HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeeting Packet - Water Resources Advisory Board - 09/17/2012
i
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD MEETING
Monday, 17 September 2012
7:00 p.m.
NEW LOCATION - 1777 West Conference Room
1777 Broadway
Agenda Highlights:
1. Call to order. (7:00 p.m.)
II. Approval of minutes from the 20 August meeting (7:01 p.m.)
III. *Public Comment Period. (7:05 p.m.)
IV. Matters from Board and Staff. (7:15 p.m.)
V. *Public hearing and WRAB consideration of a recommendation to City Council regarding
proposed ordinances to amend the floodplain regulations in Title 9 of the Boulder Revised
Code, 1981. (8:15 p.m.)
VI. Information Item - Update on Floodplain Management Study Session Feedback and Next
Steps (9:00 p.m.)
VII. Information Item - Update on AWWA Benchmarking (9:30 p.m.)
VIII. Discussion about Future Schedule (9:50 p.m.)
IX. Adjournment. (10:00 p.m.)
* Public Comment Item
Information: Contact the WRAB Secretary, Laurel Olsen-Horen at (303) 441-3203 or
olsenlRbouldercolorado.gov. . Packets are available in the reference section of the Main
Library and on-line at http://www.bouldercolorado.gov, Departments, Public Works,
Utilities, Water Resources Advisory Board. Agenda item times are approximate.
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
Upcoming Agenda Items
Revised 9-07-2012
October 15, 2012
• Recommendation to City Council on Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan (Bauer)
• Wastewater Regulation Update (Douville/Lincnfelser)
• Matters from the Board - GAC Item - Wonderland Creek Diagonal to Winding Trail
CEAP (Kate Ryan GAC Representative).
• Matters Item - Update on 75`h Street Headworks/UV/Digester Project (Douville)
• Matters Item - WRAB Retreat Follow Up/Next Steps (Arthur)
November 19, 2012
• Tentative - Thunderbird Lake - Update and Recommendation (Parks & Recreation)
• Tentative - Nutrient Compliance Study Update (Douville/Linenfelser)
• Tentative - Water Conservation Rebates (Sands)
• Matters from the Board - GAC Item - 28"' Street CEAP (Kate Ryan - GAC
Representative)
December 17, 2012
• Tentative - Update on Carter Lake Pipeline CEAP (Taddeucei/I-Iarberg)
• Tentative - Critical Facilities Ordinance (Coleman)
• Tentative -Water Supply Status/2012 Drought Response Debrief (Taddeucci/Sands)
2013 Items - Schedule TBD
I" Quarter (Jan. 28, Feb. 25, Mar. 18)
• Commercial/Industrial/Institutional Accounts (Sands)
• South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Study (Bauer/Harberg)
• Water Conservation Futures Study (Sands)
• Fluoride in drinking water (Lincnfelser/Crittenden)
• Boulder Reservoir ANS/Boulder Reservoir Master Plan Follow Up - (Wind)
• Public Works Design and Construction Standards (Schum)
• Hydroelectric Program Operations/Opportunities (Taddeucci)
0 2013 City Council Priorities/Council Retreat Summary (Arthur)
• Update on Partnership for Clean Water (Emarinc)
• Skunk Creek Flood Mapping Update (Noble)
• Upper Goose Creek/Two Mile Canyon Creek Flood Mapping Update (Noble/Bauer)
• Boulder Slough Flood Mapping Update (Coleman)
• Gregory Canyon Alternatives Analysis (Harberg)
• Floodplain Safety Outreach Efforts
2nd Quarter (Apr. 15, May 20, Jun. 17)
• New board member/election of officers (Olsen-Horen)
• WRAB Retreat (Arthur)
• Water Supply/Drought Status Update (Taddeucci/Sands/Skeie)
• Backflow Prevention Program (Leon)
• Utility Revenue Stabilization (Baird/Sands)
• Technology and Benchmarks (Crittenden/Douville/Crean/Harberg/Gallo)
• 2014 Capital Budget (Baird)
• Boulder Creek E-coli TMDL Implementation Plan/East Marine Street BMP
Implementation (Scott)
• Water Supply/Climate Change (Taddeucci)
• WWTF Activated Sludge Upgrade/Removal of Emerging Contaminants
(Linenfelser/Douville)
• W WTF - Tour of facility upgrades (Douville)
CITYOF BOULDER
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: Sept. 17, 2012
AGENDA TITLE: Public hearing and consideration of proposed ordinances to amend
the floodplain regulations in Title 9 of the Boulder Revised Code, 1981, including:
• 9-3-2 Floodplains;
• 9-3-3 Regulations Governing the Floodplain;
• 9-3-4 Regulations Governing the Conveyance Zone; and
• 9-16-1 General Definitions.
PRESENTERS:
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bob Ilarberg, Utilities Planning and Project Management Coordinator
Heidi Schum, Public Works Development Review Manager
Katie Knapp, Floodplain and Wetland Administrator
Annie Noble, Greenway Coordinator
Christie Coleman, Engineering Project Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The purpose of this item is for the Water Resources Advisory Board to consider proposed
ordinances (Attachment A-D) to revise the floodplain regulations under sections 9-3-2
through 9-3-4 and 9-16-1, B.R.C. 1981, and to provide a recommendation to City Council
regarding adoption.
The following list summarizes the proposed changes to the floodplain regulations:
• Update the effective date of the flood insurance rate maps to reflect the Dec. 18, 2012
effective date of the new Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps, as required by the
National Flood Insurance Program [Section 9-3-2-(g)(2)];
• Implement groundwater flooding protection for areas removed from the floodplain by
placement of fill dirt as required by the Colorado Water Conservation Board [9-3-3-
(a)-17-(C)];
• Amend the regulations governing the conveyance zone to allow for localized
increases in water surface elevation on public property under certain circumstances [9-
3-4-(g)]; and
• Correct an error and provide additional information in the "conveyance zone"
definition and provide additional supporting definitions [9-16-1].
AGENDA ITEM # V PAGE # 1
COMMUNITY SUSTAINABILTTY ASSESSMENTS AND IMPACTS
Economic, environmental and social impacts have been identified for the proposed
revision to the regulations governing the conveyance zone, Section 9-3-4 (Attachment
Q. The other proposed code changes are more cleri cal in nature or are necessary to meet
state and federal requirements.
• Economic: Revising the floodplain regulations to allow for consideration of localized
rises in the flood conveyance zone would provide more design flexibility, could
reduce the land area required for mitigating floodplain impacts and could reduce the
costs associated with floodplain analysis and mitigation. It would also allow more
floodplain mitigation opportunities to remove existing structures from the 100-year
floodplain, which could potentially increase property values and reduce flood
insurance costs.
• Environmental: Revising the floodplain regulations to allow for consideration of
localized rises in the flood conveyance zone would provide more design flexibility
and could reduce the footprint of projects, potentially reducing impacts to
environmentally sensitive areas associated with flood mitigation efforts. It could also
allow new opportunities for stream and habitat restoration projects within the
conveyance zone.
• Social: With the potential for more design flexibility to work within the flood
conveyance zone, there could be additional opportunities for public infrastructure,
such as bikeways and transportation connections, which would provide viable and
efficient transportation options for pedestrians, cyclists and motor vehicles.
OTHER IMPACTS
• Fiscal: No fiscal impacts have been identified.
• Staff time: The staff time to implement the proposed changes to the floodplain
regulations is included in normal work plans.
ANALYSIS
The purpose of this item is for the WRAB to consider proposed ordinances
(Attachments A - D) to revise the floodplain regulations under sections 9-3-2 through 9-
3-4 and 9-16-1, B.R.C. 1981. The following changes to the floodplain regulations are
proposed:
1. Adoption of new flood insurance rate maps: The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), through its National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), has recently
completed a project to digitize the [food insurance rate maps (FTRMs). The new
digital maps will become effective on Dec. 18, 2012. The proposed ordinance
(Attachment A) includes a modification to administer the most current flood
AGENDA ITEM # V PAGE # 2
insurance rate maps after the maps become effective. FEMA will formally adopt the
South Boulder Creek floodplain snapping update as part of digital flood insurance rate
map project and after the adoption date, city and FEMA floodplain mapping will be
consistent. A notification post card will be sent to impacted property owners to
inform them of the adoption date and requirements of the Nation Flood Insurance
Program including the program's grandfathering provisions.
2. Groundwater flooding protection: The Colorado Water Conservation Board
(CWCB) has recently updated its Rules and Regulations for Regulatory Floodplains
in Colorado. The CWCB's updated ordinance includes many modifications that were
already part of the B.R.C. flood regulations, such as regulating a V2 foot rise
conveyance zone and requiring freeboard for construction in the 100-year floodplain.
Ilowever, the CWCB regulations also include a new provision requiring groundwater
flooding protection for areas removed from the floodplain by the placement of fill
dirt. The proposed ordinance (Attachment B) includes provisions to provide
groundwater flooding projection to meet this new requirement.
3. Conveyance zone regulation revision: The proposed ordinance (Attachment C)
includes an amendment to the conveyance zone regulations to allow for consideration
of localized rises in the 100-year water surface elevation on land owned or controlled
by a governmental agency. Under the current conveyance zone regulations, projects
that increase the average water surface elevation of a floodplain cross section are
prohibited. This requirement precludes projects that may increase water surface
elevation at a location where no adverse impacts would occur in order to reduce
impacts at other locations. This proposed change is consistent with the Urban
Drainage and Flood Control District and federal standards, and would allow for
consideration of opportunities for flood mitigation, stream restoration, and public
infrastructure projects based on modifications to the conveyance zone.
The proposed ordinance change would be particularly beneficial in the South Boulder
Creek floodplain, This floodplain utilizes a two dimension model based on grid cells
in lieu of conventional cross sections. As a result, there is not a clear way to
demonstrate that no rise in elevation occurs over a cross section as required by the
B.R.C.. Further, the ability of the model to detect localized rises is significantly
beyond that of the one dimension models that the existing ordinance was intended to
support. The proposed ordinance would help allow a level of flexibility for work in
the South Boulder Creek floodplain that is similar to other floodplains in the city.
The types of projects that could benefit from the proposed code revision include:
• Floodplain mitigation projects to reduce flooding risks outside of the flood
channel and reduce the limits of the floodplain, such as the South Boulder Creek
AGENDA ITEM # V PAGE # 3
Flood Mitigation Planning Study and the Wonderland Creek Greenways
Improvement Project;
• Stream bank restoration projects that restore vegetation and riparian habitat, such
as the Eben G, Fine Park Stream Bank Restoration Project and the Goose Creek
Restoration Project; and
• Public infrastructure projects for bikeway and transportation connections within
the conveyance zone, such as the US 36 Phase II project and the Boulder Junction
transportation connection.
While the proposed change has been under consideration for some time, the schedule
was recently expedited. The Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) is
proposing improvements to US 36, including roadway widening and a new bikeway
that will provide a viable and efficient transportation option for cyclists. The
preliminary floodplain analysis demonstrates that the project will create some rise in
the base flood elevation within the conveyance zone of South Boulder Creek. The
majority of the area impacted by the rise is City of Boulder Open Space and
Mountain Parks (OSMP) land. These areas are environmentally sensitive and contain
critical habitat for threatened and endangered species. Mitigation for the floodplain
impacts on OSMP land would damage this critical habitat and therefore is not an
option supported by OSMP.
If the proposed revision to the floodplain regulations is adopted, it could allow a
localized rise to be accepted and allow the US 36 project to continue as planned. If
the regulation is not adopted, the US 36 project scope may need to be reduced to
resolve the issues with the South Boulder Creek floodplain, which may result in the
elimination of the bikeway and other design elements that are significant benefit to
the City of Boulder and Boulder County.
4. Revise the definition of "conveyance zone": The proposed ordinance (Attachment
D) would update the definition of "conveyance zone." The code update will also
include the addition of FEMA's definition for Letters of Map Revision, Conditional
Letters of Map Revision and Insurable Structures. The current code states that:
"`Conveyance zone' means those portions of the floodplain required for the
passage or conveyance of the one hundred-year flood. The conveyance zone is
delineated based on equal encroachment (measured in volume of water) of the
floodplain from the edges of the flood channel to a point where the one hundred-
year flood profile will be raised by six inches or more after considering a
reasonable expectation of blockage at bridges and other obstructions by flood
borne debris."
This definition is incorrect because the six inch rise is the maximum allowed and not
the minimum. If the proposed ordinance change is approved, the definition would be
corrected to state that:
AGENDA ITEM # V PAGE # 4
"`Conveyance zone" means those portions of the floodplain required for the
passage or conveyance of the one hundred-year flood. The conveyance zone is
delineated based on equal encroachment (measured in volume of water) of the
floodplain from the edges of the flood channel to a point where the one hundred-
year flood profile will be raised no more than six inches, after considering a
reasonable expectation of blockage at bridges and other obstructions by flood
borne debris.
In order to allow the city more flexibility in defining the boundaries of the
conveyance zone to include open areas, it is proposed that the definition be expanded
to also include the following:
"The city may, in its discretion, delineate the conveyance zone on city owned land
or right of way based on unequal encroachment to minimize delineation on other
properties. The conveyance zone is a six inch rise floodway."
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Water Resources Advisory Board approve a separate motion
recommending adoption of each of the four proposed ordinances in Attachments A - D.
Suggested Motion Language
Staff requests Water Resources Advisory Board consideration of this matter and action in
the form of the following motions:
• Motion to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Section
9-3-2, "Floodplains" BRC, 1981, effective Dec. 18, 2012, in substantially the
same form as Attachment A.
• Motion to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Section
9-3-3, "Regulations Governing the Floodplain," BRC, 1981, effective Nov. 16,
2012, in substantially the same form as Attachment B.
• Motion to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Section
9-3-4, "Regulations Governing the Conveyance Zone," BRC, 1981, effective
Nov. 16, 2012, in substantially the same form as Attachment C.
• Motion to recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance amending Section
9-16-1, "General Definitions," BRC, 1981, effective Nov. 16, 2012, in
substantially the same form as Attachment D.
NEXT STEPS
The proposed ordinance changes are scheduled for consideration by the Planning Board
on Sept. 20, 2012 and City Council on Oct. 2, 2012 for First Reading and on Oct. 16,
2012 for Second Reading.
AGENDA ITEM # V PAGE # 5
ATTACHMENTS
A: Proposed. Floodplain Regulations Ordinance for 9-3-2 Floodplains
B: Proposed Floodplain Regulations Ordinance for 9-3-3 Regulations Governing the
Floodplain
C: Proposed Floodplain Regulations Ordinance for 9-3-4 Regulations Governing the
Conveyance Zone
D: Proposed Floodplain Regulations Ordinance for 9-16-1 General Definitions
AGENDA ITEM # V PAGE # 6
I ORDINANCE NO.
2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS
3 IN ORDER TO MEET REQUIREMENTS OF THE NATIONAL
FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM INCLUDING CHAPTER 9-3
4 "OVERLAY DISTRICTS," B.R.C. 1981; AND SETTING FORTH
RELATED DETAILS.
5
6 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
7 COLORADO:
8
Section 1. Section 9-3-2 B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read:
9
10 9-3-2 Floodplains.
(a) Legislative Intent: The purpose of this section is to regulate certain areas of the city
11 subject to flooding in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare by:
12 (1) Restricting or prohibiting certain uses that are hazardous to life or property in
13 time of flood;
(2) Restricting the location of structures intended for human occupancy and
14 regulating the manner in which such structures may be built in order to minimize
15 danger to human life within and around such structures;
(3) Requiring that those structures allowed in the floodplain be expanded or enlarged,
16 and equipment and fixtures be installed or replaced, in a manner designed to
17 prevent their being washed away and to assure their protection from severe
damage;
18 (4) Regulating the method of construction and replacement of water supply and
19 sanitation systems in order to prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary
conditions;
20 (5) Maintaining for public inspection available maps delineating areas subject to such
21 provisions in order to protect individuals from purchasing or using lands for
purposes that are not suitable;
22 (6) Protecting and preserving the water-carrying and water-retention characteristics
23 and capacities of watercourses used for conveying and retaining floodwaters; and
24 (7) Obtaining and maintaining the benefits to the community of participating in the
National Flood Insurance Program.
25 (b) Flooding May Occur: The degree of flood protection provided by the terms of this section
26 has been determined to be reasonable for regulatory purposes. Floods of greater
magnitude will occur, and flood heights may be increased as a result of natural or human-
27 made causes. The provisions of this section do not imply that areas outside of the
floodplain or land uses permitted within the floodplain are free from flooding, flood
28 hazard, or flood damages. A grant or approval by the city under the requirements of this
5:\P W\ParkCentral\Admin\Communications\PW Boards\wRAB\Packet Materials\2012\2012-9-17\Agenda 5 Floodplain\Attadiment A.docAttachment A Page 1
I section does not constitute a representation, guarantee, or warranty of any kind or nature
by the city or any city official or employee of the practicability or safety of any structure
2 or proposed use, and it creates no liability to or cause of action against the city or any city
3 official or employee for any damages from flood or otherwise that may result from such
structure or use.
4 (c) Scope And Application:
5 (1) The requirements of this section supplement those imposed on the same lands by
6 any underlying zoning provisions of this code or other ordinance of the city. If
there is a conflict between such requirements, the more restrictive controls.
7 (2) If a lot or parcel of land lies partly within the high hazard zone or the conveyance
8 zone or the flood fringe area, the part(s) of such lot or parcel lying within such
area or areas shall meet all the standards and requirements of such respective area
9 as prescribed by this section. For the purposes of new construction, if any portion
I of a stricture lies partly within the high hazard zone or the conveyance zone-or
10
the flood fringe area, all the standards and requirements of this section shall apply
11 to the entire structure.
(3) If lands located outside the city limits are included within the floodplain, the flood
12 fringe, the conveyance zone or the high hazard zone, the requirements of this
13 section shall apply to such lands upon annexation.
(d) Administration: The city manager shall administer the requirements of this section and
14 shall:
15 (1) Determine that the requirements of this section have been met before issuing any
16 permit for development in the floodplain;
(2) Obtain and maintain for public inspection any certificates of floodproofing
17 required by this section, and any information on the elevation (in relation to mean
18 sea level) of the level of the lowest floor (including basement) of all new or
substantially improved structures, and information specifying whether or not such
19 structures contain a basement, and if the structure has been floodproofed, the
elevation (in relation to mean sea level) to which the structure was floodproofed;
20
(3) Notify Boulder County and the Colorado Water Conservation Board before
21 permitting any change in a watercourse and submit evidence of such notice to
FEMA;
22
(4) Adopt rules interpreting and implementing the requirements of this section
23 including, without limitation, application procedures for floodplain development
permits and specifications for the floodproofing of structures, substantial
24 improvements, and utilities;
25 (5) Assure that the Boulder Valley Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the
26 floodplain management objectives of this section and the regulations of FEMA;
(6) Make necessary interpretations of the exact location of the boundaries of the
27 floodplain, the flood fringe the conveyance zone and the high hazard zone;
28
S:\PW\ParkCentral\Admin\Communications\PW_Boards\WRAB\Packet Materials\2012\2012-9-17\Agenda 5 Floodplain\Attachmeut A.docAttachment A Page 2
1 (7) Amend the boundaries of the high hazard zone and the conveyance zone pursuant
2 to subsection (f) of this section;
(8) Determine that all necessary permits have been obtained from state, federal, or
3 local agencies the approval of which is required before issuing any permit for
4 development in the floodplain;
(9) Require that persons changing a watercourse maintain the watercourse so that its
5 flood carrying capacity is not diminished;
6 (10) Require that new and replacement water supply systems in the floodplain be
7 designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems;
(11) Require that new and replacement sanitary sewage systems within the floodplain
8 be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems
9 and discharges from the systems into floodwaters;
(12) Require that on-site waste disposal systems be located to avoid impairment to
10 them or contamination from them during flooding; and
11 (13) Obtain, review, and reasonably utilize any base flood elevation and floodway data
available from federal, state, and other sources, including data developed pursuant to
12 chapter 9-12, "Subdivision," B.R.C. 1981, as criteria for requiring that all new
13 development meet the requirements of this section.(e) Appeals: Any person
contesting the city manager's interpretation of a boundary location under paragraph
14 (d)(6) of this section, or any person aggrieved by the granting or denial of a floodplain
development permit, may appeal such determination to the planning board through the
15 process described in section 9-4-4, "Appeals, Call-Ups And Public Hearings," B.R.C.
16 1981. The request shall set forth the reason and basis for the appeal and such other
information as the manager may prescribe by rule.
17 (f) Map Amendments: As watercourse or flood channel improvements or mapping
18 corrections are made, the city manager may amend the flood regulatory area maps to
recognize the changed conditions produced by such improvements or corrections
19 provided that no such amendments or corrections may change a FEMA "area of special
flood hazard" or "regulatory floodway" unless the city is in receipt of a letter of map
20 amendment or a letter of map revision issued by FEMA.
21 (g) Flood Regulatory Areas.
22 (1) The provisions of this section apply to the area shown as floodplain on the most
recent maps adopted by the city council, as amended from time to time by the city
23 manager pursuant to subsections (d), (e), and (f) of this section. The regulatory
floodplain encompasses the one hundred-year floodplain, the flood fringe, the
24 conveyance zone, and the high hazard zone. The following regulations governing
25 each portion of the floodplain are cumulative and not exclusive.
26 (2) In addition to the regulatory areas identified in paragraph (g)(1) of this section,
the city has adopted the areas of special flood hazard identified in the Flood
27 I Insurance Study for Boulder County, effective Acker -4, 2 December 18,
2012, and delineated on the Flood Insurance Rate Map for Boulder County and
28 the City of Boulder as adopted by the city in compliance with 44 C.F.R. chapter 1.
S:\PWTarkCentral\Admin\Communications\PW-Boards\WRAB\Packet Materials\2012\2012-9-MAgenda 5 Floodplain\Attachment A.docAttachment A Page 3
I In no event will the regulations contained in this section be interpreted to permit
any action not permitted under those regulations promulgated by FEMA for the
2 regulation of areas of special flood hazard and regulatory floodways.
3
4 Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective on December 18, 2012. This
5
ordinance shall apply to all permits and development applications submitted to the city after the
6
7 effective date of its passage.
8 Section 3. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
9 the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
10 Section 4. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
11
only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for
12
13 public inspection and acquisition.
14 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
15 TITLE ONLY this day of , 2011.
16
17
Mayor
18
Attest:
19
20
21 City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
S:\PW1ParkCentrallAdmin\Communications\PW Boards\WRABTacket Materials\2012\2012-9-17\Agenda 5 Floodplain\Attachment A.docAttachment A Page 4
I READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED
2 PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this day of , 20_.
3
4
5 Mayor
6 Attest:
7
8 City Clerk on behalf of the
9 Director of Finance and Record
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
S:\PW\ParkCentral\Admin\Communications\PW Boards\WRAB\Packet Materials\2012\2012-9-17\Agenda 5 Floodplain\Attachment A.docAttachment A Page 5
I ORDINANCE NO.
2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS
3 IN ORDER TO MEET REQUIREMENTS OF THE COLORADO
WATER CONSERVATION BOARD INCLUDING CHAPTER 9-3
4 "OVERLAY DISTRICTS," B.R.C. 1981; AND SETTING FORTH
RELATED DETAILS.
5
6 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
7 COLORADO:
8
Section 1. Section 9-3-3 B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read:
9
10 9-3-3 Regulations Governing the Floodplain.
1 1 (a) General Provisions: In the entire floodplain, the following standards apply:
(1) Floodplain Development Permit: Except as specified in paragraph (a)(1)(A), no
12 development in the floodplain may occur prior to the issuance of a floodplain
development permit pursuant to section 9-3-6, "Floodplain Development
13 Permits," B.R.C. 1981.
14 (A) Activities exempt from a floodplain development permit: The following
15 activities are allowed within the flood regulatory area and do not require a
floodplain development permit:
16 (i) "Maintenance" as defined in chapter 9-16 "Definitions" that do not
17 constitute a substantial improvement and do not affect the
efficiency or capacity of the conveyance zone or high hazard zone.
18 (ii) Sidewalks, concrete, asphalt or stone flatwork that does not result
19 in the establishment or expansion of parking areas and does not
modify existing grade by more than six inches.
20 (iii) Underground utilities that do not modify existing grade.
21 (iv) Poles, lines, cables, sign posts, landscaping and artwork that do not
22 affect the efficiency or capacity of the conveyance zone or high
hazard zone.
23 (v) Temporary facilities that are not permanently attached to the ground such as tents,
24 traffic control devices and lawn furniture provided that they will not affect the
efficiency or capacity of the conveyance zone or high hazard zone, or they will
25 remain in place for no more than 30 days. (2) Anchoring:
26 (A) All new construction and substantial improvements or substantial
modifications shall be anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral
27 movement of the structure and be capable of resisting the hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic loads.
28
S:\PWl>'arkCentrallAdmin\Communications\PW_Boards\WRAB\Packet Mateiials\2012\2012-9-17\Agenda 5 Floodplain\Attachment Moe Attachment B Page 1
I (B) All manufactured homes must be elevated and anchored to resist flotation,
2 collapse, or lateral movement and capable of resisting the hydrostatic and
hydrodynamic loads. Methods of anchoring may include, but are not
3 limited to, use of over-the-top or frame ties connecting to permanent
ground anchors, in addition to any anchoring requirements for resisting
4 wind forces and any tie-down requirements of chapter 10-12, "Mobile
Homes," B.R.C. 1981. Requirements shall include, without limitation, the
5 following:
6 (i) Over-the-top ties shall be provided at each of the four comers of
7 the manufactured homes. For manufactured homes fifty feet or
longer, two additional ties per side are required at intermediate
8 locations. For manufactured homes less than fifty feet long, one
additional tie per side is required;
9 (ii) Frame ties shall be provided at each of the four comers of the
10 manufactured homes. For manufactured homes fifty feet or longer,
five additional ties per side are required at intermediate points. For
11 manufactured homes less than fifty feet long, four additional ties
I per side arc required;
(iii) All components of the anchoring system shall be capable of
13 carrying a force of four thousand eight hundred pounds; and
14 (iv) Any additions to manufactured homes shall be similarly anchored.
15 (3) Construction Materials And Methods:
16 (A) All new construction, substantial improvements, and substantial
modifications shall be constructed with materials and utility equipment
17 resistant to flood damage as outlined in FEMA Technical Document 2-93,
Flood-Resistant Materials Requirements.
18 (B) All new construction, substantial improvements, and substantial
19 modifications shall be constructed using methods and practices that
minimize flood damage.
20
(C) All new construction, substantial improvements and substantial
21 modifications shall be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation,
plumbing, and air conditioning equipment and other service facilities that
22 are designed and located (by elevating or floodproofing the components)
2 3 so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the
components during flooding conditions.
24 (4) Utilities:
25 (A) All new and replacement water supply systems shall be designed to
26 minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems.
(B) All new and replacement sanitary sewage systems shall be designed to
27 minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the systems and
28 discharge from the systems into floodwaters.
S:\PW\ParkCentral\Admin\Communications\PW_Boards\WRAB\Packet Materials\2012\2012-9-17\Agenda 5 Floodplain\Attachment B.doc Attachment B Page 2
I (C) On-site waste disposal systems shall be located to avoid impairment or
2 contamination during flooding.
(5) Subdivision Proposals:
3 (A) All subdivision proposals shall demonstrate efforts to minimize flood
4 damage.
5 (B) All subdivision proposals shall have public utilities and facilities such as
sewer, gas, electrical, and water systems located and constructed to
6 minimize flood damage.
7 (C) All subdivision proposals shall have adequate drainage provided to reduce
exposure to flood damage.
8 (D) Base flood elevation data shall be provided for subdivision proposals and
9 other proposed development.
10 (E) No subdivision proposal shall create a lot which is unbuildable pursuant to
this section.
11
(6) Floodproofing: Whenever this section requires a building or structure to be
12 floodproofed, the following standards shall be met:
13 (A) Such building or structure shall be floodproofed in accordance with any
rules for floodproofng promulgated by the city manager pursuant to
14 chapter 1-4, "Rulemaking," B.R.C. 1981, and with current FEMA
15 National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Technical Bulletins;
16 (B) Such building or structure shall be floodproofed to the flood protection
elevation in such a manner that the building or structure is watertight with
17 walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and in a manner
18 requiring no human intervention;
19 (C) Such building or, structure shall have structural components capable of
resisting projected hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of
20 buoyancy; and
21 (D) Such floodproofing shall be certified by a Colorado registered professional
engineer or registered architect to comply with this paragraph. Such
22 certifications shall be provided to the city manager as set forth in
23 paragraph 9-3-2(d)(2), B.R.C. 1981.
(7) Hazardous Materials: No person shall store a hazardous substance at or below the
24 flood protection elevation for the area of the floodplain in which it is located,
25 except for the storage of gasoline in existing and replacement underground tanks
in existing gasoline service stations and service garages, which tanks are designed
26 to prevent infiltration and discharge into floodwaters and which are adequately
anchored and shielded against rupture. For purposes of this paragraph, "existing"
27 means in place and in use on January 1, 1989.(8) Automobile Parking:
28 Notwithstanding other provisions of this title, no person shall establish an area for
S:\PW\ParkCentral\Admin\Communications\PW_Boards\WRAB\Packet Materials\2012\2012-9-17\Agenda 5 Floodplain\Attachment B.doc Attachment B Page 3
I automobile parking in any portion of the floodplain where flood depths exceed
2 eighteen inches.
(9) Flood Warning System: No owner of a hotel, a motel, a dormitory, a rooming
3 house, a hostel, a school, a bed and breakfast, a daycare center, a group home, or a
residential or congregate care facility located in the Boulder Creek floodplain
4 shall fail to provide a flood warning system approved by the city manager that is
5 connected to a point of central communication in the building with twenty-four-
hour monitoring. No such person shall fail to maintain such a flood warning
6 system.
7 (10) Rental Property: No owner of property that is located in a floodplain and subject
to a city rental license under chapter 10-3, "Rental Licenses," B.R.C. 1981, shall
8 fail to post on the exterior of the premises at the entrance a sign approved by the
city manager stating that the property is subject to flood hazard and containing
9 such further information and posted at such other locations inside the building as
10 the city manager may require.
(11) Manufactured Housing: All manufactured homes placed in the city after July 1,
I 1 1989, and all manufactured homes which are substantially improved or
12 substantially modified shall be elevated on a permanent foundation so that the
lowest floor of the manufactured home is at or above the flood protection
13 elevation and is securely anchored to an adequately anchored foundation system,
and shall meet the anchorage and tie-down requirements of paragraph (a)(2) of
14 this section.
15 (12) Recreational Vehicles: In order to reduce debris and hazard potential, recreational
vehicles shall either: a) be in the floodplain for fewer than one hundred eighty
16 consecutive days, b) be fully licensed and ready for highway use, or c) meet the
17 permit requirements and elevation and anchoring requirements for manufactured
homes.
18 (13) Structure Orientation: In order to minimize the obstruction to flow caused by
19 buildings, to the extent consistent with other city policies regarding solar access,
new structures shall be placed with their longitudinal axes parallel to the predicted
20 direction of flow of floodwaters or be placed so that their longitudinal axes are on
2 l lines parallel to those of adjoining structures.
(14) Existing Uses: The use of any land or structure that was lawful before the
22 application of this section or any amendment thereto but that does not conform to
the requirements of this section may be continued subject to the requirements of
23 this section. If such a use not conforming to the requirements of this section is
24 discontinued for twelve consecutive months, no person shall use the land or
structure thereafter unless such use conforms to the requirements of this section.
25 (15) New Uses: All uses allowed by the underlying zoning district may be established,
26 subject to the requirements of this section, except for the outdoor or uncontained
storage of moveable objects below the flood protection elevation.
27 (16) Existing Structures: Any structure in existence before the enactment of this
28 section or any amendment thereto that does not conform to the requirements of
S:1PWarkCentrallAdminlComntunications%PW_Boards\WRABIPacket Materia1s1201212012-9-MAgenda 5 Floodplain\Attachment B.doc Attachment B Page 4
I this section may remain or may undergo rehabilitation subject to the requirements
2 of this section. Further, any such structure may be otherwise improved as follows:
(A) Any person making an expansion or an enlargement to an existing
3 residential structure shall elevate the lowest floor, including the basement,
4 of the expanded or enlarged portion to or above the flood protection
elevation.
5 (B) Any person making an expansion or an enlargement to an existing
G nonresidential structure shall floodproof or elevate the lowest floor,
including the basement, of the expanded or enlarged portion to or above
7 the flood protection elevation.
8 (C) Any person making a substantial modification or a substantial
improvement to any existing nonresidential structure shall floodproof or
9 elevate the lowest floor, including the basement, of the substantially
modified or improved portion to or above the flood protection elevation
10 and shall floodproof the remainder of the existing structure.
11 (D) Any person making a substantial modification or a substantial
improvement to any existing residential structure shall elevate the lowest
12 floor, including the basement, of the entire residential structure to or above
13 the flood protection elevation.
(17) New Structures: Construction of new structures shall meet the following
14 requirements:
15 (A) Any person constructing a new residential structure shall elevate the
lowest floor, including the basement, to or above the flood protection
16
elevation;
17 (B) Any person constructing a new nonresidential structure shall floodproof in
a manner requiring no human intervention or elevate the lowest floor,
l 8 including the basement, to or above the flood protection elevation with the
19 following exceptions:
20 (i) Open air carwashes;
21 (ii) Unheated pavilions;
(iii) Unfinished or flood resistant building entryways or access areas;
22 (iv) Garden storage sheds;
23 (v) Sidewalks, paving, or asphalt, concrete, or stone flatwork;
24 (vi) Fcnces; and
15 (vii) Poles, lines, cables, or other transmission or distribution facilities
of public utilities.
26
t l 1 \11~' pel-soil col SMICtlll_' .t ne11 lCll4ttlf~' on a propci'Iv I'cnIo%'cd lroill 111C
27 (,114 hundred-near lloodplain through a FEMA Letter ofIMap Revision
on Bill ILONMR-F1 ,hill ri-oiect the lowest flour. i11Cl1lclin2 the
28 S:1PW\ParkCentral\Admin\Communications\PW_Boards\WRAB\Packet Materials\2012\2012-9-MAgenda 5 FloodplaiMAttachment Moe Attachment B Page 5
I basement. to or abovc the flood protection ele%ation iliac existed before
2 placement of fill, as follows:
3 (1) Residential structures: by elevating the structure; or
4 (ii) Non-residential structures: by elevating or floodmm)I Iiw the
Structure.
5 Solely for the purposes of this subsection (a)( I7)(C), previously
6 desienated Iloodplain areas that have been removed from the one hundred-
year floodplain through a LOMR-F shall be considered to be within the
7 Iloodplain. No person shall construct a new structure subject to this
',Ub,S'CtlUll (a)( 17)(C) prior to -iie issuance of a Iloodplain &volopment
11crmit pursuant to section 9-3-6. "Floodplain DevelUpnient Permits."
9 B.R.C. 1981.
10 (18) Enclosures: Enclosures below the lowest floor that are unfinished or flood
resistant, usable solely for parking of vehicles, crawl spaces, building access or
I 1 storage, in an area that is not a basement, and that are not floodproofed as set forth
in this section shall meet the following requirements:
12 (A) Compliance with the provisions of paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), and (a)(4) of
13 this section; and
14 (B) Design and construction that automatically equalizes hydrostatic flood
forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of floodwaters.
15 (i) Designs for meeting this requirement shall meet or exceed the
16 following minimum criteria: a minimum of two openings having a
total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot
17 of enclosed area subject to flooding shall be provided. The bottom
of all openings shall be no higher than one foot above grade.
18 Openings may be equipped with screens, louvers, valves, or other
19 coverings or devices provided that they permit the automatic entry
and exit of floodwaters.
20 (ii) Any designs not in conformance with subparagraph (a)(18)(B)(i)
21 of this section, shall be certified by a registered professional
engineer or architect and shall conform with FEMA Technical
22 Bulletin 1-93, Openings In Foundation Walls.
23 (C) Fully enclosed areas below the lowest floor subject to this provision,
include the following:
24
(i) Residential garages placed at or above grade;
?5 (ii) Enclosures or vestibules that are attached to structures and that are
utilized for storage or entryways;
26 (iii) Crawl spaces; and
27 (iv) Outdoor pavilions and patio enclosures with removable walls not
located in the high hazard zone.
28
S:\PW\ParkCentral\Admin\Communications\PW_Boards\WRAB\Packet Materials\2012\2012-9-17\Agenda 5 Floodplain\Attachment B.doc Attachment B Page 6
1 (19) Below Grade Crawl Space Construction: New construction, expansion or
enlargement, substantial improvement and substantial modification of any below
2 grade crawl space shall meet the following requirements:
3 (A) Interior grade elevation that is below the base flood elevation shall be no
4 lower than two feet below the lowest adjacent grade;
(B) The height of the below grade crawl space measured from the interior
5 grade of the crawl space to the top of the foundation wall shall not exceed
6 four feet at any point;
(C) Adequate drainage systems shall allow floodwaters to drain from the
7 interior area of the crawl space following a flood; and
8 (D) The provisions of paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4) and (a)(18) of this
9 section shall be complied with.
10 Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective on November 16, 2012. This
11 ordinance shall apply to all permits and development applications submitted to the city after the
12
effective date of its passage.
13
14 Section 3. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
15 the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
16 Section 4. The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
17 only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for
18
public inspection and acquisition.
19
20 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
21 TITLE ONLY this day of , 2011.
22
23 Mayor
24
Attest:
25
26
27 City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
28
S:\PW\ParkCeotral\Admin\Communications\PW_Boards\WRAB\Packet Materials\2012\2012-9-17\Agenda 5 Floodptain\Attachment B.doc Attachment B Page 7
1 READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED
2 PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this day of , 20_.
3
4
5 Mayor
6 Attest:
7
8 City Clerk on behalf of the
9 Director of Finance and Record
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
S:\PW\ParkCcntral\Admin\Commtmications\PW Boards\WRAB\Packet Materials\2012\2012-9-17\Agenda 5 Floodplain\Attachment B.doc Attachment B Page 8
Attachment C
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING, SECTION 9-3-4, B.R.C. 1981,
TO ADD STANDARDS RELATED TO RISES IN FLOOD
ELEVATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH PUBLIC PROJECTS,
AND SETTING FORTH DETAILS IN RELATION THERETO.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
COLORADO:
Section 1. Section 9-3-4, B.R.C. 1981, is amended to read:
9-3-4 Regulations Governing the Conveyance Zone.
In the conveyance zone, the following standards apply:
(a) The provisions of section 9-3-3, "Regulations Governing The Floodplain," B.R.C. 1981.
(b) The provisions of section 9-3-5, "Regulations Governing The High Hazard Zone," B.R.C.
1981, if the land is also located in the high hazard zone.
(c) All uses allowed under the provisions of section 9-3-3, "Regulations Governing The
Floodplain," B.R.C. 1981, if they are not prohibited by the underlying zoning district or any
ordinance of this city, may be established except that no person shall establish or change any
use that results in a rise in the elevation of the one hundred-year flood.
(d) All structures allowed under section 9-3-3, "Regulations Governing The Floodplain," B.R.C.
1981, may be established except that no person shall:
(1) Place any structure in the conveyance zone that will result in any rise in the elevation of
the one hundred-year flood; or
(2) Place any obstruction in the conveyance zone, except a device reasonably necessary for
flood management if the device is designed and constructed to minimize the potential
hazards to life and property.
(e) No person shall carry out any other development that results in a rise in the elevation of the
one hundred-year flood.
(f) Localized rises within flood channels or on a specific parcel that is being developed are
permissible, if there is no adverse impact on nearby properties and there is no increase in the
average water surface elevations along the cross sections of the floodplain.
illi;Cfl;l~ ~!litil'tVli~_i
!'U1'~'!§1
OF W-cncv 01 willlill public rlrrlilit uc or llow(i control cas.nlents arc permissibly, 1 f tlic
rejuirclllcilts have been s-.itisttc&
i 1) The applicant lens necessary property inicrests or pcnnission to use land to allow the
increase in any writer surface elevation or that there is no adverse impact to such Find:
I
S:\PW\ParkCentml\Admin\Communications\PW_Boards\WRAB\Packet Materials\2012\2012-9-17\Agenda 5 Floodplain\Attachment C.doc
121 There are na in:;urable structures under the FEUTA National Flood Insurance Pro1 l-am
affected by the localized rise;
(3) The applicant minimizes the amotint of or mitieates the effect of the localized rise in
flood elevation on surrounding properties: and
14) The applicant complies %%,ith nll necessary FEMA requirements, incltldin+s «'ilhout
Ilmtlation obtainint: a Conditional Letter of"flap Revision prior to deveiopincnt and a
Lotter ot'Ulan revision upon completion ofa proiect causinL' localized rise in it 110od
elevation.
Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective on November 16, 2012. This
ordinance shall apply to all permits and development applications submitted to the city after the
effective date of its passage.
Section 3. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
Section 3. The city council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for
public inspection and acquisition.
INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
TITLE ONLY this day of , 20_.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
2
S:1PVMarkCentmllAdmin%CommunicationslPW BoardslWRABIPacketMaterials1201212012-9-17\Agenda 5 FloodplainWttachment C.doc
READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED
PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this day of , 20_.
Mayor
Attest:
City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
3
S:\PW\ParkCentral\Admin\Communications\PW Boards\WRAB\Packet MatcHals\2012\2012-9-171Agenda 5 Floodplain\Attachment C.doc
Attachment D
1 ORDINANCE NO.
2 AN ORDINANCE AMENDING FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS
3 IN ORDER TO MODIFY THE CONVEYANCE ZONE
DEFINITION AND ADD SUPPORTING DEFINITIONS TO
4 SECTION 9-16-1 "DEFINITIONS," B.R.C. 1981; AND SETTING
FORTH RELATED DETAILS.
5
6 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BOULDER,
7 COLORADO:
8
Section12 Section 9-16-1, B.R.C. 1981 is amended to read:
9
10 9-16-1 General Definitions.
11 (a) The definitions contained in chapter 1-2, "Definitions," B.R.C. 1981, apply to this title
12 unless a term is defined differently in this chapter.
13 (b) Terms identified with the references shown below after the definition are limited to those
specific sections or chapters of this title:
14
(1) Airport influence zone (AIZ).
15
16 (2) Floodplain regulations (Floodplain).
17 (3) Historic preservation (Historic).
18 (4) Inclusionary housing (Inclusionary Housing).
19 (5) Residential growth management system (RGMS).
20 (6) Solar access (Solar).
21 (7) Wetlands Protection (Wetlands).
22 (8) Signs (Signs).
23 (c) The following terms as used in this title have the following meanings unless the context
24 clearly indicates otherwise:
25
26 "Area of special flood hazard" means the land in the floodplain subject to a one percent or
27 greater chance of flooding in any given year. Such areas may be designated as Zones A, AO,
AH, AE and Al-30 on the FIRM for the City of Boulder. (Floodplain)
28
S:\1'W\ParkCentratWdmin\CommunicationslPW_BwrdskWRAB\Packet Materials\2012\2012-9-MAgenda 5 FlondplainWtlarhment D.doc 1
Attachment D
1
2 "Basement" means any enclosed area of a building having its lowest floor a minimum of two
3 feet below grade level on all sides. (Floodplain)
4
5 "Change in a watercourse" means any change in an existing thalweg, bed, or bank of a
6 watercourse. (Floodplain)
7
nndIIio!t;lI LCIICt of ~d:m Inc. i,iun" or -(_10 ,%IR" inc:m> FEM A -:onlln nt on a j!rk)utsed - Formatted: DA-_r'; rein: T
8 J.:% lonnicnt that would result in a change to the existing: reeulatory floodulain. CLOMR.S do
9 nr.rl IVA isc Un effective FIRM. CLUtflts indieate that upon eomtaletion and apmoral ol'the
l+rt~fg5e4l de%'clop nem by FENIA api,ro,, al of :l l.MIR k lik:lv.l Flootf ll'<I 11111
10
11 "Conveyance zone" means those portions of the floodplain required for the passage or
12 conveyance of the one hundred-year flood- The conveyance zone i% dclincated based on equal
encroachment-(measured in volume of water) of the floodplain from the edges of the flood
13 channel to a point where the one hundred-year flood profile will be raised no n,:ore than br six
14 inches after considering a reasonable expectation of blockage at bridges and other
obstructions by flood borne debris- Pic city 11my, in it, discretion. delineate the com cyance
15 zone on cite owned land or right of way based on unequal encroachment to minimize delineation
16 on other properties. I li="-'r xi,% iJ\ ir:l:_ Ili wd,.~. r_(Floodplain) -
17
18 "Crawl space" means the enclosed area contained inside the foundation walls and below the
19 habitable floor of a structure. Crawl spaces having the lowest floor a minimum of two feet below
grade level on all sides shall be considered a basement, and not a crawl space. (Floodplain)
20
21
"Development" means any change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, without
22 limitation, constructing, relocating, rehabilitating, reconstructing or expanding or enlarging (but
23 not maintaining) a building or other structure or portion thereof, or establishing or changing a
use, or mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, or excavation. (Floodplain)
24
25
26 "Exceptional hardship" means a substantially disproportionate burden in relationship to the
benefit to be derived from conformance with the requirements of this title. (Floodplain)
27
28
Si~PW~ParttCentrnl~A,IrniW,Con1n111niPfrtions,PW-I3oards\WRABTsekettvtaterials12012120 1 2-9-1 7Wgenda5Ploodplain\AttaehmentDdoc 2
Attachment D
I "Existing manufactured home park or subdivision" means a manufactured home park for which
2 the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes are to be
affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets, and
3 either final site grading or the pouring of concrete pads) was completed prior to July 12, 1978.
4 (Floodplain)
5
6 "Expansion or enlargement of a structure" means any addition of an exterior wall to the structure
or any addition to the floor area of the structure, whether under, at, or above grade, and whether
7 or not the external dimensions of the structure are changed, or the reconstruction of a flood-
8 damaged portion of a structure, so long as such expansion, enlargement or reconstruction does
not constitute a "substantial modification" or a "substantial improvement." (Floodplain)
9
"Expansion to existing manufactured home park or subdivision" means the preparation of
10 additional sites by the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured
I I homes are to be affixed (including, without limitation, the installation of utilities, the
construction of streets, final site grading, or the pouring of concrete pads). (Floodplain)
12
13
14 "FEMA" means the Federal Emergency Management Agency. (Floodplain)
15
16 "Flood" or "flooding" means a general or temporary condition of partial or complete inundation
of normally dry land areas from a watercourse that temporarily overflows the boundaries within
17 which it is ordinarily confined or from the rapid accumulation of runoff of surface water caused
18 by rain, snow melt, flow blockage, or any other source. (Floodplain)
19 "Flood channel" means a natural or artificial watercourse with a definite bed and banks which
periodically or continuously conducts flowing water and is shown on the Flood Channel
20 Inventory Map prepared by the city's Utility Division of the Public Works Department.
21 (Floodplain)
22 "Flood fringe" means those portions of the floodplain that are not in the conveyance zone or in
23 the high hazard -zone. (Floodplain)
24 "Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)" means the official map on which FEMA has delineated
both the areas of special flood hazard and the risk premium zones applicable to the community.
25 (Floodplain)
26 "Flood insurance study (FI5)" means the official report provided by the Federal Emergency
27 Management Agency that included flood profiles, the Flood Boundary-Floodway Map, and the
water surface elevations of the base flood. (Floodplain)
28
S.,PN',rarkCentmNAdm'm.Communications'lMV_noards\WItABTacket Matunils\2012\2012-9-MAgenda 5 Floodplain'A"achmeni n.doe 3
Attachment D
1 "Flood profile" means a graph showing the elevations of the floodwater surface and the
2 elevations of the underlying land as a function of distance along a path of flow. (Floodplain)
3 "Flood protection elevation" means an elevation of. 1) two feet above the elevation of the water
surface of a one hundred-year flood as determined pursuant to sections 9-3-2 through 9-3-8,
4 B.R.C. 1981, or, if no such elevation is determined, two feet above the highest grade adjacent to
5 a structure, or 2) two feet above the base flood elevation in AE zones or two feet above the flood
depth number indicated for AO zones on the FIRM for the City of Boulder, whichever is higher.
6
"Floodplain" means the area that is inundated by a flood. (Floodplain)
7
"Floodplain development permit" means any permit granted under the terms and conditions of
8 sections 9-3-2 through 9-3-8, B.R.C. 1981, for development on land in a floodplain. (Floodplain)
9 "Floodplain, one hundred-year" means the area inundated by a flood having a one percent or
10 greater chance of occurring in any given year. (Floodplain)
11 "Floodproofing" means any combination of structural and nonstructural changes, modifications,
12 or adjustments to structures or real property which reduce or eliminate flood damage to improved
or unimproved real property, water and sanitary facilities, structures and their contents.
13 (Floodplain)
14 "Floodway, FEMA regulatory" means the channels of watercourses and the adjacent land areas
15 that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the
water surface elevation more than one foot. (Floodplain)
16
17
Hazardous substance' means any substance, as determined from time to time by the city
18 manager pursuant to the rule making authority granted by subsection 9-3-2(c), B.R.C 1981, that
19 is flammable, radioactive, toxic, or explosive, and that in times of flooding could be released in
20 sufficient quantities to be harmful to humans, animals, or plant life. (Floodplain)
21 "High hazard zone' means those portions of the floodplain where an unacceptably high hazard to
22 human safety exists defined as those areas where the product number of flow velocity (measured
in fL/sec.) times flow depth (measured in feet) equals or exceeds four, or where flow depths
23 equal or exceed four feet. (Floodplain)
24
25 I I t ,i.ll' ?y II :J
I) S_ _I I , LL:11,. Formatted: Indent. Lek:
26 l,nnn 1,^,l! \.II a, ,t nl,lnul t~l.u. h Ju lI
27
28 "Intended for human occupancy" means, as applied to structures, capable of and likely to be used
for residential habitation, or for commercial, industrial or governmental occupation by persons
S:\PWTarkCenttal~Admin\Comnmnications\PW-BoardslWRAAIFacket Matcrials\2012\2012-9-17'Wgends 5 Floodplain\Auaehment D doe 4
Attachment D
1 on a regular basis. Examples of structures normally not intended for human occupancy include,
2 without limitation, garages useable solely for the parking of vehicles or storage, open air
carwashes, unheated pavilions, porches or patio covers, crawl spaces, flood resistant enclosures
3 useable solely for building access, barns and other agricultural buildings, garden storage sheds,
4 ATMs, and mausoleums. (Floodplain)
5
J t:ncr of \I:q1 INO ki, a it A ( Ilt _!_i +'ti7IL 1AI Imo. i11011 I,, lllr ~taTC!l!.k lI :cIl% 1 ll{_\I ~ - Formatted: Nomial, Une spacing; single
6 M_I-I_>1 A_-_I.,CI\11%
7 Formatted: Font: Not Bold
"Lowest floor" means the lowest floor of the lowest enclosed area (including basement or crawl
8 space). An unfinished or flood resistant enclosure, usable solely for parking of vehiclcs, building
9 access or storage, in an area other than a basement area, is not considered a building's lowest
floor, provided that such enclosure is not built so as to render the structure in violation of the
10 applicable design requirements of sections 9-3-2 through 9-3-8, B.R.C. 1981. (Floodplain)
11
12
"Maintenance" means any activity undertaken to repair or prevent the deterioration, impairment
13 or failure of any stream, previously constructed improvement or structure including, without
14 limitation: the removal of sediment and debris, installation of erosion and sediment control
devices and the replacement of structural components. Maintenance does not include substantial
15 modifications, substantial improvements, total replacement of existing facilities or total
16 reconstruction of a facility. (Floodplain)
17
IS "Manufactured home" means a structure, transportable in one or more sections, which is built on
a permanent chassis and is designed for use with or without a permanent foundation when
19 connected to the required utilities. The term "manufactured home" does not include a
20 "recreational vehicle." (Floodplain)
21 "Manufactured home park or manufactured home subdivision" means any lot or tract of land
designed, used, or intended to provide a location or acconunodation for one or more
22 manufactured homes and upon which any manufactured home or homes are parked or located,
23 whether or not the lot or tract or any part thereof is held or operated for profit, on which
construction was completed on or after July 12, 1978. (Floodplain)
24
25
26 "Moveable object" means an item or material not anchored to the ground that is subject to being
transported by water, including, without limitation, a manufactured home not anchored to a
27 permanent foundation, a tank, a trash dumpstcr, lumber, and other materials, but not a motor
28 vehicle. (Floodplain)
3.'•PWT.n1,C:cn1ml Admin'Co III numiaatina vIPW_Boa rdslWRAH,Packet Matcn:d s\2111'_'12111 2-9-1 7,Agenda 5 FloodplainlA1wchmcnt ll,I- 5
Attachment D
1
2 "New construction" means structures for which the "start of construction" commenced on or
3 after July 12, 1978, and includes any subsequent improvements to such structures. (Floodplain)
4 "New manufactured home park or subdivision" means a manufactured home park or subdivision
for which the construction of facilities for servicing the lots on which the manufactured homes
5 are to be affixed (including, at a minimum, the installation of utilities, the construction of streets,
6 final site grading, or pouring of concrete pads) is completed on or after July 12, 1978.
(Floodplain)
7
"Nonresidential structure" means any structure or any portion of a structure used exclusively for,
8 or designed as and capable of being used for, office, commercial, industrial, or governmental
g occupation. (Floodplain)
10 .
I 1 "Obstruction" means any item or material not constituting a moveable object in, along, across, or
12 projecting into the floodplain that might impede, retard, or change the direction of a flow of
water, either by itself or by catching or collecting debris carried by such water, in a way that the
13 city manager determines would increase the flood hazard to adjacent properties. (Floodplain)
14
15 "One hundred-year flood" means a flood having a one percent chance of occurring in any year.
16 (Floodplain)
17
18 "Reconstruction" means exact replacement of an existing structure or portion thereof or exact
19 structural repair of a damaged structure. (Floodplain)
20 "Recreational vehicle" means a vehicle which is: l) built on a single chassis; 2) four hundred
square feet or less when measured at the largest horizontal projections; 3) designed to be self-
21 propelled or permanently towable by a light duty truck; and 4) designed primarily not for use as
22 a permanent dwelling but as temporary living quarters for recreational, camping, travel, or
seasonal use. (Floodplain)
23
24
"Rehabilitation" means any improvement, maintenance, or remodeling made to the interior or
25 exterior of any existing structure or the reconstruction of a deteriorated or non-flood-damaged
26 portion of an existing structure so long as such improvement or reconstruction does not
constitute an "expansion or enlargement of a structure," "substantial modification," or a
27 "substantial improvement." (Floodplain)
28
SiiPWlParkCentral~AdminlCvmmunicativnslf'!V BvardsllVRAHl1'ackct Matcrials12012L012-9-17Wgenda 5 FtoodplaiaWlachmrnt Ddvc 6
Attachment D
1 "Residential structure" means any structure or any portion of a structure that is used for, or
2 designed as and capable of being used for, the temporary or permanent domicile of persons,
including, without limitation, a dwelling, a boarding house, a hotel, a motel, and similarly used
3 structures. (Floodplain)
4 „
5 "Start of construction" means the date the building permit was issued, provided the actual start of
6 construction, repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, placement, or other improvement
was within one hundred eighty days of the permit date. The actual start means either the first
7 placement of permanent construction of a structure on a site such as the pouring of slab or
8 footings, the installation of piles, the construction of columns, or any work beyond the stage of
excavation; or the placement of a manufactured home on a foundation. (Floodplain)
9
10
"Structure" means a building or other roofed construction, a basement, a wall, a fence, a
11 manufactured home, or a storage tank. (Floodplain)
12
13
"Substantial damage" means damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of
14 restoring the structure to its before-damaged condition would equal or exceed fifty percent of the
15 market value of the structure before the damage occurred. (Floodplain)
16 "Substantial improvement" means any repair, reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or
improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent of the market value
17 of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. This term includes
18 structures which have incurred "substantial damage," regardless of the actual repair work
performed. For the purposes of this definition, "substantial improvement" is considered to occur
19 when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor, or other structural part of the building
20 commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The
term does not, however, include either: 1) any project for improvement of a structure to comply
21 with existing state or local health, sanitary, or safety code specifications which are solely
22 necessary to assure safe living conditions or 2) any alteration of a structure listed on the National
Register of Historic Places or the Colorado Inventory of Historic Places or designated as an
23 individual landmark under section 9-11-2, "City Council May Designate Or Amend Landmarks
24 And Historic Districts," B.R.C. 1981. (Floodplain)
25
26 "Substantial modification" means any expansion or enlargement of a structure which equals or
exceeds fifty percent of the floor area of the structure intended for human occupancy, considered
27 cumulatively, commencing July 12, 1978. (Floodplain)
28 „
S:\PW\Par:CentratUdminlCommunicationslPW_Boards\WRABIPacke[MateHais\201212012-9J7Wgenda5Floudplain%AttacbmcntD.due 7
Attachment D
1
2 Section 2. This ordinance shall become effective on November 16, 2012. This
3
ordinance shall apply to all permits and development applications submitted to the city after the
4
5 effective date of its passage.
6 Section 3. This ordinance is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of
7 the residents of the city, and covers matters of local concern.
8 Section 4 The City Council deems it appropriate that this ordinance be published by title
9 only and orders that copies of this ordinance be made available in the office of the city clerk for
10
1 1 public inspection and acquisition.
12 INTRODUCED, READ ON FIRST READING, AND ORDERED PUBLISHED BY
13 TITLE ONLY this ` day of '2011.
14
15 Mayor
16
Attest:
17
18
19 City Clerk on behalf of the
Director of Finance and Record
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
S:TWlparkCenur l\Admin\CommunieatiousTW Boards\WRAB\Packet Malaials\2012\2012-9-17\Agenda 5 Roodplain\Attacbment D.doc 8
Attachment D
1 READ ON SECOND READING, PASSED, ADOPTED, AND ORDERED
2 PUBLISHED BY TITLE ONLY this day of , 20_.
3
4
5 Mayor
6 Attest:
7
8 City Clerk on behalf of the
9 Director of Finance and Record
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
S:DPW)ParkCcntcnllAdminlCommunicationslPW_BoardslWRAB\Packct Matcrials12012U012-9-IMgenda 5 FloodplainlAttachment D.doc 9
CITY OF BOULDER
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2012
AGENDA TITLE: Discussion of City Council feedback from the May 29, 2012 study
session regarding floodplain management
PRESENTERS:
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bob Harberg, Utilities Planning and Project Management Coordinator
Annie Noble, Greenway Coordinator
Christie Coleman, Engineering Project Manager
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this item is for the Water Resources Advisory Board to discuss City
Council feedback from the May 29, 2012 Study Session regarding Floodplain
Management. A summary of the study session including feedback and anticipated next
steps is included as Attachment A. City Council accepted the study session summary on
August 21, 2012. The complete study session memorandum provided to City Council is
included as Attachment B.
The study session was focused on the t'ollowing issues and questions:
I . Does City Council have any questions about the city's flood risk or its existing
floodplain regulations?
2. Does City Council have any questions about the city's proposed floodplain
regulations involving critical facilities and mobile populations?
3. Does City Council have any questions about the Boulder Creek floodplain
mapping study, South Boulder Creek flood mitigation study, or the planning
effort for the Boulder Civic Area?
City staff will be available to discuss and answer any questions regarding the City
Council feedback and anticipated next steps.
NEXT STEPS:
No formal WRAB action is requested at this time. The Boulder Creek Floodplain
Mapping Study was previously considered by the WRAB and is scheduled for City
AGENDA ITEM # VI PAGE I
Council consideration on September 18. Most other key items have a tentative WRAB
date scheduled including the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update (Oct. 15), Critical
Facilities and Mobile Populations (Dec. 17), South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation
Study (Q1 2013), and Floodplain Safety Outreach Efforts (Q1 2013).
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Study Session Summary
B: City Council Study Session Memorandum
AGENDA ITEM # VI PAGE 2
44V
or Bav`
CITY OF BOULDER
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: Aug. 21, 2012
AGENDA TITLE
Consideration of a motion to accept the May 29, 2012, study session summary on
floodplain management.
PRESENTERS
Jane S. Brautigam, City Manager
Paul J. Fetherston, Deputy City Manager
Maureen Rait, Executive Director of Public Works
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bob Harberg, Utilities Engineering Project Management Coordinator
Annie Noble, Greenways Coordinator
Kurt Bauer, Engineering Project Manager
Christie Coleman, Engineering Project Manager
Katie Knapp, Floodplain & Wetlands Administrator
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This agenda item provides a summary of the May 29, 2012, City Council study session
on floodplain management for the City of Boulder. The purpose of the study session was
to provide City Council with a background on the city's flood risk and to update council
on key projects related to floodplain management in the coming year.
The following questions guided council's discussion:
1. Does City Council have any questions about the city's flood risk or its existing
floodplain regulations?
2. Does City Council have any questions about the city's proposed floodplain
regulations involving critical facilities and mobile populations?
3. Does City Council have any questions about the Boulder Creek floodplain mapping
study, South Boulder Creek flood mitigation study, or the planning effort for the
Boulder Civic Area?
Packet page number 48 Agenda Item 3F 1
During the study session, City Council expressed a variety of concerns about the
proposed critical facilities and mobile populations ordinance. Submittal of the study
session summary has been delayed to allow more thorough evaluation of potential next
steps prior to City Council consideration.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of the summary of the May 29, 2012, study session on
floodplain management.
Suggested Motion Language
Staff requests council consideration of this matter and action in the form of the following
motion:
Motion to accept the study session summary from May 29, 2012, included in this agenda
item as Attachment A.
NEXT STEPS
Floodplain Mana eg ment
• A comprehensive review of floodplain and flood safety outreach activities will be
conducted prior to spring 2013. Key considerations will include the elimination of
ineffective or outdated programs, increasing the use of video and social media, and
increasing the availability of real-time data.
• A City Council tour of the Fourmile Canyon fire burn area has been scheduled for
Aug. 23, 2012, from 3 to 5 p.m.
Critical Facilities and Mobile Populations Ordinance
• Staff is currently modifying the proposed ordinance to address concerns raised by
City Council and the public. A key focus area is narrowing both the actual and
perceived scope of the regulations. This includes reducing the emphasis on the 500-
year floodplain and the potential removal of some land and property uses from the
proposed regulations.
• Staff will continue to involve the public in the ordinance development process,
including meetings with the Boulder Chamber, Water Resources Advisory Board and
Planning Board, prior to returning to City Council.
Boulder Creek Floodplain Mapping Study
• Staff is currently working with Boulder County and FEMA to finalize an approach to
address property owners' concerns with the portion of the study downstream of city
limits. It is anticipated that the study will be forwarded for City Council consideration
in the 3rd Quarter of 2012.
South Boulder Creek Flood Mitigation Study
Packet page number 49 Agenda Item 3F 2
• Staff is collaborating with key stakeholders to determine potential flood mitigation
options. A public process that includes meetings with the Water Resources Advisory
Board, the Open Space Board of Trustees, and Planning Board will be scheduled
during the 4"' Quarter of 2012. City Council consideration is tentatively scheduled for
the 1" Quarter of 2013.
Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan Update
• The city is required to update its Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan every five years. The
Plan was first adopted in 2008 and the first update is due in 2012. A draft update has
been prepared and a public workshop will be conducted in September 2012. The draft
update will be submitted for state and federal review in October 2012 and the final
version will be presented to City Council in early 2013.
Boulder Civic Area
• No proposed changes to existing floodplain regulations or policies were identified
during the study session.
BACKGROUND
The background information for this topic can be found in the study session memo.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - May 29, 2012, Study Session Summary on Floodplain Management.
Packet page number 50 Agenda Item 3F 3
ATTACHMENT A
Study Session Summary - May 29, 2012
Floodplain Management
PRESENT:
City Council: Mayor Matt Appelbaum, Deputy Mayor Lisa Morzel, Ken Wilson, Suzy
Ageton, KC Becker, Macon Cowles, George Karakehian, Suzanne Jones, Tim Plass
City Staff: Jane Brautigam; City Manager, Paul Fetherston; Deputy City Manager,
Maureen Rait; Executive Director of Public Works, Jeff Arthur; Director of Public Works
for Utilities, Bob Harberg; Utilities Engineering Project Management Coordinator, Kurt
Bauer; Engineering Project Manager, Christie Coleman; Engineering Project Manager,
Katie Knapp; Floodplain & Wetlands Administrator
PURPOSE:
The objective of this study session was to provide City Council with a background of the
city's flood risk and to update council on some key floodplain management projects for
the coming year.
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW:
Staff presented an overview of the city's floodplain management program and explained
how it is designed to mitigate the risks of flooding, minimize loss of life and property
damage, and support recovery following a major flood event. The presentation also
outlined some key projects scheduled for City Council consideration in the next year
including; updating mapping of the Boulder Creek floodplain, a mitigation plan for the
South Boulder Creek floodplain, additional regulations related to critical facilities and
mobile populations, and discussion around the Civic Center Master Plan.
COUNCIL RESPONSES TO STUDY SESSION QUESTIONS:
Council had a wide ranging discussion while answering the following questions:
1. Does City Council have any questions about the city's flood risk or its existing
floodplain regulations?
2. Does City Council have any questions about the city's proposed floodplain
regulations involving critical facilities and mobile populations?
3. Does City Council have any questions about the Boulder Creek floodplain
mapping study, South Boulder Creek mitigation study, or the planning effort for
the civic center area?
DISCUSSION SUMMARY:
• The council expressed concerns about sediment and debris flow in the Fourmile
Canyon Creek as a result of the 2010 Fourmile Fire.
Packet page number 51 Agenda Item 3F 4
• There was some concern relating to the current description of flood risk and how
it is perceived by the public. (A 100-year flood event is not as comprehensible to
a lay person as a 3" rain stone in regards to relative, real-time understanding.)
• There were questions surrounding the city's flood class and how to improve it to
Class 5 status. Would the points needed to obtain a Class 5 rating be
accomplished through the city's critical facilities ordinance?
• There was some concern about the financial burden, particularly for non-profits
and small businesses, to comply with the proposed critical facility and mobile
population ordinance.
• There was some concern about current regulations relating to rebuilding after a
500-year flood event and whether or not the city should allow for rebuilding of
critical facilities in the 500-yr floodplain.
• There was some support for more leniency within the 500-year floodplain and
allowing structural flood protection for both commercial and residential
structures. There was some concern about the complexity and vagueness of
definitions for critical facilities and the proposed regulatory provisions.
• There was a request to identify specific structures that would be affected by the
proposed regulations.
• There were questions and concerns about the city using both the 100-year and
500-year floodplains and whether or not the city needs to go that far. Incentives
for property owners just outside the 100-year floodplain may be considered..
• There were concerns about the relative risk of the 500-year flood vs. other natural
hazards risks. The Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan may help to inform this issue.
• There was interest in finding other avenues for the city to incorporate and inform
the community of the very real danger of flood risk. Perhaps more public outreach
is needed to get the word out and discover what the community's priorities are
surrounding floodplain management.
• There was general agreement of support for moving forward with the Boulder
Creek Flood Mapping Study.
• There was general agreement of support for floodplain mapping assumptions for
the Civic Center Plan.
Packet page number 52 Agenda Item 3F 5
CITY OF BOULDER
WATER RESOURCES ADVISORY BOARD
AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: September 17, 2012
AGENDA TITLE: Discussion of 2011 AWWA Benchmarking Report
PRESENTERS:
Jeff Arthur, Director of Public Works for Utilities
Bob Harberg, Utilities Planning and Project Management Coordinator
Ken Baird, Financial Manager for Utilities
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The purpose of this item is for the Water Resources Advisory Board to review and
discuss the Benchmarking report prepared by staff in conjunction with the American
Water Works Association (AWWA) Benchmarking Survey. Since 2005, the City has
collected water and wastewater benchmark data and submitted this information as part of
the AWWA survey. The results of the survey are then published in the Utilities Annual
Report. The benchmark report is used to compare the City's utility with peers throughout
the country and also to measure trends over time. The 2011 Benchmarking report is
presented as Attachment A, which includes additional background, analysis and results.
Another survey the City participated in is provided as Attachment B, which was
conducted by the City of Springfield, Missouri. This included questions related to future
rate increases and renewal and placement expenditures.
NEXT STEPS:
No formal action by the WRAB is requested on this item. The information is intended to
provide the WRAB with additional background for future recommendations.
ATTACHMENTS:
A: Benchmarking Performance Indicators for Water and Wastewater Utilities 2011
B: City Utilities of Springfield Water Rate Increases/Renewal Expenditures survey
AGENDA ITEM # VII PAGE 1
B enchmarkin
Performance Indicators for Water and
Wastewater Utilities
2011
In 2005, the American Water Works Association (AWWA) developed a report called
Benchmarking- Performance Indicators for Water and Wastewater Utilities: Survey
Data and Analysis Report (by Angela K. Lafferty and William C. Lauer) to assess the
performance of water and wastewater utilities using a set of identified and tested high-
level performance indicators. The indicators are designed to help participating utilities
improve their operational efficiency and effectiveness. The AWWA Benchmarking
Report provided summary data and comparative analyses of survey data collected from
202 utilities during the years 2003 and 2004. AWWA has continued to publish annual
reports which summarize survey data from a number of participating utilities. Due to the
limited communities contributing to the 2010 survey, data shown reflecting the regions,
population, and all participant categories are not included this year. Data shown reflects
the combined, wastewater, and water categories from the 2010 survey results. In some
cases, data for one or more of the categories listed may not be available.
Beginning with data collected from 2005, Boulder has participated in the AWWA
Benchmarking Study every year. Although Boulder did not participate in the original
study (2005 report), several Colorado utilities did. They are as follows.
■ City of Aurora
■ Eagle River Water & Sanitation District
■ Fort Collins Utilities
■ Pagosa Area Water & Sanitation District
■ Town of Rangely
■ Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority
■ City of Westminster
Due to the economy and lack of resources, participation in the AWWA Benchmarking
Study has decreased in recent years and participation amongst Colorado utilities has also
declined. Only two utilities from Colorado are included in the 2010 report.
• City of Boulder
■ Colorado Springs
The primary objective of this initiative is to assess the performance of water and
wastewater utilities using a variety of high-level measures. Utility managers will use this
information to determine where his/her utility's performance resides within the industry
peer group. High-level indicators were selected as the starting point for the system
because they are more likely to be recognizable and applicable at large numbers of
utilities. This survey represents the result of the efforts of various organizations and
individuals. AWWA/AWWARF staff brought together representatives from various
organizations to develop performance indicators. During two workshops, these
individuals set out to build on what others have already researched, developed, and
communicated, and to do it in a way that might draw continuing support from utilities
that will both provide and use performance indicator data. A narrower project scope was
proposed as a start so participating utilities will have opportunities to decide which
indicators have the most meaning to them, and those administering the proposed
measurement system can learn how to build, finance, manage and sustain an effective
data delivery system. Developing a more detailed measurement system is planned for
future periods, including the addition of lower-level indicators. Twenty-four performance
indicators were initially selected for this project. This was expanded to thirty-four
performance indicators for 2009. The QualServe business systems were chosen as an
organizing framework to guide the design effort so the initial performance indicators
database would be familiar to the many utilities participating in other elements of that
program.
Of the 34 total performance indicators included in the survey, the city of Boulder chose to
evaluate 19 which were deemed applicable and measurable. These are highlighted in bold
below. Additional indicators may be added in future Benchmarking reports.
1) Employee Health and Safety Severity Rate
2) Training Hours per Employee
3) Customer Accounts per Employee (water/wastewater) & Million Gallons per
Day (MGD) Water Delivered/Wastewater Processed per Employee
4) Current Water Demand
5) Available Future Water Supply
6) Technical Quality Complaints
7) Disruptions of Water Service
8) Disruptions of Sewer Service
9) Residential Cost of Water/Sewer Service
10) Service Affordability
11) Stakeholder Outreach Checklist
12) Debt Ratio
13) System Renewal/Replacement Rate
14) Return on Assets
15) Cash Reserves
16) Drinking Water Compliance Rate
17) Distribution System Water Loss
18) Water Distribution System Integrity
19) Energy Consumption Efficiency for Water and Wastewater
20) Operations and Maintenance Cost Ratios (water)
21) Planned Maintenance Ratio (water)
22) Sewer Overflow Rate
23) Collection System Integrity
24) Wastewater Treatment Effectiveness Rate
25) Operations and Maintenance Cost Ratios (wastewater)
26) Planned Maintenance Ratio (wastewater)
27) Triple-Bottom Line Index
28) Employee Turnover Rate
29) Retirement Eligibility
30) Number of Internal Promotions
31) Customer Relations
32) Emergency Response Readiness
33) Billing Accuracy Rate
34) Customer Service Complaints
Each performance indicator within this report is presented using median-range charts.
AWWA provides summary statistics of industry data which includes the median, 25`h
percentile, and 75'h percentile values. These statistics, which describe the inner 50
percent of the data, are plotted as vertical bars, for comparison against city of Boulder
data. There are both advantages and disadvantages to this method of data reporting. It is
advantageous in that it illustrates the industry norm for each indicator. Unfortunately, it
lacks the ability to describe absolute high and low values, extreme outliers, or the
underlying distribution of the data. The inherent shortcomings of the median-range charts
were imposed by the survey in an effort to protect utility confidentiality. Also for this
reason, the survey does not provide any correlation between individual data points and
utility names. Some benchmark questions may show black dash(es) rather than vertical
bars which indicate the reported survey range of data. The black dashes reflect no
reported range of data (the same reported data values were submitted), or no values
reported for the benchmark data question were provided. The dashes occur more
frequently in this 2010 report than previous years due to the limited number of
communities responding to the survey.
This report presents indicator values for the city of Boulder as calculated using data from
2011 as a red line. A running average of each indicator from previous years (2005-2011)
is also presented for comparison purposes as a blue line. In some cases, the blue line is
not visible because it is obscured by the red line indicating there has been very little
change in the performance indicator from previous years.
Comparison of the 2011 data with the running average values from previous years does
not indicate any significant issues. Water and Wastewater monthly water use charges
items (6a - 6d) (based on 7,500 gallons) has steadily increased over the years due to rate
increases. Although it appears that our water and wastewater use charges per 7,5000
gallons are higher than the AWWA reported averages, the 2011 Front Range Community
survey results reflect Boulder with the 4th lowest water rates and the 9th lowest for
wastewater rates out of 15 communities. The cost of water based on average residential
water use (#6b and d) may provide a better comparison with other water/wastewater
providers because of the city's unique water budget rate structure).
The combined water and wastewater debt ratio (7) continues to decline because of the
significant debt payments made each year. Several large bonds in the Water Utility fund
will be retired in the near future. It is typical to have wide variations in system
renewal/replacement rates (98a-d) which are a function of unique capital improvement
project funding that varies significantly from year to year. The running average of the
renewaUreplacement rates provides a better comparison with AWWA data from other
water/wastewater providers. Distribution system water loss (#11) is back to normal after
last year's high value that was most likely caused by a large leak in a transmission pipe
under Boulder Creek that was undetected for several months.
Performance Indicators
1) Employee Health and Safety Severity Rate - Quantifies the rate of employee days
lost from work due to illness or injury.
Average of Previous Years = 31.14
2011 Data:
■ Total workdays away from work = 50
■ Total hours worked by all employees = 224,572
■ Rate = 44.5 (days per 200,000 hours worked)*
*Mainly due to one injury
Employee Health and Safety Severity Rate
0
0
0
c
0
N 90.0
CD I
80.0
+n 70.0
L
co O 60.0
~ 3: 50.0 Median
40.0 -CoB Avg
O O 30.0
'0 2 20.0 -CoB 2011
10.0
y 0.0
m a e~ ~t
C
~a
2) Training Hours per Employee - Quantifies the formal training hours that the utility
employees are completing.
Average of Previous Years = 26.33
2011 Data:
■ Total qualified training hours for all employees= 3,289.0
■ Total FTE's worked by employees during reported period= 132.55
■ Training hours per employee = 24.8
Training Hours Per Employee
35.0 -
Q. 30.0
LU 25.0
Median
0. 20.0
-CoB Avg
15.0
= 10.0 -CoB 2011
r 5.0
C
0.0
L
~
Co
m
3a) Customer Accounts per Employee (water) - Measures the number of customer
accounts per number of fiill-time equivalents (FTE's) and considers all water accounts
both inside and outside the city.
Average of Previous Years = 378
2011 Data:
• # of accounts = 28,619
■ # of FTE's = 74.96
■ Accounts per employee = 382
Customer Accounts per Employee (Water)
900
800
d
j, 700
0
c 600 Median
u! -CoB Avg
w 500
400 iCoB 2011
Q 300
200
e .01
e
3b) Customer Accounts per Employee (wastewater) - Measures the number of
customer accounts per number of full-time equivalents (FTE's) and considers all
wastewater accounts both inside and outside the city.
Average of Previous Years = 465
2011 Data:
■ # of accounts = 27,301
■ # of FTE's = 57.59
■ Accounts per employee = 474
Customer Accounts per Employee (Wastewater)
800
m 700
m
A
O 600
Median
E
500 ~CoB Avg
c 400 ~CoB 2011
O
O
v 300
Q
200
0~~`~0a y~~aS0~ ~a~mc
m
G ~a
1
3c) Million Gallons per Day (MGD) Water Delivered per Employee - Measures the
average MGD of water delivered per number of full-time equivalents (FTE's). MGD is
measured at the water treatment plant outlets.
Average of Previous Years = 0.23
2011 Data:
■ MGD delivered =.22
■ # of FTE's = 74.96
■ MGD per employee = 0.22
MGD Water Delivered per Employee
0.40
0.35
0.30
a~
5, 0.25 -
0
Median
r 0.20
W -CoB Avg
in 0.15 - -CoB 2011
0
2 0.10
0.05
0.00
v
3d) Million Gallons per Day (MGD) Wastewater Processed per Employee - Measures
the average MGD of wastewater processed per number of full-time equivalents (FTE's).
MGD is measured at the wastewater treatment plant inlets.
Average of Previous Years = 0.24
2011 Data:
■ MGD processed = 12.5
■ # of FTE's = 57.59
■ MGD per employee = 0.22
MGD Wastewater Processed per Employee
1.20 - -
1.00
0.sa
O Median
0.60 :COB Avg
-Co B 2011
0.40
0.20
0.00 -T-
G°~~~~i
~a~
4) Technical Quality Complaints - Measures the total annual number of technical
quality complaints per 1,000 customer accounts. "Technical quality" refers to core
services of the utility and includes water quality, taste, odor, appearance and pressure,
sewage backups and overflows, disruptions of water or sewer service, disruptions of
traffic, and facilities upkeep. Water customer accounts only are used for this indicator to
reflect the fact that the majority of customers maintain both a water and wastewater
account.
Average of Previous Years = 6.9
2011 Data:
■ # of accounts = 28,619 (water only)
■ In 2011, Boulder recorded:
247 water quality complaints
• Rate = 8.6 (complaints per 1,000 customers)
Technical Quality Complaints per 1,000 Customers
N 30.0
O
E 25.0
0
20.0
a Median
C 15.0 i ~CoB Avg
N I - Co B 2011
10.0
M
5.0
0 +I
U 0.0
e
G ~a
5) Disruptions of Water Service - Measures the number of water outages experienced
by utility customers.
Average of Previous Years
■ Planned disruption rate per 1000 customers (less than 4 hours) = 0.08
■ Planned disruption rate per 1000 customers (4 to 12 hours) = 0.02
■ Planned disruption rate per 1000 customers (more than 12 hours) = 0.000
■ Unplanned disruption rate per 1000 customers (less than 4 hours) = .96
■ Unplanned disruption rate per 1000 customers (4 to 12 hours) = 0.24
■ Unplanned disruption rate per 1000 customers (more than 12 hours) = 0.02
2011 Data:
■ # of accounts = 28,619 (water only)
■ Linear feet of water line replaced in 2010 = 10,315
■ Planned disruption rate per 1000 customers (less than 4 hours) = 0.0721
■ Planned disruption rate per 1000 customers (4 to 12 hours) = 0.0180
■ Planned disruption rate per 1000 customers (more than 12 hours) = 0.000
■ Unplanned disruption rate per 1000 customers (less than 4 hours) = 1.1070
■ Unplanned disruption rate per 1000 customers (4 to 12 hours) = 0.2767
■ Unplanned disruption rate per 1000 customers (more than 12 hours) = 0.0277
Disruptions of Water Service per 1,000 Customers
Planned < 4 hours
6.00 -
L
E 5.00
0
4.00
V Median
°0 3.00 -CoB Avg
0
H 2 00 - Co B 2011
c
0
Q 1.00
L
N 0.00
e
I
Disruptions ofWaterService per 1,000 Customers
Planned 4-12 hours
4.00
H
d 3.50
E
0 3.00
V 2.50
Median
0 2.00 -CoB Avg
1.50 .rte Co B 2011
a
C 1.00
Cs 0.50
0.00
p a ec ~
Disruptions of Water Service per1,000 Customers
Planned X12 hours
0.80
N
d 0.70
p 0.60
r
3 0.50 Median
a 0.40 11 ~CoB Avg
°o_ 0.30 -CoB 2011
H 0.20
C 0.10
0.00
Disruptions of Water Service per 1,000 Customers
Unplanned <4 hours
8.00 -
7.00
6.00
V 5.00
Median
4.00 - t,
-COB Avg
3.00 COB 2011
N
0 2.00
1.00
0.00
C ~a
Disruptions of Water Service per 1,000 Customers
Unplanned 4-12 hours
9.00
~ 8.00
0 7.00
w
6.00
C3 5.00 Med ian
o -COB Av
c 4, 00 9
N 3.00 -COB 2011
0 2.00
C 1.00
rA 0.00
C ~a
Disruptions of Water Service per 1,000 Customers
Unplanned >12 hours
1.60 -
N
as 1.40
E
0 1.20
C3 1.00
Median
CD -CoB Avg
0'80
0.60 -Co B 2011
C 0.40
rL 0.20
y 0.00
v ~
G yea
6a) Cost of Water Based on Monthly Water Use of 7,500 Gallons - Calculates the
expected water bill amount of a single-family residential customer using 7,500 gallons
per month.
2010 Data:
■ Bill amount = $24.71
2011 Data:
■ Bill amount = $25.95
Cost of Water Based on Monthly
Residential Water Use of 7,500 Gallons
40.00
35.00
CL 30.00
0 Median
0 25.00 -CoB Avg
L
20 00 - Co B 2011
102
15.00
00
a; 10.00
G ~a
6b} Cost of Water Based on Average Residential Water Use - Calculates the average
single-family residential water bill based on all bills issued.
2010 Data:
■ Bill amount = $27.01
2011 Data:
■ Bill amount = $30.25
Cost of Water Based on Average
Residential Water Use
45.00
40.00
m 35.00
30.00 Median
~CoB Avg
25.00
-CoB 2011
20.00
g 15.00
C 10.00 J
L za sec
>
Q Gam ,ay`.
6c) Cost of Sewer Based on Monthly Residential Sewer Use of 7,500 Gallons -
Calculates the expected sewer bill amount of a single-family residential customer using
7,500 gallons per month.
2010 Data:
■ Bill amount = $29.46
2011 Data:
■ Bill amount = $30.40
Cost of Sewer Based on Monthly
Residential Sewer Use of 7,500 Gallons
45.00
0 40.00
v
IL 35.00
c 30.00 Median
25.00 -CoB Avg
ti -CoB 2011
~p 20.00
m 15.00
4) 10.00
3 a < <
4
V) 4
, ~m~e
6d} Cost of Sewer Based on Average Residential Sewer Use - Calculates the average
single-family residential water bill based on all bills issued.
2010 Data:
x Bill amount = $16.67
2011 Data:
■ Bill amount = $16.40
Cost of Sewer Based on Average
Residential Sewer Use
16* 40.00
0
'a 35.00
m 30.00 -
a~ Median
25.00 -CoB Avg
20.00 -CoB 2011
0 15.00
10.00
a m< <
> 4a
C.P
7) Debt Ratio - Measures the debt ratio as total liabilities divided by total assets.
Combined water and wastewater.
Average of Previous Years = 0.33*
2011 Data: (Note: 2011 values are preliminary, un-audited estimates. Audited values will
be available in mid-2011)
■ Total liabilities $93,789,000
■ Total assets = $352,294,000
■ Debt ratio = 0.27*
*Based on preliminary statements which may/may not change in early June 2012.
Debt Ratio
0.600
0.500
co
vi 0.400
Median
0.300 Co B Avg
ev -
p 0.200 ~CoB 2011
0.100
.n
as
D 0.000
G
8a) System Renewal/Replacement Rate: Water Pipelines (distribution) - Quantifies
the rate at which a utility is meeting its individual yearly need for infrastructure renewal
or replacement for the water distribution system.
Average of Previous Years = 21.0%
2011 Data:
■ Total expenditures = $3,169,254
■ Theoretical investment = $8,489,633
■ Rate = 37.3%*
* The 2011 System Renewal/Replacement Rate significant variance compared to the
average is due to the update of Water Utility asset management inventories and condition
assessments performed as part of the analysis for the Water Utility Master Plan.
System Renewal/Replacement Rate
Water Distribution
d
40.0
35.0
Q 30.0
V 25'0 Median
Z 20'0 -CoB Avg
15.0 -CoB 2011
10.0
Q
O 5.0
= o.a IMF
L ~`ce ~a~ far
ai GoF a`'~~
8b) Renewal/Replacement Rate: Water Treatment and Pumping - Quantifies the rate
at which a utility is meeting its individual yearly need for infrastructure renewal or
replacement of water treatment and pumping facilities.
Average of Previous Years = 15.7%
2011 Data:
■ Total expenditures = $2,919,223
■ Theoretical investment = $25,608,322
■ Rate= 11.4%
System Renewal/Replacement Rate
Water Treatment/Pumping
as
18.0
m 16.0
Q 14.0
u) 12.0
0 10.0 Median
Z -CoB Avg
8.0
6.0 ~CoB2011
C
Q 4.0
p 2.0
~ 0.0
Cs a m&~
L
d
8c) Renewal/Replacement Rate: Wastewater pipelines (collection) - Quantifies the
rate at which a utility is meeting its individual yearly need for infrastructure renewal or
replacement of the wastewater collection system.
Average of Previous Years = 10.9%*
2011 Data:
■ Total expenditures = $511,839
Theoretical investment = $20.090,743
■ Rate = 2.5%*
*The average previous year's significant variance compared to the 2011 is due to a
formula correction made to the 2009 underground sewer manholes replacement costs.
System Renewal/Replacemnt Rate
Wastewater Collection
12.0
10.0
v
4
vt 8.0
.O
O Median
Z 6.0
I ~CoB Avg
a 4.0 lCo62011
C
C
vQ- 2.0
O f--
C 0.0
. ea a,~0c m,~mc
a Go~,oo ay~~~ ~
Sd) System Renewal / Replacement Rate: Wastewater Treatment and Pumping -
Quantifies the rate at which a utility is meeting its individual yearly need for
infrastructure renewal or replacement of wastewater treatment and pumping facilities.
Average of Previous Years = 11.0%
2011 Data:
■ Total expenditures = $3,473,740
■ Theoretical investment = $6,339,212
■ Rate = 54.8%*
*The 2011 System Renewal/Replacement Rate was substantially higher than the average
due to a formula correction made to the 2009 wastewater treatment plant replacement
costs.
System Renewal/Replacement Rate
Wastewater TreatmentlPumping
d
60.0
50.0
v
a
w 40.0
O Median
Z 30.0 -CoB Avg
3 20.0 -CoB 2011
C
a 10.0
w
O
C 0.0
as a me
a
9) Return on Assets - Measures the return on assets (ROA) as net income divided by net
total assets. Includes water and wastewater funds only.
Average of Previous Years = 0.19*
2011 Data: (Note: 2011 values are preliminary, un-audited estimates. Audited values will
be available in mid-2011)
• Net income ~ $44,721,000
• Net Total assets = $258,505,000
■ ROA = 0.17*
*Based on preliminary statements which may/may not change in early June 2012.
Return on Assets
0.25
N
d 0.20
N
N
a
M 0'15 Median
-CoB Avg
0.10 CoB 2011
Q
E
00.05
C
i 0 0
z -
4111 0&
G ~a
10) Drinking Water Compliance Rate - Quantifies the percentage of time each year
that a water utility meets all health-related drinking water requirements. Boulder, in
addition to all reporting utilities, was in 100 percent compliance with health-related
requirements in 2011. The average of previous years is 100 percent. No figure is
required.
11) Distribution System Water Loss - Measures the percentage of produced water that
fails to reach the customers and cannot otherwise be accounted for through authorized
usage. Authorized but unbilled water includes Unidirectional Flushing (UDF) values and
city metered accounts.
Average of Previous Years = 8.8
2011 Data:
• MG water distributed = 6,112
■ MG water billed = 5,481
■ MG water unbilled but authorized = 218
■ Water loss = 6.8%
Distribution System Water Loss
10.0 i
+r 9.0
J 8.0
4) 7.0
6.0
Median
0 5.0 Co B Avg
4.0
CoB 2011
3.0
v 2.0
a~ 1.0
0.0
e
G ~m
12) Water Distribution Integrity - Measures the total number of water pipeline
leaks/breaks per 100 miles of distribution piping.
Average of Previous Years = 15.73
2011 Data:
■ # of leaks/breaks = 66
• Miles of distribution piping = 463
■ Integrity rate= 14.3 (per 100 miles)
Water Distribution System Integrity
m
70.0
a
a 60.0
4-
G 50.0
VJ
d
40.0 - Median
0 30.0 -CoB Avg
P
L -CoB 2011
d
CL 20.0
U)
x
10.0
as
0.0
13a) Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Cost per Account (water) - Measures
O&M costs per total number of active water accounts.
Average of Previous Years = $425
2011 Data:
■ Total O&M costs = $13,369,383
■ # of water accounts = 28,619
■ Ratio = $467 per account
O&M Cost per Account (Water)
0 500 - -
450
400
0 350
Z 300
Median
4
C 250 CoB Avg
Q 200 -CoB 2011
150
as
Q- 100
N
O 50
U
0
O e`~a~mc
G ~a
13b) O&M Cost per Million Gallons Distributed - Measures O&M costs per annual
million gallons distributed.
Average of Previous Years = $1,956
2011 Data:
■ Total O&M costs = $13,369,383
■ Volume distributed = 6,112 million gallons
■ Ratio = $2,187 per MG distributed
O&M Cost per Million Gallons Distributed
c~
3000
0
2500
d
.a
2000 Median
-CoB Avg
2 1500
-CoB 2011
as
a
0 1000
U
p 500
G yym
13c) O&M Cost of Treatment per Million Gallons Treated - Measures O&M costs
directly attributed to water treatment per annual million gallons treated.
Average of Previous Years = $635
2011 Data:
■ O&M costs (treatment) = $4,349,910
■ Volume treated = 6,112 million gallons
■ Ratio = $712 per MG treated
O&M Cost of Treatment per Million Gallons Treated
a
1200
d
L
~ 1000
800
C0
* Median
) L 600 -CoB Avg
c -CoB 2011
M 400
0 200
w
H
O
V 0
06
0 GoF ~~y`m
14a) Planned Maintenance Ratio (water, hours) - Measures the percentage of planned
maintenance hours to total maintenance hours for the water utility. Total maintenance is
comprised of both planned and corrective maintenance.
Average of Previous Years = 72.4%
2011 Data:
■ Planned hours = 8,395
■ Corrective hours = 3,563
■ Ratio = 70.2% planned
Planned Maintenance Ratio: Water (Hours)
= 80.0 - - -
M 70.0
60.0
= o- 50.0
Median
g Q 40.0 -CoB Avg
a 5 30.0 -CoB 2011
d r
20.0
w
d 10.0
a: 0.0
CL
C
14b) Planned Maintenance Ratio (water, cost) - Measures the percentage of planned
maintenance cost to total maintenance cost for the water utility. Total maintenance is
comprised of both planned and corrective maintenance.
Average of Previous Years = 65.9%
2011 Data:
■ Planned cost= $357,739
• Corrective cost = $220,105
■ Ratio = 61.9% planned
Planned Maintenance Ratio: Water (Cost)
r
80.0 -
N 70.0
0
V 60.0
d
c 50.0
Median
40.0 29 Co Avg
~ a 30.0 I ~CoB 2011
p 20.0
a, 10.0
0.0
a Go~~c ~y~m~ 4
15) Sewer Overflow Rate - Reports the number of sanitary sewer overflows (SSO's)
experienced per 100 miles of collection piping. SSO's that originated in a customer's
sewer lateral are not included. These SSO's are excluded to reflect only SSO's for which
the city of Boulder was responsible.
Average of Previous Years = 3.9
2011 Data:
■ # of SSO's = 3*
■ Total miles of piping = 355
■ Overflow Rate =.85 SSO's / 100 miles
*The 2011 change in SSOs compared to the average is due to using the CDPHE
(Guidance for Reporting Spills under the Colorado Water Quality Control Act and
Colorado Discharge Permits) starting in 2010.
SewerOverflow Rate
18.00
16.0U
14.00
N
12.00
Median
p 10.00
a 8.00 -CoB Avg
N CoB 2011
b 6.00
4.00
2.00
0.00
m
G ~a
16) Collection System Integrity - Measures the total number of collection system
failures divided by the total miles of collection system piping. A "failure" is defined as a
loss of capacity due to flow restriction.
Average of Previous Years = 12.83
2011 Data:
■ # of failures = 38
■ Total miles of piping = 355
■ System Integrity = 10.7 failures / 100 miles
Wastewater Collection System Integrity
18.0
U) 16.0
m
14.0
c 12.0
0
1- 10.0 Median
8.0 -CoB Avg
~ 6 0 -CoB 2011
U.
E 4.0
r
T 2.0
N 0.0 T
o~~`c0b y~~a~~c ~~`mc
G ~a
17) Wastewater Treatment Effectiveness Rate - Reports the percentage of days in 2005
during which the wastewater facilities were in full compliance with effluent quality
standards.
Average of Previous Years = 99.3%
2011 Data:
■ # of noncompliance days = 0
■ Effectiveness rate = 100%
Wastewater Treatment Effectiveness Rate
m
w
100.0
Q. y 99.5
0 0 99.0
Vw
98.5
3
LL m 98.0 Median
~ 97.5
y ~CoB Avg
97.0 -CoB 2011
o 0 96.5
Q O 96.0
as
3 95.5
95.0
18a) O&M Cost per Account (wastewater) - Measures O&M costs per total number of
active wastewater accounts.
Average of Previous Years = $311
2011 Data:
■ Total O&M costs = $9,159,361
■ # of wastewater accounts = 27,301
■ Ratio = $335 account
O&M Cost per Account (Wastewater)
v 500
450
400
O 350
'a
c 300 Median
0 250 ~CoB Avg
a 200 -CoB 2011
150
100
N
O 50
0
g 0
O
m
G ~a
18b) O&M Cost per Million Gallons Processed - Measures O&M costs per annual
million gallons processed.
Average of Previous Years = $1,672
2011 Data:
■ Total O&M costs = $9,159,361
■ Volume processed = 4,576 million gallons
■ Ratio = $2,002 per MG processed
O&M Cost per Million Gallons Processed
C7
3500
L
~a
p 3000
.r.
2500
m
N
w 2000 Median
v
d 1500 iCo B Avg
-CoB 2011
1000
L
d
H 500
0
V 0
O
18c) O&M Cost of Treatment per Million Gallons Treated - Measures O&M costs
directly attributed to wastewater treatment per annual million gallons treated.
Average of Previous Years = $896
2011 Data:
■ O&M costs (treatment) = $4,773,591
■ Volume treated = 4,576 million gallons
■ Ratio = $1,043 per MG treated
0 O&M Cost of Treatment per Million Gallons Processed
L r.
G) 0 2000
- 1800
~ i
m 1600
c v 1400
L
1200 Median
1000 -CoB Avg
p o 800 CoB 2011
V L 600
ga
ca 400
O 200
0
o~~`C0a
19a) Planned Maintenance Ratio (wastewater, hours) - Measures the percentage of
planned maintenance hours to total maintenance hours for the wastewater utility. Total
maintenance is comprised of both planned and corrective maintenance.
Average of Previous Years = 90.2%
2011 Data:
■ Planned hours = 9,737
■ Corrective hours = 1,306
■ Ratio = 88.2% planned
Planned Maintenance Ratio: Wastewater (Hours)
s
ca
s
3: 120.0
i
0 100.0
0 80.0
r Median
EL 60.0 -CoB Avg
g Q 40.0 -CoB 2011
w
0
4 20.0
c~
0.0
G ~m
19b) Planned Maintenance Ratio (wastewater, cost) - Measures the percentage of
planned maintenance cost to total maintenance cost for the wastewater utility. Total
maintenance is comprised of both planned and corrective maintenance.
Average of Previous Years = 89.6%
2011 Data:
■ Planned cost = $413,771
■ Corrective cost = $65,256
■ Ratio = 86.4% planned
Planned Maintenance Ratio: Wastewater (Cost)
's
120.0 -
U)
C 100.0
V
d
C 80.0
Median
d C
a 60.0 ~CoB Avg
40.0 -CoB 2011
O
20.0
ea
C
v 0.0 - -T-
d • ~~a arc a~~~
IL
Water Rate Increases/Renewal Expenditures - Information Obtained Summer 2012
Utility: City Utilities of Springfield (MO) City of Amarillo (TX) City of Boulder (CO) City of Chesapeake (VA) City Water, Light and
Power (Springfield, IL)
1. What percentage of water 8% - FY 13; The following are Planning a 5% increase The rates are revisited Currently conducting a rate There are currently no
rate increases do you have proposed, yet subject to the approval for 2012-13. In the past every year and have to study - looking at keeping it water rate increases
planned for the future (within of our Board and City Council: 5 years, we have had be approved by City single digit, probably in the 8% planned in the future.
the next 5 years, if possible)? 11.4% - FY 14; 9.9% - FY 15; and increases up to 10%O, Council. 2012 - 3%; range
9.0% - FY 16. A rate increase will due to new 2013 - 3%. On the
be evaluated in the future for FY 17. infrastructure costs. I radar: 2014 - 4%, 2015
expect 2 to 3 rate -4%.
increases over the next
5 years.
2. How many miles of water 1,193 (as of Sept. 2011, excludes 59 1,093 miles 489 miles Approximately 825 miles 750 miles
distribution are within your miles of transmission)
system?
1
3. What is your renewal The recent 8% rate increases allow Probably 75 - 100 It is based on the Do not have a set schedule; it is CWLP does not currently
replacement schedule (replace for an approximately 600-year years ...our system is number of breaks. currently driven by condition, have a renewal
every 50 years, 100 years, replacement schedule. However, only 85 years old in the Boulder tries not to looking at options in this replacement schedule. We
other)? with the proposed rate increases we oldest areas ...we are have any mains have regard. typically target trouble
are working towards replacing water rehabilitating and any more than three spots in the system. We
mains on a 100-year cycle. replacing some of them, breaks before the main replace 2 miles per year.
year by year. is replaced.
Page 1
I
Utility: City Utilities of Springfield (MO) City of Amarillo (TX) City of Boulder (CO) City of Chesapeake (VA) City Water, Light and
Power (Springfield, IL)
. What were your FY 2011 Approximately $257,000 fully About $1.5 million. $2.1 million every year $400,000-750,000 depending In FY2011, water main
Expenditures for water main costed. with 3% escalator. on year renewal expenditures
enewals? However, the totaled $200,000.
transmission mains are
in a different category -
try not to have any
breaks.
I4a. Calculated FY 2011 water $215 $1.372 $4,294 $485 - $909, depending on year $267
train renewal expenditures per
distribution mile
5. Are you planning to increase The following are fully costed figures We plan to increase the By review of the No Yes, however the
expenditures for main renewals based on proposed rate increases: annual R&R expenses Consumer Price Index. anticipated level of
within the next five years? If so, FY 2013 - $901,000; FY 2014 - $1.6 to about $2 million over expenditures has not been
what are your anticipated future million; FY 2015 - $3.5 million; FY the next 5 years. determined.
levels of expenditures? 2016 - $5.1 million; FY 2017 - $6.7 NOTE: Our current
million, and projected costs for
SEWER R&R is greater
than that for water
distribution.
6. What was your FY 2011 12.77% (after unbilled) 8% (calculated in the 5.7% (based on figures Estimated at about 7.5% 12.88%
unaccounted for water State "Water Loss provided)
Percentage? Survey", and/or the
Water Loss Audit).
7. A compilation of the results No No. No No No
will be shared with participants.
Do you wish to have your results
listed anonymously?
Page 2
N
Utility: City of College Station (TX) El Paso Water Utilities (TX) Gainesville Regional Knoxville Utilities Board
Utilities (FL) (TN)
1. What percentage of water Our last rate increase was 2% in FY 11. Recently implemented 3% rate Hasn't been determined FY13-5%, FY14-5%,
rate increases do you have We anticipate 2% in FY 14, 4% in FY 15 increase for FY 2012 - 2013; yet, rate increases in line FY15-5%, FY16-10%,
planned for the future (within and I% in FY 16. Our FY runs October Another 3% rate increase with CPI. FY17-5%. Please note
the next 5 years, if possible)? through September and these anticipated planned for FY 2015 - 2016 that only FY 13 and FY 14
increases will be reevaluated each year as rate increases are
part of our budget process. approved by the Board.
2. How many miles of water Approximately 408 miles of water line. As of February 28, 2012: Miles 1,106 1,490 miles
distribution are within your of Water Mains Installed =
system? 2,505.
3. What is your renewal While we generally assign water lines an 50 years. Other: they are replaced as Through its Century 11
replacement schedule (replace asset life of 50 years in our continuing needed, no defined infrastructure management
every 50 years, 100 years, property records, rehabilitation areas are replacement times. program, KUB plans to
other)? ranked based on the condition of the initiate a replacement level
existing sewer and water lines. The of 1 % a year by installing
ability to meet current fire codes for fire newer pipe that has an
hydrant spacing and flow are average life of 100 years.
considerations in the overall evaluation as
is the number of water main breaks. We
anticipate having engineering design done
one year and construction the next year
for neighborhoods ranked in order of
need. The water portion of these areas
typically costs around $3,000,000,
although there may be a large variation.
Page 3
I
Utility: City of College Station (TX) El Paso Water Utilities (TX) Gainesville Regional Knoxville Utilities Board
Utilities (FL) (TN)
4. What were your FY 2011 Approximately $220,000 FY 2011 Water main renewal $397,943 in $11,700,000
expenditures for water main expenditures came in at just Improvements; $279,266
renewals? under $9,400,000. in R&R; $677,209 Total
(Used R&R in calculation)
4a. Calculated FY 2011 water $539 $3,752 $253 $7,852
main renewal expenditures per
distribution mile
5. Are you planning to increase We currently plan to rehabilitate a The current levels of water Yes and no. Immediately KUB plans to accelerate
expenditures for main renewals neighborhood area every other year as main expenditures are planned yes due to District replacements of
within the next five years? If so, described in the answer to question 3. to remain relatively flat, with renovations, but in the galvanized and cast iron
what are your anticipated future slight increases planned in the next couple of years the mains. Anticipated system
levels of expenditures? next five years. budget's expenses improvement expense for
normalize to current the next five years is
amounts. $64M.
6. What was your FY 2011 Approximately 5% In FY 2011, percentage of FY2011 Unaccounted for 30.24%
unaccounted for water Water loss = 4.74% Water using SJRWMD
percentage? methodology and AWWA
methodology for
unavoidable loss was 7.8%
7. A compilation of the results All the information listed here is public No No No
will be shared with participants, record, so you may attribute it to College
Do you wish to have your results Station Water Services Department if you
listed anonymously? wish.
Page 4
Utility: Lincoln Water System (NE) Metropolitan Utilities District (NE)
1. What percentage of water In our financial model we have programmed 5% per year for the There was no increase for 2012. We are
rate increases do you have next 4 or 5 years. With this drought, our revenues may jump currently projecting a 10% increase in 2013
planned for the future (within back up and smaller increases may be possible if cash balances and no additional increases from 2014 through
the next 5 years, if possible)? are adequate. This version of the model does not provide for 2016. These projections are for cash flow
growth-related projects, i.e., new wells, treatment, or 16" or purposes and have not been approved by our
larger mains. board of directors. In addition to our monthly
service charge and commodity charge for
water, we charge a WIR (Water Infrastructure
Replacement) Charge. The purpose of this
rider is for the District to recover costs
associated with the replacement of cast iron
water mains. We are not currently projecting
an increase in our WIR charge.
2_ How many miles of water We have 1230 miles of pipe, but that includes 50 to 60 miles of 2,848 miles
distribution are within your transmission mains from our treatment plant to our distribution
system? system.
3. What is your renewal Right now our rate of replacement is only 0.5% per year, so that We are gradually working towards replacing
replacement schedule (replace would equate to 200 year replacement cycle. We have 45 miles 20 miles of water main per year,
every 50 years, 100 years, of main over 100 years old, and 115 more miles of main
other)? between 80 & 100 years old. We are working to upgrade our
asset management efforts to better get a handle on these needs.
Page 5
I
Utility: Lincoln Water System (NE) Metropolitan Utilities District (NE)
4. What were your FY 2011 I will report CIP appropriations, rather than expenditures, since we $8,245,475
expenditures for water main frequently do not get all of the appropriations spent until 4 to 6 months
renewals? after the end of the FY. Our 2010/11 CIP for main replacements was
only S500,000. We were at the end of a cash flow crunch, resulting
from too low of service charges and cooler, wetter years. Our 2011/12
CIP (current year) is $4.86 million, but about $1.5 million of that was
to reimburse our street rehab funds for 3 arterial rehab projects where
the main needed to be replaced before the paving work was completed,
from the previous vear.
4a. Calculated FY 2011 water $427, based on $500,000 and 1,170 miles (total excluding 50-60 $2,895
main renewal expenditures per miles of transmission mains), yet see note above.
distribution mile
5. Are you planning to increase Our proposed CIP (Sept 1 begins new FY) has $3.8 million for These projections have not been approved by
expenditures for main renewals 2012/13, then the following years in millions are $4.0, $4.3, our board of directors and are subject to
within the next five years? If so, $4.6, $5.1, & $5.6. Our CIP is available at - change: 2013 $8,558,945; 2014 $9,573,000;
what are your anticipated future http://Iincoln.ne.gov/city/plan/capital/12-2018/Water.pdf. We 2015 $11,175,000; 2016 $13,800,000; 2017
levels of expenditures? are uncertain whether we have adequate staff in the field to $16,450,000
support this increased level of effort in these future years.
6. What was your FY 2011 The unaccounted for water in 2010/11 was 2.3%. The previous 6.52%
unaccounted for water years were 5.2%, 5.9%, and 7.7%. We have replaced all meters
percentage? since 1997, so the average age is 9 years. We have very tight
clay soils, so very few leaks or breaks go unreported.
http://Iincoln.ne. gov/city/pworks/business/financi aU2011/water/p
df/supplementary.pdf page 16/23
7. A compilation of the results It does not need to be anonymous. No
will be shared with participants.
Do you wish to have your results
listed anonymously?
Page 6
Utility: Newport News Waterworks (VA) Orlando Utilities Commission (FL) Sacramento Suburban Water
District (CA)
1. What percentage of water We will try to keep annual volumetric rate It is currently being analyzed but it may be The District currently has no
rate increases do you have increases at 3 to 4% or less, if possible. approximately S% a year. planned rate changes. The last rate
planned for the future (within change was effective January 1,
the next 5 years, if possible)? 2009. However, the District is
planning to perform a rate study
late in 2012 to look at the District's
rate structure. Based on this study,
the Board of Directors may or may
not decide to change rates in the
I
future.
2. How many miles of water 1744 miles 1,767 miles as of October I, 2011. The District's distribution system
distribution are within your has 735 miles of pipeline that
system? range in size from 48-inch mains
down to 2 and 4-inch laterals.
3. What is your renewal Each pipe is assigned to a class based on Currently it is approximately every 50 years. The District has various type of
replacement schedule (replace diameter, material, material sub-class. Each We are reviewing this at the current time to pipe material that have varying
every 50 years, 100 years, class is assigned an average life expectancy see if we need to change this. lengths of time until their estimated
other)? and replacement period. Pipe replacement is useful life is exhausted. The
assumed to occur over the entire replacement District has been utilizing ductile
period with expenditures based on a normal iron for the past few years which is
distribution. For example, if we install pipe estimated to last 100 years.
in 2012 with a life of 75 years and
replacement period of 68 years, then
replacement will begin in the year 2053,
reach a maximum in the year 2087, and end in
the year 2121. The program is set up so that
these values are continually refined as
additional data becomes available.
Page 7
I
Ulility: Newport News Waterworks (VA) Orlando Utilities Commission (FL) Sacramento Suburban Water
District (CA)
4. What were your FY 2011 $1.175,760 It is hard to estimate. Last year we did $10.7 million
expenditures for water main approximately $200,000 of specific renewal
renewals? and replacement. There were some others that
were included in roadway projects and such
that were not broken out separately so the
amount is not known.
4a. Calculated FY 2011 water $674 $113, yet see note above $14,558
main renewal expenditures per
distribution mile
5. Are you planning to increase Yes. FY2013 $1,030,414; FY2014 We have budgeted $2M a year for renewal No. The District plans to continue
expenditures for main renewals $1,133,381; FY2015 $1,248,474; FY2016 and replacement. This is currently under to replace 6 to 8 miles of pipe each
within the next five years? If so, $1,376,424; FY2017 $1,517,849; FY2018 review to see if it needs to be increased. year for the next 20 years at a cost
what are your anticipated future $1,673,213. of roughly $1.2 million to $1.5
levels of expenditures? million per mile.
6. What was your FY 2011 less than I % 5.')% Presently, the District is only 62%
unaccounted for water metered and therefore cannot
percentage? accurately account for its
unaccounted water. However, we
estimate it is 7%.
7. A compilation of the results Your choice No No, you may use our District's
will be shared with participants. name.
Do you wish to have your results
listed anonymously?
Page 8
Utility: Salt Lake City Public Snohomish PUD Water Tacoma Water (WA) Utility I Utility 2
Utilities (UT) Resources (WA)
1. What percentage of water 5% for every year for the 4-6% annually - still 8.5% increase each year for the 2013-10% 2014-10% 2015 & From previous bond issue -
rate increases do you have next five years. We try to working on analysis. next 5 years. beyond-confidential FYI 3 - 5%; FY14 - 5% no
planned for the future (within increase rates between 4 O&M increase planned.
the next 5 years, it possible)'? to 5 percent every year. For future bond issue - FY15 -
We have increased water 3%; FYI 6 - 3%; FY17 - 3% no
rates every year for the O&M increase planned
last ten years. However,
our rates are still one of
the lowest.
2. How many miles of water 1,300 miles 390 miles 1,200 miles 2,019 668,57 miles as of September
distribution are within your 30, 2011
System?
3. What is your renewal We currently try to 50 years for AC pipe; 125 years Replacement is based upon No set year - replacement based
replacement schedule (replace replace 2% of our system 100 years for ductile condition assessment (including on outage history or system
every 50 years, 100 years, per year iron age of pipe, performance, flow issues
other)'' material), risk and availability
of funds. We maintain
condition information in our
Asset Management System and
use this data to prioritize
projects based upon our ability
to fund in any given year. Risk
assessment includes a review
of the number of customers
affected, level of system
redundancy, and criticality to
overall system.
Page 9
Utility: Salt Lake City Public Snohomish PUD Water Tacoma Water (WA) Utility 1 Utility 2
Utilities (UT) Resources (WA)
4. What were your FY 2011 $11.3 million Assuming you mean $6,125,000 dollars $13.8 million $1,580,000 appropriated
expenditures for water main replacement' -$1M
renewals?
4a. Calculated FY 2011 water $8,692 $2,564 $5,104 $6,835 $2,363 calculated for
main renewal expenditures per appropriated figure.
distribution mile
5. Are you planning to increase About the same over the Main replacement No. Decrease. The following is our five year Yes, $8,817,175 currently
expenditures for main renewals next five years program of $1M budget for water main planned for next five years,
within the next five years? If so, annually replacement/renewal: 2012: majority of funding contingent
what are your anticipated future $6.8 million; 2013: $6.9 on bond issue approval
levels of expenditures? million; 2014: $9.5 million;
2015: $10.5 million; 2016:
$10.5 million
6. What was your FY 2011 9% 6.03% 6.5% I do not have 2011 data,
unaccounted for water however the unaccounted for
percentage? loss in 2010 was 5.6%. The
percentage is fairly consistent
for the past several years,
declining slightly each year as
we better track the losses from
flushing, main breaks reported,
tank loss, that are deducted
from the straight water
produced less water billed to
provide "unaccounted for
water. "
7. A compilation of the results No, we are willing to No No. Listing them with Tacoma Yes Yes, please keep our
will be shared with participants. share Water attached is fine. information anonymous as this
Do you wish to have your results is planning information and can
listed anonymously? change by the time we take it
for approval.
Page 10
p.
Utility: Utility 3 Utility 4 Utility 5 Utility 6 Utility 7
1. What percentage of water 29% - It was just filed in We are currently having a None planned. 7.5% in 2012 19% in 2013 and 8% in
rate increases do you have the spring. We will not consultant look at this and 2016
planned for the future (within know the final award for the tentative increases that
the next 5 years, if possible)? about 4-6 months; but have not been approved
should take effect this would be 7.25%, 7.25%,
year. We actually work in 7%, 7% and 7% over the
arrears; this request is to next 5 years.
recover some of our
investments since our last
rate case in 2006.
2. How many miles of water 52 miles, (approximately) 757 miles 1,000 miles 7.869 miles
distribution are within your
system?
3. What is your renewal We base main No schedule Currently we replace About 40 years for all water
replacement schedule (replace replacements from leak approximately 4 miles per assets
every 50 years, 100 years, assessments, which year.
other)? average near 25 years.
Page 11
~I
Utility: Utility 3 Utility 4 Utility 5 Utility 6 Utility 7
1
4. What were your FY 2011 $96,000 $0 $1,500,000 $1,003,956
expenditures for water main
renewals?
I
4a. Calculated FY 2011 water $1,171 $0 $1,500 $259
main renewal expenditures per
distribution mile
5. Are you planning to increase Approximately 1.5%/2.0% No Would like to but this No
expenditures for main renewals per year would require additional
within the next five years? If so, rate increases and is not in
what are your anticipated future our plans at this time-
levels of expenditures?
6. What was your FY 2011 16% 12.39% Approximately 18 % 18%
unaccounted for water
percentage?
7. A compilation of the results Yes Yes Yes Yes
will be shared with participants.
Do you wish to have your results
listed anonymously?
Page 12
U