The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Utilities Committee 2007-05-17-64(Ji, E 1. 1 AGENDA TOWN OF ESTES PARK UTILITIES COMMITTEE 8:00 a.m. Thursday, May 17, 2007 Preparation date: May 9,2007 ACTION ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENT Light and Power Department No Action Items Water Department 1. RFP - Water Treatment Facility Modifications, Design and Construction Management a. Request approval to solicit proposals for Design and Construction Management of the modifications to the Mary's Lake Water Treatment Facility. REPORTS: Light and Power 1. Light and Power Financial Reports 2. Net Metering Update - verbal report from Bob Goehring and Mike Mangelsen Water 1. Water Financial Reports 2. Consumer Confidence Report 3. Big Thompson Building Removal - verbal report from Bob Goehring Note: The Utilities Committee reserves the right to consider other items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. 0 , Water Department Inter-Office Memorandum To: Bob Goehring From: Jeff Boles Date: 05/08/2007 Re: RFP - Water Treatment Facility Modifications, Design and Construction Management Background: Modifications to the Existing Mary's Lake Water Treatment Facility were recommended in the 2006-07 Water Treatment Facilities Evaluation by HDR Engineering Inc. Phase 1 of the Facilities Evaluation recommended that the Town increase Mary's Lake water plant treatment capacity from 2 Million Gallons a Day to 4 Million Gallons a Day and that we change the treatment technology from rapid sand filtration to low pressure membrane filtration. This membrane technology will allow us to meet the upcoming State and EPA regulations for water treatment. The Water Department estimates that it will take about one year to design the Mary's Lake upgrades. We would like to get started with the design for the project with construction estimated to start in August 2008. Funds for facility design and construction management were included in both the 2007 and 2008 budgets. Budget 2007 Budget - 503-6500-560-22-02 $350,000.00 2008 Budget - 503-6500-560-22-02 $350,000.00 Total $ 750,000.00 Recommended Action: Staff would like to solicit proposals for Design and Construction Management of the modifications to the Mary's Lake Water Treatment Facility. Proposals would be brought to Utilities Committee in July for review and further action. 4 . MAY 2007 UTILITIES COMMITTEE NOTE: The following reports are not included in this packet: Light and Power 2. Net Metering Update - verbal report from Bob Goehring and Mike Mangelsen Water 3. Big Thompson Building Removal - verbal report from Bob Goehring Finance, Light & Power, Water Departments Memo To: Utility Committee Town Administrator Repola From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer Date: May 14,2007 Subject: Utility committee report Background Attached the following documents for the Committee's perusal: â€¢ Charts and graphs for April 2007 â€¢ Financial statements for April 2007. Bodv Light & Power The cash flow comparison page (right column) shows that revenues (36%) are exceeding the pace of the calendar (33%), and expenses in every category are under the calendar pace. Revenues per kWh are up compared to 2006 and expenses are down. Part of this is due to an extra Source of Supply payment in 2006. However, and additionally booked payment would still yield favorable ratios. For the first time, there seems to be more red than green on the trending page. Bob Goehring and I reviewed this and are not concerned at present, and we will continue to monitor it. I have adjusted the budget vs actual bar chart to only reflect comparisons through the current month. As you can see, the revenue trend backed off a little in April, which is consistent with the red appearing in the trending page. I have included a new chart for your review - the "Actual L&P revenues over/beyond budget". This report simply shows how revenues are progressing as a percent of budget in 2007 vs 2006. As you can see, in 2006, revenues meandered around budget (which would be at the 0% line) and then took off in the Fall. As of right now, actual revenue trends are lagging budget by about 1.4%. Last year at this time, revenues lagged budget by about.5%. Remember - this report does not compare direct . revenues - just how revenues are doing compared to corresponding budgets. The 2007 budget is larger than 2006, so while 2007 trails budget by slightly more than 2006 did, the April 2007 revenue pace ($10.lm) is still greater than it was in April 2006 ($9.7rn). Water The water cash flow comparison page continues to report outstanding numbers. Unfortunately, we continue to show the erroneous 2006 tap fee amount in YTD, which inflates 2006 $345,000 beyond what it should be. This entry was not corrected until last July, so we will have to continue to deal with it for a few more months - I will continue to note it. Otherwise, the water financials continue to look terrific. The charts and graphs continue to trend well. As you can see in the new graph, the water revenues for 2007 are outpacing 2006. The projected revenue pace for 2007 is about 10.5% greater than budget, whereas in 2006 we were sitting at about 7.5% ahead ofbudget at this point in time. Conclusion Both utilities look very strong financially. Action steps requested - None. â€¢ Page 2 . . MONTHLY PEAK DEMAND 25500 23500 - 21500 -0- 2005 - -*'-2006 19500 -0- 2007 - - 17500 - 15500 13500 11500 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec MONTHLY ENERGY PURCHASES 14,000 12,000 -- f 1 7- '4 g 7 1 %3_ - 7 3~ l 10,000 --4 i hi A ji %1 f~ 1; it 5'~ N 4 /4 #/ ~} 24 0 A A 4 224 0 /7 04 82005 8,000 - 2 -04 -0 -01 4 02 6 21 1 M S 0 2006 1 f 4 0 1% 8 %1 0 01 4 4 k 02007 /0 4% 4% f 05 42 0.1 0%-#4-0%_06 6,000 -~ ~ -f 2 0-1 -01 -01-8-04 0 8 01 0% 46 0,4 4 01 0% 02 il 0, 01 il l 4,000 -~ -4 -4 -% 04 4% 42 e Re *f Va 0, 4% 81 4 /4 0 4 0 b * 0% 0% 4 2 3% s 4 0 4 04 41 3% 0 14 2,000 - 6 1* 10 12 12 1 Ma lÂ« Ird 2 1% 10 2 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec R L&P 6 Monthly MWH SYSTEM KW 9%44*9*44%a Â»*Na YTD ENERGY PURCHASES 140,000 120,000 - - - - 100,000 -- 2.20% YTD 2007 VS 2006 80,000 - - - E -- -- 1 2005 3 E 02006 60,000 -- $ --@i f - â€¢2007 40,000 - 20-0.0â€žliu-I&~-111 f Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YTD POWER COST vs. BUDGET ($1,000) B BUDGET Â¤ACTUAL 5,000 4,500 4,000 3,500 M%&m 3,000 , 0; 3% 08 Â§:f 2,500 - 4 184 & 4 2,000 - Exâ€¢ 04 2 1 }31 R@Eit{ 1,500 1.- Ell# M.%0* 9 ... I.>2 A &24 m "%11%%3% 1,000 - Blrm-*.Ma malli/*% Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec R L&P 7 YTD MWH Purchased 4 ....EOEÂ·707'Xâ‚¬OX. W%33Â§Â§%Â§83Â§%% 333@8@38$3@323% 42223%#RGUC#~Â».,}Â·,Â·Â·, . ELECTRIC SALES BY MONTH ($1,000) 1,200 - 1,100 1,000 1 - - -- 1 _ 900 v - - - Â£. 4 :t -9 ; 800 --ij -&3 --1 -11 O 2005 it 1% f jl - -7 -7,7 -4 7-3--- 3 - - m 2006 1 1 1 - 71 ; >i _ : R 4 02007 700 --4 1 -21 -1 -fl -4 If-- -'10- i 62 ti 81 id ? 1 41 20 :i : i 3 9 1< 13 4 0 . .1 1.2 600 tt ./ 2 & ./ I' 7 :. :s. .. I -44- , /4 ..8. 7 2 43' 41 lit $ 2 f. 30 > 11 YA *i . 2 qu 21 9.* 1 . . ' :S. i 500 --tj -l. 4 - 1 -4 4 r .4 4 1 4 %3? 3 j 'â€¢ 4 e - '* 4- R . 5 tÂ« ':S 7 9 1 .. 1 9 If 12 4 400 -- 61 -kit - 1 - + 1 r.i m. : - ... . ./4 1.1 43 4.1 21 * i N . .1 /4 3 - :~ i/ 1 1# ',1 Zil / ad -: 41 c g t .: i. @9 9% 300 6 iia , â€ž4 ) 4 I EJ 3 , ? 1 + Al It.~ i Â·Â· , 4* i , 0 , ~i 1 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YEAR TO DATE ELECTRIC SALES ($1,000) 12,000 2.91% 2007 YTD VS [10,303,31 7~ 2006 10,000 - CZE] 2005 8,000 - j - -- - ~ 2006 6,000 -- 0 2007 'r '. '' A. ': . 4 - Budget Â· , a 0 ' - r. . .7 .XI, - , 4,000 -0 11. '- 2,000 ___Ti 1 : 3 if D o Fltill Ijit it < :.. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec R L&P 8 YEAR TO DATE SALES MONTHLY SALES ttitÂ¥# â€¢>â€¢4Â»Â¥ 43...'ll:Q.K......... +~ 7 .2 +22; > , y"SKâ„¢7r7-9~3//Ill.......... . 1 . e#& 5 i f Â£ 6%%2 62/22 Mele-1 Ne'im A 8 5-E 2 >â€¢ â‚¬9 % dod %%% 1Â§*i 000 do 0 11 01 9 oR q ht-,r, 8% BAO 0% q 0 jg* -r- M 0 *0 giss 64- C C 0 < â‚¬N 8.Ho GO Z U % 8 2 3 * 9 1 2 0 .Â·20~bu<o 128 N - ; :{i r 3 :55 s au %20 m is Me U MONTH TO DATE YEAR TO DATE BUDGET vs. YTD 0 #Ddo! Total O&M Expenses 535,762 279,745 256,017 2,627,337 2,478,573 148,7 054 8,786,013 2,478,573 2 L I 007'09 0f6'00Â£ 1000 I 00-0 089't 0Lf'05 091'99 089'4 OLVOS 051'55 001/Uos iq@G 06*'SL LEI'8ZE, 1 Z000 10'0 189'ZLZ 06t7'Â§L ILI'8+E 66Â£'Â£61 OLL'5 691'661 5Â£ LII'Iti E99'*L6 L000 LOO'O (Â£56'00 Lit'ItÂ£ *9I'0IE Â£55'L 18Z'5L *Â£8'ZB 1110 S.IRM@uell Suile.todo 91 059'5t,6'Z En'68â‚¬'It +90'0 ELO 0 ELI'56E 099'5*6'Z 238'OtE'E 8,9'19* 99Z'I It 516'ZL8 solnlipuodxa Imol % ofyr> fund balance 3,652,325 3,195,309 $3,195,309 $3,195,309 1 10,208, 7~ 3,790, 4 Other 38,322 28,012 (10,310) ,003 111 17 111,197 0.084 10,~ ~92 3,902911 ce of Supply 2~,371 0 371 1,603,347 1,362,038 241,309 0.034 ~~ ,785,000 1,36:,038 19Â£'996 (09 1Â»9) 9Â£Z'019 19â‚¬'956 511,9# 0ZVL9â‚¬ 90Z'Â£Â§* 98L'98 (Im!(leo atopq salmipuodx@ (48Â£'88) V/N (*8Â£*88) (*8Â£'88) 0 (5*Z'D) (5*rn) 0 SpOmOS .1@qlo 01 polEOOZIEROA!0001 qseD LL6'L98 (os 1'Â»9) EM'lEt' LL6'L98 FZI'9t't SLI'dZE 196'01* 98L'58 I{tuout JOJ uo! 1!sod tlseo u! @Sue40 98Z'Â£90'*$ 651'195'2$ 98E'Â£90'*$ 983'Â£90'*$ ejueleq pung (01(lesn) pajouismun Zurpu~ nistration and General 91 82,901 344,012 443, (99,252) 0. 0 010 1,726,475 VAR VAR Per kWh Per kWh Bud mer Billing and Accounts 49,418 37 21 2,382 201, 10,677 678,784 1~bution and Maintenance 147,426 002 4 67,596 471,566 (3,970) 0.010 1,595,754 6 920,379 836,460 (83,919) 3,6 944 3,790,194 10 958,701 864,472 (94,229) 3, 947 3,902 11 11 64 LIGHT AND POWER FUND Maintenance Expense RAO Sonu@A@J Jo Kouo!01#Op/sspox3) letol~Ins Revenues . i . TOWN OF ESTES PARK LIGHT AND POWER TRENDS Type Summary Date April-07 12 - month moving average Total % Total % of Avg Avg Avg # ofaccts KWH Growth Revenues Total Rev % Cum Rev/KWH KWH/Cust Rev/Cust Residential 7.457 3,925,433 -1.6% $359,362 43% 43% $0.0917 526 $48.16 Gen Serv Small 1.606 2,078,853 -0.5% $187,124 22% 65% $0.0901 1,295 $116.53 Gen Serv Large 93 2,806,275 -0.9% $172,876 21% 86% $0.0617 30,336 $1,868.96 Residential Demand 391 703,096 -2.8% $63,966 8% 93% $0.0959 1,811 $164.36 Res Energy / Time of Day 241 400,761 -1.8% $25,257 3% 96% $0.0645 1,652 $104.16 Municipal 60 248,521 -1.3% $19,441 2% 99% $0.0783 4,172 $326.38 RMNP - Small Admin 20 63,828 -1.7% $2,931 0% 99% $0.0460 3,097 $142.23 RMNP - Large Admin 6 62,362 -1.8% $2,688 0% 99% $0.0433 10,394 $447.93 Wind Power 102 0 0.0% $2,019 0% 99% N/A N/A N/A Res Basic Energy 19 23,897 1.9% $2.070 0% 100% SO.0873 1,274 $110.34 GSS - Comml - Energy TOD 13 17,590 -2.6% $1,208 0% 100% $0.0692 1,353 $92.90 GSL - Comml - Time of Day 1 10,820 0.0% $ 741 0% 100% $0.0695 0 $0.00 Outdoor Area Lighting 16 0 0.0% $226 0% 100% N/A N/A N/A Res Time of Day 0 0 -100.0% $0 0% 100% #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! RMNP - Administrative 2 495 0.0% $28 0% 100% N/A N/A N/A 10.026 avg $839,936 100% annual revenues at this pace: $10,079,228 budget: $10,208,573 projected over/under: | ($129,345)| I . 6 ro -- <O 13 4 40 L&P Revenue Progress 10,100,000 - m Budgeted Revenues 9,900,000 - â€¢ R~~venues at Current 04609 10,500,000 10,400,000 10,300,000 10,200,000 ----- 10,000,000 - - 000'009'6 - 000'002'6 - 000'009'6 - 000'009'6 I . 4 6 co a) LL 9001 - 2003 - Ill 1 Dea AON 100 deS XeIN uer Actual L&P revenues over/beyond Budget 3.00% 2.00% 1.00% %00 0 %00' L- %00-Z- %00.Â£- .. 5/10/2007 Water Sales by Month ($) 350,000 300,000 - - - 250,000 1 - 5- f 0 , -02--7 200,000 - Â¤2005 , 1 * I / 02006 ~ 150,000 11-Tm . . . : Â¤2007 151 ~ ~ ~- ~- ~f ~1]1 - *'* I 4 4 2 ' 4 1, '' , , I * 0 /. I 0 . / Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Water Sales Year-To-Date ($1,000) 3,000 $2,816,572 2,500 - 02005 - 2,000 - M 2006 i 02007 4 5 4 5 1,500 -Budget ~ '4-- 4 4.54% 2007 YTD VS 2006 , 3 1,000 1 ./ 335j 500 - 6 - 5 - 4 -3 - - .rm Imlf- f-- - -6 i , 1, -7 , /1 1 I , 4 1 1 -i Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec RW5 Â»Â»,4 n-lau_ h\\\\wa....................7, .. 4 4 g#& 2 : : 2 : 2 2 i g Â£ 4% 1 C, M C\-0000* ~6 M MMN- M ME 0 ar-A o 00 5 4 01 t-t B %*MER M 3 Â§ % 5% 6 2 *%Â§%8%% 6.â‚¬9 00000 0000000 Â£ 3* Eggg Â§Â§gÂ§Â§ 0006000 0 Â©Z >Â· N 2E2 09 0 >Â· CNN gRMEQI OR!8520 1- t 0-MOO L E Octi 0 00 0 0 <M 02.8.0%0 0 < 61 5255 1 M .1 m -- 1 e g .4 5 6 1 3 1 1 -g 0 t .1 0 ,% Eig 3%)59 -0 % 0- 58~ u E 1 1Â£ 4. C - C 9 1 2 9 E -2 2 -2 W =Â· .E e < EE 9/ZE 20 Z , 8. R u B & 2 CO od Â£13 0 mook- Billing and Accounts ~ C 57,030 81,612 c ,%% fE {ff 52 %52 181'GE 180'001 0000 000 0 (E06'1) 181'92 6LZ'EZ (LKS) tft,9 L69'5 149 %02 818'GIL Â£6['825'E 800'0 600'0 1Et'84 818'SIL 6*Z't'9L L96'E tLE'551 !*E'65I MONTH TO DATE YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE ater rights Tap Fees ~,8~ 4 ,172 (45,64) 423,490 18 (235,672) 0 5 18~18 5 unrestricted (usable) fund balance 3,494,868 3,297,192 $3,297,192 $3,297,192 1 236,~~ 214,510 (22,2 ) 1,263,470 1, 92 (255,978) 0.011 1,00':92 *8L'LE9 ~OZ'829'Z gz9'4[ L'L[9 60*'ZL9 989'* 0Â£6'Sfl 19'[gl asuodxa eoueuplule)N pue uourigdo i (E91'90 V/N 291'9Â£ (E91'90 0 00Â£' 1 (0000 0 soamos 10410 0, pole,Olle/p@A!2021 4%83 gig'552 (5,1,95) (60Â£'Â£*Z) EIS'95Z I Et'66* (569'61) 9Â£8'L5 I Et'LL 4;UOUi JQJ Uotusod tiSI?O u! #UEIID ti}L'399'[$ LDO'ZIL'2$ POL'159'Â£$ +OL'295'ES 00uquq puru (glqEsn) polouls@Jun SUIpu3 W.9'162 (91'985) (LM'Lot) fL9'162 I ZE'66* (561'81) 9Â£I'65 lEt'LL sarmipuodxo 698'9 1 1 338Â£ 595'~ 698'911 ta'Lt,I 0It'90Â£ 000*0 0000 Â£89'5 50Z'BZ 88CE[ 0 t'Z ZOL'Â£64 000*0 000*0 St!'01 849'42 ELL'DE WZI 8Z1 VAR VAR Per 162,464 166,256 3, 622,554 650,839 28,285 0 7 Development Tap Fees 1,419 (17 ) 169,84 68,012 (101,837) 0 2 42,663 37, 47,577 23 53,246 110,562 75,962 34,600 fication 147,319 148,238 (919) ~2 23'~Z[Â° n and Maintenance 210,074 215,113 (5 PARISON tenance Expense IJAO SonUOAN jO X013!09 0 0*3) imonqns WATER FUND . I TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER DEPARTMENT TRENDS Type Summary Date April-07 12 - month moving average Total % Total % of % of Avg Avg Avg # of accts Gal Growth Revenues Tot Revs Cum Rev/Gal Gal/Cust Rev/Cust Urban Residential 2,679 13,035,335 -0.6% $76.939 37% 37% $0.006 4,876 $28.75 Urban Commercial 756 13,712,618 0.3% $52.606 25% 63% $0.004 18,300 $70.05 Rural Residential 1,303 4,686,768 -0.7% $53,435 26% 88% $0.013 3,606 $41.06 Rural Commercial 96 1,933,026 -0.4% $12,066 6% 94% $0.012 19,463 $ 122.87 Bulk Water 1,405,615 -0.3% $11,755 6% 100% $0.009 avg: $206,801 100% annual revenues at this pace: $2,481,610 budget: $2,245,572 projected over/under: | $236.0381 . . '01, - <O 1 1 1 r Water Revenue Progress $2,300,000 - - m Budgeted Revenues $2,200,000 - 0 ~~enues at Current $2,500,000 $2,450,000 $2,400,000 - i - $2,350,000 - $2,250,000 - - - 000'09 L'1$ $2,100,000 - 000'090'1$ - 000'000'3$ 4 .4 4 I Actual Water revenues over/beyond Budget 16.00% 14.00% 12.00% 10.00% -2006 %008 ZOOZ- %009 %00 f %00.2 9000.0 oea AON ;00 des 6nv Inr unr XeIN Jdv Jel/\1 qe=1 uer /./* .. Water Department Inter-Office Memorandum To: Randy Repola From: Jeff Boles and Bob Goehring Date: 05/0m007 Re: 2006 Consumer Confidence Report The 2006 Consumer Confidence Report (CCR) is ready for mailing to all our customers. One item to notice in the CCR is the notification of a fluoride monitoring violation. The Water Department received this violation for a missing fluoride sample. The missing sample was to be taken from the source water to the Marys Lake Water Treatment Facility. In 1986, the EPA established a maximum contaminate level (MCL) for fluoride at 4.0 mg/L with a secondary, non-enforceable standard of 2.0 mg/L. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDOPHE) requires one raw water fluoride sample per year to be taken from the source water of each facility. Tom Blaue, Water Quality Manager, submitted one water sample to the lab and requested that all state-required tests be performed upon that sample. The fluoride test was not performed by the lab. Upon receipt of the results from the lab, Blaue did not notice that the fluoride test was not done. He then submitted incomplete results to the Health Department. This caused the violation. A violation requires the Water Department to do the following items: 1. Perform the missing fluoride analysis (completed on March 8,2007). 2. Submit the analysis results to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment by March 30,2007 (The fluoride sample has been taken and the results were sent to the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment March 16th) The test results were below the detection limit. This means the sample contained little or no fluoride. All fluoride samples collected during the previous three years from both Glacier Creek and Mary's Lake plants indicate concentrations below the detection limits. 3. Notify the public that a monitoring violation has occurred. This notification must contain specific language from the EPA violation templates that cannot be altered. The public notification can be performed through the annual Consumer Confidence Report. (The Consumer Confidence Report is being sent out concurrently with this memo.) 4. After the CCR is sent out, notify any new customers coming into the system that the violation occurred until January 1, 2008. (This notification will be completed by mailing new customers the CCR) To ensure that this violation does not occur again, an additional step has been added to the chain of custody. The Water Quality Manager will now enter all values in a report to the Water Superintendent before sending the results to CDOPHE. This will put two sets of eyes on the results before they are submitted. 4 . 1 Water Department < '' 0 Inter-Office Memorandum Fluoride Regulation Fluoridation of public water systems is not required by the state or federal government. However, due to the substantial data which documents the associated health benefits, both state and federal agencies strongly advocate fluoridation of drinking water. While fluoridation is voluntary, once treatment is initiated it then becomes regulated and monitored by the state health department. A fluoride self-monitoring form is filled out daily and submitted to the state once a month. Required information on this report includes (1) daily fluoride concentrations, (2) type of fluoride compound used, (3) lbs. Of chemical used per day, (4) total gallons of water produced per day, (5) natural fluoride level prior to treatment, (6) test method used for testing fluoride. A copy of the fluoride report from the City of Longmont is attached for review. In 1986, the EPA established a maximum contaminate level (MCL) for fluoride at 4.0 mg/L with a secondary, non-enforceable standard of 2.0 mg/L. Considering a proposed treatment concentration of 1.0 mg/L, there is a rather small window in feed mechanics and test methods. Recognizing the potential dilemmas associated with such tight tolerances, the state health department has developed a procedure guideline in the event of a fluoride overfeed (copy included). 4 12 ty. 4 'M/-Â· 4 r., 4 Water Department Inter-Office Memorandum 2006 LAB SAMPLE ANALYSES-TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER DEPT. Samples collected and analyzed to meet EPA and State compliance requirements: TOTAL COLIFORM RULE (Bac-T's) - Collected from 45 different rotating sites throughout the distribution system ,15 samples per month. Parameters tested include Coliform(presence/absence) and Chlorine from each site.. ................................. 360 STAGE I DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS RULE (DBP'S) - Collected from the distribution system at points representing maximum and/or medium water residency time; require a minimum of 1 paired sample per quarter per operating Treatment Facility. Total Trihalomethanes (TTHM's) and Haloacetic Acids (HAA5' s) ..........................24 DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS PRIÂ£CURSORS - Collected a minimum of once per month per operating Treatment Facility and per Raw Water source. Parameters tested include Total Organic Carbon(TOC's), Specific Ultra Violet Absorbance (SUVA) and Alkalinity............... SURFACE WATER TREATMENT RULE (LT1) Monthly Water Quality State Reports Collected continuously and reported every four hours via the SCADA system. Four hour test parameters of Chlorine and Turbidity reported ............................. 4,320 INORGANICS - A full set of Inorganics samples must be collected from each Treatment Facility once per year; test parameters include fluoride, nitrates, mercury and a variety of metals. ORGANICS - A full set of Organic samples must be collected from each treatment Facility two out of every three years; test parameters include numerous Volatile Organic Carbons (VOC's) and Synthetic Organics Carbons (SOC's). In addition, The State has mandated the Town to conduct additional monitoring Hexachlorocyclopentadiene CHCCP) from the Marys Lake Facility........................... .............................101 STATE OF COLORADO WATER QUALITY CONTROL DIVISION Back Wash Waste Discharge Permit, Glacier Creek Treatment Facility - This set of tests Must be performed weekly when the Glacier Creek Plant is operational; test parameters include chlorine, pH, flow and suspended solids. MICROSCOPIC PARTICULATE ANALYSIS (MPA) - Minimum of one test per year per Treatment Facility.........................................................................4 Sub total = 4,981 Samples collected and analyzed in-house which are not directly required for compliance purposes but which verify/confirm data submitted for compliance purposes, identify potential hazards and treatment concerns relating to source water quality and monitoring water quality in the Distribution System. SOURCE WATER MONITORING Includes ammonia, nitrates, color and alkalinity.... ......................................... .180 ANALYZERS, PROCESS CONFIRMATION - These tests are performed daily at each operational Treatment Facility, including turbidity, chlorine and pH ............5,520 DISTRIBUTION WATER QUALITY/ CUSTOMER SERVICE .......................80 TOTAL= 10,761