MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Leslie Isom, Administration Manager
DATE: October 15, 2015
RE: October 22, 2015, Special Board Meeting
This memorandum shall serve as notice of the Special Board of Directors Meeting of the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District:
Thursday, October 22, 2015 12:00 p.m. Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Office Walter Kirch Room 846 Forest Road Vail, CO 81657
Cc: Board Materials via Email: ERWSD Managers Caroline Bradford, Independent Consultant Ken Marchetti, Marchetti & Weaver, PC Dan Clayton, Brown & Caldwell Virginia Egger, town of Avon Amy Greer, Stan Bernstein & Associates, Inc. Jonathan Heroux, Piper Jaffray & Co Tambi Katieb, Land Planning Collaborative, Inc. Jim Lamont, Vail Homeowners Association Lee Leavenworth, Loyal E. Leavenworth, PC Holly Loff, Eagle River Watershed Council Timm Paxson, Eagle River Watershed Council Cliff Thompson, IKS Consulting Bob Weaver, Leonard Rice Engineers
BOARD OF DIRECTORS SPECIAL MEETING October 22, 2015, 12:00 a.m.
1. Consultant/Guest Introduction 2. Public Comment• 3. General Manager Report – Linn Brooks
3.1. Action Items
3.1.1. Meeting Minutes of September 24, 2015, Regular Meeting☼ 3.1.2. Major Facilities Policy* - Jeff Schneider☼ 3.1.3. Consent Agenda: Contract Log☼
3.2. Information Items – Linn Brooks
3.3. Strategy Items - Linn Brooks - None this month
3.4. Finance Report – James Wilkins*
3.4.1. September Water Sales 3.4.2. Development Impact Fee Revenue Report – September 3.4.3. Draft 2016 Budget Presentation 3.4.4. Board Committee Draft Budget Recommendation – Steve Friedman/Tom Allender
3.5. Operations Report – Todd Fessenden*
3.5.1. ISO Rating 3.5.2. Solid Waste Composting Request* 3.5.3. Traer Creek Tank Update 3.5.4. Eagle River MOU and Camp Hale Updates 3.5.5. East Vail I&I Project 3.5.6. Vehicle Auction Update* 3.5.7. Edwards Wastewater Treatment Facility Update 3.5.8. 303(d) Presentation – Siri Roman 3.5.9. Urban Runoff Group/Stormwater Update – Sir Roman
3.6. Public Affairs Report – Diane Johnson*
3.6.1. Colorado Water Plan Update
3.7. Monthly Reports 3.7.1. Authority September Meeting Summary – draft* 3.7.2. Authority and District Committees*
4. General Counsel Report – Jim Collins† ☼ Action Item Attachment * Informational Attachment † Confidential Attachment • Public comment of items not on the agenda is limited to three minutes per person on any particular subject for which public comment is accommodated, pursuant to § 18-9-108, C.R.S.
4.1. Historical Designation for Hahnewald Barn* 4.2. Consideration of Eagle Park Reservoir Company Operations Agreement*
5. Water Counsel Report – Glenn Porzak
5.1. Piney River Unit Water Right† 5.2. Eagle River MOU Projects 6. Executive Session pursuant to § 24-6-402(a)(b),(e), and (f), C.R.S.
6.1. Water Counsel Review of Matters in Negotiation – Glenn Porzak 6.1.1. Proposed State Legislation – Status Report† 6.1.2. Shoshone Acquisition† 6.2. General Counsel Review of Matters in Negotiation – Jim Collins
7. Adjournment Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Board of Directors Meeting September 24, 2015 MINUTES
A Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Eagle River Water & Sanitation District (District) was held September 24, 2015, at 11:00 a.m., in the District’s Walter Kirch Room, 846 Forest Road, Vail, Eagle County, Colorado, in accordance with the applicable statutes of the State of Colorado. ATTENDANCE 1 The following Directors were present, thereby constituting a quorum: 2 Tom Allender 3 Debbie Buckley 4 Steve Friedman 5 Bill Simmons 6 Frederick P. Sackbauer IV 7 Paul Testwuide 8 The following Director was absent and excused: 9 Kim Langmaid 10 DISCLOSURES OF POTENTIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST 11 The Board noted it had received more than 72 hours prior to the meeting certain disclosures of Potential Conflicts of Interest 12 Statements for the following Directors indicating the following conflicts: 13 Director Allender disclosed that he is the Director of Resort Planning for Vail Associates, Inc., which has significant land ownership 14 and business interests within the District and Authority. He also serves on the Boards of the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority 15 (Authority), Eagle Park Reservoir Company, and the Clinton Ditch and Reservoir Company. Director Friedman serves on the Boards 16 of the Beaver Creek Metropolitan District and the Vail Valley Foundation. Director Langmaid disclosed that she founded and is 17 employed by Walking Mountains Science Center, which receives funding from parties with which the District does business, 18 including the US Forest Service, Vail Resorts, Towns of Vail and Avon, Vail Recreation District, Eagle County, and Holy Cross 19 Energy. Director Sackbauer is employed by Vail Resorts, Inc., which has significant land ownership and business interests within 20 the District. Director Simmons disclosed that he is the General Manager of the Beaver Creek Metropolitan District, an alternate 21 Director for the Authority, and on the Boards of the Edwards, Holland Creek, and Red Sky Ranch Metropolitan Districts. Director 22 Testwuide disclosed that he performs consulting for Vail Resorts, his former employer, owns water rights in two states, and 23 occasionally uses the District’s water counsel, Glenn Porzak, as his personal attorney. 24 25 Also in attendance were: 26 District Staff 41 Consultants 27 Linn Brooks 42 Jim Collins, Collins Cockrel & Cole 28 Carol Dickman 43 Glenn Porzak, Porzak Browning & Bushong LLP 29 Angelo Fernandez 44 Public 30 Todd Fessenden 45 Matt Donovan, Vail Honeywagon 31 Leslie Isom 46 Jennie Fancher, Avon Council 32 Diane Johnson 47 Kristi Ferraro, Avon resident 33 Melissa Mills McLoota 48 Eric Hecox, South Metro Water Authority 34 Glen Phelps 49 Holly Loff, Eagle River Watershed Council (ERWC) 35 Siri Roman 50 Alan Nottingham, Avon resident 36 Jeff Schneider 51 Cici Nottingham, Avon resident 37 Brian Tracy 52 Tamra Nottingham-Underwood 38 James Wilkins 53 Brian Sipes, Avon resident 39 54 Sarah Smith Hymes, Avon Council 40 55 CALL TO ORDER 56 Chairman Sackbauer called the meeting to order at 11:10 a.m. 57 INTRODUCTIONS 58 Ms. Johnson introduced Mr. Hecox, who would be presenting information regarding the South Metro 59 WISE project. 60 PUBLIC COMMENT 61 Mr. Donovan discussed a possible partnership between Vail Honeywagon and the District for a 62 compost facility at the District’s Biosolids Containment Facility at the Eagle County landfill. According to 846 Forest Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Page 1 of 8 Board of Directors Meeting, September 24, 2015
Eagle River Water & Sanitation District
1 Mr. Donovan, this would help both entities meet waste diversion goals and could help market the District’s 2 biosolids. Ms. Brooks is working to set up a meeting to further discussion of this topic. 3 Chairman Sackbauer discussed a Vail Daily story regarding the economic impact of the Eagle 4 County Airport; he noted the District’s predecessor organization, Vail Valley Consolidated Water District, 5 originally provided water service to the airport, without which it would not have been a viable entity. 6 ACTION ITEMS 7 Meeting Minutes – The minutes of the Special Meeting of August 27, 2015, were considered. Upon 8 motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously 9 RESOLVED that the minutes of the August 27, 2015, Special Meeting be accepted and hereby 10 are approved as presented. 11 The minutes of the Joint Special Meeting with the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority of August 27, 12 2015, were considered. Upon motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously 13 RESOLVED that the minutes of the August 27, 2015, Joint Special Meeting with the Authority be 14 accepted and hereby are approved as presented. 15 Gore Valley Trail IGA with Town of Vail – Ms. Brooks discussed a board action request and related 16 intergovernmental agreement with the town of Vail, copies of which are attached hereto as Exhibits A 17 and B, respectively, and incorporated herein by this reference. This is an agreement to cost share with 18 the town for design of repairs to the stream bank, which supports the bike path and District’s underlying 19 sewer trunk line through Dowd Junction; erosion has caused the need for this work. Design is estimated 20 at $60,000, with the District and town each paying $30,000. Repair costs will then be determined; if 21 existing capital funds cannot cover the cost, a budget variance will be requested. After discussion and 22 upon motion duly made and seconded, it was unanimously 23 RESOLVED that the Intergovernmental Agreement with the town of Vail be and hereby is 24 approved as presented. 25 Consent Agenda – The Board unanimously approved the Consent agenda, a copy of which is 26 attached hereto as Exhibit C and incorporated herein by this reference. 27 STRATEGY ITEM: Hahnewald Barn 28 Hahnewald Barn stakeholders introduced themselves, including Ms. Nottingham-Underwood, Mr. Sipes, 29 Avon Mayor Fancher, Mr. and Mrs. Nottingham, Ms. Smith Hymes, and Ms. Ferraro. Ms. Brooks 30 discussed the District’s current operational needs, some of which are being evaluated by consultants. 31 Presently, she expects the earliest need for removal of the barn is anticipated to be in spring 2017; 32 however, operational needs and potential state nutrient regulations could require earlier removal. Ms. 33 Nottingham-Underwood spoke on behalf of the barn stakeholders and discussed a previous meeting 34 between the District and Avon representatives regarding the barn. The group wishes to nominate the barn 35 to the state registry of historical structures and apply for grants to preserve the barn. Ms. Nottingham- 36 Underwood would like to invite a preservation expert to the District’s October meeting to provide 37 information on preservation and grant funding. Discussion ensued regarding the state registry process
846 Forest Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Page 2 of 8 Board of Directors Meeting, September 24, 2015
Eagle River Water & Sanitation District
1 and what the ramifications would be for the District and its future operational needs. Mr. Collins 2 suggested he and Ms. Nottingham-Underwood meet with a preservation expert to determine ramifications 3 for the District, so long as an initial meeting does not constitute any District commitment to take any future 4 steps towards preservation. Discussion ensued regarding whether the process should be undertaken if 5 operational expansion ultimately dictates that the barn must be moved regardless; the insight that an 6 expert could provide on the matter; and the need to move forward with this to allow the District, town, and 7 citizens group to take any needed actions. Ms. Roman noted certain state regulations regarding 8 wastewater treatment could add urgency to expansion needs or operational changes. Mr. Collins 9 suggested the town and District could each contribute $5,000 to have an architect review the barn for 10 eligibility for the state historical designation. He suggested further discussion be reserved for Executive 11 Session. 12 The barn stakeholders group left the meeting at 11:34 a.m. 13 Water Infrastructure and Supply Efficiency (WISE) Project – Mr. Hecox of the South Metro Water 14 Supply Authority presented information about the SMWSA, the South Metro WISE Authority, the WISE 15 Partnership, and the WISE Project. Mr. Hecox and Ms. Johnson provided background information in a 16 related memo, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit D and incorporated herein by this reference. 17 Mr. Hecox said the Project is a regional water supply project between Aurora Water, Denver Water, and 18 the WISE Authority to combine available water supplies and system capacities to create a sustainable 19 new water supply for the WISE Authority and its members. He highlighted provisions in the Colorado 20 River Cooperative Agreement that pertain to the WISE project and noted the Authority’s involvement in 21 the CRCA. 22 A short recess for lunch was taken at 12:15 p.m., and the meeting resumed at 12:25 p.m. 23 Eagle River Watershed Council Update and 2016 Funding Request – Ms. Loff, executive director of 24 the Watershed Council, discussed background information on the organization, a copy of which is 25 attached hereto as Exhibit E and incorporated herein by this reference. She noted the Watershed 26 Council is focused on the health and quality of all local rivers and tributaries. She noted the organization 27 focuses on research, education, and projects towards this end. She demonstrated the current water 28 quality report card for all local rivers and tributaries; prior to creation of this database and water quality 29 report card, the data was not accessible in one location and was difficult to interpret and understand. 30 Ms. Loff outlined specific projects for river health, including Vail Pass traction sand sedimentation 31 basins and cleaning of the basins; involvement in the Urban Runoff Group efforts; continued work to 32 ensure mitigation of the Eagle Mine Superfund site; and Watershed Wednesday presentations. Ms. Loff 33 requested $50,000 from the Authority for 2016 Watershed Council efforts; $25,000 would be for water 34 quality monitoring and $25,000 would be for general operating support. Ms. Brooks noted the request 35 would be added to the 2016 budget for Board approval. 36 Wilderness Process Plan – Mr. Porzak discussed the Policy on Future Wilderness and Roadless Area 37 Designations, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit F and incorporated herein by this
846 Forest Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Page 3 of 8 Board of Directors Meeting, September 24, 2015
Eagle River Water & Sanitation District
1 reference. This included a general statement of intent, background information regarding roadless 2 areas vs. wilderness designations, a breakdown of current designations, and policy and criteria for 3 future designations. Mr. Porzak explained that wilderness areas are much more restrictive than 4 roadless areas. Discussion ensued regarding the high level of public interest on the District’s proposed 5 wilderness policy, and solicitation of written public comment from interested stakeholders. The Board 6 agreed to hold a joint meeting with the Upper Eagle Regional Water Authority to consider the policy. 7 The Board determined that written public comments would be requested one week prior to the October 8 22 Board meeting and clarified that the meeting would not include a public hearing on the matter. 9 GENERAL MANAGERS REPORT 10 Ms. Brooks discussed the General Managers Report, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit G 11 and incorporated herein by this reference. 12 Vail Village Filing 2, Tract A – Ms. Brooks discussed the District-owned parcel of land, which is 13 between the Vail Valley Medical Center and Dobson Ice Arena. Background information is attached 14 hereto as Exhibit H and incorporated herein by this reference. Discussion ensued regarding riparian 15 work the town of Vail wishes to do there and whether the District should deed the property to the town. 16 The Board directed staff to have the parcel appraised before further action is taken. 17 Interim Funding for Camp Hale Project – Mr. Fessenden said some stream delineation by the Forest 18 Service occurred in the lower part of Camp Hale and delineation was also needed in the upper part. He 19 noted $45,000 was needed for the additional work and requested the District provide a bridge loan on 20 behalf of the Eagle Park Reservoir Company so contracts can be executed tomorrow; the Company 21 meets on October 22 and can repay the loan at that time. The planned work could count towards 22 advance credit towards wetlands there. After discussion and upon motion duly made and seconded, it 23 was unanimously 24 RESOLVED that the District provide a bridge loan in the amount of $45,000 on behalf of the 25 Eagle Park Reservoir Company for wetlands delineation in the upper Camp Hale area. 26 Special District Association (SDA) District of the Year – Ms. Brooks distributed an article from 27 the SDA newsletter regarding the District as recipient of the SDA District of the Year Award, a 28 copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit I and incorporated herein by this reference. She 29 noted Directors could still RSVP to attend tomorrow’s luncheon at which the District will be 30 recognized. 31 FINANCE REPORT 32 August Water Sales – Mr. Wilkins discussed the August water sales report, a copy of which is 33 attached hereto as Exhibit J and incorporated herein by this reference. He noted August sales 34 were 10% above projections; the extra $165,000 in sales offset shortfalls earlier in the summer. 35 The Authority also experienced higher-than-projected sales, but their shortfalls were not 36 completely covered by the extra revenue.
846 Forest Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Page 4 of 8 Board of Directors Meeting, September 24, 2015
Eagle River Water & Sanitation District
1 Development Impact Fee Revenue Report - Mr. Wilkins discussed the report, a copy of which 2 is attached hereto as Exhibit K and incorporated herein by this reference. He noted the Vail 3 Water fund was below projections, though the Vail sewer fund was above projections. 4 Budget Committee Update – Mr. Wilkins said the budget committee was meeting with staff next 5 week to review the draft budget. He plans to present the proposed budget to the full Board at its 6 October 22 meeting, with Board approval requested after a public budget hearing at the 7 November meeting. 8 OPERATIONS REPORT 9 Mr. Fessenden presented his report, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit L and incorporated 10 herein by this reference. 11 Traer Creek Tank Update – Mr. Fessenden updated on the Traer Creek Tank failure, noting that 12 the investigation is ongoing. Supports have been placed to prevent further tank shifting. 13 Additional discussion was reserved for executive session. 14 Urban Runoff Group Update - Mr. Fessenden noted the Town of Vail was making progress on 15 its strategic plan to address Gore Creek water quality issues. He also called attention to the 16 efforts of the Eagle River Watershed Council, which Ms. Loff had previously discussed. 17 Edwards Wastewater Treatment Facility Project – Mr. Fessenden updated on the project, 18 which is on schedule. All walls are up and roofing will be placed soon. He also noted the new 19 exterior color scheme at the facility, which is more modern and visually pleasing than the previous 20 colors. 21 Instream Flow (ISF) on Eagle River – Mr. Fessenden said ISF levels were reached on the 22 Eagle River near Avon; Eagle Park releases and operational changes were started immediately, 23 even though there was not a call on the river. There were minor complications because the 24 Edwards Drinking Water Facility was offline for repairs at that time. Mr. Fessenden noted the 25 operational flexibility of the Authority and District systems allowed the needed changes to be 26 made in response to the ISF. Mr. Fessenden said minimal releases were made over a 48-hour 27 period, as Homestake Reservoir releases began in response to some transmountain diversions. 28 Gage Calibration – Director Testwuide asked how often river profiles are calibrated in relation to 29 the gages, as river profiles can change after events like high runoff. Ms. Johnson noted that 30 stream profiles are checked regularly by the US Geological Survey (USGS). 31 Colorado Springs Utilities Tour – Mr. Fessenden noted he attended a two-day tour of the 32 Colorado Springs Utilities system. He presented information to other tour attendees regarding the 33 Eagle River Memorandum of Understanding. 34 COMMUNICATIONS AND PUBLIC AFFAIRS REPORT 35 Ms. Johnson presented the Communications and Public Affairs Report, a copy of which is attached 36 hereto as Exhibit M and incorporated herein by this reference.
846 Forest Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Page 5 of 8 Board of Directors Meeting, September 24, 2015
Eagle River Water & Sanitation District
1 National Prescription Drug Take Back Day – Ms. Johnson reminded Directors of the 2 September 26 drug take back event, which she helps coordinate locally. Law enforcement 3 partners are hosting collection sites in Vail, Edwards, and Gypsum. The event keeps 4 pharmaceuticals out of the waste stream, in part to protect water quality. 5 Club 20 – Ms. Johnson reported on Club 20’s Fall Meeting that included a session facilitated by 6 Building a Better Colorado. The new non-profit is working to engage elected officials and 7 community leaders in discussions about Colorado’s election systems, initiative process, and 8 financial future – which may lead to 2016 ballot issues. 9 Colorado Basin Round Table Update – Ms. Johnson briefly reported on the September 17 10 meeting. 11 REPORT BY GENERAL COUNSEL 12 Mr. Collins noted that his report involved items which would be discussed in Executive Session. 13 REPORT BY WATER COUNSEL 14 Colorado Water Plan Second Draft Comment Letter – Mr. Porzak discussed the Authority and 15 District’s comment letter regarding the second draft of the Plan, a copy of which is attached 16 hereto as Exhibit N and incorporated herein by this reference. The letter was supportive of the 17 state’s strategic goals and actions outlined in the Plan. The letter also noted support for the 18 portion of the Plan that wishes to ensure separation of control between state and local entities 19 and particularly with regard to the Plan’s denouncement of the Forest Service’s attempt to gain 20 ownership of water rights that originate on Forest Service land. Mr. Porzak also pointed out that 21 the municipal water gap discussed in the Plan is overestimated. The Plan discusses diversion 22 amounts instead of consumptive use; diversions may be considerable but the actual consumption 23 is far less in the care of municipal uses, where the gap has primarily been identified. 24 State Legislation – Mr. Porzak noted the most recent iteration of the state legislation to prevent 25 water rights takings. He noted Democratic Rep. K.C. Becker agreed to sponsor the bill in the 26 House. If the bill passes in the House, Democratic Sen. Sonnenberg will then cosponsor the bill in 27 the Senate with Democratic Sen. Donovan if she agrees to support the bill. Mr. Porzak outlined 28 upcoming meetings to discuss the legislation prior to the start of the legislative session with many 29 involved parties. The text of the proposed bill is attached hereto as Exhibit O and incorporated 30 herein by this reference. 31 Eagle River MOU Projects – Mr. Porzak discussed recent meetings to discuss potential ERMOU 32 projects, including an Eagle Park Reservoir enlargement and potential Whitney Creek Forebay. 33 Mr. Porzak said involved parties were surprised that the engineers didn’t plan to complete the 34 preliminary engineering until March 2016; the engineers have since agreed to complete phases of 35 the work more quickly to facilitate moving forward with the projects analysis by the ERMOU 36 group. The Board agreed to schedule a meeting of ERMOU principals to further speed the 37 process.
846 Forest Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Page 6 of 8 Board of Directors Meeting, September 24, 2015
Eagle River Water & Sanitation District
1 EXECUTIVE SESSION 2 Mr. Collins requested the Board enter Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding the Traer Creek 3 Tank and Hahnewald Barn, pursuant to §24-6-402(4)(a)(b)(e) and (f) C.R.S. He asked that no electronic 4 record be made, as the discussion would be entirely privileged attorney-client communications. Upon motion 5 duly made and seconded, it was unanimously 6 RESOLVED to enter executive session at 2:00 p.m. to discuss attorney-client privileged 7 issues concerning the Traer Creek Tank and Hahnewald Barn, pursuant to §24-6- 8 402(4)(a)(b)(e) and (f) C.R.S. with no electronic record created as Mr. Collins opined the 9 contents of the discussion would contain privileged attorney-client communications.* 10 Mr. Porzak requested the Board continue Executive Session to receive legal advice regarding the Shoshone 11 Acquisition, pursuant to §24-6-402(4)(a)(b) and (e) C.R.S. He asked that no electronic record be made, as the 12 discussion would be entirely privileged attorney-client communications. Upon motion duly made and 13 seconded, it was unanimously 14 RESOLVED to continue executive session at 2:25 p.m. to discuss attorney-client privileged 15 issues concerning the Shoshone Acquisition, pursuant to §24-6-402(4)(a)(b) and (e) C.R.S. 16 with no electronic record created as Mr. Porzak opined the contents of the discussion would 17 contain privileged attorney-client communications.* 18 The regular meeting resumed at 2:55 p.m. 19 20
846 Forest Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Page 7 of 8 Board of Directors Meeting, September 24, 2015
Eagle River Water & Sanitation District
1 ADJOURNMENT 2 There being no further business to come before the Board, the meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m. 3 Respectfully submitted, 4 5 6 ______7 Secretary to the Meeting 8 9 MINUTES APPROVED, FORMAL CALL, AND 10 NOTICE OF MEETING WAIVED 11 12 13 ______14 Tom Allender, Director 15 16 17 ______18 Debbie Buckley, Secretary 19 20 21 ______22 Stephen Friedman, Treasurer 23 24 25 ______26 Kimberly Langmaid, Director 27 28 29 ______30 Frederick P. Sackbauer IV, President/Chairman 31 32 33 ______34 Bill Simmons, Director 35 36 37 ______38 Paul Testwuide, Director 39 40 41 *The undersigned attorney for the applicable Executive Session affirms that the portion of the discussion 42 in Executive Session not recorded constituted privileged attorney-client communications. 43 44 45 ______46 Glenn Porzak, Water Counsel Jim Collins, General Counsel 47
846 Forest Road Vail, Colorado 81657 Page 8 of 8 Board of Directors Meeting, September 24, 2015
BOARD ACTION REQUEST
TO: ERWSD and UERWA Board of Directors
FROM: Jeffrey Schneider, P.E.
DATE: 10/14/2015
RE: Major Facilities Policy
Summary: The Board of Directors is asked to approve the Major Facilities Policy, attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Major Facilities Policy states that the District/Authority shall provide all project management services for Major Facilities, including planning, design, and engineering of all Major Facilities; preparation of bid documents, preparation of construction cost estimates, bidding the project, awarding the contract, and managing construction to completion and throughout the warranty period. Developer shall be solely responsible for providing the funds necessary to complete construction of the Major Facility.
Discussion: Any infrastructure that is critical to the District and Authority’s mission to provide efficient, effective and reliable water and wastewater utility service for our customers may be considered a Major Facility. Examples of Major Facilities in the District and Authority’s systems are shown in Table 1. Major facilities are not limited to these examples and the District reserves the right to identify additional facility types as Major Facilities at its discretion:
Table 1: Major Facilities
Water Wastewater Treatment facilities Treatment facilities Treatment facility expansions Treatment facility expansions Raw water supply Mainline lift stations Supply wells Pumping facilities Storage facilities
Operational and design criteria established during the planning and design phases, along with other decisions made during planning, design and construction, can impact the life cycle of a facility. The true life cycle of a major facility encompasses planning, design, construction, operation, and maintenance/refurbishment of the facility. Therefore, the District/Authority should maintain sole responsibility and decision making for the entire life cycle of a major facility.
Objective: The objectives of the Major Facilities Policy are to:
• Ensure that the District and Authority maintain control over all aspects of the planning, design, construction, operation and maintenance of major facilities and critical system assets Major Facilities Policy Page 2 of 6
• Construct high quality facilities ensuring that assets may be maintained over the long term to provide low life-cycle cost and acceptable risk consistent with customer and community expectations and applicable regulations • Ensure that customers are receiving long-term value for their Water System Impact Fees (WSIF) • Manage assets through design, construction and operation to maximize life expectancy, control costs, and improve system reliability and functionality • Ensure that major facility projects are designed and built with a ‘triple bottom line’ approach in mind. The triple bottom line considers social and environmental impacts in addition to financial impacts • Secure stakeholder support where necessary involving both the development community and the public
The Major Facilities Policy helps to implement the District’s Strategic Plan Core Values in the following manner:
Service – Maintaining control over the entire life cycle of a Major Facility helps to ensure high quality infrastructure projects, thereby providing safe and reliable water and wastewater service.
Accountability – Major facilities that reach their expected life cycle and do not exceed industry standards for costs to maintain or replace are the most effective use of public funds.
Customer Confidence – The Major Facility process will be open and transparent, thereby instilling confidence in development partners. High quality and low life-cycle costs for infrastructure help instill customer confidence by improving reliability and potentially avoiding additional fees and taxes in the future.
Personnel Dedication – District/Authority staff are uniquely qualified to connect the planning, design, construction, and commissioning of Major Facilities to the longer term costs and benefits that will be borne by customers. Staff from various departments should play a critical role in projects, from design inception through completion and operation.
Community Partnership – Major Facilities serve the community at-large. District/Authority involvement in Major Facility projects during planning, design, and permitting ensures that the best value for the community is realized.
Environmental Stewardship – The District/Authority has a strong commitment to environmental stewardship; the Major Facilities Policy ensures that the environmental impacts of major facility projects are considered during design, construction, and ongoing operation.
Leadership and Continuous Improvement – The District/Authority is committed to continually improving the quality and value of public infrastructure with more efficient practices and new technologies. Implementation of the Major Facilities policy will continually improve as lessons are learned and experiences are gained.
Long Range Planning and Preparation – The Major Facilities Policy enables the District/Authority to employ a thorough and holistic vision of future infrastructure needs. The Major Facilities Policy Page 3 of 6
highly connected nature of the water and wastewater system requires such a view; District staff, with their knowledge of the entire system and its nuances, is particularly qualified to lead such efforts.
Background: Under the current process, a Developer designs, constructs, and funds mainline extensions, including some of the Major Facilities defined above, that are necessary to provide water and wastewater service to a new development. A Developer contracts directly with an engineer of its choice to prepare a design for the new facilities, which are then presented to the District’s Construction Review Team (CRT) for review and approval. In some instances, a third party engineer may also review the developer’s design for the District and Authority prior to the issuance of Construction Plan Approval by CRT.
Once Construction Plan Approval has been granted by CRT, a Developer may hire a contractor of its choice to construct the mainline extensions and related facilities, including Major Facilities. A District inspector observes construction as it is occurring to insure that the mainline extensions and facilities are constructed according to the approved plans and Rules and Regulations. At the completion of construction, the District’s inspector works with the Contractor to perform all final construction inspections while the District’s Development Review Coordinator works with the Developer to obtain all required documents for Construction Acceptance. After all of the District’s requirements have been met, the District accepts the infrastructure from the Developer and issues Construction Acceptance.
A two-year warranty period begins at Construction Acceptance. During that time period, the Developer is obligated to repair any defects that arise. Near the end of the two-year warranty period, the District performs final inspections of the work. If all warranty claims are repaired satisfactorily and the project passes all final inspections, final acceptance is granted to the Developer by the District.
The current process has the following issues that will be corrected by implementation of the Major Facilities Policy:
• Consideration is not always given to long-term costs or operational difficulties; the developer’s responsibility ends after the warranty period, but the District/Authority’s responsibility runs with the life of the infrastructure. • Major equipment such as valves, pumps, and electrical equipment are not tightly specified, which could result in the installation of equipment that is not desired by operations staff, has a shorter life cycle, and is potentially incompatible with existing systems. Staff will identify approved equipment for each applicable installation. • Warranty issues and defective work can be difficult to correct since the District/Authority is often not a party to design and construction contracts. • The current process is necessarily a ‘back and forth’ between the developer and District/Authority staff, rather than a collaborative approach. • Liability is unclear when the Developer constructs the facility and is responsible to warrant its performance, but operation of the facility is taken over by the District.
Approach: The District will develop and implement appropriate procedures to enact this revision to policy, including:
• Adoption of the Major Facilities Policy Major Facilities Policy Page 4 of 6
• Revisions to the Rules and Regulations to reflect this policy and process requirements • Review new development on a case-by-case basis; if Major Facilities are to be constructed, the terms will be negotiated in a Development Agreement, Water Service Agreement, or Major Facilities Agreement, as appropriate for specific projects.
Process: A Developer must coordinate with District/Authority staff early in the land use entitlement process to determine water supply and infrastructure needs for the project. District/Authority staff, with their consultant teams as required, will review the proposed development and existing infrastructure and determine if the proposed development requires the construction of any Major Facilities; if existing facilities are deemed adequate to serve new development, certain Water System Impact Fees will apply.
If a determination is made that existing Major Facilities are not adequate to serve a new development, either the Developer will enter into a separate Major Facilities Agreement, or the construction of Major Facilities will be captured in the Development Agreement or Water Service Agreement. At that time, responsibilities for the design and construction of major facilities are outlined and agreed upon. The District/Authority will provide the developer with a conceptual project cost estimate, likely a Maximum Cost, which is to include design, permitting, construction cost, and allowable contingencies. The process will be fully transparent and ‘open book’ so that all costs are realized, understood, and agreed upon. Exact financial terms will be negotiated in the specific Agreement, and can implement varying payment and financial scenarios. Generally the Developer is obligated to fund the Maximum Cost of the project and will have approval authority for exceedances. Provisions could also be made for partnerships so that the District/Authority could pay for enlargements or upgrades beyond those necessitated by the proposed development such as regional water storage tanks. Also in the agreement will be the provision of a secure funding mechanism for the benefit of the District/Authority such as an irrevocable Letter of Credit.
The cost of constructing Major Facilities is best determined on a best value or life cycle basis. It is in the best interest of all parties to construct the most cost-effective infrastructure possible, and the District/Authority will make every effort to minimize costs incurred to the developer and to meet developer schedules. Cost and schedule control can, at times, be managed by employing alternate project delivery methods beyond traditional design-bid-build contracting. In addition to alternate project delivery, the District/Authority may facilitate 3rd party design review and value engineering sessions at no cost to the developer to help assuage concerns about project cost.
The primary alternate project delivery methods that would be employed for Major Facilities would be Construction Management at Risk (CMAR) and Design/Build (D/B). These methods are commonly utilized in the private sector and would give the District/Authority similar flexibility in contracting that a private developer would have. CMAR could be advantageous for Major Facilities since a contractor is selected at approximately the 30 percent design level and provides accurate, real time cost estimating as the design progresses. Constructability is under constant scrutiny by the CMAR contractor, resulting in a more constructible design. After the estimate and design progresses, a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) is negotiated with the CMAR contractor. All contingencies, risk, subcontractor bids, profits, markups, etc. are open-book and transparent, generally resulting in a collaborative approach with fewer disputes. D/B contracting has similar advantages to CMAR by allowing for equipment selection, qualifications-based procurement, continual cost estimating and constructability review, but the design and construction procurement are combined into one step, with a single contracted design-build entity. D/B contracting also allows for the compression of schedule as certain construction elements can begin prior to completion of the design. Alternate project delivery is increasing in popularity in the water and wastewater industry. The project team will utilize the Project Delivery Selection Matrix (PDSM) located at https://dbiarmc.colorado.edu/, an excellent resource on advantages and disadvantages of different project delivery methods and a decision tool for which methods are most suitable using a multitude of factors.
The Major Facilities Policy will result in changes to the traditional roles and responsibilities of developers and the District/Authority. The developer will remain engaged in the planning, design, and construction of the major facilities and will be able to provide input as to schedule, project delivery method, location, Major Facilities Policy Page 5 of 6
aesthetics, and site access. Technical details such as construction materials, pipe layout, electrical, instrumentation, controls, processes, quality etc. will be the sole responsibility of the District/Authority. Only qualified engineers, consultants, contractors, and design/build teams that are pre-approved by the District/Authority will be involved in the project.
Project management will be the responsibility of District/Authority staff. Project management could be completed with existing staff resources, but lengthy, large major facility projects may require additional staffing. Staff time will likely be billed to the developer. Exact arrangements of staff time will be negotiated in a future agreement. An alternative to increasing and decreasing staffing levels as development demands change would be to contract with engineering companies for construction phase services, the cost of such services would be borne by the developer per the Agreement. Higher priority internal staffing needs may reduce staffing availability for developer projects; each will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. When in-house staff manages projects, those costs are born by the rate payers, and in the case of Authority projects, are billed above and beyond the standard operations management fee. These steps will help to ensure that the eventual owner and operator of the facility (District/Authority) receive long lasting, high quality infrastructure that is fully compatible and integrated with the existing system and will not be an undue burden to the customers in the future.
A critical component of Major Facility projects is the startup, commissioning, and integration with existing District/Authority systems. The District/Authority has specific requirements for its Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition (SCADA) and telemetry systems and those requirements are ever-evolving. Only District/Authority-approved consultants, technicians, and District/Authority staff should be involved in control integration for both operational and security reasons.
After project startup, commissioning, and integration is the project warranty. District projects have a standard two-year warranty from the date of substantial completion. The new process will exclude the Developer from the warranty process, since the developer will not be a party to the construction (or CMAR or D/B) contract. This arrangement can be beneficial to both the District and the Developer; the District can deal directly with the contractor on warranty issues without a third party and is protected from the potential gap between construction contract substantial completion and Construction Acceptance per the rules and regulations, and the Developer will have no obligation to the District to furnish a two-year warranty period.
Critical to implementation of the Major Facilities Policy is the revision of the Rules and Regulations. Affected Rules and Regulations sections have been identified and are currently being revised. The revisions will be brought before the Board at the November regular meeting for adoption. The Board will have final approval on all policies and revisions to the Rules and Regulations necessary to support the implementation of the proposed Major Facilities policy.
Implementation Plan: Internal review of the Major Facilities Policy began the week of July 27, 2015. Copies of the policy were sent to representatives of the following departments: CIP, Water, Wastewater, Field Ops, Director of Operations, Customer Service, Finance, and General Manager. After compiling and incorporating comments from the various departments, a revised draft was sent to legal counsel for their review. Legal Counsel reviewed the document and comments were incorporated from Chris Price and Eric Jorgenson. The Policy was tabled for two months due to numerous other board packet items. Table 3 below provides target board meeting dates for major components of the policy implementation.
Table 3: Proposed Board Approval Timeline for Major Facilities Policy
Milestone Anticipated Completion Date
Board of Directors’ adoption of Major Facilities October 22, 2015 Policy
Board of Directors’ approval of changes to Rules November 19, 2015 Major Facilities Policy Page 6 of 6
and Regulations
Following adoption of the Rules and Regulations revisions, the Policy will be implemented as the Rules and Regulations will not permit Developer-constructed Major Facilities.
Alternatives: The Board may wish to amend the Major Facilities Policy. Alternatively, the Board may wish no action, thereby maintaining the current process of Developer-built Major Facilities turned over to the District for operation.
Recommendation: Staff recommends adoption of the Major Facilities Policy as presented.
Suggested Resolution and Motion: Move to approve the adoption of the Major Facilities Policy.
Attached Supporting Documentation:
Exhibit A – Major Facilities Policy
MAJOR FACILITIES POLICY October 2015
Purpose The purpose of the Major Facilities Policy is to ensure that critical water and wastewater infrastructure are designed and constructed for the optimum combination of long lifespan, overall project value, and recurring operation and maintenance cost passed on to District/Authority customers. Major facilities are defined in Table 1 below; note that Major Facilities will be identified on a case-by-case basis.
Table 1: Major Facilities
Water Wastewater Treatment facilities Treatment facilities Treatment facility expansions Treatment facility expansions Raw water supply Mainline lift stations Supply wells Pumping facilities Storage facilities
Policy The Major Facilities Policy can be summarized as follows:
The District/Authority shall provide all project management services for Major Facilities, including planning, design, and engineering of all Major Facilities; preparation of bid documents, preparation of construction cost estimates, bidding the project, awarding the contract, and managing construction to completion and throughout the warranty period. Developer shall be solely responsible for providing all of the funds necessary to complete construction of the Major Facility.
1 EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT 2015 CONTRACT LOG
Contract Date Change Order Project Name Contractor Contract Project Account Statue and Number Executed signed on Amount Manager Number Notes WW Miscellaneous 15.15.110 09/24/15 Engineering Services Carollo Engineers, Inc. $40,000.00 S. Roman Various Open/Contract NTE $40,000.00
15.15.111 pending CIS Infinity Upgrade to V4 Advanced Utility Systems $78,750.00 J. McCaulley 10.1.9.00.45.300 Open/Contract Expires 4/29/16 AWWTF Non Potable & Browns Hill Engineering & 15.15.112 09/25/15 Chemical Feed Upgrades Controls, LLC $25,217.00 K. Lantzy 10.3.2.10.03.420 Open/Contract Expires 11/6/15 VWW Control Room - 15.15.113 pending Remodel Spiegel Industrial LLC $11,432.91 B. Peterson 10.3.2.10.03.329 Open/Contract Expires 10/29/15 Vail WWP Effluent Browns Hill Engineering & 15.15.114 pending Temperature Monitoring Controls, LLC $5,917.00 J. Edwards 10.3.9.10.11.500 VOID Edwards Booster Pump 15.15.115 Replacements Bid Process J. Cahill
15.15.116 Vail Solar Conversion Bid Process B. Peterson 10.3.2.20.09.463
MEMORANDUM
TO: ERWSD Board of Directors
FROM: James Wilkins, Director of Finance
DATE: October 22, 2015
RE: Monthly Report
Water Sales Update
Water Sales Year to Date for both UERWA and ERWSD are attached; as discussed in previous Board meetings, water sales have lagged 2015 projections, primarily due to the very wet late spring and early summer weather the area has experienced. While August, which was projected well below historical averages, came in above projections for both ERWSD and UERWA, September water sales were below projections for both ERWSD, at 9.0% below original projections, and UERWA, at 3% below projections. Based on the irrigation season ending in September we expect water sales through the remainder of the year to fall more in-line with projections.
Development Impact Fee Revenue
Per the attached information YTD development impact fee revenue for ERWSD is running about $100K below projections for Water which is more than offset by Wastewater, which is running about $150K above projections.
2016 Proposed Budget
Attached is information regarding the proposed 2016 Budgets for both Vail Water and Wastewater. District staff met with ERWSD’s Budget Committee representatives to discuss the proposed budgets and rates; the information provided was reviewed and approved by the Budget Committee representatives. Additionally we are providing ERWSD Board members with a full packet as a separate handout, which includes all information provided to the Budget Committee. The Board should review the full packet and contact the Director of Finance with any questions prior to the November meeting, as the Board will be asked to adopt the proposed 2016 Budgets at that meeting. EAGLE RIVER WATER & SANITATION DISTRICT Monthly Water Sales - Excluding Discounted Volume Sales for snow making August 31, 2015
2004 . . . 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 K Gals per SFE per year 73.6 68.0 66.9 66.4 66.8 65.0 65.4
120,000 110,000 Monthly Water Sold in 1,000 gallons 100,000 90,000 80,000 70,000 60,000 gallons 1,000 50,000 40,000 30,000 20,000
2010 to 2014 Avg. 2015 Budget 2015 Actual
UPPER EAGLE REGIONAL WATER AUTHORITY Monthly Water Sales August 31, 2015
2004 . . . 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 K Gals per SFE per year 92.5 80.0 92.5 79.1 80.1 75.7 75.4
260,000 240,000 Monthly Water Sold in 1,000 gallons 220,000 200,000 180,000 160,000 140,000 120,000 100,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000
2010 to 2014 Avg. 2015 Budget 2015 Actual Development Impact Fee Revenue
September 2015 Activity
Customer-Paid Impact Fees (Tap, PIF, Tank Storage)
Subdivision # SFEs Amount Paid Vail 4 $47,031.27 Berry Creek 1 $21,948.72 Cordillera 1.5 $30,083.92
$1,000,000.00
$800,000.00 2013 Actual 2014 Actual $600,000.00 2015 Projected $400,000.00 2016 Projected 2017 Projected $200,000.00 2015 YTD $- UERWA (PI & VAIL WATER SEWER WSIF)
TD Developer-Paid Impact Fees (Water Rights)
Development Acre Ft. Amount Timber Ridge (Lions Ridge) 2.08 $4,950.00 (pending)
Pending Activity
Development #SFEs Development Type Cordillera 1.4 Up-Zoning Vail .3 Up-Zoning Edwards 3.7 Up-Zoning VVMC 15 Up-Zoning TOV Affordable Housing 43 New PUD VIA (Edwards) 70 New PUD Roost Lodge (Marriot Res. Inn) 56 (add’l) Redevelopment Park Meadows (Vail) 26 (water only) Redevelopment
Proposed Service Rates 2016 DRAFT for discussion Source- Long Range Financial Model presented 10-22-2015 Draft By James W. UERWA - 2.2% CPI increase UERWA Water 2015 2016 % Spread $ change Tier 1 3.47 3.55 $0.08 Tier 2 5.21 5.32 50% $0.11 Tier 3 7.81 7.98 50% $0.17 Tier 4 11.72 11.98 50% $0.26 Tier 5 17.58 17.97 50% $0.39
Capital Replacement Program Base Rate 3.25 3.32 $0.07 Base Service Rate 16.59 16.95 $0.36 DS Base Rate - for DS on 2010 B bonds 3.09 3.09 $0.00 DS Base Rate -for DS on 2013 A bonds 2.58 2.58 $0.00 Average customer writes the check for: $ increase At 7k Gals $ 49.80 $ 50.79 $ 0.99 2.0%
Vail Water - ERWSD 0% increase in tiers; 13.1% total increase with CRP Rate Vail Water 2015 2016 % Spread $ change Tier 1 2.58 2.58 $0.00 Tier 2 4.38 4.38 70% $0.00 Tier 3 6.57 6.57 50% $0.00
Capital Replacement Program Base Rate 0.00 5.25 Base Service Rate 14.98 14.98 $0.00 DS Base Rate - for DS on the 2009 bonds 7.24 7.27 $0.03
Average customer writes the check for: $ increase At 7k Gals $ 40.28 $ 45.56 $ 5.28 13.1%
Wastewater - ERWSD - No increase for service rate, New DS base rate.
2015 2016 $ change
Base Service Rate (min 5k per SFE) 5.06 5.06 $0.00 DS Base Rate - for DS on 2009 bonds 3.16 3.29 $0.13 DS Base Rate - for DS on 2012 bonds 5.96 5.97 $0.01 Average Customer writes the check for: $ increase At 5k Gals increase is $ 34.42 $ 34.56 $ 0.14 0.4%
Average Customer Combined Water and sewer at new 2016 proposed rates:
2015 2016 $ Change % Change UERWA customer $ 84.22 $ 85.35 $ 1.13 1.3%
Vail customer $ 74.70 $ 80.12 $ 5.42 7.3%
Represents a change in rate structure
MEMORANDUM
TO: Eagle River Water & Sanitation Budget Sub-Committee
FROM: James Wilkins, Director of Finance
DATE: October 1, 2015
RE: 2016 Budget Assumptions
Vail Water Fund Assumptions
• Average annual gallons of water sold in 2016 per SFE is projected at 66,000; this is in-line with 2015 projections, but above estimated 2015 actual sales which were significantly tempered by the very wet late Spring and early Summer. • Average monthly revenues per SFE for 2016 are projected at $38.96 ($45.28 including proposed CRP base rate of $6.32); this is up from 2015 revenues per SFE of $38.22, equal to a 1.9% increase (18.5% including CRP base rate). • Assumed base rate and tier rates are not increasing. • As discussed last year Vail Water is proposing the implementation of a Capital Replacement Program (“CRP”) base rate of $6.32; this new fee is supported by the ongoing and increasing need to update and replace existing capital that falls outside of new capital acquisition. • Plant Investment Fee per residential unit (defined as 1,800 s.f.) is proposed to increase to $8,001 in 2016 from $7,768 in 2015, representing a 3% increase. • CPI for Denver-Boulder-Greeley in 2014 was 2.8% and is projected to be 2.2% for 2015. • Assessed valuation for 2016 is $900,632,000, up from $891,670,000 in 2015. • Operating mill levy is .475 for 2016, unchanged from 2015. • Series 2011/2012 GO Bonds mill levy for 2016 is 1.045, down from 1.067 in 2015. • The proposed 2020 Revenue Bond would result in an additional debt service base rate of $3.75 per month per SFE effective on January 1, 2021. • Capital improvements expected to be funded from 2015 through 2020 are estimated to total approximately $17.3mm; the 2015 capital improvements will be funded from available unrestricted cash. The 2016 capital improvements in the amount of $2.9mm are assumed to be funded from CRP revenues ($762K) and available unrestricted cash ($2.2mm) which would still result in unrestricted cash of $1.9mm as of December 31, 2016. This draft assumes that the 2017, 2018 and 2019 capital improvements would be funded entirely from CRP revenues. The 2020 capital improvements, in the amount of $7.5mm, are assumed to be funded from the proceeds of a Series 2020 Revenue Bond issue in the amount of $7.2 million and CRP revenues ($470K). • Bonding in 2020 will replenish unrestricted reserves; minimum reserve targets are met each year.
EXHIBIT I EAGLE RIVER WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT - WATER OPERATIONS 10/3/2015 CASH FLOW FORECAST working draft subject to change and revision FOR THE YEARS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2014 THROUGH 2020 EXPENSES INFLATED @ 2% PER YEAR OPERATING REVENUES (see row 19 for assumed rate increases) ACTUAL ESTIMATE BUDGET FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 OPERATING DATA
1 Average annual gallons of water sold per SFE 66,000 61,034 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 66,000 2 Average annual SFE's for billing base rate and debt service base rate (Sch. 1) 10,130 10,116 10,034 10,184 10,213 10,411 10,445 3 New SFE's added for calculating plant investment fee revenues (Sch. 1) 80 20 31 27 121 34 20 4 Rate per 1,000 gallons sold Tier 1 $2.58 $2.58 $2.58 $2.63 $2.68 $2.73 $2.79 5 Rate per 1,000 gallons sold Tier 2 $4.38 $4.38 $4.38 $4.47 $4.55 $4.65 $4.74 6 Rate per 1,000 gallons sold Tier 3 $6.57 $6.57 $6.57 $6.70 $6.84 $6.97 $7.11 7 Monthly base rate per SFE $14.98 $14.98 $14.98 $15.28 $15.58 $15.89 $16.21 8 Monthly base rate per SFE - Capital Replacement Program Rate $0.00 $0.00 $5.25 $5.41 $5.57 $5.74 $5.91 9 Gallons of water sold Tier 1 (000's) 78.02% 512,541 499,486 516,652 524,376 525,869 536,064 537,815 10 Gallons of water sold Tier 2 (000's) 18.97% 124,609 121,435 125,608 127,486 127,849 130,328 130,753 11 Gallons of water sold Tier 3 (000's) 3.02% 19,825 19,320 19,984 20,282 20,340 20,734 20,802 12 Total Gallons of water sold (000's) 656,974 640,241 662,244 672,144 674,058 687,126 689,370 13 Total Gallons of water sold VRI snowmaking (000's) 27,565 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 14 VRI snowmaking rate per 1,000 gallons $0.61 $0.61 $0.61 $0.61 $0.61 $0.61 $0.61 15 Average monthly revenues generated per SFE $32.13 $31.00 $31.68 $32.32 $32.96 $33.62 $34.29 16 Monthly base rate per SFE - Series 2009 Bonds $7.24 $7.22 $7.27 $7.19 $7.16 $7.00 $6.99 17 Monthly base rate per SFE - Series 2020 Bonds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 18 Average monthly revenues generated per SFE including debt base rates $39.37 $38.22 $38.96 $39.51 $40.12 $40.62 $41.29 19 Assumed base rate and tier rate increases 1.03 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.02 1.02 1.02 20 Average % rate increase including base rate 1.78% -2.93% 1.93% 1.42% 1.54% 1.25% 1.64% 21 Assessed Valuation (000's) $903,632 $891,670 $900,587 $909,593 $918,688 $927,875 $937,154 22 Operating mill levy 0.475 0.475 0.475 0.475 0.475 0.475 0.475 23 Series 2011/2012 GO Bonds mill levy 1.001 1.067 1.045 1.048 1.022 1.012 1.016 CASH FLOW FORECAST (in thousands of $) ACTUAL ESTIMATE BUDGET FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 1 PLEDGED REVENUES 2 Water service fees - Tier 1 1,408 1,286 1,330 1,377 1,409 1,465 1,499 3 Water service fees - Tier 2 545 532 550 569 582 605 620 4 Water service fees - Tier 3 130 127 131 136 139 145 148 5 Monthly base charges 1,822 1,818 1,803 1,867 1,910 1,986 2,032 6 Debt service base rate - Series 2009 Bonds 887 874 876 879 877 874 876 7 Debt service base rate - Series 2020 Bonds 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 VRI snowmaking revenues 17 12 12 12 12 12 12 9 Total User Fees 4,809 4,649 4,703 4,841 4,929 5,087 5,187 10 Tap Fees 761 422 248 223 1,027 297 180 11 Interest Earnings 21 417 10 10 10 10 10 12 Rental Income 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 13 Miscellaneous other and rental income/patronage dividends 208 24 24 24 24 24 24 14 Fees in lieu of water lines 15 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 Sale of assets 87 0 0 0 0 0 0 16 TOTAL PLEDGED REVENUES 5,901 5,511 4,985 5,097 5,990 5,418 5,401 17 18 OPERATING EXPENDITURES 4,267 4,479 4,569 4,660 4,754 4,849 4,946 19 DEDUCT: OPERATING PROP. AND SO TAXES - 0.475 MILLS 393 465 449 453 457 462 466 20 NET OPERATING EXPENDITURES 3,874 4,014 4,120 4,207 4,296 4,387 4,480 21 22 FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR REVENUE BONDS DEBT SERVICE 2,027 1,497 864 889 1,693 1,031 921 23 24 REVENUE BONDS DEBT SERVICE: 25 Series 2009 Debt Service 877 874 876 879 877 874 876 26 Series 2020 Debt Service 0 0 0 0 0 0 180 27 TOTAL REVENUE BONDS DEBT SERVICE 877 874 876 879 877 874 1,056 28 29 FUNDS AVAILABLE AFTER REVENUE BONDS DEBT SERVICE 1,150 623 (12) 10 816 157 (135) 30 (annual coverage) 2.31 1.71 0.99 1.01 1.93 1.18 0.87 31 NON-OPERATING PROPERTY TAX REVENUES: 32 Property taxes - Series 2011 Bonds 325 331 331 328 325 327 336 33 Property taxes - Series 2004/2012 Bonds 619 621 610 625 614 612 616 34 Specific ownership taxes - non operating 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 35 TOTAL NON-OPERATING PROPRTY TAX REVENUES 984 992 981 993 979 979 992 36 37 G.O. BONDS & EPRC DEBT SERVICE 38 Series 2011 Bonds Debt Service 325 331 331 328 325 327 336 39 Series 2004/2012 Bonds Debt Service 619 621 610 625 614 612 616 40 EPRC Debt Service 131 131 131 131 131 131 131 41 TOTAL G.O. BONDS & EPRC DEBT SERVICE 1,075 1,082 1,072 1,084 1,069 1,070 1,082 42 43 EXCESS REVENUES BEFORE BONDS AND CAPITAL PROJECTS 1,059 532 (102) (80) 726 66 (226) 44 45 BOND ISSUES 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,200 46 47 REFUNDING ESCROW AND COSTS OF BOND ISSUES 0 0 0 0 0 0 200 48 49 SFE BASE CHARGES - CAPITAL REPLACEMENT PROGRAM 0 0 632 661 683 717 741 50 51 CAPITAL EXPENDITURES FUNDED FROM SFE BASE CHARGES - CRP 0 0 632 661 683 717 741 52 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDED FROM BONDS 168 0 0 0 0 0 7,000 53 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDED FROM CASH 1,011 2,806 3,490 267 286 0 0 54 55 CAPITAL PROJECTS IDENTIFIED AS CRP 0 0 762 928 968 618 470 56 CAPITAL PROJECTS 1,179 2,806 3,361 0 0 0 7,000 57 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 1,179 2,806 4,122 928 968 618 7,470 58 59 EXCESS (SHORTAGE) OF CRP FUNDING 0 0 (129) (267) (286) 99 271 60 61 EXCESS REVENUES OVER EXPENDITURES (120) (2,273) (3,592) (347) 440 165 45 62 63 BEGINNING FUNDS AVAILABLE - JANUARY 1 9,121 9,001 6,727 3,135 2,788 3,228 3,392 64 65 ENDING FUNDS AVAILABLE - DECEMBER 31 9,001 6,727 3,135 2,788 3,228 3,392 3,437 66 Funds Restricted for Bond Issues DSRF 231 231 231 231 231 231 231 67 Funds Restrictred for Bond Issue Capitalized Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 68 Funds Restricted for 3 Month Operating Reserves (per Bond Cov.) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 69 Funds Restricted for Series 2009 Bonds Rate Stabilization Fund 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 70 Funds Restricted for Cash in Lieu of Water Rights 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71 Funds Restricted for 2009 Bonds debt service base rate 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 72 Funds Restricted for Future Capital Projects from Bond Issues (unspent bond proceeds)0 0 0 0 0 0 0 73 Unrestricted General Reserves & Capital 8,157 5,696 2,104 1,757 2,197 2,361 2,406 74 CRP Reserve Fund 0 0 0 0 0 99 369 75 # Months Coverage of Operating Expenses 21.85 14.96 5.42 4.43 5.44 5.73 5.84 76 3 Months Operating Expense General Reserve 1,120 1,142 1,165 1,188 1,188 1,188 1,188 77 Balance Available for Capital Improvements 7,037 4,554 939 568 1,008 1,173 1,218
MEMORANDUM
TO: Eagle River Water & Sanitation Budget Sub-Committee
FROM: James Wilkins, Director of Finance
DATE: October 1, 2015
RE: 2016 Budget Assumptions
Wastewater Fund Assumptions
• Average monthly revenues per SFE for 2016 are projected at $40.34; this is up from 2015 revenues per SFE of $40.20, equal to a 0.3% increase. • Service fee rates will not increase in 2016. They remain the same as in 2015 and 2014. • Plant Investment Fee per residential unit (defined as 1,800 s.f.) is proposed to increase to $6,388 in 2016 from $6,202 in 2015, representing a 3% increase. • Assessed valuation for 2016 is $1,972,718,000, up from $1,953,186,000 in 2015. • Operating mill levy is .247 for 2016, unchanged from 2015. • Series 1998 GO Bonds mill levy is .703, down from .733 in 2015. • The proposed $22.5mm Series 2016 GO Bonds mill levy is projected to be .285 in 2016 (payable in 2017) and increase to .735 in 2017 (payable in 2018). • The proposed Series 2019 Revenue Bond issued in the amount of $5.0mm would result in an additional debt service base rate of $1.07 per month per SFE effective on January 1, 2020. • Total capital improvements expected to be funded from 2015 through 2020 are estimated to cost approximately $60.5mm. The 2015 capital improvements will be funded from $10.8mm of unspent bond proceeds from the 2012 Revenue Bond and $5.3mm of unrestricted cash. All of the assumed $17.5mm in capital improvements for 2016 will be funded by the $22.5mm G.O Bond issued in 2016. 2017 capital improvements of $1.8mm will be funded from unspent bond proceeds from the 2016 G.O. Bond. 2018 capital improvements will be funded from the remaining unspent bond proceeds from the 2016 G.O bond and unrestricted cash. • The proposed 2016 GO Bond issue, along with normal operating revenues and unrestricted cash, will cover the projected capital outlay through 2019; the proposed $5.0mm 2019 Revenue Bond will replenish unrestricted cash to historical, optimal levels.
EXHIBIT I EAGLE RIVER WATER AND SANITATION DISTRICT - SANITATION OPERATIONS10/3/2015 CASH FLOW FORECAST working draft subject to revision FOR THE YEARS ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2014 THROUGH 2020 EXPENSES INFLATED @ 2% BEGINNING IN 2016 OPERATING REVENUES (see row 9 for assumed annual inc.) ACTUAL ESTIMATE BUDGET FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 OPERATING DATA
1 Average annual SFE's for billing base rate (Sch. 1) 27,498 27,784 27,746 27,956 28,052 28,301 28,372 2 Average annual SFE's for debt service base rate (Sch. 1) 27,436 27,767 27,719 27,923 28,017 28,284 28,352 3 New SFE's added for calculating plant investment fee revenues (Sch. 1) 144 54 85 92 190 68 60 4 Average monthly revenues generated per SFE excluding debt base rates $31.19 $31.09 $31.09 $31.09 $31.09 $31.09 $31.09 5 Monthly base rate per SFE - Series 2009 Bonds $3.58 $3.16 $3.29 $3.27 $3.25 $3.21 $3.20 6 Monthly base rate per SFE - Series 2012 Bonds $0.00 $5.96 $5.97 $5.93 $5.91 $5.86 $5.84 7 Monthly base rate per SFE - Series 2019 Bonds $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.41 $1.07 8 Average monthly revenues generated per SFE including debt base rates $34.78 $40.20 $40.34 $40.29 $40.25 $40.15 $40.13 9 Assumed service fee rate increases 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 10 Average % rate increase including base rates 1.29% 15.61% 0.34% -0.13% -0.09% -0.24% -0.07% 11 Assessed Valuation (000's) $1,970,637 $1,953,186 $1,972,718 $1,992,445 $2,012,369 $2,032,493 $2,052,818 12 Operating mill levy 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 0.247 13 Series 1998 GO Bonds Mill Levy 0.687 0.733 0.703 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 14 Series 2016 GO Bonds mill levy 0.000 0.000 0.285 0.735 0.777 0.721 0.712 CASH FLOW FORECAST (IN THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS) ACTUAL ESTIMATE BUDGET FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST FORECAST 1 PLEDGED REVENUES: 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2 Monthly Service fees 10,293 10,364 10,350 10,428 10,464 10,557 10,583 3 One-Time Credit 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 Contract Service fees 3,961 4,120 4,244 4,371 4,502 4,637 4,776 5 Debt service base rate - Series 2009AB Bonds 1,180 1,052 1,094 1,096 1,093 1,089 1,090 6 Debt service base rate - Series 2012 Bonds 0 1,986 1,984 1,987 1,988 1,989 1,986 7 Rental Income 271 328 250 250 250 250 250 8 Meter sales 514 640 500 500 500 500 500 9 Other charges for services 596 400 400 400 400 400 400 10 Investment Income 92 38 38 38 38 38 38 11 Contributed assets - cash ($1.372m Grant in 2014 and 2015) 171 700 0 0 0 0 0 12 Tap fees 1,040 457 543 605 1,288 475 431 13 Fees in lieu of sewer lines 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 Sale of assets 364 364 364 364 364 364 364 15 Other 73 192 192 192 192 192 192 16 TOTAL PLEDGED REVENUES 18,554 20,641 19,958 20,230 21,078 20,490 20,610 17 OPERATING EXPENDITURES 11,813 13,573 13,844 14,121 14,404 14,692 14,985 18 DEDUCT: OPERATING PROPERTY TAXES & SO TAXES 519 522 519 568 577 579 584 19 NET OPERATING EXPENDITURES 11,294 13,051 13,326 13,553 13,826 14,113 14,402 20 NET PLEDGED REVENUES 7,260 7,589 6,632 6,677 7,251 6,377 6,208 21 REVENUE BONDS DEBT SERVICE: 22 SERIES 1992 REVENUE BONDS 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 23 SERIES 1995 REVENUE BONDS 450 453 0 0 0 0 0 24 SERIES 2009A REVENUE BONDS 466 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 SERIES 2009B BAB REVENUE BONDS 992 1,352 1,345 1,343 1,335 1,326 1,322 26 SERIES 2009B REVENUE BONDS CREDIT (322) (300) (251) (247) (242) (237) (232) 27 SERIES 2012 REVENUE BONDS 1,265 1,806 1,804 1,806 1,808 1,809 1,805 28 SERIES 2019 REVENUE BONDS 0 0 0 0 0 125 330 29 TOTAL REVENUE BONDS NET DEBT SERVICE 2,851 3,311 2,898 2,902 2,900 3,022 3,225 30 (DEBT SERVICE COVERAGE) 2.55 2.29 2.29 2.30 2.50 2.11 1.92 31 FUNDS AVAILABLE AFTER REVENUE BONDS DEBT SERVICE 4,409 4,279 3,734 3,775 4,351 3,355 2,983 32 33 PROPERTY AND S.O. TAXES PLEDGED TO SERIES 1998 G.O. BONDS 1,420 1,480 2,012 0 0 0 0 34 PROPERTY AND S.O. TAXES PLEDGED TO SERIES 2016 G.O. BONDS 0 0 563 1,465 1,563 1,465 1,461 35 SERIES 1998 G.O. BONDS DEBT SERVICE 1,378 1,380 1,386 0 0 0 0 36 SERIES 2016 G.O. BONDS DEBT SERVICE 0 0 563 1,465 1,563 1,465 1,461 37 TREASURER COLLECTION FEES 0 56 58 44 47 44 44 38 EXCESS REVENUES BEFORE BONDS AND CAPITAL PROJECTS 4,451 4,323 4,302 3,731 4,304 3,311 2,939 39 40 BOND ISSUES (NET OF ISSUANCE COSTS) 0 0 22,225 0 0 4,900 0 41 42 CAPITAL PROJECTS INCLUDING LIFE CYCLE: 43 FUNDED FROM BOND PROCEEDS & $1.380M GRANT 7,171 10,785 12,632 1,766 7,827 4,900 0 44 FUNDED FROM CASH 0 8,154 0 0 677 10,698 1,030 45 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS 7,171 18,939 12,632 1,766 8,504 15,598 1,030 46 47 WOLCOTT PLANNING 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 49 EXCESS REVENUES INCLUDING BOND ISSUES AND CAPITAL PROJECTS (2,720) (14,616) 13,895 1,965 (4,200) (7,387) 1,909 50 BEGINNING FUNDS AVAILABLE - JANUARY 1 37,834 35,114 20,498 34,393 36,359 32,159 24,772 51 ENDING FUNDS AVAILABLE - DECEMBER 31 35,114 20,498 34,393 36,359 32,159 24,772 26,681 52 Funds Restricted for Bond Issues DSRF - Series 2009 1,498 1,498 1,498 1,498 1,498 1,498 1,498 53 Funds Restricted for Bond Issues DSRF - Series 2010 1,809 1,809 1,809 1,809 1,809 1,809 1,809 54 Funds Restrictred for Bond Issue Capitalized Interest 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 55 Funds Restricted for Operating Reserves (per Bond Cov.) not>$1.25 million 1,250 1,250 1,288 1,326 1,366 1,407 1,449 56 Funds Restricted for Series 2009 Bonds Rate Stabilization Fund 600 600 600 600 600 600 600 57 Funds Restricted for Cash From WW Grant 171 700 0 0 0 0 0 58 Funds Restricted for Future Capital Projects from Bond Issues 10,785 0 9,593 7,827 0 0 0 59 Unrestricted General Reserves & Capital 19,046 13,688 18,090 21,782 25,370 18,080 20,310 60 # Months Operating Expense Coverage 1.40 0.99 1.28 1.51 1.73 1.21 1.21 61 3 Months Operating Expense General Reserve 3,393 3,461 3,530 3,600 3,672 3,746 3,672 62 Balance Available for Capital Improvements 15,653 10,227 14,560 18,182 21,698 14,334 16,637 ERWSD CAPITAL PLAN 2016-2020
Returning Funds (Project 2015 Original 2015 Revised 2015 Y-to-D 2015 Unspent Potential Roll Complete of Prior Years 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Total Project VAIL WATER/ WASTEWATER SPLIT (25%/75%) Budget Estimate Actual Budget Overs to 2016 Eliminated) Actual Orig.Budget Orig.Budget Orig.Budget Orig.Budget Orig.Budget Est. GENERAL CAPITAL $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 GENERAL CRP $1,018,500 $1,809,322 $907,655 $901,667 $456,264 $9,896 $185,591 $710,000 $551,000 $513,000 $912,000 $320,000 $4,990,913 TOTAL GENERAL CAPITAL & CRP $1,018,500 $1,809,322 $907,655 $901,667 $456,264 $9,896 $185,591 $710,000 $551,000 $513,000 $912,000 $320,000 $4,990,913
WASTEWATER CAPITAL $12,267,765 $25,643,562 $6,700,466 $18,943,096 $8,128,428 $157,661 $6,453,913 $3,066,165 $882,000 $7,629,000 $14,479,000 $350,000 $54,635,855 WASTEWATER CRP $1,410,075 $2,483,774 $830,878 $1,652,895 $506,785 $395,739 $218,663 $930,500 $883,850 $874,950 $1,119,000 $680,000 $7,183,237 TOTAL WASTEWATER CAPITAL & CRP $13,677,840 $28,127,336 $7,531,344 $20,595,991 $8,635,213 $553,400 $6,672,576 $3,996,665 $1,765,850 $8,503,950 $15,598,000 $1,030,000 $61,819,092
VAIL WATER CAPITAL $1,276,680 $2,347,184 $1,218,707 $1,128,477 $41,778 $86,751 $240,340 $1,683,000 $0 $0 $0 $7,000,000 $11,405,524 VAIL WATER CRP $1,985,025 $2,521,351 $268,154 $2,253,197 $1,636,109 $298,053 $203,663 $761,500 $927,750 $968,250 $618,000 $470,000 $6,508,013 TOTAL VAIL WATER CAPITAL & CRP $3,261,705 $4,868,535 $1,486,861 $3,381,674 $1,677,887 $384,804 $444,003 $2,444,500 $927,750 $968,250 $618,000 $7,470,000 $17,913,537
GRAND TOTAL ERWSD CAPITAL & CRP $16,939,545 $32,995,870 $9,018,205 $23,977,665 $10,313,100 $938,204 $7,116,579 $6,441,165 $2,693,600 $9,472,200 $16,216,000 $8,500,000 $79,732,629
Page 1 of 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: ERWSD Budget Sub-Committee
FROM: James Wilkins, Director of Finance
DATE: October 1, 2015
RE: 2016 Operations Expense Budget Summary
This memo serves as a summary for the ERWSD Operations Expense Budget. For 2016 the request for Operations Expenditures is $18,288,716. This equates to a total increase of $365,190, or 2.0%, from the approved budget of 2015. Expenditures include operations, outsourced services, payroll and benefits.
Increases The total number of full time employees for 2016 is proposed to increase by 3 to 102 employees. The District will be adding four full time positions including an HR Generalist, a Water Demand Management Coordinator, an MEC Controls Technician and a CIP Planner. Additionally, the District will not be replacing the position of Director of Organizational Development when it is vacated at year end. The number of temporary/seasonal employees for 2016 is 12, a decrease from the 13 budgeted in 2015. The total Personnel cost (salaries and benefits) for 2016 is budgeted at $10,100,057, an increase from 2015 of $202,347, or 2.0%.
$193,077 of this increase is due to employee salaries. This is an increase of 2.7% over 2015. This accounts for merit increases, certification increases and the additional staffing requested. The average merit increase for 2016, as reported by similar employers in Eagle County, is forecasted at 3.0%. This will be the third year that merit increases will be budgeted lower than surveyed peer groups, which can be attributed to the District’s strategy during the recession to offer nominal merit increases and prevent the need for a surplus “catch up” as the overall economy improves. The Denver-Boulder-Greeley CPI for the 12 months ended June 2015 was 1.0%, however the CPI for calendar 2015 is projected to be 2.2% based on better growth seen in the economy subsequent to the first quarter of 2015.
$9,270 of the total increase is due to benefits. This equals a 0.3% increase over 2015. The majority of this increase is due to medical insurance and retirement benefits. The District’s benefits strategy continues the trend of more cost sharing with employees. This incremental increase represents the District’s commitment to holding the line on costs while still providing one of the most comprehensive and competitive benefits packages compared to other local employers. The national trend for health insurance increases is reported to be 7.8% for comparable PPO plans for 2016.
Other notable operation expenditure increases are as follows: • Travel/Training: o Total Request: $201,485 o Increase: $12,299, or 7% 2016 Operations Expense Budget Summary Page 2 of 2
o Summary of Increase: Various specialized training for key positions.
• General Operations: o Total Request: $383,950 o Increase: $83,975, or 28% o Summary of Increase: Increased spending on field supplies • Housing: o Total Request: $150,500 o Increase: $31,240, or 26% o Summary of Increase: Needed repairs and more consistent maintenance • IT: o Total Request: $797,000 o Increase: $119,500, or 18% o Summary of Increase: Mostly SCADA related for upgrades and additional licensing fees • Wastewater Repairs o Total Request: $450,000 o Increase: $40,000, or 10% o Summary of Increase: Up on Edwards planned repairs • Water Repairs o Total Request: $1,097,500 o Increase: $130,500, or 14% o Summary of Increase: Additional meter purchase and replacement
While many of the previously mentioned increases result either from necessary system upgrades or needed repairs and maintenance District Managers understand the importance of reducing costs and finding efficiencies where possible. Below are some notable decreases in expenditures from 2015 budget to 2016 budget: • Legal: o Total Request: $190,000 o Reduction: $55,000, or -22% o Summary of Accounts: General Legal, Regulatory Legal, Eagle Mine and Water Quality • Outsource Skills: o Total request: $339,650 o Reduction: $25,335, or -7% o Summary of Accounts: Audit, Financial Consulting, General Consulting and Organizational Consulting • Wastewater Operations: o Total Request: $327,400 o Reduction: $148,500, or 31% o Summary of Account: Chemicals for Biosolids Treatment and Odor Control; Sewer Jetting ($150,000 budgeted in 2015) has been brought in-house.
While this is not a comprehensive list of all operations expenditures it includes significant changes from 2015 to 2016. The overall increase from year to year is spread throughout many areas of the District’s operations; District management continues to encourage staff to seek out areas where costs can be reduced through streamlined processes and by insourcing work in which employees have expertise.
DIRECTOR OF OPERATIONS MONTHLY REPORT
OCTOBER 2015
INFORMATION ONLY
RESERVOIRS, STREAMS AND WEATHER
RESERVOIRS
Eagle Park Reservoir (EPR) is near full, and is steady with only a 0.3 Cubic Foot per Second (CFS) release at this time. This is to augment water lost from evaporation during a call on the mainstream of the Colorado River. The submersible pump replacement project is substantially complete, and pumps are operable.
Black Lakes 1 and 2 are both full.
LOCAL DATA
RESERVOIR UPDATES – 10/12/15 Physical Previous Month Capacity Current Discharge Change in Reservoir (AF) Storage (AF) (CFS) Storage (AF) Comments Eagle Park 3,301 3,218 0.3 -48 Near Full Black Lake 1 527 527 0 0 Full Black Lake 2 98 98 0 0 Full Homestake 42,881 41,882 7 -400 Steady Green Mountain 153,639 97,400 450 net -30,000 Releasing Wolford 65,993 45,420 8 net -500 Releasing
UPPER COLORADO DATA
% of Full Current Storage Current Water Year* Inflow vs. Outflow Reservoir Capacity Million (M) AF Inflow vs. Last Year% YTD Lake Powell 50.8 12.4 83.3 0.03 MAF Lake Mead** Roughly 37.3 9.9 N/A N/A
*Water year begins October 1 **Lake Mead Water Data Website was last updated July 9, 2015 – some data available on other sites Page 2 of 6
Page 3 of 6
STREAMFLOWS
STREAM GAGE UPDATES (Low Flow Events) Data Date 10/12/15 Record In-stream Streamflow Streamflows Flow Level Gage Location (CFS) Low/High (ISF) Comments 63 (2013) Eagle River @ AWWTP 72 35 ISF Oct-Apr 185 (2015) 19 (2013) Gore Creek above Red Sandstone 16 6 ISF Oct-Apr 49 (2005) 124 (2012) Eagle River below Gypsum 185 50 ISF Oct-Apr 825 (1961)
RIVER CALLS:
Both Cameo and Shoshone calls are in effect.
TRAVEL TIME AT LOW FLOWS
A question came up in last month’s Board meetings regarding the time it takes for Eagle Park Reservoir releases to reach our diversion structures, during low flow periods. As of that time the Eagle River was flowing at 86 CFS and Gore Creek at 19 CFS. We inputted this data into our spill travel time calculator for the Camp Hale Mile Marker (just below EPRC) and obtained the results below.
Eagle River Camp Hale to Intakes Miles Hours
Metcalf 30.6 12.6
Beaver Creek Snowmaking 32.2 13.2
Avon DWF 33.0 13.5
Edwards DWF 38.5 15.6
Wolcott 50.4 19.9
WEATHER CONDITIONS
Local streamflows are below average. Weather forecasts for Vail range from the low 70’s to upper 20’s with a mix of rain and cloudy conditions as well as sunny days. As of October 12, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) predicts above normal precipitation for the next month, along with equal chances of above or below normal temperatures.
LOCAL NEWS
Urban Runoff Group (URG) & Stormwater Updates Siri Roman
The Town of Vail Planning and Environmental Commission (PEC) is reviewing the draft Gore Creek Strategic Action Plan. The meeting on October 12, 2015 focused on ways to improve pesticide use including an integrated pest management plan, increased education, business licenses for commercial applicators and the possibility of a source water protection plan. Siri Roman mentioned that the District Page 4 of 6 was considering developing a Source Water Protection Plan and that there may be an opportunity for the Town and District to partner on this effort.
We received a call of a suspicious looking stormwater outfall (significant algae and debris) in Lionshead. Lab Supervisor Leah Cribari analyzed a sample from the outfall and determined that raw wastewater was being discharged into Gore Creek. CDPHE was notified and the Town of Vail staff is working with the Developer to determine the location of the illicit connection.
WATER MANAGER
The Water Department is gearing up for maintenance projects and a couple of capital projects, including the Avon Drinking Water Facility (ADWF) clearwell recovery project and Edwards DWF clearwell hatch installations. Installations of a clearwell hatch will greatly improve access to the EDWF clearwell, which will aid in cleaning and maintenance efforts. Recently the EDWF intake screen was replaced with the help of Pete Miller, which will greatly enhance the intake structure at this location by reducing sand intrusion in the intake.
The last round of Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR3) sampling occurred in September, which was a large scale, nationally focused sampling event that consumed a lot of staff time and required collecting and shipping samples out over the last year from all sources in the District and Authority. We had a conference call with the CDPHE Oral Health representatives to help us understand how we can maintain an optimized Fluoride system designation with CDPHE. We are on track to accomplish this.
WASTEWATER & LABORATORY
The Avon Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) and Edwards WWTP are currently completing full-scale optimization testing; the Vail WWTP should be commencing its testing plan soon. Carollo Engineers has modeled the three treatment plants and has come up with unique process modifications for each plant that will hopefully improve nutrient removal. The laboratory staff will be managing the vast sampling and analysis efforts that are required for the optimization testing. This is a big effort for the Wastewater and Laboratory staffs and will conclude prior to the Thanksgiving holiday when the flows and loads will increase.
A data collection effort will occur at new and old hotels in Vail to validate the District’s corrosion prevention program. The potential outcomes include strategies to reduce copper and phosphorus loading to the watershed and provide guidance to reduce corrosion problems in privately owned plumbing systems. District staff will reach out to hotel managers to set up sampling efforts.
FIELD OPERATIONS
DISTRICT
Non-destructive Electro-Magnetic (Electro- Scan) sewer line inspections in east Vail started last week and will continue to the end of October. As of the 12th, 10,000 linear feet of sewer line have been inspected. This effort should help determine locations in the sewer mains where Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) is occurring and ultimately consuming valuable treatment capacity at WWTF’s.
Dye testing performed the week of October 12th revealed that the roof drains for the Lodge at Vail are connected to our sanitary sewer system. We will be notifying the property of the need to correct this potentially significant source of Inflow and Infiltration (I&I) into the sewer collection system.
Page 5 of 6
DISTRICT & AUTHORITY
The Field Operations Department has performed some exploratory excavations at the Eagle Vail tank site to establish the exact locations of valves and piping around those two tanks. This is to confirm that the tanks can be isolated from each other, thereby allowing the ability to isolate one tank while keeping the other tank in service. This will be necessary to perform maintenance or replacement of these two storage tanks at a future date.
The first three hundred feet of the Metcalf Ditch, the main gravity supply to the Avon DWF, was inspected using Closed Circuit TV. The line is approximately three miles long and has never been fully inspected during its service life. Part of this project will be to install inspection ports at regular intervals and then make localized repairs based on visual inspection of the internal pipe surfaces.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
JOINT PROJECTS
Eagle River MOU Projects Todd Fessenden
A meeting of all MOU Stakeholders is scheduled for October 19. A Camp Hale Stakeholders Meeting will occur the same day. We will provide a verbal update at this month’s Board Meetings.
DISTRICT PROJECTS
Edwards Wastewater Treatment Facility (EWWTF) Improvements Project Jeff Schneider
The suspended floor slab was placed on September 30. Hydrostatic tank testing for all three ATAD tanks and the new SNDR tank was completed September 29. Only minor concrete crack repairs were required. Concrete roof slab pours are scheduled throughout October, with the first slated for October 14.
Embankment backfill commenced on October 7 utilizing on site soil stockpiles. Backfilling efforts free up usable space in the contractor staging area. Masonry installation begins on October 12, consisting of structural exterior walls, interior partition walls, and veneer installation. Much of the large equipment will be installed prior to roof installation following structural masonry.
Change Order # 5 is submitted for approval which reduces the contract value $125,221 to $21,275,868, or within $12,000 of original contract value. The scheduled completion date remains at July 1, 2016, nine working days prior to the contract date of July 18th. Overall the project is approximately 63-68% complete and within budget and schedule constraints.
Forest & Rockledge Roads Water & Sewer Main Replacement Project John Cahill
Western Pipeway should be complete with all of the water main, connections, and disconnections the week of the 12th.They continue working on shallow utility installation at the top of Rockledge and on storm drains for Town of Vail. Once complete with these tasks, they will concentrate on road subgrade and paving of Rockledge road, potentially leaving only small punch list items for the spring of 2016.
Simba Run Over Pass and Glen Lyon PRV Glen Phelps
We have scheduled to have a new valve placed in the 12” line in the vicinity of the relocated Glen Lyon Pressure Reducing Valve (PRV). This effort is part of the I-70 Vail underpass project scheduled for construction next year. Placing this valve ahead of the project will facilitate an easier PRV installation with less service disruption to our customers. Page 6 of 6
AUTHORITY PROJECTS
Lake Creek Wells Todd Fessenden
Jim Collins continues to assist staff with working out easement and access issues related to this project. Further updates will be provided at this month’s Authority Board meeting.
EXTERNALLY- DRIVEN PROJECTS
Town of Vail Dowd Junction Repairs Todd Fessenden
After adoption of the IGA at the last board meeting, a kickoff meeting was held with ERWSD, Town of Vail, and their design team to initiate design. ERWSD fulfilled an information request related to GIS and sewer line record drawings and geotechnical borings are scheduled for October 19 and 20. Construction is scheduled for fall 2016.
PENDING MATTERS
JOINT Eagle River Water Quality Standards – Eagle Mine Radio Telemetry Unit (RTU) System Upgrade
DISTRICT Operations Facility - On hold pending information form the Wastewater Master Plan update
AUTHORITY Berry Creek Well #2 Relocation – still pending response from CMC Edwards River Village Mobile Home Park (ERVMHP) – gathering information as time allows Mountain Star Tank and Booster Pump Stations (BPS) – Wrapping up Design on BPS
EXTERNALLY- DRIVEN PROJECTS Edwards Transmission Line – In discussion with CDOT on potential line location.
CLOSED PROJECTS/MATTERS
JOINT N/A
DISTRICT N/A
AUTHORITY
N/A
EXTERNALLY- DRIVEN PROJECTS N/A
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Siri Roman, Wastewater Manager
DATE: October 12, 2015
RE: Solid Waste Composting Request
At the September 24, 2015 Board Meeting, Matt Donovan requested that the District partner with Vail Honeywagon on a Wolcott Compost Facility. Citing high permitting costs, Mr. Donovan requested to use a portion of the District’s Biosolids Containment Facility (BCF) to produce a “non-biosolid” compost material. This compost material would consist of zero-waste products, restaurant food waste, beer mash and high- end yard waste (without pesticides, insecticides etc.), it would not be mixed with the District’s Biosolids. In a discussion after the board meeting, Mr. Donovan also requested to use the District’s windrow turner equipment for the composting operations.
District staff has evaluated Mr. Donovan’s request and does not recommend the shared use of the BCF for the following reasons: Composting is not allowed under the BCF’s current permit. The general permit is intended for “the generation, treatment, and/or the use/disposal of sewage sludge. Only those sewage sludge related activities (i.e. generation, treatment, and use/disposal) that occur within the geographical area covered by this permit can be covered by this permit.” (EPA Permit No. COG650000). CDPHE has stated that composting would require a solid waste permit and that the materials should not be co-mingled within the same facility. Eagle County Government has stated that compost operations would require a Special Use Permit and a Certificate of Designation (CD). Due to the wet summer, the BCF is currently near full capacity with the drying of the District’s biosolids (see photos below). As biosolid production increases due to growth, so will the need for additional space at the BCF for drying and storage. There are concerns regarding the use of District equipment for private entity use (insurance/liability, precedence setting etc.).
District staff has participated in the Waste Diversion Steering Committee meetings and will continue to support the community’s efforts with developing a regional compost facility; however, we recommend that a regional compost facility not be located within the boundaries of the BCF for the reasons listed above.
Solid Waste Composting Request Page 2 of 2
Biosolids Containment Facility (lined, impervious pad and berm)
BCF Drainage Holding Pond (lined) MEMORANDUM
TO: Eagle River Water & Sanitation District Board of Directors FROM: Todd Fessenden DATE: September 26, 2015 RE: 2015 FLEET AND EQUIPMENT AUCTION UPDATE
This memo is an update on the District’s Fleet and Equipment auction program, which continues to be a success and return larger than expected funds to our general fund. We have again utilized the Public Surplus website which allows bidders from all over the country to bid on government auctioned equipment, though typically bidders are from Colorado and neighboring states. The website functions much like Ebay, with one significant difference; bids submitted in the last 6 minutes of the auction extend the bid time by another 6 minutes. This allows outbid parties to compete, thus increasing the potential sale price. There is no expense to the District for using this service, as the winning bidder pays a 10% fee to Public Surplus. Public Surplus also handles the money transfer from the customer and sends a check to the District’s Accounting Department.
The reserve price (lowest price we will sell for) is generally 10% below the Kelley Blue Book value. If there is no Blue Book value (such as for equipment) we will set the reserve price at either historical sales prices (based on past in-house auctions) or at 10% of original value. These practices are consistent with other local governments.
Our heavy equipment has been reduced by a loader and a large generator, which also has the side benefit of reducing our operations and maintenance costs and effort.
2015 Vehicle List for Auction- Reserve Price vs. Actual
# Model Year Mileage Qty. Reserve Actual Note Sell Replace w/ 10 Toyota Camry 2005 107,850 1 $2,500 $6,051 Prius V Sell & Replace w/ 45 Chevy Blazer 2008 103,872 1 $4,000 $6,700 RAV4 140 GMC Pickup 2006 119,422 1 $4,000 $10,400 300 GMC Pickup 2006 113,915 1 $4,000 $10,600 310 Chevy Pickup 1997 116,572 1 $1,800 $3,600 Replaced with a 624 Front Loader 1990 3,773 1 $10,000 $50,600 new loader in 2011
Historical vs. Actual Price $26,300 $87,951
2015 Fleet and Equipment Auction Update
2015 Equipment List for Auction- Reserve Price vs. Actual
# Model Year Hours Qty. Reserve Actual Note Soda Machine 1995 1 $500 $1,500 Gorman 6” Not used in recent 829 Pump 1986 206 1 $1,000 $2,057 years Witzco Replaced with a 839 Lowboy 1991 1 $6,000 $15,100 new Lowboy Murphy Replaced with a Flushing Unit 2,665 1 $1,320 $1,779 new unit Kaeser Air Not used in recent Compressor 1 $250 $510 years Onan Downsizing on the Portable generators we 902 Generator 1999 340 1 $3,080 $17,300 have in inventory
Historical vs. Actual Price $12,150 $38,246
Some additional facts about this year’s auction efforts:
No auctioned vehicles or equipment went to staff; Some equipment, such as the loader, sold locally; We were offered $10,000 for the loader in 2011, it auctioned for more than 5X that this year; The lowboy sold for roughly what we paid for it in 1991.
The numbers reported here are for all sales so far in 2015, we have one more auction slated for later this year. Earlier this summer we requested $300,000 in funding for a mobile pumping vehicle, reporting that we had returned roughly $260,000 in reduced vehicle purchases and auction returns and expected at least another $40,000 from the upcoming auction. Of the figures you see above, roughly $100,000 was made off that latest auction.
Page 2 of 2
MEMORANDUM
TO: Boards of Directors
FROM: Diane Johnson, Communications & Public Affairs Manager
DATE: October 22, 2015
RE: Communications and Public Affairs Report
Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) On Oct. 9, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued a nationwide stay of the new WOTUS rule. The ruling received wide media coverage. A story from Law 360 is attached to this report. For slightly different perspectives, read the Wall Street Journal or AP stories.
Colorado’s Water Plan Colorado Water Conservation Board staffers are working to bring a final draft of the Plan to the Nov. 18- 19 board meeting for approval, before submitting to Gov. Hickenlooper by the Dec. 10 deadline. The CWCB is producing a 6-7 minute video to be released with the Plan that will include footage of District and Authority facilities. I coordinated the local video shoot at the behest of the CWCB and worked with their videographer/producer to capture recognizable scenes of District staff doing typical tasks. Many thanks to the water and wastewater department staff who helped accomplish this on short order.
Vail Farmers’ Market The 16-week market ended Oct. 4. Many thanks are due to the water, lab, field ops, and HR departments for contributing to a very successful season. Twelve employees worked at the “hydration station” which was busy from the first week to the last, dispensing more than 2,000 gallons to thousands of residents and visitors. Nearly 21,000 compostable cups were filled, along with thousands of water bottles, which equate to an average of about 1,500 interactions every Sunday, from June 21 to Oct. 4.
Club 20 I attended the Oct. 8 Eagle County Caucus of Club 20 … and am now the 2nd alternate representing Eagle County on the Club 20 board of directors for the 2016-2018 term. Tom Harned and Glen Miller remain the primary and 1st alternate representatives, respectively.
Senate Bill 13-019 Staff and consultants successfully worked with then state Senator Gail Schwartz during the 2013 legislative session to pass SB13-019 – which addressed some issues identified by the District and Authority in working with our stakeholder group during the 2012 drought. Stakeholders agreed to reduce diversions and leave water in local streams to benefit environmental health – risking future tabulation of historic consumptive use. Once the bill was successful, we worked with the Colorado River District to set up a mechanism to allow for the new law to be used. A Grand County rancher used the provisions of the law earlier this year, which has recently received some regional media coverage. The original June story from Sky Hi Daily News is attached.
Attachments: 1. Oct. 9 Law 360: EPA water rule blocked nationwide by 6th Circ. 2. June 23 Sky Hi Daily News story: Local landowner avoids ‘use it or lose it’ with new program EPA Water Rule Blocked Nationwide By 6th Circ. - Law360 Page 1 of 3
Portfolio Media. Inc. | 860 Broadway, 6th Floor | New York, NY 10003 | www.law360.com Phone: +1 646 783 7100 | Fax: +1 646 783 7161 | [email protected] EPA Water Rule Blocked Nationwide By 6th Circ.
By Juan Carlos Rodriguez
Law360, New York (October 9, 2015, 10:52 AM ET) -- The Sixth Circuit on Friday stayed a controversial federal rule clarifying the scope of the Clean Water Act while it sorts out whether the courts of appeal or district courts have jurisdiction to handle challenges filed by various states and private parties.
The states suing the EPA and Army Corps of Engineers say the water rule, which redefines the scope of waters protected under the Clean Water Act, oversteps states' rights and harms businesses and landowners. (Credit: AP)
Industry groups, states and environmentalists have argued to the Sixth Circuit that challenges to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps of Engineers’ Waters of the United States rule should be decided at the district court level. The government has argued the appeals courts have jurisdiction. In its decision Friday, the Sixth Circuit called for further briefing on the question and blocked the rule nationwide.
"A stay temporarily silences the whirlwind of confusion that springs from uncertainty about the requirements of the new rule and whether they will survive legal testing," the appeals panel said in a 2-1 ruling.
Judges David W. McKeague and Richard Allen Griffin said that the petitioners who oppose the rule have demonstrated “a substantial possibility of success” on the merits of their claims. It said the rule’s treatment of tributaries, adjacent waters, and waters having a significant nexus to navigable waters is at odds with the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Rapanos v. United States, a 2006 decision holding that jurisdiction is limited to those waters that have a significant nexus to downstream navigable waters, not just any hydrologic connection.
“Even assuming, for present purposes, as the parties do, that Justice Kennedy’s opinion in
http://www.law360.com/articles/712918/print?section=energy 10/13/2015 EPA Water Rule Blocked Nationwide By 6th Circ. - Law360 Page 2 of 3
Rapanos represents the best instruction on the permissible parameters of ‘waters of the United States’ as used in the Clean Water Act, it is far from clear that the new rule’s distance limitations are harmonious with the instruction,” the majority said.
It also said the rulemaking process by which the distance limitations CLEAN WATER RULE were adopted is “facially suspect.” AT A GLANCE The petitioners argue that the The Clean Water Rule clarifies which American proposed rule did not include any waterways are subject to federal jurisdiction, makes distance limitations in its use of permitting decisions easier and brings regulations up to terms like adjacent waters and date with U.S. Supreme Court opinions, according to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Army Corps significant nexus, and that the final of Engineers. Specifically, the rule does the following: rule cannot be considered a “logical outgrowth” of the rule proposed, as » Defines riparian areas, flood plains, tributaries and other important terms. required to satisfy the notice-and- comment requirements of the » Delineates "nearby waters" that impact downstream Administrative Procedure Act. waters. » Maintains the status of waters within so-called Because of that, the rule’s municipal separate storm sewer systems and opponents argued that the record encourages the use of green infrastructure. compiled by the EPA and the Corps » Reduces the use of case-specific analysis of waters. is devoid of specific scientific support for the distance limitations And in a nod to several agricultural criticisms, the agencies said the rule focuses on streams, not ditches. that were included in the final rule, and is therefore not the product of reasoned decision-making and is vulnerable to attack as impermissibly “arbitrary or capricious” under the APA.
“Respondents have not persuasively rebutted either of petitioners’ showings,” the majority said.
It said that the agencies have failed to identify anything in the record that would substantiate a finding that the public had proper notice that the distance-based limitations adopted in the rule were among the range of alternatives being considered.
The order said that the clarification that WOTUS, also called the Clean Water Rule, strives to achieve is “long overdue.”
“We also accept that respondent agencies have conscientiously endeavored, within their technical expertise and experience, and based on reliable peer-reviewed science, to promulgate new standards to protect water quality that conform to the Supreme Court’s guidance. Yet, the sheer breadth of the ripple effects caused by the rule’s definitional changes counsels strongly in favor of maintaining the status quo for the time being,” the majority said.
In September, a North Dakota federal judge refused to impose a nationwide injunction on the rule, instead limiting it to the 13 states that sued the agency in his court.
The Sixth Circuit said that was also a consideration.
“In light of the disparate rulings on this very question issued by district courts around the country … a stay will, consistent with Congress’ stated purpose of establishing a national policy, restore uniformity of regulation under the familiar, if imperfect, pre-rule regime, pending judicial review,” it said.
Judged Damon J. Keith dissented, saying it is not prudent for a court to act before it determines that it has subject-matter jurisdiction.
http://www.law360.com/articles/712918/print?section=energy 10/13/2015 EPA Water Rule Blocked Nationwide By 6th Circ. - Law360 Page 3 of 3
“If we lack jurisdiction to review the rule, then we lack jurisdiction to grant a stay,” he said.
EPA spokeswoman Melissa Harrison said the agencies respect the court’s decision.
"We look forward to litigating the merits of the Clean Water Rule," she said.
Paul Seby, a partner at Holland & Hart LLP, who represents rule challenger North Dakota, praised the Sixth Circuit's decision.
"After the Sixth Circuit looks more closely at the jurisdictional issues, we are confidant it will determine the district courts are the proper place for challenges to the rule and that the cases in North Dakota and elsewhere will proceed," he said.
Judges Damon J. Keith, David W. McKeague and Richard Allen Griffin sat on the panel.
The environmental groups are represented by James N. Saul of Lewis & Clark Law School’s Earthrise Law Center and Deborah A. Sivas and Alicia E. Thesing of Stanford Law School’s Environmental Law Clinic.
UWAG is represented by Kristy A. N. Bulleit, Andrew J. Turner, Karma B. Brown and Kerry L. McGrath of Hunton & Williams LLP.
NAM and the other business groups are represented by Timothy S. Bishop, Michael B. Kimberly and E. Brantley Webb of Mayer Brown LLP and Linda E. Kelly and Kelly Quentin Riegal of Manufacturers’ Center for Legal Action.
The states are represented by their attorneys general or agency general counsel. North Dakota is also represented by Paul M. Seby of Holland & Hart LLP.
Murray Energy Corp. is represented by Brooks M. Smith, Douglas A. Henderson and Justin T. Wong of Troutman Sanders LLP.
The lead case is In re: Environmental Protection Agency and Department of Defense, Final Rule: Clean Water Rule: Definition of “Waters of the United States,” case number 15-3751, in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
--Editing by Rebecca Flanagan. All Content © 2003-2015, Portfolio Media, Inc.
http://www.law360.com/articles/712918/print?section=energy 10/13/2015 Hank Shell [email protected]
June 23, 2015 Local landowner avoids 'use it or lose it' with new program
In Colorado, no term inspires a vacuous, eyeglazing stare quite like “water law.”
To the average Coloradan, the voluminous, arcane and, at times, archaic laws that apply to the state’s water may seem largely inconsequential, even mystical.
But there is one facet of the state’s water law that many citizens have heard of:
“Use it or lose it.”
Colorado water rights are known as “usufructary” rights, meaning that a right holder can use water, though ownership of that water remains with the public.
The value of a water right is based on its “historical consumptive use,” and if a water user doesn’t use their full allotment, the value of their right decreases.
The “use it or lose it” system is meant to make efficient use of the state’s water, but critics argue that it instead encourages waste as right holders take more water than they need just to avoid devaluation of their water right.
In 2013, the Colorado Legislature struck a huge blow to “use it or lose it” with Senate Bill 13 019, which prohibits water judges from factoring decreases in use due to participation in specially approved conservation programs into historical consumptive use.
Only now have such conservation programs been completed and approved, and a Grand County landowner is the first water user to participate.
Since SB 13019 passed in 2013, the Colorado Water Trust has been working to develop a program through which water users could use less water without being penalized, said Amy Beatie, Colorado Water Trust’s executive director. “Nobody had set up a Senate Bill 19 program, and our reading of the statute was that a program needed to be established,” Beatie said.
Witt Caruthers partly owns and manages a parcel of land near Granby for a group of investors.
The parcel includes a water right for Willow Creek.
“Our desires were to one, preserve our water rights but also to contribute to the overall maintenance of the ecosystem there by leaving water in the stream when it wasn’t needed,” Caruthers said.
Eventually, Caruthers connected with the Colorado Water Trust.
“Nobody had ever used (SB 13019) before, and so we realized the tool would be suitable for Witt’s water rights,” Beatie said.
The law requires that programs must be approved by a designated entity, and the Colorado River District, which approved Caruthers’ program, has already set up an approval process for others who wish to participate in the trust’s program, said Jim Pokrandt with the district.
The district’s board approved the procedure at its last meeting, and an application form is now available on its website.
“We’re glad to be in the vanguard and helping the agricultural community protect their water rights when they want to lend the water rights to environmental purposes,” Pokrandt said.
The City of Aspen has also expressed interest in the program, Beatie said.
CWCB approves conservation program
Though the Colorado Water Trust’s program is the first to give Coloradans shelter under SB 13 019, the Colorado Water Conservation Board has also approved a pilot program for protection under the bill, said Ted Kowalski, CWCB section chief.
The temporary program, which aims to compensate water users for voluntarily reducing their consumptive use, is part of a basin wide drought contingency plan developed to address falling water levels in lakes Mead and Powell.
In July 2014, Denver Water, the Southern Nevada Water Authority, the Central Arizona Project and the Metropolitan Water District of California each gave $2 million to the program, while the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation gave $3 million, Kowalski said.
Of the total $11 million, $2.75 million will be spent in the Upper Colorado River Basin. In May of this year, CWCB approved the program as an official water conservation program under SB 13019, thus shielding Colorado participants from “use it or lose it.”
“It’s the first time the CWCB or a state agency as far as I know has invoked that provision,” Kowalski said.
That same month, CWCB and the Upper Colorado River Commission solicited preproposals for the pilot, Kowalski said.
They received more than a dozen proposals, with about half of them from Colorado, Kowalski said. The CWCB and UCRC are currently reviewing the applications.
“We’re hopeful that we could do that in short order, hopefully within weeks so that we could actually implement them this irrigation season,” Kowalski said.
No guarantee for environmental outcomes
SB 13019 isn’t the first law to help Colorado users conserve water without penalty.
A 2003 law lets users lease instream flows to the Colorado Water Conservation Board for conservation purposes.
These instream flow leases are designated as a “beneficial use” and are protected from factoring into a water right’s consumptive use.
Kirk Klancke, president of the Colorado River Headwaters chapter of Trout Unlimited, was heavily involved in some of the first deals under the 2003 law.
Klancke welcomed the newest program.
“We say the river needs every drop it can get,” Klancke said. “These are all good things.”
But there is one key difference between the instream flow leases and conservation programs under SB 13019.
While SB 13019 protects conservation uses, there’s no way to guarantee that the water will stay in the river.
As part of usufructary rights, if one user leaves water in the river, a nextpriority user can take it out.
Both Beatie and Kowalski said their organizations are interested in exploring options for ensuring that water left in the river will have some positive environmental impacts.
“Certainly that’s something we will consider,” Kowalski said. Factors like the location of a water right could influence the environmental outcomes of leaving water in the river, Kowalski said.
Despite that uncertainty, Beatie called SB 13019 “by far the most flexible tool that has ever been created” for those who want to use their water for environmental purposes.
Beatie and Kowalski said they look forward to gauging public interest in the programs.
“It’s really exciting and interesting, and I think we’re really excited to learn from this program,” Kowalski said. “We’re excited to see what obstacles we run into, to see if there’s an interest in this type of program and also to see how it actually is implemented.”
For more information about the Colorado Water Trust and its programs, visit coloradowatertrust.org.
For more information about the Colorado Water Conservation Board and its programs, visit cwcb.state.co.us.
Hank Shell can be reached at 9708873334.
©2005 2015 Swift Communications, Inc.
MEMORANDUM
TO: Board of Directors
FROM: Catherine Hayes, Board Secretary
DATE: October 1, 2015
RE: Summary of Authority September 24 Board Meeting
The following is a summary of items discussed at the September 24, 2015, Authority Special Board Meeting: Wilderness Process Linn Brooks and Glenn Porzak discussed the proposed policy on future Plan wilderness area designations, and the wilderness committee recommended the Board schedule a joint meeting with the District board to consider public input and adoption. A joint Board meeting will be held on October 22 and written public comments will be accepted up to the day of the meeting. ERWC Update and Holly Loff of the Eagle River Watershed Council updated the Board on the Funding Request organization, including its research, education, and projects to improve and maintain the health of local rivers. The Board will consider the funding request along with the rest of the 2016 budget. GM Report Linn Brooks presented the General Manager’s Report. Meeting Minutes The August 27, 2015, special meeting minutes and joint special meeting minutes were approved as presented. August Water Sales James Wilkins reported that August water sales were 17% higher than projected, which offset a portion of the revenue shortfall created by low June and July water sales. Budget Committee James Wilkins noted the Budget Committee met with staff recently and will be Update provided a draft budget in early October. The proposed budget will be presented at the October 22 board meeting and Board approval will be requested after a public hearing at the November meeting. Traer Creek Tank Todd Fessenden updated on the Traer Creek Tank failure, noting that the Update investigation is ongoing. Recent stabilization work was completed to prevent further tank shifting. Urban Runoff Group Todd Fessenden said the town of Vail was addressing Gore Creek water quality issues using its Stormwater Action Plan. The ERWC is also undertaking projects towards this end. Camp Hale Todd Fessenden said wetland delineation was ongoing in Camp Hale, with the Restoration Forest Service completing work in the upper Camp Hale area. Instream Flow on Todd Fessenden said ISF levels were recently reached on the Eagle River Eagle River near Avon; operational changes were made in response, and a small amount of Eagle Park water was released over a two-day period. Drug Take Back Event Diane Johnson said the next National Drug Take Back event was scheduled for September 26. These events help keep pharmaceuticals out of local waterways. Summary of Authority September 24 Board Meeting Page 2 of 2
Club 20 Meeting Diane Johnson attended a recent Club 20 event in Grand Junction. Topics of discussion included Colorado’s election systems, initiative processes, financial future, state budget, TABOR, and Amendment 23. Lake Creek Well Jim Collins said a positive response was received from the owner regarding Easements access to the well site; condemnation discussions are on hold as a result. Mountain Star Tank Jim Collins said tank discussions were moving forward with Linn Brooks’ Update assistance. Letter to 463 Borders Glenn Porzak discussed a letter to the property manager denying the owner’s Road Resident request to drill a well for a self-sufficient water system. No response to the letter has been received to date. Colorado Water Plan Glenn Porzak summarized the Authority and District’s letter regarding the Update second draft of the Plan. Both entities support the state’s strategic goals and actions as well as the Plan’s call to ensure separation of control between state and federal entities. State Legislation Glenn Porzak discussed the state legislation regarding water rights takings, Update which would deem such takings speculative and revert the rights back to the original owner. There is bipartisan support for the bill in both the House and Senate. Glenn and others continue to meet with involved parties on this matter. Authority Unallocated Glenn Porzak discussed the proposed Unallocated Water Policy, which uses Water Policy language directly from the 2015 Authority Agreement. The Unallocated Water Committee will meet on September 28 to discuss the proposed policy. Eagle River MOU Glenn Porzak summarized recent meetings to discuss potential projects, Projects including EPR enlargement and a potential Whitney Creek Forebay Reservoir. He said the engineers have agreed to complete certain project phases more quickly to facilitate moving forward with the projects analysis. SDA District of the Linn Brooks discussed an article about the District, which was named District Year Award of the Year by the Special District Association. The award will be presented at a September 25 luncheon at the SDA conference, and Directors are welcome to attend. WISE Project Eric Hecox of the South Metro Water Supply Authority presented information Presentation regarding the Water Infrastructure and Supply Efficiency (WISE) project, which is a regional water supply project among Aurora Water, Denver Water, and the South Metro WISE Authority to create a sustainable water supply for members.
COMMITTEES
DISTRICT Audit/Budget Employee Retirement Plans Organizational Real Estate and Housing Performance New Development Tom Allender Debbie Buckley Linn Brooks Bill Simmons Kim Langmaid Steve Friedman Kim Langmaid Angelo Fernandez Paul Testwuide Steve Friedman Leslie Isom
AUTHORITY Audit/Budget* New Unallocated Water Traer Creek Hahnewald Development Tank Barn Geoff Dreyer Jim Power Tom Allender Tom Allender Linn Brooks Todd Goulding Mick Woodworth Todd Goulding Todd Goulding Kim Langmaid George Gregory Sarah Smith- Bill Simmons Hymes
JOINT Water Quality Rules and Regulations Water Demand Wilderness Policy Management Tom Allender (Authority) Tom Allender (Authority) Tom Allender (Authority) George Gregory (Authority) Kim Langmaid (District) Todd Goulding (Authority) Debbie Buckley (District) Mick Woodworth (Authority) Bill Simmons (District) Steve Friedman (District) Kim Langmaid (District)
*Committee consists of three or more members of one Board; meetings require posting notice of a public work session.
COLLINS COCKREL & COLE A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
ASSOCIATES PAUL R. COCKREL ATTORNEYS AT LAW JAMES P. COLLINS 390 UNION BOULEVARD, SUITE 400 KATHRYN G. WINN ROBERT G. COLE DENVER, COLORADO 80228-1556 CHRISTOPHER M. PRICE TIMOTHY J. FLYNN JOSEPH W. NORRIS EVAN D. ELA TELEPHONE: 303-986-1551 OF COUNSEL LINDA M. GLESNE TOLL FREE: 800-354-5941 ERIC C. JORGENSON DAVID A. GREHER FACSIMILE: 303-986-1755 JOAN M. FRITSCHE www.cccfirm.com DIRECT E-MAIL [email protected] MEMORANDUM
October 14, 2015
VIA EMAIL
TO: Board of Directors Linn Brooks, General Manager Eagle River Water and Sanitation District
FROM: James P. Collins and Kathryn G. Winn
RE: Historical Designation for Hahnewald Barn
We recently spoke with Heather Peterson, a National and State Register Historian with the State Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation regarding the process for and possible consequences of listing the Hahnewald barn on the Colorado State Register of Historic Properties (` State Register"). Tamra Nottingham Underwood and Sarah Smith Hymes were also on the call.
The first step in registering a property on the State Register is to apply for an Assessment Grant to evaluate the barn's historical significance and structural condition. The Assessment Grant provides up to $10,000 for an architect to assess the barn to determine whether it is a candidate for listing on the State Register and what repairs are needed. This Assessment Grant is given only to properties aiming towards historical designation. Any nonprofit can apply for the grant and historical designation, but must have the owner's consent. A determination on an Assessment Grant is usually given within 30 days after the application is submitted, with an additional 30-60 days typical for finalizing the contract. The architectural review process can take anywhere from 6 to 18 months and usually averages around at least 12 months. The Assessment Grant has a two year term. The architect produces a forensic report and assessment which helps the State determine whether the property is appropriate for listing on the Register of Historic Properties.
{00466499.DOCX / 2} COLLINS COCICREL & COLE
Linn Brooks, General Manager October 14, 2015 Page 2
Receipt of the Assessment Grant and listing on the State Register does not result in legal restrictions on the property. The District could legally alter, demolish, or move the barn even if it is listed as a historical site with the State. However, according to Ms. Peterson, an Assessment Grant is not available if there is an intent or plan to relocate the structure within the next few years. If relocation is the ultimate goal, the Assessment Grant should be applied for after the barn is moved. In addition, Ms. Peterson also stated that if there is no interest in the future restoration of the barn, an Assessment Grant would not be appropriate.
Receiving an Assessment Grant and placing a property on the State Register opens up the potential for applying for future grants to help repair or restore a property. Grants of up to $35,000 and $200,000 are available for properties that are already on the State Register to assist with restoration costs. These are competitive grants that require cash matches and owner consent. Recipients of these grants do agree to restrictions on the future uses of the property, and are prohibited from modifying, moving, or demolishing the structure without the State's consent.
While designation of the barn as a State historical site would not legally restrict future uses, demolition, or removal, we believe the designation could have a detrimental political effect on any future decision to move or demolish the barn. In addition, the Town of Avon's municipal code has a process for designating a property as an historic landmark, which does have a legal impact. See Chapter 7.50, Avon Municipal Code.
Avon's historic landmark designation requires written approval from the property owner and majority vote of the Town Council following a public hearing. Once designated as an historic landmark, any exterior changes to or removal of a structure requires approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission. We do not believe that designation on the State Registry would automatically lead to designation by the Town as an historical landmark, but it would seem to be a first step in that direction.
While the community group is supportive of applying for the Assessment Grant and having the barn listed on the State Historical Registry, doing so is only appropriate if it is likely the District will restore the barn in its current location. Otherwise, we recommend the Board look at other options, such as providing assistance to moving the barn to an alternate location and allowing the new owner to seek the Assessment Grant.
{00466499.DOCX / 2)