The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Public Works, Utilities and Public Safety 2012-03-08Preparation date: February 27, 2012 * Revision date: AGENDA TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC SAFETY, UTILITIES & PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE March 8, 2012 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. PUBLIC SAFETY a) RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD i) None. b) REPORTS i) Estes Park Municipal Court Annual Report. Judge Brown. 3. UTILITIES a) RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD i) Water Conservation Plan. Director Bergsten. b) REPORTS i) GIS Consultant RFP. Director Bergsten. ii) Project Manager for Financial Software Implementation RFP. Director Bergsten. 4. PUBLIC WORKS a) RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD i) Structural Engineer for Elevator Upgrade. Directors Zurn and Williamson. b) REPORTS. i) Virginia Rehabilitation and Steamer Drive Design Update. Director Zurn. 5. ADJOURN NOTE: The Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. TOWN OF ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL COURT 2011 PARKING TICKET REPORT Paid Tickets - Monthly Year -to -Date January $ 0 $ 0 February 25 25 March 0 25 April 0 25 May 275 300 June 1,900 2,200 July 2,075 4,275 August 3,195 7,470 September 620 8,090 October 95 8,185 November 100 8,285 December 0 8,285 Cynthia Deats From: Jackie Williamson Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 4:15 PM To: Cynthia Deats Subject: FW: Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committe Agenda for 3/8/12 Attachments: PUP Committee Trustees <Trustees@estes.org>; Trail Gazette - Editor (tgeditor@eptrail.com); Alan Fraundorf <afraundorf@yahoo.com>; Alice Reuman <reumana3@gmail.com>; Ann Taylor <grannyannie23@yahoo.com>; Art Messal <art.messal@gmail.com>; Barbara Sellers <barb.sellers@gmail.com>; Becky Glowacki <mtnhi99@hotmail.com>; Bill Guiot <wrguiot@yahoo.com>; Bill See <bill@heathconstruction.com>; Bill Townsend <btownsend@genscape.com>; Billy Ward <brossward@hotmail.com>; Bob and Judy Ayres <bobayres44@yahoo.com>; Bob Balint <balintw@gmail.com>; Bruce Walters <bwalters@estes.org>; Carolyn Harris <caro80517@yahoo.com>; Charley Dickey <charleyiv@aol.com>; Charley Griffin <griff1947@gmail.com>; Chris Bieker <chris@utsd.org>; Cindy Cormack <cindy.kepl@gmail.com>; Connie Clark <mygoldmorgan@yahoo.com>; Connie Phipps <conniephipps@gmail.com>; Cynthia Fleischer <cgfleischer@hotmail.com>; Dan Betts <dan.betts@mail.house.gov>; Dave Albee <ard@dim.com>; Dave Tanton <dtanton@verizon.net>; David Giles <dagiles2005@gmail.com>; Diana Laughlin <dianal@partnersmentoringyouth.org>; Don Sellers <don.sellers@gmail.com>; Elizabeth Fogarty <creeksidesuites@gmail.com>; Erick Prohs <edprohs@hotmail.com>; Four Seasons Inn <info@4-seasonsinn.com>; Glenn Malpiede <gmalpiede@hotmail.com>; Greg White <greg@gawhite.com>; Haldean Dalzell <h dalzell@q.com>; Harry Kent <kmac@frii.com>; James Pickering <jhpick@earthlink.net>; Jeff Van Bogaert <ivb@tecxcel.com>; Jim Atcer <atcer iim@hotmail.com>; Joe Meylor <meylor-is@att.net>; John Bryant <john bryant@psdr3.k12.co.us>; John Hale <iohnehale@aol.com>; John Heron <john.heron@estestram.com>; John Tucker <info@fallrivercabins.com>; Jonathan Ford <baptised1938@msn.com>; Juley Harvey <iharvey@eptrail.com>; Karen Blackwell Monks <karen@karenblackwell.com>; Kay Gillespie <kavgi2@aol.com>; Kay Norton Haughey <bobhaughey@airbits.com>; Ken Martin <kenneth martin@q.com>; Kris Hazelton - Estes Park News <kris@estesparknews.com>; Kristine Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>; Kurt Swaney <kurt.swaney@comcast.net>; Laura Brown <bighornep@msn.com>; Loveland Reporter Herald <news@reporter-herald.com>; Mark Pallissard <mpallissard@estes.org>; Mark Swanlund <copswan@hotmail.com>; Mary Shelton <bbshelton2@q.com>; Mike Oatley <mjo@fish2.net>; Molly Patrick <mollylpatrick@gmail.com>; Nancy P. Thomas <nthomas@emporia.edu>; Nick Bozych <nbozych@stanleyhotel.com>; Nick Molle<nmolle@nickmolleproductions.com>; Pam Seaver <crseaver@me.com>; Pamela Brice <pamelabrice@yahoo.com>; Pat Nelson <pnelson@gmail.com>; Patrice Sullivan<patrice.sullivan@colostate.edu>; Patti Dolezal<thndrmtnakitas@estesvalley.net>; Paula Burr <pvburr@gmail.com>; Peg Eckstrand <pekstrand@crlassociates.com>; Peter Fendel <peter.fendel@mail.house.gov>; Peter Marsh <pmarsh@visitestespark.com>; Peter Sinnott <sinnott2805@msn.com>; qwerty7@xmission.com; Ray and Susie Hertz <rsgco@yahoo.com>; Ray Sahm <1rusk@beyondbb.com>; Rex Poggenpohl <poggenpohl@mac.com>; Rich Johnson <info@elkhornlodge.org>; Richard Grabish <rfgrabish@msn.com>; Richard Homeier <rockyhome@airbits.com>; Rick <rkg@beyondbb.com>; Robert Rising <bob23@q.com>; Robin & Diana Eldridge <robdd@aol.com>; Rod Morten <loismorten@hotmail.com>; Roger Steers <steers12@msn.com>; Ron Gordon <rgordon@frii.com>; Sarah Holdt <sholdt@ymcarockies.org>; Shelley Davis <MLDRN@earthlink.net>; Steve Laing <slaingep@aol.com>; Steven Engel <Steven.kepl@gmail.com>; Suzanne Miller <as.miller@beyondbb.com>; Terry P. Rizzuti <tprizzuti@gmail.com>; Thea Richard <tjrich99@hotmail.com>; Thor Homme <thorhomme@yahoo.com>; tim@thebear1470.com; Tom Hannah <tomhannah54@aol.com>; Tom Pickering <tpickering@estes.org>; Ward Nelson <wardnelson1972@yahoo.com>; Will Jorgensen <will4jesus@yahoo.com>; William Crosby <billc050@msn.com>; William G. Howell <wghowell2243@earthlink.net>; Alan Fraundorf <afraundorf@estes.org>; AVProduction Calendar <AVProduction@estes.org>; Cynthia Deats <cdeats@estes.org>; Dave Mahany <dmahany@estes.org>; Eric Rose <erose@estes.org>; Jen Imber <iimber@estes.org>; Kate Rusch <krusch@estes.org>; Kevin Ash <kash@estes.org>; Lowell Richardson <Iichardson@estes.org>; Peni Barnes <pbarnes@estes.org>; Reuben Bergsten <rbergsten@estes.org>; Scott Zurn <szurn@estes.org>; Susie Parker <sparker@estes.org>; Wes Kufeld <wkufeld@estes.org> 1 Jackie Williamson Town Clerk/Administrative Services Director (970) 577-4771 (p) (970) 577-4770 (f) jwilliamson@estes.org www. estes. org From: Jackie Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 2:39 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committe Agenda for 3/8/12 Attached is the agenda for the upcoming PUP meeting on Thursday, March 8, 2012. Jackie Williamson Town Clerk/Administrative Services Director (970) 577-4771 (p) (970) 577-4770 (f) jwilliamson@estes.org www.estes.org TOWN OF ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL COURT ANNUAL PARKING TICKET REVENUE COMPARISON 2011 $ 8,285 2010 2,945 2009 9,846 2008 7,704 2007 3,541 2006 1,790 2005 4,140 2004 2,730 2003 3,860 2002 3,578 2001 405 2011 Receipts o 00 00 M N m l0 Ni N l0 00 Ni' o0 m l0 M d' m 01 m 00 Ln 00 N Ln 00 r-1 � O 00 0 Lri d' r-I r-I Ln o 00 N r-1 r-I O N M m Ol O1 r-i 44,662 2011 New Cases r-I d l0 N 0 N 0 d d' m Ol N O Oc--I O to Ol d' 01 ri Ol N 00 t-1 111 in 2010 Receipts l0 N m e--1 Ln <0 c-I r-1 O CO N. e-1 O l0 N N m d' N r4 O CO d- N N d' O d d• Ln N N l0 d' N N 0o M lO M co co N d' O> O Ln M CV rM„I M 2010 New Cases N r-I N r 4 L0 t-1 00 r-I O m d' M m d' r-I m d' N 01 N to d' O M Lfl N M 2009 Receipts $ N -( m M Ol r-I 00 N Ln Ln m Ni' T-I co r N r-I d' to C}' CO l0 N r-1 M Vl m LO M N r-1 M N r-1 0 N m N d' M Ln N� N� d d' b Ol r-I 40,446 2009 New Cases d' N t.n r-I N, r-I O r-I 00 d' Pn r-I N. l0‘Zr N 4.0 N 0 N Ol ‘Zrr-1 O r1 M 2008 Receipts r-I d' N rr d' 00 0 d' N d' O1 rV N a101 0 Ln N. 00 M N. co N rr m N. 00 d N. d' r-I d' N. O d' Ni Ol m M d m In d' M N N M a1 M a, 2008 New Cases to N 00 M O1 N O1 d' Ln d' r-1 M 0 in m Ln r-1 d' d' N Ln m O1 m 01 in d' 2007 Receipts $ N N� Lfl r-I d m 0 r-I. r-I 00 N N t-I l0 d M r in Ln Ni' d' N O N N. N N r-1 -I d' t-♦ Ni r-i O r .I m N u1 al rr r-1 d' 0 d:' 00 d- O1 cr 31,436 2007 New Cases 0 N at r-I 0 M N Ln Ol m O M LO r-I Ln Ln t-1 d• d' d• N d4 N d' C M d' Month as February UCO as 2 L Q > C — > August September October November v E u Iv 0 TOTAL To: 4 [P. TOWN OF ESTES PARK Utilities Department Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee Interim Town Administrator Richardson Finance Director McFarland From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director Date: 8 March 2012 RE: Remove Water Conservation Plan from today's agenda Upon further review the Water Department is pulling the Conservation Plan from today's agenda. A couple of discrepancies have been noted and will be corrected. I recognize this has put an avoidable load to your duty as a Board Member on the PUP Committee and I apologize. We expect the plan to be ready for next month's meeting. Regards, Reuben Bergsten Cc: Jeff Boles, Water Superintendent Page 1 Memo To: TOWN GE ESTES ARK ;;:,11111111..1.11'111100volool00,11110 1,1,1,1,111))111111111111111 1'1'1111111111111 vIourPuqiivly,1 11191111111111111111110011111111111111111111111011 111111111111 ,1,1„h„,/,,X,,,'11111,11,11,11,1,1),1,1,"0110;h'1111111111111111 111CV1111,111,j1v.1,11,11111)„,ply, 1,11111111111.:11'ii;iii1V/111111.1111111111111111vivii111111.1111 tiliii,iiii1.11111.111111111111111 Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee Interim Town Administrator Richardson From: Jeff Boles, Water Superintendent Diana Beehler, Water Quality Manager Date: 3/1/2012 RE: Water Conservation Plan Background: In February 2010 we reported to the PUP Committee on the grant award from the Colorado Water Conservation Board to update the existing Water Conservation Plan. This plan was developed by HDR Engineering with in -kind service contributions from staff. As a condition for future State grants and financial assistance, the Town must have a State approved conservation plan. The State does provide grants for implementation of conservation plans although some of the elements of this updated plan are already in place. In the future, the Water Department will work with the State to identify funding opportunities for the more costly elements when implementation becomes desirable or required. Budget: N/A Recommendation: I recommend the Water Conservation Plan to the Town Board, to be included on the Consent Agenda at the March 27, 2012 Town Board meeting. population that doubles or triples In the summer requiring a water system that must be able to serve a wide range o" demands the demand due to irrigation Future capital improvements are rela to existing planned water system improvements rather than a need for increased water production capacity. ; alk! t es errand^Side Measures (DM} Vater-Saving Fixtures Town Irrigation System Improvements tingly -Side Measures ISM) Third Stage Treatment Bleeder Automation Pressure Zone Management Demand Side Programs (DPI Water Audits for Top Customers Elementary Education Program Drought Plans and Rates Rate Structure by Meter Size Time of Upgrade and Time of Sale Multi -Family Residential Unit Metering Town Website Program Sunrdv-Side Programs (SP).:. Customer Meter Testing and Replacement Leak Detection and Repair' Tracking of Breaks and Repairs "Iowa Irrip,m. i4ml1uia l rewmrcan(SM)V� lx Owin Awm:ar..,aOM) In I'rowvlmr. Alawy :.M(Snl) No P¢a Au.dav far 1 opt ,remne(1)5) h'o I. <ud➢,e l�mu.0 unA Nwun l>Z") .n .!a Mrrarma bi Meee)Steep)0) pi+ ..7e r .e.klw`) No M✓e4 coma, NmdLLvdrl lA em4ne(dw) 0 IarmN�:h<(DO I'r. tue.+.mm1,1aux u+!iag. andltrTAaee.+irvra (10) la ru(SP) 1'e. irawiiv A BIM nn,R.pn+'rv(Xt') In 110 Cnea¢bA'vnrmea L rmm, .(nr irco vmddmeua Womss aW inlaaa.d:.vi` pawn" rwC.w v.a)arLe taya,rh rr rya tE.r uiy' arl')renewraa.a a,WZEW o�..Mrif u.,a cant cm. a &veat ad '.n Ow," 7aa w.re. `++un Yvsni wa pa .,u1a fomul pro!puar do phw.q my 4.1.04db440. a nvex.m.m of fnn„W cx�us funk N<. n.y .x 1,1+r44,4 Ms, GIS dvt,. ....warm deNl' mrnwun nn a,e.Y!Ma 6lwEll �11 Valna Sa(ing Fianna own Ininalkm S) 0000 Improsetwas ';'(hed Maga1.1;1.1 RkMar Aularnalion . 100,n Wlb(ile ! Cu0t001 f Meta )tslu>g and ,,.. Replauntix0 k [attention and Rt3vir ck)og of ❑auks and Rtivtry Total 10 011 0.55 $.5 5.27 131.E 10.5 105 4.2 25.2 205 267 U S �' III"I Okwfer Alcorrn lui eu son aaen l,fu:ro SI,xW 510,✓,00 E 7,910 £5.£ 5).3. Ne.7F T'otalYm)<r1 'Cost to dls<harge to sewer "Over life span of program Estimated Annual Water Savings from Town's Conservation Program (Millions of Gal) Total Treated Water Volume in 2011 (Millions of Gal) Potential Percent Reduction in Annual Treated Water Volume following Implementation of Town's Conservation Fragrant educ "Toret ted 20.5 537.43 3.8% ifl fl ‘01' cc Of the four components evaluated ,Third Stage Treatment and Bleeder Automation appear to be cost effective 1 Cost effectiveness alone may not address all possible 1 Potential benefits. c The Town will include ail 8 of the program components in the Conservation Plan as they are believed to offer benefits that justify the cost (if any). 11 c Financial benefit could be garnered through the 20.5 million reduced Ili(Mcostsassociated with the estimated equates to —$16,00(y gallons/year eawr COrv:191vnign7g1T-rCigsMsC‘o'isritggf the Leak Detection and Repair program). 1 1 CC)fltc1 ,101 Water Conservation Plan Town of Estes Park, Colorado Draft Report February 13, 2012 rri LI '00 REG/6, • C.) """ 2 (s/ /• Cl\\ / ‹): I -4( 36489 33 -o cl-*// n 11.05 Prepared under the responsible charge of Sarah C. Clark Colorado PE 36489 303 E. 17th Ave. Suite 700 Denver, CO 80203 Potable Water Demand Projection Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Existing Water System Profile 2 2.1 Physical Characteristics of Existing Water System 2 2.2 Sources of Water 6 2.3 System Limitations 7 2.4 Water Costs and Pricing 7 2.5 Current Policies and Planning Initiatives 10 2.6 Current Water Conservation Activities 11 3.0 Historic Water Use and Demand Forecast 12 3.1 Service Area Population 12 3.1.1 Permanent Population 12 3.1.2 Transient Population 14 3.1.3 Non -Transient Population 16 3.1.4 Wholesale Population 16 3.1.5 Other Populations Not Included in Projections 16 3.1.6 Population Growth Rate Projections 17 3.2 Potable Water Demand 18 3.2.1 Historic Treatment Plant Production 18 3.2.2 Per Capita Usage 19 3.3 Buildout Conditions 21 3.4 Potable Water Demand Projections 22 3.5 Conclusion 25 4.0 Profile Proposed Facilities 25 4.1 Identify and Cost Potential Facility Needs 25 4.1.1 MWTP Improvements 25 4.1.2 GWTP Replacement 26 4.1.3 System Water Storage Improvements 26 4.1.4 Distribution System Improvements 26 4.1.5 Improvements Schedule 27 4.2 Prepare an Incremental Cost Analysis 29 5.0 Identify Conservation Goals 29 6.0 Identify Conservation Measures and Programs 30 6.1 Identify Conservation Measures and Programs 30 6.1.1 Water -Saving Fixtures (DM) 30 6.1.2 Town Irrigation System Improvements (DM) 31 6.1.3 Third Stage Treatment at MWTP (SM) 31 6.1.4 Bleeder Automation (SM) 32 6.1.5 Pressure Zone Management (SM) 32 6.1.6 Water Audits for Top Customers (DP) 33 6.1.7 Elementary Education Program (DP) 33 6.1.8 Drought Plans and Rates (DP) 33 6.1.9 Modify Rate Structure by Meter Size (DP) 33 6.1.10 Time of Upgrade and Time of Sale (DP) 34 6.1.11 Multi -family Residential Unit Metering (DP) 34 6.1.12 Town Website (DP) 34 6.1.13 Customer Meter Testing and Replacement (SP) 34 6.1.14 Leak Detection and Repair (SP) 35 Potable Water Demand Projection Gj.15Tracking ofBreaks and Repairs (Sp) 35 G2Develop and Define Screening Criteria 35 8.3Screen Conservation Measures and Programs 36 7.OEvaluate and Select Conservation Measures and Programs 37 7.1 Capital and O&M Costs 37 7.2 Potential Water Savings 38 7.3Cost Effectiveness 30 7.4Summary ofBenefits and Costs 41 8.0Inta0rate Resources and Modify Forecasts 42 8.1 Revise Demand Foraoaut(a) 42 O.2Identify Project Specific Savings *3 8.3Revise Supply -Capacity Foreooat(o) 43 8.4Consider Revenue Effects 43 9.0 Implementation Plan 44 Figures Figure 2'1 Existing Water System 3 Figure 2-220OSPotable Water Usage n Figure 3-1 Population Growth Trends 13 Figure 3-2 Historic Annual Number of Visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park 15 Figure 3-3Seasonal Water Treatment Plant Production 18 Figure 3-4Historic Treatment Plant Production 10 Figure 3-52OO8Potable Water Usage 20 Figure 3-6Peak Day Demand Projections 24 Figure 4-1 Plant Improvements Schedule Coordinated with Demand Projections 28 T��| ,��es Table 2-1 Storage Facilities Inventory 4 Table 2-2Summary ofthe 2O1Oand 2O11Water Utility Rates g Table 2-3 3-Stage Conservation Plan Summary 10 Table 2-4Summary ofWater Restrictions byConservation Stage 11 Table 3-1 Census Population Summary 13 Table 3-2Summary ofProjected Population Growth Rates 17 Table 3-3Historic Potable Water Production (10Q3-2U08) 10 Table 3'4Per Capita Demands 21 Table 3-5Summary ofPeak Day Demand atBui|dout 22 Table 3-6 Summary of Parameters Used in Monte Carlo Simulation 23 Table 4'1 Estimated Capital and O&M Costs for System Expansion 20 # Potable Water Demand Projection Table 6-1 Screening Summary ofConservation Measures and Programs 38 Table 7-1 Estimated Capital and O&M Costs for Town'oConservation Program 37 Table 7-2Estimated Water Savings from Town'aConservation Program 38 Table 7'3Estimated Cost toSupply Treated Water tnTown 30 Table 7'4Cost Effectiveness ofTowm'aConservation Program 40 Table 7'5Cost Effectiveness ofThird Stage Treatment 41 Table 8-1 Estimated Percent Reduction inAnnual Treated Water Volume 43 iii Water Conservation Plan 1.0 Introduction The Town of Estes Park, hereinafter referred to as the Town, initiated this water conservation planning effort to comply with state requirements and to meet their agreement with the Windy Gap Firming Project, which requires that a water conservation plan be in place. Similar to other resort communities in Colorado, the Town of Estes Park has a permanent year -around population that typically doubles and sometimes triples in the summer due to the large influx of visitors. As a result, the water system must be capable of serving a wide range of potable water demands that result from direct consumption by the increased population. In contrast to other cities in Colorado, very little water demand in Estes Park is attributable to irrigation needs because the landscaping throughout the Estes Valley is predominantly natural vegetation. Landscape plantings are at high risk of survival due to the grazing of natural wildlife (elk and deer) in Town. The small amount of landscaping in the Town is generally limited to municipal parks and property. This situation makes the Town unique with respect to conservation measures that are available to provide any significant water savings. Where other communities can save significant amounts of water by controlling irrigation, the Town does not have a significant irrigation demand. Thus, this plan is based on relatively small amounts of water saved through use of multiple conservation measures and programs. Much of the information in this plan has been taken from previous planning and evaluation work completed by the Town. The following list includes the reports from which information is drawn. These reports should be referenced for additional detail, if needed, on selected topics. • Potable Water Demand Project, Town of Estes Park, July 12, 2007 • Water Treatment Facilities Evaluation, Town of Estes Park, January 2007 • Estes Park Water Treatment Facilities, Phase 2 Study, Town of Estes Park, July 2010 • Water Cost of Service Study, Town of Estes Park, December 2010 For the Town, the majority of future capital improvements that are planned for the water system are related to existing system deficiencies and to the need to ensure compliance with drinking water regulations: they are not tied to a need to increase potable water production capacity. The Town has water rights at several different locations which provide adequate raw water supply, but utilizing all the water rights is dependent on maintaining treatment in two locations at capacities that can take advantage of the water rights when they are available. The plan was developed by the Conservation Plan Committee, whose members include the following: • Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director for the Town • Jeff Boles, Water Superintendent for the Town • Diana Beehler, Laboratory Technician for the Town • Sarah Clark, Project Manager at HDR • Jennifer Stillman, Project Engineer at HDR The plan was reviewed and approved through standard Town Board of Trustees processes for public programs that affect the Town. 1 Water Conservation Plan In general, the approach used to develop this Conservation Plan follows the guidance provided by the State of Colorado Water Conservation Board. The plan sections include a discussion of the existing system, future water demand projections, upcoming potable water system projects, evaluation of conservation measures and programs, a cost analysis of the conservation options, and a discussion of implementation of the plan. 2.0 Existing Water System Profile The following sections discuss the water system physical characteristics, sources of water, limitations, water costs, current policies and planning initiatives, and current conservation efforts. 2.1 Physical Characteristics of Existing Water System The Town of Estes Park water system serves water to customers in the Estes Valley with an estimated service area of 17.58 square miles. The boundary of the Estes Park water system service area coincides roughly with the boundary of the Estes Valley. The majority of the water system is located below the "blue line", which is composed of a set of contour elevations throughout the Valley, below which the current water system can deliver water by gravity. The existing water system is composed of two water treatment plants, 9 storage tanks, two clearwells, and more than 100 miles of pipeline. The water system currently serves approximately 4,000 residential connections and 850 commercial connections. A map of the distribution system is shown in Figure 2-1, which depicts the service area, distribution system facilities and pressure zones within the system. Two water treatment plants serve the Town of Estes Park: Marys Lake Water Treatment Plant (MWTP) and Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant (GWTP). The MWTP is located at the south end of the water distribution system, adjacent to the south shore of Marys Lake and the BOR outlet works that discharge to Marys Lake. The MWTP was originally constructed in 1992 and was renovated with the installation of submerged membrane technology over the past five years. A raw water pump station was constructed at Marys Lake in 2003. The plant normally obtains its raw water supply by gravity from the BOR tunnel that feeds Marys Lake. The plant can also pump raw water directly from Marys Lake when the BOR tunnel is shut down. The design capacity of MWTP is 4 mgd, but the plant cannot be operated at that rate year round due to water rights constraints on the BOR supply and due to wastewater discharge limitations. Originally constructed in 1972, the GWTP is a conventional plant located along Glacier Creek inside the YMCA campgrounds. Minor improvements have been made to the treatment process since the original construction and the filters were renovated in 2003. The design capacity of the plant is 4 mgd, with the exception of the filters which are rated for 6 mgd. However, plant staff report that the current maximum treated flow is about 3.6 mgd. Runoff events in the watershed are particularly challenging for GWTP due to a lack of robustness in the treatment process. Similar to the MWTP, the Town's available water rights on Glacier Creek limit the length of time that the Town can operate GWTP at maximum flow. The Town's system has 9 water storage tanks including 2 treatment plant clearwells. Table 2-1 is an inventory of those facilities, including pressure zones served, capacities, elevations, dimensions and general construction information. Locations of these storage facilities are shown in Figure 2-1. 2 ,),1) ' ions Wan acGregor,MountainFrank,0.3MG 0%; Irff Glacier Water TreatmentyPrat, %,frAdp Aftit° Fall River Estates,Tphkil::11,7 111) 4 , kali River Es14,1:e,PS.ri Castle Mounlain Tank 0.4 MG Illunde4Mountain PS 1111111M ,; RiVarside.,PRV (fr) Riverside PRV (2") Prospect Es, ates,E,R ary's Loire Tank 1.0 MG Spruce PRV '<Iowa Estates Tank 6.065 MG , Crystal Tank60.6.mc kio,v1 Ps PRV C/ry's ;it:T.::: V ' CarriabeiLaSe PRV ary's Lake.Water,Treatment Plant O"Tru7c17;,Mountaingank 0.1MG Storage Tank Pipe Dia. (Inches) Water Treatment Plant 0 Valve El Pump Station [. _ Service Area 77.:1 FR 3-6 gnIAIINIIMIOINIOINIIM 8 10 - 12 "MO"' 18 - 36 ONE COMPANY 1 Many solutions ,77F3, 42/Af. r Service Area 1 (8,110 FT) Service Area 2 (7,950 FT) Service Area 3 (8,050 FT) Service Area 4 (8,220 FT) Service Area 5 (8,430 FT) Service Area 6 (8,350 FT) Service Area 7 (8,050 FT) P 01 en fi 1 inch 3,500 feet N Existing System Figure 2-1 Estes Park - Water Conservation Plan o N I L `z I 0 trl 0 00 co tfl 01 [- 7,987 (HIGH) C> ,--t C., 00 01 CV 00 N: OS-0 01 C 00 h C; 00 "0 0 N 32 M `..0 Cr, Above Ground Steel Kiowa Ridge "Kiowa Estates Zone" CC kfl M DO C> ,I1 N oc 8,260 (HIGH) 0 (fl (Nn oo (-4 N .... 00 WI 0 .0 8,352.8 00 oa m m N sro N I o-Lz 2000 . Concrete Thunder Mountain "Thunder Mountain Zone" 8,430 co M 00 8,370 (HIGH) <0 (--- ens 00 CI.N N (r) N 0 8449.25 8,435.25 Round 40 lel 00 a .... • m Concrete AO 0 44 0 ^ 0 (1.1. 0 N cf.; I 8,220 N ,,.., 08 0 0 N oo' 0 N 8,232 ,_, N oo Rectangle I \ 0 00 s0 00 N 01 — Buried 0.) 15 t U Glacier Creek WTP (Storage) 10 ; cuU 4)0 (..7 N 3 tn co, V1 oc 0 4") N 7,880 (OK) 0 oo oo . t;* co t--- kr> tz ,--, N h00 oO N VI oci Round 1995 Concrete Glacier Creek WTP (Clearwell) "Green Zone" en Z ZZ Z 0 ,--1 0 0 C.:, 00 0 0 \ 0 . 00 Rectangle l 41 01 fl 23 "'I 1* .--i 0, Buried Concrete Castle Mountain "Red Zone" 7,950 C> lrl 00 N 7.873 (HIGH) M N 00 t„..... 4 en 0 N CX> h h ,f) h 54 VI ,..0 Above Ground Steel Big Thompson "Red Zone" No 0 kr) 0.1 C-- 0 kr) oo N r oo (... en h 00; i en.--• 7.984 0, N Round I o .1. Cr, aC) Concrete MacGregor Mountain "Fall River Estates Zone" 0 ••••1 oo' 0 1...1 oo 8,040 (HIGH) 0 0 oci (.1 t-1 oo N 0 co 8.121 ,C) 01 oo 48 2004 Concrete "Fall River Estates Zone" c; ..... 00 co ..-. 00 8,040 (HIGH) 7,823-8,040 (r) 0 00 ,..., 00 8,104 I Round I el- Cr \ Il Concrete I Service Area (Pressure Zone) Service Area Served Static HGL, fi Design Service Elevation', ft Highest Meter2. ft Elevation Range3, 11 Capacity (MG) Total Rated Capacity .g V) 0 r Tank Overflow Tank Floor Dimensions 7. Diameter. ft Width, ft Equivalent Dia, fl I Water Depth, ft Construction Year Constructed Type . C '.* . • • r, 16 Water Conservation Plan The Estes Valley is largely surrounded by public land (Rocky Mountain National Park and Roosevelt National Forest) and therefore future growth is limited to the boundaries of the water system service area. Current population in the Estes Valley varies significantly from winter to summer, with an estimated peak population of 22,350 occurring during the summer tourist season. The estimated build - out population is 32,624. The Town's most recent water demand study was completed in 2007 (Potable Water Demand Projection, HDR, July 12, 2007) as part of a broad water plant evaluation and planning effort. Metered water usage by month as well as total water treatment plant production in 2006 is shown in Figure 2-2. The data show that residential water usage and commercial water usage are roughly the same at the present, and the usage follows the same seasonal demand trend. The difference between the water treatment plant production in Figure 2-2 and the total metered water is largely due to system losses and also partly due to wholesale customers (bulk and dispenser) whose meter records were not included. System losses include water used or lost in the treatment plant and distribution system. Losses in the Town's water system have stabilized and are not expected to increase as long as the distribution system continues to be maintained. The distribution system does have a number of "bleeders", which are set to bleed water from the system during the winter to keep the distribution pipes from freezing. Their usage is also metered and shown in Figure 2-2. Potable Water Usage (Millions of Gal Per Month) 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Figure 2-2 2006 Potable Water Usage WTP Production -Total Metered Residential Metered Commercial Metered Bleeder Metered 11011111111111111111111 2 4 5 6 7 Month 8 9 10 11 12 5 Water Conservation Plan 2.2 Sources of Water The Town owns two types of water, transmountain water and native water rights. The transmountain water comes from agreements with the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), Colorado Big Thompson Project (CBT), and Windy Gap. The native water rights are all located on tributaries of the Big Thompson River. The two sets of rights, transmountain and native, are associated with the raw water supply to the MWTP and the GWTP, respectively. The transmountain water is delivered to the Town by means of the BOR facilities which include the Rams Horn Tunnel (hereafter referred to as the "tunnel") from Lake Granby to Mary's Lake. The raw water source for the Town's newest plant, MWTP, is piped directly from the tunnel to the plant. The BOR typically shuts the tunnel down for 2-4 weeks during October for maintenance. During the tunnel shut down, the Town can rely on a pump station with an intake in Mary's Lake to pump raw water to MWTP. The BOR agreement dictates that the Town use their 500 ac-ft allotment of water at the MWTP prior to using their other transmountain water. Due to this agreement, the Town does not have an annual surplus of BOR water. In addition, a portion of the Windy Gap water is used as part of the Town's Augmentation Plan. The Town does have an annual surplus of CBT and Windy Gap water after the MWTP and augmentation demands are fulfilled. A portion of this surplus is sold to smaller water users who have agreements with the Town. In the past, the Town's native water rights served as direct raw water diversions to three separate water treatment plants. Since then, the Fall River Water Treatment Plant and the Black Canyon Water Treatment Plant have been decommissioned. The GWTP is a 3 mgd operational facility with dedicated water rights for 1.3 mgd on average. Since only the GWTP is still operational, a portion of the remaining native water rights have been transferred to Glacier Creek. (Not all of the Fall River agricultural water rights have been transferred to date.) All of the Town's native water rights have junior priority. Consequently, the Town's rights are out -of -priority most of the time. In order to overcome this obstacle, the Town has adopted an Augmentation Plan. The Plan was implemented in 2001 and allows the Town to divert their junior native water rights year-round in exchange for augmentation with Windy Gap water. The exchange ratio is 10:1, i.e. 100 ac-ft of treated junior native water rights is replaced by 10 ac-ft of Windy Gap water. It is important to note that BOR and CBT water cannot be used for augmentation at this time. The native water rights associated with GWTP currently have an instantaneous withdrawal limitation of 4 cfs, which is equivalent to 2.58 mgd. The Town is planning to purchase additional water rights for the GWTP within the next year that would allow the plant to produce at 4 mgd. Unlike GWTP, the MWTP does not have an instantaneous withdrawal limitation on its transmountain water rights. Therefore, MWTP could produce 4 mgd on a peak day/s if necessary. Following the purchase of additional water rights for GWTP, the Town's combined water supply capacity will be 8 mgd, which satisfies the projected buildout peak day demand of 7.9 mgd. (Section 3.0 will address the demand projection used to arrive at this value.) Consequently, there are no additional water supply purchases identified within the planning window of this Conservation Plan and water supply and water rights will not be further addressed. 6 Water Conservation Plan 2.3 System Limitations The greatest issue of concern to the Town's water system is a major renovation project that is needed at GWTP in order to replace aging infrastructure and address upcoming EPA water regulations. Two recent engineering studies that evaluate existing water treatment facilities have been completed by the Town. The first of the two studies, the Water Treatment Facilities Evaluation, included condition assessments of the two water plants and developed a plan to meet the long-term projected water demand. Options for improvement or replacement of the two plants were evaluated in this study, with the final recommendation to improve and expand capacity at the MWTP utilizing submerged membranes, reserving the decision whether to improve or replace the GWTP until more information could be obtained regarding the cost of that effort. Since this study was completed in 2007, the MWTP has been upgraded with submerged membranes and now has a treatment capacity of 4 mgd but operates at 2 mgd peak flow. The current restrictions on operating at design flow are tied to the availability of waste discharge capacity (and the cost to discharge). The second of the two studies, the Water Treatment Facilities Phase 2 Study, was completed in 2010. This study is an in-depth evaluation of the facilities at the GWTP, with the objective of making a determination whether to improve the plant or replace it entirely, and if it were to be replaced, at what location. GWTP is at significant risk for meting the drinking water quality regulations under certain water quality conditions which generally occur during runoff. In addition, the plant has the potential for being reclassified, after the 2016 round of sampling, in a treatment bin for the LT2ESWTR that requires additional treatment beyond conventional treatment. The plant is composed of aging equipment, buildings and concrete tanks, so that repair or upgrade without complete replacement is not cost effective. A significant amount of work is required to demolish and replace the GWTP on the existing site. The current plan is to move towards complete replacement for the plant, probably by 2021, with a treatment capacity of 2.65 mgd, which is equivalent to the water rights limit for instantaneous withdrawal at Glacier Creek of 4.1 cfs. (Note, the instantaneous withdrawal rate for GWTP has since been clarified as 4.0 cfs, which is equivalent to 2.58 mgd.) 2.4 Water Costs and Pricing The water utility provides only potable water to its customers. Between 2000 and 2009, the peak billing years occurred in 2000 and 2007. The water utility has seen a steady decline in volume of sales in recent years. The following illustrates the decline of the most recent year's water use reduction: 2007 to 2008 2008 to 2009 2009 to 2010 0.5% reduction 1 % reduction almost 2% reduction There have been no major reductions in customers to account for this decline. The decline in water use translates to a decline in revenue, which drives the need for greater rate adjustments to fully fund the operating and capital needs of the system. This trend holds true nationwide for residential customers and is due to a number of factors, but in particular to water efficient plumbing fixtures (toilets, washing machines and dishwashers). The national plumbing code has new low water use requirements in place for washing machines since 2010 and dishwashers beginning in 2011. This trend (decline in residential 7 Water Conservation Plan water use per household) is expected to continue as appliances are replaced over the next decade1. A trend in less people per household and the economic downturn are two other elements playing into these household usage and billing reductions. The Town has also been actively reducing unaccounted for water over the past several years. In 2010, the Town completed a comprehensive water rate study and review of water system development charges. As part of the comprehensive rate study, existing rates were reviewed and analyzed for each customer class of service. The existing rate structure is comprised of a monthly base charge that is dependent on the size of water meter for all classes of service. In addition to the base charge, there is a uniform usage charge rate for each 1,000 gallons of water consumption. Outside the Town limits, rural customers pay an additional 60% for service. The Town has four customer classes: residential, commercial, pumped flow, and bulk water. The bulk water customers are essentially subdivisions that are served by private water companies who have requested water service from the Town. The bulk water customers pay their system development charge over a period of twenty years once they are connected to the Town's system and receiving water service. One important revenue shift for the Town in 2011 is that this "surcharge" revenue from bulk water customers will discontinue by $22,000 as two of the bulk water customers have completed their 20-year payment period. This equates to slightly more than half a percent reduction of overall rate revenue. During the rate design phase of the 2010 study, discussions of goals and objectives for the utility were undertaken. The primary objective established by the study was to maintain revenue stability, and provide adequate revenue for operations and capital needs. At the same time, the utility has seen a decline in water consumption in recent years. While conservation billing rate options were discussed and explored, the utility management felt that with the existing reduction in consumption currently taking place, a conservation designed rate would de -stabilize the revenue stream. Since revenue stability was the key objective of the study, an adjustment to the meter charge was developed. This involved applying the American Water Works Association (AWWA) meter capacity weighting factors for a %- inch meter to the meter charges. These weighting factors reflect the capacity of the meter with respect to the potential demand on the system. Thus, a customer with a larger meter pays a larger meter charge, or base rate, to account for the greater demand they place on the system. Since this adjustment would create a greater rate increase to customers with larger meters, the proposed rates were developed to be implemented over a three-year period. Overall, the 2010 rate study showed that the level of adjustment needed to meet the revenue requirement was 6.8% per year for the next several years. The Town Commissioners felt that this increase was too high and that the meter charge increases would further penalize customers with larger meters at an economically sensitive time. Therefore, the Town decided to maintain the existing rate structure and apply a 5.6% revenue adjustment to each rate component (the meter charge and the consumption charge) for 2011 through 2013. If the Town considers implementing a conservation -based rate structure in the future, a seasonal rate appears to be the most appropriate from a rate design perspective. This type of rate would have the volumetric, or consumption -based, rate component increase in the peak season (summer), when the Town's population swells with tourism. This form of rate structure provides increased cash flow closer Trends in Residential Water Usage and its Impact on Water Utility Financial Planning, American Water, Gary Naumick, P.E., AWWA Utility Management Conference, Denver CO, February 2011. Water Conservation Plan to the time when system operating costs are higher, due to increased pumping and chemical usage to meet peak demands. Table 2-2 provides a summary of the water utility rates for all customer classes of service, including the previous 2010 rates and the newly adopted 2011 rates. Table 2-2 Summary of the 2010 and 2011 Water Utility Rates 2010 2010 2011 Urban Rural Urban Monthly Water Base Rate 5/8" $17.90 3/4" 17.90 in 19.67 1- 1/2" 23.90 2" 26.85 3" 61.59 4" 86.32 Consumption - $/1,000 gallons Residential All Consumption $3.77 Commercial All Consumption $3.67 Pumped Flow All Consumption $5.28 Bulk Water All Consumption $4.22 $28.67 28.67 31.50 38.27 42.98 98.56 138.13 $6.03 $5.88 $8.44 $6.75 $18.90 18.90 20.77 25.24 28.35 65.04 91.15 $3.98 $3.88 $5.58 $4.46 Water customers are billed on a monthly basis. On average, an urban residential customer with a 3/4-inch meter uses approximately 5,000 gallons of water in a month. Under the present rates, this customer would pay $36.75 per month. Under the Board adopted rates that cost will increase to approximately $38.80. The Town's utility bills include both water and electric service charges, on a monthly basis. The billing department cannot distinguish between the water and electric utilities for numbers of delinquent billings. While water bills are highest in summer, the electric utility bills are highest in winter, due to heating requirements. Delinquent bills have increased somewhat since the economic downturn. The total number of delinquent bills issued from 2009 to 2010 increased 13%. However, for the first five months of 2011 compared to the first five months of 2010, the number of delinquencies issued has dropped 16%. Overall, levels of delinquencies appear to be remaining relatively stable. The Town has incurred the same increase in foreclosures and bankruptcies in recent years that are seen nationally, and along with that, some billings to write-off, but nothing unusual has transpired in the recent past. This completes the discussion of the Town's water utility billing and revenue trends. A more detailed discussion of the development of the comprehensive rate study can be found in the Town's Comprehensive Water Rate Study Final Report, January 2011, HDR. 9 Water Conservation Plan 2.5 Current Policies and Planning Initiatives The Town currently has a 3-stage water conservation plan that was developed after the drought in 2002. Table 2-3 summarizes the 3-stages and Table 2-4 summarizes the specific water usage restrictions during each of the stages. Table 2-3 3-Stage Conservation Plan Summary Stage Description Conservation Measures 1 This is the normal mode of operation. Voluntary water conservation measures are suggested to encourage prudent water use, but none are mandated. Voluntary conservation measures are included in this stage to embed water efficiency programs into the fabric of the community and achieve permanent reductions in per capita water use. Long-term water demand management programs include both structural and non-structural measures. 2 This stage is triggered by the loss of one of the water supply sources and a likely reduction in the other supply source. Mandatory water restrictions are in effect to reduce water demands. Water rates are increased to recover the same amount of revenue as existing rates recovered under Stage I conditions. Immediate action is necessary in Stage II to reduce water demands. The Town's primary tool for achieving short-term reductions in water use is to declare that Stage II conditions exist and to enact restrictions to reduce water consumption until adequate supplies are available. The goal of the restrictions is to assure that water is continuously available to all customers for minimal irrigation and essential uses that protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. 3 This stage is triggered by the loss of both water supply sources. Severe water restrictions are in effect and water rates are drastically increased to recover the same amount of revenue as existing rates recovered under Stage I conditions and to penalize unnecessary water usage. 10 Water Conservation Plan Table 2-4 Summary of Water Restrictions by Conservation Stage Conservation Measures Stage I (Normal) Stage II (Moderate) Stage III (Emergency) Impose water rate surcharge No No Yes Allow turf Irrigation Yes Yes No Voluntary watering days are designated Yes N/A N/A Mandatory watering days are designated and should be observed N/A Yes N/A Voluntary landscape/lawn non- watering between 10 am and 6 pm. Yes N/A N/A Mandatory landscape/lawn non- watering between 10 am and 6 pm. N/A Yes N/A Limit lawn watering to 2 hours per day on designated watering days N/A Yes N/A Prohibit new lawn seeding or sod No Yes Yes Allow hand watering Yes Yes Yes Allow spray or bucket car washing Yes Yes No Allow use of automated car washes that recycle wash water Yes Yes No Allow use of automated car washes that do not recycle wash water Yes No No Watering days — Voluntary in Stage I, Mandatory in Stages II and III Street addresses ending in 0 to 4: Monday, Thursday, Saturday Street addresses ending in 5 to 9: Tuesday, Friday, Sunday In the future, the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) may require all water utilities to develop a Drought Mitigation Plan. If this requirement is implemented, the Town may revisit and further refine the 3-stage plan outlined above to address additional issues such as modified drought rates. It should be noted that CWCB does offer grants to assist water providers in development of these mitigation plans. The Town has completed a number of planning documents over the past decade which have been referenced throughout this Conservation Plan. With the exception of a potential Drought Mitigation Plan for CWCB, the Town does not intend to develop any additional planning studies in the near future that would impact conservation efforts. 2.6 Current Water Conservation Activities Historically the Town has promoted water conservation in the community using two means: posting of conservation information on the Town's website and distribution of free water saving plumbing fixtures. Conservation information on the Town's website includes a summary of the Town's 3-Stage Conservation Plan (see Section 2.5), a list of conservation tips, and an advertisement for a "free water - saver kit". The Town intends to maintain the conservation information on the website, but there are no plans to update the website at this time. 11 Water Conservation Plan The "free water -saver kits" referenced on the Town website currently consists of a variety of water saving plumbing fixtures as sold by Niagara Conservation and distributed by the Town to its customers for free. The Town currently maintains an inventory of the following Niagara fixtures/accessories: 1.5 gpm showerheads, toilet tank bladders, 1.5 gpm faucet aerators, 0.5 gpm faucet aerators, and dye tablets (for toilet leak detection). The Town distributes these items for free to any customers who request them and some special interest groups such as the Recreation District. This program has been in place now for 5 years and the Town will continue to utilize this program in the future as part of its conservation efforts. 3.0 Historic Water Use and Demand Forecast The Town completed a demand forecast as part of their "Potable Water Demand Projection" report in 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the "2007 Demand Projection"). The majority of Section 3.0 was extracted and streamlined from the 2007 Demand Projection to serve as the basis of water use characterization and demand forecasting for this Conservation Plan. The figures and tables presented in this section are based on data collected through 2006. The Town has not experienced any significant changes in the parameters that were used in the 2007 Demand Projection (population growth rates, water usage, land use, etc.) and therefore the demand forecast that was produced as a result of that study is considered to still be valid. 3.1 Service Area Population The Town of Estes Park is somewhat unique in that the population doubles and sometimes triples in the summer due to the large influx of visitors. In general, the population of the water service area can be divided into four categories: permanent, transient, non -transient, and wholesale. The Town has prepared a statistical population analysis that is provided to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE). The analysis estimates the population of the Estes Valley in both the peak season (May -September) and the off-season (October -April) for each of the four categories listed above. (A copy of the statistical population analysis, titled 2006 Population Fact Sheet and Projections, is provided in the 2007 Demand Projection.) Some of the population data from the Town's population analysis was incorporated into the 2007 Demand Projection to serve as the current population basis. This data was projected into the future as part of the study. 3.1.1 Permanent Population The historic permanent population of the Town is best -reflected in the population numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau. Table 3-1 summarizes the Census population numbers and estimates for the Town, Estes Valley, Larimer County, and the State. Figure 3-1 shows the annual percent growth for these entities as well as other Colorado communities and counties as estimated by various agencies. A copy of the population data used to compile Figure 3-1 is provided in the 2007 Demand Projection. 12 Water Conservation Plan Table 3-1 Census Population Summary Year Town of Estes Park Percent Annual Change Estes Valley Percent Annual Change Larimer County Percent Annual Change State of Colorado Percent Annual Change 1950 1,617 - - - 43,554 - 1,325 - 1960 1,175 -3.1 - - 53,343 2.0 1,754 2.8 1970 1,616 3.2 3,554 - 89,900 5.4 2,225 2.4 1980 2,703 5.3 4,070 1.4 149,184 5.2 2,908 2.7 1990 3,672(1) 3.1 6,044 4.0 186,136 2.2 3,303 1.3 2000 5,413 4.0 8,889 3.9 251,494 3.1 4,301 2.7 2010 8,013(2) 4.0 11,500(2) 2.6 - - - - Notes: (1) The U.S. Census Bureau reported a population of 3,184 for the Town in 1990. The Town did not feel this was an accurate count due to changes in Census Tract 28 and the means by which the Census surveys were distributed. The Town estimate of the 1990 population is 3,672. (2) Town of Estes Park estimate taken from the May 2006 Town of Estes Park Community Profile. (3) Percent Annual Change example calculation for the Town of Estes Park in 1960 = [(1175/1617)^(1/(1960-1950))]-1 = (-0.031) Percent Annual Population Change 10% - 8% 6% 4% - 2% A 0% Figure 3-1 Population Growth Trends A 1960 ' 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 -2% -4% Year Town of Estes Park °°°°°°Estes Valley Berthoud A Loveland Larimer County Clear Creek County Gilpin County Steamboat iii Dillon State of Colorado As shown in Figure 3-1, the Town, Valley, and the county all experienced 2-4% growth between 1990 and 2000. The Town estimated the 2010 population to be 8,013 in the Town itself and 11,500 in the 13 Water Conservation Plan Valley, representing 4.0% and 2.6% average annual growth, respectively from 2000. Another means to analyze growth in the Valley is the number of water accounts added each year. The total number of water accounts increased from 4,146 accounts in December of 2000 to 4,838 accounts in December of 2006. This increase represents a 2.6% average annual growth rate between 2000 and 2006, which is in agreement with the Town's estimated growth rate for the Valley. It is important to note the extreme variability in the population growth rates for the region during the past 50 years, as well as the potential for a deceleration in growth in the future. 3.1.2 Transient Population Tourists make up the transient population in the Town. This group is comprised of both day visitors and overnight visitors. During the summer of 2006, the Town completed a survey to examine the visitor profile (Estes Park Summer Visitor Survey 2006, November 2006, RRC Associates). The survey found that the primary attraction for visitors is still Rocky Mountain National Park (RMNP), although activities such as wildlife viewing and other outdoor recreation activities also have a high importance. Roughly 30 percent of visitors to the Town were from Colorado, with the remainder corning from all over the country. The total number of out-of-state visitors increased from 64 to 70 percent since the previous survey ten years earlier. The survey results support the assumption that the transient population in the Town correlates closely with the total number of visitors to RMNP. Furthermore, the number of visitors to the Town is more influenced by national growth trends and trends in visitation to National Parks then it is by growth trends within Colorado. To obtain reasonable projections for the number of RMNP visitors, historic data for visitor numbers were obtained. RMNP staff has estimates for visitor numbers dating back to 1915. However, in 1984, RMNP changed their estimate methodology to adjust for the number of persons per vehicle. For this reason, only data collected after 1984 is shown in Figure 3-2. Visitation to RMNP has leveled off in the past 10 years and been on the decline since roughly 1999. A copy of the RMNP visitation records is provided in the 2007 Demand Projection. HDR spoke with the Director of Planning for RMNP regarding future visitation trends during the preparation of the 2007 Demand Projection. It was the Director's opinion that growth would continue to be slow for the next 10 years, reaching approximately 3.5 million annual visitors by the year 2017. The reason for this decline, in the Director's opinion, is due to generational differences and a general decline of interest in the National Parks. However, the trend may also be related to the rising cost of gasoline and increased fees to RMNP. For the 2007 Demand Projection, the future visitation trends of RMNP were estimated based on the Director's understanding of future visitation as well as historic visitation data. If the growth rate between 1984 and 1999 were to continue from 2006 forward, the projected annual visitors to RMNP would reach 4.5 million by approximately 2030, as shown in Figure 3-2. Additional data to support this opinion could be collected by examining visitation trends in all of the National Parks with a possible focus on the National Parks in the west. 14 N 5.5 _ 0 5.0 _ 4.5 0 :0 > 4.0 O L. .0 3.5 E z To 3.0 < 2.5 2.0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Year Water Conservation Plan Figure 3-2 Historic Annual Number of Visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park Growth trend from 1984 to 1999 • • • • • • • • • • 4.5 million visitors in 2030 if growth trend recovers to historic rate Another source of information used for validating the transient population in the Town is the Estes Park Convention and Visitor's Bureau (CVB). Currently the Town has lodging accommodations for 3,000 people. The CVB refers to this as "3,000 pillows" since various lodging units can accommodate different numbers of guests. (This estimate includes rental condos.) The Town currently has a surplus of lodging inventory and the CVB is unaware of any significant future development plans for lodging. This information supports the concept of estimating the transient population based on the number of visitors to RMNP and placing an upper bound on the transient population projection. The CVB estimates that only 25 percent of visitors to the Town do not visit RMNP. This indicates that the RMNP visitor numbers remain the best parameter available to estimate the transient population in the Town. The Town used to be completely booked every summer day roughly 10 years ago, but it is rarely booked full anymore with the exception of major holiday weekends. The CVB's current primary goal is to attract more tourists to the Town in the off-season. The Town is not trying to expand its accommodations infrastructure, but instead is trying to fill what they already have. Increasing occupancy in the off-season does not impact the development of the demand estimate as future water treatment capacity is calculated using the peak day demand. The Town's population analysis estimated the transient population using percentage estimates of RMNP traffic, accoininodation bed counts, and estimates of unaccounted for visitors (those who do not visit the Park and do not stay overnight in the Town). Using this information, the Town estimated that the 2006 transient population was 10,789 visitors per day in the peak season and 2,756 visitors per day in the off- season. 15 Water Conservation Plan For the 2007 Demand Projection, the most likely estimate of the current transient population was based on the estimate by the Town. Since this group of the population is the most difficult to estimate accurately, both low and high estimates of this value were also developed. The high estimate of the transient population was based directly on the RMNP visitors during the period from May through September, 2006. Monthly visitor numbers for 2006 were taken from the visitor summary on the RMNP web site. The daily average number of visitors during the peak season was 15,377 in 2006. As a low end estimate of the transient population, half the number projected by the Town's population analysis was used (5,394), reflecting the high variability potential in the Town's parameters. This falls roughly between the Town's estimates for the transient population in the off-season and peak season. 3.1.3 Non -Transient Population The non -transient population is comprised largely of workers who commute into Town. The major employers in the water service area who were interviewed by the Town for the population analysis included the Park School District, Estes Park Medical Center, Town of Estes Park, Eagle Rock School, Harmony Foundation, and the Estes Valley Recreation District. The number of non-residents within these organizations ranged from 10% to 50%, with an average of 27%. The Town also estimated the unrecorded fraction of the non -transient population who do not work for the employers listed above. In contrast to the typical peak season population increase, the population of non -transients is higher in the off-season due to the schools being in session. The Town estimated the 2006 non -transient population to be 398 persons per day during the peak season and 666 persons per day in the off-season. To simplify the analysis, it was assumed that the estimate developed by the Town was reasonable as it was based on interviews with major employers. Consequently, the peak season estimate of 398 people was used for the analysis. 3.1.4 Wholesale Population The Town provides wholesale water to four bulk wholesale customers and to rural customers via a dispenser located in Town. There are currently four bulk wholesale customers including Windcliff Property Owners Association, Hondius Water Users Association, Park Entrance Mutual Pipeline Water Company, and John Timothy Stone Association. The Town's population estimates for the wholesale bulk customers are based on metered sales and an assumption of per capita water usage. Using this data, the Town estimated the wholesale bulk water customers to be 796 persons per day in the peak -season and 482 persons per day in the off-season. In addition, the Town estimated that the existing wholesale bulk water customers were at 80% of buildout with no future plans for expansion. The wholesale population is not a significant component of the total water service area population. To simplify the analysis, it was assumed that the estimate developed by the Town is reasonable and the peak season estimate of 796 people per day was used. 3.1.5 Other Populations Not Included in Projections Several other populations exist inside and around the water service area, including the YMCA of the Rockies, Camp Cheley, and Prospect Mountain Water Company. The YMCA of the Rockies recently constructed a new water treatment plant and is not expected to require permanent Town water service in the future. Camp Cheley has their own water system, but is currently hauling water from the Town dispenser. The Town has discussed serving Prospect Mountain (approximately 350 homes and 0.03 mgd usage) in the past. It is possible that when the Prospect Mountain contract with the Bureau of Reclamation is up for renewal this year, discussions will resume, but this population was not included in the population projections. 16 Water Conservation Plan The Town has existing emergency agreements with the YMCA of the Rockies (up to 0.43 mgd) and with Prospect Mountain Water Company to provide water on an emergency request. Although these customers are not included in the population projections, they are included in the buildout demand to ensure that the water treatment plant has capacity for both the Town's peak day demand as well as emergency service to both the YMCA and Prospect Mountain Water Company. (Since the 2007 Demand Projection, the Town has entered into discussions with Prospect Mountain regarding becoming their permanent water supplier.) The Town is currently in discussion with the National Park Service regarding future connection of the RMNP headquarters facilities to the Town's water system as a wholesale customer. Based on the average peak season usage by RMNP since 2000, adding the Park as a wholesale customer is the equivalent of 375 people per day to the population projection. Town staff indicated that RMNP could become a wholesale customer in the near future. This demand does not have a significant impact on water treatment plant capacity. Therefore, the population was not included in the projections, but the demand was included in the buildout demand calculation. 3.1.6 Population Growth Rate Projections Table 3-2 below summarizes the probability of projected growth rates for the various populations served by the water system as well as the basis for the projected growth. The 2006 peak season population for wholesale bulk and non -transient populations was based on the population analysis by the Town. The 2006 peak season population for transient visitors was assigned a level of variability as part of the analysis. Table 3-2 Summary of Projected Population Growth Rates Population Type 2006 Peak Season Population Percent Annual Growth Probability Basis of Growth Projection Permanent 10,369(1) 1.4 Low Lowest annual growth rate for Town, Valley, and County since 1970 based on Census data. 2.6 Most LikelyAverage annual increase in number of water accounts between 2000 and 2006. 4.0 High Average annual growth rate for Town and Valley between 1990 and 2000 from Census data Transient 10,789(2) 1.1 Low Average annual growth rate for number of visitors to RMNP between 1990 and 2006. 3.5 Most Likely Average annual growth rate for number of visitors to RMNP between 1984 and 2006. Assumes balance of visitors who do not visit RMNP and visitors to RMNP that do not stop In Estes Park. 6.6 High Average annual growth rate for number of visitors to RMNP between 1984 and 1999, which is the period of maximum growth of RMNP visitors. Wholesale Bulk 796t;) 0.7 Low Primarily rural communities; assume growth rates will be half of the permanent population growth rate based on growth rates in the region. 1.3 Most Likely 2.0 High Non Transient 398t;t 1.4 Low Primarily supports the permanent population; use same growth rates as permanent population growth rates. 2.6 Most Likely 4.0 High Notes: (1) Based on 2000 population of Estes Valley (8,889) and an average annual growth rate of 2.6 percent. (2) For this study, the 2006 transient population will be varied as follows: low = 5,394, most likely = 10,789, and high = 15,377. (3) Based on 2006 Population Fact Sheet and Projections, which is a statistical population analysis prepared by the Town for the State. (See Appendix of 2007 Demand Projection.) 17 Water Conservation Plan 3.2 Potable Water Demand 3.2.1 Historic Treatment Plant Production Figure 3-3 is a plot of historic peak day water treatment plant production by month for 2001-2006. Data from 1993 were also plotted for comparison. This figure shows the seasonality of potable water demand which has two components: increased population in the water service area in the summer time and increased water demand by the population in the summer as compared to the winter. The figure also shows that the pattern of seasonal usage has remained relatively consistent for the past twenty years. Note that the maximum peak day production occurred in 2002 (4.3 mgd), which is considered by the water industry to be a representative year for drought conditions in Colorado. 5.0 - 4.5 4.0 3.5 >• 2.5 .c r 2.0 1.5 0 0 0.5 0.0 Figure 3-3 Seasonal Water Treatment Plant Production 1993 ■ 2001 umi2002 0 2003 2004 M 2005 2006 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month Potable water demand is typically analyzed by determining the average annual day demand and applying a peaking factor to estimate peak day demand. For the 2007 Demand Projection, the average day demand in the peak season (May -September) was used along with a peaking factor representing the ratio of the peak day demand to the average demand in the peak season. This adjustment was made because the growth rate of the peak season population is more easily estimated for this community than the growth rate of the average annual population. Figure 3-4 shows the historic peak day demand, average demand in the peak season, and the peaking factor from the Town's treatment plant production records. Note that demand decreased significantly following the drought in 2002. Since this time, the demand appears to be rebounding back to the pre -drought conditions. Like many communities in the region, this may reflect voluntary conservation practices. However, there is not enough data currently available to 18 Water Conservation Plan solidify this conclusion. Table 3-3 shows the historic minimum, average, and maximum values for each of these parameters. The values listed for the peaking factor (ratio of peak demand to average demand in peak season) were used as the low, most -likely, and high values in the 2007 Demand Projection. 5.0 4.5 4.0 g 3.5 E 3.0 CI 2.5 g 2.0 42 1.5 0 a. 1.0 0.5 0.0 Figure 3-4 Historic Treatment Plant Production Peak Day Demand -+Avg Day Demand in Peak Season .--Peak/Avg Ratio (Peak Season) 411 .c rn 0 Potential conservation 1♦ effects 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 Year 2003 2005 Table 3-3 Historic Potable Water Production (1993-2006) Historic Occurrence Peak Demand Avg. Day Demand Peak Season (May- Sept) Peak/Avg Ratio Peak Season Minimum 2.5 1.7 1.3 (Low) Average 3.2 2.0 1.6 (Most Likely) Maximum 4.3 2.2 2.0 (High) 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 2007 Peak/Avg Demand Ratio 3.2.2 Per Capita Usage Metered water usage by month as well as total water treatment plant production in 2006 is shown in Figure 3-5. The data show that residential water usage and commercial water usage are roughly the same at the present, and the usage follows the same seasonal demand trend. The difference between the water treatment plant production in Figure 3-5 and the total metered water is in small part due to wholesale customers (bulk and dispenser) because their meter records are not included here, and is 19 Water Conservation Plan largely due to system losses. System losses include water used or lost in the treatment plant, conveyance, and distribution. Losses in the Town's water system have stabilized and are not expected to increase as long as the distribution system continues to be maintained. Bleeders are set to bleed water from the system during the winter to keep the distribution pipes from freezing. Their usage is also metered and shown in Figure 3-5 (repeated here from Section 2.1 for the reader's reference). c 80 0 2 a`, 70 a. m (.9 60 0 N 0 50 2 rn , 40 m N 30 R 20 Jam Figure 3-5 2006 Potable Water Usage WTP Production Total Metered Residential Metered Commercial Metered Bleeder Metered 1,11111110,11101111 10 °- 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Month 8 9 10 11 12 Per capita water demand can be calculated by distributing the water treatment production over the population to arrive at a usage per customer. Using this method, each customer is allocated a portion of residential and commercial demand as well as system losses. For the 2007 Demand Projection, the 2006 average water treatment plant production in the peak season (2,078,000 gal/day) was distributed over the peak season population (22,352) to arrive at a per capita usage rate of 93 gallon per capita per day (gpcd). To establish a low value for per capita usage, the average water plant production in the off- season (1,047,000 gal/day) was distributed over the off-season population (14,273) to arrive at a per capita usage rate of 73 gpcd. The high value for per capita usage was established by examining the ratio of peak day demand in a drought condition (2002) with the 2006 peak day demand (year that population data is available). The peak day demands were 4.31 mgd and 3.53 mgd, respectively, representing a 22% increase. This is considered a conservative estimate of the effects of a drought on average peak day usage. There is some impact from population growth between 2002 and 2006 that may have also caused the peak day usage to increase during this time period. However, the effect is considered minimal and counter -acted by potential voluntary conservation efforts following the drought of 2002. The 22% increase was applied to the most likely per capita usage rate of 93 gpcd to establish the upper limit of per capita usage at 113 gpcd. For comparison, the per capita usage of the Northern Colorado NISP communities is 177 gpcd and the average per capita usage for Denver Water is 180 gpcd. The Town's per capita usage is not as high as these other communities due to the transient population (who 20 Water Conservation Plan use less water than the permanent population), the low occupancy rate of the permanent population (many households are second homes), and the absence of large irrigation demands. Table 3-4 provides a summary of per capita usage rates used in the 2007 Demand Projection. Table 3-4 Per Capita Demands Probability Per Capita Demand (gpcd) Low 73 Most Likely 93 High 113 The per capita demands listed in the table above include all four categories of population (permanent, transient, wholesale, and non -transient). A more detailed analysis could be performed if per capita demands could be developed for each of these population categories, specifically permanent and transient since they represent the majority of the population. However, the permanent and transient populations can not be specifically associated with the residential and commercial usage (billing records) for several reasons including: • A portion of the transient population stays in rental condos, which have residential meters • The permanent population has an impact on commercial usage, which cannot be separated from the impact of the transient population on commercial usage In general, the transient population will use less water than the permanent population primarily because a significant portion of the transient population is day visitors to Town and do not stay overnight. By applying the same per capita demand to both populations, we assumed that the ratio of permanent and transient populations will remain the same in the future. In reality, it is more likely that the growth rate of the transient population will outpace the growth rate of the permanent population. However, the demand projection will still be conservative (on the high side) since it is based on the ratio of the permanent population to the transient population in 2006 and this ratio is expected to increase in the future. 3.3 Buildout Conditions The buildout population of Estes Park was identified for each of the population categories discussed above. The buildout number for the permanent population was estimated using an extensive land use analysis. The buildout number for the transient population for the transient population was estimated using an analysis of growth trends in visitation to Rocky Mountain National Park. The buildout population of the wholesale population and the non -transient population could be reasonably estimated from the available data. These populations do not have much impact on the total water demand and therefore single point estimates were used with very little variability. The peak day demand at buildout was estimated by multiplying the total buildout population by the high per capita usage rate (113 gpcd) and the high peaking factor (2.0). Using the high values for both of these parameters helps to ensure that the Town will have capacity to handle unexpected demand, mainly due to drought, but also due to changes in people's water usage patterns. A 2.0 peaking factor occurred in the past (2002 and 2003). Three additional demands were included in the buildout peak day demand 21 Water Conservation Plan R including the RMNP headquarters facilities, the emergency interconnect with the YMCA of the Rockies (up to 0.43 mgd) and the emergency interconnect with the Prospect Mountain Water Company. The resulting peak day demand estimate at buildout is 7.9 mgd using the buildout condition assumptions established in the 2007 Demand Projection. Table 3-5 provides a summary of the calculation used for peak day demand at buildout. Table 3-5 Summary of Peak Day Demand at Buildout Peak Season Population 2006 Additional at Buildout Total at Buildout Perrnanent 10,369 2,369 12,738 Transient 10,789 7,592 18,381 Wholesale Bulk 796 200 996 Non -Transient 398 111 509 Total Population 22,352 10,272 32,624 Average Per Capita Usage during Peals Season (gpcd) 113 Peak/Avg Ratio in Peak Season (Peaking Factor) 2.0 Subtotal Peak Day Demand (mdg) 7.37 RMNP Headquarters Demand (mgd) 0.08 YMCA of the Rockies Emergency Interconnect (mgd) 0.43 Prospect Mountain Emergency Interconnect (mgd) 0.03 Water Treatment Plant Capacity Required at Buildout (mgd) 7.9 3.4 Potable Water Demand Projections The low, most likely, and high estimates developed in the previous sections of this report were incorporated into a Monte Carlo simulation. Monte Carlo simulation is a widely accepted risk assessment tool, which randomly samples from within the underlying distributions associated with demand parameters to generate a very large number of alternative combinations of these variables. The result is a joint frequency distribution for peak day demand consisting of 5,000 or more possible outcomes, with a probability associated with each. The following four steps were used to perform the analysis in the 2007 Demand Projection: The 2006 peak season population was used as a starting point for each of the four population categories (permanent, transient, wholesale, and non -transient). The 2006 transient population was assigned a low, most likely, and high probability. All other population categories were not varied for 2006. 2. Low, most likely and high growth rates were assigned to each of the population categories. 3. The total population was multiplied by the average per capita demand in the peak season. The average per capita demand was assigned a low, most likely, and high value. 22 Water Conservation Plan 4. The average demand in the peak season from Step 4 was multiplied by a peaking factor. The peaking factor was assigned a low, most -likely, and high value. Table 3-6 Summary of Parameters Used in Monte Carlo Simulation Parameter Low Most Likely High 2006 Permanent Population 10,369 10,369 10,369 2006 Transient Population 5,395 10,789 15,377 2006 Whole Sale Population 796 796 796 2006 Non -Transient Population 398 398 398 Permanent Population Growth Rate 1.4 2.6 4.0 Transient Population Growth Rate 1.1 3.5 6.6 Whole Sale Population Growth Rate 0.7 1.3 2.0 Non -Transient Population Growth Rate 1.4 2.6 4.0 Per Capita Demand (gal/day) 73 93 113 Peak Day Demand / Avg Day Demand in Peak Season Ratio (Peaking Factor) 1.3 1.6 2.0 Figure 3-6 illustrates the peak day demand projection curves resulting from the 2007 Demand Projection. Each curve represents a peak day demand condition with a percent probability that the demand in a given year will exceed that demand condition. For example, in 2015, there is 25 percent probability that the 4.9 mgd demand will be exceeded based on the assumptions of this analysis. 23 Q 8 7 4 IL 2 1 O Water Conservation Plan Figure 3-6 Peak Day Demand Projections M� 0 � 00 � � � � Historic Peak Day Demands Each curve represents peak day demand condition with mpomvmchance that the demandinogivou year will exceed that demand ovn8iioo. Example: |n2026. there iom25%chance that the 7MGDpeak day demand will hoexceeded based unthe assumptions vfthis ovo|yoiu. 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Year 2020 2025 2030 24 Water Conservation Plan The Most Likely Peak Day Demand curve represents an estimate of future demands with a 50 percent probability that the demands will be larger or smaller than the represented demand condition. In planning for plant expansion, decision makers typically do not use the most likely peak day demand because the risk of the demand being larger than planned is higher than is typically prudent. A more prudent planning curve is the 10 percent exceedance curve. Using the 10 percent curve for the Town, the current plant production capacity will not be exceeded until roughly 2020. However, the GWTP will require replacement prior to this date as previously discussed in this Conservation Plan. 3.5 Conclusion Based on this analysis, the projected peak day demand at buildout of the permanent population will be 7.9 mdg and the buildout population will be 32,664 (including all categories of population). The peak day demand projection is a planning number and reflects several critical assumptions. The first major assumption is that water demands must be met in drought conditions, which means that the buildout peak demand calculation is based on the high peaking factor typical of a drought year. The other major assumptions pertain to the uncertainty in per capita water usage and the future population estimate. The peak day demand projection at buildout is based on a high per capita usage, which is above the calculated average for the Town, but still much below the average per capita usage levels in areas where irrigation is prevalent and the transient population does not make up such a large percentage of the water users (e.g. Denver). If irrigation practices change, the per capita usage will change as well. Uncertainty in the buildout population is associated with the fact that more than half the peak season population is transient and is thus not predictable in association with land use. HDR believes that 7.9 mgd represents a reliable planning level projection that will ensure the Town can provide sufficient water to customers in the future. Consequently, this buildout projection which was established by the 2007 Demand Projection will serve as the basis of planning for this Conservation Plan. 4.0 Profile Proposed Facilities 4.1 Identify and Cost Potential Facility Needs Through the Town's planning efforts over the past 10 years, a number of facility improvements and additions have been identified to replace aging infrastructure. The schedule for these improvements has been developed in a manner that allows for completion of plant improvements projects while still having potable water capacity to operate. The four major project areas included in the planning are detailed in this section. 4.1.1 MWTP Improvements MWTP improvements, which were completed in early 2011, brought the total plant capacity to 4 mgd by retrofitting the existing facility with 2-stage membrane treatment. The plant typically operates at or near 99% recovery, with waste flows of one percent of production being discharged to the wastewater system. Currently, the Town has a discharge limit of 20,000 gal/day, averaged over a month, to the sanitary sewer. This limitation effectively limits plant production to 2.2 mgd. The Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD) fee structure is comprised of tap fees, discharge fees, and surcharge fees. UTSD does not have a commercial or industrial tap rate, so MWTP discharges are 25 Water Conservation Plan subject to the single family equivalent (SFE) tap fee of $8,700/SFE. Each SFE is equivalent to 200 discharge. The current UTSD discharge fee is $6.25 per 1000 gallons of water discharged, with a surcharge for wastewater with TDS above 230 mg/L of $0.36/lb. Based on these fees, the cost for the Town to purchase additional discharge capacity to increase the discharge limit to 40,000 gal/day would be $870,000 for the tap fees. If the taps were purchased by the town, the Marys Lake WTP production limit would be 4 mgd. Daily discharge fees for wastewater at 4 mgd plant flow rate would be $250/day. 4.1.2 GWTP Replacement The Town plan calls for replacing the existing GWTP conventional treatment plant with a two -stage membrane plant on the same site. The current plant can produce up to 3.6 mgd for very short periods of time, but typically operates at peak flows of 2.65 mgd during the summer season. Replacement plant infrastructure would be sized for eventual expansion to 4 mgd, with the initial investment in membrane equipment for 2.65 mgd. The plan for providing a 4 mgd plant at the Glacier Creek site is tied back to utilization of water rights at that location and to the desire on the part of the Town to be able to run either one of the two treatment plants during low flow production periods (typically winter), allowing for routine annual scheduled maintenance to take place with the plant off line. The proposed replacement for the GWTP is a two -stage submerged membrane plant similar to MWTP. The project will include pretreatment ahead of the membranes, along with waste tankage, chemical feed systems and storage, and a clearwell. Access road improvements will be required, along with electric service, fiber optic connection, and natural gas service upgrades. The site of the current plant creates some challenges, including piping of waste flows to the nearest sanitary sewer and the associated cost for sewer taps. Disposal of wastewater from the GWTP site to the sanitary sewer will require compliance with the same rate structure from UTSD as is in place at MWTP. Discharge capacity for the GWTP to meet 40,000 gal/day production levels will be $1.74M for tap fees and $250/day for discharge fees. The total 2010 order of magnitude cost estimate for replacing GWTP is $22,772,000 at a capacity of 2.65 mgd. The estimated cost to install additional membrane equipment to increase capacity from 2.65 mgd to 4 mgd is $3,000,000. 4.1.3 System Water Storage Improvements The Town operates 11 water storage tanks, including two treatment plant clearwells, which are distributed within seven different pressure zones. Analysis and evaluation of storage capacity in each pressure zone identified four zones that require additional storage to provide optimum flow equalization, fire flow, and standby volumes of water. These extra storage requirements are not related to increased demand, rather they are necessary to provide adequate storage and fire flow under current demand conditions. Order of magnitude costs for the proposed new tanks can be found in Appendix A. 4.1.4 Distribution System Improvements The Town has identified distribution system improvements that will upgrade several pipelines that have high velocities and headloss under current demand scenarios, including some upstream of PRV stations. The overall objective of these projects is to reduce the risk of failure in distribution system piping. Upgrades to or parallel PRV installations to existing Stations have been identified to increase flow 26 Water Conservation Plan through them. These improvements are being scheduled into the capital improvement program for the utility over the coming years and are not tied solely to expanded water demand. Order of magnitude costs for the proposed system improvements can be found in Appendix A. 4.1.5 Improvements Schedule The Town has already completed the first major project that is part of the improvements plan, the renovation of MWTP to produce 4 mgd. As the Town moves forward to replace the GWTP, timing must be tied to both the demand projections and to the potential for required treatment improvements that may arise as a result of raw water quality testing under the Long -Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. Plant improvements are proposed to take place in accordance with Figure 4-1, where GWTP is taken off line for replacement in 2019, with completion at 2.65 mgd capacity by 2021. Prior to taking GWTP off line, the wastewater discharge capacity at MWTP must be adequate to allow the plant to produce 4 mgd as the Town must have capacity to survive on only one plant for a two-year period. (This could be accomplished either through third stage treatment or purchase of additional discharge capacity from UTSD.) Even with MWTP at 4 mgd capacity, additional temporary treatment may be necessary during the GWTP reconstruction period (or at least during peak summer demands). The Town cannot further delay the reconstruction of GWTP because the deficit in available treated water would be so large as to require extensive temporary treatment units, which would significantly increase the cost of construction. The timing for addition of capacity (from 2.65 mgd to 4 mgd) to the reconstructed GWTP may be delayed, depending on a revision of the demand projection in the future. 27 Water Conservation Plan Figure 4-1 Plant Improvements Schedule Coordinated with Demand Projections (le 4 a 0 1995 'FP Ohe (4 MGD ( GD) TP & GMT OrHIne (8 MGO) iIkout demand — 7.9 MGO 4 MGD) P On -II (4 MGO) MdI membrane bapacrty al P n-lIneMGCI P PMW 4lne MGDJ e 9.65 MGO) Demand 2005, 2 Year • Heti teal nt c' E In225 7 MGD r 0 115 2 20 2025 2 28 Water Conservation Plan 4.2 Prepare an Incremental Cost Analysis The annual incremental cost of expanding water production at the Town of Estes Park is based on the cost of increasing wastewater discharge capacity and on the incremental cost of installed equipment to expand the future GWTP from 2.65 mgd to 4 mgd. Distribution system storage and pipeline improvements are not part of the incremental cost for expansion as they are required under current conditions to optimize the system operation. The annual capital cost estimate shown in Table 4.1 is based on a facility lifetime of 50 years. Table 4-1 Estimated Capital and O&M Costs for System Expansion Improvement Associated with System Capacity Expansion Estimated Capital Cost Estimated Annual Capital Cost (over 50 year life) Estimated Annual O&M Cost Wastewater Discharge at MWTP $870,000 $125 Wastewater Discharge at GWTP for Increased Capacity $587,250 $84 Increase in Future GWTP Capacity from 2.65 mgd to 4 mgd $3,000,000 $1,040 TOTAL COST $4,457,250 $89,145 $1,249 5.0 Identify Conservation Goals The unique situation at the Town of Estes Park prohibits the use of traditional goals that would normally be established in a water conservation planning effort. The Town's situation can be defined as follows: • Peak day demand for the Town is driven by the influx of tourists arriving in the summer, not the permanent population. • Per capita water usage is relatively low given that there is negligible irrigation water usage and the number of tourists, who use significantly less water than a representative of the permanent population. • The projects identified in the Town's capital improvements plan (CIP) are not driven by the need for additional potable water capacity. • The Town has limited staff resources and funding for new conservation efforts. As a result of the issues defined above, the Conservation Plan Committee has established the following goals for the development of this Conservation Plan: 1. Reduce annual treated water volume production by 3% 2. Reduce the volume of waste discharged to sewer at MWTP 3. Review existing conservation measures/programs and decide whether to continue them 4. Provide definition for current utility practices that do not have formal plans or budgets, but that contribute to overall water conservation 29 Water Conservation Plan 5. Provide a documented report of potential conservation measures/programs that could be implemented in the future, even if they are not selected for immediate implementation as part of this plan 6. Develop a Conservation Program that will be implemented by the Town following the completion of this plan 6.0 Identify Conservation Measures and Programs 6.1 Identify Conservation Measures and Programs The Conservation Plan Committee met on June 8, 2011 and September 28, 2011 to review potential conservation measures and programs. The list of conservation measures and programs that were considered for this Conservation Plan are listed below and a description of each follows. Demand -Side Measures (DM) • Water -Saving Fixtures • Town Irrigation System Improvements Supply -Side Measures (SM) • Third Stage Treatment • Bleeder Automation • Pressure Zone Management Demand Side Programs (DP) • Water Audits for Top Customers • Elementary Education Program • Drought Plans and Rates • Rate Structure by Meter Size • Time of Upgrade and Time of Sale • Multi -Family Residential Unit Metering • Town Website Supply -Side Programs (SP) • Customer Meter Testing and Replacement • Leak Detection and Repair • Tracking of Breaks and Repairs 6.1.1 Water -Saving Fixtures (DM) As previously mentioned in Section 2.6, the Town currently advertises and distributes "free water -saver kits" to its customers for free. The kits consist of a variety of water saving plumbing fixtures as sold by Niagara Conservation including: 1.5 gpm showerheads, toilet tank bladders, 1.5 gpm faucet aerators, 0.5 gpm faucet aerators, dye tablets (for toilet leak detection), and kits containing all of the items listed. This program has been in place now for 5 years and the Town will continue to utilize this program in the future as part of its conservation efforts. This includes distribution of the water saving fixates at the 30 Water Conservation Plan "Sustainable Estes Park" event that is conducted annually by Eagle Rock School. However, the Town does not intend to expand the program beyond its current scope at this time. Given this fact, no further evaluation was done on this program with regards to water savings and cost evaluation. 6.1.2 Town Irrigation System Improvements (DM) Being a major tourist destination, the Town has a number of beautifully landscaped areas that are irrigated with treated water. The existing irrigation system controls are linked to the Town's SCADA, which allows Town staff to turn the system on/off from selected computers (i.e. staff do not have to manually turn the irrigation systems on/off at the individual landscaped locations). The existing system does not currently include the necessary software or hardware to automatically adjust watering amounts based on rainfall, temperature, etc. In order to provide this capability and improve the overall efficiency of the irrigation system, Town staff has proposed the following improvements to the irrigation system for evaluation as part of this conservation planning study: • Purchase and install wireless rainfall sensors • Perform water audits on all of the Town's irrigated water zones With the exception of the Town's irrigation system, there are limited opportunities for landscape efficiency measures within the Town. The vast majority of residents do not have turf lawns and/or landscaped areas due to the climate and the large population of elk that would destroy such vegetation. 6.1.3 Third Stage Treatment at MWTP (SM) Although the MWTP is rated for 4 mgd treatment capacity, the plant is somewhat handicapped by its sewer discharge limitations. Sewer discharge from MWTP is sent to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD) wastewater plant and generally consists of waste from the second stage membranes, backwash waste from the raw water screens, waste from water quality analyzers, and sanitary waste. The Town has purchased sewer capacity and has an agreement in place with UTSD which allows for a sewer discharge of 20,000 gallons per day (calculated as an average daily discharge over a month). In addition to the base capacity that has already been purchased, the Town must also pay a discharge cost, which is currently set at $6.25 per 1,000 gallons of sewer discharge. On a continual basis, the MWTP can produce roughly 2.2 mgd and stay within the 20,000 gallon per day discharge limitation. In order to produce more than 2.2 mgd, additional sewer capacity must be purchased from UTSD at a cost of $8,700 per tap (1 tap = 200 gallons per day of capacity). In addition, UTSD may implement a surcharge fee in the future if the waste exceeds UTSD's criteria for total suspended solids (TSS) and/or biological oxygen demand (BOD). Based on the water quality of the discharge at MWTP, the membrane waste flows can be expected to exceed UTS's TSS limit of 230 mg/L, but not the BOD limit of 230 mg/L. UTSD has notified the Town that the estimated surcharge fee for TSS is $0.36 per pound. UTSD tap fees and discharge fees are published on their website. By far, the major source of sewer discharge is backwash waste from the second stage membranes at MWTP. The most efficient means to decrease this waste volume is to install a third stage treatment process, which would result in a dry residual waste that could be hauled to a landfill. Using this approach, only sanitary waste would be discharged to the sewer. The Town evaluated technology 31 Water Conservation Plan alternatives for third stage treatment as part of their "Phase 2 Study, 2010, HDR". The results of that study indicated that membrane technology was the most viable choice for third stage treatment. At that time, the Siemens Memtek crossflow tubular membrane appeared to be the most promising product. Since that time, another membrane supplier, Inge, has entered the United States marketplace and indicated to HDR that they are also interested in a third stage treatment application. The current two- stage membrane system at MWTP has an overall system recovery of about 98%. Using third stage treatment, the system should be able to achieve about 99.9% recovery. 6.1.4 Bleeder Automation (SM) The Town currently has eleven (11) "bleeder" locations located throughout the distribution system where water is allowed to continuously run, primarily during the winter months. These bleeders are operated for freeze protection and are located on 2" distribution lines with shallow bury depths (< 3 feet). The Town has investigated an automatic flushing hydrant product that would allow some of the bleeders to be operated on a timed schedule in lieu of continuous operation. The Town has budgeted to purchase, install, and test several automatic flushing hydrants in 2012 to evaluate the potential water savings from this conservation measure. 6.1.5 Pressure Zone Management (SM) The Town has a significant vertical elevation profile across its service area. A number of pressure zones are required throughout the distribution system in order to maintain the appropriate pressures in each zone of the system. The pressures and zones are controlled by pressure reducing valves (PRV), which reduce the upstream pressure to a pre-set downstream pressure that is acceptable for that particular area of the system. One of the PRV suppliers, Cla-Val, now manufactures a PRV product that can automatically adjust pressure settings depending on system demand. During periods of low demand, the valve automatically adjusts to a lower pressure setting. This results in less water loss since customers will use less water (as a result of lower pressures) and existing leaks will experience less loss (also due to lower pressures). As part of this Conservation Plan, HDR performed a pressure zone management evaluation to assess the potential water savings from implementation of the automatic PRV's described above. Service Area 2 was selected for evaluation since it comprises about 73% of the total system demand and 63% of the total distribution pipe. Within Service Area 2, a total of 8 PRV's would be replaced with new automatic PRV's ranging in size from 2-inch through 8-inch. Using a water savings calculator program available from C1a-Val, the estimated annual water savings value for this system upgrade is $43,000. Additional information on the Cla-Val automatic PRV and the details of the analysis are included in Appendix C. Implementation of the automatic PRV's described above will change the distribution system dynamics such that various portions of Service Area 2 would experience fluctuating pressures on a daily basis (daytime demand versus nighttime demand and the associated pressure settings). Due to the age of the distribution piping in the Town, there is some concern that these pressure fluctuations could increase the frequency of pipe leaks and breaks, thereby decreasing the service life of the affected distribution piping. HDR did not explore this concept with Cla-Val, but agrees that it is a valid concern. Consequently, pressure zone management was not included in the list of final conservation measures/programs to be implemented by the Town as part of this Conservation Plan. However, due to the potential water and cost savings estimated using the analysis presented above, it is strongly recommended that the Town further investigate this conservation measure in the future. 32 Water Conservation Plan 6.1.6 Water Audits for Top Customers (DP) As part of this study, the Town's water billing records from 2008-2010 were reviewed to identify the top water users in the system. This information is included in Appendix B. Being a tourist destination, a number of the Town's top water users are hotels. It may be advantageous to form a partnership between the Town and specific hotels to perform a water audit. There are companies that specialize in water audits of this nature including the Brendle Group located in Fort Collins. The audit process involves a site visit by a specialist who will take an inventory of the existing water using fixtures/equipment (both quantity and rates), estimate the water savings from upgrading to more efficient fixtures/equipment, estimate the costs of the upgrades, and provide a summary report. For a hotel, the audit would focus on the following fixtures/equipment: • Guest room domestic use (shower, toilets, faucet) • Restrooms in common areas • Laundry facilities (if located on site) • Food service equipment (ice machines, dishwashers, sinks, food steamers) • Pool and hot tub Based on the results of the water audit, it may be advantageous for the Town to offer a rebate program to the hotel as part of a fixture/equipment upgrade. HDR estimates the cost of a typical water audit to be roughly $1,000. However, actual estimates are available from the companies that perform this type of work including the Brendle Group. The implementation of either voluntary or mandatory audits for hotels and the other large water customers in Town is a sensitive subject and must be well planned and executed in order to be successful for both the Town and the customers. Consequently, the implementation of a large customer audit program is beyond the scope of this plan and will not be further evaluated. 6.1.7 Elementary Education Program (DP) One means to increase the distribution and implementation of the Town's Niagara water -saving fixtures is to implement an elementary education program for water conservation. However, given the Town's limited staff resources and the already challenged school curriculum, this program was not further evaluated. 6.1.8 Drought Plans and Rates (DP) Town staff is anticipating that the Colorado Water Conservation Board will require all water supply utilities within the State to develop and submit a "drought mitigation plan". Assuming that this requirement will be formalized in the future, the Town is giving consideration to developing a drought rate structure as part of their mitigation plan. The rate structure would establish various water cost rates for customers depending on pre -determined drought triggers with a goal of reducing water consumption through higher rates during times of drought. This measure was not further addressed as part of this Conservation Plan. 6.1.9 Modify Rate Structure by Meter Size (DP) The Town's most recent rate study was performed in 2010 (Water Cost of Service, HDR, December 2010). One of the recommendations from this study was to adjust the monthly water base rate per water 33 Water Conservation Plan R meter size using the standard AWWA meter capacity weightings. In essence, this adjustment would result in larger monthly base rates for all customers based on meter size. Due to the poor economic conditions at the time, it was recommended that the monthly base rate increase be implemented over a 3 year period. This modification to the Town's rate structure was not approved by the Town Board and thus was not further evaluated for this Conservation Plan. However, it is recommended that rate modification by meter size be revisited in the future as part of the Town's next rate study. 6.1.10 Time of Upgrade and Time of Sale (DP) This conservation measure requires customers to meet specific water usage criteria for various fixtures in their home/business in order to receive Building Department approval for upgrades or at the time of sale. If the existing fixtures in the home/business do not meet the water usage criteria, then the customer would be required to install new fixtures prior to proceeding with upgrades or sale. The Conservation Committee believed that the legal issues associated with this conservation measure would make it too difficult to implement and therefore this measure was not further evaluated. 6.1.11 Multi -family Residential Unit Metering (DP) Town ordinance currently requires all new multi -family residential developments to provide individual water meters for each unit of the development. However, many of the existing multi -family residential customers utilize a common "association" meter in lieu of individual meters. A potential conservation measure that was considered would be to enact a new ordinance requiring these existing customers to install individual meters. However, the legal issues required to implement this ordinance would be too complicated and therefore this measure was not further evaluated. 6.1.12 Town Website (DP) As previously mentioned, the Town's website currently contains a summary of the Town's 3-Stage Conservation Plan (see Section 2.5), a list of conservation tips, and an advertisement for a "free water - saver kit". The Town intends to maintain the conservation information on the website, but there are no plans to update the website at this time due to limited staff resources. 6.1.13 Customer Meter Testing and Replacement (SP) All of the Town's water customers are metered and the Town maintains a database of individual meters in the system. The database includes meter size, serial number, and model. The database also includes "installation dates", however, it is unclear whether these dates have been updated as meters are replaced in the system. The Town is in the process of converting to a new accounting software and the issue of meter tracking will be revisited at that time. The Town has tested a number of'/" -2" meters in the recent past and found that the accuracy is generally within 2-5%. Having identified the top water consumers in the system (Appendix B), the Town is interested in testing the larger water meters (3" and 4") for overall accuracy sometime in the future. Town staff estimate that there are fewer than 5 of these larger meters in the system. The testing is performed by an outside agency and can be either performed in place or off -site. Either situation requires considerable coordination with the customer since most of these larger meters are on hotels, which cannot be out of service for a significant amount of time. 34 Water Conservation Plan At this time, the Town does not have a formal meter testing and replacement program in place. Furthermore, there is no dedicated budget within the utility for this task. Members of the Town's metering department have proposed the following program for implementation as part of this Conservation Plan: • Test all 3" and 4" meters in the system within the next 3 years • Replace 2" and larger meters every 5 years • Replace meters smaller than 2" every 10 years Correction and calibration of inaccurate meters will not likely impact the actual amount of water used by the customer unless the meter is found to be grossly under -measuring the water usage (which is not likely based on the Town's previous experience checking water meter accuracy). 6.1.14 Leak Detection and Repair (SP) The Town does not currently have a written policy regarding distribution system leak detection and repair. However, they have conducted leak detection surveys in the past using contract services with American Leak Detection. The Town would like to have a formalized leak detection program and dedicated budget with the goal of checking the entire distribution system in the next five years. Town staff has proposed the following leak detection and repair program for implementation as part of this conservation planning study: • Allocate funds annually for one week of leak detection survey work by American Leak Detection • Repair any leaks identified through the survey work 6.1.15 Tracking of Breaks and Repairs (SP) Town staff has attempted to track major breaks and repairs on a system map located in their Maintenance Shop. Ideally, the Town would like to track breaks and repairs using the existing GIS system database in the future. Customer leaks are tracked by Town staff on an existing spreadsheet. The Town has a "leak" policy stating that leaks occurring on the customer's side of the water meter will be reimbursed 100% if the leak is defendable based on the customer's historic water usage. At this time, the Town does not have budget to dedicate existing or new staff to upgrading the GIS database for tracing breaks and repairs. However, this effort will be considered in future conservation efforts. 6.2 Develop and Define Screening Criteria The Conservation Plan Committee developed the following list of criteria to screen the conservation measures and programs described in the previous section: • Staff resources not available • Legal issues too complex 35 Water Conservation Plan • Other 6.3 Screen Conservation Measures and Programs Table 6-1 summarizes which conservation measures and programs were selected for implementation and which were ruled out based on the screening criteria defined above. Table 6-1 Screening Summary of Conservation Measures and Programs Conservation Measure/Program Will be Implemented / Continued (Yes/No) Comment Water -Saving Fixtures (DM) Yes Town will continue current program and does not plan to expand program Town Irrigation System Improvements (DM) Yes Third Stage Treatment (SM) Yes Bleeder Automation (SM) Yes Pressure Zone Management (SM) No Potential increase in number of pipe breaks and decrease in service life; needs to be further investigated Water Audits for Top Customers (DP) No Requires further evaluation beyond the scope of this study Elementary Education Program (DP) No Staff resources not available Drought Plans and Rates (DP) No On -hold until CWCB enacts a drought mitigation plan requirement Rate Structure by Meter Size (DP) No Not approved by Board; will be revisited as part of next rate study Time of Upgrade and Time of Sale (DP) No Legal issues too complex Multi -Family Residential Metering (DP) No Legal issues too complex Town Website Yes Current conservation information will be maintained, but staff resources are not available to expand the website content Customer Meter Testing and Replacement Yes Leak Detection and Repair Yes Tracking of Breaks and Repairs Yes 36 Water Conservation Plan 7.0 Evaluate and Select Conservation Measures and Programs A total of eight conservation measures and programs were selected for further evaluation in the previous section. For the purposes of this report, these eight measures and programs were combined into a single program, which will hereinafter be referred to as the "Town's Conservation Program". The following sections will summarize the potential cost and water savings for each of the eight program components. 7.1 Capital and O&M Costs Table 7-1 summarizes the capital and O&M costs estimated for each of the Town's Conservation Program components. Administration costs for each program component were not included in the estimate since it is assumed that the program will be administered by the Town's existing staff without significant impact to their existing workload. Similarly, labor costs were only included in the capital costs if the program component requires outside contractors to perform the labor. Table 7-1 Estimated Capital and O&M Costs for Town's Conservation Program Water Conservation Measure/Program CAPITAL COSTS O&M COSTS Materials Labor Engineering Total Water Saving Fixtures(I) $1,500 Town Irrigation System Improvements and Audit(2) $1,000 $7,000 $8,000 $200 Third Stage Treatment(3) $358,000 $150,000 $76,000 $584,000 $1,460 Bleeder Automation(4) $33,000 $33,000 $1,000 Town Websitetsl Customer Meter Testing and Replacement(6) $1,000 Leak Detection and Repairt7l $16,000 Tracking of Breaks and Repairs(8) Notes: (1) The Town will continue the existing program. Estimated O&M cost is $1,500 every 5 years based on historic invoices for Niagara water -saving fixtures. (2) The estimated cost of new equipment for the irrigation system is $1,000 and the estimated cost of the audit is $7,000. Estimated O&M cost is $200 every year for replacement parts. (3) Estimated cost of treatment unit in 2010 was $268,000. Addition to treatment plant for housing equipment estimated at $90,000 for 30'x30' space. Labor for equipment installation estimated at $150,000. Engineering costs estimated at 15% of total project cost or $76,000. Assumed $0.10/1000 gallons treated through third stage membrane (power and cleaning chemicals) and a maximum total of 14.6 MG/year treated. (4) Material cost based on price quote from Ten Point Sales for a total of (1 1) Kupferle Foundry Company, Model #9800 Eclipse Automatic Flushing Devices. O&M costs estimated for purchase of replacement parts each year. (5) The existing conservation information on the Town's website will be maintained and it will not be expanded at this time. Therefore, this is a "no cost" item. (6) Estimated O&M cost is $1,000 per year based on hiring an outside contractor to test two (2) of the 3"-4" meters in the system every year. 37 Water Conservation Plan (7) Estimated O&M cost includes $6,000 per year for an outside contractor to perform leak detection services on a portion of the distribution system and $10,000 to repair any leaks identified in the process. (8) The Town will continue to track breaks and repairs using the existing distribution system maps located in the Water Shop. Therefore, this is a "no cost" item. 7.2 Potential Water Savings The total water savings potential of each program component was estimated based on an assumed life span of the program component and the estimated annual water savings. In general, the life span of the program component was linked to the expected life of the equipment installed. This was the case for the following program components: Town Irrigation System Improvements, Third Stage Treatment, and Bleeder Automation. For the Leak Detection and Repair Component, the estimated life span is the estimated number of years to check the entire distribution system for leaks. Table 7-2 summarizes the estimated annual water savings and total life span water savings for the program components. Note that these water savings estimates could only be made on four of the eight program components given the available information. Notes: (1) (2) (3) Table 7-2 Estimated Water Savings from Town's Conservation Program Water Conservation Measure/Program Expected Life Span (Years) Annual Water Savings (Millions of • Gal) Total Life Span Water Savings (Millions of Gal) Water Saving Fixtures(') Town Irrigation System Improvementst2 10 0.55 5.5 Third Stage Treatment(3) 25 5.27 131.8 Bleeder Automation(4) 10 10.5 105 Town Website(5) Customer Meter Testing and Replacement(6) Leak Detection and Repair(7) 6 4.2 25.2 Tracking of Breaks and Repairs(8) Total 20.5 267 Water savings was not estimated for this program given the limited distribution of the water -saving fixtures. The Town's irrigation system used approximately 5.5 million gallons of water in 2011. The estimated water savings from the irrigation system improvements is 10%, which yields an estimated annual water savings of 0.55 million gallons. Total treated water production at MWTP in 2011 was 309.7 million gallons. The current 2-stage treatment process is 98% efficient, for a total waste volume of 6.2 million gallons. A third stage treatment process is assumed to be at least 85% efficient, which results in a net annual water savings of 5.27 MG. 38 Water Conservation Plan (4) The Town's eleven (1 1) bleeder locations used approximately 10.6 million gallons during the 2010-2011 season. The estimated usage for the same (11) bleeders with the new automatic flushing devices installed is 0.1 million gallons (3 minutes per hour at 7 gpm flow rate for 6 months), which yields an estimated annual water savings of 10.5 million gallons. (5) The potential water savings generated by posting conservation information on the Town's website cannot be estimated. (6) The verification of water meter accuracy is not expected to significantly impact the customer's water usage and therefore the potential water savings from this program was not estimated. (7) Based on past experience, the leak detection process will identify an average of 4 leaks per year. Each leak is assumed to be flowing at 2 gpm continuously, which yields an estimated annual water savings of 4.2 million gallons. (8) The potential water savings generated by tracking breaks and repairs cannot be estimated at this time. 7.3 Cost Effectiveness In order to evaluate the cost effectiveness of each of the Town's Conservation Program components, it is necessary to estimate the cost to supply treated water to the Town. This type of estimate would generally include costs for all of the treated water system components including supply, treatment, and distribution. However, for the purposes of this study, only the cost of water supply and the cost of treatment were evaluated since that information was readily available for the analysis. The cost of water supply only applies to the MWTP and covers a "carriage cost" and "power interruption cost" associated with the Town's water rights through the Bureau of Reclamation. The cost of treatment is comprised of the operation and maintenance costs at the Town's two water plants, which includes chemicals, power, and sewer discharge. Table 7-3 summarizes the cost components described above. Table 7-3 Estimated Cost to Supply Treated Water to Town Treated Water O&M Cost Item Cost per 1,000 Gallons of Treated Water Chemicals $0.33 Power $0.11 Sewer Discharge $0.048 Water Supply $0.28 Total $0.77 Notes: (1) Total treated water produced at GWTP and MWTP in 2011 was 537.43 million gallons. For the purposes of this evaluation, it is assumed that the Town will continue to operate the plants the same time periods during any given year. (2) Total chemical cost at GWTP and MWTP in 2011 was $178,000. (3) Total power cost for GWTP and MWTP in 2011 was $60,000. (4) Total sewer discharge cost at MWTP in 2011 was $26,000. GWTP does not have any costs associated with sewer discharge. The MWTP sewer discharge cost was divided by the total treated water production at both plants. (5) The cost of water supply at MWTP includes a "carriage cost" and "power interruption cost". The total water supply cost for MWTP in 2011 was $150,000. As shown in Table 7-3, the estimated cost to supply treated water to the Town is $0.77 per 1,000 gallons. To evaluate the cost effectiveness of the Town's Conservation Program components, this cost was compared to the cost to "save the water" using the various conservation efforts identified. The cost to save the water was estimated by dividing the net present value (NPV) of each program component by the total water savings generated over the life span of the program component. The NPV calculation 39 Water Conservation Plan includes both the initial capital cost as well as the operation and maintenance costs over the life span of the program (see Table 7-1), discounted at a 4% interest rate. A copy of the NPV calculations is provided in Appendix D. A "cost effectiveness" number was generated by subtracting the cost to save the water from the cost to treat the water, with a positive result indicating that the conservation effort is cost effective and a negative result indicating that the conservation effort is not cost effective. Table 7-4 summarizes the cost effectiveness calculations described above. These calculations were only performed on the program components where an estimate of the potential water savings was available. Note, the cost of Third Stage Treatment will be addressed using a different calculation since this conservation effort is related to the cost to discharge water to the sewer in addition to the cost to retreat the water at the plant after the third stage process. Table 7-4 Cost Effectiveness of Town's Conservation Program Water Conservation Measure/Program Total Project Cost NPV(1) Total Life Span Savings(�) (Millions of Gal) Cost to Save Water(3) ($/1,000 Gal) Cost to Treat Water(4) ($/1,000 Gal) Cost Effectiveness(5) ($/1,000 Gal) Water Saving Fixtures $2,250 Town Irrigation System Improvements $9,600 5.5 $1.75 $0.77 ($0.98) Third Stage Treatment(6) Bleeder Automation $41,100 105 $0.39 $0.77 $0.38 Town Website Customer Meter Testing and Replacement $2,800 Leak Detection and Repair $83,900 25.2 $3.33 $0.77 ($2.56) Tracking of Breaks and Repairs Total NPV $139,650 Notes: (1) NPV of capital and O&M costs generated in Table 7-4 at a 4% annual interest rate for the expected life span of the program identified in Table 7-2. (2) "Total Life Span Water Savings" from Table 7-2. (3) Cost to Save Water = "Total Project Cost NPV" / ("Total Life Span Savings" x 1,000) (4) "Cost to Treat Water" from Table 7-3. (5) "Cost Effectiveness" = "Cost to Treat Water" - "Cost to Save Water". (6) The cost effectiveness of Third Stage Treatment is addressed in Table 7-5 since the primary cost factor is not the "cost to treat the water", but the "cost to discharge the water to sewer". 40 Water Conservation Plan As shown in Table7-4, the total NPV of the Town's Conservation Program (with the exception of Third Stage Treatment) is approximately $140,000. Only one of the three program components evaluated appears to be cost effective, which is the Bleeder Automation. The Town Irrigation System Improvements and the Leak Detection and Repair components do not appear to be cost effective when compared to the cost of treating additional water required to replace the water losses that could potentially be saved by these two conservation efforts. As previously mentioned, the cost effectiveness of Third Stage Treatment must compare the cost to save the water through this conservation effort to the cost to discharge the same water to the sewer. Table 7-5 summarizes this calculation using the Town's contracted rate with the UTSD of $6.25 per 1,000 gallons discharged to the sewer. Table 7-5 Cost Effectiveness of Third Stage Treatment Water Conservation Measure/Program Total Project Cost NPVt1I Total Life Span Savings(2) (Millions of Gal) Cost to Save Water(3) ($/1,000 Gal) Cost to Discharge Water to Sewer(4) ($/1,000 Gal) Cost Effectiveness(5) ($/1,000 Gal) Third Stage Treatment $606,800 131.75 $5.38 $6.25 $0.87 Notes: (1) NPV of capital and O&M costs generated in Table 7-4 at a 4% annual interest rate for the expected life span of the program identified in Table 7-2. (2) "Total Life Span Water Savings" from Table 7-2. (3) Cost to Save Water = "Total Project Cost NPV" / ("Total Life Span Savings" x 1,000) ($0.77 to re -treat water at plant) (4) "Cost to Discharge Water to Sewer" based on current agreement between the Town and the Upper Thompson Sanitation District. (5) "Cost Effectiveness" = "Cost to Treat Water" - "Cost to Save Water". The results of the Third Stage Treatment evaluation presented above reveal that this conservation effort is cost effective for the Town relative to the other program components with a potential savings of $0.87 per 1,000 gallons. The Town intends to conduct a pilot -scale test of third stage treatment at the MWTP in 2013. Data collected from that pilot will be used to refine the costs and benefits of implementing full- scale third stage treatment in the future. 7.4 Summary of Benefits and Costs The previous sections generated a "cost effectiveness" value to help the Town evaluate the components of their selected Conservation Program. Only four of the eight components could be evaluated in this analysis since potential water savings estimates could not be generated for the remaining four components. Of the four components evaluated, two appear to be relatively cost effective, Third Stage Treatment and Bleeder Automation. The remaining two components, Town Irrigation System Improvements and Leak Detection and Repair, do not appear to be cost effective based on the assumptions used in this report. However, the cost effectiveness analysis presented herein does not 41 Water Conservation Plan address all the potential benefits that could be recognized from implementation of the program components. For example, the Town's distribution system contains a large percentage of "aged" pipe that is susceptible to catastrophic failure. Implementation of the Leak Detection and Repair program could identify a leak that would otherwise become a break in the future, resulting in costs to the Town that are much greater than the cost to implement the program as a safety -precaution. Although four of the program components could not be evaluated for cost effectiveness, the Town will still include these in their overall Conservation Program as they are believed to offer benefits that justify the cost (if any) of implementing the program component. In conclusion, the Town will move forward with the Conservation Program identified in this Section, which consists of the following eight components: • Water Saving Fixtures • Town Irrigation System Improvements • Third Stage Treatment • Bleeder Automation • Town Website • Customer Meter Testing and Replacement • Leak Detection and Repair • Tracking of Breaks and Repairs Where the Town could see financial benefit from implementation of the Conservation Program is the reduction of operation and maintenance costs. This cost was previously evaluated in Section 7.3 with the results producing an estimated treated water cost of $0.77 per 1,000 gallons. Using this cost and the estimated annual water savings from the Conservation Program (20.5 million gallons from Table 7-2), the estimated annual operations and maintenance cost savings is roughly $16,000. Interestingly enough, this cost savings roughly covers the estimated operations and maintenance costs associated with the Conservation Program itself, with the largest expenditure going towards the Leak Detection and Repair program (estimated O&M at $16,000 per year from Table 7-1). 8.0 Integrate Resources and Modify Forecasts 8.1 Revise Demand Forecast(s) Section 3.0 presented a demand forecast for the Town that is based on being able to reliably meet peak day demand. The Conservation Program that has been selected for implementation is not expected to change this demand forecast as the program components will have little to no impact on peak day demand. The Town's peak day demand is largely driven by the influx of tourists during the summer months and the program components identified will have little impact on the amount of water used by those tourists. For this reason, the demand forecast presented in Section 3.0 will not be revised as part of the Town's Conservation Program effort. There is some potential that implementation of the Town's Conservation Program could impact average day water demand over the course of the year. Table 8-1 summarizes the potential annual percent 42 Water Conservation Plan reduction in treated water volumes that could be recognized as a result of implementing the Conservation Program based on 2011 treated water production. Table 8-1 Estimated Percent Reduction in Annual Treated Water Volume Estimated Annual Water Savings from Town's Conservation Program (Millions of Gal)(') 20.5 Total Treated Water Volume in 2011 (Millions of Gal)t2l 537.43 Potential. Percent Reduction in Annual Treated Water Volume following Implementation of Town's Conservation Program(3) Notes: (1) (2) (3) 3.8% Estimated Annual Water Savings from Table 7-2. Treated water production at both MWTP and GWTP in 2011. "Potential Percent Reduction" = ("Estimated Annual Water Savings...") / ("Total Treated Water Volume...") x 100 8.2 Identify Project Specific Savings Similar to the demand projection discussion above, the capital improvement projects that are currently included in the Town's capital improvement plan (CIP) are not driven by the need to provide additional treated water to the Town, but are instead driven by such things as the need to replace aging infrastructure (GWTP replacement project), correct existing system deficiencies (such as treated water storage volume and distribution piping), optimize the Town's water rights portfolio (water supply purchases), etc. Consequently, the implementation of the Town's Conservation Program will not delay the need to execute the CIP in the manner which has been previously identified in the numerous planning studies and reports that have been prepared for the Town in the recent past (see Section 1.0 for a list of these reports and studies). 8.3 Revise Supply -Capacity Forecast(s) The only water supply related project currently included in the Town's CIP is the purchase of additional water rights for the GWTP, which will be executed in the next year or two. The purchase of these additional water rights is required to ensure that GWTP can meet existing peak day water demands should the MWTP be out of service. However, the purchase of these rights will also allow the Town to meet the projected peak day demand at buildout that was forecast as part of the demand projection in Section 3.0. Consequently, the implementation of the Town's Conservation Program will not impact the Town's current plans for water supply. 8.4 Consider Revenue Effects Implementation of the Town's Conservation Program is not expected to significantly impact revenue from treated water sales. The Town will be revisiting their overall rates and rate structure in the next 3 years. The largest funding concern for the future is the GWTP replacement project, which as previously mentioned, will not be impacted by the implementation of the Town's Conservation Plan. 43 Water Conservation Plan 9.0 Develop Implementation Plan 9.1 Develop Implementation Schedule The Town plans to initiate public review and participation of this Conservation Plan through the processes set up for the Town Board of Trustees and the Utility Committee, which is a subset of the Town Board. Review and approval of this Conservation Plan as well as the Town's Conservation Program identified herein will be initiated at the March 2012 Utility Committee meeting and depending on the recommendation of that committee, will be forwarded to the Town Board for review and approval. Assuming approval by the Town Board of Trustees by April 2012, the Water Utility staff has already integrated some of the plan elements into capital and O&M planning. Pilot testing of third stage treatment is included in the 2013 budget. Leak detection and repair costs are included in both the 2012 and 2013 budgets. Water saving fixtures, the Town web site, and leak tracking are ongoing programs that will be continued through the upcoming years. 9.2 Develop Plan for Public Participation in Implementation The conservation plan will be submitted for review to the Town Utility Committee and ultimately to the Town Board of Trustees. The first review will be at the Utility Committee meeting in March 2012. Subsequent Town discussions and final approval will be subject to the processes of the Town Board. 9.3 Develop Plan for Monitoring and Evaluation Processes The Water Utility normally keeps track of lost water and of costs associated with all the elements of the proposed conservation program, so the monitoring and evaluation process are on -going elements within the utility's current management program. Each year the utility reviews this information to gain an understanding of progress towards conservation and other goals. 9.4 Develop Plan for Updating and Revising the Conservation Plan The Water Utility plans to officially review and update the Conservation Plan every 10 years. 9.5 Define Plan Adoption Date/Plan Completed Date/Plan Approved Date The Conservation Plan was adopted by the Town Board of Trustees on 44 10.0 Abbreviations Ac Acre CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CVB Convention and Visitors Bureau Gal Gallons Gal/day Gallons per day GIS Geographic Information System gpcd Gallons per capita per day GWTP Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant MGD Million gallons per day MWTP Mary's Lake Water Treatment Plant O&M Operations and maintenance RMNP Rocky Mountain National Park Water Conservation Plan 45 Water Conservation Plan 11.0 Appendix Appendix A Order of Magnitude CIP Cost Estimates Appendix B Top Water Customers for Town of Estes Park Appendix C Pressure Zone Management Analysis for Service Area No. 2 Appendix D NPV Calculations 46 Appendix A Order of Magnitude CIP Cost Estimates Order of magnitude costs for the proposed new storage tanks are shown in Table l2.l.The total estimated cost for new storage iuthe system is $7,920000. Table Y2.Y20/nConstruction Costs for Proposed New System Storage Project Description Quantity~ (Gallons) Unit Price Estimated Cost |n2O1p Dollars 1.4K48"Yellow Zone" Storage Tank ' Buried Concrete 0O0O00 ' �4 �3S0000O ' ' 0.05 K4@ "Crystal Zone" Storage Tank-BuriedCunonate 5UOOO ' �4 �2OU000 ' O.4M8"Fall River Estates Zone"ShonogeTank-Buhed Concrete 400.000 $4 $1.800.000 0.13 M8"Niowm Estates Zone" StorogeTank-BuriodConorete 130000 ' �4 �52UUO0 ' Projects identified to correct distribution system problems are shown iuTable l2.2.The total estimated 20lOconstruction cost of these improvements io$8h7,90O. Table 12.2 2010 Construction Cost for Proposed Distribution System Improvements ~ Project —�e-�+��". ~ Quantity ' /11-117) 325 - Unit Price(`) $100 Estimated Cost \n2n«0 Dollars 8" Pipe $52.00 8"Pipa 365 $160 $58.400 12"Pipo 1,850 $100 %351'500 8"Pip* 350 $100 $56.000 Upgrade Prospects Estates PRV 1 $100.000 $100,000 Upgrade StrongoAve PRV 1 $75'000 $75.000 New Grey Fox PRV 1 $175.000 $175.000 Appendix B Top Water Customers for Town of Estes Park Consumption (millions of gals) Estes Park Water Conservation Plan 2008 Top 10 Customer Usage \�P\�\ aaJ\�o `�cr°°\ Geo�e� `t'ey°� S�P� a�\�� . ��`c�� P�0�\ fey°� °'e\ �°\\ es1"°c� e,&(' J��a�e °,ce Q°�e� o\0' �e�\`S �a�� 0N.e SO '� Qa Spa 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Customer 2009 Top 10 Customer Usage .4\P°eyo�y ScGeyet e�yegoo\°c o°o\ 'Cs O<C. 0Oe�t° c� °a Ace °S\Qoc'��> �Q�te xe.\eo 5r o° e 5 ateo 446 F9`ey� �atoy eaaoya Qat Customer 2010 Top 10 Customer Usage Consumption (millions of gals) t• t .c ▪ A 0 (... \t‘ ,c. ob% \cs. •c• ,c,e, \cs, o°\ ▪ • c, ,\40 \ ,t•s\ c,,o\C-c' c, ° cce' oo\c ii` .c\ ,ocz •s-- N.e.--8 e, .09- 0Az .••,‘ ec v e, a osic -.1— \(27, 09 sx0 c, ` Consumption (millions of gals) 25 20 15 10 5 Customer 3 Year Combined Top 10 Customer Usage Stanley Hotel (MAIN) cts Eagle Rock School Estes Park Medical Center Rams Horn Village Resort Stanley Hotel (STANL) 0 Park School District R3 Stanley Hotel (MANOR) Customer 00000000000 11111111111111111111111 2008 2009 r 2010 I 1 Consumption (thousands of gals) Consumption (millions of gals) 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 c c ra 173 -6 3 Year Top 10 Customer Usage Eagle Rock School .a, stes Park Medical Center t 0 Z < cc i— co -v--) az) — (13 1=3 4-4 0 c >. (i) 0 — I 2 E (0 cc Park School District R3 Stanley Hotel (MANOR) Customer Golden Eagle Resort Trendwest Resorts Inc (0 c '40:5 a) LJJ 0 (0 LLI Lake Shore Lodge Deer Ridge Inc. 2008 Top 10 Monthly Customer Usage A M J J A SON Month .0,11 0 2008 m 2009 2010 Silver Saddle of Estes Stanley Hotel Holiday Inn Eagle Rock School Estes Park Medical Center Rams Horn Village Resort rm Stanley Hotel (STANL) Rodeway Inn Park School District R3 Stanley Hotel (MANOR) Golden Eagle Resort !„1111111 Consumption (thousands of gals) 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 1400 2009 Top 10 Monthly Customer Usage What happened here? F M AMJ J A S OND Month rStanley Hotel (MAIN) poi Holiday Inn rwaTrendwest Resorts Inc. 111111111 1111 Eagle Rock School Estes Park Medical Center • Rams Horn Village Resort r Rodeway Inn • Elk Meadow RV Essential Group Park School District R3 • Lake Shore Lodge 2010 Top 10 Monthly Customer Usage 1 a Stanley Hotel (MAIN) Holiday Inn Estes Park Medical Center Rodeway Inn RI Eagle Rock School N Rams Horn Village Resort Park School District R3 Lake Shore Lodge Deer Ridge Inc. i` Silver Saddle of Estes October 2008 Percent Monthly Usage Vs. Total Plant Production !IIWII!V��IU 3.22% 2.36% 2.08% 1,69% 1.64% 0.92% 0.83% 0.6S% 0.64% 0.47 % Eagle Rock School Stanley Hotel (MAIN) s Holiday Inn Stanley Hotel (STANL) OE Estes Park Medical Center Rodeway Inn Rams Horn Village Resort 3 Stanley Hotel (MANOR) Golden Eagle Resort Park School District R3 U All Other Customers 2008 Percent of Annual Usage Vs. Total Plant Production � IIII '1111111�III �'f ulll. 11J 11 0 ju'�'1� �I �f Jilll \1V41U Stanley Hotel (MAIN) mi. Holiday Inn 1.73% 0 Eagle Rock School • Estes Park Medical Center Mssu Rams Horn Village Resort 1.36% • Stanley Hotel (STANL) 0.96% v. Rodeway Inn Park School District R3 Stanley Hotel (MANOR) Ala Golden Eagle Resort r All Other Customers 1.43% m.N 0.75% 0.63% 0.55 % 0.41 % 0.38% 0.37% 2009 Percent of Annual Usage Vs. Total Plant Production 8,94% r .62% 0.73% 0.61% 0.55% 0.44% 0.42% 2010 Percent of Annual Usage Vs. Total Plant Production 7,26% .58% 1.28% 1.00% 0.77% 0.76% 0.46% 0.41% 0.36% 0.32% 0.32% Stanley Hotel (MAIN) Holiday Inn Trendwest Resorts Inc. Eagle Rock School Estes Park Medical Center • Rams Horn Village Resort [Pr, Rodeway Inn m Elk Meadow RV Essential Group Park School District R3 r, Lake Shore Lodge 11 All Other Customers Stanley Hotel (MAIN) Holiday Inn 01 Estes Park Medical Center 11111,11 111:11111 Rodeway Inn Eagle Rock School m Rams Horn Village Resort r, Park School District R3 IP Lake Shore Lodge Deer Ridge Inc. r Silver Saddle of Estes r, All Other Customers 1 3 Year Percent Annual Usage Vs. Total Plant Production Eli Stanley Hotel (MAIN) mi Eagle Rock School Rams Horn Village Resort Park School District R3 Lake Shore Lodge Elk Meadow RV Essential Group Golden Eagle Resort Silver Saddle of Estes 0.64% 0.42% 0.35% 0.26% 0.21 % 0.17% 0.12 % 0.11% 0.11% uw Holiday Inn Estes Park Medical Center Rodeway Inn riot Trendwest Resorts Inc. on Stanley Hotel (STANL) riff, Stanley Hotel (MANOR) Deer Ridge Inc. All Other Customers Appendix C Pressure Zone Management Analysis for Service Area No. 2 Water Savings Calculator Input Service Area 2 - Input Values Average Pipe Size (in) 6.4 Daily Water Usage (gpd) 1,473,120 Estimated System Leakage 10% Water Cost Per 1,000 Gallons $4.11 Standard System Pressure (psi) 142.0 Minimum Outlet Pressure (psi) 102.00 Time at Max Pressure (hrs) 12 Time at Min Pressure (hrs) 12 Leakage Coefficient, N1 1.50 Water Savings Calculator Results Service Area 2 - Output for System Leaks Average Flow Rate (gpm) 1,023 Average Flow Velocity (ft/s) 10.2 Average Weekly Water Usage (gal) 10,311,840 Average Annual Water Usage (acre-ft) 1,650 Average Annual Water Usage (mg) 537.7 Estimated Daily Water Loss Based on Standard System Pressure & Estimated System Leakage (gal) 147,312 Estimated Annual Water Loss (acre-ft) 165 Annual Financial Loss Due to Estimated System Leakage $ 220,990 Service Area 2 - Pressure Management Output Data Estimated System Leakage at Standard System Pressure & Before Pressure Management Input Data 10.0% Calculated % of System Leakage Recovered with Pressure Management Input data 19.6% Average Daily Pressure with Pressure Management Input Data (psi) 122 Calculated Daily Water Savings with Pressure Management Input Data (gal) 28,815 Calculated Annual Water Savings with Pressure Management Input Data (acre-ft) 32.3 Calculated Annual Water Savings with Pressure Management Input Data (mg) 10.5 Calculated Annual Financial Savings with Pressure Management Input Data $ 43,227 Years to pay back cost of PRVs 0.0 PMV Water Savings Calculator Jan 2008 Version 2REVB.x1s Page 1 of 2 About Us » Products » PMV Water Savings Calculator Electronic Products » PRESSURE MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS FOR 98-01* PRESSURE MANAGEMENT CONTROL VALVE PREPARED BY: CLA-VAL Application Example cia®vat.com DATE: July 14, 2011 SYSTEM INPUT DATA Pipe Size Estimated Daily Water Usage Standard System Pressure Estimated System Leakage Water Cost per 1000 Gallons 6.4 1,473,120 142 10.0 1._....4.1.1 in gal psi System Leakage Orifice Dia in PRESSURE MANAGEMENT INPUT DATA Outlet Pressure (min) Time at Max Pressure (daily) Time at Min Pressure (daily) Leakage Coefficient, N1 i 102 psi .5 Leakage Coefficient Guideline hrs hrs Leakage coefficient, N1, can vary depending on factors such as pipe material, level and type of leakage as well as the type of distribution system (residential, commercial, agricultural, etc.). For analysis purposes the following guideline can be used to select a number for N1. These N1 values are referenced from a system leakage analysis study. The user may want to enter different values for N1 if they are familiar with the leakage analysis method used and the proper coefficient value for their particular system. N1 = 1.5 is an average leakage coefficient value used for typical systems with undetectable background leakage with any pipe material. N1 = 1.0 is recommended if there is an abscence of knowledge of pipe materials and leakage level. N1 = 1.15 is a Japanese standard used for their systems for the past 20 years. N1 = 1.52 was an average value determined from lab tests by Ashcroft & Taylor (Surveyor, July 1983) on artificially created leaks in plastic pipe. N1 = 2.50 maximum recognized coefficient value for systems with excessive leakage. ah Application Quick Links » Enter Model or Series number then click Search: Search 1 Technical Field Assistance » Service » OUTPUT DATA FOR SYSTEM LEAKS Average Flow Rate 1,023 gpm Average Flow Velocity (approx.) 10.2 ftlsec Average Weekly Water Usage 10,311,840 gal Average Annual Water Usage 1,650 acre-ft Average Annual Water Usage 537.7 mg Estimated Daily Water Loss Based on Standard System Pressure & Estimated System Leakage Estimated Annual Water Loss 147,312 165.0 gal acre-ft Annual Financial Loss Due to Estimated System Leakage $220„990 PRESSURE MANAGEMENT OUTPUT DATA Estimated System Leakage at Standard System Pressure & Before Pressure Management Input Data 10.0 Calculated % of System Leakage Recovered with Pressure Management Input data 19.6 Average Daily Pressure with Pressure Management Input Data 122.0 psi Calculated Daily Water Savings with Pressure Management Input Data 28,815 gal Calculated Annual Water Savings with Pressure Management Input Data 32.3 acre-ft Calculated Annual Water Savings with Pressure Management Input Data 10.5 mg Calculated Annual Financial Savings with NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN Contacts http://www.cla-val.corn/watersavingscalculator.cfrn 7/14/2011 PMV Water Savings Calculator Jan 2008 Version 2REVB.xls Page 2 of 2 Although some general theories reference upper coefficient values of 2.50, case studies associated with this value were not found. (Pressure Management Input Data I $43,227 http://www.cla-val.com/watersavingscalculator.cfm 7/14/2011 CLA-VAL (1ff,rr//lllUllt** ,IIIIIIIIIIIII11 Patent Pending 98 Series —MODEL (Full Internal Port) 698 Series (Reduced Internal Port) Pressure Management Control valve Schematic Diagram Item Description 1 Hytrol (Main Valve) 2 X43 "Y" Strainer 3 X58C Restriction Assembly 4 X58A Restriction Fitting 5 X78 Stem Assembly 6 X101 Valve Position Indicator Assembly 7 CRD2SF Pressure Management Control 8 CK2 (Isolation Valve) 9 X141 Gage 10 CV Flow Control (Closing) 11 CRD Pressure Reducing Control 12 Plug, Gage Connection 13 Socket, Gage Connection 14 CV Flow Control (Opening) Optional Features Item Description B CK2 (Isolation Valve) I2C Typical Performance A desired pressure profile with reduced system pressure during low demand periods is illustrated by the solid line in chart. At low flows a minimum pressure is maintained and as flow increases delivery pressure gradually increases up to maximum pressure set point for maximum flow. The ramping is adjustable to fine tune valve to system requirements.The "water saving zone" below maximum pressure line represents valve effectiveness in reducing water losses and pipeline breakage in system. • Water Conservation • Pipe Break Prevention • Leakage Reduction • System Efficiency • Energy Savings • Retrofits to Existing Valves • 100% Hydraulic Control • Supplies Optimal Pressure Based on Flow Demand • No Inline Orifice Plate Required The Cla-Val Model 98 Series / 698 Series Pressure Management Control Valve automatically adjusts downstream pressure based on demand changes in the system. This fully adjustable control valve automatically changes outlet pressure from a high setting during high flow conditions to a low setting during low flow conditions. The patent pending all -hydraulic operation design assures smooth ramping between pressure settings as flow demand conditions change. Model 98 Series easily manages the system pressure based on demand changes to reduce costly system leakage losses and line breaks. 3` Pressure INLET 7 HIGH PRESSURE ADJUSTMENT ADJUSTMENT SCREW Patent Pending Water Saving Zone for reduced leakage and fewer pipe breaks Flow ► Model 98 Series (Uses Basic Valve Model 100-01) Pressure Ratings (Recommended Maximum Pressure - psi) Valve Body & Cover Pressure Class Flanged Grooved Threaded Grade Material ANSI Standards* 150 Class 300 Class 300 Class End$ Details ASTM A536 Ductile Iron B16.42 250 400 400 400 ASTM A216-WCB Cast Steel B16.5 285 400 400 400 ASTM B62 Bronze B16.24 225 400 400 400 Note: * ANSI standards are for flange dimensions only. Flanged valves are available faced but not drilled. $ End Details machined to ANSI B2.1 specifications. Valves for higher pressure are available; consult factory for details Materials Component Standard Material Combinations Body & Cover Ductile Iron Cast Steel Bronze Available Sizes 2" - 24" 2" - 16" 2" - 16" Disc Retainer & Diaphragm Washer Cast Iron Cast Steel Bronze Trim: Disc Guide, Seat & Cover Bearing Bronze is Standard Stainless Steel is Optional Disc Buna-N" Rubber Diaphragm Nylon Reinforced Buna-N" Rubber Stem, Nut & Spring Stainless Steel For material options not listed, consult factory. Cla-Val manufactures valves in more than 50 different alloys. Dimensions B (D ameter) (In inches) 100-01 rdv- Threaded & Flanged Inlet G GG GG Inlet A -AA AAA 11111111111 D DD - DDD (MAX)loutlet F FF z B (Diameter) 1 0-01 Grooved Outlet f EE GGGG Inlet DDDD- AAAA Valve Size (Inches) 2 3 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24 A Threaded 9.38 12.50 - - - AA 150 ANSI 9.38 12.00 15.00 20.00 25.38 29.75 34.00 39.00 41.38 46.00 52.00 61.50 AAA 300 ANSI 10.00 13.25 15.62 21.00 26.38 31.12 35.50 40.50 43.50 47.64 53.62 63.24 AAAA Grooved End 9.00 12.50 15.00 20.00 25.38 - - - B Dia. 6.62 9.12 11.50 15.75 20.00 23.62 28.00 32.75 35.50 41.50 45.00 53.16 C Max. 6.50 8.19 10.62 13.38 16.00 17.12 20.88 24.19 25.00 39.06 41.90 43.93 CC Max. Grooved End 5.75 7.25 9.31 12.12 14.62 - - - - D Threaded 4.75 6.25 - - - - DD 150 ANSI 4.75 6.00 7.50 10.00 12.69 14.88 17.00 19.50 20.81 - - 30.75 DDD 300 ANSI 5.00 6.38 7.88 10.50 13.25 15.56 17.75 20.25 21.62 - 31.62 DDDD Grooved End 4.75 6.00 7.50 - - - - - E 1.50 2.06 3.19 4.31 5.31 9.25 10.75 12.62 15.50 12.95 15.00 17.75 EE Grooved End 2.50 3.12 4.25 6.00 7.56 - - - F 150 ANSI 3.00 3.75 4.50 5.50 6.75 8.00 9.50 10.50 11.75 15.00 16.50 19.25 FF 300 ANSI 3.25 4.13 5.00 6.25 7.50 8.75 10.25 11.50 12.75 15.00 16.50 19.25 G Threaded 3.25 4.50 - - - GG 150 ANSI 3.25 4.00 5.00 6.00 8.00 8.62 13.75 14.88 15.69 - 22.06 GGG 300 ANSI 3.50 4.38 5.31 6.50 8.50 9.31 14.50 15.62 16.50 - 22.90 GGGG Grooved End 3.25 4.25 5.00 - - - - H NPT Body Tapping .375 .50 .75 .75 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J NPT Cover Center Plug .50 .50 .75 .75 1 1 1.25 1.5 2 1.5 1.5 1.5 K NPT Cover Tapping .375 .50 .75 .75 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Stem Travel 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.7 2.3 2.8 3.4 4.0 4.5 5.1 5.63 6.75 Approx. Ship Wt. Lbs. 35 70 140 285 500 780 1165 1600 2265 2982 3900 6200 X Pilot System 13 15 17 29 31 33 36 40 40 43 47 68 Y Pilot System 9 11 12 20 22 24 26 29 30 32 34 39 Z Pilot System 9 11 12 20 22 24 26 29 30 32 34 39 Note: The top two flange holes on valve size 36 are threaded to 1 1/2"-6 UNC. Model 698 Series (Uses Basic Valve Model 100-20) Pressure Ratings (Recommended Maximum Pressure - psi) Valve Body & Cover Pressure Class Flanged Grade Material ANSI Standards* 150 Class 300 Class ASTM A536 Ductile Iron B16.42 250 400 ASTM A216-WCB Cast Steel B16.5 285 400 ASTM B62 Bronze B16.24 225 400 Note: * ANSI standards are for flange dimensions only. Flanged valves are available faced but not drilled. Valves for higher pressure are available; consult factory for details Materials Component Standard Material Combinations Body & Cover Ductile Iron Cast Steel Bronze Available Sizes 3" - 24" 3" - 16" 3" - 16" Disc Retainer & Diaphragm Washer Cast Iron Cast Steel Bronze Trim: Disc Guide, Seat & Cover Bearing Bronze is Standard Stainless Steel is Optional Disc Buna-NP Rubber Diaphragm Nylon Reinforced Buna-N*' Rubber Stem, Nut & Spring Stainless Steel For material options not listed, consult factory. Cla-Val manufactures valves in more than 50 different alloys. Inlet Dimensions (In inches) '-.- B (Diameter) -«- 100-20 n j Flanged Inlet D A DD AA i' C (MAX) IOutIet FF E E EE Iz Valve Size (Inches) 3 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24 A 150 ANSI 10.25 13.88 17.75 21.38 26.00 30.00 34.25 35.00 42.12 48.00 48.00 AA 300 ANSI 11.00 14.50 18.62 22.38 27.38 31.50 35.75 36.62 43.63 49.62 49.75 B Dia. 6.62 9.12 11.50 15.75 20.00 23.62 27.47 28.00 35.44 35.44 35.44 C Max. 7.00 8.62 11.62 15.00 17.88 21.00 20.88 25.75 25.00 31.00 31.00 D 150 ANSI - 6.94 8.88 10.69 CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* DD 300 ANSI - 7.25 9.38 11.19 CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* E 150 ANSI - 5.50 6.75 7.25 CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* EE 300 ANSI - 5.81 7.25 7.75 CF* CF* CF* CF* Cr CF* CF* F 150 ANSI 3.75 4.50 5.50 6.75 8.00 9.50 11.00 11.75 15.88 14.56 17.00 FF 300 ANSI 4.12 5.00 6.25 7.50 8.75 10.25 11.50 12.75 15.88 16.06 19.00 H NPT Body Tapping .375 .50 .75 .75 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J NPT Cover Center Plug .50 .50 .75 .75 1 1 1.25 1.25 2 2 2 K NPT Cover Tapping .375 .50 .75 .75 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Stem Travel 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.7 2.3 2.8 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.5 4.5 Approx. Ship Wt. Lbs. 45 85 195 330 625 900 1250 1380 1500 2551 2733 X Pilot System 13 15 27 30 33 36 36 41 40 46 55 Y Pilot System 10 11 18 20 22 24 26 26 30 30 30 Z Pilot System 10 11 18 20 22 24 26 26 30 30 30 *Consult Facto Note: The top two flange holes on valve sizes 36 thru 48 are threaded to 1 1/2"-6 UNC. �� Series Valve Selection 1�mm�m;/��n��o��u��Mw�� . a Inches 1 1u 1u 2 uu o 4 s a 10 12 1* 16 18 po 24 mn nn mm no ou 40 oo os on 100 150 uon 000 onn osm wm *oo 000 mm 750 onn Basic Valve 100-0/ Pattern o.x C'A C,A C,A 6.x G,A C.A C,A C.A C'A End Detail T p ' ' a, T F ' ' ar* T F ' ' a, F ' a, F ' ar* F ' ar* p p + p Suggested r|mw (gpm) Maximum 210 onn 460 onn 1800 3100 4900 7000 8400 11000 Maximum Intermittentuso 370 aan oon nean 000n 6150 arxo 1054013700 Minimum 1 c c ^ 10 15 oo so 70 oo Suggested r|o~ (Liters/Sec) Maximum 13 19 nn an 113 195 une *42 ann 694 Maximum Intermittent10 uo 37 ou 14e 24e our 549 sV* a*o Minimum .os .00 0.13 0.25 0.63 0.95 2.2 3.2 4.4 so 1ou*|Series iuthe full internal port nvtm|. For Lower Flows Consult Factory *Globe Grooved Only �� Series Valve Selection 1o�u puuom�awu ��n�"� ��umnomwn �nu�o Ul/nmo�o�vm�moe�o "~= �� . °="� �"�" "�" mvxoo o 4 6 n 10 12 1* 16 18 xn 24 nn n* 42 48 mm on 100 150 unn uso 000 oao *on 450 aoo soo rso aon 1000 1200 Basic Valve 1oo-on Pattern C.A C,A C.A C C C C C C C End Detail r r r r p r p F p p r Guonovmd Flow (nvm) Maximum aen oon 1025 oaon 4100 6400 ounn ouoo 16500 16500 16500 Minimum 1 2 4 10 15 35 50 50 95 95 95 Suggested Flow (u/*mm»») Maximum 1* o/ *s 145 znu 403 581 5e1 1040 1040 1040 Minimum .00 13 .25 .63 .95 2.2 32 3.2 6.0 6.0 0.0 /n0-2nSeries iathe reduced internal port size version mthe 1oo*1Series. For Lower Flows Consult Factory Many factors shouldm,umo/uonm/numnopmooummu"cinmvowmmmummnmutvmosum.om/etnmosumonowwmte^. For sizing questions o,cavitation analysis, consult o/a-vu/with system details. Not Recommended for Dead-end Service Pilot System Specifications Outlet Pressure Adjustment Range: High Flow Pressure Setting: 200psi (18.Obar) Maximum Low Flow Pressure Setting: Up1n35psi (2.4bar) below high setting Temperature Range Water: to 1 80*F Materials Standard Pilot System Materials Pilot Control: Bronze AGTMBo2 Trim: Stainless Steo 303 Rubber: Bune-N°Synthetic Rubber Optional Pilot System Materials Pilot Systems are available with optional Aluminum, Stainless Steel or Monel materials. When Ordering, Please Specify 1.Catalog No. 98Series m60Series 2.Valve Size 8.Pattern ' Globe orAngle 4. Pressure Class 5.Threaded nrFlanged 0. Trim Material 7.Desired Options 8.When Vertically Installed P.O. Box 1325, Newport Beach, CA 92659-0325^Phone: 949-722-4800^Fax: 949-548-5441^E-mail:'laval@mla-val.com^Website cla-val.com °copynghtmu-Vu2011 prinwommm Specifications subject * change without notice. s-9uSeries (R-7mo 1) III'' I!!1iII1IIII��IIIIIWIIIIIIiiiii, lJ CLA-VAL 00(10000000 C„IIIIIIII'IIIIIIIIIII 0011 h� 7 11111111111111111111111111111 IIIPilpliItliVIVp, Iiuilil;,,I ICI ressure anagement olu#ions ml0,(p , iII IIIIIIIIIMiiil'i'ulllll11 u MD wily it I I liiiiiili IIu Illhllilll Conservation Pipe Break Prevention a e Reducti Le fag on ystem E i �Fic�ency Energy,SaVings DefiningP'ress,'ure l '`anagemen Many industry are l believ that one of theesim esttand md ost'fcost work ctivpe around the nsery tion�meassuhresolution � perts kyel�eva ater shostr worldw Arta ex aging distribution system pressures to reduce avoidable losses, ,help When Ia Val'Advanced Pressure Management Valves are Nntegrat vation goals can be quickly achieved' Available Nn standard hydraulic, advanced hydraulic or electronic configure ions, pressure' management control systems can also be existing, installed la a...con control valves. Additional l betcan be derived fro m using g me- tering in ohjuntion with pressure management to identify areas whereimmediateispravements asbe made, sayings beginswhen normal operating pressure is reduced In p eriodsof low demand. The hart iliustrates a esiredlpressaure profile re pressure line i ` dd pressure during;,,law d periods, At law n the is'maint lined. As flow demand incre solid prsmelt aces, the set point pressure auto matically! begins to Increase. The pressure ramps;below the maximum upto a''maxim pressure zone he ~...um maximum flow. he .set obit at a where benefits are realized l►i °�odgcafl water Noss en �pui jjjj11111111%ill iiiiifl111111111111llllllllllllllllll IIIIIII IIIII the based on Ullllllllllllll mu performance 'egin hd ds to ustamize tram �;on , � � p ��uuumdlllllllllllllllll��I I s ,s, a midemarl{tlu uuiuuuuul;;lllll Illluuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu III III IIIIIIIIIIi1 lil y6 uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuullullllllluuuuuud111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111119111111111110°"'!!"" �� 1111111111110IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII Water Saving Zone for reduced leakage and fewer pipe breaks 111111ii1il a lIIIull1lmiil II I 1 Illlu 11 111111111111111111111 The pressure management premise • Reducing pressure reduces consumption across the board • Off-peak periods, such as late night, are the ideal times to lower pressure because reduced demand leaves the pipeline over -pressurized and subject to increased background leakage and pipe breaks • Even a small reduction in pressure can significantly minimize pipe breaks and leakage • Reducing pressure lowers pumping costs and saves energy • Managing pressure with standard hydraulic, advanced hydraulic or electronic control valves can help achieve operational objectives without impacting the ability to deliver adequate pressure, even in periods of extreme demand such as fire flow Advanced- H dra rlic P sure Manage ►ent y .. res Tile ClarvVal 0$ Series ality oed H draulic Pressure MwoMement Valve eg d H d age hya pressure man h top g raullc � provide„ '° p igementfor writ dNstrNuution systems, itshi ta" g er i thi raulic� s stemcutr n lysense demanad ch nges`hroughthe 18Adjustable temijive rathekharestriotive devicesshah antr I vorksincsiv„ tomaticayrant the aulet pressue�tking hydraulicpresure eoitciic tkee8s " downstream pressurewhenrol demand fallsand increasing it as demand climbs. This is The valve s h adjusts pressure based on automat ically withaut the need for outside inter yention, electrgniccomnunication or battery powerof any sort throughout the system'. adjust sre reqstoflo simple demands change in the future, the 98 Series valve maye s designed 17aI �e su'g � performanceto system'pres- sure If system flaw d le to yet fie ure asily be adjusted to meet The 8$ the new while stillsavingwater. Available on CIa-Val Hytrolsizes 2 through 16 inch and 600 Series through inch, pressure be retrofitted managementLL to existing CIa-Val Pressure Reducing sizes 3 Valves without removal of the valve `or addingorifice controls can also h 8 Series andard Pressure Management s Hydraulic Them wh re active, hydraulic pressure markagement sedesiredtNon forwater distribution systactive, �N The IsVae0 a For example, pipelines in hilly areas are often over -pressurized in order to deliveradequate pressure at higher elevations. At'lower elevations in the same system, however, delivery Ai whatd actually necessary. This condition leaves thepipelineer IIi!IV" fpe breaks,ed is..,' g g s e background cavitation s v e and pressure tle qin ableatopsurges an leakage, s c cd rdlpss of thesystem he © a fixed d Pressure slat g ma can control t terrain, to to a Series outlet pressure whileilelve maintaining the rpipeli pipeline's Regardless points within andaccuratepressureeasily flow ed toeres respond changingrov desui � e ura ad is phsystemrequirements, provides !re nts. control uu V sensitiveand To further enhance performance, 90 Series valves can be provided with Cla-VaI"s patented K©, anti -cavitation trim; to eliminate the potential for.damage caused by extreme pressure dreerentials.Anle electronic metering kitflownti- ment°is desired,oanK© cr applications meas- , C Trim added"Non,.' for a plica s where f Iffalso be A avitation iug wvrtt lt''' III�III11sl. pr rrnp station IIIII„1'III 'educin press the ai ure manage an L."w� IV411 ,VII sm 90 Series �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII 1IIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIItIiItIIIIiIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIi1IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII N NII�IIIII��HII��HN�hh��nnn� pIIV416¢upryNlNlll, NrV k;•.�8_ i'i � 7i�i_. '.: kd�' "�''„ aumu��uuVuu umuuumquumul „ � .... ,."...'...................................... i; . Yw. J'iY'Ii.rN'iM'6?,jNrYYmJ"iRd IwY reducing gravity -fed r1ry1,1 NuAi1 B"pJ du rtY r )'t! pressure over-pressuriz lion mu mplIfl'" i'i'lllllll!Pllliov' /'uuuuuul" � .,u yllf^lii'ill�ll!,,N luul"''„��plllllllll111'IiINIiIN'luirlllliulllll�Ilq „611'i' � I N16��1�''I w . ��Illllllllµlr� 'k'l n B r�� IIIIIINIIIUI1rn,areae"oi",Nn�i,� � � tk Ne'aira HIII'1"i1' ;It'W i'1 , """""!" j °01h'IIIIIIIIIIIIIIU°1° IIIIIIIIIII uuuuu 1111 II 111uumuuu h �T1� nt value's t g 1i„I11111N a 1111111l hII III � III„ klrr�u �aa;°,,�Ilhllllllllll 11911111IIIIIIIIbIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIrI�IIIII Gi�;'�?f'Illi�1;1„IN� Electronic ic Pressure Mana gement n t r ressure The 300 Series' andve is to Belieeasilyintoptimum SCADAsystemsm „ "cad be programmed o h minim m night andss management. It be val ' helping to reduce,and minimize background daytime pressures, pipedeliver ' um time r p res breaks g d leakage. lilgl�tuNN11VdI0ppi@!,„ilj R;1'Vlii'' ;' iV lia ,tt'r,' ittttl°' 'YQI',II'�° „"',dWrp"-' •" IPA^uo "i Ipl I „ I Elul dl VIIDIM!tlININ��ullu.,^ppVfouiNll!I ipol�lll� wl N 1 N ,��V„ ICJ�1Y ICI �IhIIIIIIII„Ii;Nl,iiilYllllllNi°Ilulll�llli1,10l1,,, 0 I,'I0Idll°I'pglh� �uIII,mI�Vr � i6iIIV the' precisel controlOOf field provveh hydraulic pilots and Reducingemote control un Valveality f the Thecombines Cla-Val Cla-Val, the submerse e Electronic Actuator. Designed and manufactured functionality I 33 Series actuatorpoint 33 ow rates with a set that Series maintains constant system'pressureby b can be changed remotely:'' 33 actuator, The S eal - power. It is u for any operates 'V control and C, is well suited for p a -solar a whicherat a oweavailable with newCI r can be field retrofitted toex- isting, ' installed CIa-Val automatic con troy valves. Because pressure cI be changed n gesfrom hazardsnotac location, it is alsoan esolut 410for Iowenn costs and eliminating ingsaety sociated with confined space" entry . y. visit www.cla-val.com/savewater to calculate your savings using Advanced Pressure Management Valves or l C rp bilitie or obl ti m I yal m u t` es superior pe rfior quality y sutomatic co tro valves ly production r" uction facilities s lo- cated around theworld. e These coupled sales offices and distribution cen- ters inthe US, Canada,Switzerland, United Kingdom and France,enable Cla-Val to rpov' tworld- Iassprod ct support to our customers wherever they are,whenever they„, d i 04 In addition our state-of-the-art manufacty fat " turf rhtles in t rig and foundry diverse the US, Cla-Val lsto supports American customers, in a; a Amer;array Canada p is North of industries with su- perior quality products and services and is one of the continent's leading high volume OEMsupplier s, . Ouacturing operation Lausanne, Switzerland,backed by an product technical outstanding mprovides x mer service pro- fessionals, u� vdes outsf In�ctand support to customt�rs throughout ;� Viers g urope and the Middle East. UK Ltd. serves the n unparalleledexpertise. Cla-Val United Kingdom h level �rcearrd technical expe e. Prima"' marketswaterworks, firedoaviation fueling and i be cl r „,a ndustocsing' cilrtr'ts.ClawVa � it n mI el of customere include o s real r e 'fa e, I products can found in nearly eve wv terworks° distribution y ry� a'°'system'°°'throughout.the°'°UK; Cia-Va'I Frances ^'wIIIIIIIltla old uarters inrL on Is �M of the leading suppliers of automatic control 'valVes"in'France, ° ervih verse rr!etsranging , from aviation fuel fmuiiel trtck manufacturing to water utility oqt1uT!paluu nieuuuusuuu, uuum Ia-VaiiiFra ce bringsa wilco contblnatpen!��u��J��)erierM�,��i1�Cal expertise and product know-how to,;o��mers In the French marketplace. � ^uuuuuuuu A 'i plic tons In additionerving the waterworks industry for more than seventy years,, Cla-Val has sig- nificant experience in the foil wing Industries, control Industrial/Wastewater; Our extremely versatile automatic in e can u customized to meet the d virtually waterworkse so p any industrial the a l demands serial valy industry, also',be' em ds of virtual) fluid handling handli or wastewater application. Fire rectib d-fire p� protection products engineers and architects li around the wold and perform with reliability and precision'Inie suppression systems on off - re oil la forms, and in high-rise strutresan ridustriafacilities, AviationGround Fueling: Cla-Val ground products are installed in commercialand militar theworld, Ourproducts,introducedltoairports originallym of ldWorldy facilities around ,geet the demandsmilitary aircraft` ' War g or standard in present-day aviation. M arine: la -Vat's marine products are designed meetthe Sctmg requirements ' n com' mertill shi pboard ppliisicincluding protection systems,aircraft andaaOvat r service. Their rugged construction and top qual- ity materials help to ensure long life,mirnmal maintenance and precisionperformance. eleve7r1 IlliIIIII Illlllllllllllllllllllllllllllll11111lllll111111i A-VAL CANADA CLA-VAL EUROPE CLA-VAL w,cla-val,cor CLA-VAL UK have become the A-VAL FRANCE Appendix D NPV Calculations Town Irrigation System $8,000 + $200 (P/A, 4%, 10) = $9,622 8.1109 Bleeder Automation $33,000 + $1,000 (P/A, 4%, 10) = $41,111 8.1109 Leak Detection and Repair $16,000 (P/A, 4%, 6) = $83,874 5.2421 Water Savings Fixtures $1,500 (P/F, 4%, 5) + $1500 (P/F, 4%, 10) = $2,246 0.8219 0.6756 Customer Meter Testing & Replacement $1,000 (P/A, 4%, 3) = $2,775 2.7751 Third Stage $584,000 + $1,460 (P/A, 4%, 25) = $606,800 15.6221 TOWN cm— ESTES PARK 11101 11111:11.,11)1111111)111111.11.1.1i1,111111111'111'.11.1111.111111111111111111..1111111111111111111iill,11.,°!VI.j1111,1,111,11111);;;;11;11.11111[1i111;',hi'll'11111111111,1,1r:::!,,,,,,,,,,, 0111.. .!.'::::,11111111,.„„..1,1,1,11,11,1,11,11111111111111111(1(11;11,.„1,,,„ 1111111(11.1.1111.......„ '111-111111ollilli000i0000'oovolvo 1111:111111I11111111111111011.11.0 11.11.101101111(joiodo REPORT To: Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee Interim Town Administrator Richardson From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director Date: 8 March 2012 RE: GIS Consultant RFP Background: The Town's Geographical Information System (GIS) is critical to the operations and planning of the Light & Power and Water utilities. We rely on the maps it produces to quickly mitigate and repair problems in the distribution system. Accurate data on future development, e.g. empty lots, zoning and topography, must be presented and analyzed to create credible utility master plans. The purpose of this project is to lay a foundation for easy access to accurate geospatial data which will in turn support our mission to provide high -quality, reliable services. This project will include a needs assessment and optimization of our GIS data structure. The results of the needs assessment will be reviewed with Larimer County's GIS staff to identify opportunities in consolidating GIS services. A number of other deliverables have been identified and are listed in the request for proposals (RFP). The "Scope of Services" from the RFP is shown below. We anticipate bringing the RFP results and a recommendation to the March 27th Town Board. Budget: 502-7001-580.33-33, DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT (Total 2012 budget: $40,000) 503-7000-580.35-54, WATER SYSTEM (Total GIS 2012 budget: $40,000) Page 1 of 1 TOWN012 EST 2.,S PARIc, 0.1 dillfiliti111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 Excerpt from the RFP: SCOPE OF SERVICES Tasks may include, but not necessarily limited to, the following: 1. Conduct and report on departmental assessments of current and future GIS needs 2. Coordinate with Larimer County in identifying opportunities to consolidate services 3. QA/QC of existing datasets 4. Create interactive maps on mobile devices for utility crews 5. Work with the Town's staff to establish documented procedures for data sharing with other government agencies 6. Develop and document GIS standards to support computer aided drafting and design 7. Enhance GIS data and data structures to support water system modeling and simulation (we currently use InfoWater) 8. Enhance GIS data and data structures to support electric distribution system modeling and simulation (we currently use Milsoft) 9. Creation of appropriate user guides/training manuals 10.Training of both GIS staff and non-GIS staff Page 2 of 2 TOWN o ES FES PARIc, 11111:111 111111111111111111111111 11111111111111001 oloolo0111111111111111111111111111111111 REPORT To: Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee Interim Town Administrator Richardson From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director Alan Fraundorf, Utilities Superintendent Date: 8 March 2012 RE: Project Manager for Financial Software Implementation RFP Background: In early 2011, the Town approved moving forward with replacement of the current financial system (SunGard-Naviline) to the current SunGard product, One -Solution. The upgrade would allow increased productivity and work efficiency in many areas, including much improved payroll handling, budget preparation, and permit processing. Through exceptional contract negotiations, the total cost of ownership for five years was projected to be less than the total we would have spent on the old systems. This project has been under direction of the Utilities Department and funded through its I.T. Division. Current Status: The Utilities Department recently brought on a new staff member, Alan Fraundorf, to help lead the IT and Meter Departments. His experience uniquely qualifies him to understand how we can maximize efficiency and improve customer service with the new software. After a thorough review of the project we have concluded the time constraints and expertise of our in-house resources are not adequate. We require a dedicated Project Manager with prior relevant experience to lead this effort. This person's core duties will include the following: develop a detailed project plan, lead efforts to document the current and proposed business processes; document and resolve all data dependencies/issues; lead change management activities; plan and direct system configuration; plan all training; plan and direct all other implementation tasks. This resource is necessary for a successful implementation of the new software. Page 1 TOWN ( ES 1 'ES IARIc, 1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,11,11111111111111,1:111:11:00:01,101,0,1,1,11,11,11,111,1,1,1,0,0,1,111,1,11.1,11,110,1,01,011.010:101,1,11:11.01,0,1,1,1,11,1 olloiloinol..v.1.1,11,onleoriorso lororo,00rro,orroo,orellorelivionlive))))))),,v)))1,111,111v,u.ssiourrsorsorsensulus inentsg"""" Since the Town Board already approved $40,000 in the Light and Power budget under capital equipment for GIS data processing and $40,000 in the Water Department budget under capital equipment for software/hardware implementation staff recommends applying these approved funds for a portion of this expenditure. Furthermore, staff recommends drawing down the fund balance from the I.T. Division's fund balance to pay for the remaining amount of the expenditure. Estimated expenditures for retaining the services of a qualified project manager is between $45,000-$85,000. Since the project upgrades will enhance I.T.'s service levels, improve system wide use and because the current Utilities (Light and Power and Water) GIS project is dependent on these improvements, staff recommends the following: • 80% of all project manager costs are paid through the I.T. fund balance (estimated between $36,000 - $68,000) • 20% of all project costs are paid through the Utilities' GIS project funds (estimated between $9,000 - $17,000) All maintenance fees and repairs to the current and future system are already expensed through the I.T. Division. However, the GIS project is specific to the Town's two utilities and was budgeted as such for 2012. Budget: 10% or $4,500-$8,500 from the 2012 Light and Power Division budget account 502-7001- 580.33-33 (Data Processing Equipment) 10% or $4,500-$8,500 from the 2012 Water Division budget account 503-7000-580.35-54 (GIS Project) 80% or $36,000-$68,000 from the I.T. Division's fund balance of $215,918 Recommendations: Town staff is currently developing an RFP for a Project Manager to lead this effort and is seeking approval from the Committee to move forward with completing an RFP. It is staffs intent, if approved by the Committee, to seek Town Board approval to move forward with the RFP process since a portion of this request is unbudgeted for the 2012 year. Page 2 Memo To: From: Date: RE: LiUvvol onvw?",.::111. Public Safety, Utilities and Public Safety Committee Town Administrator Halburnt Directors Zurn and Williamson March 1, 2012 Structural Engineer for Elevator Upgrade 11111111 1111,1,1)11,:t, . 111,1,1,111ylilli1,111 Background: The Larimer County Election Office has used the upstairs meeting space as an election polling location in the past. This has become a familiar location for the local electorate. Also, a mutually beneficial relationship has been developed between the County and the Town through cooperative efforts, such as allowing the use of the meeting spaces by the County at no charge allows the Town to receive election support such as voter registration lists at no charge. As the election laws have changed over the years to address voter access to polling locations, Help American Vote Act (HAVA), the state has been reviewing polling locations for accessibility for individuals with disabilities. The State has identified the Estes Park Town Hall location as a location that does not meet the minimum requirements of the act. Staff has been able to address the need for additional handicap parking stalls by adding two stalls to the parking lot on the east side of the building, including an additional aisle between the stalls. On Thursday, February 23, 2012, Lisa Doran/State Election Representative and two members of the Larimer County Election Office met with Town staff, Kevin Ash and Jackie Williamson to discuss ADA requirements and options to bring Town Hall into compliance. The State has grant funding through the Election Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities program to help Counties address compliance issues with polling locations. Two additional issues were addressed during the site visit including the need to add automatic door openers to the east side of the building and the need to upgrade the elevator to meet ADA requirements. The County and the State have requested Town staff receive quotes for the installation of automatic door openers on the east entrance to the building. The cost of these openers would be reimbursed at the full installation cost through grant funding. Additionally the state has funding to help offset the cost of upgrading the elevator in Town Hall. Staff was informed that a recent $40,000 grant was issued to another municipality to install a new elevator. Staff has reviewed the current elevator location and determined it would be necessary to engage the services of a structural engineer to determine if the elevator shaft could be expanded without compromising the integrity of the building. It is estimated the cost would not exceed $5,000; however, this expenditure was not budgeted for in 2012. If approved and determined the building could be altered, staff would then determine the structural costs and new elevator costs. This would be submitted to the County and State for grant funding. Once approved for grant funding the project would be brought forward to the Board for final consideration. The Town has received complaints from citizens regarding the inadequacy of the current elevator and the need to upgrade the elevator to meet minimum ADA requirements. This provides the Town with grant funding to address the accessibility of the building. It is unknown at this time how long the grant funds would be available; however, Ms. Doran informed me there are funds this year and perhaps next to help upgrade the building. Budget: The Building account would be used to hire a structural engineer from account #101- 1700-417-25-02. Additional costs would be incurred if the project moved forwarded to upgrade the elevator. If necessary, Director McFarland indicates these funds can be acquired through a supplemental appropriation from the General Fund balance later in the 2012 year. Recommendation: I recommend hiring a structural engineer to the Town Board, to be included on the Consent Agenda at the March 13, 2012, Town Board meeting. Election Division Colorado Department of State, Office of the Secretary of State Notice of Funding Availability and Application Materials for Election Assistance for individuals with Disabilities Funding The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) contains several provisions to enable the establishment, expansion and improved access to and participation by individuals with the full range of disabilities (e.g., blindness or visual impairment, deafness or hearing impairment, mobility - related, dexterity -related, emotional or intellectual) in the election process. The State of Colorado applied for and received funding under 42 U.S.C. 15421 of HAVA for the following: ➢ Make polling places/vote centers, including the path of travel, entrances, exits, and voting areas of each polling facility, accessible to individuals with the full range of disabilities; ➢ Provide the same opportunity for access and participation (including privacy and independence) to individuals with the full range of disabilities as for other voters; ➢ Train election officials, poll workers, and election volunteers on how best to promote the access and participation of individuals with disabilities in elections for Federal office; ➢ Provide individuals with disabilities with information about the accessibility of polling places. These funds were awarded as grants under the Election Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities program of the Administration on Developmental Disabilities, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The State will sub -grant these funds to Colorado counties to assist them in ensuring that all Colorado polling places/vote centers are accessible and provide the same opportunity for all voters to participate in the election process. General Information Who May Apply: County Clerk and Recorders on Behalf of Their Counties Maximum award per County: No Maximum Purpose of Award: Improve Accessibility to Polling PlacesNote CentersNoter Service Centers Deadline for Grant Proposals May 1, 2012 SOS GRANT JAN 2012 1 Report TO N 01 EST. 2S PARK,, oluouNonoulunouno000000000000000000000000000100N00001000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001000000100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001 lon000n000n000n000n000n000n000noon inage. olo 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 IlliollolliMM1111011111111oo 110 o 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 11 11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 oo oolooloolooloolooloomo ooloolooloolooloomoolooloolool0000 oolooloolooloolool0000 11111 loolool000l00000lool000lool00000lolo To: Public Safety, Utilities & Public Works Committee Interim Town Administrator Richardson From: Scott A. Zurn, PE, CFM, Public Works Director Date: March 6, 2012 RE: Virginia Rehabilitation and Steamer Drive Design Update Background: The Farnsworth Group has finalized the design of the Virginia Avenue, Park Lane, MacGregor Avenue and Steamer Drive rehabilitation and overlay. The project is currently being advertised for bid, with the bid opening scheduled for March 19, 2012. Estes Park Sanitation District's sewer relocation has been coordinated with the water main relocation. The District is currently underway with construction and installation of the new sewer mains and services. The project is currently scoped on Virginia Avenue to add curb and gutter on both sides of the road with sidewalk on one side of Virginia Avenue for 700 ft north of the Park Lane intersection. The area will also receive new drainage and storm sewer improvements before the road receives an overlay. Park Lane will receive additional drainage and new sidewalk replacement on the north side of the road. Pedestrian safety will be improved with a landscape island for traffic calming near the curve in the road by the bank. This Park Lane section will receive a new overlay completing the roadway surface to tie into last year's Bond Park improvements. Additionally MacGregor Avenue will receive an overlay up to the Wonderview intersection. On Steamer Drive the scope of the project includes minor curb and gutter and lane widening in the commercial areas by the Highway 34 intersection up to the entrance leading into the retail area. The remainder of the project length up to Pioneer Lane will receive an overlay with minor shoulder work. Once final bids are received, Public Works will bring forward recommendations to award the project to the lowest responsible bidder for consideration at the March 22, 2012 Town Board meeting. Page 1 Depending on weather, the project is scheduled to be completed by Memorial Day for the downtown portions of the project and mid -June for the Steamer Drive and Black Canyon Drive improvements and overlay. 1.000000000000000000000000000000000 1111 1111'101(1.v.F0.0iom1vo�� IVI� JpI m� m111I0010000011M�1�11uiIIIIIMplm1100 u uuuuu911111uu�90pl iuu�ll�' Il�uul� �!6 tuu� iDit�11 00 Legend Layer Curb Top Concrete Pan Sidewalk ki1ii.1 1 1111111I11101l�lllllilllllllhlllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll pull IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIVII p puuuul11u 1k' 0 25 50 100 Feet ENGINEERS ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS SCIENTISTS GROUP Farnsworth IIIR uuuuuuuuuuur °11 'kI111111ij1 111111: wr,l l 1H,M �II6WW,W11g,IM1I 1V111111111,1911111111r vYr rur dld6 III 1111I'111 1 1' I' ,u 1116 uiiiju�'4�Ilulll�" idl" 11111111111111111'" 0,0100, ouuulPiVi HI V/' Nmm'V"'"IImu10V00IIIIIII01IM 11 IiI 'IIII 1mwrrrrr Legend Layer ! •-°-- Curb Lip Curb Top Concrete Pan Sidewalk 11111111111111,11111111 V' iili;11IIII111dIIwNI , ry iVill 081111111111116u0011000 0 25 50 100 Feet E� Farnsworth AARCHITCHITFCTSS SURVEYORS SCIEN,ISTS GROUP Preparation date: February 27, 2012 * Revision date: AGENDA TOWN OF ESTES PARK PUBLIC SAFETY, UTILITIES & PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE March 8, 2012 8:00 a.m. Board Room, Town Hall 1. PUBLIC COMMENT 2. PUBLIC SAFETY a) RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD i) None. b) REPORTS i) Estes Park Municipal Court Annual Report. Judge Brown. 3. UTILITIES a) RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD i) Water Conservation Plan. Director Bergsten. b) REPORTS i) GIS Consultant RFP. Director Bergsten. ii) Project Manager for Financial Software Implementation RFP. Director Bergsten. 4. PUBLIC WORKS a) RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD i) Structural Engineer for Elevator Upgrade. Directors Zurn and Williamson. b) REPORTS. i) Virginia Rehabilitation and Steamer Drive Design Update. Director Zurn. 5. ADJOURN NOTE: The Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee reserves the right to consider other appropriate items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Cynthia Deats From: Jackie Williamson Sent: Wednesday, March 28, 2012 4:15 PM To: Cynthia Deats Subject: FW: Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committe Agenda for 3/8/12 Attachments: PUP Committee Trustees <Trustees@estes.org>; Trail Gazette - Editor (tgeditor@eptrail.com); Alan Fraundorf <afraundorf@yahoo.com>; Alice Reuman <reumana3(gmail.com>; Ann Taylor <grannyannie23@yahoo.com>; Art Messal <art.messal@gmail.com>; Barbara Sellers <barb.sellers@gmail.com>; Becky Glowacki <mtnhi99@hotmail.com>; Bill Guiot <wrguiot@yahoo.com>; Bill See <bill@heathconstruction.com>; Bill Townsend <btownsend@genscape.com>; Billy Ward <brossward@hotmail.com>; Bob and Judy Ayres <bobayres44@yahoo.com>; Bob Balint <balintw@gmail.com>; Bruce Walters <bwalters@estes.org>; Carolyn Harris <caro80517@yahoo.com>; Charley Dickey <charleyiv@aol.com>; Charley Griffin <griff1947@gmail.com>; Chris Bieker <chris@utsd.org>; Cindy Cormack <cindy.kepl@gmail.com>; Connie Clark <mvgoldmorgan@yahoo.com>; Connie Phipps <conniephipps@gmail.com>; Cynthia Fleischer <cgfleischer@hotmail.com>; Dan Betts <dan.betts@mail.house.gov>; Dave Albee <ard@dim.com>; Dave Tanton <dtanton@verizon.net>; David Giles <dagiles2005@gmail.com>; Diana Laughlin <dianal@partnersmentoringyouth.org>; Don Sellers <don.sellers@gmail.com>; Elizabeth Fogarty <creeksidesuites@gmail.com>; Erick Prohs <edprohs@hotmail.com>; Four Seasons Inn <info@4-seasonsinn.com>; Glenn Malpiede <gmalpiede@hotmail.com>; Greg White <greg@gawhite.com>; Haldean Dalzell <h dalzell@q.com>; Harry Kent <kmac@frii.com>; James Pickering <ihpick@earthlink.net>; Jeff Van Bogaert <ivb@tecxcel.com>; Jim Atcer <atcer iim@hotmail.com>; Joe Meylor <meylor-ia@att.net>; John Bryant <john bryant@psdr3.k12.co.us>; John Hale <iohnehale@aol.com>; John Heron <john.heron@estestram.com>; John Tucker <info@fallrivercabins.com>; Jonathan Ford <baptised1938@msn.com>; Juley Harvey <jharvey@eptrail.com>; Karen Blackwell Monks <karen@karenblackwell.com>; Kay Gillespie <kaygi2@aol.com>; Kay Norton Haughey <bobhaughey@airbits.com>; Ken Martin <kenneth martin@q.com>; Kris Hazelton - Estes Park News <kris@estesparknews.com>; Kristine Poppitz <kjpoppitz@msn.com>; Kurt Swaney <kurt.swaney@comcast.net>; Laura Brown <bighornep@msn.com>; Loveland Reporter Herald <news@reporter-herald.com>; Mark Pallissard <mpallissard@estes.org>; Mark Swanlund <copswan@hotmail.com>; Mary Shelton <bbshelton2@q.com>; Mike Oatley <mjo@fish2.net>; Molly Patrick <mollylpatrick@gmail.com>; Nancy P. Thomas <nthomas@emporia.edu>; Nick Bozych <nbozych@stanleyhotel.com>; Nick Molle<nmolle@nickmolleproductions.com>; Pam Seaver <crseaver@me.com>; Pamela Brice <pamelabrice@yahoo.com>; Pat Nelson <pnelson@gmail.com>; Patrice Sullivan<patrice.sullivan@colostate.edu>; Patti Dolezal <thndrmtnakitas@estesvalley.net>; Paula Burr <pvburr@gmail.com>; Peg Eckstrand <pekstrand@crlassociates.com>; Peter Fendel <peter.fendel@mail.house.gov>; Peter Marsh <pmarsh@visitestespark.com>; Peter Sinnott <sinnott2805@msn.com>; gwerty7@xmission.com; Ray and Susie Hertz <rsgco@yahoo.com>; Ray Sahm <lrusk@bevondbb.com>; Rex Poggenpohl <poggenpohl@mac.com>; Rich Johnson <info@elkhornlodge.org>; Richard Grabish <rfgrabish@msn.com>; Richard Homeier <rockyhome@airbits.com>; Rick <rkg@beyondbb.com>; Robert Rising <bob23@q.com>; Robin & Diana Eldridge <robdd@aol.com>; Rod Morten <loismorten@hotmail.com>; Roger Steers <steers12@msn.com>; Ron Gordon <rgordon@frii.com>; Sarah Holdt <sholdt@ymcarockies.org>; Shelley Davis <MLDRN@earthlink.net>; Steve Laing <slaingep@aol.com>; Steven Engel <Steven.kepl@gmail.com>; Suzanne Miller <as.miller@beyondbb.com>; Terry P. Rizzuti <tprizzuti@gmail.com>; Thea Richard <tirich99@hotmail.com>; Thor Homme <thorhomme@yahoo.com>; tim@thebear1470.com; Tom Hannah <tomhannah54@aol.com>; Tom Pickering <tpickering@estes.org>; Ward Nelson <wardnelson1972@yahoo.com>; Will Jorgensen <will4iesus@yahoo.com>; William Crosby <billc050@msn.com>; William G. Howell <wghowell2243@earthlink.net>; Alan Fraundorf <afraundorf@estes.org>; AVProduction Calendar <AVProduction@estes.org>; Cynthia Deats <cdeats@estes.org>; Dave Mahany <dmahany@estes.org>; Eric Rose <erose@estes.org>; Jen Imber <iimber@estes.org>; Kate Rusch <krusch@estes.org>; Kevin Ash <kash@estes.org>; Lowell Richardson <Irichardson@estes.org>; Peni Barnes <pbarnes@estes.org>; Reuben Bergsten <rbergsten@estes.org>; Scott Zurn <szurn@estes.org>; Susie Parker <sparker@estes.org>; Wes Kufeld <wkufeld@estes.org> 1 Jackie Williamson Town Clerk/Administrative Services Director (970) 577-4771 (p) (970) 577-4770 (1) jwilliamson@estes.org www. estes. org From: Jackie Williamson Sent: Wednesday, February 29, 2012 2:39 PM To: Jackie Williamson Subject: Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committe Agenda for 3/8/12 Attached is the agenda for the upcoming PUP meeting on Thursday, March 8, 2012. Jackie Williamson Town Clerk/Administrative Services Director (970) 577-4771 (p) (970) 577-4770 (t) jwilliamson@estes.org www.estes.org TOWN OF ESTES PARK MUNICIPAL COURT ANNUAL PARKING TICKET REVENUE COMPARISON 2011 $ 8,285 2010 2,945 2009 9,846 2008 7,704 2007 3,541 2006 1,790 2005 4,140 2004 2,730 2003 3,860 2002 3,578 2001 405 A [P To: TOWN OF ESTES PARK Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee Interim Town Administrator Richardson Finance Director McFarland From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director Date: 8 March 2012 RE: Remove Water Conservation Plan from today's agenda Upon further review the Water Department is pulling the Conservation Plan from today's agenda. A couple of discrepancies have been noted and will be corrected. I recognize this has put an avoidable Toad to your duty as a Board Member on the PUP Committee and I apologize. We expect the plan to be ready for next month's meeting. Regards, Reuben Bergsten Cc: Jeff Boles, Water Superintendent Page 1 Memo To: From: Jeff Boles, Water Superintendent Diana Beehler, Water Quality Manager Date: 3/1/2012 RE: Water Conservation Plan 11111.1:1,ir., ..r ,"001"11,o !? ”.1111111111111111111111°°°Atthwwilli.1°..1°11111°°Iq 1111111111.11111111111111.„.11° 1°111111111111111°1„°°°°°°°1°°°°11°1:11,1111111°°1111III°IIII°°vvl°u1°1' ....„°, 0 1111 ... • °I 11111111111111101i1?1.1111111.°°°- 000,111110100110 ° 1111111111111 Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee Interim Town Administrator Richardson Background: In February 2010 we reported to the PUP Committee on the grant award from the Colorado Water Conservation Board to update the existing Water Conservation Plan. This plan was developed by HDR Engineering with in -kind service contributions from staff. As a condition for future State grants and financial assistance, the Town must have a State approved conservation plan. The State does provide grants for implementation of conservation plans although some of the elements of this updated plan are already in place. In the future, the Water Department will work with the State to identify funding opportunities for the more costly elements when implementation becomes desirable or required. Budget: N/A Recommendation: I recommend the Water Conservation Plan to the Town Board, to be included on the Consent Agenda at the March 27, 2012 Town Board meeting. h'�u7vl �7fdPlWWIiI4W'NIN!(V'I�INiP(161V`�"II MetnJFmbry FNtwcx (1 M) 14m1 q< 1«/Y.memOM) .m Avlat It Y. eorynv Rrll No Flan +ryE!hx.utleo 01130 (6f4) Nu [men PL. 36.I114,54??) I.o Acne Y,snuumb0141nsma0YF') No c.lti.uk(0,1 ..0 Malt wag,. Flk Lknc41),IO'req 1pw) t.0 Ves t.ummm M14nn i47 441))4p-Ax.miama 4)4) 1'el V�eurtW umxann Lr m:,n:6sx,r4,sea•mM. an9 M.maua M w.5x Idel eW 1n,clutta imeca4.1 thc uo, .k.tnxi. Stern... vat orve..Wkly 'iwlr rc.o lvp)n Mmnr1W plAn.Ifvtore nus xttueawurturFa.. Na Gaswl Mopwn a P4c rva.Wdumwd GuOy;t libx ab tileµM wubs vartra 2tlV (31x er Au1om vion $1,250 $200 SS,S;q 5.5 51,5 $0.5.1)0 131t5 $5.10 $).25' SI/wu 044) 4 105 50Y'1 50.77 $1,000 SI,EPM1 $16,006 0)7,))) 45.p $1.33 $G.1> veneGs Vie rII "Cost to 0 0403rge to sewer "Over life span of program Water Conservation Plan Town of Estes Park, Colorado Draft Report February 13, 2012 rn (if c),0 RE, .- \ .e• / C. -A I < 36489 Poi i o .fi I \ / i , 'fj)si'r r ri 11 01:i' Prepared under the responsible charge of Sarah C. Clark Colorado PE 36489 303 E. 17t1 Ave. Suite 700 Denver, CO 80203 / Y Pobub/eWater Demand Projection 8.1.15Tracking ofBreaks and Repairs (SP) 35 S.2Develop and Define Screening Criteria 35 6.3 Screen Conservation Measures and Programs 36 7.0 Evaluate and Select Conservation Measures and Programs 37 7.1Capital and O&M Costs 37 7.2Potential Water Savings 38 7.3Cost Effectiveness 30 7.4Summary ofBenefits and Costs 41 8.0Untwgrote Resources and Modify Forecasts 42 8.1 Revise Demand FnrooaaKo) 42 8.2Identify Project Specific Savings 43 8.3Revise Supply -Capacity For*oaut(e) 43 8.4Consider Revenue Effects 43 9.DDevelop Implementation Plan 44 0.1 Develop Implementation Schedule 44 9.2 Develop Plan for Public Participation in Implementation 44 Q.3Develop Plan for Monitoring and Evaluation Processes 44 A.4Develop Plan for Updating and Revising the Conservation Plan 44 0.5Define Plan Adoption Date/Plan Completed Date/Plan Approved Date 44 10'OA6brmvistioms 45 Figures Figure 2-1 Existing Water System 3 Figure 2-220O8Potable Water Usage 5 Figure 3-1 Population Growth Trends 13 Figure 3-2 Historic Annual Number of Visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park 15 Figure 3-3Seasonal Water Treatment Plant Production 18 Figure 3-4Historic Treatment Plant Production 10 Figure 3'520O8Potable Water Usage 20 Figure 3'6Peak Day Demand Projections 24 Figure 4-1 Plant Improvements Schedule Coordinated with Demand Projections 28 T�H ��tes Table 2-1 Storage Facilities Inventory 4 Table 2-2Summary ofthe 2O10and 2O11Water Utility Rates 0 Table 2-33-ShsgoConservation Plan Summary 10 Table 2-4Summary nfWater Restrictions byConservation Stage 11 Table 3-1 Census Population Summary 13 Table 3-2Summary ofProjected Population Growth Rates 17 Table 3-3 Historic Potable Water Production (1903-2006) 10 Table 3'4Per Capita Demands 21 Table 3'5Summary ofPeak Day Demand a(Bui|dout 22 Table 3-6 Summary ofParameters Used in [Wnnta Carlo Simulation 23 Table 4-1 Estimated Capital and D&PW Costs for System Expansion 20 ii Water Conservation Plan 1.0 Introduction The Town of Estes Park, hereinafter referred to as the Town, initiated this water conservation planning effort to comply with state requirements and to meet their agreement with the Windy Gap Firming Project, which requires that a water conservation plan be in place. Similar to other resort communities in Colorado, the Town of Estes Park has a permanent year -around population that typically doubles and sometimes triples in the summer due to the large influx of visitors. As a result, the water system must be capable of serving a wide range of potable water demands that result from direct consumption by the increased population. In contrast to other cities in Colorado, very little water demand in Estes Park is attributable to irrigation needs because the landscaping throughout the Estes Valley is predominantly natural vegetation. Landscape plantings are at high risk of survival due to the grazing of natural wildlife (elk and deer) in Town. The small amount of landscaping in the Town is generally limited to municipal parks and property. This situation makes the Town unique with respect to conservation measures that are available to provide any significant water savings. Where other communities can save significant amounts of water by controlling irrigation, the Town does not have a significant irrigation demand. Thus, this plan is based on relatively small amounts of water saved through use of multiple conservation measures and programs. Much of the information in this plan has been taken from previous planning and evaluation work completed by the Town. The following list includes the reports from which information is drawn. These reports should be referenced for additional detail, if needed, on selected topics. • Potable Water Demand Project, Town of Estes Park, July 12, 2007 • Water Treatment Facilities Evaluation, Town of Estes Park, January 2007 • Estes Park Water Treatment Facilities, Phase 2 Study, Town of Estes Park, July 2010 • Water Cost of Service Study, Town of Estes Park, December 2010 For the Town, the majority of future capital improvements that are planned for the water system are related to existing system deficiencies and to the need to ensure compliance with drinking water regulations: they are not tied to a need to increase potable water production capacity. The Town has water rights at several different locations which provide adequate raw water supply, but utilizing all the water rights is dependent on maintaining treatment in two locations at capacities that can take advantage of the water rights when they are available. The plan was developed by the Conservation Plan Committee, whose members include the following: • Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director for the Town • Jeff Boles, Water Superintendent for the Town • Diana Beehler, Laboratory Technician for the Town • Sarah Clark, Project Manager at HDR • Jennifer Stillman, Project Engineer at HDR The plan was reviewed and approved through standard Town Board of Trustees processes for public programs that affect the Town. 1 MacGregor Mo��uottaaln TTank �0.3MG 6DUIIII//Gi/(lIYI�WWd ll l `III�III ) Glacier Water Treatment Plant e, e °ee p In Legend Pall River Estates Tank 01MGf� t � Fall River Eslafes PS+ ""Iykuntain)Tank04;MG, h /lG c i k slall River PRVf(8)) Fall River1PRV (2) Riverside PRV (8") Riverside PRV (2") ,,,,'Meadow Lane PRV MarysLakeWater Treatment Plant , 4rri� "e Kiowa Estates Tank 0a08�5 CrystalTank� Storage Tank Water Treatment Plant 0 Valve ® Pump Station — Service Area Pipe Dia. (Inches) FnService Area 1 (8,110 FT) ONE COMPANY 1 Matz), solutions 0.75-2 3-6 8 10-12 18-36 Service Area 2 (7,950 FT) Service Area 3 (8,050 FT) Service Area 4 (8,220 FT) Service Area 5 (8,430 FT) Service Area 6 (8,350 FT) Service Area 7 (8,050 FT) !IL/r/l� 11 jj Carriage Lane PRV Whispering Pines PRV'. slat Tank FCV.- 1 Inch o 3,500 feet N Existing System Figure 2-1 Estes Park - Water Conservation Plan Water Conservation Plan The Estes Valley is largely surrounded by public land (Rocky Mountain National Park and Roosevelt National Forest) and therefore future growth is limited to the boundaries of the water system service area. Current population in the Estes Valley varies significantly from winter to summer, with an estimated peak population of 22,350 occurring during the summer tourist season. The estimated build - out population is 32,624. The Town's most recent water demand study was completed in 2007 (Potable Water Demand Projection, HDR, July 12, 2007) as part of a broad water plant evaluation and planning effort. Metered water usage by month as well as total water treatment plant production in 2006 is shown in Figure 2-2. The data show that residential water usage and commercial water usage are roughly the same at the present, and the usage follows the same seasonal demand trend. The difference between the water treatment plant production in Figure 2-2 and the total metered water is largely due to system losses and also partly due to wholesale customers (bulk and dispenser) whose meter records were not included. System losses include water used or lost in the treatment plant and distribution system. Losses in the Town's water system have stabilized and are not expected to increase as long as the distribution system continues to be maintained. The distribution system does have a number of "bleeders", which are set to bleed water from the system during the winter to keep the distribution pipes from freezing. Their usage is also metered and shown in Figure 2-2. 90 w 80 0 2 70 a i50 2 40 co 30 20 a Y a0 10 Figure 2-2 2006 Potable Water Usage WTP Production Total Metered Residential Metered Commercial Metered Bleeder Metered 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Month 8 9 10 11 12 5 Water Conservation Plan 2.3 System Limitations The greatest issue of concern to the Town's water system is a major renovation project that is needed at GWTP in order to replace aging infrastructure and address upcoming EPA water regulations. Two recent engineering studies that evaluate existing water treatment facilities have been completed by the Town. The first of the two studies, the Water Treatment Facilities Evaluation, included condition assessments of the two water plants and developed a plan to meet the long-term projected water demand. Options for improvement or replacement of the two plants were evaluated in this study, with the final recommendation to improve and expand capacity at the MWTP utilizing submerged membranes, reserving the decision whether to improve or replace the GWTP until more information could be obtained regarding the cost of that effort. Since this study was completed in 2007, the MWTP has been upgraded with submerged membranes and now has a treatment capacity of 4 mgd but operates at 2 mgd peak flow. The current restrictions on operating at design flow are tied to the availability of waste discharge capacity (and the cost to discharge). The second of the two studies, the Water Treatment Facilities Phase 2 Study, was completed in 2010. This study is an in-depth evaluation of the facilities at the GWTP, with the objective of making a determination whether to improve the plant or replace it entirely, and if it were to be replaced, at what location. GWTP is at significant risk for meting the drinking water quality regulations under certain water quality conditions which generally occur during runoff. In addition, the plant has the potential for being reclassified, after the 2016 round of sampling, in a treatment bin for the LT2ESWTR that requires additional treatment beyond conventional treatment. The plant is composed of aging equipment, buildings and concrete tanks, so that repair or upgrade without complete replacement is not cost effective. A significant amount of work is required to demolish and replace the GWTP on the existing site. The current plan is to move towards complete replacement for the plant, probably by 2021, with a treatment capacity of 2.65 mgd, which is equivalent to the water rights limit for instantaneous withdrawal at Glacier Creek of 4.1 cfs. (Note, the instantaneous withdrawal rate for GWTP has since been clarified as 4.0 cfs, which is equivalent to 2.58 mgd.) 2.4 Water Costs and Pricing The water utility provides only potable water to its customers. Between 2000 and 2009, the peak billing years occurred in 2000 and 2007. The water utility has seen a steady decline in volume of sales in recent years. The following illustrates the decline of the most recent year's water use reduction: 2007 to 2008 2008 to 2009 2009 to 2010 0.5% reduction 1 % reduction almost 2% reduction There have been no major reductions in customers to account for this decline. The decline in water use translates to a decline in revenue, which drives the need for greater rate adjustments to fully fund the operating and capital needs of the system. This trend holds true nationwide for residential customers and is due to a number of factors, but in particular to water efficient plumbing fixtures (toilets, washing machines and dishwashers). The national plumbing code has new low water use requirements in place for washing machines since 2010 and dishwashers beginning in 2011. This trend (decline in residential 7 Water Conservation Plan to the time when system operating costs are higher, due to increased pumping and chemical usage to meet peak demands. Table 2-2 provides a summary of the water utility rates for all customer classes of service, including the previous 2010 rates and the newly adopted 2011 rates. Table 2-2 Summary of the 2010 and 2011 Water Utility Rates 2010 2010 2011. Urban Rural Urban Monthly Water Base Rate 5/8" $17.90 $28.67 $18.90 3/4" 17.90 28.67 18.90 1" 19.67 31.50 20.77 1- 1/2" 23.90 38.27 25.24 2" 26.85 42,98 28.35 3" 61.59 98.56 65.04 4" 86.32 138.13 91.15 Consumption - $/1,000 gallons Residential All Consumption $3.77 Commercial All Consumption $3.67 Pumped Flow All Consumption $5.28 Bulk Water All Consumption $4.22 $6.03 $5.88 $ 8.44 $6.75 $3.98 $3.88 $5.58 $4.46 Water customers are billed on a monthly basis. On average, an urban residential customer with a %-inch meter uses approximately 5,000 gallons of water in a month. Under the present rates, this customer would pay $36.75 per month. Under the Board adopted rates that cost will increase to approximately $38.80. The Town's utility bills include both water and electric service charges, on a monthly basis. The billing department cannot distinguish between the water and electric utilities for numbers of delinquent billings. While water bills are highest in summer, the electric utility bills are highest in winter, due to heating requirements. Delinquent bills have increased somewhat since the economic downturn. The total number of delinquent bills issued from 2009 to 2010 increased 13%. However, for the first five months of 2011 compared to the first five months of 2010, the number of delinquencies issued has dropped 16%. Overall, levels of delinquencies appear to be remaining relatively stable. The Town has incurred the same increase in foreclosures and bankruptcies in recent years that are seen nationally, and along with that, some billings to write-off, but nothing unusual has transpired in the recent past. This completes the discussion of the Town's water utility billing and revenue trends. A more detailed discussion of the development of the comprehensive rate study can be found in the Town's Comprehensive Water Rate Study Final Report, January 2011, HDR. 9 Water Conservation Plan Table 2-4 Summary of Water Restrictions by Conservation Stage Conservation Measures Stage I (Normal) Stage II (Moderate) Stage III (Emergency) Impose water rate surcharge No No Yes Allow turf Irrigation Yes Yes No Voluntary watering days are designated Yes N/A N/A Mandatory watering days are designated and should be observed N/A Yes N/A Voluntary landscape/lawn non- watering between 10 am and 6 pm. Yes N/A N/A Mandatory landscape/lawn non- watering between 10 am and 6 pm. N/A Yes N/A Limit lawn watering to 2 hours per day on designated watering days N/A Yes N/A Prohibit new lawn seeding or sod No Yes Yes Allow hand watering Yes Yes Yes Allow spray or bucket car washing Yes Yes No Allow use of automated car washes that recycle wash water Yes Yes No Allow use of automated car washes that do not recycle wash water Yes No No Watering days — Voluntary in Stage I, Mandatory in Stages II and III Street addresses ending in 0 to 4: Monday, Thursday, Saturday Street addresses ending in 5 to 9: Tuesday, Friday, Sunday In the future, the Colorado Water Conservation Board (CWCB) may require all water utilities to develop a Drought Mitigation Plan. If this requirement is implemented, the Town may revisit and further refine the 3-stage plan outlined above to address additional issues such as modified drought rates. It should be noted that CWCB does offer grants to assist water providers in development of these mitigation plans. The Town has completed a number of planning documents over the past decade which have been referenced throughout this Conservation Plan. With the exception of a potential Drought Mitigation Plan for CWCB, the Town does not intend to develop any additional planning studies in the near future that would impact conservation efforts. 2.6 Current Water Conservation Activities Historically the Town has promoted water conservation in the community using two means: posting of conservation information on the Town's website and distribution of free water saving plumbing fixtures. Conservation information on the Town's website includes a summary of the Town's 3-Stage Conservation Plan (see Section 2.5), a list of conservation tips, and an advertisement for a "free water - saver kit". The Town intends to maintain the conservation information on the website, but there are no plans to update the website at this time. 11 Water Conservation Plan Table 3-1 Census Population Summary Year Town of Estes Park Percent Annual Change Estes Valley Percent Annual Change Larimer County Percent Annual Change State of Colorado Percent Annual Change - 1950 1,617 - - - 43,554 - 1,325 1960 1,175 -3.1 - - 53,343 2.0 1,754 2.8 1970 1,616 3.2 3,554 - 89,900 5.4 2,225 2.4 1980 2,703 5.3 4,070 1.4 149,184 5.2 2,908 2.7 1990 3,672(1) 3.1 6,044 4.0 186,136 2.2 3,303 1.3 2000 5,413 4.0 8,889 3.9 251,494 3.1 4,301 2.7 2010 8,013(2) 4.0 11,500(2) 2.6 - - - - Notes: (1) The U.S. Census Bureau reported a population of 3,184 for the Town in 1990. The Town did not feel this was an accurate count due to changes in Census Tract 28 and the means by which the Census surveys were distributed. The Town estimate of the 1990 population is 3,672. (2) Town of Estes Park estimate taken from the May 2006 Town of Estes Park Community Profile. (3) Percent Annual Change example calculation for the Town of Estes Park in 1960 = [(1175/1617)^(1/(1960-1950))]-1 = (-0.031) Percent Annual Population Change 10%--- 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 1 -2% -4% Figure 3-1 Population Growth Trends 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 Year Town of Estes Park Estes Valley I, Berthoud i Loveland Larimer County • Clear Creek County Gilpin County Steamboat Dillon State of Colorado As shown in Figure 3-1, the Town, Valley, and the county all experienced 2-4% growth between 1990 and 2000. The Town estimated the 2010 population to be 8,013 in the Town itself and 11,500 in the 13 6.0 N 5.5 0 g 5.0 c f2 4.5 0 > 4.0 0 .0 3.5 E z To 3.0 < 2.5 Water Conservation Plan Figure 3-2 Historic Annual Number of Visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park Growth trend from 1984 to 1999 • • . ' .'• • • • . ' 4.5 million visitors in 2030 if growth trend recovers to historic rate 2.0 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Year Another source of information used for validating the transient population in the Town is the Estes Park Convention and Visitor's Bureau (CVB). Currently the Town has lodging accommodations for 3,000 people. The CVB refers to this as "3,000 pillows" since various lodging units can accommodate different numbers of guests. (This estimate includes rental condos.) The Town currently has a surplus of lodging inventory and the CVB is unaware of any significant future development plans for lodging. This information supports the concept of estimating the transient population based on the number of visitors to RMNP and placing an upper bound on the transient population projection. The CVB estimates that only 25 percent of visitors to the Town do not visit RMNP. This indicates that the RMNP visitor numbers remain the best parameter available to estimate the transient population in the Town. The Town used to be completely booked every summer day roughly 10 years ago, but it is rarely booked full anymore with the exception of major holiday weekends. The CVB's current primary goal is to attract more tourists to the Town in the off-season. The Town is not trying to expand its accommodations infrastructure, but instead is trying to fill what they already have. Increasing occupancy in the off-season does not impact the development of the demand estimate as future water treatment capacity is calculated using the peak day demand. The Town's population analysis estimated the transient population using percentage estimates of RMNP traffic, accommodation bed counts, and estimates of unaccounted for visitors (those who do not visit the Park and do not stay overnight in the Town). Using this information, the Town estimated that the 2006 transient population was 10,789 visitors per day in the peak season and 2,756 visitors per day in the off- season. 15 Water Conservation Plan The Town has existing emergency agreements with the YMCA of the Rockies (up to 0.43 mgd) and with Prospect Mountain Water Company to provide water on an emergency request. Although these customers are not included in the population projections, they are included in the buildout demand to ensure that the water treatment plant has capacity for both the Town's peak day demand as well as emergency service to both the YMCA and Prospect Mountain Water Company. (Since the 2007 Demand Projection, the Town has entered into discussions with Prospect Mountain regarding becoming their permanent water supplier.) The Town is currently in discussion with the National Park Service regarding future connection of the RMNP headquarters facilities to the Town's water system as a wholesale customer. Based on the average peak season usage by RMNP since 2000, adding the Park as a wholesale customer is the equivalent of 375 people per day to the population projection. Town staff indicated that RMNP could become a wholesale customer in the near future. This demand does not have a significant impact on water treatment plant capacity. Therefore, the population was not included in the projections, but the demand was included in the buildout demand calculation. 3.1.6 Population Growth Rate Projections Table 3-2 below summarizes the probability of projected growth rates for the various populations served by the water system as well as the basis for the projected growth. The 2006 peak season population for wholesale bulk and non -transient populations was based on the population analysis by the Town. The 2006 peak season population for transient visitors was assigned a level of variability as part of the analysis. Table 3-2 Summary of Projected Population Growth Rates Population Type 2006 Peak Season Population Percent Annual Growth Probability Basis of Growth Projection Permanent 10,369(1) 1.4 Low Lowest annual growth rate for Town, Valley, and County since 1970 based on Census data. 2.6 Most LikelyAverage annual increase in number of water accounts between 2000 and 2006. 4.0 High Average annual growth rate for Town and Valley between 1990 and 2000 from Census data Transient 10,789(2) 1.1 Low Average annual growth rate for number of visitors to RMNP between 1990 and 2006. 3.5 Most Likely Average annual growth rate for number of visitors to RMNP between 1984 and 2006. Assumes balance of visitors who do not visit RMNP and visitors to RMNP that do not stop In Estes Park. 6.6 High Average annual growth rate for number of visitors to RMNP between 1984 and 1999, which is the period of maximum growth of RMNP visitors. Wholesale Bulk 796(3) 0.7 Low Primarily rural communities; assume growth rates will be half of the permanent population growth rate based on growth rates in the region. 1.3 Most Likely 2.0 High Non- Transient 398(3) 1.4 Low Primarily supports the permanent population; use same growth rates as permanent population growth rates. 2.6 Most Likely 4.0 High ores: (1) Based on 2000 population of Estes Valley (8,889) and an average annual growth rate of 2.6 percent. (2) For this study, the 2006 transient population will be varied as follows: low = 5,394, most likely = 10,789, and high = 15,377. (3) Based on 2006 Population Fact Sheet and Projections, which is a statistical population analysis prepared by the Town for the State. (See Appendix of 2007 Demand Projection.) 17 Water Conservation Plan solidify this conclusion. Table 3-3 shows the historic minimum, average, and maximum values for each of these parameters. The values listed for the peaking factor (ratio of peak demand to average demand in peak season) were used as the low, most -likely, and high values in the 2007 Demand Projection. 5.0 4.5 4.0 2 3.5 co 3.0 E 2.5 Figure 3-4 Historic Treatment Plant Production Peak Day Demand '"4-Ayg Day Demand in Peak Season -111-Peak/Ayg Ratio (Peak Season) is 2.0 7f; 1.5 111'"0"""""da".....ireo•oalr''' a' 1.0 0.5 O. 0 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 Year 2003 Potential conservation effects 2005 Table 3-3 Historic Potable Water Production (1993-2006) Historic Occurrence Peak Day Demand Avg. Day Demand Peak Season (May- Sept) Peak/Avg Ratio Peak Season Minimum 2.5 1.7 1.3 (Low) Average 3.2 2.0 1.6 (Most Likely) Maximum 4.3 2.2 2.0 (High) 5.0 4.5 4.0 3.5 3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0 .0 2007 Peak/Avg Demand Ratio 3.2.2 Per Capita Usage Metered water usage by month as well as total water treatment plant production in 2006 is shown in Figure 3-5. The data show that residential water usage and commercial water usage are roughly the same at the present, and the usage follows the same seasonal demand trend. The difference between the water treatment plant production in Figure 3-5 and the total metered water is in small part due to wholesale customers (bulk and dispenser) because their meter records are not included here, and is 19 Water Conservation Plan use less water than the permanent population), the low occupancy rate of the permanent population (many households are second homes), and the absence of large irrigation demands. Table 3-4 provides a summary of per capita usage rates used in the 2007 Demand Projection. Table 3-4 Per Capita Demands Probability Per Capita Demand (gpcd) Low 73 Most Likely 93 High 113 The per capita demands listed in the table above include all four categories of population (permanent, transient, wholesale, and non -transient). A more detailed analysis could be performed if per capita demands could be developed for each of these population categories, specifically permanent and transient since they represent the majority of the population. However, the permanent and transient populations can not be specifically associated with the residential and commercial usage (billing records) for several reasons including: • A portion of the transient population stays in rental condos, which have residential meters • The permanent population has an impact on commercial usage, which cannot be separated from the impact of the transient population on commercial usage In general, the transient population will use less water than the permanent population primarily because a significant portion of the transient population is day visitors to Town and do not stay overnight. By applying the same per capita demand to both populations, we assumed that the ratio of permanent and transient populations will remain the same in the future. In reality, it is more likely that the growth rate of the transient population will outpace the growth rate of the permanent population. However, the demand projection will still be conservative (on the high side) since it is based on the ratio of the permanent population to the transient population in 2006 and this ratio is expected to increase in the future. 3.3 Buildout Conditions The buildout population of Estes Park was identified for each of the population categories discussed above. The buildout number for the permanent population was estimated using an extensive land use analysis. The buildout number for the transient population for the transient population was estimated using an analysis of growth trends in visitation to Rocky Mountain National Park. The buildout population of the wholesale population and the non -transient population could be reasonably estimated from the available data. These populations do not have much impact on the total water demand and therefore single point estimates were used with very little variability. The peak day demand at buildout was estimated by multiplying the total buildout population by the high per capita usage rate (113 gpcd) and the high peaking factor (2.0). Using the high values for both of these parameters helps to ensure that the Town will have capacity to handle unexpected demand, mainly due to drought, but also due to changes in people's water usage patterns. A 2.0 peaking factor occurred in the past (2002 and 2003). Three additional demands were included in the buildout peak day demand 21 Water Conservation Plan 4. The average demand in the peak season from Step 4 was multiplied by a peaking factor. The peaking factor was assigned a low, most -likely, and high value. Table 3-6 Summary of Parameters Used in Monte Carlo Simulation Parameter Low Most Likely High 2006 Pennanent Population 10,369 10,369 10,369 2006 Transient Population 5,395 10,789 15,377 2006 Whole Sale Population 796 796 796 2006 Non -Transient Population 398 398 398 Permanent Population Growth Rate 1.4 2.6 4.0 Transient Population Growth Rate 1.1 3.5 6.6 Whole Sale Population Growth Rate 0.7 1.3 2.0 Non -Transient Population Growth Rate 1.4 2.6 4.0 Per Capita Demand (gal/day) 73 93 113 Peak Day Demand / Avg Day Demand in Peak Season Ratio (Peaking Factor) 1.3 1.6 2.0 Figure 3-6 illustrates the peak day demand projection curves resulting from the 2007 Demand Projection. Each curve represents a peak day demand condition with a percent probability that the demand in a given year will exceed that demand condition. For example, in 2015, there is 25 percent probability that the 4.9 mgd demand will be exceeded based on the assumptions of this analysis. 23 Water Conservation Plan The Most Likely Peak Day Demand curve represents an estimate of future demands with a 50 percent probability that the demands will be larger or smaller than the represented demand condition. In planning for plant expansion, decision makers typically do not use the most likely peak day demand because the risk of the demand being larger than planned is higher than is typically prudent. A more prudent planning curve is the 10 percent exceedance curve. Using the 10 percent curve for the Town, the current plant production capacity will not be exceeded until roughly 2020. However, the GWTP will require replacement prior to this date as previously discussed in this Conservation Plan. 3.5 Conclusion Based on this analysis, the projected peak day demand at buildout of the permanent population will be 7.9 mdg and the buildout population will be 32,664 (including all categories of population). The peak day demand projection is a planning number and reflects several critical assumptions. The first major assumption is that water demands must be met in drought conditions, which means that the buildout peak demand calculation is based on the high peaking factor typical of a drought year. The other major assumptions pertain to the uncertainty in per capita water usage and the future population estimate. The peak day demand projection at buildout is based on a high per capita usage, which is above the calculated average for the Town, but still much below the average per capita usage levels in areas where irrigation is prevalent and the transient population does not make up such a large percentage of the water users (e.g. Denver). If irrigation practices change, the per capita usage will change as well. Uncertainty in the buildout population is associated with the fact that more than half the peak season population is transient and is thus not predictable in association with land use. HDR believes that 7.9 mgd represents a reliable planning level projection that will ensure the Town can provide sufficient water to customers in the future. Consequently, this buildout projection which was established by the 2007 Demand Projection will serve as the basis of planning for this Conservation Plan. 4.0 Profile Proposed Facilities 4.1 Identify and Cost Potential Facility Needs Through the Town's planning efforts over the past 10 years, a number of facility improvements and additions have been identified to replace aging infrastructure. The schedule for these improvements has been developed in a manner that allows for completion of plant improvements projects while still having potable water capacity to operate. The four major project areas included in the planning are detailed in this section. 4.1.1 MWTP Improvements MWTP improvements, which were completed in early 2011, brought the total plant capacity to 4 mgd by retrofitting the existing facility with 2-stage membrane treatment. The plant typically operates at or near 99% recovery, with waste flows of one percent of production being discharged to the wastewater system. Currently, the Town has a discharge limit of 20,000 gal/day, averaged over a month, to the sanitary sewer. This limitation effectively limits plant production to 2.2 mgd. The Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD) fee structure is comprised of tap fees, discharge fees, and surcharge fees. UTSD does not have a commercial or industrial tap rate, so MWTP discharges are 25 Water Conservation Plan through them. These improvements are being scheduled into the capital improvement program for the utility over the coming years and are not tied solely to expanded water demand. Order of magnitude costs for the proposed system improvements can be found in Appendix A. 4.1.5 Improvements Schedule The Town has already completed the first major project that is part of the improvements plan, the renovation of MWTP to produce 4 mgd. As the Town moves forward to replace the GWTP, timing must be tied to both the demand projections and to the potential for required treatment improvements that may arise as a result of raw water quality testing under the Long -Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule. Plant improvements are proposed to take place in accordance with Figure 4-1, where GWTP is taken off line for replacement in 2019, with completion at 2.65 mgd capacity by 2021. Prior to taking GWTP off line, the wastewater discharge capacity at MWTP must be adequate to allow the plant to produce 4 mgd as the Town must have capacity to survive on only one plant for a two-year period. (This could be accomplished either through third stage treatment or purchase of additional discharge capacity from UTSD.) Even with MWTP at 4 mgd capacity, additional temporary treatment may be necessary during the GWTP reconstruction period (or at least during peak summer demands). The Town cannot further delay the reconstruction of GWTP because the deficit in available treated water would be so large as to require extensive temporary treatment units, which would significantly increase the cost of construction. The timing for addition of capacity (from 2.65 mgd to 4 mgd) to the reconstructed GWTP may be delayed, depending on a revision of the demand projection in the future. 27 Water Conservation Plan 4.2 Prepare an Incremental Cost Analysis The annual incremental cost of expanding water production at the Town of Estes Park is based on the cost of increasing wastewater discharge capacity and on the incremental cost of installed equipment to expand the future GWTP from 2.65 mgd to 4 mgd. Distribution system storage and pipeline improvements are not part of the incremental cost for expansion as they are required under current conditions to optimize the system operation. The annual capital cost estimate shown in Table 4.1 is based on a facility lifetime of 50 years. Table 4-1 Estimated Capital and O&M Costs for System Expansion Improvement Associated with System Capacity Expansion Estimated Capital Cost Estimated Annual Capital Cost (over 50 year life) Estimated Annual O&M Cost Wastewater Discharge at MWTP $870,000 $125 Wastewater Discharge at GWTP for Increased Capacity $587,250 $84 Increase in Future GWTP Capacity from 2.65 mgd to 4 mgd $3,000,000 $1,040 TOTAL COST $4,457,250 $89,145 $1,249 5.0 Identify Conservation Goals The unique situation at the Town of Estes Park prohibits the use of traditional goals that would normally be established in a water conservation planning effort. The Town's situation can be defined as follows: • Peak day demand for the Town is driven by the influx of tourists arriving in the summer, not the permanent population. • Per capita water usage is relatively low given that there is negligible irrigation water usage and the number of tourists, who use significantly less water than a representative of the permanent population. • The projects identified in the Town's capital improvements plan (CIP) are not driven by the need for additional potable water capacity. • The Town has limited staff resources and funding for new conservation efforts. As a result of the issues defined above, the Conservation Plan Committee has established the following goals for the development of this Conservation Plan: 1. Reduce annual treated water volume production by 3% 2. Reduce the volume of waste discharged to sewer at MWTP 3. Review existing conservation measures/programs and decide whether to continue them 4. Provide definition for current utility practices that do not have formal plans or budgets, but that contribute to overall water conservation 29 Water Conservation Plan "Sustainable Estes Park" event that is conducted annually by Eagle Rock School. However, the Town does not intend to expand the program beyond its current scope at this time. Given this fact, no further evaluation was done on this program with regards to water savings and cost evaluation. 6.1.2 Town Irrigation System Improvements (DM) Being a major tourist destination, the Town has a number of beautifully landscaped areas that are irrigated with treated water. The existing irrigation system controls are linked to the Town's SCADA, which allows Town staff to turn the system on/off from selected computers (i.e. staff do not have to manually turn the irrigation systems on/off at the individual landscaped locations). The existing system does not currently include the necessary software or hardware to automatically adjust watering amounts based on rainfall, temperature, etc. In order to provide this capability and improve the overall efficiency of the irrigation system, Town staff has proposed the following improvements to the irrigation system for evaluation as part of this conservation planning study: • Purchase and install wireless rainfall sensors • Perform water audits on all of the Town's irrigated water zones With the exception of the Town's irrigation system, there are limited opportunities for landscape efficiency measures within the Town. The vast majority of residents do not have turf lawns and/or landscaped areas due to the climate and the large population of elk that would destroy such vegetation. 6.1.3 Third Stage Treatment at MWTP (SM) Although the MWTP is rated for 4 mgd treatment capacity, the plant is somewhat handicapped by its sewer discharge limitations. Sewer discharge from MWTP is sent to the Upper Thompson Sanitation District (UTSD) wastewater plant and generally consists of waste from the second stage membranes, backwash waste from the raw water screens, waste from water quality analyzers, and sanitary waste. The Town has purchased sewer capacity and has an agreement in place with UTSD which allows for a sewer discharge of 20,000 gallons per day (calculated as an average daily discharge over a month). In addition to the base capacity that has already been purchased, the Town must also pay a discharge cost, which is currently set at $6.25 per 1,000 gallons of sewer discharge. On a continual basis, the MWTP can produce roughly 2.2 mgd and stay within the 20,000 gallon per day discharge limitation. In order to produce more than 2.2 mgd, additional sewer capacity must be purchased from UTSD at a cost of $8,700 per tap (1 tap = 200 gallons per day of capacity). In addition, UTSD may implement a surcharge fee in the future if the waste exceeds UTSD's criteria for total suspended solids (TSS) and/or biological oxygen demand (BOD). Based on the water quality of the discharge at MWTP, the membrane waste flows can be expected to exceed UTS's TSS limit of 230 mg/L, but not the BOD limit of 230 mg/L. UTSD has notified the Town that the estimated surcharge fee for TSS is $0.36 per pound. UTSD tap fees and discharge fees are published on their website. By far, the major source of sewer discharge is backwash waste from the second stage membranes at MWTP. The most efficient means to decrease this waste volume is to install a third stage treatment process, which would result in a dry residual waste that could be hauled to a landfill. Using this approach, only sanitary waste would be discharged to the sewer. The Town evaluated technology 31 Water Conservation Plan 6.1.6 Water Audits for Top Customers (DP) As part of this study, the Town's water billing records from 2008-2010 were reviewed to identify the top water users in the system. This information is included in Appendix B. Being a tourist destination, a number of the Town's top water users are hotels. It may be advantageous to form a partnership between the Town and specific hotels to perform a water audit. There are companies that specialize in water audits of this nature including the Brendle Group located in Fort Collins. The audit process involves a site visit by a specialist who will take an inventory of the existing water using fixtures/equipment (both quantity and rates), estimate the water savings from upgrading to more efficient fixtures/equipment, estimate the costs of the upgrades, and provide a summary report. For a hotel, the audit would focus on the following fixtures/equipment: • Guest room domestic use (shower, toilets, faucet) • Restrooms in common areas • Laundry facilities (if located on site) • Food service equipment (ice machines, dishwashers, sinks, food steamers) • Pool and hot tub Based on the results of the water audit, it may be advantageous for the Town to offer a rebate program to the hotel as part of a fixture/equipment upgrade. HDR estimates the cost of a typical water audit to be roughly $1,000. However, actual estimates are available from the companies that perform this type of work including the Brendle Group. The implementation of either voluntary or mandatory audits for hotels and the other large water customers in Town is a sensitive subject and must be well planned and executed in order to be successful for both the Town and the customers. Consequently, the implementation of a large customer audit program is beyond the scope of this plan and will not be further evaluated. 6.1.7 Elementary Education Program (DP) One means to increase the distribution and implementation of the Town's Niagara water -saving fixtures is to implement an elementary education program for water conservation. However, given the Town's limited staff resources and the already challenged school curriculum, this program was not further evaluated. 6.1.8 Drought Plans and Rates (DP) Town staff is anticipating that the Colorado Water Conservation Board will require all water supply utilities within the State to develop and submit a "drought mitigation plan". Assuming that this requirement will be formalized in the future, the Town is giving consideration to developing a drought rate structure as part of their mitigation plan. The rate structure would establish various water cost rates for customers depending on pre -determined drought triggers with a goal of reducing water consumption through higher rates during times of drought. This measure was not further addressed as part of this Conservation Plan. 6.1.9 Modify Rate Structure by Meter Size (DP) The Town's most recent rate study was performed in 2010 (Water Cost of Service, HDR, December 2010). One of the recommendations from this study was to adjust the monthly water base rate per water 33 Water Conservation Plan At this time, the Town does not have a formal meter testing and replacement program in place. Furthermore, there is no dedicated budget within the utility for this task. Members of the Town's metering department have proposed the following program for implementation as part of this Conservation Plan: • Test all 3" and 4" meters in the system within the next 3 years • Replace 2" and larger meters every 5 years • Replace meters smaller than 2" every 10 years Correction and calibration of inaccurate meters will not likely impact the actual amount of water used by the customer unless the meter is found to be grossly under -measuring the water usage (which is not likely based on the Town's previous experience checking water meter accuracy). 6.1.14 Leak Detection and Repair (SP) The Town does not currently have a written policy regarding distribution system leak detection and repair. However, they have conducted leak detection surveys in the past using contract services with American Leak Detection. The Town would like to have a formalized leak detection program and dedicated budget with the goal of checking the entire distribution system in the next five years. Town staff has proposed the following leak detection and repair program for implementation as part of this conservation planning study: • Allocate funds annually for one week of leak detection survey work by American Leak Detection • Repair any leaks identified through the survey work 6.1.15 Tracking of Breaks and Repairs (SP) Town staff has attempted to track major breaks and repairs on a system map located in their Maintenance Shop. Ideally, the Town would like to track breaks and repairs using the existing GIS system database in the future. Customer leaks are tracked by Town staff on an existing spreadsheet. The Town has a "leak" policy stating that leaks occurring on the customer's side of the water meter will be reimbursed 100% if the leak is defendable based on the customer's historic water usage. At this time, the Town does not have budget to dedicate existing or new staff to upgrading the GIS database for tracing breaks and repairs. However, this effort will be considered in future conservation efforts. 6.2 Develop and Define Screening Criteria The Conservation Plan Cormnittee developed the following list of criteria to screen the conservation measures and programs described in the previous section: • Staff resources not available • Legal issues too complex 35 Water Conservation Plan 7.0 Evaluate and Select Conservation Measures and Programs A total of eight conservation measures and programs were selected for further evaluation in the previous section. For the purposes of this report, these eight measures and programs were combined into a single program, which will hereinafter be referred to as the "Town's Conservation Program". The following sections will summarize the potential cost and water savings for each of the eight program components. 7.1 Capital and O&M Costs Table 7-1 summarizes the capital and O&M costs estimated for each of the Town's Conservation Program components. Administration costs for each program component were not included in the estimate since it is assumed that the program will be administered by the Town's existing staff without significant impact to their existing workload. Similarly, labor costs were only included in the capital costs if the program component requires outside contractors to perform the labor. Table 7-1 Estimated Capital and O&M Costs for Town's Conservation Program Water Conservation Measure/Program CAPITAL COSTS O&M COSTS Materials Labor Engineering Total Water Saving Fixtures(i) $1,500 Town Irrigation System Improvements and Audit(2) $1,000 $7,000 $8,000 $200 Third Stage Treatment(3) $358,000 $150,000 $76,000 $584,000 $1,460 Bleeder Automation(4) $33,000 $33,000 $1,000 Town Website(s) Customer Meter Testing and Replacement(6) $1,000 Leak Detection and Repairt7l $16,000 Tracking of Breaks and Repairs(8) Notes: (1) The Town will continue the existing program. Estimated O&M cost is $1,500 every 5 years based on historic invoices for Niagara water -saving fixtures. (2) The estimated cost of new equipment for the irrigation system is $1,000 and the estimated cost of the audit is $7,000. Estimated O&M cost is $200 every year for replacement parts. (3) Estimated cost of treatment unit in 2010 was $268,000. Addition to treatment plant for housing equipment estimated at $90,000 for 30'x30' space. Labor for equipment installation estimated at $150,000. Engineering costs estimated at 15% of total project cost or S76,000. Assumed $0.10/1000 gallons treated through third stage membrane (power and cleaning chemicals) and a maximum total of 14.6 MG/year treated. (4) Material cost based on price quote from Ten Point Sales for a total of (1 1) Kupferle Foundry Company, Model #9800 Eclipse Automatic Flushing Devices. O&M costs estimated for purchase of replacement parts each year. (5) The existing conservation information on the Town's website will be maintained and it will not be expanded at this time. Therefore, this is a "no cost" item. (6) Estimated O&M cost is $1,000 per year based on hiring an outside contractor to test two (2) of the 3"-4" meters in the system every year. 37 Water Conservation Plan (4) The Town's eleven (1 1) bleeder locations used approximately 10.6 million gallons during the 2010-2011 season. The estimated usage for the same (11) bleeders with the new automatic flushing devices installed is 0.1 million gallons (3 minutes per hour at 7 gpm flow rate for 6 months), which yields an estimated annual water savings of 10.5 million gallons. (5) The potential water savings generated by posting conservation information on the Town's website cannot be estimated. (6) The verification of water meter accuracy is not expected to significantly impact the customer's water usage and therefore the potential water savings from this program was not estimated. (7) Based on past experience, the leak detection process will identify an average of 4 leaks per year. Each leak is assumed to be flowing at 2 gpm continuously, which yields an estimated annual water savings of 4.2 million gallons. (8) The potential water savings generated by tracking breaks and repairs cannot be estimated at this time. 7.3 Cost Effectiveness In order to evaluate the cost effectiveness of each of the Town's Conservation Program components, it is necessary to estimate the cost to supply treated water to the Town. This type of estimate would generally include costs for all of the treated water system components including supply, treatment, and distribution. However, for the purposes of this study, only the cost of water supply and the cost of treatment were evaluated since that information was readily available for the analysis. The cost of water supply only applies to the MWTP and covers a "carriage cost" and "power interruption cost" associated with the Town's water rights through the Bureau of Reclamation. The cost of treatment is comprised of the operation and maintenance costs at the Town's two water plants, which includes chemicals, power, and sewer discharge. Table 7-3 summarizes the cost components described above. Table 7-3 Estimated Cost to Supply Treated Water to Town Treated Water O&M Cost Item Cost per 1,000 Gallons of Treated Water Chemicals $0.33 Power $0.11 Sewer Discharge $0.048 Water Supply $0.28 Total $0.77 Notes: (1) Total treated water produced at GWTP and MWTP in 2011 was 537.43 million gallons. For the purposes of this evaluation, it is assumed that the Town will continue to operate the plants the same time periods during any given year. (2) Total chemical cost at GWTP and MWTP in 2011 was $178,000. (3) Total power cost for GWTP and MWTP in 2011 was $60,000. (4) Total sewer discharge cost at MWTP in 2011 was $26,000. GWTP does not have any costs associated with sewer discharge. The MWTP sewer discharge cost was divided by the total treated water production at both plants. (5) The cost of water supply at MWTP includes a "carriage cost" and "power interruption cost". The total water supply cost for MWTP in 2011 was $150,000. As shown in Table 7-3, the estimated cost to supply treated water to the Town is $0.77 per 1,000 gallons. To evaluate the cost effectiveness of the Town's Conservation Program components, this cost was compared to the cost to "save the water" using the various conservation efforts identified. The cost to save the water was estimated by dividing the net present value (NPV) of each program component by the total water savings generated over the life span of the program component. The NPV calculation 39 Water Conservation Plan As shown in Tab1e7-4, the total NPV of the Town's Conservation Program (with the exception of Third Stage Treatment) is approximately $140,000. Only one of the three program components evaluated appears to be cost effective, which is the Bleeder Automation. The Town Irrigation System Improvements and the Leak Detection and Repair components do not appear to be cost effective when compared to the cost of treating additional water required to replace the water losses that could potentially be saved by these two conservation efforts. As previously mentioned, the cost effectiveness of Third Stage Treatment must compare the cost to save the water through this conservation effort to the cost to discharge the same water to the sewer. Table 7-5 summarizes this calculation using the Town's contracted rate with the UTSD of $6.25 per 1,000 gallons discharged to the sewer. Table 7-5 Cost Effectiveness of Third Stage Treatment Water Conservation Measure/Program Total Project Cost NPVt11 Total Life Span Savinge (Millions of Gal) Cost to Save Water(3) ($/1,000 Gal) Cost to Discharge Water to Sewer(4) ($/1,000 Gal) Cost Effectiveness(5) ($/1,000 Gal) Third Stage Treatment $606,800 131.75 $5.38 $6.25 $0.87 Notes: (1) NPV of capital and O&M costs generated in Table 7-4 at a 4% annual interest rate for the expected life span of the program identified in Table 7-2. (2) "Total Life Span Water Savings" from Table 7-2. (3) Cost to Save Water= "Total Project Cost NPV" / ("Total Life Span Savings" x 1,000) ($0.77 to re -treat water at plant) (4) "Cost to Discharge Water to Sewer" based on current agreement between the Town and the Upper Thompson Sanitation District. (5) "Cost Effectiveness" = "Cost to Treat Water" - "Cost to Save Water". The results of the Third Stage Treatment evaluation presented above reveal that this conservation effort is cost effective for the Town relative to the other program components with a potential savings of $0.87 per 1,000 gallons. The Town intends to conduct a pilot -scale test of third stage treatment at the MWTP in 2013. Data collected from that pilot will be used to refine the costs and benefits of implementing full- scale third stage treatment in the future. 7.4 Summary of Benefits and Costs The previous sections generated a "cost effectiveness" value to help the Town evaluate the components of their selected Conservation Program. Only four of the eight components could be evaluated in this analysis since potential water savings estimates could not be generated for the remaining four components. Of the four components evaluated, two appear to be relatively cost effective, Third Stage Treatment and Bleeder Automation. The remaining two components, Town Irrigation System Improvements and Leak Detection and Repair, do not appear to be cost effective based on the assumptions used in this report. However, the cost effectiveness analysis presented herein does not 41 Water Conservation Plan reduction in treated water volumes that could be recognized as a result of implementing the Conservation Program based on 2011 treated water production. Table 8-1 Estimated Percent Reduction in Annual Treated Water Volume Estimated Annual Water Savings from Town's Conservation Program (Millions of Gal)(') 20.5 Total Treated Water Volume in 2011 (Millions of Gal)(2) 537.43 Potential Percent Reduction in Annual Treated Water Volume following Implementation of Town's Conservation Program(3) 3.8% Notes: (1) Estimated Annual Water Savings from Table 7-2. (2) Treated water production at both MWTP and GWTP in 2011. (3) "Potential Percent Reduction" = ("Estimated Annual Water Savings...") / ("Total Treated Water Volume...") x 100 8.2 Identify Project Specific Savings Similar to the demand projection discussion above, the capital improvement projects that are currently included in the Town's capital improvement plan (CIP) are not driven by the need to provide additional treated water to the Town, but are instead driven by such things as the need to replace aging infrastructure (GWTP replacement project), correct existing system deficiencies (such as treated water storage volume and distribution piping), optimize the Town's water rights portfolio (water supply purchases), etc. Consequently, the implementation of the Town's Conservation Program will not delay the need to execute the CIP in the manner which has been previously identified in the numerous planning studies and reports that have been prepared for the Town in the recent past (see Section 1.0 for a list of these reports and studies). 8.3 Revise Supply -Capacity Forecast(s) The only water supply related project currently included in the Town's CIP is the purchase of additional water rights for the GWTP, which will be executed in the next year or two. The purchase of these additional water rights is required to ensure that GWTP can meet existing peak day water demands should the MWTP be out of service. However, the purchase of these rights will also allow the Town to meet the projected peak day demand at buildout that was forecast as part of the demand projection in Section 3.0. Consequently, the implementation of the Town's Conservation Program will not impact the Town's current plans for water supply. 8.4 Consider Revenue Effects Implementation of the Town's Conservation Program is not expected to significantly impact revenue from treated water sales. The Town will be revisiting their overall rates and rate structure in the next 3 years. The largest funding concern for the future is the GWTP replacement project, which as previously mentioned, will not be impacted by the implementation of the Town's Conservation Plan. 43 10.0 Abbreviations Ac Acre CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CVB Convention and Visitors Bureau Gal Gallons Gal/day Gallons per day GIS Geographic Information System gpcd Gallons per capita per day GWTP Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant MGD Million gallons per day MWTP Mary's Lake Water Treatment Plant O&M Operations and maintenance RMNP Rocky Mountain National Park Water Conservation Plan 45 Appendix A Order of Magnitude CIP Cost Estimates Appendix B Top Water Customers for Town of Estes Park Consumption (millions of gals) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2010 Top 10 Customer Usage \�P\�\ aa�\�� Le��et a�\P� �or0o\ ��y0 �� 3 e�°a�� a��c o�<cc' �e�xxo��\ ,�o�` .ov' � �oIT" a�e�oc� i 4.,,,, � `roo��y a�e�rot Oee�� t�aa��e S�a� Qat`st F ��o .tzat�� y��e m 25 ao 0 20 0 Consumption (mi 15 10 5 Customer 3 Year Combined Top 10 Customer Usage Stanley Hotel (MAIN) omm0000 000000 c ca D O Rams Horn Village Resort Stanley Hotel (STANL) Park School District R3 n U il W Stanley Hotel (MANOR) ustomer IN Golden Eagle Resort 111111111111111111111111 Trendwest Resorts Inc. Elk Meadow RV Essential... C 11111111111111111111111 -o c .N o N w -J N 'V 0 o C4 N v -0 • wco co 0) -J N N 2008 2009 r 2010 Consumption (thousands of gals) Consumption (thousands of gals) 2009 Top 10 Monthly Customer Usage J F M A M J J A Month 1111111 Stanley Hotel (MAIN) Holiday Inn Trendwest Resorts Inc. Eagle Rock School Estes Park Medical Center 11 Rams Horn Village Resort Rodeway Inn Elk Meadow RV Essential Group Park School District R3 S 0 N D iN Lake Shore Lodge 2010 Top 10 Monthly Customer Usage F MAMJ J A S OND Month m Stanley Hotel (MAIN) Holiday Inn Is Estes Park Medical Center Rodeway Inn Eagle Rock School le Rams Horn Village Resort Park School District R3 Lake Shore Lodge Deer Ridge Inc. 14 Silver Saddle of Estes 2009 Percent of Annual Usage Vs. Total Plant Production rmr I H4'1111111" 11 11 1,1111 I \ 1.62% 1.35% 1.10% 1.08% 1.03% 0.73% 0.61% 0.55% 0.44% 0.42% 2010 Percent of Annual Usage Vs. Total Plant Production tit ggsfir2§riii/Zir„rorr21 1.58% 1.28% 1.00% 0.77% 0.76% 0.46% 0.41% 0.36% 0.32% 0.32% Stanley Hotel (MAIN) Holiday Inn Trendwest Resorts Inc. Eagle Rock School Estes Park Medical Center EP Rams Horn Village Resort Rodeway Inn EIk Meadow RV Essential Group Park School District R3 r-A Lake Shore Lodge r All Other Customers Stanley Hotel (MAIN) Holiday Inn MN Estes Park Medical Center Rodeway Inn Eagle Rock School to Rams Horn Village Resort rr Park School District R3 IN Lake Shore Lodge Deer Ridge Inc. Silver Saddle of Estes IN All Other Customers 1111111111 Appendix C Pressure Zone Management Analysis for Service Area No. 2 PMV Water Savings Calculator Jan 2008 Version 2REVB.xls Page 1 of 2 J191tU(�+�w �''rvu(�V". IV6I�h,wWeaur�ii CLA-VAL Home » About Us » Products » P V Water Savirts Calculator Electronic Products » PRESSURE MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS FOR 98-01* PRESSURE MANAGEMENT CONTROL VALVE PREPARED BY: CLA-VAL Application Example ia.va0.c:oun DATE: July 14, 2011 tdate Print V IS Application Quick Links » Enter Model or Series number then click Search: Search Technical Field Assistance » Service » SYSTEM INPUT DATA Pipe Size j, 6.4 in Estimated Daily Water Usage 11,473,120 gal Standard System Pressure l 142 psi Estimated System Leakage 10.0 Water Cost per 1000 Gallons f.. 4.11 System Leakage Orifice Dia in PRESSURE MANAGEMENT INPUT DATA Outlet Pressure (min) Time at Max Pressure (daily) 12.0 Time at Min Pressure (daily) hrs hrs Leakage Coefficient, N1 1.5 Leakage Coefficient Guideline Leakage coefficient, N1, can vary depending on factors such as pipe material, level and type of leakage as well as the type of distribution system (residential, commercial, agricultural, etc.). For analysis purposes the following guideline can be used to select a number for N1. These N1 values are referenced from a system leakage analysis study. The user may want to enter different values for N1 if they are familiar with the leakage analysis method used and the proper coefficient value for their particular system. N1 = 1.5 is an average leakage coefficient value used for typical systems with undetectable background leakage with any pipe material. N1 = 1.0 is recommended if there is an abscence of knowledge of pipe materials and leakage level. N1 = 1.15 is a japanese standard used for their systems for the past 20 years. N1 = 1.52 was an average value determined from lab tests by Ashcroft & Taylor (Surveyor, July 1983) on artificially created leaks in plastic pipe. N1 = 2.50 maximum recognized coefficient value for systems with excessive leakage. OUTPUT DATA FOR SYSTEM LEAKS Average Flow Rate 1,023 gpm Average Flow Velocity (approx.) 10.2 ft/sec Average Weekly Water Usage 10,311,840 gal Average Annual Water Usage 1,650 acre-ft Average Annual Water Usage 537.7 mg Estimated Daily Water Loss Based on Standard System Pressure & Estimated System Leakage Estimated Annual Water Loss 147,312 165.0 gal acre-ft Annual Financial Loss Due to Estimated System Leakage $220,99f. PRESSURE MANAGEMENT OUTPUT DATA Estimated System Leakage at Standard System Pressure & Before Pressure Management Input Data 10.0 Calculated % of System Leakage Recovered with Pressure Management Input data 19.6 Average Daily Pressure with Pressure Management Input Data 122.0 psi Calculated Daily Water Savings with Pressure Management Input Data 28,815 gal Calculated Annual Water Savings with Pressure Management Input Data 32.3 acre-ft Calculated Annual Water Savings with Pressure Management Input Data 10.5 mg Calculated Annual Financial Savings with NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN NaN Contacts http://www.cla-val.corn/watersavingscalculator.clin 7/14/2011 CLA-VAL Patent Pending 98 Series -- MODEL (Full Internal Port) 698 Series (Reduced Internal Port) Pressure Management Control Valve Schematic Diagram Item Description 1 Hytrol (Main Valve) 2 X43 "Y" Strainer 3 X58C Restriction Assembly 4 X58A Restriction Fitting 5 X78 Stem Assembly 6 X101 Valve Position Indicator Assembly 7 CRD2SF Pressure Management Control 8 CK2 (Isolation Valve) 9 X141 Gage 10 CV Flow Control (Closing) 11 CRD Pressure Reducing Control 12 Plug, Gage Connection 13 Socket, Gage Connection 14 CV Flow Control (Opening) Optional Features Item Description B CK2 (Isolation Valve) 12C Typical Performance A desired pressure profile with reduced system pressure during low demand periods is illustrated by the solid line in chart. At low flows a minimum pressure is maintained and as flow increases delivery pressure gradually increases up to maximum pressure set point for maximum flow. The ramping is adjustable to fine tune valve to system requirements.The "water saving zone" below maximum pressure line represents valve effectiveness in reducing water losses and pipeline breakage in system. • Water Conservation Pipe Break Prevention • Leakage Reduction • System Efficiency Energy Savings • Retrofits to Existing Valves • 100% Hydraulic Control • Supplies Optimal Pressure Based on Flow Demand • No Inline Orifice Plate Required The Cla-Val Model 98 Series / 698 Series Pressure Management Control Valve automatically adjusts downstream pressure based on demand changes in the system. This fully adjustable control valve automatically changes outlet pressure from a high setting during high flow conditions to a low setting during low flow conditions. The patent pending all -hydraulic operation design assures smooth ramping between pressure settings as flow demand conditions change. Model 98 Series easily manages the system pressure based on demand changes to reduce costly system leakage losses and line breaks. 3` Pressure INLET 7 ---� HIGH PRESSURE ADJUSTMENT ADJUSTMENT SCREW I2A Patent Pending Water Saving Zone for reduced leakage and fewer pipe breaks Flow ► Model 698 Series (Uses Basic Valve Model 100-20) Pressure Ratings (Recommended Maximum Pressure - psi) Valve Body & Cover Pressure Class Flanged Grade Material ANSI Standards* 150 Class 300 Class ASTM A536 Ductile Iron B16.42 250 400 ASTM A216-WCB Cast Steel B16.5 285 400 ASTM B62 Bronze B16.24 225 400 Note: * ANSI standards are for flange dimensions only. Flanged valves are available faced but not drilled. Valves for higher pressure are available; consult factory for details Materials Component Standard Material Combinations Body & Cover Ductile Iron Cast Steel Bronze Available Sizes 3" - 24" 3" - 16" 3" - 16" Disc Retainer & Diaphragm Washer Cast Iron Cast Steel Bronze Trim: Disc Guide, Seat & Cover Bearing Bronze is Standard Stainless Steel is Optional Disc Buna-IT Rubber Diaphragm Nylon Reinforced Buna-IV Rubber Stem, Nut & Spring Stainless Steel For material options not listed, consult factory. Cla-Val manufactures valves in more than 50 different alloys. Inlet - - Dimensions (In inches) B 100-20 J Flanged Inlet A AA D DD X (MAX) FF 1- F E EE Valve Size (Inches) 3 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 24 A 150 ANSI 10.25 13.88 17.75 21.38 26.00 30.00 34.25 35.00 42.12 48.00 48.00 AA 300 ANSI 11.00 14.50 18.62 22.38 27.38 31.50 35.75 36.62 43.63 49.62 49.75 B Dia. 6.62 9.12 11.50 15.75 20.00 23.62 27.47 28.00 35.44 35.44 35.44 C Max. 7.00 8.62 11.62 15.00 17.88 21.00 20.88 25.75 25.00 31.00 31.00 D 150 ANSI - 6.94 8.88 10.69 CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* Cr CF* DD 300 ANSI 7.25 9.38 11.19 CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* E 150 ANSI - 5.50 6.75 7.25 CF* CF. CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* EE 300 ANSI 5.81 7.25 7.75 CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* CF* F 150 ANSI 3.75 4.50 5.50 6.75 8.00 9.50 11.00 11.75 15.88 14.56 17.00 FF 300 ANSI 4.12 5.00 6.25 7.50 8.75 10.25 11.50 12.75 15.88 16.06 19.00 H NPT Body Tapping .375 .50 .75 .75 1 1 1 1 1 J NPT Cover Center Plug .50 .50 .75 .75 1 1 1.25 1.25 2 2 2 K NPT Cover Tapping .375 .50 .75 .75 1 1 1 1 1 Stem Travel 0.6 0.8 1.1 1.7 2.3 2.8 3.4 3.4 3.4 4.5 4.5 Approx. Ship Wt. Lbs. 45 85 195 330 625 900 1250 1380 1500 2551 2733 X Pilot System 13 15 27 30 33 36 36 41 40 46 55 Y Pilot System 10 11 18 20 22 24 26 26 30 30 30 Z Pilot System 10 11 18 20 22 24 26 26 30 30 30 'Consult Facto Note: The Iwo flan e holes on valve sizes 36 thru 48 are threaded /2"-6 UNC. �i!!!!Illlldl' rrll 4,46 1!Iiiiiiiiiiii'111°°iuiio I!!I IIIIIIIIIIIIiii V61 "1111,::,,, �� 0001ll0llliiu.i.'' 000000111111111111111 ' ' v .. a tIIIIVII^illiiV'I''�ill'li� 11, �� n'uul'N��f6Pn�IIGM (o.�l IKI Tessa e ement Solutions Water C o'niservation Pie eak � Br P revention Lkee g�lll Reduction y t s..,em Ec Nency Energy, Savings IIII�� Standard Hydraulic PressureManage ment '] t The CI Va0 9 her�ePysstre pedui nValve is s meetsedeeiep�iorfor water distribut ion temswh re active, bdraulieF9s ore management desired, r examItpIpela in hilly areas are adequatepressure ahigherelevations. Atlower elevations the same system, hweve,deliv, re can exceed what i$ actually necessary,This conditi onon leaves the pipeline vulner- able to pipe breaks, background leake,surges and cavitation. Regardless of the terrain,90' SeriesPressure Reducing Valve can controlpressure a certainfixedpressure while maintaining the pipeline's flow points withinsystem ther. to ' P ess provides a sensitive and accurate pressure control and is easily ad- a em ad- justed to respond requirements, changinga n requirem rovide ns tosystem requirements. To d KO, anti -cavitation performance, eliminate G °90 he potentials valvesbyextreme ps ressure f to s be e enhance trimcaused further erfor can provided ma withcla-v n e, 5 i g d ements differentials, An electronic metering;kit'can'r I w mean Antebeadded applications where elderalso for lui N,,iiNll hooloorooph0000000p00000000000poi00000 11111 fiiidlliv;�liiiili'pVuqumllllllllllllll� Illdii''tl'II'i 9pill Ilu uu^I(liilil�l;llllliill' ' ' luuul�l�III I11111,1111 trgff ,..NnnrmiiiiNNmilfV �IIIIIgIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIXIIIllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Nisi „,UI IiiIIM'" 111111111111 �lililliil 0lil�lllllltllll Vol ll _;;;id-9drdd—� rVd—pYiid VJitl'd Ytlrll Pm� PYrIwY iNrld iiNiBNdnlrl! q'8i'M`N it �ulri� KO Anti -Cavitation Tr im VNAIIIIII muuu "u' AI �i NNNII��IIVUVu ul�� I uuuuupllullulppt UI II111P III 1V ' IV PII reducing gravity -led pressure to prevent over -pressurization JuNlliil,19'1,�IIIIUw'll'Iu IN:1illlwllu„°I1„', d64ld,isRf'' 1111111111111u ��omuu11111111111111111111 reducing rrraxirnurrr pressure from tiresource /i�li6/rtl��i�ilI, @' ifldi6illlwilNfiR—"iu"i''''.NNl,:�, r� �iw 111,11 il ^r.d"Bki�II i��Mll"lilllI111NI�� I uIIIk�IIII I w IIdI�uiIllV lw;l"tf1�rfha1 rUedlpII liHhuu�l using pressure mans hrouriihelal t�h �!:!'wVl�lIIIIIIIIIl ot ,r�p,,,,,f,,,wuumagIilll1IuI��IluIIuIIIuNIuIuulllllllilllildll1lllililililllll1111111111 llldiP ll�i I llI lI lIlJIlIlI� ll'liIll llilll'l Il� l l l d I�I �I YI IY "J�� i uuo��'eYKN m,pr„,go ron�c ress ure� �� ag ect ement an �I„II�I,I �IIIN'.a�1�u�u„,�,,,,� �lullt!i�IIIIIIIiIiIBPjI ��wlmlll��!IN6W4�",�i��,��G'HUI10ul"�IIP.'u�d�°uQlll,',p,�°"liirw�rgN�I�NII�u;pl�'�,ViiNIVINIV�uw m!�Illljilll'�IIP�Nu"'?°�'I The 30Q Series vaive Is ideal 'pressuremo management. ,'It can be iintegrated g rotinto SCADA systems and can be programmedminimum night time and optimum m daytime pressures,'helping to reduce pipe breaks and minimize background leakage. pep l i 1p00Series ElectronicActuated Pressure Reducing Control combines the precise rofof"fleld proven hydraulic plots and remote control functionality ofthe33 thesubmersible yand manufacturedpoint 33 Series constant pressure by with Series actuator ctuansrco Designed an't system erates al, a set that Electronic maintains can be changed g motely, re The 33 Series ac or, which es ff C ll power. It s available with any new Cla-Valcontrol fvalve rand can be field etrofittted to ex- i sting, solar g installedaI automatic control valves, istin ,Cie-V wu Because pressure can bchanged from �a e loation, it is al so an effective n for lowering costs and eliminating safety hazardsassociated with "confined space" entry. visit www.cla-val.com/savewater to calculate your savings using Advanced Pressure Management Valves �Ip�lll,�hil'IIIIIP4',m I�la�u° ry� JII Nl�� IIIIIIIN!!''IM, li� iryryll 390 Series Series Electronic Actuator Appendix D NPV Calculations TOWN or r 'ES PARK oomp000„,,oH000000 11111111111 REPORT To: Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee Interim Town Administrator Richardson From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director Date: 8 March 2012 RE: GIS Consultant RFP 1111,1u1 11(111'1(1111111111111,011111111!11111 'I!! )11.11'11111111 '11110VOIII. I 111111111111111 10111111111111111' ',"111111,111,11110ovIIIIIII 11111111111,1,111111111111111111 1001„ 111 0000 . • 000 Background: The Town's Geographical Information System (GIS) is critical to the operations and planning of the Light & Power and Water utilities. We rely on the maps it produces to quickly mitigate and repair problems in the distribution system. Accurate data on future development, e.g. empty lots, zoning and topography, must be presented and analyzed to create credible utility master plans. The purpose of this project is to lay a foundation for easy access to accurate geospatial data which will in turn support our mission to provide high -quality, reliable services. This project will include a needs assessment and optimization of our GIS data structure. The results of the needs assessment will be reviewed with Larimer County's GIS staff to identify opportunities in consolidating GIS services. A number of other deliverables have been identified and are listed in the request for proposals (RFP). The "Scope of Services" from the RFP is shown below. We anticipate bringing the RFP results and a recommendation to the March 27th Town Board. Budget: 502-7001-580.33-33, DATA PROCESSING EQUIPMENT (Total 2012 budget: $40,000) 503-7000-580.35-54, WATER SYSTEM (Total GIS 2012 budget: $40,000) Page 1 of 1 TO\X/N or ESI1ES 1PAIZIc 11111,1,1,1'1.'1.1,'1.1.1.1..'1!111111111'1111111.111.111,1111111111111111111111111111.111111111111,111.11111111'1111111111111111111111111111111111111111011111111111111V111,111,''1'1,'I'l.'1111111,111111111111111111,11:1!11,11,11,11!1'1',1111I1.1111.1.111111111,111,111,111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111„,„,1,111,1111(.1,j)),)(1,(1!, 1111 '11111111111111/1/11111111,11111111,"'"I',"111 lillil'illiiiiiii11111111111111111111111111111111111 111111111'111111[111 11111111111111111!Ill'Illiiii.1.110111111111111111110011 REPORT To: Public Safety, Utilities and Public Works Committee Interim Town Administrator Richardson From: Reuben Bergsten, Utilities Director Alan Fraundorf, Utilities Superintendent Date: 8 March 2012 flF „„111111111111111111011:001 RE: Project Manager for Financial Software Implementation RFP Background: In early 2011, the Town approved moving forward with replacement of the current financial system (SunGard-Naviline) to the current SunGard product, One -Solution. The upgrade would allow increased productivity and work efficiency in many areas, including much improved payroll handling, budget preparation, and permit processing. Through exceptional contract negotiations, the total cost of ownership for five years was projected to be less than the total we would have spent on the old systems. This project has been under direction of the Utilities Department and funded through its I.T. Division. Current Status: The Utilities Department recently brought on a new staff member, Alan Fraundorf, to help lead the IT and Meter Departments. His experience uniquely qualifies him to understand how we can maximize efficiency and improve customer service with the new software. After a thorough review of the project we have concluded the time constraints and expertise of our in-house resources are not adequate. We require a dedicated Project Manager with prior relevant experience to lead this effort. This person's core duties will include the following: develop a detailed project plan, lead efforts to document the current and proposed business processes; document and resolve all data dependencies/issues; lead change management activities; plan and direct system configuration; plan all training; plan and direct all other implementation tasks. This resource is necessary for a successful implementation of the new software. Page 1 Memo '1110111111111111111111;1111111011111111111111111111111111111111ilvii 11,10111 11011110000001101111?1?1,10011111111001m0000mo 1111001111r1001011111011111111110011110101111111111111111111111101011110100110001;\\11110,101,1,010110101010110000100101100101 10000100 10101010101010101001011011111111111 10,g4101111111011111Vvoloilililivv111111 ,11111'j,1,11,1,11111111111111111,1,1,1,1)1„1'n 111111111110 111111111111111111111111111 Illiolonoill:10:111111111111111I1111 000,0011010,040111111,110101;10101,000100111110100,001001101100010000,0„10 ,11111111111111 000 0111111111],01,0000:1,1?1 11111111110 i011111111111111Iiiv,i,l,„„, To: Public Safety, Utilities and Public Safety Committee Town Administrator Halburnt From: Directors Zurn and Williamson Date: March 1, 2012 RE: Structural Engineer for Elevator Upgrade Background: The Larimer County Election Office has used the upstairs meeting space as an election polling location in the past. This has become a familiar location for the local electorate. Also, a mutually beneficial relationship has been developed between the County and the Town through cooperative efforts, such as allowing the use of the meeting spaces by the County at no charge allows the Town to receive election support such as voter registration lists at no charge. As the election laws have changed over the years to address voter access to polling locations, Help American Vote Act (HAVA), the state has been reviewing polling locations for accessibility for individuals with disabilities. The State has identified the Estes Park Town Hall location as a location that does not meet the minimum requirements of the act. Staff has been able to address the need for additional handicap parking stalls by adding two stalls to the parking lot on the east side of the building, including an additional aisle between the stalls. On Thursday, February 23, 2012, Lisa Doran/State Election Representative and two members of the Larimer County Election Office met with Town staff, Kevin Ash and Jackie Williamson to discuss ADA requirements and options to bring Town Hall into compliance. The State has grant funding through the Election Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities program to help Counties address compliance issues with polling locations. Two additional issues were addressed during the site visit including the need to add automatic door openers to the east side of the building and the need to upgrade the elevator to meet ADA requirements. The County and the State have requested Town staff receive quotes for the installation of automatic door openers on the east entrance to the building. The cost of these openers would be reimbursed at the full installation cost through grant funding. Additionally the state has funding to help offset the cost of upgrading the elevator in Election Division Colorado Department of State, Office of the Secretary of State Notice of Funding Availability and Application Materials for Election Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities Funding The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) contains several provisions to enable the establishment, expansion and improved access to and participation by individuals with the full range of disabilities (e.g., blindness or visual impairment, deafness or hearing impairment, mobility - related, dexterity -related, emotional or intellectual) in the election process. The State of Colorado applied for and received funding under 42 U.S.C. 15421 of HAVA for the following: ➢ Make polling places/vote centers, including the path of travel, entrances, exits, and voting areas of each polling facility, accessible to individuals with the full range of disabilities; ➢ Provide the same opportunity for access and participation (including privacy and independence) to individuals with the full range of disabilities as for other voters; ➢ Train election officials, poll workers, and election volunteers on how best to promote the access and participation of individuals with disabilities in elections for Federal office; ➢ Provide individuals with disabilities with information about the accessibility of polling places. These funds were awarded as grants under the Election Assistance for Individuals with Disabilities program of the Administration on Developmental Disabilities, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The State will sub -grant these funds to Colorado counties to assist them in ensuring that all Colorado polling places/vote centers are accessible and provide the same opportunity for all voters to participate in the election process. General Information Who May Apply: County Clerk and Recorders on Behalf of Their Counties Maximum award per County: No Maximum Purpose of Award: Improve Accessibility to Polling PlacesNote CentersNoter Service Centers Deadline for Grant Proposals May 1, 2012 SOS GRANT JAN 2012 1 Depending on weather, the project is scheduled to be completed by Memorial Day for the downtown portions of the project and mid -June for the Steamer Drive and Black Canyon Drive improvements and overlay. JIIIII ��I 1III,,„q iI1:IVI II "''1°°l 111 iiiiiiili iiiiiii °'llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll 1111 j; VV II' Ii �V'uum uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu,uuoul11! 4646,, lllpllq„ a IIIIIIIIIIIIIII,I!!1uy0,m rRim mIIIIIIIIIIIII °ili a poi Il uumlllllll10110110111111011111111 �� i 0 m lidlmwmu uump�IlVm muiu umuu: Legend Layer o Curb Lip Curb Top Concrete Pan Sidewalk 11110 �mP,NI 0 25 50 100 Feet MICAMMEN ENGINEERS F ARCHITECTS SURVEYORS SCIENTISTS GROUP arnsworth