The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPACKET Utilities Committee 2007-07-19AGENDA TOWN OF ESTES PARK UTILITIES COMMITTEE 8:00 a.m. Thursday, July 19, 2007 Preparation date: July 11, 2007 ACTION ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENT 1. Sustainable Mountain Living Group Light and Power Department 1. Fiber Project: Fairgrounds at Stanley Park, Larimer County, PSDR-3 a. Request approval to proceed with project Water Department 1. Big Thompson Building Demolition a. Request approval to accept bid 2. Marys Lake Water Treatment Facility Design Modifications / Expansion: Phase I a. Request approval to award contract to HDR Engineering 3. Wood Mountain Management LLC: Amendment to Lease of Water Rights a. Request approval to extend lease agreement for one year REPORTS: Light and Power 1. Light and Power Financial Reports Water 1. Potable Water Demand Projections 2. Water Financial Reports Note: The Utilities Committee reserves the right to consider other items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. Â® hp LaserJet 3015 HP LASERJET FAX invent Jul-12-2007 2:23PM Fax Call Report Job Date Time Type Identification Duration Pages Result 472 7/12/2007 2:20:01PM Send 5869561 0:35 1 OK 473 7/12/2007 2:20:41PM Send 5869532 0:34 1 OK 474 7/12/2007 2:21:20PM Send 5861691 0:39 1 OK 475 7/12/2007 2:22:04PM Send 6353677 0:32 1 OK 476 7/12/2007 2:22:41PM Send 5771590 0:42 1 OK Fi .J-ricK' E AGENDA TOWN OF ESTES PARK UTILITIES COMMITTEE 8:00 a.m. Thursday, July 19,2007 Preparation date: July 11, 2007 ACTION ITEMS PUBLIC COMMENT 1. Sustainable Mountain Living Group Light and Power Department 1. Fiber Project: Fairgrounds at Stanley Park, Larimer County, PSDR-3 a. Request approval to proceed with project Water Department 1. Big Thompson Building Demolition a. Request approval to accept bid 2. Marys Lake Water Treatment Facility Design Modifications / Expansion: Phase I a. Request approval to award contract to HDR Engineering 3. Wood Mountain Management LLC: Amendment to Lease of Water Rights a. Request approval to extend lease agreement for one year REPORTS: Light and Power 1. Light and Power Financial Reports Water 1. Potable Water Demand Projections 2. Water Financial Reports Note: The Utilities Committee reserves the right to consider other items not available at the time the agenda was prepared. . Sustainable Mountain Living Group Recommendations for Estes Park Utilities Committee 'W Customer Generated Renewable Electricity, Net Metering and Other Incentives Colorado, including many other states and hundreds of cities across the country, is taking action to get a larger percentage of its electricity from renewable energy sources such as solar and wind. Estes Park, which borders its crown jewel, Rocky Mountain National Park, should take action as well. Without positive action and new policies, the amount of electricity generated by renewables in the area served by the Estes Park utility will be miniscule. Estes Park, even more so than much of the rest of the country, is threatened by the negative impacts caused by the use of fossil fuels, including global warming and noxious emissions. Estes Park, a major magnet for tourists, has an opportunity to serve as a model and influence those who visit it. Utilities serving most of Colorado's electricity customers are required by law to support renewable energy by setting renewable energy goals and providing incentives, including net metering and significant rebates to customers who install solar electricity. While it is true that Estes Park is not required by current law to support renewable energy, it is also true that there are many other municipalities and utilities throughout Colorado which are taking action to encourage renewable energy even though they are not required to do so. Here are some of the renewable energy related actions, some required by law, others not, that are going on in Colorado. â€¢ By 2020, utilities serving over 60% of Colorado electric customers must meet 20% of electricity needs with renewable energy, including solar and wind. â€¢ The investor owned utilities (Xcel and Aguila) must provide customers at least $2 per watt to support solar electricity, but are providing $4.50 per watt. That's $13,500 for a modest 3 KW system. â€¢ Municipal utilities over 40,000 customers and rural electric associations must achieve a renewable energy goal of 10 percent by 2020. o Fort Collins, which, along with Estes Park, gets its power from the Platte River Power Authority, is going beyond the legal requirement of 10% by committing to a goal of 15% renewable energy by 2017. Its policy objectives are being financed by a 2% rate increase. â€¢ Municipal utilities with less than 40,000 customers are exempt from current law. o However: . Aspen (2,371 customers) provides $2 per watt â€¢ The city itself receives more than 50% of its power from wind and hydro resources. â€¢ Gunnison (2910 customers) has a $25,000 loan program and true net metering â€¢ The city of Durango, through the La Plata Electric Association, is supporting renewable technologies by committing to purchase 100 percent of its electricity from renewable sources, currently wind power. â€¢ Glenwood Springs (4710 customers) is receiving the electricity generated from 1500 KW of wind generation capacity and provides net metering with full credit. SML Group Page 1 . â€¢ Lamar (4630 customers), Springfield and their power provider, the Arkansas River Power Authority, have built five wind turbines in southeastern Colorado, which provide six cities with wind power. The three Lamar turbines are estimated to have an annual net generation of 13,809 MWh. This represents approximately 14% of Lamar' s annual energy needs. Estes Park uses 875 MWh of wind generated electricity, only 6.3% of Lamar's consumption with over twice the customer base. Only 109 or slightly more than 1 % of Estes Park' s 10,177 customers have signed up for wind power. Renewable Portfolio Standards/Net Metering/Incentives Xcel 20% by 2020 True Net Metering Full credit for electricity produced Payment for excess at end of year $4.50 per watt for PV installation Aguila (Pueblo, Canon City, and Rocky Ford) 20% by 2020 True Net Metering $4.50 per watt for PV installation Colorado Springs 10% by 2015 True net metering $3.75 per for watt for PV (AC) installation Fort Collins (co member of PRPA with Estes Park) 15% by 2017 True Net Metering Approved 2% rate increase to fund energy policy objectives Reduce per capita electric consumption 10% by 2012 (from 2002 baseline) Reduce per capita peak day electric demand 15% by 2012 (from 2002 baseline) Work with PRPA to increase the City's percentage of renewable energy to 2% by the end of 2004 and 15% by the end of 2017 Continue to provide high standards of reliability Continue to provide competitive electric rate Aspen $2 per watt for PV installation Delta-Montrose Provides net metering Empire Electric (14,144 customers) True net metering Glenwood Springs True net metering with full credit SML Group Page 2 Gunnison Offers true net metering $25,000 loan program Holy Cross Energy 10% by 2020 (rural coop over 40,000) $2 per watt True Net Metering La Plata Electric Association True Net Metering Excess at end of month is not carried over and is paid at avoided cost rate. $2 per watt Estes Park Should Adopt True Net Metering What is true net metering? Net metering, as defined by Colorado law, is defined as follows: Net metering requires crediting a customer generator at the full retail rate for each KWh of electricity generated from eligible renewable energy resources installed on the customer generator's side of the electric revenue meter. Excess KWh generated are carried forward from month to month. At the end of the year, the utility pays the customer the avoided cost which shall be the average cost of power to the cooperative for the immediately preceding calendar year. Keep in mind that this would apply to electricity generated over and above the renewable energy that the customer is using. Credits for solar energy, for example, would clearly not occur at night or when it is too cloudy, raining, or snowing. It would primarily occur during those hours of the day when the solar energy available was at or near its peak. The smaller the system, the less excess energy would be generated. Net Metering Has High Value To Customer Generator With Minimal Impact on Average Customer I have conducted a spreadsheet analysis which shows that the increased value or dollars saved by generating solar electricity with net metering is 40% compared to only reimbursing the customer generator at a wholesale rate of $4.50. This dramatic result would cost the average Estes Park customer only 11 cents a month! ! The assumptions I used are as follows: PV System Peak DC Capacity: 3.15 kW System Production Per Month: 387 kWhr System Production Per Year: 4644 Percentage of Production Fed To Grid: 60% Reimbursement w/0 Net Metering $.045 Customer Savings w/ Net Metering $400.59 SML Group Page 3 Customer Savings w/0 Net Metering $285.62 Customer Reduced Savings w/0 Net Metering $114.97 Percentage Increase in Savings w/ Net Metering 40% Savings Per Year for 120 PV customers $13,796 Cost Per Month for Average EP customer $.11 Suggested Program for Net Metering I would recommend that a true net metering program be implemented with 120 customers. This number was not pulled out of thin air but represents 1 % of Estes Park' s share of the peak capacity provided by the Platte River Power Authority. That is, take 1 % of EP's share of peak capacity and divide that by the DC capacity of the referenced system. Since this system is much smaller than the average consumption of the average EP customer, it represents a conservative approach in fashioning the program to minimize the impact on the utility and the average customer with respect to costs. The number of customers allowed to have net metering would rise and fall depending upon how large the systems installed were. I recommend this cap for initial program implementation because there is a certain amount of resistance to net metering because of the perception that it would have a negative impact on the revenue stream. In fact, the impact on the revenue stream would be minimal and could easily be made up by an amount per average customer of 11 cents per month per customer. As the utility gained experience with net metering, consideration could be given to expanding the program later based upon perceived demand or other requirements. I should also point out that it will probably take several years to meet the initial cap of 120 renewable energy generating customers. Even with net metering, the rather modest system I have used as a model will require a considerable outlay from each individual customer. The rate of adoption will also depend on other incentives coming from the city, state, or federal level. Other Recommendations It is also recommended that the Estes Park utility offer customer generators of solar electricity a minimum of $2.00 per watt, which is less than the major utilities and some of the cities are currently offering. In order to avoid the risk that this would become a significant cost, limit the cost impact by restricting the costs to 2% of revenues. This combined with the cost of net metering would amount to less than $2 per customer per month and would support the addition of 32 modest systems per year averaging 3.15 kw per system. A cap in size could be placed on each system to encourage opportunities for more customers. This program can be refined and even expanded based upon the experience and data gathered from running the program. SML Group Page 4 .MEMO TO: Utilities Committee Town Administrator Repola From: Mark Pallissard, IT/LAN Manager Bruce Walters, IT/LAN Support Specialist Date: July 13, 2007 Subject: Fiber Extension Project: Fairgrounds at Stanley Park, Larimer County, PSDR-3 Background Currently an aging copper connection for communications exists for Stanley Park Fairgrounds, Larimer County, and the Park School District. This line connects these entities to the fiber ring at the Senior Center. This copper line is maintained by Piatte River and has nearly become unserviceable. It needs to be replaced. Cost of the project will be shared 3 ways: Town of Estes Park, Larimer County and the School District. The plan is to extend the fiber from Estes sub-station to the County and School Administration Building at 1605 Brodie Ave. Platte River will provide their Fiber contractor. Selcon Utility is a power line contractor and they will be working in very close proximity to our primary lines. The Town of Estes Park has in place the underground ducting for the fiber route. This project will provide the following benefits to the three participating entities: 1. Provide fiber for the Stanley Park Fairgrounds expansion projects and future phone, data, and security requirements. Expand the fiber ring to the Senior Center to provide future phone requirements for both the Senior Center and Museum. 2. Visual monitoring of external sites on campus for the School District by the Estes Park Police Department and a PRPA fiber connection. 3. Provide the County offices with PRPA fiber connections. Map attached Budget Selcon $18,506.50 PRPA $14,225.00 Fiber Terminations $ 6,568.50 Total $39,300.00 Community Reinvestment Fund $20,000.00 204-5400-544-3222 Recommendations Staff recommends proceeding with the project with the support of PRPA, not to exceed $20,000.00 budgeted. 1-1 . 9.1 , Green is existing underground t.hy,1/'liv-9 - pipe from substation to Manford ave ~ \ 44 1' ./.- y.*rpr* - , Â¥0 t m!Â£%- 1.- I. ..> 4- i.. = Nft=9: 1.0 '43 Red isexisting overhead copper/fiber ~~~ ~~~~%~m~~ ~~ I I m ~~â‚¬- -Â¢1 i r-'11, ' . #tru i./, EN-3.m: L A-. P \LE ; 1 1 r- / L/4 L. 41_~c- ~ 7-'-.*4 1, i , . CS,01'64// Will /4 9 .C r JE25252 ~1//M"1~"6~~~949.~~1' 1.2- Water Department Inter-Office Memorandum To: Bob Goehring From: Jeff Boles Date: 07/11/2007 Re: Big Thompson Water Treatment Facility - Removal of abandoned buildings, Installation of security access building Background: The 2007 budget includes funding for the removal of two abandoned buildings from the Big Thompson Water Treatment Facility and installation of a metal security building for access, SCADA monitoring and sampling of the existing water storage tank on site. The Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment was contacted regarding their requirements for demolition of an abandoned Water Treatment Plant. They required an environmental investigation prior to demolition and said that Stewart Environmental in Fort Collins would be able to perform that for the Water Department. Stewart Environmental Consultants is a company that the Water Department has worked with on various past projects. During the preliminary demolition investigation, a total of 30 samples from various locations, the main plant and filter building had transite siding that contains asbestos. Due to the quantity of siding, Stewart Environmental said that the Water Department would have to have a certified abatement contractor for the removal and disposal. Only two contractors are certified with the Sate of Colorado to perform this work. Staff tried to contact both. Only one company (Risk Removal) responded. To enable Risk Removal to remove all the transite siding, the existing 3-phase electric needed to be removed from the side of the building and a new electrical meter socket needed to be installed. All the local electricians were contacted to get quotes to install the electric from the old meter on the building to a new meter socket near the power pole. Ertl Mechanical was the only electrician to supply a quote, so they were contracted to install the new single-phase service line and meter socket to replace the existing 3- phase power. Risk Removal was then able to perform the removal and disposal of the transite material. After completion, Stewart Environmental came back for a follow-up investigation and informed Staff that the buildings were ready for demolition. A demolition permit from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment will be required. Once the demolition contractor is selected, staff will submit the contractor's information to the State, and the State will issue a permit directly to the contractor. Staff plans to return to Committee in August or September with price quotes for approval of purchase and installation of the metal security SCADA building to be placed on site. 1-1 Water Department Inter-Office Memorandum Budget: Funds used for Investigation/Abatement from 503-6300-540-25-02 Stewart Environmental $1,100.00 Ertl Mechanical $2,200.00 Risk Removal $5,942.00 Total $9,242.00 Demolition Bids Solicited and Received: EZ Construction No Bid Submitted Al Excavating No Bid Submitted Kitchen and Company Building Demolition $24,600.00 Furnish Fill Dirt and Placement $4,000.00 Total $28,600.00 Hazardous Material Abatement $9,242.00 Building Demolition $28,600.00 Demolition Project Total $37,842.00 2007 Budget for demolition - 503-6300-540-25-02 $75,000.00 Recommended Action: Recommend hiring Kitchen and Company for removal of the abandoned Big Thompson Buildings at a cost of $28,600.00. 1-2 Water Department Inter-Office Memorandum TO: Utilities Committee From: Bob Goehring Jeff Boles Date: 07/12/2007 Re: Marys Lake Water Treatment Facility Design Modifications / Expansion: Phase I 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 the Town change the treatment technology from rapid sand filtration to low pressure Membrane filtration. This Membrane technology will allow the Town to meet the upcoming State and EPA regulations for water treatment. Construction Cost Estimate for Phase 1 $4.549,800.00 Staff estimates that it will take about one year to design the Mary's Lake upgrades. Staff 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. Based on HDR's Water Treatment Facilities Evaluation, staff sent a request for proposals (desion on/v) to three engineering firms and placed the request on the Town website. Following are the results of our request. See attached RPF. 1. Black and Veatch no response 2. Red Oaks Consulting Letter explaining that, due to the timing of our project and their current commitments, they would not have resources available for the project. Thus, they declined the opportunity to propose. (attached) 3. HDR Bid: $377,845.00 4. Web Several inquires but no proposal's. Budget: Both of these Items are for Marys Lake design and construction management. 2007 Budget - 503-6500-560-22-02 $350,000.00 2008 Budget - 503-6500-560-22-02 $350,000.00 Total $750,000.00 2-1 Water Department Inter-Office Memorandum Recommended Action: Staff recommends awarding the Design Contract for Mary's Lake Water Treatment Facility Design Modifications / Expansion: Phase I to HDR Inc. for $377,845.00 After the design is complete We would like to negotiate with HDR Engineering for the construction management portion of the project. This would come back to committee for approval. 2-2 Page 1 of 1 Bob Goehring From: Gallagher, John WGallagher@PIRNIE.COM] Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 10:01 AM To: Jeff Boles; Bob Goehring Subject: Mary's Lake WTF Expansion Hi Bob and Jeff, Thanks for sending us an RFP for this project. We decided to not respond since the professionals we would use were not fully available to your project during the time you would need them. We are very interested in receiving future proposal requests for financial services and design work for the Town. 1 have really enjoyed my association with Town staff and Board and look forward to future opportunities to work with you again. Thanks. John ****Please note my new address and phone number**** John Gallagher Principal Consultant Red Oak Consulting 100 Fillmore Street, Suite 200 Denver, CO 80206 Office: 303.316.6506 Cell: 303.847.1688 Fax: 303.316.6599 Igallagher@pirnie.com 4 7/2/2007 z- 3 Town ofEstes Park MLWTP Improvements ~/'Â£/i Request for Proposals Mary's Lake Water Treatment Plant Improvements Estes Park, Colorado Obj ective The Town of Estes Park is seeking proposals from selected engineering firms for engineering services for the Mary's Lake Water Treatment Plant (MLWTP) Improvements. The project includes predesign, design and bidding services for the upgrade and expansion of the MLWTP utilizing submerged membranes. Construction services for the project will be negotiated at a later date with the selected firm. Plant improvements are based on the results of the recently completed "Water Treatment Facilities Evaluation", dated January 2007 and prepared by HDR Engineering. Based on the evaluation, this project will increase the treatment capacity of MLWTP from the current capacity to 4 MGD membrane capacity in cold water conditions. Background The MLWTP is located at the south end of the water distribution system, adjacent to the south shore of Mary's Lake and the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) tunnel outlet works that discharge to Mary's Lake. The MLWTP was originally constructed in 1992 and has had no major modifications since then. A raw water pump station was constructed at Mary's Lake in 2003. The plant normally obtains its raw water supply by gravity from the BOR tunnel that feeds Mary's Lake. The plant can also pump raw water directly from Mary's Lake when the BOR tunnel is shut down. The design capacity of MLWTP is 2 MGD. However, the plant cannot consistently produce 2.0 MGD, primarily due to filter backwashing constraints. This limits the plant to a sustained production rate of 1.5-1.6 MGD. Currently, the Town is operating two water treatment plants: the MLWTP and the Glacier Creek WTP. Due to regulatory compliance concerns, the Glacier Creek WTP is scheduled to be taken off-line by 2012. This project is the first phase of expansion at MLWTP to replace Glacier Creek WTP production capacity. In completing the plant expansion at Mary's Lake, the Town intends to be well-placed to comply with the Long-term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproducts Rule. Project Scope of Services Based on the recommendations from the Water Treatment Plant Evaluation, this project must address the following: â€¢ Update and revise the existing hydraulic water model, providing assistance to the Town in determining whether to upgrade the existing WaterCAD model or shift to another modeling software. Incorporate demand information into the model. 6/13/2007 Pagel 0( 4 - Town ofEstes Park MLWTP Improvements . Â· -- 'Ir â€¢ Perform steady-state calibration using SCADA system records and a minimum of 10 fire flow tests. Fire flow testing will be completed by Town staff. Run the model for 4 scenarios: o Existing conditions with MLWTP and Glacier Creek WTP on-line, o Production from the MLWTP of 4 MGD and Glacier Creek WTP on-line. o Production from MLWTP of 4 MGD and Glacier Creek WTP off. o Production from MLWTP of 6 MGD and Glacier Creek WTP off. The modeling effort must result in a distribution improvement plan that addresses hydraulic bottlenecks, checks system pressures and identifies improvements required for MLWTP production levels of 4 MGD and 6 MGD. â€¢ Develop and complete a bench-scale treatment investigation appropriate for ensuring optimum treatment by submerged membranes on the Mary's Lake water. Membrane pilot testing is not required. â€¢ Develop a pre-bid procurement package for the membranes and assist the Town in membrane procurement. â€¢ Design the plant expansion utilizing submerged membrane technology to obtain 4 MGD capacity (cold water) and minimize backwash water discharge, including: o Addition of new rapid mix and expansion of flocculation basins, o Addition of protective concrete coatings to basins, and o Addition of bridge crane and appropriate mechanical equipment for submerged membrane systems, as well as modifying existing piping configurations to accommodate membranes. â€¢ Design a power upgrade to the MLWTP. Project Phases I. Predesign The selected engineering firm will be expected to attain a thorough understanding of the project requirements, review previous reports and designs, and analyses of water treatment requirements, concluding with preparation of a written summary of the project parameters. Included in the predesign phase are the update and application of the hydraulic model, treatment investigations, and development of the membrane pre-bid procurement package and initiation of the procurennent process. 2. Preliminary Design The purpose of this phase of the project is to identify the layout and configuration for the plant improvements and will result in a Preliminary Design Memorandum which includes, at a minimum, an evaluation of plant hydraulic constraints, preliminary process layouts, coordination with existing control systems, permit requirements, and a preliminary cost estimate. 6/13/2007 Page 2 of 4 Town of Estes Park MLWTP Improvements ~404Â·Â·k --' This phase should include preparation of preliminary plan and section drawings for the proposed plant improvements. 3. Final Design The final design phase will incorporate the technical memoranda prepared during preliminary design into a detailed set of drawings and specifications to serve as bid documents. The final design phase requires the following tasks to be completed in addition to the actual drawings and specifications. â€¢ Prepare final plans utilizing AutoCADD format (Version 2004) â€¢ Prepare technical specifications â€¢ Prepare "Front End" contract documents: General Conditions and Special Conditions â€¢ Prepare final permitting applications and agency review submittals â€¢ Prepare final cost estimates â€¢ Submit final bid documents to the Town 4. Bidding Services Bidding services include providing assistance to the Town during the bidding phase, including submittal to advertising agencies and a recommendation for award of the construction contract. These services will include the following tasks: â€¢ Conduct pre-bid meeting â€¢ Prepare written addenda to interpret, clarify, or expand the bidding documents â€¢ Conduct bid opening â€¢ Evaluate bids and prepare recommendation on contract award 5. Construction Assistance Services Construction assistance services will be negotiated at a later date with the selected firm. Â¥VORK SCHEDULE Assume a Notice to Proceed will be issued on July 15, 2007. Provide a graphic depiction of the schedule duration for each work item and the proposed phasing of the work. Task Desired Completion Date Predesign October 15, 2007 Preliminary Design January 15,2008 Final Design April 15,2008 Bidding Services June 1,2008 6/13/2007 Page 3 Of 4 . - -~ - - Town of Estes Park MLWTP Improvements PRICE Provide a cost proposal based on the requested scope of services, providing a breakdown according to the project work as specified. Included in each proposal shall be proposed hours worked per task and reimbursable expenses. State a maximum price quotation for the performance of the work. SELECTION CRITERIA Selection criteria will consider the following items: a. Experience of the firm and the individuals assigned to doing the type of work being requested by the Town of Estes Park. b. Qualifications of the firm and the individuals assigned to the project. c. Content and explanation of the proposed work methodology d. Time frame (diligence ofthe project work schedule) e. Price f. Overall quality of the proposal. The selected project team must demonstrate successful experience and references for the following: â€¢ Completion of a minimum of 3 hydraulic water models in the past 3 years â€¢ Ability to complete all process design in Colorado â€¢ A minimum of 3 submerged membrane projects in the past 3 years â€¢ Development of procurement specifications for pre-purchase of membranes At its option the Town of Estes Park may elect to interview one or more firms to allow opportunity for Town staff and advisors to question prospective firms. If conducted, such interviews will be held on July 5-6,2007. 6/13/2007 Page 4 of 4 TOWN of ESTES PARK ESTES PARK Engineering Department INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM COLORADO DATE: July 12, 2007 TO: Utilities Committee FROM: Bob Goehring SUBJECT: Wood Mountain Management LLC: Amendment to Lease of Water Rights BACKGROUND On August 20,2002, The Town and the Warren and Ruth Clinton Charitable Remainder Unitrust entered into a Lease of Water Rights for one acre foot per year. This lease was to be in effect until the Town constructed a 300,000 gallon water tank on the Clintons' property. This project was completed in June of this year. Construction of a storage tank and water main to the property has extended water service up the Fall River Corridor to the lessee's property. Due to timing (the summer season), the lessee has not yet physically connected to the Town's water supply system and has requested a one-year extension to the lease. The Warren and Ruth Clinton Charitable Remainder Unitrust assigned its interest to Wood Mountain Management, LLC on June 20,2003 under the terms and conditions of an Assignment and Assumption Agreement. Wood Mountain Management, LLC, the assignee, agreed to assume and perform all of the obligations of the Warren and Ruth Clinton Charitable Remainder Unitrust pursuant to the lease. The lessee intends to connect to the Town's water supply system on or before September 1, 2008. BUDGET NA RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends extending the lease until September 1, 2008. 3-1 AMENDMENT TO LEASE OF WATER RIGHTS THIS AMENDMENT TO LEASE OF WATER RIGHTS is made and entered into as of the day of , 2007, by and between the TOWN OF ESTES PARK, a municipal corporation ("Town"), and WOOD MOUNTAIN MANAGEMENT, LLC ("Lessee") RECITALS A. The Town and The Warren and Ruth Clinton Charitable Remainder Unitrust entered into a Lease of Water Rights (the "Lease") dated the 20th of August, 2002. B. The Warren and Ruth Clinton Charitable Remainder Unitrust assigned its interest to the Lease to Wood Mountain Management, LLC on June 20,2003 under the terms and conditions of an Assignment and Assumption Agreement. Wood Mountain Management, LLC, the assignee, agreed to assume and perform all of the obligations of the Warren and Ruth Clinton Charitable Remainder Unitrust pursuant to the Lease. C. Section 2.1 of the Lease states the Lease shall terminate on September 1, 2007. D. The Town has extended its water supply system up the Fall River Corridor to Lessee's property including the construction and installation of a storage tank on Lessee's property for which Lessee has granted an easement to the Town. However, Lessee has not physically connected to the Town's water supply system. E. Lessee has purchased a water tap from the Town for Lessee's property. F. Lessee intends to connect to the Town's water supply system on or before September 1, 2008. The parties have agreed to extend the terms of the Lease from September 1, 2007 until September 1, 2008 in order to allow Lessee to physically connect to the Town's water supply system. FOR GOOD AND VALUABLE CONSIDERATION, THE RECEIPT AND SUFFICIENCY OF WHICH IS HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGED, AND IN FURTHER CONSIDERATION OF THE PROMISES AND COVENANTS CONTAINED HEREIN, THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: Water Lease-1 1. The Lease between the parties shall be extended from September 1, 2007 until v September 1, 2008. Prior to September 1, 2008, Lessee shall physically connect its water supply to the Town's water supply system. All costs of said connection shall be the responsibility of Lessee and in conformance with the Town's regulations and policies. 2. Failure of Lessee to physically connect to the Town's water supply system as provided in Paragraph 1 above, shall be a default under the terms and conditions of the Lease. 3. All other terms and conditions of the Lease dated the 20th of August, 2002 shall remain in full force and effect unless specifically amended by this Amendment. Executed to be effective as of the date set forth above. LESSEE: WOOD MOUNTAIN MANAGEMENT, LLC By: Christopher Wood Manager and Member STATE OF ) ) SS: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT COUNTY OF ) The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of , 2007, Christopher Wood, Manager and Member of Wood Mountain Management, LLC. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission expires Notary Public Water Lease-2 . ATTEST: TOWN OF ESTES PARK By: Town Clerk Title: STATE OF COLORADO ) ) SS: ACKNOWLEDGEMENT COUNTY OF LARIMER ) The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of ,2007, by as of the Town of Estes Park. WITNESS my hand and official seal. My Commission expires Notary Public Water Lease-3 r.. Finance, Light & Power, Water Departments Memo To: Utility Committee Town Administrator Repola From: Steve McFarland, Finance Officer Date: July 19, 2007 Subject: Utility committee report Background Attached the following documents for the Committee's perusal: â€¢ Charts and graphs for June 2007 â€¢ Financial statements for June 2007. Body Light & Power The cash flow comparison page (right column) shows that revenues (52%) are exceeding the pace of the calendar (50%), and expenses in every category are at or under the calendar pace. Revenues per kWh are up compared to 2006. Expenses are elevated compared to 2006 ($251,000) in the following areas: â€¢ Source of supply: $76,000. â€¢ Distribution: $12,000 (an increase in meter and street light expense has been partially offset by savings in payroll costs). â€¢ Customer: $12,000 (an increase in payroll costs and IT allocation is partially offset by a reduction in maintenance contracts). â€¢ Administration: $151,000 - increases include: o payroll - $20,000, o IT allocations - $59,000, o exhibit display - $36,000, o equipment - $10,000, o data processing equipment - $6,000, and o PILOTS - $12,000. As previously stated, although expenses are elevated compared to 2006, they are within budgeted parameters. Charts The green/red chart is strongly positive (green), meaning that generally revenues are trending upwards. This is also reflected in the "LAP Revenue Progress" chart (note the red bar increase from May, and is now forecasted to exceed the annual budget). The new charts also reflect progress. The "Actual L&P revenues over/beyond budgef' chart shows that compared to budget (ratio of actual to budget), we are ahead of where we were at this time last year. This is portrayed in bar chart form on the next chart. 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 strong, although it should be pointed out that through June 30, water sales now lag 2006. Regardless, revenues are slightly ahead of calendar pace (52% vs 50%), while expenses are quite low (40%). Customer billing and accounts is negative vs budget ($39,000) primarily due to meter purchases ($43,000). The green/red data page has turned red, which means that the general direction for water sales is now down. Specifically, the 12-month moving average declined. As can be seen on the "water revenue progress" graph, however, projected revenues are still well in excess of budget. The last two graphs show that while revenues are on pace to exceed budget, they are now forecasted to do so at a slightly lesser pace than they did in 2006. Depreciation The depreciation of our fixed assets in the utility funds is a significant factor when it comes to planning for the future. In a perfect world, one would at least want to be replacing fixed assets (or reserving funds) at a rate equal to or greater than the depreciation pace. We are not sure exactly how to incorporate this information into our cash flows, other than to simply state the information. For â€¢ Page 2 2006, L&P fixed assets depreciated at a pace of $545,600, while Water fixed assets depreciated $475,325. Conclusion Both utilities look very strong financially. Action steps requested - None. â€¢ Page 3 MONTHLY PEAK DEMAND 25500 23500 - 21500 -0- 2005 -4$-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 - T 12,000 ~ 24 1r i- - 7% 7Â·4 ~ 10,000 --jm -* -~~1- f ---7 - *., 1#&5 ~ Ff 92% 1* 9 0% 44*0 47 04 0% F, 04 0% 6* 4, 3Â¥ 03 3% 24 0% 04 0% ii 4 2005 44 4% %* 02 - ff _%% -04.04.42 - Ex d 0 8,000 -0 -0.8 -5* 02006 0 05 #3 -4 3% 3% 43-0 2 Â» 9 E p 5 1 02007 0 0% li 0,2 9% 41! 05 4* al gl 03 %4 ~ 6,000 -0% -0 -31 0% 31 -62 09 43 6, 14 4 4 b #* 4 0/ 01 06 9 4, 44 42 %1 0% A % 04 t~ 9 %1 01 2% 53 4% 54 54 4% 3% 2,000 - L' , 4-4 , 49 , 424 , ,; Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec R L&P 6 SYSTEM KW 1228==St ilitilit#AN.VA YTD ENERGY PURCHASES 140,000 120,000 - 100,000 - - 3.21% YTD 2007 VS . 2006 .. 80,000 - 1 - 12005 1 0 2006 60,000 - -i - 1 2007 40,000 "â„¢1116 20,000 - 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 U 4,500 9 4,000 - Â¥ I 4 0 Â¥ 4 3,500 EF 9 k P 3,000 -- 1- 13 3 % 2,500 - - 9 :# ~:k m >14 * %*%E# 2.000 - - -7 3 -~ ~ f h ~ ~ 9 6 4 1,500 - 9-_E: 1 01 .Imm 1,000 . E.Xâ€¢ - 41 - * 1.0%*d*%% ----0 ----M ----M -1 -4-4 ------Ed R ** I - Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec R L&P 7 YTD MWH Purchased ELECTRIC SALES BY MONTH ($1,000) 1,200 - 1,100 - 1,000 -3 -- 900 -=fl ~ --- 4 it . - O 2005 800 --*SE - .di -713 -U - - _ 11 11 52 18 m 2006 1/ 2 7 2 I -1 1 5 ' .% * i< 4 700 - 1 2 - rit -.Â· E -12 - 7 4 -. i jr , g 02007 /4 4 04 01 31 20 : *9-4~ il-a' i &3 54 500 -- 21 -- i~ - ~ --- 64 _ #2 -4 1 1 5 3 ZI. 2 i 2,5} I ' /1 4 .. . I 0 .0 . e. 'st :.4 1 ES t; 30 :,4 :& 1 1 5 4 :.1 121 ir 4 7 1 400 --20 1 - t: - ; r - - 6 -61 k 3 -"t' -~ .1-16--:12 f 4/ IN t. 4% .1 tf Â·4 ?â€¢I *1 15 21 r & 3% t. .9 7 4 2 4 4 4 , g. . 4.9 , ..:= 1 300 11 , 1.4 , 'Â· i â‚¬:1 i i~ 1 + 1 Â·. 41â€¢2. Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec YEAR TO DATE ELECTRIC SALES ($1,000) 12,000 4.94% 2007 YTD VS 2006 10,303,3171 10,000 - - M CZJ 2005 - 8,000 - -- ~2 2006 -% 6,000 - 02007 - N 'll. 6 1 3 - Budget ~ . A a I , 1 ., 9- 5 1 ji : t 4,000 - -7 4 -: 1 - 1 --. ./- f :1 6 I -ill ~- 3 1 4 Â·<90 .r Â·F# Â·. f, 72 /% 44 2,000 - 4 %1 - i.4 1 ly . 11 2:. 1 0 < . [IFI If - 1 5 0,11 3 1 3 1 1 : 71 is 1 21 0 - 1*'ll I <.4 ' y .4.:..4- .1 3{ 4'-B- m Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec R L&P 8 YEAR TO DATE SALES MONTHLY SALES ..Ef="mP' I ..Â·0> â€žÂ· W ./. #I I .. I *b:~48%,jÂ· 7 â€¢Â· 'Â·' â€¢M 'M '1 1 " " "" 1 1 " ' EÂ£E f*.225 9 9 Â¥* Z E%t Â©~* 0081.-Or- 1.fEN- O - - 01 & S y:; 2 Ir, 04 Vl r- 1- h 2% 4120 h.ttl. a WER -- BEE 000 35% E 000 0 0 00. 0 89% 3 rlor-- 6= R ter,%0 RG1Â° M % r- 00.Q. 00% 45 %* O 04 0 â‚¬NO 0 t--O d er- 00 Â© r- 1 Â£8 M E EL m 00 9: 6 RS s â‚¬ 0 3 0 # 00 bo 35 g W 0 0 Beginning unrestrictdd (usable) fund balance 4,649,415 3,195,309 $3,195,309 $3,195,309 100% %LI OLâ‚¬05 0*6'00â‚¬ 100*0 1 00 0 089't OLÂ¢05 091'55 0 00!Al@S lq@CI %â‚¬Z L+0'ZOE LEI'82Â£'1 5000 900'0 *69/11 Lt,0'ZOE 108'â‚¬It CitE'tâ‚¬1) 8gE'89 I LII'ft %95 908'ffS Z99'*L6 800.0 LOO'O (LIZ'001) 908'4*5 685'17** (5â‚¬8'69) 8 15'IEl Â£89'89 ino Smsuell Sulleledo %0, 0Â£9'EM'* aL'68Â£'I I 690'0 990'0 (1 Â£6'KE) OLÂ¢Â£*5'+ 669'80Â£'* (Â£88'Z90 Â§0Â£' 109 ZE*'8Â£Â£ sainupuodxs[ 18101 Total O&M Expenses 225,622 301,429 (75,807) 3,395,159 3,646,34 (251,188) 0.052 0.055 8,786,013 3,646,34 42% MONTH TO DATE YEAR TO DATE BUDGET vs. YTD 763,140 840,309 77,169 5,176,550 5,432,4 255,851 10,208,573 5,432,4 1 969'920'I (091Â»9) (096'ft) 965'9Â£0'I 955'ISO'I (Lt'r[ZE) LEI'ZgZ kLE'5Lf (telideo olopq so.mupuodxo 696'569 V/N 696'569 656'569 0 ZZE'91 ZZE'95 0 SOOmOS 10410 01 polejolle/PJA[@00.1 4&93 959'Eâ‚¬L' I (05 1 Â»9) 666'059 595'ZEL'I 999'180'I GE6'961) 6*4'BLE *LE'5Lt 1[1UOW JoJ uoilisod 4690 U! 39ueto +98'LZ6'M 651'199'ES +98'LZ6'*$ +98'LZ6'*$ joueleq pury @Iqusn) pop!.Us@lun Buipufl 1 97 1,990,478 (75,681) 0.030 0.030 4,785,000 1, 656 13,123 (37,533) 213,705 147, 537,019 147, Total Revenues 796 853,432 39,636 5,390,255 5,580, 10,745,592 5,580, 2006 2007 2006 2007 Customer Billing and Accounts 44,972 59,076 (14,104) 11,674 (12,011) 0.005 0.005 0.000 VAR VAR Per kWh Per kWh Distribution and Maintenance 105,783 105,11 67 91,922 (12,087) 0.010 0.011 Administration and General 74,86 137,24 (62,375) (151,409) 0.008 0.010 LIGHT AND POWER FUND CASH FLOW COMPARISON gr ration and Maintenance Expense DAO SonUOA@ljo KOU@!OU@p/sseoxa) iejoiqns TOWN OF ESTES PARK . LIGHT AND POWER TRENDS Type Summary Date June-07 12 - month moving average Total % Total % of Avg Avg Avg # of accts KWH Growth Revenues Total Rev % Cum Rev/KWH KWH/Cust Rev/Cust Residential 7,478 3,979.026 0.6% $366,425 43% 43% $0.0922 532 $48.98 Gen Sen, Small 1.615 2.099.021 0.5% $189,690 22% 65% $0.0905 1,301 $ 117.52 Gen Serv Large 93 2.813,186 0.3% $173.025 20% 86% $0.0616 30.359 $1.867.25 Residential Demand 387 716.018 0.8% $65.266 8% 93% SO.0960 1,860 $169.18 Res Energy / Time of Day 243 410.151 0.9% $26.052 3% 96% $0.0651 1.679 $106.69 Municipal 60 1.6% $19.855 2% 99% $0.0787 4.2 1 1 $330.81 252,763 99% $00460 RMNP -Small Admin 21 66,645 2.3% $3.062 0% 3.187 $146.42 RMNP - Large Admin 6 62.648 0.6% $2.715 0% 99% $0.0436 i 0.441 $452.56 Wind Power 104 0 0.0% $1,874 0% 99% N/A N/A N/A Res Basic Energy 19 24.446 1.0% $2,129 0% 100% $0.0878 1,298 $112.99 GSS - Comm! -Energy TOD 13 17,499 -1.0% $1.21! 0% 100% $0.0698 1,346 $93.16 GSL - Comml - Time ofDay 1 10,695 -1.7% $751 0% 100% $0.0719 0 $0.00 Outdoor Area Lighting 16 0 0.0% $228 0% 100% N/A N/A N/A Res Time of Day 0 0 #DIV/0! $0 0% 100% #DIV/0 ! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! RMNP - Administrative 2 633 9.4% $35 0% 100% N/A N/A N/A 10.057 avg $852,319 100% annual revenues at this pace: $10,227,829 budget: $10,208,573 projected over/under: | $19.2561 8 CO .04 <O Loinr 11& 40. $10,100,000 -- 0 Budgeted Revenues â€¢ Revenues at Current L&P Revenue Progress $10,500,000 - $10,400,000 $10,300,000 $10,200,000 --- - $10,000,000 -- -- 000'006'6$ -- 000'008'6$ -- 000'002/6$ -- 000'009'6$ - 000'009'6$ &0 - <C 0 0 \% J < % - 2006 ZOOE - 080 AON 1 3.00% - Actual L&P revenues over/beyond Budget 2.00% %007 %00.0 %00- P %00-Z- - %00'Â£- 1.144 24Â·-Â· . 1 Â»,-2 ,~ug:d 1,25.6*241 I. O Budget i Actual Annual L&P Budget v Projected Actuals, through May 2006/2007 ZOOE 9001 $10,300,000 - $10,200,000 $10,100,000 $10,000,000 $9,900,000 000'008'6$ 000'002'6$ 000'009'6$ 000'009'6$ Potable Water Demand Projection Town of Estes Park, Colorado Final Report July 12, 2007 Prepared under the responsible charge of Sarah C. Clark Colorado PE 36489 HER 303 E. 17th Ave. Suite 700 Denver, CO 80203 H)R Potable Water Demand Projection - Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction 1 2.0 Service Area Population 1 2.1 Permanent Population 1 2.2 Transient Population 3 2.3 Non-Transient Population 5 2.4 Wholesale Population 5 2.5 Other Populations Not Included in Projections....... 5 2.6 Population Growth Rate Projectiong 6 3.0 Potable Water Demand 7 3.1 Historic Treatment Plant Production 3.2 Per Capita Usage 3.3 Historic Wholesale Usage .....11 4.0 Buildout Conditions -------â€ž-------------------------------â€žâ€ž----------A2 4.1 Existing Zoning and Land I ke 12 4.2 Buildout Projections 5.0 Potable Water Demand Projectionc 19 6.0 Conclusion and Recommendationq 91 7.0 Abbreviationq 93 8.0 Appendix 93 8.1 2006 Population Fact Sheet and Projections ........24 8.2 Population Data............................ 31 8.3 RMNP Historical Visitor Data :32 8.4 Water Customer Connection Analysis............... R3 8.5 Land Use Development Stati,q 35 Figures Figure 1 - Population Growth Trendq 2 Figure 2 - Historic Annual Number of Visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park............ ..........................4 Figure 3 - Seasonal Water Treatment Plant Production 7 Figure 4 - Historic Treatment Plant Production. 8 Figure 5 -2006 Potable Water Usage........................... ..... 9 Figure 6 - Historic Wholesale Bulk Water Demand Figure 7 - Historic Bulk Water Dispenser Demand ...........................11 Figure 8 - Percent Area Occupied by Estes Valley Zoning Districts.......................................................,...12 Figure 9 - Percent Area Occupied by Single Family ..... 13 and Multi-Family Residential Zoning Districtq .,,,..~ ................13 Figure 10- Estes Valley Development Status Figure 11 - Parcel Development Statliq _ .....,,,15 Figure 12 - Undeveloped Commercial and Residential Land Use Parcels.................................................16 Figure 13 - Peak Day Demand Projectionv 20 1 HIt Potable Water Demand Projection Tables Table 1 - Census Population Summary P Table 2 - Summary of Projected Population Growth Rates 6 Table 3 - Historic Potable Water Production (1993-2006)... 8 Table 4 - Per Capita Demands.. 10 Table 5 - Buildout Projection for the Permanent Population 17 Table 6 - Summary of Peak Day Demand at Buildout 18 Table 7 - Summary of Parameters Used in Monte Carlo Simulation 19 . ii Potable Water Demand Projection . Hit 1.0 Introduction In 2006, the Town of Estes Park (hereinafter referred to as "Town") completed a utilities financial plan, which included an evaluation of the Town' s two water treatment plants (Water Treatment Facilities Evaluation, January 2007, HDR Engineering). The evaluation examined the treatment performance and capacity of both the plants. Based on the recommendations of the report, the Town has decided to move forward with a plan to expand the capacity of the Mary' s Lake Water Treatment Plant (MWTP). The Glacier Creek Water Treatment Plant (GWTP) will be taken out of service by the year 2012, by either constructing a new water treatment plant or pump station. (The date 2012 corresponds to the compliance date for the EPA' s Long-Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule.) The design capacity of the MWTP is 2 million gallons per day (MGD). However, the plant is limited to a production capacity of l.5 MGD due to performance issues and limitations on waste stream disposal. The GWTP has a design capacity of 4 MGD, but is limited to about 3 MGD treatment production due to similar issues. Within the past two summers, the Town's peak day water demand has spiked to roughly 3 MGD on several occasions and in the summer of 2002, the peak day demand was greater than 4 MGD. The Town plans to initiate design this summer for the MWTP Improvements project, which will increase the capacity of the plant using membrane technology. In order to plan for the MWTP Improvements project as well as other water system improvements, it is important to understand how potable water demand will increase in the Town' s future. The most recent potable water demand projection was completed as part of the Town's 1985 Water Master Plan (McLaughlin Water Engineers). The results of the 1985 projection concluded that the peak day demand would be approximately 4.3 MGD in 2000,6.2 MGD in 2030 and 9.0 MGD at buildout. The purpose of this report is to update the potable water demand projection for the Town using the most recent population, water usage information, and zoning and land use data. A risk-based analysis of the projecting using a Monte Carlo simulation is included. This method allows the Town to determine how much risk is acceptable in the planning process. 2.0 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 Appendix.) Some of the population data from the Town' s population analysis has been incorporated into this study to serve as the current population basis. This data will be projected into the future as part of this study. 2.1 Permanent Population The historic permanent population of the Town is best-reflected in the population numbers from the U.S. Census Bureau. Table 1 summarizes the Census population numbers and estimates for the Town, Estes Valley, Larimer County, and the State. Figure 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 1 is provided in the Appendix. 1 Potable Water Demand Projection HIt Table 1 - Census Population Summary Percent Percent Percent Percent Town of Estes Larimer State of Year Annual Annual Annual Annual Estes Park Valley Change County Change Colorado Change 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 8,0130 4.0 11,5000 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)A(1/(1960-1950))]-1 = (-0.031) Figure 1 - Population Growth Trends 10% -O-Town of Estes Park 8% A Â·-- Estes Valley A Berthoud 6% A â€¢ Loveland Â«-37â€¢ a -1-Larimer County 2% I< 1 0 Clear Creek County A â€¢ Gilpin County 0% ' 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 â€¢ Steamboat -2% . â€¢ Dillon ~'+ State of Colorado -456 Year As shown in Figure 1, the Town, Valley, and the county all experienced 2-4% growth between 1990 and 2000. The Town estimates the 2010 population to be 8,013 in the Town itself and 11,500 in the 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 2 Percent Annual Population Change Potable Water Demand Projection . HIt accounts has 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. 2.2 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 coming from all over the country. The total number of out-of-state visitors increased from 64 to 70 percent since the last survey was conducted ten years ago. The survey results support the assumption that the transient population in 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 have 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 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 Appendix. HDR spoke with the Director of Planning for RMNP regarding future visitation trends. 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 this study, 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 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. 3 Potable Water Demand Projection HIt Figure 2 - Historic Annual Number of Visitors to Rocky Mountain National Park 6.0 5.5 6 5.0 // Growth trend from Mkkx 4.5 1984 to 1999 + . . . 3.5 - . 3,0 - 4.5 million visitors in 2030 if growth trend recovers to historic rate 2.5 â€¢ 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 estimates 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. 4 Annual Number of Visitors (In Ilions) Potable Water Demand Projection . HIt For this analysis, the most likely estimate of the current transient population is 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 is 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. 2.3 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 estimates 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 is reasonable as it is based on interviews with major employers. Consequently, the peak season estimate of 398 people was used for the analysis. 2.4 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 Towns'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 estimates 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 estimates that the existing wholesale bulk water customers are 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. 2.5 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 5 Potable Water Demand Projection HIt Reclamation is up for renewal in 2012, discussions will resume, but this population is not included in these population projections. 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. 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 indicate that RMNP could become a wholesale customer by 2009 or sometime thereafter. This demand does not have a significant impact on water treatment plant capacity. Therefore, the population has not been included in the projections, but the demand has been included in the buildout demand calculation. 2.6 Population Growth Rate Projections Table 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 is based on the population analysis by the Town. The 2006 peak season population for transient visitors will be assigned a level of variability as part of the analysis. Table 2 - Summary of Projected Population Growth Rates 2006 Peak Season Percent Annual Population Type Probability Basis of Growth Projection Population Growth Lowest annual growth rate for Town, Valley, and County 1.4 Low since 1970 based on Census data. Average annual increase in number of water accounts Permanent 10,369(1) 2.6 Most Likely between 2000 and 2006. Average annual growth rate for Town and Valley between . 4.0 High 1990 and 2000 from Census data Average annual growth rate for number of visitors to 1.1 Low RMNP between 1990 and 2006. Average annual growth rate for number of visitors to 3.5 Most Likely RMNP between 1984 and 2006. Assumes balance of Transient 10,7899) visitors who do not visit RMNP and visitors to RMNP that do not stop In Estes Park. Average annual growth rate for number of visitors to 6.6 High RMNP between 1984 and 1999, which is the period of maximum growth of RMNP visitors. 0.7 Low Primarily rural communities; assume growth rates will be Wholesale Bulk 7968) 1,3 Most Likely half of the permanent population growth rate based on 2.0 High growth rates in the region. 1.4 Low Primarily supports the permanent population; use same Non-Transient 398(3) 2,6 Most Likely grow'th rates as permanent population growth rates. 4.0 High 6 Potable Water Demand Projection HIt 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 ) 3.0 Potable Water Demand 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 (MWTP and GWTP), 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. 3.1 Historic Treatment Plant Production Figure 3 is a plot of historic peak day water treatment plant production by month for 2001-2006. Data from 1993 are 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. Figure 3 - Seasonal Water Treatment Plant Production 5.0 4.5 - 11993 m2001 12002 4.0 O 2003 I 2004 l 2005 ~_ ~ 3.5- I2006 B 3.0 0 ]Il IL 2 2.5 E ~ 2.0 e 11 U M 2 1.5 cl n 1.0 - - iffi-1 -1 - m i 00 . 1- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month 7 181 Potable Water Demand Projection HIt Potable water demand is typically analyzed by determining the average annual day demand and applying a peaking factor to estimate peak day demand. For this analysis, the average day demand in the peak season (May-September) will be 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 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 solidify this conclusion. Table 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 analysis. Figure 4 - Historic Treatment Plant Production -44-Peak Day Demand -+-Avg Day Demand in Peak Season -I-Peak/Avg Ratio (Peak Season) 5.0 5.0 4.5 4.5 4.0 4 0 3.5 3.5 30'\ ~Â»h~~~ 30 2.5 2.5 2.0 2.0 1.5 1.5 = 1.ON E Potential 1.0 - conservation 0.5--J - . 0.5 effects 0 0.0 1 1 0.0 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 Year Table 3 - Historic Potable Water Production (1993-2006) Historic Peak Day Avg. Day Demand Peak#Wg Ratio Peak Peak Season Occurence Demand Season (May-Sept) 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) 8 Potable Water Demand (MGD) 0!:ebl pueulea BAw>lead Potable Water Demand Projection Hit 3.2 Per Capita Usage Metered water usage by month as well as total water treatment plant production in 2006 is shown in Figure 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 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 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 5. Figure 5 - 2006 Potable Water Usage 90 4-WTP Production 80 - ---Total Metered 70 -- -- Residential Metered 60 -- --Commercial Metered 50 - - -*-Bleeder Metered 40 30 20 10' - Â¤ * 4, _ * ;14 )1< 11( 11( )1( * 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Month 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 this analysis, 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 (gped). 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 9 Potable Water Usage (Millions of Gal Per Month) 0, Potable Water Demand Projection HIt 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 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 4 provides a summary of per capita usage rates used in the analysis. Table 4 - Per Capita Demands Per Capita Demand Probability (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: â€¢ A portion of the transient population stays in rental condos, which have residential meters â€¢ 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 are day visitors to Town and do not stay overnight. By applying the same per capita demand to both populations, we are assuming 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. In order to investigate the seasonality of the water customers and their usage, an additional analysis was performed using the billing records to determine the number of total water connections versus the number of used water connections by month in the water system. A water connection was assumed to be used if 500 gallons or more were metered during a month. The results of this analysis were not used in this study since the categories of metered water could not be specifically tied to the zoning and land use data. However, the analysis did reveal that the impact of the residential water customers using more water during peak season is more significant than the impact of additional residential water users in the peak season. The analysis can also be used to make general observations regarding the change in occupancy rate of the residential water customers throughout the year. The results of the analysis are provided in the Appendix for reference. 10 Potable Water Demand Projection - HIt 3.3 Historic Wholesale Usage Figure 6 shows the wholesale bulk water demand for the past five years. Figure 7 shows the historic demand for the dispenser based on paid sales. The reason for the demand spikes in September and October of 2006 are unknown and considered an anomaly for this study. As seen in Figure 7, demand on the bulk dispenser is somewhat seasonal, but has not increased significantly in the past four years. Demand for the wholesale bulk water customers (Figure 6) is also not expected to increase significantly as the communities are estimated to be at 80% buildout. Figure 6 - Historic Wholesale Bulk Water Demand 14 PMPL and Hondius 12 customers added -4 in 2004 10 24% 8 meÂ· 6 Â· '7*- 'Ef.1 4 : -~P. 4' V. 03Â·264. 2 ~ Â·Â·hb.1 Ii"I:'tet 0 1 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Year Figure 7 - Historic Bulk Water Dispenser Demand 500 - 1,753 924 450 - - â€¢ 2003 12004 02005 8 400 - O 2006 m2007 350 - 300 p -IL'--- ~- 250 - 200 T * Â¥ L. 150 -c-Â»- f - r 1 - r - W 100 -bl :.- 1 rr~~ Â¥ u- Of e . El-. - ti- 0 1 50 F M 0 1'1/ I 1~ 142 4 1, 4 11 E 0 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Month 11 Water Demand (Millions of Gallons) Dispenser Water Demand (1,000's Gallons) 4 .Â· 7 Â· 1: m!31 1,9 .44" mr, 1 Potable Water Demand Projection HIt 4.0 Buildout Conditions 4.1 Existing Zoning and Land Use The Estes Valley is largely surrounded by public land (RMNP and Roosevelt National Forest) and therefore future growth is limited to the boundaries of the water system service area, both above and below the blue line. The Valley has six zoning districts including single family residential, multi-family residential, open space (includes federal land), accommodations, commercial, and industrial. Figure 8 shows the percent area occupied by each zoning district within the Valley. Roughly half of the Estes Valley is zoned for single family residential. Within the Single Family Residential and Multi-Family Residential zoning districts there are eight sub-categories defined by lot size. Figure 9 shows the percent area occupied by each of these subcategories within the Single Family Residential and Multi- Family Residential zoning districts. In general, the percentage of area designated to each subcategory of residential zoning decreases with decreasing lot size requirements. At this time, the Town does not plan to rezone existing lands to higher density for purposes of residential subdivision. Figure 8 - Percent Area Occupied by Estes Valley Zoning Districts (By Acres) 3% 8% m Single Family Residential R>*04.7, -7. 1 m Open Space m Accomodations 36% 4 52% 66 6 -Il Commercial â€¢ Multi-Family Residential 47. O Industrial 12 Potable Water Demand Projection - HIt Figure 9 - Percent Area Occupied by Single Family and Multi-Family Residential Zoning Districts (By Acres) El Min. Lot Size = 10 Ac (RE-l ) O Min. Lot Size = 2.5 Ac (RE) 13% 4,19%.. ~ O Min. Lot Size = 1 Ac (E-1) 46% ~ O Min. Lot Size = 0.5 Ac (E) - .:632%., â€¢ Min. Lot Size = 0.25 Ac (R) i..25?35, O Multi-Family (RM) 32% â€¢ Min. Lot Size = 0.25 Ac (R-2) C Min. Lot Size = 0.13 Ac (R-1) Within the zoning districts of Estes Valley, there are roughly 70 categories of land use. The land use categories are dispersed throughout the zoning districts such that there is some residential development in the commercial zoning district and vice versa. It is common to use land use in water demand projections by assigning a per acre usage rate to each category of land use. However, this type of analysis would be difficult to perform for this study due to the structure of the Town' s zoning and land use information with respect to the structure of the billing records. Furthermore, the Town does not yet have their water demands tied to their GIS information system for zoning and land use, which would also allow for this type of analysis. For the purposes of establishing a buildout scenario, the Town' s land use information was reviewed and each category of land use was assigned a development status. The categories of development status are summarized below and the percent areas occupied are depicted in Figure 10. A map of the Valley showing development status of parcels is shown in Figure 11. A complete list of land use categories and the assigned development status is provided in the Appendix. (A fuw limited parcels have been adjusted by Town staff.) No Development: Largely government owned wilderness land including RMNP and National Forest Future Development: Existing Residential Unplatted, Residential Unimproved Platted, Residential Unimproved PUD, Existing Commercial Unplatted, Commercial Unimproved, Commercial Unimproved PUD land, Existing Agricultural Grazing, Forest Grazing, and Improved Agricultural land uses; does not consider the zoning of the parcel Developed: Any land use that does not fall into one of the categories above 13 Potable Water Demand Projection HIt Figure 10 - Estes Valley Development Status (By Acres) 20% O Not For Development 43% ' 74 e 1 Developed A,J - , Â¤ Future Development 37% 44 â‚¬,t 4.2 Buitdout Projections For this analysis, the buildout permanent population of the Valley was determined using only the undeveloped residential parcels, i.e. unplatted residential and unimproved platted residential land use, and the density of the development (as determined by the zoning district). These parcels are shown on Figure 12. All of the parcels were considered, including parcels above the blue line, to represent a worst case scenario. Using the assumptions described above, the estimated number of additional permanent population is 2,369. Table 5 provides a summary of this analysis. There is a significant area of agricultural land that is currently zoned for residential development. However, this land was not considered in the calculation of buildout permanent population because the vast majority is zoned for low density development, i.e. 10 acre and 2.5 acre lots, and therefore would not have a significant impact on the analysis. In addition, the calculation of buildout permanent population did not consider redevelopment of existing developed areas as this is assumed to occur in the much distant future. A more detailed analysis of buildout permanent population could be performed outside of this study that considers individual parcels, land use, zoning, steepness of terrain (i.e. location with respect to the blue line), and access to utilities. If this analysis was performed, then the potable water demand projection could be revisited with the new buildout permanent population number. 14 Potable Water Demand Protection HIt Figure 11 - Parcel Development Status 15 Estes Valley Parcel Development Status -416 -W,~ ' 4 1- 4*~ -89= . ~~ -~ ,"6'*'ti ..5/#* ..g.il.4/4' /.4,-alli . A i - -r , 11 11!.11 1:,11 4:1.1~ P N LEGEND Not for Development A Developed F~~d Future Development Figure 11 Estes Valley 11 $ f - t . 7 Undeveloped Residential Land Use Parcels J 4 1 1 31 -IT ~ jilt ""'2"4,1 ~ ~ ' E- -- --- --9 34211f,*4~1-- 1,21 1- 1 L i % 1 -2 91[3yl . 1 - m -1 1 -rn- 0 Â« Â«1 1 10FI /44,4 ~ 1/ft 2 1 j 1 *14* L 11 ---tri*fi.M<7\ i Â¢ 7 . â€¢4*F-[- 11 . F 4//4*im#dirib *M:F+MA -Pf i ve=r- E L 4~ , i, .MY Lut. L t$94,311/ 1 -0 4 4 - _____1 -1 1 ....=3 1.11=,60.- 9.1,1 1 -1~,Irr /1,11,2-6~-1 J 1 3-, I Â·--122*04~~ 4/5/*38*634*/1/R q-ir-- - -~ 1Â©~juML i rl--3% D **04#4. 4 /5--4'kEN.4Â¥*214741~ <1/4 , ---1 VA 8'12 1 0 4 LEGEND ___ Â»] IAE_-L- - 1 _1 JIll...11 : Blue Line ......1.1. ~ Residential Unplatted [13~ Residential Unimproved PUD ~ Residential Unimproved Platted _] Parcels Figure 12 ..1. Potable Water Demand Projection HIt Figure 12- Undevetoped Commercial and Residential Land Use Parcels 16 Potable Water Demand Projection . HIt Table 5 - Buildout Projection for the Permanent Population , Residential Residential Minimum Maximum Total Zoning Unimproved Unplatted Lot Size Units Per Projected District Platted Acres (Acres) Acre Units Acres A 0.1 0 NA NA NA A-1 1.6 0.6 NA NA NA E 132.4 29.0 0.5 2 323 E-1 263.4 30.9 1 1 294 R 12.5 3.0 0.25 4 62 R-1 6.6 0 0.125 8 53 R-2 3.2 0 0.25 4 13 RE 272.7 521.2 2.5 0.4 318 RE-1 255.0 319.8 10 0.1 57 RM 0.4 0.1 NA 8 4 CO 6.4 7.7 NA NA NA I-1 11.4 0 NA NA NA Null 19.9 59.0 NA NA NA Total Additional Households at Buildout 1,123 Persons Per Household(1) 2.11 Total Additional Permanent Population at Buildout 2,369 2006 Estimated Permanent Population(2) 10,369 Total Estimated Permanent Population at Buildout 12,738 Notes: (1) Average persons per household as determined by the 2000 Census for Estes Park. (2) Based on 2000 population of Estes Valley (8,889) and an average annual growth rate of 2.6 percent. The transient population buildout number is more difficult to estimate since this population is largely associated with commercial water usage. New commercial development could be estimated using the land use designation (Future Commercial Development). However, the water usage per unit acre of commercial zoning is so high in this instance and there is so little additional commercial land designated for development that any estimate would have a large degree of uncertainty. HDR did inquire with the Director of Planning at RMNP regarding a projected holding capacity of the Park. However, to his knowledge, such a number had not been estimated to date. Consequently, the buildout population for transients was estimated from the worst-case growth curve for RMNP visitors (See Figure 2). Since we do not know the exact date of buildout for the transient population, an estimate of the buildout date for the permanent population was obtained from the most likely growth rate. Using that assumption, buildout of the permanent population will occur around 2014, at which time the projected number of visitors to RMNP is 3.5 million. Using the same assumptions as used in the Town' s population analysis, the 3.5 million visitors correspond to a buildout transient population of 18,381. The buildout population of the wholesale population and the non-transient population can 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 Town believes the wholesale bulk water users to be at 80% buildout and therefore the number that was used for the entire wholesale group, including those customers using the water dispenser, was 996 people. The non- transient population is about 4% of the permanent population in the peak season using 2006 population 17 Potable Water Demand Projection HIt estimates. The buildout non-transient population was estimated using the same percentage (4%) of the buildout permanent population, which results in 509 people. The peak day demand at buildout can be 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 plant 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). Using the 2006 population numbers, the average per capita water usage during the peak season was 93 gpcd. However, water usage trends can change. For instance, the customers may become less aware of conservation practices as time goes on, or the Town may see an increase in irrigated land in the future. For these reasons, the high values for per capita usage and peaking factor were used in the buildout peak day demand calculation. One of the assumptions used in applying the 113 gpcd per capita demand to the buildout population is that the household occupancy rate in the Valley at buildout will remain relatively similar to the occupancy rate that is present today. If the occupancy rate was expected to increase significantly, then the per capita usage would need to be reexamined as this could significantly impact the analysis. However, the occupancy rate is not expected to change dramatically in the future. Three additional demands were included in the buildout peak day demand 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 emergency interconnect demands must be included in the calculation of peak day demand at buildout to ensure the water treatment plant has the capacity to serve not only the Town' s demand on a peak day, but also the demands of the emergency interconnect customers. The resulting peak day demand estimate at buildout is 7.9 MGD using the buildout condition assumptions discussed in this Section. Table 6 provides a summary of the calculation used for peak day demand at buildout. Table 6 - Summary of Peak Day Demand at Buildout Additional Peak Season Population 2006 at Total at Buildout Buildout . Permanent 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 Peak Season (gpcd) 113 Peak/Avg Ratio in Peak Season (Peaking Factor) 2.0 Subtotal Peak Day Demand (MGD) 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 18 Potable Water Demand Projection - HIt 5.0 Potable Water Demand Projections The standard for long-range forecasting is not certainty but reasonableness, because the likelihood of a forecast being precisely correct is near zero. Conditions change, often in ways that are unpredictable, and as one looks further into the future, more uncertainty is present. In response to this uncertainty, the peak day demand estimate can be examined in a risk analysis framework. 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: 1. 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. 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 7 - 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 1.3 1.6 2.0 in Peak Season Ratio (Peaking Factor) Figure 13 illustrates the peak day demand projection curves resulting from the demand analysis. 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. 19 Potable Water Demand Projection HIt Figure 13- Peak Day Demand Projections 9 9 MGD - MWTP & GWTP on-line 1-\ 2012: GWTP off-line 1 |2011: Expand MWTP to 6 MGD 2018: Expand MWTP to 8 MGD ~ / 8 1- - / 7 MGD - MWTP & GWTP on-line ~ ~ 2, -/ 7 4 47 97 + 6 2009: Expand IVIWTP~ / // to 4 MGD 6 MGD- * MWTP on-line / ' 5 '4.5 MGD - MWTP & GWTP on-line ~ ,~ ~ 4 2 0. .. 3Â® .. . 0 j V 2 Historic Peak I Day Demands Each curve represents a peak day demand condition with a percent chance that the demand in a given year will exceed that demand condition. Example: In 2025, 1 there is a 25% chance that the 7 MGD peak day - demand will be exceeded based on the assumptions of this analysis. 0- 1 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 Year The 20 Peak Day Demand (MGD) 4 E/11*,li Potable Water Demand Projection . HIt 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 first plant expansion at MWTP is required by 2009. This first plant expansion increment must be followed within two years by a second expansion increment because the current drinking water regulatory requirements will force the removal of Glacier Creek WTP from service in 2012. In order to meet the demand in 2012, Mary' s Lake WTP must be expanded prior to 2012. This sequence is shown by the blue line in Figure 13. 6.0 Conclusion and Recommendations Based on this analysis, the projected peak day demand at buildout of the permanent population will be 7.9 MGD 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. Timing of the plant expansion increments is somewhat separated from the timing of projected peak demands because the current drinking water regulations will require either significant upgrade of the GWTP or retirement of the plant by 2012. Based on the conclusions of the recent Water Treatment Facilities Evaluation, the planning assumption in this analysis is that GWTP, which can produce 3 MGD, will be taken off-line in 2012. Thus, the first two planned expansion increments at MWTP occur . earlier in time than would be required if GWTP were to be retained. HDR recommends expanding MWTP to 4 MGD by 2009 and again to a total of 6 MGD by 2011. At that point in time, the total capacity of the two plants will be 9 MGD. Then, in 2012, when GWTP is removed from service, the Town' s total production capacity of 6 MGD will be centrally located at MWTP. The next expansion increment of 2 MGD at MWTP, for a total of 8 MGD, will be needed in 2017. In the future, the Town will be well-served by revisiting the demand projection on a regular basis. The following suggestions would allow future potable water demand projections to be refined. â€¢ Perform a more detailed analysis of buildout population that considers individual parcels, land use, zoning, steepness of terrain (i.e. location with respect to the blue line), and access to utilities as well as redevelopment of existing developed land and changes in zoning and land use. â€¢ Work towards reducing the number of land use categories to make them more consistent with zoning districts. For example, land area designated as Potential Future Development (primarily 21 Potable Water Demand Projection HIt agricultural land) was not considered in the calculation of the buildout permanent population in this analysis, even though some of this land is zoned as residential. Better correlations between land use and zoning districts might avoid this issue. â€¢ Attach water demand (meters and billing records) to GIS zoning and land use data to allow for additional water demand analysis using land use information. â€¢ Gain a better understanding of RMNP visitor quantities and the likelihood of a cap on total visitors. One aspect of this evaluation would be to examine trends in National Park visitation as a whole and inquire about projections for future visitation to all National Parks. â€¢ Evaluate the impact of water conserving plumbing fixtures on future per capita usage. In communities where the residential water usage is dominated by indoor use, the impact of water conserving plumbing fixtures can be as much as an 18-20% reduction. â€¢ Consider the impacts to the Town land use categories of converting lodging properties to condos for tax purposes. â€¢ Work towards developing per capita demands for each category of population, primarily the permanent population and the transient population. 22 Potable Water Demand Projection - HIt 7.0 Abbreviations Ac Acre CDPHE Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment CVB Convention and Visitors Bureau Gal/day Gallons per day GlS 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 RMNP Rocky Mountain National Park 8.0 Appendix 23 7/11/2007 â€¢ Water Sales by Month ($) 350,000 300,000 --7 -T 1 1 1 , 1 1 250,000 -- - - p â‚¬ j 3 --- - 11 1 1 2 5 -7 200,000 - -- - -1 j ; % # Â¤2005 //// 17 : 02006 150,000 4 -9 7-1 -* 4 % 1 % j j j -~ 4 02007 217 7 / 4:P A 3 al $5100%50/ 100,000 51 #. It '' /% 0 5 :i 7 31 # 5: i / 1 #i 1 4 I / 4 4 5 51 50,000 7 51 41 6 2,/ 4 4 & 6 Kil 4 22 2 /1215 3 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 9 - 2,000 -- -- 3 2006 -- - - 1912007 _IF 1,500 - -Budget . ___ t -0.92% 2007 YTD VS 2006 1 ., 1,000 / 'll 500 - -- 2 1 4 4 0 1Â£ Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec RW5 #99â€ž869'.0.\51#w,%'.:FT'#0944 '~ ' 14 .%4 1%\1>06006"X>.:./::.:..."KA#/.%.Â°3069Â«36'XXNX KNUNÂ»NÂ»Â«Â»AN\,Â»06,3/30<Â»% NOX*%6>06XÂ»NÂ»XÂ»N 112 ' Â©~0,4 .4.<P'xv,~ Â·N*%>,36>Nx#/ . = 2 ze 2 0 2 @22@â‚¬2922@2 $ ox %.9 .0 Â©. g 4*4~PE-. .nÂ©oâ€¢.1000 C. 'r, 1 a g maamel m@23*mo~ R R g h - 01 'A rrd 2 ri ,4 m- 00 06 tocit--tn'd 4 22 6 Â°'ACE 'MAER E 11 R A 100000 -00\004000 .1 - er, C CO , f 88%3 535 33 3 32 8 19 2 9 23==B QI 2 1 00 (Nrn-O\ 4 ri er. %@Â§@2 @Â§Â§ ia @* cdood dododo - .1 -CUM-- 0- 00000 0 0 0 00000 00 doodded 0,<)00Â¢-0-Or- r. 122%8 59!855 .A 00 - X M %**: v< 6 <, 6 06 H - M - 45 r - 0% e. 8 R % 5 &8 Wq gl#82*01 8 00 m 5 - 01 10 en .1 ARGASE Â« 06 ,-' â€¢K d 0%1-re,e-O .] 01 0 .1 - M elrl-Cl m - _ M .1 x en .1 CD 0 CM *BENE SSEERI - 4<Ege -M.1-- ci- r-- ed 3 d 0 N M 00 -CUC'-.-01 m m *Ri@Â£50 2 0 49 m r-4 - er, 06 Ete e B er. â€¢6 C =-0 9 - V-, *22 25;gRWOR 0 M 0. 9 11 5 01 ' O W Q %R% f~im-9 M - A M 61 .1 N 5* *tr.OW.A -12250= O 01 . O 16 0 M .4 - 01 0 e M 11 2 g en r, I 23942 00 00 /1 - - 1- 1- 1 ;44 Â« 0 04 4 f 16 --\0 tr.Melrr~ 5 r, 0 0 â‚¬4 - en : UJ 8 I C UE g Z U M 3 -0 -% 3 ZE 0.00- U - .Cj BP 9 8â‚¬ - 1, U- - U= A - Ii= li M i A Â·F N :-2 -g M . 2 E 2 2 2 2 9 4 1 â‚¬ 1 0 2 J 3 C.00<0, 5 U f M 3 - -. , C U = 884 9 E 3 mi S / O VAR VAR Pe~~ Peri~ Budget TD YTD % %55 000 0 000 0 (LLS 1) 1161,5 t+0'6E :no S.loisueli gluiwodo %EE Â£88'+91' 1 800'0 L00'0 (596.06) E 8 f911 816'Ell'I soimipuodxa Imol -TO-DATE MONTH TO DATE YEAR TO DATE YEAR TO DATE 2007 2007 007 of Bu get LEE'ESE (9 1'5 9 8'660 L E'Â£92 960'ESL (Elt'*9) ILLS) (tul!duo oioJaq sam;!puodxg 096'EII V/N (096'Eli) 096'Ell (Lt'L'81) L*L'81 SOOinOS 10410 01 pale00Ill!/POA!0021 4SE,) L61'99+ (St!'589) (658'9BE) L6 I'99* 9Â§0'Â£9L (999 St) OLI 81 5Â£81Â£9 Illuoul 104 uoi)!sod 4590 UI 0811ello 68Â£'Â£9L'Â£$ L+O'ZIL'ES 68['Â£9L.Â£$ 68['Â£9Â£'ES aouuieq pury (oiqusn) poi)!.1 1salun &mpuE[ ' I Z.00'0 ~~ ) 09901 LL I L I 01 1 3.745,219 $3.297,192 $3 Water sales 213,177 (38,947) 1. . 9.468) 0.007 2.245.577 1,03 OI f'90Â£ 000 0 0000 8 BBL'EE 00!AJOS 1(10(1 000*0 000'0 (t,18 ) EL'SE 606'IE 6,769 7,414 6) 0.001 21,490 ( 0) 0 03 LOW COMPARISON 10AO SOnUOAN JO KOUD,OVOpiSSOOXE[) 18 101qns ATER FUND 2006 penditures i tration and TOWN OF ESTES PARK WATER DEPARTMENT TRENDS Type Summary Date June-07 12 - month moving average Total % Total % of % of Avg Avg Avg # of accts Gal Growth Revenues Tot Revs Curn Rev/Gal GaUCust Rev/Cust Urban Residential 2.686 12,463.949 -3.5% $76,287 37% 37% $0.007 4,650 $28.43 Urban Commercial 764 13,355,650 -2.4% $52,048 26% 63% $0.004 17,646 $68.58 Rural Residential 1.305 4,470,183 -3.7% $52,913 26% 89% $().013 3,431 $40.57 Rural Commercial 94 1,814,765 -7.1% $11,503 6% 95% 50.012 18,611 $119.36 Bulk Water 1,367.977 -3.6% $10,891 5% 100% $0.009 avg: $203,642 100% annual revenues at this pace: $2,443,707 budget: $2,245,572 projected over/under: | 6198,135| . Akâ€¢'--â€¢---~U~U:aha-AU---La.tSU:.26U,~.2-i,6&9e-tsG-z~iha,.&-Â·Â£,cÂ·a.Â£0,-~.r~ , 2 =acr=~:48,@&.2= ..21~,~=.2.-iL::-a.- 3*4 '41~.4 $2,250,000 O Budget lenjov m ZOOZ 9001 Annual Water Budget v Projected Actuals through May 2006/2007 $2,500,000 - $2,450,000 $2,400,000 $2,350,000 $2,300,000 000'001'1$ 000'09 L'1$ 000'00L'ES 000'090'Z$ 000'000'ZE 000'096' LS (D 0 CO 0- <0. '91, <0. 'P <0. 1 11 4 . $2,300,000 - Â£ Budgeted Revenues â€¢ Revenues at Current Water Revenue Progress $2,500,000 $2,450,000 - $2,400,000 - $2,350,000 - $2,250,000 - - - 000'001'1$ - 000'09171$ - 000'00121$ - 000'090'1$ 000'0001$ . - 1 1 i - 2006 ZOOZ - %00-8 OGG AON 100 des Bnv Inr unr XeN -idv leiN qed uer Actual Water revenues over/beyond Budget 16.00% - 14.00% 12.00% 10.00% %00'9 %00.4 %00-2 %00'0 C rou)-0 0 0 * ..4...li -m â‚¬ E K Â¤, 1.1.1 -0 U) - ro CD 9 9 i 02 2 6 D L.1 1% fi i~i{j ~ f E c 1- -2 22 0- E h -8 in -* f W O J 00 UILUU 1. 1% 44 - 423 .Â§re Â» :Â»t uo!:pe,se!14411 ope-loloo -la410 fl 2 .-- O E 2 -92 0 C L=-1 O b 'a (N 4--0 0, O -O 1- Al 4--1 0 1.- 4- A 1 1- 1. 0 â‚¬ G) cD P WOO 5 Le 0 -.I- r- c xr .92 LU -W CD ta- .-E )4 4- CL M U -O :5 0 08@,N @g~g t< Cn C WRYOr-41-Ln E .C (0 ro -e (NI 't Ed -10 f @ A~ C= 13 92Na) R *~ SAM A- .00 cy) O.6 e '-9 6 0 3-9 â‚¬ -bt ~2 .e 26@ @ ER I X X - LL < " 0 0 0 2 Uo~ 0 0. 1 1-922 4. 1%1.%%* iii Â§6 4 Â»Â»Â»Â» b il I 3 Co-ops 00SI J0 indlno le101 01 sl! LULU OD auak' %00I 01 Pa 2017 d ueol pue Bu!-leleW 1 30~elau o Au ic K 0 - 0 h J M 2 92 &3 223 261 L~r ki In 23 b E U) C ZERA 1.- 17-; O -05 a.) 0, CL R0 O 00 -O U b- Bu (00-L) / C > m L M 2 O i C CD LD w 70 4 3 == (0 0 1 8 LJ f fi 2 Z f "4-J C D 0 in C C -2 0, JO rm a O I 23 i kill & 1 90 Â» :%2% Â»Â»Â» ?49% r Colorado Springs Empire Electric asolluoW-ell SU!1100 1-10:1 s5uuds POOMU@0 Cross e:teld Xcel r Aguila f ro r0 2 8 f ~OCA 1-0 1-n .- al.di'- lil .. Â¤.Al Er Er ia- 16- 0 2Â£# 0 (0(OC 1-- /1 (10) (DJ-v a i U C) O U) 4.4 . X<U< 4 m I. ... 3%. :f'*:*%: Utilities Providing Solar Incentives Per Watt .75 Per AC Watt lue-I60-Id ueol 000'SZ$ uos!uung 112/\A -led Z$ sso.10 APH 14eM led Z$ eleld el f LE E â‚¬ fi 1 f -3 f 2-20&92 b C .C 0$ 0 - 0.pi ~ .5 ..Cl ~ v K U '+A"g DOUU) 9Â£ 2 -2 8 9, E 0 pc 1%2-3 4 voo O *G 2 -0 0 EC j = Â¢ 71 2 -NES#Â«-*4 Â¢ 50 0 41 = P 1%/1188 1 50 12 U ~ 74 f 9 4-3 0#4+~0001 Estes Park Should Adopt Net Metering Net metering requires crediting a customer generator at the KWh ity generated from 041 uopon 601 X210 '1010UI OntIOADI r Colorado Law Definition Surpooold Xple!poil[un OI[1 JOJ OA!12.Iodooo 041 t 19 0 tai u 8 O 0= ro Â» 11 i i UP e f 4- 0 (L) J 98 10*, me n CMoostthper Ln O S h ~ 22 k -> 9-1 CO 0- â„¢1 W bo 0 7-0 - 0 Amr,-cota- Â¢ ff# ift ro Ln 0 0 ChAiN ... OLA 9- J 0 00 7-1 U -ia- Iia- c 2' m 0 LCD id 15 uo al .. un I & E m -0 1- O 01 c c 0~-069 2 * -*j~lf@**52~ 0 R x :22 0 E EL ti :j M f :~ .~ 9 e ~1 ~C 30*2 Ul 5 1% TE 596 596 15 I 4/ 42 2 341@=13Â»hi 4- U 2Â°- CL ar 1 O ki 2 2 @:.i,~li~ji~fjl 0 1 1 4 4 4 ' i 4 4 UL#WAo##di#) cÂ»~ijÂ» 0-zIN fÂ«Â« Gâ€¢ C 0 0 E r' 1 (L) -~ b -5 -0 - M Em CD M â‚¬C CO J Cl ZD :*8Â¥. Recommencations Net Metering With Max of 120 Customer * Represents 1% Share of Peak Capacity Bupuadaa 13/V\01 Jo da46!H s-loleiauaD AlpedeD >lead pue pallelsuI uodn Bu!puadacl ousllundo ag Ae n N xew I Generators se-'aluI E C tt g 099 3 3- tE 0 1. 2 0 1 f- 7 -4= 1 i>J.44%0*t Â» Restrict Cost to 2% of Revenues + Average Cost Less Than $2 Per Month Incentives -Iall.lolsno aBe-laAÂ¥ -led M>I SVE)~pazE sl~OAWS ~El~Ula~ azIS uo spuadaa SU.lalsAS # 0 -W-mt . F 72 1 111.K . 11/,2 1 CD E rt CO . 52 4 2 1@ C'J .& I. 1 22Â· : : â€¢ Reljable treatment plant capaci .5 mgd lations surpass Glacier Creek WTP capabilities easons for Demand Pro ect on â€¢ Last demand projections done in 1985 i toric peak day production w m ienuesse s! suo!108!OAd pueluep 6uqepdn SjueweAoldill! luall,leal J JawAA eJn Jni Joi ueld EfÂ·Py T[ CO 4, Cl es C) nh CO llc 07 9, 00 CO O E 90 ' 8 03 1-- 1 03 e ah L 3 8 & 50-2 2 Â¥ ~ 0-C 0-.9 * E & cn CO ... O -Â¤ COM ! En J JJ EE 64 o noOLOO E22 E ~- -*00 - C) p-LI ..5 LL O. ' ' ' d " 0... . (I Jnlru '1Ui,JinO ' O!10131 and Piojections are a P ann ng Tool of worst-case future water demand season (May-Sept.) mponents S 8 101 41AAO lation 1 Â· '111 --lili -' Â·f. -33 ci G 2C CO CD 0 C - 0 CO J 1- U) 4..4 SE LEE OC ..*-0 -e* 00 0 -Â¤ ./..0 .59 -C, 22% 0 0 -_C A 44 C\1 D cci C- - C c â‚¬12 co~9~ ~.1 / -0-4 ,- CD ~ tt= al.- -0 v, c E *E cu Eal- Â» C a) 92=~ k cnjocm â‚¬0 U) :O 71 * -92.92 001; CO .= e f g CE c>O 0%4â‚¬* 2* 1 2 CO = , 1 1 Al'* I 'z ' ..S I. . 1 SJoSA JeWM snipu 0!12!OOSSÂ¥ S]GUMO pUB Wueduloo JewAA Occupancy rate expected to change ay visitors not diffe rentiated helleA $0193 01 elnulwoo 04AA SJ@>IJ 0118!OOSSÂ¥ rrent Population anent 'f i 0 C m 0 0 C : N 712 1 0-Ub 1 1 CUO= ...... 'I:i ..0 :t. 1 1 : 1 J 1 S *m- $ -9 1 -O -O 32 32 - 32 32 O- 0 0- cr. jo 00 0 91- NO (7 7 i r- atiuello uoneindod lenuuv Jues.led Historic Growth Rates In and Around Estes Park -O- Town of Estes Park ---- 2.6% average =I- Estes Valley A Berthoud A Loveland Alunoj Jelll!Jel-I- Alunoo >leeJO leelo + Alunoo uidl!9 â€¢ leoqlueelS v uol'!a . OpeJOIOO Jo elelS " al growth m 2000 to 0103 OLOZ 0003 066L 086L Jee* O 04 CUc CO ~ - 22 -92 0 22 2 co c -0 CS CO -5 i .* -92 2 92= &= co j U)E .E 92: 1 E a) CO U) P.= 0 -M ~~: ~a A- CEO LU (O J Â£ 111 C LU joil 1 1,=1*121 ... Basis for Buildout Population e wt~~dezudos~~an~gcue~n~ddeb~yae~noedpv~~ems~dnetnst~r~~~~nd use parcels (deo OU) SJOUSM dNI/\lEi 0 aSESJOU! % lueuewied p @Belueoied s anent Z< : ..... . L- I . .-, . 12~4Â¢Â·=Â·t . t.#' ' 3 1 -Â·---Â·Â·~<,~ m # 1 1 - Â¥ A,.Â·-- Â·Â·Â· d L._ :.. â€ž--Â· r<...Â·~Â·..Â· 2Â·~,Q,~#ftÂ¢j -.Â·- C,/ Fl. 1Â» *36 P .5 .....7 k I 4% % -1 i , Â·~~.2: '17<5...:34Â¢*Â·'~#'4:1 ./ I i t~~ ~- "~ i Â· *1..... ti~i-i... --' 1 i Â·Â»i... 1% 4.'. 4.. 1. ./I= .9:9 . i.... 1 4*% ih 44.'h /=5Â· 0/ E i *1 r.r I & = . B..+W >i -0 14: f '4'Mt. B ; 74-24Â»â€¢- 1.n \ 8 -- 8 0 Z ! i L,â‚¬- 1 4/ i LU i 0 1.jlll[ LU 39-,8010{&2=22= Z< râ‚¬i 11 I 'Ey,k: 1.Jil. 4- â€¢4:Â·/ I -a.--Â¥4 1.21~~.1'.,f?li f~Â¢:i- rk#22 r...... a.:Ir50,44 -/*23 :..::.* i All 4 . . r./.1... :bia,41!t'V:1*196 - Â·~'--4:..~:9'.~.'f.. k4 4- Â¥;i.0. . 702. -1.m 1,1 1 3 &:m -- *:1:.af<.6. 4.-036 ,$6..t .9 1 1 . .33 1 El E. '*~W . :~0.Uil:69& fl -50'de . 'Yett: -'-..' b . ~.0 Cind PaAOXitutun leguep Id PGAOJdulturt leguap#se palletdan leguaptsay Estes Valley ~ Parcel Development Status ~ 1UaludoleAe[1 10; Â¥)N pedoleAKI il WatudoleAR] einlnd L__] 0N3931 (3) LO 2 2 N- C 5 23*12% CS - SZB- 1 Peak Season itional Total at 10,369 2,369 12,738 10,789 18,381 966 008 96Z el 609 [LL 868 luels Population ildout Buildout Population Projections 2006 *29* Ezzb L 29828 uo! 1eind i~C |illÂ·e ei- 47 1 4.t~7,--1 il- r , 1 & 89 8.0 J =Â¤ 7--5 & a> ZE 01 Â¤) r:, CS J CO a) 1- 0 CD cs S -0 C > g CO 23 CO 23 -9 =23 -2 -92 .( CD u~ â‚¬ EE g+ co 2 8 O 2 m 1--a.[Da. Z ' 0 1' - . m . m pod6 E L L = eudeo Jed vt* r production djstributed over total ed on 2006 population estimate and 2006 WTP ge per capita usage = 93 gpcd Per Capita Water Usage suo!1!puOO mell] ~000~1 illl\10 noip Se 2003 uo pes 0 0 CO 1 1 .. Peak Day Demand Defines Planning Target Treatment plants must have capacity to meet peak Peak hour demands are met with storage - Ratio of ave rage to peak day production (in peak season) pue uosees o; enp 86esn JewM peseeJOU! sloeljew Xep Need uo uoneindod u! esee]Ou! sepnpul day demands elew! 10 i i Â· 1 I ! 1 1 1 1 111 li lit 111 1 r 1 1 1 1 -lll r 1 1 1 $41....... 1 11 1 1 C) 1 ! 1 + 1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 I I.! N 1 1 1 tak- :%*%*, 1 ' 1.1% - \1 1 1 1 1 1 Illilillillillillillilillillillimililliwilillililmilililillill~ \ LO i : 1 'IN i 1 I . O ID LOOLOOLOOLOO Lo 4 ecoN (V r- r- O 0 1 (clow) Mold killiuoIN )lead 0L 4JuOV~| Seasonal Water Usage s Consistent 4.0 - Â·" 02003 02004 â€¢ 2005 ------ Â·Â·Â·Â·Â·Â· - - --- M 1993 I 2001 m 2002 12006 - - 0!lekl pueluea BAÂ¥/)lead O LO OLD O LO O LO O LD 1091-4(9(ON (\1 r- O If 1111 11! 1 1 1- , 1 0 0 00 3 8 2 \ 1 5 Jee*I,45noicl 1 1 ! 1 1 1 i I 1 1 :1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1, 41 1 1 41 E al OLOOLOOLOOLOOLD Lort+C'Saninitr- 6 (09vy) puettlecl JeleAA eiqejod -*-Peak Day Demand -0-Avg Day Demand in Peak Season -lt- Peak/Avg Ratio (Peak Season) ervation storic Production Used to Obtain king Factors 0&3898 011< 000 -1 Total Population 32,624 Average Per Capita Usage during Peak Season (gpcd) 113 Summary of Projected Buildout Capacity Peak/Avg Ratio in Peak Season (Peaking Factor) (ODIN) 10@uuooJejul AoueBJeu]3 sal>pobl 841 Jo VOI/\lA ((191/\I) 1O8UUOOJelul hou@6jew3 u!.Blunolm loedsoid Subtotal Peak Day Demand (MGD) ((191/\1) pueluea sieuenbpe@H dI\11/\lEi Water Treatment Plant Capacity Required at Buildout (091/01) r . . . .C C h 0 22 0 O .!2 0 ro * 0 C) co N (D LO * (9 N 1 (CIE)IN) pueluea Kea Mead 0803 9303 0101 SLOE OLOE 9001 1 966L Peak Day Demand at Buildout Jeel .. r.- M E g ooo 0 9 0 - r.* rn xi- <95 0\1 rt: N LO CD CO CO CD CO .r- N CD ..2 r.- .2/ C<, CO .r- O 7-2 h U Â£3 33 b Ju (U CO CD 2006 Permanent Population 10,369 10,369 10,369 Parameter Low Most Likely 2006 Whole Sale Population 796 796 2006 Non-Transient Population 398 398 9.2 elew l#M0J 9 Uolleindod lueUEU]Jed 2006 Transient Population 5,395 10,789 15 Monte Carlo Simu ation eleu l#MOJ 9 UO!1eindod lue!SUBil-uoN elew WMOJE) uolleindod lue!SUBil 01Bbl 41AA0J 9 UO!1eindod eles 0104M (Xep/126) puewea elideo Jed u! pueluea ABC BAÂ¥ / puelu 0 Mead (Joloed Bulleed) 0'jew uose 11Â« 00 000\ 04 h . CO -g \ .9 5 f8m 26 2 f 8 2/ j T C) CO h CD 0 4- CO Al r- O (clow) puewea Xecl Meed 0Â£01 9303 0103 SLOE 0,03 9001 0003 966L Peak Day Demand at Buildout Jeel \ 6 fo a) 0 1 C) CO r.. CD 10 =1- CO C\1 (O91A1) pueulea hea )lead diMIN pued)<3 :9 LOE DOW 8 01 0Â£07 9303 0103 SLOE OLOE 9003 0003 966L 2011: Expand MWTP 2012: GWTP to 6 MGD off-line tof:'f~pand MWTP eu!1-uo dl/\AD 9 dlMIN - aOl/\I 9,~ 1111 111 312- El- 1 40' =El ifi 1 L-7 -1 - 28- 1 141 - III'.Pk 14 4 1 -9-%111 + ty- #. F -ilp 1 = 1 li - -F~'( ~79 1. -5 -:III: 1 - 1 4 11 1 I .12- 2 0' '"r 1 tr a 1. I "1 _I I - n 3 -- 2 - F. .3 1 -9 , r k f li -411 - 1.1 4 - - -3 4 1 6.1 1 1.- 1 = 4 -% -14 - 7 9 1 151 '-t' i -44' 347*i 14 _71Â· ..11 1% 'f 1; * 1 -+111 1 - - 4- 2 4-1 ['1 - .6 1 It . 1ff !3 - 1 1 1 -i-1 11 -1 1-- - - - 1 .--1 It -2 -- 1 - I KIEri' i 02 + =9 1!14 - 1 P 1 4 1- r 1 1 - I --- 4 - .1 --1 Â¢ 11 . 7-e ' 3. Â·2 1'.-fl |- 13- '-1 1- 1 El 2 1 1. -4 4/// -2 1 Â·0:1Â£ 1 - i 1-11 -le & : ;*-IME| | 1 1 -*- /-11.- 11 -tr'llillillillillill 1 17 11 -1111 -t] lllllllllllllllllll -- -4 111 - -- 4.-4-~0*#4<t T,-1 %~ ~F I T.Tef~/ ////////// +LAI ' 4' - 1~ 'ft 4=ti~ d - 2*| Talit 9- I~ p 11 1 +Ir-Mq = - -111 1 1-11'114- I 4 : -1 11-- r 11.11 111~1 4 -11 1 - -- - 1/ 11 -2 111Â»- 1 - 1 -3- Ent ~ 0 _ I _i,=L _ =Ilt**m= - -mit-1 - i. 1 + 1 -21 --1/ - 0- Â» E f .r ..1=f- 9/ ./W. 0,4 I &.0 +A Â· . 0<6.1 11."61'I;, h.8. 6 Â·:t:tit PE. .1- i *E. : :11 21 -1.:CU g . 1 -:....1 r 11 5 CD , t:~tt:' - CU -%: C .<0 044>41 # ' 91 0 h jUU . ~j'~Â·'Â·%632:.4 .:5: :t :~,~' %2: ... jOI!SIA El Jo Bu!pO*Jepu ~2 uci~da~gu~f~** na p~~~en~t ~~ne demand (billing reco rds) to GIS database Follow-up Investigat ons - ~ddress possible redevelownent parcels above blue line $1100-Jel 2* ZEg 120 E = C- 106 1 11 i No co e V N r- 9-- (suoiles Jo suo,WW) pueltlea JeleM IZETTIT-IT/I.-7-*7 1 1 1 - i 0 7-&= 044* 0 Cl hz:Zill. 2 lilli .:.!11...i.n::,M~::.ilif:.'::.1:,L,41*:::14!:iliti* 1 *E.*WIN1"....~ | 4 4,0/ /... I / +4*4. 1 1 ##tlit# 0 lili j # 13811 O 0 = gil 111 . Â·5,Â· Â·:.PÂ·:::1 â€ž i.p.1..Â·Â·i :4:i:'.:# ig 1 L-ZI=~ -2 a mil 1 1 11 '4. Im -0 ' ~ r r n*'.4' c e.:1 1 g 1 1 1 1 0000000000 LOOLOOLOOLOOW *commi r- 9-- t': (suoileD s,0004) puelueaJe:eM Jesueds!O ., i. ..1 Â©61: ~