: December 13, 2010 at the West Senior Center
Creekside Room, 909 W. Arapahoe Avenue
X. ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at 10:04 p.m.
APPROVED BY PARKS AND
E WNVISORY BOARD
Todd
Board Chair
Attest: ~
Sally Diete ch
Recording Secretary
5
CITY OF BOULDER
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: November 21, 2011
AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of a recommendation
to the City Manager to proceed with developing new Commercial, Industrial
and Institutional (CII) water budgets using a revised approach and purpose
statement.
PRESENTERS:
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bret Linenfelser, Water Quality and Environmental Services Coordinator
Russ Sands, Water Conservation Program Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
Water budgets were adopted by City Council in 2006 to provide customers with budgets
which reflected efficient use of water and supported city water conservation goals
outlined in the 2000 Water Conservation Futures Study. Upon approval, City Council
recommended re-evaluating the way indoor water budgets were developed for the
Commercial, Industrial and Institutional (CII) sector. While single family and
multifamily water budgets attempt to link water use to water conservation measures, CII
water budgets are currently based on historic water use regardless of whether the historic
use has been efficient or wasteful.
In 2009 staff initiated a CII water use study to determine how efficiency-based water
budgets could be set. With WRAB input, the study explored a number of options ranging
from a no action alternative to equal reduction in water budgets across all sectors
(Attachment A). The options were discussed at the May 16, 2011 WRAB meeting, and
two options were considered for further evaluation: 1) use of statistical benchmarks to set
CII water budgets; and, 2) use water audits to establish CH water budgets. At WRAB's
request, staff continued to analyze both options and staff have developed a single
"Revised Approach" (Attachment C) which primarily utilizes the benchmarking
methodology while using water audits to address unique water users and customer
variance requests.
Full development of the Revised Approach is expected to continue through 2013 with
implementation in 2014, if approved by City Council. Staff is continuing to contract with
the Brendle Group to provide CII analysis which builds on the city-specific CII work
AGENDA ITEM # PAGE 1
already completed (Attachment B; Attachment D). The city will also be participating in a
new Water Research Foundation (WRF) project (number 4375) titled 1wethodology for
Determining Baseline Commercial, Institutional and Industrial End Uses of Water, the
results of which will help inform city efforts.
Staff is proposing the following purpose statement to guide the CII study:
The overarching goal of this project is to improve the process for developing CH water
budgets such that they fairly and equitably establish an efficient level of water use.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Suggested Motion :
WRAB is responsible for reviewing and making recommendations to the City Manager
concerning policy issues on operating programs including water conservation. Staff
requests WRAB consideration of continuing the CII study in the form of the following
motion:
Motion to recommend that the City Manager continue the CII study utilizing a
revised approach that incorporates both benchmark and audit based methodologies
and with a purpose statement that the overarching goal of the project is to improve the
process for developing CII water budgets such that they fairly and equitably establish
an efficient level of water use.
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILITY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS:
• Economic - Economic impacts have yet to be determined from establishing new
CII sector water efficiency based water budgets and the impacts will be based on
the final water budget process implemented. Economic impacts (negative and
positive) will affect both CII sector water customers and utility revenues.
• Environmental - The CII water use study and associated implementation may
result in less water being used in the CII sector. T his would require less water
and wastewater to be treated which reduces energy usage, chemical usage, etc. at
city water and wastewater treatment facilities. Reduced water use could also
support the city's climate action plan goals through reduced energy usage.
• Social - The CII water use study is intended to be fair and equitable to water
users within the CII sector.
OTHER IMPACTS
• Fiscal- Budgetary impacts to Utilities is approximately $30,000 for consulting
assistance and could increase based on CII survey results. These funds are
AGENDA ITEM # PAGE 2
available from the Water Conservation Program 2011 budget. An additional
$28,000 in-kind dollars is expected to support the 2011 Water Research
Foundation (WRF) CII study. Based on recent previous revenue studies, a
revenue impact analysis will cost approximately $24,000. These funds would
come from the Water Utility.
BOARD AND COMMISSION FEEDBACK:
This item was presented to WRAB at the November 16, 2009 meeting where Utilities
staff received approval to move forward with the CII water use study. An update of the
study was provided to WRAB at the August 16, 2010 meeting. Staff presented the most
recent update to WRAB at the May 16, 2011 meeting.
PUBLIC FEEDBACK:
City staff met with the Boulder Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) in 2010 to discuss the
concept of a CII water use study and an approach to completing water audits for multiple
businesses in various sectors. The Chamber was supportive of conducting water audits as
a first step and requested to be involved in future phases of the CII water uses study. A
Communication Plan was also developed for the project.
BACKGROUND
See Attachment E
ANALYSIS:
At the May 16, 2011 WRAB meeting, staff presented several approaches including a no
action alternative (Attachment A). WRAB directed staff to continue looking at two
approaches: 1) statistical benchmarking methodology; and 2) water audit approach which
utilizes the existing Efficiency Standard (ES) water budget implementation process.
Further review of both approaches indicated both options have key components that
support each other and are desirable for establishing CII water budgets. The statistical
benchmarking methodology outlined in the 2000 AWWARF Commercial and
Institutional End Uses of Water Study (CIEUWS) did not develop water budgets and the
statistical benchmarking approach has not been used to implement water budgets. The
CIEUWS study does shows that benchmarks can accurately predict CII sector water use
in a much quicker and more efficient way than could be achieved using water audits
alone. However, in some cases, the CIEUWS study suggests that water audits can
provide additional, detailed CII information to support the development of water budgets
from statistical benchmarks.
AGENDA ITEM # PAGE 3
The proposed water audit approach focused on requiring water audits for CII customers
who may not be using water efficiently, which is estimated to be approximately twenty
five percent of the CII customers. i Comparatively, the CIEUWS study proposed a
reduced water budget for roughly three quarters of the benchmarked CII customers
(setting a benchmark at the 25th percentile)2. WRAB has suggested a higher benchmark
could be set, possibly in the 75th percentile range, or above. Setting a benchmark at the
75th percentile would likely target the same top twenty five percent of CII water users
identified using the water audit approach, but setting a benchmark would take much less
time (as noted in the CIEUWS study). City CIS utility billing program modifications
would be required to input each benchmark, and related normalizing factor, but could be
accomplished .3
Revised CII Water Budget Development Approach
The Revised Approach (Attachment C) incorporates the core tenants of the benchmarking
methodology including grouping CII subsectors appropriately, collecting relevant CII
data and utilizing statistical analysis to establish a benchmark for efficient use. For those
CII sub-sectors above the benchmark their current water budget would be reduced, and
for those below the benchmark, their budgets would increase. If the CII user could not be
analyzed using benchmarking methodology due to its unique water use, their budget
would be established based on a water audit. The water audit would determine if the
current water budget (based on historical use) is appropriate or if it should be reduced
through water use efficiencies. Water audits could also be completed for standard CII
users who want to request a variance from the benchmark-based water budget.
Who performs water audits, what the audits entail and who pays for the audit still needs
to be evaluated. Under the current provisions of the Boulder Revised Code (BRC), water
audits (for ES) can only be completed by a professional engineer, there is no standard
form for completing water audits, and the cost falls to the customer. Staff proposes
considering revisions to the BRC to allow for water audits by a non-engineer, developing
a single audit form, and exploring cost sharing or rebates for water audits.
With the Revised Approach, individual CII water budgets using the benchmark
methodology or water audit can be input into the city's utility billing database using the
existing ES water budget format. A benefit of the ES water budget format is its
flexibility since ES water budgets can be input as a flat amount each month or they can
vary by month to accommodate CII customer needs.
Analysis of Brendle Group Work
At the May 16 WRAB meeting, WRAB recommend that staff have the Brendle Group
complete additional CII sector water use analysis. This work is shown in the updated
Brendle Group CII Technical Memorandum #2 (Attachment D). Specific issues
addressed in the technical memorandum that were requested by WRAB include:
' CH customers in block 5 for at least 3 consecutive months and CH customers with altered water budgets.
2 The CIEUWS study does not include all CII sub-sectors and may not be applicable to all CH sub-sectors.
3 Programming could not be done in-house; would increase reporting time- see past WRAB Agenda item.
AGENDA ITEM # PAGE 4
1) Improved graphs which more clearly display the benchmark, metric and
consumption
2) Clarification on the use of Average Winter Consumption (not annual
consumption)
3) Reevaluation of restaurant kgal per seat; removing values shown as "less than
50 seats"
Additional analysis such as increased clarification of the number of customers under and
over budget at a given percentile and the addition of the 80th percentile is also included
in the technical memorandum.
Staff is continuing to work with the Brendle Group on additional analysis including
testing the Revised Approach for feasibility, updating previous analysis with current CH
water use data, focusing on categorizing/grouping CII customers and evaluating where
benchmarks should be set.
Water Research Foundation (WRF) CII Study Participation
The city was selected as a partner in the WRF study (number 4375) titled Methodology
for Determining Baseline Commercial, Institutional and Industrial End Uses of Water,
which was initiated in October 2011 and will be completed in mid 2013. The project is
being lead by Hazen & Sawyer and is an update to the original CIEUWS study and the
city is one of seven participants4. Participating in this effort will assist staff with
addressing some key CH sector water budget development questions including the
following:
• How should CII sub-sectors be grouped?
• Where should benchmarks be set?
• What data collection (survey or other) would be needed and what would it entail?
• What benchmarking metrics (normalizing factors) should be used?
• What are the revenue impacts of benchmarks set at different levels?
• How long would Utility Billing require to input individual ES water budgets and
what support could be provided?
• What would water audits entail and what form would be used?
• How much would water audits cost?
• Who would perform water audits?
• Who would pay for water audits?
• What code changes would be necessary to institute new CII water budgets?
• How could staff best incorporate the business community into the process?
Analysis of Revenue Impacts
4 Colorado Springs; City of Boulder; East Bay Municipal Utility District; El Paso Water Utilities; New
York City Department of Environmental Protection; City of Phoenix Water Services Department: Tampa
Bay Water.
AGENDA ITEM # PAGE 5
A revenue impact analysis will need to be completed after the Brendle Group updates
previous water use analysis with current water use data.
Timetable for Proposed CII Study Efforts and CII Water Budget Development
The following is an anticipated timeline for completing future CII sector water budget
development tasks:
2011
-Brendle Group: Assist with NAICS (North American Industrial Classification
System) classifications and benchmark options.
-WRF/ Hazen & Sawyer: Begin WRF CII Study
2012
-Brendle Group: Update data using 2011 data (when available) to test benchmarks
across subsectors in order to evaluate benchmark options and highlight what
benchmark levels may work best
- Revenue impact study
-Customer Outreach including coordination with Boulder Chamber
- WRAB: Discuss results from Revenue Impact Analysis, discuss water audit
portion of study including what criteria is to be evaluated and evaluate what
benchmark may be most appropriate by CII sector/sub-sector
-WRF/ Hazen & Sawyer: Continue with WRF CII Study
-Data Collection: Create and implement survey or other CII data collection
approach
2013
-WRF/ Hazen & Sawyer: Conclude WRF CII Study participation
-Customer Outreach including coordination with Boulder Chamber
-City Council: Consideration of changes to CII water budgets and methodology.
2014
- Begin Implementation of new CII water budgets
AGENDA ITEM # PAGE 6
MATRIX OF OPTIONS
At the May 16, 2011 WRAB meeting staff presented six options to be considered
(Attachment A) but a single option was not selected. The Revised Approach combines
two options discussed in detail at the meeting and continued analysis of the Revised
Approach will result in returning to WRAB with a matrix of options for setting specific
policies related to the equity and efficiency of implementing CH water budgets.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A- Original Six Approaches Proposed to WRAB for CH
Attachment B- Brendle Group CH Technical Memorandum #1 (TM#1)
Attachment C- Flowchart of Revised Approach
Attachment D- Brendle Group CH Technical Memorandum #1 (TM#2)
Attachment E- CH Study Background
AGENDA ITEM # PAGE 7
ATTACHMENT A
POSSIBLE APPROACHES FOR ADDRESSING CII INDOOR WATER USE
34,~1 No Action Alternative 4 Code Change
City-wide water use reduction goals have been met. Change code (City Code and Design/Construction
W Increase water conservation focus on CII customers. standards) to require low-water using appliances and
a Focus water use reductions on high users first. fixtures for CII customer classes.
O
BUDGET CHANGE: NO
a
a BUDGET CHANGE: NO APPROACH: PROGRAMATIC
Q
APPROACH TYPE: PROGRAMATIC
Q PROS: No additional resource impact to city; Efforts will
oC PROS: No additional cost; Efforts will continue to reduce continue to reduce water use.
C7
0 water use
a CONS: Does not address water budgets; potential high
CONS: Does not address water budgets costs to business; difficult to enforce; only applies to new
businesses or remodels.
5 3 Percentile Reduction #4 Percentile Reduction By Sub-Sector
If CII water budgets (AMU; HMU) are thought to include Water budgets set for several sub-sectors by analyzing sub-
w water waste. An across-the-board water budget cut by a sectors water use and setting water budgets by setting
u set percentage could help discourage water waste. The efficiency benchmarks (251h percentile or other).
O same reduction applies to the entire CII sector.
p~ BUDGET CHANGE: YES
a BUDGET CHANGE: YES APPROACH TYPE: PERCENTILE
Q APPROACH TYPE: PERCENTILE
W
J PROS: CII budgets more closely mirror development of SF
Z PROS: Minimal impact to City resources; Ability to and MF budgets
u address with current CIS billing system.
W CONS: Substantial impact to city resources; Data
a CONS: May not be fair; May not reduce water waste; intensive; Can adversely impacts city revenue; Does not
Requires water efficient customers to do more. work for all customers; May require water efficient
customers to do more.
4~5 Efficiency Based Reduction 46 Efficiency Standard- Phase I (Staff Preferred Option)
Through water audits at individual properties set an Use the existing Efficiency Standard water budget to first
N efficiency benchmark per sub-sector based on the average target over budget CII customers by requiring an efficiency
W water waste identified in the sub-sector; Could allow for audit. Results determine the new Efficiency Standard water
2
V water efficient customers to stay with current budget. budget based on efficient water use.
O
a BUDGET CHANGE: YES BUDGET CHANGE: YES
a APPROACH TYPE: EFFICIENCY/ PERCENTILE APPROACH TYPE: EFFICIENCY STANDARD
a
V
Z PROS: Fairly establishes a benchmark; Measures actual PROS: Focus on over budget water users; Audits
W water savings; Easily implemented into CIS billing system. completed by qualified professional; Rebates and time
V
allowances promote partnership with businesses;
Uj CONS: Substantial impact to city resources; Data Addresses AMU and HMU budget changes.
intensive; Could be costly to customers; Time Intensive.
CONS: Does not set a specific water budget for CII.
ATTACHMENT B
brenc[le
70.207.0058
Memorandum 170.2p70059
To: Russ Sands, Water Quality & Environmental Semites
Fiona: Sedi Jansen, Brendle Group
Date: February 16, 2011
Re: Water benchmarking for select ICI sectors in Boulder
Introduction
In 2007, with funding from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's
Pollution Prevention Advisory- Board, a number of Northern Colorado water utilities and Brendle
Group undertook a benchmarking study of water consumption in hotels/ motels, restaurants, K-12
schools, and nursing/ assisted living homes in the participating utility's sere-ice areas. The
methodology and outcomes of this study can be found in Attachment A.
The City of Boulder contracted the Brendle Group to provide additional services utilizing the City
of Boulder data collected for the origuial study including the following:
1. Perform the same benchmarking analysis for the accounts from the City- of Boulder only -
eliminating the data from other water utilities (all additional analyses listed below will include
City of Boulder data only). This will allow the City, of Boulder to understand how their
accounts perform with respect to the broader data set.
Results provided will include, as appropriate, a scatter plot with trend line of consumption
versus benchinarking metric (e.g. square feet), the average, the 95 percent confidence
interval, the hill distribution as a histogram, and the 25`x' percentile of the distribution.
2. Add a correlation of water consumption to property age (scatter plot and trend line).
3. Add a correlation of water consumption to number of employees (scatter plot and trend
line)
4. Add a calculation of gallons/occupied room/day for hotels and motels.
5. Add a correlation of water consumption to presence of a restaurant for hotels and motels.
6. Compare the outcomes of the above to:
a. The 95 percent confidence intervals for the hill Nordlern Colorado study
(Attachment A).
b. Benchmarking that was included in Brendle Group's recent assessment work with
Denver Water for Denver and Jefferson County schools.
The following sections summarize the outcomes of the above analyses. Note that histograms may
not show outliers.
b re n dle Pagel of 39
Boulder Water ICI Benchmarking Memorandum
b re n dle Pagel of 39
Boulder Water ICI Benchmarking 1\Iemorandum
Restaurants
Restaurant Summary
Boulder Only Full Study Other
Data Set Count
Overall Set 138 302
Building Age(s) (yr) 102 247
Meter Size (inches) (median) 120 284
Square Footage (ft2) 99 235
Seating Capacity (count, based on fire
136 281
code)
BM= benchmark Averages
Average annual consumption (kgal) 1082 1276 1635"),
2616
Winter monthly average (kgal) 83 95
Annual BM: kgal/sgft 0.137 0.216
Annual BM: kgal/seat 17.915 13.698
Winter BM: kgallsqft 0.125 0.192
Winter BM: kgal/seat 16.369 12.46
Winter BM 95% confidence interval: 0.099-0.151 0.173-0.211
kgal/sqft
Winter BM 95% confidence interval: 13.03-19.70 10.58-14.31 10.8-12.7 (2)
kgal/seat
Winter BM 25 percentile: kgal/sqft 0.035 Not calculated
Winter BM 25 percentile: kgal/seat 4.94 Not calculated
Amy Vickers, Handbook of Water Use and Conservation, Waterplow Press, 2001
2 AWWA Research Foundation, Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water,
http://www.awwarf.org/research/topicsandpromects/execSum/241 b.aspx
b re n dle Page 2 of 39
Boulder Water ICI Benchmarking Memorandum
Restaurants (kgal/seat) Winter Average Consumption vs Seats
out)
20 soo + Y = 0.3687x + 46.13
18 R2=0.1612
16 0 400 c
14 E
12 300 •
10 Y to +
4
` 8 200
LL 6
4
4 ioo~ + *
S~ n♦
2, ~
0
q 3 ~b cOb 0 200 400 600
kgallseat seats
Restaurants (legal/sgft) Winter Average Consumption vs Square Feet
12 ano
I soo . y = 0.0004x + 81.083
10 R-= 0.0171
8 I 460
3 6 r~I z 300 i
~ C f0
~i 4 - Y 200-. •
100
- Ln m m r Ln m Mr,- -i Ln m 0
0 o a-i rv" IN rn li ltt v ~t
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50000 100000 150000
kgal/sgft sgft
b re n dle Page 3 of 39
Boulder Water ICI Benchmarking Memorandum
kgal/seat vs Building Age legal./sgft vs Building Age
a n 0.8
0.7
lzo y = -0.0075x + 29.712 6 y = -7E-0+5x + 0.264
nn R1 = 0.0003 R' = MOW
M n.s
w an • Cr
+
0.4
f6 60 • ♦ M !
to • h 03
40 • • • i • • • N
20 ! • ♦ n-1
0 0
1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050
Building Age Building Age
Winter Average Consumption vs Employees Employee information was taken from
cnn manta.com and provides only an estimate or
+ range of the number of current employees
snn
y = -0.122x + 91.117
o non + R2 = 0,0037
E •
so0 4
M
t • •
200 a • ! •
A • * • •
100
+---+s
0
0 50 100 150
#1 of Employees
b re n dle Page 4 of 39
Boulder Water ICI Benchmarking Memorandum
K-12 Schools
School Summa Elementary, Middle, and High School)
Boulder Only Full Study DPS/Jeffco(') Other
Data Set Count
Overall Set 36 184 213
Building Age(s) r 36 184 213
Meter Size inches 36 184 213
Square Footage (ft2) 35 145 207
Number of Students 36 183 211
BM= benchmark Aver ges
Average annual 1648 3424 947 1639
consumption (kgal) 11592 (3)
Winter monthly average 79 111 n/a
(kgal)
Annual BM: kgal/sgft 0.040 0.04494 n/a
Annual BM: kgal/seat 5.621 5.7317 n/a
Winter BM: kgal/sgft 0.022 0.0155 0.0109
Winter BM: kgal/seat 2.069 2.233 1.773
Winter BM 95%
confidence interval: 0.010-0.035 0.0125-0.0185 0.010-0.012
kgal/sgft
Winter BM 95%
confidence interval: 1.455-2.68 1.737-2.729 1.536-2.01
kgal/seat
Winter BM 25 percentile: 0.0072 Not calculated Not calculated
k al/sgft
Winter BM 25th percentile: 1.09 Not calculated Not calculated
kgal/student
' During 2008 Brendle Group completed a water conservation study for Denver Water and the Denver
Public Schools/Jefferson County school districts.
2 Amy Vickers, Handbook of Water Use and Conservation, Waterplow Press, 2001
3 AWWA Research Foundation, Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water,
http://www.awwarf.org/research/topicsandpromects/execSum/241 b.aspx
b re n dle Page 5 of 39
Boulder Water ICI Benchmarking 1\Iemorandum
Additional Comparison by School Type
Boulder Only Full Stud Other
95% 95% Comparison
Annual Confidence Annual Confidence to Existing
Average Interval Average Interval Benchmarks
HIGH SCHOOLS
Consumption per square foot 0.0108- 0.0102- (2)
(thousand allons/ft2 0.0153 0.0198 0.0122 0.0143 0.0244
Consumption per student 2 73 1.37-4.10 2.89 1.72-4.07 1.03
thousand allons/student 3.54 (2)
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Consumption per square foot 0.0210 0-0.045 0.0132 0.0084- 0.0244 (2)
thousand allons/ft2 0.0181
Consumption per student 1.60 1.16-2.05 1.95 1.56-2.34 n/a
thousand gallons/student)
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Consumption per square foot 0.00512- 0.0124-
thousand allons/ft2 0.0253 0.04557 0.0169 0.0214 n/a
Consumption per student 1.97 1.06-2.87 2.13 1.38-2.87 1.00(3)
thousand gallons/student)
'Amy Vickers, Handbook of Water Use and Conservation, Waterplow Press, 2001
2AWWA Research Foundation, Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water,
http://www.awwarf.org/research/topiesandpromects/execSum/241 b.aspx
"ADSM and WatermarkPLUS, Final Watermark Project Report,
http://www.adsm.com/docs/Final%20Report version%202 short.pdf
b re n dle Page 6 of 39
Boulder Water ICI Benchmarking Memorandum
Winter Average Consumption vs Square Feet Winter Average Consumption vs Students
900 900
y - 0.1635x + 17.779
Soo
ROO 00 y - 0.0012x + 13504 NO Rz _ 0.1775
O 600 RZ = 0.1807 600
~ ~0u E son
dp IUU * to
~ ~ e00
Y 300
Y 300
200 •
200
ao 'pow"
Boa
o UJ
0 100000 200000 300000 0 500 1000 1500 2000
sgft students
H5 Benchmark (kgallsd#t) HS Benchmark (kgal/student)
I
3 3
u2 2
C ~
0! y
7
Cr Cr
LL ~ LL 1
p
0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.020 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
INS Benchmark (kgallsgft) MS Benchmark (kgal/student)
3 3
c 2 " 2
a ~
3 ~
Cr C
a
i
LL
1
1 LL
0 0
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0 1 2 3 4
Elementary Benchmark (kgallsgft) Elementary Benchmark (kgallstudent)
12 9
10 8
$ 7
e c 6
3 6 5
Cr v 4
LL 4 LL 3
2 2
1
0, 0 n, n
p
0
0.000 0.020 0.040 0.060 0.080 0.100 0 2 4 6 8
b re n dle Page 7 of 39
Boulder Water ICI Benchmarking Memorandum
kgal/student vs Building Age kgal/sgft vs Building Age
9 0.25
y = 0.00/9x - 13,449
R' 0.0117 92 y 1E 05x 0.0015
V =
R' = 7E-05
V r, • r O.tS
r + +
w
J + pop O.1 `
~ Y
4, •
1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050
Building Age Building Age
Winter Average Consumption vs # Employees Gallons Per Employee Per Day
Don y = 2.3998x - 31.6.b2 8
Soo
709 R' - 0.2369
6
bao
a
sou
4
309 1 LL
Y 200 2
IOU
~ ? 0 n fl 9 ~ ~ IA n
d~
100
0 50 100 150 200 0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88
# of Employees Gals/ Employee I Day
b re n dle Page 8 of 39
Boulder Water ICI Benchmarking Memorandum
Hotels
Hotel Summary
Boulder Only Full Study Other
Data Set Count
Overall Set 21 97
Building Age(s) r 13 87
Square Footage (ft2) 10 66
Rooms 21 97
Occupancy 21 25
BM= benchmark Averages
Average annual consumption (kgal) 3863 4035 5234 (2~
7018
Winter monthly average (kgal) 263 280
Annual BM: kgal/sgft 0.303 0.1413
Annual BM: kgal/room 41.524 41.977
Winter BM: kgal/sqft 0.274 0.122
Winter BM: kgal/room 31.759 34.83 21.9 (2)
42.6
Winter BM: kgal/occupied room 50.86 Not calculated
Winter BM 95% confidence interval: 0.028-0.520 0.079-0.165
kgal/sgft
Winter BM 95% confidence interval: 25.94-37.57 30.2-39.47
kgal/room
Winter BM 25tH percentile: k al/s ft 0.053 Not calculated
Winter BM 25th percentile: kgal/room 24.4 Not calculated
'Amy Vickers, Handbook of Water Use and Conservation, Waterplow Press, 2001
2AWWA Research Foundation, Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water,
http://www.awwarf.org/research/topicsandpromects/execSum/241 b.aspx
b re n dle Page 9 of 39
Boulder Water ICI Benchmarking Memorandum
Hotels and Motels (kgallsgftM Winter Average Consumption vs Square Feet
000
4 y = 0.0003x + 445.84
R'= 0.001
3 o Soo
a E •
C t 600 ~
Q Y 400 •
lL
0 0 50000 100000 150000
O `5 D' h ro sgft
(~~'b QQ~ ti l
0 0 0 0 0 gallsgft h N
Hotels and Motels ~kgallrocm) Winter Average Consumption vs Rooms
vao
6 y = 3.6678x - 660724
iooo
5 R$ = 0.7804-
800
a4 0 +
E Goo
3 m 400 y
Y
2 - too ♦ s•--~a • •
0 100 200 300
0 4 8 1216 20 24 28 32 3640 4448 52 56 60 64
kgailroom
rooms
kgal/sgft vs Building Age kgal/room vs Building Age
1 4
i 2 Y = 0.0038x - 7.1187 bo y = -03778x + 778.1
Rz = 0.0575 R' = 0.39
r so \ _ +
~ E +
u a °o ao
Y 4 Y
O.A
0,2 ID
a ♦ pO n
1900 1950 2000 2050 1900 1950 2000 2050
Building Age Building Age
Gallons/ Employee / Day Winter Average Consumption vs # Employees
5 Zoe
4 low
T
3 6 non
E
2 uoo t , ,
.
1 - - _ s Ono
200 • x Y = 7.3028x + 37.129
0 l-: 7 ~a a R' = 0.9041
o
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 45D 500 550 600 650 700
kgal occupied room 0 s0 100 150 200
# of Employees
b re n dle Page 10 of 39
Boulder Water ICI Benchmarking Memorandum
Hotels and Motels (kgal/room) - By Pools Hotels and Motels (kgal/room) m By
4 4 Restaurants
3 3 -
2 32
a v
0 111, -T 1-
0 1
L 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
kgal/room kgal./room
O With pools ■ Without pools I I ❑ With restaurants ■ Without restaurants
b re n dle Page 11 of 39
Boulder Water ICI Benchmarking Memorandum
Nursing/Assisted Living Homes
Nursing/Assisted Living Summary
Boulder Only Full Stud Other
Data Set Count
Overall Set 4 48
Building Age(s) (yr) 4 46
Meter Size inches 4 46
Square Footage ft2 4 30
Number of beds (count) 3 22
BM= benchmark Averages
Total Annual Water ( kgal) 6550 5185
Winter monthly average (kgal) 481 310
Annual BM: kgal/sgft 0.092 0.122
Annual BM: kgal/bed 51.153 54.656
Winter BM: kgal/s ft 0.081 0.081
Winter BM: kgal/bed 44.288 36.774 21.3 per resident
Winter BM 95% confidence 0.012-0.150 0.062-0.101
interval: kgal/sgft
Winter BM 95% confidence 29.25-59.32 32.82-40.73
interval: kgal/bed
Winter BM 25 percentile: 0.030 Not calculated
kgal/sgft
Winter BM 25 percentile: 35.8 Not calculated
k al/bed
'ADSM and WatermarkPLUS, Final Watermark Project Report,
http://www.adsm.com/docs/Fina1%20Report version%202 short.pdf
No charts are provided for nursing and assisted living because only there are only four facilities in the
data set.
b re n dle Page 12 of 39
Botdder Water ICI Benclunarking Memorandum
Attachment A: 2007 Benchmarking Task Force Report
b re n dle Page 13 of 39
Boulder Water ICI Benchmarking Memorandum
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial 8t Institutional Water
Conservation
A Task Force For:
I'II
A Collaborative Effort of:
City of Aurora City of Westminster
City of Boulder Colorado Springs Utilities
City of Fort Collins Colorado State University
City of Greeley Denver Water
City of Loveland Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
City of Thornton District
With Funding from:
The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Pollution Prevention
Advisory Board
Prepared By:
GAO
&
In
s7F~
J
~e~liVJ v~rThe Brendle Group, Inc.
226 S. Remington St. #3
Fort Collins, CO 80524
(970) 207-0058
www.brendlegroup.com
July 2007
b re n dle Page 14 of 39
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
Executive Summary
Goal: Inform conservation efforts for industrial, commercial, and industrial sectors
Process:
• Determine high-priority ICI sectors
• Gather water use data for these sectors
• Analyze and normalize data
• Develop useful water use benchmarks for priority sectors
• Disseminate benchmarks to water providers and users
Why benchmarks are important:
• The issues of water quality and supply reflect the State's top environmental priority
• ICI sectors in Colorado present an area of particular need for conservation programs
• Benchmarks inform conservation policy/decision making related to water budgeting/
allocation
• Few reliable benchmarks exist for assessing performance and conservation in ICI sectors
ICI benchmarks:
95% confidence interval for annual water consumption
• Restaurants: 0.17-0.21 thousand gallons (kgal)/square foot; 1o.6-14.3 kgal/seat
• Schools: 0.012-0.o19 kgal/square foot; 1.7-2.7 kgal/student
• Hotel/motels: 0.079-0.165 kgal/square foot; 30.2-39.5 kgal/room
• Nursing homes/assisted living: 0.062-0.1o1 kgal/square foot; 32.8-40.7 kgal/bed; 25.4-
39.6 kgal/apartment
Benchmark evolution:
Collaboration among regional partners participating on an ICI task force whose goals include a
robust, standardized water benchmark database containing relevant data for providers and
consumers in many regions and industries
• City of Aurora • City of Westminster
• City of Boulder • Colorado Springs Utilities
• City of Fort Collins • Colorado State University
• City of Greeley • Denver Water
• City of Loveland • Northern Colorado Water Conservancy
• City of Thornton District
Project sponsor:
Grant sponsorship by the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Pollution
Prevention Advisory Board (PPAB)
Website: water.brendlegroup.com
A-2
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
1.0 Background
Water conservation on a significant level is challenging given the complex and fragmented
system of water providers, especially for programs that target industrial, commercial, and
institutional (ICI) business sectors. Based on the findings of a Northern Colorado regional group
funded in 2005 by the Pollution Prevention Advisory Board (PPAB), useful benchmarks are key
in addressing these challenges.
The goals of this project were:
• Convene/facilitate a Task Force through the Colorado Water Wise Council (CWWC), a
statewide organization, to develop quantitative ICI water benchmarks.
• Collect/analyze water use data and identify consistent normalization factors for
application to priority sectors.
• Disseminate benchmark results to inform conservation efforts and policy-making
decisions regarding water allocation and budgeting.
The project was led by a Task Force of Colorado water providers, including members of an
existing group of providers from Colorado's northern front range that participated in the 2005
PPAB-funded project. Mr. Paul Lander, Co-Chair of CWWC, was the executive project manager.
The Brendle Group provided technical staff support to the Task Force as well as grant reporting
and project accountability to the PPAB.
The project culminates in this report and accompanying materials to support disseminating the
benchmarks for priority sectors to water providers throughout the state.
1.1 Problem Statement
Water conservation on a significant and state-wide level is challenging given the complex and
fragmented system of water providers. Moreover, water conservation to ICI organizations is
even more challenging due its specialized nature, as reflected by the low number of existing
programs targeting these organizations. Through funding from the PPAB, a group of Northern
Colorado water providers convened to address these issues and determined that developing
relevant water use benchmarks is the top priority in creating effective ICI water conservation
programs and informing policy regarding water allocation and budgeting. Quantitative ICI
benchmarks for water use are not readily available nationally, let alone regionally, making
prioritizing customers and program targets difficult. To be relevant, consistent data collection
standards are pivotal, including how businesses are categorized and which normalization factors
are the most appropriate (e.g., square feet or gallons per user).
1.2 Existing Benchmarking Studies
A number of organizations have undertaken benchmarking studies involving ICI sectors in
support of water conservation program development. These resources are potentially valuable
for comparison with benchmarking efforts undertaken through this grant.
In 2003, the Office of Government Commerce in the United Kingdom produced the Watermark
study focusing primarily on institutional sectors. This study establishes median and high
performance (top quartile) benchmarks for various institutions. It was completed using a
combination of utility bill analysis and end-user surveys. Normalizing factors of per person and
per floor space were used as appropriate. It should be noted that this study has been used by a
number of water providers in this country (e.g., State of Georgiaii) to develop water conservation
programs, despite its international origins.
A-3
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
In 2000, the AWWA sponsored and published a study entitled Commercial and Institutional
End Uses of Wateriii. This study provides a fairly comprehensive review of existing resources,
presents the results of field studies in five urban areas, and develops efficiency benchmarks
based on a number of normalizing factors. This study focuses on restaurants, hotels and motels,
supermarkets, offices, and schools.
Amy Vickers' Handbook of Water Use and Conservations°, published in 2001, summarizes
benchmarks from a number of sources, including Dewberry and Davis (gal/customer/day),
IWR-MAIN Water Demand Analysis Software (gal/employee/day), and the Greater Vancouver
(British Columbia) Regional District (gal/connection/year). Beyond just benchmarks, The
Handbook is a valuable resource for ICI water conservation technologies and implementation
strategies.
Additional benchmarks have also been developed by Exergy, of Australia, for offices and public
buildings and by Santa Clara for a number of sectors.
It was not possible to directly compare all the benchmarks produced by these studies because of
the different benchmarking approaches. With the few exceptions where categories overlapped,
the normalization factor of choice was often different. This emphasizes the importance of
standardizing data collection methods in order to facilitate sharing and comparing benchmarks,
as discussed in the forward looking statements at the end of this report.
This study seeks to develop regionally applicable benchmarks for sectors that are considered
high priority by participating water providers. These benchmarks utilize factors that are widely
available to these providers and therefore are more easily utilized than some existing
benchmarks.
A-4
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
2.0 Methodology
The following sub-sections document the methodology used in this study. This methodology
covers the full process of the study from sector selection to data collection and analysis.
2.1 Sector Selection
Participating water providers considered two potential approaches for this benchmarking study.
The first was a top-down model: take all available water consumption data, categorize accounts
by type (e.g. restaurant, school, office, etc.), and then pursue normalizing data for each account
from other resources. The second approach was bottom-up: choose priority sectors, identify just
the accounts in those sectors, and pursue appropriate normalization factors.
While the former approach would have addressed more sectors it was determined to be
infeasible because it is extremely difficult to classify all of the numerous ICI accounts from data
available in existing water provider databases. Furthermore, tracking down normalization data
for that many accounts was also problematic because it was not readily associated with the
accounts through information available in the provider databases. In other words, it would have
been an extremely labor intensive prospect to individually identify accounts and track down
normalization data for this large a data set. The forward looking discussion at the end of the
report touches on potential improvements to provider databases that might facilitate more
efficient benchmark development using a top-down approach.
For the purpose of this study, participants elected to focus on producing high quality data for
four ICI sectors using the bottom-up approach. The four sectors that were found to be high
priority were:
• Restaurants with seating and dishwashing facilities (not including fast food)
• Schools (K-12)
• Hotels and motels
• Nursing, assisted living, and independent care facilities
These four sectors were selected through a voting process based on the following criteria:
1. Ease and accuracy of classification
2. Accessibility of water usage data
3. Results from 2005 PPAB effort
4. Number of customers in sector
5. Water intensity of sector
6. Opportunity for water conservation
7. Availability of logical normalization factor(s)
2.2 Normalization Factors
Normalization factors were selected for each sector based on the following considerations:
1. Availability of data from another source that can be easily associated with the account
o Square footage from municipal or county records, sometimes GIS systems
o Seating capacity from fire marshal
o Student count from school district
o Room count from hotel/motel association
A-S
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
2. Availability of data to the account holder for direct solicitation, if it not otherwise
attainable
3. Usefulness of the factor in quickly evaluating facilities against the benchmark
In general, access to a broader selection of data through the water provider database and/or
better connectivity between the provider database and other sources of information would
facilitate more efficient benchmark development.
2.3 Categorization
Under a top-down approach, categorization of accounts becomes challenging. Barriers include,
but are not limited to, fine distinctions between water use even within identifiable sectors,
account names that reference billing entity but do not indicate use type, etc. Under this
approach, using a formalized system such as the NAICS would be highly recommend, but still
presents challenges. Ideally, water provider databases will move toward collection of use type
information when a new account is opened.
By taking a bottom-up approach, providers largely solved the categorization problem for the
purpose of this study. A list of accounts can be compiled from the local phone book as a starting
point. Using available information in provider databases, it was reasonable to identify and pull
consumption data for the finite number of accounts in the selected sectors.
2.4 Data Collection and Handling
Providers participating in the data collection efforts for this study agreed on 2005 as the
preferred data year. Compared to previous years, 2005 was more typical from a climate and
water resource standpoint. Additionally, 2005 was the most recent year with complete data
when collection efforts were initiated.
The following data were collected, where available, for accounts in all four sectors:
• Description - An identifying reference for the account. Depending on confidentiality
policy at the water provider, this ranged from an account name to a simple
identifying number. All results in this report are reported in aggregate to assure
confidentiality for the account and provider.
o Where multiple accounts existed under a single entity, water use and
normalization factors were totaled into a single line item. The exception to
this was accounts that were clearly serving irrigation use based on summer
only consumption. These accounts were deleted.
• Address - Similar to description, some data was provided with addresses to
distinguish accounts.
• Building Age
o In some cases more than one year was indicated representing renovations
that have taken place since the building's initial construction. The oldest
date was kept for the purpose of this study.
• Year Account Established
• Meter Size
• Square Footage
• Other Normalizing Factors
o Complete description in Results section
o Accounts not reporting any normalizing factors were excluded
A-6
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
• Water Consumption by Month
o Accounts deleted if more than 3 months of consumption data were missing
• Other Notes
2.5 Calculation of Benchmarks
The purpose of these benchmarks is to address annual indoor water consumption in the priority
sectors. Therefore, efforts were undertaken to normalize the data for the impact of irrigation
water use or water-based cooling that may not be representative of the sector. Therefore, all
benchmarks are calculated based on winter water consumption as determined by the monthly
average billed in the months December through April.
The winter monthly average was extrapolated to twelve months to determine average annual
consumption based on winter use rates. This average annual consumption was then divided by
the normalizing factors to determine the reported benchmarks.
2.6 Impact of Drought Restrictions
Among the many factors that may influence the quality of the data used to determine these
benchmarks are the lingering impacts of drought in the years prior to 2005. Many of the water
providers involved in this study had enforced water use restrictions that may have impacted the
sectors under consideration. In some cases, these restrictions may still have been in effect; in
others the behaviors instilled in previous years may have continued into 2005.
As an illustrative example, the City of Aurora, which provided data for this study, maintained a
Water Management Plan Stage IB Moderate Drought rating and had restrictions still in place in
2005.
For hotels:
1. Outdoor watering was restricted to 3 days per week; could not water between 10 am and
6 pm, trees/shrubs, etc. could be hand- watered.
2. Indoor and outdoor pools were allowed to operate under best management practices.
3. Place information providing customers with the option of having their linens (sheets and
towels) changed less frequently.
4. Wasting of Water Ordinance in effect: water cannot spray sidewalks and fences, cannot
pool and run down the street, etc.
For schools:
1. Athletic fields could be watered any day as per pre-designated water allotment.
2. Trees/shrubs, etc. could be hand- watered at any time.
3. Indoor and outdoor pools were allowed to operate under best management practices.
For restaurants:
1. Outdoor watering was restricted to 3 days per week; could not water between 10 am and
6 pm, trees/shrubs, etc. could be hand- watered.
2. Water could only be served on request.
2.7 Outliers
Participants submitting data for this study were asked to review outlying data after the initial
analysis. In some cases, corrections were made that brought these outliers into compliance with
the rest of the data. Otherwise, outliers are included in the analysis except where other
indications led to their deletion. For example, some accounts were identified by the submitting
A-7
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
provider as being property management firms that operated a whole set of properties that
shared a single meter. In these cases, differentiating the portion of use for the account of
interest was not possible and the data was excluded. It is very probable that this circumstance
still exists in the data set and it may account for some of the lingering outliers.
A-8
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
3.0 Resulting Benchmarks
Among the cities participating in this project, six generously aggregated and submitted data for
analysis including Aurora, Boulder, Denver Water, Fort Collins, Thornton, and Westminster.
Participants from these providers invested significant effort in tracking down normalizing data
for these accounts, in some cases calling the account holders directly to obtain data. Their
efforts are much appreciated.
In total, data from 631 accounts including 302 restaurants, 184 schools, 97 hotels/motels, and
48 nursing/assisted living facilities was analyzed.
3.1 Restaurants
Restaurants are a prevalent ICI water user and were considered a high priority by the
participants in this study based on the previously identified criteria.
For the purpose of this study a restaurant was defined as an eating establishment with indoor
seating and dishwashing facilities. Breweries, bars, and fast-food establishments were not
included in this analysis.
Seating capacity was a particular normalizing factor collected for this sector. Participants found
that fire marshals typically maintained a database of seating capacity or could apply a rule-of-
thumb estimation based on square footage. If the fire marshal was not able to provide the data,
the restaurant usually could based on signage provided by the fire marshal.
In one data set, small restaurants had seating capacity indicated as "<50". In these cases the
value of 25 was used in place of the "<50". Also, seating specifically identified as outdoor was
not included in the seating count.
Table 1. Restaurant Stud Summary
Consumption
(number of accounts) 302
Square footage 78/
of accounts)
Seating capacity 93%
of accounts)
Summer (May- November)
to winter (December-April)
variation of greater than 61%
10%
of accounts)
The characteristics of the data set used to determine benchmarks for restaurants are
summarized in Table 1. A large percentage of accounts reported both square footage and seating
capacity. Also, a decent percentage of the accounts had greater than a 10% variation between
summer and winter use, suggesting that some irrigation use may be included in many of the
accounts. Therefore, the application of winter average based consumption was appropriate in
this sector.
3.1.1 Results
A profile of the average restaurant in the study is provided in Table 2.
A-9
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
Table 2. Restaurant Account Summary
Average building age
40
(years)
Median meter size
1.5
(inches)
Average square footage
(ft°) 12,294.
Average seating capacity
(indoor seats) 149
The resulting benchmarks for the restaurant sector are provided in Table 3. The annual
consumption per connection result corresponds moderately well with similar benchmarks from
other sources. Unfortunately, this benchmark is not particularly useful since it does nothing to
account for the size, operational characteristics, or efficiency of the account.
Table 3. Restaurant Benchmarks
95% Comparison
Annual Confidence to Existing
Benchmark Average Interval Benchmarks
Consumption per connection 1,635(l)
(thousand gallons) 1,276 n/a 2,616
Consumption per square foot
(thousand allons/ft2) 0.192 0.173-0.211
Consumption per indoor seat
12.45 10.58-14.31 10.8-12.7 (2)
(thousand gallons/seat)
'Amy Vickers, Handbook of Water Use and Conseii~ation, Waterplow Press, 2001
'AWWA Research Foundation, Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water,
http: //wrvvv.aiuvvarf.org/research/topicsandprojects/execSuui/24ib.aspx
The benchmark for consumption per indoor seat corresponds very well to the results from the
AWWA study. The AWWA study used a smaller sample size which may account for the reduced
variability in their benchmark. The histograms for consumption per square foot and per seat are
provided to indicate the distribution of restaurant performance.
Restaurants (kgal/sgft) Restaurants (kgallseat)
50 45 -
40
40 35
v 30
30 d 25
is 20
m 20 15
LL 10 U- 10
0 -
o ~ ` o~ 1 D h 0 1 0 rb 0 0
o~ o~ ooooI
3.1.2 Comparison to Case Studies
A case study is presented from an onsite assessment to illustrate how water conservation
practices in the field correspond to performance against the benchmark.
A-10
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
Restaurant A
Description of Operation Water Consumption Status
• Building age >10o years • Most of the toilets are 3.5 gallon per flush (gpf)
• Employees loo models
• Approximately 7,000 square • Most urinals are 1.6 gpf models
feet • Restroom faucet aerators in excess 1.o gallons
• Seating capacity of 252 per minute (gpm)
• Hours of operation about 8 • Two toilets were damaged and running during
a.m. to midnight seven days a the assessment
week • Some kitchen faucets lacked aerators, others
were rated in excess of 2.0 gpm
• A low-flow pre-rinse spray nozzle was not
installed
• Alternative controls were not in place for
kitchen faucets (e.g. foot control)
• Two faucets in the kitchen were leaking
• Two water cooled ice machines rated at 1,300
lbs/24 hours were in lace
Performance
0.136 thousand gallons/square foot
3.368 thousand gallons/seat
The case study indicates that Restaurant A performs well against the benchmarks developed in
this study scoring in the 401h percentile by consumption per square foot and 18th percentile by
consumption per seat. However, Restaurant A's water consumption status indicates that there
are many opportunities for improved practices including:
• Replacing toilets with 1.6 gpf models
• Replacing urinals with 1.o gpf or waterless urinal models
• Replacing restroom faucet aerators with ones that use 0.5-1.0 gpm
• Repairing toilet leaks
• Install or replace kitchen sink aerators with 2.5 gpm models where higher flow is needed
and 1.5-2.0 gpm models elsewhere
• Install a 1.6 gpm pre-rinse spray nozzle
• Install foot-activated faucets where appropriate to save water and for hands-free
convenience
• Repair leaking faucets
• When replacing water-cooled ice machines consider air-cooled alternatives
Despite respectable performance against the benchmark Restaurant A has a number of
opportunities for improved water conservation. This may suggest that even more significant
opportunity exists at those establishments that do not perform well against the benchmarks.
3.2 Schools
Like restaurants, schools are a pervasive ICI account among the participating water providers
and considered a similarly high priority for conservation.
For the purpose of this study schools include any public or private school serving the grades of
kindergarten through 1261. The study differentiates between elementary, middle, and high
A-11
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
school. In some districts, middle school is defined as grades 6-8, in others it is grades 7-9. For
the purpose of this study, both of these classifications are labeled as middle schools.
In addition to the data collect for all accounts, the number of students enrolled was also
determined for each school. This data was typically readily available from the school district.
Also, the presence of a swimming pool was indicated.
Table 4. School Stud Summary
Consumption 184 total
(number of accounts) 35 high schools
42 middle schools
107 elemental schools
Square footage 78.8%
of accounts)
Student enrollment
of accounts)
Summer (May- November)
to winter (December-April)
variation of greater than 82.1%
10%
of accounts)
The characteristics of the data set used to determine benchmarks for restaurants are
summarized in Table 4. A large percentage of accounts reported both square footage and nearly
all accounts reported student enrollment. Also, a majority of the accounts had greater than a
lo% variation between summer and winter use, suggesting that some irrigation use maybe
included in many of the accounts. Therefore, the application of winter average based
consumption was appropriate in this sector.
3.2.1 Results
A profile of the average school in the study, across all types, is provided in Table 5.
Table 5. School Account Summary
Average building age 37
(years)
Median meter size
(inches) 2
Average square footage
(ft2) 69,016
Average number of
students (count of 638
students)
The resulting benchmarks for schools are provided in Table 6. The annual consumption per
connection result corresponds poorly with similar benchmarks from other sources
demonstrating that this metric is not particularly useful since it does nothing to account for the
size, operational characteristics, or efficiency of the account.
Table 6. School Benchmarks
Benchmark Annual 95% Comparison
A-12
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
Average Confidence to Existing
Interval Benchmarks
ALL SCHOOLS
Consumption per connection 1,639(l)
(thousand gallons) 3'424 n/a 11,592(2)
Consumption per square foot o.0121-
(thousand gallons/ft') 0.0155 0.0189 n/a
Consumption per student
2.23 1.73-2.73 n/a
(thousand gallons /student)
HIGH SCHOOLS
Consumption per square foot 0.0102-
(thousand allons ft2) 0.0122 0.0143 0.0244
Consumption per student 1.03 (3)
(thousand gallons/student) 2.89 1.72-4.07 3.54
MIDDLE SCHOOLS
Consumption per square foot o.0084-
(thousand allons/ft2) 0.0132 0.0181 0.0244
Consumption per student
(thousand gallons/student) 1.95 1.56-2.34 n/a
ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS
Consumption per square foot o.0124-
(thousand gallons/ft') 0.0169 0.0214 n/a
Consumption per student 2.13 1.38-2.87 1.00(3)
(thousand gallons/student)
'Amy Vickers, Handbook of Water Use and Conservation, Waterplow Press, 2001
'AWWA Research Foundation, Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water,
http: //wwrv. aivvvarf.org/research/topiesaridprojects/exec Sum/24rb.aspx
3ADSM and WaternlarkPLUS, Final Watermark Project Report,
http://wryyy.adslil.conr/does/Final%2oRe,poit version%202 slrort.pdf
The benchmarks are generally on the same order of magnitude as corresponding benchmarks
from other studies. The histograms for consumption per square foot and per student are
provided to indicate the distribution of school performance by school type. Schools with
swimming pools are highlighted in yellow. There is not an obvious correlation between
swimming pools and overall water consumption performance.
HS Benchmark (kgallsgft) HS Benchmark (kgallstudent)
5 8
2 1 1 Pools
4
~ a 6
~ v
3 (D
3 3 4
ar 2 m
LL LL
o o. D Q D
0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.020 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
A-13
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
MS Benchmark (kgal/sgft) MS Benchmark (kgallstudent)
5 - 12
4 10
L 8
c 3 c
6
3 Q
d 2 4
U. LL 1 2
0 0
0.000 0.004 0.008 0.012 0.016 0.020 0 1 2 2 3 4
Elementary Benchmark (kgal/sgft) Elementary Benchmark (kgallstudent)
28 - 16
24 14
22
12
x,20 T
y 16 10
3 14 8
1a 6
8 LL
4
6
4 2
2
0 0
0.000 0.008 0.016 0.024 0.032 0.040 0 1 2 4 5 6
3.2.2 Comparison to Case Studies
A case study is presented from an onsite assessment to illustrate how water conservation
practices in the field correspond to performance against the benchmark.
3.3 Hotels and Motels
For the purpose of this study, no particular restrictions were placed on the definition of
hotels/motels. However, lodging such as bed & breakfasts are not included in this analysis.
Additional data collected for hotels/motels beyond that collected for other accounts included
number of rooms, occupancy, and the presence of a swimming pool, restaurant or conference
facility. In most cases, the hotel was contacted directly to collect this data. Occupancy data is
often proprietary and was provided for only a small fraction of accounts. Therefore, occupancy
does not figure into the calculation of the benchmarks, though it would no doubt impact water
use.
A-14
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
Table 7. Hotel and Motel Stud Summa
Consumption
(number of accounts)
Square footage 68%
of accounts)
Room count ioo%
of accounts)
Summer (May- November) to
winter (December-April) 78
variation of greater than to
of accounts)
The characteristics of the data set used to determine benchmarks for hotels/motels are
summarized in Table 7. A large percentage of accounts reported square footage and all of the
accounts reported room count. Also, majority of the accounts had greater than a io% variation
between summer and winter use, suggesting that some irrigation use may be included in many
of the accounts. Therefore, the application of winter average based consumption was
appropriate in this sector.
3.2.1 Results
A profile of the average hotel/motel in the study is provided in Table 8.
Table 8. Hotel and Motel Account Summary
Average building age 28
(years)
Median meter size 2
(inches)
Average square footage (ft') 48,516
Average number of 97
rooms (count of rooms)
Swimming pools 53
(accounts having)
Restaurants
(accounts having) 24
Conference facilities
(accounts having) 34
The resulting benchmarks for the restaurant sector are provided in Table 8. The annual
consumption per connection result corresponds moderately well with similar benchmarks from
other sources. Unfortunately, this benchmark is not particularly useful since it does nothing to
account for the size, operational characteristics, or efficiency of the account.
A-15
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
Table 9. Hotel and Motel Benchmarks
95% Comparison
Annual Confidence to Existing
Benchmark Average Interval Benchmarks
Consumption per connection 5,234
7,018(2)
(thousand gallons) 4'°35 n/a
Consumption per square foot 0.079- n/a
(thousand gallons/ft') 0.12 0.165
Consumption per room 21.9 cl)
(thousand gallons/room) 34 83 3019-39 47 42.6 (2)
'Amy Vickers, Handbook of Water Use and Conservation, Waterplow Press, 2001
2AWWA Research Foundation, Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water,
http: / /NN,NyNy. arvNvarf.org/research/topicsalidproiects /execSum/241b.aspx
The benchmark for consumption per room is similar to the corresponding benchmark from the
AWWA study. The histograms for consumption per square foot and per room are provided to
indicate the distribution of hotel/motel performance.
Hotels and Motels (kgallsgft) Hotels and Motels (kgal/room)
30 30
25 25
? 20 20
c ~
m
'v 15 c 15
m m
LL 10 u` 10
5 5
0 0 F1 F1
0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88 96 104 112 120 128
kgallsgft kgallroom
Distributions are also provided for accounts having swimming pool, restaurant, and conference
room amenities versus those that do not. There is no clear correlation between consumption
and any of these amenities. Further quantification that examines at the magnitude of the pool,
restaurant or conference facility would enhance this analysis.
Hotels and Motels (kgallroom) - By Pools Hotels and Motels (kgallroom) - By Restaurants
12 18
10 16
14
8 r, 12
6 P 1$
a 0 ❑ -,1 a 2
2 4 AA I I I I E on
0
0 5 10 '15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
kgallroom kgallroom
❑ With pools ■ Without pools ❑ With restaurants ■ Without restaurants
A-16
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
Hotels and Motels ftal/room) - By Conference Facility
14
12
10
m 8
3
m 6
4
2
D
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
kgal/room
❑ With conference ■ Without conference
3.2.3 Comparison to Case Studies
Two case studies are presented of onsite assessments to illustrate how water conservation
practices in the field correspond to performance against the benchmark.
Hotel motel A
Description of Operation Water Consumption Status
• Building age 40 years • Guest room faucet aerators rated at 2.2 gallons
• Employees 165 per minute (gpm)
• Approximately 51,000 square • A low-flow pre-rinse spray nozzle was not
feet installed
• 269 rooms • Alternative controls were not in place for
• Swimming pool kitchen faucets (e.g. foot control)
• Restaurant
• Conference facility
Current Use
0.259 thousand gallons/square foot
49.3 thousand gallons/room
The case study indicates that Hotel/motel A is below average in its performance relative to the
benchmarks developed in this study scoring in the 91St percentile by consumption per square
foot and 82114 percentile by consumption per room. While this performance could be partly
attributed to the facility having a pool, restaurant and conference facility, it also indicates that
there are many opportunities for improved practices including, at a minimum:
• Replacing restroom faucet aerators with ones that use 0.5-1.0 gpm
• Install a 1.6 gpm pre-rinse spray nozzle
• Install foot-activated faucets where appropriate to save water and for hands-free
convenience
A-17
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
Hotel/motel B
Description of Operation Water Consumption Status
• Building age 47 years • About 80% of the toilets are 3.5 gallon per flush
• Employees 50 (gpf) models
• Approximately 72,000 square • Showerheads are mostly original to building
feet construction and rated at 2.5 gpm
• 165 rooms • Guest room faucet aerators are typically rated at
• Swimming pool 2.0 gallons per minute (gpm)
• Restaurant • Pool and hot tub leaks
• Conference facility
Current Use
0.086 thousand gallons/square foot
40.9 thousand gallons/room
The case study indicates that Hotel/motel B demonstrates average to below-average
performance against the benchmarks developed in this study scoring in the 57th percentile by
consumption per square foot and 73rd percentile by consumption per room. While this
performance could be partly attributed to the facility having a pool, restaurant and conference
facility, it also indicates that there are many opportunities for improved practices including, at a
minimum:
• Replacing toilets with 1.6 gpf models
• Replacing showerheads with 1.5 gpm models
• Replacing restroom faucet aerators with ones that use 0.5-1.0 gpm
• Repairing pool and hot tub leaks
• Recycling laundry rinse water
Despite respectable performance against the benchmark Hotel/motel B has a number of
opportunities for improved water conservation. This may suggest that even more significant
opportunity exists at those establishments that do not perform well against the benchmarks.
3.4 Nursing and Assisted Living Facilities
For the purpose of this study a nursing/assisted living facility was defined as a residential
facility providing some level of care for the elderly. Initially, an attempt was made to
differentiate between nursing, assisted living, and independent living. However, these
categorical definitions were difficult to impose and many facilities had numerous levels of care
metered on a single account. Therefore sub-categories were not analyzed.
In addition to the data collected for other sectors, the number of beds, number of apartments,
occupancy, and presence of a swimming pool were collected for this sector. Differentiating
number of beds from number of apartments was meant to accommodate the differences
between nursing and assisted living facilities. All reporting accounts reported just one metric,
number of beds or number of apartments, but not both. Occupancy was rarely obtained and is
therefore not included in the analysis, but can be assumed to be uniformly high in this sector.
Only one account reported a swimming pool.
A-18
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
Table 10. Nursing/Assisted Living Stud Summary
Consumption 8
(number of accounts) 4
Square footage 63%
of accounts)
Number of beds 46%
of accounts)
Number of apartments 48%
of accounts)
Summer (May- November)
to winter (December-April)
variation of greater than 71%
10%
of accounts)
The characteristics of the data set used to determine benchmarks for care facilities are
summarized in Table 10. Reporting percentages for normalizing factors were generally lower
than in other sectors. One contributing factor is that all facilities report either bed count or
apartment count but not both. Also, a decent percentage of the accounts had greater than a 10%
variation between summer and winter use, suggesting that some irrigation use may be included
in many of the accounts. Therefore, the application of winter average based consumption was
appropriate in this sector.
3.2.1 Results
A profile of the average care facility in the study is provided in Table 11.
Table 11. Nursing/Assisted Living Account Summary
Average building age
20
(years)
Median meter size
(inches) 3
Average square footage
M2) 59,920
Average number of beds
J
(count of beds) 115
Average number of
apartments 106
(count of apartments)
The resulting benchmarks for the care facility sector are provided in Table 12.
A-19
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
Table 12. Nursing/Assisted Livin Benchmarks
95% Comparison
Annual Confidence to Existing
Benchmark Average Interval Benchmarks
Consumption per connection 5,185 n/a n/a
(thousand gallons)
Consumption per square foot 0.08 0.062-
(thousand gallons/ft') 0.101
Consumption per bed 21.3 per
(thousand gallons/bed) 36'8 32'8-4°'7 resident (3)
Consumption per apartment
(thousand 32.5 25.4-39.6
gallons/apartment)
'Ani}, Vickers, Handbook of Water Use and Conservation, Waterplow Press, 2001
2AWWA Research Foundation, Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water,
http: //i"viv. aw,ivarf.org/research/topicsalidproiec,ts /-execSuili/24lb.asi)x
3ADSM and Wate'nlarkPLUS, Final Watermark Project Report,
http://cN,Ntiiv.adsiii.coiii/dots/Final%2oReport versio11%202 short.pdf
The benchmark for consumption per bed is on the same order as the per resident benchmark
from another study. The histograms for consumption per square foot, per bed, and per
apartment are provided to indicate the distribution of facility performance.
Nursing/Assited Living (kgal/sgft) Nursing/Assisted Living (kgallbed)
5 6
4 5
T
3 4
c ~
c
C
v 3
2
LL ii 2
1
1
0
O p`L p9• pfo pO ^ ,0, , p ^6 ^0 `L `L 0
p o 0 0 0' o 0 o p p' o 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
kgal/sqft kgallbed
Nursing/Assited Living (kgal/appt)
s
7
6
a
~ 5
c
a
c 4
3
LL
2
1
Q E El E 11 11
25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75
kgal/appt
3.2.3 Comparison to Case Studies
Two case studies are presented of onsite assessments to illustrate how water conservation
practices in the field correspond to performance against the benchmark.
A-20
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
Nursing/assisted living A
Description of operation Water Consumption Status
• Building age 7-40 years • About 6o% of the toilets are 5.0 gallon per flush
• Employees 240 (gpf) models
• Approximately 580,000 • Most showerheads are 2.5 gpm
square feet of assisted living • Restroom faucet aerators rated to 2.0 gallons
apartments per minute (gpm)
• 24 hour operations
• Cooling towers, kitchen
operations, and laundry
operations
Current Use
0.030 thousand gallons/square foot
The case study indicates that nursing/assisted living facility A performs well against the
benchmarks developed in this study scoring in the 14th percentile by consumption per square
foot. However, Nursing/assisted living facility A's water consumption status indicates that there
are many opportunities for improved practices including:
• Replacing remaining toilets with 1.6 gpf models
• Replacing showerheads with 1.5 gpm models
• Replacing restroom faucet aerators with ones that use 0.5-1.0 gpm
Despite solid performance against the benchmark nursing/assisted living facility A has a
number of opportunities for improved water conservation. This may suggest that even more
significant opportunity exists at those establishments that do not perform well against the
benchmarks.
Nursing/assisted living B
Description of Operation Water Consumption Status
• Building age 18-42 years • About 6o% of the toilets are 5.0 gallon per flush
• Employees 50-60 (gpf) models
• Approximately 229,000 • About 20% of the toilets are 3.5 gallon per flush
square feet of independent (gpf) models
living apartments and assisted • About 55% of showerheads are 2.5 gpm
living • Restroom faucet aerators rated in excess of 2.0
• 24 hour operations gallons per minute (gpm)
Current Use
0.057 thousand gallons/square foot
43.8 thousand gallons/apartment
The case study indicates that nursing/assisted living facility B performs well against the
benchmarks developed in this study scoring in the 3711 percentile by consumption per square
foot and 73'7a percentile by consumption per apartment. However, Nursing/assisted living
facility B's water consumption status indicates that there are many opportunities for improved
practices including:
• Replacing remaining older toilets with 1.6 gpf models
• Replacing showerheads with 1.5 gpm models
A-21
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
• Replacing restroom faucet aerators with ones that use 0.5-1.0 gpm
Nursing/assisted living facility B has a number of opportunities for improved water
conservation. This may suggest that even more significant opportunity exists at those
establishments that do not perform as well against the benchmarks.
A-22
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
4.0 Future Work
The participating providers in this project have successfully developed usable benchmarks for
four high priority ICI sectors that will help to inform conservation and water budgeting efforts.
Future work in this area should seek to develop similar quality benchmarks across all ICI
sectors. The bottom-up approach used in this effort does not scale well to comprehensive
benchmarking. Other tools may be needed.
Water provider databases should be enhanced to include additional information that would
facilitate benchmarking. Enhancements might include resident company name (instead of
sometimes remote entities that handle billing), account categorization by a system such as
NAICS, and the capacity to capture and/or readily connect with other databases for information
such as square footage, number of employees, etc. Many water providers are or will soon
undergo updates to billing database systems; upgrades such as these should be considered at
that time.
Participants envision a national clearinghouse of water utility benchmarking data that would
collect data from these billing database systems and aggregate it in a standardized database.
This would enable the development of comprehensive regional and national benchmarks
bringing these useful tools to water providers throughout the country.
Intermediate steps to this vision include the continued development of benchmarks using
bottom-up methodologies to better understand the nuances of water use benchmarking and
capturing this understanding in an evolving draft standard for water benchmarking data
collection.
5.0 Dissemination of Results
A number of efforts will be undertaken to disseminate the results of this study. Accompanying
this report will be a one page fact sheet on the project and a press release that will be targeted to
water providers, newsletters related to water, and media outlets throughout the state. In
addition, a public presentation will be prepared that will be suited to a number of opportunities.
Some presentation opportunities that are being pursued or have already been scheduled include
those summarized in Table 13.
Table 13. Presentation Plan
Presentation Opportunity Date Presenter
NCWCD Fall Session, Berthoud TBD TBG
AWWA Rocky Mountain Conference, Keystone Sept. 9-12 TBG
Fort Collins Business Environmental Program Sept. 11 TBG and Laurie
Series D'Audne
CWWC/AWWA Luncheon Program, Nov. 8 TBG
Westminster
PPAB Meeting, Denver TBD TBG and
participant?
ESAP, Greeley TBD Ruth?
Assist in preparation for AWWA International May 7, 2008 Stu Feinglas or
Water Sources Conference, Reno Paul Lander
• Stu Feinglas' abstract
• Paul Lander discussion panel
A-23
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
The results of this study and all of the above mentioned materials will be featured in an
emerging ICI water conservation web resource, currently located at
http://water.brendlegroup.com. With funding from the United States Bureau of Reclamation,
The Brendle Group is currently working with water providers to develop a comprehensive
resource to guide ICI users and water providers through some of the most basic and significant
water conservation opportunities. This website will feature these benchmarks as a tool for end
users to evaluate their facility's performance against similar entities.
A-24
Benchmarking Task Force
Collaboration for Industrial, Commercial & Institutional Water Conservation
Sources Cited
i ADSM and WatermarkPLUS, Final Watermark Project Report,
http://www.adsm.com/does/``Final% 2oReportversion%202short.pdf
ii Department of Natural Resources, State of Georgia, Water Conservation Program: Water Conservation
Plan Guidelines, http://www.georgiaplanning.com/environ/waterconservation/FinalPlan.htm
iii AWWA Research Foundation, Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water,
http:/Zwww.awwarf.org/research/topiesandproj ects/`execSum/ 241b.aspx
iv Amy Vickers, Handbook of Water Use and Conservation, Waterplow Press, 2001
A-25
ATTACHMENT C
Revised Approack
Determine NAICS codes for CII
Collect pertinant CII data
STANDARD UNIQUE
CII SUB-SECTORS CII SUB-SECTORS
Benchmark set at Audit customer to determine
selected percentile. if water use is efficient.
AT OR BELOW ABOVE
THE BENCHMARK THE BENCHMARK
Customerstands to get an Customer would get a
increased water budget reduced water budget
Pq~PS~Pa
WATER AUDIT
PASS- Same Budget
or
FAIL- Reduced Budget
All Customers Switch from AMU or HMU to Efficiency Standard (ES)
and
Any requests for an increased Water Budget require a Water Audit
ATTACHMENT D
Memo ra n d u m brendle
iCTo: Russ Sands, City of Boulder - Water Quality & Environmental Services
From: Seth Jansen, Brendle Group
CC: e
Date: October 5, 2011
Re: Water benchmarking for select ICI sectors in Boulder (Scope request #1, TM #2)
In 2007, with funding from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment's Pollution Prevention
Advisory Board, a number of Northern Colorado water utilities and Brendle Group undertook a benchmarking
study of water consumption in hotels/motels, restaurants, K-12 schools, and nursing/assisted living homes in
the participating utility's service areas. In early 2011, the City of Boulder asked Brendle Group to analyze the
Boulder accounts in this data set to support the evaluation of water budgeting approaches.
This memo surmnarizes the results of a second round of analysis that was determined to be necessary after the
Water Resources Advisory Board (WRAB) meeting of May 16th and subsequent communications with City
staff.
Under this first scope request (#1), Brendle Group developed a 1- to 2-page summary for each of the four
sectors in the benchmarking data set that includes the following inforination:
• Sector definitions that guided data collection for the original study
• Demand distribution histograms for variables with the best correlation (e.g., kgal/seat for restaurants) that
include relative and cumulative frequencies
• Table showing the average, 25, 50, 75, and 90 percentiles for each distribution, including the number of
accounts in the data set above and below each percentile
Brendle Group also completed the following tasks:
1. Reviewed use of winter consumption for benchmarks and considered if annual consumption may be a
more appropriate benchmark, particularly for restaurants.
2. A number of restaurants reported seating as "<50". Since the specific number of seats is not known for
these establishments they are excluded from this analysis.
The Brendle Group, Inc., (970) 207-0058 Page 1
Introductory Comments
The initial work completed on these benchmarks in 2007 was focused on the feasibility of collecting data for
benchmarking and identifying meaningful variables for nonnalizing consumption data. Understanding the
correlation between consumption and number of seats in a restaurant, for example, was important to knowing
if the benclunark could be a useful predictive tool for participating utilities. Therefore, the scatter plot and
linear regression were the primary tools of the initial work.
This work found that some of these variables could explain portions of the variation in water consumption by
these accounts. For example, the number of rooms in a hotel or motel is significantly correlated with the water
consumption in the facility. With the possible exception of consumption per room in hotels and motels, none
of the variables have strong enough correlation with consumption to be a lone predicator of consumption.
However, the correlations are significant enough that these benclunarks could be useful tools for utilities trying
to improve thew understanding of water use intensity in these commercial sectors. The most viable
benchmarks for which data has been collected are presented in this memo.
With this memo, the focus is shifted from the viability of creating benchmarks from these variables to the
application of the benchmarks. The relative frequency (RF) and cumulative frequency (CF) graph becomes the
primary visualization tool. This graph allows the reader to easily see the distribution of normalized
consumption, as opposed to the normalized consumption of any individual account, from the RF column
graph. It also allows the reader to identify cumulative percentiles from the CF line graph. For example, the
reader can find the 75u' percentile of the distribution by finding 75 percent on the second (right-hand) vertical
axis and tracing to the intersection with the CF line and then down to the benchmark on the horizontal axis.
Preferred percentiles are also presented in tabular version below each graph for easy access to the values.
The initial 2007 work presented benchmarks based on total annual consumption and average winter
consumption (AWC) to allow participating utilities to see the impact of irrigation and other summer seasonal
consumption on the benchmarks. The participating utilities selected the billing months of November to March
to define AWC. The 2007 work published the AWC numbers in order to focus on indoor consumption and for
consistency with comparable benclunarks in the literature. The benchmarks in this analysis are done with
AWC as well.
The number of data points for each benchmark within a sector may vary. For example, restaurant seating
counts were only provided for 82 establishments while square footage was provided for 99 in the original data
set.
Both the normalization and consumption data used in this analysis is the original 2005 data that was collected
for the work that was completed in 2007. The results presented in this memo should be considered as a
feasibility study for applying benchmarks to water budgeting. More current information should be collected
before generating benchmarks that are applied for water budgeting.
The Brendle Group, Inc., (970) 207-0055 Page 2
Restaurant Benchmarks
In the original study, a restaurant was defined as an eating establishment with indoor seating and dishwashing
facilities. Breweries and bars with minimal food and fast-food establishments were not included in this
analysis. These assumptions also apply to this analysis.
Thousand Gallons per Seat per Year
KGALISEAT (AWC)
The following demand distribution is for thousand gallons per seat. The number of seats is generally the
maximum allowable seating determined by fire authorities and may not reflect the number of physical seats at
the establishment.
A number of Boulder accounts had reported maximum seating capacities of less than 50 in the original data
collection. These accounts were not included in this analysis because an accurate benchmark cannot be
calculated without a specific seating count.
14% 1zor~
Demand Distribution for Restaurants
12%
100%
10%
Bun g
3
a M'
ff M
q, G09;,
~ m
r+- a
a 69U rco
R
v ~
~ 40%
n ro -
20°!
2%
~u I I
%
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 1111111114 11111118 1110 1111111111211128 1111111111111151111111111,4141
Thousand Gallons per Max Allowable Seat per Year
F_WRelaLi".Frey -CurnulaLiveFreq
I
Percentile
Average 25"' 50' 75' 85' 90ti'
kgal/Max Seat 8.97 4.56 6.73 10.85 13.45 14.98
Number of Accounts 29 61 41 21 13 9
Above
Number of Accounts at 53 21 41 61 69 73
or Below
The Brendle Group, Inc., (970) 207-0055 Page 3
City staff requested a characterization of the accounts above and below a particular benchmark to illustrate
potential next steps in this analysis. The following table provides this for the accounts above and below the
85"' percentile of the kgal/seat benchmark. In particular, this analysis considers how much consumption the
accounts above the benchmark would have to reduce in order to come down to the level of consumption
dictated by the 85" percentile benchmark and the number of seats in their restaurants. In other words, to come
down to the level of the benchmark the 13 accounts above the 85"' percentile would have to reduce
consumption by 8,351 kgal. This is 8 percent of the total annual consumption of all the accounts in this
distribution. This analysis also shows that for all accounts below the 85"' percentile benchmark there is a total
of 35,900 kgal that could be used by the restaurants and stay within the benchmark.
85"' Percentile kgal/max seat
Above Below
Number of Accounts 13 69
Minimum Annual Consumption (kgal) 544 56
Average Annual Consumption (kgal) 2,854 1,012
Maximum Annual Consumption (kgal) 5,731 3,300
Delta from Current Consumption to
Consumption at 85"' Percentile of
Benchmark (legal) -8,351 35,900
Percentage of Total Consumption 80% 24%
A similar analysis could be carried out for each of the benclunarks to understand the revenue and operational
impacts of water budgeting based on these benchmarks.
T
~.~k ^x.24 y
WO
rvvve
~ OW NMI'.
s "
ti K
3
4<
AA ` ~d•
L
a
y vvvvv
~vvvvv
i;i<Y:CvLLLL
<< ...,a<<<<<3
.
The Brendle Group, Inc., (970) 207-0055 Page 4
Thousand Gallons per Square Foot per Year
KGALISF (AWC)
The following demand distribution is for thousand gallons per square foot, where square foot is determined
from parcel records or communication with the proprietor.
12'/; 120%
Demand Distribution for Restaurants
r0% 100;
23`Yo 80% n
G
u ~
6Ci C
3 ~
u_ 9
v e
a rp
v i
44/, 409E o
2% - - - 20%
L Oyb
U-Uli 0, U6 U. 101 0.1i 0.19 C.24 UO.JJ U-31~ U.4L U.4US ~J.SI UU.6 V. U47 U.G9 U.I S5 U./6 0.826 0 81
Thousand Gallons per Square Foot per Year
t,-JRelative Freq -Cumulative Freq
Percentile
Average 25'x' 50'x' 75'x' 85"' 901'
kgaUSquare Foot 0.13 0.04 0.08 0.18 0.23 0.25
` Number of Accounts
Above 33 74 49 25 15 10
Number of Accounts at 66 25 50 74 84 89
or Below*
*One account falls on the 50" percentile: all others are below the benchmark.
The Brendle Group, Inc., (970) 207-0058 Page 5
School Benchmarks
For the purpose of this study, schools included any public or private school serving kindergarten through 120'
grades.
Thousand Gallons per Student per Year
KGALISTUDENT (AWC)
The following demand distribution is for thousand gallons per student, where student occupancy was obtained
from the school administrator of each facility.
16%, 120%
Demand Distribution for Schools
14%
100%
12%
BO% ~
lU C
u w
C
C R
iv 890 buyb T
A
U1 C
a rp
R A
a:
40%
4%
20%
2`Yo -
0.16 41.b4 1.12 Lb 2.U8 2.Sb 3.04 3.,2 4 4.48 446 t44 5.92 b4 688 1-16 1-84 8-32 8-8 918
Thousand Gallons per Student per Year
MRelativeFreq -CurnulaliveFrey
Percentile
Average 25"50"' 75"' 85"' 901'
kgaUStudent 2.07 1.09 1.35 2.17 2.88 4.72
Number of Accounts 10 26 18 9 6 4
Above
Number of Accounts at 25 9 17 26 29 31
or Below
The Brendle Group, Inc., (970) 207-0058 Page 6
Thousand Gallons per Square Foot per Year
KGALISF (AWC)
The following demand distribution is for thousand gallons per square foot, where square foot is determined
from parcel records or communication with the school administrators.
30% 120%
Demand Distribution for Schools
251. 100%
20% 809„ n
c
u ~
c
CU 1594 be%,
v ~
> rp
ro n
10% 4094,
51. 2()
0% - -I II ~I 1_ U%
OffAb (1.018 0.11324 0-0468 11.n6.1) n.Wb (1.(14 0.1044 OA188 0.1331 0.1416 0.10 n.1~h4 OACIN.0.20Q
Thou sand Gallons per Square Foot per Year
~RelativeFreq -CumulativeFreq
Percentile
Average 25" 50`x' 75'h 85'x' 9010
kgaUSquare Foot 0.02 0.007 0.010 0.016 0.028 0.043
Number of Accounts 6 26 18 9 6 4
Above
Number of Accounts at 29 9 17 26 29 31
or Below
The Brendle Group, Inc., (970) 207-0058 Page 7
Hotel and Motel Benchmarks
For the purpose of this study, no particular restrictions were placed on the definition of hotels/motels.
However, bed and breakfasts and similar lodging facilities were not included in this analysis.
Thousand Gallons per Occupied Room per Year
KGALIOCCUPIED ROOM (AWC)
The following demand distribution is for thousand gallons per occupied room, where occupied rooms were
determined from communication with the hotel/motel proprietor.
10% 120%
Demand DistrilJ tion for Hotels-Motels
9'Y
100%
8%
7%
90
u d
c
Gai .+Ii0'Yr.
LL 41
0 4% n
`C
K
4041
2% -
20%
1%
0%096.
1-4 %h 9A 94 1N3 J74 A,F 10 iS 4dA 47h S1 8 ,n h1l) W4 fi8b 77B 17 81.7
Thousand Gallons per occupied Room per Year
MFelatlveFreq -Curnulativeheq
Percentile
Average 25th 50th 75'x' 85'x' 901'
kgaVOccupied Room 50.86 37.48 50.96 70.84 72.11 72.85
Number of Accounts 11 15 10 5 3 2
Above
Number of Accounts At 10 6 11 16 18 19
or Below
The Brendle Group, Inc., (970) 207-0058 Page 8
Thousand Gallons per Square Foot per Year
KGALISF (AWC)
The following demand distribution is for thousand gallons per square foot, where square foot is determined
from parcel records or communication with the hotel-motel proprietor.
3570 120%
Demand Distribution for Hotels-Motels
30% -
100%
25%
- 8t)7o n
e
v ~
c 201a m
5 r0
y 609 M
a
v c
? 1S9'o ~ M
rnv n
v ~
oc
- 40';b
10%
20%
Ol,.
C.C25 0:1 0.175 0.25 0325 0:1 x.475 C.55 0.625 0.7 0.775 0.85 CN21 1 1,075 1.15 1,225 13 1375 1.45
Thou sand Ga Ilo n s pe r Sq uare Foot per Year
~RelutiveFreq -Curnul,iLiveFrey
Percentile
Average 25th 50th 75th 8511i 90th
kgaUSquare Foot 0.27 0.053 0.103 0.268 0.418 0.579
Number of Accounts 2 7 5 3 2 1
Above
Number of Accounts at 8 3 5 7 8 9
or Below
The Brendle Group, Inc., (970) 207-0058 Page 9
Nursing and Assisted Living Facility Benchmarks
For the purpose of this study, a nursing/assisted living facility was defined as a residential facility providing
some level of care for the elderly. Initially, an attempt was made to differentiate between nursing, assisted
living, and independent living. However, because there are so few of these accounts in the data set for
Boulder, no additional analysis was done for this sector per your guidance.
M
A
err
w iirr
rrrr
~rrrrrrr
rrrrrrC
rrrrrv
F,F,F,d~ ti~~h~iL
O 4'4~ h h hY~
f ;F h
....XXXX
r rr
ssa
a`Y..... • psi a>
o'xr::(• jai FE>::
~ct3t35ii:..'E.,y.,i
i533JJS'.
yy JJJ'~
AA ~ N
•y vvvvv
~vvvvv
.
The Brendle Group, Inc., (970) 207-0055 Page 10
Other Analysis
The following pages present some additional analysis including restaurant benchmarks on an annual basis and
a comparison of the restaurant benchmark per seat with and without those accounts reporting less than 50 seats.
Restaurant KGAL/SEAT (annual basis)
The following demand distribution is for thousand gallons per seat, where seat is generally the maximum
allowable seating determined by fire authorities. The "less than 50" seat accounts were not included in this
analysis. The magnitude of this benchmark is greater for actual annual consumption than it is for annual
consumption estimated from AWC as presented earlier in the memo. This suggests that there is some
irrigation or other seasonal driver of consumption in the sulmner that the City should consider more closely if
additional data is collected for generating benchmarks.
18%u 12G1%u
Demand Distribution for Restaurants
l b%
100%
14%
n
12% 80K
} c
W v
q~j 109u {
ro
s r
d) b09G
} $%u
io n
v
6% 40l
4%
2d%
2%
0% 1- 11I_ L I L - 0%
1 3 S ! ) J1 ]i 1S 71 1'1 21 2i 1S 1/ 2'i 11 ii AS 3i i9 41 43 m 4! 4') S1 S4 SS S! S')
Thousand Gallons per Max Allowable Seat per Year
= Relative Freq -Cumulative Frcq
Percentile
Average 25`h 50`h 75th 90`h
kgal/I%Iax Seat 9.74 5.01 6.83 12.59 17.23
Number of Accounts 30 61 41 21 9
Above
Number of Accounts at or 52 21 41 61 73
Below
The Brendle Group, Inc., (970) 207-0055 Page 11
Restaurant KGAL/SF (annual basis)
The following demand distribution is for thousand gallons per square foot, where square foot is detennined
from parcel records or communication with the proprietor.
12`A 1201A
Demand Distribution for Restaurants
10ai 100%
a~a - soya P
o ~
c
3 t9
y Gh~ 60Y "
v c
a ro
is n
4% 40%
291 20l
07.
0.01S OAfi 6.765 OAS 0.199 0.24 0.285 C7 9 0.375 OA? OAfS 0-S'I 0 555 t7_ci 0 _ti4S 0-61 0.715 07R 0.92S O.fl7
Thousand Gallons per square Foot per Year
RtttiRrlativeFreq -GumuialiveFreq
Percentile
Average 25" 50" 75" 90,'
kgal/Square Foot 0.14 0.04 0.10 0.19 0.27
Number of Accounts 37 74 49 25 10
Above
Number of Accounts at or 62 25 50 74 89
Below
O.F
The Brendle Group, Inc., (970) 207-0055 Page 12
Restaurant Analysis With and Without Accounts Reporting Less Than 50 Seats
The following table and charts show the differences between the restaurant data set with and without the
accounts that reported less than 50 seats. The set that includes these restaurants assumes all have 25 seats. In a
future data collection effort specific seating counts should be obtained for small restaurants as well.
Boulder Boulder
Including Not Including
"Less Than "Less Than 50"
50"
Overall Set (count of points) 138 138
Square Footage (count of points) 99 99
Seating Capacity (count of points) 136 82
Average annual consumption (kgal) 1082 1303
AWC per month (kgal) 83 100
AWC kgal/sq ft 0.125 0.148
AWC 95% confidence interval: kgal/sq 0.099-0.151 0.114-0.183
ft
AWC kgal/seat 16.369 8.97
AWC 95% confidence interval: kgal/seat 13.03-19.70 7.04-10.90
Winter Average Consumption vs Seats I Winter Average Consumption vs Seats
ODD Including "Le.s_Than 50" Seats 45D Not including "Less Than 50" Seats
rcr & 4 - C.3687x + 46.137 . Y = UJ3 x + 4U./ti
R`=0.1613 ~'-0.1268
G aoo . o a _
E ♦ E •
00 ♦ i
♦ - t a
m n
- h * • rt ti ♦ ♦r
VIP 0 200 4CO 600 0 200 400 600
seats seats
iii,
y v vvva.
~vvvvv
t'F
The Brendle Group, Inc., (970) 207-0058 Page 13
ATTACHMENT E
CH STUDY BACKGROUND
There are five types of water budgets for the CII sector including: average monthly use (AMU);
historic monthly use (HMU); indoor/outdoor (I/O); efficiency standard (ES); and meter size
(Plant Investment Fee). 11 Most CII customers have AMU water budgets- which are based on
2005 average monthly water use. Within the City's approximate 29,000 water accounts, roughly
2,000 are CII customers (accounts) accounting for approximately 26 percent of the City's annual
water use. CII indoor water use has reduced significantly since 2009, and yet there are still
roughly 22% (440) of CII customers who are over budget and using water in block 5 for at least
three consecutive months.
CII customers with AMU or HMU budgets can increase their water budget without regards to
water conservation. Upon request, a customer's AMU budget can be recalculated using any
three consecutive months in any year. With HMU, customers who use increased amounts of
water each year will see their water budgets automatically recalculate to allow for the increase in
use. The City recognizes that CII customers may require additional water when there are
increased customers or increased production demands. However, increased water budgets
should relate to water efficiency as they do with single family and multifamily water budget
increases 2Due to the variation in water use across the CII sector and within any single CII sub-
sector, requests for an increase will likely need to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
Establishing new CII water budgets will focus on efficient use of water while considering the
unique characteristic of each CII sub-sector allowing for fairly established water budgets.
In 2009 staff initiated a CII water use study to determine how new efficiency-based water
budgets could be set. With WRAB input, the study explored a number of options ranging from a
no action alternative to equal reduction in water budgets across all sectors (Attachment A). The
options were discussed at the May 16, 2011 WRAB meeting, and two options were considered
for further evaluation: 1) use of statistical benchmarks to set CII water budgets; and, 2) use water
audits to establish CII water budgets. As neither approach seemed to fully address all CII
customers, staff (with guidance from WRAB) developed a revised approach (Attachment C) that
utilizes both benchmarks and water audits to establish CII water budgets for all CII customers.
This new methodology primarily uses benchmarks to establish a level of efficient water use
across each CII sub-sector (or the full CII sector). Unique CII water users (i.e. pharmaceutical
companies, etc.) or any CII customer who disagrees with their water budget can request and
internal water audit to determine the extent to which water is being used efficiently. The new
approach is largely based on methods detailed in several CII water use studies including the
2000, AWWARF Commercial and Institutional End Uses of Water Study (CIEUWS).
The city will also be participating in a new Water Research Foundation (WRF) project (number
4375) titled Methodology for Determining Baseline Commercial, Institutional and Industrial End
Uses of mater which will update the 2000 CIEUWS project. It is anticipated that this project
will be completed in mid 2013. By participating in this study staff anticipate addressing some of
'Breakdown of CH Water Budgets: AMU 87%; HMU 7%-.1/0 4%; PIF 1% ES 1%
2 Single family kgal increases per person over 5; multifamily kgal increases per bedroom over 2.
the more intricate questions posed when attempting to implement benchmarks as water budgets
(i.e. how to best group CIS sub-sectors which have similar end uses, etc).
Staff has also continued working with the Brendle Group to further analyze CII data, as
recommended by WRAB at the May 16 meeting. This work is presented in the Brendle Group
CII Technical Memorandum #1 (Attachment B).
Staff proposes moving forward with the revised approach (Attachment C) and participate in the
WRF study while simultaneously evaluating how the revised approach could be implemented.
The overarching goal of this project is to improve the process for developing CII water budgets
such that they fairly and equitably establish an achievable level of efficient water use.
For additional information on Brendle Group analysis and other WRAB meetings, please
reference pervious WRAB Agenda Items from November 16, 2009, August 16, 2010 and May
16, 2011