HomeMy WebLinkAboutPACKET Town Board 2011-01-25
Page 1
Utilities Department
Memo
To: The Honorable Mayor Pinkham, Town Trustees,
Town Administrator Halburnt
From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Engineer
Date: 22 January 2011
RE: Financial Software Upgrade
Background:
In August, 2009, staff initiated a search for new financial software. Staff convened a
user’s group consisting of several departments – Finance, Community Development,
Administration, IT, and Utilities. This committee assessed options regarding the current
system. Staff’s initial research revealed there are only two companies, SunGard and
Innoprise, capable of providing support to migrate the current system into today’s
technology.
These companies provided presentations to the committee. Unique to each company
was the fact they have already provided upgrade services to municipalities who own the
older versions of the current financial software. Because the current system cannot
work with current office systems in our network and the current system creates serious
inefficiencies for Town staff, it was apparent the software company had to have
employees with experience and knowledge of the Town’s current system.
The Town's current financial software, NAVILINE Series®, from SunGard Public Sector
(SunGard PS) was purchased in 1992. It is a very robust system that has served the
Town for more than 18 years with very few changes. Many software advances have
been made in these last 18 years, creating barriers to productivity and cost savings.
For example, utility customers cannot receive their bills by email and our customers with
multiple accounts receive separate bills and return envelopes for each account.
Computer hardware costs are also high. A NAVILINE server costs $35,000 compared
to a standard server used for our Microsoft Exchange network of $7,000.
After deliberation, the user’s group agreed unanimously to stay with our current
company, so we negotiated an upgrade to the system through our current maintenance
agreement with SunGard PS.
Using a five-year cost of ownership for the existing system, the Town was able to
negotiate a price which does not exceed our current annual costs while enabling new
modules to be added when available. The five-year cost of doing nothing includes
annual maintenance fees and hardware replacement costs totaling $339,168. The five-
year cost for SunGard’s One-Solution® is $292,367 which includes maintaining our
existing system which will operate in parallel during the upgrade, hardware for the new
system, data migration and training services.
We anticipate this upgrade will allow us to increase productivity and work efficiency in
many areas. For example, time cards are penned in by employees and walked to their
supervisors who signs and walks them to Human Resources who manually enter the
employee's hours into NAVILINE. The new system includes work flow automation
functions that allow an employee to sign-in and enter their hours, send an email to their
supervisor who will electronically approve the time card, and initiate an email to HR
identifying the employee's paycheck was automatically calculated and ready for printing.
Today budget reports are created by printing out a list of account values which are ten
keyed into Excel, a very time consuming process filled with human error. The new
system will transfer data directly to Excel spreadsheets with the push of a button.
The annual water quality report must be mailed to each of our water utility customers.
There are only two people in the Town with the ability to extract addresses from
NAVILINE with queries, one of which is retiring this year. The address list produced
contains many duplicate lines of data which requires a quality control process in Excel
before a final usable list is completed. The new system simplifies data queries such that
each person using the system will be able to filter sort and export the data. The new
system is Windows based which allows compatibility with other third party applications,
for example, new document management software for the Town Clerk's office will be
capable of interfacing with the new system allowing automation of document retention
policies for all utility billing information. These are just a few simple examples of areas
where productivity gains should be seen.
Below is a table comparing functions between the existing software the proposed
software.
Current System Proposed System Current Agreement Proposed
Agreement
Web Based/Internet capable √ √
Microsoft Exchange Server
compatibility
√ √
Data export (Excel, Access,
Word) √ √
Network integration √ √ √ √
Automated work flow
(Microsoft Outlook) √ √
HR module √ √ √ √
Finance √ √ √ √
Com Dev Module √ √ √
Utilities* √ √ √
Town Clerk Module* √ √
Public Works* √ √
IT Manages two systems √ √
IT Manages a single system √ √
Budget:
625-2500-425.26-33, DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT, $34,400.00
502-7001-580.33-33, DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT, $53,667.12
Recommendation:
I move to accept/deny the Financial Software Upgrade.
ORDINANCE NO. 03-11___
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE
WATER RATE SCHEDULES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO
WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees has determined that it is necessary to amend the
Water Rate Schedules of the Town of Estes Park.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE TOWN OF ESTES PARK, COLORADO:
Section 1: That the Water Rate Schedules shall be amended as more fully
set forth on Exhibit “A”.
Section 2: These rate schedules will take effect March 1, 2011.
PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TOWN OF
ESTES PARK, COLORADO THIS 25th DAY OF January, 2011.
TOWN OF ESTES PARK
By:
Mayor
ATTEST:
Town Clerk
I hereby certify that the above Ordinance was introduced and read at a
regular meeting of the Board of Trustees on the 25th day of January 2011 and
published in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Estes Park, Colorado,
on the ________ day of , 2011, all as
required by the Statutes of the State of Colorado.
Town Clerk
Exhibit A
Town Of Estes Park
Water Rate Schedule 2011 - 2013
VOLUME CHARGE BY RATE CLASS PER 1,000 GALLONS
TO CALCULATE YOUR MONTHLY WATER BILL:
Follow the formula below using the charts for Base Fee and Volume Charge on this page
Base Fee + [ (Gallons Used divided by 1,000) x Volume Charge] = Monthly Water Bill
1
January 3, 2011
Hello Will,
I am so impressed with all the clarifications and the format of the documents for the code
changes. The detail is very helpful. Thank you.
You are welcome. The goal is to provide enough information for the Trustees to make
informed decisions to provide clear direction to staff. The challenge is to provide enough
information without providing too much and without getting too technical.
I have some comments, questions and suggestions for possible clarification. It is obvious
that a tremendous number of hours have already been spent perfecting these documents.
I don’t want to waste your time. So I hope I am being pertinent:
The document is far from being perfected. In fact, so many stakeholders needed to
review and comment on the material, it was distributed ASAP, without a final proof-
reading. It is being proofed and revised as staff receives feedback from stakeholders.
This includes the Trustees. Stakeholders have been and will continue to be advised of
any changes in context. There are two primary purposes for the document. First, it is a
systematic and exact means of communication between staff and other stakeholders.
Second, it is a necessary tool to understand the proposed amendments as they will appear
in their published format. Without this document, many of the proposed amendments, as
published, will not be readily understood. After staff receives direction from the Town
Board, the proposed amendments will be condensed for publishing and a final version of
this document will be prepared. Therefore, every question is pertinent. At the beginning
of this process, I promised the stakeholders that any and every issue is open for
discussion during this process. I also emphasized the process and not a timeline is what
is important. Even comments that do not result in revising a proposed amendment may
indicate a need to revise the commentary, which is intended to be policy.
1. Section 108 page 39. Where 180 days has been struck out, would it be clearer to
insert: “the number of days”?
Typically, staff explains time constraints at the initial contact with someone
inquiring about temporary structures and/or temporary uses. The proposed
amendment intentionally eliminates a specific time period. Time periods for
temporary structures are specified in Section 5.3 of the EVDC. In the EVDC,
different uses have different regulations, including timeframes. This is common
in codes. Also, if the provisions in the EVDC are revised, the proposed
amendment will avoid potential conflicts. When issues regulated by local
construction codes are also regulated by other codes; it is good service to identify
conflicting requirements and avoid them by amending one of the codes. This is a
common theme of a majority of the proposed amendments to the International
Codes.
2
2. Pages 41-46 Trustees select fee schedule method to be used. I am okay with
property valuation formula Table 1-A, 1-B.
3. Page 48 Trustees decide fine for building started without a permit. I am in favor
of 3x permit fee.
4. Section 113, page 61. Do we need to include wording stating that an automatic
building permit extension will occur if the Appeal Process extends the building
permit past the 180 day final inspection completion requirement?
It is my opinion and practice, that legally, all relevant actions are temporarily
suspended when an issue is appealed. Staff will defer to Attorney White for
direction.
5. Page 66. Can Board members serve more than one 5 year term consecutively or
intermittently? There is no wording regarding number of terms.
Section 113.11, item 2, states members shall serve until a successor has been
appointed. The Town Board has control of whom and when new members are
appointed to the Board of Appeals. The current Board has met only once, in the
past 6 years. This is one of the reasons why the provisions of the Board are
emphasized in such a detailed and repetitive manner. It is intentional to
communicate to stakeholders the fact that the codes do have provisions for due
process incorporated in them; and, the stakeholders have the opportunity for
service on the Board of Appeals.
6. Page 68. I recommend adoption as part of Section 113.
7. Section 1011, page 74. Do we want to get involved in any ADA requirements?
Example: We could have the requirement that floor level signs be in Braille.
Chapter 11 of the IBC provides the scoping provisions for accessibility
requirements in the International Codes. ICC A117.1 is referenced in the IBC and
provides the technical requirements for accessibility in the International Codes,
including when brail is required. During emergency evacuations, persons with
impaired mobility are typically assisted by other building occupants and/or
emergency responders.
8. Section 1029.2, page 77 I recommend 5.7 square feet, opening and to delete
exception per staff recommendation.
9. Chapter 11 Can we make a statement to the effect that all public access
commercial buildings are encouraged to comply with ADA requirements. I
3
understand that we do not enforce ADA, but feel we should promote compliance
to improve awareness.
Commercial buildings open to the public are typically required to comply with
ADA and other Federal and State accessibility regulations. Staff’s concern is
stakeholders use the term ADA as a synonym for accessibility, which it is not.
ADA is just one of several federal accessibility regulations. ADA is a specific
Federal standard, which staff has neither the authority to interpret, nor the
responsibility to enforce. The intent is to communicate that staff administers the
accessibility requirements in the International Codes; and, stakeholders have the
responsibility of addressing all accessibility requirements, not just those
administered by Town staff.
10. Section 1107. I am not sure shifting responsibility for ADA interpretation to the
Board of Appeals is appropriate: Are courses available for ADA training and
should we require at least on Board of Appeals member to have ADA
knowledge/training? ( I want to ask Greg White if Town is liable for building
permits that are approved that are not ADA compliant. Perhaps you know the
answer, Will?
Please see previous comment. Attorney White and I have discussed this issue.
The intent is not to shift responsibility but to clarify who already has what
responsibilities. It is common practice for Designers to include on their plans, a
generic statement that the construction project is required to comply with ADA
requirements. It is an accurate statement, but it is not staff’s responsibility to
ensure compliance with ADA. Staff is directed and authorized to enforce the
accessibility provisions in the International Codes and referenced standards (ICC
A117.1). The responsibilities and authority of the Board of Appeals would also
be limited to codes adopted by the Town. Property owners, Designers and
contractors have responsibilities to accessibility requirements in addition to those
administered by staff. This includes, but is not limited to, ADA regulations.
11. Chapter 17 Section 1706 page 99. I don’t understand the comment at the bottom
of the page stating “This proposed amendment is intended to reduce
construction costs which will increase due to this new provision.”
The new provision in 1706.1 requires special inspections for wood construction in
high wind areas. Special Inspectors are third party inspectors approved by the
building official but hired and paid by the property owner. This new provision,
including wood construction, will increase construction costs. The proposed
amendment will limit the requirement for special inspectors to occasions
specifically required by the building official. Current staff has the experience and
expertise to perform the majority of these inspections without requiring a third
party special inspector. Inspections provided by staff will help reduce
construction costs by limiting the requirement for special inspectors.
4
12. Section 1805.4.2 page 101. This amendment addresses “habitable spaces”. What
about a crawl space which is inhabitable? A crawl space can get black mold and
have spores released into the home. Do we need to include wording regarding
crawl spaces and inhabitable spaces within the home foundation?
I think the wording of the proposed amendment is accurate. The intent of the
Code is to prevent moisture intrusion into spaces where it could be detrimental to
the structure and/or to the occupancy (use) and/or to the occupants. Therefore,
the code requires foundations enclosing crawl spaces to be damp-proofed and to
be provided with perimeter drains. I think the yellow commentary is confusing.
The term “below grade habitable spaces” should be revised to read “below grade
spaces of habitable buildings.” The intent of the proposed amendment is to allow
Colorado registered engineers and licensed architects the option of eliminating a
foundation drain based on their design of the foundation system. Most
jurisdictions require site specific soils reports for every foundation and for most
foundation systems to be designed, inspected and approved by structural
engineers. We do not follow these practices, based on local soil conditions
(bedrock). The proposed amendment is intended to allow engineers and architects
flexibility, based on their expertise, which should consider site specific soil
conditions.
13. [F] 903.2.1.2 Group A-2 page 115. Last paragraph, Will, when do you believe
staff will have completed all the research necessary to properly propose such
amendments? Do you have a timeline?
Pending direction from the Trustees, staff proposes to facilitate additional
discussions with stakeholders in effort to reach a consensus regarding sprinkler
requirements for the Town. Unfortunately, to this point, local property and
business owners have had very limited participation in the process. I believe it is
imperative these stakeholders be solicited and encouraged to participate in this
discussion. I think 3-6 months is a reasonable timeline to discuss and prepare a
package of sprinkler requirements to present to the Town Board as local
amendments to the 2009 International Codes.
Thanks for reading and responding, where appropriate. These are all the questions I
have for now. I am still reading . My email address: wendytrustee@gmail.com.
You are welcome. Thank you for taking the time to read the material and make
informed decisions. Please let me know if I can be of additional service.
Will Birchfield, CBO, CFM
Chief Building Official
Town of Estes Park
PO Box 1200
Estes Park, CO 80517
970-577-3728 (P)
970-586-0249 (F)
www.estes.org/ComDev
-1-
MEMORANDUM
5 January 2011
TO: Will Birchfield, Chief Building Official
CC: Jacquie Halburnt, Town Administrator
Alison Chilcott, Interim Community Development Director
FROM: Jerry W Miller, Trustee
RE: 2009 International Codes Proposed Amendments
Will,
I offer the following comments for your consideration regarding the proposed amendments to
the 2009 International Building Codes:
Prior to getting into individual Codes and proposed amendments, I wish to offer some
general comments:
It appears there’s an assumption being made that the Estes Valley Fire District will
adopt the 2009 Fire Code in 2011. I’m not so sure that’s a valid assumption. I’d
suggest that, every where it appears, the language be changed to “as may be
adopted” [by the EVFD, etc.] be used.
The purposes for including the Fire Code were to inform stakeholders the Fire District is
considering adopting the fire code and to stimulate the necessary discussions to identify and
address local concerns. The language will be revised as suggested.
In addition, it’s my understanding that even though the EVFD may adopt the Fire
Code; it will also have to be adopted by the Town Board in order to apply to properties
within Town limits. Therefore, if correct, I believe the correct language should be
something like: “as adopted by the Town of Estes Park and enforced by the EVFD”.
I agree. The Trustees may even want to remove all references to a fire code and address
the fire code as a separate adoption, if and when the EVFPD proposes adoption of a fire
code.
· I don’t understand why most of the Code amendments are also made applicable to the
Existing Building Code. I think this is a mistake. It’s clear that anything new in an
existing building has to comply with the IBC but making all the other amendments
apply to the IEBC as well makes it seem as if all construction on existing buildings,
has to comply which is not, and never has been, the case with the Existing Building
Code. I’d appreciate it if you’d take a look at this. As you probably know, the IEBC
came about because the National Trust for Historic Preservation and Code Council
developed it jointly to make historic preservation easier. I can’t support anything that
precludes that from happening.
-2-
I agree; local amendments should not compromise the lesser compliance approach of the
IEBC. The proposed amendments recommended as applicable to the IEBC and the IRC are
done so for consistency in administrative provisions and for the requirements of other
regulatory agencies. The IEBC and the IRC do not adopt the secondary codes by reference,
as the IBC does. The IEBC and the IRC reference only specific sections of the secondary
codes. Unless included as local amendments, additional requirements are not applicable. If
you have identified specific proposed amendments that compromise the approach of the
IEBC, please let me know. Additionally, staff will review and apply your concerns as the
proposed amendments are revised and prepared for publishing. They have undergone
repetitive revisions as staff has received feedback from stakeholders. As far as I know,
excluding Trustees, all concerns expressed to date have been addressed to the satisfaction
of stakeholders.
· With the exception of general administrative items, I don’t agree with the concept of
making amendments to one code applicable to the others. If someone is building a
new Group R occupancy structure, they shouldn’t have to refer to the amendments to
the Existing Building Code, or Plumbing Code or IBC to find out that, for example,
smoke alarms are required.
I agree. As stated numerous times in the presentation, for this discussion, cross referencing
was being used to limit and manage the volume of material. It will also be used to limit the
costs of publishing the approved amendments, by limiting the volume of material. The final
document of approved amendments will not include any cross referencing. Every applicable
amendment to each code will be specifically presented. For example, the proposed
amendments to the administrative provisions of the IBC are not reproduced in each of the
other codes in this presentation; but, most will be reproduced in the final documents of
approved amendments for each code. The one exception is the IRC. Some stakeholders
requested all of the applicable amendments to the IRC be specified, to make sure they
understood the significance of cross referencing (applicability). A color code was used to
assist in identifying the proposed amendments which were included from a cross reference.
The Building Codes are complicated enough yet it seems as if Code Amendments do
nothing to ease that confusion due to the amount of cross referencing and application.
I’m a firm believe in amendments that go with each code. If I only design buildings
that fall under the IRC, then I should be able to get the IRC and the amendments
specific to the IRC and not have to wade through amendments to other codes to find
what’s applicable. It’s the same for the other codes as well.
At the December Town Board meeting, I was prepared to explain the presentation of this
document and the various tools used to manage the material. The goal at that meeting was
to get direction from the Town Board regarding the context of the proposed amendments and
to provide specific direction for a few significant issues. The current presentation is not the
final document; it is a draft. I was not as concerned with typos as I was with context. Many
stakeholders were reviewing and commenting on the proposed amendments. The document
was and is undergoing revisions to address stakeholders’ concerns. Once approved, a
complete set of all applicable amendments will be produced for each code.
-3-
That will be the final document. The material had to be presented in this or a similar format;
because, the approved amendments prepared for publishing will be very succinct and not
easily understood by the vast majority of stakeholders. This document is intended to be the
vehicle to get to the approved amendments and the tool to interpret the published
amendments. Without this document, the process would not have been totally transparent.
Additionally, when I began this process two years ago, I promised stakeholders staff would
make deliberate and sincere attempts to address any and every concern expressed by
anyone. I believe this document kept that promise. Cross referencing will not be necessary
in the final documents. Staff thought cross referencing was a worthwhile tool to limit the
volume of material in this presentation of proposed amendments and to limit the cost of
publishing the approved amendments. The Town Clerk’s office will incur cost to publish the
approved amendments. Therefore, staff has and will continue to wordsmith the proposed
amendments to minimize their volume to the greatest extent possible. Very few people will
be able to grasp the significance of the published amendments without the current document.
There are two significant steps remaining, after staff receives direction from the Trustees.
The proposed amendments will be finalized for publishing and final documents for each code
will be produced. This is what staff was prepared to communicate and to illustrate at the
December Board meeting.
2009 IBC:
Section 105.1.3, page 22 - I personally prefer using a separate fee schedule rather than
incorporating fees into the Codes. This makes them easier to amend and gives the Board
and the public an opportunity to deal with fees as a separate issue.
Acknowledged.
Section 105.2, exception 2, page 24 - I have a real problem with measurements for fences,
etc. being from original grade. While measurements from “original” grade may be necessary
in some instances, I don’t think it’s applicable for fences. What happens if someone puts two
feet (or more) of fill in their back yard to level it? Does that mean the maximum allowed
fence height is only 4 feet? Does it mean the fence slopes to match the existing grade even
though the final grade is “flat”> Also, will a surveyor now be required to certify that the fence
is 6 feet from ‘original’ grade? (This is an example, I know that fences 6 feet or lower are
exempt from permits.) The unintended consequences of the word “original” could be a
bureaucratic mess.
This current policy has proven beneficial without problems. Your concern is noted. The intent
is to address issues such as new fill or a new retaining wall, etc., to elevate a fence. Perhaps
changing the word “original” to “existing natural” more accurately qualifies this intent and
addresses the concerns you identified. The main function of this policy is to communicate to
the public a definitive way for them to construct a fence without requiring a permit. This
policy has been applied for more than 12 years; and, I am not aware of any problems related
to this policy.
Section 105.3, page 25 - Regarding the added statement to condition 6, shouldn’t the
statement read: “. . . License from the Town of Estes Park.”? I believe the Town is the entity
that issues the Contractor’s License rather than the Building Official.
-4-
The ordinance states the Chief Building Official is authorized to administer the ordinance and
approve the license, just as the I-Codes state the building official issues permits, Certificates
of Occupancy, etc. I believe the license is a Town license, issued by the Building Official. All
the professional actions of the building official are as an agent of and on behalf of the Town.
The language will be changed if it is a concern.
Section 109, page 41 - See comment on 105.1.3 above.
Acknowledged.
Section 110.3.5, page 52 - I have several issues with this Section:
! I, like the stakeholders apparently do, question the number of inspections for drywall.
I’ve been involved with large projects where the inspector spent hours and hours
doing nothing but counting the number of screws in each and every sheet of drywall.
This is a case where I’d have to ask “what’s important”? I’d have to say that it’s
probably important to make sure drywall is installed properly on fire rated and shear
assemblies. If it’s non-rated, is it really that vital to vary from what Larimer County
does? Personally, I think not.
All of the increased drywall inspections are specifically related to fire-resistance-rated
construction and/or shear panels. My expertise in rated construction was one of the issues I
was directed to address when I was hired, as was accessibility.
! I’d like to eliminate, as much as possible, differences between inspections and
requirements in the Town and Larimer County, realizing that Larimer County doesn’t
really have a developed “down town”. That said, I think you’d want to do some sort of
inspection, for non-rated walls, at a time when an inspector can see where the screws
or nails are. I do think it’d be beneficial to be able to see there are more than four
fasteners holding up the gypboard but don’t think non-rated assemblies should be
subject to a screw/nail count.
! I agree; the Town and County should be as consistent as possible. However, they are
different and have different concerns. Because of local concerns, there will be some
inconsistencies.
! For what it’s worth, I’d consider the application of 5/8" drywall as a separation
of garages, etc. from habitable spaces to be a form of fire rated construction.
While Town staff does not “count” fasteners, we do scan for the appropriate type, spacing
and installation of fasteners. We also verify fasteners have not been sunk to the point of
fracturing the face-paper, which causes significant performance problems and violates the
listings of rated assemblies. We also verify proper materials and installations for tile-backer,
proper materials and installations for ceilings with framing members spaced more than 16
inches on center, proper materials and installation under stairs, proper materials and
installation in the house/garage separation, exterior grade when exposed to the weather, etc.
-5-
During drywall inspections, we also typically verify the structure envelope is still properly
weatherized; ductwork is properly sealed from dust, what appliances are being used for
construction heat, etc. Required inspections for all drywall predate my service with the Town.
When I arrived, I was told we perform drywall inspections as a directive from the Town
Board, because of a lawsuit involving sagging ceilings (regular ½” on ceilings with framing at
24” o.c.) Also, some local drywall contractors have told me they value good inspections;
because, they help create a level field for competitive bidding. When contractors lose jobs to
installations that do not comply with applicable standards, they rely on good inspections to
keep the requirements consistent. Also, it is my understanding the County provides their fire-
resistive drywall inspections at the final project inspection. Is it realistic to expect corrections
at that stage? The County has a much larger area to cover than does Town staff, limiting
their staff’s ability to provide inspections. I respectfully disagree, and think logistically, the
Town is able to provide better service than the County. This historically has included drywall
inspections. The only concerns stakeholders have expressed to me regarding drywall
inspections are related to rated assemblies, primarily in concealed spaces. These
requirements were not enforced prior to my service; and, this has resulted in additional
drywall inspections.
Section 110.3.7, page 53
What exactly is “water-tight”? I don’t believe there’s a definition of “water tight” in the Code.
Considering that the term could mean something different to different people, I’d suggest an
appropriate definition be added to Chapter 2.
! The biggest question is, I think, does “water-tight” mean “dried-in” which, to me,
means shingles and siding do not necessarily have to be installed, or that the exterior
finishes have to be in place? I prefer the former because construction can happen
faster and can then reduce the cost of construction.
Staff agrees the term “water-tight” is not the proper term to convey the intent of this proposed
amendment and current policy. Perhaps the term “water-tight” can be replaced with “properly
protected with water–resistive materials.” The intent and current practice is not to require
final roof and wall coverings, but to prevent water intrusion prior to the final coverings being
installed. Otherwise, the installation of most insulation products will violate industry
standards.
Section 113, page 61 - As you may know, I spent 3 years as Chairman of Longmont’s
“Master Board of Appeals”. Some of my comments on this section are based on this fact.
! This may be something you want to run by the Town Attorney, but Longmont’s Board
was officially named the “Master Board of Appeals” specifically because they were the
appellant Board for all the Building Codes, much like this body will be. A question also
exists regarding the Fire Code - if EVFD and the Town adopts the 2009 Fire Code,
who will hear appeals? This proposed Board? It could affect who’s eligible to sit on
the Board.
I believe the Board of Appeals for the fire code would be appointed by and accountable to
the regulatory agency, the EVFPD. However, I will defer to Attorney White.
-6-
! Emergency hearing provisions - I’d suggest there be provisions added for “emergency
hearings”. As written, you’ve got times of 15 to 45 days after receipt of the appeal; 14
days for notice and 7 days for getting a statement to the Board of appeals. This could,
potentially add up to a great amount of time between filing an appeal and the Board
hearing it.
As you know, in construction, time is money. There will be situations where someone
believes an appeal needs to be filed but waiting 45 plus days will delay progress on
the project, especially if it involves appealing a field decision. I’ve got to admit I don’t
remember the particulars, but Longmont MBA had a provision where, for an additional
fee, a hearing would be guaranteed within the minimum amount of time it took to
advertise an application and make sure a quorum would be at the meeting. While I
was on the MBA, it was only used a couple of times, but it was worth the effort for
reasons I won’t go into.
I will contact Longmont and review their BoA provisions.
Appendix B - 113.11.2. Qualifications, page 64 - I realize what you have listed is right out of
the requirements from the Code. However, I question the applicability and reasonableness
of finding a Registered Architect, Structural Engineer, Mechanical Engineer, Electrical
Engineer and Fire Protection Engineer in our little community.
! I don’t think these requirements are realistic for Estes Park. I think an Architect or
building designer, an HVAC mechanical contractor, a plumber and electrician will
more than meet what’s required for technical expertise. I also think a realtor and one
or two lay citizens are also important to include.
I believe alternative qualifications based on construction trades experience are specifically
stated in the proposed amendment. We have many qualified Engineers, Architects,
contractors and tradespersons in the Estes Valley.
! While I understand the reason for Code provisions for “professionals”, I think it
is important to realize what this Board is for and who it’s serving. I think that
having well informed citizenry be part of the Board adds a dimension to Code
review that is well worth the effort. Do they have to realize what their limitations
are and learn what the Code says? You bet. Do they have to be “experts” in a
respective field? I don’t think so.
I respectfully disagree. On the National and State level, Building Divisions are being held to
increasingly higher levels of competency and locally are required to make hundreds of on the
spot decisions every day. It is even more demanding in small jurisdictions where staff is
required to address multiple disciplines and trades. I believe it is not reasonable to expect
persons unfamiliar with the construction industry and unfamiliar with applicable codes to
interpret the intent of the codes. In my opinion, it is the intent of the codes for persons
regulated by the codes, to serve as the final authority of the codes. It is my experience this
facilitates improved professional relationships for all parties, regardless of differing opinions.
-7-
Section 406.1.4, page 69 - I think I understand the reason for the “Garages beneath . . .”
deletion and the “Construction supporting . . .” phrase, but I do think it could be stated more
simply by amending it to say something like: “Garages shall be separated from habitable
rooms by not less . . .”
(I should also mention that I totally support this amendment. I am professionally not
comfortable with the trend to eliminate all physical fire resistance for sprinkler systems. Had
the Park Theater Mall, for example, had appropriate fire walls and draft stops, a major part of
the building may have been saved, even without a sprinkler system.)
“Garages beneath...or equivalent.” is proposed for deletion because the proposed
amendment requires 5/8 X regardless, making the statement un-necessary. The added
sentence clarifies the intent of the code which is not applied in all jurisdictions, including
Estes Park prior to my service. While performing post-fire inspections, I have personally
witnessed the value of requiring supporting construction to be equally protected, which is the
intent of the code.
This proposed amendment is a good example of how proposed amendments are
intentionally crafted to include as few words as possible, to minimize the cost of publishing.
As proposed, the published amendment might read: “In the first sentence, replace ½ inch
(12.7mm) with 5/8 inch (15.9) Type X …or equivalent…; and, replace the second sentence
as follows: Construction supporting the separation shall be protected by means of a minimum
5/8 inch (15.9mm) Type X gypsum board or equivalent, applied to the garage side.”
This is also a good example of why staff presented the proposed amendments with context
and commentary, to help clarify their significance and intent. As just illustrated, the proposed
amendment without context and commentary does not lend itself to easy understanding of its
significance.
Section 501.2, page 70 - I’m opposed to this amendment as written. I do not believe it is
necessary for a variety of reasons:
! First, what does “reflective” mean? Brass letters are, in one sense, ‘reflective’. It could
also be argued that gloss vinyl numerals are also ‘reflective’. Is ‘reflective’ intended to
mean the same Federal standards required for street signs? Who determines whether
or not letters are reflective enough because you can get reflective numerals in several
colors? I really think that, the detail this amendment proposes is unnecessary. While
I understand this can be considered to be a “life-safety issue”, so first responders can
find a location, I don’t see much of a difference between this and telling someone what
kind of batteries they have to have in their smoke detectors.
! The other thing is why does this need to be an amendment to any of the other codes?
Are you saying that if you have your water heater replaced you need to install a
“reflective” or “illuminated” address as part of that project? Isn’t it being in just the IBC
and IRC enough?
-8-
If the amendment simply stated “where the building address cannot be viewed from a public
way, it shall be installed next to the driveway entrance leading to the building”, I’d find it
acceptable.
The intent of this proposed amendment is to be applicable where address numbers are not
posted or are not visible from the right of way. The Estes Park Municipal Code 12.16.30
requires the posting of addresses which are compliant with the building code. Therefore,
when performing every inspection, including a water heater replacement, the first
requirement is a posted address. With this application, making the proposed amendment
applicable to each of the codes makes the information available to as many stakeholders as
possible. As you previously stated, the necessity to cross referencing other sources is not
conducive to communicating local requirements. Communicating information is an important
part of providing good service. Staff time spent looking for specific property addresses is
significant. Also, my personal experiences on the Fire Department included several
occasions when valuable time was lost, because an address was not posted or was not
readily visible to emergency responders. With the current code language, staff is already
required to determine what qualifies as contrasting colors. The intent of ‘reflective” is to aid
with finding an address in dark conditions. The same judgment used to determine what
colors contrast, can also be used to determine what materials are reflective. The philosophy
of current staff is to use common sense; how do the numbers perform? If they appear to
function as required, they are approved. If so directed, the reflective requirement can be
easily removed.
Section 1009.6.3., page 73 - I’m opposed to this amendment as written.
! Rather than delete the exception, as proposed, why not change the ½" drywall to 5/8"
Type ‘X’ as was done with habitable spaces adjacent to garages? If you remove the
amendment, you are requiring that all spaces under all stairs have to comply with 1-
hour rated construction which, as you know, means a lot more than adding a layer of
5/8" drywall and can be very difficult to provide on the underside of a stair.. Based on
your explanation, I think changing the drywall in the exception would better serve the
intent.
! The key, to me, is the statement in the exception stating that it only pertains to
stairs “within a single individual dwelling unit”.
Staff agrees, changing ½ inch to 5/8X more accurately conveys the intent of the proposed
amendment.
Section 1029.2., page 77 - I prefer the second option by defining what a grade floor opening
is. It offers more choice.
Acknowledged. There is currently one such violation and the homeowners perceive staff as
being in error. The contractor and the homeowners were both advised of their rights to
appeal. They chose instead to ignore staff’s notice. It appears it may take legal action to
obtain compliance.
-9-
Section 1101., page 79 - Things actually seem to be getting better between the differences of
IBC Chapter 11, ANSI A117.1, ADA and FHA accessibility requirements. However, there’s
no assurances it will remain that way. I concur that Building Officials are not the “ADA
police”, however, the differences between requirements has been a source of great
frustration over the years. This is due, in part, because of the legal responsibilities
associated with ADA requirements, which is actually Civil Rights legislation, and the Code
enforcement requirements of Building Departments.
ICC and State chapters have taken pro-active and aggressive actions to achieve reasonable
consistency between the accessibility requirements in the IBC (ICC ANSI A117.1) and
Federal and State requirements.
! What I’d like to propose, for your consideration (and is something I think needs to be
part of the IBC anyway) is something like the following: Where accessibility
requirements, between the IBC and Federal and State Laws, differ the more stringent
requirement shall apply.
! I can see where one would think this proposal would require your staff to be
knowledgeable with all the requirements and to be able to judge which is more
restrictive. I don’t think so, because you would still enforce the IBC and ANSI
A117.1 as usual. However, the way I envision this working is that if an
accessibility “detail” varies from A117.1 you flag it as a question under the plan
review and require the designer to provide documentation for the reason for the
difference. If, for example, it is an ADA requirement and is more restrictive than
A117.1, then it’s up to the designer to provide you with proof that the
requirement exists and what it is. You can then decide which is more
restrictive. The fact that, so far, the Dept. Of Justice has acknowledged the
2009 IBC as a “safe harbor” for compliance with ADA requirements helps, but
that could also change.
You and I have approached this dilemma from two directions and arrived at the same point.
Whenever a designer provides information indicating compliance with local requirements
does not comply with State or Federal requirements, I accept the State/Federal requirements
as higher standards. This is a primary reason for the proposed amendment to subsection
102.1. I also agree having a multitude of accessibility regulations is a concern, especially
considering State and Federal regulations identify accessibility as a civil right.
Section 1107., page 80 - My reaction to the requirements for compliance with CRS 9-5-105 is
that they belong in the Development Code, not the Building Code. I personally think that this
accessibility assessment should be done during the planning process, not during building
permit stage. Now, you may be consulting with planning staff on this as development
projects come in, but I think it is a question of enforceability. Technically, I don’t think the
Building Codes can be applied until there is an application for a building permit. However, if
it’s part of the Development Code, there’s no question of applicability - both planning staff
and the Planning Commission would be required to ensure compliance which you, as I
believe is required by the law, can oversee.
-10-
Providing CRS 9-5 as a reference document was copied from the County, for consistency.
Locating it in the I-Codes or in the EVDC makes no difference to me.
! Accessibility needs to be designed into the project from the beginning, starting with
the site and ending with individual units. Generally speaking, accessible units are
larger than those that are not. Applying State Law to a residential project after it has
received Planning approvals is not only unfair but may be difficult to achieve and may
require revisions to the project that require re-submittals, delays and result in higher
costs.
Staff does address accessibility in the planning phase, prior to development approval from
planning. As part of the Development Plan approval process, I have required signed
implementation plans as specified in CRS 9-5. We currently require the number, location
and type of units be specified in the planning phase, including on Development Plans.
Tolerances: You raise an excellent point regarding tolerances. I’ve run into inspectors who
have rejected sink heights, for example, because they were 1/8" too low! However, I do not
agree with your statement that designers should specify tolerances based on some standard.
If a standard is going to be used, then the standard should be adopted, as part of the Code,
and made universal for the Town. The burden doesn’t always have to be placed on the
designer. This would also place more responsibility on staff, because they would then have
to check the information on the drawings with the standard to make sure it complied.
What is needed is a standard that is known to inspectors (and contractors) so that they can
determine whether or not an actual dimension in the field complies given the tolerances.
While I don’t think this dilemma can be answered immediately, I’d suggest that someone
contact the Department of Justice and ask what they consider to be acceptable tolerances for
handicapped installations. After all, they’re the ultimate enforcement agency for accessible
requirements. Another, and probably more logical source of information, would be the
Denver HUD office as I know their inspectors deal with this issue as well.
Regarding tolerances, I did contact a national accessibility expert at ICC and an ADA expert
on the Regional level. Their interpretations were conflicting. I also agree Town-wide
tolerances are the best solution, but not unilaterally established by the building official. The
collective decisions of the Board of Appeals are more appropriate. I will follow-up on your
suggested contacts.
Section 1069, page 91 - At the Community Development Committee meeting, Mr. Spooner
brought up some prescriptive solutions to designing to the new wind load requirements. I
don’t see these listed here and believe they should be.
All of Dr. Spooner’s recommendations have been incorporated into the proposed
amendments, to his satisfaction. It is my understanding, other than comments from
Trustees; all responses have been addressed to the satisfaction of other stakeholders. This
was the goal prior to bringing the issues before the Town Board, to minimize the volume of
issues requiring the Board’s intervention.
-11-
(As an aside, I find it amazing that the topography is the same, the climate is basically the
same, there has been no record of wind generated failures, construction materials are,
generally, getting stronger, yet the wind loads are increased by 30% because “experts” tell us
they’ve been wrong for the past several years. As you know, SEAC has issued wind speed
maps for years and the wind seems to keep gaining more force in direct proportion to
structural engineering liability issues.)
Acknowledged; but, it would be negligent for me to not recommend a study endorsed and
supported by SEAC and CCICC.
Section 11612.3., page 96 - My only concern with this amendment is that it be consistent with
what’s in the Development Code.
Staff agrees. The Town floodplain regulations are in the Municipal Code; and, this proposed
amendment is housekeeping, to reference those requirements.
Section 1805.3., page 100 - I’m opposed to this amendment as written. My problem with
this amendment is “as determined by the Building Official”. No offense, but this causes me a
little heartburn. Here’s why: For a building official to determine that there isn’t any positive
drainage away from “the wall” means it has to be inspected after it’s been backfilled and
graded. This says that if it isn’t, in the building officials opinion, the wall has to be
waterproofed. Waterproofing, compared with damp-proofing, can be an expensive
proposition to begin with, but this implies that the building department can order someone to
dig out all the backfill, expose the wall, clean it up, apply the waterproofing, have it inspected,
re-backfill it, re-compact it, re-grade it and then probably call for another inspection.
· Personally, I think this has the potential of placing more liability on the Town. The
Code gives minimum requirements. It is not intended to protect everyone from
everything. There are requirements for damp-proofing and there are requirements for
positive drainage away from buildings and the section proposed to be amended has
requirements for waterproofing. Those can be inspected and enforced without any
amendments. If someone has a basement that leaks, then that is an issue between
the builder and the owner. If this stays as an amendment, and the basement leaked,
I’d sue the Town as well because obviously the building department didn’t inspect it
properly or it wouldn’t be leaking - especially when, the next section (page 101)
proposes to require foundation drains.
· Second, while I understand the intent, there are several methods of applying
waterproofing coatings and, generally, each method has a different resistance to the
applied hydrostatic pressures. Also, some problems associated with water in
basements come from ground water, not necessarily surface water so there’s no
guarantee that positive drainage away from the building will prevent water intrusion
into below grade spaces.
· Since this provision is for the IBC, and not the IRC, chances are that a soils engineer
will be involved for recommendations and could, with the right language, be required
to address this issue as part of that report.
-12-
I agree. In fact, this proposed amendment originally stated specific criteria, based on local
experiences and locations. It was revised to its current language at the request of the Estes
Valley Contractors’ Association. Dampproofing is almost always required by the codes.
Water-proofing is only required when hydro-static pressure is present. Unlike many
jurisdictions, we do not require all foundation systems to be designed, inspected and
approved by structural engineers. Also, typically, when a professional designer is required,
we do not automatically require a soils report. Historically that has been left up to the
designer. This is based on local soils, which typically are bedrock or de-composed granite.
Locally hydro-static pressure is typically the result of water saturation which is increased by
insufficient drainage away from the building. Because soils reports and engineering are not
automatically required, staff should have the authority to require water-proofing based on
specific site conditions. It is the intent of this proposed amendment to address this issue
during the construction of the foundation and not after the foundation is backfilled. This is
possible based on topography, the soils and conditions of the excavation, the presence of
ground water, etc. This is similar to requiring an engineered sub drain system when constant
ground water is encountered during construction of the foundation. Hiring a professional
designer to design the foundation system specific to the site is an alternate option. I would
recommend that as an alternate proposed amendment. Requiring engineered foundation
systems for all IBC structures is common practice in other jurisdictions but not historic
practice here.
Section 1805.4.2., page 101 - I’m opposed to this amendment as written. I seriously
question the need for a foundation drain on every structure built within the Town. A structural
engineer or architect does not determine whether or not a foundation drain is required.
That’s left up to a geotechnical (soils) engineer. From the results of their soils investigation,
they determine whether or not to recommend a drainage system. The consequence of this
amendment could be that a soils engineer is required to prepare a report for every building
just to determine if a foundation drain is required or not. I don’t believe that’s necessary.
· As with the proposed 1805.3 amendment, this could be made part of a soils report
recommendations.
I believe we have two fundamental differences of opinion regarding this issue. First, I believe
the IBC does require sub-soil drains for all foundations, with very few exceptions. Second, I
believe the determination of dampproofing or water-proofing, the design of the sub-soil drain
and surface drainage are all part of the foundation system and are the responsibility of the
designer, based on structure specific and site specific conditions. The intent of the proposed
amendment is to allow registered engineers and licensed architects flexibility to design
foundations without drains, if they choose to do so. Typically, whether or not a soils report is
required, is left up to the designer. Some local designers have considerable experience with
local soils and believe it is generally an unnecessary expense for typical structures.
Section 1809, page 107 - As another example, I question why frost protection requirements
are necessary to add to the Existing Building Code. As mentioned previously, all new
construction has to comply with the IBC so it makes no sense to me to include this, as well
as several others, as an amendment to the IEBC as well.
-13-
This provision would be applicable to additions and substantial improvements to existing
buildings.
Section 3412, page 109 - Why is Chapter 34 even necessary? If the Town is adopting the
Existing Building Code, what does Chapter 34 (Existing Structures) really do? I don’t agree
that it’s an “alternative” to the IEBC because I think we want to encourage the use of the
IEBC. In addition, the IEBC applies to “all existing buildings”, which can be inferred to be
anything existing prior to the date of adoption of the Code.
I’d support an amendment excluding Chapter 34 from adoption of the IBC.
Not all jurisdictions adopt the IEBC. Chapter 34 is applicable for jurisdictions which do not
adopt the IEBC. Also, we have encountered design professionals who are not familiar with
the IEBC and prefer to use the IBC. We have even spoken to designers who do not own an
IEBC. The formatting and application of the 2009 IEBC is significantly different from the
2003 IEBC. The 2009 IEBC has 3 main compliance options: the prescriptive method
(Chapter 3), the work area method (Chapters 4-12) and the performance methods (Chapter
13). The prescriptive requirements in Chapter 3 are duplicated from the requirements in
Chapter 34 of the IBC. The IEBC provides additional options the IBC does not provide. If
the IEBC is adopted, Chapter 34 of the IBC could be deleted; but, it is not necessary to do so
and it would limit options. All approved amendments will be published by the Town Clerk.
Staff is trying to limit the publishing expenses by limiting the proposed amendments to those
which are deemed appropriate to local concerns and necessary. If it is important, Chapter 34
of the IBC can be deleted, if the IEBC is adopted.
Appendix J, J103.3, page 111 - Again, I think any fees set in the Code, including grading
permit fees, should be separate from the Codes.
Acknowledged.
Part 2 - Significant Changes
Section 419, page 114 - I LIKE this new Section. It’s one of the areas that demonstrates why
it’s important for a community to keep as current as possible with new Code provisions.
Given the maximum combined area for both uses is 3,000 sq. ft. I don’t have a problem with
it not having public toilet rooms with one exception. If the associated business is a bar
and/or restaurant, I think public toilet rooms should be required. I also don’t think it’s a valid
assumption that the business will be on the lower floor and the residence on the upper,
although that’s probably the most logical interpretation. Both uses could occur on the same
floor.
· I’d like to see you give consideration to an amendment that addresses the toilet room
situation for these uses in Live/Work units.
(Also, as a totally separate issue, does the Development Code allow these kinds of units in
applicable Zones? Community Development Staff may want to look at that as well. It
doesn’t make any sense to have building code provisions for live/work units when they’re
prohibited by zoning codes.)
-14-
The IBC specifies these units as residential occupancies and limits the non-residential uses
to the main level. I think they are a current trend in redeveloped commercial areas and as
buffers between residential and commercial zoning districts. This new concept will require a
review of the EVDC to determine if it allows this concept. I believe it currently does in the CD
District. If the Trustees like this concept, building and planning will review the EVDC and
propose revisions. At this stage, I think a restaurant would be allowed. My concern with
plumbing is this: the commercial use portion of this residential unit is open to the public and
therefore required to comply with accessibility requirements. If public plumbing is required, it
too will have to be accessible. Is this reasonable in a residential unit? If the code is currently
silent regarding this issue, do we want to open this can of worms? If we do, then I
recommend it be required for all such residential units in commercial zoning districts.
Other questions are: Will the EVDC limit these residential units to commercial zoning
districts? Also, what commercial uses will be allowed by the EVDC? Will these single
dwelling units be required to be sprinkled?
Section 704.2, page 115 - Independent fire protection for columns and structural members
became effective in the 2006 IBC. Given the fact that there are highly effective intumescent,
paint-like, coatings now available, the requirements for details, etc. are greatly reduced. The
days of the spray-on, inches thick, fire protection coatings for structural steel are essentially
gone. However, the big pain and cost of this provision is for the “special inspections” the
Code requires to insure the intumescent paint coatings are of the right thickness, which is
measured in mils. There aren’t many people who do these kinds of inspections and those
that exist have very high fees. It would be nice if something could be done to address this
problem.
Several of the changes between the 2003 IBC and the 2009 IBC occurred in the 2006 IBC. I
deliberately chose to be silent as to when changes occurred. The material is already
overwhelming for those not familiar with it. I am familiar with intumescent paint products; but,
I have not yet seen them specified or applied in Town. I believe if they do become popular, a
few local contractors will realize the need and get certified. This is what happened with the
water backflow prevention program and with listed fire stop systems.
Section [F] 903.2.1.2, Group A-2, page 115 - This change first came about in the 2006 IBC
when it limited the area to 5,000 sq. ft. or an occupant load of 100. I agree that this
requirement is too restrictive for existing buildings.
Acknowledged.
Section [F] 915.1, page 116 - This provision is a direct result of the attack of September 11,
2001 and, from the information I’ve read, pertains mostly to high-rise buildings. In principal,
however, I have a problem with government requiring building owners to install repeater’s,
and maintain them, in private buildings where the need is highly questionable. I’m
particularly concerned about the liability and cost imposed on the building owner. Personally,
while I think it’s necessary for large cities where various departments don’t necessarily talk to
each other, I think this provision should be deleted for the Town of Estes Park. As stated in
the commentary, this will not affect “many new buildings”.
-15-
I do know there are communication problems and concerns within the Estes Park Medical
Center.
Section 2304.11.2.6, Wood Siding, page 117 - The question isn’t how long it’s been enforced
but how much decay has lack of “enforcement” of this provision has there been in Estes
Park? My personal experience tells me it totally depends on the location. The original cabin
I live in was built in 1905. There are several locations where the original pine siding and
structure is resting directly on concrete or earth. When I did the addition to the cabin, I did
not observe any instances of decay due to proximity to grade. As ground moisture
increases, the separation requirement becomes more important. Is there a compromise?
Regarding this issue, I have seen many instances of decay (water rot) in Estes Park. Staff’s
compromise is “Install flashing; provide the required separation; and, after inspection and
approval, cover the flashing with a sacrificial material of your choosing (1x2, etc.).” In my
opinion, this is a win-win solution.
2009 IEBC:
Amendments to the IEBC also applicable to the IBC and IRC? See introductory comment
above.
There is only one proposed amendment to the IEBC (1004.1) which is proposed to also be
applicable to the IBC and the IRC. With existing buildings, Designers can chose to use the
IBC instead of the IEBC. Options are good. Not all Jurisdictions have adopted the IEBC;
and, not all designers are familiar with or comfortable with the IEBC and choose to use the
IBC. The requirements of Chapter 10 in the IEBC are not duplicated from Chapter 34 of the
IBC. Therefore, any amendments to the IEBC should be applicable to the same project, if
regulated by the IBC. Regarding the IRC, a subsequent proposed amendment allows
structures designed to specific criteria to be regulated by the IRC, regardless of their uses.
This would include existing buildings meeting the design criteria. Smoke alarms are such a
significant issue, this proposed amendment being applicable to the IBC and the IRC is
intended to avoid the law of un-intended consequences. Another option is to not approve the
proposed amendment. My concern is we have many older, wood construction R
occupancies which are not protected by sprinkler systems or fire alarm systems. Improved
inexpensive protection can be provided with single station smoke alarms.
Section 1026, page 8 - I find the sentence “The provisions in other International Codes, as
amended and adopted, shall be part of this code, as applicable” to be vague and potentially
misleading, especially in the case of the IEBC. Considering the location of this proposed
amendment, I think the intent is to reference the applicable administrative IBC provisions
without duplicating them. If correct, I think it would be better to reference the particular
Chapters or Sections rather than use a blanket statement like this.
-16-
I believe the applicable provisions are specified in the other codes. The significance of this
will be clear with the final document of approved amendments. Perhaps the best way to
communicate this is to provide a draft of the final document before the Town Board approves
the abbreviated amendments for publishing. The current document has been repetitively
revised, as staff has received input from stakeholders. Today, I personally verified all the
expressed concerns of all stakeholders, excluding Trustees, have been resolved to the
satisfaction of those who have expressed their concerns. I believe this is a monumental
achievement and is indicative of the amount of time and effort staff and other stakeholders
have committed to this process.
Section 106.2.3, page 9 - I’m opposed to this amendment as written. This proposed
amendment is extremely confusing and I question it’s necessity in Estes Park. First, Table
1604.5 is not located in the IEBC but in IBC Chapter 16, Structural Design under the ‘General
Design Requirements’ section. It took me 15 minutes to find this out and that was expedited
by doing a word search (another benefit of having the Codes in digital format). If this
amendment stays, that needs to be clarified. Second, Occupancy Category IV deals with
hospitals, emergency shelters, police stations, public utility facilities, including water and
electrical, buildings critical to national defense and aircraft control towers, to name a few. I
think this amendment is overkill and is not necessary in Estes Park.
I agree; the reference to the IBC needs to be made clear.
· The proposed amendment also contains my least favorite language, as noted
previously: “or when required by the Building Official”.
· I’ve only had to do one “evacuation plan” in my 34 years of practicing architecture and
that was for a fairly complicated remodel of an existing building into a community
college and it was my choice to do so.
If this requirement had been in place during the recent hospital additions and remodels,
hundreds of hours of time and thousands of dollars in construction costs could have been
saved. It is impossible to envision every condition when this requirement would be
applicable. When it is, the plan reviewer, the inspector, and the building official will know it;
because, they will be struggling with busy/cluttered plans. It is worth noting, designers are
overly familiar with their designs, as they assemble them one piece at a time. In contrast,
staff is required to disassemble the design, one system at a time, and to do so without being
familiar with the design. Having the designer separate the systems on different sheets
eliminates the need for staff to do so by mental process and notes, and reduces the review
time. Nonetheless, I withdraw this proposed amendment. I believe in a few years, it will be
common practice because it is being required in many larger jurisdictions. I recently
completed a courtesy review of the proposed MPEC; and, the plans included a separate life
safety plan. It was very beneficial when dealing with a design occupant load of
approximately 2,000.
-17-
Section 1301.2, page 12 - As an explanation of this amendment, I think it is important to note
that the date only affects the provisions of Chapter 13, Performance Compliance Methods,
and not the entire Existing Building Code. Unless I’m drastically mistaken, the IEBC will
apply to any building constructed prior to the adoption of the 2009 Codes.
As to the specific amendment, wouldn’t it make sense to use “May 1957" instead of
May 13? I seriously doubt whether any records exist indicating that a building was
completed on May 14 or May 12. Personally, I think they’re going to be lucky if
someone can figure out a building was built prior to May 1957.
I agree. Today, Debbie Parrack gave me three small boxes from a safe. Each box contains
a roll of film-like material. Each of the boxes also has a label. The label on one box reads
“permit #1 1948.” This proposed amendment will be revised to “1948.”
Part 2 - Significant Changes:
Chapter 9, page 13 & Chapter 10, page 17 - I have several concerns about these provisions
but no solutions. While a sprinkler system is a vital component of a life-safety system, it can
also be a detriment to renovation of existing buildings unless a definite cost-benefit can be
demonstrated. Retrofitting existing buildings with sprinkler systems is more expensive and
can result in some loss of the interior appearance due to exposed piping, etc. I like the
“controlled departure from full compliance” provisions because they do, as I understand
them, offer more flexibility which I think is the key.
I agree; additional dialogue and subsequent recommendations are absolutely necessary if
we want to properly address local concerns.
I agree with staff’s assessment that, for the Town of Estes Park, “substantial new
construction” (what ever “substantial” is) be required to be sprinkled, as required by the IBC,
and that some discretion be used for existing buildings. One option to examine would be the
use of some sort of incentives for building owners to sprinkle existing, buildings. I don’t know
what that might entail at present, but is an area I think should be investigated. Besides some
sort of monetary incentive, others might entail increased height limits (depending on the
area), use of more economical construction techniques, a trade-off between a full blown,
monitored, fire alarm system and a sprinkler system and other things like that.
In various codes, the term “substantial improvement” is determined when the total value of
the improvements equals or exceeds 50% of the total value of the property prior to the
improvements. For example a property valued at $1,000,000 before improvements, would
not undergo substantial improvements unless the value of the improvements was at least
$500,000.
2009 IRC:
General Comment: Again, except for administrative provisions, I don’t think blanket
statements that amendments to the IRC also apply to the IBC and IEBC, as noted in R101.2,
should be made. If a particular amendment in the IRC is also intended to apply to the IBC
then the applicable section of the IBC should be amended as well. Not doing so, in my
opinion only leads to confusion and potential misunderstandings.
-18-
Acknowledged and previously addressed.
Section R101.2, page 7 - I like the intent of the amendment but I don’t think it’s clear as to
what the application is. Reading just the amendment does not convey the purpose. For
example, if I’m designing a lodging facility with a main “motel” type use and also have several
detached cabin units, as I understand this, the cabin units could be designed to the
provisions of the IRC, even though their occupancy classification would be as part of the
“motel” use which would be under the provisions of the IBC. At least that is what I deduce
from the wording of the proposed amendment.
You properly applied the intent of this proposed amendment. I have previously reworded this
proposed amendment several times. The proposed amendment is intended to be applicable
to all residential uses that meet specific design criteria. I will revise the verbiage.
· Adding further confusion is the dialog indicating this amendment is intended to delete
the requirement for sprinkler systems in one and two family buildings. Why not amend
Exception 1 to just say that? I don’t get that from this proposed amendment at all,
especially considering the proposed amendment to Section R313.2 below.
I agree, the commentary is not worded appropriately and will be revised. The comment
regarding sprinkler requirements is incorrect and confusing.
Following is the correct context.
1. “2009 IBC [F] 903.2.8 Group R.
An automatic sprinkler system installed in accordance with Section 903.3 shall be provided
throughout all buildings with a Group R fire area.”
2. There are no proposed amendments to this IBC requirement.
3. There are, however, several proposed amendments to sprinkler requirements in the IRC.
4. Therefore, regulating certain buildings by the IRC instead of the IBC will eliminate sprinkler
requirements in certain circumstances, depending on what amendments are approved and
how the buildings are designed, not how they are used.
Regarding sprinkling of Townhouses, a later amendment proposes to modify unit
separation requirements (walls between units) to require two 1-hour rated walls
whether or not a property line exists between them. This increases fire separation
between the units. I think this higher separation requirement somewhat negates the
need for a sprinkler system within the unit.
Another way to address both issues is to leave the presently required 1-hour
separation wall and sprinkler system alone yet offer a trade-off. If the designer
wants to upgrade and provide the two 1-hour walls or a 2-hour fire wall between
units, then a sprinkler system would not required.
This is entirely philosophical, but I’m having a hard time differentiating between
why it’s OK to have a duplex separated by 1-hour construction and not required
to be sprinkled but it’s not OK to have three townhouses separated by 1-hour
walls but is required to be sprinkled. Is the Code saying that it’s OK to have
two units burn down but not three? Is this a situation where deleting the
sprinkler requirement for duplexes but not addressing the fire separation
between units decreasing life safety requirements for them?
-19-
Regarding the separation of Townhouses, the proposed amendments are intended for units
exempted from sprinkler requirements. With sprinklers, only a one hour dwelling separation
is required.
· Finally, the last sentence dealing with accessibility requirements could be interpreted
to mean that single family houses would be required to be accessible, which is not the
case. Isn’t the intent is to mean that, for example, cabins designed as part of a motel
should comply with the accessibility requirements in the IBC? If so, why not just say
something like: “Any residential unit designed under the provisions of this Code but
part of a Group R Occupancy, as defined in the IBC, shall comply with the accessibility
requirements of the IBC.”
Regarding accessibility, the IBC defines R-3 occupancies and regulates them in mixed-use
buildings. For residential occupancies, accessibility requirements are based on use and
quantity. The proposed amendment may need to be re-worded for better clarity; however,
the accessibility statement needs to remain associated with the use. For example, the
Solitude Subdivision looks like detached single family homes. In fact, the dwellings are
individual short term rental units. They are a hotel, R-1 occupancies, consisting of individual
detached units and are regulated by CRS 9-5 and by the IBC. How could we ever explain
this to persons unfamiliar with the codes?
Section R105.2, page 19 - Fence height measured from original grade? See discussion on
IBC Section 102.2 above.
This issue was previously addressed.
Section R105.3, page 21 - I believe “the chief building official” should be replaced with “the
Town of Estes Park”.
This issue was previously addressed.
Significant Issue:
Section R106.1, page 27 - The wording of the proposed amendment outlining submittal
requirements needs to be revised to reflect what is actually needed for buildings under the
IRC. For example, the IRC does not cover the uses listed under paragraph 6 or multi-family
buildings.
· Also, this proposed requires all plans be prepared by a licensed engineer or architect,
except for those uses exempted under State Law. While I appreciate the intent, very
few of the structures designed under the IRC would require a licensed architect or
engineer. I think it is confusing to list uses not covered under the IRC (that is more
applicable under the IBC) than it is to say exactly what the requirements are under the
IRC. Again, let’s make amendments specific to the intent of the individual codes, not
ones that apply to everything.
-20-
I agree. This was originally created as an administrative policy, at the request of
stakeholders, who were confused as to when stamped submittals are required. It was
converted to a proposed amendment per your direction at a CDC meeting. Perhaps it is only
required in the IBC. If necessary, other codes can reference the IBC requirement. Large
amendments will be costly to publish. So, in this discussion and in the published
amendments, cross references will be used whenever possible. In the final document of
approved amendments, applicable provisions will be specified.
Section R106.1, page 30 - I’m opposed to this amendment as written. I’m not sure this
amendment is necessary and could even be misleading.
· Given the wording of CRS 12-25-303 (exemptions from requirements as to when an
architect or engineer is required) I have to question your statement that decks on a
multi unit residential use building are exempt. The above law exempts “nonstructural
alterations of any nature . . . if such alterations do not affect the life safety of the
occupants of the building”. Considering a poorly designed, second story deck could
impact, so to speak, the life safety of the occupants, I don’t think it would be exempt.
· Also, State Law doesn’t say anything about the use of prescriptive requirements
influencing whether or not an architect/engineer is required. As written, this
amendment has the potential of misleading someone and making them believe an
architect isn’t required when one actually is under the provisions of the State law.
· Finally, if an amendment is applicable to all codes, then I don’t think it belongs in the
IRC and made applicable to the other codes. It either needs to be in a “General”
section or in each code amendment as applicable.
I place value on being told I am being too flexible, as I far more often hear the opposite.
During this process, I heard it once from the EVCA; and, now I hear it from you, an Architect
and a Trustee. I do not understand your final comment on this section. I am withdrawing this
proposed amendment from all the codes.
Section R106.1, page 30 - As stated above, I prefer separate fee schedules rather than have
them be part of the Codes.
Acknowledged.
Section R108.6, page 40 - I support this amendment. However, I’m curious as to how it
complies with what Larimer County has done. This is another instance where I think there
needs to be some consistency.
County requirements do not provide for triple investigation fees for contractors. Again, the
County covers a much larger area and logistically cannot provide the same level of service
as the Town. I routinely have local contractors in my office complaining of valley contractors
undercutting their prices because they are flying under the radar and not obtaining required
licenses and permits. As an ex-contractor, I understand their concerns and they are
legitimate and this proposed amendment is my response to their concerns.
-21-
Section R112, page 52 - See discussion on Board of Appeals above.
Acknowledged.
Table R301.2, page 58 - The “**”section regarding ice barriers doesn’t appear to be
consistent with the proposed amendment to R903 (page 98). Instead of (<4/12) it shouldn’t it
be (≤4/12) (less than or equal to). The proposed amendment for R903 says “up to” which
implies, to me, that ice barriers are required for roofs with slopes of 4:12 as well. If that’s not
correct, then I suggest the wording on the R903 amendment be clarified.
The intent is for slopes less than 4/12 to be protected with ice barriers, up to but not including
4/12. This was a specific request from stakeholders during the previous codes adoption
process. Because 4/12 is a standard pitch, roofers asked for it to be excluded. It seemed a
reasonable recommendation and I am not aware of any concerns. The language will be
revised for more clarity.
Section R301.2.1.1, page 61 - Are the provisions of AF&PA, WFCM and ICC 600 the
prescriptive design methods John Spooner referred to at the CDC meeting? If so, I’d
suggest this amendment be clarified by changing it to read: “. . . the prescriptive design
provisions of AF&PA . . .”.
Yes, they are the prescriptive requirements to which Dr. Spooner referred. They are included
in the original code text; see page 62. Because the wind provisions will have a significant
impact on the local construction industry, a lot of effort and time was given to proposed
amendments associated with wind requirements, including this proposed amendment. This
proposed amendment was last revised to incorporate the recommendations of Dr. Spooner
and he supports the amendment as proposed. I am unclear what else needs to be said to
address your concern. Half of the language in this proposed amendment is straight from the
code and the other half is straight from Dr. Spooner. I recommend Dr. Spooner receive
some official recognition from the Town for all of the extraordinarily qualified and professional
assistance he provided throughout this two year process.
Significant Issue:
Section R302.2, page 65 - As noted above, I think this issue and that of sprinkling
townhouses is closely related. I’d like to look at a solution to both issues by suggesting that
the presently required 1-hour separation wall and sprinkler system be left as is but offer a
design trade-off. If the designer wants to provide the two 1-hour walls or a 2-hour fire wall
between units, then a sprinkler system need not be required.
I believe very specific amendments are required if the Trustees do not agree with original
code requirements. Multiple accessibility regulations are triggered with the fourth
Townhouse in a building and State Statutes require design by a registered engineer or
licensed architect with the fourth townhouse in a building. Since other regulations and other
regulatory agencies have determined a fourth unit warrants increased requirements, I
recommend following that model.
-22-
If the Trustees believe requiring all townhouses to be sprinkled is not the best requirement for
the town, then I recommend buildings with three or less townhouses be exempt from
sprinkler requirements and buildings with four or more townhouses be required to be
protected with sprinkler systems. I also recommend buildings that contain townhomes which
are exempt from sprinkler requirements be required to provide two hour unit separation walls.
However, I believe additional dialogue with additional stakeholders is necessary before
making final recommendations. I think sprinkler requirements should be a package proposal,
with less restrictive requirements in some areas and more restrictive requirements in other
areas. This is why I specifically requested direction from the Town Board as to how they
want staff to proceed with this issue.
Section R302.2.4, page 66 - If you concur with the above suggestion for R302.2, then this
amendment would have to be revised accordingly. It should be noted that the requirement of
a 2-hour fire wall is that it have its own structural integrity. Of course, the proposed two, 1-
hour walls would theoretically have it as well.
Dwelling unit separations are not required to be “fire walls,” which are the most restrictive of
all fire-resistance-rated walls. I do agree structural independence is required, which is a
primary reason for recommending two one-hour walls if a two hour dwelling separation is
required.
· One question: As I read this, then doesn’t the roof sheathing have to be split between
units so if there was a structural collapse on one unit, the roof sheathing wouldn’t
damage or pull down adjacent units? If correct, then shouldn’t another exception be
the roof coverings? Flashing at termination of roof covering implies that the common
wall(s) either extend through the roof or that the units are offset. To offer the greatest
flexibility, I think roof covering over the required split in the roof should also be exempt.
· This also depends on the type of roof covering. With asphalt or individually
applied shingles, there shouldn’t be a problem. However, I could see a
potential problem with metal roofing, depending on the type.
Two walls would also address your concern regarding the fastening of sheathing, roof
coverings, etc. Allowing the flashing was in anticipation of stepped roofing which is a
common practice now.
Section R302.6, page 67 - I support this amendment!
Acknowledged.
Significant Issue:
Section R313.2, page 73 - Given the intent, isn’t the wording reversed? Wouldn’t it be better
to first state that the requirement for sprinkler systems in one and two family dwellings is
deleted and then to state that if one is provided, it shall comply with NFPA 13D? At first
glance, I thought this was just clarifying what kind of sprinkler system was to be used, which
seemed inconsistent with the understanding that a sprinkler system wouldn’t be required for
these uses.
-23-
I Agree. The statements will be reversed.
Section R324, page 81 -- I’m opposed to this amendment as written. I would find it
acceptable if a period were placed after “shall be those adopted by Larimer County[.]” and
the rest of the amendment deleted. I think addressing a wildfire hazard mitigation plan by the
EVFD presumes that something will happen which is out of the Town’s control. In addition, I
assume that once a wildfire plan is adopted by the EVFD it will also have to be adopted by
the Town as is my understanding with any Fire Code. If and when that occurs, the applicable
code sections can be amended.
I agree. I expected this reaction at the first mention of a fire code. I have successfully
communicated that the EVFPD is considering the adoption of a fire code and is also likely to
propose a wildfire hazard plan. Stakeholders should participate in these processes. This
proposed amendment will be revised as recommended.
· I have a legal question - for this to be effective (If it hasn’t done so already),should the
Town also adopt the Larimer County wildfire management plan?
Do you mean the Larimer County Wildfire Mitigation Plan? If so, I believe that is a State
Forest Service Program. If not, I do not know. Regardless, I defer to Attorney White for legal
questions.
Section R401.3, page 82 – I think the word “sanitary” should be inserted before sewer
system to make it very clear what is required. This also duplicates the amendment to P3301.
The word sanitary was intentionally omitted, as Public Works has legitimate concerns
regarding access to and discharge into the storm sewer in the downtown area.
Section R324, page 81 – Please see the discussion regarding Table R301.2 above.
I do not understand this reference; please verify and clarify.
Section R903.6, page 98 - See discussion on Table R301.2 above. Also, is this consistent
with what Larimer County is requiring?
Larimer County requires ice barriers in the mountains. It is required for at least 24 inches
inside exterior wall lines.
Section M302.2, page 107 – I’m opposed to this amendment as written. A requirement
for balancing mechanical systems in residential units? Commercial and multifamily units with
central systems I can understand and agree with, but not for IRC regulated designed units.
This increases cost and adds another bureaucratic layer to theoretically simple residential
construction.
-24-
I am in engaged in ongoing dialogue with several local mechanical contractors as well as
National experts on the energy requirements in the IRC. We are trying to determine what
approach is going to be the most reasonable to verify compliance of forced air mechanical
systems. The IECC requires either a smoke leak test at the rough or a blower door test at
the final. The National expert thinks these are reasonable for track homes but not effective
for custom homes. Balancing is being contemplated as the best test. Now we are trying to
determine the actual implications and practicality of staff performing cfm tests at the final
inspection. If it is practical, then the next question is what percentage of compliance should
be considered reasonable? This proposed amendment is copied from the IMC and keeps
this option open.
If the consensus is that there needs to be appropriate language in the IRC to cover
this, then I suggest the language in IMC Section 403 (page 15), without the first
sentence, is more appropriate for the IRC
The requirement of the first sentence is typically achieved with appropriate diffusers.
· There’s no need for it to be in the IEBC unless the system is new and then it’s
covered under the IMC. Since it’s also proposed to be an amendment to IMC Section
403, there’s no need to include it as an amendment to the IBC either.
Only specific provisions of the IMC referenced in the IEBC are applicable to the IEBC. And
then, local amendments are not part of the referenced section, unless specifically adopted.
Section M401.3, page 107 – I’d suggest that the “8th Edition” be changed to the “latest
Edition”.
This proposed amendment is copied from the county. The 8th Edition of ACCA Manual J is a
referenced standard in the IRC.
Section M1601.1, page 110 – I don’t think the last sentence of this amendment, beginning
with “Ducts installed within all other buildings . . .” is necessary in the IRC and probably more
properly belongs in the IMC.
There are accessory buildings regulated by the IRC. This provision will allow flexibility in
such cases. This requirement is a carry-over from a previous Larimer County amendment.
Section M1302.1, page 104 – This is the same as the proposed amendment to G2404.3.1
(page 120). Is it necessary to have it both places?
Yes, the IMC does not regulate appliances that use fuel gas as their energy source; but, such
appliances are regulated by the IFGC. In the IRC, subsections beginning with M are from the
IMC; and, subsections beginning with a G are from the IFGC. M1302.1 applies to non-fuel
gas appliances; and, G2404.3.1 applies to fuel gas appliances.
-25-
Section M1901.2, page 117 – I’m opposed to this amendment as written. How does a
someone know what “shall not create a negative pressure in excess of negative 3 Pa . . .”
means? If, as the explanation states, “this is an example of one code (IECC) directly
impacting the concerns of another code (IMC)” then what is it doing in the Residential Code?
Again, put the applicable amendments in the applicable Codes.
This current and proposed amendment is copied from the County. The listing and label on
the equipment (exhaust fan) will provide the required information. Tests have shown that
different categories of vented fuel burning appliances have different tolerances to room
depressurization. Appliances vented by natural draft (typical water heaters) have a low
tolerance to room depressurization and direct vent gas appliances have a higher tolerance.
This difference in performance is reflected in building codes limiting the installation of natural
draft equipment. Similar limitations do not apply to direct vent equipment. Natural draft gas
appliances will typically spill products of combustion (Carbon Monoxide, etc.) when subjected
to depressurization of -5 Pa.
The requirements from the IECC to make buildings tighter and the need to vent products of
combustion to the outside are carried over to the IRC by referenced requirements. It is
necessary that structures containing fuel gas appliance not be subjected to excessive
depressurization. The potential consequences could be very serious.
· How is this going to be inspected? Does the Town have a “Pa” meter? Is there going
to be a special inspector required to certify that the exhaust fan over someone’s range
in their house doesn’t have a negative 3 Pa?
· It also appears that the use of the term “Pa” is metric. Given the duplicity of units in
the codes, shouldn’t there be an equivalent for this as well? (See IPC 312.5 for
example.)
I will research this.
Section M1905.1, page 118 – This is the same as the proposed amendment to G2433.1
(page 135). Is it necessary to have it both places?
Yes, these devices are typically installed in solid fuel burning appliances, which are regulated
by the IMC. The devices utilize fuel gas, so they are regulated by the IFGC. The purpose of
being in the IMC is exactly one of your previous comments, so the wood stove vendor and/or
installer would know they are prohibited. They are installed in residential and commercial
applications, so the proposed amendment needs to applicable to the IEBC and the IRC as
well. If the amendment is not made applicable to the IEBC and the IRC, it would only apply
in buildings regulated by the IBC. Only provisions specifically referenced are applicable to
the IEBC and the IRC.
Section G2404.3.1, page 120 – This is the same as the proposed amendment to M1302.1
(page 104). Is it necessary to have it both places?
Yes.
-26-
Section G2433.1, page 135 – This is the same as the proposed amendment to M1905.1
(page 118). Is it necessary to have it both places?
Yes.
Section P2503.4, page 142 – This refers to Section 708.3.5 of the Plumbing Code, but
doesn’t say so. I’ve always understood that the IRC is supposed to stand alone which is why
it has its own sections on mechanical, plumbing fuel gas, etc. Personally, I think
amendments to it should do the same. Why not add the language of IPC 708.3.5 as an
amendment to the IRC as well?
I do not understand your point.
Section P2902.2.1, page 149 – Shouldn’t this read “. . . approved by the Town of Estes Park
Water . . .”?
The intent is the same, either way.
Section P3301, page 165 – This duplicates the amendment to Section R401.3 (page 82). Is
it needed both places? Also, in lieu of “public sewer systems”, shouldn’t it read “sanitary
sewer systems”? Drains could connect to a storm drainage system if available.
Yes, subsection R401.3 addresses site drainage; and subsection P3301 addresses roof
drainage. Public Works has specific concerns regarding storm drains in the downtown area.
The word sanitary is specifically omitted.
Table J-1 & J-2, page 178 & 179 – Again, I think fees should be in a separate schedule and
not contained in the Codes.
Acknowledged.
Wildfire Regulations, page 192 - These are in the reference section, yet, I think, are proposed
to be adopted under a previous amendment in either the IBC or IRC (and should be both). If
that’s the case then let’s make them an appropriate amendment so the public is aware of
them and not adopt by reference. Also, I would hope that a better map could be incorporated
showing the area around Estes Park so a microscope isn’t needed to interpret the map for
our location.
Adoption by reference accomplishes the same purpose and costs a great deal less for
publishing. The entire text is provided so stakeholders could know the content. If the
Trustees approve the proposed amendments (IBC and IRC), staff proposes to use the
current maps in the EVDC. All referenced material, other than proprietary materials, have
been and will continue to be available for review on-line and in paper copies in the
Community Development offices.
-27-
2009 IFGC:
Again, these amendments are also proposed to be amendments to the IEBC and IRC and I
see no reason to do so, as discussed above.
I respectfully disagree, for the reasons previously specified.
Significant Issue:
Section 101.2.4, page 13 - I fully understand some of the stakeholder’s concerns with space
heaters. I’ve been on a large, residential, 3 story construction site, in the cold of winter,
where there were numerous horizontal LPG heaters on the first floor heating the area. The
stairway doors and upper floor windows were propped open to let the fumes escape. It was
not a pleasant place to be in. On the other hand, I have three concerns:
· First is the question of whether or not a Code amendment is really necessary. A
general contractor has control over the site. He is the one under contract with the
owner and every other trade generally contracts with him. Given that, it seems to me
that a contractor could tell his subcontractors that he doesn’t want LPG heaters used
on the project. That solves the problem without the government telling contractors
how to do their jobs. There’s enough of that already.
No amendment is proposed. Page 13 is informational only. Some stakeholders expressed
their concerns and asked if there was any help in the codes; and, I responded. The
response is: portable LPG appliances not connected to fixed fuel lines are outside the scope
of authority of the IFGC.
· Second, I don’t have enough information to make a judgement otherwise. What are
the alternatives for temporary heat? What are the cost implications? Other
amendments tell the contractor they can’t use the permanent heating system unless
they restore it once construction is complete. This discussion potentially tells them
they can’t use the most common heating system either. Unless there’s a viable,
economic alternative, I’m not inclined to say otherwise.
Some contractors use temporary construction furnaces (gas). Others use electrical
furnaces/heaters. I have no information regarding comparative operating costs.
· Third, has Larimer County done anything to address this issue?
I think they tried several years ago and determined it was logistically not enforceable,
especially if they are not providing in-progress drywall inspections.
-28-
2009 IMC:
These amendments are also proposed to be amendments to the IEBC and IRC and I see no
reason to do so, as discussed above.
Acknowledged.
Section 403.7, page 15 - If the intent is to have buildings, other than those covered under the
IRC, have their mechanical systems balanced upon completion, the language for the
proposed amendment in IRC Section M302.2 (page 107) is, I think, better for this Section of
the IMC.
Actually the complete text of the IMC and the IRC are identical. The blue highlighting of the
IRC indicates its applicability from a secondary code amendment.
2009 IPC:
These amendments are also proposed to be amendments to the IEBC and IRC and I see no
reason to do so, as discussed above.
This issue was previously addressed.
Section 312.5, page 18 - If the water department requires pressure reducing valves on
domestic water service lines, is a higher test pressure really needed? What does Larimer
County do for the unincorporated portion of the valley that’s served by EP Water? Does this
cost more?
The last time I checked, the County is not inspecting water distribution systems, only the
drain, waste and vent systems. The higher test pressure is reasonable; because, it is
common practice to connect to the service line and use construction water prior to installation
of the prv/meter assembly. There is no additional cost.
Section 1003, page 41 - I want to make sure that the amended provisions for grease
interceptors don’t conflict with the requirements of the local Sanitation Districts. Since it’s
their systems the grease trap is connecting to, it’s been my experience it’s there
specifications you use to put one in.
The remaining concerns are based on requirements provided during the previous codes
adoption process. Also, both sanitation districts have reviewed and commented on the
proposed amendments to the IPC. None of their comments addressed any of your concerns.
Based on your concerns, I am engaging in additional discussions with both sanitation districts
and the County Health Department, to verify the provisions are still accurate.
Section 1003.1, page 44 - I’m opposed to this amendment as written. With the exception
of the sentence indicating that the sanitation district shall determine which fixtures drain into
a grease trap, is this amendment really necessary? Isn’t this just restating the obvious as
defined by the current language of 1003.3.1?
-29-
· Since this primarily addresses commercial kitchens, the health department is going to
have a say in this matter as well. Do any of the proposed amendments conflict with
health department requirements? I think they potentially do.
Section 1003.3.1.1, page 44 - Health department regulations generally require commercial
kitchen sinks to drain into floor sinks to provide the required drain air gap. This could be
taken to imply that a commercial sink can be drained directly into a grease interceptor, which
is not the case.
Section 1003.3.1.2, page 44 - It’s been my experience that generally floor drains and mop
sinks are not required to go through an interceptor where floor sinks are. Why is it necessary
to include floor drains and mop sinks in this?
Section 1003.3.1.3, page 44 - Doesn’t requiring dishwashers to be a low temperature,
chemical type conflict with health department requirements? It’s been my experience that
the health department generally requires commercial dishwashers to use hotter temperatures
and even booster heaters to properly sanitize the items being washed.
Section 1107.2, page 47 - I suggest that the term “public sewer” be changed to “sanitary
sewer”.
This issue was previously addressed.
Significant Change:
Section 403.3, page 49 - Personally, I think where public toilet rooms are available, like in the
Downtown area, there should be an amendment to the Code recognizing the “official
interpretation”. The problem I have is not with the interpretation but with the fact that the
interpretation could change should staff change. I think there’s a place for formal exceptions
to the requirements in the downtown area (CD Zone) because of all the public toilets
available. Also, if the exception for the 500-foot limitation needs to be expanded, now’s the
time to do so.
I will draft the current policy into a proposed amendment.
· Given that IBC Chapter 29 also deals with plumbing fixtures, does there need to be a
similar amendment to [P] 2902.3 as well?
I am comfortable setting policy and drafting proposed amendments when there is an existing
precedent. I am not aware of a precedent that would support expanding the 500 foot limit.
-30-
2009 IECC:
Section 101.2, page 6 - Excellent! I fully support this amendment. Trying to apply “new”
energy code requirements to existing buildings is almost impossible, especially if the only
thing the jurisdiction will accept is Com Check (a Dept. of Energy free program to do an
energy analysis on new construction). It is literally impossible to get some older existing
buildings to pass the new requirements.
Acknowledged.
· Another area of concern for existing buildings and the Energy Code is additions.
Personally, I think there needs to be an exemption for additions to existing buildings
under a certain size (1,000 sq. ft. or some percentage of floor area??). It makes no
sense to me to have a small addition to a building using the same materials as the
original construction to have to comply with newer Energy Codes.
· As an example, I’ve been screwing with another jurisdiction over “proving” an 800 sq.
ft. addition to a 9,000 sq. ft. building meets the letter of the law with the 2006
energy code for two months. The jurisdiction uses ComCheck. I couldn’t get
the addition to pass even if I took out all lights, doors and windows. I’ve just
talked them into accepting a letter indicating that the addition will comply with
the codes prescriptive provisions. The existing concrete block building was
built in the mid-90's. Making sure the additional 8% of new floor area meets the
new code is certainly going to save a lot of energy. Where’s the common
sense?
I know a prescriptive package for additions would sure simplify things. I have done this for
the IRC, by administrative policy. As soon as we receive local energy training, I will review
and address this concern with a specific prescriptive package for the IEBC and for the IRC.
In the short term, the proposed amendments to the IECC, which are copied from the County,
will provide some relief.
Lastly, I’ve been involved with the review of “new” building codes, and amendments thereto,
for several years. I’ve said this before and I’m saying it again: You and your staff are to be
commended for the through, understandable and professional presentation of both the intent
of the 2009 Codes and the proposed amendments. Even though I may disagree with or
object to some of the proposed amendments, this is by far, the best presentation of them I
have seen in my career.
Thank you. It has been very challenging trying to address all the concerns, keep the process
transparent and still keep up with the volume of information being exchanged. There was
good stakeholder participation this time; and no topic was off limits. We certainly covered a
lot of ground. Thank you for taking time to process the information and provide some
constructive feedback. I know, I have not resolved all of your concerns to your satisfaction
and look forward to additional dialogue and some specific direction from the Trustees
regarding a few significant issues. Please let me know if I can be of additional assistance.
End of Comments
2009 I-Codes: International Codes
http://www estesnet com/comdev/2009ProposedAmendments aspx
Town Board January 25, 2011
http://www.estesnet.com/comdev/2009ProposedAmendments.aspx
AC90
2009 I-Codes: Process
Process
•2003 I-Codes adopted in 2005
•Did not adopt Fire Code
•Two Years
•Multiple Meetings
•Research
Networking•Networking
•One-on-one conversations
Ak ld tAcknowledgements
•Stakeholders
Town Board January 25, 2011
•Staff
AC64
2009 I-Codes: Reasons
•Public Safety
•Current Information
•Current Technologygy
•Consistency with other Consistency with other
Authorities Having Jurisdiction
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC91
2009 I-Codes: Purposes
T•Transparency
•Responsive
•Information
•Communication
•Administration
Town Board January 25, 2011
•Administration
AC92
2009 I-Codes: Volume Management
Management by Individual Codes
3 Primary Codes
I t ti l B ildi C d (IBC)
Management by Individual Codes
•International Building Code (IBC)
• International Existing Building Code (IEBC)
• International Residential Code (IRC)
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC97
2009 I-Codes: Volume Management
6 S d C d6 Secondary Codes
•International Fuel Gas Code (IFGC)
• International Mechanical Code (IMC)
• International Plumbing Code (IPC)
• International Energy Conservation Code
(IECC)
• International Fire Code (IFC)
• National Electrical Code (NEC)
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC98
2009 I-Codes: Volume Management
2 S d C d d i i t d b th 2 Secondary Codes administered by other
Authorities Having Jurisdiction (AHJ)
I i l Fi C d (IFC)•International Fire Code (IFC)
•Estes Valley Fire Protection District
N ti l El t i l C d (NEC)•National Electrical Code (NEC)
•State Electrical Board
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC99
2009 I-Codes: International Building Code
101.2 Scope.
The provisions of this code shall apply to the
construction, alteration, movement, enlargement,
replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy,
location, maintenance, removal and demolition of
every building or structure or any appurtenances
td tt h d t h b ildi ttconnectedorattachedtosuchbuildings or structures.
Exception:Detached one- and two-family dwellings
and multiple single family dwellings (townhouses)notandmultiplesingle-family dwellings (townhouses)not
more than three stories above grade plane in height
with a separate means of egress and their accessory
structures shall comply with the InternationalstructuresshallcomplywiththeInternational
Residential Code.
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC59
2009 I-Codes: International Existing Building Code
101.2 Scope.
The provisions of the International Existing Building
Code shall apply to the repair, alteration, change of
occupancy, addition and relocation of existing
buildings.
101 3 I t t101.3 Intent.
The intent of this code is to provide flexibility to permit
the use of alternative approaches to achieve
compliance with minimum requirements to safeguardcompliancewithminimumrequirementstosafeguard
the public health, safety and welfare insofar as they
are affected by the repair, alteration, change of
occupancy addition and relocation of existingoccupancy,addition and relocation of existing
buildings.
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC60
2009 I-Codes: International Residential Code
101.2 Scope.p
The provisions of the International Residential Code for
One- and Two-family Dwellings shall apply to the
construction, alteration , movement, enlargement,
lti it dreplacement, repair, equipment,useand occupancy,
location, removal and demolition of detached one- and
two-family dwellings and townhouses not more than
three stories above grade plane in height with a separatethreestoriesabovegradeplaneinheightwithaseparate
means of egress and their accessory structures.
Exception:Live/work units complying with the
requirements of Section 419 of the International Building
Code shall be permitted to be built as one- and two-
family dwellings or townhouses. Fire suppression
required by Section 419 5 of the International BuildingrequiredbySection419.5 of the International Building
Code when constructed under the International
Residential Code for One- and Two-family Dwellings
shall conform to Section 903.3.1.3 of the International
Town Board January 25, 2011
shall conform to Section 903.3.1.3 of the International
Building Code.
AC61
2009 I-Codes: International Fuel Gas Code
101 2 S101.2 Scope.
This code shall apply to the installation of fuel-gas
piping systems, fuel gas appliances, gaseous
hd t d ltd i ihydrogen systems and related accessories in
accordance with Sections 101.2.1 through 101.2.5.
Exception:Detached one and two family dwellingsException:Detached one-and two-family dwellings
and multiple single-family dwellings (townhouses) not
more than three stories high with separate means of
egress and their accessory structures shall complyegressandtheiraccessorystructuresshallcomply
with the International Residential Code.
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC62
2009 I-Codes: International Mechanical Code
101 2 S101.2 Scope.
This code shall regulate the design, installation,
maintenance, alteration and inspection of mechanical
t th t tl itlld d tili d tsystemsthatare permanently installed and utilized to
provide control of environmental conditions and
related processes within buildings. This code shall
also regulate those mechanical systems systemalsoregulatethosemechanicalsystems,system
components, equipment and appliances specifically
addressed herein. The installation of fuel gas
distribution piping and equipment,fuel gas-fireddistributionpipingandequipment,fuel gas fired
appliances and fuel gas-fired appliance venting
systems shall be regulated by the International Fuel
Gas Code.
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC55
2009 I-Codes: International Plumbing Code
101 2 Scope101.2 Scope.
The provisions of this code shall apply to the erection,
installation, alteration, repairs, relocation,
replacement addition to use or maintenance ofreplacement,addition to,use or maintenance of
plumbing systems within this jurisdiction. This code
shall also regulate nonflammable medical gas,
inhalation anesthetic,vacuum piping,non-medicalinhalationanesthetic,vacuum piping,non medical
oxygen systems and sanitary and condensate vacuum
collection systems. The installation of fuel gas
distribution piping and equipment, fuel-gas-fired water
heaters and water heater venting systems shall be
regulated by the International Fuel Gas Code.
Provisions in the appendices shall not apply unless
fspecifically adopted.
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC54
2009 I-Codes: International Energy Conservation Code
101.2 Scope.
This code applies to residential and commercial
buildings.
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC53
2009 I-Codes: International Fire Code
101.2 Scope.
This code establishes regulations affecting or relating
to structures, processes, premises and safeguards
regarding fire…
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC57
2009 I-Codes: National Electrical Code
90 2 S90.2 Scope.
(A) Covered. This Code covers the installation of
electrical conductors, equipment, and raceways;
ili d iti dt itsignaling and communications conductors, equipment,
and raceways; and optical fiber cables and
raceways…
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC63
2009 I-Codes: Volume Management
Management by PartsManagement by Parts
•Proposed Amendments
Blue underscored text in a bold box is a proposed amendment. Proposed
dt it ti ll bi f iblamendmentsareintentionallyasbriefas possible.
Proposed amendments highlighted in light gray are amendments which
are intended to also be applicable toothercodes.Theseamendments
specify their applicability to other codes, as does the commentary.
Proposed amendments to other codes which are also proposed to beProposedamendmentstoothercodes,which are also proposed to be
applicable to this code, are identified by light blue highlighting. These
proposed amendments are included in this code, at the request of
stakeholders, to clearly indicate the significance of a proposed
amendment to one code also being applicable to another code.
After a proposed amendment original text of the applicable 2009Afteraproposedamendment,original text of the applicable 2009
International Code is provided. Original text is limited to that necessary to
provide context for the proposed amendment.Red strike through text is
original text proposed to be deleted.Blue underscored text is new text
proposed to be added.
Yll hi hli ht d t id l ifi ti bk dYellowhighlightedcommentary provides clarification,background
information, the reason for, and the intent of the proposed amendment.
Staff has tried to provide enough information to accurately communicate
concerns of stakeholders regarding the issues, as staff understands them.
Proposed amendments and code changes which are significant issues are
Town Board January 25, 2011
identified by the large green highlighted caption “START SIGNIFICANT
ISSUE.” While most significant issues do result with increased costs,
some significant issues provide increased flexibility.
“START SIGNIFICANT
ISSUE.”
AC110
2009 I-Codes: Volume Management
Management by PartsManagement by Parts
Si ifi t Ch•Significant Changes
Mi Ch•Minor Changes
Rf Mt il•Reference Materials
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC103
2009 I-Codes: Volume Management
Management by PartsManagement by Parts
•Significant Issues
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC104
2009 I-Codes: Significant Issues
Fees (Building Permit)(g)
• Separate process or Code Amendment?
Automatic Sprinkler Systems
D d t l l d t t t i •Do we adopt local amendments to customize
sprinkler requirements to address local concerns
and conditions?
•Staff recommends additional collaboration with
additional stakeholders
Community Rating System (CRS)Community Rating System (CRS)
• Flood plain management program
•Staff recommends participation in program
Board of Appeals
• Staff recommends IBC Board of Appeals to hear all
l f B ildi Offi i l d i i di
Town Board January 25, 2011
appeals of Building Official decisions regarding
floodplains
AC108
2009 I-Codes: Fees
Town Board January 25, 2011
IBC Page 43
AC72
2009 I-Codes: Fees
Option #1Option#1
•Fee Schedules separate from the Codes
Option #2
Fee Schedules included in the Codes by•Fee Schedules included in the Codes, by
amendments
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC84
2009 I-Codes: Automatic Sprinkler Systems
Town Board January 25, 2011
IEBC Page 17
AC71
2009 I-Codes: Automatic Sprinkler Systems
Sprinkler concerns identified:Sp
•IBC
•IEBCIEBC
•IRC
Staff recommendation:
•Additional research and collaboration with•Additional research and collaboration with
additional stakeholders
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC106
2009 I-Codes: Community Rating System (CRS)
Town Board January 25, 2011
IRC Page 77
AC70
2009 I-Codes: Community Rating System (CRS)
Floodplain management program:pgpg
•Voluntary
•Higher Standard than National Flood Higher Standard than National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP)
•Potential financial benefit to property ownersPotential financial benefit to property owners
Staff recommendation:Staff recommendation:
• FEMA Review
•Participation in CRS Program•Participation in CRS Program
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC107
2009 I-Codes: Board of Appeals
Town Board January 25, 2011
IRC Page 180
AC69
2009 I-Codes: Board of Appeals
ConsistencyConsistency
• One Board of Appeals
•Estes Park Municipal Code FloodplainEstesParkMunicipalCode,Floodplain
Regulations
• International Codes
• One appeals process
Staff recommendation:
• Amend the Municipal Floodplain Regulationsppg
to specify the Board of Appeals in the
building code
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC86
2009 I-Codes: Volume Management
Management by PartsManagement by Parts
•Proposed Amendments
Blue underscored text in a bold box is a proposed amendment. Proposed
dt it ti ll bi f iblamendmentsareintentionallyasbriefas possible.
Proposed amendments highlighted in light gray are amendments which
are intended to also be applicable toothercodes.Theseamendments
specify their applicability to other codes, as does the commentary.
Proposed amendments to other codes which are also proposed to beProposedamendmentstoothercodes,which are also proposed to be
applicable to this code, are identified by light blue highlighting. These
proposed amendments are included in this code, at the request of
stakeholders, to clearly indicate the significance of a proposed
amendment to one code also being applicable to another code.
After a proposed amendment original text of the applicable 2009Afteraproposedamendment,original text of the applicable 2009
International Code is provided. Original text is limited to that necessary to
provide context for the proposed amendment.Red strike through text is
original text proposed to be deleted.Blue underscored text is new text
proposed to be added.
Yll hi hli ht d t id l ifi ti bk dYellowhighlightedcommentary provides clarification,background
information, the reason for, and the intent of the proposed amendment.
Staff has tried to provide enough information to accurately communicate
concerns of stakeholders regarding the issues, as staff understands them.
Proposed amendments and code changes which are significant issues are
Town Board January 25, 2011
identified by the large green highlighted caption “START SIGNIFICANT
ISSUE.” While most significant issues do result with increased costs,
some significant issues provide increased flexibility.
“START SIGNIFICANT
ISSUE.”
AC102
2009 I-Codes: Volume Management
Management by PartsManagement by Parts
•Proposed Amendments
Blue underscored text in a bold box is a
d dtPd dtproposedamendment.Proposed amendments
are intentionally as brief as possible.
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC109
2009 I-Codes: Volume Management
Management by PartsManagement by Parts
•Proposed Amendments
Proposed amendments are intentionally as brief
iblas possible.
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC111
2009 I-Codes: Staff Recommendations
Bddi ti f iifi t•Board direction on four significant
issues.
•Public Hearingg
•Staff recommendation is to continue•Staff recommendation is to continue
the public hearing to allow staff time to
finalize exact language of proposedfinalizeexactlanguageofproposed
amendments.
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC100
2009 I-Codes: Conclusion
I know you believe
you understandyou understand
what you think I
said, but I am not
sure you realize thatsure you realize that
what you heard is
not what I meant.
Town Board January 25, 2011
AC101
Utility Rate Hearing: Water Utility Rates and
System Development Charges ypg
Presented by Cil Pierce, HDR Engineering, Inc.
January 25, 2011
Overview of the Presentation
Overview of a comprehensive rate studyOverview of a comprehensive rate study
Review the results of the Water Rate
Study:
9 Revenue requirement
9 Cost of service
9 Rate Options and Recommendations9Rate Options and Recommendations
Summary of Water system development
charges (SDCs)charges (SDCs)
Next Steps
2
Overview of a Comprehensive Rate Study
Revenue Requirement
Compares the revenues of the
utility to its expenses to determine
the overall level of rate adjustmentthe overall level of rate adjustment
Equitably allocates the revenue
Cost of Service requirements between the various
customer classes of service
Rate Design
Design rates for each class of
service to meet the revenue needs
of the utility, along with any other
3
y, g y
rate design goals and objectives
Financial Planning Considerations
Evaluate on a stand-alone
basis
Debt service coverage (DSC)
iratios
“Minimum” reserve levels
Fi i f it l j t Financing of capital projects -
levels and methods
9 Proper use of growth related 9 Proper use of growth related
revenues
Adequate Funding of Renewal
4
and Replacement Capital
Projects (Existing Facilities)
Defining “Generally Accepted”
American Water Works
Association, M1 Manual,
Principles of Water Rates, FeesPrinciples of Water Rates, Fees
and Charges, (Fifth Edition).
AWWA Utility Financial
Management Seminars across
the country, Tom Gould, > 18
years; HDR’s National Director of
Finance and Rates.
5
Finance and Rates.
Summary of the Comprehensive
Rate Study ProcessRate Study Process
Develops cost-based rates using Develops cost-based rates using
“generally accepted” methodologies
Provides the basis for “fair and Provides the basis for fair and
equitable” rates
Develops rates that reflect the p
reason for costs being incurred
Provides the information to allow
the Board to make sound and
rational decisions
6
Policy Decisions Needed From the Board
Revenue Requirements:
¾Timing and level of rate adjustments¾Timing and level of rate adjustments
Cost of Service:
¾Implement cost of service results
or apply adjustments equally
across the boardacross the board
Rate Design:
¾Direction on rate design
9 Meter charges adjusted – gradually or at once
7
System Development Charges:
¾Level of change and timing of implementation
Key Issues for the Study
Focus on adequate funding to maintain Focus on adequate funding to maintain
existing system
Renewal and replacement funding is key to:pgy
9 Maintaining level of service in the most
cost effective manner
•Regular repair and maintenance extends useful life
•Reduces risk and liability due to potential failures
9 Funding capital from rates aids utility financialu d g cap ta o ates a ds ut ty a c a
stability
•Direct impact on improving debt service coverage
ratio (DSC)
8
ratio (DSC)
Water Utility Analysis
9
Water Utility Capital Plan (CIP) Summary
Total 6-year (2010-2015) - CIP is $3.98 million
Average annual CIP $663,000 2010 – 2015
Funding renewals and replacements (CIP from rates) is
95% f 2009 d i ti b 2015 ($550 000) 80% f 95% of 2009 depreciation by 2015 ($550,000); 80% of
2015 projected depreciation expense
10
Water Revenue Requirement Results ($000)
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Revenue
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Revenue
Charge for Service $2,993 $2,993 $3,022 $3,053 $3,083 $3,114
Miscellaneous Revenue 49 49 33 39 35 33‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Total Revenue $3,041 $3,041 $3,056 $3,092 $3,118 $3,147
Expenses
Charge for Service $2,993 $2,993 $3,022 $3,053 $3,083 $3,114
Miscellaneous Revenue 49 49 33 39 35 33‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Total Revenue $3,041 $3,041 $3,056 $3,092 $3,118 $3,147
Expenses
Total O&M $2,592 $2,643 $2,714 $2,914 $2,962 $3,072
Taxes and Transfers 223 223 228 230 233 235
CIP Funded Through Rates 150 175 250 350 450 550
Net Debt Service 480 393 374 375 383 397‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Total O&M $2,592 $2,643 $2,714 $2,914 $2,962 $3,072
Taxes and Transfers 223 223 228 230 233 235
CIP Funded Through Rates 150 175 250 350 450 550
Net Debt Service 480 393 374 375 383 397‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Total Expenses $3,444 $3,434 $3,566 $3,869 $4,028 $4,254
Balance/(Deficiency) of Funds ($403) ($392) ($510) ($777) ($910) ($1,107)
Addt'l Taxes/Franchise Fees ($33) ($32) ($42) ($63) ($74) ($90)‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
l l/(f ($ )($ )($ )($ )($ )($ )
Total Expenses $3,444 $3,434 $3,566 $3,869 $4,028 $4,254
Balance/(Deficiency) of Funds ($403) ($392) ($510) ($777) ($910) ($1,107)
Addt'l Taxes/Franchise Fees ($33) ($32) ($42) ($63) ($74) ($90)‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
l l/(f ($ )($ )($ )($ )($ )($ )
U i g 50% f t d l t h g t d d bt i
Total Balance /(De ficiency ($436)($424)($552)($841)($984)($1,197)
Balance as % of Rev from Rates 14.6% 14.2% 18.3% 27.5% 31.9% 38.5%
Proposed Rate Adjustment 0.0% 6.4% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8%
Total Balance /(De ficiency ($436)($424)($552)($841)($984)($1,197)
Balance as % of Rev from Rates 14.6% 14.2% 18.3% 27.5% 31.9% 38.5%
Proposed Rate Adjustment 0.0% 6.4% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8%
11
Using 50% of system development charges toward debt service
Transition of CIP from Rates: 2010 at $150,000; 2015 at $550,000
Water Revenue Requirement Results ($000)
12
Summary of the Water
Financial Planning ConsiderationsFinancial Planning Considerations
2011 2012 2013 2014 20152011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Debt Service Coverage Ratio
(Includes SDCs, water rights, bulk wtr surcharges)
Before Rate Adjustment 0.88 0.81 0.53 0.43 0.26
After Rate Adjustment 1.30 1.75 2.01 2.46 2.83
Debt Service Coverage Ratio
(Includes SDCs, water rights, bulk wtr surcharges)
Before Rate Adjustment 0.88 0.81 0.53 0.43 0.26
After Rate Adjustment 1.30 1.75 2.01 2.46 2.83
Fund Balance
Fund Balance O&M $1,334 $1,054 $879 $814 $813
Target 90 Days of O&M expense 707 725 775 788 815
Ab Bl T Bl $627 $328 $104 $26 ($2)
Fund Balance
Fund Balance O&M $1,334 $1,054 $879 $814 $813
Target 90 Days of O&M expense 707 725 775 788 815
Ab Bl T Bl $627 $328 $104 $26 ($2)
Rate adjustments needed to meet debt service coverage
Above or Be l ow Target Balance $627 $328 $104 $26 ($2)
Total Fund Balance $1,427 $1,263 $866 $909 $1,029
Above or Be l ow Target Balance $627 $328 $104 $26 ($2)
Total Fund Balance $1,427 $1,263 $866 $909 $1,029
Rate adjustments needed to meet debt service coverage
9 With SDCs, water rights, and bulk water surcharges revenue, 1.25 DSC
is met by utility; 1.1 DSC needed for 2008 bond issue
Funding capital projects from rates helps utility meet DSC
13
Funding capital projects from rates helps utility meet DSC
90 days O&M target met through 2015 – required of 2008 loan
Water Rate Transition Plan
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Monthly Residential Urban Customer Bill $36.75
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Monthly Residential Urban Customer Bill $36.75
Proposed Water Rate Adjustments 6.4% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8%
Rate After Proposed Rate Adjustment $39.10 $41.76 $44.60 $47.63 $50.87
Monthly Bill Change $2.35 $2.66 $2.84 $3.03 $3.24
Proposed Water Rate Adjustments 6.4% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8% 6.8%
Rate After Proposed Rate Adjustment $39.10 $41.76 $44.60 $47.63 $50.87
Monthly Bill Change $2.35 $2.66 $2.84 $3.03 $3.24
Average of urban residential customer class at
Cumulative Bill Change $2.35 $5.01 $7.85 $10.88 $14.12Cumulative Bill Change $2.35 $5.01 $7.85 $10.88 $14.12
existing rates
Provides level of rate adjustments
14
Proposed rates addressed within rate design analysis
Summary of Water Cost of Service (000’s)
Present Rate Allocated Tax $%Present Rate Allocated Tax $%
Class of Service
Present Rate
Revenues
Allocated
Costs
Tax
Adjustment
$
Difference
%
Difference
Residential $1,831 $1,972 $12 ($153) 8.4%
Commercial 956 1,184 19 (246) 25.7%
Class of Service
Present Rate
Revenues
Allocated
Costs
Tax
Adjustment
$
Difference
%
Difference
Residential $1,831 $1,972 $12 ($153) 8.4%
Commercial 956 1,184 19 (246) 25.7%
Pumped Flow 125 136 1 (12) 9.3%
Bulk Water 80 93 1 (14) 17.0%
Total $2,993 $3,385 $32 ($424) 14.2%
Pumped Flow 125 136 1 (12) 9.3%
Bulk Water 80 93 1 (14) 17.0%
Total $2,993 $3,385 $32 ($424) 14.2%
Cost of Service is a snap-shot in time
Results considered within cost of service when within 5%
+/- of the overall result (9.2% to 19.2%)
Class differences do exist
Rd th bd djtt d t ll
15
Recommend across the board adjustments, due to level
of adjustments; interclass adjustments increase impacts
Rate Design
16
Goals of Rate Design
9 Easy to understand9Easy to understand
9 Easy to administer
9 Equitable and non-Equitable and non
discriminating (cost-based)
9 Provide revenue stability
Promote conservation/
efficient use of resource
Economic developmentEconomic development
9 Those who benefit should pay
The problem of competing goals!
17
The problem of competing goals!
Overview of Rate Design Options
Water: Maintain basic rate structureWater: Maintain basic rate structure
9 Option 1: Apply AWWA meter capacity
ratings to all customer rates
9 Water Option 2 – Apply AWWA meter
capacity ratings gradually over three
yearsyears
Both options improve revenue stability,
important with debt paymentsppy
18
Water Rate Design: Option 1 & 2 –Apply
AWWA Meter Capacity WeightingAWWA Meter Capacity Weighting
19
Water Rate Design: Option 1–Apply AWWA
Meter Capacity WeightingMeter Capacity Weighting
Present
Rates 2011 2012 2013
PdRtAdj t t 64%68%68%
Proposed
Proposed Rate Adjustment 6.4%6.8%6.8%
Urban Customers
Monthly Meter Charge
5/8"
3/4" $17.90 $19.05 $20.35 $21.75
1" 17.90 19.05 20.35 21.75
1‐1/2" 19.67 31.80 33.95 36.25
2" 23.90 63.45 67.75 72.35
3" 26.85 101.55 108.45 115.80
4" 61.59 190.50 203.45 217.30
86.32 317.55 339.15 362.20
Consumption (per 1,000 gallons)
Residential
All Consumption $3.77 $3.96 $4.23 $4.52
Commercial
All Con sumption $3.67 $3.50 $3.74 $3.99Co su pt o $3 6 $3 50 $3 $3 99
Pumped Flow
All Consumption $5.28 $5.45 $5.82 $6.22
Bulk Water
Uniform $4 22 $3 50 $3 74 $3 99
20
Uniform $4.22 $3.50 $3.74 $3.99
Future Volume Surcharge* 2.83 7.73 7.96 8.20
* Bulk water surcharges should be increased by the ENR‐CCI each year (3%).
***Rural customers are subject a 60% rate differential to urban customers
Water Rate Design Option 2 – Gradual AWWA
Meter Charge adjustments for capacityMeter Charge adjustments for capacity
Present
Rates 2011 2012 2013
Proposed Rate Adjustment 6.4%6.8%6.8%
Proposed
Proposed Rate Adjustment 6.4%6.8%6.8%
Urban Customers
Monthly Meter Charge
5/8"
3/4" $17.90 $19.05 $20.35 $21.75
1"17 90 19 05 20 35 21 751"17.90 19.05 20.35 21.75
1‐1/2" 19.67 24.80 30.60 36.30
2" 23.90 39.00 55.90 72.45
3" 26.85 42.15 73.20 115.95
4" 61.59 96.20 157.70 217.50
86.32 153.40 259.50 362.55
Consumption (per 1,000 gallons)
Residential
All Consumption $3.77 $3.96 $4.18 $4.40
Commercial
All Consumption $3 67 $3 76 $3 85 $3 90All Consumption $3.67 $3.76 $3.85 $3.90
Pumped Flow
All Consumption $5.28 $5.55 $5.81 $6.08
Bulk Water
$$$$
21
Uniform $4.22 $4.25 $4.25 $4.25
Future Volume Surcharge* 2.83 7.73 7.96 8.20
* Bulk water surcharges should be increased by the ENR‐CCI each year (3%).
***Rural customers are subject a 60% rate differential to urban customers
Water Residential Monthly Bill Comparison
Option 2 Option 2
The Town of Estes Park
Residential (Urban) Customers Monthly Rates
Proposed 2011 - Option 2 - Phased in AWWA Meter Weighting
Meter Volume Present Proposed
Size (per 1,000 gals.) Rates Rates Amount Percent
3/4"
0 $17.90 $19.05 $1.15 6.04%
Proposed 2011 - Option 2 - Phased in AWWA Meter Weighting
Difference
5 36.75 38.85 2.10 5.41%
10 55.60 58.65 3.05 5.20%
15 74.45 78.45 4.00 5.10%
20 93.30 98.25 4.95 5.04%
25 112.15 118.05 5.90 5.00%
30 131 00 137 85 685 4 97%30 131.00 137.85 6.85 4.97%
35 149.85 157.65 7.80 4.95%
Base Charge Monthly Base Charge Monthly
PRESENT RATES 2010 PROPOSED RATES 2011
5/8" $17.90 5/8" $19.05
3/4" 17.90 3/4" 19.05
1" 19.67 1" 24.80
1-1/2" 23.90 1-1/2" 39.00
2" 26.85 2" 42.15
3"61 59 3"96 20
22
3 61.59 3 96.20
4" 86.32 4" 153.40
Volume ($ / 1,000 gal) Volume ($ / 1,000 gal)
Uniform $3.77 Uniform $3.96
System Development Charges
One-time fee for new customers
9 Equitable share of system costs
State Law - 31-35-402…(f) –
‘Authority to assess rates and charges for
connecting to utility systems.’
CiComponent by component basis
9 Replacement cost method
St l i itiSystem planning criteria
9 Master Facility Plans
St fi ig iti
23
System financing criteria
9 Debt credit, developer contributions
System Development Charge Summary
Purpose –Growth pays for growth
Pid itbt iti d t9Provide equity between existing and new customers
9 Generate revenue for growth related facilities
Those who benefit should pay; growth related portionspy;g p
Source of Supply $2,812
St 838
Water System Development Charge Calculation Results
Source of Supply $2,812
St 838
Water System Development Charge Calculation Results
Storag e 838
Distribution 1,179
General Plant 209
Debt Service Credit 0
Storag e 838
Distribution 1,179
General Plant 209
Debt Service Credit 0Debt Service Credit 0
Total $5,037
Net Allowable Water SDC $5,040
Eiti SDC $/ERU $4 940
Debt Service Credit 0
Total $5,037
Net Allowable Water SDC $5,040
Eiti SDC $/ERU $4 940
24
Existing SDC - $/ERU $4,940
$ Change per ERU $100
Existing SDC - $/ERU $4,940
$ Change per ERU $100
Water Rights Fees
Purpose – Water rights to serve growth
9 Provide equity between existing and new customers9Provide equity between existing and new customers
9 Generate water rights or revenue for future water rights
Those who benefit should pay
Colorado Big Thompson Water Rights Assumptions:
Water Rights Calculation
Colorado Big Thompson Water Rights Assumptions:
Water Rights Calculation
Annual ERU Usage (acre/feet) [1]: 0.22
Loss of water in distribution system [2]: 13%
Expected yield of Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) Water units [3]: 62%
CBT price per unit 2002 $11,150
Annual ERU Usage (acre/feet) [1]: 0.22
Loss of water in distribution system [2]: 13%
Expected yield of Colorado Big Thompson (CBT) Water units [3]: 62%
CBT price per unit 2002 $11,150
Cost escalated per BLS inflation from 2002 [4] 1.22
Escalated CBT cost per unit $13,600
CBT Water Rights Calculation:[1]/(1-[2])*1/.62*$13,600 $5,550
Cost escalated per BLS inflation from 2002 [4] 1.22
Escalated CBT cost per unit $13,600
CBT Water Rights Calculation:[1]/(1-[2])*1/.62*$13,600 $5,550
25
Current fee is $5,450, or a $100 increase
Bulk Water Surcharges
Bulk Water
Share [1]
Total Bulk Water
SDCWater System Development Charge Calculation Results
Bulk Water
Share [1]
Total Bulk Water
SDCWater System Development Charge Calculation Results []
Source of Supply $2,812 100%$2,812
Storage 838 40% 335
Distribution 1,179 41% 483
General Plant 209 100% 209
Debt Service Credit 0 100% 0
ypg []
Source of Supply $2,812 100%$2,812
Storage 838 40% 335
Distribution 1,179 41% 483
General Plant 209 100% 209
Debt Service Credit 0 100% 0
ypg
Total $5,037 $3,839
Net Allowable Water SDC $5,040 $3,840
Water Rights Fee CBT $5 550 $5 550
Total $5,037 $3,839
Net Allowable Water SDC $5,040 $3,840
Water Rights Fee CBT $5 550 $5 550Water Rights Fee CBT $5,550 $5,550
Total Cost Per ERU $10,590 $9,390
Bulk Water Fee Annual Planning Cost Per
Calculated per ERU Cost/20 years Gal/ERU [2]1 000 Gallons
Water Rights Fee CBT $5,550 $5,550
Total Cost Per ERU $10,590 $9,390
Bulk Water Fee Annual Planning Cost Per
Calculated per ERU Cost/20 years Gal/ERU [2]1 000 GallonsCalculated per ERU Cost/20 years Gal/ERU [2]1,000 Gallons
Water SDC $3,840 $192.00 60,000 $3.20
Water Rights Fee CBT $5,550 $277.50 60,000 $4.63
Total Cost $9 390 $7 83
Calculated per ERU Cost/20 years Gal/ERU [2]1,000 Gallons
Water SDC $3,840 $192.00 60,000 $3.20
Water Rights Fee CBT $5,550 $277.50 60,000 $4.63
Total Cost $9 390 $7 83
26
Current fee is $8.63 per 1,000 gallons
Total Cost $9,390 $7.83Total Cost $9,390 $7.83
Policy Decisions Needed and
RecommendationsRecommendations
Policy Direction Needed:
R Rit
Recommendations:
Revenue RequirementsRevenue Requirements:
¾Timing and level of rates
Cost of Service:
Revenue Requirements
¾As presented - gradual
Cost of Service:Cost of Service:
¾Implement cost of service results
or apply adjustments equally
across the board
Cost of Service:
¾Water – Across the board
across the board
Rate Design:
¾Meter charges adjusted
Rate Design:
¾Option 2 -gradual ¾Meter charges adjusted
System Development Charges:
¾Level of change and timing of
¾Option 2 gradual
SDCs and Water Rights:
¾Update or Keep same
27
implementation ¾Adopt bulk water chrgs.
Questions and Answers
28